Bases teóricas de la optimización de una Arquitectura de Red

The order and dating of events in 39 have been the subject of

(

)

considerable debate. It is likely that Caesar's- first act will have ■ been to bring forward the agrarian bill that Cicero had mentioned iu . December 6o as being expected in January (Att.2.3-5)* An attempt has been made to deny that Caesar can have held the fasces in January, on the ground that Bibulus was able to postpone the elections from July, which was also an odd month^^^but this has been effectively refuted^^^ Apart from the convincing arguments for Caesar's priority, the evidence of, Cicero's letter cited above, and the fact that Caesar had the right to establish the order of senatorial speaking, shown by his giving Crassus first place (Suet.lul.21;Gell.NA.4.10.3), remove any uncertainty from the matter. By the end of April the first agrarian law had been passed, Ptolemy Auletes recognised as King of Egypt, the Asian publicani satisfied, Pompey's acta ratified, P.Clodius adopted into a plebeian family, and probably Caesar given Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum by the lex Vatinia (Cic.Att.2.16.2;cf.2.9-1 ;2.6.2;2.7-2-3). All save the

lex Vatinia and the curiate law legalising Clodius* adoption must have been passed by the end of March, since Bibulus held the fasces in April, and there were in any case insufficient comitial days in that month to permit

(4)

of legislation. Caesar presided over the curiate law as

Pontifex Maximus. Vatinius, as a tribune, was naturally unaffected by the question of the fasces.

As must have been expected, there was considerable opposition to the first agrarian bill when Caesar brought it to the senate for approval. It seems likely that the bill was not rejected by the senate, but that its

(5) opponents managed to prevent the passage of the decree authorising it.

— 138 -

Caesar thereupon took the,matter to the people, where, despite a variety_I of obstructive tactics by Bibulus, Cato, and others, the measure was passed. At the first public contio on the matter, the "triumvirate*" was made manifest as-Caesar stood with Crassus -bn. one side of him-and Pompey on the other, and both gave their full approval to the proposals

(Plut.Caes.l4;Dio 38.4.4-3-3;App.BC.2.10). Despite Bibulus* continued opposition, helped by three of the tribunes, the bill became law. It is uncertain whether it was at this stage, or later in the context of

Caesar's second agrarian measure, the lex Campana, that Bibulus took to his house for the remaining part of the year. Cicero learned for the first time of this latter bill at the end of April (Att.2.16.1). This would suggest that Caesar published it at the beginning of Kay, By this time the commissioners to administer the first law had been elected

(Cic,Att.2.6.2;2.7.3)- It is probable therefore that the bills were separated by a period of some three months. The sources however tend not to distinguish between them. Dio does append a mention of the

distribution of the ager Campanus to his discussion of the circumstances of the first law (38.7-3)- That his account is compressed, and may indeed be corrupt, is further shown by his twice indicating that he has finished with the matter. He describes Bibulus' failure to intervene in the assembly and concludes, kal o fACy hn'VpcjBrj *'

(38.6.4). He then recounts Bibulus' attempt to persuade the senate to annul the law, his subsequent retirement, arid the taking of the oath by

' r c / 'y / ( /

the senate to obey the law. He then writes, o T£ ovv>

eKVpu?(:7ri ^ KCAL 'rrp o crc -T L KdiL. q X W V y q___c o p t/q (38.7-3)- It could be that the mention of Bibulus' withdrawal from the scene properly belongs after the second closing statement. Suetonius too is aware of both laws, and has Bibulus withdraw after the first, but his

- 139 -

account of the legislation is schematic and chronologically unreliable (Suet.lul.20). The confusion created by the failure of several sources to make the necessary distinction can be seen in Plutarch. In one

account he puts Pompey's marriage to Julia into the context of the first, and only, law, and, after referring to this union and to the consular elections, relates Bibulus’ self-incarceration (Plut.Caes.l4). So tod, elsewhere, he mentions only one agrarian bill, which-had not yet been passed when Pompey married Julia, and Caesar Calpurnia, and Caesar received both Gauls and Illyricum, Meanwhile Bibulus shut himself up for the

ramaining eight months of the year (Plut.Pomp.48). Such a period would tie in precisely with the Campanian law, which came in May, and was indeed accompanied by the marriage alliance between Caesar and^ Pompey

(Cic.Att.2.17.1). This would seem confirmed by Cicero’s attribution to Pompey of a denial of responsibility for what had happened to Bibulus in the Forum when the partial remission of the Asian tax contract was being dealt with (Att.2.16.2).

This passage has sometimes been interpreted to mean, "what would have happened if Bibulus had come down", but this is farfetched, and fails to

explain why Cicero should select just this one occasion, out of many, to discuss what might have happened but did not. The natural inference is that Bibulus did leave his house on that occasion, and so had not by then,

(7)

probably in March, entered upon his self-imposed seclusion. It is likely therefore that incidents connected with one bill may have been transposed in the sources to the other. In the same way, Caesar's attempt to silence Cato by imprisoning him is shifted from the context of the first land bill to other matters (Dio 38.3*1-3>cf-Pl"t.Cat.33*1~2;Val.Max.2.1Q.7).

In view of the blocking tactics developed in the senate by Cato and his friends during the previous two years, it is unlikely that Caesar will have

140 -

expected to gain senatorial approval for his legislation. It may be, however, that the triumvirate could have mustered sufficient support to win a vote, if one .had been taken, since, when resistance ceased from Bibulus and Cato,.the senate was willing to give Caesar Transalpine Gaul ^

addition'to the command bestowed under the lex Vatinia. Indeed, after the first agrarian bill was passed, Bibulus could find none in the senate to propose any hostile motion (Buet.Iul.2Q). Presumably he could not do so

(8)