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: 05 January 2009
When I recall my earliest impressions of Roman history I find that M. Crassus figures in them as a not very important and rather unattractive person. In contrast with Caesar, who conquered Gaul, he was defeated by the Parthians; and he accumulated wealth in a thoroughly sordid fashion and to a sordid extent. This impression was probably derived from the standard textbooks. For example, Mommsen's Roman History says: ‘Marcus Crassus had for years been reckoned among the heads of the three-headed monster without any proper title to be so included. He served as a makeweight to trim the balance between the real regents Pompeius and Caesar, or, to speak more accurately, he threw his weight into the scale of Caesar against Pompeius. The part of a supernumerary colleague is not a very honourable one; but Crassus was never hindered by any keen sense of honour from pursuing his own advantage. He was a merchant and was open to negotiation.’
page 153 note 2 iv. 308, cf. 12–14 (Everyman edition of the English translation, London, 1931).
page 153 note 3 P. 223.
page 154 note 1 Cic. Brut. 233, Plut, . Crass. 3. 7.Google Scholar
page 154 note 2 On the wealth of M. Crassus and other Crassi, and of Pompeius, see the supplementary note at the end of this article.
page 154 note 3 This suggestion is to some extent borne out by Garzetti, 's careful discussion (Athenaeum, xxii/xxiii (1944/1945), 35–58).Google Scholar
page 154 note 4 Plut. Crass. 6. 4, 7.
page 154 note 5 Last in C.A.H. ix. 333 is wrong on this point. See Garzetti, , Athenaeum, xix (1941), 21f.Google Scholar; Broughton, T. R. S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 1951–1952), ii. 121Google Scholar, 72 b.c., n. 2. A fact hitherto (so far as I know) unnoticed is that Plut. Crass. 7. 9 may be taken to suggest strongly that Crassus was a magistrate in 76. If he was aedile in that year, 73 is all the more probable for his praetorship.
page 155 note 1 Crass. 11. 10.
page 155 note 2 Velleius, ii. 30. 6Google Scholar, Appian, b.c. i. 121Google Scholar. Even Cicero at first allotted to Crassus an equal share of the glory (Verr. 11. v. 5); though later he spoke as if the suppression of the revolt was largely the work of Pompeius (Imp. Pomp. 30, Sest. 67).
page 155 note 3 Previous consuls of Crassus' family were: Diues, P. Crassus, pontifex maximus 212–183Google Scholar, censor 210, consul 205 (himself called ‘nobilis’ in Livy, , xxx. 1. 5)Google Scholar; P. Crassus, consul 171 (his great-grandfather); C. Crassus, consul 168; Mucianus, P. Crassus Diues, pontifex maximus 132–130Google Scholar, consul 131; Crassus, P., consul 97, triumphator 93Google Scholar, censor 89 (his father); and L. Crassus, consul 95, censor 92. The different branches represented by these men appear to derive from a single ancestor of the third century (Münzer in R.E. xiii. 247–9).
In comparison, Pompeius' family reckoned only three consuls before himself: Q. Pompeius, consul 141, censor 131, and Q. Pompeius Rufus, consul 88, both from a branch with which it would seem he was not connected; and Cn. Pompeius Strabo, consul 89, his father. He was not, then, born noble.
In the family of Caesar, the third member of the famous coalition, four men held the consulship before him, but of these, three were from a collateral branch of it, viz. Sex. Caesar, consul 157, L. Caesar, consul 90, and L. Caesar, consul 64. Sex. Caesar, consul 91, was Caesar's uncle. The gens was, however, patrician and could point to remote ancestors, consuls in the first century of the Republic.
page 156 note 1 Cf. Dio xxvii. 56. 5.
page 156 note 2 Att. i. 14. 4.
page 156 note 3 Ibid. 16. 5, with How's note.
page 157 note 1 Ibid. 17. 8 f., 18. 7. There is to my mind no need to assume that, because he was a financier, Crassus' interests, either generally or in this affair, were identical with those of the publicani. His aim in taking up their case was political.
page 157 note 2 Appian, , b.c. ii. 9Google Scholar, testifies to Crassus' part in the opposition to the ratification of the acta. Cicero, , Att. i. 18Google Scholar. 6 (Jan. 60), writing about the land-law, says that Crassus has said nothing to offend Pompeius. This does not exclude the possibility that he opposed the bill later. The opposition to both of Pompeius' requests was led by Cato, Metellus, and Lucullus (Plut. Pomp. 46. 5f., Cato min. 31.1, Dio xxxvii. 49 f.), and the coupling of Crassus' name with that of Lucullus in the matter of the acta (Appian, loc. cit.) is a strong indication that, openly or secretly, he opposed the land-law too.
page 157 note 3 Marsh, F. B., The Founding of the Roman Empire 2 (Oxford, 1927), p. 73.Google Scholar
page 157 note 4 Roman History, iv. 184–8 (Everyman edition of the English translation).
page 157 note 5 Bloch, G. and Carcopino, J., Histoire romaine, ii (Paris, 1929–), 590, 602.Google Scholar
page 157 note 6 Att. ii. 1.
page 157 note 7 Suet. Diu. Iul. 9. 1.
page 158 note 1 Sail. Cat. 48f., Suet. Diu. Iul. 14. 2, Plut, . Caes. 8. 2.Google Scholar
page 158 note 2 Suet. ibid. 21, Cic. Att. ii. 21. 3f.
page 158 note 3 Id. Q. Fr. ii. 3. 4.
page 159 note 1 Ibid. § 2.
page 159 note 2 Id. Fam. i. 17. 3.
page 159 note 3 Crass. 16. 1.
page 159 note 4 Cf. Mommsen, , Roman History, iv. 288–90, 308Google Scholar (Everyman edition of English translation); How, Cicero: Select Letters, ii. 152.
page 159 note 5 Both Crassus and Pompeius remained in Rome after their joint consulship (Plut. Pomp. 23.3f.). Pompeius had laid down the province assigned to him (Zon. x. 2, cf. Vell ii. 31. 1), and it is to be presumed that Crassus, unwilling to leave Pompeius in a position of unrivalled pre-eminence in Rome, had followed suit.
page 160 note 1 In his Presidential Address to the Classical Association on 1 April 1948 (Proceedings, xlv. 20).
page 160 note 2 Cf. Plut, . Comparison of Nicias and Crassus 4Google Scholar, especially § 4 (‘What would have been their feelings … if Crassus had sent news from Babylon of victory, and … had converted Media and Persia … into Roman provinces?’) and § 5 (‘Those who praise Alexander's enterprise and blame that of Crassus judge of the beginning unfairly by the results’).