Ventosissimus Homo: The Weathercock Man

A Historiographical Analysis of the Triumvir Marcus AemiliusLepidus

Dylan Nesbit

Dr. Adamitis

CLST 490

9/30/13

Nesbit 1

In the majority of modern scholarship the second triumvirate

is deemed a duumvirate. Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (cos 46, 42) is

placed so far below his fellow Triumvirs Gaius Julius Caesar

Octavianus and Marcus Antonius that it seems like he made no

difference at all. Much of the ancient source material in

particular regards Lepidus with contempt. In turn, later scholars

perpetuated this negative view of Lepidus by taking the ancient

sources at face-value, without considering bias by the ancient

authors. These secondary authors, such as Ronald Syme in his

landmark Roman Revolution, printed verbatim the descriptions of

Lepidus from the works of Greek and Roman authors such as Appian,

Cassius Dio, and Velleius Paterculus. In creating these landmark

works, the secondary authors did the historical world a great

favor but also an injustice. As the great reference works on the

period, these volumes have been consulted thousands of times,

many times by non-critical readers. Thus the opinion of Lepidus

as a despicable human being continued, to the point where he has

been almost written off in many less scholarly works.

Nesbit 2

Authors have attached to Lepidus the stigma of irrelevancy,

thought of as strictly a third fiddle to the other triumvirs. A

complete write-off of a figure in such a powerful position poses

a dilemma. By all accounts, Lepidus was unnecessary in the

narrative of the second and third Roman Civil Wars from the 50s

down to 31 B.C.; however, the notion that a man who held high

positions and was in direct contact with the other main figures

seems far-fetched. A deeper analysis of Lepidus in the ancient

sources reveals that he is wrongly dismissed by ancient and

modern scholarship. He might not have been the polarizing figure

like Antony or Caesar, but nonetheless he held the distinction of

master of horse to Caesar and triumvir alongside Antony and

Octavian. A historiographical analysis of the ancient and

secondary sources will help to determine the biases that existed

against Lepidus, and provide a ground on which a new analysis of

the triumvir can be based. A thorough examination of the ancient

source author’s backgrounds and personal history, if one is

known, illustrates the bias that would have been present in their

histories. These biases are found in the stories of all of

Lepidus’ achievements and failures, and often serve to either

Nesbit 3

diminish or further tarnish his reputation. By comparing the

accounts of each of the ancient sources, while understanding

their biases, a more neutral image of Lepidus might emerge. This

image should be considered the base from which further research

on the life of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus can be launched.

The Ancient Sources and Their Problems

Cicero’s letters and speeches serve as the only contemporary

source on the triumvir’s actions. Lepidus is mentioned repeatedly

in correspondence between Cicero and other notable late Republic

figures such as Decimus Brutus, Marcus Brutus, and Cassius

Longinus. Cicero gives another opinion of Lepidus in his 5th and

13th Philippics. The letters as a more private form of communication

provide one view of Lepidus, while public speeches given to the

Senate present another.

The musings of Cicero and his correspondents contain bias

that must be considered when examining the career of Marcus

Aemilius Lepidus. During the Civil War between Caesar and Pompey,

Cicero was firmly in Pompey’s camp; however, Cicero’s goal was

Nesbit 4

the preservation of the Republic. This explains Cicero’s feelings

toward Lepidus. While it is impossible to know exactly what

Cicero thought of the triumvir, Lepidus’ stance as a Caesarian

and later as a threat to the republic himself skewed Cicero’s

view of the politician. Therefore, because of differences in

political opinion, Cicero’s view of Lepidus should not be wholly

accepted as an accurate picture of the triumvir.

Velleius Paterculus’ work represents a different kind of

ancient history. Written during the reign of Tiberius, his work

recounts the history of Rome from its foundation down to

Velleius’ own time. The work’s composition date makes it the most

contemporary surviving history to the events of the Second

Triumvirate. The time period in which Velleius lived, the methods

he utilized, and his unique perspective create an interesting

account of events. Velleius first career was that of a soldier.

It was only after years of military service under Tiberius in

Germany that Velleius was granted a Quaestorship in 8 A.D. Thus,

as a soldier before a politician, Velleius provides an unusual

form of Roman history, one that is not entirely hostile towards

the end of the republic. Velleius’ singular history presents both

Nesbit 5

possibility and potential problems. His unique perspective

provides a view of Lepidus apart from those who obsess over the

perfection of the republic; however, his love of the early

emperors creates a bias against those who fought opposite the

princeps. Therefore, while Velleius might not consider Lepidus a

destroyer of the Republic, he does hold a bias against enemies of

Augustus. 1

Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita Libri was written before Velleius

Paterculus put ink to parchment; however, the portions pertaining

to the Second Triumvirate are not extant and must be inferred

from surviving histories. For his history of the triumvirate,

Velleius Paterculus may have relied on Livy.2 Among other

histories that survive, Florus, Eutropius, and Orosius all

utilize Livy as their main source.3 The late Republic and early

Empire was the backdrop for Livy’s life. If Livy’s work survived,

1 Gajus Velleius Paterculus, Frederick W Shipley, and Augustus, Compendium of Roman History (London; Cambridge, Mass.: Heinemann ; Harvard Univ. Press, 1924).Viii.2 Shipley, xiv.3 Lucius Annaeus Florus and E. S Forster, Epitome of Roman history (Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press ; W Heinemann, 1984). Viii., Bird, H. W Eutropius, The Breviarum Ab Urbe Condita of Eutropius (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993). Xlv., And Paulus Orosius and A. T Fear, Seven Books of History against the Pagans (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010). 15.

Nesbit 6

it would be the best contemporary source for the events of the

late republic. Instead, we are left with epitomes of the books in

a Periochae and fragments that survive in extant works by Florus,

Eutropius, and Orosius. The Periochae fails to provide any in-depth

information in regard to Lepidus and so Florus, Eutropius, and

Orosius provide the only examples of Lepidus’ characterization in

Livy. While Livy had the stated goal of preserving the history of

Rome, Florus, Eutropius, and Orosius’ looked towards different

ends. The problems with Florus’ epitome lie in the late date it

was written and the dearth of evidence for the identity of the

author. Written about 200 years after the events of the Second

Triumvirate, Florus’ work runs headlong into the ancient

historiographical problem of being a late source, which is an

issue that plagues several ancient histories.4 Eutropius has a

date 200 years after Florus, and Orosius another fifty or so

years after that.5

Each work has a major historiographical problem that stands

apart from their late date as well. Florus’ work has been hailed

as rhetorically fantastic, but it sacrifices accuracy for

4 Forster, viii.5 Bird, Xviii. And Fear, 6-7.

Nesbit 7

rhetoric.6 Eutropius’ work is very concise and impartial, but was

meant for the unlearned of Rome and sought to show the greatness

of Rome rather than a wholly accurate series of events.7 Orosius’

Seven Books of History Against the Pagans, as the title suggests, argues

that Christianity created a high epoch of man.8 While this goal

necessarily means that the history is slanted towards Christians,

Orosius very helpfully transplants full sections of Livy into his

own work. From the combined works of Florus, Eutropius, and

Orosius, Livy’s opinion of Lepidus may be cautiously assessed,

although the problem of reliability is rampant because of the

lateness and goals of the later sources.

Appian and Cassius Dio aspire to similar goals in writing

their histories and both sources are plagued by the same

problems. Appian dedicates five books of his Roman History to the

Civil Wars of the late Roman Republic. These books provide a

detailed account of the events of the Civil Wars in which Lepidus

plays a substantial role. Though large parts are fragmentary, the

pertinent parts of Cassius Dio’s work survive and provide another

6 Forster, ix.7 Bird, lv-lvi.8 Fear, 22-23.

Nesbit 8

version of the story of the Roman Civil Wars. The credibility of

both sources suffers because of the gap in time between the

events and when they were written down. Appian was writing during

the mid to late 2nd century A.D., while Cassius Dio wrote through

the reign of the Severans.9 At that late a point in time, when

memory of the Republic had almost faded, it seemed natural that

the flawed Republic would lead to the glorious Empire, and so

both authors emphasize these flaws. It is important to remember

when reading these sources therefore that the end of the Republic

was not inevitable, and that portrayals of Octavian might present

him as a savior of Rome, rather than a victor in a bloody

conflict. The memory of Augustus as a mortal man would have long

since passed by the time Appian and Dio were writing, and it

there might have been difficulty in presenting the deified

Augustus as less than ideal. Therefore, when examining Appian and

Cassius Dio, the effects of time and propaganda must be taken

into account. Furthermore, both authors were Greek and chose to

write history in a more Greek fashion, emphasizing sensational

9 Appianus, The Civil Wars, Penguin Classics (London ; New York: Penguin Books, 1996). Ix and 1. Cassius Dio Cocceianus, The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus, Penguin Classics (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England ; New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Penguin Books, 1987). 19.

Nesbit 9

anecdotes above historical fact. When reading stories from Appian

and Cassius Dio, one must consider whether the story is

historical or whether the authors were sensationalizing.

The high status of all of the authors of these sources is

notable and affects interpretation of their material. All were

equite class or higher and most graced the ranks of the Senate.

This naturally slanted their opinions towards the upper classes

and rulers who supported them. Figures who, whether by aim or

accident, wronged the upper crust of Rome might be considered by

the sources as malevolent. Legislation popular with the masses

often did no click well with the richer members of the city, and

so figures like the Gracchi who attempted to enact this

legislation are sometimes belittled in the ancient sources. In

order to decipher the truth within the ancient sources, one must

consider the social and economic status of their authors.

When examining the life of the triumvir Marcus Aemilius

Lepidus, it is important to read the ancient sources closely. The

bias in some ancient sources is harder to decipher than in

others. In order to truly understand Lepidus and his

accomplishments, it is necessary to sift through the sources and

Nesbit 10

determine what source material is plausible and what is fantasy.

The singular view of Lepidus as insignificant may have been

perpetuated by authors who neglected to thoroughly examine the

ancient source material. A closer reading may show the bias

within the sources and allow further scholarship to re-examine

the triumvir in a different light.

The Life and Times of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus

Perhaps simply by accident, it seems as though somebody

created a negative view of Lepidus. A methodical examination of

the ancient sources may reveal Lepidus as more than a singularity

of uselessness. The goal is not to prove that Lepidus was a

saint, or even a very good politician, but that his role in

history was more significant than previously thought, and

deserves a scholarly second look. With this in mind, the task of

inspecting the life and times of Lepidus becomes crucial, not

just for showing where the ancient source bias affected the

modern view of Lepidus, but also in providing new and interesting

directions on which Lepidus may be analyzed. For simplification,

Nesbit 11

the career of Lepidus can be split into five sections; the first

is his initial rise in prominence under the tutelage of Julius

Caesar. The second is his actions on the Ides and the events

following the assassination of Caesar. The third and fourth are

his roles in the beginning of the triumvirate and the end of his

role in the triumvirate in the year 36 B.C, and the final section

regards the life of Lepidus once removed from public life in 36

until his death in 12 B.C. Stories will be drawn from each

section analyzed to show where bias has led scholarship astray.

Naturally, the major events are recorded in more ancient sources

and so there is more material to analyze; however, in the case of

some lesser events there is very little, which might indicate

something entirely different but still relevant. To compare the

ancient sources to the modern view, Ronald Syme’s Roman Revolution

provides perhaps the best example of Lepidus’ negative

representation in modern scholarship.10 Dispersed within his

account of the fall of the Roman Republic, Syme includes quips

against Lepidus’ character. The work is a landmark in the study

of Roman history and is hugely influential in the field. His work

10 Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Nesbit 12

will be used as the modern source from which to assume the widely

held view of Lepidus.

The Aemilii Lepidi were one of the old great patrician

families of Rome.11 Hailing from the ever present Roman Aemilii

clan, their name would have been known throughout the city. In

the case of Lepidus however, there was a bit of a snag. His

father, the elder Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, during his consulship

in 78 B.C. attempted a revolt to remove the reforms put in place

by Sulla. The revolt failed and the elder Lepidus was exiled.12

While all of his property remained in the family, his sons,

Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Aemilius Lepidus Paulus, were

forced to combat the family’s tarnished reputation in their rise

through the cursus honorum. The first step along the way for

Marcus was the appointment as triumvir monetalis for Rome around the

year 65 B.C.13 This office came with the prestige of printing the

coinage for the citizens of Rome and the freedom to print

whichever image they deemed appropriate. Many used this office to

further the prestige of their families and Lepidus was no 11 Richard D. Weigel, Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir (London ; New York: Routledge, 1992). 11.12 Appian 1.10713Richard David Weigel, “The Coins Issued by Lepidus as Triumvir Monetalis,” Journal of the Society of Ancient Numismatics 5 (1974 1973): 51.

Nesbit 13

exception. To help salvage the reputation of the Aemilii Lepidi,

Lepidus reached far back into his ancestry to the story of

another Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, who was consul in 187 and 175,

held the position of censor in 179, and served as Pontifex Maximus

from 180 until 152.14 Here Lepidus appears as a typical young

Roman politician, attempting to climb the ladder into the public

realm and reach elected office. It makes sense that a position as

moneyer of Rome would have been an attractive option for Lepidus,

allowing him to broadcast his name among the people of Rome

before attempting to run for the office of Quaestor. Also by

using currency as a platform for the glorification of the Aemilii

Lepidi and creating a connection between the current generation

and the “greatest” generations, Lepidus distanced himself from

his father.15 This early sly political maneuvering seems to be at

ends with the later ancient source view of Lepidus as indecisive

and useless. In the case of his moneyership, Lepidus seems to

have had a clear goal and worked efficiently towards that goal

while dealing with limitations imposed by the infamy of his

14 Ibid15 Richard David Weigel, “The Coins Issued by Lepidus as Triumvir Monetalis,” Journal of the Society of Ancient Numismatics 5 (1974 1973): 52.

Nesbit 14

father. Around 60 B.C. Lepidus bursts onto the scene and appears

to have used significant political skill to become a successful

triumvir monetalis. The position did not guarantee entry into the

cursus honorum and so success in the position might be assessed

through election to other political offices. While there is no

recorded date for Lepidus’ service as Quaestor and Aedile, they

must have occurred during the 50’s B.C. in order for him to have

been Praetor in 49 when he first appears in the ancient

sources.16

Lepidus burst onto the scene in 49 B.C. during his

Praetorship. It also is the first time that the relationship

between Julius Caesar and the Lepidus is acknowledged in the

sources. Lepidus is noted in the sources for nominating Caesar

for dictator in the absence of the consuls.17 This would have

been a great service to Caesar, who gained control of the city of

Rome after the Pompeian faction and many members of the senate

had abandoned the city. It allowed Caesar to hold elections and

gain the consulship for the year 48. The absence of the consuls

16 Richard D. Weigel, Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir (London ; New York: Routledge, 1992). 23.17 Cassius Dio 41.36

Nesbit 15

and the praetor urbanus made Lepidus the de facto head

administrator of Rome in 49 B.C. It is notable that, during that

year, there is no mention of incidents occurring in Rome, which

may be attributable to Lepidus’ administrative prowess, or the

emptiness of the city. It would seem that Lepidus had some

administrative skill and was of use to Caesar because immediately

following his Praetorship, he was granted the governorship of

Hither Spain.18 This was a tactical appointment by Caesar.

Lepidus had shown a knack for administration and his ability to

keep an area calm would have been of great importance to Caesar

in his hunt for Pompey. Lepidus performed admirably, keeping a

province calm that throughout the 40s B.C. was prone to revolt.19

His actions were such a help to Caesar that Lepidus earned a

triumph despite a lack of military engagement.20 Lepidus also

seems to have no inclination to make a bid for his own power,

content to help Caesar and no more. The total loyalty that

Lepidus exhibits benefitted Caesar to no end and in 46 Lepidus

was appointed as consul alongside Caesar. Once the consulship

18 Cassius Dio 43.119 Richard D. Weigel, Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir (London ; New York: Routledge, 1992). 27.20 Ibid

Nesbit 16

ended and Caesar became dictator, he appointed Lepidus as his

master of horse and second in command.21

Lepidus’ role under Caesar was wholly subordinate. This is a

very interesting role for a member of a prestigious Roman family

to take; however, Lepidus appears to have been content in making

life easier for Caesar and increasing his own personal wealth and

prestige in the process. Syme asserts that Lepidus had all the

tools for success with none of the skills.22 Caesar in fact might

have chosen Lepidus for his prestigious family initially,

although Lepidus quickly proved himself an asset in other areas.

Syme claims that Lepidus was not prized to Caesar above Antony.23

It seems more plausible that neither of them were favored above

the other. Both were utilized for their strengths as Caesar saw

fit. Lepidus excelled in administration, while Antony was a

warrior.

While stories about Lepidus are few from 49 until the Ides,

it is worth speculating on what a Roman would have thought of a

man of Lepidus stature taking a back seat to Caesar. The

21 Cassius Dio 43.122 Syme RR, 69.23 Syme RR, 104.

Nesbit 17

ambitions of Caesar’s other close associates, especially Antony,

were something that Caesar had to work around, whereas Lepidus

provided Caesar with a stress-free ally and a famous name. It may

have been true that the upper class of Rome thought less of

Lepidus for taking on a subordinate role. Certainly a man of the

Aemilii would have been thought of in high regard and therefore

Lepidus’ seeming lack of ambition would have been troubling.24

Thus Lepidus is referred to as lazy by the ancient sources, not

in the sense that is perceived today of being unwilling to try,

but in the Roman sense of a lack of ambition in a member of the

nobility. This lack of ambition was looked down upon by the

senate.

On the Ides, Lepidus found himself in a most interesting

position. The night before Caesar graced Lepidus’ table for

dinner, which is another indication of Caesar’s preference and

the importance of Lepidus within his regime.25 The ancient

sources are in disagreement on the location of Lepidus during the

assassination, but they are in agreement that after the deed was

24Kathryn E. Welch, “The Career of M. Aemilius Lepidus 49-44 B.C.,” Hermes 123,no. 4 (1995):453. 25 Appian 2.115

Nesbit 18

done, Lepidus rushed to his legion on an island in the Tiber and

moved it to the Campus Martius to be ready.26 The original goal

of the conspiracy may have included the deaths of both Antony and

Lepidus; however, they decided that further bloodshed would be

detrimental to their cause and so Lepidus and Antony remained

alive.27 While the conspirators took control of the Capitoline,

Lepidus and his legion seized control of the forum. Lepidus’

initial reaction to Caesar’s death was calculated and correct.

Appian claims that Lepidus deferred to Antony in this time

because he was consul, but in the case of the death of a

dictator, power went to his master of horse.28 He knew he had the

only body of soldiers in the city and used them to the correct

effect, moving himself into a position of power over the city.

After Caesar’s death, the conspirators did not receive the

support of the populace as they expected and were thus placed in

a precarious position.29 Fiery speeches by Lepidus and Antony in

the aftermath of the assassination further incensed the crowd,

and the conspirators were forced to leave Rome. Upon their

26 Cassius Dio 44.19, Appian 2.118.27 Cassius Dio 44.1928 Appian 2.118 n.170.29 Appian 2. 123.

Nesbit 19

departure, Antony began taking steps to ensure Lepidus’

commitment to his faction. Antony’s show of benevolence proves

Lepidus’ importance at this stage. Antony could not have casted

Lepidus aside because Lepidus had an army in Rome and was the

leader of a faction of Romans who wished revenge on Caesar’s

assassins.30 Whether by dumb luck or political skill Lepidus

placed himself in a position of power upon Caesar’s death when he

could have lost everything.

Here, however, a double standard is set by the sources;

while they find Lepidus at fault for a lack of ambition, they

also fault him for accepting a marriage alliance and the office

of Pontifex Maximus.31 In truth, it was the people of Rome, not

Antony, who thought to first give Lepidus the title of Pontifex

Maximus which Caesar’s death had vacated.32 Saying that Antony had

no role in Lepidus appointed would be incorrect. However, saying

Antony alone bestowed the honor upon Lepidus is also incorrect.

Further injustice is done by Ronald Syme in his account by

referring to Lepidus as “that ambiguous person.”33 Lepidus’

30 Appian 2.13131 Cassius Dio 44.5332 Appian 2.13233 Syme RR, 109.

Nesbit 20

maneuvering had placed him a position of power and the office of

Pontifex Maximus and a marriage alliance were the tools available

to Antony to persuade Lepidus. The negative implications in the

sources regarding Lepidus appointment as Pontifex might reflect

Augustus’ displeasure at not receiving the position himself after

being adopted posthumously by Caesar. The Res Gestae tells us how

Augustus received the position after its thief passed away.34

Lepidus’ appointment as Pontifex is seen as a bribe of placation by

Antony and the Roman mob, rather than alliance with someone in a

position of power.35

Lepidus was once again in a powerful position in 43 after

Antony’s defeat at Mutina. The combination of Lepidus’ forces

with Antony’s created a renewed threat to the Senate. The

majority of insults toward Lepidus are within the correspondence

of Cicero to his friends upon Lepidus’ alliance with Antony

following the battle. Cicero had delivered his Philippic speeches,

damning Antony and extolling Lepidus in order to drive a wedge

between the two friends.36 The moniker ventosissimus homo, “the

34 Res Gestae 1035 Syme RR, 447.36 Cicero Phil 5.14-15, 13.4, 13.19

Nesbit 21

weathercock man”, which Decimus Brutus bestowed upon Lepidus,

seems to have prevailed in the modern scholarship.37 Ronald Syme

refers to Lepidus as a “flimsy character.”38 A cursory glance at

the ancient sources gives weight to the accuracy of the insult.

At first look, Lepidus does seem to go with the wind. He often

waits till the final moment to make a decision, and then chooses

the side which Cicero and friends wish he would not. One

interpretation is that Lepidus simply goes with the greatest

authority figure and is complacent. Certainly joining Caesar and

Antony in the fashion he does, and the way in which it is

portrayed presents a subordinate aura around Lepidus. Another

explanation, which while not positive gives more credit to

Lepidus’ intelligence than Cicero, is that Lepidus bided his time

and waited to choose a side until victory was certain. It is also

unfair for Cicero to assume that Lepidus would abandon his

friendship with Antony in return for the gifts the Senate

bestowed upon him. In his Philippics, Cicero spends time praising

Lepidus in hopes of swaying him towards the cause of the Senate.

When Lepidus does not react to his gifts, Cicero writes him and

37 Cicero Ad Fam 10.938 Syme RR, 166.

Nesbit 22

complains; “Moleste tuli, te senatui gratias non egisse, cum esses ab eo ordine

ornatus summis honoris. Pacis inter civis conciliande te cupidam esse laetor.” (I am

therefore distressed at your having expressed no gratitude to the

Senate, when that body had honored you with the highest marks of

distinction).39 Antony had left the city of Rome to demand

Decimus Brutus’ surrender of the province of Cisalpine Gaul.

Antony’s siege of Decimus at Mutina caused him to be declared an

enemy of Rome and Cicero tried his best to convince Lepidus to

side with the senate.40 When Lepidus did not acquiesce to the

desires of Cicero, he became hostile.

Lepidus seems to have tried to maintain a neutral stance

with the senate while administering aid to Antony whenever

possible. While Antony was holding siege at Mutina, Lepidus sent

reinforcements to the area without explicit orders on which side

to assist.41 Thus he could maintain the semblance of neutrality

while still assisting Antony. After Antony was defeated by the

combined forces of Hirtius, Pansa, and Octavian, Lepidus made it

clear that he had sent the reinforcement cohort to the Senate

39 Cicero Ad Fam. 10.2740 Cassius Dio 46.3441 Cassius Dio 46.38

Nesbit 23

supported troops and that they had disobeyed orders. Lepidus and

Antony’s friendship persevered through the wrath of the Senate.

Lepidus was ordered to continue conflict with Antony; instead he

hindered the actions of other nearby governors Plancus and

Pollio, and eventually joined his own forces to Antony’s. The

ancient sources indicate that it was not Lepidus’ decision for

his army to join with Antony’s. Lepidus’ forces reportedly threw

open the gates and welcomed Antony into their camp.42 Given their

previous history as friends and colleagues, it seems more likely

that Lepidus intended to join with Antony but kept up the ruse of

neutrality. If Lepidus did indeed plan to join Antony, it would

imply that he was not so indecisive and prone to changes of

heart, but loyal to his friends and competent at protecting his

own interests in case of disastrous defeat. Given their previous

history, Lepidus’ overtures to the Senate, assuring them of his

loyalty, should not have fooled them43; however, upon the

confirmation of his alliance with Antony, Lepidus was declared an

enemy of the state.

42 Appian 3.8343 Syme RR, 178.

Nesbit 24

Upon Lepidus decision to side with Antony, Cicero’s words

describing him become quickly hostile. He describes Lepidus in a

letter to Decimus Brutus as furiosum esset (he to have been insane)44

and in a letter to Cassius as possessing both amazing levitatem et

inconstantiam (fickleness and inconsistency).45 Cicero seems to hold

nothing back in his correspondence with Marcus Junius Brutus as

he declares “Lepidi, tui necessari, qui secundum fratrem adfinis habet quos oderit

proximos, levitatem et inconstantiam animumque semper inimicum rei publicae iam

credo tibi ex tuorum litteris esse perspectum” (On the other hand I suppose

that letters from your own circle will already have made evident

to you the irresponsibility, fickleness, and consistently

unpatriotic attitude of your connection Lepidus, who hates his

relatives by marriage only one degree less than his brother).46

Cicero does not provide his scathing insults with a boundary. He

attacks the most sensitive issues and makes his true feelings

known. It is natural for the orator be angry when his republic is

endangered and so the insults, while horrendous, seem appropriate

for the period; however, it is not appropriate for modern

44 Cicero Ad Fam 11.2845 Cicero Ad Fam 12.846 Cicero Ad Brutem 2

Nesbit 25

scholarship to accept Cicero’s words as truth, for they were

written out of anger and are therefore exceedingly biased. Syme,

however, echoes Cicero in his account of the period, calling

Lepidus “perfidious and despised.”47 The anger of the Roman

orator somehow passed into the writing of a 20th century author.

After Antony’s defeat, the senate assigned Decimus, not

Octavian, the honors for victory.48 This would prove to be a

significant misstep for the senate as it disgruntled Octavian and

opened his mind up to the idea of partnership with Lepidus and

Antony. Octavian had seized control of the city of Rome after he

realized that the Senate intended only to use him for their

purposes. The only obstacle to the alliance was Lepidus and

Antony’s status as enemies of the state. Once Octavian had the

monikers removed by his puppet consul, negotiations could begin.

The sources are mixed but it appears as though Lepidus served as

the bridge between Octavian and Antony, bringing them both to the

meeting and securing the safety of the meeting site.49 Other

accounts portray Octavian as the brains behind the triumvirate,

47 Syme RR, 180.48 Cassius Dio 46.4049 Orosius 6.18.8, Eutropius 7.2

Nesbit 26

but these appear to place Lepidus and Antony as immediate

subordinates of Octavian and can thus be dismissed as intended to

glorify Augustus.50 If the alliance can be attributed to Lepidus

then he should receive credit for a brilliant idea.

Strategically, the alliance proved to be a game-changing

maneuver, which forced the senate onto their heels. No Senate

force could compete with the combined legions of all three men

and so the Second triumvirate began.

In the beginning of the triumvirate, Lepidus’ role was

substantial. He received all of the Spanish provinces as well as

the province of Narbonese Gaul.51 His mistake in the negotiations

seemed to come in his willingness to lend Antony and Octavian

seven of his ten legions for the war against Brutus and Cassius.

While the other two triumvirs went to war, Lepidus remained

behind in Rome, administrating the city and keeping things

calm.52 In hindsight, it would seem that Lepidus’ decision to let

Antony and Octavian fight for glory and take his legions was

shortsighted; however, it could be argued that Lepidus had no

50 Appain 3.96, Cassius Dio 46.4351 Cassius Dio 46.5552 Cassius Dio 46.56

Nesbit 27

reason to suspect that Antony, his close friend, had it in his

mind to remove Lepidus from his position, or that Octavian, the

young upstart, would gain enough prominence to unseat him. Thus

Lepidus was content to stay in Rome and be the administrator,

while Antony and Octavian marched to the east.

To fund their campaign and eliminate opposition, the

triumvirs turned to the Sullan policy of proscription. Here the

ancient sources provide excruciating detail on the horrors of the

proscriptions, emphasizing the evil nature of Lepidus and Antony,

while sparing Octavian. All the sources, in a moment of clear

bias, absolve Octavian of wrongdoing while condemning Lepidus and

Antony as monsters.53 The only source to say that Caesar had a

full part in the proscriptions is Eutropius.54 This is a clear

reflection of the view of the first pater patriae in the later years

of the Empire. Whether this interpretation of the events grew out

of Augustus’ own story or the myth of Augustus perpetuated by the

imperial cult is unclear, but it is probable that Octavian shared

the same amount of blame for the death of many of the proscribed.

53 Florus 2.16, Orosius 6.18.8, Velleius 2.66, Cassius Dio 47.7-854 Eutropius

Nesbit 28

Authors, both ancient and modern, use the addition of

Lepidus’ brother, Lucius Aemilius Paullus, to the proscription

list as evidence to the wicked nature of Lepidus.55 Appian

chooses an entirely different method of history and condemns the

proscriptions as a whole by telling sensationalized stories of

the proscribed. Much like the example of Antony adding his own

uncle to the list, these are meant to show wrongdoing in the

other two triumvirs while Octavian remains blameless. Among the

stories is the proscription of Lepidus’ brother. It seems more

likely that Lepidus would have been unwilling to add his own

brother but necessarily bowed to the demands of the other two

triumvirs. There is no doubt that Paullus was opposed to the

policies of the triumvirate because he was an optimate.56 The

majority of the ancient accounts also pass over the story that

Lepidus helped his brother escape Italy and death. Syme too

mentions the proscription of Paullus, but leaves out the manner

of his escape.57 When his brother was proscribed, Lepidus sent

his own soldiers with vague orders and thus facilitated Paullus’

55 Florus 2.16, Orosius 6.18.8, Velleius 2.67, Appian 4.12, Cassius Dio 47.656 Richard D. Weigel, Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir (London ; New York: Routledge, 1992). 25.57 Syme RR, 192.

Nesbit 29

escape.58 The stories then seem to balance out Lepidus’ character

during the proscriptions. While he did take part in the untimely

deaths of hundreds of senators and equites, and doubtless added

names himself to the lists, he did remain loyal to his family and

fellow triumvirs, acquiescing to the needs of one while

protecting the other. All three triumvirs would share in the

infamy for the death of Cicero, the most well-known among the

hundreds proscribed.

Further assaults on Lepidus’ character surround stories of

his descent from power. In 36 B.C., after years of being

overshadowed by the other two triumvirs and slowly losing

influence, Lepidus attempted to regain a manner of power.

Following victory in Sicily, Lepidus claimed the province and

demanded that the other triumvirs restore his authority.59 Syme

claims Lepidus was delusional for wishing to regain a manner of

authority.60 This is an absolute perpetuation of bias. While

fighting the forces of Sextus Pompey in Sicily, Lepidus resented

Octavian’s treatment of him as a lesser and wished only to regain

58 Appian 4.3759 Appian 5.122-12360 Syme RR, 232.

Nesbit 30

the authority which had been unceremoniously stripped from him

without his consent.61 The sources are mixed on the actual events

of 36. In some accounts, Octavian marched his army against

Lepidus in response to Lepidus’ insolence.62 Lepidus’ army was

sick of civil strife and surrendered to Octavian, thus Lepidus

career as a triumvir ended.63 In a more dramatic version by

Velleius, Octavian singled handedly waltzed into Lepidus’ camp

and, through speech and the theft of an eagle, swayed the troops

over to his side, who then abandoned Lepidus en masse.64 The

account of Cassius Dio provides somewhat of a middle-ground

between the extremes, saying that a mixture of a siege and

Octavian’s rhetoric eventually wore down Lepidus’ army, who then

deserted him.65 Octavian’s involvement in the fall of Lepidus is

portrayed in several of the ancient sources as a hero figure

claiming what is rightfully his.66 Deified Augustus strikes again

against Lepidus. Lepidus’ character is assaulted by authors who

believe Octavian’s victory to be inevitable. Thus, when Lepidus

61 Cassius Dio 49.862 Orosius 6.18.2863 Appian 5.12464 Velleius 2.80, Appian 5.124-12565 Cassius Dio 49.1266 Velleius 2.80, Appian 5.125

Nesbit 31

is officially stripped of power, he is portrayed as weak,

cowering before Octavian in order to be spared his life. Octavian

then appears merciful, granting Lepidus his life in return for a

lifetime of exile. 67

The ancient sources only slightly overestimate Lepidus’

failure in Sicily but err in their further degradation of the

triumvir and exultation of his opponent, which shows clear bias.

Lepidus made poor tactical decisions in Sicily. He alienated his

army following the battle of Messana by allowing the opposing

troops to join his own force and then loot the city.68 The

legions who had followed him from Africa, did not appreciate the

enemy being placed on the same footing once they were defeated.

When Octavian approached Lepidus’ camp, the loyalty of his army

was suspect. Not only were Sextus Pompey’s legions’ loyalty not

secure, but Lepidus had alienated the forces which he had brought

himself. Furthermore, Lepidus had no history of dramatic military

glory from which to secure their support. Octavian, from his high

position, could offer the legions possible loot as a benefit for

deserting Lepidus. Lepidus’ forces also would have had little

67 Appian 5.12668 Appian 5.124

Nesbit 32

interest in fighting Octavian and continuing the Civil Wars which

had raged for years previous. 69 Lepidus was therefore fighting an

uphill battle. While he did not help his own case with

questionable tactical decisions, Lepidus was already in an

impossible situation. If one ignores the parts of the accounts

which portray Octavian as divine, the narrative makes sense.

Lepidus’ army, under siege, decided that continuation of Civil

War was not worth it under a commander to whom they were not that

loyal. Thus Lepidus was stripped of his army and his position as

a triumvir, not by Octavian’s greatness but by soldiers who were

sick of conflict.

After 36, Lepidus life became much less complicated.

Following the events on Sicily, Octavian left him with his life

and the office of Pontifex Maximus, but forced him into exile at

Circeii.70 There Lepidus remained at his villa, separated from

political life at Rome. The sources make two mentions of Lepidus

returning to Rome. The first occurred after the plot of his son

Marcus Lepidus, against Octavian was revealed by Maecenas. After

69 Léonie Hayne, “The Defeat of Lepidus in 36 B.C.,” Acta Classica 17 (1974): 63-64.70 Cassius Dio 49.12

Nesbit 33

the sedition was uncovered, Marcus Lepidus was thrown in jail and

his mother, the former triumvir’s wife, was implicated. The elder

Lepidus rushed from his villa to Rome to defend his family. The

judge who presided over the case was Balbinus, a survivor of the

proscriptions. Unable to save his son, Lepidus pleaded for the

release of his wife, offering himself in her stead. Balbinus took

pity upon Lepidus and released his wife.71 Lepidus’ dedication to

his wife is not a tale told in many modern classrooms but

presents another side of Lepidus as a dedicated husband.72 It

speaks more to Lepidus as a person rather than as the sum of his

accomplishments. The other occasions of Lepidus’ return to Rome

were for mocking in front of the senate by Augustus. Cassius Dio

tells us that Lepidus was summoned to Rome, placed in front of

the Senate and derided by Augustus, who reminded him of his

failings.73 Here again we see Lepidus apart from his

accomplishments. In the period after exile he appears as a man

being kicked while down. Lepidus died in 13/12 B.C., a relic of a

tumultuous Rome which his career failed to survive.

71 Appian 4.5072Léonie Hayne, “M. Lepidus and His Wife,” Latomus 33 (1974): 79. 73 Cassius Dio 54.15

Nesbit 34

Conclusion

Lepidus’ reputation has been assaulted by the ancient

sources. Each finds fault with Lepidus in his deeds without

providing the whole story. Even further, the stories in these

ancient sources are colored by bias, which springs from

historiographical problems in their composition. Modern

scholarship has not taken this bias into account when researching

and reviewing the career of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. His early

career went beyond just a position as triumvir monetalis. In the 40s,

he was more than just a lacky with a famous name to Caesar; he

was a valuable asset who helped Caesar to rise to power. Lepidus

was not just a tag along to Antony and Octavian; he was a man in

a position of power whom the others were forced to negotiate

with. In Sicily, he did not oppose Octavian out of insolence, but

in order to regain the dignity which had been slowly stolen from

him by the other triumvirs. Finally, after his dismissal from

political office, he was more than just a disgraced politician;

Nesbit 35

he was a man intent on preserving his family, even at the expense

of his own reputation.

If one examines Lepidus as a list of his accomplishments

alone, he does not amount to much. While he was the most famous

member of his family, he is not the most distinguished. Calling

Lepidus a brilliant politician or general goes too far. Much of

the blame for his failures does rightly rest on his shoulders.

Scholarship only goes astray by judging Lepidus simply by the

perceived enormity of his failures. The ancient sources choose to

focus on things which Lepidus failed at or events where he was at

odds with the favored faction. In the beginning of his life he

faced off against the forces of the senate and so in one sense

can be considered a destroyer of the republic. He then fought

against Octavian and so in another sense he is in opposition to

the beloved first citizen of Rome. One then wonders if the wrath

of the ancient sources which Lepidus draws is simply the result

of being on the wrong side.

Lepidus is the victim of a plethora of historiographical

problems. He has not been evaluated from a neutral stance. There

is little scholarship that takes into accounts the good, the bad,

Nesbit 36

and the likely fictional nature of the source material. Criticism

has not been backed by thorough analysis. If one considers all

the historiographical problems with the ancient sources and uses

them to decipher some sort of truth within the accounts, a new

picture of Lepidus might emerge. Scholars should give Lepidus

another chance.

Nesbit 37

Ancient Source Bibliography

Appianus. The Civil Wars. Penguin Classics. London ; New York: Penguin Books, 1996.

Cassius Dio Cocceianus. The Roman History: The Reign of Augustus. Penguin Classics. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England ; New York, N.Y., U.S.A: Penguin Books, 1987.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae. Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis. Oxonii : London ; New York: E Typographeo Clarendoniano ; Oxford University Press, 1982.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and D. R Shackleton Bailey. Cicero: Epistulae Ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and David R Shackleton Bailey. Epistulae Ad Familiares 1 1. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977.

Dio Cassius, Earnest Cary, and Herbert Baldwin Foster. Dio’s Roman History: In Nine Volumes. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press ; Heinemann, 1917.

Eutropius, Bird, H. W. The Breviarum Ab Urbe Condita of Eutropius. Liverpool: LiverpoolUniversity Press, 1993.

Florus, Lucius Annaeus, and E. S Forster. Epitome of Roman history. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press ; W Heinemann, 1984.

Orosius, Paulus, and A. T Fear. Seven Books of History against the Pagans. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010.

Plutarch. Roman Lives: A Selection of Eight Lives. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford ; NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Velleius Paterculus, Gajus, Frederick W Shipley, and Augustus. Compendium of Roman History. London; Cambridge, Mass.: Heinemann ; Harvard Univ. Press, 1924.

Bibliography

Badian, Ernst. “M. Lepidus and the Second Triumvirate.” Arctos 25 (1991): 5–16.Bowman, Alan K. The Cambridge Ancient History 10, 10,. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.

Press, 1996.Crook, J. A, A. W Lintott, and Elizabeth Rawson. The Last Age of the Roman Republic,

146-43 B.C. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Nesbit 38

Evans, Richard J. “The Moneyership of Marcus Lepidus Triumvir.” Acta Classica 33 (1990): 103–111.

Fishwick, Duncan. “On the Origins of Africa Proconsularis, II: The Administration of Lepidus and the Commission of M. Caelius Phileros.” Antiquités Africaines 30, no. 1 (1994): 57–80. doi:10.3406/antaf.1994.1222.

Gruen, Erich S. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.

Hayne, Léonie. “Lepidus’ Role after the Ides of March.” Acta Classica 14 (1971): 109–117.

———. “M. Lepidus and His Wife.” Latomus 33 (1974): 76–79.———. “The Defeat of Lepidus in 36 B.C.” Acta Classica 17 (1974): 59–65.Reinhold, Meyer, and American Philological Association. From Republic to Principate:

An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 49-52 (36-29 B.C.). An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History v. 6, books 49-52 (36-29 B.C.). Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1988.

Simpson, Christopher J. “M. Aemilius Lepidus: Brief Speculations on His Appointment and His Continued Tenure as Pontifex Maximus, 44-13 BC.” Latomus 66, no. 3 (2006): 628–640.

Syme, Ronald. The Augustan Aristocracy. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press ; OxfordUniversity Press, 1986.

———. The Roman Revolution. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.Velleius Paterculus, and A. J Woodman. The Caesarian and Augustan narrative: 2.41-93.

Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Weigel, Richard D. Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir. London ; New York: Routledge,

1992.Weigel, Richard David. “Augustus’ Relations with the Aemilii Lepidi ;

Persecution and Patronage.” Rheinisches Museum 78 (1985): 180–191.———. “Lepidus Reconsidered.” Acta Classica 17 (1974): 67–73.———. The Aemilii Lepidi. Newark, DE: Univ. of Delaware, 1973.———. “The Coins Issued by Lepidus as Triumvir Monetalis.” Journal of the Society of

Ancient Numismatics 5 (1974 1973): 51–52.Welch, Kathryn E. “The Career of M. Aemilius Lepidus 49-44 B.C.” Hermes 123,

no. 4 (1995): 443–454.