It is a commonly held view that the Bellum Gallicum was a tool of Caesar’s political propaganda, with which he wanted to win the public opinion in Rome. The paper aims to argue against this, since he probably did not even publish it himself but considered it only as a basis for a future rhetorical revision by a historiographer. The text we have is thus presumably an anonymous edition.
The paper deals with some parts of the first, seventh, eighth and ninth book of the
that focus either on Pompey or Caesar. The aim of the analysis of these passages is to show that Lucan alluded to Latin as well as Greek poets in order to place the characters of his heroes in a wider literary and mythical context.
The Greeks, both communities and private persons, often attributed to members of the imperial family honorary titles that they did not officilly have. Livia was regarded as Thea Sebaste in Ioulis, Ioulia as Sebaste in Apollonia, Caius Caesar as Parthikos in Kos, Domitian as Theos Aniketos (invictus) in Aphrodisias, and Sabina as Sebaste in Perge. These honorary titles always appear in a cultic context. This suggests that for the Greeks such inofficial titles were comparable with epithets of gods.
The contribution investigates the references of the ghost of Iulius Caesar in Florus II 16, with the help of textual analogies. The references are analysed from the point of view of ancient historiography and religious history, examining the role of the deceased Iulius Caesar as prodigium (not as divus Iulius) in the Augustan propaganda.
Aelius Caesar’s Pannonia coin in light of Hadrian’s succession politics. Pannonia province’s first securely identified personification is found on one of Aelius Caesar’s coin reverses, minted in 137. A.D. Its occurrence can be explained with that he was the newly designated heir to the throne, who was sent to govern both Pannonia Inferior and Superior. Its iconography that is based on Hadrian’s Concordia exercituum coin from 119–120/121, has a clear message, which calls upon the inhabitants of the empire and especially the soldiers to swear allegiance and loyalty to the new heir. It is interesting to see that both Trajan and Hadrian were in command of a large number of troops, when they came to power, just like Aelius. Putting the designated heir in charge of a considerable military strength was a well working way to secure that the throne was passed on to whom it was intended to. Pannonia’s further importance lay in its strategic geographical position, because it was a territory that was in charge of a large army, but was also located closest to Rome.
Comparing the prose-rhythm in the direct speeches of the Corpus Caesarianum produces another proof for Caesar being not the author of the writings Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum Africum and Bellum Hispaniense.
The present article examines the concept of a malicious fatum as evolved by the narrator of Lucan's Bellum civile and especially the subjective attitudes adopted by the protagonists Caesar, Pompey and Cato towards this destructive force. Since Lucan's fatum is not benevolent but malicious and hence contrary to the Stoic doctrine, the ethical value of the protagonists is not measured by their readiness to follow fate (as Stoics would have done), but by the degree of their intellectual resistance to fate: Caesar follows fate unhesitatingly; Pompey sometimes seems to believe, mistakenly, in its benevolence, but in crucial and decisive situations he recognizes its malignity; Cato is the only one who, from the very beginning, internalizes the intrinsic moral corruption of fate. The last section in this article deals with a totally different concept of fate, which is recognizeable in some passages of the tenth book of Bellum civile.