Roman Republic

Silver denarius issued by Caesar: 49-8 BC (RRC 443/1)

Obverse: CAESAR:  Elephant trampling an object variously identified as a snake, dragon or Gallic carnyx (war horn)

Reverse: Religious objects: culullus (vessel), aspergillum (sprinkler), axe and apex (spiked cap)

Probably from a military mint travelling with Caesar’s army  following his departure from Rome on 6th April 49 BC

Prior Events (January - April 49 BC)

Ae we saw in the previous page:

  1. Caesar crossed the Rubicon into Italy on 11th January; and

  2. Pompey and the consuls (M. Claudius Marcellus and L, Cornelius Lentulus Crus) left Rome for southern Italy 8 or 9 days later.

Caesar took Corfinium on 21st February, at which point the Pompeians began to muster at Brundisium, having decided  to regroup at Dyrrhachium, on the other side of the Adriatic.  After Corfinium, Caesar led a forced march along the Adriatic coast and, although he arrived at Brundisium while Pompeian evacuation was still underway, he was unable to prevent Pompey completing it on 17th March.  Since he lacked to naval resources that would have enabled him to effect a successful landing in Epirus, he decided to consolidate his hold on Italy by returning to Rome.  On his way there, he visited Cicero at Formiae of 28th March and made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade him to remain in Italy, he reached finally reached the City on 31st March.

Coins Minted in Rome (January - March)


Denarius (RRC 441/1), issued by                                   Denarius (RRC 440/1), issued by

                                 the quaestor urbanus Cn. Nerius                                               the IIIvir Q. Sicinus

Cn. Nerius, Quaestor Urbanus

One of the most interesting of the coins that were minted in Rome in 49 BC was a denarius (RRC 441/1, illustrated above) that was issued by a junior magistrate who identified himself as N͡ERI·Q·V͡RB (Cn. Nerius, quaestor urbanus).  As Francisco Pina Polo and Alejandro Diaz Fernandez (referenced below, at p. 107) explained:

  1. “Since the urban quaestors controlled the treasury, they were responsible for giving the [triumviri monetales (college of three moneyers)] the bullion necessary for coining silver and bronze.  They were ultimately in charge of minting coins in Rome, although the triumviri monetales [generally] carried out the task.  However, under special circumstances, the Senate could instruct one or both urban quaestors to take direct responsibility for issuing coins.  ... [A certain example of this] is the coinage of the urban quaestor Cn. Nerius in 49 BC.”

They pointed out (at p. 108) that:

  1. the head of Saturn on the obverse:

  2. “... alludes to to the fact that, as urban quaestor, Cn. Nerius had responsibility for the aerarium (treasury), which was in the Temple of Saturn; and 

  3. the unusual use of a consular date (L·LEN͡T C·M͡ARC COS, referring to the consuls L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus and C. Claudius Marcellus) on the reverse:

  4. “... should certainly be understood as a political message in the context of the outbreak of the Civil War, [when] it was necessary to to make clear that the coins were minted at the order of the legitimate consuls ..., who were then out of Rome.”

Furthermore, as Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p. 603) observed, this unusual procedure had been adopted:

  1. “... at a time when it was doubtless desirable to convert bullion into coin as fast as possible ...”

In other words, Nerius’ coins would have been minted early in the year (in time for the Pompeians authority to take possession of them), using silver that would otherwise have found itself under Caesar’s control.  

The fact that Nerius’ coins were minted in haste is suggested by the fact that arrangement of the standards flanking the legionary eagle on the reverse appears to have originated on the coins (RRC 365/1) minted on the orders of the Senate at Massalia in 82 BC by C. Valerius Flaccus as proconsul: as Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p. 381) observed:

  1. “This issue ... [is] to be associated with the first moves made by Sulla against [the rebel] Sertorius in Spain: [its] symbolism ... is simply that of military victory.”

By using the same symbolism in 49 BC, Nerius was presumably looking forward to victory over the rebel Caesar.

Q. Sicinius, IIIvir

The moneyer Q. Sicinius who issued the coin RRC 440/1 (illustrated above) is almost certainly the Q·SICINIVS III·VIR who also isssued another coin (RRC 444/1) from a mint moving with Pompey (see Michael Crawford (RRC referenced below, at pp. 460-1) and, since:

  1. the inscription on the reveres of this second coin, PR·S·C C·COPONIVS, indicates that Sicinus issued it jointly with a praetor C. Coponius;  and

  2. Caesar (‘Civil War’, 3: 5: 3, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 199) recorded this praetor Coponius as one of naval Pompey’s commanders at this time;

we can date both of these coins to 49 BC:

  1. RRC 440/1, the coin under discussion here, would have been issued before Pompey and the consuls left Rome, when, as Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p. 460) observed, its representation of:

  2. “...the symbols of felicitas and victory with the head of Fortuna ... , [would have alluded] to the [misplaced] hopes of the [Pompeians before Caesar crossed the Rubicon]”; and

  3. RRC 444/1 would have been issued on the orders of the government-in-exile

Coins Minted in Rome (January - March): Conclusions

These two coins allow us to identify:

  1. one of the urban quaestors of 49 BC as Cn, Nerius; and

  2. one of the treviri monetales, as Q. Sicinius.

Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p, 89) identified them as the moneyers of:

  1. “... the last regular issues before the outbreak of civil war.”

Sicinius’ coins seem to have been issued early in the year, following the usual procedures.  However, Nerius’ coins were part of an emergency issue, which the consuls had presumably mandated in order to convert as much bullion as possible into coinage when it had became clear that, for the first time in the history of the Republic, its duly elected government would be based somewhere other than Rome.

Caesar’s Stay in Rome (1st - 6th April)

Caesar’s Meeting with the Senate (1st - 3rd April)

As we saw on the previous page, by that time of Caesar’s visit to Cicero on 28th March, he had demanded that a full meeting of the Senate should be held on 1st April.  Cassius Dio recorded that, before his arrival, the plebeian tribunes Mark Antony and Q. Cassius Longinus had:

  1. “... assembled the [much-depleted] Senate for [Caesar] outside the pomerium; for, though they had [recently] been expelled from that body [because of their support for Caesar], they now convened it”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 15: 1-2).

Caesar recorded that, in his opening address, he had:

  1. “... recounted the injuries done [to him] by his enemies, explaining that his [earlier] candidacy for [the consulship] had not been anomalous; rather, he had waited until the legal time for a consulship, content with what was open to any citizen”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 32: 2, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 49). 

In other words, since Caesar’s enemies had blocked his legitimate intention to stand for his second consulship ten years after his first, he had been left with no alternative but to march (albeit illegally) on Rome.  He apparently continued in this vein for a while, before issuing an ultimatum:

  1. “.. he exhorted the senators [to support him] and asked them to take charge of the State and administer it with him.  [However, he warned that]:

  2. ‘... if fear [of Pompey] makes you shirk this task, I will not be a burden to you, but will administer the State myself’”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 32: 7, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 51). 

Caesar did not record how the senators reacted to this ‘invitation’: he simply noted that they accepted his proposal that representatives should be sent to offer peace terms to Pompey, but:

  1. “... no one could be found to send; it was mostly out of fear [because, on his own departure] ... Pompey had said in the Senate that he would treat those who stayed in Rome like those who were [already] in Caesar’s camp.  So, three days dragged out in arguments and excuses”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 33: 2, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 53).  

Cassius Dio’s account of this meeting with the Senate essentially followed that of Caesar himself:

  1. “[Caesar] delivered a speech of some length and of a temperate character, ... [since he knew] that [the senators] were displeased at what was going on and suspicious of the many soldiers [in his entourage] ... He therefore censured no-one and made no threat against anyone, but delivered an attack ... on those who had chosen to war upon citizens.  Finally, he proposed that envoys should be sent immediately to the consuls and to Pompey to treat for peace and harmony”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 15: 2-4).

However, Cassius Dio then described a parallel meeting  of the plebeian assembly at which it became clear that the people:

  1. “... were unable either to trust [Caesar’s] words or to be cheered by them.  On the contrary, ... they [remained suspicious], particularly since the envoys who were to effect the reconciliation [with Pompey and the consuls] did not set out after being chosen; indeed, Piso, Caesar’s father-in‑law, was once called to account for so much as referring to [the possibility of negotiating peace with Pompey]”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 16: 3-4).

As we shall see, there are at least two problems with this passage:

  1. it is almost certain that Caesar had cancelled the planned plebeian assembly because of the popular reaction to the raiding of the treasury (see below); and 

  2. according to Plutarch, Piso’s proposed peace initiative belonged to the events of December 49 BC.

Nevertheless, Cassius Dio accurately captured the general climate of hesitancy among many of the  senators who remained in Rome and the more overt and potentially explosive unrest among the plebs.

Caesar’s Raid on the Treasury

The only specific example of overt opposition in Caesar’s account of his stay in Rome came in his complaint that his enemies:

  1. “... had deputed [L. Caecilius] Metellus, a plebeian tribune, to sidetrack [his administrative reforms] and to obstruct anything else that Caesar set in motion.  When he recognised Metellus’ intent and a few days had been spent to no purpose, ... Caesar left Rome without having accomplished what he had intended and went to Transalpine Gaul [ see below]”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 33: 3-4, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 53). 

It seems that Caesar’s account of his interaction with Metellus had been less than frank: Cicero soon heard a much fuller account from Curio (his friend who, who had found himself in charge of Sicily - see above) and passed it on to Atticus in a letter of 14th April:

  1. “[Curio reported] that Caesar had been quite carried away with rage against the tribune Metellus and had wanted to have him killed; in which case there would have been a great massacre [because the office of the tribuneship was sacrosanct].  ... it was not by inclination or nature that [Caesar] was not cruel but because he reckoned that clemency was the popular line.  ... He was upset because he realised that even the populace disliked his behaviour over the treasury.  So, although he had had every intention of holding a public meeting before he left, he had not dared to do so and had set off in a very agitated state of mind”, (‘Letters to Atticus’, 195, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, p. 121). 

Cassius Dio also described Metellus’ intervention, although he thought that it had arisen in the context of a meeting of a plebeian assembly: 

  1. “ ... when that body had likewise assembled outside the pomerium; and he sent for grain from the islands, and promised to give each citizen 300 sesterces.  ...  [However, the people doubted that his promises would be met, and it soon became apparent that], far from receiving ... the money that he had promised them, they had to give him all that remained in the treasury for the support of his soldiers, whom they feared.  ... Now. L. Metellus, a tribune, opposed [this demand] and, when his efforts proved unavailing, he went to the treasury and kept guard at the doors.  But the soldiers ... cut the bolt in two (for the consuls had taken the key, just as if it were not possible for persons to use axes in place of it!) and carried off all the money”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 16:1 - 17:2).

More than a century later:

  1. Pliny the Elder remembered that:

  2. “C. Caesar, at his first entry into Rome during the civil war that bears his name, withdrew from the treasury: 15,000 pounds' weight in gold ingots; 30,000 pounds' weight in uncoined silver; and  300,000 sesterces in coin: indeed, at no period was the Republic more wealthy”, (‘Natural History’, 33: 17).

  3. the poet Lucan observed: 

  4. “Dismal was the deed of plunder that robbed the temple [of Saturn, after which], for the first time, Rome was poorer than a Caesar”, (‘Civil War’), 3: 167-8, translated by James Duff, referenced below, at p. 127). 

Cicero moved to his brother’s villa at Arcanum after Caesar’s visit and he was hungry for news during Caesar’s stay in Rome.  Thus, on 7th April, he wrote the following short note to Atticus:’

  1. “I have really nothing to write, but there are a few things I should still like to know, namely:

  2. whether [Caesar] has left yet;

  3. in what state he has left Rome:

  4. to whom he has assigned the various districts and jobs in Italy; and

  5. whether any peace envoys to Pompey and the consuls have actually been been appointed under the Senate’s decree. 

  6. Anxious to learn these points, I am sending this letter to you by special messenger.  So I shall be grateful if you will kindly inform me about them and anything else I ought to know. I am waiting at Arcanum until I get your news”, (‘Letters to Atticus’, 193, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, p. 113).

The answer to his first query was that Caesar had left Rome on the before he had sent his letter.

Rome in Caesar’s Absence (7th Apr. - 1st Dec.)

Administrative Structure

As we have seen, Caesar himself recorded that, after he had:

  1. “... spent a few days  ... to no purpose, ... [he] left Rome without having accomplished what he had intended ... ”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 33: 3-4, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 53). 

Caesar did not record the arrangements that he made for the governance of Rome and Italy in his absence, but Cassius Dio noted that he: 

  1. “... committed affairs at home to [Mark] Antony, while he himself set out for Spain ...”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 18: 3). 

According to Plutarch, Caesar more specifically:

  1. “... entrusted: 

  2. Rome to [M. Aemilius] Lepidus, who was [already serving as] praetor; and 

  3. Italy and the troops [stationed there to Mark] Antony ...”, (‘Life of Mark Antony’, 6: 4).

Kathryn Welch (referenced below, at p. 54) pointed out, since the serving consuls and most of the serving magistrates were now with Pompey in Epirus (where they formed a self-professed government in exile), Caesar had had to adapt the administrative machinery in order to deal with the fact that]:

  1. “... he had only two praetors and very few junior magistrates to work with.  His choice of solution was entirely contrary to tradition, for he awarded imperium propraetore to Q. Cassius Longinus and M. Antonius, [although, since they] were both tribunes of the plebs, [they] at the least had the right to it.” 

Caesar’s choice of Lepidus as his senior representative in Rome during his absence would have been conditioned by the fact that he was one of the few patricians who had chosen to remain in Rome.  It is possible that it was influenced by the fact that Lepidus’ wife was a daughter of Servilia, Caesar’s former mistress, who still enjoyed his favour (see, for example, Susan Treggiari, referenced below, at pp. 163-4 and pp. 133-8.)

Coins Minted in Rome (April - December)


Denarius (RRC 442/1)                                                                  Denarius (RRC 439/1)

                        issued by the IIIvir Mn. Acilius                                     issued by [P] Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus

Mn. Acilius

We should now turn to the moneyer Mn. Acilius, who is identified as the issuer of the coin RRC 442/1) (illustrated above).  Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p. 89 and Table XIV at pp. 89-90) that coins from this issue appear with Caesar’s ‘elephant’ coins (RRC 443/1, illustrated above and discussed below) in a number of hoards.  He also argued (at p. 89) that, although Acilius’ issue:

  1. “... bears no explicit Caesarian reference, its style is markedly different from that of the two Pompeian issues [discussed above] and looks forward to the Caesarian issues of 48 BC.  [It therefore seems reasonable to regard it as a Caesarian issue as a Caesarian issue.”

In other words, the likelihood is that this coin was issued after Caesar’s arrival in Rome, using bullion that he had taken from the treasury.  Crawford (as above) also observed that:

  1. “Whether Mn. Acilius was [already in office] when Caesar arrived in Rome ... or whether [he was appointed by Caesar] ... cannot be decided on the evidence available.”

As David Sear (referenced below, at p. 12) pointed out, the key point is that, at this time:

  1. “... it was important that the normal production of coinage at the Capitoline mint should be resumed as quickly as possible.  Whatever the origin of [Acilius’] appointment, his coinage is a large and important one, and must have played a vital role in the opening phase of Caesar’s rule in Rome.”

Acilius’ coin featured two goddesses who were associated with health and well-being:

  1. Salus (sometimes given as Salutis), whose head appeared on the obverse; and

  2. Valetudo on the reverse.

Anna Clark (referenced below, at p. 153 and at her Appendix III, at pp. 291-9) pointed out that this issue was:

much larger than any of the others featuring so-called divine qualities; and

more than ten times larger than the only other one of these issues (RRC 337/2, 91 BC) that featured Salus

, and also noted that, on the reverse

  1. “Valetudo is portrayed like [the Greek goddess] Hygeia, [the daughter of Aesculapius], standing with her arm resting on a column and holding a snake in her right hand.”

Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p. 461) that the iconography of these coins:

“... perhaps alludes to the fact that the first Greek doctor to come to Rome practised in compito Acilio [at the Acilian crossroads - see below ].  It is also possible that expectations of a Caesarian victory influenced the choice of types.”

Anna Clark (referenced below, at pp. 153-4) developed these suggestions.  First, she observed that Salus was multi-facetted, and suggested that:

  1. in the context of the political circumstances of the time, her depiction the obversemight have been read in one of her many aspects, namely ‘salvation’, which would result from the expected Caesarian victory; while

  2. Valetudo, on the reverse, represented another aspect of Salus:

  3. “... namely, [her] the healing capacity ...  [Her Greek iconography] might celebrate a connection between the Acilii and the [arrival] of Archagathus, the first Greek doctor to practice in Rome.”

She cited here the following passage from Pliny the Elder:

  1. “Cassius Hemina, [whose work probably dates to ca. 150 BC], ... says that the first physician that visited Rome was Archagathus, the son of Lysanias, who came over from Peloponnesus, in [219 BC], when L. Aemilius [Paullus] and M. Livius [Salinator] were consuls.  [Hemina] also states that [Archagathus] was granted:

  2. the legal rights of a citizen; and

  3. a shop in compito Acilio (at the Acilian crossroads), which was provided for his [medical] practice at the public expense ”, (‘Natural History’, 29: 6).

John Briscoe (in his commentary on this fragment from Hemina in Timothy Cornell, editor, referenced below, at Vol. III, p. 174):

  1. accepted that Archagathus might well have been the first doctor to whom the Senate had granted citizenship and a surgery; but

  2. argued that there is insufficient surviving evidence for claims that the Senate had given him these privileges because of:

  3. “... the philhellenic sympathies of the consuls of 219 BC ... and the support of the Acilii.”

This last reservation is entirely reasonable, but that does not rule out the possibility that the Acilii themselves subsequently claimed to have facilitated Archagathus’ arrival in Rome. 

I would like to suggest that the following surviving records offer circumstantial evidence for this hypothesis:

  1. a surviving summary of Livy’s now-lost Book 53 (which covered the events of 143-1 BC) recorded that:

  2. “Senator Acilius wrote a Roman History in Greek”, (‘Perioche’, 53:4);

  3. Livy recorded that:

  4. “... Claudius, [probably Q. Claudius Quadrigarius, who was writing in the early 1st century BC], ... who translated annales Acilianos (Acilius' annals) from Greek into Latin, wrote that about 37,000 [Carthaginians] were killed [in a Roman victory of 212 BC]”, (‘History of Rome’, 25: ; and

  5. Cicero, in a passage that he wrote in ca. 45BC about the events that followed the Romans’ defeat at Cannae in 216 BC, cited:

  6. “... C. Acilius, ... the author of a history of Rome in Greek ...”, (‘On Duties’, 3: 115, translated by Walter Miller, referenced below, at p. 395).

It seem so me that:

  1. the senator C. Acilius might well have claimed that his ancestors had facilitated Archagathus’ arrival in Rome in 219 BC in the part of his ‘Annales’ (141 BC) that dealt with the Second Punic War;

  2. if so, then this information would have been available in Rome in 49 BC (in  Greek and in Quadrigarius’ Latin translation); and

  3. one or more of the many antiquarians who were working in Rome in the late Republic (who included Quadrigarius) might well have offered the testimony of C. Acilius for the name of the compito Acilio.

[P ?] Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus

Denarius (RRC 439/1) issued in Rome, probably issued by [P] Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus in ca. 50 BC

Obverse: MARCELLINVS; head of M. Claudius Marcellus (with triskele behind, for his capture of Syracuse)

Reverse: MARCELLVS COS·QVINQ (for his five consulships):

Marcellus carries the spolia opima (which he won in 222 BC) into the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius 

[To follow]

Cicero (April - June 49 BC) 

Cicero’s reaction to Caesar’s short visit can be gauged from his surviving correspondence.  Caesar wrote to Cicero on 16th April, when he (Caesar) was en route for Massilia (modern Marseille): he had discerned that Cicero was thinking of joining Pompey, and his tone was menacing:

  1. “Persuaded as I am that you will do nothing hasty or imprudent, I am none the less troubled by current reports, and I therefore feel I ought to write and appeal to you in the name of our mutual good ... You will commit a grave offence against friendship and [act unadvisedly] from your own point of view if it appears that ...  you have disapproved some action of mine ... I appeal to you in the name of our friendship not to do this.  ...[The] most fitting course for a good, peace-loving man and a good citizen [like you] is surely to hold aloof from civil quarrels.  ...  [You] will find no safer and no more honourable [course of action in the present circumstances] than to keep aloof from all conflict”, ‘Letters to Atticus’, 199B, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, at p. 145).

It is likely that Cicero was even more disconcerted by a letter that he received in late April/early May from Mark Antony (styled as Tribunus plebis pro praetore), in which he wrote that: 

  1. “If I did not have a great affection for you, much more indeed than you suppose, I should not have been so alarmed at a report which has been put about concerning you, especially as I did not believe it.  ... I cannot believe that you mean to go abroad, considering how fond you are of [your son-in-law], Dolabella, and that most admirable young lady [Tullia], your daughter, and how fond we all are of you.  ... [Furthermore],  I wish you to persuade yourself that:

  2. no-one except my friend Caesar means more to me than you; and  ...

  3. Caesar gives the name of M. Cicero a place among his most particular friends. 

  4. Therefore, my dear Cicero, I beg you not to compromise yourself in any way: [do] not to trust a man [like Pompey, and do] not to shun [Caesar, who], even if he ceased to love you ... [would] still desire your well-being and dignity”, (‘Letters to Atticus’, 199A, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, at pp. 143). 

Cicero forwarded both of these letters to Atticus on 2nd May with a long covering letter (‘Letters to Atticus’, 199, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, at p. 133-41) that made it clear that he had decided to join Pompey in Epirus.  He described Mark Antony’s recently-arrived letter as ‘disagreeable’ and commended Tullia to Atticus’ care. One passage seems to me to summarise his reasons for travelling to Pompey’s camp:

  1. “As I see it, Caesar cannot last very long without falling by his own [tyrannical] impulse, even though we are ineffective.  Look how, with all the advantage of novelty and brilliant success, he has, in [only] a week, become an object of bitter hatred even to the needy and reckless mob that supported him and ... lost two masks [in his actions in relation to the treasury (see above): 

  2. the mask of clemency in dealing with Metellus;  and 

  3. the mask of riches in the matter of the Treasury. 

  4. Again, whom is he to take as his partners and assistants?  ... you will soon see that this reign can hardly last six months.  If I am wrong, I shall take the consequences, as many great men and eminent statesmen have done before me, ‘Letters to Atticus’, 199: 6-7, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, at p. 137-9). 

On 7th June, he wrote to his wife, Terentia, to let her know that he was just about to set sail (‘Letters to Friends’, 155, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below , 2001, at Vol. II, p. 115).

Events outside Rome (April - December 49 BC)

Caesar’s Status from April

As we have seen, Caesar had threatened that, if the Senate would not co-operate with him, he would ‘administer the State himself’.  Two letters from Cicero to Atticus throw some light on the options that would have been open to him:

  1. As early as 17th March, Cicero had fumed that:

  2. “That squalid [unnamed] wretch who says that consular elections can be held by a praetor is what he has always been throughout his political career.  So, that will be what Caesar means when he writes ... that he wants to avail himself of:

  3. my ‘advice’, ...

  4. my ‘influence’, ...

  5. my ‘standing’ (my right to speak as an ex-Consul perhaps), and ... my  ‘help in all matters’”, (‘Letters to Atticus’, 176, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, p. 49). 

  6. Thus, at this stage, Cicero expected that, when Caesar arrived in Rome, he would want him to support a proposal in the Senate (put forward by the unnamed wretch) that one of the praetors who was still in Rome should hold ‘elections’ in which Caesar and his nominee would be ‘elected’ as consuls.

  7. On 25th March, two days before his planned meeting with Caesar, Cicero expected that, at the meeting of the Senate on 1st April, Caesar:

  8. “... will want a decree of the Senate and another from the augurs (I shall be hauled up or harried if I am not there [in that capacity]) allowing a praetor either to hold consular elections or to nominate a dictator, neither of which is legal.  But, if Sulla could arrange... to be nominated [as dictator in 82 BC] by an interrex [whom he then chose as his] master of horse, why [should] Caesar [not behave in a similarly illegal way]?”, (‘Letters to Atticus’, 183, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, pp. 85-7). 

  9. Thus, by this time, it had occurred to Cicero that Caesar might eschew the consulship for the dictatorship.

However, as we have seen, the fragile political situation at Rome precluded the immediate adoption of either option. Thus, when Caesar left Rome in order to continues his war against the forces of the government-in-exile, his status remained ambiguous (although, as we shall see, he was nominated as dictator by a praetor in the following October and appointed as such in December).  

Caesar’s ‘Elephant’ Denarius

Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p. 89) pointed out that:

  1. “The status of [the coin illustrated above] as the first military issue of Caesar is established beyond all doubt by [data from the hoards in which examples of it were found.  Its absence] from hoards of the 50s BC makes it clear that the issue was struck only after Caesar had moved into open rebellion.” 

Debra Nousek (referenced below, at p. ) observed that:

  1. “Crawford's die estimates [at his p. 461] suggest that this was the third-largest in all of Roman Republican coinage, with approximately 750 obverse dies.  In practical terms, this estimate would produce some 22.5 million coins... , [which would have] required vast amounts silver bullion  ... [One does not need to] look far to find a probable source: ... [the] purloined bullion [from the treasury in 49 BC] is likely to be the source of silver for the ‘... issue.  Caesar may thus be assumed to have acquired the silver bullion [that the consuls had left in the treasury] for the very practical purpose of paying his legions at a turning point in their service to him.”

This hypothesis is supported by the wide geographic spread of these hoards, which was illustrated by Clare Rowan (referenced below, at p. 26, Figure 2.3): as she pointed out (at p. 24):

  1. “The issue was probably struck on a military mint that accompanied Caesar.”

As David Sear (referenced below, at p 9) observed:

  1. “... production of this type was kept separate from the regular issuers of the Roman moneyers, thus emphasising the extraordinary military nature of this coinage, produced at a time of unprecedented in the affairs of the Republic. ... [Caesar] did not hesitate to put into circulation silver denarii bearing nothing more than his own cognomen as issuing authority. ... It is difficult to assess how long this important type remained in issue but, in all probability, it served the needs of Caesarian forces right up to the final campaign leading to the battle of Pharsalus [see below]”

The iconography of this issue is still debated: for example, Michael Crawford (referenced below, at p. 461) treated this side of the coin as the reverse, while Roberta Stewart (referenced below, at pp. 108-9) assumed that it was the obverse.  She observed that:

  1. “The very first issue of the civil war (RRC 443 ...) had an elephant confronting a snake (or

  2. trampling a Gallic war club [sic], or carnyx) with the legend CAESAR on one side ... [This] obverse design has few comparanda.  ... Whatever [its] significance of the obverse, ... it was comprehensible, because it was re-used twice by Roman commanders in Gaul  ...”

This is a reference to two issues (RPC 501 and RPC 502) by A. Hirtius, as Caesar’s governor of Transalpine Gaul in 45 BC.  In my opinion, the object under the elephant’s leading foot is almost certainly a carnyx, symbolising Caesar’s recent victories in Gaul:

  1. as we shall see on the following page, Caesar used the carnyx in this way on the reverses of his coins of 48 BC (RRC 452/1)  and (RRC 452/2); and

  2. so too did two of the moneyers of 48 BC on denarii minted at Rome:

  3. RRC 448/3, issued by L. Hostilius Saserna, in which the carnyx appears behind the head of a female Gallic captive, with a statue on the reverse that David Sear (referenced below, at p. 14) identified as the Ephesian Artemis, who was venerated at Massilia; and

  4. RRC 450/1, issued by Decimus Junius Brutus, Caesar’s legate during the Gallic wars, his commander of his fleet at Massilia in 49 BC  (see below) and his governor of Transalpine Gaul in 48-6 BC ).

As David Swan (referenced below, at p. 88) observed of the coinage of 48 BC:

  1. “The imagery of these coins seems to be designed to work together to return the Gauls to public memory, most likely to ensure that Caesar’s victory in Gaul remained in public discourse.  This association between the objects of a non-Roman culture and Caesar presaged the approach of a single ruler of the Romans: a single great conquest allowed the appropriation of all images of the conquered people to a single conqueror. ... despite the unusual nature of the [issues discussed above], the same Roman method of using the carnyx as a symbol of defeated enemies is utilised.”

The precise significance of the ritual objects on the reverse is similarly debatable,  David Wardle (referenced below, at p. 104) argued that:

  1. “Caesar made great play on his coinage with religious imagery and with the office of pontifex maximus in particular.  [For example, the reverse on the coin under discussion here] represented pontifical emblems: as he was effectively in revolt against the State, the best claim to legitimacy was his pontifical office.”

As we shall see, religious objects of various sorts certainly do appear on other Caesarian coins, sometimes very prominently.  However,  Roberta Stewart (referenced below, at p. 111) argued that:

  1. “An allusion to Caesar’s [office of flamen dialis or pontifex maximus] on the first coin of the civil war would hardly ... offer effective rhetoric to win hearts and minds.  [On the other hand], reading the [culullus, , aspergillum, axe and apex as a generalised] signifier of the priesthood, rather than [as the] personal tenure of the priesthood, produces an allusion to attentive ritual work on behalf of the Roman community.”

  2. She argued (at p. 112) that reading these for symbols:

  3. “... left to right reproduces the ritual of sacrifice: the libation (single-handled vessel), then immolation (sprinkler), then sacrifice of the victim (axe); and the sequence culminates with a symbol of a priesthood whose lifework was defined by ritual service and piety.  The symbols evoke and reinforce the hierarchies of libation, sacrifice, dutiful perpetual service to deity. ... The symbols on Caesar’s coins give graphic expression of the rituals that oriented man and gods. The expressed piety of the coin gives point to Caesar’s critique of senatorial government in the opening chapters of ‘De Bello Civili’: he noted the disregard or poor performance of ritual regulating public life and charged his opponents with a disrespect of religion and a general disregard of divine and human law.”

She quoted the following passage by way of example, Caesar’s charge that, under the old régime:

  1. ‘ ... money was exacted from the towns, and taken from the sanctuaries: all human and divine laws were thrown utterly into confusion (‘Civil War’, 1: 6: 8).

Coins issued by Ptolemy I (from this web page by Branko van Oppen)


Aureus of Pompey (RRC 402)                                             Aureus of Augustus (RIC 12140)

This brings us to the key question: why did Caesar choose to be depicted as an elephant in his role of conquering Gaul.  [Alexander the Great - to follow]

Caesar’s Campaigns at Massilia and Ilerda (April - October 49 BC)

Since Caesar ‘s lack of naval resources had precluded him from following Pompey to Epirus, he decided to concentrate on dealing with Pompey’s legates in Spain.  However, when he reached Massilia , he found: 

  1. “... that Domitius, [whom he had freed at Corfinium] had set out to seize Massilia, ....  [and that, on receiving this news], the people of Marseilles had closed the gates to Caesar”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 34: 2-4, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 53). 

In a letter that Cicero sent from Formiae to Atticus on 6th May, while he was still awaiting events before deciding his own next move, he observed that:

  1. “I hope Spain is solid.  The action of the Massilians is both valuable in itself and evidence to my mind that things are all right in Spain.  Otherwise they would not be so bold, and they would know, being near at hand and painstaking folk”, (‘Letters to Atticus’, 204, translated by David Shackleton Bailey, referenced below, 1999, at Vol. III, pp. 165-7). 

Domitius duly arrived and was admitted into Massilia, to which Caesar then laid siege.  However, the city was well-prepared and Caesar was forced to continue into Spain, having:

  1. “... put D. [Junius] Brutus in charge of the ships and left  ... C. Trebonius [in command] for the assault on Massilia”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 36: 5, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 57).  

Victory at Ilerda (2nd August) 

Caesar now crossed the Pyrenees and engaged with Pompey’s legates, L. Afranius and M. Petreius outside Ilerda (modern Lleida): he claimed that C. Scribonius Curio, the commander of his forces in Africa two years later, had boosted the morale his men by asking them, inter alia:

  1. “Have you really not heard about Caesar’s exploits in Spain?  Two armies routed, two generals defeated, two provinces recovered, all of it done 40 days from when Caesar came within sight of the enemy”, (‘Civil War’, 2: 32: 5, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 173). 

The early imperial fasti (including the fasti Fratrum Arvalium,  the fasti Maffeiani and the fasti Antiates Ministrorum) recorded the annual celebration of this victory on 2nd August (see, for example, Gian-Luca Gregori et al., referenced below, at p. 141).  Caesar himself recorded his subsequent clemency after the victory at great length: after railing against Pompey’s illegal behaviour in remaining at Rome for over a decade while legates had governed the Spanish provinces on his behalf, which he claimed had been directed specifically against him, he quoted the terms that he now offered to Afranius and Petreius:

  1. “My present aim is not to take an army from you and keep it for myself, although this would not be difficult for me, but rather to prevent you from having an army to use against me.  Accordingly, ... you must [both] leave your provinces and dismiss your armies.  Provided that this happens, I will not harm anyone.  This is the single and final condition for peace”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 85: 11-2, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 119).  

Cassius Dio recorded that, in the aftermath of this victory:

  1. “... [Caesar’s reputation and his cause both profited considerably; for he won over all the cities in Spain and all the soldiers there, a considerable number of whom were with M. Terentius Varro, [Pompey’s legate in Further Spain], besides others in Baetica”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 23: 2).

Caesar observed that:

  1. “... Marcus Varro [had] lacked confidence in Pompey’s cause at the outset, when he learned of events in Italy, and had spoken in a very friendly fashion about Caesa:.

  2. ‘Given the priority of my mission from Pompey, I am constrained by obligations.  Nevertheless, I have no less close a connection with Caesar.  I am familiar with the duties of an officer who has a position of trust, and with my resources and my province’s universal favour for Caesar.’

  3. These were his words in every conversation, and he did not move toward either side.  Later, however, he learned that Caesar was detained at Marseilles, that Petreius’ forces and Afranius’ army were united, that substantial reinforcements had arrived and more were hoped for and expected, and that they had the unanimous support of Nearer Spain.   Subsequent events (Caesar’s supply difficulties at Ilerda) came to his attention, and Afranius’ letters informing him about these things were written with undue generality and exaggeration.  Then Varro’s movements began to mirror those of Fortune”, (‘Civil War’, 2: 17: 11-2, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at pp. 151-3). 

Caesar now marched into Further Spain, reaching Gades (Cordoba) on 24th August and Varro surrendered to him on the following day.  According to Caesar, he:

  1. “... sent Sextus Caesar to [Varro] and ordered the legion to be surrendered to him.  After the surrender, Varro went to Caesar at Corduba.  Giving Caesar a faithful reckoning of public accounts, he surrendered the money in his possession and revealed  the locations of ll that the food supplies and ships that he had”, (‘Civil War’, 2: 20: 7-8, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at pp. 147-9). 

He then:

  1. “... put Q. Cassius in charge of the province [as pro praetor of Further Spain], assigning him four legions”, (‘Civil War’, 2: 21: 4, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 155).

As Francisco Pina Polo (referenced below, at p. 150) pointed out, Varro’s army, which had not engaged with that of Caesar, was placed under Cassius’ command.  Afranius, Petreius and Varro were able to join Pompey in Greece, and Caesar was now able to return to Massilia.

Caesar at Massilia 

When Caesar arrived at Massilia on held no 15th October, he held political office.  However, he recorded that, soon after he had accepted Varro’s surrender at Cordoba, he travelled:

  1. “... overland to Narbo and then Massilia, where he learned of the passage of a law instituting a dictatorship, and that he had been proclaimed dictator [in Rome] by the praetor M. Lepidus [see below]”, (‘Civil War’, 2: 21: 5, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 155).

Masillia had now been under siege for about a year, and had also suffered from the attentions of  D. Brutus and C. Trebonius.  Domitius escaped shortly before Caesar arrived, just before the city surrendered: he recorded that:

  1. “The people of Massilia carried their weapons and catapults out of the city, as had been ordered, brought the ships from the port and dockyards, and surrendered the money in their treasury.  When these measures were complete, Caesar let the city persist, more on account of its fame and antiquity than for services to him.  He left two legions there as a garrison and sent the rest to Italy.  He [then] set out for Rome”, (‘Civil War’, 2: 22: 5-6, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 157).

Events in Africa (August 49 BC)

Caesar recorded that, soon after Pompey had left Brundisium in March:

  1. “When [L. Aelius Tubero, to whom the Senate had assigned the province of Africa, arrived to take up his post], he discovered that [P.] Attius Varus was exercising command in the province: after losing his cohorts [after Caesar’s victory there earlier in the year], ... Varus had fled to Africa ... , since a few years earlier, after his praetorship, he been the provincial governor.  When Tubero arrived at Utica with his ships, Varus barred him from the harbour and the town.  He did not even permit Tubero to put his ailing son ashore, but forced him to weigh anchor and leave the area”, (‘Civil War’, 1: 31: 11-2, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 49).  

He then recorded (at ‘Civil War’, 1: 23: 1, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 157) that, at about the time of his own victory at Ilerda (2nd August) C. Scribonius Curio, whom he had appointed as governor of Sicily (see above), had left for Africa in order to remove Varus (thereby precluding its use as a Pompeian staging post):

  1. Curio had the better of an engagement with Varus at Utica, but was not able to press home his advantage (see ‘Civil War’, 2: 33 -34, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at pp. 175-9); but

  2. King Juba of Numidia destroyed his army and he was killed in the battle (see ‘Civil War’, 2: 39 - 42, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at pp. 183-99). 

Thus, although Spain had been closed to Pompey, Africa remained at his disposal.

Caesar’s 1st Dictatorship (Oct. - Dec. 49 BC)

According to Caesar, when he arrived at Marseilles (in late October), on his way back to Rome:

  1. “ ... he learned of the passage of a law instituting a dictatorship, and that he had been proclaimed dictator by the praetor Marcus Lepidus”, (‘Civil War’, 2: 21: 5, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 155). 

Cassius Dio similarly recorded that:

  1. “While [Caesar] was still on the way [back from Spain to Rome], ... Lepidus ... in his capacity of praetor, advised the people to elect [him as] dictator, and immediately named him, contrary to ancestral custom”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 36: 1).   

Since, as we have seen, Cicero at least had already expected a development of this kind during Caesar’s stay in Rome in April, it is reasonable to assume that Lepidus’ actions were part of a plan that had already been agreed with Caesar. 

Caesar’s journey back to Rome was interrupted by a mutiny among the troops that he had stationed at Placentia in Cisalpine Gaul (an event that he failed to mention in his ‘Civil War’). Stefan Chrissanthos (referenced below, at p. 68) gave a full account of what happened:

  1. “When the mutiny broke out, Caesar and the three Gallic legions accompanying him were [still] at Massilia.  Along with these legions, he raced to Placentia.  There he called a contio of his soldiers, both the mutinous men and those who had remained loyal.  Caesar ignored their demands and instead delivered a speech that quickly cowed the mutineers.  He threatened them with the decimation of all involved, but settled for executing only 12of the 120 ringleaders.  ... He still had the loyalty of the three veteran legions that had accompanied him from Massilia, the three veteran legions that had been left in Apulia, and numerous newly recruited legions in Spain and Italy, [which] gave him the power to regain control of the mutinous men and exact punishment.  However, the problems that had caused this mutiny remained unresolved and would help precipitate the larger and more serious mutiny two years later.” 

Having suppressed this mutiny, Caesar finally returned to Rome. 

Caesar’s Visit to Rome (1st - 11th December 49 BC)

Cassius Dio recorded that Caesar: 

  1. “... accepted the office [of dictator] as soon as he entered the city, but committed no act of terror while holding it: on the contrary, he  ... filled the [magisterial] offices for the current  year since:

  2. no one had yet been appointed in place of the absentee [magistrates from the previous year]; and

  3. [since all of the aediles of the previous year were among the absentees], the tribunes were performing all their duties”, (‘Roman History’, 41: 36: 1-2). 

While unorthodox, Caesar’s appointment was neither unexpected nor draconian: since the serving consuls were with Pompey), they were obviously unable to arrange the election of magistrates for the following year, and the obvious way for Caesar to proceed was to have himself appointed as dictator comitiorum habendorum caussa (in order to hold elections).   The relevant entry in the Augustan fasti Capitolini for 49 BC can be completed as: 

  1. Dictator: C. Julius C.f. C.n. Caesar , [without a master of horse - in order to hold elections] 

Caesar recorded that Caesar :

  1. “...allocated eleven days to finishing [his business in Rome, which included], the Latin Festival and all of the elections.  He [then] resigned from the dictatorship, left Rome, and went to Brundisium (‘Civil War’, 3: 2: 1, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 195). 

Formally speaking, the only task that Caesar had undertaken as dictator had involved the holding of the consular elections: thereafter, he conducted his other business at Rome as consul-designate.

Caesar recorded that:

  1. “After the [consular] elections were over, [Caesar took a number of administrative actions:

  2. Since credit was rather tight throughout Italy and existing loans were not being repaid, he decided to provide arbitrators.  These were to make assessments of real estate and goods, determining the prewar value of each item, and the possessions themselves were to be  surrendered to creditors [on the basis of this valuation].  He thought that this would be the most suitable measure both for removing and reducing people’s fear of a cancellation of debts (something that is apt to follow warfare and civil strife) and for preserving the borrowers’ reputations. 

  3. Using praetors and plebeian tribunes to put the necessary legislation before the people, Caesar reinstated some men who had been convicted of bribery under the lex Pompeia in the period when Pompey had [been acting illegally].  These men had offered themselves to him at the beginning of the civil war, in case he wanted to use their services  ... ”, (‘Civil War’, 3: 1: 2-4, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 193).

Finally, he noted that, having:

  1. “... allocated eleven days to finishing [the administrative business above], the feriae Latinae [on the Alban mount] and all of the elections, he resigned from the dictatorship, left Rome, and went to Brundisium”, (‘Civil War’, 3: 2: 1, translated by Cynthia Damon, referenced below, at p. 195).

Christopher Smith (referenced below, at p. 275) drew attention to the fact that Caesar took time to celebrate the feriae Latinae before leaving for Brundisium, despite his ‘immense rush’.   This might indicate that Lentulus and Marcellus had not performed this duty before their flight from Rome on 17th January 49 BC.

Plutarch gave a slightly different account of the events of Caesar’s eleven days in Rome: 

  1. “When Caesar came back to Rome, Piso, his father-in‑law, urged him to send a deputation to Pompey with proposals for a settlement; but [Servilius], in order to please Caesar, opposed the project.  So, having been made dictator by the Senate, [Caesar]:

  2. brought home exiles; 

  3. restored to civic rights the descendants of those who had suffered in the time of Sulla;

  4. relieved the burdens of the debtor-class by a certain adjustment of interest; and 

  5. undertook a few other public measures of a similar nature. 

  6. Within eleven days, he abdicated the sole power had himself declared consul with Servilius, and entered upon his campaign [against Pompey]”, (‘Life of Caesar’, 37: 1-2).

Robert Morstein-Marx (referenced below, p. 694 and note 393) argued that this chronology might well be wrong: as Caesar claimed, he had more probably held the consular ‘elections’ before embarking on his administrative programme, in which case, Servilius would have blocked Piso’s initiative as consul designate. 

Dates in the table above are based on the paper by

John Ramsey and Kurt and Raaflaub (referenced below, at pp. 187-97

Read more:

Morstein-Marx R., “Julius Caesar and the Roman People”, (2021) Cambridge

Gregori G-L. and Almagno G. (authors) and T. Spinelli (editor and translator), “Roman Calendars: Imperial Birthdays, Victories and Triumphs”, (2019) Mauritius

Pina Polo F., “Losers in the Civil War between Caesarians and Pompeians: Punishment and Survival”, in

  1. Hölkeskamp K.-J. and Beck H. (editors), “Verlierer und Aussteiger in der “Konkurrenz unter Anwesenden”: Agonalität in der Politischen Kultur des Antiken Rom”, (2019) Stuttgart, at pp. 147-68

Pina Polo F., “The Quaestorship in the Roman Republic”, (2019) Berlin and Boston

Rowan C., “From Caesar to Augustus (c. 49 BC–AD 14): Using Coins as Sources”, (2019) Cambridge and New York

Swan D., “The Carnyx on Celtic and Roman Republican Coinage”, The Antiquaries Journal, 98 (2018) 81-94

Treggiari S., “Servilia and her Family”, (2019) Oxford

Stewart R., “Seeing Caesar’s Symbols: Religious Implements on the Coins of Julius Caesar and his Successors”, in:

  1. Elkins N. T. et al. (editors), “Concordia Disciplinarum : Essays on Ancient Coinage, History and Archaeology in Honor of William E. Metcalf”, (2018) New York, at  pp. 107-2121

Ramsey, J. T. and Raaflaub, K. A., “Chronological Tables for Caesar's Wars (58–45 BC)” , Histos, 11 (2017) 162–21

Damon C. (translator), “Caesar: Civil War”, (2016) Cambridge, MA

Cornell T. C. (editor), “The Fragments of Roman History”, (2013) Oxford.

Smith C. J., “Feriae Latinae”, in:

  1. Brandt J. R. and Iddeng J. W. (editors), “Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice”, (2012) Oxford, at pp. 267-88

Beneker J., “The Crossing of the Rubicon and the Outbreak of Civil War in Cicero, Lucan, Plutarch, and Suetonius”, Phoenix, 65: 1/2 (2011) 74-99

Wardle D., “Caesar and Religion”, in:

  1. Griffin M. (Ed.), “Companion to Julius Caesar’ (2009) Chichester and Malden, MA, at pp. 100-11

Wiseman T. P., “Remembering the Roman People: Essays on Late-Republican Politics and Literature”, (2009) Oxford and New York

Nousek D., “Turning Points in Roman History: the Case of Caesar's Elephant Denarius”, Phoenix, 62 (2008), 290-307

Clark A., “Divine Qualities: Cult and Community in Republican Rome”, (2007) New York 

Goldsworthy A., “Caesar”, (2006) London

Crissanthos S. G., “Caesar and the Mutiny of 47 BC”, Journal of Roman Studies, 91 (2001) 63-75

Shackleton Bailey D. R. (translator), “Cicero: Letters to Friends, Vol. I: Letters 1-113”, (2001) Cambridge, MA

Shackleton Bailey D. R. (translator), “Cicero: Letters to Atticus, Vol. I- IV”, (1999) Cambridge MA

Sear D., “The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators (49-27 BC)”, (1998) London

Rawson E., “Caesar: Civil War and Dictatorship”, (Chapter 11) and “Aftermath of the Ides of March”, (Chapter 12), in:

  1. Crooke J. A. et al., (editors), “Cambridge Ancient History, Volume IX: Last Age of the Roman Republic (146-43 BC”, (1992) Cambridge, at pp. 424-90

Welch K. E., “The Praefectura Urbis of 45 BC and the Ambitions of L. Cornelius Balbus”, Antichthon, 24 (1990) 53-69

Crawford M., “Roman Republican Coinage”, (1974) Cambridge

Broughton T. R. S., “The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Vol. II : 99 BC - 31 BC”, (1952) New York

Duff J. D. (translator), “Lucan: The Civil War (Pharsalia)”, (1928) Cambridge MA

Miller W.. (translator), “Cicero: On Duties”, (1913) Cambridge MA

Return to Roman History (1st Century BC)