Forced Perception: Evaluating the Validity and Applicability of the Adulescentulus Carnifex Label in Relation to the Early Career Character of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus

(1)

Forced Perception:

Evaluating the Validity and Applicability of the Adulescentulus Carnifex Label in Relation to the Early Career Character of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus

Alexander K. Todd

ID:12239941

Master of Ancient History

Department of Classics and Ancient Civilizations Graduate School of Humanities

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Supervisors: Dr. Kit Morrell and Dr. Emily Hemelrijk Second Reader: Dr. Marleen Termeer

(2)

Statement of Originality

This declaration is to certify that this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge, my own work. No sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been utilized in its composition. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the MA program Classics and Ancient Civilizations: Ancient History Specialization.

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisors Kit Morrell and Emily Hemelrijk for their continued support both in the writing of this thesis and throughout the duration of the Ancient History MA program. Their feedback has proved to be an invaluable resource in formulating this thesis, and for that I am grateful.

Additionally, I would like to express my thanks to Marleen Termeer for her participation in the role of second reader.

To my Parents, thank you for your continued support in all of my academic eﬀorts and beyond. Your love and encouragement have provided me with every opportunity for success.

And lastly to my Wife. This work would not have been possible without your tireless support of my dreams and ambitions; proven through your willingness to move to another continent in support of them. I am forever grateful.

(4)

I. Introduction

I.i The Problematic Adulescentulus Carnifex Label

Adulescentulus Carnifex, also known as the young executioner or teenage

butcher, is a label frequently applied to the Roman imperator and statesman Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus by modern scholars as a representation of his early career, particularly for his involvement in Sulla’s second civil war and his role in the mopping up of the remnants of the Marian faction in Sicily and Africa, in addition to the suppression of the rebellions of both Lepidus and Sertorius. However, the extent of 1

the name’s use in modern scholarship and the willingness of scholars to accept its implication of a ruthless and cruel character seem to suggest that the term

adulescentulus carnifex was a commonplace, or even generally accepted opinion of

Pompeius in antiquity. Upon investigation of the ancient sources pertaining to the early career of Gnaeus Pompeius, this idea of widespread usage of the adulescentulus carnifex label quickly becomes problematic as there are no references to him earning it in his youth, but rather the evidence shows that it was applied at a much later period of his lifetime, and even then it is recorded only in one particular passage from a single source. This lack of evidence for the usage of the label in antiquity raises questions as to whether adulescentulus carnifex is an accurate representation of Pompeius’ character and actions during the military campaigns of his youth. The answer, as will be discussed throughout the various sections of this thesis, is a resounding no; as evidence used to counter the adulescentulus carnifex label will demonstrate his temperament to be rather mild in comparison to the negative connotations associated with a ‘teenage butcher.’

This usage and acceptance of the adulescentulus carnifex label in reference to Pompeius’ early career character traits and actions raises issues in regards to both ancient and modern sources that deal with events of the Late-Republican period in which Pompeius played a prominent role; namely, that the questionable validity and overuse of the adulescentulus carnifex label has far reaching implications with the ability to skew modern opinions not only of Pompeius’ early career, but that of his later career as well. The term itself is hardly attested to in ancient writings, evident from the fact that it only exists as a passage within Valerius Maximus’ body of work that will be discussed in further detail in the coming chapters; however, the values and characteristics that the adulescentulus carnifex label denotes, those of a ruthless young man determined to forge his way to the top of Sulla’s new dictatorial regime, are also a largely contentious issue. Ancient sources pertaining to the events which unfolded during the civil conflict are frequently split on the nature of Pompeius’ early commands, specifically in regards to the events occurring after the allotment of his command in Sicily and Africa. On the one hand our source for the adulescentulus 2

Davies&Swain 2010 p.45; Gruen 1974 p.62; Seager 2002 p.32; Scullard 1982 p.66; Syme 1939 p.27; Southern 2002 p.33

1

According to Plutarch Pompey 10.1, Pompeius receives this authority from Sulla to stamp out the remains of the Marian faction.

(6)

carnifex label, Valerius Maximus, highlights Pompeius’ supposedly ruthless disposition

as a youth through noting an exchange from a much later date within his lifetime, in 3

which the orator Helvius Mancia recounted Pompeius’ actions during the civil war in the midst of legal proceedings of an unrelated nature. Plutarch however, writing of the 4

events of the civil war in his Life of Pompey, makes note of this unnatural cruelty with the caveat that the sources contemporary to the events taking place (ie. the Sullan proscriptions) must be treated with caution, as they can be of a nature hostile to Pompeius due to his later position as an adversary of Caesar. Further variance in 5

opinion can be seen in the fragments of Diodorus Siculus who describes Pompeius’ command on the island of Sicily as an expression of “austerity and sobriety”, in which he displayed the utmost character in comparison to the “irrational pleasures” that would normally befit one of his age, as well as in the orations of Pompeius’ 6

contemporary Cicero whose Pro Lege Manilia, while an obvious praise of Pompeius’ martial prowess, depicts his campaigns in Sicily and Africa as being representative of his integrity and dignity. These few examples of ancient perceptions of Pompeius’ 7

early career, alongside further examples that will be investigated in greater detail in the following chapters, are representative of the diverse nature of opinions that are bound to exist when discussing the life and character of a person as historically influential as Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

In contrast to the diverse nature of the ancient sources, modern scholars prey on this early period of Pompeius’ military career, and use the events that unfolded within civil war conditions as a means to paint his character in a negative light with disregard to their context, and in doing so frame his pathway to prominence as one reliant on bloodshed, cruelty, and the murder of high status Roman oﬃcials. This 8

viewpoint has established a strong foothold since the 20th century with the influential works of Ronald Syme and Erich S. Gruen, whose scope of study surrounding the end of the Roman Republic may be rooted in opposing ideas, but find a common ground in their inclusion of references to the events surrounding the adulescentulus carnifex label as being representative of Pompeius’ character. 9

This characterization as a teenage butcher finds further acceptance in the numerous biographies of Pompeius which, in an attempt to create a better understanding of the subject (and likely a more compelling narrative), focus on this period with an emphasis placed on the executions ordered by the adulescentulus

carnifex. Amongst these biographies are the works Robin Seager and Pat Southern, in

which the former accentuates the brutality of Pompeius adding another scalp to his belt and the latter emphatically devotes an entire chapter to the events of his youth,

Helvius Mancia makes accusations against Lucius Scribonius Libo at a meeting of the censors in 55 BCE.

3

Valerius Maximus Mem. 6.2.8

4

Plutarch Pompey 10.5

5

Diodorus Bib. 38-39.20

6

Cicero Pro Leg. Man. 21.61

7

Syme 1939 p.27; Gruen 1974 p.62; Davies&Swain 2010 p.45

8

Gruen 1974 p.62; Syme 1939 p.27

(7)

with the imposing title “Adulescentulus Carnifex”. One notable contrast is the work of 10

John Leach, who delineates the propaganda-centred nature of the label, and outlines both the positive and negative opinions of Pompeius’ command in Sicily, creating a 11

more nuanced and moderate view of these early commands. In examining both influential scholarly works, such as those of Syme and Gruen, as well as more popular works, such as the biographies on Pompeius mentioned previously, it is clear that the teenage butcher persona is over-utilized by modern scholars, which has the eﬀect of placing Pompeius’ character in a precarious position that is overshadowed by the negative connotation of events which occurred within a civil war context.

The events that transpire within civil war circumstances, especially those of a nation as powerful and prominent as ancient Rome, are bound to be viewed with a wide variety of perspectives, as can be seen in the previous examples of their coverage in antiquity. With this in mind, the question can be raised as to why there is a persistent need for modern scholars to apply adulescentulus carnifex, a label which fails to take stock of the extenuating circumstances of a civil war, and appears only in the proceedings recorded in the works of Valerius Maximus some seventy years later, as a foundational piece of evidence for Pompeius’ early career? Its usage clearly highlights a problem in the historiography of Pompeius’ life and military achievements, but also in the nature of studying persons from antiquity in an attempt to hone in on personal characteristics such as temperament. As we shall see, not only are the providence and prevalence of the label adulescentulus carnifex unclear when applied to Pompeius’ actions in Sulla’s civil war, but the term’s applicability in itself should be questioned, as should the willingness of modern scholars to unhesitatingly accept and build upon it in regards to other aspects of Pompeius’ career. In this regard, it is clear that further study of the early life and career of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and any of the perceived negative connotations that it may have require further study to gain a more balanced and complete image of one of the most prominent men in the Late Republican period of Roman history.

I.ii Framework of the Thesis

The scope of this work is not an attempt to discern the true nature of Pompeius’ early character, nor is it an attempt at an apologetic response to the execution of the four Roman citizens mentioned previously within the chaotic period following Sulla’s rise to power. Rather, the aims of this thesis are to analyze and assess the sources, both ancient and modern, which deal with the life and achievements of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus in an attempt to better understand why the adulescentulus carnifex label was first applied by Helvius Mancia and subsequently adopted by numerous modern authors, with the hopes of providing a more nuanced perception of this formative part of his military career. To insinuate that Pompeius was devoid of

Seager 2002 p.32; Southern 2002 p.27

10

Leach 1978 p.29

(8)

responsibility for the executions of Carbo, Ahenobarbus, Brutus, and Perperna would be naïve. His role in support of Sulla during his rise to power is well attested to in the various extant sources and as such, his position as a promising young legate, though unconventionally attained, was characterized by the need to prove his worth, ability, and loyalty to the commander who had provided such an unparalleled opportunity. 12

However, Pompeius’ unorthodox rise to such a prominent position within Sulla’s army, eﬀectively bought by means of his recruitment of troops without the oﬃcial authority to do so, combined with the unconventional nature of the civil war, in which Romans of opposing political stances were pitted against one another, lends support to the idea that, at least to some degree, the executions ordered by Pompeius should be viewed as a necessary means to secure both the future of the new regime, as well as his own position within it. It is with this idea in mind that the early career actions of Pompeius should be viewed. Although it is impossible to know the extent to which a person in antiquity acted under their own volition, in the case of Pompeius, who owed his fledgling military career to Sulla just as much as he owed it to his own bold decision making, it can be safely assumed that his actions reflect those of a young legate carrying out orders and taking the initiative to secure a rapid and decisive victory, as opposed to a so-called “teenage butcher” who relished in the cruel treatment and ruthless murder of his fellow citizens.

To discern this distinction, this thesis will first examine the origin of the

adulescentulus carnifex label, and its application to Pompeius’ early career by Helvius

Mancia, in Valerius Maximus’ work Memorable Doings and Sayings. Through investigating the nature of his body of work, a more thorough understanding of Helvius Mancia’s speech and its various contexts, both politically in 55 BCE as well as its context in Valerius Maximus’ work, will be made. Furthermore, a detailed analysis of the speech itself, the events to which it pertains, as well as its implications on Pompeius’ perception in antiquity will shed light on the inaccuracy of the

adulescentulus carnifex label, providing further grounds with which its adoption by

modern scholars can be contested.

The following chapter will deal with the various ancient sources that cover the aspects of Roman history that relate to the subject at hand, namely those that provide information on Pompeius’ early career and the events that unfolded during Sulla’s second civil war and its immediate aftermath. Contrary to some of the authors that will be discussed within this thesis who, as will be discussed, ignore positive interpretations of the evidence; my hope is to bring as much information into the discussion as seems relevant in an attempt to bolster the argument against the

adulescentulus carnifex label as being representative of Pompeius’ early character. The

nature of this chapter will be intentionally brief, as the preceding chapter will have largely dealt with the sources at hand; however, the vast wealth of information on this period of Late Republican history from the likes of Plutarch, Appian, Cicero, and Livy amongst others, should aid in providing a more balanced and wholesome picture of

Leach 1978 p.27

(9)

Pompeius’ career that can be built upon when addressing the opinions of modern scholars and their interpretations of these very same events.

The treatment of modern scholars and their opinions on the events surrounding Pompeius’ early career will be dealt with in a loose form of chronological order, as the works of earlier, influential scholars such as Mommsen, Syme, and Gruen are all likely to have had some sort of eﬀect on the works of scholars writing at later periods. As such, these works will be examined first to discern the opinions of Pompeius and his early character as held by the authors, as well as to highlight any of the more well known elements of their work that might have persisted through into more modern 13

works by means of their influential nature. This will be followed by an investigation into the diverse nature of opinions held by modern scholars on Pompeius and his actions during the chaotic period surrounding Sulla’s second civil war, with a focus on two of the more prevalent views: that Pompeius was a young legate following the orders of his superior, and the notion that he was a megalomaniac with a penchant for brutal behaviour. These themes are also evident in the numerous biographical works on Pompeius, which seem to latch onto key elements of his early career as a means to develop an interesting character and storyline. These more popular biographies will be examined alongside their scholarly counterparts to further emphasize the prevalence within modern literature to apply the adulescentulus carnifex label to Pompeius and to strengthen the argument against further misappropriation of the term.

The final chapter of this thesis will consist of an examination of the civil war circumstances in which the executions ordered by Pompeius took place, in an eﬀort to provide a context for his actions as well as to better understand the full scope of Sulla’s power as dictator and the far-reaching implications of his proscriptions against the enemies of the newly reformed state. The nature of Pompeius’ commands and his role in implementing the orders of Sulla during this period will be a specific area of focus, as will be the question of the justifiable nature of actions committed during civil war circumstances. Through the investigation of these themes, the condemnation of Pompeius’ character that is evident in Helvius Mancia’s speech, in regards to the execution of the four prominent Roman citizens Carbo, Ahenobarbus, Brutus, and Perperna, should be eﬀectively deemed inaccurate, as it will become evident that in order to bring stability to the provinces, and indeed Rome itself, extreme (albeit justified in light of the circumstances) measures needed to be taken to secure a future for the Republic that would be unfettered by the overhanging threat of civil war.

The thesis will then conclude with a summary of its findings in regards to both ancient and modern dispositions toward Pompeius' early character as well as the validity and applicability of the adulescentulus carnifex label. In doing so, possible ways in which modern scholarship could approach the label and its connotations moving forward will be addressed, in an eﬀort to provide a fair representation of the life and early career of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

Examples include Syme’s theory that the Republic had outgrown its infrastructure and an overhaul of its governmental structure

13

was imminent, as well as Gruen’s opposing theory that the Late Republican period, rather than exemplifying decay, should be characterized by a strength of institution and continuation of past tradition.

(10)

I.iii Context and Chronology

For the purpose of better understanding the application of the adulescentulus carnifex label to Pompeius’ early career, it would be prudent to include within this work a timeline of both the executions themselves as well as their broader context within the timespan of Pompeius’ life during the last century of the Roman Republic. This section will serve to outline the events surrounding the adulescentulus

carnifex label, and in doing so reveal the distortion of the civil

war circumstances as implemented by Helvius Mancia in his speech of 55 BCE; distortions that can be seen as the underlying root of the problematic adulescentulus carnifex label that has altered the perception of Pompeius and his early career character.

Pompeius’ ascension to a role of importance within Roman society can be traced back to the death of his father, Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo, in 87 BCE. The younger Pompeius had campaigned with his father’s army during the Social Wars, gaining a strong foundation for the military career that would come to define his later life. However, upon the 14

death of Strabo, and the subsequent inheritance of his property and clientelae in Picenum, Pompeius was put on trial for the misappropriation of war spoils attained during the siege of Asculum, of which his father was the commander in charge of operations. Pompeius’ defence in the trial was bolstered by the help he received from several prominent Roman citizens, including Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, whose later 15

death on the orders of Pompeius, would become one of the controversial origins of the

adulescentulus carnifex label, through the aforementioned distortions within Helvius’

speech.

Following the successful defence of the trial and upon the return of Lucius Cornelius Sulla to Italy from his campaigns against Mithridates in the East, Pompeius raised three legions from his homeland of Picenum in support of the Sullan cause. Particularly notable in this event are the facts that while on campaign Sulla had been deemed an enemy of the state by the Gaius Marius, eﬀectively forcing him to secure an uneasy peace with the Pontic king so as to enable him to return to Italy to deal with the growing Marian threat, as well as the fact that Pompeius was only 23 years old at the time of his raising of the legions in support of Sulla, all the while holding no oﬃcial authority to do so. This shows the strategic (if opportunistic) foresight of Pompeius to link himself with the returning Sulla and, as is depicted in both Plutarch and Appian, 16

his proficiency in recruitment and logistics, as at such a young age he was able to

14

15

Appian Bell. Civ. 1.9.80; Plutarch Pompey 6.1-4

16

Timeline of Events

83 BCE -Return of Sulla from the East

-Civil War

82 BCE -Execution of Carbo

81 BCE -Execution of Ahenobarbus

78 BCE -Rebellion of Lepidus

77 BCE -Execution of Brutus

72 BCE -Execution of Perperna

71 BCE -End of Sertorian Rebellion

55 BCE -Pompeius’ Second Consulship -Helvius’ Speech

(11)

recruit a large force of his countrymen, denying the Marian faction (and his former benefactor Carbo) of much needed manpower and a strategic foothold in the region. 17

For his efforts in supporting the Sullan cause, Pompeius was taken under Sulla’s wing as one of his legates, an opportunity which afforded him with the chance to command his troops with official backing, as would soon be the case during his campaigns in Sicily and Africa.

As previously stated, the executions which contributed to Pompeius’ earning of the adulescentulus carnifex nickname, those of Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, Marcus Junius Brutus, and Marcus Perperna Vento, all prominent supporters of the Marian faction, began with the institution of Sulla’s proscriptions in 82 BCE after he resumed his control of Rome and was appointed by the Senate in the role of dictator. In response to the negative treatment of both 18

himself and his supporters while on campaign against Mithridates in the East, Sulla instituted a proscription list, eﬀectively condemning those Roman citizens who were believed to support the Marian faction. It is from this purge of the Roman aristocracy that Pompeius was granted his first oﬃcial command, with the task of removing the Marian resistance and its leaders from their power base on the island of Sicily. Upon the approach of Pompeius’ army the governor of Sicily, Marcus Perperna Vento, fled the island leaving its cities worn and drained of resources. The resulting power 19

vacuum was filled by Pompeius, who showed ample skill as an administrator through his reorganization of the island and, following through with his orders to eliminate the Marian support in Sicily, captured the Roman consul of 82 BCE Gnaeus Papirius Carbo who had previously acted as the legal benefactor of Pompeius during the trial against his father’s estate. Pompeius’ setting of Carbo, a man who had previously been three times consul, before a tribunal was a great source of humiliation for the prominent oﬃcial and his subsequent execution is, as will be argued in due course, the definitive 20

reason behind the application of the teenage butcher label to the young Pompeius’ character.

Following the death of Carbo in 82 BCE, Pompeius was ordered by Sulla to sail to Africa to continue his campaign against the Marian resistance in that province. Crossing the sea with a large fleet, Pompeius divided his landing forces between the cities of Utica and Carthage, where large contingents of enemy troops deserted to his side, bolstering his strength to six full legions. With this army he marched against the 21

Marian-supported governor of Africa and son-in-law of Cinna, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, and coaxed him into an unfavourable battle. In the ensuing chaos following the clash and the subsequent storming of Ahenobarbus’ camp, the enemy commander was killed. It is unclear as to whether Pompeius ordered the execution, or

Diodorus Bib. 38-39.15

17

Appian Bell. Civ. 1.11.98

18

19

Appian Bell. Civ. 1.11.98; Plutarch Pompey 10.3-4

20

Plutarch Pompey 11.1-2

(12)

whether his death was the result of his falling in battle; however, there are only two 22

things that can be said for certain about the demise of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus in 81 BCE. First, that similarly to Carbo at the time of his death, Ahenobarbus was a well-connected citizen from a prominent Roman family; and second, that it is one of the four executions marked out by Helvius Mancia as being the result of orders given by the “adulescentulus carnifex.” Whether this alludes to orders given in battle or to 23

the orders of an execution remains unknown; however, the position of the latter is seized upon by Helvius in his distortion of the events as a means to further vilify Pompeius. 24

With the Marian threat in Sicily and Africa eliminated, Pompeius was ordered by Sulla to send his army back to Italy, while he was to remain in Africa with one legion and await further orders. At the behest of his loyal troops, Pompeius travelled with them to Rome and upon his return was eventually granted a triumph for his accomplishments and support of Sulla throughout the civil war. In 78 BCE Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, with the support of the newly influential and popular Pompeius, was elected consul and, following the death of Sulla in that very same year, attempted to overturn the new regime that he had helped to secure. This continuation of the civil 25

strife that would mar Roman politics for much of the 1st century BCE saw the young Pompeius once again thrust into the midst of conflict on the Italian peninsula. Pompeius aligned himself with the Senate and was sent North to Cisalpine Gaul to confront the armies of Lepidus under the command of Marcus Junius Brutus who was operating in that province. After a lengthy siege against Brutus’ forces at Mutina in 77 BCE, Pompeius’ army was successful in forcing their opponents to surrender the city, the result of which saw Brutus handed over to Pompeius, who supposedly settled him in a nearby town before having him executed. As will be discussed in the analysis of his speech, this episode is also utilized by Helvius to distort the circumstances of the execution with the eﬀect of displaying the alleged treachery of Pompeius. After these events Lepidus was also defeated in battle, and fled to the island of Sardinia where he died shortly thereafter. With the demise of Lepidus, the remainder of his troops joined 26

forces with Marcus Perperna Vento, the former governor of Sicily, who summarily made for Hispania to join with Quintus Sertorius to continue the resistance there.

Due to his successful operations in Sicily and Africa, as well as those against the rebellion of Lepidus, Pompeius was next tasked with reinvigorating the war eﬀort in Hispania under Metellus Pius, who had hitherto been waging an exhausting guerrilla war against the rogue Roman general Sertorius. Pompeius’ command in Hispania was initially filled with positivity, as his youthful disposition and high morale aided in bolstering the Roman forces that had had their fair share of losses against the

Plutarch Pompey 11.4 makes reference to Ahenobarbus being slain in the storming of the camp, while Livy Per. 89 states that he

22

was captured and killed. Valerius Maximus Mem. 6.2.8

23

24

Appian Bell. Civ. 1.10.94 Lepidus fought for Sulla during the civil war against the Marians.

25

Appian Bell. Civ. 1.13.107; Livy Per. 90; Plutarch Pompey 16

(13)

makeshift armies of Sertorius. However, the length and diﬃculty of the campaign 27

began to weigh heavily on Pompeius’ troops, and the crafty Sertorius was continuously able to manipulate both the resources and landscape of the region to his advantage. The length of the rebellion however, also had adverse eﬀects on Sertorius’ own troops, eventually resulting in his murder at the hands of Perperna, who thought himself a more capable commander. Upon hearing of this turn of events and Perperna’s wish to engage in battle, Pompeius took advantage of this lesser commander and, drawing him into a trap, quickly brought an end to the rebellion in Hispania in 72 BCE. Perperna was captured and, with the promise of handing over valuable information, was brought before Pompeius who, after declining to entertain his attempts at bargaining for his life, had him executed.

With the prolonged nature of Sertorius’ guerrilla campaign in Hispania, and the last of the four executions taking place at the conclusion of that conflict, the timeline for the four executions ordered by the young Pompeius cited by Helvius Mancia as being the cause for the earning of the nickname adulescentulus carnifex ranges from 82-72 BCE, a span of ten years. As such, the notion of a ‘teenage butcher’ on a cruel and murderous rampage against Sulla’s enemies seems ill-fitting in regards to the timeline of the events themselves. With the exception of the deaths of the first two men, Carbo and Ahenobarbus, which occurred at the outset of Sulla’s proscriptions and within one year of each other, the remainder of the executions occurred after lengthy campaigns that were several years apart. The timeline seems to imply not that Pompeius was on a murderous rampage, but rather that he dealt with the insurrections at hand in a manner relative to their perceived level of threat, and was deployed by higher authorities to do so.

This raises questions as to why Helvius Mancia would deem it necessary not only to invoke the pains of a long settled civil war in an unrelated setting (ie. a legal proceeding), but also as to why he would group together four executions, each with various contexts and separated by lengthy intervals of time, into an all-encompassing and damning title, the adulescentulus carnifex. The answer, as will be discussed in the following chapter of this thesis on the analysis of Valerius Maximus’ work, points to the fact that the political climate of 55 BCE saw a rise in anti-Pompeian sentiment within the Senate, and that Helvius’ attack was meant as a defamation of the character of Pompeius, a man who some thought had already by this point achieved too much success and attained too much power to sustain the delicate balance of the Roman political climate of the Late Republic.

(14)

II. Origin of Adulescentulus Carnifex

II.i Valerius Maximus and the Nature of His Work

Active during the Early Imperial period of Roman history, under the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, Valerius Maximus was a Roman writer and rhetorician most 28

famously known for his vast compilation of historical anecdotes from throughout Rome’s illustrious past. These anecdotes, used as a tool for young rhetoricians in training, have survived in such a complete form largely due to their continued 29

popularity as educational books well beyond their time of composition, with numerous extant manuscripts which date to the Middle Ages.

Little is known about Valerius’ family history or career, except for the small clues hinted within his work about his personal life. What can be discerned from his writing is that Valerius had a close connection with Sextus Pompeius, who had been consul of 30

Rome at the time of the emperor Augustus’ death in 14 CE, and was a relative of the subject of this thesis Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. Although his career path is unknown, there is a possibility that Valerius’ popularity and success could be attributed to this close relationship with the former consul, as their connection was allegedly forged while Valerius accompanied Sextus on campaign while the latter was proconsul of the province of Asia. Although the nature of Valerius’ attachment to Sextus Pompeius is 31

unknown, it is likely that his proximity to a man of such prominent standing propelled Valerius’ own social standing forward, gaining him further notoriety in regards to his scholarly pursuits.

As mentioned previously, Valerius Maximus’ most notable work, Memorable

Doings and Sayings, is a compilation of anecdotes gathered from various points in

Roman history, which are presented by the author in thematic groupings relating to topics such as religion, civic institutions, and social virtues, all of which provide a valuable insight into the moral structure of Roman society during the Late Republican/ Early Imperial periods. Due to the diverse nature of the subjects covered by Valerius, several prominent Roman figures continuously reappear throughout the work, which provides an insight into the complex nature of how their characters were understood in antiquity and further provides modern readers with the possibility of examining prominent persons from the past in relation to the stories, character traits and moral values that are attributed to them. Fortunately for those interested in the study of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Valerius Maximus’ work references the Roman Imperator numerous times, providing details regarding a variety of traits supposedly held by the man, of both positive and negative nature.

Smith et al. 1849 p.1001

28

Preface of Valerius Maximus Mem.

29

30

(15)

II.ii Context of Helvius Mancia’s Speech

The year of 55 BCE was noteworthy for Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, as it saw the dedication of extravagant games in commemoration of his newly constructed theatre complex in the Campus Martius, the first permanent stone theatre within the city of Rome. Of equally monumental proportions were Pompeius’ continued 32

advancements within the political arena, as the now fifty year old statesman was appointed to the oﬃce of consul for the second time, alongside the wealthy and influential Marcus Licinius Crassus. With this political power, Pompeius would be in a 33

position enact laws and reforms which would help reconfigure Rome’s ever-expanding Republic, setting the political stage for the succeeding decades. However, this prominent political role, combined with the unprecedented military commands and accomplishments, vast network of clientelae, and the strong power base accrued over his illustrious career opened Pompeius up to criticism from many within the Senate who thought that his influence, both in Rome and in the provinces, had already become too great. 34

It is within the realm of these criticisms against Pompeius that Helvius Mancia’s speech, as it is recorded in Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Doings and Sayings, recalled the actions of a long since concluded civil war, and in doing so irreparably damaged the image of the consul by labelling him an adulescentulus carnifex for his role within the conflict. As referenced previously, the exchange between Pompeius and Helvius occurred during a meeting of the censors Valerius Messalla Niger and Servilius Vatia Isauricus in 55 BCE, the latter of which would have been well acquainted with Pompeius’ early career, having held the consulship as a supporter of Sulla in 79 BCE. 35

Both men oversaw the judicial proceedings which took place in relation to the accusations brought up against one of Pompeius’ adherents and most trusted advisors Lucius Scribonius Libo. Pompeius’ role in the proceedings is unclear, as it is possible 36

that he served as an advocate for his friend Libo or rather that he was simply present in the audience. Whatever the case may be, we know from the exchange with Helvius 37

(to be discussed in further detail in a later section pertaining to the analysis of Helvius’ speech) that Pompeius opened himself up to criticism through his interjection of comments on the accuser's age and status. There are several possibilities 38

surrounding the nature of Helvius’ response and its relation to the atmosphere within the courtroom at the time of its presentation. Erich Gruen maintained that the charges against Libo were in actuality directed at the consul, as an oﬀensive had been initiated by those in the Senate opposed to the triumvirate of Crassus, Caesar, and Pompeius. 39

Plutarch Pompey 52.4; Davies 2017 p.277

32 Plutarch Pompey 51.4 33 Gruen 1974 pp.311-315 34 Steel 2013 p.156-7 35

Cicero Ad Fam. 1.1.3; Gruen 1974 p.108

36

Steel 2013 p.155

37

38

Gruen 1974 p.314

(16)

The latter’s interjection, directed at Helvius Mancia in an impromptu defence of his friend, opened him up to further criticism beyond the accusations against Libo, having the eﬀect of compounding any negative image of Pompeius from the present with those from the past. This notion of a concerted eﬀort from those within the Senate who opposed the ‘triumvirate’ and the perceived imbalance of power that it represented can also be seen in the work of Anthony Corbeill who, in his analysis of Helvius’ speech in relation to political opinions of Pompeius evident in the 50’s BCE, highlights the contemporary perception that Pompeius’ individuality and omnipotent behaviour presented to the unity of the Republic. As such, Helvius was able to twist the 40

perception of Pompeius and the influence that he had accrued over the length of his career by reintroducing those present at the proceedings to the men executed by Pompeius during the civil war, eﬀectively bringing them back from the dead to tell their story.

This practice of bringing people back ab inferis, as mentioned by Dufallo and 41

touched upon by Steel, was a popular practice in the courtrooms of the Late 42

Republic, as it oﬀered orators the opportunity to drastically increase the dramatization of their depositions by invoking people or stories from the past to aid in the proceedings of the present. Additionally, attacks on the personal character of an opponent were also a prevalent tactic in court, as they were seen as a legitimate strategy both in defence and prosecution. As such, when Helvius was presented with 43

the opportunity to use such a tool to highlight the infamous events from Pompeius’ early career he quickly seized it. This approach of reintroducing events from the past to build upon the perceptions of the present served the purpose not only of calling upon the executed men to aid in the negative portrayal of Pompeius’ character, but also of associating them with their familial connections that were politically active during the period in and around the 50’s BCE. As far as can be discerned, of the four men that were executed on the orders of Pompeius during the civil war and its adjacent conflicts, only two had familial connections that were politically active during the time of Helvius Mancia’s speech in 55 BCE. Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, the brother of Gnaeus who had been killed in 81 BCE for his support of the Marian party in Africa, was politically opposed to the power and influence that Pompeius, Crassus and Caesar had obtained by means of their informal alliance. As such, he ran for the consulship of 55 BCE with the aim of removing some of that power to bring balance back to the aristocracy; however, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus was defeated, 44

having been violently forced out of his candidature for the consulship by the influential duo of Pompeius and Crassus. Although his election to the consulship of 55 BCE 45

was denied, he would be elected to that oﬃce in the following year, after the security of the ‘Triumvirate’ had been cemented. The other living relative politically active at the time of Helvius Mancia’s speech was Marcus Junius Brutus who was in the early

Corbeill 1996 p.183 40 Dufallo 2007 p.13-36 41 Steel 2013 p.156 42 Corbeill 1996 p.16-17 43 Plutarch Pompey 52.1 44

Cicero Att. 4.8a.2; Plutarch Pompey 52.2

(17)

stages of in his political career, and was the son of the elder Marcus Junius Brutus, that was executed by Pompeius after the siege at Mutina. Although he would later become best known for his role in the assassination of Caesar, the younger Brutus at this point in time had served under his uncle Cato during the latter's tenure as governor of Cyprus in 58 BCE, and would become a staunch supporter of the Optimates first in 46

their power struggle against the ‘Triumvirate,’ and later in the civil war between Pompeius and Caesar. While both Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus and Marcus Junius Brutus would later find their way into the camp of Pompeius following his alliance with the Optimates and subsequent defence of the Republic against the forces of Caesar in the civil war, it was their position as supporters of the Optimate cause at the time of Helvius’ speech, a cause opposed to Pompeius’ power, which enabled their political status to aid in the denouncement of his character. Thus, through highlighting the less prominent executions of both Brutus and Ahenobarbus (to be discussed in the following section), Helvius was able to add weight to the damnation of Pompeius’ early character by associating the executions with their living relatives who stood politically in opposition to Pompeius.

In understanding the political context of Helvius Mancia’s speech, it is important to consider the timespan of the events in the civil war that it depicted (i.e. the executions of Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, Marcus Junius Brutus, and Marcus Perperna Vento), in relation to the date of the speech itself and the political climate of 55 BCE. From the date of the first execution, that of Carbo in 82 BCE, to Helvius’ adversarial spat with Pompeius marks a span of 27 years, highlighting the willingness of Mancia to dig deep into the collective past of every Roman present during the legal proceedings to not only reinvigorate their memories of the tumultuous period of civil conflict, but also to introduce those citizens that might not have had memories of the civil war to the supposedly ruthless and cruel character displayed by Pompeius nearly three decades prior. Furthermore, the span of time between the first execution of Carbo and the last of Perperna was a lengthy ten years, which oversaw Pompeius’ transformation from a young eques of twenty-three years of age, to a man of thirty-three with proconsular authority. Surely, Helvius’ intention in including events 47

from such a long timeline was to highlight the notion that the rise to prominence of the

adulescentulus carnifex was littered with the debris of his ruthless and destructive

behaviour. However, the fact remains that at thirty-three years of age Pompeius was hardly an adulescentulus, as well as the fact that throughout his career, as will be revisited throughout this thesis, Pompeius displayed a mild temperament and trustworthy character unbefitting of a carnifex. It is therefore likely that Helvius strung together these four separate events from a variety of contexts and dates within the same conflict to frame Pompeius as an adulescentulus carnifex, and in doing so was able to highlight the current perception within the Senate that he, alongside Crassus and Caesar, had garnered a threatening amount of power. 48

46

47

Cassius Dio Rom. Hist. 30.30-32

(18)

In regards to the context of Helvius Mancia’s speech within Memorable Doings

and Sayings, the work of Valerius Maximus, it fits into the theme of “Things Freely

Spoken or Freely Done,” a chapter of anecdotes focussed primarily on notable representations of free speech from the annals of Roman history. Valerius prefaces the chapter with comments on the nature of free speech, citing its positioning halfway between virtue and vice; being deserving of praise if applied moderately, and disapproval if used excessively. Valerius expands his description of free speech 49

further, painting it as a tool more commonly utilized by the mob than by the wise man, as it is merely tolerated by those exposed to it. Within this framework it can be understood why Valerius would have chosen to include the speech of Helvius Mancia, as it depicts not only the free speech of Pompeius, who interjected the legal proceedings in defence of his friend Libo, but also the free speech of Helvius, who attempts to drum up support from the crowd through his denouncement of the executions of Ahenobarbus, Brutus, Carbo, and Perperna. However, not all free speech was deemed equal; and as will be examined below, the criticisms of Pompeius made by Helvius would not have been held to the same standard as those from more prominent members in attendance.

Within the chapter Things Freely Spoken or Freely Done Valerius Maximus initially provides three examples of free speech: first, in the context of the capture of the city of Privernum, which had rebelled against Rome in 330 BCE; second, the retelling of an argument between Lucius Crassus and Lucius Philippus in the Senate; and lastly, concerning Scipio Aemilianus’ comment during questioning, in which he warned all in attendance to keep quiet as Italy was only their stepmother. Valerius 50

then applies six diﬀerent anecdotes related to free speech that in some capacity concern the unprecedented level of power that Pompeius had attained both through his various military commands throughout the Roman world, as well as his rising political status in Rome. In the first example of Pompeius as the victim of free speech, Valerius refers to his prominent position in society as being the cause for his frequent exposure to the criticism of others, although he makes note of the respect which was earned from his calm disposition in dealing with such aﬀronts. The passage itself is 51

concerned with the prosecution of Manilius Crispus, a supporter of Pompeius, by Gnaeus Piso who, in accusing the former, also took the opportunity to bring up allegations against the latter. Pompeius responded by asking if he too was on trial, to which Piso retorted in objection to Pompeius’ influence and power, stating that he would try him if there were a guarantee that he would not start another civil war. This exchange between Pompeius and Piso is representative of the following passages from Valerius, in that they are all concerned with the great influence of Pompeius, and the fear of some in the Senate that Pompeius would live up to the reputation of his former mentor Sulla.

Valerius Maximus Mem. 2 Preface

49

Valerius Maximus Mem. 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 respectively.

50

(19)

The second anecdote given by Valerius also takes place within the circumstances of a trial, however, in this instance Pompeius had provided a statement that would have aided the defendant. Cato, who was no great fan of Pompeius, had the evidence removed from the trial due to what he deemed as the intervention of the power and influence of Pompeius into the courtroom. Further criticism of Pompeius’ 52

power can be seen from within Senate through the actions of Gnaeus Lentulus Marcellinus the consul of 56 BCE who, in rousing his audience, prompted them to applaud while it was still legal due to the increasing influence of Pompeius. In 53

addition to these examples is that of Marcus Favonius who, in opposition to the power of Pompeius, declared the bandage that the latter had wrapped around his leg to be a diadem representative of his regal influence. Valerius makes note that throughout this 54

accusation Pompeius maintained his characteristic mild temperament, so as not to acknowledge the holding of any such power.

Valerius’ next passage pertaining to free speech and the criticism of Pompeius’ power is the origin of this entire thesis and the source of the adulescentulus carnifex label itself, namely the speech of Helvius Mancia in 55 BCE. Due to the in-depth analysis of this passage in the following section it will not be covered in any detail here. However, one point to note is the demarcation at this juncture within Valerius’ work of the social status of those exercising free speech in criticism of the power of Pompeius. As noted by Catherine Steel, of the six anecdotes criticizing Pompeius, the first four come from members of the Roman elite, while the last two come from men of lower status. This signals the possibility that, to Valerius, the acceptance of valid criticisms 55

is related to the social proximity between Pompeius and those speaking against him. Therefore, due to the lowly nature of Helvius Mancia as the son of a freedman, and the vast social gap between him and Pompeius, Valerius found the speech of Helvius to be ill-considered, especially as it needlessly reopened the wounds of the civil war which Valerius states had by that time been covered over with old scars. Lastly, coinciding 56

with this criticism of Pompeius is that of Diphilus, an actor performing at the Games of Apollo who, despite his even lower position of social status when compared to that of Helvius, exclaimed that Pompeius’ great power was the source of sorrow for the Roman people. In doing so he won over the crowd who demanded more, a request 57

which he obliged, stating that Pompeius would come to regret his superior position of power. However, in its relation Valerius’ initial statement about free speech and its use in moderation, Diphilus’ comments err on the side of excess and thus can be viewed within the work as an example, alongside that of Helvius Mancia’s speech, of free speech of a indecent nature.

As such, the speech of Helvius Mancia within the work of Valerius Maximus represents one of the many examples of the criticism faced by Gnaeus Pompeius

52

53

54

Steel 2013 p.152

55

56

(20)

Magnus from his contemporaries who believed that he had attained far too great an amount of power, and on the verge of becoming threat to the Republic. However, not all of the anecdotes compiled by Valerius should be treated equally, as the drop oﬀ in social status from those initially criticizing Pompeius to Helvius, the son of a freedman, and Diphilus, an actor are representative of Valerius’ own statements in the preface to book six, chapter two. Here, Valerius makes note of the diﬀerence between wise men and mobs, stating that the latter group are more disposed to frank statements and actions. As such, the chapter is structured to reflect that the criticisms of lesser 58

stature and acceptance (i.e. those of Helvius and Diphilus) can be found amongst those at the end of the chapter. As Helvius Mancia’s speech is the source of the

adulescentulus carnifex label, to which numerous modern scholars have attached their

negative views of Pompeius’ early career to, it would be prudent to further analyze that portion of the text to determine Helvius’ possible intent in dragging up the events of the civil war, with the further aim of discerning the validity of the adulescentulus carnifex label as being representative of Pompeius’ character.

II.iii Analysis of the Speech

In unravelling the complex nature of the adulescentulus carnifex label and its association with Pompeius’ early career, it is necessary to examine the text which mentions the name itself, that of the exchange between Gnaeus Pompeius and Helvius Mancia, to determine Helvius’ intention in attacking Pompeius’ character and his methods in doing so. Valerius frames the exchange as having occurred when Helvius, the aging son of a freedman from Formiae, was in the midst of bringing up charges against Lucius Libo at a meeting of the censors. It was at this point that Pompeius 59

had opened himself up to scrutiny, when he criticized the advanced age and lowly nature of Helvius’ origins through his ill-judged remark that he had returned from the underworld to make his deposition. As far as can be discerned, it is from Helvius’ 60

quick witted response that the adulescentulus carnifex label has its origins, and it is unclear as to whether the name and its associated reputation were in use prior to the exchange between the two; however, it is likely that Helvius’ retort was aimed at Pompeius with the hope that others in attendance would have prior knowledge of Pompeius’ early career and his controversial actions both during the civil war, and in attaining the consulship of 55 BCE. According to Valerius, in reply to Pompeius’ 61

comments on his age and stature, Helvius remarked that:

Valerius Maximus Mem. 2 Preface

58

59

60

Cassius Dio Rom. Hist. 30.30-32

(21)

“You do not lie, Pompey. Indeed I come from the underworld and I come as L. Libo’s accuser. But while I was there, I saw Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus all bloody, lamenting that he, a man of the noblest birth, life unstained, a sincere patriot, had been put to death by your order in the very flower of his youth. I saw M. Brutus, no less conspicuously distinguished, lacerated with steel, complaining that this happened to him first by your treachery, then too by your cruelty. I saw Cn. Carbo, the zealous defender of your boyhood and of your father’s property, bound by the chains which you ordered placed upon him in his third Consulship, protesting that against all things lawful and unlawful he was slaughtered while holding highest authority by you, a Roman knight. I saw Perperna, an ex-Praetor, in the same guise and crying the same protest, cursing your savagery, all of them with one voice indignant that without judicial sentence they perished at your bidding, the stripling executioner.”

~Attributed to Helvius Mancia Valerius Maximus Memorable Doings and Sayings

While the speech of Helvius Mancia outlines the deaths of these four prominent

Romans in a fashion that demonizes the young Pompeius, it also humanizes the victims and paints their demise under a shroud of murder and execution, rather than one of civil war. Helvius aims to present the dead as defenders of Republican Roman values, who died patriotically opposing the oppression of Sulla’s new regime; however, there are also sources that depict these actions as being justified and in some cases approved of, as is the case in Pliny’s Natural History, in which he hails Pompeius as an emerging champion of the commonwealth after his deliverance of Sicily and Africa from occupation of the Marians. Through analyzing the text, and each of the four 62

executions referenced within it, a more balanced image of the events of the civil war can be seen, in which Pompeius acted rationally, dealt with threats to the new regime as they arose and stamped out the remaining Marian resistance that was seen as the main roadblock to stability throughout the Roman world.

Helvius’ references to the executions in his speech are positioned out of the order in which they happened chronologically, as he first mentions the execution of Ahenobarbus, followed by Brutus, Carbo, and finally that of Perperna. There is a possibility that this ordering could have been intentional, used as a means to dramatize the events by building up to the citizen of a more prominent level of social standing, before ending with the most recent of the executions which would have been more easily remembered by those in attendance. As such, Helvius first mentions Ahenobarbus and Brutus, as names that would be familiar to those in attendance due to the aforementioned political activity of their living relatives. He then builds up to the climax of his speech through making note of Carbo who was arguably the most prominent of all four, having been consul on three occasions, before concluding his speech with Perperna, who was the most recent of the executions. This need to add dramatic emphasis could also explain why Helvius included executions from diﬀerent contexts and from a range of time periods during the career of Pompeius. By including a broader range of the actions committed by Pompeius during the civil war and its outlying conflicts, as well as strategically ordering his introduction of the executions to those present in the audience, Helvius is able to paint a more damning picture of

Pliny Nat. His. 7.26.96

(22)

Pompeius as the adulescentulus carnifex with a ruthless streak of murdering prominent Roman oﬃcials for an entire decade.

Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus

The execution of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, as has already been expressed in the introduction of this thesis, occurred in 81 BCE during Pompeius’ military operations in the province of Africa, where Ahenobarbus was operating as governor. Helvius, in his speech, makes note of seeing the former Marian sympathizer during his time "spent in the underworld”, and comments on both his appearance as well as his character, stating that he saw Ahenobarbus covered in blood and grieving at the fact that, although of high birth, unblemished character, and being patriotic in nature, he was still executed on Pompeius’ orders while in the prime of his youth. 63

While Helvius paints a noble picture of Ahenobarbus, in which he is clearly meant to be seen as a victim undeserving of his fate, there are several key factors that point to the opposite as being true; with the most prominent being the fact that Ahenobarbus was a deeply engrained member of the Marian faction, as can be seen from his position as governor of a province as important as Africa, in addition to his familial ties as the son in law of Lucius Cornelius Cinna. This strong connection to Sulla’s enemies, 64

especially to Cinna who, alongside Gaius Marius orchestrated their own reign of terror, murdering citizens and plundering the capital during Sulla’s absence while on campaign against Mithridates, would have been looked at in an especially negative light, as many of Sulla’s close friends were murdered, his property destroyed, and he himself declared a public enemy. As such, Ahenobarbus’ position as one of the 65

proscribed makes sense, as his support of the opposing faction would at the very 66

least leave doubts as to his loyalty were he allowed to live.

In regards to Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus and the perceived level of threat that he might have posed to Sulla’s newly installed regime, Plutarch notes that the forces gathered by Ahenobarbus in Africa were greater in number than those transported to Italy during Marius’ return to Rome, and therefore posed an even greater threat to the stability of the Republic than the tyrant who had come before him. So 67

while, as Helvius Mancia states, Ahenobarbus might not yet have done anything to garner the fate which he received, his support of the Marian faction and the threat that he represented on the doorstep of Italy warranted decisive action, which was exactly Sulla’s response in sending the young Pompeius. As previously mentioned, the circumstances surrounding the death of Ahenobarbus are unclear, as its occurrence during or shortly after battle clouds the certainty of what actually happened. In the text of Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Doings and Sayings, Helvius Mancia while addressing Pompeius, claims that Ahenobarbus “was cut down in the flower of youth by your

63

Smith et al. 1849 p.85 Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus married Cornelia, the daughter of Cinna.

64

Appian Bell. Civ. 1.8.75; Diodorus Bib. 38-39.4

65

Livy Per. 89

66

(23)

orders.” What is unclear is the nature of these orders given by Pompeius at the time 68

in relation to the death of Ahenobarbus. Plutarch’s portrayal of the events describe the initial battle, which was won by the forces of Pompeius, followed by the ordering of his troops to storm the enemy camp, which resulted in Ahenobarbus being slain. This 69

rendition leads the reader to believe that Ahenobarbus was killed in battle, and that the “orders" referred to by Helvius Mancia could have likely been battle orders, rather than the order of an execution. As can be seen later in Plutarch’s work, the death of Romans on the battlefield was preferable to executions ordered shortly after, especially in regards to civil war circumstances. If this was the case, the inclusion of the death of 70

Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus in the list of those mentioned by Helvius Mancia as the cause for Pompeius earning the label adulescentulus carnifex could represent nothing more than an attempt to distort the facts and convince those present of the supposedly ruthless character of Pompeius that he was trying to convey.

Marcus Junius Brutus

The second execution referenced by Helvius Mancia in his speech is that of Marcus Junius Brutus in 77 BCE, which occurred during Pompeius’ state-mandated command to assist the consul Quintus Lutatius Catulus in defeating the forces of his co-consul Marcus Aemilius Lepidus who, after the death of Sulla, rebelled against the institutions that he had put in place, eﬀectively reigniting the civil war. As previously 71

mentioned, in an attempt to draw the support of the remnants of the Marian faction, Lepidus called on Brutus to command an army in Cisalpine Gaul, which Pompeius would besiege and ultimately defeat at the town of Mutina, in the Northern part of the Italian peninsula, leading to the execution of Brutus.

In depicting his time “spent in the underworld” Helvius Mancia describes clearly seeing Brutus, who was easily spotted due to the fact that his body was maimed, cut to pieces by the sword of his executioner. He makes further note of Brutus’ laments that his treatment and ultimate demise were the cause of the treachery and cruelty of the young Pompeius. Of this brief episode concerning Brutus there is no further 72

evidence or information given in the speech of Helvius, although the story does provide some useful information as to the nature of the execution, as well as its prominence in relation to the other three executions discussed here. Firstly, in regards to the nature of the execution of Brutus, the treachery and cruelty displayed by Gnaeus Pompeius can be traced, if Plutarch’s work is to be used as a guide, to his death at the hands of Pompeius’ companion Geminius shortly after the siege of Mutina. Here Plutarch 73

describes Brutus handing himself over to Pompeius, who provided a cavalry escort for the enemy commander to a small settlement located further down the Po river. After

68 Plutarch Pompey 12.3-4 69 Plutarch Pompey 65.1 70 Plutarch Pompey 16.1 71

72

Plutarch Pompey 16.4-6

(24)

one day had passed, Pompeius allegedly sent Geminius to the town with orders to execute Brutus. According to Plutarch this order caused Pompeius to be much blamed, as his handling of the situation, in which he first wrote to the Senate of Brutus’ surrender, followed by a second letter condemning him, seemed to represent an act of treachery.

This unfolding of events in Plutarch’s Life of Pompey lines up with the treachery described by Helvius Mancia in his speech; however, due to the context of the conflict as being an extension of the previous civil war, Pompeius’ oﬃcial role in helping the consul Catulus to bring stability to the Republic, as well as Brutus’ status as an enemy of the state, the inclusion of the execution as one of the reasons for Pompeius to be labelled as an adulescentulus carnifex seems to be an attempt by Helvius to further inflate the negative opinion of Pompeius’ early career. Of all of the executions mentioned by Helvius, that of Brutus seems to be of the least importance to the

adulescentulus carnifex narrative, due to the brevity of its role in the passage, as well

as its mention (or lack thereof) in other ancient texts. Plutarch, as has already been mentioned, is the primary source for the events surrounding the death of Marcus Junius Brutus; providing the main narrative for his role in the rebellion of Lepidus. However, Appian’s Civil Wars also detail the events of the conflict but fail to mention the execution of Brutus within its storyline. In fact, the only place where Appian speaks of the execution of this Brutus is in a later book, while discussing the events surrounding the assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar and the role of his son, Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger, within the conspiracy. 74

Cicero, in his Letters to Atticus, also mentions the execution of Brutus in relation to Caesar avenging both his death and that of the more prominent citizen Carbo, and in doing so justifying his own actions in the later civil war of 49 BCE. However, Brutus’ 75

attachment to Carbo in this instance without the further support of the other two executions lends credence to the idea the circumstances of his death did not carry enough weight to serve as a justification for the civil war actions of Caesar. Further examples of this relative unimportance can be seen in the Periochae of Livy, which merely state that Brutus was slain by Pompeius, and while the work is a collection of 76

summaries on Livy’s work by much later authors and therefore brief by nature, the work of Lucius Annaeus Florus who wrote in the Livian tradition provides further evidence suggestive of the relative unimportance of Brutus’ execution, through the fact that he is not even mentioned in the retelling of Lepidus’ rebellion. These representations of 77

Marcus Junius Brutus’ execution in ancient texts, and the relatively unimportant stature applied to it in comparison to the other, more detailed executions described by Helvius Mancia in his speech imply that its inclusion provided a means with which Helvius could build upon the adulescentulus carnifex label by inflating the number of executions ordered by Pompeius in his youth, once again disregarding the

Appian Bell. Civ. 2.16.111

74 Cicero Att. 9.14.2 (SB 182) 75 Livy Per. 90 76 Florus Epit. 2.11 77

Forced Perception: Evaluating the Validity and Applicability of the Adulescentulus Carnifex Label in Relation to the Early Career Character of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus