No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 January 2015
It is curious that, although a whole Life of Plutarch is devoted to Marcus Crassus, so little is known as to the facts and dates of his cursus honorum. His praetorship is a fact, but of uncertain date. Plutarch is often interpreted as associating it with his special command against Spartacus in 72; Appian can be read as placing it in 71. A virtual consensus of scholars follows Broughton in favouring 73. It is contended here that Crassus' destined year was 75, when he turned 40. That it was his actual year is supported by his nobility, ambition and talent: one of eight places should have been his. No province is attested or likely. But the limited availability of praetorian provinces in these years and Crassus' known interest in special commands make this unproblematic.
The early dating proposed makes sense of the absence of an aedileship. It creates, however, an expected consular year of 72. The blocking of this is associated with the discourse of rivalry between Crassus and Pompey: the very odd trial for incestum with a Vestal Virgin finds explanation in this context. The article aspires to shine a light on the post-civil war period in which Crassus, no less than Pompey, is both player and exemplar.
I wish to thank those who helped me with this paper, especially Douglas Kelly and Kit Morrell, and the two anonymous readers, who all made useful suggestions. They are not to be held responsible for this final version.
1 L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (cos. 54) was thought to have suffered an injury in being displaced from a consulate that had been his from birth (Cic, . Att. 4.8a.2Google Scholar) by the intrusion of the second consulate of Pompey and Crassus in 55. Domitius lost a year but L. Lentulus Cms (praetor 58) only recovered his footing to hold the consulate in 49 (Hayne, L.C., ‘Caesar and Lentulus Crus’, Acta Classica 39 [1996] 72-6Google Scholar). C. Billienus fell out of the queue entirely - we know of it only by way of Cic, . Brut. 175Google Scholar – through the narrowing of the stream (angustiai) by Marius' successive consulates (104-100). It was possible, of course, to be consul suo armo only if one had been praetor suo anno.
2 Tiberius Gracchus’ concern over the advancing career of Sp. Postumius is evocatively due not just to relative merits but to their being the same age (ἡλνκιώτην) (Plut, . TG 8.6Google Scholar).
3 Elogia Scipionum (E.H. Warmington, no. 5): ‘With longer life you would have easily surpassed the glory of your ancestors by your deeds’ (facile facteis superases gloriam maiorum), a big claim if this P. Scipio is the sickly son of Africanus! Cf. no. 10: ‘I pursued the deeds of my father, I attained the praise of my ancestors, so that they are glad that I was created for them.’ This is of Cn. Scipio Hispanus, praetor 139, son of the consul of 176. Facta patris petiei: I pursued, but did not catch up with, my consular father (but the ancestors are delighted that I tried).
4 Note the consularity of the language of distinction: Gelzer, M., The Roman Nobility, trans. Seager, R. (orig. Stuttgart 1912Google Scholar; Oxford 1969): ‘Nobility’ pp. 2740; ‘Clarissimi’ pp. 40-4; ‘Principes civitatis’ pp. 44-9; Whitehead, Simon, ‘Cicero's viri clarissimi', in Welch, Kathryn and Hillard, T.W. (eds), Roman Crossings (Swansea 2005) 141–207.Google Scholar
5 In arguing against this to his friend Furnius, Cicero only confirms it. If Fumius did not seek the praetorship suo anno, he would be in the position of many men of consular standing who missed their year while absent on public service: multi clarissimi uiri, cum rei publicae darent operam, annum petitionis suae non obierunt. See Astin, A.E., “The Lex Annalis before Sulla I’, Latomus 19 (1957) 597-9Google Scholar, on Cic, . Fam. 10.25.1–2Google Scholar (S-B 403). But Crassus was not absent on public service when ‘his year’ for the praetorship came up.
6 Cic. in Ascon. p. 85C and 92-93C, and Bruce Marshall, A.A Historical Commentary on Asconius (Columbia MO 1985)Google Scholar ad loc.; Stone, A.M., ‘Three Men in a Hurry’, Classicum 19.1 (1993) 24Google Scholar.
7 In a celebrated note G.V. Sumner contended that many did not care about being consul suo anno (The Orators in Cicero's Brutus [1973] 8, n. 2) on the basis of 22 names that he lists as coming to their consular candidacies ‘late’. The first named, C. Laelius, consul 140, did care and the betrayal that denied him a consulship ‘in his year’ is famous ([Plut.] Apophth. Scipionis Minoris 8; Cic, . Amic. 11),Google Scholar as is the willing delay for one year of C. Scribonius Curio, consul 76, in deference to Mam. Lepidus Livianus, consul 77 (Sall, . Hist. 1.86MGoogle Scholar). That the year was a matter of indifference to any in this list is not known or likely. Of these 22, ten were only provenly one year ‘late’, another five provenly two years; of the 22, seven were of no or remote consular ancestry. These statistics are really less telling than the anecdotal material already referred to. Moreover, they relate to access to the consulate (two places), not to the six, later eight, praetorships. It should be concluded that Roman nobles would want a praetorship suo anno and usually get it.
8 Plut, . Mar. 5.2Google Scholar.
9 The Licinii appear among successful champions of the plebs during the Struggle of the Orders. The first Crassus was consul 205 and pontifex maximus. The family background is discussed in Marshall, , Crassus: A Political Biography (Amsterdam 1976) 5–8Google Scholar. This, with Ward, A.M., Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic (Columbia MO 1977)Google Scholar, represents the current standard biography of Crassus. The early chapters of these two books, together, of course, with the structure and content-base of Plutarch's Life of Crassus, will serve as the first ports of call. A non-Plutarchian mindset is valuably suggested in Gruen, Erich S., ‘M. Licinius Crassus: A Review Article’, AJAH 2 (1977) 117-28Google Scholar.
10 See Broughton's, entry under Legates, Lieutenants, 87 (MRR 2.50Google Scholar). References to MRR in this article will be by date and office.
11 Plut, . Crass. 6.1Google Scholar. In normal times 84 would be his Own year' for his quaestorship, conferring entry into the senate. That Crassus was not quaestor in the first year possible, i.e. after the civil war in 81, is clear. He was ranging Italy as an agent of Sulla's proscriptions. It would be unfair to slow his career by making him hold a quaestorship when (e.g.) the less able P. Lentulus Sura was quaestor in 81. Appian mentions no quaestorship for Crassus (App, . BC 1.121Google Scholar). It is better to conclude that he never had this.
12 Plut, . Crass. 6.2Google Scholar.
13 Ibid. 7.1. ‘How great?’ (i.e. ‘how big?’) is Crassus' own alleged play on words. Plutarch emphasises Crassus' envy of Pompey at 6.4 also. The origin of the rivalry may be the joint operations near Spoletium in 82 (App, . BC 1.90Google Scholar).
14 Plut, . Crass. 6.5Google Scholar.
15 Note Crassus' assertiveness toward Sulla (ibid. 6.2 and 6.6). That it was Crassus who saved the day emerges also from Sulla's own account in Plut. Sull. 29.5. Sulla saves his own credit by ‘rescuing’ the left wing like a deus ex machina. Crassus' cheek is displayed not by the formulaic demand for his soldiers' dinner but by his imposing it on a general who was not yet in any position to give it. F.E. Adcock's claim that Sulla had arranged the whole thing like that – and disguised it in his Commentaries! – is fanciful (Marcus Crassus, Millionaire [Cambridge 1966] 7–8Google Scholar), and his relegation of Crassus' part to ‘faithful execution’ of Sulla's plan because Crassus ‘never was an eminent general’ is a petitio principii.
16 Plut, . Crass. 6.6–7Google Scholar.
17 It is an argumentum ex silentio, but Plutarch's attention to Crassus' military career, successes and failures, make Gelzer's conclusion cogent (RE 13.1, ‘Crassus’ no. 67, col. 298). Catulus, proconsul in 77, may have quietly disliked him long before their clash as censors in 65.
18 Gelzer and Adcock make too much of the trained force of slaves. I. Shatzman covers the essentials in Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (Brussels 1975) 375-8Google Scholar.
19 Cic, . Off. 3.73 and 75Google Scholar; cf. 1.109. That legacy-hunting was traditional does not tum Crassus into Cadoux's, T.J. nice guy: ‘Marcus Crassus: A Revaluation’, G & R 3 (1956) 153-61Google Scholar.
20 Plut, . Crass. 7.9Google Scholar is followed by two chapters on the war with Spartacus in general (8-9) with the return of Crassus at 10.1.
21 Ibid. 1.2 on incestum; 2.4 on the fire-brigade.
22 Cic, . Brut. 233Google Scholar: Crassus is termed an aequalis of Hortensius; at 230 Hortensius; aequales aie M. (Pupius) Piso (cos. 61), M. Crassus (cos. 70), Cn. Lentulus (Clodianus) (cos. 72), P. Lentulus Sura (cos. 71). Crassus' praetorship should be in the mid-seventies, not about the time of the first of his aequales’ consulates.
23 Plut, . Crass. 17.2Google Scholar: 
. The idiom is not quite perspicuous.
24 Cic, . Att. 4.13.2Google Scholar (S-B 87).
25 Plut, . Aem. 24Google Scholar.
26 Two lengthy chapters 8-9.
27 Plut. Crass. 10.1: 
.
28 App, . BC 1.118Google Scholar: 
.
29 Crassus takes over the legions of the consuls Cn. Lentulus and L. Gellius. The proconsul C. Cassius (cos. 73) was also relieved of command. Crassus appears to be in total command of the war in Italy: Philippus' ‘pro consulibus’ (in fun) applies to him at least as much as to Pompey.
30 Eutrop. 6.7.2. This is not an arbitrary variant: it is merely the technical vocabulary for the situation described in Plutarch and Appian.
31 Vell. Pat. 2.31.3.
32 App, . BC 1.121Google Scholar: 
.
33 MRR 2.110Google Scholar; note also the entry under ‘Proconsuls 72 BC’.
34 Brennan, T. Corey, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic II (Oxford 2000) 433-4Google Scholar.
35 Gruen, , The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1974) 509Google Scholar, praetor c. 73.
36 Ward, Crassus (n. 9) 82.
37 Ibid. 84.
38 RE 13.1 (1926) col. 302, followed less luminously by Garzetti, A., ‘M. Licinio Crasso’, Athenaeum 19(1941)21Google Scholar.
39 MRR 2.93; Plut, . Crass. 7.9Google Scholar.
40 Marshall, , Crassus (n. 9) 28-9Google Scholar; cf. 5. Marshall's suggestion of a later date for his birth at p. 29 is related to his speculated earlier date at p. 5.
41 Plut, . Crass. 7.9Google Scholar.
42 Frequently dēmagōgos in Plutarch simply means what it already meant in Thucydides; thus in Coriolanus (passim) it is oppositional and mass-based. But see Plut, . Agis 1.2Google Scholar: δημαγωγοὶ καὶ ἄρχοντε: in moralising vein popular governance is really slavery; Dion 38.2: οἱ δηυαγωγοί, the popular leaders, i.e. the democratic government, were holding elections; ibid. 44.2: οἱ δηυαγωγοί τῶν Συρακοσίων seem to be equated with οἱ δηυαγωγοί at 44.3; Arat. 14.1: στρατηγοὶγοί καὶ δηυαγωγοί have often acted corruptly. I wish to thank Tom Hillard for bringing his word-search of Plutarchian uses of dēmagōgos to my notice. In these that I have cited the word is closely associated with some term for magistrates. This is to say that demagogos can be governmental and not always oppositional.
43 Gelzer, , Nobility (n. 4) 44-9Google Scholar: principes civitatis.
44 There had been only five identifiable ex-consuls surviving the civil war in good standing. Of these Sulla, the two Valerii Flacci and L. Marcius Philippus were dead by 76, M. Perpema in retirement. Of post civil-war consuls, Ap. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 79) and M. Lepidus (cos. 78) were now dead; M. Tullius Decula (cos. 81) is not heard of; Q. Metellus Pius (cos. 80) was proconsul in Spain; P. Servilius Vatia (cos. 79) was proconsul in Cilicia; Cn. Cornelius Dolabella (cos. 81) had returned from Macedonia to face prosecution, but despite his acquittal he remained under a cloud. On ‘pro consulibus’, see Cic, . Leg. Man. 62Google Scholar; Plut, . Pomp. 17.4Google Scholar. The invidious inference is Plutarch's own.
45 Att. 12.21.1 (S-B 260); cf. Phil. 2.12 with some differences in the names, e.g. Crassus not at the meeting of 5th December 63, but named in the Second Philippic as one who later approved of Cicero's proceedings (Att. 1.14.3-4 = S-B 14).
46 On Cethegus abusing power, see Plut, . Luc. 5.3, 6.2-3Google Scholar and by implication Cic, . Cluent. 85Google Scholar; mentioned with approval Brut. 178: totam tenebat (rem publicam) penitusque cognouerat; itaque in senatu consularium auctoritatem adsequebatur. Such a knowledge of public business is what might well increase Crassus' influence in the Senate too, as well as a similar inclination to push it.
47 On Verres senior, see Cic, . Verr. 2.2.95–98Google Scholar: Verres was able to prevent senators passing a decree against his son in Sicily on a promise to get him to comply; on the son's refusal there was no reversion to the original condemnation in the Senate. Cicero treats the elder Verres as a serious statesman (Verr. 2.5.136-7).
48 On the post-Sullan praetorship in general, see Brennan, Corey, Praetorship II (n. 34) 389-96Google Scholar. Factual details in this section, except where referenced, are from Broughton MRR 2 and 3 (Supplement).
49 E.g. M. Fonteius for three years (74-72?); C. Verres (73-71); Sex. Peducaeus (76-75); M. Iuncus (75-74).
50 Cic, . Verr. 2.2.37Google Scholar; 2.4.42; MRR III 25.
51 Brennan, Corey, Praetorship II (n. 34) 400-2Google Scholar.
52 Vell. Pat. 2.31.3-4.
53 On Antonius, see Cic, . Verr. 2.3.213Google Scholar; Vell. Pat. 2.31.4; Plut, . Ant. 1Google Scholar; on Lucullus, Plut, . Luc. 6Google Scholar. Ps.-Ascon. p. 259St attributes Antonius' appointment to gratia Cottae consults et Cethegifactione in senatu. Vellerns and Plutarch explicitly and Pseudo-Asconius implicitly indicate that Antonius was manageable. Crassus was hardly that.
54 Gruen's paragraph on Cethegus is excellent (Last Generation [n. 35] 39-40). To this evidence of hostility to him among the Sullani may be added the martyrdom of Crassus' father in 87 to the savagery of the returning Marians who had included Cethegus among their top twelve (proscribed by Sulla in 88: Plut, . Mar. 40.2Google Scholar; App, . BC 1.60 and 62Google Scholar). Antonius clearly made less of his father's martyrdom in the same circumstances; Lucullus had himself marched as quaestor with the consul Sulla on Sulpicius' Rome (MRR 3.25, accepting Badian and Sumner) and had consequently participated in the events that issued in the proscription of Cethegus. Plutarch tells us (Luc. 6) that he still hated Cethegus in 74 but was willing to stoop. Crassus, apparently, was not.
55 Aem. 3.1, Luc. 1.6, Cic. 8.2, Caes. 6: in all these cases of an aedileship or registered non-aedileship some improving anecdote is attached. (In the Lives of earlier Romans, Q. Fabius Maximus and Cato Major, Plutarch disregards attested aedileships.)
56 Marius not elected: Mar. 5.1-2; Marius just secures the praetorship allegedly by bribery: 5.25. Sulla deliberately omits the aedileship: Sull. 5.1-2. Cicero notes the importance of the aedileship in the cursus and the gloating satisfaction of those who avoided it or did not spend much on it (Off. 2.57-59).
57 Plut, . Sull. 34.4–5Google Scholar, Pomp. 15.
58 Plut, . Crass. 2.4Google Scholar: The episode is recorded negatively as a money-making device. But something so blatant in a man otherwise so concerned to display liberalitas must reflect the hostile source evident in so many of Plutarch's anecdotes of Crassus. The episode should be compared with that of Egnatius Rufus: it is political, not financial (Dio 53.24.4-6).
59 Sall, . Hist. 4.1MGoogle Scholar. Cicero is more respectful to Lentulus as a good friend (Cluent. 118); his judgment, however, is essentially Sallust's: Lentulus was not bright (peracutus), though he looked as though he was.
60 For the relevant material see MRR 2. Disgraced in the field in 72, both Lentalus and Gellius were rehabilitated by Pompey as censors in 70 and legates in 67. Gellius was still serving with Pompey in 63 at the age of (over) seventy. He may have been unlucky in his consulate. Lentulus is one of the four ex-consuls who spoke publicly in support of the lex Manilla in 66 transferring command in the Mithridatic War to Pompey (Cic, . Leg. Manil. 68Google Scholar).
61 Plut, . Crass. 1.2Google Scholar. On these trials see Alexander, M.C., Trials in the Late Roman Republic 149 BC to 50 BC (Toronto and London 1990) nos 167, 168Google Scholar.
62 Cic. in Ascon. p. 91C maintains Fabia's innocence; Sallust takes her guilt for granted (Cat. 15.1); Oros. 6.3.1. See also Marshall, Commentary on Asconius (n. 6) ad loc.
63 Cic, . Cat. 3.9Google Scholar: [Lentulum] dixisse fatalem hunc annum esse ad interitum huius urbis atque imperi qui esset annus decimus post uirginum absolutionem …
64 Plautii/Plotii: on the connection of this family with Pompey, see Gruen, , Last Generation (n. 35) 108, n. 65Google Scholar.
65 Cassius supported the lex Manilio as one of four ex-consuls who did so (Cic, . Leg. Manil. 68Google Scholar); Pompey made peace between the family of the future tyrannicide and the guardians of Faustus Sulla in these years (Plut, . Brut. 9.3Google Scholar). Gruen is cautious (Last Generation [n. 35] 126).
66 Plut, . Crass. 10.1Google Scholar: The anger of the Senate with the consuls is notable (πρὸς όρργήν) and consistent with their humiliating suspension from command, though not from office.
67 Cf. n. 16 above.
68 Officers, explicitly: ‘many of the nobles’ (πολλοὶ … τῶν ἐπιϕανῶν) joined him in pursuit of glory and friendship’ (Plut, . Crass. 10.1Google Scholar). That recruitment of common soldiers was also easy can be deduced from the unproblematic call up (volunteers?) of six legions, at a time of empire-wide military pressures and manifest exhaustion.
69 L. Lucullus' difficulties with his soldiers are notorious. Sulla was more popular, but reference to apotympanismos (fustuarium), i.e. military execution, indicates difficulties (Plut, . Sull. 6.8Google Scholar). It was not just Crassus who used fustuarium. For problems with conscription in general, see Sall, . Hist. 4.48MGoogle Scholar (Oratio Macri, 17-18, 27-8), devoted to the grievances of 73, the year prior to Crassus' unproblematic raising of an army. The disbursement of private funds may have been relevant: for Crassus' awareness of this in a famous saying, e.g. recorded in Cic, . Off. 1.25Google Scholar: M. Crassus negabat ullam satis magnam pecuniam esse ei, qui in re publica princeps uellet esse, cuius fructibus exercitum alere non posset. What Scipio Aemilianus had done by fides, Crassus could achieve two generations along by ‘modem’ methods: accumulated private wealth even overshadowed the Treasury.