## POMPEY'S HEAD AND CAESAR'S TEARS: Τ HE HISTORY OF AN ANECDOTE

By Georgios Vassiliades

Summary: In many sources, Caesar is said to have wept and become indignant at the sight of Pompey's head presented to him as a gift from Ptolemy XIII. Given that Caesar does not mention the episode in De Bello Ciuili , this paper attempts, through a chronological survey of later extant sources, to determine their interdependence by observing the stable and fluid elements in each, and then to outline the history of the shaping of this anecdote. The episode might have been included in early accounts of the events surrounding Pompey's death, produced by pro-Caesarian historians in the immediate aftermath of Caesar's death. Declamatio not only picked up and reworked this historical anecdote and led to its reinterpretation in an anti-Caesarian way, but also probably played a major role in its broader diffusion.

## I. The absence of the scene in Caesar and the question of the 'ultimate source'

The aftermath of the battle of Pharsalia is recounted by Caesar at the end of De Bello Ciuili (§3.102-112). After his defeat, Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, II 55, III 52), a.k.a. Pompey, fled to Egypt, where King Ptolemy XIII, still a minor, was fighting against his sister Cleopatra, who had been deposed from the throne. There, Pompey demanded the protection of the young king, invoking the friendship with his father. Among the king's troops there were many of Pompey's old soldiers, whom in 55 B.C., Aulus Gabinius (cos. 58) had received from Pompey's army in Syria, taken to Alexandria to restore Ptolemy XII to his kingdom, and left there with Ptolemy. Pompey's messengers thus exhorted these troops to assist their former general ( BCiv. 3.103). Being informed of this, the king's ministers made a secret plan to assassinate Pompey. Caesar thoroughly investigates the reasons of the Egyptians' decision: either they were motivated by fear that Pompey would become master of Egypt; or they despised his low condition, as 'friends, in bad fortune, often turn enemies' ( BCiv. 3.104.1). By contrast, the scene of Pompey's execution is briefly recounted:

2.  Ipsi  clam consilio inito Achillam, praefectum regium, singulari hominem audacia,  et  L.  Septimium  tribunum  militum  ad  interficiendum  Pompeium miserunt. 3. Ab his liberaliter ipse appellatus et quadam notitia Septimi perductus, quod bello praedonum apud eum ordinem duxerat, nauiculam paruulam conscendit cum paucis suis. Ibi ab Achilla et Septimio interficitur. (Caes. BCiv. 3.104)

In secret they formed a plot and sent men to kill Pompey: Achillas, the king's general, a man of remarkable nerve, and Lucius Septimius, a military tribune. Addressed kindly by them and drawn forward by a degree of familiarity with Septimius, since the latter held the rank of centurion  under  him  during  the  war  against  the  pirates,  Pompey boarded the tiny little vessel with a few of his friends. There he was killed by Achillas and Septimius. 1

Contrary to other sources, Caesar does not mention that Pompey was killed with a sword and very little is related about the circumstances of his assassination. 2 This is not the only interesting omission: Caesar states in a brief phrase that, after arriving in Egypt in pursuit of Pompey, he was informed of Pompey's death, without adding any information on his reaction; he then immediately passes to the tumult aroused upon his arrival:

Alexandriae de Pompei morte cognoscit. Atque ibi primum e naui egrediens clamorem militum audit, quos rex in oppido praesidii causa reliquerat, et concursum ad se fieri uidet, quod fasces anteferrentur. In hoc omnis multitudo maiestatem regiam minui praedicabat. (Caes. BCiv. 3.106.4)

- 1 Quotations from Caesar's De Bello Ciuili are based on the recent edition of C. Damon (OCT 2015). Translations of the same text are from the Loeb edition (Damon 2016).
- 2 See Plut. Pomp. 77-80; App. B Civ. 2.84-86; Cass. Dio 42.3-4; Luc. 8.456-711; cf. for a brief account Vell. Pat. 2.53; Flor. 2.13.52; Liv. Per. 112; De vir. ill. 77.9.

At Alexandria he learned about Pompey's death. Upon disembarking he heard shouts from the soldiers whom the king had left on guard in the city, and saw people converging on him, apparently because he had the fasces ahead of him. The whole crowd was shouting that this amounted to a slight on the king's majesty.

Caesar's succinct account is at odds with the detailed narrative of other sources, where Pompey's severed head is presented as a gift from the Egyptians to Caesar, who becomes indignant at the macabre spectacle of a Roman general treated with such cruelty. This famous scene inspired modern art and cinema. 3 It is noteworthy that modern adaptations are based especially on Lucan and Plutarch. Scholars have also repeatedly focused on Lucan and pointed out the symbolic function of Pompey's beheading and its aftermath (8.536-872) and of the presentation of the severed head to Caesar (9.1000-1108) within the poet's narrative 4 , but have commented very little on the treatment of the episode in other, namely historiographical, sources.

Caesar's  non-inclusion  of  the  scene,  which  seems  curious  coming from the alleged protagonist of the episode, has been simply noted but not  interpreted. 5 To  explain  other  omissions  from  Caesar's  narrative,

- 3 See the paintings of Ricci (1659-1734), Battista Tiepolo (1696-1770), Pellegrini (17001741) and Lagrenée (1767) and the anonymous painting preserved in the Magnin Museum of Dijon. This scene is also staged in the series Rome (2005-2007), the docudrama Rome:  Rise  and  Fall  of  an  Empire (2006),  and  Haendel's Giulio  Cesare  in  Egitto (1723).
- 4 For the metaphorical association between Pompey's and the Gorgon's head (Luc. 9.604-889), see Malamud 2003: 32-39; Jouteur 2005. According to Estèves 2010, Lucan makes decapitation a symbol of horror related to the civil wars. Scholars have recently analysed Pompey's head as a metaphor for the body politic. See Dinter 2012: 20-21, 23, 31, 47-49, 67, 105; Mebane 2016. See also Wick 2004: ad loc. and Tschiedel 1985: 12-18, for the significant narrative role of the episode in the Pharsalia .
- 5 Kraner, Hofmann & Meusel 1906: ad loc. , complete Caesar's account by referring to other sources, and add that 'before landing, Theodotus brought him the head and seal ring of Pompey'. Carter 1993: ad loc. , just remarks that Caesar's account of events leading  to  the  Alexandrian  War  is  unclear  and  needs  to  be  completed  by  other sources. Tschiedel 1985: 4, Wick 2004: 426, and Martin 2005: 160-61, only observe Caesar's omission.

scholars have invoked several reasons: accidents in the textual transmission, political calculations and doubts about historicity. 6 It goes without saying that argumenta ex silentio , like those presented by scholars in order to explain Caesar's silences, are hardly compelling: omissions may also be due to incidental reasons such as careless writing, oblivion or underestimation of the importance of an episode evaluated as more important by later writers. Moreover, Caesar's silence on his expressions of emotion, especially toward Pompey, does not only occur in the scene of his mourning over Pompey's head; this omission seems consistent with the general tendency of Caesar the writer to avoid putting on stage the emotional reactions of Caesar the protagonist, which appear for instance in Plutarch. 7 Therefore, Caesar's general restraint could explain to some extent his omission of the anecdote under study. Nevertheless, given that

- 6 The omission, for instance, of the famous scene of the Rubicon crossing, has been described as 'the best strategy to adopt', because Caesar knew that by crossing this limit between Gallia Cisalpina and Italy, he had acted contrary to the lex Cornelia de maiestate (Westall 2017: 48-49, 57). Similarly, Caesar chose to discard from his narrative the mutiny against him at Placentia in 49 B.C., which is found in other sources (App. B Civ. 2.7.47-48; Cass. Dio 41.26-36; Suet. Jul . 69; Luc. 5.237-373; Frontin. Str . 4.5.2; Plut. Caes . 37), in order not to harm the self-constructed image of a general exercising absolute control over his army (Chrissanthos 2001: 64; Westall 2017: 25 n80). The following episode, also excluded from De Bello Ciuili , has received a twofold interpretation: while stationed on the coast of Epirus and desperate for the arrival of reinforcements from Italy, Caesar is said to have attempted to cross back to Italy, unsuccessfully due to unfavourable winds (Val. Max. 9.8.2; Plut. Caes . 38; Apophth. C. Caes . 9; De fort. Rom . 6; Flor. 2.13.37; App. B Civ. 2.8.56-57, 21.150; Cass. Dio 41.46). According to Gelzer (1968: 229n1), Caesar 'had no reason to report his own unsuccessful attempt. The account of it seems to go back to Asinius Pollio.' Others have considered the episode 'a malicious invention on the part of a hostile historian' (Friedrich 1954: 23; Westall 2017: 28-29). Finally, the defeat of C. Antonius, brother of the Triumvir, in Illyricum has been considered by Avery 1993: 457-58, a lost episode due to an accident of the textual transmission of De Bello Ciuili . See also ibid. : 468-69, where Avery discusses the possibility that the revolt at Placentia and the story of Caesar's unsuccessful attempt to return to Italy are also lost episodes due to accidents in textual transmission.
- 7 Plutarch portrays Caesar's feeling of perplexity and distress at Apollonia because of the delay of the troops from Italy (Plut. Caes. 38.1: ἀπορούμενος καὶ περιπαθῶν ;  5: ἄχθεται ), while Caesar's feelings are much more neutral in De Bello ciuili (Caes. BCiv. 3.25.3: quibus rebus permotus Caesar Brundisium ad suos seuerius scripsit ). Whereas this

the Commentarii de Bello Ciuili include emotional scenes in other instances, sometimes  with  Pompey  or  the  Pompeians  as  protagonists 8 ,  the  restrained character of the Commentarii , as a genre, 9 opposed to the inclination of the biographer Plutarch to pathetic and tragic elements 10 , cannot fully explain the narrator Caesar's general tendency to avoid relating his own emotional reactions. It seems thus impossible to specify with a reasonable degree of certainty the reason why this particular anecdote is not included in the Caesarian narrative, and one can only speculate on this matter.

omission can be explained on the same grounds as that of the whole episode of his rather embarrassing and unsuccessful attempt to cross from Epirus to Italy in Plutarch (see supra, n. 6), other expressions of feelings are more consistent with a positive self-presentation of Caesar. The Roman general is said, for instance, to have gained confidence (Plut. Caes. 39.1: θαρρήσας ;  Cass. Dio 41.49.1: θαρσήσας ;  cf. Caes. BCiv. 3.30) after the arrival of Antonius with his forces from Brundisium; he was also overjoyed (Plut. Caes. 44.1: περιχαρής ; cf. Caes. BCiv. 3.85.3-4) to hear that the enemy were coming down into the plain for battle at Pharsalus, but, after the victory, he groaned (Plut. Caes. 46.1: στενάξας )  upon entering Pompey's camp and seeing the dead or falling soldiers of his enemy (cf. Caes. BCiv. 3.97).

- 8 See in the same book Caes. BCiv. 3.18.3 (Pompey's discussion with Caesar's messenger Vibullius); 3.61.1 (Pompey made the round of his garrisons with the two Allobroges who deserted Caesar's camp and showed them off); 3.71.4 (details on Labienus' severe  behaviour  towards  deserters);  3.91  (the  remarkable  courage  of  the euocatus Crastinus); 3.105 (list  of  prodigies).  The  narrator  does  not  avoid  emotions  either, when he deals with Pompeians or Pompey himself: Pompey's soldiers who fled to Caesar's camp after the battle of Pharsalus are presented as crying ( flentes ), and Caesar started to console them ( consolatus consurgere )  by citing many examples of his clemency (Caes. BCiv. 3.98.2). The narrator, despite including much less detail than Plutarch (cf. Plut. Pomp. 73), when recounting Pompey's hasty flight from Pharsalia, also focuses on his feeling of abandonment and betrayal by his followers (Caes. BCiv. 3.96.4).
- 9 Cf. Guillaumin 1985: 743, who explains in this way Caesar's succinct account of the capitulation of Vercingetorix (Caes. BGall. 89.4).
- 10  On the role and function of tragic motifs in Plutarch's Lives , see Mossman 2014, and Pelling 2016, who focuses on the role of tragic motifs. See also Chrysanthou 2018: 66102 (esp. 68-69), on the way the use of emotions engages with the reader in Plutarch's Lives .

The absence of this scene from what one would expect to be its ultimate source, whereas it is very common in later sources, raises the legitimate question of the circumstances of its appearance in the written tradition. The very anecdotic nature of the scene under study may, however,  provide  some  relevant  insight.  According  to  the  definition  proposed by the Oxford English Dictionary , an anecdote is 'the narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking'. 11 Therefore, an anecdote distinguishes itself by its autonomy from the rest of the narrative and by its capacity to impress. Given the anecdotic character of the episode under study, to what extent may Caesar's silence thus be analysed as an 'omission', in the same way that one might refer to the omission of a historical fact from a continuous historiographical narrative? In other words, is Caesar the narrator responsible for silencing the emotions of Caesar the protagonist or have later  authors,  based  on  earlier  accounts,  reworked  and  progressively shaped a relevant tradition, adding and enhancing details, for reasons pertaining to their own intended portrayal of Caesar?

Based on the methodological tools provided by Saller's study 12 on the historical anecdotes of the Principate, the aim of this paper will accordingly be to explore (1) the context in which this anecdote was generated; (2) its alterations through transmission; and (3) its implications as historical evidence. Since, as the scholar noted, an anecdote's full history of transmission is never documented and the stage preceding its appearance  in  the  written  tradition  cannot  be  recovered,  the  only  available method for exploring the context of generation of an anecdote and its alterations through transmission is 'by comparing the different versions with respect to each element of the anecdote (chronological and physical settings, characters, minor details, and 'punch-line')'. 13 The chronological and physical settings of the various versions of the anecdote under study remain practically unchanged; on the contrary, the minor details and to a  lesser  extent  the  characters  involved  are  the  most  fluid  elements. The pointed conclusion ('punch-line') drawn from each anecdote is most often, according to Saller, the most stable element, 14 but, as the study of relevant sources will show, two pointed conclusions have been shaped in the course of the transmission of this anecdote. Based on these categories of analysis, we will attempt to identify the ultimate source or sources of the episode and outline its possible evolution, by comparing the details of ancient sources reporting it and by focusing on the role it plays  in  each  of  them,  also  depending  on  their  genre or  ideological stance. 15

11 Oxford English Dictionary , 2 nd

ed. (1989), vol. I, s.v. anecdote 2.

12  Saller 1980.

13  Saller 1980 : 74.

A brief chronological survey of the sources relating the scene is thus a priori necessary, since this will provide the basis for classifying the various sources in different categories according to the stable and fluid elements observed in each of them, following Saller's methodological tools. The aim will then be to explore the extent to which extant sources reworked and reshaped the anecdote and trace the possible history - with reference to its possible earliest stages - of the progressive formation of a  tradition  on  this  episode  which  is  associated  with  Caesar's memoria . Through this historiographical study, it will be shown that the anecdote was most likely reported for the first time by pro-Caesarian historians and then reworked, reinterpreted and embellished in the context of historical declamation.

## II. Pompey's head presented to Caesar: survey of sources

Special mention should be made, in advance, of the attested presence of the episode in two non-preserved texts, because, if these two testimonies indeed reflect the content of the original texts, the latter chronologically precede any surviving account of the incident. In the last part of this paper, the role of these two texts in the formation of a tradition on this incident will thus be proven to be decisive.

14  Saller 1980: 78-79.

15  See also for a similar methodological approach on a case study Rondholz 2009 on the episode of Caesar's crossing the Rubicon, with the difference that Rondholz mostly focuses on the generic rather than the ideological reasons which motivated the inclusion or addition of different details in each of the relevant sources.

The scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar is included in Livy's Periocha 112. The summaries of the Ab Vrbe Condita ( AVC ), made by an unknown author between the second and the fourth century A.D. 16 , reproduce, to a debated extent 17 ,  Livy's narrative, conducted during the Augustan period. The Periocha 112 seems to reflect a rather pro-Caesarian stance, by referring to Caesar's tears and sorrow: Caesar post tertium diem insecutus, cum ei Theodotus caput Pompei et anulum obtulisset, infensus est et inlacrimauit :  'The third day thereafter Caesar arrived in pursuit (i.e. of Pompey), and when Theodotus brought him Pompey's head and ring, he was indignant and burst into tears.' 18 The genre of the Periocha imposes practical  limits  on  our  understanding  of  this  mention:  did  the  author draw the episode from Livy or from other sources? If the former is the case, did Livy also promote a rather positive memoria of Caesar? These questions will be examined in the last part of this paper. At this stage, it suffices to keep in mind that if the Periocha follows Livy's text, the cited text,  along  with  the  next  passage,  are  the  earliest  testimonies  of  the scene. According to the traditional dating, Livy published the final version of the first five books of his work between 27 and 25 B.C. 19 and wrote 142 books in the course of 40 to 45 years, if one accepts the view that when he died in 12 or 17 A.D. he was still writing or had recently finished his  work. 20 The Periocha 112, which contains the incident under study, should  thus  be  dated  in  the  Late  Augustan  period.  Furthermore,  it  is worth noting that despite its conciseness, this testimony is the most in- formative as far as the chronological setting ( post tertium diem )  is  concerned; it is also the only source, along with Plutarch, to mention the tutor of the young Ptolemy XIII, Theodotus, as one of the protagonists.

16  See Bingham 1978: 475-76; and Jal 1984: XXIII-XVI, with earlier bibliography.

17  See infra

on this subject.

18  Transl. by A.C. Schlesinger (LOEB 1987).

19  See on this traditional dating Klotz 1926: 818, and Ogilvie 1965: 94. According to some scholars, the surviving version of Livy's first pentade is a second edition of an earlier one published between 31-27 B.C. See on this theory Bayet 1940: XVI-XXI; Luce 1965, Burton 2000; id. 2008; contra Syme 1959, 46-50.

20  The date of 17 A.D. is based on Saint Jerome (Hieron., Chron. p.  154  &  171  Helm), whose trustworthiness was put into question by Syme 1959: 40-41, who suggested 12 A.D. as date of Livy's death. I addressed the question of Livy's date of death in a forthcoming paper (Vassiliades 2022), where I argue that Livy more probably died in 17 A.D. and that he was still writing his work when he died.

In his collection of fictive court cases, known as Controuersiae ,  published some years later, more probably during the rule of Caligula (37-41 A.D.) 21 ,  Seneca the Elder reports that the episode was exploited by two declaimers of the Ε arly Ι mperial period: Moschus, exiled from Rome and already dead around 25 A.D. 22 ,  eleven years after Augustus' death, and Musa, a rhetorician whose floruit is also assumed to be during the Tiberian age 23 .  It  is  difficult to determine the precise date of the declamatio under discussion, but one can safely enough assume that it was produced around the late Augustan or early Tiberian period, which brings us to a contemporary or slightly later date than Livy's account of this episode.

The fictional law case was that of a daughter who, during the civil wars, took the side of her husband, although her father and son were on the opposite side; her party lost and her husband was killed; when she returned to her father's house, she was ordered by her father to hang herself and did so; the son accused his father of madness ( dementiae ). Seneca cites excerpts from this case drawn from declaimers defending the son or the father. 24 Moschus and Musa are among those who take the side of the son, and both refer to the exemplum of Caesar. Moschus argues as

- 21  Fairweather 1981: 3 suggests an approximate dating of Controuersiae during the rule of Tiberius or Caligula, by arguing that by the time Seneca (born during the decade of fifties B.C.) wrote his work, he had an unusually intimate knowledge of his subject acquired over seventy years or more. Griffin 1972: 4-5, concludes that the Controuersiae and the Suasoriae were composed between 37 and 40 A.D.
- 22  See Sen. Controv. 2.5.13: he was persecuted and convicted for poisoning and he was defended by Asinius Pollio, the consul of 23 A.D. He then taught and died around 25 A.D. at Massalia, where, following Tacitus ( Ann. 4.43), he bequeathed his legacy.
- 23  See  Griffin  1972:  8  and  Fairweather  1981:  277,  who  date  the floruit of  this  orator around that period, based on the information that Seneca attended his declamations with his sons (Sen. Controv. 10 praef. 1, 9). Seneca refers to Musa's style, whereas he only criticises Moschus for the excessive use of figurae (Sen. Controv. 10 praef. 9-10).
- 24  See for an analysis of this case Gunderson 2003: 132-35. The critic ( ibid. 134) also refers to the exploitation of the scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar, by treating it as a concrete historical exemplum used to further the defendants' speeches. See also Van der Poel 2009: 342-43, who analyses these passages as judicial exempla used by the declaimers in order to construct convincing arguments.

follows: Adlatum ad se Caesar Pompei caput fleuit. Hoc ille propter filiam praestitit .  (Sen. Controv. 10.3.1): 'Caesar wept when the head of Pompey was brought to him; this was the tribute he paid for his daughter's sake'. 25 Caesar is presented as weeping for his daughter's sake in front of her husband's head, contrary to the father in the imagined case.

The scene is exploited some paragraphs later by Musa, who also opposes Caesar's sensitivity at the sight of his former son-in-law's head to the father's lack of affection towards his own daughter: Allato ad se capite Cn. Pompei Caesar auertisse oculos dicitur, quod tu ne in morte filiae quidem fecisti . (Sen. Controv. 10.3.5): 'When Pompey's head was brought to him, Caesar is said to have averted his eyes; you didn't do that even at the death of your daughter'. The tone is in both cases rather positive for Caesar, although one might discern a slight distancing from the victor of the civil wars in Moschus' remark that Caesar wept for his daughter's sake: this could be taken to imply that Caesar's attitude was not a sign of sensitivity towards Pompey, but the fulfilment of a duty towards his own daughter. Furthermore, the verb dicitur , used in Musa's sententia without an agent, attributes the cited information to a more or less shared tradition for whose authority or trustworthiness Musa avoids vouching personally.

Beyond the fact that the analysis of these rhetorical texts reveals a rather positive commemoration of Caesar's attitude through the exploitation of the episode as a means of persuasion, and more precisely as a positive exemplum , one can further conclude from Seneca's evidence that the anecdote itself was developed via declamatory exercises. These seem to interact with an already established anonymous tradition, which they seem to enrich by adapting it to the particular persuasive goals of each declamatio . As one would expect, the orators exploiting this episode betray a lack of interest in the chronological circumstances, the minor protagonists, and the minor details of the episode, since the only thing that seems  relevant  to  their  persuasive  strategy  is  the  pointed  conclusion drawn from Caesar's attitude. The eventually important role of declamatio in the diffusion of the episode and its interconnection with other genres in formulating a relevant tradition will, however, be discussed in detail later.

25  Transl. M. Winterbottom (LOEB 1974), as well as all translations of Seneca the Elder.

The fact that Valerius Maximus is the first preserved source to refer to this episode may not be a coincidence, given the close generic interaction between Valerius' work and the widespread practice of declamatio in his cultural milieu: Bloomer suggests that Valerius' collection of rhetorical exempla not only drew material from what was heard in declamatory exercises, but was even designed to influence these rhetorical exercises, which were the most highly esteemed public art forms in Tiberian Rome. 26 Commenting on the generic identity of Valerius' work, Welch points out that it blends elements of declamation and historiography, since, like the former, it is concerned with turns of phrases and moral dilemmas, and, like the latter, it is concerned with presenting and preserving past events. 27

The eventual implications of the exploitation of the scene under study both by declaimers of the Early Imperial period and by Valerius, whose cultural interaction with the genre of declamatio is  generally  acknowledged, will be discussed later, in the examination of the role this episode plays in the different ancient sources and in shaping and reshaping a relevant tradition. For the moment, it should be underlined that Valerius Maximus  chooses  to  include  in  his  positive exempla  de  humanitate  et clementia a scene commemorating Caesar's memoria , which was apt to be used by both historians and declaimers. Following Valerius, when Pompey's  head  was  presented  to  Caesar,  it  aroused  even  the  victor's  pity ( etiam ipsi uictori miserabile ):

ut enim id Caesar aspexit, oblitus hostis soceri uultum induit ac Pompeio cum proprias tum et filiae suae lacrimas reddidit, caput autem plurimis et pretiosissimis odoribus cremandum curauit. Quod si non tam mansuetus animus diuini principis extitisset, paulo ante Romani imperii columen habitum-sic mortalium negotia fortuna uersat-inhumatum iacuisset. (Val. Max. 5.1.10)

For when Caesar saw it, he forgot the role of enemy and put on the countenance of a father-in-law and gave tears to Pompey, his own and his daughter's too; and he had the head cremated with an abundance of  the  costliest  perfumes.  If  the  heart  of  the  divine  leader  had  not shown itself so gentle, he who a little while before had been looked upon as the crown of the Roman empire (so does Fortune turn the affairs of mortals) would have lain unburied. (Transl. Shackleton Bailey - LOEB 2000)

26  See Bloomer 1992: 3-4, 7-9, 12-13, 17, 47, 60-62, 78, 146, 153-54.

27  See Welch 2013 (esp. 67-68). Langlands 2008: 160-61, also argues that Valerius' work is better understood within the context of the practice of declamatio ,  especially in the aspect of 'controversial thinking'.

Caesar's attitude is praised as consistent with his roles of father and father-in-law. The phrase uultum induit might be taken to allude only to an external (and thus perhaps hypocritical) reaction by Caesar, but the rest of  the  paragraph  allows  no  doubt  on  the  positive  stance  towards  the leader, who is here meant to function as a positive exemplum : if he had not offered Pompey a proper burial, because of his mansuetus animus , the body would have been left unburied. 28 The 'punch-line' is once again the most important element in this exploitation of the anecdote; the minor details elaborated only in this version of the anecdote, referring to the meticulous care taken by Caesar for the burial of Pompey ( caput autem plurimis et pretiosissimis odoribus cremandum curauit ), appear as a prelude to the moral conclusion of the anecdote regarding the gentle heart of Caesar.

The most elaborate account appears in the epic poem Pharsalia , where Seneca the Elder's grandson, Lucan, generally portrays Caesar in unflattering tones. 29 As soon as he arrived in Egypt, an attendant of Ptolemy ( satelles  regis )  appeared,  carrying  Pompey's  head  as  a  gift,  and  tried through a short but solemn speech to value the beheading of Caesar's enemy as a service to him (9.1010-32). The invented speech delivered by Ptolemy's attendant, whose exact identity does not interest the narrator, is cited only here, in order to increase the dramatic tension of the scene. When then describing Caesar's weeping 30 ,  Lucan highlights his hypocrisy, which appears as the moral conclusion of the scene and the reason for its inclusion in the narrative:

28  See Blommer 1992: 211.

29  See Tschiedel 1985: 12-18; Wick 2004: ad loc. ; Radicke 2004: 478-89; D'Alessandro Behr 2007: 60-70.

30  Cf. Hagen 2017: 212-16, on the scenes of weeping of other heroes in Lucan at the sight of the dead Pompey.

Sic fatus opertum detexit tenuitque caput. Ι am languida morte effigies habitum noti mutauerat oris. Non primo Caesar damnauit munera uisu 1035 auertitque oculos; uoltus, dum crederet, haesit; utque fidem uidit sceleris tutumque putauit iam bonus esse socer, lacrimas non sponte cadentis effudit gemitusque expressit pectore laeto, non aliter manifesta potens abscondere mentis 1040 gaudia quam lacrimis, meritumque inmane tyranni destruit et generi mauolt lugere reuolsum quam debere caput. (Luc. 9.1032-43)

With these words he took off the covering from the head, and held it in his hands. By now the features, relaxed by death, had changed the aspect of that familiar face. When Caesar first saw it, he did not condemn the gift nor turn away: his eyes were fixed upon the face till he could be sure. Then, when he saw the proof of the crime, and thought it safe at last to be the loving kinsman, he shed crocodile tears and forced out groans while his heart rejoiced. By tears alone was he able to hide his obvious delight; and thus he belittles the king's horrid service, preferring to mourn the severed head of his kinsman rather than owe obligation for it. 31

All the details added, including the changed aspect of the mutilated head, the gestures made by Caesar to ensure that Pompey was indeed dead, and the focalisation upon the inner thoughts and feelings of the protagonist, are placed in the service of the pointed moral conclusion of the anecdote: Caesar was cruel and a hypocrite. In a dramatic apostrophe to Caesar, Lucan declares that these tears were not sincere (9.1047-62). The speech then delivered by Caesar (9.1064-104) reveals his selfish motives: he complains that the Egyptians' initiative deprived him of the most important privilege of civil war: the power of granting life to the defeated (9.1066-

68); he then expresses his anger at Ptolemy's interference in Roman affairs,  which  contested  Caesar's  absolute  authority  (9.1068-78),  and stresses that the same reception would have been prepared for him, had he not been the victor (9.1079-88). In the final part of the speech, he orders that Pompey should be given a proper burial and expresses his deep sorrow for his son-in-law's destiny and for a lost opportunity for reconciliation (9.1091-104). Lucan ensures that Caesar's performance will not deceive the readers, by concluding with the onlookers' scepticism. The addition of the onlookers, as minor protagonists of the scene, and the dramatic  elaboration  of  their  gestures  and  inner  feelings,  which  is unique in all extant sources, are there to seal the moral of the story by also increasing dramatic tension:

Nec talia fatus

inuenit fletus comitem nec turba querenti 1105 credidit: abscondunt gemitus et pectora laeta fronte tegunt, hilaresque nefas spectare cruentum, o bona libertas, cum Caesar lugeat, audent.

(Luc. 9.1104-08)

Thus he spoke, but found none to share his weeping; nor did the hearers believe his complaint; they hid their sorrow and veiled their feelings with a mask of rejoicing; though Caesar mourns, they dare-how gracious the privilege! -to look with cheerful faces at that sight of blood and crime.

Plutarch's account in the Lives of Pompey and Caesar is much briefer and much more favourable to Caesar. In line with the biographer's overall inclination  to  the  pathetic  element,  Plutarch  places  emphasis  on  the emotions of the general at the sight of Pompey's head:

Τοῦτο Πομπηΐου τέλος . οὐ πολλῷ δὲ ὕστερον Καῖσαρ ἐλθὼν εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἄγους τοσούτου καταπεπλησμένην τὸν μὲν προσφέροντα τὴν κεφαλὴν ὡς παλαμναῖον ἀπεστράφη , τὴν δὲ σφραγῖδα τοῦ Πομπηΐου δεξάμενος ἐδάκρυσεν· ἦν δὲ γλυφὴ λέων ξιφήρης . Ἀχιλλᾶν δὲ καὶ Ποθεινὸν ἀπέσφαξεν . (Plut. Pomp. 80.5)

This was the end of Pompey. But not long afterwards Caesar came to Egypt, and found it filled with this great deed of abomination. From the man who brought him Pompey's head he turned away with loathing, as from an assassin; and on receiving Pompey's seal-ring, he burst into tears; the device was a lion holding a sword in his paws. But Achillas and Potheinus he put to death. (Transl. Perrin-LOEB 1917)

εἰς δὲ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἐπὶ Πομπηΐῳ τεθνηκότι καταχθεὶς Θεόδοτον μὲν ἀπεστράφη τὴν Πομπηΐου κεφαλὴν προσφέροντα , τὴν δὲ σφραγῖδα δεξάμενος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς κατεδάκρυσεν· […] τοῖς δὲ φίλοις εἰς Ῥώμην ἔγραφεν ὅτι τῆς νίκης ἀπολαύοι τοῦτο μέγιστον καὶ ἥδιστον , τὸ σῴζειν τινὰς ἀεὶ τῶν πεπολεμηκότων πολιτῶν αὐτῷ . (Plut. Caes. 48.2)

Arriving at Alexandria just after Pompey's death, he turned away in horror from Theodotus as he presented the head of Pompey, but he accepted Pompey's seal-ring, and shed tears over it. [...] And to his friends  in  Rome  he  wrote  that  this  was  the  greatest  and  sweetest pleasure that he derived from his victory, namely, from time to time to  save  the  lives  of  fellow  citizens  who  had  fought  against  him. (Transl. Perrin-LOEB 1919)

Commenting on Caes. 48.2, Pelling rightly stresses that Plutarch 'leaves the impression that the tears are simply of distress for a former friend and relative', although the last phrase ( τῆς νίκης … πολιτῶν αὐτῷ ) 'may also hint at disappointment at losing a chance to display clemency.' 32 This nuancing remark is consistent with the theme of Caesar's pursuit of δόξα ,  which runs through the whole Life of Caesar , 33 but the biographer does not seem to question the frankness of Caesar's horror and sadness at the moment of staring at his adversary's severed head. Plutarch's fa-

- 32  Pelling 2011: ad loc . The cited passages have surprisingly not attracted scholars' attention. On Plutarch's Caesar ,  see  Pelling 2002. On Plutarch's Pompey ,  see  Beneker 2005b, who examines the rise and fall of Pompey, but without dealing with Pomp. 80. Beneker 2005a, focuses on thematic correspondences between Plutarch's Lives of Caesar, Pompey , and Crassus , but does not mention this episode.

33  See Santangelo 2019: 335-39.

vourable stance towards Caesar in this scene is also reflected in the biographer's choice, in Pomp. 80.7, to indirectly associate the murderers' execution with Caesar's indignation by placing the first immediately after the second. 34 As already stressed, Caesar's intervention in Egypt plays out as a normalising factor, since the killers are punished, and the remains of Pompey are then handed over to his wife Cornelia. 35 Plutarch here either follows a pro-Caesarian source, or has no other at his disposal. 36

The reference to Theodotus and the seal-ring of the defunct, details which also appear in Livy's Periocha , may reflect Plutarch's dependence upon Livy or a common source favourable to Caesar. These details, however, should not necessarily be analysed as reflecting Plutarch's interest in historical accuracy. As Saller has argued, anecdotes provided, above all, the biographers with the sort of material they required for the characterisation of their protagonists. 37 The information added by Plutarch about a letter  addressed by Caesar to his friends in Rome ( Caes. 48.2), along  with  the  punishment  of  the  Egyptian  murderers,  points  to  the clemency of the protagonist only towards his Roman enemies, as one of his virtues or policies.

This pro-Caesarian conclusion is shared by all sources examined up this  point  except  Lucan.  The  poet's  clear  anti-Caesarian  stance  might point, however, to the existence of a parallel tradition or at least to its creation by the Roman epic poet. Cassius Dio's version of the episode also falls into a tradition hostile to Caesar.

Ὁ δ ' οὖν Καῖσαρ τὴν τοῦ Πομπηίου κεφαλὴν ἰδὼν κατεδάκρυσε καὶ κατωλοφύρατο , πολίτην τε αὐτὸν καὶ γαμβρὸν ὀνομάζων , καὶ πάνθ ' ὅσα ποτὲ ἀλλήλοις ἀνθυπουργήκεσαν ἀναριθμούμενος . Τοῖς τε ἀποκτείνασιν αὐτὸν οὐχ ὅπως εὐεργεσίαν τινὰ ὀφείλειν ἔφη , ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπεκάλει , καὶ ἐκείνην κοσμῆσαί τε καὶ εὐθετῆσαι καὶ θάψαι τισὶν ἐκέλευσε . 2. Καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τούτῳ ἔπαινον ἔσχεν , ἐπὶ δὲ δὴ τῇ προσποιήσει γέλωτα ὠφλίσκανε · τῆς γὰρ δυναστείας δεινῶς ἀπ ' ἀρχῆς ἐφιέμενος ,

34  The association becomes explicit in App. B Civ. 2.13.90: Ποθεινὸν μὲν καὶ Ἀχιλλᾶν ἐκόλασε θανάτῳ τῆς ἐς τὸν Πομπήιον παρανομίας .

35  See Santangelo 2019: 335.

36  Wick 2004: 426.

37  Saller 1980: 72-73.

καὶ ἐκεῖνον καὶ ὡς ἀνταγωνιστὴν καὶ ὡς ἀντίπαλον ἀεί ποτε μισήσας , 3. καὶ τά τε ἄλλα ἐπ ' αὐτῷ πάντα πράξας καὶ τὸν πόλεμον τόνδε οὐκ ἐπ ' ἄλλο τι παρασκευάσας ἢ ἵνα ἀπολομένου αὐτοῦ πρωτεύσῃ , τότε τε ἐς τὴν Αἴγυπτον οὐ δι ' ἄλλο τι ἐπειχθεὶς ἢ ἵνα αὐτόν , εἰ περιείη , προσκατεργάσαιτο , ποθεῖν τε αὐτὸν ἐπλάττετο καὶ ἀγανακτεῖν τῷ ὀλέθρῳ αὐτοῦ ἐσκήπτετο . (Cass. Dio 42.8)

Now Caesar at the sight of Pompey's head wept and lamented bitterly, calling  him  countryman  and  son-in-law,  and  enumerating  all  the kindnesses they had shown each other. As for the murderers, far from admitting  that  he  owed  them  any  reward,  he  actually  heaped  reproaches  upon  them;  and  he  commanded  that  the  head  should  be adorned, properly prepared, and buried. 2. For this he received praise, but for his hypocrisy he incurred ridicule. He had, of course, from the outset been very eager for dominion; he had always hated Pompey as his antagonist and rival, 3. and besides all his other measures against him he had brought on this war with no other purpose than to secure this rival's ruin and his own supremacy; he had but now been hurrying to Egypt with no other end in view than to overthrow him completely if he should still be alive; yet he feigned to mourn his loss and made a show of vexation over his murder. (Transl. Cary - LOEB 1916)

Cassius Dio places even more emphasis than Lucan on the contradiction between Caesar's merciful attitude on this occasion and the fierce way he had pursued victory over him (cf. Luc. 9.1047-48, 1057-58). Furthermore, he adds an important detail when describing the onlookers' reactions: the Roman general was laughed at for his hypocrisy (cf. Luc. 110608, cited above). It is difficult to determine whether this aspect was added by the historian or whether he had drawn it from earlier accounts, now lost. In any case, this detail strengthens the moral 'punch-line' of the story in the last part of the cited passage, in a way which is more elaborate and more explicit than in any other version of the anecdote. Dio's anti-Caesarian version is an exception to the general pro-Caesarian tendency  of  later  historiographical  sources,  including  Appian,  Eutropius, Orosius and the unknown author of De viris illustribus ,  who refer to the episode very briefly, by drawing some details from earlier sources. 38

To sum up, the different exploitation of the various elements (chronological  and  physical  settings,  characters,  minor  details,  and  'punchline') of the anecdote on Caesar's emotional reaction to the sight of Pompey's mutilated head reflects an ideological stance toward Caesar. The way this episode is commemorated in each source can sometimes be also attributed to its generic particularities or limitations and to its moralising intentions, especially in the cases of the Periochae , the declaimers, Valerius Maximus and Plutarch. Nevertheless, it always depends on the particular way each author positions himself toward an ambivalent figure of the civil wars, Caesar, and thus decides to pursue his memoria . In this context, two ideological and historical traditions were shaped regarding the scene under study: a clearly or rather pro-Caesarian, which focuses on the leader's emotion at the sight of his dead enemy, and an anti-Caesarian, which stresses Caesar's hypocrisy and selfish motives. 39 The first tradition is most prevalent in the extant tradition, whereas the second is only represented by the epic poet Lucan and the historian Cassius Dio, even though negative nuances may be discernible but not explicit in the declamatory tradition, namely Moschus.

The differences observed in the constitutive elements of the anecdote, and especially the opposing moral conclusions drawn from it, reflect its plasticity depending on the ideological interpretation of the incident by later authors. It should not be overlooked, when exploring the reception of this episode in later sources, that this small case study is inscribed in the larger context of the imperial representation and remembrance ( memoria ) of  the  republican  factual  past  ( historia ).  Gowing has convincingly argued that, in contrast to the modern perception, Romans of the early imperial period did not envisage a sharp distinction between historia and memoria . It was required of any Roman author, as it is  to  a  lesser  extent  by  modern  interpreters  of  the  past,  to  give  their proper meaning to the past and decide what to remember and how. Historia was any attempt to transmit the past and pursue its memory ( memoria ) regardless of the factual reliability of each source and regardless of the genre (historiography, poetry, epistolography etc.) involved in preserving and handing down the memory of the past. The distinction between  'fiction'  and  'non-fiction'  seems  mostly  a  modern  concern. 40 These blurred limits also apply to the scene of Caesar's mourning upon Pompey's head, and this is reflected in the different versions of the episode: 41 there is a part emanating from 'factual' history and a part which could  be  attributed  to  the  tendency  of  ancient  authors  to  pursue  the memory of Caesar or the civil wars in a specific way. 42

38  App. B Civ. 2.13.90: τὴν δὲ κεφαλὴν τοῦ Πομπηίου προσφερομένην οὐχ ὑπέστη , ἀλλὰ προσέταξε ταφῆναι ... De vir. Ill. 77.9: qui non continens lacrimas illud plurimis et pretiosissimis odoribus cremandum curauit .  Eutr. 6.21.3: Quo conspecto Caesar etiam lacrimas fudisse dicitur, tanti uiri intuens caput et generi quondam sui . Oros. 6.15.29: Caesar conpositis apud Thessaliam rebus Alexandriam uenit perlatoque ad se ac uiso Pompei capite anuloque fleuit . See also Zonar. 10.10 (p. 365, 6-10).

39  See on the same point Tschiedel 1985: 5-6.

It seems, of course, impossible to distinguish between what in fact took place and which details may have resulted from continuous later re-adaptations and re-interpretations of the anecdote for reasons pertaining to politics, literature or different sources. In other words, since Caesar himself  did  not  attempt  to  promote  a  particular memoria of  himself through  this  episode,  we  should  rely  on  our  survey  of  other  extant sources, in order to briefly examine the place of each source in the progressive shaping of a tradition relevant to this episode and thereby to Caesar's memoria . We will thus be able to outline the eventual history of

- 40  See Gowing 2005: 7-15 (esp. 9-12) for this discussion on the relationship between memoria and historia of the Republican past during the Early Empire. See also Gallia 2012 (esp. 1-11) on the dynamics of memoria of the Republic during the Imperial period, especially during the Flavian period. On the representation of late Republican civil wars in the historiography of the Imperial period, see Lange & Vervaet 2019: passim.
- 41  Cf. Heinen 1966: 72 n2, who defends the episode's historicity, although noting that similar scenes appear in Plut. Pyrrh. 34.4; Ant. 78.2. Cf. Tschiedel 1985: 4, who points to the difficulty of distinguishing between fiction and historicity when dealing with scenes reproducing the topos of the victor weeping over the vanquished dead, the episode  under  study  included.  See  along  the  same  lines  Hagen  2017:  59-61  and Vekselius 2018: 155-66 (esp. 159-61), generally on the scenes of weeping in ancient historiography.
- 42  See in a similar context Devillers & Sion-Jenkis 2012, where scholars focus on the reception of Caesar's figure in individual authors, mostly of the Augustan period.

this tradition and seek one or more archetypical versions of the episode in sources other than Caesar himself.

## III. The shaping of the literary tradition on the episode

The extant sources studied in the third part of this paper can be divided into two major categories according to their genre: a) 'historiographicalbiographical', which include Livy's Periocha , Valerius Maximus, Plutarch, Dio Cassius and the other later historians who only make a brief mention of the scene (Appian, Orosius, Eutropius and Zonaras); and b) 'rhetoricaldeclamatory', which include the two testimonies from Seneca the Elder. Our study of the literary tradition should thus be divided into these two parts. Lucan, who is our most extensive source for the episode, does not belong to either of the two genres, but, as will be pointed out, he draws from both historiographical and declamatory sources and approaches in order to construct his own account. Accordingly, our investigation will bring out the intersection and interaction between the 'historiographical'  and  the  'declamatory' branch in the creation, development, enhancement and diffusion of a tradition on Caesar's mourning upon Pompey's head.

## 1. Historiographical Quellenkritik

The investigation of the episode's historiographical tradition is mostly a question of Quellenkritik aiming to assess the trustworthiness of extant sources relating it, and secondarily one of Quellenforschung ,  which only permits few certainties. As Saller pertinently notes: 'We can rarely determine whether the first author known to us transmitting a particular story invented it, altered it, or was just passing it on. What is more important, most of our ancient sources, especially those living generations or even centuries after the incident, would have been similarly incapable of  determining  ultimate  origins,  since  notice  of  original  authorship rarely accompanied the anecdote.' 43 Therefore, the purpose of both approaches ( Quellenkritik and Quellenforschung ) will not only be to determine the  historiographical  context  in  which  this  anecdote  was  probably shaped, but also, and more importantly, to understand how it turned into a  widespread  version  of  history.  Were  there  one  or  more  common sources of this story?

It is important to clarify in advance that we are not concerned here with the creation of a tradition on Pompey's beheading, but specifically with the scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar, who becomes indignant at the spectacle. Caesar does not mention Pompey's decapitation, probably, as already stressed, being unwilling to include disturbing details of his adversary's death. However, as Martin pointed out, we know that the victim's beheading after his execution became a common practice in the late Republican civil wars. Even if the horrific details of Pompey's decapitation provided by Lucan (8.663-91) are not necessarily accurate, there are no grounds to challenge the sources' consensus that Pompey was beheaded. 44 It seems, therefore, a reasonable assumption that his severed head would also be preserved in order to be presented to Caesar 45 , on the Egyptians' initiative or at Caesar's request. The general's reaction, however, regardless of if there actually was one, has progressively generated  a  tradition  in  different  and  much  more  numerous  sources, whose exact course will be investigated.

Let us then start our investigation from sources closer to the facts. The very first mention of Pompey's death in September 48, was made by Cicero in a letter to Atticus in December 48. He refers to it as to an expected outcome, given Pompey's pitiful situation, but without making any allusion to the method of Pompey's execution or the presentation of Pompey's head to Caesar:

3. […] De Pompei exitu mihi dubium numquam fuit. Tanta enim desperatio rerum eius omnium regum et populorum animos occuparat ut quocumque uenisset hoc putarem futurum. 4. Non possum eius casum non dolere; hominem enim integrum et castum et grauem cognoui. (Cic. Att. 11.6.3-4)

44  See Martin 2005: 151-53.

45  Martin 2005: 153-56, shows that, contrary to the unanimity of sources on the destiny of Pompey's head, two traditions arose regarding Pompey's corpse: one created by Asinius Pollio and another created by Cremutius Cordus. See also ibid : 156-60, for a discussion on the embalmment of Pompey's head.

3.  […]  As  to  Pompey's end I never had any doubt, for all rulers and peoples had become so thoroughly persuaded of the hopelessness of his case that wherever he went I expected this to happen. 4. I cannot but grieve for his fate. I knew him for a man of good character, clean life,  and  serious  principle.  (Transl.  D.  R.  Shackleton  Bailey  -  LOEB 1999).

Cicero's omission of Caesar's reaction might be easily explained: even if Plutarch  says  that  Caesar  arrived  in  Egypt  'not  long  afterwards'  ( οὐ πολλῷ δὲ ὕστερον ), Cicero or his addressee Atticus may not have been informed of that incident. Furthermore, the inclusion of such a detail might seem unnecessary or even risky in a brief letter, in which Cicero, stuck in Brundisium, wishes to justify his decision of quitting the war and Pompey's side after the battle of Pharsalus, and to inform Atticus about his communication with Caesar's partners, Balbus and Oppius, in an attempt to guarantee his own standing (Cic. Att. 11.6.1-2). If Cicero had chosen to mention the incident, he would have been forced to interpret it in favour of Caesar or against him, which is something he might prefer to avoid. Cicero's omission does, however, constitute an indication that, in the immediate aftermath of Pompey's death, a tradition relevant to the famous scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar may not yet have become so widespread that it should be mentioned as a necessary complement to the story of Pompey's death.

As already pointed out, the first accounts to include the anecdote are the Periochae ,  if  one considers that they reproduce Livy's text, and Valerius Maximus, composed during Tiberius' reign. 46 The relative proximity to the events of the civil wars cannot be a compelling argument for concluding that the two sources reproduce exactly what happened in factual  history,  for  different  reasons  in  each  case.  Let  us  start  our Quellenkritik with Valerius, since this analysis seems especially valid in his case, whereas some trends found in Valerius' preserved and more elaborate narrative will provide us with hints on the characteristics and purpose of Livy's account of the episode.

The following aspect of Valerius' work should be the first to be taken into account in evaluating the extent to which the author has altered the anecdote: the reconstruction of what actually happened was not always the primary goal of Facta et dicta memorabilia . In the preface, Valerius announces that he collected in one single work memorable deeds and words ( facta simul ac dicta memoratu digna ), dispersed in other authors; he clarifies that he pretends neither to exhaustivity, nor to a 'more scrupulous accuracy' ( adtentiore cura ) or 'more distinguished eloquence' ( praestantiore facundia ) 47 than his predecessors. Valerius' statement might be interpreted as a façade of humbleness 48 ,  but the writer's moralistic agenda, which had an impact on his method of dealing with sources 49 , cannot be doubted. Valerius' primary purpose is to provide his audience in general with exempla , an aim which may lead him to a reinterpretation or even manipulation of his sources according to his ethical or political agenda. 50 Gowing rightly insists, more precisely, on the political dimension of Valerius' exempla , discussing how Valerius tends, through exclusion, inclusion  or  manipulation  of  stories,  to  fashion  a  memory  of  the  Republic which emphasises how the stability established by Augustus and Tiberius allowed the permanence of Roman Republican values. 51 The episode un-

- 47  I adopt the translation of Wardle 1998: ad loc. See on Valerius' programmatic statements Bloomer 1992: 14-17.

48  Cf. Wardle 1998: ad loc. , who denies Valerius such subtlety.

49  On Valerius' method of dealing with sources see Bloomer 1992: 59-146.

50  David 1998: 9-17, 119-30, stresses the rhetorical and exemplary dimension of Valerius' work, which leads him to reinterpret his sources. On the function of Valerius' exempla and their questionable trustworthiness, see Lucarelli 2007 (esp. 121-25, 28292). Wardle 1998: 12-15, concludes that Valerius' work had both a moral and a practical purpose, the latter consisting in providing orators with material for declamatio . Bloomer 1992: 1-10, 16-17, analyses Valerius' exempla as means of persuasion consistent with Greek and Roman rhetorical theory. In her discussion of the function of exempla in Valerius' work, Langlands 2008: 160-64, argues that the arrangement of exempla in  sequences  under  ethical  categories  is  designed  to  enact  their  readers' moral reasoning skills in a context of controversial thinking, encouraged by the development of declamatio . Idem 2011 argues, through comparison with Cicero's use of exempla in De officiis , that Valerius promotes an idea which is central to Roman ethics, namely that when reading exempla , one has to bear in mind the principle of situational variability: circumstances are important in judging one behaviour to be correct or not.

51  Gowing 2005: 49-62

der study illustrating Caesar's mansuetudo seems ideally suited to this ideological agenda. Furthermore, an exemplum need not be historically accurate; Cicero's standpoint that orators are even allowed to lie when they want to illustrate in a more expressive way the mores involved in the description  of  an  episode  or  a  person 52 is  probably  extreme,  but  it  does point to a rather loose connection between exemplarity and accuracy during this era. In the context of the use of anecdotes as exempla , whether the characterisations and details of the anecdotes were accurate mattered far less than the didactic purpose of each anecdote, which usually required stereotyping and adaptation of details to the intended moral lesson. 53

The same analysis cannot be adopted for Livy. The exemplary dimension of the AVC is explicitly stated in praef. 10. 54 It should not, however, be dismissed that, as opposed to Valerius, Livy stresses his attachment to the principle of ueritas :  in praef. 5, he clarifies that he prefers to relate early Roman history, not because the narration of late Republican Roman history could divert the historian's mind from truth ( etsi  non  flectere  a uero ), but because it might cause him anxiety. Moreover, Livy is a historical source, much closer to the civil wars than the biographer Plutarch and later historians like Appian and Cassius Dio, where the episode is related. It is, certainly, extremely difficult to determine whether the author of Periocha 112 drew the episode from Livy or from another source.

There is no consensus regarding the importance of the divergences between the Periochae and Livy's text. Did the epitomist copy directly and exclusively from Livy, or from an intermediate Epitoma Liuiana ? In either case, to what extent did he consult other sources apart from Livy? I am personally  more  convinced  by  Jal's  analysis,  who  examined  all  divergences between Livy's extant books and the corresponding Periochae proposed by Bingham and reduced the number of real ones to only a dozen, in which the author was also inspired by other sources or variants; the theory of existence of an intermediate Epitoma should be dismissed. 55

52  See Cic. Brut . 42; De or. 2.241.

53  See on this point Saller 1980: 72.

54  The scholarship on the exemplarity in Livy is extensive. See ex. Moles 1993: 167-68; Kraus & Woodman 1997: 53-56; and esp. Chaplin 2000: 1-5, 50-72, who focus on Liv.

praef. 10.

Could it, however, be still adduced that the author did not derive the episode under study from Book 112, but simply added it as a variant tradition found in other sources? Such additions seem untypical: Bingham's and Jal's comparisons provide no similar instance of the Periochae of extant Books containing 'novelistic' episodes not related at all in Livy's narrative. 56 Moreover, it has been persuasively pointed out that Lucan's account of the civil war is to a significant extent dependent on Livy's lost books; 57 Bloomer's  systematic  examination  of  Valerius'  dealing  with sources has also revealed the author's preference for Cicero and Livy. 58 The fact that the scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar appears in Lucan, Valerius and in Livy's Periochae can thus hardly be a coincidence: it is impossible to be certain, but it should be admitted that the episode was most probably indeed narrated by Livy.

Livy's alleged 'Pompeianism' is another reason one can legitimately assume that he would be particularly interested in including such an anecdote. In Tacitus' Annales ,  the historian Cremutius Cordus, accused of having praised Brutus and Cassius in his work, states that Livy lavished such eulogies on Pompey that Augustus called him Pompeianus ; yet this did not harm their amicitia (Tac. Ann. 4.34.4). This statement is put forward as an argument of defence in the mouth of Cordus, who probably exaggerates regarding not only the friendship between Livy and Augustus, but also Livy's praise of Pompey. 59 Tacitus' testimony should not thus lead to the conclusion that Livy would sketch a negative portrayal of Caesar in the episode under study. 60 In the Periocha , it is only stated that Caesar became indignant and wept when they brought him Pompey's head and ring ( cum ei Theodotus caput Pompei et anulum obtulisset, infensus est et inlacrimauit ). If this text reflects Livy's account, the historian may have presented the scene as an anecdote, found in his sources, and illustrating Caesar's clementia , a theme pervading the Periochae dedicated to the civil wars between Pompey and Caesar (see Liv. Per. 110.1, 111.7, 114.8). 61 The episode was probably exploited by Livy, because it was consistent with the historian's ideological and narratological agenda.

55  See Jal 1984: XXVI-LXVII (esp. XXXIX-XLVII); cf. Bingham 1978 (esp. 444-71); Bessone 1984; idem 2015.

56  See Bingham 1978: 88-405 (esp. 389-405); Jal 1984: XXXIX-XLVII.

57  See Narducci 2003; Mineo 2010.

58  Bloomer 1992: 59-146 (esp. 64-70, 75, 78, 104, 138, 146), with earlier bibliography.

59  Mette 1961: 277-78; Walsh 1961a: 28, 32-33; and Badian 1993: 11, among others, have taken this passage as evidence for Livy's attachment to the Republican ideology. Others have emphasised Livy's friendship with the prince. See ex. Burck 1991: 270.

The latter factor could explain the omission of the scene under study in  authors of the Early Imperial Period, that is to say during a period where the episode was already well attested. They do, however, report Caesar's arrival in Egypt. Strong inferences based on omissions are, of course, difficult to make, given the very different level of detail in the various sources. Nevertheless, the historians' silence needs to be studied, given that they most probably came across this scene in their sources, Livy included.

Velleius  Paterculus  only  stresses  the  disloyalty  of  Ptolemy  and  his court towards Caesar and Pompey (Vell. Pat. 2.54.1), and mentions nothing about the scene, whereas he had not failed to provide details about the circumstances of the general's death (Vell. Pat. 2.52.1-4). When introducing Caesar, he stresses that the general 'lays hold upon his pen and compels him, despite his haste, to linger a while upon him' (Vell. Pat. 2.41.1: qui scribenti manum iniicit et quamlibet festinantem in se morari cogit ); he then paints a positive portrait of the general and includes in his narrative anecdotes illustrating his virtues (Vell. Pat. 2.41-43). The absence of the incident under study seems thus unexpected despite the narrative

- 60  See along the same lines Tschiedel 1985: 6. See more generally on Livy's probable portrayal of Caesar in his lost books Mineo 2012, who argues that Caesar was presented as an ambivalent figure by Livy, but the historian also insisted on the equal responsibility of both him and the Pompeians for the outbreak of civil wars. Hoyos 2019: 225-27 shows that despite registering merit as the winner of civil wars, Caesar is not an admired Livian figure. Cf. Strasburger 1983 who suggests that Livy's presentation of Caesar was merely negative and consistent with his republican spirit.
- 61  On the theme of Caesar's clementia in Livy's Periochae of the civil wars, see Vassiliades 2020: 208-10, with earlier bibliography, and Hoyos 2019: 225-26.

haste  characterising  an  epitomizing  work,  like  Velleius'  history.  This omission may reflect the historian's general ambivalence when referring to Pompey and Caesar. As Seager pointed out, Velleius' attitude to Pompey, who was personally related to his grandfather, was sometimes eulogistic and sometimes disparaging. 62 As far as Caesar is concerned, Velleius praises his clemency, but does not whitewash him, as he does with Octavian. 63 Therefore,  Velleius  may  have  excluded  the  scene  from  his narrative in order to avoid an interpretation for or against one of the protagonists.

Nor does Suetonius refer to the incident in his Life of Caesar , despite his general interest in anecdotic details and despite the fact that he elaborates other examples illustrating Caesar's clementia and moderatio (Suet. Iul. 75), and also Caesar's arrogantia (76). 64 The episode could, at first sight, be exploited in this context and be interpreted in a positive, negative or ambivalent manner for the protagonist. It should be observed, however, that Suetonius does not include in these paragraphs' anecdotic details or emotional reactions of ambiguous interpretation, but only concrete strategic and political decisions by Caesar. The scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar would not fit as well in his short narrative of the civil wars (Suet. Iul. 34-35), at the beginning of which he stresses that he will only make a summary of the events after the crossing of the Rubicon (Suet. Iul. 34.1: summa rerum ). Accordingly, he provides instead a brief account of Caesar's arrival and war in Egypt (Suet. Iul. 35.1). The brevity of this narrative has been associated with Suetonius' emphasis on the speed of Caesar's military successes, which seal the view that war and ultimate victory were Caesar's divine destiny. 65

Although largely dependent on Livy, Florus' narration of the events is also succinct, but more complicated, because it is not certain whether the author merely omits the scene or makes an implicit allusion to it:

62  Seager 2011.

63  See also Cowan 2019: 249-54, on the equally ambivalent characterisation of Caesarians and Pompeians in Velleius Paterculus.

see Lossau 1975. More generally on Caesar's characterisation by Suetonius, see Henderson 2014, who sees an overall

64  For the ambivalent character of Caesar's clementia negative portrayal of Caesar in Suetonius; cf. Wardle 2019.

65  See on this point Wardle 2019: 398-404.

Quippe cum Ptolemaeus, rex Alexandriae, summum ciuilis belli scelus peregisset  et  foedus  amicitiae  cum  Caesare  medio  Pompei  capite  sanxisset,  ultionem clarissimi uiri manibus quaerente Fortuna causa non defuit. (Flor. 2.13.54-55)

Since Ptolemaeus, king of Alexandria, had perpetrated the crowning atrocity of the civil war and had sealed a treaty of friendship with Caesar by means of Pompeius' murder, fate called for vengeance for the shade of so illustrious a victim; and an occasion soon presented itself. (Transl. Foster - LOEB 1929)

Pompey's execution, described with horrific details in §2.13.53 ( Septimi desertoris sui gladio trucidatus sub oculis uxoris suae liberorumque moreretur ), is the summum ciuilis belli scelus . Nothing was said, however, about Pompey's beheading. Florus states here that Ptolemy had tried to seal a treaty of friendship ( foedus amicitiae sanxisset ) 66 with Caesar by means of Pompey's life ( medio Pompei capite ). The term caput may simply designate Pompey's life, 67 but could also refer to Pompey's severed head. One should not lose sight of the fact that Florus only provides a summary of the events of the civil wars, with particular emphasis on the major events and their causes. 68 Various comments in his account show that Florus considers Caesar's and Pompey's furor and dominandi cupido equally responsible for the civil wars (Flor. 1.47.13; 2.13.3, 12-14). An indirect allusion to an anecdotic episode, already well-established in the previous tradition 69 and

- 66  Florus does not refer to an actual treaty concluded between Caesar and Ptolemy, since all sources refer to hostilities which began between the two sides upon Caesar's arrival in Alexandria. It seems thus more sensible to assign the subjunctive sanxisset a tentative meaning ('he had attempted to seal a treaty'). See Cic. Sest. 10.24; Liv. 23.8.11; 25.16.6, where the phrase foedus sancire does not refer to an actual treaty but to a gesture aiming to obtain the other part's alliance.

67  See OLD , s.v. caput 4.

- 68  See Berge 2019 on the interpretation of civil wars and their causes in Florus.
- 69  Emberger 2006 shows that Florus had used, for his account of the civil wars between Pompey and Caesar, not only Livy, but also Lucan, who reports this scene in detail.

which would, moreover, demand an ideologically oriented interpretation in favour of Caesar or Pompey, does not thus seem consistent with the overall scope of Florus' narration.

The choice of reproducing an anecdote or not should not thus be attributed to the ignorance of such a tradition; it seems rather associated with the generic particularities and the narrative and ideological purposes of each author of this period's history. The different exploitation by Lucan of the episode of Pompey's head presented to Caesar is of particular interest, because it points exactly to the plasticity of this scene, according to the ideological and generic particularities of each text, and because it offers valuable insight into the parallel influence exercised by declamation upon a historiographical tradition. Despite the fact that Lucan reports the episode as factual, it cannot be overlooked that there is, overall, a large element of invention in his account of the events surrounding Pompey's death and its aftermath: Martin has shown that the poet invents horrific details regarding the actual scene of Pompey's beheading; 70 Caesar's visit to Troy, immediately preceding the scene under study, appears in no other source and is generally considered fictional. 71 The construction of the episode under study also points to the prevalence  of  the  rhetorical  and  dramatic  over  the  historical  aspect:  Wick highlights not only the tragic elements pervading Lucan's narrative, but analyses the scene as a whole, including the speeches of Ptolemy's attendant and Caesar, as a ' dramatiesierte declamatio' debated in the style of a controuersia . 72

The  large  element  of  invention  in  Lucan's  narrative  is  further  reflected in the poet's strongly critical stance towards Caesar. 73 If Lucan is indeed the first source to turn the incident against the Roman leader, this reveals his original reinterpretation of sources 74 , which is consistent with the rhetorical construction of the episode: as an orator, Lucan chooses a frontal attack on Caesar, by turning the hero's tears into crocodile tears. 75 We will discuss in the final paragraphs of this section what Lucan's 'declamatory' reinterpretation of the episode could imply in our investigation of the possible sources of this scene.

70  Martin 2005: 151-53.

71  See on this Borgeaud 2009-2010: 344-46; Ambühl 2015: 337.

72  Wick 2004: 424-28.

73  See, among others, Bartsch 2010; Tschiedel 2010; Tzounakas 2013; Sannicandro 2014;

on Lucan's generally negative portrayal of Caesar.

74  See on this Tschiedel 1985: 12-15.

Cassius Dio's version is important for the same reasons as Lucan's version. Given that he is the only anti-Caesarian source except Lucan, his version may depend on the poet's original treatment. 76 The new information reported in Dio, namely that Caesar was laughed at for his hypocrisy by the attendees, would be in this case his own reinterpretation of Lucan. Such an adaptation would be consistent with the overall emphasis Dio places on the hatred and envy of Caesar's opponents. 77 It cannot, of course, be ruled out that both Lucan and Cassius Dio had at their disposal an earlier source, now lost. Actorius Naso and Tanusius Geminus are the only late Republican historians, for whom evidence can be provided that they  had  a  hostile  stance  towards  Caesar. 78 Nevertheless,  information about their work is extremely scattered and their probable use as sources by Lucan or Cassius Dio cannot be demonstrated. No legitimate assumption can be thus formulated regarding their eventual treatment of the episode under study.

Things are somewhat less difficult when attempting to discover a possible pro-Caesarian source upon which Plutarch and Valerius Maximus and maybe Livy 79 - could be based. Plutarch mentions his sources in the Lives of Pompey and Caesar , among which are found the names of Asinius Pollio (Plut. Pomp. 72.3; Caes. 32.7, 46.2-3) and C. Oppius (Plut. Pomp. 10.4-

75  See Wick 2004, 427: for this reading.

- 76  See Tschiedel 1985: 6-8; see also Radicke 2004: 482-89, for a detailed comparison between Lucan and Cassius Dio.

77  See Madsen 2019 for more details on this point.

- 78  See FRH , I, 390-94, with earlier bibliography. Martin 2005: 162, assumes that Lucan's and Cassius Dio's accounts might be dependent from Cremutius Cordus. Nevertheless, Cassius Dio asserts that the historian said nothing against Caesar and Augustus, even if he did not too much praise them (Cass. Dio 57.24.3). Radicke 2004: 482-91, argues that both Lucan and Cassius Dio depended on Livy.
- 79  It cannot be excluded that Plutarch is based on Livy in his account of the scene under study. Livy is quoted twice as a source (Plut. Caes. 47.3-6, 63.9). Plutarch's use of Livy for the history of this period seems, however, limited and not systematic. See Pelling 1979: 88, 95; idem 2011: 48-49.

5; Caes. 17.7-11). Pollio's attitude to Caesar is unlikely to have been purely favourable: after all, he had to win a readership for his own competing narrative of the civil war, and he criticized that of Caesar for lack of objectivity. 80 It does not follow, however, that this rather critical evaluation of Caesar as a historian would be reflected in an equally negative stance towards Caesar as a general and leader. Opinions vary regarding Asinius' exact attitude towards Caesar: 81 some suggest that he was just an unbiased historian 82 , whereas others argue that he wrote a partisan history 83 . An a priori hostile standpoint towards Caesar seems, at any case, difficult to assume, even if it has been rightly suggested that Asinius' history rectified some of Caesar's omissions, while expressing more horror at civil war. 84 Besides, Asinius was already among Caesar's friends when the general crossed the Rubicon, and fought alongside him 85 .  Therefore, if the scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar were found in Pollio, there is no concrete reason for us to believe that the historian's interpretation of the event would not be at least neutral, if not positive, and that he would intend instead to denigrate his benefactor through this episode. How probable is it that he indeed included the incident and, if so, to what extent could he be considered a primary source for it?

Pelling has stressed Pollio's influence on Plutarch's account in both Lives . 86 The  biographer  clearly  states  that  his  account  of  the  battle  of Pharsalia is based on Pollio (Plut. Pomp. 72.3; Caes. 46.2-3). If Asinius indeed  included  the  scene  under  study,  his  autopsy  of  related  events, which seems to have been a major claim of Pollio, 87 raises the possibility that the tradition related to this anecdote was generated by the histo- rian. An allusion to the episode cannot be excluded, especially if one accepts the view that Asinius narrated Pompey's death. 88 The problem is, however, not only that no mention is made of it in Pollio's fragments, but also, and more importantly, that the historian most probably did not follow Caesar in Egypt, but returned to Rome to hold the tribunate in 47 B.C. 89 Even if the scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar did appear in Pollio's narrative, the author could not assert first-hand knowledge and could only include it as an anecdote reported by people of Caesar's entourage in Egypt.

80  See Suet. Iul. 56.4.

81  See on this point FRH

, I, 441.

82  See Kornemann 1896; Hose 1994, 263-64.

83  See Bardon 1956, 94; Zecchini 1982, 1284.

84  Osgood 2019: 155.

85  See Plut. Caes. 32.7, and FRH , I, 431. On Pollio's life and work, see André 1949; Zecchini 1982.

86  Pelling 1979: 84-95; idem 2011: 44-47.

87  On the self-construction of Pollio as a trustworthy eyewitness, see Morgan 2000.

The second possibility is C. Oppius, a close friend of Caesar, who wrote a biography or some other sort of memoir on Caesar. 90 Plutarch cites him as a source for anecdotes in which Caesar is depicted in praising tones ( Caes. 17.7-11) and Pompey is accused of cruelty ( Pomp. 10.4). The biographer shows his scepticism of Oppius' trustworthiness by stating that one must be cautious about believing him, when he talks about the enemies or friends of Caesar ( Pomp. 10.5). It has been suspected, however, that Oppius was Plutarch's source for many biographical details, especially about Caesar's early life. 91 Oppius is described by Saller 1980, as one of the rare cases where the ultimate source of anecdotes can be named. 92

There are also strong indications that in his collection of anecdotes aiming to illustrate  Caesar's  qualities  without  much  chronological  order 93 , the author included anecdotes from Caesar's action in Egypt: Suetonius reports that Oppius mentioned in a book that he published that the boy who Cleopatra said was Caesar's son was not his (Suet. Iul. 52.2); he also asserts that there was a disagreement in Antiquity as to whether the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum was Hirtius or Oppius ( Iul. 56.1). The latter possibility, unanimously dismissed by modern scholarship 94 , may be due to the inclusion of anecdotes from this war in Oppius' work.

88  See Moles 1983: 287-88; Morgan 2000, who analyse Verg. Aen. 2.554-558, as an allusion to Pollio's account.

89  See Plut. Ant. 9.1-4, with Sumner 1971: 260-61, and FRH

90  See FRH , I, 381

91  See Townend 1987; Pelling 2011: 49-50, Zecchini 2011: 31-33; FRH

92  Saller 1980: 77-79.

93  See Townend 1987 (esp. 340-42); FRH see also Zecchini 2011: 32-33.

, I, 382.

, I, 382. On Oppius' idealistic portrayal of Caesar,

94  See on this point FRH , I, 381, with earlier bibliography.

, I, 431.

There are thus reasons, but no proof, permitting us to assume that Oppius  could  be  the  ultimate  historiographical  source  of  the  novelistic scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar. If this assumption is correct, Oppius' partisan tendency, already stressed by Plutarch, is an indication of an ideological reworking of the events related in this episode, especially given that Oppius had no first-hand knowledge of anecdotes related to Caesar's action abroad, being active on his behalf in Rome. 95 This does not suggest that Oppius necessarily invented the episode, but that he picked up an anecdote and reinterpreted it according to his ideological agenda, perhaps adding or adapting relevant details.

Why would Oppius or any other author circulate such an incident? Zecchini stressed that after Caesar's death, many anecdotes on the leader were shaped by his friends, especially Oppius, whose purpose was to establish as a myth an idealised image of Caesar. 96 Regarding the episode under investigation, it can be assumed that, departing from the reality of Pompey's beheading and Ptolemy's political exploitation of it through the possible presentation of the head to Caesar, widespread literary topoi could be used to stage Caesar's reaction at the sight of his enemy's head in  a  way  consistent with this general political purpose. Inversely, one could exploit elements from Caesar's historical reaction, either because they fitted these topoi or,  more probably, to make them fit these topoi . The first was the topos of the leader crying upon his enemy's defeat: Marcellus is said to have wept for Syracuse 97 and Scipio Aemilianus for Carthage (Polyb. 38.21-22). The closest parallel, however, is an incident reported  by  Plutarch  ( Pyrrh. 34.4-5),  probably  drawn  from  earlier  Greek sources:  Alcyoneus  presented  Pyrrhus'  head  to  his  father  Antigonus, who, angry at his son's impiety, burst into tears; then (like Caesar) he offered his enemy a proper burial. Similarly, when Dercetaeus showed Octavian Marc Antony's sword smeared with blood, Octavian wept for his ex-relative ( Ant. 78). The opposite behaviour is criticised: Marius' joy and impiety when he saw the severed head of the orator Antonius is classified among the exempla de crudelitate in Valerius Maximus (§9.2.2); the curiosity of Marc Antony staring at the head of Caesetius Rufus is included in the exempla de superbia (§9.5.4). 98

95  For a synthesis of testimonies on Oppius' life and action, see FRH

96  Zecchini 2011: 33-34.

97  See Liv. 25.24.11; Plut. Marc.

, I, 380-81.

19.1; with Rossi 2000; Marincola 2005.

It cannot be proved either that all these anecdotes were merely fictional, or that the author(s) who initiated the tradition about the episode of Pompey's head presented to Caesar had in mind these examples, some of which are later than Caesar's death. It can be asserted, however, that weeping  over  the  dead  enemy's  head  is  interpreted  as  a  sign  of  the leader's sensitivity, and that such scenes form a topos exploited for the heroes' characterisation. 99 Regardless of the historicity of each episode involving tears, which can only be checked separately and to a limited extent 100 , it may be concluded that authors drawing on this topos would be more interested in promoting the qualities or vices of their hero and in adapting the anecdote to their narrative agenda, rather than ensuring that every detail they reported in their version of the facts ( memoria ) entirely corresponded to the factual history ( historia ). 101 The same applies to the scene which has Caesar as a protagonist, 102 even when the anecdote is reproduced by historians like Livy, who stressed their attachment to the principle of ueritas .

2. The role of declamatio : diffusion and inflation of a historical anecdote? The degree of the ideological or literary reworking of the anecdote of Caesar's reception of Pompey's death can only be evaluated, if one envis-

- 98 According to Wick 2004: 424-28, Lucan may have used these accounts as models for the construction of his episode. See also Tschiedel 1985: 3-4, on these topoi .
- 99 For tears as a means of persuasion and characterisation of heroes in imperial historiography, see Hagen 2016; idem 2017: 320-27. Vekselius 2018: 164-65, also argues that the Hellenistic motif of the weeping victor can be used apologetically to protect the idealised image of a protagonist, especially in Plutarch.
- 100 See on this point Hagen 2017: 59-61, 321; Vekselius 2018: 159-61.
- 101 Similarly, Saller 1980: 77-78, stresses that even when it can be deduced that different sources rely on the same source, they seem unconcerned about following their written sources precisely.
- 102 Vekselius 2018: 164-65, adds an alternative narrative function of Caesar's tears, suggesting that this tragic motif used in the narration of Caesar's victory foreshadows, as in other cases of weeping generals, the fall of the weeper himself as a result of his victory.

ages the eventually crucial role of declamatio in turning this historical anecdote, probably deriving from and circulating among Caesar's 'circle', into a mainstream version of history during the Early Imperial period. Besides,  we  know  that  more  generally,  Caesar's  reaction  to  Pompey's murder was a debated topic in declamatory schools, as we learn from Quint. Inst .  7.2.6: quomodo laturus sit Caesar, si Ptolemaeus Pompeium occiderit . Furthermore, let us recall that in his Controuersiae , Seneca the Elder includes more precisely the scene of Pompey's head offered to Caesar and the latter's humane reaction in the arguments used by declaimers of the Tiberian age, namely Moschus and Musa. The biographical information on Moschus renders such a reconstruction more probable: Moschus was, according to Seneca ( Controv. 2.5.13), an Apollodoreus , a pupil of Apollodorus, who was the rhetor chosen by Caesar to take charge of the education of C. Octavius, the future Augustus, in 45 B.C. 103 This detail reveals the proximity of Moschus, and probably of other declaimers, to the Caesarian milieu, which might explain the use of this incident in declamatory exercises. Given the general tendency of declamatio to exploit historical anecdotes 104 , the possibility cannot be dismissed that Moschus, or any other declaimer, picked a variant of this story from Oppius or someone else in the Caesarian milieu or even Caesar himself (through Apollodorus), to exploit it as a declamatory material, probably accentuating its emotional aspects. In the latter case, the declaimers used well-established declamatory topoi .

The element of tears is a variation included in late Augustan declamation, which was keen to present dramatic episodes. This is often reflected in Seneca's Controuersiae , where various Augustan declaimers stage family members, especially fathers, weeping at the loss or ill fate of their relatives. 105 Tears offered a number of variant colores , the third part of a declamatio , used to defend a particular line of argument: through the device of colores , declaimers tried to alter the interpretation of facts, in order to intensify or mitigate the blame of the accused; the declaimer could invent and introduce anything he wished to support his case: clever twists, motives, intents, background stories, character traits, events, etc. 106 In the case of the scene under study, Caesar's tears could be introduced or simply  reinterpreted,  in  order  to  mitigate  Caesar's  responsibility  for Pompey's cruel end.

103 See Suet. Aug. 89.

104 For the use of historical anecdotes in orators, especially Valerius, who borrows this method from declamation, see Bloomer 1992: 4-5, 8-9.

105 The  details  of  each  episode  are  irrelevant  to  our  argument.  The  status  of  the 'weeping protagonist' involved in each case is noted in parentheses. See Sen. Controv. 1.1.8, 14, 17 (father); 1.5.1 (mother); 1.7.17 (father); 2.3.4 (father); 4 praef. 6 (a declaimer father); 7.1.12 (sons); 7.4.5, 9 (wife); 7.6.15 (father); 7.7.8, 16, 17 (father);

This  is  not  meant  to  suggest  that  any  fact  used  in  declamation  is merely fictional. I do not intend to thoroughly discuss here the question of the declamation's relationship with reality, but it should be noted that recent scholarship has highlighted the tendency of declamatio to (re)construct and refigure reality not to encourage empty rhetoric, but to provide a moral lesson. 107 As Saller points out, aspiring orators were even urged to invent a story, if applicable exempla from history were not available: 108 Cicero stresses that historical exempla and those with some verisimilitude  were  the  most  powerful,  but  sometimes  even  an  invented story, however unbelievable it may seem, can be apt to touch the audience ( fabula etiam nonnumquam, etsi est incredibilis, tamen commouet - Cic. Part. or. 11.40). Cicero's advice may not represent the usual practice followed in rhetorical exercises, but it does point to their subjective relationship with reality, which also has an impact on the (re)interpretation of  historical  facts,  especially  when  it  comes  to  historical  anecdotes 109 such as that studied in this paper.

More importantly, the declamatio 's subjective relationship with events of the past does not stay within the boundaries of this rhetorical genre, but  influences  historiographical  accounts.  The  anecdotes  surrounding Cicero's execution are a telling example of this generic intersection, especially given that some aspects of the story are similar to the scene of

7.8.2 (mother and father); 9.3.5 (father); 9.5.2 (grandfather); 9.6.1, 8, 11, 12, 17 (sister); 10.1.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 (son).

- 106 For a more developed discussion of colores , see Sussman 1978: 41-43; Fairweather 1981: 166-78; Roller 1997: 113-14; Burkard 2016: 108-32, with updated bibliography.

107 Beard 1993 examines the mythic features of declamatio ,  which he analyses as an important part of Roman mythmaking. See Gunderson 2003: 17-24 for a discussion on the interplay between fiction and reality in Roman declamation.

108 Saller 1980: 71.

109 See on this point Bloomer 1992: 161-63.

Pompey's head presented to Caesar. Seneca deals with Cicero's death in three declamations, in which declaimers turn a historical fact into an opportunity for invention: in Suasoriae 6 ( deliberat Cicero an Antonium deprecetur ) and 7 ( deliberat Cicero an scripta sua comburat, promittente Antonio incolumitatem si fecisset ),  Cicero  is  envisaged  as  wondering,  after  the  announcement of proscriptions, whether he should avoid execution or not, by begging Antony to pardon him ( Suas. 6)  or  by  burning his writings ( Suas. 7). In Controuersia 7.2, Cicero's killer Popilius is accused de moribus , for his ingratitude: Cicero had defended him when accused of parricide and he was acquitted, but when Cicero was proscribed, Popilius was sent by Antony to execute him and brought his head back to Antony.

The scenarios are completely hypothetical and Seneca himself admits that many details are invented by the declaimers: Cicero would not be so stupid ( stultus ) or fearful ( timidus ) even to think of begging Antony ( Suas. 6.14), which is why only Asinius Pollio reports this information, because his narration is generally malicious against Cicero ( Suas. 6.24); the charge of parricide against Popilius is also probably a declamatory fabrication ( Controv. 7.2.8). Based on Seneca's statements and a thorough analysis of his text, Roller and Lentano shed light on the large amount of fabrication in these declamations. Distinguishing himself from Homeyer, who tries to establish the main sources ( Hauptquellen ) of the written tradition on Cicero's death 110 , Roller argues that the mostly oral tradition of declamatio , on which declamatory invention had a considerable impact, played a major role in the transmission and formation of the historiographical tradition  as  well. 111 Focusing  on  the Controuersia 7.2,  Lentano  suggests that the figure of Popilius, presented in the declamatio as the ungrateful killer of Cicero, is largely a declamatory fabrication, which should be attributed to Augustus' attempt to manipulate and rewrite recent history through declamatio , in order to blame only Antony for Cicero's death. 112

110 Homeyer 1964. For other accounts of Cicero's death, see Liv. Per. 120; Val. Max. 5.3.4; Vell. Pat. 2.66; Plut. Cic . 48-49; App. B Civ. 4.19-20; Cass. Dio 47.8.3-4, 11.1.

111 Roller 1997.

112 Lentano 2016. See also Roller 1997: 124-28, who suggests that the entire tradition that Cicero defended Popillius, on any charge, and delivered a speech on his behalf, is a declamatory fabrication that originated as a color .

The somewhat blurred boundaries between historiography and declamation,  whose  transgression  can  be  encouraged  by  the  ideological agenda of Augustus, can provide insights for the interpretation of the scene under study. Seneca draws a general distinction between declamation and historiography: in Suas. 6.16, he apologises for citing in the next paragraphs historiographical treatments of Cicero's death and promises to return soon to declamatio .  Nevertheless, as Roller points out, he also effaces that distinction when he presents the historiographical accounts of Cicero's death ( Suas. 6.16-24). The latter are indeed pervaded by declamatory material, such as ironic sententiae and vivid descriptions of Cicero's violent torture. 113

But there is one further element pertaining to violence and emotions which is found both in the scene of Pompey's head presented to Caesar and in the account of Cicero's death, in declamatio and historiography, and which may therefore reveal a similar generic interaction. Seneca reports Antony's and the Roman people's different reactions in front of Cicero's severed head and mutilated body, by claiming as his source both declaimers in the Controuersia 7.2 and historians in the Suasoria 6. Antony would not believe that Cicero was indeed executed by Popilius, unless he was shown proof ( Controv. 7.2.3: signum ),  which would be Cicero's head ( Controv. 7.2: caput eius ad Antonium retullit ); according to Livy, at the sight of Cicero's head, Antony orders that Cicero's head and hand be displayed on the rostra , where Cicero had delivered polemic speeches against him ( Suas. 6.17); Cremutius Cordus adds that Antony was happy with the spectacle ( Suas. 6.19: quibus uisis laetus Antonius ). 114 On the contrary, the Roman people could not conceal their tears at the sight of Cicero's mutilated  head  and  hands,  and  this  is  stressed  in  both declamatio ( Controv. 7.2.5) and historiography, and more precisely in Livy, who states that the Roman citizens could barely watch with their tearful eyes the spectacle of Cicero's severed members ( Suas. 6.17), in Cremutius Cordus ( Suas. 6.19) and Bruttedius Niger, who focuses on the audience's thoughts and feelings ( Suas. 6.20-21). All these emotional reactions, which remind us of the

- 113 See Roller 1997: 119-24 for a detailed analysis of declamatory elements in these historiographical accounts.
- 114 Similar accounts of Antony's reaction are preserved in later sources. See Plut. Cic. 49.1; App. B Civ. 4.20; Cass.Dio 47.8.3-4, 11.1-2.

presentation  of  Caesar's  emotions  in  front  of  Pompey's  severed  head, seem ideally suited to be used as a declamatory color by both declaimers and  historians,  in  order  to  highlight  Antony's  violent  and  inhumane character,  which turned against the sentiments of the Roman people. Roller convincingly points out that the exercises on Cicero's death were formulated early in the Augustan era or even during the triumviral period,  which  dating  makes  the  generic  interaction  between  historiography and declamation possible. 115

Such  an  interrelation  between  historiography  and  declamation should not be considered exceptional, given that rhetorical training had been shaping historiography from the late Republican period onwards. In De Oratore and De Legibus , Cicero analyses history as an opus oratorium , a literary genre which should conform to the norms of rhetoric. 116 Accordingly, scholars, since the late 20 th century, have shown that historiography was viewed by ancient historians as an artistic creation based on the norms of rhetoric, 117 and that the rhetorical dimension of historical works assumed progressively greater importance. 118 Furthermore, it is generally admitted that historians received a rhetorical education. 119 Rhetorical exercises, in the form of declamationes , were, of course, part of this  education. 120 Furthermore,  ancient  students  in  Greek  and  Roman schools of the Late Republican and Early Imperial period were using historical content, including anecdotes, in their rhetorical exercises

- 115 Roller 1997: 115-19.
- 116 Cic., De or. 2.12.51-15.64; Leg. 1.1.5 sq. On the relationship between historiography and rhetoric in Cicero, see Cape 1997.
- 117 See among others Wiseman 1981; Fornara 1983: 134 sq.; Woodman 1988; Nicolai 1992: 31-176; Kraus, Marincola & Pelling 2010.
- 118 See on this and generally on the evolution of historiography as a genre Ledentu 2004: 33-46, 99-122, 199-248. See also Timpe 1979: 97-119 (esp. 97-105, 116-17); Petzold 1993; Walter 2003.
- 119 See among others Timpe 1979: 116-17; Wiseman 1981: 388-90; Nicolai 1992: 156-76.
- 120 For declamatio as  a  part  of  rhetorical  education,  see  among  others  Kaster  2001; Stroh 2003: 5-6, 12-13, 19-20, 31-33; Bernstein 2013: 165-70. Cf. Hömke 2007, who shows that declamationes were not only used for education but also for entertainment.

( προγυμνάσματα ). 121 Gibson pointed out that in Greek rhetorical schools of this period, the exercise in anecdotes encouraged students to attach moral significance to the actions of historical persons, and that they were sometimes expected to add some 'historical' details in their elaborations of  anecdotes,  which  could  be  easily  incorporated  in  histories  or  biographies. 122

In Roman contexts, it is noteworthy that Livy, the first attested authority on the scene of Pompey's head exposed to Caesar, is said to have been familiar with this rhetorical method in his history. The historian dealt with the reaction of Antony and the Roman people to the sight of Cicero's severed members following a logic which seems consistent with declamatory colores . 123 Blurring the boundaries between historical truth and declamatory reshaping, Livy interpreted a historical event, namely Cicero's death, within a declamatory framework, in order to provide a characterisation of his protagonists through the portrayal of their emotional reactions. Such a manipulation of historical material could have operated in the similar account of Caesar's reaction to the sight of Pompey's severed head. Livy's close relationship with declamatory schools is moreover attested by Seneca the Elder, who mentions that Livy attended the  performance of declamationes :  audiences  tolerated  his  son-in-law's mediocre declamations showing respect for Livy (Sen. Controv. 10 praef. 2), while the historian also took part in an argument on translating epigrams ( Controv. 9.1.13-14). 124 Declamatory influence can also be detected in other passages of Livy's Ab Vrbe Condita , such as the Alexander digres-

- 121 See Nicolai 1992 on the relation of προγυμνάσματα with Roman history and historians; Gibson 2004 for the use of προγυμνάσματα with historical content in Greek schools. For the teaching of Roman history in Roman schools see Ferrill 1978.
- 122 See Gibson 2004. According to Beck 2003, Plutarch used these collections of anecdotes in his works.
- 123 Contra Keeline 2018: 230-40 argues that Livy's treatment, as cited by Seneca, is rather uninfluenced by declamatio , on the grounds that declamatory exercises on Cicero's death had not flourished until Livy produced his account.
- 124 See on the same point Kraus 1994: 3-4, against Syme 1959: 427, who denies Livy's acquaintance with declamatio . On Livy's rhetorical education, see Walsh 1961b: 3, 219-44, focusing on the historian's use of rhetorical theory in the construction of his speeches.

sion, dealing with the hypothetical scenario of an expedition of the Macedonian general to the West 125 , and the scene of Flamininus executing a Gaulish slave with his sword, in order to please a boy or a prostitute 126 , where Livy's vocabulary echoes Seneca's controuersia 9.2: in both texts, Flamininus is accused of polluting the dinner table with the blood of an innocent victim for the sake of a prostitute. 127

It is not only Livy's historiographical treatment of Caesar's reaction to the sight of Pompey's severed head that may be pervaded and inflated by declamatory  elements.  Without  excluding  a  historiographical  source, such as Oppius or Livy, Valerius' and Lucan's accounts were also influenced by declamatio . We have seen that Valerius' work was addressed to orators practising declamatio and that Valerius, himself an orator, blends historiographical and declamatory elements in his exempla . His version of  the  scene  under  study,  regardless  of  its  eventual  historiographical sources and their actual content, could thus be elaborated and reinterpreted following the devices of declamatio .  The same stands for Lucan, who as a grandson of Seneca the Elder attended declamatory schools and practised declamatio himself, 128 and whose treatment of the scene has already  been  analysed  by  scholars  as  a  dramatised  declamation.  Lucan, however, chooses a different color to the one used in the extant declamations, which is consistent with his generally negative portrayal of Caesar, by pointing to the general's hypocrisy and by turning the hero's tears into crocodile tears.

It must be underlined that when Livy, Valerius and Lucan, who are the first extant or attested sources, dealt with the episode under study, they

- 125 See Liv. 9.17-19. On the declamatory form of this digression, see Oakley 2005: 188. See also Sen. Suasoria 1, on Alexander's plans to cross the Ocean. Alexander's history provided various subjects for declamations in Greek and Latin. See for a relevant collection Pernot 2013: 133-59. For a discussion on the place and function of Alexander's digression in Livy, see among others Morello 2002; Briquel 2015.
- 126 According to Livy, he found these two versions in Valerius Antias and Cato (Liv. 39.42.11-43.5).
- 127 Compare Livy's judgment in Liv. 39.43.4 with Sen. Controv. 9.2.4-7. See Van der Poel 2009: 339-42, on Flamininus as exemplum in Seneca's Controuersia 9.2.
- 128 See on this matter Bonner 1966, who also discusses the influence of declamatio in his Pharsalia . See also Rutz 1970; Mancini 2018. See Berti 2015, generally on the systematic generic interaction between poetry and declamatio .

probably had at their disposal a much more elaborate form of declamatio on  this  anecdote  than  the  two  short sententiae of  Moschus  and  Musa, since Seneca the Elder does not report complete declamations, but rather provides a fragmentary florilegium . 129 It is thus impossible to evaluate the degree of originality of each author regarding the early historiographical and declamatory tradition developed at the same or a previous time. It can be stated, however, with relative safety, that the historiographical and  declamatory  traditions  contaminated  each  other  in  handling  the memory of Caesar's sorrow before the severed head of his former son-inlaw. The absence of the episode from Caesar's Bellum Ciuile , the political and idealistic agenda of probable historiographical early sources, and the additional impact of declamatio on the memory of this incident, all provide an outline of the first stages of transmission and inflation of this scene,  which  was  henceforth  reshaped  and  reinterpreted  by  later sources.

The declamatio contributed to, or even boosted, the diffusion and the rhetorical reworking of an anecdote, without being concerned about factual history. It sufficed that this representation of the past ( memoria ) was endowed with moral significance, and it was also apt to promulgate the Augustan  version  of  the  civil  wars,  in  which  agenda  the  declamation played a significant role. 130 The version of a humane and emotional Caesar unable to stand the sight of the severed head of his enemy and former relative and political friend, tends to exculpate Augustus' adoptive father from an atrocity committed during the civil wars against a great Roman leader, who, despite his hostility to his father, was still appreciated by Augustus. 131

- 129 See on the fragmentary and mutilated character of preserved declamationes Roller 1997: 111; Gunderson 2003: 20.
- 130 See Bloomer 1992: 192-95, on the role of declamatio in promulgating the Augustan version of the civil wars. Generally, on the memory of the Republic during Augustus, see Gowing 2005: 17-27.
- 131 There are several testimonies attesting Augustus' esteem for Pompey. Aug. Anc. 20.1: Augustus restored Pompey's theatre without inscribing his own name. Suet. Aug. 31.9: instead of destroying Pompey's statue, the princeps transported it from the curia ,  where  Caesar  was  assassinated,  to  Pompey's  theatre. Plut. Cic. 49.3-4: Pompey's imago was present at Augustus' funeral. According to Frisch 1980: 97-98, Pompey was even included among the summi uiri of the forum Augustum .

## IV. Conclusion

The anecdote portraying Caesar weeping over Pompey's head has been used in this paper as a case study to show that the limits between 'factual history' ( historia ) and the reworked representation of this 'factual history' ( memoria ) are blurred and to a large extent indistinguishable, when it comes to the representation and reception of the Roman civil wars in ancient  literature.  The  brief  analysis  of  the  extant  narratives  of  later sources on this incident has revealed the different role it played in each of these sources, which tended to adapt it to their own ideological, moralistic  and  generic  particularities  and  purposes,  or  simply  to  omit  it, probably because it was irrelevant to these. This adaptation was most often affected by changing minor details and minor characters, in order to draw a pointed conclusion, favourable or unfavourable to Caesar, in each case. The general was presented respectively either as a clement and humane leader or as a hypocrite responsible for Pompey's fate. Caesar's intended memoria was thus a crucial factor in the chosen version of the episode.

This survey on the alterations of the anecdotes has also allowed us to track the possible history of creating and reshaping a literary tradition on this anecdote. The scene in which Pompey's head is exposed to Caesar, who weeps and expresses his indignation, is absent from De bello ciuili for reasons  which  can  only  be  speculated  upon.  This  omission,  however, raises the question of the historical and literary context in which this anecdote was generated. Our investigation of sources has led us to the hypothesis that the anecdote was probably introduced to the written tradition by pro-Caesarian historians in the immediate aftermath of Caesar's death. The diffusion of such a scene served to establish an idealised myth of the general. Declamatio not only picked up and reworked this historical anecdote, but also probably played a major role in its broader diffusion. The historiographical tradition on this episode was probably influenced in its early stages by declamatory exercises which enriched it with pathetic details. This episode thus provides a telling example of the generic intersection and interaction between historiography, declamatio and poetry during the Early Imperial period.

Furthermore, the history of the anecdote brings us to the third question examined by Saller 1980: the implication of the anecdote as historical evidence. A simple separation between what is historically 'authentic' and what is 'fictional' is not of course possible, especially when dealing with sources of that period, but it is methodologically fragile to suppose confusion between the two in the case of an anecdote like the one under study. The different exploitation of the incident in various sources confirms Saller's point that the purposes of each author and an anonymous tradition lie behind all alterations: 'this does not mean that all anecdotes are entirely or even partially fabrications; there may be kernels of truth in them, but there is no method for separating truth from fabrication. […] Rarely serving as evidence for what actually happened, anecdotes should be evaluated and interpreted according to whether they reflected ideology or beliefs about reality' (Saller 1980: 79, 82). The same conclusion is valid for the anecdote of Pompey's head presented to Caesar, whose history of transmission invites modern historians and scholars of Antiquity to prudence: rather than using the episode as a historical fact for reconstructing and understanding the events of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, we should rather take it into account as valuable evidence for the reception of the figure of Caesar during the Early Imperial Period.

## BIBLIOGRAPHY

André, J. 1949. La vie et l'œuvre de C. Asinius Pollion . Paris.

- Ambühl, A. 2015. Krieg und Bürgerkrieg bei Lucan und in der griechischen Literatur: Studien zur Rezeption der attischen Tragödie und der hellenistischen Dichtung im Bellum civile. Berlin & Boston.
- Avery, H. C. 1993. 'A Lost Episode in Caesar's Civil War ' Hermes 121(4), 45269.
- Badian, E. 1993. 'Livy and Augustus' in W. Schuller (ed.) Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes . Konstanz, 9-38.
- Bardon, H. 1956. La littérature latine inconnue . Vol. 2. Paris.
- Bartsch, Sh. 2010. 'Lucan and historical bias' in O. Devillers & S. Franchet d'Espèrey 2010, 21-31.

- Bayet, J. 1940. Tite-Live : Histoire romaine . Tome I : Livre I, texte établi par J. Bayet et traduit par G. Baillet. Paris.
- Beard, M. 1993. 'Looking (harder) for Roman myth: Dumézil, declamation and the problems of definition' in F. Graf (ed.) Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft: das Paradigma Roms . Stuttgart, 44-64.
- Beck, M.A. 2003. 'Plutarch's Declamations and the Progymnasmata ' in B.-J. Schröder & J.-P. Schröder (eds.) Studium declamatorium : Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit . Munich, 169-92.
- Beneker J. 2005a. 'Thematic Correspondences in Plutarch's Lives of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus' in L. De Blois (ed.) The Statesman in Plutarch's Works: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the International Plutarch Society, Nijmegen & Castle Hernen, May 1-5, 2002, vol. 2: The Statesman in Plutarch's Greek and Roman lives . Leiden, 315-25.
- Beneker, J. 2005b. 'Plutarch on the Rise and Fall of Pompey' in P.A. Stadter (ed.) Historical and Biographical Values of Plutarch's Works: Studies Devoted to Professor Philip A. Stadter by the International Plutarch Society . Malaga, 69-82.
- Berge, T. 2019. 'Epitomizing Discord: Florus on the Late Republican Civil Wars' in C.H. Lange & F.J. Vervaet 2019, 411-38.
- Bernstein, N. 2013. Ethics, Identity, and Community in Later Roman Declamation . Oxford & New York.
- Berti, E. 2015. 'Declamazione e poesia' in M. Lentano (ed.) La declamazione latina: prospettive a confronto sulla retorica di scuola a Roma antica . Naples, 19-57.
- Bessone, L. 1984. 'Le Periochae di Livio' A&R 29, 42-55.
- Bessone,  L.  2015.  'The Periochae '  in  B.  Mineo  (ed.) A  Companion to  Livy . Malden & Oxford, 423-36.
- Bingham W.J. 1978. A Study of the Livian Periochae and their Relation to Livy's Ab urbe Condita. Ph.D. diss., University of Illinois.
- Bloomer, W.M. 1992. Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility . London.
- Bonner, S.F. 1966. 'Lucan and the declamation schools' AJPh 87, 257-89.
- Borgeaud, Ph. 2009-2010. 'Trojan Excursions: A Recurrent Ritual, from Xerxes to Julian' History of Religions 49(4), 339-53.

- Briquel, D. 2015. 'À propos de l' excursus Alexandri de Tite-Live : les chefs romains potentiellement vainqueurs d'Alexandre dans le livre IX des Histoires ' BAGB , 143-72.
- Burck, E. 1991. 'Livius und Augustus' ICS 16, 269-81.
- Burkard, Th. 2016. 'Zu den Begriffen divisio und color bei Seneca Maior' in R.  Poignault  &  C.  Schneider  (eds.) Fabrique  de  la  déclamation  antique (controverses et suasoires) . Lyon, 87-134.
- Burton, P.J. 2000. 'The last republican historian: a new date for the composition of Livy's first Pentad' Historia 49 (4), 429-46.
- Burton, P.J. 2008. 'Livy's preface and its historical context' Scholia: Studies in Classical Antiquity 17, 70-91.
- Cape,  R.W.  1997.  'Persuasive  History:  Roman  Rhetoric  and  Historiography' in W.J. Dominik (ed.) Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature . London, 212-28.
- Carter, J.M. 1993. Lucan. Civil War, Book III .  Edited with an Introduction, Translation & Commentary by J.M. Carter. Warminster.
- Chaplin, J.D. 2000. Livy's Exemplary History . Oxford & New York.
- Chrissanthos, S.H. 2001. 'Caesar and the Mutiny of 47 B.C.' JRS 91, 63-75.
- Chrysanthou, Ch. 2018. Plutarch's  'Parallel  Lives':  Narrative  Technique  and Moral Judgement . Berlin & Boston.
- Cornell, T.J. et al. (eds.) 2013. The Fragments of the Roman Historians . 3 vol. Oxford (= FRH ).
- Cowan, E. 2019. 'Velleius Paterculus: How to Write (Civil War) History' in C.H. Lange & F.J. Vervaet 2019, 239-62.
- D'Alessandro Behr, F. 2007. Feeling History: Lucan, Stoicism, and the Poetics of Passion . Columbus.
- David, J.-M. 1998. Valeurs et mémoire à Rome: Valère Maxime ou la vertu recomposée . Paris.
- Devillers, O. & S. Franchet d'Espèrey (eds.) 2010. Lucain en débat: rhétorique, poétique et histoire: actes du colloque international, Institut Ausonius (Pessac, 12-14 juin 2008) . Bordeaux.
- Devillers, O. & K. Sion-Jenkis (eds.) 2012. César sous Auguste . Bordeaux.
- Dinter, M.T. 2012. Anatomizing Civil War: Studies in Lucan's Epic Technique . Ann Arbor.

- Emberger, P. 2006. 'Quellenkundliche Beobachtungen zum Geschichtswerk  des  Florus'  in  M.  Frass  et  al.  (eds.) Akten  des  10.  Österreichischen Althistorikertages: Salzburg, 11.11.-13.11.2004 . Vienna, 53-60.
- Estèves, A. 2010. 'Les têtes coupées dans le Bellum ciuile de  Lucain: Des Guerres civiles placées sous l'emblème de Méduse' in O. Devillers & S. Franchet d'Espèrey 2010, 203-13.
- Fairweather, J. 1981. Seneca the Elder . Cambridge.
- Ferrill, A. 1978. 'History in Roman Schools' AncW 1, 1-5.
- Fornara, C.W. 1983. The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome . Berkeley.
- Friedrich, W.H. 1954. 'Caesar und sein Glück' in Thesaurismata. Festschrift für I. Kapp zum 70. Geburtstag . Munich, 1-24.
- Gallia, A.B. 2012. Remembering the Roman Republic: Culture, Politics and History under the Principate . Cambridge & New York.
- Gelzer, M. 1968. Caesar: Politician and Statesman . Trans. by Peter Needham. Cambridge, MA.
- Gibson, C.A. 2004. 'Learning Greek History in the Ancient Classroom: the Evidence of the Treatises on Progymnasmata ' CPh 99.2, 103-29.
- Gowing, A.M. 2005. Empire and Memory: the Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture . Cambridge & New York.
- Griffin, M.T. 1972. 'The Elder Seneca and Spain' JRS 62, 1-19.
- Guillaumin, J.-Y. 1985. 'La reddition de Vercingétorix selon les auteurs anciens' Latomus 44, 743-50.
- Gunderson, E.T. 2003. Declamation, Paternity, and Roman Identity: Authority and the Rhetorical Self . Cambridge & New York.
- Hagen, J. 2016. 'Emotions in Roman Historiography: The Rhetorical Use of Tears as a Means of Persuasion' in E. Sanders & M. Johncock (eds.) Emotion and Persuasion in Classical Antiquity . Stuttgart, 199-212.
- Hagen, J. 2017. Die Tränen der Mächtigen und die Macht der Tränen: Eine emotionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Weinens in der kaiserzeitlichen Historiographie . Stuttgart.
- Heinen, H. 1966. Rom und Ägypten von 51 bis 47 v. Chr.: Untersuchungen zur Regierungszeit der 7. Kleopatra und des 13. Ptolemäers. Tübingen.
- Henderson, J. 2014. 'Was Suetonius' Julius a  Caesar?' in T. Power & R.K. Gibson (eds.) Suetonius, the Biographer: Studies in Roman Lives . Oxford & New York, 81-110.

- Homeyer, H. 1964. Die antiken Berichte über den Tod Ciceros und ihre Quellen . Baden-Baden.
- Hömke, N. 2007. ''Not to win, but to please': Roman Declamation beyond Education' in L. Calboli Montefusco (ed.) Papers on Rhetoric , vol. 8: Declamation: Proceedings of the Seminars held at the Scuola Superiore di Studi Umanistici: Bologna (February-March 2006) . Rome, 103-27.
- Hose, M. 1994. Erneuerung der Vergangenheit. Die Historiker im Imperium Romanum von Florus bis Cassius Dio . Stuttgart & Leipzig.
- Hoyos, D. 2019. 'Livy on the Civil Wars (and After): Morality Lost?' in C.H. Lange & F.J. Vervaet 2019, 210-38.
- Jal, P. 1984. Abrégés des livres de l'Histoire romaine de Tite-Live, Tome XXXIV I re partie: Periochae transmises par les manuscrits ( Periochae 1-69) . Paris.
- Jouteur, I. 2005. ' Au miroir de Méduse ' Euphrosyne 33, 365-77.
- Kaster, R.A. 2001. 'Controlling Reason: Declamation in Rhetorical Education at Rome' in Y.L. Too (ed.) Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity . Leiden & Boston, 317-37.
- Keeline, T.J. 2018. The Reception of Cicero in the Early Roman Empire: The Rhetorical Schoolroom and the Creation of a Cultural Legend . Cambridge.
- Klotz. A. 1926. s.v. Livius, Real-Encyclopädie XIII, 816-53
- Kornemann, E. 1896. 'Die historische Schriftstellerei des C. Asinius Pollio' JbKPh Suppl. 22, 555-691
- Kraner, F., F. Hofmann & H. Meusel, 1906. C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii De Bello Civili; erklärt von Friedrich Kraner, Friedrich Hofmann und H. Meusel , 11th edition.
- Kraus, C. S. 1994. Livy: Ab Vrbe Condita, Book VI . Cambridge & New York.
- Kraus, C.S., J. Marincola, & Ch. Pelling (eds.) 2010. Ancient Historiography and its Contexts: Studies in Honour of A. J. Woodman . Oxford.
- Kraus, C.S. & A.J. Woodman. 1997. Latin Historians . Oxford & New York.
- Lange, C.H. & F.J. Vervaet (eds.) 2019. The Historiography of Late Republican Civil War . Leiden & Boston.
- Langlands, R. 2008. ''Reading for the Moral' in Valerius Maximus: the Case of seueritas ' CCJ 54, 160-87.
- Langlands, R. 2011. 'Roman exempla and Situation Ethics: Valerius Maximus and Cicero de Officiis ' JRS 101, 100-22.
- Ledentu, M. 2004. Studium scribendi : recherches sur les statuts de l'écrivain et de l'écriture à Rome à la fin de la République . Louvain & Paris.

- Lentano, M. 2016. 'Parlare di Cicerone sotto il governo del suo assassino: la controversia VII, 2 di Seneca e la politica augustea della memoria' in Fabrique  de  la  déclamation  antique
- R.  Poignault  &  C.  Schneider  (eds.) (controverses et suasoires) . Lyon, 375-91.
- Lossau, M.J. 1975. 'Suetons clementia Caesaris ' Hermes 103, 496-502.
- Lucarelli, U. 2007. Exemplarische Vergangenheit: Valerius Maximus und die Konstruktion des sozialen Raumes in der frühen Kaiserzeit . Göttingen.
- Luce, T.J. 1965. 'The Dating of Livy's First Decade' TAPhA 96, 209-40.
- Madsen, J.M. 2019. 'In the Shadow of Civil War: Cassius Dio and His Roman History' in C.H. Lange & F.J. Vervaet 2019, 467-501.
- Mancini, A. 2018. 'Strategie retoriche e influenze declamatorie nell'ottavo libro del Bellum Civile di Lucano' Aevum Antiquum 18, 257-90.
- Malamud, M. A. 2003. 'Pompey's Head and Cato's Snakes' CPh 98(1), 31-44.
- Marincola, J. 2005. 'Marcellus at Syracuse (Livy XXV, 24, 11-15): A Historian reflects' in C. Deroux (ed.) Studies in Latin literature and Roman history, 12. Brussels, 219-29.
- Martin, P.-M. 2005. 'La tête de Pompée: une relecture de Lucain' in J.-P. Néraudau (ed.) Liber amicorum : Mélanges sur la littérature antique et moderne à la mémoire de Jean-Pierre Néraudau . Paris, 147-62.
- Mebane, J. 2016. 'Pompey's Head and the Body Politic in Lucan's De bello civili ' TAPhA 146(1), 191-215.
- Mette, H.J. 1961. 'Livius und Augustus' Gymnasium 68, 269-85.
- Mineo, B. 2010. 'Le Pompée de Lucain et le modèle livien' in O. Devillers & S. Franchet d'Espèrey (eds.), 255-66.
- Mineo, B. 2012. 'Le César de Tite-Live était-il politiquement incorrect?' in O. Devillers & K. Sion-Jenkis 2012, 163-75.
- Moles, J. 1983. 'Virgil, Pompey, and the Histories of Asinius Pollio' CW 76, 287-88
- Moles, J. 1993. 'Livy's Preface' PCPhS 39, 141-68.
- Morello, M.-R. 2002. 'Livy's Alexander Digression (9.17-19): Counterfactuals and Apologetics' JRS 92, 62-85.
- Morgan, L. 2000. 'The Autopsy of C. Asinius Pollio' JRS 90, 51-69.
- Mossman, J.M. 2014. 'Tragedy and the Hero' in M. Beck (ed.) A Companion to Plutarch . Chichester, 437-48.

- Narducci, E. 2003. 'Osservazioni sui rapporti tra Lucano e le sue fonti storiche' in A. Casanova (ed.) Evento, racconto, scrittura nell'antichità classica: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi: Firenze, 25-26 novembre 2002 . Firenze, 165-80.
- Nicolai, R. 1992. La storiografia nell'educazione antica . Pisa.
- Oakley, S. P. 2005. A commentary on Livy: Books VI-X, vol. 3, Book IX . Oxford. Ogilvie, R. M. 1965. A commentary on Livy: Books I-V . Oxford.
- Osgood, J. 2019. 'Caesar, Civil War and Civil War ' in C.H. Lange & F.J. Vervaet 2019, 137-59.
- Pelling, C.B.R. 1979. 'Plutarch's Method of Work in the Roman Lives' JHS 99, 74-96.
- Pelling, C.B.R. 2002. 'Plutarch's Caesar : A Caesar for the Caesars?' in P.A. Stadter (ed.) Sage and Emperor: Plutarch, Greek Intellectuals, and Roman Power in the Time of Trajan (98-117 A.D.) . Leuven, 213-26.
- Pelling, C.B.R. 2011. Plutarch Caesar. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary by Christopher B.R. Pelling. Oxford & New York.
- Pelling,  C.B.R.  2016.  'Tragic  Colouring  in  Plutarch'  in  J.  Opsomer,  G. Roksam & F.B. Tichener (eds.) A Versatile Gentleman: Consistency in Plutarch's Writing: Studies Offered to Luc van der Stockt on the Occasion of his Retirement . Leuven, 113-33.
- Pernot,  L.  2013. Alexandre le  Grand:  les  risques  du  pouvoir  :  textes  philosophiques et rhétoriques. Traduites et commentés par L. Pernot. Paris.
- Petzold,  K.-E.  1993.  'Zur  Geschichte  der  römischen  Annalistik'  in  W. Schuller (ed.) Livius: Aspekte seines Werkes . Konstanz, 151-88.
- Radicke, J. 2004. Lucans poetische Technik: Studien zum historischen Epos . Leiden & Boston.
- Roller, M. 1997. 'Color-Blindness: Cicero's Death, Declamation, and the Production of History' CPh 92(2), 109-30
- Rondholz, A. 2009. 'Crossing the Rubicon. A Historiographical Study' Mnemosyne 62.3, 432-50.
- Rossi, A.F. 2000. 'The Tears of Marcellus: History of a Literary Motif in Livy' G&R Ser. 2 47(1), 56-66.
- Rutz, W. 1970. 'Lucan und die Rhetorik' in M. Durry & R. Amacker (eds.) Lucain: sept exposés suivis de discussions . Entretiens sur l'Antiquité Classique, XV. Vandœuvres-Genève, 233-65.

- Saller, R. 1980. 'Anecdotes as Historical Evidence for the Principate' G&R 27.1, 69-83.
- Sannicandro, L. 2014. 'Der 'dekadente' Feldherr: Caesar in Ägypten ( Luc . 10)' Mnemosyne Ser. 4, 67(1), 50-64.
- Santangelo, F. 2019. 'Plutarch and the Late Republican Civil Wars' in C.H. Lange & F.J. Vervaet 2019, 320-50.
- Seager, R. 2011. ' Paene omnium vitiorum expers, nisi … : Velleius on Pompey' in E. Cowan (ed.) Velleius Paterculus: making History . Swansea, 287-307.
- Strasburger, H. 1983. 'Livius über Caesar' in E. Lefèvre & E. Olshausen (eds.) Livius.  Werk  und  Rezeption.  Festschrift  für  Erich  Burck  zum  80. Geburtstag . Munich, 265-91.
- Stroh, W. 2003. ' Declamatio ' in B.-J. Schröder & J.-P. Schröder (eds.) Studium declamatorium : Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit . Munich, 5-34.
- Sumner, G. V. 1971. 'The lex annalis under Caesar' Phoenix 25, 246-71, 35771.
- Sussman, L. A. 1978. The Elder Seneca . Leiden.
- Syme, R. 1959. 'Livy and Augustus' HSPh 44, 27-87.
- Timpe, D. 1979. 'Erwägungen zur jüngeren Annalistik' Antike & Abendland 25, 97-119.
- Townend, B.G. 1987. 'C. Oppius on Julius Caesar' AJPh 108, 325-42.
- Tschiedel, H.J. 1985. Lucan und die Tränen Caesars . Munich.
- Tschiedel, H.J. 2010. 'Immagini travisate: l'arte della deformazione in Lucano' in L. Belloni (ed.) Le immagini nel testo, il testo nelle immagini: rapporti fra parola e visualità nella tradizione greco-latina . Trento, 409-23.
- Tzounakas,  S.  2013.  'Caesar  as hostis in  Lucan's De  bello  civili ' BStudLat 43(2), 510-25.
- Van der Poel, M. 2009. 'The use of exempla in Roman declamation' Rhetorica 27(3), 332-53.
- Vassiliades, G. 2020. La res publica et sa décadence: de Salluste à Tite-Live . Bordeaux.
- Vassiliades, G. 2022, 'La mort de Tite-Live, la mort d'Auguste et la publication des livres CXXI-CXLII de l' Ab Vrbe Condita ' in Ch. Guittard & P. Duchêne (eds.) Relire  Tite-Live,  2000  ans  après:  Actes  du  colloque  tenu  à l'Université Paris Nanterre et à l'École Normale Supérieure de Paris (5 et 6 octobre 2017) . Bordeaux, 221-31.

- Vekselius, J. 2018. Weeping for the res publica : Tears in Roman political culture . Doctoral Dissertation: Lund University.
- Walsh, P.G. 1961a. 'Livy and Augustus' PACA 4, 26-37.
- Walsh, P.G. 1961b. Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods . Cambridge.
- Walter, U. 2003. 'Opfer ihrer Ungleichzeitigkeit: Die Gesamtgeschichten im ersten Jahrhundert v.Chr. und die fortdauernde Attraktivität des 'annalistischen Schemas'' in U. Eigler, U. Gotter, N. Luraghi & U. Walter  (eds.) Formen  römischer  Geschichtsschreibung  von  den  Anfängen  bis Livius . Darmstadt, 135-56.
- Wardle,  D.  1998. Valerius  Maximus:  Memorable  Deeds  and  Sayings,  Book  I . Transl. with Introd. and Commentary. Oxford.
- Wardle, D. 'Suetonius on the Civil Wars of the Late Republic' in C.H. Lange & F.J. Vervaet 2019, 376-410.
- Welch, T.S. 2013. 'Was Valerius Maximus a hack?' AJPh 134(1), 67-82.
- Westall, R.W. 2017. Caesar's Civil War : Historical Reality and Fabrication . Leiden & Boston.
- Wick, C. 2004. M. Annaeus Lucanus: Bellum civile, Liber IX, eingeleitet, übersetzt und herausgegeben von Claudia Wick . Munich.
- Wiseman, T.P. 1981. 'Practice and Theory in Roman Historiography' History 66, 375-93.
- Woodman, A.J. 1988. Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four studies . London.
- Zecchini,  G.  1982.  'Asinio  Pollione.  Dall'attività  politica  alla  riflessione storiografica' ANRW II, 30(2), 1265-96.
- Zecchini, G. 2011. 'Cesare: Commentarii , Historiae , Vitae ' Aevum 85(1), 2534.