http://www.jstor.orgCato Uticensis and the Annexation of CyprusAuthor(s): Stewart Irvin OostSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 50, No. 2, (Apr., 1955), pp. 98-112Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/265910Accessed: 20/05/2008 02:39Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.CATOUTICENSISANDTHEANNEXATIONOFCYPRUS STEWARTIRVINOOST r THATthe younger Catowasthe stormiestpetrelof Romanpolitics inthelast age ofthe Republic probably fewwould deny.Although he appears in all historiesof his generation, heremainsan enigma ofthemostcon- tradictory sort.Tosomeofhiscon- temporaries, suchas Cicero, hewasa noblebut impracticaldreamer, to othershewasa primenuisance; while inmoderntimesitisdifficulttodisen- tangle themanfrom the mythical Stoic hero-saintofthe "opposition underthe Caesars."' Throughout muchofhis career theinfluenceofCatowas mainly negative; oneofthe fairly rare timesin hislifewhenhewasina position toact constructively occurredwhenhewas bundled off,huffilyprotesting as usual, toannextheisland kingdom of Cyprus totheRomandominions.Acloseex- aminationofthis episode shouldrender results important for forming an opin- ionastowhatsortofmanandstates- manCatowas.Theannexationof Cyprus,too, isnotwithout interest, beingamong thelastactsoftheim- perialism ofthe"free" Republic. There are,moreover, anumberofobscurities and discrepancies in many of thestand- ardaccountsofthistransactionwhich shouldbecorrected. Unfortunately suchan undertaking isinvolvedincon- siderable difficulty becauseofthena- tureofthesources.Plutarchinhis Life of Cato givesby far the longest account ofwhatCatodidon Cyprus, buthis sourceswere principally themassof propaganda aboutCatowhich poured fromRoman pens fora century after his death; thisenablesPlutarchto moralizetohisheart's content, butit isnot veryhelpful tothehistorianwho wantstoknowwhatCato didor didnot doandtoformhisown judgments. On theotherhand Ptolemy, the king of Cyprus andthe principal victimofthe annexation, isreducedtoamerefoil for Cato; virtueand honestytriumph over greed and vice, allinthefinest blackandwhite outline, forthemost lasting of the polemics aboutCato have proved tobe thoseof hisfriends. Early in December, 59 B.C., there- doubtableP. Clodius, tribuneofthe plebs, hadembarked upon hiscareerof opposition tothe Optimates, asthe agent ofthe"three-headedmonster" whichruledtheRomanstate-other- wise usually knowntomodernstudents astheFirstTriumvirateof Caesar, Pompey, andCrassus.2 Aschiefobsta- clestothetriumvirs' tranquilenjoy- mentoftheir power bothCiceroand Catoweretoberemovedfromthe po- liticalscene.3 Clodius, of course, was happy toexile Cicero, his personal enemy; someof theancientsources say thathe wasmotivated by an old grudge inthe Cyprus affairalso-not against Cato, but against the king of Cyprus, who allegedly hadnotransomedhim whenhewasheld by the pirates some years before.4This may be true, butit is quitepossible thatitwas suggested tosome enemy of Clodius by thelatter's allegation that Ptolemy wasin league withthe pirates, in conjunction with thefactthatClodiuswas gratifying a personalgrudgebyexiling Cicero. Muckraking wassocommona weapon ofRoman politics thatClodiusmust [CLASSICALPHILOLOGY,L,APRIL, 1955] 98 CATO"UTICENSIS"AND THEANNEXATIONOF CYPRUS beinnocentofsomeofthe things with whichheis charged. SinceCatolater offered Ptolemy anhonorableretire- ment, presumably inaccordancewith theresolutionoftheRoman people (i.e.,Clodius), the presumedpersonal grudge ofClodius againstPtolemy probably neednotbetakentooseri- ously. Asidefroma possibleprivategrudge as Clodius'motivein attacking the king of Cyprus, and apart fromthedesira- bility of getting Catooutofthe way, mostscholarshave thought thatthe Roman government, thatisto say, foF all piacticalpurposes, the triumvirs, hadothermotives.Ithasbeen sug- gested5 that Cyprus wasannexedto roundoutRome'sdominionsinthe east-Cyrene,Crete,Cilicia,Syria. Of coursethiscannotbe denied; shortof thesuddenendoftheRoman Empire itself, itwascertainthat Cyprus would soonerorlaterbe incorporated as Roman territory. The question is: Why atthistime? Many statesremainedas technicallyindependent enclaveswith- inRomandominionsfor generations. Again, ithasbeen argued6 thatthe Romanmovewas part ofanencircle- mentof Egypt, towhich preceding an- nexationsof adjacent territorieshad been preliminary. Thiscould only be true,however, ifRomehad anything serioustofearfrom Egypt whenever sheshouldsetouttoannexthatcoun- try; butthisisincredible-the power whichhaddefeatedthe Gauls, theCim- bri, the Teutons, and Mithridates, had nothing to apprehend fromthefeeble resistanceofthelast degenerateLagid monarchs.7 Fiscalconsiderationsareleftasa motive; alateancient source,8 which dependsultimately on Livy,specifies theneedsofthe treasury asthe reason, andthe"needsofthe treasury" were ofcoursedetermined by the ruling three. PtolemyAuletes, thebrotherof the king of Cyprus, had purchased Roman recognition ofhis position in Egyptby a gigantic bribeofsixthou- sandtalents (59B.C.).9 Thereseems every reasontobelievethathadPtol- emy of Cyprus been prepared to pay a huge bribehealsowouldhavere- tainedhis throne.10 The undoing of Ptolemy andthe evictionofCatowere accomplishedby two separate anddistinctenactments ofthe people; thatisto say, the legal deposition ofthe king andthe naming of Cato to go and translatelawintofact were notone measure.l1 Thisrests upon the unimpeachabletestimony of Cicero; the point isnot new, butmostofthe standardworksonRoman historypro- ducedinthelast half-century either obscurethe point ordeclarethatthe samelawconfiscated Cyprus andsent Catotoeffecttheconfiscation.12 Thefirstlawenactedthat Cyprus be addedtotheRomandominions.This rogation ofClodius provided that Cy- prus bereducedtotheformofa prov- inceoftheRoman people;13 that Ptolemy be deposed from his kingship ;14 thatthe king'sproperty on Cyprus be confiscated;15 andthatthis property be soldat public auctionfor thebenefitof theRoman treasury.16Possibly there wassomestatementmadeinthelaw totheeffectthatthe Cypriotes were nowtobe free;17 thisistheofficial language oftheRoman government on occasionsofthisnature. Probably also inthis law, but possibly asanafter- thought inthesecond law, itis likely that provision wasmadeto place Ptol- emy of Cyprus inasinecuretoconsole himfor thelossofhisthrone.18 Finally, aclauseattachedtothelaw provided thatcertain Byzantine exilesshouldbe restoredtotheirhome.19A legalistic 99 STEWARTIRWINOOST coloring tothis appropriation of Cyprus was probablygiven inthelawonone orbothoftwo possible excuses.The Roman people was merelyclaiming whatwasitsownundera presumed will by which Ptolemy Alexander II, whohadruledboth Egypt and Cyprus fornineteen days in80 B.C.,bequeathed hisrealmstoRome.Hissuccessorin Egypt,PtolemyAuletes, had purchased his recognition from theRoman govern- mentwhichthuscancelledthewillas farashewas concerned; but Ptolemy of Cyprus hadnotdone so, andhence wasfair game.20 Thereisalsosome evidencethatClodiusaccusedthe king of Cyprus of trafficking withthe pirates, butitisuncertainwhetherthis charge wasmentionedinthelaw.21Whether ornotitwereso alleged inthelawit- self, itwas certainlytrumpedup to bolsteraweakmoralcase.22 Asforthe Byzantine exiles, presumably theRo- manshadbeenaskedtorefereeoneof theendlessfaction fights intheGreek city-states andClodiusattachedthis proviso tohisbillinorderto give Cato stillfurther employmentaway from Rome.23 For although Clodius appointed Cato tothe job of taking over Cyprusby a separatelaw, hemusthaveintended Catofor the position whenhe prepared thefirst law,since, ifPlutarch may be trusted, the purpose ofthe Byzantine clausewasto prolong Cato's sojourn away from the City(Plut. Cat. min. 34). Indeed, granted thata principalobject ofClodiusandhis superiors wasthe removalof Cato, itis veryunlikely that the opportunity offered by the Cyprus affair wouldnothaveoccurredtothem untilafterthefirstlawhadbeen pro- mulgated. Aswastobe expected, Clod- iuswent through theformof broaching the subject toCatobefore bringing the proposal for his appointment beforethe people, butCato indignantly refused. Hesawtherealmotivefor the appoint- mentbehindthesmooth compliments ofthe demagogue.24 Clodiusofcourse wasnotabashed.He procured the passage ofasecondlaw by the people: thatCatoshouldbesentto carry out the provisions ofthefirstlawwiththe rankof quaestorpropraetore.25 Plu- tarch26 says thatClodius provided his commissionerwith only twoassistants -a rogue andoneofClodius'ownde- pendents. Thecharacterofthesetwo gentlemen, however, may be unduly blackenedinorderfurthertoshow up Clodiusasacommonscoundrel.At any rate, wehear nothing oftheiractivities during themission.Cato did notdecline thehonor thusthrust uponhim; indeed he may alsohaveadvisedCiceroto yield tothepressure broughtby the ruling three.27AfterCiceroreturned fromhisownexileheattackedthe entiretribunateof Clodius; atthesame timehewishedtoavoid giving more offensethan necessary toCato.Hence he argued that Cato, sincethe damage had already beendone by thefirst law, accepted thetask imposedupon him by thesecondinorderthatsome good might come outofthe affair;besides, if Catohad refused, violencewouldhave beenused against him (Sest. 62-63). The point is,however, thata good citizen obeys theletterofthe law, evenifhe disapproves ofit.Thisarticleoffaith was probably oneofCato'schief princi- ples of moralsand justice.28 HenceCato departed fortheeast. Precisely whenheleftcannotbe made out, butaterminus post quem, at least, can be established.Itis clearthat thetwolaws seizingCyprus and ap- pointing Catotodothe dirty workco- incided, roughly, withClodius'attack on Cicero, whichresultedinthelatter's departure forexile.CiceroleftRome 100 CATO"UTICENSIS"ANDTHEANNEXATIONOFCYPRUS in March, 58 B.C., inthe opinion of mostscholarsbeforethelastthirdof themonth.CatocounseledwithCicero onthelatter's proper courseofaction andwasstillinRomewhentheorator tookhismournfulleaveofthe City; moreover, CatoknewbeforeCicero left thathehimselfwasdestinedto go to Cyprus, whetherthesecondlawhad been passedby thattimeor not.29 Itis a pretty safe assumption thatsucha sticklerforostentatious performance of duty asCatowouldnothave lingered unduly in Rome; ontheotherhandhe wouldhavehadtomakevarious pre- parations for his departure,arrange for someofhisfriendsto accompanyhim, andsoon.Hencehewas probably on his wayby late spring, 58B.c.30 Catodidnot godirectly to Cyprus. Whilehesenton Canidius, oneofhis friends, tosoundoutthe king's reaction toRome's highhanded seizureofhis country, the propraetor himself pro- ceededtoRhodes.Therehecouldawait developments andmakehis prepara- tions, contingentupon whatattitude Ptolemy was going to adopt. Canidius wasinstructedto try to persuade the king tobe reasonable, that is, tomake noresistancetotheinevitable.Pre- sumably in generalconformity with Cato's instructions, inorderto assuage thevictim'sresentment somewhat, Canidiusofferedthe kingample and dignified retirementas priest of Aphro- diteather great shrinein Paphos(Plut. Cat.min. 35).Happily,however, any possibleapprehension Cato might have had concerning the king's reactionwas soon allayed.Presumablyreflecting that whileresistancetoRomewas hopeless, yet"empire isthebest windingsheet," Ptolemy took poison and thusendedhis life.31 Tohaveoffered anyopposition to Rome might haveinvolvedthecommon ruinofhis haplesssubjects, andthe kingmight wellhave suspected that evenhistenureofthe priesthood of Paphos wouldbefrailand precarious underRomansurveillance.His niece, the greatCleopatra, laterhadrecourse tothesamemeansof release, although, itis true, unlikeheruncleshehadno assurancesofhonorabletreatment. ForRome'streatmentof Ptolemy there was, of course, no excuse; itwas barefaced robbery. AsCicerolaterwas at pains to point outin his denunciation of Clodius, the king'sfamily had long beenattached by liensofamicitiaand societaswith Rome; ifthe king himself wasnota socius, atleasthewasnotan enemy.32 Ptolemy'sreputation hasbeen harshly handled by theancientsandin no verykindly fashion by modernhis- torians.33 Aswellasof other, unspeci- fiedvices (Vell. 2.45. 4), hehasbeen accusedofavaricein particular.34 Al- most certainly thisis grosslyunfair; it hasbeen pointed outthatourevidence forhis greeddependsonlyupon the wordofhisenemies.35Whenonecon- sidersthatthealmosttotalconfiscation ofwhat nowadays wouldbeconsidered state property aswellas personalprop- erty realizednot quite seventhousand talentsatasalewhere every effortwas madetoforce upprices, onewonders aboutthe supposed avariceofthe king.36Auletes, the king's brother, bribedthetriumvirsto recognize his kingship in Egypt; nooneseemsto have suggested that Ptolemy of Cyprus may havefeltthathecouldnotraise abribe largeenough to satisfy the Romans.Itis unlikely thatthetri- umvirswould carefullyprorate the bribe they woulddemandinnear pro- portion tothemuchsmallerrevenues of Cyprus. Itseems very oddthateven amisershouldcommitsuicidewhenhe could buy histhroneandhislifeifhe hadthe price. Modern newspapers in- 101 STEWARTIRWINOOST form usof many a confirmedmiserwho hasbeeninducedunderthreatofdeath to giveup his hoard tocriminals. Cyprus had regularly beeninvolvedinthecivil warsof thelastPtolemies during which theyplayed musicalchairsbetweenthe islandand Egypt. But anyPtolemy ruling in Cyprus and desiring toseize Egypt mustdrawhisresourcesfrom the island; accordingly therewouldbe littletreasureaccumulatedtherein pre- vious reigns.Perhaps onthisoccasion Ptolemythought thattoraisethe moneyrequired wouldnecessitatesuch heavymortgages, or thesaleof so much ofhis capitalproperty, astomakeit impossible.Perhaps alsohelackedthe timeto get much ready cash, saveat interestwhichwouldbe confiscatory in viewof the possibility of Romanseizure ofhisassets.IttookCato nearly two years,presumably, to liquidate the king'sproperty. In any event, Ptolemy andhisavaricearethecounterfoilsto Catoandhis honesty; thelatterwas above soiling his handswith filthy lucre, although hehadsucha goldenoppor- tunity of doing so (cf. Val.Max.4.3. 2). Thenewsof Ptolemy's deathwasun- doubtedly carried posthaste toRhodes. Catodeterminedto go firstto Byzan- tiumandsendhis nephewBrutus, con- venientlyconvalescing in Pamphylia, toassumethe responsibility forcol- lecting theassetsofthelate king. Cato was beginning toentertain suspicions ofCanidius' integrity, nowthatthe latterhadthewhole royal estateathis disposal. Asamatterof fact, lateron Cato foundhis fears respecting Canidius were groundless(Plut. Cat. min. 37). It seemsthe Byzantine mattercameoff wellwithout anydifficulty; weare given noreasontothinkotherwiseand presumably the majesticpresence ofa Romancommissionerwas enough to overawethetowninto compliance with thewillof Clodius, thatis to say of"the Roman people." From Byzantium Cato finally sailedto Cyprus(Plut. Cat. min. 36, Brutus 3). We may assumethathe arrivedon theislandatthelatestsome- timebeforethe sailing seasonclosedin autumn, 68B.C.37 Onceon Cyprus Catomust arrange thedetailsofitsfuture governanceby Rome; unfortunatelyonly afew scraps ofinformation concerning his regula- tionshavecomedownto us, since Plutarchhasnointerestwhatsoeverin mattersofthiskind.Thecitiesseemto havereceiveda greaterdegree oflocal autonomy than before, iffornoother reasonthantheendofthecentralized administrationof thePtolemies.38 After Cato's departureCyprus wasaddedto the jurisdiction ofthe governor ofCili- cia (Cic. Fam.1.7. 4, cf.Att.5.21. 6-7, 6.2. 9). Thereisnohintinthesources thateitherofClodius'lawshadcon- tained anyproviso onthis point; we knowit only fromtheallusionsof Cicero. Presumably, therefore, inac- cordancewithnormalRomanconsti- tutional procedure thesenate provided forthefutureadministrationoftheis- land byjoining ittoCilicia in its regular determinationof provinces. Catoleft Cyprus in56B.c.andinthat year itis spoken ofas part ofthe province of Lentulus Spinther(Cic. Fam.1.7. 4), consulin57.But according tothe Sempronian Law, stillin force, the senatemustdeterminetheconsular provinces before theconsulswho were to administerthemwere elected; henceor- dinarily some eighteen months before the men concerned would begin their provin- cialadministrations.Theconsularelec- tionsin68for67 wereheld at theusual timein (the latterhalf of)July(Cic. Att.3.14.1,13. 1, 12. 1), sothesenate presumably set Cyprus as part ofthe consular province ofCiliciabeforethe 102 CATO"UTICENSIS"ANDTHEANNEXATIONOFCYPRUS last part of July.39 This hypothesis also agrees withthe assumption that just as Clodiuswasanxiousto keep Cato away as long as possible, sothe Optimates wouldhavedesiredhisreturnatan early date. Byearlysummer,58, Pom- pey hadbeen estranged fromClodius andthe Optimates could begin tothink ofseriousresistancetothe demagogue. TherecallofCicerowas alreadybeing agitated andinsuchamoodthesenate might well proceed totakeactionwhich wouldamount eventually toarecallof Clodius'otherbete noire.40 The principalpurpose in annexing Cyprus,however, wasfinancial-the seizureoftheresourcesofthe king. Certainly itwashis management ofthe royalproperty thatmost impressed the Romanswhen they consideredCato's achievementson Cyprus, even although, despite Florus (1. 44. 5), he actually didnot bring backmore tothe treasury than anytriumph. Cato liquidated mostoftheassetsofthe king ina great sale; someofthe king's slavesand theminesof Cyprus werenotsold.41 Mostaccounts implystrongly that only personal(notreal)property wasdis- posedof, butthisisalmost certainly untrue.Itistobetakenfor granted thatthePtolemieshad possessed landed estatesand perhaps otherreal property on Cyprus inthenormalfashionof Hellenistic kings. Plutarch (Cat. min. 36) dwellson thevarious pieces of costly bric-a-brac, which passed underthe hammerlikethetreasuresofthemost recent royal successorofthe Egyptian Ptolemies.Yetthebest authority, Cicero, plainly showsthatthewhole property ofthe king wassold-a slight exaggeration,yet itconfirmswhatone would expect ona priorigrounds.42 Plutarchandmostoftheancientsour- cesare fascinatedtotheexclusionof all else by the spectacle ofthesternand upright Cato disposing of royalfrip- peries, theodiousPersicos apparatus of a degenerate monarch.Arecordofa fewchoice specimens ofwhathesold hasbeen preserved: the poisonous aphrodisiac cantharides (Pliny NIl29. 96), and Babyloniandining roomfur- nishings(ibid. 8. 196); ontheother handwitha proper senseofthetrue valuesof life, he did notsell but brought away withhimthestatueofa philos- opher.43 Of special interestis the way in which Catoconductedthissale.Plutarchde- scribesitthus: Cato, wishing totreat everything with the greatest exactness, and toforce every- thingup toa high price, and toattendto everythinghimself, and touse theutmost calculation, wouldnottrusteventhose who were accustomed tothe market, but, suspecting all alike,assistants,criers, buyers, and friends, andatlast talking privately himself with the purchasers and encouraging each one to bid, he thussuc- ceeded in selling most of the merchandise.44 The purpose of the passage is obviously to praise Catoforhisconscientious diligence inthismatter.Plutarch's principalauthority is the eulogy written by Thrasea Paetus, condemnedinA.D. 66 byNero, in part for trying tobea kindofCato under theJulio-Claudians. Paetusinturnbasedhisworkonan accountwritten byMunatius, aclose friendof Cato.Munatius quarreled with Catoin Cyprus, butwaslaterrecon- ciledwithhim.45Henceif something notfavorabletoCato appears inPlu- tarch's biography inasection resting ultimately onthe authority ofMuna- tius, itis unconsciously written so, and therefore unprejudiced. NowwhatCato didcan only bedescribedaswhat Americansknow as "high-pressure sales- manship"; itmustalsobebornein mindthatCatowasthe representative 103 STEWARTIRWINOOST ofallthe power and majesty ofRome on Cyprus. The powers ofan ordinary provincialgovernor were greatenough, butCatowas makingarrangements whichcould favorably or unfavorably affectthefortunesand happiness of the Cypriotesindefinitely; hewasestab- lishing thenorms by which subsequent governors of theislandwouldbe guided. Underthe circumstances, since the Cyp- riotescouldnothavebeenunawareof the way inwhichRomanofficialsin nearby Asia Minor, for example, used their powers of coercitio, wedo nothave to imagine thatCatohadtoresortto crudeforceto "persuade" many ofhis customersto buy at artificiallyhigh prices. Andbestof all, hewas staying withinthe laws; hewasnot extorting technically; hewasnot legallyabusing his powers. A good and truly conscien- tiousadministratorwouldhave recog- nizedthissituationandmadeallow- ancesforit. Entirelyapart fromwhat weare toldaboutCato'smethods here, thereisnoreasonto suppose that Catodidso - Catowhocontemnedthe Greeksasmulierculaeall (Cic. Mur. 31, cf. O#. 3. 88), Catowho naturally thereforeexactedalldue respect for his prerogatives andrank from the pro- vincials.46 InthisfashionCato managed toac- cumulatethe astonishing totalofnear- ly seventhousandtalentsfromthenot verylarge islandof Cyprus. Whenthis sumis viewedas thetotalvalueof both thecrown property andthe personal possessions of the king, it appearsquite modest; butwhenitisconsideredas theamountof money thatthoseassets brought atforced sale, itseems very large(Vell. 2.45. 5).Probably a high percentage ofthe purchasers were Cyp- riotes.47Thatmuch maligned man, C. Verres, managed to squeeze outof theislandof Sicilyonly HS 40,000,000 (Cic. 1Verr. 66), whichamountsto merely somewhatlessthanseventeen hundredtalents.Of course, Verreswas extortingonly for his privateprofit and hismethodswererather crude; Cato was zealouslydoing his duty forthe good of thestate.Fromall his vastcon- quests intheeast Pompey theGreat brought backas bootyonly146,000,000 denarii,48 orlessthan 24,500 talents. Quite properly didCato equate his achievementswiththereductionofa countrybyconquest(Dio 39.22.4-23. 1). Hewasnot beingstrictly accurate whenhesaidthathiscontributionof treasuretoRome surpassedPompey's (Plut. Cat. min. 45), butintermsofthe relative proportions oftheterritories eachhadtodraw from, he probably hadacase! Somedoubthasbeenraised49con- cerning the validity of thetotalof near- ly seventhousandtalents.Itcanbe shown,however, thattheultimate sourceof Plutarch'sdiscussionof Cato's financial arrangements is trustworthy. Inthesamesentenceinwhichhemen- tionsthe nearly seventhousandtalents Plutarch (Cat. min. 38)says thatin order to transport this great amountof money backtoRomeCatohadanum- berofboxes made, each containing two talents, fivehundreddrachmas. Thisisa verystrange unitofmeasure- mentif understoodin theseterms. Why nottwotalents even, for example ? But thissum equals12,500drachmas; the Atticdrachmawas regularlyequated totheRoman denarius;50 and 12,500 denarii equal HS 50,000, whichisa round figure suchasonewould expect for the purpose. Itshouldalsobe noted thatRomanbusinessmen regularly kept theiraccountsinsesterces.51 Plu- tarchorhissourcehas simply trans- latedtheRomanamountintoGreek terms. 104 CATO"UTICENSIS"ANDTHEANNEXATIONOFCYPRUS Cato, whoearlierinlifeas quaestor urbanus (64 B.C. ?) hadconstitutedhim- selfthe faithful watchdog ofthe treasury (Plut. Cat. min. 16-18),prepared a care- ful accounting of his stewardship on Cy- prus intwo copies, but unfortunately both copies wereloston the wayhome, oneina shipwreck, theotherina fire. Later this misfortune gave Clodius, abet- ted byCaesar, a handletoaccusehisold enemy of embezzlement, butwithout result.52 Now, itisclearfrom Plutarch's account (Cat. min. 38) thatthesewere the onlycopies ofthe accounts, for Catowas thoroughlyannoyed because to prove his spotlessintegrity hehadto relyupon the testimony ofthe royal bailiffswhomhehad brought backwith him, ratherthanhisownaccounts.The onlypossible conclusioncanbethathe hadnotleft any other copies ofhisac- countson Cyprus,for, if so, itwould havebeena simple mattertofetchan- other copy. Yetthisis verystrange. TheLexIulia repetundarum ofCaesar's consulship(59B.C.) hadordainedthat provincialgovernors must deposit a copy oftheiraccountsintwodifferent citiesoftheir province(Cic. Att.6.7. 2, cf.Fam.5.20. 2) aswellasforwarda copy tothe treasury atRome (Cic. Fam.5.20. 2). Ciceroclaims (Sest. 61) thatCato obeyed evenlawsofwhich he disapproved, andhecould hardly have disapproved of thislawwhichwas oneofCaesar'smoststatesmanlike pieces of legislation and which, with minor changes, wasstillinforceinthe age ofJustinian (Dig. 48. 11). When Catowas praetor he obeyed theJulian lawseven though,typically, herefused tousetheir name, butresortedtoridic- ulouscircumlocutions (Dio 38.7. 6). Perhaps thelawwasnot technically applicable toone holding anextra- ordinary commissionsuchasCato's.53 Buteventhisconsiderationdoesnot absolve him; ifhewasasanxiousashe supposedly wasto put hisaccounts beyond reachof misadventure, itwould havebeen onlyelementary cautionto leavea copy behindhimin Cyprus, regardless ofthelaw.Andsincethis lawwasin existence, theideacouldnot havefailedtooccurtohim.Theharsh- estcriticsofCato's handling ofhisac- counts acquit himofmalfeasancebe- cause "rapacity cannotbe proved against Catoon any otheroccasion."54 Nevertheless, they have neglected an- other aspect ofhischaracter.However honestand principled he may havebeen inhisown person, hewasabletoover- lookmuchforthebenefitofmembers ofhis family. He stooped to bribery to help elect Bibulus, his son-in-law, to the consulship(Suet. Iul.19. 1), and later urged thata supplicatio of twenty days bevotedforthatsameBibulus' nonexistent exploits in Syria(Cic. Att. 7.2. 7). Evenmore significantly, earlier inhislifewhenitwas suspected that theconsularelectionshadbeenat- tendedwith bribery, Cato swore public- ly thathewould prosecute thebribe- giver, whoeverhe might be, unlessit werehis brother-in-law, Silanus (Plut. Cat.min. 21; cf.Cic.Mur. 62). Cato's nephew,Brutus, waswithhimin Cy- prus and deeply involvedin itsfinancial administration. Nor, aswillbe seen, canBrutusbe exculpated ofthe charge of rapacity.Actually,however, allthis circumstantialevidence provesnothing against eitherCatoor Brutus, but Cato'sconductis certainlyopen to strongsuspicion.55 IfheorBrutuswere guilty of irregularity, what happened iswhat they wouldhavecontrivedto happen. ThementionofBrutusinthiscon- nection bringsup afamousmatter whichis directly connectedwithhis presence ontheislandwithhisuncle. 105 STEWART IRWINOOST BrutusreturnedtoRomeataboutthe sametimeasCatoin56B.C. (Plut. Brutus 3). Beforethe year wasovera delegation atRomefromthe Cypriote city ofSalamis attempted toborrowa sumof moneyconsiderably lessthan onehundredtalents.56 Unfortunately a Gabinianlawofeither67or58B.C.57 forbadethe lending of money to pro- vincialsat Rome.Twodifferentsenatus- consulta,however, wereobtainedwhich madean exception tothelawinthis casetotheeffectthatthis particular contractshouldbe validat lawand that thereshouldlienoaction against either ofthe parties for making thecontract. Thesetwodecreeswere procured by the influenceofBrutus (Cic. Att.5.21. 11-12),supposedly forhisfriendsthe lenders, includingpresumably the Scap- tiusandMatiniuswholatertriedto collectthedebton Cyprus;actually Brutushimselfwasthereal lender, or atleasthis money was heavily involved (Cic. Att.6.1. 5). Asthe sharplegaleye of Cicero was quick to see,however, the senatusconsultasaid nothing about'the rateofinterest (Cic. Att.5.21. 12, 6.2. 7), andthe startling featureof thiscon- tractwasinterestat forty-eight per cent (Cic. Att.5.21. 11). Itis impossible toseehowthiscontractwasnot grossly usurious.Ithasbeen pointed outthat otherinstancesofthisrateinthis peri- odareknown (e.g., at Gytheum in Greece58), anditis frequently heldthat therewasconsiderablerisk involved, which justifies the high interest.59 Never- theless, one example of usury doesnot justify another, andithasbeen pointed out by W.W.Tarn60 thatmostofthe borrowing oftheHellenisticcitiesdoes notindicate poverty(i.e., that they were poorrisks), but simply that they hadno plannedoperatingbudget. Be- sides, theSalaminianswereableto pay ata reasonableratein50 B.C. (Cic. Att. 5.21. 12). Cicero inhis provincial edict for Cilicia-Cyprusthought thattwelve per centwasreasonable (ibid.11), and atleastheflatteredhimselfthateven themost graspingmoneylenders were satisfiedwiththatrate (ibid. 6.1. 6). Thesenateitself thought thattwelve percent wasa proper ratewhenitfixed interestatthatamountinadecreeof 50B.C.61 andsome years beforethis Lucullushadsetthesameratefor Asia (Plut. Luc. 20). Aboveall Cicero, fa- miliarwithconditionsinhis province, hasno patience withthe attempt to exact forty-eightpercent, andBrutus himselfhideshisrealconnectionwith theloanuntilhe isdriventorevealitin the hope of persuading Cicero tocollect the money. ThatBrutus himself, how- ever, didnotconsiderSalamisabad riskisshown by hisinsistence (through Scaptius)upon forty-eighttpercent in 50 B.C., eventothe point of rejecting a full accounting atthelowerrate (Cic. Att. 5.21.12, 6.2. 7). Ifhewas willing to continue trusting his money inthe handsofthe Salaminians, he obviously had no real fear of losing it.Hewas even unwilling tohaveit deposited ina temple for safekeeping(Cic. Att.5.21. 12). Hewantedhisfull pound offlesh andwassure thathewould get iteven- tually.62 ButiftheSalaminianswere notbad risks,why could they notob- tainthe money elsewhereatamore favorablerate?Nocertainanswerto the question canbe made, sinceweare left only toinferthecircumstancesof the originalnegotiation oftheloan fromCicero'saccountofBrutus' at- tempt tocollectitlaterandnomore wastoldCicerothanwas absolutely necessary; buta veryuglysuggestion mustbemade.Brutus (as wellas Cato) wasthe patronus ofthe Cypriotes at Rome (Cic. Att.6.1. 5).Accordingly whensomeofthemcametoRome 106 CATO"UTICENSIS"AND THEANNEXATIONOF CYPRUS seeking a favor, they wouldfirstask theassistanceoftheir patronus. But having once sought the help oftheir patronus, itwouldbe impolitic, evenif possible (andBrutus, althoughyoung, wasa very influential man,obviously), to go elsewhere.The helplessprovincials wouldbeatthe mercy oftheirmentor. Ifthisis so, and itseems veryprobable, thenitcan only meanthatBrutus purely and simplyengaged inanout- rageouspiece of profiteering attheex- pense oftheunfortunate Salaminians, andusedhis fiduciaryposition as patro- nustodoso.63 Butthe point thatisrelevanttothe present discussionis thattheevenmore self-righteous Catomusthave acqui- escedinthiscold-blooded highway robbery. Catowasalso patronus ofthe Cypriotes(Cic. Att.6.1. 6, Fam.15.4. 15). AtRome they wouldhavecome tohim in theirneedas wellas toBrutus. Butwehave previously seenthatCato turnedablind eye tothe peccadilloes ofhisrelatives.Cicero implies(Att. 5. 21.13,6.2. 8) thatCato is cognizant at leastoflater developments.64 Onemust alsorememberthatCicero is trying his besttoavoid offending not only Brutus butCatoas well, andconsidertheim- plications ofwhattheoratordoes per- mithimselftowriteto Atticus,who, himselfa moneylenderbyprofession, may wellnothavebeen entirely un- sympathetic toBrutus' point ofview. WearealsotoldthatCatowascareful to keep an eye on provincial affairs (Plut. Cat.min. 19), andthiswouldbe trueofmatters affectingCyprus a for- tiori.Inturnthe probableacquiescence ofCatointhisaffairreinforcesthein- ferencemadeaboveaboutthemanner inwhichCatoconductedhissaleof the king'sproperty; italsothrowsa lurid light onthemannerin which, quite withintheletterofthe law, Cato veryprobably administeredhis prov- ince. So, havingtriumphantlydischarged his mission, CatoreturnedtoRome withhis nearly seventhousandtalents in56 B.C., conveniently orinconven- ientlylosing hisaccountsonthe way. TheviewofMommsenthatCato's returnwas quite latein56is generally accepted.65 Mommsen argued thatCato wasnotinRomewhenCicero spoke in behalfofSestius (March) (Sest.60) and when, aftertheconferenceat Luca, the senatedebatedthematterofCaesar's commandin Gaul, Cato wasstillabsent (Plut. Caes. 21). Hencehewasnotat Romeinthe spring of 56; butsincehe travelledincold'weather (Plut. Cat. min. 38), hereturnedtowardtheend of56. This reconstruction,however, neg- lectsthe passage inCicero'sletterto Lentulus Spinther in Cilicia, inwhich theformerremarksthatthelattercon- trolsCiliciaand Cyprus(Fam. 1.7. 4). Thiscan only meanthatCatohasleft theislandatthetimeCicero writesand Cicero knowsit. Tyrrell and Purserdate thisletterto July,66, becauseinit (7.11) CicerothanksLentulusforhis congratulations in thematterof Tullia's betrothalto Crassipes(April) and ap- proximately threemonthswouldbe required forthenewsofthistoreach CiliciafromRomeandLentulus'con- gratulations tomakethe oppositejour- ney.66 Tyrrell and Purser,however, do notdiscussthe question of an ante quem for theletter.Cicero andLentuluswere incontinualcommunication during this year onthesituationatRomewhere Cicero was carefullywatching the argu- mentovertherestorationofAuletesto histhroneand reporting to Lentulus, forwhomtheoratorhadthemostcor- dial feelings. Lentulushaddonemuch tofacilitateCicero'sreturnfromexile. 107 STEWARTIRWINOOST Hencetheoratorwouldhaveacknow- ledged Lentulus' congratulations ata veryearly dateafter having received them. August, therefore, would prob- ably bethelatestdatefor the letterand July is better.HenceCato did not travel toRomeinthefallof56.Butthedata given fitthe spring ofthe yearequally well. Cato, ladenwithhisimmense treasure, wouldnothavesetsailwith ituntiltheseasweresafeinthe spring. Onesetofhisaccountswas apparently destroyedby accident,by afirewhich hismenlittowarmthemselves during acold night on Corcyra. Theancient sailing season opened about10March by ourcalendar.IfCato got a fairly early starthewouldreach Corcyraby April whenthe nights wouldstillbe chillyenough tomakefires desirable, especially forthose camping inthe open air.67From Corcyra, sailing around Italy and possiblySicily tothe Tyr- rhenianSeaandhomewould require at leasta month, ifnot more, and prob- ablybring Cato homesometimein May, perhaps evenJune.Theconferenceof Lucawasheldinthelatter part of April intheRoman (Flavian) calendar of the day.According tooneofthetwo majorsystems for equating theFlavian calendaratthistimewithours (Julian- Gregorian), thiswasinthelatter part ofMarch (Julian);according tothe other system thetwocalendarswere almostin agreement in the spring of 56.68 Ineithercasetherewas ample timefor thesenatetomeettodebatethe ques- tionofCaesar'scommandbeforeCato arrived.It may alsobe pointed outthat inthe passage cited (Sest.60) Cicero implies thatCatowillsoon arrive; this agrees betterwithanarrivaldatein May/June than,say, in October/No- vember. Littleneedbesaidin judgment on theRomanannexationof Cyprus. That therewas no justification for it, morally, orinthefetiallawofRome (cf. Cic. Sest.57:"nullisrebus repetitis") is self-evident.ButCatohimself appears in hardly a better light; if nomore than suspicion of illegality canbelaidathis door, neverthelessthathe displayed no considerationforthe subjects ofhis province, butexercisedtheunrestrained pressure andinfluencewhichthenor- malcoercitioofaRoman magistrate placed inhis grasp, seems veryprob- able.His conception ofthelawnever entailed clemency or mercy(cf. Plut. Cat.min. 4; Cic.Mur. 62), amostun- favorablecontrastwiththemildnessof the great Juliusinthis respect anda contrastnoted by their contemporaries (Sall. Cat. 54. 2-3). To Cato theletterof thelawwas synonymous with justice -exceptionbeing madeforthebenefit ofhis family.Entirelyapart fromthe traditional typical Roman morality whichfeltlittle responsibility tonon- Romans,69 his attitudetowardthe moral issuesinherentinBrutus' lending was probably muchlikethat expressedby thelateCalvin Coolidge: "Well,they hiredthe money, didn't they ?"70That this legalism wasthemeasureofhis probity isalsobornout by such epi- sodesashisfamousrefusalonanother occasiontoremita portion of theircon- tract price tothe publicans,despite the politicaladvisability ofsuchameasure (Cic. Att.1.18. 7, 2.1. 8), ameasure whichwould promote whatCatohim- selfwanted. Many similar examples couldbeadduced.Catoshows upvery badly incontrastwiththewarmhu- manity of Cicero, who professed toad- mireandesteemhim.Cato'sStoicism was obviouslymerely athin glue to piecetogether his interpretations of the dogmas ofanarchaicand fadingpast by whichheorderedhis life, buteven here he failedtolive up tohis ideal.His 108 CATO"UTICENSIS"ANDTHEANNEXATIONOFCYPRUS 109 idolized ancestor, the great Censor, hadduce,themenoftheMiddle Ages who, condemnedboththe oppression ofthelikeDante,sawinthe coming ofthe provincials and particularly theex- Empire adivine dispensationmay well tortionofinterestfromthem.71 Ifsuchhavebeen right. a hardheartandcruel manwas thebest thatthe waningRepublic could pro- SOUTHERNMETHODISTUNIVERSITY NOTES 1. Cf. G. Boissier, Ciceroand his Friends (trans. by A.D. Jones; New York, n. d.),p.277, on thedifficulties in trying tounderstand Cato. On Cato generally, see M. Gelzer, "Cato Uticensis," Die Antike, X (1934),59-91;A. Afzelius, "Die politische Bedeutung des jingerenCato," Classica et Mediae- valia, IV (1941), 100-203. 2. Varro, citedbyApp.Bell.civ.2.9.Theusualand probably correct view is that Clodius was primarily the tool of Caesar, cf. e.g., M. Cary, CAH, IX (Cambridge, 1932), 522. 3.T. R. Holmes, The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire (Oxford,1923),II, 53andn. 1,pointsoutthat there is no direct evidence that Clodius was acting as Caesar's agent inCato's case, savethedubious statementof Clodius, repeated by Cicero (Dom. 22), thatCaesar had congratulated him on Cato's removal. Holmes, however, agrees thatCaesar was the moving force behind Clodius on this occasion, because he was also behind the exile of Cicero. YetPlut.Cat. min. 34 surely can onlymeanthatthetriumviratewasbehindthe silencing of Cato;App. Bell.civ.2. 23,althoughwrongly dating the whole affair to 52 B.c., also connects Cato's mission withthe triumvirate, or rather, with Pompey. Cicero (Dom. 65 and elsewhere) of courselinkshis own exile with the mission ofCato as part of thenefarious plans of Clodius. Sir George Hill, A History of Cyprus, I (Cambridge,1949), 206-7, appears to giveClodius allthecredit for theannexationof Cyprus. 4.Dio38. 30.5.Strabo 14. 684 says that Ptolemy sent a ransom, butso small a onethatthe pirates contemptuously refused it and released Clodius without payment. This version of the story is particularly suspect; except in romance pirates do notturn down ransom for their captives, however small, ifthealternativeis no profit atall. App. Bell. civ. 2. 23 says that Ptolemycontributed onlytwotalents. Hill,Cyprus, I, 206, accepts the story with onlyvery slight reservation. 5. ByHolmes, II,53, followed byD. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton, 1950), I, 384; II,1246, n. 22. 6. ByV. Chapot, "LesRomainset Chypre," Melanges Cagnat(Paris, 1912), pp. 65-66. Chapot points out that Cicero (Fam.1.7. 4-5)says toLentulus thatthe lattercan restore Auletes to Egypt, for "you control Cilicia and Cyprus." This, Chapot maintains, shows the strategic value of Cyprus for an attackon Egypt.Perhaps, butthatisnotthe point. Cicero tells Lentulus that Lentulus is in a good position to restore the king because the latter is governor of Cyprus and Cilicia, i.e., he is not governor of Cisalpine Gaul, for example. The Romans alreadyheld Syriaand Gabinius showed how easy itwas to strike from there at Egypt. M. Radin, Marcus Brutus (Oxford, 1939), p. 70, emphasizes the value of Cyprusfor controlling the pirates oftheEast Mediterranean; there may be something tothis argument.Radin (ibid.) thinksthata"new Roman corn supplywasneeded." True, Cyprus produced grain(cf. Hill,Cyprus,I,173), but whywasdirectruleoftheisland necessary to buy it ? 7. Cleopatra, of course, wasstillunknown at Rome; and whatcouldevenshe accomplishwithoutthe legionsof Antony ? 8. Ruflus FestusBreviarium 13. 1, confirmed also by his contemporary Amm. Marc. 14. 8. 15.Sen. Cons. ad Marc. 20. 6 implies thatthe moneybrought back by Cato was stillin the treasury when theCivil War broke out, butthis passage seems merely vapid rhetoric. 9.Suet. Iul.54. 3; cf. Caes. Bell. civ. 3. 107. 2. For details see A. Bouchi-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, II (Paris, 1904), 135-36. The fiscal reason is probably the usual view;see, e:g., M. Cary, A History of Rome (London, 1938), p.390; W.W. HowandH.D. Leigh, A History of Rome (London,1896), p.503;Jolliffe, PhasesofCorruption, pp.74ff., citedbut rejected by Magie, II,1246, n. 22. 10. Cic. Dom. 20 (cf. Sest. 57) connects thetwo Ptolemies as reigning intheirkingdomsby thesameright.Thatthe triumvirs feltno personal animus toward Ptolemy of Cyprus is shown by the offer to make him priest at Paphos as a con- solationprize. Theoffer wastransmittedbyCato, butthis would not be Cato's own initiative, as the language of Plutarch (Cat. min.35) implies: "the [Roman] people would givehim the priesthood... " 11. That there were two separate acts is strongly implied by the epitomator ofLivy104:"Lege lataderedigenda in provinciae formam Cyproetpublicandapecuniaregia,M. Catoni administratio eius rei mandata est" (cf. Dio 38. 30. 5). Butthematteris placedbeyondalldoubtbyCic. Sest. 62: "regno enimiampublicato, de ipso Catone eratnominatim rogatum"; Dom.20:"cum lege nefariaPtolemaeum... publicasses...,[Clodi,] bello gerendo M. Catonem praefecisti." Cf. also Sest. 63; Schol. Bob. in Cic. Sest. 60-61 (p. 133 Stangl). Appian,although heisconfused insomedetailsandinhis chronology, also clearly indicates that there were two separate legal acts (Bell. civ.2.23). InDom.52-53Cicero accuses Clodius of proposing a satura, contrarytotheLexCaecilia Didia, whenhe lumped therestorationoftheByzantine exiles and theannexationof Cyprus together in one bill; yet hedoes notmentionthe appointment ofCato as part of the same law, andhe certainly wouldnothaveneglectedthis ammunitionifithadbeenavailable(cf.Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms, II [Leipzig, 1902], 226, and n. 3). In Dom. 52 Cicero represents Clodius assaying thatthelawwasnota satura because its execution was entrusted to one person. This could possibly mean:(1) Cato was specified inthelawas its executor; or (2) thefirst law provided thatone person carry it into effect; or (3) since Cato was entrusted with both tasks by thesecond law, thefirst lawhadbeenexecutedbyone person. In the light of the statements quoted at the beginning of this note the first possibility shouldbeexcluded. The lan- guage ofDom.53alsoseemstoexcludethefirst possibil- ity, sinceotherwiseCicerocouldwellhavesaidthatthe Roman people might havewanted Cyprus annexedand the Byzantine exiles restored, buttohaveCato kept athome. N.B.:Thecrucial passages inSest.62-63arenotlisted by T.R.S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Re- public, II (NewYork,1952), 198. 12. Magie, I,384-85;J.Carcopino, Cesar3 (Paris, 1943), p. 763; Holmes, II,53; Cary, Rome, p. 390 (Cary is ambiguous in CAH,IX,527);Drumann, inDrumann-Groebe,II, 224-25 (corrected by Groebe's eagle eye,II,225, n. 2); W. H. Engel,Kypros: Eine Monographie, I (Berlin,1841),436-37; Afzelius, Classica et Mediaevalia, IV (1941),162;allspecify but one law. Hill,Cyprus, I, 206; E. Meyer, CaesarsMonarchie und das Principat des Pompeius2 (Stuttgart,1919), pp. 89-90 (cf.p.97);Chapot,MelangesCagnat, p.65;Broughton, Magistrates,II,196; are ambiguous. G. Rotondi,Leges Publicae Populi Romani (Milan, 1912), p.397, thinksthere STEWARTIRWINOOST was only one law, apparently only because Cato was wanted outofthewayand hence wassenttoexecutethelaw.The truth of the matter, however, thatthere were twosuccessive laws was seen by L. Lange, R&mischeAlterthiimer2,III (Berlin, 1876),305 (cf.1sted. [Berlin,1871], III,297); A.Bouch&- Leclercq, "La Question d'Orient au temps de Ciceron," Rev. hist.,LXXIX (1902),241-65;LXXX (1902),1-24;at LXX1X,259;cf.idem, Histoire des Lagides,1,137,140; W.E.Heitland,TheRomanRepublic,III (Cambridge, 1909),150;Gelzer, DieAntike, X (1934), 80. 13. LivyEp.104;cf.Dio38.30.5;Vell.2.38.6 (the statementofV.thatthiswas done bya senatusconsultumis plainlyerroneous);Pomp. Trog. Prol.40;RuflusFestus Breviarium 13.1 (Festus' statementthatthiswas a lex data instead of a lex rogata is also plainly in error); Schol. Bob. in Cic. Sest. 57 (p.133 Stangl). 14. App.Bell. civ. 2. 23; Pomp. Trog. Prol. 40;and most oftheother sources, of course, byimplication. 15. Cic. Dom. 20, 52-53;Livy Ep. 104; Schol. Bob. in Cic. Sest.61(p.133 Stangl); Flor.1.44.3;cf.RuflusFestus Breviarium 13. 1. 16. Cic. Dom. 52; Plut.Cat. min.36:theking's property lv8eL 7rTpaOtaocv?aepyuptLo0v0ac;cf. 38.The passage from Cicero shows that this clause was in the first law (for the same considerations discussed below, n. 19) and not a more explicit instructionaddedbythesecondlaw.Hill,Cyprus, I,208, represents thedecision tosell theking's property as Cato's. 17. ThisinferenceisbasedonDio39.22.3,whosays thatthe Cypriotes welcomedCato sincetheyexpectedto befriends and associates(aoS,6uaxo == socii) ofthe Romans insteadofslaves(Hill,Cyprus,I,208,n.2,following Chapot,Mdlanges Cagnat,p.67,n.1,thinksthatDiois beingnaive). Thisis veryhard tobelieve;thatanysizable number of the islanders should have been of this opinion after witnessingthecharacter ofRomanrule intheEastinthis period isincredible. More likely,wehave here, as indicated inthetext,atraceof theRomanofffcialcantregarding theacquisitionofforeignkingdoms.Themostfamous exampleisMacedonia, whichbyaSCof168 was declared free.Itwasthendividedintofour parts,madetributary, andsubjecttoalargenumberofregulations; Illyria was similarlytreated(Livy45.18) andtheexplicitstatement ismadethatRomebrings"freedom" toslaves,i.e., the subjects ofkings(ibid. 18.2).Cf. J.A.0.Larsen, "Repre- sentationandDemocracyinHellenisticFederalism,"CP, XL(1945),65-97,at88-91,andthecontrastedideasof "monarchy," "slavery," "freedom," in Justin38.2.7-8(cf. Strab.12.540),Polyb.36.17.13.WhattheGreeks came eventuallytothinkofRomangrants oflibertas iswell epitomizedbythevulgar jibeattheexpense ofthe libertas ofCorcyra repeatedbyStrabo(7Frag.8[Jones]). On the conceptoflibertas seeC.Wirszubski, Libertas (Cambridge, 1950),pp.1-30,withthereservationthattheauthoris discussingthelibertas ofRomansratherthanofsubject peoples.ThelawmayalsohaveallegedthatPtolemy was "ungratefultohisbenefactors"[!],i.e.,theRomans(cf. Strab. 14. 684). 18. Before Cato arrived in Cyprus he senttotellthe king lePooa6v72v..* acTr [Ptolemy] rTivIIl&cpi0ouc586bvr6v 81tAov(Plut.Cat.min. 35). T.R.S.Broughton, "Roman AsiaMinor," AnEconomicSurveyofAncientRome, ed. by T.Frank, IV(Baltimore, 1938), 499-916, at534, appears tothinkthatthePaphosoffer originated withCato.But surelysoimportantamatterofstatepolicy asthefinal disposition ofthedeposed king would notbe left entirely to thedecision ofCato-especiallybyhispolitical foes ? 19. Cic. Dom.52-53(thisclearly shows thatCyprus and Byzantium were both treated in the first law, when the passage is compared withSest. 62 and Dom. 20 [quoted above, n.11 ad init.]);Sest. 56; Har. resp. 59;Schol. Bob.in Cic. Sest. 56 (p.132 Stangl); Plut.Cat. min.34. 20.On Alexander IIsee App. Bell. civ. 1. 102; for his will, Cic. 2 De leg. agr. 41; for a discussion of the problem involved, Bouche-Leclercq, Rev.hist.LXXIX (1902), 244-45 ;idem, Hist. des Lagides,II,117-21;Hill,Cyprus,I,204.Bouche- Leclercq, Lagides, II,138;Engel,I,439;Drumann-Groebe, II,225; agree thatthe will of Alexander was the legal excuse for the law; see also Magie, I,384. 21.Schol.Bob.inCic. Sest. 57(p.133Stangl):"ferente autem rogationemClodio publicatum fuerateius regnum, quod diceretur abeo piratas adiuvari." 22.Cic. Flacc. 30enumerates thecauses whypiracyhas so greatlydeclined;amongthemisthefactthat "Cyprum perPtolemaeumregemnihilaudere." ApparentlyPtolemy checked anypiracyamong hissubjects;cf. Hill,Cyprus, I, 206 and n.4. 23. Cicero charges Clodius with having accepted bribes in the Byzantine matter (Har. resp.59), presumably from envoys whohadcome to plead theitcause inRome;andofcourse Cicero also maintains thatClodius was wreaking injustice by restoring the exiles(Sest. 56, withSchol. Bob.ad loc. [p. 132 Stangl]). 24. Although Plut.Cat. min.34isthesole authority for this, it is a priori probable; such sudden attentions from that quarter must conceal some sinister intent. It required no great penetration to discern the thorn in the rose. 25. Vell. Pat.2. 45. 4; De vir. ill. 80. 2; Plut.Cat. min.34 (cf. Pomp. 48); App.Bell. civ. 2. 23 (confused); Cic. Dom. 20, 21;Sest. 61, 62; LivyEp.104; Dio38. 30.5; Strab. 14. 684. On Cato's rank see W. F. Jashemski, The Origins and History of the Proconsularand the PropraetorianImperium (Chicago, 1950), pp.91, 80.The statementoftheBobbioScholiast (in Cic. Sest. 60, 61 [p. 133 Stangl]) thatCato was a legatus may be disregarded-either it is an erroror the scholiast is speaking loosely. So Broughton,Magistrates, II, 198.In general see J.Marquardt, RomischeStaatsverwaltung, I2 (Leipzig, 1881), 526-27.After his return from exile Cicero fumed thatthe law was a privilegium (cf. Gell. 10. 20. 4) and as such forbidden by the constitution(Dom. 43, cf. 50; Sest. 65); the law certainly conferred an extraordinary command (Dom. 21, Sest. 60). In Sest.60Cicero says thatClodiusandhisfriendsboasted openly thatthey had torn out Cato's tongue, always opposed to extraordinary powers. 26.Cat.min.34. Vell.2.45.4 says thathewasassisted by a quaestor, but thisis implicitly contradicted by Cic. Fam. 13.48.Thelast passage isadifficult one,however;seeR. Syme, "Observations on theProvince of Cilicia," Anatolian Studies Presented to William Hepburn Buckler (Manchester, 1939), pp. 299-332, at p. 324. 27. Cic. Att. 3.15.2; Plut.Cat. min. 35; Dio38.17.4. 28.SoRadin,op.cit.,p.67, allowancemadeforhis erroneous notionthatthesenate imposed thismissionon Cato; cf.Schol. Bob. in Cic. Sest. 61 (p. 133 Stangl). 29. Cato's interviewwithCicero beforethelatterleft: Plut.Cat. min. 34-35;cf. Cic. Att. 3.15.2; Dio38. 17. 4. Dio (38.30. 1,5) seems to imply thatPompey wasbeginning to agitate for Cicero'srecall before Clodius sent off Cato; actually Dio is very vague about the time and appears to have become tangled up in his chronology, going back to explain something hehad previously omitted.J.L.Strachan-Davidson, Cicero (NewYork,1911),p.234,contrary tothebeliefofmost scholars, holdsthatAtt.3.15.2meansthatCatodidnot adviseCicero to yield; thisisimmaterial,however,tothe chronological question whichisinterestedonly inthatthe interviewdidoccur.OnthedateofCicero's departure for exilethere has been a great amount ofdiscussion, and dates havebeenassigned overthewholeofMarch; see,e.g., M. Gelzer, s.v. "Tullius (29) (als Politiker)," RE, VIIA, 1 (1939), 827-1091, at 917 (first third of March); C. L. Smith, "Cicero's Journey intoExile,"HSCP, VII (1896),65-84,at77-78 (about 20 March, orearlier); Cary,CAH,IX,526(ca.21 March); Carcopino, p. 766 (thenight of19-20March). That Cato wasstillinRomeafterCicero leftisshown clearly by Cic. Sest. 60.Attempts todatemore exactly thepassage of the two laws here discussed are not much more than plausible guesswork:e.g.,Lange,III2,303-5; Groebe inDrumann- 110 CATO"UTICENSIS"ANDTHEANNEXATIONOFCYPRUS Groebe, II,552, inserting the laws about Cyprus and Cato into the chronology ofthelaws againstCicero workedout by W. Sternkopf, "{)ber die 'Verbesserung' desClodianischen Gesetzentwurfes de exilio Ciceronis," Philologus, LIX (1900), 272-304, at299-304. 30. The belief ofG. Walter, Brutus et la fin de la republique (Paris,1938), p.29, thatCato setoutatthe beginning of57 may be disregarded. It may beworth pointing outthatac- cording toboththe majorsystems for equating the pre- Julianor Flaviancalendar withtheJulian calendar thetwo calendars would have been in approximate agreement in this year. According to the system of Le Verrier, 1 April (Flavian) = 28 March (Julian)(tables in Napoleon III, Jules Cesar, II [NewYork,1866],502);according toGinzel et al.1 April (Flavian) = 29March (Julian)(tables in Drumann-Groebe, III,794). Hencethesea opened for easysailingaboutthe timewhen Clodius' Cyprus program was enacted. 31.Plut.Cat. min. 36; Vell. Pat.2.45. 5; Dio 39.22.2; etc. 32.Cic.Sest. 57;Dom. 20, 52.Cicero wassoanxiousto put Ptolemy in the best legal position possible that in Sest. 59 he saidthe king was amicus and socius. Indeed, the concept socius is so elasticthatone might ble ableto make outa fair case for Ptolemy. Cf. H. Horn, Foederati (Frankfurt,1930), p. 11:"Socius ist alles, was nichtcivisund nichthostis ist." TheassertionofAmm.Marc. 14.8.15andRuflusFestus Breviarium13.1that Ptolemy wasa foederatus mustbe rejected inthe lightofwhatCicero says. Cicero would have been only too happy to incriminate Clodius in an attack upon an allied king, had there been any grounds at all for the charge. 33. Hill,Cyprus, I,204, for example,suggeststhatthe absenceofanicknamefor Ptolemymay indicatethathe lackedcharacter.Cf. Drumann-Groebe,II,226;Chapot, Melanges Cagnat,p: 65. 34. Ruflus Festus Breviarium 13. 1 says that Ptolemy took his liferatherthan losehis treasures; Val.Max. 9.4.ext.1 hasaridiculoustalethatthe king intendedtothrowhis money into the sea (in order to prevent its falling into Roman hands), butatthelastmomentcouldnotbeartodoso. Contrast the glowing panegyric on the"unavariciousness"of Cato(ibid. 4. 3. 2).Moststultifiedofallis Appian's(Bell. civ. 2. 23) story thathe actually didthrowthe money into thesea.Ifhewere a miserwhointendedtokill himself, thiswould havebeenthenatural thing to do! Significant in theseanecdotesisthementionof money; aswillbe seen, Ptolemy's treasures actually includedmuchelse.Thisem- phasis on money confirmsthe suspicionthatthe report ofhisavaricerests onthe unexpectedsizeof thesumthat Cato managed to bring back to Rome from Cyprus (cf. Vell. Pat.2. 45. 5). Thisinturnaffords support tothe ideathat the king was unableto keep his kingdombecause he could not pay a large bribe. Itis easy for the unthinking to confuse capital with liquid assetsorincome. 35. Bouche-Leclercq, Lagides, II,140, n.1 = Rev. hist., LXXIX (1902), 259, n. 2;Hill,Cyprus, I, 206. Nevertheless Bouche-Leclercq(Rev.hist., LXXIX [1902],258)suggests that Ptolemyprobablythought hewouldbenefit by the effects of his brother's bribe without paying anything himself. 36. Hill, Cyprus, I, 174 and n. 3. 37. A plausibleapproximatechronologycanbeworked out:Ifheleft Rome,say, aboutthemiddleof May,two monthswouldbe ample to bring himtoRhodes (i.e., mid- July). A messenger traveling at topspeedbroughtaletter fromRometo Cybistra inCilicia in forty-sevendays(Cic. Att.5.19. 1);thiswasa greaterdistancethan merely to Rhodes. On the other hand Cato presumably would not make such phenomenal speed.Then Canidius wassenttoCyprus, Ptolemykilled himself, andthenewswas broughttoCato at Rhodes. Cato thereupon sent off a letter to Brutus. All this couldwellhave happened insixweeks' time,perhaps less. Then attheendof Augustorthe beginning ofSeptember Cato sailed to Byzantium, settledmatters there,and went to Cyprus.Sixmoreweeksshoulddoforthis.Foranother occasionaweektoten days hasbeencalculatedtobesuf- ficienttogo fromRhodes to the Hellespont-Bosporus region (seeF.W.Walbank,Philip V of Macedon [Cambridge, 1940],pp.134,315).ThiswouldbringCatoto Cyprus in October. Ifhis arrivalthere wasmuch laterthan that, one runs intodifficulty withthesailing onthewinter seas; but ifCato wasso anxious astosail atthattime ofthe year, he wouldhaveworkedwithmuchgreaterdispatchfromthe beginning; thisagain would put his movementsinthe good sailingseason.Itispossiblethathedidactwith greater celerity,but one can hardly puthis arrival inCyprus earlier thanAugust or September. 38. For whatcan be pieced together, see A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (Oxford, 1937), pp. 373-74 and nn. 39. Possibly, however, the senate could have added Cyprus to Lentulus' province at the time it instructed him to restore Ptolemyof Egypt to his throne (Cic. Fam. 1. 1. 3) (late in 57). There couldhavebeennotimelimitsettoCato'staskin Clodius' laws, for we are expressly told thatthe prime reason hewasalsosenttoByzantiumwastotakeupmore ofhis time(ifwecantrustPlut.Cat. min.34)Inanyevent,to keep Cato out of the way he would be allowed to take as much timeaspossible.Strabo14.684-85isclearlymistakenin saying thatthe island was made a praetorian province (as it was inStrabo's own day); cf. Hill,Cyprus, I,226, n.2. 40. Cf. Holmes, II,55; Cary, CAH, IX,527-28. 41.Dio39.23.2;Plut.Cat. min.39(theroyalsteward Nicias).Bouche-Leclercq,Rev.hist.,LXXIX(1902),261, suggeststhattheslaveswerethoseforwhichapurchaser couldnotbefound.Themineswerestatepropertyunder Augustus (Jos.Ant.16. 129), but earlier evidence is lacking; cf. Broughton, EconomicSurvey, IV, 534; Hill, Cyprus, I, 238. 42.Cic. Sest. 57: "Rex...cum bonis omnibus publicaretur" (cf. ibid. 59, Dom. 20, 52). On bona, "almost always denoting the whole of one's possessions," cf. Harpers' s.v. "bonus," II. B. 7. Strabo 14.684-85says that Cato disposed of the PaoL?xmL oolac whichone would ordinarily suppose to mean more than merely movable property. Jones, p.373, saw thatmore than themovablesofthekingweresold.Broughton,Economic Survey, IV,534 is ambiguous;he mentions ouaLx,but trans- lates it as "personal property," and then reproducesPlutarch's listofmovables.Drumann-Groebe, II,227,mentionsonly "Gelde unddenKostbarkeiten."Hill,Cyprus, I,174,208, thinksthatCato soldonlymovablesandthatPtolemyhad accumulated the whole7,000 talentstreasure during his own reign (agreeing withK.J.Beloch,GriechischeGeschichte,IV, 12 [Berlin, 1925], 339, n. 5). UndoubtedlyPtolemycame into manyrevenue-bearing properties whenhebecame kingand thesewere sold,atleastfor themostpart; hence he did not accumulate all this wealthduring his reign. 43. Cf. PlinyNH7.113 with34. 92 and Rackham'snote on7.113 intheLoeb edition. Query: DidCato payfor the statue himself ? 44. Plut.Cat. min. 36 (Perrin's translation in the Loeb ed.). 45. Plut.Cat. min.37, cf.25;F.Miinzer, s.v. "Munatius" (37), RE,XVI,554-55;Meyer, p. 435 and n.3. 46. Cf. thestory told in Plut.Cat. min.12. 47. Cf.Chapot,MelangesCagnat,p.67,n.2.Chapot wonderswhythesalewasheldonCyprus ratherthanat Rome and thinks thatitwas intended to allow the Cypriotes anopportunitytoretainCypriote property.Butthereason forholdingthesaleonCyprus iseasilyunderstoodonthe hypothesisthatmuch of the king's property was immovable. 48. T.Frank, Economic Survey, I,324-25. 49. ByChapot, Melanges Cagnat, p. 67, n. 2. 50. Cf. H. Mattingly,Roman Coins (New York, 1928), pp. 104-5.ThatPlutarchor hissource didequatethedrachma withthedenarius can be shown directlybyanother passage inthebiography(44).In54B.C.thecandidatesforthe tribunatedepositedeach125,000drachmaswithCatoas suretyfortheirrefraining from bribery.ThiswouldbeHS 500,000,andthefigure isconfirmed inthatform byCicero (Att. 4.15.7; Q.fr. 2.14.4). 111 STEWARTIRWINOOST 51. T. Frank, AnEconomic History of Rome' (Baltimore, 1927), p. 83. 52. Plut.Cat. min. 38, 45; Dio39. 22. 4, 23. 3-4; Sen. rh. Contr. 10. 1. 8.Iam at loss whyBouche-Leclercq, Rev. hist., LXXIX(1902), 261; and Lagides, II,142, thinks that the two booksofaccountswhichPlutarch (38)says Cato prepared wererespectively thoseof expenditures and receipts. Ob- viouslythey were duplicate books, and the reason they were dispatched in the hands of different persons was to circumvent iiischance. 53. Certainly the heading ofthe law as givenby Marcian (Dig. 48. 11. 1) isbroadenough to cover Cato; butunfortu- nately the law as it appears in the Digest has been changed in manydetails, and parts of the heading,listing theclasses of officials to which it is applicable, are particularly suspect. See Berger, s.v."LexIuliade pecuniisrepetundis,"RE,XII, 2389-92, at2390. 54. R.Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, The Correspondenceof M.TulliusCicero, III2 (Dublin,1916), xxi-xxii.These "insinuations"atCato's expense are rejected as "hardly worth noticing," byHolmes, II,54, n.2. 55. We, however, are inthe same position as Clodius and Caesar; sincetheaccounts disappeared,nothing canbe proved. The royal stewardswere ready to testify toCato's integrity(Plut. Cat. min. 38), buttheevidence is interested, sinceCato persuaded thesenateto emancipate Nicias (ibid. 39), presumably their chief. 56. Itis generallyrecognized by scholars atthe present timethatitis impossible tocalculatethe original principal sum from whatthetwo parties claimed thedebtstoodat in 50B.c.;see, e.g.,Magie, II,1247, n.26.There are toomany uncontrollablevariables. Certainly,however, theamount originally borrowed by theSalaminians wasmuch less than the sum of 106 talents which they wanted to repay in 50 (Cic. Att.5.21. 12). Ingeneral onthisnotoriouscontract, see Purser in Tyrrell and Purser, III2,337-44, withadditional bibliography in Magie, ibid. 57. On thedatesee Von der Miihll, s.v."Gabinius" (11), RE,VII,424-30, at 425; M. Gelzer, s.v."Iunius" (53),RE, X,973-1020, at977. 58. SIG3, 748, 11.35 ff.; cf.G. Billeter, Geschichtedes Zins- fulfes (Leipzig, 1898), pp. 92-94. 59. E.g.,Hill,Cyprus, I,228, n. 1, followingGelzer, RE, X, 977. J.A.O. Larsen, Economic Survey, IV, 373, points out that48 % and24 % are rates for cases ofdoubtfulsecurity; but, as indicatedinthe text, there isreason tobelievethat Salamis was not a bad risk. 60. HellenisticCivilization3 (London,1952),pp. 116-17. 61. Cic. Att. 5.21. 13, on which seeBilleter,pp. 169-72. 62. Scaptius would never have dared to brave the possible wrath of the proconsul (Cicero)by turning down the proposed accommodation unless he were sure that Brutus would support him. Scaptius musthave conferred withBrutus by letter on the subject as soon as the new governor's edict with its12 % maximum was published atthe beginning of Cicero's tenure. 63. This is shocking, but notas shocking as a well-authen- ticatedcrime towhich Brutus was accomplice, either before orafterthefact.When Appius Claudius was governor of Cilicia (53-51B.C.) he gaveScaptius a troop ofhorse with which, trying to coerce payment, the latter shut up the council ofSalamis initscouncil chamber andstarvedfive members to death (Att. 6. 1. 6, cf. 6. 2. 8). Modern accounts frequently omit to state that at least during Appius' governorship, if not atthis particular time, Brutus wasin Cilicia, iftheDevir. ill.(82. 4) may be trusted. 64. A fragment ofaletterof Brutus, foundin Quint. Inst.or. 9. 4. 75, may well relate to this affair (cf. Tyrrell and Purser, VI,306; itis printed in theOxford textofPurser as Frag. 8. 17).Unfortunately thatitconcerns thismatteris only an inference, and the reading is questionable. At least, the passage may mean that Brutus says Cato approves of what he is doing. In the passages cited in the textCicero says that Cato will certainly approve what Cicero has done; but this is clearly argumentative. 65. Th. Mommsen, Rimische Geschichte, III7 (Berlin, 1882), 322, n.; cf. Meyer, p. 152, n. 1; Carcopino, Cesar, p. 782; Cary, CAH, IX, 527. Iam unable to understand why E.G. Sihler, Cicero ofArpinum(NewHaven,1914),p.222,says Cato's return was "early in 56, atleastbefore January 56" (sic). 66. Tyrrell and Purser, ad Cic. Far.1. 7. 11 (II2, 80). 67. Forthe opening oftheancientsailingseason, seeM. Cary, The GeographicBackgroundof Greekand Roman History (Oxford, 1949), p. 26andn. 1; ontheweather in Corcyra, ibid., index, s.v. "Adriatic," and the Enciclopediaitaliana, s.v. "Corffi," XI,393-98, at394-95.Themeanmonthly tem- perature atCorfu in April is15.4? C. = 59.70 F.Thisleaves ample likelihood for occasional quite cold nights, down to the thirties on theFahrenheit scale. 68. On the Flaviandate of Luca, see Holmes,II,294-95; Drumann-Groebe, III, 239-40and nn.On the first system of calendar equation mentioned in the text, tables in Drumann- Groebe, III,798; for the other system, tables in Napoleon III, Cesar,II, 505. 69. Cf. the pointed remarks ofH.Strasburger, "Casarim Urteil der Zeitgenossen," HZ, CLXXV (1953), 225-64, at 238. 70. R. V. Harlow, The Growth of the United States, II(rev. ed.; New York, 1943), 480. 71. Cf. Livy 32.27. 3-4, andH.H.Scullard, Roman Politics 220-150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951), Frag. 193 M ofCatothe Censor, quoted p.268; cf. p.112, n.3.Itmust be admitted, however, thatin later lifeCato Major became more complai- santtousury (Scullard, p.222). 112