Was Julius Caesar really captured by pirates?

Velleius Paterculus was not destined to deal with his Historia Romana, as it is commonly called, to acquire all too great prestige. This applies to antiquity, where Velleius is hardly ever quoted, just as it does to them communis opinio Classical Studies in the 20th Century. Logically, the fiction of the present, which otherwise combed the ancient world for cannibalized materials, - as far as I know - only noticed him once: Herbert Rosendorfer is useful in his novel "A Lover of Odd Numbers" (1994) [1] a quote for a very sudden transition (75):

But: rumpit interdum moratur propositum hominum fortuna, as Velleius Paterculus says, whose Historia Romana Fenix ​​read in the mild pine shade of his tivolese villa, one of those bright red volumes by Loew [sic] -Collection with the Latin text on the left and the English translation on the right ...

It is significant where the quote comes from: namely from the beginning of the depiction of the Varus battle in the Teutoburg Forest. Because that's the one part of the Historia Romana, for which one can most likely find a broader interest, since it is the report of an immediate contemporary witness. On closer inspection, Velleius also has a lot to offer: e.g. he is the earliest surviving author who deals historiographically with C. Iulius Caesar and his work.
The section dedicated to Caesar from the middle of the second book should now be the focus of our interest. It is first about Caesar's youth, then about the extent to which the portrayal of his youth gains paradigmatic expressiveness for Caesar's biography as a whole, and finally about the importance of the image of Caesar in the work of Velleius and in his time. The broad consensus of research will also have to be questioned, according to which the author draws a clearly positive image of Caesar [2], as well as the general attack by Gerhard Wirth [3], who postulated that Velleius was an ardent supporter of Pompey and completely opposed Caesar even off.
Before starting the analysis, it is necessary to briefly mention a general consideration: Since the appearance of Alexander the Great, a new element had penetrated powerfully into the portrayal and self-portrayal of kings, military leaders and other important men, namely the approach of people to the world of the gods. The Dioscuri, Heracles and Dionysus in particular offered themselves as vehicles, as they had earned the later divine honors through their life and their deeds on earth. Especially for Alexander, the embellishments and associations with which his actual achievements were linked led to the emergence of his own literary GE / NOS, the Alexander novel, the roots of which stretched back to the Alexander historiography during his lifetime. The fascinating and at the same time terrifying personality of Alexander worked not only in the Hellenistic states and with their rulers as a model, but also in Rome, even in the republican times, leading politicians insisted on their work through the imitatio Alexandri, that is, to be exaggerated or to have exaggerated by actually monarchical elements. [4] This should also be kept in mind by Velleius' reading public as a horizon of understanding for the following discussion.
Velleius begins with the Caesar section by setting a clear turning point in the linear sequence of his history (2,41,1):
secutus deinde est consulatus C. Caesaris, qui scribenti manum inicit et quamlibet festinantem in se morari cogit.

"This was followed by the consulate of Gaius Caesar, who puts his hand on the scribe's shoulder and - although he is in a hurry - forces him to stay with him."

With the metaphor from the legal language of the iniectio manus[5] suggests Velleius that Caesar himself intervened in his literary endeavors. He forced him to follow the principle of festinatio to drain. This evokes an idea that is reminiscent of the concepts of external divine intervention in ancient poetry. The far-reaching expectations that this creates are further nourished by the characteristic with which Velleius continues. He mentions above all Caesar's mythical descent from Venus, his almost superhuman spiritual gifts, and compares him most favorably with Alexander the Great. In a deductive procedure typical of Velleius, a total of three anecdotes from Caesar's youth now follow as evidence.
The author does not even devote a whole sentence to the first of these incidents. It takes place under Sulla's dictatorship: At the time, Caesar refused to consent to the divorce from his wife, a daughter of Cinna. He preferred to steal from the city by night and in fog, thereby documenting the fact that he was not ready to tolerate outside control. The second anecdote is about how Caesar was taken hostage by Cilician pirates on his way back from Bithynia off the coast of Miletus. This episode has also come down to us from Valerius Maximus, Suetonius and Polyainus, but above all from Plutarch. [6] In this version, Caesar's saving strategy consists in simulating a bizarre idyll and thus disguising its dangerousness (Plut. Caes. 2,3-4):

During the thirty-eight days that he was in the hands of the pirates, he played and exercised with them without fear, as if they were not the prisoner but they were his companions. He composed poems and speeches and read them to them, and if they did not show him admiration, he bluntly scolded them as barbarians without education or culture. Often he laughed and threatened to let them untie - and the guys enjoyed it because they thought he was a harmless, amusing patron who couldn't give up the loose talk.

With Velleius it reads quite differently: At first he compresses the events so much that the impartial reader must have the impression that the kidnapping followed immediately after the escape from Sulla's captors. He is therefore not concerned with the chronologically correct sequence, but with the concentration of informative events in a small space:
idem postea admodum iuvenis, cum a piratis captus esset, ita se per omne spatium, quo ab his retentus est, apud eos gessit, ut pariter his terrori venerationique esset ...

`` Later, when he was captured by pirates as a youth, he behaved throughout the period in which he was held by them in such a way that he caused them both horror and admiration.

The description begins in a matter-of-fact tone. It is only noticeable how Velleius distributes the statements into main and subordinate clauses contrary to the actual power relations. But this stylistic maneuver already prepares the sudden change that is reflected in the reactions terror and veneratio expresses. Velleius withholds what exactly this effect is supposed to be based on. One must therefore assume that the totality of Caesar's being, not any individual features, produced this impression in his kidnappers. Such an aura moves its wearer more into the sphere of the gods than of humans. Velleius thus consistently continues what he anticipated in the description: Caesar's genealogy and his spiritual gifts leave him there as super humanam et naturam et fidem evectus (2,41,1) appear.
These rather vague-looking relationships between Caesar and the divine realm can be specified and expanded at the same time: for what is happening off the coast of Asia Minor there is a precedent in the ancient legend of the gods, in the myth of Dionysus and the Tyrrhenian pirates, the has been handed down in literature since the 7th Homeric Hymn. [7] The decisive passage for our purposes of knowledge reads (6-21):
... TA / XA D 'A) / NDRES E) U + SSE / LMOU A) PO \ NHO \ S
EI) / KELOS ...

Since rushed
Robbers - Tyrrhenians - flying out of a moored ship -
The sea blinked wine-red - her fate drove her into disaster.
Now they saw him: they nodded to each other and in a hurry
They jumped, grabbed them, put him on their ship full of joy,
Thought he was a son of kings, of divine origin,
Wanted to bind him with painful shackles, but the shackles inhibited him
Not his freedom. The willow rods fell into the distance,
Hardly touched hands and feet. And as he sat there now
Smiling from dark eyes, a thought came to the helmsman,
That he immediately called the companions to say to them:
Madly obsessed! which god did you catch there?
Which strong man tied up? the fixed vehicle,
Not even that can support him. Verily! that fellow there
he is not like mortals ...

If one compares the version available from Velleius with that from Plutarch, the contrast clearly shows how close Velleius comes to the mythical model. The starting point is always the location of the action in the eastern Mediterranean, where a noble youth comes under the control of pirates. At first they think they are safe for their prey and fail to recognize the true nature of their victim. But the relationship between robbers and stolen goods is reversed while they are still in captivity, and the pirates fear the one they kidnapped.
The failed attempts of the pirates to tie Dionysus also have their counterpart in Velleius (2,41,3):
neque umquam aut die aut nocte (cur enim quod vel maximum est, si narrari verbis speciosis non potest, omittatur?) aut excalcearetur aut discingeretur, in hoc scilicet, ne, si quando aliquid ex solito variaret, suspectus iis, qui oculis tantummodiebo eum custodiebant , foret.

Nor did he take off his shoes or clothes by day or night (why should one leave out such a, perhaps highly significant, detail just because it cannot be told in grandiose words?) - he certainly did this to help himself not to make his guards, who only watched him with their eyes, suspicious if he changed something in his habit.

What looks like a particularly realistic detail at first glance must be strange on closer inspection. If the pirates were so unsure of Caesar's person that they believed they had to constantly guard him, the most obvious thing would have been to keep him from escaping by handcuffs. So there has to be another explanation for not doing it. Apparently it is an attempt to reconcile a mythical event with an actually imaginable historical ambience. It is not easy for Velleius to balance the gain in literary quality with the problems of plausibility.
In contrast to the parallel sources, Velleius also insists that Caesar carried out his retaliatory strike that same night immediately after the ransom was paid (2,42,2-3):
quae nox eam diem secuta est qua publica civitatium pecunia redemptus est ... et privatus et tumultuaria contracta classe ... partem classis fugavit, partem mersit, aliquot naves multosque mortales cepit; laetusque nocturnae expeditionis triumpho ad suos reversus est.

When the cities had paid the ransom for him ... on the night of his liberation, as a private citizen, he hurriedly assembled a fleet ... He chased part of the pirate fleet, and sank another part, took a number of ships and made many prisoners. Delighted by the nocturnal undertaking, he returned to his family in triumph.

Caesar's approach agrees on the one hand with the swiftness and irresistibility of the triumphal march which Dionysus undertook through the Orient and which has led him since imitatio Alexander the Great made it appear particularly suitable as a model for rulers. On the other hand, this commonality is particularly emphasized by the nocturnal enterprise, because Dionysus is the epic reader according to the cult epic Nyctelius. His celebrations - the Bacchanalia - are also called, according to Servius (Aen. 4,303) Nyctelia designated. For the complete assimilation of Caesar to Dionysus only the actually performed epiphany is missing. It is due to the elements typical for it terror and veneratio but indicated. [8]
The consideration of Velleius' presentation must not be limited to a mere historical-antiquarian explanation, but must also turn to the literary dimension and the creative will of the author.
But can one - this may be a legitimate question - can one trust Velleius himself to have undertaken such a literary development? Indeed, it seems that the author is resorting to a source available to him and adapting it for his purposes. This is supported on the one hand by the rather sober character of Velleius and his work in general, which contrasts with such novel-like elements. Second, the author evidently endeavors to "ground" what seems all too fantastic to him, for example by adding the detail that Caesar took off neither clothes nor shoes. Third, and arguably most important, Velleius is forced to make an implicit correction and takes back some of the panegyric praise stated in the anecdote about Caesar, as we shall see in a moment.
Modern criticism has made plausible for a long time that there must have been a source or group of sources of such a novel-like shape, even if its content cannot of course be determined in detail. [9] If you consider the exemplary character that Alexander the Great had for the portrayal of important personalities at this time, it is not too surprising to adopt the political theology of Dionysus.
Even if the literary subspecies of the "Caesar novel" did not develop - in contrast to the "Alexander novel" [10] - we still have basic elements of such a novel-like "childhood story". The kidnapping by pirates is an important element of the Dionysus mythology as well as one of the typical motifs for a novel that later became almost stereotypical [11], which then came together in the novel of Longos by Daphnis and Chloe. [12] And just in Caesar's lifetime, in the 1st century BC, the novel had already emerged as an independent genre. [13]
By choosing this branch of tradition from the sources available to him, Velleius opted for a presentation that is not only based on historiographical needs, but also includes the ruler's topography that has existed since Alexander the Great and also includes literary criteria. And that Velleius attaches particular importance to the pirate adventure is shown by the express announcement that this is evidence of the greatness to which Caesar would soon develop documentum tanti mox evasuri viri.

The pirate adventure could also be used beyond the motifs of the novel to put the main character in a favorable light: the victorious confrontation with pirates took place at the latest since Pompey [14], but also in the Res gestae of Augustus [15] played an important role. The respective general could use such successes to confirm or promote his political rank. On top of that, Caesar acts like Pompey and later Octavian here as privatuswho, in a political situation in which the institutions of the Roman state cannot intervene quickly and effectively enough, makes his resources and abilities available to the general public.
That the subject was not yet obsolete even in Velleius's day is shown by the furnishings that Tiberius had given his grotto villa in Sperlonga. There he made sure that, among other thingsthe highly relational sculpture group with Scylla and Odysseus and their companions was set up. Odysseus' ship is - as Bernard Andreae has clearly shown [16] - a Trihemiolia, a Rhodian type of ship specially designed for pirate hunting.

So there can be no doubt that the story of Caesar and the pirates and the allusion to Dionysus that was carried out in the process had an originally honorable, even panegyric intention. But Velleius now has a surprise up his sleeve for his readers - namely a second pirate anecdote that only he knows, but not the other sources on Caesar. With this he breaks his principle of the festinatio. This indicates that an important statement is connected with this for the author.
When crossing the Adriatic, according to Velleius, Caesar feels he has to be particularly vigilant due to the danger of pirates (2,43,2):

quo quidem in cursu conspectis, ut putabat, piratarum navibus cum exuisset vestem alligassetque pugionem ad femur alterutri se fortunae parans, mox intellexit frustratum esse visum suum arborumque ex longinquo ordinem antemnarum praebuisse imaginem.

During the crossing he thought he saw pirate ships, so he took off his robe and tied a dagger to his side in order to be prepared for any eventuality. He soon realized, however, that his eyes had deceived him and that a long line of trees in the distance had appeared to him like the masts of ships.

Here Caesar's heroism, which he had demonstrated before Miletus, almost turns into ridiculousness. Its famous property of celeritas, which Velleius mentions again and again, bears the seeds of hastiness and over-zeal (and it was not for nothing that Augustus chose this contrary festina lente as a motto). If Caesar evidently wanted to become a pirate victor and thus acquire his first leg of victory, he must be bitterly disappointed in spite of the danger he had avoided. Basically, Velleius here varies and illustrates what Sallust expressed in the syncrisis of Caesar and Cato with the familiar words (Sall. Cat. 54,4): Caesar ... sibi magnum imperium, exercitum, bellum novom exoptabat, ubi virtus enitescere posset. Velleius clearly senses the double-edged and elusive in Caesar's personality. In this it is by all means to the KALO \ S O (KI / NDUNOS, the dulce periculum (Hor. Carm. 3,25,18) of Dionysus. [17]

This ambivalent feeling is reinforced by a look at Caesar's dealings with the Roman authorities after the first pirate adventure: According to the ancient view, there could be no doubt that the captured pirates deserved the harshest treatment, since they were considered to be latrones were not entitled to any legal protection. What is revealing for Caesar's personality, however, is how they received their punishment: he went to Junius Juncus, the proconsul of Asia and Bithynia, in order to obtain permission from him to carry out the execution. But it did not turn out as he had thought (2,42,3):

quod cum illegal (scil. Junius) se facturum negasset venditurumque captivos dixisset (quippe sequebatur invidia inertiam), incredibili celeritate revectus ad mare, priusquam de ea re ulli proconsulis redderetur epistula, omnes quos ceperat suffixit cruci.

The latter refused and said that he wanted to sell the prisoners as slaves (he was now following his former indifference). Caesar returned to the sea with unbelievable swiftness and had all the prisoners crucified before a written order from the proconsul could reach anyone.

In this part of the anecdote, too, Velleius differs from the parallel tradition in that he gives the conflict between Caesar and the governor more sharpness and therefore works out the problems associated with it more clearly. [18] There was open disagreement about how the scope for decision-making granted by martial law should be used: the proconsul wanted a rather mild approach, be it out of greed for profit seeking the proceeds from the sale into slavery, or that it was him possibly considered politically opportune to demonstrate compliance in order to induce more pirates to give up voluntarily, which Pompey successfully practiced a few decades later, or was it ultimately that he simply did not grant Caesar the fame (as Velleius suggests with his formulation). Caesar, on the other hand, wanted to end his spectacular success with an equally spectacular conclusion.
Nevertheless, this course of action should not have appeared praiseworthy to the contemporary reader without further ado. Because even if the governor's express order had not yet arrived, Caesar himself already knew about it and with his execution was perhaps not a formal violation of the law, but one against him mos maiorum, which also included obedience to orders from magistrates, as the relevant anecdotes from the early days of Rome proven by Livius. For Velleius this is definitely a benchmark, as an outlook on Tiberius can demonstrate: e.g. it says in the catalog of the blessings that the accession of Tiberius made home in Rome, among others (2.126): accessit magistratibus auctoritas, senatui maiestas, iudiciis gravitas.
Under these premises, the unworthy behavior of the magistrate and the disrespectful reaction of Caesar must be seen as a serious symptom of the crisis for the state of the Roman Empire res publica appear.

That Velleius actually ended up with Caesar's pirate adventure documentum tanti mox evasuri viriIntended to offer an outlook on Caesar's further career and its ambiguities can be shown by the following examples.
On the occasion of the Gallic War it says (2,46,1):

Cum deinde inmanis res vix multis voluminibus explicandas C. Caesar in Gallia ageret nec contentus plurimis ac felicissimis victoriis innumerabilibusque caesis et captis hostium milibus etiam in Britanniam traiecisset exercitum, alterum paene imperio nostro ac suo quaerens orbem ...

Caesar now performed mighty deeds in Gaul, for the description of which one would need several books. He was not satisfied with gaining so many glorious victories and killing and capturing thousands of enemies, but with his army also crossed over to Britain, as if he wanted to conquer another world in addition to ours and his territory.

This is a clear echo of the Alexander ideology and is reminiscent of - according to Eduard Norden [19] - "Panegyricus on Augustus" in the sixth book of the Aeneid, which also speaks of the crossing of the previously known world.
In the consequent continuation, Velleius writes even more clearly about the siege of Alesia, which was decisive for the war (2,47,1):
Around Alesiam vero tantae res gestae, quantas audere vix hominis, perficere paene nullius nisi dei fuerit.

With Alesia, however, such great heroic deeds took place that hardly a person can dare and actually only a god can accomplish.

But the very next sentence already brings a thorough change of mood, namely the breaking of the alliance with Pompey, which has long since happened ex invidia potentiae was shattered inside. On the occasion of its creation, Velleius had already described it as destructive for the whole world and its partners. This made the civil war between Caesar and the Senate party under the leadership of Pompey inevitable. But Velleius cannot make a clear statement about the distribution of right and wrong. On the one hand, he emphasizes that Caesar patiently sought a negotiated solution to the civil war conflicts. On the other hand, his rhetorically pointed formulations, with which he expresses the Roman dilemma, read rather favorably for Pompey, e.g. (2,49,3):
vir antiquus et gravis Pompei partes laudaret magis, prudens sequeretur Caesaris et illa gloriosa, haec terribiliora duceret.

A Roman of old grist and grain might rather give credit to Pompey's party, but a political head would follow Caesar's party and believe that one spreads more glamor, the other more horror.

This is where Velleius takes the cue terror with which he had already described Caesar's effect during the pirate adventure. It is therefore a constant in its essence from youth to the climax of the political career.
In general, Caesar and Pompey are morally almost equal in the struggle for power. But together they take action against Cicero, who fell victim to their political intrigues (2,45,2):
non caruerunt suspicione oppressi Ciceronis Caesar et Pompeius.

Caesar and Pompey were not free from the suspicion of having participated in the overthrow of Cicero.

It didn't help that Cicero stood up for the traditional political order, because the circumstances, they weren't like that anymore. This is illustrated by the following short episode (2,48,4-5):
hic (scil. Curio) primo pro Pompei partibus, id est, ut tunc habebatur, pro re publica, mox simulatione contra Pompeium et Caesarem, sed animo pro Caesare, stait. (id gratis an accepto centiens sestertio fecerit, ut accepimus, in medio relinquemus.) ad ultimum saluberrimas [et] coalescentis condiciones pacis, quas et Caesar iustissimo animo postulabat et Pompeius aequo recipiebat, discussit ac rupit, unice cavordente Cicerone publicae.

Curio ... was first on the side of Pompey, which then meant: on the side of res publica, then he was apparently against Pompey and against Caesar, but his true disposition was more for Caesar. Whether he did it for free or, as they say, on the basis of a bribe of 10 million sesterces, I don't want to decide here. In any case, as far as the efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement under beneficial and acceptable conditions were concerned - Caesar had made such extremely impartial and Pompey was ready to accept them - Curio finally destroyed them, although Cicero was uniquely committed to maintaining state harmony.

Cicero would certainly have agreed with this statement: unice, so alone and unique, he stood for that concordia of the Roman Republic. Cicero is the true hero of Velleius in this epoch. [20] He gives him his undiminished admiration, to whom he dedicates the well-known violent outburst against Antonius, which he alone for the death of the clarissimum caput and des conservator rei publicae blames. The behavior of contemporaries - including Caesar's - must be measured by the behavior towards Cicero, not just by the victories over barbarians and the rivalry with Pompey. But while Velleius of Cicero's struggle for the concordia speaks, he not only raises the slogan of the concordia ordinum from. Rather, he also refers to the politics of Tiberius, that of the goddess Concordia paid special attention. [21]

With this we have suddenly come to the presence of Velleius. Only a few years earlier, Cremutius Cordus had actually gone mad as he defended the murder of Caesar and boasted Brutus and Cassius as the last Romans. So drastically it was revealed how little the past was. Velleius was therefore well advised to exercise caution when presenting his picture of Caesar. This was true even if Augustus only carefully cherished the memory of Caesar and tried to obscure the concrete memory through a targeted administration of tradition. [22] Even Tiberius, who had only become Julier through adoption, showed little inclination to contribute to a renaissance of Caesar's fame.
Velleius was faced with the not-so-easy task of integrating historical reality, the official version of the past and his own assessment into a satisfactory presentation, without going beyond the framework he had set himself. His choice fell on a genuinely literary process: he falls back on a source that treats Caesar's youth in a novel-like form, and gives it more space than it should actually be given in terms of historical value. In doing so, he creates the opportunity for himself to create a paradigmatic introduction. An originally purely panegyric scheme - the approximation to a hero on the basis of the imitatio Alexandri - is modified in such a way that the fascination also mixes alienation and even shock. Velleius thus chose a narrative method to unfold his image of Caesar.
At the same time it has become clear that Velleius is quite differentiated from the Julio-Claudian house. He writes the success story of Tiberius, but not under all circumstances also of his dynasty. Instead, he praises Cicero, with whom Caesar had trouble all his life. And even Augustus was so skeptical of him for many years after his death that his grandson was shocked after a well-known anecdote when he was caught reading Cicero. [23]
Velleius is now the first (surviving) author to paint a thoroughly positive picture of Cicero. He is at the beginning of the widespread worship of Cicero that began in the following centuries, so that we have a future-oriented dimension in his work.
Eduard Norden once concluded in his "Antiken Kunstprose" with the sentence about Velleius: "One likes to read Velleius, from beginning to end, not as a person or as a historian, but as a writer who seldom becomes childish or absurd in this manner . "[24] I would like to modify this a little: As a historian, Velleius can give us an insight into the historical image of his time that is otherwise difficult or impossible to obtain; as a writer he understands where it seems appropriate to him Pour historical facts into a literary form.


[*] Lecture given to the Classical Studies section of the Goerres Society in September 1995 in Dresden. The text of the lecture was supplemented with the necessary comments for publication. Overall, the statements presented here are part of a more extensive research project on Velleius.

[1] H. Rosendorfer, A lover of odd numbers - novel, Cologne 1994, 75 (it is certainly the Loeb edition by F.W. Shipley, London 1924, etc.).

[2] I. Lana, Velleio Patercolo o della propaganda, Torino 1952, 213. R. Rieks, Homo, humanus, humanitas. On humanity in Latin literature of the first century AD, Munich 1967, 58. Velleius Paterculus, The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41-93), Ed. with a commentary by A.J. Woodman, Cambridge 1983 (Cambridge classical texts and commentaries 25), e.g. St ..

[3] G. Wirth, Gleanings on Pompey, in: U. Kindermann, W. Maaz, F. Wagner (eds.), Festschrift for P. Klopsch, Göppingen 1988 (Göppinger Papers on German Studies 492), 576-599, esp. 593-599.

[4] D. Michel, Alexander as a model for Pompey, Caesar and Marcus Antonius. Archaeological research, Bruxelles 1967 (Collection Latomus 94); O. Weippert, Alexander imitatio and Roman politics in republican times, Diss. Würzburg, Augsburg 1972; the most recent summary of the Alexander aftermath by G. Wirth, The way into oblivion. On the fate of the ancient picture of Alexander, SAWW No. 608 (1993) - P. Green, Caesar and Alexander. Aemulatio, imitatio, comparatio, AJAH 3,1978,1-26 = in: ders., Classical Bearings. Interpreting ancient history and culture, o.O., 1989, 193-209.

[5] P. Noiailles, Fas et Jus. Etudes de droit romain, Paris 1948, 147-186, on this M. Kaser, Gnomon 22, 1950, 166f.

[6] H. Strasburger, Caesar's entry into history, Munich 1938, 7; 73f .; 79-82 also A.M. Ward, Caesar and the Pirates, CPh 70, 1975, 267f .; ders., Caesar and the Pirates II. The Elusive M. Iunius Iuncus and the Year 75/4, AJAH 2, 1977, 26-36.

[7] U. Schmitzer, Contemporary history in Ovid's Metamorphoses. Mythological poetry with a political claim. Stuttgart 1990 (contributions to antiquity 4) 158-166.

[8] Cf. F. Pfister, RE Suppl. 4, 1924, s.v. Epiphany, 277-323; E. Pax, RAC 5, 1962, s.v. Epiphany, 832-909; most recently A. Barchiesi, Immovable Delos: Aeneid 3.73-98 and thy Hymns of Callimachus, CQ 44, 1994, 438-443.

[9] Strasburger loc. 84, who speaks of the "literary character of the C-tradition", which Velleius follows.

[10] R. Merkelbach, The sources of the Greek novel by Alexander, Munich 1954 (Zetemata 9); F. Pfister, Small writings on the Alexander novel, Meisenheim am Glan 1976 (Contributions to Classical Philology 61).

[11] N. Holzberg, The ancient novel, Munich, Zurich 1986 (Artemis Introductions 17).

[12] R. Merkelbach, The shepherds of Dionysus. The Dionysus mysteries and the bucolic novel of Longus, Stuttgart 1988, 51-53; 161-163.

[13] In summary, R. Kussl, Papyrus fragments from Greek novels, Tübingen 1991 (Classica Monacensia 2).

[14] Cic. Pro Flacc. 13.30 illa enim est gloria divina Pompei: primum praedones eos ...redactos esse omnes in potestatem ...; on this W. Leschhorn, Expressions of superhuman honor in Cicero, in: A. Alföldi, Caesar in 44 BC Bd. 1: Studies on Caesar's monarchy and its roots, From the estate ed. by H. Wolff, E. Alföldi-Rosenbaum and G. Stumpf. Bonn 1985 (Antiquitas 3.16) 391.

[15] J. Fugmann: Mare a praedonibus pacavi (R.G. 25.1). On the idea of ​​aemulatio in the Res gestae of Augustus, Historia 40, 1991, 307-317.

[16] B. Andreae: Praetorium Speluncae Tiberius and Ovid in Sperlonga, With philological advice from U. Schmitzer. AAWM 1994, 12, 95-98.

[17] S. Koster: Quo me Bacche rapis? (Hor. Carm. 3,25 and 2,19), in: ders. (ed.), Horace studies, Erlangen 1994 (Erlanger Research A, 66) 58.

[18] Suet. Iul. 74.1. C. Brutscher, Analysis of Suetons Divus Julius and the parallel tradition, Bern, Stuttgart 1958 (Noctes Romanae 8) 32.

[19] Cf. E. Norden, A panegyricus on Augustus in Virgil's Aeneid, RhM 54, 1899, 466-482 = in: ders., Small Fonts on Classical Antiquity, Ed. By B. Kytzler. Berlin 1966, 422-438.

[20] Cf. on the Cicero picture in later times the rather summary compilations J. Ferguson Some Ancient Judgments of Cicero, in: ders. et al., Studies in Cicero, Roma 1962 (Collana di studi ciceroniani 2) 9-33; W. Richter, The Cicero image of the Roman Empire, in: G. Radke (ed.), Cicero - a man of his time. Eight lectures on a historical phenomenon, Berlin 1968, 161-197, esp. 169-172; on Cicero's reputation in the first decades after his death, see also M. Winterbottom, Cicero and the Silver Age, in, Éloquence et rhetorique chez Cicéron, Geneva 1982 (Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 28) 237-274; in addition, the classic studies on the history of the Cicero image, which, however, give little concrete information on our topic: T. Zielinski, Cicero through the centuries, 3rd, revised edition, Berlin, Leipzig 1912; B. Because 2000 years of Cicero, Zurich, Stuttgart 1962.

[21] Cf. E. Nash, Lexicon of images on the topography of ancient Rome, Tübigen 1961, I, 292-294; B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician, London 1976, 34; this., Tiberius' Retirement to Rhodes 6 B.C., Latomus 31, 1972, 779-813, esp. 801-806; B. A. Kellum, The City Adorned. Programmatic display at the Aedes Concordiae Augustae, in: K.A. Raaflaub, M. Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and his principate, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1990, 276-307.

[22] E.S. Ramage, Augustus' Treatment of Julius Caesar, Historia 34, 1985, 223-245. P. White, Julius Caesar in Augustan Rome, Phoenix 42, 1988, 334-356.

[23] Plut. Cic. 49.5; see H. Bellen, Cicero and the Rise of Octavian, Gymnasium 92, 1985, 161-189.

[24] E. North, The ancient art prose. From VI. Century B.C. to the present, 3. Edition. Leipzig, Berlin 1915 (= 9th edition. Stuttgart 1983, 303.