This volume comprises three loosely connected sections. The first presents four studies of Crassus’ Parthian campaign, the second a compendium of all sources, over a period of nine hundred years, that mention Crassus, the third a discussion of a portrait gem preserved in a Parthian torque which may represent Crassus. There follows a summary of conclusions.
Weggen first asks if it is true, as Plutarch claims, that Ateius Capito called down curses on the departing Crassus. Plutarch speaks of curses but says nothing of unfavourable omens. The elder Seneca, Lucan and Florus mention dirae, which may be ambiguous, though in Florus the sense is clearly ‘curses’. Appian and Dio have both omens and curses. Minucius Felix offers dirarum imprecationes, which W. seems to understand as ‘announcement of unfavourable omens’. The only Greek source not to mention curses is the only one to predate Plutarch, Dionysius of Halicarnassus. The only contemporary authority, Cicero (div. 1.29), says that Ateius was expelled from the Senate for falsifying the auspices, but says nothing of curses. This silence is perhaps W.'s strongest argument for rejecting Plutarch's story. The problem, however, is Velleius (2.46.3), who, uninfluenced by Plutarch, has both diris cum ominibus and execrationes. There is certainly no reason to try to twist his meaning and probably no reason to disbelieve him. That is not to say that Ateius performed the bizarre and inappropriate ceremony recounted by Plutarch, the implausibility of which W. amply demonstrates. But he may nevertheless have cursed Crassus less formally when Crassus chose to ignore his report of the omens.
W. next calls into question conventional views of Crassus’ reasons for starting the war. She rejects the twin motives of greed and lust for glory, preferring to believe that Crassus wanted to give his son Publius (whose character and career are analysed at length) the chance to shine. Indeed she suggests that Publius may have exerted pressure on his father to invade. Nor does W. accept that the war was necessarily unjust. The chronology of the struggle for the Parthian throne is uncertain, but Rome had been asked to intervene. So Crassus’ action might be construed, depending on the order of events, as assistance to a living ally or vengeance for a murdered one. This may or may not be correct. Where W. is certainly right is in her claim that the uniform hostility to Crassus found in the tradition is due primarily to the fact that he lost and lost disastrously.
Next W., convincingly to my mind, dismisses as fiction Plutarch's story that Crassus’ head was used as a prop in a Parthian production of Euripides’ Bacchae — how could he possibly have known? — and that molten gold was poured down his throat, an anecdote that properly belongs to M’. Aquillius. That Crassus’ head and right hand were cut off and sent to the king is highly likely; the rest is pure embroidery.
The consequences of Carrhae are then considered. There was no Parthian counter, no Roman reaction; the subject is not mentioned in Cicero's letters of 51/0 b.c. Events in Rome dictated such allusions as are made: the possibility of sending Pompey or Caesar east to avoid civil war is canvassed, but nothing is said of revenge or redemption of Roman honour. Those topics come to the fore only with Caesar's proposed expedition and in Augustan propaganda, with its clamour for vengeance and the recovery of the standards (not the prisoners), their attractions enhanced by Antony's failures. The term clades Crassiana first occurs in Velleius.
The painstaking assemblage of source material will be of value to scholars, while the table showing the distribution of themes in the various authors makes it easier to use than it otherwise might have been. There is, perhaps inevitably, much paraphrase, but W. also provides interesting analyses of the two most important authors, Cicero, who as always said what the occasion required but plainly hated, feared and distrusted Crassus in his heart, and Plutarch, who was determined in the life of Crassus to give as unfavourable an impression as possible of his subject, but shows less bias elsewhere. In general, though Carrhae and Crassus’ responsibility for the disaster predictably bulk large, other aspects of his career, especially the defeat of Spartacus, continue to be remembered.
The third section argues in favour of the identification as a portrait of Crassus of a gem now contained in a Parthian torque. Interestingly, the gem is reversed, so that the face would be concealed, resting on the chest of the wearer of the torque. To explain this oddity W. constructs a highly circumstantial story: the gem was originally set in a ring owned by Crassus, removed from it after his death and transferred to the torque, with the reversal a studied insult to a defeated enemy. The torque will either have been worn by the Surena or sent by him to the king. This is highly ingenious, and alternative explanations of the torque's curious nature do not readily spring to mind. But certainty is impossible, especially as the identification of the subject as Crassus is unproven and unprovable. W. accepts that the bust from the tomb of the Licinii is of Crassus, which is itself uncertain, and claims that similarities between the bust and the gem indicate that the latter is also a portrait of Crassus. But on her own showing those similarities are only partial; in particular the eyes and lips are very different. A final section, on the resonances of Carrhae in the Orient, is perhaps beyond the scope of this journal and certainly beyond the competence of this reviewer.
In fine then the studies of Carrhae are stimulating and, except for the rejection of Ateius’ curses, largely convincing. The collection of sources is a valuable tool and includes a fair measure of illuminating analysis and comment. The discussion of the gem is likewise stimulating, but its conclusions involve too many uncertainties to allow any confident judgement.
