who be duh bad guy, Cato or Caesar?

[frankq]

Something curious caught my attention when I put it under cross-referencing. It concerns the heated events around Caesar's trying to pass the bill for getting land for Pompey's troops. The more popular story by many ancient sources is the way it is presented here at UNRV. Caesar wrote a great bill, was willing to amend it, and the Senate (led by Cato) just delayed and turned it down out of spite, confirmed later by Bibulus.

 

Well, not so according to Plutarch and Appian. According to them, Caesar knew he would be rejected and was setting them up, and the moment he got grunts and hesitation on matters from the senators, took it as his green light to storm out of the curia and go right to the people's assembly.

 

I cross-referenced further. Modern sources. One making Cato the villain, the other Caesar.

 

I find this interesting. Although I am not a big fan of Cato and the Optimates, I find that all too often they are almost Hollywood stereotyped as reactionaries. There are two sides to every coin. Plutarch I can understand. He often got detailed facts wrong and he was as good as convinced that the moment Caesar sprang out of Aurelia's womb, he was savagely eager to establish dictatorship. But Appian I trust. History is resolved best on middle ground.

 

I am in Europe where English isn't the official language so when I tried to get a copy of Holland's Rubicon to see what his stance was, neither the book stores nor the library had it. If anyone has it nearby and the time, could you see what his position is on how this played out. Did Caesar set the Senate up? Or did Cato and the diehards act like boneheads? Or was it, in fact, a combination of both? Again, history is resolved best on middle ground.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think the sources are offering slightly different versions of events because there were two separate bills under consideration.The first was the lex Iulia agraria. The second was the lex Iulia agraria Campania. To understand the relation between the two bills, imagine that I ask you to sign a contract accepting an ostensibly free lunch (who would refuse it?), and then I demand to sleep with your wife in payment. That's the essence of the two bills, but now to the details.

 

The lex Iulia agraria was introduced to the senate on 1 or 2 January, the last day when Caesar could have had any bills sanctioned by the senate in time for the vote by the Tribal Assemblies. The bill--while needing approval almost immediately--had been crafted with care. The chief problem with most agrarian bills is that they contained hidden costs that were unacceptable, but Caesar's bill seemed to avoid all these: the land to be distributed to Pompey's veterans and 20,000 families were to be purchased with Pompey's largesse, and (more importantly) private property was to be respected--farmers weren't to be forcibly hauled off their plots of land and subjected to violence and starvation. Moreover, so that these deals didn't provide massive clientele for just one man, the bill provided for 20 commissioners (though an inner circle of 5 made most of the decisions), and Caesar specifically excluded himself from participating lest he be accused of graft and kickbacks.

 

According to "Caesar: Life of a Colossus" by A. Goldsworthy (who has an apparent distaste for such "cumbersome and tortuous legal prose"), "little or nothing within it could be reasonably criticized". Nothing??? In the history of republics, I know of no comparably far-reaching legislation--however reasonable--that has ever been passed on first reading simply because EVERYTHING can be reasonably criticized and improved, even the legislation of (dare I say it?) some darling of Venus.

 

Consider just a few problems with the bill. Which of the eligible 20,000 families were to receive this unexpected largesse? Would it be first-come-first-served, or would they be chosen by lottery, or were they to be selected by the consuls themselves? And what prices would be paid to those willing to sell to the land commissioners? Would there be a set price, no matter what the land is worth--whether it was been carefully preserved through conscientious steps and back-breaking labor or left to neglect or rendered infertile by carelessness? And if the price were not fixed, would the commission be licensed to pay any price, no matter how exorbinant? And--this is most important--what if there weren't enough money or enough willing sellers to settle all of Pompey's vets and these 20,000 families that are chosen by who-knows-what method? What then?

 

Although we have no record of Cato's "filibuster", no doubt he (or someone else) raised all these questions--as these are exactly the questions that any responsible statesman would ask. And for his questions, the ex-quaestor was not thanked, but hauled off to jail by that oh-so-reasonable Caesar! Let's be clear: if there is one thing that reason abhors, it is the silencing of questions. And this was too much for the senate, that one deliberative body of the republic, who walked out en masse, following the old grizzled veteran Marcus Petreius--who had by then seen more years of military service than Caesar had spent out of his diapers: "I'd rather be in jail with Cato", he shot at Caesar, "than in the Senate with you!"

 

As it turns out, Cato's concerns with the bill were entirely justified. After the bill was illegally passed through physical violence (including the smashing of the consul's fasces) and over the vetoes of three tribunes, the senators were forced to swear an oath that they would uphold the law no matter what. No matter what? What if the bill proved impossible to enforce for all the reasons I listed? What if no one was willing to sell their land to the commission? What then?

 

After one senator heroically went into exile rather than take this Oath of the Impossible, the answer to "What then?" came into sharp relief: the lex Iulia agraria Campania, which contradicted all the provisions of the first law that it seem reasonable. By the bill, private property was not respected. Instead, the Campanian lands--lands that were settled by the heroes of the Punic Wars, that had been in families for generations, that provided Rome with nearly one-fourth of her income, that had been expressly excluded by the first law precisely to gain passage of it--were to be confiscated from their rightful owners, who were to be left starving in the streets of Rome for the sake of Caesar's ambition. What a lover of the poor! What a champion of the people! What a friend of the dispossessed--that now dispossessed so many!

 

In most modern secondary sources, the Campanian law is barely mentioned. Goldsworthy admits, for example, that "perhaps Caesar had always thought that its [Campanian lands'] distribution would also be necessary at some point, or maybe the realisation that his first law was on its own inadequate came more gradually. If we knew this, we would certainly have a clearer idea of whether he genuinely hoped to win over the Senate to support his first land law, or whether he had merely wanted to put them in the wrong in the eyes of the electorate." In other words, it isn't clear whether Caesar was a fool or a scoundrel. Well, in my opinion, Caesar was no fool.

 

Rather, the summative verdict of this Campanian law was best put forward by that titan of Roman history, George Long (1864), "This monstrous, this abominable crime was committed to serve a party purpose; and the criminal was a Roman consul ... too intelligent not to know what he was doing, and unscrupulous enough to do anything that would serve his own ends."

 

In my view, Caesar would "be duh bad guy".

[frankq]

Interesting reply. Thanks!

 

Then where, in the course of all this could you place Bibulus' response that basically the law "wasn't going to happen no matter what..."

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

 

As far as I know, these three chapters might be the only survivors of the Lex Iulia Agraria:

 

"53. In respect to whatever colony is founded by this law or whatever town, prefecture, market, or meeting place is established, whatever land is within their borders, whatever boundary stones are set in that land: in whatever place a boundary stone is not standing, in that place the owner of that land shall provide that the boundary stone shall be replaced in a proper manner and the magistrate who has jurisdiction in that colony, town, prefecture, market, or meeting place shall provide that this shall be done.

 

54. In respect to whatever boundary lines and boundary roads are marked by this law and whatever boundary ditches are in this land, which land is granted and assigned by this law, no one shall have these boundary lines and boundary roads blocked nor anything built in them, nor anything set as an obstruction there, nor shall he plow them, nor shall he block nor obstruct the ditches, whereby water cannot run and flow by its proper course. If anyone does anything against these regulations, for every several such act, as often as he does it, he shall be condemned to pay to those colonists and townsmen, in whose land this is done, 4,000 sesterces; and by this law a suit for this money shall be proper for anyone who wishes.

 

55. In respect to a person who founds a colony by this law or establishes a town, a prefecture, a market, or a meet-ing place, in that land, which land is within the borders of this colony, town, market, meeting place, or prefecture, or shall provide that boundary lines and boundary roads shall be made and that boundary stones shall be set: and what borders he sets thus, these shall be their borders, so long as he does not extend the borders beyond the colonial land or district. And whatever boundary stones are set by this law, no one shall overthrow or move any of them from its place with malice aforethought. If anyone does anything contrary to these regulations, for every several boundary stone which he overthrows or moves from its place with malice aforethought, he shall be condemned to pay 5,000 sesterces to the public treasury of those persons within whose borders this land is; and concerning this matter the curator who is in office under this law shall grant the right of action and the appointment and assignment of recuperators. When there is not a curator under this law, then whatever magistrate in this colony, town, prefecture, market or meeting place has jurisdiction, this magistrate shall have the right to grant an action concerning this matter and to appoint and to assign a judex; and in respect to this matter the person who grants a court trial under this law, as appears best in accordance with the public interest and with his own good faith, shall allow the opportunity to summon officially at least ten witnesses for every several action. And if the defendant is convicted, he shall exact this money from the defendant or from his property at the earliest day possible; and in respect to whatever of this money is received he shall pay a half part to the person through whose especial individual effort the defendant is convicted and he shall pay a half part into the public treasury. If anyone wishes to restore a boundary stone to that place from which the boundary stone is removed, it shall be lawful to do so without risk to him nor shall he be condemned by this law to pay anything to anyone because of this."

 

I haven't been able so far to find in any source (primary or secondary) evidence of a distinct law for the settlement in Campania. Can anyone provide us some references about the lex Iulia agraria Campania?

 

Thanks in advance.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I haven't been able so far to find in any source (primary or secondary) evidence of a distinct law for the settlement in Campania. Can anyone provide us some references about the lex Iulia agraria Campania?

 

Re-read my post. I already listed two secondary sources--Goldsworthy and Long.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Then where, in the course of all this could you place Bibulus' response that basically the law "wasn't going to happen no matter what..."

 

The bill had been vetoed by THREE tribunes of the plebs. When that happens, the law goes nowhere.

[Primus Pilus]

I haven't been able so far to find in any source (primary or secondary) evidence of a distinct law for the settlement in Campania. Can anyone provide us some references about the lex Iulia agraria Campania?

 

Re-read my post. I already listed two secondary sources--Goldsworthy and Long.

 

Andrew Stephenson also addresses it in the dated but relevant Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Republic Section 17.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I haven't been able so far to find in any source (primary or secondary) evidence of a distinct law for the settlement in Campania. Can anyone provide us some references about the lex Iulia agraria Campania?

 

Re-read my post. I already listed two secondary sources--Goldsworthy and Long.

Thanks. And, BTW, any primary sources? Thanks in advance.

[frankq]

Swinging the pendulum the other way, this from Mommsen:

 

Opposition Of The Aristocracy

The opposition had a difficult task in resisting this proposal. It could not rationally be denied, that the state-finances ought after the erection of the provinces of Pontus and Syria to be in a position to dispense with the moneys from the Campanian leases; that it was unwarrantable to withhold one of the finest districts of Italy, and one peculiarly fitted for small holdings, from private enterprise; and, lastly, that it was as unjust as it was ridiculous, after the extension of the franchise to all Italy, still to withhold municipal rights from the township of Capua. The whole proposal bore the stamp of moderation, honesty, and solidity, with which a democratic party-character was very dexterously combined; for in substance it amounted to the re-establishment of the Capuan colony founded in the time of Marius and again done away by Sulla.(6) In form too Caesar observed all possible consideration.

He laid the project of the agrarian law, as well as the proposal to ratify collectively the ordinances issued by Pompeius in the east, and the petition of the farmers of the taxes for remission of a third of the sums payable by them, in the first instance before the senate for approval, and declared himself ready to entertain and discuss proposals for alterations. The corporation had now opportunity of convincing itself how foolishly it had acted in driving Pompeius and the equites into the arms of the adversary by refusing these requests. Perhaps it was the secret sense of this, that drove the high-born lords to the most vehement opposition, which contrasted ill with the calm demeanour of Caesar. The agrarian law was rejected by them nakedly and even without discussion. The decree as to the arrangements of Pompeius in Asia found quite as little favour in their eyes. Cato attempted, in accordance with the disreputable custom of Roman parliamentary debate, to kill the proposal regarding the farmers of the taxes by speaking, that is, to prolong his speech up to the legal hour for closing the sitting; when Caesar threatened to have the stubborn man arrested, this proposal too was at length rejected.

 

Proposals Before The Burgesses

Of course all the proposals were now brought before the burgesses. Without deviating far from the truth, Caesar could tell the multitude that the senate had scornfully rejected most rational and most necessary proposals submitted to it in the most respectful form, simply because they came from the democratic consul. When he added that the aristocrats had contrived a plot to procure the rejection of the proposals, and summoned the burgesses, and more especially Pompeius himself and his old soldiers, to stand by him against fraud and force, this too was by no means a mere invention. The aristocracy, with the obstinate weak creature Bibulus and the unbending dogmatical fool Cato at their head, in reality intended to push the matter to open violence. Pompeius, instigated by Caesar to proclaim his position with reference to the pending question, declared bluntly, as was not his wont on other occasions, that if any one should venture to draw the sword, he too would grasp his, and in that case would not leave the shield at home; Crassus expressed himself to the same effect The old soldiers of Pompeius were directed to appear on the day of the vote-- which in fact primarily concerned them--in great numbers, and with arms under their dress, at the place of voting.

The nobility however left no means untried to frustrate the proposals of Caesar. On each day when Caesar appeared before the people, his colleague Bibulus instituted the well-known political observations of the weather which interrupted all public business;(7) Caesar did not trouble himself about the skies, but continued to prosecute his terrestrial occupation. The tribunician veto was interposed; Caesar contented himself with disregarding it. Bibulus and Cato sprang to the rostra, harangued the multitude, and instigated the usual riot; Caesar ordered that they should be led away by lictors from the Forum, and took care that otherwise no harm should befall them--it was for his interest that the political comedy should remain such as it was.

The rest at:

 

http://italian.classic-literature.co.uk/hi...ook-page-77.asp

[ASCLEPIADES]

Some excerpts from my re-reading of an X-tensive MPC post:

I think the sources are offering slightly different versions of events because there were two separate bills under consideration.The first was the lex Iulia agraria. The second was the lex Iulia agraria Campania.

I simply can't find any results under that specific entry.

Any alternative sugestions?

According to "Caesar: Life of a Colossus" by A. Goldsworthy (who has an apparent distaste for such "cumbersome and tortuous legal prose"), "little or nothing within it could be reasonably criticized"...In most modern secondary sources, the Campanian law is barely mentioned. Goldsworthy admits, for example, that "perhaps Caesar had always thought that its [Campanian lands'] distribution would also be necessary at some point, or maybe the realisation that his first law was on its own inadequate came more gradually. If we knew this, we would certainly have a clearer idea of whether he genuinely hoped to win over the Senate to support his first land law, or whether he had merely wanted to put them in the wrong in the eyes of the electorate." In other words, it isn't clear whether Caesar was a fool or a scoundrel. Well, in my opinion, Caesar was no fool.

I don't think Goldsworthy is quoting the tortuous legal prose itself here, not even in an indirect way.

In this moment, I have no access to paperware and I haven't find any text from "Life of a Colossus" online. Can anyone post an explicit quotation? BTW, does anybody know the primary source of Goldsworthy? Or is he taking this from G. Long?

Rather, the summative verdict of this Campanian law was best put forward by that titan of Roman history, George Long (1864), "This monstrous, this abominable crime was committed to serve a party purpose; and the criminal was a Roman consul ... too intelligent not to know what he was doing, and unscrupulous enough to do anything that would serve his own ends."

Once again, I don't find explicit references of this law in this quotation. In fact, it's not stated the quoted book; I infer it might be "The Decline of the Roman Republic", but so far I haven't found any reference to this law in this text. Are we talking about other Long's book?

Thanks in advance.

Edited August 7, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Andrew Stephenson also addresses it in the dated but relevant Public Lands and Agrarian Laws of the Republic Section 17.

Gratiam habeo, PP. Relevant indeed, especially the first half of this section, I would say.

 

Here it comes:

"LEX JULIA AGRARIA.

During the first consulship of Caius Julius Caesar, he brought forward an agrarian[1] bill at the instigation of his confederates. The main object of this bill was to furnish land to the Asiatic army[2] of Pompey, In fine, this bill was little more than a renewal of a bill presented by Pompey the previous year (58), but rejected. Appian gives the following account of this bill: "As soon as Caesar and Bibulus[3] (his colleague) entered on the consulship, they began to quarrel and to make preparation to support their parties by force. But Caesar who possessed great powers of dissimulation, addressed Bibulus in the senate and urged him to unanimity on the ground that their disputes would damage the public interests. Having in this way obtained credit for peaceable intentions, he threw Bibulus off his guard, who had no suspicion of what was going on,

while Caesar, meanwhile, was marshalling a strong force, and introducing into the senate laws for favoring the poor, under which he proposed to distribute land among them and the best land in Italy, that about[4] Capua which at the present time was let on public account.[5] He proposed to distribute this land among heads of families who had three children, by which measure he could gain the good will of a large multitude, for the number of those who had three children was 20,000. This proposal met with opposition from many of the senators, and Caesar, pretending to be much vexed at their unfair behavior, left the house and never called the senate together again during the remainder of his consulship, but addressed the people from the rostra. He, in the presence of the assembly, asked the opinion of Pompeius and Crassus, both of them approving, and the people came to vote on them (the bills), with concealed daggers. Now as the senate[6] was not convened, for one consul could not summon the senate without the consent of the other consul, the senators used to meet at the house of Bibulus, but they could make no real opposition to Caesar's power.... Now Caesar secured the enactment of the laws, and bound the people by an oath to the perpetual observance of them, and he required the same oath from the senate. As many of the senators opposed him, and among them Cato, Caesar proposed death as a penalty for not taking the oath and the assembly ratified this proposal. Upon this all took the oath immediately because of fear, and the tribunes also took it, for there was no longer any use in making opposition after the proposal was ratified."

 

Emphasis is mine.

Anyone can identify a coup d'etat when you see it so clear. The call for the "People's will" has always been tyrants and demagogues last resource.

Anyway, it seems fair to ask why the Senate have still not settled Pompey's veterans in the first place, with the added consideration of the vast wealth their campaigns had given to Rome.

 

PS: Not to sound ungrateful, but I haven't been able to find quotations about the Lex Agraria Iulia Campania yet.

One more time, gratiam habeo.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The exact text of most Roman law has been utterly lost, and we rely on descriptions of laws from our primary literary sources (Cicero, Appian, etc). If you follow the link that PP provided, you'll find references galore, including Cicero's reference to the Campanian law.

 

You can also find Goldsworthy's book at Amazon here. Search inside for "campania", and on page 175 you'll see his discussion, where he is quite clear about there being two laws.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Gratiam Habeo, MPC & PP, for your patience. Excuse me for being so slooow.

 

Now I can understand the alegory of the free lunch and the wife, BTW very illustrative.

And there was no such thing like a free lunch, indeed. Beyond the petty skirmishes of Roman politics, the land for Pompey's veterans was not free in any sense of the word, as for getting them in, you have to get the previous owners out, who were the effective payers of the bill. In Stephenson's words:

 

"Did it pay to send out a swarm of 100,000 idle paupers who, for two generations, had been fed at the public charge from the corn-bins of Rome, simply in order that a like number of honest peasants, who had been not only self-supporting but had paid a large part of the Roman revenue, should be compelled to sacrifice their goods in a glutted market and become debauched and idle?"

 

Definitively no, except if the lucky "idle paupers" happen to be my clients and private soldiers.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Finally, I found a Primary source for the Lex Iulia agraria Campania (under the denomination Lex Campana):

Here comes Cicero, Letter II Ad Atticus, ch. 18:

 

"I have received several letters from you, which showed me with what eagerness and anxiety you desired to know the news. We are bound hard and fast on every side, and are no longer making any difficulty as to being slaves, but fearing death and exile as though greater evils, though they are in fact much smaller ones. Well, this is the position-one unanimously groaned over, but not relieved by a word from anyone. The object, I surmise, of the men in power is to leave nothing for anyone to lavish. The only man who opens his mouth and openly disapproves is the young Curio. He is loudly cheered, and greeted in the forum in the most complimentary manner, and many other tokens of goodwill are bestowed on him by the loyalists; while Fufius is pursued with shouts, jeers, and hisses. From such circumstances it is not hope but indignation that is increased, for you see the citizens allowed to express their sentiments, but debarred from carrying them out with any vigour. And to omit details, the upshot is that there is now no hope, I don't say of private persons, but even of the magistrates being ever free again. Nevertheless, in spite of this policy of repression, conversation, at least in society and at dinner tables, is freer than it was. Indignation is beginning to get the better of fear, though that does not prevent a universal feeling of despair. For this Campanian law contains a cause imposing an oath to be taken by candidates in public meeting, that they will not suggest any tenure of public land other than that provided in the Julian laws. All the others take the oath without hesitation: Laterensis is considered to have shown extraordinary virtue in retiring from his canvass for the tribuneship to avoid the oath. But I don't care to write any more about politics. I am dissatisfied with myself, and cannot write without the greatest pain. I hold my own position with some dignity, considering the general repression, but considering my achievements in the past, with less courage than I should like. I am invited by Caesar in a very gentlemanly manner to accept a legation, to act as legatus to himself, and even an "open votive legation" is offered me. But the latter does not give sufficient security, since it depends too much on the scrupulousness of Pulchellus and removes me just when my brother is returning ; the former offers better security and does not prevent my returning when I please. I am retaining the latter, but do not think I shall use it. However, nobody knows about it. I don't like running away; I am itching to fight. There is great warmth of feeling for me. But I don't say anything positive: you will please not to mention it. I am, in fact, very anxious about the manumission of Statius and some other things, but I have become hardened by this time. I could wish, or rather ardently desire, that you were here: then I should not want advice or consolation. But anyhow, be ready to fly hither directly I call for you."

 

Emphasis is mine.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Swinging the pendulum the other way, this from Mommsen:

Opposition Of The Aristocracy

Proposals Before The Burgesses

... Without deviating far from the truth, Caesar could tell the multitude that the senate had scornfully rejected most rational and most necessary proposals submitted to it in the most respectful form, simply because they came from the democratic consul.

Salve, F!

 

Emphasis is mine.

 

It's clear that Mommsen blindly idolized Caesar and anachronistically considered him something like a heroic liberal leader of the late XIX Century.