Dis Manibus L. R. T. T. R. S. B. A. K. M. and to D.

CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi I. Historia et Ius 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Founding the City: Ennius and Romulus on the Site of Rome (2006) . . 3 Isto vilius, Immo carum: Anecdotes About King Romulus (2002) . . . . 20 The Founder of the Republic (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 A Constitution for the Republic? (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 In the Senate (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Ambassadors Go to Rome (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Cato Maior in Aetolia (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus (2002). . . 88 A Missing Ponticus (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Q. Scipio Imperator (1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Wayward and Doomed (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Augustales and Sodales Augustales (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Silver and Gold of Valor: the Award of Armillae and Torques (2001) . . 216 Legio V in Messana (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare: Latin Idiom and the Exploits of the Eighth Augustan Legion at the Time of Commodus (2003) . . . . 242 How Did King Flavius Dades and Pitiaxes Publicius Agrippa Acquire Their Roman Names? (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 Punishing (1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Minima de Maximis 19.1 Elections (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 19.2 Extraordinary Elections (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 19.3 Exercitus (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 19.4 Graecia capta (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285 19.5 Deditio (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 19.6 Emperors (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 19.7 Incapaces and Capax (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 19.8 Emperors and Italy (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 19.9 Domi nobiles (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 19.10 Names and Adoptions (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 19.11 Ars boni et aequi (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

viii

Contents

II. Historia et Philologia 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Composing the Annals (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 History, Letters, and Religion (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Transitus. Official Travel Under the Sign of Obelus (1999) . . . . . . . . 307 Effete Rome: Sallust, Cat. 54,5 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Banqueting (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326 Fatalis: A Missing Meretrix (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Imago hortorum: Pliny the Elder and the Gardens of the Urban Poor (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny (2003) . . . . . . . . . 342 Finis Porcelli (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 Zum Wandel d/l: medulla / melila (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 III. Historia et Epigraphia 30 31 32 33 34 35 Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 Gladiators (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458 Games in Patavium (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463 Minima Epigraphica 35.1 Magistri (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 35.2.a.b The Stones of Concordia (1982, 1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 35.3 Stamped Bricks (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496 IV. Historia et Religio 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Religio et Cultus Deorum (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 A Calendar for Rome? (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 Religio et Res Publica (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520 De Tito templum Veneris Paphiae visente sive de hostiis vovendis et deligendis (2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 Matrimonium (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 The Good Goddess (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 Forging Volcanus (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537 Iuppiter Dolichenus, Hercules, and Volcanus in Balaclava (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Sic valeas: a Latin Injunction, the symphoniaci, and the Afterlife (2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544 Varia de religione 45.1 The Uses of Religion (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554 45.2 Spes in fide (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 45.3 Varro de deis (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558 45.4 Natalicia (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559

Contents

ix

45.5 Sectae et sectatores (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560 45.6 Religious Associations (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562 45.7 Ex Oriente tenebrae (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564 45.8 Cyrenaica Iudaica (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566 45.9 Aphrodisias Iudaica (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 V. Antiqua et Recentiora 46 47 48 49 50 About Rostovtzeff (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575 Tenney Frank (1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578 Lily Ross Taylor (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581 Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton (1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 609 Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641 I. Modern Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 641 II. Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 1. Auctores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662 2. Inscriptiones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685 3. Papyri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 4. Nummi, Gemmae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 III. Ancient Persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 IV. General Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 706

PREFACE
This new collection of Roman Questions consists of fifty main entries comprising seventy-one separate papers. Most of them had appeared previously; they have all been reset (with the original pagination indicated on the margin), and provided with addenda and corrigenda (in curly brackets). Four papers are here printed for the first time, and are assigned 2006 as the date of the final redaction. Thus six pieces date from the seventies, eleven from the eighties, thirty-three from the nineties, and twenty-one from the first six years of this century. There are also Addenda and corrigenda altera to the previous volume (1995) of RQ. It is again honor and joy to see this volume published in the renowned series of Heidelberger Althistorische Beitrge und Epigraphische Studien. My thanks go the editors of the series, Professors Gza Alfldy, Angelos Chaniotis and Christian Witschel. There were obstacles and delays; but the encouragement and support of Gza Alfldy, amicus certus in re incerta, was instrumental in carrying this project to completion. Steiner Verlag is a splendid publishing house, and I am very thankful for their professional, friendly and effective help. I was fortunate again to cooperate with Ms. Diane Smith; she has set the volume with her customary grace, knowledge, and patience. The lovely Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina, the Department of Classics, with so many friends and former students, and the University library, with its dedicated and knowledgeable staff, provided an ideal place for pondering the never ending Roman past. Articles, notes and essays assembled in this volume are an attempt to uphold the unity of classics, of philology, history, and literature, of authors and inscriptions. They range from the foundation of Rome to the tribute to three departed teachers and friends who themselves have passed into the history of Rome. To them is the volume dedicated; and again to D. who lived this book with me. Chapel Hill, June 2007

I HISTORIA ET IUS

1 FOUNDING THE CITY Ennius and Romulus on the Site of Rome*

The foundation day of the City. Romulus takes the auspices. In the poets soaring words he servat genus altivolantum, he looks out for the high flying tribe. It is dawn, and it is also the dawn of Latin literature. The rays of the sun break out of the nights darkness (Enn. Ann. 9194 V. = 8689 Sk.):1
* This essay derives from the Agnes Michels Lecture delivered at Bryn Mawr College in April 1997. It was published under the title Founding the City in S. B. Faris and L. E. Lundeen (eds.), Ten Years of the Agnes Kirsopp Michels Lectures at Bryn Mawr College (Bryn Mawr 2006) 88107. It is here presented in a slightly revised version. Abbreviations: AL = J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW I.16.3 (1986) 21462312. Catalano, Contributi = P. Catalano, Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale I (Torino 1960). Catalano, Aspetti = P. Catalano, Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico-religioso romano, ANRW II.16.1 (1978) 440553. Jocelyn = H. D. Jocelyn, Urbs Augurio Augusto Condita: Ennius ap. Cic. Diu. I. 107 (= Ann. 7796 V2), PCPhS 197 [n.s. 17] (1971) 4474. Pease = A. S. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione Libri Duo (Urbana 1920, 1923, repr. Darmstadt 1963). RQ = J. Linderski, Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995). Skutsch (Sk.) = O. Skutsch, The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford 1985). Vaahtera = J. Vaahtera, Roman Augural Lore in Greek Historiography (= Historia Einzelschriften 156 [Stuttgart 2001]). Vahlen (V.) = J. Vahlen, Ennianae poesis reliquiae2 (Lipsiae 1903). Wiseman = T. P. Wiseman, Remus (Cambridge 1995). The fragment (7796 V. = 7291 Sk.) is preserved by Cicero, Div. 1.1078. For the sake of completeness and clarity, I give here the full text: atque ille Romuli auguratus pastoralis non urbanus fuit nec fictus ad opiniones inperitorum sed a certis acceptus et posteris traditus. itaque Romulus augur, ut apud Ennium est, cum fratre item augure curantes magna cum cura tum cupientes regni dant operam simul auspicio augurioque. In monte [in Murco Sk.] Remus auspicio se devovet [auspicio sedet Sk., cf. RQ 52730] atque secundam solus avem servat. At Romulus pulcer in alto quaerit Aventino, servat genus altivolantum. Certabant urbem Romam Remoramne vocarent. Omnibus cura viris uter esset induperator. Expectant [cf. Sk. in app.] veluti consul quom mittere signum volt, omnes avidi spectant ad carceris oras quam mox emittat pictos [cf. Sk. ad loc.] e faucibus currus: sic expectabat populus atque ore timebat rebus [cf. Sk. ad loc.] utri magni victoria sit data regni. Interea sol albus recessit in infera noctis.

Historia et Ius

et simul ex alto longe pulcerrima praepes laeva volavit avis, simul aureus exoritur sol. Cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta avium, praepetibus sese pulcrisque locis dant. and just then there flew from the height the luckiest messenger, a lofty bird on the left, and all golden there came out the sun. Thrice four hallowed shapes of birds moved down the sky, and betook themselves to places lofty and of good omen.

The commentators of Ennius valiantly struggled with this famous passage.2 It must be interpreted in the light of our knowledge of augural lore. Some points are clear. The verb servare is a well-known technical term: it describes an act of deliberate watching for signs as opposed to a casual observation.3 Romulus (and Remus too) observed the flight of birds. They were the high flying birds, altivolantes. This is a poetic epithet, not recorded in technical handbooks, but Ennius used it on purpose. It nicely matches the locution pulcerrima praepes. The word praepes is derived from peto in its original and lost meaning of flying, akin to Greek ptomai. The term was embraced by the poets, but in augural idiom it had a specific application.4 P. Nigidius Figulus, the senator, polyhistor and astrologer of the Ciceronian time is said to have predicted from the conjunction of stars the rise to power of the future emperor Augustus (Suet. Aug. 93.5); more importantly he also composed a treatise on augural signs.5 An excerpt was preserved by Aulus Gellius in the second century, in his Noctes Atticae (7.6.10), and Gellius adduced it to elucidate the verse
Exin candida se radiis dedit icta foras lux et simul ex alto longe pulcerrima praepes laeva volavit avis, simul aureus exoritur sol. Cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta avium, praepetibus sese pulcrisque locis dant. Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse propritim [cf. Sk. ad loc.] auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque. See esp. Pease ad Cic. Div. 1.1078; Jocelyn, passim; Skutsch, 22138. For the Ovidian account of the foundation (Fasti 4.80149), see the commentary by E. Fantham, Ovid, Fasti, Book IV (Cambridge 1998) 24151; also F. Sini, La fondazione di Roma tra teologia e diritto nei poeti dellepoca di Augusto (Virgilio e Ovidio), Comunicazione presentata nel XVII Seminario Internazionale di Studi Storici Da Roma alla Terza Roma: Initia urbis. Fondazioni di Roma Costantinopoli Mosca (Campidoglio, 2123 aprile 1997) [available online]. For the accounts of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 1.86.14) and Plutarch (Rom. 9.5), see Vaahtera, 97104. Servius auctus, Aen. 6.198: servare enim et de caelo et de avibus verbo augurum dicitur. See TLL (1987) 76365, s.vv. praepes, praepeto; J. Linderski, Der Neue Pauly 10 (2001) 25657, s.v. praepes; Vaahtera, 3637. E. Tassi Scandone, Auspicium o augurium Romuli? Sul problema del rapporto tra auspicium ed imperium, in Iuris vincula. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca VIII (Napoli 2001) 15196 at 167, n. 62, sees in this bird the avis sent to Remus. Certainly not. Nor is the word to be taken in this place in the collective sense (so Skutsch ad loc.). It was the first avis (of the twelve) to appear in the field of observation, the aerial templum. See A. Swoboda, P. Nigidii Figuli operum reliquiae (Vindobonae 1889) 363 (Quaestiones Nigidianae, still indispensable), 9192; A. Della Casa, Nigidio Figulo (Roma 1962), passim.

3 4

Founding the City

of Ennius. Discrepat dextra sinistrae, praepes inferae, the right is opposed to left, praepes to infera, wrote the learned Nigidius. To this Gellius appended his own commentary: he astutely observed that since birds that are the opposite of praepetes are called inferae, the low birds, praepetes must be birds which have a higher and loftier flight. Pulcher is a common adjective, but it was also an expression of religious speech. In that realm it occurs in two varieties, pontifical and augural. In the language of pontiffs it denoted a person or a thing that was perfect, in particular a perfect offering, fit for the gods. Festus in his abridgment of the treatise De Verborum Significatu of the early imperial scholar Verrius Flaccus (who in his turn had extensively used Varro) notes that pulcher bos is the animal (a cow, bull or ox) ad eximiam pinguitudinem perductus (274 L.), fattened to the extreme. Such an offering was called hostia opima (202 L.). The augurs used the adjective pulcher to describe a propitious sign or a person who received or was about to receive such a sign. In Ennius Romulus when he watches out for favorable birds is pulcher himself; and in Ovid (Fasti 6.375) Quirinus, a hypostasis of Romulus, is lituo pulcher, blessed through his augural staff. C. Licinius Macer, another contemporary of Cicero, described in his Annales (Peter, fr. 6) the auspices of Romulus as auspicia pulchra et luculenta, splendid and excellent, that is propitious and fortunate. Romulus was taking his auspices at dawn. Ennius here followed strictly the established practice.6 The person who intended to auspicate would spend the night outdoors, and sleep in a hut, tabernaculum; he would rise early in the morning, mane, in silence, so that no untoward noise would disturb the auspices. He took his seat on a solida sella, apparently constructed of one piece, often of stone, so that again no creaking noise would be heard, and while looking out for birds he sat motionless, never turning his head or body.7 With his eyes he was thus marking out his field of vision, templum in augural parlance, a term not employed here by Ennius but appearing in a similar context already in Naevius with respect to Anchises, who was in Roman tradition regarded as knowledgeable in every art of augury: Postquam avem aspexit in templo Anchisa ... / immolabat auream victimam pulcram, After Anchises had seen a bird in his field of vision, he proceeded to sacrifice a beautiful golden victim.8 A beautiful image to a Roman reader, for it combines auspicia and sacra: to a propitious bird, corresponds a pulchra victima, made even more perfect, aurea, by its gilded horns.

6 7

On the procedure and terminology of auspicatio, see AL 2261, 217174, 219192, 2246, 225860, 227072, 227678, 228289. Servius, Aen. 6.197: ad captanda auguria [in Servius terminology = auspicia impetrativa; cf. n. 22] post preces inmobiles vel sedere vel stare [cf. Cic. Div. 1.31] consueverant. Disregarding all explicit testimonies, a recent student replaces the stationary auspicant with an auspicant who switched positions periodically (R. Taylor, Watching the Skies: Janus, Auspication, and the Shrine in the Roman Forum, MAAR 45 [2000] 140 at 2122). This is exactly the error committed by Plutarch (Numa 7.13; cf. AL 2297; Vaahtera 1078, and below, n. 34) deriving in both cases from a profound misconception of the ratio templi (cf. Catalano, Aspetti 46772). Naev. Bell. Pun. fr. 25 Strz. = 24 Warm.

Historia et Ius

To Romulus twelve birds appeared, an unusual number, and an unusual kind: vultures (though Ennius does not specify this; cf. below, n. 56), but the occasion was also unusual; a number and kind not to be repeated until Octavian brazenly imitated the auspices of Romulus on the occasion of his annexation of the consulship in 43. The aves apparently dropped down from the high sky, de caelo, toward Romulus, and then they turned and flew away to the places Ennius describes as lofty and lucky, praepetibus sese pulchrisque locis dant. What these places were no commentator of Ennius has so far succeeded in discovering. The favorable and high flying bird, pulcherrima praepes, was qualified by Ennius as laeva. This is generally, and rightly, taken to mean a laeva, on the left or from the left or perhaps toward the left. But what is left? Is it an established and immutable left, be it south or east, north or west, anchored according to the cardinal points, or is it each time dependent upon the direction of the observer? The Ennian Romulus appears to have been looking eastward for at the very moment he spotted the lucky bird (one bird, for avis is here hardly to be taken with Skutsch as a collective noun) the sun rose. Should it then be north? Or perhaps the left side of the field of vision, and thus east (or north-east)? Or perhaps laevus is to be taken in a general sense of favorable? But if so, why should laevus (and sinister too) have this connotation? These are not trivial questions, at least not to those conversant with Roman gods. For here we stumble upon a curious but fundamental and surprisingly little noticed feature of Roman deities: they understood Latin, but did not speak it. Addresses and entreaties, prayers and vows, precationes and vota, hymns and songs, the formulas of dedication and consecration, and of auspication too, were composed in Latin, perhaps a little archaic, and not always fully comprehensible to the humans but crystal clear to the gods. But only a few minor or ill-defined deities are on record to have actually spoken Latin, and they did not have much to say. We hear of the voces Faunorum, the utterances of the Fauni, of a voice from the temple of Juno on the Arx, and above all of Aius Locutius, the Divine Voice par excellence, who had, however, spoken but once, warning the Romans, to no avail, that the Gauls were coming.9 No direct message, in Latin, or in any other language, from Jupiter or Mars or Minerva. In contrast the God of the Hebrews used the Hebrew tongue extensively, and later also Aramaic. The difference is fundamental. Ancient students of divination, above all the Stoics, known to us mostly through the intermediary of Cicero, distinguished between two kinds of divination: natural and artificial.10 We can follow their lead,
Cic. Div. 1.101; 2.69, and Pease ad locc.; cf. J. Scheid, La parole des dieux. Loriginalit du dialogue des Romains avec leurs dieux, Opus 68 (19871989) 12536; A. Dubourdieu, Paroles des dieux, in F. Dupont (ed.), Paroles romaines (Nancy 1994) 4551; Divinits de la parole, divinits du silence dans la Rome antique, RHR 220 (2003) 25982. J.-L. Desnier, Aius Locutius et les voix de Rome, in P. Defosse (ed.), Hommages Carl Deroux 4 (= Collection Latomus 277 [Bruxelles 2003]) 33950, offers loose divagations; and D. Lau, Wie Sprach Gott: Es werde Licht? Antike Vorstellungen von der Gottessprache (Frankfurt am Main 2003) is disappointing: no discussion of communication with gods through signs and sacrifices. 10 Sources and discussion in AL 223039. 9

Founding the City

and extend this classification to the whole realm of religion. The great conceptual divide will thus lie between the artificial and natural creeds. The latter we would call today revealed. The Roman cult was not a revealed creed. It was assembled through trial and error. Natural divination (and natural or revealed religions) rely upon divine inspiration, upon instinctus divinus. The main ingredient is here emotion or furor; the Greeks called it enthusiasm, nyousiasmw. This kind of divination is proper to vaticinantes and also somniantes, to prophets and dreamers. They are the conduits for divine words. In divination proper these words may give a glimpse of the future, but through the mouth of a vates the Deity may give an extensive message concerning all facets of life and death. These messages may be committed to memory or to writing, and become sacred books. The Revealed Book occupies such a central position in all religions derived from the Judaean tradition that we tend to take its existence for granted, obvious and natural. Not at Rome. The king Numa was regarded in Roman tradition as a great religious founder, but when in 181 at the foot of the hill of Janiculum a stone casket was unearthed containing (allegedly) the books of Numa the senate decreed that they should be burned (Liv. 40.29). This was a standard procedure. During the Hannibalic war sacrificuli and vates, petty sacrificers and prophets, took hold of the minds of men and women. The senate decreed, and the urban praetor issued the edict, that any person who had books of prophecies or of prayers or of a ritual of sacrifice should surrender to the authorities all such books and writings (Liv. 25.1.12). When the Bacchanalian conspiracy shook the city, Livy (39.16.8) has the consul Spurius Postumius remind the populace that the forefathers had often entrusted the task to the magistrates of excluding from the city sacrificulos and vates, sacrificers and prophets, and of searching out and burning vaticinos libros, the books of prophecies. This official tenor is reflected in Ennius (in a fragment of his tragedy Telamo), and in Cicero (Div. 1.132) who quotes the poets ringing denunciation of creduluous prophets, shameless gut-gazers, clumsy, crazy or crooked, who do not know their own path yet point the way for another. There existed, of course, the Sibylline books.11 They were, however, not a Roman product. Acquired in the gray and hallowed past, by king Tarquin the Old, written in Greek hexameters, there were kept under lock and key in a stone chest in a cellar under the Capitoline temple. They were guarded by a board of priests in charge of foreign rites, the decemviri (later quindecimviri) sacris faciundis. The books were believed to contain the fata populi Romani. Nobody read them, and nobody was supposed to know their entire content. Only in times of particular danger or of particular need the senate would order the priests to approach the books, libros adire. The scrolls were opened at random, and the passage thus selected was deemed to refer to the situation at hand; there was advice hidden in it, and the illumination of the will of the gods. The books thus served simply as an instrument of divination; they were not repositories of moral precepts. The libri themselves were inspired and prophetic, but their interpreters were not. They tried to understand the

11

The most detailed account still A. Rzach in RE 2A (1923) 210517.

Historia et Ius

selected passage in the light of the current situation and past experience, taking above all into account the results of previous consultations. On the Italian soil the closest we come to native and accepted revelation is the vaticination of Tages who sprang out from a furrow and dictated the teaching of the haruspicina, disciplinam haruspicinae dictavit.12 At Rome the haruspices were fully accepted, but they were deemed aliens. Although their services were in great demand they had never achieved the status of official priests, sacerdotes populi Romani. Their approval as diviners finds explanation in the following circumstance: although the core of their disciplina may have been revealed, the haruspices themselves were not prophets but experts. In Ciceros account they appear together with the augurs as the main representatives of artificial, that is scientific, divination. This branch of divination was an empirical science; it was based on two procedures characterized by Roman experts as observation and inference, observatio and coniectura.13 The term observatio denoted the process of long-lasting observation (observatio diuturna) of phenomena, be it the course and the significance of the stars, understood by the Chaldaeans, or the various signs from the gods. This procedure had resulted, already in the remote past, in the acquisition of positive knowledge, scientia , concerning certain categories of signs. This painstakingly assembled body of knowledge was committed to memory and to writing; this is the origin of the books of augurs, of pontiffs, and of a good portion of the haruspical books. How different is this avowed origin from that of the revealed scripts! If a recorded sign appeared, the augurs would know its meaning or in any case could find it in their books.14 These books were like dictionaries; but if you need to communicate on the spot, and do not remember words, it will be of little help to know that all the words are in the dictionary. The Roman observer had to interpret signs immediately, and he had either to accept them expressly or expressly reject as not pertaining to him.15 Hence the principal ingredient of a good augur was memoria. But there was also another requirement: ratio, reason.16 For there could come a sign that was entirely new or whose meaning was not well established. To interpret such a sign, a nova res, the augur or haruspex had to rely on all his knowledge and experience, apply the power of reasoning, and boldly draw inferences, coniecturae, from the situation at hand. The sign would be recorded, for future use, and also recorded were any eventus, any happenings that accompanied the signum or followed in its wake. The aim of this procedure

12 Sch. Bern. ad Lucanum 1.636; Cic. Div. 2.50, and Pease ad loc. The unrivaled study of the haruspices and of their craft remains C.O. Thulin, Die etruskische Disciplin (Gteborg 1905, 1906, 1909, repr. Darmstadt 1968). 13 AL 2231, 223334, 223738. 14 On the books of augurs, see AL 224156. 15 Plin. NH 28.17: in augurum certe disciplina constat neque diras neque ulla auspicia pertinere ad eos, qui quamque rem ingredientes observare ea negaverint; Servius, Aen. 5.530: nam nostri arbitrii est visa omnia vel inprobare, vel recipere. This rule referred, however, only to the signa oblativa (Servius, Aen. 12.259). 16 AL 223234, 2240.

Founding the City

was to ascertain a causal and temporal link between the sign and the event. In a technical phrase this process was described as signa eventis notare (Cic. Div. 1.12). In due course, after many repeated observations, the precise meaning of the sign may finally be cracked, and the signum would then be moved from the category of unknown or uncertain novae res into the category of veteres res, the established signs. An attentive student will realize that we are here in the process of decipherment of a (divine) language. Our task is now to re-decipher what the Romans had deciphered. When Moses went onto the mountain of Sinai he received instructions written in Hebrew. When Romulus climbed onto the Palatine (or was it Aventine as Ennius has it?) Jupiter spoke to him in the language of signs. And yet Romulus (and the readers of Ennius) had not the slightest difficulty in understanding the message. From the gyrations of the birds (inde) Romulus sees (conspicit) instantaneously that through this sign (auspicio) is given to him a firm chair and a seat of kingdom (regni stabilita scamna solumque). In augural idiom the verb conspicere denoted not only the act of observation but also the act of comprehension.17 When we study a language, be it Hebrew or Jovian, we must consider not only vocabulary but also grammar and syntax. Words alone are not sufficient. Nor can signa be treated in isolation. They received their full significance within a peculiar system of grammar, a temporal and spatial grid, and the main concepts of this grammar were left and right.18 In Roman divine communications the basic lexical unit was a sign, signum. Signa represented words or rather notions; they were ideograms, quite like Chinese characters or Egyptian hieroglyphs. When we glance at an Egyptian hieroglyphic text we cannot help but notice (very appropriately in the context of the birds of Romulus) the ubiquitous presence of the vulture sign. The frequent appearance of this sign is explained by its double function: as an ideogram it represented vulture, and in the more general sense any bird. But it also functioned as an alphabetic sign with the phonetic value of a glottal stop (corresponding to Hebrew aleph).19 The Egyptian scribes mastered and perfected their complicated script; so did the Roman augurs. The augurs (and pontiffs) classified the signa in various ways; the result was a maze of crisscrossing semantic lines. First the signa were classified according to their material quality, the manner in which they manifested themselves. Here the Roman augures publici distinguished five categories of signs: from the sky (ex caelo, that is from thunder and lightning), from the birds (ex avibus), from the tripudia (ex tripudiis, that is from the eating manner of the sacred chickens, the pulli), from the quadrupeds (ex
17 Skutsch 23637; AL 2269, 228789. 18 AL 225860, 228086. The recent studies by B. Liou-Gille, Dexter et sinister et leurs quivalents, Glotta 69 (1991) 194201, and by P. Aretini, A destra e a sinistra. Lorientamento nel mondo classico (Pisa 1998) 7498, would fail the test of an augur. Their ignorance of the augural stones from Bantia (see below, nn. 5253) rendered their studies obsolete at the very moment of their publication. 19 Cf. A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar (Oxford 1927) 27, 458.

10

Historia et Ius

quadripedibus), and finally from unusual or frightful occurrences (ex diris).20 The particular importance that attached to the avian signs can be gleaned from the fact that although etymologically auspicium derives from avis spicium (avem spi(e)cere), the sighting or observation of birds, the term became synonymous with signum, and came to denote a whole variety of divinatory phenomena that had nothing to do with birds. These signs were arranged in, so to speak, a pecking order. It is well known that among the augurs there are many grades of auspices, observed a Vergilian commentator.21 Some were stronger, some were weaker, some were maiora, some were minora. They could annul and override each other. Again the commentary on Vergil: the lesser auguries (minora auguria) yield to greater (maiora), and have no force whatsoever even if they (appeared) first,22 and in another place: if, for instance, a barn-owl (parra) or woodpecker (picus) gave the auspicium, and subsequently an eagle gave a contrary sign, the eagles auspicium prevails.23 But it was signa ex caelo, lightning and thunder, that the augurs regarded as the greatest and strongest auspices, auspicia maxima.24 Next a sign could be sent by the Deity asked or unasked. This consideration produced two further fundamental divisions of signs, on the one hand the signs especially solicited or impetrated (impetrare), signa or auspicia impetrativa, and on the other the signa or auspicia oblativa which offered themselves spontaneously to a viewer.25 Further we have carefully to distinguish between action and status, and consequently between the signs that pertained to a concrete and well-defined undertaking, contemplated or being executed, and those signs that referred to the status of persons or things. The former are the auspicia; the latter the auguria; hopelessly confused in everyday Latin and by modern students, but religiously distinguished by the augurs, and by Ennius. Auguria were administered solely by the augurs, and the augurs appear to have used the auspices only in connection with the auguries.26 The auspices referred to action. And any action proceeded through two distinct augural phases: the stage of contemplation and the stage of execution. The impetrative auspices pertained to the stage of contemplation, ad agendi consilium (Cic. Leg. 2.32). Before any important task it was prudent to ask for divine permission.
20 Festus ex Paulo 31617 L.: Quinque genera signorum observant augures publici: ex caelo, ex avibus, ex tripudis, ex quadripedibus, ex diris. 21 Servius auctus, Aen. 3.374: notum est esse apud augures auspiciorum gradus plures. 22 Servius, ad Ecl. 9.13: minora enim auguria maioribus cedunt nec ullarum sunt virium, licet priora sint. Cf. Servius auctus, Aen. 3.466. In Servius the term augurium often appears in the sense of auspicium, especially auspicium impetrativum; cf. Servius auctus, Aen. 3.89; Catalano, Contributi 8095. 23 Servius auctus, Aen. 3.374: ut puta, si parra vel picus auspicium dederit, et deinde contrarium aquila dederit, auspicium aquilae praevalet. 24 Servius auctus, Aen. 2.693; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.5.5; Cass. Dio 38.13.34. 25 AL 219596; 221216; 2239; RQ 61314. 26 Catalano, Contributi 3371; AL 221718, 229096; RQ 47677, 57273; 61314; OCD3 (1996) 22324, s.v. auspicium.

Founding the City

11

Every person could address a deity. If we reformulate this statement in the language of augurs we can say that every person had the auspices (auspicia habere is the technical term). But these auspices were latent. To be used they had to be activated. The activation occurred at the ceremony of auspication. At this ceremony the auspices were taken; the technical term was auspicia capere or captare. This was accomplished by servare, watching for the signs, and by conspicere, observing, comprehending, and accepting the message.27 Every person could auspicate but only with respect to his own affairs. This is an important limitation, and it introduces us to another fundamental division of auspices: the division into auspicia privata and auspicia publica. An often quoted example of private auspices is the auspices taken before the marriage ceremony, a custom that survived long into the empire. The auspicia publica were administered by the magistrates and the public priests, sacerdotes publici. They could consult the auspices only with respect to actions that lay within the sphere of competence of each particular office or priesthood.28 The impetrative auspices revealed the will of Jupiter, but only in a very limited sense. They did not reveal the future. Cicero states this explicitly (Div. 2.70): non enim sumus ii nos augures qui avium reliquorumve signorum observatione futura dicamus (for we are not those augurs [like the augurs of the Marsi to whom Cicero had previously alluded] who from the observation of birds and other signs predict the future). Thus the auspicia impetrativa pertained to the present or more exactly to the action the auspicant was contemplating to undertake. In an ideal situation the deity either permitted or prohibited it. Furthermore this permission or prohibition was valid for one day only; we frequently hear of the auspices concerning a particular day, auspicium eius diei.29 This temporal limitation was perhaps the most remarkable feature of impetrative auspices: Jupiter was apparently not interested in the substance of the proposed undertaking, but rather in the propriety of its being carried out on a given day. The auguries on the other hand had no temporal limitation. Through this ceremony a special enhanced status was imparted to places and persons; in the language of augurs they were inaugurated. An inaugurated locus becomes a templum, and inauguration was also necessary for higher priests and kings. The adjectives used about such people and places were augustus and sanctus, increased and holy. This status was doctrinally different from that of sacer, sacred (the latter was in the province of pontiffs). Not every aedes sacra was a templum and not every templum was an aedes sacra.30 This holiness lasted until it was removed by a reverse ceremony of exauguratio.31

27 28 29 30 31

Liv. 6.41.6 (habere); Servius auctus, Aen. 2.178 (captare); and above, nn. 3, 15. RQ 56074; AL 221718. See the sources in Catalano, Contributi 4245. The locus classicus is Varro in Gell. Noct. Att. 14.7.7. Catalano, Contributi 211334; Aspetti 47378; AL 221525; 224950 (sanctus), 229091 (augustus); J. Linderski, OCD3 1483, s.v. templum.

12

Historia et Ius

The auguries were enacted by the means of auspices. As Ennius writes Romulus and Remus dant operam simul auspicio augurioque, a phrase spectacularly misunderstood by commentators.32 The auspicant pronounced a formula. This enunciation, nuncupatio verborum, was defined as legum dictio.33 It described the parameters, leges or condiciones, of the ceremony. At the auspicy pertaining to agere the celebrant asked for permission to act today: to fight a battle or hold an assembly. At the auspicy connected with augury the celebrant, always an augur, and hence Cicero (and perhaps also Ennius) duly specifies that the brothers were augurs, asked the deity for permission to inaugurate this place, declare this man a king or found this city, Roma or Remora, as Ennius puts it. The locus classicus is Livys description of the inauguration of Numa as king of Rome.34 In Livy it is not Numa himself who takes the auspices (as Romulus does in Ennius), but an (unnamed) augur who consults the gods concerning Numas regnum. First, looking from the arx, he strictly delimits his field of vision, his templum in the air, stretching over the urbs and the ager. M. Terentius Varro, always interested in archaic diction, has preserved for us in his treatise On Latin Language the actual formula the late republican augurs recited on the citadel when they delimited their field of view for their various observations.35 In that formula much remains, to us, obscure; but still Varro and Livy very fortunately elucidate each other. The most important point is this: using the markers in the terrain below him, placed most likely on the line of the pomerium, the auspicant exactly defined his fines, the right and the left border of his field of vision. But he also looked straight ahead as far as he could see, to the end of the horizon, and with this (imaginary) line he dissected his templum aerium in two parts, left and right, left toward the north, and right toward the south. Next he pronounced another formula, another precatio. Of this formula we have unfortunately only the version of Livy, but Livy preserved well its augural flavor. The augur asked Jupiter for signa certa, and then he described exactly (peregit verbis) the auspicia he wished to be sent. What specifically those auspices were to be, Livy, as is his exasperating custom, does not explain. But from the mention of urbs and ager in his description, and the trees as the markers of the fines in Varro, we can deduce, with full certainty, that the
32 Skutsch 22324 may stand for all when he writes: one and the same act is meant. It was sufficient to consult Catalano (above, n. 31) or various studies of Valeton (see the list in AL 2311) to apprehend the augural incorrectness of that statement. Tassi Scandone (above, n. 4) esp. 19091, interprets the act described by Ennius solely as inauguration, and detects in the phrase dant operam simul auspicio augurioque a confusion between the auspicy of investiture and the act of inauguration. Unjustly: every act of inauguration included the taking of auspices. 33 Servius auctus, Aen. 3.89. 34 Liv. 1.18.610; see a detailed analysis in AL 225697. For Plutarchs account of Numas inauguration (Numa 7.13), see AL 229697, and the learned investigation by Vaahtera 10413. 35 Varro, Ling. Lat. 7.8. See the stupendous analysis by E. Norden, Aus altrmischen Priesterbchern (Lund 1939) 3106, 18186, a study inspired by intuition and informed by erudition. Cf. AL 226779; C. Pavone, A proposito della formula augurale (Varrone, De lingua Latina VII 8), BSL 23 (1993) 26581.

Founding the City

13

Livian and Varronian augur watched out for birds and not for fulmina the observation of which certainly did not require any particular terrestrial markers. The auspicant thus asked, naturally, only for favorable signs. In Ennius Remus secundam avem servat, looks out for a favorable bird. This qualification of the bird is not redundant and illogical, as some earlier and current interpreters think, but springs out from the very essence of impetrative auspices: the auspicant expected the deity to accede to the request specified in the legum dictio and dispatch a propitious sign.36 Jupiters answer could come in three forms: yes, no, and, most unnerving, maybe, when he sent a sign of ambiguous meaning, a signum dubium, an avis incerta. Hence the request of signa certa, the signs the augural interpretation of which was not in doubt.37 To characterize the positive answer the augurs employed the hallowed word addico: aves addicunt (they also used the expressions admittere: aves admittunt, and auspicium ratum facere).38 Now in a different field of Roman public life, in civil law, the praetor could pronounce (fari) the three legal, and magical, words, do, dico, addico, only on dies fasti. How potent this formula was is best illustrated by the following circumstance (reported by Varro, Ling. Lat. 6.30; cf. 6.53): if the praetor inadvertently uttered these words on a dies nefastus he had to offer a sacrifice of expiation, a hostia piacularis. But if he uttered them prudens, on purpose, fully understanding what he was doing, he was (according to the opinion of the learned pontifex maximus Q. Mucius Scaevola) impius forever, and his impiety could not be washed away by any expiation. Thus it must have been also in the realm of augury a grave responsibility to say the word addico and to make the pronouncement aves addicunt. But in the pontifical law the strong and blanket condemnation of the erring praetor had a peculiar side to it: even if he uttered the three words, knowingly or unknowingly, on a dies nefastus, this error did not affect at all the legal validity of the act he performed. For instance, if he manumitted a slave (this presupposes the manumissio in the form of vindicatio, in iure, in the court) the slave was, as Varro puts it, vitio liber. He was free, and his freedom was not circumscribed in any way, but he achieved his new status in a faulty way. The praetor was guilty, but his act was valid. Furthermore the praetor was not subject to any human punishment but only to divine wrath. It was a firm tenet of Roman cult that the gods should fend for themselves, deorum iniuriae dis curae (Tac. Ann. 1.73.4). The same principle obtained also in the augural law. It was possible to make an honest mistake: ascribe to an ambiguous sign, dubie datum, a positive
36 Skutsch 225 (following Vahlen) is to be commended for having recognized the augural relevance of the adjective. Cf. Servius auctus, Aen. 3.361: praepetes sunt, quae secundo auspicio ante eum volant, qui auspicatur. Wiseman 177, n. 33, continues objecting to secundam. 37 It is of some interest to observe that Cicero in his lost treatise on augury discussed the concept of avis incerta (Cic. in Charisius 122 Keil = 156 Barwick). Cf. incerta auspicia: Liv. 8.30.1; 8.32.4,7; dubia auspicia: Liv. 8.34.4. It could happen that aliquod signum dubie datum pro certo sit acceptum (Cic. Div. 1.124). 38 For the evidence, see AL 2208, 2285, 2293, 2295.

14

Historia et Ius

interpretation, admit it pro certo. Still worse an eager or unscrupulous observer could falsify the auspices (auspicia ementiri and auspicia ementita were the technical terms).39 Now the falsified auspices were valid, that is to say they were binding on the deity. Here we are in the presence of a peculiar phenomenon: the ritual formula was rather like a spell; if properly pronounced it was so potent that it could create, so to speak, a propitious bird ex nihilo, and bend the will of Jupiter himself. Livy gives a celebrated description of this augural tenet.40 Before a battle with the Samnites a zealous keeper of the sacred chickens, the pulli, reported to the consul L. Papirius the best possible omen, the tripudium solistimum: the chickens were eating greedily (whereas in fact they refused to eat). The consul was soon apprised of the falsification, but he insisted on the validity of the auspices: he had accepted the message of the pullarius as true, and hence it was for him, the Roman People and the army an excellent sign, auspicium egregium. And thus undaunted he drew up his army for battle, but also very astutely he took a religious precaution. To facilitate Jupiters revenge, he placed the keeper of the pulli in the front rank. And indeed still before the battle began an errant javelin pierced the mendacious pullarius. The consul (or rather the antiquarian author of Livys story) was very well versed in augural precepts. He formally accepted this event as a good omen: he proclaimed that the guilty person had paid his penalty, and that the gods were in the battle on the side of the Romans. The ritual ball was now in the court of Jupiter. He could show his continuing displeasure by sending a dire sign, an owl for instance; he could do nothing, thus perhaps tacitly endorsing the enunciation of the consul. But Jupiter was now fully satisfied: to show his support he dispatched a propitious oblative sign: in front of the consul (ante consulem) a raven, corvus, uttered a clear cry, clara voce occinuit. The consul again formally accepted this message and ordered the trumpets to sound. The Romans duly routed the enemy. Agnes Michels had once observed that the Roman gods were divine citizens of Rome.41 They were also divine jurisprudents of Rome: legalistic Beings that could appreciate fictions and dodges. The Romans created their gods in their own image. Papirius was able to outwit Jupiter because he knew the law: it was the pullarius, not the consul, who was guilty of deceit. But it was a dangerous game to play. Divine anger could descend not only on the head of the agent of deceit; his deed, if not expiated, could have irreparably polluted and constrained through a religious fault (religione constringere) the res publica itself.

39 On this concept, see AL 22002; 22067; RQ 61516; C. Schublin, Ementita Auspicia, Wiener Studien 99 (1986) 16581; J. Kany-Turpin, Fonction de la vrit dans un nonc augural: le paradoxe du menteur Ateius Capito, in M. Baratin and Claude Moussy (eds.), Conceptions latines du sens et de la signification (Paris 1999) 25566. 40 Liv. 10.40; for an augural interpretation, see RQ 61516, 62324, utilized by A. Feldherr, Spectacle and Society in Livys History (Berkeley 1998) 6163, and entirely attributed to him by M. Jaeger, CP 95 (2000 [2001]) 233, a confused summary. 41 For a discussion and appreciation of Agnes Michels as a student of the Romans and of their gods, see J. Linderski, Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio, CJ 92.4 (1997) 32345 (reprinted in this volume, No. 49). Cf. also J. Scheid, Numa et Jupiter ou les dieux citoyens de Rome, Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 30 (= 59.1 [1985]) 4153.

Founding the City

15

There is a story, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch, that Romulus falsified the auspices: he sent messengers to Remus reporting the sighting of the vultures, whereas at that point no birds had yet appeared. They duly appeared later, and so in this version Romulus through his pronouncement will have successfully compelled the hand of Jupiter.42 All is upright in Ennius: Romulus, like Numa in Livy, had received auspicia certa. Even more: he received the best possible auspices. The birds flew in an optimal way. Julius Hyginus, a learned antiquarian, who was appointed by Augustus director of the Palatine Library, discussed in one of his scripts the augural meaning of aves praepetes. We already know from Nigidius Figulus that they were the high flying birds; from Hyginus (in Gell. Noct. Att. 7.6.3) we learn that they either propitiously fly in front of the observer or alight in suitable places praepetes aves ab auguribus appellantur, quae aut opportune praevolant aut idoneas sedes capiunt.43 Otto Skutsch in his celebrated commentary regards the latter explanation of Hyginus as decisive, and writes that the settling of the birds foreshadows the settlement of Romulus and his followers (236). Quite wrong. In Ennius the twelve birds do not settle at all, we may say nullam sedem capiunt; they fly away toward the loca pulchra. Now, in the poem about his great compatriot Cicero (Div. 1.106) describes the omen Jupiter gave to Marius (whom Cicero pointedly calls divini numinis augur), presaging Marius return from exile and his renewed glory. Marius saw an eagle victoriously fighting against a serpent; the eagle dropped the mangled snake in undas, into the sea, and turned away from the west toward the shining east, obitu a solis nitidos convertit ad ortus, exactly like the birds of Romulus. And exactly like the birds of Romulus the eagle of Marius flew praepetibus pinnis, with auspicious wings on high, in a gliding course, lapsu, and this image corresponds to Ennius cedunt de caelo. And like Romulus Marius conspexit the bird and notavit; not only observed but accepted it as a signum faustum. In Livy, when the consul Papirius accepted his omen, Jupiter sent a corroboration in the shape of a raven; in Ciceros poem Jupiter strengthened (firmavit) the sign of the eagle by the peal of thunder in the left part of the sky (partibus caeli sinistris). The old question emerges again: what is the left part of the sky? Still this imitation of Ennius by a learned augur,44 with its description of the
42 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 1.86; Plut. Rom. 9.5; (also Diod. 8.5; see Vaahtera 3437). But it is important to stress that this story appears only in Greek sources; as Vaahtera (99) convincingly argues the cheating Romulus is a Greek invention. 43 Cf. Festus 224 L.: praepetes aves quidam dici aiunt, quia secundum auspicium faciant praetervolantes. 44 We must not forget that Cicero was an augur! Unfortunately the book by F. Guillaumont, Philosophe et augure: recherches sur la thorie cicronienne de la divination (= Collection Latomus 184 [Bruxelles 1984]), is with respect to res augurales very deficient. Cf. RQ 48590. On the other hand the presentation of the rites of auspication by A. Carandini in A. Carandini and R. Cappelli (eds.), Roma, Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della citt (Milano 2000) 11934 (Auspici, auguri e le Rome quadrate) is well informed (although rather surprisingly he does not discuss or even mention the passage of Ennius).

16

Historia et Ius

flight of the eagle, and the pronounced opposition between the west and the east, directs us toward a better understanding of the Romulean foundation of the city. So does also a passage from Livy (7.26.45) describing the famous duel between the young Marcus Valerius, the future Corvinus, and a mighty Gaul. On the helmet of Valerius a raven (corvus) alighted (consedit).45 Valerius, strictly according to the augural precepts, formally accepted the omen, and said a prayer. The raven is described as praepes; it came, like the birds of Romulus, from the sky (caelo missus). And it not only held steadfastly to its sedes, but also repeatedly attacked the Gaul aiming at his eyes. When the Gaul was cut down, the bird flew off toward the east and was lost to sight (ex conspectu elatus orientem petit). The direction of its flight again parallels exactly the volatus of the Romulean birds and of the eagle of Marius. When Jupiter wished to deter the auspicant he could disrupt the ceremony of auspication, auspicia dirimere. We know that for valid auspication there was a prerequisite of silentium. But the augurs interpreted silentium in a broad way, not just as mere silence, but rather as the absence of any fault or error, the absence of vitium, and to ascertain this a person versed in augural regulations was required, a peritus, a perfect augur. But any untoward sound, a strepitus, was a sure indication of a vitium, and the surest of all was the squeak of the shrew-mouse, occentus soricum.46 (It would have been a great story, though worthy of Lucilius rather than Ennius, if the foundation of the City had been prevented by the squeak of a mouse!). All this discouragement could have occurred even before the beginning of the formal observations (servare). For if a noise was heard the auspicant could not rise up in silence, silentio surgere (Festus 474 L.), and the ceremony of auspication had to be postponed to another day. But even when the auspicant took his seat, and established his field of vision, his templum in the air, unfavorable birds could have appeared to prevent him from undertaking any action. For any signa infausta that appeared in the auspicants pre-established field of vision were addressed specifically and personally to him, and could not be repudiated. And even when an impetrative favorable sign was observed and accepted, Jupiter could still change his mind, and countermand his signal. It was for this reason that the auspicants after they saw the desired signs would immediately jump up from their seat and their place of observation, the terrestrial templum. In this way they dismantled their field of vision.47 If any unfavorable bird showed up at this moment it was solely an oblative sign which had no defined addressee and consequently could be declared as not pertaining to the person who saw it. A good example of the ceremony of auspication that went terribly astray is the misadventure of Seianus, shortly before his fall from grace. In his capacity as consul he was taking auspices, but as Cassius Dio reports (58.5.7) not one bird of good omen appeared, but many ravens (krakew) flew around him and cawed, and

45 On this expression, cf. AL 2259. 46 Dirimere: AL 215152, 2170, 2173, 219798; silentium: Cic. Div. 2.7172, and Pease ad loc.; AL 217273; vitium: AL 216277; occentus: Plin. NH 8.223. 47 Servius, Aen. 2.699: (augures) visis auspiciis surgebant e templo. Cf. AL 2273.

Founding the City

17

then all flew together and perched on the okhma. The augurs would characterize the birds of Seianus as aves vagae, wandering aimlessly, or perhaps circaneae, flying in circles.48 Not only was their flight all wrong but also the cry. It was heard all over the place, whereas Jupiter established that the raven functioned as a good omen only if it sang on the right, ab dextra caneret.49 The sign was unfavorable indeed, but soon it was to become outrightly dire: the ravens did not fly away toward the east, but settled (in augural idiom sedem ceperunt) on the okhma, certainly not a pulcher locus, but the jail to which Seianus was soon to be dragged.50 Our final task is to define the seat of Romulus, and of Jupiter, and plot the course of birds with respect to both of them. We happen to know exactly where the Roman gods lived. As Varro (in Festus 454 L.) explains, their abode, their sedes, was located in the north. They looked from their seats southward, and consequently had the east to their left, and the west to their right. And because the sun rises in the east, this part of the world is propitious, and thus the left auspices (sinistra auspicia) are regarded as better than the right (dextra). Right and left is here defined from the standpoint of the gods. We now begin to understand why the laeva avis comes from the east, and why the propitious birds return to that quarter. From various other sources (Dionysius of Halicarnassos, Pliny the Elder, and Servius) we can reconstruct the system in greater detail. The north was more honorable and stronger than the south, and the east was more favorable and had preeminence over the west. The abode of the gods stretched on the north side from west to east. It was not of an even height. It was the lowest in the west (i.e. northwest) and the highest in the east (i.e. north-east). It was in that part of the sky that Jupiter himself had his domicilium and where the summa felicitas dwelt. On the other hand the most calamitous regions, partes maximae dirae, were in the northwest. This system the augurs shared to a great degree with the haruspices; to this arrangement of the sky corresponds rather exactly the haruspical arrangement of the regions on sacrificial livers.51 This obscure and shadowy doctrine received a beam of light when some thirtyfive years ago in the Roman colony of Bantia in southern Italy nine stones came to light marking an augural templum (dated to the last century of the Republic). Only three cippi were found in situ, but the complete arrangement has been brilliantly reconstructed by Mario Torelli.52 The stones were placed in three rows forming a rectangle some nine meters long. They were on average some thirty to fifty centimeters high, and had a diameter of about thirty centimeters. They were
48 The birds are naturally vagae (cf. Hor. Carm. 4.4.2), and thus in that state they are the opposite of the augural birds that fly with a purpose; circaneae: Paulus ex Festo 37 L. 49 Cic. Div. 1.12, 85. 50 Cass. Dio 58.5.7; on the meaning of okhma, see the judicious remarks by Vaahtera 114, n. 90. 51 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.5.24; Plin. NH 2.14243; Servius, Aen. 2.693. Cf. AL 228285. 52 M. Torelli, Un templum augurale det repubblicana a Bantia, Rend.Lincei 21 (1966) 293315, a fount of erudition and acumen, with some interpretations partially superseded, partially refined in a great article with an unassuming title: Contributi al supplemento del CIL IX, Rend.Lincei 24 (1969) 3948. For further comments, see AL 225860; 228485; RQ 49395.

18

Historia et Ius

inscribed on top, and inclined toward the west, so that the inscriptions could be read only by the observer looking east. He sat on a large stone, found in situ. He thus used the inscribed cippi as the markers on the ground to project into the air his field of vision. We begin deciphering the stones with the northern row, found in situ. In the north-eastern corner we have the stone inscribed B(e)ne I(uvante) AV(e), and in the north-western corner the stone inscribed C(ontraria) A(ve) A(uspicium) P(estiferum). On the middle stone the inscription most probably referred to avis arcula. These stones remarkably corroborate the doctrine reconstructed from literary and antiquarian sources. The most propitious bird, positively assisting the auspicant in his projected undertaking, bene iuvans, is connected with the north-east, the region of summa felicitas. The north-west is indeed maxime dirum: if a bird appeared in this region it meant not merely the prohibition to proceed, it was not merely a contraria avis; it was a warning that a calamity impends, an auspicium pestiferum. In the middle, the north proper, we have a relatively neutral region: avis arcula, a bird that according to the augural definition vetabat aliquid fieri (Paulus ex Festo 15 L.), prevented the action, but was not threatening. The middle row corresponds to the mental line drawn by the Livian augur straight ahead up to the end of the horizon. It has three stones with the names of deities, Jupiter, Sol, and Flusa (an Oscan counterpart of Flora); their exact arrangement is a matter of dispute.53 For our purpose more interesting is the southern row. The stones (which were not found in situ) are so arranged as to correspond to the northern row, and to what we know of the augural doctrine. As expected, the birds in this quarter are less strong, both less helpful and less dire than those in the north. In the south-east we have SIN(ente) Av(e), a bird that allows us to proceed, but does not indicate divine assistance. In the south-west we find C(ontraria) A(ve): it positively prohibits the action, but does not utter threats. It is not pestifera like its counterpart in the northwest but merely EN(ubra), according to an antiquarian notice a sign restraining and hindering (Paulus ex Festo 67 L.). But for the readers of Ennius it is the middle stone in the southern row that offers a treat: it reads R(emore) AVE. The remores aves fortunately are also known from antiquarian sources: they are the delaying birds, compelling the auspicant to delay whatever he intended to do.54 In the story of Romulus and Remus that became canonical, and strangely overshadowed the account of Ennius, both brothers received the message: Remus first, Romulus next. This is peculiar for to an augurally minded reader the name Remus must mean the slow one.55 Remus saw six vultures, Romulus, later,
53 Cf. the illuminating remarks by R. Beck, Cosmic Models: Some Uses of Hellenistic Science in Roman Religion, in T. D. Barnes (ed.), The Sciences in Greco-Roman Society = Apeiron 27.4 (1994) 101, 11012. 54 Festus 345 L.: Remores aves in auspicio dicuntur, quae acturum aliquid remorari conpellunt. 55 Very well underscored by Wiseman 7, 111, 171, n. 36. The phrase Remus auspicio se devovet, Wiseman (171, n. 34, following Jocelyn 6263) tentatively translates Remus by his auspicy vows himself to the gods below, thus taking auspicio as an instrumental ablative.

Founding the City

19

twelve, and his augury prevailed again strictly according to the rule that a subsequent stronger sign annuls the earlier weaker message.56 Of this version not a trace in Ennius. In his poem the twelve birds of Romulus directed their flight toward loci praepetes and pulchri. We are now in a position to solve this riddle. They flew in the direction not just of east but precisely north-east, toward the sedes of Jupiter, the highest and best place in all the universe, a veritable locus praepes and pulcher, lofty and fortunate. The aves of Romulus were bene iuvantes; Jupiter not only gave his nod he actively supported Romulus. The regnum of Romulus was indeed firmly established. We can now admire not only the art of Ennius but also his augural prowess. But above all we look at the contest with genuine apprehension. Like the followers of Romulus and Remus we are well aware of how many things could have gone wrong, and how many insidious dangers lurked around the auspicants augural templum. But all ended well, no mouse squeaked, no avis pestifera appeared, and western civilization continued on its course from Rome to Bryn Mawr, and the present lecture.

This makes little sense, augurally or otherwise; Remus and his birds were slow, but he certainly was not asking the underworld for help. Wisemans study suffers from an almost total neglect of the augural perspective; he does not consider the Bantian stones. We can either try to understand our sources or write our own fable. 56 Liv. 1.7.1; Ovid, Fasti 4.817 (he specifies the birds solely as volucres); cf. above, nn. 2122. The vultures as birds of omen will be discussed at length in another paper. But we can already disclose their unexpected and overwhelming significance. A new epigram of Posidippus reveals their auspical specialty (Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia, ediderunt C. Austin et G. Bastianini [Milano 2002] 4849, epigram 27). For the birth of children, and we may surmise for the birth of cities too, the vulture was a most perfect augury, a veritable augustum augurium: tknvn er`[o]m`nvi genen ovnw ristow, fnh marturhn od yeo dxetai od sunedresai mgan etn, ll teleh fanetai, ovnn xrma teleitaton, fnh pad gagosa ka n ykoiw gorhtn duep ka yon n polmvi. Or, in Austins translation: The best bird of omen when you enquire about the birth of children, the vulture accepts neither a gods testimony nor a joint sitting with the great eagle, but manifests itself perfect in its kind: the most perfect of auguries, a vulture that brought a child will make him in council a sweet-speaking orator and a nimble fighter in war.

2 ISTO VILIUS, IMMO CARUM Anecdotes About King Romulus*

Isto vilius. Lovers of words will love A. S. Gratwicks recent piece (2000) on this idiom. Yet this is only part of the puzzle. There exists a complement at the other end of the scale: Immo carum. A brief introduction. At the conclusion of Terences Adelphoe, in a comical reversal of roles, the stingy Demea goads the generous Micio into headlong spendthrift spending. Micio drags his feet, and when Demea suggests that in addition to freeing the crafty slave, Syrus, and his female companion, he should also provide them with a loan so that they may start a business, Micio responds, istoc vilius (line 981). This choice of words to express a petulant demurral has for centuries (or rather for millennia if we begin with the scholia) intrigued philologists, and Gratwick guides us expertly through all the meanders of the argument. He points out that surprisingly the commentators of Terence have generally neglected the testimony of Suetonius preserved by the late fourth-century grammarian Charisius. It is to this text that we ought now to direct our attention. We read under the lemma Isto vilius:1
rex qui vocabat ad caenam,2 si sibi ea res exhibenda indiceretur quam exhibere non posset, respondit (respondebat),3 ut Tranquillus refert, isto vilius hominis erit caena.
588

Gratwick (2000, 85) gives the following translation:

A rex who regularly entertained, if a thing were stipulated (for him to provide) which he was unable to provide, would reply, as Suetonius reports, isto vilius hominis erit caena.
* 1 American Journal of Philology 123 (2002) 587599 {with minor corrections and addenda}. Keil 1857, 200; Barwick 1925, 260 (the latter title Gratwick misleadingly quotes as Barwick/Khnert 1964, but the edition of 1964 is simply editio stereotypa correctior editionis prioris, with F. Khnert only providing Addenda and Corrigenda at the end of the volume, pp. 53941, none of which pertains to our passage); Roth 1858, 304; Reifferscheid 1860, 148-49 (fr. 112). caena (so often in manuscripts) = cena. Cf. TLL s.v. cena (col. 775, lines 5963). Gratwick (2000, 85, n. 17) felicitously points out that the reading of our only authority, the codex Neapolitanus, is the abbreviation R. This is clearly indicated in the apparatus of Keil; Barwick, surprisingly and misleadingly, in this and other places, takes no notice of the abbreviation. Keil, Roth and Barwick expand the abbreviation as respondit; Gratwick follows Reifferscheid and opts for respondebat (which is reflected in his translation). He argues that respondebat, indicating a habitual action, is the right reading for Charisius, but not necessarily for Suetonius. Thus according to this argument we have a paradoxical situation: The editors of Charisius adopted a form wrong for this author, and Reifferscheid adopted a form that may not be right for Suetonius.

2 3

Isto vilius, Immo carum

21

589

It has long been recognized, indeed, since the time of the Renaissance scholars, that the main textual problem resides in the word hominis, which (so it might appear) can hardly be forced into any sensible construction or meaning. Emendations were considered, and here Gratwicks proposal (2000, 88) nihilo minus deserves acknowledgement. Following in the footsteps of several earlier erudites, and in opposition to Bentley,4 he takes hominis (or whatever hides in it) as belonging to the quotation itself. We thus receive the text: Isto vilius, nihilo minus erit caena or (tortuously) by that (much) the more meanly, but (by) none the less will it be a feast. But who is the rex who uttered this quip? Certainly not any real king, says Gratwick (2000, 8891), but rather a man of influence, a boss, a padrone, as defined by OLD s.v. rex 8. At a dinner, an impudent guest makes an outrageous demand (e.g., in addition to food, he would also wish to have dancing girls; caviar and striptease, as Gratwick puts it). The host gives a witty response. The dictum has to be taken as a specific quotation of Terences Micio, but a quotation given a deliberate twist. The twist would reside in the addition of nihilo minus and a play on the causal 5 and comparative interpretation of istoc. The ill-mannered person will miss the subtlety (for a boor must ex definitione be also ill-educated), and will take this Micio-like petulant refusal for a conciliatory bon mot. The more cultivated bystanders will knowingly sneer at the illiterate boor and mentally applaud the refined host. In sum, a perfect donnish joke that would fare very well indeed at an Oxonian high table. The point of Suetonius anecdote ... was to illustrate the witty comitas of some specific famous eques or senator of the past. Gratwick concedes that this person must remain anonymous for us, but his preferred urbane padrone who entertained boorish guests is none other than Atticus. Rex Atticus? Why not Maecenas, who also loved to entertain, and claimed a royal lineage? In point of fact this is not at all a likely context of the anecdote.
4 Earlier conjectures are listed by Keil (1857, 200, in app., and discussed by Gratwick 2000, 8687): isto vilius nobis coena erit (Casaubonus, i.e., Isaac Casaubon, 15501614; he proposed his emendation in 1595); isto vilius erit hodie coena (Palmerius, i.e., Janus Meller Palmier; oddly enough he published this emendation of Charisius in his Spicilegium Sallustianum [Francoforti 1580]); isto vilius domini erit coena (Scriverius, i.e., Peter Schryver, 15761660; his emendation dates from 1596); and finally Bentleius (i.e., Richard Bentley, 16621742; his emendation is from 1726): isto vilius; hoc est, erit coena, who thus takes the words following the semicolon as a gloss appended by Charisius or already by Suetonius. Reifferscheid prints a variation on this idea: isto vilius hoc est erit caena. In this text the words in quotation marks belong to the rex, and hoc est is the explanation of Suetonius and Charisius. In addition to these ideas Roth (1858, XCI) also lists haec mihi of Passeratius (i.e., Jean Passerat, 15341602). But it is rather distressing to find out that according to Roth and Reifferscheid the conjecture of Casaubonus had a slightly different form: hodie nobis coena erit. For biographical and bibliographical information, see Pkel 1882, under each name. Gratwick (2000, 83) rightly complains that this usage of isto(c), corresponding to qua re, hac re, eo, hoc, has been overlooked in standard Latin grammars (and also in OLD), but we observe that it is duly recorded in the Dictionary of Lewis and Short s.v. iste, II C, for that reason, therefore. Yet it is much more likely that istoc functions here as the ablative of comparison; see below, n. 24.

22

Historia et Ius

590

The perusal of evidence for rex in the sense of patron seemingly strengthens Gratwicks conceit, for in several passages, the rex appears in a convivial context. But on closer scrutiny the rex reveals himself as overbearing, rude and tyrannical, a far cry from Gratwicks urbane host. He is, to use Eduard Fraenkels apt description, der Brotherr des Parasiten, (the breadmaster of parasites).6 Now, oddly enough, OLD (and Gratwick, and Fraenkel too)7 omitted the passage of Macrobius (Sat. 2.1.3) in which the rex appears as a civilized host, but this indication must be set in a wider context of Macrobius convivium and the subject of the conversation (2.1.110). The dinner was hosted by the refined and aristocratic Vettius Agorius Praetextatus (ca. 32084); he is addressed as rex mensae.8 This expression is not attested otherwise, but it immediately calls to mind the figure of the Greek symposiarch and the Roman magister cenae. These symposia and convivia were joyous meetings of equals; there was no place at the table for clients, sycophants and parasites. When at such gatherings the host or president is called rex, the term acquires the feeling of a congenial king, not of a capricious tyrant. In Macrobius the initial subject of the conversation was Vergil, and his mastery of the language. One of the interlocutors, Avienus, marveled at the skill with which Vergil had set out (at Aen. 1.723 and 1.216) well and shrewdly (bene ac sapienter),9 with the change of but a few words, the difference between a convivium tumul6 Fraenkel 1922, 19193. Similarly White 1978, 81 (with further examples); he describes the rex as the lordly figure who maintained a host of parasites and clients. The tyrannical rex occupies firmly the realm of comical and satirical tradition, see Damon 1997, esp. 15152, 17374, 18182, 26465. Cf. also Gowers (1993, 26): In Roman Republican society ... the domineering host (or rex) became a sinister reminder of monarchy. Perhaps so; certainly a reminder of social chasm, as well put by Howell (1980, 340): The use of the allocutions rex and dominus was one of the aspects of the relationship between rich men and their dependants which gave most satisfaction to the rich men and most annoyance to their dependants. See Plaut. Asin. 919; Capt. 92; Men. 902; Stich. 455; Ter. Phorm. 338 (and Donatus ad loc. with a distinction between rex parasiti and patronus liberti); Hor. Ep. 1.17.43 (and Porphyrio ad loc.); Mart. 1.112; 2.68; 3.7.5: regis superbi sportulae, the haughty patrons handouts; 12.48.1516 (cf. below, n. 8); Iuv. 1.136; 5.14 (and passim); 7.45 (cf. Courtney 1980, esp. 112, 230); Sen. Dial. 2.15.1: non accipiet (sc. sapiens) contumeliam ... si in convivio regis recumbere infra mensam vescique cum servis ignominiosa officia sortitis iubebitur? (but Seneca probably has in mind a real king). The passage duly figures in Reifferscheid 1860, 436; and in Lewis-Short, s.v. rex B.2. A Reader for this journal (Reader A) suggested that rex mensae was a technical term, and that this circumstance may account for the positive meaning of the rex. Hardly so; but I am thankful for this suggestion for it has led me to rethink and refine the problem. We read at Mart. 12.48.1516: Convivas alios cenarum quaere magister / quos capiant mensae regna superba tua. In these lines all technical expressions (magister, mensae regna) have a negative connotation. Thus, the clue does not reside in the term itself but rather in the composition of the convivium (see above in the text). To the testimony of Macrobius, we can add Hor. Carm. 1.4.18: regna vini, explained by Porphyrio as magisteria convivarum; Plut. Quaest. conv. 1.4 = 622 B: sumposou basilew; Prudent. Cath. 9.30: rex, i.e., of the convivium at which water was changed into wine; Sid. Apoll. Epist. 9.13.4: rex convivii. Cf. Marquardt 1886, 1.326, 33132; Mau 1900, 61112. For the later commentators and schoolmasters Vergil could do nothing wrong. Bene dixit was their favored exclamation. Cf. on that locution the learned study by Ussani 1946, 8891.

7 8

Isto vilius, Immo carum

23

591

tuosum and sobrium, a riotous and a sober meal. Our own banquet, Avienus continued, combines the restraint (pudicitia) of the heroic age and the sophistication (elegantia) of our own age; it surpasses Agathons banquet in Plato, for our host (rex mensae), Praetextatus, is not at all inferior to Socrates in character (in moribus) and certainly more influential in public affairs (in re publica). Yet in Plato, in spite of their high brows (supercilio), one of the guests wished to call for admission of a psaltria so that the girl, her natural charms artificially embellished, might beguile the philosophers with sweet tunes and sinuous dance (ut puella ex industria supra naturam mollior canora dulcedine et saltationis lubrico exerceret inlecebris philosophantes). But we do not spice up the festivities with even a small bit of pleasure (nullo admixtu voluptatis). Praetextatus was firm and curt: No dancing girls: ludicras voluptates nec suis Penatibus adsuetas nec ante coetum tam serium producendas. The day was saved by Symmachus who urged the guests to invent a lively amusement yet without wantonness (excogitemus alacritatem lascivia carentem), and proposed to discuss the jests of famous men of old. Convivia and ioci was an established theme; another theme was that of moderation in food and comportment and finding at the banquet the highest enjoyment in pleasures of mind and not of body.10 A similar note of moderation and jocular banter was struck by another Roman author and another Roman rex more than five hundred years previously. There exists a text that throws a new and unsuspected light on the person of the rex in Charisius. For more than four hundred years this text had eluded all the learned interpreters of Terence and Suetonius, from Palmerius and the great Casaubonus to Gratwick, but my computer, a sage machine, produced it in less than four minutes. It resides in Gellius Noctes Atticae (11.14), a work one would expect the erudites of the past had known by heart. At the head of the chapter stands a preamble: Sobria et pulcherrima Romuli regis responsio circa vini usum (The temperate and most excellent reply of King Romulus as to [his] use of wine); a story follows:
Simplicissima suavitate et rei et orationis L. Piso Frugi usus est in primo annali, cum de Romuli regis vita atque victu scriberet. Ea verba, quae scripsit, haec sunt: Eundem Romulum dicunt ad cenam vocatum ibi non multum bibisse, quia postridie negotium haberet. Ei dicunt: Romule, si istuc omnes homines faciant, vinum vilius sit. His respondit: immo vero carum, si, quantum quisque volet, bibat; nam ego bibi quantum volui. 11

10 Convivial moderation was also the subject of Varros Menippean Satire Nescis quid vesper serus vehat; cf. Gratwick 2000, 89, n. 26; and esp. the commentary by Cbe 1990, 142947. The most important extant ancient discussions of decorous banquets are Cic. Sen. 4446 (cf. Powell 1988, 19395); Plut. Quaest. conv. 1.4 = 62022 (cf. Teodorsson 1989, 1.91107). Cf. Friedlnder 1922, 1.26366; 2.28586, and below, n. 23. 11 I quote from the classic Teubner edition by C. Hosius (1903); the Oxford edition of P. K. Marshall (1990) has the identical text (though unlike Hosius it does not employ throughout the letter v). Pisos fragment is fr. 8 Peter (1914, 121), fr. 13 Forsythe (1994, 451), and fr. 10 BeckWalter (2001, 29394). The translation draws (with some alterations) on the translations of Forsythe and J. C. Rolfe in his Loeb edition of Gellius (1927). Forsythe (1994, 45152) maintains that the anecdote is to be connected with the widespread belief that Romulus forbade by law Roman women to drink wine and made it legal for husbands to divorce or execute their

24
592

Historia et Ius

L. Piso Frugi has employed a delightful simplicity of content and diction in the first book of his Annals, when he wrote about the life and habits of King Romulus. His words, as he wrote them, are as follows: They say that the same Romulus, when he was invited to dinner, did not drink much because he had business on the following day. They [i.e., his dinner companions] tell him: if all men did this, Romulus, wine would be cheaper. He replied: No indeed! It would be dear if everyone drank as much as he wished; for I drank as much as I wished.

593

We have before us not just Gellius but a fragment from the Annals of L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, a statesman (tr. pl. 149, cos. 133, cens. 120) and a historian of renown. In this fragment two words spring into the readers eye: istuc and vilius. In the whole electronically searcheable corpus of Latin literature, a form of iste (istuc, istoc, isto, istis) and vilius are juxtaposed in only four passages: in Gellius-Piso, Charisius-Suetonius, Terence, and Martial. In Terence we encounter an idiomatic expression with which Gratwick started his quest, in Martial we have a simple comparative construction;12 only Gellius and Charisius share between them a story, and not just a story, but a story concerning a king, and his convivial witticisms. It should be evident that we are dealing with two halves of the same anecdote. The unnamed rex in the fragment of Suetonius will thus be King Romulus, and the story must ultimately derive from the same source as the story in Gellius, from Piso. We should not be blinded by Suetonius Life of Terence and sheepishly assume that in our fragment we have in the phrase isto vilius a specific quotation of the poet. For it so happens that Suetonius was also familiar with the Annals of Piso: he quotes Piso as an authority for the establishment of Tarpeian and Capitoline games by Romulus. The preservation of the fragment we owe to Tertullian, De Spectaculis 5: dehinc idem Romulus Iovi Feretrio ludos instituit in Tarpeio, quos Tarpeios dictos et Capitolinos Piso tradit. And further: Qui quos quem per ordinem et quibus idolis ludos instituerint, positum est apud Suetonium Tranquillum vel a quibus Tranquillus accepit. We thus have a fragment of Piso (fr. 7 Peter, fr. 14 Forsythe, fr. 9 Beck-Walter) embedded in a fragment of Suetonius (Roth [1858] 27879; Reifferscheid [1860] 334, fr. 185). Peter takes no notice of this double embedding, and he never mentions Suetonius as an excerptor of Piso; Forsythe, on the other hand, realized very well that the whole long disquisition of Tertullian (and not only his remark about the Capitoline games) derives from Suetonius and ultimately from Piso. The convivial anecdote presented Romulus as a deipnosophistes, and recounted his witty retorts, in turn, as a host and a guest. The verbal and rhetorical affinities between the two fragments, Gellius-Piso and Charisius-Suetonius, are resounding: Romulum ... ad cenam vocatum and rex, qui vocabat ad caenam; 13 ei dicunt and sibi ... indiceretur; respondit and respondit; vinum vilius sit and isto vilius ... erit. But beyond and above those verbal echos, a common rhetorical ethos
wives for doing so. There is nothing in Pisos text to sustain or even to suggest this interpretation. See below, n. 23. 12 Mart. 14.1.7: Sunt apinae tricaeque et si quid vilius istis, referring to worthless gifts. 13 For such reciprocal invitations, with the same choice of words, cf Cic. Verr. 2.4.62: deinde ipsum regem ad cenam vocavit, and further rex ... vocat ad cenam deinde ipse praetorem.

Isto vilius, Immo carum

25

594

spans the fragments: At a dinner, when other guests are drinking heavily, Romulus shows moderation; when reproached (for dampening the spirit of the party), he gives a witty and polite response. In the other fragment, when the rex himself entertains, he does so in a moderate fashion; when a guest remonstrates, the rex gives a witty and polite response. But there is even more. Each reply consists of two parts: a short and pointed quip (immo vero carum; isto vilius) followed by a rather diffuse divagation that tempers the sharpness of the response. Romulus and the rex share a fondness for the same choice of words and they share a predilection for the same rhetorical figures. They are the same literary person. This correspondence is all the more remarkable as the two fragments reached us through diverse routes. Gellius was interested in style, and he presents a verbatim (so he claims) quotation of Piso. Charisius was interested solely in a point of grammar and not at all in the literary environment of his quotation, and moreover, he did not get his lines directly from Suetonius but rather through the intermediary of the third-century grammarian Iulius Romanus.14 Along its tortuous journey, the passage suffered abbreviation and perhaps mutilation, but it still retained its distinct lexical and rhetorical flavor, and this flavor, as the comparison with Gellius shows ad nasum, is the flavor of Piso. In point of fact we have before us the nucleus of Piso extracted from the Suetonian wrappings but with the label of Suetonius still attached. It is thus the same textual situation as in Tertullian: Piso embedded in Suetonius and Suetonius encased in still another author who is our final authority. Gellius apparently had Piso in his hands; Tertullian, while referring to Piso, did not hide that he got his information from Suetonius; in Charisius it is the name of Piso that was lost in transit but not his style. There was to Piso a certain art: a touch of humor, and a method of exposition consisting in the repetition of key words and phrases. Repetition features prominently, and to good effect, in both parts of the Romulus anecdote; and we detect it also in another fragment (Gell. 7.9; fr. 27 Peter; fr. 37 Forsythe, fr. 30 BeckWalter), where Piso recounts, sympathetically, two stories from the life of Cn. Flavius, the famous curule aedile of 304. Flavius rose to this originally patrician office although he was born the son of a freed slave, and earned his living as a scribe. The aristocrats opposed and heckled him. Piso wished to show Flavius mettle and his dignified comportment in the face of rude opposition. The device he employed was repetition. He repeated the name of Flavius three times, each time in its full form, Cn. Flavius Anni filius, the third time with a poignant addition: Cn. Flavius Anni filius, aedilis. In this composition Flavius and his office were

14 On the sources of Charisius, see Barwick (1922, passim, esp. 317, 6366). In the preface to his edition of Charisius Barwick (1925, XXI) points out that Charisius always indicates the passages he took from Romanus, and that he nihil fere de suo addidit. He duly appends the Romanus tag (190 K. = 246 B.) to his long disquisition de adverbio (24689 B.). Charisius does not identify the rex. Is it his normal procedure? (a very pertinent question posed by Reader A.). A perusal of Charisius bulky work shows that he eschews prosopographical identifications. This leaves the field open for modern surmises. {For Iulius Romanus, the sources of Charisius, and a critique of Barwick, see now Schenkenveld 2004}.

26

Historia et Ius

595

inscribed as if in high relief; the names of his detractors remained unspoken, and thus symbolically effaced.15 Repetitiveness of the formulae and an ample or redundant use of pronouns, personal, deictic and relative, are the hallmarks of a legal or legalistic style, and this was precisely the style Piso embraced.16 This leads us back to Romulus and the cena. The scene at the dinner, as implied by the phrase si sibi ea res e x h i b e n d a i n d i c e re t u r quam exhibere non posset, remains baffling. And it does not gain in clarity if we merely transfer the dinner from the villa of Atticus or Maecenas to the hut of Romulus. If the fragment in Charisius belongs to Piso, we must place it in the secondcentury environment. The phrase has a legal flavor, consonant with Pisos taste. It immediately brings to mind the well-known legal procedure, the actio ad exhibendum, the goal of which was to enforce the defendant to produce in court the movable thing in dispute when sued for its delivery.17 There is a controversy about its origin: Some modern jurists believe that it may go very far back, while others think that it was of a more recent origin.18 In any case the earliest explicit references to the actio date from the late republican and Augustan age, and, if our fragment is the genuine Piso, we may have the first direct glimpse of its existence. The context immediately reveals itself as quasi-legal, a conceit familiar from Roman comedy, comic poetry and the mocking leges convivales. It is a tone appropriate for a light anecdote. The locus comicus resides at the intersection of the ponderous legalese and the convivial idiom. For exhibere also appears often enough in convivial contexts, in several complementary applications to serve food, to set up a dinner or to provide for entertainment.19 Furthermore exhibere and indicere figure together in one other passage only, in the jurist Gaius (Inst. 4.62): velut ut ... e x h i b e a t u r libertus, cui patronus operas i n d i c e re vellet (for instance ... for the production of a freedman whose patron wishes to impose services). Now it so happens that not only exhibere but also indicere has a convivial connotation: to impose oneself as a guest;20 in our passage a guest tries to invite himself to a bet15 We may observe that Livy (9.46.112), who paraphrased Piso at great length, uses the full name-form only once. Forsythe (1994, 37) does not remark on the expressive function of this device. Courtney 1999, 143, notes the solemn character of the enunciation. 16 As pointed out very well by Forsythe 1994, 3738. 17 Berger 1953, 463. This procedure is treated at great length and detail in the Digest 10.4. See also TLL s.v. exhibeo, coll. 141921. 18 Cf. Kaser 1971, 128, 434; Watson 1968, 1079; Sachers 1965, passim. 19 Gowers (1993, 38, n. 167) says that exhibere is a standard term for serving food, but this overstates the actual use of the word. She refers to OLD, but this dictionary (s.v. exhibeo 6a) adduces only three examples, one of them being our passage, and the two others Apul. Met. 6.24 and 10.16. For a fuller collection of passages, see TLL s.v. exhibeo, coll. 1429430. 20 Cf. Suet. Nero 27.3: indicebat et familiaribus cenas, quorum uni mitellita quadragies sestertium constitit, alteri pluris aliquanto rosaria (cena mitellita at which the guests wore silken head-dresses, and cena rosaria at which they wore rose garlands). On this locution, see Vssing, 2000, 91, n. 10; 92, n. 20. {For Neros banquets, I should have also adduced the ingenious interpretation of Higgins 1985, 11618. The cena rosaria would be a mock celebration of the Floralia (a feast of meretrices); and the cena mitellita would be a transvestite affair, a parody of the rites of the Bona Dea}.

Isto vilius, Immo carum

27

596

ter meal. Another jurist, Paulus, states the basic rule of the actio (Dig. 10.4.19): all interested parties can sue for production (ad exhibendum possunt agere omnes quorum interest ). Guests are the party naturally interested in food and drink, and when in the fragment preserved by Charisius a guest challenges the rex in a piece of pretentious legalese to produce a lavish dish or a well-filled cup, the king retorts with a folksy idiom: isto vilius. Here we have the quip; we need a witty sequel. Gratwicks nihilo minus erit cena is not witty at all; his phrase has an air of a feeble excuse and not a pungent rejoinder. The precise phrase erit cena does not seem to be otherwise attested, but cf. Plaut. Cas. 781: cena ubi erit cocta; Cato, Orig. fr. 86 Peter (in Gell. 10.24.67): tibi cena cocta erit, which is close enough. For the attribution of our fragment to Piso it is significant that the locution occurs in two second-century authors.21 Above all there is nothing wrong with the sense of the transmitted reading hominis, though in view of the construction of cena erit with the dative in Cato and Plautus, we should probably slightly emend the text of Charisius and read homini[s] erit cena (or perhaps cena <cocta> erit ). Epulae regales were proverbial,22 and what the guest demanded was a royal feast whereas the king produced only the aver-

21 A referee (Reader B), while rejecting Gratwicks conceit, observes that the stylistic similarities championed in the article here presented may be illusory, and that verbal echoes must be common to any number of anecdotes dealing with dinner invitations, so that in the final analysis, it is only vilius which suggests the linkage between Charisius and Piso. Quite so; but no other anecdote is suggested, and the fact remains that in the extant Latin corpus both the collocation of vilius and the cumulative weight of stylistic echoes point to Piso. The glass may be perceived as empty or full, but in the former case it is now at least an informed emptiness. {Gratwicks nihilo minus erit cena can positively be excluded. As electronic searches show, there is no extant example of nihilo minus erit combined directly with a noun, and only two examples of the phrase combined with a noun modified by an adjective: Dig. 10.3.9.pr.: nihilo minus utile erit iudicium communi dividundo; Serv. auct. Aen. 1.21: nihilo minus sensus integer erit, neither enunciation offering support to Gratwicks conceit. The phrase itself nihilo minus ... erit is rare: only eight other instances, all of them in the Digest, with erit mostly appearing in a compound tense (five times) or connected with a pronoun (2 times) or an adjective (1 time).} 22 Cf., e.g., Verg. Aen. 6.6045: epulae ante ora paratae regifico luxu; Sil. It. Pun. 11.40; Stat. Theb. 2.306. But above all, see the delightful Petronian description of a rich undertaker (Sat. 38.15): libitinarius fuit, solebat sic c e n a re quomodo re x : apros gausapatos, opera pistoria ... plus vini sub mensa effundebatur, quam aliquis in cella habet. A Referee (Reader B) notes that the antithesis to rex is pauper vel sim., not homo which is the antithesis to deus. In philosophy, certainly; not in gastronomy, where the antithesis is not between the devouring king and the starving beggar but rather between the kings and the commoners fare, as the examples adduced above (and others, easily assembled electronically {cf. esp. Hist. Apoll. regis Tyrii 14}), seem to demonstrate ad satietatem. {Zaccaria Ruggiu 2003, is primarily an archaeological and sociological study with only desultory attention to philology. Romulus appears on its pages three times, and there is some discussion of vino e ideologia, but one searches in vain for the passage of Gellius and the fragment of Piso. The concept of regia mensa has now been thoroughly investigated by Vssing 2004, passim, esp. 2226, 24044. No mention of Romulus.}

28

Historia et Ius

597

age fare.23 To the guests importune demand the king answers pointedly: Isto vilius! Homini[s] (understood: non regi ) erit cena. Cheaper than that! Well have a dinner fit for men (i.e., for men like you and not for kings). In this reconstruction the exclamation mark is to be given its due weight. We have not one conjoined sentence, but two separate enunciations. The precise grammatical classification of idiomatic expressions is a thankless task, but we obviously deal in Terence and Charisius-Suetonius-Piso with one and the same idiom, with isto grammatically functioning as the ablative of comparison or of measure, but rhetorically expressing the refusal of the thing the speaker was asked to produce in addition to what he had already given. The locution was current in the secondcentury Latin, but later went out of use, and this explains well the difficulty it caused for the ancient commentators of Terence who quite wrongly interpreted it as an indication of a general (and not merely qualified) refusal.24 Gellius loved Piso and his way of composition. He praises Pisos simplicissima suauitas of res and oratio, delightful simplicity of content and diction, and in another place (7.9.1), he introduces a long quotation as locus ... historiae et orationis lepidissimae (a passage graceful in story and speech), and defines it as res perquam pure et venuste narrata a Pisone (a story told by Piso in a very pure and charming style). If only everybody were so admiring! We can count on Cicero to show contempt. Speaking of earlier Roman historians, among them Piso, he exclaims (de leg. 1.6): quid tam exile 25 quam isti omnes? (what is more meager

23 Cf. the satires of Lucilius who has Romulus deliver at the concilium deorum a long speech condemning luxury (1217 Marx; 1418 Krenkel) and presents the king as eating in heaven a simple peasant fare of boiled turnips (1357 Marx; 1375 Krenkel). The relevance of Lucilius, a younger contemporary of Piso, for the interpretation of Pisos fragment in Gellius has often been noted; cf. Rawson 1976, 7056 (= 1991, 260); von Ungern-Sternberg 1993, 9697. The ascription of these lines to Romulus (and of line 1357 = 1375 to Lucilius) is conjectural but convincing; see esp. Cichorius 1908, 21932. As Beck-Walter 2001, 294, put it, in the second century Romulus became ein Vehikel des Sittendiskurses. 24 Commentum Donati, Wessner 1905, 183: subauditur quicquam et non dabo. Gratwick 2000, 8183, gives an excellent analysis of the confusion in the scholia. 25 See also Brut. 106: Piso reliquit ... annales sane exiliter scriptos. Cicero (and Quintilian) often used the adjective exilis to characterize style (oratio, sermo); cf. de or. 2.159: (of the Stoic Diogenes): genus sermonis affert non liquidum, non fusum ac profluens, sed e x i l e , aridum, concisum ac minutum (introduces a kind of diction that is not limpid, copious and flowing, but meagre, dry, cramped and paltry). The Auctor ad Herennium admitted three kinds of approved speech (genera orationis), grave, mediocre, and adtenuatum (grand, moderate and simple) to which corresponded three faulty types. The faulty form of the simple style he described (4.16) as aridum et exsangue genus orationis, quod non alienum est e x i l e nominari (a dry and bloodless manner of speech which may aptly be called meagre). Forsythe 1994, 37, perceptively observed that Gellius characterization of Pisos style as purus, venustus and suavis finds its exact counterpart in Ciceros assessment (Brut. 262) of Caesars Commentarii: They are straight and charming (recti et venusti), and they demonstrate that in history there is nothing more pleasing than brevity clear and bright (nihil est enim in historia pura et illustri brevitate dulcius). Caesar was to Cicero a perfect example of the simple style; so was Piso to Gellius, but in the eyes of Cicero he employed a jejune version of simplicity. Courtney (1999, 14344) sides with Cicero. {Cf. now Briscoe 2005, 61.}

Isto vilius, Immo carum

29

598

than that whole bunch of them?). On this verdict he offers a scathing elaboration at de or. 2.53: Cato et Pictor et Piso, qui neque tenent, quibus rebus ornetur oratio ... et, dum intellegatur quid dicant, unam dicendi laudem putant esse brevitatem (Cato and Pictor and Piso, who have no clue how to adorn their speech ... and, so long as their narrative is understood, regard conciseness as the single praiseworthy element of the exposition). Tastes change: What was to Cicero arid dullness became to the archaizing Gellius charming simplicity. The Romulus of Piso was not an uncouth shepherd but an affable gentleman. This should have pleased Cicero, however much he deplored Pisos style. At de rep. 1.58 he has Laelius bristle at the notion that Romulus might have been a king of barbarians: quite the contrary, the age of Romulus was already an age of culture (de rep. 2.18, 20), and Romulus himself was endowed consilio et sapientia singulari (de or. 1.37).26 Of course any Romulus is a fiction, whether he appears in the panoply of myth or the panoply of footnotes. But we may have found at last our modest and urbane host (and guest), and we leave this literary banquet taking with us as a sportula a fragment of Piso. Bibliography
Barwick, Karl. 1922. Remmius Palaemon und die rmische Ars grammatica. (= Philologus. Supplementband 15, Heft 2). Leipzig: Dieterich. Barwick, Carolus [= Karl], ed. 1925. Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae Libri V. Lipsiae: Teubner. Beck, Hans, and Walter, Uwe, eds. 2001. Die frhen rmischen Historiker. Vol. 1: Von Fabius Pictor bis Cn. Gellius (edition, translation, commentary). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Berger, Adolf. 1953. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. (= Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 43, part 2). Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. {Briscoe, J. 2005. The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians. In Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose. (= Proceedings of The British Academy 129): 5372.} Cbe, J.-P. 1990. Varron, Satires Mnippes. dition, traduction et commentaire. Vol. 9. Rome: cole Franaise. Cichorius, Conrad. 1908. Untersuchungen zu Lucilius. Berlin: Weidmann. Classen, C. J. 1962. Romulus in der rmischen Republik. Philologus 106:174204. Courtney, E. 1980. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London: Athlone Press. . 1999. Archaic Latin Prose. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Damon, Cynthia. 1997. The Mask of the Parasite. A Pathology of Roman Patronage. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Forsythe, Gary. 1994. The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America. {Cf. below in this volume, No. 20.} Fraenkel, Eduard. 1922. Plautinisches im Plautus. Berlin: Weidmann. Friedlnder, Ludwig. 1922. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms. Vols. 14 (10th ed. by G. Wissowa). Leipzig: S. Hirzel.
26 Cf. Classen 1962, 191; he does not discuss Pisos image of Romulus.

30
599

Historia et Ius

Gowers, Emily. 1993. The Loaded Table. Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gratwick, A.S. 2000. Isto vilius (Suetonius fr. 112, Terence Ad. 981). AJP 121:7992. {Higgins, J. M. 1985. Cena rosaria, cena mitellita: a Note on Suetonius, Nero 27.3. AJP 106:11618.} Hosius, Carolus, ed. 1903. A. Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri XX. Lipsiae: Teubner. Howell, Peter. 1980. A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial. London: Athlone Press. Kaser, Max. 1971. Das rmische Privatrecht. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Mnchen: C.H. Beck. Keil, Henricus, ed. 1857. Grammatici Latini. Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Teubner. Krenkel, Werner. ed. 1970. Lucilius. Satiren. Vols. 1-2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Marquardt, Joachim. 1886. Das Privatleben der Rmer. Vols. 12, (2nd ed. by A. Mau). Leipzig: S. Hirzel. Marshall, P. K., ed. 1990. A. Gellii Noctes Atticae. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marx, Friedrich, ed. 1904. C. Lucilii Carminum reliquiae. Vol. 1. Lipsiae: Teubner. Mau, August. 1900. Comissatio. RE 3:61019. Peter, Hermannus, ed. 1914. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, 2nd ed. Lipsiae: Teubner. Pkel, W. 1882. Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon. Leipzig: Krger. Powell, J. G. F., ed. and commentary. 1988. Cicero: Cato Maior De Senectute (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 28). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rawson, Elizabeth. 1976. The First Latin Annalists. Latomus 35:689717. Reprinted in Rawson 1991, 24571. . 1991. Roman Culture and Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reifferscheid, Augustus, ed. 1860. C. Suetonii Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Lipsiae: Teubner. Roth, C .L., ed. 1858. C. Suetonii Tranquilli quae supersunt omnia. Lipsiae: Teubner. Sachers, E. 1965. Exhibere. RE Suppl. 10:191221. {Schenkenveld, Dirk M. 2004. A Rhetorical Grammar. C. Iulius Romanus, Introduction to the Liber De Adverbio. Mnemosyne Suppl. 247. Leiden-Boston: Brill.} Teodorsson, Sven-Tage. 1989. A Commentary on Plutarchs Table Talks. Vol. 1 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 51). Gteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Ungern-Sternberg, Jrgen von. 1993. Romulus-Bilder: die Begrndung der Republik im Mythos. In F. Graf (ed.), Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft. Das Paradigma Roms, 88108. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner. Ussani, Vincenzo, jr. 1946. Un problema di esegesi virgiliana antica. SIFC 21:8399. Vssing, Konrad. 2000. Claudius bittet zum Imbiss: Die cenula condicta in Suet. Claud. 21,4. RhM 143:8995. {. 2004. Mensa regia. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen Knig und beim rmischen Kaiser. Mnchen-Leipzig: K.G. Saur}. Walter, Uwe. See Beck, Hans. Watson, Alan. 1968. The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wessner, Paulus, ed. 1905. Aeli Donati Commentum Terenti. Vol. 2. Lipsiae: Teubner. White, Peter. 1978. Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome. JRS 68:7492. {Zaccaria Ruggiu, Annapaola. 2003. More regio vivere. Il banchetto aristocratico e la casa romana di et arcaica. Roma: Quasar.}

3 THE FOUNDER OF THE REPUBLIC*

Attilio MASTROCINQUE, Lucio Giunio Bruto. Ricerche di storia, religione e diritto della repubblica romana (Universit di Trento. Dipartimento di Storia della Civilt Europea. Pubblicazioni di Storia Antica [Trento 1988, Edizioni La Reclame]). Pp. 293.

408

The subtitle is salutary: for who would have dared to dream that it was possible to cover with print almost three hundred dense pages on the shadowy founder of the Republic? Even Plutarch refrained from composing a life of the Liberator and settled upon the Tyrannicide. But read the subtitle again, carefully: Brutus does not stand solely as the Founder; he is an emblem for the whole of the (not necessarily early) Republic, its history, law and religion. If this promises an erudite pot-pourri, our expectations or fears are not to be denied. Take the seven pages (pp. 5965) the author devotes to the feast of compitalia. He diligently summarizes, with full panoply of sources and literature, everything we know of the feast, then goes on to discuss the decree of the senate of 64 directed against the collegia and the ludi compitalicii; here his presentation is lacunose and careless. In the notorious text of Asconius (In Pis. 7 Clark) he reads (following J.-M. Flambard, MEFRA 89 [1977] 118) magistri ludorum, but in his comment he writes: Pertanto, i magistri dei collegi solevano fare i ludi compitali come i magistri dei vici li facevano, cio praetextati (p. 61, cf. 6869), which presupposes the rival reading in Asconius magistri vicorum. And speaking of the collegia and of the cultores Larum the author (following in the footsteps of many other improvident scholars) falls in a terminological trap of grave consequence failing to distinguish between the magistri collegiorum (especially of the professional associations) and the collegia magistrorum (like the so-called magistri Campani attested in the numerous inscriptions from Capua); for this fundamental distinction, cf. J. Linderski, Der Senat und die Vereine, in Gesellschaft und Recht im GriechischRmischen Altertum 1 (Berlin 1968) 10818 {= RQ 17989, and 64647; cf. also OCD3 91112, s.v. magistri, reprinted in this volume, No. 35.1}. Serious, but minor quibbles, one would say. A major question looms: Quid ad Brutum? Niente, so far. But let us not despair. The Lares were anime eroizzate dei defunti, and hence the feast of the Compitalia was, at least originally, in the sixth century, a feast of the dead (a proposition not everybody will be rushing to embrace). All that may (or may not) have something to do with the celebrazione dei funerali di Bruto. Ecco, the connection with Brutus. Having thus uncovered the methodology of the book, we can now steel ourselves for a long haul: in thirteen chapters articulated in eighty paragraphs the author talks of a plethora of disparate things:
* American Journal of Philology 112 (1991) 407409 {with minor addenda}.

32

Historia et Ius

409

1) The literary tradition concerning Brutus (pp. 1335), especially the Brutus of Accius. Here I note a truly marvelous discussion of the prophetic reversal of the course of the sun and of its Greek antecedents (Cic. de div. 1.4445 = Accius, Brut. 1738 [Warmington 2.56062]); the troubling fact remains that an early Latin praetexta presumes the orientation in the Greek manner toward north, and that this orientation seems to be assumed also by the coniectores explaining the dream to Tarquinius (on the confusing subject of auspical orientation, cf. J. Linderski, ANRW 2.16.3 [1986] 228286; CP 81 [1986] 33940 {= RQ 49495}). 2) The Roman religion, and in particular a) The cult of the Lares (pp. 3741, 5965 [cf. above], 14569). Politically il culto eroico (a proposition sorely in need of proof) at the crossroads tended to be egalitarian and anti-aristocratic, potenzialmente monarchico, hence its utilization by Augustus, as before him by Servius Tullius (165). And it was Brutus who replaced the human sacrifices to the Mater Larum, Mania, instituted by Tarquin, by the offering of the effigies (Macr. Sat. 1.7.3435). Brutus emerges as an eroe sagace who compie una mediazione salvifica fra la sfera del sacro ... e quella dellumano (p. 43), but his literary portrait was progressively purged (particularly by the annalists) from all that bordered on myth or magic while at the same time it acquired features borrowed from the Hellenistic tradition (pp. 4849). b) The cult of Liber (pp. 24575) and Ceres (pp. 11944). Both cults were closely connected with the plebeian community of early Rome, but the author casts his net wide indeed and discusses everything from the toga pura, the bulla of the pueri to the fascinus of Liber, and from the thriambos of Dionysus to the Roman triumph to the statue of Marsyas in the Forum (where the accumulation of titles in the footnotes gives absolutely no idea of the substantial divergence of opinion among the adduced authorities). Ceres leads to a discussion (hardly novel) of the leges sacratae (12731) protecting the tribunes of the plebs (the bona of the person who violated a tribune were forfeited to Ceres) and also the Republic itself against any attempt at a regnum. c) The cult of Apollo and the various ludi (pp. 5156, 6781): the ludi saeculares and their projection to the beginning of the Republic, the ludi Tarentini and the legend of Valerius Publicola, the ludi Taurei and the Sibylline books, the ludi Romani and Plebei (rightly embracing Piganiols idea of the high antiquity of the latter games and pointing to L.R. Taylors demonstration that Cicero was a plebeian, and not a curule aedile, and that consequently the ludi antiquissimi qui primi Romani appellati sunt [Verr. 2.5.36] over which Cicero presided, were in fact the ludi Plebei). 3) The institutions and the history of the early Republic (pp. 171233): the aediles (and their custody of the texts of the laws), the consuls (and all the often trodden question of the praetor maximus and the clavis annalis), the comitia tributa and the comitia tributa plebis (accepting the fuzzy theory of R. Develin [Athenaeum 53 (1975) 30237] that there existed only one kind of the comitia tributa, the plebeian, but rejecting his contention that the patricians were not allowed to vote in the tribal assembly), and finally the auspices and their connection with the curiae: il diritto agli auspici pubblici spettava ai patrizi non tanto in quanto

The Founder of the Republic

33

patrizi, ma in quanto curiali (i.e. the members of the curiae [p. 233]). A nice phrase, but what does it actually mean? It is easy to be critical, and yet Mastrocinque in stressing the religious elements of the regal and early republican tradition, and the subsequent refurbishment of that tradition by the antiquarians and the annalists, who all looked toward Greece, is on the right track. But the question obtrudes: is that track going in the right direction? The book glistens with erudition, and bristles with footnotes,{1} but the nature of the field is such that erudition, footnotes and the author himself must disappear into the black hole of Archaic Rome to emerge as an another footnote.{2}

{1

{2

But let the credulous beware: the footnotes inform and disinform; they are deceiving in their fullness for frequently they are incomplete; the literature is cited in a selective manner, e.g. in the note on patria potestas and the domestic tribunal (p. 125 n. 4) one misses the works of W. Kunkel, Das Konsilium im Hausgericht, Kleine Schriften (Weimar 1974) 11749; P. Voci, Storia della patria potestas, Iura 31 (1980 [1983]) 37100, or W. Harris, The Roman Fathers Power of Life and Death, in Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller (Leiden 1986) 8195.} For a recent attempt to pierce the darkness, spirited and ingenious, see T. P. Wiseman, The Legend of Lucius Brutus, in M. Citroni (ed.), Memoria e identit. La cultura romana construisce la sua memoria (Firenze 2003) 2138.}

4 A CONSTITUTION FOR THE REPUBLIC?*

Andrew LINTOTT, The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. xii + 297.

590

The author needs no introduction. Andrew Lintott has been a major figure in Roman studies for the past three decades, beginning with his impressive Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968, re-issued in a new edition in 1999) to the vastly erudite Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge 1992), with other books and scores of articles for good measure. The object of the present book, as Lintott charmingly and modestly puts it in his preface, is to provide a work in English to which teachers of ancient history can refer pupils on this topic (v). Indeed up to now the only two books to which teachers could with any confidence refer their pupils (in the United Kingdom) or their students (in the United States) were translations from French and German: C. Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (Berkeley 1980) and W. Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History (Oxford 1973), the former marred by an infelicitous rendering and the latter written by a Rechtswissenschaftler for students of law not history. For the use of prospective teachers, then, let us provide a short synopsis of Lintotts compact book. It consists of thirteen sections, which clearly fall into three distinct groups: an introductory part (the introduction proper, a short presentation of the Roman political year, chapters on Polybius and the origin of the constitution); next a systematic account of Roman political institutions (the assemblies, the senate, the higher magistrates and the pro-magistrates, tribunes, aediles and minor magistrates, criminal justice); all rounded off by three concluding chapters on the influence of society and religion, the balance of the constitution and finally the post-mortem: The Republic Remembered (often misremembered) from Tacitus to Machiavelli, Montesquieu, and the Founding Fathers. There are also twelve pages of bibliography (rather erratic, and heavily weighted toward British publications) and two indexes. The subject needs no justification, and yet Lintott decided to append an apology. He defines his aim as an attempt to rescue Roman constitutional studies from the stigma of being old-fashioned, ... and out of tune with modern approaches to the society (v). Lintott leaves it at that, a wise procedure in a textbook, but this reviewer will not shrink from identifying two groups of obtrectatores of Theodor Mommsen (for it is time to invoke that name) and of the method enshrined in the three volumes of his Rmisches Staatsrecht (last edition, Leipzig 18871888]). One group looks for enlightenment to various doctrines of sociology. This

American Journal of Philology 122 (2001) 589592 {with minor addenda and corrections}.

A Constitution for the Republic

35

591

approach may indeed provide an occasional insight, but by and large it is hardly an effective tool for a detailed study of particular institutions. The real culprit is, however, another giant, none other but Ronald Syme, and his prosopographical bent. Symes misunderstanding of Staatsrecht was profound (cf. J. Linderski, Mommsen and Syme, in Roman Questions [Stuttgart 1995] 3243, 633). Lintott tries to rescue Mommsens opus by meekly averring that it is much less narrowly legalistic than it is often supposed (v). This is not the point at all. There exist various approaches to historical reality, not mutually exclusive but complementary. In his Rmische Geschichte, Mommsen created a spirited narrative history of the republic; in his Public Law, he gave a legal description of the Roman state. He was not writing merely constitutional history. This term, and the title of Lintotts book, will not cause trouble to British, French or Italian pupils, but will be confusing to American students. Like the British, the Romans did not have a founding document; and in the last two hundred years the French, Italian, Spanish, or German states had so many of them that they could never achieve the hallowed reverence of the American Constitution. Thus constitutional history means very different things on the two sides of the Atlantic. For British and continental scholars it is primarily a historical study of political institutions (Verfassungsgeschichte). But there exist a conceptual chasm between constitutional or institutional history and the study of public law, between Verfassungsgeschichte and Staatsrecht. The former is chronological and descriptive; here F. De Martino comes to mind, and his profuse Storia della costituzione Romana (6 vols. [Napoli 19511990], in various editions), and perhaps also Mommsens predecessor, the last of the constitutional antiquarians, L. Lange, and his Rmische Alterthmer (3 vols. [Berlin 18561879], in various editions), neither of them mentioned by Lintott. Public law, on the other hand, is above all concerned with concepts and notions, such as (in Rome) magistratus, imperium, potestas, auspicium, auctoritas, coercitio, ius, lex, fas, mos, but also vir, mulier, civis, miles, servus and many others. It describes the outward structures and catalogues their permutations, but its true goal is more ambitious: to discover the essence, the guiding spirit of a social and political organism, to recreate order out of the chaos of our sources. These concepts were of course not static: their perception and interpretation were bound to change in response to social changes. Very illustrative is here the debate concerning the auspicia in connection with the accession of the plebeians to the magistracies (cf. Linderski, Roman Questions 56074, 67475). Lintott steers the middle course between history and law: he gives a historical description and evaluation of political institutions and a survey of Roman and Greek ideas (especially those of Polybius and Cicero) about these institutions, but he also provides a generous discussion of Roman terms and of their precise legal application. But he justly tempers Mommsens begriffslogische Staatsrechtslehre (I borrow this expression from J. Bleicken, Lex Publica [Berlin 1975] 151 at 23, the best treatment of the problem) with the social insights of M. Gelzers Die rmische Nobilitt (Leipzig 1912) and Symes The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939), especially in his analysis of aristocratic families and their values and of plebeian connections and dependence (16481).

36

Historia et Ius

592

This is the right course to take for, like form and content, institutions and people are inseparable. But institutions are a peculiar organism with a life of their own: they are in their essence the creations of the dead and they weigh on the living; they are like a coral reef, part petrified, part alive, and on that solid rock often crash those who wished to reform or reject them, as the Gracchi and Caesar were to find. Hence their maintenance and change are of burning interest to a historian. Lintott, guided by Polybius, offers fine pages on the maintenance of the balance (191208); on changes in the balance, however, he is feeble and disappointing (20813). He adverts mostly to symptoms and legislative remedies (as, for example, the lex Caecilia Didia which, inter alia, established for the first time strictly defined proceedings for the annulment of bills) and eschews the underlying causes of the constitutional turmoil. He has nothing to say about the Roman conquest of Italy and the Mediterranean, and the social changes it wrought, and yet it was undoubtedly the worldwide imperium populi Romani that ultimately led to the dissolution of the old res publica. It produced an enormous concentration of riches in few hands, and thus undermined the cohesion of the senate. The greatest triumph of the idea of Rome, the clamor of the Italian allies for Roman citizenship and the spoils that went with it, it is true, produced after a devastating war a unified and Roman Italy; but this process also rendered the Roman voting system inadequate, obsolete and moribund. Few Roman citizens were able to travel many times in the year to Rome and vote, and thus the crucial link for every republic between the citizenship and vote was severed, never to be repaired. The other crucial link between a republic and the citizenry is military service. With the reforms of Marius and the introduction of a professional army, a process that was to fuel civil wars, this link was also severed. Those who cast voting tablets held no swords, and the power inevitably flowed to those who held them, the soldiers and their commanders. It is thus surprising that Lintott has no separate discussion of exercitus, a signal omission for military organization has been a defining element of every social organism (cf., e.g., the inspiring remarks by S. Andreski, Military Organization and Society, 2nd ed. [Berkeley 1968]). The decay of this great republican (though by no means democratic!) system was a defining event in western history until the rise of American republicanism, and I wish Lintott had devoted a few pages to a comparative assessment of this phenomenon (cf., for example, S. E. Finer, The History of the Government, vols. 13 [Oxford 1997], esp. 1.385441 on the Roman Republic, an intelligent treatment). In history there is no end, and yet Lintotts Republic hangs in a void: there are generous references to Sulla and Caesar, but one searches in vain for the name of Augustus. A true synthesis of Law and History is still to be written, but along this path Lintott has made a good beginning and offered to students of Rome a fine book of instruction and reflection.{1}

{1

See now the probing assessments of Lintotts book and of Roman constitution by T. C. Brennan, Phoenix 56.12 (2002) 19194; and by W. J. Tatum, The Historian 63.3 (2001) 68182.}

5 IN THE SENATE*
Marianne BONNEFOND-COUDRY, Le snat de la rpublique romaine de la guerre dHannibal Auguste: Pratiques dlibratives et prise de dcision (Bibliothque des coles Franaises dAthnes et de Rome, fasc. 273 [Rome 1989, cole Franaise de Rome]). Pp. vi + 837.

126

The senate and the people formed the two parts of the Roman state, and the official denomination senatus populusque Romanus was not only a handy phrase but also an exact description of the political reality with the senate taking the precedence over the (theoretically sovereign) populus. And long after the popular assemblies, the manifestation and embodiment of the people, ceased to exist, the senate endured under the imperial autocracy as the only link with the libera res publica. Of the republican senate two classical treatments exist, diverse and complementary: Th. Mommsens Rmisches Staatsrecht, the third part of which is devoted to the Brgerschaft und Senat, the senate occupying 416 pages (vol. 3 [Leipzig 1888] 8351251), and P. Willems massive Le snat de la rpublique romaine in two volumes and 1508 pages (Louvain 18831885). The imperial senate has been recently treated by R. J. A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton 1984): 520 pages versus the meagre 20 pages Mommsen devoted to this subject. The new book by Bonnefond-Coudry surpasses Mommsen and challenges Willems at least in the number of pages. But she has wisely refrained from covering all the ground and dealing with all the topics discussed by Mommsen or Willems. First, the book is limited chronologically: it omits the uncertain centuries of Roman history and starts where Livys narrative resumes, with the War of Hannibal, thus paralleling the decision taken by L. R. Taylor in her classic Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar (Ann Arbor 1966). Thematically the monograph is divided into two Livres. Livre I treats of Le snat dans lespace et le temps civiques. Chapter 1 contains a detailed discussion of all meeting places of the senate within and without the pomerium (the curia and the various temples); chapter 2 deals with the calendar of the meetings in particular as regulated by the lex Gabinia and lex Pupia. The theme of Livre II is Les sances du snat, primarily a discussion of the senatorial procedure. Scattered throughout the book we find comments on 212 individual sessions of the senate (see the list on pp. 8059); it is a pity that the author did not produce a chronologically arranged corpus of the meetings (such as we have for the late Republic from the pen of P. Stein, Die Senatssitzungen der ciceronischen Zeit [Diss. Mnster 1930]). We should not complain we get various catalogues we have long been
* American Journal of Philology 113 (1992) 125128 {with minor addenda}.

38

Historia et Ius

127

looking for, in particular the lists of the meetings of the senate whose place (pp. 3247, cf. 14647 for the meetings held extra pomerium) or date (pp. 20219) is attested; the lists of the meetings concerning war and peace (pp. 26365, 28082), triumphs (pp. 14445), embassies (pp. 28588, 29192, 296304, 30910), prodigies and supplications (pp. 32223, 32527), and finally, for the first century only, a list of (avowedly) all senators attested to take the floor (pp. 62132). The opus of Bonnefond-Coudry will be immensely useful; yet when we proceed to details (and the book will be used as an encyclopedia) doubts emerge. There are often too many words and too few facts (morbus thesarum FrancoGallicarum). And the facts are not always the right facts, and if they are right they are not always presented in a right way. To comment: First, the auspices. Following in the footsteps of Willems (Le snat 2.173) Bonnefond-Coudry observes that (unlike the comitia) the meetings of the senate were never impeded by the nuntiatio or obnuntiatio; this seems to prove that the auspices taken before the sessions of the senate did not have a character officiel, public et obligatoire (224). Not so. The popular assemblies were subjected to the obnuntiatio (carried out by the magistrates and the tribunes and not to be confused with the nuntiatio of the augurs) because of a peculiar rule of the augural law, succinctly expressed by Cicero, de div. 2.43: comitiorum solum vitium est fulmen, quod idem omnibus rebus optumum auspicium habemus. Thus lightning observed and reported by any magistrate or tribune before the beginning of the comitia made the whole day ritually unsuitable for the holding of an assembly. But for the meetings of the senate lightning was not a vitium quite on the contrary it was a favorable sign, and it is for that reason that obnuntiatio against senatorial meetings was not possible. The meetings of the senate (as every official state act) were preceded by the ceremony of auspication (Varro apud Gellium 14.7.9), and if the auspices were unfavorable the senate could not gather on that day. In April 43, at the height of the war against Antonius, it was reported pullariorum admonitu (and hence the auspices in question were presumably the auspicia ex tripudiis) that the presiding officer non satis diligenter ... auspiciis operam dedisse; at the recommendation of the college of augurs the meeting was adjourned (Cic., Fam. 10.12.3; and see the classic studies by I. M. J. Valeton, De modis auspicandi, Mnemosyne 18 [1890] esp. 42356; De iure obnuntiandi, Mnemosyne 19 [1891] 75113, 22970. Cf. J. Linderski, Rmischer Staat und Gtterzeichen, Jb. d. Univ. Dsseldorf [1969/70] 30922 {= RQ 44457}; The Augural Law, ANRW 2.16.3 [1986] 219698, 221314). Next (and, for reasons of space, last), the catalogues. Deep in their hearts most Roman historians are prosopographers: they jump for joy when they see lists of names. Are those lists reliable? The list of Interventions de snateurs nommment cits au Ier sicles (pp. 62131) is not. The list contains only senators proper; the magistrates are not included. Furthermore there is no clear indication of multiple interventions of single intervenants at the same session. And it is irritating that the catalogue does not provide, as MRR does, the numbers in the RE. Here is (exempli gratia) a (chronologically arranged) supplement of missing intervenants (and interventions) for one year only, 63, the year of Ciceros consulship:

In the Senate

39

128

1) Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, pr. 65, demands a severe lex de ambitu (Cic., Mur. 4647); 2) at the meeting held a few days before the session referred to sub 4) M. Porcius Cato, qu. 64 (?), threatens to bring a criminal charge against Catiline; (whereupon); 3) L. Sergius Catilina, pr. 68, retorts and attacks Cato (Cic., Mur. 51); 4) at the meeting held on the day for which the elections were originally scheduled Catiline responds to Ciceros accusations (Cic., Mur. 51; Plut., Cic. 14.56); 5) On 21 (or 22) October, Q. Arrius, pr. by 64, reports on the conspirators preparations in Etruria (Plut., Cic. 15.3); 6) Shortly after 27 October L. Saenius (no office attested) reads a letter reporting that Manlius arma cepisse cum magna multitudine (Sall., Cat. 30); 7) On 8 November Catiline responds to Ciceros First Catilinarian (Sall., Cat. 31.79; Plut., Cic. 16.3); 8) not long afterwards Q. Lutatius Catulus, cos. 78, reads in the senate a letter from Catiline (Sall., Cat. 34.3). There is no reason to continue. On Dec. 3 and 5 took place two crucial meetings of the senate: the catalogue of the speakers is again confused, and incomplete. This is also true of other years. The whole list is to be redone, and whoever will do it will have to distinguish carefully between simple reports to the senate and the formal sententiae {see now F. X. Ryan, Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate [Stuttgart 1998] passim, and esp. 35775; also Senate intervenants in 61 B.C., and the aedileship of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Hermes 123 (1995) 8290}. It is easy to carp. The blame rests not with the hand that wrote the book, but with the absurd academic system that rewards effuse scribbling and frowns upon concise lucidity. It is no accident that Louis Robert never wrote a thse. To read a thse is an art: mixed with sloppy deposits there are veins of information and nuggets of insight to be mined. It is a pleasure to conclude presenting a piece of gold: In the praescriptio of the senatus consultum de Thasiis of 80 B.C.E. (R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East [Baltimore 1969] 11520, no. 20) the location of the meeting is hidden in the damaged word (line 5) [..]mhthrvi. L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 268 n. 3, ingeniously restored it as [ti]mhtervi, and took this denomination to refer to the temple of Honos or Honos et Virtus. Bonnefond-Coudry in an erudite demonstration (pp. 11521; cf. her earlier article Le Snat rpublicaine dans latrium Libertatis?, MEFRA 91 [1979] 60122) opts for the atrium Libertatis, one of the principal locales of the censors, and hence not inappropriately rendered in Greek as timhtrion {F. Coarelli, Atrium Libertatis, LTUR 1 [1993] 13335, records the MEFRA article, but has no word to say about the restoration in the decree de Thasiis}.

6 AMBASSADORS GO TO ROME*
Ambassadors and embassies fascinated the ancients, from Homer to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Calamity impends when the Greek embassy departs from Troy without Helen1 or when the Roman envoy (Q.) Fabius, his toga gathered into a fold, bids the Carthaginians to choose war or peace.2 So epos and tragic history. Winged words of ambassadors were the stuff of legend and fiction. Embassies provided historians with an opportunity, not to be missed, to produce dramatic speeches, more often compiled according to the rules decreed by rhetoricians than with any regard for historical accuracy.3 Reality was more mundane. Ambassadors did deliver speeches, and they did talk of weighty matters; but they also talked of trifles. They travelled, they ate, and they slept. Not seldom would they die in a foreign land.{3a} Their privileges and their comportment were regulated by rules of international law, the ius gentium, respected by all but the most savage of barbarians.4
Les Relations Internationales. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 1517 juin 1993, dits par Ed. Frzouls () et A. Jacquemin (= Universit des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg. Travaux du Centre de Recherches sur le Proche-Orient et la Grce Antiques, 13, Paris 1995, pp. 45378 {with addenda}. 1 Iliad, 3, 2056; 11, 13842; cf. Dictys Cretensis 1.4-12. 2 Livy, 21, 18, 114, esp. 13: tum Romanus sinu ex toga facto Hic, inquit, vobis bellum et pacem portamus: utrum placet, sumite. It is uncertain whether the envoy was Q. (so Livy) Fabius (Maxinus Verrucosus) or M. Fabius (Buteo); cf. T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I, New York, 1951, pp. 239, 241, n. 7. 3 On the presbeutikoi logoi, cf. Polyb. 12, 25 a, 3; Diod. 20, 1, 2. {3a On ambassadors deceased during their travel to Rome, in the city itself, and on the return journey, see esp. F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in et repubblicana, Roma, 1997, in index, pp. 747, 748, 749 (sixteen cases). See also (although none of these studies intends to offer a complete dossier): C. Habicht, Tod auf der Gesandschaftsreise, Studi Ellenistici 13, 2001, pp. 917, esp. pp. 1112, 1416; L. Moretti, I Greci a Roma, Opuscula Instituti Romani Finlandiae 4, 1989, p. 13; A. Masci, in G. L. Gregori (ed.), La Collezione epigrafica dellAntiquarium comunale del Celio (Tituli, 8), Roma, 2001, pp. 23031, no. 164, esp. p. 231, n. 609 (provincial and municipal envoys in the imperial times); C. Ricci, Balcanici e danubiani a Roma, in L. Mrozewicz and K. Ilski (eds.), Prosopographica, Pozna n, 1993, p. 150, no. 3; p. 156, no. 4; p. 157, no. 13 (cf. no. 11; the inscription in question is IGUR II, 567 [not 566]); pp. 16768.} 4 The comportment of ambassadors was governed by the ius gentium. They could not engage in any act of hostility; this point was forcefully stressed in the annalistic tradition. When a Roman envoy (legatus-orator) sent to the Gauls in 389 engaged in a battle, he was subsequently accused by a tribune of the plebs before a popular assembly, Livy, 6, 1, 6: interim Q. Fabio, simul primum magistratu abiit, ab Cn. Marcio tribuno plebis dicta dies est, quod legatus in Gallos, ad quos missus erat orator, contra ius gentium pugnasset; cui iudicio eum mors adeo opportuna, ut voluntariam magna pars crederet, subtraxit. At 38, 25, 19 the oratores of the *

Ambassadors Go to Rome
454

41

When Rome became the center of the ancient world it also became the place to which embassies flocked.5 In any study of Roman diplomacy the place of honor
Tectosagi attempt to deceive the Roman consul, and Livy comments: et successisset fraudi, ni pro iure gentium, cuius violandi consilium initum est, stetisset fortuna. On the other hand the ambassadors were protected from any mistreatment, and their violators, to appease the gods, had to be punished. See the references and the discussion in K.-H. Ziegler, Vlkerrecht der rmischen Republik, ANRW, I, 2, pp. 99101; D. Nrr, Die Fides im rmischen Vlkerrecht, Heidelberg, 1991, pp. 1112; T. R. S. Broughton, Mistreatment of Foreign Legates and the Fetial Priests: Three Roman Cases, Phoenix, 41, 1987, pp. 5062; {M. Kaser, Ius gentium, Kln-Weimar-Wien, 1993, esp. pp. 3335. Still very useful is C. Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome, London, 1911, esp. vol. 1, pp. 30246; vol. 2, pp. 18789}. See also below, n. 28. Two classic accounts of the reception of foreign embassies in Rome are those by Th. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht, III, 1, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 597, 704, 74142, and esp. III, 2, 1888, pp. 114857; and P. Willems, Le snat de la rpublique romaine, II, Louvain, 1883, pp. 48590. Cf. also Mommsen, Das rmische Gastrecht, in Rmische Forschungen, I, Berlin, 1864, pp. 34354. More recent, and much more summary, are the accounts by A. von Premerstein, RE, 23, 1924, coll. 113638, s.v. legatus, and by [A.] OBrien Moore, RE, Suppl. 6, 1935, coll. 73032, s.v. senatus. See also M. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le snat de la rpublique romaine de la guerre dHannibal Auguste, Rome, 1989, pp. 13843, 28084, 294320, 33347, with various lists of embassies, unfortunately incomplete and not always reliable. Of use, and importance, is still the dissertation by Th. Bttner-Wobst (the future editor of Polybius and the Excerpts of Constantine), De legationibus rei publicae liberae temporibus Romam missis, Lipsiae, 1876; it may be of interest to note that this script takes its place among the rather few modern studies deemed by Mommsen worthy to be quoted in his Staatsrecht (III, 2, p. 1155, n. 4). D. J. Mosley, Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece, Historia-Einzelschriften, 22, Wiesbaden, 1973, is a lucid introduction to Greek diplomatic practices, but it stops before the advent of the Romans. {See also D. Kienast, Presbeia, RE, Suppl. 13, 1973, coll. 499627, esp. 58790: Die Entwicklung der griechischen Gesandschaftswesen in rmischer Zeit}. A partial prosopography of Hellenistic ambassadors to Rome can be extracted from E. Olshausen, Prosopographie der hellenistischen Knigsgesandten, I, Von Triparadeisos bis Pydna, Lovanii, 1974. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no special discussion of embassies in E. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley, 1984; in his index (pp. 8034) the author unfortunately does not follow in the footsteps of Constantine, and does not differentiate between the embassies coming to Rome and the embassies sent by the Romans. With respect to the particular problems discussed in this paper the examples assembled in the footnotes are much more numerous than those given in the standard works, but still they do not constitute a corpus. A full collection of all references to foreign embassies to Rome (including a complete prosopography of ambassadors and their entourage) is a burning desideratum. {This call has now been amply answered: a full collection of sources (with a brief commentary) on Greek embassies to Rome has been offered by F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in et repubblicana, Roma, 1997 (cf. p. XII, n. 2, with express reference to this call for action). The book will become an indispensable tool for any study of the relations between Rome and the Greek world; unfortunately it lists (and numbers) only those embassies that travelled to Rome itself, and omits the embassies to Roman commanders in the field. Thus a proper diplomatic history of the Roman involvement in the East (and West) is still to be composed. (And we hope that a further collection by Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie romane ad gentes, will finally be properly published as a book. See now also his Le relazioni diplomatiche di Roma, vol. I: Dallet regia alla conquista del primato in Italia (753265 a.C.), Roma, 2005). Another very useful collection, dealing with a later period, is G. Ziethen, Gesandte vor Kaiser und Senat. Studien zum rmischen

42

Historia et Ius

455

occupies the great historical encyclopedia compiled on the orders of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (emperor 912959). It was a monumental collection in fifty three books of excerpts from historians ranging from Herodotos to the Byzantine Theophanes. It recalls another Byzantine compilation, more famous and more lasting, Justinians Digest of Roman law. The Digest survived intact; the fates were less kind to the excerpts of Constantine. Only four books are extant: on virtues and vices (de virtutibus et vitiis), on sententious sayings (de sententiis), on ambuscades (de insidiis) and, fortunately for us, the book (originally twenty-ninth) on embassies, Ekloga per prsbevn.6 It is divided into two parts dealing with the embassies sent by the Romans to foreign nations and by the foreign nations to Rome. This division is sensible inherently, and also from the procedural point of view. The embassy collection of Porphyrogenitus is hardly ever directly used by modern historians of the Republic or even noticed. Yet when in our search for legationes we pore over the editions of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cassius Dio, Appian or Polybius we may actually be consulting a passage preserved in the encyclopedia of Constantine. This is particularly true of the later books of Polybius.7 It is Polybius who in his account of the constitution of Rome gives us a first contemporary glimpse into the mechanism of the reception of foreign embassies in Rome. His stress is on the senate. One of the duties of the consuls, he writes (6, 12, 2), is to introduce embassies to the senate, and he continues his discussion of foreign envoys in his enumeration of the senates prerogatives. First he talks of the senates prerogative to dispatch Roman embassies to all countries, and of the purpose of those embassies: to settle differences, to offer friendly advice, to impose demands, to receive submission, to declare war (6, 13, 6). Next, the senate exercises complete control over embassies arriving in Rome: it decides how they should be received and what answer should be given to them. All these matters, Polybius concludes,
are in the hands of the senate, and the people have nothing at all to do with them.

456

For that reason, he continues,

the constitution appears entirely aristocratic, and this is the conviction of many Greeks and of many kings, as all their affairs are decided by the senate (6, 13, 79).8

7 8

Gesandschaftswesen zwischen 30 v. Chr. und 117 n. Chr., St. Katharinen, 1994. See also C. Habicht, Zum Gesandtschaftsverkehr griechischer Gemeinden mit rmischen Instanzen whrend der Kaiserzeit, Archaiognosia, 11, 20012002, pp. 1127.} The standard modern edition of the Excerpta historica iussu imperatoris Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta was published in four volumes (and six parts) by Weidmann Verlag, Berlin, 19031906. Vol. I (1903, ed. C. de Boor) contains (part 1) Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum ad Gentes, and (part 2) Excerpta de legationibus Gentium ad Romanos. Cf. Th. Buettner-Wobst in the Praefatio to his Teubner edition of Polybius Historiae, vol. 4, containing fragments of books 2040, Lipsiae, 1904, pp. IXII. See the notes on these passages by F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, I, Oxford, 1957, pp. 676, 68081.

Ambassadors Go to Rome

43

To the philosopher Cineas, the envoy of king Pyrrhus, the senate appeared as a council of many kings so at least the legend.9 Times were changing. From Polybius the picture of an overbearing, self-assured, and unpleasant power emerges. It is to this body of gods and saviors, yeo svtrew, as king Prusias of Bithynia addressed the senators, prostrating himself to kiss the threshold of the curia, that the Greek embassies travelled. Roman annalists were embarrassed by Prusias abject behavior. Only Polybius records it. Livy, quoting Polybius, comments that Prusias oratio was not so much honorifica to his audience as disgraceful, deformis, to himself.10 But the senators were not displeased. Prusias received a kindly welcome, and was granted almost everything he begged for. How different the treatment of the Aetolians! They were defeated (in 191) by the consul M. Acilius Glabrio, but they still pinned their hopes on the success of Antiochus III. And so when the Aetolian envoys were introduced into the senate (at the beginning of the consular year 189), as Livy writes,
457

although both their own interests and their situation urged them to confess guilt or mistake, and to beg as suppliants for pardon (ut confitendo seu culpae seu errori veniam supplices peterent),

they offended the senators by

the insolence of their speech (insolentia sermonis), and by recalling their old and forgotten services to Rome, ... in a situation when they needed mercy they roused only anger and hatred (vetera et oblitterata repetendo, ... quibus misericordia opus erat, iram et odium irritarent).

They were curtly dismissed, and the consul M. Fulvius Nobilior was entrusted with prosecuting the war against Aetolia.11 The maxim parcere subiectis et debellare superbos (Aen., 6, 853) was not invented by Vergil. Since the victory over Hannibal
9 Plutarch, Pyrrhus 19, 5. 10 Polybius, 30, 18. Livy, 45, 44, 418, gives an account from nostri scriptores, and at 1921 he summarizes Polybius. At this place, as if arranged by Fates, our text of Livy breaks off. As Polybius reports, when the Roman envoys arrived at the court of Prusias, the king greeted them attired in the garb of a recently freed Roman slave, wearing the pilleus of a libertus, his head shorn. Walbank, Commentary, (above, n. 8), III, 1979, p. 441, tentatively dates this event to 172, when the Romans were assembling a coalition against king Perseus of Macedonia (so also Eckstein, p. 437; see below). This is not likely: the behavior of Prusias fits much better into the period immediately after the battle of Pydna; after all Prusias had been (initially) neutral in the war, and now he sought to avert possible reprisals by humiliating himself before the Romans. D. C. Braund, Amynander, Prusias II, Daphidas, CQ, 32, 1982, pp. 35354, also dates the event after Pydna, and offers an ingenious explanation: it was surely from Macedon that Prusias claimed to be freed; after the Roman victory the former Macedonian slave became the Roman freedman. For Prusias dealings with Rome, see A. C. Scafuro, Prusias II of Bithynia and Third Party Arbitration, Historia, 36, 1987, pp. 2837; and particularly A. M. Eckstein, Rome, the War with Perseus, and Third Party Mediation, Historia, 37, 1988, pp. 43342. 11 Livy, 37, 49-50, 1-8. Cf. J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy, Books XXXIVXXXVII, Oxford, 1981, pp. 36668.

44

Historia et Ius

it was the guiding light if not of Roman foreign policy then at least of Roman propaganda and ideology, as amply attested by Polybius and the epigraphically preserved letters of Flamininus to Chyretiae in 197/194, of the praetor M. Valerius Messala to Teos in 193, and of the Scipios to Heraclea by Latmos in 190.12 For all the richness of the Greek idiom, Latin expressed better this new relationship of dependency. Greek presbeutw is a neutral term. In Latin two terms were used to describe the office of ambassador: orator and legatus.13 They tell an instructive story. Orator was the original and solemn word. It was on the lips of Ennius, Cato and Plautus, and to add a touch of antiquity on the pen of Cicero and Livy. Its first appearance in Ennius is dramatic (Annales, 207 Vahlen2 = 202 Skutsch):
orator sine pace redit regique refert rem: the envoy comes back without peace and reports the matter to the king.

458

The envoy, it is generally agreed, is Cineas, and the king Pyrrhus.14 This passage is preserved by Varro (De Lingua Latina, 7, 41), who proceeds to give an etymology of the word:
orator derives from oratio: for he who was to present publicly the words of a plea before the one to whom he was sent as envoy, was called spokesman (orator), from his speech (oratio); when the matter was of greater importance those were selected for the pleading who could plead most skillfully.15

Thus orator equals ambassador, but one who is also an accomplished speaker. And indeed at De Lingua Latina, 6, 76, Varro connects orator and os, but such a derivation would be linguistically unprecedented, and modern students of Latin reject this idea. In fact both oratio and orator derive from the verb oro, to pronounce a ritual formula, and hence particularly to beseech a deity or a person, and further to plead ones case, especially before a court or an assembly. Thus the primary sense of orator was that of a person who pronounced a formula, especially that of an ambassador charged with delivering an oral and formulaic message.16
12 Polybius, 18, 37 (cf. 27, 8, 8), and Walbank, Commentary, (above, n. 8), II, 1967, pp. 59798, with the quotation of epigraphical sources, now to be consulted in R. K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East, Baltimore, 1969, nos. 33, 34, 35, pp. 21118. 13 Occasionally also the generic term nuntius, messenger, was employed. 14 Cf. the commentary of O. Skutsch, The Annals of Q. Ennius, Oxford, 1985, pp. 36465. 15 Varro, De Lingua Latina, 7, 41 (ed. Goetz-Schoell): orator dictus ab oratione: qui enim verba haberet publice adversus eum quo legabatur, ab oratione orator dictus; cum res maiore ratione [corrected by Turnebus to cum res maior erat <act>ioni, and by Stroux to cum res maior oratione <egebat>; cf. Skutsch, loc. cit., (above, n. 14)] legebantur potissimum qui causam commodiss<im>e orare poterant. Here Varro appends another citation from Ennius: oratores doctiloqui (Annales, 582, Vahlen2 = 593, Skutsch, cf. the commentary, pp. 73031). A representative collection of evidence in TLL, s.v. orator, coll. 89293. 16 Varro, De Lingua Latina, 6, 76: oro ab ore et perorat et exorat et oratio et orator et osculum dictum. This popular connection between os and oratio was felt also by Ennius (Scaenica, Vahlen2, 306 = H. D. Jocelyn, The Tragedies of Ennius, Cambridge, 1969, fr. 258: quam tibi ex ore orationem duriter dictis dedit) and by Plautus (Merc., 176) and Cicero (Phil., 5, 20),

Ambassadors Go to Rome

45

Verrius Flaccus, in an excerpt extant in the dictionary of Festus, gives this explanation of the term orator:
459

The ancients used orare in the sense of agere; the word oratores is a proof for this, and also those who are now in fact called legati, ambassadors, then, however, (were called) oratores, because they acted parts entrusted to them on behalf of the republic.17

It is not clear what Verrius Flaccus wished precisely to convey by the verb agere, but we have to remember that agere is not a synonym for gerere. In the parlance of Roman public law those who rem agunt or gerunt are the magistrates; but gerere is not used with respect to priests, and in particular the augurs are said augurium agere, but never gerere.18 Thus agere (but not gerere) may denote nothing more than the performance of a ritual, the prescribed gestures, and the utterance of a formula. And this is exactly what the ambassadors, the oratores, were originally supposed to do.19 In another passage Verrius embraces a fantastic etymology, but his description of the orators function contains a kernel of truth. This passage is unfortunately mutilated, but the abridgment by Paulus preserves its essence (p. 197, Lindsay):
Orators (oratores) are so named from the Greek rhtrew (literally those that pray), because when they were sent to kings and nations, they used to call gods as witnesses, rsyai, that is testari. Now we call them legati.20
adduced by Jocelyn, p. 391. So also later grammarians, cf. R. Maltby, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies, Leeds, 1991, p. 435. For a linguistic appraisal, see A. WaldeJ. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, II3, Heidelberg, 1954, p. 224; A. ErnoutA. Meillet, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine3, Paris, 1951, p. 832. On orator, see esp. the thorough study (impeccable philologically, but conducted in splendid isolation from history) by W. Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator. Eine Geschichte der Begriffe von ihren Anfngen bis in die augusteische Zeit (Commentationes Aenipontanae, XIV), Innsbruck, 1958, pp. 11965. H. Quellet, Les drivs latins en -or, Paris, 1969, does not discuss the nomina agentis. Festus, p. 218, Lindsay: Orare antiquos dixisse pro agere (cf. p. 196), testimonio sunt et oratores, et i qui nunc quidem legati, tunc vero oratores, quod reipublicae mandatas partis agebant; Ennius quoque cum dixit in lib. I Annalium (20, Vahlen = 17, Skutsch; cf. commentary, pp. 17576): Face vero quod tecum precibus pater orat (Anchises addressing Aeneas). Cf. the abridgment by Paulus (p. 219, Lindsay): Orare antiqui dixerunt pro agere. Unde et oratores causarum actores, et oratores, qui nunc legati, quod reipublicae mandata peragerent. So also Servius and Servius auctus, Aen., 11, 100, and already Varro, De Lingua Latina, 6, 42: cum pronuntiamus agimus; itaque ab eo orator agere dicitur causam. Cf. Cicero, De legibus, 2, 2021; De officiis, 3, 66, and for a discussion, see J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW, II, 16, 3, 1986, p. 2199, n. 187; cf. pp. 2149, 229395. It is worth noting that in tables of hospitium and patronatus from Spain the regular phrase to describe the activity of the envoys who concluded the agreement is egerunt legati, see A. DOrs, Epigrafa jurdica de la Espaa Romana, Madrid, 1953, nos. 1618, 2122, 23 (egit legatus), (cf. 19: egerunt praetores), pp. 36774. Festus, p. 196, Lindsay. In his edition of Festus in the Glossaria Latina, IV, Paris, 1930, p. 298, Lindsay attempted a fuller restitution of the passage. As this passage is of crucial importance for our discussion, I reproduce it here in full: <Oratores ex Graeco quod est rhtr>ew dictos exi<stimant> ... (6 litt.) ... <quod ad reges> gentes qui (-que) missi <ea quae mandabant

17

18 19

20

46
460

Historia et Ius

It is not difficult to see that this passage describes almost to perfection the original duties of the fetiales, the college of priests who still in Varros time were in charge of the ceremonies attending the conclusion of a treaty, per hos etiam nunc fit foedus. Observe the present tense; for in the preceding passage Varro employs the imperfect to indicate the duties the fetiales no longer discharged in his age:
per hos fiebat ut iustum conciperetur bellum, it was through their agency that the just war used to be formally declared, and further: ex his mittebantur, ante quam conciperetur, qui res repeterent, before the war was formally declared, it was from their number that (the envoys) used to be sent to demand satisfaction (De Lingua Latina, 5, 86).

Here, naturally, comes to mind Livys rendition of the ceremonial, with the envoy arriving at the border, the fines, calling Jupiter as witness and demanding satisfaction; and then, finally, after a thirty day grace period, declaring war by reciting a formula and throwing a spear into the enemys territory.21 Now Livy describes the envoy as legatus (legatus ubi ad fines eorum venit), and even puts this denomination into the mouth of the fetialis himself: iuste pieque legatus venio (1, 32, 6). Livy modernizes, and Varro once again introduces a correction; in his treatise De Vita Populi Romani he writes that the Romans of old before they declared a war used to send
four fetial priests as envoys (legati) to demand satisfaction (res repetere), whom they called oratores .22
461

Why, then, was the term orator, grave and potent, replaced in the official language of the Roman State by the faceless and bureaucratic legatus? A semantic shift had occurred. The meaning of the verb orare, to utter words was more and more influenced by the circumstance that these words were often addressed to
m>agistratus populo Romano <consentiente approbante solerent> rsyai <id est testari deos non abesse r>em ab aequitate. Eos nostri alii pro legatis appellant, ut Cato in ea quam scripsit de suis virtutibus contra Thermum: M. Fulvio consuli legatus sum in Aetoliam propterea quod ex Aetolia conplures venerant: Aetolos pacem velle; de ea re oratores Romam profectos. Et in Originum lib. I (21): Propter id bellum coepit; Cloelius praetor Albanus oratores misit Romam cum ... (10 litt.) ... Alias pro decretoribus (deprecat-?), ut Terentius (Hec. 9): orator venio; facite exorator sim; item et Afranius in Emancipato (92): sic est orator siquod (-id?) oritur tale. The text of Paulus reads (p. 197, Lindsay): Oratores ex Graeco rhtrew dicti, quod missi ad reges nationesque deos solerent rsyai, id est testari. Hi modo appellantur legati. 21 Livy, 1, 32, 514; cf. R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy. Books 15, Oxford, 1965, pp. 12736, and, above all, the paper in the acts of this conference by J.-L. Ferrary, Ius fetiale et diplomatie, pp. 41132. {Cf. now a detailed investigation of the ius fetiale by A. Zack, Studien zum Rmischen Vlkerrecht (Gttingen 2001) 1373.} 22 This passage from De Vita Populi Romani, book 2, is preserved by Nonius, p. 529, Mercerius = p. 850, Lindsay: priusquam indicerent bellum i<i>s, a quibus iniurias factas sciebant, f[a]etiales legatos res repetitum mittebant quattuor, quos oratores vocabant. Mommsen, Staastrecht, II3, 1887, p. 676, n. 5, prefers to put a comma after fetiales, which would produce a rather awkward sense of the fetials dispatching the envoys.

Ambassadors Go to Rome

47

462

gods, and hence were the words of beseeching and asking for favor.23 Consequently, also orator, originally the reciter of a (solemn) formula, was more and more perceived as a beseecher and pleader, a role totally unsuitable to a Roman envoy. This explains the mystery of the disappearance of orator in the sense of envoy, particularly Roman, and its continuing and illustrious career to denote the public speaker. We are fortunate enough to be able to detect this semantic shift at a very early stage. In the De verborum significatu of Festus two passages from the elder Cato, a passage from Terence, and a passage from Afranius are adduced to illustrate the usage of the term orator.24 In Catos Origines we read of Cloelius, the Alban praetor, sending the envoys, oratores, to Rome, to demand restitution.25 Here the Albans and the Romans are treated, quite appropriately, as diplomatic equals. But in the other passage, from Catos speech De suis virtutibus contra <L.> Thermum, we find a remarkable opposition (which Festus does not seem to note) between legatus and orator:
I was sent (legatus sum) to the consul M. Fulvius to Aetolia because many people had come from Aetolia (reporting) that the Aetolians wish (to conclude) peace, and that the ambassadors (oratores) had departed for Rome .26
23 For the semantic development of orare, see F. Heerdegen, Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Semasiologie, 3. Heft: Ein lexikalisches Beispiel, Erlangen, 1881, esp. pp. 856; and, after him, Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator, (above, n. 16), pp. 12022, but they underestimate the original formal and formulaic application of the verb. 24 Festus, p. 196 Lindsay. See above, n. 20. 25 Cato, Origines, 1, 22 (H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, I2, Lipsiae, 1914, p. 58). There is a lacuna at the end of Catos passage, but as follows from Livy (1, 22, 3-7) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Antiquitates Romanae, 3, 2) the purpose of the mission was res repetere. For a detailed discussion of Catos passage, see W. A. Schrder, M. Porcius Cato. Das erste Buch der Origines, Meisenheim am Glan, 1971, pp. 18387. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, II3, 1887, p. 676, n. 5, states that Cato uses the word orator in the sense of legatus often (hufig), but in fact the word appears in all extant fragments of Cato only three times (cf. the index in H. Jordan, M. Catonis praeter librum de re rustica quae extant, Lipsiae, 1860, p. 127): two times in the sense of envoy (both times in the plural: oratores; the relevant passages adduced in this and in the next note), and once to denote the public speaker (see below, n. 33). In one curt passage from a liber incertus from the Origines (preserved by Macrobius, Saturnalia, 1, 14, 5) where Jordan (fr. 3, p. 30) and Peter (HRR, I2, fr. 124, p. 91) print oratorum, the correct reading is arator; cf. J. Willis, Macrobius, I, Lipsiae, 1963, p. 66, in app. crit.; Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator, (above, n. 16), pp. 14041. 26 H. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2, Augustae Taurinorum, 1955, p. 52, fr. 130: M. Fulvio consuli legatus sum in Aetoliam, propterea quod ex Aetolia conplures venerant: Aetolos pacem velle: de ea re oratores Romam profectos. Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator, (above, n. 16), p. 140, describes Cato as ein Gesandter Roms, but one should always carefully distinguish between legati = senatorial envoys to Roman commanders in the field, and legati = ambassadors to foreign nations. Broughton, MRR, I, p. 363, does not specify the purpose of Catos legatio, but Cato must have in some way participated in the negotiations with the Aetolians. Cf. A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor, Oxford, 1978, pp. 7374; Gruen, The Hellenistic World, (above, n. 5), I, p. 242; and already W. Drumann-P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms, V, Leipzig 1919, p. 116, n. 8. There were several Aetolian embassies to Rome in 190 and 189 (cf. Livy, 37, 4849; 38, 1-11; Polybius, 21, 25, 811; 21, 26, 719; 21, 2932), and

48

Historia et Ius

463

The verbal locution legatus sum describes Catos position as a senatorial envoy to the consul (in 189) M. Fulvius Nobilior, who was besieging Ambracia, apparently to assist him in arranging the Aetolian affairs. On the other hand Cato refers to the Aetolian ambassadors as oratores: they come to Rome to beg for peace. As a final illustration of the new connotation of the term Festus adduces a passage from the second prologue to Terences Hecyra.27 The play had failed twice before; now on a third try, the famous director, L. Ambivius, appears as orator ... ornatu prologi, and pleads with the audience to give the author and the play a chance. The republican students of Latin, the meagre remnants of whose efforts we have in the dictionary of Festus, felt that the orator appears here in the role of a deprecator: he prays for favor.28 This was to become in Roman literature the standard image of foreign embassies. Especially the connotation of orator as beseecher was conscientiously exploited by the annalists and archaizing historians, above all by Livy, to depict the comportment of foreign envoys. They come to beseech and pray, all three words orator, oro, and deprecor deftly arranged like a Roman legion, not rarely in close proximity to each other,29 projecting Roman dominance also in the sphere of vocabulary. Out of the forty-two occurrences of the word orator in the extant books of Livy,30 twenty-six times the word refers to foreign envoys, mostly Greek, who approach either the senate or the Roman commanders in the field. Only seven times are the oratores envoys between other states,31 and also only seven times are they
it is difficult to establish the precise chronology of Catos mission; neither Polybius (in the extant fragments) nor Livy mentions it. {See now a detailed discussion by J. Linderski, Cato Maior in Aetolia, in Robert W. Wallace and Edward M. Harris (eds.), Transitions to Empire. Essays in Greco-Roman History 360146 B.C. in Honor of Ernst Badian (Norman, OK, 1996), pp. 376-408 (reprinted in this volume, No. 7).} Terentius, Hecyra, 910: Orator ad vos venio ornatu prologi: | sinite exorator sim. The text of Festus reads alias pro decretoribus, where decretoribus is clearly corrupt; it has been brilliantly corrected by Scaliger to deprecatoribus, an emendation Lindsay ought to have admitted into his text. Oddly enough, in his remarks on the passage of Terence, Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator, (above, n. 16), pp. 13334, completely disregards the interpretation of Festus. On the other hand, J. C. Kirtland, Orator = Petitioner, Suppliant, CR, 11, 1897, pp. 35152, rightly points out that the word orator is used not so much with reference to the spokesman or that the message is oral, as because the ambassador is a petitioner. In the Scholia of Donatus we find a different explanation: the prologus comes as an envoy = orator, and envoys are protected by the international law: they should not be harmed (Donatus, Commentum Terenti, ed. P. Wessner, II, Lipsiae, 1905, p. 196, ad loc.: oratorem audire oportere ius gentium est, oratorem non licet iniuriam pati. ideo ergo, ne expellatur, non se prologum sed oratorem nominat). The passage of Afranius (O. Ribbeck, Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta2, Lipsiae, 1878, p. 176, fr. 92) which Festus also adduces as an example for orator = deprecator lacks unfortunately any context. Also in the prologue to Heauton timoroumenos (line 11) the prologus appears as orator, a pleader: oratorem esse voluit me, non prologum. Cf. Neuhauser, pp. 13435. Livy, 10, 11, 11; 29, 15, 12, and 15; 34, 40, 2; 36, 35, 5. See D. W. Packard, A Concordance to Livy, Cambridge, Mass., 1968, s.v. orator. Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator, (above, n. 16), pp. 14350, claims (mistakenly) forty four instances; he investigates them thoroughly, but in his analysis he does not consistently distinguish between the foreign and the Roman oratores. Four times the envoys from or to Hannibal (21, 12, 4; 21, 13, 2; 21, 24, 3; 21, 34, 2); once the

27 28

29 30

31

Ambassadors Go to Rome
464

49

the Roman envoys,32 but very significantly five of these occurrences fall into the first six books; and finally and surprisingly only two times is the term orator used to denote the public speaker.33 Of all the twenty-six foreign oratores who approach the Romans only one envoy poses a demand: the orator from king Porsenna demands the return of the hostage Cloelia (2, 13, 7). Of the remaining twenty-five only two come from the friendly states to ask the Romans for help and protection. Twenty-three times the oratores are the ambassadors from the defeated enemy, asking for peace or surrendering themselves to the mercy of the Romans. Emblematic are the first two occurrences of the word in Livys annals: the oratores from Veii arrive to sue for peace, pacem petitum (1, 15, 5), and the legati oratoresque of the populus Collatinus perform the ritual surrender of themselves and of their city to the king Tarquinius Priscus and the Roman people, the deditio in populi Romani dicionem (1, 38, 2). In Livys description of the Roman conquest of Italy and Greece the same phrases are repeated again and again with epic regularity: the operative verb that goes with the foreign envoy orator is peto. Admittedly in some instances the envoys oratores only fake submission, and attempt to deceive the Romans, but this illustrates even better the suppliant behavior that was expected of them, both in real history and by the historians.34
envoy from Philip V (32, 25, 7); once from Antiochus III (35, 51, 6); and once the Rhodian envoy to Perseus (45, 23, 11). 32 2, 32, 8 (Menenius Agrippa, orator ad plebem); 2, 39, 10 (oratores ad Marcium Coriolanum); 5, 15, 3 and 5, 16, 1 (the oratores sent to Delphi; at 5, 15, 12 and 5, 16, 8 they are termed legati); 6, 1, 6 (the orator sent to the Gauls; cf. above, n. 4)all very special cases. And finally two oddities: Marcellus dispatches in 214 the legati to the Syracusans; the envoy who actually addresses the Syracusans is described as orator (24, 33, 5); and C. Laelius termed orator when he was sent by Scipio in 206 to Syphax (28, 17, 7). 33 10, 19, 9; 34, 5, 6 (of M. Cato, which brings to mind Catos own definition of orator: Orator est, Marce fili, vir bonus, dicendi peritus; Jordan, [above, n. 25], p. 80). On these passages, cf. Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator, (above, n. 16), pp. 14445. 34 In addition to the examples adduced in the text, the following passages (arranged chronologically) refer to foreign envoys: 2, 30, 8 (anno 494): oratores Latinorum ab senatu petebant, ut aut mitterent subsidium (against the Volsci), aut se ipsos ... capere arma sinerent; 9, 43, 21 (a. 306): ad senatum pacis oratores missi (by the Samnites); 9, 45, 18 (a. 304): Marrucini (and other tribes) send to Rome oratores pacis petendae amicitiaeque; 10, 11, 11 (a. 299): oratores Lucanorum ad novos consules venerunt questum (to protect them from the Samnites); orare patres, ut ... Lucanos in fidem accipiant; 10, 37, 5 (a. 294): Volsinii, Perusia, Arretium pacem petiere; ... pacti cum consule, ut mitti Romam oratores liceret; 25, 29, 1 (a. 212): missi oratores ad Marcellum, and later, 25, 31, 27: Syracusani ... oratores ad Marcellum mittunt nihil petentes aliud quam incolumitatem sibi liberisque suis; 30, 16, 3 (a. 203): Cartaginienses ... oratores ad pacem petendam mittunt (to Scipio) triginta seniorum principes (the envoys more adulantium ... procubuerunt, ... veniam civitati petebant); 32, 16, 14 (a. 198): the inhabitants of Eretria besieged by Flamininus and Attalus send oratores to Attalus veniam fidemque eius petentes; 32, 17, 1 (a. 198): the inhabitants of Carystus send to Flamininus ad fidem ... petendam oratores; 34, 40, 2 (a. 195): orator Pythagoras sent by Nabis to Flamininus: first aspernatus, dein suppliciter orantem advolutumque genibus tandem (Flamininus) audivit; 36, 27, 2 (a. 191): the Aetolians pacis petendae oratores ad consulem miserunt; 36, 35, 5 (a. 191): the legate T. Flamininus (cf. Broughton, MRR, I, p. 354) tells the Aetolians: mittite oratores ad consulem (M. Acilius Glabrio), qui indutias tanti temporis petant, ut mittere legatos Romam possitis, per quos senatui de vobis permittatis; 37, 26, 9 (a. 190): Colophonii oratores ... ad L.

50
465

Historia et Ius

Next the verb deprecor and the nouns deprecatio and deprecator. Livy uses the various forms of these words forty-six times. Seventeen times, a significant percentage, the reference is to foreign envoys appearing either before the Roman commanders or before the senate. This behavior of begging is quite often attributed to envoys who are described as legati, not necessarily oratores; but as legatus did not have any cognate verb, like oro, to influence its tenor in malam partem, it remained a neutral term, always in need of an additional description to convey any mood or image.35
Aemilium, fidem praetoris populique Romani implorantes, miserunt; 37, 28, 1 (a. 190): Teii ... oratores cum infulis et velamentis ad Romanum (M. Aemilium Regillum) miserunt; when they come back to report the responsum of the Roman commander they are termed legati; 37, 45, 5 (a. 190): caduceator ab Antiocho ... a consule petit impetravitque, ut oratores mittere liceret regi; 38, 25, 1 and 3 (a. 189): oratores Tectosagum ad consulem venerunt petentes; and further: oratores ... redeunt excusantes (in fact they wanted only to deceive the Romans); 38, 37, 8 (a. 189): Galli (in Asia Minor) oratores de pace ad consulem miserunt; 40, 49, 4 (a. 179): the inhabitants of Alce in Celtiberia praemissis oratoribus in dicionem se suaque omnia Romanis permiserunt; 41, 19, 5 (a. 175): simul (with the return of the Roman legati) venerant et ab rege Perseo oratores, qui purgarent ... (but in reality trying to deceive the Romans); 44, 31, 9 (a. 168): Gentius sends oratores ... ad praetorem ... per quos indutias peteret; 44, 45, 2 (a. 168): Perseus ... oratores cum caduceo ad Paulum misit. This pattern apparently continued in the missing books of Livy, cf. Periochae, 48 (a. 151): cum legati (i.e. the Roman decem legati) ex Africa cum oratoribus Carthaginiensium ... redissent (they were given by the senate an ultimatum: the Romans would abstain from war if the Carthaginians classem exussissent et exercitum dimississent). 35 See Packard, A Concordance to Livy, (above, n. 30), s. vv. The passages referring to foreign envoys (arranged chronologically) are as follows: 6, 21, 6 (anno 383): the coloni Veliterni have a spatium deprecandi senatus, and an opportunity to dispatch a legatio supplex; 6, 26, 2 (a. 381): the Tusculans are given by the dictator Camillus deprecandi potestatem; Livy mentions their preces and the senates venia; 30, 30, 17 (a. 202): pro mea (patria) deprecantem (of Hannibal in his colloquium with Scipio); 33, 29, 11 (a. 196): Achaei deprecantes (in behalf of the Boeotians before the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus); 34, 59, 6 (a. 194): Menippus, the envoy of Antiochus III, deprecari et (T.) Quinctium et patres instit; 37, 6, 5 (a. 190): legati Athenienses ... deprecantes pro Aetolis (before P. and L. Scipio); 38, 9, 3, and 10, 3 (a. 189): the legati from Athens and Rhodes come to the consul M. Fulvius to intecede (ad deprecandum) for the Aetolians; the consul permits that et Rhodii et Athenienses deprecatores irent (Romam ad senatum); 39, 28, 14 (a. 185): deprecor (spoken by Philip V to the Roman envoys); 39, 35, 3 (a. 184): Philip V sends his son Demetrius ad deprecandam iram senatus; 40, 38, 4 (a. 180): Ligures saepe per legatos deprecati (sc. consules); 42, 14, 2 (a. 172): defensio et deprecatio of the legati of Perseus in the senate; 42, 24, 2 (a. 172): Masinissa sends his son Gulussa to Rome qui deprecaretur senatum that the Romans do not believe the accusations proffered against him by the Carthaginians; 44, 14, 7 (a. 169): the envoys of king Prusias state that the king had promised Perseus, when the Macedonian ambassadors came to him in the matter of concluding peace with the Romans, (se) deprecatorem apud senatum futurum; 43, 17, 9 (a. 169): deprecatio of the Acarnani to the Roman envoys that the Roman garrison not be introduced into Acarnania; 45, 24, 5 (a. 167): the Rhodian envoy begs the senate: deprecor ne nos propter illos (those Rhodians who had favored Perseus) pereamus; cf. also 29, 15, 12, and 15 (a. 204): in a dispute concerning the levy ordered by the consuls the magistrates of the twelve colonies orare atque obsecrare ut sibi senatum adire ac deprecari liceret; the consuls refuse (ita precisa spe senatum adeundi deprecandique); Cicero, De imp. Cn. Pomp. 35: Cretensibus, cum ad eum legatos deprecatoresque misissent, spem deditionis non ademit;

Ambassadors Go to Rome
466

51

467

The prevalent image of a foreign embassy coming to Rome was thus that of suppliants pleading their case before the senate, begging for peace, praying for pardon, or asking for a favor. The emergence of Rome as a superior power produced a corresponding imperial ideology of international relations, and this ideology was duly mirrored in the language of diplomacy and history. This was a decisive element governing the reception of embassies in Rome, an element often curiously overlooked or disregarded both by students of the Roman constitution and students of Roman foreign policy. Envoys from states that were bound to Rome by a formal treaty of friendship were free to travel to Rome at any time;36 envoys from other states and particularly the belligerents had normally to receive permission from the Roman commander in the field; this regulation is amply though erratically attested in literary sources. In 189 the envoys of the Aetolians, then at war with Rome on the side of Antiochus III, were introduced into the senate to sue for peace. But they offended the senators, and as a result the senate passed a decree instructing the magistrates to order the Aetolians to leave Rome still on the same day, and to depart from Italy within fifteen days. A Roman official was attached to the Aetolian ambassadors to safeguard their journey and to keep an eye on their movements (ad custodiendum iter), and the Aetolians were further expressly warned that if any new embassy travelled to Rome without the consent of the Roman commander, and was not accompanied by a Roman commissioner (legatus), all members of the embassy would be treated as enemies.37 From Livys account one might be tempted to deduce that the embassy of 189 had arrived in Rome without asking for permission from the Roman consul operating in Greece. For why should the senate so sternly have instructed the Aetolians not to travel to Italy again without the prior consent of the magistrate in the field? But Livy never cared for details; he wrote an epic history and not an antiquarian divagation. In fact this must have been a tralatician clause that would have figured in every decree of the senate dismissing envoys from any state at war with Rome. For from an earlier passage of Livy (37, 6, 47; 7.15), and from Polybius (21, 5, 712), we learn that the Aetolians had in fact been granted truce (in 190 by the consul L. Cornelius Scipio, the successor of M. Acilius Glabrio as the commander in Greece) so that they might send an embassy to the senate. It was a standard procedure, and Livy, and other authors, record it frequently though not consistently.38 To
Sallustius, Bell. Iug., 104, 4 (a. 105): in Rome the legati of Bocchus errasse regem ... deprecati sunt. 36 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, III, 1, 1887, p. 597. 37 Livy, 37, 49, 18: senatus consultum in M. Acilii sententiam, qui Aetolos Antiochumque devicerat, factum est, ut Aetoli eo die iuberentur proficisci ab urbe et intra quintum decimum diem Italia excedere. A. Terentius Varro (cf. Broughton, MRR, I, p. 363) ad custodiendum iter eorum missus, denuntiatumque, si qua deinde legatio ex Aetolis, nisi permissu imperatoris, qui eam provinciam obtineret, et cum legato Romano venisset Romam, pro hostibus omnes futuros. {For a list of embassies ordered to leave Rome and Italy, see F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie, (above, n. 5), p. 749 (index).} 38 Here is a list: Livy, 5, 27, 1112 (anno 394): legati ad Camillum ad castra atque inde permissu Camilli Romam ad senatum, qui dederent Falerios, proficiscuntur; 7, 22, 5 (a. 352): primum

52
468

Historia et Ius

stay with the Aetolians: already in 191 the Aetolians were advised by T. Flamininus to ask the consul M. Acilius Glabrio for truce in order to be able to dispatch the envoys to the senate (Livy, 36, 35, 5); this embassy (which arrived in Rome in 190) was as ill-starred (37, 1, 16) as the next one (of 189). When the embassy of 189 returned empty-handed without any hope for peace, the Aetolians (so Livy, 38, 3, 78) immediately sent to Rome another embassy to try their last chance. Livy does not mention by a word any consent from the Roman commander, now (in 189) the consul M. Fulvius Nobilior, and, more intriguingly, neither does Polybius (21, 25, 911). Omission of such a detail in Livy would not surprise us, and the text of Polybius is a mere excerpt; he may have further on mentioned the negotiations of the Aetolians with Fulvius.39 But from a careful reading of Livy and Polybius a clear chronological sequence emerges: the Aetolians, desperately seeking an accomodation with the senate, had dispatched their embassy to Rome (in fact two embassies) before Fulvius landed with his army in Epirus.40 Thus during a war the Roman commander first agrees to a truce (indutiae) with the enemy, and then (or simultaneously) allows the ambassadors to go to Rome. These acts stemmed from the commanders imperium. Technically and formally he alone decided, though naturally he would take into account both the military and the political considerations; especially heavily must have weighed the question whether the senate would ratify his arrangements. Now it is sometimes stated that in practice during a war the ambassadors of the enemy were ordered rather than merely permitted to travel to Rome.41 In fact we have to distinguish between two very different situations. The enemy either begs for truce or concludes peace, on Roman terms, or surrenders. Permission goes with truce; but when we deal with an (unequal) peace treaty or surrender, the consul
a consulibus, dein permissu eorum ab senatu indutias peterent (sc. the Falisci and the Tarquinienses); 10, 5, 12 (a. 300): permissum ab dictatore, ut de pace legatos mitterent (sc. the Etruscans) Romam; 10, 37, 5 (a. 294): Volsinii, Perusia, Arretium pacem petiere; ... pacti cum consule, ut mitti Romam oratores liceret, indutias in quadraginta annos impetraverunt; 26, 27, 10 (a. 210): after the deditio of Capua (in 211 to App. Claudius Pulcher and Q. Fulvius Flaccus; cf. Broughton, MRR, I, p. 274) the multitudo of the Campani approaches the consul M. Valerius Laevinus ut sibi Romam ad senatum ire liceret; 32, 36, 310, and Polybius, 18, 910, (a. 197): Flamininus grants Philip V truce, and allows him to send ambassadors to the senate; 33, 13, 14 (cf. 33, 24, 37), and Polybius, 18, 42, 16 (a. 196): after the victory at Cynoscephalae Flamininus again grants the king truce so that he might send envoys to Rome; 38, 10, 2 (a. 189), see below, n. 43; 42, 36, 8 (a. 171): the legati from Perseus come to Rome when the war had already been declared; they are dismissed, ordered intra undecimum diem Italia excedere; if the king wishes he might send his envoys to the consul P. Licinius who will soon arrive with his army in Macedonia; Perseus was further strictly prohibited from sending any ambassadors directly to Rome: Romam quod praeterea mitteret, non esse; nemini enim eorum per Italiam ire liciturum; Sallustius, Bell. Iug., 102, 14 (a. 106, Bocchus speaking): si per Marium liceret, legatos ad senatum missurum; and 104, 2: legatis potestas Romae eundi fit, et ab consule interea indutiae postulabantur. 39 Cf. Briscoe, Commentary, (above, n. 11), p. 368. 40 Polybius 21, 26, 719 {and see the discussion by J. Linderski, Cato Maior in Aetolia, (above, n. 26), pp. 38486}. 41 So [A.] OBrien Moore, Senatus, (above, n. 5), col. 730.

Ambassadors Go to Rome
469

53

470

commands. The Roman general could of course refuse to agree to sign a treaty, but once he signed it, a procedural chain was set in motion. The next step was the ratification (or rejection) of the treaty by the senate, and for that purpose the ambassadors of the people suing for peace had to appear before the senate; they travelled to Rome accompanied either by the commander himself (only in earlier times during the wars in Italy) or more frequently by his emissaries (legati).42 Again the negotiations with the Aetolians offer precious information. After the Aetolian assembly (concilium Aetolorum) had finally accepted (in 189) Roman peace conditions, the consul Fulvius Nobilior ordered the Aetolians to go to Rome to the senate (iussis proficisci Romam ad senatum), and dispatched together with them his half-brother C. Valerius Laevinus; at the same time he permitted the envoys from Athens and Rhodes who wished to intercede with the senate on behalf of the Aetolians also to undertake a journey to Rome.43 The Aetolians are iussi; the Athenians and the Rhodians are given permissum. The contrast is clear, and intended. And the terminology is formal as brought into sharp relief by a recent epigraphical find. The unconditional surrender of the enemy was often glowingly described by Roman historians. But this event, the deditio, left by the vagaries of chance no documentary evidence until the soil of Spain, fertile in bronzes, yielded in Alcntara, not far from the famous bridge, a tablet of thirteen lines recording the deditio in 104 of the hitherto unknown populus Seano[corum?] to the (also until now unattested) Roman commander L. Caesius C. f., termed as imperator (no doubt a governor of
42 In addition to Livy, 37, 49, 8 and 38, 10, 2 referring to the Aetolians and adduced in notes 37 and 43, our sources record the following instances of Roman commanders or commissioners accompanying the enemy envoys to (and from) Rome: Livy, 8, 36, 12 (anno 323): a rather unusual and, no doubt, fictitious situation, in that it was the Samnites themselves who asked the Roman dictator to accompany their envoys to Rome, eius fidei ... causam suam commendantes; 30, 21, 1112 (a. 203): Q. Fulvius Gillo, legatus Scipionis, Carthaginienses Romam adduxit {cf. Brennan, Praetorship, (below, n. 51), p. 293, n. 143}; the Carthaginian envoys were dismissed by the senate, and a senator urged iubendosque Italia excedere et custodes cum iis usque ad naves mittendos (30, 23, 6); they returned to Africa with Laelius and Fulvius (30, 25, 9; cf. Broughtom, MRR, I, pp. 314, 319, n. 2); 30, 38, 4 (a. 202): three Roman commissioners sent by Scipio to Rome with the Carthaginian legati (cf. 30, 40, 1: Legati ex Africa Romani simul Carthaginiensesque cum venissent Romam); 32, 36, 310, and Polybius 18, 10, 8 (a. 198): the envoys of Philip V accompanied to Rome by three Roman commissioners and by the envoys from Roman allies (cf. Broughton, MRR, I, p. 131); Sallustius, Bell. Iug., 104, 3 (a. 105): Cn. Octavius Ruso, qui quaestor stipendium in Africam portaverat, returns to Rome with three ambassadors from king Bocchus. E. Tubler, Imperium Romanum, Leipzig, 1913, p. 112, n. 2, adduces here also Polybius 18, 42, 1, and 21, 17, 9, but Polybius does not mention explicitly the Roman commissioners. 43 Livy, 38, 10, 2: postquam aprobasse pacem concilium Aetolorum accipit (sc. the consul M. Fulvius Nobilior), iussis proficisci Romam ad senatum, permissoque, ut et Rhodii et Athenienses deprecatores (cf. above, n. 35) irent, dato, qui simul cum iis profisceretur C. Valerio fratre (cf. Livy, 38, 9, 8; Broughton, MRR, I, p. 364), ipse in Cephallaniam traiecit. Polybius, 21, 30, 14, gives the names of the Aetolian envoys, but does not go at all into the legal mechanism of sending off an embassy to Rome; he mentions, however, that Fulvius dispatched to Rome not only C. Valerius Laevinus but also some other men from among his friends (21, 31, 12).

54

Historia et Ius

471

Hispania Ulteror, acclaimed imperator after a victory). This document not only illustrates the mechanism and the formalities of deditio and acceptio in fidem (or dicionem); it also throws bright light on the embassies to the senate from the vanquished peoples.44 The tablet is broken at the right edge, but most restitutions are reasonably certain or likely. After the populus of the Seano[ci] surrendered to the Roman imperator, [se suaque] dedit, the commander consulted his council as to what orders ought to be given to them, quid eis im[perandum] censerent. Then de consili sententia he ordered that they deliver arms, deserters, prisoners, horses, mares which they had captured. The Seano[ci] complied. Now the general ordered them to be free ([liberos] esse iussit), and restored to them all the things they had before their deditio: the land, the buildings, and the laws, provided that this disposition would be approved by the Roman people and the senate, dum populus [senatusque] / Roomanus vellet, and he ordered that concerning this matter their envoys go to Rome to the senate. Taken in isolation the phrase dum populus [senatusque] / Roomanus vellet can be purely grammatically construed as restrictive or as temporal. In the former case the Roman people and the senate reserve for themselves the right of the final approval of the settlement; in the latter the settlement stands until revoked by the people and the senate. In fact neither option describes adequately the historical situation. The clause is both restrictive and temporal. The clue is offered by the obligation of the Seano[ci] to send the legati to Rome. The settlement is valid for the time being, and it will continue to be valid for an indefinite time provided that the
44 The editio princeps (with commentary) by R. Lpez Melero, J. L. Snchez Abal, and S. Garca Jimenz, Gerin, 2, 1984, pp. 265314. The most detailed study of the document, and of various aspects of Roman international law raised by it, is by D. Nrr, Aspekte des rmischen Vlkerrechts. Die Bronzetafel von Alcntara (= Abhandlungen d. Bayerischen Akad. d. Wiss., N.F. 101), Mnchen, 1989 {Cf. below, No. 19.5}. For the sake of clarity, I reproduce here the text (with Nrrs supplements, pp. 2023): C. Mario C. Flavio [cos L. Caesio C. f. imperatore populus Seano[corum se suaque dedit. L. Caesius C. f. imperator postquam [eos in fidem accepit, ad consilium retolit, quid eis im[perandum censerent. De consili sententia inperav[it arma transfugas captivos equos equas quas cepisent [ut dederent. Haec omnia dederunt. Deinde eos L. Caesius C.[f. imperator liberos esse iussit, agros et aedificia leges cete[raque omnia quae sua fuissent pridie quam se dedid[issent quaeque extarent eis redidit, dum populus [senatusque Roomanus vellet, deque ea re eos [Romam mittere eire iussit legatos. Cren[us ... Arco Cantoni f. legates A few comments. Line 2: imperatore is the dative case. Line 3: Nrr considers also the supplement dicionem (instead of fidem). Line 5: Nrrs first choice is obsides, but transfugas is also common; for both words there is no space on the tablet. Lines 11/12: ven] | eire is enticing, but it is excluded (as Nrr notes) by the fact that all lines begin with a new word. Romam mittere or Romam ad senatum mittere is a standard expression, but grammatically the sentence remains awkward (cf. U. Laffi, Gnomon 65, 1993, p. 180).

Ambassadors Go to Rome

55

Roman people and the senate ratify it; this is the restrictive side of the clause. But the senate may reject or alter the settlement; in this case its validity lasts until the senate takes such an action. The envoys were apparently expected to leave for Rome immediately; but still the ratification process could take a long time or, quite conceivably, the senate could refuse to act at all; and it could change its mind at a later date. This is the temporal side of the clause. A remark of Appian (Iberica 44) clarifies its import. Segeda, a city of the Celtiberians, was ordered by the senate (in 153) to stop building a wall, to pay a tribute, and to supply troops to the Roman army. The Celtiberians replied that by the treaty (sunykaw, and hence a formal treaty of deditio) made by Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (in 179, and thus twenty six years previously) they were prohibited only from fortifying new cities, not the old ones; and that at a later date they were released by the Romans themselves from the obligation to pay tribute and to send the military contingent. This was true, Appian observes, and he adds:
472

but the senate, when granting such favors always stipulates that they will be valid only for as long as the senate and the people would wish, mxri n at (sc. t boul) ka t dm dok.

Here we have the dum-vellet clause in its Greek garb, and in its powerful temporal dimension. The dum-vellet clause illustrates well the Roman genius in treaty making: it is vague enough to allow the senate (and the people) to take any course of action, immediately or in the future.45 Whether the ambassadors were ordered to go to the senate, or merely permitted, or even if they did not need any special authorization for their travel, they all arrived in Rome uncertain as to what their welcome would be, and the result of their mission. In this respect the historians, Livy and Polybius above all, and Sallust, give a much more realistic picture than numerous epigraphic documents from the Greek East recording various embassies to Rome.46 For these documents were set up to display and preserve for posterity the favors received from the Romans; they abound in polite phrases. Nobody recorded on stone or bronze harm and injustice suffered by the Greeks; perhaps rightly, for ultimately the Romans
45 Nrr, Aspekte, (above, n. 44), pp. 22, 5660, opts for a restrictive interpretation (insoweit, insofern), as opposed to the temporal (solange als). It has been the great merit of C. Ebel, Dum populus senatusque Romanus vellet, Historia, 40, 1991, pp. 43848, to adduce the Appian passage (p. 444). He translates the clause as for so long as the Roman people and the senate wished (p. 441; cf. also p. 445), and thus gives it a clear temporal understanding. {See now M. Gerhold, Dum populus senatusque Romanus vellet, in F. Beutler and W. Hameter (eds.), Eine ganz normale Inschrift ... und hnliches zum Geburtstag von Ekkehard Weber, Wien 2005, pp. 5562. He missed the article here reprinted. He concludes that dum zunchts stets einen restriktiven ... Sinngehalt aufweist. Nach dem punktuellen Rechtsakt der Ratifikation ist dum jedoch in einem durativen Sinn zu verstehen: Der Rechtsakt soll gltig sein, solange es Senat und Volk von Rom wollen}. 46 For a fair sample of epigraphically recorded embassies to Rome, see Sherk, Documents, (above, n. 12), in the index, s.v. presbea (and the following entries), p. 381; Idem, Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (= Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, vol. 4), Cambridge, 1984, in the index, s.v. Embassies, p. 173.

56

Historia et Ius

473

brought the highest good, peace. And yet even in those documents the stifling atmosphere of Roman smug self-righteousness is overwhelming. The physical and logistic aspects of a journey to Rome were daunting, too. In 197 Antiochus III made an attempt to subdue the cities of western Asia Minor. But Lampsakos, claiming its ancient liberty, decided to appeal for help to the Romans. A marble stele honoring the envoy, Hegesias, recounts his achievements and tribulations.47 [He thought] nothing of the dangers involved in foreign travel; when he arrived in Greece he met with the commander of the Roman fleet (there is a lacuna here, but we know that it was the brother of Titus, L. Quinctius Flamininus), and presented to him his trump argument: the People of Lampsakos are the kinsmen of the Romans, and therefore they deserve the Roman help. As preposterous as this argument was (Lampsakos was located in the Troad, and hence the Lampsakeni were the relations of the Trojans; and Aeneas came from Troy), it was very pleasing to the Roman admiral; we may suspect not just because of Aeneas, but rather for the sake of extending the influence of Rome into the political backyard of Antiochus. L. Flamininus promised his support; but Hegesias still approached the (unfortunately unnamed) quaestor attached to the fleet, and received words of goodwill from him as well. To a Greek ambassador even a minor Roman official was a potential master of the universe, not to be passed over. From Greece, as the stone stresses, Hegesias made a long and dangerous journey by ship to Massalia. Now both Lampsakos and Massalia were the colonies of Phokaia, and hence they were bound by the ties of kinship. But above all Massalia enjoyed a treaty of friendship and alliance with Rome. Hegesias asked the ruling Council of Six Hundred to intervene on behalf of Lampsakos with the senate. And so the envoy from Lampsakos and his party, together with the ambassadors from Massalia, finally arrived in Rome. They were received by the senate; Hegesias was present when the Massaliotes renewed their treaty with Rome (the temporal dimension of the clause dum-vellet explains well why Roman allies were so eager to assure themselves that the Roman amicitia still held), and they spoke in favor of Lampsakos. Hegesias himself stressed again the kinship of the Lampsakeni with the Romans. The stone is damaged, and it is not clear what the senate ultimately decided, though it appears that Lampsakos was in some way included in the treaty made with king Philip V, and thus practically guaranteed independence from the
47 SIG3, 591 (unreliable); P. Frisch, Die Inschriften von Lampsakos (= Inschriften griechischer Stdte aus Kleinasien, vol. 6), Bonn, 1978, no. 4, with translation and commentary, pp. 1539; {Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie, (above, n. 5), pp. 19598, no. 236e; see also his Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche, III: Decreti per ambasciatori greci al senato, Roma, 2002, pp. 192200, no. 188}. English translation in Sherk, Rome and the Greek East, (above, n. 46), no. 5, pp. 47. Cf. Livy, 33, 38, 17; Polybius, 21, 13, 15. For an incisive interpretation, see J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellnisme et imprialisme. Aspects idologiques de la conqute romaine du monde hellnistique, BEFAR 271, Paris 1988, pp. 13341. On the claims of kinship with Rome, see S. Elwin, Interstate Kinship and Roman Foreign Policy, TAPA, 123, 1993, pp. 26186, esp. 27374 {On the syngeneia between Lampsakos and Rome, see also O. Curty, Les parents lgendaires entre cits grecques, Genve, 1995, pp. 7882 (with a new edition of the stone, no. 39); and C. P. Jones, Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World, Cambridge, MA, 1999, pp. 9596, 172}.

Ambassadors Go to Rome
474

57

Seleucids (though Rome did not intervene when Antiochus besieged Lampsakos later in 196). In any case Hegesias was now instructed to confer with T. Flamininus and the Ten Commissioners in Charge of Greek Affairs. He met with them in Corinth, and received (not specified in detail) favorable answers. Here our stone breaks off, but not before offering us an intimate glimpse into the practice of worldwide diplomacy under Roman sway with the Greek cities drawn to the Republic on the Tiber like specks of iron dust to a powerful magnet. Legally it is an interesting case. Lampsakos was neither a Roman ally nor an enemy; it tried to enter formally into the sphere of Roman amicitia. It is not clear whether embassies from such states needed permission from a Roman magistrate for travel to Rome,48 but it is certainly striking that for all its detailed description of Hegesias peregrinations, the stone is silent on that matter. As Massalia helped Lampsakos, so also Teos in Ionia extended its help to Abdera, which had been founded (around the middle of the sixth century) by the Teians. The Thracian king Cotys claimed a territory which Abdera regarded as her ancestral possession, and he had sent in that matter envoys to the senate. To counter his claims two citizens of Teos undertook on behalf of the Abderites an embassy to Rome. An honorific decree (commonly dated to ca 166) recounts their efforts.49 In particular
48 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, III, 2, p. 115051, seems at first to incline to this view, but very soon he almost changed his mind: Wenn indess kein wirklicher Kriegsstand besteht, wird die auswrtige Gesandschaft meistens ohne weiteres in die Hauptstadt gelassen. 49 SIG3, 656. English translation in Sherk, Rome and the Greek East, (above, n. 46), no. 26, pp. 2627. The basic interpretation is by L. Robert, BCH, 59, 1935, pp. 50713 = Opera Minora Selecta, I, Amsterdam, 1969, pp. 32026; and by P. Herrmann, ZPE, 7, 1971, pp. 7277, who was able to inspect the stone; he offers important new readings. A comment on the words printed in square brackets: a) [leading men]: the SIG text (line 21) reads to[w prtoi]w; Robert (p. 509 = 322) proposes to[w goumnoi]w; b) [salutation]: SIG (line 22) has kay mer[n proskun]seow, which would have been an interesting choice of expression, but Herrmann (pp. 7475) reads kar]tersevw, patient perseverance; c) [their city]: Sherk translates the (Roman) patrons of our country, thus taking the patrons to be the patrons of Abdera. If so, why should have the Abderites needed the help of the Teians? The Greek text (lines 2325) reads katasthsmenoi d tow ptrvnaw tw [pl]evw ew tn pr to metrou dmou boyeian ([pl]evw, Herrmann, p. 75; [patr]dow, SIG), and Robert (pp. 51213) has shown convincingly that the patrons mentioned in the text are the patrons of Teos: ayant amen les patrons de leur patrie porter secours notre peuple. The inscription is normally dated to the period immediately after the Third Macedonian War (ca 166), but G. Chiranky, Rome and Cotys, Two Problems, Athenaeum, 60, 1982, pp. 46181, esp. 47081, challenges (on good grounds) the traditional date, and assigns the inscription to the late second or early first century. {Cf. C. Marek, Teos und Abdera nach dem dritten makedonischen Krieg. Eine neue Ehreninschrift fr den Demos von Teos, Tyche 12, 1997, pp. 16977; F. Canali De Rossi, Il ruolo dei patroni nelle relazioni politiche fra il mondo greco e Roma in et repubblicana ed augustea, Mnchen-Leipzig, 2000, pp. 19192 (no. 139, text and translation); Le ambascerie, (above, n. 5), pp. 29194 (no. 337); Iscrizioni storiche, (above, n. 47), pp. 17579 (no. 183), accepting the dating of Chiranky; C. Eilers, Roman Patrons of Greek Cities, Oxford, 2002, pp. 11419, powerfully strengthens the argument of Chiranky, and dates the document to the 90s or 80s of the first century. On the embassies from Lampsakos and Teos, see also A. Erskine, Greek Embassies and the City of Rome, Classics Ireland 1 (1994) 4753, a marvelous parallel to the argument in my paper. The decree from Abdera concerning the Tean ambassadors

58
475

Historia et Ius

in their embassy to [Rome] on behalf of our People they suffered both mental and bodily distress, but they met with the Roman [leading men], winning them over by their daily [salutations], and they induced the (Roman) patrons of [their city] to come to the aid of our People.

And further, when some influential Romans supported Cotys, the ambassadors
by daily morning-calls at their atria won over their friendship.

476

No wonder that all those daily obeisances caused the ambassadors mental anguish. A question obtrudes: why did the Abderites not send their own embassy to Rome, but needed the services of their friends from Teos? We happen to know that Abdera was a civitas libera. On the other hand Teos appears to have been at that time under the control of the Attalids.50 Thus although the legal status of Abdera was more elevated, Teos must have been in a more advantageous position to deal with the Romans. The clue is offered by the mention of Roman patrons of Teos, the word ptrvnaw simply transliterated from the Latin, and (if the inscription belongs to ca 166) appearing for the first time in a Greek text. It was difficult for a small city to get a hearing without the efforts of its patrons.51 The Abderites apparently did not have their own patrons in Rome, so they turned to the Teians who had. But it is striking that the text of the decree does not mention any audience in the senate; the conclusion is inescapable that the Teian ambassadors got only as far as the private atria, but not to the curia; they were able to secure only private audiences with various magistrates and leading men. And it

gives a vivid impression of the difficulties the embassy encountered in Rome. They had to understand the Roman system of patronage and master it if they were to achieve success in their mission (p. 48). And the decree from Lampsakos gives some impression of how much mental and physical suffering the ambassadors may have to endure (p. 51).} 50 On the status of Abdera, see Robert, (above, n. 49), pp. 51013; on Teos, W. Ruge, RE, 5, A, (1934), col. 551, though one wonders how the Pergamene domination over Teos is compatible with the Roman patrons of the city. This consideration may support Chirankys (above, n. 49) dating of the document to a later period. 51 So E. Badian in his classic Foreign Clientelae (26470 B.C.), Oxford, 1958, p. 160. He further writes: The chief routine duty of the patron was to facilitate diplomatic relations between Rome and the client state concerned. Thus he would entertain its envoys in Rome and introduce them into the senate. One would hope that other patrons entertained their clients more pleasantly than the patrons of Teos; and of course we cannot take introduce them into the senate in its technical meaning: a patron could technically introduce his client envoys into the senate only if he happened to be a consul or a praetor (urban or peregrine); and Badian himself points for correct procedure (p. 160, n. 3) to an epigraphical text (now Sherk, Documents, [above, n. 12], no. 4, p. 34), where it is the praetor who is approached by the envoys, and gives to them the senate. When Livy 34, 59, 4 writes: Quinctius legationes universas Graeciae Asiaeque cum in senatum introduxisset, he is either inaccurate or the verb introduxisset is used informally: in 193 Flamininus was not in a position to convoke the senate; and indeed a day earlier those same embassies were (technically and correctly) a C. Scribonio praetore urbano in senatum introductae (34, 57, 3). {And see further T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, New York, 2000, I, pp. 11516, and 293, nn. 137, 143.}

Ambassadors Go to Rome

59

would appear that it was only through the intermediary of their Roman protectors that they were able to present the case of Abdera in the senate. But as our document despite all its verbosity is reticent about the outcome of the mission, perhaps all the efforts and sufferings of the ambassadors were ultimately to no avail.52 Again no mention of any formal permission to go to Rome. Thus it would appear that only hostile states were subject to this requirement. Finally, how was the Roman government apprised of the arrival of an embassy? First, an imaginary account from the pen of a late scholiast. In Vergil a nuntius, a messenger on horseback, arrives and reports to king Latinus that tall men, in unfamiliar garb, are coming, ingentis ignota in veste ... advenisse viros (Aen., 7, 16869). Servius utilizes this opportunity to explain to his readers what he thinks was the normal procedure observed by the senate:
when at any time it was announced that unknown ambassadors (legati) were coming, first scouts were sent to reconnoiter what they wished; next the lower magistrates (magistratus minores) went out to meet them, and only then the senate (met) outside the city (extra urbem) to learn from them their requests, and if it seemed proper, the ambassadors were granted admittance to the city.53
459

But even in a fantastic fiction there is a kernel of truth. Nobody seemed to have bothered very much about the embassy of the two humble Teians. But it was a different affair with the enemy. When after the battle of Cannae the Carthaginian envoy was approaching Rome with the conditions for peace, he first sent a nuntius; in response the dictator dispatched a lictor who ordered the Carthaginian to leave the Roman territory (no doubt the ager Romanus antiquus) before nightfall.54 Thus an embassy could be dismissed outrightly; all others were constitutionally divided into two categories: those that were admitted into the city, and those that had to stay outside the walls, or more precisely ouside the sacred boundary of the city of

52 Cf. Robert, (above, n. 49), p. 326. 53 Servius (and Servius auctus), ad Aen., 7, 168: nam legati si quando incogniti venire nuntiarentur, primo quid vellent ab exploratoribus requirebatur, post ad eos egrediebantur magistratus minores, et tunc demum senatus ab eis extra urbem postulata noscebat, et si ita visum fuisset, in urbem admittebantur. 54 Livy, 22, 58, 9: ubi Romam venire eos (the Carthaginian envoy was accompanied by the legati sent by the Roman captives) nuntiatum est, Carthaloni obviam lictor missus, qui dictatoris (M. Iunius Pera; cf. Broughton, MRR, I, p. 248) verbis nuntiaret, ut ante noctem excederet finibus Romanis.

60

Historia et Ius

Rome, the pomerium. The pomerium divided the city into two spheres: domi and militiae. Only friends of Rome or neutrals or subjects could be received domi; the envoys from the foes of Rome had to stay in the sphere of war.55
55 See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, III, 2, p. 1152; Willems, Le Snat, (above n. 5) II, pp. 161, 485. Bonnefond-Coudry, Le Snat, (above, n. 5), p. 142, finds surprising that the envoys from Syracuse and Capua (she does not adduce any sources nor does she direct the reader to the table on p. 296, where, by the way, in place of Capoue se plaignant de Marcellus one should read Fulvius) were received into the city: Elles envoyient des dputs pour tenter dinfluencer le Snat afin quon ratifiant les conditions imposes par le gnraux vainquers il les adoucisse. Cette situation ne diffre pas essentiellement de celle des ambassadeurs venus ngotier la paix la faveur dune trve. Quite on the contrary, there appears to be an essential difference between these two cases: the ambassadors who come during a truce are still the representatives of the enemy; they have full right to reject any conditions the senate might wish to impose on them, and to continue war. On the other hand, as Livy makes very clear, both Syracuse and Capua had made their deditio; after this act they ceased to be the enemies of Rome and became her subjects, and hence their envoys could be introduced into the city. They could ask the senate for leniency, but through the act of deditio they had agreed to accept unconditionally any dispositions the Romans might wish to make (Livy, 25, 2931: the deditio of Syracuse; 26, 3032: Siculi in senatum introducti; from the passage 26, 31, 1: reductis in curia legatis, it would appear that they were received intra moenia; cf. also 26, 31, 11 and 32, 7). This seems to be true, though less certain, also with respect to the Campani: 26, 14: the deditio of Capua; 26, 27, 1016: the Campani are given permission by the consul Valerius Laevinus to go to Rome; the opinion of Q. Fulvius was: se minime censere tutum esse Campanis potestatem intrandi Romana moenia fieri; 26, 33, 1: Campanis deinde [after the Syracusans] senatus datus est, apparently also in the curia). Also the third case adduced by Bonnefond-Coudry is a non-case. Livy, 37, 1, 6: dimissi urbe eodem die, referring to the Aetolian embassy which came to Rome (in 190) under the truce granted by Acilius Glabrio (in 478 191), offers no proof that the Aetolian envoys were heard and lodged within the pomerium; the term urbs is not synonymous with the phrase intra pomerium (or intra moenia). There is also nothing unusual in Prusias being in 167 received within the city (Livy, 45, 44, 4: urbem ingressus ad forum a porta tribunalque Q. Cassi praetoris perrexit): despite the fact that he was (but only initially) neutral in the war against Perseus, he was still technically a Roman amicus, and remained so. As to the Rhodians in 166 we do not know in which place the senate granted them a hearing, in the curia or outside the pomerium; Polybius, 30, 23, 3, eslyon ew tn sgklhton, is inconclusive. But it is important to observe that the senate did nor formally renounce the friendship with the Rhodians: in its answer it merely made no mention of it. Thus, as yet, no clear and certain exceptions to the rule established by Mommsen and Willems (cf. also C. Letta, Athenaeum, 88, 1993, pp. 32223, who while criticizing in his review the interpretation of Bonnefond-Coudry, still fails to realize that the states that had suffered deditio ceased to be technically hostes). {On the reception and lodging of foreign envoys in Rome, see further D. A. Bowman, The Formula Sociorum in the Second and First Centuries B.C., CJ, 85,4, 1990, pp. 33036 at 33235.}

7 CATO MAIOR IN AETOLIA*

Auctori Aetolicorum Optimo Searching for words we stumble upon history. The ancients, Festus explains in his dictionary De verborum significatu, employed the word orator in the sense of legatus, envoy or deputy: Oratores, qui nunc legati. To illustrate this usage, he adduces, inter alia, a passage from a speech of Cato, ut Cato in ea quam scripsit de suis virtutibus contra Thermum:
M. Fulvio consuli legatus sum in Aetoliam, propterea quod ex Aetolia conplures venerant: Aetolos pacem velle: de ea re oratores Romam profectos.1

377

We observe the striking opposition between legatus sum and oratores profectos. These phrases mark a semantic epoch; they also encapsulate history, and prompt us to turn from words to deeds. When did Cato go to Aetolia, and in what circumstances? What did he do there? And, in his speech, what particular virtue of his did he wish to illustrate by invoking his Aetolian assignment? The date of the mission stands revealed by Cato himself: the consulship of M. Fulvius (Nobilior), in 189. This establishes the (non)identity of Thermus: not Q. Minucius Thermus (cos. 193) against whom Cato had delivered two speeches (in 190), De falsis pugnis and De decem hominibus, for in 189 Q. Thermus was among the ten senatorial legates dispatched to Asia to implement the treaty with Antiochus III, and in the next year he perished in Thrace on his way back to Rome.2 Who, then, was the Thermus against whom Cato defended his virtues? Now in addition to the speeches against Q. Thermus (who always comes equipped with his praenomen), there are on record three titles of Catos orations against a Thermus, whose praenomen our sources always omit to mention. One of these speeches is De Ptolomaeo contra Thermum.3 We happen to know that in 154 an embassy was sent by the Senate to install on Cyprus Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (Physcon), then in a struggle with his elder brother, Ptolemy VI Philometor. The embassy consisted of five members and was headed by Cn. (Cornelius) Merula and L. Thermus.4 One would expect that as the leaders of the embassy Merula and Thermus were senators of praetorian status.5 The mission was unsuccessful, but L. Thermus apparently survived Catos attack and even went on to become the Senates expert on Egyptian affairs: a Thermus, very probably our L. Thermus, is attested in Alexandria as a

Transitions to Empire. Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360146 B.C., in Honor of E. Badian. Edited by Robert W. Wallace and Edward M. Harris (Norman, OK 1996) 376408 {with minor corrections and addenda. The footnotes are printed, as in the original publication, as endnotes}.

62

Historia et Ius

378

Roman envoy in 145, a critical year, when Philometor died and Physcon ascended to the throne.6 Once we have found a well defined Thermus, it is tempting (and almost inevitable) to see in him also the object of Catos ire in the speeches In Thermum post censuram and De suis virtutibus contra Thermum. The former is no doubt identical with the oration De lustri sui felicitate,7 and was Catos response to Thermuss vilification (very likely as tribune of the plebs)8 of Catos censorial performance. Here comes to mind the attack of the tribune Ti. Claudius Asellus on Scipio Aemilianus, accusing Scipio that lustrum illo censore malum infelix fuisse. 9 A number of scholars, including Malcovati, would go one step beyond Fraccaro, and amalgamate In Thermum post censuram and De suis virtutibus into one speech De suis virtutibus contra <L.> Thermum post censuram. The felicitas lustri and the virtutes of Cato may indeed go well together, but certainty cannot be achieved.10 If it was one speech, we acquire the year 183, immediately after his censorship, as the date for Catos remark about his service in Aetolia. If, however, De suis virtutibus was a separate speech, a precise date of its delivery cannot be established. Catos adversary remains an elusive figure. A L. Minucius served as a legate in 182180 under the praetor (of 182) Q. Fulvius Flaccus in Hither Spain,11 and a L. Minucius Thermus (no doubt the same person) served in 178 in Istria under the consul A. Manlius Vulso.12 This squares well with his putative tribunate of the plebs in 183, and he also would have had ample time to achieve the rank of a praetorius by 154. One thing is certain: he belonged to the family of the consul Q. Thermus, and was engaged in a vendetta against Cato; indeed he was probably a son of Q. Thermus,13 more precisely, the younger son: the elder would have carried the praenomen of Quintus.14 If Cato chose to dwell on his mission to Aetolia, he must have regarded it a signal success. Livy, or his source, was either not impressed or suppressed Catos exploits. The historian pays close attention to Aetolian affairs, but is silent about Catos involvement. Nor is Catos mission mentioned in the extant fragments of Polybius. Modern historians dismiss it in meagre asides. Broughton does not specify the purpose of Catos legatio;15 others have felt that he was dispatched to Aetolia in connection with negotiations with the Aetolians, 16 or even more concretely the gruff M. Cato ... was once and once only posted to the East on a diplomatic assignment: to assist M. Fulvius Nobilior in reaching an accord with the Aetolians in 189. 17 The same sentiment was already expressed, but not pursued further, in the old handbook of Drumann.18 To place Catos mission in its political context, and to establish its precise chronology, we must first review the relations between Rome and Aetolia since the beginning of the Syrian war.19 Catos mention of the Aetolian envoys, the oratores, offers a clue. Several Aetolian embassies to Roman commanders and to the Senate are on record. In 192 the Aetolian confederacy joined Antiochus III in the war against Rome. In 191 the consul M. Acilius Glabrio defeated Antiochus in the battle at Thermopylae. Cato, who served under Glabrio as tribune of the soldiers (he was

Cato Maior in Aetolia

63

379

380

elected by the people, not appointed by the general), commanded the detachment that routed the Aetolians and through a mountainous path penetrated at the rear of the kings army. After the battle he was sent by the consul to Rome to report the victory to the Senate.20 In the meantime Glabrio made an offer to the Aetolians: they should surrender Heraclea (Trachinia) and beg the Senate for forgiveness of their furor and error; si paenitere possint, posse et incolumes esse (this presupposes a truce, and the sending of envoys to Rome). The Aetolians foolishly gave no answer (Livy 36.22.14). The campaign resumed. Only when Glabrio took and plundered the city of Heraclea did the Aetolians send to him pacis petendae oratores. Glabrio granted them a tenday truce and ordered them to have a preliminary conference (in Hypata) with the legate L. Valerius Flaccus (cos. 195). The Aetolians began their plea by stressing their previous services to Rome, but Flaccus advised then to behave suppliciter, and entrust themselves, ew tn Rvmavn pstin, ut in fidem se permitterent Romanorum. Acting on Flaccuss advice the Aetolian embassy again approached Glabrio: they declared they had decided se suaque omnia fidei populi Romani permittere. Thus, in the Roman eyes, they performed a formal deditio. But when Glabrio ordered them to surrender a number of anti-Roman politicians,21 the Aetolian ambassadors forcefully objected. Glabrio had them thrown in chains. The ambassadors, frightened and broken, now assured the consul that they, and the apocleti too, were ready to comply with all his orders, but that for the final approval the consent of the assembly was necessary. At the intervention of Valerius Flaccus the consul relented, released the ambassadors, and extended the truce for another ten days so that the Aetolian assembly might be convoked. But the Aetolians, enraged by Roman demands, by the harsh treatment of the ambassadors, and tricked by fate as they received vain assurances of further help from Antiochus, refused even to attend the meeting, and thus resolved to resume their armed resistance.22 This incident, and its description by Polybius and Livy, is the prime exhibit for all scholars discussing the institution of Roman deditio, and its (initial or alleged) misunderstanding by the Greeks.23 It also set the pattern for subsequent negotiations, the Aetolians complaining of Roman injustice, and the Romans incensed by Aetolian haughtiness. It is into this climate of mistrust and misunderstanding that Cato plunged when two years later he sailed to Aetolia. In 191 the next stage of Roman operations was the siege of Naupactus; after two months the city was about to fall to Glabrio when T. Quinctius Flamininus intervened. In the previous year he was dispatched to Greece by the Senate in the company of other eminent senators to rally Greek states to the Roman side; now with Antiochus III defeated but unconquered, and Philip V quietly extending his influence and domination, he thought Glabrio was wasting time besieging Naupactus and prosecuting war against only the Aetolians. Acting as an intermediary he persuaded the Aetolians to beg for a truce, and Glabrio to grant it. The purpose of the truce was, in Flamininuss (or Livys) words, ut mittere legatos Romam possitis, per quos senatui de vobis permittatis. 24 Unconditional surrender was still the Roman demand, but this time it was to be offered directly to the Senate and not to the general in the field.

64

Historia et Ius

381

The Aetolian embassy was a disaster. In the consular year 190 the reception of the Aetolian envoys was, after religio, the first item on the Senates agenda. When the envoys from an enemy state traveled to Rome during a truce they were normally accompanied by the legates of the Roman commander. Livy, never interested in procedural details for their own sake, but only as an embellishment of his narrative, omits to mention that envoys from Glabrio arrived in Rome simultaneously with the Aetolians. This information we owe to Polybius; Livy, on the other hand, records that at the same time also T. Quinctius Flamininus returned from Greece, and that he offered assistance to the Aetolians. To no avail. The Senate (so Livy translating Polybius into Roman officialese) gave them two options: vel senatui liberum arbitrium de se permitterent, vel mille talentum darent eosdemque amicos atque inimicos haberent. 25 The Aetolians, oddly enough, were rather interested in exploring the first option (as it appears, they did not have ready funds to pay immediately the reparations [Polyb. 21.5.1]). They wished to receive a precise statement as to which matters were to be left to the decision of the Senate. The Senate gave no answer, understandably so. What the Aetolians attempted to negotiate was a partial or conditional surrender; in this way they proposed to alter the legal nature of deditio. And by refusing to surrender in fidem they demonstrated that they did not trust the Romans, an offense the Romans could not tolerate. And so the envoys were ordered to leave the city on the same day, and Italy within fifteen days. The state of war continued.26 This may have been seen as embarrassment for Flamininus, and vindication for Glabrio. His imperium prorogued, Glabrio pursued energetically the operations against the Aetolians; as the mountainous road to Naupactus was blocked by the Aetolians, he captured Lamia in Malis, and besieged the strategically located city of Amphissa in Locris. He was to be frustrated again. For the consul of 190, L. Cornelius Scipio, and his brother, the Africanus, technically a legatus, arrived in Greece with a new army.27 Their eyes were set on a higher prize, Antiochus III. Not far from Amphissa P. Scipio was met by the Athenian envoys who came to intercede in behalf of the Aetolians. Checkered negotiations with the Aetolians followed, Publius assuring them of his vaunted clementia and benignitas (he thus hinted that if the Aetolians surrendered they could expect to be treated with clementia). But his brother the consul reiterated the Senates demand in a harsher way: unconditional surrender or the payment of one thousand talents of indemnity and joining Rome in a defensive and offensive alliance. The Aetolians were not able to pay; they offered to surrender but only if the indemnity were reduced and the citizens (politiko ndrew)28 and women excluded from total submission. They again failed to comprehend the all-encompassing nature of deditio. The consul, invoking the decision of the Senate, refused to accept their plea. But the Scipios were hastening to Asia;29 when the Aetolians now begged for a truce of six months so that they might again send an embassy to the Senate, they got a favorable reply. For the time being the Aetolians were saved again; Glabrio raised the siege of Amphissa, handed over his army to L. Scipio, and returned to Rome where in the second half of the consular year 190 he celebrated a triumph.30 He also stood for the censorship, a heavy favorite against five other candidates, Cato among them. Two tribunes of the plebs were moved to accuse Glabrio before

Cato Maior in Aetolia

65

382

the iudicium populi of peculatus, embezzlement of the booty captured from Antiochus. Cato, called as a witness, brushed aside the memory of Glabrio warmly and generously embracing him after the battle of Thermopylae and testified he did not see carried in Glabrios triumph various gold and silver vessels he had seen captured in the camp of Antiochus.31 Glabrio abandoned his candidacy, and the tribunes dropped the accusation.32 Cato himself was not elected this time, but he discredited his rival. Five years later, in 184, when Cato became censor, Glabrio was not even a candidate. Livy places the Senates reception of the new Aetolian embassy immediately after the consular elections for 189.33 In the same context he recounts (from Valerius Antias) the story of the rumor that the Scipios had been treacherously captured by Antiochus. This rumor was allegedly brought to Rome by A. Terentius Varro and M. Claudius Lepidus, the envoys sent to the Senate from Aetolia by the propraetor A. Cornelius (Mammula). Now the true role of these envoys should not be in doubt: they accompanied the Aetolian embassy.34 If Livys placement of this event is correct, we would acquire an important chronological peg. The truce the Scipios granted the Aetolians was to last six months; counting back from March 189 we arrive at ca. October 190, which squares quite well with the date of the mobilization of Scipioss army in Brundisium on July 15. This would mean that the Aetolians were either very slow in sending their envoys to Rome or that the envoys were kept waiting for a long time for an audience in the Senate, not an unusual occurrence. In any case it was quite natural to postpone the discussion of the Aetolian affair until the new consuls had been elected. The Aetolian embassy was again a disaster. They dwelled on their beneficia in populum Romanum, did not behave suppliciter, and persisted in their refusal to surrender unconditionally. They still pinned their hopes on the success of Antiochus III. In the Senate the Aetolians were to face their old enemy, and conqueror, M. Acilius Glabrio. He was again unbending.35 A decree of the Senate was passed according to his sententia: the ambassadors were ordered to leave the city immediately (eo die) and depart from Italy within fifteen days; a Roman official, A. Terentius Varro, was to supervise their iter to Aetolia.36 The Senate also stipulated that if in the future any envoys arrived from Aetolia without express permission from the Roman commander, and were not accompanied by a Roman legate, they would be regarded as enemies (i.e., would not be accorded protection extended iure gentium to ambassadors). Livy seems to present this clause as a particular aggravation, but in fact it was a standard procedure: the enemy state always needed a truce and permission from the Roman commander in the field to dispatch its envoys to Rome.37 The Aetolian embassy of 189 was not an exception: it was authorized by L. Scipio, and a Roman legate was very possibly attached to it by the propraetor A. Cornelius. What may have been a novel clause, and an expression of particular intransigence toward the Aetolians, was the threat pro hostibus omnis futuros. This injunction leads us directly to the fragment from Catos speech and allows us to comprehend its political context. After the dismissal of the Aetolian ambassadors the consuls presented for debate in the Senate the assignment of consular provinces (de provinciis rettulerunt); Asia and Aetolia were selected. This is

66

Historia et Ius

383

logical, and Livys chronology is sound: the decision concerning the consular assignments could be taken only after the Aetolian envoys had been heard. For if peace with the Aetolians had been concluded there may not have been any need for selecting Aetolia as a consular province. The conduct of war against the Aetolians fell by lot to M. Fulvius Nobilior (Livy 37.50.18). The Aetolians utilized the truce with Rome for various local conquests; but all their hopes were dashed when the news of the Roman victory at Magnesia arrived, and the Aetolian envoys headed by Damoteles returned empty-handed from Rome. They returned not only sine spe pacis, but also Fulviumque consulem nuntiantes cum exercitu iam traiecisse. The consul landed in Apollonia in Illyria, and consulted there about the campaign with the principes Epirotarum, the enemies of the Aetolians. Their advice was to lay siege to Ambracia, quae tum contribuerat se Aetolis. 38 Livy here reproduces Polybius.39 The temporal indication tum evokes curiosity. When? The generally held opinion states that Ambracia had been Aetolian since some date between 232 and 223/2. 40 But Polybiuss tte and Livys tum seem to hint at some more recent change.41 Cato, or rather a story concerning Cato, sheds light, again. Frontinus in his Strategemata (2.7.14) records an exploit of Cato at Ambracia:
M. Cato, cum Ambraciam eo tempore quo sociae naves ab Aetolis oppugnabantur, imprudens uno lembo appulisset, quamquam nihil secum praesidii haberet, coepit signum voce gestuque dare, quo videretur subsequentis suorum navis vocare, eaque asseveratione hostem terruit, tamquam plane appropinquarent, qui quasi ex proximo citabantur: Aetoli, ne adventu Romanae classis opprimerentur, reliquerunt oppugnationem.

384

Some interpreters incline to date this adventure to 189, and connect it with Catos mission to Fulvius.42 This will not do. In their detailed description of the siege of Ambracia neither Polybius nor Livy mentions the Aetolian ships. The Aetolian navy apparently blocked the harbor of Ambracia; this could not have happened in 189. The event belongs to 191, when Cato served in Greece under the consul M. Acilius Glabrio.43 The exact date in 191 escapes us, but it can be narrowed down considerably. Two occasions offer. After the battle of Thermopylae Cato was dispatched to report the victory to the Senate. As Livy reports a Creusa ... in intimo sinu Corinthiaco ... Patras Achaiae petit; a Patris Corcyram usque Aetoliae atque Acarnaniae littora legit, atque ita ad Hydruntum Italiae traicit. 44 When he skirted the shores of Aetolia and Acarnania, one might imagine he made a stop at Ambracia. A glance at the map will suffice to dispel this notion. Ambracia (modern Arta) lies at the far end of the Ambraciote Gulf, several miles inland on the river Aretho (Arachthus).45 As Cato travelled post-haste to bring the good news to the Senate, he had no reason whatsoever to make a detour to Ambracia. A very different situation obtained at the very beginning of the campaign. When Acilius Glabrio (like later Fulvius Nobilior) landed in Apollonia, he sent envoys to various Greek cities to quell the sympathizers of Antiochus and to foster the pro-Roman elements. Cato travelled to several Greek cities; we know he visited Aegium, Patrae, Corinth and Athens.46 It must have been during this journey that he stopped at Ambracia.

Cato Maior in Aetolia

67

385

This entails an interesting footnote to the history of that city. In the text of Frontinus the expression sociae naves is not clear, and probably not exact. One could think of the Italian socii navales, but they do not seem to have been mobilized for this war.47 The allied ships will be the Greek ships, and it would appear the Ambraciotes themselves. Apparently soon after the arrival of Glabrios army the Ambraciotes decided to abandon the Aetolian League and attach themselves to the Romans. Aetolia was at war with Rome, and if Ambracia had been perceived as hostile, Cato would hardly have sailed there uno lembo. He sailed to receive Ambracia into the Roman fold, but in the meantime the Aetolians made an attempt to regain the city. Through his ruse Cato scared off the Aetolian ships, and apparently succeeded in landing in Ambracia: cum Ambraciam ... appulisset is quite emphatic. Technically the Ambraciotes were not and did not become Roman allies:48 they were allies only insofar as they tried to dissolve their union with the Aetolians, and obey the Romans. Not for long. At some point the pro-Aetolian party in Ambracia regained its ascendancy. When early in the campaign against Aetolia and Antiochus the Athamanian Amynander was expelled from his kingdom by Philip V and the Romans, he escaped to Ambracia, and he was still there when Glabrio after Thermopylae and the capture of Heraclea demanded from the Aetolians his surrender.49 This need not mean that at that time Ambracia was openly hostile to Rome. Yet in the end Ambracia (which had no Aetolian garrison when Fulvius arrived), rejoined the Aetolians, tum contribuerat se Aetolis. History and grammar thus elucidate each other. After the arrival of Fulvius, the Aetolians, in dire straits, desperately tried to avert the calamity. They dispatched their representatives to Athens and Rhodes begging them to send embassies to Rome and intercede in their behalf; they also dispatched their own embassy to the Senate.50 In this way they appear to have disregarded the Senates injunction not to send envoys to Rome again without first obtaining permission from the commander in the field. But it may be that Fulvius permission was in fact obtained.51 A careful reading of Polybius will dispel this notion. An observation on the sources is in place: Livy uses Polybius very selectively. He omits details and names: from his narrative no coherent picture of diplomatic negotiations emerges. However, we do not have the full text of Polybius but only (abridged) excerpts; fortunately, in a few instances these fragments are joined together by the story in Livy. The Aetolian envoys travelling to Rome were intercepted and captured by the Epirotes off Cephallenia, and brought to Epirus. The Epirotes demanded from each member of the embassy a ransom of five talents; after they reduced it to three talents (they were afraid that the Romans might demand the release of the ambassadors) all envoys agreed to pay, with the exception of Alexander, the richest man in Greece. His foolish greed was rewarded: indeed, a letter arrived from Rome ordering that the envoys be liberated. When the Aetolians heard what had happened to their ambassadors, they dispatched another embassy to Rome, again headed by Damoteles. When he reached the island of Leucas, he learned that Fulvius Nobilior was advancing through Epirus on Ambracia; he abandoned his mission, and returned to Aetolia. So Polybius; Livy omits this story altogether.52

68

Historia et Ius

386

In this account one element stands out: the Aetolians did not try to approach Fulvius, but sent the embassy (indeed embassies, one intercepted by the Epirotes, and the other headed by Damoteles) directly to Rome. They apparently intended to reach a settlement before Fulvius began his operations, and they counted on the Athenians and Rhodians to mollify the Romans. Why did they not approach Fulvius first? We have to put ourselves in the position of the Aetolians. A Roman general landed his army on the Greek soil; he was intent on loot and glory (a poet was in his entourage to sing of his exploits). What was their chance of getting from him a favorable settlement? A settlement that would cut short his military exploits, and prevent him from earning a triumph and for a triumph he needed to win a battle or take a city, and to slaughter a substantial number of enemy soldiers.53 Thus once Fulvius began his campaign it was most unlikely that the Senate would stop him, and it was apparently this consideration that caused Damoteles to cut short his mission and sail back to Aetolia.54 The Aetolians could now rely on two things only: the Athenian and Rhodian intercession, and their own mettle. They were not yet ready to capitulate. The Epirotes joined the Romans in the siege of Ambracia; if they dreamed of acquiring the city for themselves they were to be disappointed. In Ambracia there was originally no Aetolian garrison, but on two occasions the Aetolians were able either to elude the Romans or to break through their works and introduce to the city first one thousand men under Eupolemus, and then five hundred horsemen under Nicodemus. The siege proved an arduous undertaking; the Aetolians and the Ambraciotes fought bravely.55 But in the long run they could not endure. The strategos of the Aetolians finally decided to send envoys directly to the consul. Here the fragment of Polybius breaks off, but Livy offers a full account.56 The Aetolian praetor convoked the concilium of the principes; they decided to send to the consul Phaeneas and Damoteles (Livy for the first time bothers to give the names of Aetolian ambassadors) cum liberis mandatis. But this did not mean surrender, yet. The envoys begged the consul ut parceret urbi, misereretur gentis quondam sociae; and they again dwelt upon their services to Rome in the war against Macedonia. The consuls response was harsh, but contained interesting new elements (38.8.910): Aetolos nisi inermes de pace agentes non auditurum se; arma illis prius equosque omnis tradendos esse, deinde mille talentum argenti populo Romano dandum, cuius summae dimidium praesens numereretur, si pacem habere vellent. ad ea adiecturum etiam in foedus esse, ut eosdem quos populus Romanus amicos atque hostis habeant. First of all we observe that while Fulvius still insisted on the indemnity payment of one thousand talents, only half of that sum was to be paid immediately. The demand that the Aetolians deliver to the Romans their arms was harsh, but it was palliated by the admission of Aetolia into a treaty with Rome, albeit as a dependent state; still in order to assist Rome in fighting her enemies, the Aetolians could not have remained disarmed for long. The demand that the Aetolians deliver their horses appears peculiar.57 On the other hand there is conspicuously missing in the consuls ultimatum the customary order to return captives and surrender deserters.

Cato Maior in Aetolia

69

387

388

The epigraphically preserved deditio of the Seano[ci in Spain offers a parallel and elucidation. The Roman imperator commands that the Seano[ci deliver [...] / captivos equos equas quas cepisent [... (line 5). The phrase quas cepisent (sic) catches ones eye: the Spanish tribesmen were ordered to deliver not all horses but solely those horses (observe the famed Roman legalistic meticulousness: equos equas) which they had captured during the war. Quas cepisent carries back to captivos, and perhaps to whatever stood in the lacuna at the end of the preceding line: arma and obsides (or transfugas) have been proposed as supplements.58 Thus technically the consul still demanded from the Aetolians the deditio; but unlike Glabrio (unless Livy omitted this detail) he did not insist on the surrender of anti-Roman elements. Naturally he offered no specific assurances, and did not say expressly what the Romans would, and would not, do: such assurances would have run against the grain of deditio. But from the clause admitting Aetolia into the Roman foedus, it was clear that the physical existence of the country was not in danger. Yet the envoys, despite their libera mandata, could not bring themselves to accept the Roman conditions. They departed to consult again with the praetor (i.e., the strategos) and the principes, and were instructed to get the peace without any further delay and at any cost, qualemcumque pacem. Misfortunes multiplied: on their way back to the Roman camp at Ambracia, the envoys walked into a trap set by the Acarnanians (who were at war with Aetolia), and were detained in the city of Thyrreum in Acarnania. In the meantime the ambassadors from Athens and Rhodes arrived in the Roman camp to sue for the Aetolians, and it is at this juncture that a new fragment of Polybius begins to guide us toward the conclusion of peace.59 There also arrived in the Roman camp, having received assurances of safe conduct, the king of Athamanes, Amynander. A very interesting development. It indicated a certain softening of the Roman position (or in any case of Fulvius position) toward Aetolia. For Amynander, we remember, was expressly named among the anti-Roman leaders whose surrender Glabrio had demanded from the Aetolians. After Glabrios return to Rome, Amynander with Aetolian help expelled from Athamania the Macedonian garrison, and recovered his kingdom. A shrewd politician, he then dispatched legacies to the Scipios in Asia and to the Senate begging for peace, excusing his behavior and, above all, accusing the Macedonian king: Philippum incusabat.60 These incriminations apparently found in the Senate a receptive ear; the guiding principle of Roman policy was not so much to punish Amynander, a small fry, or destroy Aetolia, but rather to prevent any aggrandizement of Macedonia. When Fulvius learnt of the detention of the Aetolian envoys, he wrote to the people of Thyrreum to release them; and a few days after the arrival of the Athenians, the Rhodians and Amynander, the Acarnanians brought Damoteles and other members of the Aetolian embassy to the Roman camp. The peace negotiations began in earnest. Into this complicated web of diplomatic and military moves, mishaps, and missteps the fragment of Cato fits exquisitely. But the only reconstruction so far attempted, by Matthias Gelzer, we cannot deem a success. Paraphrasing Cato,

70

Historia et Ius

389

Gelzer writes: information was received in Rome that the Aetolian envoys were reportedly in transit to conclude peace.61 Cato himself writes ex Aetolia conplures venerant: Aetolos pacem velle: de ea re oratores Romam profectos. The penchant of the German idiom for passive expressions has not served the matter well: Gelzers man erfahren habe does not render adequately the words of Cato. It was not some indefinite rumor that was heard in Rome; rather, a group of trustworthy people arrived from Aetolia reporting the Aetolian wish for peace and the departure of the Aetolian embassy. Who were these people? Certainly not Romans, for in this case Cato probably would have used some more definite locution like complures nostri; even more certainly not Roman officers, legati, for it would have been very awkward to describe them merely as complures. If not Romans, then Greeks. Certainly again not Aetolians, but other Greeks. We have not forgotten that the Aetolians had sent embassies to Athens and Rhodes entreating the Athenians and the Rhodians to intercede for them with the Romans. This is the palmary solution to Catos complures. Both the Rhodian and particularly the Athenian embassies may have stopped on their way to Rome to confer with the Aetolian leaders; broadly speaking they could well have been described as coming from Aetolia. It is their assurances that moved Cato to write Aetolos pacem velle this time the Aetolians really wished peace. The Athenians and Rhodians spread their message, apparently received a favorable hearing in the Senate, and then all waited for the arrival of the Aetolian envoys. These envoys had left for Rome, oratores Romam profectos, but they did not reach the city. Catos oratores were no doubt identical with the ambassadors who were captured on the high seas off the island of Cephallenia, and imprisoned in Epirus.62 All this happened after Fulvius had already left with his army, and landed in Apollonia. Finally the news arrived in Rome of the misfortune of the ambassadors. The Senate must have decided to take up the Aetolian question for the authorities in Rome sent a letter to the Epirotes ordering the release of the ambassadors (Polybius 21.26.17 states explicitly that this letter arrived k tw Rmhw; it did not come from Fulvius). By the time the letter arrived four of the ambassadors had already paid ransom, and were back in Aetolia; the fifth, Alexander the Isian, was now set free, and must have followed their suit. Of these ambassadors only Phaeneas appears again in our sources (in Livy 38.8.1,5, but not in the abridged fragment of Polybius) as participating in subsequent negotiations. Cato states that he was sent to the consul M. Fulvius because of the Aetolian desire for peace: M. Fulvio consuli legatus sum in Aetoliam. What was precisely his position? Gelzer says he was dispatched to the consul als Legat. The term legatus is ambiguous. We have to distinguish carefully between the senatorial legati attached to the commander as staff officers and the legati sent to the general with messages and instructions from the Senate.63 The Oxford Latin Dictionary adduces Catos phrase as the earliest example for to commission as a legate to a general. Cato would have been a legatus in the sense of an assistant to a general, staff-officer, deputy.64 While this rendering seems to conform to the grammar (legare aliquem aliquo is indeed a standard expression to denote the commission-

Cato Maior in Aetolia

71

390

ing of a person as a deputy), it runs counter to the sense of Catos utterance. For Fulvius had already departed for Greece, no doubt taking his legates, his staff officers, with him; and Catos mission was set in train by the subsequent Aetolian peace overtures. Gelzer believes (thus implicitly clarifying his understanding of the phrase legatus sum) that Cato brought to Fulvius instructions for peace negotiations, and the idea that Cato participated in these negotiations is shared by many scholars.65 Also Broughton classifies Cato among Legates, Envoys (and not Legates, Lieutenants).66 Whether Cato was a deputy or an envoy is not a frivolous question; it will bear heavily upon the date and nature of Catos famed attack against Fulvius. Neither Polybius (21.29.1) nor Livy (38.9.3) states explicitly whether the Athenian and Rhodian envoys arrived in the Roman camp directly from Athens and Rhodes or from some other place; but as they arrived at the same time, there can be little doubt that they were coming from Rome. And furthermore there can be little doubt that together with the Athenians and Rhodians there arrived also the delegation from the Senate headed (it appears) by Cato (it is unlikely that the legatio from the Senate should have consisted of Cato alone).67 In the accounts of Polybius and Livy, in the negotiations two persons figure prominently: the king of the Athamanes Amynander and C. Valerius Laevinus. Their employ testifies to the diplomatic acumen and political dexterity of Fulvius Nobilior. We have to reverse the situation, and put ourselves this time in the place of Nobilior, not the Aetolians. Nobiliors goal was personal aggrandizement. This meant a triumph. And for a triumph he needed a clear-cut victory. So far he has not yet routed the Aetolians in a great pitched battle, and the siege of Ambracia was not over. And there was another thing to add to his worries and to influence his calculations: he was obliged (as the other consul Cn. Manlius Vulso was still farther away, in Asia Minor) to conduct in Rome the elections of the magistrates. To perform this duty he had to leave Greece and go to Rome before the end of his term as consul. And it was uncertain whether his imperium would be prorogued for another year. If not, another consul would reap the fruits of his efforts. The war had to be concluded quickly, and time was now on the side of the Aetolians. To achieve his goal it was imperative for the consul to separate the siege of Ambracia from the larger issue of the war against the Aetolians. Amynander, who had spent a couple of years as an exile in Ambracia when he was expelled from his kingdom by Philip V, was an ideal intermediary between the consul and the Ambraciotes. For the consul the surrender of Ambracia, the deditio, was essential; essential for the Ambraciotes was that they not be enslaved and the city sacked. The consul could not formally and openly give such assurances; but Amynander made all the promises, and the Ambraciotes decided to surrender. There remained the delicate question of the Aetolian garrison. Polybius (or rather his excerptor) says that the Ambraciotes surrendered their city on condition that the Aetolians were allowed to depart under the flag of truce.68 But deditio admitted of no conditions. The actual course of events must have been this: first, truce; next, negotiations for the safe conduct of the Aetolian soldiers; third, the departure of the Aetolian detachment and the formal deditio of the city.69

72

Historia et Ius

391

392

Concurrently with these negotiations proceeded negotiations with the Aetolian envoys. Here C. Valerius Laevinus, the young half-brother of Fulvius Nobilior, rose as the protector of Aetolia. He claimed the rights of an ancestral patronage: he was the son of M. Valerius Laevinus, who was the first to conclude an alliance with the Aetolians (in 211).70 It is one of the earliest examples of foreign clientelae, 71 and a very remarkable example: the patron was a young man, a nobilis it is true, but at best only a junior senator.72 Polybius and Livy (and modern commentators too) present his exertions on behalf of the Aetolians as spontaneous and arising out of his sense of duty; but it is very unlikely that his efforts should have run counter to the intentions and interests of his half-brother the consul. Laevinus was building up his clientela, and Nobilior was securing through the intermediary of Amynander and Laevinus the surrender of Ambracia, the peace with Aetolia, and ultimately his triumph. The conditions of peace were as follows:73 the Aetolians were to pay an indemnity of five hundred (and not one thousand) talents, and of this sum they were to pay at once only two hundred, and the rest in six yearly installments. They were to deliver to the Romans (within six months) all prisoners and deserters. They were not to retain in the Aetolian confederacy nor receive into it in the future any city that either had been captured by the Romans or entered into alliance (amicitia) with Rome since the crossing to Greece of L. Cornelius Scipio (in 190).74 And the whole of the island of Cephallenia was to be excluded from the treaty. The determined resistance of the Aetolians started to pay dividends at the very moment they were ready to accept complete submission. The conditions were mild; much milder than those repeatedly put forth by the Senate and the successive Roman commanders, Acilius Glabrio, Lucius Scipio, and only recently by Fulvius Nobilior himself. Above all they did not contain the requirement of deditio. This sudden turn in Roman policy is perplexing. Was it due solely to Fulvius? It is doubtful whether the consul had instructions to do this it looks as though he acted on his own responsibility (doing what was sensible from the point of view of the state and would give him the distinction of finishing the war) and trusted to his supporters in the Senate to secure ratification.75 Certainty is elusive, but we have to account for Fulvius change of mind: first he upholds the traditional hard line, demands deditio, next he is ready for a compromise. Lenient conditions for the Aetolians was the price he had to pay (in the behindthe-scenes negotiations) for the speedy surrender of Ambracia, but it is striking that the final peace negotiations coincided with the arrival of the Athenian and Rhodian embassy, and, so we have surmised, the envoys from the Senate, headed by Cato. Aetolos pacem velle: it appears that Cato too, and a majority in the Senate, was now ready for peace, even if this meant a lesser punishment of the Aetolians. The peace conditions were after some hesitation accepted by the concilium Aetolorum. Now the Aetolian delegation, the indefatigable Phaeneas and the former strategos Nicander, departed with the consuls permission for Rome; they were accompanied by the Athenian and Rhodian deprecatores, and by the consuls personal envoy, and their patron, Valerius Laevinus.76 The negotiations in Rome do not belong within the scope of this paper; the envoys from Philip V inveighed

Cato Maior in Aetolia

73

393

against the Aetolians, but their incriminations were deftly defused in a masterful speech by an Athenian delegate. The Senate approved the peace, the people ratified it, and the foedus was sworn by the representatives of Rome (no doubt the fetial priests) and of Aetolia.77 As to the substance, the final agreement reproduced with some alterations the agreement negotiated by Fulvius.78 He has achieved half of his goal, and he apparently achieved it with Catos blessing and support. There is a postscript to this story. It features Cato as the bane of Roman commanders in Greece and Asia. In an epochal struggle told many times Cato broke the Scipios, derailed the censorial candidacy of Acilius Glabrio, and delivered a blow to T. Flamininus when as censor he expelled Flamininuss brother from the Senate. He also clashed with Fulvius Nobilior; and it is testimony to Fulviuss political dexterity that of so many principes he alone escaped unscathed. He secured a triumph in 187, and in 179 he was elected censor. Of the clash with Fulvius only three stray fragments of Catos speeches inform; in Livy, silence.79 This is due to accident or design. Design is discernible, and omission (whether of Livy or of his annalistic source). The historian records Catos attack on Acilius Glabrio, and he paints with all the colors of his palette Catos battle with the Scipios. Fulvius is another (albeit lesser) protagonist. He and M. Aemilius Lepidus are cast in a classic tale of enmity and reconciliation (as censors in 174). From this story all extraneous elements are removed. The tale begins with Fulviuss election to the consulship: Fulvius consul unus creatur nam ceteri centurias non explessent, isque postero die Cn. Manlium Lepido deiecto ... collegam dixit (so frequently emended in place of the paradosis duxit). The consular elections would appear to have taken place on the last day of the consular year 190, pr. Id. Mart. Fulvius, as none of his competitors received the required amount of votes, was elected consul unus, and on the first day of his consulship presided over the election of his colleague, secured the appointment of his ally Cn. Manlius Vulso, and conspired to defeat M. Aemilius Lepidus.80 Not so. A perceptive scholar points out that (at least in the late republic) neither March 14 nor 15 was a comitial day. Hence the argument: the elections were held by the consul C. Laelius; in the text of Livy we have to keep the manuscript reading duxit. This word was a technical term; it meant either to support a candidate or to escort the newly elected magistrate. In our case Fulvius escorted home (or to the Capitol) his newly elected colleague Manlius Vulso.81 A brilliant argument, a disappointing conclusion. It lacks drama, and it is drama that Livy was striving for. When a year later, toward the end of the consular year 189, Fulvius returned from Greece to Rome to hold the elections, M. Lepidus was again a candidate, and Fulvius again conspired to prevent his success. The similarity between the two situations Livy underscores by the identical terminology: Lepido deiecto; cum Lepidum deiecisset.82 This need not mean anything drastic, for instance the refusal to accept Lepiduss candidature.83 On both occasions Fulvius will have simply directed his followers to vote against Lepidus. In 190 by the deiectio of Lepidus he also automatically secured the election of Manlius Vulso: he drew him, duxit, as his colleague. But Lepiduss turn did finally come: under the presidency of M. Valerius Messala he was elected (in 188) consul for 187, and immediately set out to take

74

Historia et Ius

394

revenge on Fulvius. He criticized the decree of the Senate that had prorogued (in the previous year) the provincial commands of Fulvius and Manlius; and the Senate now decreed that both Fulvius and Manlius should relinquish their provinces and bring their armies back to Rome (Livy 38.42.813). Next Lepidus introduced to the Senate envoys from Ambracia whom he had previously suborned to lodge false (so Livy) accusations against Fulvius. The Ambraciotes claimed that they had done everything the Roman consuls in Greece ordered them to do; they were at peace and were ready to obey Fulvius, but when he started plundering their fields, they had no choice but were compelled to close the gates.84 The city was beleaguered and unjustly sacked, property robbed, temples despoiled, their wives and children abducted into slavery. Livy builds this scene into a dramatic confrontation between Aemilius Lepidus, and the other consul, C. Flaminius, who rose to defend Fulvius (Livy 38.4344.13). But when Flaminius fell sick, and was not able to attend the senatorial meetings, Lepidus pushed through the decree of the Senate restoring to the Ambriaciotes their liberty and their laws. The language is formal, and correct: ut Ambraciensibus suae res omnes redderentur; in libertate essent ac legibus suis uterentur.85 Similar phrases recur in the epigraphical deditio from Alcntara (lines 710): deinde eos L. Caesius C. [f. imperator liberos] / esse iussit, agros et aedificia leges cete[raque omnia] / quae sua fuissent pridie quam se dedid[issent quaeque] / extarent eis reddidit. These phrases do not emanate from the Senate but from the Roman imperator, with an important proviso, however (lines 1011), dum populus [senatusque] / Roomanus (sic) vellet.86 We cannot doubt that this was a standard formula, and that it was also employed by Fulvius with respect to Ambracia. Now the peace and treaty with the Aetolian League was signed and sworn already one year previously (either at the very end of the consular year 189 or at the beginning of 188), but Ambracia formed a separate case. It belonged to the category of the cities that made deditio to the Romans; those cities were permanently excluded from the Aetolian confederacy. Consequently, it was not included either in the preliminary or in the final peace treaty with Aetolia. But certainly upon the deditio of Ambracia must have followed the preliminary settlement of its status. Livy is a careless historian with a flair for dramatic detail. He recorded Fulviuss settlement with the Aetolian League, but omitted to mention his settlement with Ambracia. Following (and misunderstanding Polybius) he records only that Ambracienses coronam auream consuli centum et quinquaginta pondo dederunt.87 Now the Ambraciotes could make this gift only at the moment when, after their deditio, the consul restored to them their city and their possessions. In other words, the legal ability of the Ambraciotes to make this gift presupposes the settlement. Technically Ambracia was an urbs dedita, not capta.88 Hence Fulvius spared the city; only statues and paintings were taken away,89 and even this robbery Livy (and Polybius too) mollifies by reminding the reader that Ambracia had been a royal residence of Pyrrhus, and thus it was presumably the treasures given to the city by this enemy of Rome that were carried away. And he adds pointedly, already looking forward to the altercation between Lepidus and the party of

Cato Maior in Aetolia

75

395

Fulvius, and defusing in advance the accusations levelled against Fulvius by the Ambraciotes, that nothing else was touched or violated.90 Every settlement reached or dictated by the commander in the field was technically only a preliminary agreement; it had to be ratified by the Senate and the people. After the deditio of the Seano[ci in Spain, and the preliminary settlement, the Roman imperator commanded that the envoys of the Seano[ci go to Rome to the Senate (lines 1112).91 There is no doubt (although Livy does not say this explicitly, and Polybius is lost) that the envoys from Ambracia were in Rome for the purpose of ratifying the settlement dictated to them by Fulvius. 92 But then, encouraged by Aemilius Lepidus, they accused Fulvius, and pressed for better conditions. Still, the final dispositions, with their standard formulas, probably reproduced closely the original document. The only innovation appears to have been the clause in the senatus consultum directing the pontiffs to decide (but only after the return of Fulvius) what should be done about the statues and other objects which the Ambraciotes complained Fulvius had removed from temples.93 Livy (38.44.6) adds that Aemilius Lepidus underhandedly in a sparsely attended meeting of the Senate (per infrequentiam) caused a decree to be passed declaring that Ambracia does not seem to have been captured by force (Ambraciam vi captam non videri). The thrust of this decree (if it was really passed and was not an annalistic fabrication) was two-pronged: first it would make Fulviuss claim to a triumph more difficult, and second, it would make easier the restitution of the objects of art carried away by Fulvius. Later in the year, before the consuls returned from their provinces, Fulvius came back to Rome, and demanded a triumph. The tribune M. Aburius, an ally of Aemilius Lepidus, tried to prevent it, and for two full pages Livy is at his rhetorical best. In the end triumphus M. Fulvio est decretus.94 In all these altercations there is no trace in Livy of Catos participation. To those who are not blinded by Livys art the fragments of Cato himself tell a different story. Festus has preserved a fragment of Catos speech, quam scribsit cum edissertavit Fulvi Nobilioris censuram.95 The fragment refers to an aqueduct, and we happen to know that the censors of 179 were indeed active in this field.96 The speech was thus delivered (it is agreed) after the censorship of Fulvius; and on the strength of Festuss description of its contents, edissertavit, we can assume that it contained a detailed (and critical) assessment of Fulviuss office. But the currently reigning opinion goes further and claims that all fragments referring to Fulvius belong to the speech assailing his censorship. The two fragments in question are: a) ORF 57, Fr. 148, from Gellius 5.6.24: Marcus Cato obicit M. Fulvio Nobiliori, quod milites per ambitum coronis de levissimis causis donasset. de qua re verba ipsa apposui Catonis: iam principio quis vidit corona donari quemquam, cum oppidum captum non esset aut castra hostium non incensa essent? Fulvius autem, in quem hoc a Catone dictum est, coronis donaverat milites, quia vallum curaverant aut quia puteum strenue foderant.

76

Historia et Ius

396

b) ORF 58, Fr. 149, from Cic. Tusc. 1.3, a testimony rather than a fragment: sero igitur a nostris poetae vel cogniti vel recepti. honorem tamen huic generi non fuisse declarat oratio Catonis, in qua obiecit ut probrum M. Nobiliori, quod is in provinciam poetas duxisset: duxerat autem consul ille in Aetoliam, ut scimus, Ennium. The argument assigning these fragments to the speech cum edissertavit Fulvii Nobilioris censuram runs as follows: 97 a) Cato could not have delivered a speech against Fulvius during the senatorial debate concerning Ambracia, because he was at that time away from Rome serving in Greece under Fulvius; b) He could hardly deliver it during the debate concerning Fulviuss triumph for Livy (whose account of the debate is very detailed) makes no mention of Catos intervention; c) Nor was this speech delivered in 185 for after Catos scathing critique Fulvius would have hardly dared to stand for the censorship of 184; d) Nor in 184 during Catos censorship for the formal accusation of probrum would have offered Cato an excuse for removing Fulvius from the Senate (and Fulvius was not removed). e) Livy (39.5.17) reports that Fulvius distributed the dona on the very day of the triumph: multos eo die, priusquam in urbem inveheretur, in circo Flaminio tribunos praefectos equites centuriones, Romanos sociosque, donis militaribus donavit. Consequently Catos fragment referring to Fulviuss undue generosity with the dona must belong to a speech postdating his triumph. Ergo the disputed fragments belong to the speech attacking the censorship of Fulvius of 179, and thus postdate that year. The argument is not impregnable: (a) is based on a mistaken premise that Cato was a legatus = staff officer permanently attached to Fulvius, but this was not the case. As a special senatorial envoy to take part in peace negotiations Cato undoubtedly returned to Rome together with the Aetolian envoys, and thus presumably he was present in the Senate both during the debate concerning Ambracia and the debate concerning Fulviuss triumph; (b) carries more weight, but Livy omits to mention many other political exploits of Cato that are known to us from Catos fragments; (c) is unproven and unprovable; (d) is cogent insofar as probrum was a technical term of censorial ignominia, and in Ciceros Leges (3.7) the censors were instructed to expel the probri from the Senate.98 Here it may be observed that Livy does not mention Ennius at all as accompanying Fulvius to Ambracia, and thus he had no opportunity to refer to this accusation of Catos.99 (e) appears at first sight very strong, but it presupposes that Fulvius gave no military awards during his campaign in Greece. The generals, however, did distribute the awards on the battlefield, including the corona vallaris and

397

Cato Maior in Aetolia

77

muralis (to which decorations Cato refers).100 It is most unlikely that Fulvius should have proceeded otherwise. Gellius, apparently paraphrasing a scornful utterance of Cato, writes that Fulvius gave awards to soldiers (milites) quia vallum curaverant aut quia puteum strenue foderant. Livy, in contrast, speaks of the awards Fulvius distributed in the circus Flaminius to tribuni, praefecti, equites and centuriones, hence to officers and cavalrymen who certainly were not engaged in digging the trenches. Scullards trump argument ex circo Flaminio thus proves inconclusive too. To sum up: there are no conclusive arguments for assigning the two fragments to Catos speech attacking the censorship of Fulvius. And the arguments against assigning them to the years 187184 are equally unimpressive.101 If we are searching after a suitable occasion, two things are to be kept separate: it is very likely, virtually certain, that Cato did participate in the senatorial debates concerning Ambracia (after all he had been there in an official capacity) and Fulviuss triumph, yet the case for assigning our fragments to either of these debates is weak. Both in the matter of the triumph and in the matter of the Ambracian booty Fulvius and his partisans were able to prevail. His main antagonist was Aemilius Lepidus; Cato does not appear to have launched at that time a full-fledged attack. It was a skillful tactic; for when the stakes were raised higher, the accusations made against Fulvius in the Senate formed a most effective praeiudicium. In 184 Cato tried again for the censorship; his ally was again his friend and early protector, the patrician Valerius Flaccus. Seven other candidates formed a united front. Three were plebeians, and thus Catos direct rivals for the plebeian place, among them Fulvius Nobilior. We are told that Cato delivered during the campaign many spirited speeches.102 What better occasion for an oration against Fulvius? He attacked Fulviuss laxity as a military commander, his distribution of military awards among the soldiers for insignificant reasons, solely per ambitum, in order to curry favor; he attacked Fulviuss behavior that suited a Hellenistic dynast and not a Roman consul, taking for a campaign a poet who would sing of his deeds: this probrum showed that Fulvius was an unsuitable candidate for the censorship, for the duty of a censor was precisely to punish the probrosi. Despite a magnificent triumph and lavish games, Fulvius lost at the polls. Cato and Valerius were elected. But unlike other enemies of Cato, Fulvius was not politically destroyed. He became censor at the next elections to this office.103 We started our story with the fragment of Cato recording his legatio to Fulvius in Aetolia; we end it with the fragments excoriating Fulviuss behavior in Aetolia. When in the speech De suis virtutibus Cato looked back on these events he could say that in his handling of the Aetolian affair he displayed the virtue of moderation: he castigated a generals laxity and extravagance, and toward the enemy he advocated leniency: Aetolos pacem velle.104

398

78

Historia et Ius

Notes
1 Festus treats of this topic in two lemmas, orare (218 L.), preserved intact, and oratores (196 L.), containing the passage of Cato = E. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae4 (Aug. Taurinorum 1976) 52, Fr. 130 (hereafter ORF). The latter entry is, however, quite mutilated, and ought to be consulted not only in Lindsays Teubner edition of 1913 but also in his edition printed in Glossaria Latina 4 (Paris 1930) 298, where he attempts various restitutions. These two entries contain meagre remnants, via Verrius Flaccus, of lexicographical efforts of Roman republican grammarians and antiquarians; cf. the fragment of Varro, De vita populi Romani, book 2, preserved by Nonius (850 L.). For the semantic development of the term orator, the most comprehensive modern study is W. Neuhauser, Patronus und Orator (Innsbruck 1958). Unfortunately, Neuhauser conducted his study in splendid isolation from history. Catos adventure in Aetolia shows once again that history and philology are inseparable. ORF 2629, Fr. 5862; T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1 (New York 1951) 363, 367 (hereafter MRR). For the fragments, and the title, see ORF 7374, Fr. 17781. Polyb. 33.11.67. Ad rem, see F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 3 (Oxford 1979) 55355. {Cf. A. Lampela, Rome and the Ptolemies of Egypt. The Development of their Political Relations 27380 B.C. (Helsinki 1998) 17784.} So, forcefully, P. Fraccaro, Opuscula 1 (Pavia 1956) 45863 (Ricerche storiche e letterarie sulla censura del 184/183, originally published in 1911). Broughton, MRR 1.452, n. 4, is more cautious: Presumably men of praetorian rank, but evidence is lacking. At 1.451 he regards this Thermus as RE no. 63, but in the index (2.592) he identifies him with no. 15 (Mnzer inclines to identify these two Thermi). Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.50; Broughton, MRR 2 (1952) 643 (Addenda and Corrigenda to 1.470). {Lampela (above, n. 4) 197200, 203.} ORF 53, Fr. 135. So, convincingly, Fraccaro, Opuscula (above, n. 5) 1.462. Lucilius 39495 Marx = 41213 Krenkel. Cf. Cic. De or. 2.268 = ORF 129, Fr. 22; cf. 128, Fr. 19, in app.; Fraccaro, Opuscula (above, n. 5) 1.460, n. 198. For objections to the identification of these two speeches, see A. E. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford 1978) 1056, n. 5. MRR 1.383, 385, 389. He is directly attested only in 180 (Livy 40.35.37, 36.15), but presumably he served in Spain from the beginning of Fulviuss governorship, i.e., from 182. As this assignment would have thus come on the heels of L. Thermuss attack on Catos censorship, one is perhaps entitled to assume that Q. Fulvius was not a friend of Cato (though their enmity is not on record). L. Minucius must have enjoyed Fulviuss confidence for in 180 Fulvius dispatched him from Spain as his personal envoy to the Senate . MRR 1.396. Oddly enough he was again dispatched by his commander to the Senate (Livy 41.8.5). Cato is known to have delivered a speech De re Histriae militari (ORF 56, Fr. 147), almost certainly concerning the campaign of Vulso, and almost certainly critical of him (despite Astin, Cato the Censor [above, n. 10] 12122). A member of the family: Astin, Cato the Censor (above, n. 10) 105; a son: Fraccaro, Opuscula (above, n. 5) 1.462. One of the aediles who presided over the revival of Terences Andria appears to have been Q. Minucius Thermus; unfortunately the date of the revival and consequently of the aedileship of Q. Minucius cannot be established with any certainty; it must postdate 166, the date of the original production. Cf. J. Linderski, The Aediles and the Didascaliae, AHB 1 (1987) 8388 {= RQ 295300}. MRR 1.363. Astin, Cato the Censor (above, n. 10) 7374. E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) 1.242.

2 3 4

6 7 8 9 10
399

11

12

13 14

15 16 17

Cato Maior in Aetolia

79

18 W. Drumann-P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms 5 (Leipzig 1919) 116: Der Konsul M. Fulvius Nobilior belagerte und nahm Ambrakia ... und drang dann in das Innere des Landes ein. ... Auf die Weisung des Konsuls wandten sie sich [sc. the Aetolians] an den Senat in Rom, welcher harte Bedingungen machte und ihren Bund aufhob. Nur Cato selbst erzhlt, dass er whrend der Unterhandlungen als Gesandter zu Fulvius geschickt worden sei. According to D. Kienast, Cato der Zensor (Heidelberg 1954) 56, Cato went to Aetolia als Mitglied einer Friedensgesandschaft. His verdict is that there is nothing to discuss for concerning Catos mission M. Gelzer (RE 22 [1953] 10845, s.v. Porcius 9) has said alles Wesentliche. On Gelzer's reconstruction, see below in the text, and nn. 61, 62. 19 Cf. F. A. Brandstter, Die Geschichten des Aetolischen Landes, Volkes und Bundes (Berlin 1844) 44176, who offers a (rather uncritical) synopsis of Polybius, Livy and occasionally other sources. Much better, but still in need of improvement, is J. A. O. Larsen, Greek Federal States (Oxford 1968) 40647. On the meetings of the various Aetolian councils and assemblies, see Larsen, Assembly of the Aetolian League, TAPA 83 (1952) 2033. For a clear presentation of the internal affairs in Aetolia, the rivalry between the anti-Roman camp and a more conciliatory group of Aetolian politicians, see J. Deininger, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland 21786 v. Chr. (Berlin 1971) 6676, 96108. On Livys and Polybiuss view of the Aetolians, see C. Antonetti, Les toliens. Image et religion (Paris 1990) 13241 (with further literature). 20 Livy 36.1718; 21.4-11. For other sources, see Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 18) 5.11315; MRR 1.352, 35455. Glabrio apparently dispatched to the Senate also L. Cornelius Scipio, cos. 190. On Catos (and Scipios) legatio to the Senate, see J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy. Books XXXIVXXXVII (Oxford 1981) 25354, and below, nn. 4244. Catos mission to various Greek cities, to Aegium (not Aegina as in Gelzer, RE 22.117), Patrae, 400 Corinth, and especially Athens, belongs to the period preceding the battle at Thermopylae (Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms [above, n. 18] 5.114, n. 4; Gelzer, RE 22.117; Astin, Cato the Censor [above, n. 10] 5657). 21 One of them was Amynander, the mercurial king of Athamania. He had been a Roman ally in the Second Macedonian War (Livy 31.28.1), but in 192 joined Antiochus and the Aetolians (Livy 35.47.58; 36.9.1). In the spring of 191 (but well into the Roman consular year 191; Briscoe, Commentary [above, n. 20] 224; Walbank, Commentary [above, n. 4] 119) he was chased out of his kingdom by Philip V, and found refuge in Ambracia (Livy 36.14.9; Appian, Syr. 17). See S. I. Oost, Amynander, Athamania and Rome, CP 52 (1957) 115, esp. 912. Cf. below, nn. 49, 60. 22 Polyb. 20.910; Livy 36.2729, in a number of places severely misrepresenting or misunderstanding Polybius. Cf. the commentaries by Walbank (3.7783) and Briscoe (25967), and a detailed discussion by H. Trnkle, Livius und Polybios (Basel-Stuttgart 1977) 17078. 23 Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.7981; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 260, both with ample literature, to which add: E. S. Gruen, Greek Pistis and Roman Fides, Athenaeum 60 (1982) 5068; J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellnisme et imprialisme (Paris 1988) 7281; D. Nrr, Aspekte des rmischen Vlkerrechts. Die Bronzetafel von Alcntara (Bayerische Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl., Abh. N.F. 101, Mnchen 1989) 3234, and passim. {On Glabrios dealings with the Aetolians and the Aetolian deditio, see now the illuminating discussion by A. M. Eckstein, Glabrio and the Aetolians: A Note on Deditio, TAPA 125 (1996) 27189, with full utilization of the bronze from Alcntara and the salatury stress on Roman legalism (but when he avers that the Roman approach to deditio was not only legalistic but also moral [p. 274], one wonders what this nebulous concept should mean).} 24 MRR 1.351, 354; Livy 36.30, 3435 (the quote at 36.35.5). As Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 271, notes Flamininus aim is the preservation of a balance of power in Greece. On Flamininuss politics, and his attitude to the Aetolians, see (although he does not discuss this incident) the memorable essay by E. Badian, Titus Quinctius Flamininus. Philhellenism and Realpolitik (Cincinnati 1970). N. G. L. Hammond, Epirus (Oxford 1967) 624, writes that The Aetolians ... had been granted an armistice by Flamininus. This is inaccurate: Flamininus

80

Historia et Ius negotiated the truce, but it was granted by Glabrio. Appian, Syr. 21, has the Aetolians send an embassy to Rome at the time of Glabrios march to Naupactus; his chronology is confused. Livy 37.1.5. In fact Polybiuss (21.2) wording didnai tn pitropn per pntvn tn kay atow, and also Diodoruss (29.4) t kay autow pitrpein Rvmaoiw, reproduce faithfully the standard formula of deditio attested epigraphically in the Spanish bronze from Alcntara (lines 89): cete[raque omnia] / quae sua fuissent (Nrr, Aspekte [above, n. 23] 23). {On the clause concerning friends and foes, see L. De Libero ut eosdem quos populus Romanus amicos atque hostes habeant. Die Freund-Feind-Klausel in den Beziehungen Roms zu griechischen und italischen Staaten, Historia 46 (1997) 270305, esp. on Aetolia 27582.} Polyb. 21.2; Livy 37.1.1-6; Cass. Dio 19.19 (Zonaras 9.19-20). Cf. Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.9091; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 28990; Idem, Flamininus and Roman Politics, Latomus 31 (1972) 4951. The precise date cannot be established. One has to remember that the Roman calendar was at that time in disarray, the solar (or Julian) year and the official (or consular) several months apart. Scipios army was ordered to assemble in Brundisium Idibus Quinctilibus (Livy 37.4.2), on 15 July (190), the day which corresponded to (Jul.) 18 March 190. Cf. Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 29; V. Warrior, Notes on Intercalation, Latomus 50 (1991) 8087; Eadem, Intercalation and the Action of M. Acilius Glabrio (cos. 191 B.C.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 6 = Collection Latomus 217 (Bruxelles 1992) 11944, with a list of correspondences (p. 122) for the years 200188 between 15 March consular and the Julian dates. For this interpretation, see Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.95. Polyb. 21.45; Appian, Syr. 23. Cf. W. V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 32770 B.C. (Oxford 1979) 223. Polyb. 21.45; (cf. Cass. Dio 19.19; Zonaras 9.20); Livy 37.4.67.7 and (triumph) 46.16: it was decreed magno consensu; thus apparently Cato did not oppose it (he vehemently and successfully opposed the bid of Q. Minucius Thermus for a triumph from Liguria). Cf. Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.9395; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 296301, 36263; and 2830, 338 (on chronology); MRR 1.357. According to Livy (37.2.78; 48.5; cf. MRR 1.357) the Roman garrison in Greece was now commanded by the propraetor A. Cornelius (Mammula), but see Briscoe, 38, who argues that the legions in question crossed over, not with Mammula, but with Fulvius Nobilior in 189. Still it is most unlikely that there should have been in Greece no Roman troops at all at a time when the Scipios were waging war in Asia. Livy 37.57.958.1. As is visible from Livys language (57.12) this was a formal accusation: (the tribunes) ei diem dixerunt, quod pecuniae regiae praedaeque aliquantum captae in Antiochi castris neque in triumpho tulisset, neque in aerarium rettulisset {and see also Fest., Nixi di (182 L.), with the convincing interpretation by S. Lanciotti, Festina II, RAL IX, 5 (1994) 73638}. Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 391, believes that Perhaps the real accusation was embezzling funds voted from the aerarium. This is unlikely. The account of Livy is juridically sound. It is true that the general had complete discretion over the disposal of booty, with one all-important restriction, however: he could distribute the praeda among his soldiers and officers as he saw fit, and also reserve a large portion for public use according to his disposition (e.g., for the construction of a temple), but he could not take anything directly for himself. See F. Bona, Sul concetto di manubiae e sulla responsibilit del magistrato in ordine alla preda, SDHI 26 (1960) 10575, esp. 15658, much superior to all other studies of the subject {and see now J. B. Churchill, Ex qua quod vellent facerent: Roman Magistrates Authority over Praeda and Manubiae, TAPA 129 (1999) 85115 (1013 the case of Glabrio), an excellent study, subtly refining Bonas argument}. In his testimony Cato seems to have also attacked Glabrios deficiency as a commander contrasting Glabrios conduct with his own marvelous performance, probably during his Spanish campaign (ORF 30, Fr. 66; cf. H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics 220150 B.C.2 [Oxford 1973] 237, 259) {In this fragment of Cato, despite the efforts of J. B. Churchill, Cato Orationes 66 and the Case against M. Acilius

25

26

27

28 29
401

30

31

Cato Maior in Aetolia

81

32

402

33 34

35 36 37

38

Glabrio, AJP 121 (2000) 54957, Mommsens conjecture arma dedi (for the paradosis arum dedi) still remains vastly superior to A. Daciers aurum dedi; it conforms much better to Catos style and his gruff character. M. Dondin-Payre, Exercise du pouvoir et continuit gentilice. Les Acilii Glabriones (Rome 1993), a labyrinthine book, gives a short description of the trial (pp. 22428), studded with bibliography; the article of Bona is missing. But she is clear-eyed as to the motives of Cato and does not obscure his underhanded behavior. A. Barzan, Catone il Vecchio e il processo contro Manio Acilio Glabrione candidato alla censura (189 a.C.), in M. Sordi (ed.), Processi e politica nel mondo antico (= Contributi dellIstituto di Storia Antica 22 [Milano 1996]) 12944, offers interesting remarks on the legal aspect of the trial (pp. 13438), though again he ignores Bonas article}. The discussion of censorial elections (eodem anno censuram ... petierunt) comes in Livy (37.57.758.4) wedged between the foundation of a Latin colony at Bononia eodem anno ante diem tertium Kal. Ianuarias (28 Dec., not 30 as often stated, most recently by J.-M. Engel in his translation: Tite-Live. Histoire romaine. Tome 27, Livre 37 [Collection Bud, Paris 1983] 92) and the triumph of L. Aemilius Regillus Kal. Februariis. Scullard, Roman Politics (above, n. 31) 285 (following Fraccaro, Opuscula [above, n. 5] 1.363, n. 336) takes these dates to be Dec. 190 and Feb. 189, interpreting eodem anno as referring to the calendar year. But this expression certainly refers (as V. M. Warrior, The Chronology of the Movements of M. Fulvius Nobilior (cos. 189) in 189/88 B.C., Chiron 18 [1988] 32556 at 340, n. 65, saw well) to the consular year 189 (which lasted from 15 March 189 to 14 March 188), and hence the dates in question will be Dec. 189 and Feb. 188. Consequently she assigns the censorial comitia to the end of the consular year 189 (pp. 33830); this is in concert with Livy 37.50.6: the Senates disposition was that the consul who obtains Aetolia ut ad comitia Romam veniret; nam praeterquam quod magistratus annui subrogandi essent, censores quoque placere creari. This would have been an unusual occurrence for the elections of the censors were normally held at the beginning of the consular year (T. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht 23 [Leipzig 1887] 352). Thus either there is an error in Livy or the censorial elections were postponed to enable Fulvius a speedy departure for his campaign in Aetolia. The trial of Glabrio most probably took place shortly before the elections (cf. Scullard, 285), either at the beginning or at the end of the consular year 189. It is better to assume that normal procedure was observed, and blame Livy (cf. Fraccaro, Opuscula [above, n. 5] 1.395, n. 336). Livy 37.47.6, 4849. See below in the text. Broughton, MRR 1.358, characterizes their mission (after Livy or rather Antias) as to report disturbing reports from Asia. Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 365, writes that the presence of Terentius in Antias story could be based on the part he actually played in the reception of the Aetolian envoysbut this part is inexplicable unless we assume that he accompanied them as a delegate of the Roman commander in Greece. M. Claudius Lepidus, with his strange collocation of nomen and cognomen, is according to Briscoe, 365, almost certainly a non-person. We have to remember that the meeting of the Senate clearly took place before the trial of Glabrio and the censorial elections. Livy 37.49.18. Cf. Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 36768. Livy 37.49.8: denuntiatumque, si qua deinde legatio ex Aetolis, nisi permissu imperatoris, qui eam provinciam obtineret, et cum legato Romano venisset Romam, pro hostibus omnis futuros. Cf. Diod. 29.9. For a list of Roman commanders giving permission to enemy envoys to travel to Rome, see J. Linderski, Ambassadors Go to Rome, in: Les Relations Internationales. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 1517 juin 1993, dits par Ed. Frzouls () et A. Jacquemin (= Universit des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg. Travaux du Centre de Recherches sur le Proche-Orient et la Grce Antiques, 13 [Paris 1995] 45378 at 46668, and n. 38 {reprinted in this volume, No. 6}. Livy 38.13.16 (the Aetolian conquests), 68 (the return of the embassy), 911 (the landing of Fulvius); Polyb. 21.2526.2; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.11820. Polybius preserved the name of the chief Aetolian envoy: Damoteles, an eminent politician. On the politi-

82

Historia et Ius cal situation of the Epirotes and their hopes of regaining Ambracia, see S. I. Oost, Roman Policy in Epirus and Acarnania in the Age of the Roman Conquest of Greece (Dallas 1954) 6467. Polyb. 21.26.2: sunbaine gr tte politeesyai tow Ambrakitaw met tn Atvln. Cf. Cass. Dio (Zonaras) 19.21, where, however, tte is contrasted with pte, the time when Ambracia belonged to Pyrrhus. Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.121. Though this is not the understanding of Weissenborn-Mller ad loc. (p. 119): Ambracia frher die Hauptstadt im Reiche des Pyrrhus, war nach dessen Auflsung an die toler gekommen; hiernach ist tum zu vestehen (T. Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri. Wilhelm Weissenborns erklrende Ausgabe neu bearbeitet von H. J. Mller. Bd. 8.13, Buch 3536 [Berlin 1906]; Bd. 8.23 Buch 3738 [Berlin 1907]). No comment in R. Adam (Tite-Live. Histoire romaine. Tome 28, Livre 38 [Collection Bud, Paris 1982]). E. T. Sage (in the Loeb Livy, 1936) translates Ambracia, which had at this time joined the Aetolians, but couples this natural translation with an unnatural chronological explanation taken from Weissenborn-Mller. Astin, Cato the Censor (above, n. 10) 74, n. 69. He had his predecessor in E. Oberhummer, Akarnanien, Ambrakia, Amphilochia, Leukas im Altertum (Mnchen 1897) 185, n. 5: Die Teilnahme des lteren Cato, der den Consul als Legat begleitete [begleitete is inaccurate], erhellt aus einem Fragment seiner Rede de suis virtutibus ...; vielleicht gehrt hierher auch die fragwrdige Anekdote Frontin, strat. II 7, 14. M. T. Sblendorio Cugusi, M. Porci Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (Torino 1982) 28385, is inaccurate. She believes that Cato si arruol come ufficiale subalterno [an odd characterization] del cos. M. Fulvio Nobiliore nel 189, and she assigns the passage of Frontinus to that year. At the same time she believes that Catos reference to the Aetolian oratores pertains to the embassy sent by the Aetolians to Rome at the end of 189 to ratify the agreement reached with Fulvius. In this mistaken notion she follows H. Jordan, M. Catonis praeter librum de re rustica quae extant (Lipsiae 1860) LXXVI, forgetting that this precludes the dating of Catos adventure in Frontinus to 189. Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 18), and Gelzer (RE 22 [above, n. 18]) do not quote Frontinuss passage at all. So, hesitatingly, MRR 1.354. C. E. Bennett, in the Loeb edition of Frontinus (1925) 176, n. 2; G. Bendz, Frontin, Kriegslisten (Berlin 1963) 113; and R. I. Ireland in his Teubner edition of Frontinus (1990) 60, in app., positively (and without any discussion) assign the event to 191. Livy 36.21.5; cf. Plut., Cato Maior 14, and above n. 20. For the topography of Ambracia, its port and its territory, see Hammond, Epirus (above, n. 24) 13461. Appian, Syr. 17 (the landing in Apollonia); Plut., Cato Maior 12.35, and above, n. 20. J. H. Thiel, Studies on the History of Roman Sea-Power in Republican Times (Amsterdam 1946) 277. Of course, the sociae naves could have been the ships of one of the Greek states allied to Rome, e.g., of Rhodes, but in this case we would have to assume that they attacked Ambracia, and were in turn blockaded by the Aetolian navy. But if this was the case, why should Cato have sailed to Ambracia at all? Thiel does not mention the passage of Frontinus and the exploit of Cato. If they had, the Ambraciote envoys would not have omitted to mention this when they arrived in Rome in 187 (Livy 38.4344.6). See below, n. 84. Livy 36.1314 (esp. 14.9), 28.3; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 23941, 263; Appian, Syr. 17. Cf. above, n. 21. Polyb. 21.25.10-11; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.120; Livy 38.3.78. Polybius provides the names of the envoys sent to Rome: the leaders of the embassy were Alexander the Isian and Phaeneas; they were accompanied by Chalepus, Alypus from Ambracia, and Lykopus. Livy says merely: principes gentis ad temptandam spem ultimam Romam miserunt. Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 368. Polyb. 21.26.719; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.12123.

39

40 41

42

403

43

44 45 46 47

48 49 50

51 52

Cato Maior in Aetolia

83

53 Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 32) 13.12636, esp. 13334. Later, when the enemies of Fulvius tried to deny him the triumph, he (or Livy) stressed in his speech in the Senate that Ambracia did not simply surrender, but was forced to do so, and that the Aetolians and the Ambraciotes suffered heavy casualties (Livy 39.4.910). 54 Cass. Dio 19.21 (Zonaras 9.21) reports that the Aetolians tried to negotiate with Fulvius, but only after he had already begun the siege of Ambracia. And it is only after the failure of these negotiations that the Aetolians sent their garrison to Ambracia. 55 The siege of Ambracia: Polyb. 21.2728; Livy 38.47; Cass. Dio (Zonaras) 19.21; Oberhummer, Akarnanien (above, n. 42) 18286; M. Holleaux, M. Fulvius et le sige de Sam, in: M. Holleaux, tudes dpigraphie et dhistoire grecques 5.2 (Paris 1957) 24994, esp. 264, n. 3 (originally published in 1930); Hammond, Epirus (above, n. 24) 14448; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.12328. 56 Polyb. 21.28.18; Livy 38.89; Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 41) 10912. 57 Yet, so far, Livys words have been taken as pure gold; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.12728, repeats them without any comment or doubt. 58 Nrr, Aspekte (above, n. 23) 2123. But it is well to remember that Caesar in Gaul regularly demanded the surrender of arms after a deditio (BG 1.2728; 2.1213, 15). 59 Polyb. 21.2932; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.12836. 60 Livy 38.3.1, and see above, n. 21. But the circumstance that he came to Fulvius fide accepta 404 (Livy 38.9.4) shows that technically he was still in the category of enemies. In the camp of Fulvius Amynander must have met Ennius. As D. C. Braund, Three Hellenistic Personages: Amynander, Prusias II, Daphidas, CQ 32 (1982) 35253, elegantly argues, Ennius tragedy Athamas (from whom Amynander claimed descent) may form a poetic testimony to this encounter. 61 Gelzer, RE 22.122 (above. n. 18): ber die nheren Umstnde (i.e., of his mission to Fulvius) teilt er mit, dass man in Rom erfahren habe, es seien aitolische Gesandte unterwegs wegen des Friedensschlusses. 62 So also Gelzer (RE 22.122 [above, n. 18]), but he apparently wrote from memory, without actually consulting Livy or Polybius, and his memory deserted him: very uncharacteristically he confused various Aetolian embassies. He writes: Es handelt sich wohl um die Gesandschaft, die zunchst von den Epiroten festgehalten wurde (Polyb. XXI 26, 7), wegen deren Freilassung dann aus Rom geschrieben wurde (Polyb. 26, 17) [up to this point correct], und die sich, weil inzwischen Nobilior eingetroffen war (Polyb. 26, 19), zu diesem begab (Polyb. 29, 4. Liv. XXXVIII 9, 3 haec mora iniecta est paci). All wrong. The embassy intercepted by the Epirotes consisted of Alexander the Isian, Phaeneas, Chalepus, Alypus and Lykopus (above, n. 50). The embassy that travelled to Nobilior was a different embassy: it was led by Damoteles and Phaeneas. On their second or return trip to Fulvius they were detained by the Acarnanians; it is to this affair (and not to the detention of the earlier embassy to Rome by the Epirotes) that the remark of Livy on the mora paci refers. 63 J. Linderski, Roman Officers in the Year of Pydna, AJP 111 (1990) 5371 at 5354 {= RQ 30119 at 3012} gives a summary of the problem. To the literature there listed, add B. Schleussner, Die Legaten der rmischen Republik (Mnchen 1978) 101211, who, however, falls in the trap of the annalistic terminology and fails to distinguish the senatorial legates lecti publice (Varro, Ling. Lat. 5.87) from the officers appointed for a specific task by the general, who need not have been senators. Nor does B. E. Thomasson, Legatus (Stockholm 1991) 913, pay attention to this fundamental distinction. 64 Oxford Latin Dictionary s.vv. legatus 2 and lego 2 a. 65 Gelzer, RE 22.122 (above, n. 18), and for the views of other scholars, see above, nn. 1518. But above all it was Mommsen who with his eagles eye observed both the grammatical and the historical situation: der der Verhandlung wegen abgesandte heisst gewhnlich legatus ad aliquem ... doch findet sich auch hier der Dativ, zum Beispiel bei Cato (Staatsrecht [above, n. 34] 23.688, and n. 2). Cf. B. Janzer, Historische Untersuchungen zu den Redefragmenten des

84

Historia et Ius M. Porcius Cato (Diss. Wrzburg 1936) 23; Sblendorio Cugusi, Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (above, n. 42) 28385, both minus accurate. MRR 1.363. Nor does Schleussner, Legaten (above, n. 63) 224, record Catos mission in 189 in his list of die stndigen Hilfsgesandten. F. Della Corte, Catone Censore (Torino 1949) 21, believes it was Cato who induced the Athenians to persuade the Aetolians to abandon their war effort: Ma ad Ambracia non si ferm; gett le basi della pace, isolando gli Etli e inducendo gli Ateniesi a intervenire perch questi rinunciassero alla guerra. Della Corte believes it was during this visit to Greece (and not in 191) that Cato travelled to Athens and delivered there his famous oration in Latin. An instructive example how to write fantasy while claiming to rely on the sources. Polyb. 21.29.14. Livy 38.9.7 says that Amynander partim consilio partim precibus evicit, ut permitterent se (sc. the Ambracienses) Romanis, and further (38.9.9) he exactly (and correctly) describes the agreement concerning the Aetolian garrison: Ambracienses prius pacti, ut Aetolorum auxiliares sine fraude emitterent, aperuerunt portas. Della Corte, Catone (above, n. 67) 21, reproducing but not analyzing the text of Polybius, says that Ambracia scese a patti. The real legal and diplomatic situation was well seen by A. Heuss, Die vlkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der rmischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit (Leipzig 1933) 69; W. Dahlheim, Struktur und Entwicklung des rmischen Vlkerrechts im 3. und 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Mnchen 1968) 7, n. 9; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.128. Cf. MRR 1.275. See E. Badians classic work, Foreign Clientelae 26470 B.C. (Oxford 1958) 15758. He was praetor in 179 and suffect consul in 176, MRR 1.392, 400. Polyb. 21.30.15; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.12830; Livy 38.9.911; Adam, TiteLive (above, n. 41) 11113. So Polybius 21.30.4; Livy 38.9.10 has post id tempus quo T. Quinctius (198) traiecisset in Graeciam. In the final version of the treaty approved by the Senate the terminus post quem was changed to 192, the consulship of L. Quinctius Flamininus and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (Polyb. 21.32.13; Livy 38.11.9 has again T. Quinctio (198) coupled with Cn. Domitio (192). See Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.129, 135; Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 44), 11617, upholds T. Quinctio in Livy as the date figuring both in the original (Nobiliors) and the final (the Senates) version of the treaty. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (above, n. 71) 8485. He does not mention Fulviuss earlier and harsher conditions. The ratification was to be pushed through in the Senate by the Fulvian factio, as delineated by Scullard, Roman Politics (above, n. 31) 13545. Polyb. 21.30.616; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.12930; Livy 38.10.13. Fulvius himself crossed to Cephallenia where he besieged Same; he also visited Argos and Elis. On the departure of the Aetolian embassy and the chronology of Fulviuss movements, see Holleaux, Fulvius (above, n. 55) 264-79, esp. 264-68; and (with important corrections), Warrior, Chronology (above, n. 32) 34056, esp. 349. Polyb. 21.3132; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.13031; Livy 38.10.411. As Fulvius returned to Rome toward the end of the consular year 189 to conduct the elections (Livy 38.35.3), he probably took part in the negotiations; cf. Warrior, Chronology (above, n. 32) 355. Polyb. 21.32; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 13136; Livy 38.11; Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 41) 11315. The important innovation (unless it had already been dictated by Fulvius) was the clause ordering the Aetolians to preserve imperium maiestatemque populi Romani. On this clause, see Badian, Foreign Clientelae (above, n. 71) 2628, 85; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.13132 (with further literature); Gruen, Hellenistic World (above, n. 17) 2632. On the disposition concerning the hostages, see M. J. Moscovich, A Note on the Aetolian Treaty of 189 B.C., in Polis and Imperium. Studies in Honour of Edward Togo Salmon (Toronto 1974) 13943 {cf. in general S. Elbern, Geiseln in Rom, Athenaeum 78 (1990) 97140}; and on the indemnity G. Rider, Les clauses financires des traits de 189 et

66 67

68
405

69

70 71 72 73 74

75

76

77

78

Cato Maior in Aetolia

85

79

406 80

81

82

83 84

85

86

87

de 188, BCH 116 (1992) 26777. {On the Greek embassies to Rome, see now F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in et repubblicana (Roma 1997). For the Aetolian embassies of 190 (no. 30), 189 (nos. 34, 36, 37, 3839), see pp. 2728, 3137. But no. 3839 b (Livy 38.3.7) belongs to no. 36, the embassy that was captured by the Epirotes. Canali De Rossi lists the fragment of Cato as no. 3839d, and thus he places Catos arrival in the camp of Fulvius Nobilior after the conclusion of the foedus in Rome. This telescopes the events; the phrase Aetolos pacem velle visibly demonstrates that at the time of Catos legation the peace had not yet been formally concluded. The Roman-Aetolian affairs in 191 and 190 form also the subject of a detailed (43 pp.) study by G. Wirth, Rckschritte. Zur verlangten Dedition von 190 und den Schwierigkeiten des rmisch-aetolischen Verhltnisses (= Sb. Wien 623 [Wien 1995]). The brochure is beset with all kinds of inaccuracies and misreadings of the sources. J. D. Grainger, The League of the Aitolians (= Mnemosyne Suppl. 200 [Leiden 1999]) 46398, narrates the events of 191189, but his presentation is of limited use as he adduces the sources sparsely and the modern literature even more sparsely, and hardly ever analyzes the events in detail. He avers (497, n. 106) that Linderski ignores these changes, i.e., various modifications that ultimately resulted in the final text of the treaty, but he apparently did not read this or the preceding pages (he provides no page reference). Cf. also his Aitolian Prosopographical Studies (Mnemosyne Suppl. 202 [Leiden 2000] passim for the biograms of Aetolian politicians and envoys}. H. Trnkle, Cato in der vierten und fnften Dekade des Livius (Abhandlungen Mainz 1971, 4) deals almost exclusively with Catos campaign in Spain, and does not mention at all his clash with Fulvius. For an analysis of Livys story, cf. H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen ber die Quellen der vierten und fnften Dekade des Livius (Berlin 1863) 21011. Livy 37.47.7; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 365; Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 41) 157. V. Warrior, A Technical Meaning of Ducere in Roman Elections? Livys Account of the Elections of the Consuls for 189 B.C., RhM 123 (1990) 14457, esp. 147, 15456. {Cf. O. Licandro, Unus consul creatus collegam dixit. A proposito di Liv. 7, 24, 11 e 37, 47, 7, BIDR 9899 (19951996 [2000]) 73149 at 73649. He does not know Warriors article; nor does he seem to realize that dixit in Livys text is a conjecture. But the article is still very much worth pondering, if only for its impossible conclusion: Fulvius appointed Manlius as his colleague without any recourse to the vote of the assembly.} Livy 38.35.1: Fulvius ... creavit consules M. Valerium Messalam et C. Livium Salinatorem, cum M. Aemilium Lepidum inimicum eo quoque anno petentem deiecisset; 40.46.14: inde Aemilius questus cum alia, tum bis a M. Fulvio se certo consulatu deiectum. Not utilized by Warrior. As suspected by Scullard, Roman Politics (above, n. 31) 138, n. 4. The Ambraciote claim cum in pace essent imperataque prioribus consulibus fecissent et eadem oboedienter praestare M. Fulvio parati essent (38.43.2) and the retort of Flaminius nihil est quod se ab Aetolis separent; eadem Ambraciensium et Aetolorum causa est (38.43.11) evoke curiosity. Rien ne permet ... de confirmer les assertions des Ambraciotes, Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 41) 178. Yet we can discern a grain of truth. If we accept the story in Frontinus, and its dating to 191 (above, n. 46), it would appear that in that year Ambracia was neither all the time nor firmly in the Aetolian camp. Livy 38.44.34. The text of Livy continues (56): portoria quae vellent terra marique caperent, dum eorum immunes Romani ac socii nominis Latini essent. Signaque aliaque ornamenta quae querentur ex aedibus sacris sublata esse, de iis cum M. Fulvius Romam revertisset placere ad collegium pontificum referri, et quod ii censuissent fieri. Cf. Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 41) 17980, and below, nn. 97, 98. Nrr, Aspekte (above, n. 23) 2223, 4464 (esp. 5663 on the dum-vellet clause); see also the excellent study by C. Ebel, Dum populus senatusque Romanus vellet, Historia 40 (1991) 43848. Livy 38.9.13; Polybius 21.30.10: dyh d at ka stfanow p talntvn katn ka pentkonta, the term stfanow denoting here a gift of money and precious metals. Livy translates it literally. See Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.86, 130.

86

Historia et Ius

88 The Periocha of Livys book 38 very neatly summarizes the legal situation: M. Fulvius consul in Epiro Ambraciences obsessos in deditionem recepit, Cephalleniam subegit, Aetolis perdomitis pacem dedit. In the speech in Livy 39.4.1213 (cf. 39.5.7) Fulvius claims that Ambracia was capta, but this distorts the legal position. A capta urbs could not make a deditio. Cf. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen (above, n. 79) 211. 89 Polyb. 21.30.9 has t d glmata ka tow ndrintaw ka tw grafw; Livy 38.9.13: signa aenea marmoreaque et tabulae pictae. Now agalmata are divine statues (or statues in temples, but cf. K. Koonce, AGALMA and EIKVN, AJP 109 [1988] 10810), and andrias is a statue of a human being, hence (so Walbank, Commentary [above, n. 4] 3.129) Livy mistranslated Polybius; but perhaps it was a willful mistranslation: anticipating the accusations raised against Fulvius in the Senate, and the pontifical investigation, Livy already absolves Fulvius from the charge of despoiling temples. {On the various denominations of statues (statuae = signa, imagines [= busts]), see C. Letta, Le imagines Caesarum di un praefectus castrorum Aegypti e lXI coorte pretoria, Athenaeum N. S. 56 [= 66] (1978) 1419.} 90 Livy 38.9.1314; cf. Polyb. 21.30.910. Polybius (or his excerptor) also omits the details of the Ambracian settlement. Cf. Trnkle, Livius und Polybios (above, n. 22) 16162. 91 Nrr, Aspekte (above, n. 23) 23. B. D. Hoyos, Populus Seanoc[...], 104 BC, ZPE 83 (1990) 89, n. 2; 92, suggests to read in lines 1213 eos [domum] / eire iussit. This is unlikely (cf. below, n. 93). 407 92 It is perhaps easy to imagine that Ambraciote witnesses who had been summoned to Rome delivered damaging testimony (E. S. Gruen, Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome [Ithaca 1992] 108). Witnesses presuppose trial, and indeed Gruen says that Fulvius ... faced prosecution by inimici. But there is no trace in Livy of any formal prosecution, and hence technically there are no witnesses (of course a prosecution could have followed, but it did not). Second, when the Ambraciote envoys arrived in Rome, Fulvius was still in Greece as proconsul; without his permission the envoys from a city that had just made a deditio could not travel to Rome. Again epigraphic documentation places us on the solid ground of history. 93 A prominent historian writes the Senates decree restored the property to aggrieved Ambraciotes but did not propose restoration of the statues and paintings. And in the attached footnote: A clear distinction is made by Livy, 38.44.45: ut Ambraciensibus suae res omnes redderentur ... signa aliaque ornamenta ... placere ad collegium pontificum referri (Gruen, Culture [above, n. 92] 110). Now in the light of the deditio from Spain (which Gruen does not utilize) it is obvious that the phrase suae res omnes does not refer to various individual pieces of booty (the same misunderstanding in Larsen, Federal States [above, n. 19] 441, n. 4), but to the city and its possessions as a whole, to (as it is phrased in the Spanish document) cete[raque omnia] / quae sua fuissent. After the deditio the city (in its material aspect) and all its inhabitants become the property of Rome. Next the commander gives back the personal liberty to the inhabitants and returns to them their city subject to the ratification by the Senate and the people. And the pontiffs were instructed to take a decision not with respect to all signa and ornamenta (the same inaccuracy 108, n. 124), but solely concerning those that were taken from temples. 94 Livy 39.45. In the speech Livy puts into Fulviuss mouth Fulvius refers indignantly to the senatorial decree ordering the pontifical investigation of his booty, but Livy soon drops this subject, and never tells us whether the investigation was at all undertaken nor what was its outcome. Yet we can be certain that the decision of the pontifical college was in Fulviuss favor. The aedes of Hercules Musarum erected by Fulvius and adorned with the temple booty from Ambracia offers the proof (for sources, see F. Mnzer, Fulvius 91, RE 7 [1912] 26567 at 266, and on the temple of Hercules Musarum, see ample literature listed by Gruen, Culture [above, n. 92] 109, n. 128). 95 Festus 356 L. = ORF 58, Fr. 150. Cf. Janzer, Redefragmenten (above, n. 65) 61. 96 Livy 40.51.7: habuere et in promiscuo praeterea pecuniam: ex ea communiter locarunt aquam adducendam fornicesque faciendos. impedimento operi fuit M. Licinius Crassus (RE no. 55 a),

Cato Maior in Aetolia

87

97

98 99

408

100 101

102 103

104

qui per fundum suum duci non est passus. This Crassus, and his property, is not listed in I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (Bruxelles 1975). The argument is due to Fraccaro, Opuscula (above, n. 5) 1.24753 (originally published in 1910), and was admirably summarized by Scullard, Roman Politics (above, n. 32) 26667. It was fully accepted by Malcovati, ORF 57 (above, n. 1). Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 32) 23.382, n. 8. Livy mentions Ennius by name only twice, at 30.26.10 and 38.56.5, but he knew his poem well: his description of the siege of Ambracia contains echoes of Ennius; see Hammond, Epirus (above, n. 24) 146, n. 1. Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.123, and O. Skutsch, The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford 1985) 554, are unduly sceptical. On Fulvius, Ennius, and the background of Catos critique, see E. Badian, Ennius and His Friends, in Entretiens sur lAntiquit Classique 18 (Vandoeuvres-Genve 1972) 15199 at 18395; H. D. Jocelyn, The Poems of Quintus Ennius, ANRW I.2 (1972) 99398, 10056; Skutsch, Annals 55356; E. S. Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden 1990) 11323. See V. Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981) 1116, with a collection of evidence. Cf. Astin, Cato the Censor (above, n. 10) 110, n. 23; Janzer, Redefragmenten (above, n. 65) 5860. We thus come back to the idea of the earlier interpreters who assumed two speeches against Fulvius (see the references in Fraccaro, Opuscula 1.250, n. 94). Livy 39.4041.4; Plut., Cato Maior 16.36. An adventurous thought occurs: perhaps the speech cum edissertavit Fulvi Nobilioris censuram does not belong after the censorship of Fulvius (in 179) but to 184, when both Fulvius and Cato were the candidates for the censorship. In other words, Cato would have attacked, not the past censorship of Fulvius, but his would-be censorship. Thus (as Fraccaro thought) we would have again one speech with three fragments, but delivered in 184 and not after 179. As the basic sense of edisserto is to explain, narrate, the verb could perhaps be applied to a future happening, though in Plautus it is used solely to narrate past events. Cf. TLL s.v. As he did many years later (in 167) with respect to the Rhodians.

8 THE PONTIFF AND THE TRIBUNE: THE DEATH OF TIBERIUS GRACCHUS*

I. The greatest of modern historians of the Republics demise began his narration of the Roman revolution, like Asinius Pollio before him, with the compact of 60 B.C.E.1 Yet the revolution began two generations previously, in the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus. It did not begin with the agrarian scheme, as those believing in the power of economic forces might wish to think. Nor did it originate from Tiberius bid for re-election. These were bold and novel steps, but they could be accomodated within the boundaries of the constitution. But the constitution, civil and divine, was shattered when Tiberius had his fellow tribune Marcus Octavius deposed from office. It was a cosmic clash that was to reverberate through the ages: one tribune claiming the will of the people, the other the protection of the gods, of his sacrosancta potestas. The will of the people prevailed, for a moment, but after that time nothing remained in Rome safe, sacred or secure as Tiberius was soon to learn. It was thus perhaps not through chance but rather as if by design, springing from the inner logic of Roman political life, that as the main antagonist of the tribune rose the chief of the Roman cult, the pontifex maximus P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica. This clash was only seemingly resolved by the destruction of Tiberius. The revolution continued. The upheavals ceased when Augustus united in his person the sacrosanct power of the tribunes, the imperium of the magistrates, and the dignity of the pontiffs thus emasculating at once both the people and the gods.
* 1 Athenaeum 90 (2002) 339366 {with addenda}. R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939), pp. 1, 8. But cf. p. 16: With the Gracchi all the consequences of empire social, economic and political broke loose in the Roman State, inaugurating a century of revolution. L. Piotrowicz, Plutarch a Appjan [Plutarch and Appian] (Poznan 1921), characteristically appended a subtitle: Studja zrd owe do historii Rzymu w epoce rewolucji. Okres I: 13370 [Source Studies on the History of Rome in the Epoch of Revolution. Period I: 13370]. He was of course not writing a Symean history of revolution but a study of the sources, always a necessary first step, too often omitted. And see now E. Badian, Tiberius Gracchus and the Beginning of the Roman Revolution, ANRW I, 1 (1972), pp. 668731, an excellent study (although he seems to underestimate the ever present weight of the sacral foundations of the tribunate of the plebs); Idem, Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica, in: J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]), pp. 187213, with a trenchant discussion of sacrosanctitas and auspicia. {And now we have his response to the present essay, marvelously acute and incisive: E. Badian, The Pig and the Priest, in: H. Heftner and K. Tomaschitz (eds.), Ad Fontes! Festschrift fr Gerhard Dobesch (Wien 2004), pp. 26372.}

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

89

II.
340

The story of the death of Tiberius Gracchus has so often been narrated by modern scholars that it might seem presumptuous to unfold it again. Yet not all the clouds surrounding the last moments of the tribunes life have been dispelled. The fight for Tiberius memory began immediately after his death.2 Partisan interpretation of events that led to his demise was destined to become as effective a weapon in political struggle as that broken bench leg the blow of which cut short Tiberius life and initiated a century of internecine strife. Pious and hostile, credulous and ignorant, all have co-operated to obscure, distort or embellish facts. The story of Tiberius death, as told by our ancient authorities, abounds in strange coincidences and odd occurrences. But, when deciphered and placed in proper context, occurrences that at first blush appear unintelligible or negligible may provide unexpected intelligence linking the hitherto incoherent happenings into a logical chain of events. After the removal of Octavius, fearful of threats from his foes, and sensing danger, Tiberius decided to continue as tribune of the plebs and offered himself in the summer of 133 as a candidate for that office at the elections for the next year.3 The president of the assembly was a certain Rubrius, selected to that function by lot. The first two tribes to vote pronounced for Tiberius,4 but at that moment his opponents questioned the legality of Tiberius candidacy. Rubrius hesitated, but was persuaded to hand over the presidency to Mucius,5 the tribune who had been
2 Cf. J. Branger, Les jugements de Cicron sur les Gracques, ANRW I, 1 (1972), pp. 73363; H. Rieger, Das Nachleben des Tiberius Gracchus in der lateinischen Literatur (Bonn 1991), esp. pp. 11743. The following brief narrative, leading to our main topic, the clash of Nasica and Tiberius, is based mostly upon the accounts of Plutarch (Ti. Gr. 1619) and Appian (Bell. civ. 1.14.5816.67). For an analysis of their reports, see Piotrowicz, Plutarch a Appjan (n. 1), pp. 3740; B. Scardigli, Die Rmerbiographien Plutarchs (Mnchen 1979), pp. 6173, esp. 6971, and nn. 37697; and the commentary by E. Gabba, Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus (Firenze 1958), pp. 4349. The paper by H. G. Ingekamp, Plutarchs Leben der Gracchen, ANRW II, 33, 6 (1992), pp. 4298346, is, to a historian, of little use. The tribes here vote successively, and as P. Fraccaro, La procedura del voto nei comizi tributi romani, in: Opuscula II (Pavia 1957), pp. 23554 (originally published in 191314), has established, the voting was successive in the legislative and judicial assemblies, but simultaneous in the electoral. The passage of Appian and the finding of Fraccaro form the basis of the theory of L. R. Taylor, propounded in two famous papers, that Tiberius last assembly was not an electoral but a legislative gathering the goal of which was to pass legislation formally permitting re-election to the tribunate: Was Tiberius Gracchus Last Assembly Electoral or Legislative?, Athenaeum N. S. 41 (1963), pp. 5169; Appian and Plutarch on Tiberius Gracchus Last Assembly, Ibidem 44 (1966), pp. 23850. But our sources forcefully stress that Tiberius stood for re-election. The simplest way out of this quandary is to assume that the simultaneous voting in elections was introduced after 133; so U. Hall, Voting Procedure in Roman Assemblies, Historia 13 (1964), p. 293. If this had been the legislative concilium, it is hardly likely that Tiberius would have selected Rubrius as the lator of the law. On the form of his name (Mucius, Mummius or Minucius) and his identity, see T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I (New York 1951), pp. 493, 497 n. 2; D. C. Earl, M. Octavius, Trib. Pleb. 133 B.C., and His Successor, Latomus 19 (1960), pp. 66669.

90

Historia et Ius

341

elected in place of Octavius, and who was a staunch supporter of Gracchus. But Tiberius and Mucius met with stiff opposition from a majority of other tribunes, who insisted that the new presiding officer should be appointed by lot, and the meeting was adjourned amid strife and rancor. The next day Tiberius came prepared, though amid evil omens. His followers had still before daybreak occupied the Capitoline hill, and massed in the middle of the assembly. And thus the concilium plebis, adjourned from the previous day, formally reconvened on the Capitol, in front of the temple of Jupiter. Mucius presided, but when he called upon the tribes to vote, the proceedings in the concilium were obstructed by Gracchus enemies. Disturbances broke out, and the Gracchans, well prepared, were victorious. The opposing tribunes were driven from the assembly. Tiberius himself gave the signal for fight, perhaps by putting his hand to his head, a prearranged sign. Or perhaps he made this sign later, when the news came that the rich, the senators and their henchmen, were ready to attack. It was apparently at that moment that Tiberius, seeing his supporters wavering, took personally the command of the gathering, and ordered a contio to convene.6 He never delivered his harangue. He began with the customary invocation to gods, and then the catastrophe struck. Wild rumors circulated: that Tiberius deposed the resisting tribunes, that without an election declared himself tribune for the next year, and, why not, that he wished to seize supreme power and demanded the diadem of a king. It was in that atmosphere of hatred and uncertainty that the senate was meeting in the nearby temple of Fides.7 The leader of the anti-Gracchan opposition, the pontifex maximus P. Scipio Nasica,8 exhorted the consul to free the republic from the tyrant. But the consul, the eminent jurist P. Mucius Scaevola,9 who had originally
6 This reconstruction is based on the account of the Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.68 (cf. below, nn. 1058). As Tiberius recited the precatio, he must have been in charge of the meeting. This presupposes the dismissal by Mucius of the original concilium. Cf. L. R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies (Ann Arbor 1966), p. 20. On the distinction between the voting comitia or concilium and the contio, a gathering either preliminary to the voting or called together by a magistrate to listen to an announcement or a speech, see ibidem, pp. 1819. See also a good study by F. Pina Polo, Las contiones civiles y militares en Roma (Zaragoza 1989), pp. 92164, and 277 (no. 185: the contio of Tiberius). On the possible symbolic meaning of the senatorial meeting in the temple dedicated to Fides, cf. G. Freyburger, Fides. tude smantique et rligieuse depuis les origines jusqu lpoque augustenne (Paris 1986), pp. 12532 (esp. 12930), 31112. On the location of the temple, see below, n. 107. See on him F. Mnzer, Cornelius 354, RE 4 (1901), pp. 15014, and on his agnomen Serapio, see below, n. 38. {Cf. C. Binot, Le rle de Scipion Nasica Srapion dans la crise gracquienne, une relecture, Pallas 75 (2001), pp. 185203. To Laction contre Tibrius Gracchus Binot devotes only a paltry four pages (19295); all sources are presented solely in French translation which precludes a limine any scholarly treatment of the affair. He confuses cinctus Gabinus and caput velatum (see below, n. 60), and his acquaintance with modern scholarship is rudimentary. On the religio in the Gracchan and anti-Gracchan propaganda, see the interesting article by F. Santangelo, The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi, Archiv fr Religionsgeschichte 7 (2005) 198214, esp. 211.} On his career, see F. Mnzer, Mucius 17, RE 16 (1933), pp. 42528. Around his person, and

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

342

91

collaborated with Tiberius, hesitated: the gist of his answer was that he was not prepared to execute any citizen without trial.10 Whereupon Nasica uttered his famous proclamation: Let those who wish to save the commonwealth follow me,11 and dashed out from the temple followed by a throng of senators and their attendants. It has always been perplexing that the Gracchans, originally so confident, so organized, and so resolute, ultimately offered no resistance, turned to flight, and were slaughtered. Scores of the followers of Tiberius were killed, and apparently no one on the other side. Plutarch and Appian say that the Gracchans yielded to the dignity of Nasica and the senators.12 Yet it is incomprehensible that men who had just chased away from the assembly the sacrosanct tribunes should have suddenly abandoned their leader and meekly submitted their heads to the blows of the senators and their henchmen. This comportment defies any rational explication. The secret lies in the toga of Nasica. III. For it is at this point that all the sources describing the action of Nasica display an unusual interest in his toga. In a few minutes Tiberius will be slain, but the authors deem it appropriate to stop for a while to insert remarks on the startling subject of Nasicas attire.

his political and legal views, a vigorous polemic has swirled in recent years: see esp. E. S. Gruen, The Political Allegiance of P. Mucius Scaevola, Athenaeum N. S. 44 (1965), pp. 32132; G. Grosso, P. Mucio Scaevola tra il diritto e la politica, Archivio Giuridico 175 (1968), pp. 20411; T. P. Wiseman, A Note on P. Mucius Scaevola, Athenaeum N. S. 48 (1970), pp. 15253; A. H. Bernstein, Prosopography and the Career of P. Mucius Scaevola, CP 67 (1972), pp. 4246; R. A. Bauman, Five Pronouncements by P. Mucius Scaevola, RIDA 25 (1978), pp. 22345, esp. 22738; Idem, Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics. A Study of Roman Jurists in Their Political Setting (Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und antiker Rechtsgeschichte, Heft 75 [Mnchen 1983]), pp. 230302, esp. 27275; A. Guarino, La coerenza di Publio Mucio (Napoli 1981), passim; O. Behrends, Staatsrecht und Philosophie in der ausgehenden Republik, ZRG 100 (1983), pp. 45884. 10 Plut. Ti. Gr. 19.3: kriton. For Plutarchs usage of this term, cf. Coriol. 18.6. Cf. J. UngernSternberg von Prkel, Untersuchungen zum sptrepublikanischen Notstandsrecht. Senatusconsultum ultimum und hostis-Erklrung (Vestigia 11 [Mnchen 1970]), pp. 725. 11 Val. Max. 3.2.17: qui rem publicam salvam esse volunt me sequantur. So also Vell. Pat. 2.3; Plut. Ti. Gr. 19.3; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.(16).68; Cic. Tusc. 4.51 (cf. below, nn. 51, 106). On the modalities of that kind of proclamation (evocatio), and its place in Roman public law, see J. Linderski, Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the Genera Militiae and the Status of Octavian, JRS 74 (1984), pp. 7480 (with further literature), reprinted in: Idem, Roman Questions (Heidelberger Althistorische Beitrge und Epigraphische Studien 20 [Heidelberg 1995]), pp.14753, and see also Addenda, pp. 64243. The proclamation was made at the time of a sudden danger to the Republic from an external or internal foe. It was made either by a magistrate or a private citizen. On Nasica as a dux privatus, see below, nn. 5152. 12 Plut. Ti. Gr. 19.46; App. Bell. civ. 1.(16).6970. The attendants of the senators were armed with clubs and sticks; the senators armed themselves on the spot with pieces of broken furniture and they also wrested staves out of the hands of the Gracchans, which shows that the partisans of Tiberius were also armed.

92
343

Historia et Ius

Velleius Paterculus (2.3.2) informs us that Nasica exhorted his followers having wrapped the hem of his toga about his left forearm, circumdata laevo bracchio togae lacinia, and Valerius Maximus (3.2.17) similarly reports that he wound the lower part of his toga round his left arm, laevam manum <im>a13 parte togae circumdedit. The Auctor ad Herennium (4.68) speaks of Nasica rushing from the temple sudans, oculis ardentibus, erecto capillo, contorta toga, sweating, his eyes blazing, hair bristling, toga awry.14 Plutarch and Appian convey a substantially different picture. According to them Nasica wrapped the hem of his toga round his head and not round his left arm.15 Why did he do so? Plutarch gives no answer, but he singles out the conduct of Nasica noting that other senators wound their togas about their (left) arms.16 Appian offers three explanations: Nasica covered his head with the border of his toga in order either (1) to induce t parasm to sxmatow (on the precise meaning of this phrase, see below) a greater number of men to follow him or (2) to make for himself a kind of helmet as a sign for battle17 or (3) to conceal himself from the gods. It is to Appians credit (or to his sources credit) that he saw the problem and did his best to solve it. But curiosity apparently does not pay: Eduard Meyer harshly rebuked him for his fancy. There is no problem at all: Appian puzzles himself needlessly to explain this very natural course of action. In order to be able to charge up the Capitol, the legs must be free; at the same time the toga wrapped round the head serves as a protection.18 The logic of this argument is irresistible:
13 For the reading <im>a, see C. Kempf in his edition of Valerius (Lipsiae 1888), in app. crit., a conjecture accepted by J. Briscoe in his Teubner edition of Valerius (1998) {and by D. R. Shackleton Bailey in his Loeb edition (2000)}. 14 The passage concerning Nasica is adduced as an example of the rhetorical figure of demonstratio (ngeia, potposiw). Cf. the commentary by G. Calboli, Cornifici Rhetorica ad Herennium (Bologna 1969), pp. 43537. 15 Plut. Ti. Gr. 19.4: t krspedon to matou ymenow p tw kefalw, xrei prw t Kapetlion. kastow d tn pomnvn at t xeir tn tbennon perieljaw yei tow mpodn. Appian, Bell. civ. 1.(16).68: t krspedon to matou w tn kefaln periesrato, ete t parasm to sxmatow plonw o suntrxein pispmenow, ete polmou ti smbolon tow rsin w kruya poiomenow, ete yeow gkaluptmenow n melle drsein. 16 This was normal procedure in street brawls and in archaic battles, where some think it goes under the name of cinctus Gabinus (cf. below, n. 60). See Pacuvius, Trag. 186 Ribbeck2 = 190 Warmington: Currum liquit; clamide contorta astu clupeat brachium. Occasionally it was applied on real battlefields: when Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (cos. 215, 213) fell into ambush during the Hannibalic war, he then paludamento circa laevum bracchium intorto nam ne scuta quidem secum extulerant in hostes impetum fecit (Liv. 25.16.21). For street brawls, see Petr. Sat. 80.2: intorto circa brachium pallio composui ad proeliandum gradum. Cf. Catul. 116.7; Seneca, Dial. 2.7.4; Epist. 53.12. 17 This explanation is not correct, but it is not completely absurd. Cf. Amm. Marc. 18.6.13: porrecto extentius brachio, et summitatibus sagi contortis elatius, adesse hostes, signo solito demonstrabam. Cf. 25.6.14. It is not impossible that Appian had in mind this or a similar military signal. 18 E. Meyer, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gracchen (Halle 1894), p. 19 n. 2: Appian zerbricht sich unntig den Kopf, um diesen sehr natrlichen Vorgang zu erklren. Um das Kapitol

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

344

93

when a togatus is on the point of plunging into a mle he should, of course, free his legs and hands from the folds of the toga, for otherwise he would not be able to run or strike effectively. As to the merits of the toga as a helmet one wonders why other senators did not protect their precious heads in the same way. Meyers is a pedestrian explanation, unworthy of an eminent historian. We have either to discard Plutarchs and Appians narrative altogether (and there is no likely reason why anyone should have invented the story of Nasicas strange behavior) or we have to find a cogent explanation. In 1903 Ernst Kornemann proposed an ingenious solution that gained at once wide acclaim. He observed that Plutarch (Ti. Gr. 21.3) and especially Appian (Bell. civ. 1.[16].68) accord a strikingly prominent place to Nasicas office of pontifex maximus. This circumstance, he believed, provides us with the key to our puzzle. Nasica intended by his gesture to assume the ritual attire of a priest, i.e., by implication, the attire of the pontifex maximus, and to display the purple border of his toga.19 Kornemann was, however, not the first scholar to come forward with this idea. Already in 1879 G.G.C. Bijvanck observed in his dissertation that Nasica proceeded against Gracchus tanquam velatus pontifex,20 and still earlier Karl Nitzsch expressed in passing the same view.21
hinaufzustrmen zu knnen, muss man die Beine frei haben; zugleich dient die um die Kopf geschlagene Toga zum Schutz. Cf. below, nn. 19, 108. 19 E. Kornemann, Zur Geschichte der Gracchenzeit (Klio, Beiheft 1 [Leipzig 1903]), p. 5: the gesture of Nasica ist nichts anderes als die Herstellung der Priestertracht. E. Meyer in the second edition of his Untersuchungen (Kleine Schriften [Halle 1910], p. 412 n. 1, repeated in the second edition of Kleine Schriften [Halle 1924], p. 394 n. 1) dropped his criticism of Appian, and praised Kornemanns acumen. Cf. also P. Fraccaro, Studi sullet dei Gracchi (Citt di Castello 1914), p. 167 n. 1. For a dissenting voice, see S. Eitrem, G. Gracchus und die Furien, Philologus 78 (192223), pp. 18386, whose criticism of Kornemann has recently been approvingly noted by M. G. Morgan, Cornelius and the Pannonians, Historia 23 (1974), p. 215 n. 152. Eitrem points out that C. and Ti. Gracchus were presented in the optimate tradition not only as violators of laws but also as miscreants pursued by the wrath of the gods, but nevertheless he maintains that es scheint geradezu burlesker Gedanke zu sein, dass der wtende Optimat die Rolle eines gewhnlichen Opferpriesters spielen wollte denn den Oberpontifex konnte man so wie so nicht an dieser sonderbaren Vermummung erkennen (p. 185). He brushes aside any idea of a symbolic meaning of Nasicas gesture, and seems to think that Nasica merely intended to protect his head. Needless to say this interpretation is open to the same criticism as E. Meyers original opinion. Of course we cannot tell which role Nasica would have played and which he would not but neither can Eitrem, and so his first objection to Kornemanns theory appears more imaginary than real. On the other hand Eitrem is undoubtedly right when he says that Nasicas velatio could not have pointed specifically to his office of pontifex maximus, for this could have been the attire of any priest at a sacrifice. At the same time, however, he has missed a most obvious point, namely that it was in fact the chief pontiff who covered his head with his toga, whereas none of the senators who followed him assumed this posture. 20 G. G. C. Bijvanck, Studia in Ti. Gracchi historiam (Diss. Leiden 1879), p. 39. Bijvancks excellent but modest dissertation has been unduly overshadowed by Kornemanns Scharfsinnigkeit. More recent students of Tiberius do not seem to know it, although it was quoted by some earlier scholars, cf. T. Greve, Kritik der Quellen zum Leben des lteren Gracchus (Progr. Aachen 1883), p. 21 n. 79; L. Piotrowicz, Plutarch a Appjan (n. 1), p. 40. 21 K. W. Nitzsch, Die Gracchen und ihre nchsten Vorgnger (Berlin 1847), p. 326.

94
345

Historia et Ius

The interpretation of Nitzsch, Bijvanck and Kornemann has been brilliantly corroborated by M. Tods study on the terminology of Appians passage.22 The words of Appian ete t parasm to sxmatow plonw o suntrxein pispmenow had normally been taken to mean that Nasica wished to induce a greater number of men to follow him miro illo habitu (Schweighuser), by the strangeness of his appearance (H. White).23 This might have been Appians idea, but it is ridiculous to ascribe such an intention to Nasica. Tod took as his starting point E. F. M. Beneckes translation by displaying the badge of his rank, and after a careful study of the usage of the word sxma in authors and inscriptions arrived at the conclusion that in the text of Appian it is preferable to render it as costume and not as rank or appearance. The passage would mean by the badge of his costume or, more exactly, by (the display of) that part of his robe which indicated his (pontifical) office, i.e. by the display of the purple border of his toga praetexta. Appian was not after all a thoughtless blunderer. There can be little doubt that this is a captivating reconstruction.24 Yet it contains only part of the truth. The real, that is in our case the symbolic, significance of Nasicas act was not grasped either by Appian or Kornemann or Tod. The case rested for nearly thirty years. It was reserved for another scholar to make an important and illuminating contribution. In 1963 D. C. Earl published his penetrating study on Ti. Gracchus. He pointed out that besides the pontifex maximus many other men in Rome wore the toga praetexta. Hence by covering his head with the border of his toga Nasica did not intend merely to emphasize his religious dignity. Earls dramatic observation (as E. Badian characterized it),25 was that Nasicas action was meant to convey that Ti. Gracchus was to be offered as a sacrifice ... P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, pontifex maximus, was proceeding to the sacrifice necessary to save the state. ... No less than Julius Caesar, Ti. Gracchus perished for his regnum.26 IV. Kornemann and Earl (and most of their predecessors) have derived their bold and imaginative reconstructions of Nasicas action from the accounts of Appian and
22 M. N. Tod, Three Notes on Appian, CQ 18 (1924), pp. 99102. 23 I. Schweighuser, Appiani Romanarum Historiarum quae supersunt II (Lipsiae 1785), p. 24; H. White, Appians Roman History III (Loeb Class. Library, London 1913), p. 33 (originally published in 1889). Cf. J. L. Strachan-Davidson, Appian, Civil Wars: Book I (Oxford 1902), pp. 1718. 24 Cf. Gabba, Appiani Liber Primus (n. 3), pp. 5152. Gabba follows in his translation (p. 361) the interpretation of Tod: sia ... ricordando con quell impiego della veste la sua carica. 25 E. Badian, Three Fragments, in: Pro Munere Grates. Studies Presented to H. L. Gonin (Pretoria 1971), p. 4. Certainly dramatic, but not quite novel, cf. Nitzsch, Die Gracchen (n. 21), p. 326: Nasica schlug seine Toga ber den Kopf; man hat ihm Schuld gegeben, dass er sich dadurch den Schein geben wollte, als ginge er als Priester dem Juppiter zu opfern. So also Bijvanck, Studia (n. 20), pp. 3940. Vetera sunt, non leguntur. 26 D. C. Earl, Tiberius Gracchus. A Study in Politics (Collection Latomus 66 [Bruxelles 1963]), pp. 11819.

346

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

95

Plutarch, authors not generally regarded as our best guide in matters concerning the fine points of Roman sacral and constitutional law. Fortunately for us there is extant a contemporary source that, when properly interpreted, may cast a beam of light on Tiberius death and on Nasicas sacrifice. In a brilliant article Ernst Badian has recently called attention to a hitherto unintelligible and (as he thinks) neglected fragment of C. Gracchus preserved by the grammarian Charisius.27 The passage as printed in Barwicks edition of Charisius28 reads as follows:
Communiter C. Gracchus ut lex Papiria accipiatur: qui sapientem cum faciet, qui et vobis et rei puplicae et sibi communiter prospiciat, non qui pro sylla humanum trucidet.

A difficult text, and in a couple of places possibly corrupt,29 but its general tenor is clear and loud, and thus we can venture an approximate translation:
G. Gracchus uses (the adverb) jointly in his speech urging the passage of the Papirian law: the sage man (is) he who would jointly provide for you, for the commonwealth and for himself, not he who slaughters a human being like a pig.

It is the last sentence that is of immediate interest for our present purpose. Badian proposes to reconstruct it in the following way: qui pro suilla humanam30 <hos27 Badian, Three Fragments (n. 25), pp. 35. All quotations in the text are taken from these pages. 28 Charisius, Artis Grammaticae Libri V, ed. C. Barwick (Lipsiae 1925 [1964]), pp. 25556 (= Keil, GL I, 196). 29 H. Malcovati, O(ratorum) R(omanorum) F(ragmenta)2 (Augustae Taurinorum 1955), p. 179, frg. 18, prints two cruces: cum faciet and pro sylla. {Badian, The Pig (n. 1), pp. 26365, proposes to read qui sapienter <uobis>cum faciat, a recontruction of genius.} 30 Badian here follows the emendation of E. Wlfflin, suilla. Sulla, Archiv fr lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik 9 (1896), p. 354, who, however, took suilla to mean Schweine(fleisch) and not simply a pig, and consequently interpreted the whole passage in a rather peculiar way: pro suilla humanam (sc. carnem) trucidet. Badian, Three Fragments (n. 25), p. 3, observes: it is obvious that (with trucidare) suillam cannot mean Schweinefleisch, nor can humanam mean Menschenfleisch (as Wlfflin presumably thought). Badian may well be right (see below), but still it is worth mentioning that long before Wlfflin the same emendation and the same interpretation of suilla (sc. caro) had been proposed by H. Jordan, Zu den Reden des C. Gracchus, Hermes 6 (1872), pp. 49495, duly noted by N. Hpke, C. Semproni Gracchi oratoris Romani fragmenta collecta et illustrata (Diss. Mnchen 1915), pp. 4445. As a comparison Jordan adduced the words of Cato from the oration In Q. Minucium Thermum de decem hominibus (ORF2 p. 28, frg. 59): succidias humanas facis, tantam trucidationem facis. F. Marx, Animadversiones criticae in Scipionis Aemiliani historiam et C. Gracchi orationem aduersus Scipionem, RhM 39 (1884), p. 72, was not convinced by this argument: succidias humanas facere is according to him a very different expression from humanam carnem trucidare. In fact, if we take into account the original meaning of caro a piece of (flesh), (morceau, Stck, Abschnitt, cf. A. Ernout-A. Meillet, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine3 [Paris 1951], p. 180; A. Walde-J. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches etymologisches Wrterbuch I3 [Heidelberg 1938], p. 170), we would rather expect a parallel expression to succidias facere to be carnem facere, especially as that latter phrase is at the root of the compound carnifex (Stckmacher, as the dictionry of WaldeHofmann renders it); cf. Donatus ad Ter. Hec. 441: carnifices dicti quod carnes ex homine

96
347

Historia et Ius

tiam>31 trucidet. The supplement <hostiam> and the change of humanum into humanam is not necessary. It is probably better to read pro suilla humanum, and take suilla and humanum functioning as the substantives.32 As these words come from C. Gracchus speech delivered in support of C. Papirius Carbos bill to permit re-election to the tribunate,33 they are of special political significance. Badian observes that the speech was ... a step in the campaign that was to convert Ti. Gracchus into a martyred popular hero ... C. Gracchus is contrasting the right sort of politician34 (qui ... prospiciat) probably, by implifaciant. But Marxs own conjecture is not at all attractive: qui pro asylo (grammatically construed like e.g. pro curia, pro castris, pro aede Castoris) hominem (so already the ed. princ.) trucidet. Palaeographically pro asylo is inferior to Jordans and Wlfflins pro suilla (based on the reading pro sullam humanam found in C, an apograph of a codex deperditus) nor is it convincing historically. Marxs emendation would have been to the point only if Tiberius had been killed within (on the locative pro, see Paulus [Festus] 257 L.; cf. E. D. Francis, Particularum quarundam varietas: prae and pro, YCS 23 [1973], pp. 4546) the inviolable precinct of the asylum Romuli, which certainly was not the case. On the place of Tiberius death, see B. Bilinski, Fornix Calpurnius e la morte di Tiberio Gracco, Helikon 1 (1961), pp. 26482: clivus Capitolinus, and contra, and better F. Coarelli, Le tyrannoctone du Capitole et la mort de Tiberius Gracchus, MEFRA 81 (1969), pp. 13760, esp. 15459: centum gradus. Although the noun suilla in the sense of a pig does not seem to be attested (attested is only suilla [sc. caro]), cf. Forcellini - De Vit s.v.), Badians interpretation is supported by the usage of the adjective suillus in religious contexts, cf. Liv. 31.12.7 (a report of a prodigy), 22.10.3 (offerings on account of the ver sacrum). Nevertheless the exact grammatical construction of the fragment still remains unclear: we have either to take suilla as a noun (cf. below, n. 32) or to interpret it, as Badian suggests, as suilla (sc. hostia). Yet we have to be aware that the expression suilla hostia would also be a hapax legomenon. Hostia is a much better supplement than victima, not only because of palaeographical reasons (so Badian, Three Fragments [n. 25], p. 6 n. 5), but also because the expression humana hostia seems to have been used much more frequently than humana victima (cf. Forcellini - De Vit s.v. victima #5). E. Malcovati, Tre frammenti di oratori Romani, Athenaeum 53 (1975), p. 367, proposes to read <hostiam> humanam, but her conjecture is not entirely convincing: the regular word order was humana hostia (cf. TLL s.v. hostia, p. 3047, lines 22 ff.). In an answer to Badian and Malcovati, L. Alfonsi, A proposito di C. Sempronius Gracchus, ORF3 18, Athenaeum 54 (1976), pp. 17375, has presented a simpler and hence more attractive solution: non qui pro suilla humanum trucidet. He notes that in poetic or solemn language humanus frequently appears as a noun; in our passage both suilla and humanum would function as substantivized adjectives. Alfonsi stresses the affinity between Gaius way of expression and the style of Cato, but he and A. Roncoroni, who communicated to him this observation, seem unaware that Jordan noticed this more than one hundred years ago (see above, n. 30). {Badian, The Pig (n. 1), pp. 26364, vigorously defends humanam <hostiam>, and insists that suilla can only mean (with caro understood) pork and not a pig. Indeed suilla functions as an adjective (or as a substantivized adjective in the sense of pork), but the application in the meaning of pig is not inconceivable, and it even appears attested: cf. Plin. Nat. Hist. 11.202. Furthermore hostiam trucidare is troubling: electronic searches reveal that this collocation is not on record. Rem in medio relinquimus.} On this bill (it did not pass), see the sources in G. Niccolini, I Fasti dei tribuni della plebe (Milano 1934), pp. 15354. It is a pity that Badian did not offer a discussion of sapientem, especially as this political term is of considerable importance for the reconstruction of the ideological content and polemical thrust of Gaius oration. Nasica must have been hailed by the admirers of his deed as sapiens

31

32

33 34

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

348

97

cation, ... his excellent brother with his enemy, who sacrifices a human being like a pig. This is a truly ingenious textual analysis and a brilliant historical exposition, but to render suum cuique more than a century ago G. G. C. Bijvanck advanced virtually the same interpretation. He also restored the last sentence as qui pro suilla humanam trucidet, and interpreted it as acerbissime dictum pro: qui hominem oppressit tamquam suem immolaverit.35 We here may also record the proverbial juxtaposition of sues and homines,36 and especially the expression sus occisa which M. G. Morgan perceptively adduced in the context of Gaius speech and the death of Tiberius.37 The same scholar has also called attention to a most interesting piece of evidence for the interpretation of Gaius words (not utilized either by Bijvanck or by Badian), Scipio Nasicas second cognomen of Serapio.38 Nasica was given this nickname in his consulate (138 B.C.E.) by the tribune C. Curiatius (who wished to ridicule him, Liv. Per. 55) because of his resemblance to a slave of that name. Now the original Serapio is described either as an assistant at sacrifices ( victimarius, Val. Max. 9.14.3), a pig dealer (Plin. Nat. Hist. 21.10) or a slave of a pig dealer (suarii negotiatoris vile mancipium, Plin. Nat. Hist. 7.54). Nasica, with a nickname Serapio: what a perfect target for Gaius bitter pun! The pontifex Serapio slaughtering people like pigs. Bijvanck also immediately perceived the importance of this fragment of Gaius speech for the explanation of Nasicas behavior in Appian and Plutarch, and adduced it as decisive proof that when Nasica attacked Tiberius he acted in his capacity as pontifex maximus, especially as the pontiffs habitually offered the sacrifices capite velato. In the same year in which Earl published his perspicacious study, H. Freier worked on his dissertation Caput velare.39 Of course he also came to speak of
(by Laelius or Scipio Aemilianus, conjectures Bijvanck, Studia [n. 20], p. 39). It is this (supposed) excellence of Nasica that Gaius Gracchus attacked, and Cicero defended (Tusc. 4.51; below, n. 51). {These remarks are now to be read in view of Badians reconstruction qui sapienter <uobis>cum faciat (above, n. 31), but I still think that sapienter may well have been another pointed barb aimed at the laudatores of Nasica. The murderers of Tiberius were not optimi but pessimi, and they were not sapientes as they claimed.} Bijvanck, Studia (n. 20), pp. 3940. Already Nitzsch, Die Gracchen (n. 21), p. 342, interpreted Gaius text in this sense, but he did not propose any textual emendation. Cf. A. Otto, Die Sprichwrter und die sprichwrtlichen Redensarten der Rmer (Leipzig 1890), p. 336. M. G. Morgan, Cornelius and the Pannonians (n. 19), p. 215 n. 151 (Plaut. Mil. glor. 58687, Rud. 660, discussed by G. Ship, Notes on Plautine and Other Latin, Antichthon 4 [1970], p. 27). Morgan, Cornelius and the Pannonians (n. 19), pp. 21415. See the exemplary discussion of this cognomen by F. Mnzer, Zu den Fragmenten des Valerius Antias, Hermes 32 (1897), pp. 47071. {F. Mora, Soprannomi teofori e soprannomi servili romani, Aevum 60 (1986), pp. 4749, connects the surname with Nasicas presumed devotion to Serapis, which was anathema to Roman aristocracy, and concludes that for that reason various anecdotes were invented to obscure the real origin of this and other similar oriental theophoric surnames. Conspiracy theories have finally reached the field of Roman onomastics.} H. Freier, Caput velare (Diss. Tbingen 1963), pp. 1078.

35 36 37

38

39

98

Historia et Ius

349

Nasica and Ti. Gracchus. Without much dramatic preparation he stated simply and straightforwardly the same thought that had occurred to Earl (and Bijvanck): the gesture of Nasica (if he covered his head in fact and not only in the imagination of Plutarch and Appian) is to be interpreted as the same kind of veiling which we encounter at the sacrifice. Nasica wished to show that he was not proceeding to an ordinary brawl or murder but to the sacrifice which was necessary for the wellbeing of the state. No eminent scholar commented on Freiers dramatic observation, and perhaps rightly so, for Freier, rigorously pursuing his main objective, the problem of the pontiffs ritual headgear, did not display any further interest in such a trifling matter as the death of Ti. Gracchus, and in consequence failed to realize the full import of his statement. The fact that Nasica draped just the toga round the back of his head need not militate he concluded against his theory (argued vigorously albeit one-sidedly in an earlier part of his book) that the pontifex maximus normally used the pilleus and apex as the ritual cover of his head. Nasica simply did not take with him the pilleus when he went to attend the meeting of the senate, and used his toga as an improvised cover. Freiers interpretation is of obvious importance for our study. It would imply that Nasicas action was conceived on the spur of the moment, for if he had planned to stage a ritual attack on the Gracchani, he certainly would not have forgotten to have ready at hand the pilleus by which he would probably have been clearly distinguished40 as pontifex maximus. In this situation we must take a closer look at the pontiffs ritual attire. V. Literary and antiquarian sources attest a cap (galerus, pilleus, tutulus) as the headcover of the pontiffs, and this information is corroborated by the evidence of coins on which the apex appears among other pontifical emblems.41 But all this still does not prove that the pontiffs habitually performed the sacrifices and other ceremonies pilleo velati. It is well to remember that at least on one occasion, when sacrificing to Ops Consiva, the sacerdos publicus, i.e. undoubtedly the pontifex maximus, was required to wear on his head the suffibulum, a quadrangular oblong piece of mate-

40 It is probable that there existed some difference in shape between the cap of the pontifex maximus and the caps of other pontiffs; at any rate it seems certain that there existed some differentiation between the caps worn by the different flamines, see K. A. Esdaile, The Apex or Tutulus in Roman Art, JRS 1 (1911), pp. 21226; R. von Schaewen, Rmische Opfergerte, ihre Verwendung im Kultus und in der Kunst (Berlin 1940), pp. 5965; I. Scott Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (MAAR 22 [Rome 1955]) 14, 4445; Freier, Caput velare (n. 39) 3953; L. Bonfante Warren, Roman Costumes, ANRW I, 4 (1973), pp. 605, 607, 611, 614, s.vv. apex, galerus, pilleus, tutulus. Cf. also N. Bols-Janssen, Flaminica cincta, REL 69 (1991), p. 49, but in the passage of Prudentius she cites (Peristeph. 2.525) there is no mention of apex; mentioned is only vittatus olim pontifex. 41 Apul. Apol. 22.7 (p. 26.16 Helm); Festus 484/6 L.; M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974), p. 461, no. 443 (cf. p. 491, no. 480.1920, and p. 508, no. 494.39 ab); pp. 49899, no. 489 13; p. 515, no. 502.4; p. 533, no. 532. See also the works cited in n. 40.

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

350

99

rial with a red border, in this respect very similar to the toga praetexta.42 The pilleus (galerus) with the apex may well have been the original headgear of the pontiffs, but in the late republican period this archaic spiked cap was regularly worn only by the flamen Dialis. Even the other flamines (Martialis and Quirinalis) wore the praetexta and the apex only at a sacrifice.43 In the sacrificial procession represented on the Ara Pacis the flamines are clearly distinguished by their spiked caps, whereas Augustus and other priests (among whom there must have been the pontiffs) appear with their heads veiled by their togas.44 Also Livy implies that the pontiffs used the toga as their sacrificial headcover.45 Finally it is not without some interest to note that Roman antiquarians ascribed to Aeneas the introduction of this kind of sacrificial velatio.46 We may safely conclude that when Nasica covered his head with his toga, he did not do anything unusual, at any rate from the point of view of sacral formalities. Unusual was the political implication of his gesture.
42 Varro, de ling. Lat. 6.21, cf. Festus 474 L. Cf. G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Rmer2 (Mnchen 1912), p. 203, and above all the very convincing interpretation of Varros passage by H. N. G. Stehouwer, tude sur Ops et Consus (Diss. Utrecht, Groningen 1956), pp. 8991. See also below, n. 85. 43 Serv. auct. Aen. 8.552: etenim veteri sacrorum ritu neque Martialis neque Quirinalis flamen omnibus caerimoniis tenebatur ... neque semper praetextam, neque apicem nisi tempore sacrificii gestare soliti erant. Cf. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus (n. 42), pp. 5047. 44 See Ryberg, Rites (n. 40), pp. 4445, plate 12. 45 Liv. 10.7.10 (ed. Walters-Conway): Qui Iovis optimi maximi ornatu decoratus, curru aurato per urbem vectus in Capitolium ascenderit, is <non> conspiciatur cum capide ac lituo, <cum> capite velato victimam caedet auguriumve ex arce capiet? (from the speech of P. Decius Mus urging the admittance of the plebeians to the priesthoods). The expression capite velato refers both to victimam caedet (a pontifical sacrifice) and to augurium ... capiet (an augural function). We know that the augurs performed their functions capite toga velato (see the evidence collected by Freier, Caput velare [n. 39], pp. 7783), and in the light of this passage it is a fair assumption that the same will hold true also of the pontiffs. 46 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 12.16.2223; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 1011; Serv. Aen. 3.407; Serv. auct. Aen. 8.288; Macr. Sat. 3.6.17. A sacrificing priest with his garment drawn over his head appears on a cista Praenestina (dated to the second century B.C.E. {or perhaps third or even late fourth}) which, as it seems, depicts the triumph of Aeneas; see for this interpretation A. Alfldi, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1963), p. 45 n. 2; Idem, Die Penaten, Aeneas und Latinus, MDAI, Rm. Abt. 78 (1971), p. 22; L. Bonfante Warren, A Latin Triumph on a Praenestine Cista, AJA 68 (1964), pp. 3542, esp. 38 {but see her retractatio in AJAH 3.2 (1978 [1980]), pp. 15152, 161: a theatrical scene; so also G. Bordenache Battaglia, Le ciste prenestine I.1 (Roma 1979), pp. 5661, and tabb. LXVIIILXX}; K. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton 1969), p. 34, and fig. 34. Cf. Ryberg, Rites (n. 40), pp. 2022, fig. 13. G. Foerst, Die Gravierungen der prnestinischen Cisten (Roma 1978), pp. 59-61, interprets the scene as a sacrifice performed by an imperator from Praeneste. {More recently R. Adam, Faux triomphe et prjugs tenaces, MEFRA 101.2 (1989), pp. 597641, discovers in the scene the arrival of a personage into the underworld; still more recently, and more sensibly, M. Menichetti, Praenestinus Aeneas. Il culto di Iuppiter Imperator e il trionfo su Mezenzio quali motivi di propaganda su una cista prenestina, Ostraka 3.1 (1994), pp. 730, returns to Aeneas and the triumphal interpretation; the velatus will be, ingeniously and persuasively, a sacerdos officiating at the feast of Vinalia (pp. 2022). T. P. Wiseman, The Myths of Rome (Exeter 2004), pp. 112, 325, retains Jupiter, Aeneas, and the wine, but removes the triumph: Jupiter arrives in a quadriga to claim the years vintage of the wine of Latium.}

100

Historia et Ius

351

Plutarch and Appian stress that Nasica put on his head t krspedon to matou, obviously the purple border of his toga. The phrase is interesting for it is exceptional. When describing the Roman velatio the Greek authors normally speak in general of the toga (mtion, tbenna),47 but in the case of Nasica Appian (or rather his source) was well aware (as we have seen) of the special importance of the krspedon and of its function as the badge of rank. But a really striking fact about the behavior of Nasica was not only that he covered the back of his head with his toga, but that he appeared at all in public wearing the toga praetexta. For a privatus this was a most unusual thing to do. It is not enough to point out, as Earl does, that many men in Rome wore the toga praetexta. It is important to ask when they wore it. As far as the priests are concerned it is best to reproduce the words of Mommsen: In contrast to the magistrates the priests do not wear the toga praetexta when they appear in public, for instance in the senate, but, apart from public feasts, only when, and for as long as, they perform a priestly function.48 Before Nasica rushed out from the temple of Fides he had first to don the praetexta. As far as I can see this point has been missed by all scholars who have dealt with Nasica and Tiberius. Nasicas deliberate manipulation of his toga finds an interesting counterpart in the behavior of M. Popillius (probably cos. 359 B.C.E.), who, as Cicero narrates (Brut. 56):
cum consul esset eodemque tempore sacrificium publicum cum laena faceret, quod erat flamen Carmentalis, plebei contra patres concitatione et seditione nuntiata, ut erat laena amictus ita venit in contionem seditionemque cum auctoritate tum oratione sedavit. While he was consul and wearing the priestly robe49 was engaged in a public sacrifice he was the priest of Carmentis word was brought him of a plebeian riot and mutiny against the senators; just so as he was clad in his priestly robe he proceeded to (or rather convoked) the public gathering and by the weight of his authority and the persuasion of his oratory quelled the mutiny.

Cicero found it remarkable and worthy of note that Popillius did not lay aside the laena of the flamines and did not put on the consular praetexta when he appeared in a contio in his capacity as consul. Following the lead of Cicero we certainly must
47 Cf. Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, s.vv. But this dictionary is quite unreliable in this respect, and H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto 1974), useful with respect to inscriptions, is very limited and also often inaccurate as far as literary texts are concerned. A comprehensive dictionary of Greek terms referring to res Romanae is a burning desideratum. 48 T. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht I3 (Leipzig 1887), p. 422: Indess tragen die Priester die Prtexta nicht, wie die Magistrate, berhaupt wo sie ffentlich erscheinen, also zum Beispiel nicht im Senat, sondern abgesehen von den Volksfesten nur wenn und so lange sie als Priester fungiren. Of course this does not refer to the flamen Dialis, cf. Serv. auct. Aen. 8.552 (see n. 43); Gell. 10.15.16. 49 On the laena, see W. Helbig, Toga und trabea, Hermes 39 (1904), pp. 16566; Bonfante Warren, Roman Costumes (n. 40), pp. 59495, 6089.

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

101

352

not close our eyes to the remarkable spectacle of Nasica taking off his toga pura and putting on his pontifical praetexta.50 Already by this act he publicly proclaimed that he was going to exercise his religious functions. And then he veiled his head. He was not furious, iratus, as the popularis propaganda tried to represent him, but a velatus pontifex and a Stoic sage, sapiens. And the sage never acts in anger, and even if privatus he is never a private citizen.51 But Nasica was also a vir omnibus in rebus vehemens and acer in dicendo, ardent and impetuous in life, sharp and vigorous in oratory, as the poet Accius remembered and Cicero approvingly noted,52 an ideal quality in a man quo duce privato Ti. Gracchus occisus esset and who ex dominatu Ti. Gracchi privatus in libertatem rem publicam vindicavit (Brut. 212). So Cicero, in spirited praise of this spiritual killer of Tiberius, a stern and unbending man, who was possessed of no graciousness, comitas, and because of that quality rose to greatness and fame, magnum et clarum fuisse.53 VI. It was the first act in a gloomy drama the last act of which was to be the throwing of Tiberius body into the Tiber. But was it a ceremony of sacrifice? Hardly so, for the sacrificial victims were not thrown into a river. This privilege was reserved for the monstra, hermaphrodites and parricides.54 Ernst Badian is of the same mind. In response to Earls sacrificial interpretation he has persuasively demonstrated that Nasicas action could not be intended
50 Observe also the ceremonies of the Fratres arvales, who put their praetextae on and off; see G. (= W.) Henzen, Acta Fratrum arvalium (Berolini 1874), e.g. pp. CCIICCIV: the Brethren sacrificed to Dea Dia praetextati, then praetextas deposuerunt and cenatoria alba sumser(unt) [sic], and then again praetextas acceperunt, and praetextati capite velato ... agnam opimam imm(olaverunt). See also the commentary by J. Scheid, Romulus et ses Frres. Le collge des Frres Arvales, modle du culte public dans la Rome des Empereurs (BEFAR 275 [Rome 1990]), pp. 49293, 51920, 52728, 56467, 572, 631. 51 Cic. Tusc. 4.51: Mihi ne Scipio quidem ille pontifex maximus, qui hoc Stoicorum verum esse declaravit, numquam privatum esse sapientem, iratus videtur fuisse Ti. Graccho tum, cum consulem languentem reliquit atque ipse privatus, ut si consul esset, qui rem publicam salvam esse vellent se sequi iussit. All key concepts are here present: pontifex maximus, sapiens, and privatus. Cf. U. Klima, Untersuchungen zu dem Begriff sapientia von der republikanischen Zeit bis Tacitus (Bonn 1971), esp. pp. 11939, where she discusses Ciceros views on the sapientia of the statesman, unfortunately in an unduly philosophical way, divorced from the unpleasantness of Roman politics (she does not consider Ciceros passage referring to Nasica or the speech of G. Gracchus). On the lack of ira in the magistrate rendering the verdict of death, see the passage of Seneca (de ira 1.16.5) adduced below in the text. 52 Cic. Brut. 107: ut ex ... L. Accio poeta sum audire solitus ... eum Scipionem, quo duce privato Ti. Gracchus occisus esset, cum omnibus in rebus vehementem tum acrem aiebat in dicendo fuisse. On Nasicas yumw, passion, see also Diod. 34/35.7.2, and the comments by P. Botteri, Les fragments de lhistoire des Gracques dans la Bibliothque de Diodore de Sicile (Genve 1992), pp. 59-60. 53 Cic. de off. 1.109: (Nasicam) illum qui Ti. Gracchi conatus perditos vindicavit, nullam comitatem habuisse sermonis <et> ob eamque rem magnum et clarum fuisse. Cf. A. R. Dyck, A Commentary on Ciceros De Officiis (Ann Arbor 1996), pp. 27879. 54 Cf. J. Le Gall, Recherches sur le culte du Tibre (Paris 1953), pp. 8896.

102

Historia et Ius

353

and cannot be explained as a sacrifice.55 He points out that at the end of his life Tiberius could be regarded, and indeed was regarded by his killers, as sacer, an outlaw: by the deposition of Octavius he had violated the sacrosanct regulations of the tribunate, and was believed to aspire to regnum, a tyranny. On the other hand according to a religious rule it was not allowed to offer the homo sacer as a sacrifice.56 If Nasicas action was not a sacrifice, then what was it? It is perhaps impossible to be certain how to interpret the information we have Badian states rather resignedly. Perhaps, he says, the attire of Nasica was meant to convey vague priestly authority. Very doubtful, for Nasicas position was well defined: he was the pontifex maximus, and was identified as an official person by his praetexta, and it must have been for a very special reason that he covered his head, a reason that still remains a mystery for us. Or, perhaps the sacrificial interpretation was elaborated later when the coincidence of there being no iron used in the killing was noted and as is well known implements made of iron were not employed in Roman sacrificial ceremonies.57 But was it really a coincidence that no iron was used? This idea relies on the account of Plutarch, but I suspect too much has been read into his straightforward statement. Plutarch (Tib. Gr. 19.6) says that more than three hundred of the followers of Tiberius were slain by blows from sticks and stones, but no one perished sidr. But this is not to be taken literally in the sense by iron, but certainly in the meaning by sword, as this word is always and correctly rendered in all translations of Plutarch. We have to remember that the carrying of weapons was not allowed in the city: in urbe and in publico, as our sources qualify it58 (perhaps orig55 Badian, Three Fragments (n. 25), pp. 45. Again all quotations in the text are taken from these pages. 56 Festus 424 L. s.v. sacer: At homo sacer is est, quem populus iudicavit ob maleficium; neque fas est eum immolari, sed, qui occidit, parricidi non damnatur. The mention of the judgment of the people is troubling, for in strict ius sacrum the transgressor became sacer automatically upon committing his impious crime. A proclamation (sacer esto) was probably always necessary and preliminary to the killing (cf. n. 109), but the killer could be tried for murder if there was doubt whether his victim had really committed the crime. The iudicatio of the popular assembly would establish that fact; next would follow the sacratio and the execution. {Badian, The Pig (n. 1), p. 270, n. 34, perceptively observes that The phrase sacer esto can only apply to a future state: Let him (henceforth) be sacer. The actual formula of proclamation does not seem to be on record: perhaps sacer est, but this appears languid; hence rather a fuller formula, e.g., Iovi sacer est. But I still would prefer to preserve esto. On the divine level the miscreant became sacer automatically ipso facto, but on the human level this status of his was to be activated by a solemn pronouncement. Sacer esto would thus correspond to the known legal phrases with esto (iudex, testis, heres, damnas) which effected the transformation of the status of the person concerned.} 57 The claim repeated in Tiberius Gracchus (n. 1), pp. 72526. Cf. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus (n. 42), pp. 3435. {Badian, The Pig (n. 1), pp. 27072, very ably defends the ritual interpretation, and I now embrace his view. It fits much better into the sequence of various ritual steps delineated in this essay.} 58 Cf. T. Mommsen, Rmisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899), pp. 564 n. 2, 65758 n. 1. The earliest sources refer to the late republican period, but this must have been an old prohibition {but see the remarks of Badian, The Pig (n. 1), pp. 27172}.

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

103

354

inally only within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of the city which included the Capitol though not the Arx). The Gracchans and their opponents were armed with clubs and sticks; they were preparing for a fight but not for a war or coup dtat. However it might have been, this question of iron or of weaponry has no immediate bearing upon our main puzzle: it is the gesture of Nasica that must remain the point of departure for our inquiry. And finally, and least likely, perhaps it was C. Gracchus who first put the known facts together into a picture of brutal and sacrilegious parody. Few people will contest that C. Gracchus presented in his speech the murder of Tiberius as a brutal sacrilege, but he certainly did not excogitate the story of Nasicas velatio in fact we do not know if he ever mentioned it. Sacrilege or not, the interpretatio of the Gracchani does not enlighten us a bit as to the real significance of Nasicas gesture when he capite velato proceeded against Tiberius. We are here Badian writes on ground that is wholly non-rational: a complex of primitive emotion and (to us) alien mysticism. It must suffice to show that Earls explanation is moving in the right realm.59 VII. We must not despair. The historian cannot abdicate half of his patrimony, however alien this half might appear to him. Perhaps another approach is needed. On which occasion was a magistrate or a priest required to cover his head? Besides the sacrifice ritu Romano there were two other archaic rites which had to be performed capite velato: the devotio and the consecratio. The devotio need not detain us for too long. At this ceremony the imperator who devoted himself to the infernal deities to bring down doom upon the enemy pronounced capite velato the formula of devotio and rode away into the midst of the foe incinctus cinctu Gabino.60 Plutarch and Appian do not describe this rite.
59 Historians have been in general reluctant to enter this alien and non-rational ground. Of the studies that have appeared after Earls book, H. C. Boren, The Gracchi (New York 1968), p. 69, admits the possibility that Nasicas velatio was intended to suggest that he was ready to offer a religious sacrificein the person of Tiberius; A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968), p. 183, grants that Nasica appeared in the sacrificial dress of the pontifex maximus, but unfortunately he amalgamates velatio and cinctus Gabinus (cf. below, n. 60); so also A. H. Bernstein, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. Tradition and Apostasy (Ithaca 1978), p. 223 n. 65, who speaks vaguely (and incorrectly) of the possible significance of the cinctus Gabinus. The same confusion in E. Rawson, Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century BC at Rome, Phoenix 28 (1974), pp. 19495 (reprinted in: Eadem, Roman Culture and Society [Oxford 1991], pp. 15051); and in Bauman, Five Pronouncements (n. 9), p. 237. And finally D. Stockton, The Gracchi (Oxford 1979), p. 76 n. 43, in a frightening display of sober-mindedness proclaims himself impervious to any fancy theories of a symbolic significance of Nasicas gesture. {Regrettably equally pedestrian is also the account by A. E. Astin, Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford 1967), pp. 21726.} 60 Liv. 8.9.410; 10.7.3. Cf. the classic study by L. Deubner, Die Devotion der Decier, Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft 8, Beiheft (1905), pp. 6681, and see now H. S. Versnel, Two Types of Roman Devotio, Mnemosyne 29 (1976), pp. 365410; C. Guittard, Tite Live, Accius, et le

104
355

Historia et Ius

There was no reason for Nasica to devote himself to do away with Tiberius, and above all, he was not an imperator, and hence he was not entitled to perform this ceremony. His action was not meant as either devotio, coniuratio (as some had thought61) or sacrifice. It was consecratio, the consecratio capitis.62 By this act the miscreant was abandoned to the gods to be destroyed by their wrath which guided a human hand. We are at the crossroads of politics, religion and law. Our inquiry carries us straight into a strange land, the land of sacred laws, sacrosanctity and open killings of men forfeited to a deity. VIII. The officiant performed this awesome rite capite velato,63 and this leads us back to the toga of Nasica. Why did the author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium describe his toga as contorta, twisted? This question opens the gates to the land of death. Kornemann and Tod, we remember, took, undoubtedly rightly, Appians t parasm to sxmatow to refer to the purple border of the toga praetexta, and
rituel de la deuotio, CRAI (1984), pp. 581600. The cinctus Gabinus, the essential feature of which was the girding up of the toga, is not to be conflated with the simple velatio; cf. J. Marquardt, Das Privatleben der Rmer2 (Leipzig 1877), pp. 56062; Freier, Caput velare (n. 39), pp. 1620; Bonfante Warren, Roman Costumes (n. 40), pp. 6067; F. Fless, Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadrmischen historischen Reliefs (Mainz 1995), pp. 7778. On the other hand, A. Dubourdieu, Deux dfinitions du cinctus Gabinus chez Servius, in: D. Porte and J.-P. Nraudau (eds.), Hommages Henri Le Bonniec: Res sacrae (Collection Latomus 201 [Bruxelles 1988]), pp. 16370, decided to refrain from any definition. 61 Cf. Lintott, Violence (n. 59), pp. 91, 153, 183, 221. But of the most important feature of a coniuratio, the oath taking, there is no trace in the sources concerning Nasica and Tiberius. 62 On this ritual, see e.g. G. Crif, Exilica causa, quae adversus exulem agitur, in: Du chtiment dans la cit. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome 79 [Rome 1984]), pp. 45680, with ample literature, and for still ampler literature, see J. Linderski in the review of Du chtiment, CP 82 (1987), p. 379 n. 7 {reprinted in this volume, No. 18}. Badian, Tiberius Gracchus (n. 1), p. 725, observes in passing that the gesture of Nasica presumably ... was meant to authenticate the consecratio, but unfortunately he did not follow up this thread. To my knowledge the first scholar to speak of the consecratio of Tiberius was A. Mellor in his rather bad book Les conceptions du crime politique sous la rpublique Romaine (Paris 1934), pp. 6063 (he does not distinguish clearly between sacratio, sacrificium and supplicium). Cf. Bauman, Five Pronouncements (n. 9), p. 232 n. 5 (this note is misleading for most authors there cited speak of consecratio only in general and not specifically of the consecratio of Tiberius); Idem, Lawyers (n. 8), pp. 27374 (but it is incorrect to describe consecratio as a sacrificial act). More recently B. Stanley Spaeth, The Goddess Ceres and the Death of Tiberius Gracchus, Historia 39 (1990), pp. 19293, has astutely remarked that the actual killing of Tiberius corresponds in certain important ways to a consecratio capitis, but she did not provide a detailed elaboration. See also the excellent short account in her book The Roman Goddess Ceres (Austin 1996), pp. 7678 (but again no discussion of the sources and terminology). R. Fiori, Homo sacer (Napoli 1996), p. 421, also speaks of sacratio, but refuses to assign any ritual significance in this respect to the misterioso gesto di Nasica. 63 Cic. de domo 124 (with reference to consecratio bonorum). Cf. R. G. Nisbet, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Domo Sua ad Pontifices Oratio (Oxford 1939), pp. 21011; F. Salerno, Dalla consecratio alla publicatio bonorum (Napoli 1990), esp. pp. 930.

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

105

356

357

believed that by veiling his head Nasica was able to display this badge of rank in a particularly prominent way. They seem, however, to have been unaware, as most historians still are, of the controversy surrounding the clavus of the toga praetexta. The clavus appears to have been woven into the toga itself,64 so that apparently it was not possible to distinguish between the inner and the outer side of the toga praetexta. There existed, however, a clear difference between the upper and the lower edge: the former was cut straight, the latter had an elliptic shape.65 On the face of it the purple border of the toga would mean a border encircling the whole of the garment, and in fact this seems to be a common (though not always clearly articulated) belief. Yet more than seventy years ago Lon Heuzey and Walther Amelung independently arrived at a remarkable conclusion: the clavus was placed only and exclusively at the upper straight edge of the toga.66 So far so good: as it was the upper hem that was pulled up from behind to cover the back of the head,67 the clavus of the velatus and praetextatus would be very well visible. Thus the theory of Heuzey and Amelung not only does not contradict, but perhaps even supports the interpretation of Kornemann and Tod. But let us continue. Amelung based his view on an analysis of monuments from the imperial period only; Heuzey adduced both republican and imperial sculptures and paintings, but he also interpreted away or rejected those monuments which did not square with his idea, for instance the statue of the so-called Arringatore. Nevertheless the reaction had been slow in coming. It is only recently that Klaus Fittschen has attempted to uphold a directly opposite view: the purple border ran along the rounded lower edge.68 The representations of the clavus are indeed confusing, and literary sources offer little or no help.69 On the statue of the so-called Etruscan Orator,70 in Florence, the famous Arringatore, there is a clear indication of a broad border at
64 L. M. Wilson, The Roman Toga (Baltimore 1924), pp. 3536, 5556; Bonfante Warren, Roman Costumes (n. 40), p. 591. 65 Fr. W. Goethert, Toga, RE 6A (1937), pp. 165455; Bonfante Warren, Roman Costumes (n. 40), pp. 590, 61213 (with further literature). 66 L. Heuzey, Histoire du costume antique (Paris 1922), pp. 24552 (the chapter on the toga goes back to his articles published still in 1897); W. Amelung, Die Gewandung der alten Griechen und Rmer. Erklrender Text zu den Tafeln XVI bis XX von S. Cybulski, Tabulae quibus antiquitates Graecae et Romanae illustrantur (Leipzig 1903), p. 47. Goethert and Bonfante do not go into this question; for the theory of Wilson, see below in the text, and n. 77. 67 Cf. E. H. Richardson and L. Richardson, Ad Cohibendum Bracchium Toga: An Archaeological Examination of Cicero, Pro Caelio 5.11, YCS 19 (1966), p. 260. 68 K. Fittschen, Der Arringatore, ein rmischer Brger?, MDAI, Rm. Abt. 77 (1970), p. 179 n. 17. 69 Heuzey, Histoire du costume (n. 66), p. 252, quotes Persius, Sat. 5.33, iam candidus umbo, referring to the toga pura of a boy who had just laid down his praetexta. But it is generally agreed that umbo here stands as pars pro toto, cf. Scholia ad loc. (ed. O. Jahn, [Leipzig 1843], p. 324): Candidus umbo, sunekdoxikw pro toga, alioquin et in praetexta candidus umbo est. If we accept the information of the Scholia that also the umbo of the toga praetexta was white, then, contrary to what Heuzey attempted to prove, we must place the purple border at the elliptic edge. 70 R. E. A. Palmer, in an unpublished article, argues persuasively that the statue does not represent an orator but a magistrate (or a priest) in the act of oath-taking.

106

Historia et Ius

358

the lower rim of the toga.71 Whether it was a purple border, this is the question. It may have been colored,72 but no trace of paint is visible today. Hence the particular importance of frescoes. The late republican paintings from Delos, which strangely enough have not been fully utilized in this context, support the conclusion derived tentatively from the arrangement of the toga of the Arringatore. On Delos the purple border is consistently depicted at the lower edge of the toga, and it is not discernible at all on the heads of the velati.73 Yet it would be premature to conclude that Fittschen is right, Heuzey and Amelung wrong. The magnificent wall paintings from the Tomba Franois in Vulci seem to offer equally decisive support to the theory of Heuzey and Amelung. They depict a scene from Etruscan history. A group of aristocratic warriors are surprised, apparently in their sleep, by their enemies. The white mantle of Pesna Arcmsnas, drawn over his head, with its red trimming standing out at the upper edge and as if encircling his whole figure, slides down behind him; the assailant, Rasce of Vulci, drives his sword into Pesnas bare chest. Also another victim, Laris Papathnas of Volsinii, was clad for the night in an identical mantle.74 This mantle can best be identified as a sort of toga praetexta.75 Far away in time and space we encounter the same arrangement of the clavus in the picture of Genius in the lararium of the

71 See T. Dohrn, Der Arringatore (Monumenta Artis Romanae 8 [Berlin 1968), esp. plates 2, 3, 7, 20.2, 21.2; L. Bonfante, Etruscan Dress (Baltimore 1975), pp. 19091. According to Fittschen, Arringatore (n. 68), p. 179 n. 17, a border at the lower hem also seems to be represented on the republican statue of a togatus in Copenhagen; on the photograph of the statue one can hardly see any clear indication of the border, see Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Billedtavler til Kataloget over Antike Kunstvaerker (Copenhagen 1907), plate 40, no. 528, but a recent autopsy attests indeed to this location of the clavus: see H. Gabelmann, Rmische Kinder in toga praetexta, JDAI 100 (1985), p. 526 n. 134. 72 Plin. Nat. Hist. 34.98: Cyprio si addatur plumbum, colos purpurae fit in statuarum praetextis; Bonfante Warren, Roman Costumes (n. 40), p. 611; and above all P. Reuterswrd, Studien zur Polychromie der Plastik. Griechenland und Rom (Stockholm 1960), esp. pp. 18889, 211. 73 M. Bulard, Description des revtements peints sujets religieux (Exploration archologique de Dlos 9 [Paris 1926]), pp. 46, 82-83, 14142; plates VII 2, XXI and esp. XIX. In his other book, La religion domestique dans la colonie Italienne de Dlos (BEFAR 131 [Paris 1926]), p. 29 n. 1, Bulard registers his surprise that the paintings from Delos contradict the theory, pourtant si logique, of Heuzey, but he drew no conclusion and offered no solution. 74 F. Messerschmidt, Nekropolen von Vulci (JDAI Ergnzungsheft 12 [Berlin 1930]), pp. 13753, esp. 14142, plates 18, 21. Alfldi, Early Rome (n. 46), pp. 22131, plates 9 and 10, offers a fascinating historical interpretation of the paintings. See now a different, but equally fascinating interpretation by F. Coarelli, Le pitture della tomba Franois a Vulci. Una proposta di lettura, Dialoghi di Archeologia 2 (1983), pp. 4369, reprinted in: Idem, Revixit Ars (Roma 1996), pp. 13878. For the old custom of using the toga also as the night dress, see Varro in Nonius 86768 L. 75 Alfldi, Early Rome (n. 46), p. 223, maintains that it corresponded to the Roman trabea, but the trabea was not white. Cf. H. Gabelmann, Die ritterliche trabea, JDAI 92 (1977), pp. 32272, esp. 32430, 36567. Unfortunately Gabelmanns reconstruction of the historical development of the trabea and toga praetexta as symbols of rank is marred by serious misconceptions. He confuses the patriciate and the nobility, and speaks of the separation at the time of the Gracchi of the knights from the patriciate (p. 369).

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

107

359

House of the Vettii in Pompeii. He wears the toga praetexta pulled over the head, the red border prominently displayed at the upper rim.76 No perspicacity is required to see that neither the theory of Heuzey and Amelung nor that of Fittschen does justice to the monuments. But how are we to make sense of this contradictory material? Lillian Wilson (in 1924) and Hanns Gabelmann (in 1979) advanced an ingenious solution: on the toga exigua of the Republic the purple border was fixed at the lower semicircular edge, but with the advent under Augustus of a much more voluminous toga it was transferred to the upper straight rim. It now appeared prominently in the umbo and sinus, and stood out at the velatio.77 An Augustan reform of official costumes is appealing. Emeline Hill Richardson and Lawrence Richardson suggest that the large toga was introduced to make possible the velatio capitis without disturbing the drape of the rest of the toga.78 This is attractive and perhaps probable; but one is more reluctant to admit with Gabelmann the migration of the clavus. The purple border was not just a decoration that could be moved at will; its value was symbolic and magical, political and religious. Besides denoting the social position, a rank, it prominently had also an apotropaic function enclosing and protecting the most treasured members of the society: children, priests and magistrates.79 I bring to your attention we read in a declamatio the very sanctity of togas bordered with purple, which envelops priests, magistrates, and by which we render the tenderness of childhood sacred and inviolate.80 The toga praetexta was not simply and solely a garment or even an official attire; in some of

76 G. K. Boyce, Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii, MAAR 14 (1937), p. 54, plate 30,2 (no. 211); cf. p. 75, plate 19,2 (no. 349); H. Kunckel, Der rmische Genius (MDAI, Rm. Abt., 20 Ergnzungsheft [Heidelberg 1974]), p. 29 (the House of the Vettii), pp. 90100 (a corpus of Genii capite velato); tab. 31 (L. 20), 33 (L. 63), 34 (L. 64), 35 (L. 67). No discussion of the clavus. 77 Wilson, The Roman Toga (n. 64), p. 54; H. Gabelmann, Ein Eques Romanus auf einem afrikanischen Grabmosaik, JDAI 94 (1979), pp. 59698; in this article he does not quote Wilson, but he acknowledged her idea in a subsequent paper Rmische Kinder in toga praetexta, Ibid. 100 (1985), pp. 509, 52627. This idea has now been accepted by H. R. Goette, Studien zu rmischen Togadarstellungen (Mainz 1990), pp. 5, 100101. S. Stone, The Toga: From National to Ceremonial Costume, in: The World of Roman Costume, ed. by J. L. Sebesta and L. Bonfante (Madison 1994), pp. 1345, offers no discussion of the problem. 78 E. H. Richardson and L. Richardson, Ad Cohibendum Bracchium Toga (n. 67), p. 261. 79 Cf. S. Eitrem, Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Rmer (Kristiania 1915), p. 356; E. Wunderlich, Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Griechen und Rmer (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 20 [Giessen 1925]), pp. 8384. 80 (Ps.)-Quint., Decl. Min. 340 (see the Teubner editions by C. Ritter [Lipsiae 1884]), p. 345, lines 1013 and D. R. Shackleton Bailey [Stuttgardiae 1989], p. 308, lines 24): ego vobis allego etiam ipsum [ipsum illud SB] sacrum praetextarum, quo sacerdotes velantur, quo magistratus, quo infirmitatem pueritiae sacram facimus ac venerabilem. Cf. decl. 349 (p. 374, lines 2122 Ritter; p. 332, lines 910 SB), and above all Pers. Sat. 5.30, where the purpura is described as the guardian, custos, of a boy. See also W. W. Fowler, On the Toga Praetexta of Roman Children, CR 10 (1896), pp. 31719, reprinted with additions in: Idem, Roman Essays and Interpretations (Oxford 1920), pp. 4252.

108

Historia et Ius

360

its applications and manifestations it appeared as a holy object. It is therefore very doubtful that Augustus and the pontiffs, who were in charge of the res sacrae, should have contemplated and still less carried out any innovation in religious symbolism without an overwhelmingly compelling reason. Vogue was no reason. At this juncture one might be tempted to leave the clavus by itself and issue a cautious verdict of non liquet. Yet the arrangement of clavus is bound to bear upon our interpretation of Nasicas gesture. It is indeed possible (if we discard the paintings from Vulci as Etruscan and not Roman) that under the Republic the purple border resided at the lower rim of the toga. This would have robbed the gesture of Nasica of much of its dramatic prominence, unless of course as Wilamowitz thought81 he chose to cover his head with the lower hem of his toga. It would have been a highly unusual and awkward gesture, but perhaps Nasica meant it to be so. In this way he would not only have attracted the attention of the people, but would also have freed his legs from the folds of the toga, a thing of some practical importance as he was leading the attack against the Gracchani. And the Auctor ad Herennium (4.68) may have had this unusual arrangement of the toga in mind when he described Nasicas attire as contorta toga. As far as Nasica is concerned this might be regarded a perfect explanation, but it is not an elegant explanation for it leaves unresolved the contradiction between the various representations of the clavus. It would be tempting to uphold the belief that the purple trimming was woven into both hems of the toga praetexta. The paintings from Vulci and Pompeii are perhaps inconclusive in this respect (the artists may not have taken enough care to depict the lower hem exactly or at all), but the cumulative evidence of the Arringatore and above all of the paintings from Delos tells strongly against any such assumption. We have to explore other avenues. It is possible, just possible, that there existed more than one sort of toga praetexta: one with the border at the upper edge, and the other with the border at the lower edge. We might suppose that the former was the attire of kings, magistrates and priests (this would fit the velatio of Nasica) and also of deities (this would account for the representation of Genius in Pompeii). The toga with the purple border at the lower hem would be reserved for those various non-senatorial officials who had the right to appear as praetextati at their public functions. This privilege is attested for municipal magistrates82 and it would provide an obvious explanation for the border on the toga of the Arringatore. The person whom the statue represents was undoubtedly a member of the local aristocracy; this we can infer from his ring, his senatorial (or patrician) shoes and the stripes on his tunica. The border on his toga identifies him as a (local) magistrate or priest.83 A number of testimonies refer to the toga praetexta of the magistri vicorum. Cicero and Asconius state expressly that the magistri of vici and collegia were praetextati when they celebrated the feast
81 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Griechisches Lesebuch vol. II part 1 (Berlin 1929), p. 78. Wilamowitz confuses, however, the velatio capitis with the cinctus Gabinus (cf. above, nn. 59, 60). 82 Liv. 34.7.2; Horat. Sat. 1.5.3436. 83 Fittschen, Arringatore (n. 68), pp. 17884; Palmer (n. 70).

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

109

of the Compitalia and arranged the ludi compitalicii.84 The paintings from Delos provide an eloquent illustration to the literary sources. They show the togati and velati, some of them praetextati, offering the sacrifices. The persons wearing the toga praetexta are almost certainly to be interpreted as the kompetaliasta,85 i.e. magistri compitales,86 although it is possible that on Delos as in Rome also the magistri of other collegia participated in the organization of the feast and the games. This said we have to concede it is rather a thankless task to try to find a cogent justification for the postulated opposition in rank and class between the upper and lower hem. First of all, as far as the social division is concerned, the magistri vicorum, most of them freedmen, were separated from the municipal magistrates by as broad a gulf as the latter from the senatorial aristocracy. The literary sources do not allude to any such distinction; quite on the contrary when Livy says that even a most humble sort of men, the foremen of wards, had the right to wear the toga praetexta,87 he seems to imply that there was no difference between the toga praetexta of the high magistrates and the toga praetexta of the magistri vicorum.
361

IX. If we consider that the toga praetexta was a holy garment, we may well seek the reason for the startling lack of consistency in the representation of its border not in the vogue, class or rank, but rather in the cult and religio. A Latin phrase may offer a clue to the mystery of the peripatetic purple stripe. Toga perversa persequi meant to hound one down to the bitter end. Petronius knows it as a proverbial saying,88
84 Cic. Pis. 8; Asc. ad loc., p. 7 Clark; Liv. 34.7.2-3. 85 So A. Grenier, Vicomagister, Dict. des Ant. 5, pp. 82829. Bulard, La religion domestique (n. 73), p. 30, disagrees: any person could wear the toga praetexta when sacrificing. This is hardly likely, though not impossible. Cf. Plin. Nat. hist. 9.127: (purpura) dis advocatur placandis, and Serv. auct ad Aen. 12.169: magistratus et sacrificaturi togam praetextam habent (Bulard cites neither of these texts). Yet both texts probably refer to the public cult; Servius comments on Vergils puraque in veste sacerdos. Paulus (Fest. 143 L) says that the women (mulieres) sacrificed to Mutinus Titinus (on this deity, see R. E. A. Palmer, Roman Empire and Roman Religion [Philadelphia 1974], pp. 186206, 27076) velatae togis praetextatis. Paulus here uses the term mulieres incorrectly. Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus (n. 42), p. 243, saw clearly that it was the puellae who vor der Eheschliessung zum letzten Male noch in ihrer Mdchenkleidung opferten. This is certainly a better explanation than Palmers idea (p. 196) that the mulieres worshipped this god of fertility with their heads covered with suffibulum (as the Vestals were dressed during their sacrifices). On suffibulum, cf. above, n. 42, and also H. Dragendorff, Die Amtstracht der Vestalinnen, RhM 51 (1896), pp. 29194; L. La Follette, The Costume of the Roman Bride, in: The World of Roman Costume (n. 77), pp. 5759. 86 See J. Linderski, Der Staat und die Vereine, in: Gesellschaft und Recht im griechischrmischen Altertum, vol. I (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schriften der Sektion fr Altertumswissenschaft 52 [Berlin 1968]), pp. 108, 11516, reprinted in: Idem, Roman Questions (n. 11), pp. 179, 18687, and Addenda, pp. 64647 {and in this volume Addenda altera to RQ, No. 15}; Idem, Magistri, OCD3 (1996), pp. 91112 {reprinted in this volume, No. 35.1}. 87 Liv. 34.7.2: hic Romae infimo generi, magistratis vicorum, togae praetextae habendae ius permittemus. 88 Petr. Sat. 58.12 (Hermeros threatens Ascyltos): nisi te toga ubique perversa fuero persecutus.

110

Historia et Ius

but the expression itself stems from the legal practice and the language of law. This follows with all clarity from Seneca, de ira 1.16.5, a passage that deserves to be reproduced in full:
itaque, et si perversa induenda magistratui vestis et convocanda classico contio est, procedam in tribunal non furens nec infestus, sed voltu legis, et illa sollemnia verba leni magis gravique quam rabida voce concipiam et agi iubebo non iratus sed severus. Et cum cervicem noxio imperabo praecidi et cum parricidas insuam culeo et cum mittam in supplicium militare et cum Tarpeio proditorem hostemve publicum imponam, sine ira eo voltu animoque ero, quo serpentes et animalia venenata percutio. Even if as a magistrate I have to don my garment in the reversed way and summon the public meeting by the sound of trumpet,89 I shall proceed to the tribunal not in rage nor in rancor, but with the visage of the law, and I shall pronounce those solemn words in a voice gentle and grave rather than furious, and when I order to carry out (the law)90 I shall not be angry but stern. And when I command that a criminal be beheaded, or sew up a parricide in the sack, or send a person to be executed in a military way 91 or stand a traitor or public enemy upon the Tarpeian Rock, I shall show no anger, but shall display such countenance and shall be of such mind as I might if I were cutting down snakes or any venomous creatures.

362

Here also belongs the text of Valerius Maximus 9.12.7 in the section discussing unusual circumstances of death, de mortibus non vulgaribus. Licinius Macer, the historian and the father of Licinius Calvus the orator, stood trial for extortion. When the sententiae of the jurors were counted, Macer retreated to a maenianum, a balcony, and committed suicide by choking himself to death with the help of a towel when he observed that (the praetor) M. Cicero, who presided over the court, put off his praetexta and was about to read out the verdict (cum M. Ciceronem, qui id iudicium cogebat, praetextam ponentem vidisset sudario ... ore et faucibus suis coartatis incluso spiritu poenam morte praecurrit). Macer preferred to die as an accused (reus) and not as a damnatus; in this way he was able to save his property

89 The translation and comments by J. W. Basore, Seneca, Moral Essays I, pp. 14647 (Loeb Class. Library [1928]), are unreliable. It is incorrect to translate contio as assembly for here Seneca does not speak of a meeting of the deliberating comitia but of a gathering that only assisted at the proclamation and carrying out of a capital sentence (cf. above, n. 6). Varro, de ling. Lat. 6.9092, does not belong here for the commentarium vetus anquisitionis which he quotes does not refer to the execution of a criminal, but to the summoning of the comitia centuriata to try a person charged with a capital offence. Mommsen, Strafrecht (n. 58), p. 916 n. 1, compares Seneca, Contr. 9.2.10 and Tac. Ann. 2.32.3. 90 On the formula lege age, see Mommsen, Strafrecht (n. 58), p. 916 n. 4. 91 This passage is regularly mistranslated. Basore, Seneca, Moral Essays (n. 89), I, p. 149, prints or send a soldier to his doom. A. Bourgery, Snque, Dialogues I (Coll. Bud [Paris 1951]), p. 20, has quand jenverrai au supplice rserv aux soldats. This does not make any sense. Cum cervicem noxio imperabo praecidi refers to the traditional Roman method of beheading with the axe; cum mittam in supplicium militare refers to the beheading in the military fashion with the sword. Cf. Mommsen, Strafrecht (n. 58), pp. 91618, 92325.

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

111

363

from confiscation and preserve it for his family. When Cicero learnt of Macers death he did not pronounce the verdict (de eo nihil pronuntiavit).92 There exists an obvious similarity between the situations described by Valerius Maximus and by Seneca. It is true that Seneca refers to the robe of the magistrate at the carrying out of the actual execution, Valerius Maximus speaks of the pronouncement of the verdict of guilty in a standing court. Now in the republican quaestiones perpetuae the verdict of guilty was not followed by any physical execution, the convicted being allowed to go into exile. But the accusation of extortion was a capital charge; and the convicted by going into exile was losing his caput in its sense of the existence as a citizen.93 When Cicero put off his praetexta, he certainly did not preside over the court clad only in a tunic. Mommsen argued that the expressions togam (praetextam) ponere and togam perversam induere were synonymous: one put off ones praetexta by wearing it reversed.94 Seneca solves this puzzle. As the next step Cicero would have donned his toga as the vestis perversa. Thus in the context of court procedure and the capital charge, praetextam ponere automatically implied togam perversam induere, and thus the verdict of guilty. Hence the swift reaction of the unfortunate and desperate Macer. The magistrate who was about to pronounce a capital verdict and to command that the execution be carried out95 wore his toga praetexta96 in a special reversed way. This can mean one of the three things: he could wear it inside out, back to
92 This story is valid only if in the late republican period the poena repetundarum was capital. Not all are of this opinion, but see now a cogent defense of the anecdote and of its legal implications by U. Laffi, La morte del reo nel procedimento de repetundis, in: Studi in onore di Albino Garzetti (Brescia 1996), pp. 231-256 (with ample literature){reprinted in U. Laffi, Studi di storia romana e diritto (Roma 2001), pp. 559-585, with a postilla, p. 586}. 93 Cf. E. L. Grasmck, Exilium. Untersuchungen zur Verbannung in der Antike (Padeborn 1978), pp. 62 ff., esp. 7780, 9598. 94 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, I3 (n. 48), p. 419; Strafrecht (n. 58), p. 916. Mommsens idea has recently been revived by B. Gladigow, Die sakralen Funktionen der Liktoren, ANRW I, 2 (1972), p. 307 n. 80. In fact this is a very unlikely proposition. Two texts are of importance here. At the ceremony of aquaelicium (cf. below, n. 97) the magistrates purpuras ponunt, fasces retro avertunt, put off their purple and reverse the fasces (Tert. de ieiunio 16). This obviously means that the magistrates put off their purple bordered togas and put on as a sign of mourning either the simple white togas or perhaps the dark colored ones, the togae pullae. Quite similarly at the funeral procession of Germanicus the magistrates appear sine insignibus, i.e. they put off their praetextae, and the fasces are reversed, versi (Tac. Ann. 3.2.2; 3.4.1). 95 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, I3 (n. 48), p. 419 n. 7, mistakenly states that it was the accusing magistrate (der anklagende Magistrat) who wore his toga reversed. Of course in some cases, as in the old procedure of inquisitio and anquisitio, the accusing and the presiding magistrate was one and the same person. Also in the procedure based upon the magisterial coercitio and cognitio the pronouncement of the verdict and the execution of the criminal could easily be amalgamated into a single judicial act (cf. Mommsen, Strafrecht [n. 58], p. 911), and the presiding magistrate functioned not only as a judge but also as an investigator, a function that belonged in the system of the quaestiones to the accusator. Cf. E. Klebs, Petroniana, Philologus Suppl. 6 (18911893), pp. 66365; L. Friedlnder, Petronii Cena Trimalchionis2 (Leipzig 1906), p. 306. 96 In the light of other sources there can be no doubt that by vestis Seneca denotes the magisterial toga praetexta.

112

Historia et Ius

364

front or upside down. The first two arrangements would hardly have produced a desired effect. Even if we grant that there existed a certain distinction between the front and the back of the toga or the inner and the outer side, it certainly was not so pronounced as to be easily discernible at a distance. On the other hand if the magistrate put on his praetexta upside down the rounded lower edge would become the upper edge and together with it also the purple border would move upwards to produce a strikingly unusual arrangement of the garment which would amply justify the expression toga perversa. Roman funeral customs corroborate this interpretation. When the body of Germanicus was carried through Italy to Rome the hearse was preceded, as Tacitus reports, by incompta signa, versi fasces, unadorned standards and reversed fasces.97 Still more telling is the comment of Servius auctus on Vergil, Aen. 11.93: versis Arcades armis, the Arcadians with arms reversed. He says that at funerals the ancients did everything in a reversed way.98 The world of the dead was an upside down copy of the world of the living: versi fasces, versa arma and the toga perversa are manifestations of this very widespread belief.99 The pictorial representations of the clavus are not opposed to this reconstruction. The warriors of the Tomba Franois are depicted at the very moment of their death, and hence it is not surprising to see the red border over their heads.100 If the cult of Lares and of Genius was connected at least in some of its manifestations with the cult of ancestors,101 then it would be wholly appropriate for the Genius to
97 Tac. Ann. 3.2.2. E. Koestermann ad loc. (Cornelius Tacitus. Annalen, vol. I [Heidelberg 1963], p. 419) compares Epicedium Drusi 142: quos primum vidi fasces, in funere vidi, et vidi versos iudiciumque mali. Also at the ceremony of aquaelicium, when the magistrates walked in a solemn procession to entreat Jupiter to produce rain, they had their fasces reversed (Tert. de ieiunio 16; cf. above, n. 94). On a possible connection of aquaelicium with the underworld, see Gladigow, Die sakralen Funktionen der Liktoren (n. 94), pp. 307 n. 80, 312 n. 117. 98 Serv. Aen. 11.93: lugentum more mucronem hastae, non cuspidem contra terram tenentes, (Serv. auct.) quoniam antiqui nostri omnia contraria in funere faciebant. See J. Scheid, Contraria facere: renversements et dplacements dans les rites funraires, AION, Sezione di Archeologia e Storia Antica 6 (1984), pp. 11739, esp 119, 12627, 13738. 99 See H. Kenner, Das Phnomen der verkehrten Welt in der griechisch-rmischen Antike (Klagenfurt 1970), esp. pp. 95102. 100 On the symbolic connection between death and the red color, see the classic studies by H. Diels, Sibyllinische Bltter (Berlin 1890), pp. 6970; and E. Samter, Familienfeste der Griechen und Rmer (Berlin 1901), pp. 5257. Cf. also F. von Duhn, Rot und Tot, Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft 9 (1906), pp. 124. 101 This is not the place to enter into the controversy concerning the origin and the nature of the cult of Lares, the high point of which was the famous dispute between Samter and Wissowa at the beginning of the last century: see Samter, Familienfeste (n. 100), pp. 10523; Idem, Der Ursprung des Larenkultes, Archiv fr Religionswissenschaft 10 (1907), pp. 36892; G. Wissowa, Die Anfnge des rmischen Larenkultes, Ibid. 7 (1904), pp. 4257; Idem, Religion und Kultus (n. 42), pp. 16675. It is, however, important to note that the discovery in ca. 1947 in Tor Tignosa, not far from Lavinium, of an archaic dedication to Lar Aineias or Aenias seems to have tilted the scales in favor of Samters theory of a connection between the Lares and the cult of ancestors. See M. Guarducci, Cippo latino arcaico con dedica ad Enea, BCAR 76 (195658), pp. 113; Eadem, Enea e Vesta, MDAI, Rm. Abt. 78 (1971), pp. 7289, where she responded to the objections raised by H.-G. Kolbe, Lare Aineia?, MDAI, Rm. Abt. 77

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

113

have on some occasions the purple border of the toga on his veiled head.102 And finally this theory would provide a marvelous explanation of Nasicas gesture and of Appians text. On the togas of the sacrificing praetextati at the Delian Compitalia the clavi were consistently represented at the lower edge; apparently this was the usual arrangement of the praetexta, even at the sacrifice. X. Thus when Nasica displayed the purple border on his veiled head this was a striking arrangement: he was loudly proclaiming that he, the pontifex maximus, was proceeding to consecrate Tiberius and his followers to the wrath of the gods. The old religious and public regulations of the Republic, the leges sacratae, prescribed that the heads of those who attempted to establish tyranny (adfectatio regni), and of those who injured the tribunes of the plebs, be forfeited to Jupiter, the guarantor of the constitution.103 And who was better qualified to pronounce the curse than the pontifex maximus, iudex atque arbiter rerum divinarum humanarumque?104 Gracchus was holding his gathering (contio) in the area Capitolina, in front of the temple of Jupiter, standing on its steps. He began the proceedings with the traditional prayer to the gods, deos inciperet precari.105 It was at that moment (if we are to believe the Auctor ad Herennium) that Nasica appeared running out of Jupiters temple, evolat e templo Iovis.106 We know that the meeting of the senate
(1970), pp. 19, and proposed a corrected reading Lare Aenia (p. 80). Wissowa himself observed that the Genius often appears to continue the existence of the dead person in the netherworld (Religion u. Kultus, p. 176). The dream of a veiled Genius portended death to emperor Julian, Amm. Marc. 25.2.3; cf. H. Freier, Caput velare (n. 39), pp. 15053. For further discussion and further literature, see G. Dury-Moyaers, Ene et Lavinium (Coll. Latomus 174 [Bruxelles 1981]), pp. 24046. But there is a problem: the Genius wears his colored border on the straight (upper) nor the elliptical (lower) edge of the toga (cf. Gabelmann, Ein Eques [n. 77], p. 598). As Bulard, La religion domestique (n. 73), p. 53 n. 4, has observed, the painters in Pompeii usent parfois dune grande libert in their representations of the praetexta of the Genii. But it is possible that the toga with the border at the upper edge was ritually described as toga perversa. E. Herzog, Die lex sacrata und das sacrosanctum, Jahrbcher fr classische Philologie 22 (1876), pp. 14043, still the most convenient collection of all pertinent texts. See also R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy. Books 15 (Oxford 1965), pp. 252, 500503; {and most recently B. Liou-Gille, Les leges sacratae: esquisse historique, Euphrosyne 25 (1997) 6184}. Festus 200 L. Cf. the fine study by Z. Zmigryder-Konopka, Pontifex maximus iudex atque arbiter rerum divinarum humanarumque, Eos 34 (1932/33), pp. 36172. It is well to remember that according to at least part of the tradition the first tribunician college after the decemvirate was elected under the presidency of the pontifex maximus. So Liv. 3.54.5; Cic. Corn. (in Asc. 77 C.). Cf. Ogilvie, Commentary (n. 103), pp. 49495. Rhet. ad Her. 4.68. Also Velleius Paterculus (2.3.1-2) places Nasica on the podium of the temple: Tum Scipio Nasica ... circumdata laevo brachio togae lacinia ex superiore parte Capitolii summis gradibus insistens hortatus est, qui salvam vellent rem publicam, se sequerentur (Val. Max. 3.2.17, Plut. Ti. Gr. 19.3 and Liber de vir. ill. 64.7, place this proclamation in the senate; Appian, Bell. civ. 1.(16).68, has Nasica utter it on the way to the temple. It is logical to assume

365

102

103

104

105 106

114

Historia et Ius

366

took place in the temple of Fides.107 Thus Nasica would have first proceeded with a few accomplices to the Capitoline temple,108 and standing on its podium, behind the back of Tiberius, towering over the crowd, his head veiled, and the red border of his toga prominent, now the color of blood and death, he pronounced, under the gaze of Jupiter himself, the dreadful curse of consecration: Iovi sacer esto. Nasicas curse proved more potent than Gracchus prayer. The vaga multitudo, subito timore perterrita, fugere coepit, the fickle multitude, terrified with sudden fear, took to flight 109 and a visible testimony to the power of the Gods Tiberius fell.110

107

108

109

110

that Nasica uttered it at least twice: first he exhorted the senators, and then the people). Tum optimates, senatus atque equestris ordinis pars melior et maior, et intacta perniciosis consiliis plebs inruere in Gracchum stantem in area cum catervis suis ... is fugiens decurrensque clivo Capitolino, fragmine subsellii ictus vitam ... immatura morte finivit. Cf. Oros. 5.9.1. {Badian, The Pig (n. 1), pp. 26570, persuasively argues that the final blow was delivered by Scipio Nasica himself.} On the location of this temple in the south-west part of the area Capitolina, to the left of the clivus Capitolinus, see Coarelli, Le tyrannoctone (n. 30), pp. 15759, and 147, fig. 4; Freyburger, Fides (n. 7), pp. 26873; C. Reusser, Der Fidestempel auf dem Kapitol in Rom und seine Ausstattung (Roma 1993), pp. 6162; Idem, Fides populi Romani / Publica, in: Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae II (Roma 1995), pp. 24952. See Plut. Ti. Gr. 19.4: xrei prw t Kapetlion and Appian, Bell. civ. 1.(16).68: w t Kapitlion nesan. This does not mean that Nasica and his followers ran up the hill (as Meyer thought [n. 18], and more recently Bilinski [n. 30], p. 269); t Kapitlion denotes here, as often, the temple and not the hill. See Gabba, Appiani liber primus (n. 3), p. 50; Coarelli, Le tyrannoctone (n. 30), p. 144 n. 1; and before them already G. Riecken, Die Quellen zur Geschichte des Tiberius Gracchus (Diss. Erlangen 1911), pp. 15960. Rhet. ad Her. 4.68. They ran away from the pollution, contagio, spread by the sacer. Cf. the classic study by M. Kaser, Das altrmische ius (Gttingen 1949), pp. 4360, and in general on contagio, H. Wagenvoort, Roman Dynamism (Oxford 1947), pp. 12886 (to be used with caution). {The miscreant was forfeited to a particular deity: cf. Festus 422 Lindsay (as corrected in his edition in Glossaria Latina IV [Paris 1930], p. 413): sacratae leges sunt, quibus sanctum est, qui quid adversus ea fecerit, sacer alicui deorum si<t> (cf. Kaser 4445); hence here certainly Iovi. This was not a simple statement of fact, as in the standing courts where the formula was fecisse videri (or sim.). We deal with a curse which, like an oath, had to be solemnly uttered. In this respect we can compare sacratio to the later interdictio aqua et igni (cf. W. Kunkel, Quaestio, RE 24 [1964] 76568, reprinted in Idem, Kleine Schriften [Weimar 1974] 87-89); and see addenda to n. 56.} This paper derives from a lecture delivered in November 1994 in Chapel Hill at a conference devoted to the memory of T. R. S. Broughton, and in May 1996 at the University of Helsinki. {Early versions go back to the summers of 1972 and 1980. They were composed at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton as part of a larger work, still unfinished, on Tiberius Gracchus and the sacral foundations of the tribunate of the plebs. The hospitality of the Institute is here gratefully acknowledged}. A Polish version (based on lectures delivered in May 1996 at the Universities of Poznan and Warsaw) was published as a separate pamphlet in the series Xenia Posnaniensia (Poznan 1997).

9 A MISSING PONTICUS*
Strange are the ways and byways of scholarship. More than a decade ago Richard Thomas dispelled the pleasing myth that L. Licinius Lucullus gained for his exploits the triumphal agnomen Ponticus. The myth was pleasing for Lucullus clearly deserved this honor; certainly no less than P. Servilius Vatia who after the capture of Isaura Vetus became Isauricus. Alas, no triumphal name for Lucullus. As Thomas painstakingly argues, the fiction was almost certainly disseminated, and seems to have been perpetrated by Orelli in his Onomasticon Tullianum (Turici 1838); Orelli adduced no sources, but nevertheless was followed by an array of eminent scholars, who in their trust in the indices were, for once, caught off guard.1 The story would end here if not a nagging doubt: perhaps, after all, there is a source that would show Orelli right. The source was obvious, though it took a decade to realize this: Memnons History of Heracleia Pontica. Perusing this script we encounter a Ponticus who was missed (nearly) by all: not Lucullus but his colleague in the consulship (in 74) M. Aurelius Cotta!2 A surprise for Cotta, who in the war against Mithridates was in charge of Bithynia and the fleet, suffered a humiliating defeat; besieged in Chalcedon, he was rescued by Lucullus. In the following years when Lucullus pursued Mithridates, Cotta undertook a siege of Heracleia Pontica, and was bogged down for two years. As Memnon records (3536 = 5152 = FGrHist 3B.36264), the commander of the royal garrison and the chief magistrate of the city ultimately entered into secret negotiations with C. Valerius Triarius, a legate of Lucullus, who was blocking with his fleet the harbor of Heracleia; the garrison was granted safe passage by sea, and the city opened its gates on the understanding it would be spared. It was not; Triarius and his soldiers immediately proceeded to pillage and murder. Soon Cotta and his troops, enraged at being preempted by Triarius, arrived on the scene, and engaged in systematic plunder. Cotta handed over his army to Lucullus, loaded the ships with booty and captives, set the city aflame, and departed for Rome. Here comes the crucial passage (39 = 59 = FGrHist 3B.366):
d d Kttaw w ew tn Rmhn fketo, timw par tw sunkltou tugxnei Pontikw atokrtvr kaleyai.

149

This account requires comment. Memnon telescopes two separate events: the assumption by Cotta of the title imperator and the assumption of the victorious cognomen Ponticus. He talks only of the action taken by the senate, but the story begins at Heracleia.
* American Journal of Ancient History 12 (1987 [1995]) 148166 {with minor corrections and additions. As in the original publication, the footnotes are printed as endnotes}.

116

Historia et Ius

150

The senate did not grant the title imperator notwithstanding Mommsens assertion to the contrary.3 It only acknowledged it. The victorious general received it by acclamatio from his troops. As proof that the senate occasionally took the initiative in bestowing the title Mommsen adduces Cicero, Phil. 14.1112, and Cassius Dio 46.38.12, but he misread both texts. As Cassius Dio makes plain, after the battle of the Forum Gallorum Aulus Hirtius, Vibius Pansa and Caesar (Octavian) had been all acclaimed imperatores by the troops; Cicero on the other hand refers only to the proceedings in the senate, but this body merely debated whether the acclamatio should be recognized: it was gained in civil war, not against an external enemy.4 In normal practice the general wrote a letter to the senate (litterae laureatae) informing the senators of the victory and the acclamatio (as Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian did, Cic. Phil. 14.22); the presiding officer (in their case it was the urban praetor, M. Caecilius Cornutus) would refer the matter to the senate, and the senate would recognize the acclamatio by directing the consuls to address the general in their letter of response by his new title of imperator. P. Servilius Isauricus (cos. 48), who was the first senator to be asked for his opinion, proposed to honor the three commanders with a supplicatio, but he omitted to salute them as imperatores. Now Cicero rose, and argued that a thanksgiving had never been previously decreed in a civil war; and if the three heroes should receive a supplication (the senate in this way de facto admitting that they had fought against hostes, not cives), then they also ought to be addressed (appellati) by the senate as imperatores (Phil. 14.2229). From Ciceros formal motion (which he fortunately adduces in full, 14.3638) one fact emerges with clarity: whereas his sententia formally stipulated that the supplicationes be instituted, it contained no explicit proposal that the three generals be given by the senate the title of imperator. Instead, Cicero simply referred to Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian as imperatores whenever he mentioned them in the text of his motion. The first line of his sententia will exemplify the procedure and the terminology: Cum C. Pansa, consul, imperator. When the senate accepted this motion it not only approved the supplication, but also joined the milites in addressing the three commanders as imperatores. In this sense we have also to interpret the passage of Cicero, Pis. 44: Ex qua provincia [i.e. Macedonia] modo ... L. Torquatus [cos. 65] magnis rebus gestis me referente ab senatu5 imperator est appellatus. Attempting to bolster Mommsens idea, D. Kienast suggests that in the case of Manlius Torquatus the bestowal of the title of imperator by the senate need not have necessarily been (nicht unbedingt) preceded by the acclamatio by the soldiers.6 This would be the sole and only example of the senate taking the initiative in this matter. But our understanding of any enunciation is bound to be flawed if we treat it in isolation, not in context. And the context of Ciceros remark is his campaign of vilification against the duo vulturii paludati (Sest. 71), the consuls of 58, A. Gabinius, the governor of Syria (5755), and L. Calpurnius Piso, the governor of Macedonia (5755). Now at Pis. 44 Cicero explicitly states that both Gabinius and Piso had been acclaimed imperatores: Esse duos duces in provinciis populi Romani, habere exercitus, appellari imperatores (cf. 5455). Cicero proceeds to upbraid Piso that from a province so prolific in triumphs he did not dare to send to the senate a single line of a dispatch: nul-

A Missing Ponticus

117

151

lam sit ad senatum litteram mittere ausus. Now follows the passage referring to L. Torquatus, and again the familiar rebuke: te imperatore (cf. 3839) nuntius ad senatum adlatus est nullus. And at prov. cons. 15 (cf. 25) Cicero wonders why Piso non audet nos certiores facere qua re imperator appelletur. Why indeed this reluctance of Piso to write to the senate of his exploits? Gabinius did write: ab altero allatae litterae, recitatae, relatum ad senatum (Pis. 44). The result was lamentable: Gabinius was refused both the supplication and the triumph.7 After the appellatio, it was customary to use in official communications the title of imperator, and Cicero followed this custom religiously in his dispatches from Cilicia. Now, Cicero intimates, Piso did not write to the senate because he was afraid that if he styled himself L. Calpurnius Piso imp. the senate would fail in its response to address him by this title, and he would thus suffer a signal humiliation. Cicero is a partisan witness, but the details of the procedure he envisages had to make sense to his audience. We now see that the imperatorial appellatio of Manlius Torquatus has to be considered in the context of the provincial governors dispatches to the senate. T.R.S. Broughton wrote (MRR 1.169) that Torquatus received the title Imperator from the Senate on Ciceros motion when he reported his achievements. Broughton rightly points to Torquatus report, but his interpretation of the procedure is not accurate. The dispatch from Torquatus (bringing the news of his victories and his acclamatio) was first (like that from Gabinius) brought to the consuls; then recited in the senate; as a third stage Cicero (who happened to be the presiding consul) made his relatio, i.e., he presented the governors dispatch as a matter for discussion to the senate. It was only at the fourth stage that a motion (sententia) was formulated (from the floor, and not by the consul Cicero as envisaged by Broughton). If we wish to know how this sententia was formally crafted we have only to look at Ciceros sententia in the Fourteenth Philippic. There is no reason to doubt that Torquatus magnis rebus gestis styled himself imperator; and it was in response to his communication that he was so appellatus also ab senatu. All this throws light on Cottas titles, and his dealings with the senate. Heracleia was in fact taken by Triarius, but Triarius as a legate did not have an independent command; nor could his exploit be credited to his superior, Lucullus, for it took place within the provincia of Cotta. Thus upon the capture of the city the troops hailed Cotta imperator; whether they acclaimed him also as Ponticus we do not know. Now in an inscription set up after the capture of Isaura Vetus P. Servilius Vatia (cos. 79) styles himself Serveilius C.f. imperator; he is not yet officially Isauricus.8 However, at the moment of his triumph he appears with his cognomen ex victoria. On the base of a statue that was apparently carried in his triumphal procession we read: P. Servilius C.[f.] / Isauricus / imperator cepi[t] (CIL I2 741).9 It appears that the cognomen ex victa gente was officially bestowed upon a general by the very decree of the senate that also expressed the senates approval of his request to celebrate a triumph.10 With this theory the report of Memnon stands in striking agreement: upon his return to Rome, Cotta was addressed by the senate imperator and Ponticus.11

118

Historia et Ius

152

153

The exact chronology of the operations of Lucullus and Cotta is under dispute; but we can date the fall of Heracleia to 71 (or perhaps 70), and Cottas return to Rome to this or (more likely) the next year.12 And as Cotta was greeted in Rome with a great accolade we can expect that he had not to wait too long for his triumph. It so happens that in the Fasti Triumphales Capitolini there is a lacuna between 82 and 62 (see A. Degrassi, Inscr. It. 13.1, pp. 8485). About this lacuna Degrassi has this to say (565): amplitudo lacunae versuum fere 30 cum 12 triumphis quos ex auctoribus novimus [for a list, see 56365] parum congruere videtur, and he offers this suggestion: Quare fortasse existimaveris etiam triumphum quendam ignotum in hac lacuna fuisse. We have now located one triumphus ignotus: the triumph of M. Aurelius Cotta. Now the Consular Fasti regularly take notice of the triumphal agnomina; the entry for Isauricus (cos. 79) provides a telling example: P. Servilius C.f. M.n. Vatia, qui postea / Isauricus appellatus est. This is the standard formula: it is preserved also for P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (cos. 205), L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (cos. 190), D. Iunius Brutus Callaicus (cos. 138).13 The entry for Scipio Africanus occupies only one line, but with Scipio Asiaticus a new pattern begins with each entry recording a triumphal agnomen taking up two lines. The consular entry for Cotta is fortunately preserved (Degrassi 5657). It reads: M. Au[re]lius M. [f. - n. Cotta]. It takes up only one line. The following line is occupied by the entry for 73, the next consular year. Thus the standard formula, which in Cottas case would have read qui postea Ponticus appellatus est, is missing. How to explain this phenomenon? By Cottas disgrace. Two sources tell the story: Memnon again, and Cassius Dio.14 Cotta made great money out of Bithynia, was accused by C. Carbo, and convicted. Carbo, although he had served only as tribune, received as a reward the consular honors. So Dio. Memnon adds detail, and drama. After his return Cotta was showered with honors, but when the fame of his misconduct arrived in Rome he incurred hatred nourished by envy of his wealth. To mute his critics he now deposited in the aerarium most of his booty; not enough, many thought. The Romans voted (chfsanto) to free the captives. Next one of the Heracleotae delivered at a public meeting an accusatory speech against Cotta (kathgrhsen p kklhsaw to Ktta15); then Cotta himself spoke. When he finished, Carbo rose attacking Cotta for his destruction of Heracleia; he was seconded by other speakers. Many thought Cotta ought to be punished by exile (jiow ... dkei fugw); moderation prevailed, and they only took away from him the latus clavus (pechfsanto tn platshmon ato). They also voted (cfon yento) to free all Heracleotae who had been enslaved, and to restore to the city its land and ports. As so often, the general outline is clear, legal aspects a quagmire. They have never been elucidated in detail.16 What did happen to Cotta and to his triumphal name? Memnon may not have been well versed in the court system of Rome, but we cannot doubt that of the fate of his compatriots he was well informed.17 He tells us that the captives brought to Rome to grace Cottas triumph were subsequently set free. This was accomplished either by the vote of the people or by decree of the

A Missing Ponticus

119

154

senate;18 and it was accomplished on Memnons chronology before Cottas trial and conviction. This set the stage, and the mood, for launching the accusation against Cotta. As the freed captives were still present at Rome, the trial will have taken place not too excessively long after Cottas triumph. Now Memnon presents the trial as taking place p kklhsaw. If we decide to translate the Greek term as comitia or concilium (cf. n. 14), we would have to postulate a tribunician Multklage, a most unlikely solution whether the accusation was de peculatu or de repetundis.19 But above all Memnon clashes with Dio. In Dios account C. Carbo, the accuser of Cotta, is described as a person of tribunician standing, and not as a tribune in office. It is true that on a strict reading of the text Dio merely says that Carbo was a former tribune when he received the consular honors as a reward for his prosecution. But it would be perverse to infer that Carbo was a tribune when he accused Cotta, but received his award only in a subsequent year after he had laid down his office. Furthermore we do not hear of the praemia in connection with prosecutions in the iudicia populi, but solely in association with convictions achieved in a quaestio (see below). All this precludes the iudicium populi as the venue for Cottas trial. Thus, as to this technical point, Memnon is inaccurate, but his account will still contain a grain of truth. The public meeting(s) need not be the product of his imagination. The freeing of the captives may have been accomplished through the vote of the people; and the popular discontent with Cotta may very well have been fanned through the familiar medium of rowdy contiones, as the one so vividly pictured by Memnon. His sin was venial: he confused an informal contio with the formal iudicium. Thus it is possible that Carbo started his agitation against Cotta as tribune, and used contiones as his weapon; and that next year, having thus prepared the ground, he formally accused Cotta before a standing court. It is also possible, {as E. Badian reminds me}, that he attacked Cotta as privatus, having obtained a contio (or contiones) from a friendly tribune. Carbos tribunate would thus belong to a year preceding his clash with Cotta. Only a new literary or epigraphical find can provide a firm solution. Still on either interpretation both authors, Cassius Dio and Memnon, receive their due. The trial is generally dated (on the basis of Cassius Dio) to 67 or later.20 But we have to remember that Dio mentions the affair of Cotta solely as a moralistic aside to his account of the judicial reforms of the tribune C. Cornelius in 67: Cotta had dismissed his quaestor P. Oppius because of corruption and on suspicion of conspiracy, but then was himself accused of corruption by Carbo, who in turn because of his own transgressions fell victim to Cottas son (see below). From this story no precise date emerges either for Carbos tribunate or for his accusation of Cotta.21 However, Dios mention of Oppius allows us to narrow down the possibilities. Now Oppius had not only been dismissed by Cotta and sent back to Rome; Cotta also engineered his accusation. In his speech Pro Oppio (according to Quintilian 5.13.20) Cicero characterized the actio against his client as superba: Oppius was made reus solely on the basis of a letter from Cotta (ex epistula Cottae reum factum).22 A fair inference is that when the trial began, Cotta was still absent from Rome. Next, another passage of Quintilian (5.13.21) makes it clear that equites sat on the jury.23 This would date the trial to the period after the passage of the

120

Historia et Ius

155

lex Aurelia iudiciaria of 70, hence almost certainly to 69. But Oppius receptio inter reos may have occurred still in 70, and Cotta may have been present in Rome when the trial itself was conducted. All in all we can assume that he returned to Rome either at the very end of 70 or (more likely) in 69. To this year will belong his triumph. The popular agitation against Cotta and the freeing of the captives occurred either toward the end of 69 or in 68. Consequently we can date Carbos accusation of Cotta to 68 or 67. If it is thus generally agreed and certain that Cotta was accused by Carbo before a standing court, disagreement persists as to whether he was charged with peculatus or with repetundae.24 In view of Memnons hint at Cottas misappropriation of the booty, peculatus is a much more likely solution.25 It is also agreed that upon his conviction Cotta lost his seat in the senate (so Memnon), and that Carbo received as a reward the ornamenta consularia (so Dio). Legal troubles arise. First, the penalty. If we accept Memnons report of Cottas expulsion from the senate, perhaps we should also consider his story that there was a debate whether Cotta should be sent into exile. As technically exile was not a legal penalty (at least until the lex Tullia de ambitu) but only the practical consequence of the conviction on a capital charge,26 the question arises whether the penalties indicated by Memnon are compatible with what we know from other sources of the poena peculatus. Now according to the communis opinio before the lex Iulia of Caesar or Augustus (which seems to have imposed at least in some cases the penalty of interdictio) the penalty was exclusively pecuniary, the most severe fine the fourfold payment.27 The only text predating the Julian law in which this penalty is attested (and in point of fact the only text in which any specific penalty for peculatus is mentioned) is the lex municipii Tarentini (FIRA 1.167, line 4).28 This concerns the municipal peculatus, but it is a fair inference that the same penalty also obtained in the quaestio in Rome. Of course the pecuniary penalty does not automatically exclude the poena capitis. But Memnons debate whether Cotta should be sent into exile or solely expelled from the senate was impossible in a Roman court. For as Cicero explicitly states (Sull. 63), damnatio est ... iudicum ..., poena legis. The jurors voted to condemn or to acquit; the penalty was fixed by the law.29 Now it is hardly likely that the accuser Carbo would have been awarded the consular honors for his effort if the penalty had been exclusively pecuniary. The penalty and the reward require a certain symmetry. Thus the penalty for peculatus was (in addition to the multa) either the poena capitis (which would lead in practice to interdictio, exilium and the loss of the senatorial dignity) or the expulsion from the senate. As the jurors did not have the choice between various penalties, and as Cotta lost his latus clavus, we can conclude that the conviction in the quaestio de peculatu resulted in infamia, and in particular (if the accused was a senator) in the exclusion from the senate. This leaves Memnons insistence that Cotta was threatened with exile unexplained. A recent student avers that Memnon reports what appears to be a debate in the Senate, in which it is decided that Cotta should suffer loss of his latus clavus (i.e., senatorial status) rather than exile.30 This is another legal impossibility: the senate had no right to impose the penalty of exile nor did it ever impose it on any-

A Missing Ponticus

121

156

157

body (and we should not forget that technically exilium was not a penalty!). Nor did the senate vote on the removal of any of its members: it was the job of the censors and of course a senator could lose his status as a consequence of the poena legis after his conviction in a court. If not a debate in a iudicium populi, a standing court or the senate, then probably we have only to do with informal perorations against Cotta in a contio which Memnon amalgamated with the proceedings in the quaestio.31 If so, the argument ends here. But there is still one narrow (and many will say unlikely) way of escape left to Memnon. If a trial de repetundis or de peculatu resulted in conviction, the court proceeded to the litis aestimatio, the assessment of damages the damnatus had to pay on each specific count of extortion or embezzlement. As to peculatus Cicero alludes to lites severe aestimatae (Mur. 42); in another place, in the context of repetundae, he speaks of lis capitis (Cluent. 116). This has led some scholars to assume that at the litis aestimatio the jurors enjoyed substantial latitude in assessing the penalty: in cases of aggravated repetundae (or peculatus) they could even assess the poena capitis.32 This misses the mark. For Cicero is at pains to stress aestimationem litium non esse iudicium. What he means is made clear by another remark (Cluent. 116): Itaque et maiestatis absoluti sunt permulti quibus damnatis de pecuniis repetundis lites maiestatis essent aestimatae. At the litis aestimatio (as has been well seen by perceptive scholars) the jurors ruled that at least on some counts of extortion the damnatus was also guilty of maiestas. Subsequently he was accused of maiestas (before the quaestio maiestatis) but was acquitted.33 The same procedure will also apply to trials de peculatu. In the case of Cotta the prosecutors will have argued that he was not only guilty of embezzling booty but also of an act of maiestas. He treasonously mistreated Heracleia; he looted the city that opened its gates, and he destroyed it not for any military reason or as punishment for treachery, but solely to enrich himself, and he failed to deposit in the treasury the booty so acquired. Whether his lis was capitis aestimata (maiestas being a capital crime) we do not know; and even if it had been it was only a praeiudicium, not conviction. To use Memnons words he was thought worthy of exile, but ultimately lost only his senatorial standing. Not an impossible legal context for Memnons story, and Dios. Still only one thing is certain: Cotta lost his status of senator, and with it also his status as a triumphator. For it is most unlikely that having lost the latus clavus, he would have retained the ornamenta triumphalia, in particular the right to wear at the ludi the corona laurea (or myrtea).34 And among the privileges of a triumphator the most precious was perhaps the cognomen ex victa gente; as it was the senate that had officially bestowed the honorific name upon Cotta, it is eminently possible that a vote of the senate was required to take it away from him. Now every Roman was free to use any cognomen he wished; still the senate exercised general supervision in this area, a kind of name police.35 In the case of Cotta this meant in particular that at the census his name had to be entered on the rolls of citizens without the honorific cognomen. This ban persisted: he was listed in the Augustan Consular Fasti without his agnomen; it is a pity that we do not know the wording of his entry in the Fasti Triumphales.36

122

Historia et Ius

158

There is a postscript to the story, its protagonists hereditary enmity and the fickleness of fortune. C. Papirius Carbo, the accuser of Cotta, later became himself governor of Bithynia;37 he was accused (presumably de repetundis) by Cottas son, and was convicted (Cass. Dio 36.40.5). As the young Marcus Cotta was growing up, he must have been imbibing the spirit of revenge for in the words of Valerius Maximus (5.4.4) eo ipso die, quo togam virilem sumpsit, protinus ut a Capitolio descendit, Cn.38 Carbonem, a quo pater eius damnatus fuerat, postulavit peractumque reum iudicio adflixit.39 We would not be surprised if he now his father, if not vindicated, then at least avenged privately revived for himself the honorific cognomen of Ponticus. As Carbo returned form Bithynia at the earliest in 59, his trial took place either still in 59 or perhaps rather in 58. The young M. Cotta was at that time about seventeen years old; this precludes his tentative identification with M. Cotta, who in 49 was the Pompeian governor of Sardinia, apparently as a praetorius. He was much too young for this post.40 Did he leave any issue? A fragmentary inscription dated (by Solin) to the first or second century may provide a late testimony to the survival of the agnomen in the family of Cottae, but we should not pin too much hope on it.41 But there is the enigmatic Ponticus, the poetic friend of Ovid and Propertius.42 In Tristia 4.10.4748 Ovid reminisces: Ponticus heroo, Bassus quoque clarus iambis / dulcia conuictus membra fuere mei; and from Propertius, who addresses to him two carmina (1.7 and 9), we learn that Ponticus indeed composed a Theban epic.43 But he should not feel superior to Propertius who writes merely of his own amorous sufferings: saepe venit magno faenore tardus Amor (7.26). And indeed, it came, unluckily, also to Ponticus: quid tibi misero nunc prodest grave dicere carmen ...? Carmina mansuetus levia quaerit Amor, and poor Ponticus was not able to compose them! (9.915). How did Ponticus get his name? It is perhaps not too adventurous to postulate that he descended from M. Cotta, the pious son of the conqueror of Heracleia. Now Ponticus appears to have been only an eques, like his friend Ovid. M. Cotta avenged the disgrace of his father, but apparently did not regain his senatorial status (or if he did it was his poetic son who forsook the senatorial career). The story of the name continues. Juvenal addresses his eighth satire to a Ponticus (lines 1, 75, 179); this Ponticus was about to assume the governorship of a province (8788: expectata diu tandem provincia cum te / rectorem accipiet). A recent commentator opines that Ponticus was presumably of noble family, and that the name suggests a noble ancestor who had conquered Pontus.44 The theme of the satire is the contrast between ponderous stemmata (1: Stemmata quid faciunt?) and true virtue (20: nobilitas sola atque unica est virtus). The honorific names are invoked (Corvinus, Gaetulicus, Creticus), and Ponticus may indeed belong to this category. The only conqueror of Pontus who assumed this name was the consul of 74, but we should not assume that Juvenals Ponticus was a direct descendant of Aurelii Cottae. By Juvenals time the Aurelii Cottae had long been extinct, though Ponticus may have acquired his name through a (distant) cognatio with this ancient family.45 But his cognomen may well have been a recent inven-

A Missing Ponticus

123

tion without any deed of valor, real of faked, behind it (cf. the note on Cn. Domitius Ponticus in the Appendix). Fictitious for Lucullus, the name Ponticus was fatal for Cotta. But the destroyer of Heracleia continued to be famous as dux, at least in one respect equal to Sulla: qui cum uno testiculo natus est quive amisit, iure militabit secundum divi Traiani rescriptum: nam duces Sulla et Cotta memorantur eo habitu fuisse naturae.46 APPENDIX Some Other Pontici The lesser Roman Pontici are worthy of a note. {Cf. now PIR 2 6 (1998) 340 (pp. 78587).} In his Die Griechischen Personennamen in Rom. Ein Namenbuch (Berlin 1982) 611 {see the updated list in the second edition, 2003, p. 644}, H. Solin adduces numerous Pontici: twelve incerti in status, nine slaves and freedmen, and two senators. Of particular interest is Cn. Domitius Ponticus, praetor, and in 77/8 legatus pro praetore of the proconsul of Africa (IRT 342; the reading is in line a 6 Ponti[c]um; in line b 6 Pon[ticum]). How Domitius acquired his cognomen we cannot divine. But it is worth pointing out that the nomen Domitius is very frequent in Bithynia (in particular among the local aristocracy); it can be traced back to Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the governor of Pontus-Bithynia in 4034 (MRR 2.382, 388, 397, 4012, 407, 412), and his grants of citizenship (J. and L. Robert, Bull. p. 1953, 194 [p. 176]; 1958, 476 [p. 326]; E. Gabba, Athenaeum 34 [1956] 282). The family of Domitius may have come from this milieu (for the name, cf. Claudius Domitianus Ponticus, IGRR 3.1424 = IK 31 [I. Klaudiu Polis].53, and on the cognomen Ponticus in Bithynia, see the adnotation of W. Ameling to IK 27 [I. Prusias ad Hypium].24). On the cognomen Ponticus, see also T. Drew-Bear and W. Eck, Chiron 6 (1976) 304; they publish a Greek inscription from Dorylaion in Phrygia of a tribunus laticlavius [Ulp]ius Flavius Ponticus (cf. Solin, Namenbuch 1367 {and sec. ed., 644}), and observe (n. 43): Der Name Ponticus ist bisher in der Nomenklatur des Senatorenstandes nicht bezeugt (this is doubly incorrect because of Cotta and because of Domitius). And there is also Valerius Ponticus condemned in 61 by the senate for praevaricatio and expelled from Italy (Tac. Ann. 14.41). He may have been a senator. The name Ponticus is frequently used by Martial, but it is applied to persons entirely fictitious.47 {S. Mitchell, In Search of the Pontic Community in Antiquity, in Representations of Empire. Rome and the Mediterranean World (Proceedings of the British Academy 114 [Oxford 2002]), 3564, mentions the name Ponticus as coined in Greece and Rome (pp. 3940, 4849) but, through design or omission, offers no comment on the cognomen Ponticus, either triumphal or personal.}

159

124

Historia et Ius

NOTES
1 R.F. Thomas, L. Lucullus Triumphal Agnomen, AJAH 2 (1977 [1979]) 172. In fact it can be shown that the fiction goes beyond Orelli. In the preceding entry, on the father of Lucullus (p. 350), Orelli describes him as Pontici pater, and refers to Zumpts note on 2 Verr. 4.147: Constat vero Pontici fuisse patrem. The reference is to C.T. (K.G.) Zumpt, M. Tulli Ciceronis Verrinarum libri septem (Berolini 1831) 811. Zumpt and Orelli further cite Pighius. Does the fiction go back to Stephanus Vinandus Pighius and his Annales Romanorum (Antverpiae 15991615)? This work was not available to me, but fortunately an excerpt from the Annales, Pighius list of consuls and triumphators, was reprinted in J.G. Graevius Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum, vol. 11 (Venetiis 1735). Lucullus appears there both as consul and as triumphator (coll. 2078, 23536) without any honorific cognomen. Pighius often dealt in fictions but not in this fiction. Nor does C. Sigonius, In Fastos Consulares ac Triumphos Romanos Commentarius (Venetiis 1556), attribute to Lucullus the cognomen Ponticus (cf. p. 123 verso, a discussion of Lucullus triumph). In fact no scholar before Zumpt seems to know this name; it was probably the invention of Zumpt himself. But even after Orelli embraced Ponticus as Lucullus cognomen, most commentaries and indexes continued to ignore this fictitious name. No mention of Cottas agnomen in: Orelli, Onomasticon 9091; W. Pape-G. Benseler, Wrterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen3 (Braunschweig 1911) 123334 (lists many Pontici, all Greeks, so surnamed on account of their origo); [E.] Klebs, RE 2 (1896) s.v. Aurelius 107; D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950), esp. 34041, 1215; Broughton, MRR 2.101, 111, 117, 123, 128 (although Broughton records the pertinent passage of Memnon); D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Onomasticon to Ciceros Speeches2 (Stuttgart-Leipzig 1992) 21. But even when assembling this evidence of omission, doubt persisted: was it possible that inter tot lumina nobody ever recorded Cottas agnomen? After a long search one scholar was found to redeem the honor of the historians: the nowadays completely neglected L. Lange, Rmische Altherthmer 32 (Berlin 1876) 217: he writes (quoting Memnon) that Cotta wegen der Eroberung von Heraclea Pontica ... den Beinamen Ponticus annahm. J. Van Ooteghem, Lucius Licinius Lucullus (Bruxelles 1959) 106, n. 4, paraphrases Memnon (Cotta fut ... surnomm Pontique), but he does not betray any awareness of the implications, historical and legal, of this statement. We may add that the search of TLG failed to yield the cognomen for Lucullus (thus proving Orelli definitely wrong); it duly registered the Ponticus of Cotta. But let it be observed that the TLG has no separate entry for Memnon. To find the cognomen of Cotta one has either to search through the entire data bank or to search Photius Bibliotheca where of course the excerpts of Memnon are preserved (see the Bud edition by R. Henry, 224, 239a (vol. 4 [1965] 97). Rmisches Staatsrecht (13, 23, 3 [Leipzig 188788]) 13.124, n. 3 (cf. 3.212). The report of Cassius Dio is confirmed by the Feriale Cumanum (A. Degrassi, Inscr. It. 13.2 [Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani] 27880, 44142). Under 16 April we read: [XVI k. Mai. Eo die Caesar primum imperator app]elltus est. The meeting of the senate at which Cicero made his proposal took place five days later, on April 21 (Phil. 14.14). Mommsen ought to have been well aware of this chronology. He discussed the Feriale on various occasions, and several times edited it, dating the appellatio to 15 April (cf. Degrassi, loc. cit.). Yet when he wrote his fateful sentence in the Staastrecht, and quoted the Philippics as evidence for the senatorial initiative in granting the title of imperator, the Feriale had totally slipped from his mind. It is worth pointing out that the manuscript reading is ab(p)sens; ab senatu is the emendation of Manutius. D. Kienast, Imperator, ZRG 78 (1961) 404, 413. Mommsen himself never mentions this passage. Th. Ch. Sarikakis, Rvmaoi rxontew tw parxaw Makedonaw. Part 1 (Thessalonica 1971) 92, is even more positive: Manlius did not receive his title of imperator from the soldiers on the field of battle but from the senate. R.G.M. Nisbet, M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio (Oxford 1961) 107, avers that imperatores could be created by

160

3 4

5 6

A Missing Ponticus

125

7 8

161 10

11

12

13 14

162

the senate, and cites the passage from the Staatsrecht refuted above in the text. In the case of Hirtius, Pansa and Octavian the idea of Mommsen was also rejected by Kienast: he admits that the senate deren Akklamation nur besttigte. For sources, see [F.] Vonder Mhll, Gabinius 11, RE 7 (1912) 42829. The inscription was published by A. Hall, New Light on the Capture of Isaura Vetus by P. Servilius Vatia, Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses fr Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (Mnchen 1973) 56871 at 570. On the date of his triumph, see A. Degrassi, Inscr. It. 13.1 (Fasti Triumphales) 564, cf. 563. Cf. Cic. 2 Verr. 1.57: P. Servilius quae signa atque ornamenta ex urbe hostium vi et virtute capta belli lege atque imperatorio iure sustulit, ea populo Romano adportavit, per triumphum vexit, in tabula publica ad aerarium perscribenda curavit. J. Linderski, The Surname of M. Antonius Creticus and the Cognomina ex victis gentibus, ZPE 80 (1990) 15764, esp. 15860 {= RQ 43643, esp. 43739}. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 3.21213. To perform a triumph the general needed the vote of the people allowing him to retain his imperium within the city; thus technically it was the popular assembly that was bestowing on him this honor. In actual practice, however, the senates agreement was indispensable. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 13.13435; 3.1108, 123334; R. Develin, Tradition and the Development of Triumphal Regulations in Rome, Klio 60 (1978) 42938, esp. 437. Memnons text Pontikw atokrtvr would be greatly improved if we adopted the conjecture by Schaefer (reported both by Jacoby and by C. Mller in his Didot edition of Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, vol. 3 [1883] 557) Pontikw <ka> atokrtvr. But we need not expect from Memnon terminological accuracy. Henry (above, n. 2) does not report Schaefers conjecture, and translates the phrase as Cotta se vit decrner par le Snat le titre dimperator pontiqueterminological nonsense, and a stunning regress with respect to the translation in Mllers edition: Cotta ... honore a senatu afficitur, et Pontici cognomento ... nobilitatur. The regress is even more stunning if we realize that Mller merely reproduced (without any acknowledgement) the translation of Andreas Schottus (15521629) appended to Photii Myriobiblon sive Bibliotheca edited by David Hoeschelius, and published by Paulus Stephanus (Genevae 1612) 75354. {The same inaccurate translation also in A. Bittner, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike (= Asia Minor Studien 30 [Bonn 1998]) 211: Cotta erhielt ... vom Senat als Ehre den Titel imperator Ponticus.} On the operations in Asia Minor, see now Broughton, MRR 3 (1986) 12122. At MRR 2.128 he dates the return of Cotta to 70, but he does not consider the testimony of Ciceros Pro Oppio (on which see below in the text). Degrassi, Inscr. It. 13.1, pp. 4647, 4849, 5253, 5455, and 120, 122, 130. Here are the texts; it is worth while to adduce them in their entirety. Cassius Dio 36.40.35: T te smpan otvw pimelw tow Rvmaoiw kat tn xrnon kenon t mhdn dvrodokesyai gneto ste prw t tow legxomnouw kolzein ka tow kathgorontaw atn tmvn. To gon Kttou to Mrkou tn mn taman Poplion Oppion p te droiw ka p poc& piboulw popmcantow, ato d poll k tw Biyunaw xrhmatisamnou, Gion Krbvna tn kathgorsanta ato timaw patikaw, kaper dedhmarxhkta mnon, smnusan. Ka otow mn tw te Biyunaw ka atw steron rjaw, ka metriteron odn to Kttou plhmmelsaw, ntikathgoryh p to uow ato ka nyelv. Memnon 39 = 59 = 239 a-b = FGrHist 3B.36667: O d d Kttaw w ew tn Rmhn fketo, timw par tw sugkltou tugxnei Pontikw atokrtvr kalesyai, ti loi tn Hrkleian. Diabolw d ew tn Rmhn fiknoumnhw, w okevn kerdn neka thlikathn plin jafanseie, msw te dhmsion lmbane, ka per atn tosotow plotow fynon neknei. Di ka poll tn lafrvn ew t tn Rvmavn esekmize tamieon, tn p t plot fynon kkrovn, e ka mhdn atow praotrouw peirgzeto, p polln lga nmein polambnontaw. Echfsanto d atka ka tow axmaltouw tw Hrakleaw fesyai. (2) Yrasumdhw (367) d tn j Hrakleaw ew kathgrhsen p kklhsaw to Ktta,

126

Historia et Ius tw te tw plevw eshgomenow prw Rvmaouw enoaw, ka e ti tathw poklnoien, ox gnm tw plevw toto drn, ll tinow tn festhktvn tow prgmasin japt ka b& tn pitiyemnvn. Apktzeto d tn te tw plevw mprhsmn, ka sa to pr fansoi, pvw te t glmata Kttaw kayrei ka lean poieto tow te naow katspa, ka sa lla di mthtow lyn peprgei, tn te xrusn ka tn rguron tw plevw nagrfvn narymhton, ka tn llhn tw Hrakleaw n sfetersato edaimonan. (3) Toiata to Yrasumdouw met omvgw ka dakrvn dielhluytow, ka tn gemnvn piklasyntvn t pyei (ka gr parlye [239 b] ka t tn axmaltvn plyow, ndrew mo ka gunakew met tknvn, n penymoiw sysesi yallow kesouw met lofurmn protenontew), ntiparelyn Kttaw braxa t patr dielxyh gltt, eta kaysyh. Ka Krbvn nastw mew, Ktta, fhs, plin len ll ox kayelen petrcamen. Met atn d ka lloi movw Kttan tisanto. (4) Pollow mn on jiow Kttaw dkei fugw.:Metrisantew d mvw pechfsanto tn platshmon ato, Hrakletaiw d tn te xran ka tn ylassan ka tow limnaw pokatsthsan, ka mhdna douleein cfon yento. Schott (above, n. 11) renders the phrase as pro concione Cottam publice accusat, and Henry (above, n. 2) as mit Cotta en accusation devant les comices. Lange (above, n. 2), opts for a contio. Cf. below in the text. Cf., e.g., E. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley 1974) 269. He first mentions Cottas instigation of the trial of Oppius (in 69; see below in the text)), and then goes on to write that when Cotta returned, sometime in the early 60s, he was himself put on trial, probably for peculatus or res repetundae. He thus omits to mention Cottas initial popularity and his praise from the senate. But cf. F. Jacoby, FGrHist 3.283 (Kommentar). He is quite right in saying that gegenstand der anklage nicht die behandlung Herakleias war, sondern die der beute, but he is inclined to dismiss too easily the whole account of Memnon. But we should not be gullible either, as [F.] Geyer, RE 15 (1932) 2187, s.v. Mithridates: Spter wurden ihm auf die Klage der Herakleoten die senatorischen Insignien aberkannt. chfsanto can refer to both; see esp. Ph. Boissevain, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt, vol. 5: Index Graecitatis by W. Nawijn (Berolini 1931) 87172; cf. H.J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto 1974) 100. T. Mommsen, Rmisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899) 76970. Mommsen here distinguishes between criminelles Multverfahren, which he finds improbable, and the in der privatdeliktischen Form sich bewegenden Prozess, which ultimately gave rise to the quaestiones concerning sacrilegium and peculatus. The procedure described by Memnon was clearly criminal, not privatdeliktisch. I. Shatzman, The Roman Generals Authority over Booty, Historia 21 (1972) 19798, postulates (on the basis of Cassius Dio) a trial before the quaestio repetundarum, and (following Memnon), another trial before the iudicium populi (perhaps on the charge of Cottas mistreatment of Heracleia). Not likely. Cf., e.g., M. Alexander, Trials in the Late Roman Republic (Toronto 1990) 97. As F. Mnzer (RE 18.3 [1949] 102122, s.v. Papirius 35) saw well: Carbo was tribune gegen 67 (hence possibly shortly before 67), and instituted his accusation against Cotta kurz darauf. Broughton (MRR 2.145) dates Carbos tribunate (with a query) to 67, and G. Niccolini, I Fasti dei tribuni della plebe (Milano 1934) 436, to paulo ante 67. {F.X. Ryan, The Magistrates in Dio 36.4041, C&M 45 (1994) 18586, rightly observes that Carbos tribunate preceded his accusation of Cotta; consequently the tribunate is to be placed by 68 or by 68/67 (and not ca. 67).} Cf. the remarks by R. Heinze, Ciceros politische Anfnge, (originally 1909), in Vom Geist des Rmertums (Stuttgart 1960) 117. See also F. Mnzer, Oppius 17, RE 18.1 (1939) 740 (he assumes that Oppius was accused wahrscheinlich erst in 69, and only after Cottas return, but this fails to explain the epistula); W. Drumann-P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms 5 (Leipzig 1919) 36768 (Cottas letter dated to 70; the accusatio and the trial to 69). For the fragments of

15

16

17

18

19

163

20 21

22

A Missing Ponticus

127

23

24

25

26

27

28

164 29

30

31 32

Ciceros speech, see most recently I. Puccioni, M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationum Deperditarum Fragmenta (Milano 1963) 2326. The fragments of Pro Oppio are inexplicably missing from Jane W. Crawford, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations (Gttingen 1984). {They are now assembled, with useful commentary, in her valuable M. Tullius Cicero. The Fragmentary Speeches (2nd ed., Atlanta 1994) 2332. Ryan (above, n. 21) 18586, n. 2, argues (with full doxography of older views) that no precise date for Oppius quaestorship can be established: he was quaestor at some point in the years 7470. But I would submit that it is still not unlikely that he departed for Bithynia together with M. Aurelius Cotta, and thus was quaestor in 74, as postulated by Broughton}. The passage is difficult of interpretation; but Heinze (above, n. 22) 117, n. 52, presses scepticism too far when he suggests that Quintilian here may be confusing the speech for Oppius with the Pro Cluentio. {Cf. Crawford, The Fragmentary Speeches (above, n. 22) 25, n. 14.} Cf. Alexander, Trials (above, n. 20) 97. S. Borzsk (RE 18,1 [1939] 1112, s.v. Ornamenta) states with deceiving certainty: C. Papirius Carbo klagt ihn de repetundis an inference presented as a fact. Cf. also above, nn. 16, 19. Shatzman (above, n. 19) 176205, denies that a general was ever legally responsible for his handling of the booty, but his argument is singularly unconvincing; see the classic exposition by Mommsen, Strafrecht 76566. Cf. also F. Bona, Sul concetto di manubiae e sulla responsibilit del magistrato in ordine alla preda, SDHI 26 (1960) 10575, esp. 15667. See the classic studies by E. Levy, Die rmische Kapitalstrafe (Sb. Heidelberg 1931, 5 Abh.) 1425, and G. Crif, Ricerche sull exilium nel periodo repubblicano 1 (Milano 1961) 300, 30212. Mommsen, Strafrecht 76572, esp. 77071; W. Kunkel, Quaestio, RE 24 (1963) 745. Cf. F. Gnoli, Ricerche sul crimen peculatus (Milano 1979) 17382, esp. 17680 (the penalty of interdictio probably postdates even the lex Iulia). The exception is C. Brecht, Peculatus, RE Suppl. 7 (1940) 82627; he postulates the poena capitis, but his examples are inconclusive: a) the quaestio auri Tolosani in 103, but this was a quaestio extraordinaria, and Q. Servilius Caepio may have gone into exile as a result of his conviction in the iudicium populi (cf. Alexander, Trials [above, n. 20] 3334); b) the case of L. Licinius Lucullus in 102, but this was probably the case of repetundae (so E. Badian, PBSR 52 [1984] 62, n. 26 against E. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts [Cambridge, Mass. 1968] 177; cf. Alexander, Trials 3536). Diodorus (36.9.1) intimates that Lucullus was sent into exile. As to Cotta, there is no mention of his case in Mommsen, Kunkel, Gnoli or Brecht. T. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften 1 (Berlin 1905) 14661, esp. 15556, is still fundamental. Cf. R. Mentxaka, Algunas consideraciones sobre el crimen de residuis a la luz de la legislacin municipal, RIDA 37 (1990) 25361. See A.H.J. Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Ciceros Time (Oxford 1901) 49596; and esp. Levy, Kapitalstrafe (above, n. 26) 16. M. Alexander, Praemia in the Quaestiones of the Late Republic, CP 80 (1985) 25, n. 19; cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 13.49293; 23.945; 3.87985). The considerations advanced in the text also militate against Alexanders idea that the consular honors were given to Carbo by the decision of the senate or the consuls (though this remains a legal possibility). {A. Lintott, in his excellent Delator and Index. Informers and Accusers at Rome from the Republic to the Early Principate, Accordia Research Papers 9 (20012003) 10522 at 113 (with n. 32 on p. 120), admits a senatus consultum as a possibility. L. Jonnes, The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica (= IK 47 [Bonn 1994]) 92, mistranslates Memnon: they ... voted to forbid him the senatorial toga. But there was no special senatorial toga: the latus clavus was a purple stripe on the tunica. The same mistranslation also in Bittner (above, n. 11) 213: sprachen sie ihm durch Abstimmung die senatorische Toga ab.}. This appears to be the view of K. Nipperdey, Die leges annales der rmischen Republik, Abh. d. kgl. Schs. Ges. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Cl. 5.1 (Leipzig 1865) 74. So recently C. Venturini, Studi sul crimen repetundarum nellet repubblicana (Milano 1979) 42862, esp. 439, 447, 44950, 45457, following (with substantial modifications) in

128

Historia et Ius the footsteps of A.W. Zumpt, Das Criminalrecht der rmischen Republik 2.2 (Berlin 1869) 8890, 333, 339; but Zumpt seems to have changed his mind in Der Criminalprocess der rmischen Republik (Leipzig 1871) 39697. See A.N. Sherwin-White, Poena Legis Repetundarum, PBSR 17 (1949) 11; R.A. Bauman, The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg 1967) 8587. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 13.43839. Lange, (above, n. 2), after mistakenly stating (in disregard of Cassius Dio 36.40.35 and Valerius Maximus 5.4.4) that Carbo only threatened an accusation, but never actually accused Cotta, ventures the following rather fantastic reconstruction: die ffentliche Meinung kam in einem Volksbeschlusse zum Ausdruck, durch welchen dem Cotta das Recht bei den ffentlichen Spielen mit den Ornamenta consularia, d.h. in der Toga praetexta, zu erscheinen, aberkannt, dem Carbo dagegen ... das Recht die Ornamenta consularia bei den Spielen zu tragen, zuerkannt wurde. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 3.21213, 1187. Cf. H. Solin, Namenwechsel und besondere Vornamen rmischer Senatoren, Philologus 133 (1989) 25259, esp. 25253 (on Namensstrafe). F. Mnzer, Rmische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920) 355, n. 1, observes that Ovidius, Fasti 1.59394 (alter Isauras aut Cretum domitas testificatur opes) juxtaposes P. Servilius Vatia (cos. 79) and Q. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 69) because they were the last two men to receive in republican times an honorific name ex victoria. This shows once again how fleeting was the cognomen Ponticus of Cotta. We may be certain that he did not receive any elogium in the Forum of Augustus; he is mentioned obliquely and dismissively in the elogium of Lucullus as the collega whom Lucullus had rescued: Conlegam suum pulsum a rege Mithridat[e], cum se is Calchedona contulisset, opsidione liberavit (Degrassi, Inscr. It. 13.3 [Elogia], 84). In 6159. These dates are assured by numismatic evidence; consequently he was praetor in 62 (MRR 2.173, 185, 191). E. Badian calls my attention to the recent book by G.R. Stumpf, Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der rmischen Statthalter in Kleinasien (122 v. Chr.163 n. Chr), Saarbrcker Studien zur Archologie und Alten Geschichte 4 (1991) 5969 (Carbos coinage). He dates the beginning of Carbos coinage in the province to the last quarter of 61, and infers that this was also the approximate date of Carbos arrival in Bithynia. On this basis he assigns Carbos praetorship to 61 for otherwise between his magistracy and promagistracy there would have been an interval of mindestens neun Monaten (p. 69, and n. 54). But when exactly in 61 Carbo arrived in Bithynia we do not know. And that a praetor would lay down his office (in September!) in order to assume a provincial governorship is an absurd supposition. As Carbo is attested as governor of Bithynia in 61, he must have been praetor in 62. A mistake of Valerius or of scribes; C. is assured by coins. {Of the editors of Valerius, D.R. Shackleton Bailey and R. Combs advert to this mistake: see Shackletons Loeb edition and translation, vol. 1.498 (2000) ad loc., and Combs Bud edition, vol. 1.224 (1997).} Cf. F. Hinard, Paternus inimicus. Sur une expression de Cicron, Mlanges de littrature et dpigraphie latines, dhistoire ancienne et darchologie: Hommage la mmoire de Pierre Wuilleumier (Paris 1980) 197210; at 206 he mentions (in passing, and not very accurately) the case of Cotta and Carbo; D.F. Epstein, Personal Enmity in Roman Politics 24843 BC (London 1987), esp. 9293, 15455, n. 21. Cf. [E.] Klebs, RE 2 (1896) 2489, s. vv. Aurelius 108, 109. Against the identification, rightly, D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Ciceros Letters to Atticus 4 (Cambridge 1968) 208 (on 10.16.3). Cf. Broughton, MRR 2.260. H. Solin, Die Griechischen Personennamen in Rom. Ein Namenbuch (Berlin 1982) 611, adduces (among the incerti) C. Cotti Pontici {Cf. now in the second edition, 2003, p. 644: C. Cotti [--- ?] Pontici}. A curious form. The inscription, a frammento marmoreo, was found at via Salaria and published by G. Gatti in Not.Scavi 1919, 42, in the following fashion (without a photograph but giving the measurements):

33

34

35 36

37

165

38

39

40

41

A Missing Ponticus

129

42

43

166 44

45 46

47

C. COTTI...... PONTICI..... FECIT...... FR..... On the face of it we deal with two genitives (and this appears to be Solins understanding); if so Cotti would be the genitive of Cottius, a common Celtic name (cf. A. Holder, Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz 1 [Leipzig 1896] 1144-1148), quite frequent in inscriptions from Rome and Italy. But perhaps in line 1 (of the current text; it is very likely that there is at least one line missing at the top of the stone) we should read COTTA\[E]; in any case the juxtaposition with Pontici is suggestive. We would then deal with a funerary inscription of a slave or freedman of C. Cotta Ponticus. As E. Badian and J. Bodel point out the layout of the inscription is peculiar: what would have come between Cotti or Cotta[e] and Pontici ? Perhaps we have two separate persons; E. Badian suggests (exempli gratia) a libertus of two brothers: C. Cottae et / [M]. Pontici l(ibertus). But it is probably safer to forget the aristocratic Cotta, and stick with the commoner C. Cottius Ponticus. See on him K. Ziegler, RE 22 (1953) 2627, s.v. Ponticus, the only Ponticus listed in RE. He is missing from Solins Namenbuch {he is now listed in the second edition, 2003, p. 644}. M. Schanz-C. Hosius, Geschichte der rmischen Literatur 24 (Mnchen 1929) 273, is very useful for locating Ponticus in his literary milieu. {The connection of the poet with the aristocratic Cottae is admittedly fragile, and L. Petersen in PIR2 6 (1998) 340 (P. 785) is unconvinced: vix ... cum Aureliis Cottis .... parentela ... coniunctus fuit.} See the erudite commentary by P. Fedeli, Sesto Properzio, Il primo libro delle elegie (Firenze 1980) 185201, 22951. Fedeli (286, 28890) believes that also 1.12 is addressed to Ponticus, but this depends on an (old and) doubtful conjecture; it is also only through an arbitrary surmise that the allusion to Ponticus is discovered in Ovids velivolique maris vates (ex Ponto 4.16.21). E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980) 380, 386, cf. 133. The last Aurelius Cotta on record belongs to the Neronian epoch, cf. PIR2 1.3047 (A 148688); Courtney (above, n. 44) 244 (on 5.109) and 361 (on 7.9495). So Arrius Menander, a Severan writer on military law (Dig. 49.16.4 pr.). [E.] Klebs, Aurelius 107, RE 2 (1896) 2489, refers this passage to the consul of 74, probably rightly, as the association with Sulla seems to imply a late republican Cotta (unless we would wish to think of the consuls of 252 or 200, both successful as duces). I should like to thank the Referees, and the Editor, for their probing and inspiring questions.

10 Q. SCIPIO IMPERATOR*
CONTENTS I. The Gem II. Adoptione venit in familiam Metellorum III. The Nomenclature [1] Q. Caecilius Q. f. Fab. Metellus Pius Scipio [2] Q. Metellus Pius Scipio [3] Q. Metellus Scipio [4] Q. Metellus [5] Caecilius Metellus [6] Metellus Scipio [7] Metellus [8] Scipio Metellus [9] Scipio Cornelius (and Nepos, Att. 18.4) [10] P. Cornelius Scipio [11] P. Scipio [12] Q. Scipio [13] Scipio IV. Provinciae Privatis Decernuntur V. Felix et Invictum Scipionum Nomen VI. The Language of Coins [1] The Elephant [2] The Sella Curulis [3] The Jug and the Lituus [4] The Trophy [5] Victory, Peace and Prosperity VII. Imperator Se Bene Habet I. THE GEM When a new document appears pertaining to a republican magistrate it cannot fail to evoke interest, even if it consists of only three words. In a book entitled Antiche

Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic, ed. by J. Linderski, Historia Einzelschrift 105 (Stuttgart 1996) 145185 {with addenda}. Abbreviations: Gruber, CRR = H.A. Gruber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum 13 (London 1910).

Q. Scipio Imperator
146

131

iscrizioni augurali1 e magiche dai codici di Girolamo Amati, Opuscula Epigraphica 2 (Roma 1991), a publication not very likely to be perused by students of republican history, Gabriella Bevilacqua publishes2 (4243, no. 41, and pl. VIII, 2) the following inscribed gem: Q(uintus) / SCIPIO / IMP(erator). She correctly refers this text to Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (Nasica), the father-in-law of Pompey, and together with Pompey consul in the latter part of 52. In 49 he was proconsul in Syria3, and was acclaimed imperator: his temporibus Scipio detrimentis quibusdam circa montem Amanum acceptis imperatorem se appellaverat. So contemptuously (and tendentiously) Caesar (B.C. 3.31.1). About the engagement in the Amanus mountains nothing more is known 4, but from Caesars own account (B.C. 3.3133) it would appear that despite any detrimenta Scipio was in full control of Syria5. He was proud of his title of imperator (there cannot be any doubt that technically it was his soldiers who acclaimed him6), and he advertised it ceaselessly7. In the East the title appears in two inscriptions from Pergamon: 1) SIG3 757 = IGRR 4.409 = Inschriften von Pergamon 2.411 = K. Tuchelt, Frhe Denkmler Roms in Kleinasien. Teil I: Roma und Promagistrate (Tbingen 1979) 206 (on the base of a statue set up for Scipio): O d[]mow
MRR = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1, 2, 3 (New York 1951, 1952, Atlanta 1986). RRC = M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage 12 (Cambridge 1974). Sydenham, CRR = E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London 1952). This is a misnomer. The texts published in this volume have nothing to do with Roman augurs or auguries. M. P. Billanovich in her review of Bevilacqua (Athenaeum 81 [1993] 35153), unfortunately repeats this misleading description. Actually re-publishes. The gem in question was first published in the series Impronte gemmarie in Bull. dellIst. di Corr. Arch. in 1831, 1834, 1839. The exact place of publication Bevilacqua rather confusingly indicates on p. 42 as tav. VIII, 2, and on p. 60, n. 226 as Cades [i.e., T. Cades, Impronte gemmarie], III, tav. 31, 266. The third instalment of the Impronte appeared in the Bull. in 1839 (cf. p. 11). The gem seems to have escaped the attention of students of Roman prosopography. Caes., B.C. 1.6.5; Cic., Att. 9.1.4; Plut., Pomp. 62.2; MRR 2. 26061, 275. F. Mnzer, Caecilius 99, RE 3 (1899), 1226, supposes that it was a battle with the Parthians. Cf. G. Lafaye in his commentary to IGRR 4.409: cum Parthorum minas ... feliciter reppulisset. The Parthians are too grandiose: much more likely he won some sort of victory over the tribesmen of Mt. Amanus. So D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) 1.403. F. Kraner, F. Hofmann, H. Meusel, C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii De Bello Gallico11 (Berlin 1912) 200201, say that detrimentis acceptis is corroborated by Cic., Att. 5.20.4. The passage of Cicero refers in fact to M. Calpurnius Bibulus who in 51 suffered a discomfiture in the mountains of Amanus: sane plagam odiosam acceperat. For the acclamatio imperatoria, see now (with discussion and further literature) J. Linderski, A Missing Ponticus, AJAH 12 (1987) [1995]) 14951, 16061 {reprinted in this volume, No. 9}. On the appellatio of Metellus Scipio, cf. R. Combs, Imperator (Paris 1966) 7475. The sources listed below in the text (but not IGRR 4.421) are also recorded in Mnzer, Caecilius 99 (above, n. 4) and in Broughton, MRR 2.26061, but neither author gives the exact wording of Scipios nomenclature.

3 4

132

Historia et Ius

147

/ [Ko]nton Kaiklion Kontou un / [M]tellon Pon Skipvna tn ato/ krtora. 2) SIG3 758 = IGRR 4.421= I. v. P. 2.412 = ILS 8777 = Tuchelt 207 (on the base of a statue set up for Scipios daughter8): O dmow tmhsen / Kornhlan Kontou Metllou [P]ou / Skipvnow to atokrtorow yugat/ra. It also appears on Pergamene coins: A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, XXXI: Mysia (London 1892) 126 (cistophori minted in Pergamon, a. 49/48), on reverse two coiled snakes, between them legionary eagle, and the inscription:9 (above) Q. Metellus Pius (below) Scipio imper. Finally on a series of coins struck in Africa in 4746 (where Scipio was in command of the Pompeian forces) his nomenclature exhibits four variants:10 1) 2) 3) 4) Q. Metel(lus) Pius / Scipio Imp. (obverse and reverse). Metel(lus) Pius Scip(io) Imp. (obverse; reverse). Q. Metel(lus) Pius Scipio Imp. (obverse). Q. Metell(us) Scipio Imp. (obverse).

To those documents we can now add our gem where his name-form is reduced to its three most important elements: the adoptive (or rather assumed) praenomen,
8 Cf. F. Mnzer, Cornelius 417, RE 3 (1899) 159697; M. Kajava, Roman Senatorial Women and the Greek East. Epigraphic Evidence from the Republican and Augustan Period, in H. Solin and M. Kajava (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History (= Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 91 [Helsinki 1990]) 93. 9 A summary description also in B.V. Head, Historia Numorum2, (Oxford 1911) 535. See also G. R. Stumpf, Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der rmischen Statthalter in Kleinasien (Saarbrcken 1991) 4142, who gives a list of all known exemplars. Magie, Roman Rule (above, n. 4) 2.1580, cf. 1257 (n. 80), lists Scipio Metellus as a governor of Asia. Stumpf objects. He issued his coins nicht als Statthalter, sondern, wie der Imperator-Titel und der Legionsadler zeigen, in seiner Eigenschaft als militrischer Befehlshaber. Metellus Scipio was certainly not a governor of Asia, but Stumpfs argument is devoid of any force. Every provincial governor was ex definitione also a military commander. But Stumpf also points out that in 49 as governor of Asia is attested C. Fannius, another partisan of Pompey, and thus it is hardly likely that Scipio should have been formally appointed to that post. As to Fannius, Broughton, MRR 2.262, was more cautious. He describes him as Propraetor: originally sent to Sicily ... (cum imperio) ... he later appears in command in Asia. But this was the period of civil war, and whatever the legal situation, we cannot doubt that Scipio will have upon his arrival assumed de facto the command of the province. Cf. W. Wroth, Catalogue (as above in the text) XXXI, 126: Scipio issued coins in his military capacity (Imperator). He was not Proconsul of Asia; M. H. Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic (Berkeley 1985) 2067: actually governor of Syria, but active in Asia. {Cf. L. Amela Valverde, El cistforo de Q. Cecilio Metelo Pio Escipin, un ejemplo de las necesidades financieras durante la guerra civil de los aos 49/48 a.C., Aquila Legionis 5 (2004) 728.} 10 Crawford, RRC 1.47172, nos 45961. Broughton, MRR 3.42 (cf. 2.297) refers to Crawford, but adduces verbatim only variant 1).

Q. Scipio Imperator

133

the original cognomen Scipio, and the title of imperator. Q. he inherited from Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius11 (see below, section II); Scipio he took from his father P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica;12 and imp. he owed to himself. {H. Krummrey in his erudite review of the monograph by Bevilacqua (Klio 80 [1998] 26870 at 271) draws attention to another piece of documentary evidence for Scipios titulature, an inscription inscribed litteris punctim incisis on a helmet (now in a museum in Berlin) found in Siscia in Pannonia in the river Colapis: Scip(io) imp(erator) [ip and mp in ligatures]. This find was first described in 1896, but the inscription was admitted only in 1986 to CIL I2.3609a (with further literature). In particular the helmet and the inscription were discussed in detail by G. Waurick, Die rmischen Militrhelme von der Zeit der Republik bis ins 3. Jh. n. Chr. (Diss. Mainz 1976) 3033 (with notes on pp. 15354), 11213 (with notes on p. 174), 197 (no. 13). He attributed the inscription to Q. Metellus Scipio, an attribution accepted in CIL; the helmet will have belonged to a soldier in Scipios army. As Waurick saw, the text must postdate Scipios imperatorial acclamation in 49 and predate his arrival in Africa in the second half of 48. A troubling topographical problem subsists. After the battle at Pharsalos on 9 August 48 Scipio escaped to the island of Corcyra, and subsequently he sailed to Africa (App., BC 2.87). His movements in 49 and 48 are geographically far removed from the finding spot of the helmet. In the course of Scipios campaigns one of his soldiers must have lost it; subsequently the helmet would have come into the possession of a Celtic or Illyrian warrior, and ultimately it ended up in the river Colapis and in Berlin. Cf. below, section III, 13.}
148

II. ADOPTIONE VENIT IN FAMILIAM METELLORUM The onomastic formula is of interest13. It derives, so it is often maintained, from Scipios (testamentary) adoption by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, consul in 80, and pontifex maximus. In fact it derives from Scipios assumption of the testamentary
11 For the career of this son of Numidicus, and a staunch Sullanian, see F. Mnzer, Caecilius 98, RE 3 (1899) 122124. 12 See on him F. Mnzer, Cornelius 351, RE 4 (1900) 1497; MRR 2.14; 16, n. 2. He was praetor ca 93; he had died by 78 for in a legal case in that year the future Metellus Scipio appears as a person sui iuris. See Asc., In Corn. 74, lines 1518 Clark: L. Sisenna [L. Cornelius Sisenna, pr. 78] bonorum Cn. Cornelii possessionem ex edicto suo P. Scipioni, adulescenti summa nobilitate, eximia virtute praedito non dedisset. Cf. ad rem A.W. Lintott, Cicero on Praetors Who Failed to Abide by Their Edicts, CQ 17 (1977) 18486; B. A. Marshall, A Historical Commentary on Asconius (Columbia, MO 1985) 26061. 13 Scipios adoptive (or rather assumptive) name-form was discussed by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature2 (Atlanta 1991) 56, 57, 60, n. 10, 69; cf. also his Onomasticon to Ciceros Speeches2 (Stuttgart 1992) 27; O. Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (= Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 97 [Helsinki 1992]) 8. Cf. also Mnzer, Caecilius 99 (above, n. 4) 1224. J. Van Ooteghem, Les Caecilii Metelli de la rpublique (Bruxelles 1967) 29899, 31213, is occasionally inaccurate. None of these scholars gives a full list of Scipios onomastic formulae.

134

Historia et Ius

149

condicio nominis ferendi (which only vulgo can be labelled testamentary adoption) when in 64 or 6314 he accepted the inheritance left to him by Metellus Pius. This is recorded by Cassius Dio 40.51.3: gn mn uw to Nasiko v n,15 k d d
14 The (approximate) date can be established in two ways. First, Caesar succeeded Metellus Pius as pontifex maximus at the latest in July 63: after the trial of Rabirius, it appears, and the lex Labiena de sacerdotiis (although this law may not have concerned the modalities of the election of the pontifex maximus at all, cf. L. R. Taylor, The Election of the Pontifex Maximus in the Late Republic, CP 37 [1942] 42124), but not later than the elections of magistrates for 62 (cf. MRR 2.172, n. 3; T. R. Holmes, The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire 1 [Oxford 1923] 25253, n. 5, believes that the election date was 15 March: he writes he once came upon a text verifying this date, but omitted to take a note of it, and failed to find it since. And so has everybody else {I regret to have missed the meticulous investigation by G. Huber, Untersuchungen zu Caesars Oberpontifikat (Diss. Tbingen 1971) esp. 131. He points out, without directly referring to Holmes, that 15 March was a day marked in calendars as NP, and thus unsuited for elections, which had to take place on a dies comitialis. He assigns Caesars election to the office of pontifex maximus to a date after the consular elections but before the election of praetors}). These considerations date Pius demise to 63 at the latest. He was still alive in 65: he appeared as a witness at the trial of C. Cornelius (Asc., In Corn. 60, line 21; 79, lines 2223 Clark; Val. Max. 8.5.4). We can also safely exclude the first half of 64 for it is hardly likely that the office of chief pontiff would have remained vacant until 63. Next, Scipios new name. For the first time it is on record (Plut., Cat. Min. 7.1, is an anachronistic reference to ca 73; cf. below, n. 22) during the fateful night from 20 to 21 October 63: M. Crassus, M. Marcellus and Scipio Metellus (on this name-form, see below, section III, [8]) came to Cicero to warn the consul of Catilines murder plot (Plut., Cic. 15.1). At Crass. 13.3 Plutarch credits this information to Ciceros own treatise de consulatu suo, and although in that place Plutarch mentions only Crassus, we cannot doubt that he got the names of Marcellus and Scipio from the same unimpeachable source (J. W. Crawford, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations [= Hypomnemata 80, Gttingen 1984], 1025, identifies the Per tw pateaw mentioned by Plutarch with Ciceros speech in the senate delivered early in 61 [Cic., Att. 1.14.4]. This is unlikely: with the tract quoted by Plutarch Crassus was very displeased, whereas with Ciceros speech he will have been satisfied: it was prompted by his own effusive praise of Cicero). Crassus choice of his companions is perplexing. Plutarch writes that the three were ndrew o prtoi ka dunattatoi Rvmavn; Marcellus and Scipio were indeed high nobles, but young men. Crassus was carrying to Cicero anonymous letters disclosing the plot; it would appear that Marcellus and Scipio were to act as witnesses. It is enticing to assume that they were the quaestores urbani; to their duties belonged die Aufsicht ... ber die ffentlichen Papiere, soweit dieselben bei der Kasse niedergelegt sind (T. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht 23 [Leipzig 1887] 545). {This argument is greatly fortified by the investigations of F. X. Ryan, and his assignment of the urban quaestorship in 62 to L. Novius Niger; see his Geldwechsler im Tempel, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 3.A3 (2002) 1, n. 3; L. Novius Niger, C&M 46 (1995) 15156.} In this way Crassus, over whom a cloud of suspicion hung, fortified himself against any deceit on the part of the consul. Marcellus is certainly identical with Catos friend who is normally thought to have been Catos docile colleague in the quaestorship in 64, but the story in Plutarch (Cat. Min. 18.34) makes much better sense if Marcellus was quaestor in the subsequent year (we may note that he is perhaps the future consul of 51; cf. MRR 2.162). If Scipio was quaestor in 63 (Konrad, Also-Rans [below, n. 17] 132, n. 136, suggests that Scipio was at that time of senatorial, i.e., quaestorial rank), this makes it virtually certain that the office for which he ran at a by-election in 60 was the aedileship (but see below, n. 38). 15 From this indication derives (as Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature [above, n. 13] 69, saw well) Dios form in the index to book 40: K. u. Kaikliow Mtellow Skipvn Nasiko u. The ini-

Q. Scipio Imperator

135

klrou diadoxw w t to Metllou to Esebow gnow poihyew ka di toto ka tn pklhsin ato frvn (cf. below, section II, [12]). The indication k ... klrou diadoxw is decisive. It connects Scipios new pklhsiw inextricably with Metellus Pius inheritance, and thus with his last will, and precludes any notion that Scipio may have been adopted when Pius was still alive.16 About the legal consequences of such a testamentary disposition Dio was quite hazy, as was also a late Ciceronian scholiast (who supplied the caption for the present chapter; see below, section III, [3]), and many of their modern colleagues. The phantom of testamentary adoption has been banished earlier in this volume by C. F. Konrad, and with it Scipios presumed plebity also vanishes17. Even if we wished to revive Mommsens singular idea that testamentary adoptions were regularly followed by the ceremony of adrogatio in the curiate assembly, the testamentum of the deceased representing the adrogans18, this still would not profit in any way the defenders of Scipios plebeian status. For with respect to Scipio even any contemplation of adrogatio can definitely be excluded. Prosopographical fish swim in a constitutional pond19. The interrex had to be a patrician20; Metellus Scipio is attested in 53 as interrex (CIL I2 2663c = ILLRP 1046). The conclusion: he did not turn into a plebeian; he has retained the patrician status of the Cornelii; and he has become a Caecilius Metellus only as far as the inheritance and onomastics were concerned.
tial K. u. {in the codex Laurentianus; see Boissevain in app.} represents (as Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature [above, n. 13] 8, points out) the praenomen replaced by filiation. It is incomprehensible why Mnzer, Caecilius 99 (above, n. 4) 1224, says that the adoption was vielleicht testamentarisch unless his vielleicht betrays his hesitation whether a testamentary adoption could effect a change in the agnatic status that he postulates for Scipio. K. Kumaniecki, Les discours gars de Cicron pro Cornelio, Mededelingen Konink. Vlaamse Acad. van Belgi 32, 4 (1970), 336 at 24, believes that Cicero in his speech Pro Cornelio chose to mention Scipio, in a flattering way, because he wished to ingratiate himself with Metellus Pius, his soon-to-be adoptive father, who was a witness for the prosecution (cf. above, n. 12). This idea was enthusiastically and unwisely embraced by Marshall, Commentary (above, n. 12) 260: the date of the adoption is not known, but ... it is reasonable to assume that the adoption was at least contemplated in 65 (cf. above, n. 14). Perhaps so, and perhaps Cicero knew of it. But we note that the orator was not particularly kind to two of the consular witnesses (Asc., In Corn. 79, lines 1620 Clark; cf. Marshall 276). What tone he assumed with respect to Metellus Pius we do not know. C. F. Konrad, Notes on Roman Also-Rans, {Imperium Sine Fine (above, n. *) 12427}. His most notable predecessors had been W. Schmitthenner, Oktavian und das Testament Csars: Eine Untersuchung zu den politischen Anfngen des Augustus2 (Mnchen 1973) 3990, 10415; E. J. Weinrib, The Family Connections of M. Livius Drusus Libo, HSCP 72 (1968) 24778 at 25161. T. Mommsen, Zur Lebensgeschichte des jngeren Plinius, Hermes 3 (1869) 31139 at 6270 = Gesammelte Schriften 4 (Berlin 1906) 367468 at 397404; Rmisches Staatsrecht III 1 (Leipzig 1887) 3940. Cf. Konrad (above, n. 17) 125, n. 106. Cf. J. Linderski, Roman Officers in the Year of Pydna, AJP 111 (1990) 66 = Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 314. Cic., Dom. 38; Asconius, In Mil. 31, lines 1011 Clark; and see Konrads discussion (above, n. 17) 12831.

16

17

18

19 20

136
150

Historia et Ius

To Konrads cogent and erudite inquisition one small point begs to be added: the name of Metellus Scipios daughter. She was called Cornelia. So always in numerous literary sources in which her beauty vies with her misfortunes; and if that were not enough her name stands for all to see in an official dedication from Pergamon (IGRR 4.421, adduced above, section I). Translated into Latin, she is identified as Cornelia Q. Metelli Pii Scipionis filia. Now let us suppose that P. Cornelius Scipio changed his agnatic status to that of Q. Caecilius Metellus. Why, then, was his daughter not called Caecilia? Mnzer was obviously bothered, but he had an answer: she was born before Scipio in die Familie der Meteller berging 21. Before Cornelia became in 52 Pompeius bride, she had been married to P. Licinius Crassus, the ill-fated son of another ill-fated triumvir, who in 53 together with his father perished at Carrhae. This marriage took place in 55 (as established by Mnzer); and thus even granting the very early age of Roman brides, she will have indeed been born well before her father acquired the name of Metellus22. That is indubitable, but indifferent to the problem at hand: for whenever she was born she was under her fathers potestas. If a real adrogatio had taken place it would have extinguished for good and ever the family name not only of the adrogatus, but also of all those who were at this moment in his power. But his daughter continued to be Cornelia, not Caecilia. Hence once again not an adrogatio, but simple condicio nominis ferendi. This condicio was limited, and pertained solely to the person who entered upon the inheritance; it did not automatically extend to his dependents23.
21 Mnzer, Cornelius 417 (above, n. 8) 1596. 22 Scipio married Aemilia Lepida ca 73. He repossessed her from Cato: she was first betrothed to Scipio; when Scipio broke the betrothal, she became engaged to Cato. For the story of this operatic acrimony, see Plut., Cat. Min. 7. He places it before Catos participation in 72 in the war against Spartacus. Cf. F. Mnzer, Rmische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920) 31416. 23 Automatically is the operative word. The testator wished to preserve his family name. For that purpose the females were not particularly useful. Metellus Pius may have imposed an additional condicio that Scipio rename his future son(s); disappointingly he had none, or at least none who survived. In Tibur, where Scipio Metellus had a villa (cf. below, section III, [7]), there is on attestation a [Met]ellus Scip[io], as Mommsen plausibly conjectured, and others accepted, a son of the consul of 52. He died young at the age of XIIX (CIL I, p. 13 [cf. I2, p. 376]; XIV.3589). In the Fasti Magistrorum Vici there appears under 35 as a suffect consul a P. Cornelius (A. Degrassi, Inscr. Italiae XIII.1: Fasti Consulares et Triumphales [Roma 1947] 283, 5089; cf. MRR 2.406 where Broughton prints as his cognomen Scipio?). R. Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford 1986) 24647, conjectured that this man was a son of Metellus Scipio born before his father changed his name. He would have been in his thirties at the moment of his fathers death, and thus another exhibit of Caesars clementia. That no such son is on attestation anywhere ... perhaps no bar. In another place (Paullus the Censor, Athenaeum 65 [1987] 13 = Roman Papers 6 [Oxford 1991] 254), a faint chance. Not even that. Inscrutable are the fates of men and inscriptions. Two years after Syme had proffered his surmise G. M. Baci published in Kokalos 3031 (198485 [1988]) 72425 a new fragment of the Fasti Tauromenitani: the suffect consul of 35 was a P. (Cornelius) Dolab(ella), not Scipio! (for full bibliography, and an ingenious and incisive investigation, see J. Bodel, Chronology and Succession 2: Notes on Some Consular Lists on Stone, ZPE 105 [1995] 27996, esp. 279, 285). A son of Metellus Scipio may still hide in Prop. 4.11.2930, 6566: Cornelia lays claim to Scipionic descent, and she died in the year her brother was consul: the consul of 16 styles

Q. Scipio Imperator
151

137

Two delicate points still need to be considered, the tribe, and the filiation. When a proper and plenary adoption has been conducted, everything disappears: praenomen, nomen, filiation, and tribe. So trenchantly Syme. How different the condition which the uninformed call testamentary adoption! (there was no such thing, Syme admonishes his readers). First, in the nomenclature the original tribe is retained. For no citizen by his last will and testament can change the legal status of his heir. In particular he cannot assign him to different tribe 24. Metellus Scipios tribe as revealed by the prescripts to the senatus consulta recorded by Caelius (Fam. 8.8.5, 6) was the Fabia (cf. below, section III, [1]). L. R. Taylor leaves the matter in aporia: it is uncertain whether this was the tribe of the Scipiones Nasicae or Caecilii Metelli. But at the same time she points out that Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, cos. 143, who was great-uncle of Metellus Pius, the adoptive father of Scipio Nasica, was in the Aniensis. Thus the possibility must be considered that a change of tribe in Metellus Pius line resulted from a successful prosecution 25. Why anyone, and particularly a Metellus, should have wished to change his registration from the Aniensis to the Fabia is not immediately obvious; but the reader will observe that Taylor assumes for a fact the adoption of Scipio, and leans to intimate that Scipio inherited his tribal affiliation from Metellus Pius. As the tribe of the Scipiones Nasicae is otherwise not attested, it is much more economical (and consistent with the modalities of the condicio nominis ferendi) to take the Fabia as the tribe of this branch of the Cornelii. In any case we can point nominatim to two tribes to which the Scipiones Nasicae and the Caecilii Metelli did not belong. In 60 Cicero reports (Att. 2.1.9) that Favonius, who unsuccessfully competed with (Scipio) Nasica for a magistracy (cf. below, n. 37), meam tribum tulit honestius quam suam, Luccei perdidit. The tribe of Cicero was the Cornelia; in the context supplied by Ciceros letter it could not have been the tribe of either the Scipiones Nasicae or the Caecilii Metelli. Favonius himself probably belonged to the Oufentina. The tribe of Lucceius is unfortunately unknown. Even if the Fabia could be proven to have been the tribe of the Metelli, this still would not per se prove Scipios adrogatio: the change of tribe could be effected by censorial acts, in particular the censors must have changed mens tribes freely with change of residence, and have transferred residents of Rome from one rural tribe to
himself P. Cornelius Scipio P. f. P. n., and his and Cornelias father may be the missing son of Scipio Metellus (Syme, Aristocracy 246; cf. PIR 2 II [1936] 25456, C 1438). For another, perhaps less pleasing candidate for Cornelias father, see below, section V, and n. 98. For a possible parallel to Metellus Pius disposition, cf. the so-called testamentum Dasumii (in reality probably of Cn. Domitius Tullus) where in lines 34 we read the condition si [... nome]n meum laturum posterosque [suos laturos esse pollicitus erit ...]. The supplements are due to W. Eck; see his Zum neuen Fragment des sogenannten Testamentum Dasumii, ZPE 30 (1978) 27795 at 28687; and see, recently, the brilliant disquisition by C. F. Konrad, Domitius Calvisius in Plutarch, ZPE 103 (1994) 13946. 24 R. Syme, Clues to Testamentary Adoption, in Epigrafia e ordine senatorio 1 = Tituli 4 (Roma 1982 [1984]) 397410 at 39798 = Roman Papers 4 (Oxford 1988) 15970 at 15960. 25 L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 198, 282. Cf. 28285 (on the tribes of the patricians). Syme, Aristocracy (above, n. 23) regards as certain that the Fabia was the tribe of the Nasicae.

138
152

Historia et Ius

another in which they had acquired property.26 And Scipio acquired through Metellus Pius last will and testament immense property, certainly much vaster than that he had inherited from his own father. Next, the filiation. The following criterion declares a testamentary adoption: At the head of the nomenclature normally stand the new praenomen and nomen (which adhere closely together). This prefix, however, does not abolish a mans original paternity.27 Three documents (the senatus consulta in Cic., Fam. 8.8.5, 6, and the dedication from Pergamon IGRR 4.409; also Cass. Dio, Index to book 40) proclaim that Scipio was Q. f. His natural father was P. Thus, prima facie, the proof, long sought, of genuine adoption. So Shackleton Bailey and Salomies.28 Not so: at best a double conflict, onomastic and constitutional. A conflict between the filiation Q. f., and the daughters nomen of Cornelia; and a conflict between the filiation and the legal rule that the interrex had to be a patrician. This discrepancy goes to the very heart of the matter, and it pits against each other, so it appears, a full testamentary adoption and a mere condicio nominis ferendi. Appearances mislead. We are dealing with two faces of a hybrid institution. To see all its faces, and peruse all cases, a separate disquisition is called for. Here, a glimpse. Testamentary dispositions concerning the institution of heirs could come in a variety of forms and shapes. In the last decennia of the republic, under Greek influence, it is suggested,29 an innovation was made: a testator without sons would enjoin a principal heir to assume his name; and he could also enjoin the posthumous assumption of the heir as his son. This was apparently what Metellus Pius envisaged with respect to Scipio Nasica, and the banker Q. Caecilius with respect to his nephew T. Pomponius Atticus,30 and Julius Caesar when he in ima cera C. Octavium etiam in familiam nomenque accepit (Suet., Iul. 73.2). When the heir performed before the praetor the cretio and aditio hereditatis31
26 Taylor, Voting Districts (above, n. 25) 23; cf. 282. See also 2068 (tribal affiliations of the Cornelii); 213 (the tribe of Favonius); 26061 (the tribe of Cicero). 27 Syme, Clues (above, n. 24) 398 = 160. 28 Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 60, n. 10; Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 810. Weinrib, Drusus Libo (above, n. 17), who so acutely rebuked Mommsens belief in testamentary adoptions (25361), visibly strains to explain Scipios new filiation (260): he may have been trying to give the appearance of being not a heres extraneus, as in fact he was, but of being a heres suus. ... Thus Metellus Scipio may have adopted this stratagem of changing his filiation as an attempt to win from Pius freedmen and clients an esteem to which he was not legally entitled. It is doubtful whether this trick (as distinguished from a legal dodge) would have worked for Scipio; it failed to convince Shackleton Bailey (loc. cit.) and Salomies (p. 9). 29 R. Dll, Bausteine und Lcken im rmischen Rechtstempel, ZRG 93 (1976) 118 at 35. 30 On his name-style, see Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 68; Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 810. 31 Cf. A. Watson, The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford 1971) 188: An inheritance was accepted (aditio) by cretio, a formal declaration. This declaration could have been pronounced at any place, not necessarily before the praetor urbanus (cf. 18993), but

Q. Scipio Imperator
153

139

he accepted the testamentum in its entirety including his enjoined assumption loco filii. Together with the estate of the deceased, he took the possession of his name, of the masks of his ancestors, and of his sacra familiaria. In form, and in substance, this was no adoption at all. For the goal of Roman adoptio, whether of a filius familias or a person sui iuris, was to establish patria potestas. In the testamentary adoption there was no patria potestas to be created. In the situation where no fatherly power was instituted, the status of the adopted remained perforce unchanged. And when the status of the person sui iuris remained unchanged the procedure required no approval from the People or from any other sacral (the pontiffs) or secular (a magistrate) authority. We may observe that the adoptio proper, of a filius familias, before a praetor, in iure, did not require any authorization either 32: it was a private agreement between two families, an agreement, however, that entailed a complete change of status of the person adopted. But as he was in potestate the state was not interested. The testamentary adoption was also a private agreement between two families as represented on the one hand by the testamentum of the deceased and on the other by the heir; an agreement with all the consequences in civil law, but none in sacral or public. A wife in manu did not become a daughter of her husband but was solely loco filiae33, and so also testamento adoptatus did not become a (posthumous) son of the testator, but only functioned loco filii, or perhaps we should say he was invited se pro filio gerere. It was only one of the many convenient legal fictions that started sprouting up when the old law proved too cumbersome and not keeping pace with social changes, like the coemptio sacrorum interimendorum causa in which the woman who performed the act of coemptio would not become a wife of the coemptor or would fall under his manus34; or the Tiberian (or probably already Augustan) regulation that the wife of the flamen Dialis was to be in his manus only as far as the sacral law was concerned, quod ad sacra35.

32

33

34

35

Octavian to make his declaration headed to the tribunal of the urban praetor (cf. Konrad, Also-Rans [above, n. 17] 125, n. 107), and we may suppose that this was a normal course of action for all those claiming a major inheritance, particularly if it involved a change of name. The praetorian addictio (Gaius, Inst. 1.99, 134) was not an authorization or permission to perform the ceremony of adoptio. On the other hand the adrogatio was in its essence a curiate law, and the procedure required the pontifical approval. Gaius, Inst. 1.111, 114. On the expression in loco, see the detailed study by E. Volterra, Nuove ricerche sulla conventio in manum, (= Memorie della Accad. dei Lincei, ser. VIII, vol. 12, fasc. 4 [Roma 1966]) 32938 = E. Volterra, Scritti Giuridici 3 (Napoli 1991) 8190. Cf. also S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991) 2830. On this remarkable legal dodge to avoid the upkeep of the sacra, see Cic., Mur. 27 (and already Plaut., Bacch. 976), and the commentaries by A.W. Zumptius, M. Tulli Ciceronis oratio Pro L. Murena (Berolini 1859) 49 (ad loc.); A. Brge, Die Juristenkomik in Ciceros Rede Pro Murena (Zrich 1974) 12325. Gaius, Inst. 1.136; Tac., Ann. 4.16. Cf. the comments by M. David and H. L. W. Nelson, Gai Institutionum Commentarii IV: Kommentar, 1 Lieferung (Leiden 1954) 16871; E. Koestermann, Cornelius Tacitus, Annalen, Bd. 2 (Heidelberg 1965) 7982.

140

Historia et Ius

154

To conclude: in private law, and as far as the families of the Scipiones and the Metelli were concerned, Scipio became an heir to Pius, and a member of Pius family; in sacral law, as he did not perform the detestatio sacrorum, he remained a Cornelius who, however, also took care of the ancestral sacra of the Caecilii36; and in public law he was and he continued to be a patrician. Ways could be found to achieve a complete change of status, even posthumously. We should not be too surprised that the path was not discovered or contemplated by the eques Atticus or even the resplendent Scipio hic Metellus (cf. section III, [8]). The innovation was left, as is proper, to the divi filius37. III. THE NOMENCLATURE Scipios onomastic style shows a baffling variety, and this may well be due to the circumstance that he was Caecilius Metellus nomine only but not genere. The following forms are on record:

36 According to the pontifical law Scipio, as the main heres, was in any case obligated to take care of the sacra of the testator (see Cic., de leg. 2.4749; and the remarks by A. Watson, The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic [Oxford 1968] 3237), but Scipio could now claim to perform them not only as a person ad quem pecunia venerit but also loco filii. Cf. L. R. Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley 1949) 35: His atrium, with the wax masks of two long lines of consular ancestors and with many more added from the female line, must have been a showplace of Rome. 37 Cf. Konrad, Also-Rans (above, n. 17) 12527. {It must have been in the air: cogent arguments against the testamentary adoption as a genuine adoption, and interpreting it as solely the condicio nominis ferendi, were presented in an article that appeared almost simultaneously with my paper: C. Kunst, Adoption und Testamentadoption in der spten Republik, Klio 78 (1996) 87104 at 93104, esp. (on Caecilius Metellus) 94, n. 45. In this sense also (briefly) M.-L. Deissmann-Merten, Adoption, Der Neue Pauly 1 (1996) 123. Very sensible is also the presentation by C. Fayer, La familia romana I (Roma 1994) 35161. She concludes that the socalled adoptio testamentaria was solely una semplice istituzione derede, con la condizione di prendere il nome del testatore. J. F. Gardner, Family and Familia in Roman Law and Practice (Oxford 1998), 12830, follows Syme, Kunst and Fayer. I regret that I had missed the study by H. Rosendorfer, Die angebliche Adoption des Augustus durch Caesar (Abhandlungen Mainz. Klasse der Literatur 1990, 1) 318. He rightly concludes: Es hat also ... eine testamentarische Adoption nach rmischem Recht nicht gegeben (11). But there is no reason to assume that die testamentarische Adoption des jungen Octavius ... war entweder eine khne oder vielleicht sogar freche Flschung des Grossneffen des Diktators (12). Caesars testamentum imposed upon Octavius the condicio nominis ferendi; and the new Caesar turned it in a new legal departure into an entitity pretending to be an equivalent of the old adrogatio. Yet the strife continues. In a spirited and erudite article (though he missed the contributions in the Broughton memorial volume) L. Schumacher, Oktavian und das Testament Caesars, ZRG 116 (1999) 4970, defends the concept, practice, and soundness of the testamentary adoption. He fails, however: certainly with respect to Metellus Scipio (cf. 54, n. 130). His argument (and also that by K. Buraselis in his review of Imperium sine fine, ZRG 117 [2000] 656) founders on the rock of Metellus office of interrex (which neither of them considers).}

Q. Scipio Imperator

141

[1] Q. Caecilius Q. f. Fab. Metellus Pius Scipio The full official style38; it is attested in the list of witnesses to the senatus consulta quoted in Caelius letter to Cicero (Fam. 8.8. 5, 639; 29 Sep. 51). So also IGRR 4.409 (see above, section I), where, however, the tribe is omitted.
155

[2] Q. Metellus Pius Scipio IGRR 4.421; coins in Pergamon, and coins in Africa, formulas 13 (see above, section I). [3] Q. Metellus Scipio Cic., Har. resp. 12 (in a list of pontifices40; the cognomen Scipio was here necessary to distinguish him from Q. Metellus, i.e., Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus, named earlier); Asc. 30, line 8 Clark (in a list of candidates for the consulship); 34.22 (in a rather formal notice: Q. Metellus Scipio in senatu ... conquestus est); Sch. Bobiensia 137 Stangl: commenting on Cic., Sest. 124, erat enim munus Scipionis, dignum et eo ipso et illo Metello cui dabatur, the Scholiast explains:
38 In The Dramatic Date of Varro, De re rustica, Book III and the Elections in 54, Historia 34 (1985) 251, n. 21 = Roman Questions (above n. 19) 103, I stated that as the Fasti Consulares for 52 are lost we do not know [Scipios] official style. Of course we do know his official style from the senatus consulta reported by Caelius. Following the accepted usage (in particular by Broughton in MRR), I also wrote (251, n. 21) that his full name was Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica. As far as the cognomen Nasica is concerned this is incorrect. After his assumption of the Caecilian name Scipio himself does not seem to have used the cognomen Nasica, but Cicero once refers to him by this name (Att. 2.1.9; June 60). Why this exception? Cicero informs Atticus that Favonius lost election for an office (apparently it was a by-election; certainly not for the tribunate of the plebs: almost certainly for the curule aedileship. See the illuminating discussion by Konrad [above, n. 17] 12324; cf. also MRR 3.3142), and that he brought a suit against his victorius competitor Nasica: accusavit Nasicam inhoneste, ac modeste tamen. The charge, it is generally accepted, was de ambitu. Now elections were often decided by inherited clientelae; Metellus Scipio may have stressed his Scipionic ancestry, and invoked his father Scipio Nasica (pr. ca 93; cf. MRR 2.15, 16, n. 2). More likely Nasica was the name that the old-fashioned Favonius used (and Cicero repeated), thus disregarding Scipios assumed nomenclature. {F. X. Ryan, Nochmals ber Nasicas Ttigkeit im Jahre 60 v. Chr., RSA 29 (1999), 16975, esp. 175, has found an ingenious solution to the enigma of Nasica and Favonius. Cicero recounts two defeats of Favonius: at the polls and in the court. Favonius accused Nasica; but Nasica was not his rival at the elections. The crime of Nasica is unknown; and unknown is Favonius victorious competitor. The office of Nasica in 60, whether the tribunate or the aedileship, was always troubling; with the office cancelled, prosopographical order is restored. Cf. n. 60.} 39 In this text there are numerous (but easy to correct) scribal errors: in the first decree the nomen is given as Caelius, and the tribe masquerades as Fabius; in the second the nomen and the tribe are left out. See the apparatus ad locc. in the edition by D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: Epistulae Ad Familiares 1 (Cambridge 1977) 16465. 40 W. Drumann-P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms 2 (Leipzig 1902) 36, n. 11, inaccurately print Q. Scipio.

142

Historia et Ius

Adoptione tamen venit in familiam Metellorum et, cum illi fuisset nomen in praeteritum gentile scilicet et naturale Cornelio Scipioni, reformatum est ut esset Q. Metellus Scipio (see above, section II); coins in Africa, formula 4 (see above, section I). [4] Q. Metellus This form appears in the dating formula in the tesserae nummulariae: CIL I2 2663c = ILLRP 1046: id. Iun. Q. Met(ello) int(errege) (a. 53); I2 933 = 1051: Cn. Pomp(eio) Q. Me(tello) (a. 52). So also Cassiodorus: Cn. Pompeius et Q. Metellus; see A. Degrassi, Inscr. Italiae, XIII. 1: Fasti Consulares et Triumphales (Roma 1947) 496. [5] Caecilius Metellus In his hortological poem Columella (10.182) praises two exquisite kinds of lettuce, utraque Caecilii de nomine dicta Metelli. The identity of this Metellus is a mystery, but he may be our man. As Scipio Metellus was interested in fattening geese (see below [8]), he may also have been a hortologist. [6] Metellus Scipio Val. Max. 9.1.8; Plin., N.H. 8.196 (referring to Scipios pamphlet against Cato); Plut., Pomp. 55.1; Sch. Bob. 116, line 10 Stangl; Fasti Hydatiani, see Inscr. It. XIII. 1 (as in [4]) 496. [7] Metellus So Cicero in his remarks following upon the passage Att. 6.1.17 (Feb. 50; reproduced below, sub [8]). Fam. 7.23.2 (a. 46?): Bacchas istas cum Musis Metelli comparas most probably refers to Metellus Scipio;41 Fam. 12.2.1 (a. 44): villa Metelli (but at Phil. 2.109: villam Scipionis; 5.19: in Tiburtino Scipionis42). See also Varro, R.R. 1.13.7: nunc contra villam urbanam quam maximam ac politissimam habeant, dant operam ac cum Metelli ac Luculli villis pessimo publico aedificatis certant. This villa was called villa Metelli because Scipio inherited it from his assumptive (vulgo adoptive) father, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius43; it was annexed by Antonius. Lucanus 8.410; 9.277 (in both passages describing Scipios daughter as proles Metelli). Metellus also in Chronicon Paschale, see Inscr. It. XIII. 1 (as in [4]) 496.

156

41 Cf. the comment by Shackleton Bailey, Familiares 2 (above, n. 39) 372. 42 Cf. Shackleton Bailey, Ibid. 344. Cf. also Cic., Att. 16.11.2. 43 Cf. I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (= Collection Latomus 142 [Bruxelles 1975]) 266, 309.

Q. Scipio Imperator

143

[8] Scipio Metellus So Cic., Att. 6.1.17 in a contemptuous aside: Scipio hic Metellus proavum [i.e., P. Scipio Nasica Serapio, cos. 138] suum nescit censorem non fuisse? (cf. below, [9]). The meaning is: This Scipio who is Metellus.44 This form also in Varro, R.R. 3.2.16: aut triumphus alicuius, ut tunc fuit Scipionis Metelli; 3.10. 1: horum greges (i.e., of anseres) Scipio Metellus et M. Seius habent magnos aliquot; Plin., N.H. 10.52 (also coupled with Seius and the geese); Plut., Cic. 15.1 (referring to 63; cf. above, n. 14); Cat. Min. 7.1 (anachronistic as it refers to ca 73; cf. above, n. 22); Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. I. Endt) 3.23: Cornelia Scipionis Metelli filia; 10.78 (as socer of Pompeius). Perhaps also in Val. Max. 3.2.13. [9] Scipio Cornelius (and Nepos, Att. 18.4) Despite reservations of Shackleton Bailey45, the passage of Nepos, Att. 18.4, in which this form appears, certainly refers to Metellus Scipio, though the very form of his name may be questioned. Nepos remarks on the genealogical works of Atticus: fecit hoc idem separatim (i.e., in addition to his Liber annalis) in aliis libris, ut M. Bruti rogatu Iuniam familiam a stirpe ad hanc aetatem ordine enumeravit, notans quis a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus cepisset; pari modo Marcelli Claudii Marcellorum, Scipionis Cornelii et Fabii Maximi Fabiorum et Aemiliorum46. The text may be corrupt. After Scipionis Cornelii a lacuna has been postulated. Cichorius sensibly proposed to read Scipionis Cornelii <Corneliorum>47; Shackleton Bailey decreed Better Scipionis Corneli<orum>. But this is hardly better: if in a series of three men Nepos writes Marcelli Claudii and Fabii Maximi we should suppose that also the third person would be equipped with two names. Scipionis Cornelii parallels Marcelli Claudii, but we have to admit that Cichorius Cornelii Corneli<orum> is rather inelegant. In due course we shall see that the lacuna may be more extensive. The passage has been treated at length by Mnzer in his famous paper on Atticus as a historian48. He argues, strictly following the paradosis of Nepos, that

44 Cf. the commentary ad loc. by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Ciceros Letters to Atticus 3 (Cambridge 1968) 24950, and see also below in the text, [9]. 45 Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 69, n. 20. Cf. F. Mnzer, Cornelius 357, RE 4 (1900) 1506. 46 The comment by J. C. Rolfe in Loeb Classical Library (1929) 685, n. 2, is a prize lapsus calami: he explains Cornelius Scipio as Scipio Africanus the Younger, who was Aemilius adopted by a Scipio. 47 C. Cichorius, De fastis consularibus antiquissimis (= Leipziger Studien zur class. Phil. 9.2 [1887]) 23637, n. 1. P. K. Marshall, the most recent editor of Nepos (Teubner, Leipzig 1977), unfortunately did not admit Cichorius conjecture even to his apparatus. 48 F. Mnzer, Atticus als Geschichtsschreiber, Hermes 40 (1905) 50100 at 93100. This paper was missed or disregarded by Shackleton Bailey. Billows The Last of the Scipios (below, n. 95) 67, n. 31, suggests that Atticus composed his liber for Scipio Salvitto (who appears to have adopted testamento a Pomponius). There is nothing to recommend this view.

144
157

Historia et Ius

Scipio and Fabius Maximus49 joined together in asking Atticus to write about the Fabii and Aemilii. He points out that Q. Fabius Maximus regarded himself as a scion of Fabii, Cornelii and Aemilii (Cic., Vat. 28: nihil Maximus fecit alienum aut sua virtute aut illis viris clarissimis, Paullis, Maxumis, Africanis, quorum gloriam huius virtute renovatam non modo speramus, verum etiam videmus), and that on top of the fornix Fabianus (originally erected by his grandfather Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus, cos. 121), which he restored as curule aedile in (no doubt) 57, he placed the statue of L. Aemilius Paullus, the victor of Pydna and the natural grandfather of Allobrogicus50, flanked on the right by that of P. Cornelius Paulli f. Scipio Africanus (i.e., Scipio Aemilianus), and on the left by his own statue.51 Ciceros videmus, spoken in 56, is a welcome literary reference to the restored arch. Now Mnzer assigned the aedileship of Metellus Scipio also to 57 (cf. MRR 2.201), and in this way he produced an immediate connection between Scipio and Fabius Maximus. But a glance at Mnzers stemma (p. 96) will show that the genealogical connection between Fabius Maximus and Metellus Scipio was rather tenuous. The common link is P. Scipio Africanus; his daughter married a member of a collateral branch of the Scipiones, P. Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos. 162, 155; RE 353), and the line then descended through P. Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. 138; RE 354), and his son of the same name (cos. 111; RE 355) to P. Scipio Nasica (pr. ca 93; RE 351) and to our Scipio Metellus. In the middle of the stemma we have P. Scipio, the son of Africanus who adopted the younger son of L. Aemilius Paullus, the future new Africanus. He is the only link to the stemma of Fabius Maximus: the other son of L. Aemilius Paullus was adopted by Q. Fabius Maximus, and his line then descended through Allobrogicus (cf. n. 49), and his son Q. Fabius Maximus (RE 107; he was a wastrel, hence the aediles glorification of his more distant ancestors) to our aedile, Q. Fabius Maximus. As one can easily see Fabius Maximus included in his statuary stemma only the descendants of L. Aemilius Paullus, the natural archegetes of his line; his connection with the Cornelii is solely through the device of the younger son of Aemilius Paullus becoming a Scipio. This corresponds very well to Nepos indication that Atticus at the request of Fabius Maximus delineated the families of Fabii and Aemilii. This script of Atticus Mnzer rightly connected with Fabius Maximus renovation of the fornix, but then he continued (p. 97): es ist ein Zufall, dass wir nicht wissen, ob auch Metellus Scipio etwas hnliches unternommen hat.

49 See on him F. Mnzer, Fabius 108, RE 6 (1909) 179192. 50 The elder son of L. Aemilius Paullus and Papiria was adopted by Q. Fabius Maximus, pr. 181 (RE 105). This Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, cos. 145 (RE 109), was the father of Allobrogicus (RE 110). 51 The statues are lost; the inscriptions (CIL I2.762, 763 = ILS 43 and 43 a = ILLRP 392) are known from Renaissance copies. On the fornix, see F. Coarelli, Il Foro Romano 2 (Roma 1985) 17273, 17980. {On the fornix Fabianus, see now L. Chioffi, LTUR 2 (1995) 26466; Eadem, Gli Elogia augustei del Foro Romano. Aspetti epigrafici e topografici (= Opuscula Epigraphica 7 [Roma 1996]) 2636. She argues that also other Fabii, certainly the Cunctator, were represented on the fornix.} On the names of Maximus sons, see below at the end of this section.

Q. Scipio Imperator

145

158

In fact we do know that Metellus Scipio did undertake a similar statuary program, though not as a presumptive aedile in 57 but as consul in 52. In a letter to Atticus (6.1.1718; written in Laodicea on 20 Febr. 50), Cicero remarks on Atticus hilarious information de statua Africani, namely that Metellus Scipio had confused his great-grandfather P. Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. 138) with the younger Africanus (cos. 147, cens. 132): he took a statue of the latter as representing the former, and as a result ascribed to Nasica the censorship Nasica had never administered. Cicero avers that he himself had been perplexed: at mehercule ego, cum in turma inauratarum equestrium quas hic Metellus in Capitolio posuit animadvertissem in Sarapionis subscriptione Africani imaginem, erratum fabrile putavi, nunc video Metelli. How was this erratum produced? Cicero explains: Scipio hic Metellus proavum suum nescit censorem non fuisse? atqui nihil habuit aliud inscriptum nisi censor ea statua quae ab Opis parte postica (posita ms.) in excelso est. in illa autem quae est ad Poluklouw Herculem inscriptum est consul; quam esse eiusdem status, amictus, anulus, imago ipsa declarat52. The inscriptions on the bases of the two old
52 I follow the reading of the manuscripts {as does also W. S. Watt in his OCT edition (1965)}. On the textual problems here involved, see Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus (above, n. 44) 94 (ad loc. in app.) and 24950 (commentary). With respect to the first statue (following Malaespina) he prints cos.; and with respect to the other (following Purser) he prints cos. <cens.>. There is no need for those transpositions and emendations, and no reason to accept Pursers contention that it is unlikely that censor would stand alone. Ciceros train of thought is this: as the statue ad Herculem has only the inscription COS, Scipio Metellus could legitimately take it to be a statue of Nasica Serapio who had been a consul. But he should have noticed that this is a statue of the same man who in another statue is identified as CENS. As Serapio had never been a censor this cannot have been his statue, and consequently the statue with COS was not his statue either, and thus Scipio Metellus was not entitled to appropiate its imago for his equestrian statue of Nasica. This refutes the argument by R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero 3 (Dublin-London 1890) 3067. The manuscript reading is also defended by F. Coarelli, Le tyrannoctone du Capitole et la mort de Tiberius Gracchus, MEFRA 81 (1969) 13760 at 14546, n. 1. But I am afraid Coarelli misreads the words of Cicero when he claims (146) that on avait plac deux ttes de Scipion Emilien sur deux statues questres ddies Scipion Nasica. Cicero clearly speaks of two statues of Africanus but of only one of Nasica Serapio. Furthermore Coarelli takes the statues ab Opis parte and ad Herculem to be the statues of Nasica set up by Metellus Scipio whereas (Cicero could not be clearer) they are in reality the statues of Scipio Aemilianus. In which part of the Capitoline Hill Scipio Metellus planted his equestrian cavalcade Cicero does not tell us. Coarellis main and brilliant contribution is in the area of topography, but everything he says about the placement of the statues by Metellus Scipio has to be referred to the statues of Aemilianus. But above all he plausibly suggests (13637, 15960) that it was Metellus Scipio who erected on the Capitol also a statue of Aristogeiton, thus linking in a powerful political program the two tyrant slayers. {This interpretation of Cic., Att. 6.1.1718 (and of the nature of Scipios error) has been endorsed (in passing) by R. E. A. Palmer, Bullae Insignia Ingenuitatis, AJAH 14 (1989 [1998]), 55, but was rejected (not unexpectedly) by D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Two Passages in Ciceros Letters. I. On a Statue of Africanus, Ibid. 7072, who restated his earlier position. Diiudicent sagaciores! M. Sehlmeyer, Stadtrmische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischer Zeit (= Historia Einzelschriften 130 [Stuttgart 1999]) 22224, prudently observes (223) that in Ciceros letter beide Lesarten des Textes sind ... denkbar. Cf. also his clear exposition in LTUR 4 (1999) 359 s.v. Statuae: Cornelii

146

Historia et Ius

159

statues of Africanus must have identified him solely by an abbreviated family name, P. Cornelius Scipio P. f., omitting the honorific surname of Africanus (so incisively Shackleton Bailey). They could be distinguished from the statues of the other Cornelii who were also P. f. (as, e.g., P. Scipio Nasica Serapio) solely by status, amictus, anulus, imago ipsa, and, of course, by the titles. This curious circumstance illuminates Scipios error. Metellus Scipio correctly attributed the two statues to the same person, but he wrongly and deplorably thought that this was his proavus: o nistorhsan turpem! He turned Africanus into Serapio. And thus when he placed on the Capitol the equestrian statue of his great-grandfather P. Scipio Nasica Serapio, the slayer of Ti. Gracchus, he not only engraved the title of censor that belonged to Africanus but never to Nasica; he also assigned to his ancestor the very image of Africanus. One wonders what face he selected for Africanus himself; very likely he erected the statues not of all Cornelii Scipiones but only of the members of his own branch of the Scipiones Nasicae. Otherwise (we have charitably to grant this to Metellus Scipio) he would have discovered his mistake. So far, only part of the puzzle. How did Atticus become involved in this comedy? Shackleton Bailey has produced an explanation, ingenious and convincing. Also generous to Metellus Scipio. It rests on his literary interests. In a modified form, the explanation runs as follows. Cicero had completed his De re publica before he departed in 51 for Cilicia. It was an immediate success. Tui libri politici omnibus vigent, reports Caelius in May 51.53 The rolls fell also into the
Scipiones. E. Papi, LTUR 2 (1995) 230 s.v. Equus is confused; in particular he does not differentiate between the paradosis and the conjectures in the letter of Cicero. H. Gesche, Die Reiterstatuen der Aemilier und Marcier, Jb. f. Numismatik u. Geldgeschichte 17 (1968) 29, n. 13, comments on Ciceros description of the statues set up on the Capitol by Metellus Scipio as turma inauratarum equestrium (Att. 6.1.17). This turma, she suspects, may be identical with the turma statuarum equestrium (Vell., 1.11.34; cf. Plin., N.H. 34.64; Iust. 11.6.1213) which Q. Metellus Macedonicus brought to Rome from Macedonia (in 146) and auf dem Capitol aufstellte, and thus Caec. Metellus zur Zeit Ciceros vielleicht nur eine Umstellung vornahm und dabei gleichzeitig die vorhandenen Reiterbilder mit neuen auf seine Ahnen bezogenen Inschriften versah. The Cornelii and Caecilii parading in Macedonian attire and armor? (these statues, the work of Lysippus, represented the Macedonian cavalrymen who fell at Granicus, the turma Alexandri). But above all Metellus Macedonicus did not display the statues on the Capitol but within his portico (later rebuilt as Porticus Octavia), in front of the two temples it enclosed (of Iuppiter Stator and Iuno Regina) and, as Velleius reports, these statues were still at his time (hodie) maximum ornamentum eius loci. They were thus never moved to the Capitoline hill, and have nothing to do with the equestrian statues commissioned by Metellus Scipio. Still, there is a connection. The statues looted by Macedonicus were, it seems, commonly known as turma, the denomination both Pliny and Velleius give to it. This turma may have served as an inspiration for Metellus Scipio. And when Cicero spoke of turma inauratarum equestrium he may have been hinting at the turma of Alexander (or Macedonicus). It was not a flattering comparison. The former was a work of Lysippus; that of Metellus Scipio an (opus) fabrile. In the former the features of the fallen amici Alexandri were expressed summa similitudine (Plin.) whereas Metellus Scipio confused both the features and the titles of his (assumptive) Scipionic forebears.} 53 Fam. 8.1.4. On the composition and publication of the De re publica, see Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 40) 6 (1929) 7174.

Q. Scipio Imperator

147

160

hands of Metellus Scipio. In book VI centered around the somnium Scipionis, he stumbled upon a disturbing passage (p. 124 in K. Zieglers Teubner edition), today extant only in the paraphrase of Macrobius (Somn. Scip. 1.4.2): cum enim Laelius quereretur nullas Nasicae statuas in publico in interfecti tyranni remunerationem locatas. When Metellus Scipio took in this information he ran to Atticus, the supreme authority in such matters, to inquire whether this was really so54. And he told the unbelieving Atticus his own story of mistaken identification, which Atticus duly reported to Cicero for his friends amusement in partibus barbarorum. What better opportunity than this juncture for Scipio Metellus to ask Atticus to compose a liber de gente Corneliorum? If he had Atticus book in his hands already in 57, it strains the imagination to picture him engaged in 52 in a futile investigation of the Capitoline statuary; to avoid his error it would have been sufficient for him to consult Atticus script. Mnzer actually assumed that Scipio committed his error absichtlich55 oder unabsichtlich in spite of his possession of Atticus genealogy of the Scipiones. But if this were so it is not likely that Atticus would not have mentioned in his letter that additional delightful morsel of information indicating Scipios density, and that Cicero would not have elaborated even more effusively than he does on Scipios ignorance. Mnzer concluded his analysis of the text of Nepos with a rather plaintive observation that die Angaben des Nepos doch nicht ganz vollstndig sind. Atticus muss mehr ... gegeben haben, als die Familiengeschichte der Fabier und der Aemilier; er muss die Scipionen, sogar die Meteller hineingezogen haben 56. The Scipiones certainly; the Metelli very likely. But which Metelli, that is the question. At Brutus 212, a dialogue in which in addition to Cicero and Brutus also Atticus participated, Cicero expatiates on Scipios family tree: etenim istius genus est ex ipsius sapientiae stirpe generatum. The passage is so important, and genealogically so complicated, that it must be quoted in full, to be followed by a commentary: Nam et de duobus avis iam diximus, Scipione et Crasso, et de tribus proavis, Q. Metello, cuius quattuor <illi>57 filii, P. Scipione, qui ex dominatu Ti.

54 Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus 3 (above, n. 44) 115, argues that the passage that aroused Scipios discomfort could not have been Laelius complaint, but some other passage, now lost, that must have identified the statue ab Opis parte as the statue of Africanus and not as that of Nasica Serapio. This is unduly complicated. There was no reason for Cicero to mention a statue of Africanus in a dialogue in which Africanus himself was one of the interlocutors. As to the interjection, de statua Africani, it is much better to take it not as a reference to a presumed mention of the statue in Ciceros treatise, but rather as a comment on Atticus report of Scipios misidentification of the actual statua. The singular should not distress us. Atticus apparently mentioned one statue only, the one with the inscription censor (hence Ciceros exclamation: Scipio hic Metellus proavum suum nescit censorem non fuisse?); in response, Cicero, as was his wont, flaunted before Atticus his knowledge of the Capitoline topography, and out of his memory produced two statues of Africanus, together with their inscriptions. 55 Mnzer, Atticus (above, n. 48) 90. This characterization is surprising and errant. In the letter of Cicero there is not even the slightest intimation that Metellus Scipio erred absichtlich, that is that he conscientiously falsified the record. It was just sheer ignorance. 56 Mnzer, Atticus (above, n. 48) 99. 57 Cf. A. E. Douglas, M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus (Oxford 1966) in app. ad loc.

148

Historia et Ius

161

Gracchi privatus in libertatem rem publicam vindicavit, Q. Scaevola augure, qui peritissimus iuris idemque percomis est habitus. Iam duorum abavorum quam illustre est nomen, P. Scipionis, qui bis consul fuit, qui est Corculum dictus, alterius omnium sapientissimi, C. Laeli. From Ciceros letter to Atticus we have learnt both of Scipio Metellus genealogical interests and ignorance. When he asked Atticus to compose a history of his ancestors it would have indeed been odd if he had limited Atticus commission solely to his gens naturalis and disregarded his adopted family. But a glance at the stemma in the Brutus will show that it is built solely around the agnatic descent and cognatic connections of the Scipiones Nasicae; the prolific Metelli appear prominently, but they are not the branch of Scipios adoptive father Metellus Pius. On the side of the Scipiones we have the abavus P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos. 162, 155; RE 353; he was married to the elder daughter of Scipio Africanus, a sister of Cornelia, mater Gracchorum), the proavus P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, cos. 138, and the slayer of Ti. Gracchus (Metellus Scipios shameful ignorance of his offices now passed over), and finally the avus P. Scipio Nasica, cos. 111 (Cicero omits the pater: he was a mere praetor). The cognatic side is even more enveloped in sapientia. First, in the farthest reaches of the stemma, the abavus C. Laelius, cos. 140 (RE 3). His daughter Laelia married the proavus Q. Mucius Scaevola the Augur, cos. 117 (RE 21), and his daughter Mucia married L. Licinius Crassus the orator, cos. 95 (RE 55). The issue of this union was Licinia, the wife of P. Scipio Nasica, and mother of our Metellus Scipio. The Metelli remain. The paternal grandfather, Scipio Nasica, the consul of 111, acquired for wife a Metella, a daughter of the illustrious proavus Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, cos. 143, and a sister to four consuls. Mnzer suggests, very plausibly, that Cicero had before his eyes the very script Atticus composed for Metellus Scipio. It was apparently not a history of the family ab ovo (as in the Liber annalis), but rather it started with Metellus Scipio, and traced back the various links in the stemma 58. Thus no place for Metellus Pius and his line? It would be too rash to jump to this conclusion. Metellus Scipio was now the keeper of the imagines and of the colored stemmata 59 of Metellus Pius; and later, as the Pompeian commander in Africa, he not only drew on his Scipionic ancestry but also showed a remarkable knowledge of the emblems of the Metelli (see below, section VI). The book of Atticus will have been composed in two parts: one delineating the ancestry of the Nasicae, and the other of Metellus Pius. The link between the two was Metella, the paternal grandmother of Metellus Scipio. But the history of the Scipiones and the Metelli cannot be accomodated if we continue clinging to the transmitted text. To make sense of Nepos, and of Atticus commissions, we have to separate Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus, and admit a lacuna, even more extensive than that envisaged by Cichorius and
58 Mnzer, Atticus (above, n. 48) 9899. For the stemmata of Metellus Scipio and of the Caecilii, see RE 3 (1899) 1226, 1230. 59 Plin., N.H. 35.7. Cf. E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980) 38487.

Q. Scipio Imperator

149

Shackleton Bailey. We can venture to read: pari modo Marcelli Claudii Marcellorum, Scipionis <Metelli> Corneli<orum> et <Metellorum>, Fabii Maximi Fabiorum et Aemiliorum. The unique name-form Scipio Cornelius pleasingly disappears; and the notice of Nepos is firmly assigned to the familiar Scipio Metellus. The separation of Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus in the text of Nepos has its repercussions in history. One pillar that united them in the aedileship of 57, the script of Atticus allegedly commissioned in unison by both of them, has crumbled60; this is welcome for their future fate was dissimilar. Metellus Scipio died in glory fighting Caesar (see below, section XI); Fabius Maximus died in ridicule as Caesars stooge on the last day of his suffect consulship. To his sons he gave the fatuous names of Paullus Fabius Maximus and Africanus Fabius Maximus61. They were like a walking fornix Fabianus, and as consuls in 11 and 10, vain but glittering ornaments of the new dispensation. [10] P. Cornelius Scipio Eutropius 6.23 in the description of the war in Africa: Duces autem Romani erant P. Cornelius Scipio ex genere antiquissimo Scipionis Africani. This rather unusual name-form finds its explanation in Scipios Cornelian propaganda in Africa (see below, section V). So also, referring to 49, the Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. I. Endt) 2.473.

162

60 The other pillar is a mention in the fifteenth-century French writer Antoine de la Sale, who excerpted Ciceros lost De virtutibus, to the effect that Metel et Fabien, grans senateurs de Romme et bien amez, comment ilz perdirent lamour du peuple et furent destruis par la chieret survenue. This seems indeed to indicate that Metellus and Fabius were the aediles in charge of grain procurement, but not necessarily in the same year. In any case if Metellus Scipio was aedile in 57 he did not suffer any consequences, and smoothly advanced to the praetorship. For the text of Antoine de la Sale, see F. Gustafsson, Ciceros De virtutibus liber?, BPhW 40 (1904) 127778; and above all H. Knoellinger, M. Tulli Ciceronis de virtutibus libri fragmenta (Lipsiae 1908) 2829, 4950 (with a Latin translation and a commentary); and for Mnzers interpretation, RE 6 (1909) 1791; Suppl. 3 (1918) 223. The idea that Metellus Scipio was aedile in 57 was recently taken up by F. Canali De Rossi, P. Clodio, Q. Cecilio Metello e il grano tessalo, Miscellanea Greca e Romana 19 (1995) 14759; he also argues that Metellus Scipio is the aedile Q. Caecilius Q. f. Metellus mentioned in the famous inscription from Larissa (SEG 34 [1984] no 558) concerning the transportation of the Thessalian grain to Rome. This is unlikely; as generally accepted, the inscription probably belongs to the second century. See Konrad, Also-Rans (above, n. 17) 13436. Cf. also A(nn) Marshall, Atticus and the Genealogies, Latomus 52 (1993) 30515, a rambling piece. She seems inclined to separate in the text of Nepos the Cornelii from the Fabii and Aemilii, and to adopt Cichorius conjecture, but she identifies the Cornelius as Cornelius (Scipio) Salvitto (cf. below, n. 95), and claims (315) that Atticus composed (in 4644) the genealogy for Fabius and Scipio [to give] Caesar a weapon in his war of propaganda as he set up his dictatorship. {On Metellus Scipios aedileship (certainly curule, as he remained a patrician), and his birth-date, see now F. X. Ryan, The Birth-Dates of Domitius and Scipio, AHB 11.23 (1997) 8993 at 9091: he may have been aedile in 57, but it remains quite possible that he never held the post. Cf. n. 38.} 61 Cf. PIR III (1943) 1035, F 47 and 48; R. Syme, Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 377, 487.

150

Historia et Ius

[11] P.62 Scipio Cic., Dom. 123: Atqui C. Atinius ... bona Q. Metelli ... avi tui, Q. Metelle, et tui, P. Servili, et proavi tui, P. Scipio, consecravit. To distingish Metellus Scipio from Q. Metellus (Creticus) Cicero had to use the cognomen Scipio (cf. above, [3]); and as the three pontifices appear equipped with praenomina and cognomina, the inherited cognomen Scipio suggested the inherited praenomen P. (and not the assumed praenomen Q.)63. At Phil. 13.19 Cicero was faced with a similar delicate choice: recounting a long list of consulars who perished with great damage to the commonwealth he places the exclamation: si P. Scipionem, clarissimum virum maiorumque suorum simillimum, res publica tenere potuisset. All men appear equipped with the praenomen and either nomen or cognomen; this precluded the form Metellus Scipio, the combination of two cognomina. Once Cicero decided on Scipio (and not Metellus), the praenomen P. suggested itself; and it was reinforced by the mention of Scipios maiores: after all when he himself placed on the Capitoline the statues of his ancestors they were his Cornelian ancestors; cf. Cic., Att. 6.1.17, and above, [7]. (Incidentally this again argues against Scipios formal transitio into the gens Caecilia). On the other hand Livy, Per. 113: Confirmatis in Africa Pompeianis partibus imperium earum P. Scipioni delatum est, is to be explained in the same way as Eutropius P. Cornelius Scipio; see above, [9]. P. Scipio also at Per. 114 and at Seneca Rhet., Suas. 7.8, in the description of Scipios death, the Periocha stressing Scipios position of imperator. Valerius Maximus 9.5.3 (P. Scipio as the socer of Pompeius) and Suetonius, Tib. 4 (Pater Tiberi, Nero ... pontifex in locum P. Scipionis substitutus) follow the same tradition. [12] Q. Scipio Cass. Dio 40.51.2: Pompeius selected as his colleague (in 52) Kinton Skipvna. Shackleton Bailey blasts Dio for this blunder: what Dio is doing is like referring to M. Brutus (Q. Caepio Brutus) as Q. Brutus64. But Dio was trying to explain how Scipio got his new name and the praenomen Q.: otow gr gn mn uw to Nasiko v n k d d klrou diadoxw w t to Metllou to Esebow gnow poihyew ka di toto ka tn pklhsin ato ffvn. He

62 Appian s Lekiow Skipvn (2.24, 87, 95, 100, 101) is a mistake, odd but simple. 63 On the genealogy here indicated, see R. G. Nisbet, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices Oratio (Oxford 1939) 172. In particular it is well to keep in mind that both Metellus Scipio and P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. 79) were descendants of Q. Metellus Macedonicus, cos. 143 (whose bona were consecrated by C. Atinius Labeo, tr. pl. in 132), in the female line: the mother of Vatia and the grandmother of Metellus Scipio were daughters of Macedonicus (cf. F. Mnzer, Caecilius 130, 131, RE 3 [1899] 1234; cf. above, [9]). No comfort here for the defenders of Scipios formal adoption. 64 Shackleton Bailey, Nomenclature (above, n. 13) 69.

Q. Scipio Imperator

151

reduced Scipios adoptive name to its first and last component. This is the form that now appears also on our gem.
163

[13] Scipio So the Livian tradition and an assorted variety of other authors: Livy, Per. 107 and 114 (where Scipionem praetorem is probably a mistake for proconsulem; cf. ad loc. P. Jal in the Bud edition of the Periochae [Paris 1984] 8788); Vell. Pat. 2.54.2; Florus 2.13.6568; Val. Max. 3.8.7, 8.14.5; Seneca Rhet., Suas. 6.2; Seneca, Ep. Mor. 24.10, 71.10; Lucanus 2.473, 6.311, 788, 7.223; Adnot. super Lucanum 6.62, 310, 778, 7.223; Lucani Commenta Bernensia (ed. H. Usener) 2.473, 6.788; Quint. 5.11.10; Ps.-Quint., Decl. Minores 377.9; Tac., Ann. 4.34.3; Suet., Iul. 35.2, 37.1, 59; Oros. 6.16.34; Auct. Vir. Ill. 78.8, 80.3; Ampel. 24, 38; Asconius (often Scipio, but cf. above [3]); Sch. Bob. 169, line 16 Stangl; Sch. Gronov. 291, line 25; 322.27 Stangl; Appian (he has both Scipio and the odd L. Scipio; cf. n. 62); Josephus, A.J. 14.125, 140; B.J. 1.185, 195; Plutarch (normally Scipio: Caes. 30.2, 3, 39.7, 42.1, 44.2, 53.1, 55.1; Cat. Min. 47.1, 5658, 60.3, 62.1; Pomp. 55.4, 62.2, 66.5, 67.5; Comp. Pomp. et Ages. 4.7; for other forms, see above, [8]); Cass. Dio (regularly Scipio, but cf. the forms listed under [12], and in n. 15). {And see also the inscription on a helmet: Scip(io) imp(erator). See above, section I, in fine.} Caesar in his Bellum Civile and the author of the Bellum Africum address him invariably simply as Scipio. He is normally so called also by Cicero and Caelius. In Cicero the prime exhibit is Brut. 212, where we read (Cicero speaking): Quid, Crassum, inquam, illum censes, istius Liciniae filium, Crassi testamento qui fuit adoptatus? Brutus answers: Summo iste quidem dicitur ingenio fuisse, and he continues: et vero hic Scipio, conlega meus (i.e., in the pontificate), mihi sane bene et loqui videtur et dicere, he knew Latin well, and was a good public speaker65. As the cognoscenti will know, Crassus, the son of Licinia, was the younger brother of Scipio. At the dramatic date of the dialogue he was already dead (dicitur fuisse), and he apparently died young. To us of interest is not his stellar promise, but rather the way in which Cicero identifies him. Both brothers were adopted testamento; the younger brother apparently by his grandfather, L. Licinius Crassus, the orator. It is under his assumed cognomen of Crassus that he appears; on the other hand his elder brother, adopted by Metellus Pius, is steadfastly Scipio. Upon Brutus remark Cicero embarks on a delineation of Scipios family tree (see above [9]), particularly stressing that P. Scipio qui ex dominatu Ti. Gracchi privatus rem publicam in libertatem vindicavit. In the context of the times the Brutus was composed early in 46 when Metellus Scipio and Cato were still resisting Caesar in Africa66 this statement acquires a contemporary urgency. Cicero was lingering in Rome torn between his loathing for Caesar and his fear that the victorious Pompeians may

65 Cf. Douglas, Brutus (above, n. 57) 154. In matters prosopographical his commentary is deficient. He did not even remark on the important fact that Crassus and Scipio were brothers, and has no comment on Scipios genealogy. 66 P. Groebe in Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 40) 6 (1929) 683.

152

Historia et Ius

164

regard him as traitor (Att. 11.15.1). In the Brutus he looks anxiously to the outcome in Africa (266): et praeteritorum recordatio est acerba et acerbior expectatio reliquorum. When Cicero finished describing Scipios multibranched ancestry he has Brutus exclaim (213): O generosam ... stirpem et tamquam in unam arborem plura genera, sic in istam domum multorum insitam atque <inseminatam>67 sapientiam! Sapientia may have flown into the house of Metellus Scipio, but it could not overcome Caesars legions and the luck of the Julii. Even Brutus soon to become the liberator was not able to bend the verdict of history, and lead the state to freedom. The sonorous and stirring sounds of rem publicam in libertatem vindicare were annexed at Philippi and at Actium by Caesars heir to serve in his newspeak as a formula for dominatio. IV. PROVINCIAE PRIVATIS DECERNUNTUR In his Bellum Civile (1.6.57) Caesar denies constitutional legitimacy to Pompeian commanders, and in particular he brands nominatim two senior generals, the consulars (Metellus) Scipio68 and L. Domitius (cos. 54): Provinciae privatis decernuntur69, duae consulares, reliquae praetoriae. Scipioni obvenit Syria, L. Domitio Gallia (MRR 2.26162). Philippus et Cotta privato consilio praetereuntur, neque eorum sortes deiciuntur. in reliquas provincias praetores70 mittunt. Neque expectant, quod superioribus annis acciderat, ut de eorum imperio ad populum feratur paludatique votis nuncupatis exeunt (exeant)71. Caesars writ of accusation contains three points, of unequal value: 1) Provinciae privatis decernuntur. The phrase encapsulates an emotional appeal to the mos maiorum: one intuitively feels it is improper to give provinces to privati. Traditionally provinces had indeed been assigned to magistrates who
67 So Stangl. See Douglas, Brutus (above, n. 57) in app. ad loc., and in his commentary (155). 68 See also 1.4.3: Scipionem eadem spes provinciae atque exercituum impellit (i.e., as of Lentulus, cf. below, n. 96), quos se pro necessitudine partiturum cum Pompeio arbitratur, simul iudiciorum metus atque ostentatio atque adulatio potentium, qui in re publica iudiciisque tum plurimum pollebant. R. Syme, Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 40, improved on Caesars strictures: Q. Metellus Scipio, vaunting an unmatched pedigree, yet ignorant as well as unworthy of his ancestors, corrupt and debauched in the way of his life. Ignorant refers to his venial sin of not knowing that his great-grandfather was not a censor (see above, section III, [9]); corrupt hints at his electoral bribery (a thing of which most Roman politicians were guilty), and debauched refers to Valerius Maximus (9.1.8) anecdote of Scipios participation in a party in a private lupanar which evoked the indignation of assorted ancient and modern moralists (not that Syme should be counted among them). But the best in the abuse of Scipio is served by J. H. Collins in his marvellous Caesar and the Corruption of Power, Historia 4 (1955) 457, n. 64. 69 This refers to the meeting of the senate proximis diebus extra urbem, i.e., on Jan. 8 and 9 of 49. The senatus consultum ultimum had already been adopted. 70 Praetor is here used in the sense of praetorius. 71 Exeunt most codices and editors; exeant U (codex Vaticanus ex bibliotheca Fulvii Ursini) followed by A. Klotz in his Teubner edition (1950). The next sentence is corrupt, and this is not the place to attempt to heal it. On the whole passage, see the commentary by Kraner, Hofmann and Meusel (above, n. 5) 2022, useful but gullible.

Q. Scipio Imperator

153

165

would then proceed to administer them with a prorogued imperium. But since the lex Pompeia de provinciis of 52 the constitutional landscape has changed: this law introduced the requirement of a five-year interval between a city magistracy and a provincial command72. Consequently after that date the provinces had to be assigned to former magistrates, and hence perforce privati. Forthwith Caesars constitutional argument falls to the ground: observe that he does not directly impugn the validity of the lex Pompeia. It is only at 1.85.9 that he explicitly attacks the law: in se iura magistratuum commutari, ne ex praetura et consulatu, ut semper, sed per paucos probati et electi in provincias mittantur. The law is not invalid, but it is against all precedent; moreover it was conceived ad personam (which it probably was), a heinous privilegium that unleashed the arbitrary rule of the pauci73. A master propagandist at work: mixing vera falsis, misleading and underhanded, but carrying the day74. 2) The selection of consular governors. Caesars complaint appears to be this: of the four available consulars only two, Scipio and Domitius, were admitted to the sortition for the two consular provinces; the two others, L. Marcius Philippus (cos. 56) and L. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 65), were passed over privato consilio. Of course we do remember that the Republic was destined to be saved privato consilio, but here the phrase has a sinister ring. Its precise meaning, if any, is not easy to gauge. We do not know enough of the procedure envisaged by the lex Pompeia. Did the law prescribe that the names of all available consulars be thrown into the urn (as Caesar intimates) or perhaps the precise arrangements were left to the decision of the senate? In the latter case privatum consilium will not be a private compact, but a senatorial decree, sponsored and carried out contra Caesarem, it is true, but not necessarily contra legem. Solution accrues from a corner not unexpected but unexpectedly neglected. It is rather disconcerting that despite Ciceros numerous asides (mostly complaints), and an extensive correspondence from Cilicia, we do not have a clear idea in which way his provincial appointment under the lex Pompeia came about. Ad Familiares 3.2.1 (dated to February or March 51), a passage not well served by interpreters, offers a clue: cum et contra voluntatem meam et praeter opinionem accidisset ut mihi cum imperio in provinciam proficisci necesse esset. Now if the law had prescribed that the two consular governors were to be selected by lot from all available former consuls (i.e., from those former consuls who had not yet held a
72 On the Pompeian law, see the excellent study by A. J. Marshall, The Lex Pompeia de Provinciis (52 B.C.) and Ciceros Imperium in 5150 B.C.: Constitutional Aspects, ANRW I.1 (1972) 887921, esp. 89098 (with ample literature). {K. M. Girardet, Die lex Iulia de provinciis. Vorgeschichte-Inhalt-Wirkungen, RhM 130 (1987) 291329, argues that the lex Pompeia concerned only the praetors (293307, esp. 298299); this appears unfounded: cf. RQ 654; T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II.4023, and 794 (nn. 11017); J.-F. Ferrary, propos des pouvoirs dAuguste, Cahiers Glotz 12 (2001) 10154 at 1058.} 73 Cf. on this passage, K. Raaflaub, Dignitatis contentio (= Vestigia 20 [Mnchen 1974]) 128, n. 91. 74 On Caesars art of propaganda, see the inspiring piece by J. H. Collins, Caesar as a Political Propagandist, ANRW I.1 (1972) 92266, esp. on the Bellum Civile 94263.

154

Historia et Ius

166

provincial command) Cicero may well have asserted that his appointment happened contra voluntatem, perhaps contra spem, but hardly praeter opinionem (quite unexpectedly) for he certainly could not exclude the possibility of the sors with his name coming out. Hence, clearly, a procedure in two stages. In the first stage there was no allotment but the senate by its vote would select nominatim provincial governors. Cicero was selected: against his will and contrary to his expectations75. In the second stage the governors (consular and praetorian) and the provinces were matched by lot. This is precisely the procedure of selection at which Caesar is hinting: openly partisan but perhaps not strictly illegal76. 3) The imperium of the Pompeian governors. As the prospective governors were privati, they could not receive the imperium simply by a decree of the senate; it had to be bestowed upon them by a legislative act: first, it would appear, by a law in the centuriate or tribal assembly to be followed by the lex curiata de imperio77. This requirement was complied with superioribus annis, apparently in 51 and 50, but not in 49: in their unseemly haste, the Pompeian commanders did not wait ut
75 Tyrrell-Purser 3 (above, n. 52) 5, ad loc., assert that the oldest consulars who had not yet held a province were to draw lots. The oldest consulars were Cicero and Bibulus. But if this were the rule, and if Cicero and Bibulus were the oldest consulars, Ciceros appointment could not have come praeter opinionem. It would be a normal thing to expect. As we learn from Caesar, there was an even older consular who had not yet held a provincial command, L. Aurelius Cotta, cos. 65. Now Cotta may not have been available in 51 for a governorship, perhaps because of an illness; but as there were two consular provinces, and Cicero was the second in seniority, he should (on Tyrrell-Pursers theory) still have expected to go to a province. We have to discard seniority as the guiding principle for the selection of consular governors under the lex Pompeia. There must have been a different rule at play, or no rule at all, the senate having a completely free rein. Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 14) 23. 249, n. 3, and Marshall, Lex Pompeia (above, n. 72) 888, n. 4, also disregard the import of praeter opinionem. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Shackleton Bailey has no comment on this crucial passage. The senatus auctoritas of 29 Sep. 51 (transcribed by Caelius, Fam. 8.8.8) regulated the distribution of the praetorian provinces; they were to be assigned to those praetors who had not yet administered a province beginning with the collegium (it appears) of 55, and then moving backwards until all gubernatorial posts were filled (cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht 23. 249, nn. 12). If this rule of reverse seniority applied also to consular provinces, Ciceros perplexity is easily explained: before the line of the would-be appointees would reach 63 there were other consulars eligible for the provincial command, e.g. L. Marcius Philippus, cos. 56. But, for some reason, they were apparently excused, and so Cicero went to Cilicia praeter opinionem. See now also the solid study by K. M. Girardet, Die lex Iulia de provinciis. Vorgeschichte-InhaltWirkungen, RhM 130 (1987) 291329 at 293307, esp. 29899: he argues that the lex Pompeia concerned only the praetors; Cicero and Bibulus received their provincial commands on the basis of a senatus consultum, and the imperium consulare was bestowed upon them extra ordinem durch eine lex (tributa / centuriata) de imperio. 76 A curious fact stands out: Metellus Scipio was consul in 52, and thus a quinquennium between his office and his provincial command had not elapsed, and yet Caesar remarkably does not comment on that apparent violation of the lex Pompeia. Various explanations have been offered; for a summary, see Marshall, Lex Pompeia (above, n. 72) 892, n. 20; 894, n. 27. We are apparently dealing with interim arrangements; the quinquennium could have been implemented in an orderly way only beginning with the fifth year after the lex Pompeia. The arrangement postulated for Ciceros appointment (see above, n. 73) was not operative in 49. 77 Cf. Marshall, Lex Pompeia (above, n. 72) 89295.

Q. Scipio Imperator

155

167

de eorum imperio ad populum feratur. This strains the imagination. We should not blithely ascribe this amazing legal and ritual negligence to the senate, to Pompey, and to his generals. Caesar must again be dealing in half-truths. Two, and only two, possibilities obtrude. The Pompeians forwent either the comitial law or the curiate law; in either case their imperium was tainted, and Caesar was not wholly unjustified in describing them as privati. Every comitial law, whether in the centuriate or tribal assembly, had to be promulgated at least three Roman weeks (trinum nundinum) in advance before the scheduled date of the assembly. The Pompeians could not afford to wait that long. The senate could exempt the proposer of the law from this requirement, but perhaps we should read Caesars text literally, and conclude that no law was put before the people. We can suspect that the comitial laws de imperio were duly promulgated, but they were never passed: the Pompeians were forced to abandon the city already on 18 January. In that situation they decided to satisfy themselves solely with the lex curiata; the thirty lictors who represented the curiae were easy to assemble. If this was the case, the constitutional fault of the Pompeians receives illumination from an old stricture of Cicero. Combatting early in 63 the proposal of Rullus, Cicero the consul was particularly indignant because the tribune lege curiata XVviros ornat. Iam hoc inauditum et plane novum, uti curiata lege magistratus detur qui nullis comitiis ante est datus (Leg. agr. 2.26). Rullus had in fact intended that the lex curiata grant imperium and auspicium to those agrarian commissioners (XVviri) quos plebs designaverit, but he forgot to include in an earlier chapter of his law a clause stipulating the election of the commissioners by the plebs. Cicero is thus partially disingenuous, as is also Caesar, and the Pompeians. Everything depended upon constitutional and augural interpretation. The Pompeians could well have argued that the curiate law did not create any new magistracy but solely bestowed abstract imperium and auspicium on the men whose provinciae had been defined by the senate on the basis of the Pompeian law. We may trust that the augurs would have come up with a suitable theory, depending on whether they were on the side of Pompey or of Caesar78. But in history it is not the constitutional cogency of propaganda but its political efficacy that is of importance. The Bellum Civile was probably written in instalments during the course of events, but it was not published until after Caesars death79. Thus it was not per se immediately a tool of propaganda. But it was a blueprint. The strictures and accusations it contained would be spouted out at innumerable contiones apud milites, disseminated in countless pamphlets, and in colloquia with the Pompeian soldiers. Caesars claims will be engraved on his coins. It is in the context of the struggle for legitimacy that we have to read the Bellum Africum,

78 On the politically charged augural interpretations during the civil war, see J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW II. 16 (1986) 218184. In any case in March 49 the augur Cicero had no doubts as to the validity of Scipios imperium (Att. 8.15.3). 79 Cf. the classic study by K. Barwick, Caesars Bellum Civile. Tendenz, Abfassungszeit, Stil (Berichte Verh. Schs. Akad., Phil.-hist. Kl. 99.1 [Leipzig 1951]) passim; J. H. Collins, On the Date and Interpretation of the Bellum Civile, AJP 80 (1959) 11332.

156

Historia et Ius

a tale of Cato and the two imperatores. Scipio did not remain mute: he still harangues through the images on the coins he struck in 47 and 46 as the Pompeian commander in Africa. V. FELIX ET INVICTUM SCIPIONUM NOMEN The inscription on the gem gives testimony that Scipio was the cognomen the general himself preferred and stressed. After 49 it regularly appears in close connection with the title of imperator. This was true particularly for the period of Scipios command in Africa in 47 and 46. The author of the Bellum Africum (4) tells a poignant story of Scipios legate C. Considius Longus (MRR 2.267, 281, 290): when a messenger sent to him from the Caesarian camp referred to Caesar as imperator, Considius haughtily replied: unus est ... Scipio imperator hoc tempore populi Romani, and had the messenger forthwith executed in conspectu suo for his importunate temerity. The Caesarians were equally obstinate. At B. Af. 44 Scipio addresses captive veterani and tirones, urges them to abandon their sceleratus imperator, join the optimus quisque, and defend the republic. He promises them pardon, and awards. One of the captives, a centurion, responds (45): Pro tuo ... summo beneficio, Scipio, tibi gratias ago non enim te imperatorem appello, and refuses to fight contra Caesarem imperatorem meum. Enraged Scipio ordered the veterans nefario scelere contaminatos et caede civium saginatos to be led away and executed80; the tirones he incorporated into his army. A powerful motif in the Caesarian propaganda in Africa was the alleged subservience of Caesars opponents, and of Scipio himself, to King Iuba of Numidia81. At B. Af. 57 this motif is combined with ridicule of Scipios imperatorial pretentiousness. Before the arrival of the King it was Scipios custom to wear a purple cloak, but Iuba remonstrated with him that he ought not to wear the same dress as the king; Scipio meekly submitted to the arrogant and inert barbarian, and changed to white dress: Namque cum Scipio sagulo purpureo ante regis adventum uti solitus esset, dicitur Iuba cum eo egisse non oportere illum eodem vestitu atque ipse uteretur. Itaque factum est ut Scipio ad album sese vestitum transferret et Iubae homini superbissimo inertissimoque obtemperaret. The sagulum purpureum is the paludamentum, the hallowed purpled cloak of the Roman commander, who donned it upon the crossing of the pomerium when he departed from Rome for a campaign, wore it in battle and at all official functions; the vestitum album is the toga pura,

168

80 For Scipios execution lust, see also B. Af. 28: the execution of duo Titii ... adulescentes, tribuni legionis V, quorum patrem Caesar in senatum legerat. Cf. Val. Max. 3.8.7. {And see below, No. 15: Legio V in Messana.} 81 See B. Af. 57: M. Aquin(i)us (MRR 2.300) disregards instructions from Scipio, but obeys Iubas order; Plut., Cato Min. 57: Iuba takes his seat in the middle between Cato and Scipio, thus indicating his superiority; Scipio remains impassive, but Cato saves the day and Scipios face; Cass. Dio 43.4.56: Scipio promises Iuba all Roman Africa. {On the incident between Juba and Scipio concerning Scipios paludamentum, cf. also M. Reinhold, History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (= Collection Latomus 116 [Bruxelles 1970]) 4445.}

Q. Scipio Imperator

157

169

the dress of Roman civilians.82 The author of the Bellum Africum thus imputes to Scipio a virtual abdication of his command in favor of the king. The verb obtemperare highlights Scipios shameful conduct: this solemn locution was pronounced at the secular games in the archaizing prayer for the success of the Roman people: vos (or te) quaeso precorque uti (tu) imperium maiestatemque populi Romani Quiritium duelli domique auxitis (auxis) utique semper Latinus obtemperassit 83. But the story in Valerius Maximus 8.14.5 presents Scipio as a paragon of old Roman virtue. After a brave exploit Scipio was distributing dona militaria to cavalrymen. T. Labienus (MRR 2. 301) suggested that he should give to an eques fortis, who also happened to be a freedman, the golden armillae. Scipio refused: he contended the award would be compromised if given to a person who had been a slave (ne castrensis honos in eo, qui paulo ante servisset, violaretur). Labienus, undaunted, ipse ex praeda Gallica aurum equiti largitus est. Whereupon Scipio remarked to the eques: habebis ... donum viri divitis. The cavalryman, ashamed, proiecto ante pedes Labieni auro, vultum demisit. But when he heard Scipio say imperator te argenteis armillis donat, he went away alacer gaudio. Mnzer cites the passage of Valerius only in order to show that Scipio, who was very untchtig, was not always mit dem tchtigen Labienus ... einig 84. Even this great scholar could not free himself from the pull of the victors propaganda; for the moral of the story in Valerius is that it was Labienus who was to be blamed, not Scipio. Labienus was contaminated by the Gallic gold he had plundered serving under Caesar. He behaved like an oriental potentate. The award of golden armlets was reserved for officers; it was not given to simple cavalrymen, and it was certainly extravagant and socially disruptive to give it to a former slave, however brave. The regular award for equestrian bravery consisted of armillae argenteae. Scipio was thus a commander of old, observing the mos maiorum, distributing the dona according to valor, and preserving the distinction of rank and status85. A true imperator enjoyed divine favor, felicitas, and the proof was victory on the battlefield86. At the decisive and final battle at Thapsus (6 April 46) Caesar cautiously hesitates, but his troops take a trepidatio among the enemy as a propitious sign portending victory. They spontaneously begin to attack; when Caesar realized that it was impossible to hold his ranks back, he selected Felicitas as his watchword, and proceeded against the enemy line: signo Felicitatis dato ... contra principes ire contendit (B. Af. 8283).87 The result: ten thousand of enemy soldiers
82 Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 14) 13. 4089 (toga), 43133 (paludamentum). 83 I. B. Pighi, De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium libri sex (Milano 1941) 114, 116, 163, 164. Cf. Caes., B.G. 4.21.6: qui polliceantur ... imperio populi Romani obtemperare. 84 Mnzer, Caecilius 99 (above, n. 4) 122728. 85 On the dona militaria, and esp. on the award of the armillae, see V. Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981) 8990, 128. {On this award, see now in detail J. Linderski, Silver and Gold of Valor: the Award of armillae and torques, Latomus 60 (2001) 315, esp. 45 on Scipio and Labienus (reprinted in this volume, No. 14).} 86 Cf. E. Wistrand, Felicitas Imperatoria (= Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 48 [Gteborg 1987]) 143, 7990. He does not discuss the contest in felicitas between Scipio and Caesar. See also the good study by P. R. Murphy, Caesars Continuators and Caesars Felicitas, CW 79.5 (1986) 30717, esp. 31415 on the Bellum Africum. 87 On military watchwords, see Veget., Epit. rei milit. 3.5: vocalia (signa) dicuntur quae voce

158

Historia et Ius

170

killed; Caesar lost only fifty (B. Af. 86). Scipios title of imperator proved fraudulent; Caesars was genuine. It was manifestly through Caesars felicitas that victory was achieved, and not because of his skill as a commander. Here also belongs the story in B. Af. 61: secundo equestri proelio facto Scipio laetus in castra nocte copias reduxit. Quod proprium gaudium bellantibus fortuna tribuere non decrevit (for the next day Caesars cavalrymen) equites Numidas Gaetulosque ex improviso adorti circiter C partim occiderunt, partim vivorum potiti sunt. Two words stand out: laetus and fortuna. The former is the verbum proprium to describe the joy, the gaudium of an imperator after he had received a propitious sign promising victory88; in the case of Scipio it was false joy: it did not flow from his felicitas but was given to him by the fickle and treacherous fortune. A. Alfldi put it well: felicitas ... is the permanent individual property of the imperator, incompatible with the capricious, illusive Tyche of the Greeks 89. Lucan (6.788) describes Metellus Scipio as infausta suboles of Scipio Africanus; and Scipios daughter, the gentle Cornelia, the widow of P. Crassus, fallen at Carrhae, and the wife of Pompeius, infelix coniunx et nulli laeta marito (Lucan 8.89), was to contaminate through her misfortune the felicitas of Magnus himself (on Pompeius felicitas see the locus classicus, Ciceros account in De imp. Cn. Pomp. 4748). In a fragment of Livy (preserved by the Lucani Commenta Bernensia 8.91) Cornelia so addresses her husband after the debacle of Pharsalos: Vicit, Magne, felicitatem tuam mea fortuna. quid enim ex funesta Crassorum domo recipiebas nisi ut minueretur magnitudo tua? But how was it possible that the cause that was not just proved victorious, the cause (to paraphrase Scipios words at B. Af. 45) nefario scelere contaminata et caede civium saginata? Cicero, speaking of Antonius, echoes this sentiment (Phil. 2.59): saturavit se sanguine dissimillimorum sui civium; felix fuit, si potest ulla in scelere esse felicitas. On several occasions he denies the felicitas to Caesar, most explicitly in a letter to Cornelius Nepos (Ep. fr. 2.5, p. 153 Watt): in perditis impiisque consiliis, quibus Caesar usus est, nulla potuit esse felicitas. Cicero shifts the understanding of felicitas from that of a celestial force and favor to a personal moral judgment; but even on this new ground the Caesarians had their answer. Their causa not only deis placuit (in Lucans bitter words, 1.128)90; it was victrix because it was iustior (Lucan himself leaves this in aporia: quis iustius induit arma scire nefas, 1.12627). And it was a causa clemens.
humana pronuntiantur, sicut in vigiliis vel in proelio pro signo dicitur, ut puta, victoria palma virtus, Deus nobiscum, triumphus imperatoris et alia. 88 On the augural significance of laetus, see J. Linderski, Roman Religion in Livy, in W. Schuller (ed.), Livius. Aspekte seines Werkes (= Xenia. Konstanzer Althistorische Vortrge und Forschungen 31 [Konstanz 1993]) 6061, 67 (n. 24) = Roman Questions (above, n. 19) 61516, 623; cf. 679. 89 A. Alfldi in his review of S. Weinstocks Divus Julius, Gnomon 47 (1975) 162 = A. Alfldi, Caesariana (Bonn 1984) 335] (but he is quite wrong in denying a special relationship of Caesar with felicitas). 90 Cf. on all of this the fine pages by P. Jal, Les dieux et les guerres civiles dans la Rome de la fin de la rpublique, REL 40 (1962) 170200, esp. 18388; and by Wistrand, Felicitas (above, n. 86) 4143.

Q. Scipio Imperator

159

171

After Catos suicide the proquaestor L. Caesar ( MRR 2.297) professing his faith in Caesars clementia persuaded the people of Utica to surrender, and portis patefactis Utica egressus Caesari imperatori obviam proficiscitur (B. Af. 88). Caesar of course pardoned him91, and many others, facile et pro natura sua (89). In contrast to the inept, harsh and cruel Scipio he was not only inbued with felicitas; he was also imperator clemens92. If the title of imperator advertised Scipios felicitas, his cognomen Scipio advertised his invincibility. There circulated a prophecy that a Scipio cannot suffer discomfiture in Africa: felix et invictum in ea provincia fataliter Scipionum nomen ferebatur93. This belief spread even to Caesars soldiers (Dio 42.58.1). Caesar, personally a sceptic, paid keen attention to the superstitions of the vulgus94. He knew well that to use reason against belief was to no avail. Irrational opinions had to be fought on their own ground. Thus he procured an antidote: he kept in his camp a Scipio, as Suetonius (Iul. 59) puts it, despectissimum quendam ex Corneliorum genere, cui ad opprobrium Salvitoni 95 cognomen erat. Plutarch (Caes. 52.23)
91 Unfortunately things are not always as they seem or as the propagandists present them. L. Caesar was later killed, without Caesars knowledge, so Suetonius (Iul. 75.3) avers; secretly, on Caesars orders, according to Dio (43.12.3). On Cic., Fam. 9.7.12, see Shackleton Bailey, Familiares (above, n. 39) 2.178. 92 On the contrast between the crudelitas of the Pompeiani and Caesars clementia, see the erudite and discerning treatment by K. Raaflaub, Dignitatis contentio (above, n. 73) 293307, and esp. on the war in Africa 25758, 300. An utterance of Cicero (in March 49) gives a good idea what one could expect from a (bankrupt) but victorious Metellus Scipio: quid enim tu illic Scipionem, quid Faustum, quid Libonem prae<ter>missurum sceleris putas quorum creditores convenire dicuntur? quid eos autem, cum vicerint, in civis effecturos? (Att. 9.11.4). 93 Suet., Iul. 59. Also Plut., Caes. 52.23; Dio 42.57.5. This oracle was invented for Scipio Aemilianus: Flor. 1.31.12: Quamvis profligato urbis excidio tamen fatale Africae nomen Scipionum videbatur. Igitur in alterum Scipionem conversa res publica finem belli reposcebat. S. Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971), 98, maintains that The oracle was probably created for Scipio Maior during the Second Punic War and was used again in 147 B.C. for Scipio Aemilianus. Hardly so. Until Zama no Roman had ever conquered Africa; and until the arrival on the scene of the future Africanus the nomen Scipionum was calamitous to the Romans: P. Scipio, the father of Africanus, was routed at Trebia, and he found death in 211 in the company of his brother Gnaeus in their debacle in Spain. It was Africanus who through his victory became a dux fatalis, and bequeathed this fame to his line. 94 This is well illustrated by a well-known incident: on disembarking in Africa he slipped (a bad sign!), but verso in melius omine: Teneo te, inquit, Africa (Suet., Iul. 59.1; cf. Dio 42.58.3). Other sources in Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 40) 3 (1906) 522, n. 3. 95 Sallustio (Plut., Caes. 52.3); Salutio (Dio 42.58.1); Salvitto (Plin., N.H. 35.8; for variant readings, see C. Mayhoff in his Teubner edition [1897] ad loc., and esp. Billows [see below] 6364). At 7.54 Pliny explains the origin of this nickname; oddly enough both an ancestor of Metellus Scipio and this Cornelius Scipio received their nicknames from their similarity to persons of lowly status, Scipio Nasica (cos. 138) the name of Serapio from a slave, a suarii negotiatoris vile mancipium, and Cornelius Scipio, the mascot of Caesar, from a Salvitto mimus. On this shadowy Scipio, see F. Mnzer, Cornelius 357, RE 4 (1900) 15056; and, recently, and better (though his belief that the testamentary adoption was a full adoption is quite misplaced), a detailed investigation by R. A. Billows, The Last of the Scipios, AJAH 7 (1982 [1985]) 5368. The opprobrium will reside not in the name itself (no opprobrium was attached to the name of Serapio), but rather in the manner of life that in some way united the mimus and the aristocrat. But the characterization of Salvitto as despectissimus may derive from a hostile

160

Historia et Ius

172

adds that Caesar paraded in battles this Scipio in the forefront as if commander of the army. Plutarch, who had curiosity but no discernment, wonders (xalepn epen) whether Caesar kept this negligible nobody to mock Scipio, the commander of the enemy, or in order to apppropriate the omen for himself (ete ka spoud tn ovnn okeiomenow)96. The latter is of course the right answer, but it requires clarification. Two omina of equal potency would annul each other, but in divinatory reality the omen of Salvitto was stronger. Metellus Scipio could claim descent from the Africani only in the cognatic line97 (his abavus married a daughter of Africanus); on the other hand, as Plutarch reports, Salvitto was of the House of the Africani. He descended, it has been suggested, from the line of the elder Africanus himself, more precisely from Africanus younger son L. Scipio (pr. 174). This branch will have been submerged for more than a century to reappear from obscurity to the light of history at an opportune moment in the camp of Caesar in Africa98. The literary sources tell only part of the story, and they tell it mostly from the vantage point of the victor. The other part is told by Scipio himself through the medium of coins he struck in Africa. They not only display the proud denomination of imperator; his coinage, as Michael Crawford (RRC 2.738) aptly put it, is pathetically true to its authors belief in the felix et invictum Scipionis nomen, overcome at Thapsus by the felicitas of Caesar 99.
source; there was at least an equal amount of opprobrium that could be hurled at his rival omen-bearer Metellus Scipio (see above, n. 68). Not much better Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 93) 98: one may not be so sure whether Caesar really had the other Scipio in his camp. It is amazing that a scholar who devoted a book to the various aspects of Caesarian symbolism refuses to take seriously the symbolism of the names. At B.C. 1.4.2 Caesar records another unfulfilled prophecy: Lentulus (i.e., L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus, cos. 49; MRR 2.256) ... seque alterum fore Sullam inter suos gloriatur, ad quem summa imperii redeat. We may suspect that Scipio glossed over this fact; cf. Lucan 6.78889: deplorat Libycis perituram Scipio terris / infaustam subolem; not inaccurate but misleading. The Scholiasts are quite positive (and wrong): Adnot. super Lucanum 6.310: Scipio enim Africanus fuit, qui vicit Hannibalem, ex cuius genere hic Scipio in Africa est interemptus; 6.788: Scipio enim in Africa periit, qui fuit e familia Scipionis Africani; Lucani Commenta Bernensia; 6.788: Scipio nepos Africani. Billows (above, n. 95) 6162. There may be a sequel to this bizarre tale. Billows (5960) proposed that the father of Propertius mournful Cornelia, and the (adoptive father) of P. Scipio, the consul in 16, was none other than Salvitto! He also assigns to Cornelius Scipio Salvitto the suffect consulship in 35, but this idea must now be discarded for we have recently learned that the suffectus of 35 was a Cornelius Dolabella (see above, n. 23). In view of this new find Billows stemma of the last Cornelii will have to be substantially revised. A. Alfldi, Iuba I. und die Pompeianer in Africa, Schweizer Mnzbltter 8/9 (1958/1959) 9 = Caesariana (Bonn 1984) 223, claims that in Scipios coinage ist nur der Name des Feldherrn und seiner Legaten rmisch. Alles andere ist afrikanisch ein Stck der Beschwichtigungspolitik der dorthin geflchteten Senatspartei. This is a gross exaggeration. Of course references to Africa (the lion-headed Genius Terrae Africae, the head of Africa wearing elephants skin [cf. n. 100], also the corn-ear, and a goddess with a mural-crown [cf. below, n. 149] appear on joint issues of Scipio and his legates, but they hardly predominate; see Crawford, RRC 2.738, esp. n. 5. The recent paper by M. Paz Garca-Bellido, Punic Iconography on the Roman Denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus, AJN 1 (1989), 3749, esp.

96

97

98

99

Q. Scipio Imperator

161

VI. THE LANGUAGE OF COINS The idiom of symbols is opaque and allusive, but it has its own grammar. The images on Scipios coins evoke the past of his family, stress the constitutional legitimacy of the imperator, and look forward to a prosperous peace after victory. First, the elephant. Next the sella curulis and lituus. Then tropaeum, Victoria, caduceus and cornucopiae. [1] The Elephant Scipio issued coins either alone or jointly with his legates, M. Eppius (MRR 2.301) and P. Licinius Crassus Iunianus (MRR 2.301; 3.119). On the coins he minted alone (RRC 1.471, no 459) perhaps the most important item is not the laureate head of Jupiter on the obverse (with the inscription METEL PIUS) but rather an elephant on the reverse, with the inscription SCIPIO above, and IMP below100. The elephant was an emblem of the Metelli101; and we note that among the Caesarian mints there was also an issue displaying an elephant about to trample on a rising snake, with CAESAR inscribed in the exergue (RRC 1.461, no. 443). Our curiosity should not turn into fantasy102. However enticing the idea of Caesar countering with his elephant issue
3741, also overestimates the African elements on the coins of Scipio while entirely disregarding Scipios Roman and anti-Caesarian message. Scipio was not an African chieftain. On the representations of Africa, see now the excellent corpus by J. A. Ostrowski, Les personnifications des provinces dans lart romain (Varsovie 1990) 8199. 100 On the denarii he issued together with his legate (M.) Eppius there appears on the obverse head of Africa r., laureate and wearing elephants skin, with the inscription Q METELL SCIPIO IMP (Crawford, RRC 1.472, no 461). A similar motif on a coin of Iuba, adduced by H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (Ithaca-London 1974) 279 (n. 137). 101 The elephant or elephants head figured on a number of issues by the moneyers from the family of Metelli who thus commemorated the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus (cos. 251; RE 72) over Hasdrubal at Panormus in 250, and the capture of Carthaginian elephants; see Crawford, RRC 1.28788, nos 26263; 29293, no 269; 38788, no 369; 390, no 374; Scullard, The Elephant (above, n. 100) 15152, and pl. XXIV ac. 102 A. Alfldi, Die Erklrung des Namens Caesar in den sptrmischen Kompendien (zu v. Ael. 2,35), Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1966/1967 = Antiquitas, Rh. 4, Bd. 4 (Bonn 1968) 918 (reprinted in Caesariana [Bonn 1984] 17588) dated this issue to 47/46, and produced an elaborate pageant of Caesar the Elephant trampling the Dragon of Africa. The proof: according to late Roman sources Caesar was a word for elephant lingua Maurorum or Poenorum, and it also appears in a Punic inscription as a personal name. Next (p. 14) the story in Pliny (N.H. 8.3233): Elephantos fert Africa ... bellantesque cum his perpetua discordia dracones tantae magnitudinis, ... idem (dracones) obvii deprehensi in adversos (elephantos) erigunt se oculosque maxime petunt. This is the text as reproduced by Alfldi: it is the worst sort of quotation, a truncated quote. It should read: Elephantos fert Africa ... sed maximos India bellantesque cum iis ... dracones. To conclude his account Pliny reports at 8.35: generat eos (sc. dracones) Aethiopia Indicis pares. Aelian, Hist. Anim. 2.21, notes that in Ethiopia snakes are so big that they can kill elephants; so also Diod. 3.37.9, misinterpreted by Alfldi: Ethiopia does not equal Africa. But as the peculiar place of the eternal struggle of elephants and giant snakes Pliny specifically names India. So also does Aelian, Hist. Anim. 6.21: En Indow ... lfaw ka drkvn xyista (at 5.48 he speaks in general of the bitterest enmity between the

173

162

Historia et Ius

174

the elephant issue of Scipio, the evidence of hoards suggests an earlier date for Caesars coins; almost certainly it was his first issue of the civil war, minted in 4948. The obverse with its pontifical emblems advertised Caesars dignity of pontifex maximus, and his constitutional legitimacy, of great importance for his early steps in Italy and Rome; and the elephant on the reverse, a symbol of victory and strength, promised destruction of his treacherous enemies103. Thus if there was any duel of symbols on coins104, it was Scipios elephant that was a response to Caesars. But much more likely Scipios coinage simply continued the tradition of the Metelli that currently acquired a poignant topicality: the elephants of Iuba were an important ingredient of Scipios army, much feared by the Caesarians. The story of the elephants, real and symbolic, ended at Thapsus: Caesar captured sixty four of the beasts, and paraded them, turreted, before the walls of the city (B. Af. 86); and for conspicuous bravery in fighting them he bestowed on the famed Fifth Legion, the Alaudae, the elephant as its badge105. For over two hundred years, from Panormus to Thapsus the Metelli had claimed a special relationship with the animal; now it was all Caesars, and the future Emperors were to regard the elephant as their exclusive privilege and prerogative106. [2] The Sella Curulis The sella curulis was a seat proper to the magistratus curules, but it was also used by the magistrates who functioned pro consule or pro praetore107. By putting the

103

104

105 106 107

elephant and the draco). Alfldis references (14, n. 12) to Manilius 4.664 (who mentions horrendos angues and [666] vastos elephantas as inhabiting Libya), and to Horace, Carm. 3.10.18 (who refers to Mauris anguibus) are beside the point for in none of these texts (cf. also Sall., Iug. 89.5; Plin., N.H. 5.26) do we hear of a struggle between elephants and snakes (cf. also Plin., N.H. 8.37: nota est in Punicis bellis ad flumen Bagradam a Regulo imperatore ballistis tormentisque ut oppidum aliquod expugnata serpens CXX pedum longitudinis, but hardly anyone bent upon the conquest of Africa would recall Regulus). Caesar the elephantine dragon slayer of Africa is a figment. The story is instructive for it shows a great and perspicacious scholar so charmed by his theory that he saw in Plinys text only Africa, erased India, and refused to look further. See Crawford, RRC 1.89; 2.735, with a vigorous critique of Alfldis dating and interpretation. On Caesars association with elephants, cf. also Weinstock, Divus Julius (above, n. 93) 7778. {On the symbolism of the elephant, see also J.-L. Voisin, Le triomphe africain de 46 et lidologie csarienne, Antiquits africaines 19 (1983) 733 at 3233.} I very much doubt that the dragon head on RRC no 461/12 (reverse) picks up and implicitly rejects the hostile reference of the dragons head on no 443/1, i.e., on Caesars elephant coin, as Crawford tentatively suggests. Cf. below in the text, VI, [2], and n. 110. Appian, BC 2.96 (cf. B. Af. 84). On the legion in question, see [E.] Ritterling, Legio, RE 12 (1925) 156466. Cf. Scullard, The Elephant (above, n. 100) 195201, 27980. He notes (197) that at Thapsus the Romans had fought their last battle with elephants for some 300 years. Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 14) I2. 399402; T. Schfer, Imperii insignia: sella curulis and fasces (Mainz 1989) 5052, 6369. When used by promagistrates in camp the chair was technically called sella castrensis (Mommsen I2. 399400, n. 3).

Q. Scipio Imperator

163

175

sella on his aurei and denarii (RCC 1.472, no. 460/12, reverse108) Scipio alluded to his legitimate imperium109; but there is more to this image. As Mommsen has shown, the sella curulis was not only a symbol of imperium, but also of jurisdiction. And indeed on our coin we have above the chair scales balanced on cornucopiae. Thus imperium iustum coupled with iustitia and abundantia110. On the left side of the sella there appears a corn-ear, and on the right a dragons head. The corn-ear refers to the grain-rich Africa, and the dragons head was perhaps an emblem of Numidia111. The African corn suggested to some a different interpretation. A. WallaceHadrill, in an article that offers much more than its title might suggest112, points out that there is only scant evidence from Roman antiquity for the imagery of libra as a symbol of justice; when coupled with Aequitas it is rather a symbol of honest measure. With respect to the issue of Metellus Scipio he observes (2829) that the linking of scales and cornucopiae looks forward to the normal attributes of Aequitas, and perhaps the scales suggest fairness in dispensing corn. And further (31): while Justice could conceivably be indicated, there is nothing to compel this interpretation; and much to be said for seeing a simple symbol of the act of weighing. This interpretation is probably on the mark as far as various imperial coin types are concerned, but as to the coin of Metellus Scipio it curiously neglects to give full weight to the symbolism of the sella. Wallace-Hadrill erroneously terms Metellus Scipio as legate of Pompey in Africa (28), and thus overlooks the link between the imperator and the sella as the seat of authority and justice. Cicero identifies iustitia and aequitas in the following definition, Top. 90: Atque etiam aequitas tripertita dicitur esse; una ad superos deos, altera ad manes, tertia ad homines pertinere. Prima pietas, secunda sanctitas, tertia iustitia aut (in a narrower sense) aequitas nominatur113. The scales on Scipios coin may have,
108 With the inscription CRASS IUN LEG PRO PR; Scipios inscription, METEL PIUS SCIP IMP, is on the obverse, together with a bust of Jupiter, eagles head and scepter. The imperator, the owner of the sella curulis, is thus under the direct protection of Jupiter (cf. Schfer, Imperii insignia [above, n. 107] 99). Garca-Bellido, Punic Iconography (above, n. 99) 38, thinks that this is the Punic Baal Hammon, often identified with Jupiter. Unlikely. Below the cornucopiae and immediately above the sella, Schfer discovers the triskeles, a symbol of Sicily, the island with which the Metelli hadbeen long connected. 109 The idea of Alfldi, Iuba (above, n. 99) 9 = 223, that the sella on this coin zugleich ein Abzeichen der von Rom verliehenen Knigswrde gewesen ist, i.e., of Iubas title, is hardly persuasive. For a sella curulis on a coin of Iuba II, see Schfer, Imperii insignia (above, n. 107) 5758. 110 On iustitia, see the solid book by B. Lichocka, Justitia sur les monnaies imperiales romaines (Varsovie 1974). She points out that La liaison de la chaise curule avec les cornes dabondance est la liaison des symboles du droit et de la richesse (47, with further literature in n. 84). 111 Schfer, Imperii insignia (above, n. 107) 9899: der Drachenkopf as a Wappentier of Numidia. Alfldi, Iuba (above, n. 99) 9 = 223, instead of a dragon saw rather a Silphiumblte, silphium being another famous product of the continent. Sydenham, CRR 175, no 1047, interprets the image as a head of carnyx. 112 A. Wallace-Hadrill, Galbas Aequitas, NC 141 (1981) 2039. 113 On the juridical concept of aequitas, see P. Pinna Parpaglia, Aequitas in libera republica (Milano 1973) passim.

164

Historia et Ius

conceivably, alluded to the dispensing of the African corn, but in conjunction with the sella curulis the libra is better taken as an expression of the imperators aequitas = iustitia, and as an answer to Caesarian accusations of crudelitas. [3] The Jug and the Lituus Pride of place in ideology and propaganda goes to the reverse of a denarius (RRC 1.472, no 460/3) displaying a tropaeum flanked by a lituus and a jug (with a handle). The inscription reads METEL PIUS SCIP IMP. The lituus was an augural instrument par excellence114; the jug causes problems. Its association with the augurs is not self-evident. No literary source attributes it to the augurs or connects it with any known augural function. Two widely used numismatic compendia ascribe to the jug the name of capis115. Now capis is attested as a pontifical vessel. In Livy (10.7.10) P. Decius Mus so argues for the admittance of the plebeians to the pontificate and augurate: cui deorum hominumve indignum videri potest ... eos viros, quos vos sellis curulibus, toga praetexta, tunica palmata, et toga picta et corona triumphali laureaque honoratis ... pontificalia atque auguralia insignia adicere? Qui Iovis optimi maximi ornatu decoratus, curru aurato per urbem vectus in Capitolium ascenderit, is <non> conspiciatur cum capide et lituo, <cum> capite velato victimam caedet auguriumve ex arce capiet?116
114 It is important to note that lituus was used solely by the augurs, never by magistrates. For references, see Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 2252, n. 412; 2271, n. 488. 115 Gruber, CRR 2.35758, n. 1, no 47, where he takes capis = jug as a pontifical attribute (cf. also 1.537, n. 2; 3.97 in the Index s.v. capis); he does not explain what was its function and symbolic value as compared to that of simpuvium and simpulum (cf. 3.12728, Index s.vv.; and see below, n. 118). So also Sydenham, CRR 175, no 1049. In this interpretation of the jug Gruber was unfortunately followed by Roberta Stewart in her otherwise interesting and spirited article The Jug and Lituus on Roman Republican Coin Types: Ritual Symbols and Political Power (forthcoming). This unfortunate terminology also in R. Newman, A Dialogue of Power in the Coinage of Antony and Octavian (4430 B.C.), AJN 2 (1990) 3763, esp. 55. {The article by R. Stewart has in the meantime appeared: Phoenix 51.2 (1997 [1998]) 17089, esp. 17986. I remain unconvinced by her argument; I still believe we have to distinguish between the libation jug (pontifical) and the sortition jug (augural). Nor do I see any immediate connection between the pontiffs and a magistrates claim to legitimate imperium. There certainly was no connection whatsoever (as intimated by Stewart, 172, n. 11) between lituus and litatio. The priestly symbols on coins have also been treated by L. Morawiecki, especially in the articles Symbole urzedw religijnych na monetach republiki rzymskiej [Augural and Pontifical Symbols in the Roman Republican Coinage], in D. Musia and M. Zi kowski (eds.), Religie w swiecie starozytnym [Religions in the Ancient World] (Torun 1993) 7379; Pontificalia atque Auguralia Insignia and the Political Propaganda in the Coinage of the Roman Republic, Notae Numismaticae (Cracow) 1 (1996) 3757: an interesting discussion of the evolution of the symbolic significance of the representations of lituus and of lituus and jug (for which Morawiecki employs the tradional denomination capis). He believes (p. 46) that the lituus and jug on the denarii of Metellus Scipio may have a two-fold meaning: a reference to Sullas rule and an allusion to the imperium of the moneyers ancestor, a traditional (and unlikely) interpretation. But at the same time he perceptively regards the tropaion as hinting at Scipios imperium.} 116 I quote this text according to the edition of C. F. Walters and R. S. Conway (Oxonii 1919); it contains an abundant apparatus.

176

Q. Scipio Imperator

165

177

Two pairs of priestly emblems and of priestly functions stand out: capis goes with victimam caedere, lituus goes with augurium ex arce capere, and caput velatum pertains to both functions; indeed it is amply attested that the pontiffs sacrificed and the augurs took auguries with the back of their head veiled117. But capis is thus not only firmly established as a distinctive pontifical implement; literary descriptions virtually identify capis with simpuvium. This is welcome for in other texts it is simpuvium that is a characteristic feature of the pontiffs. Capis = simpuvium was a bowl or beaker with a handle, rather short and stout; it was used for sacrificial libations118. It was very different in shape from the much larger, lean and tall jug that appears in the company of the lituus. In her famed article L. R. Taylor was adamant: we ought to keep the jug, whatever its name and its function, apart from the pontifical and sacrificial capis, and firmly in the sphere of the augurs; in any case the augurs had nothing to do with sacrifice 119. This statement, a rarity in Taylors opus, is inaccurate120; but her main point, the augural character of the jug, is born out overwhelmingly by numismatic evidence121. To Taylor the jug looked more like the ordinary Roman water pitcher, urceus; in her later, even more famous work, she devised an ingenious explication of its use, and of its association with the augurs. She starts with the procedure of sortitio. It took place in an inaugurated spot, the templum. The templa and the activities conducted in them stood under the religious supervision of the augurs. The augurs were also called in to decide the validity of the lot. And she concludes: Such a function of the augur may explain the symbol of the augurate frequently found on coins, the pitcher, combined with the lituus. ... In every example the pitcher has a small opening usually with a spout, which may mean that it represents not the urna versatilis of the comitia but a pitcher that could be used to decide, with
117 See the collection of evidence in the little known dissertation by H. Freier, Caput Velare (Diss. Tbingen 1963) 3983. 118 See R. von Schaewen, Rmische Opfergerte, ihre Verwendung im Kultus und in der Kunst (Berlin 1940) 3538. This thorough study, with ample references to literary and iconographical sources, has unfortunately remained unknown to all recent scholars who discussed pontifical and augural implements on coins. The entry on capis in W. Hilgers, Lateinische Gefssnamen (= Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbcher 31 [Dsseldorf 1969]) 13839, is disappointing (he disregards the connection between capis and simpuvium). Cf. also Taylor, Symbols (below, n. 119) 353, n. 8: The capis ... was probably used interchangeably with the ladle (simpulum or simpuvium). So also Crawford, RRC 2.860 (index): Capis = Simpulum (but he incorrectly identifies simpuvium and culullus). See now on priestly emblems the erudite paper by E. Zwierlein-Diehl, Simpuvium Numae, in H. A. Cahn and E. Simon (eds.), Tainia Roland Hampe dargebracht (Mainz 1978) 40522. 119 L. R. Taylor, Symbols of the Augurate on Coins of the Caecilii Metelli, AJA 48 (1944) 35256 at 353. 120 On the sacrifices performed by the augurs, see the references in Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 2254, n. 421; cf. 222223. 121 The prime exhibits are the coins on which the pontifical and augural emblems are juxtaposed: RRC no 456 (obverse: axe and simpuvium; reverse: jug and lituus); no 467 (reverse: simpuvium, aspergillum; jug and lituus; above: AUGUR; below: PONT MAX); no 489/13 (obverse: lituus, jug, raven; reverse: simpulum, aspergillum, axe, apex); no 500/1, 6 (obverse: axe, simpuvium, knife; reverse: jug, lituus).

166

Historia et Ius

178

a smaller number of lots, the division of command for consuls and praetors 122. No better solution has since been offered, but a debate has raged about the very significance of augural symbols. Traditionally the sacerdotal emblems on coins had been taken to refer either to a priesthood of the moneyer himself or to a priesthood of a moneyers ancestor. The latter solution imposes itself for most of the issues minted by the triumviri monetales, all young men, few of whom could have been priests themselves123. If no ancestor with a suitable priesthood was on record, such a priesthood had to be postulated for a suitable ancestor. However, in the later years of the republic some monetales started putting on coins priestly emblems that did not refer to their family members but rather to the great party leaders, Caesar and Pompeius, Antonius and Octavian. If an issue with sacerdotal symbols was minted under the authority of a magistrate cum imperio the reference, again especially in the later years of the republic, could often well be to the magistrate himself. A group of spirited scholars blazed past those traditional positions, still upheld by Taylor, and developed a theory of augural symbols that placed them squarely in the center of ideology and the struggle for power in the later republic124. The essence of this theology of victory has been admirably summarized by J.R. Fears: Down to Sulla ... the lituus did signify the augurate, but with Sulla it underwent an important change: it came to symbolize the auspicium, which along with imperium, was the essential prerogative of the Roman magistrate. The lituus refers to the supreme military authority of the charismatic leader125. A fierce controversy first swirled aroud the lituus and jug on Sullas coinage: do these symbols refer to Sullas actual possession of the augurate or to the augurate he had only claimed for himself? Or perhaps, more in general, are they intimations of Sullas constitutional position, the legitimacy of his imperium? Into this fray I do not propose here to enter126, but a technical augural point demands clarification. Scholars who treated of these matters were all keen numis122 L. R. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar (Ann Arbor 1966) 7374 and 144 (n. 32). On the augurs, templum and sortition, see also Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 217375, and (with corrections to Taylors presentation) 219394, n. 173. 123 The lituus on coins of Faustus Sulla (quaestor 54, MRR 1.223) perhaps alludes to his own and not to his fathers augurate (so Crawford, RRC 1.44950, no 426/13). He was augur by 57 (MRR 1.207), and Crawford argues for placing his issues in 56 (RRC 1.88); Broughton opted for dating his office of monetalis to ca 62 (MRR 1.437; cf. 3.76). 124 J. Gag, Romulus-Augustus, MEFRA 47 (1930), 13881, esp. 16061, on the connection between lituus and imperium: Plus la notion dimperator se charge dlments mystiques, et plus lexercise de lauspication regagne sa valeur originelle. Limperator est le gnral hereux, ayant pour lui les auspices; A. Alfldi, The Main Aspects of Political Propaganda on the Coinage of the Roman Republic, in R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland (eds.), Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford 1956) 6395, esp. 8189 (lituus as an attribute of imperatorial might). 125 J. R. Fears, The Coinage of Q. Cornificius and Augural Symbolism on Late Republican Denarii, Historia 24 (1975) 592602 at 597. Fears (598) unfortunately continues to use the denomination capis for the jug that appears together with lituus. 126 See the summary of the discussion in T. R. Martin, Sulla Imperator Iterum, the Samnites and

Q. Scipio Imperator

167

179

matists and perceptive historians, but alas often ignorant of the baffling augural minutiae, and of the abstruse modern literature dealing with them. Their disquisitions abound in statements loose, misleading, inaccurate. J. R. Fears adduces the coinage of Q. Cornificius (RRC 1.51819, no 509/14): on the reverses of his aurei and denarii Cornificius is represented as augur, capite velato and holding lituus in his right hand; the inscription proclaims Q. CORNIFICIUS AUGUR IMP. Fears employs this coin, with its image and inscription reenforcing each other, as a key to unlock the true significance of augural emblems on other late republican issues: On all of these coins of known augurs the lituus does not symbolize merely the auspices of the imperator or even his military authority. The theme is rather ... augur et imperator. The magistrate who was also an augur stood in a special position. He could interpret the auspices as well as take them 127. The idea that only augurs could interpret the auspices is patently and manifestly wrong. The impetrative auspices, regularly taken by magistrates, were all well defined, and did not require any particular interpretation. Most oblative auspices, the signs that occurred unasked, were also easy to interpret; they could be accepted or rejected by the observer128. The magistrates and the augurs acted in separate but intersecting spheres. Only the points of intersection are germane to our discussion (see below). After this long but necessary detour, back to Metellus Scipio. He was a pontiff (MRR 2.171, 172, n. 4), and not an augur, hence lituus and jug cannot denote his own priesthood. L. R. Taylor produced an elaborate explanation, in two stages.129 Scipios coin (like his elephant issue) is an imitation of the denarii struck by his adoptive father Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 80). On these issues the obverse featuring the head of Pietas (an allusion to his surname Pius which he acquired for his incessant efforts to secure the restoration from exile of his father Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, cos. 109) is combined with two reverses, one showing an elephant, and the other a jug and a lituus, with IMPER in the exergue (RRC 1.390, no 374/12). The trouble with the obverse is that Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius was, like Scipio, a pontiff (even pontifex maximus, MRR 2.11314) but not an augur. Taylor suggests that the augural symbols refer to the (unattested) augurate of his father Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus. This is not impossible; Metellus Numidicus was known for his opposition to the agrarian law of Appuleius Saturninus which, he

Roman republican coin propaganda, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 68 (1989) 1944 at 2024, 4344. 127 Fears, The Coinage (above, n. 125) 598. Cf. also 600: the lituus ... must represent the idea that through the auspices ... the patron deity aids his favorite, showing sanction or disapproval of his planned actions. The charismatic leader who was also an augur had received divine sanction to interpret these auspices. Cf. already in a similar sense Gag, Romulus (above, n. 124) 161. 128 On all of this, see Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 219596, 221518, 222829, 2266, n. 472. 129 Taylor, Symbols (above, n. 119) 35456, endorsed by E. Badian, Sullas Augurate, Arethusa 1 (1968) 2646 at 2728, and by Crawford, RRC 2.738, n. 7.

168

Historia et Ius

said, was not iure rogata, and if he was an augur, his insistence on the unconstitutionality of the law becomes more intelligible 130. The coin of Metellus Scipio would thus be merely an imitation of the coinage of Metellus Pius, and would commemorate the augurate of his adoptive grandfather. This is a tepid association; in view of the onslaught of the Caesarian propaganda, we need an allusion possessed of contemporary urgency. Such an allusion was produced by B. Frier. He pointed out that Metellus Pius issued his coins when he was a Sullan commander operating in Cisalpine Gaul; and he further observed that his augural reverse clearly imitates the reverse of Sullas aurei and denarii struck one or two years earlier. The conclusion: the reverse of Scipios denarius specifically recalled the reverse of his adoptive father Metellus Pius, but even more the earlier reverse of Sulla. And further: Whatever familial precedent Pius could claim, Metellus Scipio could also; but the meaning of the revived reverse should be much broader. The coalition of Sulla, which Scipio might be said to symbolize, was gathering anew against Caesar 131. Frier invoked the potent name of Syme132; in vain: he was curtly dismissed by Badian and Crawford133. Frier was perhaps off the mark, but he was on the right track: we should not only consider the past history of the emblem, but also investigate whether it is possible to tie it with the present. Now about the jug and lituus on the issues of Sulla Crawford himself wrote thus (RRC 1.374): it seems more satisfactory to hold that they were regarded by Sulla as symbolizing a claim to imperium; and he added perceptively: it was apparently necessary ... for Augurs to be present to attest the passing of the Lex Curiata conferring a magistrates powers on him. The lex curiata was only one item in the chain of acts transmitting and bestowing the magisterial power; still Crawfords proposition offers a clear legal and religious perspective in which to view the lituus on coins. The validity of a magistrates or pro-magistrates imperium and auspicium depended on a series of constitutional acts. All these acts involved divine approval signified by the auspices134: a) The election in the comitia centuriata. If there was any fault in the impetrative auspices under which the assembly was convoked; if during the
130 Taylor, Symbols (above, n. 119) 354. Broughton was moderately convinced (or moderately unconvinced); in his Index of Careers (MRR 2.539) he recorded the augurate of Metellus Numidicus but with a query. Cf. Crawford, RRC 1.390, no 374. 131 B. Frier, Sullas Priesthood, Arethusa 2 (1969) 189 and 195, n. 27. 132 Syme, Roman Revolution (above, n. 68) 45. Describing the array of the camp of Pompeius in 49 (in 4746 in Africa the ranks were thinner but the essence the same) he opined: It was the oligarchy of Sulla, manifest and menacing in its last bid for power, serried but insecure. 133 See above, n. 128. Badians article there adduced was a rejoinder to an earlier piece by B. Frier, Augural Symbolism in Sullas Invasion of 83, ANS Museum Notes 13 (1967) 11118. 134 This was well seen by A. Keaveney, Sulla Augur, AJAH 7.2 (1982 [1985]) 15071. The augural symbols on Sullas coinage denoted that his imperium was iustum. The following disquisition owes much to his perceptive argument (see esp. 15860). And see now also incisive remarks by Stewart, Jug and Lituus (above, n. 115) 17879.

Q. Scipio Imperator

169

180

assembly any adverse signs occurred, and were disregarded, and if finally any error was committed in the ritual that caused the auspices to be vitiated, the magistrates were elected vitio, were magistratus vitiosi, and were expected to resign (though technically could not be forced to do so)135. Interregnum would follow, and then with the new election the renovatio auspiciorum (not to be confused with the repetitio auspiciorum; see below). b) The first auspication (the auspices of investiture) coinciding with the entry upon the office. It could be vitiated by an adverse sign. This was a bad omen for the whole year, the gods indicating that the auspicia of the magistrate were not in order. The magistrate was expected to abdicate136. c) The passage of the lex curiata that granted the imperium militiae137. Again, the auspices under which the curiate assembly was convoked had to be ritually without any fault. d) The taking of the auspices on the Capitol by the magistrate (or promagistrate) before his departure for a campaign. These auspices of departure (or of military investiture) corresponded structurally to the first auspication, but in one significant way they were different from it. If a fault was discovered the magistrate (or pro-magistrate) was not expected to resign, but he was obliged to return to Rome ad auspicia repetenda138. All these acts endowed the magistrate with imperium and auspicium; they formed the legal and religious foundation that allowed the magistrate (or pro-magistrate) to take the auspices and offer sacrifices on behalf of the Roman people. The military concept of imperio aupicio (and ductu, denoting the actual command; the commanders without imperium fought ductu suo but imperio and auspicio alieno) was of course an old one, but its symbolism on coins was new. There was no agreed way in which the auspices or the right to the auspices could be visually represented. The magistrates entering upon office, and censors before the lustrum, impetrated auspicium de caelo in the shape of lightning, fulmen139. And indeed on a stone from Africa, referring to a local magistrate, we find a representation of lightning accompanied by the inscription deo loci ubi auspicium dignitatis tale (CIL 8.774). But this monument remains an isolated example. The commanders in the field employed before battles the auspicia pullaria, divination from the eating behavior of sacred chickens, the pulli. The pullarius, the keeper of pulli, was a constant and ubiquitous attendant of the magistrate; and on imperial reliefs there

135 On the augural concept of vitium, and magistratus vitiosus, see Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 215977. 136 See the discussion in Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 216872. 137 On the thorny question of the character of the lex curiata, see the sensible remarks by Keaveney, Sulla Augur (above, n. 134) 16164, 16871. 138 On the renovatio and repetitio auspiciorum, cf. Linderski, Roman Religion in Livy (above, n. 88) 69, n. 31. 139 Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.5.12; 2.6.12; Varro, Ling. Lat. 6.86. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht (above, n. 14) I3. 7981.

170

Historia et Ius

181

appear occasionally representations of the pulli, pecking on the ground, or kept in the cage, the cavea140. There were four canonical birds the flight or voice of which was observed at the auspicia impetrativa: picus, cornix, corvus, parra141, and it would appear that they could very well be employed as indications of auspicium. And indeed on a denarius of Antonius we encounter a raven (corvus), next to jug and lituus (RRC 1.489, no. 489/13). But this emblem too remains an isolated example. The answer why this was so is to be sought in the augural doctrine. Fulmen, pulli, and corvus allude each to a particular type of auspicium; they were not well suited to indicate in abstracto the legitimacy of a generals twin pillars of command, imperium and auspicium. For legitimacy of command depended on the absence of vitium at any and all stages of magisterial investiture from the auspices of the election to the auspices of departure. And vitium, resulting in faulty auspices, the inability to communicate with the gods, could be brought about not only by an adverse oblative sign, which was unobserved or unheeded, but also by an error in the ritual. The augurs assisted at all public meetings, at elections, at the passage of the curiate law, at the entry upon office, the sortitio for the provinces, and at the ceremonies of departure for war. Individual augurs had the right to announce (nuntiare) with binding force adverse signs that appeared after the beginning of the proceedings; and the college of augurs could pass decrees concerning errors in procedure. The final decision rested with the senate; but the presence of a vitium was always established by the board of experts, the college of augurs, on whose recommendation the senate would base its decree142. And the symbols of the augurate were the lituus, the instrument of auspicium and augurium, and in the second place the jug, associated with the procedure of sortitio. The jug and lituus on the coins of commanders were like the stamps of approval; they did not guarantee felicitas or victory, but proclaimed nihil obstat: the path was open to proceed dis iuvantibus. Metellus Scipio had every reason to insist that his path to final success was open. The Caesarians, from the sceleratus imperator himself down to a simple veteran, were loudly denying legitimacy to Scipios position: he obtained his command in a rigged sortitio, and his auspices, and hence his imperium, were
140 On the pulli and pullarii, see esp. Cic., De div. 2.7174 (and the commentary ad loc. by A. S. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione Libri Duo [Urbana 192023, repr. Darmstadt 1963]); Livy 10.40; 41.18.14; Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 2.6.2. Two pulli, feeding, are represented on a third century bronze ingot, RRC 1.133, no 12, but they are perhaps connected with the Dioscuri (Crawford, RRC 2.718, n. 2). On the altar from the vicus Sandalarius, the new augur Lucius Caesar holds lituus, and a pullus at his feet is pecking at something, thus denoting the tripudium (I. Scott Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art [= Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 22, Rome 1955] 6061, and pl. XVI, fig. 31). For further references, see Zwierlein-Diehl, Simpuvium (above, n. 118) 40913 (and pl. 79, 34). For a military pullarius, and the image of the pulli in a cage, see A. von Domaszewski, Die Fahnen im rmischen Heere (= Abhandlungen des Archologisch-Epigraphischen Seminars der Universitt Wien, Heft V, 1885) 3132. 141 Plaut., Asin. 25961; Cic., De div. 1.12, 85. Cf. Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 228586. 142 Full references, and discussion, in Linderski, Augural Law (above, n. 78) 215125.

Q. Scipio Imperator

171

contaminated with all sorts of irredeemable vitia. The answer to these slanders was the lituus and the jug. His imperium was iustum. [4] The Trophy On the coin of Scipio between lituus and jug there is a trophy. According to Gruber (CRR 2.572) it is composed of Spanish arms, consisting of cuirass with sword attached to the waist, helmet, bow and quiver, and round shield. Crawford ventures no description, but Alfldi apparently had doubts about Spanish arms for in his description of the trophy he conspicuously attaches a mark of interrogation: Tropum mit spanischen (?) Waffen 143. This mark ought to be very large indeed for Grubers description was not based on an analysis of the arms themselves. It derives from his conviction that as the lituus and jug (capis in his erroneous terminology) imitate the emblems on the denarii of Metellus Pius, so also the tropaeum may be a memorial of Pius victory over Sertorius (cf. CRR 2.357), and may not have been intended to relate to the campaign for which these coins were struck (CRR 2.572, n. 1), i.e., to Scipios current campaign in Africa. But we have to remember that there is no tropaeum on the denarii of Metellus Pius, and that according to Crawford (RRC 1.390, no 374) Pius did not strike his coins in 7977 in Spain in the war against Sertorius but rather when he was commanding in 81 in Cisalpine Gaul. Grubers Spanish trophy was erected on a shaky ground; it was always ready for a reinterpretation, and L. R. Taylor once again offered a theory elegant and ingenious. If jug and lituus refer to Caecilius Numidicus (they hardly do, we have seen), why not assign to him also the trophy? The trophy would seem to commemorate the victories over Jugurtha that gave Numidicus his triumph and his honorary cognomen 144. This Numidian trophy Taylor placed in a broader context of propaganda and counter-propaganda of the war in Africa. Caesar made use of his adfinis Marius to win over the Numidians and the Gaetulians145; Scipio countered invoking on his coins the memory of Metellus Numidicus. Elegant and ingenious certainly, and certainly not persuasive. Not persuasive because too involved; and one wonders whether it would have been prudent for Metellus Scipio to advertise on his coins Roman victories over the Numidians in a situation when a King of Numidia was his main and indispensable ally. But above all, like Gruber, Taylor shows no interest in the particular arms of
143 Alfldi, Iuba (above, n. 99) 9 = 223. A. J. Janssen, Het antieke tropaion (= Verhandelingen Vlaamse Akad. Klasse. der Letteren 27 [Brussel 1957]) 176, repeats the assertion of Gruber about the Spanish arms, but judiciously remarks: waaronder-een zeer zeldzame verschijning een boog en een pijlkoker. Rare and curious indeed; see below, n. 146. 144 Taylor, Symbols (above, n. 119) 355. 145 B. Afr. 32: Interim Numidae Gaetulique diffugere cotidie ex castris Scipionis et partim in regnum se conferre, partim, quod ipsi maioresque eorum beneficio C. Marii usi fuissent Caesaremque eius adfinem esse audiebant, in eius castra perfugere catervatim non intermittunt; 35 (the speculatores Gaetuli speaking): Saepenumero ... imperator, complures Gaetuli, qui sumus clientes C. Mari ... ad te voluimus in tuaque praesidia confugere; see also 56.

182

172

Historia et Ius

183

which the trophy on Scipios denarius is composed. Now among those arms two pieces stand out: bow and quiver. Neither the Spaniards nor the Numidians were known for their prowess in archery; on the other hand Parthian and Syrian bowmen were famous146. This brings to mind Scipios victory in the Amanus mountains; the victory impugned by Caesar147. It is most natural to take the trophy on Scipios coin as a reference to that glorious and numinous moment. Numinous for it was only on the victorious battlefield that the felicitas of the commander, the favor of the gods, manifested itself. Only after a victory was he a true imperator, and could put this title before his name and on his coins, and the laurel on his fasces. The augural symbols, jug and lituus, indicated that no vitium contaminated the commanders auspicium, but the final and only proof was victory. Not only was Scipios imperium and auspicium iustum; he was also imperator felix. [5] Victory, Peace and Prosperity Will Scipios felicitas hold in Africa? No reason to ask: a Scipio could not fail on this continent. Hence the anticipation of victory so lavishly displayed on Scipios coins. On the reverse of a denarius (RRC 1.472, no. 460/4) we encounter Victoria herself, standing; she holds caduceus in her right hand, and in the left, close to the body, a round shield148. On the obverse there is a representation of the lion-headed
146 [O.] Fiebiger, Sagittarius, RE 1 A (1920) 174346. At the siege of Numantia Iugurtha brought to Scipio twelve elephants and a body of archers and slingers who were attached to them (tow suntassomnouw atow); they did not form a separate unit (App., Bell. Hisp. 89). In the Bell. Jug. Sallust mentions the archers five times, but they are always Roman archers, never Numidian. On bow and/or quiver as attributes on Roman representations of Armenia, Parthia, and Sarmatia, see the still very useful study by P. Bienkowski, De simulacris barbarorum gentium apud Romanos (Cracoviae 1900) 3234, 36, 66; and see now Ostrowski, Les personnifications (above, n. 99): no trace of bow or quiver in the representations of Hispania (16371) or Mauretania (18688) or Numidia (192). Garca-Bellido, Punic Iconography (above, n. 99) 4042, points out that bow and quiver were the attributes of Tanit, but he curiously forgets that bow and quiver as parts of a trophy convey an entirely different image from bow and quiver as an attribute of a deity. The bow and quiver as a trophy represent the captured enemy arms; and thus if the turreted deity on the obverse of the coin is Tanit (cf. below, n. 149), and if the bow and quiver forming part of the trophy on the reverse belong to her, the message would be that of the victory over Africa and not of the victory in Africa. But Scipio was not fighting Africa (Iuba was his ally!): he was fighting Caesar. The interpretation of Garca-Bellido collapses: the bow and quiver on Scipios trophy have nothing to do with Africa or Tanit. 147 It is well to remember that this was a second appellatio for Scipio: after his praetorship he administered a province and celebrated a triumph (Varro, De re rust. 3.2.16; MRR 3.42), and for a triumph the acclamatio imperatoria was a necessary prerequisite. Scipios felicitas was twice tested and proven. Curiously enough, in the Bellum Civile (3.36) Caesar himself stresses the celeritas of Scipio as a commander, and celeritas was one of a true imperators cardinal virtues (Cf. Cic., De imp. Cn. Pomp. 29; Combs, Imperator [above, n. 6] 280, n. 115). 148 Crawford thinks that she holds a patera; this is unlikely: the patera was normally held with the right (and outstretched) hand. See von Schaewen, Opfergerte (above, n 118) 24. But cf. the Acta of the Severan ludi saeculares: Pighi, De ludis (above, n. 83) 162, lines 4849, where

Q. Scipio Imperator

173

184

G(enius) T(errae) A(fricae), holding an ankh, the symbol of life, in his right hand. Thus victory in Africa. But not only victory. The caduceus also appears on the obverse of another denarius (RRC 1.472, no 460/3). It flanks on the right the head of a female turreted deity, perhaps the city goddess of Utica or Tanit, the chief goddess of Carthage, in the Roman interpretation the Dea Caelestis149; on the left there is a corn-ear, below rostrum tridens, and above a rectangular object that may represent earth (so Crawford, RRC 2.738, n. 1). This is the coin that shows on the reverse lituus, trophy and jug. The caduceus was a symbol of peace150, and its close association with Victoria and the insignia of victory spells a political program: pax terra marique. The program looks beyond the augural or auspical legitimacy, and the felicity of victory, to the fruits of peace. The cornucopiae over the curule chair herald prosperity. Images of corn-ears appear with the curule chair, with the turreted goddess, and with the Head of Africa, laureate and wearing elephants skin (RRC 1.472, no 461, Scipios joint issue with M. Eppius). On this coin, below, there is a plough, another symbol of peaceful and fruitful labor. A golden age brought about by Scipio imperator. Peace came, and prosperity; not with Scipio, and not with Caesar. VII. IMPERATOR SE BENE HABET Had Fortune reversed her decision in the African campaign (in 46), Rome might have known a ruler bearing the style Imperator Scipio Invictus. Or Imp. Scipio Pius. So Syme, inadvertently or perceptively substituting the blind Fortuna for the provident Felicitas 151. Still better and real: Q. Scipio imp. Against the mirage of vainglorious hopes and aspirations the death of Scipio comes in the Bellum Africum (96) as an insignificant footnote. When after the defeat at Thapsus Scipio was escaping from Africa to Spain storm carried his ships to Hippo Regius; there they were encircled by the fleet of the Caesarian P. Sittius, and promptly sunk: ibique Scipio interiit. Other sources, less or differently partisan, tell a heroic story of Scipios death. His vessel surrounded, when the enemies inquired where the imperator was, he plunged his sword into his chest, and defiantly uttered the words that won him immortality, and the company of Cato and Lucretia: imperator se bene habet152.
according to Pighis reconstruction the patera would be held in the left hand. Also GarcaBellido, Punic Iconography (above, n. 99), 38, interprets the object as a small round shield, caetra. T. Hlscher, Victoria Romana (Mainz 1967), has a lengthy discussion of Victoria mit Schild (98135), but he does not mention the coin of Scipio. 149 The former is the traditional interpretation, the latter was ingenuously proposed and argued by GarcaBellido, Punic Iconography (above, n. 99) 3841. 150 Crawford, RRC 2.738, takes it as an emblem of felicitas; but Varro, De vita populi Romani (in Nonius 528 Mercerius = 848 Lindsay) is explicit: caduceus, pacis signum. Cf. Plin., N.H. 29.54; Gell. 10.27.35. 151 R. Syme, Oligarchy for Rome. A Paradigm for Political Science, Diogenes 141 (1988) 63 = Roman Papers 6 (Oxford 1991) 329; and Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature, Historia 7 (1958) 188 = RP 1 (1979) 377.

174

Historia et Ius

185

Vox haec opines Seneca (Ep. Mor. 24.10) illum parem maioribus fecit et fatalem Scipionibus gloriam in Africa non est interrumpi passa. Multum fuit Carthaginem vincere, sed amplius mortem153. Words only: the Metelli lost their elephant, and the Scipiones lost their Africa154. But it is well to remember that Imperator Caesar had only two years left for his felicitas to endure.

152 Liv., Per. 114; Val. Max., 3.2.13; Flor., 2.13.68; Seneca Rhet., Suas. 6.2; Seneca, Ep. Mor. 24.9 (Seneca 24.11 adds: an aliter debebat imperator, et quidem Catonis, mori?); Ps.-Quint., Declamat. Minores 377.9. On Livys admiration for Scipio, see Tac., Ann. 4.34.3: Titus Livius ... Scipionem, Afranium, hunc ipsum Cassium, hunc Brutum nusquam latrones et parricidas, quae nunc vocabula imponuntur, saepe ut insigni<s> viros nominat. Other sources on Scipios death in Mnzer, Caecilius 99 (above, n. 4) 1228, and Broughton, MRR 2.297 (add Quintilian 5.11.10, who also admires Scipios courage in death, associates him with Cato, but finds Lucretia even more admirable: ad moriendum non tam Cato et Scipio quam Lucretia). Cicero probably did not yet know the exact circumstances of Scipios death when he wrote (Fam. 9.18.1): Pompeius, Lentulus tuus, Scipio, Afranius foede perierunt. At Cato praeclare. Or perhaps Scipios utterance was merely a hagiographic invention? 153 Cf. Seneca Rhet., Suas. 7.8: P. Scipionem a maioribus suis desciscentem generosa mors in numerum Scipionum reposuit. 154 As Seneca was well aware, Ep. Mor. 71.10: Omnia licet fiant ... et Scipionem in Africa nominis sui fortuna destituat. In Ampelius Liber memorialis 24 the history of the illustres Scipiones is so summarized: Scipio magnus Africanus qui vicit Hannibalem. Scipio minor Numantinus qui Numantiam et Carthaginem diruit. Scipio Asiaticus qui de Antiocho triumphavit. Scipio Nasica qui a senatu vir optimus est iudicatus. Scipio qui occiso Pompeio partes restituit et victus se interfecit. But Scipio was not a worthy opponent of Caesar, in life or death. It was Catos suicide, glowingly acknowledged even by the author of the Bellum Africum (88), and the legend of Cato, that demanded the victors response. The response came in Caesars Anticato, lost and notorious (cf. H.-J. Tschiedel, Caesars Anticato. Eine Untersuchung der Testimonien und Fragmente [Darmstadt 1981]). We remember that Scipio and Cato had once been enemies, rivals in love (see above, n. 22), and that Scipio (apparently as late as 56 or 55) composed an invective against Cato (Plut., Cato Min. 57). The victor Caesar used Scipios strictures as if spoils of victory in his own denigration of Cato. With Scipio as an ally no wonder that this was one battle he lost. On Caesar as a literary imitator of Scipio, see E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompeius3 (Stuttgart u. Berlin 1922) 436, n. 2; R. Fehrle, Cato Uticensis (Darmstadt 1983), 294, both scholars endorsing the incisive investigation by L. Piotrowicz, De Q. Caecilii Metelli Pii Scipionis in M. Porcium Uticensem invectiva, Eos 18 (1912) 12936. The author of this Latin gem was my First Master and Teacher: it is only appropriate that his should be the last name quoted in a paper honoring the memory of a scholar whom I regard as my Second Master and Teacher.

11 WAYWARD AND DOOMED*

Maria H. DETTENHOFER, Perdita Iuventus. Zwischen den Generationen von Caesar und Augustus (= Vestigia 40 [Mnchen: Beck, 1992]), pp. XII + 359.

561

Latin title, content German. The phrase comes from Cicero, Att. 7, 7, 6: tam perdita iuventus coupled with tanta auctoritate dux. It refers to the youthful (and from the standpoint of the boni morally wretched) followers of Caesar. The author is aware of this context, yet she has decided to use the word in its original meaning of verloren, lost, and apply it to the whole age group between Caesar and Augustus (9). Thus the lost generation, a concept with a powerful resonance in European history. In Rome the generation between Caesar and Augustus can also and not unjustly be described as lost, but for this sense we have to find a different Latin word. A glance at a Latin dictionary will show that although the primary meaning of perditus is lost, in a physical sense, in most of its actual applications the word has a strong moral overtone. The search through the files of the Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank has revealed that in conjunction with iuvenis or iuventus the participle perditus has always a sense of moral decadence. One would ask: why dwell on this philological point when the book deals with the demise of a great republic and the vicissitudes of a generation? Because this point illustrates a modern divorce of history from philology, and the replacement of close attention to texts by sociological commonplaces. Fortunately from this disease the book suffers relatively little, mostly in the introduction. It asks the question: what would have been the careers of young aristocrats if not for Caesar, if not for Augustus? The most evocative Roman answer one seeks in the book in vain: the dirge of Servius Sulpicius who in his consolation on the death of Tullia mourns the death of liberty (Fam. 4, 5; March 45): ea nobis erepta esse quae hominibus non minus quam liberi cara esse debent, patriam, honestatem, dignitatem, honores omnes; and further, addressing Cicero with bitter irony: licitum est tibi, credo, pro tua dignitate ex hac iuventute (that rascally youth) generum deligere, or have grandchildren who honores ordinatim petituri essent, in re publica ... libertate sua <us>uri? Quid horum fuit quod non prius quam datum est ademptum sit? Here through the eyes of a Roman noble we see a whole generation truly lost even before it was born. Those who were born, and who lived, had to cope with turmoil and terror. The Schicksal of the generation the author presents through the lens of seven lives spanning the transition from the res publica to monarchy: the lives of C. Scribonius Curio, M. Antonius, M. Caelius Rufus, M. Iunius Brutus, P. Cornelius Dolabella,

Gnomon 68 (1996) 560562 {with minor addenda}.

176

Historia et Ius

C. Cassius Longinus, and D. Iunius Brutus Albinus. Each life is split into three periods: the experience of the fifties, the experience of the civil war, and (for those who survived) the political chance after the assassination of Caesar. Curio lost his life in 49 fighting in Caesars service king Juba and the Pompeians in Africa; Caelius was dead in 48, executed after a desperate uprising against Caesar; in 43 Decimus Brutus, captured by a Gaulic chieftain, was put to death at Antonys behest, and Dolabella to escape his capture by Cassius committed suicide in the Syrian Laodicea; one year later the liberators Brutus and Cassius perished by their own hands at Philippi; and in 31 Antonius, defeated by Octavian, took his own life in Alexandria. But Caesar too belonged to a lost generation: instead of becoming an elder statesman, he was murdered in the senate house. Those seven lives the author presents with insight and acumen. A pattern emerges, in Dettenhofers book visible more clearly in her treatment of individual lives, where the immediacy of the sources still shines, than in her general Zusammenfassungen. It is best encapsulated in Caelius deeds and utterances. In a famous letter (Fam. 8, 14, dated to August 50), anticipating ea contentio quam fieri necesse est, Caelius faces a dilemma: with the Caesarians he is bound by the ties of gratia and necessitudo; he loves the cause of Caesars opponents, but is repelled by the people who uphold it. Directly addressing Cicero, he remarks: non dubito quin te quoque haec deliberatio sit perturbatura. Indeed. For Cicero also hated the people whose political ideals he shared: non est credibile quae sit perfidia in istis principibus, ut volunt esse et ut essent si quicquam haberent fidei, and he also flirted with the Caesarian option: quoniam qui nihil possunt ii me nolunt amare, demus operam ut ab iis qui possunt diligamur (Att. 4, 5, 2; June 56). The moral, political and military situation Caelius recognized with rare clarity: illud te non arbitror fugere, quin homines in dissensione domestica debeant, quamdiu civiliter sine armis certetur, honestiorem sequi partem, ubi ad bellum et castra ventum sit, firmiorem, et id melius statuere, quod tutius sit. And with great clairvoyance he predicted the political alignment: in hac discordia video Cn. Pompeium senatum quique res iudicant habiturum, ad Caesarem omnes, qui cum timore aut mala spe vivant accessuros; exercitum conferendum non esse. Caelius never really decided for Caesar, only against unzuverlssige und rachschtige Optimaten wie Appius und Domitius, and ultimately against die aussichtslose Sache. Die einzige Alternative, die sich dazu bot, war nun eben Caesar (99). This is the most important sententia of the book. The military balance ought to have been obvious to others; it was to Cicero (Tusc. 2, 38). Cicero vacillated; most other boni chose principle over expediency or personal rancor. Brutus joined Pompey, the murderer of his father; it was only after Pharsalos that he and Cassius embraced Caesars pardon and the prospect of a new career. Yet Caesars clementia was offensive to proud nobles; they felt the weight of the dead Republic on their shoulders, and Brutus awoke under the pressure of his name and the memory of a mythical ancestor (226, 23738, 31617). Caesar began the civil war avowedly in defense of his dignitas, yet under his dispensation there was no place for the dignitas of others (16364, 25051, 31617, 33334). The result was the conspiracy.

Wayward and Doomed

562

177

The death of Brutus provides an epitaph. With Brutus died the personification of the Republic, but he was pursuing a phantom: die letzte Generation der Republik [stand] vor einem politischen Vakuum. Their goals were anachronistic (309). Nor was Caesars Alleinherrschaft a viable solution.1 Dettenhofer thus provides a running commentary to the famous dictum of her Doktorvater: the crisis of the Republic was a crisis without an alternative.2 The Republic is an abstract concept. It is the people who imbue it with life. Dettenhofer pays too little attention to the rachschtigen Optimaten, to the notorious piscinarii. They were all either survivors or products of that deadly reformer, Lucius Sulla. His new state was based on an absurd parody of natural selection the survival of the unfittest.3 De Tocqueville who can be read with great profit also by ancient historians once remarked that the blame for failure and catastrophe must always rest with the social class that holds the reins of power and not with the revolutionaries. It is only against the background of languid senatorial incompetence that the rise of Caesar, or any other adventurer, becomes comprehensible if not necessarily inevitable. Dettenhofer points to two sources of Caesars early dominance: his gold, won in Gaul, and his ability to foster military and civil careers.4 The overwhelming financial means, and the monopoly of patronage, were also the cornerstones of Augustus power, and of other Caesars. But first Brutus and Cassius had to die: Ihr Tod machte den Weg frei fr Octavian und den an monarchische Strukturen besser assimilierten neuen Adel (332). This is right and true, cold and clinical. Another historian, writing of Sulla, has put it similarly and yet very differently: The time for military monarchy had yet not come as even Caesar found out, a generation and a bloodbath later. It took a great deal more

3 4

As E. Badian reminds us, Caesar was a mass murderer (Gnomon 62 [1990] 30). But a thought occurs: he did not kill the right people. If not for his clementia he perhaps would have lived, and the course of history would have been very different, and his system very viable. Dettenhofers relentless structural analysis does not allow for such thoughts: in her book the course of history is always tamed and explained. This is a serious misunderstanding. History is not a preordained and reproducible chemical reaction: it is a dynamic and chaotic process, with many possible options and outcomes (cf. Badian 3738). C. Meier, Res Publica Amissa (Wiesbaden 1966) 2015, and L, LIV, LVII in the introduction to the reprint edition (Frankfurt 1980). For further succinct elaboration, see also his article C. Caesar Divi filius and the Formation of the Alternative in Rome, in K. A. Raaflaub and M. Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire (Berkeley 1990) 5470. E. Badian, Lucius Sulla. The Deadly Reformer (Sydney 1970) 32, powerfully restated in Gnomon 62 (1990) 26. P. 136. She remarks on the great financial expenditures that were needed for a political career, and refers the reader to the books by A. Heuss and I. Shatzman. Asconius should not be omitted. This perceptive author comments on a close connection between ambitus in the city and the extortion in the provinces (In Scaur. 19 Clark).

178

Historia et Ius

slaughter to make it possible, and then by degrees, with caution and tact.5 Or, to quote a bitter poet, Cum domino pax ista venit.6

5 6

Badian, Lucius Sulla, 26. Lucan, Phars. 1, 670, prominently adduced by R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 9. Dettenhofer does not know the essay of Badian, and she utilizes Syme very sparingly. Symes style of writing and of seeing history, with wit and irony illuminating unpleasant truths, was never very popular in German historiography (cf. G. Alfldy, SBHeid., 1983, Heft 1), often given to pedestrian enumeration of facts (as in Langes once popular Rmische Alterthmer) or to romantic (and fatalistic) urges (as in Mommsens description of Caesar and recently C. Meiers {cf. E. Badian, Gnomon 62 (1990) 2239} or to both (Drumanns Rmische Geschichte is an immortal assemblage of facts with a thesis: glorification of monarchy, Roman and Prussian, and denigration of republicanism) or finally and most recently to pretentious sociologizing.

12 AUGUSTALES AND SODALES AUGUSTALES*

I take the pen to correct an insidious but instructive error that has crept into a recent fascicle of a renowned journal. I do it out of a conviction that errors acquire a life of their own sowing confusion and misinformation, particularly if propagated in a periodical of prestige. The incriminated passage reads as follows:
both the Tabula Siarensis (2.1.35) and the Tabula Hebana (5962) record that the sodales Augustales should annually sacrifice to the dead in honor of Germanicus in the same way they did for Gaius and Lucius. These Augustales were relatively new priests in Roman society, devoted to the cult of Augustus, which was based on that of the Roman familia to the genius of its paterfamilias. In Italian towns, these Augustales, consisting largely of freedmen, developed into a recognized social class between the town counselors and the common plebs.1

In this passage the principal error resides in the amalgamation of two vastly dissimilar organizations sharing a similar name, the Augustales and the sodales Augustales. The Augustales were the creation of the Augustan period, and they rapidly became a permanent and prominent fixture in the cities of Italy and the western provinces. Interestingly in the city of Rome itself they are not on record (see below). Contrary to the casual statement by Severy, they are never described as priests, sacerdotes; they were rather members of collegial associations officially devoted to the imperial cult.2 The precise details of their cultic activities are,
* 1 2 Original contribution. B. Severy, Family and State in the Early Imperial Monarchy: The Senatus Consultum de Pisone Patre, Tabula Siarensis, and Tabula Hebana, CP 95 (2000) 31837, at 321. So, rightly, S. E. Ostrow, The Augustales in the Augustan Scheme, in Between the Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, ed. by K. A. Raaflaub and M. Toher (Berkeley 1990) 36479, at 364, an article quoted but disregarded or misunderstood by Severy. A similar array of misunderstandings and mistakes in A. D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church. Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids 2000) 63: A distinction should be made between the official priestly collegia and the private associations. Many of the former were under the direct patronage of the emperor and also incorporated those from the lites. The sodales Augustales were included in this group and created a forum for freedmen, who did not normally have access to the civic magistracies, to exercise influence. All major collegia sacerdotum were certainly under the emperors control but hardly under his patronage (if we take the term patronus in its legal sense); the municipal priests were certainly under no direct patronage or control of the emperor. The confusion of Augustales and sodales Augustales is interesting for in his bibliography Clarke adduces the article by Duthoy (see below, n. 3), but apparently he either did not read this article or did not comprehend it. For an excellent short account of sodales Augustales, see P. M. Swan. The Augustan Succession. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dios Roman History: Books 5556 (9 B.C.A.D. 14) (American Clasical Studies 47 [New York 2004]) 35152.

180

Historia et Ius

however, very sparse.3 The inner arrangement of these associations was intricate and bore many faces: there existed separate organizations of Augustales, seviri Augustales (not to be confused with various other groups of seviri) and magistri Augustales.4 The members of these associations were never called sodales, and they are not to be confounded with the sodales Augustales. The groupings of Augustales were the associations predominantly of and for rich freedmen;5 the sodales Augustales were, on the other hand, recruited from the highest reaches of Roman aristocracy. The Augustales are not mentioned at all either in the Tabula Hebana or the Tabula Siarensis. These documents refer to the sodales Augustales. The college of the sodales Augustales was established in 14 C.E., immediately after the apotheosis of Augustus; as Tacitus (Ann. 1.54) puts it
Idem annus novas caerimonias accepit addito sodalium Augustalium sacerdotio, ut quondam T. Tatius retinendis Sabinorum sacris sodales Titios instituerat [cf. Hist. 2.95]. Sorte ducti e primoribus civitatis unus et viginti; Tiberius Drususque [the son of Tiberius] et Claudius [cf. Suet. Claud. 6] et Germanicus adiciuntur.

As so often in the Augustan and Tiberian principate, for this striking innovation a mythical precedent was at hand. The college consisted of twenty-five members,6 and the post occupied by Germanicus leads us directly to the Tabula Hebana and the Tabula Siarensis.7 These documents contain the following provision:
3 4 See the lucid exposition by R. Duthoy, Les *Augustales, ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1254309, at 1293306. This variety of forms is well expressed in the title of the article by R. Duthoy, Les *Augustales [n. 3], where the asterisk is employed to indicate en un mot les seviri augustales, augustales et magistri augustales ainsi que ceux qui portent comme titre un de quelques 40 variantes drives des titres sevir augustalis ou augustalis (1254, n. *). Severy (336) adduces Duthoys article, but omits the asterisk. A pity for in the same footnote Duthoy specifically excludes from his consideration les sodales augustales qui, bien que participant au culte imprial, sont recruts dans un tout autre milieu social que les *augustales. See also his Recherches sur la rpartition gographique et chronologique des termes sevir Augustalis, Augustalis et sevir dans lEmpire romaine, Epigraphische Studien 11 (1976) 143214; S. E. Ostrow, Augustales along the Bay of Naples: A Case for Their Early Growth, Historia 34 (1985) 64101, esp. 6568, 9195; A. Abramenko, Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu einem neuen Verstndnis von Sevirat und Augustalitt (Frankfurt am Main 1993) esp. 14, 8799, on the associations of the (magistri) Mercuriales and Apollinares as predecessors and models for the *Augustales. Cf. also B. Combet-Farnoux, Mercure romain (Rome 1980) 45671. The associations of *Augustales were open to the ingenui, but progressively they became purely libertine organizations; this process is well documented by Abramenko, Die munizipale Mittelschicht [n. 4] 44125. Later three additional decuries were added for various imperial princes. For the history and prosopography of the college, see M. W. Hoffman Lewis, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians (Rome 1955) 11617, 13336; J. Scheid, Les prtres officiels sous les Julio-Claudiens, ANRW 2.16.1 (1978) 61054, at 618, 639, 642, 64649; R. Sajkowski, Divus Augustus Pater (Olsztyn 2001) 3440. I reproduce the text (I omit the subscript dots), the supplements, and the translation (with minor modifications) according to the edition in Roman Statutes, edited by M. H. Crawford (London 1996) 1.521; 1.516 (text); 1.532; 1.528 (translation); 1.542; 1.534 (commentary).

Augustales and Sodales Augustales

181

Tab. Heb. lines 5962:

utiq(ue) eodem die magistri] sodalium Augustalium qui quoq(ue) anno erunt inferias ante tumulu[m divi Augusti manibus Germani Cae] saris mittendas curent, aut si magistri unus pluresve ad id sacrifi[cium adesse non poterunt ii qui pro] ximo anno magisterio fungi debebunt in locum eorum qui eo mun[ere fungi non poterunt fungantur - - -]. [and that on the same day the magistri] of the sodales Augustales who shall be in office each year should see that the inferiae are performed [for the manes of Germanicus] Caesar in front of the burial mound [of the Divine Augustus]; or if one or more magistri [shall not be able to attend at that sacrifice, those who] shall be obliged to hold that office in the following year [should perform] in the place of those who [shall not be able to perform] that duty [- - -].

Tab. Siar. fr. b, col. I, lines 25:

- - - publice i]nferiae manibus [eius mitterentur per magistros sodaliu]m Augustalium p[ullis] amictos togis, quibus eo [rum - - - ius fasque erit habere] eo die sui coloris togam, eodem ritu sacrifici quo [publice inferiae mittuntur] manibus C(ai) et L(uci) Caesarum. inferiae [be performed publicly] for [his] manes [by the magistri of the sodales] Augustales clothed in dark togas, those of them for whom [it shall be legal and proper to wear] a toga of natural color, with the same sacrificial rite with which [inferiae are publicly performed] for the manes of C. and L. Caesar.

The two bronzes, the Tabula Siarensis representing the text of a senatus consultum, and the Tabula Hebana reproducing the rogatio (or lex) Valeria Aurelia, are broken off, the former on the right side and the latter on the left, but they illuminate each other, and thus most of the supplements are assured, and the general sense is clear. The article here discussed expresses this sense (as we have seen) in three interconnected statements, namely
that (a) the sodales Augustales (b) should annually sacrifice to the dead in honor of Germanicus (c) in the same way they did for Gaius and Lucius.

Any reader who would take the trouble to compare the original Latin texts with these statements will readily see that all three of them are either inaccurate or false, to wit: (a) the documents stipulate that the sacrifices were to be performed by the magistri of the sodales Augustales (and not by the sodales Augustales in general). This may seem a minor inaccuracy, but such would not be the assessment of the Roman legislator. The lex specifies in great detail that if one or more of the magistri should

182

Historia et Ius

not be able to attend to the sacrifice, they should be replaced by those members who would hold the office in the following year. This provision offers a rare insight into the mechanism of a Roman ritual. It was clearly deemed important that all the magistri should participate in the sacrifice; a smaller number of participants would apparently detract from the dignity and efficacy of the rite.8 Furthermore the legislator specifies that these substitutes were to be selected (probably by lot) not from the whole college but rather from among those members whom we can describe as magistri designati. This regulation opens interesting perspectives on the standing of the designati in Roman public and religious law. (b) the sacrifice was indeed to be annual (on the anniversary of Germanicus death, October 10), but it is an awkward misrepresentation to describe it as a sacrifice to the dead in honor of Germanicus. The sacrifice was offered directly to the manes of Germanicus. We here have a clear and religiously important application of the term manes specifically to the soul of the deceased.9 (c) this statement involves a chronological impossibility and a careless misreading of Latin. As Gaius Caesar died in 4 C.E. and Lucius Caesar in 2 C.E., and the sodales Augustales were established only in 14 C.E., they could not possibly have officiated at the sacrifices to the manes of the brothers, and the Tabula Siarensis does not say this. It states that the offerings to the manes of Germanicus ought to be performed with the same rite (eodem ritu sacrifici) with which they are performed for Gaius and Lucius. By whom the rites for the brothers were performed we are not told. The original senatorial decrees and laws which instituted the celebrations are not preserved, but we have a detailed description of the rite in the famous decreta Pisana in honor of Lucius and Gaius.10 This rite, as is now amply confirmed by the Tabula Siarensis, was closely modeled on the proceedings in Rome. In Pisa the magistrates of the colony officiated;11 the official (publice)
As we happen to know from the fasti found at Bovillae (CIL XIV 238891) the sodales Augustales (and later Augustales Claudiales) were presided over by three annual magistri. Observe in this context the rule that at least three augurs had to be present at the passage of the lex curiata de imperio (Cic., Att. 4.17.2). 9 See the lucid exposition by C. R. Phillips in OCD3 (1996) 91617, s.v. manes. For the inferiae (offerings for the dead) and the ritual of parentatio, see J. Scheid, Die Parentalien fr die verstorbenen Caesaren als Modell fr den rmischen Totenkult, Klio 75 (1993) 188201, esp. 193200. Cf. also L. Vidman, Inferiae und iustitium, Klio 53 (1971) 209-212. 10 CIL XI 142021 = ILS 13940, and see also the edition, translation and commentary by A. R. Marotta DAgata, Decreta Pisana (Pisa 1980). Cf. J. Scheid, Les dcrets de Pise et le culte des morts, in A. Fraschetti (ed.), La commemorazione di Germanico nella documentazione epigrafica (Roma 2000 [but containing papers delivered in 1991]) 13140, esp. 142, on the social unsuitability of the Augustales to perform the rites in honor of a member of the domus Augusta in the name of the whole community. On the decrees from Pisa, see also, with further bibliography, S. Segenni, Problemi elettorali e amministrazione a Pisa alla morte di Gaio Cesare (CIL XI 1421 = I.I. VII 1,7), in P. G. Michelotto, Lgiow nr. Studi di antichit in memoria di Mario Attilio Levi (Milano 2002) 37995; I documenti epigrafici pubblici prima dellesposizione: i decreti decurionali. Osservazioni sulla pubblicazione dei decreta Pisana, Acme 56 (2003) 72-79. 11 See CIL XI 1420, lines 1621 (the decree for Lucius): utique / apud eam aram quodannis [sic] a(nte) d(iem) X[III k(alendas) Sept(embres) p]ublice manibus eius per magis/tratus eosve, qui 8

Augustales and Sodales Augustales

183

celebrations were thus reserved for the members of local aristocracy, far above the level of the mostly libertine Augustales. The original amalgamation of Augustales and sodales Augustales causes further fanciful conceits. On p. 322 we read about another honor to Germanicus:
part of the inscription on the Tabula Siarensis (2.b.613) also mentions statues of Germanicus to be erected by the urban plebs. Particularly if we consider the Augustales to have been largely freedmen, all critical census and political classifications of Roman society were thus brought into this commemoration of a fallen potential leader of the imperial house.

The author thus imagines that the Augustales participated in some way in the erection of the statues of Germanicus by the city plebs. A moment of consideration of a well known fact would have given the author salutary pause: the associations of Augustales so frequent in Italy are not attested at all in the city of Rome.12 In point of fact the plebs urbana mentioned in the Tabula Siarensis is an altogether different corporate entity, the pleps [sic] urbana quinque et / triginta tribuum (CIL VI 910 = ILS 168).13 Nomenclature can indeed be insidious. The English term football provides a good illustration describing in its British and American varieties two distinctly dissimilar games sharing the common aim of scoring points by putting a sort of ball across the variously defined goal or end-line. Roman historians must also be attuned to the vagaries of the idiom. In this respect the confusion of sodales Augustales and Augustales is instructive for it shows that no speculation can replace a careful reading of every line and of every word, a procedure nowadays too often forgotten or disdained.14

ibi iuri dicendo pr[ae]runt, togis pullis amictos, / quibus eorum ius fasque erit eo die [eiu]s vestis habendae, inferiae mit/tantur, bosque et ovis atri infulis caerulis infulati dis manibus eiu[s] / mactentur. CIL XI 1421, lines 3133 (the decree for Gaius): ut[ique] eo die quodannis [sic] publice manibus eius per magistratus eosve, / qu[i Pi]sis iure dicundo praerunt, eodem loco eodemque modo, quo / L. C[aes]ari parentari institutum est, parentetur. 12 They are massively present at Ostia, but Rome does not figure in the list of Duthoy, Recherches [n. 4] 15152. 13 See the detailed studies by W. D. Lebek, Roms Ritter und Roms Pleps in den Senatsbeschlssen fr Germanicus Caesar und Drusus Caesar, ZPE 95 (1993) 81120, esp. 9091, 1003, 10720; C. Nicolet, La Tabula Siarensis, la plbe urbaine et les statues de Germanicus, in Leaders and Masses in the Roman World. Studies in Honor of Zwi Yavetz, ed. by I. Malkin and Z. W. Rubinsohn (Leiden 1995) 11527. 14 It is disappointing to observe that also Oxford Latin Dictionary s.v. Augustalis fails to provide a clear and neat distinction between Augustales and sodales Augustales.

13 ORBILIUS, SCAURUS, AND THE AWARD OF CORNICULUM*

I Under the year 293 Livy 10.44.5 reports that after the victory over the Samnites and the capture of Aquilonia the consul L. Papirius Cursor equites omnes ob insignem multis locis operam corniculis armillisque argenteis donat. Armilla was a bracelet,1 and corniculum has been traditionally held to be a small horn attached as a decoration to the helmet.2 In her book on Roman military decorations Valerie Maxfield lists, in addition to Livy, an inscription and two (possibly three) literary texts in which the award of the corniculum is (supposedly) mentioned.3

1 2

Original contribution. The following abbreviations are employed: Kaster 1995 = R. A. Kaster, Suetonius, De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (Oxford 1995 [edition, translation, introduction and commentary]). Maxfield 1981 = V. A. Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981). Nicolet 1974 = C. Nicolet, Lordre questre lpoque rpublicaine 2: Prosopographie des chevaliers Romains (Paris 1974). Vacher 1993 = M.-C. Vacher, Sutone, Grammariens et rhteurs (Paris 1993 [edition, translation, commentary]). Van Den Hout 1954 = M. Cornelii Frontonis Epistulae, ed. M. P. J. Van Den Hout (Lugduni Batavorum 1954). Van Den Hout 1988 = M. Cornelii Frontonis Epistulae, ed. M. P. J. Van Den Hout (Teubner; Leipzig 1988). Maxfield 1981, 8990. Cf. J. Linderski, Silver and Gold of Valor: the Award of armillae and torques, Latomus 60 (2001) 315, with further literature {reprinted in this volume, No. 14}. Maxfield 1981, 9799. Cf. the dictionaries of Forcellini, Lewis-Short, TLL and OLD s.v.; and below, n. 84. K. Stauner, Das offizielle Schriftwesen des rmischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus (27 v.Chr.268 n.Chr.). Eine Untersuchung zu Struktur, Funktion und Bedeutung der offiziellen militrischen Verwaltungsdokumentation und zu deren Schreibern (Bonn 2004), is a fount of all information, but with respect to cornicularii this information is not always accurate: he avers (p. 118) that Bei Livius findet sich das corniculum als eine am Helm befestigte militrische Auszeichnung. Decoration it was, but Livy does not explicitly say that it was attached to the helmet. Maxfield 1981, 9798, 279. She follows in the footsteps of a long (and wrong) tradition: the same list of examples in Latin Dictionary of Lewis-Short s.v. corniculum; [O.] Fiebiger, Corniculum, RE 4 (1901) 1604; TLL s.v. corniculum, 959, lines 913; Bttner [n. 5] 178, n. 246; Criniti [n. 4] 233, n. 8; now also Vacher 1993, 94, and Y. Le Bohec, Corniculum, cornicularii, NP 3 (1997) 19798 (omitting the passage from de vir. ill.); cf. also below, n. 84. The title of the play ascribed to Plautus, Cornicula or Cornicularia probably refers to crows

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

185

The inscription in question is the famous decree of Cn. Pompeius Strabo of 89 B.C.E. concerning the turma Salluitana (CIL 6.37045 = ILS 8888 = ILLRP 515). We read (lines 5460):
Cn. Pompeius Sex. f. imperator / virtutis caussa turmam / Salluitanam donavit in / castreis apud Asculum / cornuculo et patella, torque, / armilla, palereis et frumen[t]um / duplex.4

Both in Livy and in the inscription the award of corniculum is bestowed upon horsemen, the citizen cavalry in Livy, and the Spanish riders in Strabos decree, who, however, as the inscription records, have been just given the Roman citizenship. We observe that this award was not presented to a few soldiers only but to equites omnes and to a whole turma. This circumstance is of overriding importance. For A. Bttner has argued that the word corniculum is not the diminutive of cornu, but rather derives from cornus, the cornelian cherry. As javelins were often made of the cornel-tree wood, and cornus was used, per synekdochen, in the sense of a spear or javelin, corniculum would mean a small javelin. This corniculum Bttner identified with the gaisos which according to Polybius 6.39.3 was given as a reward for valor to the soldier who in a single combat wounded or killed the enemy.5 But in the case of the equites in Livy and the turma Salluitana there is no indication at all of any single combat; the award has a distinctly collective character. Thus there is no reason to abandon the traditional interpretation that corniculum was a small horn, and that the award of the gaesum in Polybius corresponds to the (later) amply attested award of the hasta pura.6
and not to horns of valor; cf. R. K. Ehrmann, The Cornicula Ascribed to Plautus, RhM 136 (1993) 26971. The name of the epigraphically attested (AE 1960, 61, 63) vicus cornicularius in Rome (in the third region) is equally a puzzle. The original editor of the inscriptions, L. Moretti, Vicus cornicularius, Arch. Class. 10 (1958) 23134 at 234 = Tra epigrafia e storia. Scritti scelti e annotati (= Vetera 5 [Roma 1990]) 158] notes that this name is probably not connected with cornicularii, military and civilian officials, but rather, on analogy with other vici named after trades (as, e.g., vicus lorarius, sandalarius, unguentarius), derives its denomination from artisans lavoranti cornicula, cio oggetti di corno di varie fogge e usi. At the same time he observes soberly that the noun cornicularius is not independently attested in this sense. I would opt for crows. Cf. C. Lega, Vicus Cornicularius, and Vicus Corvi, LTUR 5 (1999) 16061. Cf. N. Criniti, Lepigrafe di Asculum di Gn. Pompeo Strabone (Milano 1970) 22738, esp. 23234; he accepts the interpretation of Bttner [n. 5]. A. Bttner, Untersuchungen ber Ursprung und Entwicklung von Auszeichnungen im rmischen Heer, BJ 157 (1957) 17780. See P. Steiner, Die dona militaria, BJ 11415 (1906) 198 at 610 (surprisingly enough he does not discuss corniculum); F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius I (Oxford 1957) 721. For a critique of Bttners theory, see Maxfield 1981, 8486 (on the gaesum and the hasta pura) and 99 (but she does not comment in this context on the collective character of the award in Livy and in the inscription of Pompeius Strabo; cf., however, 127). J. B. McCall, The Cavalry of the Roman Republic (London and New York 2002) 84, opines that The rewards for bravery the spear, cup, and the phalerae were not granted to those who wounded or despoiled an enemy during battle but to those who risked their lives voluntarily during skirmishes. Grandiloquent fantasy riddled with errors (the author does not know Maxfields book); as he mentions phalerae he apparently refers to the awards for cavalrymen,

4 5 6

186

Historia et Ius

We can now turn to our three literary texts: Suet., De gramm. 9; Auctor de vir. ill. 72.3; Fronto 208, lines 23 (van den Hout 1988). They raise a host of questions, textual, grammatical and historical. II First let us approach Suetonius, de grammaticis 9:
<L.> Orbilius Pupillus7 Beneventanus morte parentum una atque eodem die inimicorum dolo peremptorum destitutus primo apparituram magistratibus fecit, deinde in Macedonia corniculo, mox equo meruit functusque militia studia repetiit quae iam inde a puero non leviter attigerat ac professus diu in patria quinquagesimo demum anno Romam consule Cicerone transiit docuitque maiore fama quam emolumento. namque iam persenex pauperem se et habitare sub tegulis quodam scripto fatetur.

Corniculo ... meruit is ambiguous. Brugnoli in his edition does not list any other readings or conjectures,8 and yet corniculo merere is a very peculiar locution. First of all mereo only rarely refers to the act of earning a specific military award or decoration, and then it takes exclusively the accusative and never the ablative.9 Hence if we keep the transmitted text corniculo ... meruit, the phrase cannot be translated he earned the award of corniculum, and Orbilius is to be removed from the list of the recipients of military awards. Maxfield and other students of the dona militaria, and more surprisingly also the compilers of Latin dictionaries, seem totally unaware of this grammatical (and ultimately) textual problem. If the award of corniculum to Orbilius is to be upheld, we must introduce a conjecture into the text, and read corniculum ... meruit. But if corniculo ... meruit in the sense of gaining the award of corniculum is impossible, corniculum ... meruit, while
and thus presumably spear stands for corniculum, and cup for patella (which was not a cup). On the hasta pura, see the excellent study by Y. Le Bohec, La haste pure, REL 76 (1998) 2734: it was pure because it had the tip of bronze (or occasionally silver and gold) and not of the sacrally impure iron. His cognomen Pupillus clearly derives from the circumstance that as an orbus he was brought up as a ward, pupillus. I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina (Helsinki 1965) 287, lists several epigraphical instances of the cognomen, but missed this literary and republican example. Nor is it listed in H. Solin and O. Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Hildesheim 1988) 387, who simply refer to Kajanto. But also his gentilicium, Orbilius, is suspect. Although the name itself falls seamlessly into a series of other names in -ilius, and although other names derived from the same root orb-, bereft are attested (Orbius, Orfius / Orphius; cf. W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen [Berlin 1904] 45456), this is the only Orbilius on record. Kaster 1995, 128, puts it cogently: It would be a remarkable coincidence if this otherwise unattested nomen actually passed to O(rbilius) from his father, then proved subsequently to be appropriate to his early orphanhood. Oddly enough, no comment on his names in E. Bernert, Orbilius, RE 18 (1939) 876, or in Vacher 1993, 9394. G. Brugnoli, C. Suetonii Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. Pars prior: de grammaticis et rhetoribus2 (Lipsiae 1963). Nor does R. A. Kaster in his Studies on the Text of Suetonius De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (Atlanta 1992) 6465, allude to any variant reading. See TLL s.v. mereo 804, lines 1619 (coronam and coronam civicam), 2627 (triumphum).

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

187

grammatically correct, is stylistically atrocious. The first part of the enunciation continues to be grievously discordant with the second: in combination with corniculum the verb meruit would have to carry the sense of gaining the award, whereas in the phrase equo meruit it plainly indicates the service as a cavalryman (in opposition to that of a foot soldier). The way out of this quandary is difficult, and seemingly not in sight. But as equo meruit cannot be combined, by any flight of fancy, with any notion of military reward, we have to abandon this idea also with respect to corniculo ... meruit.10 The phrase will refer to Orbilius service as an adjutant to an officer, a cornicularius.11 But the reading corniculo ... meruit continues to cause disquiet. To indicate service, mereo is regularly coupled with equo, rarely with pedibus, and only once with another noun in the ablative.12 On either count, not only that of award but also that of service, it might appear preferable to emend corniculo to corniculum.13
10 Cf. Kaster 1995, 131, who by and large accepts the results here presented (he had an opportunity to consult an earlier version of this paper. And I now take this opportunity to express my thanks for his helpful comments). M. Torelli, Benevento Romana (Roma 2002) 172, states without any discussion (thus obscuring all the problems here discussed), but nevertheless states correctly, that Orbilius avrebbe servito come apparitore di un magistrato (she does not explain whether in Beneventum or in Rome) e successivamente in Macedonia come cornicularius prima di prestare servizio nella cavalleria. 11 On the cornicularii, see A. von Domaszewski, Die Rangordnung des rmischen Heeres (Bonn 1908), reprinted as the 2nd ed. with Einfhrung, Berichtigungen und Nachtrge by B. Dobson (Kln-Graz 1967; repr. in 1981 as the so-called third ed.), esp. 8, where he expresses der allgemeine Satz, dass die cornicularii an der Spitze aller Principales stehen. Ihr gegenseitiges Rangverhltnis bestimmt die Rang des Offiziers, dem sie zugeteilt sind, and in various places, see index, 314. But J. Harmand, Larme et le soldat Rome de 107 50 avant notre re (Paris 1967) 200, n. 400, is quite right when he criticizes Domaszewski for projecting back to the republican times (p. 73) this advanced and elaborate system of the Armeekommando. The most detailed study is offered by M. Clauss, Untersuchungen zu den principales des rmischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diokletian. Cornicularii, speculatores, frumentarii (Diss. Bochum 1973) 13, 1740 (with footnotes on 127, 13140); see now also Stauner [n. 2] 11825. For further insights and further developments, see S. Perea Ybenes, Cornicularius seu princeps. La transformacin de la funcin y del Rangordnung del cornicularius en tiempos de Valentiniano I, in Y. Le Bohec and C. Wolff (eds.), Larme romaine de Diocltien Valentinien Ier (Lyon 2004) 45172. See also his Collegia militaria. Associaciones militares en el impero Romano (Madrid 1999) 27981. 12 Cf. TLL s.v. mereo, 803, lines 3842, 72 (equo, equis), 41 (pedibus: only two instances adduced, Liv. 24.18.9 and Mela 1.114). TLL adduces here (lines 4142) also the text of Suetonius as referring to the service corniculo, but s.v. corniculum, 959, line 11, interprets it as referring to the award of corniculum. At lines 6364 TLL records one example of the impersonal construction with the ablative, Schol. Bembina to Terences Eunuchus 290: Quia non perpetuo muro Athenae cinguntur sed maxima ex parte alluuntur mari, publicis illic custodiis merebatur, alluding to the iuventus Attica that served as coast guards; see J. F. Mountford, The Scholia Bembina (Liverpool 1934) 3233. 13 Nicolet 1974, 965, quotes the text of Suetonius in the form deinde in Macedonia cornicularius, mox equo meruit. He does not indicate in any way that the reading cornicularius is not the transmitted reading but rather his own (?) conjecture (or is it only a slip of the pen?). Nor does he point out that according to the traditional interpretation the text refers to the award of corniculum. Grammatically Nicolets reading is unassailable (for other examples of the construc-

188

Historia et Ius

Corniculum ... meruit, if understood as served as a cornicularius, would form a natural and required counterpart to equo meruit. Corniculus14 would here stand as pars pro toto for the office of cornicularius.15 And for the grammatical construction, the text of Suetonius, Vesp. 2.3, with its internal accusative, seems to offer an exquisite parallel: tribunatum militum in Thracia ... meruit.16 But this reading,

tion mereo + nominativus, see TLL s.v., 803, lines 5556, esp. CIL VIII 12128 = CLE 522: Germaniae meruit specula[t]or et cornicul[ar]ius legionis), but one wonders in which way in the text of Suetonius the postulated original reading cornicularius should have been corrupted into the rather unusual corniculum. 14 For corniculus, i = munus cornicularii, see TLL s.v. corniculum, 959, lines 1415, but the instances adduced are all very late, esp. (dated to 365) Cod. Theod. 8.7.8 (= Cod. Iust. 12.52 [53].1): Praefecturae cornicularios, qui annis singulis ex numero deputatorum exeunt, post transactos corniculos nostram adorare purpuram volumus. Here will also belong (despite the reservations of the TLL, lines 1516: incertum utrum de munere dictum an de signo) Cod. Theod. 8.15.5.1 (between 365 and 373): qui principatum officiorum gerunt seu corniculum (no reservations, however, s.v. cornicularius, 957, lines 2728), and Symm., Rel. 42 (dated to 384): miles ad corniculorum (corniculariorum varia lectio) gradum inculpati laboris diuturnitate provectus (cf. D. Vera, Commento storico alle Relationes di Quinto Aurelio Simmaco [Pisa 1981] 31213). R. Kaster (per litteras) would not consider at all these examples of late bureaucratese as a possible parallel to the usage of Suetonius, but we have to remember that the chancery style was often of a long duration. Still it would have been prudent to rest the case. An unexpected and fortunate epigraphic find reopens it. In 1995 there came to light in Caesarea Maritima in the Roman province of Palestine an inscribed column; it was promptly published (with photographs) online: C. M. Lehmann, Another Latin Honorific Column from Caesarea Maritima (available at http://www.usd.edu/~clehmann/cmvpcol.html; it was too late for this document to be included in the corpus of C. M. Lehmann and K. G. Holum, The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima [Boston 2000], nor does this important text seem to have yet found its way to AE). The inscription is unfortunately mutilated: only the right edge of five lines is extant. It is inscribed in honor of a ]ianus v(ir) e(gregius) who was probably [proc(urator Augusti] nostri (lines 12). In line 3 the two extant words jump into the readers eye: ] ex corniculo, perhaps centurio] ex corniculo (the editor points out that cornicularii serving with governors normally received promotion to the centurionate; cf. below, n. 82, and Perea Ybenes, Cornicularius [n. 11] 456, n. 37). The editor remarks that the letter forms and parallels with the other columns from Caesarea indicate a date in the third or very early fourth century for both inscriptions [the other inscription is, however, completely obliterated] on this column, but a date in the second century cannot be excluded. Thus this is not only the first epigraphic attestation of the term corniculus to denote the office of cornicularius but absolutely the first attestation of this usage, predating by at least half a century the texts in the Codex Theodosianus. [We may observe that in OLD s.v. corniculum the inscription CIL XIII 1832 was presented in the form qui militavit (centurio) ann(os) VII ex cornucl(o), but this reconstruction is based on erroneous interpretation of cornucl(o) as referring to the horn of valor. The obvious expansion is ex cornucl(ario). Cf. AE 1900, 72: vet(eranus) ex cornucl(ario)]. We are thus moving down chronologically closer to the time of Suetonius, and that may embolden us to consider adding to our dossier both the passage of Suetonius and the passage of de vir. ill. 72.3 (on which see below, Part IV, and on the text of Fronto, see Part V). This interpretation already in Forcellini, s.v. cornicularius. 15 On the origin and meaning of the term cornicularius, see below, Part VI. 16 For this construction, see E. Lfstedt, Syntactica2 I (Lund 1942 [reprinted 1956]) 25961, esp. 260; OLD s.v. mereo, sub 2, in fine. Cf. also Paulus ex Festo (71 L.): Equitare antiqui dicebant equum publicum merere.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

189

while accepted by no less an authority than Einar Lfstedt, has been vigorously attacked by other scholars.17 The emendation corniculum is a desperate surgery for whether the accusative is taken to denote the award or the service, the incriminated phrase, corniculum, mox equo meruit, remains deeply displeasing. Stylistic dissonance persists. Hence another approach. Robert Kaster, the only scholar among the moderni perceptive enough to be disturbed both by the transmitted reading corniculo meruit, and the emendation to the accusative corniculum, suggested that the ablative in the paradosis may have resulted from assimilation to the following idiom equo [sc. stipendium] merere.18 The theory of assimilation has its attraction, and the attraction is that of style. Still, in the situation, when no persuasive alternative offers, we should hold in leash all conjectures and follow the paradosis. Of one thing, however, we can be certain: whether Suetonius wrote corniculo ... meruit or corniculum ... meruit, he did not attribute to Orbilius the horn of valor. Equo meruit is simple, but there are ways to make it complicated. Nicolet inclines to take this phrase as an indication of the equestrian status of Orbilius, and suggests that Orbilius may have received the equus publicus from his commander in Macedonia. He writes that dans certains texts, lexpression equo merere ne peut sentendre que comme synonyme deques Romanus: par example, Phil., I, 20: quicumque equo meruissent ( propos de la loi judiciaire Aurelia, modifie par la rogatio de L. Antonius en 44).19 This is not quite accurate. The context of Ciceros enunciation is as follows. In his reform of the courts, Caesar abolished the third panel of jurors, composed of the tribuni aerarii. Now Antony (there is no evidence at all that the law was sponsored by his brother, L. Antonius, tr. pl. in 44) introduced again a third panel made up, Cicero claims, of centurions without any census limitation (the law that was modified was thus the lex Iulia and not Aurelia).20 Cicero continues: at si ferretis (the plural clearly refers to Antony and his colleague in the consulship, P. Cornelius Dolabella) quicumque equo meruisset, quod est lautius, nemini probaretis: in iudice enim spectari et fortuna debet et dignitas. Or in D. R. Shackleton Baileys translation: But if you and your colleague were making the same proposal with
17 M. Ihm in his Teubner editio maior of Suetonius (1907) prints tribunatum, which is the manuscript reading; deteriores frequently have tribunus. The latter reading was accepted by a number of earlier editors. W. H. Alexander, Some Textual Criticism on the Eighth Book of De Vita Caesarum of Suetonius (University of California Publications in Classical Philology [Berkeley 1908]) 78, attempted to show how the original tribunus could have been corrupted into tribunatum; his argument is well summarized by H. M. Thompson Skerret, C. Suetonii Tranquilli De Vita Caesarum Liber VIII. Divus Vespasianus (Philadelphia 1924) 23. In particular the reading tribunus was championed by G. W. Mooney, C. Suetonii Tranquilli De Vita Caesarum. Libri VIIVIII (London 1930) 380; and more recently it has been ably defended by B. W. Jones, Suetonius: Vespasian (Bristol 2000) 1819. 18 Kaster 1995, 131. 19 Nicolet 1974, 96566. He is uncritically followed by Vacher 1993, 94. 20 Correct information in (e.g.) T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I (New York 1951) 316; G. Rotondi, Leges publicae populi Romani (Milano 1912) 431; W. Drumann, Geschichte Roms (2 Aufl. von P. Groebe) I (Berlin 1899) 84.

190

Historia et Ius

respect to every man who has seen service with the cavalry, which carries more of a cachet, nobody would be persuaded. In a juror both means and status ought to be considered.21 The rendering of quicumque equo meruisset as who has seen service with the cavalry is on the mark. We are dealing with the military cavalrymen, and not with the social class of equites equo publico. To the latter Cicero cannot (and does not) refer: they certainly did not lack fortuna or dignitas. And above all: they already sat on the juries, as the second decuria. The conclusion: in the text of Suetonius the phrase equo meruit need not, and must not, be taken as indicating a grant of equus publicus to Orbilius. In any case this idea receives no support from the passage in the Philippics. Nicolet himself observed that in the (so-called) lex Iulia municipalis the phrase stipendia equo facere simply denotes the service as a cavalryman.22 Yet he continues: Sous lEmpire et a fortiori lpoque de Sutone, lexpression dsigne communment les equites equo publico: Ovide, Fasti, III, 130. The text of Ovid reads legitimo quique merebat equo, and it refers indeed to the centuriae equitum, but here the qualification legitimo is all important: it stands for publico. Valerius Maximus, an imperial author, uses the phrase qui equo meruerant (2.7.15 = p. 90, line 14 Kempf; p. 128, 215 Briscoe; p. 194, 15b Shackleton Bailey) to refer to the service in the cavalry. The context makes this sense clear: cum magnum captivorum civium suorum numerum a Pyrrho rege ultro missum recepissent, decreverunt ut ex iis qui equo meruerant peditum numero militarent (Having received a large number of their fellow citizens who had been taken prisoner and were sent back by king Pyrrhus, they decreed that those of them who had served in the cavalry should serve as infantry). Equo meruit will have the same sense also with reference to Orbilius. In Suetonius the phrase functusque militia refers both to corniculo (or corniculum) meruit and equo meruit. Suetonius does not remark on Orbilius social advancement: he recounts his military service. Further enlightenment comes from students of res militares. It has long been observed that the imperial practice of appointing legionary soldiers as lower officers in the auxilia has republican roots.23 Such an officer will be L. Aemilius, decurio equitum Gallorum in Caesars Gallic War (1.23.2). Also the promotion of Orbilius will be of the same kind. As Speidel (loc. cit.) points out preference (was) given to men of the guard or on the staff of the commanders. The advancement of Orbilius was paralleled some two hundred years later by the career of C. Iulius Rogatianus who from the post of cornicularius on the staff of the legate progressed to that of decurio of the ala Flavia Numidica.24
21 Cicero, Philippics (Chapel Hill 1986) 17. 22 CIL I2 593, col. 1, lines 9091 = ILS 6085: nisi quei eorum stipendia / equo in legione III aut pedestria in legione VI fecerint. McCall [n. 6] 101, very perceptively interprets equo meruit as indicating Orbilius service in the cavalry. He further believes (provided that Orbilius was at the time of his service a Roman citizen) that this would be the last attestation of the citizen cavalry thus again missing, like many others, the crucial evidence of the lex municipalis. 23 M. Speidel, The Captor of Decebalus. A New Inscription from Philippi, JRS 60 (1970) 146 = Roman Army Studies I (Amsterdam 1984) 180; and already A. v. Domaszewski [n. 11] 54. 24 AE 19171918, 74 (from Lambaesis in Numidia). Cf. J. Spaul, Ala2 (Andover 1994) 1079.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

191

Nicolet dates Orbilius service in Macedonia to the first decennium of the first century B.C.E., vers les annes 9794. If Orbilius really served in Macedonia at that time, he may not have been at all in a position to receive the grant of public horse: it is possible and even likely that he was not yet a Roman citizen. He came from Beneventum, a Latin colony which was given the grant of the Roman citizenship only after the war with the allies in virtue of the lex Iulia of 90.25 Furthermore the Latins did not serve in Roman legions, but in their own contingents.26 It is in such a contingent that Orbilius may have come to Macedonia. The governors of provinces normally had two cornicularii attached to their headquarters; as a substantial part of the garrison was made up of the socii and the Latins, one of the cornicularii may have been drawn from the non-Romans, and for the job of an adjutant, Orbilius, as a former apparitor, was well qualified indeed. After his service as a cornicularius he would have been promoted to the (allied) cavalry. But of course we do not know exactly when he served in Macedonia. He was fifty years old when in 63 he came to Rome; this would make him ca twenty years old in 94/93, a good age for military service, but we have to remember that before he embarked upon his military career he had been employed, possibly for several years, as an apparitor in Beneventum. There is no mention of his participation in the war in Italy; very possibly he survived it as apparitor in his native city, and enrolled in the army as a new Roman citizen only after 89. He would then have been already in his mid-twenties, and this in conjunction with his administrative experience may account for his immediate appointment to the post of cornicularius. After his promotion to an eques he probably served in the citizen cavalry attached to the legion. Many textbooks of Roman military history, it is true, claim that the legionary cavalry disappeared after the reform of Marius and was entirely replaced by the auxiliary units;27 but then these scholars are strangely oblivious of a piece of epigraphical evidence, the lex Tabulae Heracleensis (lex Iulia municipalis): it stipulated that in municipio colonia praefectura a person who was not yet thirty years old should be debarred from standing for the duumvirate or quattuorvirate unless he stipendia equo in legione III, aut pedestria in legione VI fecerit.28
25 Cic., Balb. 21: Ipsa denique Iulia ... lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data. Cf. Hlsen, Beneventum, RE 3 (1899) 274; A. N. Sherwin White, The Roman Citizenship2 (Oxford 1973) 15153; Torelli [n. 10] 13436. There is no epigraphical attestation in Beneventum of the nomen Orbilius or the cognomen Pupillus, cf. the lists in M. Gterbock, Sozialhistorische und onomastische Untersuchungen zu den antiken Inschriften Benevents (Berlin 1982) 64100. Of course some Roman citizens did live in Latin colonies; the parents of Orbilius may have been in their number, but we should not derive arguments from mere possibilities. 26 See the lucid exposition, still worth reading, in J. Marquardt (second ed. by H. Dessau and A. v. Domaszewski), Rmische Staatsverwaltung II (Leipzig 1884) 389400. 27 J. Kromayer and G. Veith, Heerwesen und Kriegfhrung der Griechen und Rmer (Mnchen 1928) 43435; Harmand [n. 11] 4651; and now also L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (London 1984 [re-issued with a new preface, Norman 1998]) 79. 28 CIL I2 593, lines 8991 = ILS 6085. On this document, see C. Nicolet, La Table dHracle et les origines du cadastre romain, in: LUrbs. Espace urbaine et histoire (Rome 1987) 125; E. Lo Cascio, Le professiones della Tabula Heracleensis e le procedure del census in et cesariana, Athenaeum 87 (1990) 287318.

192

Historia et Ius

This document thus attests to the survival (in some form) of the legionary cavalry till the very end of the republic. If it is most unlikely that Orbilius received in Macedonia the grant of equus publicus, to the sphere of pure phantasy belongs the idea, propounded in two standard encyclopedias, that he had been born into the equestrian class.29 After the death of his parents Orbilius was destitutus, hence hardly in the possession of the equestrian census. Furthermore he apparituram magistratibus fecit, which again militates against his equestrian status, especially as his employment was in Beneventum and not in Rome.30 And even after he settled in Rome and started his career as a grammaticus his emolumentum continued to be insignificant. III Thus on all counts Orbilius appears poised to be struck from the list of equites as he has been struck from the list of the recipients of military awards. A detour through poetry looms: Horace introduces a complication. Whether he won a military award or not, Orbilius did not gain his fame as a soldier; he gained it as a teacher of Horace, a teacher very much given to harsh discipline: plagosum ... Orbilium (Hor., Ep. 2.1.7071; cf. Suet., Gramm. 9.4). We have to keep in mind this epithet for in Sat. 1.10.48 Horace mentions an educator who corrected his charges loris et funibus udis (line 5), and later (line 8) seems to allude to him as grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. Who was this strenuous preceptor? Who else but Orbilius! So exclaims many a commentator. But the text is uncertain, and the Horatian authorship of the first eight lines of the Satire has often been contested. These lines (which many editors print in brackets) read in the new Teubner edition by D. R. Shackleton Bailey as follows:31

29 E. Bernert, Orbilius, RE 18 (1939) 876, claims that Orbilius stammte aus dem Ritterstand. In the pen of H. G. Gundel, Der Kleine Pauly 4 (1979) 329, this receives further elaboration: Nach Suet., gramm. 9 stammte O. aus dem Ritterstand und unterrichtete in Benevent, bis er 63 Lehrer in Rom wurde. There is not a shred of evidence that his father was an eques. 30 On the social position of the apparitores, see N. Purcell, The Apparitores: A Study in Social Mobility, PBSR 51 (1983) 12573. He concludes (171): At Rome and in its neighbouring towns (the apparitores) occupied a status that was in general lower than the equestrian. In fact on Purcells own evidence the status of apparitores was substantially lower (not just in general) than that of the equestrians. There are known to us some five hundred apparitores (a full catalogue is a desideratum); on Purcells count (146, 155, n. 181) only thirty-four advanced to gain the equestrian status. For the republic, see also E. Badian, The scribae of the Roman Republic, Klio 71 (1989) 582603, esp. 598603; and the new study by N. Purcell, The ordo scribarum: a Study in the Loss of Memory, MEFRA 113.2 (2001) 63374. 31 Horatius, Opera (Stutgardiae 1985). The best succinct commentary on these lines is still to be found in A. Kiessling and R. Heinze, Q. Horatius Flaccus, Satiren5 (Berlin 1921) 15760 (they regard the passage as spurious). A good overview of the readings and emendations, and of the opinions of the earlier erudites (most of whom condemned the passage) is given in the apparatus to the editions of Horace by C. Kirchner, Q. Horatii Sermonum libri duo, Pars 1, Satiras cum apparatu critico continens (Lipsiae 1854) 14044 (see also Pars II,1: Commentar zum ersten Buche der Satiren [1855] 32431); O. Keller and A. Holder, Q. Horatii Flacci opera,

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

193

Lucili, quam sis mendosus, teste Catone, defensore tuo, pervincam, qui male factos emendare parat versus; hoc lenius, ipse quo melior vir <et> es longe subtilior illo, qui multum puer et loris et funibus udis exoratus, ut esset opem qui ferre poetis antiquis posset contra fastidia nostra, grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. ut redeam illuc:

Whether it is Horace or an unknown versifier made Horatian by some editors, also by Shackleton Bailey, must remain sub iudice, though the present writer is ready to vote C(ondemno); yet Horace or Pseudo-Horace, the historical problem remains, and literary uneasiness persists. First of all it would be remiss not to observe the obvious: if we hold to the transmitted text qui multum puer ... exoratus, it is the grammaticus eques himself who appears to have been severely castigated in his youth by his demanding (and anonymous) teacher. This rather counterintuitive paradosis was accepted by a number of scholars but at a price: they were forced to find an escape either in the shade of obeli or in the recesses of contrived schemes.32 Much better sense and wit yields the conjecture33 qui multum puerum <est> ... exhortatus (exhortatus being the reading
vol. I (Lipsiae 1864) 8385. The subsequent literature is immense, and this is not the place to discuss all the twists of interpretation. Here I mention honoris causa solely the brilliant investigation by E. Fraenkel, Lucili quam sis mendosus, Hermes 86 (1933) 39299, with an elegant demonstration of the non-Horatian character of the first eight lines. 32 For this sense of the paradosis (which he regards as Horatian), see most resolutely G. DAnna, Ancora sullautore di Lucili, quam sis mendosus, in Studi Classici in onore di Quintino Cataudella 3 (Catania 1972) 26794 at 29394; so also the Loeb translator H. R. Fairclough (1926). DAnna, in an essay of psychology, surmises (294, n. 51) that the extreme severity of Orbilius, and his natura acerba (Suet., Gramm. 9.4), may have been due to the fact that he himself had suffered gravissimi dolori and amarezze. A similar conceit already in Heindorf [n. 33] 210. 33 We owe it to Karl Christian Reisig (17921829), better known through his Semasiologie oder Bedeutungslehre as one of the founders of modern linguistics. According to Kirchner [n. 31] I.142, Reisig proposed this conjecture in praelectionibus academicis; this will be his Vorlesungen ber lateinische Sprachwissenchaft (which included a discussion of Semasiologie), published posthumously by F. Haase (Leipzig 1839 [non vidi]), subsequently revised and enlarged by various scholars (Berlin 18811890). In this edition I searched in vain for a notice of the famous emendation; it was apparently removed by the editor. In vol. III (1888) 291, Reisig discusses the meaning and application of nempe, and of course adduces the passage of Horace. The editor offers (in square brackets) a comment on the use of nempe, and for the passage itself refers to Fritzsche, i.e., Adolf Theodor Hermann Fritzsche, whose annotated edition of the Sermones appeared in Leipzig in 18751876. He acknowledges Reisigs puerum, but prints multum puer. Kirchner (II,1.324) characterizes puerum as one von den wilden Einfllen Reisigs. L. Mueller, Satiren und Episteln des Horaz (Wien 1891) 120 ad loc., ascribes this conjecture, of which he approves, to Heindorf. As to that, he is quite mistaken. L. F. Heindorf (17741816; see W. Pkel, Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon [Leipzig 1882] 113; cf. below, n. 68) published in 1815 in Breslau a commented edition of Horaces Satires; this edition I did not see, but in the third edition by L. D. Doederlein (Leipzig 1859; as Doederlein explains in the preface, it conforms in all particulars to the original edition, and all

194

Historia et Ius

of the deteriores), endorsed by various editors, most notably by Kiessling and Heinze (though wihtout any mention of its originator), but not by the recent Teubneriani.34 We get a nicely balanced and defiant statement: the subtler arguments of Cato35 will not sway Horace (whether it is the poet himself speaking or an impostor) to praise the art of Lucilius as had not in the past cruder methods of Orbilius. Quite on the contrary: Lucilius, how faulty you are I will prove definitely. Kaster (and many others before him) expressed doubts whether these lines refer to Orbilius at all. He points out that not only Orbilius was plagosus: schoolmasters were known to have been generous with the use of the rod.36 Quite true; but to make any topical sense the butt of these lines must be Orbilius notorious as Horaces irascible and learned teacher.

changes and addenda are marked as such) the traditional reading puer is for all to see (cf. above, n. 32). It might be of interest to note that puerum was also endorsed by Fraenkel [n. 31] 395. 34 F. Klingner (Horatius, Opera (3rd ed., Lipsiae 1959) and Shackleton Bailey [n. 31] record it in the apparatus; the latter obelizes exoratus, and with good reason. Neither conjunction (multum exoratus or multum exhortatus) is otherwise attested, but we also note that no form of exoro is ever combined with any means of physical or educational persuasion. A different matter with exhortor: in Seneca we encounter pedagogical or moral admonitions (although again without any actual castigation), either general ( De tranquil. animi = Dial. 9.3.3, qui iuventutem e x h o r t a t u r ) or more detailed; here the passage Ep. 34.2 is worth reporting: ego cum vidissem indolem tuam, i n i e c i m a n u m , e x h o r t a t u s sum, addidi s t i m u l o s nec lente ire passus sum, sed subinde excitavi. Two expressions stand out: inieci manum, I laid my hand upon you (a legal phrase which indicates taking possession of an object), and addidi stimulos, I applied the goad. Seneca speaks figuratively; he applied these methods of persuasion to animus (cf. 43.3: ista res animo constat). They worked: his spiritual pupil, Lucilius, embraced the stoic learning and the stoic way of life; as Seneca puts it, iam currentem hortor (a phrase of Ciceronian pedigree) et invicem hortantem. Orbilius employed an actual goad, and he failed to instill in his charges (perhaps a good word can be said in favor of L. [K.] Urlichs [18131889] conjecture pueros) the love for old poets. Returning to exoro it may be interesting to observe that it once appears in close connection with doctissimus, but in a context vastly dissimilar to that of the (pseudo)-Horatian passage, Macr., Sat. 6.7.3: unde exoratus sit a nobis doctissimus doctor, namely to explain various passages of Vergil (spoken by Praetextatus and addressed to the Vergilian scholar Servius). (A note: none of these passages has ever been adduced by the learned exegetes of (pseudo)-Horace; for finding them thanks are due to my computer). And a final textual note: Shackleton Bailey (following some earlier apparatuses; cf. Keller-Holder ad loc.) records, and on equal footing with exhortatus, also J. Horkelss (18201861; see his Analecta Horatiana [Berolini 1852] 11517, with very good arguments against the reading exoratus) conjecture excoriatus. Impossible! Exhortor is a word of impeccable Augustan lineage; excorio on the other hand is first attested in late Latin (cf. TLL s.v.). Similar problems face the editors in the verses of Juvenal, Sat. 6.41415: vicinos humiles rapere et concidere l o r i s / e x o r a t a (var. lect. e x h o r t a t a ) solet. See the commentary by L. Friedlaender, D. Junii Juvenalis Saturarum libri, Bd. I (Leipzig 1895) 322, who observes the Horatian connection; no such observation in the otherwise most learned explanations by E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980) 314. Cf. also Petr. 105.4. 35 P. Valerius Cato; see Suet., Gramm. 11, and Kaster 1995, 14861, esp. 14950, where Kaster rightly rejects tortured readings and interpretations referring to Cato the phrase grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. 36 Kaster 1995, 134.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

195

Two facts are to be kept in mind: there is no compelling independent evidence for the equestrian status of Orbilius; and only two other republican grammarians are known to have belonged to that order.37 Thus the enunciation grammaticorum equitum doctissimus, if we take equitum as denoting equestrians, appears to be both inaccurate and feeble. We can hardly ascribe such looseness of expression to Horace himself, who must have been well aware of the social status of his preceptor. If these lines belong to a Horatian impostor, it is his privilege to be mistaken and misleading. But then, he is worthless as a historical source. Still we have to make sense of these lines. We can try either to produce a different text or find a different connotation for the term eques. A different text has indeed been produced by the emendation of equitum to equidem.38 Ingenious, and palaeographically compelling. For a student of history this is an emendation of great attraction: in conformity with other sources we are cheaply getting rid of a questionable equestrian grammarian. Too cheaply. We are not dealing with a dry chronicle, but with a satire. The emendation emasculates the punch line. The biting portrait of Orbilius as a strict martinet trails into a tame concession: and yet for my part the most learned of the grammatici.39 Where is the satirical zest, where is sal? We shall find salt, and a lot of it, if we attune our eyes and ears to the satirical play with words and images, a horseplay, if pun be allowed. We only have to turn to sex, that constant staple of Roman humor. Orbilius is credited with a coarse pun himself. On one occasion, Suetonius reports,40 when Orbilius, not yet known in Rome, appeared as a witness in court, the advocate for the opposing party, who happened to be a hunchback, wishing to
37 Namely L. Aelius Lanuvinus and his son-in-law Ser. Clodius (Suet., Gramm. 3.1); cf. Kaster 1995, 7273. 38 This emendation was proposed by Karl Christian Jakob Kirchner (17871855); it is listed in the apparatus of Keller and Holder, Q. Horatii Flacci opera (above, n. 31), but is not recorded by the two most recent Teubner editors, Klingner, [n. 34] and Shackleton Bailey, [n. 31]. Kirchner, Q. Horatii Sermonum libri duo (above, n. 31) proposed and defended this emendation in his commentary, p. 331 [see n. 31]. 39 With equidem understood as directly referring to the speaker. The same tameness and pointlessness of satirical expression mars the traditional rendering the most learned of the equestrian grammatici. Perhaps we should hold to the primary meaning of the word and take equitum in the sense of cavalrymen. This may be deemed to produce some humor, and will be factually accurate: Orbilius did serve in the legionary (or allied) cavalry. But the pun lacks a sharp edge. 40 Suet., Gramm. 9.5: ac ne principum quidem virorum insectatione abstinuit: siquidem ignotus adhuc, cum iudicio frequenti testimonium diceret, interrogatus a Varrone <Murena> [supplied by Kaster], diversae partis advocato, quidnam ageret et quo artificio uteretur, gibberosos se de sole in umbram transferre respondit, quod Murena gibber erat. See Kasters commentary, 1995, 13436. The Murena in question is either A. Terentius Varro Murena (aed. cur. ca. 44), or M. Terentius Varro Gibba (Asc. 55 C.), because of the cognomen Gibba a much more attractive proposition. To Kasters examples of the opposition between sun/light and shade, we may add Quint., Inst. 1.2.18: ante omnia futurus orator, cui in maxima celebritate et in media rei publicae luce vivendum est, adsuescat iam a tenero non reformidare homines neque illa solitaria et velut umbratica vita pallescere.

196

Historia et Ius

put Orbilius down, asked him what was his occupation. Orbilius answered: gibberosos de sole in umbram transfero, literally I remove hunchbacks from the sun into the shade, that is I send hunchbacks back to school, playing on the wellknown connection between umbra and the secluded mode of life of scholars and pupils, and implying that the advocatus needed further instruction in his craft. Not a bad retort but perhaps not mean enough. Another version of the quip, preserved by Macrobius, is both meaner and more risqu.41 The setting is the same: a courtroom; a hunchback lawyer asks the witness Orbilius what is your job?; and the barbed reply follows: in sole gibbos soleo fricare, I rub humps (or hunchbacks) in the sun. In the earlier version the physical appearance of the advocate was accidental;42 here it bulges out as the pivot of the joke. The quip is directly topical to the proceedings: in Mediterranean folklore patting the hump of a hunchback brings luck,43 and thus Orbilius through his
41 Macr., Sat. 2.6.4: In eundem Galbam Orbilius grammaticus acerbius (previously Macrobius adduced honesti ioci; Orbiliuss was thus a rude joke) inrisit. prodierat Orbilius in reum testis. quem Galba ut confunderet, dissimulata professione eius interrrogavit: quid artium facis? respondit: in sole gibbos soleo fricare. The Galba in question is the father of the emperor, but as Kaster 1995, 13536, points out this story is surely a fabrication: chronological considerations preclude any possibility of Orbilius and Galba appearing together in a courtroom. At some point the encounter was transferred from the hunchback and advocatus Murena to the hunchback and advocatus Galba (of whom Suetonius, Galba 3.3, says that quamquam brevi corpore atque etiam gibber modicaeque in dicendo facultatis, causas industrie actitativit) and given a ruder twist, not uncongenial to Orbilius reputation for natura acerba. On the Roman (approving) attitude to such jokes, see Cic., De Or. 2.239: (Caesar Strabo speaking) est etiam deformitatis et corporis vitium satis bella materies ad iocandum; cf. A. Corbeill, Controling Laughter. Political Humor in the Late Republic (Princeton 1996) 2030, 3556. 42 Kaster 1995, 135, puts it well the interlocutors deformity was significant in context because the man was distinguished by it: if the advocate had a squint, O(rbilius) would have said strabones de sole in umbram transfero. 43 R. Garland, In the Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (Ithaca 1995) 104. He does not adduce any classical sources documenting this practice, but points out that in the Vita Aesopi (Vita G, 16, lines 1112, ed. B. E. Perry, Aesopica [Urbana 1952] 40) one of Aesops fellow slaves suggests that their master, a slave dealer, purchased the ugly and deformed (also humpbacked: Vita W, 1, line 4 [Perry, 81]: pkurtow; Vita Planudea vel Accursiana, ed. A. Eberhard, Fabulae romanenses Graecae conscriptae I [Lipsiae 1872] 228, line 3: blaisw ka kufw) Aesop as a lucky talisman for his slave-trade business: na atn prosbskanon [so the paradosis; corrected by Perry in apparatu to read prosbasknion] to svmatemporou pois. On the other hand disfigured people were commonly regarded as a bad omen (cf. E. Stemplinger, Antiker Aberglaube in modernen Ausstrahlungen [Leipzig 1922] 45). How to explain this contradiction? A hunchback ranged against you is a bad occurrence, but it can be neutralized by the rite of laying on hands (here rubbing), by verbal utterances, and by taking the possession of the hump and employing it as an amulet (cf. Garland, 196, n. 116, on gobbi and gobbetti, the figurines of hunchbacks, still worn today in some areas as a protection against the evil eye). Here also belongs the dream of Domitian (Suet., Dom. 18.2): shortly before his death he dreamt that a golden hump grew out on his back (gibbam sibi pone cervicem auream enatam); the emperor interpreted it to denote that after his time the empire would be happier and more prosperous (beatiorem post se laetiorem portendi rei publicae statu), which indeed soon (brevi) came to pass thanks to the uprightness and moderation of his successors (and not as his legacy as Domitian undoubtedly had thought). Commentators of Suetonius leave this passage largely unexplained (cf. the

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

197

utterance was wittily conjuring up success for his party and defeat of the hunchback advocatus. But fricare also insinuates sexual undertones,44 and suggests the popular image of the sexually insatiable dwarfs and hunchbacks.45 The retort (translated into the American vernacular) becomes unabashedly crude: I screw hunchbacks in the open. The joke resides as if in a quantum state: it harbors two connected but different meanings which uncoil to a separate existence only in the mind of the audience. A similar double-faced pun may be present in the phrase grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. Orbilius was possessed of a sharp tongue, but he himself was also
solid commentaries by Mooney [n. 17] 608, and B. W. Jones, Suetonius: Domitian [Bristol 1996] 156; surprisingly no explanation in A. Vigourt, Les prsages impriaux dAuguste Domitien [Paris 2001], a book that should feast on such passages!), but in the light of the ancient dream lore it makes perfect sense. Artemidoros (1.49 [3.45 adduced by Vigourt, 307, n. 306, is not at all to the point]) informs us that the back functions as a symbol of old age, hence the golden age for Domitian, and after him. But the emperor should have paid attention also to the significance of being transformed, even if only partially, into gold: for with respect to rich people this dream portended falling the victim to a conspiracy (Artem. 1.50; cf. 1.92; and see R. J. White, The Interpretation of Dreams: Oneirocritica by Artemidorus. Translation and Commentary [Park Ridge, NJ, 1975] 75 [n. 52], 76 [n. 55]). The dream was thus a bad omen for Domitian, but for the people of Rome it presaged the aurea aetas. 44 The idea of a sexual interpretation of the joke in Macrobius is due to J. F. Killeen, Suetonius, De gramm. ix, WS 82 (1969) 23334. For frico, see TLL s.v. col. 1320, lines 2126; and esp. H. Haffter, Interpretationen zur rmischen Volkspoesie, Hermes 87 (1959) 91102 at 9294, on the verse aimed at P. Ventidius: mulas qui fricabat, consul factus est (preserved by Gell. 15.4.3), a brilliant investigation; and now also J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London/Baltimore 1982) 184 (he does not know Haffter). Killeen (quoting Theocr. 5.43 [and cf. also Scholia ad loc.]) suggests that the words gibbi or gibberosi means pueri pathici, which very suitably puts the schoolmaster Orbilius again in the dominant position with respect to the advocatus. The description in sole Killeen finds somewhat strange; his reference is to G. Vorberg, Glossarium eroticum [Stuttgart 1932, reprinted Hanau 1965] 51, s.v. apricum, who in turn leads to Persius 4.33 si unctus cesses et figas in cute solem (a vastly different phrase and image), and to the depilated cinaedi (3441; see O. Jahns commentary [Lipsiae 1843] ad loc., 17577), but this mollis et otiosa apricatio (to use Jahns description) is hardly of any direct relevance for the scene in Macrobius. More to the point would probably be the anecdote concerning the Cynic Crates, as it happens a hunchback (aucto gibbere), who was ready to have sex with Hipparche in the open; Apul., Flor. 14.6: Dux Cynicus in porticum. Ibidem, in loco celebri, coram luce clarissima accubuit, coramque virginem inminuisset paratam pari constantia (cf. the commentary by V. Hunnink, Apuleius of Madauros: Florida [Amsterdam 2001] 138). Hence my rendering in the open (or publicly, in full light). If the phrase in sole contains any other erotic allusion it eludes us. We may observe in passing that the phrases in sole fricare or terere (another word with sexual undertones, cf. Adams 183) were also used in the context of the preparation and application of various medicamenta (see Scrib. Larg. 156; 202; Plin., NH 20.166). Quintilian (11.3.27) writes that the orator must be prepared to defend the accused in any circumstances, also in sole, but this is presented as an aggravation along with a dies ventosus, umidus, calidus. 45 Cf. Garland [n. 43] 11617; 190, n. 116; V. Dasen, Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford 1993) 16970, 21445, esp. 23637. Cf. the story of Clesippus fullo g i b b e r et praeterea et alio foedus aspectu; he was bought at auction as a bonus together with an expensive candelabrum by a wealthy lady, Gegania, eadem ostentante in convivio empta ludibrii causa nudatus atque inpudentia libidinis receptus in torum, mox in testamentum (Plin., NH 34.1112; cf. J. Bodel, Trimalchio and the Candelabrum, CP 84 [1989] 22431).

198

Historia et Ius

an object of joke and ridicule. Next to Horaces plagosus Orbilius we have a verse of Domitius Marsus, a poet contemporary with Maecenas and Vergil: si quos Orbilius ferula scuticaque cecidit, preserved by Suetonius, and probably deriving from Domitius collection of poisonous epigrams, appropriately entitled Cicuta, Hemlock.46 And another poet and litteratus, M. Furius Bibaculus, penned this line: Orbilius ubinam est, litterarum oblivio? Suetonius understands this verse literally as referring to Orbilius senile (he almost reached one hundred years of age) loss of memory, but again under the verbal surface we glimpse another and even more lethal layer to this cruel joke: either Orbilius was (even in his prime) oblivious to the true meaning of literature or, still worse, through the method of his scholarship and teaching, he became the personified Lethe = oblivio of literature,47 as poignantly expressed in Rolfes inspired rendering of Bibaculus: Where is Orbilius, pray, great learnings tomb?48 Bibaculus lampooned also other grammarians, most particularly but goodnaturedly Valerius Cato; and we remember that in the eight verses attached in some manuscripts to Horaces tenth Satire it is Valerius Cato and his subtle style of literary exegesis and of teaching that is contrasted with the crudity of the unnamed grammaticus, but recognizably Orbilius. These eight lines, Fraenkel argued persuasively, form an excerpt from a longer satyrical piece; who might be the author Fraenkel did not venture to divine,49 but one of his learned predecessors did: none other than Bibaculus.50 Bibaculus or another versifier, the satirical key to the lampoon hides in the word eques. We have already discarded as jestingly weak and historically inaccurate any interpretation that would take equitum in the phrase grammaticorum equitum doctissimus as referring to the social category of knights, equestrians. If we take equitum as denoting cavalrymen, the joke is factually correct and flat. But once we translate equitum as riders, the scales fall from our eyes for in this sense and with the image of riding the word has a well-attested erotic application, in Greek and in Latin.51 The most learned of pedagogic52 riders (horsemen or pederasts cinaedi).
46 Suet., Gramm. 9.4, with Kaster 1995, 134; D. Fogazza, Domitii Marsi testimonia et fragmenta (Roma 1981) 18, n. 13; 2122, n. 33; 44 and 56, frg. 7 (ex incertis libris); E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Roman Poets (Oxford 1993) 300305, esp. 302 (frg. 4). 47 As Kaster 1995, 136, memorably puts it; he also collects a doxography of interpretations. On Bibaculus, see also Courtney [n. 46] 192200, esp. 19394 (frg. 3). 48 J. C. Rolfe in his Loeb Suetonius (first printed 1914), vol. 2, p. 411, adduced with approval by Kaster. 49 Fraenkel [n. 31] 397 and n. 1. 50 Kirchner [n. 31] II,1.32930. 51 Adams [n. 44] 165: the image is applied specifically to one schema, that with the woman (or effeminate male) astride. The position was regarded as slightly abnormal. Among the examples collected by Adams (16566) there is a passage of Horace (Sat. 2.7.4750; and cf. the comment of Pseudo-Acro); for our purposes especially telling is a phrase of Petronius (24.4): equum cinaedus mutavit; also a graffito from Pompei (CIL IV 1825): Cosmus equitaes (= eques) magnus cinaedus et fellator. 52 I take this rendering of grammaticorum from H. R. Faircloughs Loeb translation of Horace (1926).

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

199

To conclude on a prosopographical note: Orbilius was not an eques Romanus, and he did not gain the award of corniculum. He served in Macedonia as a cornicularius, and later as a cavalryman. IV Our second literary text mentioning corniculum is Auctor de viris illustribus 72.3:
(Marcus Aemilius Scaurus) Primo in Hispania corniculum meruit; sub Oreste in Sardinia stipendia fecit.

Pichlmayr (apart from the preposterous reading Cornelium of C) lists in the apparatus to his Teubner edition only the conjecture corniculo which he attributes to Schott.53 Now Andreas Schott (Schottus, 15521629) published in 1579 in Antwerp in the officina Plantiniana his great edition of Aurelius Victor, including De viris illustribus (he was the first to ascribe this script to Aurelius Victor), later many times reprinted.54 When we consult the actual annotation of Schott, we shall see that Pichlmayr did not report it accurately. Schott wrote:55 Corniculum] sic vulgati: Corniculo, auferendi casu legit Sigonius56 De Antiquo Jure Provinciarum, l. II. The conjecture corniculo is thus due to Sigonius and not to Schott; in fact Schott himself pointed to the passage of Livy 10.44.5 (reproduced at the beginning of this paper) and concluded Unde aliud quid esse colligere liceret, vulgatamque lectionem defendere, corniculum meruit.57 In proposing corniculo meruit Sigonius (as it follows from Schotts commentary) was influenced by the text of Suetonius concerning Orbilius. Thus already older philologians were keenly aware of two textual choices, in Suetonius and in the Auctor De viris illustribus: corniculo meruit, indicating service as cornicularius, and corniculum meruit, denoting the acquisition of the award of corniculum. They were not aware of the third
53 Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus, ed. Fr. Pichlmayr (Lipsiae 1911; reprinted iterum in 1966 with addenda by R. Gruendel). 54 On the history of the editions of Aurelius Victor (and other scripts attached to the corpus Aurelianum), see the recensus editionum by J. A. Fabricius in the editio Bipontina of the Historiae Romanae scriptores minores (1789), reprinted by A. J. Valpy in Sexti Aurelii Victoris Historia Romana (London 1829). Volume I of this publication reproduces the edition (of 1787) by Th. Chr. Harlesius (i.e., Gottlieb Christoph Harless, 17381815) cum notis et interpretatione in usum Delphini (Paris 1681) by Anna Tanaquili Fabri filia (Madame Dacier, 16541720); volume II contains notae variorum taken from the edition of 1733 (Amstelodami et Traiecti ad Rhenum) by Joannes Arntzenius (Jan Arntzen, 17021759). 55 I quote from the publication of Valpy [n. 54] II.667; Schotts notae are also reproduced in the once famous edition of Samuel Pitiscus (Traiecti ad Rhenum 1696). The mistaken attribution of this conjecture to Schott already in Harlesius. 56 Carlo Sigonio (c. 15231584). His treatise De Antiquo Jure Provinciarum was originally published in Venice in 1567. 57 This reading was also defended by Arntzen. Anna Fabri adopted in her edition corniculo (so also Pitiscus), and commented (her note, teste Arntzenio, petita est a Turnebo): qui corniculo merebant, cornicularii dicebantur. Yet she also observed (quoting Livy) that the reading corniculum defendi potest (Valpy [n. 54] I.204).

200

Historia et Ius

choice, the accusative denoting service. In Suetonius, we have seen, the transmitted text corniculo meruit causes difficulty. Thus corniculum meruit in the Auctor de viris illustribus appears sound, but not the understanding of the phrase by recent students of the Auctor and of Aemilius Scaurus. W. K. Sherwin translates and interprets: At first in Spain he earned the corniculum [horn-shaped ornament awarded for bravery]; he served in Sardinia under Orestes.58 So also R. L. Bates in his biography of Scaurus.59 But M. Gelzer saw long ago the real meaning of the passage: Scaurus served as a cornicularius.60 The following phrase sub Oreste (L. Aurelius Orestes, cos. 126) in Sardinia stipendia fecit is odd: after all (whether he served as cornicularius or gained the award of corniculum) Scaurus already stipendia fecit in Spain. In the next sentence we expect some new information, some progression: one is tempted to read stipendia <equo> fecit. V The third literary text is the Principia Historiae of Cornelius Fronto addressed to Emperor Verus. The manuscript (a palimpsest) is in many places grievously mutilated. But the context is important, and it is unmistakably military. In the newest edition (Van Den Hout [1988] 207, lines 2022 208, lines 1-4) we read:

58 W. K. Sherwin, Deeds of Famous Men (Norman 1973) 163. 59 L. R. Bates, Rex in Senatu: A Political Biography of M. Aemilius Scaurus, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 130 (1986) 252 and n. 11 (p. 276). He believes that Scaurus made his choice in favor of politics ... rather late, after distinction while serving as a common soldier in Spain enabled him to advance to the higher ranks his patrician birth alone could not procure. In this Bates follows in the footsteps of G. M. Bloch, M. Aemilius Scaurus (Paris 1908) 1112. 60 M. Gelzer, Die Nobilitt der rmischen Republik (Leipzig 1912) 3, n. 12 (= Kleine Schriften I [Stuttgart 1962] 20, n. 12): Corniculum merere muss hier so gut Unteroffizierdienst heissen, wie Suet., de gramm. 9,1 von einem Grammatiker, der vorher magistratischer apparitor, dann cornicularius, schliesslich Reiter gewesen war. This said, it is only fair to observe that with reference to the republican times only two literary texts employ the term cornicularius. The passage of Frontinus, Strateg. 3.14.1, describes a ruse of a Pompeian emissary: during Caesars siege of Ategua in Spain (anno 45), he passed himself off as Casesarianus tribuni cornicularius, and thus was able to penetrate through Caesars circumvallation and enter the city. This establishes the existence of the military post of cornicularius in the armies of the late republic (Cass. Dio, 43.33.434.13, provides an ampler narrative: he gives the name of the emissary [L. (the praenomen from Val. Max. 9.2.4 and Bell. Hisp. 19)] Munatius Flaccus, specifies that he was sent by Pompeius to assume the command of the city, but does not mention the cornicularian pretence). The other text is more problematic. Valerius Maximus (6.1.11) adduces as an example of Roman rectitude the dire end of the tribunus militaris M. Laetorius Mergus cui Cominius tribunus pl. diem ad populum dixit, quod c o r n i c u l a r i u m suum stupri causa adpellasset. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom. 16.4) places this incident in the period of the Samnite wars (cf. T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I [New York 1951] 160); he describes the object of the tribunes desire as neanan tin tn mosknvn, a young man and one of his tentmates. We deal with a fable the details of which were fluid. The text of Valerius Maximus cannot be used as a bona fide source for the cornicularii in the fourth-century Roman army.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

201

in bellum profectus est cum cognitis militibus hostem Parthum contemnentibus, sagittarum ictus post ingentia Dacorum falcibus inlata volnera despicatui habentibus. multos militum imp(erator) suo quemque nomine proprio atque castrensi cognomento ioculari appellabat. Plerosque adeo centuriatu vel corniculo vel aere duplo, multos pilo aut hasta principe provexerat, qui vel partam servum cuiusque ****61

In the first two sentences the text is by and large secure, and everything is clear: the subject is Trajans Parthian expedition, and his rapport with the soldiers. The last sentence also seems reasonably complete, but this is a misleading impression. It is important to realize that Van Den Houts 1988 edition has in many places the quality of a reconstruction rather than that of a simple edition. This is unfortunately the case with the passage containing the word corniculo. For the sake of comparison I reproduce the text of this sentence as it figures in earlier editions:62 We begin with the editio princeps by A. Mai (1815):63
Pigros ... vel corniculo vel (aureo),64 vel partim ... cuiusque ...

Next, the edition of Naber (1867):65

Pigros ... vel corniculo vel [aureo]66 vel partim ... cuiusque ...

And finally Van Den Hout (1954) 195, lines 23:

Pigros - - vel corniculo vel aereo vel partim - - cuiusque - - 67

It is in this shape that the passage of Fronto was utilized by all (earlier) students of corniculum. Pigri milites ought to have been always surprising or suspect in this context, very much out of place after several lines of boastful praise. But should we accept the reading pigros, such soldiers Trajan must have (in the lacuna) castigated
61 The next four lines Van Den Hout describes as illegible. 62 For a description of the manuscript, a list of earlier editions and their assessment, see Van Den Hout 1954, IXLXXXII; 1988, VIIILXXX. 63 Actually I used the edition M. Cornelii Frontonis Opera Inedita, invenit et commentario praevio notisque illustravit Angelus Maius (Francofurti ad Moenum 1816) 353, lines 35, but this edition faithfully reproduces the editio princeps, Mediolani 1815. Cf. Van Den Hout 1954, LXVIIILXIX; 1988, LXIVLXV. 64 As Mai indicates (CXIV), the parentheses denote dubiae lectionis vocabula. 65 M. Cornelii Frontonis et M. Aurelii Imperatoris Epistulae, rec. S. A. Naber (Lipsiae 1867) 205, lines 1920. 66 In Nabers edition square brackets denote either supplements proposed by the editor (cf. 205, n. 10) or uncertain readings. His text is thus identical with that of Mai. C. R. Haines, The Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto II (Loeb Classical Library; London 1920), 204, lines 2425, reproduces the text of Mai and Naber, but omits the parentheses or brackets and prints aereo (not aureo) as if it were an assured reading. He translates (205, lines 2628): Those who hung back ... with a helmet decoration or bronze or partly .... 67 In this text the only change with respect to Mai or Naber is the reading aereo in place of aureo. Van Den Hout also somberly observed that in the three lacunae (indicated by dashes) altogether 135 fere litt. desunt. As he did not indicate the length of the individual lacunae no reliable reconstruction was possible.

202

Historia et Ius

or exhorted. A slothful and reluctant soldier needs a counterpart: a brave soldier, who receives a reward. In this perspective the award of corniculum fits well into the flow of Frontos text and Trajans action. Indeed already the editor princeps, A. Mai, appended to his text the following explanatory note (243, n. 2 [n. 63]): Corniculum doni militaris genus fuit, virtutis ergo conferri solitum. One year after the original edition of Mai a group of scholars led by G. B. Niebuhr produced in Berlin in 1816 a new Fronto, with fragments rearranged and accompanied with various animadversiones. Some of these comments were due to L. F. Heindorf.68 The passage concerning corniculum he so restituted: Pigros exhortabatur, strenuos vel corniculo, vel balteo, vel armillis, ingentis partim pretii donis pro cuiusque dignitate ornabat. In this stylistic tour de force words that could be deciphered (or were believed to have been deciphered) in the manuscript (here printed in the italics) effortlessly float in Heindorfs Latin, but alas balteo must be wrong: the award of a belt for military valor is not positively attested;69 nor is ingentis ... pretii donis very convincing. And so we now return to another tour de force, Van Den Houts new and novel reconstitution of the passage. Where in his earlier edition we had bare threads only, we now have a fully fleshed-out narrative. This incarnation is, however, not due to a new collation of the manuscript; it is only a result of Van Den Houts utilization of the schedae of E. Hauler, a major personage in Frontonian studies, who until his death in 1941 had for some forty years been preparing in vain a new edition of Fronto.70 Van Den Hout found the notes of Hauler in a state of utmost confusion: plerosque locos Frontonianos Hauler saepius contulit, alias alius legit, mixtae sunt coniecturis lectiones, est discrepantia inter ea quae publicaverat et schedas ineditas (1988,VII). Utmost confusion counsels utmost caution. The first two sentences
68 M. Cornelii Frontonis Reliquiae ab Angelo Maio primum editae meliorem in ordinem digestas ... iterum edidit B. G. Niebuhrius (Berolini 1816) 243, n. 4. Cf. Van Den Hout 1954, LXIXLXX. On L. F. Heindorf, see above, n. 33. In his edition Naber [n. 65] 205, n. 13, also adduced Heindorfs restitution of the passage, but he printed it carelessly, with wrong punctuation, omitting the commas after corniculo, balteo and armillis. 69 No mention in Maxfield 1981. One could perhaps adduce Hist. Aug. 19, Maxim. 2.4: natali Getae, filii minoris, Severus militares dabat ludos propositis praemiis argenteis, id est a r m i l l i s , t o r q u i b u s et b a l t e o l i s . The ludi themselves though suspect, are not impossible, but it is odd indeed that armillae and torques, the dona militaria for bravery in war, should have been given at games, awkwardly combined with belts. But we remember that Augustus himself gave a golden torc to the young Nonius Asprenas after his mishap at the lusus Troiae (Suet., Aug. 43.2; and see below in this volume, No. 14, n. 32). Cf. A. Lippold, Kommentar zur Vita Maximini duo der Historia Augusta (Bonn 1991) 30811, 68083 (and see below in this volume, No. 14, n. 53). The passage of Tacitus (Hist. 1.57.2): manipuli quoque et gregarius miles viatica sua et b a l t e o s p h a l e r a s q u e , insignia armorum argento decora, loco pecuniae tradebant, is hardly more promising. As phalerae were decorations given for valor, so perhaps were also the belts, especially when studded with silver bullae? This is the opinion of H. Heubner, P. Cornelius Tacitus, Die Historien. Kommentar I (Heidelberg 1963) 125. But these baltei are here clearly the leather harnesses to which the silver discs (phalerae) were attached, and not any independent Auszeichnungen. In the absence of any epigraphical testimony, we must remain sceptical. 70 Van Den Hout 1988, LXXVILXXIX, LXXXIVLXXXVII.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

203

in the passage reproduced at the outset of this section the genuine Fronto flow smoothly, and the general sense of the whole enunciation and the sense of each word is not in doubt. The next sentence arrives as a jolt, obscure and convoluted. In his recent Commentary, a veritable (though occasionally headless) mountain of labor, Van Den Hout attempted to provide elucidation.71 Most readers will find the final phrase qui vel partam servum cuiusque72 rather impenetrable, and yet the commentary offers no word of instruction. And the instruction concerning the military honors bestowed on the soldiers by Trajan is both incomplete and misleading. The emperor promoted, proveherat,73 a number of soldiers, but the phrase depending on this verb displays an unusual construction. Let us first observe that Van Den Hout explains corniculum as helmet decoration,74 and thus he takes it in the sense of a military award and not a mili-

71 M. P. J. Van Den Hout, A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto (Leiden 1999) 472. 72 Nor is the apparatus criticus as helpful as it should be. Mais partim is now replaced by Haulers partam, yet cuiusque is retained (Hauler read cuius ...). The provenience of the initial relative qui and of servum is not explained. 73 Hauler was uncertain as to the reading provexerat; indeed the application of the pluperfect may appear baffling. Van Den Hout thought of provehebat, but he indicated this proposal only in his apparatus, and refrained from introducing it into the text. The tense would indicate that Trajan continued promoting pleros and multos throughout the course of the campaign. It is perhaps worth observing that the form provehebat appears to be attested only once and in an entirely different and appropriate context, in Iust. 1.1.1: quos (reges) ad fastigium huius maiestatis ... spectata inter bonos moderatio provehebat (and cf. below n. 78 for provehebantur). But there is nothing wrong with provexerat: we encounter the same construction in Suet., Aug. 66: Salvidienum Rufum, quem ad consulatum usque, et Cornelium Gallum, quem ad praefecturam Aegypti, ex infima utrumque fortuna, provexerat. 74 Van Den Hout, Commentary [n. 71] 472. He interprets the passages of Suetonius and of de vir. ill. as referring to the award of corniculum. For that meaning he also adduces (apparently blindly following TLL s.v. corniculum, col. 959, line 13) CLE 744,3 (from coemeterium Callisti in Rome). The (rather convoluted) verse reads as follows: Tenet amicoru[m me]moria carit[atem] Honoremque mil[iti]ae perfunctu[s obiuit] Eius enim fides ostendit c o r n i c u l o r u [ m ] Omnibus conmilitonibus amicisque fi[delis] Deo gubernantem fama magis quam pec[unia], Urbanae praefecturae officium eius inte[gritatem]. Laudes eius, si sufficerem, dicerem semper. Ut rata sint ei prom[i]ssa munera lucis, [S ]. As the acrostic shows, the name of the deceased was Theodulu[s]. F. Buecheler in CLE in apparatu, and E. Diehl in his annotation to the edition of this text in ILCV 452, point out that Theodulus served as a cornicularius in the office of the urban prefect. This interpretation is adopted (albeit with a query) by J. R. Martindale in The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II (Cambridge 1980) 1105. But, as Diehl points out, line 3 vix integer est, cum corniculus sit munus cornicularii (cf. above, n. 14); hence his approval of [E.] Kalinkas conjecture: Eius enim fi<dem se>des ostendit corniculoru[m] (he considers but rejects the readings <fides> fidem and fide<m uiti>s, the latter certainly off the mark). One thing is certain: there is no mention in the verse of the award of corniculum. This award TLL s.v. corniculum, col.

204

Historia et Ius

tary rank. Yet in the whole electronically searchable bank of Latinity the verb provehere never appears in connection with military awards. Its established military and political usage is to indicate advancement to a higher rank or status, normally constructed with the prepositions ad 75 or in 76 but also with a direct object77 or absolutely.78 We may be thus justifiably inclined to reject Van Den Houts recon-

75

76

77

78

959, lines 1112, wished to discover also in two passages of Fronto: the passage here discussed, and in another passage which in Van Den Houts edition (p. 128, lines 1014) reads as follows: Laelianus Pontius ... equos pulvillis instratos animadvertit. iussu eius c o r n i c u l a consecta, a sedilibus equitum pluma quasi anseribus devolsa. This refers to the restoration of military discipline by M. Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus, cos. suff. 144 (PIR2, P 806). Van Den Houts remarks are this time on the mark (Commentary 305): Apparently, the soldiers folded their horse-cloths and filled them with feathers, then tied up the four ends (cornicula). These cornicula have nothing to do with the donum militare. This is also the understanding of Haines [n. 66]. He translates (vol. 2, p. 149): he found horses saddled with cushions, and by his orders the little pommels on them were slit open and the down plucked from their pillions as from geese. Liv. 39.40.5 (summos honores); Asc., in Scaur. p. 23, line 3 Clark (summos honores); Plin., Ep. 10.13 (dignitatem); Suet., Caes. 72 (amplissimos honores), Aug. 66 (consulatum, praefecturam), Tib. 55 (summam potentiam); Sen., Benef. 3.30.3 (summam dignitatem); Hist. Aug., M. Aur. 2.5 (proconsulatum); Front., Strat. 4.1.8 (ordines militiae); Cf. Porph., ad Hor. Sat. 1.6.1314 (ut provehi non potuerit ultra quaestoriam dignitatem); Auson., Grat. actio ad Gratianum 5.24 (per omnes honorum gradus); cf. 6.27. The term appears once but significantly in an official document, the exemplum codicillorum of Marcus Aurelius, AE 1962, 183a (ad ducenariae procurationis splendorem iamdudum te p ro v e h e re studens). In his republication and discussion of this inscription H.-G. Pflaum, Un lettre de promotion de lempereur Marc Aurle pour un procurateur ducnaire de Gaule Narbonnaise, BJ 171 (1971) 34966 at 359 (= Scripta Varia II [Paris 1981] 1229 at 22) offered a short comment also on the word provehere. He came to the conclusion, by and large not incorrect, that this word was a technical expression to indicate the advancement of a high functionary, but his pool of examples was scant, only three passages from Suetonius (see above in this note), and thus he was not able to form any idea of the variegated application of this term, its syntactic constructs, and chronological evolution. He admitted exceptions to his definition, as in AE 191718, 74, where the term is applied to a lower functionary, to decur(io) al(ae) Fl(aviae), who was ex corniculario provectus. He also observed that in military epigraphical documents it is rather the verb promovere that we encounter, but he missed the literary locus classicus for the interplay of provehere and promovere, Hist. Aug., Alex. Sev. 21.8 (see below, n. 78). These remarks are not intended as a critique of a great scholar but rather as a reminder of the revolution wrought in such studies by the electronic data banks. The language of Roman advancement is in need of a comprehensive study. Vell. 2.128.2 (consulatus, censuras, triumphos), 2.69.1 (consulare fastigium); Plin., Paneg. 10.4 (primum in locum); Ep. 9.14.2 (lucem famamque); Iust. 11.5.1 (in excelsiorem dignitatis locum). This is a later usage: Aur. Victor 35.7 (Tetricum ... correctorem Lucaniae), 41.24 (si provinciarum rectores non pretio sed iudicio p ro v e x i s s e t ); Amm. Marc. 20.9.5 (Gomoarium ... magistrum armorum), 23.1.4 (Rufinum Aradium comitem orientis), 26.5.2 (militiae rectorem); Hist. Aug., Maxim. duo 5.5 (tribunum legionis quartae), Alex. Sev. 15.1 (removit omnes iudices ... , quos impurus ille ex genere hominum turpissimo p r o v e x e r a t ); Claudian., Carm. mai. 8.15455 = Paneg. Honor. quart. cons. (inter cunabula consul p ro v e h e r i s ). With a general sense of promote, without any specific indication of the dignity or post: Plin., Paneg. 45.4 (hos ergo provehis), 46.8 (boni provehuntur); Fronto, Ep. ad amic. 1.4.1 = p. 174,

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

205

struction of the text; there exists, however, a passage that offers some grammatical support. The author of the Historia Augusta writes (M. Aur. 15) that Marcus Aurelius tantae autem sanctitatis fuit ..., ut Veri vitia et celaverit et defenderit, ... amitasque eius et sorores h o n o r i b u s et s a l a r i i s decretis sublevaverit atque p r o v e x e r i t . The construct aliquem aliquo provehere is thus assured, and Fronto may indeed have used it. This does not mean that equally assured is Van Den Houts understanding of the passage. On the contrary: in the phrase centuriatu vel corniculo vel aere duplo ... provexerat, centuriatu denotes promotion to the post of a centurion,79 aere duplo to the status of a duplicarius, a soldier who received double pay or double rations,80 and thus corniculo must denote advancement to the office of a cornicularius.81 This makes good sense, as the promotion path often led from the cornicularii to centuriones.82 The following phrase, multos pilo aut hasta principe provexerat, displays again two unique expressions, and to this sand dune of words it would be imprudent to anchor any firm historical inferences.83
lines 57 Van Den Hout 1988 (decet a te ... tam doctum ... virum ... provehi [= support] et inlustrari); Iust. 13.4.10 (quem ex gregario milite Alexander virtutis causa p ro v e x e r a t ); Hist. Aug., Anton. Pius 5.3 (nulli eorum, quos Hadrianus provexerat, successorem dedit); Alex. Sev. 21.8 (de prov<eh>endis etiam sibi adnotabat ... etiam pariter adnotatis et quis quo esset insinuante promotus [observe the virtual equation of provehere and promovere]); Vita Iuvenalis 4 [= Scholia in Iuvenalem vetustiora, ed. P. Wessner, p. 1 (erat tum in deliciis aulae histrio et multi fautorum eius cottidie p ro v e h e b a n t u r )]; Cod. Theod. 6.22.5 (quos administratio vel militia p ro v e x i t ); cf. Prisc., De laude Anast. 23944 = Poetae Lat. Min., ed. Ae. Baehrens, vol. 5 (Lipsiae 1883) 272. Caution must be urged. The form centuriatu is otherwise not attested, and a hapax legomenon in a suspect text is doubly suspicious. Generally, in literature, centuriatus is a very rare word: only a handful of attestations, twice in Cicero (Pis. 88; Imp. Cn. Pomp. 37), once in Suet., Gramm. 24.1: centuriatum petit), and once in Priscianus, De fig. numeror. p. 415, line 19. The cognate centurionatus has only two attestations (Tac., Ann. 1.44.5; Val. Max. 3.2.23), but the passage of Valerius offers a welcome illustration to Fronto: cum facta tum etiam uerba tua centurionatus honore d<on>ata sunt. See [O.] Fiebiger, Duplarii, RE 5 (1905) 184243; G. R. Watson, The Roman Soldier (London [also Ithaca] 1969) 9192, 100102; Maxfield 1981, 99, 23840; Perea Ybenes, Collegia Militaria [n. 11] 28587. For the term corniculus denoting the office, see above, n. 14. For the promotion patterns, see von Domaszewski [n. 11] esp. 20, 3031, 82, and in the index, p. 318; Clauss [n. 11] 2540; D. J. Breeze, The Organisation of the Career Structure of the immunes and principales of the Roman Army, BJ 174 (1974) 24592 at 27078. Cf. 272: It was clearly possible to be advanced to the centurionate from a large number of posts, from eques to cornicularius consularis, though with the exception of eques they were all held by soldiers receiving double pay. Again a note of caution: the epigraphically attested promotions of the cornicularii to the centurionate postdate the reign of Trajan; the earliest example is recorded under Marcus Aurelius (p. 272). See also the list in Perea Ybenes, Cornicularius [n. 11] 45253. Van Den Hout, Commentary [n. 71] 472, explains pilo and hasta principe as metonymy: pilum stands for pilus and hasta for hastatus, the rank of a primus pilus (primipilus) and the rank of a primus hastatus, both centurions. He has no word on principe, and primus hastatus is a spurious denomination; he also fails to distinguish between centurions in general and the centurions of the first legionary cohort which included five double centuries. The centurions of this elevated cohort, constituted a superior grade, and were collectively known as primi

79

80

81 82

83

206

Historia et Ius

To conclude: there is under the empire no record of corniculum as a military award. VI The origin of the term cornicularius is obscure. Some believe that the cornicularii were selected from among those soldiers who had earned the award of corniculum.84 This certainly is not true for the period of the empire: in the inscriptions numerous cornicularii appear, but not once do we hear of a bestowal of the award of corniculum. If we assume that this award persisted under the empire under a different denomination, that of the hasta pura,85 it is not easily explicable why the person so honored should have been called cornicularius (and not hastarius). But this scheme we cannot assume. During the Principate a rigid system of dona prevailed, based on rank: hastae were never awarded to common soldiers, not even to the immunes and principales; the only dona open to them were the minor awards of armillae, torques, phalerae, and occasionally an exceptional award of a corona.86 These awards, moreover, are attested almost exclusively in the period of the earlier Empire; as Maxfield (1981, 215) observes not a single legionary ranker is known to have received military decorations during the whole of the Trajanic wars in
ordines; in order of seniority they were ranked as follows: primus pilus, princeps, hastatus, princeps posterior, hastatus posterior. The centurions of the remaining nine cohorts were called (again in order of seniority) pilus prior, pilus posterior, princeps prior, princeps posterior, hastatus prior and hastatus posterior (See, e.g., G. Webster, The Roman Imperial Army [Totowa, NJ, 1985; reprinted Norman, OK, 1998] 114). In the course of the campaign Trajan certainly could promote pleros to the post of a centurion, but he could not promote multos to the charges of primus pilus, princeps or hastatus for in each legion there were only three such posts available. In the first part of the enunciation Fronto mentioned promotions to the centurionate; in the second part he will allude to the advancements to a higher rank within the whole class of centurions from the last to the first cohort. But again the way in which Fronto or Frontos modern editor express this simple fact is peculiar indeed. 84 See above, n. 3; [O.] Fiebiger, RE 4 (1901) 1603, s.v. Cornicularii: so genannt nach dem ihnen verliehenen Corniculum; Clauss [n. 11] 13: Der Name der cornicularii stammt von dem corniculum, einem militarischen Abzeichen. This interpretation already in 1733 in Arntzen: Corniculum videtur fuisse ornamentum galeae, non omnibus militibus commune, sed quo ornabantur illi, qui res bene gesserant. Hinc cornicularius honoratior miles, qui tale corniculum meruerat (Valpy [n. 54] II.667). Cf. Marquardt [n. 26] 546: so benannt von einem Helmschmuck, corniculum; Le Bohec [n. 3] 198, maintains that in the Principate the cornicula are nur noch ein Rangabzeichen. In fact we do not know for certain what Abzeichen, if any, were worn by the cornicularii. But he is right to stress that under the empire the award of corniculum is not attested. D. Ciugudean, Obiectele din os, corn si fildes de la Apulum [with French summary: Les objects en os, corne et ivoire dApulum] (Alba Iulia 1997) 3839, 107, 139 (catalogue no. 462), 180 (plate XXX,1), tentatively suggests that an object, found to the north of the camp of legio XIII Gemina, may represent the long sought emblem of the cornicularii: a deer horn, 11.3 cm long, exquisitely polished and with minutely crafted geometrical decorations; at the base of the horn there are four perforations. 85 As postulated by Bttner; see above, n. 5. 86 See above, nn. 5, 6, and Maxfield 1981, 21317.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

207

Dacia and Parthia). A bucket of cold water for those who would still wish to discover an allusion to military dona in Fronto. Furthermore in the only reliable piece of evidence from the republican times, the inscription of Pompeius Strabo, the award of corniculum goes to a turma equitum, as it also does in the account of Livy adduced at the head of this paper. On the other hand Orbilius and evidently also Scaurus progressed from the service as cornicularii to the service in the cavalry. The sources do not allow us to make any direct connection between the presumed horn of valor and the office of cornicularius, and the statistical data prohibits it. And so do also the rules of Latin word formation. The ending -arius normally denotes in Latin a function or an occupation; with respect to the res militares in the index to Domaszewskis Rangordnung (above, n. 11) we find fortythree denominations ending in -arius of military functions, charges and pay levels. Not one of them is a derivation from a word describing a donum militare. It is true that the duplicarii received their double pay and rations on the account of their valor in the field, but the term itself refers to their status and not directly to the award. On the other hand those honorific denominations that patently derive from awards for bravery assume the ending atus: not only the hero Manlius Torquatus, but under the empire also whole units were so surnamed: frequently ala or cohors torquata; one ala bears the name of torquata et armillata.87 The corniculum may have indeed been a small horn attached to the helmet. A passage of Pliny (10.124), often adduced, alludes to a helmet with horns, though in the context of a hunt, not war. Pliny writes of recens fama Crateri Monocerotis cognomine in Erizena regione Asiae corvorum opera venantis eo quod devehebat in silvas eos insidentes corniculis umerisque. The ravens thus perched on his shoulders and the cornicula; the latter must be the horn-like attachments of the helmet.88 But if the horned helmet was an emblem of a cornicularius, we would rather expect the denomination corniculatus; the new horned moon was called luna corniculata.89 We have again reached a terminological dead end. An early Byzantine scholar and bureaucrat, Johannes Lydus,90 was also interested in the origin of the term. The explanation he gives (de magistratibus 3.3) is
87 Maxfield 1981, 22026, 27172. For torquati, a grade of soldiers in Vegetius (2.7), see Maxfield, 24849. 88 Maxfield 1981, 99. H. Rackham in his Loeb Pliny (1940) translates corniculis as on the crest of his helmet, and explains it as a horn shaped ornament, the reward of bravery. With respect to Crates it was hardly an award; rather a simple helmet decoration. In this context it is interesting that Crates had a surname Monoceros, Singlehorned. The city of Eriza was located in the borderland of Caria and Phrygia ([W.] Ruge, RE 6 [1909] 46970). 89 Apul., Socr. 1.15; Mart. Cap. 7.738. The adjective corniculatus apparently appears only in these two passages. 90 His dates are 490ca. 565. On Lydus, and his world, see the monographs by J. Caimi, Burocrazia e diritto nel de Magistratibus di Giovanni Lido (Milano 1984); M. Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past. Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian (London and New York 1992); C. Kelly, Ruling the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, MA, 2004). All three books contain references to the post of cornicularius, but they offer no detailed commentary of Lydus passage de mag. 3.3 (but for a brief notice, cf. Caimi, 2930; Maas, 92).

208

Historia et Ius

of great interest and of no value. The person who heads the entire staff of an officium is called kornikoulriow. This Latin denomination Lydus tries to explain by two Greek terms kairathw prmaxow. This is the reading in the oldest (and practically unique) codex, the Caseolinus Parisinus of the IX/Xth century, but kairathw is obviously corrupt. It was corrected by I. Bekker in his Bonn edition (1837) to kerathw, a lectio now adopted by A.C. Bandy in his new edition of Lydus.91 J. D. Fuss in the editio princeps (Paris 1812) proposed the emendation kersthw (cf. the dictionary of Liddell-Scott-Jones and the electronic searches in TLG: horned; used of animals, vessels, the god Pan and the satyrs, but not attested with respect to helmets), but a few years later he changed his mind92 and read keratthw; this latter reading was unwisely adopted by R. Wuensch in his Teubner edition of 1903. Of this word LSJ has only two examples, but the electronic TLG provides sixteen further instances: in all of them the meaning is that of butting, bovine or metaphorical, hardly an appropriate image for the chief of a bureau. We are thus left with kerathw , otherwise unattested. Bandy renders it straightforwardly as horn-bearer, but he offers no comment ad rem.93 Lydus assevers that in the so-called legio which consisted of six thousand foot soldiers in number ... the cornicularius was stationed first. Hence his other explanation, prmaxow, front-line fighter. This fantasy hardly preserves an echo of the heroic deeds of the cornicularii, and of their awards for bravery. It is only part and parcel of the fable of the heroic origin of the officia, the late imperial chancery, in a mythical legio prima adiutrix.94 Perhaps a clue to their name may lie in their occupation. As chiefs of the officia they were dealing with documents, the paper or should we rather say the papyrus-and-wax work. They had various clerks under them, but at least in one document we encounter a cornicularius in the very act of writing.95 And this leads us to the instruments of writing.
91 A. C. Bandy, Ioannes Lydus on Powers or the Magistracies of the Roman State (Philadelphia 1983) 134 (as it turns out this reading or perhaps correction was already present in the now lost Codex Atheniensis of the XVIIIth century, which was first made known in 1852; see Bandy LIXLXIV, and in app. crit.). 92 In a script entitled Ad Carolum Benedictum Hase epistola (Leodii 1820); see Bandy [n. 91] LXV. 93 Bandy [n. 91] 135, 3023. T. F. Carney, John the Lydian, De Magistratibus (Lawrence, KS, 1971) 65, oddly (mis)translates man on the wings (he used the editions of Wuensch and Bekker, but unfortunately does not indicate whether he translates the formers kerathw or the latter keratthw. So also C. N. Tsirpanlis in his very superficial article John Lydos on the Imperial Administration, Byzantion 44 (1974) 479501 at 49899: kerathw = the man on the top of the military wing or horn. 94 See R. MacMullen, Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge, MA, 1963) 7075. 95 P. Oxy. VII 1022 = R. O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus (= Philological Monographs 26 [Cleveland 1971]) 35254, no. 87, a copy of a letter concerning recruits (from the Prefect of Egypt to the commander of a cohort), although possibly only the certification subscription in lines 2731 was written by the cornicularius himself in his own hand: Avidius Arrian(us) cornicular(ius) coh(ortis) II[I] It[ura]eorum scripsi. authenticam epistulam in tabulario cohortis esse (subscript dots omitted). Cf. Clauss [n. 11] 2325; Stauner [n. 2] 120, 43031 (no. 423), with further literature.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

209

Stilus and cera are of no help, but the reed employed to write in ink on papyri and other chartae looks promising. Though, surprisingly enough, not the ubiquitous calamus,96 but another species of reed called canna.97 In the inscriptions and papyri occasionally occur administrative officials bearing the name of canalicularius.98 M. Clauss and J. F. Gilliam assembled a full dossier (with all the documents belonging to the third century), and one conclusion emerges with all clarity: Der Posten des canalicularius ist mit demjenigen des cornicularius vergleichbar (Clauss 255 = 44); The duties and high standing of the canaliclarii make it clear that they were at least roughly equivalent to the familiar cornicularii (Gilliam 51 = 375). This equation is born out particularly through two inscriptions in which a canalicularius and a cornicularius appear holding the same rank in the same administrative environment: AE 1936, 56 = V. Hoffiller B. Saria, Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslawien I (Zagreb 1938) 314 (from Poetovio in Pannonia Superior): a dedication to Mithra pro <sa> salute canaliclari et actariorum et codicariorum et librariorum legg(ionum) V M(acedonicae) et XIII G(eminae) Gallienarum.99 AE 1926, 74 (from Isauria) with corrections in AE 1973, 538: a Greek inscription recording the career of a soldier, who progressed from librarius to actarius to cornicularius.100 As Clauss (254 = 43) observes, we encounter here the same
96 See TLL s.v. calamus, esp. 122, line 65123, line 37 (calamus scriptorius). Cf. H. Blmner, Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Knste bei Griechen und Rmern I2 (Leipzig 1912) 32931. 97 TLL s.v. canna, esp. 262, lines 2529 (canna scriptoria); [R.] Wnsch, Feder, RE 6 (1909) 2099. 98 They formed the subject of two excellent and almost simultaneous studies: M. Clauss, Der canalicularius, Ancient Society 6 (1975) 25156; a largely identical text also in Clauss [n. 11] 4145, 14144 (nn. 10325); J. F. Gilliam, Canaliclarius and Kananiklarios (P.Oxy. XL 2925), BASP 13 (1976) 4952, reprinted in J. F. Gilliam, Roman Army Papers (Amsterdam 1986) 37376 (where in the table of contents there is a troubling and revealing misspelling: Kanaliklarios). Clauss and Gilliam list each five inscriptions but between them they have six stones (Clauss omitting the text in Orelli-Henzen 10 [= IGUR 4.1672], and Gilliam neglecting CIL III 12402); Gilliam discusses in particular a papyrological attestation, P.Oxy. XL 2925 (see below in the text). The other inscriptions are AE 1936, 56 (see above in the text), CIL VI 1110, 231 (= ILS 2215), ILS 9074. In the meantime a further epigraphical attestation accrued, AE 1975, 52 (from Rome; cf. [1975] 7). The editor princeps, A. Ferrua, RAL 29 (1974) 14041, no. 34, still interpreted the term in the sense given in TLL: colui che fabbrica e vende canaliculos, cio canaletti per condutture dacqua. There is also another papyrus, P.Oxy. XLVII 3366, on which see below, n. 114. Stauner [n. 2] 12526, does not go beyond Clauss; and he missed all papyrological attestations of the term. He does not know the contribution of Gilliam (although he adduces Gilliams Roman Army Papers in his bibliography, p. 226). 99 B. Saria provided a learned commentary (reproduced with minor alterations in his entry in RE Suppl. 7 [1940] 8384) upon which all subsequent discussions (including Gilliam and Clauss) have heavily depended. 100 The rendering of this text in AE 1926 is unsatisfactory. It ought to be consulted in the original edition of W. H. Buckler, W. M. Calder, C. W. M. Cox, Monuments from Iconium, Lycaonia and Isauria, JRS 14 (1924) 2484 at 7476, no. 109c, with some items of the commentary supplied to the British scholars by H. Dessau. Subsequently the inscription was reviewed by G. Laminger-Pascher, Zu zwei kleinasiatischen Militrinschriften, WS 86 (1973) 24963 at

210

Historia et Ius

gradation as in the inscription from Poetovio, where the canalicularius appears in the function of the head of the officium, i.e., holding the post that was normally occupied by a cornicularius. Gilliam dispaired of any etymological explanation of canalicularius, but Saria and Clauss point to scholars who tried to elucidate the origin and the meaning of the term, and perhaps even succeeded. E. Reisch, commenting on the just unearthed inscription from Poetovio, derived canalic(u)larius from canalicula, der Kielfeder, a term which he obviously employed in the general sense of Schreibgert (Kielfeder = quill, but here of course we are not dealing with a quill but with a reed).101 Ingenious, and on the right track, but requiring a linguistic explanation. It ought to be a diminutive of canna, but one would rather expect the form cannalicula. Indeed other derivatives of canna retain the gemination: cannetum, canneus, cannicius, cannosus (cf. TLL s.vv.). Here also belongs Persius 3.14, and the comment of the Scholiast. Persius paints the portrait of a would-be writer (3.1114)
inque manus chartae nodosaque venit harundo. tum querimur crassus calamo quod pendeat umor. nigra quod infusa vanescat sepia lympha, dilutas querimur geminet quod fistula guttas.

There is at hand a sheet of papyrus and a pen of knotty reed, but instead of writing he begins to complain: the ink is too thick and clots upon the pen; too much water was added so that the blackness of the ink disappears, and the pen (fistula) produces at once two diluted drops. It is fistula that attracts our attention, as it also attracted the Scholiasts attention: Fistula pro cannali calamo posuit exquisite.102 Fistula normally appears in the sense of reed-pipe, but here it denotes cannalis calamus. The expression is peculiar for calamus means reed, though with the
25763 (cf. AE 1973, 538). See also M. Speidel, Guards of the Roman Armies: An Essay on the Singulares of the Provinces (Bonn 1978) 101; Spaul [n. 24] 49, n. 4. The text, and the very name of the deceased soldier, is still uncertain, but there is no doubt about the stages of his progression in the officium. 101 E. Reisch, in his account of Die Grabungen des sterreichischen archologischen Institutes whrend der Jahre 1912 und 1913, JAI 16 (1913) Beibl. 103. Canaliculus and canalicula are listed in TLL solely as diminutives of canalis, but at least one passage suggests a (distant) connection with reed: Gell. 17.11.2: duas esse quasi c a n a l i c u l a s quasdam vel f i s t u l a s , referring to natura stomachi fistulaeque eius. Clauss (251 = 41) mistakenly reports that Reisch proposed the derivation from canicula; the error is interesting for it parallels the popular or vulgar Latin phonetic development (see below in the text, and nn. 103, 112). The word canicula (see TLL s.v.), technically a diminutive of canis, is mostly attested in various transferred meanings, particularly that of the canicula stella, but never with a reference to canna. 102 The reading of lines 1213 is disputed; see the apparatus in W. V. Clausens Oxford edition (1959). For the scholia, see the editions by O. Jahn, Auli Persii Flacci Satirarum liber (Leipzig 1843) 295 ad loc.; and by W. V. Clausen and J. E. G. Zetzel, Commentum Cornuti in Persium (Monachii et Lipsiae [Bibl. Teubneriana] 2004) 72 ad loc. Cf. Scribonius Largus, Compos. 47: Oportet ergo sumere pinnam anseris quam maximam vel calami scriptorii fistulam modice plenam. See the invaluable commentary by Jahn, 14546, in many respects still superior to the more recent effort by R. A. Harvey, A Commentary on Persius (Leiden 1981) 8182.

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

211

predominant sense of pen. Thus not just pen of reed but rather pen of grooved reed, with the stress on the channel through which the ink flows. Indeed Isidorus (Etym. 15.8.16) connects canna and canalis: Canalis ab eo quod cava sit in modum cannae. Sane canalem melius genere feminino quam masculino proferimus. Etymologies proffered by the ancients are often suspect, but Isidorus derivation has been generally embraced by modern linguists.103 Still the lack of gemination remains troubling: not that the replacement of a geminated nn by a single n is impossible the phenomenon is amply and erratically attested in inscriptions,104 but the retention of the gemination in other undisputed derivations from canna seems to tell against Isidors etymology. The obvious solution (favored by Saalfeld and Ernout-Meillet) is to posit the original form cana from which, still before the onset of gemination, the term canalis was derived. The Greek form is knna (knnh), but in the derivations the gemination is generally not present, and the ultimate Semitic source of the word has no gemination.105 It was not only the late antique (or early medieval) Isidorus who propounded the connection between canna and canalis; this connection was also felt by other writers. A passage of Palladius (Agr. 4.15.2) provides an exquisite illustration: canalibus ex canna factis mel ... infundere.106 Canalicularius was thus a clerk, a person who wielded a canalis calamus or, in the apparently fashionable diminutive, a canaliculus (or canalicula), a small channelled reed-pen.107 There is a further puzzle. Attested only in a few inscriptions, canalicularius completely disappears from the public view; in the codes of Theodosius and Justinian, and in Johannes Lydus, cornicularii are ubiquitous, canalicularius is absent. But canalicularius reappears in full splendor in the ninth century Byzantium as a high court official, p to kanikleou, the keeper of the imperial inkstand. The best investigation of this office still remains Dlgers paper, now more than seventy years old.108 Dlger (p. 50), following earlier antiquarians,
103 So G. A. E. A. Saalfeld, Tensaurus Italograecus (Wien 1884) 22325; A. Walde and J. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch I (Heidelberg 1938) 150; A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine3 (Paris 1951) 166. Cf. Wnsch [n. 97] 2099. Excavations in Intercissa in Pannonia revealed remnants of grooved pens made of reed; see I. Bilkei, Rmische Schreibgerte aus Pannonien, Alba Regia 18 (1980) 6190 at 67, 81 (no. 110), and 88, tab. 2.110 (I was led to this fine study by the article of S. Jilek, n. 11 [see below, n. 121]). 104 Cf. the indices to ILS, vol. III, pars 2, 803. 105 H. Frisk, Griechisches etymologisches Wrterbuch I (Heidelberg 1960) 779. 106 Cf. also Verg., Georg. 4.265: mella ... harundineis inferre canalibus. 107 We hasten to stress that in this sense these words are not directly attested, and thus they ought to be furnished with (so to speak) a semantic asterisk. Cf. TLL s.v. canaliculus. 108 F. Dlger, Der Kodikellos des Christodoulos in Palermo, Archiv fr Urkundenforschung 11 (1929) 165, Exkurs III (4457): Der p to kanikleou, reprinted in F. Dlger, Byzantinische Diplomatik (Ettal 1956) 2574 at 5065. G. Weiss, Ostrmische Beamte im Spiegel der Schriften des Michael Psellos (Mnchen 1973) mentions this office only in passing (106, 115, 220). There is no discussion of the term (or of the chancery and its writing implements) in the monumental multivolume opus by Ph. Koukoules, Buzantinn bow ka politismw IVI (Athens 19481957) or in another mine of information, the collected papers of R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines III (Berlin 1967).

212

Historia et Ius

adduces a Latin explanation by Anastasius bibliothecarius (IXth c.): Praepositus caniculi apud Graecos est, qui curam et custodiam gerit caniculi, id est atramentarii ex quo imperator phoniceas litteras scribit in chartis,109 But what should caniculum - kankleion precisely mean? Earlier scholars proposed various ideas, mostly fanciful, inter alia interpreting caniculum (caniculus) in the sense of small dog: the word would refer to the shape of the imperial atramentarium. Dlger rejected all those efforts, and has called attention (pp. 5052) to Lydus (Magistr. 2.14) description of the bureau of the praefectus praetorio. There were in the office two ink-wells: one was made of beaten gold, and was called by the common people kalamarion; the other was made of silver, and was called kallklion. Lydus explains this form as a diminutive of kalyx, hence a little cup. This is an example of popular etymology. Dlger points out that kallklion will certainly be a Nebenform of kankleion, perhaps formed through the assimilation of n to l. Dlger further observes that small containers made of horn were called cornicula, and submits that this may in turn explain der Sinn der militrischen Auszeichnung der cornicularii. He posits that cornicularii had as their emblem a small horn, and that this horn, ink-horn and not a horn of valor, pointed to their occupation as scribes. The problem is, of course, as he also recognized, whether kankleion can linguistically be derived from kornkl(e)ion. This train of thought is on the right track undoubtedly, but in two crucial points it is either inaccurate or inconclusive. Interestingly also other scholars attempted to connect directly, as a variant spelling, cornicularii and canaliclarii.110 These efforts are misplaced. There is no linguistic or orthographic path from cornicularius to canalicularius and to the kankleion. In an Egyptian papyrus Gilliam had in his hand a clue and a solution, but he missed the Byzantine connection. P.Oxy. XL 2925 is a fragmentary letter (dated to 270/271) addressed to Aurelius Heracleianus, kananiklarvi.111 In this cana109 In a work entitled Sancta synodus octava generalis, Constantinopolitana quarta, Anastasio interprete (Patr. Lat. 129, 175A). The text reproduced above is printed in a footnote to explain the phrase subscribente Christophoro protoasecretis, et praeposito caniculi, but there is no indication in Mignes edition that it stems from Anastasius himself. It is only from one of the notae variorum attached (at 128, 545) to another work of Anastasius that we learn that this explanation of praepositus caniculi is in fact due to Anastasius who appended marginal notes to his work on the synodus. The author of the nota variorum in question was F. Bencinus, i.e., Francesco Domenico Bencini (ca. 16641744; see the entry by G. Quazza in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 8 [1966] 2047), an ecclesiastic and a prolific author of works on ecclesiastical history, inter alia of Notae et observationes on the writings of Anastasius. These Notae remained unpublished, but were consulted by other erudites, and utimately have flown into the variorum editions of Anastasius, and thence to Mignes Patrologia. 110 A. Alfldi commenting on the inscription from Poetovio (quoted and rejected by Saria [n. 99]); and Breeze [n. 82] 253 (rejected by Gilliam [n. 98] 51 = 375). 111 This cananiclarius appears to have been an official in Alexandria; the letter concerns a legal dispute pertaining to grain distribution. It was written by an assistant of Calpurnius Horion. Gilliam ([n. 98] 49 = 373, n. 1) describes Horion as hypomnematographus and the secretary in charge of the distribution of grain in Oxyrhynchus, but at the time of this letter Horion was actually a former hypomnematographus: he is referred to as genomnou pomnhmatogrfou. On this office, most probably Alexandrian (and not Oxyrhynchite), see J. E. G. Whitehorse,

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

213

niclarius, rejecting the attempts to correct this word into canonicarius112 or cancellarius,113 Gilliam has brilliantly recognized the epigraphically attested canalic(u)larius. By a strange coincidence, in the same year in which Gilliam published his contribution, another cananiclarius surfaced in Egypt, in a text presented by P. J. Parsons.114 He immediately realized that the new papyrus confirms the spelling cananicl- in P.Oxy. XL 2925. And he also came to the conclusion (adducing the dossier assembled by Clauss) that canaliclarius offers the closest parallel. But Parsons was bothered by a problem of spelling, for the Greek texts certainly have kanan- not kanal- (430). The odd spelling also bothered Gilliam: he suggested that the writer was not familiar with the title and misread or misunderstood it.115 Ignorance is attractive, but ignorance twice on display is not doubly persuasive but rather indicative of a habit of speech, and thus a linguistic explanation becomes much more plausible: the familiar phenomenon of creeping dissimilation.116 In due course, through another natural process, the dropping of syllables (often with the same initial consonant),117 cananiclarius became caniclarius, and
The hypomnematographus in the Roman Period, Aegyptus 67 (1987) 10125, esp. 1046, 11113, 117. So J. R. Rea, the editor of P.Oxy. XL (p. 84, n. 1). So N. Lewis, Notationes legentis, BASP 11 (1974) 4459 at 54. P. J. Parsons, Petitions and a Letter: The Grammarians Complaint, in A. E. Hanson (ed.), Collectanea Papyrologica. Texts published in honor of H. C. Youtie II (= Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 20 [Bonn 1976]) 40946, with a lucid and learned commentary (see esp. 417, 430). The text now resides at P.Oxy. XLVII (1980) 3366. It is a petition to the emperors Valerianus and Gallienus (and thus dated to 253260), and a letter concerning this petition, by Lollius Homoius, public grammarian of the City of Oxyrhynchus. As a matter of personal favor, this petition was to be carried to the imperial comitatus (perhaps to Syria) by Heraklammon the cananiclarius (B: Recto col. ii.28, 38). In his Roman Army Papers (1980) Gilliam provided the reprinted papers with some addenda; interestingly he did not record this important text corroborating the reading cananiclarius. Gilliam [n. 98] 50 = 374. Misreadings and misunderstandings are of course always a possibility: to adduce a thematically related example, we have in the papyri a number of references to cornicularii with the term spelt correctly, but in BGU 2.435, a letter of the tiro Valerianus, we encounter the odd form kolliklar, which C. Wessely, Die lateinischen Elemente in der Grzitt der gyptischen Papyri, WS 25 (1903) 71, classified under the heading of mangelhafte Artikulation oder Schreibfehler. Cf. S. Daris, Il lessico latino nel greco dEgitto (Barcelona 1971) 62, who also adduces the form kornoulriow. So R. A. Coles and W. M. Haslam, the editors of P.Oxy. XLVII, rightly adopting (p. 139) the suggestion of J. N. Adams, who refers to the still very useful monograph by E. Schopf, Die konsonantischen Fernwirkungen: Fern-Dissimilation, Fern-Assimilation und Metathesis (Gttingen 1919) 96. His examples of l > n are instructive, but none of them presents a perfect parallel to the development canalic(u)larius > cananic(u)larius. No wonder: electronic searches reveal that the sequences -nalic- and -nanic- are extremely rare in Latin. The former occurs only in words belonging to the families of canaliculus, saturnalicius and venalicius. For the latter sequence the only attestations are the words Acarnanicae, bananica and cananic(u)larius. A perfect illustration of the phonetic process offer the codices of Pliny: at NH 27.78 we have the form canaliculata, with variant readings caniculata and cananiculata. (Cf. the next note). There are also on record in Latin and Greek inscriptions several instances of the forms corniclarius and cornuclarius (TLL s.v. cornicularius, 957.3035). For an instructive example of haplology, see benigtate = benignitate in CIL III 7902, adduced

112 113 114

115

116

117

214

Historia et Ius

ultimately in Byzantium we arrive at kankleiow, kankleion, and the office of p to kanikleou. Also canalicula (canaliculus) will have been assimilated, abbreviated and syncopated to canic(u)la (canic(u)lus), and this naturally yielded in Greek kankleion, with a semantic twist, however, to denote not a pen but rather a container for writing implements and, through further semantic extention, an inkstand. This development exquisitely parallels the semantic fortunes of kalamrion: both kalamrion and kankleion have etymologically nothing to do with ink and all to do with reed, calamus and canna.118 This solves the linguistic mystery of kankleion; the mystery of the rise of this originally humble post to institutional prominence is still hidden in the void of our sources. If canalicularius was etymologically connected with the writing reed, it is indeed very likely that cornicularius may have been connected with cornu in the sense of ink-well, atramentarium. As Dlger notes, this sense of cornu is well attested in medieval Latin,119 but his reference to corniculum in the meaning of a container (Gefss) is misleading. The passages of Columella he adduces (7.5.15 [not 17!] and 7.5.20) refer to the procedure of pouring a liquid through a small horn down the nostril or down the throat (corniculo infundere; per corniculum infunditur). It is a perforated horn, a funnel, and not a container. And in most dictionaries and data banks, ancient and medieval, one looks in vain for corniculum as an ink container. But there is one rather unobserved text from the British isles that prominently spills the ink out of the horn, Adomnns Vita Sancti Columbae.120
by H. Mihaescu, La langue latine dans le sud-est de lEurope (Bucuresti 1978) 211. We also note that in several passages of Plinys Natural History the codices display the forms caniculato, caniculi (9.130), cuniculatim and caniculatim (9.103), already corrected by earlier editors. Cf. also variant readings at 19.119; 27.78. See TLL s.vv. canaliculatus, canaliculatim; and Mayhoffs Teubner edition in app. 118 See TLL s.v. calamarius, and 123.1820 s.v. calamus. 119 For the medieval instances of cornu = atramentarium, see s.v. the Glossarium of Du Cange II, p. 568 (of the edition by L. Favre [Paris 1937]); Mittellateinisches Wrterbuch II (Mnchen 1999) 189798. There is no attestation in classical Latin unless we follow the tentative suggestion of Dlger ([n. 108] 52, n. 230), and interpret in this sense the passage of Cassiodorus, Varia 11.36: praefuit enim (the cornicularius) cornibus secretarii praetoriani, taking cornibus not as wings but rather as inkstands, and comparing the description of Lydus, Magistr. 2.14, discussed above in the text. This idea had in fact been already enunciated by older erudites; see Du Cange s.v. cornicularius (II, p. 569): he combats the view of Salmasius (in his commentary to Solinus) that cornicularii were so called a Corniculo, seu apice galeae, and continues: Quin potius constat Cornicularios fuisse Exceptores et Commentarienses, adducing the passage of Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis 3.26: people born under certain astrological signs erunt homicidiis publicis praepositi et exceptores earum sententiarum, quae de hominum capitibus proferuntur, aut cornicularii aut commentarienses. And further: Unde recte a Corniculis appellatos censent viri docti, id est atramentariis: quam appellationis rationem attigit Senator [i.e., Cassiodorus; here Du Cange adduces the passage reproduced above]. Eorum autem munus fuit ad Cornua Secretarii stare, et ministrare judici agenti, loquenti, scribenti, rescribenti, cujusmodi fuit Caniclinorum apud Byzantinos. 120 On Adomnn (c. 628704; he was the ninth abbot of Iona) and Columba (c. 520597), see the introduction by M. Ogilvie Anderson to Adomnns Life of Columba, edited and translated by A. Orr Anderson and M. Ogilvie Anderson (Oxford 1991) XVIXLIII. R. E. Latham, Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources II C (Oxford 1981) 493, glosses cornicu-

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

215

Among the many rather pedestrian prophecies that the Saint enunciated at Iona there is also this one, of great interest to the students of res scriptoriae, reported by Adomnn in a paragraph (1.25 [p. 52 (text) and 53 (translation)] = 29a) entitled D e c o r n i c u l o atramenti inaniter defuso (Of a little ink-horn foolishly spilt):
Alia inter haec die ultra fretum Iouae insulae clamatum est. Quem sanctus sedens in tegoriolo tabulis subfulto audiens clamorem dicit: Homo qui ultra clamitat fretum non est subtilis sensus; nam hodie mei c o r n i c u l u m a t r a m e n t i inclinans effundet. Quod uerbum eius ministrator Diormitius audiens paulisper ante ianuam stans grauem exspectabat superuenturum hospitem, ut c o r n i c u l u m defenderet. Sed alia mox faciente causa inde recessit; et post eius recessum hospes molestus superuenit, sanctumque osculandum appetens ora uestimenti inclinatum effudit a t r a m e n t i c o r n i c u l u m . [Further, on another day there was a shouting, beyond the strait of the island of Io. The saint, sitting in the hut that was supported on planks, heard the shouting, and said: The man who is shouting beyond the strait is not a man of delicate perceptions. Now today he will upset and empty the horn that holds my ink. His attendant Diormit, hearing him say this, stood for a little while in front of the door, and awaited the arrival of the cumbersome guest, so as to protect the ink-horn; but presently some other matter caused him to withdraw from there, and after he had withdrawn the disturbing guest arrived. And, eagerly advancing to kiss the saint, he upset and emptied the horn of ink with the border of his garment].

There is a long lexicographic way from the monastery at Iona and Columbas corniculum atramenti to Roman castra and officia, but Adomnns fable crowns a persuasive argument. The implement and the expression corniculum atramenti was certainly not invented in post-Roman or Roman Britain, and it explains exquisitely the name and the imperial and late imperial function of the cornicularii. But Johannes Lydus may have been right when he grasped for a heroic origin of the office. The military award of corniculum at the times of the republic is a fact recorded in literature, and incised in bronze. But when the cornicularii appear in the full light of imperial epigraphy they are bureaucrats not heroes. The transformation of the horn of valor into horn of ink is a mystery as dark as the atramentum;121 and this mystery was to be re-enacted in the early Byzantium in the transformation of the lowly and shadowy canalicularius into one of the highest charges in the empire.
lum solely as a cusp of crescent moon, and as little horn, cornet. This is an inexplicable lexicographical regress for in his earlier work, Revised Medieval Latin Word-List (London 1965), 116, Latham annotated corniculum as ink-horn, c. 704, clearly referring to the Vita Columbae. 121 An archaeological note of caution must be sounded: excavations in Roman provinces revealed inkstands of clay, glass, bronze, and silver, but apparently so far no single ink-horn has been identified. See the solidly documented pieces by Bilkei [n. 103] 6871, and by S. Jilek, Med ana schwoazzn dintn ... (H. C. Artmann)Zum Gebrauch von Feder und Tinte im rmischen Alltag, in Altmodische Archologie. Festschrift fr Friedrich Brein (= Forum Archaeologiae 14/III/2000 [http://farch.net]) esp. 35. [Nota bene: the quotation in the title of Jileks article reproduces the title of a collection of poems (in dialect) by the Austrian writer H. C. Artmann (19212000)].

14 SILVER AND GOLD OF VALOR: The Award of Armillae and Torques*

Armies love decorations. Among Roman military decorations perhaps the most peculiar was the award of armlets, armillae, and of necklaces, torques (though the Roman heroes did not wear the latter around the neck, as the barbarian Gauls did, but attached to the cuirass). They were of silver or of gold. About this gradation it is difficult to form a definite opinionliterary and epigraphical sources are obscure or contradictory, and the recent and excellent standard account of Roman military awards is in the matter of gold versus silver not always sufficiently probing.1 Chronologically the earliest testimony is Livys description of decorations given for bravery by the consul L. Papirius Cursor after the battle with the Samnites at Aquilonia in 293. We read (X, 44, 35):
Papirius . . . Sp. Nautium, Sp. Papirium, fratris filium, et quattuor centuriones manipulumque hastatorum a r m i l l i s a u re i s q u e c o ro n i s donauit: (4) Nautium propter expeditionem qua magni agminis modo terruerat hostes, iuuenem Papirium propter nauatam cum equitatu et in proelio operam et nocte qua fugam infestam Samnitibus ab Aquilonia clam egressis fecit, (5) centuriones militesque quia primi portam murumque Aquiloniae ceperant; equites omnes ob insignem multis locis operam corniculis a r m i l l i s q u e a rg e n t e i s donat.

Maxfield gives the following interpretation: Sp. Nautius . . . received armillae of gold in addition to a gold crown. The same award was made to his nephew Sp. Papirius . . . and also to four centurions and a maniple of hastati who had been the first to capture the gate and wall of Aquilonia. The cavalry received silver armillae in recognition of generally distinguished conduct.2 This explication contains two inaccuracies, one venial, the other potentially troubling. Sp. Papirius was of course not a nephew of Sp. Nautius but of the consul L. Papirius. The main complaint concerns, however, the metal of which the armillae were made. Maxfield takes the phrase armillis aureisque coronis donauit
* 1 Latomus 60 (2001) 315 {with minor addenda}. V. A. MAXFIELD, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army, London [and Berkeley], 1981, p. 8691; 12728; 278. See also P. STEINER, Die dona militaria in Bonner Jahrbcher 11415, 1906, p. 198 at p. 2229; A.v. DOMASZEWSKI, Armillae in RE 2, 1896, col. 1189; A. BTTNER, Untersuchungen ber Ursprung und Entwicklung von Auszeichnungen im rmischen Heer in Bonner Jahrbcher 157, 1957, 15255. {In later antiquity, the torques began to be worn, more barbarico, around the neck, cf. Bttner, p. 17576; M. P. SPEIDEL, Late Roman Military Decorations, part I: Neck and Wristbands in Antiquit Tardive 4, 1996, p. 23543 at 23741.} V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 90. {The comment by S. P. OAKLEY, A Commentary on Livy. Vol. IV: Book X, Oxford, 2005, p. 43637, is rather not up to his usual standard of erudite discernment.}

Silver and Gold of Valor

4

217

to indicate that the armillae were of gold. But the conjunction -que conjoins aureis with coronis and separates this unit from the armillae. The crowns were of gold; the metal of the bracelets Livy does not specify. The crowns in question were patently the corona muralis (normally of gold) awarded to the centurions and soldiers (hastati = milites) who first stormed Aquilonia, and the generic corona aurea3 which Sp. Nautius and the young Sp. Papirius earned for their feats of command and bravery. In addition the consul decorated all cavalrymen corniculis armillisque argenteis.4 Here the conjunction -que combines cornicula and armillae: both of those decorations were of silver.5 Thus we have the following scheme: Nautius, Papirius, the centurions and hastati received gold crowns and (unspecified) armillae, but not the cornicula; the cavalrymen received silver cornicula and silver armillae. The exploits of the equites, although commendable, did not warrant the bestowal of a crown. On the other hand Maxfield sees a difference between those two groups also in the metal of the armillae: The use of silver armillae as a rather lesser award than the gold is repeated in an episode narrated by Valerius Maximus in which a soldier, refused gold armillae because he was an ex-slave, was given silver ones instead.6 In the chapter de cupiditate gloriae Valerius Maximus tells the following story (VIII, 14, 5):
Atque ut imperatoribus militis gloriosum spiritum subnectam, Scipionem dona militaria his, qui strenuam operam ediderant, diuidentem T. Labienus ut forti equiti a u re a s a r m i l l a s tribueret admonuit, eoque se negante id facturum, ne castrensis honos in eo, qui paulo ante seruisset, uiolaretur, ipse ex praeda Gallica aurum equiti largitus est. Nec tacite id Scipio tulit: namque equiti habebis inquit donum uiri diuitis. Quod ubi ille accepit, proiecto ante pedes Labieni auro uultum demisit. Idem, ut audiit Scipionem dicentem imperator te a rg e n t e i s a r m i l l i s donat, alacer gaudio abiit. Nulla est ergo tanta humilitas, quae dulcedine gloriae non tangatur.

This happened during the Bellum Africum which pitted Caesar against the Pompeian forces led by Cato the Younger and T. Labienus under the supreme command of Q. Metellus Scipio.7 For the story to make sense there must have indeed existed in the late Republic and early Empire two kinds of armillae: of gold and of silver.
3 4 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1] p. 77; 8081. On the corniculum, see V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 9798, and, with further considerations, J. LINDERSKI, Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum {in this volume, No. 13}. B. O. FOSTER in his Loeb translation of Livy (1926) brings out very well the difference between the two enunciations concerning the armillae. The first enunciation he renders armlets and wreaths of gold, and the other little silver horns and silver armlets. V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 90; cf. 128. {E. BADIAN proposes (per litteras) an elegant and illuminating conjecture to Livys text: armillis aureis <aureis>que coronis. It should be considered by the future editors.} Cf. J. LINDERSKI, Q. Scipio Imperator in Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften, 105), Stuttgart, 1996, p. 14585, esp. 16869, a brief discussion of Valerius anecdote {reprinted in this volume, No. 10}.

218
5

Historia et Ius

An entry in Festus or rather Paulus, omitted by Maxfield, but registered by Steiner, offers confirmation: it mentions armillas ex auro, quas viri militares ab imperatoribus donati gerunt.8 At first blush it may appear perplexing that this text records only aurum; but if we remember that this is only a pitiable excerpt, we may perhaps remain confident that the silver armillae were mentioned in the longer text of Festus and certainly in the full text of Verrius Flaccus. Yet a better or rather more precise solution offers. It depends on the expression uiri militares. The standard dictionaries explain that with respect to persons the adjective militaris denotes people engaged in military service but usually with implication of experience and professionalism.9 Hence usually (and this is crucial) not ordinary milites. The search through the electronic (unfortunately still sluggishly incomplete) files of Latin Data Bank (of the Packard Humanities Institute) brings further elucidation: the expression uir militaris (or sim.) very often indeed refers to an officer. It is also often akin to uir fortis, a hero who performed extraordinary acts of bravery.10 In view of this evidence we should beware of confusing or amalgamating uiri militares and simple milites. The passage of Festus (Paulus) thus may refer solely to the awards of armillae given to uiri militares, and this qualification we have to take in its particular meaning of officers or heroes. Such a hero was the Roman Achilles,11 the mythical warrior L. Siccius Dentatus, who around the middle of the fifth century earned more than 300 military decorations of various kinds, among them 83 torques and 160 armillae.12
Festus 23, 2021 L. Cf. also Festus (Paulus) 41, 23 L.: Calbeos armillas dicebant, quibus triumphantes utebantur, et quibus ob uirtutem milites donabantur. A mysterious passage (oddly enough, it did not attract the attention of students of ornatus triumphalis; e.g. no mention in H. S. VERSNEL, Triumphus, Leiden, 1970). At 85, 12 the word appears as galbeum, and is characterized as ornamenti genus (cf. ad loc. W. M. LINDSAY in his edition of Festus in Glossaria Latina, IV, Paris, 1930, p. 216; see also G. GOETZ, Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. Vol. VI: Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum, Lipsiae, 1899, p. 16566, s.v. calbae, where is listed also calbis: merces militi pro uirtute data). The same form (galbeum) appears in Cato (quoted by Festus 320, 23 L.) and in Suet., Galba 3. The term is probably connected with the adjective galbus, attested only by the glossae, and rendered as xlvrw, yellow (Corp. Gloss. Lat., VI, p. 481; cf. A. ERNOUT and A. MEILLET, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine, 3rd ed., Paris, 1951, p. 47273 = 4th ed., 1959, p. 266]. If so, galbei would be a fitting and probably popular description of golden armlets. A. WALDE and J. B. HOFMANN, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, I, Heidelberg, 1938, p. 578, suspect that the word galbus may be a borrowing from the Celtic, which would indeed be even more fitting. {We may note that on a Praenestine cista in Berlin we have a representation, it seems certain, of a triumph: behind the triumphal chariot walks a tibicen; on his right arm he wears an armband with small bullae attached to it. But there are no bullae depicted on the extant representations of military armillae; and also observe that on our cista the triumphator, whoever he might be, is not adorned with a bracelet. Cf. A. RUMPF, Armillae in JHS 71, 1951, p. 16871 at 171; M. MENICHETTI, Praenestinus Aeneas. Il culto di Iuppiter Imperator e il trionfo su Mezenzio quali motivi di propaganda antiromana su una cista prenestina in Ostraka 3.1, 1994, p. 730 at 1718.} 9 TLG, s.u. militaris, col. 952, 4768; 956, 5559; Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.u. militaris, #3. 10 This is not the place to dress up a corpus of examples. A prosopography of all persons described as uiri or homines militares (or fortes) is a desideratum. 11 For this epithet, see Gellius, Noct. Att. II, 11. 12 For an excellent analysis of the lay of Siccius, see F. MNZER, Siccius 3 in RE, IIA, 1923, col. 218990. He is credited with the tribunate of the plebs in 454: see T. R. S. BROUGHTON, 8

Silver and Gold of Valor

219

The sources do not specify the metal, with the one exception of Dionysius of Halicarnassus who reports that both the necklaces and the bracelets were of gold. In the speech Dionysius puts into the mouth of the hero, Siccius recounts his military accomplishments, at first during a ten year period as a common soldier, and then, very poignantly, for a full thirty years as an officer holding commands over a cohort or a legion.13 Golden torcs were also distributed by Scipio Africanus after the capture of Carthago Noua; for this event, however, we have only the word of a later poet.14 Perhaps the award of golden armlets was reserved indeed for officers only.15 As Livy writes in general of gold crowns and makes no distinction between the mural crowns and the crowns for valor, he may have similarly failed to differentiate between the (presumably) silver armlets given to hastati and perhaps also to centurions and the (presumably) gold ones presented to the lieutenants Sp. Nautius and Sp. Papirius.16 This disregard of detail would not surprise us: Livy was composing an epic monument and not an antiquarian manual. We too should beware of pedantic inferences, and exercise caution. A formal distinction of rank, of officer versus private, would in the matter of awards be unusual in the republican period. Now it is remarkable that in his description of Roman military awards Polybius (6, 39) does not mention either torques or armillae. As a formal distinction they were thus probably adopted only after the middle of the second century. Still, as the story of Manlius Torquatus seems to indicate, the collar stripped from the enemy may have been paraded much earlier as an individual and private token of valor.17 But the scheme of awards at Aquilonia, as narrated by Livy, however we wish to interpret it, must be fictitious, or at best a projection into the past of the late republican customs. On the other hand the account of the pseudo-Caesarian Bellum Hispaniense (ch. 26) cannot easily be impugned: Caesar ob uirtutem turmae Cassianae18
The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, I, New York, 1951, p. 43. All extant sources seem to be ultimately dependent on the account of Varro. Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. X, 36, 339, 4, esp. 37, 3 (some manuscripts give the number of armillae as sixty; a simple mistake). Fulgentius, Expositio sermonum antiquorum 5, gives the number (quoting or misquoting Varro) as 140. Silius Italicus, Punica XV, 256: hic torque aurato circumdat bellica colla. The poet apparently imagines that during the republic the torquis was worn round the neck. Cf. J. LINDERSKI, Q. Scipio Imperator [n. 7], p. 16869, where this suggestion was made in passing. T. R. S. BROUGHTON, The Magistrates [n. 10], I, p. 181, lists Nautius and Papirius (under 293) among Legates, Lieutenants. Liv., VII, 10, 11; Claudius Quadrigarius in Gellius IX, 13, 19 (the Gaul was also armillis decoratus, IX, 13, 7). The metal is not specified, but on other occasions Gauls are credited with golden torcs; see the collection of evidence in A. BTTNER, Untersuchungen [n. 1], p. 13436. On the story of Manlius and the Gaul, see now the excellent analysis by S. P. OAKLEY, A Commentary on Livy, Books VIX. Vol. II: Books VIIVIII, Oxford, 1998, p. 11348, esp. 14648. Cf. below, n. 32. The turma Cassiana is otherwise unknown. It must have received its name from its first commander, as was the case with various alae; cf. E. BIRLEY, Alae Named after their Commanders in Ancient Society 9, 1978, p. 25773, esp. 26471.

13

14 15 16 17

18

220

Historia et Ius

donauit milia .X. III (i.e. milia denarium tria, Dinters obvious conjecture for the paradosis milia XIII) et praefecto torques aureos V. The sum of 3,000 denarii for a turma would produce 100 denarii for a single rider, still a considerable amount. The decorated prefect is generally taken to have been the commander of the turma Cassiana,19 but this is hardly likely. Prefects normally commanded alae not turmae; and in the Caesarian army praefecti equitum were often in charge of large groups of cavalry.20 This was obviously also the case in the skirmish described in the Bellum Hispaniense (ch. 2526): ut nostri equites in receptu dum ad castra redeunt, aduersarii cupidius sunt insecuti, uniuersi clamore facto impetum dederunt. Ita metu perterriti, cum in fuga essent multis amissis in castra se recipiunt. When the Caesarian cavalry executed the manoeuvre of receptus, i.e. was falling back toward the camp,21 the enemy pursued them too rashly; at a proper moment the universi counterattacked. The Pompeians suffered heavy losses, and fled to their camp. The term universi is often taken to denote the leuis armatura,22 which, as we learn in the preceding sentence, was placed by Caesar praesidi causa non longe ab opere. But surely this expression must cover both leuis armatura and equites: the cavalry fakes a retreat; they draw the enemy into a trap; the Caesarian light-armed troops unexpectedly attack; Caesars cavalry now veers back, and pursues the Pompeian riders. It is at this juncture that the turma Cassiana earned its award ob virtutem, and the praefectus (equitum, and not of a single unit) his five necklaces both for his personal virtus and for pulling off this brilliant manoeuvre. Into this rather neat tableau: silver = valor, gold = extraordinary valor, often displayed in a position of command, Pliny the Elder introduces correction or confusion (NH XXXIII, 3738):
auxilia quippe et externos t o rq u i b u s a u re i s donauere, at ciues non nisi a rg e n t e i s , praeterque a r m i l l a s ciuibus dedere, quas non dabant externis. (38) Iidem, quo magis miremur, coronas ex auro dedere et ciuibus.

Steiner found this passage disconcerting. To make it understandable he proposed to read: praeterque armillas (sc. aureas) ciuibus dedere, quas non dabant
19 A. KLOTZ, Kommentar zum Bellum Hispaniense, Leipzig-Berlin, 1927, p. 88, observes that the torques belong to the lower dona militaria and were not given to officers (but this arrangement, we have to remember, belongs to the period of the Empire; see below), and consequently considers the possibility (not really worth considering) that the commander of the turma distributed the necklaces among the soldiers of his choosing! Also V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], 87, regards the prefect as the commander of turma Cassiana, but she credits him with the award of a torques (this seems to be a simple mistake, though the award of five necklaces indeed appears rather unusual). 20 J. HARMAND, Larme et le soldat Rome, Paris, 1967, p. 35863. 21 A. KLOTZ, Kommentar [n. 19], p. 88: whrend sie beim Zurckweichen in die nhe des Lagers zurckkommen (cf. p. 8788 for a convincing explanation of the tactics); the translation by A. G. WAY in Caesar. Alexandrian, African and Spanish Wars (in Loeb Classical Library, 1955), p. 357: while our cavalry was withdrawing to the camp, misses the tactical nuance. {J. M. CARTER, Julius Caesar, The Civil War. With the anonymous Alexandrian, African, and Spanish Wars, Oxford, 1997, p. 259, also missed in his translation the tactical point, and mistranslated torques aureos as bracelets of twisted gold!} 22 So, oddly, A. KLOTZ, Kommentar [n. 19], p. 88; also A. G. WAY, Caesar [n. 21], p. 357.

Silver and Gold of Valor

221

externis.23 But aureas makes no sense; surely we have either to supply armillas (sc. argenteas) or to supply nothing, and assume that the award of armlets was limited to citizens only. Plinys perfect tense must not be overlooked: he does not describe the arrangements of his own time but those of the past, of the old Republic. His accuracy is not beyond suspicion. In particular Maxfield found it surprising if the allies were to have received decorations more valuable than those awarded to the Romans themselves, and she points to the cases of Siccius Dentatus, the soldier (or soldiers) decorated by Scipio Africanus after the capture of New Carthage, and the prefect of Caesars cavalry, all of whom received gold torcs.24 But Siccius is an apparition from a legend, and that his torcs and armlets were of gold is attested only by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, not the greatest of authorities; Silius poetic account of the awards at New Carthage is largely anachronistic (as recognized by Maxfield herself25), and of scant historical value. But Caesars prefect cannot easily be disposed of; on analogy with other praefecti equitum in Caesars army he must have been not only a Roman (and not an externus), but very likely he also enjoyed the equestrian status.26 M. P. Speidel, in marked distinction from Maxfield, would attribute full credibility to Pliny and to his insistence on gold torcs solely for foreigners.27 There is a middle way. Roman tradition insisted on the simplicity of early Roman customs. The knights used to wear iron rings; Pliny the Elder describes in some detail the lengthy process through which they ultimately acquired rings of gold.28 This evolution is so amply documented that no modern scholar was moved to express disbelief. A similar evolution may have occurred with respect to the award of necklaces and bracelets: originally of silver, by the end of the Republic they were occasionally made also of gold, and this gold species was then assigned by annalists and poets to hoary antiquity.29
23 P. STEINER, Dona militaria [n. 1], p. 27, n. 9. As to the golden torcs given to the foreigners, he finds it (p. 24, n. 5) verstndlich, wenn man bei den externi nicht an gewhnliche Kriegsknechte, sondern an die Fhrer der auxilia und socii denkt, deren Treue und Gunst durch solche glnzenden Gaben gewonnen oder befestigt werden sollte. 24 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 127, cf. 88. 25 Cf. V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 82, on the award of uexilla. 26 Cf. J. HARMAND, Larme [n. 20], p. 35960; C. NICOLET, Lordre questre lpoque rpublicaine, I, Paris, 1966, p. 28084. 27 M. P. SPEIDEL, The Master of the Dragon Standards and the Golden Torc: An Inscription from Prusias and Prudentius Peristephanon in TAPA 115, 1985, p. 28387 at 287 (= M. P. SPEIDEL, Roman Army Studies, II, Stuttgart, 1992, p. 394). {Subsequently he changed his mind, and embraced the interpretation of Maxfield. See his Late Roman Military Decorations, part I [n.1] p. 237, n. 11: Plinys statement ... that golden torcs were given only to foreigners is worthless.} 28 Plin., NH XIII, 834, and see the studies adduced in n. 40. 29 From the republican times only two epigraphical documents record the award of armillae and torques, but unfortunately they do not specify the metal. They are the famous decree of Cn. Pompeius Strabo (of 89), lines 5459: the commander ( imperator) uirtutis caussa turmam Salluitanam donauit ... cornuculo et patella, torque, armilla, palereis (CIL, I2, 709; ILS, 8888; ILLRP, 515; see the discussion by N. CRINITI, Lepigrafe di Asculum di Gn. Pompeo Strabone, Milano, 1970, p. 23537), and CIL, X, 3886; ILS, 2225, a funerary monument of C. Canuleius, a soldier of the Caesarian legio VII, donat(us) torq(uibus) armil(lis) paler(is) coron(is).

222

Historia et Ius

10

In the story told by Valerius Maximus Metellus Scipio denied the gold armlets to the fortis eques not because he was not an officer, but because he was a freedman. We should not overlook this all important point. The suggestion of Labienus makes it plain that in principle the award of gold armillae to a simple eques (or miles) was possible, though extraordinary. We may visualize the following event: Scipio distributes the dona, among them silver armillae. But with respect to one particularly brave rider, a fortis eques, Labienus, who may have witnessed the cavalrymans exploit, proposes the award of gold armlets. But this cavalryman happened to be a former slave, and the scene evoked by Valerius ensues. If the award of gold bracelets was normally reserved to freeborn soldiers it was certainly extravagant and socially disruptive to give it to a former slave, however brave. When the eques had discarded the gold which Labienus personally lavished on him out of his own Gallic booty, Scipio awarded to him the armillae argenteae, thus recognizing valor, but preserving the distinction of birth and status.30 An eminent student of Roman army put it well: Awards of military decorations for gallantry mark a well-led army that harnesses its mens pride and their eagerness to outdo each other. With this observation he coupled another: By contrast, Caracalla, in replacing such awards with gifts of money, appealed only to those instincts of his soldiers that befitted his wretched leadership.31 Esteem versus money, this is also Valerius theme. By rejecting Labienus gold, the rider showed his moral fiber; and, gloriae cupidus, he was overjoyed with the award of silver armillae, of little monetary value, for they symbolized the recognition of what he has become, a gallant soldier, and the obliteration of what he had been, a slave, who could be paid, but not recognized. The story in Valerius may be fictitious or certainly embellished, but it illuminates well Roman military ethos with all its fairness and prejudices. Augustus did not disdain gold. {Suetonius (Aug. 25.3) reports that the Princeps was rather generous with the awards of phalerae and torques any decorations valuable for their gold and silver.} When the young Nonius Asprenas fell from the horse during the lusus Troiae, and suffered injury, Augustus gave him golden torc and bestowed upon him the hereditary surname of Torquatus.32 He will have been rewarded for the manly way in which he endured pain and debility: this was an act of courage, equal to the deed of Manlius the Gaul-slayer. And for high-born bravery gold was the decoration. {It was also a decoration for brilliant feats of bravery in war, and thus after the conclusion of the Bellum Iudaicum and the destruction of Jerusalem, Titus bestowed on valiant soldiers, among other awards,
30 Under normal circumstances freedmen were not eligible for military decorations. As V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 12829, points out, This is the one and only perfectly straightforward case of a freedman receiving dona for his services in the field. 31 M. P. SPEIDEL, Golden Torc [n. 27], p. 288 (= p. 393). But SPEIDEL grossly overestimated the purity and devotion of late republican armies: they yearned more for loot and money than for glory; cf. J. HARMAND [n. 20], 46770; and for an earlier period see W. HARRIS, On War and Greed in the Second Century in AHR 76, 1971, p. 137185. 32 Suet., Aug. 43, 2: in hoc ludicro Nonium Asprenatem lapsu debilitatum a u r e o t o r q u e donauit passusque est ipsum posterosque Torquati ferre cognomen. On Nonius and his descendants, see PIR2, V, 3, 1987, p. 37071, 37475 (nos. N 126, 127, 133). Cf. below, n. 53.

Silver and Gold of Valor

223

also golden necklaces, periauxni te xrus (Jos., Bell. Iud. VII, 14).} Yet in the abundant imperial inscriptional documents golden torcs are difficult to espy, and when we finally encounter one specimen, it adorns a common soldier. Maxfield reminds us that during the period of the Empire armillae and torques were given to men in ranks and junior officers and were never awarded to an officer of higher rank than centurion, and she observes that there is only one inscription that specifies the metal from which those decorations were made: in this case gold.33 An intriguing case. The inscription, CIL, XII, 2230 (= ILS, 2313; Steiner, Dona militaria [n. 1] 64, no. 115), from Gallia Narbonensis,34 merits close inspection. The text is known only from an old apograph. It is a funerary stone; it was erected, it appears, by two women, a sister of the deceased by the name of Camulia, and a freedwoman (the text is here very uncertain). The military career of the deceased T. Camul(ius) T. f. Lauenus35 is described (in the genitive) as follows (lines 310):
11

emeriti leg(ionis) III Gallic(ae) / honesta missione do/nati ab imper(atore) Antonino / Augusto Pio et ex uoluntate / imp(eratoris) Hadriani Aug(usti) t o r / q u i b u s e t a r m i l l i s a u re / i s suffragio legionis / honorati.

With gold necklaces and gold bracelets he was honoratus by the suffragium of the legion and ex uoluntate of the Emperor. How are we to imagine the actual procedure? Now a few instances are known of awards given to soldiers and officers not by an emperor or governor but by the troop units themselves. First we have C. Iulius Macer, a former duplicarius of an ala: after emerita stipendia (and the acquisition of Roman citizenship) he was recalled to the ranks and commanded as euocatus a unit of 600 g(a)esati Raeti in a castellum, and (rather in his previous unit than at that latter juncture; see below) was clup[eo] coronis aenulis (sic) aureis (donatus) a commiliton[ibus].36
33 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 9091. 34 As the finding spot CIL gives anachronistically Gratianopolis (Grenoble), but at the time when this inscription was originally set up, this township, in the land of the Allobrogi, was called Cularo. Cf. [M.] IHM in RE, IV, 1901, col. 1742. {The inscription has been recently republished with a brief commentary in B. RMY, Grenoble lpoque gallo-romaine daprs les inscriptions, Grenoble, 2002, p. 12324, no. 19.} 35 DESSAU (ILS, 2313) regards the names as corrupt, but Camulius is well attested as a nomen gentile: cf. TLL, Onomasticon, II, col. 12930, and it has been admitted to their repertorium by H. SOLIN and O. SALOMIES, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum, Hildesheim, 1988, p. 44. In the case of our soldier from Grenoble it is clearly of Celtic origin, cf. A. HOLDER, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz, I, Leipzig, 1896, p. 72425. The cognomen Lauenus does not seem to be otherwise on record; for the root Lauen-, see W. SCHULZE, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, Berlin, 1904, p. 150; 179. 36 CIL, XIII, 1041 = ILS, 2531. Cf. V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 120; P. STEINER, Dona militaria [n. 1], p. 72, no. 174. On his first unit, ala Atectoridiana, see J. SPAUL, Ala2, Andover, 1994, p. 4849. On his new troop of Raeti gaesati, see T. MOMMSEN, Gesammelte Schriften, VI, Berlin, 1910 (original publication 1887), p. 14547 (he dates the inscription to the period of Augustus, a dating that has been generally accepted); E. BIRLEY, Raetien, Britannien und das rmische Heer in Bayerische Vorgeschichtsbltter 45, 1980, p. 8586 (= E. BIRLEY, The Roman Army. Papers 19291986, Amsterdam, 1988, p. 26768).

224

Historia et Ius

12

The other case is that of an equestrian officer Q. Cornelius Valerianus. His awards are recorded in two badly mutilated stones from Spain: according to one of them as praef(ectus) uexillariorum in Thrachia (sic) XV he was honored (by several legions and cohorts, and by officers) statuis, coroni[s; the other stone refers to him as donato coroni[s ---] / clipeis imaginib[us ---] / laudatione a numer[is ---].37 The third example is that of [T. ---]us T. l. Numenius who was hono]r(atus) ab exercit(u) corona aur(ea) / [---] laudation(e) publice.38 All these cases share one common and overriding feature: the awards are unusual. They did not belong in the normal or official scheme of dona militaria . We thus have the award of clupei 39 (Macer and Valerianus), of gold
And finally on his position as euocatus, see MOMMSEN, p. 145, n. 1, who describes it as die dem lteren System angehrende Stellung. Macer had been originally a soldier in an ala, whereas in the developed Augustan system the euocati were drawn exclusively from the urban troops, that is from the praetorian cohorts and the cohortes urbanae; cf. E. BIRLEY, Evocati Aug.: A Review, ZPE 43, 1981, p. 2529 (= The Roman Army, p. 26330). 37 CIL, II, 3272, from Castulo in Hispania Tarraconensis; and CIL, II, 2079, from Iliberri in Baetica (ILS, 2713; M. PASTOR MUOZ, A. MENDOZA EGUARAS, Inscripciones Latinas de la Provincia de Granada, Granada, 1987, p. 98101, no. 42). Ever since Mommsen (cf. CIL ad loc.; PIR, I2, 368, no. C 1471) these two texts have been combined and attributed to one and the same person, see V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 120; P. STEINER, Dona militaria [n. 1], p. 72, no. 175, and esp. R. SAXER, Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des rmischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian (= Epigraphische Studien, I), KLNGRAZ, 1967, p. 911; H. DEVIJVER, Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum, I, Leuven, 1976, p. 3034 (C 250), with ample literature (cf. addenda IV, 1, 1987, p. 1530). This picture threatened to shatter when S. DEMOUGIN, Prosopographie des chevaliers romains julio-claudiens, Rome, 1992, p. 35761 (no. 436), attempted to separate the two inscriptions and produce as a result two equestrian officers, [. Cor]nelius M. f. Gal(eria) Valerianus (CIL, II, 3272) and Q. [Co]rnelius (CIL, II, 2079), the latter inscription, if at all authentic, to be dated to a much later period. Her proposition has been accepted, without argument, by H. DEVIJVER, Prosopographia, V, 1993, p. 207778 (no. 225 bis) and 208384 (no. 250), and by L. MROZEWICZ, Przedstawiciele ordo equester dziaajacy na terenie Mezji [Members of the Ordo Equester Active in Moesia] in Studia Moesiaca, Poznan, 1994, p. 5354. We should abide by the secta of Mommsen. It is true that it is difficult to amalgamate all information provided by the two inscriptions into one composite text, and a variety of proposed supplements amply attest to that difficulty. Still we receive two accounts reasonably surveying the whole career of our eques; and if minor discrepancies persist, this should not bother us unduly for the two texts were not meant to be identical: one of them is an honorific monument (CIL, II, 3272), and the other funerary (CIL, II, 2079). These difficulties pale into insignificance when contrasted with the utmost unlikelihood of two equestrians from Spain, with the same name of Cornelius, not only pursuing a similar career, but also both of them receiving dona militaria not from an emperor but directly from the troops. And we are not talking merely of the extreme paucity of such awards: these would be the only two cases known to us of such awards bestowed upon equestrian officers. 38 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 120. P. STEINER, Dona militaria [n. 1], p. 72, no. 176, prints T. f., which is either misprint or correction: if the latter, wrong and unnecessary (see below in the text). 39 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 97 adduces as a (distant) parallel the clupeus virtutis of Augustus. Cf. also the clupeus argenteus decreed by the senate to the younger Drusus upon his death (CIL, VI, 31200), and see, in connection with the tabula Siarensis, the discussion by W.D. LEBEK, Roms Ritter und Roms Pleps in den Senatsbeschlssen fr Germanicus Caesar und Drusus Caesar in ZPE 95 (1993) 1025.

Silver and Gold of Valor

225

13

rings40 (Macer), of statues and imagines 41 (Valerianus), and finally the honor of a public laudatio 42 (Valerianus and Numenius). Unusual are also the circumstances of those awards. Two of the men so honored were technically not eligible to win any official decorations. The commilitones who honored Iulius Macer will be his fellow members of the ala Atectoridiana43 rather than his later subordinates, the gaesati Raeti. This makes good sense. There are practically no examples under the Empire of decorations officially given to non-citizen soldiers in auxiliary units,44 and Macer was (apparently) such a sol40 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 120, mentions the law of Tiberius restricting the wearing of such rings (Plin., NH XIII, 32). The reference is to the famous dispositions (a decree of the senate in 23 and the lex Visellia in 24) that reorganized the ordo equester, and definitely established the anulus aureus as its symbol. Cf. the classic account by A. STEIN, Der rmische Ritterstand, Mnchen, 1927, esp. p. 3944; and (with important observations), S. DEMOUGIN, De lesclavage lanneau dor du chevalier, in Des ordres Rome, Paris, 1984, esp. p. 22733; Eadem, Lordre questre sous les Julio-Claudiens, Paris, 1988, p. 78991. 41 We have to distinguish between statuae and imagines. Cf. C. LETTA, Le imagines Caesarum di un praefectus castrorum Aegypti e lXI coorte pretoria in Athenaeum 56 [= 66], 1978, p. 1419: statuae (= signa) are free standing statues, whereas imagines denote busts. But perhaps we have to read (in CIL, II, 2079) clipeis imaginib[usq(ue)], and see here a reference to the clipei cum imaginibus. Cf. W. D. LEBEK, Roms Ritter [n. 39], p. 104. 42 The award of dona was certainly accompanied by words of praise, but a formal laudatio addressed to an individual recipient must have been a rare occurrence. Maxfield provides no examples. M. SPEIDEL, The Captor of Decebalus: A New Inscription from Philippi, in JRS 60, 1970, p. 151 (= M. P. SPEIDEL, Roman Army Studies, I, Amsterdam, 1984, p. 185) suggests that Claudius Maximus, who brought the head of Decebalus to Trajan, may have been lauded by the emperor for his spectacular deed before the army on parade. As illustration Speidel adduces (n. 100) another famous document, the honorific inscription of M. Valerius Maximianus (AE, 1956, 124, from Zana [Diana Veteranorum]), (lines 811): in procinc/tu Germanico ab Imp(eratore) Antonino Aug(usto) coram laudato et equo et phaleris / et armis donato, quod manu sua ducem Naristarum Valaonem / interemisset. The best comment on that extraordinary award (corresponding to spolia opima secunda) is still that of the editor princeps, H.-G. PFLAUM, Deux carrires questres de Lambse et de Zana (Diana Veteranorum), in Libyca, Archologie, Epigraphie 3, 1955, p. 14546 (= H.-G. PFLAUM, Afrique romaine. Scripta varia, I, Paris, 1978, p. 7576). Valerianus was lauded a numeris. The term does not appear to denote here any ethnic units, but is to be taken in its generic meaning of a troop unit, and thus it refers to all troops mentioned previously, including the legions. For this meaning of numerus, see M. SPEIDEL, The Career of a Legionary, in TAPA 112 (1982) 21113, with further literature (= Roman Army Studies, I, p. 199201). 43 So, apparently, A. STEIN, Ritterstand [n. 40], p. 42. V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 97 (cf. 120), seems to think that Macer received his dona as euocatus. But it is hardly possible to follow STEIN when he writes that this is wohl so zu fassen, dass von den Kameraden nur die Empfehlung oder der Antrag auf diese Auszeichnung ausging. 44 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 12227. As she points out (p. 121) the entire body of epigraphic evidence relating to dona includes only four certain and three possible examples of auxiliary soldiers (see now also AE, 1993 [1996], no. 1352). And she was able to trace down (p. 122) only one straightforward, uncontroversial example [an inscription originally published in 1958; see below] of a decorated non-citizen auxiliary soldier. See also her subsequent detailed study, The Ala Britannica, Dona and Peregrini, in ZPE 52, 1983, p. 14250, esp. 142; 146, and a more general piece, marvelous in its good sense and clarity, Systems of Reward in Relation to Military Diplomas, in Heer und Integrationspolitik, Kln-

226

Historia et Ius

14

dier.45 T. Numenius was a freedman, and freedmen were in principle ineligible for dona (the only exception being those imperial freedmen who were personal favorites of an Emperor).46 His services must have been remarkable indeed to be honored ab exercit(u); the circumstances elude us. Oddly enough, the most difficult case to interpret is that of Cornelius Valerianus. He was an equestrian, and his accomplishments as the commander of a uexillatio in Thracia (no doubt in 4546, when this old kingdom was annexed as a Roman province)47 must have been signal, and yet the emperor did not decorate him, whereas the troops lavished upon him rather extravagant honors.48
Wien, 1986, p. 2643, esp. 3436. On the other hand P. A. HOLDER, Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan (= BAR Int. Ser. 70), Oxford, 1980, p. 2829 (and p. 167, no. 671), would on the basis of this single inscription (AE, 1976 [1980], no. 495, from Mogontiacum, of the Tiberian age) discard the theory (going back to DOMASZEWSKI) of the exclusion of the non-citizens from dona. A misguided inference. In physics one contrary example invalidates a theory; in history one contrary example remains what it is: an exception. But perhaps it is not even an exception. We deal with a funerary stone set up by Belesippus frater for Antiochus / Antiochi f(ilius) / Parthus Anaz/arbaeus eques / ala(e) Parthorum / et Araborum (cf. J. SPAUL, Ala2 [n. 34], p. 17678), euo/catus triplicarius, / stip(endiorum) X, donis don/atus. This is the first attestation of the rank of triplicarius (though long suspected by DOMASZEWSKI; cf. V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 283, n. 53), thus a signal advancement for Antiochus, most likely in recognition of his military prowess. And the dona may have been given to him on that occasion privately by his fellow alarii (V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 122, states erroneously that he was twice decorated). HOLDER himself (p. 41) compares his career to that of Iulius Macer (cf. above, n. 34) who was duplicarius in an ala and then euocatus, and was given dona by his commilitones. But with respect to Antiochus his description as euocatus remains a mystery. At the time of his death he had served only for ten years, and he certainly could not function as evocatus in his own original unit. Perhaps he was scheduled to be transferred (as triplicarius) to another unit, and his brother used the term euocatus in a broad sense. One can compare the career of the famous captor of Decebalus Ti. Claudius Maximus who militauit as eques (and subsequently as uexillarius equitum) in the legio VII Claudia, and was later transferred as duplicarius to an ala (AE, 19691970, no. 583)only that his inscription, correctly, does not describe him as euocatus. Cf. SPEIDEL, The Captor of Decebalus [n. 42], p. 14253, esp. 14547 (= Roman Army Studies, I [n. 42], p. 17387, esp. 17981). Or perhaps Antiochus had served previously in some other unnamed unit, and the decem stipendia refer only to his service as evocatus triplicarius; see E. BIRLEY, Before Diplomas, and the Claudian Reform in Heer und Integrationspolitik (Kln-Wien, 1986), p. 253. Unless he had received the citizenship from Julius Caesar; for this interpretation, see E. BIRLEY, Before Diplomas [n. 44], p. 254. V. A. MAXFIELD, Systems of Award [n. 44], p. 3637, remains cautiously unconvinced. Cf. V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 129. Cf. J. KOLENDO, Aneksja Tracji za cesarza Klaudiusza [Claude et lexpansion romaine en Thrace], in Studia Moesiaca [n. 37], p. 8799. He mentions the vexillatio of Q. Cornelius Valerianus (p. 92, and n. 32), and thus (implicitly) upholds Mommsens identification. The closest (but not exact) parallel is offered by the career of the unnamed equestrian in CIL, II, 1086 = ILS, 2712 (from Illipa in Baetica) who received regular dona from an emperor (or emperors): donis donato / corona murali et coronis / aureis IIII item uexillo et hastis / puris V, but who was also rewarded by the various armies in which he had served: honorato ab exerci/tibus in quibus militauit bigis / auratis et statuis equestribus. Cf. J. SPAUL, Ala2 [n. 36], p. 3941, esp. n. 3. {This award of bigae auratae is missing from the list of J. ZE LAZOWSKI, Honos bigae. Le statue onorarie romane su biga, Varsavia, 2001.}

45

46 47

48

Silver and Gold of Valor

227

15

All those examples belong to the Julio-Claudian times, and this practice perhaps gave way to the procedure indicated in the case of Camulius Lavenus when the army voted him the honours which the emperor Hadrian awarded him.49 A fine example of a similar procedure, though with respect to promotion not awards, recently came to light in an inscription from Tripolitania: an ordin(arius) qui ex fortia et suff(ragio) uex(illationis) profec(it). The man in question, Aur(elius) Varixen was promoted ordinarius, a centurion, because of his valiant deeds, and on the recommendation of his detachment.50 The fortia facta were often rewarded with dona, and this leads us to the inscription CIL, X, 135 = ILS, 3719 from Potentia in Lucania, the proper elucidation of which we owe to K. Strobel: the person honored, a military tribune, received dona of various kinds, optioni (= optione) tribun[or(um) le]gionum quinque, that is auf Grund des Votums der Tribunen von fnf bei diesen Operationen des 2. pannonischen Krieges beteiligten Legionen. As eine treffende Parallele Strobel quotes CIL, XII, 2230, the inscription of Camulius Lauenus.51 In the mere award of torques and armillae there was nothing unusual, nothing that would justify the suffragium of the legion or ala. In the case of Camulius unusual will thus be the gold of the necklace and of the armlet. His fortia facta must have been of such magnitude that his fellow legionaries petitioned the emperor Hadrian to decorate him with gold, and not, as usual, with silver.52 His case forms a perfect pendant to that of the fortis eques of Valerius Maximus; only the outcome was different. This is all the evidence we have for the republic and the early empire. Of golden armillae and golden torques {we hear again only in the perhaps fabulous
49 V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 120. 50 M. P. SPEIDEL, Becoming a Centurion in Africa. Brave Deeds and the Support of the Troops as Promotion Criteria, in Roman Army Studies, II [n. 27], p. 12428, with full discussion of other literary and epigraphical sources, particularly those mentioning suffragium of the troops. Cf. now also J.-M. LASSRE, Biographie dun centurion (C.I.L., VIII, 217218), in Antiquits africaines 27, 1991, p.5368 at 64. With respect to dona, Speidel was able to adduce only one example, the very case of Camulius Lauenus. {RMY and DANGRAUX (who co-authored the note on the inscription of Camulius), Grenoble [n. 34], p. 124, present as a parallel solely CIL VIII, 217 (from Cillium): signifer factus ex suffragio leg(ionis) IV, but they missed the article of Speidel, and thus also all other examples of suffragium.} 51 K. STROBEL, Optio tribunorum legionum quinque ein Phantomposten der rmischen Militrgeschichte, in ZPE 75, 1988, p. 23536. Cf. M. P. SPEIDEL, The Tribunes Choice in the Promotion of Centurions, in ZPE 100, 1994, p. 46869, on a newly published inscription from Nouae in Moesia, where he reads (line 2): promotus ex opt(ione) tri[b(unorum)], an interpretation [with a corrected reading: op<t>(ione)] cautiously accepted by J. KOLENDO and V. BOZI LOVA, Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae (Msie Infrieure), Bordeaux, 1997, p. 8485, no. 47 bis. 52 One may well ask on what occasion Camulius covered himself with glory. The history of his unit, the legio III Gallica, has been masterfully presented by E. RITTERLING, Legio, in RE, XII, 1925, col. 151731; he connects (col. 152324) the deed of Camulius with the participation of the legion in the Jewish War in 131134. The article by D. FRENCH, Legio III Gallica, in The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, Krakw, 1994, p. 2946, deals only with the history of the legion in the period between Vespasian and Trajan.

228

Historia et Ius

accounts of the Historia Augusta53}; golden torcs reappear as true military decorations in the later empire, but this is another story, already told, and told well.54

{53 Hist. Aug. XIX (Maxim. duo), 23: the young Maximinus, not yet a soldier, participates in the ludi militares given by the emperor Septimius Severus natali Getae filii minoris ... propositis praemiis argenteis, id est a r m i l l i s , t o rq u i b u s e t b a l t e o l i s (cf. above in this volume, No. 13, n. 69). He is ordered to compete with sixteen lixae; he defeats them all, and sedecim acceptis praemiis minusculis non militaribus iussusque militare. As a civilian, and fighting with lixae, and not with regular soldiers, he thus received the miniatures of the regular dona. Induced into the army, tertia forte die he again catches the attention of the emperor, who this time (on the spur of the moment) pairs him up with recentissimi and fortissimi milites. Maximinus naturally defeats them uno sudore and solusque omnium a Severo post argentea praemia t o rq u e a u re o donatus est. (Cf. Vita Claudii 13, 58: the adulescens Claudius competes at a ludicrum Martiale in campo, and is decorated by the emperor Decius armillis et torquibus). These events may be invented or embellished by the author of the Historia Augusta, but the dona themselves are not implausible, and certainly not impossible if we remember the award of golden torc bestowed by Augustus on the young Nonius Asprenas (above, n. 32). Cf. A. LIPPOLD, Kommentar zur Vita Maximini duo der Historia Augusta, Bonn, 1991, p. 30811, 68083. The future emperor Probus cum bello Sarmatico iam tribunus transmisso Danuvio multa fortiter fecisset, publice in contione donatus est (among numerous other awards) armillis aureis duabus, torque aureo uno (Vita Probi 5). Again such dona did exist, but no military awards are epigraphically attested after Caracalla. In this and other accounts of the Historia Augusta the dona appear in impossible combinations; they are anachronistic and invented. See V. A. MAXFIELD, Military Decorations [n. 1], p. 24854; F. PASCHOUD, Histoire Auguste (Coll. Bud), Tome V, 1me partie, Paris, 1996, p. 9698; Tome V, 2 me partie, Paris, 2001, p. 7071.} 54 M. P. SPEIDEL, Golden Torc [n. 27], passim. {Cf. also Idem, Late Roman Military Decorations, part I [n. 1], p. 23543. Armillae reappeared as bracchialia with the corresponding rank of bracchiatus, p. 24143; and Idem, Late Roman Military Decorations. part II: GoldEmbroidered Capes and Tunics, in Antiquit Tardive 5, 1997, p. 23137 at 235.}

15 LEGIO V IN MESSANA*
When Caesar embarked on the campaign against Pompeius in Epirus and in Greece, he left behind him in various strategic places garrisons to guard Italy and Sicily. His military prudence paid off for the Pompeian fleet ably led by C. Cassius Longinus did indeed attack southern Italy and Sicily. Caesars navy was divided into two squadrons; one of them under the command of the praetor P. Sulpicius was stationed at Vibo, keeping watch over the fretum Siculum, and the other, commanded by the otherwise unknown M. Pomponius,1 protected the port of Messana. But Pomponius was utterly unprepared; Cassius Longinus caught him off guard and swiftly destroyed all his ships.2 As Caesar vividly narrates (BC 3.101.3) tantusque eo facto timor accessit, ut cum esset l e g i o praesidio Messanae vix oppidum defenderetur, et nisi eo tempore quidam nuntii de Caesaris victoria per dispositos equites essent adlati, existimabant plerique futurum fuisse, ut amitteretur. Sed opportunissime nuntiis allatis oppidum est defensum. Caesar does not indicate which legion served as the praesidium at Messana, but it is natural to combine this information with the accounts of Cicero (Att. 11.22.2) and of the author of Bellum Africum (28.2; for both passages, see below), and to assign to the legion at Messana the number V. Indeed Emil Ritterling opined that die veterana legio quinta, welche Caesar im J. 47 zu dem Feldzug in Africa aufbot (bell. Afric. 1) und die schon vorher in Messana gestanden haben muss (bell. Afric. 28; bell. civ. III 101, 2 [correct: 3]), kann nur die Alaudae gewesen sein, weil der Zusatz veterana sie als eine der dem gallischen Heere des Diktators angehrende Truppe mit Sicherheit kennzeichnet.3 That legio veterana quinta equals
* Original publication. Abbreviations: Broughton, MRR = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 12 (New York [19511952]); 3 (Atlanta 1986). Drumann-Groebe = W. Drumann-P. Groebe, Geschichte Roms 3 (Leipzig 1906). Ritterling = E. Ritterling, Legio, RE 12 (1925) 13291829. For Cassius Longinus, Sulpicius and Pomponius, see Broughton, MRR 2.283 (cf. 3.51), 273, 282. H. Gundel, Pomponius 10, RE 21 (1952) 2327, is, as often, unreliable. He writes that Pomponius verlor 20 Schiffe von seiner aus 35 Schiffen bestehenden Flottenabteilung. Caesar says explicitly that Cassius Longinus omnes naves incendit XXXV, ex quibus erant XX constratae. The expression constratae (naves) does not mean destroyed; Gundel misunderstood the well attested technical term navis constrata, covered ship, i.e. having a deck. Naves constratae (or tectae) were the heavy battleships of the line; see M. Redd, Mare nostrum. Les infrastructures, le dispositif et lhistoire de la marine militaire sous lempire romain (BEFAR 260 [Rome 1986]) 9295. Caesars damning precision artfully highlights the ignominious defeat suffered by Pomponius. Ritterling 1565, followed by T. Franke, Legio V Alaudae, in Y. Le Bohec (ed.), Les lgions de Rome sous le haut-empire (Lyon 2000) 1.39.

1 2

230

Historia et Ius

legio Alaudarum, and that it participated with distinction in the African campaign of 46 (cf. Bell. Afr. 84; App. BC 2.96) is not implausible and has been almost generally accepted,4 but doubts subsist whether it was this veteran legion (or any other veteran legion) that in 48 served as the garrison of Messana. First of all it is a priori most unlikely that Caesar should have proceeded to the decisive campaign against Pompeius without one of his most trusted and experienced legions. He reports that he had assembled in Brundisium twelve legions, including, it appears, all veteran units (BC 3.2); he embarked for Epirus with seven legions (BC 3.6.2). Some time later Antonius brought the reinforcement of four legions: three veteran formations and a legio tironum (BC 3.29.2; the latter is identified at 34.2 as legio XXVII). As no other legion is described as consisting of recruits, it is a fair inference that all other legions that participated in the campaign were veteran units. We arrive for the Pharsalos campaign at the sum of at least eleven legions; one legion may have thus been left behind in Brundisium. Now Antonius, after he had unloaded his troops in Lissus, sent the ships back to Italy ad reliquos milites equitesque transportandos (BC 3.29.23). As in the course of his narrative Caesar does not mention any further reinforcements, it is generally assumed that for some reason Antonius failed to realize his plan. This may be so; but perhaps Caesar employed the gerund (as opposed to a purpose clause) to imply
4 Cf. L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army from Republic to Empire (Norman 1998 [reprint of the edition London 1984 with new preface and bibliography update]) 11011, 2067. K. Strobel, Die Legionen des Augustus. Probleme des rmischen Heeresgeschichte nach dem Ende des Brgerkrieges: Die Truppengeschichte Galatiens und Moesiens bis in Tiberische Zeit und das Problem der Legiones Quintae, in P. Freeman, J. Bennett, Z. T. Fiemia, B. Hoffmann (eds.), Limes XVIII. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (BAR Int. Ser. 1084 [Oxford 2002]), 1.5166 at 5758, argues that the veterana legio quinta of the African campaign was in fact not the Alaudae but the (rather shadowy) legio V Gallica (cf. Ritterling 157172, with the sources). Not impossible but unprovable. But even if Strobels thesis should be proven right, this will not affect our own argument: legio V Gallica was also a veteran legion (Strobel dates its creation to 53/52), and thus hardly a suitable candidate for the panic stricken garrison of Messana. Some scholars, most recently M. Christol and T. Drew-Bear, Vterans et soldats lgionnaires Antiochie en Pisidie, in G. Paci (ed.), Epigrafia Romana in area adriatica. IXe Rencontre franco-italienne sur lpigraphie du monde romain (Pisa-Roma 1998) 30132 at 3045, n. 7, regard Gallica as an earlier name of the legio V Macedonica, a notion explicitly contested by Strobel (pp. 5354; see also Zur Geschichte der Legiones V (Macedonica) und VII (Claudia) in der frhen Kaiserzeit, in Les lgions [above, n. 3] 2.52223). J. Rodrguez Gonzlez, El elefante como emblema de la Legio V. Una erronea interpretacion de las fuentes, Hispania Antiqua 16 (1992) 297304, esp. 3034, believes that it was the Macedonica that participated in the war in Africa. The Fifth legion of the African campaign received after its heroic stand against the elephants at Thapsus (Bell. Afr. 81.1; 84.1) the honorific emblem of an elephant (App. BC 2.96). Rodrguez Gonzlez observes that Appian uses the present tense (ka nn p kenou tde t tlei lfantew w t shmea pkentai), that the legio Alaudarum was annihilated under the Flavians in the Danubian wars, and ceased to exist (cf. Ritterling 156970; Franke, Legio V Alaudae [above, n. 3] 4345: the legion may have been disbanded even earlier), and that consequently the only legion with the number V in Appians time was the Macedonica. Linguistically the argument is impeccable unless we wish to ascribe ka nn to Appians source, perhaps Asinius Pollio (so Strobel, Legionen 57).

Legio V in Messana

231

the accomplishment of the plan, and consequently he felt that the subject did not require any further elaboration. On this interpretation the legio Alaudarum will have sailed to Greece either with Caesar or with Antonius5 or in the third and last transport. In his description of military operations Caesar does not mention the Alaudae, but his reticence is of little probatory weight: he records nominatim only six legions: VIII, IX, X, XI, XII and XXVII. Still it is possible that there was no third shipment of troops, and that the legion that remained at Brundisium was the Alaudae. If so we would have to posit that it was immediately transshipped across the strait to Messana. Against this scenario strong arguments militate. When Cassius Longinus was repelled, barely, from Messana, he sailed to Vibo, and he again almost succeeded in burning down the ships of the second Caesarian squadron. But this time the outcome was vastly different, and it was Cassius himself who, barely, escaped with his life (BC 3.101.6): milites, qui ex veteribus legionibus erant relicti praesidio navibus ex numero aegrorum, ignominiam non tulerunt, sed sua sponte naves conscenderunt et e terra solverunt impetuque facto in Cassianam classem quinqueremes duas, in quarum altera erat Cassius, ceperunt sed Cassius exceptus scapha refugit. It is a telling account. P. Sulpicius, who was in charge of Caesars ships at Vibo, was apparently almost as inept as M. Pomponius at Messana. The day was saved not by the commander or the crews of the ships but by the troops of the line, the veteran legionaries. Seeing the impending disaster, without any order from the inert Sulpicius, they sua sponte manned the ships, valiantly discomfited the Cassian fleet, and forced Longinus to flee from his admirals vessel in a boat. These soldiers were selected from several legions and formed what would in later parlance be called a vexillatio. Caesar stresses that at the time when their legions were to sail across the Adriatic they were aegri, too sick to undertake a strenuous campaign. They were thus assigned to guard duty not by design but rather by the accident of fate. We can safely assume that all healthy ablebodied veterans made their way to Epirus; if any full legion was left at Brundisium it will have to be a legio tironum.6 Caesar was wont to praise his veterans, their courage and spirit of enterprise (cf. e.g. BC 3.28, with a neat opposition of the timidity of tirones and the valor of veterans). The gritty anger of the veterans at Vibo, and the panic (timor) of the garrison at Messana stand in high relief. The soldiers who defended Messana in 48 were no veterans. And yet it is unmistakably on record that at some point before the beginning of the African war a legio quinta was stationed at Messana. It is generally assumed
5 As assumed by Groebe in Drumann-Groebe 3.44041, n. 7; 711, but he also posits that one full legion remained as a garrison in Brundisium, which is not altogether likely (cf. below, n. 6). That the Alaudae indeed sailed to Greece, and participated in the battle of Pharsalos, we can perhaps deduce from the speech of Labienus in the Pompeian war council (BC 3.87.4): hae copiae quas videtis, ex dilectibus horum annorum in citeriore Gallia sunt refectae, et plerique sunt ex coloniis Transpadanis. We know, however, that not only at Vibo but also at Brundisium numerous (magna copia) sick veterans from all legions were mustered for guard duty at the time when the bulk of the army was being transported to Greece (Bell. Alex. 44). Cf. also BC 3.87.3 (Labienus speaking): an non exaudistis ex iis qui per causam valetudinis remanserunt, cohortes esse Brundisii factas?

232

Historia et Ius

that this legio quinta is identical with the legio quinta veterana which Caesar had with him in Lilybaeum at the end of December 47 before the embarcation for Africa (Bell. Afr. 1). We read at Bell. Afr. 28 the following story: the Pompeian officer C. Vergilius, in command of the maritime Thapsus in Africa, undertook to attack various scattered ships of the Caesarian fleet, and after having been repelled several times he chanced upon a navis
in qua erant duo Titi Hispani adulescentes tribuni l e g i o n i s V quorum patrem Caesar in senatum legerat, et cum his T. Salienus7 centurio legionis eiusdem qui M. Messalam legatum obsederat Messanae [et] seditiosissima oratione apud eum usus8 idemque pecuniam et ornamenta triumphi Caesaris retinenda et custodienda curarat et ob has causas sibi timebat. hic propter conscientiam peccatorum suorum persuasit adulescentibus, ne repugnarent seseque Vergilio traderent. itaque deducti a Vergilio ad Scipionem custodibus traditi et post diem tertium sunt interfecti.

This passage has not been served well by interpreters, even by the customarily exact Friedrich Mnzer. He writes that Salienus while sailing to Africa was taken prisoner and executed on orders from Metellus Scipio.9 But the author of the Bellum Africum reserves this dire fate only for the young Titii; about the fate of Salienus he says nothing. As Mnzer himself later recognized the Titii were executed because even after they had been granted a period of grace to rethink their situation they steadfastly refused to forswear Caesar and embrace the Pompeian
7 This is the reading adopted by A. Klotz in his Teubner edition of 1927. He follows the oldest extant manuscript, but the other, also venerable, branch of the tradition has Sallienus (a form favored by Mnzer; see below, n. 9). H. Solin and O. Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Hildesheim 1988) 16061, list both Salienus and Sallienus, referring to W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin 1904) 224, 430. That scholar adduces the centurions name in the form Salienus, but he also points to inscriptions where name forms with one -l- and two -ll- are attested (in CIL 10.2925 the correct reading is Sallienus and not Salienus). More recently an inscription was unearthed in Rome (AE 1960, 64; originally published by L. Moretti in Arch. Class. 10 [1958] 234 [= Tra epigrafia e storia (Roma 1990) 158]) reading: permi[iss]u T. Sallieni Clementis pr(aetoris). This praetor is certainly identical with Salienus Clemens (Tac. Ann. 15.73.3) who in 65 attacked in the senate Iunius Gallio, the brother of Seneca, as hostis and parricida. Salienus is the unanimous lectio of all editors; on the basis of the inscription it has probably to be corrected to Sallienus. et was secluded by Davisius (John Davies 16791732; his edition of Caesar was published in Cambridge in 1706), and his idea has been generally accepted by editors. But one may observe that the normal phrase was oratione usus with a form of esse (see the electronic data banks). F. Mnzer, T. Sallienus, RE 1A (1920) 1908. Remarkably at Bell. Afr. 55 a centurion T. Salienus crops up: together with two tribunes and two other centurions he is dismissed by Caesar from the army for unbecoming conduct. He is either a different person with the same name (unlikely); a different person with the name incorrectly transmitted (quite probable); or a phantom (but observe that Caesar addresses the unworthy centurions as a unit, T. Saliene, M. Tiro, C. Clusinas; with T. Saliene secluded, and not replaced by another name with the same metrical properties, the address opens in a limping way). S. G. Chrissanthos, Caesar and the Mutiny of 47 B.C., JRS 91 (2001) 6375 (a study in which no text is ever philologically analyzed), is unaware of these textual and prosopographical questions, and confidently (or blindly) identifies the discharged Salienus with the ringleader of the mutiny at Messana.

Legio V in Messana

233

cause.10 Salienus on the other hand had himself engineered the surrender of the ship to Vergilius; he was not just gefangen genommen. There is no doubt that technically he was a transfuga to the Pompeian side. It is truly astounding that Mnzer has no comment on the motifs of Salienus desertion, particularly as these motifs may throw light on his career and possibly also on the whereabouts of the Fifth legion. We learn that Salienus pecuniam et ornamenta triumphi Caesaris retinenda et custodienda curarat. Of this passage valiant translations exist,11 but a nagging impression remains that there is something wrong with the whole sentence. For without the allusion to peccata and the explication et ob has causas sibi timebat, we would certainly have to ascribe a positive sense to Salienus exertions. The phrases pecuniam custodire or pecuniae custos imply confidence,12 and per se never indicate any wrongdoingbut it is a wary trust: money corrupts, and the guardians are well positioned to pilfer it.13 This was plainly the peccatum of which Salienus was guilty. However, how he looted Caesars loot remains grammatically a mystery.14

10 F. Mnzer, Titius 13, RE 6A (1937) 1557. In this later article Mnzer pointedly writes that the Titii were durch einen hinterlistigen Gefhrten verleitet. 11 A. G. Way renders in Loeb Class Libr. (1955): had been responsible for withholding under guard some money and trappings belonging to Caesars triumph. A better and more pleasing translation is offered by J. Carter (Oxford 1997): has been responsible for detaining and impounding money and trappings intended for Caesars triumph (p. 202). A. Bouvet in his Bud edition (1949) translates: il avait aussi retenu sous bonne garde de largent et des ornaments destins au triomphe de Csar. Equally vague is the recent German translation by A. Baumstark and C. Jahn (C. Iulius Caesar, Kriege in Alexandrien, Afrika und Spanien [Darmstadt 2004] 133): (Salienus) auch die fr Caesars Triumph bestimmten Gelder und Kostbarkeiten zurckbehalten und in Verwahrung genommen hatte. 12 Cf. Ciceros regulation, Leg. 3.6 (referring to minores magistratus, i.e. in this case the quaestors): domi (used in opposition to militiae) pecuniam publicam c u s t o d i u n t o ; Liv. 25.31.8: quaestor cum praesidio ... ad accipiendam pecuniam regiam c u s t o d i e n d a m que missus; Curt. Ruf. 5.1.20; 5.5.2; 6.11.32. 13 Curt. Ruf. 6.2.10: par huic pecuniae (given by Alexander as largess to his soldiers) summa custodum fraude subtracta est; cf. 6.11.6; Dig. 16.3.1.35. Pecuniam retinere was a technical expression of Roman law, mostly with a neutral connotation (see the indices to the Digest), but the phrase was used also in culpable contexts as, e.g., by Cicero when talking of Verres depredations (Verr. 2.3.202): tibi datam pecuniam (i.e. public money) domi re t i n e s . And in the Digest (48.13.2.pr) we read that lege Iulia (of Caesar or Augustus) de residuis (cf. T. Mommsen, Rmisches Strafrecht [Leipzig 1899] 762, nn. 12; and see the ample discussion by F. Gnoli, Ricerche sul crimen peculatus [Milano 1979] 15571) tenetur, qui publicam pecuniam delegatam in usum aliquem re t i n u i t neque in eum consumpsit. On the other hand if we opt to assign to retinenda in our passage a positive sense, a perfect parallel (though with the verb retentare not retinere) is provided by Tac. Hist. 4.60.2 (referring to Civilis): tum pactus praedam castrorum dat custodes, qui pecuniam calones sarcinas re t e n t a re n t . 14 Several words may have fallen out, but perhaps it is more expeditious to propose an emendation for curarat. We need a verb with a sense of pilfer: surripio and compilo offer themselves, the latter a perfect choice (I note that the contracted form compilarat does not seem to be attested, but compilarit, compilaris and compilarant are: Cic. Verr. 2.1.35; Vat. 5, 11; Phaedr. App. 13 [15].6).

234

Historia et Ius

Caesar celebrated his four triumphs (de Gallia, Aegypto, Ponto, Africa) in August 46 after his victory at Thapsus. As the story of Salienus peccata is placed before the start of the African campaign, his financial improprieties must have concerned the funds and exhibits destined for the Egyptian and Pontic triumphs. Caesar no doubt began preparations for those triumphs immediately after his final success at Alexandria and his victory at Zela, particularly the collection of ornamenta, the exhibits to be borne in the triumphal procession, many of them of great value.15 Salienus, it would appear, must have thus participated in the Alexandrian or Pontic campaign or in both of them, and subsequently was entrusted with protecting and transporting to Rome money and exhibits for the triumph. Now, if we espy him in the east, should not the legion in which we find him serving as a tribune be also allocated to the eastern expedition? Yet there is no trace of a Legio V participating in the Alexandrian or Pontic campaign.16 Silence of the sources should certainly be neither dignified nor disparaged; it does not disprove a proposition, but it is a call to caution. It might thus be safer to assume that Salienus was not originally a member of the Fifth, but was transferred to this legion from another unit. This unit, if we are allowed to venture a guess, will have been Legio VI, the only legion to fight in all three major engagements, at Pharsalos, Alexandria and Zela. This indomitable legion, in the future to be called Ferrata, was now thoroughly depleted, and immediately after Zela Caesar sent it to Italy ad praemia atque honores accipiendos (Bell. Alex. 77.2); its veterans were ultimately settled in the new colony at Arelate (colonia Iulia Paterna Sextanorum) in the Narbonese Gaul.17 The legion thus ceased to exist as an active unit (in any case for the time being; it was later reconstituted in the triumviral period); it did not participate in the African expedition. It is a fair assumption that the legion brought with it to Italy also the triumphal train. To be entrusted with guarding the Caesarian pretiosa Salienus must have enjoyed Caesars confidence; hence his panic at the conscientia peccatorum, and his desertion. But before he deserted he will have received his reward: the transfer to another legion, the Fifth as it happened, coupled, no doubt, with the promotion to the post of a senior centurion. For only a centurion endowed with authority would have been able to persuade two young and inexperienced but personally brave military tribunes to surrender to the enemy. Who were these Titii? A clue is offered by their denomination of Hispanus which clearly points to their ties with Spain,18 and by the admission of their father to the senate. Here of assistance is Bell. Alex. 4865 with its story of the turmoil
15 Cf. Drumann-Groebe 3.55254. 16 Cf. Groebe in Drumann-Groebe 3.712. Unless one would wish to find a clue in the settlement of veterans of Legio V Gallica in the Pisiadian Antioch; and identify it with legio quinta veterana of the African war; cf. above, n. 4. 17 Sources in Ritterling 1588. 18 C. Cichorius, Rmische Studien (Leipzig-Berlin 1922) 252, n. 1, took it for a pure family cognomen, but Mnzer (above, n. 10) 1557, is surely right to see in it a denomination on its way von der Heimatsbezeichnung zum Beinamen, accepted by R. Syme, Missing Senators, Historia 4 (1955) 70 = Roman Papers 2 (Oxford 1979) 290. Cf. Broughton, MRR 3.206.

Legio V in Messana

235

caused in Spain by the wretched Q. Cassius Longinus, the Caesarian governor of the Ulterior. Inter alia we read (57.1, referring to 48; cf. 54.3) about the mutiny of a legio vernacula:19 Interim L. Titius, qui eo tempore tribunus militum in legione vernacula fuerat, nuntiat (i.e. to Cassius Longinus) eam a legione XXX [which remained faithful to Longinus] seditione facta centurionibus aliquot occisis qui signa tolli non patiebantur, discessisse et ad secundam legionem 20 (which also rebelled) contendisse. In this text Mnzer was (rightly) bothered by the pluperfect fuerat: it might mean, he thought, that L. Titius was at that time no longer an active officer, and was thus possibly already an older man; in this case he obviously cannot be identified with one of the youthful tribunes of the Fifth legion but will rather be their father. Eo tempore coupled with fuerat looks indeed peculiar,21 but only electronic searches demonstrate how truly peculiar it is: the only occurrence of that collocation in the whole extant Latin literature! The only other instance of fuerat in Bell. Alex. (78.3) is perfectly ordinary, as is also the usage of other pluperfect verbs in the third person (some forty five examples). But if eo tempore combined with fuerat is unique, the absolute use of the pluperpect is a well known and well documented phenomenon. It comes in several distinct varieties, one of which (probably of colloquial origin) manifests itself as a tense shift, particularly with respect to pluperfects of esse and habeo: they acquire the sense of simple imperfects or perfects. Modern grammarians adduce in fact fuerat in our passage as a shining exam-

19 This legion was raised in Spain by a legate of Pompeius apparently well before the beginning of the civil war; at Bell. Alex. 61.1 legio II and legio vernacula are referred to (in 47) as veteranas multisque proeliis expertas legiones. In 49 it was in the army of M. Terentius Varro, the Pompeian governor of Farther Spain, and surrendered to Caesar, as also did Varro, without a fight (Caes. BC 2.1821, esp. 20.4). There is a controversy concerning its status. It was a native legion, made up of those who were in provincia nati (Bell. Alex. 53.5), and consequently most scholars regard it as consisting mostly of peregrini, most likely romanized Spaniards and the (technically) illegitimate sons of Roman settlers, many of them Romans in culture and language though not in the eye of the law; for that latter view, see R. E. Smith, Service in the PostMarian Roman Army (Manchester 1958) 5456; and cf. P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (Oxford 1971) 23031, 698. On the other hand J. M. Roldn Hervs, Los Hispanos en el ejrcito romano de poca republicana (Salamanca 1993) 10913 (with further ample literature, and with arguments repeated from his earlier studies, especially from his full treatment in the article Legio Vernacula, iusta legio? Zephyrus 25 [1974] 45771, esp. 46471), prefers to see in it a iusta legio composed of Roman citizens. In any case the officers of the legion will have undoubtedly been Roman citizens. More recently, A. T. Fear, The Vernacular Legion of Hispania Ulterior, Latomus 50 (1991) 80921, contests this view and contends that it was not a normal legionary unit: scarcely romanized, it was, perhaps, even armed in a native way (pp. 81718: this is, however, only an overhasty inference from Bell. Hisp. 20; a refutation has, alas, to be reserved for another occasion). But even Fear admits that the officers may well have been Italians (p. 819). 20 On this legion, see Ritterling 1437. 21 Of the two English translations one preserves the pluperfect; the other opts for a simple perfect. Way (above, n. 11) has the native legion in which he had been at the time a military tribune; and Carter (above, n. 11) L. Titius, who was at that time a military tribune with the local legion.

236

Historia et Ius

ple of that shift.22 Historians, one would presume, should be interested in the peculiarities of the tense use in the sourceshistory, after all, floats in time. L. Titius was thus a military tribune at the time of the legions mutinyas the sense of the story requires and as the grammar (we now see) concurs. But this should not mean that we are free to identify him with one of the tribunes in the Bellum Africum. L. Titius continues to be the prime candidate, in fact the only viable candidate, for the father of the unfortunate Titii adulescentes. To see in him one of the two doomed Titii is aberrant.23 In Spain L. Titius showed himself a man of quick decision: when the legio in which he served was engulfed in a violent mutiny, with the opposing centurions slain, he hurriedly rushed to the governor to inform him of the situation. He was not the man who would listen to any beguiling words of surrender. On the other hand the only assertive act of the elder of the Titii was to entreat the executioners that he be put to death before his brother.24 L. Titius, the pater, was thus admitted to the senate for his services rendered in Spain to the party of Caesar; and the date of his admission will be the late autumn
22 See R. Khner and C. Stegmann, Ausfhrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II.1 (Hannover 1914; this is the second edition; the subsequent Auflagen are only reprints) 13941 at 140. A very similarly structured sentence we find in Caesar BG 2.6.3: Iccius Remus ... qui t u m oppido (it refers to Bibrax, besieged by the Belgae) p r a e f u e r a t , unus ex iis qui legati de pace ad Caesarem v e n e r a n t (cf. 2.3.2), n u n t i o s ad eum m i t t i t , nisi subsidium sibi submittatur, se diutius sustinere non posse. KhnerStegmann (p. 141) classify this sentence among the passages in which either the reading is uncertain or a different explanation is possible. But fuerat is the unanimous reading of all authoritative codices, and H. Meusels advocacy of praeerat of the recentiores is not justified: see the app. crit. in the Teubner edition (1961) by O. Seel (which is much ampler and more useful than the apparatus in W. Herings Teubner edition of 1987, which does not advert at all to the dispute concerning fuerat). KhnerStegmann are loath to admit that an element of Volkssprache could have penetrated to Caesars style; but as the two passages present grammatically twin utterances, the tense is either in both of them colloquial or we must find another explanation. The only other explanation would be to posit in both passages the employment of anticipatory pluperfect, not uncommon among the historians when, stating a fact, they direct their gaze to future events and thus perceive the reported fact as already belonging to an anterior past (cf. Khner-Stegmann 139). G. Landgraf, Untersuchungen zu Caesar und seiner Fortsetzern insbesondere ber Autorschaft und Komposition des Bellum Alexandrinum und Africanum (Erlangen 1888) 4041, 68, regards the use of fuerat and habuerat in place of the imperfect as a specific feature of the style of C. Asinius Pollio to whom he (rather adventurously) ascribes large parts of Bellum Alexandrinum and Africanum. There is no discussion of fuerat in this passage in the commentary of R. Giomini, Bellum Alexandrinum (Roma 1956) 177. 23 As does Roldn, Los Hispanos (above, n. 19) 108. Broughton, MRR 2.297 styles one of the brothers L.? Titius. He thus envisages two possibilities: 1) the tribune in Spain is identical with one of the tribunes in Bell. Afr. 2) the tribunes in Bell. Afr. are the sons of L. Titius, the tribune in Spain (cf. the skeptical aporia of Fear, The Vernacular Legion [above, n. 19] 820), and thus the elder of them inherited the praenomen L. In MRR 3.206 he indirectly but resolutely embraced the latter option. 24 He apparently felt responsible for their predicament, and did not wish to behold the results of his credulity. But all this may be just a moving but fictitious story. The author of Bell. Afr. does not vouchsafe it: dicitur. On the death of the Titii, see also Val. Max. 3.8.7 (with the comment of Mnzer, Titius 13 [above, n. 10] 1557), who, however, mentions only one Titius, and describes him as a centurion.

Legio V in Messana

237

of 47, when Caesar filled the senate with his minions.25 This will also be the date when his sons received their commission as military tribunes in the Fifth legion, an invitation to a splendid career that proved a passport to their destruction.26 Embezzlement was grave enough, but Salienus other peccatum was perhaps even graver: mutiny. As the author of the African War puts it, Salienus M. Messalam legatum obsederat Messanae ... seditiosissima oratione apud eum usus, had beset at Messana the legate M. Messala, addressing him in the language of outright mutiny. A. G. Way (above, n. 11) in his interpretive translation imagines that Salienus had laid siege to the house of M. Messala; he conjures up the house out of the verb obsederat.27 But this verb denotes in general besiege, beset, obstruct, blockade, surround28, and we have to recreate the event with the help of depictions of other mutinies and disturbances. The legate will have been seated on an elevated platform, the tribunal,29 and here immediately come to mind such phrases as from Ciceros harangue against the Catilinarians: desinant insidiari domi suae consuli, circumstare tribunal praetoris urbani, obsidere cum gladiis curiam (Cat. 1.32.3), or still better, from Tacitus description of the mutiny of the Danubian legions: ceteri tribunal ingenti agmine circumveniunt (Ann. 1.25.3). This is precisely what must have happened at Messana. Messala was besieged at the tribunal by the rebellious soldiers, and threateningly addressed by the centurion Salienus.
25 Sources in Drumannn-Groebe 3.51011. As L. Titius had held the post of a military tribune he may have been an equestrian; cf. C. Nicolet, Lordre questre lpoque rpublicaine, 2: Prosopographie des chevaliers romains (Paris 1974) 1042. 26 Mnzer (above, n. 10) 155758, embraced the idea of Cichorius, Rmische Studien (above, n. 18) 25053, that L. Titius, the addressee of Ciceros letter of consolation Fam. 5.16, was none other than the father of the unfortunate military tribunes. Cichorius was an acute student of res Romanae and of Latin texts, but this conceit of his is more than aberrant. Inter alia, Cicero wrote: (4): hoc tamen non dubitans confirmare possum, ea misceri, parari, impendere rei publicae quae qui reliquerit nullo modo mihi quidem deceptus esse videatur (or in the artistic translation of D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Ciceros Letters to His Friends [Penguin Books 1978] 1.321: but this I can declare without hesitation, that to my mind at any rate whoever has left behind him the present political turmoil, and all that is in preparation, looming ahead of us, has been cheated of nothing. And a further sentence: non mehercule quemquam audivi hoc gravissimo et pestilentissimo anno adulescentum aut puerum mortuum qui mihi non a dis immortalibus ereptus ex his miseriis atque ex iniquissima condicione vitae videretur (I give you my word that whenever in this terrible year of pestilence I have heard of the death of a young man or a boy, I have considered him as snatched by the Immortal Gods from these calamities and from a life of which all the terms were in his disfavour). How can we imagine Cicero referring these words to the treacherous slaughter of the young Titii, and addressing them to the man who had just been elevated to the rank of a senator by Caesar personally, and whose sons had before them under the new dispensation the doors open to a bright career? No, we have to embrace the good sense of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares 2 (Cambridge 1977) 32526 (no. 187), who does not even mention the interpretation of Cichorius and Mnzer, and rightly sees in the deceased children (apparently boys) of Titius the victims of an epidemic and not of war. 27 So also Bouvet (above, n. 11) avait assig la rsidence du lgat M. Messala. 28 See OLD s.v. and TLL s.v. II.2.b (col. 223). Carter (above, n. 11) opts for pallid obstructed. 29 For the tribunal in the camp, see Hyginus, De munitione (metatione) castrorum 11, with the commentaries in the editions of A. von Domaszewski (Leipzig 1887) 5455; and esp. M. Lenoir (Paris 1979 [Bud]) 5053.

238

Historia et Ius

After the victory at Pharsalos most legions were brought by Antonius back to Brundisium (Cic. Phil. 2.59). Among them was in all likelihood also Legio V. The troops were to be rested and replenished in Italy, and prepared for a new campaign in Africa. Here the troubles began. In the summer of 47 the once dependable veteran soldiers were clamoring for rewards and retirement. Caesar was still in the east; he arrived in Italy only some time toward the end of September.30 His emissaries had been singularly unsuccessful. Around the beginning of September of 47, writing from Brundisium, Cicero gleefully informed Atticus: Sulla, ut opinor, cras erit hic cum Messala. currunt ad illum pulsi a militibus, qui se negant usquam, nisi acceperint. ergo ille huc veniet, quod non putabant, tarde quidem 31 (or in Shackleton Baileys translation: Sulla, I believe, will be here tomorrow with Messala. They are hurrying off to Caesar, having been sent packing by the troops, who refuse to go anywhere until they get their pay. So, contrary to the expectation, Caesar will be coming here; though it wont be soon). A few days previously P. Cornelius Sulla32 approached the Twelfth legion, and reportedly was pelted with stones (Att. 11.21.2). But it is the mention of (M. Valerius) Messala (cos. 53) that attracts special attention. What could be more straightforward than to combine Ciceros letter with the passage from the Bellum Africum? Thus routinely the commentators33 save one. Shackleton Bailey argued that as the soldiers mentioned by C(icero) had not yet left Italy this must be a different misadventure.34 Yet, however we might savor misadventures of others, we should not multiply them without due cause. That the legions, including the Fifth, had not yet traversed to Sicily is an inference from Ciceros earlier dispatch from Brundisium on August 15 (Att. 11.20.2 = SB 235): M. Gallius 35 Q. f. ... venit ut legiones in Siciliam traduceret. eo protinus iturum
30 Drumann-Groebe 3.5056. 31 Att. 11.22.2 = D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Ciceros Letters to Atticus 2 (Cambridge 1965) no. 237. The letter is generally dated to ca 1 Sept. 47; it postdates Att. 11.21 of 25 Aug. 32 The Sulla in question is patently P. Cornelius Sulla who had commanded the right wing at Pharsalos (Caes. BC 3.89.3, 99.4), and thus was a man in whose military abilities Caesar put great trust. He is generally identified with P. Cornelius Sulla, cos. des. 65, the man whom Cicero defended in 62: see, e.g., F. Mnzer, Cornelius 386, RE 4 (1900) 151821; Broughton, MRR 2.281, 290. The conceit of Shackleton Bailey (above, n. 31) 17576 (on Att. 4.3.3) and 5 (1966) 296, that both at Pharsalos and here we are dealing with the wouldbeconsuls son, has nothing to recommend it of his poltical and military career we know nothing (cf. Mnzer, RE 4.1521, s.v. Cornelius 387), and it is inconceivable that Caesar would have entrusted critical military commands to an unproven man. Shackleton Bailey suggests that he might have already been a quaestorius, but D. H. Berry, Cicero, Pro Sulla Oratio (Cambridge 1996) 12, points out that Sulla filius was at that time only in his midtwenties (and thus certainly too young for the post of a legate). Oddly enough, Berry still endorses the idea of Shackleton Bailey. 33 Cf. e.g., Broughton, MRR 2.290 on Messala: Legate of Caesar, who was in danger from mutinous soldiers at Messana (Bell. Afr. 28.2; cf. Cic. Att. 11.22.2.). 34 In a note to Att. 11.22.2. See Shackleton Bailey (above, n. 31) 297 (no. 237). 35 M. Gallius is an unfortunate prosopographical case. He is conspicuously absent from his rightful place in MRR 2.290; Broughton repaired this omission in MRR 3.98, in an entry, however, that seriously misrepresents G. Sumners argument (Phoenix 25 [1971] 26566, 364) concerning textual problems in Cic. Phil. 3.26.

Legio V in Messana

239

Caesarem Patris. Though suggestive, the passage is per se not necessarily conclusive; more weight should attach to Cic. Att. 11.21.2 where after the report of P. Sullas misadventure with the Twelfth legion, we have the prognostication: nullam putant se commoturam, it is thought that none of them will move, a prophecy rendered true by the experience of Sulla and Messala with the unnamed legion in the letter here discussed. The problem is threefold: 1) what was the function and status of M. Valerius Messala? 2) where was at the time of the incident the legion in question stationed? 3) Is this legion Legio V ? As to 1): if we had at our disposal solely the information in Bell. Afr. 28.2 the answer would have been simple and obvious: Messala was the commander of the Fifth legion, legatus legionis. But in view of Ciceros letter he is generally regarded to have been, so as P. Sulla, a special envoy from Caesar with the task of assuaging the soldiers and organizing the transport of troops to Sicily. The situation in the two letters of Cicero is somewhat different: P. Sulla alone attempted to parley with the soldiers of the Twelfth legion (Att. 11.21.2),36 whereas at Att. 11.22 2 it is Sulla and Messala who were pulsi a militibus and who currunt (ad Caesarem). That last phrase seems to suggest that their mission was concluded; it failed, and now only Caesar himself was able to quell the turbulence. The status of P. Sulla is clear: he was a special envoy, and he moved from one legion to another; on the other hand, one could perhaps imagine Messala, also in this letter, as the legatus legionis. If so, the unnamed legion in Ciceros letter must be Legio quinta. Yet we should pay attention to currunt: is is scarcely likely that a commander would simply abandon his legion to the rioters, and take to flight. Thus in Ciceros letter also Messala rather appears as a special envoy. This complicates answers to questions 2) and 3). All hinges on the status of Messala as a special envoy or as a legionary commander. If he was the latter then Ockhams razor forces us to identify the two incidents, and thus not only to identify the unnamed legio of Ciceros letter with legio V of Bellum Africum, but also to locate it in Messana already in the summer of 47. Yet with the problem so formulated, it is visible that we are more and more engaged in a petitio principii. We simply do not know, and thus also the question 3) appears not answerable. But we can perhaps cut through this knot by the following consideration: the Fifth legion (if we identify it with the Alaudae) was composed mostly of Gauls; Caesar apparently enfranchised them in mass at the beginning of the civil war, their unit transformed into a iusta legio, and given its soon glorious number.37 This was hardly a troop easily susceptible to rebellion. It is not improbable that in 47 they obediently moved to Sicily, and raised tumult only after they had learned

36 Way (above, n. 11) 188, n. 1, mixes facts, falsehoods and inferences when he writes: When Messala [an inference, not a fact] and Sallust [not Sallust but Sulla but still a fact] were sent by Caesar in August, 47, to order certain legions to concentrate in Sicily ... the legions mutinied and the twelfth went so far as to pelt them with stones [not them! just Sulla. But we should not be too severe: this is a hereditary error: cf. Drumann-Groebe 3.505. Broughton, MRR 2.29091, laudably and meticulously distinguishes between the two incidents]. 37 Cf. Ritterling 156465.

240

Historia et Ius

of the mutiny of other legions.38 And the instigator was not one of their own but a centurion of Italian stock, Salienus. Second, we have to consider the likely date and circumstance of Salienus outrage toward Messala. If it happened after Caesar quelled the mutiny, he would have certainly been immediately disciplined, and dishonorably dismissed. He would not have participated in the African expedition, and would have had no opportunity to desert to the enemy. But if his insubordination is placed in the environment of a general mutiny, when almost everybody was forgiven, then Salienus continuing commission as a centurion is explained. Explained is also Salienus disquiet and fear: with war soon to be ended and Caesars triumph staged, his depredations were likely to be discovered, and his participation in the mutiny would weigh heavily as further proof of bad character. His solution to his fears was to desert and to place his salvation with the Pompeians. This reconstruction also offers the advantage of simplicity: it entails only one misadventure for Messala, very likely in his capacity as a special envoy. In the reports of the African war Messala appears solely as the commander of the cavalry detachment sent by Caesar immediately after the battle of Thapsus to invest Utica. He was thus hardly a legatus legionis at that time. A nagging question looms: what has become of the original unheroic garrison of Messana? We do not know, but we have a good clue as to its identity. In 49, after Caesars swift invasion of Italy, C. Scribonius Curio was sent with propraetorian imperium to occupy Sicily and invade Africa (cf. MRR 2.26364). Caesar entrusted to him a force of three legions (BC 1.30.2). Earlier in his narrative (1.25.2) Caesar informs that he Domitianas ... cohortes protinus a Corfinio in Siciliam miserat. These cohorts, more (amplius) than thirty in number (cf. below), a full complement for three legions, had previously formed the army of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus; they went over to Caesar at Corfinium (BC 1.17.223.5). Now, almost unchanged in their composition (BC 2.28.1), they were given to Curio. At BC 2.23.1 we find Curio, however, in the possession of four legions, of which he selected two (both made up of the former milites of Domitius; BC 2.28) for the invasion of Africa. This enterprise ended in a debacle, and Curios death. Of the two legions left in Sicily, one was thus composed of Domitianae cohortes; the origin and the composition of the other is unknown or a matter of surmise.39 One thing is certain: this legion did not consist of milites Domitiani. From BC 1.17.2 (purporting to quote a letter of Pompey) we learn that the army of Domitius was made of cohortes ... amplius XXX; at 1.18 we are told that seven cohorts surrendered to Caesar in the nearby Sulmo. A letter of Pompeius adduced by Cicero (Att. 8.12A.1 = SB 162A) offers clarification. Domitius disposed of altogether 31 cohorts: meas XVIIII (i.e. the cohorts that had been levied by Pompeys officers, but were placed under Domitius command) and suas XII. He distributed them
38 Cf. Chrissanthos (above, n. 9) 72: Messala made contact with Legion V and apparently transported at least part of it as far as Messana before it refused to go on. 39 In the commentary by F. Kraner and F. Hofmann, 11th ed. by H. Meusel (Berlin 1906; the 12th ed. of 1959 and the 13th ed. of 1963 are simple reprints with Nachwort and bibliographische Nachtrge by H. Oppermann) 13839 ad loc., this legion is described as die spter nachgesandte Legion. For spter no source is given, and none exists.

Legio V in Messana

241

between three towns: in addition to Corfinium, he placed them also in Sulmo and Alba. These numbers differ somewhat from Caesars own estimates: he ascribes to Pompeys emissary L. Vibullius Rufus (MRR 2.271) only thirteen cohorts, and to Domitius circiter XX (BC 1.15.37). In any case not a sufficient number to organize a fourth legion. Caesars brief account of the events in Sicily is very selective: he omits to mention that C. Asinius Pollio (cf. MRR 2.266) preceded Curio in crossing over to Sicily; in fact according to some sources it was Pollio who parleyed with Cato and gained the island. Cato withdrew his troops and sailed away to Corcyra, (avowedly) to avoid the bloodshed, but in reality upon hearing that a larger force was coming; this force was obviously Curios three legions (Plut. Cat. Min. 53; App. BC 2.40 [162]). After having described the landing of Pollio and the departure of Cato, Appian remarks that Caesar selected Curio to take the governorship of Sicily in Catos place (BC 2.41 [165]). This produces the impression that Pollio acted as an independent commander. However, in contrast to Appian and Plutarch, Caesar states clearly: (Cato) adventu Curionis cognito ... ex provincia fugit, and further: Nacti vacuas ab imperiis Sardiniam Valerius (cf. MRR 2.270), Curio Siciliam, cum exercitibus eo perveniunt (BC 1.30.531.1). Cassius Dio (41.41.1) follows Caesar, does not mention Pollio, and ascribes the whole success to Curio alone: he occupied the island without a contest because Cato, being no match for him, had already departed. Ciceros correspondence with Atticus throws further light. On 14 April 49 he writes (10.4.810) from his estate at Cumae that Curio visited him and mentioned in a conversation that it was certain that all persons convicted under the lex Pompeia would be restored, and that consequently he himself would be using the services of these people in Sicily; thus at this juncture Curio had already been appointed by Caesar (and nominally by the senate) to govern Sicily, indeed he paraded his six fasces. The island was still being held by Cato (cf. Att. 10.12.2), but in May Cicero received a letter from Curio informing him that Cato left Syracuse on 23 April (Att. 10.16.3). The situation is clear: Pollio was Curios subordinate officer; he was sent to Sicily in advance of the main force. He arrived with some troops, probably one legion the non-Domitianic legion which remained in the island when Curio set off for Africa. This legion was thus not nachgesandt to Curio, but rather sent ahead of him to Sicily, vorgesandt. About its composition one thing appears certain: it was not a veteran unit; it was formed through recent levies. One of these two legions, either the legion originally Pollios or the legion originally Curios and previously Domitianic, is the prime and only candidate for the wavering garrison of Messana in 48. Under Curios stewardship Messana appears to have been guarded as ineptly as later under the command of M. Pomponius. As Caesar relates (BC 2.3) a prefect of Pompeius at the head of a small fleet, imprudente et inopinante Curione, was able to reach the docks40 at Messana, and capture a ship propter repentinum terrorem principum et senatus (i.e. of Messana) fuga facta.
40 ex navalibus eorum <navem unam> deducit (cf. further: hac adiuncta ad reliquas naves cursum Massiliam versus perfecit).

16 CAELUM ARSIT AND OBSIDIONE LIBERARE: Latin Idiom and the Exploits of the Eighth Augustan Legion at the Time of Commodus*
The inscription CIL XI 6053 has acquired minor historical fame. It also illustrates vicissitudes of transmission and recovery of texts. In CIL the text was published by E. Bormann (in 1901) on the basis of the manuscript tradition1, and in capitals, in the following shape:

Since the publication in CIL almost ninety years had passed when nellagosto 1987 stato recuperato in una discarica nei pressi di Mondaino (provincia di Forl) ... un blocco in marmo lunense fine non venato. This inscribed stone was soon published with commendable speed and investigative acumen by Angela Donati;

* 1

Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 142 (2003) 241255 {with minor addenda}. His authorities were Michael Fabricius Ferrarinius (Michele Fabrizio Ferrarini) and Iulius Fantagutius (Giuliano Fantaguzzi). See on them the informative articles by R. Zaccaria and P. G. Fabbri in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 46 (1996) 68788 and 44 (1994) 61618. Ferrarini composed in the last quarter of the 15th century an important sylloge of inscriptions; see Mommsen, CIL X, pp. XXXIXXL. On the collectanea (c. 1500) of Fantaguzzi (a historian from Cesena), see ibidem, p. XXVII, and Bormann, CIL XI, pp. 3, 893.

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

243

she immediately recognized in it a fragment of our urbinate inscription2. Only the central part of the stone is preserved, but it harbors a surprise: the lines are arranged very differently than in the manuscript copies utilized in CIL3. There are only nine lines on the stone and not twenty as in Bormanns edition. As Donati points out (p. 65) none of the Renaissance antiquarians had actually seen the stone; their copies are based on an earlier copy in scriptio continua, and they only divined the disposition of the lines. The stone was wider but less tall; it is thus very probable that it was engraved on the pedestal of the biga offered by the Urvinates to Vesnius. With the help of the new fragment Donati presented the following reconstruction of the whole text (p. 67):
242

A. Donati, La biga di Mondaino, Annali della Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia dellUniversit di Macerata 21 (1988 [1989]) 6369 (p. 69 photographs). I should like to thank Prof. Donati for kindly sending me a copy of her article, and for further information concerning the stone. As we learn from Bormanns annotation, according to Fantaguzzi the stone was extant in Urbino apud aedem cathedralem, and according to Apianus (see below, n. 15) ad [aedem] S. Francisci, but F. Ubaldini (161057) was not able to locate it. This important rediscovery received no notice in the recent collection by A. Trevisiol, Fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche per la storia Romana della provincia di Pesaro e Urbino (Roma 1999) 17 (no. 4), who intimates that the stone is extant at Urbino, in the Palazzo Ducale, but actually reproduces the text of Bormann. When writing a review of Trevisiols book (JRA 15 [2002] 57781 at 57980) I found her lemma and her edition very suspicious, especially as G. Mennella, Il Museo lapidario del Palazzo Ducale di Urbino (Genova 1973) 90, did not list CIL XI 6053 among the stones preserved in the museum. A footnote in an article by J. Zelazowski (see below, n. 13) has ultimately led me to the publication of Donati, which apparently has never been recorded in AE, and as a consequence the rediscovered stone was again almost entirely buried in oblivion. None of the scholars who in recent years dealt with the history of the Eighth Augustan legion or the rebellion of Maternus was aware of the find. The article was signaled (with a succinct summary) in APh 60 (1991) 626 (no. 9886), but without comprehensive search capabilities this bibliography was only half-useful. In the version of Ferrarini preserved in a codex in Reggio Emilia (the photocopy of which Donati reproduces, p. 65) there are twelve lines. This is of editorial interest and instruction: Bormann adduced the same folium, but surprisingly appended no remark as to the distribution of lines; it would thus appear that the division in twenty lines derives either from Ferrarinis copy in codex Parisinus (also used by Bormann) or from Fantaguzzi.

244

Historia et Ius

Apart from the new arrangement of the lines the fragment testifies to the overall accuracy of the copyists. It also settles two disputed readings4, one of them of immediate import for the theme of the present investigation. We are dealing with a dedication set up by popul(us) Urvin(atium) 5 to honor its patron C. Vesnius Vindex. At Urvinum (Mataurense) he was aedile and pontifex, and in Rome he entered the (senatorial) career as IVvir viarum curandarum 6. The historical interest of the document resides in Vesnius military service. Lines 37 (corresponding to lines 715 in CIL) read as follows (in bold print are indicated the letters extant on the rediscovered fragment of the stone):
tribun(o) milit(um) leg(ionis) VIII Aug(ustae), quo militante / cum liberata esset nova obsidione legio Pia Fidelis / Constans Commoda cognominata est, ipse ut devotissimus / imp(eratori) Commodo Aug(usto) Pio Felici oblato honore / quaestor designatus est annorum XXIII.

243

Commodus received the epithet Felix in 185 after the fall of Perennis7. The inscription was engraved after that date. The surnames of the legion supply further chronological precision. All four names appear together for the first time in CIL XIII 11757 of 1878, but on the wax tablet from Rottweil (Arae Flaviae in Upper Germany), dated precisely to 4 Aug. 186, already figure the names Pia Fida9. The inscription from Urvinum might seem to suggest that all four names were bestowed upon the legion simultaneously; indeed the authoritative opinion holds that the legion gained all of its surnames opposing and suppressing the rebellion of Maternus (which is identified, rightly, I believe, with the bellum desertorum)10. The
All letters are neatly engraved, and they are clearly visible on the photographs appended to Donatis article (and particularly well visible on the enlarged copies Prof. Donati was kind enough to send me). In line 2 (= 4 in CIL) the stone vindicates the received reading municipii; Bormann corrected it to municip(i). Vesnius was thus styled a patron of populus and of municipium. Cf. Zelazowski, Honos bigae, (n. 13) 71. On line 4 = 9, see below in the text. 5 I follow the expansion of Donati, 66. Bormann prefers (in his apparatus) popul(us) Urvin(as). 6 On this post, see T. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht 23 (Leipzig 1887) 6034. 7 F. Grosso, La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (Torino 1964) 19293, dates the death of Perennis to April or May of 185. Cf. D. Kienast, Rmische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt 1990) 149. 8 See the list in J. Fitz, Honorific Titles of Roman Military Units in the 3rd Century (Budapest 1983) 3031; B. Oldenstein-Pferdehirt, Die Geschichte der Legio VIII Augusta, JRGZ 31 (1984) 427. 9 J. C. Wilmanns, Die Doppelurkunde von Rottweil und ihr Beitrag zum Stdtewesen in Obergermanien, in Epigraphische Studien 12 (1981) 1182 at 50 (the date and the surnames) and 6970 (the surnames); her text is reproduced in AE 1981, 691. This edition supercedes R. Egger, Die Wachstafel von Rottweil, Germania 36 (1958) 37385 (= Rmische Antike und Christentum 2 [Klagenfurt 1963] 26891). Egger (384 = 290), heavily influenced by the Urvinum inscription, had read into the tablet the following text: [cum ....... legione VIII] Augusta liberata (line 1). As Wilmanns shows (1113, 50, 6971), the text itself of the tablet has nothing to do with any legal proceedings after the suppression of a rebellion; the recent statement to the contrary by A. Molinier, Marius Maximus source latine de la vie de Commode?, in Historiae Augustae Colloquium Argentoratense (Bari 1998) 230, is based on earlier studies without any knowledge of Wilmanns meticulous edition of the tablet. 10 See esp. G. Alfldy, Bellum desertorum, BJ 171 (1971) 36776 = Die Krise des rmischen Reiches (Stuttgart 1989) 6978, with addenda, 7980; and cf. already Die Legionslegaten der 4

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

245

characterization of Vesnius as devotissimus to the emperor may contain a hint at a war against the rebels rather than a foreign enemy. Still the puzzle remains why at Rottweil only the first two surnames are listed, and why we have Fida and not Fidelis. In Wilmanns edition the text reads (line 3): [legati felicissimi Augusti l]egionis Auguste pie fide; fide may be a simple mistake or perhaps we should not interpret it as fid(a)e but rather expand to fide(lis). It is not impossible that the legion first received the honorific titles Pia Fidelis, and later (in 186 or in 187) Constans Commoda 11. The first grant could be connected with some specific act of the legions loyalty at the time of the fall of Perennis, and the other with its steadfastness in the face of an enemy, precisely on the occasion of the obsidio to which our inscription refers. For its bravery and devotion the legio Pia Fidelis would thus be additionally named (cognominata) Constans Commoda. In reward for his effective service (and apparently not for any particular act of bravery for which we would expect a military decoration) Vesnius soon afterwards (lines 67 = 1415) oblato honore / quaestor designatus est annorum XXIII (i.e., two years ahead of the normal cursus 12). It was this advancement and the imperial favor of its patron that the people of Urvinum celebrated by the dedication of a biga (line 8 = 16)13. Thus the inscription was set up at the earliest in 186, perhaps in 187, and certainly well before the death of Commodus14.
rmischen Rheinarmeen (= Epigraphische Studien 3 [Kln-Graz 1967]) 45, n. 232. Cf. E. Ritterling, Legio, RE 12.2 (1925) 165261; M. Redd, Legio VIII Augusta, in Les lgions de Rome sous le haut-empire I, ed. by Y. Le Bohec, (Lyon 2000) 11926 at 12325. But observe the caution of W. Eck, Der Kleine Pauly 7 (1999) 1009, s.v. Maternus 1. An ample treatment now in two monographs: T. Grnewald, Ruber, Rebellen, Rivalen, Rcher (Stuttgart 1999) 17895, but again he is not aware of Wilmanns edition of the Rottweil tablet, and relies on Egger (179) {No improvement in the English translation: Bandits in the Roman Empire: myth and reality (London-New York 2004) 12337, with footnotes on pp. 21014: still no Wilmanns and no Donati}; M. Zimmermann, Kaiser und Ereignis. Studien zum Geschichtswerk Herodians (Mnchen 1999) 85112. {R. Urban, Gallia rebellis. Erhebungen in Gallien im Spiegel antiker Zeugnisse (Historia Einzelschriften 129 [Stuttgart 1999]) 8485, offers only cursory remarks. Brief and rather negligible accounts also in O. Hekster, Commodus. An Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam 2002) 6567; F. von Saldern, Studien zur Politik des Commodus (Rahden 2003) 12935}. 11 So Grosso, (n. 7) 438. His discussion of the rebellion is, however, to a great extent vitiated by his reliance on Eggers decipherment of the Rottweil tablet, now (after Wilmanns edition) largely antiquated. {F. von Saldern, (n. 10) 13031, is inaccurate: he avers that all four epithets, pia, fidelis (sic), constans, Commoda, appear on the Rottweil tablet; Hekster, (n. 10) 65, also assumes that fidelis is the actual name on the tablet. As to CIL XI 6053, neither of them is aware of the fundamental article by Donati}. 12 Cf. Mommsen, (n. 6) 13 (1887) 573. He adduces the case of Vesnius. The exact phrase oblato honore does not seem to be otherwise attested (honorem oblatum is frequent) but cf. oblata potestate (Caes. BG 7.4.7). Ferrarini read obiecto honore; again there is no attestation of the phrase. 13 On this distinction, see the studies by J. Zelazowski in Epigraphica 59 (1997) 173203 (p. 175, n. 14, the inscription from Urvinum); Eos 85 (1998) 12133; Atti del XI Congr. Intern. di Epigr. Gr. e Lat. 1 (Roma 1999) 88189; culminating in the exemplary monograph Honos bigae. Le statue onorarie romane su biga (Varsavia 2001) esp. 7072 on the inscription from Urvinum. 14 The new find brought still another riveting piece of information: the stone displays two ample erasures in lines 6 and 7, to be connected with the damnatio memoriae of Commodus. Even

246

Historia et Ius

244

There is no reason to discuss the rebellion of Maternus in detail again, but there is all reason to look attentively at the enigmatic obsidio mentioned in the inscription from Urvinum. The historical crux resides in line 4 (= 89): are we to take NOVA as the adjective or as a place name? and in the former case read cum liberata esset nova obsidione legio, and in the latter cum liberata esset Nova obsidione. The reading NOVA is assured by the new fragment, but it troubled earlier editors and interpreters. Bormanns adnotatio critica is as follows: NOVA Fant(aguzzi); NOVIA deleta I) Ferr(arinius); NOVIA Ap(ianus) cum reliquis 15. Bormanns own preferred lectio is not in doubt; in his apparatus he explains: cum lectio NOVIA hucusque regnaverit intellecta est civitas et eadem putata est quae nominatur in titulo militis praetoriani VI 3891. This stone reads: D. M. / L. Licinius L. f. / Quir(ina) Paternus / Novia specula(tor) / c(o)ho(rtis) V pr(aetoriae). Licinius gives as his origo a city of Novia, otherwise unknown, but sought in various places, mostly in Roman Germany16. Bormanns adjectival interpretation gained an influential following; in particular Ritterling and Alfldy postulated that the legion was besieged by the rebels in its main camp at Argentorate17. But what should the phrase nova obsidio exactly mean? For Egger it was eine neuartige, ungewhnliche obsidio; in this understanding he was seconded by Grosso: a siege in modo del tutto nuovo18. For this application of the adjective Egger points to Cic. Caec. 36: novum est, non dico inusitatum, verum omnino inauditum. This is a truncated quotation; Egger omitted the beginning of Ciceros ironmore interestingly, these lines were re-inscribed when the memory of Commodus was restored under Septimius Severus, i.e., at a time when Vesnius will have still been in the prime of his life (see Donati, 68). Petrus Apianus was famous for his Inscriptiones sacrosanctae vetustatis (Ingolstadt 1534); the reading Novia also in I. C. Orellius, Inscriptionum Latinarum amplissima collectio 2 (Turici 1828) no. 3714, and G. Wilmanns, Exempla inscriptionum Latinarum 1 (Berolini 1873) no. 1459. Wilmanns, (n. 9) 11, n. 14 (she tentatively suggests an Italian location), and Egger, (n. 9) 378 = 284, both with older literature (cf. below, n. 21). Egger very oddly calls the city Novia Specula; apparently he did not check the text in CIL VI, and was misled by Bormanns abbreviated quotation in the apparatus to CIL XI 6053. E. Ritterling, Legio, RE 12.1 (1924) 1307; 12.2 (1925) 1660; Alfldy, (n. 10) 370, n. 19 = 72, n. 19. This is also the reading of Fitz, (n. 8) 30. E. M. Wightman, Gallia Belgica (London [also Berkeley] 1985) 160, writes that an inscription refers to a siege of the eighth legion at Strasbourg. The inscription says nothing of the kind: a historian should be able to distinguish between the actual wording of a text and its interpretation. And M. R. Kaiser-Raiss, Die stadtrmische Mnzprgung whrend der Alleinherrschaft des Commodus (Frankfurt am Main 1980) 33, avers that the legion liberated itself from a siege unter dem Kommando des Tribunen C. Vesnius Vindex as if militante meant imperante. Egger, (n. 9) 379 = 285: Das Neuartige besteht darin, dass die Legion nicht im Kriege und nicht vom Feinde (hostis) zerniert war, sondern im Frieden und von Aufstndischen in der Provinz selbst; so also Grosso, (n. 7) 438; Zimmermann, (n. 10) 101. Alfldy, (n. 10) 370, n. 19 = 72, n. 19, compares the locution res novas moliri, referring to internal plots and rebellions. The expression res novae denotes indeed revolutions and rebellions, but it is a large semantic jump to postulate on the basis of this well established turn of speech a particular meaning of nova obsidio: a siege by the rebels. {v. Saldern, (n. 10) 130, adduces approvingly Grosso, but does not quote Egger}.

15

16

17

18

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

247

245

ical enunciation: Unde vi prohibitus? Sic nemo umquam interdixit; novum est (etc). Thus, although novus is often used in the sense of novel, strange, singular, unusual, unheard of, a perusal of dictionaries shows that in that particular application is is normally accompanied by various evocative nouns and adjectives and elucidated by the context19. In the collocation nova obsidio there is no such elucidation present. The only other characterization of a siege as nova appears in a passage of Livy (42.56.5): haec soluta obsidio (of Haliartus by P. Lentulus) locum alteri novae20 obsidioni dedit; namque extemplo M. Lucretius ... Haliartum circumsedit. In our inscription there is, however, no hint of an earlier obsidio or oppressio hostilis. Thus the phrase should rather be perceived as conveying the generic sense of recent, fresh (cf. OLD s.v. novus 5), and indeed the stone was set up soon after the legion withstood the assault. Defenders of the reading Nova (and the now discredited Novia) were besieged but never completely conquered. C. Zangemeister (CIL XIII, 2 [1905] p. 363), following von Domaszewski21, connected the remark in Vita Commodi 13 about the troubles in Germany with the inscription from Urvinum, and disregarding the opinion of Bormann decisively opted for a city name: Nova vel Novia; he was ready to seek it in territorio limitano. This interpretation has recently found some favor in the eyes of Wilmanns; she observes, however, that Es msste dann allerdings wegen des Lokativs NOVIAe heissen. Also Grosso toyed with the idea of an assedio sostenuto nella localit di Nova, and comforted himself with the thought that lablativo non sarebbe in un testo epigrafico una grande irregolarit 22. We
19 A few examples culled from Lewis-Short and OLD: flagitia ... ingentia, ... nova, capitalia (Ter. Ad. 72123); novum crimen ... et ante hunc diem non auditum (Cic. Lig. 1); nova tibi haec sunt? inopinata? (Cic. Verr. 2.2.24); video tibi etiam novum accidisse tamquam mihi (Cic. Att. 6.1.5); si res agi videtur nova, magna, atrox (Quint. 4.1.33); novum audaciae genus (Calp. Decl. 11); Caes. BC 3.50.1: in novo genere belli novae ab utrisque bellandi rationes reperiebantur (observe that Caesar is careful to specify in novo genere belli, and has not simply written in novo bello). 20 The collocation alteri novae is odd, but possibly it expresses a new character of the second siege; cf. the translation by P. Jal in his edition of books 4142 in the Collection Bud (Paris 1971): la leve de ce sige fut suivie dun second sige tout nouveau. 21 A. v. Domaszewski, Geschichte der rmischen Kaiser 2 (Leipzig 1909) 236 (and sec. ed. 1921, 23637): Aber es ist wenigstens erkennbar, dass die deutschen Stmme die Grenze berschritten und die achte Legion in Novia belagert hielten. He was seconded by his student, J. M. Heer, Der historische Wert der vita Commodi in der Sammlung der scriptores historiae Augustae (= Philol. Suppl. 9 [1904]) 1208 at 103, who boldly wrote that the Eighth legion wie wir aus den Inschriften wissen, fr die tapfere Verteidigung von Novia den Ehrenbeinamen Commoda erhielt. A similar idea was fully developed already by L. Urlichs, in Jahrbcher des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande (a predecessor of BJ) 60 (1877) 6166; he located the alleged Novia in the castellum in Niederbieber. J. W. Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum (Vindobonae 1889) 264, places Novia (from CIL VI 3891) among incerta, and adduces Novia (from the Urvinum inscription) only as a comparison. 22 Wilmanns, (n. 9) 11, n. 14; Grosso, (n. 7) 438. Cf. also U. Agnati, La storia romana della provincia di Pesaro e Urbino (Roma 1999) 61; Trevisiol, (n. 2) 17 (no. 4). Both authors express the opinion that the town may perhaps be identified with Nova Augusta in Hispania Tarraconensis (Plin. NH 3.27). On this town, see H. Gimeno and M. Mayer, Una propuesta de identificacin epigrfica: Lara de los Infantes / Nova Augusta, Chiron 23 (1993) 31321. The

248

Historia et Ius

should not abuse grammar or the marble. The reading on the stone excludes the possibility of the legion being besieged in a place called Novia. If NOVA is the adjective it will stand in the ablative, and the legion itself will be relieved from a new siege. On the other hand if it is a place name it will be in the nominative. In that latter case the translation will sound: when (the city of) Nova was freed from a siege, the Pious Faithful legion was named Constant Commodian (or the legion was named Pious Faithful Constant Commodian), a notion that may be linguistically pleasing though historically hardly enticing. So far theories and speculations. At the time when standard studies dealing with our inscription and the rebellion of the deserters were composed, the TLL articles on obsidio and obsidium were not yet available, nor were available various electronic data banks. Regrettably more recent students of the problem showed no interest in these tools. The perusal of TLL (1983) yields interesting information, but dictionaries, being arranged according to grammatical and syntactic principles, are not particularly useful in recognizing patterns of expression; here concordances and data banks are ideal instruments. TLL produced 18 examples of the phrase obsidione (or obsidio) liberare; a search in the Packard Humanities Institutes Latin Data Bank and in the electronic Bibliotheca Latina Teubneriana yielded 48 examples (including 17 passages from TLL, with the sole exception of the Elogium of Lucullus); and finally Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg contributed one epigraphical attestation. Thus altogether, including CIL XI 6053, we arrive at 51 examples. In the phrase obsidione liberare there are three elements: the constant element obsidione (abl. of separation); a form of the verb libero; and the obsessus liberatus, mostly in the nom. or acc. (depending on the active or passive construction of the sentence), but also in abl. abs. and in a variety of other constructions. Outside this structure, but all important, is the obsessor and the liberator. This material we can arrange in six patterns: 1) Titus liberatus obsidione (a Marco) or (Marcus) Titum liberat obsidione 2) Titus obsidione liberatus (etc.) 3) obsidione Titus liberatus 4) liberatus Titus obsidione 5) obsidione liberatus Titus 6) liberatus obsidione Titus. Most of the texts reproduced below are self-explanatory; annotations in the footnotes are intended to provide solely grammatical and semantic clarification (and not a historical commentary).

rebellion of Maternus infected parts of Gaul and Spain, but the implied idea that the legio VIII Augusta marched from Argentorate to relieve the siege of a town in Spain is more than unlikely. Trevisiol translates the phrase cum liberata esset Nova (so her text) obsidione as poich la citt di Novia (sic) fu liberata dallassedio.

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 246

249

Pattern I:23 1. Quibus diebus Cumae liberatae sunt obsidione, isdem diebus (etc) (Liv. 23.37.10)24. 2. adventu ... regii praefecti non Corinthus tantum liberata obsidione ... est (Liv. 32.25.1). 3. obsidionalis (corona) est, quam ii, qui liberati obsidione sunt, dant ei duci qui liberavit (Gell. 5.6.8). Cf. II 22, V 5, VI 1. 4. iidem (sc. Thurini) postea Fabricium donavere statua liberati obsidione (Plin. NH 34.32). 5. liberatus deinde obsidione ... consuli vestro occurri, ut eum ... adiuvarem (Liv. 37.53.17)25. 6. coloniam liberatam obsidione ... esse (Liv. 31.48.11)26. Cf. I 8. 7. ara in Capitolio est Iovis Tutoris in qua (cives) liberati obsidione coria et sola vetera concremaverunt (Serv. auct. Aen. 8.662 [p. 294, l. 5, ed. Thilo]). 8. decreverunt (the senators) ut ... proficisceretur ipse ad coloniam liberandam obsidione (Liv. 31.11.4). Cf. I 6.
23 To this pattern may perhaps also belong the passage Liv. 26.8.5 (the opinion of Fabius Maximus delivered in the senate): non ad Romam obsidendam sed ad Capuae liberandam obsidionem (Hannibalem) ire. Dictionaries and translators take this phrase as an example of liberare with an accusative of the burden removed, to raise a siege (cf. Lewis-Short s.v. obsidio and obsidium; OLD s.v. libero 3b; TLL s.v. libero 1309.831310.43), and they may well be right. But a glance at D. W. Packard, A Concordance to Livy (Cambridge, Mass. 1968), will show how formulaic Livys idiom was; the regular Livian and Latin expression was obsidione liberare. This may embolden us to consider an emendation. If we wish to keep the verb, we must read ad Capuam liberandam obsidione (cf. Pattern I 8). But Livy may have aimed at a variatio, and we may wish to keep the accusative; in that case we must find another verb. Obsidionem solvere is a frequent expression (cf. TLL, and electronic searches); palaeographically, however, solvere is not a good choice. The verb that satisfies all requirements is levare: ad Capuae levandam obsidionem. For the phrase, see 30.9.4 (the Carthaginians are reported to reason): quippe classi ut felicissime geratur res, parte aliqua levari Uticae obsidionem Caution is in place. At Liv. 36.25.5, in a convoluted passage, we read (the passage reproduces the thoughts of Philip V; the king besieges Lamia, and the Romans simultaneously besiege Heraclea): haud dubius quin si prius Heraclea capta foret, Romanis se potius (the inhabitants of Lamia) quam sibi dedituri essent, suamque gratiam consul in obsidione liberanda facturus esset. Here indeed it is difficult to think of any alternate construction although we still may consider obsidione levanda. And then there is a passage of Tacitus (Hist. 4.37.2): ad liberandum Mogontiaci obsidium ducebantur, which in view of Tacitus penchant for rare expressions we should certainly hesitate to alter. 24 The city of Cumae was besieged by Hannibal, but the consul (of 215) Ti. Sempronius Gracchus through a successful eruptio confounded the Carthaginians, and Hannibal decided to withdraw. 25 From the speech of Eumenes, the king of Pergamon, in the senate. At 37.52.3 he thanks the senators, quod obsidione se ac fratrem exemissent regnumque ab iniuriis Antiochi vindicassent. According to Livy (and Polybius) the son of Antiochus, Seleucus, was repelled from under the walls of Pergamon by the bravery of the Achaean contingent (37.21.4), but the true reason for the retreat will certainly be the arrival of the Roman navy. Cf. J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy, Books XXXIVXXXVII (Oxford 1981) 32123, 373, 377. 26 In oratio obliqua; the praetor L. Furius (a. 200) defeats the Gauls Cremonam ... obsidentes (Liv. 31.21.2).

250

Historia et Ius

9. Levari obsidione sines] liberari (Serv. Aen. 10.25)27. 10. (Cn. Baebius) M. Claudio Marcello scripsit ut exercitum e Gallia traduceret in Ligures et L. Aemilium liberaret obsidione (Liv. 40.25.8)28. Pattern II: 1. Narbonensis colonia, quae per hunc (M. Fonteium) ipsa nuper obsidione hostium liberata nunc eiusdem miseriis ... commovetur (Cic. Font. 46)29. 2. Placentini Cremonensesque ... gratias agentes commemorantesque ... obsidione sese ab eo (sc. C. Cornelius, cos. 197) liberatos (Liv. 33.23.1). 3. Pompeius ad Dyrrachium obsessus a Caesare et, praesidiis eius cum magna clade diversae partis expugnatis, obsidione liberatus translato in Thessaliam bello ... acie victus est (Liv. Per. 111). Cf. V 6. 4. bellum ... ab eo (sc. Octavian) ... fortissime circa Mutinam administratum est et D. Brutus obsidione liberatus (Vell. Pat. 2.61.4). 5. de proelio facto Brutoque et Mutina obsidione liberatis audivi (Cic. Fam. 10.11.2). 6. Dec. Bruto obsidione Mutinensi a Caesare liberato (Liv. Per. 119). 7. Iliturgi obsidione liberato (Liv. 23.49.12)30. 8. Demetrius obsidione Parthorum liberatus (Iust. 39.1.1)31. Cf. II 15. 9. exercitum obsidione liberatum domum reduxit (Nep. Epam. 7.2)32. 10. cogita ... a te ... consulem obsidione liberatum (Ps.-Cic. Ep. ad Oct. 7). 11. ob municipium diutina obsidione et bello Maurorum liberatum patrono (CIL II2 783)33. 12. qui (Octavian) ad D. Brutum obsidione liberandum profectus sit (Cic. Phil. 5.51).
27 In Vergil Venus addresses Jupiter (Aen. 8.2526): numquamne (Teucros) levari obsidione sines? (referring to Turnus siege of the Trojan camp). Servius explains levari as liberari; an explanation which we can now fully savor, as there are 50 other examples of the collocation of obsidio or obsidione liberare, and only 2 of obsidio and levare (for the other example, see n. 23). Accordingly Servius posits as a standard expression liberari obsidione. 28 The Ligurians besieged castra Romanorum (24.25.58). When the relief force failed to materialize, Aemilius made an eruptio, and dispersed the Ligurians. 29 Cf. the comment by G. Clemente, I Romani nella Gallia meridionale (Bologna 1974) 161: i Volcae abbiano ... esercitato una pressione su Narbona, anche se non si tratt, forse, di una vera e propria obsidio. 30 Abl. abs. This Spanish city was besieged by the Carthaginians and rescued by the Scipiones (in 215). 31 Demetrius (II Nicator) was taken prisoner by the Parthians, and rescued by his brother Antiochus VIII Grypos (App. Syr. 6768); obsidio here equals captivitas (cf. 38.9.4: non ferens captivitatem Demetrius), a usage favored by Justin, cf. below, n. 34. For obsidio = captivitas, see TLL s.v. obsidio, 225.72226.2. 32 Epaminondas (while numero privati militis) extricates an army from a difficult situation: locorum angustiis clausi ab hostibus obsidebantur (7.1). 33 Earlier publications: CIL II 2015 = ILS 1354a = (EDH) HD 018073. The inscription was lost, and recently recovered, see R. Atencia Paez, La ciudad Romana de Singilia Barba (Malaga 1988) 73. The city was liberated by a detachment commanded by C. Vallius Maximianus, procurator of Mauretania Tingitana; see G. Alfldy, Bellum Mauricum, Chiron 15 (1985) 87105 at 1035 (= Rmische Heeresgeschichte [Amsterdam 1987] 46381 at 47577).

247

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

251

248

13. qui (sc. veterani) D. Brutum obsidione cupiunt liberare? (Cic. Phil. 11.38). 14. tales viros periculo obsidionis liberare cupio (Cic. Att. 8.12.A.2, a letter of Pompeius). 15. divulgat (sc. Antigonus) se Olympiadis mortem ... ulcisci velle et Alexandri ... filium cum matre obsidione Amphipolitana liberare (Iust. 15.1.2)34. Cf. II 8. 16. Quinctius (Cincinnatus) dictator dictus ... consulem obsidio liberavit (Vir. ill. 17.1)35. 17. P. Decius ... cum esset tribunus militum ... exercitum obsidione liberavit (Cic. Div. 1.51)36. 18. Gylippus ... socios (i.e. Syracusanos) obsidione liberavit (Iust. 4.4.9). 19. Cyzicum obsidione liberavit (Nep. Timoth. 1.3). 20. urbem ... Cyzicenorum ... summis obsidionis periculis liberavit (Cic. Imp. Cn. Pomp. 20). 21. conlegam suum pulsum a rege Mithridat[e] cum se is Calchadona contulisset opsidione liberavit (Elogium of Lucullus, CIL I2, p. 196, no. XXI; Inscr. It. XIII.3, p. 67, no. 84). 22. coronam gramineam senatus populusque Romanus Q. Fabio Maximo dedit quod ... urbem Romam obsidione hostium liberavit (Gell. 5.6.10)37. Cf. I 3, V 5, VI 1, and II 2327, III 1. 23. Marius, qui bis Italiam obsidione ... liberavit (Cic. Cat. 4.21). Cf. II 22, 2427, III 1. 24. ad Gallias profectus Vindelicos obsidione barbarica liberavit (Hist. Aug. Aur. 35.4). Cf. II 22, 23, 2527, III 1. 25. cum careret (sc. Marius) patria quam obsidione liberavisset (Cic. Post red. ad Quir. 20). Cf. II 2224, 26, 27, III 1. 26. praesidium Lacedaemoniorum ex arce pepulerunt, patriam obsidione liberarunt (Nep. Pelop. 3.3)38. Cf. II 2225, 27; III 1. 27. Caesar ... exercitum traducere constituerat ... ut Ubios obsidione liberaret (Caes. BG 4.19.4)39. Cf. II 2226, III 1.

34 Obsidio here means confinement, captivitas (cf. 14.6.13: Cassander ... filium Alexandri cum matre in arcem Amphipolitanam custodiendos mittit). For the usage, see above, n. 31. 35 The Volsci and the Sabini Q. Minucium consulem in Algido monte obsidebant. Cincinnatus was honored with a corona obsidionalis. 36 The Romans were trapped by the Samnites when the consul (a. 343) A. Cornelius exercitum incaute in saltum cava valle pervium circaque insessum ab hoste induxit (Liv. 7.34.12). 37 Obsidio here denotes the whole invasion of Hannibal and his assault upon Italy; cf. Plin. NH 22.10: (Fabius) honoratus est Hannibale Italia pulso. The corona obsidionalis could also be given for rescuing an army or a detachment from an ambush; cf. V. Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981) 6769. 38 Obsidio here in general for hostile oppression, occupation. 39 An earlier passage (4.16.5) clarifies the sense of obsidio: Ubii ... orabant, ut sibi auxilium ferret, quod graviter ab Suebis premerentur.

252

Historia et Ius

Pattern III: 1. At, credo (ironically), cum (Marius) ... hostium copias in Italia fudisset atque obsidione rem publicam liberasset, omnia sua secum una moritura arbitrabatur (Cic. Rab. perd. 29). Cf. II 2227. Pattern IV: No examples (but cf. n. 23, in fine). Pattern V: 1. et obsidione liberatus consul quo intenderat pervenit (Liv. 35.11.13)40. 2. quoniam obsidione liberatum Ciceronem sciebat (Caes. BG 5.49.6)41. 3. pacis decus habebatur submota campis irruptio ferarum et obsidione quadam liberatus agrestium labor (Plin. Paneg. 81.2)42. 4. Octavius Caesar ... obsidione (obsidio) Mutinae liberat Brutum (Flor. 4.4.4 = 2.15.4). 5. obsidionalis corona est, quae datur imperatori ei, qui obsidione liberavit ab hostibus obsessos (Fest. 440 L.). Cf. I 3, II 22, VI 1. 6. Pompeius circumsessus ad Dyrrachium non tantum obsidione liberavit suos, verum etiam post eruptionem ... Caesarem ... ipse circumfusus corona obligavit (Front. Strat. 3.17.4). Cf. II 3. 7. Ptolemaei legati communi nomine regis et Cleopatrae gratias egerunt: plus eos senatui populoque Romano ... debere per quos obsidione miserrima liberati essent, regium patrium prope amissum recepissent (Liv. 45.13.4)43. 8. ut abscesserit inde dictator, ut obsidione liberatos, extra vallum egressos fudisse ac fugasse hostes (Liv. 22.25.9)44. Pattern VI: 1. eadem (corona graminea) vocatur obsidionalis liberatis obsidione abominandoque exitu, totis castris (Plin. NH 22.7). Cf. I 3, II 22, V 5. 2. Etruriae populi ... ab oppugnando Sutrio ... orsi bellum. eo ... consul cum exercitu ad liberandos obsidione socios venit (Liv. 9.32.2). 3. Mago, cum Locri obsiderentur a ... praefecto, diffudit ... rumorem Hannibalem ... ad liberandos obsidione Locros venire (Front. 4.7.26).

40 A Roman army was trapped in Liguria in a narrow saltus. A ruse and a daring attack by the Numidian cavalry saved the day for the Romans. 41 Q. Cicero was besieged in his hiberna by the Nervii (cf. 5.4249). 42 This formed olim part of the experientia iuventutis. 43 Obsidio miserrima here may refer specifically to Antiochus siege of Alexandria (cf. 45.11), but also more generally to his design to dominate the whole of Egypt. 44 In a reported speech of a tribune of the plebs. The dictator (Q. Fabius Maximus) keeps the army idle in a camp: exercitum cupientem pugnare et magistrum equitum clausos prope intra vallum retentos (22.25.8). Thus, when the dictator went away, they felt as if they were rescued from a siege.

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 249

253

4. placuitque liberari obsidio legiones et decedere omnem militem finibus Armeniorum (Tac. Ann. 15.14.3)45. Statistical observations are of interest. In Pattern I there are 6 examples from Livy, 2 from Servius, 1 each from Pliny and Gellius, and none from Cicero. On the other hand in the most popular Pattern II it is Cicero who leads with 9 examples; Livy has only 2 (to which, however, we may add 2 examples from the Periochae). Interestingly Nepos and Justin employ this pattern only (each with three passages). It figures also in Caesar, Vell. Pat., Gellius, an imperial declaimer (Ps.-Cic.), the book de vir. ill., the Hist. Aug., an Augustan elogium and a second century inscription. Pattern V displays Livy (3 examples), and five other authors each with one passage (Caesar, Florus, Frontinus, Pliny the Younger and Festus). Pattern VI with 4 examples houses Livy, Frontinus, Pliny and Tacitus. These four Patterns represent standard idiomatic Latin from the late republic to the late empire. Between them Patterns I and II account for 37 examples, and Patterns V and VI for 12 examples; there is thus visible a strong tendency to place the name of the besieged first or (as a distant second choice) last; it hardly ever occurs in the middle position. But it must strike the reader that Cicero who regularly employed only Pattern II (with nine attestations it is a clear stylistic preference and hardly a statistical aberration), is also the only author attested for Pattern III. In that sentence Ciceros evocation of Marius is laced with emotion and sarcasm against the obtrectatores of the hero; and this tone receives emphasis through a novel arrangement of the word order with obsidione transferred from its customary second or third place to the head of the phrase and rem publicam occupying the unusual middle position. As always, style is a disruption of regularity. Against this background the phrasing in the inscription from Urvinum stands out:
quo militante / cum liberata esset NOVA obsidione legio Pia Fidelis / Constans Commoda cognominata est.

Let us for the moment accept that the legio covered itself with glory lifting a siege of Nova. Stylistic trouble immediately arises: this would form Pattern IV, otherwise unattested (liberata ... Nova obsidione). This stylistic obstacle need not be fatal: we may not be dealing with a temporal but with a causal cum-clause46 (i.e. in translation: since Nova was liberated from a siege, the legion was named etc). Now in all the material pertaining to the various permutations of the phrase obsidione liberare this would be the only example of such a clause, and consequently for the word order in this clause we would receive no clear guidance from the assembled patterns. The consideration of other causal cum-clauses in which liberatus appears will bring elucidation. There are only two, but telling examples: Cic. Div. 2.7:
45 A long story (15.816). A Roman army is trapped and besieged in their castra by the Parthians. At the price of a virtual surrender the Parthians raise the siege, and allow the legions to depart. 46 On this clause, cf. R. Khner - C. Stegmann, Ausfhrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II 2 (Hannover 1914 [Darmstadt 1976]) 34647.

254

Historia et Ius

250

cum cavea liberati pulli non pascerentur, mergi eos in acquam iussit; Ps.-Quint. Decl. maior. (ed. Hkanson) 3.18 (Miles Marianus): quodsi ... viveret tribunus, necessarium forsitan erat hac quoque eum (i.e. Marium) premi invidia, quod ista (i.e. stuprum) fecisset Mari propinquus. ... nam cum bene sit liberata probro familia, quid attinet illud subinde Mario obicere? The word order corresponds to Patterns V and VI, and thus the phrase in the Urvinum inscription would remain without a parallel. Linguistically the reading Nova must be rejected. Yet even if it could overcome problems of style or grammar, it is bound to crash against the rock of history and topography. Are we really ready to grant the legion its imperial epithets for raising a siege of a town so insignificant that we cannnot locate it even approximately? Thus it was the legio itself that was freed from a siege. We get Pattern VI (liberata ... obsidione legio), a collocation relatively rare but stylistically perfectly acceptable. A historical question immediately obtrudes: freed by whom? In two of the four idiomatically comparable examples (VI 2, 3) the besieged, the Roman socii at Sutrium and the city of Locri, are saved (or are expected to be saved) by an external force, respectively a consular army and the army of Hannibal. If the Eighth Augustan legion were rescued by such a force, one would expect that this other army, and not our legio, would be a candidate for an award. Are we thus dealing with an instance of self-deliverance? For such an outcome in the collected material there are several examples: Sempronius Gracchus at Cumae (I 1, and cf. n. 28), Epaminondas (II 9), Decius (II 17), and above all Pompeys feat at Dyrrachium (I 3, V 6; cf. also V 1, and n. 40). Here belongs also VI 4, with a nice formulaic affinity to our text, but in this case the exercitus was liberated not through heroic resistance but at the price of an ignominious retreat. In all these accounts we have a story, an explanation in which way the obsessi through their courage or a ruse were able to break up the siege or extricate themselves from an enemy trap. So proceed the historians; in an honorific document we cannot expect a sustained narrative, but still we observe that the inscription does not indicate even by a word the manner in which the legion was saved (e.g., eruptione facta). The information that this happened (Vesnio) militante offers no clue. Vesnius was a military tribune, and so was the legendary P. Decius (above, II 17). For his feat Cicero (Div. 1.51) provides the phrase (exercitum obsidione liberavit), and Livy a detailed hagiographic story (7.3437). When the army commanded by the consul A. Cornelius was trapped in a narrow valley by the Samnites, Decius led a select group of soldiers (praesidium) to capture a hill (collis); ultimately the Romans not only escaped unharmed, but soundly defeated the enemy. For his tactical acumen and personal bravery Decius received from the consul the military award of corona aurea, and he was also honored by his commilitones: legiones gramineam coronam obsidionalem ... Decio imponunt. Altera corona, eiusdem honoris index, a praesidio suo inposita est 47. Vesnius was not a new Decius. He earned no military award, only
47 For the golden crown and corona obsidionalis, see Maxfield, (n. 37) 8081, 6769. In his account of corona obsidionalis Pliny (NH 22.613) knows of only one other military tribune so honored, M. Calpurnius Flamma in Sicily (on this Roman Leonidas, see F. Mnzer, Calpurnius 42, RE 3 [1899] 1373).

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

255

251

a relatively minor preferment in his magisterial career. He did not singlehandedly rescue the legion from a siege or trap. The passive phrasing, cum liberata esset nova obsidione legio, is baffling (observe the energetic liberavit in the lay of Decius). How can this passive enunciation be endowed with a sense active, heroic and triumphant? The clue may reside in the epithets of the legion. Here the denomination constans deserves special attention. Constantia was a general virtue of mind and comportment, but it was particularly eminent in the military sphere, much praised as an attribute of a Roman miles. In particular the besieged and the besieging were in need of steadfastness: the former to endure assaults and privation, the latter to overcome the defences through the firmness of purpose; they were engaged in a duel of constantia48. In what kind of duel our legion was involved we can learn from two much maligned but indispensable sources, Herodian and the Historia Augusta. Herodian was writing a romance but on the canvas of history49. Of the rebellion of Maternus he has an account both informative and inconsistent (1.10). He describes Maternus as a former soldier, a man of daring, a deserter who persuaded also other soldiers to abandon the ranks. There is no reason to question the large geographical extent of the revolt, and the brigands mad designs on the imperial purple. Herodians remark that at some point the rebels were reclassified from latrones to hostes (1.10.12: w mhkti lstn ll polemvn xein jvma) will come from a sober source, although this will hardly mean that a iustum bellum was declared50. In this context some scholars also point to the well known legal rule, Dig. 50.16.118 (Pomponius): Hostes hi sunt, qui nobis aut quibus nos publice bellum decrevimus: ceteri latrones aut praedones sunt (cf. 49.15.24, Ulpian)51. This definition refers to foreign enemies; with respect to rebels it is a wrong definition. It is, however, very likely that the rebels were declared (by the
48 TLL s.v. constantia 5047; J. Hellegouarch, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la rpublique (Paris 1963) esp. 28385, T. J. Moore, Artistry and Ideology: Livys Vocabulary of Virtue (Frankfurt a.M. 1989) 6366. Constantia, constans appear particularly often in close association with firmus, fortis and fides, fideliter; in that latter case the notion of fides almost always precedes that of constantia (TLL 505, lines 5277, and electronic searches). It was a particularly Roman virtue, and never more so than in adversis rebus in war (Liv. 30.7.6; cf. Front. Strat. 4.5.6; Tac. Hist. 3.17). As a virtue in battle: Front. Strat. 2.8: De restituenda per constantiam acie (with 14 examples); Vell. Pat. 2.85.4; Tac. Hist. 2.35; 3.73; Curt. Ruf. 4.6.14. Especially valuable in civil war: Cic. Phil. 3.8: constantiaque militum veteranorum legionumque ... depulsus Antonius. Displayed in sieges: Bell. Alex. 26.2 (coupled with perseverantia); Liv. 26.12.13: Romanos ne oppugnatione quidem urbis Romanae abstrahi a Capua obsidenda potuisse: tanto constantiorem inimicum Romanum quam amicum Poenum esse (cf. Front. Strat. 3.18.3, in the chapter de constantia obsessorum); 36.9.11; Lucan. Phars. 10.48991: Caesar .... obsessusque (in Alexandria) gerit, tanta est constantia mentis, expugnantis opus. See further below, n. 73. 49 See, above all, Alfldy, (n. 10) 368 = 70. For a more positive appraisal, see H. Sidebottom, Herodians Historical Method and Understanding of History, ANRW II 34.4 (1998) 27752836, esp. 278092, with ample literature and convincing arguments against the theory of Cassius Dio as the Hauptquelle of Herodian. 50 So C. R. Whittaker in an annotation to his Loeb translation, vol. 1 (1969) 61. 51 Grnewald, (n. 10) 185; Zimmermann, (n. 10) 102.

256

Historia et Ius

252

senate) hostes publici52; such enemies were regularly described and treated as bandits, although particularly dangerous53. As Herodian paints it (and it is a very likely representation) the followers of Maternus consisted of two distinct groups: the army deserters, and those who joined them, many from emptied jails. Legally the latter were initially simple latrones; the former formed a distinct category. In the time of peace deserters were variously punished according to the gravity of their transgression; in the time of war the penalty was invariably death54. Now because of their numbers and success a regular war (and not a simple police operation) was to be staged against them: hence the denomination bellum desertorum. It is at that time that Commodus will have ordered a sustained military campaign against the uprising (Herod. 1.10.3). When the Emperor realized the extent of the rebellion he dispatched menacing letters to the governors of the affected provinces accusing them of negligence; he also issued orders to assemble an army against the rebels (ka keleei stratn ... yroisynai). We have to distinguish the letters to the governors and the command to organize a task force. This information lends veracity to the again normally suspect Vita Pescennii according to which Pescennius Niger at the time when Septimius Severus was governor of Gallia Lugdunensis (ca 186189) missus erat ad comprehendendos desertores, qui innumeri Gallias tunc vexabant (3.35). The biographer expatiates on the esteem of Severus for Pescennius and on their friendship. The motif of amicitia may indeed be an invention, but fabulous embellishments need not invalidate the historical kernel of the story55. And there emerges a remarkable chronological nexus: the date of Severus governorship in the Lugdunensis coincides with the date of the bestowal of the names Constans Commoda on the Eighth Augustan legion (at the latest in 187, and possibly after 4 Aug. 186, the date of the Rottweil tablet). Pescennius will have led the expedition against the rebels of Maternus as a special legatus Augusti56. Herodian and the Hist. Aug. speak of the country of the Celts and
52 On the declaration hostem iudicare (and particularly on its republican antecedents), see T. Mommsen, Rmisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899) 25659; J. v. Ungern-Sternberg, Untersuchungen zum sptrepublikanischen Notstandsrecht. Senatusconsultum ultimum und hostisErklrung (Mnchen 1970) esp. 11122; A. Pesch, De perduellione, crimine maiestatis et memoria damnata (Aachen 1995) 20625. Cf. AE 1985, 829, where an expeditio Asiana against hostes publici (i.e. Pescennius Niger) is mentioned (on this much discussed inscription, see the literature at EDH 006228). 53 The (abusive) collocation hostis/latro has a long and elevated pedigree; see Cic. Cat. 1.32: hostes patriae, latrones Italiae, Phil. 4.5: hostem illum et latronem et parricidam patriae (of Antony); Hist. Aug. 21 (Maximus et Balbinus) 2.11 (of Maximinus). 54 For the crime of desertion, see Dig. 49.16 5 (Arrius Menander lib. sec. de re milit.; cf. W. Kunkel, Herkunft und soziale Stellung der rmischen Juristen [Weimar 19672] 23334); Mommsen, Strafrecht (n. 52) 43, n. 2; 56162. Legally of interest is the enunciation of Cicero, Phil. 4.4: hos qui consulem reliquerunt hostes necesse est iudicemus (only that in this case they abandoned Antony, and thus were patriots). 55 Cf. T. D. Barnes, The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Bruxelles 1978) 51. 56 So A. v. Premerstein, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Marcus, Klio 13 (1913) 103: Legation mit Spezialmandat in Gallien; and more recently P. M. M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (Amsterdam 1989) 35152 (with further literature), endorsed by PIR2 VI (1998) 9394 (P. 254). Alfldy, (n. 10) 37273

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

257

the Galliae as the theater of operations. These geographical denominations can refer not only to Gaul proper but also to the Germanic provinces57, and indeed we hear of a rebellion of provincials against Commodus in Germany58. Still there are no compelling grounds to identify the campaign against desertores with the epigraphically attested expeditio tertia Germanica (CIL V 2155 = ILS 1574)59. It is unlikely that the war against deserters for which we have a reliable denomination, bellum desertorum, should be defined as expeditio Germanica. The troops fighting the rebels appear to have been assembled from several provinces, and it is this force that must have come to the rescue of the VIIIth Augustan legion of Argentorate. So far we can rely on Herodian, but his sequence of events is patently awry. In his account Maternus and his followers, when faced with a large force arraigned against them, abandoned the lands they were plundering, and in small groups slipped into Italy. It is only at this point that Maternus conceived a wish of conquering the empire. This is absurd, even for a brigand. The likely order of events will certainly be very different. Maternus ravaged the Celtic territory and Spain; he assaulted Roman garrisons, captured cities, and finally encircled the Eighth legion. His successes inflated his desires, and he planned on a march against Italy and the Emperor himself. But the legion offered steadfast resistance, and saved the day for the Emperor60. When the relief force finally arrived, the army of Maternus dispersed, but he himself persisted in his plan, and with several small groups of his followers succeeded in infiltrating into Italy and Rome, where he intended to murder Commodus at the (March) festival of Magna Mater. However, before he was able to execute his plan he was betrayed, and executed. Herodians colorful story of Maternus last scheme caused the ire of many serious historians who brand the tale as a rank invention, a picaresque romance61. But history is populated with bizarre plots. As the last desperate effort after a defeat in the open field, the story need not be incredible.
= 7475, rejects the whole story in the Life of Pescennius, and would rather entrust the liquidation of the rebellion to the governors of the German provinces. A convenient doxography in I. Piso, Fasti provinciae Daciae I (Bonn 1993) 141. Alfldy, (n. 10) 370, 372 = 72, 74. Hist. Aug. Comm. 13.5: Victi sunt sub eo ... per legatos Mauri, victi Daci, Pannoniae quoque conpositae <et> Brittannia, in Germania et in Dacia imperium eius recusantibus provincialibus. The troubles in Germany can easily be combined with the rebellion of Maternus. As argued by Heer, (n. 21) 104; Grosso, (n. 7) 49094; V. Rosenberger, Bella et expeditiones (Stuttgart 1992) 10910; and as recently proposed again by Zimmermann, (n. 10) 1024. We should follow the good sense of Ritterling, (n. 10) 1306, and Alfldy, (n. 10) 372 = 74, n. 32, cf. 80 (and now [2000] see also his comments at CIL VI 41127) who emphatically contest any connection between the bellum desertorum and the expeditio tertia Germanica. It is indeed quite possible that the legion was besieged in its main camp at Argentorate, but it may have been simply hard pressed by the rebels. In a broader sense the term obsidio was also used de qualibet oppressione hostili (TLL 225, line 48, and above, Pattern II 2227, III 1). E. Hohl, Kaiser Commodus und Herodian (Sb Berlin 1954, Nr. 1) 1719; 4041 (nn. 8995); Alfldy, (n. 10) 37476 = 7678; Zimmermann, (n. 10) 89100; {Hekster, (n. 10) 67}; to some extent also Grosso, (n. 7) 23536. Grnewald, (n. 10) 19394, argues that Herodian may have taken this story from Cassius Dio; if so, it may still be an invention, but its chances of containing a kernel of truth would improve.

57 58

59

60

61

258

Historia et Ius

253

We now turn to the Historia Augusta. The Life of Commodus (16.2) contains a curious notice: ante bellum desertorum caelum arsit . This report too will come from a reliable, and ultimately probably official source62. The portent of the blazing sky is well known from (real or fictitious) accounts of prodigies (cf. Sen. Nat. quaest. 1.15.5: frequenter in historiis legimus, caelum ardere visum). In these accounts it is often connected with the fear of a war or a prediction of an unlucky war63. Several passages are especially revealing: 1) caelum visum est ardere plurimo igni (other unspecified prodigies follow). His avertendis terroribus in triduum feriae indictae, per quas omnia delubra pacem deum exposcentium virorum mulierumque turba implebantur (Liv. 3.5.14; cf. Oros. 2.12.2). The report refers to 464. The prodigy occurred in the midst of the war against the Aequi. The proclamation of feriae was of little immediate help: pestilence ensued and the renewed war with the Aequi and Volsci. Ultimately, however, the pestilence retreated, and the Romans routed their enemies (3.510)64. 2) eo anno (461) caelum ardere visum (many other prodigies occur). Libri per duumviros sacrorum aditi; pericula a conventu alienigenarum prae-

62 Alfldy, (n. 10) 369 = 71. He observes that also Herodian (1.14.1) von dem in der Historia Augusta erwhnten Vorzeichen Kenntnis hatte, although he did not combine it with any concrete event. But Herodians notice strew gr mrioi sunexw blponto does not denote the prodigy of caelum ardere; cf. Obs. 20 where caelum ardere visum and stella arsit are clearly distinguished (cf. Wlker, [n. 63] 10). On the glowing of the sky, see also B. Mouchov, Omina mortis in der Historia Augusta, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1968/1969 (= Antiquitas, Rh.4, 7 [Bonn 1970] 1617), who points out that this prodigy appears in Cassius Dio (76.4.6) as a presage of the war between Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus (see below in the text). Some of the other prodigies which the Hist. Aug. assembled in this place (16.17) are also mentioned by Cassius Dio 73.21.3 and 73.24.13. Cf. F. Kolb, Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta (Bonn 1972) 14245. {The article by C. De Ranieri, Gli omina del regno di Commodo come echi di battaglie propagandistiche nelle fonti storiografiche, SCO 47,1 (1999) 34366 at 35152, adds nothing of interest}. 63 See the list (covering only the republican times) in L. Wlker, Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Prodigienwesens bei den Rmern (Diss. Leipzig 1903) 8; and in F. Luterbacher, Der Prodigienglaube und Prodigienstil der Rmer (Progr. Burgdorf 1904, repr. Darmstadt 1967) 22, n. 27, where the passage from Hist. Aug. is duly noted. It was missed by B. MacBain, Prodigy and Expiation: A Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome (Bruxelles 1982), whose rather lacunose Index of prodigies (83106) extends to the fourth imperial century. Electronic searches provided additional examples. Neither MacBain nor V. Rosenberger, Gezhmte Gtter. Das Prodigienwesen der rmischen Republik (Stuttgart 1998) discusses this prodigy; MacBain mentions nominatim only one occurrence of caelum ardere (84), and Rosenberger (100, n. 56) refers only to Wlker and F. B. Krauss, An Interpretation of the Omens, Portents and Prodigies Recorded by Livy, Tacitus, and Suetonius (Philadelphia 1930) 7879. Seneca (Nat. quaest. 1.15.5; 6.3.3; 7.20.1) and Pliny (NH 2.148) rationalize this prodigy as a natural phenomenon. On the prodigies and their expiation under the Empire, cf. S. Montero, Trajano y adivinacin (= Gerin, Anejos, IV [Madrid 2000]) 4194. 64 Cf. R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy. Books 15 (Oxford 1965) 4034.

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

259

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)
254

8)

dicta, ne qui in loca summa urbis impetus caedesque inde fierent (Liv. 3.10.67)65. In due course the trial of Caeso Quinctius followed, internal discord, and the capture of the Capitol by Appius Herdonius (3.1018). eo deinde anno (223) ... apud Tuscos caelum ardere visum (Oros. 4.13.12). This and other portents are connected with Flaminius disregard of auspices (contemptis auspiciis, Oros. 4.13.14) during his first consulship66. The mention of Tusci prefigures Flaminius later catastrophe at Lake Trasemene. per idem tempus (March 217, among many other dire prodigies) Capuae speciem caeli ardentis fuisse (Liv. 22.1.12). The Sibylline books were consulted, and multifarious procurationes instituted; to no avail: the catastrophies of the Hannibalic war were not to be averted. Capua was of course to become one of the flaming spots of the war. in Lucanis caelum arsisse adferebant (Liv. 31.12.4, anno 200). Livy explicitly connects this and other prodigies with the despoliation of the temple of Proserpina at Locri. The Sibylline books were consulted, and the religiones successfully expiated. caelum visum est ardere Arretii67 (Liv. 32.9.3; anno 198). This prodigy and many other portents were announced from various places in Italy precisely at the time when the consul T. Quinctius Flamininus habito dilectu was about to depart for the war against Macedonia. A supplication was decreed. The gods were placated. Menturnis quoque per eos dies caeli ardentis species affulserat (Liv. 43.13.3, anno 169). Numerous other prodigies were also reported; the Sibylline books were again inspected, and sacrifices and supplications ordered. The historical context is provided by the war against Perseus; the role of Minturnae as the locus of caelum ardere is obscure. Obsequens has several references to the prodigy of caelum ardere: a) Formiis ... caelum arsit (cap. 14; anno 163); obscure, unless we refer the report to the campaign of M. Iuventius Thalna in Corsica, and to his sudden death68. b) Anagniae caelum nocte arsit (15, a. 162); obscure; no war in this year. c) Caere sanguinis rivi terra fluxerunt et nocte caelum et terra ardere visum (20; a. 147). Clearly a reference to Scipios expedition against Carthage. d) in Gallia caelum ardere visum (38; a. 113); this is immediately explained: Cimbri Teutonique Alpes transgressi foedam stragem Romanorum sociorumque fecerunt.

65 Ogilvie 416, esp. on the oracular flavor of conventus alienigenarum. The Sibylline books were consulted only in especially dire circumstances or when especially threatening portents were observed. 66 Cf. T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1 (New York 1951) 232. 67 The significance of Arretium escapes us, but we observe that this city frequently figures in prodigy reports; cf. MacBain, (n. 63) 1517, 108. 68 Cf. F. Mnzer, Iuventius 30, RE 10 (1919) 1371.

260

Historia et Ius

e) in Vestinis fax in caelo apparuit et totum caelum ardere visum (51; a. 94). No events are known that could be connected with the prodigy. 9) visas nocturno tempore ab occidente faces ardoremque caeli (Cic. Cat. 3.18) among other presages of the Catilinarian conspiracy69. 10) Chronologically this is the penultimate Latin reference to the prodigy; the next is the passage from the Life of Commodus. In the general climate of suspicion the isolated nature of this notice could easily have led to its rejection as an archaising invention. To the rescue comes Cassius Dio, almost entirely neglected by the students of prodigies (cf. above, n. 63). As the search in TLG shows he is perhaps rather unexpectedly the only Greek author (not counting the Byzantines Zonaras and Xyphilinus who excerpted Dios history) to mention this species prodigii. Here is the list of his references:70 a) t Turshndi kaesyai to orano pol doje (Zon. 8.20 [vol. 2, p. 230, 2728 Dindorf]). Among the prodigia Flaminiana, cf. above, no. 3. The phrasing itself is a marvelous example of the Greco-Roman official prodigial idiom; a very interesting attempt at a technical and accurate rendering of the expression caelum ardere visum. b) ka oranw flegomn71 pollax kei (56.24.4), anno 9, among other dire happenings concerning the catastrophe of Quinctilius Varus. c) ka to orano t pol kaesyai doje (56.29.3; cf. Zon. 10.38 [vol. 2, p. 453, 27-28 D.]), among the omina mortis of Augustus. d) kaesyai gar oranw tn mran kenhn dojen (60 [61].33.22 [Xiph.]), a. 50; cf. Zon. 11.10 (vol. 3, p. 32, 2526 D.). The baneful day is the day of Claudius adoption of Nero. e) A sudden fire appeared at night in the northern sky so that people thought tn orann atn kaesyai (75 [76]. 4.6), a. 196, among other prodigies preceding the war between Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus. Three observations. In all sources the prodigy of caelum ardere appears amidst a bevy of other portents, mostly referring in the annalistic fashion to the events of one year. The Hist. Aug. on the other hand groups together all progidies that occurred during the reign of Commodus. Among these prodigies only the phenomenon of caelum ardere is connected with a specific event, the bellum desertorum; most other portents hint at the unlucky end of Commodus. It is an interesting col69 Cf. Cic. Div. 1.1820, and the commentary by A. S. Pease (Urbana 1920, reprinted Darmstadt 1963) 10417. 70 Even in the pre-TLG times references to Cassius Dio could easily be assembled with the help of W. Nawijn, Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum index Graecitatis (Berolini 1931 [= vol. V of Boissevains edition]) 573, s.v. oranw. 71 In Greek literature this is a standard verb with respect to the glowing or burning celestial phenomena, the sun, the stars, also lightning and thunderbolts (cf. LSJ s.vv. flegyv and flgv), but it was not the official translation of the idiom caelum ardere visum (see above). Cassius Dio here waxes more literary and less haruspical.

Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare

261

255

location for under the Empire, as the examples from Cassius Dio demonstrate, this prodigy was associated not only with war and general calamities but often specifically with the fate of the emperor. Next, this is a potent portent, its gravity often underscored by the consultation of the Sibylline books. If the gods are not properly propitiated, a catastrophe is assured, as in the case of Flaminius. The Hist. Aug. is silent about any procurationes; but religious remedies must have been undertaken, and they will have proved successful, for the desertores were ultimately defeated and Commodus saved from the plot of Maternus. The very gravity of the portent forms a religious proof of the military seriousness of the war, and thus indirectly supports the account of Herodian. The legion deservedly earned its honorific epithets: in the face of the extreme danger from innumeri desertores it proved faithful72, steadfast73 and devoted to Commodus.

72 As Ritterling, (n. 17) 1307 (cf. 138990, 143839, 1451) felicitously observes, the surnames pia fidelis point to the Bekmpfung eines inneren Feindes (but cf. CIL XVI 160, and the observation of B. Lo rincz, in Les lgions, (n. 10) I, 154, n. 33, that the military units could receive the surname pia fidelis also in wars against foreign enemies). Yet in any case the legio V Macedonica appears to have earned the epithets pia constans opposing at the time of Commodus a rebellion in Dacia (Ritterling, 1307, 1580; Piso, [n. 56] 140; and in Les lgions, I, 215; cf. above, n. 58). The presence of only Pia Fida (or Fidelis) as the epithets of legio VIII Augusta in the Rottweil tablet is a complication (see above, nn. 911). Several other legions bore at some point the surname of constans: I Adiutrix (CIL III 4300, but see the doubts of Ritterling, 1394; cf. Fitz, [n. 8] 181, no. 716); II Adiutrix (AE 1953,12; CIL III 3521; Ritterling, 1456); VI Ferrata (Ritterling, 159293; the legion received the epithet fidelis constans from Septimius Severus in the war against Pescennius Niger); XII Fulminata (the legion earned the surname certa constans from Marcus Aurelius during the rebellion of Avidius Cassius; Ritterling, 1708; F. Bertrandy and B. Rmy, in Les lgions, I, 253; see also AE 1972, 179); perhaps XXII Primigenia (AE 1990, 744; Ritterling, 1809); perhaps XIII Gemina. This is an interesting case. EDH HD 001434 gives the name constans as figuring on a brick stamp found in Ratiaria: leg(ionis) XIII g(eminae) c(onstantis). The brick in question was published by C. Danoff (Danov) in JOEAI 31,1 (1938) Beiblatt 118, whence AE 1938, 14. But M. Bollini, Bolli laterici di Ratiaria, in Ratiariensia, I (Bologna 1980) 11314, no. 46, who was not able to retrace the brick itself, finds this reading and expansion very doubtful; she suspects that the last letter was rather an s, and consequently she expands P(ontibu)s (comparing CIL III 14599). The stamp would thus belong to the detachment of the legion stationed in the castellum of Pontes; if so it is surprising that the brick was reportedly unearthed at Ratiaria. On the possible surname pia fidelis, see Ritterling, 172021; Piso, in Les lgions, I, 223. 73 Constantia (and fides) stand in stark opposition to the action of deserere; see Cic. De amic. 64; Liv. 34.58.11-12; Tac. Ann. 4.68.2; and esp. Val. Max. 3.8.78 on constantia combined with fides in the face of death after capture by the enemy in civil war. If one changes sides or surrenders, justification is needed, as in two petitions to Caesar, Bell. Hisp. 17.23: utinam quidem di immortales fecissent ut tuus potius miles quam Cn. Pompei factus essem et hanc virtutis constantiam in tua victoria, non in illius calamitate praestarem! (But now) ... relicti et deserti a Pompeio ... salutem a tua clementia deposcimus; 19.4: si mihi vitam tribues, quoniam ab Cn. Pompeio sum desertus, qualem me illi praestiti, tali virtute et constantia futurum me in te esse praestabo. The deserters led by Maternus had on the other hand violated all the military obligation of fides and constantia.

17 HOW DID KING FLAVIUS DADES AND PITIAXES PUBLICIUS AGRIPPA ACQUIRE THEIR ROMAN NAMES?*
An inscription on the rim of a silver dish found in Armazi near Mtskheta in ancient Iberia, modern Georgia, attests to the existence of the king Fl(avius) Dades. It reads: Eg basilew Fl~ Ddhw xarismhn Bersom& pitiaj, I, King Fl(avius) Dades, have presented (this cup) to Bersouma, pitiax.1 As Mtskheta/Armazi was
* Original contribution. Russian titles are given in the original form, transliteration and translation, Georgian titles in simplified transliteration and translation. There are unfortunately several conflicting systems of scientific (and national) transliteration. Various transliterations adopted by various scholars quoted in this paper have been faithfully (and bafflingly) reproduced. Abbreviations: Braund, Dades = D. Braund, King Flavius Dades, ZPE 96 (1993) 4650. Braund, Georgia = D. Braund, Georgia in Antiquity. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BCAD 562 (Oxford 1994). An invaluable book; inter alia, it makes available to western readers results of the many decades of scholarship in Russian and Georgian. Its scholarly usefulness is, however, somewhat diminished by the unfortunate practice of almost never adducing Greek and Latin sources in the original which makes immediate philological engagement of texts rather difficult (at the same time scores of titles of books and articles in Russian and Georgian listed in the bibliography are left untranslated). SEG 16 (1959) 211, no. 782; 43 (1996) 38081, no. 1015 (accepting Braunds chronological reconstruction). Also in F. Canali De Rossi, Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco. Un repertorio (= Inschriften griechischer Stdte Kleinasiens 65 [Bonn 2004]) 2, no. 2 (a very useful collection, but Russian titles are often mutilated, and titles of publications by Georgian and Armenian scholars are given only in western translations without any indication of the original language). No (subscript) iotas are indicated on the plate; they are (mostly tacitly) supplied by the editors (though not by the editor princeps: see below); cf. H. S. Nyberg, Quelques inscriptions antiques dcouvertes en Gorgie, Eranos 44 (1946) 22943 at 232. After the letters FL there is visible a horizontal wavy line (not indicated in SEG, but see Braund, Dades 49) which the editor princeps persuasively interpreted as an abbreviation sign (adducing R. Helbing, Auswahl aus griechischen Inschriften [Berlin-Leipzig 1915] 24. Cf. now M. AviYonah, Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions [originally 1940; reprinted Chicago 1974] 38. The earliest occurrence dated to II/III c.; M. Guarducci, Epigrafia greca, I [Roma 1967] 402). The find was originally published (in Georgian, with a short Russian summary on p. 175: H A, Novye grecheskie nadpisi iz Armazi [New Greek Inscriptions from Armazi]) by S. Qaukhchishvili (this name is transliterated in a variety of ways, though in Russian always as K but in western languages principally either with the initial K or Q. The latter is more correct as it renders the Georgian letter for the guttural k [q]) in the Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR [Russian title: Soobshcheniya Akademii Nauk Gruzinskoy SSR; Georgian title: Sakartvelos SSR mecnierebata akademiis moambe. There was, surprisingly, also a German title: Mitteilungen] 2 (1941) 16976 at 171, and republished with a Georgian commentary by T(inatin) S. Qaukhchishvili in her Berdznuli tsartserebi sakartveloshi [Greek Inscriptions from Georgia] (Tbilisi 1951) 26466 (non vidi). She continued her work, and almost fifty years later she published a new

How Did King Flavius Dades ...?

263

the capital of Iberia,2 Dades is generally assumed to have been an Iberian king.3 Caution is advised. The dish was found in the burial of Bersouma who held the office of pitijhw. This term is known from other epigraphical texts; it denoted a high official at the Iberian court, almost certainly a person second in rank after the king.4 The plate
full collection of Greek inscriptions from Georgia ranging from antiquity to Byzantium: Sakartvelos berdznuli tsartserebis korpusi [Korpus der griechichen Inschriften in Georgien (her name is transliterated in German as Kauchtschischwili)] (Tbilisi 19992000), vols. 13, paginated consecutively, with German summary in vol. 2.35566, and index in vol. 3. For the inscription of Dades, see 2.26768, no. 261, and 2.344. The inscription is mentioned in passing by B. M. Metzger, A Greek and Aramaic Inscription Discovered at Armazi in Georgia, JNES 15 (1956) 1826 at 18; and has been recorded by J. and L. Robert, Bull. p. 1948, 207 (no. 251a). For the history of epigraphic finds at Armazi, a discussion of all inscriptions, and their Russian translation (unfortunately no original texts are given), see also A. Apakidze [A. A], [Goroda drevney Gruzii (Cities of Ancient Georgia)] (Tbilisi 1968) 178237 (21218, the inscription of Dades). The editor princeps was a major figure in Georgian Greek and Byzantine studies; as so many others he was lucky to escape with his life. In October 1938, when his Georgian compatriot L. Beria was the chief of the political police, he was arrested and accused of being an agent of German imperialists (he studied in Germany in 19211923), but in April 1939 on Berias personal orders he was released. This was to haunt him later for after the fall of Beria in 1953 he was again branded as a German agent and as an accomplice of Beria, and was expelled from the Tbilisi university and the Georgian Academy of Sciences. Yet no arrest followed, and after several months he was restored to all his academic posts. He lived to the ripe age of 85 (18951981). On the vicissitudes of his life, and on his scholarly career, see . B. B M. . C [Ya. V. Vasilkov and M. Yu. Sorokina], [Liudi i sudby, with the English title Men and Destiny (more exactly People and (their) Fates), and a telling subtitle: A biographical and bibliographical dictionary of oriental scholars victims of political repression during the Soviet era] (Sankt-Petersburg 2003) 19798. Armazi is Strabos (11.501) Armozik. For other attestations of the name, and its etymology, see H. S. Nyberg, Quelques inscriptions (above, n. 1) 22930. The ancient name of Mtskheta is unknown, perhaps Mestlta recorded by Ptolemy, Geogr. 5.11.3 (cf. Braund, Georgia 211, n. 46), but we observe that in Ptolemy Mestleta is separated from Armktika (corrected into Armstika, undoubtedly Armazi; cf. [W.] Tomaschek, RE 2 [1895] 1177, s.v.) by another locality, Zlissa. On the archaeological complex of Mtskheta, and the excavations, see Braund, Georgia 22730. Cf. Braund, Dades 47: It must even be possible that Dades was not an Iberian king: there were many kings in ancient Transcaucasia [Braund here quotes Arrian, Periplus 11]. Yet, in the absence of any ethnic, it seems better to accept that ... Dades was indeed a king of Iberia. M. N. Tod, JRS 33 (1943) 8286 at 8385 (in his important review of G. Tsereteli, A Bilingual Inscription from Armazi near Mcheta in Georgia [see below, n. 32]); Nyberg (above, n. 1) 237 (cf. J. and L. Robert, Bull. p. 1948, 207, no. 251a); Metzger (above, n. 1) 2122; Braund, Georgia 21114; and E. Benveniste, Titres et noms propres en Iranien ancien (Paris 1966) 5065, on the dignity of the second after the king: it was an Iranian institution attested in Persia under the Achaemenids, Arsacids and Sasanians, and as an Iranian import also in Armenia. The Iranian etymology of pitijhw is obscure (A. Pagliaro, Mediopersano bitaxs, armeno bdea sx: fyalmw to basilvw, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 12 [19291930] 16068, attempts to connect the title, also phonetically, with the presumed Iranian term for the eye of the king), but in Iberia the holder of this office will have clearly been the second after the king (though not necessarily, as Braund, Georgia 212, n. 49, tentatively suggests, the next-in-line to the throne); cf. A. I. Boltounova [i.e., in English transliteration, Boltunova],

264

Historia et Ius

would thus be a gift from the king to his high courtier. Not unusual.5 But again caution is advised. In Armazi graves of other high royal officials were uncovered, and in one of them a silver bowl was found, inscribed in Aramaic script, apparently a gift from a pitiax of the Sasanian king Ardashir I (ca 224242) for an Iberian pitiax.6 Thus quite conceivably Dades could have well been a foreign king, a regulus from Caucasus or the steppes to the north of Caucasus, honoring an Iberian pitiax. Yet, as Braund points out (see above, n. 3), if this were the case, one misses in the inscription an indication of Dades ethne. Such an indication, on the other hand, may have been deemed superfluous, in his own capital, for a king of Iberia. A good argument, but hardly decisive. Of the two names, Bersouma is patently Aramaic,7 but Dades appears to be Iranian not surprising for also other kings of Iberia bore Iranian names: Pharnabazos, Saurmag (Sauromakes), Mithridates, Pharasmanes, Xepharnougos, and among the members of the royal family we encounter Radamistus and Amasaspos.8 But this is true also of various kings of various other Caucasian and Pontic nations.9 The editor princeps, S. Qaukhchishvili, wished to see in Dades a Georgian name, *Dadi, which he etymologically connected with the Iranian -dates, appearing as the second element in such names as Tiridates or Mithridates, but Nyberg, on phonetic grounds, objected to this etymology, and pointed to the element dad- present in the Scythian names from Olbia, and already in the old Persian

5 6

7 8 9

Quelques notes sur linscription de Vespasien, trouve Mtskhetha, Klio 53 (1971) 21322 at 22021. A. M. Apakidze, A [Armaziskhevskie pitiakhshi (The pitiaxes from Armaziskhevi)] (Tbilisi 1978) 810, makes a good case for the hereditary nature of this office in Iberia. (We observe in passing that the word pitijhw is not listed in the Dictionary of Liddell-Scott, nor has it found its way to the Supplements of 1968 and 1996). On gifts of precious objects from kings to their second in rank, see Benveniste (above, n. 4) 54 (and n. 5), 5556 (and n. 1). The exact reading is uncertain; see Braund, Georgia 237, 243, n. 31, with further literature, to which we ought to add C. Amiranachvili (i.e., in English transliteration, S. Amiranashvili), Une coupe en argent de dbut de lpoque sasanide provenant des fouilles dArmasiskhevi (Gorgie), Rivista degli Studi Orientali 34 (1959) 14962, esp. 15657, with some wishful readings. See esp. P. Gignoux, lments de prosopographie: II. Les possesseurs de coupes sasanides, Studia Iranica 13 (1984) 1940 at 2830 (no. 19). Gignoux was able to examine the plate in the Museum in Tbilisi, and reports that much of the inscription is not visible at all. Still there are bien sans doute two pitiaxes (bidaxs) attested; the pitiax mentioned first bore the name Pabak ([p]pky). In his Noms propres sasanides (below, n. 13) Gignoux identifies him as vice roi, fils dArdaxs ir, possesseur dune coupe dargent. But if Pabak was the owner of the plate, how did it find its way to a burial in Armazi? And how to explain the appearance of the other pitiax? It stands to reason to assume that the other pitiax, whose name cannot be read (Amiranashvili divined it as Arsmes) was an Iberian dignitary, and that the plate was a gift from a Sasanian pitiax. Braund, Georgia 237, tentatively suggests that Papak (= Pabak) was the Iberian pitiax, but this cannot be right: the name-form Pabak son of Ardashir has impeccable Sasanian credentials. Nyberg (above, n. 1) 232; Metzger (above, n. 1) 2122. Cf. Braund, Georgia 14142, 144, 21315, 21926, 23234. Cf. Oroises, king of the Albani (Cass. Dio 36.54); Rhesmagas, king of the Abasci, and Spadagas, king of the Sanigae (Arrian., Peripl. 11.3).

How Did King Flavius Dades ...?

265

name Dadkhw mentioned by Aischylos (Pers. 304).10 The Scythian and Sarmatian names are conveniently assembled in the collection of Zgusta.11 The element -dad is present not only in the names Dadagow and Dadakow from Olbia but also in the names Dadaw and Dadow frequently attested both in Olbia and in various localities around the Scythian Bosporos. But Zgusta observed that short name-forms beginning with -dad also appear in Asia Minor and in Greece. Hence perhaps simple Lallnamen. To the names attested in Asia Minor Zgusta soon devoted another important monograph, and we find there a complete dossier of names with the initial element -dad.12 Among those names we encounter Dadhw a perfect onomastic match for Dades of the silver plate, apparently neglected by all those who wrote about the king. Zgusta lists (no. 244.5) some twenty examples of this name from Mysia, Phrygia and Galatia, and asks: Ob kleinasiatisch? The trouble with such names is that they indeed may be genuine Lallnamen or abridged forms of compound names. Asia Minor is a Lallnamen paradise, partially because we know comparatively so little of indigenous languages, but king Dades hardly hailed from this part of the world, and we can find for him a plausible Iranian etymology. There are numerous Sasanian and middle Persian names containing dad- as the first element, which also appears as a separate name in its own right. P. Gignoux interprets it as nom abrg de lun des nombreaux composs dterminatifs avec dad, cr
10 Nyberg (above, n. 1) 232 (adduced with silent approval by J. and L. Robert, Bull. p. 1948, 207 [no. 251a, in fine], and misreported in Index du Bulletin pigraphique 19381965 [Paris 1974], 40, where Dades, and not just the element -dad, is assigned to Olbia). On the name Dadkhw, see now R. Schmitt, Die Iranier-Namen bei Aischylos (SbAW 337 [Wien 1978]) 37. He follows the interpretation of M. Mayrhofer, Onomastica Persepolitana. Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Tfelchen (SbAW 286 [Wien 1973]) 145, and connects it with Iran. *Dataka containing the element data (gegeben, geschaffen; Gesetz), and the suffix -ka. As to Nybergs observation that in the old Persian epoch le t intervocalique tait srement intact en iranien, Schmitt attempts to diffuse it by invoking the possibility of Fernassimilation of *Datkhw to Dadkhw. For our purposes it is only a detour; for the etymology of Dades important is Schmitts proposal to see the continuation of -data, mit intervokalischer Erweichung, in the Scythian or Sarmatian names Dadagow and Dadakow and in the Ossetian Dadg (cf. the next note). 11 L. Zgusta, Die Personennamen der griechischen Stdte der nrdlichen Schwarzmeerkste (Praha 1955) 92 (no. 99): Dadagow and Dadakow. Zgusta connects them with the root *da-, geben, setzen, but this etymology has been explicitly rejected by Schmitt (above, n. 10); 3012 (no. 598): Dadaw and Dadow. Zgusta compares the middle Persian name Dada and the Ossetian Dado and dada (Vterchen). For all things Ossetian one has always to turn to V. I. Abaev [B. . A], - [Istoriko-etimologicheskiy slovar osetinskogo yazyka (The Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Ossetian Language)] I (Moskva-Leningrad 1958 [also reprint Moskva 1996]). On p. 341 he treats of dada and dadg (dadaeg). The former is of course etymologically useless: it is a typical Lallname, in the Caucasus present not only in the Iranian Ossetian but also in various non-Indoeuropean languages. As to dadg (denoting a small haystack), it continues the inherited *dataka, and thus can indeed be adduced to elucidate the name Dades. 12 L. Zgusta, Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prag 1964) 13942 (no. 244.18): Dada, Dadaw, Dadeiw, Dadhw, Dadeaw, Dadvn, Daddow (cf. also the addendum on p. 683). For further attestations of the name Dadhw in Asia Minor, see SEG 36,1201; 38,713; 40,1146, 1210; 43,894; 44,1039.

266

Historia et Ius

(plutt que donn...), ou loi (< av. data-).13 Among the compound names we find Daden (70, no. 282), which Gignoux explains as hypocoristique du nom abrg Dad ..., < *dataina-. The etymology of Dades is to be sought along a similar path. We also observe that the names of the Iberian kings were construed differently: they were solemn and reverberating compounds. The name Dades is at home rather among the Sarmatians or in Iberia in a later period, in the third or fourth century. The date of king Dades has indeed elicited dispute. If he was not an Iberian ruler his floruit is wide open. We proceed on the assumption that he was a king of Iberia. A number of scholars posited that he or his ancestor received the grant of Roman citizenship from a Flavian emperor. We know from inscriptional evidence that in 75 the king of Iberia was Mithridates son of Pharasmanes,14 and that Amazaspos, a brother of king Mithridates, appeared in the entourage of Trajan at Nisibis (where he died) around 115116 (IGRR 1.192). The two kings by the name of Mithridates are either regarded as father and son or amalgamated into one person of a very long reign.15 At the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius the throne of Iberia was occupied by Pharasmanes (II).16 When Dades was brought on his silver plate to the attention of historians, this introduced a computational complication. And thus Boltunova states straightforwardly: we find out that after the death of Mithridates king Dades ruled in Iberia. We also know that under Hadrian the king of Iberia was Pharasmanes. Hence Dades is to be dated approximately to the epoch of Trajan.17 In fact two options offer: we can posit the sequence Mithridates II Dades Pharasmanes II or (splitting Mithridates into two persons) Mithridates II Dades Mithridates III Pharasmanes II. Archaeology is against it. The wavy abbreviations Fl~ dates the inscription at the earliest to the beginning of the second century (see n. 1), and the decoration of the dish seems to point to the third century. The coins establish 251 as the date post quem of the grave. The burial of Bersouma will thus belong to the later part of the third century and possibly to the fourth century. Consequently this will also be the date of Dades. So Braund.18
13 P. Gignoux, Noms propres sasanides en moyen-perse pigraphique (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Band II: Mitteliranische Personennamen, Faszikel 2 [Wien 1986]) 6874 (nos. 27097). See p. 8 for -ad (< *-ata) and -en (< *-aina). In his Supplement (Wien 2003 [= Mitteliranische Personennamen, Faszikel 3]) 30 (no. 86), Gignoux modified his interpretation: he now accepts the meaning donn, probably taking heed of the arguments of S. Zimmer, Zur sprachlichen Deutung sasanidischer Personennamen, Altorientalische Forschungen 18 (1991) 10950 at 12829, where Zimmer considers various possible interpretations of -dad, and observes that Gignouxs durchgehendes cr ist also nur als aus Vereinfachungsgrnden gewhlte Chiffre zu verstehen. 14 Printed in: CIL III 6052; OGIS 379; IGRR 3.133; ILS 8795; SEG 20.112; Canali De Rossi (above, n. 1) 1, no. 1. And Pharasmanes was in turn a son of Mithridates. Cf. PIR2 VI (1998) 132 (P 341). 15 See the doxography in Boltunova (above, n. 4) 221. 16 See the sources in PIR2 VI (1998) 13334 (P 342). 17 Boltunova (above, n. 4) 22122. 18 Braund, Dades, 4849.

How Did King Flavius Dades ...?

267

What would then be the origin and the date of the kings Roman name? Braund considers two possibilities: either it goes back to the Flavian emperors or it was of a more recent origin deriving from the family of Constantine, the later Flavians. In either case the name would denote the acquisition of Roman citizenship. A complication ensues. Dades is the only (presumed) king of Iberia for whom a Roman name is directly attested, but Braund observes that after Augustus kings without Roman citizenship were a notable rarity and that the King Mithridates who ruled in A.D. 75 ... should have inherited a Julian nomen from his grandfather or, failing that, from his father.19 As a famous inscription informs (see above, n. 14), to this Mithridates, filokasari ka filorvma, Vespasian and his sons extended precious help in rebuilding fortifications in the vicinity of Mtskheta. Flavian interest and investment of resources in the Caucasus is undeniable,20 and it is quite possible that some members of the Iberian aristocracy, among them the ancestor of Dades, were rewarded and enticed by the grants of Roman citizenship. Thus as the earlier kings of Iberia will have received their citizenship from the Julian emperors (or from Claudius) the name Flavius of Dades (if he was really a king of Iberia) would imply a break in the dynasty. The new dynasty would take its origin from an Iberian noble who had gained his citizenship from Vespasian, Titus or Domitian. If Dades (or his immediate forbear) acquired the name and the ius civitatis from the Constantinian family, his date would be a late date indeed. Now while the break in the dynasty remains a valid option, we may envisage a different solution. Some forty years ago in a suggestive paper A. Mcsy adverted to the employment of the name Flavius in late antiquity as an honorific title, a Rangbezeichnung.21 The numerous Flavii of the fourth and fifth centuries could not possibly be all new citizens or descendants of the first century Flavii. Thus at least under Constantine the name denoted die Vertrauten des Kaisers, eine neue Gruppe von flavischen Aristokraten. In his rather very summary paper Mcsy did not provide prosopographical underpinnings for his theory, but perusing the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (I [Cambridge 1971] 35061; II [1980] 47478) one is struck by the numerous Flavii in high places many of whom may have indeed acquired the name Flavius and added it to their old gentilicium as they moved up the ladder of career. As J. G. Keenan observed in his now classic paper virtually all the Flavii known from the papyri were assuredly already citizens who,
19 Braund, Dades 49. In Georgia 229, n. 129, he somewhat modified this statement: the royal family of Iberia under the Flavians will have long held Roman citizenship, as Julii or Claudii. 20 So, forcefully, A. B. Bosworth, Vespasians Reorganization of the North-East Frontier, Antichthon 10 (1976) 6378, esp. 7477; Arrian and the Alani, HSCP 81 (1977) 21755, at 22628. Also E. Dabrowa, Le limes anatolien et la frontire caucasienne au temps des Flaviens, Klio 62 (1980) 37988; H. Halfmann, Die Alanen und die rmische Ostpolitik unter Vespasian, Epigraphica Anatolica 8 (1986) 3950; D. Braund, Notes from the Black Sea and Caucasus, Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 9 (2003) 17591 at 18890. B. Isaac, The Limits of the Empire. The Roman Army in the East (Oxford 1992 [a revised edition, i.e. a reprint of the edition of 1990, plus an appendix]) 4246, rather underestimates the Flavian involvement. 21 A. Mcsy, Der Name Flavius als Rangbezeichnung in der Sptantike, Akte des IV. Internationalen Kongresses fr Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (Wien 1964) 25763.

268

Historia et Ius

upon entering government service, were entitled to replace their own gentilicia (in most cases this was Aurelius) with the name Flavius.22 This may be true also of Dades. If he belonged to the fourth century his Flavian name need not refer to his acquisition of citizenship or point to a change of the dynasty in Iberia. He may have been a descendant of the old Iberian royal line, a Iulius or Claudius Dades, who acquired from Constantine (or a successor of Constantine) as a token of friendship the right to bear the new imperial name of Flavius. He would form a counterpart to the Lombard king Authari (584590); as Paul the Deacon narrates At vero Langobardi cum per annos decem sub potestate ducum fuissent, tandem communi consilio Authari, Clephonis filium supra memorati principis, regem sibi statuerunt. Quem etiam ob dignitatem Flavium appellarunt. Quo praenomine omnes qui postea fuerunt Langobardorum reges feliciter usi sunt.23 Unfortunately the story of Dades Flavian name does not end feliciter, but, as it began, in doubt and debate. Archaeology proves and disproves. A. Apakidze, the excavator of Mtshheta/Armazi, admits that coin finds (the aurei of Decius and Hostilian) establish 251 (253 Apakidze per errorem) as the date post quem for Bersoumas burial, but he argues that we are dealing with a reburial, and that consequently the floruit of Dades and Bersouma will belong to an earlier epoch.24 If we are dealing with a reburial, this is indeed an inescapable conclusion. This archaeological conclusion Apakidze bolsters invoking history and philology. He approvingly adduces the conceit of P. Ingorokva (Ingoroqva). This scholar (in a paper of 1941) identified the pitiax Bersouma with Bartsomi mentioned in Georgian chronicles as co-ruler of the king Kardzami; the chronicles describe them as contemporaries of Vespasian. These names are here given in transliteration from Russian transliteration of the original Georgian form.25 The Georgian chronicle, The History of the Kings of Karttli (or Kartli) states (in Thomsons translation, p. 52) that (king) Aderki had two sons who were called, one Bartom and the other Kartam. Between them he divided all his territory. The diarchy, so the chronicle, was to continue for several generations. This reflects, according to the view of Ingoroqva (shared by some other scholars), the division of power between the kings of Iberia and their pitiaxai. But if Bartom is Bersouma, it is all wrong. For the chronicle states clearly that Bartom ruled in Mtskheta and Kartam in Armazi,
22 J. G. Keenan, The Names Flavius and Aurelius as Status Designations in Later Roman Egypt, ZPE 11 (1973) 3363 at 40; and esp. 4748 on double names among the prefects and praesides of Egypt (Flavius Antonius, Fl. Aelius Gessius, Fl. Ulpius); 13 (1974) 283304, esp. 3012. For the Aurelii, see now also K. A. Worp, On the Aureliate of Clergy and Monks, ZPE 151 (2005) 14551. 23 Paul. Diac., Hist. Langob. 3.16, felicitously adduced by Keenan, ZPE 11 (1973) 33, 38 (with n. 24), and 39, who also remarks on the wide extension of the imperial name Flavius to the Romano-German aristocracy in late antiquity. 24 Apakidze, (above, n. 1) 21217. 25 Apakidze, (above, n. 1) 215; R. W. Thomson, Rewriting Caucasian History. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles (Oxford 1996) 52, transliterates them as Bartom and Kartam (but in another scheme of transliteration of two different letters denoting k and t, Kartam). Thomson provides a complete translation of Georgian chronicles and of their Armenian abridgement.

How Did King Flavius Dades ...?

269

whereas on Ingoroqvas theory it is Bartom that should have ruled in that stronghold. It is often assumed that Iberian kings used two sets of names: the native one for the internal consumption (reflected in the chronicles), and the other, mostly Iranian, for the international commerce.26 Slippery ground. Correspondences between Georgian and Armenian chronicles and the classical and Iranian sources are notoriously flimsy. Still we must cultivate native sources, even if they arrive in a cloud of uncertainty, but we need not trust them. This is the sense conveyed by C. Toumanoff in his many works, and most pertinently in the piece on the chronology of the Iberian rulers, a valiant and erudite attempt at the correlation of the names derived from the Georgian and Armenian chronicles with the names attested in the Latin, Greek and Iranian sources.27 Toumanoff dispelled many misconceptions and fantasies; see in particular his masterful demolition of the ideas of Ingoroqva (36, esp. n. 20). Yet it is one thing to formulate a sensible program, and another to execute it. Toumanoffs own reconstructions are to be approached gingerly. His identification of the vitaxae of Gogarene, first attested by the Georgian and Armenian sources in the fourth century, with the pitiaxai of the first and second century the graves of whom were discovered at Armazi (p. 5), is gratuitous and devoid of any foundation in contemporary epigraphical sources.28 But it is his treatment of Dades (p. 15) that demonstrates how even the most erudite and judicious scholars may fall prey to a preconceived notion of order and symmetry. The argument goes as follows. Mithridates I (58106) bears in the inscription of 75 (see note 14) the epithets filokasar and filorvmaow. This may account for the name Flavius Dades: This Hellenized name, built around the Roman name Flavius, is very likely an Aramaic epithet meaning friend of Flavius, or else Flaouiodthw, an Iranoid formation like Mithridates (but the very name Ddhw Toumanoff interprets as a Hellenized form of the Semitic dad, friend). And the conclusion, maddeningly self-assured: the name Flaouiodthw can have been assumed only under the Flavian Emperors, i.e., in the years 6996, and so only Mithridates I can have borne it. This wild concatenation, mixing historical fatuity with linguistic absurdity, is beyond any reasoned refutation. For it fails to live up even to its own logic: Toumanoff set out to seek a Georgian name which Mithridates may have used in Iberia, and ended up fathering a linguistic monstrosity. Was it not easier to assume that Dades was not an Iberian king at
26 See e.g. G. A. Melikishvili [. . ], [K istorii drevney Gruzii (On the History of Ancient Georgia)] (Tbilisi 1959) 5658. He regards Dades as a foreign king (463, n. 293). See also the interesting (and adventurous) piece by G. L. Kavtaradze, Caucasica II. The Georgian Chronicles and the raison dtre of the Iberian Kingdom, Orbis Terrarum 6 (2000) 177237, esp. 21118. Dades is an Iberian king of the mid-third century. 27 C. Toumanoff, Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia, Traditio 25 (1969) 133. 28 On the vitaxae of Armenia, see R. H. Hewsen, Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography IV: The Vitaxates of Arsacid Armenia, part 1, Revue des tudes armniennes 21 (198889) 271319 (esp. 277); part 2, Ibid. 22 (199091) 14783, esp. 14759 on the vitaxate of Gukark. He does not directly discuss Toumanoffs thesis, but his elaboration of the territorial extension of the vitaxates precludes any connection between the vitaxae of Gogarene with the burials of the pitiaxai at Armazi.

270

Historia et Ius

all, or place him at a later epoch? All this is all the more startling because on the preceding page (14) Toumanoff rather plausibly conjectured that in the legend (History of the Kings 4450 = pp. 5359 Thomson, Chronicles [above, n. 26]) Mithridates I was remembered as Armazel, he of Armazi. The dish itself has rightfully been invoked as indicator of chronology. But the dating of any object according to its artistic features is guided by a subjective eye. In the case of the dish of Dades and of other similar vessels it has been wandering within the span of some two hundred years.29 The dish of Dades harbors one final mystery. The text on the rim is punched with a needle. Now under the words BERSOUMAPITIAJH (Bersom& pitiaj) there is scratched (not punched) the word MAKEDONI (Makedni). This word is very well delineated in the drawing of T. Qaukhchishvili, Korpusi (above, n. 1) 2.267 (and 344), no. 261, but neglected in all other editions or reproductions of the inscription. She tentatively considers two explanations: Makedon is perhaps a second name of Bersouma or perhaps at some later time the dish was given to a person called Makedo. It would be adventurous to propose other explanations or identifications. We have to rest the case.30 To sum up. The Constantinian date of Dades (and the Constantinian origin of his Flavian name) resides at the outer reaches of probability, and it will be prudent not to entertain this notion. At the other end of the chronological scale there is in the first and early second century no obvious slot for Dades in the Iberian royal line, and possibly there is no slot for him at all. Only one other person in the early and mid-imperial Iberia is known to possess a Roman name, and the name he bears is not the courtly Iulius, Claudius or Flavius. He is called Publicius Agrippa.31 He appears on another famous stone from Armazi,
29 A silver vessel with a Parthian inscription recently found at Mtskheta, very similar in its execution to the dish of Dades, has been variously dated from the first century to the beginning of the Sasanian era. See A. Apakidze and V. Nikolashvili, An Aristocratic Tomb of the Roman Period from Mtskheta, Georgia, Antiquarian Journal 74 (1994) 1654 at 2324. 30 It is probably pure coincidence that at the most likely timespan for Dades there appear in the East two Roman personages with the name of Macedo: 1) the polyonymous Ti. Claudius Secundinus L. Statius Macedo. A tribune of the praetorian guard, he accompanied Hadrian on his travel through Asia Minor in 129, when Hadrian was reviewing arrangements with eastern vassal princes, including king Pharasmanes of Iberia (cf. below, nn. 39, 40, 43). His home town was Aquileia. For Macedos career (he was to reach the post of praefectus annonae), see IGR IV 869; ILS 1339, and PIR2 II (1936) 245 (C 1015). 2) Another Macedo, also hailing from Aquileia, and a kin to the tribune, of much higher standing for already a praetorius, also crops up in Hadrians entourage in the east, on the emperors return journey, apparently in 131: T. Caesernius Statius Quinctius Macedo Quinctianus; see PIR2 II (1936) 36 (C 182). His brother, not yet quaestor, was also Hadrians comes in oriente (probably in 129). For the careers of these men, and their presence in Asia Minor, see H.-G. Pflaum, Les carrires procuratoriennes questres sous le Haut-Empire romain I (Paris 1960) 26164, esp. 262 (no. 109); H. Halfmann, Itinera principum (Stuttgart 1986) 2068, 249, and the observations of R. Syme, Journeys of Hadrian, ZPE 73 (1988) 16263 = Roman Papers VI (Oxford 1991) 35051, 355; and for Caesernius Macedo and his brother, esp. G. Alfldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen (Bonn 1977) 34750. Cf. below n. 43. 31 The entry in PIR2 VI (1998) 433 (P 1038) is irreparably confused. Agrippa is presented as filius Iodmangani!

How Did King Flavius Dades ...?

271

a bilingual Greek and Aramaic funerary inscription of Serapeitis.32 In the Greek version Agrippa bears the title of pitiaxes, and is described as father of Iodmanganos who was epitropos of the great king of the Iberians Xepharnougos.
32 The Greek text in AE 1947, 125; SEG 16 (1959) 781; T. Qaukhchishvili, Korpusi (above, n. 1) 255 (no. 235), 338; Canali De Rossi (above, n. 1) 3, no. 4. It reads: Shrapetiw Zhouxou / to nevtrou: pitijou / yugthr Pouplikou Agrppa piti/jou uo Ivdmangnou gun / to pollw nekaw poisantow / pitrpou basilvw Ibrvn / meglou Jhfarnogou p/yane nevtra tn ka / tiw t kllow memhton / exe. The Aramaic text in H. Donner and W. Rllig, Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften I5 (Wiesbaden 2002) 67, no. 276; II3 (1973 [= II2 (1968) = II4 (1979)]) 32830 (bibliography and commentary). Most scholars describe this inscription as Aramaic although we have to be fully aware of the possibility that by heterography it was intended to be read as an Iranian text, a possibility most forcefully advocated by Nyberg (see below); cf. R. Schmitt, Parthische Sprach- und Namenberlieferung aus arsakidischer Zeit, in J. Wiesehfer (ed.), Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse (Stuttgart 1998) 17374. The Greek text was originally published by S. Qaukhchishvili in Soobshcheniya (see above, n. 1) 2 (1941) 17273, 175 (Russian translation), and also by A. G. Shanidze [. . ], - ezoismojGuar-i - [Dannye grechesko-pekhleviyskoy bilingvy iz Armazi dla istorii termina ezoismodzg(h)uar-i v drevnegruzinskom] in the same volume of Soobshcheniya (see above) 18187 at 184 (p. 187, French summary: Donnes de linscription bilingue grecque-pehlevie dArmazi pour lhistoire du terme ezoismojguar-i procurateur). Shanidze also published the Aramaic text (18586), although only in transliteration (and with Russian translation). The full edition of the Aramaic text, with extensive commentary, we owe to G. V. Tsereteli [. . ], . n, [Armazskaya bilingva. vuyazychnaya nadpis, naydennaya pri arkheologicheskikh roskopkakh v Mtskheta-Armazi (with the title page also in English: A Bilingual Inscription from Armazi near Mthskheta (sic) in Georgia)] (Tbilisi 1941). This work was republished in 1942 in Georgian accompanied by the only slightly abbreviated version in English (non vidi). It is the latter edition that is often and wrongly regarded by western scholars as the editio princeps (cf. Metzger [above, n. 1] 1819, n. 5). For the interpretation of the text, see the articles by Tod (above, n. 4); Nyberg (above, n. 1); Metzger (above, n. 1); H. W. Bailey, Caucasica, JRAS (1943) 15; also Apakidze, (above, n. 1) 21825. The most detailed linguistic discussion of the Aramaic text to date has been offered by K. Tsereteli in a study published both in Georgian: Shenishvnebi armazis bilingvis arameul tekstze (pp. 357), and in Russian: (pp. 58114) [Zamechaniya k arameyskomu tekstu armazskoy bilingwy (Notes on the Aramaic text of the bilingual inscription from Armazi)] (Tbilisi 1992). See also Braund, Georgia 21214, but he unfortunately follows in his translation of the lines 78 of the Aramaic text the reconstruction by G. G. Giorgadze and I. S. Shifman [. . , . . ], [K interpretatsii armazskoy bilingvy, with French summary: Interprtation nouvelle dun passage de linscription bilingue dArmazi], VDI [] 1984, fasc. 4 (=187), 16881, esp. 17680, who believe to have discovered in the word prnws, normally taken to correspond in some way to nevtra in the Greek text, the name Parnavaz (Pharnabazos), the founder of the Iberian royal dynasty in the third century B.C.E. To a sceptical observer, this king is startlingly out of place in the inscription commemorating Serapeitis, who died young and was peerless in beauty. K. Tsereteli (8993) accepts the name but not its kingly bearer: he suggests a reference to a general (spaspet) of the same name who according to Georgian chronicles rendered great services to king Parsman = Pharasmanes (History of the Kings 5154 = pp. 6165 Thomson, Chronicles [above, n. 25]). Much more likely, but still uncertain.

272

Historia et Ius

The wife of Iodmanganos was Serapeitis, daughter of pitiaxes Zeouachos the Younger. The Aramaic version is similar but not identical; it provides further information. Zevakh (= Zeouachos) is characterized more precisely as pitiax (bit\axs) of king Parsman (= Pharasmanes); Agrippa (Agri p) appears without his Roman name of Publicius, and is described not as a pitiax but as chief of the court of Parsman. The same Aramaic term (rb trbs\) is also used with respect to his son Iodmangan.33 A telling case of aristocratic marriage alliances, and a neat chronological progression: king Pharasmanes (undoubtedly Pharasmanes II)34 is (apparently) succeeded by king Xepharnougos; Zeouachos and Agrippa are high court officials of the former, and Agrippas son Iodmanganos of the latter. The reign of Pharasmanes spanned the times of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius; Xepharnougos will thus belong to the period of Marcus Aurelius (and at the earliest to the later years of Antoninus Pius). This also establishes that in the Iberian royal line there is no place for Dades before the reign of Marcus Aurelius or Commodus. A Greek inscription found in Armazistsikhe (The fortress of Armazi [= Harmozica]) in 1996 confirmed the existence of the Iberian king Amazaspos; his wife was a daughter of the Armenian king Vologeses, who ruled in Armenia toward the end of the second century.35 We
33 This phrase (a hapax; see Nyberg [above, n. 1] 239) corresponds to Greek ptropow. Nyberg is inclined to identify the offices of pitiaxes and epitropos, but this is unlikely: epitropos may well have been next in rank to pitiax. In any case the Aramaic version suggests the hereditary principle also for the dignity of epitropos (cf. above, n. 4), although the terminological vacillation between the Greek and Aramaic versions precludes any firm conclusions about the career of Agrippa. Cf. K. Tsereteli (above. n. 28) 8283. For the combination of the offices of epitropos and trofeus, see the inscription reproduced in the next note. The office of trofeus, le nourricier et le pdagogue dun enfant royal is well attested at the Hellenistic courts; see L. Robert, Opera Minora Selecta VII (Amsterdam 1990) 71112 (originally published in 1969). The subject requires a separate investigation. 34 So generally assumed. Toumanoff, Kings of Iberia (above, n. 27) 1516, esp. n. 69, argues that in this text we are rather dealing with Pharasmanes I, and that Xepharnougos was another name of Amazaspos, son of Mithridates I. This does not make much sense as here again (cf. above on Toumanoffs discussion of Dades) we would have two Iranian names (and not an Iberian name and an Iranian name) born by one and the same person. Amazaspos is briefly mentioned as king of Iberia in The History of the Kings (50 = pp. 5960 Thomson, Chronicles [above, n. 25]). No deeds are ascribed to him, and so, if he ruled at all, his reign was probably of very short duration. Toumanoff (p. 15) credits him most improbably with a reign of ten years (10616). Cf. below, n. 35. 35 T. Qaukhchishvili, Korpusi (above, n. 1) 2.22728 (cf. 339), no. 199. It reads: [... yugatr d basilvw] / Armenaw Olo/gasou gunaik d / basilvw Ibrvn / meglou Amazs/pou Anagrnhw / trofew ka ptr[o]/pow d& dunm(e)i / t balan(e)on firv[sen]. (The inscription does not seem to have yet found its way to AE or SEG). The reign of Vologeses (Valarsh) is briefly narrated by Moses of Khorene who dates his accession to the throne to the thirty second year of his namesake Vologeses (IV) of Parthia (148192), i.e. to 180. He ruled (so Moses) for twenty years; see Moses Khorenatsi, History of the Armenians, translation and commentary by R. W. Thomson (Cambridge, MA, 1978) 21011. See also C. Toumanoff, The Third-Century Armenian Arsacids. A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary, Revue des tudes armniennes 6 (1969) 23381 at 24344, 27374. The Georgian Chronicle, Kartlis Tskhovreba (Kartlis cxovreba, Life of Georgia), The History of the Kings 57, places king Amazasp at about the same time; interestingly his sister was the wife of the (unnamed) king of Armenia but certainly Vologeses. See Thomson,

How Did King Flavius Dades ...?

273

recall that during the reign of Trajan we encountered Amazaspos, a brother of king Mithridates (IGRR 1.192). Mithridates son also bore this name; in all probability he is mentioned (with the spelling Amasaspos) in the inscription from Mtskheta of 75.36 And finally still another king of Iberia by the name of Amazaspos appears in the great trilingual inscription of Shapur I (engraved ca 262), commonly known as Res Gestae Divi Saporis (line 60 of the Greek text).37 The onomastic custom of the traditional compound names continued in the Iberian dynasty well into the Sasanian period. In which way Publicius Agrippa came by his names is a mystery. The cognomen Agrippa is common enough in the Roman world (also in the eastern provinces), the family name Publicius is, however, quite rare. Here at once attention is drawn to Publicius Marcellus, governor of Syria in ca 131135.38 He may have been the source of the nomen. So oracularly Syme.39 What would be the precise mechanism or procedure, Syme (more suo) does not explain. He disregarded the warning of Bosworth: Agrippa cannot have been the Iberian noble who received Roman citizenship, for grants to distinguished members of client kingdoms would have been conferred by the emperor, and we should expect the recipient to bear an imperial name.40 Hence perhaps a Roman who migrated to Iberia and climbed to the highest offices of the kingdom? Doubtful. Bosworth conceived an ingenious idea. Pharasmanes was an uncertain and troublesome ally. His relations with Hadrian were strained. He needed to be reined in and closely supervised. Thus Publicius Agrippa was installed at the Iberian court as a virtual Roman viceroy. Bosworth ascribes this development to the personal initiative of Arrian who for six years (131137) was governor of Cappadocia, fought the incursion of the Alans, and took
Chronicles (above, n. 25) 6568, 379; Toumanoff, Kings of Iberia (above, n. 27) 17, dates the reign of Amazasp to 185189. E. Kettenhofen, Die Arsakiden in den armenischen Quellen, in Das Partherreich (above, n. 32) 32553, is rightly skeptical as to the historical value of the Armenian tradition, but as the new inscription demonstrates in these texts nuggets of the real history are still to be found (cf. 337, n. 124, quoting disprovingly the phrase of R. H. Hewsen; 342, n. 170). The reading is disputed. For the debate, see Boltunova (above, n. 4) passim. The fundamental critical edition of the whole document is now Ph. Huyse, Die dreisprachige Inschrift Sabuhrs I. an der Kaba-i Zardust [= Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum III,1] (London 1999) 1.36, 44 (middle Persian, Parthian, and Greek text); 2.15051, 44.4. The Greek text also in Canali De Rossi (above, n. 1) 15366, no. 261. The name appears in the genitive, Amazspou. Huyse (1.116) reconstructs the nominative as Amazsphw or Amazspow; the form in -hw is otherwise unattested; in IGR I 192 we have the ending -ow. PIR2 VI (1998) 434 (P 1042); E. Dabrowa, The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus (= Antiquitas I 45 [Bonn 1998]) 9294 and 17778 (notes). Marcellus hailed from Aquileia; his full name was C. Quinctius Certus Publicius (or Poblicius) Marcellus. R. Syme, Hadrian and the Vassal Princes, Athenaeum n.s. 59 [= 69] (1981) 27677 = Roman Papers III (Oxford 1984) 143940. Bosworth, Arrian (above, n. 20) 231, n. 59. Endorsed by Kavtaradze (above, n. 26) 218; and also by N. J. E. Austin and N. B. Rankov, Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople (London and New York 1995) 30, 149.

36 37

38

39 40

274

Historia et Ius

keen interest, as administrator and writer, in the affairs of the Caucasus and the Black sea region.41 But surely if this was indeed what came to pass Arrian must have acted on orders and instructions from the emperor. Governors of provinces were not permitted to engage in foreign policy ventures of their own.42 This opens the way for Publicius Marcellus, and for a fusion of the ideas of Syme and Bosworth. The installation of a Roman eye of the king in Iberia was clearly a matter of interest not only for the legate of Cappadocia but also for the legate of Syria. When this matter was ventilated, and a suitable candidate sought, Publicius Marcellus may have suggested to Hadrian a relative of his who probably was already on the spot in his entourage in Syria.43 A later but (where it can be checked) a generally reliable source, the orator Themistius, informs us that after he repelled the Alans, Arrian proceeded to settle a border dispute between the kingdoms of Iberia and Albania, and that he also crossed the Caspian Gates.44 To do so he must have passed through Mtskheta/Armazi, and we may conjecture that it was at this juncture that he introduced Publicius Agrippa to the Iberian court. It was a lasting success of Hadrians imperial policy. When Pharasmanes in the reign of Antoninus Pius visited Rome (in 141 or 142) he was received with great honors as a true and trusted ally of Rome.45
41 PIR2 III (1943) 13739 (F 219); Bosworth, Arrian (above, n. 20) passim; P. Stadter, Arrian of Nicomedia (Chapel Hill 1980) 3249 and 2038 (notes); Braund, Georgia 178204. 42 See the excellent piece by D. Potter, Emperors, their borders and their neighbours: the scope of the imperial mandata , in D. L. Kennedy (ed.), The Roman Army in the East (= JRA Suppl. 18 [Ann Arbor 1996]) 4966, esp. 5256. 43 Of course only a surmise. The governors home town was Aquileia (cf. above, n. 38), and we observe that the cognomen Agrippa is attested in Aquileia: CIL V 1008 = J. B. Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae (Udine 1991) I 617, line 17: C. Plotius Agrippa; CIL V 798 = Brusin I 295, col. 2, line 10 (dated to 165): Myrinus Agrippinae (servus). It might be of some interest to point out that L. Macedo, the commander of the praetorian cohort that accompanied Hadrian on his eastern journey in 129, also originated from Aquileia, as also did the two comites of Hadrian in the east, the brothers Caesernii, who were to become suffect consuls respectively in 138 (or 139) and in 141 (see above, n. 30). 44 Themistius, Orat. 34.8 (3334) [also printed by A. G. Roos in his Teubner edition of Arrian, II, p. LXII, test. 13] mentions Arrian (whose career and activity he partially confuses with that of Q. Iunius Rusticus [PIR2 IV 3 (1966) 34546 (I 814); Bosworth, Arrian (above, n. 20) 22830]), and continues: ka dibainon mn strathgo Rvmavn Plaw Kaspaw, jlaunon d Alanow j Armenaw, tatton d Ibhrsin rouw ka Albanow. Cf. Braund, Georgia 255, and cf. 4546; H. Schneider, Die 34. Rede des Themistius (Winterthur 1966) 113. 45 Pharasmanes and Hadrian: Hist. Aug., Hadr. 13.9; 17.1012; 21.13; Cass. Dio 69.15.12; Pharasmanes and Antoninus Pius: Cass. Dio 69.15.3; Hist. Aug., Ant. Pius 9.6; Fronto, p. 106, lines 67, ed. Van Den Hout (Teubner 1988); and a fragment of the Fasti Ostienses, published with a commentary by H. Nesselhauf, Athenaeum n.s. 36 [= 46] (1958) 21928 (AE 1959, 38; L. Vidman, Fasti Ostienses2 [Pragae 1982] 12425). Syme, Hadrian (above, n. 31) 278 = 1442, opines that nothing elsewhere [i.e. outside the Historia Augusta] suggests relations of amity with the Iberian [i.e. Pharasmanes] resumed in the late epoch of the reign [i.e. of Hadrian] and extending to a lavish and elaborate interchange of gifts. Symes acumen and his prose can enchant, but he should have paid attention to archaeology. In Armaziskhevi (the valley of Armazi) near Mtskheta, the capital of Iberia, there came to light a splendid silver dish displaying in its center the bust of Antinous; and a bronze medallion featuring Antinous was

How Did King Flavius Dades ...?

275

The bilingual inscriptions is eloquent in both languages. Publicius Agrippa became domiciled in Iberia. He married a noble lady, and produced a son by the name of Iodmanganos (Yod mangan) who suceeded him to his high office. His sons name is local, though an Iranian etymology can be envisioned.46 Iranian names, we have seen, were prevalent among Iberian royalty and aristocracy. Whether Iodmangan also bore a Roman name, the inscription does not reveal or decide. If his mother was not a Roman citizen, then her marriage to Agrippa was in the eyes of the Roman law not a iustum matrimonium, and consquently Agrippa was not able to acquire patria potestas over his son and transmit to him his nomen. But observe that the funerary stone of Serapeitis was destined for the Iberian eyes, and that even in the international text from Armazi, advertizing Iberian and Roman cooperation, the philoromaios king Mithridates does not flaunt his presumed Roman nomen. Iodmangan may have simply chosen not to use his Roman name. In this perspective his fathers Publicius and Agrippa stand out. The cognomen Agrippa is particularly telling. For a native Iberian we would have expected a combination of a Roman nomen and a local cognomen, as in the case of king Flavius Dades. Publicius Agrippa did not append an Iberian (or Iranian) name because he had none. He was a Roman. These considerations have direct bearing on the nomenclature of king Dades. If Publicius Agrippa was a Roman, Dades ancestor stands with his Roman name isolated among Iberian aristocrats. All difficulties of chronology and nomenclature will vanish if we deprive Dades of the dignity the great king of the Iberians, and assign to him the role of a minor regulus. Here comes to mind Arrian, and his Periplus 11, with its list of various petty kings. Among them there was a certain Iulianus, the king of the Apsilae, who received his kingship from Trajan (11.3).47
found at Mtskheta itself. See K. G. Machabeli [. . ], [Serebryanye fialy iz Armaziskhevi, with French summary: Les coupes dargent dArmaziskhevi] (Tbilisi 1970) 1527, esp. 2425, 27; Braund, Georgia 235, and n. 151. Braund observes: It is not hard to imagine that this vessel was one of Hadrians gifts to Pharasmanes. But it is important to remember that the necropolis at Armazi was not a royal burial ground but rather that of pitiaxes; Machabeli quite rightly regards the dish as a Roman gift to a pitiax. From another burial at the same site comes a dish that may depict Hadrian himself (though Machabeli 4050, esp. 4849, contests this identification). These finds are instructive: they show that Hadrian lavished gifts not only on the king but wisely also on high officials of the kingdom (Cassius Dio 69.15.3 records that when Pharasmanes visited Rome in the reign of Antoninus Pius, he was accompanied not only by his wife and son, but also by the prtoi Ibrvn). Braund is undoubtedly right (pace Syme) when he argues that after the original tension Pharasmanes and Hadrian were soon reconciled (Georgia 232; and see also his earlier piece, Hadrian and Pharasmanes, Klio 78 [1981] 20819, esp. 21215), though I would put it differently: after initial obstinacy, Pharasmanes found it more advantageous to assuage Hadrian and fully submit to Rome. 46 Nyberg (above, n. 1) 238, adducing the middle Persian Yod mart and the Sogdian Yod razmag (or Yod arazmak); also Donner and Rllig (above, n. 32) II.329, comparing Avest. yaod kmpfen. Cf. further Zgusta, Personennamen (above, n. 11) 103 (nos. 121, 122): Ivdaw, Ivdesmagow, and 433 (quoting Abaev) for a possible Ossetian explanation of the element yod in these names. 47 For the geography of the region, see R. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton 2000), maps 87 (prepared by T. Sinclair and D. Braund) and 88 (prepared by

276

Historia et Ius

Arrian mentions several other kings who were given their regna by Trajan or Hadrian, but we should not imagine that they were arbitrarily appointed. Rather their kingship was confirmed and recognized upon their accession to the throne, either in the normal line of succession, or after a domestic strife. But even in that latter case most of them will have been members or relations of the ruling dynasty. In this perspective the name Iulianus is significant: it points to the bestowal of Roman citizenship and the recognition of the dynasty still in the earlier part of the first century.48 This is the company for Dades. His ancestor will have received his Roman name from a Flavian emperor, but the stylistic and epigraphic features of the silver dish place Dades himself at the earliest at the threshold of the first and the second century, and probably later.49 He cultivated good relations with Iberia: his gift of a precious silver plate to an Iberian high official is proof of his goodwill or cunning and to scholars, after two millennia, a vessel of abiding contention.50

D. Braund). See also A. Silberman, Arrien: Priple du Pont-Euxin (Paris 1995 [Collection Bud]) esp. 3337, notes 7990; O. Lordkipanidze, Das alte Georgien (Kolchis und Iberien) in Strabons Geographie (Amsterdam 1996) esp. 67121, 13196, 22376. 48 But we should not press this point too hard: in the north Pontic region we encounter a good number of Roman names, but they need not always indicate Roman citizenship; as Zgusta, Personenamen (above, n. 11) 342, puts it, they may have been durch die einheimischen Leute von den Rmern entlehnt oder den rmischen Namen nachgeahmt. 49 If we accept the earliest possible date, the name Flavius may have been given by Domitian to Dades himself. This is the idea of A. S. Balakhvantsev [. . ], [Tsar Flaviy Dad, King Flavius Dades] in [Antichnost v sovremennom izmerenii (Antiquity in Contemporary Soundings)] (Kazan 2001) (I know this article only from a summary online). He regards Dades a king of Iberia, but at the time of Domitian there is certainly no place for him in the Iberian dynasty. 50 And now Publicius Agrippa and Flavius Dades are spearheading the efforts of Georgia to join NATO and the European Union. See the curious pamphlet by T. Dundua, entitled Publicius Agrippa, Flavius Dades and a Dual Citizenship a Pattern for Europe in Future?, with a subtitle: Georgians and Roman Frontier Policy in the East (Tbilisi 2003 [also posted online]). Dundua believes that Publicius Agrippa led a Georgian expeditionary force to help Publicius Marcellus quell the rebellion in Judaea, and as a reward received from Marcellus the grant of Roman citizenship (p. 5). For further proof Dundua, a specialist in ancient numismatics, turns to coins: the Georgian contingent brought back to Iberia the golden aurei of Hadrian seven of which were unearthed in Georgia (for the gifts of Hadrian to Pharasmanes, see above, n. 45). The Georgian contingent is a phantom born of contemporary politics, and thus, to some, the solution advocated in this paper, that Dades was not an Iberian, and that Agrippa was a Roman, will be a disappointment.

18 PUNISHING*
Du chtiment dans la cit. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique. Table ronde organise par lcole Franaise de Rome avec le concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Rome 911 novembre 1982). Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome, 79. Rome: cole Franaise de Rome, Palais Farnse, 1984. Pp. ii + 590.

378

The dlit religieux,1 and now mutilations and executions the colloquia organized by the French School in Rome become more and more enjoyable, and more gruesome. They also become more voluminous and more wordy (if this be possible). A British Prime Minister at the turn of the century observed that the main qualification for his job was that of a butcher. This is also the main qualification for the editor of the acta of a colloquium. The volume would have profited greatly from the executioners hatchet. This diverting task now falls to the reviewer. The volume contains eighteen contributions ranging from early Greece to Byzantium, and an introduction in which Yan Thomas spells out the goals of the colloquium: not the study of criminal law but rather of the systems of corporal punishment. By way of introduction also an unpublished paper of Louis Gernet is presented (La droit pnal de la Grce ancienne, pp. 1035), of great interest certainly to his acolytes, but hardly to anybody else. On the Greek side we begin with the gods, the insubordination of Hera and her punishment by Zeus. E. Cantarella, Per una preistoria del castigo (pp. 3773) treats of this and many other fascinating (if not unknown) topics:2 death in the house of Odysseus (the case of the ancillae and of Melanthios leading to the theme of the mutilated corpse),3 the punishment of Tantalus and of Prometheus (which
* 1 Classical Philology 82 (1987) 377380 {with minor corrections and additions}. See the review in CP 79 (1984) 17477 {reprinted in RQ 59295, with addenda 677}. This was vol. 48 of the Collection of the French School, and it was published in 1981. The present volume bears the number 79, and was published in 1984. Between l981 and l984 the French School also published eleven volumes in the first series of its Bibliothque (dealing with Antiquity) and three volumes in the second and third series (dealing with the Middle Ages), one volume in the series Acta nuntiaturae Gallicae, and eight volumes hors collections. And we should not forget the yearly Mlanges always in four bulky volumes. Such are the dangers and delights of state-supported research. In the same period the American Academy in Rome published two volumes, one of them with the financial assistance of the Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. She thus returns to the subject of her earlier study, Norma e sanzione in Omero. Contributo alla protostoria del diritto greco (Milano, 1980). Here she quotes, not surprisingly, J.-P. Vernant, La belle mort et le cadavre outrag, in La mort, les morts dans les socits anciennes (Paris-Cambridge, 1982) 4576, but omits C. P. Segal, The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the Iliad (Leiden, 1971). On the rite of

2 3

278

Historia et Ius

she interprets as a form of potumpanismw. Important is the distinction between the clean death inflicted with bronze (so dies the rvw in battle and the sacrificial victim) and the ignoble death by hanging or strangulation. This is the subject of the learned study by N. Loraux (Le corps trangl, pp. 195218), of great interest also to students of women in antiquity for in ancient medical theory the desire to hang oneself was regarded as particularly feminine. A punishment can be inflicted in the oikos or openly, and the most public punishment of all is the stoning, the people acting as a collective executioner. M. Gras, Cit grecque et lapidation (pp. 7588) concludes that in the Greek world this practice, which he regards as cruel and barbarian in the ancient East, was transformed into un instrument dcisif dans lapprentissage de la vie dmocratique (p. 87). Are we forgetting the menace of dmow trannow? Nor should we disregard the tyranny of a polis as A. Maffei does in his article on Athenian criminal jurisdiction in the allied cities (pp. 42938). Since Rome began with fratricide, it is auspicious to turn to parricidium. C. Ampolo (pp. 9196) discusses the case of Turnus Herdonius (Livy 1. 5052; Dion. Hal. 4. 4548) and the light it throws on the punishment of murderers. A. Magdelain (pp. 54970), following Verrius Flaccus (Festus 247 L.), argues convincingly that paricidas (parricida) originally meant the murderer of a free man; the word would derive (as suggested by Wackernagel) from *parso-cida, *parso corresponding to the equally hypothetical Sanskrit *pursa = homo (the spelling without gemination would reflect solely the archaic orthography and not phonetics).4 B. Santalucia (pp. 43952) offers divagations on the duumviri perduellionis, and D. Briquel (pp. 22540) talks about an approche comparative to the modes of execution in early Rome. Here some extensive textual mutilations would be in place, and this applies even more to the article by A. Fraschetti (pp. 97128) on that perennial favorite of all colloquia, the burial of Vestals. On the subject itself I have nothing to add to what I said in CP 79 (1984) 17677. The Tarpeian rock and the carcer are the familiar places of execution; J.-M. David (pp. 13175) envelops them in erudition and bibliography. Precipitation from the Rock was a form of the ritual abandonment of the miscreant, the sacer, to the gods; in the later Republic it was reserved for violators of the tribunician sacrosanctity. The carcer was also a place of abandonment; those who crossed its gates descended to the nether world to die of hunger or by strangulation.5 Magistrates cum
masxalismw, see R. Parker, A Note on fnow, yusa and masxalismw, LCM 9 (1984) 138. For the ritual of punishment, see E. Nardi, Lotre dei parricidi e le bestie incluse (Milano, 1980). On the meaning and usage of necare (p. 142), see also W. Schulze, Kleine Schriften (Gttingen, 1933) 14860; E. Lfstedt, Syntactica, vol. 2 (Lund, 1956) 38081; Idem, Late Latin (Oslo, 1959) 19194; J. N. Adams, Two Latin Words for Kill, Glotta 51 (1973) 28090. {And see now his further excellent study, The Uses of Neco, Glotta 68 (1990) 23055; 69 (1991) 94123; and cf. the remarks on neco in RQ 42935. Fascination with judicial killings and imprisonment continues unabated; of more recent studies, see C. Lovisi, Contribution ltude de la peine de mort sous la rpublique romaine (Paris, 1999); A. Lovato, Il carcere nel diritto penale romano dai Severi a Giustiniano (Bari, 1994); Y. Rivire, Carcer et uincula: la dten-

4 5

Punishing

279

379

imperio (but also the tres viri capitales), the senate, and the tribunes could order incarceration; as a result the carcer was the place of death for common criminals and the hostes publici. During the Republic the prisoner could be rescued by the tribunes of the plebs or by public uproar; under the tyranny of the Empire one could only hope that the ruler would grant a reprieve. The exposure of the corpse and its laceration by the mob were the fruits and adornments of the new dispensation.6 The sacratio capitis offers rare insights into the primitive system of punishment; the leges sacratae, the exsecratio, devotio and deditio, and finally aqua et igni interdictio, all belong to the same circle of notions, half religious, half legal. There is no dearth of attempts to understand this strange world; and now we have a reliable guide in G. Crif (pp. 44397). His exposition is systematic and learned and inevitably controversial.7 Patria potestas is in vogue at least among the romanists.8 Y. Thomas writes profusely on the Vitae necisque potestas (pp. 499548 {cf. below in this volume, No. 45.4}), certainly the most dramatic, if rare, manifestation of the fathers power. The formula is ambiguous; according to Thomas vita est gnrique, and nex nest pas la mort, le contraire de la vie, mais un mode non sanglant de tuer (p. 509). He probably places too much trust in the definition of Festus (158 L.): neci datus proprie dicitur, qui sine vulnere interfectus est. We may note that in a
tion publique Rome (sous la Rpublique et le Haut-Empire), MEFRA 106 (1994) 579652; J.-U. Krause, Gefngnisse im rmischen Reich (Stuttgart, 1996); and a collection of articles, Carcer. Prison et privation de libert dans lantiquit classique (Paris, 1999)}. David asserts (p. 174, n. 196) that the famous lex libitinaria from Puteoli (AE 1971, no. 88) prvoyait que lon habillt de rouge le cadavre. In fact it is the libitinarii who are dressed in red; see col. II, line 13: oper(a) russat(a); they wear (col. II, line 5) pilleum color(atum). To Crifs extensive bibliography we can add, on the leges sacratae and the notion of sacer, E. Herzog, Die lex sacrata und das sacrosanctum, Jahrb. f. class. Phil. 22 (1876) 13950; L. Adams Holland, Qui terminum exarasset, AJA 37 (1933) 54953; F. Altheim, Lex sacrata (Amsterdam, 1940); M. Kaser, Das altrmische ius (Gttingen, 1949) 4553; P. Cerami, Strutture costituzionali romane e irrituale assunzione di pubblici uffici, Annali del Seminario Giuridico di Palermo 31 (1969) 16274, 18893; G. Lobrano, Fondamento e natura del potere tribunizio nella storiografia giuridica contemporanea, Index 3 (1972) 23562; M. Morani, Lat. sacer e il rapporto uomo-dio nel lessico religioso latino, Aevum 55 (1981) 3046; {and now the exhaustive and effuse study by R. Fiori, Homo sacer (Napoli, 1996); cf. also B. Liou-Gille, La conscration du Champ de Mars et la conscration du domaine du Cicron, MH 55 (1998) 3759}; and on the devotio, H. S. Versnel, Two Types of Roman devotio, Mnemosyne 29 (1976) 365410, and L. F. Janssen, Some Unexplored Aspects of the devotio Deciana, Mnemosyne 34 (1981) 35781. On the banishment and the Strafopfertheorie, see H.-P. Hasenfratz, Die toten Lebenden (Leiden, 1982). Cf. J. Crook, Patria Potestas, CQ 17 (1967) 11322; B. Wierzbowski, Tresc wadzy ojcowskiej w rzymskim prawie poklasycznym [Inhalt der Vatersgewalt im rmischen nachklassischen Recht] (Torun, 1977); A. M. Rabello, Effetti personali della patria potestas, vol. 1 (Milano, 1979); P. Voci, Storia della patria potestas da Augusto a Diocleziano, Iura 31 (1980 [1983]) 37100; Idem, Storia della patria potestas da Costantino a Giustiniano, SDHI 51 (1985) 172; F. M. De Robertis, I limiti spaziali al potere del pater familias, Labeo 29 (1983) 16474; G. Lobrano, Pater et filius eadem persona. Per lo studio della patria potestas, vol. 1 (Milano, 1984); W. V. Harris, The Roman Fathers Power of Life and Death, in Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller (Leiden, 1986) 8195.

280

Historia et Ius

380

detailed study of the word J. N. Adams (see above, n. 5) came to the conclusion that neco was a generic term for execution, whatever its method of infliction, although at the end of the Republic it was becoming disproportionately common in application to murder without weapon (Two Latin Words, p. 284). On p. 532 we read that wives in manu and daughters in potestate were not subject to vitae necisque potestas. Proof? La condamnation ou lexcution dune femme ... est purement domestique. Aucun droit ne la fonde. Celle des fils sautorise au contraire dun pouvoir reconnu a priori aux pres, et sinscrit dans une continuit qui est moins celle de la cit que celle de lordre paternel auquel la loi curiate renvoie, parce quiil est constitu en dehors delle (p. 539). Sense? Never mind; acclaim among readers of the Annales is assured, but what a sober jurist of Mommsens persuasion would like to say I do not dare to utter. F. Hinard has recently produced a basic historical and prosopographical study of the proscriptions,9 and now he turns to La male mort. Excutions et status du corps au moment de la premire proscription (pp. 295311). Proscription, beginning with the very term proscriptio, was a humiliating affair, and this humiliation extended to the mode of execution and the treatment of the bodies of the damned: they were dragged by a hook (uncus), mutilated, thrown into the Tiber, the heads paraded on spikes and publicly exposed. Hinard maintains that during the triumviral proscriptions le corps nest plus lobjet dun enjeu particulier (p. 310). I wonder what Cicero would say, his severed head lacerated by Fulvia and affixed (with his right hand) to the rostra. The severed heads of the proscripti pave the way to J.-L. Voisin, Les Romains, chasseurs de ttes (pp. 24192), delightful and instructive, with the edifying procession of Roman heroes from Cornelius Cossus (who defeated in combat and decapitated the Veientan king Tolumnius) to Ti. Claudius Maximus, the soldier who brought to Trajan the head of the Dacian king Decebalus. The prize goes to Helvius Cinna who lost his head par erreur (Suet. Caes. 85). The Rock, the carcer, the securi percussio are almost endearing words when we look at the carnival of carnifices under the Empire, Jovian and Christian, western and eastern. Three articles introduce us to this world: J.-P. Callu, Le jardin des supplices au Bas-Empire (pp. 31359); D. Grodzynski, Tortures mortelles et catgories sociales. Les Summa Supplicia dans le droit romain aux IIIe et IVe sicles (pp. 361403; excellent); E. Patlagean, Byzance et le blason pnal du corps (pp. 40526). They present a panorama of decapitations, crucifixions, cremations, deliveries ad bestias and of a plethora of other more exotic penalties (as e.g. castration, judicial rape,10 pouring molten lead down the throat, and those great favorites of the Byzantines, blinding, amputation of hand, nose, or tongue).

Les proscriptions de la Rome rpublicaine (Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome, 83 [Paris, 1985]). 10 Cf. Thomas, p. 542 quoting Suet., Tib. 61.5: quia more tradito nefas virgines strangulari, they had first to be raped by the carnifex (cf. Tac. Ann. 5.9). For a different interpretation, see G. Crescenti, La condanna allo stupro delle vergini cristiane durante le persecuzioni dellimpero romano (Palermo, 1966) 1724 (missed by Thomas).

Punishing

281

Should we rejoice that from this treatment nobody could feel exempt? Deposed emperors were subjected to the same horrors they had so amply lavished on their enemies (J. Scheid, La mort du tyran, pp. 17790). Cicero proudly praised the moderation of Roman criminal law: the XII Tables punished with death only few offences (De rep. 4.12). But from the time of the civil wars judicial savagery was the parole; adorned with protestations of humanitas, it reached its grim apogee under the Christian Emperors.11

11

Cf. R. M. Honig, Humanitas und Rhetorik in sptrmischen Kaisergesetzen (Gttingen, 1960); R. MacMullen, Judicial Savagery in the Roman Empire, Chiron 16 (1986) 14766; Idem, What Difference did Christianity Make?, Historia 35 (1986) 32243.

19.111 MINIMA DE MAXIMIS 19.1 ELECTIONS*

E. S. STAVELEY, Greek and Roman Voting and Elections. (Aspects of Greek and Roman Life). Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1972, Pp. 271; 9 text figs.

99

A fourth-century author so contrasted the felicitas of his own time with the evils of Republican corruption: intellegamus nostri saeculi bona: abest cera turpis, ... sitella venalis; inter senatum et principes comitia transiguntur (Symmachus, Orat. 4.7). Another writer derided sterile casting of votes and extolled the Leader: tribus non circumivi, centurias non adulavi, ... Romanus populus, Martius campus, ... rostra, ... senatus, curia, unus mihi omnia Gratianus (Ausonius, Gratiarum actio ad Gratianum 3.13). {cf. RQ 1078}. These declamations bear out Montesquieus observation that despotism is more natural than any other political system. Western scholars and politicians do not like to remember this, and so Staveley cheerfully states that the origin and the development of the vote in the political life of any community is a phenomenon which is simply explained (p. 13). But what about China, Egypt, Assyria? The fact is that systems based upon effective right to vote constitute a rare occurrence in history. But suum cuique: Staveley has valiantly bridged the gap between historians of Greek and Roman elections, and has successfully steered between rough waters of social generalizations and the morass of technical details. Some inaccuracies: Cic., Sest. 129 does not say that Cicero was to conduct a vote (p. 145). The magistrates could report the omina only before, and the augurs only during, the holding of an assembly (p. 207 {see now AL 219698}). In the bibliography I miss important articles by C. Nicolet. Also contributions by the reviewer have not found favor in Staveleys eyes, although one of them propounded in 1966 virtually the same interpretation of professio as that argued on pp. 14647 {see now RQ 9194, 63536}. The list could be prolonged, but amidst the legal incompetence of classical historians Staveleys book is a rara avis indeed! It is a superb achievement.

American Classical Review 3 (1973 [1976]) 9899 {with minor addenda}.

Minima de Maximis

283

19.2 EXTRAORDINARY ELECTIONS*

Joachim JAHN, Interregnum und Wahldiktatur. Kallmnz: M. Lassleben (Frankfurter Althistorische Studien 3). 1970. Pp. 195.

395

The subject of Jahns book is both interesting and intricate. The elections were normally conducted at Rome under the presidency of a consul, but it could happen that the consuls were prevented by some obstacle from convening the comitia, or that there were no consuls at all at the time when elections should be held. In that case the republican constitution had recourse to two extraordinary institutions: the interregnum and the dictatorship comitiorum habendorum causa. Both the interregnum and the Roman dictatorship have been much studied, but Jahns monograph is the first to treat separately and at such length the dictatorship for the conduct of elections and to link it functionally with the interregnum. In the first part of his book (953) Jahn discusses general constitutional and political problems concerning the two institutions. On the whole, he has not much original to say. Yet when one is on such shaky ground as that offered by the problem of the Roman interregnum, reluctance to be original may also be a virtue. Nevertheless he offers some interesting suggestions. Most important is his theory (based upon Livy 22.35 and Plut. Marc. 6.1) that the interrex abdicated upon the renuntiatio of the first new consul, who immediately took over the presidency and completed the election of his colleague (26). This is at any rate possible, and also may help to explain, as Jahn thinks, the constitutional background of Pompeys election in 52 as consul sine collega. In that connection Jahn rejects (5052), rightly in my opinion, the thesis of Staveley that the interrex nominated two candidates and that no other candidates were admitted. (But his suggestion that the interreges were probably granted dispensation by the senate from the provision of the lex Caecilia Didia, requiring the announcement of the comitia in trinum nundinum, will certainly not do: it is a very strange idea that the dispensation from a law should have been necessary for a magistrate to perform his constitutional duties). It is also possible that the individual interreges were chosen by lot (19), but the list of interreges of 355 in Livy 7.17.11 does not seem to be wholly in favour of this thesis. And finally Jahn rightly stresses the importance of the concept of the auspicia for the study of earlier Roman history, and he especially points to the interrelation between the right to the auspicatio and the prerogative of presiding over elections, appointing a dictator, and performing the lustrum. About 350 a new form of extraordinary presidency over the elections appears: the dictatorship comitiorum habendorum causa, a specialized form of the dictatorship rei gerundae causa. What was the cause of this development? Jahn thinks that the religious and magical components of the dictatorship may have played some role here, but why the importance of these components for the conduct of elections should have been first felt just about the middle of the fourth century he does not explain. He contends further that the long interregna constituted a serious obstacle
* Phoenix 25 (1971) 394395 {with minor addenda}.

284

Historia et Ius

to the normal conduct of warfare, and that it must have been more expedient to perform the elections under the presidency of a dictator. But in fact he himself demolishes this thesis when he observes that in 356/355, 353/352, and 352/351 it was the dictators who were unable to perform the elections and had to resign, and that in each case the elections were finally held under the presidency of an interrex (3234). That kind of dictatorship is last recorded in 202, but Jahn following Wilcken holds that Caesars first dictatorship was in its essence a Wahldiktatur and that the subsequent dictatorships of Caesar also to some extent retained that character (4546). {Cf. AL 218184}. In the second part of his monograph (55190) Jahn gives a chronological survey of all interregna and dictaturae either postulated or recorded in the sources (whether he regards them as historical or invented by the annalists) from the interregnum after the death of Romulus to the election of Octavianus in 43. This part of his book will be much used, but it is unfortunately flawed by a number of inaccuracies and errors. A few examples from a single page will suffice. Page 168: the maneuvers of Pompey and Crassus in 56 look like a puzzle: they meldeten ihre Kandidatur nicht rechtzeitig, but a few lines below we read that they sich ... zur Kandidatur nicht angemeldet hatten. Jahn holds that the comitia were prevented in 56 by the intercessio of the tribunes C. Porcius Cato and Q. Sufenas (his real praenomen was Marcus) in reality it was the obnuntiatio that played the principal role {cf. RQ 117, 13336}. C. Cato could not attempt as tribune to bring forward his proposals before the comitia tributa, but technically only before the concilium plebis tributum. On the same page we find tribus rustici (sic) and a misquotation of the title of L. R. Taylors book on Roman tribes. As the subject of Jahns monograph is of considerable historical importance, and his approach to it intelligent, these shortcomings are especially to be regretted.

19.3 EXERCITUS*
Elisabeth H. ERDMANN, Die Rolle des Heeres in der Zeit von Marius bis Caesar: Militrische und politische Probleme einer Berufsarmee. Neustadt/Aisch: Druck und Verlag Ph. C. W. Schmidt. 1972. Pp. 140.

217

In reaction to studies on leading personalities and their closest followers, the author proposes to analyze the political and military importance of common soldiers and veterans. This is laudable. She discusses the problem of the soldiers loyalty toward the commander versus their loyalty to the civil government, the soldiers influence at the elections and on extension of a generals command, further the armys role as a basis for personal Machtstellung and a means for seizing power. She devotes a separate chapter to assignations of land and grants of citizenship. Unfortunately her discussion is flat and superficial, and her conclusions are irritating. She tries to apply the Problemstellung of the modern Militrsoziologie
* American Classical Review 2 (1972 [1975]) 216217 {with minor addenda}.

Minima de Maximis

285

(mostly English and American: it is well to remember the source of the pest) to Roman military and political history. Using Finers concept of the four levels of political culture (characterized by the degree of absence or presence of military intervention), she concludes that the march on Rome as executed by Sulla or Caesar was normally (gewhnlich) a sign of the lowest level of political culture. Sertorius also completely disregarded the constitutional governments authority, whereas Catiline wanted at first to schieve his goals by legal means. This demonstrates the striking fact that the political culture was in constant flux. Very illuminating indeed. On the other hand, the author continues, such behavior was unthinkable in the early Republic (but what about the Struggle of the Orders: was it a symptom of a high or low level of political culture?). Old German dissertations, while often narrow-minded and dull, were almost invariably very useful as they collected dispersed evidence or presented interesting solutions of particular problems. This apparently is no more in vogue. A pretence of sociological open-mindedness coupled with philological negligence is an excellent formula for producing a useless book. {Since these lines were composed the pest has spread far and wide producing vast libraries of hot air}.

19.4 GRAECIA CAPTA*

Erich S. GRUEN, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. Berkeley 1984, University of California Press, 2 vols., pp. 862.

What happened when a distant and superior power, alien in tongue and tradition entered a world entangled in itself, composed of a myriad of various states, large and small; a world seething with old animosities, criss-crossed by treaties and alliances, laboriously concluded and easily broken; a world of a high and confident culture? A Roman poet gives the answer: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit captive Greece subdued her rude vanquisher. This famous verse could have figured as a motto in Gruens book: both Gruen and Horace talk of the Roman accommodation to Greek ways. The formidable Censor Cato the Elder warned of the wiles of the Greeks: the Greek learning corrupts. But it is Roman wiles that fascinate modern historians. What were the motives that guided the Romans in their subjugation of Greece? The answers have been almost invariably given within the construct of Roman imperialism. Yet history viewed solely from the heights of the Capitol is a singularly one-sided event. Gruen is as boldly revisionist as Horace and Cato before him. He breaks decisively with the Anglo-Saxon obsession with Roman motives; his subject is the Roman experience in Hellas and the Hellenic experience under the impact of Rome, and his approach sine ira et studio: neither approbation nor condemnation motivates the quest, but an effort at explanation (p. 8).1
* 1 Journal of Interdisciplinary History 16 (1985) 305307 {with minor addenda}. Horace, Epistles, 2.2.156. Cato, Libri ad Marcum filium, in H. Jordan (ed.), M. Catonis praeter librum de re rustica quae extant (Leipzig 1860) 77. The felicitous expression about Anglo-

286

Historia et Ius

306

The book falls into three parts. Part I is devoted to diplomacy and propaganda. It deals with formal treaties and informal arrangements of friendship (the Romans preferred the latter, but in both cases they largely adopted Greek forms and formulas); the role of Rome in the international arbitration between the Greek states (a role which the Romans did not actively seek, but which was foisted on Rome by the Greeks themselves after her great victories over Macedon and the Seleucids); the slogans Freedom for the Greeks (again not a duplicitous artifice of Rome, but a natural adaptation to Hellenic categories [p. 157]); and finally with the Roman clientelae in the East (clientela was an Italian institution and it is misleading to apply this term to the Roman politics in the East). The topic of Part II is less tangible but no less weighty: attitudes and motivations. Gruen rightly observes that Roman aristocracy was averse to professionalism and jealous of individual accomplishment. He asserts that the eastern experts who allegedly guided the Roman policy are a modern phantom: Roman attitudes to Hellas lacked continuity or systematic formulation (p. 249). Did the Romans have any concept of empire? Not at all, at least not until the destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146 BCE. Rome was bellicose in Italy, but there is no evidence that she actively strove to extend her domination over the East. The conception of Rome as the mistress of the world developed only toward the end of the second century BCE, well after the fact. Still, whether the Romans were aware of what they were achieving or not, conquest brought tangible benefits, for war meant booty and victory meant indemnity (p. 288). Yet the economic motives, so heralded by contemporary Italian scholars, did not constitute a motive for expansion. Gruen firmly and rightly opts for the primacy of politics over economics. If the Romans did not clearly know what they were doing, the Greek idea of Roman intent was still more blurred. No wonder; as Gruen points out in his magnificent chapter on philhellenism, nobody in Rome, not even Cato himself, could escape the allure of the Greek culture. Yet philhellenism existed only as a cultural phenomenon. There was never a philhellenic policy: the Romans admired Greek cities and looted them. The keenest mind in all of Greece, Polybius, commended the Roman accomplishment ..., but proved unable to explain it (p. 356). And so, it would appear, are we. Part III, which constitutes the second volume of the work, analyzes the patterns of behavior from 229 BCE when the Romans first crossed the Adriatic down to 146 BCE when Rome stood unchallenged and alone as the only superpower in the Mediterranean. Three theses are crucial to Gruens vision of Romes expansion: first, a contrast and a divide between Roman behavior in Italy, where conquest, annexation, and a system of formal and binding treaties were the rule, and the vacillating, uncertain, and hesitant policies in Greece; second, the conviction that we cannot understand

Saxon obsessions is borrowed from Michael Crawfordss review of Claude Nicolet, Rome et la conqute du monde mditerranen, in Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984) 209. {Cf. A. Henrichs, Graecia Capta: Roman Views of Greek Culture, HSCP 97 (1995) 24361}.

Minima de Maximis

287

307

the Roman actions unless we study structures, institutions and attitudes of the Greeks, a salutary principle (p. 721); third, the bold recognition that there is no uniform explanation for the imperial expansion of the Republic. It was neither due to a grand design nor was it achieved in a fit of the absence of mind. If this claim is true of the Romans, the contrary holds true of Gruens book. His is a work of grand design, crafted by a master stylist. It transcends the bounds of Greek and Roman history. For in history events are often isolated or bizarre. Patterns and structures are not. The conclusion of the book is telling: Hellas ultimately fell under Roman authority not because the Romans exported their structure to the East, but because the Greeks persistently drew the westerner into their own structure until it was theirs no longer (p. 730). This is an ominous lesson for contemporary Europe. But what is the essence of structure? If power is the essence of history, then what Gruens book seems to be telling (perhaps against the intentions of the author himself) is this: that, when weak or defeated states come into close and prolonged contact with a great power, the ultimate result, whatever initial designs and wishes, is domination and empire {cf. RQ 131, 632}.

19.5 DEDITIO*
Dieter NRR, Aspekte des rmischen Vlkerrechts. Die Bronzetafel von Alcntara. Mnchen, Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989. Pp. 174. (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse, Abhandlungen, N.F., Heft 101).

559

Who could count how many wars the Romans waged, and how many a time the vanquished surrendered to the victors mercy? This event, the deditio, often described by historians, left by the vagaries of chance no documentary trace until the soil of Spain, fertile in bronzes, yielded a tablet of thirteen lines (broken off at the right edge), recording the deditio in 104, C. Mario C. Flavio [cos., of the hitherto unknown populus Seano[corum? to the (also until now unattested) Roman commander L. Caesius C.f. termed as imperator (no doubt a governor of the Ulterior, acclaimed imperator after a victory). The tablet was found in Alcntara in Hispania Ulterior to the south of the Tagus, and was originally published with an initial commentary in Gerin 2 (1984) 265314. Now Dieter Nrr, editor of the venerable Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung, and acclaimed for his earlier contributions to Roman legal history, offers us an excellent, erudite and exhaustive study of the document itself within the broad theme of Roman international law. He assembles and analyzes all the parallels for the technical phrases appearing in the inscription or postulated for the supplements: se suaque dedere, in fidem or in dicionem (no legal difference between those locutions, pp. 1618, 95101) accipere (or recipere again only a terminological variation, pp. 21, 3031, 6571); next the role of the general and his consilium: it is de consilii sententia that Caesius imper* American Journal of Philology 112 (1991) 558559 {with minor addenda}.

288

Historia et Ius

avi[t arma, obsides] / captivos equos equas quas cepisent [ut dederent. All important is the restitution formula referring both to the populus itself and its possessions: the commander eos ... [... liberos] / esse iussit, and also agros et aedificia leges cete[raque omnia] ... eis redidit. Here follows the much ventilated clause dum populus [senatusque] Roomanus vellet (it also appears in the decree of L. Aemilius Paullus of 189 de servis Hastensium, ILS 15). After a brilliant discussion (pp. 22, 5660) Nrr opts for the restrictive (insoweit, insofern) rather then temporal (solange als) understanding of the dum-vellet clause: the Roman people and the senate reserve for themselves the final approval of the settlement (and not the right to revoke it at some unspecified date in the future {but cf. above, No. 6, n. 45}). This interpretation is bolstered by the obligation imposed on the Seano[ to send the envoys to Rome (the supplement [Romam appears certain {[domum proposed by B. D. Hoyos, ZPE 83 (1990) 92, is singularly unconvincing}) de ... ea re (pp. 23, 6063). On top of his extended commentary Nrr presents inspiring thoughts on the legal framework of Roman foreign policy, on the religious aspects of Roman warfare (the forthcoming monograph by N. Rosenstein will throw further light on this fascinating subject {now published, Berkeley 1990}), on the bellum iustum and ius belli {on that latter concept, the rights of war, strictly to be distinguished from the concept of just war, see the Chapel Hill dissertation (1993) by W. D. Seavey, Ius Belli, not yet published but available on microfiche}. But this brief review cannot do justice to the legal riches of the inscription and of the monograph we are fortunate it elicited.

19.6 EMPERORS*
Anthony BIRLEY, Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company. 1972. Pp. XIV. 398.{1} P. A. L. GREENHALGH, The Year of the Four Emperors. New York: Barnes and Noble. 1975. Pp. XV, 271. Robin SEAGER, Tiberius. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1972. Pp. XVIII, 300.{2}

Plutarch says that he wrote biography, not history. In his Lives, history is only a background against which he depicts the noble and base deeds of his heroes. But modern historians are different. Ronald Syme once remarked that biography offers the easy approach to history. When a contemporary ancient historian professes to be writing biography he certainly will wind up writing his kind of history;
* {1 American Historical Review 81 (1976) 830831 {with minor addenda}. The book was reissued in an updated, rewritten, expanded, and illustrated edition as The African Emperor: Septimius Severus in 1988 (London: B. T. Batsford), and as Septimius Severus: The African Emperor in 1989 (New Haven: Yale University Press).} See now the second edition (a corrected reprint of the first edition), with the afterword and additional bibliography (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).} This was written at the high tide of erudite prosopography; today of course it is vulgar sociology and other aberrations.}

{2 {3

Minima de Maximis

289

831

when he says history, the bet is that what he really has in mind is prosopography.{3} This is in keeping with another Symean law according to which in all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the faade; and Roman history, Republican or Imperial, is the history of the governing class (R. Syme, The Roman Revolution [1939], p. 7). But the strange peculiarity of an authoritarian regime is that there also is a despot, cruel or benign. To find him one need not look behind the faade: he lurks everywhere. The three books under review exemplify all the virtues and shortcomings of the maxims through biography to history and oligarchy first, despot next. P. A. L. Greenhalgh is a specialist in the history of early Greek warfare. The Year of the Four Emperors, his first book dealing with Roman history, is a popular and straightforward account of the fateful year 6869, when after the death of Nero four emperors occupied the throne in succession. It is informative and readable, and probably nothing more needs to be said of it. The books by Seager and Birley are important scholarly monographs; they have footnotes, bibliographies, and, in the case of Birleys book, a detailed and very valuable prosopographical appendix. In matters of scholarly erudition both books are beyond reproach, as was to be expected of their authors. Robin Seager has made a name as a historian of the Republic, and Anthony Birley has published extensively in the field of imperial history. Seagers Tiberius is a rationalistically inclined gentleman Seager would have none of his idiosyncrasies and follies because they are not of particular interest to him. Obviously they cannot be of any importance to a sober historian, who, like Seager, seriously maintains that Tiberius principal virtue was moderation and that the servility of senate and people gave him ample opportunity to exercise it (p. 142). But to preserve moderation in matters of honours was not easy (p. 143), nor was it easy for Tiberius to maintain the appearance of republican freedom in his dealings with individual senators (p. 132). Nor is it easy to believe in Tiberius propaganda of moderatio, but Seager is somehow convinced. The principate was forced upon Tiberius against his will by Augustus (and the senate). He tried to refuse it, and to deny Tiberius sincerity is perverse (p. 56). Seager quotes Brangers brilliant study on the ceremony of the refusal of power, but he has not learned too much from it. It is a misunderstanding to speak of sincerity or dissimulation. This ceremony was not a polite comedy but a religious, magical and political ritual. In an authoritarian regime everything tends to be ritualized, and nothing is a farce. Following in the footsteps of Augustus, Tiberius was, of course, also interested in raising the moral standards of society, sexual and otherwise. The old trick of despots and other benighted minds obviously works: Seager swallows the bait. Nor can Birley refrain from condemning the levity of women, stage, and arena (p. 101). Seager, following Suetonius, credits Tiberius also with sumptuary measures limiting the activities of food-shops and restaurants, and forbidding altogether the sale of pastries (p. 141). Tiberius the republican loved freedom, but even he could not do too much about it. For security reasons some people had to be removed, but both authors agree that counting of heads misses the point

290

Historia et Ius

(Seager, p. 239), and that it is no good counting heads (Birley, p. 279). Seager admits, however, that Tiberius rule degenerated into a reign of terror (p. 239); Birley on the other hand defends Septimius Severus against the obtrectatores (ancient and modern) who called him Punic Sulla. He was neither Punic (his accent was provincial) nor a cruel tyrant. His behavior was much more normal than historians of Rome like to remember (p. 281). He rates rather low in comparison with Vespasian (who executed few senators), but rather high if compared with Commodus or Domitian. The trouble with Western historians of the Roman Empire is that they know too well the history of the republic and that they themselves are republicans who are more or less converted to the necessity of autocracy. If they knew better the history of China or Russia they would be much less perplexed. In an autocracy, purges, servility, and adulation are not vices but virtues, signs not of decadence but of political skill. For a historian of imperial Rome Machiavelli and Wittfogel{4} are as important as Tacitus and Syme.

19.7 INCAPACES AND CAPAX*

Kenneth WELLESLEY, The Long Year A.D. 69. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press 1976 [1977]. Pp. XVI, 234; (incl.) 4 maps; (plus) 24 ill. on 8 pls.{1}

Wellesley intends to present in his book a modern version of the Tacitean account of illum Galbae et Othonis et Vitellii longum et unum annum. As the author of the Penguin translation of Tacitus Histories, of an erudite commentary on the third book of the Historiae, and of numerous articles dealing with Roman imperial history, he is no doubt well qualified for this task. But it is not an easy thing to emulate Tacitus (and Sir Ronald), and still less to compete with them. Attentive readers will observe with some interest that Ronald Syme is tacitly passed over, and that it is Jrme Carcopino who receives together with Tacitus warm thanks and glowing praise (p. XII). The result of this odd though (some would say) not completely incongruous patronage is a book, less than brilliant, but readable and informative, which often reflects the prejudices and sympathies of the conservative Roman consular and the conservative French academician. Egypt is characterized as a country indifferent to the rule of law (at any rate in Roman eyes Wellesley adds cautiously), and ignorant of democratic government (p. 110). But what about democracy in Rome? Wellesley seems to be committing a freshmans error of confusing republican and democratic system unless of course

{4 * {1

The reference is to K. Wittfogel, The Oriental Despotism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957).} Classical World 72 (1978) 483 {with minor addenda}. The second edition of the book was published by Bristol Classical Press in 1989, and in 2000 there appeared the third edition under the title The Year of the Four Emperors (London; New York: Rutledge), with a new preface by Barbara Levick.}

Minima de Maximis

291

he chooses to call democracy the oppressive rule of Roman aristocrats. I would also submit that not only the Orientals are capable of spreading rumors that magnify the events (p. 127). Women should not meddle in politics. Caecinas wife behaved in a brazen manner (she paraded on horseback in a loud purple dress, p. 52), but fortunately Vitellius womenfolk presented a pleasing contrast with many of the women around them (p. 95). Regrettably this did not apply to Triaria, the designing wife (p. 105) of Vitellius brother Lucius. Most impressive is the authors knowledge of Roman topography from the centuriationes of the ager Cremonensis to the mouth of the Rhine to the Danubian frontier. Ancient place names appear throughout the book in their modern guise, and so the route of Licinius Mucianus leads via Istanbul, and Antonius Primus holds his war council in Ptuj. In the authors zeal for modernization we are also treated to a Christmas camp dinner (saturnalicium castrense, p. 196). As far as the three tragic protagonists of the long year are concerned, Wellesley agrees with Martial that Otho found his greatness only in his death, but he tries to rehabilitate Galba and Vitellius. Vitellius was a comfortable, easygoing family man and among [his] acts of state ... it is hard to find much amiss, apart from the ... original decision to invite, and then to accept, nomination to the principate (p. 201). Just so: quite enough to disqualify him as a politician. With respect to Galba, of his qualifications for the principate there could be no doubt (p. 29). Perhaps in Platos Republic, not in faece Romuli, as Cicero would say. And it is nothing but a sophism to maintain that our questions relate to the life, not the death, of Galba (p. 29). The highest arcanum imperii in an authoritarian regime is to stay alive, and so the Tacitean verdict, omnium consensu capax imperii, nisi imperasset, still stands. And yet there is nothing like success. Vespasian, because he won and stayed alive, emerges as the savior of Rome not only in the Flavian propaganda, but also in Wellesleys book.

19.8 EMPERORS AND ITALY*

Werner ECK, Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Vestigia. Beitrge zur alten Geschichte 28). Mnchen: C. H. Beck. 1970. Pp. XI, 326.

The last study concerning the organization of Italy under the principate, the book by C. Jullian, Transformations politiques de lItalie sous les empereurs romains ({Paris} 1884), appeared almost one hundred years ago. Since that time, thanks to new epigraphical finds, the source basis has considerably increased, and many magisterial monographs have been written on various aspects of imperial government. Recently H. Galsterer discussed the organization of republican Italy (Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien [{Mnchen} 1976]), and W. Simshuser dealt with the administration of justice in Italy (Iuridici und die
* American Historical Review 85 (1980) 607608 {with minor addenda.}

292

Historia et Ius

608

Munizipalgerichtsbarkeit in Italien [{Mnchen} 1973]), but still there was no new comprehensive book on the administration of imperial Italy. Thus, the book here under review fills a sore gap, and, as Werner Eck displays all the customary features of his scholarship, erudition, and sound judgment, it is bound to remain a standard work on the subject for the next several decennia. First of all it contains several prosopographical lists, which will often be consulted: the list of curatores viarum, the supervisors of roads; of praefecti vehiculorum, the officials in charge of cursus publicus, the state dispatch and courier service; of curatores rei publicae, the supervisors of Italian cities, primarily of their finances; of iuridici, the officials in charge of the jurisdiction; and finally of various officers who administered the alimenta, the imperial program of social welfare. But the main importance of Ecks book resides in the structural problems of the imperial administration that it raises and elucidates. A conspicuous trend in the history of the empire was the gradual but inexorable rise of the bureaucracy in the direct service of the emperor and the decline of both local autonomy and the administrative prerogatives of the Senate. With the exception of the city of Rome, this process was conspicuously slow in Italy for a number of reasons. Eck points out that the curtailment of local autonomy was not the goal of the government. It came about as a result of other concerns of the emperor. The emperor was interested in the two pillars of his power, the army and the money, and in a general docility of the populace. Italy paid no direct taxes, and no army was stationed in it, hence for a long time there was no need for a massive government intervention. The supervision of strategic roads, a military necessity, and the collection of indirect taxes introduced by Augustus did not require an elaborate administration. It was only the introduction of the governmental assistance (alimenta) to children of needy parents, primarily with a view to encouraging the procreation of children, and the introduction of the permanent curatores civitatium in connection with the economic troubles and the plague under Marcus Aurelius that helped extend the governmental control to the cities of Italy. This had prepared the ground for the virtual reduction of Italy to the status of a province under Diocletian. In view of modern parallels this development is both interesting and disturbing.

19.9 DOMI NOBILES*

Mireille CBEILLAC-GERVASONI, editor. Les bourgeoisies municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sicles av. J.-C. (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, N. 609, Sciences Humaines; Bibliothque de lInstitut Franais de Naples, deuxime srie, vol. 6). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Naples: Publications du Centre Jean Brard, 1983. Pp. 467.

Michael Rostovtzeff would be pleased to observe the current upsurge of interest in Roman social and economic history. He would also be pleased to see that his concept of the ancient bourgeoisie is still alive. In his classic book, The Social and
* American Historical Review 90 (1985) 657658 {with minor corrections and additions.}

Minima de Maximis

293

658

Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1926; 2nd ed. 1957 {revised by P. M. Fraser}), he writes: An alliance between the Italian bourgeoisie and the Italian proletariate ... resulted in the collapse of the hegemony of the two privileged orders of Rome, the senatorial and the equestrian (pp. XIXII). This is a false perspective: the transition from the Republic to the Principate or the Roman revolution was not a copy of the French one. The collection under review makes it clear, amply though indirectly (the name of Rostovtzeff is not mentioned even once). It contains thirty papers (mostly in French and Italian) delivered at a conference organized in 1981 by the French Institute at Naples. As the editor, Mireille Cbeillac-Gervasoni, puts it, the collection attempts to reverse the traditional vision of the Roman world: it does not view Italy from the heights of Rome but, rather, considers Rome from the vantage point of Italy (p. 8). And Italy is above all the local bourgeoisies (observe the quotation marks) or the domi nobiles as Roman senatorial aristocracy saw them. Cbeillac-Gervasoni dissects this group as it appears in inscriptions and literary texts {see now her monograph Les magistrats des cits italiennes de la second guerre punique Auguste. Le Latium et la Campania (BEFAR 299 [Rome 1998])}; Umberto Laffi illuminates the composition and competence of the local senates {cf. now U. Laffi, Studi di storia romana e di diritto (Roma 2001) 45580}; Sgolne Demougin shows that increasing numbers of municipal notables gained admission (often via the military tribunate) to the ordo equester; Filippo Coarelli, Mario Torelli, and Paul Zanker discuss the image the local aristocracies projected in their building activity and displayed in their statuary. Several papers are dedicated to case studies of single cities or regions, such as the contributions dealing with Aquileia (by Gino Bandelli and Monika Verzr Bass), Larinum (Phillippe Moreaus important social analysis of Ciceros Pro Cluentio), Puteoli (Jean Andreaus study of the financiers Cluvius and Vestorius), Capua (Jean-Marc Flambards new interpretation of the inscriptions of the magistri Campani {cf. RQ 647}), and Pompei (by Paavo Castrn). Another theme is the cultural life of Italian cities: Jean-Michel David and Jean Christian Dumont provide useful lists of orators and actors of municipal origin, and T. P. Wiseman treats of the contacts between local notables and Roman intellectuals. The final theme is politics: Franois Hinard discusses the Sullan proscriptions and how they affected the Italians {see now his comprehensive study Les proscriptions de la Rome rpublicaine (Rome 1985)}; Emilio Gabba analyzes the ways and means by which the Roman government supported local ruling classes {reprinted in E. Gabba, Italia Romana (Como 1994) 5157)}. To conclude, the domi nobiles did not represent a static entity. This class was composed of various strata: old local aristocracies claiming a hereditary right to rule their native cities; an increasingly large group of those who gained wealth through commercial and financial ventures; and, finally, those who rose in the ranks of the Roman army. Proscriptions, land confiscations, and the settlement of veterans by Sulla, Caesar, and Augustus disrupted many communities and produced a new class of local notables; if one misses anything in this fine collection, it is a full scale study of the veterans in Italian cities {cf. now L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 4714 B.C. (London 1983); E.

294

Historia et Ius

Todisco, I veterani in Italia in et imperiale (Bari 1999)}. Method is as important as substance: in most papers the reader is struck by the close blend of archaeological, epigraphical, and literary sources. The colloquium in Naples did much to clarify the changing political and economic fortunes and the composition of the ruling class in Italian cities in the last century of the republic, but, as Claude Nicolet expressed it in his concluding remarks, Cela ne veut pas dire que le mot bourgeoisie soit devenu plus univoque (p. 408). We need another colloquium.{1}

19.10 NAMES AND ADOPTIONS*

Olli SALOMIES, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire . Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1992. iv + 179 pp. (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 97).

Finland is a bastion of Roman brick studies (cf. CP 78 [1983] 8990 {reprinted in this volume, No. 35.3}) and of Roman name studies. In the latter field Iiro Kajanto, and more recently Heikki Solin and his school have produced a stupendous series of monographs and manuals that have changed the face of Roman onomastics. Who can now seriously study Roman epigraphy, or social history, or prosopography, without having at hand Kajantos The Latin Cognomina (1965) or Solins Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom (1982) or Solins and Salomies Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (1988 {reprinted with addenda in 1994})? Of many detailed monographs we can list Solins delightful Namenpaare (1990) and now Salomies study of that pervasive (and for prosopographers frustrating) phenomenon, the polyonymous nomenclature in the Roman empire. In the Republic everything was simple. A Roman had always two names, and normally three, as Marcus Tullius Cicero, praenomen (cf. Salomies, Die rmischen Vornamen, 1987; {and, for women, Mika Kajava, Roman Female Praenomina, 1994}), nomen and cognomen. Into this system the first complication was introduced by the practice of adoption whereby the adopted son took the tria nomina and the filiation of his adoptive father, but retained his previous gentilicium with a modified ending in -anus, as e.g. P. Cornelius P. f. P. n. Scipio Aemilianus (a son of L. Aemilius L. f. Paullus adopted by P. Cornelius P. f. P. n. Scipio). The main goal of adoptions was to ensure the continuity of the gens and of the name; hence we hear very little of the adoptions of women: apart from adoptions in imperial families there are attested only four or five cases; none under the
* {1 American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 629630 {with minor addenda.} We got, as of now, three of them (edited by M. Cbeillac-Gervasoni): Les lites municipales de lItalie pninsulaire des Gracques Nron (Naples-Rome 1996); Les lites municipales de lItalie pninsulaire de la mort de Csar la mort de Domitien entre continuit et rupture. Classes sociales dirigeantes et pouvoir central (Rome 2000). A subsequent volume (co-edited by L. Lamoine) proceeds to embrace the whole world: Les lites et leur facettes. Les lites locals dans le monde hellnistique et romain (Rome 2003).}

Minima de Maximis

295

630

Republic (pp. 4; 20, n. 1). Following in the footsteps of the classic study by D. R. Shackleton Bailey on adoptive nomenclature in the late Republic (2nd ed. 1991) Salomies ventures into the Empire, a magnus labor indeed. First he tabulates the amazing variety of adoptive name-forms that sprouted up in the closing years of the Republic and proliferated in the Principate. On the basis of a full catalogue of adoptions (58 cases, but excluding adoptions in the imperial family) he distinguishes seventeen name types (an important feature of the name system under the Empire was the disappearance of the hereditary cognomen, p. 83). The adoptee would normally include in his style the adoptive praenomen and nomen, but would now often also retain his original cognomen or even the whole original name, old and new elements variously collocated. This produced long strings of names as e.g. (pp. 3738) Cn. Domitius Sex. f. Volt(inia tribu) Afer Titius Marcellus Curvius Lucanus (ILS 990). As we know from Pliny (Ep. 8.18.5) Lucanus and his brother Tullus were adopted (testamento {cf. in this volume, no. 10}) by Cn. Domitius Afer, an orator from Nemausus. Their natural father appears to have been another notable from Nemausus Sex. Curvius Sex. f. Vol(tinia) Tullus (cf. Mart. 5.28.3: Curvii fratres). This leaves the elements Titius Marcellus unexplained; they probably came from the name of Tullus (natural) mother. This illustrates well the difficulty in dealing with the polyonymy: the various name elements could derive either from adoption or they could be a combination of the paternal and maternal names (this phenomenon deserves a separate sociological study), sometimes with further items inherited from other relatives. Take, for example, Sex. Pulfennius M. f. Ter. Salutaris M. Luccius Valerius Severus Plotius Cilo (CIL 10.4864). Without further information (as in the case of Domitius Tullus) we are not able to elucidate the provenience of the individual items of this name (p. 19). Such names are onomastic and prosopographical puzzles, and those who enjoy solving them will love the book of Salomies.

19.11 ARS BONI ET AEQUI*

A. Arthur SCHILLER, Roman Law. Mechanisms of Development. The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton, 1978, Pp. XXXVII, 606.

51

Arthur Schiller had taught Roman law in Columbia University School of Law for almost half a century. A few years ago, at the conclusion of his distinguished teaching career, he published a collection of his articles under the very telling title An American Experience in Roman Law (Gttingen 1971). His new work is useful in a number of ways. Schillers goal is to elucidate the mechanism of development of Roman law, and at the same time to provide a textbook for the student, and a handbook for the scholar. As a handbook it forms a counterpart to {A.} Bergers Encyclopedic Dictionary {of Roman Law (Philadelphia 1953)}, and it will be much
* Classical World 73 (1979) 5051 {with minor addenda.}

296

Historia et Ius

used {a rush and false prophecy}. The student will find the presentation of the material innovative and felicitous. Original texts constitute the heart of the book, they are given in translation, and are illustrated by copious references to modern discussions. Internal logic of Roman Law shines from every page, and Schillers heroes are the jurists and jurists law. Yet reason and logic constitute only one side of Roman law. The existence of the other side Schiller does not indicate. He presents the rules of Roman law in splendid isolation from their social and political environment. In the introductory chapter he quotes with apparent approval rather peculiar ideas about Roman law held by some eminent European and American legal scholars. They cast revealing light on a lawyers perception of historical realities: The chief value of the study of Roman law ... is that it affords an unequaled exposition of the way by which ... the jurists worked out the precepts of a legal system ... and supervised the ... application of the law so that the ideals of justice and the welfare of the society might be realized (p. 9); Roman law is the most purely legal law we have, for it is entirely apolitical (p. 12). Roman jurisprudence characterized law as the ars boni et aequi. By this it also meant the law of slavery, Roman supremacy, subjugation of women. Roman law, like any other law, served the interests, real or imaginary, of the governing class. It also reflected idiosyncrasies of the emperors. This is a statement of fact, not accusation. But when we repeat after our Roman masters high ringing words, we ought to pause and consider their true meaning.

II HISTORIA ET PHILOLOGIA

20 COMPOSING THE ANNALS*

Gary FORSYTHE, The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition (Lanham-New York-London 1994, University Press of America), pp. VIII + 552.

L. Calpurnius Piso, consul in 133, censor in 120, and a writer of history, should be pleased: this is a learned monograph. First, a computation. In the standard edition by H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (2nd ed., Lipsiae 1914) the extant forty five fragments of the Annales of Piso cover twenty pages (11837; in fact much less: a substantial space, more than one-third, is taken by the testimonia and apparatus printed at the bottom of each page). Forsythes monograph runs (excluding indices, bibliography and the edition of the fragments) to 408 pages. This amounts to about thirty or so pages of discussion for one page of Piso; if we applied the same method to an author partially or fully extant, for example Livy, the first five books of Livy which cover in the Oxford edition 381 pages would have required a modern work of over eleven thousand pages. For the sake of a further comparison we may note that the standard commentary on the first pentad of Livy (by R. M. Ogilvie [Oxford 1965]) contains 774 pages (the ratio is 2.03:1, but the pages of the commentary are larger, and so the real ratio is in the neighborhood of 3:1), and it is a very erudite commentary. This demonstrates vividly that the book de Pisone rerum scriptore must be concerned with something more than just Piso; nor can it be just a commentary on the fragments for even the most extensive commentary could not by any stretch of the imagination have reached this prodigious length. The subtitle informs us that the subject of the book is not only Calpurnius Piso but also the Roman Annalistic Tradition. Thus Piso, his Annales, and the historiographic background. Unfortunately the book lacks an introduction in which the author would have set forth his goals and charted the way of achieving them. The text itself plunges directly into Pisos political career (124), and then turns to a discussion of the Annales as a work of history and literature (2573), and finally to a minute analysis of each fragment (75408). The book is rounded off by a new edition of the testimonia and fragmenta (40997), and by an extensive bibliography and index (499552). Chapter 1. The Calpurnii Pisones were treated in the RE by F. Mnzer, a great authority, but his article is very brief. Hence a full treatment of the historians family is welcome. The question arises whether it is necessary in a book about historiography. Furthermore some interpretations are questionable: the idea (37) that the mission (in 210209) of a forebear of the historian, C. Piso, to secure for Rome
* American Journal of Philology 117 (1996) 329332 {with minor addenda.}

300

Historia et Philologia

380

Etruria and the Etruscan grain was somehow connected with his cognomen Piso (which Roman grammarians explained as derived from pinsere, to grind grain) will strike many as far-fetched. A similar conceit crops up on p. 21: Pisos concern over the agrarian law of C. Gracchus should perhaps be viewed in the context of his familys possible involvement with milling and the state grain supply. The familys surname meant mortar. This borders on the ridiculous in an otherwise sober account. It is also awkward to speak of the Lex Acilia of C. Gracchus (23). There are good points too: the explanation of the origins of the lex Calpurnia de repetundis in terms of Roman clientela is very well taken indeed (15-16). Forsythe may also be right in rejecting M. Crawfords interpretation of the coin Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge, 1974) no. 418 as indicating Pisos pontificate. Chapter 2 deals with Pisos education and with his work. It contains a good discussion of Pisos personal surname Frugi, of his character, of Greek influences on the method of argumentation in his Annales, and of Pisos Greek and Latin sources. The truly detective work to establish the date (after 120) of the composition of the Annales is also remarkable (3236). The discussion of Pisos style is delightful, especially the comparison of the opinions held by Cicero and Gellius. The author elucidates very well Pisos legalistic tone and vocabulary (3638 {cf. in this volume, No. 2}). The discussion of the book arrangement (3853) is perforce more problematic: there are many fragments not assigned by our sources to any definite book, and their disposition must remain a matter of choice. But the authors choice appears to be sound, and cautious. All in all an exemplary chapter (cf. e.g. the comparison between Catos Origines and Pisos Annales) culminating in a clear assessment of the importance of Pisos Annales (which may or may not have been the original title of his work) for the Roman historiographic tradition: Forsythe argues persuasively for Pisos priority in the annalistic writing. Very much worth reading is also the discussion of the connection between Piso and the Annales Maximi with a timely rebuke of the now fashionable but shaky theory of B. Frier (who dates the compilation to the imperial period). Mommsen is again proven to have been right. The eighty books of the Annales Maximi were indeed compiled during the pontificate (130ca. 115) of P. Mucius Scaevola, and as the author amply demonstrates, this development squares well with contemporary antiquarian interests. Forsythe felicitously illuminates the religious nature of the original notices: it was important to assemble empirical data, a list of events, and a list of prodigies, to steer the state safely past the unlucky days of every year (62). Equally important is the stress on the tralatician nature of the annalistic tradition. This chapter is a major contribution to the history of the republican historical writing. Chapters 25 constitute the bulk of the book, and they deal in astounding detail with the fragments of the Annales. A line by line appraisal is not possible, but we should form an idea of the authors plan and of its execution. A commentary on a fragmentary work normally requires much more space than a commentary on a fully surviving author. In a surviving author the context for every piece of information is automatically provided; for fragments the historical and literary context of each piece has to be divined by a modern commentator. Hence the comparisons adduced at the beginning of this review may be somewhat misleading. O. Skutschs

Composing the Annals 381

301

celebrated commentary on the Annals of Ennius (Oxford 1985) devotes 664 pages of commentary to 71 pages of fragments (the ratio of 7.35:1), and in his commentary on the first book of Catos Origines (Meisenheim 1971) W. A. Schrder has 18 pages of fragments and 155 pages of commentary (the ratio of 8.6:1). In Forsythes book the ratio of the actual commentary (333 pages) to the fragments (ca. 20 pages) is ca. 16:1, still a much higher ratio than in any comparable study. For Forsythe does not simply try to place the fragments in their context, but rather provides an account of the whole underlying political and mythical history for each piece of Pisos information. We may say that he does not write a commentary at all but rather a series of articles each centered around a fragment of Piso. There is a wealth of information here, and a serious contribution particularly to early Roman history and historical mythology. For instance Fragment 1: At vero Piso ille Frugi in annalibus suis queritur adulescentes peni deditos esse (the rest is Ciceros comment, Fam. 9.22.12), is treated to almost seven pages of commentary in which, inter alia, the author makes a dubious (and very involved) claim for assigning this remark to Pisos Preface. Fragment 2 (from Varro, De re rust. 2.1.9): Denique non Italia a vitulis, ut scribit Piso also gets seven pages of discussion. It is an encyclopedia. {Cf. G. D. Farney, BMCR 96.10.9}. The collection of testimonies and fragments will be very useful, but it is marred by several flaws (or bad editorial decisions). One can understand that for the testimonia pertaining to Pisos life no apparatus criticus is necessary, but an apparatus would be a great enhancement for the fragments proper. Its lack in Forsythes edition will force any serious scholar to consult the edition of Peter or the critical editions of the authors in which the fragments of Pisos Annales are preserved. Nor does Forsythe indicate which editions of these authors he has used: a surprising and inexcusable omission. {The same deplorable omissions in H. Beck and U. Walter, Die frhen rmischen Historiker I (Darmstadt 2001)}. The inclusion of English translation is to be commended; but occasionally the translation is not felicitous. Take for example Testimony 6 (p. 413), a fragment from Lucilius. This fragment is adduced from Nonius Marcellus, and the page is given according to the old edition of Mercier; it is necessary also to indicate the page in the current standard edition of Lindsay. Secondly in the case of Lucilius it would also be advisable to inform the reader of the fragments number in the editions of Marx, Warmington and Krenkel. Lucilius eduxique animam in primoribu naribus is rendered as I ... snorted out my anger in the very end of my nose, which is very literal and not very understandable. To understand the verse we have to consult the explanations of the idiom appended to the editions of Lucilius; Warmingtons translation (and also Krenkels) is on the mark: I ... snorted my anger through the nostrils at the tip of my nose. To conclude. It is a book about how the history ab urbe condita looked before Livy, or more exactly, how it looked at the end of the second century. It throws a beam of light both on Roman history and on the writing of Roman history. In an era of impressionistic literary musings it is very pleasing to read a work of erudition, a work firmly grounded in history and philology. {Cf. the review by P.

302

Historia et Philologia

Wiseman, JRS 86 (1996) 2001}. As a postscript the reader of the book may also read Forsythes note on Electronic Technology and Blindness: A New Solution to an Old Problem (TAPA 124 [1994] 33335). It painfully demonstrates the many and daunting obstacles that, despite all the technological progress, a person in the position of Gary Forsythe has still to overcome. His book is an edifice of scholarship. It is also a tale of indomitable spirit.

21 HISTORY, LETTERS, AND RELIGION*

Elizabeth RAWSON, Roman Culture and Society. Collected Papers (Oxford 1991, Clarendon Press), pp. x + 615.

25

When Elizabeth Rawson died suddenly in December 1988 in Beijing, at the age of fifty four, she had just finished a term of teaching Classics at Nankai University. The circumstances of her death may stand as an emblem for her scholarly life: as she was opening a trail for Classics in China, so she had been an intrepid traveller along the treacherous paths of Roman history. For although in her first book, now a model for other similar endeavours, The Spartan Tradition in European Thought (Oxford 1969), she travelled the road from the dour Lacedaemon to modern Europe, she became above all a student of Rome, of republican history and literature. Two books grace her Roman bibliography, Cicero: a Portrait (London 1975), to many the best and fairest general introduction to Ciceros success and failure, and the erudite Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London 1985). Thanks to the efforts of Fergus Millar thirty one articles (originally published in various leading periodicals, above all in Classical Quarterly, Papers of the British School at Rome and Journal of Roman Studies) are now united in the present volume; to these we have to add eight papers that either appeared or are about to appear as chapters in various collective works, including three chapters in the new edition of the Cambridge Ancient History. All these contributions were composed over a short span of seventeen years, from 1971 to 1988, a prodigious achievement. But what sets them apart is the quality of thought, of argument, and the range of topics. Her articles are perched at intersections of religion and politics, of history and literature, of culture and business: they deal with Roman society in all its dimensions. For Elizabeth Rawson had a talent for selecting topics difficult and fascinating or perhaps it was her talent to turn the subjects she had selected into things fascinating to read. But being stimulating and original need not mean being always right. Take the 1971 article that opens the procession, Prodigy Lists and the Use of the Annales Maximi (pp. 115). The Romans treated seriously divine signs, and the senate debated them at length even with the enemy ad portas. From where did the Roman annalists, and ultimately Livy, get their lists of prodigia? Not from the Annales Maximi is Rawsons conclusion. And if they did not use the Annales for the prodigies, they used them for very little else. A debate ensued. J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy. Books XXXIXXXIII (Oxford 1973) 1112, n. 4, noted that inconsistencies in the prodigy lists do not, per se, exclude the use of the Annales; E. Ruoff* Ploutarchos 9.1 (1992) 2427 {with minor addenda.}

304

Historia et Philologia

26

Vnnen, The Roman Public Prodigia and the Ager Romanus, Arctos 7 (1972) 14243, 14548, stated the obvious: the annalists drew their examples of prodigies from various sources, but again this does not demonstrate that they did not exploit the Annales Maximi; and B. MacBain, Prodigy and Expiation: a Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome (Collection Latomus 177 [Bruxelles 1982]) 124, observed that from the second part of the second century the haruspical component (presumably going back to haruspical sources) became more prominent in the prodigy reports, but at the same time he also pointed out that the lists in Cicero and in Livy/Obsequens seem to have been derived from an annually ordered archival source, and that the burden of proof will properly remain on those who wish to see [these lists] as heavily distorted by the influence of special epitomes (p. 23). And finally B. W. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificorum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition (Rome 1979), believed he found a Copernican solution to the problem: the prodigy lists in Livy derive from the pontifical chronicle but indirectly; it was Fabius Pictor who fashioned the literary style of the annalistic history, far removed from the style and the composition of the chronicle; the last scholar to use the Annales Maximi was the antiquarian Verrius Flaccus (esp. pp. 2022, 2737, 26974). Next R. Drews seized the pen. In Pontiffs, Prodigies, and the Disappearance of the Annales Maximi, CP 83 (1988) 28999, he argues convincingly that the Annales Maximi were a record of past prodigies, expiations, and eventus, and as the procurationes were based on precedents, the Annales formed an indispensable practical guide (p. 296). But his claim that the Annales fell into obsolesence in the first century (p. 297) is not persuasive, though it may very well be that Livy got his reports of prodigies through Valerius Antias, and that Antias was the last historian to consult the Annales (p. 294). All these debates have one thing in common: they start with Rawsons article. Most papers penned by Rawson evoked discussion and polemic; they all require an extensive follow-up. Here this cannot be done. But we can attempt to perceive the flavor, and the range of her work. Three papers tackle the religio: Scipio, Laelius, Furius and the Ancestral Religion (1973, pp. 80101), where the marvellous discussion of the evocatio, and of the formula for the devotio of Carthage stands out (to be supplemented by A. Hall, New Light on the Capture of Isaura Vetus by P. Servilius Vatia, in: Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses fr Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik [Mnchen 1973] 56871); Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century BC at Rome (1974, pp. 14968), a perceptive illustration of the validity of Polybius comment on the importance of religio in Rome; Caesar, Etruria and the Disciplina Etrusca (1978, pp. 289323): experts in the disciplina Etrusca ... were likely to be sympathetic to the Roman optimates; and that is likely to have meant opposition to Caesar (p. 312). How did the Roman litterati, the antiquarians, rhetoricians, linguists, jurisprudents, arrange their material? We will find an answer in The Introduction of Logical Organization in Roman Prose Literature (1978, 32451). For Rawson the fragmentary held a special appeal: this goes for the antiquarians and the grammatici, and also for the historians. The First Roman Annalists (1976, pp.

History, Letters, and Religion

305

27

24571), attempts to establish the political stance of L. Cassius Hemina and L. Calpurnius Piso {cf. above in this volume, No. 20}, and this vein of research continued in L. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century BC (1979, pp. 36388). Here also belongs Sallust on the Eighties (1987, pp. 54669), now to be read in conjunction with C. F. Konrad, Why Not Sallust on the Eighties?, AHB 2 (1988) 1215. Six papers have Cicero as the subject; two approach the Arpinate from the vantage point of writing history: Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian (1972, pp. 58-79), and History, Historiography, and Ciceros Expositio Consiliorum Suorum (1982, pp. 40815); one stands unchallenged as the best introduction to a difficult work: The Interpretation of Ciceros De legibus (1973, pp. 12548 {Cf. now J. G. F. Powell and J. A. North (eds.), Ciceros Republic (= BICS, Suppl. 76, London 2001)}); and three deal with Cicero as a politician: L. Crassus and Cicero: The Formation of a Statesman, (1971, pp. 1633), and the delightful Cicero and the Areopagus (1985, pp. 44467), with a list of Ciceros friends and acquaintances who were members of that august body. And we should not omit the ingenious textual and prosopographical analysis of a passage from the invective against Cicero: Homo Novus Arpinas ex M. Crassi Familia, [Sallust], Cic. 3 (1976, pp. 22326). After religio, fragments and Cicero it was prosopography, but always in connection with culture, literature or economic life, that fascinated Rawson. A mere list shows the range: Architecture and Sculpture: the Activities of the Cossutii (1975, pp. 189203, taking as a starting point the colorful figure of the architect D. Cossutius who was engaged by Antiochus IV to complete the Olympieion in Athens, and following the vicissitudes of the family till the late republic); next The Eastern Clientelae of Clodius and the Claudii (1973, pp. 10224), and More on the Clientelae of the Patrician Claudii (1977, pp. 22744). Crassorum funera (1982, pp. 41626) does not treat of funerals but rather of M. Crassus and his sons; The Identity Problems of Q. Cornificius (1978, pp. 27288) sorts out literary and historical allusions to this noted figure of the Caesarian and early Triumviral period. Two papers are concerned with the army and the arms: The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Roman Army (1971, pp. 3457; fundamental), and The Antiquarian Tradition: Spoils and Representations of Foreign Armour (1990, 58298), where the literary and iconographic sources are skilfully used to illuminate each other. Finally theater and races. Theatrical Life in Republican Rome and Italy (1985, pp. 46887) treats the stage as a social institution; and Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis (1987, pp. 50845) discusses the theater seating as an expression of social order, and in particular the much debated quattuor ordines, the first fourteen rows reserved for the equestrians. The burning issue is whether all who boasted the equestrian census were entitled to this privilege or only a more limited group, and if the latter, who the members of this group exactly were (ad rem, cf. also J. Linderski, CP 72 [1977] 5560 {= RQ 13760, and 641}). No such problems at the races but there are others. When was chariot racing intro-

306

Historia et Philologia

duced in Rome? When did the factiones originate? This, and other questions Rawson discusses with zest and verve (Chariot-Racing in the Roman Republic [1981, pp. 389407]), but she never mentions the sonorous stanza of Ennius (7981 Skutsch):
Expectant ueluti consul quom mittere signum Volt, omnes auidi spectant ad carceris oras Quam mox emittat pictos e faucibus currus.{1}

All in all joy for others but disappointment for the readers of Ploutarchos: no article dealing directly with our patron; a pity for how sensitive Elizabeth Rawson was to the touchy situation of a Greek intellectual either living in Rome or writing about Rome the reader discovers in her study of a famous medicus, The Life and Death of Asclepiades of Bithynia (1982, pp. 42743). About Plutarchus Romanus she would have had much to say.

{1

The paradosis is pictis, but for the reading pictos, see O. Skutsch, The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford 1985) 22930.}

22 TRANSITUS Official Travel Under the Sign of Obelus*

To philologians corruptelae are like dragons. Those who slay them may gain a place in the text or a mention in the apparatus. Most often the dragon wins, the crux remains, ready for the next victim. Win or lose, we descend to the field to attack an obelus. This note takes its origin from a crux in the text of Cicero, Ad Atticum 5.21.5, and from a fortuitous and fortunate association of Cicero with another author, and an inscription. We read in the edition of that summus Ciceronianus, D. R. Shackleton Bailey:1
Nos enim et nostra sponte bene firmi et mehercule auctoritate tua inflammati vicimus omnis (hoc tu ita reperies) cum abstinentia tum iustitia, facilitate, clementia. cave putes quicquam homines magis umquam esse miratos quam nullum terruncium me obtinente provinciam sumptus factum esse nec in rem publicam nec in quemquam meorum praeter in L. Tullium leg<atum>. is ceteroqui abstinens, sed Iulia lege t r a n s i t a m semel tamen in diem, non ut alii solebant omnibus vicis (praeter eum semel, nemo), accepit. hic facit ut mihi excipiundus sit cum terruncium nego sumptus factum; praeter eum accepit nemo.

289

The context is important. In his letters from Cilicia Cicero frequently advertises his scrupulousness as governor, and the scrupulousness of his entourage.2 He may well have had before his eyes the great example of Cato the Elder, and Catos acerbic speech D e s u m p t u s u o .3 As Shackleton Bailey notes sumptus means expense incurred by provincials. They did not have to pay even a terruncium, not a penny, either in rem publicam, i.e. for any public purpose, over and above the ordinary taxation, or in quemquam meorum, i.e. for any person on Ciceros staff. The only exception was the legate L. Tullius, but even he stayed within the bounds prescribed by the law. The letter is tortuous, and many editors advise a radical surgery. Shackleton Bailey prefers to allow Cicero to labour his point. Ciceros

* 1 2

Philologus 143 (1999) 288299 {with minor addenda}. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Ciceros Letters to Atticus III (Cambridge 1968) 6669 (no. 114, text and translation), and 234 (commentary). Cf. ad Att. 5.17.2: Nos tamen ... sic in provincia nos gerimus, quod ad abstinentiam attinet, ut nullus terruncius insumatur in quemquam. Id fit etiam et legatorum et tribunorum et praefectorum diligentia. See H. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2 (Augustae Taurinorum 1955) 7072, no. XLIV; M. T. Sblendorio Cugusi, M. Porci Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (Augustae Taurinorum 1982) 11011 (frg. 169), 41221, cf. 40611 (commentary).

308

Historia et Philologia

letters can indeed lapse into a rather lax style. Be that as it may; even if laborious it is a minor point. It is time to face the cross. The manuscripts read transitam (ORD) or transitum (N). Shackleton Bailey translates the passage in which the crux is embedded thus:
He is generally scrupulous, but he did take the ordinary(?) allowance under the lex Julia, only once a day, however, not at every village as used to be the practice of others and apart from him on one occasion nobody has done so. So he obliges me to make an exception of him when I say that not a penny of expense has been incurred. Him aside, no one has taken anything.

And he comments: The most popular conjecture, transitans, is worse than dubious; the verb does not occur in literary Latin and assorts oddly with praeter eum semel below. transita may well conceal an object to accepit such as translaticia (Watt). Among the editors who read transitans was I. C. G. Boot. He explains: Transitare, quod ex hoc uno loco notatur, est uno die multa loca abire.4 A conjecture conjuring up a verb not attested in any elevated author5 may indeed be worse than dubious, but Watts idea, the only emendation admitted by Shackleton Bailey into his apparatus, is not much better. If we follow Watt we would get (with an additional conjecture) [s]e[d] Iulia lege trans<lat>icia.6
4 I. C. G. Boot, M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistularum Ad T. Pomponium Atticum I (Amstelodami 1865) 247, ad loc. The reading transitans was first proposed by P. Manutius in his edition of 1540 (cf. Watt in app.). Cf. also Manutius remarks in his In Epistolas Ciceronis ad Atticum Commentarius (Venetiis 1557) 148 verso: ut transitans L. Tullius acceperit, sed et semel in diem, et tamen lege Iulia: quae, transeuntibus, magistratuumque comitibus ut foenum aliaque ab oppidis et uicis subministrarentur, iubebat. ergo semel in diem L. Tullius, tantum quod necessarium esset: cum alii, lege Iulia abusi, ex omnibus uicis etiam quod necessarium non esset, transeuntes acciperent. Other editors of note who accepted transitans were H. Sjgren (Upsaliae 1929) and H. Moricca (editio Paraviana, 1953). A. S. Wesenberg in his Teubner text (1872) obelized the passage, but in his Emendationes alterae sive Adnotationes criticae ad Ciceronis Epistolarum editionem (Lipsiae 1873) 1067, vigorously defended the emendation of Manutius: even if hapax legomenon, transitans (sc. provinciae oppida vicosque) aptissimum est. According to I. C. Orelli and I. G. Baiter, M. Tulli Ciceronis Opera III2: Epistulae (Turici 1845) 485 (ad loc.), who also accept transitans, this reading is also found in Y = Codex Decurtatus sive Scidae Bosii (cf. pp. XLVIIXLVIII). But the Decurtatus is a figment, an invention of Bosius (Simon Dubois, ca 15351580). On Bosius, see Shackleton Bailey, Ciceros Letters to Atticus I (1965) 9395. As noted by Sjgren (in app.) the verb transito is in fact attested but only as a gloss explaining parodev. See Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum II: G. Goetz et G. Gundermann, Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae (Lipsiae 1888) 398,45 = VII: G. Goetz, Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum (1901) 362 and 608. Oxford Latin Dictionary adduces transito (with a query) only from our passage of Cicero, thus pursuing ad absurdum the principle of not quoting texts later than the second century of the Empire. W. S. Watt, M. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae II: Epistulae ad Atticum (Oxonii 1965), prints in his text sed Iulia lege transitam, and records his conjecture only in his apparatus. Originally he proposed this reading in Mnemosyne 16 (1963) 37778. He observes that even with the reading translaticia the sentence remains impossibly formless. As a further remedy he proposes to emend sed to e; e Iulia lege translaticia would then correspond almost exactly to ad Att. 5.16.3: quod e lege Iulia dari solet. J. Bayet in L.-A. Constans et J. Bayet, Cicron.

Transitus 290

309

The term translaticius (more frequently spelled tralaticius) is well attested in legal contexts. At ad Att. 3.23.2 Cicero specifies that in the (ill-fated) tribunician bill concerning his return from exile alterum caput est tralaticium, de impunitate, i.e. it contains the traditional clause, found in all or most laws, si quid contra alias leges eius legis ergo factum sit. In particular Cicero so defines that part of the praetors edict that had customarily been handed down from one praetor to another; Verres introduced there ignorant and partisan innovations (Verr. 2.1.114, 117). The Julian law in question was the lex Iulia de repetundis, passed by Caesar as consul in 59 B.C.7 The lex itself could not of course be described as translaticia, only some of its dispositions. Consequently Shackleton Bailey (following Watt) takes translaticia as the object of the verb accepit. The term would thus be neuter plural, and would denote contributions and services customarily received from the provincials (on the basis of the Julian law) by the governor and his staff. (If he requisitioned more than the allowed maximum, he could be liable de pecuniis repetundis). Cicero specifies various contributions and services allowed under the Julian law in two other letters to Atticus. He writes from Athens, where he stopped on his way to Cilicia (ad Att. 5.10.2):
adhuc sumptus nec in me aut publice aut privatim nec in quemquam comitum. nihil accipitur lege Iulia, nihil ab hospite.8
Correspondance IV (Paris 1950) 129, adduces ad loc. the idea of Constans: transitoriam (sc. summam or pecuniam). He also records (and so do also Sjgren and Moricca) I. N. Madvigs prandia (Adversaria critica III, Hauniae 1884, 176) which makes some sense, but is rather removed from the paradosis. Moricca also adduces (P. H.) Peerlkamps pransitans, not a serious contender. On this law, see F. Pontenay de Fontette, Leges repetundarum (Paris 1954) 10718. He does not discuss or even record the passages from the ad Atticum discussed in this note. They are, however, listed in G. Rotondi, Leges Publicae Populi Romani (Milano 1912) 389. Nor does C. Venturini, Studi sul crimen repetundarum nellet repubblicana (Milano 1979) offer any discussion of the Ciceronian passages; he merely mentions them in passing as indicating the prohibition of the lex Iulia di introdurre nelle province nuove forme di imposizione tributaria (472, and n. 33; cf. 490, n. 75), a description unduly vague. The most detailed information on magistratische Emolumente is still to be found, as so often, in T. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht I3 (Leipzig 1887) 293306. Also still useful and informative, J. Marquardt, Rmische Staatsverwaltung I2 (Leipzig 1881) 53335. {See now D. Hennig, Die Beherbergung von Staatsgsten in der hellenistischen Polis, Chiron 27 (1997) 35568, esp. 36368 on the Roman hospites; and the comprehensive study by A. Kolb, Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Rmischen Reich (Berlin 2000), esp. for the republican period, 2839: Reisen staatlicher Amtstrger. Strangely, she does not adduce at all the passage here discussed, Cic. ad Att. 5.21.5. There is no discussion of billeting in R. Schulz, Herrschaft und Regierung. Roms Regiment in den Provinzen in der Zeit der Republik (Padeborn 1997); and T. aso del Hoyo, Milites in oppidis hibernabant. El hospitium militare invernal en ciudades peregrinas y los abusos de la hospitalidad sub tectis durante la Repblica, DHA 27/2, 2001, 6390, offers no comments on official travel.} Shackleton Bailey (III.25) translates: We take nothing under the lex Julia or as private guests. This translation obscures Roman terminology. Hospes can mean either guest or host, and the sense depends exclusively on the context (cf. OLD s.v.). Now Cicero and his entourage were official guests, not private travellers. In this passage hospes clearly denotes a

310
291

Historia et Philologia

Next, he has just entered his province, and he again informs his friend (ad Att. 5.16.3):
levantur tamen miserae civitates quod nullus fit sumptus in nos neque in legatos neque in quaestorem neque in quemquam. scito non modo nos faenum aut quod e lege Iulia dari solet accipere sed ne ligna quidem, nec praeter quattuor lectos et tectum quemquam accipere quicquam, multis locis ne tectum quidem et in tabernaculo manere plerumque.

The phrase in the first letter, publice aut privatim, refers to the services rendered to the travelling official either collectively by public entities, cities and villages, or by private individuals. The former were received under the law, lege Iulia, the latter as voluntary gifts ab hospite, from the host.9 In the other letter Cicero specifies hay
person who provides hospitality for the visiting official, and is rightly classified under this heading in OLD. Also R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero III2 (Dublin 1914) 40 (no. 198), correctly interpret hospes in our passage as the name given to a provincial on whom the governor or his suite were billeted. Exact translation is given by L.-A. Constans, Cicron. Correspondance III (Paris 1950) 229: on naccepte rien de ce quautorise la loi Julia, rien de ce que peut offrir un hte. So also A. W. Zumpt, Die Schwurgerichte der rmischen Republik II.2 (Berlin 1869) 315: Wir nehmen nichts nach dem Julischen Gesetze an, nichts von einem Gastfreunde. And finally already Manutius (above, n. 4) 139: publice enim hospitia magistratibus in provincias proficiscentibus dabantur, cum hospes cuique suus assignaretur: sed Cicero sumptum ubique fecit de suo, accipi ab hospitibus uetuit. I stress this meaning of hospes in this letter for in official documents the term also appears in the opposite sense of official guest, as e.g. in the letter of Septimius Severus and Caracalla (of 204), the copies of which were found in Paros, Phrygia and Lydia, where we read: sen[a]tori p. R. nece[ss]e non esse invito hospitem suscipere. See T. Drew-Bear, W. Eck, P. Herrmann, Sacrae Litterae, Chiron 7 (1977) 35583 at 35557, 36465. Another copy from Asia Minor, of unknown provenance, in L. Robert, BCH 102 (1978) 43237 {= Documents dAsie Mineure (BEFAR 239 bis [Paris 1987]) 12833}. On the sacrae litterae, see also two new fragments, and the list of all known examples in C. P. Jones, The Sacrae Litterae of 204: Two Colonial Copies, Chiron 14 (1984) 9399. He argues that the petitioner might be a civic magistrate who had unsuccessfully tried to assign visitors with the right of free lodging to the house of a senator (p. 95)}. W. Eck in his otherwise remarkable contribution (above, n. 8) observes (368, and n. 60) that under the denomination hospites we have to distinguish two groups of people: all those with whom a community concluded an agreement of hospitium, and all those who im staatlichen Auftrag unterwegs waren. For the latter he provides thirteen references, but in six of those texts the term hospes is not mentioned at all (Cic. ad Att. 5.16.3; 5.17.2; 5.21.5 ff.; at Val. Max. 7.3.9 we encounter a proscriptus, who pretending to be a praetor vehicula conprehendit, hospitia occupavit [see below, n. 20]; Plin. Ep. 9.33.10 refers to the story of the tame dolphin: confluebant ad spectaculum magistratus quorum aduentu et mora modica res publica atterebatur; see below; 10.81.1: cum Prusae ad Olympum ... publicis negotiis intra h o s p i t i u m eodem die exiturus uacarem), and in four texts the reference is patently to hospites = hosts, and not to hospites = official guests. First of all ad Att. 5.10.2, the very passage that prompted this terminological investigation. Next Petr. Sat. 85.1: in Asiam cum a quaestore essem stipendio eductus, hospitium Pergami accepi. ubi cum libenter habitarem non solum propter cultum aedicularum, sed etiam propter h o s p i t i s (clearly the host) formosissimum filium; Plin. N.H. 9.26, the story of a friendly dolphin at Hippo Diarrhytus in Africa ex hominum manu vescens, and of the animals popularity leading to its death: iniuriae potestatum in h o s p i t a l e s ad

Transitus 292

311

(faenum) and fire-wood (ligna), and, apparently as a minimum lodging requirement, four couches and a roof.10 Thus Cicero would purchase, not requisition, fodder and wood, and in many places he and his entourage would not exercise their right of billeting. But above and beyond hay and wood, and a simple lodging, the Julian law appears to have authorized also other contributions: quod e lege Iulia dari solet. And these contributions one may feel tempted to identify with the tralaticia hypothesized by Watt (and favored by Shackleton Bailey) at ad Att. 5.21.5: <e> Iulia lege translaticia ... accepit. But we search in vain for parallels to this meaning and this usage of the term translaticius: it does not appear to be attested as a neuter noun. Cicero is not the only author to record travels of Roman officials. Burdens and aggravations caused by republican magistrates pale into insignificance when compared to expenses incurred by the provincials to support the imperial comitatus. Pliny the Younger draws a stark contrast between the travels of Domitian and Trajan (Paneg. 20.34):
Iter inde placidum ac modestum et plane a pace redeuntis. ... Nullus in exigendis vehiculis tumultus, nullum circa hospitia fastidium; annona quae ceteris; ad hoc comitatus accinctus et parens. ... (4) Quam dissimilis nuper alterius principis t r a n s i t u s ! si tamen t r a n s i t u s ille, non populatio fuit, cum abactus hospitum exsereret,11 omniavisendum venientium Hipponenses in necem eius compulerint, or in the translation by H. Rackham (Pliny, Natural History III.181 [Loeb Class. Library, 1940]): The expense caused to their hosts by persons of official position who came to see it forced the people of Hippo to destroy it. Rackham rightly understands hospitales in the sense of hosts; so also OLD s.v. (p. 807) classifying hospitales (masc. pl. as substantive) as persons offering hospitality (on the other hand Lewis-Short, A Latin Dictionary, take it, quite wrongly, to mean guests); and finally Front. Strat. 1.9.1: Aulus Manlius consul, cum comperisset coniurasse milites in hibernis Campaniae, ut iugulatis h o s p i t i b u s ipsi res invaderent eorum; the hospites are here the Quartiergeber, as is well rendered by G. Bendz, Frontin. Kriegslisten (Berlin 1963) 51. For the sense of guest there remain only two but important references: Cic. ad Q. fr. 1.1.9: cum ... domus h o s p i t e m , non expilatorem recepisse videatur; and Plin. Paneg. 15.4 (of the young Trajan): quod denique tectum magnus h o s p e s impleueris. Also in two other passages of Cicero hospes denotes compulsory guest: ad Att. 5.21.7: mirifica expectatio Asiae nostrarum dioecesium, quae sex mensibus imperi mei ... numquam h o s p i t e m viderat; 13.52 (of Caesars visit to Cicero, pointedly employing the terminology of billeting): O h o s p i t e m mihi tam gravem, and further: Habes hospitium sive pistaymean. Again, the meaning resides in the context. Eck also adduces Philostr. Vitae sophist. 534, but this Greek text cannot offer any contribution to Latin terminology, and Philostratus in this anecdote of the emperor Antoninus Pius does his best to avoid Greek technical terms of hospitium: earlier in his life Antoninus Pius was a governor of Asia and when visiting Smyrna he was given (presumably by the magistrates of that city) the lodging in the house of the sophist Polemon (katlusen n t to Polmvnow ok&), but the latter apparently claiming as a philosopher exemption from billeting (cf. Eck 370) promptly forced the future emperor to vacate his quarters. 10 Quattuor lectos is perplexing. Shackleton Bailey (III.218) hesitatingly surmises that it may indicate three for the dining room (triclinium) and one for the bedroom. Cf. Horace in his Iter Brundisinum (Sat. 1.5.45-46): proxima Campano ponti quae villula, tectum / praebuit et parochi, quae debent, ligna salemque. 11 The text is that of R. A. B. Mynors, XII Panegyrici Latini (Oxonii 1964). He inserts a crux, but there is nothing wrong with this phrase. The manuscripts have abactus hospicium exereret

312

Historia et Philologia

293

que dextera laeuaque perusta et attrita, ut si uis aliqua uel ipsi barbari quos fugiebat inciderent. Persuadendum provinciis erat illud iter Domitiani fuisse, non principis. Itaque non tam pro tua gloria quam pro utilitate communi edicto subiecisti, quid in utrumque uestrum esset impensum. Adsuescat imperator cum imperio calculum ponere; sic exeat sic redeat tamquam rationem redditurus; edicat quod absumpserit.

Trajan followed in the footsteps of Caesar, and by his edict regulated the expenses the provincials were obliged to sustain for the imperial travels. But here we are not interested in the deeds of the optimus princeps; it is the words that matter. And one word jumps into the eyes of the reader: transitus. This is the official term for the iter of an emperor, the passage of his comitatus.12 The story of transitus does not end here. Even more significant is the appearance of the term in a letter of Pliny to Trajan concerning the burdens of the city of Iuliopolis (Ep. 10.77): cum sit perexigua, onera maxima sustinet tantoque grauiores iniurias quanto est infirmior patitur. These burdens were caused by travellers on official missions: Sunt enim (sc. Iuiopolitani) in capite Bithyniae, plurimisque per eam commeantibus t r a n s i t u m p r a e b e n t . Pliny suggests that Trajan might consider coming to the rescue of the Iuliopolitani as he had recently done in a similar situation with respect to Byzantium. Who these travellers were, we learn from Trajans reply (Ep. 10.78). The emperor declined to take any direct action, but instructed the governor to see to it that the Iuliopolitani should not be obnoxii iniuriis. In particular si qui autem se contra disciplinam meam gesserint, statim coerceantur; aut, si plus admiserint quam ut in re praesenti satis puniantur, si milites erunt, legatis eorum quod deprehenderis notum facies aut, si in urbem uersus uenturi erunt, mihi scribis. Pliny was to punish immediately all minor offences; as to more serious transgressions Trajan distinguished two categories of commeantes: the soldiers (milites) travelling on
(defended by M. Haupt, Opuscula III, 2, Lipsiae 1886, 49596), with the variants hospitum and exerceret. Hospites are the hosts who provided lodgings for the emperor and his comitatus. In this context hospes is a technical term, and it is guaranteed by Ciceros reference at ad Att. 5.10.2: nihil (accipitur) ab hospite (see above, n. 8). Of the two verbs, exerceret has nothing to recommend it: it would have to refer to Domitian whereas both the preceding and the following sentence are construed impersonally. Exsereret would on the other hand be employed in the meaning familiar in silver Latin to reveal oneself, to be visible. We can translate: the pillage of hosts was on display. But perhaps we should follow Haupt, keep the reading abactus hospicium (or hospitium) ex(s)ereret, and translate with B. Radice, Pliny. Letters and Panegyricus (Loeb Class. Library, 1969), II.367: when houses were forcibly emptied to provide lodgings, or with M. Durry, Pline le Jeune, Tome IV: Lettres, Livre X. Pangyrique de Trajan (Paris 1959) 20: o il expulsait pour trouver gte; see Durrys extended defence of this reading in his Pline le Jeune. Pangyrique de Trajan (Paris 1938) 116. Finally we may note that A. [= E.] Baehrens proposed in his Teubner edition of the Panegyrici (1874), ingeniously and adventurously, cum abactus hospitium exederet. 12 For the organization of the imperial iter, see H. Halfmann, Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisenden im Rmischen Reich (= HABES 2, Stuttgart 1986) 7089. He adduces the passage of Pliny (p. 72), but does not discuss its terminology. See also the marvellous chapter on Imperial Journeys in F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World (London 1971) 2840 (no reference to Pliny).

Transitus

313

294

orders from their commanders (legati), and those officials who journeyed directly to Rome. In those more serious cases the punishment will be meted out by the legati and the emperor himself: Pliny was only to apprize them of the culprits and of their transgressions contra disciplinam.13 In this passage it is not only the term transitus that jumps again into the readers eye, but the whole phrase: transitum praebere. This is the term and the locution to be restored to its rightful place in the letter of Cicero: the provincials transitum praebent, the travelling official transitum accipit. What burdens this service entailed, we have only recently learned in detail from an extraordinary inscription that came to light in Pisidia in Asia Minor. As the erudite editor of this document points out, it is the first text found to date containing a set of detailed regulations concerning the provision of transport for official use by a particular subject community, Sagalassus in Pisidia.14 This long bilingual edict (25 lines in Latin, 27 in Greek) was issued by Sex. Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus, legatus pro praetore of the emperor Tiberius.15 It was based on dispositions of Augustus and Tiberius (lines 34: quod Augusti alter deorum alter principum maximus diligentissime caverunt) concerning the official travel and also curbing its abuses, in particular ne quis gratuitis vehiculis utatur. The governor defined in detail the services to be provided for official travellers in the individual towns and villages (lines 56: formulam eorum quae [pra]estari iudico oportere in singulis civitatibus et vicis). The inhabitants of Sagalassos were obligated to supply for the use of travellers a service of ten wagons and of the same number of mules (lines 89: ministerium carrorum decem et mulorum totidem praestare debent ad usus necessarios transeuntium); for this service they were to receive a payment. If they wished they could provide two donkeys for one mule. They had to offer this service for the whole vast stretch of the territory belonging to their city, as far as the cities of Cormasa (ca 55 km. in a direct line to the west of Sagalassos) and of Conana (ca 35 km. to the north of Sagalassos).16 But the Sagalasseni were
13 The text according to R. A. B. Mynors, C. Plini Secundi Epistolarum Libri Decem (Oxonii 1963). On these two letters, see the comment by A. N. Sherwin White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford 1966) 665-669. 14 S. Mitchell, Requisitioned Transport in the Roman Empire: A New Inscription from Pisidia, JRS 66 (1976) 10631 at 106 (cf. also for minor corrections ZPE 45, 1982, 1001). An English translation also in R. K. Sherk, Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Vol. 6: The Roman Empire from Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge 1988) 5556 (no. 29). The text and a French translation now in AE 1976 [1980], 653. Mitchell (11112) very conveniently provides a list of other texts referring to the requisitioned transport, but as almost all of those documents are in Greek, they are of little help in deciding a textual problem in a Latin letter. Of earlier literature on angareia always instructive: T. Zawadzki, Sur un inscription de Phrygie relative au cursus publicus, REA 62 (1960) 8094; G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae III.2 (Sofia 1964) 10225, esp. 12025 (no. 1689); T. Pekary, Untersuchungen zu den rmischen Reichsstrassen (= Antiquitas I.17, Bonn 1968) 13538, 17475. And see now (on the senators freedom from the billeting) the excellent study by Eck on the rechtliche Sonderstellung des Senatorenstandes, Chiron 7 (1977) 36583 (cf. above, n. 8). 15 As Mitchell (11314) argues, he was almost certainly a governor of Galatia; this province included central Pisidia with the city of Sagalassos. 16 For a detailed topographical description, see Mitchell 11719.

314

Historia et Philologia

295

authorized to farm out this burdensome liturgy to other communities and villages situated within their territory provided that they would pay them what they would have received if they had provided the service themselves (lines 1112: si malent, in singulos mulos et in singula carra id quod accepturi erant si ipsi praeberent dare praestent iis qui alterius civitatis aut vicis munere fungentur, ut idem procedant).17 Next (lines 1423) the edict specified the extent of the service (the number of carts and mules to be provided varied according to the rank of the recipient) and listed the various categories of officials who were entitled to receive it (procurator principis and his son,18 two categories of militantes: qui diplomum habebunt,19 and qui ex aliis provinciis militantes commeabunt, including senator populi Romani, eques Romanus cuius officio princeps utitur, and centurio). For our purposes particularly important is the final disposition (lines 2325):
Mansionem omnibus qui erunt ex / comitatu nostro et militantibus ex omnibus provinciis et principis optimi libertis et servis et iumentis / gratuitam praestari oportet, ita ut reliqua ab invitis gratuita non e(x)sigant. Lodging should be provided without payment for all members of my own staff, for persons on military service from all other provinces and for freedmen and slaves of the best of princes and for the animals of these persons in such a way that they do not exact further services without payment from unwilling people.

17 Mitchell 119 explains civitates as self-governing cities which had been subordinated to Sagalassus, at least for the purpose of administering the transport liturgy. We can compare here Cic. ad Att. 5.16.3: when the inhabitants of Cilicia learned of Ciceros abstinentia, everywhere on his arrival (adventus) incredibilem in modum concursus fiunt ex agris, ex vicis, ex <oppidis> omnibus. The manuscripts read nominibus; corrected by Ernesti, and printed by Shackleton Bailey and Watt. These oppida correspond to civitates mentioned earlier in the letter, and to civitates in the edict of Sotidius. For the arrangement itself of distributing the obligations, the closest parallel is offered by the gromaticus Siculus Flaccus (he lived in the second century) in his treatise de condicionibus agrorum. If there is a controversy, how to decide to which civitas (be it municipium, colonia or praefectura) a pagus belongs? Here is one way: nam et quotiens militi p r a e t e re u n t i aliiue cui comitatui a n n o n a publica praestanda est, si l i g n a aut s t r a m e n t a deportanda, quaerendum quae ciuitates quibus pagis huius modi munera praebere solitae sint (C. Lachmann, Gromatici veteres I.165 [Berolini 1848] = C. Thulin, Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum I.129 [Lipsiae 1913]). The grammar is strained, but as solitae clearly refers to civitates, we have to take quibus pagis in an instrumental or locative sense: the civitates discharge (praebent) their obligations (munera) through the agency of the pagi (or in the territory of individual pagi). A recent traslation by a group of French scholars (Siculus Flaccus, Les conditions des terres, Napoli 1993) opts for the locative: if faudra rechercher quelles cits remplissent habituellement ces charges, et dans quel pagus (p. 99), and a note explains: Le texte parat concerner plus particulirement les pagi frontaliers des cits voisines. 18 That the text is not corrupt (as Mitchell thought), and that here really the son of the procurator is meant, see (against Mitchell), G. Alfldy, Die Ritter in der Fhrungsschicht des Imperium Romanum, Chiron 11 (1981) 201, n. 163. 19 Apparently from the governor of the province. On the system of the distribution of diplomas (written authorizations for lodging and transport), see Mitchell 12527.

Transitus

315

The edict thus clearly distinguished between transport (for which a payment was due) and lodging (that was to be provided gratis). The term mansio appears here for the first time in an epigraphical text, and is to be taken in the sense of hospitium (Mitchell 109, 127). Mitchell (p. 115) further observes that it was the lex Iulia de repetundis that laid down the rules for the provision of hospitium to governors and their staff in the late republic and under the empire, and he continues:
but since the clauses of that law, in so far as they can be reconstructed from the traces they leave in the literary and epigraphic sources, do not directly concern transport, we should probably assume that this was covered by a separate ruling, which might have taken the form of another lex or an imperial edict.

296

We beg to disagree. When we compare ad Att. 5.21.5 (the letter with the crux) and ad Att. 5.16.3, we shall see that they do not describe the same situation: in the latter the stress is on the overnight lodging, whereas in the former it is on the travel itself, the passing through the villages. The Julian law thus appears to have authorized the travelling official to demand not only the overnight accomodation, but also various services during the iter, the transitus itself. There were clearly some similar regulations concerning the transport used by officials in the provinces during the republic, but details of these cannot be reconstructed. So Mitchell (p. 128). Again, we beg to disagree. Some details can indeed be reconstructed. Anecdotes preserve precious information. Valerius Maximus 7.3.9 narrates the daring escape of [C]. Sentius Saturninus Vetulo:
qui cum a triumuiris inter proscriptos nomen suum propositum audisset, continuo praeturae insignia inuasit praecedentibusque in modum lictorum et apparitorum et seruorum publicorum subornatis u e h i c u l a conprehendit, h o s p i t i a occupauit, obuios summouit ac tam audaci usurpatione imperii in maxima luce densissimas hostilibus oculis tenebras offudit. idem, ut Puteolos uenit, perinde ac publicum ministerium agens summa cum licentia correptis n a u i b u s in Siciliam, certissimum tunc proscriptorum perfugium, penetrauit.20

This passage demonstrates lucidly, without any tenebrae, that a republican magistrate on an official mission (publicum ministerium agens) was entitled to requisition not only hospitium but also transport, and not only vehicula but also naves.21

20 The text according to C. Kempf, Valerii Maximi Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem (Lipsiae 1888). On the person of [C]. Sentius Saturninus Vetulo, who perhaps was a praetorius, see F. Hinard, Les proscriptions de la Rome rpublicaine (Rome 1985) 51819. Mitchell (114, n. 16) briefly mentions this text, but he dissociates it from the provisions of the lex Iulia (cf. 115). Cf. above, n. 9. Appian (B.C. 4.45) recounts an identical ruse, but he attributes it to a certain Pomponius (cf. Hinard 507). 21 The magistrate had of course to pay for the ships. Cf. Cic. 2 Verr. 5.45: Quid enim tibi navi? qui si quo publice proficisceris, praesidi et vecturae causa sumptu publico navigia praebentur. The particular licentia of Sentius Saturninus may have resided not only in his impersonation of a magistrate, but also in the fact that he did not pay for the requisitioned boats.

316

Historia et Philologia

297

These are precisely the contributions ad usus necessarios transeuntium of which speaks the edict of Sotidius Strabo. Sotidius does not mention ships but for this means of locomotion there was no need in Pisidia or Galatia. The term transeuntium ... readily conjures up a picture of officials making a regular progress along the main roads through the territory of Sagalassus, and there can be no doubt that this was the chief use for transport which Sotidius envisaged when he drafted the regulations. In this evocative description Mitchell (pp. 13031) has in mind the regular tours of the governor and his retinue from conventus to conventus.22 Three generations previously in another province of Asia Minor another governor was making his slow progress from vicus to vicus, among his comites the legate L. Tullius, somewhat less scrupulous than the others. The operative word in Ciceros letters is sumptus. The provincials did not incur any expenses or only very minimal. But to travel Cicero and his entourage certainly needed carriages, draft and pack animals. As the story in Valerius Maximus demonstrates these services had to be provided by the locals in Italy and certainly even more so in the provinces. Why does Cicero not remark on those burdens? The answer is simple. He paid for those services, and hence no sumptus was involved. Augustus, Tiberius, and Sotidius in his edict spoke of a prohibition to use gratuita vehicula. This will hardly be an Augustan innovation, and indeed despite or perhaps through Ciceros silence we can detect here an original prescription of the lex Iulia. Cicero himself occasionally accepted the lodging, and thus he could not blame his legate if he had accepted it as well. But the legate L. Tullius made also other requisitions for his travel though only once a day and not, ut alii solebant, and as he was legally entitled to, in all the villages through which he was passing, and (if we keep intact the sentence in the parenthesis) he made them only during one particular journey. Those requisitions were made under the Julian law, and they were apparently gratuitous (see below); hence not the vehicula. In any case carts and animals would hardly be requisitioned in each village. The requisitions with which we here are dealing can easily be surmised, and they can be subsumed conveniently under one term: annona, food and fodder.23 The travellers were entitled under the Julian law to hospitium, and this certainly included also the evening and morning meal. But during their days journey, from one nights accomodation (hospitium = mansio) to another, the travellers and their animals needed food, fodder and water, also an occasional rest, and the best time for a stop was certainly the midday. These
22 See also the splendid piece by A. J. Marshall, Governors on the Move, Phoenix 20 (1966) 23146 (he does not discuss the lex Iulia). 23 Cf. Halfmann, Itinera principum (above, n. 12) 70, n. 231. In the sense of subsistence provided to travelling officials or soldiers by the populace the term annona appears in the Panegyric of Pliny (20.3; see above in the text), in the gromaticus Siculus Flaccus (above, n. 17), and Statius, Silvae 4.9.1719 (cf. Halfmann 76, n. 249, with further literature). Suet. Galba 7.2, adduced in this context by OLD (s.v. annona 2 d, p. 136) does not belong here. The institution was republican in origin, and it is only due to chance that the term annona is not attested in this application before the empire.

Transitus

317

298

services and provisions were offered by the villages that were unfortunate enough to be situated along a public road, with many official travellers transeuntes or praetereuntes.24 Furthermore these provisions were offered gratis. How do we know this? Because when L. Tullius, that blot (sordes) on Ciceros reputation, accepted them, the villagers incurred sumptus; hence they were not paid for their offerings! (in any case we know from ad Att. 5.16.3 that faenum and ligna were provided gratis). Over all these disquisitions still hangs the long shadow of the crux. But now rested at a mansio or hospitium, and provided with annona and vehicula, we can proceed to remove it. Omnibus vicis is decisive. Boot saw well and the edict of Sotidius brilliantly corroborates this insight that the phrase refers to the passing on one day through a number of villages, but Manutius transitans is a poor choice. Watt and Shackleton Bailey are right: we need an object to the verb accepit. This was denied by R. Y. Tyrrell.25 He proposed to read in transitu, which was according to him an interlinear explanation of the Greek words, n pard. The phrase should mean in the progress through my province, as in ad Att. 5.20.6: Ariobarzanes opera mea vivit, regnat; n pard consilio et auctoritate ... praebui regem regnumque servavi. But Cicero is jocular here; this was well seen by Shackleton Bailey who translates just en passant I rescued king and kingdom.26 A better parallel and a ready Latin expression offer two legal passages: Gaius, Inst. 1.20: Maiores vero triginta annorum servi semper manumitti solent, adeo ut uel in t r a n s i t u manumittantur, veluti cum praetor aut pro consule in balneum vel in theatrum eat; Dig. 40.2.7 (Gaius, 1 rerum cottidianarum): Non est omnino necesse pro tribunali manumittere: itaque plerumque in t r a n s i t u servi manumitti solent, cum aut lavandi aut gestandi aut ludorum gratia prodierit praetor aut proconsul legatusve Caesaris. Compare also Ulpians phrase (Dig. 7.1.27.3): quod o b t r a n s i t u m exercitus confertur ex fructibus, and perhaps Vulg. Judith 2.9: frumentum ex omni Syria i n t r a n s i t u suo parari constitutit. Still, what to do with accepit? In his article Tyrrell observed that Cicero often uses accipere absolutely in his letters, but he adduced no examples. He repaired
24 In addition to the very term transitus, cf. in the edict of Sotidius, line 9: ad usus necessarios t r a n s e u n t i u m ; in the agrimensor Siculus Flaccus: militi p r a e t e re u n t i (above, n. 17); and the warning of Columella, Agr. 1.5.7: a villa should not be situated in close proximity to a via militaris for haec autem p r a e t e re u n t i u m viatorum populationibus et adsiduis devertentium hospitiis infestat rem familiarem. Transire was and remained an official term: in a letter (ca 208) of the governor of Syria L. Marius Maximus to various military commanders and to procurator Minicius Martialis concerning the travel and entertainment of a Parthian ambassador we read (AE 1933, 107; the text is here given according to the edition by R. O. Fink, Roman Military Records on Papyrus, Cleveland 1971, 399401, no. 98): curae tibi sit et quaesturas nn(ostras) per quos t r a n s i t Goces legatus Parthorum ... secundum morem x e n i a [= hospitia] ei offer<r>e quid autem in quoque numero erogaueris scribe mihi. On the counting and reporting of expenses, cf. H.-G. Pflaum, Les procurateurs questres sous le Haut-Empire romain (Paris 1950) 15657. 25 Ciceroniana, Hermathena No. 15 (1889) = vol. 7 (1890 [sic]) 38. 26 Ciceros Letters to Atticus III.61 So also already Manutius (above, n. 4) 146 verso: in cursu: quasi enim praeteriens et alias res agens.

318

Historia et Philologia

this omission in his commentary,27 where he produced three passages: ad Att. 1.17.8: promulgatum ... fuisse, ut de eis qui ob iudicandum a c c e p i s s e n t , quaereretur); 11.22.2: qui (sc. milites) se negant usquam, nisi a c c e p e r i n t ;28 and (mistakenly) ad Q. fr. 1.1.13 (this passage does not contain an absolute construction: iis qui aliquid a c c e p e r i n t ). On balance, (in transitu) lege accipere, without any object, does not appear to be a likely construct. But transitus, the reading of N, and the term attested in an identical context by Pliny (Ep. 10.77: transitum praebent), is the right word. In its technical application it denoted not only the physical act of the passage of the official or later the emperor, but also quae ad transitum pertinent, the services to be rendered for the travel by the provincials. We can confidently restore in Ciceros letter this piece of bureaucratic Latin:
is ceteroqui abstinens, sed Iulia lege t r a n s i t u m semel tamen in diem, non ut alii solebant omnibus vicis (praeter eum semel, nemo), accepit.
299

The passage of a Roman official, certainly of a republican governor or later of an Emperor, was to provincials like the passage of a god. It could bring destruction or favor.29 Fittingly enough, the word transitus was also employed to denote the passage of a deity, of Mithra, or of the God of the Christians.30 But that is another story.

27 The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero III2.18081, no. 250. 28 Shackleton Bailey, Ciceros Letters to Atticus V.69 translates: who refuse to go anywhere until they get their pay. 29 It was an expense but also an honor to serve as a host to an emperor (cf. the references in Eck [above, n. 8] 370, n. 71). And at the time of the republic Greek cities occasionally lauded in honorific decrees those citizens who successfully entertained Roman officials; see T. DrewBear, Deux dcrets hellnistiques dAsie Mineure, BCH 96 (1972) 45354; S. Mitchell, Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor I (Oxford 1993) 6369. 30 M. J. Vermaseren, Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae II (Hagae Comitis 1960), see index, s.v.

23 EFFETE ROME: SALLUST, CAT. 53,5*

Ac mihi multa agitanti constabat paucorum civium egregiam virtutem cuncta patravisse, ... (5) sed postquam luxu atque desidia civitas conrupta est, rursus res publica magnitudine sui imperatorum atque magistratuum vitia sustentabat ac, sicuti effeta parentum, multis tempestatibus haud sane quisquam Romae virtute magnus fuit. (6) Sed memoria mea ingenti virtute, divorsis moribus fuere viri duo, M. Cato et C. Caesar.1

Effeta parentum is the consensus of the better codices; the reading of (some of) the recentiores and deteriores is effeta parente.2 The text is corrupt, the cure uncertain.3

* 1

Mnemosyne Series IV, 52 (1999) 257265. Abbreviations: A.W. Ahlberg = editio Teubneriana (1919, and reprints); F. Antoine - R. Lallier, Salluste: Conjuration de Catilina (Paris 1888); G. Cortius = editio Lipsiensis (1734); R. Dietsch = editio quarta Teubneriana (1874, and reprints); A. Ernout = editio quarta, coll. Bud (1960); A. Eussner = editio Teubneriana (1887, and reprints); R. Jacobs - H. Wirz - A. Kurfess = De Coniuratione Catilinae, editio undecima Weidmanniana (1922); H. Jordan = editio tertia Weidmanniana (1887); F. Kritz(ius) = editio Lipsiensis (1828); A. Kurfess = editio secunda (post A. Ahlberg) Teubneriana (1953) = editio tertia stereotypa (1957); P. McGushin, C. Sallustius Crispus. Bellum Catilinae. A Commentary (Lugduni Batavorum 1977); L.D. Reynolds = editio Oxoniensis (1991); K. Vretska = C. Sallustius Crispus: De Catilinae Coniuratione, kommentiert von K.V. (Heidelberg 1976). For a list of recent editions of Sallusts Bellum Catilinae, see A.D. Leeman, A Systematical Bibliography of Sallust (18791964), revised ed. (Leiden 1965), 1519. A very ample list of earlier editions and translations of Sallust is given in the editio Bipontina secunda (1780) reprinted (with addenda) in C. Sallustii Opera Omnia, curante et imprimente A.J. Valpy (Londini 1820), II.797839, and 84045 (addenda). Valpys text (in vol. I) is that of Cortius (veluti effoeta parentum), the notes in usum Delphini and Variorum. Kurfess defines parentum as given by consensus codicum mutilorum et integrorum; he does not record any other reading. Jordan registers effeta parentum, but he also adduces effeta parente, deriving from codices interpolati vel omnes vel aliquot, quorum optimus. Reynolds registers both readings: effeta parente (among lectiones in uno vel pluribus codicibus recentioribus inuentae) and effeta parentum (as the consensus codicum). For a recent synopsis of proposed medicines, see McGushin 270 (not always accurate; cf. below, nn. 5, 7, 8, 26). He offers no discusssion of the ideology of this passage (but cf. 30911: Appendix VII). An ample list of earlier emendations and interpretations in E.J. Richter, Commentarius in C. Sallustii Crispi Conjurationem Catilinariam (Monachii 1836), 459, 46162; in the article by Kunze (below, n. 8); in Valpy 1.48687; in Antoine-Lallier 199200; and in Kritz 28486 ad loc.: Vix alibi magis se torquerunt interpretes, quam in hoc loco explicando. Kritz himself prints a strange text: sicuti effetae parentum, with the supposed meaning effetae parentis = effetae inter parentes. In a subsequent edition (Lipsiae 1856) he tacitly recanted, and adopted the reading (presumably following Dietsch; cf. below, n. 4) sicut effeta aetate parentum.

320
258

Historia et Philologia

259

Dietsch had originally proposed sicuti effeta <aetate> parentum,4 but in his fourth edition he enthusiastically embraced (p. VII) the emendation of the great Friedrich Ritschl: effeta <vi> parentum.5 All previous emendations (with the exception of Dietschs aetate) Ritschl condemned with disdain as mere Knsteleien. Undaunted, Jordan returned to the lectio of the recentiores: effeta parente,6 and McGushin found this reading the most convincing of the versions proposed. Ahlberg followed Ritschl, but his successor Kurfess admitted into the text his own conjecture: sicuti effeta <esset> partu.7 This conjecture is akin to the earlier effort of A. Kunze: sicuti <esset> effeta pariundo (or pariendo),8 accepted into his edition by Ernout. We may finally record that H. Wirz would read <esset> effeta [parentum], removing parentum as a gloss.9 On all those efforts D.R. Shackleton Bailey has pronounced a memorable verdict: Attempts to remedy the evidently defective text have produced nothing which Sallust is likely to have written.10 He expressed some sympathy for Ritschls parentum vi (in fact <vi> parentum) as palaeographically the most ecoIn supplying aetate Dietsch may have had before his eyes the memorable verses of Horace, Carm. 3,6,4648: aetas parentum peior avis tulit / nos nequiores, mox daturos / progeniem vitiosiorem. 5 Originally published in RhM 21 (1866), 316, reprinted in Ritschls Opuscula Philologica, III (Leipzig 1877), 81819. He does not adduce any parallels; and as to parentum he remarks: Dieses parentum natrlich nicht im Sinne von Erzeuger, sondern als Vorltern gefasst. Kurfess, Vretska, McGushin, Shackleton Bailey and Reynolds incorrectly report Ritschls conjecture as effeta parentum <vi>. Ritschl had apparently a predecessor, Weidemann, who proposed (only orally!) a similar conjecture: sicut vi effeta parentum (see Kunze [below, n. 8] 1244, n. 1; Antoine-Lallier 199), the paradosis sicuti concealing sicut <v>i, a proposal not without its attraction. Another variation on Ritschls conjecture was the proposal by M.C. Gertz (reported by Kunze 1244): sicuti effeta pariendi <vi>. 6 He has found an impressive following; only very few scholars sided with Dietsch or Ritschl. See the list in Kunze (below, n. 8) 1244. Even the successor of Dietsch as editor Teubnerianus, A. Eussner, again embraced the vulgate effeta parente. Recently Vretska 61516 (in a rather disappointing discussion) accepted the emendation parentum vi (cf. above, n. 5), but he attributed it mistakenly not only to Ritschl but also to Jordan! He assigns this reading also to Antoine, but in the edition of Antoine-Lallier of 1888 (I did not see the edition of 1912) we read effeta parente (with an explicit invocation of Jordan). Of all other emendations Vretska chose to discuss only the forgettable parente tum of S. Mazzarino. 7 Originally he introduced it in the eleventh edition (1922) of Jacobs-Wirz (cf. pp. VVI), but in a slightly different shape: sicuti <esset> effeta partu, and later provided a detailed argument in PhW 47 (1927), 1165, where he adopted the order sicuti effeta <esset> partu. But Wirz and Kunze (below, n. 8) are certainly right that palaeographically esset would fall out more readily before than after effeta (McGushin incorrectly quotes the article by Kurfess as published in vol. 38 [1937]; in fact it is No. 38 of 47 Jahrgang). 8 BPhW 23 (1903), 124346 (McGushin quotes it incorrectly as vol. 39; in fact it is No. 39 of 23 Jahrgang). 9 Zeitschrift fr das Gymnasialwesen 31 (1877), 283, non vidi (according to Bursians Jahresbericht 8 [1877 but 1878], 81, it is a review of the second edition [1876] of Jordan), but Kunze (above, n. 8) 1244, quotes in extenso a long passage giving the gist of Wirzs argument. His new reading sicuti esset effeta Wirz introduced into the text of Jacobs (in any case it figures in the ninth edition of 1886). Cf. above, n. 7. 10 Sallustiana, Mnemosyne 34 (1981), 352. 4

Effete Rome: Sallust, Cat. 53,5

321

260

nomical, but discarded vis as not a mot juste. His own favorite lost word is stirpe, most likely to be placed after sicuti: hence sicuti <stirpe> effeta parentum. Two texts are adduced to bolster this emendation: Liv. 37,8,4 (referring to the Galati in Asia Minor): bellicosiores ea tempestate erant, Gallicos adhuc, nondum exoleta stirpe gentis, servantes animos; and Verg. Aen. 6,864 (Aeneas inquiring of Anchises in the underworld): anne aliquis magna de stirpe nepotum?, even to a friendly eye perhaps not exactly a perfect support. A better example offers, Verg. Aen. 3,9496 (the oracle of Apollo): Dardanidae duri, quae vos a stirpe parentum / prima tulit tellus, / eadem vos ubere laeto / accipiet reduces. In condemning their predecessors Ritschl and Shackleton Bailey had an illustrious predecessor, J.F. Gronov (16111671), who so characterized our passage: Locus in hunc diem frustra tentatus, & intellectus nemini. Nos quoque diu in eo operam lusimus. But in the second edition of his Observationes (Lugduni Batavorum 1662) he finally understood it: t effoeta respectum habere ad virtute, & in illa hanc vocem subaudiendam, & quasi bis posita esset, accipiendam.11 Hence sicuti effeta (sc. virtute) parentum. The most recent editor of Sallust, L.D. Reynolds, would have none of the above,12 including Shackleton Bailey: in an act of utmost desperation he obelizes both effeta and parentum: effeta parentum. No reason to be despondent. As so often, it was Jordan who has shown the way, not by his acceptance of the vulgate, but by his polemic against the conjecture of Ritschl. In his apparatus he points to two texts that militate against <vi> and provide illustration for effeta. First, Apuleius, Apologia 76 (p. 85, line 7, Helm): Ceterum uxor iam propemodum uetula et effeta. This will not sway many; a differ11 Gronovs edition of Sallust appeared in 1665 (cf. Valpy II.82122; it contained the observationes variorum collected by A. Thysius in his edition of 1654). I quote from an editio variorum, Amstelodami 1690 (Ex Officina Henrici & Viduae Theodori Boom; the editores Bipontini [Valpy II.823] identify this edition as Thysio-Gronoviana IV); Gronovs comments are also printed in Valpy I.487. The first edition of Gronovs Observationum Libri Tres (1639) was not available to me, but the second edition contains the text of the first, with addenda. Gronovius rejected the vulgate effoeta parente (praised by J. Rivius [150053], cf. Valpy I.486; Rivius famous edition of Sallust cum castigationibus appeared in 1539, and was several times reprinted), and observed (p. 22): hoc manifestum est t effoeta parentum esse sermonem praecisum, ad quem integrandum aliquid ex propinquo intelligendum est. Nihil est propinquius t multis tempestatibus. Quid si igitur, cum audimus effoeta parentum, subaudiamus tempestate? At the end of Book I, chapter 1 (pp. 3132) he presented his new understanding of the passage: Nunc magis placet t effoeta parentum dici per intellectum alius vocis, quae habetur in proximo orationis membro, nimirum virtute. Est quasi illa virtus, quae in parentibus et majoribus illustrium domuum fuit, lassata et effoeta provenire et propagari desiisset. As illustration he adduced Columella, Lucretius and Manilius (cf. below, nn. 16, 17, 23). This solution appeared to Gronov so obvious ut mirer qui factum sit, ut nec aliis nec mihi dudum in mentem venerit. Kritz (above, n. 3) retorted: this new ratio eiusmodi est, ut a nemine possit intelligi, quamvis miretur, nemini tam facilem explicationem in mentem venisse. Amicitiae philologorum ! 12 In his austere apparatus he records only the conjectures of Ritschl, Wirz, Kunze and Kurfess. S.P. Oakley in his laudatory review of Reynolds edition (CR 107 [1993], 5861 at 58) professes: I struggled to find even a handful of passages where Kurfesss choice of reading seemed preferable. He obviously loves the obeli at Cat. 53,5.

322

Historia et Philologia

261

ent matter with his other reference (already known to Cortius), Plin. Ep. 6,21 (Jordan per errorem 5,21): Sum ex iis qui mirer antiquos, non tamen (ut quidam) temporum nostrorum ingenia despicio. Neque enim quasi lassa et effeta natura nihil iam laudabile parit. Pliny and Sallust share the same image and concept. The Republic or the Nature, when young and strong, produced in politics citizens of virtue and in literature minds of achievement. Effeta, exhausted, the Republic lay fallow, and for a long stretch of time no man in Rome was great in virtue. Pliny omits or rather contests this middle period: his Nature is not yet wholly exhausted. In Sallust, in his own times, the Republic has again produced ingenti virtute viri duo: Cato and Caesar. The Nature has also produced a remarkable ingenium at the time of Pliny: one Vergilius Romanus, famous probitate morum, ingenii elegantia, operum varietate monstrabilis. This man, a non-entity to us,13 ornavit virtutes, insectatus est vitia. The identity of concept need not solve a textual riddle, but the text of Pliny removes at least one (recent) obelus: effeta is the right word. The other, and older, crux still looms. And yet Plinys natura ... parit makes it not unlikely that the cure lies in an emendation of parentum: there is no need to postulate with Dietsch, Ritschl, (Ph.) Klimscha,14 Ahlberg and Shackleton Bailey that a word modifying parentum has fallen out. This train of thought leads to the proposals of Kunze and Kurfess: effeta pariendo or partu. These proposals involve palaeographically a relatively small change: par(i)en(do) or par[en]tu[m]. To support this idea a whole array of texts and phrases can be led into the fray.15 First, for the general concept and the terminology of exhaustion, Lucretius 2,115052: iamque adeo fracta est aetas effetaque tellus / vix animalia parva creat quae cuncta creavit / saecla deditque ferarum ingentia corpora partu.16 So also Manilius 4,82528: et fecunda suis absistunt frugibus arva / continuosque negant partus effeta creando, / rursus quae fuerant steriles ad semina terrae / post nova sufficiunt nullo mandante tributa.17
13 A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford 1966), 381, observes kindly: as yet unknown. He claims that Quintilian 1,1,12, combats the doctrine of natural exhaustion. This is only partly correct. Quintilian says that the vis percipiendi is natural to men, and if it emoritur aetate, manifestum est non naturam defecisse, sed curam. His argument concerns the process of aging, but not the debilitating effect of bearing offspring. But Sherwin-White perceptively adduced as parallels Lucretius (see below, n. 16) and our passage of Sallust. 14 His proposal (in 1882 in a Gymnasialprogramm) was <virtute> (adduced by McGushin and Antoine-Lallier), two centuries previously anticipated by Gronov. 15 The resources not available to the earlier editors and critics have been invaluable: the TLL articles pario (1986) and partus (1988) and the electronic files of Latin Data Bank. On the other hand the TLL article effetus, with many pertinent passages, was available already in 1931. 16 Kurfess (above, n. 7) 1165, felicitously refers to this passage; it was brought to his attention by A. Kunze. The comment by C. Bailey, Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex, II (Oxford 1947), 981, is here very disappointing: no parallels at all! The passage of Lucretius was adduced in this context already by Gronov. 17 No comment on negant partus effeta creando in the celebrated edition and commentary by A.E. Housman, M. Manilii Astronomicon liber quartus (ed. 2, Cantabrigiae 1937), ad loc. (p.

Effete Rome: Sallust, Cat. 53,5 262

323

263

In Lucretius, after the centuries of creation, the earth is exhausted. It used to give birth to big beasts, now it produces only small animals.18 In Manilius, the fertile fields are also exhausted by production. They refuse to bear continuous fruit, they become sterile, but then unbidden they furnish unexpected crop. This universal scheme of Lucretius and Manilius is also the Sallustian scheme: the austere Rome brought forth men big in virtue; exhausted by this creation the Republic kept producing faulty mediocrities; and then, like the Manilian arva, unexpectedly supplied Cato and Caesar.19 Similar concepts require similar terms: effeta and partus spring to ones eyes; in Lucretius and Manilius these terms are not combined grammatically, but they appear in a close enough association to render their employment by Sallust respectable and probable. The exhausted fields is also a Vergilian theme, but here it is the commentary of Servius that is of import. Commenting on Georg. 1,81, effetos ... per agros, Servius explains: continua fertilitate lassatos, sicut etiam frequenti partu effeta dicitur mulier.20 The concept and the wording reminds us of Manilius and Pliny; and effeta and partu we finally encounter combined as a grammatical unit,21 and combined by a commentator who was an eager reader of Sallust.22 Next, two items of husbandry. Columella 7,6,8: nec ultra octo annos matres (referring to goats) servandae sunt, quod assiduo partu fatigatae steriles existant.23 So also, and closer (stylistically) to Sallust, pigs. Plin. NH 11,210 contains a long divagation on that delicious dish, sows vulva. It is primiparae suis optima, contra effetis.

18

19

20

21

22 23

112). On the other hand, I. Van Wageningen in his rather little observed Commentarius in M. Manilii Astronomica (Amsterdam 1921), 255, adduced as a (sole) comparison precisely the passage of Sallust, Cat. 53,5. Like the passage of Lucretius, also the locus of Manilius was known to Gronov. In Lucan the earth is much more vigorous (4,59394): Nondum post genitos tellus effeta gigantas / terribilem Libycis partum concepit in antris (of Antaeus). Cf. Seneca, Ep. 90,44: neque enim dubium est, quin meliora mundus nondum effetus ediderit (adduced by Cortius). Cf. K. Feldmann, Sallust, Catilina 53, WJA 18 (1992), 195203, esp. 202, where he comments on das Bild von der erschpften Gebrkraft der Erde, offenbar nach dem Vorbild der Philopoimen-Monographie des Polybios. Cf. Val. Max. 7,7,4: Septicia ... cum iam parere non posset, Publicio seni admodum nupsit. The irate Valerius exclaims: nubis effeta. Here also belongs (adduced by Cortius) Lucan 2,33940 (the words of Marcia on her return from Hortensius to Cato): geminos excepi feta maritos: / uisceribus lassis partuque exhausta reuertor. Servius repeats this definition in his comment on Aen. 5, 396 (frigentque effetae in corpore vires): effetae: exhaustae. et est translatio a mulieribus, quas frequens partus debiles reddit. The passage from the Georgics was utilized in this context already by Rivius (cf. above, n. 11). No discussion of effetos agros in the otherwise excellent commentary by R.A.B. Mynors, Virgil, Georgics (Oxford 1990), 18. See the long list of quotations from Sallust in J.F. Mountford and J.T. Schultz, Index rerum et nominum in scholiis Servi et Aelii Donati tractatorum (Ithaca 1930), 14951. Columella thus recognizes exhaustion partu with reference to individual animals, but he refuses to admit it as a general Lucretian principle valid for all natura and tellus, and criticizes the opinion of those who existement ubertate nimia prioris aevi defatigatum et effetum solum nequire pristina benignitate praebere mortalibus alimenta (1, praef. 12). Also this passage was utilized by Rivius and Gronovius.

324

Historia et Philologia

264

Whether bringing forth goats, pigs, or men of virtue or talent, it was a labor not likely to last for long. For instance, in the words of Pliny (NH 5,76), the city of Tyre olim partu clara, urbibus genitis Lepti, Utica et illa aemula terrarumque orbis avida Carthagine, etiam Gadibus extra orbem conditis: nunc omnis eius nobilitas conchylio atque purpura constat. The genetrix of cities now bringing forth only molluscs! But there is always hope, at least in Liguria if you trust Magnus Felix Ennodius (ca 473521), the bishop of Ticinum (Pavia): non est, ut video, effeta Liguria: nobilitatem pariendi nec in temporum extremitate deposuit.24 Grammar and style must be considered. The vulgate and Jordans sicuti effeta parente, and all emendations supplying a missing noun, be it aetas, vis, virtus or stirps look grammatically forward to haud sane quisquam Romae virtute magnus fuit. But the long years during which only men puny in virtue were produced were the very times of luxus and desidia25 when men of vice governed the republic. The incriminated phrase is embedded in the midst of Sallusts description of those barren tempestates; it spans the whole history between the original virtue and the new virtue of Cato and Caesar. If we accept the proposals of Kunze or Kurfess sicuti <esset> effeta pariundo or sicuti effeta <esset> partu it is civitas or rather res publica that becomes the subject of the phrase. This is consonant with Sallusts train of thought; and the wording itself in view of the parallels here assembled appears agreeable if perhaps not unimpeachable. But is it necessary to supply <esset>? Now Kunze observed that while ablative absolute after sicut(i) is a frequent construction in Caesar and Livy, Sallust resolutely avoids it.26 Indeed in thirty-five occurrences (in Cat., Iug. and Hist.) of sentences introduced by sicut(i) not once do we encounter this construction. At Cat. 31,5 we read of Catiline: Postremo dissimulandi causa aut sui expurgandi, sicut iurgio lacessitus foret, in senatum venit. This sentence is a grammatical twin of the enunciation here debated. And thus, although the grammar does not require it, the impartial statistics of style powerfully support the inclusion of <esset>. It is primarily this consideration that must dissuade us from accepting either the vulgate effeta parente or any conjecture postulating a lost ablative absolute to be combined with the paradosis parentum.
24 Epist. 56 = 2,19 (ed. F. Vogel, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctores Antiquissimi 7 [1885], 71, lines 12) = (ed. W. Hartel, CSEL 6 [1882], 60, line 6). This passage is recorded in TLL s.v. pario (col. 408, lines 2434), where there are assembled also other examples of cities, regions and countries bringing forth ingenia, scriptores, milites. Cf. also Paneg. III (XI),22,3 (OCT, ed. R.A.B. Mynors), where to express a similar concept a different verb is employed: Dein cum ager adsiduitate fructuum in maciem decoquatur, imperatoris nostri posterior liberalitas uincit priorem, nec fit effeta gignendo sed per uices fructuum fecundatur. 25 It might be of interest to note that the Sallustian combination luxu atque desidia occurs also in Lucretius 5,48: quid luxus desidiaeque? Vretska 615 claims that these are the only instances of the locution. G.B.A. Fletcher, On Sallusts Bellum Catilinae, Latomus 40 (1981), 587, produced also Suet. Nero 52,2, luxus atque desidiae, but Suetonius does not impugn the special connection between Sallust and Lucretius. The computer search yielded no other examples of the collocation. 26 Kunze 1244 (above, n. 8). Repeated without attribution by McGushin. The statistical data can now easily be gathered from Latin Data Bank or from A.W. Bennett, Index verborum Sallustianus (Hildesheim 1970), 240.

Effete Rome: Sallust, Cat. 53,5

325

165

The Latin Data Bank, although regrettably still incomplete, is a handy tool. It reveals almost one hundred fifty occurrences of abl. parente in some forty authors, but there is only one, rather gruesome instance of abl. abs., Plin. NH 7,47: Auspicatius enecta parente (i.e., in childbirth) gignuntur. There are some two hundred thirty examples of gen. plur. parentum in some fifty authors. Semantically the context is most often reverential and epic (fifteen examples in Cicero, fourteen in Vergil, and seventeen in Silius Italicus). Only five times do we encounter the word parentum in a negative context. There are two passages of Horace: Carm. 3,6,4648 (reproduced above, n. 4), and Carm. 1,2,2324: audiet pugnas vitio parentum / rara iuventus, where, as the helpful Porphyrio instructs the boys, the poet complains that young men are scarce because of the fault of the previous generation when the Romans slaughtered each other (se ipsi confecerunt) in the civil wars. Next Seneca, Thyestes 2829 (the Fury speaking): rabies parentum duret et longum nefas / eat in nepotes. Further two examples of neglegentia and culpa: Tac. Dial. de orat. 28,2: quis enim ignorat ... eloquentiam ... descivisse ab illa vetere gloria ... desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum; Manilius 5,54041 (of Andromeda and her parents): hanc quondam poenae dirorum culpa parentum / prodidit .27 However eloquent these examples, they offer scant support to those scholars who would construct an ablative absolute with effeta and attach it to parentum. Considerations of style and usage are again paramount. For not once in our whole data bank does the genitive parentum appear in conjunction with an ablative absolute. The general tendency of Latin idiom not to associate the genitive parentum with this construction, and Sallusts personal aversion to placing ablative absolutes after sicut(i) powerfully strengthen each other, and preclude any textual medicines like effeta (aetate, vi, virtute, stirpe) parentum. To conclude: sicuti <esset> effeta pariundo is possible, and in support of this conjecture we can adduce Manilius effeta creando. But the terse and parenthetical effeta partu, rather with than without esset, and rather in the form sicuti <esset> effeta partu, conveys very well the almost Lucretian concept of a declining and exhausted Republic, and we should not hesitate to deem this phrase worthy of Sallust.

27 Statius, Silvae 3,3,4546, does not belong here; the passage supplevit fortuna genus culpamque parentum / occuluit refers to the splendid career and lowly origin of Claudius Etruscus (PIR2 C 860) whose father was an imperial freedman.

24 BANQUETING*
I.
Triumphus alicuius ... aut collegiorum cenae

102

Still another marvelous contribution to scholarship from Helsinki: the article by Mika Kajava on visceratio, a rich blend of epigraphy, philology and social history.1 It has been an often held belief that visceratio normally denoted the distribution of sacrificial meat. Kajava demonstrates that the term and the procedure must be separated from a sacrificial context, and that the fundamental meaning of the word was either public distribution of meat or a meal (based on meat). And thus, rather than suggesting a connection with sacrificial meat, visceratio mostly belongs to the category of largitio and munificentia (pp. 10911, 120, 12425). Mostly this limiting adverb is a prudent insertion. For certainly we should not attempt to claim (in a complete departure from previous orthodoxy) that visceratio never referred to the profanatio of sacrificial flesh. But the aim of this note is rather to offer support to Kajavas interpretation, and to call attention to an important text not included in his argument. He observes that most of the evidence, literary and epigraphic, couples visceratio with a banquet (epulum) (p. 123). And among public banquets of particular importance were those associated with a triumph (pp. 12531). Concluding his remarks on the consumption of meat at the cenae triumphales Kajava writes: But even if only one visceratio is explicitly recorded during the festivities [viz. Suet. Iul. 38], it is likely that doles of meat were now and then added to the more normal epula. It may even be that Caesar was not the first triumphator to do so. However, the meat needed for the visceratio did not necessarily come from sacrificed animals, even if sacrifices did play an important role in Roman triumph (p. 130). Now it can indeed be positively shown that Caesar was not the first to include dishes of meat in his triumphal banquets,2 and that some meat could specially be

* 1

Arctos 34 (2000 [2001] 101107 {with minor additions and corrections}. M. Kajava, Visceratio, Arctos 32 (1998) 10931 {See now, in direct polemic with Kajava, J. Scheid, Quand faire, sest croire. Les rites sacrificiels des Romains, Paris 2005, 21354: Le problme du banquet sacrificiel romain, who powerfully restates the sacral and sacrificial element of Roman public epulum. But this should not be taken to mean that all meat consumed at public repasts derived from sacrificial offerings}. On Caesars triumphal feasts, see now the excellent study by J. H. DArms, Between Public and Private: The epulum publicum and Caesars horti trans Tiberim, in M. Cima and E. La Rocca (eds.), Horti Romani (BCAR Suppl. 6), Roma 1998, 3343. He refers in passing (p. 38, n. 18) to the passage of Varro reproduced below in the text, but only as evidence for the gen-

Banqueting

327

purchased for that purpose. The source in question is Varro, Rust. 3,2,1416 (Varro speaking):
Certe nosti ... materterae meae fundum in Sabinis qui est ad quartum vicesimum lapidem via Salaria a Roma. (15) ... Atque in hac villa qui est ornithon, ex eo uno quinque milia scio venisse turdorum denariis ternis, ut sexaginta milia ea pars reddiderit eo anno villae ... (16) ... Sed ad hunc bolum <ut> pervenias, opus erit tibi aut e p u l u m aut triumphus alicuius, ut tunc fuit Scipionis Metelli, aut colleg i o r u m c e n a e 3, q u a e n u n c 4 i n n u m e r a b i l e s e x c a n d e f a c i u n t a n n o n a m m a c e l l i . Reliquis annis omnibus si <non>5 hanc expectabis summam, spero, non tibi decoquet [non]6 ornithon; neque hoc accidit7 his moribus nisi raro, ut decipiaris.

eral proposition that the public banquets, triumphs, and the ever proliferating dinners of the collegia pushed up food prices in Roman markets. {K. Vssing, Mensa regia. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen Knig und beim rmischen Kaiser, Mnchen-Leipzig 2004, 190, n. 4, points out that the neuter plural epula is a modern invention not attested in ancient literary texts or in epigraphy. We stand corrected}. On the repasts of the collegia (and on Varros indication), see the still indispensable J. P. Waltzing, tude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains 1, Louvain 1895, 325. {J. Rpke, Kommensalitt und Gesellschaftsstruktur: Tafelfreu(n)de im alten Rom, Saeculum 49 (1998) 193215 at 201, interprets collegiorum cenae as referring to priestly banquets, an unlikely proposition although turdus is indeed on record as a dish ante cenam at a pontifical banquet (Macr. Sat. 3,13,12). Cf. Vssing, Mensa regia (above, n. 2) 235, n. 4}. The paradosis is tunc, but nunc is a convincing and necessary emendation by H. Keil in his edition of Varro, Lipsiae 1884, rightly accepted by subsequent editors, most recently by C. Guiraud, Varron, conomie rurale, Livre III (Collection Bud), Paris 1997. Very instructive is H. Keil, Commentarius in Varronis Rerum rusticarum libros tres, Lipsiae 1891, 23031, where he discusses the Textgestaltung, his own and of his predecessors. {See now the excellent edition, translation and commentary by D. Flach, Marcus Terentius Varro, Gesprche ber die Landwirtschaft, Buch 3, Darmstadt 2002. He accepts Keils conjecture}. Keil (1884) reads reliquis annis omnibus et hanc expectabis summam, <et> spero, non tibi decoquet non ornithon, which does not make much sense (cf. below, n. 6); <non> was added by G. Goetz (ed. Teubneriana 1912, and ed. altera, 1929), who also changed the paradosis et to si (cf. ed. 1929, praef. p. XXII), accepted by Guiraud. {Flach (above, n. 4) partially follows Keil, and partially devises a new conjecture: reliquis annis omnibus et<iam si> hanc expectabis summam, spero, non tibi decoquet non ornithon. I still prefer the idea of Goetz. Cf. below, n. 6}. [non] was already deleted by J. M. Gesner in his Scriptores rei rusticae veteres latini, I, Lipsiae 1735 (a second edition with minimal revisions by J. A. Ernesti, Lipsiae 1773, and various further republications, the last as the editio Bipontina in 1787 {on Gesner, see U. Schindel, Johann Matthias Gesner, Professor der Poesie und Beredsamkeit 17341761, in C. J. Classen (ed.), Die klassischen Altertumswisssenschaften an der Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen (Gttingen 1989) 926, with rather much too harsh appraisal (p. 17) of his Scriptores}, re-instituted by Keil (1884), but rightly again deleted in his Teubner edition of 1889 (cf. Commentarius 230), and duly secluded by Goetz and Guiraud. {Flach retains the second non, and defends it in his commentary, p. 205: Varro employed it um der Verneinung grsseren Nachdruck zu verleihen. A clever defense; still we should not overdo negations, especially as in the next sentence Varro employs non twice, but this time with consummate artistry that requires no defense}. An old correction of Victorius (1541) for accedit. {Flach proposes accidet}.

328
103

Historia et Philologia

Quotus quisque enim est annus, quo non videas epulum aut triumphum aut collegia non epulari [quae nunc innumerabiles incendunt annonam]?8

104

Thus in one of the years preceding the dramatic date of the dialogue in book III Varros maternal aunt succeeded in selling from her aviary five thousand thrushes, for three denarii apiece, so that her total income from that single division of the villa was in that year sixty thousand sesterces.9 But Varro makes it clear that it was rather an unusual haul (bolus): it occurred in the year of the triumph of Metellus Scipio,10 who must thus have given particularly lavish banquets, and specifically must have purchased a good number of turdi.
8 The bracketed words were deleted by J. G. Schneider (in his Scriptores rei rusticae veteres latini, I, Lipsiae 1794, non vidi) {in the meantime I procured a copy of Schneiders edition; it turns out that contrary to what Goetz and Guiraud report Schneider preserved this phrase in his text. It is only in his commentary (vol. I, pars 2, p. 498) that he observes: Mihi hac pars orationis inepte ex superiori [sic] loco repetita ... videtur, and it is this opinion that is reflected in the brackets introduced by Goetz and Guiraud, and now also by Flach}. Keil (1884) kept this intrusion in the text, but removed it in 1889 (and in Commentarius 231 he described it {paraphrasing Schneider} as ex superiore [sic] loco inepte repetita). Obviously it is a marginal gloss elaborating on the unusual excandefaciunt. 9 For the fattening of turdi, see Varro, Rust. 3,5,7; Plin. Nat. 10,60 who reports that according to Cornelius Nepos turdos paulo ante saginari coeptos; and especially the extensive account of Columella (8,10). At 8,10,6 he refers (with some exaggeration) to Varro: M. Terentius ternis saepe denariis singulos emptitatos esse significat avorum temporibus, quibus qui triumphabant populo dabant epulum. 10 As I have argued in another place (Historia 34 [1985] 24854, esp. 253 = Roman Questions, Stuttgart 1995, 100106, esp. 105), the dramatic date of Book III is 50 B.C. {endorsed by Flach (above, n. 4) 2930, 204}, and the triumph of Metellus Scipio (as a praetor from an unknown province) is to be dated to 54 or 53. Cf. also C. F. Konrad, Notes on Roman AlsoRans, in J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium sine fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Historia Einzelschriften 105), Stuttgart 1996, 13940. Guiraud (above, n. 4) is confused: he is utterly unaware of the recent literature on the dramatic date of Book III (pp. 5657), and he believes that the passage cannot refer to the consul of 52 for loin de clbrer un triomphe, il fit lexprience de la dfaite des Pompeiens la bataille de Thapsus (p. 63). A peculiar argument to impugn Varros clear testimony as if Metellus Scipios defeat in 46 precluded any possibility of an earlier triumph. Guiraud concludes that le triomphe ne peut concerner que son pre adoptif, qui triompha dans le dernier jours de 71. But as this Metellus ne sappelait pas Scipio, il sagit donc dune erreur de Varron. Not at all: the error is not of Varro but of Varros commentator. This piece of misinterpretation is in fact a piece of purloined misinterpretation. B. Tilly, in her otherwise valuable Varro the Farmer, London 1973, 280, presents the same errant idea, in identical phrases, but in English: Scipionis Metelli: the name in this form presents a difficulty. The reference can only be to that Metellus who celebrated a triumph in 71 B.C. ... His adopted son who was consul in 52 B.C. ... is usually called Metellus Scipio, but far from celebrating a triumph, experienced the defeat of the Pompeians at the battle of Thapsus in 46 B.C.. On the name-forms Metellus Scipio and Scipio Metellus, see J. Linderski, Q. Scipio Imperator, in Imperium sine fine 15556 {reprinted above, No. 10}: in reality the latter form is more common with at least eight attestations against five attestations of the former. {Vssing, Mensa regia (above, n. 2) 235, n. 4, persists in this prosopographical and chronological aberration: Das ut tunc fuit kann sich nur auf den Triumph (und das anschliessende Mahl) beziehen, und dies drfte der spanische Triumph des Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius 71 v. Chr. sein, dem Varro hier zu Unrecht den Beinamen Scipio gibt. It is pleasant to observe that the right answer was already given by Schneider in his commentary (above,

Banqueting

329

Now the bird in question, turdus (thrush, fieldfare, It. tordo, Fr. grive, Germ. Drossel), of which some three hundred species exist, is a relatively small bird weighing at the most slightly over 200 g (7.5 oz.).11 Thus it was a sort of delicacy,12 and not the main course of a meat dish, but more importantly it never served as a sacrificial animal. We have clear proof that at least some meat consumed at the cenae triumphales did not derive from sacrificial offerings but was purchased specially and solely for the purpose of banqueting. II. Auctoritas Caesaris No, this is not another study about the concept of auctoritas Caesaris or Augusti; our subject is not constitutional history but something much more important: wine. In an erudite article on the triumphal cenae John DArms contrasts the almost total silence enveloping the banquets of Pompeius with the truly extraordinary din of publicity surrounding Caesars prandial triumphs. One would almost wish to say that Caesar gained not only the dignity of magister populi (an old Roman term denoting the office of dictator) but also that of magister epuli. In the course of his argument DArms makes the following statement:
105

there is the Elder Plinys emphatic assertion an assertion which he claims he based on his reading of Caesars own correspondence that Caesar was the first in Rome to create official sanction for public feasting.13

In note 25 the source reference is duly produced: Plin. Nat. 14, 66: is enim primus auctoritatem (sc. publicis epulis) dedit, ut epistulis eius apparet. The statement that Caesar created official sanction for public feasting appears so extraordinary and so improbable that the reader would do well to bestir himself to consult the full text of Pliny. For auctoritas in the sense of sanction makes its gingerly debut only under the Empire;14 on the other hand it certainly
n. 8) 498: Scipionis] Q. Caecilii Metelli Pii Scipionis Nasicae, qui a Metello Pio fuit adoptatus. See further below, RQ, Addenda altera, No. 8}. 11 See e.g. C. M. Perrins and A. L. A. Middleton (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Birds, Oxford (also New York) 1985, s.v. Thrushes. For ancient testimonies, see J. Andr, Les noms doiseaux en latin, Paris 1967, 15758; F. Capponi, Ornithologia latina, Genova 1979, 49599. For those linguistically inclined there is a recent and excellent piece on the i-e etymology of the birdname: R. Bracchi, Turdus e i suoi corrispondenti: luccello che cova nel fango inaridito, Athenaeum 87, 1999, 7992. 12 See Hor. Epist. 2,15,4041: cum sit obeso nil melior turdo; cf. Sat. 1,5,72; 2,2,74; 2,5,1011; Mart. 13,51 and 92. Cf. Capponi (above, n. 11) 499. At the dinner of Trimalchio (Petr. Sat. 69,7) there were served pastry thrushes stuffed with raisins and nuts (turdi siliginei uvis passis nucibusque farsi). 13 DArms (above, n. 2) 37. 14 See the classic study by A. Magdelain, Auctoritas Principis, Paris 1947, esp. 8790, and for the republican times, see another book of renown, J. Hellegouarch, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la rpublique, Paris 1963, 295314, 33035 (cf. esp. 308, where auctoritas is defined as linfluence politique sous toutes ses formes, and pp. 30910, where the term is contrasted with potestas and imperium).

330

Historia et Philologia

would not make much sense to claim that all pre-Caesarian epula publica were staged without any official consideration, sanction or permission either explicit or implicit in the custom. A similar opinion had been expressed also by N. Purcell: he contends that the practice of communal public feasting is very likely to have spread in imitation of the great public banquets of Julius Caesar in 46 B.C., and he continues:
Pliny (HN 14, 66) asserts that official sanction for such occasions was formally given by the dictator, as was to be found in his published letters.15

This interpretation is based on a misreading of Plinys text. But let Pliny speak for himself (Nat. 14,66, ed. C. Mayhoff, Teubner 1875):
Quartum curriculum publicis epulis optinuere a divo Iulio is enim primus auctoritatem his dedit, ut epistulis eius apparet Mamertina circa Messanam in Sicilia genita.
106

This statement of Pliny constitutes the concluding paragraph in his disquisition (14,5966) on the genera vini.16 He distinguishes four classes of wine, each class comprising several specimens. To the first class (to which belonged the vinum Pucinum, Setinum and Caecubum) he artfully gives no specific denomination, but it must have been nobilitas prima, for he next continues with nobilitas secunda which was due to the Falernus ager and maxime Faustinianus. Then he lists wines that ad tertiam palmam varie venere, and finally we arrive at the quartum curriculum, the wines that occupy in Plinys classification the fourth place.17 Once we have before our eyes the full context and not merely a snippet of a phrase,18 it becomes immediately obvious that the pronoun his does not refer (as Purcell and DArms take it to refer) to publicis epulis but to Mamertina (sc. vina). It was Julius Caesar who introduced the custom of serving at public feasts the vina Mamertina.19 Now the phrase ut epistulis eius apparet, as appears from his letters, appears at first blush unusual (although Mayhoff does not indicate any textual problems),
15 N. Purcell, Wine and Wealth in Ancient Italy, JRS 75 (1985) 14, n. 65. In view of the striking stylistic similarity between the enunciations of Purcell and DArms, the latter must have been influenced by the former, and indeed DArms quotes Purcells article though in a slightly different context (p. 38, nn. 38 and 39). 16 On the wines mentioned by Pliny and on his classification, see A. Tchernia, Le vin de lItalie romaine (BEFAR 261), Paris 1986, 29, 34547 (and in many other places of his monograph). 17 This peculiar meaning of the the term curriculum is not recorded either in the Dictionary of Lewis-Short or in OLD, but it duly figures in TLL s.v. curriculum, col. 1506, lines 5354. 18 Regrettably the pernicious custom spreads whereby scholars tend to adduce only the tiniest fragments of texts under discussion or only translations or just the merest of references. In this way, as few readers will have ready access to all classical authors, and fewer still will bother to check references for themselves, errors take root and produce a progeny of false assertions. 19 Cf. Tchernia (above, n. 16) 345, who judiciously observes: (Caesar) qui mis mode le Mamertin, quatrime grand cru class. So also the translations of H. Rackham (Loeb 1945), J. Andr (Bud 1958) and R. Knig (Tusculum, Mnchen 1981). {The phrase auctoritatem dedit is otherwise not attested, but Pliny uses in the same meaning and in similar contexts auctoritatem fecit (Nat. 19,108; 35,24; 35,26). This usage is again, it appears, limited to Pliny}.

Banqueting

331

107

so that one rather wonders that an editor or commentator had not tried to change epistulis to epulis, and connect it with a form of apparo (not appareo; cf. TLL s.v. apparo, lines 6080), e.g. ut epulis eius apparentur, that they be served at his banquets. For the construction with dative (however with respect to mensae not cenae), see Cassiod. Var. 12,18,3: quae (species) mensis regiis apparantur. And in fact according to the apparatus in the Bud edition by J. Andr (1958) two (fairly old but lesser) manuscripts display the reading epulis. On further consideration the phrase ut epistulis eius apparet turns out after all to be grammatically sound; it is fittingly vindicated by a passage in another silver Latin author, Quintilian, as revealed through a search in The Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank. We read at Inst. 1,7,34: M. Tullius orator ... in filio, ut epistulis apparet, recte loquendi asper ... exactor.20 Grammar apart, doubts of substance subsist. What kinds of wine Caesar served on various public occasions was a matter of public record: constat, as Pliny himself puts it.21 He will hardly have had to learn this very fact from Caesars letters. The reading epistulis can be saved only if we place the stress on primus: what Pliny may have learned from the dictators letter (it would be nice to know its addressee!) was Caesars explanation of the reason that prompted him to give his auctoritas to the vina Mamertina. It was a bold innovation, very much in Caesars style, but also if his choice should have met with popular displeasure a political risk. Freed from this Plinian philological infelicity the articles of Purcell and DArms and the banquets of Caesar may now be safely savoured, with Caesar appearing rather much less of a bureaucrat and rather much more of a wine connoisseur.

20 The passage of Quintilian has problems of its own. This is the reading adopted by the editores Teubneriani E. Bonnell (1854) and L. Radermacher (1907), but the principal codex, the Ambrosianus, has ut in epistulis apparet, and this lectio, as V. Buchheit helpfully observes in his addenda to the reprint (1959, and further reprints) of Radermachers edition, was endorsed by no less an authority than W. A. Baehrens, Beitrge zur lateinischen Syntax, Philologus, Suppl. 12,2 (1912) 444. F. H. Colson in his commentary to Book I (Cambridge 1924, 103; cf XCII) reports that this was also the reading of [F. O.] Meister in his edition [Lipsiae et Pragae] 18861887. In any case the phrases in Pliny and Quintilian shed stylistic light on each other: we are free to read in Quintilian either epistulis (supported by Pliny) or with the Ambrosianus in epistulis, and in Pliny either epistulis or <in> epistulis (supported by the reading in Quintilians Ambrosianus). 21 Plin. Nat. 14,97: idem [i.e., Caesar] Hispaniensi triumpho Chium et Falernum dedit [a. 45], epulo vero in tertio consulatu suo [a. 46] Falernum, Chium, Lesbium, Mamertinum, quo tempore primum quattuor genera vini adposita constat. This account presents various problems of chronology; cf. the comments by Andr (above, n. 19) 125.

25 FATALIS: A MISSING MERETRIX*

Sunt qui ... Some catalogue senators, others prostitutes. Ronald Symes famous Missing Senators produced an effluvium of notables not recorded in the RE; this note produces only one missing meretrix. Not a meretrix of flesh and blood a proper Prosopographia Meretricum still awaits its compiler but a missing description of the trade. Missing from a catalogue, linguistically fascinating and socially instructive, of a score of epithets denoting the profession that a decade ago graced the pages of this Journal1. The missing epithet is fatalis, a word with a curious history in antiquity, and a curious history in modern times. Commenting on Horaces fatale monstrum (Carm. 1.37.21) Ps.-Acro offers more scholiastarum this triple interpretation:2
Fatalem dixit aut turpem, unde et prostantes fatales dicuntur ut est (Lucan. X 60): Roma<no> non casta malo, aut uelut monstrum fatis sibi reseruatum, aut fato Romanis subiectum.

Porphyrio has a similar, apparently traditional disquisition:3

Fatale monstrum aut[em] a fato sibi seruatum aut detestabile. <An> dictum hoc accipiamus: Quasi decreto fatorum nobis obiectum?

163

Porphyrios detestabile is akin to Ps.-Acros turpe, but he eschews the interpretation fatalis = prostans. Standard modern commentaries either do not concern themselves with the explanations of the epithet fatale4 or take it in the meaning bringing doom rather than sent by the fates5. They make no mention of Ps.Acros terminological excursion6. This excursion was clearly influenced by the
* 1 Rheinisches Museum 140 (1997) 162167 {with minor addenda}. J. N. Adams, Words for Prostitute in Latin, RhM 126 (1983) 32158 {Cf. now also B. E. Stump, Prostitution in der rmischen Antike (Berlin 1998) 1824: Bezeichnungen fr Prostituierte}. Pseudoacronis Scholia in Horatium Vetustiora, rec. O. Keller, 1 (Lipsiae 1902) 133. Pomponi Porphyrionis Commentum in Horatium, rec. A. Holder (Ad Aeni Pontem 1894) 50. A. Kiessling-R. Heinze, Q. Horatius Flaccus, Oden und Epoden3 (Berlin 1898) 143. In the seventh edition (1930; later editions are mere reprints) 157, Heinze interprets fatale monstrum as verhngnisvoll, and comments: nur durch den Willen des Schicksals konnte sie solches Unheil bringen. He thus follows (perhaps rightly) in the footsteps of Porphyrio. R. G. M. Nisbet and M. Hubbard, A Commentary on Horace: Odes, Book I (Oxford 1970) 417. This interpretation of fatale is clearly borne out by lines 68: dum Capitolio / regina dementis ruinas, / funus et imperio parabat. The only scholar to notice it was W. Heraeus, Sprachliches aus Pseudoacronischen

2 3 4

Fatalis: A Missing Meretrix

333

tone of the Horatian description of Cleopatra and of her entourage: contaminato cum grege turpium morbo virorum7. Cleopatra was surrounded by the turpes, and herself was a monstrum fatale = turpe. To bolster his equation fatalis = prostans Ps.-Acro adduces Lucan. The quotation is aptly chosen, but it is to be read in a broader context, Phars. 10.5560:
Pellaea tutus in aula Caesar erat, cum se parua Cleopatra biremi corrupto custode Phari laxare catenas intulit Emathiis ignaro Caesare tectis dedecus Aegypti, Latii feralis Erinys Romano non casta malo.

164

Lucan and Horace form two parts of a perfect ring composition: Cleopatra, the Latii ferale Erinys8, was unleashed on the Roman world when she induced the keeper of Pharos to lower the chains closing the port of Alexandria and proceeded to ensnare the unsuspecting Caesar; her designs came to an end when the New Caesar pursued the fleeing Queen to put the monster in chains: Caesar ab Italia volantem remis adsurgens ... daret ut catenis fatale monstrum. The loosened chains match the chains imposed; biremi echoes remis adsurgens; feralis corresponds to fatalis, and Erinys to monstrum9. Lucans Romano non casta malo finds, however, no direct correspondence in Horace, only an oblique connection with the grex turpium virorum. In Lucan Cleopatra is a feral fury; but it was her wantonness that was ruinous to Rome. The incestuous queen seduced the Roman leaders; her animus to enslave Rome nox illa dedit quae prima cubili / miscuit incestam ducibus Ptolemaida nostris (10. 6970). But who would not forgive Antonius his insane love durum cum Caesaris hauserit ignis pectus (10. 7072)? Caesar: sanguine Thessalicae cladis perfusus adulter (cf. 367) who miscuit armis inlicitosque toros et non ex coniuge partus (10.7476). He was oblivious of his past conjunction with Pompey, and of his daughter, Pompeys
Horazscholien, RhM 58 (1903) 464. He remarks: Schwierig ist die Erklrung ... prostantes fatales dicuntur, wofr mir kein Beleg zur Hand ist. The passage is also recorded in TLL (1915) 334, s. v. fatales. Lines 910. Porphyrio comments (p. 50): Id est, cum grege spadonum, quos Cleopatra satellites et cubicularios habebat, quos morbo turpes dixit, quia fere hi effeminati sunt. Ps.-Acro follows Porphyrio, but rephrases the comment on turpium (p. 131): Turpium [autem] aut malae uitae aut euiratorum. Formally an imitation of Verg. Aen. 2.573. Vergilian imitations and echoes have been assiduosly collected, contacts to Horace languish strangely neglected, even in the erudite and perceptive commentary by M. G. Schmidt, Caesar und Cleopatra. Philologischer und historischer Kommentar zu Lucan. 10,1171 (Frankfurt a. M. 1986) 10211 (with further literature). For Lucans picture of Cleopatra, see also I. Becher, Das Bild der Kleopatra in der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur (Berlin 1966) 11722. For the locution Romano non casta malo, cf. Iustinus, Hist. Philipp. 29.1.5: fatale non tam Romanis quam ipsi Africae malum (of Hannibal). And Lucans 10.62 Hesperios auxit ... Cleopatra furores finds its mirror image in Horace 1.37.1213: sed minuit furorem / vix una sospes navis ab ignibus. This seems to be the only Horatian echo explicitly observed by the commentators.

334

Historia et Philologia

wife (10. 7778): oblitus Magni tibi, Iulia, fratres [i.e. Caesarion] / obscena de matre dedit10. Cleopatra was able to conquer the aging Caesar through her poisonous charms: Expugnare senem potuit Cleopatra uenenis (10.360). The affair had a peculiarly Aegyptian incestuous flavor, with Caesar himself arranging her marriage to her younger brother Ptolemy XIV (10. 35759):
Nubit soror impia fratri; nam Latio iam nupta duci est, interque maritos discurrens Aegypton habet Romamque meretur.

165

The verb meretur catches attention: it is etymologically connected with the denomination of prostitute, meretrix. Rome was the price for Cleopatras sexual services. Florus (who unlike Lucan omits to mention Caesars liaison with Cleopatra) so describes her dealings with Antonius (2.21.23): Hinc mulier Aegyptia ab ebrio imperatore pretium libidinum Romanum imperium petit. Propertius (3.11.39) employs the vocabulum proprium and calls Cleopatra incesti regina meretrix Canopi, the harlot queen of the incestuous Canopus11. He too mentions the price: (3.11.3132): coniugis12 obsceni pretium Romana poposcit / moenia et addictos in sua regna Patres. Cicero (de div. 1.98) describes the ortus androgyni as fatale quoddam monstrum13. Curiously enough this passage has escaped the attention of Horatian com10 Cf. Schmidt (above, n. 8) 11931. 11 Regina meretrix also in Pliny, NH 9.119. Canopus was notorious as a deversorium vitiorum (Seneca, Ep. 51.3), but incestus may well have a particular reference to the sibling marriages within the House of the Ptolemies; this is the suggestion of P. Fedeli in his vastly erudite commentary, Properzio. Il Libro Terzo delle Elegie (Bari 1985) 377, and (with respect to Lucan) of Becher (above, n. 8) 119, n. 5. Schmidt (above, n. 8) 12021, while admitting this flavor points out that the term will certainly also refer to Cleopatras liaison with Caesar. 12 Or perhaps coniugii obsceni. Fedeli (above, n. 11) 372 defends the reading coniugis. 13 See the learned commentary by A. S. Pease, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione Libri Duo (Urbana 192023, reprint Darmstadt 1963) 272. He adduces, naturally, the passage of Horace. To the various modern works he quotes, add now L. Breglia Pulci Doria, Oracoli Sibillini tra rituali e propaganda. Studi su Flegonte di Tralles (Napoli 1983) 6788 (Landrogino e i prodigi a Roma). On the Roman concept of monstrum, see C. Moussy, Esquisse de lhistoire de monstrum, REL 55 (1977) 34569. {I see now that M. Hendry, in a piece that is erudite and ingenious, Three Problems in the Cleopatra Ode, CJ 88.2 (1993) 13746, part III The source of fatale monstrum, duly adduced the passage of Cicero. In the phrase ortus androgyni nonne fatale quoddam monstrum fuit, he takes quoddam in the sense as it were, and concludes that Cicero is quoting from a tragedy, and that he is apologizing for not an entirely apposite quotation (p. 145). But within the scheme of Roman prodigia the ortus androgyni was entirely apposite not only as an example of a monstrum but as an example of fatale monstrum, a particularly dire event. Quoddam is patently to be taken in its OLD application #2, as picking out an outstanding example of its kind. Of course it is not impossible that the expression fatale monstrum was employed in a tragedy, and that both Cicero and Horace were aware of that passage. But even if it were so all three enunciations (in a hypothetical tragedian, in Cicero, and in Horace) derived poignancy not from any literary ambience but from the ritual and the forbidding aura of fatum and monstrum}.

Fatalis: A Missing Meretrix

335

166

mentators. The hermaphrodite was a monstrum because it disrupted the natural order. The appearance (or rather the discovery) of the androgynus was a terrifying prodigium, a sign that the equilibrium between gods and humans was shaken. The expiation, the procuratio was necessary. As this foul creature (the operative word is turpis) through its very existence polluted the earth, the Roman ritual dictated that it either be drowned in a river or transported to the sea or (in some special cases) burnt alive. Nisbet and Hubbard suggest that Cleopatra may have been the issue of a royal brother-sister marriage: that circumstance would certainly have made her a monstrum in the Roman eyes. That circumstance is, however, not mentioned explicitly, although we may perhaps detect allusions to it in the frequent use of the epithet incestus (cf. n. 11). Cleopatra was a monstrum because she disrupted the natural order of Roman dominance, her sexual wiles her fatal weapon14. Cleopatra was non casta, incesta, obscena, and a meretrix15. She was also fatalis, feralis, an Erinys, and a monstrum16. It was but a small step for Ps.-Acro to identify her (perhaps rather incongruously in view of the price she demanded) with a common prostitute17. The linguistic question remains. Is his equation fatalis = prostans merely an aberrant inference from Horace and Lucan or does it reflect a living Latin idiom?18 There is no direct evidence to bear out his contention19.
14 Moussy (above, n. 13) 365, and n. 2, remarks on the equivalence of scelus and monstrum, and observes that cette acception d acte monstrueux se rattache celle d amour monstrueux, contre nature, inceste . See also S. Montero, Los haruspices y la moralidad de la mujer romana, Athenaeum 81 (1993) 64758, an interesting discussion of the correlation between the prodigies and the comportment of women. Neither Moussy nor Montero mentions Cleopatra as an example of monstrum. 15 For sexual invective, the assortment of terms, and of personages to whom they were applied, see I. Opelt, Die lateinischen Schimfwrter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen (Heidelberg 1965) 17980. 16 Nisbet and Hubbard (above, n. 5) 417, adduce also Flor. 2.21.3 in monstrum illud desciverat (sc. Antonius) for the epithet monstrum applied to Cleopatra. The phrase refers (almost certainly) to Antonius: after his association with Cleopatra he himself became a monstrum; cf. Becher (above, n. 8) 81 and n. 3. Fatalis and incestus are joined by Horace, Carm. 3.3.1921: Paris is fatalis incestusque iudex who together with Helen, the mulier peregrina, brought about the destruction of Ilion. Contemporary readers may have detected here an allusion to Antonius and Cleopatra (cf. Kiessling-Heinze ad loc.). 17 For prostare (and stare) as referring to low-class prostitutes, see Adams (above, n. 1) 331. Curiously enough he lists only verbal forms and locutions (e.g., quae prostitit or pupilli prostantis), but not the substantival participle prostantes (which seems to be attested only in Ps.-Acro). The verb prostare is used of Cleopatra also by Auct. de vir. ill. 86.2: haec tantae libidinis fuit ut saepe prostiterit. 18 The method of Ps.-Acro need not inspire confidence. Horaces narrative at 1.37.1213: minuit furorem / vix una sospes navis, is quite straightforward, and Porphyrio (p. 50) somberly comments: una navis, qua scilicet effugit uicta ab Augusto. In contrast, Ps.-Acro (p. 132) offers this allegorical explanation: Aut navi qua fugit Cleopatra, aut per allegoriam ostendit Cleopatram primum corporis sui inlecebris Cesarem cepisse, secundum Antonium, Augustum deinde temptasse, sed eum eius uitasse conplexus; ideo una sospes nauis ab ignibus. Cf. Becher (above, n. 8) 149. 19 It may, however, be significant that Ps.-Acro uses the present tense (dicuntur). He took much of his information concerning the realia from Porphyrio, but for items that had become obso-

336

Historia et Philologia

167

The solution may lie in dreams. A large portion of Artemidoros Oneirocritica (1.78, pp. 8687, ed. R. A. Pack, Lipsiae 1963) is devoted to dreams pertaining to sexual intercourse. It is good for a man to dream of intercourse provided that the partner, be it wife or mistress, is willing; this bodes well for any enterprise. To dream of intercourse with prostitutes who stand in brothels (gunaij d taraiw taw p kasvroiw stsaiw mgnusyai) signifies a little shame and a small expense, but it is also auspicious for all undertakings: for they are called working girls (rgsimoi), and they offer themselves without any resistance. On the other hand it is inauspicious to dream of entering a brothel ( porneon), and being unable to leave. Artemidoros proceeds to recount the story of a man who dreamt this dream, and died a few days thereafter. No wonder: a brothel, like a cemetery, is called a common place20, and many human seeds perish there (koinw gr tpow otow kaletai, w ka tow nekrow dexmenow, ka polln spermtvn nyropnvn ntaya gnetai fyor). It resembles death. But the women themselves have nothing to do with the place: it is a good dream to see them plying their trade21. To paraphrase Artemidoros the brothel was a locus fatalis, but not the prostantes themselves; still his explanation is relatively close to Ps.-Acros definition. Artemidoros writes from the point of view of a consumer bent upon enjoying life in all of its pleasures and dangers. Yet when we consider the stream of moralizing condemnation flowing from classical and particularly Christian sources22 the application of the epithet fatalis to meretrices appears logical and likely23.

20

21

22

23

lete he normally changes Porphyrios present tense into a past tense; cf. A. Langenhorst, De scholiis Horatianis quae Acronis nomine feruntur quaestiones selectae (Bonnae 1908) 2328, endorsed by M. Schanz - C. Hosius, Geschichte der rmischen Literatur II4 (Mnchen 1935) 156. It is thus possible that his information fatales = prostantes (missing from Porphyrio) reproduces the late Latin idiom. This expression (as pointed out by Pack in app.) existed also in Latin: Seneca, Contr. 1.2.5: Meretrix vocata es, in communi loco stetisti. Cf. also koineon = brothel (LSJ s.v.). The idea that the places of prostitution are like corpses appears also in Christian literature, see Makarios, Hom. 12.2, lines 2022 (H. Drries, E. Klostermann, M. Kroeger, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarios [Patristische Texte und Studien 4], Berlin 1964]): ka pornea ka tpoi, pou tajai gnontai ka svtai are for the yeosebew ... w nekr. A comparison between tombs and tn pornn t kataggia, pollw tw dusvdaw gmonta pollw tw shpednow, is found in Joannes Chrysostomos, In Matthaeum homilia 28.2 (Patr. Gr. vol. 57, p. 355, lines 4244). I owe these two passages to Herter, RAC 119394 (below, n. 22). Cf. 4. 9. Also in the waking state it bodes well to see a prostitute early in the morning; Joannes Chrysostomos inveighs against this prognostication, Ad illuminandos catecheses 2.5 (Patr. Gr. vol. 49, p. 240, lines 810): En pants parynow, ..., praktow mra gnetai: n d pants prnh, deji ka xrhst ka pollw mporaw gmousa. Cf. Herter, RAC 1194 (below, n. 22). {Cf. Cic. Verr. 2.1.104: nam ut praetor factus est, qui auspicato a Chelidone surrexisset, sortem nanctus est urbanae praeturae, adduced in this context by T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II.820, n. 52}. See the articles by H. Herter, Dirne, RAC 3 (1957) 11541213; Die soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Lichte des heidnischen und christlichen Schrifttums, JbAC 3 (1960) 70111. They contain a mine of information. He registers the passage of Artemidoros at RAC 1179. Ps.-Quint. Decl. Maiores (ed. L. Hkanson, Stutgardiae 1982) 15.11 (p. 314, line 1) describes the amor toward a meretrix as funereis facibus armatus.

26 IMAGO HORTORUM: Pliny the Elder and the Gardens of the Urban Poor*
A substantial part of Book 19 Pliny devotes to vegetable gardens. At Naturalis Historia 19.59 we read:
iam in fenestris suis plebs urbana imagine1 hortorum cotidiana oculis rura praebebant, antequam praefigi prospectus omnes coegit multitudinis innumerae saeva latrocinatio.

Thus even the urban plebs enjoyed, for a time, an imago of gardens. What kind of imago? A recent and learned student of gardens is perplexed: I am unclear on the meaning of Plinys remark, that the urban poor in Rome used to content themselves with [public?] paintings of gardens, until for security reasons they had to bar their windows. 2 Observe that paintings are taken for granted; the only point in dispute remains the question whether these imagines were public or private. We are indeed well informed of the paintings of gardens3 but not in the plebeian quarters.4 If this interpretation is correct we acquire a new understanding of the artistic sensitivities of the Roman plebs. Doubts obtrude. If we deal with paintings which the poor had in their own apartments, one wonders why they were placed in the windows, and not affixed to a wall. Next, if they were public paintings (murals of some sort?), they must have been so ubiquitous as to be easily seen from the windows of poor tenements, a rather unlikely proposition. But as a matter of fact we need not interpret imago in the sense of picture. The use of the word imago in the

* 1

3 4

Classical Philology 96 (2001 [2002]) 305308 {with minor addenda}. So C. Mayhoff, ed., C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri, vol. 3 (Leipzig [Teubner], 1892). J. Andr, ed., Pline lAncien: Histoire Naturelle, livre XIX (Paris [Bud], 1964), opts for the reading in imagine. H. Rackham, ed., Pliny, Natural History, vol. 5 (London/ Cambridge, Mass. [Loeb], 1950) prints imagine, and erroneously attributes to Mayhoff the reading in imagine. M. T. Boatwright, Luxuriant Gardens and Extravagant Women: the Horti of Rome Between Republic and Empire, in Horti Romani, BCAR Suppl. 6, ed. M. Cima and E. La Rocca (Rome, 1998), 7182, at p. 72, n. 11. See above all W. Jashemski, The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius (New Rochelle, N.Y., 1979, 1993), 1:5587; 2:313404. On the living conditions in poor tenements in Rome, see A. Scobie, Slums, sanitation, and mortality in the Roman world, Klio 68 (1986): 399433, esp. 4014; H.-D. Bottke, Rmische Mietshuser. Die Wohnverhltnisse sozialer Unterschichten von der ausgehenden Republik bis zur hohen Kaiserzeit und deren bautechnische sowie konomische Ursachen (Ph.D. diss., University of Duisburg, 1999), available on the Internet at the site http://www.pomoerium.com.

338

Historia et Philologia

306

meaning of imitation is well attested.5 And thus lest the authority of an impressive article published in a luxuriant volume prevail, we hasten to remark that Pliny does not speak of paintings at all; he speaks of imitation gardens, of window-boxes, such as can still today be admired in the windows of many apartments (and single houses), and not only in Europe. The verse of Martial comes to mind, perhaps the most charming poem in the whole collection (11.18): Donasti, Lupe, rus sub urbe nobis; / sed rus est mihi maius in fenestra. The following twenty five lines describe the delights and dangers of this miniature hortus, not large enough for a cucumber, where the harvest hardly fills a shell of a snail, and a mouse is feared by the farmer as if it were a Calydonian boar.6 The commentators of Pliny naturally adduced the verse of Martial and the commentators of Martial the passage of Pliny.7 But to a window gardener an important question poses itself: earthenware pots or baskets? Jacques Andr resolutely speaks of pots de fleurs sur les fentres. N. M. Kay refers generally to window-boxes, but by recourse to an oriental feast that became popular also in Greece and Rome he seemingly strengthens the case for pots: during the Adonia it was a custom to sow wheat and barley in pots and call the seedlings The Gardens of Adonis. 8 This is somewhat inaccurate, for the gardens of Adonis displayed also fennel and lettuce (Hesych. A 1231; Suda A 517),
5 OLD s.v. imago 8 (p. 831), where among several examples we duly find the passage of Pliny. Rackham, Pliny (n. 1 above), 459, renders imagine hortorum cotidiana oculis rura praebebant as used to give their eyes a daily view of country scenes by means of imitation gardens. Very similarly Andr, Pline (n. 1 above), 46: le spectacle despces de jardins, image quotidienne de la campagne. {According to C. Kunst, Rmische Wohn- und Lebenswelten. Quellen zur Geschichte der rmischen Stadt (Darmstadt, 2000), 123, Plinys passage refers to the Balkonbegrnung; certainly possible, provided that we do not exclude the window-boxes}. See the marvelously erudite commentary by N. M. Kay, Martial. Book XI (London [and New York], 1985), 1059. Andr, Pline (n. 1 above), 119; Kay, Martial, 106. The two passages are also juxtaposed in TLL s.v. Fenestra, col. 479, lines 4849, and in many older commentaries; see e.g., L. Friedlnder, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton libri mit erklrenden Anmerkungen (Leipzig, 1886), 2:177. In Juvenals evocation of urban dangers broken or leaky vessels fall from the windows (rimosa et curta fenestris vasa cadant, Sat. 3.27071), perhaps potted plants: so e.g., E. Post, Selected Epigrams of Martial (Boston, 1908), 277, but this specific interpretation is (rightly) not entertained by E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London, 1980), 190. {Cf. R. Phlmann, Die bervlkerung der antiken Grossstdte (Leipzig 1884), 53 (and see below, n. 20)}. Kay, Martial (n. 6 above), 106, says that this information comes from Schol. Plat. Phdr. 276b, but although this text mentions indeed the gardens of Adonis, the information on the sowing of wheat and barley is provided by Schol. Theocr. 15.11213. The search in TLG revealed some thirty passages recording the Adnidow kpoi, most of them already known to pre-TLG scholars; see W. Atallah, Adonis dans la littrature et lart grecs (Paris, 1966), 21128; M. Detienne, Les jardins dAdonis (Paris, 1972), 191205; and especially the articles by J. D. Reed, The Sexuality of Adonis, ClAnt 14 (1995): 31747, esp. 32328, 33840, and Arsinoes Adonis and the Poetics of Ptolemaic Imperialism, TAPA 130 (2000): 31951, esp. 32122. The most detailed study (with a few texts not yet in TLG) remains the article by R. Rochette, the leading French art historian and antiquarian of the first half of the nineteenth century, Mmoire sur les Jardins dAdonis, RA 8 (1851): 97123, at 10523. {Cf. ZPE 145 (2003): 86, n. 16, reprinted in this volume, No. 27}.

6 7

Imago hortorum

339

307

and perhaps flowers (Philostr. Vita Apoll. 7.32). These plants were sown, however, not only in earthenware pots9 but also in all kinds of baskets and other containers10 (wooden boxes, so popular in some places today, are not on record). The same will be true also with respect to the window gardens: pots and baskets. Kay surmises that the Adonis gardens may have been something similar to Martials rus ... in fenestra, but first, judging by Martials evocation, the windowgardens sported a much greater variety of plants, and second, there is no indication that the Adonis gardens were displayed in the windows. Quite on the contrary, they were speedily11 grown inside a warm house under the roof;12 when exposed to the sun they immediately wilted, and were thrown into the sea or a well.13 The sterile, frantic and perishable Gardens of Adonis became proverbially a symbol of shortlived and superficial pleasures,14 an image not very appropriate for the year-long toil and enjoyment of the window-gardener. August Mau in his old but still informative treatment of Greek and Roman windows mentions Blumentpfe placed in the windows on an upper floor (Oberstock); for this information he quotes only Pliny and Martial.15 In point of fact these authors do not specify the floor; Maus statement is based solely on the fact that ground-floor windows were relatively rare,16 though this circumstance hardly holds for the apartment blocks. Thus in Pliny we may very well deal with window-boxes also on the ground floor. It may be significant that Pliny uses the word prospectus. For with reference to the buildings prospectus had a definite legal meaning: whereas lumen denoted the

10

11 12 13 14

15

16

straka: Plut. Mor. 560c; Julian. Caes. 329d; Suda A 517, 807; Hesych. A 1231; Schol. Theocr. 15.112-13. {Cf. J. H. Oakley and L. Reitzammer, A Hellenistic Terracotta and the Gardens of Adonis, JHS 125 (2005): 14244, at 143}. See esp. Eust. Od. 11.590, who so describes the gardens of Adonis: futria tax nayllonta sv xtraw rrxou, ka lvw kofnou tinw ka atka =iptomena kat yalsshw, plants speedily sprouting afresh in an earthen pot, a wicker basket or generally any basket, and immediately thrown into the sea (or a well: so Zenob. Cent. 1.49, in Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum [Gttingen, 1839], 1:19). According to Reed (Arsinoes Adonis, p. 324, n. 25; cf. Sexuality of Adonis [n. 8 above], p. 320, n. 18) the testimony of Eustathius is solely a conflation of Zenobius account with the Theocritean scholium. In eight hours according to Plato, Phdr. 276b; cf. Simpl. in Phys. 230a18 (= Comm. Graec. in Arist. 10:911.1115), who stresses the requirement of warm temperature. Philostr. Vita Apoll. 7.32: mvrofouw atow futeontew. Cf. Atallah, Adonis (n. 8 above), 215-16. Diogenianus, Cent. 1.14 in Corp. paroem. Graec. 1:183; Julian. Caes. 329d; and above, n. 10. Cf. Detienne, Les jardins (n. 8 above), 19293, 203. Schol. Plat. Phdr. 276b; Suda A 517; Eust. Od. 11.590. The proverb is attested only in Greek; it is absent from Latin: cf. A. Otto, Die Sprichwrter und sprichwrtlichen Redensarten der Rmer (Leipzig, 1890). Fenestra, RE 6 (1909): 218085, at 2182. See also G. Cressedi, Finestra, Enciclopedia dellarte antica 3 (1960): 69496; and above all R. Herbig, Fensterstudien an antiken Wohnbauten in Italien, MDAI(R) 44 (1929): 260321; J. E. Packer, The Insulae of Imperial Ostia (= MAAR, vol. 31 [Rome, 1971]), 2430 (none of these studies mentions the window gardens). Mau, Fenestra, (n. 15 above), 2181.

340

Historia et Philologia

308

view only from an upper floor, prospectus applied to the view from all floors, including the ground floor.17 This meaning of prospectus squares well with the fear of latrones. The urban plebs used to enjoy their gardens in the windows, but this was before the time when atrocious burglaries in countless numbers compelled them to bar out all the view with shutters. 18 This peculiar piece of information is generally taken to refer to some specific flair-up in banditry during Plinys lifetime,19 but it may well be only an example of Plinys moralizing, his praise of old customs versus the creeping corruption of the present.20 The passage is not easy of comprehension. Pliny avers that the plebs was forced to bar out (praefigi) all the sight (prospectus omnes), and as a result was deprived of the view and enjoyment of their gardens. The key word is praefigi. The Digest (8.2.6) is again (cf. n. 17) of help: praefigo happens to be a technical term opposed to obstruo. If I own a house, and a neighboring house is burdened with a servitude in favor of my house, I will lose my right to an unobstructed view si per statutum tempus fenestras meas praefixas habuero uel obstruxero (if for the
17 Dig. 8.2.16 (in the discussion of urban praedial servitudes): Lumen, id est ut caelum videretur, et interest inter lumen et prospectum: nam prospectus etiam ex inferioribus locis est, lumen ex inferiore loco esse non potest (the passage felicitously adduced by Andr, Pline [n. 1 above], 119). For a legal analysis, see J. M. Rainer, Bau-und nachbarrechtliche Bestimmungen im klassischen rmischen Recht (Graz, 1987), 27374 (with an unfortunate misprint in the Latin text). 18 So Rackham, Pliny (n. 1 above), 459. Andr, Pline (n. 1 above), 46, translates as follows: jusquau moment o les horribles brigandages dune multitude innombrable eurent constraint clore tous les jour des demeures. 19 Cf. Bottke, Rmische Mietshuser (n. 4 above), 73. By the time of Martial, as Kay (Martial [n. 6 above], 106) dryly observes, perhaps the vandals had had a change of heart. In this sense, but less wittily, already Friedlnder, Martialis Epigr. libri (n. 7 above), 2:177. In his Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der Antonine9, vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1919), 22, Friedlnder associates the enunciation of Pliny with the growth of insecurity in the aftermath of the civil war of 69. 20 As suggested by a referee for this journal. On Pliny as a moralist, and on his opposizione di passato-presente tipico del moralismo, see S. Citroni Marchetti, Plinio il Vecchio e la tradizione del moralismo romano (Pisa, 1991), 197, and passim; F. de Oliveira, Les ides politiques et morales de Pline lAncien (Coimbra, 1992). Neither of them mentions the passage here discussed. Still I doubt that Pliny intended to criticize the lack of security in the Rome of Vespasian, and on the whole it may be preferable to uphold the interpretation of Friedlnder (cf. n. 19), {however, as modified by Phlmann in his once famous, now half-forgotten gekrnte Preisschrift (n. 7 above), 53: Whrend man, wie Plinius bemerkt, in frherer Zeit in den nach der Strasse zugehenden Fenstern oft Grnes und Blumen gezogen, war man zu seiner Zeit wegen des zahllosen Raubgesindels genthigt, sich selbst die Aussicht zu verbauen. Und dass es sich hier nicht bloss, wie man geglaubt hat, um eine vorbergehende Steigerung der Unsicherheit in Folge des Brgerkrieges von 69 handelte, zeigen die Schilderungen Juvenals und usserungen der Rechtsquellen zu genge. To illustrate the endemic and enduring nature of the trouble he adduces Dig. 1.15. 3 (Paul. de off. praef. vig.): effracturae fiunt plerumque in insulis horreisque, ubi homines pretiosissimam partem fortunarum suarum reponunt}. In this context it may be of interest to observe that Roman criminal law distinguished a special category of thieves who sneaked into apartments (derectarii or directarii); they were punished more severely than the ordinary thieves. See Ulp. Dig. 47.11.7; H. F. Hitzig, Directarii, RE 5 (1903): 116667.

Imago hortorum

341

prescribed period I will keep my windows blocked up or will keep an obstruction in front of them), and si tu per hoc tempus aedes tuas altius sublatas habueris (if you during the same period have raised and kept raised the height of your house).21 This is also the situation envisaged by Pliny. The windows solidly blocked with shutters or boards, the plebs was not able oculis rura praebere, to view their gardens, which also interestingly implies that the boxes were placed (as is normally the case also today) on window-sills outside the shutters22 and window panes.23 There do not appear to exist any other literary sources referring to window gardens. We should be thankful to Pliny for preserving for us this bit of the gardening lore and urban life, and to Martial for endowing it with wit and charm.24

21 To explain Pliny this passage was adduced already by older commentators: cf. the notae in usum Delphini in the publication (curante et imprimente) of the Natural History by A. J. Valpy (London, 1826). And contrariwise, T. Mommsen in his edition of the Digest (Berlin, 1868) did not of course fail to adduce as illustration the passage of Pliny. After twelve decennia regress: Rainer, Baubestimmungen (n. 17 above), 52, has no word of Pliny. As revealed by the Packard Humanities Institutes Latin Data Bank these two passages appear to be the only examples of the locutions praefigere prospectus and praefigere fenestras. In general the usage of praefigo in the sense of occludo or praecludo is rare; cf. TLL s.v. praefigo, col. 635, lines 817. 22 On the various kinds of shutters, see Mau, Fenestra, (n. 15 above), 218384; Bottke, Rmische Mietshuser (n. 4 above), 1617, 6263. Pliny must be indicating shutters or boards and not grates or bars (cf. fenestra clatrata, Plaut. Mil. 179: faber ... faciat oportet ... clatros in fenestras maioris, Cato, Agr. 14.2: clatras in fenestris posuit, CIL 6.260), for only in this way would all the view be blocked. A reader for this journal (cf. n. 20) observes that if we take Plinys story of the robbers at face-value, the robbers must have been vandalizing also the window-boxes, and thus presumably the people simply ceased to cultivate them, and were thus deprived of their enjoyment. This may well have been so, but it is not exactly what Pliny writes: his stress is exclusively on the blocked sight. 23 Earlier scholars believed that the windows were commonly closed, even during the day, with (double) shutters, thus admitting little light, but Packer, Insulae (n. 15 above), 27, persuasively argues that the window openings were often equipped with transparent panes. This interpretation squares very well with the passages from the Digest (cf. nn. 17, 21), and the passage of Pliny. 24 We can profitably compare and contrast Martials rus in fenestra with Pliny the Youngers meandering description of his villas, with their elegant windows overlooking the manicured gardens (Ep. 2.17.1316; 5.6.1923).

27 THE PAINTRESS CALYPSO AND OTHER PAINTERS IN PLINY*

I. CALYPSO The passage of Pliny, NH 35.147 treats of women painters. The account is of obvious historical and sociological interest,1 but it also contains a delightful and instructive puzzle. It reads in the standard Teubner edition of C. Mayhoff (1897, 284):
Pinxere et mulieres: Timarete, Miconis filia, Dianam, quae in tabula Ephesi est antiquissimae picturae; Irene, Cratini pictoris filia et discipula, puellam, quae est Eleusine, Calypso, senem et praestigiatorem Theodorum, Alcisthenen saltatorem; Aristarete, Nearchi filia et discipula, Aesculapium.

How many women painters are here listed? If we follow Mayhoffs punctuation, three, it would appear: Timarete, Irene, and Aristarete. But there is a problem: one of Irenes creations, the nymph Calypso, threatens to become an independent paintress herself. So, at least, if we give ear to the recent and excellent Bud editor and commentator, J-M. Croisille (1985, 99), who places a semicolon after Eleusine, and translates thus: Calypso a peint un Vieillard, Thodorus lillusioniste, Alcisthns le danseur. In his commentary (25657) he observes that according to a number of authorities2 le nom de Calypso serait un accusatif, et dsignerait non

* 1

Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 145 (2003) 8396, with Addenda and Corrigenda in ZPE 148 (2004) 126 {here, with further addenda, incorporated into the text and footnotes}. On the persons and paintings mentioned in this passage (they all belonged to the fourth and early third century), see Croisille 1985, 25657 (with some further literature, but he is curiously uninterested in dates). Mnzers (1895, 52526) analysis of Plinys account has been often invoked as a shining example of Quellenforschung, but it is tainted by his extreme and unfounded scepticism as to the veracity of Plinys sources. As will soon become apparent all existing discussions and commentaries are thoroughly inadequate. The present disquisition is intended as a contribution to Plinys text and idiom, prosopography of Greek painters and paintresses, the realia of the ancient world, and also to the always fascinating ways and byways in the history of modern scholarship. Cf. Baldwin 1981. That Calypso was a painter was the opinion of the earlier editors of Pliny, see ad loc. Valpy 1826, Sillig 1851 (and 1827, 135), Detlefsen 1873. So also Overbeck 1868, 414 {on Overbeck and his collection, see now the remarks by Muller-Dufeu 2002, IXXIV. Her collection is intended as a replacement of Overbeck but only with respect to sculpture}; Oehmichen, 1880, 168. The interpretation of the name as an accusative seems to have been first proposed by Wilhelm Frhner, 18341925 (1884, 15), much better known as a Greek epigrapher and Curator of Antiquities at the Louvre than for his prowess as a Latin textual critic. (He also played a part in the history of his times: in 1863-66 he was a German reader [lector, lecteur, Vorleser, to be taken in its original Latin meaning of reading aloud] to the emperor Napoleon III). His interpretation gained acceptance from some important quarters, most notably from

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

343

84

une femme-peintre, mais une oeuvre dEirn, and concludes: le doubte subsiste, mais laccusatif Calypso nous parat peu vraisemblable. As far as pure grammar is concerned, the accusative Calypso should not per se trouble us: as a glance at any major Latin dictionary will show, it was, in Latin, a frequent accusative form of the name. Yet stylistically, wedged between two nicely defined accusatives, puellam and senem, it looks awkward indeed. Mayhoff, with his exquisite ear for the Plinian Latin, felt discomfort with his own text, and made with respect to Calypso and senem this annotation in his apparatus: fortasse et delendum. an vero Calypso senex intellegitur opposita puellae? His alternate text would thus look as follows: puellam, quae est Eleusine, Calypso, senem praestigiatorem Theodorum or puellam, quae est Eleusine, Calypso senem et praestigiatorem Theodorum. Desperate solutions: in particular we do not seem to know anything about the old age of the nymph Calypso.3 But Mayhoff was right: it is not only Calypso that is disconcerting; even more troubling is senem, and the conjunction et is placed very awkwardly. At first blush it might indeed seem that both descriptions, senem et praestigiatorem, are to be referred to Theodorus (as Mayhoff himself had considered). This had in fact been the opinion of Frhner.4 But do we wish to have a superannuated juggler?5 Ferri, Rackham and Croisille prefer to take senem as denoting a painting of an Old Man, the Old Age personified,6 followed by the paintings of Theodorus and Alcisthenes the dancer.
Mayhoff (1897, 284), Kalkmann (1898, 182) and Pfuhl (1923, 2.829), but the idea that Calypso was the name of an artist has never been abandoned. Most surprisingly, in view of his doubts as to Plinys credibility (cf. n. 1), it was retained by Mnzer 1895, 526, and also by Sellers 1896, 170 (whose text mostly follows that of Detlefsen), by Brunn 1889, 2.202, by Ferri 1946, 2067 (although he notes that Calypso might be un soggetto di pittura, anzich una pittrice; cf. 23), and now also by Knig-Winkler (1978, 1067, 250, cf. 305; 1997, 11213, 267, cf. 330); Vons 2000, 76 (who in her flat and derivative account relies exclusively on Croisille); KLdA 2001, 200 (R. Vollkommer) and 399 (P. Knverer; he avers that die ltere Forschung bezweifelte gelegentlich die Existenz der Kalypso [the lack of historical perspective is frightening: earlier students unanimously believed in Calypso the paintress; it is the mittlere Forschung that attempted to restore the painting to Irene], da der Name ungewhnlich fr eine sterbliche Frau sei [it is!] und Plinius sie womglich mit der kurz zuvor von ihm erwhnten Malerin Eirene verwechselt haben knnte [this misstates Pfuhls argument]); {Muller-Dufeu 2002, 101819, no. 3053}. Rackham (1952, 36869), while keeping to Mayhoffs text, admits of the possibility that Calypso might be the name of a woman artist. {Herbert 1989, 190, avers with respect to Calypso that An der Existenz dieser Malerin sollte nicht gezweifelt werden, nur weil ihr Name auch eine Figur des Mythos bezeichnet und Plinius, so die gelehrte Kritik, aus einem Bildthema einer anderen Malerin (der im Text vorher genanten Eirene ...) irrtmlich einen Namen einer weiteren Knstlerin gemacht haben knnte. Misplaced irony does not replace philology}. Cf. Immisch 189097, 94042; Rafn 1990, 94548. Frhner 1884, 15. He attributes to Irene four paintings: the girl in Eleusis, Calypso, then senem et praestigiatorem Theodorum, and the dancer Alcisthenes. For a discussion of the term praestigiator, and of the particular specialty of Theodorus, see below, nn. 2430. It was an established genre, cf. Plin. NH 35.100 (senex cum lyra), 147 (an old woman), and in general the excellent collection by Richardson 1933.

3 4 5 6

344

Historia et Philologia

How odd that the supporters of Calypso the paintress, when they edited Pliny and wrote about art, all of them presumably attuned to shapes and colors, were so insensitive to the shape of Latin prose. The passage of Pliny is rigorously structured: each artist is supplied with the name of her father; only Calypso, in the midst of the account, stands alone, an orphan, her name hardly that of a free woman.7 And what a pity that the editors and commentators of Pliny had not read, or had forgotten, the ringing verse of Livius Andronicus (Od. fr. 17, Warmington 1936, 30):
apud nimpham Atlantis filiam Calipsonem.

or a fragment of Pacuvius (Inc. fab. 1112, Warmington 1936, 308) preserved and praised by the late fourth-century grammarian Charisius as an example of exquisite Latin usage. The full argument of Charisius is of interest (Barwick 1925, 79, lines 1320):
nullum autem nomen o producta finitur nisi peregrinum veluti Io, Sappho, Dido. quae ideo quidam Graece declinare maluerunt, huius Didus, Sapphus, Ius. sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere. nam et Pacuvius sic declinat eundem filios / sibi procreasse per Calypsonem autumant.

The name Calypso had in Latin three accusative forms, Calypso, Calypson, and Calypsonem,8 and this last form was employed, after Livius Andronicus and Pacuvius, by other authors, most notably C. Caesar (as we learn from Quintilian, Inst. 1.5.63). In later antiquity, in addition to Charisius, the form Calypsonem (and Calypsonis) was favored by another literary connoisseur of the epoch, Macrobius (Sat. 5.2.10).9
7 This was well observed by Frhner 1884, 15. It is only in the next sentence that Pliny introduces two lady painters whose patronymics he did not know. Frhner also remarks that Calypso, when applied to persons, was pointedly a slave name. Exactly right: see PapeBenseler 1911, 610 (they know of only two literary texts in which the personal name Calypso appears: the presumed paintress in our passage of Pliny, and a slave woman at Lukian, Alex. 50. But as this name comes in the text of an oracle, we are hardly dealing with a real person). In the four so far published volumes of LGPN there is no record of the name Kaluc. See also Solin 1996, 2.309: he lists only one (and late) occurrence, a freedwoman Antonia A. l. Calypso, CIL VI 7680. In his earlier publication (1982, 4023) in addition to this inscription he adduced also IG 14.1648, where the name may refer to a freeborn woman, but the reading of the name is uncertain. The same two names already in TLL Onomasticon 2 (190713) 113 (s.v. Calypso). See TLL Onomasticon 2.113. In this article Calypso in Pliny is regarded as an accusative and a painting; eighty years later sadly a grammatical regress: TLL s.v. praestigiator (1991, col. 938, 2324) takes Calypso as a nominative and a paintress. The great Priscian decided that both declensions, Greek and Latin, were equally correct, GL 1855, 2.20910. As an example of acc. Calypsonem he adduced (like Charisius before him) the lines of Livius Andronicus and Pacuvius, and in addition, as a scholarly authority, a grammarian of the second century, Caesellius Vindex. Cf. also (Ps.)-Ausonius 448.2 (= Periochae Homeri 29): nymphae Calypsonis. But other later grammarians (Phocas, Diomedes) continued favoring the Greek declension; for references, see TLL Onomasticon 2.113 {On the concept of

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 85

345

Is this (as it palpably appears to be) the form to be restored in the text of Pliny? An early scribe (for the corruption would have occurred already in the oldest codex, the Bambergensis, of the tenth century) mistook the form Calypsonem, as did also all modern editors, and interpreted it, almost ingeniously, as Calypso senem.10 We should not rejoice prematurely. There may be a snag. Quintilian disapproved of the usage, at least and precisely with respect to the name of Calypso (Inst. 1.5.63):
Nunc recentiores instituerunt Graecis nominibus Graecas declinationes potius dare, quod tamen ipsum non semper fieri potest. mihi autem placet rationem Latinam sequi, quousque patitur decor. neque enim iam Calypsonem dixerim ut Iunonem, quamquam secutus antiquos C. Caesar utitur hac ratione declinandi; sed auctoritatem consuetudo superavit.

We are in the midst of a grammatical battle between antiqui and moderni. The usage of the ancients was again embraced by the later grammarians and literati, but Quintilian occupied the middle ground, though he positively disliked Calypsonem. The current consuetudo, he says, was to observe the Greek declension, and thus use the accusative Calypso. What would be the opinion of Pliny himself? Pliny was acutely interested in the usages of Latin idiom, and to that subject he devoted an extensive monograph, Dubii sermonis libri, of which only fragments are extant, now to be used in the edition and with the commentary of A. Della Casa (1969). It so happens that in one of the fragments (Della Casa 1969, 153, fr. 87) Pliny confronts the controversy. The fragment is again preserved by Charisius, and it is advisable to reproduce the full passage in which Plinys text is embedded (Barwick 1925, 162, lines 611):
Didun. Ateius Philologus librum suum sic edidit <in>scriptum, An amaverit Didun Aeneas, ut refert Plinius consuetudinem dicens facere hanc Callisto, hanc Calypso, hanc Io, <hanc> Allecto. itaque et L. Annaeus Cornutus in Maronis commentariis Aeneidos X Didus ait, hospitio Didus exceptum esse Aenean.

Two observations. Charisius knows the book or rather the title of the book by Ateius only from Pliny, almost certainly from his Dubii sermonis libri. His quotation of Annaeus Cornutus probably comes from the same source.11 Della Casa (1969, 28183) seems to assume that Pliny endorsed the form Didun (and Didus), but this is far from certain. He rather adduced Ateius (and Cornutus) as examples of an extreme Graecizing tendency, but himself, like Quintilian, struck the reasonable middle course. All three authors, Charisius, Quintilian and Pliny, stress consuetudo, the prevailing (or recommended) usage. And with respect to Greek feminine names in -, -ouw, there were three periods of grammatical vogue with
consuetudo, see the instructive remarks by Grebe 2000, passim, and by Schenkenveld 2004, 4353}. 10 B has sinem; VRF senem; see Croisille 1985, 99, in apparatu. 11 On Ateius and Cornutus, see Hosius 1927, 58081 and 1935, 67679.

346

Historia et Philologia

86

the accusative Calypsonem preferred by the ancients, Calypso by the recentiores, including the period of Pliny and Quintilian, and again Calypsonem advocated or tolerated by some later authorities. There are people who proffer theoretical rules of usage, but do not follow them in practice. Did Pliny follow the precepts laid down in his Dubii sermonis libri also in the Natural History? Of the six names adduced by Charisius, Dido (hard to believe), Allecto and Callisto (but cf. n. 11) do not make their appearance on the pages of Natural History, and Io appears only in the nominative (16.239; 35.132), but Sappho speaks with a clear grammatical voice. At 22.20 we read Phaonem Lesbium dilectum a Sappho (and not a Sapphone), and at 35.141 we learn of a painter: pinxit ... Leon Sappho (and not Sapphonem). In view of these examples no doubt can subsist with respect to the disputed passage 35.147. The reading Irene ... Calypso (sc. pinxit) stands.12 Pliny was thus very consistent in his usage, and the rule hanc Calypso obtains also for the Natural History. Under this grammatical barrage, the paintress Calypso vanishes, the nymph Calypso receives back her painting,13 but what are we to do with The Old Man? The reading senem, and the placement of the conjunction et remain as troubling as ever. There is medicine. We have seen how the accusative Calypsonem made its comeback in later antiquity. In the manuscripts of Pliny the form Calypso needed an annotation to indicate that it was an accusative (and not a nominative).14 This annotation, Calypsonem, penetrated, as the glossae often did, into the text, and in turn, through a subsequent surgery, spawned the spurious senem. Thus Calypso Calypsonem was miscorrected to Calypso [Calyp]senem. The Old Man must be condemned.15 The passage is now exquisitely balanced. Irene painted two young female divine figures, Cora16 and the nymph Calypso, and
12 At 35.132 we have two occurrences of the nominative Calypso: in quibus sunt Calypso (some prefer to read here Callisto, cf. Croisille 1985, 239) and Calypso sedens, not useful for our purpose, but at 3.96 we encounter a nice Greek genitive: Calypsus. Dos Santos Palma 1970, 188, merely observes that Pliny parece preferir as gregas (sc. formas). 13 Two other paintings representing Calypso were attributed to the Athenian Nicias (NH 35.132; cf. Lucas 1940, 5459; Croisille 1985, 23739). Touchefeu-Meynier 1968, 200 (cf. 339) and Rafn 1990, 546, adduce in their list of representations of Calypso the paintings of Nicias but not the painting of Irene. Once set in motion the damnatio memoriae is arduous to reverse. 14 For this kind of annotation or variant readings, cf. Servius auctus, ad Aen. 3.171, where according to the Editio Harvardiana (Stocker-Travis 1965) the manuscripts read calipsis, corrected to Calypsus by Pancratius Masvicius [P. Maaswyck, 16581719; Pkel 1882, 163] in his edition of Vergil and Servius in 1717, and admitted into the text by subsequent editors (though Thilo 1878, 408, thought it to be a manuscript reading), but one codex has Calypsonis. A similar situation exists in manuscripts of Paul. Fest. 16.23 (Lindsay 1913): Calypsus, calypsis. Cf. also the textual problems in the phrase vice Calypsonis in Apul. Met. 1.12 (Helm 1931, 11); Ovid. Pont. 4.10.13: an grave (sc. fuit) sex annis pulchram fovisse Calypso (with variant reading Calypson); Dict. Cret. 6.5: ad Calypso (var. lect. again Calipson). 15 Cf. already Pfuhl 1923, 2.829, who very sensibly suggested that the painting of the Greis may owe its existence only to einer Textverderbnis, but he offered no textual argument. 16 It is generally accepted that Plinys puella translates paw; thus the painting represented Cora (Krh). See Sellers 1896, 171; Pfuhl 1923, 2.829; Ferri 1946, 206, cf. 24; Croisille 1985, 256.

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

347

two male performers, a juggler and a dancer (observe how et now conjoins and opposes those two different subject matters). We are at the end of our textual nostos. The paintress Irene is restored to her rightful place, the paintress Calypso and the painting of an Old Man regrettably disappear, but the nymph Calypso is again immortal on the pages of Pliny in her refurbished Greek accusative dress, and this textual traveller, unlike Odysseus, hopes in the company of Calypso for immortality in some dusty and unread apparatus criticus to a future edition of Natural History. The correct text will read:
87

Pinxere et mulieres: ... Irene, Cratini pictoris filia et discipula, puellam, quae est Eleusine, Calypso [senem] et praestigiatorem Theodorum, Alcisthenen saltatorem. Calypso probavit [senem] damnavit L.

II. IRENE Irene has suffered enough of abuse and deprivation. Her paintings had been appropriated by a phantom, and her own identity17 had been questioned by no less an authority than Friedrich Mnzer. This merited scholar had argued (1895, 53536) that Plinys account of women painters derives from Duris of Samos though through the intermediary of Antigonos of Karystos.18 And Duris was notorious for
It is generally believed (also by Croisille) that this suggestion was first made by Raoul Rochette (17831855) in his once often quoted book Peintures antiques indites (Paris 1836) 222. Rochette himself, however, attributes this ingnieuse conjecture to a M. Lvesque (i.e., Pierre-Charles Lvesque, member of the Academy) in Mm. de lInst. t. I, p. 461 (non vidi). It is somewhat surprising that it was possible to consult the verba ipsissima of Rochette in Chapel Hill but apparently not in Paris [A Member of the Institut and of the Acadmie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Rochette was a leading French antiquarian of the day, and a great book collector. A catalogue of his personal library compiled after his death gives a rare glimpse into the working library of a French scholar of that epoch. The catalogue contains 3363 items, many of them multi-volume sets; one notes with interest a substantial number of titles in German. See Catalogue des livres composant la bibliothque artistique, archologique, historique et littraire de feu M. Raoul Rochette (Paris 1855, Librairie de J. Techener; pp. VIIIIX a short vita)]. Brunn (1889, 2.201) also considers the idea of (again once famous) L. Preller (1837, 377) that we here have to do with a painting of a paw f staw, an initiate into the mysteries. As among those initiates there were both boys and girls, this is an attractive possibility, though in that case the nice symmetry of Irene painting two mythological figures would be destroyed. On the category of hearth-initiates, see the erudite discussion by Clinton 1974, 98114, with a prosopographical list, and a list of statues representing the initiates (all boys). No paintings of the initiates seem to be on record. 17 It is amusing to observe that Irene (or Eirene) does not have an entry in the RE, but the paintress Kalypso boasts of an article (10 [1919] 1799). 18 On Antigonos (flourished in the third century) the monograph of the young Wilamowitz (1881) remains not replaced but not irreplaceable. For the developments since Wilamowitz an excellent account in Dorandi 1995a, 34764; 1994, 529 (esp. 17-23 on Antigonos and Duris in Pliny); 1995b, 61-70; {and see also Dorandis magisterial edition of 1999 (with an ample introduction and translation), esp. pp. CVIICXI on the sources of Pliny}. On Duris (4th/3rd century), see recently Landucci Gattinoni 1997, esp. 5155 (La fortuna odierna, disappointing; strangely no mention of Mnzer or Dorandi). Among many other works both Duris and Antigonos wrote books on the art of painting and on painters. Plinys reliance on Antigonos

348

Historia et Philologia

embroidering his stories: in particular he was partial to tales of women (ein Lieblingsthema) and of Alexander. Nearchos was the name of Alexanders admiral; the names Timarete and Aristarete are suspiciously similar; and the name Calypso is practically unknown. They are all verdchtig.19 For the name Calypso we know the cure: give it back to the nymph. The names Timarete and Aristarete were common enough,20 and above all one wonders: for what purpose or amusement should Duris have excogitated this elaborate fable and Antigonos slavishly repeated it? In the end Mnzer himself relented, and made this confession (1895, 536): Derartiges aus Duris herzuleiten bleibt natrlich Vermutung, und ich will es auch nicht durchweg und ausschliesslich fr Gebilde seiner Phantasie halten. Ultimately Mnzers analysis tells us more about attitudes of philology and philologians at the turn of the nineteenth century than about Duris or Irene. Enough of phantoms. Irene has now regained her paintings, and the portraits of the two performers will serve, like two amulets, as a charm against the maledictions of Mnzer. For it so happens that Theodorus is a person of flesh, or in any case of bronze, and not solely of paint. To meet him we have to join Athenaios at a symposium. In the Deipnosophistai (1.19ab) he writes with indignation about honors accorded by various cities to professional performers of often low or questionable arts. The Greeks, he writes, came in later times to appreciate vulgar skills of hand (tw banasouw txnaw) much higher than ideas achieved through education. And so the Athenians made Aristonikos of Karystos, Alexanders ball-player (sfairistw), a citizen on account of his art (txnh), and they also put up his statue.21 A balland Antigonos reliance on Duris (especially for anecdotes) have often been taken for granted, but Dorandi (1994, 22) concludes his dissection of Plinys sources with a somber remark: credo sia risultato palese che, se si escludono i pochi luoghi dove Antigono citato direttamente, negli altri casi la sua presenza stata pi postulata che realmente dimostrata. 19 Mnzers distrust spilled over also to the exposition of Sellers (1896, LXV): as she puts it, Irene and Aristarete are not above suspicion, and the dancer Alkisthenes and the juggler Theodoros, painted by Kalypso, are evident Duridian personages. What a perfect world of imagination it would have been, if inscriptions had not existed! 20 They are recorded in a number of inscriptions, see LGPN 1.61, 437; 2.51, 428; 3A.56, 428. In literary texts there are several occurrences of Timarete, but only one of Aristarete, in Pliny (so Pape-Benseler 1911, 129, 1526, their finding corroborated by electronic searches). 21 The Dictionary of LSJ renders the term sfairistw simply as ball-player, not inaccurately, but we have to distinguish between people playing ball for recreational purposes and professional ball-players who received awards because of their txnh. And among the latter we have to differentiate between athletes who played ball-games (for various kinds of games, see Mau, 1896, 283234; Wegner, 1938), and jugglers (called sfairopaktai or pilarii in Latin) who handled many balls at the same time (for a neat distinction between these two categories, see Manilius, Astr. 5.16571; cf. Wegner 1938, 2021). Aristonikos was Alexanders partner at a ball-play (susfairistw; cf. Suda S 1719, ed. Adler), and he certainly did everything to pretend that Alexander was able to keep up with him (for Alexanders interest in this exercise, cf. Plut. Alex. 39.3; 73.3). LSJ does not in fact reference this passage of Athenaios but rather another passage from the same author (12.548b) concerning the Peripatetic Lykon, the leader of the Lyceum, who was also sfairistw gayw ka pidjiow, a good and skillful ballplayer, but clearly only an amateur {but cf. Diog. Laert. 5.67, a passage which seems to suggest that as a young man Lykon participated in competitive ball playing}. Athenaios indicates

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 88

349

player! The people of Hestiaia and Oreos22 did something even more egregious: they erected in the theatre a bronze statue of Theodoros the psephokleptes (to chfoklptou); he was represented as holding a pebble (cfow). This is of course the praestigiator painted by Irene, but the commentators of Athenaios do not know of his portrait and the commentators of Pliny do not know of his statue.23 English translations, both of Pliny and of Athenaios, render both words, psephokleptes and praestigiator, as juggler, not entirely inaccurately, but Croisilles illusioniste is closer to the mark. It is time to have a look at this entertainment underground of the Greeks and the Romans. We are dealing with a milieu of performers loosely and generally described as yaumatopoio, wonder-doers.24 There were many specialties: jugglers, acrobats, rope-dancers, strong men, puppeteers, snake charmers, and various tricksters, whom probably we would today call magicians or conjurers, who made things appear and disappear. Theodorus was such a trickster. His particular skill was normally described as that of a chfopakthw, pebble shuffler,25 but chfoklpthw, pebble thief, is even more expressive.26 Those performers employed several pebbles (probably three), and by
(12.547d) that he owes information concerning Lykon to Antigonos of Karystos {cf. Dorandi 1999, LXIIIVI, and frg. 23, with notes 11015, pp. 4951}.This indication will be of importance for our further argument (see below in the text). {On Lykon, see now the collection of contributions edited by Fortenbaugh and White (2004). No author in this collection remarks on Lykon as a ball player and the lore of ball playing}. Histiaia is the spelling of the name in the local inscriptions; Hestiaia in many other texts including Athenaios. The precise connection between Histiaia and Oreos is the subject of a dispute, but Robert (1951, 179, n.2; cf. 21012) has suggested that from the second part of the fourth century through the third and second centuries Istiaiew est le nom du people qui occupe tout le nord de lEube ... et que Oros est le nom de la ville principale. See also Geyer 1924, 750; Jones 1987, 7778. Ferri (1946, 2067) and Croisille (1985, 257) are silent about Theodorus, but Knig-Winkler (1978, 242; 1997, 267) are positive in their negativism: Theodorus ist nicht zu bestimmen. No comment about the painting in the Loeb translation of Athenaios (Gulick 1927, 83). The entry in LSJ is very inadequate. The best introduction to this amazing world remains Blmner (1918), a mine of information. Also useful Bttiger 1850, 2.33562 (now unjustly forgotten); Kroll (1935); Hug (1954); TLL s.v. praestigiator (1991). But truly indispensable are the various studies by Louis Robert, as amazing in their erudition and brilliance of argument as the ancient performers were in their skill, see esp. OMS 1.22325; 2.89396, 93438; 1938, 76108; 1940, 13242. The entry in LSJ is again inadequate. A list of references and a good discussion in Blmner 1918, 19, 4546 (nn. 13341); Hug 1954, 1567. And see now Dickie 2001, 599603, a brilliant investigation. {Muller-Dufeu (2002, 1019) mistranslates praestigiator as charlatan; cf. below, n. 33}. The great Isaac Casaubonus (15501614) proposed the emendation chfopaktou, but Kaibel in his Teubner edition (1887) rightly retains the manuscript reading, and points to Artemid. Oneir. 3.55: if one dreams of performing tricks with pebbles (cefopaikten) this signifies a great gain which will come through lie and deceit because a performer steals many stones (pollw cfouw klptein) and shows them sometimes here, sometimes there. The same concept also in Apul. Flor. 18.4, in his marvelous description of the doings of the various kinds of performers: mimus halucinatur, comoedus sermocinatur, tragoedus vociferatur, funerepus [i.e., funambulus] periclitatur, praestigiator furatur, histrio gesticulatur ceterique omnes

22

23

24

25

26

350

Historia et Philologia

swift movements of their hands they made the stones vanish from sight and again materialize, in most unexpected places. The most evocative description of such a performance we owe to Alkiphron who in the second or third century of the Roman Empire composed a collection of Letters, purporting to be written by various Athenians of old, all stock characters, in the process borrowing many motifs from the New Comedy. One of the letters (2.17 [= 3.20]) is from a rustic, who came with his produce to the city, and to amuse himself went to a theater and witnessed an amazing show:27
A man came forward, and, setting down a three-legged table, placed three little cups (parocdaw)28 on it. Then under these cups he hid (skepe) some little round white pebbles (liydia), such as we find on the banks of rapid streams. At one moment he would hide them one under each cup;29 and at another moment (I dont know how) he would show them all under a single cup; and then again he would make them entirely disappear from under the cups and exhibit them between his lips.30 Then he would swallow them, and, drawing forward the spectators who stood near him, he would take one pebble from a mans nose, another from a mans ear, and the third from a mans head, and after picking them up he would make them disappear from sight again.

89

Although Alkiphron does not use this term, we are watching a psephopaiktes, but the word {in its Attic shape} is quite fittingly on record in a fragment of Eudoxos, a playwright of the New Comedy.31 The show described by Alkiphron took place in a theater; and it was in a theater, no doubt the site of his triumph, that the Histiaians and Oreitai erected the bronze statue of Theodoros.

27

28

29 30

31

ludiones ostentant populo quod cuiusque artis est. And Alkiphron (see below in the text, and n. 27) characterizes his pebble performer as kleptstatow nyrvpow, a thievery gent. I reproduce here the excellent Loeb translation by Benner and Fobes (1949). Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. hypot. 2.250, nicely compares the art of pebble shufflers to deceitful arguments in philosophy: we know that what they are demonstrating is not true, but we do not know how they are deceiving us. Cf. Dickie 2001, 600. Cf. Sen. Ep. 45.8: praestigiatorum acetabula et calculi, in quibus me fallacia ipsa delectat. Here acetabula corresponds to parocdaw (cf. Bttiger 1850, 36061; Blmner 1918, 4546). The calculi are properly dice; they may have been simply used in the manner of pebbles; whether the praestigiatores also performed tricks with (loaded) dice we do not know. Today this trick is commonly called cups and balls. Cf. Dickie 2001, 6013. The Greek text is here corrupt; for the healing attempts, see Schepers 1905 and Benner-Fobes ad loc.; Blmner 1918, 46, n. 139. Cf. Fronto 156 Naber (Lipsiae 1867) = 154 Van Den Hout2 (Stuttgart [Teubner] 1988). He inveighs against those writers who compose in an overwrought manner; they are similar to a person who at a meal instead of eating in a normal fashion oleas suas in altum iaciat, ore operto excipiat, exceptas ut calculos praestigiator primoribus labris ostendet. CAF 3.332,1 {as established by Kassel and Austin, PCG V (1986), p. 274 (frg. 1), in the fragment of Eudoxos the correct reading is chfopasthw, an Attic form of chfopakthw. I wish to record my thanks to Professor Kassel for his helpful comments}. The shows of that kind must have been popular enough already in the fifth century, so that Lysias could use the verb in a transferred sense of juggling away the right (fr. 17, ed. Thalheim): chfopaiktosi t dkaion. Dickie 2001, 603, very convincingly suggests that those performances took place not just in theaters but precisely in the orchestra of a theater.

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

351

90

This brings us back to Irene and to the thorny problem of her floruit. The independence of Calypso was a complication. And thus according to some scholars Irene had to her credit only one painting, the puella on display at Eleusis. As this piece cannot be dated, the only way to establish Irenes date was to seek the date of her father, the pictor Cratinus. Now after the mischief of Calypsos presumed independence has been uncovered, these divagations are largely moot: Irene can be dated by her regained paintings of Theodorus and Alcisthenes. If the account of Athenaios is organized chronologically, as it appears to be, Irene, and the illusionist Theodoros, were either roughly contemporaneous with Aristonikos who played ball with Alexander, or perhaps more likely would postdate him. But this is not the end of spurious troubles. Mnzer again appears, throwing this time aspersions of non-existence on the praestigiator Theodorus and Alcisthenes the saltator; as he puts it (1895, 536) out of the few names of jugglers (Gaukler) and rope-dancers (Seiltnzer) of antiquity which are adduced by Athenaios (1.35, p. 19d)32 several come from Duris, and therefore are somehow unreliable. Certainly for the exploits of the praestigiator or psephopaiktes Theodoros we have only the word of Pliny and of Athenaios, and their accounts may indeed derive ultimately from Duris, yet through the intermediary of Antigonos. Athenaios indicates that he took from Antigonos his long account of Lykon the peripatetic philosopher, and thus also the rather derogatory detail of Lykons prowess as a ball-player (12.547d548b; see above, n. 21). This makes it quite likely that also the accounts of Aristonikos the ball-player and of Theodoros the juggler figured in a work of Antigonos. All three stories testify to the collapse of good taste: the vulgar bon-vivant Lykon was unworthy of being selected as the head of the Peripatos, and the ball-playing, even excellent, and pebble-shuffling, were hardly the technai to be rewarded with grants of honorary citizenship. Antigonos was hardly a mere copyist of Duris; we can trust that he was well versed in the affairs, high and low, of his native island of Euboia; he and Aristonikos shared the same city of birth, Karystos, and Oreos of Theodoros the jugglers fame was not far away. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of accounts in Pliny and Athenaios, and consequently Louis Robert, who knew about ancient entertainers more that any other scholar, quoted the passage of Athenaios without any hint of distrust (OMS 1.437). Mnzers remark about Seiltnzer seems to refer both to Plinys Alcisthenes saltator and to Archelaos who according to Athenaios (1.19c) was an rxhstw at the court of King Antiochos (i.e., Antiochos II, ruled 261246). Now L. Robert (OMS 1.43536, n. 8) has shown that the term rxhstw was as a rule never employed to denote high rope acrobats; nor does in Latin saltator equal funambulus. But for Mnzers argument this is only an inconsequential inaccuracy as his proof unfolds in a preordained way: Athenaios expressly attributes to Duris the mention of the thaumatopoioi Nymphodoros and Kratisthenes; it is obvious that their names form merely an artificial pendant to Theodoros and Alcisthenes, and thus all four performers are suspect.33 If this should be true, would it matter at all
32 The citation is incorrect. Read 1.3435 = p. 19af. 33 This argument was wholly adopted by Sellers 1896, LXV, 165. {Muller-Dufeu (2002, 1019)

352

Historia et Philologia

whether Alkisthenes did not exist as a saltator or as a funambulus? But by cruel irony when Mnzer penned his ill-advised remarks about dancers, a dancer Alkisthenes of feet and flesh had been on record already for some thirty years, his name and his profession engraved in stone. (In the end the fumbles of Mnzer as a critic are more amazing than the exploits of thaumatopoioi, and most disheartening to those who, like this student of texts and people, have long admired and continue to admire that great scholar of tragic fate).34 The stone in question, unearthed at Delphi, was published in 1863, and in due course found its way to collections of inscriptions.35 It forms the fourth document in the series of four texts incised in five columns, recording the participants at the feast of the Soteria at Delphi. This feast commemorated the miraculous deliverance of the shrine from the onslaught of the Gauls in 279. This establishes a terminus post quem for the whole dossier, and for the Delphic performance of Alkisthenes. The document records (line 48) Alkisthenes the son of Aristogenes, of Sikyon; he is described as nr xoreutw. Earlier scholars dated the stone to the end of the third or the beginning of the second century.36 G. Nachtergael has recently carefully reviewed and republished the entire epigraphical dossier pertaining to the celebration of the Soteria; he assigns our document to ca 253.37 As the entia, also of performers, are not to be multiplied, the Alkisthenes of the stone is ineluctably the dancer who posed for Irene. And we also realize that this stone offers the sole secure chronological peg for establishing the date of Irenes floruit. We have to abandon the patriarchal prejudice: it is not Irene who is to be dated through her father; it is Cratinus who receives his firm date from the date of his daughter. And as her floruit belongs now decisively to the middle of the third century, any possibility of Cratinus identity
renders saltator as acrobate; another mistranlation in the land of Louis Robert (cf. above, n. 25).} It is only fair to say that in Mnzers article there is nevertheless much that is worth reading, and his book of 1897 on the Naturgeschichte remains fundamental for our understanding of Plinys method of research (cf. Dorandi 1994, 19). Mnzer who dedicated his epochal opus Rmische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920) to two classical friends who had den Heldentod frs Vaterland gefunden (p. IX), himself wasted away in 1942 in the concentration camp at Theresienstadt. Cf. A. Kneppe and J. Wiesehfer, Friedrich Mnzer: ein Althistoriker zwischen Kaiserreich und Nationalsozialismus (Bonn 1983), esp. 12749, a terrible masterpiece, as aptly characterized by T. Ridley in the preface to her translation of Adelsparteien (Baltimore 1999) LV, n. 1. For other senseless losses, see nn. 42 (in fine), 52. The editio princeps was by C. Wescher and P. Foucart, Inscriptions recueillies Delphes, no. 6 (Paris 1863), non vidi. It now resides at SGDI 2566 (the fascicle containing this number was published in 1896, and was prepared by J. Baunack, who reviewed the stone); Michel 1900, no. 895; Nachtergael 1977, 42224 (no. 10). It was also admitted into the first two editions of Dittenbergers Sylloge (1888 and 1900) as nos. 404 and 691; the third edition omits it, but under no. 424 one can find a short discussion of all four texts pertaining to the Soteria, a synopsis of their dates, and the text of document A. J. Kirchner, RE 1 (1894) 1550, s.v. Alkisthenes 2; Pfuhl 1923, 2.829; and still Knig-Winkler (1978, 242; 1997, 267). Nachtergael 1977, 10, 48, followed by Stephanis 1988, 42 (no. 143); and LGPN 3A.30. A similar date (269) already in Skalet 1928, 183.

34

35

36 37

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

353

91

with the comic poet evanesces entirely (see below, part III) and for ever. We can safely place Cratinus in the later part of the fourth century or even in the first part of the third century.38 The paintings of Irene offer a small glimpse into an often neglected corner of ancient life. Her name was still remembered at the close of antiquity by Clement of Alexandria,39 before finally succumbing to the ravages of art historians insensitive to images and philologians insensitive to words. III. CRATINUS About Cratinus Pliny imparts interesting information (NH 35.140), but here again we stumble upon a textual problem. Mayhoff and Croisille print the following text:
Cratinus comoedos Athenis in pompeo40 pinxit.

The Bambergensis has comoedus, and three other authoritative manuscripts exhibit the same word in the mediaeval spelling and pronunciation, comedus. As entia are again certainly not multiplicanda, this Cratinus must be the father of Irene, but some erudites had also thought that his description, comoedus, establishes his identity with the comic writer, the rival of Eupolis and Aristophanes.41 Irene would have thus belonged to the second half of the fifth century. To their credit, Mayhoff and Croisille did not fall prey to this argument, and adopted the conjecture comoedos.42 An unbiased look at the text of Pliny will show that this is an obvious read38 LGPN 2.139, 272 dates both Kratinos and Eirene (with a query) to the fourth century. Traill (Persons of Athens 6 [1997] 194, no. 382070) assigns Irene to the end of the fourth / the beginning of the third century. As is evident from his quotation of Pliny, he attributes to Irene only the painting in Eleusis, and thus presumably regards Calypso as the paintress of Alcisthenes. In a recent volume (10 [2001] 56869, no. 584365) he dates Kratinos to circa post medium ante finem of the 4th c. It is perhaps unfair to criticize these two mountains of labor and erudition, but the Lexicon and the Persons have again failed to do justice to the paintress. {Herbert 1989, 190, places Alkisthenes (incorrectly) um die Wende vom 3. zum 2. Jh., and uses him to date the presumed paintress Calypso}. 39 Strom. 4.122.4 (p. 302.19 Sthlin-Frchtel [Berlin 1960]). She appears among other famous women. As Clement indicates, he derived his information from the Symposiaka of the Alexandrian polyhistor Didymos. Cf. Schmidt 1854, 37578. 40 pompeo Mayhoff; pompeio Croisille. Which form Pliny himself had used, is difficult to divine, but pompeio is supported by B, and the underlying Greek form was pompeon. 41 So still Sellers 1896, 165; Reinach 1921, 173. Cf. below, n. 42. 42 This reading modern editors owe to Iohannes Caesarius (c. 14681551; Pkel 1882, 38) who printed it in his Cologne edition (Plinii naturalis historiae opus ab innumeris maculis vindicatum) of 1524, and to Hermolaus Barbarus (14541495; Pkel 1882, 12) who made the proposal in his Castigationes Plinianae primae published in Rome in 1493. See now the critical edition by Pozzi, 19731979, with ample introduction (in vol. I) containing especially a detailed discussion of Barbarus method of work and of his contacts with other humanists. The note of Barbarus is worth reproducing (III 1140). He corrects the received text Cratinus comedus Athenis Pompeium pinxit, and observes: si de comico accipiam Pompeium pingere not potuit, si de pictore veterem lectionem [Pozzi does not explain where Barbarus found this reading] sequamur quae ait Cratinus comoedos in pompio pinxit. Barbarus thus produced the correct

354

Historia et Philologia

92

ing: Pliny occasionally uses the predicate pinxit intransitively, but he never uses it in this way, without any indication of the subject of the picture, when the location of the painting is indicated. The identity of the painter and the playwright collapses; Cratinus the painter painted likenesses of comedians, and he painted them in a structure called pompeion. This edifice is well known; it stood at the entrance to the Kerameikos, between the Dipylon and the Sacred Gate. It derived its name from pomp, solemn procession, and it was the assembly point for the great pageant of the Panathenaia and of other processions. The assiduous excavations have revealed the history of the building. The structure was erected in the last decade of the fifth century or in the opening years of the fourth century.43 It thus provides for the paintings of Cratinus only a date post quem, but as this date falls safely in a period after the death of Kratinos the playwright, the identity of the painter of the comedians and of the comic poet again entirely evaporates. What exactly does it mean that Cratinus painted comoedos? The Oxford Latin Dictionary informs us curtly that comoedus means a comic actor, comedian. And the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae defines the word as is qui comoedias agit.44 As this is also a common sense of the word in Greek (the other and original sense being that of a singer in comic chorus; cf. LSJ s.v. kvmdw), there is no wonder
modern text; as to Cratinus he pointed to Pausanias qui et alio loco [6.3.6] celebrat artificem Cratinum ex Aegira. Here he entirely misrepresented Pausanias who of Cratinus of Aigeira has this to say (in W. H. S. Jones Loeb translation [1933]): Cratinus of Aegeira in Achaia was the most handsome man of his time and the most skilful wrestler, and when he won the wrestling match for boys the Eleans allowed him to set up a statue of his trainer as well. The statue was made by Cantharus of Sicyon. Barbarus confused this passage with another locus (6.9.4) where we read about another statue at Elis, that of Phylles of Elis, who won the boys wrestling match; this statue was made by Cratinus the Spartan. Soon the identification of the painter and the statuarius was made; it is generally attributed to Dalecampius (Jacques Dalechamps, 15131588, cf. Pkel 1882, 57) in his edition of Pliny (1587); see Valpy 1826, 9.5787; cf. 7.4629. This identification is unlikely, and was rightly abandoned by subsequent scholars (cf. Sillig 1827, 162; Brunn 1889, 1.83; 2.201). We should honor Barbarus and Caesarius for many later scholars, even in our own times, did not see or chose not to see this textual macula. Unfortunately the right reading does not automatically entail the right interpretation: Jex-Blake and Sellers (1896, 16465) and Reinach (1921, 17273) adopt the reading comoedos (and their translations show that they take it as an acc. and not as a graecising nom.), and yet they still identify the writer and the painter, Reinach with a superficially pleasing (but, as it turns out, utterly false) argument: it would be a strange coincidence if Kratinos the painter of comdiens bore the same name as the comic poet. A glance at LGPN 2.272 shows that Kratinos was a frequent name in Athens; cf. already in that sense Lippold, 1922, 1656. But we should not judge Reinach too severely; he undertook the commission to produce a new Overbeck (see Abbreviations) in 1911, when he was only twenty four years old; three years later as a lieutenant of the French cavalry he perished in the first month of the war. In that short amount of time he accomplished a prodigious work; the part treating of the painters was ultimately published through the efforts of his uncle, the famous Salomon Reinach (on Adolphe Reinach and his family, see Rouveret 1986, VIXXXIII [XIXIII on Paul Milliet]). 43 Hoepfner 1976, 35, 11229. 44 But oddly enough the TLL adduces two passages of Isidorus, Etym. 8.7.6 and 7 where comoedus would refer to comic playwrights and satyrical poets. Yet a glance at the standard OCT edition of Lindsay shows that in both passages the correct reading is comicorum (not comoedorum).

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

355

93

that various interpreters of Pliny and students of art decided that Cratinus painted comic actors.45 But they should have read the small philological print. As LSJ puts it, later, i.e., in the second century of the Empire, the word also denoted the comic poet: Phrynichos, the author of Praeparatio Sophistica, applies it to Aristophanes (p. 79 de Borries [Teubner 1911]). But as it is hardly likely that Phrynichos invented that sense, the word may well have been present in that meaning in Plinys Hellenistic sources, whether in Antigonos or Xenokrates.46 Two epigraphical and archaeological discoveries make certain that Cratinus indeed painted the images of poets and not of actors, and thus they also contribute indirectly to Greek and Latin lexicography pushing back the meaning comoedus = comic poet at least to Pliny and his sources. These discoveries were made practically simultaneously some seven decades ago at two distant points of the classical world. In 1928 during the excavations on the site of the pompeion in Athens an inscription came to light incised in large letters on a plinth: MENANDROS. The first editor of the inscription, A. Brueckner (1931, 1214) immediately connected that find with the testimony of Pliny. He ingeniously explained it as the subscription under the portrait of Menander that graced the wall, almost certainly painted by Cratinus. This brings the date of the painter down at least toward the end of the fourth century, and more likely to the first part of the third century as the painting was probably commissioned after the death of the poet in 292/1. But with respect to the inscription itself Brueckner honestly indicated a chronological problem: judging by the lettering it belonged to the later second century, and not to the third to which Brueckner assigned (rightly) Cratinus and Irene. This state of things finds an easy explication, he argued, in the refurbishing of the pompeion in the second century; at that time the name of Menander, originally probably executed in paint, was engraved on the plinth found by the excavators. It was probably always very unlikely to assume in the pompeion a gallery of comic actors and not of poets. We know that a portrait of Isokrates was displayed there (Ps.-Plut. Vitae decem orat., Isocr. 839c), and also a bronze statue of Socrates moulded by Lysippus (Diog. Laert. 2.43). Thus beginning in the last quarter of the fourth century the pompeion was slowly transformed into a veritable museum of Athenian cultural history; we should expect that not only comic poets were honored but also tragedians, and not solely Isocrates but also other orators. But the pompeion always remained a public hall; Diogenes the Cynic used to linger there (Diog. Laert. 6.22). It was used for the distribution of grain (Dem. 34.39, referring
45 Brunn 1889, 2.201 (Darstellungen aus der Komdie); Sellers and Jex-Blake 1896, 141 (painted comic actors); so also Rackham 1952, 365; Reinach 1921, 173 (peignit des comdiens); Lippold 1922, 1656; Croisille 1985, 96 (a peint des Comdiens); Knig-Winkler 1997, 107 (Schauspieler fr komische Rollen); KLdA 2001, 426 (R. Vollkommer); Pfuhl 1923, 2.849 hesitates. Still there were scholars who correctly, but only intuitively, without any philological analysis, accepted the term comoedos in the sense of comic poets: Rochette 1836, 221; Maiuri 1933, 117; Schefold 1943, 164; 1997, 220; Nowicka 1993, 81. 46 And perhaps it was used in this meaning already by Plato. When Plato (Nom. 935d) speaks of tn tn kvmdn proyuman he may be referring to poets and not actors (though LSJ hesitates to admit this sense).

356

Historia et Philologia

94

to the year 337/6), and above all from about the middle of the second century it served as a place of education and training for the epheboi. The hordes of young men left their names scratched everywhere, also on the plinth bearing the name of Menander.47 During the fateful siege of Athens by Sulla in 86 the pompeion was thoroughly destroyed, but it appears not before copies of at least some paintings there displayed had entered into general artistic circulation. We now move from pompeion to Pompei, also destroyed but preserved. In 1931 Amedeo Maiuri published a riveting artistic find, the excellently preserved portrait of Menander in the house that was immediately dubbed Casa del Menandro. The portrait is located on the right wall in an exedra in the peristyle.48 The poet is sitting in a chair, his torso bare, a white robe covers his left shoulder and flows onto the knees and ankles, an ivy wreath adorns his head; at the feet in bright yellow paint the label: Menander. In his left hand he holds a volumen, in which seven lines, in small cursive black letters, are discernible.49 On the opposite wall there was originally a portrait (now largely obliterated) of a tragic poet for on the adjacent (back) wall of the exedra there is depicted a table with three tragic masks. We get a perfect symmetrical composition: originally three comic masks must have accompanied the portrait of Menander; they are now missing.50 Maiuri referred with great ingenuity but only in passing to the paintings in the Athenian pompeion, but he was not yet aware of Brueckners publication of the Menander inscription.51 It was reserved for Werner Technau (1932, 5025) in one of his reports on the excavations in Italy to combine the two discoveries, and to recognize in the Pompeian portrait of Menander an imitation of Cratinus painting in the pompeion. Subsequent scholars were apparently not aware of Technaus insight. In his thorough study of Menanders statues K. Fittschen (in a rather hasty postsctript on the reliefs, mosaics and paintings) embraced this idea, but attributed it to Schefold.52 Whether in the pompeion or in Pompei the fame of Cratinus proved
47 As is well visible on the reproduction of the plinth in Hoepfner 1976, 12123 at 122. These particular scratchings belong to ca 123/22119/18 (Brueckner 1931, 14). Surprisingly no discussion of ephebs in the pompeion in Plkidis 1962. The ephebs will have received there cultural education, apparently not very successful (but on the other hand Lord Byron too left his name inscribed on a temple column). 48 Maiuri 1933, 1.10621; 2, pl. XII and XIII; Ling 1991, 159 (the right side of an exedra), but cf. pl. XIVB where the location is confusingly indicated as Exedra 23, left wall (i.e., of the peristyle). Cf. Schefold 1957, 4344; 1952, 149 (= 1972, 218); Ling 1997, 67; {Ling and Ling 2005, 8588}. 49 The inscription is in Latin, and thus an original contribution of the Pompeian painter. See the edition by M. Della Corte in CIL IV 7350, and the excellent discussion by Gigante 1979, 13237. {The references are conveniently assembled in PCG VI 2 (1998), pp.1314, test. 31, 35. The most recent (and questionable) reconstruction of the inscription in Varone 2003, 4748, 50, 54}. 50 Schefold 1957, 4344; 1952, 149 (= 1972, 218); Ling 1991, 159, through a slip of the pen or eye maintains that on the adjacent wall, is a group of three comic masks. 51 Il ritratto di Menandro, Bolletino dArte 25 (1931) 248 (non vidi; quoted by Technau 1932, 5025), but see Maiuris magisterial monograph 1933, 1.11617. 52 Fittschen 1991, 27778. He avers that nach der antiken berlieferung befanden sich im athenischen Pompeion Gemlde eines sonst unbekannten Malers Kratinos, die neben dem

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

357

elusive. In a recent and authoritative treatment of the Roman painting the question of the original is not posed at all. We read only that the features of Menander are sketchily indicated and bear no strong resemblance to the authenticated portraits in bronze and stone.53 In another recent study the painter of the portrait is identified with the painter of the Iphigenia in the Casa del Poeta Tragico. To this artist a variety of paintings in a plethora of locations are ascribed; the question of the ultimate source of the likeness of Menander is again not posed. The painter is judged to be comparatively undistinguished, although the Menander portrait is an interesting accomplishment.54 The original was probably more distinguished, but still not a
Redner Isokrates auch einige Komodoi wierdergaben. This is inaccurate: Cratinus is attested by Pliny as the painter of comoedi; whether he also painted a portrait of Isocrates we do not know. See Schefold 1997, 220: wohl nach einem Gemlde eines um 280/70 v. Chr. entstandenen Gemldes des sonst unbekannten Kratinos, von dem berichtet wird, er habe Lustspieldichter im Pompeion von Athen gemalt (he does not quote the articles of Brckner or Technau); almost identical text already in 1943, 164. Bieber 1961, 91, 228, n. 14 (quoting Maiuri and Schefold) writes that the portrait may be copied from a painted portrait which Craterus executed for the Pompeium in Athens (Pompeium is hardly the correct rendering of pompeion, and Craterus is a textual ghost branded as sine auctoritate in recentioribus editionibus already by Brotier in 1779; see Valpy 7, 426465). 53 Ling 1991, 159 and pl. XIVB. He dates the portrait to the third quarter of 1st century A.D. {Ling and Ling 2005, 87, reject the idea, essential for the view here presented, that the painter was working from a copy-book; he rather knew the general features of the poet from the sculpted heads}. Cf. Nowicka 1993, 8283: she stresses that la ressemblance entre le portrait de Pompi et les portraits sculpts est infime ou nulle, and concludes that il est donc probable que lartiste local ait cr un portrait fictif dans une grande mesure. As she mentions Cratinus and his paintings in the pompeion (81), she either implicitly rejects or is not aware of the attribution of the original of the Pompeian Menander to Cratinus. Technau assigned the (original) portrait nach seinem Stil to the second half of the third century, also in die Lebenszeit des Kratinos (1932, 505), and its Pompeian copy to the period of the fourth style. He does not seem to have pursued the matter further; his time was consumed by academic obligations and regrettably also im Dienste der Partei, and in a few years (in 1941), like A. Reinach before him (cf. n. 42), he perished in another great and useless war (cf. the obituary by W. H. Schuchhardt, Gnomon 18 [1942] 33436; {the notice by W. Schiering in Archologenbildnisse 1988, 28788 expunges Technaus ideological views and political activity}). In its composition, with the poet sitting, with his torso bare, and with the (presumed) image of three comical masks on a table, the Pompeian painting appears to bear some weak resemblance to the Vatican (previously Lateran) and Princeton (previously Stroganoff) reliefs (cf. Maiuri 1933, 11617). In these reliefs, however, the mantle does not cover the shoulder(s), and the poet holds in his hand a comic mask, not a scroll; two comic masks sit on a table. Cf. Schefold 1943, 16465; 1997, 34041; Richter 1965, 2.229, and figs. 1524, 1525, 1527. The mosaic portrait in Mytilene represents an entirely different tradition, see Charitonidis-KahilGinouvs 1970, 2731. A mosaic in Thuburbo Maius in Africa depicts a sitting poet, perhaps Menander; he wears an ivy wreath, but the mantle covers the whole upper body; he holds a scroll in his right (not left) hand. Cf. Charitonidis - Kahil - Ginouvs 1970, 29 (and pl. 16,1); Dunbabin 1978, 138. 54 Richardson 2000, 12946 at 144; 17, 131. The goal of the book was, however, solely to identify the painters according to their style and mannerisms; the question of the originals did not lie within the scope of the study. In his earlier study (1955, 150) Richardson was quite critical of the painting, and thought that it was probably based on a sketch of a statue or a bust. To Schefold (1943, 164) Menander appeared on the painting very positively as a junge vornehme

358

Historia et Philologia

masterpiece. This squares well with the opinion of Pliny (and his Greek mentors): he classified Cratinus among those painters who were primis proximi (NH 35.138). REFERENCES:
{Archologenbildnisse 1988 = Archologenbildnisse. Portrts und Kurzbiographien von klassischen Archologen deutscher Sprache, edited by R. Lullies and W. Schiering (Mainz).} Baldwin, B. 1981. Germaine Greer and the female artists of Greece and Rome, EMC 25, 1820. Barwick, C. (ed.) 1925. Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae Libri V (Lipsiae [Teubner]). Benner, A. R. and Fobes, F. H. (edd.) 1949. The Letters of Alciphron, Aelian and Philostratus (Loeb Class. Library [London and Cambridge, MA]). Bieber, M. 1961. The history of the Greek and Roman theater, 2nd ed. (Princeton). Blmner, H. 1918. Fahrendes Volk im Altertum (= SBAW Jg. 1918, Abh. 6 [Mnchen]). Bttiger, C. A. 1850. Kleine Schriften III2 (Leipzig). Brueckner, A. 1931. Mitteilungen aus dem Kerameikos V, MDAI(A) 56, 132. Brunn, H. 1889. Geschichte der griechischen Knstler2 12. (Stuttgart). CAF = Kock, T. (ed.) 1888. Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta III (Lipsiae). Charitonidis, S. - Kahil, L. - Ginouvs, R. 1970. Les mosaques de la maison du Mnandre Mytilne (Bern). Clinton, K. 1974. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (= Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. N.S. 64, 3 [Philadelphia]). Croisille, J.-M. (ed.) 1985. Pline lAncien. Histoire Naturelle, Livre XXXV (Collection Bud [Paris]). Della Casa, A. 1969. Il Dubius Sermo di Plinio (Genova). Detlefsen, D. (ed.) 1873. C. Plinii Secundi Naturalis historia, vol. V (Berolini). Dickie, M. W. 2001. Mimes, thaumaturgy, and the theatre, CQ 51, 599603. 95 Dorandi, T. 1995a, 1994, 1995b. Prolegomeni per una edizione dei frammenti di Antigono di Caristo, I, RhM 138 (1995) 34768; II, MH 51 (1994) 529; III, ZPE 106 (1995) 6190. {. 1999. Antigone de Caryste (Paris)}. Dunbabin, K. 1978. The mosaics of Roman North Africa: studies in iconography and patronage (Oxford). Ferri, S. 1946. Plinio il Vecchio. Storia delle arti antiche (Roma). Fittschen, K. 1991. Zur Rekonstruktion griechischer Dichterstatuen, 1: Die Statue des Menander, MDAI(A) 106, 24379. {Fortenbaugh, W. W. and White, S. A. (eds.) 2004. Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes (New Brunswick)}. Frhner, W. 1884. Kritische Analekten, Philologus Supplementband 5, Heft 1, 196.
Dichter. Fifty years later the same romantic impression (1997, 220): Die Auffassung ist erstaunlich verschieden von der der Statue [i.e., the famous statue in the Dionysos theater in Athens, lost and variously reconstructed, cf. Fittschen 1991, esp. 27075]. Sie verklrt die Erinnerung an den jungen, vornehmen, in seine inneren Gesichte versunkenen Dichter, der Sinnend auf der grossen Kathedre sitzt. Opinions, ancient and modern, concerning objects of art (or literature), are of course not to be taken too seriously: they are mere impressions, changeable and changing, and this fluidity is in itself an interesting subject of reflection.

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

359

Geyer, F. 1924. Histiaia, RE Suppl. 4, 75057. Gigante, M. 1979. Civilt delle forme letterarie nellantica Pompei (Napoli). GL = Grammatici Latini ex rec. H. Keili, vol. 2: Prisciani Institutorum Grammaticarum libri XVIII ex rec. M. Hertzii (Lipsiae 1855); vol. 7, ed. Keil (1880). {Grebe, S. 2000. Kriterien fr die Latinitas bei Varro und Quintilian, in A. Haltenhoff and F.-H. Mutschler (eds.), Hortus Litterarum Antiquarum. Festschrift fr Hans Arnim Grtner 191210 (Heidelberg)}. Gulick, C. B. (ed.) 1927, 1933. Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists, vols. 1, 5 (Loeb Class. Library [London and Cambridge, MA]). Helm, R. 1931 (ed.) Apulei Platonici Madaurensis Metamorphoseon libri XI, ed. 3 (Lipsiae [Teubner]). {Herbert, B. 1989. Schriftquellen zur hellenistischen Kunst. Plastik, Malerei und Kunsthandwerk der Griechen vom vierten bis zum zweiten Jahrhundert (= Grazer Beitrge. Supplementband IV [HornGraz])}. Hoepfner, W. 1976. Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgebauten (= Kerameikos. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Bd. X [Berlin]). Hosius, C. 1927, 1935. Geschichte der rmischen Literatur, vols. 1, 2 (Mnchen). Hug, A. 1954. Praestigiator, RE 22, 156768. Immisch, O. 1890-97. Kalypso, Ausfrliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Rmischen Mythologie (Roscher) 2, 94042. Jex-Blake, K. and Sellers, E. 1896. The Elder Plinys chapters on the history of art (London). Translation by Jex-Blake, commentary and historical introduction by Sellers [There exist reprints by Ares Publishers, Chicago 1967 and 1976, with a preface and Supplementary Bibliography 18971975 by R. V. Schoder]. Jones, N. F. 1987. Public organization in Ancient Greece: a documentary study (Mem. of the Amer. Philos. Soc. 176 [Philadelphia 1987]). Kaibel, G. (ed.) 1887, 1890. Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistarum libri XV, vol. 12, 3 (Lipsiae [Teubner]). Kalkmann, A. 1898. Die Quellen der Kunstgeschichte des Plinius (Berlin). {Kassel, R. and Austin, C. 1986, 1988. See PCG}. KLdA 2001 = Knstlerlexikon der Antike, vol. 1, ed. by R. Vollkommer (MnchenLeipzig). Knig, R. and Winkler, G. (edd.) 1978, sec. ed. 1997. C. Plinius Secundus d. . Naturkunde, Buch XXXV (Mnchen). Kroll, W. 1935. Yaumatopoio, RE Suppl. 6, 127882. Landucci Gattinoni, F. 1997. Duride di Samo (Roma). LGPN = A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names, vol. 1 (1987), vol. 2 (1994), vol. 3A (1997), vol. 3B (2000), the series and vols. 1, 3A and 3B edited by P. M. Fraser and E. Matthews, vol. 2 edited by M. J. Osborne and S. G. Byrne (Oxford). Lindsay, W. M. 1913 (ed.). Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome (Lipsiae [Teubner]). Ling, R. 1991. Roman Painting (Cambridge). . 1997. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Vol. I: The Structures (Oxford). {Ling, R. and L. 2005. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. Vol. II: The Decorations (Oxford)}. Lippold, [G]. 1922. Kratinos 6, RE 11.2, 1656. Lucas, H. 1940. Die Kalypso des Nikias, JAI 32, 5459. {Lullies, R. and Schiering, W. 1985. See Archologenbildnisse.} Maiuri, A. 1933. La casa del Menandro e il suo tesoro di argenteria, vols.12 (Rome).

360

Historia et Philologia

Mau, A. 1896. Ballspiel, RE 2, 283234. Mayhoff, C. (ed.) 1897. C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri XXXVII. Vol. 5: libri XXXIXXXVII (Lipsiae [Teubner]). Michel, C. 1900. Recueil dinscriptions grecques (Bruxelles). Mnzer, F. 1895. Zur Kunstgeschichte des Plinius, Hermes 30, 499547. . 1897. Beitrge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius (Berlin). {Muller-Dufeu, M. 2002. La sculpture grecque. Sources littraires et pigraphiques (Paris)}. Nachtergael, G. 1977. Les Galates en Grce et les Stria de Delphes. Recherches dhistoire et dpigraphie hellnistique. (Acadmie Royale de Belgique, Mmoires de la Classe des Lettres 63,1 [Bruxelles]). Nowicka, M. 1993. Le portrait dans la peinture antique (Varsovie). Oehmichen, G. 1880. Plinianische Studien zur geographischen und kunsthistorischen Literatur (Erlangen). Overbeck, J. 1868. Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Knste bei den Griechen (Leipzig). Pape, W. and Benseler, G. E. 1911. Wrterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. 3. Auflage (Braunschweig). {PCG = R. Kassel and C. Austin (edd.), Poetae Comici Graeci , vol. V (1986); vol. VI 2 (1998) (Berlin)}. Plkidis, C. 1962. Histoire de lphebie attique (Paris). Pfuhl, E. 1923. Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen, vols. 13 (Mnchen). Pkel, W. 1882. Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon (Leipzig). 96 Pozzi, G. (ed.) Hermolai Barbari Castigationes Pliniane et in Pomponium Melam, vol. I (1973), vol. II (1974), vols. IIIIV (1979) (Patavii). Preller, L. 1837. Demeter und Persephone (Hamburg). Rackham, H. (ed.) 1952. Pliny. Natural History, vol. 9 (Loeb. Class. Library [Cambridge, MA and London]). Rafn, B. 1990. Kalypso, LIMC 5.1, 94548. Reinach, A. 1921. Recueil Milliet. Textes grecs et latines relatifs lhistoire de la peinture ancienne (Paris). [In the reprint of Ares Publishers, Chicago 1981, the indication Recueil Milliet is inexplicably missing from the title]. Richardson, B. E. 1933. Old age among the ancient Greeks. The Greek portrayal of old age in literature, art and inscriptions (Baltimore). Richardson, L. jr. 1955. Pompeii: The Casa dei Dioscuri and its painters (= Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 23 [Rome]). . 2000. A catalogue of identifiable figure painters of ancient Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Stabiae (Baltimore and London). Richter, G. M. A. 1965. The Portraits of the Greeks, vol. 2 (London). Ridgway, B. S. (and others). 1994. Greek sculpture in the Art Museum, Princeton University: Greek originals, Roman copies and variants (Princeton). Robert, L. 1938. tudes pigraphiques et philologiques (Paris). . 1940. Hellenica, vol. 1 (Limoges). . 1951. tudes de numismatique grecque (Paris). . OMS = Opera Minora Selecta, vols. 1, 2 (1969) (Amsterdam). Rochette, R. 1836. Peintures antiques indites, prcdes de recherches sur lemploi de la peinture dans la dcoration des difices sacrs et publics chez les Grecs et chez les Romains (Paris).

The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny

361

Rouveret, A. 1985. Introduction, addenda, corrigenda, complments bibliographiques to the reprint of Reinach 1921 (Paris). Santos Palma, dos, M. G. 1970. Nota sobre o nome Calypso, Euphrosyne 4, 18789. Schepers, M. A. (ed.) 1905. Alciphronis Epistulae (Lipsiae [Teubner]). Sellers, E. 1896. See Jex-Blake. Schefold, K. 1952. Pompejanische Malerei (Basel). . 1957. Die Wnde Pompejis (Berlin). . 1972. Le peinture pompienne. dition revue et augmente (Bruxelles). . 1943, 1997. Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter, Redner und Denker (ed. 1 and 2 [Basel]). {Schenkenveld, D. M. 2004. A Rhetorical Grammar. C. Iulius Romanus, Introduction to the Liber De Adverbio (Mnemosyne Suppl. 247 [Leiden-Boston])}. Schmidt, M. 1854. Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia (Lipsiae). SGDI = Sammlung der Griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften, the collection edited by H. Collitz and (later) by F. Bechtel, individual sections compiled by various authors (Gttingen). Sillig, I. [J.]. 1827. Catalogus artificum (Dresdae et Lipsiae). . (ed.) 1851. C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri XXXVII, vol. 5 (Hamburgi et Gothae). Skalet, C. H. 1928. Ancient Sicyon with a prosopographia Sicyonia (Baltimore). Solin, H. 1982. Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom. Ein Namenbuch (Berlin). . 1996. Die stadtrmischen Sklavennamen. Ein Namenbuch, vols. IIII (Stuttgart). Stephanis [Sthfanhw], I. E. 1988. Dionusiako texntai. Sumbolw stn prosvpografa to yetrou ka tw mousikw tn rxavn Ellnvn (Herakleion). Stocker, A. F. and Travis, A. H. (edd.) 1965. Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum Editionis Harvardianae, vol. 3 (Oxonii). Technau, W. 1932. Archologische Funde. Italien, JDAI (Arch. Anz.) 47, 5025. Thilo, G. (ed.) 1878. Servii Grammatici quae feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, vol. 1 (Lipsiae). Touchefeu-Meynier, O. 1968. Thmes odyssens dans lart antique (Paris). Traill, J. S. 1997, 2001. Persons of Ancient Athens, vols. 6, 10 (Toronto). Valpy, A. J. 1826. C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri XXXVII ex editione Gabrielis Brotier cum notis et interpretatione in usum Delphini, variis lectionibus, notis variorum [they are taken ex editione Gronoviana, Ludguni Batavorum 1668] (Londini 1826, curante et imprimente A. J. Valpy). {Varone, A. 2003. Gli abitanti della casa, in G. Stefani (ed.) Menander. La casa del Menandro di Pompei 4555 (Milano)}. Vons, J. 2000. Limage de la femme dans loeuvre de Pline lAncien (= Collection Latomus 256 [Bruxelles]). Warmington, E. H. (ed.) 1936. Remains of Old Latin, vol. 2 (Loeb Class. Library [London]). Wegner, E. 1938. Das Ballspiel der Rmer (Diss. Rostock 1938 [Wrzburg]). Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, von, U. 1881. Antigonos von Karystos (Berlin).

28 FINIS PORCELLI*
The day on which the porcellus Marcus Grunnius Corocotta made his last will is given in the delightful Testamentum porcelli as sub die XVI kal. lucerninas1. This was also the last day of his life2. The expression kalendae lucerninae has long intrigued scholars, but a convincing solution was offered only in 1978. In an erudite article Italo Mariotti has ingeniously established that this description refers to the kalends of January. This was the day on which gifts were traditionally exchanged, and among those strenae prominent were the lamps, the lucernae3. Thus sub die XVI kal. lucerninas will correspond to 17 December, the first day of the Saturnalia, and this date for the death of porcellus squares exquisitely with Martial 14,71: Iste tibi faciet bona Saturnalia porcus4. Mariottis discovery finds support in further literary evidence. First of all we read in the poem Officia duodecim mensium the following verse about December (Ant. Lat. 490a [olim 763] 12, ed. Riese): More sues proprio mactat December

106

* 1

2 3

Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 39 (1997 [1998]) 105107 {with minor addenda}. Testamentum porcelli, p. 269,22 (ed. Buecheler-Heraeus, published as an appendix to Petronii Saturae5, Berlin 1912). On the Testamentum, its literary genre and its social ambience, see now the excellent study by E. Champlin, The Testament of the Piglet in Phoenix 41, 1987 [1988], 17483. P. 268,1011: ductus sub die XVI kal. lucerninas. I. Mariotti, Kalendae Lucerninae in RCCM 20, 1978, 102125. On the lucernae as the NewYears gift, in addition to the sources and literature quoted by Mariotti (notes 2026), see also M. Meslin, La fte des kalendes de janvier dans lempire romain (Collection Latomus, 115), Bruxelles 1970, 4142, 44, 78; D. Baudy, Strenarum commercium. Ueber Geschenke und Glckwnsche zum rmischen Neujahrfest in RhM 130, 1987, 128 at 2021, 27. {E. Gowers, The Loaded Table. Representations of Food in Roman Literature, Oxford 1993, 7172, missed the article by Mariotti, but perceptively observed that XVI Kal. Lucerninas will refer to the first day of the Saturnalia, 17 December}. L. Friedlnders note ad loc., M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton libri, Leipzig 1886, is confused. He comments on porcus: Der gewhnliche Festbraten ... namentlich auch an den Saturnalien, wo das Opfer des porcus den Laren galt. In support of these statements he adduces J. Marquardt, Rmische Staatsverwaltung III (2nd ed. by G. Wissowa), Leipzig 1885. Now for the sacrifice of porcus at the Saturnalia Marquardt (p. 587) quotes Horace, Carm. 3,17,1416: cras genium mero / curabis et porco bimenstri / cum famulis operum solutis, and for the sacrifice of the porcus to the Lares he adduces (p. 128, n. 4) this passage and Sat. 2,3,16465: inmolet aequis / hic porcum laribus. So also, juxtaposing Martial and Horace, W. W. Fowler, The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic, London 1899, 272. But the passages of Horace have nothing to do with the Saturnalia; and in particular, as the mention of genius demonstrates, Carm. 3,17,1416 refers to the celebration of the masters birthday: it is for that reason that the servants are operum soluti. This was well seen by A. Kiessling and R. Heinze, Q. Horatius Flaccus, Oden und Epoden3, Berlin 1898, 274 ad loc.

Finis Porcelli

363

adultas5. Still more to the point, for Kronos-Saturnus is mentioned, is Ioannes Lydus, De mensibus IV,158, p. 174,911 (ed. Wuensch): o d gevrgiko prw yerpeian Krnou ka Dmetrow sfatton xorouw. yen ka nn fulttetai kat tn Dekmbrion xoirosfaga. The theme also appears in early medieval poems on the menses. Wandalbertus Prumiensis (IXth century) in his De mensium duodecim nominibus signis culturis aerisque qualitatibus6 follows the fate of pigs from October to December. In October there is time sues lucis inducere ... / Maturo hibernum ut frangant tempore glandem (lines 29798); in November Prodest ... / Porcorumque greges silvis consuescere faetis, / Dum pinguem vento tribuit quassante ruinam / Quercus dumque nemus glandis vestitur honore (lines 31316). And finally in December: Hoc sub mense sues pasta iam glande madentes / Distento et plenam monstrantes ventre saginam / Caedere et ad tepidum mos est suspendere fumum / Terga, prius salis fuerint cum sparsa madore (lines 35760). Quite similarly, the Ydioma mensium singulorum7, one of the Carmina Salisburgensia, also of the ninth century, records for November: Tunc alit in silva porcos bene saepe subulcus (line 43); and for December: Tunc quoque de silva porci mactantur obesi (line 47). In another poem8 we read: Decidua porcos pascit quia glande Novimber, / Horridus effuso saepe cruore madet9. / Glande sues reduci pastos pastore Decimber / Rimatur fibris, sordet et obsonio (lines 2124). Next, we have iconographical representations of menses, masterfully collected and analyzed by Henri Stern. In the reliefs on the so-called Porte de Mars in Reims the slaughter of pigs is attributed, so Stern argues, to the month of November10. This is surprising: in November pigs were still being fattened foraging in oak
H. Stern, Le Calendrier de 354. tude sur son texte et sur son illustrations (Institut Franais dArchologie de Beyrouth. Bibliothque Archologique et Historique, LV), Paris 1953, 208, n. 9, dates this poem (with a query) to the fifth century, but in a later article (Posies et reprsentations carolingiennes et byzantines des mois in Rev. Arch. 45, 1955, 14185 at 14649) opted for a Carolingian dating. This is doubtful; see the erudite argument by E. Courtney, The Roman Months in Art and Literature in Mus. Helv. 45, 1988, 3357 at 36, 4648. 6 Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini 2, ed. E. Duemmler, Berolini 1884, 60416. 7 Ibid., pp. 64445. 8 Ibid., p. 646 (Carm. Salisb. XI). See on those poems Courtney, The Roman Months 36; G. Bernt, Das lateinische Epigramm im Uebergang von der Sptantike zum frhen Mittelalter, Mnchen 1968, 286-294. 9 As the porci are still alive (to be slaughtered only in December) the cruor must be of some other animal. Now in November the apri were hunted; it was their blood. Cf. Wandalbertus Prumiensis, De mensium ... nominibus 31718: Tunc et apros silvis cura est quam maxima duros / Quaerere et ex luco canibus producere nigro. 10 Stern, Le calendrier 20710, and plate XXXVIII,4. Stern tentatively dates the reliefs to the first part of the third century. See also his articles Le cycle des mois de la Porte de Mars Reims in Hommages Albert Grenier (Collection Latomus LVIII), vol. 3, Bruxelles 1962, 144146 at 1445; Les calendriers romains illustrs in ANRW II,12,2 (1981), 43175 at 452. For an updated list of calendar cycles, see M. Salzman, On Roman Time. The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 1990, 26972. 5

364

Historia et Philologia

106

forests. But we have to remember that November was also the month of the boar hunt: the animals depicted on the Porte de Mars may well be apri and not porci11. In a Carolingian cycle of months, the miniatures illustrating the Carmina Salisburgensia, November is represented comme un ptre qui tient un porc, whereas December brandit un grand couteau pour tuer lanimal12. Now the Saturnalia, a.d. XVI kal. lucerninas, may begin, a fateful day for the porcellus.

9 See above, n. 9. 10 Stern, Le calendrier 208. The miniatures are reproduced in Stern, Posies et reprsentations 143; cf. 149.

29 ZUM WANDEL D/L: MEDULLA / MELILA*

In seinen neuen (und wie immer anregenden) Analecta epigraphica kommt H. Solin auf die nomentanischen Fluchtafeln zu sprechen1. In Nomentum, einer latinischer Stadt, entdeckt, wurden sie zuerst von L. Borsari verffentlicht (Notizie degli Scavi 1901, 20710), und sind dann mit einigen Verbesserungen von A. Audollent in seine Defixionum Tabellae (Paris 1904) aufgenommen worden. Borsari 3 A = Audollent 135 A (S. 19192) enthlt eine lange Aufzhlung verschiedener Krperteile, die vom Fluch getroffen werden sollten; in Zeile 8 erscheint, zwischen ossu(m) und venter (= ventrem), die Rtselhafte Bezeichnung merilas. Das Wort wurde von verschiedenen Gelehrten berzeugend als medullas gedeutet (mit vulgrlateischem Wandel von d zu r)2. Nun bemerkt Solin (der die Gelegenheit hatte das Tfelchen im rmischen Thermenmuseum im Original nachzuprfen): der dritte Buchstabe scheint in seinem heutigen Zustand eher ein L zu sein. Und er fragt sich: Wenn melilas gelesen werden sollte, verstehe ich nicht, wie diese Form erklrt werden kann; als eine Art Fernassimilation? (S. 196). Assimilation ist eine gute Antwort, doch bin ich versucht, eine andere Erklrung vorzuschlagen. Der Wandel d/l (oder l/d) ist in einem weiten Raum von Indien bis Spanien (auch in Italien) gut bezeugt3; er ist letzten Endes (wie es scheint) auf die Wirkung eines vorindoeuropischen Substrats zurckzufhren, das die sogenannten lateralen Konsonanten aufwies; der Laut wurde von den i.-e. Einwanderern als d oder als l interpretiert. Auf diese merkwrdige Erscheinung hatten schon die rmischen Antiquare und Grammatiker ihre Aufmerksamkeit gelenkt: sie prsentieren sie vornehmlich als eine Besonderheit der sabinischen Sprechweise. Nach einer lteren Arbeit von Conway hat besonders Maria Grazia Bruno diese Frage grndlich behandelt4. Sie kommt zum folgenden Schluss (S. 518): Forse i Sabini pi di altri popoli della penisola mantennero vivo il fenomeno, und weiter: I Latini, in base al confronto fra i loro termini e quelli corrispondenti dei Sabini [lt. d = sab. l], ritennero il fenomeno peculiare sabino, senza risalire pi indietro.

106

* 1

Glotta 71 (1993 [1994]) 203204 {mit bibliographischen Addenda}. Arctos 23 (1989) 195200 {nachgedruckt in H. Solin, Analecta Epigraphica 19701997 (= Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 21 [Roma 1998]) 31519 und 407, wo er den hier vorliegenden Aufsatz notiert. Siehe auch AE 1993 [1996], 430}. Solin 196; Walde-Hofmann, LEW 2 (1954) 5859; cf. Dessau, ILS 8751, Anm. 4. J. Vendryes, MSL 15 (19089) 36667, betrachtet merilas als la forme ancienne du mot, conserve en Italie mme dans la langue populaire. Fr den kleinasiatischen und gischen Raum, siehe etwa H. Kronasser, Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache 1 (Wiesbaden 1962) 6164.

366

Historia et Philologia

Aus dem von Bruno aufgestellten Corpus der lateinisch-italischen Wrter, die den Wandel d/l aufweisen, ist fr unsere Zwecke das Wort melica besonders wichtig, da es ganz exakt die vorgeschlagene Entwicklung medulla / melil(l)a illustriert. Varro erklrt die Form melica wie folgt (RR 3.9.19): ad hanc rem electis maximis gallinis, nec continuo his, quas m e l i c a s appellant falso, quod antiqui ut Thetim Thelim dicebant, sic M e d i c a m M e l i c a m vocabant. Hae primo dicebantur, quae ex Medica propter magnitudinem erant adlatae quaeque ex iis generatae, postea propter similitudinem amplae omnes (vgl. Festus (Paulus) 111 L.). Bruno bemerkt (S. 515), dass es sich um einen Ausdruck degli agricoltori handelt, noto a Varrone sabino e ai suoi interlocutori, quasi tutti sabini. Diese Entwicklung kann aber ebensogut vulgrlateinisch wie sabinisch sein5; wie dem auch sein mag, ist eine phonetische Erscheinung dieser Art in einem vulgren Fluchtext, der wahrscheinlich gegen Ende der Republik oder in der frhen Kaiserzeit6 von einem Sklaven oder Freigelassenen in Nomentum (nahe dem sabinischen Gebiet, betont Solin) verfasst worden ist, seht gut vorstellbar. Medullas / meli(l)as (wenn richtig gelesen) ordnet sich also in die Reihe der sabinischen oder volksprachlichen Wrter ein, die den Wandel d/l aufweisen7.

6 7

R. Conway, On the change of D to L in Italic, IF 2 (1893) 15763; M. G. Bruno, I Sabini e la loro lingua, RIL 95 (1961) bes. 51226. Siehe auch R. Giacomelli, Graeca Italica (Brescia 1983) 3947. Walde-Hofmann, LEW 2.63 (mit Literatur); Ernout-Meillet, DELL3 (1951) 702. Ganz abwegig OLD 1088 s.v. Medica2. {Vgl. auch C. Guiraud, Varron, conomie rurale, Livre III (Collection Bud [Paris 1997]) 89 Cela fait penser au flottement de type d/l dans dingua/lingua, dacruma/lacruma, odor/oleo; D. Flach, Marcus Terentius Varro. Gesprche ber die Landwirtschaft, Buch 3 (Darmstadt 2002) 249: dass die Rmer die Verschlusslaute d und t mit dem Fliesslaut l verwechselten, beobachtete er [Varro] als Sprachwissenschaftler.} Fr diesen Zeitansatz zwingend Solin (195, 199200) gegen die gelufige Datierung des Textes in die sptere Kaiserzeit. Zwei weitere Probleme sollen noch bercksichtigt werden (fr freundliche Hinweise bin ich Herrn Professor Klaus Strunk sehr dankbar): a) Die Gemination -ll- in medulla versus -l- in melila. Vendryes (366) sieht hier kein Problem, und mit Recht, da die Einfachschreibung der Geminata eine Erscheinung von vulgrlateinischen Schreibweise (und wie es scheint auch Sprechweise) ist; fr inschriftliche Belege siehe die Indices von ILS (III, 2, 8023), und siehe auch die Ausfhrungen von V. Vnnen, Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompiennes3 (Abh. Berlin. Kl. f. Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, 1958, 3) 5862. Selbst in unserem Fluchtext lesen wir capilo, mamilas und mamila . b) der Vokalismus medulla versus melil(l)a. Dieser Vokalismus pourrait sexpliquer par la frquence du suffixe -illa- (illo-), notamment dans des noms de parties du corps (Vendryes 367, Anm. 1; vgl. Vnnen 6162).

III HISTORIA ET EPIGRAPHIA

30 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY: PART 2*

SUPPLEMENTA ITALICA. NUOVA SERIE, VOL. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (Edizioni Quasar, Rome 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1991). Pp. 343, 261, 228, 313, 237.

The first three volumes of Supplementa Italica were reviewed in JRA 3 (1990) 31320 {= RQ 40714, and 665}; I present here, regretfully magno temporis intervallo, an analysis of volumes 4, 5, 6, 7 (containing extensive indices to vols. 16) and 8. But I am happy to observe that, despite early clouds, the series is well and healthy: so far fifteen volumes have appeared. For a reviewer they are exciting and demanding companions; I take leave of them with regret and relief: beginning with vol. 9 they will be analyzed in this Journal by J. Bodel (see JRA 11 [1998] 48598). {And also see the retractatio in JRA 13 (2000) 562; reprinted below, No. 31.} I follow the format adopted in the first installment. First it behooves to provide a few addenda to vols. 13. Vol. 1. Pisaurum. For Christian inscriptions, see G. Binazzi, ICI 6 (1989) 199207 (nos. 13335). Falerii Novi. A most interesting new find: I. Di Stefano Manzella, Il bollo dellofficina falisca di Tito Veltureno in un inedito frammento di patera a vernice nera, in Epigrafia della produzione e distribuzione (Roma 1994) 24155, to be dated to the end of the third century (cf. AE 1994 [1997], 622; cf. 621). Vol. 2. Velitrae. No. 71. On the expression certis calendis, see now a detailed study by J. Linderski, Certis Calendis, Epigraphica 52 (1990) 8596 = Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 396406, and 665 (addenda).

Journal of Roman Archaeology 11 (1998) 458484 {with minor addenda and corrections}. Abbreviations: Broughton, MRR = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 12 (NewYork 195152), 3 (Atlanta 1986). Epigrafia = Epigrafia. Actes du colloque en mmoire de Attilio Degrassi (Rome 1991). ICI = Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae septimo saeculo antiquiores (Bari). {LAbruzzo = M. Buonocore, LAbruzzo e il Molise in et romana tra storia ed epigrafia 12 (paginated consecutively) (LAquila 2002).} Solin-Salomies, Repertorium = H. Solin O. Salomies, Repertorium Nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum, editio nova (or rather reprint of ed. 1, 1988) with addenda, pp. 475508 (Hildesheim 1994). Van Wonterghem, Forma = F. Van Wonterghem, Forma Italiae, regio IV: SuperaequumCorfiniumSulmo (Firenze 1984). Waltzing, Corporations = J. P. Waltzing, tude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains 14 (Louvain 1895, 1896, 1899, 1900). Zimmer, Berufsdarstellungen = G. Zimmer, Rmische Berufsdarstellungen (Berlin 1982).

370

Historia et Epigraphia

Vada Sabatia. For Christian inscriptions, see now G. Mennella and G. Coccoluto, ICI 9 (1995) 7285 (nos. 3339). Vol. 3. Locri. Christian texts now in M. Buonocore, ICI 5 (1987) 911 (nos. 56). Tegianum. Cf. AE 1992 [1995], 31314. Corfinium. Christian inscriptions in G. Pani, ICI 3 (1986) 10 (nos. 56). No. 9. This avidly disputed text has now been again reviewed by M. Buonocore, Problemi di amministrazione paganico-vicana nellItalia repubblicana del I secolo A.C, in Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 4959 at 50, n. 5. In lines 56 he now reads utei pecuniam (followed by a triangular punctuation) a / populo pageis retribueret, and not, as originally, retribueren\[t]. Cf. also C. Letta, ibid. 46, n. 61; AE 1990 [1993], 231; 1993 [1996], 569. No. 17. This was a bothersome text. H. Solin, Arctos 24 (1990) 12124 {= Analecta Epigraphica (Roma 1998) 33537}, ingeniously reads in lines 1112 impensa facta{m} <a> coniuge utroque meo (in place of Pacis and Buonocores [p]ro\que n\a\to). With nato gone, gone is also the presumptive son of the deceased (C. Lucilius Ichimenus), and we acquire the two companions of Lucilia Calybe. Now linguistic clarity rules, though Solin tries to prevent a happy mnage trois, and opts for a succession of happy amores of Lucilia, first with a contubernalis (the very Lucilius Ichimenus), and then with a husband (T. Petiedius Stephanio), both of whom, however, contributed after the death of Calybe the impensa for the monument. New inscriptions: AE 1992 [1995], 32832; M. Buonocore, Epigraphica 59 (1997) 24150 (5 texts). Genua; Ora a Luna ad Genuam. A full collection of Christian inscriptions in ICI 9 (1995) 5571 (nos. 2532). And now, dis iuvantibus, onward to Vols. 48.
459

SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 4 (1988) Vol. 4, pp. 11106: SULMO (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by Mario Buonocore. {See now a new supplement by Buonocore in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 95105; and also his handy aggiornamento of inscriptiones falsae vel alienae in G. AngeliBertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 9899}. The inscriptions from Sulmo (Sulmona in the province of LAquila), the patria of Ovid, in the land of Paeligni, were published in CIL 9 (1883) by T. Mommsen (71 texts and 7 falsae), and a supplement (7 texts) in Eph. Ep. 8 (1891). There is also a Greek inscription, IG 14.2408,6. Of these texts 46, more than fifty percent, are now irretrievable. Buonocore, who had already published a number of contributions dealing with the Paelignian area, traces this epigraphical and archaeological progress (and loss) vividly and with a sure hand. In his historical introduction (1724) it is interesting to note that the city was urbanistically completely restructured after it became a municipium in 89. It was inscribed in the tribus Sergia, and was governed by a board of quattuorviri. Buonocore proposes important corrections to the delimitation of the territory of Sulmo with respect to Corfinium. As a result CIL 9.3227a should belong to Sulmo; on the other hand 9.3121a and Eph. Ep. 8.141, 145 are to be attributed to Corfinium. In addition to Latin inscriptions

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

371

Sulmo produced also a crop of 19 Paelignian texts. Dialectical texts are excluded from Suppl. Ital., but fortunately it is the editorial policy to signal them; see the list on pp. 2223. Only one Christian inscription: G. Pani, ICI 3 (1986) 89 (no. 4). As usual, Buonocore provides for the old texts ample bibliography, a marvellous discussion of the onomastics, and occasional improved readings to the stones still extant. The loss of CIL 9.3082 will be bemoaned by all students of Ovid who are aware of stones. It is a funerary inscription of L. Ovidius L. f. Ser(gia) Ventrio who was tr(ibunus) mil(itum) and praef(ectus) fabrum, hence an eques (like Ovid and his father), and almost certainly a relative of the poet. It was found in the locality of Introdacqua, and it is in this area that we have to search for Ovids rura paterna (Am. 2.16.38). CIL 9.3113 is an epitaph set up by M. Arruntius Issus and Arruntia Asia to their son Matinus; the same parents bury another son, Asiaticus, in Canusium (Le epigrafi romane di Canosa 1 [Bari 1990] 112, no. 78, dated to the second century). As both Buonocore and V. Morizio (the editor of the stone from Canosa), and many others, observe, these two epitaphs are eloquent testimonies to the contacts between the land of the Paeligni and Apulia (Daunia), very likely due to the practice of transhumance in which the gens Arruntia will have been (through their freedmen) directly involved (to the bibliography add now F. Grelle, Canosa romana [Roma 1993] 97100). Another reference to transhumance may hide in 9.3128 = I2.1776 = CLE 184 = ILLRP 975, with a relief showing a shepherd with his flock, leaning upon a curved stick (identified as pedum by H. Devijver and F. Van Wonterghem, Ancient Society 19 [1988] 99100; it was used to corral recalcitrant or stray animals), a loaded cart with a carter, and a woman. This woman will not be, as Rostovtzeff (see below) kindly supposes, the carters wife, but rather one of those female companions of whom Varro writes at de re rust. 2.10.67: the breeding of herdsmen is an easy matter in the case of those who stay all year on the farm since the Venus pastoralis has to look no farther than the female fellowslaves (conservae), but with respect to those pastores who in saltibus sunt et silvestribus locis pascunt et non villa, sed casis repentinis imbres vitant, iis mulieres adiungere, quae sequantur greges ac cibaria pastoribus expediant eosque adsiduiores faciant, utile arbitrati multi. Sed eas mulieres esse oportet firmas, non turpes. The inscription itself reads [ ho]mines ego moneo nequei diffidat []. Buonocore adduces the opinion of Van Wonterghem, Forma 229, according to whom the inscription sembra contenere un divieto, and who finds this prohibition analogous to the one expressed in CIL 9.471 = I2.1831 = ILLRP 489: Via inferior / privatast / T. Umbreni C. f. / Precario itur. / Pecus, plostru(m) / niquis agat. This is bad understanding of Latin driven by obsessive preoccupation with economy and transhumance. Diffidere does not equal agere (not to speak of pecus agere!). The old supplement is diffidat [sibi]; Mommsen was diffident (he considered suis or deo), but sibi was accepted by Buecheler and Degrassi. Buecheler (in CLE) aptly compares the last line (82) in the prologue to Plautus Rudens: valete, ut hostes vestri diffidant sibi, May you fare so well that your enemies distrust themselves. Our inscription yields a pleasing sense, for instance: I warn men; do not distrust

372

Historia et Epigraphia

460

yourselves, that is work willingly, and you will be rich and happy. This translation (and interpretation) is from the pen of M. Rostovtzeff in his classic The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire 12 (Oxford 1957) 20. The relief, he wrote, perhaps represents the yearly migration from mountain to plain (or the reverse), but he also understood the appropriateness of a gnomic utterance on a stone that appears to have been part of a funerary monument. NUOVI TESTI: 102 pieces, so far only 17 lost. But it is well to observe that many (some thirty) of these texts are extremely fragmentary as are also 10 out of 13 inedita. Only 26 had previously found their way to AE; and now 24 have been admitted from the publication of Buonocore (AE 1989 [1992], 23760). Sulmo was a center of the cult of Hercules with the surname Curinus (also spelled Corinus, Qu(e)irinus). See now the survey by F. Van Wonterghem, Il culto di Ercole fra i popoli oscosabellici, in C. Bonnet and C. JourdainAnnequin (eds.), Hracls (Bruxelles 1992) 31951, and the new contribution by M. Buonocore, Il santuario di Ercole a Corfinium (loc. S. Ippolito): prime acquisizioni epigrafiche, Xenia Antiqua 4 (1995) 17998 {= LAbruzzo 60126}. The Supplement reproduces several dedications to the god (nos. 2, 3, 4, 39), but of special importance are the graffiti (nos. 535) discovered in the sanctuary (to be dated to the period of one hundred years spanning the two eras). No. 5. Despite valiant efforts of the editor princeps M. Guarducci (in Scritti sul mondo antico in memoria di Fulvio Grosso [Roma 1981] 22934), of H. Solin (Arctos 17 [1983] 1023 {= Analecta Epigraphica (Roma 1998, 18889}), and of Buonocore {cf. now also LAbruzzo 178, no. 24}, much remains unclear in this remarkable text, both with respect to grammar and content. In lines 23: spectat / nam debita solvere vota, Buonocore follows the reading of Guarducci, but he should not have disregarded Solins objection: spectat does not mean it is proper, and the verb spectare does not take the infinitive. Lines 45 describe the epiphany of the god: numenque sacratum / ecce venit felixque pat[et]. Here Guarducci offers a particularly sensitive elucidation: the verse combines Vergilian fervor (Aen. 6.46: deus ecce deus!) with Ovidian diction (Met. 10.48889: numen confessis aliquod patet: ultima certe / vota suos habuere deos). But she also attributes to Hercules Curinus an oracular character. This is possible but not necessary; for although Hercules was indeed known in Italy (in Tibur, where he was surnamed Victor [cf. below], and in Ostia) also as a god of sortes (see now J. Champeaux, Sors oraculi, MEFRA 102 [1990] 27376, 28082), in our text he appears as GodSaviour. In times of need or danger people had offered vows to him; with his help they had succeeded, and now they humbly come to discharge their obligation (vota solvere). In line 8 the god is called H(ercules) C(urinus) V. undoubtedly V(ictor). He is also felix, blessed, and he extends those blessings (felixque patet) to the faithful. This is the mystic or numinous conjunction of felicitas and victoria, of divine blessing and success, a conjunction that has in Roman life been so many times replayed on great battlefields and in pious hearts (on this ideology and belief, see most recently, with further literature, J. Linderski, Q. Scipio Imperator, in: Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic [Stuttgart 1996] 16772 {reprinted in this volume, No. 10}).

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

373

No. 7. A possessor of such a pious heart was C. Nonius from Sulmo, a miles. He (lines 26) p[romisit] / miles Herc[u]li Curino sei salv\[us e] / castris rediset vot[a ] / verem et vitulu[m] / et votis dam[natus] / [a]d\est. He survived, and thus has contracted the obligation to repay the vow. He is just present (adest), ready to offer the sacrifice. Votum solvit is a standard expression in inscriptions (cf. nos. 2, 39), but this is perhaps a unique text in which we see a damnatus in the very act of repaying the god. No. 36 (edited by L. Gasperini). A number of graffiti, by different hands, on a column, also from the sanctuary of Hercules Curinus. A group of twelve hexameters stands out; unfortunately only a few words can be more easily read, but there is a promise (or illusion) of a literary sensation. For above the hexameters, in larger letters and by a different hand, we have an inscription: Nasonis. At the end of the first hexameter two lone deciphered words jump into avid eyes: osque gigantum. If this is a poem by Ovid, where did he utter these words? The phrase is not on display in any of the extant works. Caution is in place. Gasperini promises an extensive study; {so far it does not seem to have appeared; and see now Buonocore, LAbruzzo 178, no. 25, with a more extensive text, and his observation in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 99, no. 36: the poem is not by Ovid, but merely attribuito dallanonimo estensore ad Ovidio}. No. 47 (= CIL I2.3216): A(ula) Tetia. For the praenomen, see now M. Kajava, Roman Female Praenomina (Rome 1994) 35. Only one other example of the praenomen Aula appears to be known. No. 49. Line 3: [glad]iario. This supplement is justified by the circumstance that below the inscription scolpita unarma che ha forma di pugnale a punta rotonda. In Zimmer, Berufsdarstellungen, there is no representation of a swordmaker, but see a very similar representation of a cultrarius (p. 195, no. 137), with images of two broad knives (cultri) engraved below the inscription (CIL 10.3984). No. 50. A most interesting document: a fragment (the stone is broken; only the right edge remains) of a testamentum. The testator provides, inter alia, for cir]c\enses and pecuniam in annonam f]rumentariam. The inscription (still extant) was published in a local publication in 1899, but was for the first time discussed in detail by Buonocore in 1986 (in Decima Miscellanea Greca e Romana, 35359 {= LAbruzzo 59399, and addendum 600}). It is to be added to the list of testamenta in E. Champlin, Final Judgments. Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills 200 B.C.E.C.E. 250 (Berkeley 1991) 19899, and to his discussion of philanthropy toward the communities (15568). No. 55, a funerary inscription with laudes of a deceased wife (although originally published in Epigraphica 20 [1958] it was not recorded in AE). The right edge is broken off; not all supplements proposed by Buonocore are convincing or likely (as he himself confesses, alcune integrazioni siano ex ingenio). In lines 23 he reads: consuet\[ae vivere vel manere] / circa se solam. Now the phrase vivere in se appears in inscriptions, and referring to two spouses it means live together, with each other (cf. E. Courtney, Musa Lapidaria [Atlanta 1995] 290), but vivere circa se does not seem to be attested. Lines 35: erga adfe[ctum torum] / mari-

374

Historia et Epigraphia

461

talem, rarissimi e\[xempli femi] / nae. To justify the supplement torum Buonocore adduces CIL 6.1779 = CLE 111 (lines 4547: munus deorum qui maritalem torum / nectunt amicis et pudicis nexibus), and 6.12853 [Buonocore 12583 per errorem] = 34060 = CLE 548 (line 3, of a wife: semper toru(m) maritale(m) dilexit), and he remarks that this locution appears nel nostro caso con laggiunta di adfectum. AE 1989, 245 reproduced this supplement, with a query: torum maritalem (= mariage)? Now torus, with or without maritalis, is indeed often used as a designation for marriage: cf. various literary examples in LewisShort s.v. torus IV. B (p. 1881); OLD (p. 1952); torus and adfectus appear juxtaposed at Plin., NH 35.87: nec torum tantum suum, sed etiam adfectum donavit artifici (of Alexander the Great who conceded his paelex to Apelles), but adfectus referring directly to torus would be unusual. On the other hand the expression affectio maritalis is a standard juristic locution, a technical term denoting the feeling which was legally constituent of a Roman marriage (cf. S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage [Oxford 1991] 5456). In literature and inscriptions affectio and affectus maritalis are used interchangeably, on stones (almost) exclusively with the spelling adfectio, adfectus. This is the palmary solution to our lacuna: erga adfe[ctum or -ctionem eius] / maritalem (or perhaps: adfe[ctionem eximiam]); cf. TLL s.v. affectio, coll. 117980. The marital bed disappears. The preposition erga we have to take in its Silver Latin meaning with respect to, on account of. The comma after maritalem is to be removed. The text now renders the following sense: with respect to her affectus (affectio) maritalis the deceased was a rarissimi exempli femina. In line 5 she is described as astuta. Now astutus in the sense of sapiens, prudens is rare and late; cf. TLL s.v., col. 987, lines 7184, with all epigraphical examples dated to the seventh century. The inscription may thus be later than the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century (as suggested by Buonocore). No. 58, a riveting text, forty-eight lines long, found in 1926, printed by G. Mancini in 1935 in a local publication, and admitted to AE (1989, 247) only from Buonocores re-edition (on the basis of autopsy). {The text now also in LAbruzzo 17879, no. 26}. A father and a mother decry their fate: they have buried their six children, and only a nepotulus remained. He is exhorted to take care of the grave, et hoc sephul/crum (sic) tuorum tutaris (lines 2930), and if anybody should have inquired qui hoc comporta(ve)rit (line 31), he should answer: Avus meus Murranus; nam ipsa / miseria docet etiam barbaros / scribere misericordias (lines 3134). The surprising barbaros is immediately explained: Murranus, now speaking in propria persona, makes a request: Et nunc rogo vos omn/es natos nascentesque, ut si quid l\a<p>sus / me praeterit hominem barbarum natu\ / Pannunium (sic), multis ulceri<bu>s et malis / perturbatum, ignoscatis rogo (lines 3438). Buonocore translates qui hoc comporta(ve)rit as chi a fatto questo; AE is even more explicit: qui la fait construire, taking the verb to refer to the grave monument. But scribere misericordias and Murranus plea should alert us: comporta(ve)rit certainly does not concern the mere sepulcrum but the inscription on the cippus (another rare example of a similar usage is Cic. de or. 3.92 where comportare refers to oratorical style). Murranus was both proud of his composition, and anxious as to its Latinity. Here resides the extraordinary interest of this document:

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

375

462

a native of Pannonia, living in Sulmo and married to a local woman of servile extraction (Decria Se [ S]e\cundae l(iberta) Melusa = Mellusa; as Buonocore points out, Decrii are known in the area) himself composes a long epitaph and does not entrust it to a professional scribbler. His dirge is genuinely moving, although linguistic flaws (catalogued by Buonocore) indeed abound. A few words and phrases may profit from further comment. Lines 1 and 32: the cognomen Murranus may be Celtic (as suggested by Buonocores reference to A. Holder, Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz 2.658 [Leipzig 1899]), which would not be surprising in Pannonia, but there also existed a Latin cognomen Murranus, cf. Solin-Salomies, Repertorium 366, from W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Eigennamen (Berlin 1904) 335. It is worth observing that in the neighboring Noricum the name Murranus is not attested (cf. Inscriptionum Latinarum Provinciae Norici Indices [CIL Auctarium] 2.387). Lines 58: iniquitate Orchi, qui perperavit s\a\e\cula, / quod debuerant facere filii patri et / matri, fecerunt miseri{s} pater et mater / filis dulcissimis suis. An unusual and poetic beginning, a trite and formulaic ending. In line 5 perperavit is printed as if it were fully assured, but in his commentary Buonocore notes that this reading was suggested to him by A. Mazzarino. Hence a conjecture, and a bold one for perperare is a hapax, though the meaning is clear enough: sconvolgere lordine naturale (accepted without any qualms in AE). But before we add a new word to our dictionaries, it is well to see whether a less exciting solution is available. There are two photographs appended: one of 1935, and the other of 1982. On both photographs one can clearly read only PERAVIT. In the partially obliterated middle part the earlier photograph seems to display the beginning of an M or N; on the later photograph there is perhaps a flicker of a P, but if it is a P, it is quite different from the first P. I propose permutavit (although the phrase itself permutare saecula does not seem to be attested nor, for that matter, is attested perturbare saecula. {But cf. Sen., Ep. 108.32: ea quae consuetudo saeculi mutavit, referring to changes in the meaning of words and locutions. See now the discussion by M. Buonocore, Reminiscenze poetiche in un Pannone dAbruzzo, Bullettino della Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria 80 (1990 [1992] 5776}. No. 62. A funerary stone: Statori Apri (scil. servus) / Insequens; / Quartio / fr(ater) p(osuit). In his earlier study, PP 39 [1984] 437, Buonocore rightly considered also fr(atri)] p(osuit). In this text we would thus have a slave Insequens and his owner Statorius Aper. But below the text of the inscription there is on the stone a representation of una theca calamaria, un sigilllo su cui inciso il nomen Inseq[uens], e un dittico. If so it would be odd not to recognize here the implements representing a stator, and interpret Statori (or rather statori) in line 1 as referring to that function. OLD defines stator as an official servant of provincial governors acting as a messenger, later attached to the Emperor, army commanders, etc. This is a definition much too rigid; at Cic. Fam. 2.17.1 stator tuus is a messenger from a provincial (pro)quaestor (and not a governor). Lewis-Short describe the stator more generally, and more correctly, as a magistrates attendant, servant, messenger. Still we can easily imagine that statores existed also in private households. In two epistles of Cicero (Fam. 2.19.2; 17.1) statores appear (once in the company of lictors) as trusted carriers of letters; but apparently they not only car-

376

Historia et Epigraphia

ried messages, but also committed them to writing: the calami, the seal-stamp, and the note-book provide eloquent illustration. Van Wonterghem, Forma 289, thought that the stone was dedicated by Insequens and Quartio to their father Aper who performed the function of a stator. His idea was accepted in AE 1984, 328, including the expansion of the last line f(ilii) r(everentissimi) p(osuerunt). He was on the right track, but this reconstruction will not do. The cases of statori (dat.) and Apri (gen.) are awry unless we suppose that Apri stands for Apro, and that its termination resulted from the attraction to statori. But this will not do either. The name of our stator will surely be Insequens: it figures on the sealstamp (although this cannot be verified on the much too small photograph reproduced by Buonocore), and thus points to the person who used the seal. But the precise arrangement of the text remains unclear; a small stone, a big puzzle {For the representations on stones of thecae calamariae and codices, see now Buonocore, LAbruzzo 11720}. No. 65: Lollia C. f. f. po(suit). Buonocore argues that we here have to do with a double filiation: C(ai) f(ilii) f(ilia). He accepts the explanation of S. Priuli (Not. Scavi 33 [1979] 34041) that in filiations of that sort reference is made to the praenomen of the grandfather (but only if it was identical with the praenomen of the father), and so, e.g., C. f. f. would be equivalent to C(ai) f(ilius) C. n(epos). Recently O. Salomies (Arctos 17 [1993] 95101) has subjected this interpretation to a most erudite critique. He returns (p. 98) to the older view that an additional f. or filius (whether abbreviated or spelled out in full) indicates that the man so characterized is the son (and not e.g. the brother or cousin or nephew) of the man mentioned in the same inscription or in one set up in the vicinity (p. 98). This is undoubtedly the correct explanation in most cases, but perhaps not in all. For instance, in the case of our Lollia we would have to read Lollia C(ai) f(ilia) f(ilia), and postulate that close by another stone was set up by or for her mother who also happened to be named Lollia and was also C(ai) f(ilia). This stretches credulity. But what would be the reason behind the abbreviation C(ai) f(ilii) (f)ilius or (f)ilia? In Roman families the praenomina were limited and often rigidly distributed; for instance C. reserved for the oldest son, L. for the second, and M. for the third. In this system the abbreviation C. f. f. indicated at a glance the descent through the main or elder family line. No. 95, a plaque. Above, on the left, an inscription: [ i]n\ferius si place\b\it ; below representations of the instruments of a mason: libella (not regula), rutrum and perpendiculum. On the right two phallic symbols, con evidente significato apotropaico. Zimmer, Berufsdarstellungen, p. 215, gives only a drawing, and he failed to recognize the fascinus. The meaning of the inscription is enigmatic (una frase rivolta al viandante or una disposizione relativa al sepolcro), but the verb placeo in conjunction with the phallic representations brings to mind a line from a priapic poem (CIL 14.3565 = CLE 1504, lines 23): da mihi ut pueris et ut puellis / fascino placeam bonis procaci. Vol. 4, pp. 117240: TREBULA SUFFENAS (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by Maria Grazia Granino Cecere. The inscriptions from Trebula were published by H. Dessau in 1887 in CIL XIV (38 texts, and 6 falsae); also one text in CIL VI, 4, 1

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

377

463

(1894), and one in Eph. Ep. 9 (1903). Of these documents 31 (and a falsa) are now lost; a veritable carnage of stones. But it is encouraging to report that out of 135 new texts only four very fragmentary stones have disappeared. Trebula itself remains somewhat of a mystery. It lay somewhere between Praeneste and Carseoli; Dessau assigned it to the modern locality of Ciciliano and, as Granino Cecere points out in her most instructive introduction (11925), subsequent studies and discoveries have tended to corroborate his intuition. As to the name of the city, Pliny, NH 3.107, mentions in regio quarta Trebulani qui cognominantur Mutuesci et qui Suffenates; and in CIL 14.3492 = ILS 1938 (known already to Dessau only from an apograph of Diego De Revillas, the first collector of Trebulan inscriptions in the early eighteenth century) the reading Tebulae sue was corrected by Dessau into Trebulae Suf(fenatium). Pliny assigns both Trebulae to the Sabini, but this is true only of Trebula Mutuesca (localized today at Monteleone Sabino); Trebula Suffenas (or correctly Suffenatium) was rather a city of the Aequi. In the historical record it is often difficult to distinguish between the two Trebulae. Livy (10.9.14) reports that in 303 Roman citizenship (probably sine suffragio) was given to Trebulani and Arpinates. Granino Cecere (and many others) opt for Trebula Suffenas, but certainty is impossible. The city was inscribed in the tribus Aniensis, and in epigraphical documents it appears as a municipium administered by duumviri. It was the home of Plautii Silvani and (perhaps: so cautiously Granino Cecere) of Nonii Sufenates, both families of some note in Roman history. To the inscriptions published in CIL 14 Granino Cecere provides exemplary bibliography. A few addenda. First 3516: contacts between Baetica and the area of Tibur, and the families of Messii Rustici, Cutii and Aemilii. On Aemilius Papus, ingeniously identified by H.G. Pflaum (in 1963, following Groag) with Papus, a friend of Hadrian mentioned in Hist. Aug., Hadr. 4.2, see also a more detailed study by Pflaum in Klio 46 (1966) 33137 = Scripta Varia 2 (Paris 1981) 36672, and E. Champlin, CP 79 (1984) 79, in his erudite and deservedly critical review of H. W. Benario, A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Chico 1980). Next 3522: the rare name Forbeius. For the other occurrence of the name Granino Cecere adduces GIBM 4.1 (1893) 924 C; the inscription is now reproduced in IK 28.2 (1985), Inschr. von Iasos 280 (line 19); the same man (C. Forbeius Pacatus) also in Iasos 278, line 17. Cf. Solin-Salomies, Repertorium 81. NUOVI TESTI. Of 135 texts (134, and one marked bis) some 60 are mere fragments, displaying often only a letter or two. Many of these texts were published originally by L. Berni Brizio in Atti. Centro Studi e Documentazione sullItalia Romana 2 (196970) 137216; Granino Cecere offers very numerous corrections. She presents also 40 inedita (27 extremely fragmentary). Only 23 texts were suo tempore recorded in AE; from the publication or re-publication by Granino Cecere 16 new and longer documents are now reproduced in AE 1990 [1993], 27287. {Further texts in AE 1995 [1998], 42226; 1996 [1999], 515}. To comment: No. 8bis, a lamella of thin gold with a magical inscription and a representation of a deity entwined with a snake. See now R. Kotansky, Greek Magical Amulets 1 (Opladen 1994) 11820. He says that it was misplaced by the Museo Nazionale

378

Historia et Epigraphia

Romano. For once the Museum has to be exonerated. Granino Cecere reports that the plaque was found in Ciciliano on the property of signor Manni (as also numerous other inscriptions), and later was stolen from his oreficeria at via Frattina in Rome. No. 20 (AE 1990, 276; 1991, 603), an ineditum, an Augustan cippus of Aqua Marcia with the number 991; it rejoins other cippi of the series. Granino Cecere provides also other addenda to the list in T. Ashby, The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1935) 93; for further and full addenda, see Z. Mari, Nuovi cippi degli acquedotti Aniensi. Considerazioni sulluso dei cippi acquari, PBSR 59 (1991) 151171, esp. 160, 16471. The new cippus confirms Ashbys reconstruction of this part of the course of the aqueduct (but Ashbys calculations of the total length of the Marcia are invalid; cf. Mari 171). H. B. Evans, Water Distribution of Ancient Rome (Ann Arbor 1994) 89, omits the evidence of the cippi in his short discussion of Augustus restoration of the Marcia. C. Bruun, The Water Supply of Ancient Rome. A Study of Roman Imperial Administration (Helsinki 1991) 149, n. 44, mentions the numerous cippi which were erected along the courses of the Anio, Iulia, Tepula and Marcia, but does not pursue this subject; a pity for the consecutive numbering of the cippi may have a bearing on the problem of the geographical extension of the cura aquarum. It is quite likely that the cura did not pertain solely to the city itself and its close surroundings, but extended to the whole course of each aqueduct. Nos. 2126 (cf. 27 and 42) record various members of the influential family of Plautii Silvani of the early imperial age. The comments of Granino Cecere and her earlier article Iscrizioni senatorie di Roma e dintorni. Trebula Suffenas, in Epigrafia e ordine senatorio 1 (= Tituli 4 [Roma 1982]) 67177, are indispensable supplements to the classic study by L. R. Taylor, Trebula Suffenas and the Plautii Silvani, MAAR 24 (1956) 930. In no. 22 (cf. 23) there appears M. Plautius A. f. Silvanus described as praetor, septemvir epulonum, and patronus probably of Trebula: the stone was set up ex d(ecurionum) d(ecreto), apparently (so rightly Granino Cecere following U. Vogel-Weidemann, M. Plautius M. f. M. n. Silvanus, praetor a.D. 24: A Note on Inscription AE, 1972, 162, Acta Classica 19 [1976] 13538) a younger son of A. Plautius, pr. 51 B.C.E.; he was the husband of the notorious Urgulania (cf. no. 27: [ Urg]ulan[i ]), and the father of M. Plautius M. f. Silvanus, cos. 2 B.C.E. (cf. CIL 14.3509, and Taylor, pp. 13, 26). He is to be added to the list of the septemviri epulones in M. W. Hoffman Lewis, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians (Rome 1955) 58. Granino Cecere argues that this priesthood became hereditary in the family; we know that also the consul of 2 B.C.E. administered it. He is also to be added to the (oddly arranged) list of senatorial municipal patrons in Italy in L. Harmand, Le Patronat sur les collectivits publiques des origines au Bas-Empire (Paris 1957) 22233. R. Duthoy, Le profil social des patrons municipaux en Italie, Anc. Soc. 1517 (198486) 148, duly lists him, but hesitates as to his identity. No. 28 (AE 1990, 278), a dedication: [ Mae]cio L. f. / Luciliano, equiti Romano, / salio, II viro, / quaest(ori) pro alim(entis). The supplement Mae]cio is certain: in no. 33 we read (line 2) II[vi]ratu Maeci Luciliani; the consular date

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

379

464

assigns this inscription to 215. As he was eques Romanus, he may have been a salius in Rome and not in Trebula (cf. below, no. 35). The expression quaestor pro alimentis is new; the normal locution is quaestor alimentorum (cf. M. F. Petraccia Lucernoni, I questori municipali dellItalia antica [Roma 1988] 36970, index). As Granino Cecere points out, this is the first and only attestation of alimenta for Trebula. No. 29, the funerary inscription of L. Vibius Apronianus, tr(ibunus) mil(itum) and adiutor albei (sic) Tiberis et cloacarum; on the latter function Granino Cecere provides essential bibliography. Among his heredes there appears L. Biesius Attalus, a rare name: the editor princeps D. Faccenna, Not. Scavi 1951, p. 76 (cf. AE 1952, 156) and H.-G. Pflaum, Les carrires procuratoriennes questres 1 (Paris 1960) 387, regarded Biesius as an error and were inclined to correct it to Blesius. Unnecessarily: Granino Cecere notes that Biesius is attested in CIL 6.13585 and probably 13586; it is also attested in Athens, Thessalonica and Pergamon: see now O. Salomies, Contacts between Italy, Macedonia and Asia Minor during the Principate, in C. E. Rizakis (ed.), Roman Onomastics in the Greek East. Social and Political Aspects (= Meletemata 21 [Athens 1996]) 125 and n. 86. No. 35, with the consular (and duumviral) date of 193 (3 August): the seviri augustales erect a statue for A. Sempronius Verus, IIvir quinquennalis, salius and quaestor pec(uniae) publ(icae). The last expression is quite common; cf. Petraccia Lucernoni, loc. cit. (above, no. 28). Verus is also described as sevir, quinq(ennalis) eiusdem ordinis: he thus combined municipal offices and an (honorific) office in the corporation of the seviri augustales. The comma after sevir (no punctuation in AE 1972, 163) Granino Cecere justifies by the reference to the phrase seviro augustalium, q(uin)q(ennali) eiusdem ordinis in CIL 14.2809 and 4140. She remarks that also two other duumviri from Trebula were salii, C. Metilius Rufus (CIL 14.3500) and C. [Mae]cius Lucilianus (above, no. 28), but does not discuss the character of the priesthood. Now municipal salii are attested only in relatively few cities (cf. D. Ladage, Stdtische Priester- und Kultmter im lateinischen Westen des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit [Kln 1971] 8), but to that list we certainly must add Trebula Suffenas; if the eques Lucilianus could conceivably have been a salius in Rome, this is hardly likely for Verus or Rufus. A reference to a salius may also hide in the fragmentary inscription no. 41: sal\[ ] / qui eo a[nno ] / sacr[], where in view of sacr[ it may be preferable to read sal[ius and not (as suggested by Granino Cecere), e.g., Sal[vius]. No. 42 (= CIL 6.29681, but belonging, as shown by L. R. Taylor [cf. above, nos. 2126], to Trebula Suffenas) was published in 1787 by E. Q. Visconti (and republished in his Opere varie in 1827), but soon a substantial part of the stone was lost; now only the first fifteen lines (with the right edge broken off) are extant. Unfortunately Granino Cecere does not give a full lemma that would show all the supplements so far proposed. The stone has now been edited (with a short commentary) also by M. Buonocore, Epigrafia anfiteatrale dellOccidente Romano III. Regiones Italiae IIV Sicilia, Sardinia et Corsica (= Vetera 6 [Roma 1992]) 4647 (no. 23). The document contains remnants of the once very extensive fasti of a collegium, each entry displaying both a consular and a duumviral date. As the stone

380

Historia et Epigraphia

465

was originally seen, it was divided into two columns. In column 1 there were inscribed the fasti of the years 22, 23 and (opening the lower ledger) the first line (displaying the consular dating) of the entry for 108; in column 2, approximately at the height of the sixth line of the entry for 22 (in col. 1) there were three last lines of the entry for 29 followed by the entry of 30. Column 2 thus started with the fasti for 24, and consequently each column contained in its upper ledger, depending on the length of each entry, the fasti of seven or eight years. Granino Cecere calculates (allowing eight or nine years for each column in the upper ledger) that the whole text ought to have contained some 10 or 11 columns. Rather 12 or 13; column 1 (which seems to have been also the first column of the original document; cf. J. H. Oliver, Gerusiae and Augustales, Historia 7 [1958] 485) will have thus begun with the fasti for 16 or 17, and this would be the approximate date for the foundation of the collegium (cf. below, no. 43). The identity of that body has been vigorously disputed. Taylor (p. 21) thought (hesitatingly) of magistri Augustales (cf. already G. Henzen in Orelli-Henzen, ILSAC 7165); Granino Cerere despairs of any sicura interpretazione. This did not scare off A. Abramenko (he does not cite her contribution), CIL VI 29.681 aus Trebula Suffenas und die innere Organisation der *Augustalitt, Athenaeum 79 (1991) 58996: he pronounces himself decisively in favor of attributing the document to the seviri Augustales. At the end of line 3 the traditional supplement had been VIvi[ri et] / [h]o\nore functi. Abramenko proposes to read VIvi[ri Aug. et]. At first sight a fatal objection to that reading is the circumstance that in no year for which the fasti are extant are there recorded six officials: in 22 there are four, in 23 five, and in 30 four. To deflect this objection Abramenko produced a remarkable shield of an argument: the stone does not contain any veritable full fasti; it lists only those officials who could show off some particular achievements, Leistungen (p. 593; this idea was already at least partially anticipated by Oliver, p. 487). It will be a list of those seviri who organized each year various public celebrations, esp. on the kalends of August, the date of their entry upon office. Under C.E. 22 (lines 1011) we read: honor. p. d. ludos in foro / per IIII [i.e., quadriduum] fecerunt. Taylor (p. 17) was cautiously inclined to solve the abbreviations as honor(e) p(ublice) d(ato); so also but without any query Abramenko, p. 595. Oliver (p. 487) proposed honor(aria) p(ecunia) d(ata). Granino Cecere embraced the expansion of G. Ville, La gladiature en Occident des origines la mort de Domitien (Rome 1982) 191: honor(em) p(ublice [p(ublico) on her p. 178 is only a misprint] d(ederunt). An attractive solution for it is based on the phrase written out in full in line 19 (C.E. 23): honorem edederunt. But this expression is a puzzle. Taylor (p. 18) points to the late phrase, consulatum edere, where the emphasis is on the performance of games, in Hist. Aug., Aurelianus 15.4: vidimus proxime consulatum Furii Placidi tanto ambitu in circo editum (cf. the commentary by F. Paschoud in his Bud edition [1996] 1046). To scrutinize these attempts it will be well to have before our eyes the text of the lines in question. In lines 1418 we have the names of five officials, the last one, T. Traebulanus (sic) Felix (cf. below, no. 43), qualified as praec(o). Lines 1924 read (not to prejudge any solution the text is given without any punctuation): k(alendis) Aug(ustis) honorem edederunt lud[os in foro] / per IIII fecerunt IIII primi / natale Iuliae

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

381

August(ae) in pu[blico] / cenam decurion(ibus) et augus[tal(ibus)] / dederunt eorum sevir[] / familia gladiat(oria) []. The question arises whether ludos fecerunt stands in apposition to honorem edederunt or denotes an entirely separate activity. Taylors reference presumes the ludi forming part of the editio honoris. It is therefore rather surprising that in her reproduction of the inscription (p. 17) she puts two periods, one after edederunt and the other after IIII primi. Thus in her vision the editio honoris belonged to all five men, but the ludi were arranged only by the first four (so also Oliver, p. 484). Ville (p. 191, n. 36) understands under honorem a religious ceremony, e.g., sacrifice, procession (cf. TLL s.v. honos, coll. 292425), and thus separates this activity from the ludi, but at the same time he assigns both honorem edere and the ludi to all five officials. He puts a comma after edederunt, but semicolon in line 10 after d(ederunt); Granino Cecere in both cases places a semicolon. Now honorem edere clearly denoted all the customary celebrations connected with the assumption of the office and the performance of the imperial cult, with the games apparently forming an integral part (cf. R. Duthoy, Les *Augustales, ANRW 2.16.2 [1978] 13034). The expression IIII primi (line 20) does not denote an office (as postulated by Taylor, p. 18: the IIII primi refers to the four regular officers, excluding the praeco; cf. Oliver, p. 487, and now Buonocore, p. 47; Ville, p. 191, assumes that the college was presided over by four annual magistri), but simply indicates that the special and unusual celebrations described in the following lines were given by the first four officials on the list with the exclusion of the fifth, the praeco (see Granino Cecere, p. 177; Ville, p. 191, n. 37; and esp. Abramenko, pp. 59294). Thus it was the IIII primi who on the birthday (natale = natali) of Livia (30 January) gave a public repast for the decurions (of Trebula) and for the augustales. The associations of these two groups is remarkable, but the mention of augustales causes perplexity. For in the intricate world of augustality there existed separate organizations of augustales, seviri augustales (not to be confused with other groups of seviri) and magistri augustales (see now above all Duthoy, Les *Augustales, 12541309, esp. 126065). Taylor (p. 22) believed that the VIviri (mentioned in lines 3 and 23) formed an executive board of augustales, but such an arrangement would have been quite unparalleled (see the critique by R. Duthoy, Recherches sur la rpartition gographique et chronologique des termes sevir Augustalis, Augustalis et sevir dans lEmpire romaine, in Epigraphische Studien 11 [1976] 204, n. 94; Abramenko, pp. 58990; Buonocore speaks of a unified collegium of seviri and seviri augustales which again would have been an unprecedented arrangement). Rather we have to assume with Abramenko, p. 594, that augustales stands here as an abbreviated expression for seviri augustales (cf. also Granino Cerere, p. 177, who comments on the not infrequent usage of sevir, in particolare al plurale, per seviri augustales). The collegium was composed of the actual seviri (augustales) and the former seviri who in line 4 are described as [h]onore functi. Lines 22 and 23 offer further puzzles. Taylor (and also Oliver) read cenam ... / dederunt eorum sevir[i], a risky proposition for seviri would have to refer at the same time both to the decurions and the augustales. If we put a period (or better semicolon) after dederunt the words eorum sevir[ ] would begin a new sen-

382

Historia et Epigraphia

466

tence. Huelsen in CIL 6.29681 supplied sevir[atu], a supplement Granino Cecere prints with a query, but Abramenko (p. 594, n. 29, and p. 595) with full conviction. Buonocore suggests eorum sevir[atu munus cum ?] / familia gladiat[oria dederunt ?], and Ville (pp. 19192, and n. 38) following Henzen (in Henzen-Orelli) eorum sevir[i munus ?] / familia gladia[toria dederunt ?], where familia would be lablatif de moyen, an odd conceit. The restored phrases appear forced; in particular seviratu in the sense of during their term as seviri does not seem to be attested. We should rather follow Taylor (p. 18; Abramenko misconstrues her supplements). She produced two solutions: a) (taking eorum seviri as the subject of dederunt): dederunt eorum sevir[i. pugnavit] / familia gladiat[(oria)] with the name of the owner in the genitive; b) (taking IIII primi as the subject): dederunt. eorum sevir[orum] / familia gladiat[(oria) pugnavit]. The latter solution is preferable (see above), but not in the shape proposed by Taylor. Taylors reconstruction presupposes that the IIII primi owned the familia, an unlikely scenario. We should rather consider a slightly different expansion: eorum sevir[orum impensis (cf. CIL 11.5062) or pecunia (cf. CIL 10.4760)] / familia gladiat[(oria) (name of the owner?) pugn(avit)]. Abramenko develops line 23 exempli gratia as familia gladiat[oria data est ], an impossible supplement (familiam gladiatoriam dare is not the same expression as the frequent gladiatores dare). On the other hand Taylors idea is grounded in real Latin: the phrase familia gladiatoria pugnabit recurs frequently in the Pompeian announcements of gladiatorial games, see P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, Gladiatorum Paria (= Tituli 1 [Roma 1980] 5153, 5557, 6769 (nos. 21, 22, 25, 30, 31). Thus eorum sevir[orum] will refer to the IIII primi; they gave the banquet and provided for the gladiatorial entertainment. This entertainment may have been conjoined with the cena (on combats inter epulas, see Ville, p. 387); if it was given separately we would probably need a further supplement indicating the date or the occasion. We can now return to the beginning of our inscription where another host of unsolved problems still awaits us. In line 2 (damaged at the left edge) we have the rest of the duumviral dating: [ ] Sestuleio I[I vir(is)]. Lines 35 read as follows: [ C]a\pito; hunc VIvi[ri Aug. (accepting the expansion of Abramenko) et] / [h]o\nore functi rogarunt ut eo / honore fungeretur. Thus the seviri of the year 22 and the former seviri asked Capito ut eo honore fungeretur. What honor is here meant by the pronoun eo? Taylor (p. 21) decided that Capito was a duumvir and an amazing flight of fantasy that he died in office. She restored the lacuna in line 2 as [in m. (or mag.) m(ortuus) e(st) C.? C]apito, assuming that the nomen was found in the previous line (i.e., in the lacuna before Sestuleio). Furthermore she recognized in Capito the famous jurisconsult C. Ateius Capito (cos. suff. in 5 C.E.) whose father (tr. pl. in 55) belonged to the tribe of Trebula Suffenas, the Aniensis (Cic., Fam. 8.8.5,6). Under the consular year C.E. 23 (line 13) there are listed as duumviri L. Manlius and M. Plautius. In the latter Taylor (p. 20) again discovered a member of a prominent family: the eldest son of the consul of 2 B.C.E; he was praetor in C.E. 24. If Taylor is right, he may also have been a patronus: patrons were often called upon to serve as duumvirs (cf. Taylor, p. 20, n. 31), and thus this function would have become hereditary in the family of Plautii (cf. above, nos.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

383

2126, in fine). But Taylor is hardly right. A. Abramenko, Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu einem neuen Verstndnis von Sevirat und Augustalitt (Frankfurt am Main 1992) 216, n. 99, points out that the cognomen Silvanus is missing. Indeed it is most unlikely that this characteristic cognomen should have been omitted. The duumvir M. Plautius is not the aristocratic M. Plautius Silvanus. Abramenko followed Taylor in accepting Capito as Ateius the jurisconsult. Others remained unconvinced. First of all Attilio Degrassi (per litteras; see L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic [Rome 1960] 194) and Oliver (see below). Granino Cecere (p. 178) writes that Oliver and Ville pensano piuttosto, e probabilmente a ragione, ad uneccezionale ammissione nel gruppo del quattuor primi. This is a surprising statement, for a few lines below she assumes that the expression IV primi (at least with reference to C.E. 23) is not to be taken as a description of the office (cf. Ville, p. 191, n. 37). Now Oliver (p. 486) did not, in fact, consider at all any exceptional admission into the quattuor primi. He writes explicitly: Some students have thought that the phrase eo honore referred to the sevirate. Miss Taylor rightly rejected this interpretation. Oliver goes on to say that the office must have been mentioned specificallly ... and must have been one within the power of the Augustales to offer. He settles on something like [Q(uin)Q(uennalis) L. Albius C]apito (the name is attested in Trebula Suffenas, see Granino Cecere, no. 53 = Not. Scavi 1948, pp. 3045; Olivers indication, Not. Scavi 1932, p. 132, is inaccurate). The appearance of a quinquennalis in 22 would square well with the presumed foundation date of the collegium in 17 (this position was soon to become, strangely enough, an annual office both in the professional collegia and in the associations of the augustales; see Duthoy, Les *Augustales, p. 127576; cf. in Trebula no. 35, dated to 193: sevir, quinq. eiusdem ordinis). But [patr(onus)] is also a possible solution (for the abbreviation, cf. ILS 6175, 6176); and in this case we may indeed assign this honor (on patronatus as honor, see Waltzing 1.44546; 4.41516) to Ateius Capito, and thus, at least partially, vindicate Taylor. No. 43 (AE 1972, 154): the stone (in two pieces; both fragments broken off at the right and left edge) contains (a substantial) part of the album of a collegium composed exclusively of freedmen. Line a7 displays the consular date; it has been unanimously restored as [Sex. Appuleio] Sex. Pompeio [cos. or coss.], but let us observe that Sex. Pompeio is engraved almost in the middle of the line, and (judging from the photograph) nothing seems to be obliterated either on the left or on the right side. Thus a mystery, for both consuls remained in office for the whole year (cf. Fasti Antiates minores, in Degrassi, Inscr. It. 13.1, p. 303). Still the date is certain: 14 C.E. (8 C.E. in AE is an aberration). This is of importance for at the head of the album (disposed in two columns), in col. 1, line 9 there appears [ ]lix praeco. Granino Cecere ingeniously supplied [T. Treb(u)lanus Fe]lix praeco (both spellings, Trebulanus and Treblanus, appear in the album), and recognized in him T. Traebulanus Felix praec(o), one of the magistrates of 23 in the collegium of (we have argued) the seviri augustales (above, no. 42). This raises again the question of the identity of the two collegia. At the beginning of the inscription we have the names of three persons, engraved in larger letters; they are identified (in still larger

384

Historia et Epigraphia

467

letters) as cu\[r(atores). One of them was [] M. l. Eros, tub(icen); perhaps it is not unjustifiable to espy him again on the inscription of the collegium of the seviri (col.1, line 8; anno 22) in the person of M. Etrilius Eros (although this Eros appears without the denomination tibicen). Lines a46 Granino Cecere reads and restores as follows: [ Cae]sarum. Imagines Caesarum et scholam ex pecuni[a collata] / [ ]nt idemque dedicaverunt et populo crustulum et mul\[sum dederunt] / X k(alendas) Aug(ustas). This is, as pointed out by N. Criniti (Aevum 47 [1973] 49899), the fourth oldest attestation of the distribution of crustulum and mulsum. AE 1972, 154 presents a restoration fuller and bolder: [in honorem ... Cae]sarum, and at the end of the line, ex pecuni[a sua / feceru]nt. As to pecunia (collata not sua) we should probably follow Granino Cecere, but AEs feceru]nt is on the mark: the expressions imagines facere (CIL 8.2586) or scholam facere (CIL 3.1174; 14.285) recur in inscriptions of the collegia (cf. on scholae, Waltzing 1.21131; 4.43739). In line 8 (immediately after the consular date and before the beginning of the album proper) we read: []es in ordinem redegerunt. Should we supply [augustal]es or cultor[es]? Granino Cecere believes that this is the list of the members of the college at the moment of its establishment, probably of augustales. The initial date of the association of the (seviri) augustales can perhaps (though with difficulty) be lowered to 14 (see above, no. 42), but it is unlikely that we deal with one and the same collegium. The collegium of seviri augustales would start small, with six members only, appointed by the duumvirs (see Duthoy, ANRW 2.16.2, pp. 126671), and not by curators (on curatores in the collegia, cf. Waltzing 1.40613). In our inscription, on the other hand, we have a long enumeration of at least 23 names; hence not an association of seviri augustales but rather simply of augustales. The two associations may have shared some of the personnel, but they will have formed separate entities. No. 80. An inscription on a cippus: aditum. For accusatives in such constructions, see (in addition to her earlier article) A. Helttula, Studies on the Latin Accusative Absolute (Helsinki 1987), esp. 936. Vol. 4, pp. 243304: ALBINGAUNUM (Regio IX, Liguria) by Giovanni Mennella. The inscriptions from Albingaunum (Albenga), the coastal and main city of the Liguri Ingauni, were published in CIL 5 (1877) by T. Mommsen, altogether 18 texts (and 2 falsae). So far 6 inscriptions are lost; for the remaining Mennella provides detailed descriptions and occasional corrections; 5 are re-edited among the Nuovi testi. We note the complaint (p. 250) that rimane tuttoggi insoddisfacente la sistemazione del patrimonio epigrafico, p. 250). Albingaunum was since 201 an ally of Rome, mostly against the Liguri Montani (see below, vol. 6, Vallis Tanari Superior); it probably received Roman citizenship under Caesar (inscribed into tribus Publilia). It was administered by IVviri (attested in nos. 11, 12 {cf. AE 2001 [2004], 989}). A major problem is the extension of its territory; starting with the notice of Pliny, NH 3.46: Ingaunis agro tricies dato, Mommsen and many others argued that it may have extended far north, and included the whole valley of Tanarus. Still Mommsen was cautious and devoted to the Upper Valley a separate section, and in this he is followed by the Editors of Suppl. Ital. In

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

385

later antiquity Albingaunum was an important Christian center, and it produced a surprisingly large number of Christian texts. Toward the end of the fourth century the city attracted the attention of the compiler of the Historia Augusta (29.12) who makes it a home town of the bogus usurper Proculus (under Probus). Cf. R. Syme, Emperors and Biography (Oxford 1971), 17, 26, 26869. The literary fame of Albingaunum would have been assured by the sojourn of Rutilius Namatianus, but his poem De reditu suo breaks off at the beginning of Book II, and it has been hotly debated whether after passing Luna he continued his journey from Rome to Gaul along the Ligurian coast or travelled by an inland route. In 1973 two new fragments, badly mutilated, from Book II came to light (published by M. Ferrari, Spigolature bobbiesi, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 16 [1973] 1530; see also Maia 17 [1975] 326, where several Italian philologians offer improved readings, conjectures, and restitutions, many of them, abomination to epigraphers, exempli gratia). Although the name of the city itself is not mentioned, frg. B has generally been taken (also by Mennella) to refer to Albingaunum. The poet heaps fulsome praise on the consul Constantius: he has built (or rebuilt) the ramparts (propugnacula) and the fortress (arces) of a city, surpassing the labors of all previous builders of fortifications, including those of Troy. The Constantius in question is the future emperor (for a short time in 421) Flavius Constantius III; he was consul iterum in 417 (cf. PLRM 2 [1980, but this compendium still does not know the new Rutilius] 32125). The series of Suppl. Ital. is concerned with stones, and not parchments and poets, and so are we: but the fragment of Rutilius leads to a stone of note, a carmen epigraphicum (CIL 5.7781 = ILS 735 = CLE 893) extant in Albingaunum. Mennella gives its description, but he says nothing of its historical importance, and the discussion it evoked in connection with the new Rutilius. For the poem on stone praises in a fulsome way a certain Constantius for the rebuilding of a city, of its moenia, tecta, forum, portus, portas (line 1). This Constantius Mommsen (in CIL ad loc.) identified as Constantius II (emperor 337361), and dated the reconstruction of Albingaunum to 354. He expressly criticized the earlier attempts of F. Ughelli (15951670, in his Italia sacra) and S. Lenain de Tillemont (16371698, in his Histoire des empereurs) to connect the inscription with Constantius III. Mommsens idea naturally gained universal acceptance, but with the discovery of the Rutilian fragments we have returned full circle to Tillemont. For it was all too natural to combine the parchment and the stone, and F. Della Corte (in a contribution listed by Mennella in his bibliography, but not adduced ad loc.) went so far as to ascribe the epigraphical poem to Rutilius himself. It is possible to think, he wrote, that durante il suo scalo ad Albingaunum, Rutilio sia stato invitato dai cives a dettare unepigrafe da incidere ... sotto la statua di Costanzo (Rutilio Namaziano ad Albingaunum, Romanobarbarica 5 [1980] 89103 at 101). Doubts subsist. H. S. Sivan, Rutilius Namatianus, Constantius III and the Return to Gaul in Light of New Evidence, Mediaeval Studies 48 (1986) 52232, rejects the Rutilian authorship of the epigraphic poem and argues that the new verses of Rutilius (frg. B) refer to Arelate. We should go one step further and take away the inscription from Constantius III and bring it back to Constantius II.

468

386

Historia et Epigraphia

Furthermore, this stone, even if coming from Albenga, need not necessarily have belonged originally to that city. In line 7 we read: Dumque refert orbem, me primam protulit urbem. Should we believe that even a most patriotic local poet would venture to call Albingaunum prima urbs of orbis? In line 2 we read: recipit Gallos constituit Ligures. In 353 Constantius II defeated Magnentius and recovered Gaul, and late in 354 arrived in Mediolanum where he stayed also for a few months in 355 (see O. Seeck, RE 4 [1900] 104494 at 107175, still the best source of information on Constantius. The book by C. Vogler, Constance II et ladministration impriale [Strasbourg 1979] does not discuss chronology and has no reference to our inscription). Now in later antiquity Mediolanum was the capital of Liguria (cf. R. Thomsen, The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Invasion [Copenhagen 1947] 23740), and Constantius must have in some way re-organized that province. Thus the city that in the figure of personificatio speaks of Constanti virtus studium victoria nomen (line 1) and of its own glory as prima urbs (line 7) may well be Mediolanum, at that era often the true capital of the Empire. {Albingaunum, Rutilius Namatianus, and the carmen epigraphicum continue to generate excitement and controversy. W. Ltkenhaus, Constantius III. Studien zu seiner Ttigkeit und Stellung im Westreich 411421 (Bonn 1998) 198206, offers a detailed and erudite commentary of the carmen: it refers to Constantius III. Its author may have been a poet from the circle of Rutilius; he strove to imitate the Rutilian diction}. NUOVI TESTI: 68 texts (but about a half of them mere fragments), 2 inedita (meagre fragments); only one longer text is lost; 20 or so are Christian; 12 were reported suo tempore in AE, and now from the publication of Mennella ten more are reprinted in AE 1990 [1993], 36978. See now new texts and new corrections in AE 1991 [1994], 73839 (but cf. below, vol. 6, Vallis Tanari Superior, no. 2), and a new text AE 1994 [1997], 650, after the most instructive publication by G. Mennella and G. Spadea Noviero, Il Campus di Albingaunum, MEFRA 106 (1994) 11937. {See further AE 1995 [1998], 53537; 1997 [2000], 563; 2001 [2004], 989; 2002 [2005], 506}. No. 2. An arula with a dedication: Matronis. On these deities, see now the (amply illustrated) volume Matronen und verwandte Gottheiten (Bonn 1987), esp. 130, the contribution by C. B. Rger, Beobachtungen zu den epigraphischen Belegen der Muttergottheiten in den lateinischen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Most instructive are his maps (pp. 67) showing the spread of the cult of Matronae with epithets (mostly in Germania) and without epithets (mostly in Liguria and Cisalpine Gaul). Our inscription reflects the pattern. No. 26. An inscription in a paleochristian baptistery in Albenga, with a list of saints; irremediabilmente danneggiata during the works of restoration at the end of the previous century. Additional literature in AE 1990, 369, and esp. ICI 9 (1995) no. 40. No. 30 (AE 1975, 406; ICI 9.41), a grave stone (of 515) with a formula of imprecation against the profanation of the sepulture (lines 47): Coiuro / per CXM (= Christum) ne apereas l\[o]/cum istu[m]. Mennella points out that formulas of that kind are frequent in Liguria in the funerary inscriptions from the Byzantine period.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

387

No. 32 (AE 1937, 219; ICI 9.45). A Christian epitaph dated to the fifteenth year of the emperor Mauritius, the year 597. This is the last document recording the Byzantine rule in Albingaunum before the Lombard invasion. It may here be observed that all Christian inscriptions from Albingaunum are now collected and updated by G. Mennella and G. Coccoluto, ICI IX. Regio IX. Liguria reliqua trans et cis Appenninum (Bari 1995) 86141 (nos. 4073). Vol. 4, pp. 30743: BELLUNUM (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by Luciano Lazzaro. {And see the new supplement by M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 20840}. An old settlement of the Veneti, on the river Silis (modern Piave of tragic memory), Bellunum (Belluno) became a Roman municipium after 49, and was ascribed to the tribus Papiria. Documents from Bellunum were collected in CIL 5 (1872, 1877) by T. Mommsen, and later in 1888 by E. Pais in his Supplementa Italica (there is also one Greek inscription, 5.2044 = IG 14.2381), altogether 43 texts (16 lost), and 14 falsae. With respect to Mommsens reconstruction, Lazzaro slightly curtails the extension of the ager of Bellunum, and as a result he attributes three texts to Opitergium (Oderzo), and two further, erroneously classified by Mommsen as found in Bellunum, are returned to the neighboring Feltria (cf. below in the discussion of vol. 5). For the Venetic inscriptions from Bellunum, not mentioned by Lazzaro, see G. B. Pellegrini and A. L. Prosdocimi, La lingua venetica 1 (Padova 1967) 45153, with an instructive note on local toponomastics (44749). Of the old monuments worthy of special attention is a magnificent sarcophagus (dated to the third century) that until 1980 had been corroding sub Iove. Its reliefs with the scenes of hunting and its enigmatic inscription (5.2044 = IG 14.2381) have been a frequent subject of investigation and disagreement. Lazzaro introduces us into the midst of the polemic: is the word GREGORI to be interpreted as a signum (so Mommsen, Rodenwaldt, Brusin, Egger and Kajanto) or as the imperative of the verb grhgorv (watch!)? (so N. Degrassi, Moretti, Vidman, Malaise). If it is a signum, is it connected with the cult of Isis? (Egger). And if it is an exclamation, is it directed to the cultores of some mystic sect (Moretti) or is it to be associated with the cult of Diana and the hunt? (N. Degrassi, Vidman, Malaise). Lazzaro opts for this last understanding, but it is safer to say that although the monument may not any longer be sub Iove, it is still sub iudice (cf. AE 1991 [1994], 795). {Cf. M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 21819}. NUOVI TESTI: 24 documents, all edited previously, 3 republished from CIL, 7 recorded in AE (and now an additional nine in AE 1990 [1993], 4019; {cf. also 2002 [2005], 54246}, none lost (this seems to be due to the very active Museo Civico in Belluno). No. 1 (AE 1939, 22). Three rock inscriptions demarcating for a stretch of some five km. the fin(es) (in is a ligature) / Bel(lunatorum) Iul(iensium), the border line between Bellunum and Iulium Carnicum. This nicely illustrates the report of the gromaticus Hyginus (p. 161, 2124 Thulin; p. 198, 24 Lachmann) concerning such marks. See now E. Buchi, Le iscrizioni confinarie del Monte Civetta nel Bellunese, in Rupes loquentes. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio sulle Iscrizioni rupestri di et romana in Italia (Roma 1992) 11749: the inscription

469

388

Historia et Epigraphia

can be solved also as f(inis) Bel(lunensium) Iul(iensium). Cf. AE 1992 [1995], 730. The singular f(inis) is, however, rather unlikely: cf. the fetial formula in Livy 1.32.6: audite, fines, and Livys explanation: cuiuscumque gentis sunt, nominat. It is true that in another text (see below, Vol. 6, Tridentum no. 1) we read: Finis inter / Trid(entinos) et Feltr(inos), but the two texts have different syntactic structure. {Cf. M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 229.} No. 3 (AE 1976, 253). A most interesting dedication: Iuentuti (sic) / divinae / gens sacra / Iuentutis (sic) / posuit. This find allowed M. S. Bassignano (in 1977, unfortunately in a not easily available regional journal) to rehabilitate CIL 5.78* (condemned by Mommsen, and re-edited by Lazzaro as no. 4). The new stone contains an identical text (at least of the first four lines). As a denomination of a group of iuvenes the expression gens sacra Iuventutis is new (but cf. CIL 3.4779 = ILS 7305 from Virunum in Noricum: iuventutis Manliensium gentiles qui consistunt in Manlia); new is also the epithet Iuventus divina, which Bassignano ingeniously associates with the imperial cult and the prominence of the dea Iuventus on the coinage of Marcus Aurelius. To the bibliography assembled by Lazzaro, add P. Ginestet, Les organisations de la jeunesse dans lOccident romain (Bruxelles 1991), with a reference (p. 173) to our inscription. Nos. 8 and 9 (AE 1888, 12; 1976, 252). The honorandus (in both inscriptions), M. Carminius Pudens, was also, inter alia, a patron colleg(i) dendrophor(um) et fabr(orum). The close contacts between those colleges, and also the collegia centonariorum, have been much discussed, and normally explained as due to their common employment in Roman cities as fire-fighting brigades. See now J.-M. Salamito, Les collges de fabri, centonarii et dendrophori dans les villes de la regio X lpoque impriale, in: La citt nellItalia settentrionale in et romana (Trieste-Roma 1990) 16377. He believes that only fabri and centonarii participated in fire-fighting; as to the circumstance that the three collegia often have the same patron, ce phnomne sexpliquerait aussi bien par la tendence des notables rassembler sous leur patronage les associations les plus prestigieuses de leur cit (p. 164, n. 7). Perhaps. Our inscriptions do not offer enlightenment for (depending on our presuppositions) we can well supply either patrono colleg(i) or patrono colleg(iorum), and have a unified college or two separate groups. {Cf. R. Lafer, Omnes collegiati, concurrite! Brandbekmpfung im Imperium Romanum (= Grazer Altertumskundliche Studien 7 [Frankfurt am Main 2001]), with a list of all epigraphically attested Feuerwehrvereine (pp. 24166); M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 23031}. No. 14 (CIL 5.2065; AE 1976, 249). A cinerary urn, with a dedication, and a representation of ascia. Lazzaro very wisely refuses to enter into any discussion of the possible significance of that symbol. In a more recent monograph, B. Mattsson, The Ascia Symbol on Latin Epitaphs (Gteborg 1990), collected 1194 references to ascia (he missed our urn). His effort shows that without full reproduction of all sources, and photographic documentation, such collections are of scant use. He concludes that most inscriptions give no clue as to the meaning of the symbol, but perhaps (an old suggestion, and not very likely) the ascia indicated that the monument was dedicated before it was completed. Also if it was only an urn? {Cf. M.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

389

470

G. Arrigoni Bertini, LAscia in Cisalpina. Considerazioni, in XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Atti I (Roma 1999) 62937.} No. 18. A funerary urn. The main inscription on its base is destroyed, but on the acroterio sinistro we read a riveting injunction, probably an afterthought: filiae nos/tre excluse sint (sic). This brings to mind the most famous exclusion of a daughter (and granddaughter) in Roman history, that of Julia and Julia the Younger by Augustus from his Mausoleum (Suet., Aug. 101.3; Cass. Dio 56.32.4). Cf. M. Capozza, C. Pavan, Ricerche sulla societ della Venetia: le donne di Bellunum, Atti Ist. Veneto 152 (199394) 51964, a very useful complete prosopography of the women of Bellunum (see esp. 53031 on CIL 5.2044; 53537 on nos. 78; 546 on no. 14; 549 on no. 18). SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 5 (1989) Vol. 5, pp. 1126: RUBI (Regio II, Apulia et Calabria) by Marcella Chelotti. A city of the Peucetii (Poediculi), Rubi (modern Ruvo) probably became a Roman municipium only after the Social War. The extension of its territory is difficult to define; in the north it bordered on Canusium (unfortunately Chelotti does not append any map. The Editors of the Series should see to it that cartographical illustration form an integral part of every contribution). The inscriptions from Rubi were collected by Mommsen in CIL 9 (1883): only 9 texts (and 2 falsae); and 4 in Eph. Ep. 8 (1899); 4 are lost. Chelotti removes one text (9.315) to Canusium, but restores to Rubi two inscriptions (9.653, 656) ascribed by Mommsen to Melfi in Lucania (they were found in the locality Molfetta, not far from Rubi). The inscriptions from Rubi, old and new, Chelotti had already treated previously, and in greater detail, in her study Epigrafi monumentali di Ruvo, in Epigrafia e territorio. Politica e societ. Temi di antichit romane II (Bari 1987) 1794. She does not indicate whether any preLatin inscriptions were found in Rubi, but O. Pietrangli, Studi Messapici (Milano 1960) 40, 43, 45, identifies at least three texts as coming from Ruvo. No additional texts in C. Santoro, Nuovi Studi Messapici 1 (Mesagne 1982). NUOVI TESTI contain 6 inscriptions; two are lost, only one previously printed in AE, and two already in CIL are republished from autopsy. (5 texts now from Chelotti in AE 1990 [1993], 20610). No. 1 (AE 1973, 22; CIL 12.3176). An important source for local history for it attests for Rubi the tribus Claudia, to be added to the list in L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 161. Vol. 5, pp. 2984: REGIUM IULIUM (Regio III, Lucania et Bruttii) by Marco Buonocore. Before becoming a Roman municipium in 89, Regium (Reggio Calabria) had a long and eventful history as a Greek city, Rgion (cf. G. Vallet, Rhegion et Zancle [Paris 1958]). Even before the war with Pyrrhus it was already a civitas foederata; in 42 Regium acquired the surname Iulium. At this time Octavian spared the city and did not impose on it a veteran settlement, but in 36 it received a settlement of veterani classiarii. Nevertheless during the early Empire the city retained its Greek character as evidenced by numerous Greek inscriptions

390

Historia et Epigraphia

471

and by the circumstance that the municipal magistrates bore Greek titles (e.g. prtaniw, goranmow). Inscriptions from Regium were collected, once again, by Mommsen, CIL 10 (1883): 24 texts (and some 20 pieces of inscribed instrumentum); 1 falsa; 6 further texts (published by M. Ihm) in Eph. Ep. 8 (1891). Greek inscriptions assembled by Kaibel in IG 14 (1890): 13 texts (and 2 pieces of instrumentum). Two texts (CIL 10.13 and IG 14.625) Buonocore transfers from Regium to Locri. To all those texts, preserved and lost (12), Buonocore provides, as usual, an exemplary bibliography, incisive comments and corrections. He is splendidly qualified to do so for he had in the past devoted many important studies to the epigraphy of Southern Italy, especially a volume (vol. 5) of Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae (Bari 1987), among other localities comprising also the inscriptions from Regium Iulium (nos. 14), and a most informative piece on LEpigrafia latina dei Bruttii dopo Mommsen ed Ihm, Rivista Storica Calabrese, n.s. 6 (1985 [= Studi storici e ricerche archeologiche sulla Calabria antica e medioevale in memoria di Paolo Orsi]) 32755 (for a photocopy of this article I am grateful to Umberto Laffi). CIL 10.8337.A.ac is a joy for military historians: slingshots. It is also a treasure trove for prosopographers as those glandes plumbeae attest the title of imperator for Q. Salvidienus Rufus. The entry in Broughton, MRR 2.366, is confusing: Cass. Dio 48.18.12 records that in 42 Salvidienus Rufus drove Sex. Pompeius out of Regium, but he does not report that Salvidienus was acclaimed imperator. Mommsen re-published three glandes found at the promontory of Leucopetra (Lazzro-Capo DArmi, 20 km. to the south of Reggio), and four others (nos. dg) found in Vibo Valentia, Catania (2 exemplars) and one of unknown provenience. All of them display (with slight variations) the formula Q(uintus) Sal(vidienus) im(perator). Mommsen remarked that another exemplar from Leucopetra was preserved in the (National) Museum in Reggio, but he did not see it and did not reproduce it. A pity. It has now been published (with an extensive commentary) by F. Costabile in Rivista Storica Calabrese 6 (1985) 35775, a periodical not easily available even in Italy (non vidi {in the meantime I have succeeded in obtaining a copy}). It is a sensation, and it ought to have been included among the Nuovi testi, and not merely as an appendix to the discussion of CIL 8337. It reads: SA(lvidienus) // L(egio) X. In his classic monograph Legio, RE 12 (1925) 1671, E. Ritterling points out that the old legio decima of Caesar must have served as Stammtruppe for the two legions known from the Empire, the X Fretensis and X Gemina. It was, as so often, T. Mommsen who explained, quite in passing (in his commentary to the Res Gestae Divi Augusti2 [Berlin 1883] 69) the name of the former: it fought in the war against Sex. Pompeius, and it took its name from the fretum Siculum. This explanation has been generally accepted, also by Ritterling, but he rightly observed that although the sources mention the reenlistment of the Tenth legion, they are silent about its further participation in civil war. E. Dabrowa, Legio X Fretensis (Stuttgart 1993) 11, still maintains that there are no documents concerning leg. X Fretensis at the very beginning of its existence {an assertion he repeats in Legio X Fretensis, in Y. Le Bohec (ed.), Les lgions de Rome sous le haut-empire 1 (Lyon 2000) 31718}. Military historians should read their sling-

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

391

shots. The glans offers definitive proof that Legio X was indeed involved in the campaign against Sex. Pompeius. On this plumbum Salvidienus is not yet termed imperator, and Legio X is not yet Fretensis. But it is undoubtedly the soldiers of this legion that were soon to acclaim him imperator. A thought occurs: perhaps it was Salvidienus as imperator who addressed the legion with its honorific name Fretensis? This thought is to be discarded. Two years later, in 40, Salvidienus was disgraced and dead; it is most unlikely that the legion would have been allowed to perpetuate the memory of his exploit. We should rather suppose that the legion continued to be stationed around Regium, that it participated in the final campaign against Sex Pompeius, the bellum piraticum in 3736, and that it received its surname from the victorious Agrippa and Octavian. There are 38 NUOVI TESTI: 2 unpublished, 2 mere fragments, only one lost, 18 recorded suo tempore in AE, and four admitted to AE 1990 (1993), 21316, from the publication of Buonocore; 10 are Greek (4 recorded in SEG). No. 11 (SEG 1.418). A Greek inscription honoring C. Norbanus C. f. Buonocore regards this man as governor of Sicily and the future consul in 83. He rejects the idea of F. Mnzer (Hermes 67 [1932] 23335) that the honorandus was the homonymous son of the consul, monetalis in 83. But Mnzer has a strong point in his favor: the man is amtlos. If the dedication belonged to the elder Norbanus it is unlikely that his title would be omitted. Broughton, MRR 2.41 tacitly ascribes the inscription to Norbanus pater. Concerning his governorship of Sicily one should not omit the remarks of E. Badian in his Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford 1964) 8486. He dates Norbanus assignment to the period from 89 to at least 87, and although he comments on Diodors report (37.2.1314) about Norbanus success in saving Regium from an attack by the Italic forces, he does not mention the inscription. On the younger C. Norbanus, and his coinage, see M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) 79, 372. Nos. 15 and 16. The inscriptions record a freedman of Scribonia and two freedmen of Julia the daughter of Augustus. To my earlier article Julia in Regium, ZPE 72 (1988), 181200, see now Addenda and corrigenda in Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 66364 {and also in this volume, RQ, Addenda altera, No. 39}. No. 37. A lead defixio (dated to the second century) interestingly directed against a [- S]k\reibniw = Scribonius, and thus attesting to the continuing presence of Scribonii (descended from the freedmen of Scribonia?) in Regium. Vol. 5, pp. 87144: SUPERAEQUUM (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by Marco Buonocore. Another excellent contribution by this indefatigable scholar {see now his further supplement in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 13546, and aggiornamento of inscriptiones falsae vel alienae in G. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 100101}. Superaequum (with the ethnicon Superaequani) in the land of the Paeligni (Castelvecchio Subequo in the province lAquila) offers a puzzle in its very name: those who live super aequum, above the plain, or those who live super Aequos, above the land of the Aequi? Buonocore adduces also other explanations, but ultimately settles upon the first one: super aequum. Superaequum seems to have been constituted as a municipium only after

392

Historia et Epigraphia

472

49: originally the chief magistrates were the duumviri, and this arrangement was characteristic of the municipal reforms of Caesar. In the third century, the chief magistrates were, however, the IVviri. The tribe of the city was Sergia. The limits of the Superaequan territory were, by and large, already established by Mommsen; Buonocore (mostly following F. Van Wonterghem) proposes small adjustments: as a result two inscriptions move from Corfinium to Superaequum (CIL 9.3181, 3245), and one from Superaequum to the Marsian territory (9.3324). The inscriptions from Superaequum were published by Mommsen in CIL 9 (1883): 38 texts, and one republished in Eph.Ep. 8 (1891); 15 are now lost. There are also three texts in Paelignian very laudably reproduced by Buonocore (p. 96). Buonocores comments and bibliographical aggiornamenti are again exemplary. He had already produced outstanding work on the Paelignian territory: not only contributions in Suppl. Ital. (Corfinium and Sulmo), but also a spate of articles and a full corpus of inscriptions from Superaequum: LEpigrafia latina di Superaequum (Castelvecchio Subequo 1985), a collection which retains its usefulness even after the publication of this Supplement: it reproduces all texts printed in CIL and provides those that are extant with photographic documentation. There are surprisingly numerous Christian texts: G. Pani, ICI 3 (1986) 1124 (nos. 721). NUOVI TESTI: 57 inscriptions (two only mentioned, but not reproduced, 10 or so mere fragments); 14 lost; 5 already printed in CIL I2, and 1 in ILS; 15 in AE, and 14 in AE 1990 [1993] from this Suppl. Two additional texts AE 1992 [1995], 33334. No. 1 (CIL I2.2486; ILLRP 143), a dedication to Hercules Victor and no. 2 (CIL 2 I .3253; AE 1984, 283): a dedication to Hercules. Hercules Victor is also mentioned in no. 3 (CIL I2.3254; AE 1984, 292). The cult of Hercules was thus thriving in the Paelignian area: in particular the neighboring Sulmo possessed an important shrine of this god (see vol. 4, Sulmo, nos. 235). This cult went back to pre-Roman times as attested in Superaequum by an inscription in the Paelignian dialect (p. 95). Cf. F. Van Wonterghem, Le culte dHercule chez les Paeligni, Ant. Class. 42 (1973) 3648 (and 9 plates). No. 4: Lucus S(ilvani) A(ugusti). The Columbia dissertation of P. F. Dorcey adduced by Buonocore has now been published: The Cult of Silvanus. A Study in Roman Folk Religion (Leiden 1992). He does not record this text. No. 7 (ILS 9007). A well known inscription (of the Augustan period) listing the cursus honorum of Q. Octavius Sagitta. Among his various functions was also that of trib(unus) mil(itum) a populo. On this office, see the fundamental paper by C. Nicolet, Tribuni militum a populo, MEFRA 79 (1967) 2976, esp. 6576. He observes (p. 48) that the inscription of Sagitta is one of the three texts showing conclusively that tribuni militum a populo belonged to the equestrian order. We happen to know from Superaequum also another holder of this office: T. Pompullius Lappa (CIL 9.3307 = ILS 5599; Nicolet, p. 37). No. 8 (AE 1898, 79; 1984, 282), another inscription mentioning Octavius Sagitta. He is honored for various works of construction and restoration. Lines 45 read: viam\[que ad templum] / Romae et Augusti Ca\[es(aris) sternendam cur(avit)]. Romae was seen on the stone by the editor princeps A. De Nino; today this edge is

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

393

broken off. So restored (by De Nino whose proposals Buonocore accepts) the text is most interesting for it would attest the existence in Superaequum during the lifetime of Augustus of a temple of Roma and Augustus. F. Van Wonterghem (Forma 83, and after him AE 1984, 282) was more cautious and read: viam\[] / Romae et Augusti Ca\[esaris ]. In his short monograph Superaequum nel periodo romano (Castelvecchio Subequo 1984) he doubts (p. 23) che vada cercato qui ... un tempio del culto imperiale (as accepted by C. Fayer, Il culto della dea Roma [Pescara 1976] 252), and thinks (n. 77) that the text may have referred to an altar or a priesthood connected with the cult of Roma and Augustus. Cassius Dio 51.20.68 (cf. Suet., Aug. 52) indeed maintains that in Rome and in Italy no emperor allowed the establishment of his personal cult, yet Dios statement appears to be refuted by the growing epigraphic evidence. In her most careful investigation H. HenleinSchfer, Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten rmischen Kaisers (Rome 1985) 1718, 13342, 14445, 14852, lists in Italy in addition to Superaequum five other centers of the cult of Augustus that are to be dated to his lifetime. It is difficult to agree with M. Reinhold, From Republic to Principate. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio Books 4952 (Atlanta 1988) 154, when he writes that Dio deals here only with the officially authorized cult centres of Augustus. There was, indeed, no bar anywhere to private worship of him as god or hero, even publicly by cities and peoples of the empire. But Dio does not say that Augustus had himself established his cult, but rather that he gave permission (a crucial distinction!) to consecrate (in the provinces of Asia and Bithynia) sacred precincts to himself. Surely also the cities in Italy will have needed official permission to build a shrine dedicated to Augustus. L. R. Taylor in her classic work, The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown 1931) 21422, argued that technically this was not the cult of Augustus but rather the cult of his Genius (as explicitly attested for Pompei, CIL 10.816). Her argument has attracted a large and influential following, and despite recent peremptory remarks (cf., e.g., Henlein-Schfer 17) it has never been directly (or theologically) disproved. Yet despite all doctrinal nuances the living emperor beginning with Augustus himself was commonly worshipped as a god, and not only by provincials but also by cives (cf. M. Clauss, Deus praesens. Der rmische Kaiser als Gott, Klio 70 [1996] 40033, esp. 41121; {Idem, Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im rmischen Reich (Stuttgart-Leipzig 1999) esp. 5475 (to be read with the review by J. Scheid, Gnomon 75 [2003] 70711); I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002) 7384 (to be read with the devastating review by P. Herz, JRA 18.2 [2005] 64148); C. Rodriguez, The Puluinar at the Circus Maximus: Worship of Augustus in Rome?, Latomus 64 (2005) 61925}). To conclude: we should not hesitate to assign to Superaequum a temple of Roma and Augustus and to restore it in our inscription. No. 10. The text mentions Gallia Coma[ta ]. As Buonocore notes, this is the second epigraphic attestation of this expression (cf. CIL 11.7553 = ILS 916). No. 11 (AE 1990 [1993], 234). In line 5 Buonocore reads mag(istri) p(agi), who will thus be the dedicants together (lines 23) with the aediles: aed(iles) ded(erunt) / pag(i) decre[to {in erasure}]. But C. Letta, Lepigrafia pubblica

394

Historia et Epigraphia

472

di vici e pagi nella regio IV: imitazione del modello urbano e peculiarit del villagio, in LEpigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 3348 at 4041, proposes to expand mag(istris) p(agi): in an imitation of the modello urbano the magistri appear as eponyms. An attractive solution that persuaded Buonocore himself, ibid. 51 and n. 9. Cf. AE 1993 [1996], 571. No. 12 (AE 1914, 270; CIL I2.3255). The inscription offers puzzles and novelties. In lines 46 the first editor (N. Persichetti in 1914) read as follows: mag(istri) pag(i) iter / Paganicam fac(iundum) /ex p(agi) s(ententia) c(uraverunt) eidemq(ue) p(robaverunt). He thus imagined a road (iter) leading to a locality called Paganica: (versus) Paganicam. Buonocore strongly disagrees and reconstructs: mag(istri) pag(i) iter(um) / paganicam fac(iundam). He takes paganica in the (unattested) sense of aedes or aedicula. He may be right: the noun paganicum appears three times in inscriptions from Africa in the sense of a building (TLL s.v. paganicus {Cf. M. Mayer and I. Pagn, A propsito de los paganica de Africa, LAfrica Romana 8.1 (1991) 42128}). More recently C. Letta, pp. 3637 (see above, no. 11) boldly cuts this Gordian knot, and assumes that paganicam is a mistake of the stone cutter to be corrected into paganicum. The iter paganicum would be a road che attraversava tutto il territorio del pagus, collegando i vari vici tra loro e col santuario comune (cf. AE 1993 [1996] 570). But if so, one would rather expect via paganica, not iter (cf. below, no. 13 {In Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 13839, Buonocore again, and rightly, rejects the attempts to correct paganicam into paganicum}). Of the three magistri one is called Crisplius: this is the first and only attestation of the name (cf. Solin-Salomies, Repertorium 64); another displays the filiation Sex. Apicius V. f. Buonocore offers no expansion; O. Salomies, Die rmischen Vornamen (Helsinki 1987) 96, proposes V(ibii) f., the praenomen Vibius being several times attested in the Paelignian area. No. 13 (AE 1984, 295). A college of five freedmen termed viocuri. It is the first appearance of this term outside the framework of senatorial careers. Vol. 5, pp. 145238: FORUM NOVUM (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by Giorgio Filippi. The very name of Forum Novum (Vescovo) betrays the Roman (and not native) origin of this city in the northern part of the Sabine territory. This area was probably assigned viritim to Roman citizens still in the the first part of the third century (p. 148). The territory of Forum Novum was delimited toward west and southwest by the course of the Tiber; in the north-west and west it bordered on the ager of Ocriculum, Narnia and Interamna, in the east and south-east on the ager of Reate and Trebula Mutuesca; and finally toward the south the precise position of its border with Cures is still uncertain. The municipium was governed by IIviri, and was inscribed into tribus Clustumina. Its inhabitants were called Foronovani. Very sparse literary sources were already fully utilized by Mommsen in CIL; Filippi supplies additional information especially on the late antique and early medieval history of the city. {See now V. Gaffney, H. Patterson, P. Roberts, Forum NovumVescovio: Studying urbanism in the Tiber valley, JRA 14 (2001) 5979}. The patrimonio epigrafico was collected in CIL 9 (1883) again by Mommsen (and in Eph. Ep. 8 [1891]), altogether 89 inscriptions (including the instrumentum)

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

395

of which 40 have disappeared. There are also 10 falsae. Filippi removes 9 texts as not belonging to Forum Novum. {For falsae and alienae, see addenda and corrections by M. Buonocore, in G. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 12225}. As usual, the old texts are revised, and provided with bibliography. NUOVI TESTI: 95 texts; 20 published previously (7 recorded in AE); 75 inedita (so far a record for all Supplementa, but some 40 merely meagre fragments); 25 now admitted to AE 1990 [1993], 24771. {See also 1998 [2001], 41112}. This crop substantially enriches the onomastics of Forum Novum, including such rare gentilicia as Fesinius (no. 41), Marullius (no. 49), the first attestations of Herbuleius (no. 44; cf. Solin-Salomies, Repertorium, Suppl. 483) and perhaps of Macretius (no. 48, but the reading is uncertain), and another hapax (no. 40), the cognomen Curin(us), attested as a surname only with respect to Hercules (see above, vol. 4, Sulmo). Still there are only few texts of a more general interest: No. 18. A mosaic inscription: C. Vibius C. f. Clu(stumina) Celer Sttr / ex decret C virum s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit). The first attestation in Forum Novum of the local senate of centumviri; this is of some interest for the municipal history: the inscription can archaeologically be dated as far back as the time of Caesar. Filippi takes Sttr (note the apices) as a second cognomen which according to him conferma il rango elevato dellindividuo. It is more natural to interpret the word as indicating the office of stator, in this case an attendant or messenger of the centumviri (cf. above, vol. 4, Sulmo, no. 62). No. 49: C. Maruleius T. Flavius Aug(usti) l(ibertus) Primigenius. As Filippi points out this name-form finds a close counterpart in the name of M. Antonius M(arci) f(ilius) Pap(iria), Flacci libertus, Felix. It appears on an urban stone published with an extensive commentary by S. Panciera (Not. Scavi 1975, 22429). Panciera discovers there a case of arrogatio libertini, mentioned by jurists but so far not recorded epigraphically. Filippi adopts this interpretation also for our text. Neither case seems to have been discussed by O. Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Helsinki 1992); at least neither name appears in his index.
474

Vol. 5, pp. 24161: FELTRIA (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by Luciano Lazzaro. {See now also the new supplement by M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 24054}. Feltre (Feltria), originally a settlement of the Raeti, controlled a rather extensive ager, bordering on Bellunum and Tridentum (the map on p. 311 is insufficient). It became a municipium after 49, was inscribed into tribus Menenia, and was governed by IVviri. The inscriptions from Feltria were assembled in CIL 5 (1872, 1877) by T. Mommsen (23 texts, and a large number of falsae: 27), and in the old series of Supplementa Italica (1888) by E. Pais (2 texts); only 2 stones are lost. Two stones Lazzaro transfers to Feltria from Bellunum (cf. above, vol. 4, Bellunum), and removes one inscription as extranea, and suspects foreign origin also of five frustuli di tituli. Pais (nos. 447 and 1233) and Lazzaro rehabilitate one of the falsae (no. 106), but Lazzaro bans it from Feltria; never mind: the name this inscription

396

Historia et Epigraphia

records, Caupius Albicius, does not inspire confidence. From Feltria come also due lapidi etruscoidi: see G. B. Pellegrini and A. L. Prosdocimi, La lingua venetica 1 (Padova 1967) 44546. There are 8 Nuovi Testi, only 1 lost, and only 1 recorded in AE; from Lazzaro 5 texts now in AE 1990 [1993], 396400. {See further 2002 [2005], 54749}. Of interest is no. 1 (AE 1925, 82) recording the cult of Anna Perenna, but the pride of place goes to no. 3, published in 1907 (and promptly reprinted in ILS 9420), recording a legatum of five hundred thousand denarii given to the coll(egia) fab(rum) and cc (i.e., centonariorum) with the stipulation that the interest (usura) from that sum should be used to celebrate the natalis of the donor. This text of 12 lines (with a number of uncertain readings and supplements) has been frequently discussed by students of economy and numismatics. But it is of interest also for another reason: it opens with the indication of the consular date of 323, and closes with the notation N CCCLXII (such notations are known also from Patavium). Lazzaro inclines to accept the theory advanced by W. Harris ( ZPE 27 [1977] 28393) and the present writer (ZPE 50 [1983] 22732 {= RQ 36974, 663; see also in this volume, RQ, Addenda altera, No. 38}) that this notation indicates the date according to the local era. That N stands for n(atali die), see now further remarks by J. Linderski, Games in Patavium, Ktema 17 (1993 [1996]) 5576 at 6062 {reprinted in this volume, No. 34. See also M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 25153}. SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 6 (1990) Vol. 6, pp. 1133: SETIA (Regio I, Latium et Campania) by Rita Volpe. Setia (Sezze) was established in the Monti Lepini, in the part of Latium occupied by the Volsci, as a Latin colony in 382, and it retained that status until after the Social War, when it became a Roman municipium. Its territory extended from via Latina to via Appia. CIL 10 (1883) displays 23 inscriptions from Setia (published by Mommsen); 3 additional texts are in Eph. Ep. 7 (1888); 15 are now lost, and one belongs to the city of Rome. There are also 21 falsae. Two remarks on old inscriptions: CIL 10.6462 (= 12.811 = ILS 5529 = ILLRP 393) reads: ] Scaurus pr(aetor) pro co(n)s(ule) bas[ilicam ]. This person is generally identified with M. Aemilius Scaurus, praetor in 56, and governor of Sardinia in 55 (cf. Broughton, MRR 1.208, 21718). Volpe argues (p. 17) that the inscription is to be dated tra 55, anno del proconsolato, e il 52, anno in cui Scauro fu costretto allesilio dopo un ennesimo processo per corruzione. In another place (p. 23) Volpe very confusingly describes the stone as attesting a dedication da parte di un praetor urbano. According to a widespread belief Scaurus was twice prosecuted de ambitu: first in 54 under the lex Tullia, and then in 52 he was convicted under the lex Pompeia. A second trial hardly qualifies as ennesimo. In fact, it disappears altogether. The belief in a second trial of Scaurus de ambitu is entirely based on Appians account (BC 2.24.89) but, as G. S. Bucher has recently demonstrated in a brilliant investigation, this account is badly confused (Appian BC 2.24 and the Trial De Ambitu

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

397

475

of M. Aemilius Scaurus, Historia 44 [1995] 396421). The trial began in 54 and was concluded in 53; it resulted in Scaurus conviction and exile. Another problem is this: it is not immediately clear how to interpret the indication pr. pro cos (which occurs also in a number of other texts). T. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht 23 (Leipzig 1887) 650, n. 2, cf. 648, nn. 12 (and CIL 1, p. 188), argued that this denoted ein Amt, praetor proconsule. T. R. S. Broughton, Notes on Roman Magistrates, TAPA 77 (1946) 3839, expressed doubt: perhaps we should put a comma between the two titles (H. Kloft, Prorogation und ausserordentliche Imperien 32681 v. Chr. [Meisenhaim am Glan 1977; to be read with E. Badians review in Gnomon 51 (1979) 79294] esp. 64, oddly enough does not discuss this particular question). Broughton did not persuade Degrassi (ILLRP 393, and 342, 402 ad locc.), but as far as Scaurus was concerned he was undoubtedly right (although actually he does not adduce the case of Scaurus). We have to look not only at the title(s) but at the whole text. Scaurus either built or restored a basilica in Setia; he will hardly have done this when he was away as governor of Sardinia. On the other hand his generosity in Setia fits chronologically very well into the period of his electoral campaign for the consulship in 54 and 53, but at that time he was neither pr. nor pro cos. The inscription thus indicates his two highest previous functions. Upon his return from Sardinia to Rome Scaurus was immediately accused of extortion but ultimately acquitted. His building activity illustrates well the comment of Asconius (19 Clark) that the prosecutors rushed the trial because they were afraid ne Scaurus ea pecunia quam a sociis abstulisset emeret consulatum, et ... ante quam de eo iudicari posset, consulatum iniret. Thanks to our inscription we know where part of Scaurus spoils ended up: in the basilica at Setia. CIL 10.6465. For the history of Setia this stone is an important document, and controversial. On its lato sinistro, imperfectly read by Mommsen, H. Solin has recently discovered a consular pair of 263 (Tituli 4 [1982] 52728). One would wish he had also ascertained the reading of line 1 of the main text, but even his sguardo linceo was of no avail (cf. his Zu den lukanischen Inschriften [Helsinki 1981] 51, n. 24). This line, as Volpe observes, is in pessimo stato di conservazione. Mommsen printed C. Oppio C. F. PONI POM / IUS, but he despaired as to the meaning of the last two words. Now the tribe of Setia is not attested, but the city was situated in the ager Pomptinus, and thus its ascription to the Pomptina may seem reasonable. W. Kubitschek, Imperium romanum tributim discriptum (Vindobonae 1889) 30, indeed suggested that we have in this line the mention of the tribe: Pon[t(ina)]. He failed to persuade Volpe (lettura estremamente dubiosa) or earlier L. R. Taylor who found his evidence weak (The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic [Rome 1960] 111, n. 25). The normal order being nomen, tribus, cognomen, the incriminated letters must conceal either solely a cognomen or a tribe and a cognomen. The perusal of Kubitscheks own material shows that regular abbreviations were Pom. and Pompt. Pon[t(ina)] may thus appear a desperate reconstruction, but it is not entirely unfounded. CIL 10.310 (= Inscr. It. 3.1.248, ed. V. Bracco) from Tegianum reads: C. Buculeio [Mommsen read Puculeio, but Braccos text has been verified by Solin) C. f. Pont / oro. Kubitschek (p. 47) hesitatingly comments: Pontorus nescio an cognomen potius sit quam Pont(ina)

398

Historia et Epigraphia

Orus. As Tegianum belonged to the Pomptina (see CIL 10.291, 8095), Kubitscheks proposal deserves serious consideration. Solin (pp. 5052) embraces it (he quotes the earlier study of Kubitschek, De Romanarum tribuum origine et propagatione [Vindobonae 1882] 45), and reads C. Buculeio C. f. Pont(ina) F\oro (or perhaps Oro = Horo). He states (p. 51): Die Graphie Pont- ist auch sonst bekannt, but as support he adduces (n. 24) a surprise! solely the inscription from Setia, which he ultimately ventures to read C. Oppio C. f. Pont(ina) Pom/pus[iano]. All this despite the information from G. Forni that no other texts with the reading Pont(ina) are known. Thus a classic case of a reconstruction supporting another reconstruction and in turn supported by it. Nos valde dubitantes rem in medio relinquimus. In line 7 there appears the abbreviation PCS, solved by Mommsen as p(atrono) c(oloniae) S(etinae). Volpe (p. 14) points out that p(atrono) c(ivitatis) S(etinae) is also possible. Undoubtedly; but Mommsen (CIL 10, p. 637) buttressed his expansion by the reference to the neighboring Privernum which is described in two inscriptions of the fourth century (10.6440, 6441) as colonia Privernatium. He regarded, however, our inscription as being infimae aetatis. In view of Solins redating of the stone to the third century, Mommsens argument is now less cogent. S(etinae) is generally accepted, but perhaps we should read S(etinorum). NUOVI TESTI: 17 inscriptions, one already in CIL I2, only 2 in AE, and 6 now in AE 1990 [1993], 13237; 5 lost. No. 3. {Cf. also R. Volpe, Epigrafia 38183}. A republican monumental inscription: [ Post]umiu[s Albi]nus consol f[ecit ?], to be dated {according to Volpe} to the consulship of one of the seven Postumii Albini {of the third or the first part of the second century} (the earliest 254, the last 151). {R. Haensch, Gnomon 68 (1996) 532, adduces Liv. 39.23.3 and attributes the inscription to Sp. Postumius Albinus, cos. 186, the dating accepted by the editors of AE 1996 [1999], 398 (p. 135). L. Gasperini, Lazio tardo-repubblicano. Note epigrafiche, MGR 21 (1997) 27174, on the basis of architecture and lettering assigns the text to the consul of 110 (cf. AE 1997 [2000], 282)}. No. 4a (AE 1991 [1994], 426). Another republican inscription: [ us] pr(aetor) de s(enatus) s(ententia) refec(it) de m[anubiis ? ]. Volpe points out that local praetors are attested in Setia (CIL 10.6466), but if the supplement m[anubiis is correct, we would deal with a Roman praetor and acquire a most interesting document. The verb refecit (as opposed to fecit) would, however, seem to argue against this supplement. But above all no senatus sententia (or consultum) was necessary for manubial dedications (see A. Zikowski, The Temples of MidRepublican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context [Rome 1992] 20158, 30717; M. Aberson, Temples votifs et butin de guerre dans la Rome republicaine [Rome 1994], though not without some merit, is much less cogent and fails to provide clear legal distinction between various categories of dedications and dedicants. The same complaint applies also to E. M. Orlin, Temples, Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic [Leiden 1997]). We may read de m[ultaticia pecunia, and refer the inscription to the local senate and a local praetor. {L. Gasperini, op. cit. (above, no. 3) 27478, also refers the text to a local praetor; he

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

399

combines frg. (a) with frgs. (b): [] E D [], and (c): []GUN[], and he further connects with the inscription three minute frustula bearing the letters L (only traces; now illegible), LF, and LIRU (so read by the excavators; now lost, but where we should read the patronymicon LF, and RU, the first letters of a cognomen). This yields an ingenious restoration: L. [Var]gun[teius] L. f. Ru[fus] pr(aetor) de s(enatus) s(ententia) refecit [i]dem[q(ue) probavit dedicavitq(ue). Cf. AE 1997 [2000], 283. Gasperini and AE print Ru[f]us, but do not indicate where the letters us are attested. Gasperini seems to have rather imagined the reading Ru[f(us)]}. No. 10 (AE 1961, 242), a funerary stone of C. Barbius Cleon, medicus and sevir Augustalis. This is a third medicus attested in Setia. The two other are [L. ?] Quinctius Theoxenus, also a sevir Augustalis (CIL 10.6469), and L. Licinius Asclepia[de]s (10.6471; cf. AE 1992 [1995], 261), all of Greek and ultimately servile extraction, and all missed by J. Korpela, Das Medizinalpersonal im antiken Rom (Helsinki 1987).
476

Vol. 6, pp. 3753: CINGULUM (Regio V, Picenum) by Gianfranco Paci {See now Pacis new supplement, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 14751}.We begin, joining Paci, with a tribute to L. R. Taylor: Her two page article, Labienus and the Picene Town of Cingulum, CR 35 (1921) 15859, changed the history of Cingulum. Taylor adduced the passage of Cicero (Rab. perd. 22) which had been curiously overlooked by Mommsen (CIL 9, p. 541) and by other scholars. In his defense of Rabirius (in 63) Cicero addresses T. Labienus, then a tribune of the plebs, and later Caesars trusted general in Gaul and his bitter opponent in the civil war, and in a series of pointed rhetorical questions forcefully reminds Labienus that his own father and propinqui vestri, equites Romani, furthermore omnis praefectura, regio, vicinitas vestra, ager Picenus universus, had stood firm against the tribunicius furor of Saturninus and supported the consularis auctoritas. Another passage, also concerning Labienus, had long been utilized for the history of Cingulum. Caesar, BC 1.15.12 relates that, when he entered the ager Picenus, cunctae earum regionum praefecturae libentissimis animis eum recipiunt, and that etiam Cingulo quod oppidum Labienus constituerat suaque pecunia exaedificaverat ad eum legati veniunt quaeque imperavit se cupidissime facturos pollicentur. On the basis of this passage it was possible to suspect that originally Cingulum was one of the Picentine praefecturae; Taylor and the utterances of Cicero turned this supposition into certainty. It was also possible to suspect that Cingulum was the home town of the gens Labiena; also for this supposition Taylor and Cicero offered resounding corroboration. As municipium Cingulum (ascribed to tribus Velina) was governed by duoviri (and not by quattuorviri), and as U. Laffi points out in his most instructive survey (Sullorganizzazione amministrativa dellItalia dopo la guerra sociale, in Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses fr Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik [Mnchen 1973] 3753 at 4748 {= U. Laffi, Studi di storia romana e di diritto (Roma 2001) 11335 at 12526}) this administrative structure was typical of those municipia that were organized ex novo (on the other hand the former allied cities that after the Social War were transformed into Roman

400

Historia et Epigraphia

477

municipia were administered by quattuorviri). When did Cingulum become a municipium and what was the role of Labienus in this process? No legal role at all: so Paci, invoking Emilio Gabba (p. 41). Cingulum may have well been organized as a municipium after 49, and Labienus simply made this transformation possible through his earlier building activity. On the other hand H. Galsterer, Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien (Mnchen 1976) 36 (and various scholars before him) searched for a legal basis of Labienus intervention; he suggests hesitatingly the lex Iulia agraria of 59 or a senatorial decree. The latter we can safely exclude, the former is a reasonable suggestion but perhaps not in the way imagined by Galsterer, at least if we follow a novel and powerful argument of M. H. Crawford (see The Lex Iulia Agraria, Athenaeum 77 [1989] 17990; Roman Statutes [London 1996] 2.76367 {now accepted by B. Campbell, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors (London 2000) 32122}). This scholar is of the opinion that the three chapters, preserved in the Corpus Gromaticorum, of the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia belonged in fact to the lex Iulia agraria. In chapter 5 (vulgo, et fortasse recte 55) we read: Qui hac lege coloniam deduxerit, municipium praefecturam forum conciliabulum constituerit. Labienus oppidum constituerat; perhaps he indeed acted on the basis of the lex Iulia agraria. Not so: Unfortunately, there is no particular reason to relate the constitution of Cingulum by T. Labienus to the framework established by our statute (Crawford, Athenaeum, p. 184). Why not? Perhaps because Caesar uses the term oppidum and not municipium? Now in the first Book of BC (see chapters 12, 1516, 1819, 2122, 27) Caesar employs the term oppidum with reference to towns that were technically municipia or coloniae: Iguvium, Auximum (in both places he also mentions municipes), Asculum, Corfinium, Sulmo (he also mentions oppidani as opposed to milites), Brundisium. Thus Caesars terminology is no obstacle. Furthermore Caesar appears to juxtapose the praefecturae and Cingulum, now an oppidum. We can accept that it was Labienus who transformed Cingulum from a praefectura into a municipium, apparently at a time when he had collected enough Gallic loot to carry out the exaedificatio. But did he act on the basis of the lex Iulia? If this were the case not solely Labienus but Caesar too would have had a claim to being a direct benefactor of Cingulum, and the support he received from that city would not have been so extraordinary. Thus perhaps Labienus was appointed to constitute Cingulum as municipium in pursuance of another statute, precisely the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia, distinct from the lex Iulia, and to be dated to 55 (as some scholars had supposed; see the bibliography in Crawford, Athenaeum, p. 179). No certain solution is at hand. The inscriptions from Cingulum (Cingolo) Mommsen collected in CIL 9 (1883): 20 texts (and 2 falsae); 5 lost, 1 damaged. There are only 7 NUOVI TESTI: 1 belonging to Rome, 1 reedited, 3 minute fragments; 1 recorded in AE, and now 5 from Paci (4 from his earlier publication) in AE 1990 (1993), 31216. No. 3, a funerary inscription of P. Statius Q. f. Ani(ensis) Optatus / scrba aed(ilium) cur(ulium) / sexs prmus (observe the apices). The inscription was found on the territory of Cingulum, but the tribe of Statius, Aniensis, shows that he was

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

401

not a native of that city. Paci suggests that after his career as scriba at Rome he retired to Cingulum. As the inscription may belong to the et protoimperiale we should perhaps add Statius to the list of late republican clerks in E. Badian, The scribae of the Roman Republic, Klio 71 (1989) 582603. In passing we may observe that S. Pancieras reconstruction of the organization of scribae in the Late Republic (in Epigrafia 27378) differs very substantially from that of Badian (esp. 59598). {Cf. now the comments of A. Cristofori, Non arma virumque. Le occupazioni nell epigrafia di Piceno (Bologna 2004) 25054, and the comprehensive study by N. Purcell, The ordo scribarum: a study in the loss of memory, MEFRA 113.2 (2001) 63374.} Vol. 6, pp. 5779: CAMERINUM (Regio VI, Umbria) by Silvia Maria Marengo. {See now her new supplement, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 16171}. The early history of Camerinum (Camerino) and its foedus with Rome does not interest us here; after the Social War it was a municipium inscribed into the Cornelian tribe. The inscriptions from Camerinum were published in CIL 11 (1901 and 1926) by E. Bormann: 17 texts (and 14 falsae), of which 4 are now lost, and several are damaged. To the old texts Marengo provides corrections and rudimentary bibliography. Of these inscriptions perhaps the most famous is 5631 (= ILS 432) recording the renewal under Septimius Severus (in 210) of the ancient treaty between Rome and the Camertes (iure aequo foederis sibi confirmato), a marvellous display of antiquarianism and local pride (the best study is that of S. Panciera, Ficolenses foederati, RSA 67 [197677] 195213, esp. 21011). NUOVI TESTI: 11 inscriptions (but 2 of them only small fragments); only 2 previously admitted into AE (and now 5 texts after Marengo in AE 1990 [1993], 32226); and one inscription assigned in CIL 11.7884 to Spoletium but belonging to Camerinum. No. 2. The editio princeps (Epigraphica 46 [1984] 17677, and AE 1985, 369) read in the first four lines T. Vetilio T. f. Cor. / Sinoni / praet(ori) quinquennali / Camerini. Marengo proposes praef(ectus) quinquennalis. The photograph renders the reading quinquennalis (in the nominative) indubitable; it is more difficult to decide whether there is an F or a T in the previous title, but in the light of the evidence assembled by M. S. Bassignano (in Epigrafia 51537) on the praefecti iure dicundo, Marengo is certainly right in discarding praetor and opting for praefectus. As to the cognomen, Marengo observes that it is di origine greca and assai raro. That much is obvious; but in view of the Vergilian notoriety of the perfidious Sinon one wonders how Vetilius, an ingenuus, did come by this name. In the inscription AE 1958, 313 (from Iesolo in the province of Venezia) adduced by Marengo, Sinon is, appropriately, a slave. The original editor of that inscription, F. Sartori (Atti Ist. Veneto 116 [1957] 24455, reprinted in F. Sartori, DallItala allItalia [Padova 1993] 93104, esp. 96) notes as the only other example a person from the Athenian ephebic catalogue of 169/70 (Iol[iow] Snvn, IG II2, 2097, line 95). There is an earlier attestation, from the second century B.C.E. (ibid. 11314 a, p. 887; cf. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 2 [1994] 399), but these Greek examples do not carry the weight of the Roman connotation of the name.

402

Historia et Epigraphia

No. 9 (AE 1990, 324): Q. Titulenus Q. f. / Maior Vibia / hoc m(onumentum) p(osuit). An interesting onomastic puzzle: is Maior the cognomen of Titulenus or the praenomen of Vibia? Marengo, following the opinion of S. Panciera, opts for the latter solution. M. Kajava, Roman Female Praenomina (Rome 1994) does not discuss this case, but his evidence supports the idea of combining Maior and Vibia (whether Maior was felt as a true praenomen or a reversed cognomen). {M. Kajava kindly adverts me that he has in fact discussed this inscription but s.v. MAIO(S), p. 44. He regards Maior Vibia as the dedicant, and Q. Titulenus as the dedicatee}. Vol. 6, pp. 83108: VALLIS TANARI SUPERIOR (Regio IX, Liguria) by Giovanella Cresci Marrone. {See now a further supplement by G. Mennella in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 18995}.The Upper Valley of Tanarus was a territory of the Liguri Montani; since their subjection by the Romans at the beginning of the second century B.C.E. their territory was in some way attached (through the process of adtributio) to the city of Albingaunum (cf. above, vol. 4), and it achieved full municipal status only in the second century of the Empire (but continued to share its tribe, Publilia, with Albingaunum). Cresci Marrone delineates this complicated story very well; an excellent map helps the reader to follow in detail her propositions concerning the delimitation of the territory (pp. 8691). The inscriptions were collected in CIL 5 (1877) by Mommsen: 13 texts (and 4 falsae, but one of them [915*] perhaps genuine); the inscription added by Pais in his Suppl. Ital. (no. 978) was in fact already published by Mommsen (7801). Two additional inscriptions (7671, 7730) Cresci Marrone transfers to Vallis Tanari from Augusta Bagiennorum and from the area designated by Mommsen as Ora a Luna ad Genuam. Today 8 texts are lost, and one is almost completely damaged. NUOVI TESTI: 20 items (3 meagre fragments), 1 ineditum, 2 republished (no. 1 = CIL 5.7804; no. 17 = 7803), none recorded in AE (now 9 texts in AE 1990 [1993], 36068; a new reading and a new text in AE 1991 [1994], 73839). No. 2: AE 1990, 360 reproduces the cognomen (in gen.) as Tessalae, but the photograph vindicates Cresci Marrones reading T\e\ssellae (although the initial T is hardly visible), a name so far not otherwise attested and not listed in Repertorium of Solin and Salomies. This inscription was published again by A. De Pasquale in Bolletino storico-bibliografico subalpino 89 (1991) 18487 (non vidi), and again reproduced in AE 1991 [1994], 739 (without any indication of the previous publication). This time the reading is +essellae (with the sign + indicating that the traces on the stone do not permit the identification of the missing letter). The text is assigned to the environs of Albingaunum. Vol. 6, pp. 11182: TRIDENTUM (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by Alfredo Buonopane. A marvellous edition and commentary. The history of the city (today Trento) Buonopane paints with clarity and erudition (pp. 11527). Although the name Tridentum may ultimately be of Celtic origin, the city itself was a Roman foundation, to be dated perhaps as late as the proconsulate of Caesar. By 46 C.E. the city was a municipium (CIL 5.5050), belonging to the tribus Papiria. In the second century it acquired the rank of a titulary colonia. Probably the most important

478

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

403

recent find for the history of Tridentum comes from Passau in Germany: an inscription (AE 1984, 707; ca II/III c.) mentioning a negotians vinarius whose origin is described as domo Iulia Tridentum. Buonopane (p. 119) is inclined to interpret the name Iulia as deriving from one of the emperors or members of the imperial house of the late second or the first part of the third century. The inscriptions from Tridentum were published by Mommsen in CIL 5 (1872, 1877), 38 texts, and by Pais (Suppl. Ital. 1888), 3 texts (9 are now lost). All these stones Buonopane describes with meticulous attention; he also provides an extensive bibliography, and often a detailed discussion. CIL 5.5016, a dedication to Minerva. On the right side of the stone there is a representation of urceus, lituus, and patella; on the left side of simpulum, culter, securilla, patella, lancea and scutum. It is worth observing that here we deal with representations of three distinct sorts of emblems: on the right side the augural emblems, and on the left first the pontifical emblems, and then the attributes of Minerva (lance and shield; cf. E. Simon, Die Gtter der Rmer [Darmstadt 1990] 170). On the juxtaposition of pontifical and augural symbols, see W. Altmann, Die rmischen Grabaltare der Kaiserzeit (Berlin 1905) 181 (Fig. 145a, simpulum and jug); J. Linderski, Q. Scipio Imperator, in idem (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Stuttgart 1996) 17577, and n. 21 {reprinted in this volume. No. 10}. NUOVI TESTI: 41 items (10 extremely fragmentary), 2 inedita, 2 republished from CIL and Pais, 24 already in AE (and now 7 in AE 1990 [1993], 42127); 5 (or 6) lost. {Also 1995 [1998], 606; 1999 [2002], 74144; 2000 [2003], 627; 2001 [2004], 107383}. No. 1 (AE 1964, 197; 1992 [1995], 753), an inscription carved high (2019 m.) on Monte Prgol: Finis inter / Trid(entinos) et Feltr(inos) / Lim(es) lat(us) p(edes) IIII. See now an extensive discussion by E. Cavada, Liscrizione confinaria del Monte Prgol in Val Cadino nel Trentino orientale, in Rupes loquentes (1992) 99115 (and cf. above, vol. 4, Bellunum, no. 1). For a very useful aggiornamento of rock inscriptions, see L. Gasperini, Iscrizioni rupestri di et romana in Italia, in A. Rodrguez Colmenero / L. Gasperini (eds.), Saxa scripta. Actas del Simposio Internacional Ibero-Itlico sobre epigrafa rupestre (La Corua 1995) 297331. Nos. 4, 9, 16, 26, 27 (and cf. p. 125): these texts share common but uncommon vicissitudes. They were copied by the Bavarian Renaissance erudite Johann Turmair, called Aventinus (14771534; cf. W. Pkel, Philologisches SchriftstellerLexikon [Leipzig 1882] 279), but were published only in 1914 by A. Vollmer (Hermes 49, 31114). Four of them were next admitted to AE 1914, 25558, with the erroneous attribution of the publication to A. Rehm; and finally in the Tables gnrales 19111920 (p. 3) their provenience was mistakenly given as Tarente (instead of Trente). Thus fortunately copied, soon forgotten, after four hundred years rediscovered, they again almost disappeared from the history of Tridentum until recalled by G. Tibiletti (Epigraphica 35 [1973] 15675 at 17374). They attest, inter alia, to the local cult of Fortuna and Sol [Invictus ?]. But perhaps the most eloquent is no. 26: all persons involved have fine epichoric names: the husband [] Tauci f(ilius) prepares a grave monument for himself and for Luppa, his

404
479

Historia et Epigraphia

uxor carissima, a daughter of Biumus son of Bursacus; the name of the son is Turus, and he figures prominently and unpleasantly in the concluding injunction: huic monumento Turus, filius meus, exheres esto. How quickly did the natives acquire Roman phrases and legalities! No. 11 (AE 1990, 422). Unpublished; a new attestation of the local grandee [C. Vale]rius [Mari]anus [patro]n(us) colon(iae), who appears to have flourished in the second half of the second century or at the beginning of the third century (cf. Buonopanes comments on CIL 5.5036, pp. 13738). No. 19 (AE 1977, 293). A funerary stone of a fistulator (only the second epigraphical attestation, cf. CIL 6.4444). Opinions vary: either a piper or (less likely) a producer of water pipes. No. 20 (AE 1990, 424). A late (4th or 5th century) epitaph, abounding in linguistic peculiarities and oddities. We note the usage (first attested in Silver Latin) of the plural fratres to denote brother and sister, Amaros et Matrona, also described as puer and puella, and fr(ater) et soror. Vol. 6, pp. 183228: ANAUNI (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by Alfredo Buonopane. Anaunia (later also Anagnia) is the ancient name of Val di Non to the north of Trento. The area was inhabited by the tribes of Anauni, Tulliasses and Sinduni. It was probably subdued by the Romans at the beginning of the first century, although some scholars prefer to assign the conquest to the period of Augustus (16 and 15 B.C.E.). The most important historical document is the famous tabula Clesiana (found in 1869 in the village of Cles) containing the edict of Claudius of 15 March 46 (CIL 5.5050). We learn that part of the territory of the Anauni and of the other tribes had been for a long time attached to the municipium Tridentum. The adtributi appear to have legally remained at the level of peregrini, but ultimately and de facto they formed genus hominum permixtum cum Tridentinis, and were arrogating for themselves the rights of Roman citizens. In an act of great political realism (so very appropriately characterized by Buonopane) Claudius ratified the existing situation (quaecumque tamquam cives Romani gesserunt egeruntque) and formally extended the ius civitatis to the Anauni, Tulliasses and Sinduni, irrespective of whether they were formally attached to Tridentum. Buonopane (pp. 19495) provides an extensive bibliography (two full dense pages!), and in his discussion (pp. 18890) he largely follows U. Laffi, Adtributio e Contributio (Pisa 1966) esp. 2936, 18191, still the best treatment of the document and of the phenomenon of adtributio. The Edict of Claudius was published by Mommsen (Hermes 4 [1870] 99120) and he also collected in CIL 5 (1872, 1877) the inscriptions from Anaunia, the collection continued by Pais (Suppl. Ital., 1888), altogether 36 inscriptions (and 2 falsae); 13 are lost. NUOVI TESTI: 16 inscriptions (2 lost), 3 minute fragments, 6 in AE (and now 4 in AE 1990 [1993], 42932). {Also 1998 [2001], 597; 2002 [2005], 57879}. I should wish to stress again the exemplary presentation of old and new texts by Buonopane, and his equally exemplary bibliography.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

405

SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 7 (1991) Vol. 7, pp. 11313: INDICI DEI VOLUMI 16 by Ivan Di Stefano Manzella and Claudia Lega. See the remarks at the close of this paper. Here let it only be observed that pp. 1720 contain corrections to vols.16. SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 8 (1991) Vol. 8, pp. 921: STRUTTURA DEI SUPPLEMENTI E SEGNI DIACRITICI. DIECI ANNI DOPO, by Silvio Panciera. In Suppl. Ital. 1 (1981) 1319, Panciera presented the system of segni diacritici which he and H. Krummrey had fully elaborated in the preceding year (Tituli 2 [1980] 20515). In the present volume Panciera reviews the (recent) history of epigraphic notations (before and after the Leiden system), defends his own system against critics, and notes subsequent experiments in inscriptional notation. Tables of comparison make all those minute details easy to appreciate. If anything can be perfect, the new slightly altered system of Panciera is a study in perfection. All the nuances, foibles and tragedies (like erasures of names upon the damnatio memoriae) of epigraphical production and all the sagacities of editorial intervention are accounted for, and provided with a particular symbol. Altogether there are forty different notations the description of which consumes almost three full pages. But perfection is for gods, heroes, and scribes of epigraphy; mere mortals are overwhelmed. Our previous supreme deity, Theodor Mommsen, flourished in a much simpler heaven. LAnne pigraphique makes do with only nineteen notations. A line (or two, or three) of description is more eloquent than the most ingenious bracket. And there are photographs; in the future brave world of cyberspace high resolution photographs will accompany every textual discussion of an epigraph. We should also not underestimate the technical difficulties of the notations; sublinear dots, raised half-brackets and bars above letters (all of them important!) are difficult or impossible to achieve with any standard computer program. But plunge into that varietas notarum we will (if not must); hence a modest proposal: perhaps the office of the Suppl. Ital. and the Publisher of the series, or perhaps the Association Internationale dpigraphie Grecque et Latine, will produce a comprehensive {unicode} computer program for epigraphy and make it commercially available? {so far a cry in the wilderness ...}. In his contribution Panciera also announces two changes in the organization of the supplements: 1) two parts of bibliography (Bibliografia epigrafica and Altra bibliografia essenziale) will now be (very sensibly) amalgamated into one alphabetically arranged list; the specifically epigraphical publications will be marked with the plus sign (+), and other publications with the minus sign (). This latter notation may seem redundant, but it sets out the titles very neatly. 2) The Nuovi testi will now be called, much more appropriately, Monumenti epigrafici reediti o nuovi (for the sake of brevity I will refer to them as Monumenti nuovi). Vol. 8, pp. 2544: BARIUM (Regio IV, Apulia et Calabria) by Marcella Chelotti. Barium (Bari), originally a city of the Peucetii, became in the third century a

480

406

Historia et Epigraphia

Roman ally, and ultimately after the Social War was organized as a municipium ascribed to tribus Claudia. The inscriptions were published again by Mommsen, CIL 9 (1883), 26 texts of which 23 (!) are lost. A good city for St. Nicholas (cf. C. W. Jones, Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan [Chicago 1978], and V. A. Melchiorre, Bari & San Nicola [Bari 1986]), but not a good city for inscriptions. There is also a Greek text in IG 14. Chelotti gives a description of scarce remnants, and a rudimentary bibliography. MONUMENTI NUOVI: 10 texts (3 lost, 2 re-edited). AE 1988 [1991], 36068, recorded 8 of these inscriptions from an earlier publication, inaccurately quoted as M. Chelotti, V. Morizio et M. Silvestrini, La citt in et romana (1988), pp. 439456 (so also in the list of Ouvrages, p. 323). The actual title of the book in question is Archeologia di una citt. Bari dalle origini al X secolo (Bari 1988, edited by G. Andreassi and F. Radina), and the title of the section elaborated by the three scholars mentioned in AE is La documentazione epigrafica (within a broader section entitled indeed La citt in et romana). We may observe that AE 1988, 367, a municipal cursus honorum of C. Baebius, is missing from Suppl. Ital.; the inscription was found between Barium and the neighboring Caelia, and Chelotti has apparently now decided to attribute it to the latter. AE 1990 [1993], 201 (original publication in 1988) oddly enough is not in Chelotti. See now also AE 1991 [1994], 5047 (from Suppl. Ital.), and M. Chelotti, Un nuovo cursus municipale di Bari, Epigrafia e territorio, politica e societ 4 (Bari 1996) 15762, a stone recording the career of Q. [H]erennius C. f. Clau(dia) Aequos who was aed(ilis), IIIIvir iterum and IIIIvir quinq(uennalis), {now in AE 1996 [1999], 427; further texts in 1990 [1993] 201; 2000 [2003], 358}. No. 2 (CIL I2.2978; AE 1991, 504). Perhaps the most important new find, duly destroyed by construction workers (they believed that the cippus because of its tubular shape contained a treasure), a miliarium of L. Gellius L. f. / pr(aetor) d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia) / LII (scil. milia passuum). The most detailed study is still that of the editor princeps L. Moretti, RFIC 100 (1972) 17280, now reprinted in L. Moretti, Tra epigrafia e storia (Roma 1990) 31725. The via (Gellia) will have led from Canusium to Barium; it was probably later subsumed by the via Minucia (cf. now G. Camodeca, M. Aemilius Lepidus, cos. 126 a.C., le assegnazioni graccane e la via Aemilia in Hirpinia, ZPE 115 [1997] 26370, esp. 264, 270, n. 48). This is the first (and so far the only) attestation of an assignment to build a road given to a praetor de senatus sententia. The person in question may have been (as Moretti hesitatingly considers) L. Gellius Poplicola, praetor peregrinus in 94, and consul in 72 (MRR 1.12,116). In any case this inscription and the considerations it evoked ought to have been included in MRR 3 (1986) 99. {Duly recorded by T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic (Oxford / New York 2000) 453.} No. 3 (AE 1988, 361). A mention of a patronus and curator kal(endarii) Barinor(um). Along with curatores rei publicae also the supervisors of municipal account (or interest) books, curatores kalendarii, become ubiquitous in the second and third century. They appear to have been appointed by the emperor, and normally belonged to the municipal aristocracy, as was also the case with our man, C. Licinius, who himself was not an equestrian, but whose seventeen year old son was

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

407

481

exornatus equo publico. On curatores kalendarii, see W. Eck, Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohem Kaiserzeit (Mnchen 1979) 22830, and on curatores rei publicae, M. Sartori, Osservazioni sul ruolo del curator rei publicae, Athenaeum 67 (1989) 520. No. 5 (AE 1991 [1994], 506). Chelotti now reads M. Caesius (?) Cosmus (her earlier reading was Cal[vi]sius; cf. AE 1988, 366). No. 9. A funerary stone (lines 24): Cn. Herrius Se/verus, hort(ator), v(ixit) a(nnis) / XVII. AE 1988, 363, believes it would be preferable to read hort(icola) or hort(illo), un jardinier ou gardien de jardin. Certainly not; Chelottis hortator, the person who beats the drum for the rowers (= pausarius), is the right solution: on the stone there is a representation of a boat. This is the first epigraphical attestation of the term that hitherto was known only from literary sources (we may in passing observe that the entries in Lewis-Short and OLD are very deficient). Vol. 8, pp. 4769: AUFIDENA (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by Marco Buonocore. {See now a new supplement in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 6773}. Aufidena (Castel di Sangro), a city of the Samnites Pentri, was captured by the Romans in 298. We may safely assume that it became a municipium only after 49: it was governed by duoviri, and this structure of administration was typical for the municipia organized after Caesars reform. Its tribe was Voltinia. Aufidena produced rather few texts in Oscan (Buonocore refers the reader to the collections of Vetter and Poccetti); Latin inscriptions were collected by Mommsen, CIL 9 (1883): 37 texts (including instrumentum domesticum), and 1 inscription in Eph. Ep. 8 (1891); 12 are lost. Once again Buonocore gives an excellent assessment of these texts. MONUMENTI NUOVI: 15 texts; 12 new (2 lost); 3 re-edited from CIL (2 lost); 5 recorded in AE (and now 14 in AE 1991 [1994], 53952). No. 5 (AE 1933, 152; 1991, 543). A text in many respects both interesting and instructive: C. Acellius Clemens portic(um) / et saept\a pro ludis Augustalibus / faciend(a) curavit. The ludi Augustales were celebrated in Rome and in the cities of the Empire at the beginning of October in memory of Augustus. Cf. W. D. Lebek, Augustalspiele und Landestrauer, ZPE 75 (1988) 5971. Buonocore is here less accurate: the ludi (scaenici) were established only in 14 C.E. after the death of Augustus and not already in 19 B.C.E.; in that year was established the feast of Augustalia (including the circenses) and of Fortuna Redux commemorating the return of Augustus from the East. Buonocore adduces other epigraphical attestations of various constructions realized pro ludis (or pro impensa ludorum). In our text the porticus and saepta attract attention. For this juxtaposition Buonocore was not able to find any epigraphical parallels; the literary texts he adduces concern the porticus and saepta in Rome. These structures were connected, at least originally, with the voting arrangements in the popular assemblies, but the enclosures (saepta) served also as a place for gladiatorial shows and other exhibitions. This will also have been their function in Aufidena. Vol. 8, pp. 7388: S. VITTORE DI CINGOLI (Regio V, Picenum) by Gianfranco Paci. {And see now the new supplement in Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 15359}. In this

408

Historia et Epigraphia

locality existed a Roman settlement; it may have belonged to Cingulum (see above, vol. 6). If it was a municipium in its own right, its Roman name is unknown. For the inscriptions from S. Vittore (and the surrounding area) Mommsen decided to reserve in CIL 9 (1883) a separate section, and Paci concurs {That we here deal with a separate municipium is now firmly established: the inscription CIL 9.5688 recording the IIviri comes from S. Vittore and not from Cingolo; see Paci Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 15657}. There are in CIL 14 texts; 10 lost. Christian texts now in G. Binazzi, ICI 10, Picenum (1995) 4851 (nos. 246). MONUMENTI NUOVI: 14 texts (7 extremely fragmentary); only 1 lost; and only 1 in AE (but now 4 in AE 1990 [1993], 31316, and 4 in 1991 [1994], 61619). No. 1 (AE 1985, 358; 1987, 344). A lex prohibiting contamination of an area, dated to the consulship of M. Lepidus and L. Arruntius (6 C.E.), and posted d(ecreto) d(ecurionum): Qui intra stercus / fuderit multae a(sses) III d(abit). Paci refers to his detailed discussion in Miscellanea Greca e Romana 12 (1987) 11536. He thinks we here deal with a lex sacra intended to protect a local sanctuary and a healing stream. This need not be so: see the excellent investigation of similar prohibitions by J. Bodel, Graveyards and Groves. A Study of the Lex Lucerina (Cambridge, MA, 1994 = AJAH 11 (1986 [1994]), esp. 3031, 102 (n. 110). He points out that the text does not contain any provision for ritual purification in the event of violations to the area, and thus the area in question need not have been a locus sacer. Vol. 8, pp. 91109: CAESENA (Regio VIII, Aemilia) by Francesca Cenerini. She provides an erudite introduction; for further detail the reader has to turn to one of those marvellous Italian local and scholarly histories, Storia di Cesena, I: LEvo antico (Rimini 1982). The Roman occupation of the territory of Caesena (Cesena) is to be dated to the mid-third century, but the settlement became a municipium probably only in the Sullan era. Bormann suggested (in CIL XI,2,2 [1926], p. 1235) that the tribe of Caesena was Pollia; his argument is, however, faulty, and the tribal assignation of Caesena is still unknown (p. 94). The inscriptions from Caesena were collected by Bormann in CIL 11 (1888 and 1901): 18 texts of which all save three are no more extant. Cenerinis comments (as was the case also with respect to most other contributions to Suppl. Ital.) will be the starting point for any further study of these texts. CIL 11.556 concerns the balneum Aurelianum and, referring to an emperor, perhaps Probus, mentions servata indulgentia pecuniae eius quam deus Aurelianus concesserat. On the concept of indulgentia, cf. M. Corbier, Indulgentia principis: limage e le mot, in M. Mayer (ed.), Religio Deorum (Barcelona 1992) 95123, esp. 11213 (indulgentia and the fiscal remittances). MONUMENTI NUOVI: 9 texts (3 lost; 2 of them lost after being transferred to the Museo di Cesena); 2 re-edited, 2 already in AE, and now 8 texts in AE 1991 [1994], 693701; {2002 [2005] 477}. Vol. 8, pp. 11338: CARREUM POTENTIA (Regio IX, Liguria) by Giovanella Cresci Marrone. This strange collocation of place names derives from Pliny the

482

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

409

Elder, who as the only ancient author mentions (in the ablative) Carrea (var. lect. Correa, Carreo) quod Potentia cognominatur (NH 3.49). Carrea is the reading Mayhoff adopted in his text; Cresci Marrone opts for Carreo, hence the nominative Carreum. As she points out we deal with a combination of the original Celtic name from the root *Karr(o) and the Roman name of good omen Potentia. We do not have any epigraphical document that would spell out the official name of the city, but the two denominations must have in some way coexisted. It is very characteristic that in two (but cf. below) inscriptions in which the city is mentioned, it is the indigenous name that is employed, and this phenomenon explains well its continuation to the present day in the form of the Italian Chieri. In CIL 5.7496 (from Chieri) an augustalis indicates that he performed that office Karrei et Industriae, but it is well to note that the stone was known already to Mommsen only from manuscript tradition, and the reading Karrei (which Cresci Marrone adduces as established) is in fact uncertain; it is true that Mommsen himself inclined to this reading, but he also added rightly and cautiously sed certum quod sit, non habemus. But CIL 6.37202 leaves no doubt: here a praetorian describes his city of origin, in abl., as Carrio. The same man indicates as his tribe Pol(lia), and this will be the tribe of Carreum-Potentia. Its territory bordered on Augusta Taurinorum, Hasta, and two other felicitously named cities, Industria and Pollentia. Of its municipal administration we have no direct account. This rather insignificant place produced rather a good number of inscriptions, some of them not without interest. There are 13 texts in CIL 5 (1877) assembled by Mommsen (7 lost); Cresci Marrone transports to Carreum one (lost) stone from Taurinum (on the strength of the tribal registration, Pollia; but Pollia was the tribe also of several other neighboring communities), and three others which Mommsen classified as Pedemontana incerta. For Christian texts from Carreum Potentia, see now ICI 9 (1995) 110 (nos. 13). MONUMENTI NUOVI. Of these texts 4 figure in CIL, and here are reedited: see esp. no. 1 (5.7493), where in line 1 Cresci Marrone reads [Fon]t\i\, whereas Mommsen thought of [For]tu[nae]; no. 6 (7497) where Mommsen proposed se[xvir] / [Taurin]is, Cresci Marrone more likely [Augustal]is. Next there are 9 new texts (3 lost), none recorded suo tempore in AE (11 texts now in AE 1991 [1994], 71525). Two texts warrant further observations: No. 1 (CIL 5.7493). A dedication to Fons (cf. above), perhaps to [Dia]na, and to Victoria . The dedicant (lines 78) solo suo inter quattuor terminos / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). No. 2 (5.7494, now lost) was apparently another copy of the same dedication, affixed, as Cresci Marrone plausibly suggests, at the other side of the edicola, which was probably placed in the middle of the area. This document is to be considered together with another more recent and fortunate find, the following inscription on a funerary urn (no. 12): quattuor sepulcrum / terminis clusi meum / in fronte pedibus duo / decem / et in agrum s\e\p\tem / ne lis se[pulcr]o fiat / et cineri meo {cf. AE 1998 [2001], 523}. Cresci Marrone comments: Lurnetta era presubilmente posta in unarea sepolcrale di dodici piedi per sette, delimitata da quattro cippi, che recavano con ogni verosimilianza il nome del defunto, oggi perduto. That the full name of the deceased was incised on each of

410

Historia et Epigraphia

483

the four terminal stones is doubtful; we should rather think of a small sarcophagus in the middle of the delimited area containing the urn and bearing an inscribed plate indicating the name of the deceased. The main interest lies, however, in the mention, in both texts, of quattuor termini. This calls to mind the Varronian definition adduced by Servius, ad Aen. 2.512: Varro locum quattuor angulis conclusum aedem docet appellari debere. The broader context of Varros enunciation is lacking, and Servius clearly abbreviates. Varro may have talked of precincts; cf. Festus 146 L. who writes that templum est locus ita effatus aut ita s(a)eptus, ut ex una parte pateat, angulosque (corrected by Valeton to angulosque IIII) adfixos habeat ad terram. But above all the closest parallel is provided by the famous bilingual inscription, Celtic and Latin, found in Vercelli (see the original publication by M. G. Tibiletti Bruno, Rend. Lincei 31 [1976] 37576, and the excellent discussion of the Latin text by P. Baldacci, ibid. 33 [1977] 33548), where we read: fines campo quem dedit Acisius ... comunem [sic] deis et hominibus ita uti lapides IIII statuti sunt. In Vercelli the four stones mark the limits of a sanctuary (a nemeton); in no. 1 the limits of a private locus sacer; and in no. 10 the limits of a locus religiosus. For the various problems connected with terminatio, cf. G. Piccaluga, Terminus. I segni di confine nella religione romana (Roma 1974), esp. 97140; J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW 2.16.2 (1986) 215658, 227479; A. Valvo, Lapides profaneis intus sacrum. Alcune osservazioni intorno a CIL I2 1486, Aevum 61 (1987) 11322. The termini were implanted (statuti, a technical term) openly and officially, and this act was accompanied by religious ceremonies. They were important exhibits in any legal suit concerning property rights (cf. Piccaluga 11018). And indeed in our funerary inscription the deceased expresses a hope that the very presence of terminal stones may avert any future lis from his sepulcrum and cineres. Vol. 8, pp. 141237: BRIXIA, BENACENSES, VALLES SUPRA BENACUM, SABINI, TRUMPLINI, CAMUNNI (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by Albino Garzetti. The inscriptions from Brixia (Brescia) and the neighboring tribal areas were collected by Mommsen in CIL 5 (1872, 1877), and by Pais in his Suppl. Ital. (1888). The whole corpus has been recently reviewed and republished in a truly great edition, with numerous addenda, in the Inscriptiones Italiae, vol. X, regio X, fasc. V, Brixia, partes I, II, III (Roma 1984, 1985, 1986) by A. Garzetti, the author of the present supplement. This supplement is thus a supplement not to CIL but to Inscr. It. It is to this publication that the reader is referred for all information on the inscriptional and institutional history of Brixia and the surrounding areas. Part I contains inscriptions found in Brixia et in suburbio ad III lapidem, part II mostly the stones from ager Brixianus, part III inscriptions found in agro adtributo et in Camunnis, altogether 1281 texts (and 120 falsae, 88 alienae, 4 incertae). To many of these texts Garzetti provides further corrections and new ample literature (pp. 161187), and (exceptionally; cf. S. Panciera, p. 10) even new photographic illustration. If I had to choose a complaint I would complain that amidst various indices Garzetti did not find place either in Inscr. It. or in Suppl. Ital. to indicate how many new inscriptions his collections contain in comparison to CIL and Pais; how many

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

411

inscriptions seen by Mommsen have now disappeared, and how many are known only from manuscript tradition. No. 1. On Aequitas as a goddess of honest measure connected with the market place, see also A. Wallace-Hadrill, Galbas Aequitas, NC 141 (1981) 2039, esp. 29. No. 75. Cf. now a linguistic study of the term aedituus: F. Cavazza, Il significato di aeditu(m)us, e dei suoi presunti sinonimi e le relative mansioni, Latomus 54 (1995) 5861; Gli aggettivi in --tmus e il rapporto fra aedituus ed aeditumus, ibid. 78492. Nos. 95100, the famous imperial fasti that once were displayed on the Capitolium of Brixia. Garzetti provides an important re-evaluation of the disposition of these documents, by and large following the reconstruction by G. Di VitaEvrard, Les fastes imperiaux de Brescia, in Epigrafia 93117. No. 160. On the cognomen Tappo, see C. F. Konrad, Quaestiones Tappulae, ZPE 48 (1982) 21934 at 22427. No. 276: a decurion of Brixia, Verona, Tridentum, also [Nic]omediae. This Asiatic city in the company of the three communities from North Italy is a surprise and anomaly. We need another city from Padania. Surely we have to postulate [Ep]orediae (correcting the m on the stone to r). In the six years since the publication of Inscr. It. there have accrued surprisingly numerous MONUMENTI NUOVI: 44 texts (although many of them small fragments or rock incisions); some 20 inedita; none, it might seem, recorded in AE (but actually no. 22 = AE 1986, 25152, not indicated by Garzetti); now 26 texts are in AE 1991 [1994], 81830, 83435, 83740, 84345, 84748, 85354; this volume of AE displays also 10 further texts published after the conclusion of Garzettis supplement, nos. 83133, 836, 84142, 846, 85052. Further texts in AE 1992 [1995], 744 (recording a re-edition, with commentary, of no. 8 ), 74552 (a new examination of a number of rock inscriptions, mostly from Val Camonica); {1995 [1998], 6035; 1997 [2000], 721; 1998 [2001], 59495; 1999 [2002], 72840; 2000 [2003], 625; 2001 [2004], 106571; 2002 [2005], 570}. See also the monograph by G. L. Gregori, Brescia Romana. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia locale. I. I documenti. {II: Analisi dei documenti} (Roma 1990, {1999} [= Vetera 7, {13}]), and his articles Tra epigrafia e filologia: un gladiatore di nome Rutumanna, Arctos 25 (1991) 4550 (from Val Camonica); Lepigrafia del territorio bresciano, in Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 33354. {Also S. Mollo, LAugustalit a Brescia (= MAL IX,8,3 [1997]); Gli augustali bresciani e le connessioni con llite dirigente di Brescia, in M. Cbeillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les lites municipales de lItalie pninsulaire de la mort de Csar la mort de Domitien entre continuit et rupture (Rome 2000) 34771; La mobilit sociale a Brescia Romana (Milano 2000); J. Zajac, Wyzwolency w antycznej Brixii: studium prozopograficzne [with German summary: Freigelassene in der antiken Brixia: prosopographische Studien] (Torun 2000)}. No. 3 (AE 1991, 821). A baffling text. A dedication to C. Bellicius Primus, v(ir) e(gregius). Lines 56 read: proc(uratori) sacr(ae) annon(ae) / civitat(e) Veronen-

484

412

Historia et Epigraphia

sium. As Garzetti points out, new is the epithet sacra with respect to annona; new is also the denomination of Verona as civitas. But particularly perplexing is the presence of the office of imperial procurator annonae in Verona, a city that does not seem to have played any particular role in the food chain of the Empire. No. 4 (AE 1991, 823). Coll(egium) aen(eatorum), of trumpeters. Other collegia aenatorum are known from Rome (CIL 6.1022021), Casinum and Aquinum (CIL 10.5173; 5415). Cf. Waltzing, Corporations 1.519; 4.45. It is time to conclude, and what better theme offers itself than indices? For without detailed indices all texts but particularly inscriptions are half mute. In the first six volumes of Suppl. Ital. 1181 inscriptions were published. They came from 32 different areas of Italy. Each contribution was provided with its own ample index, but that is not enough. Now in the Indici of Manzella and Lega (see above, vol. 7) we have a useful and usable tool based on an electronic elaboration of the material. First and foremost we have parole in contesto, a Key Word In Context concordance to all vocabula, with an elaborate system of notation employing more than half a century of various sigla, informative and unwieldy. For instance the line *Honori. / Patrone vivas felicem et venerabilem seculo (with the asterisk denoting the beginning of the inscription) receives the following notation: 1 2HIS 003 REa384E5p where 1 signifies the line of the inscription; 2 the volume of the collection; HIS is the abbreviation for Histonium; 003 the number of the inscription; in the second part of the notation the first letter (capital or minuscule) indicates la classe cui appartiene il supporto scrittorio (there are 52 various categories so distinguished, half with capital and half with minuscule letters; R = lastra); the next letter pertains to la materia di cui fatto il supporto (sixteen categories; E = bronzo); the following minuscule letter describes la tecnica di scrittura (fourteen categories; a = a solchi, i.e., engraved); 384 is the date; E denotes the month of May; 5 the day; and p stands for post Christum. The volume also comprises the indexes of numerals, of supporti, materiali, tecniche di scrittura, of dates, and finally extensive concordances with other publications. All in all a splendid instrument for the previous century, but not adequate for the twenty-first century. We need not only an electronically prepared concordance but also and above all a concordance electronically searchable. And we should be able to search not only the inscriptions themselves but also all the accompanying lemmata and commentaries with all the accumulated erudition they contain. Hence it is rather disappointing not to find in the newest Index to Suppl. Ital. (Vol. 14 [1997], covering Vols. 813) even the slightest mention of the electronic future. Still I would not wish to abandon altogether the paper (hard-copy) editions; they offer visual and tactile delight, and are a joy to use. I also hope that from time to time there will be published traditional volumes of supplements to supplements: new inscriptional finds accrue and new interpretations to old texts pile up, and it is difficult to find ones way through this unkempt forest {See now Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 61264: Supplementorum supplementa}. But it is especially in that area

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2

413

that the cyber-realm should lend a helpful pulse. We need electronic editions (on disks and on Internet) not only for a full freedom of search, but also for the usefulness and simplicity of keeping the collection alive, current and growing. And thus animo grato the toast: Ad multos annos chartaceos electronicosque!

31 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY: PART 4*

SUPPLEMENTA ITALICA, NUOVA SERIE, VOLS. 13 and 14 (Edizioni Quasar, Roma 1996 and 1997). Pp. 328, 237.

Despite the asseverations in the previous installment (JRA 11 [1998] 458 {reprinted in this volume, No. 30}) and the solemn resolve to give up analyzing the volumes of Supplementa Italica it is easier to resist the call of the wild than the call of the stones. Thus this writer is back in the lapidarium fortunately sharing the munus with John Bodel. Here two volumes, one of texts and one of indices. SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 13 (1996) This volume comprises five communities, four insignificant or little known and one of some historical fame, with which we begin. Nursia-Ager Nursinus (Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium) by Romano Cordella and Nicola Criniti, pp. 11189. The two authors are well deserving of Nursia (today Norcia) and its patrimonio epigrafico. They won epigraphical gratitude through two earlier publications, Iscrizioni latine di Norcia e dintorni (Spoleto 1982 [henceforth C & C I]) and Nuove iscrizioni latine di Norcia, Cascia e Valnerina (Spoleto 1988 [1989; henceforth C & C II]), in which they illuminated and rescued from oblivion scores of texts. In the first volume they reviewed inscriptions contained in CIL, NSc and AE, re-published many texts still extant, and published a good number of inedita. The other volume brings more stones either unpublished or little known, particularly from the area of Cascia and Valle del Nera (Valnerina). These two volumes remain indispensable for any serious study of Nursia and its territory. They offer commentaries that are often much ampler than those printed in Suppl. Ital.; they display magnificent photographs much superior to the illustrations in the Suppl.; they provide instructive accounts of the erudites from Norcia and of the local tradition of epigraphic studies; finally, each volume has two very welcome chartae: a plan of Norcia and a map of the area of the Nursino and Casciano with indications of inscriptional finds and of the current location of the stones. {After the publication of Suppl. Ital. Cordella and Criniti have pursued their epigraphical harvest: they offer Mantissa Nursina, Epigraphica 62 (2000) 137211, including 24 inedita, and extensive aggiornamenti (cf. AE 2000 [2003], 383400); see also their piece Il patrimonio epigrafico dellager Nursinus e della

Journal of Roman Archaeology 13.2 (2000) 562567 {with addenda and corrections; the original publication contained a note by W. V. Harris, here not included. [Nota bene: Updating the CIL for Italy: part 3 was composed by John Bodel, JRA 11 (1998) 48598]}.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4

415

563

Valnerina. Bilancio di unesperienza, in G. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 20123. On falsae and alienae, see M. Buonocore, Ibid. 11819. For further inedita, see D. Manconi, Epigraphica 63 (2001) 22534}. In CIL IX (1883) the inscriptions from Nursia were collected by T. Mommsen (nos. 45344635, 6353, and 2 falsae of which 411* is now rehabilitated by C & C as no. 44). Here C & C provide the following count (and they also carefully indicate the present location of all extant stones [3741]): out of those 104 inscriptions (they remove two texts as not belonging to Nursia, and split one text into two) only 35 are extant, 69 are lost (see 4264 for a systematic review of all texts published in CIL and a bibliographical aggiornamento). In the section Monumenti epigrafici reediti o nuovi C & C present 162 inscriptions of which 151 (101 extant, 50 lost) were either not included in CIL or are entirely new. Of these texts a good number are listed in AE (1983, 292314; 1988, 47185; 1989, 20131; 1991, 58086 [mostly from C & C I and II]; and 1996 [1999] 52469, from Suppl. Ital.; {and now see AE 2001 [2003], 383400; 2002 [2004], 9017}), practically all longer or more important documents; the remaining are most often merely frustula. In 1878, when Mommsen visited Norcia, which was still suffering from devastations of the great earthquake of 1859, he penned the plaintive words: universum oppidum diruit, pauci tamen tituli supersunt, neque fere ex antiqua hereditae Nursinis quicquam hodie superest praeter nomen (CIL IX, p. 428). The new terrible earthquake of 1979 caused futher destruction, but it also revealed a few inscribed stones which had been hidden in ruined buildings. Thanks to the efforts of local archaeologists and now of Cordella and Criniti, the epigraphical landscape is much more pleasing than it was at the time of Mommsen. In 113 years since the close of CIL IX the number of stones from Nursia has more than doubled; and for the future well-being of lapides there is good news: Cordella and Criniti divulge that both in Norcia and the neighboring Cascia the formal lapidaria will soon be established {cf. Epigraphica 63 (2001) 225}. As a preamble to the stones from Nursia Mommsen in CIL IX (pp. 42728) provided the customary short historical account; we now have to read the instructive introduction of Cordella and Criniti (19-36). It turns out that the Master omitted no less than some twenty literary sources, but above all the Italian scholars pay close and refreshing attention to the tradition of local toponyms. For instance Maltignano clearly continues the family name Maltinius recorded in nos. 1 and 65; Madonna dellAssalto = ad saltus; and rume, the local denomination of due isolate protuberanze del terreno, preserves the memory of the word rumis / ruma (not rumen as in C & C) that was already archaic at the time of Varro: antiquo enim vocabulo mamma rumis and mammae enim rumis (i.e., rumes) ... ut ante dicebant (RR 2.1.20 and 11.5). This persistence of tradition should not surprise us in the Sabine countryside. Nursia came under Roman sway in 290; the viritim assignations followed, the penetration of Roman and Latin elements, and the grant of civitas sine suffragio. In 268 Nursia perhaps proceeded to full citizenship, and in 241 was (re)assigned to the tribus Quirina (at least 18 epigraphic attestations); in 205 it was organized as a prefecture, and after the Social War became a municipium (the

416

Historia et Epigraphia

precise dates and details of this long process are a subject of dispute). A local peculiarity, which Nursia shared with other cities of the Sabini and Vestini, was the board of octoviri, attested in a number of inscriptions; C & C also call attention (2021) to a new text (which they were unable to include in this volume of Suppl. Ital.) recording decuriones (also in no. 27), municipes and praef(ectus) Nur[siae] or praef(ectura) Nur[sina]. The ager of Nursia was quite extensive (2730): to the northeast it bordered on the Picene Falerio and Asculum, to the north, west and southwest on the Umbrian Camerinum, Plestia, Fulginiae, Trebiae, Spoletium and Interamna Nahars, and to the south on the main Sabine center and Varros and Vespasians home-town of Reate. If we were asked today what is Nursias greatest title to fame the answer would certainly be: Sanctus Benedictus. The cathedral of St. Benedict adorns the city, and there is also the church of S. Scolastica, the (perhaps mythical) sister of the founder of the monastery of Monte Cassino (on the local hagiography, see C & C I, 21, 78; II, 24748 ). According to the Passio Sancti Feliciani this martyr was bringing the light of faith to Nursia as early as the third century; but this passio is tarda e malfida, and the first positively attested bishop of Nursia was active at the end of the fifth century, at the time of Benedicts youth (21). Still, it is surprising that no ancient Christian inscription was found in the city (22, and cf. the comment to no. 99. A Christian inscription [now lost] has, however, been unearthed in Valle del Nera: see C & C II, 201). Yet it would be unfortunate if that late monastic fame overshadowed the previous eight centuries of history. For Nursia can boast of a distinction few cities in Italy have achieved: one of its sons has gained entry to that most exclusive club of the Romans, the Parallel Lives of Plutarch, where he is paired with another illstarred loser, Eumenes. Q. Sertorius was born and educated in Nursia (Plut., Sert. 2; cf. the excellent discussion by C. F. Konrad, Sertorius. A Historical Commentary [Chapel Hill 1994] 34-39), an example of Nursina duritia (Fronto, Princ. hist. p. 205 Naber = 207 van den Hout {Teubner 1988}); the epithet is exquisitely chosen for it is redolent of Catos celebration (cf. below, no. 18) of hard labor in the Sabine fields (Fronto was an avid reader of Cato). No epigraphic monuments of the republican gens Sertoria are on record, but we know of the efforts of local patriots to remedy this situation (cf. C & C II, 55 on the local tradition and myth of Sertorius). In 1985 Cordella published the account of a 17th century manuscript by G. Rosa, containing indications of various inscribed texts. Six of them are now reproduced as nos. 1*6*, rightly branded with the asterisks of falsehood. Among them no. 1* (cf. C & C II, 23), engraved (so Rosa) on a seal around the image of a doe (the famous cerva alba): Q. Sertorius / P.V.S.S. But in epigraphy one should never abandon hope, and indeed the gens Sertoria has at long last appeared on a genuine local stone, unfortunately only in a late and libertine shape, no. 82: Q. Sertorius Q. [l.] / Eutichus (sic) / Sertoria Q. l. / Antiopa (AE 1983, 292, is incorrect). And there is also Q. Sertorius / Rufus (no. 83; AE 1988, 485), from G. Rosas manuscript, a mattone, perhaps genuine. A century and a half after the death of Sertorius another family from Nursia was to leave its mark on history. Suetonius (Vesp. 1.3) reports that Vespasia Polla,

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4

417

564

mother of the emperor, Nursiae honesto genere orta patrem habuit Vespasium Pollionem, ter tribunum militum praefectumque castrorum. The marriage of Vespasia Polla to T. Flavius Sabinus of Reate was an alliance of two families of notables from two adjoining cities. Yet in CIL IX there is no record of Vespasii, though the homestead of that clan, Vespasiae, locus ... ad sextum miliarium a Nursia Spoletium euntibus ... ubi Vespasiorum complura monumenta extant (Suet., Vesp. 1.3) is perhaps still dimly recognizable in the modern place name of Forca Vespia (C & C II, 59). This stony silence was almost broken with the rediscovery in 1977 (the text figured in the manuscripts of P. Paris and G. Sordini from the beginning of the 20th century) and the publication in 1982 (C & C I, 74, fig.46) of this insignificant fragment encased in a wall of a private house: ]AS[ / ]STI[ / ]MA[. Not much could be made of these letters, but Cordella and Criniti persisted; the stone was cleared, the left side came into view (as it was seen by Sordini), an impressive and eloquent specimen of lettering (C & C II, 5859, fig. 31): ]SPAS[ / ]CASTR\[ / ]RIMA[. Armed with their copy of Suetonius C & C were now able to produce (in 1988 [1989]) the following reconstruction: [- Ve]spas[io - f(ilio) Qui(rina tribu) Pollioni] / [praef(ecto)] castr\(orum) [trib(uno) mil(itum) III/ [? P]rima [?]. In the last line queries remained, but fortunately the fragment attracted the keen eye of Gza Alfldy; in 1987 he visited Nursia, cleared line 3 (in the meantime again covered over), and also with Suetonius in hand presented a superior text and a magnificent historical elucidation (ZPE 77 [1989] 15560): [-. Ve]spas[io -. f(ilio) Qui(rina) Pollioni], / [praef(ecto)] castr[or(um), tribuno militum] / [leg(ionis) p]rima[e et ]. The two reconstructions were produced simultaneously and independently, but the Italian scholars recognized Alfldys mastery, and adopted his text (with some minor and rather unnecessary alterations) for reproduction in Suppl. Ital. (no. 16). The grandfather of Vespasian now again bestrides his home town, but we are still waiting for the appearance in Nursia of the emperors mother (she is probably present at the neighboring Spoletium where she seems to have erected a dedication to Caligula, CIL XI 4778). C & C (I, 65 and fig. 83; II, 5556, with a minor correction) note as a curiosity and as an example of local pride a statue of giovinetto togato con testa femminile with a modern (probably 18th century) inscription: Vespasia Polla Nursina / Vespas(ia)ni imperatoris mater. At the time when Sertorius was a falling and fallen star, and the rise of the Vespasii was still in the future, the pride of place in Nursia may have belonged to the Peducaei, known today perhaps only to the most devoted aficionados of prosopography and of Cicero. In De finibus (2.58) Cicero tells an uplifting story: C. Plotius, eques Romanus splendidus, Nursinus, bequeathed his property to Sex. Peducaeus son of Sextus, but moriens asked him to return it to his wife. There was no written record, and yet Peducaeus ultro ad mulierem venit eique nihil opinanti viri mandatum exposuit hereditatemque reddidit. There are two points: moral and legal. Legally we are dealing with a fideicommissum, and such instruments were at the time of Cicero not enforceable, and yet, because of the restrictions of the lex Voconia, this was the only way of ensuring the passage of ones estate to a woman

418

Historia et Epigraphia

565

(cf. A. Watson, The law of succession in the later Roman republic [Oxford 1971] 3638). The moral point is that Peducaeus did not fail his friend. There is, of course, a prosopographic point. C. Plotius hailed from Nursia (on stones this family is twice mentioned at Nursia: CIL IX 4585 and 4588), and R. Syme conjectured (Historia 13 [1964] 121 = Roman papers II [Oxford 1979] 599) that Plotius friend Sex. Peducaeus (and his, according to Cicero, equally upright son) were also the products of Nursia. This Peducaeus was praetor in 77, and thus Nursia would have acquired its first senatorial family for it is very likely that Sex. Peducaeus, tr. pl. of 113 was an ancestor of the praetor (cf. F. Mnzer, RE 19 [1937] 4751; T. P. Wiseman, New men in the Roman senate [Oxford 1971] 250). To bolster his case, Syme points out that the Peducaei are epigraphically attested in Nursia. The document in question is CIL IX 4582; it was published by Mommsen only on the basis of the manuscript tradition. The stone re-appeared in 1979, and, re-published, now resides in Suppl. Ital. as no. 72 (cf. C & C I, 4244 and fig. 17). We encounter there (with several ligatures) Q. Peducaeu(s) St(atii) f(ilius) and T. Peducae(us) St(atii) f(ilius), apparently two brothers. There also appears Septumiena T. f., probably the wife of one of the brothers. We are in this text in a solidly Italic milieu: observe the Oscan praenomen Statius (cf. O. Salomies, Die rmischen Vornamen [Helsinki 1987] 9091), and the family name Septumienus, here attested for the first time. This does not look like a senatorial family. Now a Q. Peducaeu(s) P. f. Augur is on record in Spoletium; as a municipal priest he must have belonged to the local aristocracy (CIL XI 4902; cf. D. Ladage, Stdtische Priester- und Kultmter im lateinischen Westen des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit [Kln 1971] 4764). The senatorial clan may as well have had its domicile in this town, which would also explain quite satisfactorily their close ties with the Nursine Plotii. It is true that the praetors honorable comportment conforms very well to the idea of Sabine honesty, but when C & C speak of la gens senatoria nursina Peducaea (55; and cf. II, 29, where they list all important or rather semi-important republican members of the gens) they turn into fact what is, alas, only a likely possibility. The unusual Septumiena reminds us of another and peculiar Nursia: an incubator of onomastic hapax legomena or grafomena. To give a list: Audenus, Caesiarus, Holvienus, Instadius, Mentedius, Pompuedius, Pulsinienus, Satriarius, Tettidenus, Titedienus, Tittidienus, Vettidienus (cf. H. Solin and O. Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum [Hildesheim 1988, with Supplement 1994]). Nursia can also boast of two inscriptions among the strangest in Latin epigraphy. The first (CIL IX 4599, republished with corrections as no. 4; cf. AE 1983, 295; 1989, 202) is a dedication to Hercules Victor to avert the eclipse of the moon or of the sun (depending on the reading in line 4): quone Lunam / [a]uferat or [i]nferat Solis / lumen sectu[m]. {G. Alfldy, Eine Sonnenfinsternis in Nursia, in H. Khler, H. Grgemanns, M. Baumbach (eds.),Strmend auf finsterem Pfad .... Ein Symposion zur Sonnenfinsternis in der Antike (Heidelberg 2000) 99111, argues forcefully for the solar eclipse, expanding his earlier remarks in ZPE 77 (1989) 16067, and reading in line 4 [i]n\ferat}. The other (no. 23, a re-publication of CIL IX 4549) if not a fake, is an advertisement (so, convincingly, G. Alfldy, ZPE 77 [1989] 16776) of a stone-cutter bent upon presenting to prospective cus-

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4

419

tomers a specimen of his art, the engravings of various names and titles, probably on purpose a very odd assemblage figuring next to the mundane vixit ann(is) XXIII and the normal magistro iuvenum, the odd convocato VIIvir(o) and the enigmatic or monstrous sefitio socurtali. We cannot stay forever in this epigraphic heaven of oddities for behind each odd name hides a real person, and human affairs always end in death and sorrow. And nowhere is this better expressed than on Roman tombstones. We hasten to no. 18 (AE 1989, 228). The stone is broken on all sides; it is an epitaph costruito in prosa commatica e ritmica, con vocabolario abbastanza ricercato ed inusuale. In lines 56 we encounter pater III liber\or\[um ] / [ i]n\felicissimus. Lines 24 offer a literary puzzle: [] suum ad cultum agror[um ] / []t\iam et fidem maximis opib\[us ] / [ f]rugalitate et parsimonio []. C & C propose to supply in line 3 [con]stantiam or [sub]stantiam (the latter on the basis of CIL VIII 27587 = CLE 1869, lines 23: qui partam nimia frugalitate substantiam / in diem mortis servavit incolumem sibi), and observe that the word parsimonium is rare (parsimonia is, of course, frequent), as is also the combination of parsimonium / parsimonia with frugalitas (no example in CLE). At C & C II, 16970 they offer a fuller commentary, and note that in glossaries parsimonia is often glossed as frugalitas (see G. Goetz, Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum 7: Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatus 2 [Lipsiae 1901] 51). The search in The Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank revealed frugalitas and parsimonia appearing side by side in Seneca (Dial. 9.9.1, significantly in the company of opes; Ep. 56.10; 88.30) and Fronto (Ad Verum Imp. p. 111 van den Hout [Teubner 1988]). For this contribution my computer deserves credit, but already a first glance at the inscription recalled a famous text, amazingly neglected both by C & C and the learned editors of AE (1989, 228). It is Catos proud self-praise in his speech De suis virtutibus contra <L.>Thermum: Ego iam a principio in parsimonia atque in duritia atque industria omnem meam adolescentiam abstinui, agro colendo, saxis Sabinis, silicibus repastinandis atque conserendis (E. Malcovati, ORF2, 51, frag. 128). It is immediately apparent that our epitaph contains an echo, even imitation, of Catos lines, so appropriate in the Sabine countryside of Nursia. Septempeda (Regio V, Picenum) by Silvia Maria Marengo, pp. 193228). This small community (today San Severino Marche) played absolutely no rle in Roman history; it produced, so it appears, no senatorial family; and yet despite or because of this insignificance, it is very representative of the Italy that was becoming Roman. Again following in the footsteps of Mommsen, Marengo presents Septempeda with a sure hand (196201). Situated in the central valley of Potenza, its closest but distant Roman neighbor was the colonia Firmum founded in 264. The epigraphic record in Septempeda begins only in the first century B.C.E. Normal uncertainties abound: the liber coloniarum (I, pp. 240 [not 239], 258 Lachmann) describes Septempeda as oppidum; on stones it appears as a municipium governed by duoviri. This peculiarity allows us to recognize in Septempeda an old prefecture: as U. Laffi has shown this board was characteristic of the cities that before the Social War possessed no municipal structure (see JRA 11 [1998] 476

420

Historia et Epigraphia

566

{reprinted above, No. 30}). Marengo rightly concurs. Thus the presence of duoviri in no way implies the status of a colony, although Mommsen on the basis of CIL IX 5630 intended to raise Septempeda to that rank. The inscription reads (Marengo re-edits it as no. 17): []a (mulieris) l. / []ritio / []us col. In the Index (p. 784) Mommsen supplied [patro]nus col[oniae], quite inaccurately for there is no n on the stone, and he repeated this assertion in his historical account of the town (p. 533). Marengo objects, and she carries the day. We deal in this text with lowly folks, a freedwoman (l. 1), a freedman or a slave (l. 2), and it is most unlikely that a patron of the colony should have been in any way involved with these people. Thus in line 3 probably hides a col(onus), a tenant. Mommsen collected in CIL IX (1883) 72 texts (55735643, and 7 falsae); one text was later published in Eph. Ep. 8 (1899) no. 829; since Mommsens time 8 stones have disappeared. In the section of Monumenti nuovi Marengo edits 20 documents (4 lost, 3 re-editions of CIL, 6 in AE, and see now AE 1996 [1999], 57987bis from Suppl. Ital.). No. 1 attracts attention, a dedication to Iuppiter Iuventus, only the second occurrence of that combination (cf. CIL XI 3245 from Sutrium). Nos. 5 and 15 bring new names: Ruficanius and Oplelius. The lapides in Septempeda can smile: in 1972 they received a new epigraphic museum. {In the meantime Septempeda acquired its most important inscription: the badly mutilated but precious fasti consulares for the years 7882, providing firm dates for a number of suffecti. The inscription (discovered in the 1930s!), was published with an extensive commentary by S. M. Marengo, Fasti Septempedani, Picus 18 (1998) 6388, and admitted to AE 1998 [2001], 419}. Vardacate (Regio IX, Liguria) by Giovanni Mennella (epigraphy) and Emanuela Zanda (historical introduction) (pp. 23149). Today Casale Monferrato / Terruggia (province of Alessandria), though the exact location of the center of the ancient city remains uncertain; uncertain also is its precise name: Vardacate (so in most texts) or Vardagate (only in CIL V 4484 = Insc. It. X.5.275, the form preferred by W. V. Harris, Athenaeum 59, [1981] 351, n. 61). The Romans appeared in the area with the campaigns in 125124 of the consul M. Fulvius Flaccus; he seems to have established various fora and conciliabula. Ultimately Vardacate, its territory astride the Po, attained the status of a municipium (CIL V 7452), and was inscribed into the tribe Pollia, as were also the neighboring towns of Hasta, Industria and Forum Fulvii. The inscriptions from Vardacate were published by Mommsen in CIL V (1877), nos. 744967 (nos. 745455 and 7463 corrected by Pais, Suppl. Ital. [1888] nos. 94951). Of these 19 texts Mennella removes 7 to Hasta (745662) and 5 to Industria (746366 [so on p. 240; inaccurate on p. 238]), of the remaining 7 only 4 are extant. Monumenti nuovi bring 6 pieces (no. 4 is a re-edition of CIL V 7449; one lost; only one in AE, but see now AE 1996 [1999], 67476). Of these texts of interest is a dedication to Constantine (no. 2), but above all the famous rescript from Vardacate (no. 1, pp. 24042, with a photograph that could be better), originally published in 1942, later discussed only occasionally, most recently and excellently by W. V. Harris, The imperial rescript from Vardagate, Athenaeum n.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4

421

s. 59 [= 69] (1981) 33852, who was also able to examine the bronze table itself. The rescript is addressed to a Clodius Secundus and concerns the munera of freedmen. The main controversy concerns its date and author. Harris argued that the rescript almost certainly belonged to Nerva; Mennella objects (242). In response to Mennellas comments W. Harris composed an extensive note in which he restated and amplified his earlier argument {here not included; see the original publication, pp. 56667}.
567

Forum Germa( ) (Regio IX, Liguria) by Enrica Culasso Gastaldi (historical introduction) and Giovanni Mennella (epigraphy) (pp. 25192). This is the place most epigraphers would wish to be: its full name is uncertain, and equally uncertain is its location. CIL V 7832 displays Foro Ger() / IIvir bis, and 7836 reads cur(atori) r(ei) p(ublicae) Germa[]. The text Monumenti nuovi no. 9 (with the name of Diocletian erased and replaced by that of Constantine) has ordo Germa() / cum plebe. Mommsen (CIL V, p. 910) did not hesitate to restore Germa(norum), and one wonders what other possibilities there might be (Germani, Germanici, Germaniciensium?). Culasso Gastaldi alludes to other proposals, but chose not to divulge them (25960; to find an answer we have to consult an article in Bolletino della Societ per gli Studi Storici, Archeologici e Artistici della Provincia di Cuneo, certainly easily available in Turin, but not in many places beyond the Alps and the ocean). On the basis of the findspot of CIL V 7832, Mommsen proposed to locate Forum Germ. in the locality S. Damiano in the valley of Maira, which had the important consequence of assigning the town to the province of Alpes Maritimae, where it also duly figures in the atlas of Kiepert. Two other stones mentioning the town (CIL V 7836 and no. 9) were, however, found in San Lorenzo di Caraglio (where also were uncovered le significative indicazioni archeologiche), and it is to this locality that the Forum Germ. is now assigned; it thus moved closer to Pollentia and Augusta Bagiennorum, and migrated from Alpes Maritimae to Liguria. {See now E. Sauer, Forum Germanorum in NorthWest Italy: the Home Community and Life of Arguably the Earliest Known Legionary Veteran in Britain, OJA 24 (2005) 199214, with a detailed discussion of the name of the settlement and of its location. The title of the article would seem to suggest that the mystery of the exact denomination of this community has been finally solved, but this is, alas, not the case: a funerary inscription found at Alchester in Oxfordshire records L. Val(erius) L(uci filius) Pol(lia tribu) Geminus For(o) Germ. vet(eranus leg(ionis) [I ]I Aug(ustae). Thus again the name of the city depends on the expansion we choose to select. Sauer makes a very good case for Forum Germ(anorum) and for its location in the ninth region (Liguria)}. The inscriptions were edited by Mommsen in CIL V (1877) 783146, and 1 falsa; by Pais in Suppl. Ital. (1888), nos. 101113; by Ferrua, Insc. It. IX.1 (1948) nos. 2089, attributed by him to Augusta Bagiennorum and Pollentia, now assigned to Forum Germ. (Mennella, p. 251, by a lapsus calami, attributes to Forum Germ. also inscriptions 71427208, which Mommsen classified as Pedemontanae incertae, and also falsae 883*1005*, which Mommsen placed in Pollentia and Aug. Bagiennorum. None of these stones is discussed in Aggiunte e correzioni, 26972).

422

Historia et Epigraphia

There are 19 Monumenti reediti o nuovi: 6 are re-published from CIL or Inscr. It.; 9 figured in AE. {See now AE 1998 [2001], 4041}. Altogether the patrimonio epigrafico of this uncertain place comprises 34 pieces, of which only five are lost. Nos. 15 and 16 attract attention; they display a fine collection of epichoric names: Veconus L\u\lonius Carant(i) f(ilius); Dircon\[is f(ilia)] Disia uxor, Ulatun\[us] f(ilius) et Enist[alus] f(ilius), eloquent testimony to the persistence of pre-Roman elements. Pedona (Regio IX, Liguria) by Enrica Culasso Gastaldi (historical introduction) and Giovanni Mennella (epigraphy) (pp. 293328). This town is certainly to be placed in Borgo S. Dalmazzo in the borderland between Alpes Maritimae and Liguria (a statio quadragesimae was located there, CIL V 7852; and Monumenti nuovi, nos. 5 and 8; {cf. J. France, Quadragesima Galliarum [Rome 2001] 7075}), with Mommsen assigning it to the former and Culasso Gastaldi to the latter. Mommsen calls the place Pedo (CIL V, p. 912), but this form is actually not attested; attested is Pedona, although only in some late Passiones (Cassiod., Var. 1.36: in Pedonensi civitate is inconclusive), and it is this form that Culasso Gastaldi and Mennella adopt. In CIL V (1877) Mommsen published 17 texts (784864); five stones are now reassigned from Augusta Bagiennorum and Pollentia (Ferrua, Insc. It. IX.1, nos. 9195). There are 20 Monumenti nuovi (17 pieces) o reediti (3), thus altogether 37 texts (and 2 anepigrapha), of which 11 are lost; of new and republished texts 9 were reproduced in AE. {See now new readings and new inscriptions in AE 1998 [2001], 542; 1999 [2002], 67778}. As in the neighboring Forum Germ., the pre-Roman elements are very conspicuous in local onomastics; no. 7 (AE 1982, 375) reads: Nicus / Roucarius / Dissi f(ilius) / decurio. Mennella (ad loc.) and Culassi Gustaldi (3023, 308) point out that our decurio, as shown by the form of his name, is a peregrinus, and thus the document belongs to the period before the grant to the Pedonenses of full citizenship (and the ascription of the city to the tribus Quirina); when this occurred cannot be established with precision (mid or late first century). SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 14 From Nursia, and from the Alpine nooks and crannies, we proceed to the volume that encapsulates, sums up, and makes easily accessible the mountain of information and erudition assembled in vols. 813, to the series of laborious Indici composed by Claudia Lega. Pp. 1523 contain Correzioni ai volumi 813, mostly minor. I only note that the text vol. 8, S. Vittore di Cingoli, no. 4, forms a joint with CIL IX 5688 = CIL I 1424. As to the indices themselves, they are arranged according to the same principle as the indices to vols 16 (vol. 7), for which see JRA 11 (1998) 484 {= No. 30 above}. In response to my observations, Silvio Panciera kindly sent a letter of clarification {11 Dec. 1998} with which I am happily in agreement. The point is not

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4

423

the electronic elaboration of this or other epigraphic collection but precisely as Panciera puts it elegantly una coordinata memorizzazione di tutto il materiale epigrafico.

32 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY: PART 5*

SUPPLEMENTA ITALICA. NUOVA SERIE, VOLS. 16, 17 (Edizioni Quasar, Rome 1998, 1999). Pp. 398, 205.

For previous installments, see (1): JRA 3 (1990) 31320 {= RQ 40714, 665}; (2): 11 (1998) 45884 {= in this volume, No. 30}; (3): 11 (1998) 48598 (by J. Bodel); (4): 13.2 (2000) 56267 {= in this volume, No. 31}; {for (6), comprising Suppl. Ital. vol. 15, see J. Bodel, JRA 16 (2003) 48294}. The series moves on at a brisk pace, and will be concluded by the end of this century, when a new series of supplements and reviews will be needed. This we leave to the care of others; the task at hand is posed by the two volumes comprising an array of varied communities from 5 regions of Italy, most of them lowly but none unimportant. SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 16 (1998) In this volume we begin our tour of Italy in Latium and proceed northward to Etruria, Venetia and Transpadana. Aletrium (Regio I, Latium et Campania) by L. Galli (new inscriptions) and G. L. Gregori (historical introduction and aggiornamento of old texts) (pp. 1390). Mommsens introduction in CIL X (1883), p. 566, is now solidly supplemented by Gregori with ample discussion of modern literature (he also provides copious annotations to the CIL texts). Aletrium (modern Alatri) was originally a city of Hernici, although some scholars advocate an Etruscan etymology of the name. The Romans invaded the area in 354, annexed a large tract (the Latium adiectum), but Aletrium remained formally independent as a civitas foederata. The Aletrinates (for the ethnicon, see CIL X 58089) had the good sense not to rebel against Rome, and the building activity in the II/I c. testifies to their profits from Romes conquests. It appears that they became Roman citizens only in the wake of the Social War; oddly enough we do not know for certain their tribal registration (though on the basis of CIL X 5882 I would still opt for Publilia) nor can one easily define the limits of their territory with respect to the neighboring communities of Treba, Anagnia, Ferentinum (cf. JRA 3 [1990] 315), Frusino and Verulae. The Arpinum of Cicero was not far away, and Cicero indeed mentions meos vicinos et amicos Aletrinatis

Journal of Roman Archaeology 14 (2001) 513535 {with addenda and corrections}.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

425

514

(Clu. 56, cf. 49). The family name of the two rogues (so Cic., Clu. 46) C. et L. Fabricii fratres gemini ... ex municipio Aletrinati is not on the local stones. The Liber coloniarum (Grom. vet. I, p. 230, ed. Lachmann) places at Aletrium (very characteristically calling it Alatri, a forerunner of the modern name) muro ducta colonia and informs us that ager eius per centurias et strigas est adsignatus. There are no epigraphical testimonies of a colonia; Aletrium is solidly a municipium (CIL X 5808). But there are indeed traces of centuriation in the area, though closer to Frusino and Verulae than to Aletrium. G. Chouquer and F. Favory tried to bolster with this evidence the notice in the Liber coloniarum;1 Gregori remains skeptical. Most recently B. Campbell declares the evidence of the grid very uncertain and impossible to date.2 In CIL X Mommsen published 21 inscriptions (and 24 falsae); in Eph. Ep. 8 (1899) there are 2 texts (8 lost). Monumenti nuovi contain 57 items (many of them small frustula), 13 lost. There are 4 inedita, 2 stones from CIL X substantially refurbished, 2 republished from CIL I2, and only 4 recorded in AE. {See now AE 1998 [2001], 295333, from Suppl. Ital.}. This is in fact a secondo aggiornamento. The stones from Alatri had the good fortune to attract the attention of the young Lidio Gasperini: Aletrium 1: I documenti epigrafici (Alatri 1965). Among the new texts several stand out because of their language, subject or difficulty. No. 1 (an ineditum), a lex sacra, will discomfit a host of exegetes. The stone is fully preserved in its upper part; the lower part is diagonally broken off. The first two lines read: Deis Indicit(ibus) / agnum marem. Into the controversy concerning the Indigetes this is not the place to enter. As to the form of the name, Galli observes that it might be dativo plurale di una forma arcaica, o errata. The spelling with c may be a learned archaism, and for i (in place of e), cf. indigito, indigitamenta, but the best parallel is offered by the various spellings of the name of the goddess Angitia: Ancitie, Anceta, Anacta, Anaceta, Anagtia.3 In lines 26 we have:
F\ucino pe\c(us) a vi / Summano pec(us) a\ v[i] / Fiscello pec(us) a\ [vi] / Tempestat\[ibus ] / Iovi [ ].

Fucinus is the deity of the lake of the same name in the country of the Marsi, Fiscellus will be the deity (here attested for the first time) of Mons Fiscellus (Gran Sasso in the Abruzzi at 2912 m.), Summanus is the god of nocturnal thunderbolts; Tempestates and Iuppiter do not require any special explanation. Galli ingeniously combines these deities with transhumance routes, and concludes: le vittime immolate potevano costituire una sorta di pedaggio e di garanzia per il resto delle greggi che i pastori conducevano attraverso il territorio di Alatri. His explanation of the formula pec(us) a vi is, however, entirely off the mark: da intendere forse come una pecora inviolata, hostia pura, come lagnus mas. Vis can indeed mean impeto
1 2 3 In Structures agraires en Italie centro-mridionale. Cadastres et paysages ruraux (Rome 1987) 11923. The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors (London 2000) 414. See G. Radke, Die Gtter Altitaliens (Mnster 1965) 6566.

426

Historia et Epigraphia

sessuale, but we are not dealing here with the word vis per se, but rather with the phrase a vi, and the electronic searches produced no example of the application of this phrase in the sense required by Galli. His other suggestions a(nnorum) VI or pe<i>c(um) avi(m) = picum avem, he himself regards as unlikely or desperate, particularly the last one, as there is a space on the stone between a and vi. Now if we follow the teaching of Epicurus metus omnis a vi atque ira deorum pulsus esset (Cic., Nat.D. 1.45, and see ad loc. the comment of Pease). The shepherds were not Epicureans, and they were very much afraid of vis atque ira deorum. In another passage Cicero lamely comforts P. Cornelius Lentulus (Fam. 1.4.3):
ego tibi a vi, hac praesertim imbecillitate magistratuum, praestare nihil possum: vi excepta possum confirmare te et senatus et populi Romani summo studio amplitudinem tuam retenturum.

But the pastores could do something to forestall the divine vis and retain the amplitudo of their flocks: offer preemptive sacrifices to gods of lakes and mountains, to gods of storms and to thunderboltwielding gods of night and day. The locution a vi is thus naturally and easily to be understood as referring to each of the deities specified: we offer you pecus, o Fuscinus (etc), to be liberated from your vis. For the Indigetes the offering was specifically agnus mas; the other deities would apparently be satisfied with any pecus. The unspecified pecus appears in sacrificial contexts not infrequently in literary sources (TLL s.v. 947, lines 5971); of agnus mas there seem to be only two attestations (TLL s.v. 136364), Liv. 28.11.3 (in a report of prodigium: agnus mas idem feminaque natus), and Fest. 204.1718 L. (formally very much to the point, for allegedly in a lex sacra of Numa Pompilius: Ianui Quirino agnum marem caedito). No. 2 (= AE 1922, 100), inscription on an altar: Deum / Penatium. The beginning of line 3 is erased; at the end the letters ]eri are visible. But e may stand in ligature, and perhaps we should read Al]etri(natium). The electronic search has revealed 5 instances of the gen. deorum Penatium, and 6 of deum Penatium. It is the latter form that seems to have figured in official formulas and denominations (see esp. Varr., LL 5.54; RGDA 19; 35.2; Asc., in Scaur. 21 C.). No. 14. A small fragment, given to the Museo Civico in 1931, copied by A. Degrassi in 1940, and subsequently lost. Probably it reads: aquam in oppi[dum ] / Pegasus Augus[]. The last line offers a problem and a pseudoproblem. Should we read Augus[ti l(ibertus) or Augus[tal(is)? This is a legitimate question, and of difficult solution. Galli points out that in Aletrium there are known only VIviri Augustales but not Augustales, and for that reason he opts for Augus[ti l(ibertus). A good argument but not entirely cogent: we know of a number of cities, also in Latium, where Augustales and seviri Augustales existed side by side.4 Pegasus was engaged in an act of civic munificence: he probably built or refurbished an aqueduct. A good thing to do for a rich augustalis but also for an imperial freedman. It so happens that in Aletrium (CIL X 5808) decuriones, seviri, municipes and incolae are on record honoring C. Iulius Augusti l(ibertus) on
4 See R. Duthoy, Les *Augustales, ANRW 2.16.2 (1978) 1261, n. 48.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

427

515

account of his (unspecified) merita (cf. pp. 3839). The appetite to discover stony traces of famous people is insatiable. E. V. Marmorale (GIF 18 [1965] 97116) wished to see in our Pegasus the famous jurisprudent of the Flavian era.5 Marmorales conceit he claimed that the name Pegasus was borne only by freeborn is fanciful (cf. G. Paci, Epigraphica 38 [1976] 7479). The name is rare but apt for things one wishes to be swift: boats, horses and slaves. The jurisprident (who was also a consul, imperial councillor and praefectus urbi) received his surname after the name of the liburna his seafaring father commanded (Schol. Iuv. 4.77). There are several Pegasi, the circus horses.6 And there are two slaves from the domus of Sergia Paulina, the nicely paired brothers Eudromus and Pegasus (AE 1972, 63).7 Rusellae (Regio VII, Etruria) by S. Conti (pp. 93192). Rusellae (Grosseto), and all other cities of Etruria, pose a thorny problem for a historian and epigrapher. They present a double patrimonio, Etruscan and Roman, and two sets of inscriptions, Etruscan and Latin. For a true history of such a city, of its inhabitants and its onomastics, it would be ideal to have at hand, in one place, all the evidence, from all periods, and in all languages. For practical reasons this is hardly possible. The Suppl. Ital. provides ex professo a home for Latin inscriptions only. Nevertheless one still misses in the chapter on Rusellae (and also in other chapters, cf. JRA 3 [1990] 318, on Marruvium and its Italic heritage) a mention of non-Roman documents, a word of direction where to seek them, or a note on their relation to Latin documents.8 In the Monumenti nuovi there appear three Etruscan names only: Aco, Afonas and Resinna (nos. 3, 51) a triumph of Romanization. Latin inscriptions from Rusellae were published by E. Bormann in CIL XI (1888) and (posthumously) in XI, 2 (1926): only 15 texts (4 lost). There are no falsae. Conti removes 2619 (= 7256) to Rome (a possibility already considered, and rejected, by Bormann), and (following D. Manacorda) he transfers 7251 to Cosa. Difficult to believe, systematic excavations at Rusellae began only in 1959 but the results have been spectacular. The current supplement brings 135 inscriptions (finally 1 falsa, 38 ineditae; 12 lost). Even if we exclude some 60 snippets (often with only one or two letters) the epigraphic patrimony has thus increased with respect to CIL fourfold, and by the same measure is enlarged also our knowledge
5 To identify this person Galli adduces only the antiquated entry in PIR1; he missed the brilliant and seminal article by E. Champlin, ZPE 31 (1978) 26978; cf. now PIR2 VI (1998) 21920 (P 512), with ample literature. See the list in M. Darder Lissn, De nominibus equorum circensium. Pars occidentis (Barcelona 1996) 208. See the new edition with a short commentary by L. Avetta, in Roma Via Imperiale (= Tituli 3 [Roma 1985]) 102, no. 71. For the phenomenon of pairing, see H. Solins delightfully erudite Namenpaare (Helsinki 1990). He does not adduce this example, though he lists the names in Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom (Berlin 1982) 394; Die stadtrmischen Sklavennamen (Stuttgart 1996) 307. All Etruscan inscriptions from Rusellae, with further bibliographical indications, are reproduced in H. Rix, Etruskische Texte II (Tbingen 1991) 13032. They are also listed by A. Zavaroni at his Internet site Philologia Etrusca.

6 7

428

Historia et Epigraphia

of Roman Rusellae. Fortunately for Rusellae most of important new inscriptions are already well known; they had been published and discussed in major journals,9 and as a result at least 48 have found their way to AE. {See now AE 1998 [2001], 443501, from Suppl. Ital.; 2000 [2003], 55863}. THE AUGUSTEUM AT RUSELLAE Several groups of texts stand out. First of all, from an edifice at the Forum, clearly an Augusteum, the place destined for the cult of the imperial family, come numerous statues (hence the denomination given by the excavators, Vano Statue, p. 96), and a series of dedications to various members of the imperial house, to Augustus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius Caesar (who are also styled as patroni coloniae), Germanicus and his son Drusus Caesar (nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14), perhaps also to Agrippa Postumus, Nero Caesar (another son of Germanicus), and Octavia, daughter of Claudius (nos. 9, cf. 1011, 15, 16). These documents were the object of several detailed studies.10 They join similar outpourings of official piety from other places in Italy (Brixia and Val Camonica, Telesia, Herculanum, Casinum, Veleia, Luna, Forum Clodii, Caere, Veii, Lucus Feroniae), diligently catalogued by I. Cogitore.11 Now in the description of the site it is imperative to include also the statuary, even if devoid of inscriptions. The ciclo statuario was discussed in several earlier contributions, but we still await a comprehensive publication. The fine monograph by C. B. Rose12 appeared too late to be considered by Conti. Rose characterizes the Rusellae find as one of the most important dynastic groups from the Julio-Claudian period, and gives a list of all statues, distinguishing two phases, Caligulan and Claudian. He suggests that the statues were located in the headquarters of the Augustales of Rusellae. This is unlikely. It is true that no. 54, a tiny fragment mentioning seviri [aug(ustales)] was found at Vano Statue, and thus we can confidently ascribe to that body the dedication of at least one imperial statue (at Rusellae there appear to be attested only seviri Augustales [cf. below. no. 1] but not seviri or Augustales; hence the proposed supplement. For these denominations, see above, s.v. Aletrium, no. 14). Decisive, however, is no. 14, a dedication to Drusus
See esp. the articles by A. Mazzolai, MDAI-R 66 (1959) 21221; V. Saladino, ZPE 38, 39, 40 (1980) 15986, 21536, 22949. 10 Especially by Conti himself in Ann. Fac. Lett., Univ. Siena 18 (1997) 10127 (non vidi), by V. Saladino in ZPE 39 (1980) 21536, and by I. Cogitore in MEFRA 104 (1992) 81767. 11 To her list we have to add the pagus Stellatinus; see the excellent articles by L. Gasperini, Liscrizione del Pago Stellatino (C.I.L. XI 3040), MGR 19 (1995) 24870; and Considerazioni sullarredo epigrafico e scultureo degli augustei di et primoimperiale in Italia, in J. Gonzlez (ed.), Ciudades privilegiadas en el occidente romano (Sevilla 1999) 17785; {W. Wohlmayr, Kaisersaal. Kultanlagen der Augustalen und munizipale Einrichtungen fr das Herrscherhaus in Italien (Wien 2004) 18793: Rusellae. Good on statues, but disappointing on epigraphy, topography and history. The author disregards the publication of the inscriptions in Suppl. Ital., the interpretations proposed in this essay, and the contribution by Torelli adduced below in the text}. 12 Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge 1997) 11618. 9

515

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

429

Caesar, which was set up ex d(ecurionum) d(ecreto) p(ecunia) p(ublica). The edifice Vano Statue was undoubtedly a municipal Augusteum, perhaps administered by priests of the imperial cult. {See now M. Torelli, Augustalium sedes Rusellanorum. A proposito della Casa dei Mosaici di Rusellae, in Rome et ses provinces. Hommages Jean-Charles Balty (Bruxelles 2001) 20119 at 205207. He writes (207): Laula absidata di Rusellae va dunque considerata non un luogo di culto degli Augustali, come spesso se sente ripetere, ma il luogo originario del culto dinastico dellintera citt. He locates the schola of the Augustales in another building, the Casa dei Mosaici. C. Witschel, Zum Problem der Identifizierung von munizipalen Kaiserkultsttten, Klio 84 (2002) 11424 at 119, n. 29, persists in rejecting the identification of Vano Statue as an Augusteum}. Such a priest was A. Vicirius A. f. Proculus (nos. 3, 4 = AE 1980, 45758). He styles himself flamen Aug(ustalis), tr(ibunus) mil(itum) (so no. 3; in no. 4 the order in which his titles are listed is reversed).13 In no. 3 the supplement flamen Aug(ustalis) is assured by no. 4: flamen [A]ugustalis.14 The inscriptions of Vicirius display a vow for Claudius, v\o\to\ [s]uscepto [p]ro salut\e et reditu et victoria Britannica, and its fulfillment, victoriae Britannicae votum solvit; and a vow for Britannicus, and its fulfillment: ex voto suscepto [p]ro salute ... posu[it] (interestingly the vow for Claudius employs numerous apices, but they are absent from the Britannicus dedication). In an erudite disquisition V. Saladino, the editor princeps (ZPE 39 [1980] 22933), argues that our man may be identical with A. Vicirius A. f. Arn. attested on an inscription found at Siena (CIL XI 1806). As the tribe of Vicirius was Arn(ensis) and the tribe of Saena was Oufentina, this inscription was often assigned to Clusium but now, with the tribe of Rusellae established as Arnensis (see below, no. 1), we can confidently restore it to Rusellae. This Vicirius was a military tribune in legio IV Scythica, [aedilis] Etruriae,15 fla[men augustalis], and ultimately he received by the decree of the decurions the recognition of a funus publicum.16 Yet in epigraphy and prosopography things are hardly ever simple. S. Demougin accepted the identity of the two Vicirii,17 but H. Devijver was doubtful,18 and G. Wesch-Klein was inclined to assign the epitaph to the father and the two dedications to his son.19 The opposing arguments are based on the invocation
13 For the priesthood, see D. Ladage, Stdtische Priester- und Kultmter im lateinischen Westen des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit (Kln 1971) 13, 4344. 14 S. Demougin, Prosopographie des chevaliers romains Julio-Claudiens (Rome 1992) 586, inconsiderately expands as Aug(usti). 15 For this post, see B. Liou, Praetores Etruriae XV populorum [Bruxelles 1969] 6879, a list of 5 known aediles. No inscription records a cursus honorum, the progression from the post of aedilis to that of praetor. Consequently Liou (8284) argues that originally the chief federal officer was called aedilis; later, probably under Hadrian, a reform took place, and the title of aedilis was replaced by the more prestigious title of praetor Etruriae. 16 For this honor, see the thorough study by G. Wesch-Klein, Funus publicum (Stuttgart 1993) esp. 6382 on municipal public funerals, and 124211, a collection of epigraphical testimonies. 17 Prosopographie (supra, n. 14) 58687, no. 694. 18 Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum V = Suppl. II (Leuven 1993) 2283 (V 111 bis). 19 Funus publicum (supra, n. 16) 16566.

430

Historia et Epigraphia

517

to the gods, the cognomen (or its absence), and the murky history of the legio IV Scythica. Wesch-Klein set store by the absence of the cognomen in the epitaph: the buried man should thus predate the author of the dedication to Claudius. But this historical reconstruction springs solely from her epigraphical reconstruction of CIL XI 1806 where she reads (lines 23): A. Viciri A. f. Arn. [trib(uni) mil(itum) / leg IIII Scythi(cae). In the crucial place, however, Saladino (ZPE 39 [1980] 230) admits a longer lacuna: [ trib(uno) mil(itum)], and in this lacuna we may well supply Proculi. The inscription is lost, and consequently all reconstructions will remain hypothetical. We must seek divine assistance. The epitaph begins with the invocation d(is) m(anibus). This formula, although occurring sporadically earlier, becomes more frequent with the Flavians,20 and it is for that reason that Devijver,21 following a communication from A. Birley, assigned the epitaph to that period. On this interpretation the funerary stone would postdate the dedications and if we insist on two separate Vicirii it would refer to the son and not the father.22 Either way the argument is inconclusive. But both scholars agree that the unity of the two Vicirii would cause, as Wesch-Klein darkly intimates, weitreichende Konsequenzen for the history of the Fourth Scythian legion. The problems surrounding the early history of legio IV Scythica had long ago been admirably summarized by E. Ritterling,23 and now by M. A. Speidel.24 The legion was originally stationed in Moesia; at the beginning of Neros reign it was transferred to Syria. There exist, however, feeble indications, generally discounted, that in the meantime it may have been located for a short time in Germany. It is in this context that no. 3 comes into play. It records the following titles of Claudius: tr. pot. V, imp. X, cos. des. IV. Judging by these indications the stone (and probably also no. 4) belongs to the second half of 45.25 This is interesting. Claudius left Britain in 43, and in 44 celebrated in Rome a splendid triumph.26 Why did Vicirius wait for so long to fulfill his vow? A possible answer is this: he himself participated in the expeditio Britannica,27 and returned to Rusellae only late in 46. Vicirius does not indicate the legion in which he served as a military tribune but, if he is identical with the man from CIL XI 1806, this legion will have perforce been IV Scythica: let us bear in mind that the CIL stone is a funerary text, and that no other military posts are listed for the deceased. Now if Vicirius of no. 3 participated in the British campaign, and if he served in the legio IV Scythica, these two premises might form an argument for locating the legion in Germany a proposition few military historians are ready to
20 Cf. A. E. Gordon, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy (Berkeley 1983) 4041. 21 Prosopographia II (1977) 87374. 22 This outcome appears to have been missed by Wesch-Klein when she adduced Devijver without any comment and thus as if in support of her directly opposite theory. 23 Legio, RE 12 (1925) 155659. 24 Legio IIII Scythica, its movements and men, in: D. Kennedy (ed.), The Twin Towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates (JRA Suppl. 27 [1998]) 16466. 25 Cf. E. Groag, RE 3 (1899) 279899; D. Kienast, Rmische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt 1990) 91. 26 Cf. Groag, ibid. 279697. 27 So Wesch-Klein (supra, n. 16) 165; H. Devijver, Commanders and officers of legio IIII Scythica, in The Twin Towns (supra, n. 24) 220, no. 22, who thus reverses his earlier opinion, and discards the significance of the invocation d(is) m(anibus) for the dating of the inscription.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

431

518

endorse. But let us review the situation in greater detail. Four full legions participated in the invasion of Britain: II Augusta and XIV Gemina from Upper Germany, XX from Lower Germany and IX Hispana from the distant Pannonia. Legio IV Scythica was not among them, and thus Vicirius could have arrived in Britain solely with a vexillatio detached from that legion. Now, this vexillatio need not have come from Germany: if the IX Hispana could have marched from Pannonia, a legionary detachment may have well been dispatched from Moesia. A curious circumstance attracts attention: in their public careers neither of our Vicirii progressed beyond the military tribunate a remarkable coincidence, and their local careers were strikingly similar. In that situation one would wish to invoke Ockhams razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and opt for one Vicirius only: the municipal priest of the imperial cult at Rusellae, a military tribune in the Fourth Scythian legion, and a participant in the Claudian expedition to Britain. After his return from Britain Vicirius refrained from further public advancement by his own choice, we may suppose. For we are in the presence of a distinguished notable, not only domi but in his later capacity as aedilis Etruriae also in the whole region (for a similar case, cf. below under Bergomum). The future held for the family greater things in the offing: senators and consuls, and our Vicirius may well have been their progenitor (cf. p. 99). The people in Rusellae loved statues. In addition to the Augusteum, there existed at the Forum also a private statuary complex, un ampio vano absidato, the so-called Basilica dei Bassi (p. 99). On the pedestals only the cognomina were inscribed; the nomen gentile perhaps was on display above the entrance to the basilica. The five cognomina are as follows (nos. 3741; AE 1991, 637 ae): Bassus avos, Bassus [], Maximu[s ], Priscilla soror, Valerianus frater. The dating is disputed: the statues seem to belong to the 1st century, but they were apparently re-used later and their pedestals furnished with new inscriptions. The precise stemma is difficult to establish. At the top of the family line we have Bassus avos; at the bottom Priscilla soror and Valerianus frater who is clearly represented as an adolescent. The statue of Maximus stood in the central niche; he was thus a pivotal figure. But, as the head of his statue is missing, his age is hidden; on the other hand Bassus [] appears as a person of an advanced middle age. To make sense of this family tableau Conti wisely follows Pancieras suggestion: we have two Bassi, avos and [pater]; Maximus will be filius, Priscilla his sister, and Valerianus his (younger) brother. Why this prominence accorded to Maximus? Perhaps he was the first in the family to achieve honors in Rome. No. 53 (an ineditum) attests that he was quaes(tor)? ali]mentorum and aed(ilis), municipal functions, but as Conti points out, should we opt to read curat(ori) ali]mentorum this would produce for Maximus an equestrian office. The forum at Rusellae provided also another riveting text (no. 1 = AE 1980, 435), a dedication in good lettering Iano Patri sacrum, put up ex voto by L. Titinius Vitalis sevir (ir in ligature) Aug(ustalis) and his son L. Titinius L. filius Pelagianus. The father was probably a freedman, but his son appears in full panoply of his Roman nomenclature and municipal career: he was aedilis, q[u]aestor r(ei) p(ublicae), and he gives as his tribe the Arne(n)sis. This indication, in an inscription

432

Historia et Epigraphia

belonging to a local magistrate, finally and unequivocally establishes Arnensis as the tribe of Rusellae (Arnensis figures also in nos. 32, 42, 53, 80).28 The two men identify themselves as haruspices. Conti observes that lereditariet di tale professione frequentamente attestata, but provides no references.29 Of the literary sources, Cic., Leg. 2.21 (Etruria principes disciplinam doceto) is very general, and Cic., Div. 1.92 (cf. Val. Max. 1.1.1) does not explicitly say that the principum filii were trained in the haruspicina by their fathers. But this skill and scientia were undoubtedly often hereditary; Cicero (Div. 1.92) implies it, and Tacitus (Ann. 11.15) affirms: primores Etruriae ... retinuisse scientiam et in familias propagasse. Yet the only direct literary match for our inscription is Cic., Fam. 6.3.30 Addressing A. Caecina, Cicero writes: si te ratio quaedam <m>ira Tuscae disciplinae, quam a patre, nobilissimo atque optimo viro, acceperas, non fefellit. The context is jocular: the ratio is applied to the inspection of politics and not to the inspection of liver, but as Cicero elaborates on his joke by a reference to augural divination, and as he himself was an augur, probably also Caecina was not merely knowledgeable of the disciplina Etrusca, but actually he and his father were official haruspices.31 We may compare a late and peculiar inscription from Trier, CIL XIII 3694,32 where

28 L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) does not adduce Rusellae in her list of communities with tribes, cf. p. 163. 29 We have to go to the original publication by V. Saladino (ZPE 38 [1980] 16264, no. 7) who, however, still does not lead us immediately to the sources but rather to the book by L. R. Taylor, Local Cults in Etruria (Rome 1923) 235, n. 13. Taylor spoke of the semi-hereditary character of the haruspices, and adduced (without discussing them) four literary sources and two epigraphical. To be fair, we have to remark that, as Taylor herself acknowledges, she owed her material to the works of C. O. Thulin, especially to his grand Die etruskische Disciplin, parts IIII (Gteborg 1905, 1906, 1909, reprinted in one volume but with the original separate pagination, Darmstadt 1969). See esp. III, 14256, a list and a discussion of testimonia for individual haruspices; see also his articles in Diz. Ep. 3 (1911) esp. 44951 and RE 7 (1912) esp. 243741. 30 Not 6.6 as in Thulin and Taylor. 31 Another text invoked by Thulin and Taylor is CIL XIV 164 (from Ostia). The crucial lines (36) read: T. Fla/viu{i}s Clau/dianus fili/us patri et magistro / harp. de L[X]. The deceased was a member of the official corporation of 60 haruspices, but the question is: was he magister haruspicum or rather magister, the teacher of his son? H. Dessau, the editor of CIL XIV, opted for the latter interpretation, and proposed to read patri et magistro, har(us)p(ici) de L[X], but he also noted Mommsens idea: magistro har(uspicum) p(ublico) de L[X]. Mommsen based his expansion on CIL VI 2161 which displays a mag(ister) pu(blicus) haruspicum. On the other hand Thulin (RE 7, 2438) quoted CIL XIII 1821 (from Lugdunum): har(uspicis) prim(arii) de LX, and read in our text patri et magistro, har(uspici) p(rimario) de LX. This became the leading opinion, unjustly. Let us observe that the son does not describe himself as haruspex, and secondly, while the abbreviation p(ublicus) is common, p(rimarius) is unprecedented. As so often, it is advisable to go back to Mommsen. 32 Ob memoriam custod[i]/endam adq(ue) propagandam / magistror(um) et parentum su/orum Iustiani Iulia[n]i Aprilis / Pompeiani [] / Theodori Martialis Arca/di Nycteri Concordius et / Hemerius haruspices publ(ici) c(ivitatis) Tr(everorum) fecerunt. In line 3 Thulin read magistrator(um), a word that is not attested. A strange mistake, and a mistake he repeated three times: Etr. Disc. III, 151; Diz. Ep. 3, 651; RE 12, 2437. The text and the names are certainly odd.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

433

we appear to have two fathers, each perhaps with five names (there is space for two names in the withered lacuna) honored by their respective sons, the public haruspices. These parentes were indeed almost certainly the teachers of their sons in the disciplina. The haruspicina was thus transmitted within families, but contrary to Contis statement there actually exist only very few direct attestations of that phenomenon. In the inscription from Trier the names Arcadi Nycteri suspiciously look like signa (or agnomina) and not like regular cognomina.33 This observation leads us to no. 31, a carmen, where in the last of the four lines we read the pentameter: has rector thermas dedicat Arzygius. That name appears in a Greek inscription from Rome (IG XIV 968a) as a club name but also as a signum and cognomen34 of Betitius Perpetuus, who was consularis Tusciae et Umbriae (CIL VI 1702 = ILS 1251) after 366 (PLRE 1, 689). As Conti points out, he will be our man. The name Arzygius could well stand alone in a verse (or in a dedication: Pelagonius ascribed his Hippiatrica to an Arzygius, again probably our dignitary), but in the baths the poem was undoubtedly accompanied by a prose inscription listing the full name and all the titles of Betitius.
519

Forum Iulii (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by A. Giavitto (pp. 195276), an erudite treatment. There existed four Roman foundations combining the denomination Forum with the name Iulius (cf. RE s.v.): 1) a colonia in Narbonese Gaul (Frjus); it owed its surname to Caesar and was in antiquity by far the most known and important of all its namesakes; 2) a colonia in the IXth region of Italy, Forum Iulii Iriensium (Voghera), its name apparently deriving from Augustus; 3) a Forum mentioned in passing by Pliny among the communities of Umbria (NH 3.113: Foroiulienses cognomine Concupienses); and finally 4) the Forum here discussed (today Cividale del Friuli), insignificant in Roman times, of enduring presence thereafter. Pliny (NH 3.130) adduces Foroiulienses cognomine Transpadani in a long list of localities, quos scrupulosius dicere non attineat, i.e., about which there is no need to waste words; next we have a notice in Ptolemy 3.1.25, who designates the city as Frow Ioliow kolvna; a piece of information not confirmed by epigraphy, rather repudiated: there are attested in the city as chief magistrates the quattuorviri, a sure indication of the status of a municipium (CIL V 1767, 8642 = no. 5; and no. 4, an ineditum; cf. Giavittos discussion 2056). After Pliny and Ptolemy, literary sources fall silent for more than three centuries; Cassiodorus (Var. 12.26) mentions the Foroiulienses in passing as supplying provisions for the army, but the city came into its own only on the pages of Paul the Deacons History of the Lombards. And no wonder: Forum Iulii was the first city captured by the Lombards when in 568 they swept down into Italy. King Alboin established the city as the capital
33 Cf. I. Kajanto, Supernomina (Helsinki 1967) 15, 77. 34 Cf. Kajanto, ibid. 46, 77.

434

Historia et Epigraphia

520

of a separate ducatus (Hist. Lang. 2.9), and thus the process was set in motion in the course of which the name Forum Iulii was extended to the whole region of Friul, with its own language (and own cuisine), while the city itself began to be simply described as Civitate(m), whence the Friulan Cividale. But we have to return to the Romans. Paulus (Hist. Lang. 2.14) ascribes the foundation of this negotiationis forum to Caesar. Mommsen (CIL V, p. 163) hesitated between Caesar and Augustus, but most students are now in the camp of the dictator. Caesar passed through the region twice, in 56 and 50, and one of these dates will be the date of the foundation (Giavitto 203 offers an extensive doxography of opinions). In this context Plinys curious phrase cognomine Transpadani attracts attention. According to A. Grilli,35 Pliny used this denomination (not attested epigraphically) to distinguish the inhabitants of Forum Iulii in Histria from the Foroiulienses in Gallia Narbonensis. Why not from the Irienses? The denomination Forum Iulii Iriensium is known only from inscriptions, but at 3.49 Pliny places Iria poignantly ad Padum, and thus the Irienses could certainly be described as Cispadani. Not so at all says R. F. Rossi, in various publications:36 the surname goes back to the lex Pompeia de Transpadanis of 89 which bestowed Latin rights on various communities of Transpadane Gaul. The inhabitants of those communities would flaunt their superiority of status over their less fortunate neighbors by proudly calling themselves Transpadani. As Rossis theory has been greeted with applause from various quarters, also by Giavitto (204), it is imperative to pierce this semantic bubble. The official name of the law in question is not known; the denomination lex Pompeia de Transpadanis is a modern construct. Asconius (3 C.) tells us solely that Cn. Pompeius Strabo established Transpadanas colonias. Hence indeed a lex Pompeia (cf. Plin. NH 3.138), but its full Latin name it not recoverable certainly not de Transpadanis; rather de coloniis Latinis trans Padum (or in regione or Gallia Transpadana) deducendis . Asconius specifies that Pompeius Strabo non novis colonis eas constituit sed veteribus incolis manentibus ius dedit Latii, ut possent habere ius quod ceterae Latinae coloniae, id est ut petendo magistratus civitatem Romanam adipiscerentur. As a result, in the sphere of toponomastics, to the old local name would be added the official denomination colonia. Now, one may ask, was this not sufficient to indicate the superiority of status? Why should any such place have needed an additional description of Transpadani? It is a petitio principii to ascribe to this term a legal sense; it is advisable to keep it in the area of geography. In Roman times Forum Iulii was totally overshadowed by its rich neighbor Aquileia; the exact extension of its territory is a matter of dispute, but it is of interest to point out that it straddled the current borderline between Italy and Slovenia (21718).

35 Il territorio di Aquileia, Antichit Altoadriatiche 15.1 (1979) 42, n. 34. 36 Most recently in Aspetti amministrativi dei centri urbani del territorio aquileiese, Ant. Altoadr. 15.2 (1979) 54647.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

435

The inscriptions were collected by Mommsen in CIL V (1872, 1877) and by Pais in his Suppl. Ital. (1888); there is also one Greek text (IG XIV 2379) which, however, does not belong to Forum Iulii; cf. pp. 25253. Thus altogether 40 documents, of which 1 is transferred to Iulium Carnicum (8643), and 8 are lost. All these texts, extant and lost, receive an exemplary treatment, with numerous though mostly minor corrections, and a wealth of bibliographical data. But perhaps the most important contribution is Giavittos re-utilization of manuscript sources, of the auctores cividalesi of the 16th18th centuries, non adeguatamente consultati o ignorati dal Mommsen (22125). The section Monumenti nuovi contains 22 items, among them 6 re-editions (CIL V 8642, 1768, 8644 = 1787, 1773, 1781, 1780), 5 inedita, 4 lost, 11 mere snippets, and apparently none ever listed in AE. {See now AE 1998 [2001], 56882, from Suppl. Ital.}. Of the new texts only one gained some renown, no. 3, mentioning a stolata femina and an evok(atus). Bergomum Ager inter Olium et Sarium Valles Serina et Sassina (Regio XI, Transpadana) by M. Vavassori (pp. 279367). The inscriptions from Bergomum (Bergamo) and the surrounding territory were published in CIL V (187277) by Mommsen, altogether 120 texts (and 11 falsae); 6 texts were added by Pais, Suppl. Ital. (1888). Of these stones 24 are lost, less than one quarter, and 5 are declared alien, and moved to other places (CIL V 5188, 5191, 519395). Mommsens edition immediately eclipsed the simultaneous collection by G. Finazzi, Le antiche lapidi di Bergamo descritte ed illustrate (Bergamo 1876); cf. Mommsens note, p. 548. Vavassori scrupulously registers the present whereabouts of extant stones, gives a detailed description of each monument, often with extensive bibliography and discussion of particular points. As is well known our knowledge of many lost stones depends on copies made by early erudites; for an epigrapher excavations in the archives are as important as digging in the ground. Mommsen was a supreme connoisseur of the manuscript evidence, but with the speed with which he worked sometimes an important source escaped his sguardo linceo. Vavassori (300) draws our attention to a volume she had edited in 1994,37 and to an article published in that collection by S. Caldarini Mazzucchelli (pp. 947), who discovered several manuscripts unknown to Mommsen, among them in particular a precious opus by P. Calepio (16931762), Iscrizioni di Bergamo dallepoca romana, establishing the exact provenance of a number of inscriptions.38 There are 2 Monumenti reediti (no. 4 = CIL V 5127; no. 15 = V 5155), and 24 nuovi; only 3 lost: 2 small fragments and a longer Christian inscription (last seen
37 Le antiche lapidi di Bergamo e del suo territorio (Bergamo 1994) 947. Cf. the review by G. Susini, Epigraphica 56 (1994) 27578. 38 Oddly enough, Vavassori does not adduce another piece by Caldarini Mazzucchelli (much shorter but much more accessible), Notizie non note al Mommsen sulla provenienza di epigrafi rinvenute a Bergamo nei secoli XVIII e XIX, e su trascrizioni di epigrafi perdute, Epigraphica 56 (1994) 22426 (cf. AE 1994, 717).

436

Historia et Epigraphia

in 1291!) commemorating the martyr Asteria (no. 22). Vavassori defends its authenticity; the text exudes, however, the aura of a medieval fabrication, and for that reason it had rightly been omitted by Mommsen. {Cf. the scepticism of the editors of AE 1998 [2001], 617}. According to Vavassori none of the new texts was recorded in AE; but see AE 1991, 855 and 856 for nos. 9, 13; AE 1995, 608, and now also 1997 [2000], 728 for no. 10; {and 1998 [2001], 599615, from Suppl. Ital.}. Of these texts a few attract attention: No. 5, a funerary stone: Aurelio / Saturnino / viro centenario (an equestrian rank but also a title in the later empire) / qui vixit annos LX (an interesting round number) / discessit VII k(alendas) Feb(ruarias) / provincia Gallia. There is no comment on discessit; now a glance at TLL s.v. discedo (p. 1283) will show that with reference to dying the application of the verb is rather rare in literary Latin; it has a good Ciceronian pedigree, but only with the prepositions a and ex; the use with de is late, as is also the absolute use (for Lucr. 3.960 is hardly a convincing example).39 The perfect discessit is particularly frequent in Christian funerary inscriptions, but the search in Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg produced a couple of nonChristian examples; cf. esp. AE 1969/70, 736 (from Altava in Mauretania, dated to 329), which displays a striking similarity of the formula: vir prior ordinis, vicxit (sic) / annis LXXX, menses VI, disc(essit) XVI Kal(endas) Feb(ruarias), a(nno) p(rovinciae) CCXC. For the apposition, in the locative, of the place of death, provincia Gallia, no inscriptional parallel offers, but for the general phenomenon, the replacement in late Latin of the locative by the abl. loci, see E. Lfstedt, Syntactica 2 (Lund 1956) 7378. No. 6, also a funerary stone: L. Sulpi[cio] L. f. / Vot(uria) Cas[] / IIIIvir(o) iu[r(e) dic(undo)] / quaest(ori) a[er(arii) et / Ursiae M. [fi?]l. / Marcia[nae] / L. Sulpicius Marcianus / et / Sulpicia Ge[rm]ana / parentibus s[u]i[s]. In line 5 the letters M and L are clearly visible on the photograph; they are slightly apart, but perhaps only in order to fill better the space; it is difficult to gauge from the photograph whether there are any clear signs of withering. Vavassori proposes to read M. [fi]L. She argues that a) it is unlikely that a freedwoman should have married a quattuorvir, particularly a quattuorvir who was not her patron; b) the cognomen Marciana is not a cognomen di tipo libertino. Indeed, I. Kajanto finds in CIL only one freedwoman among 123 bearers of the name Marciana.40 Argument a) also appears cogent, especially in view of the analysis by M. Cbeillac Gervasoni concerning the Alliances matrimoniales et familiales of the municipal aristocracy.41 In the field of onomastics the stone offers also another peculiarity: L. Sulpicius Marcianus interestingly owes his surname to his mother Ursia Marciana (EDH reveals a similar case in Cuicul in Mauretania, AE 1913, 158, where we encounter M. Papius M. f. Marcianus and his mother Claudia Marciana). In this
39 C. Bailey in his commentary on Lucretius (Oxford 1947) surprisingly shows ad loc. no awareness of the linguistic problem. 40 The Latin cognomina (Helsinki 1965) 150. 41 Les magistrats des cits italiennes de la seconde guerre punique Auguste. Le Latium et la Campanie (= BEFAR 299 [Rome 1998]) 21320.

521

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

437

connection no. 7, documenting a union between the liberti of the two families is of interest: L. Sulpicius L. libertus (written out in full) Eutyches sets up a monument sibi et Ursiae Myrine (sic) uxori optimae. Eutyches was on his own level also a successful member of the community: he styles himself as augustal(is). (For the Sulpicii, see also no. 19: L. Sulpicius Protus). In line 4 of no. 6 the denomination quaestor aerarii may have been applied, as Vavassori notes, to distinguish this post from that of quaestor alimentorum (see also pp. 32122 for a note on CIL V 513839). But above all no. 6 supplements CIL V 5139, and thus increases our knowledge of the ceti superiori of the city. We may now have three generations of quattuorviri from the gens Sulpicia: Q. Sulpicius Q. f. Rufus, his son Q. Sulpicius Q. f. Sedatus, and in no. 6, L. Sulpicius L. f. Cas[. That latter man (as Vavassori elegantly, and adventurously, argues) is probably the son of a younger brother of Sedatus, and grandson of Rufus. Now Rufus was married to Pupia M. f. Secunda, who may have been a daughter of M. Pupius Castus (CIL V 5167; cf. pp. 322, 330); it is thus possible that L. Sulpicius inherited his surname Cas[tus] from his maternal great-grandfather (though the editrice notes conscientiously that this supplement may be too short per lo spazio a disposizione). We are thoroughly in the Roman world; but no. 10 displays an array of Celtic names Trobio, Voccius and Virsullus and reminds us of the Celtic past of the area. The Roman influence had been present since the beginning of the 2nd century, but the history of the Roman Bergomum commences rather late. The development is common to all Transpadana: in 89 the bestowal of ius Latii, in 49 of civitas Romana with the enrollment of the municipium (cf. CIL V 5128, and pp. 290, 317) in the tribe Voturia. The ager of Bergomum bordered on the territories of Comum, Mediolanum and Brixia, but it is difficult to establish the precise line of demarcation (29495). BERGOMUM AND PLINY THE YOUNGER The vicinity of Comum raises a question: are any men engraved on the stones in Bergomum also present on the pages of Pliny the Younger? Vavassori (297) confidently proposes two names: M. Maesius Maximus and C. Cornelius Minicianus. Plinys Ep. 3.20 and 4.25 are addressed to a Maesius Maximus; A. N. SherwinWhite42 notes that the manuscripts have Maesius or Mesius,43 and remarks that contemporary senators bearing the nomen of Messius, Maesius, and Maecius are known, but none is called Maximus yet at the same time he concedes that Maesius was probably not a senator. If so, he should have looked for an equestrian. He does not know the stone from Bergomum, CIL V 5138, a dedication, which reads: M. Maesio M. f. / Vot(uria) Maximo / praef(ecto) fabr(um) / IIIIvir(o) i(ure) d(icundo) q(uinquennali) / patrono / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). In line 4 q(uinquennali) is the expansion adopted by Vavassori and PIR V.2 (1983) 144 (M 77). M. F.
42 The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford 1966) 25960, 304. 43 Mesius is the reading in many earlier editions; R. A. B. Mynors in his OCT text (1962) prints Maesius.

438
522

Historia et Epigraphia

Petraccia Lucernoni44 proposed to place a comma after d(icundo), and read q(uaestori).45 R. Syme, of course, knew the stone, and he did not fail to identify the notable in Bergomum with the correspondent of Pliny.46 The dedication deserves closer scrutiny. L. Berni Brizzo47 took the post of praefectus fabrum as an office in the local collegium; but in this case we would rather expect praef. coll. fabr. (or sim.). Vavassori rightly rejected this conceit. The post will be a military or governmental appointment, capo di gabinetto of a magistrate, often the gate to further equestrian career (321). The trouble is that the inscription does not reveal any further equestrian advancement for Maesius. There need not have been any. The cursus fits smoothly into the list of careers of seven other praefecti fabrum who were patrons of their native cities in Italy: none of them records a military function other than the praefectura fabrum.48 Harmands discussion of the phenomenon is not adequate.49 He seems to compare the standing of the praefectura fabrum to that of the praefectura cohortis. This is off the mark. It is not very likely that all men concerned after a stint as praefecti fabrum either failed to advance or decided to forgo the equestrian career or that their later equestrian achievements were recorded on other stones which have not come to us. In point of fact we are dealing here with a purely honorary prefecture, a title bestowed by the emperor upon local worthies or their sons.50 In the formulation of R. Duthoy, these are the people who have never left the cadre municipal.51 He even expressed doubt whether the administration of the praefectura fabrum can be taken per se as proof of the equestrian status. That there were two, or rather three, distinct faces to the title praefectus fabrum is beyond doubt: honorific and purely municipal; administrative with a magistrate; and finally purely military as the chief engineer.52 Duthoy keeps Maesius firmly at
44 I questori municipali dellItalia antica (Roma 1988) 274, no. 441 (cf. p. 331). 45 For this placement of the quaestorship in cursu or perhaps extra cursum (cf. Petraccia Lucernoni 331), see CIL V 5139, and esp. above in this section, no. 6. 46 Roman Papers II (Oxford 1979) 708, 719 (originally published in 1968); cf. also ibid. 359 (originally 1957); V (1988) 44041, 45254 (originally 1985). Cf. PIR V 2 (1983) 144 (M 77). 47 Bergamo romana: ricerche storico-epigrafiche, Atti del Centro Studi e Documentazione sullItalia romana 1 (196768) 88, n. 101; 93, n. 4. 48 Cf. L. Harmand, Le Patronat sur les collectivits publiques des origines au Bas-Empire (Paris 1957) 25152. 49 Ibid. 32123. 50 Cf. the excellent short account by H. Volkmann, Der Kleine Pauly 4 (1975) 1100. H. Devijver, Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum I [Leuven 1976] 13, reckons the praefectura fabrum among the munera civilia. 51 Le profil social des patrons municipaux en Italie sous le hautempire, Anc. Soc. 1517 (198486) 127; 145, no. 211. 52 To the article by B. Dobson, The praefectus fabrum in the early principate, in M. G. Jarrett and B. Dobson (eds.), Britain and Rome. Essays Presented to Eric Birley [Kendal 1965] 6184, quoted (with misspellings) by Vavassori, we have to add D. B. Saddington, Praefecti fabrum of the JulioClaudian period, in Rmische Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik. Festschrift fr Artur Betz (Wien 1985) 52946; S. Demougin, Un prfet des ouvriers dArles, in G. Paci (ed.), Epigrafia romana in area adriatica (Macerata 1998) 33341 at 33941; {M. Cerva, La praefectura fabrum, in M. Cbeillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les lites municipales de lItalie pninsulaire de la mort de Csar la mort de Domitien entre continuit et rupture. Classes sociales dirigeantes et pouvoir central (Rome 2000) 17796, esp.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

439

523

the municipal level. But this was not a level to be despised; Maesius was clearly a domi nobilis, a patron of his patria, and in this sense a social counterpart of Pliny. He also shared his interest in history. Syme remarks rather peremptorily that Pliny informs him about frivolous behaviour in the Senate.53 But this behavior was caused by the introduction of a lex tabellaria, the tacitum suffragium, the secret balloting for the elections in the senate. The opening sentence of Ep. 3.20 establishes the topic and sets the tone: Meministine te saepe legisse, quantas contentiones excitarit lex tabellaria, quantumque ipsi latori vel gloriae vel reprehensionis attulerit? that is, the contentiones in the Republican times;54 Maesius turns out to be a student of history, and this interest he shared and communicated with Pliny. Now to the other man. Cornelius Minicianus is indeed a well-known correspondent of Pliny, who directed to him three letters, Ep. 3.9; 4.11 (pertaining to public affairs) and 8.12 (on the topic of literary recitations). CIL V 5126 (= ILS 2722), a dedication from the plebs urbana, records his municipal and military career (and provides him with the praenomen C.). He was IVvir i(ure) d(icundo), pontifex, flamen divi Claudii and patronus at Bergomum, and also flamen divi Traiani at Mediolanum and curator rei p(ublicae)55 Otesinorum (a small city in the VIIIth region), which perhaps justifies Plinys grandiloquent praise of Minicianus as ornamentum regionis meae seu dignitate seu moribus (Ep. 7.22).56 But whereas M. Maesius Maximus rose from the stone in Bergomum to reclaim, with the help of Syme, his status as a correspondent of Pliny, his fellow Bergamese C. Cornelius Minicianus must now fight to retain this coveted distinction. Certainly the hearts of all fautores of Bergomum fell when they encountered this remark in the index to Symess Roman Papers (III, 1469): not necessarily identical with the person in Pliny. But this remark is due to the editor of the volume and the compiler of the index, A. Birley, and it need not be identical with Symes point of view: it may rather reflect the family tradition, for it was E. Birley who first questioned the identity of the two men.57 The reason? The person on the stone was praef(ectus) coh(ortis) prim(ae) Damascenorum, trib(unus) mil(itum) legionis III Aug(ustae), praef(ectus) fabr(um). Now the Third Augustan legion was stationed in Africa (later in Numidia), whereas Pliny (Ep. 7.22) recommended his friend for a military tribunate to Falco, i.e., to the polyonymous Q. Pompeius Falco58 who was at that time (ca 1058) the praetorian legate of Judaea. Hence the two Miniciani must be distinguished. At the end of his career Syme was of two minds. On the one hand, he was inclined to buy Birleys objection: Probably not Plinys friend (in 1985),

53 54 55 56 57 58

18691; M. Verzr-Bass, Il praefectus fabrum e il problema delledilizia pubblica, ibid. 197224}. Roman Papers II, 719. Cf. Sherwin-White ad loc. On this function, see M. Sartori, Osservazioni sul ruolo del curator rei publicae, Athenaeum 67 (1989) 520, with further literature. Cf. Syme, Roman Papers II, 69697. Roman Britain and the Roman Army (Kendal 1953) 141, n. 17; cf. also C. P. Jones, A new commentary on the Letters of Pliny, Phoenix 22 (1968) 117. PIR VI (1998) 26064, esp. 262 (P 602).

440

Historia et Epigraphia

yet in the same year he also penned a sensible rebuttal: Yet men did not always take up the post for which Pliny commended them, publishing the evidence of his amicable exertions.59 Syme had considered that latter scenario already in 1960: Cornelius Minucianus got his appointment with Falco, but preferred not to go to Judaea.60 A simpler scheme offers. Falco appointed Cornelius Minicianus to the prefecture of a cohort, coh. I Damascenorum, in Judaea, rather than a tribunate in its one legion, X Fretensis; a tribunate in III Augusta in Numidia was to come later. So E. Birley,61 with a change of heart. To be fair: this reconstruction already in Sherwin-White (Commentary 42930). On the praefectura fabrum Birley has no comment; Sherwin-White (430) speculates that Minicianus administered it in an unknown province, apparently after his military posts. Dobson would assign Minicianus as praefectus fabrum to the proconsul of Africa.62 In this Dobson has been followed by Devijver.63 Yet perhaps the praefectura fabrum may again be (as in the case of Maesius) a municipal title, not connected with militia or public administration at all. For the people of Bergomum things at the Suppl. Ital. unfortunately do not end well: in the printing the index to Bergomum was crossed with the list of nomina and cognomina from Forum Iulii (27475); a monster of an index issued with alien names partly mingled with the local and partly pushing them off the page. Forum Vibii Caburrum (Regio XI, Transpadana) by G. Cresci Marrone (inscriptions) and F. Filippi (historical introduction) (pp. 36998). The remote Forum Vibii had left hardly any mark on history; Caburrum has. The name itself tells a tale. Originally a Ligurian or Celtic oppidum, it will have been organized (as Mommsen, CIL V, p. 825, pointed out) as a Roman forum64 by C. Vibius Pansa, consul in the fateful year of 43, when cecidit fato consul uterque pari. In the years 4544 he was governor of Cisalpine Gaul, probably as proconsul.65 We can be more precise. Cic., Att. 14.11.2 attests him in 44 on April 21 in Campania. He must have departed from the Cisalpina immediately after he had heard the news of Caesars assassination, so that only 45 and the very beginning of 44 remain as the date for the establishment of the Forum. The combination of the original preRoman name and of the new Roman denomination occurs also in other places of the region see esp. Carreum Potentia (cf. JRA 11 [1998] 482 {reprinted in this volume, No. 30}). In both places the Roman names fell into oblivion, and the autochthonous live on as Chieri and
59 Roman Papers V, 453, n. 68; 434, n. 18. 60 Roman Papers II, 47980. 61 The Roman Army. Papers 192986 (Stuttgart 1988) 153, n. 18 (a revision of the paper quoted above, n. 57). {Cf. A. R. Birley, Onomasticon to the Younger Pliny (Mnchen-Leipzig 2000) 52}. 62 The praefectus fabrum (supra, n. 52) 7576. 63 Prosopographia I, 298 (no. C 240); IV (1987) 1527; cf. also his The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Imperial Army (Amsterdam 1989) 185 (an article of 1981). 64 On the status of the fora, see E. Ruoff-Vnnen, Studies on the Italian fora (Wiesbaden 1978) 453. 65 Sources in T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic II (New York 1952) 310, 331. Filippi 375 calls him, through a lapsus calami, console at that time.

524

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

441

Cavour. It is in its modern Italian dress that Caburrum was to reach immortal fame giving the title and name to the architect of Italian unity, Camillo Benso conte di Cavour (181061). It is important to stress (as this does not emerge at all with any clarity from Filippis presentation, 37475) that the names Forum Vibii and Caburrum never occur together in one and the same text; Filippi speaks of soldati caburriensi morti altrove (375), but all these milites give as their origo solely Forum Vibii and the tribe Stellatina.66 At CIL V 783667 we encounter an anonymous person (the stone is broken) who was cur(ator) r(ei) p(ublicae) Pedonae(nsium?) [ae in ligature], cur(ator) r(ei) p(ublicae) Cabur(rensium), cur(ator) r(ei) p(ublicae) Germa(). Filippi (374) has res publica Caburiensium, and thus through design or oversight removes an r and adds an i. This is the only attestation of the name in antiquity. Thus the precise denomination Forum Vibii Caburrum is a modern conceit: so rightly Ruoff-Vnnen: this name-form is only Mommsens conjecture, and is not justified by ancient sources.68 But this need not mean, as she assumes, that Forum Vibii and Caburrum must have been two different places. The official name could well have been (e.g.) Forum Vibii Caburrensium. We simply do not know. The name apparently reappears only in 1041 as Castrum Caburri (379). The identity of Forum Vibii and of the (later) res publica Caburrensium is thus not borne out by any linguistic considerations. It relies on the continuity of the settlement on the site of Cavour; and on the conviction that there was in the area no place for two separate communities (37475). Now it is with Vibi Forum that Pliny begins his enumeration of the cities of Transpadana regio (NH 3.131, cf. 117: Forovibienses). Observe that he does not know of the name Caburrum, whereas he is well aware of the double denomination of Carrea (var. lect., and better, Carreo) quod Potentia cognominatur (3.49; cf. below, sub Forum Fulvii). His unequivocal placement of the city in the Transpadana is worthy of note. Mommsen, disregarding the polyhistor, attributed Forum Vibii, on flimsy grounds, to the Alpes Cottiae; Filippi and Cresci Marrone with full right revindicate it for the Transpadana. In this process the inscription of the anonymous curator plays an interesting part. This inscription was found in the locality of Busca which lay in the territory of the ancient Forum Germ(anorum).69 Whereas in the past it served as the mainstay for those upholding the distinction between the res publica Cabur(rensium) and Forum Vibii, now it appears significant that one and the same person was a curator in Pedona, Forum Germa(norum) and Caburrum. As the two former localities appear to have housed stations of the quadragesima Galliarum, perhaps a toll station existed also at Caburrum (375),
66 CIL XIII 6900, 7288; VIII 23252; VI 32638b,20, laterculum praetorianorum, under the consular year 178. 67 Taking the text according to the revision by G. Mennella, MEFRA 100 (1998) 13945 at 143; cf. Suppl. Ital. 13 (1996) 270. 68 Italian fora (supra, n. 64) 34, n. 211. 69 For the name, cf. JRA 13 [2000] 567 {= in this volume, No. 31}; the Barrington Atlas, map 39, proposes Germanici.

442

Historia et Epigraphia

which again would corroborate its assignment by Pliny to regio XI. The borders of its ager are still ill-defined; to the north Forum Vibii bordered on Augusta Taurinorum with which it shared the Stellatina tribe; in the west the border ran sul crinale delle Alpi, in the south and east (where Pollentia was situated) it must have been the course of the Po (37980). In CIL V, part 2 (1877) Mommsen collected 15 texts (and 17 falsae); Pais, Suppl. Ital. (1888) has 3 stones, all republications of CIL (7338, 7339, 7346); 8 are lost. Among those texts 7340 and 7341 recording an aedilis and a veteranus, and the tribe Pollia, attract attention. Mommsen was baffled: ad quem rem publicam spectant nescio. But quite obviously these (lost) stones, once in the church at Lombriasco, were brought there from the other side of the Po; they will belong to Pollentia the tribe of which was Pollia (379, 38283). The new section contains 18 pieces, of which 2 are republications (no. 1 = CIL V 7338; 9 = 7349), 3 Christian, 3 lost, 3 inedita, and apparently none ever recorded in AE (actually nos. 1415 = AE 1993, 82324. {And see now 1998 [2001], 65061, from Suppl. Ital.}). In the mutilated no. 4 we have a d(ecretum) d(ecurionum); no. 5 brings another attestation of the Stel(latina); no. 7 displays a fine collection of epichoric names, Disius Pramianus Momi f(ilius), his son Moccus, and wife Ena. Historically of special import is no. 8, V(ivus) f(ecit) / V\alius / T\itioni/s sibi et / Vibio / fratri / militi. Valius70 and Titio are epichoric names; Valius functions as if a Roman nomen gentile, but it is unlikely that its bearer was a Roman citizen. But it is above all the name Vibius that springs to the eye: its possessor is a miles and he shares his name with the founder of the Forum. Hence the supposition that he assumed this name allatto del reclutamento (375, 390). This is not very precise. The stele is dated per la paleografia e il formulario onomastico to the second half of the first century B.C.E. We have before us a soldier of Vibius Pansa, who was civitate donatus, and no doubt received his viritim land assignation in the Forum Vibii at the moment of its establishment. The Suppl. Ital. is silent about the centuriation, but R. Chevallier is adamant about centuries, actus and heredia qui doit dater de la fondation par Vibius Pansa.71 We take leave of Cavour and its Rocca with a remark on the vagaries and inequities of epigraphic fortune. There are no stones in Forum Vibii commemorating priests of local or imperial cult, with one exception: CIL V 7345 celebrates a flam(inica) Divae Drusillae who gave baline]um (cf. p. 383) and piscinam to her municipes. Drusilla, sister and lover of Caligula, died on 10 June 38, and was consecrated as diva on 23 Sept., the birthday of Augustus. Out of so many eager cities in Italy and the empire this is just one of only two monuments that reveal a personal priestess to the memory (a short-lived memory; she probably shared, if only unofficially, in the also informal condemnatio of Caligula72) of that vain and unworthy person of a princess.73 Recently a stone came to light in another obscure
70 Cf. W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin 1904) 376. 71 La romanisation de la celtique du P (Rome 1983) 57. 72 Cf. F. Vittinghoff, Der Staatsfeind in der rmischen Kaiserzeit. Untersuchungen zur damnatio memoriae (Berlin 1936) 1023. 73 M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier, Prosopographie des femmes de lordre snatorial I (Louvain 1987)

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

443

place, Pinna (in regio IV), recording [I]unia C. [f.] Procula, sacerdos diva[e] Drusillae (AE 1992, 336). SUPPL. ITAL. VOL. 17 (1999) The volume deals with three cities from Northern Italy which, as S. Panciera and M. Guarducci stress in the preface, have two things in common: the extent of their territories, with respect to the presentation of Mommsen, has been substantially redrawn, and their patrimonio epigrafico has increased dramatically. We begin with Forum Fulvii-Valentia (Regio IX, Liguria) by G. Mennella (epigraphy) and E. Zanda (historical introduction) (pp. 1136). Where Mommsen needed only 17 lines (CIL V, p. 840), Zanda offers 7 eruditely meandering pages (1522). The name and the place pose a puzzle indeed. Enumerating the cities of Italy Pliny remarks (NH 3.49) that between the Apennines and the Po omnia nobilibus oppidis nitent, among them Industria, Pollentia, Carrea [better Carreo] quod Potentia cognominatur (on the name-form of this city, cf. JRA 11 [1998] 482 {= in this volume, No. 30}), Foro Fulvi quod Valentinum (sc. cognominatur). The denomination Forum Fulvii is attested epigraphically in CIL XIII 6884 (from Mogontiacum) as the origo of a legionary (leg. XIII Gemina): Pol(lia) For(o) Fulvi, and in AE 1940, 82 as the origo of a praetorian (with the indication of the tribe lost in the lacuna); it also figures in the Tabula Peutingeriana. But from Mogontiacum comes also another inscription in which a soldier (leg. IV Macedonica) gives as his home town (in abl.) Polia (sic! spelt out in full, and spelt with one l only; impossible to verify as the stone perished) Va/lentia (CIL XIII 6877).74 Two schools of thought emerged. We can call them unitarians and dualists. Mommsen was swayed by the identity of the tribe, Pollia, and decided that Forum Fulvii Valentinum and Valentia were one and the same locality. Others disagreed, most notably H. Nissen75 and above all P. Fraccaro.76 Forum Fulvii must owe its origin either to Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 179) or M. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 125), both of whom were active in Liguria. Fraccaro opted for Marcus, and ascribed to him three creations: a road (the via Fulvia; this name is, however, not attested independently: it is only a modern backward formation from the very toponym Forum Fulvii), a Forum called Fulvium, and a settlement of Roman citizens (but not a formal colonia) called Valentia, whose name would thus form a counterpart to other Roman foundations in Liguria, the cities of Pollentia, Potentia and Industria. Mommsen located his Forum Fulvii-Valentia on the site of modern Valenza Po, on the right bank of the Po, north-east of Alessandria, the major modern city in the region. Fraccaro, naturally enough, assigned Valentia to Valenza, and placed the Forum, following in the footsteps of various local erudites, in the locality of Villa
375, no. 437, is most unhelpful in this respect. On the other hand, invaluable, as so often, is PIR IV 3 (1956) 31517 (I 664) at 316. 74 Cf. CIL XIII 7235 where the name of the city may also be lurking in the lacuna: Vale[ntia]. 75 In his classic Italische Landeskunde II (Berlin 1902) 156. 76 Opuscula (Pavia 1957) II, 7983; III.1, 12730.

526

444

Historia et Epigraphia

del Foro, on the south-west side of Alessandria, on the river Tanarus (some 20 km. from Valenza). Recent excavations leave no doubt that in this place existed a substantial Roman settlement, with traces of a road, whereas no such claim can be made on behalf of Valenza. In view of this archaeological evidence Zanda and Mennella espouse unitarianism, but unlike Mommsen they squarely place the unified Forum Fulvii-Valentia at Villa del Foro. This entity would now embrace not only the area assigned to it by Mommsen, but also the territory to the south of Tanarus, along the modern brooks Bormida and Belbo, which Mommsen treated in a separate section (CIL V 753254, of which nos. 753236 Mennella and Zanda now incorporate into the area of Forum Fulvii). Yet, as we move into the later empire, Zandas topographical conviction becomes less certain. Notitia Dignitatum Occ. 42 records a praefectus Sarmatarum Gentilium stationed Foro Fulviensi. As the archaeological remains at Villa del Foro presently do not appear to reach beyond the third century of the empire, Zanda considers locating this garrison forse pi sulle rive del Po che sulle quelle del Tanaro. The rationale is murky. In late antiquity and early middle ages that whole area, it is true, was largely abandoned, and turned into wilderness, the future Monferrato. But there is a curious notice in the History of the Lombards by Paulus Diaconus (6.58). At the time of the Lombard king Liutprand (ruled 712744), a holy man lived in loco cui Forum nomen est, iuxta fluvium Tanarum. This testimony establishes, once and forever, also for the period of late antiquity, the localization of Forum (Fulvii) on the banks of the Tanarus. Zanda (21) gives a rather inaccurate account of the story:
intorno al 740 leremita Baudolino si era ritirato nella selva un tempo chiamata forum dove incontr il re Liutprando che cacciava nella zona detta urbe.

Whether there was forest in the place called Forum, Paulus does not tell us; it was the king who in Urbem silvam venatum isset. Futhermore the anchorite and the king did not meet; when at the hunt the kings nephew was accidentally struck with a javelin, the king
statimque unum e suis equitem misit, qui ad virum Dei Baodolinum curreret, eumque peteret, ut pro vita eiusdem pueri Christum supplicaret.

The two localities were apparently at some distance from each other but not too far apart. If the hermit lived at Forum, one may perhaps inquire about the Urbs that turned into forest. Perhaps the elusive Valentia? A much more likely explanation is at hand. The forest in question was an old hunting ground of Lombard kings. Paulus tells an amusing story (5.37). King Cunibertus (ruled 688700) was burning with love for a maiden. How to elude the watchful eyes of his wife? He went hunting in silvam, quam Urbem appellant (cf. 5.39: Urbem vastissimam silvam) and ordered his wife to go with him; then, at night, he hurried back to Ticinum (Pavia, the Lombard royal residence), and induced the girl to his bedchamber (he later dispatched her to a nunnery, an option not available to statesmen today). The forest was thus not far from Forum (Fulvii), and could also be reached from

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

445

527

Ticinum in less than a days (or nights) ride. Now if we cast a glance at H. Kieperts Formae Orbis Antiqui (map XXIII), where he carefully records the ancient (and, missing them, modern) names of a multitude of smaller rivers and brooks (a practice unfortunately not followed in the recent and monumental Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, ed. by R. J. A. Talbert [Princeton 2000]), we immediately encounter in the required area Urbs fluvius (modern Orba): it flowed into Bormida not far from the latters juncture with Tanarus. It is in this vicinity that the royal forest is to be sought; it took its name from the river, silva ad Urbem, perhaps.77 In any case we deal with a pre-Roman toponym.78 Even if the forest extended somewhat to the north, the distance to Ticinum was still some 50 km, a long ride, but with the wings of amor perhaps not impossible to accomplish in one night.79 The riddle of Valentia remains. The old orthodoxy is well represented on Kieperts map XXIII: the localization on the Po, the name Valentia in large letters, and below, in smaller letters, Forum Fulvii. In Talberts atlas (map 39, elaborated by M. Pearce and P. Tozzi) the localization is on the Tanarus, and the name reads Forum Fulvii Valentinum, the Plinian name. But how did the Forum Fulvii acquire its surname Valentinum? not to speak of the name Valentia which no document attests in direct conjunction with the name Forum Fulvii. Both maps tacitly discard the possibility that we may be dealing with two separate entities. Unease persists, and it is fuelled by the consideration of tribal assignations. The area of Forum Fulvii / Valentia, as it is currently conceived, was surrounded by the following communities, from west through north and east to south (with tribal registration given in parentheses): Hasta (Pollia), Vardagate (Pollia; cf. JRA 13.2 [2000] 56667 {= in this volume, No. 31}), Dertona (Pomptina), Aquae Statiellae (Tromentina). The tribe of Forum Fulvii was Pollia (CIL XIII 6884, and see above), but on the left bank of the Tanarus, not far from modern Valenza, 4 inscriptions were found displaying the registration Pom(ptina), CIL V 7443 (= Mon. nuovi 4, see below), 7445, 7448, and Mon. nuovi 2. Furthermore, and significantly, no inscription was unearthed in this area attesting the Pollia. Fraccaro was disturbed, and rightly so, by this particolarit. It is his merit to point to the existence in the area of the remains of Roman centuriation (duly noted in the Barrington Atlas), a centuriation moreover con la stessa misura e direzione dellagro tortonese.80 We have a peculiar situation: an urban center at Villa del Foro = Forum Fulvii (and the
77 The exact Latin form of the name of the forest and the river is, however, uncertain. Claudius Claudianus, De bello Gothico 555 clearly interprets it as Urbs: Alaric Ligurum regione suprema / pervenit ad fluvium miri cognominis Urbem. G. Waitz in the index to his edition of Paulus Diaconus (Hannover 1878) 265, reconstructs the nominative as Urbis silva; in medieval documents the river appears as Urba, as in the phrase super fluvium Urbae, and we also have a notice in loco et fundo Urbe [i.e., Urbae]; see Dizionario di Toponomastica, by various authors (Torino 1990) 455, with a very opportune reminder that Alessandro Manzoni in his I promessi sposi still described the river as Orba selvosa. 78 Cf. G. Petracco Sicardi, Toponomastica storica della Liguria (Genova 1981) 225. 79 For various feats of speed in antiquity, cf. J. Linderski, Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 244, n. 5. 80 Opuscula (supra, n. 76) III.1, 147, but cf. Zanda 18.

446

Historia et Epigraphia

528

tribe Pollia); no urban remains but ample indications of the centuriation on the left bank of the Tanarus (and the tribe Pomptina). This seems to point to viritane assignations (the date is disputed). Zanda and Mennella consequently believe that this area was originally under the administration of Dertona (which was in the Pomptina), and only later, after the middle of the first century of the empire, was transferred to the territory of the then formally constituted municipium of Forum Fulvii / Valentia, and the tribe Pollia (1619, 26, 29). This ascription and denomination, as we have seen at the outset of this essay, is based on a stone from Mainz (CIL XIII 6877) where the tribe Pol(l)ia is coupled with the locality Valentia. But must this Valentia be Valenza Po? There were other Roman foundations of that name. At the time of Mommsen, however, and even that of Fraccaro, none of the cities of that name was known to belong to the tribe Pollia, and that circumstance explains the lure of Forum Fulvii Valentinum with its registration in the Pollia. But even Mommsen and Fraccaro can be accused of a myopic concentration on Italy, as certainly can all those who have recently expressed themselves on the subject of Valentia. In Gallia Narbonensis there was colonia Valentia (modern Valence). The editor of its inscriptions in CIL XII (1888), O. Hirschfeld, an eminent pupil of Mommsen, concluded that its tribe could not be securely established; the stone from Mainz did not escape his attention, but whether this legionary ex Valentia Galliae Narbonensis originem duxerit incertum est (p. 207). The matter so rested for over seventy years, but then a copy of a lost inscription from Valence (again a funerary stone of a legionary) was published81 with a clear indication of the tribe Pol(lia). Soon afterward a lucky confirmation: a snippet of a stone came to light in Valence bearing these letters: ] Q. F. PO[l(lia).82 The anonymous legionary from Mogontiacum, Blanc points out, served in legio IV Macedonica, and this legion contained an unusually large percentage of soldiers originating from Gallia Narbonensis (whereas only 3 came from Liguria, 2 from Hasta, and 1 from Alba Pompeia; see the article of Mennella cited in n. 83 below). If we combine these data with the tribe Pollia, now assured for Valence, it appears certain that our legionary did not hail from the Ligurian Valentia, but must be removed to Valence (also the legionary in CIL XIII 7235 whom G. Mennella83 also ascribed to the Ligurian Valentia, will now go to its Narbonese namesake). With this removal disappears the only support for the Pollia on the left bank of the Tanarus; Pomptina reigns there unchallenged. We are thus presented with an entirely new equation. The three terms of this equation are Dertona with Pomptina, Forum Fulvii with Pollia, and Valenza with Pomptina. The name Valenza may or may not continue the Roman denomination Valentia; with the testimony from the stone in Mainz redirected to Valence, everything now hinges on an obscure text, not yet introduced into our discussion: CIL V 6919 (from the ager inter Durias duas to the north of Turin). Mommsen did not see the stone, and printed five copies by different hands; four of them more or less aberrant but one, by Maffei, as was to be
81 And was published in rapid succession three times, in 1957, 1960 and 1962; apparently never acknowledged in AE. 82 For these documents, see A. Blanc, Colonia Valentia (Paris 1982) 7778, 93 (nos. 43, 55). 83 I Liguri nellesercito romano, Riv.Stor.Ant. 10 (1980) 160, 17071.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

447

529

expected, turned out to be almost correct.84 The stone is neatly cut on both sides, and some letters are partially withered. We read: Q|. Iuncius I\anu\[arius ] / carissimae et [] / cur(atori) rei p(ublicae) Valen[tinorum ] / amissorum + [ ]. Of interest to us is line 3. We can proceed in two ways: we can take Valentinorum as deriving from Valentia (cf. Cic., 2 Verr. 5.40: the inhabitants of Vibo Valentia are called Valentini) or from Valentinum, the presumed surname of Forum Fulvii presumed, for the nomenclature can be tricky. For the sake of comparison let us consider the names of another Forum, modern Frjus, in Narbonese Gaul.85 In countless inscriptions it bears a simple denomination: Forum Iulii, but Pliny (NH 3.35) introduces it in a full panoply of names: Forum Iuli Octavanorum colonia quae Pacensis appellatur et classica, a denomination echoed by Mela 2.77: Forum Iuli Octavanorum colonia. In one sole inscription there appears, however, the name Forum Iulium Pacatum (CIL XII 3203, from Nemausus). If we had only this one document, it would be impossible to divine the full and actual name of the city. Observe that the surname Pacensis (now assured by an epigraphical text, ILN 117), referring to colonia, is attached directly to Forum, and with the change not only of its gender: we would expect Forum Pacense; we have on the stone Forum Pacatum. Consequently the Plinian denomination Forum Fulvi quod Valentinum may hide a variety of names.86 Now Pliny arranged his descripton of Italy according to the eleven Augustan regions; in each region he enumerates the cities alphabetically, with the exception, however, of regiones XI, Transpadana, and IX, Liguria.87 In that latter region, listing the cities between the Apennines and the Po (including Forum Fulvii), he follows an interesting geographical scheme.88 We have to look at the map. He starts with Libarna, and moves in a circular way. First straight north to Dertona colonia (more suo89 he omits its imperial surname Iulia), next a short distance to the northeast to Iria (whose full name Forum Iuli Iriensium, and the status of colonia, he eschews). From this place he moves northwest to Vardacate (if Forum Fulvii were located on the Po or if any separate Valentia existed it ought to have been named between Iria and Vardagate), then further northwest to Industria. Here he begins a southern descent. He reverses the position of Pollentia and Carrea quod Potentia cognominatur,90 and furthermore between Potentia and Augusta Bagiennorum (where his outer loop ends) he inserts Forum Fulvii quod Valenti84 E. Pais retraced the stone, and published it as Suppl. Ital. 928; and recently G. Cresci Marrone again inspected the text and published it with a photograph and commentary: Per pagos vicosque. Torino Romana fra Orco e Stura (Padova 1988) 4445, no. 41. 85 Cf. J. Gascou and M. Janon, Inscriptions Latines de Narbonnaise, Frjus (Paris 1985) 1516. 86 On Plinys use of surnames of cities, see B. Galsterer-Kroll, Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen der Stdte des Imperium Romanum, Epigraphische Studien 9 (Bonn 1972) 5761. 87 Cf. D. Detlefsen, Die Anordnung der geographischen Bcher des Plinius und ihre Quellen (Berlin 1909) 4243. 88 Missed by Detlefsen, and by R. Thomsen, The Italic regions from Augustus to the Lombard invasion (Copenhagen 1947) 12631. 89 See Galsterer-Kroll (supra, n. 86) 5859. 90 Nota bene: on Kieperts map Potentia is completely misplaced to the south of Augusta Bagiennorum.

448

Historia et Epigraphia

num. The central swathe of Liguria still remains: Pliny draws now an inner loop: from Augusta Bagiennorum he proceeds in the north-easterly direction to Alba Pompeia, continues to Hasta, and then swings south-east to Aquae Statiellae. This is the last stop: further east lies Libarna where his tour of Liguria had begun. In this rather straightforward itinerary two disturbances strike the reader: the transposition of Pollentia and Potentia, and above all the awkward collocation of Forum Fulvii quod Valentinum between Potentia and Augusta Bagiennorum. I wish to suggest that the suus locus for Forum Fulvii was on the inner loop, after Hasta and before Aquae Statiellae: this arrangement would have produced a symmetric quadrangle consisting of the four communities of inner Liguria (Alba Pompeia, Hasta, Forum Fulvii, Aquae Statiellae). However, once Forum Fulvii had been bypassed (rather by Plinys copyists than by Pliny himself), it fell into the wrong place, but not randomly: it was attracted by another city bearing a surname: Potentia. It is most unlikely that Pliny should have missed first the presumed Valentia on the Po, and then Forum Fulvii on the Tanarus. Thus the analysis of Plinys geographical arrangement brings welcome literary confirmation for the location of the Forum Fulvii on the Tanarus (and not on the Po), and also some confirmation for the authenticity of its cognomen Valentinum. Zanda (20) juxtaposes this surname with the surnames of Industria (Bodincomagus) and Potentia (Carreum). Historically, and linguistically, these cases are, however, entirely disparate. Industria and Potentia, Roman names boni ominis, supplanted local denominations of local settlements; the surname Valentinum was added to the clearly preexistent Roman foundation of Forum Fulvii. How, and when, this happened, remains an enigma; in abeyance must also remain the vexing problem of the tribus Pomptina on the left bank of the Tanarus. We move now to the more solid ground of stones even if broken or effaced. The section Monumenti epigrafici riediti o nuovi contains 1 re-edited text (no. 4; published by Mommsen on the basis of a copy, CIL 5.7443; see below on the indication of the tribe), and 9 new texts (3 of them minuscule fragments), 3 lost, and apparently none ever recorded in AE. Yet appearances often mislead: in any case nos. 1 and 4 did in fact find their way to AE 1985, 415 and 1987, 414. {See now 1999 [2002], 65155, from Suppl. Ital.; 2002 [2005], 484}. This omission in the lemma is rather discouraging for in the past the contributors to Suppl. Ital. had religiously indicated the concordances with AE. Those indications are important for they show which texts, often originally published in local periodicals of limited circulation, are genuinely new to the larger scholarly community, and which had already entered into the scholarly discourse. No. 1 is a good example. It is a funerary monument of a tribune of cohors (spelt chors) prima F\lavia. The text was originally given in rather inaccessible local publications in 191991 and again in 194092 but was missed in the standard treatment of

91 F. Gasparolo, Rivista di storia, arte e archeologia per la provincia di Alessandria 28 (1919) 246 (non vidi). 92 P. Peola, Protostoria e romanit dellagro alessandrino, vol. 17 in the series Biblioteca della Deputazione di Storia Patria, sezione di Alessandria (Alessandria 1940) 215 (non vidi).

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

449

530

the subject by H. Freis.93 Only after its republication by G. Mennella94 and admission into AE has this important document become generally accessible. It offers the third attestation of this unit (when it was stationed at Lugdunum; later, probably under Hadrian, the cohors was moved to Carthage), and the second attestation of its surname Flavia (cf. CIL XII 2602 = ILS 2118; XIII 1853 = ILS 2119). Interestingly, three other texts also refer to soldiers; apparently Forum Fulvii / Valentia, true to its name, was a favorite place for military recruitment and retirement. We have a veteran perhaps [legionis] III [August]ae (no. 3), a soldier leg(ionis) VIIII, a soldier and a veteran leg(ionis) IX Hispaniensis (nos. 2 {cf. AE 1998 [2001], 522}, 4), the latter two legions no doubt one and the same legio which was called Hispana or Hispaniensis, but also often appears without any surname.95 No. 6, a quadrangular urn, inscribed on two sides, was last seen in 1921; later it was smashed into pieces, and evanesced. The inscription was published twice in local venues, and again on the basis of early photographs (the picture of text (a) is excellent, of text (b) hardly legible) and manuscript tradition by G. Mennella.96 The defunctus, while apparently buried in the ager of Valentia, had been an official in an important collegium in Mediolanum. The first line (or two) of text (a) are lost, but the last three lines are intact: II collegi fab(rum) / et centonariorum arces / Titianae c(oloniae) A() A(ugustae) M(ediolani). This collegium is one of the best known in the whole Roman world. Among its officials there were four annually elected curatores, the bursars of the common purse, arca. This is the fourth attestation of the arca and the third attestation of its name Titiana. Hence an easy supplement at the end of the preceding line: cur(ator)] or cur(atori)]. The person in question exercised this function twice, the first example of the iteration in the Milanese college, but in the broader world of the collegia reelections to the curatorship were not unknown.97 However, the reading arces raises doubts. On the photograph, if any trace is at all visible, it can as well be an A; but most probably we do not deal here with an archaizing genitive but rather with simple and common monophthongisation, attested in numerous inscriptions. Moreover, in the sequence of two feminine genitives or datives of the first declension quite often one word displays the ending -ae and the other -e, or vice versa;98 for the vocalism arce Titianae we find a close parallel in another inscription also emanating from the milieu of the Milanese fabri and centonarii, though with respect to the dative, CIL V 5869, lines 78: Iunoni / Cissoniae Aphrodite. Text (b) can be reconstructed only in a general outline: it contained a formula stipulating that the violator of the sepul93 94 95 96 Die Cohortes urbanae (Kln-Graz 1967) 2930. Epigraphica 46 (1984) 23437. See E. Ritterling, RE 12 (1925) 1670. Alla ricerca di unarca perduta: il sarcofago romano di Pietra Marazzi (AL), Serta antiqua et mediaevalia, n.s. 1 (1997) 17181, whence it flowed into Suppl. Ital. and AE 1997 [2000], 534. {See now the comprehensive study by F. Boscolo, Collegium fabrum et centonariorum Mediolaniensium, AIV 161 (20022003) 369424, with a dossier of inscriptions. Oddly enough, he missed the contribution of Mennella}. 97 Cf. J. P. Waltzing, tude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains 1 (Louvain 1895) 408, n. 4. 98 Cf. V. Vnnen, Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompiennes3 (Berlin 1966) 2324.

450

Historia et Epigraphia

chre should pay as a penalty 15,000 sesterces apparently to the second centuria of the collegium (line 4). We know that the Milanese collegium of fabri and centonarii consisted of 12 centuries; in CIL V 5612 each of the four curators of the arca indicates the century to which he belonged. Our man will have thus belonged to the second century. Of lines 13 only meager relics are on record; in his edition Mennella wisely resists the lure of supplements, but in his commentary he proposes the following integrazioni ampiamente ipotetiche: [Si quis alienaverit hanc ar]c\[am] / in qua\ humari li[cue]r[it aut in eam] idem / sev[erit]. Here particularly questionable appears the sequence aut in eam idem severit (i.e., saeverit). The locution saevire in aliquem or aliquid is well known, but it belongs to the language of poetry or elevated historical narrative and one would hardly expect it in a legalistic injunction. Thus it is rather surprising to see these restorations wholly admitted into AE and admitted without any word of warning as to their hypothetical nature; the fulminations of L. Robert against restorations exempli gratia have apparently been forgotten in Paris. Alba Pompeia (Regio IX, Liguria) by S. Giorcelli Bersani (pp. 37117). Some places are lucky in stones and for stones. The inscriptions from Alba (so called still today) were collected in CIL V, pars 2 (1877) by Mommsen, 19 pieces in all (75957613). At the end of the century Federico Eusebio began his fervent archaeological activity in Alba; stones were rescued and preserved in the local Museo Civico (opened in 1897) which now bears his name. After his death in 1913 periods of abbandono followed and of renewed activity. Of the latter we have two recent and simultaneous testimonies: the present fascicle of Suppl. Ital., and the massively lavish volume Alba Pompeia.99 The contribution by Giorcelli Bersani is to be read side by side with two pieces from the Alba volume, both of them authored by G. Mennella and S. Barbieri (Mennella is of course also a veteran contributor to Suppl. Ital.): La citt e il territorio nella testimonianza delle fonti scritte (1729), and La documentazione epigrafica della citt e del territorio (569609). Whether this duplication of effort was reasonable, we leave to the locals to ponder; the readers may rejoice. Closely related are the articles Il popolamento del territorio: la carta archeologica by C. Mora (3040), and La documentazione archeologica by F. Filippi (102293), a truly exhaustive study, as is also the exemplary publication by G. Spagnolo Garzoli of a rich area sepolcrale at via Rossini (295418). And we should not forget coins found in Alba or its territory: 89 pieces, only 3 republican, the bulk from the first two centuries of the empire (54968). The Alba Pompeia volume contains also the full documentation of instrumentum domesticum (by various authors), some of it inscriptum, in particular the numerous pieces of terra sigillata displaying 16 different potters marks (447), with most objects produced in Italy but a few coming from Gaul; next the various containers (esp. for olive oil and wine) with some 35 different marks (530). Then there are lamps, some again with inscriptions (453), and of course brick stamps
99 F. Filippi (ed.), Alba Pompeia. Archeologia della citt dalla fondazione alla tarda antichit (Alba 1997), in quarto, and of 624 pp.

531

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

451

with a plethora of names (54048). Inscriptions on such objects were admitted into CIL very unevenly, and as a rule they do not appear in Suppl. Ital. One can understand this decision, but understanding does not mean approval. The corpora of instrumentum are indispensable to any scholar wishing to study thoroughly the industry and commerce of a city or area. Herein lies the special value of such undertakings as this book on the archaeology of Alba. Still hundreds of objects bearing identical marks would certainly swamp any specifically epigraphical collection. There is a middle way: indicate all the variant marks (and their frequency), and fully edit only those inscriptions that are of special historical, economic or cultural import. Two examples from the Alba Pompeia volume, neither admitted into Suppl. Ital., will illustrate this contention: First, a brick. No. 10 in the chapter on Bolli laterizi by C. De Marchi reads: Q. Tulli / Ti. Claudi(o) P. Quintil(io) cos. (pp. 543, 545; photo on p. 540). The name in line 1 is that of the entrepreneur; in line two we have the consular date of 13 B.C.E. (It may be of interest to point out that this consular date does not seem to be yet recorded on brick stamps from Rome and Ostia100). Epigraphers religiously catalogue Consules aliaeque annorum determinationes. Certainly it is absurd to omit a consular date only because of the material of its supporto. But there is more to this particular brick than meets a casual eye: it shows how elusive the bricks can be. De Marchi credits L. Bruzza with the publication of the document in his Iscrizioni antiche Vercellesi (Roma 1894 [the correct date is 1874!]), and ascribes its elucidation to F. Eusebio.101 Yet when Eusebio presented (in 1903) his findings to the Congress, this text, thanks to the efforts of Mommsen, had already been well known and well understood for more than a quarter of a century.102 Now,
100 See the indices of H. Bloch, HSCP 5859 (1948) 8287; E. M. Steinby, Indici complementari ai bolli doliari urbani (Roma 1987) 1078. 101 Cenni particolari sul materiale epigrafico del museo dAlba, in Atti del congresso internazionale di scienze storiche 2 (Roma 1905) 134 (non vidi). 102 Mommsen in his edition of CIL V had separated the texts inscribed on the instrumentum domesticum from all other inscriptions, and bundled them together in a special section covering regions X, XI and IX (CIL V, 2 [1877], pp. 958ff.). Here our text duly figures as no. 8112,82 (p. 984). The lemma informs us that Mommsen saw and copied it in hortis olim Veglio, nunc Mermet (the brick is presently in the Museum. The precise finding place is unknown, but De Marchi [548, n. 30] observes that a note of 19001 segnala il laterizio come gi incastrato in un muro di casa Mermet. From CIL we know that it was there already in 1868 when Mommsen visited Alba), and that he published it originally in Bull. dellInst. 1876, p. 55. But the Master also acknowledged the true editio princeps by C. Promis in his Storia dellantica Torino (Torino 1869) 216; and also the publications (from a manuscript of Gazzera) by G. F (or in Latin I. F.) Muratori, Iscrizioni Romane dei Vagienni (Torino 1869), no. 142, and by L. Bruzza, Iscrizioni antiche Vercellesi (Roma 1872 [sic]), 211. (Mommsen used the proofs of Bruzzas book. The whole opus appeared in 1874 [cf. CIL V, 2, pp. XV and 736], though the introduction was added only in 1875). See G. Sommo, Padre Luigi Bruzza e larcheologia vercellese, 18; this is the Internet edition of the first two chapters from G. Sommo, Corrispondenze archeologiche vercellesi. Documenti per una lettura storica e territoriale delle collezioni archeologiche locali del Museo C. Leone, Vercelli 1994); cf. also Atti del convegno di studi nel centenario della morte di Luigi Bruzza, 18831983 (Vercelli 1987). On Promis (180873) and Muratori (180470), and their contacts with Mommsen, see the illuminating remarks by A. Ferrua, Inscr. Ital. IX, 1 (1948) XXXIVXXXV; Mommsen was kind to

452

Historia et Epigraphia

532

further confusion or a discovery. De Marchi (547) states that for our marchio consolare ... un confronto offerto dal rinvenimento di una tegola a Pollenzo. We hasten to footnote 38 where we read: (with reference to an article of 1983 in a local journal): il bollo risulta erroneamente registrato nel C.I.L. sotto il titolo delle Amphorae (V, n. 8112/82). This is of course our very tegula (registered indeed erroneously among the amphoras), and not any other specimen with the same inscription. It may well have been found in Pollentia, and later brought to Alba. {It continued slithering through the fingers of editors. PIR II (1936) 219 (C 941) knows of only one example of the name-form Ti. Claudius in the consular dating during the first and second consulship of the future emperor Tiberius (CIL XV 4539); it missed our tegula. Improvement in PIR VII, 1 (1999) 2021 (Q 30). Our text figures there, but it is wrongly described (following Mommsen) as signac. in amph.}. Oddly enough, it seems to be the only example of the form and abbreviation P. Quintil(ius). Here ends, for now, the slippery story of a small brick, and begins the strange story of a small cup. The cup in question was found in a rather interesting grave (Filippi 291). In the chapter on Ceramica comune A. Quercia (5067) identifies it as belonging to the class of vasi potori. Common piece it may be, but the inscription it bears certainly is not common: calos Acti Castre(n)sis. For interpretation we are directed to an excellent article103 by E. Culasso Gastaldi published in a local journal.104 The first word, calos, is of course the Greek acclamation kalw; and the person so cheered appears to have been an actor or pantomime idolized with the same exclamation calos on the walls of Pompei (see esp. CIL IV 2150). AE describes the cup, misleadingly, as urne funeraire. It belongs in the series of various cups and other objects sporting the names of famous entertainers, mostly gladiators; it is a collectors item and a souvenir.105 One can only speculate whether the person buried in Alba came there from Campania or if the fame of Actius Castrensis reached the Alps. But we can allow ourselves one surmise: for his long journey the deceased took this cup because it reminded him of his two earthly pleasures: vinum and theatrum; he also took with him a small beaker (coppetta) with representations of grapes and (probably) pomegranates, symbols of eternal life.106
Promis, and rude to Muratori. He appreciated Bruzza: for his laudes Bruzzae, see CIL V, p. 736. On C. Gazzera (17881859), see Ferrua, ibid. XXIV). In his edition Mommsen corrected the errors of lectio and interpretatio of Promis and Bruzza, of whom the former assigned the consular pair to the year 51, and the latter to 235. We are not told that this article was analysed in AE 1984 [1987], 416. Epigraphica subalpina (Viva Azio Castrese), Bolletino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 82 (1984) 44150 (I am very obliged to the author for kindly sending me a copy); see now also the discussion by H. Leppin, Histrionen (Bonn 1992) 19194. Cf. H. T. Rowell, The gladiator Petraites and the date of the Satyricon, TAPA 89 (1958) 1424. {Cf. S. Panciera, Catilina e Catone su due coppette romane, in Filaw xrin. Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di Eugenio Manni V (Roma 1980) 163751; E. Knzl and G. Koeppel, Souvenirs und Devotionalien. Zeugnisse des geschflichen, religisen und kulturellen Tourismus im antiken Rmerreich (Mainz 2002) esp. 2024.} Cf. F. Muthmann, Der Granatapfel, Symbol des Lebens in der alten Welt (Bern 1982) esp. 7792, 11011.

103 104

105

106

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

453

The brick, associating in the consular date the man who was to become the recluse emperor and the man who was to lose the legions, and the drinking cup joyously speaking to us from the grave, tell a melancholy story; they should not be banned from the Suppl. Ital. To the history of Alba Mommsen devoted one page (CIL V, 2, p. 863). The story is now amply retold by Giorcelli Bersani in Suppl. Ital. and by G. Mennella and S. Barbieri in Alba Pompeia. De origine non constat, wrote Mommsen, and the matter largely so stands. The Romans appeared in this area in the second century, and again (see above under Forum Fulvii) we can attribute the decisive rle to one or both of the Fulvii, Q. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 179) and M. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. 125). Originally a Ligurian settlement, the city was granted in 89 the Latin rights under the lex Pompeia (Strabonis), and it was probably at that time that the appellative Pompeia was added to the old name of Alba. In 49, under the regime of Caesar, the coloniae Latinae of the area were transformed into municipia civium Romanorum, although in Alba the chief magistrates appear to have remained the duoviri. Alba (as also the neighboring Augusta Bagiennorum) was assigned to the tribus Camilia. As Alba was situated in close proximity to Pollentia and Augusta Bagiennorum to the west, and Hasta to the north, its ager must have primarily extended in the eastern and southern direction. Mommsen did not wish to divine the exact extent of its territory, and assigned inscriptions from these two areas to separate sections entitled Inter Hastam et Albam ad Belbum et Tanarum and Inter Bormidam et Belbum. But as Pollentia and Hasta belonged to the tribe Pollia, Aquae Statiellae in the east to the Tromentina, and Albingaunum far south on the coast to the Publilia, a good guide to the spread of the ager of Alba are the findspots of inscriptions with the indication of the tribe Camilia (though Vada Sabatia, also on the coast, may have appertained to the Stellatina or to Camilia which complicates the stuation; cf. JRA 3 [1990] 318 {= RQ, No. 41}). Successors of Mommsen have thus redrawn the territory of Alba, and added to Mommsens original 19 texts (7 lost) a substantial number of stones from the holding sections of CIL V: nos. 754345, 754854, 758589 (6 lost), and also one piece from Augusta Bagiennorum (7681 = AE 1994. 647). There are 55 Monumenti nuovi (2 re-edited): only 6 small fragments lost; and only 5 registered as reproduced in AE, but in fact also nos. 10, 16, 17 and 25 found their way to AE 1996, 678; 1987, 413; 1995, 529; and 1994, 646. And now AE 1997 (2000), 53661 contains many texts from the Alba volume. {See also 1999 [2002], 65776, from the Alba volume and Suppl. Ital.; 2001 [2004], 987; 2002 [2005], 48586.} In sum, the patrimonium lapideum of Alba consists at the present time of 74 pezzi riperibili (p. 59). And we should not omit the falsae: more than 60 pieces of imagination, mostly the handiwork of that master falsarius Iosephus Franciscus Meyranesio (172893); on his mischief in Alba, see Mommsen, CIL V, 2, p. 863; and for a general appreciation, A. Ferrua, Inscr. Ital. XI, 1, pp. 10911. Of all extant pieces published in CIL we get in Suppl. Ital. a detailed description, extensive commentaries and bibliography; in Alba Pompeia we get more: photographs, and a new edition of all stones, extant or lost. Moreover the Alba volume provides a most

454
533

Historia et Epigraphia

valuable list of all stones found throughout the empire that mention Alba, mostly as origo (1820). On the stones themselves the frequency of the formula v(ivus) f(ecit) attracts attention: 6 examples among Mon. nuovi, and several more in CIL. Claims to fame Alba Pompeia had but few, yet only few cities in Italy could claim an emperor. P. Helvius Pertinax, who ruled for almost three months in 193, to be murdered by the praetorians, was born in Alba (Cass. Dio 73.3.1). His father was allegedly of servile extraction; as patris patronus the Hist. Aug. (Pert. 1.1; 5) names (L. Hedius Rufus) Lollianus Avitus (cos. 144). This information or fable Giorcelli Bersani repeats faithfully (54). How a Helvius could receive this name from a Hedius remains cheerfully unexplained. Of the Hedii, despite all the pious efforts, so far no secure epigraphical trace was found in Liguria.107 About the family of Pertinax Mommsen penned this incautious phrase: stirpis eius ignobilis titulos memoriam non servasse mirum non est (CIL V, p. 863). Recently, however, a stone surfaced in Alba (Alba Pompeia no. 32, pp. 58687; Suppl. Ital. no. 25; AE 1994; 646) recording C. Helvius P. f. Cam(ilia) Felix, his son C. Helvius (the cognomen is lost), and perhaps his brother P. Helvius P. f. Ter(etina) Tenax. The monument is partially effaced, and the writing is very difficult to divine. The editor princeps, G. Mennella108 is, however, optimistically adamant: Ter. and Tenaci (and not Pertinaci) are the correct readings. He reconstructs lines 67 as follows: P. Helvio P. f. Ter(etina) Tenaci [TE in ligature] / fr(atri). Giorcelli Bersani, also on the basis of autopsy, gives a slightly different text, much less certain in the second part of line 6: T\e\r\(etina) T\ena++ / fr(atri). The tribe Ter(etina) of the dedicants brother is puzzling, and to explain it Mennella (followed by Giorcelli Bersani) builds intricate hypotheses. Now there was no absolute need for the dedicant to indicate separately the tribes of his son and of his brother: the passer-by pausing at the grave would easily assume that they all shared the same registration. In the epigraphic material from Alba we have 5 examples of a person stating his tribe and setting up a grave inscription for himself and other (male) members of his family. The tribe is in all cases Camilia. In 3 cases the dedicant equips all the names on the stone with the tribal assignation (CIL V 7601, 7607, Alba Pompeia no. 38 = Suppl. Ital. no. 11), but in 2 cases he appends this notation only to his own name (V 7544, 7681; and cf. 7543 which exhibits a similar procedure). Given the indisputable fact that the stone is barely legible, we should choose the easiest solution: read the alleged TER as PER, and thus restore in line 6 Pertinaci or Pertina[ci]. We may be dealing with the relatives of the emperor, and with this hopeful thought let us take our leave from Alba. Ferrara cum agro (Regio X, Venetia et Histria) by D. Pupillo (pp. 121205). The title of this section is an anachronism, but an anachronism with a good pedigree. Ferrara, all the renaissance glory in front of her, sprang forth from a Byzantine fort with no obvious Roman past. The administrative position of the vast delta of the Po is uncertain; there existed in the area several settlements but none rose to the rank
107 When Giorcelli Bersani speaks of the Hedii documentati nella vicina Pollentia (54), she converts tenuous and circular hypotheses into firm pseudofacts (cf. AE 1996, 56). 108 Rivista di Studi Liguri 5960 (199394) 13344, and in the Alba Pompeia volume.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

455

534

of a forum, municipium or colonia. In that aporia (persisting also today) Mommsen decided to group the inscriptions from the Ferrarese under one convenient and arbitrary heading. In doing so he uttered in his pithy Latin a lament and warning (CIL V, p. 225): nam quae sunt tria maxima vitia, malae artes falsariorum et translatio genuinorum titulorum et antiqui status ignorantia, ea hic omnia concurrunt. To preserve the continuity with CIL Pupillo (12532) prudently adopted the Mommsenian arrangement, although at least part of the delta must have belonged to the ager of Ravenna, and we should not hastily exclude Atria. On inscriptions from the area there occur two attestations of the tribus Romilia and three of Camilia, but this is of little help as none of these documents was found in situ; furthermore Camilia was the tribe of both Ravenna and Atria, and no town in the vicinity is known to have belonged to the Romilia. CIL V 2389, often attributed to Ateste, Pupillo prefers to keep in the area of Ferrara. Unfortunately her map of Ferrara cum agro is practically illegible. In CIL V (1872, 1877) Mommsen published 66 texts (and a good number of falsae); further addenda (6 items) were, however, oddly included in CIL XI (1888, 1926), and 1 text in Suppl. Ital. of Pais (1888). Of that number, Pupillo notes, 27 are lost; of the remaining most are preserved in the Lapidarium of the Museo Civico of Ferrara and Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Spina. All these texts receive a detailed description, occasional corrections, and a bibliographical aggiornamento. There are 34 Monumenti nuovi; only 2 lost, 14 admitted into AE. In her introduction Pupillo underscores several salient features of the social and economic life in the delta. First, the port of Ravenna and its commercial vitality which recently received vivid illustration through ancient marine misfortune: a merchant ship found with its cargo intact, including a large load of lumps of lead, probably from Spain, dated to the late republican {or perhaps rather Augustan} period: see the discussion by various authors: Fortuna maris. La nave romana di Comacchio (Ferrara 1990). {See now L. Zerbini, La nave romana di Comacchio, LAfrica Romana 14.2 (2002) 82128; a good number of lead lumps bear the inscription AGRIP, probably referring to M. Vipsanius Agrippa; so Zerbini (p. 823) following C. Domergue, Les lingots de plomb de lpave romaine de Valle Ponti (Comacchio), Epigraphica 49 (1987) 10975 at 11822, an interpretation already favored by F. Berti in Fortuna Maris, p. 75}. Next, the presence, since the time of Augustus, of a squadron of the imperial navy, classis Ravennas, in the new military port (Classis), two miles to the south of Ravenna proper. The delta displays an unusually large percentage of stones commemorating soldiers, sailors and veterans; in all 16 (or perhaps 17) pieces, three of them new: No. 7, a veteran of cohors XIIII urbana. No. 8, a stone set up by a her(es), Iulia Pusinca, to her patron, T. Iulio Urbano, na(tione) Hispano, who (lines 48) milit(avit) in / leg(ione) VII Gemi/na Felice, vi/xit an(nis) LX, / mil(itavit) an(nis) XXVI. That this Hispanus found his lasting place in the Po delta is rather surprising and calls for an explanation. Now legio VII Gemina was recruited by Galba in 68 in Spain, and after a vigorous participation in civil wars, ultimately on the side of Vespasian, was from 74 stationed again in

456

Historia et Epigraphia

535

Spain.109 In 88/89 it marched from Spain to help quell the rebellion of Antonius Saturninus in Upper Germany. Now according to P. Le Roux, on that occasion the legion may have also passed through northern Italy and Aquileia.110 For that supposition there is no direct proof.111 On the other hand we know for certain that in the wars of 68/69 the legion first advanced with Galba to Rome, and then again descended (from Pannonia) on Italy against the Vitellians. But our inscription may belong to an altogether later period. Iulius Urbanus had served in the army for 26 years; and as he died at the age of 60112 he would have been enrolled at a rather ripe age (for a tiro) of 34. But this fits rather well the circumstances of an extraordinary levy when a whole new legion was created. This consideration would lead us from the enrollment in 68 to the missio in 94. Yet the most important military find will certainly be a diploma of honesta missio given to a classiarius of the Ravenna fleet, a Dalmatian by origin, dated to 12 June of 100 (no. 6). It was unearthed in the course of excavations at Voghenza; first published in 1989, and subsequently re-edited and commented in the standard collection by M. Roxan, Roman military diplomas 19851993 (London 1994) 25859 (no. 142). Pupillos is the first reading of the text after the bronze had been cleaned; no corrections. Life in the delta stood triply under the sign of the emperor: through his fleet, his retired soldiers, and his vast estates. Imperial slaves and freedmen are on record in several texts in CIL V (238586, 2411) and in Monumenti nuovi: No. 3, Halus / Augustae (scil. servus) saltuarius (cf. p. 142), thus testifying to a separate estate (saltus) of an imperial lady, perhaps of Livia. No. 4, a Caes(aris) n(ostri) ser(va). No. 5, a socially interesting document. Clemens, Caes(aris) n(ostri) serv(us) librarius (hardly a secretary, rather a book-keeper) and his son Ulpius Festus, set up a monument to Ulpia Athenais, coniunx, a freedwoman rather than freeborn. The son, according to all legal rules, bears the name of the mother. The Ulpii appear on 3 other stones (nos. 2426), no doubt imperial freedmen or their descendants. It is high time to take leave of this treasure-trove of stones, and there is nothing more pleasant than to depart on a note of drama and supposition. In 101 C. Marius and Q. Lutatius Catulus saved Italy by defeating the Cimbri in a bloody battle fought at t pedon t per Berkllaw (Plut. Mar. 25.5); Latin sources supply the name of the plain: Campi Raudii or Campus Raudius (Vell. Pat. 2.12.5; Flor. 1.38.14; De vir. ill. 67.2). Modern scholars had commonly located the engagement somewhere in the vicinity of the Piemontese Vercellae. This is still the only place of that name in the Barrington (or Talberts) Atlas. But in 195658 the topographical landscape of the battle changed as swiftly and dramatically as the military situation in 101: in two articles published in a local periodical in Cremona J. Zennari
109 Cf. E. Ritterling, RE 12 (1925) 163035. 110 Larme romain et lorganisation des provinces ibriques dAuguste linvasion de 409 (Paris 1982) 158, 195. 111 Cf. G. Alfldy,Hispanien und das rmische Heer, Gerin 3 (1985) 39496 = Rmische Heeresgeschichte (Amsterdam 1987) 49799. 112 Or so: 60 is the beginning of senectus, and such a round figure may be suspect.

Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5

457

adduced powerful arguments for moving the place of the clash to the plains of the lower Po, and precisely to the area between the modern cities of Ferrara and Rovigo. This idea has gained a large following, and the excitement of the moment is still resonant in the lines of E. Badian: This study makes all earlier discussions of the battle or later ones written in ignorance of it obsolete.113 Yet it is well to remember that it all ultimately depends on a funeral inscription which also happens to contain a piece of information pertaining to the administration of imperial estates (CIL V 2385 = ILS 1509). It reads: D(is) M(anibus) / Atiliae / Primitivae / coniugi / incomparab(ili) / Herma Augg. / verna disp(ensator) / region(is) Padan(ae) Vercellensium / Ravennatium / b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit). This text had been known for more than two hundred years, and immediately after its discovery near Ferrara in 1764 a local erudite Giovanni Battista Passeri attempted to connect the name of Vercellenses with the name of a local brook. Mommsen bristled at the suggestion: Vercellenses hos male distinguit Passerius ab notis Transpadanis, referens ad illos nescio quem rivum Verznes prope Voghenzam. As usual, the opinion of Mommsen prevailed for a time. Yet the Vercellenses in our inscription may appear to have been in some way subordinated to the Ravennates; perhaps they inhabited a vicus in the ager of Ravenna. Zennari placed the ager Vercellensis in close proximity to Ferrara, on the left bank of the Po.114 The inscription and the location of the battle continue to be debated (Pupillo 14344, with recent bibliography). Now Zennari (quoted by Van Ooteghem 220, n. 3) also argued that vercellae was a common Celtic word denoting un terreno metallifero alluviale. The vercellenses would then be the people who worked in the fodinae. According to a legal definition servi quibus permittitur administratio pecuniae, dispensatores appellati sunt (Gaius, Inst. 1.122; at Petr. Sat. 30.9 we observe dispensatorem ... aureos numerantem; for further references, see Pupillo 143). The officium of our dispensator Herma would thus be to administer payments from the vercellenses of Ravenna operating the imperial fodinae along the course of Padus. An impish thought occurs: if Zennari is right in his understanding of vercellae then perhaps the late denomination Ferraria is nothing else but simply a Latin rendering and a continuation of the earlier settlement of the vercellenses, a settlement in the vicinity of which Marius destroyed the Cimbri. Ferrara may have had after all a heroic past, a dream vainly dreamt by many a falsarius (cf. CIL V 169*). The most recent exploratrix of the scholarly swamps of the Po, V. Righini, resolutely returns to Piemonte and to Mommsens sobriety.115

113 Historia 11 (1962) 217. 114 See his map reproduced by J.Van Ooteghem, Caius Marius (Brussels 1964) 219. 115 La regio Padana Vercellensium Ravennatium: unipotesi, Corso di cultura sullarte Ravennate e Bizantina 43 (1998) 75779.

33 GLADIATORS*
Georges VILLE, La gladiature en Occident des origines la mort de Domitien. Bibliothque des coles Franaises dAthnes et de Rome, fasc. 245. Rome: cole Franaise de Rome, Palais Farnse, 1981. Pp. xi + 519 + 7.

Pious condemnation or gory titillation much nonsense has been written about Roman gladiatorial games. Such titles as Cruelty and Civilization speak for themselves. Until very recently there existed only two comprehensive and reliable studies of the gladiatura: L. Friedlnders classic Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der Antoninen1 and L. Roberts masterly Les gladiateurs dans lorient grec (Paris, 1940). The great merit
* 1 Classical Philology 80 (1985) 189192 {with bibliographical addenda}. Vol. 2, pp. 5112, and vol. 4, pp. 20575 (10th edition by G. Wissowa, Leipzig, 192122). There exists an English translation, Roman Life and Manners, 4 vols. (London and New York, 190813). Also of use are G. Lafaye, Gladiator, Dict. des Ant. 2 (1896): 156399, and K. Schneider, Gladiatores, RE Suppl. 3 (1918): 76084. M. Grant, Gladiators (London, 1967), is a short popular account, and K. Hopkins chapter Murderous Games in his Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 130, is an intelligent essay, although beset by the nowadays popular and lucrative practice of presenting commonplaces as insights. {In the intervening two decades a good number of general books dealing with the phenomenon of gladiators have appeared, not all of them good. C. A. Barton, The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans. The Gladiator and the Monster (Princeton, 1992), fills her pages with empathy, tears and anger. To a speculative genre belongs the book by P. Plass, The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide (Madison, 1995), and to some extent also that by T. Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators (London, 1992). P. A. Futrell, Blood in the Arena. The Spectacle of Roman Power (Austin, 1997), despite the dripping title, gives a rather sober popular overview, avoiding both the technical and the Latin. On the other hand, the book by D. G. Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (London and New York, 1998) is an original contribution offering a detailed presentation of the grim task of the disposal of corpses. On the books of Barton, Futrell and Kyle (and Fora; cf. below, n. 7a), see the review article by J. E. Lendon, CJ 95.4 (2000): 399406, admirable in its scathing rejection of fashionable idiocies and disappointing in its contempt for the intellectual joys of epigraphy. For a fine appreciation of Kyles book, see D. Potter, JRA 14.2 (2001): 47984, with whose eminently sensible remarks on the phenomenon of the gladiatura I am in full agreement. On the gladiatorial arenas, J.-C. Golvin, Lamphithtre romain (Paris, 1988), is a monumental compendium; recent work on amphitheatres and spectacles (including Futrells book) is discussed by K. Welch, JRA 14.2 (2001): 49298; and see now her comprehensive study, The Roman Amphitheatre (Cambridge, 2005). For the late republic, see D. Sapek, Gladiatorzy a polityka. Igrzyska w okresie pznej republiki rzymskiej [Gladiators and Politics. Gladiatorial Games in the Late Republican Period] (Wrocaw, 1995). F. Savi, I gladiatori. Storia, organizzazione, iconografia (Rome, 1980), is a brief introduction with excellent photographs. Very useful is the lexicographical study by M. G. Mosci Sassi, Il linguaggio gladiatorio (Bologna, 1992)}.

Gladiators

459

190

of Robert was to demonstrate, against the entrenched wisdom, the immense popularity of the gladiatorial games in the Greek East under the Empire. He also elucidates many baffling aspects of the terminology: his interpretation of the expression primus (secundus, etc.) palus (pp. 2831) may serve as a brilliant example. In the preface to the reprint of his book in 1971, Robert, after only thirty years, recognized the need for a supplement;2 the volumes of Friedlnder, after more than a century of service, are in need of replacement. After years of patient work G. Ville seemed predestined to fill the gap. In 1960 he published a long article on the gladiatorial games under the Christian emperors,3 and a few years later an important study of the famous gladiatorial mosaic from Zliten,4 but then fate intervened. In 1967 Ville perished in an accident, leaving behind him a manuscript only partially finished. That fourteen years later his book finally appeared in print is due to a singular act of piety on the part of the French School at Rome, which published it, and of P. Veyne, who prepared it for publication, filling the gaps in the manuscript and adding a number of references.5 Four members of the School prepared a detailed index; unfortunately there is no comprehensive bibliography, and this means that the readers who will consult the book as an encyclopedia will spend many useless hours tracking down the quotations. For it is an encyclopedia. Origins Ville disposes of swiftly. Following in the footsteps of F. Weege6 he declares himself decisively in favor of the Oscan (not Etruscan) origin of the gladiatorial games. Three subjects occupy the bulk of the book: in painstaking detail Ville chronicles all munera and venationes attested in Rome down to the end of the first century of the Empire; he provides an equally detailed discussion of the personnel of the ludi the gladiators themselves, the bestiarii, the damnati, and of course the editores, among whom towers the emperor; and finally he takes us to the spectacle itself which, with his expert guidance, we can intelligently follow if not necessarily enjoy. The death of Domitian is the chronological limit of Villes study; why this particular caesura was chosen is not immediately apparent, and we look in vain for an

3 4

His promised Nouveaux documents de gladiateurs dans lorient grec has not yet appeared {and apparently the book was still unfinished at the time of his death in 1985}; in the meantime {and forever} we are thankful for his numerous contributions to the subject published in the Hellenica. {For further gladiatorial monuments from Asia Minor, see T. Ritti and S. Yilmaz, Gladiatori e venationes a Hieropolis di Frigia (Mem. Lincei, serie IX, vol. X, fasc. 4 [1998]).} Les jeux de gladiateurs dans lempire chrtien, MEFRA 72 (1960): 273335 {Cf. now P. Veyne, Paens et chrtiens devant la gladiature, MEFRA 111 (1999): 883917.} Essai de datation de la mosaique de Zliten, in La mosaique grco-romaine, Colloques internationaux du C.R.N.S. (Paris, 1965), pp. 14755. Cf. now K. Dunbabin, The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage (Oxford, 1978) 6587, 23537. References to modern literature do not go, however, beyond 1966. One of these additions is rather unfortunate: on p. 355 Maecius is presented as the editor of the ludi apparatissimi (Cic. Fam. 7.1.12); the ludi in question are of course the famous games of Pompey at the dedication of his theatre in 55. As D. R. Shackleton Bailey notes, Sp. Maecius had chosen the plays for the afternoon performances (Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares, vol. 1 [Cambridge, 1977] 325). Oskische Grabmalerei, JDAI 24 (1909) 13435.

460

Historia et Epigraphia

191

explanation either in the preface or in the body of the book. Whether due to design or adverse fate this is most unfortunate, for the author was constrained to disregard a great number of later sources; in a comprehensive study of the gladiatura one would wish to have a detailed presentation of so fundamental a document as the Senatus consultum de pretiis gladiatorum minuendis of the time of Marcus Aurelius and the fateful Lyon persecution.7 The book of Ville remains a torso. Geographically the volume is limited to Rome and the western provinces; the author prudently refrained from competing with L. Robert. Roberts book contains a corpus of epigraphical documents with minute description and generous photographic illustration of the accompanying reliefs. Ville (and Veyne) assembled in the footnotes copious references to inscriptions, reliefs, lamps, mosaics, and other artefacts illustrating the munera, but the book has no epigraphical or iconographical appendix. The preface is silent as to Villes original plan; we learn only in passing, on page 64, that in fact there was to be a second volume comprising iconographic documentation. That such a volume, a corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum, be assembled is now a major desideratum; D. Faccenna, Rilievi gladiatorii, BCAR 76 / BMCR 19 (195558): 3775, and P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, Gladiatorum paria: Annunci di spettacoli gladiatorii a Pompei (= Tituli 1 [Rome, 1980]), which includes a corpus of eighty-two texts and a full discussion of each of them, are only first steps in this direction.{7a} And inscriptions continue to provide enlightenment and puzzles. One of the more bizarre aspects of the munera was the voluntary participation of senators and equestrians as gladiators. Why did they risk their lives? Some scholars have invoked the impoverishment suffered during the civil wars and the need for monetary rewards. But men (and women) of standing and substance often prefer
7 See J. H. Oliver and R. E. A. Palmer, Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate, Hesperia 23 (1954): 32049. None of the papers delivered at the colloque devoted to the martyrs of Lyon (Les martyrs de Lyon [Paris, 1978]) dealt with the possible connection between the Senatus consultum, the trinci, and the persecution; the contributions of M. Le Glay (p. 21, n. 1) and M. Sordi (p. 181, n. 4) touch upon this subject only in passing (both with further literature). {See now M. Carter, Gladiatorial Ranking and the SC de pretiis gladiatorum minuendis (CIL II 5278 = ILS 5163), Phoenix 57 (2003): 83111, an excellent piece.} {7a The project here envisaged is now well under way. It was initiated by Patricia Sabbatini Tumolesi (in the meantime, like Veyne, prematurely deceased; see the recollections by S. Panciera in Vetera 11 [1996] 79). It is entitled Epigrafia anfiteatrale dellOccidente Romano (with photographic documentation); so far six volumes arranged geographically have appeared (in the series Vetera, vols. 2, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15 [Edizioni Quasar, Roma]): I. Roma, by P. Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988); II. Regiones Italiae VIXI, by G. L. Gregori (1989); III. Regiones Italiae IIV, Sicilia, Sardinia et Corsica, by M. Buonocore (1992); IV. Regio Italiae I: Latium, by M. Fora (1996); V. Alpes Maritimae, Gallia Narbonensis, Tres Galliae, Germaniae, Britannia, by C. Vismara and M. L. Caldelli (2000); VI. Roma. Anfiteatri e strutture annesse con una nuova edizione e commento delle iscrizioni del Colosseo, by S. Orlandi (2004). See also M. Fora, I munera gladiatoria in Italia. Considerazioni sulla loro documentazione epigraphica (Napoli, 1996), containing a corpus of inscriptions, made more valuable by the key-word concordances. (See also the important review of Villes book by P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, RFIC 112 [1984]: 10111). While some academics empathize and ruminate (cf. n. 1), the authors listed above have produced enduring monuments of uncompromising scholarship.}

Gladiators

461

192

excitement and danger to boring propriety. Yet such behavior undermines the facade of decorum that every ruling class must maintain: hence a long but erratic series of prohibitions, from Caesar onward, against polluting in this way the high ordines. The pages that Ville devoted to this subject (pp. 25562) are already half obsolete: a bronze tablet found in Larinum and carrying a portion of a Senatus consultum of C.E. 19 was published in 1978.8 The decree spells out in great detail various categories of relatives and connections of knights and senators who are prohibited from appearing on the stage or in the arena. It is prohibited to engage (auctoramento rogare) any of them ut in harena depugna] / ret aut ut pinnas gladiatorum raperet aut rudem tolleret (lines 910, with Levicks supplements) the palm of victory will go to the scholar who will discover the precise meaning of the last two phrases. But how risky was it, really, to fight in the arena? Ville calculates (pp. 31825) that in the first century at each munus some twenty percent of engagements ended in the death of one of the combatants; statistically this made it rather difficult to survive more than five fights. Great champions went on to fight an astounding number of bouts, over one hundred we are told. This they did at the expense of those who would often perish at their first try. The chances for survival diminished in the succeeding centuries; a veritable got de la mort developed. Munera sine missione became popular, and popular art delighted in scenes of slaughter of vanquished gladiators. This should not surprise us: today the high point of car races is the spectacular crash, repeated countless times on television screens. What makes the race exciting is apparently not the competition but the play with death. Juvenals (3.37) occidunt populariter is matched by an inscription of C.E. 249 from the small town of Minturnae (ILS 5062). The editor is praised for having produced eleven pairs of fighters, out of which he occidit XI gladiatores primarios Campanos. Was there any religious significance in the swordsmens fights? Violent and sacred often go together. Tertullian (De spect. 12.23) and Servius (Ad Aen. 3.67, 10.519) maintain (this information may derive from Varro) that the gladiatorial fights were originally a species of funerary sacrifice; hence the name bustuarii given to these gladiators. Ville (and Veyne) reject this tradition as a mere Hellenistic aition of gladiatura: the munera gladiatoria originated as funerary games and until the end of the Republic were regularly given in honor of the dead, but their character was always agonistic, never sacrificial (pp. 919). Gallia with its trinci (see above, n. 7) and Africa with its human sacrifices to Saturn (the damnati ad bestias performed this role) form an exception. To some this interpretation will appear unduly pedestrian: in a country that knew entombments of Vestals, the burial alive of Greeks and Gauls, and the forfeiting of the sacri
8 M. Malavolta, A proposito del nuovo S. C. da Larino, Sesta miscellanea greca e romana (Roma, 1978): 37482; AE 1978, 146; B. Levick, The Senatus Consultum from Larinum, JRS 73 (1983): 97115 (with further literature). {Cf. also P. Moreau, A propos du snatusconsulte pigraphique de Larinum. Gladiateurs, arbitres et valets darne de condition snatoriale ou questre, REL 61 (1983): 3648; W. D. Lebek, Standeswrde und Berufsverbote unter Tiberius. Das SC der Tabula Larinas, ZPE 81 (1990): 3796.}

462

Historia et Epigraphia

homines to gods, there is nothing intrinsically impossible or improbable in the sacrificial bouts of gladiators at a bustum. From this perspective the munera dedicated to gods pro salute appear interesting, but Ville dismisses them in a few curt pages (11819, 16061). But be that as it may under the Empire the glorification of the emperor and mass entertainment were the major social functions of the munera. Freed from their funerary moorings, they were offered on a variety of occasions: to spill the blood of a gladiator was a marvelous way to celebrate the dedication of a library (CIL 3.607, Dyrrachium). Some (including Cicero and Seneca) found it inhuman. The populus loved it. For the Fathers of the new faith the turpitudo theatri was even more objectionable than the saevitia harenae. As Veyne remarks (Ville left unfinished the chapter devoted to the ideology of the arena), la lubricit leur a toujours paru plus dangereuse que le sadisme, and le souvenir des chrtiens jets aux lions navait nullement incit lglise condamner dans le principe que lon jett les criminels aux lions (p. 466). But this is a subject for another melancholy book.

34 GAMES IN PATAVIUM*
Nero virtutem ipsam exscindere concupivit interfecto Thrasea Paeto et Barea Sorano, olim utrisque infensus, et accedentibus causis in Thraseam, quod senatu egressus est, cum de Agrippina <re>ferretur; ... quodque Iuvenalium ludicro parum spectabilem operam praebuerat; eaque offensio altius penetrabat, quia idem Thrasea Patavi, unde ortus erat, ludis cetastis a Troiano Antenore institutis habitu tragico cecinerat.

On the text of Tacitus, Annales, 16, 21, 11, and the ludi cetasti Patavinorum, scores of conjectures have been offered, ideas and interpretations, ingenious or fantastic2.
* 1 2 Ktema 17 (1992 [1996]) 5576 {with ample addenda}. Cf. ad loc. E. KOESTERMANN, Cornelius Tacitus. Annalen. Band IV, Heidelberg, 1968, pp. 37778. They have been collected, with industry and acumen, by L. JACOBS, Ludi cetasti Patavinorum, Athenaeum, 67, 1989, pp. 27581 (a good account also in the edition of Tacitus by G. A. Ruperti, Hannoverae, 1834, pp. 49293 {also a good collection of earlier interpretations in A. J. Valpys edition In usum Delphini, Londini, 1821, vol. V, pp. 209293}. Here is a list of conjectures, as collected by JACOBS, with a few additions and corrections (for a list of older editions of Tacitus, see E. KOESTERMANN in the Preface [pp. XXVIIXXX] to his 1960 Teubner edition of the Annales; and for biographical information on various older philologians here mentioned, see W. PKEL, Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon, Leipzig, 1882; F. A. ECKSTEIN, Nomenclator philologorum, Leipzig, 1871). a) asticis: Valens ACIDALIUS (1607). Cf. JACOBS, pp. 27778. {W. S. Watt, Tacitea, AJP 109, 1988, p. 358, revives this conjecture; as he points out it was in fact first proposed by J. Lipsius in the notes appended to his edition of 1574, but omitted in that of 1607 (non vidi). Watt also asserts that the last scholar to mention Lipsius asticis was apparently Ruperti; he indeed records this emendation, but ascribes it to Acidalius. Now Acidalius himself explicitly recognized the priority of Lipsius: Lipsius ipse Asticis in prima edit. conjecerit, in posterioribus sprevit; see A. J. Valpys edition In usum Delphini, Londini, 1821, vol. IX, p. 4117 (Notae variorum: they are taken from the edition by J. F. Gronovius, Amstelodami, 1672}. b) celebratis: V. USSANI, in the edition by F. MASCIALINO, Tacito. Annali. Libro XVI, Milano, 1960; not in Jacobs. c) cesticis (games of the c(a)estus, i.e., of the pugiles): F. PUTEOLANUS (edd. 1475; 1497). Accepted, inter alios, (hesitatingly) by J. LIPSIUS (ed. 1574, and saepius); G. BROTIER (edd. 1771; 1776); J. J. OBERLIN (ed. 1801); L. DOEDERLEIN (ed. 1841): caestatis; and by I. C. THALLON, The Tradition of Antenor and its Historical Possibility, American Journal of Archaeology, 28, 1924, pp. 5152. Cf. Jacobs, pp. 27577. She rightly observes that in view of the second prologue to Terences Hecyra (lines 2528) a possible coexistence at the games in Patavium of dramatic performances and of pugiles should not bother us. In the unfortunately mutilated inscription CIL, XIV, 2771 = CLE, 236 an intriguing phrase is on display (lines 56): ] caestata can[ebat] / comica Atella[nica]. Caestata is a hapax. JACOBS avers that it lends support to Doederleins emendation of Ann. 16.21, for the context in which it appears, a musical or dramatic presentation, is similar to that of the text of Tacitus (p. 277). Now caestata may indeed be deemed to lend some feeble support to the emendation caestatis in the text of

464
56

Historia et Epigraphia

Yet after the dust raised by so many intellects has settled, the verdict is non liquet: impossibile definire cosa fossero i ludi cetasti, writes Maria Silvia Bassignano in a recent and authoritative collection of studies on the history of ancient Padua3. It is then foolhardy indeed to ask the question again, and risk ending up as another footnote to the text of Tacitus, but there appears to exist one avenue that has not yet been traversed. This temptation an explorer cannot resist. Let us first assume that the text of Tacitus is sound, and that the reading cetasti is to be retained4.
Tacitus, but not as Doederlein had conceived it. As a musical connotation of caestatus was yet unknown at his time (the inscription was first published in Notizie degli Scavi, 1884, p. 193) he quite properly thought of pugiles: Nam caestati haud dubiae pugiles dicebantur; id epitethon ad ipsos ludos translatum. cc) cesticis (but not interpreted as derived from caedo, as above, but rather from kstow, traditionally taken as the girdle of Venus, but which could be used generally of a womans attire or ornament; cf. Festus, 39 Lindsay: caestus vocantur et hi, quibus pugiles dimicant, et genus quoddam ornatus mulierum, confusing caestus and kstow. S. L. MOHLER, The Cestus, Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1926, pp. 7172, concludes that the cestus was either a shoulder-belt or a cross-belt, and ultimately any ornamental article of womans attire): A. ALCIATUS (ed. 1517); his comment is reproduced in A. J. VALPYs edition In usum Delphini, Londini, 1821, vol. V, p. 2092: Ceterum, quid ad rem (i.e., a boxing competition) faceret habitus Tragicus? Nisi immutatam longo saeculo ludorum formam quis crediderit, aut Cesticos dictos, quod, habitu mulierum, viri in his exercerentur. Valpy reproduces also the polemic against Alciatus by (Marcus Maurus) Vetranius, a mid-sixteenth century French jurist. Cf. JACOBS, p. 276. Ritual transvestitism was of course well known in antiquity (cf. e.g. F. DMMLER, Sittengeschichtliche Parallelen, Philologus, 56, 1897, pp. 2527; M. P. NILSSON, Griechische Feste von religiser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen, 1906, pp. 36974), but it was hardly practiced in the stern Patavium. The article by A. D. Manfredini, Qui commutant cum feminis vestem, Revue Internationale des Droits de lAntiquit, 32, 1985, pp. 25771, omits altogether the cultic dimension and deals exclusively with prohibitions against transvestitism in Roman law. d) cetariis: K. NIPPERDEY (ed. 1857); see below, n. 14; JACOBS, pp. 27980. e) iselasticis: L. PIGNORIUS (Lorenzo PIGNORIA) in Le origini di Padova, Padova, 1625 (in the notae variorum in Valpys edition quoted from a Latin translation, Origines Patavinae, Lugduni Batavorum, 1722 = vol. 6, part 3 of J. G. GRAEVIUS Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae); and (independently) A. W. VAN BUREN (1924); cf. below, n. 32, and JACOBS, pp. 27879. f) vetustis : R. SEYFFERT (1843); cf. JACOBS, p. 278. g) xysticis : H. GROTIUS (reproduced in the apparatus and the notae in Valpys edition); cf. JACOBS, p. 278. M. S. BASSIGNANO, Il municipio Patavino, in Padova antica da comunit paleoveneta a citt romano-cristiana, Trieste, 1981, pp. 193312 at 22324. F. Sartori, Padova nello stato romano dal sec. III a.C. allet dioclezianea, ibid., pp. 99189, discussing the figure of Thrasea Paetus mentions in passing the ludi cetasti (p. 153), but refrains from commenting on their precise character (I should like to thank Prof. Bassignano for kindly sending me a photocopy of these two articles and of the article by M. P. Billanovich quoted below, n. 35). L. BRACCESI, La legenda di Antenore, Padova, 1984, p. 112, refers for information on the ludi cetasti to the study of Bassignano, as he puts it, su quel poco che se ne sa. Cetastis is the reading of the only authoritative manuscript of the Annales, the Mediceus. For the readings of the recentiores, see F. RMER, P. Corneli Taciti Annalium libri XVXVI, Wien, 1976, pp. 14647, and particularly for the reading cerastis, JACOBS, (above, n. 2), p. 276.

Games in Patavium

465

The next step is to introduce a notice in Charisius5:

Cetariis. Pomponius Secundus ad Thraseam, cum ratio cetaribus inquit Plinius, poscat, ut moenia moenibus, ilia ilibus, Parilia Parilibus. ea enim nomina quae i ante a habent, ut cetaria, in bus necesse est desinant.

57

This text has been illuminated by Conrad Cichorius6. P. [Calv?]isius Sabinus Pomponius Secundus, cos. suff. in 44 and governor of Germania Superior in 49?/5054/55?, gained his fame as a tragic poet, praised by Tacitus and Quintilian7. Pliny the Elder was bound to Pomponius Secundus by ties of admiration and friendship; he served in Germany as an officer under Pomponius, and later composed a biography of his friend and hero. The quote adduced by Charisius comes, no doubt, from his Dubii sermonis libri 8. Pliny alludes to a script of Pomponius ad Thraseam: Pomponius used there the word cetaria in the ablative case in the form cetariis. Pliny argues that the correct form, on analogy to moenia, ilia and Parilia, is cetaribus. Tacitus informs us that Thrasea ludis cetastis ... habitu tragico cecinerat, and Pliny records a work of Pomponius sent or dedicated to Thrasea in which Pomponius used the form cetariis. It would be perverse to deny that cetastis and cetariis refer to one and the same festival. What kind of festival? It included dramatic performances. This is attested not only by Tacitus but also by Cassius Dio (62, 26, 34): Thrasea was condemned to die because inter alia
he would never listen to the emperors singing and lyre-playing, nor sacrifice to Neros Divine Voice as did the rest, nor give any public exhibitions (ote pedejato odn); yet it was observed that in Patavium, his native place, he had acted in a tragedy given in pursuance of some old custom at a festival held every thirty years:

5 6 7

Grammatici Latini, ed. H. Keil, vol. I, Lipsiae, 1857, pp. 12526 = Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae libri V, ed. C. BARWICK, Lipsiae, 1925, p. 160, lines 37. C. Cichorius, Rmische Studien, Leipzig, 1922, pp. 42332; cf. also E. KOESTERMANN, Ludi cetasti, Archivio Veneto, 77, 1965, pp. 511. Tacitus, Ann., 11, 13; 12, 28, 2; Dial., 13, 3; Quintilianus, 10, 1, 98. On the full name and political career of Pomponius, see now W. ECK, Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1.-3. Jahrhundert (= Epigraphische Studien, 14), Bonn, 1985, pp. 1922 (with further literature). On his literary activity, see M. SCHANZ and C. HOSIUS, Geschichte der rmischen Literatur, II4, Mnchen, 1935, pp. 47577. On Plinys military service in Germany, see R. SYME, Pliny the Procurator, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 73, 1979, pp. 2048 = Roman Papers, II, Oxford, 1979, pp. 74548, and on his life of Pomponius Secundus, and the Dubii sermonis libri, SCHANZ - HOSIUS (above, n. 7), pp. 78082. There exist two monographic treatments of the latter script: one older and concise by J. W. BECK, C. Plinii Secundi librorum dubii sermonis VIII reliquiae, Lipsiae, 1894, (esp. pp. 1920), the other newer and massive by A. DELLA CASA, Il dubius sermo di Plinio, Genova, 1969. She points out that Lirregolarit che Plinio pone in rilievo, per noi non esiste: cetarius aggettivo, che poi si sostantivato; on the other hand moenia, ilia are pluralia tantum (p. 272). Neither Beck nor Della Casa discusses the historical circumstances of Pomponius script.

466

Historia et Epigraphia

katoi n Pataou t patrdi tragdan kat ti ptrion n ort tini triakontaethrdi pokrinmenow.

58

Cichorius (followed by Koestermann) suggested that Pomponius addressed his writing to Thrasea, with whom he was connected by the ties of old friendship, precisely on the occasion of Thraseas performance at the ludi cetasti perhaps he even composed the play in which Thrasea appeared habitu tragico9. And indeed what better opportunity could have offered itself to Pomponius for the employment of a word both obscure and imbued with a Patavine flavor? Koestermann accuses Pomponius of ignorance. Neither he nor Pliny knew the correct form of the word. The correct form, cetasti, was preserved solely by Tacitus10. The accusation is unjust. Cetariis and cetastis will be the forms derived from the same root by different means: one with the help of a Latin suffix, and the other displaying the Venetian element. More than ninety years ago Wilhelm Schulze presented a morphological analysis of the word cetasti: die ludi ceta-sti heissen nach den cetae. However, if the morphology was for him clear, the sense was not: Dass wir den Sinn der Bezeichnung nicht verstehen, ist am Ende kein Wunder: denn weder das Wort noch sein Suffix ist griechisch oder lateinisch11. The suffix -st(o)- is in fact well attested in the Venetian material; although its precise meaning eludes us, it probably marks the nomen agentis12. A clue to the meaning of the word itself is offered by the Latin form cetariis (which Schulze did not consider). It is patently derived from t ktow. The Greek word spawned in Latin a whole family of descendants13: cetus (cetos and cetum), -i (m. and n.), a large sea animal (with the [Greek] plural cete); cetarius, -ii (cet[us] + -arius), a fisherman or fishmonger; cetaria, -ae or cetarium, -i, a fishpond; cetosus, -a, -um, of or pertaining to sea-fishes. And finally (not listed in Oxford Latin Dictionary) cetaria (or rather Cetaria), neutr. plur. (with the ablative forms cetariis and cetaribus), the name of a festival in Patavium.
9 CICHORIUS points out (above, n. 6), pp. 42425, that a praetexta entitled Aeneas is explicitly attested for Pomponius; following in the footsteps of Accius he may have composed for Thrasea a play about Antenor or the Antenoridae. 10 Op. cit. (above, n. 6), p. 6. That Tacitus should have known the local name of the ludi Koestermann finds significanta further support for his theory of the Patavine origin of Tacitus. Too slender a threadretorts Ronald SYME, Eight Consuls from Patavium, Papers of the British School at Rome, 51, 1983, p. 120 = Roman Papers, IV, Oxford, 1988, pp. 39192 (we of course remember that Syme had spun his own slender thread from which to suspend the origin of Tacitus). 11 W. SCHULZE, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Abhandlungen Gttingen, N.F., V, 5), Berlin, 1904, p. 47. 12 J. UNTERMANN, Die venetischen Personennamen, Wiesbaden, 1961, pp. 1089: egest(os) wre dann ein Synonym von egetor, das eine fr uns nicht mehr feststellbare Bedeutungsnuance ausgedrckt haben kann; H. KRAHE, Die Sprache der Illyrier, Wiesbaden, 1955, pp. 10910; A. L. Prosdocimi, in: G. B. PELLEGRINI and A. L. PROSDOCIMI, La lingua venetica, II, Padova, 1967, pp. 71, 24447 (with further literature); M. LEJEUNE, Manuel de la langue vnte, Heidelberg, 1974, p. 50. 13 See Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, FORCELLINI, Oxford Latin Dictionary, s. vv.

Games in Patavium

467

59

Quid novi? will ask an impatient reader. Has it not already been proposed that the ludi cetasti (or cetarii) were the games of fishermen? This proposition goes back to Karl Nipperdeys edition and commentary of the Annals of Tacitus14. In the form it was presented, it is inadmissible. The festival in Patavium derives indeed its name from the sea-animals, but it was not a festival of piscatores. In Rome we hear of the ludi piscatorii, qui quotannis mense Iunio trans Tiberim fieri solent a praetore urbano pro piscatoribus Tiberinis; quorum quaestus non in macellum pervenit, sed fere in aream Volkani, quod id genus pisciculorum vivorum datur ei deo pro animis humanis15. And Ovid (Fasti, 6, 23940) writes: festa dies illis, qui lina madentia ducunt / quique tegunt parvis aera recurva cibis. Thus although the editor was the urban praetor, the games were exclusively pro piscatoribus, to ensure their good fortune and safety: it would appear that the catch of this day was offered to Vulcanus16. It was a popular feast of humble folk; on the other hand the celebration of the ludi cetasti was an event rare and major. It was believed that the ludi were established by Antenor himself, the founder of Patavium. Hence not simply and solely a festival of fishermen. As a grammatical counterpart to Cetaria Pliny adduced Parilia: if we have the form Parilibus so also we should have Cetaribus (and not Cetariis, as in the script of Pomponius Secundus to Thrasea). The example was aptly chosen, not only from the point of view of grammatical rules: the Cetaria, we may surmise, was a Patavine counterpart of the Roman Parilia. The feast of Parilia was an ancient festival of pastores. It predated Rome itself: according to the tradition it was on this day that Romulus urbem condidit. Its ritual purpose was to purify the flocks and the people, and its most spectacular event was the purificatory leaping over flaming bonfires. It was a festival both public and private17; we know from Ovid (Fasti, 4, 73134) that in the public celebrations participated the Vestal Virgins. Propertius (4, 4, 75) speaks of annua pastorum convivia and lusus in Urbe. Thus although it was specifically a feast of pastores, it was also a feast of the whole populus, for as Varro (De re rustica, 2, 1, 9) reminds us, Romanorum vero populum a pastoribus esse ortum. The calendars display for
14 I used the second edition, Berlin, 1857, ad loc., p. 267. Cf. JACOBS, (above, n. 2), pp. 27980. The first scholar to connect the ludi in Patavium with the piscatores tynnorum was LICETUS (cf. below, n. 27). 15 Festus, 27476 (cf. 232) L. According to Ovid, Fasti, 6, 23537, the ludi were celebrated on 7 June in gramine campi. Cf. J. LE GALL, Recherches sur le culte du Tibre, Paris, 1953, pp. 4850 (he dates the ludi to 8 June, but in favor of the traditional date, see DEGRASSI, quoted below); F. BMER, P. Ovidius Naso. Die Fasten, II, Heidelberg, 1958, pp. 35253; A. DEGRASSI, Inscriptiones Italiae, XIII, fasc. II: Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani, Roma, 1963, p. 466; H. H. SCULLARD, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, London, 1981, p. 148. 16 LE GALL, loc. cit. (above, n. 15), argues (not altogether convincingly) that it was not the whole catch of this day but rather only the small fishes, pisciculi, whenever caught, that were offered to Vulcanus pro animis humanis. This interpretation does not do justice to the notices in Festus that the piscatorii ludi ... fieri solent pro quaestu piscantium (p. 232, lines 1012, L.), and that, apparently on the day of the games, the quaestus of the fishermen non in macellum pervenit (27476 L.). {Cf. in this volume, No. 42.} 17 Varro apud Scholia in Persium, 1, 72.

468

Historia et Epigraphia

this day the notations Paril(ia) and Roma cond(ita) or natalis Urbis18. The Parilia and the natalis urbis were the events separate, and yet intimately connected; in Ovids account (Fasti, 4, 8056) the two feasts imperceptibly blend together: per flammas saluisse pecus, saluisse colonos? / quod fit natali nunc quoque, Roma, tuo, and Caligula had a decree passed ut dies quo cepisset imperium (18 March) Parilia vocaretur velut argumentum rursus conditae Urbis19. The Parilia and the natalis urbis20 coincided; and there are reasons to believe that the ludi cetasti were celebrated on the dies natalis of Patavium. An epigraphic peculiarity of Patavium is the notation N (or N ) followed by a numeral, normally appended at the end of an inscription; it is displayed on eleven stones. The true meaning of this enigmatic notation was discovered by William Harris: it denoted the era of Patavium21. Harris argues persuasively that the Patavine era commemorated the events of 174 (ab Urbe condita 580) when the city was torn apart by certamen factionum and intestinum bellum and the boni were saved only by the Roman intervention: Patavinis adventus consulis saluti fuit (Livy, 41, 27, 3). The deliverance by the Romans was for the Patavines like a new birth of their city; it was the beginning of their new era. But the past was valuable too: the founder Antenor advertized the Trojan syngeneia of the Patavines with the Romans. He was also the reputed founder of the ludi cetasti: Antenor and the ludi cetasti thus correspond to Romulus and the Parilia. This tradition gained an oppor18 DEGRASSI, Fasti (above, n. 15), p. 443. 19 Suetonius, Cal., 16, 4. C. BARRET, Caligula: the Corruption of Power, London (or New Haven), 1989, pp. 7172, argues that Caligulas dies imperii coincided with the Parilia, and he is partially followed by D. WARDLE, Suetonius Life of Caligula. A Commentary (= Collection Latomus, 225), Bruxelles, 1994, p. 178. D. W. Hurley, An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius Life of C. Caligula (= American Classical Studies, 22), Atlanta, 1993, p. 62, and n. 31, rightly points out that Suetonius vocaretur indicates that it was a different day, not April 21, that was called Parilia, and that the evidence (from the acts of the arvals) for March 18 as Caligulas dies imperii is strong. 20 For a collection of evidence and illuminating discussion, see DEGRASSI, Fasti (above, n. 15), pp. 44345. Cf. also BMERS commentary on Ovid, Fasti, 4, 721ff, (above, n. 15), pp. 27182 (but Bmers distinction between a Geburtstag and a Grndungstag of a city is quite inaccurate, see J. LINDERSKI, Natalis Patavii, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 50, 1983, pp. 22829); SCULLARD (above, n. 15), pp. 1035. See also J. H. VANGAARD, On Parilia, Temenos, 7, 1971, pp. 90103 (p. 102: the leaps over bonfires correspond to Remus jumping over the walls. Scarcely so: the jump of Remus was an act of defiance not purification); M. BEARD, A Complex of Times: No More Sheep on Romulus Birthday, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, 33, 1987, 115 (an interesting piece; though the idea that an early pastoral festival of the primitive Roman community became actively reinterpreted in the increasingly urban society into a festival of the city and its origin [p. 11] is not as novel as the author seems to intimate). 21 W. V. HARRIS, The Era of Patavium, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 27, 1977, pp. 28393. Accepted by L. LAZZARO, Feltria, Supplementa Italica, 5, Roma, 1989, p. 255. Harris proposed to read n(ostro) a(nno), but see the polemic by F. SARTORI, Epigraphica Patavina minima, Atti e Memorie dellAccademia Patavina di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 90, 197778, pp. 22022 {the article by Sartori has now been reprinted; see below RQ, Addenda altera, No. 38}, and below, n. 23.

Games in Patavium

469

60

tune currency in the late third and early second centuries, but it may well go back to earlier layers of the Patavine and Venetian national mythology22. But why only eleven notations of the era in a corpus of several hundred inscriptions from Patavium? The answer is: the notation N was an abbreviation for n(atali die); all texts that display this littera singularis will have commemorated events that took place on an anniversary of the foundation of the city, its dies natalis23. Among these inscriptions there is also the famous and enigmatic CIL, V, 2787 = ILS, 5202 :
Q. Magurius Q. f. Fab(ia) / Ferox / lus(it)24 epidixib(us) et cetaes I II III in / greg(e) Veturian(a) quae et iuni / orum. A(quis) A(poni)25 dicavit euras VIII / et pertic(am) uncinor(um)26 XII. N CCLIX.

In this text27 the word cetaes immediately attracts attention. As the inscription
22 Cf. R. M. OGILVIE, A Commentary on Livy. Books 15, Oxford, 1965, pp. 3537; BRACCESI (above, n. 3), passim, and esp. pp. 7992. He concludes (p. 92): la prima rivitalizzazione della legenda di Antenore su suolo italico avviene dunque a cavaliere dei secc. III e II, in relazione allesaltazione nazionalistica delle lotte fra Veneti e Galli, e nel variegato contesto dellespansionismo romano nellItalia padana prima e dopo la seconda guerra punica. 23 J. LINDERSKI, Natalis Patavii, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 50, 1983, pp. 22732. {= RQ, pp. 36974, 663; and in this volume, RQ, Addenda altera, No. 38}. 24 Or: lus(or); nur so darf man auflsen: F. BCHELER, Artisten-Wrter, Rheinisches Museum, 58, 1903, pp. 31720 at 318 (reprinted in F. BCHELER, Kleine Schriften, III, Leipzig, 1930, 29698). DESSAU was not convinced; cf. ILS, ad loc.: lus(it). Lus(or) was advocated by O. JAHN, Specimen epigraphicum in memoriam Olai Kellermanni, Kiliae, 1841, p. 87 (accepted by MOMMSEN, CIL, V, 2787, ad loc.); for comparison he adduced (CIL, VI, 4886 = ILS, 5225): Caesaris lusor / mutus argutus imitator. But in other inscriptions we read lusi (ILS, 5173), and lusit (5174 a; cf. below, n. 59). 25 For this abbreviation, see MOMMSEN, CIL, V, part 1, p. 271, and DESSAU, ILS, 3894 a; Mommsen and Dessau also considered A(pono) A(ugusto), a solution less likely: cf. F. SARTORI, Una particolarit epigrafica di Patavium, Memorie della Accademia Patavina, Classe di Scienze Morali, Lettere ed Arti, 75, 196263, p. 6 (of estratto), n. 13. But A(pollini) A(pono), rejected by Mommsen, is also possible; cf. BASSIGNANO (above, n. 3), p. 219. 26 pertic(am) rather than pertic(as), rightly BCHELER (above, n. 24), p. 318. 27 It evoked the eager interest of early erudites. Their efforts are never referred to in recent discussion, but they deserve to be rescued from oblivion. The contributions of three scholars, all of them of some contemporary fame, are reprinted by Albertus Henricus DE SALLENGRE in his Novus Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum, Hagae, 17161724; I used the Venice edition, vol. I, 1735, pp. 56484. Those contributions were in fact reprinted by DE SALLENGRE (cf. his preface, p. 6) from an earlier reprint (or edition): Marmoris Patavini inscripti obscuri interpretatio, triplici commentario, Thomae Reinesii, Fortunii Liceti, et Lucae Holstenii, confecta. Parisiis, 1667, edente Friderico BRUMMERO. Fortunius LICETUS (Fortunio LICETO, 15771657; PKEL [above, n. 2], p. 156; ECKSTEIN [above, n. 2], p. 334), was professor of philosophy and medicine in Padua. His note, De saxo Patavino Maguriano divinatio, originally in his De quaesitis per epistolas, Utini, 1646, vol. 2, p. 31 (cf. Mommsen ad CIL, V, 2787), was also appended to the edition of the stone by Sertorius URSATUS AB URSATIS (a Patavine nobilis and medicus, on whose property the stone was found in 1641), and published in URSATUS Monumenta Patavina, l. 1, sect. 5, f. 214, Patavii, 1652 (Thesaurus, p. 582). Licetus divinatio is rather fantastic (as was seen by Reinesius), but he has his merits. He was the first to adduce for the interpretation of the word

470

Historia et Epigraphia

comes from Patavium and refers to games or exhibitions, it would again be pereurae the passage of Pollux, 1, 146: he understood eurae as ferra axi initentia (cf. below, nn. 4755); and he took perticae et uncini as perhaps connected cum agri mensura (on pertica in this sense, see Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v., & 3). URSATUS (Sertorio ORSATO, 16171678; PKEL, p. 281; ECKSTEIN, p. 414) was himself a noted antiquarian; inter alia he wrote De notis Romanorum commentarius, Patavii, 1672 (reprinted in J. G. GRAEVIUS Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum, Lugduni Batavorum, 16941699; in the Venice edition, vol. XI, 1736, pp. 5081131). On Ursatus work, see MOMMSEN, CIL, V, part 1, 1872, p. 266; G. FORNI, Trib romane e problemi connessi dal Biondo Flavio al Mommsen, in Studi di storia antica in memoria di Luca de Regibus, Genova, 1969, p. 69. Ursatus recognized that in our inscription Fab. stands for tribus Fabia, correcting Licetus nonsensical fab(er). Lucas HOLSTEIN (15961661; PKEL, p. 125; ECKSTEIN, p. 255) was ultimately (from 1636) a librarian of the cardinal Barberini. His brief script, De Monumento Maguriano ad Joannem Rhodium epistula, was published in Rome on 24 August 1652 (Thesaurus, pp. 58384). From the indication of the tribus Fabia he concluded that Magurius was probably a Patavinus. He also solved the abbreviation A. A. as A(quis) A(poni). Cetaes he interpreted as zetaes: de ... diaetis tribus intelligo. And further: Ideoque in voce cetaes errorem quadratarii, vel potius scriptoris Patavinitatem agnosco, qui pro Z posuit C (cf. below, n. 35). The grex Veturiana staged its exhibitions and exercises in xysto sive porticu aquis imminenti, in three cubicula: has enim zetas veteres dixere. And he points out that the epidixes refer to all kinds of ludi and artificia, and not only to the recitations of poets and rhetors. To explain iuniorum he refers to inscriptions in Gruters collection pertaining to the lusus iuvenum, and to inscriptions of tribules corporis iuniorum and seniorum tribus Palatinae (on these groupings, see T. MOMMSEN, Rmisches Staatsrecht, III, 1, Leipzig, 1887, pp. 27677, 44547). For euras he also quotes Pollux: eurae sunt ferramenta, quibus axes currorum muniuntur et quae rotis atteruntur. But hoc loco he preferred to interpret them as ferramenta vel muro vel trabibus ligneis infixa ..., qua perticas uncinis clavatas sustinerent. Perticarum autem et uncinorum usum eum fuisse puto, ut vel lavantium vel potius sese exercentium vestimenta sustinerent. Thomas REINESIUS (15871667; PKEL, p. 221; ECKSTEIN, p. 462) was, like Liceto, a medicus, and ultimately kurfrstlicher Rat in Leipzig. His Interpretatio Marmoris Patavini appeared in Leipzig in 1661 (Thesaurus, pp. 57179; in Thesaurus, p. 571, mistakenly dated to 1651). He fiercely criticises Licetus somnians, and also Holstein, but his own interpretation is also often fantastic, and inferior to Holstenius. That Magurius was a civis Patavinus is possible, but not necessarily proved by the indication of his tribe (quite right). A. A. stands for ad (apud) aquas. Grex Veturiana are the iuniores tribus Veturiae (no tribus Veturia is known, even among the pseudo-tribes; cf. G. FORNI, Le Trib Romane, III, 1: Le Pseudo-Trib, Roma, 1985). Epidixibus refers to declamations, and cetaes should be read ceteses = zhtseiw, quaestiones and controversiae. Euras should be read edras = exedras = sedes, sedilia for the recitantes. Perticas must be porticus, or, if perticas, certainly not uncinorum but unciarum. And he takes N as denoting n(umero pedum). The inscription was also printed by I. C. ORELLI in his Inscriptionum Latinarum selectarum amplissima collectio, I, Turici, 1828, pp. 45859, no 2620, following S. MAFFEI, Museum Veronense, Veronae, 1749, with explanations of Maffei: Lusor dietae primae, secundae, tertiae, i.e. conclavis in locis thermalibus, in grege scaenicorum (this explanation already in Holstein); I. C. HAGENBUCHIUS: fortasse eurae fuerunt loca ampla, breite Gnge (fantastic); and Carolus SILVESTRIUS (in 1732): eurae were ferramenta incurva ... quibus lavantium vestes suspenderentur (this is also lifted from Holstein). On Scipione Maffei, see PKEL (above, n. 2), p. 164; ECKSTEIN (above, n. 2), pp. 35051; on Hagenbuch, see ORELLI in his Praefatio, pp. 8, 1920 {and the comprehensive study by I. CALABI LIMENTANI, Appunti su J. C. Hagenbuch (17001763) cultore di studi epigrafici, Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica e antichit classiche 14, 1985, pp. 42366}; and on Johann Kaspar Orelli himself, see PKEL, p. 196; ECKSTEIN, p. 414. See also Orellis remarks on Holstein, Maffei, Reinesius, and Ursatus, pp.

Games in Patavium 61

471

62

verse to deny a connection between cetaes and the ludi cetasti 28. As cetaes is coupled with epidixib(us), Mommsen sensibly concluded that it also stands in the ablative, with the Greek ending -aes29. A better solution offers. It springs to ones eye that in addition to the common abbreviations of the tribe and the A(quae) A(poni), also almost all the remaining nouns and adjectives appear in an abbreviated form: lus(it) or lus(or), epidixib(us), greg(e), Veturian(a), pertic(am), uncinor(um). The only clear exception is iuniorum; this leaves for further consideration two words: cetaes, and the enigmatic euras. About the latter nothing can be said with certainty (see below); but cetaes, in view of the Tacitean cetastis, is a good candidate for expansion: why not read epidixib(us) et cetaes(tis)? This produces a pleasing symmetry; the intrusive e is disturbing, but perhaps not fatal. According to Harris computation (taking 173 = 581 as the beginning of the era) the year 259 of the Patavine era recorded in our inscription corresponded to 86 A.D. (= A.U.C. 839). Cassius Dio maintains that the festival in which Thrasea participated was celebrated every thirty years; if cetaes refers to this festival we get the following dates of previous celebrations: A.D. 56 = 809, 26 = 779, B.C. 5 = 749, 35 = 719, 65 = 689, 95 = 659, 125 = 629, 155 = 599, and 185 = 569. But if we count inclusively, as we undoubtedly should, we will get a slightly different set of dates: A.D. 57 = 810, 28 = 781, B.C. 2 = 752, 31 = 723, 60 = 694, 89 = 665, 118 = 636, 147 = 607, 176 = 578. On either count it is perhaps disappointing (but not surprising) to see that the beginning of the thirty year cycle of the ludi did not coincide with the establishment of the new era; in any case the number 259 cannot accomodate either a thirty or an inclusive twenty nine year cycle. The origin of the ludi cetasti like that of the Roman Parilia lies beyond the reach of our sources. This festival may very well predate another famous Patavine celebration, the certamen navium. In 302 the Patavines defeated a Greek fleet led by the Spartan Cleonymus; teste Livio (10, 2, 1415) those who visit Patavium can still see rostra navium spoliaque Laconum in aede Iunonis veteri fixa. As a commemoration of the

4041, 5556, 61, 6566. A short history of the stone, and of its publications, is given by MOMMSEN in CIL, ad loc. {See also L. LAZZARO, Fons Aponi. Abano e Montegroto nellAntiquit, Abano Terme, 1981, pp. 15861. The inscription also in D. MODONESI, Museo Maffeiano. Iscrizioni e rilievi sacri latini, Roma, 1995, pp. 6970, no 70: edited inaccurately, with uninformed commentary, but with a good photograph; and most recently, with an excellent photograph, in S. Panciera, I numeri di Patavium, ERKOS. Studi in Onore di Franco Sartori, Padova, 2003, pp. 19495 (see also in this volume: RQ, Addenda altera, No. 38)}. 28 This was clearly recognized by O. JAHN in the preface to his edition of Persius, Leipzig, 1843, p. XL. MOMMSEN, CIL, V, 2787, ad loc., followed Jahn, but concluded somberly: sed quid proprie ita significetur, propterea non minus ignoramus. 29 MOMMSEN, CIL, V, 2787, ad loc.: nam cetaes I.II.III. videtur esse casus sextus Graeca ratione declinatus; so also A. WALDE - J. B. HOFMANN, Lateinisches etymologisches Wrterbuch3, Heidelberg, 1939, I, p. 208, s.v. ceta; in the Index to ILS (vol. III, pars II, p. 854) DESSAU interprets cetaes as dat. plur. Already HOLSTEIN (above, n. 27), insisted that epidixib. and cetaes must be taken as being in the same case. {R. Arena (below, n. 63c), who does not know the article here reprinted, and does not adduce earlier antiquarian literature, arrived at the same interpretation (p. 419, n. 5): Mi chiedo ... come epidixib abbreviazione per epidixibus non potrebbe anche cetaes stare per cetaestis, vedasi cetastis in Tac., Ann. 16,21?}.

472

Historia et Epigraphia

63

victory, eo die quo pugnatum est, quotannis sollemne certamen navium in flumine oppidi medio exercetur. But even if the ultimate origin of the ludi is lost in myth, it is gratifying to see that the date of their celebration in 56 or 57 A.D., a date derived from the era of Patavium as established by Harris, fits in very well indeed with the fateful chronology of Thrasea and Nero. At the Neronian Iuvenalia, instituted in 59, Thrasea parum spectabilem operam praebuerat. As ususal in Tacitus, the phrase is ambiguous, but whatever Thrasea did or did not do, Nero felt offended. And he had every right to feel so as only two or three years previously Thrasea appeared on the stage in Patavium. In the account of Cassius Dio the word pedejato stands out; although it does not refer directly to Thraseas performance in Patavium, it is used in connection with it: Thrasea played a part in a tragedy staged at the games in Patavium (or at least recited there a tragic monologue attired in a stage costume, habitu tragico), but he never displayed himself (pedejato) for Nero. Now in the same Patavium Q. Magurius Felix, very likely a fellow Patavine 30, performed epidixib(us) et cetaes(tis); the word epidixis is a hapax in Latin, but its Greek original31, the comparison with Thrasea, and the context of the inscription itself, would seem to indicate that we are dealing with some sort of stage exhibitions. In the inscription of Magurius after cetaes follow the numerals I II III; these numbers are normally taken to refer to cetaes so explicitly Mommsen in his note in CIL. Mommsen refrained from making any attempt at an explanation, but his silence did not scare off three brave scholars. A. W. Van Buren imagined that cetaes I., II., III., ... would seem to refer to three grades of exhibitions of sea animals, or some spectacles having to do with these creatures 32. This fails to take into account the presumed ablative case of cetaes (and still less the clear ablative case of cetaes(tis) if our expansion is granted), and three grades of exhibitions present a mystery of their own. G. Manganaro speculates that Magurius aveva per ben tre volte svolto il ruolo di cetus, di belva marina, certamente nei ludi cetasti 33. This is awkward grammatically for lusor (or lusit) would have to carry a double meaning: lus. epidixib(us), performed at the epideictic games, and lus. cetaes, played the role of a cetus,
30 Fabia was the tribus of Patavium, cf. J. W. KUBITSCHEK, Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum, Vindobonae, 1889, p. 114 (but the indication of the tribe is of course not identical with the indication of the origo; cf. REINESIUS, above, n. 27). The nomen Magurius is at home in northern Italy, cf. SCHULZE (above, n. 11), p. 184, but it is probably not a Venetian name: UNTERMANN (above, n. 12), does not list it. Following A. HOLDER, Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz, II, Leipzig, 1904, p. 386, Schulze regards it as vermuthlich ... keltisch. 31 The verb pideknumi and the noun pdeijiw (cf. LSJ, s. vv.) were used with reference to a variety of shows, exhibitions, displays and performances, particularly those of declaimers, orators, musicians. This was well seen already by HOLSTEIN (above, n. 27). 32 A.W. VAN BUREN, Tacitus, Annals, XVI. 21, Classical Review, 38, 1924, pp. 11011 at 110 (cf. above, n. 2). 33 G. MANGANARO, Pankarpeia di epigrafia latina, Siculorum Gymnasium, 23, 1970, pp. 7588 at 7980. Manganaros interpretation has been accepted by R. CHEVALLIER, La romanisation de la celtique du P (BEFAR, 249), Rome, 1983, pp. 42225, n. 21; p. 508, n. 51.

Games in Patavium

473

which would require the accusative34. Manganaros explication tacitly assumes the singular cetus, and thus disregards both the number and the case of cetaes. And the idea of three consecutive performances would have to be expressed by the numeral adverb ter; I, II, III, whether cardinal or ordinal, are impossible in this sense. Furthermore if the games at Patavium were really held every thirty years, Magurius could have hardly impersonated a marine beast on three separate occasions. For this reason (not to mention the fact that it was an ancient festival) it is also unlikely that we should read cetaes(tis) primis, secundis, tertiis. And finally we have the explication offered by Maria Pia Billanovich, as ingenious as Van Burens and Manganaros, and no less precarious. She believes that Magurius was un giovane lottatore, a gladiator, forse un auctoratus, cio un ingenuus che spontaneamente si dedicava ai giochi gladiatorii. The terms epidixib(us) et cetaes stavano evidentemente ad indicare i gradi attraverso cui il gladiatore era passato. The proof? The word cetaes itself! For ceta must correspond to zeta which is a common transliteration of Greek daita which in turn denotes not only modo di vita but frequently also stanza, aula, and which ought to have had also a secondary sense of classe, and hence was an equivalent of Latin palus35. One cannot help but be captivated by this whirlwind of argument, but alas it sets in motion the windmills of fantasy only. Palus was indeed a technical term of gladiatorial parlance. In inscriptions it appears either written out in full or in an abbreviated form (in the nominative or genitive, but never in the ablative): primus palus, and in Greek texts prtow, deterow, trtow plow, or p., pa. or pal. a, b, g, d. As L. Robert brilliantly demonstrated, it denoted the rank of a gladiator: palus dsignant dabord le poteau descrime, a dsign aussi la salle darmes, et par suite, ceux qui vivent dans cette salle; dans chaque ludus les gladiateurs ont d tre groups en sections, composes dhommes de mme force, sexerant ensemble; il y aurait ainsi une hirarchie de gladiateurs de premire, de deuxime, de troisime et de quartrime classe 36. In Greek texts the term palus was always transliterated, never translated; it functioned as a technical loan-word. Cassius Dio writes that the title of Commodus as a gladiator was prvtpalow sekoutrvn37, and that he occupied the prtow okow in the ludus. There exists no
34 See TLL, s. v. ludo, col. 1781, lines 2948. Cf. Apuleius, Met., 11, 8, 3: nec ille deerat, qui magistratum fa<s>cibus purpuraque luderet; Historia Augusta (Gallienus), 23, 8, 3: Cyclopea etiam luserunt omnes apenarii. 35 M. P. BILLANOVICH, Lo Stangato di Roncon. Ludi cetarii, giochi gladiatorii e duelli giudiziari nellantica Padova, in: ALBIGNASEGO. Storia e arte, Comune di Albignasego, 1985, pp. 12337 at 12830. She notes (p. 136, n. 29) that already G. FURLANETTO, Le antiche lapidi patavine illustrate, Padova, 1847 [not 1874], p. 44, took ceta, -ae, in the sense of sala: Q. Magurio Feroce ... colle sue rappresentazioni date in tre diverse sale di Abano. In fact this interpretation goes back all the way to Holstein; see above, n. 27. 36 L. ROBERT, Les gladiateurs dans lorient grec, Paris, 1940, pp. 2831. See also G. VILLE, La gladiature en occident (BEFAR, 245), Rome, 1981, p. 324; {M. CARTER, Gladiatorial Ranking and the SC de Pretiis Gladiatorum, Phoenix, 57, 2003, pp. 83111, esp. 8998, on the palus system}. 37 Cassius Dio, 73, 22. Cf. Historia Augusta, (Commodus) 7, 15, 8: appellatus est sane inter cetera triumphalia nomina etiam sescenties vicies palus primus secutorum.

474

Historia et Epigraphia

64

evidence whatsoever that the word daita was ever used as an equivalent of palus: once this is realized Q. Magurius the gladiator vanishes together with the etymology from which he had been conjured up. The numerals I II III would seemingly find the easiest explanation within the confines of the stage, in connection with grex, and detached from cetaes. For Magurius was a member of the grex Veturiana, perhaps a troupe of actors established or directed by a certain Veturius. The term grex was used to denote various groups, as e.g. the factiones in the circus, but most often it appears in connection with histriones and mimi38. Dessau prints the inscription of Magurius among the tituli pertaining to scaena, and on the same page of ILS on which this inscription finds its place, we have also the following stones set up by actors or for actors: C. Norbani / Soricis / secundarum; P. Cornelius P. f. Esq(uilina) Nig[er] / tertiarum; L. Faenius Faustus / quartar(um); [quart]arum in mimis saltantibus utilis actor39. Secundarum, tertiarum and quartarum refers to the part played by the actor; partium is normally omitted in inscriptions, but it is usually spelled out in literary texts. For the idiom, Cicero, as so often, is instructive: in actoribus Graecis fieri videmus, saepe illum qui est secundarum aut tertiarum partium, cum possit aliquanto clarius dicere quam ipse primarum, multum submittere40. As in the inscriptions of actors we have a bare numeral only, with both the verb (est or fuit) and partium omitted, this interpretation fits our inscription syntactically rather well: Magurius participated both in stage displays (epidixibus) and the ludi cetasti, and he (was) an actor primarum, secundarum and tertiarum (partium) in the grex Veturiana. But there are grave objections also: this kind of cursus honorum of an actor, an indication of his advancement from partes tertiae to partes primae, is unparalleled in our material (and we would then rather expect the reverse order, III, II, I); furthermore in inscriptions of actors we have the numerals of partes always written out in full. And above all, as Franz Bcheler warns us, lus(or) does not equal ludius or histrio; Magurius was not a professional actor41. Bcheler himself believed that the numerals denoted prizes won by Magurius, the first, second and third42. He does not adduce any parallels, and no exact parallel seems to be available. Inscriptions recording victories and prizes of gladiators are structured very differently43. More promising are the monuments of aurigae44, for occasionally they record not only victories but also second and third finishes, as in (e.g.) ILS, 5283, a list of achievements of the agitator Scirtus, arranged in a
38 See TLL, s. v. grex, coll. 232934, esp. 2333, lines 4461. The TLL lists here also the inscription of Magurius, but leaves iuniorum unexplained and unparalleled. Also C. GASPAROTTO, Padova Romana, Roma, 1951, p. 44, regards the grex Veturiana as una compagna drammatica. 39 ILS, 5198 = CIL X, 814; 5199 = VI, 10103; 5200 = XIV, 4198; 5201 = VI, 10118. 40 Cicero, Div. Caec., 48. Cf. also TLL, s.v. pars, col. 464, lines 723; col. 465, lines 2546; OLD, s. v. pars, 9 b. Neither TLL nor OLD adduces epigraphical material. An inexcusable omission. 41 BCHELER, Artisten-Wrter (above, n. 24), p. 318. 42 BCHELER, loc. cit. 43 See e.g. ILS, 5083, 5087, 5094, 5098, 5102, and the discussion in VILLE (above, n. 36), pp. 31217. 44 See, e.g., ILS, 5278, 528095.

Games in Patavium

475

65

form of yearly fasti. For instance, under the consulship of Drusus Caesar and C. Norbanus (a. 15) we read: vic(it) I, sec(undas sc. tulit) II, ter(tias, sc. tulit) V. According to this scheme Magurius would have won one first, two second, and three third prizes. But in inscriptions of agitatores the numerals refer to the number of victories or second and third finishes. The victories themselves and other placements are written out: vic., sec., tert., and thus they present no immediate similarity with the inscription of Magurius. Even if the numerals nude positi continue to baffle, it seems advisable to keep apart the epideixeis and the cetasti. The former will include exhibitions of various character: theatrical performances and dramatic recitations, and perhaps also acrobatic displays. For as Bcheler argued the objects dedicated by Magurius to A(quae) A(poni) represented the equipment of a juggler and acrobat45. He takes pertica as equivalent of Greek kontw; hence Magurius performed as a kontopakthw, similar to Martials Masclion who nutantia fronte perticata gestat pondera, was balancing on his forehead weights appended (obviously by uncini!) to a pole, pertica46. As to eurae Bcheler followed in the footsteps of earlier erudites when (without quoting them: see n. 27) he adduced the Onomasticon of Pollux. At 1, 14247 Pollux discusses in great detail technical terminology pertaining to mrh to rmatow, inter alia the attachment of the wheels to the axle. The passage crucial to us comes at 1, 146. It should be read in a broader context: (1, 145) t d kenn to troxo t narmozmenon t joni srinj. ... at d t perieilomenon t joni plmnh. ... t d ntw tw plmnhw sidrion, trbei tn jona, grnon dstron. ... (1, 146) t d t joni gkemena sidria ka tribmena p to troxo, era. From Pollux the following terminological picture emerges: plmnh is the (solid wooden) nave of a wheel; srinj is the hole in the nave into which the axle is fitted. This hole in the middle of the nave is protected by a metal plate called grnon or dstron that rubs against the axle. The (wooden) axle itself is also covered for protection by a metal plate at both ends fitting into the openings in the naves of the wheels. Those sidria on the axle that are rubbed against by the
45 BCHELER (above, n. 24), pp. 31820. 46 Martialis, 5, 12. For displays of this kind, see also H. BLMNER, Fahrendes Volk im Altertum, (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akad., Mnchen, 1918, 6), pp. 89, 33, nn. 3337; W. KROLL, Kontopaiktes, RE, 11, 2, 1922, p. 1343. {On Q. Magurius Ferox and CIL, V, 2787, cf. a brief notice by M. BONARIA, RE, Suppl. 10 (1965), pp. 38283, s.v. Magurius. He lists Magurius also in his Mimorum Romanorum Fragmenta, fasc. 2 (Genova, 1956), pp. 157 and 188 (no. 1223), and thus apparently regards him as a mimus, a rather improbable supposition. Cf. H. LEPPIN, Histrionen (= Antiquitas I, 41 [Bonn, 1992]), p. 316: Um einen professionellen Histrionen handelt es sich aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach nicht. A. ZAMBONI, Contributo allo studio del latino epigrafico della X Regio Augustea (Venetia et Histria). Il Lessico, Studi Linguistici Friulani 1 (1969), pp. 11082, adduces cetaes (p. 136) and epidixibus and euras (p. 144), but offers no new interpretation. C. ZACCARIA, Testimonianze epigrafiche di spettacoli teatrali e di attori nella Cisalpina romana, in: Spettacolo in Aquileia e nella Cisalpina romana [= Antichit Altoadriatiche 41 [Udine 1994]), pp. 7576 (cf. 8788), assumes a connection with ludi cetarii, and following largely in the footsteps of Billanovich, also una sorta di combattimenti simbolici tra iuniores o tra iuniores e seniores. Thus, so far, no progress.}

476

Historia et Epigraphia

66

wheel (or rather more exactly and more immediately by grnon, the plate inside the nave) are called era47. The spiritus asper, Bcheler points out, should not deter us from the identification of Polluxera with the eurae of the inscription denn die Aspiration kann im Griechischen nachtrglich entstanden, kann bei Pollux falsch berliefert sein, hat im Latein jederzeit wegfallen knnen. He admits that Die in die Achse eingelassenen Eisenstcke, ... wo der Wagen und die Wagenachse abgehandelt wird, diese vom Rade geriebenen Eisenteile heissen era. But, oddly enough, he prefers to connect them, at least in our inscription, with the pertica: Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass die eurae zur Ausrstung desselben Spieles gehren wie die pertica. How is this possible? Wie die era zwischen Achse und Rad, so werden unsre eurae die Vermittelung gebildet haben zwischen der pertica und den an ihr und um sie vom Gaukler bewegten und gezeigten leblosen oder gar lebenden Krper; ich denke mir eine Art Ketten, Reifen, Schlingen von Metall, welche seitwrts an die grosse Holz-Stange angeschlossen und eingehakt als Trger oder Sttzen fr die Wunderdinge des pteuron dienten 48. Bcheler was a philologian erudite and bold; but here his theory is pure fantasy. He thus joins the seventeenth century erudite Lucas Holstein who also quoted Pollux but preferred to interpret eurae in the inscription as iron attachments affixed to a wall to sustain a pole with hooks, a pertica with uncini, from which to hung vestes in a bath (see n. 27). In Pollux era are implements in a wagon, and we have to treat them as such provided that the word exists in Pollux at all. For we are here facing two textual and terminological problems, one in the Onomasticon of Pollux, and the other in the Lexicon of Hesychius. It is the question of method that lifts them above the level of mere antiquarian curiosity. The problem in Pollux Bcheler approached resolutely, and perhaps even solved it. Era was the unanimous reading of all earlier editors49, but Erich Bethe discovered that era is the reading only of B and C, all other manuscript families
47 Still very useful J. C. GINZROT, Die Wagen und Fahrwerke der Griechen und Rmer, Mnchen, 1817 (reprint, Hildesheim, 1975), I, pp. 7898, esp. p. 90 (cf. 111), where he treats of the eurae; II, plate V. A good discussion by E. SAGLIO, Currus, Dictionnaire des antiquits grecques et romaines, I, 1, 1887, pp. 163343, esp. on the terminology, p. 1635. Our knowledge of Roman carts and of their construction advanced greatly thanks to a recent archaeological find: P. MINIERO, Studio di un carro romano dalla villa c.d. di Arianna a Stabia, Mlanges dArchologie et dHistoire de lcole Franaise de Rome. Antiquit, 99, 1987, 171209, esp. 19193, on the construction of wheels, in particular of the nave: Per tutta la lunghezza del mozzo negli anelli interni inserita unasta di ferro ... a sezione rettangolare ... inchiodata nella parte inferiore dellasse nel punto in cui esso entra nel mozzo, per impedirne lusura del legno. As Miniero notes (p. 192, n. 31), a similar construction was reported also by I. VENEDIKOV, Trakijskata kolesnitsa, Sofia, 1960, p. 246. By and large this bears out the description of Pollux; MINIERO calls this asta thyra, but unfortunately archaeology cannot adjudicate terminological disputes. For the sake of comparison, see M. A. LITTAUER - J. H. CROUWEL, Chariots and Related Equipment from the Tomb of Tutankhamun, Oxford, 1985, pp. 7479 (on axles, linch pins and wheels). 48 Op. cit. (above, n. 24), pp. 31920. 49 See, e.g., Pollux, Onomasticon, ed. I. BEKKER, Berolini, 1846, p. 33. And see above, n. 27.

Games in Patavium

477

displaying yrai, and it is that word that he introduced into his acclaimed edition50. Bcheler was not convinced51. Yrai was for him nur die Conjektur eines Byzantiners ..., welcher ein unverstndliches Wort verstndlich zu machen suchte. The concept of yrai has nothing to do with Eisen, Einfgung in Holzwerk, Reibung durch Drehung und Bewegung von aussen (p. 320). The point is well taken but inconclusive: technical terminology need not always be logical; ultimately it would appear that the strongest argument for retaining the reading era is the presence of the word euras in the inscription of Magurius. As era is uncertain, and the meaning of eurae mysterious, this reasoning is perilously close to a circulus vitiosus. In the Addenda et Corrigenda to his edition of Pollux Bethe reported Bchelers defence of era noncommittally52, but another scholar was inspired by it to a bold (or adventurous) emendation. In the Lexicon of Hesychius in older editions we find the following entry: erai: arai. Schmidt53 annotated: Aliud est era [sic: with spiritus lenis] ap. Polluc. I 146. But it is certainly suspicious that the term to be elucidated is explained by a word differing in the initial letter only; a corruption is possible54. A corruption is certain such was the verdict of Kurt Latte55. He prints in his edition: era: plmnai. The latter is identified in the apparatus as Lattes own conjecture, with the following annotation: cf. Buecheler Rh. Mus. 58, 319. On this page
50 Pollucis Onomasticon, ed. E. BETHE, vols. 1, 2, Lipsiae, 1900, 1931 (the moving preface to the second volume is very much worth reading). See vol. 1, p. VI, and p. 47, line 16, and the annotation in the apparatus. 51 But the Greek-English Lexicon of LIDDELL - SCOTT - JONES (New Edition = Ninth ed., Oxford, 1940) was: it describes era as a falsa lectio for yrai (p. 729). And s.v. yra 6 (p. 811) it gives the following definition: pl., axle-trees, Poll. 1.146 (v.l. era). This is inaccurate. A glance at the text of Pollux will suffice to see that yrai or era is not the pluralia tantum, and that it does not denote the whole axle, the axle-tree, but only the iron attachments that Pollux clearly distinguishes from the axle itself. 52 Op. cit. (above, n. 48), vol. 2, p. 256. Another interpretation of eurae was offered by MANGANARO (above, n. 33), p. 80. He accepts Bchelers explanation of pertica and uncini, but believes that eura is an abbreviated form of Greek pteuron / ptauron, and concludes: dal pl. pt-eura si sarebbe formato, nel gergo di teatro tendenzialmente grecizzante, eura (pl. eurae). Magurio avrebbe quindi dedicato anche otto ptaura, bastoni usati per mantenere lequilibrio sulla corda o per prendere lo slancio dei funamboli (LSJ interprets the word as springboard, used by tumblers and acrobats, and not as a bastone; in this sense also H. C. MONTGOMERY, Ptauraon, RE, 19, 1, 1937, pp. 112425). Not impossible; but again this is interpretatio ignotorum per ignotiora. {The idea of Heraeus (recorded in TLL s.v. eura) that euras might stand for eoras representing the Greek iraw is better swiftly forgotten}. 53 Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon post Ioannem Albertum recensuit Mauricius SCHMIDT, vol. 2, Ienae, 1860, p. 230, entry 11. For a severe criticism of this edition, see K. LATTE, Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon, vol. 1, Hauniae, 1953, pp. XXXVVI. 54 SCHMIDT (above, n. 53), was not completely satisfied, and in his annotation he continues: Defendi potest coll. elhra, eanv aliis id genus. An eryen arai?. 55 Op. cit. (above, n. 53), vol. 2, Hauniae, 1966, p. 233, entry E 7096 (= 96). The marginal siglum D indicates the ascription of that entry ultimately to Diogenianus (cf. vol. 1, pp. XXI, XLIIXLIV, LIII), although it is not made clear at all on what grounds. In the apparatus Latte notes the reading of H (codex Marcianus; cf. vol. 1, pp. XXIVXXXIII): aurai (sic: without breathing and accent).

478

Historia et Epigraphia

67

Bcheler observes that breathings can easily be distorted, changed or omitted (see above), but his discussion of era (or era), and still more to the point the text itself of Pollux precludes any identification of era and plmnai. For Pollux explains era as t ... t joni gkemena sidria, and not as the nave of a wheel. The lesson is this: one should not trust lexicons and lexicographers blindly. The conclusion: the word eura, outside of our inscription, occurs only in a mystifying and probably corrupt entry of Hesychius and in some manuscripts of Pollux {There appears to exist another inscriptional attestation of the word; see below}. For the sake of further exploration let us assume that Bcheler is right, and that era is the correct reading in Pollux. Then the eurae in the inscription of Magurius must also be connected with wagons or chariots. Magurius offered eurae and pertica as votive gifts to Aponus, per il buon esito dei giochi Caetasti, it is claimed56. Hardly so; whether we read lus(it) or lus(or) the games are already over. The objects he deposited were rather gifts of thanks to Aponus for Magurius performance at the games. One can see well why Bcheler was tempted to take the numerals I, II, III, as indicating the prizes won by Magurius. The fons Aponi was located in the vicinity of Patavium, and was always described as belonging to the Patavini; it was a sacred spring, healing and oracular, spewing warm and sulphurous waters, and forming a marshy lake, the repository for votive offerings, of which thousands have been found, many dating back to preRoman Venetian times. Among these vota there are also bronze figurines of horsemen and especially of horses; modern students of res Venetorum did not neglect to point out that the Veneti were famous throughout antiquity for their horses, and that they offered a white horse as a sacrifice to Diomedes57. A calamaula Aponensis (ILS, 5241) is on record, which indicates that at the fons itself flutists performed and perhaps also other exhibitions took place; and in Patavium the remains of an amphitheater are still visible, and the theater (in which Thrasea will have recited his tragic lines) was destroyed only in the middle ages. A permanent circus may also have existed; in any case a remarkable inscription dedicated to Aegyptus, a merited chariot horse, attests to the celebration of ludi circenses58. Eurae of Magurius (and of Pollux) may also point in that direction; but

56 GASPAROTTO (above, n. 38), p. 58, n. 36. 57 See on all of this the sources and ample modern literature in GASPAROTTO (above, n. 38), pp. 13842; BASSIGNANO (above, n. 3), pp. 21820; L. CALZAVARA CAPUIS, Aspetti e problemi della religione di Padova preromana, Atti. Centro ricerche e documentazione sullantichit classica, 11 (n. s., 1), 19801981, (1984), pp. 6480 at 6971; J. CHAMPEAUX, Sors oraculi: les oracles en Italies sous la rpublique et lempire, Mlanges dArchologie et dHistoire de lcole Franaise de Rome. Antiquit, 102, 1990, pp. 27980, and n. 17; {LAZZARO, Fons Aponi (above, n. 27), passim}. The modern name of the locality is San Pietro Montagnon, and the name of Aponus is still preserved in the denomination Abano Terme. 58 AE, 1932, 64: Aegypto / intro / iugo / primo. See GASPAROTTO (above, n. 38), pp. 11521; BASSIGNANO (above, n. 3), pp. 22224. On the rarity of horse and chariot races in Italian cities, see HUMPHREY (below, n. 63), pp. 57178.

Games in Patavium

479

68

why Magurius dedicated just eurae, and eight of them, and not any other part (or model) of a chariot, remains, and probably will remain, a mystery. As to pertica and uncini, it is not impossible to see the iuvenis Magurius as a strongman59, but perhaps here also we may pursue the race connection. In a passage of Apuleius we are arrested by the indication of pertica, qua stabuli fores offirmari solebant60. The pertica here functions as a sera, a wooden detachable bar for fastening together the valvae, the leaves of a door61. Now at all races it was important that all competitors have a fair chance and that all start together at the same time. In Roman circuses the starting gates (fores) of the stalls, carceres, had to be unbarred or unlocked, reserati. The twelve uncini on Magurius pertica may perhaps correspond to the canonical number of the twelve carceres; to each uncinus there would have been attached a rope that pulled the bar upwards and released the latches62. In large imperial circuses at the starting gates a complicated mechanism was employed consisting of pulleys, ropes and bolts, but probably not the serae. Still the persisting use of the verb reserare points to an earlier arrangement which involved the raising or lowering of a bar or bars across the starting positions 63.

59 Cf. ILS, 5174 a (from Salonae in Dalmatia): lapide lusit ponderibus his: XXXX, L., C. Dessau adduces (after Gatti) the passage of Hieronymus, In Zach. 2, 12, that in Palestine in viculis, oppidis et castellis rotundi ponantur lapides gravissimi ponderis, ad quos iuvenes exercere se soleant et eos pro varietate virium sublevare. On the description of Magurius as performing in grege iuniorum, see below, nn. 9196. 60 Apuleius, Met., 7, 18, 5 (R. HELM, p. 176, line 4). In Apuleius story this pertica is arrepta, and finds a new use as an instrument to flog the asinus; an old tradition: a pertica was employed for the same purpose in Plautus, Asin., 589. {For the terminology, and various applications of pertica, see the excellent piece by R. BARBERA, M. Licinius Moschus negotians perticarius (CIL VI 9672 = 25081), ZPE, 126, 1999, pp. 25561. She does not mention the inscription of Magurius}. 61 On the construction of ancient doors, still very useful J. MARQUARDT, Das Privatleben der Rmer (second ed. by A. Mau), Leipzig, 1886, pp. 22831. 62 Funes and perticae appear together as parts of a machina in Digesta, 13, 5, 6, 7. At Apuleius, Met., 3, 15 (HELM, p. 63, line 2) the doors are closed pessulis iniectis et uncino firmiter immisso. The precise application of that uncinus is disputed (cf. Maus criticism of Marquardt [above, n. 61], pp. 23031, n. 5). Still it is interesting to observe that the glossae describe repagulum (cf. below, n. 63) as kraj siderow yraw or in a latinate way as moxlo gkinow, and identify sera as moxlw yraw. Perhaps repagulum was a bar with hooks, but all these terms seem to have been used very loosely. See Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, vol. VII, ed. by G. Goetz : Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum, Lipsiae, 1901, pp. 198, 259, 381, s. vv. repagulum, sera, uncinus. 63 On the starting gates of the carceres and the mechanism for opening them, see the splendid book by J. HUMPHREY, Roman Circuses, Berkeley, 1986, pp. 13274, 64952 (the quotes in the text are from pp. 134 and 169), with full collection and discussion of literary, iconographical and archaeological sources; see in particular the ingenious (though not always easy to follow: we need a tridimensional or computer model) reconstruction of the starting gates mechanism in the circus in Lepcis Magna (pp. 15969). Humphrey notes (p. 157) that the gates were kept shut by repagula, the locks or bars; but these repagula must be different from the serae. Cf. also P. AUPERT, Fouilles de Delphes, II: Topographie et architecture, 7: Le stade, Paris, 1980, pp. 6061, 175, 177. {Cf. also P. VALAVANIS, Hysplex. The Starting Mechanism in Ancient Stadia, Berkeley, 1999, esp. pp. 5356: Representations of a Hysplex in Monuments of a

480

Historia et Epigraphia

This interpretation brings together the pertica with its twelve uncini, the eurae, and the ludi: Magurius would have dedicated to Aponus the implements (or their models) significant for his success at the races. But the pertica, despite its twelve hooks, is perhaps too insecure an instrument to bear the weight of this hypothesis. {An archaic inscription from Selinus in Sicily, long unnoticed in this context, beckons us to confront the eurae again. It reads:
-ke ti / Malofroi - / EURAN n:pel/gei63a. Y#llow Purra / nye

Since its publication in 1894 this dedication has been the object of vivid interest of Greek epigraphers, students of Greek religion, and students of Sicily. In line 4 the word EURAN, springs into the readers eyes. In order not to prejudge the interpretation, I reproduce it in the original capital letters. It had a checkered history. Various readings have been proposed. Some scholars, baffled, preferred to read the natural and easily imagined exn. Ultimately Margherita Guarducci, and later again Maria Teresa Manni Piraino have definitely established that EURAN is indeed the correct reading63b. Two eminent scholars attempted to offer an elucidation. Their efforts are critically discussed in two recent publications by Renato Arena and Franco Sartori63c. In particular G. Manganaro called attention to the gloss of Hesychius (see above, n. 53) erai:arai, and took the dedication to refer to a statuette of Aura, the Aura velificans. This interpretation was embraced by Manni Piraino who accordingly printed Eran. Mario Torelli strongly objected: we should read eran, which would be la forma di aoristo debole di erskv, and would denote the dedication to Malophoros of an object found in the sea63d.

Roman Date. The mechanism concerned foot races, and on pictorial representations there are no hooks attached to the bar}. {63a I reproduce this text from the excellent edition (and photographs) by M. T. MANNI PIRAINO, Iscrizioni greche lapidarie del Museo di Palermo, Palermo, 1973, pp. 8687, no. 56 (with tav. XXXIII). She provides a complete dossier of earlier bibliography. On Demeter Malophoros, and her sanctuary at Selinus, see M. DEWAILLY, Les statuettes aux parures du sanctuaire de la Malophoros Slinonte, Naples, 1992, passim, esp. pp. 14346.} {63b Accepted by R. ARENA in his magnificent collection Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia, I: Iscrizioni di Megara Iblea e Selinunte, Milano, 1989, pp. 4041, no. 39; and I2, Pisa, 1996, p. 103, no. 39. That this is the correct reading had already been well seen by M. GUARDUCCI, Note di epigrafia selinuntina arcaica, Kokalos 12, 1966, 17998 at 19099, but this eminent epigraphist decided to assume an error of lapicide, and proposed to read e<x>n. Dewailly (above, n. 63a), p. 143, persists in reading exn.} {63c R. ARENA, Ancora su EURAN nella dedica di Selinunte alla Malophoros, PP 52 = fasc. 29597, 1997 [1998], pp. 41820 (cf. also his note Arcaismi ad Aquileia, Aquileia Nostra 70, 1999, coll. 4654 at 48, 5152, and 54, nn. 4346); F. SARTORI, Adnotatiunculae. I. Leura (?) Selinuntina e le eurae aponensi, in P. PECORARI (ed.), Amicitiae causa. Scritti in memoria di Mons. Luigi Pesce, Treviso, 2001, pp. 3340.} {63d G. MANGANARO, Segnalazioni di epigrafia greca, Kokalos 1415, 196869, pp. 195202 at 19596; Studi di epigrafia siceliota, RAL IX, 7 (1996), pp. 3840; M. TORELLI, Lanathema di Theyllos figlio di Pyrrhias alla Malophoros di Selinunte, in APARXAI. Nuove ricerche e studi sulla Magna Grecia e la Sicilia in onore di P. E. Arias, Roma, 1986, pp. 35760.}

Games in Patavium

481

Arena and Sartori remain sensibly unconvinced, though Sartori finds the idea of Manganaro senza dubbio suggestiva. Mirabile dictu, Arena is the first scholar to connect explicitly63e this text with the dedication of Magurius from Patavium. In both cases we deal with an object that has the same denomination and is given as an offering to respectively Aquae Aponi and to (Demeter) Malophoros. Still, he observes soberly (p. 420): Dallaccostamento operato tra i due testi non emergono per elementi che consentano di progredire nellinterpretazione del termine. Sartori concurs, and voices further scepticism (p. 40): we may deal with two words, one Greek and one Latin,graficamente e foneticamente uguali, but indicating different objects. Still, there is, perhaps, a glimmer of hope. In each case the eura or eurae are not just simple offerings they are the offerings that are connected with the water, in Selinus with the sea, and in Patavium with the source of Aponus. This may show the sagaciores the way toward the solving of the eurae mystery}. In the inscription of Magurius his participation in the cetaes forms a second item of his exhibitions, but for us, and no doubt, for the Patavines too, the most significant. They were called the games of kth, of marine beasts. Here springs to mind Vergils description (Aen., 5, 545602) of the lusus Troiae (56061):
tres equitum numero turmae ternique vagantur ductores, and (59295): haud alio Teucrum nati vestigia cursu impediunt texuntque fugas et proelia ludo, delphinum similes qui per maria umida nando Carpathium Libycumque secant.

The young riders were delphinum similes: their spiral course resembled the frolicking evolutions of dolphins. Now in a Pompeian inscription there is attested a lusus serpentis. The inscription (in elegiac dactyls), a graffito on a wall of the palaestra, is composed and scratched out in such a fashion as to reproduce the sinuous shape and imitate the hissing sound of a serpent64. It reads:

{63e MANGANARO, who had previously commented on the inscription of Magurius (see above, nn. 33, 52), mentions this inscription again in his Segnalazioni (p. 196, n. 3), but he obviously regards eurae of Patavium and EURAN of Selinus as completely unconnected and denoting totally different things.} 64 CIL, IV, 1595. See the drawing of the inscription in CIL, ad loc.; and in M. DELLA CORTE, Iuventus, Arpino, 1924, p. 31. The text of the inscription is reproduced by Della Corte (p. 24, with a wrong number [1795], and without any indication of the lacunae; the correct number on p. 29. In line 2 he corrects, unnecessarily, quos into quo<s>); M. JACZYNOWSKA, Les associations de la jeunesse romaine sous le Haut-Empire, Wrocaw, 1978, p. 74 (omitting si in line 1, and in line 4 misspelling pares as parce; correct text in her earlier monograph, Collegia Iuvenum, Torun, 1964, p. 164); P. GINESTET, Les organisations de la jeunesse dans lOccident Romain (= Collection Latomus, 213), Bruxelles, 1991, p. 224 (with inaccurate square brackets in line 4).

482
69

Historia et Epigraphia

Ser]pentis lusus si qui sibi forte notavit Sepumius65 iuvenis quos fac(i)t ingenio, spectator scaenae sive es studiosus e[q]uorum sic habeas [lanc]es s[emp]er ubiq[ue pares].

This text has long ago been brilliantly elucidated by M. Della Corte66. He adduces the lines of Vergil, and observes that il moto sinuoso dei delfini per mare esattamente paragonabile a quello dei serpentes in terra. Both the lusus Troiae and the lusus serpentis in Pompei were performed by the turmae equitum. A captivating idea. It was accepted by some scholars67, rejected by others{67a}.
65 Sepumius is a hapax, and hence it is normally corrected to read Sep(t)umius. The correction is unnecessary. As SCHULZE (above, n. 11), p. 277, n. 1, points out, the name-form Sepunius, very close to Sepumius, is attested in inscriptions a number of times, and in particular four times in Pompei (CIL, IV, 1460; X, 802, 831; Not. degli Scavi, 1896, p. 228; on the gens Sepunia in Pompei, see P. CASTRN, Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompei [= Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, VIII], Roma, 1975, p. 219. He omits our iuvenis, either as Sepumius or Septumius). M. Della Corte (above, n. 64), p. 24, n. 2, adverts to the existence of the gens Sepunia in Pompei, but prefers to print Sep(t)umius. H. Solin and O. SALOMIES, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum, Hildesheim, 1988, p. 168, still hesitate: Sepumius = Sep(t)umius oder Sepunius? No hapax requires automatic condemnation. 66 DELLA CORTE (above, n. 64), pp. 24, 2931. He offers (p. 29) the following paraphrase of the distichs: Se tu rifletti quale e quanta perizia e maestria metta il Iuvenis Septumius nelleseguire il lusus serpentis; sii tu amante delleffetto scenico e coreografico, che da quelle evoluzioni di squadre equestre risulta; sii tu inamorato dei cavalli e della tecnica dellequitazione; le tue inclinazioni resteranno egualmente soddisfatte ad appagate. GINESTET (above, n. 64) gives, as he puts it, a more prosaic rendering (p. 225): Sil test arriv de porter attention aus jeux du serpent / Que le iuvenis Septumius excute avec talent, / Que tu sois attir par le spectacle ou amateur de chevaux / Alors partout et toujours tu apprecieras galement lun et lautre. E. N. GARDINER, Athletics in the Ancient World, Oxford, 1930, p. 127, gives the following rendering: If you have seen the skill with which Septimius performs the serpent ride, whether you are a lover of the shows or of horses, you can hold the scales level, i.e. you will be equally satisfied. The poem contains at least two Ovidian echos; for studiosus equorum, cf. Amores, 3, 2, 1: Non ego nobilium sedeo studiosus equorum, referring to chariot races; and for si qui sibi forte notavit, cf. Heroides, 20, 205: si forte notasti (see CIL, IV, 1595, and CLE, 927, ad loc.) 67 GARDINER (above, n. 66), p. 127; J.-P. MOREL, Pantomimus allectus inter iuvenes, Hommages Marcel Renard (Collection Latomus, 102), II, Bruxelles, 1969, p. 529, n. 2; JACZYNOWSKA, Les associations (above, n. 64), pp. 52, 74 (cf. GINESTET [above, n. 64], p. 224). {Also F. P. MAULUCCI VIVOLO in a rather popular book, Pompei. I graffiti figurati, Foggia, 1993, p. 189 (without quoting Della Corte)}. {67a See especially G. WOJACZEK, Schlssel und Schlange. Zwei figurale Texte aus Antike und Mittelalter, Wrzburger Jahrbcher fr die Altertumswissenschaft 14, 1988. pp. 24152 at 24852, an excellent piece, which I regret very much to have missed in the original publication. Wojaczek sees in the poem an example of poesia figurata, solely a literary lusus, without any reference to any actual game or games. He adduces two earlier German translations of the poem (by W. Krenkel and H. Cancik) and gives the following literal (wortgetreue) rendering: Wenn einer das Schlangespiel zufllig zur Kenntnis genommen hat, / das der junge Sepumius mit seinem Ingenium geschaffen hat / Magst du ein Zuschauer beim Theater, magst du ein Pferdenarr sein: / immer und berall mgest du so gleiche Waagschalen haben!. Wojaczek does not seem to be aware of the athletic interpretation of Della Corte and of other scholars,

Games in Patavium

483

70

More recently Pierre Ginestet (following in the footsteps of H. von Petrikovits) points out that the movements of the turmae did not resemble in any way le jeu de serpent, and that Vergil in his description of the lusus Troiae ne dit non plus rien qui puisse faire penser un serpent. Quite so; but Vergil did not attempt at all to give a strict technical description of the figures traced by the riders: he strove to convey a poetic image, and so may have also the scribbler in Pompei. Ginestet observes further that the word lusus is employed in the accusative plural (lusos ... quos fecit), and that thus in the inscription is not recorded un jeu mais des jeux du serpent, ce qui loigne encore davantage cette activit de ce que lon sait sur le lusus Troiae 68. A correct observation but of scarce practical import. For there is little semantic difference between the game and the games of serpent; and the plural may well have been intended to refer to the various figures Sepumius had so flawlessly executed. Della Corte and his followers did not argue that the lusus serpentis was identical with the lusus Troiae: both were equestrian exercises, but the figures traced by the riders were obviously different. No labyrinth at the lusus serpentis but rather as von Petrikovits puts it, das ... Reiten in Schlangenlinie durch die ganze Bahn 69.
but his purely literary understanding of the piece is attractive. Still these two interpretive aproaches need not exclude each other. So, rightly, E. COURTNEY, Musa lapidaria. A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions, Atlanta, 1995, pp. 32829, but he combines this insight with a rather unlikely explanation: the verse (following Wojaczek) is indeed an example of technopaegnion, but (following Bchelers note in CLE) it served as an advertisement for Sepumius who was probably a Marsian snake-charmer demonstrating his art as a side-show to a theatrical or circus performance. To the last line Courtney atrributes the following meaning: then may you never be cheated by a shopkeeper putting false weights on the scales, an interpretation rather far-fetched than ingenious. M. LANGNER, Antike Graffitizeichnungen, (Palilia 11), Wiesbaden, 2001, pp. 2829, discusses the inscription as an exquisite example of Buchstabenbilder, and discovers a philosophical content: the two distichs refer to Schlangenspiel und den Windungen des Schicksals (halte immer und berall die Waagschalen im Gleichgewicht). Cf. also P. KRUSCHWITZ, Carmina latina epigraphica Pompeiana: ein Dossier, Arctos 38 (2004) 5657}. 68 GINESTET (above, n. 64), pp. 22425. 69 H. v. PETRIKOVITS, Troiaritt und Geranostanz, Festschrift fr Rudolf Egger, I, Klagenfurt, 1952, pp. 12636 at p. 134, n. 15; reprinted in H. v. PETRIKOVITS, Beitrge zur rmischen Geschichte und Archologie (= Bonner Jahrbcher, Beiheft, 36), Bonn, 1976, pp. 13550, at 141, n. 15. On the other hand K. SCHNEIDER, Lusus Troiae, RE, 13, 1927, p. 2064 (cf. 2065) writes that die Knaben fhren ihre Evolutionen aus wie die Delphine im Meere, d.h. in schlangenartigen Windungen, wovon uns die pompeianische Inschrift CIL IV 1795 ... einen Begriff gibt. K.-W. WEEBER, Troiae lusus, Ancient Society, 5, 1974, 17196, finds (p. 82, n. 57) the idea of any connection between the Troia and the lusus serpentis as abwegig. But Sepumius did perform an equestrian exercise, and here we have a clear similarity with the Troia (Weebers piece is on the one hand exceedingly hypercritical, and on the other very adventurous: he argues that the lusus Troiae was excogitated by Sulla, pp. 18996). An arresting explanation, peculiar or ingenious, of the lusus serpentis was offered by F. Bcheler (whose interpretation was conspicuously omitted by Della Corte). He reproduced the inscription in his Carmina Latina Epigraphica, II, Lipsiae, 1897, p. 429, no. 927, with the following explanation: praestigiator marsus suae arti ut attendant homines admonet aut admirator eius, constat autem id genus artificum maxime inter alios quales tertio uersu denotantur ludos prodisse. This leaves unexplained studiosus equorum, and the epithet iuvenis. In an earlier

484

Historia et Epigraphia

71

What was the connection between the lusus serpentis and the scaena and equi alluded to in line 3? Della Corte believes that both scaena and equi refer directly to the lusus, to the scenic effect of the exercises and to the art of equitation (see his translation reproduced in n. 66). Ginestet in his translation (see n. 66) seems to dissociate le spectacle and amateur de chevaux. He is right. Spectator scaenae and studiosus equorum patently refer to two kinds of vastly different exhibitions: to stage performances and to equestrian exercises. Both would appear to have been part of lusus serpentis, and the iuvenis Sepumius excelled in both of them. This seems to be intimated in line 4: sic habeas lances semper ubique pares. Whether you are spectator scaenae or studiosus equorum you will always derive equal satisfaction from watching Sepumius (see the translations of Della Corte and Ginestet). Bcheler assigns the verse a general sense: ut Sepumi lusus notatu dignos putasti, ita semper iuste iudices 70. Lances pares habere is an unusual phrase71. Was there any particular reason to employ it in connection with the exhibitions of Sepumius? A witty word play? Lanx is indeed the scale of a balance, but more frequently a platter. Silver platters were frequently offered as gifts and awards, to gladiators72, and also, as we learn from the acts of the Severan ludi saeculares, to
article (Die pompeianischen Wandinschriften, Rheinisches Museum, 12, 1857, 255 = Kleine Schriften, I, Leipzig, 1915, 9495) Bcheler regarded Sepumius as a rider who die Windungen der Schlange nachzuahmen verstand. On serpent charmers, see two works of stunning erudition: H. BLMNER, Fahrendes Volk (above, n. 46), pp. 22, 4749, and nn. 16367; L. ROBERT, Hellenica, I, Limoges, 1940, pp. 13242. They do not mention the inscription of Sepumius. 70 CLE, 927 (see above, n. 69). As a parallel he adduced Persius, 4, 9-10: scis etenim iustum gemina suspendere lance / ancipitis librae. Here iustum is placed in each lanx; a different image from the one present in our verse where lances pares signify a balance of enjoyment, scaena in one lanx, equi in the other. Lances pares is not the same idiom as aequa lance. Cf. the comment on the passage of Persius by R. A. HARVEY, A Commentary on Persius, Leiden, 1981, pp. 1089. 71 The only other passage where dictionaries list lanx and par as appearing together is Arnobius, Adversus nationes, 6, 2: pari pendere cunctos lance. The search through the (unfortunately still incomplete) electronic file of the Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank did not produce any other examples. {In fact pari lance appears to be a relatively common idiom: the search in Bibliotheca Latina Teubneriana brought three examples: Ps. Apuleius, Asclepius, 22 = p. 62, lines 1112, ed. C. MORESCHINI (1991); Claudius Claudianus, Carmina minora, 26, 75; Virgilius Maro Grammaticus, Epitomae 4 = p. 14, line 3, ed. I. HUEMER (1886); p. 118, line 2, ed. B. LFSTEDT (2003); and the search in Patrologia Latina produced several other instances, in particular Symmachus, Epistulae, 2, 56; 8, 74; 10, 60 (= Relationes, 40, ed. SEECK); and Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistulae, 2, 4, 1. With the exception of Virg. Gramm. all these passages also in TLL s.v. lanx, coll. 939,23940,1}. 72 Cf. Martialis, Spect., 29, 28: at the gladiatorial bout of Priscus and Verus missio saepe viris magno clamore petita est; / sed Caesar legi paruit ipse suae: / lex erat, ad digitum posita concurrere parma (palma?): / quod licuit, lances donaque saepe dedit. / inventus tamen est finis discriminis aequi: / pugnavere pares, subcubuere pares. Here lances are platters, hence no image of scales and balance is implied. See ad loc., L. FRIEDLNDER, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton liber, Leipzig, 1886, p. 160; G. VILLE (above, n. 36), pp. 4056, 426. It was a sign of extravagance when L. Verus gave lances to all convivae (Hist. Aug., 5, 5, 23). At Vergilius, Georg., 2, 394: lancesque et liba feremus, the lances are not gifts, but platters on which the exta were carried (cf. 2, 194: lancibus et pandis fumantia reddimus exta). For silver

Games in Patavium

485

72

the boys who participated at the games either singing in the chorus or riding in the lusus Troiae. We read73: carm[e]n cone[x]is manibus [pue]ri puellae dix[erunt ch]orosque hab<u>erunt. Quos perfe[cto] sacrificio Augg. hon[orauerunt / pueris] n. VIIII lances arge[nteas 10 dantes, ut] reliquis [c]um Troiam lusissent. The qualification, reliquis, is of interest: Pighi (p. 118) explains it in the sense that not all the boys who sang the carmen had participated in the lusus Troiae. Those who had ridden in the lusus had already previously received their lances; now the lances were awarded to the nine boys who participated only in the chorus. Thus each puer received one lanx, even if he participated both in the lusus and the chorus. The epigraphical data is lacking on the awards given at the earlier secular games, but commenting on Vergils description of the lusus Troiae Servius writes (ad Aen., 5, 556): Baebius tamen Macer dicit, a Caesare Augusto pueris qui luserant Troiam, donatas esse galeas et bina hastilia: ad quod Vergilium constat alludere. Baebius Macer is a shadowy authority74; the award of the galeae does not seem to be attested
vessels as gifts in the later Roman empire, see Alan CAMERON, Observations on the distribution and ownership of late Roman silver plate, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 5, 1992, pp. 17885. 73 I. B. PIGHI, De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium libri sex, Milano, 1941 (reprinted with Addenda and Corrigenda, Amsterdam, 1965), p. 167, lines 7576. See also the lists of pueri qui carmen cecinerunt and qui Troiam luserunt (pp. 169, 174, 24346). GINESTET (above, n. 64), p. 148, surprisingly does not know this document, and writes that after Augustus il ne sagissait plus de lancien lusus Troiae dont on navait conserv ni le nom ni le caractre infantile. Aprs Claude on nen parlera plus (!). He also states that according to Suetonius Claudius celebrated the lusus, mais en y faisant participer des prtoriens. This glaringly misreads Suetonius, Claud., 21, 3: Troiae lusum exhibuit et Africanas, conficiente turma equitum praetorianorum, where the lusus Troiae is separated from the venatio; it is at the venatio not the lusus that the praetorian squadron participated, hunting down African panthers. Equally incorrect WEEBER (above, n. 69), p. 188: Fr die Zeit nach Nero wird sie (sc. die Troia) namentlich nicht mehr erwhnt. H. GALSTERER, Spiele und Spiele. Die Organisazion der ludi Juvenales in der Kaiserzeit, Athenaeum, 59, 1981, p. 420, n. 32, also disregards the Severan acta when he writes that der letzte Beleg fr ein Troiaspiel scheint Galen XIV p. 212 Khn zu sein, doch ist damit nicht gesagt, dass der lusus spter nicht mehr aufgefhrt wurde (but on the text of Galen, see P. DINZELBACHER, ber Troiaritt und Pyrriche, Eranos, 80, 1982, 15161 at 161, n. 71; Dinzelbacher, p. 160, rightly observes that the Severan acta had been so far overlooked by the students of lusus Troiae, also by E. MEHL in his otherwise quite exhaustive article Troiaspiel, RE, Suppl., 8, 1956, pp. 888905 at 9023). On the other hand, H. v. PETRIKOVITS, Troiae lusus, Klio, 32, 1939, pp. 20920, finds echoes or descriptions of the lusus in Claudius Claudianus (esp. in De sexto consulatu Honorii, 62139), and also in various early medieval texts (pp. 21520; his argument is disputed by Dinzelbacher, pp. 16061). Of the book by P. REED DOOB, The Idea of the Labyrinth from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages, Ithaca, 1990, historians are to be warned. According to the index (p. 355) she deals with the lusus Troiae, the Trojan Ride, on numerous pages; but her lusus is a product of pretentious literary fancy (it shows that unity, or at least a fusion of duality, is fleetingly possible, p. 251). In the real Rome and the real games she is not interested, and thus she succeeds in being singularly uninformed. 74 His other fragment (Servius auctus, ad Vergilium, Buc., 9, 46) also refers to an event from the time of Augustus, the appearance of the stella Caesaris in 44; on that basis G. WISSOWA (Baebius 31, RE, 2, 1896, p. 2731) regards him dem Anscheine nach als zeitgenssiche Zeuge, although he rejects his identification with Ovids friend Macer. Also H. PETER,

486

Historia et Epigraphia

elsewhere75, and the term hastilia is taken directly from Vergil (Aen. 5, 557: cornea bina ferunt praefixa hastilia ferro). Hastile, properly denoting only the shaft of a spear or javelin, was often employed by poets as pars pro toto in the sense of the whole weapon. But in military idiom only the term hasta was used. The award of hasta (or hastae) was a distinction reserved for officers76; thus it is quite conceivable that Augustus gave the award of two spears to the young riders who were all of senatorial or equestrian origin. And it is quite possible that a similar award, in addition to lances, was recorded in a missing part of the Severan acta. But until further epigraphical documents come to light, caution is in place: a strong impression remains that Baebius Macer spun his scheme directly from the lines of Vergil. We are left with lances as an award in the lusus Troiae and a possible award in the lusus serpentis. But most significant is the circumstance that both in Rome and Pompei a puer or iuvenis would often participate both in the stage and the equestrian performances. This gives us an idea of the versatility that was a mark of an accomplished young man. This flavor we perceive also in the Patavine inscription of Magurius. The ludi cetasti in Patavium may have included equestrian performances, the riders evolutions similar to the movements of marine beasts, the cete, and the riders perhaps wearing the appropriately decorated helmets. The idea that equestrian displays resembled the games of dolphins is an old one, and widespread. Vergil was not its originator. A remarkable series of coins from Tarentum (Taras), dated to the fifth century, contains representations of the equitation technique of klhtew - desultores, the riders who would in battle spring from one horse to another. On the obverse naked but armed young riders are depicted ready to jump from a horse but there is no second horse! We have to turn the coin around: on the reverse the horseman is now riding a dolphin, on one exemplar holding a long spear77.
Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, II, Lipsiae, 1906, pp. C, and 7172, places him among the writers of the Augustan age. SCHANZ - HOSIUS (above, n. 7), II4, Mnchen, 1935, classify him among die Schriftsteller ber Augustus of the early Principate (pp. 328, 339), but on p. 829 identify him with Baebius Macer, a friend of Pliny the Younger (especially on the basis of Plinius, Ep. 3, 5, 20); E. GROAG and A. STEIN in PIR2, B 20 and 21 (1933) hesitate; no comment, perhaps rightly, in A. N. SHERWIN-WHITE, The Letters of Pliny. A Historical and Social Commentary, Oxford, 1966. All this is very tenuous; one thing, however, should not be doubted, the identification of our Macer with Bebius Macer, who according to Fulgentius (Expositio sermonum antiquorum, 6, = p. 113, line 14, ed. R. HELM, Lipsiae, 1898) fastalia (cf. TLL, s.v.: perhaps festalia, a reading of two codices) sacrorum scripsit. This presents him as an antiquarian, and not necessarily as scriptor rerum (Caesaris) et Augusti (as he is described in PIR). The two passages in Servius and Servius auctus concern festivities and ceremonies. 75 It is not listed in V. MAXFIELD, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army, Berkeley, 1981. In his description of the lusus Vergil does not mention galeae, but Servius takes pressa corona (5, 556) to denote galea (pointing to 5, 673, where Ascanius galeam ... proicit). At the imperial cavalry exercises officers and accomplished horsemen wore richly decorated helmets and (perhaps) face-masks (MAXFIELD, pp. 7475; v. PETRIKOVITS, Troiaritt [above, n. 69], pp. 13339 = 14146); it is not impossible that subsequently they would receive them as awards. 76 MAXFIELD (above, n. 75), pp. 8486, 14557, 15883. 77 See the memorable article by A. ALFLDI, Die Herrschaft der Reiterei in Griechenland und

Games in Patavium

487

73

The dolphin was a ktow par excellence, and a subject of numerous tales. He was famous for his friendliness toward men; he would often come to the rescue of the people who suffered shipwreck, would show to sailors from which direction a favorable wind will blow, and would warn them of the approaching storm. Apollo Delphinios was the god of sailors, and the Apollinian dolphin was among the sacred animals that led colonists to a new city or pilgrims to Delphi. The founder of Taras (Tarentum) Phalantos was saved by a dolphin, and thus the dolphin figures prominently in the foundation legend of this city, and on its coins78. A similar legend of marine animals that guided or helped Antenor may have obtained in Patavium; and the ludi cetasti would be the games named in the commemoration of that event79. In this context it is of interest that the Dioscuri, the divine patrons of horsemen, and in particular of desultores, were also protectors of sailors80. But even more telling is the cultic connection between horses and horsemen and the sea-god, whether Poseidon or Neptune. At the time of a sudden war in Italy, the tumultus, the man who was to lead the army went to the Capitol to fetch duo vexilla, unum russeum, quod pedites evocabat, et unum caeruleum, quod erat equitum caeruleus color maris est, a cuius deo equum constat esse inventum81.
Rom nach dem Sturz der Knige, in: Gestalt und Geschichte. Festschrift Karl Schefold, 4 Beiheft zu Antike Kunst, Basel, 1967, pp. 2426, and plates 9, 38. The Tarentine cavalry was famous throughout the Hellenistic epoch, and the term Tarentini came to denote the military desultores; cf. Livius, 35, 28, 8: et quos Tarentinos vocabant equites, binos secum trahentis equos. On the Tarentine desultores, see also P. WUILLEUMIER, Tarente, des origines la conqute romaine, Paris, 1939, pp. 18689, 66668, and, more recently, J.-P. THUILLIER, Les jeux athltiques dans la civilisation trusque, Paris, 1985, pp. 97101. Thuillier is surprised that in Tarentine iconography on ne voit jamais de reprsentations de desultores (p. 99), but he does not seem to know the article of Alfldi. A treasure trove of information in M. WELLMANN, Delphin, RE, 4, 1901, pp. 25049; cf. also F. DMMLER (above, n. 27), pp. 1920; WUILLEUMIER (above, n. 77), pp. 3638. On Apollo Delphinios and the feast(s) of Delphinia, see M. P. NILSSON, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, I2, Mnchen, 1955, pp. 55455, and the articles by JESSEN and [P.] STENGEL in RE, 4, 1901, pp. 251115. {Cf. also G. CAPDEVILLE, Virgile, le labyrinthe et les dauphins, in D. Porte and J.-P. Nraudau (eds.), Hommages Henri Le Bonniec. Res Sacrae, Bruxelles, 1988 (= Collection Latomus, 201), pp. 6482}. In Vergil (Aen., 5, 799826) Neptune assures Venus of his goodwill toward Aeneas; and he departs in his chariot pulled by fiery horses, immania cete among his comites (822). Cf. ALFLDI (above, n. 77), p. 25; THUILLIER (above, n. 77), pp. 1012; and in general always G. WISSOWA, Religion und Kultus der Rmer2, Mnchen, 1912, pp. 26871. Still very useful K. JAISLE, Die Dioskuren als Retter zur See bei Griechen und Rmern und ihr Fortleben in christlichen Legenden, Diss. Tbingen, 1907, esp. pp. 2534. Servius, ad Aen., 8, 1. Ad rem, see J. LINDERSKI, Rome, Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the Genera Militiae and the Status of Octavian, Journal of Roman Studies, 74, 1984, pp. 7677 {= RQ, pp. 14950}. In Greece the cult of Poseidon Hippios is well attested, cf. M. P. NILSSON (above, n. 78), II, Mnchen, 1950, pp. 42021. J. RPKE, Vexillum caeruleum, Rheinisches Museum, 136, 1993, 37476, ingeniously argues that in this passage the color caeruleus has nothing to do with the sea or Neptune; it denotes nigrum, and death, and signifies that the outcome of the war must be either victory or death. Caeruleum could indeed on occasion mean nigrum as the color of mourning (Servius, ad Aen., 3, 63), but it covered a whole range of shades, and was primarily associated with the color of the sea and the waves (cf. J. ANDR,

78

79 80

81

488

Historia et Epigraphia

74

If dolphins were the horses of the sea, then horses were the dolphins of the land, both animals sacred to Poseidon-Neptune. This idea was visibly represented in the circus: near the end of the barrier dividing the tracks for chariot-racing there were erected seven dolphins as devices to count the completed laps82. In Rome equestrian exhibitions were not limited to the lusus Troiae; the pueri and iuvenes performed in a variety of equestrian displays, including that of desultores; they also performed on the stage, and in the amphitheater. They were not professionals; and hence the operative terms for their activities were lusus and ludere83. Dramatic displays of iuvenes stood at the origin of the Roman theater84, and this association of iuvenes and the theater persisted throughout the imperial period. Particularly interesting is the stone from Lepcis Magna dedicated to a freedman of Caracalla, pantomimo temporis sui primo Romae adulescentium productorum condiscipulo ... Mediolano inter iuvenes recepto85. J.-P. Morel perceptively observed that il ne sagit pas des jeunes acteurs, mais de Jeunes-acteurs, dadulescentes produits en spectacle, and to explain the term adulescentes producti he felicitously adduced the passage of Suetonius, Aug., 43, 4: in circo aurigas cursoresque et confectores ferarum, et nonnunquam ex nobilissima iuventute, produxit. Thus a famous professional was admitted to the association of iuvenes who apparently would perform as amateur actors or mimes: un jeune pantomime et ces Jeunes souvent acteurs se trouvaient donc assez assortis et pouvaient faire bon mnage86. This was true not only of actors but also of circus professionals. This we have learned from a funerary carmen found in Rome and published, with a masterly commentary, by Silvio Panciera87. The deceased, the forty-four
tude sur les termes de couleur dans la langue latine, Paris, 1949, pp. 16271; and for the color of the rica of the flaminica, see N. BOLS-JANSSEN, La prtresse aus trois voiles, Revue des tudes Latines, 67, 1989, [1990], 132). Rpkes theory disregards the hippic associations of Poseidon - Neptune, and leaves unexplained why the symbolism of fighting to death should have applied only to the equites. Older literature in POLLACK, Delphines 2, RE, 4, 1901, pp. 251011; see now HUMPHREY (above, n. 63), pp. 26265, 660, nn. 189200. On the activities of the iuvenes and the ludi iuvenales (or lusus iuvenalis) celebrated in Rome and in various cities of Italy and the provinces, see GALSTERER (above, n. 73), pp. 41938; GINESTET (above, n. 64), pp. 14568; JACZYNOWSKA, Les associations (above, n. 64), pp. 4866. See the spirited article by J.-P. MOREL, La iuventus et les origines du thtre romain (TiteLive, VII, 2; Valre Maxime, II, 4, 4), Revue des tudes Latines, 47, 1969, pp. 20852, esp. 22135. J. M. REYNOLDS - J. B. WARD PERKINS, The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, London, 1952, p. 159, no. 606 = AE, 1953, 188. See also CIL, XIV, 2121 = ILS, 5193, from Lanuvium, recording again a pantomimus sui temporis primus (a freedman of Commodus) who was allectus inter iuvenes. MOREL (above, n. 67), pp. 52335, esp. 52731. For a possible association of the iuvenes of Vienna in Gallia Narbonensis with the scaenici asiaticiani (CIL, XII, 1929 = ILS, 5205), see GINESTET (above, n. 62), pp. 15859. S. PANCIERA, Tra epigrafia e topografia, I, Archeologia Classica, 22, 1970, 15163 (Regiones, vici e iuventus).

82 83

84

85

86

87

Games in Patavium

489

years old Sextus Vetulenus Lavicanus, is described as delicium populi, circi quoque nuntiu(s) ampli, septima quem regio sextaqu(e) amavit idem. But the most arresting information is this: hanc mihi coniuvenes titulum posuere sepulto. Lavicanus is characterized as a nuntius in a circus, probably Maximus but, as Panciera points out, he must have earned his epithet of delicium populi in some other way and indeed he is represented on the stone in the attire of an auriga. The stone was set up by coniuvenes, further referred to as sodales. Lavicanus was thus (despite his age) a member of an association of iuvenes. This association, Panciera argues, was based territorially, in the sixth (Alta Semita) and the seventh regio (Via Lata), and was thus similar to the collegium iuvenum Racilianensium (AE 1927, 145), the name of which clearly derives from the two vici, vicus Raciliani Minoris and vicus Raciliani Maioris, both in regio XIV (CIL, VI, 975 = ILS, 6073). Lavicanus carries in his left hand a vexillum, perhaps not the sign of victory but rather (so Panciera) a banner of the collegium. Panciera points to the various feasts and athletic competitions organized regionatim and vicatim, and concludes that Lavicanus pot gareggiare come auriga per un collegio avente la sua sede nella sesta o settima regione cittadina 88. Iuvenes cisiani attested in Ostia may have also participated in races provided that they are so named after cisium, a light two-wheeled carriage89. But perhaps more likely is a derivation from the name Cisius, or still better from a local district, a vicus Cisianus90. In Patavium Magurius lus(it) ... in greg(e) Veturian(a) quae et iuniorum. The term iuniorum applied to grex qualifies it immediately as a group of iuvenes91. The
88 Pp. 16263. Pancieras interpretation was enthusiastically accepted by GALSTERER (above, n. 73), pp. 42628. 89 CIL, XIV, 409, line 16 = ILS, 6146. Dessau suggests that cisiani fortasse iidem qui alibi dicuntur cisiarii, which J. P. WALTZING, tude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains, III, Louvain, 1899, p. 636, regards as peu vraisemblable. Also A. MAU, Cisium, RE, 3, 1899, pp. 258889, seems to identify cisiani with cisiarii, (professional) drivers (or makers) of cisia, but he disregards the denomination of our cisiani as iuvenes. OLD distinguishes cisianus and cisiarius, but provides no definition for the former. 90 The name Cisius is very rare; cf. SCHULZE (above, n. 11), p. 305; SOLIN - SALOMIES (above, 65), p. 56. GALSTERER (above, n. 73), opts for Cisiani as eine ... lokale Untergruppe. They would thus be similar to iuvenes Oeciani (CIL, VI, 26 = ILS, 7303) for whom a vicus Oecianus or Oeci is still to be discovered (cf. PANCIERA [above, n. 87], pp. 15961). {M. F. PETRACCIA LUCERNONI, I questori municipali dellItalia antica (= Studi Ist. Ital. St. Ant. 41), Roma, 1988, p. 22, regards them as a corporation of producers or drivers of small carts, cisiae, and she thus returns to the idea of Mau. In that interpretation the denomination iuvenes remains puzzling and unexplained. M. KLEIJWEGT, Iuvenes and Roman Imperial Society, Acta Classica 37, 1994, pp. 79102 at 8384, distinguishes between aristocratic and non-aristocratic youth groups. At Ostia the iuvenes cisiani would be an example of the latter, and the iuvenes decurionum qui Ostiae ludunt (CIL, XIV, 4448; cf. AE 196970, 87) of the former. M. FORA, Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell occidente Romano, IV. Regio Italiae I: Latium (= Vetera 11), Roma, 1996, pp. 7779, no. 39, gives a list of various interpretations, and (perhaps wisely) refrains from proposing any particular solution.} 91 Cf. the expressions grex adulescentium (Cicero, Tusc., 5, 77: adulescentium greges Lacedaemone vidimus ipsi incredibili contentione certantes pugnis), epheborum (Cicero, Nat. deor., 1, 79), iuvenum (Livius, 1, 4, 9; cf. Cicero, Att., 1, 14, 5: barbatuli iuvenes, totus ille grex Catilinae).

490

Historia et Epigraphia

75

denomination Veturiana may derive from a Veturius by whom this group was perhaps established or led92. The copula quae et is intriguing. In names of persons qui et or quae et is on display in many scores of agnomina93. In our case it shows that iuniores were not a subdivision of the grex Veturiana (the name form would then have to be iuniores gregis Veturianae or perhaps grex Veturiana iuniorum), but that Veturiana is a new name that was given to the grex iuniorum, after a founder, leader or benefactor. On this interpretation the iuvenes of Patavium were organized for the ludi cetasti in units called greges, as the groups of marine animals were also called94, and were denominated iuniores. For iuniores were the iuvenes of a particular kind. The term evokes the old Roman centuriate organization: as Ginestet argues a iuvenis became iunior upon his integration into the army95. This certainly does not apply to Patavium of the imperial epoch; but the category of iuniores also evokes and implies a contrast with the seniores96. This leads us to a crucial feature of the games in Patavium, and a question: why was there observed for the ludi cetasti a cycle of thirty years97 (whereas the certamen navium was staged in Patavium quotannis)? Many scholars noted the fact, but did not ask the question; the first to ask it and to answer was Maria Pia
92 On the ending in -ana in the names of Roman military units, see E. BIRLEY, Alae named after their Commanders, Ancient Society, 9, 1978, 25773. The unit names derived from personal names can be either in the genitive (e.g. ala Patrui, Scaevae; cohors Facundi, Flori, Nigri) or in adjectival form (e.g. ala Apriana, Auriana, Flaviana). As to grex, Veturiana seems to be the only example of the latter form. For Veturii in Patavium, see CIL, V, 2793, 3063. 93 See I. KAJANTO, Supernomina. A Study in Latin Epigraphy (= Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 40, 1), Helsinki, 1967, passim. He discusses only personal names. Qui (quae) et is possibly unparalleled in the names of groups or associations. 94 Cf. TLL, s.v. grex, col. 2332, lines 4557. 95 GINESTET (above, n. 64), pp. 5163. 96 Iuniores vici (of Beda vicus, in the territory of Augusta Treverorum) are attested in 245 (CIL, XIII, 4131 = ILS, 7056; GINESTET [above, n. 62], p. 256, no. 207). A contrast between seniores and iuvenes is implied in African curiae: see CIL, VIII, 2714, 18118, from Lambaesis, recording the seniores of the curia Sabina, and 22901, from Leptis Minor, recording the iuventus cur(iae) Ulp(iae). Cf. T. KOTULA, Les curies municipales en Afrique romaine, Wrocaw, 1968, pp. 12021. Here may also belong CIL, XIV, 4448, from Ostia: iuv[enes de]curion(um) / q[ui Ostia]e ludunt (cf. AE, 1969/70, 87). 97 The term used by Cassius Dio, triakontaethrw (n ort tini triakontaethrdi) is very rare; LSJ lists only three examples, our text, the famous stone from Rosetta (OGIS, 90, line 2), and a papyrus (L. MITTEIS - U. WILCKEN, Grundzge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I, 2, Leipzig - Berlin, 1912, p. 138, no. 109, line 7 (in these two Ptolemaic texts the term denotes a period of thirty years, and appears in a list of royal titles). The word became, however, more popular in the later Empire; TLG provides five more examples: one, from the Scholia vetera in Iliadem (1, 250), denotes a period of thirty years (in connection with the epochs of human life); four (three from Eusebius, Vita Constantini, 4, 40, 2; 4, 45, 3; 4, 47, in praescriptione, and one from Socrates, Hist. eccl., 1, 38) refer to the tricennalia of Constantine, and thus have the meaning of the thirtieth anniversary of his rule. In addition, at De laudibus Constantini, 6, 18, Eusebius mentions triakontaethrikw (this word is missing from LSJ) ortw of Constantine. Thus, with the meaning: a festival occurring every thirty years, the text of Dio stands unparalleled and alone as almost everything pertaining to the games in Patavium.

Games in Patavium

491

76

Billanovich in her recent and rare publication: furono dei ludi connessi ... con le classi di et... Il fatto che essi si celebrassero in forma solenne ogni trenta anni ne una conferma: trenta anni nel mondo antico sono considerati esattamente la durata di un ciclo generazionale 98. The ludi cetasti would thus celebrate the foundation of Patavium and the passing and beginning of a generational cycle. They would correspond at once both to the Roman Parilia and the ludi saeculares. According to various theories current in Roman antiquity the human life was naturally divided into three, four or five aetates99. In Patavium a tripartite division would obtain; and the celebrations so organized call to mind Plutarchs famous description of the three choirs at the festivals in the Lykurgean Sparta, of the old men, of the young men, and of the boys100. In Rome it was the pueri who participated in the lusus Troiae, and the iuvenes in a variety of displays. In Patavium we hear of the participation in the ludi cetasti of Thrasea, a senior, and of Q. Magurius, a iunior. Thrasea appeared in a tragic role; Magurius in stage displays and, it appears, in equestrian exercises or chariot races. The Patavines do not yield their secrets gladly. After our disquisition we do not necessarily know more about the Games in Patavium, but it is an informed aporia.

98 BILLANOVICH (above, n. 35), p. 130. 99 See the detailed studies by E. EYBEN, Die Einteilung des menschlichen Lebens im rmischen Altertum, Rheinisches Museum, 116, 1973, pp. 15090; Roman Notes on the Course of Life, Ancient Society, 4, 1973, pp. 23055; De jonge Romein (Verhandelingen van de Academie van Belgi. Klasse der Letteren, Jaarg., XXXIX, no. 81), Brussel, 1977, pp. 740. See also R. HUSSLER, Vom Ursprung und Wandel des Lebensaltervergleiches, Hermes, 92, 1964, pp. 31341. 100 Plutarch, Lyc. 21, 2. BILLANOVICH (above, n. 35), pp. 13031, points, less compellingly, to the Athenian military classes; she does not mention at all the Roman opposition of iuniores and seniores.

35.13 MINIMA EPIGRAPHICA 35.1 MAGISTRI*

Magistri (Festus, Gloss. Lat. 254). We have to distinguish between (a) magistri, the presidents of various associations, religious, funerary, and professional (collegia) or territorial (vici, pagi), and (b) the boards of magistri (collegia magistrorum) who acted as supervisors of shrines (curatores fanorum), such as the magistri attested in Capua, Delos and Minturnae (mod. Minturno) in the last century of the Republic. The cult of Lares Compitales was in the late republic and under Augustus supervised by the magistri of vici. Also the state priesthoods of quindecimviri {cf. NP 10 (2001) 71314}, fratres Arvales, Salii {cf. NP 10 (2001) 125051}, Luperci {cf. OCD3 (1996) 892} (and haruspices) possessed as administrative officers the (normally) annually elected magistri. They also performed sacrifices, often assisted by flamines {cf. Scheid}. G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Rmer2 (Mnchen 1912); J. Johnson, Excavations at Minturnae 2: Inscriptions 1: Republican Magistri (Philadelphia 1933); G. Niebling, Historia 5 (1956) 30331; J. Linderski, in M. N. Andreev and others (eds.), Gesellschaft und Recht im Griechisch-Rmischen Altertum 1 (Berlin 1968) 94132 {= RQ 165203; with addenda 64547; and in this volume: RQ, Addenda altera, No. 15}; J.M. Flambard, Opuscula Instituti Romani Finlandiae 2 (1982) 6777; M. Frederiksen, Campania (Rome 1984); H. Royden, The Magistrates of the Roman Professional Collegia in Italy (Pisa 1988); J. Scheid, Romulus et ses frres (Rome 1990); {M. Pobjoy, Arctos 32 (1998) 17595; M. Tarpin, Vici et pagi dans lOccident romain (Rome 2002)}.

312

35.2AB THE STONES OF CONCORDIA** 35.2A

Fulviomario BROILO, Iscrizioni lapidarie latine del Museo Nazionale Concordiese di Portogruaro (I a.C.III d.C), I (Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto, 16). Roma, Giorgio Bretschneider, 1980. 145 pp.; (incl.) many ills., indices.

* The Oxford Classical Dictionary3 (1996) 911912 {with bibliographical addenda}. ** Archaeological News 10 (1981 [1982]) 99100; 16 (1991) 108109 {with corrections and additions}.

Minima Epigraphia

493

100

Editions of lapidaria from various museums and collections occupy an important and honorable place in the history of epigraphical studies. Occasionally they make history: L. Roberts Collection Froehner {Paris 1936} or the edition of Greek inscriptions from the British Museum come readily to mind. But even on a less dramatic level, even if they do not bring scores of inedita, such editions are very welcome: they provide information about the present location of inscriptions published in standard corpora ; through re-examinations of stones they often arrive at new readings; they often contain ample historical and epigraphical commentary and thus bring the study of inscriptions in question up to the present level of knowledge; last, and perhaps most important, they provide good photographs as is well known the lack of illustration is a major shortcoming of older epigraphical collections. The book here under review does not contain anything dramatic, and yet not only the exquisite paper, but the exquisite print (with occasional misprints) and exquisite photographs catch the eye of the reader. This is the first volume of the projected three volumes of Latin inscriptions from the Museo Nazionale Concordiese of Portogruaro. The first two volumes will deal with inscriptions dating from the first through third centuries C.E.; the third volume will contain inscriptions from the fourth through sixth centuries. The second volume also will include a list of inscriptions from Concordia and its territory which are known from older publications but now are lost, and another list of inscriptions from Concordia now preserved in other museums and collections. Thus this is not only a museum corpus; it is a veritable Corpus Inscriptionum Concordiensium. The ruins of Concordia, not far to the west of Aquileia, have been excavated since 1873; the best recent study is G. Brusin and P. L. Zovato, Monumenti romani e cristiani di Julia Concordia (Pordenone 1960). Under Augustus, Concordia received the status of a colony and the name of Iulia Concordia; it reached the peak of its fortunes in Late Antiquity when it became an important garrison town. Hence we look forward with special interest to the promised third volume {it has not yet been published, but another edition of late antique inscriptions from Concordia has appeared: G. Lettich, Le iscrizioni sepolcrali tardoantiche di Concordia (Trieste 1983); and more recently G. Lettich produced a corpus of earlier imperial stones: Iscrizioni romane di Iulia Concordia (sec. I a.CIII d.C) (Trieste 1994); oddly enough, he provides no indices and no table of comparatio numerorum either with CIL or with the edition of Broilo}; for the time being let us turn to volume I. It contains 69 inscriptions; of these 17 were so far published only in Notizie degli Scavi, in Supplementa Italica of Pais (1888) or in other books and articles; 52 were printed by Mommsen in CIL V (1872, 1877): one is struck by their excellent preservation. One also is struck by the excellence of Mommsens edition: Broilo was able to propose only few corrections, some trifling (see nos. 9, 18, 29 = CIL V 1940, 1875, 1891), some important: No. 10 = 8661 {= Lettich 21}, a cursus honorum. Line 4, omitted by Mommsen, may contain an indication that the person in question (a certain [P]erses {or rather [P]ersa} was also [trib(unus) pl(ebis)], q(aestor) prov(inciae) Asiae; Broilos supplements are not unreasonable, but on the photograph no trace of q is discernible. Line 3 reads ]ni praeto/[ri]; Mommsen saw here the name of an

494

Historia et Epigraphia

emperor, e.g. Traia]ni; Broilo opts for [ praef(ecto) aer(arii) Satur]ni. This is ingenious, but direct advancement from the praetorship to the praefectura aerarii Saturni was very exceptional: M. Corbier, Laerarium Saturni et laerarium militare (Paris 1974) 52227, knows of only three such cases before the end of the second century {cf. G. Alfldy, Beitrge zur Prosopographie von Concordia, Aquileia Nostra 51 (1980) 257328 at 26468}. No. 30 = 1888, listed by Mommsen among the inscriptions from Concordia, mentions a IIIIvir which causes perplexity, for one should expect that Concordia as a colony was administered by the IIviri. Broilo very reasonably follows Pais, Suppl. Ital. 399, and A. Degrassi, Scritti vari di antichit 1 (Roma 1962) 11718, in attributing this inscription to the neighboring municipium of Opitergium (Oderzo). No. 34, the stone recording a testamentum, was in 1954 reconstituted from four fragments (CIL V 18971900), but Broilo does not make clear that D. Bertolini (NSc 1877) already saw that the fragments belong together, and that Mommsen took notice of Bertolinis observation in his re-edition of the inscription in CIL V 8664. Broilos commentary to the inscriptions is rather well informed, especially when he treats of prosopography; he seems less sure in other areas, e.g. it is misleading to maintain that a private dedication to Di Manes legally established the grave as a res religiosa (p. 144); cf. F. Fabbrini, Res divini iuris, Novissimo Digesto Italiano 15 (Torino 1968) 554. To recapitulate: this is a reliable and useful Corpus, produced by a competent editor.

35.2B
Fulviomario BROILO, Iscrizioni lapidarie latine del Museo Nazionale Concordiese di Portogruaro (I a.C.III d.C), II (Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto, 28). Roma, Giorgio Bretschneider, 1984. 105 pp.; (incl.) many ills., indices.

The second volume of the inscriptions from the Museum of Portogruaro is as lavish and sumptuous as the first (see the review in Arch. News X,4 [1981] 99100 {above, No. 35.2a}). It contains sixty-seven texts (the numbering is consecutive, 70136), dated mostly to the first two centuries of the Empire, all illustrated by excellent photographs, and almost all coming either from Concordia itself or its territory. Of these texts only twenty-seven figured already in CIL V (1872, 1877) and one in CIL I2; three were published in various collections and twenty-five in Notizie degli Scavi (of these, six appear also in Supplementa Italica of E. Pais [1888]); and there are eleven inedita. Broilos commentary is useful but often it contains only general encyclopedic information. Unfortunately he missed a major contribution to the history and epigraphy of Concordia, the article by G. Alfldy, Beitrge zur Prosopographie von Concordia, Aquileia Nostra 51 (1980) 257328. To a number of inscriptions published in CIL and NSc Broilo offers corrections (mostly minute): see esp. nos. 72, 73, 74, 99 (cf. Alfldy, pp. 299300), 114, 123 (a better text in Alfldy, p. 298), 132 = CIL V 1948, 1924, 8680, 1931, 1951, 8665, 867; and nos. 87, 94 = NSc. 1931, p. 140, 1890, pp. 16970. A few texts call for further comments:

Minima Epigraphia

495

109

No. 75 = CIL V 1915 {Lettich 123}. Line 3 Auruncl(eius) Mommsen; Aurunci(us) Broilo, on the grounds that only the form Aurunculeius is attested, and that the partially broken off last letter can be only L or I. Now in a recently published Roman inscription (Tituli 2 [1980] 111, no. 11) the syncopated form Auruncleius/Auruncleia appears four times {Lettich (p. 203) observes that Auruncius si adegua meglio allimpaginazione del testo}. No. 76 = CIL V 1943, an inscription of a servus vicarius (a slave of a slave). Ad rem, see the still basic study by H. Erman, Servus vicarius (Lausanne 1896) {F. Reduzzi Merola, Servo parere (Napoli 1990)}. Nos. 77 (= NSc 1892, p. 336) and 78 (= G. Brusin, Monumenti romani e cristiani di Iulia Concordia [Pordenone 1960] 60 {= Lettich 193, 194}) read as follows: Pagi / Facanis / ped(es) M DCC / LV and Pagi / Valent(is) / p(edes) CCCCLI. Broilo connects these inscriptions with the viasii vicani mentioned in the lex agraria of 111 (CIL I2 585, lines 1113, 1617). But the viasii vicani are an elusive entity (cf. T. Pekary, Untersuchungen zu den rmischen Reichsstrassen [Bonn 1968] 11719, and esp. T. P. Wiseman, Roman Republican RoadBuilding, PBSR 37 [1970] 14649), and the right explanation is at hand: the indication of the length in pedes refers to the viae vicinales the maintenance of which according to the testimony of the agrimensor Siculus Flaccus (Lachmann 146 = Thulin 110) was precisely the responsibility of the pagi (cf. W. Eck, Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit [Mnchen 1979] 76). No. 90 = Pais, SI 411 {Lettich 16} reads (lines 24; line 1 is broken off and only traces of letters are discernible): Andetius Cra[ssi (?) f.] / avo y M. Pileiu[s M. f. (?)] / tr(ibunus) pl(ebis). Alfldy (pp. 25764) points out that as the tribunate of the plebs is not known as a municipal office in northern Italy Pileius must have been a tribune and senator in Rome, probably in the late Republic or under Augustus {a conclusion accepted by T. R. S. Broughton, MRR 3 (1986) 15657}. Broilo claims that the gentilicium Pileius is not otherwise attested, but see the pantomime M. Pileius Pierus (CIL IV 1901; cf. Alfldy, p. 303, n. 19). This is apparently an archaic form of the well attested Pilius, and thus the tribune may have been connected by ties of family and business with the Pilii known from Cicero. Also the theta nigrum calls for attention: to the handbook literature adduced by Broilo add the now fundamental study by R. Friggeri and C. Pelli, Vivo e morto nelle iscrizioni di Roma, Tituli 2 (1980) 95172. The inscription is oddly construed, and Broilo suggests that avo in line 3 may be a cognomen of Andetius; this is unlikely. Alfldy believes that the stone was set up for the avus (whose name stood in line 1) by his grandson Andetius and by a further relative Pileius. I wonder if the dead avus was not Pileius himself: the sign for obitus stands normally in front of the name of the deceased. No. 113 = CIL V 1950: ]retius. Broilo postulates Arretius or Aretius; the obvious solution is Lucretius (Alfldy, pp. 29899 {accepted by Lettich, no. 129}). No. 118 = CIL V 8712. Broilo ingeniously reads V]ottic[ius/a] {cf. Lettich, p. 200}. No. 119 = CIL V 1879 {= Lettich 31}. On the strength of the cognomen Iu]bae in line 2 Broilo rightly assigns this inscription to a member of the senatorial

496

Historia et Epigraphia

family of Desticii, but he failed to see that the following fragments of nomina and cognomina belong to the same polyonymous man (see Alfldy, pp. 29091).

35.3 STAMPED BRICKS*

Lateres signati Ostienses. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, vol. VII, pts. 1 and 2. Schede a cura di Tapio HELEN, Tauno HUOTARI, Jussi KUUSANMKI, Henrik LILIUS, Helena PYTSI, Paivi SETL, Hannele SOINI, Margareta STEINBY e Jaakko SUOLAHTI sotto la direzione di Jaakko SUOLAHTI. Part 1: testo di Margareta STEINBY in collaborazione con Tapio HELEN, appendix di Heikki SOLIN; part 2: tavole a cura di Margareta STEINBY. Roma, 1978, 1977. Pp. 391; 6 + 224 pls.

In recent years Finland has emerged as a major scholarly power in the field of Roman bricks and brick stamps. The achievements of the Institutum Romanum Finlandiae form a worthy counterpart to the great editions produced at the turn of the century under the auspices of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Among these works H. Dressels publication in CIL XV 1 of brick stamps from Rome and its vicinity occupies a place of honor; it comprises 2,557 entries. In 1930 L. Wickert published a number of brick stamps from the new excavations at Ostia in the Supplementum Ostiense to CIL XIV (pp. 75356). Of especially great importance was the appearance of the fundamental study by H. Bloch, I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana (Roma 1947) (originally published in BCAR 6466 [193638]). In Blochs study bricks and stamps do not appear simply as numbers in a collection but rather as a unique source for the economic and architectural history of Ostia and the city of Rome. Bloch also published an invaluable Supplement to vol. XV, 1 of the CIL, HSCP 5657 (1947) 1128, and 5859 (1948) 1104, reprinted in one volume in 1948. As M. Steinby recounts in her instructive introduction to Lateres signati Ostienses, it was only in 1965 that a new round of studio approfondito of Roman bricks from old excavations began. This meant time-consuming excavations in various museums, reorganization and organization of their collections (which were often found in a state of complete disarray: people only seldom pay serious attention to something as ordinary as bricks), publication of the inedita, and the checking of old readings against the originals. A close collaboration of Italian1 and
* 1 Classical Philology 78 (1983) 8990 {with minor corrections and additions}. See especially V. Righini, I bolli laterizi romani. La collezione Di Bagno (Bologna 1975); G. Alfonsi Mattei, L. Camilli, C. Pavolini, F. Taglietti, G. Zara, Contributo allo studio dei bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano, RAL 29 (1973) 295348; {L. Camilli, F. Taglietti, Nuovo contributo allo studio dei bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano, RAL 34 [1979] 187212}; G. Garofalo Zappa, Nuovi bolli laterizi di Ostia, Terza Miscellanea Greca e Romana (Roma 1971) 25789. {See also the outstanding American contributions: J. P. Bodel, Roman Brick Stamps in the Kelsey Museum (Ann Arbor 1983), with an excellent introduction (pp. 15) on the history of the stamped brick studies; J. C. Anderson, Roman Brickstamps: The Thomas Ashby Collection in the American Academy in Rome (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 3 [London 1991])}.

Minima Epigraphia

497

90

Finnish scholars characterized this new era of brick studies. A team of Finnish scholars working under the direction of J. Suolahti was assigned the edition of the bolli laterizi preserved in the Castello of Giulio II in Ostia. Following in the footsteps of Bloch, the Finnish scholars studied the lateres from diverse points of view as a source for social and economic history, prosopography, Latin language and paleography. A rich crop of books and articles2 brings credit to their authors, and the exemplary edition of Lateres signati Ostienses crowns the efforts of the group. This edition contains 1,304 entries, including 47 inedita, 32 unpublished fragments, 33 lateres sine textu, and some 250 corrections to CIL XIV and XV 1. For practical reasons the entries are arranged according to the numeration of CIL XIV and XV. Each entry is accompanied by a full lemma giving a list of earlier publications or discussions, exact measurements of the brick and of the lettering, indication of the shape of the brick, indication of the number of known copies, reproduction of the text in capital letters, and reproduction of the text in minuscule with an attempt to solve all abbreviations. A discussion of the adopted reading or of the proposed solution of an abbreviation often follows. The edition contains a number of concordances and indices; full indices will, however, be published separately as part 3 {these indices ultimately appeared as a much larger project: M. Steinby, Indici complementari ai bolli doliari urbani (CIL XV, 1) [Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae XI (Roma 1987)}. Finally, part 2 brings excellent photographs of almost all lateres in part 1. This edition sets a standard for all future publications of the bolli laterizi.

See especially T. Helen, Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A.D. (Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 5 = Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae IX 1 [Helsinki 1975]); P. Setl, Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire (Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 10 = Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae IX 2 [Helsinki 1977]); and the studies by M. Steinby, I bolli laterizi degli Antiquari del Foro e del Palatino, Mem. Acc. Linc. 17.3 (1974) 61109; La cronologia delle figlinae doliari urbane dalla fine dellet repubblicana fino allinizio del III secolo, BCAR 84 (19741975 [1977]) 7132; Ziegelstempel von Rom und Umgebung, RE Suppl. 15 (1978) 14891531.

IV HISTORIA ET RELIGIO

36 RELIGIO ET CULTUS DEORUM*

Mary BEARD, John NORTH and Simon PRICE, Religions of Rome. Vol. I: A History; Vol. II: A Sourcebook (Cambridge University Press 1998). Pp. XXIV + 454, 5 maps, 43 figs. and Pp. XIV + 416, figs. (unnumbered).

Titles mislead or spell programs: the subject of the book that gave rise to these observations is not The Religion of Rome but indeed Religions of Rome. Or rather in Rome. The problem resides in the preposition: the official religion or religions of a country need not be co-extensive with the religions practiced in that area. This was certainly true of Rome, and this state of affairs was well expressed by the title of the well-merited series tudes prliminaires aux rligions orientales dans lEmpire romain. This cautious title was very positive in its exclusion: it opposed eastern religions to the native religions in the western part of the empire (and in its Greek provinces), and above all it opposed oriental creeds to the religion of Rome itself. Perhaps as a sign of the times it has since been replaced by an English appellation, sanguine and all-inclusive: Religions in the Graeco-Roman World.1 Confident and inclusive is also the present opus, and to its execution the three noted authors bring erudition, keen minds, and style.2 To form an idea of the intention and the scope of the enterprise, it will be useful to adduce a quote: For those who know even a little German, the great handbook of Roman religion, Wissowa (1912), is still a mine of information (389). The reference is to Georg Wissowas immortal Religion und Kultus der Rmer (2nd ed., Munich 1912). The bounds are thus established: the work is not intended to rival Wissowa as a mine of information, is not intended as a handbook or encyclopedia, and is directed to people who may not be familiar with German, hence to a larger audience than the shrinking band of pristine classicists.3 Wissowa proceeded
* 1 2 Journal of Roman Archaeology 13.2 (2000) 453463 {with minor modifications and addenda}. Leiden (Brill). So far some 150 (very uneven) volumes. Among their previous contributions there are many general favorites (though this epithet should not imply automatic agreement): by M. Beard: The sexual status of Vestal Virgins, JRS 70 (1980) 1227; A complex of times: no more sheep on Romulus birthday, Proc.Camb.Philol.Soc. 33 (1987) 115; Writing and Religion, in Literacy in the Roman World (= JRA Suppl. 3 [Ann Arbor 1991]) 3558. By J. A. North: Conservatism and change in Roman religion, PBSR 44 (1976) 112; Religious toleration in Republican Rome, Proc.Camb. Philol.Soc. 25 (1979) 85103; Novelty and choice in Roman religion, JRS 70 (1980) 18691. By S. R. F. Price: Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984); Between man and god: sacrifice in the Roman imperial cult, JRS 70 (1986) 3843. This tendency is also present in the otherwise very expertly assembled ample bibliography (vol. 1, 389431; vol. 2, 375401); e.g., the standard book by F. Schulz is listed only as History of Roman legal science (Oxford 1946 [the edition of 1953 ought to have been cited]); there is

502

Historia et Religio

454

chronologically and systematically. The brief introduction (117) he devoted to the sources and to a succinct and highly selective account of modern explorations of Roman religion. Of the three parts of the handbook the first (38102) is a historical and narrative sketch of the origin, development and transformation (especially the hellenization) of the Roman religion, of the Augustan reforms, and finally of the spread of oriental cults down to the eradication of all ancient religions under the onslaught of Christianity, which was ihrer Natur nach intoleranteste ... aller Religionen (95). Part II (103379) contained a systematic presentation of deities officially recognized by the Roman state, of the imperial cult, and of oriental creeds (which Wissowa kept at a distance as sacra peregrina). Part III (380566) treated of the forms of cult, sacrifices, feasts, games, shrines, and priests.{3a} How different is the layout chosen by Beard, North and Price! Where Wissowa was encyclopedic the three authors are story-telling, not to say discursive; indeed, three chapters of the book derive (though with substantial changes) from the pieces they contributed to the new edition of Cambridge Ancient History,4 that voluminous mastodon much advertised and little read. Eight parts (each composed of several chapters) lead us from Early Rome through Imperial triumph and religious change to Religion in the late Republic and The place of religion: Rome in the early Empire. These parts appear at first sight relentlessly chronological, but they mix history, that is persistence and change, with a diachronic treatment of religious concepts and institutions and with general reflections on religion and religiosity. The fifth part, The boundaries of Roman religion, in the middle of the book, is all reflection. It is followed by The religions of imperial Rome, Roman religion and Roman Empire, and the intriguingly posed final problem of Roman religion and Christian emperors. Even more expressive and programmatic are the titles of single chapters, for instance Religion and action (4254; impossible to summarize: it deals with everything) or Defining the acceptable and Patrolling the acceptable (21444, a gripping analysis of the religio Romana versus the other: mysteries and mystery cults, Jews, Christians, and magic). The result is uneven; a disgruntled antiquarian or a lover of order would say the volume is something of a penthiac: in the idiom of Trimalchio a dish concocted of chopped-up pieces thrown
no mention of the German version Geschichte der rmischen Rechtswissenschaft (Weimar 1961) which contains much ampler quotations of original sources. Among the publications in English, perhaps the most inexplicable is the omission of H. D. Jocelyn, The Roman nobility and the religion of the republican state, Journ.Rel.Hist. 4 (1966) 89104, a pioneering contribution to our understanding of the functioning of the state cult; it showed that religio and pietas were well and very much alive in the last century of the Republic, and that consequently we should not place too much trust in the doubting literati or assertive Augustan propagandists (cf. 15051). {3a On Wissowa, and the reception of his Religion und Kultus, see the erudite and appreciative study by J. A. Delgado Delgado, Cien aos de Religion und Kultus der Rmer, Gerin 20 (2002) 53768; and the probing articles by P. Prescendi, J. Rpke, C. Frateantonio, E. Stoffel, D. Elm, M. Pfaff-Reydellet in Archiv fr Religionsgeschichte 5 (2003) 4-99.} 4 J. A. North, Religion in Republican Rome, CAH VII.2 (1989) 573624; M. Beard, Religion, CAH IX (1994) 72968; S. R. F. Price, The Place of Religion: Rome in the Early Empire, CAH X (1996) 81247.

Religio et Cultus Deorum

503

455

into one pot (Petr., Sat. 47.10: penthiacum et eiusmodi nenias rustici faciunt). There is, for instance, no systematic account of Roman gods or of Roman priests or of the procedures of the cult itself. Bits and pieces of priests, gods, and of sacrificial animals (like those of Pentheus) crop up in various (s)pots of the book. But if we wanted to learn how the act of Roman sacrifice proceeded, step by step, or the observation of birds,5 or the inspection of the liver, we will find merely a cursory description and only the briefest theoretical investigation of the notions of sacrifice or divination. These accounts, it is to be acknowledged, are often models of precision and good sense, only they are too short and there are too few of them; the reader whose bent is toward liturgy would prefer more Roman facts and less modern talk. Direct references to ancient sources are scant (Wissowa bristles with substantial footnotes), but this penury is perhaps more than compensated by the companion volume which is an extensive source book: it contains often long excerpts from some seventy authors. Livy (perhaps surprisingly) leads with twenty excerpts followed by Cicero with twelve, Plutarch with eight, Varro, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Pliny the Elder, and Augustine with seven each, Pliny the Younger with six, and Ovid with five; in addition there are scores of texts from authors obscure to most classicists, and from inscriptions (115 entries), papyri (11), and coins (10). This documentation is, on the one hand, still substantially short of Wissowas massive accumulation of sources (although it contains a number of texts either unknown or not utilized by Wissowa), but, on the other, it is much more expressive: long extracts speak louder and clearer than short quotes and mere citations. But the praise is mixed: it is magniloquent if we regard the book as a work of informed, and yes, inspired scholarship aimed at a broad readership, but muted if we reckon it as a work of pure Wissenschaft. For all excerpts are in translation; Latin and Greek are not allowed to speak for themselves. The educated public perhaps gains. Scholars lose. There is a middle way (though more expensive): to provide both original texts and translations. No scientific study of any topic in history or the humanities can proceed without the engagement of original sources, their textual analysis, investigation of the idiom, phrases, and terms. Still, the volume of sources will be a treasure trove, and not only to the educated public. It consists of thirteen parts: earliest Rome, the deities of Rome, the calendar, religious places, festivals and ceremonies, sacrifices, divination and diviners, priests and priestesses, individuals and gods: life and death, Rome outside Rome, threats to Roman order, religious groups, perspectives (the view of the religio, Greek, Roman and Christian). This volume thus appears as a sort of antiquarian counterpart to the volume of historical explorations, but on closer inspection the antiquarian is only half-satisfied. Let us take up gods and ritual. In the chapter on The deities of Rome (2659) we have the following procession: Venus (a painting from Pompeii); Jupiter and Trajan (the arch at Beneventum); Mercury (from Plautus Amphitryo); next (rather oddly, for so early in the chapter), Minucius Felixs ridicule of Roman (pagan)
5 Nota bene: the technical term for the watching of the sky was de caelo servare and not de caelo spectare (as at 127 and 441). See Cic., Div. 2.74; Dom. 40; Har. resp. 48.

504

Historia et Religio

gods; Lares (two statuettes); a prayer to Robigo (from Ovid); the deities of the marriage bed (more ridicule, this time by Augustine); the deification of abstract ideas (here in the chapter on Roman gods Cicero makes at last his appearance after two Christians); Honos et Virtus (a coin); Roman debate on the character of the gods (from Cicero); Vesta (from Ovid); Juno (her evocatio from Veii as imagined by Livy); the Sibylline books and the introduction of Aesculapius; Magna Mater Cybele (reliefs depicting her arrival in Rome and her chariot, and two excerpts from Livy and an excerpt from Lucretius); Attis (three figurines); Romulus (as an example of becoming a god); the deification of Antoninus Pius and Faustina (a relief); Commodus as Hercules (a statue); Euhemerism (Ennius in Lactantius); Caesar on Gallic gods; two inscriptional dedications from Britain to Mars Alator and Nudens Mars; one god (an inscription from Lycia); the ass-headed god (ridicule of Christians); one god, invisible (Minucius Felix defends the Christian worship). Certainly an assemblage of texts and images that instructs and fascinates, but still only a scattered insight, an impressionistic aside, that cannot replace a systematic presentation of the world of gods. The same observation applies to the chapters on sacrifices and diviners: again a procession of evocative texts and images, a mixture of things Roman, non-Roman and un-Roman. Yet this is an appealing mixture, so appealing that it is difficult to put the volume down. And so ultimately both the historical and antiquarian natura of this reader joined together in unalloyed wonderment at this glittering collection (but the contrarian will soon rear his head again). Religions exist not only in time but also in space. In their sensitivity to that fundamental fact the three authors surpass most of their textbook predecessors. They are to be warmly commended for their presentation of sacral topography and geography and, through the many illustrations, also of the visual face of the cult.6 And those illustrations are not merely reproduced and left to the untutored imagination of the viewer. They are expertly explained, with significant details often clearly marked (e.g., 2.85, relief of Aeneas on the Ara Pacis, or 2.307, Mithras slaying a bull). At the very outset of vol. 1 the reader is drawn to several packed maps indicating the location of major official temples and other older monuments in the city of Rome, next the location of the sanctuaries of Magna Mater, Syro-Phoenician and Egyptian deities (31 entries), of Mithras (40 entries), and of Jewish and Christian catacombs (68 entries). These maps speak more eloquently than would perhaps any narrative. They bring ad oculos the extraordinary spread and appeal of oriental
6 The unsurpassed collections remain I. Scott Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion (Mem.Am.Ac. in Rome 23 [Rome 1955]); R. Turcan, Religion romaine 12 (in the series Iconography of religions [Leiden 1988]); further various volumes of EPRORGRW with their rich iconographic documentation, and of course Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, a great resource with an unfortunate denomination intimating that all ancient religions were just mythologies. I take this opportunity to recommend the periodical Visible Religion (Leiden, Brill), and not only for contributions dealing with ancient religions. For instance, the paper by K. Hoffmann-Curtius (Altre des Vaterlandes: zur Genese eines neuen Typus von Kriegerdenkmlern in der Weimarer Republik, Vis.Rel. 7 [1990] 14271) treats of the shaping of the national sacred space from the French revolution to the Nazis. Students of Roman history and of Roman religion will derive from this paper much instruction.

Religio et Cultus Deorum

505

456

cults (on this denomination, see below) in the very capital of the empire. And everybody will agree that the chapters on Myths and place, The landscape of official cults at Rome and on The visibility of religion (17181, 24978) belong to the best in the book with their dazzling amalgamation of space, monuments, pageantry and politics.7 If there is place for general presentations, introductions and advocacies, the present book fills it admirably. It instructs, intrigues, infuriates. This is the highest praise for any feat of mind, and the best recommendation for a book in search of debate. It is a guided tour, an insistent reflection, a vociferous argument, and a market of ideas. As such, it is a signal achievement born of erudition and the spirit of intellectual adventure. It is also testimony to scholarly courage. Students of religions must be courageous, for whatever they proffer or profess there will be a legion of malcontents. The authors wisely concede that no one ... writes objectively about religion (XII). Yet there are degrees, and there is a test. It has to do with the concept of falsibility. This inelegant term defines the foundation stone of modern science: scientific are only such views that can be proven wrong or falsified. However, as theories do not exist without agents who propound them, the full formula must include the human element: scientific are only such views the falsibility of which is admitted by the very proponents of those views. This goes to the heart of the matter: we may defend a theory to the bitter or ridiculous end, but at least notionally we must be prepared to toss it away; otherwise we are not scientists. Religions, on the other hand, deal in absolutes, and believers do not regard their creed as subject to refutation or falsification. In the act of conversion it is certainty that replaces another certainty. In the realm of the study of religions this circumstance often leads to the logically troubling phenomenon of believers investigating the beliefs of other believers. Was it possible to be converted to the Roman religion? Hardly. Certainly not from the cult of Rome to that of Athens or vice versa. A. D. Nock in his famous Conversion (Oxford 1933) speaks, it is true, of conversions back from Christianity to paganism (15660), but these were the exceptional times when the old religion assumed many features of the new. The sacra publica formed part and parcel of the res publica, and if you were a Roman citizen it was your civic duty to honor and worship the gods of the state. But you were also free to worship any

But it must be observed that these chapters treat primarily of the Empire, very sparingly of the Republic, and despite all the wealth of information they offer only a very selective tour of the sacred places of the city. As a result very many and very pertinent publications by R. E. A. Palmer, a treasure trove for urban topography and religious history and a lesson in the method of investigation, are not even mentioned. To name here only a few: The neighborhood of Sullan Bellona at the Colline Gate, MEFRA 87 (1975) 65365; Jupiter Blaze, Gods of the Hills, and the Roman topography of CIL VI 377, AJA 80 (1976) 4356; C. Verres legacy of charm and love to the city of Rome: a new document, Rend.Pont.Acad.Arch. 5152 (197879, 197980) 11136; Cults of Hercules, Apollo Caelispex and Fortuna in and around the Roman Cattle Market, JRA 3 (1990) 23444; and now an engrossing monograph, Rome and Carthage at Peace (= Historia Einzelschriften 113 [Stuttgart 1997]), containing inter alia a marvelous investigation of Mercury and his Roman doings (esp. 80103).

506

Historia et Religio

other deity and practice any cult, provided that it was not a cult deemed dangerous to the state and declared by the legally constituted authorities a prava religio. To put it in perspective: the Romans had their own tribal gods but were also ready to incorporate the gods of other cities and tribes. The Hebrews, by contrast, and their heirs, the Christians, were not only exclusive of other deities, but also convinced that that there was only one true godtheir own. It was that openness of the system that was unnerving to its ancient and modern opponents. Many modern scholars and ideologues of that bent were hardly prepared to regard the religio of the Romans as a religion at all. Quite wrongly, for in one respect at least it was a system as dogmatic as that of the hardest fundamentalists: the very existence of gods was not a matter of doubt or dispute. M. Terentius Varro, who knew more of the Roman religion than any modern scholar ever will,8 decided to discuss in his vast encyclopedia of Antiquitates the res humanae before the res divinae. He argued that just as the painter exists before the picture, and the builder before the building, so the states (or societies) precede the institutions that are set up by them (sicut prior est pictor quam tabula picta, prior faber quam aedificium, ita priores sunt civitates quam ea, quae a civitatibus instituta sunt). And he concluded that res divinae ab hominibus institutae sunt. Augustine, who quotes this statement of Varro, was scandalized, attempted an underhanded rebuttal, and opposed to Varros historical approach a dogmatic statement: vera autem religio non a terrena aliqua civitate instituta est (C.D. 6.4). In his rebuttal Augustine concentrates on Varros admission that if he were writing of the whole nature of gods he would have indeed written first about the gods, and only in the second place about the men (dicit autem prius se scripturum fuisse de diis, postea de hominibus, si de omni natura deorum scriberet). The church author exclaims incredulously quasi hic de aliqua scribat et non de omni, as if in this place he were dealing only with part of divine nature, and not the whole. This is disingenuous for Augustine (whom we cannot accuse of obtuseness) must be only pretending not to understand Varros position. Varro did not dispute the existence of gods or the possibility of a philosophical investigation of their nature, but he claimed that the existing cults were the product of men, of individual civitates. He did not write of gods as such (or, as he put it, de omni natura deorum) but rather of the cult, the res divinae. Thus, very consequently, the first twelve books Varro devoted to the organization and details of the cult, and only in the last three books did he turn to the object of worship and treat of individual gods, whom he divided into three categories (dei certi, incerti, and selecti). Again he emphatically did not treat of their omnis natura (as Augustine insists that he must have) but of their nature only as far as it was understood and represented in Roman cult. In other words, he distinguished cult from philosophy.9 By and large this was also the stance
8 9 Cf. H. D. Jocelyn, Varros Antiquitates Rerum diuinarum and religious affairs in the late Roman Republic, Bull.J.Rylands Library 65 (1982) 148205. We can here adduce the opinion of Claudianus Mamertus, a fifth century presbyter from Gaul, according to whom Varro in his philosophy proceeded a visilibus ad invisibilia, a localibus ad inlocalia, a corporeis ad incorporea (De statu animae 2.8), and thus to the ultimate reality of animus. It was in this way that Varro could reconcile the plurality of gods with the idea of a

Religio et Cultus Deorum

507

458

of Cicero in his treatises On the Nature of Gods and On Divination. In the second book of the latter treatise, in which Marcus speaks in his own Academic and sceptic voice, he says that when we wish to be informed quid bonum sit, quid malum, quid neutrum, what is morally right, or morally wrong, or neither the one or the other, we do not consult diviners but turn for answers to philosophers to whom such questions rightfully belong. Nor do we consult haruspices about our officia, moral obligations, for instance as to how we should behave with respect to our parents, brothers or friends.10 Ciceros statement illuminates the profound chasm between the religio Romana and religio Christiana. That new creed regarded moral questions not only as its proper province but indeed as its exclusive domain. The three authors announce (XI) that their book focuses on the changes in religious life at Rome, but at the same time they point out that this is not a matter of tracing a linear development, from primitive religious simplicity in the early city to something approaching modern sophistication a thousand years later. For as they say, traditional Roman paganism was strikingly complex in its priestly organization, in its range of divinities, and in its relations with the religious systems of its neighbours. All this is right and correct, but it still misses a pivotal point. And this point is to paraphrase the title of Martianus Capellas De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii11 the annexation of philosophy by the Church, the nuptiae Philosophiae et Christi (the Neo-Platonists paving the way), with the censorship of thought inescapably ensuing and the purging of discordant views: certainly modern but hardly a sign of sophistication. From this forced union the Western world was to emerge again only after a thousand years to the light of Varro and Cicero and Lucretius. No student of religion can ultimately avoid or evade choosing between Varro (and Cicero) and Augustine. One scholar who chose Augustine was W. Warde Fowler, the author of the once standard book in English on Roman religion, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London 1911). He wrote of the Roman priests: instead of developing, as did the wise men or seers of Israel, into the mouthpiece of God in His demand for the righteousness of man, the Roman diviner merely assisted the pontifex in his work of robbing religion of the idea of righteousness (292).12 But in order not to be accused of blatant partisanship, we hasten
cosmic Jupiter as animus mundi. Y. Lehmann, Varron thologien et philosophe romain (Collection Latomus 237 [Bruxelles 1997]) 36667, very felicitously draws attention to the passage of Mamertus, but does not discuss its implications for Varros theology. {Cf. in this volume, No. 45.3}. 10 Cic., Div. 2.1011. Cf. J. Linderski, Cicero and Roman Divination, PP 37 (1982 [1983]) 1619 = Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 46265; A. Momigliano, The theological efforts of the Roman upper classes in the first century B.C., CP 79 (1984) 199211 (cf. 199, n. 1). 11 The allegorical treatise by Martianus Capella is not utilized in either of the volumes; a pity, for among many other delights it is also a major source for the Etruscan (and Roman) doctrine of the heavenly abodes of the gods, regiones caeli (1.4561); cf. 2.177. 12 The book was published nine years after the first edition of Wissowas Religion und Kultus, and one year before the second edition. This nicely underscores a feature of that epoch, a phenomenon that W. M. Calder has aptly labelled English dilettantism versus German Wissenschaft: see his Classical scholarship in the United States, in W. W. Briggs, Jr. (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport, CT, 1994) XXV. Cf. J.

508

Historia et Religio

459

to add that the study of Roman religion has been bedeviled not only by those Christian believers who cannot bring themselves to take seriously any pagan creed; it has no less been bedeviled by those adherents of the Enlightenment whose rationalism is so fierce that they cannot take seriously any religion. If students of religion hold any certainties of their own, they should reveal them. For if nobody writes objectively about religion, then at least the reader ought to be informed where the author stands.13 Thus one ought to read prefaces. They set the tone. The Preface in the book here dissected opens with the fulminations of Pope Gelasius (ca 495) against the feast of Lupercalia, that old pagan ritual that would not die in a Rome that was now securely Christian (IX). The person, the moment and the subject are brilliantly chosen, all obscure or mildly salacious (at the festival young women would bare themselves and expose their bodies to the strikes of thongs wielded by the Luperci, apparently a fertility ceremonial), but somehow endowed with luminous significance. They brutally spell out the puzzling but all-too-real transition from the old to the new Rome, a transition masterfully evoked also by a passing reference to the great churches now rivalling in size and splendour the most famous buildings of the pagan past. Those churches (we may add) rose on the ruins of ancient temples. Another quote comes to mind, from that great writer between the two worlds, V. S. Naipaul, the bitter words about the calamities of India: the Muslim invaders ... had obliterated the temples of local religions in the north; they had penetrated deep into the south and desecrated temples there.14 The Rome of Gelasius was also a desecrated city, no less so than the Delhi of the Moguls or the Moscow of Lenin. This is not a condemnation; only the truth. If Ronald Syme decided to speak for Antonius,15 somebody must speak for Jupiter. When Michael Rostovtzeff wished to re-create for himself the long-gone and destroyed past that he had studied in Greece and Rome, he went to India (in 193637) where, he wrote, he found it still alive.16 Why have the pagan cults of India survived, and why do they thrive today, whereas those of Rome and Greece, and of northern Europe, have succumbed to another but doctrinally similar and equally zealous enemy? The antiquarian descriptions of cult need not pose those questions; the historians of religion must. In the index there is the entry persecution of Christians. This was an unpleasant affair, but short-lived, and ineffectual. The other persecution, the great and lasting persecution that resulted in the closing of thousands of temples, receives no mention in the index, and appears in the text under the innocuous heading Imperial religious policy (36975). By word alone it was not a pre-ordained outcome, but in real history the sword is a very persuasive missionary, as after the Islamic conquests the Christians themselves were painfully to discover.
Linderski, The Augural law, ANRW 2.16.3 (1986) 2207, n. 226; A. K. Michels and the religio, CJ 92.4 (1997) 32345 at 33637 {= No. 49 in this volume}. This writer, as should be obvious, is an adherent of Science. In this perspective religion is solely a social phenomenon, or, more exactly, an evolutionary product of human brain. The writer and India, The New York Review of Books 46, 4 (March 4, 1999) 12. The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 1045, 108. Cf. M. A. Wes, Michael Rostovtzeff, historian in exile. Russian roots in an American context (Historia Einzelschriften 65 [Stuttgart 1990]) 7981. {Cf. No. 46 in this volume}.

13 14 15 16

Religio et Cultus Deorum

509

The captivating opening strikes a disconcerting note. The authors so defend their use of the term pagan:
We do this fully aware that it has been derided by some historians as a loaded term, in origin a specifically Christian way of describing its enemy. No doubt an ideologically neutral term would be preferable; but we have found traditional civic polytheism (and similar alternatives suggested) more cumbersome and no less if differently loaded (IX, n. 2).

This is doubly lame. It is unfair to set up a straw opponent in the shape of a definition in an idiom of specious sociologizing that no historians in their senses would ever use; and it is mystifying even to suggest that this linguistic monster is equally loaded as the plain and dismissive paganus. If we really are in need of a loaded and unpleasant word we have not far to seek: superstitio, as used by Roman authorities of Christian cult (cf. 22527; 242). If this is hateful, so is paganus. All those contortions are unnecessary when an apt and neutral description is at hand: Roman religion (or cult), Greek, Celtic, Iberian, or collectively classical or ancient religions. Pagan in a scientific discourse has its place only if put into the mouth of Christians. Historians can be expected to be aware that words do matter. Beard, North and Price are excellent historians; among the most insightful pages of the book is indeed a disquisition about the concepts of religio and superstitio both in their Roman and Christian guises (21427). It is for this reason that the authors ultimate insensitivity to words is so startling. It is even more startling because of the battle they wage against the denomination oriental cults (24647). This term was made canonical by the great Franz Cumont through his book Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain (Paris 1905, 4th ed. 1927). The authors point out that the cult of Mithras had little in common with the Egyptian cults of Sarapis and Isis, and that in general there is as much to separate these new Eastern cults, as there is to group them together into a single category. They further point out that not all of those cults shared a common preoccupation with salvation, and that consequently it is solely a modern assumption to regard them as precursors and rivals to Christianity. Now, the Christians themselves thought otherwise: in a truly ecumenical spirit they destroyed the shrines of Jupiter along with the Isaea and Mithraea. Some of those religions, certainly those of Isis and Mithras, belonged to the same ideological spectrum as the Christianity, but above all, beginning with the ill-fated worshippers of Bacchus of Bacchanalian fame, they were precursors of the Christian Church in something as important as the message itself, namely as an organized community of believers outside the bounds of the civic religion (cf. 4243). There remains the label itself. Somehow we do not hear of cults from Iberia or Germany invading Rome; they all came from the East, not merely one lux but the whole array of luces ex Oriente, and hence oriental cults is a convenient, not inaccurate, and seemingly innocuous description. Of course, not so. It is not politically correct. In addition to two classicists who question the term, the authors adduce also, for a general critique of Orientalism, a book by E. W. Said, a celebrity scholar and noted advocate of Near Eastern causes. His book, Orientalism (New York 1978) is

510

Historia et Religio

460

instructive, insightful, and misleading. East and West are not merely fictions of imagination and products of imperialist propaganda: they are all that but also hard facts of history. And there is no reason to abandon history. We know how and when religio et cultus deorum ended, in catastrophe and suppression. But then there is also the problem of the beginning. Even god(s) had to start somewhere. Do we pitch our tent next to the hut of Romulus or in the villas of Varro and Cicero? Logic and expediency would dictate that we do not begin with shadows skulking in the swamp of surmises but with an epoch rich in monuments and literature. Let us first reconstruct the practice of Roman cult, day by day and place by place, so as Cicero and Varro were able to view it, and then attempt a much more difficult step: to comprehend the theory or (if we wish to call it so) theology of that cult. Only then we might be free to move backwards to the middle Republic and perhaps consider disentangling Greek and Roman elements, and if we are not afraid of adding another surmise or fantasy we can proceed still further to the very foundation of the city and beyond, but always keeping an eye on the Italic, Indo-European17 and Etruscan backdrop of Roman cult. As a matter of fact, this is how the scholarly investigation of Roman religion has actually and historically proceeded; the only point in dispute being whether this natural order of research is a suitable scheme for the presentation of results in a general book. Now, the three authors seemingly begin at the beginning, describing the first chapter as a process, finding the religion of the early Romans. Laudably they find nothing of the kind: the sources being largely inadequate and misleading we deal only with images of early Rome, but these images are central to the way the Romans made sense of their own religion (45). They are also central to the way many modern scholars made nonsense of Roman religion, trying to find in some remote past a pure and uncorrupted version of Roman religiosity. But such an uncontaminated strand had never existed. The authors sensibly take as their point of departure the last three centuries of the republic (1617) and observe that as far back as we can go, we always find an amalgam of different traditions (13). Every religious system is a shimmering mix of continuity and change, often offering in beguiling disguises tradition as innovation and innovation as a return to the past. The authors made a salutary observation: the rituals prescribed by the calendar of festivities were not handed down with their own original official myth or explanation. ... They were constantly re-interpreted and re-explained by their participants. (7) It is this feature of the Roman cult that was particularly abhorrent to those scholars who, attached to their own certainties, tried to project them onto the Roman mind. The upholders of this baleful procedure deserve rejection and condemnation, strong and personal much stronger than they receive in the book (1112).18
17 Provided that we do not abscond into the dreamland of Dumezilian tri-functional fantasies. In the book Dumzil receives a polite but firm rebuttal (1416). 18 For assessments that do not mince words, see A. K. Michels, AJP 83 (1962) 43444, in her review of the notoriously misguided book by K. Latte, Rmische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1960), an insult to Wissowa as his replacement in Mllers Handbuch, and J. Linderski (above, n. 12).

Religio et Cultus Deorum

511

461

Thus change upon change, interpretation upon interpretation a normal process. Only changes, not continuities, would have been recorded (10). An important observation; and one would wish that the authors had provided not only a theoretical disquisition, as welcome as it is, but also various explicit examples of this ubiquitous phenomenon. The example they chose is not entirely fortunate. Pliny in his Natural History (11.186) notes the precise year in which the standard procedure for examining entrails of sacrificial animals ... was amended to take account of the heart in addition to other vital organs. The authors further claim that the date of the change is given by the year of the reign of the rex sacrorum, and that this makes no sense unless this system of dating continued in use in priestly records even though it was abandoned for every other purpose when the Republic was founded (9). That apparently important passage does not figure in vol. 2; no matter: for in order to comprehend what it really says, we must consult the original: L. Postumio L. <f.> Albino19 rege sacrorum post CXXVI Olympiadem, cum rex Pyrrhus ex Italia decessisset, cor in extis haruspices inspicere coeperunt. We observe that the paraphrase given in the book changes the concrete into the abstract, and the active into the passive, always a distortion. The entrails are examined, but by whom? It turns out not by Roman priests but by Etruscan haruspices. Is it likely that a Roman source would have known precisely the date of a major innovation in the practice of haruspicina ? Not very, and thus Pliny (and his ultimately priestly source) will hardly be informing us about a new doctrinal departure in the Etrusca disciplina ; rather, this is the record of an event from Roman sacral history when the haruspices summoned from Etruria gave their Roman patrons for the first time an interpretation based upon the examination of the heart of the victim.20 Next, the dating. The exact year of the reign of the rex sacrorum is conspicuously not given; and unless the numeral had fallen out in the manuscripts, we do not deal here at all with the dating according to his years of office. The Olympiad date leads us perhaps to an (intermediary) Greek source, and the mention of Pyrrhus departure from Italy provides the historical circumstance for the consultation, which was probably conducted under the supervision of the rex sacrorum. What was the goal of Roman cult? Through all the changes this goal remained unchanged: to assure for Rome the protection of gods. The Romans called this desired status pax deum. This term is absent from the discussion, as is also another familiar denomination, Roman state religion. This is rather peculiar for the subject itself the communication between the republic and its gods is naturally broached in many places. The authors put it rather well: the Roman gods were not irresponsible. At the same time they could not be reliably controlled or predicted. But then gods could be negotiated with, and the skill of the priests, magistrates and the senate could keep them on the side of the city (34). How did this communication proceed? The authors list (in this order) auspices (2123), vows, prayers, sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices and the inspection
19 So C. Mayhoff in his Teubner text (1875); see his app. crit. The date is 274, but T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York 1951) vol. 1, 196, opts for 275. 20 For this understanding of Plinys passage, see C. O. Thulin, Die etruskische Disciplin 2.2324 (Gteborg 1906, reprinted Darmstadt 1968).

512

Historia et Religio

462

of entrails, prodigies (3239). The order is baffling; it seems to be dictated by the vagaries of the narrative and of sociological theories. Yet we must not forget that we are dealing not with a haphazard assemblage but with a system of practices and beliefs. And such a system is not unlike any other phenomenon of nature: it has its own internal rules, its modus operandi. The task of the scholar is akin to that of the scientist: not only to describe the phenomena but also to uncover their inner structure, and the rules by which they are governed. Now every religion must posit not only the existence of gods or god, but also assume that the deity is interested in the people, and that the people are able to communicate with it. Silent gods are useless to a religion, although they may find their place in a philosophical system like that of the Epicureans. But to communicate a language is needed, an idiom mutually understandable to humans and to gods. The god of the Hebrews dictated or inspired whole reams of sacred texts in the language of his people, but for the Roman gods only few utterances in Latin are on record;21 they spoke in the language of signs the exact significance of which had to be established by trial and error. Thus the Roman religion was not a revealed religion, it had no founder a point that has to be repeated again and again. Much in it goes back to the common Indo-European heritage, much is due to the Etruscans, and much was shared with the Italics, but the amalgamation, elaboration and systematization of all these strands was the work of the priests, above all the pontiffs and the augurs. The result was described as scientia, a concept that offers a key to the mind of Roman priests, and that ought to be discussed in every book on Roman religion.22 When Georges Dumzil did not try to impose India upon Rome, he was a keen observer of Roman realities, and he has made this obvious but profound observation: the auspices descend from the sky, the sacrifices rise from the earth; the humans receive the former but send the latter.23 The communication with the god(s) is always a two-way path, and this provides a ready and objective approach to the cult. We divide all religious acts into two categories: those initiated by the gods and those initiated by the people. The former, as was to be expected, are few and far between: occasional voices, but especially the prodigies, and a category of auspices (the so-called auspicia oblativa). The latter are numerous: all kinds of addresses to the deity (precationes), especially the address asking for a sign (auspicium impetrativum), further all sorts of sacrifices, in particular animal sacrifices and the inspection of the exta, next the consultation of the Sibylline books and of the oracles. Many questions immediately obtrude, for instance: what was the distinction between prodigies and oblative auspices? (The answer: the former pertained to the general status of the republic, hence to the maintenance of the pax deum, the latter to a concrete action which was underway). Or: what was the distinction between the (impetrative) auspices and the auguries? (The answer: the former constituted a question concerning the admissibility of a contemplated action, the latter an inquiry most often concerning the transfer of a person or a place into a special category of inaugurated objects like priests or temples; here again we encounter the fundamen21 Aius Locutius, cf. Livy 5.32.6 and 50.5, laudably translated in 2.4243. 22 For this concept, see J. Linderski, The Augural law, ANRW 2.16.3 (1986) 223839. 23 Mythe et pope (Paris 1968) vol. 1, 277.

Religio et Cultus Deorum

513

463

tal division between the action and the status). A similar dissection ought to be conducted with respect to sacrifices (e.g., animal sacrifices versus fruit offerings, or regular sacrifices versus piacular), and continued through all other manifestations of the cult. And then we should ask who were the administrators of those earthly rites, and who were the particular addressees in the sky and in the underworld. The first question would entail a systematic discussion of obligations and prerogatives of individual priests and of priestly colleges a fundamental differentiation; next, of the religious duties of magistrates, and finally of the rle of the senate and of the popular assemblies in the realm of religio. The other would require the composition of an address-book24 and a profile of all deities recognized by the Roman state as Cicero would say an investigation of natura deorum. A separate disquisition will be needed of those deities with whom the Roman state had official dealings, friendly or hostile, but who were not recognized as the gods of the republic (e.g., Mithras or Christus). In this way we will be drawn, one small step after another, into the intricate logic and performance of the religio. The approach here advocated derives its inspiration from Roman realities, Roman words and Roman images, and not from the once fashionable Polynesian mana or from the currently supreme eminences of sociology and ethnography, all of them for the Romans largely irrelevant. This approach may be deemed old-fashioned if not obscurantist, but it will endure and the vogue will pass. This approach, as will readily be discerned, puts at its heart The Religion of Rome and not The Religions of Rome. In the book by Beard, North and Price all the accumulated moles of Roman cult, of ritual, and of doctrinal speculation, is only a preamble to history, and that history is mainly a history of politics, and of mentalities (a diffuse Parisian invention). But above all this history of religions is a godless book, with the gods never assembled together, accorded a high place, reverence and understanding. For we must beware of transferring the cool legalism of Roman state cult to popular religiosity. We are not speaking of the distinction between sacra publica and sacra privata for also the latter were under the supervision of the state priests, the pontiffs. And they pertained not so much to individuals but to subdivisions of the community, the gentes, families and households. We are rather referring to that spontaneous, overpowering, and humble feeling of attachment to the Deity that individuals experience out of fear or gratitude. This we must not deny to the Romans.25 Only the blind or deaf or indoctrinated will not see or hear or comprehend it. For it is omnipresent in the Roman world in countless dedications, vows and offerings. Illusions of course; but also realities of mind and life. This whole world is relegated to a few peremptory paragraphs.26 There are a few remarks about
24 Cf. 2.38, a passage from Lucretius (5.14667) on the sedes deum sanctae. This is philosophical speculation; we should rather think of the priestly doctrine of the sedes deorum as exemplified by the Piacenza liver, Martianus Capella (cf. above, n. 11), and Varro (Festus 454 L.). 25 See the excellent piece by W. J. Tatum, Roman religion: fragments and further questions, in S. N. Byrne and E. P. Cueva, Veritatis Amicitiaeque causa. Essays in honor of Anna Lydia Motto and John R. Clark (Wauconda, IL, 1998) 27391. 26 Cf. 4243, 4950. At vol. 2, 21636, in the chapter on Individual and gods: life and death,

514

Historia et Religio

the anatomical vota, and dreams (13). The subject may well have been pursued in some detail for it offers an insight into popular religiosity. There is no mention of the numerous dedications ex visu or iussu; and the dreambook of Artemidorus is of interest not only because of his interpretation of the dream of having intercourse with ones mother (Oneir. 1.79, translated at 2.19293). His systematic description of divine appearances in dreams (Oneir. 2.3340) is intimately revealing, for it shows gods and goddesses, to us mere pictures, as alive in the lives and dreams of ordinary people. Jupiter the Best and the Greatest and Mars the Parent of the Romans, Juno, the whole turba of other deities and the countless cultores may complain. This is not the book about them. Yet the readers will render thanks for there are many novel and riveting riches in this authoritatively imposing History. The field of religious studies, like the religion itself, is a battlefield, and so it will remain (let us fervently pray, with words only, not swords) ad saecula saeculorum. But if the saecula must end someday, with much human business presumably unfinished and perfection not achieved, so must this essay of conversation and confrontation, with many a praise unsung, reproach unspoken, question unasked and lesson not learnt. Thus, not wise but wiser, we part.

we have a parade of republican nobles, Caesar and emperors as gods, aristocratic and imperial funerals, Acts of the Apostles, Porphyry, Arnobius, Aelius Aristides, Augustine, Lucretius, Origen, and only four documents commemorating humble people (the discharge of vota to Hercules and Bona Dea, the theme of carpe diem, and salvation through Osiris). This creates the false impression that the common people did not care for the Capitoline gods.

37 A CALENDAR FOR ROME?*

Jrg RPKE, Kalender und ffentlichkeit. Die Geschichte der Reprsentation und religisen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 40). Berlin-New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1995. Pp. 740.

Philosophers fret about the direction of the arrow of time. Historians have no such trouble. They narrate, with detached serenity, the progress of time as it engenders and engulfs one civilization upon another, and the historians themselves. To calibrate that senseless process tools are needed. Those tools are calendar and chronology. Historians have refined the latter, and astronomers the former, but every civilization, however primitive, possessed them. Basic units offer themselves: day, month and year, defined by the rotation of the earth, the progress of the moon and the apparent progress of the sun. These celestial bodies figure prominently in early religions, and the change of seasons controlling the rhythm of cultic and civic life spawned a variety of festivals and celebrations. Calendar is as much a province of religion as of history. Thus it is only appropriate that the book by Rpke, massive and erudite (it boasts of seventy two pages of densely packed bibliography, a ratio of one page of bibliography to 8.5 pages of text, though most titles are never actually quoted), should appear in the venerable series of Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten initiated in 1903 by Albrecht Dieterich (of Mutter Erde and Abraxas fame) and Richard Wnsch (of Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln and Ioannes Lydus fame). The book, the title of which can perhaps be best rendered as The Calendar and the Public, illustrates well the distance from the founders. They would welcome the subject, applaud the erudition, and would be appalled by the style. Like many other current German publications (cf. the remarks in Gnomon 68 [1996] 560 {reprinted in this volume, No. 11}) it threatens to be the miscarriage of a msalliance between sociology and antiquarianism. The opening chapter on Social Dimension of Time combines the shallowness of American politology with the ponderous weight of German idiom. It sinks. For instance: Die Kalender der Teilsysteme haben gegenber der Gesellschaft, verstanden als sozial geschichtetes Gebilde, Filterfunktion; sie unterscheiden zwischen input-Zeiten und outputZeiten. ... Fr das religise System sei nur soviel gesagt, dass beide Zeiten stark strukturiert sind (p. 33). This is a pity, for in the past Rpke produced works of erudition and lucidity, the excellent Domi Militiae. Die religise Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (Stuttgart 1990) and Rmische Religion bei Eduard Norden (Marburg 1993), a slim but probing monograph devoted to a scholar for whom both
* Classical Journal 93.4 (1998) 464468 {with minor addenda}.

516

Historia et Religio

465

Rpke and the present writer share common admiration. His new topic of the calendar is as important as it is intricate; and it deserves to be presented clearly and plainly. Fortunately we soon leave the morass of spurious theory and reach the lacunose but solid ground of epigraphy. Part I (pp. 45188) deals with the specimens of Roman calendars (fasti). Almost all of these documents were published with an extensive commentary by A. Degrassi, Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani = Inscr. Italiae XIII, 2, 12 (Rome 1963). Only a few fragmentary pieces came to light after this date: minor addenda to the Fasti fratrum Arvalium, Fasti villae Maxentii, Fasti vici Iugarii, Fasti Capuani, Fasti Sorrinenses maiores and minores, and especially the calendar and menologia rustica under the church of S. Maria Maggiore (on which see the excellent study by M. Salzman, On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity [Berkeley 1990]). Degrassis opus remains a monumental achievement of Roman studies; Rpke offers intelligent summaries, useful aggiornamenti, and probing questions. Part II presents Die Geschichte der fasti (pp. 191484). It contains, inter alia, an engaging discussion of the decemviral reform of the calendar, of the scribe Cn. Flavius who was credited with publishing the fasti although what precisely he did or did not do is a matter of perennial controversy (despite Rpkes efforts it remains a bog of interpreters{1}), of the lex Hortensia, of the lex Acilia and the pontifical intercalation, and finally of the introduction of the Julian calendar. Part III Kalender und Gesellschaft (pp. 487628) is devoted to religious feasts, the feriae, which Rpke very aptly characterizes as zeitliches Eigentum von Gottheiten. Out of this copia of facts, problems, discussions and propositions we select a few crustula, and proffer agreements, doubts and disagreements. A peculiar feature of Roman calendar was cautious definition of the cultic and civic character of each day. First of all we observe a division of all days into fasti (with the notation F) and nefasti (with the notation N). As Rpke (pp. 4142, 24958), following Varro, points out, this was not a division into lucky and unlucky days. It was a division pertaining solely to the field of civil law. In the system of legis actiones the proceeding in the court of law, in iure, could take place only on days that were fasti (from fari, to speak): only on those days could the praetor utter the hallowed formula do dico addico. It was a serious business. As Varro reports (Ling. Lat. 6.2930, 53), if the praetor inadvertently (imprudens) uttered these words on a dies nefastus, he had to offer a sacrifice of expiation, a hostia piacularis. But if he uttered them prudens, on purpose, fully understanding what he was doing, he was (according to the opinion of the learned pontifex maximus Q. Mucius Scaevola) impius forever, his impiety unable to be washed away by any atonement. The early connection of Roman law with utterances of magical charac{1 Almost simultaneously with the book of Rpke there appeared the study by F. Cancelli, La giurisprudenza unica dei pontefici e Cneo Flavio. Tra fantasie e favole romane e romanistiche (Roma 1996). Like many other books compiled by modern Italian jurisprudents it is studded with footnotes and vacuous. About the calendar it is fantastically and fabulously uninformed; the last foreign modern masters mentioned appear to be Mommsen, Marquardt and Madvig. No Michels (cf. pp. 13048, 16169). How refreshing to turn back to the erudition of Rpke!}

A Calendar for Rome?

517

466

ter that were believed to create a tangible reality is amply documented though not always readily admitted (see the inspiring study by Axel Hgerstrom, Das magistratische Ius in seinem Zusammenhang mit dem rmischen Sakralrechte [Uppsala 1929], and see also its exposition and critique, rather one-sided, by G. McCormack, Haegerstroms Magical Interpretation of Roman Law, Irish Jurist 4 [1964] 15367). Here belong not only the curses of the type sacer esto (see the bibliography in CP 82 [1987] 379 {reprinted in this volume, No. 18}) and various spells, carmina and incantationes (the best treatment by F. Beckmann, Zauberei und Recht in Roms Frhzeit [Osnabrck 1923] and by M. Kaser, Das altrmische Ius [Gttingen 1949]) but also the legal formulas of the praetor. But unlike the other verba the praetorian utterances were not connected solely with a person, a deed, or an object: they were also circumscribed by time. In the republican calendar forty two days are marked F, and fifty eight N; they are distributed very unevenly (there are no N days in January, August and November, and only one F day in February, June and July). Why were some particular days so marked, and not the others? We do not know; and if the pontiffs knew, no record survives. Livys idea (1.19.7) that Numa nefastos dies fastosque fecit, quia aliquando nihil cum populo agi utile futurum erat, is only a later rationalization, tendentious and inaccurate. R. M. Ogilvie in his Commentary on Livy. Books 15 (Oxford 1965, p. 97) offers no discussion; as illustration he adduces the passage of Varro referring to the fari of the praetor. Rpke (pp. 252-53) likewise conflates the scholar Varro and the fabulist Livy. He writes (again in the genus sociologicum): Die Note nefas verbietet die Prozesskonstitution vor dem Prtor in den legisactiones, verbietet sozusagen das Ttigwerden der Schnittstelle Staatsapparat-Brger, das cum populo agere. Not quite so. In the case of Varro and the praetor the note N prohibits lege agere; it is Livy who speaks of cum populo agere, the convocation of the voting assemblies of the people. The two acts ought to be kept apart. The popular assemblies could meet only on dies comitiales (calendrical mark C); there were 195 days so marked. Livy carelessly amalgamates dies fasti and dies comitiales (perhaps influenced by a law of P. Clodius of 58 ut omnibus fastis diebus legem ferri liceret, Cic., Sest. 33). His explication that the supply of comitial days was limited because of utilitas publica is akin to Ciceros argument that the augural regulation Iove tonante fulgurante comitia populi habere nefas (De div. 2.42) was introduced rei publicae causa ... ut comitiorum ... principes civitatis essent interpretes (De div. 2.74). When Rpke writes that temporal limitations of the ius cum populo agere have politisches Gewicht, he allies himself (perhaps inadvertently) with Cicero and Livy. But political preoccupations of the late Republic should not be imported into hoary antiquity, into the origins of the calendar. We do not know when exactly the notae dierum were conceived, and why. Speculations (pp. 25258, esp. 256) are not answers. The praetorian formulas were keine Sakralakte (p. 251). Correct, but Rpke continues: Nefas ensteht also nicht durch einen kultischen Fehler wie Versprechen oder durch das Erscheinen von Prodigien. This formulation is misleading. When the praetor pronounced the tria verba on a dies nefastus it was not nefas that was

518

Historia et Religio

467

created but vitium, error. As to the matter at hand it was irrelevant whether the act that caused vitium was deliberate or accidental. Prudentia and imprudentia affected only the praetor, not the res. If a slave was manumitted in iure on a dies nefastus he was, Varro observes (Ling. Lat. 6.30), legally free but he was liber vitio. Varro adds that also magistratus vitio creatus nihilo setius magistratus. But all acts of such a magistrate were contaminated by vitium; he was a danger to the republics peace with gods, and was normally persuaded to abdicate. Similarly a law vitio lata was normally annulled by the senate (cf. J. Linderski, The Augural law, ANRW 2.16.3 [1986] 216277; {and see now the well-informed study by F. Reduzzi Merola, Iudicium de iure legum. Senato e legge nella tarda repubblica [Napoli 2001]}). But observe a curious circumstance: we never hear that a magistrate who presided over the creatio of a vitiated magistrate or the passage of a vitiated law was ever required to offer a piaculary sacrifice. This shows that there existed a religious distinction between the erroneous utterance of the praetorian verba legitima on a wrong day and inadvertent ritual errors the presiding magistrate might commit in the course of the comitial procedure. The comitial vitia were not caused, as Rpke intimates, by prodigies (which referred solely to the status of the republic, the pax deum) but mostly by errors in the auspices. On the other hand the official who deliberately falsified the auspices was in the same position as the impius praetor: he could not atone his transgression, and was pursued by the wrath of the gods (cf. J. Linderski, Roman Questions [Stuttgart 1995] 47677, 61516, 623). The mark C did not give a day an absolute character: it could be invalidated by various occurrences that made a particular comitial day unsuitable for the holding of the comitia. A movable feast (feriae conceptivae) could fall on a C day. If on such a day a magistrate inadvertently called together an assembly, he had to offer a piaculum (Varro in Macr., Sat. 1.16.19), exactly like a praetor who mistakenly engaged in lege agere on a dies nefastus (p. 259). Any day could become a black day. This is the subject of a most interesting chapter Weisse Tage, schwarze Tage: kalendarische Divination (pp. 56292), a discussion of dies religiosi, dies Alliensis, dies atri, the Nundinenkollisionen (i.e. the coincidence of nundinae and the feriae, nonae and the principium anni, all ominous), and the planetary week. The birthday of Antonius, 14 January, became a peculiarly baleful day: it was declared dies vitiosus ex senatus consulto. It was the only day so permanently marked. Rpke resignedly concedes that welche Konsequenzen es implizierte, wird nirgends ausgedrckt (p. 436). But the meaning of this notation is all but evident. It will be a day vitiated for any and every activity. Any public act on this day would be tainted with vitium. It was a remarkable innovation. Other unlucky days, religiosi or atri, were unsuitable only for a strictly specified, sometimes narrow, sometimes broad category of transactions, but never for all conceivable public or private acts (among the latter, e.g. the nuptiae or iter). In a letter to Atticus (4.9.1; 27 April 55) Cicero inquires num censum impediant tribuni diebus vitiandis. Rpke again confesses: Worum es konkret geht und ob Cicero den Begriff wirklich als terminus technicus verwendet, bleibt ungeklrt (p. 437). An equivalent expression to diem vitiare is diem tollere. We hear (in 54) that comitiorum quotidie singuli dies tolluntur obnuntiationibus

A Calendar for Rome?

519

468

(Cic., Q. fr. 3.3.2) and obnuntiationibus ... interpositis singulis diebus ... sublatis (Cic., Att. 4.17.4). But most explicit is the notice in Festus (268 L.) referring to the morbus comitialis: Prohibere comitia, dicitur vitiare diem morbo. Vitiare diem here appears unmistakenly as a terminus technicus. No doubt the operations of the census in 55 were also impeded by tribunician obnuntiations. Now obnuntiatio was a report of fulmen. Lightning was a prohibitive sign for the comitia but a favorable sign for most other activities, public and private (cf. Cic., De div. 2.74). Thus the nuntiatio of fulmen could not transform this day into a dies vitiosus in general; it rendered it vitiosus only for the holding of an assembly. The proclamation of the natalis Antonii as a general dies vitiosus encapsulates the vindictive ideology of the Principate: it was a day darker for the Republic than the dies Alliensis and more pernicious for everybody than the day on which the entrance to the underworld stood open. Tucked away in a rather meandering argument (pp. 25869) we find an idea, and perhaps a discovery, of which every great scholar of the past would be proud: the explication of that mysterious notation, the ligature NP. It affected 49 days. All NP days are named days, i.e. in addition to the notation NP they also display the abbreviated name of a festival (feriae) falling on that day, e.g. PAR(ilia) on 21 April. Nefastus prior, parte, principio, purus, nefasti posteriores, nefas (feriae) publicae, nefastus publicus were the past ideas. Rpkes solution: NP is an abbreviation for N(efas) P(iaculum). It may be the right path. Still this Einfall requires further elaboration. Why is there no P notation attached to all N days (after all a mistake of a praetor could be expiated) but only to those N days which were connected with the feriae? Nefastus publicus championed by Agnes Michels may still be the preferable option. To conclude. The theory, and the offerings to celebrities (cf. p. 607 for a quotation of Jrgen Habermas) may be charitably excused or forgotten. Various individual chapters offer food for the pensive or fodder for the polemicists; by either group they will be read with profit. This reminds one of the work of P. Brind dAmour, Le Calendrier romain (Ottawa 1983), which also contains a series of alternately odd and brilliant investigations (among the latter the chapter on nundinae from 57 to 40 that ought to be consulted by every student of those years). All said, the best book on the subject, and the easiest to read, a virtue that after struggling through Rpkes forest shines very bright indeed, remains The Calendar of the Roman Republic by Agnes K. Michels (Princeton 1967).2

Cf. J. Linderski, Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio, CJ 92.4 (1997) 32345, esp. 33134 {reprinted in this volume, No. 49}.

38 RELIGIO ET RES PUBLICA*

Claudia BERGEMANN, Politik und Religion im sptrepublikanischen Rom. (Palingenesia, 28). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992. Pp. iv + 166. Loretana DE LIBERO, Obstruktion. Politische Praktiken im Senat und in der Volksversammlung der ausgehenden rmischen Republik (7049 v.Chr). (Hermes Einzelschriften, 59). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992. Pp. 142.

193

Crossroads are magical and dangerous places not only in Roman lore. They are dangerous places to modern scholars too. We visit the crossroads of religion and politics in search of new insights, but we may stumble upon the day when the gate to the underworld is open, when mundus patet, when the malignant spirits, the larvae and lemures, crawl around and mingle with the living. When this happens, the pontiffs warn, it is better to refrain from any new undertaking. 1 The book by Claudia Bergemann, I am afraid, was conceived on such a day. Fortunately, to the book by Loretana de Libero (originally a dissertation at the University of Gttingen) the gods must have given their nod. It is a serious contribution, informed and useful, with a full and subtle discussion of terminology and procedure. It will take its place alongside such dissertations as Paul Steins Die Senatssitzungen der rmischen Republik (Mnster, 1930), a book much appreciated by L. R. Taylor. Filibuster is a peculiar outgrowth of parliamentary systems. If the speakers freedom of speech is absolute, if the oratio cannot be interrupted, the way is open for using the speech as a means of obstruction. The only study of this phenomenon in Rome has been the short (and not always accurate) article by P. Groebe; and he treated only the obstruction in the senate whereas the longa oratio was also a feature (although much less frequent and much less effective) of the dissuasiones legum at the popular assemblies.2 De Libero presents (pp. 1428) a detailed analysis of each case of the filibuster (Cato the Younger was the most notorious but by no means the only practitioner of the art); next she proceeds to the formal means of obstruction, the intercession and the errors in the procedure (pp. 2852).

* 1 2

Classical Philology 90 (1995) 192195 {with bibliographical addenda}. The sources in Georg Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Rmer2 (Mnchen, 1912), 23436, 44345 (dies religiosi). Paul Groebe, Die Obstruktion im rmischen Senate, Klio 5 (1905): 22935. No progress in Marianne Bonnefond-Coudry, Le snat de la rpublique romaine de la guerre dHannibal Auguste: pratiques dliberatives et prise de dcision (Paris, 1989). Her discussion is disjointed: the filibuster, intercession, and the lack of the quorum are treated in various places of the book; they are treated promiscue, and in a discursive manner. {Cf. above in this volume, No. 5}.

Religio et Res Publica

521

The intercession as an institution of Roman public law was extensively treated by Mommsen; and a list of all attested intercessions (in the late Republic) both in the senate and in the popular assemblies can be found in the recent book by Thommen.3 De Libero gives a typological qualification of intercessions: threatened (angedrohte) the goal of which was to force the opponent to change his opinion or to abandon his plan; erkaufte and erbetene when the intercessor was either bribed or entreated to interpose his veto. From a different point of view there existed four categories of vetoes: actually interposed, withdrawn, ignored, and impeded. She provides a new list of intercessions, with a thorough discussion of the loca intercessionis (pp. 3741). She demonstrates that even in the last years of the Republic most intecessions were obeyed; it was only in a few isolated and particular cases that violence was applied to prevent a tribune from interposing his veto (in 59 and 55, both times at the behest of the triumvirs). The intertwining of public and sacral law offered opportunities for religious obstruction. Here belongs the manipulation of the calendar, particularly of intercalation, of the feriae, and of instaurationes (pp. 5356), but the most prominent means of obstruction was the notorious obnuntiatio, the announcement of unfavorable divine signs (pp. 5668). De Libero offers an informed and lucid overview of this phenomenon (though again I would prefer to see the relevant passages quoted in extenso and discussed in detail, and not merely referred to in the footnotes; and one again misses the great work of Valeton; see n. 9 below). She rightly distinguishes between the servatio (servare de caelo), the watching of the sky, and the obnuntiatio, the actual and personal announcement of the fulmen. The terms servatio and spectio de Libero regards as synonymous (p. 57, n. 23). But from Cicero, Orationes Philippicae 2.81: Nos [sc. the augurs] enim nuntiationem solum habemus [i.e., the right to announce solely the oblative, unsolicited signs], consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spectionem, it would rather appear that the spectio (cf. also Festus 446 L., where spectio sine nuntiatione is mentioned) denoted the right to the observatio, and not the act of the watching itself. I still believe that the servatio alone had no binding force; to be binding it had to be followed up by the actual and personal obnuntiatio (cf. Historia 14 [1965]: 425 {= RQ 73}); the counterarguments of de Libero are only doxai not proofs. And I am afraid that she seriously misinterprets the crucial passage of Cicero, Orationes Philippicae 2.81 (cf. ANRW 2.16.3 [1986]: 2198). These disagreements may be abstruse, but they go to the heart of the comitial procedure. It is a pleasure to discuss them with a serious scholar, but a serious discussion has to reserved for another place and time. The chapter on Kassation (pp. 87109), the annulment of laws by the senate, contains a very useful list of all cases of annulment, and a thorough discussion of the procedure. In particular she argues persuasively (against the opinion of a number of eminent scholars) for the annulment of the agrarian law of Appuleius Saturninus.4
3 4 Theodor Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht, vol. I3 (Leipzig, 1887), 26692; Lukas Thommen, Das Volkstribunat der spten rmischen Republik (Stuttgart, 1989), 20732. Pp. 9096, but cf. below, n. 14. {See now F. Reduzzi Merola, Iudicium de iure legum. Senato e legge nella tarda repubblica (Napoli 2001), an excellent investigation, insightful and erudite.}

522
194

Historia et Religio

Pergamus ad deteriora. Originally a dissertation at the Technische Universitt in Berlin, the book by Claudia Bergemann is worth reviewing for it demonstrates vividly the flaws of both genres: of dissertations (and perhaps particularly contemporary German historical dissertations) and of the voguish (and amateurish) incursions into the sphere of the Roman religio. Bibliography appended to the book is haphazard, avoiding the difficult and the technical, and it is infested by the belief the newer the better, a tendency as pernicious as it is ahistorical: for it consigns to neglect great minds of the previous generations, and loses sight of the historical progression of our investigations.5 Frequently the book draws its information from the tepid tap of recent distillations, and not from the spring of the original masters. Unfortunately it is a familiar disease for it also thrives in American graduate programs, together with another pest, the scholarly oligoglottism. Bergemann adduces modern literature only in German and English, one solitary entry in French, and none in Italian: not even a tiniest article.6 The book treats of two important themes: of religion and politics in Ciceros speech De domo, and of the utilization of the state cult in the political competition. The part on the de domo (pp. 385) offers a summary of the speech; presents a list of the pontiffs (on the basis of RE, MRR, and L. R. Taylor); and finally tackles institutionelle Verflechtungen von sacrum und publicum, including the pontifical and senatorial procedure, and the sakrale und nichtsakrale Konfiskation. The discussion of the procedure is neither original nor illuminating; and it is not free from errors. The topic of sacratio and consecratio (or religious confiscation) has been frequently debated in the previous and in this century; from Bergemanns account the reader will get no inkling of the intricacy of the theme and of the controversiae it has evoked.7 The best pages are probably 3640: here the author presents a good exposition of the interaction between priests and magistrates; she rightly observes that in most undertakings pertaining to the administration of the res publica it was the magistrates, not the priests, who communicated with the gods: hence the overriding religious and political role of the magisterial auspices.8 One peculiarity
5 On this pernicious custom, see my remarks in Gnomon 52 (1980): 784, n. 7 {= RQ 286, n. 7}. The bibliography is sloppy: for books the place of publication is never given, and, more grievously still, no distinction is made between simple reprints and new editions. The lone French title is the book by L. Cerfaux and J. Tondriau, Un concurrent du christianisme. Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation grco-romaine (ParisTournai, 1968). Bergemann quotes it incorrectly omitting the words Un concurrent du christianisme. Perhaps a venial sin for Louis Robert remarked that these words nont aucune justification (Bull. Ep. 1959: 171, no. 70). The relevance of that rapide synthse (as Robert characterizes it) for the study of politics and religion in republican Rome is not immediately apparent. See the discussion and extensive bibliography in G. Crif, Exilica causa, quae adversus exulem agitur, in: Du chtiment dans la cit: Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Paris, 1984), pp. 45380, and the additions in CP 82 (1987): 379, n. 7 {= No. 18 in this volume, with further additions}. This analysis is to be applauded, especially as Bergemann does not fall prey to the fashionable and false idea of the senate acting as the mediator between the Roman people and the gods (cf. the critique of this theory by T. C. Brennan, BMCR 2 [1991]: 6264). But we miss here the imposing work by Pierangelo Catalano, Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale (Torino, 1960); Catalano presents with great insight the lines of demarcation between the spheres of religious and political competence of the magistrates and the priests (especially the augurs).

Religio et Res Publica

523

195

stands out: all quotes from the speech are in German, never in Latin; no textual and terminological problems are ever confronted. Bergemann adduces in her bibliography the famed commentary of Nisbet, but she never quotes it, and certainly does not seem to profit from Nisbets linguistic subtlety and historical sense. If the part dealing with the De domo is unoriginal and often mistaken, the second part of the book is a disaster. Bergemanns idea of the formalities pertaining to the auspicia is hazy. She assumes that the consultation of the (impetrative) auspices by the magistrates always required the assistance of the priests. This error would have been set straight by the erudite and illuminating studies of Valeton.9 Next she confuses the concepts of auspicium and augurium,10 amalgamates the magisterial obnuntiatio and the augural nuntiatio,11 and fails to distinguish between prodigia and auspicia oblativa.12 There is no differentiation between the functions, obligations and prerogatives of individual priests and those of the priestly colleges in their capacity as boards of experts.13 All these vitia on a mere two pages, pp. 8990, and subsequently repeated many times. Numerous examples of portents, prodigies and auspices pile up indiscriminately; the collection is useless: it is riddled with errors, and individual cases, often enigmatic, are never subjected to a rigorous analysis.14
9 I. M. J. Valeton, De modis auspicandi Romanorum, Mnemosyne 17 (1889): 275325, 41852; 18 (1890): 20863, 40656 (pp. 40829 deal with the alleged assistance of the augurs at the magisterial auspications; for a modification of Valetons analysis, cf. J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW 2.16.3 [1986]: 219095); De iure obnuntiandi comitiis et conciliis, Mnemosyne 19 (1891): 75113, 22970. This is a fundamental distinction: it has been illuminated by Catalano, Contributi (above, n. 8), 4245, 125. See Valeton, Mnemosyne 18 (1890): 44748; 19 (1891): 9498; Linderski, The Augural Law (above, n. 9), 21952215. Cf. J. Linderski, Cicero and Roman Divination, PP 37 (1982): 30 {= RQ 476}. This is another fundamental distinction: see Linderski, The Augural Law (above, n. 9), 21512225. One example will suffice for all: when the tribune L. Appuleius Saturninus presented his lex agraria versuchten die Anhnger der Senatspartei, die Abstimmung in der Volksversammlung mit dem Hinweis auf ein Donnern abzuwenden. Doch Saturninus setzte sich ber die Obnuntiation hinweg, angeblich mit der Bemerkung, dass es bald auch hageln werde, wenn die Leute nicht still seien, und brachte das Gesetz durch (p. 98). That is all. A detailed reconstruction of the proceedings we owe to Emilio Gabba (Ricerche su alcuni punti di storia mariana, Athenaeum 29 [1951]: 2123) and Erich Gruen (The Exile of Metellus Numidicus, Latomus 24 [1965]: 57680). Neither scholar is ever mentioned by Bergemann. The crucial text is De viris illustribus 73, 68 (ed. Pichlmayr): Huic legi multi nobiles obrogantes (the context requires obnuntiantes, but the text is sound; cf. the article adduced at the end of this note, pp. 45457), cum tonuisset, clamarunt: Iam, inquit, nisi quiescetis, grandinabit. The passage can be fully understood only if we pay attention to the augural flavor of Saturninus jest and threat. According to the augural doctrine if during an assembly thunder was heard (and reported by an augur) the gathering had to be disbanded; if the legislative assembly were not disbanded vitium would ensue, and the law could later be annulled by the senate as vitio lata. Now the conjunction of thunder and hail the augurs called calamitas (Donatus, Commentum Terentii, vol. 2, p. 193, lines 1315, [ed. Wessner]). It thundered; the opponents of Saturninus demanded that he disband the assembly. He retorted: if you do not calm down, it will hail (intimating the lapidatio); vitium et calamitas will indeed be produced, not for Saturninus or his law but for his enemies. Cf. J. Linderski, A Witticism of Appuleius Saturninus, RFIC 111 (1983 [1984]):

10 11 12 13 14

524

Historia et Religio

De isto libro satis.{14a} If the augurs had read these two books, as to the latter they would have agreed with the pontiffs, and declared it conceived, written and published a(ve) c(ontraria) a(uspicio) p(estifero); the other, however, b(ene) iu(vante) av(e), although a persnickety augur would spot an occasional avis incerta.15

45259 {= RQ 53441; cf. Reduzzi Merola (above, n. 4), 32, n. 29, accepting this interpretation}. De Libero also discusses this event (pp. 59-60), but she strangely conflates the happenings at the passage of the lex agraria and the law concerning the interdictio aqua et igni of Caecilius Metellus. {14a Out of curiosity I have consulted several reviews of Bergemanns book. Most are either perfunctory or uninformed or both. A shining exception is the review by W. J. Tatum, CJ 90.3 (1995) 33234, erudite in religo, ius, philologia and bibliographia, and appropriately critical.} 15 This augural bird, well known to most scholars, is mentioned by Cicero in his treatise on auguries; the other terms are attested on the cippi in the augural temple in Bantia; cf. Linderski, The Augural Law (above, n. 9): 225960; 2292.

39 DE TITO TEMPLUM VENERIS PAPHIAE VISENTE SIVE DE HOSTIIS VOVENDIS ET DELIGENDIS*

Tacitus, de initiis principatus Vespasiani scripturus (Hist. II, 14), a fatali itinere Titi, Vespasiani filii, orsus est. A patre e Iudaea Romam missus, Galba adhuc incolumi, sed struente iam fortuna1 initia causasque imperio (Hist. II, 1, 1) Titus, cum Corinthum navi advectus esset, de obitu Galbae et de armis Othonis Vitelliique certior factus est. Mox iter retro vertens rursus ad patrem navigare statuit. Sed cum navigaret illum cupido incessit adeundi visendique templum Paphiae Veneris. Iunctura cupido incessit a commentatoribus variis sed nudis exemplis illustratur2. Non est satis. Nam cupido in iunctura ista nihil aliud est nisi pyow: non esse, dico, merum voluntatis indicium, sed vim permagnam sentiendi a numine quodam missam, quae corda animosque hominum intret et eos ad aliquid faciendum impellat3. Magna est inter commentatores contentio, utrum Tito solam et simplicem templi inclyti visendi cupidinem tribuere debeant4 an credant ei ab incepto
* 1 Hermes 130 (2002) 507510 {cum addendis minimis}. De Fortuna Flaviana et de Vespasiano duce fatali (a man of destiny), optime eruditeque disseruit R. T. SCOTT, Religion and Philosophy in the Histories of Tacitus (= Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome, XXII), Rome 1968, 7084. Vide commentarium pereruditum a H. HEUBNER conscriptum, P. Cornelius Tacitus, Die Historien, II, Heidelberg 1968, ad locc., 2039. G. E. F. CHILVER, A Historical Commentary on Tacitus Histories I and II, Oxford 1979, 16466, ad propositum nostrum minimi fere momenti est. D. BRIQUEL, Tacite et lharuspicine, in volumine cui titulus est Les crivains et lEtrusca disciplina de Claude Trajan (= Caesarodunum, Suppl. 64, 1995), 2737, de arte haruspicinae Paphi florente ea solum verba annotat: en 2, 2, sont voqus des haruspices, mais dans un contexte qui na rien dtrusque (n. 16, p. 36). Sed, ut videbimus, consultatio hostiarum et in primis ritus hostiarum deligendarum optime ad doctrinam haruspicorum Etruscorum spectant; vide G. BLECHER, De extispicio capita tria (Religiongeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten, II, 4), Gissae 1905, qui locum Taciti inter testimonia ritus Etrusci sive Romani adducit (p. 190). In articulo a P. Grimal congesto, Tacite et les prsages, REL 67, 1989 (1990), 17078, nihil pretii invenies. Dux ille historicorum, R. SYME, Tacitus, I, Oxford 1958, 310, opinionem profert: Paphos and Serapis [i.e. miracula a Vespasiano Alexandreae facta] are frankly exotic, almost extraneous. Minime. De notione cupidinis, quae Titum ut antea Alexandrum illum Magnum moverat, vide R. GUERRINI, Tito al santuario Pafio e il ricordo di Enea (Tac. Hist. II, 4), A&R 31, 1986, 2829. Ut CHILVER (p. 164) adseverat firmissime (a sight-seeing jaunt). Non aliter HEUBNER, 2021. Cupido ei sola visendi inerat, cum orbis terrarum bello intestino commotus esset, et Vespasianus de imperio cogitaret? Ita mihi persuasum est, ut BCHNERUM aliosque prudentes sequar. Vide K. BCHNER, Die Reise des Titus, Studien zur rmischen Literatur, IV, Wiesbaden 1964, 8398, praecipue 8688 (p. 87: Titus den Vergngungreisenden nur nach aussen hin spielt. Nach Besichtigung der obligaten Sehenswrdigkeiten stellt er eine sehr berlegte Befragung dieses Orakels an); A. BARZAN, Il santuario di Pafo e i Flavi, in libro a M. SORDI edito, Santuari e politica nel mondo antico (= Contributi dellIstituto di Storia Antica 9),

3 4

526
508

Historia et Religio

eam rationem adeundi fuisse, occultam et secretam, ut futura exploraret. At religionem consideremus. De omine oraculoque imperii nobis Tacitoque sermo est. Sed ea a diis reguntur. Itaque non est dubium, quin (ut Tacitus aperte narrat Flaviorum fabulam suam faciens) Titus templum non ut praetervehens aliquis inierit, et minime ut machinator doli; inierit omnino non sponte sua, sed numine monente deaque ipsa ducente5. Ut domus Caesarum originem suam a Venere duxit, sic domui Flaviorum Venus Paphia imperium praedictura paraturaque erat. Titus templum Veneris, diceres, ut Aeneas alter adit6. Et cum Vespasianus rerum potitus esset, nomen ipse urbis, nomen novum, gratiam Flaviorum visitantibus ostentabat: Sebast Klauda Flaoua Pfow7. Nam templum ipsum praecipue et scientia et arte haruspicum inclytum erat8. Ita ad sacrificandum hostiae, ut quisque vovit, sed mares deliguntur: certissima fides haedorum9 fibris10 (Hist. II, 3, 2). Qua in descriptione locutiones duae interpretatione egent, nempe hostias vovere et hostias deligere11. Quid sit hostias vovere, optime verbis Livii illustratur (XXX, 27, 1112)12, quo in loco senatum legimus decrevisse et ut placatis dis omnia inciperent [scilicet consules anni a. U. c. 552 = a. C. n. 202] agerentque ludos, quos M. Claudio Marcello, T. Quinctio consulibus [anno a. U. c. 546 = 208 a. C. n.] T. Manlius dictator, quasque hostias maiores voverat, si per quinquennium res publica eodem statu fuisset, ut eos ludos consules, priusquam ad bellum proficiscerentur, facerent. ludi
Milano 1983, 14049, praecipue 14749 (p. 149: Loracolo favorevole dato dalla dea di Pafo a Tito ... costitu il primo appoggio concesso dal mondo religioso orientale alla nuova dinastia flavia). B. W. JONES, The Emperor Titus, London 1984, 45, et 67, n. 38, acutissime scribit it would seem that Titus was the first of the Flavian group to consider seizing the empire and he did so in February 39, at the Corinth meeting, sed rebus sic stantibus eo magis miror virum eruditum Titi Veneris Paphiae consultationem silentio alto praeterisse. 5 Vide quae Josephus, BJ IV, 501, de reditu Titi ad Vespasianum scribit: Ttow d kat daimnion rmn p tw Elldow ew tn Suran nplei. 6 Ita optime GUERRINI, 2834. Vide infra, n. 21. 7 IGRR III, 937 (= SEG XX, 253), 947. Nomen Augustae ab imperatore Augusto urbi concessum est. Cf. BARZAN, 149. {De Flaviorum cum Venere Paphia coniunctione, vide etiam T. B. MITFORD, The Cults of Roman Cyprus, ANRW II.18.3 (1990) 217980.} 8 De extispicina Graecorum vide quae BLECHER, De extispicio, passim profert nec non C. O. THULIN in libro suo inclyto Die etruskische Disciplin, Gteborg 1905, 1906, 1909 (= Darmstadt 1968), pars II, praecipue 5054. 9 De consultatione inusitata extorum caprarum haedorumque, cf. THULIN, II, 18. 10 Fibrae = exta, praecipue iecur, vide Thulin, II, 42-44, et nuper C. GUITTARD, Haruspicine et devotio: caput iocineris a familiari parte caesum (Tite-Live, VIII, 9, 1), in libro La divination dans la monde trusco-italique, III (= Caesarodunum, Suppl. 56, 1986), 5556. 11 De notionibus istis elucidationem aliquam in articulo valde utili a C. KRAUSE composito, Hostia, RE, Suppl. 5, 1931, 23682, frustra quaesivi. 12 Linguae Latinae Thesaurus electronicus (The Latin Data Bank), opus auspicaliter inchoatum sed miserabiliter nondum perfectum, tres solos locos exhibet in quibus locutio hostiam vovere usurpatur: locum Livii, locum Taciti et Calpurnium Flaccum, Declamationum excerpta 24: feriat hostiam, quam dis penatibus vovit (feriat ad patrem spectat, et hostia ad eiusdem patris filium). Duae enuntiationes ex scriptoribus Christianis haustae accedunt: Tert., Ad Scapulam II, 5: qui pro salute eorum (i.e. imperatorum) hostias et fecerant (i.e. sacrificaverant) et voverant; Commod., Instr. I, 15, 5: voverant hostias inepto ut deo orando (de Hercule).

De Tito templum Veneris Paphiae

527

509

in circo per quadriduum facti, hostiaeque quibus votae erant dis caesae. Dictator dis hostias maiores voverat; et cum res publica in eodem statu per quinquennium permansisset, facta est eius voti compos; consules ut votum exsolverent dis singulis ut votae erant rite hostiis sacrificarunt. Vota Manlii eorumque solutio ad locum Taciti illuminandum vulgo ab interpretibus adducuntur13, sed luce clarius est hostias ab Manlio votas et post quinquennium a consulibus caesas valde diversas fuisse ab eis quae Veneri Paphiae sacrificabantur. Nam in Livio votum solum, voti damnatio et voti solutio ante oculos sunt; de consultatione extorum verbum nullum. Etsi non improbabile est, quamquam Livio tacente, quod exta hostiarum votarum caesarumque inspecta fuerint, pro certo apparet eam inspectionem more Romano solum ad litationem valuisse, id est ad statuendum, si dei eas hostias mente benigna accepissent, et non ad futura scrutanda. At in Tacito, ut lingua haruspicum utamur, plane de eis hostiis quae consultatoriae dicuntur sermo est14. Nam Titus, Tacitus narrat (II, 4), de navigatione primum consuluit. Consultatio bene evenit: pandi viam et mare prosperum. Nunc Titus, animo firmato, de se per ambages interrogat caesis compluribus hostiis15. Deam per ambages de fortuna sua quaesivit scilicet non ut eam confunderet sed ne in hominum suspiciones incideret

13 HEUBNER, 37. 14 De litatione Romana, vide G. WISSOWA, Religion und Kultus der Rmer2, Mnchen 1912, 41819, et praecipue quae ante annos fere quadraginta disseruit R. Schilling, propos des exta: lextispicine trusque et la litatio romaine, Hommages Albert GRENIER, III (= Collection Latomus 58), Bruxelles 1962, 1371-1378 (articulus prelo denuo expressus in libro: R. SCHILLING, Rites, cultes, dieux de Rome, Paris 1979, 18390). De hostiis consultatoriis optime egit Thulin, II, 1116, et ante eum A. BOUCH-LECLERCQ, Histoire de la divination dans lantiquit, IV, Paris 1882, 6367. Sed nuper C. NASSE, Zum Begriff hostia consultatoria (Macr., Sat. III, 5, 5), in volumine cui titulus est Zwischen Krise und Alltag. Antike Religionen im Mittelmeerraum (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitrge, I), Stuttgart 1999, 11124, negat Romanos distinctionem ullam inter hostiarum genera observasse. At mihi Livium, Tacitum Ciceronemque legenti parum persuasit, et quae de ea re THULIN scripsit mihi valida et lectu semper digna videntur. 15 Cf. Suet., Tit. 5: Sed ubi turbari rursus cuncta sentit, redit ex itinere, aditoque Paphiae Veneris oraculo, dum de navigatione consulit, etiam de imperii spe confirmatus est. Cum Titi Veneris Paphiae consultatione Vespasiani extorum consultationem apud aram inclytam in monte Carmelo factam comparare debemus (Tac., Hist. II, 78, 34): cum Vespasianus ibi sacrificaret et cum spes occultas versaret animo, Basilides sacerdos inspectis identidem extis, quidquid est inquit, Vespasiane, quod paras, seu domum extruere seu prolatare agros sive ampliare servitia, datur tibi magna sedes, ingentes termini, multum hominum. Has ambages et statim exceperat fama et tunc aperiebat. Cf. HEUBNER 27476; M. G. MORGAN, Vespasian and the Omens in Tacitus Histories 2.78, Phoenix 50, 1996, 4155, opus ingenii plenum eruditumque, sed de Titi consultatione verbum nullum. Sed in primis vide quae Tacitus de Vespasiani Serapidis consultatione narrat, Hist. IV, 82, 1: altior inde Vespasiano cupido adeundi sacram sedem, ut super rebus imperii consuleret. Cf. ad loc. G. E. F. CHILVER and G. B. TOWNEND, A Historical Commentary on Tacitus Histories IV and V, Oxford 1985, 8283. {Cf. etiam responsum C. Mario datum, Iul. Exup. 3 (ed. N. ZORZETTI): Sed uictimas immolanti numinibus in oppido Numidarum, cui nomen est Utica, haruspices magna quaedam impendere Mario responderunt atque hortati sunt, ut quae uellet auderet peteretque celsiora natalibus meritisque maiora: siquidem cuncta uidebatur fauor spondere fortunae. tunc capiendi consulatus inuasit magna cupiditas.}

528

Historia et Religio

510

principatus appetendi16. Numerus hostiarum permagnus fuit; et modus immolationis inusitatus. Locutio caesis compluribus hostiis diversam significationem habet a locutione pluribus hostiis caesis (Suet., Iul. 81, 4)17. In loco Suetonii aliisque locis similibus is qui sacrificat, cum litare non possit, hostias singillatim caedit usque ad litationem. At contra in Tacito Titus sacrificans non solam quaerebat litationem sed rerum magnarum praedictionem et eo complures hostias uno tempore caedere iussit ut extis congruentibus futura firmarentur. Et sacerdos, Sostratus nomine, re vera publice responsum dedit faustum: laeta18 et congruentia19 esse exta; magnisque consultis adnuere deam. Et statim, ut ait Tacitus, pauca in praesens et solita respondens, petito secreto20, futura aperit21. Dubium non est, quin sacerdos, homo prudens, non solum exta sed etiam animum sacrificantis scrutans, Tito secreto aperte principatum praedixerit. Sed ut praedictionem istam fibris firmare posset non solum laeta et congruentia esse debuerunt exta sed etiam regnum significantia. Lemma Festi ad propositum pertinet (336 L.): Regalia exta appellantur, quae potentibus insperatum honorem pollicentur; privatis et humilioribus hereditates; filio familiae dominationem. Illa exta regalia cum fulminibus regalibus et auspiciis regibus datis comparanda sunt22. Titus certe inter potentes numerabatur; et si doctrinam non solum haruspicum sed etiam Stoicorum sequemur, eo ipso temporis momento, quo Titus hostias delegit et de se deam interrogavit, ab ea effectum fuit, ut in extis signum aliquod regale appareret. Nam planum est omnes eas complures hostias ex numero multo maiore animalium delectas fuisse. De notione deligendi HEUBNERUS nullum praebet commentarium; sed videamus quid Cicero de hostiarum deligendarum ratione scripserit (De
16 HEUBNER Vergilium adducit (Georg. II, 46) et Quintilianum (Inst. III, 11, 23). Sed eorum, qui de imperio per ambages deum sive deam interrogaverunt, exempla alia extant, et in primis Liv. I, 56, 910: Brutus cum iuvenibus Tarquiniis Tito et Arrunte oraculum Apollinis Delphis consulens aureum baculum inclusum corneo cavato ad id baculo tulisse donum Apollini dicitur, per ambages effigiem ingenii sui. Locus ille Livii cum tenore Taciti optime congruit, nam legimus in Livio cupido incessit animos iuvenum sciscitandi ad quem eorum regnum Romanum esset venturum. Brutus cum responsum audisset, qui vestrum primus ... osculum matri tulerit, velut si prolapsus esset, osculo terram, matrem communem omnium, contigit. 17 Ut HEUBNER (p. 39) apte annotat. 18 Memoria dignum est, descriptionem laeta exta ab haruspicibus frequenter usurpatam fuisse. Vide BLECHER, De extispicio 18283, 185, 189. 19 HEUBNER lucide annotat (p. 39): Gemeint ist, dass die Zeichen bei den complures hostiae bereinstimmen, dass sie also durchweg gnstig und keine contraria exta (Suet., Otho 8, 3) darunter sind. 20 Sacerdotis secreti colloquii petitio magni momenti est, cum consideremus, Tiberium haruspices secreto ac sine testibus consuli vetuisse (Suet., Tib. 63). 21 Ut GUERRINI monstrat (p. 29), narratio Taciti sermone Vergiliano redolet: cf. in primis Verg., Aen. VI, 912: pius Aeneas ... / secreta Sibyllae ... petit ... cui / Delius ... vates aperit ... futura; 9597: tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito [cf. Tac., Hist. II, 2: (Titus) Syriam audentioribus spatiis petebat], / qua tua te Fortuna sinet. via ... / pandetur; 9899: Talibus ex adyto dictis Cumaea Sibylla / horrendas canit ambages. Vide etiam J. HELLEGOUARCH, qui in commentario ad editionem Historiarum Taciti sub auspiciis societatis a Budaeo nominatae publici iuris factam (Paris, 1989, 150) argumentum Vergilianum ab GUERRINI propositum multis verbis laudat. 22 THULIN, I, 70, 78; II, 4647; III, 10910.

De Tito templum Veneris Paphiae

529

div. I, 118, Quintus loquitur): Nam et ad hostiam deligendam potest dux esse vis quaedam sentiens, quae est toto confusa mundo, et tum ipsum cum immolare velis extorum fieri mutatio potest, ut aut absit aliquid aut supersit. Marcus Academicum agens ita fratri respondere studuit (II, 3536): pudet me non tui quidem ... sed Chrysippi, Antipatri, Posidoni, qui idem istuc quidem dicunt quod est dictum a te, ad hostiam deligendam ducem esse vim quandam sentientem atque divinam, quae toto confusa mundo sit. Illud vero multo etiam melius, quod et a te usurpatum est et dicitur ab illis: cum immolare quispiam velit, tum fieri extorum mutationem, ut aut absit quidquid aut supersit; deorum enim numini parere omnia. Et facete addidit: An censes, eundem vitulum si alius delegerit, sine capite iecur inventurum; si alius, cum capite? Haec decessio capitis aut accessio subitone fieri potest, et se exta ad immolatoris fortunam accomodent?23 Rideant Academici! Credebant sacerdotes, credebat multitudo ipsa sacrificantium. Credebat Titus, aucto animo et re vera pater eius non multo temporis intervallo et post eius obitum ipse Titus imperium adepti sunt.

23 Vide ad locc. S. PEASE, M. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione libri duo, Urbana 19201923 = Darmstadt 1963, 309, 41213. Sed mirum est, quod vir iste eruditissimus locum Taciti omittit.

40 MATRIMONIUM*
Susan TREGGIARI, Roman Marriage. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). xv + 578 pp.

Viximus insignes inter utramque facem (Prop. 4.11.46): nuptiae evoke funus. Of this morbid symbolism the author of this learned, sober and wise book takes no notice. Only a word on the wedding torches; none on the funereal; only a handful of pages on the wedding itself (16170). The ceremony, with its pageantry, murky customs and the symbolism that was already obscure to the Romans themselves, was the scholarly province of Roman antiquarians. It still is. The most detailed modern description remains that of A. Rossbach, Untersuchungen ber die rmische Ehe (Stuttgart 1853) 252389. There is no serviceable collection of iconographical sources: Rossbachs Rmische Hochzeits-und Ehedenkmler (Leipzig 1871) is outdated; it contains only a description of monuments, but no photographic reproductions. The Roman wedding as a social happening and as a religious ceremony still awaits its modern author.{1} It is the religious aspect that is most often underrated and neglected, even by Treggiari. Like every important event in Roman public and private life, nuptiae had to be conducted auspicato. Like the veil, the auspices were part of a proper formal wedding, signifying the public approval of the couples friends (164). This misses the point: in ritual it was the opinion of the gods that counted, not that of the friends. On the morning of the wedding, the auspices, private diviners, inquired after the will of the gods. This ceremony is amply attested in the sources, well into the imperial period (Rossbach, Ehe, 293307); it should not be confused with the consultation of the exta, the entrails of the sacrificial victims (M. Humbert, Le remariage Rome, Milan 1972, 1213, adduced by Treggiari, speaks of le sacrifice auspicial, a terminological monstrosity). Cicero complains (Div. 1.28) that nuptiarum auspices ... re omissa nomen tantum tenent. His enunciation (and its misleading paraphrase by Valerius Maximus 2.1.1) is often invoked, rarely ana* {1 American Journal of Philology 116 (1995) 154156 {with minor changes, corrections and additions}. Two excellent Vorarbeiten have appeared: C. Fayer studies La difficile scelta del dies nuptialis presso i Romani, in Studi offerti a Ettore Paratore (Chieti 1990) 51320; and S. Treggiari supplements her opus with Putting the Bride to Bed, EMC 38 [n.s. 13] (1994) 31131. The recent book by C. Fayer, La Familia romana II (parte seconda): Aspetti giuridici ed antiquari. Sponsalia, matrimonio, dote (Roma 2005) is an indispensible encyclopedia. U. Bartocci, Le species nuptiarum (Roma 1999), does not deal, despite the title, with nuptiae, but is solely concerned with matrimonium and manus. Wedding and funeral is an old theme: see R. Rehm, Marriage to Death. The Conflation of Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek Tragedy (Princeton 1994).}

Matrimonium

531

155

lyzed, never understood. Cicero does not say that the auspicia ceased to be taken; he rather intimates that they were consulted in an improper and perfunctory way. The passage is to be read in conjunction with other similar strictures, especially the complaint that divination from freely flying birds was replaced by auspicium coactum et expressum from the feeding of pulli kept hungry in a cage (Div. 2.7273; cf. 1.27; N.D. 2.9; Leg. 2.33). The procedure of taking the auspices (the auspicia impetrativa) consisted of a question addressed to a deity, and the deitys reply. What question did the officiating auspex ask? Treggiari does not pose this question, but Rossbach (294) did: ob (die Gtter) der Ehe geneigt waren oder nicht. Not so. It was a well established tenet of the augural doctrine that the validity of an auspical sign pertained to one day only (cf. P. Catalano, Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale [Torino 1961] 4245; J. Linderski, ANRW II.16.3 [1986] 229596). Consequently the deity could not be asked and was not asked to give its approval to the marriage as such but solely to the day selected for the ceremony. During the ceremony itself unfavorable omens could appear. If disregarded they would render the marriage ritually flawed and unlucky, though legally it remained valid (cf. Varro, LL 6.30, on the vitiosus magistratus, {and also above in this volume, No. 37}). Thunder, in particular, disrupted nuptiae (as also the popular assemblies; see Cic. Div. 2.42 and Pease ad loc.; Servius and Serv. auctus, ad Aen. 4.161, 166-67). Its occurrence was especially feared at confarreationes: cum fuissent iuncti (sc. Aeneas and Dido), scirent tonuisse: quae res dirimit confarreationes (Serv. auct. ad Aen. 4.339). The wife of Flamen Dialis, the flaminica, in one of her ritual aspects, was regarded as a perpetual bride, nova nupta (cf. N. Bols-Janssen, REL 67 [1989] 119-21). This explains why flaminica quotiens tonitrua audisset feriata erat donec placasset deos (Macr. Sat. 1.16.8). Of the concept of manus and the forms of its acquisition Treggiari presents a succinct discussion (1636); her remarks on the ritual of confarreatio can be supplemented by J. Linderski, in Social Struggles in Archaic Rome, edited by K. A. Raaflaub (Berkeley 1986) 24461 {= RQ 54261, 67173}; (cf. L. Sancho, RIDA 37 [1990] 34783); ZRG 101 (1984) 30111 {= RQ 15464, 64445} (on the phrase usu, farre, coemptione); and in Historia Testis. Mlanges T. Zawadzki (Fribourg 1989) 21114 {= RQ 57982} (on the inscription ILS 1455 from Antium recording a sacerdos confarreationum et diffarreationum). According to Roman antiquarians, two high priests officiated at the confarreatio, the Pontifex Maximus and the Flamen Dialis (Serv. auct. Georg. 1.31). Now the office of flamen Dialis was vacant for seventy-five years between 87 and 12 B.C.E. Some scholars conclude that either no confarreations could have taken place in that period or that the presence of the state priests at the ceremony was an antiquarian figment: so, most forcefully and most recently, G. Radke, Gymnasium 96 (1989) 20916. Treggiari herself hesitates (23). Radkes argument is spurious: when the Flamen Dialis was incapacitated, his cultic functions could be performed by pontiffs (Tac. Ann. 3.58: saepe pontifices sacra Dialia fecisse), and likewise in the stead of the Pontifex Maximus any pontiff could officiate (Cic. Har. resp. 21; Att. 4.2.4). What comes together may come asunder. Roman divorce was a relatively easy

532

Historia et Religio

156

affair: to its terminology and procedure (which became more formal during the course of the Empire), and also to its causes, effects, and frequency Treggiari devotes pages enlightened and enlightening (43582, and 51619, a list of attested divorces). In Rome marriage and divorce were free and private: the state did not ratify marriages, and it did not grant divorces. We seem to be approaching once more the original Roman custom (505). Indeed in the contemporary Western world large chunks of suffocating medieval dogma have been removed, many in the law, and many more in the actual life of the society; to protect its share of the market even a most petrified religious institution has been forced to grant decrees of nullity in unprecedented numbers. The previously reigning book in English on matrimonium, P. E. Corbetts The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford 1930), was relentlessly legalistic; Treggiari mixes law, philosophy, and society. She treats of ideals and reality in the relationship of husband and wife; the chapters on Greek philosophical background, theories of marriage, coniugalis amor, and sexual relations are a treat to read (183319). It is therefore perhaps surprising that in her bibliography (encompassing twenty pages) one searches in vain for two epochal works: La conception du mariage daprs les juristes romains by Edoardo Volterra (Padua 1940) and La Cit antique by N. D. Fustel de Coulanges (Paris 1864). Volterra established once and forever that according to Roman jurists, Roman marriage was based on continuing consent: when the reciprocal will to live as husband and wife disappears, the marriage automatically ceases to exist. The formula of divorce was only an outward manifestation of that fact (Treggiari, quoting a later work of Volterra, very sensibly adopts his view). On the other hand modern Western marriage is based (under the influence of Church dogma) on the concept of initial consent; hence the need for formal divorce or (even better) annulment proceedings. The impulse to rewrite history is always strong. The dissertation of J. Huber, Der Ehekonsens im rmischen Recht (Analecta Gregoriana 204 [Roma 1977]), offers an obscure but instructive footnote (cf. also the debate between O. Robleda, E. Volterra, C. Castello, and J. Huber, in: La definizione essenziale giuridica del matrimonio [Roma 1980] 2987; Treggiari [54] adduces the monograph of Huber as an example of simple scholarly disagreement with Volterra, but that obscures the ideological context and premise of Hubers book). Huber strains to establish, not unexpectedly, that in Roman marriage consent stets initial ist, so dass die Frage des Konsensenswandels verneint werden muss (163) the principle of Canon law was already present in the Roman law! Deprived of its illustrious precedent, modernity would thus stand doubly condemned. In his analysis of Nah-und Treuverhltnisse (Die Nobilitt der rmischen Republik [Leipzig 1912] 4950) M. Gelzer drew his inspiration from Fustel de Coulanges Les origines du systme fodal (Paris 1890); it is a pity that students of Roman matrimonium neglect The Ancient City. For nobody stressed better the religious character of the Roman family, and the pervasive social consequences of the agnatic and patrilineal system. It was, and still is, the cornerstone of the subordination of women, whether daughters or wives.

41 THE GOOD GODDESS*

H. H. J. BROUWER, Bona Dea. The Sources and a Description of the Cult. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989 (tudes Prliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans LEmpire Romain, 110). pp. xxvii + 507. Frontispiece, 5 figures, 52 plates, 5 maps.

28

The uneven, overpriced (according to the publishers catalogue the present volume costs an equivalent of $100! {in the meantime we have been trained to accept such prices}) and yet very useful series devoted to the oriental religions in the Roman empire expands chronologically and thematically: by no shred of imagination is Bona Dea an oriental deity, and the most notorious event relating to her cult dates to the period of the Republic. {The series has now been sensibly renamed to Religions in the Graeco-Roman World.} This event is, of course, the profanation (in 62 B.C.E.) of the nocturnal celebrations of matrons and Vestals in honor of the Goddess (from which all men were excluded) by Publius Clodius, a minor scandal that weighed so heavily on the political history of the later Republic. It sowed enmity and hatred between Clodius and Cicero, and spelt calamity for most of the protagonists. The facts, and what passes for facts, are well known; and in recent years the affair has been extensively treated: see esp. P. Moreau, Clodiana religio: un procs politique en 61 av. J.-C. (Paris, 1982), and W. J. Tatum, Cicero and the Bona Dea Scandal, CP 85 (1990) 2028 {and see now his The Patrician Tribune. Publius Clodius Pulcher (Chapel Hill 1999) 6286, 27080}. The affair is of interest not only to the Ciceroniani but also to the Plutarchistae: Plutarch mentions the scandal in his Lives of Cicero (1920, 28) and Caesar (910), and discusses the cult of the Goddess in his Roman Questions (20). How does Brouwer handle Plutarchs testimony? On the affair of Clodius (pp. 36370) he will not be very high on my list of suggested readings. He does not know the book by Moreau, and relies almost exclusively on C. Gallini, Politica religiosa di Clodio, Studi e materiali di Storia delle Religioni 33 (1962) 25772 (who surmises [p. 259] that the behavior of Clodius was not, as Plutarch presents it, il colpo di testa di uno sbarbatello, but rather un cosciente atto di disprezzo e di sfida a most unlikely interpretation), and on J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Fabula Clodiana, Historia 15 (1966) 6573 (often quite inaccurate). Now details. First the date of the celebration in 63 and 62. Early in December is Brouwers conclusion (pp. 359, 364); we may be more precise: when Clodius sneaked into the house of Caesar he was quaestor-elect (Asc. In Mil. 5253 Clark), and as the quaestors entered upon the office on December 5 (T. Mommsen, Rmisches Staatsrecht 23 [Leipzig, 1887], p. 534, nn. 24), the rites of the Goddess
* Ploutarchos 7.2 (1991) 2730 {with minor corrections and additions}.

534

Historia et Religio

29

had to be celebrated before that date (cf. Tatum {1990}, p. 204, n. 9). Now T. P. Wiseman (Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays [Leicester, 1974], p. 130, n. 1) and Moreau (pp. 1520) have shown that the celebration in 63 (in the house of Cicero) took place on the night of 4 December (and not on the night of 3 December as intimated by Plutarch who at Cic. 20.13 had telescoped the meetings of the senate of December 3 and 4). Their conclusion is that the feast was fixed permanently for the night preceding the Nones; this adds spice to the affair for on the Nones Clodius, fresh from his dangerous, sacrilegious and unlucky rendezvous with (Caesars wife) Pompeia, went to the Forum to be installed as quaestor (cf. Sch. Bob. 87.1419 Stangl). Next the place. In 62 B.C. Caesar was Praetor Urbanus and, as is apparent from the feast being celebrated in his house, the highest magistrate present in Rome (p. 364). Wrong. We do not know whether Caesar was urban praetor (cf. T. R. S. Broughton, MRR 2.173), and it is unlikely that the consuls of 62, D. Iunius Silanus and L. Licinius Murena had already left Rome: no provinces are attested for them. In fact E. Badian, An Unrecognised Date in Ciceros Text?, MNEMAI: Classical Studies in Memory of Karl K. Hulley (Chico, 1984), pp. 97101, argues that both consuls were present on Dec. 10, and that they carried through on this day a piece of legislation. Now according to Cicero the sacrificium ... fit in ea domo quae est in imperio (Har. resp. 37); the question poses itself how the choice of the domus was made. The precise mechanism eludes us, but it is striking that in 62 the celebration took place in the house of the praetor who happened also to be the pontifex maximus. One thing is certain: the magistrates wife was a necessary ingredient, and that leads us to our third point, the participants. The ceremonies were conducted by the wife or the mother of the magistrate, says Brouwer (p. 224). This communis opinio (cf. e.g. Wiseman, p. 130) is based on Plut. Cic. 19.4, but we should not follow Plutarch blindly. At Caes. 9.4 he states emphatically that in 62 it was Caesars wife Pompeia who was in charge of the feast; according to Balsdon (p. 66) Plutarch errs: Caesars mother Aurelia evidently presided over the celebrations. Far from being evident (cf. Brouwers healthy doubts, p. 225, n. 5.) this is inconceivable. The mother of a magistrate or a priest had no particular standing in public cult; a wife did (cf. e.g. the flaminica Dialis). But after the presence of Clodius was revealed, it was Aurelia who took control (she had kept close watch over her daughter-in-law). This led to hesitation and confusion in Plutarch and in modern authorities, but the episode tells us nothing about Aurelias role at the sacrifice proper. {R. Lorsch Wildfang, The Vestals and the Annual Public Rites, C&M 52 (2001) 22356 at 25153, concludes very sensibly (on the basis of Cic. har. resp. 37 and Att. 1.13.3) that the main role was played by the Vestals: they were the sacrificants}. Next, and last, among the participants in the feast (in 62) Brouwer lists also a servula and the ancillae (p. 295). Now the sacrifice was offered pro populo; it was performed by the Vestals and the mulieres nobilissimae (we do not know how they were selected). We have to distinguish carefully between the celebrants and others, slaves and various performers (Clodius was disguised as a flute-girl), who were simply present.

The Good Goddess

535

30

But there is more to the Bona Dea than Clodius misadventure. The merit of Brouwer is to lead us away from the charmed circle of Cicero. He assembles in extenso (and with an English translation) all literary evidence pertaining to the Goddess: in addition to Cicero and Plutarch no less than twenty six authors: Asconius, the Scholiast of Bobbio, Tibullus (and Lygdamus), Propertius, Ovid, Livy (Periochae), Velleius Paterculus, Seneca, Pliny the Elder, Martial, Juvenal, Suetonius, Appian, Festus (and Paulus), Tertullian, Dio Cassius, the Historia Augusta, Arnobius, Lactantius, Servius (auctus), Macrobius, Martianus Capella, Placidus, Isidore. And he also presents all epigraphical and archaeological evidence, a corpus of 141 texts (again in extenso and with a translation) and archaeological monuments (statues, reliefs). There is much to comment upon; a few notes will have to suffice. There are omissions, e.g. CIL 11.1735 (cf. AE 1983 [1986], 382); AE 1982 [1985], 637, where it is possible to read B(onae) D(eae) this would apparently be the first dedication to the Goddess from Spain. There are inaccuracies: P. 140, no. 138 bis = AE 1960, 107: the reference in AE is not to Bonner Jahrbcher 158 (1958) 12324 but to Bulletin Archologique du Comit des Travaux Historiques 195556 [1958] 12324. The full name of the dedicant Petronius Iustus, the governor of Numidia, was Cn. Petronius Probatus Iunior Iustus, cf. B. E. Thomasson, Die Staathalter der rmischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus 2 (Lund, 1960), pp. 21314 {cf. Idem, Fasti Africani (Stockholm, 1996), p. 184}. P. 76, no. 69 = ILS 3495: a certain Aurunceia Sp. f. Acte offers to Bona Dea tunicas / duas et palliolum / rasas caleinas / et lucerna aeria (i.e. lucernam aeriam). Brouwer translates: two tunics, a small cloak, turquoise-coloured polished stones, and a bronze lamp. Polished stones is aberrant; in a splendid article (A Dedication to Bona Dea Reconsidered, ZPE 70 [1987]: 21016) M. Kajava has demonstrated that both rasas and caleinas refer back to tunicas and palliolum (the grammatical attraction of the adjective to the plural is well documented): rasas refers to the fine quality of the garments, and caleinas is a peculiar spelling for callainas, greenish-blue. To conclude, back to Plutarch. In Quaest. Rom. 20 he says that women in their libations in honor of the Goddess pour wine but call it milk. Brouwer discusses at length (pp. 32736) wine and milk in cult, but does not pause to ask the really pertinent question, that of ritual substitution (cf. G. Capdeville, Substitution de victimes dans le sacrifices danimaux Rome, MEFRA 83 [1971] 283323, and the dictum of Servius, Aen. 2.116: et sciendum in sacris simulata pro veris accepi). Nor does he place the cult of the Goddess within the broader theme of secrecy in Roman religion. But we should be thankful for what we have. Brouwers book, originally an Utrecht dissertation (1982), may be repetitive and lacking in finesse, but by marshalling ancient evidence and modern interpretations it offers a valuable tool to pry open the secrets of the Good Goddess and she does not yield them gladly. {Cf. now the engrossing study by H. S. Versnel, Transition and Reversal in Myth and Religion (= Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion II [Leiden 1993]) 22988 (ch. IV): The Roman Festival for Bona Dea and the Greek Thesmophoria (and a more popular version in G&R 39 [1992] 3155); see also the

536

Historia et Religio

interesting essays by A. Staples, From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion (London-New York 1998).}

42 FORGING VOLCANUS*
Grard CAPDEVILLE, Volcanus. Recherches comparatistes sur les origines du culte de Vulcain. Rome, cole Franaise de Rome, Palais Farnse, 1995. Pp. VIII + 521. (Bibliothque des coles Franaises dAthnes et de Rome, fasc. 288).

645

In the last twenty years the French School has published every two years one book on Roman religion: monographs dealing with Fortuna, Mercurius, Ops, Penates, Providentia deorum, Fratres arvales, Lassociation dionysiaque (cf. JRS 78 [1988] 2078 {reprinted in this volume, No. 45.5}), the Bacchanalia, religious architecture (Aurea templa), La vie religieuse des matrones, Le dlit religieux (cf. CP 79 [1984] 17477 {= RQ 59295)}. Now we have a book about Volcanus. First let us remark on what this book is not: it is not a study of the cult of Volcanus, an encyclopedia that would systematically list and discuss all the literary, iconographic, and epigraphical evidence, in Rome, Italy, and the provinces. It would be very pleasing to have such a book, perhaps pedestrian, but useful. For information we still have to turn to Georg Wissowa, to his ageless Religion und Kultus der Rmer (2nd ed. [Mnchen 1912] 22932; also informative is W. Eisenhut, Volcanus, RE Suppl. 14 [1974] 94862. A rather balanced account of the origines appears in G. Camassa, Sullorigine e le funzioni del culto di Volcanus a Roma, RSI 96 [1984] 81154). Capdevilles book we have for speculations, a paradise for those eager to delve into murky origins, and those who are transposed by the dazzling and uncertain art of comparativistic pleading. If bibliography (fifty-one pages, 42575) stands for learning, it is a learned monograph; it ranges from Rome through Etruria to Crete and Cyprus. Surprisingly we find no Hittites or Turks (the relevance of the latter the reader will see revealed at the end of this piece). The book opens with an evocation of Georges Dumzil. Where do his manes lead the author? They lead to the fish. The monograph est n ... dune interrogation sur les pisciculi des Volcanalia (p. 1), a subject which intrigued Dumzil himself (REL 36 [1959] 12130). At the feast of Volcanalia on 23 August (see the references in A. Degrassi, Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani (= Inscr. It. XIII.2 [Romae 1963] 500502) populus pro se in ignem animalia mittit (Varro, Ling. Lat. 6.20). On 7 June (cf. Degrassi 466) the Ludi Piscatorii were celebrated a praetore urbano pro piscatoribus Tiberinis; quorum quaestus non in macellum pervenit, sed fere in aream Volkani, quod id genus pisciculorum vivorum datur ei deo pro animis humanis (Festus 27476 L.); but at the Ludi Piscatorii the offering was not pro animis but rather pro quaestu piscantium (Festus 232 L.); cf. J. Le Gall, Recherches sur le culte du Tibre (Paris 1953) 4850; J. Linderski, Ktema 17 (1992 [1996]) 58
* American Journal of Philology 118 (1997) 644647 {with minor addenda}.

538

Historia et Religio

646

{reprinted in this volume, No. 34}). Agni, the Indian god of fire, hated water and fish; this explains the Roman ritual (so Dumzil). Most scholars tacitly assume that pisciculi vivi were offered also on the Volcanalia, but Varro speaks generally of animalia: if he wanted to say pisces he would have said so. Volcanus was a god of destructive fire (so Wissowa, Dumzil and many other scholars); it makes sense that to propitiate him not only fish, a symbol of water, were burnt, but also other animals (perhaps as a substitute offering; on sacrifices of that sort, cf. G. Capdeville, MEFRA 83 [1971] 283323). In the context of incendia arcenda an inscription of the Domitianic time (ILS 4914) records an offering on the Volcanalia of vitulus robeus and verres r(obeus). This calls to mind the sacrifice of the rutilae canes to protect the crops from the burning sun (Festus 358 L.). Of all of this Capdeville, surprisingly, does not write at all: after their debut on p. 1 the pisciculi and the Volcanalia feebly reappear at the very end of the book (42023), only to be disregarded. Capdeville claims that Volcanus was not at all, and never, a god of feu destructeur. But Dumzil too saw the beneficial aspect of the fire of Volcanus, an aspect that manifested itself in the work of the blacksmith. In Rome much of this lore was a result of the amalgamation of Volcanus with Hephaistos; but that the feast of Tubilustrium on 23 May is described in calendars as feriae Volcani (Degrassi 46061) may point (despite Wissowas objections) to the existence in early Rome also of Volcanus the craftsman. For Capdeville, Volcanus is above all a god of fertility. Indeed the nourishing power of fire is not to be denied, nor its association with fecundity. Here we have a series of miraculous conceptions of kings and heroes (pp. 859, 97146): of Servius Tullus, Caeculus (the founder of Praeneste), and Cacus, all of them filii Volcani, at least according to one strand of legendary tradition. This strand Capdeville pursues with verve and erudition; the doctrinal underpinning we find, as so often, in Varro (Ling. Lat. 5.61.34): Igitur causa nascendi duplex: ignis et aqua ... mas ignis ... aqua femina (Cf. now the solidly based study by D. L. Thurmond, Felicitas: Public Rites of Human Fertility in Ancient Rome, Diss. Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1992). Capdeville wishes to demonstrate that Romulus also counted among the filii Volcani (8394). The proof is special pleading, not unknown in many other modern mythographical mirages. Romulus founded the Volcanal; he offered to Vulcan a quadriga he captured in battle; and finally he disappeared and was taken to heaven during a storm but storms are accompanied by thunderbolts, and although Romulus himself is not represented as fulmine ictus, one of his ancestors, and his doublet, the Alban king Romulus Silvius was indeed struck by a thunderbolt. La fulguration was an ambiguous event that could be regarded either comme une rcompense ou comme un chtiment. Thus la disparation de Romulus est donc bien place sous le signe de la foudre (93). It is true that thunderbolts were sent by Jupiter, but still it was un signe ign, which cannot be separated from the lightning that confirmed Romulus regnum, and this sign was in turn lhomologue of the sign accorded by Vulcan to Caeculus (see below). If this is not enough to clinch the argument, then we have to recall that according to a rival tradition Romulus was murdered by the senators. And where was he murdered? In the temple of Vulcan!

Forging Volcanus

539

647

A marvelous sorites, a splendid heap of misapplied erudition! A thunderbolt is not one and the same thing as lightning. Lightning (fulmen) figures prominently in the augural lore: it was a vitium for the comitia but for all other things optumum auspicium (Cic. De div. 2.4243, 2.74); in particular it was sought by the magistrates entering upon office and by Romulus when he assumed his kingship (cf. J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW II.16.3 [1986] 2150, 216970, 2229, 228283). Cicero distinguishes strictly between fulmina, flashes of lightning in their application as auspicia, and thunderbolts, fulgura (cf. C. Thulin, Fulgur, fulmen und Wortfamilie, Archiv fr lateinische Lexikographie 14 [1906] 36991, 50914). Thunderbolts had to be expiated (Cic. De leg. 2.21); the spot struck by lightning (fulguritum) was regarded as locus religiosus (Festus [Paulus] 82 L.), and the person killed by lightning was denied the iusta, the ritual funeral (Festus 190 L.); cf. R. Schilling, Iuppiter Fulgur, in Mlanges P. Boyanc (Rome 1974) 68189; H. Le Bourdells, La loi du foudroy, REL 51 (1973) 6276 (Capdeville lists and ignores these articles). C. Thulin in his classic book Die etruskische Disciplin (Gteborg 19059, reprinted Darmstadt 1968) 9091 (cf. 78), points out that while Romans leaned toward an unfavorable interpretation of the thunderbolts, Etruscans would interpret them in malam or in bonam partem. And thus si quem principem civitatis vel regem fulmen afflaverit et supervixerit, posteros eius nobiles futuros et aeternae gloriae (Servius auctus, Aen. 2.649). Now Caeculus of Praeneste invocato Vulcano, ut eum filium comprobaret ... est flamma circumdatus (Servius, Aen. 7.678). The fulmen regale and the flamma of Caeculus prophesied the future. Technically they are to be classified as omens. The lightning Romulus received was an auspicium, divine permission, not prophecy. And the storm (with or without lightning) during which Romulus disappeared does not belong here at all: it marked the end, not the future or the present. F. Coarelli (Il Foro Romano I [Roma 1983] 16199) has brilliantly identified the Volcanal with the area of the Lapis Niger; this was also the place of the heron of Romulus. But we know that in the Volcanal there were placed various objects that were struck by lightning. Was - n a puteal? Romulus indeed fulmine ictus, his putative heroo The Roman Volcanus cannot be disjoined from the Cretan Velchanos (or Zeus Velchanos), the Cyprian Valchanos, and the Etruscan Velchans and Sethlans. We have no space left to accompany the author on this arduous journey (155409); his exposition is engrossing, the conclusions uncertain. Vulcan (whose name is to be connected with the word for wolf) was a god anciennement subordonn une Grande Desse [not in Rome, but the role of Fortuna in the story of Servius Tullus is a reflex of the original situation] et orient principalement vers les jeunes guerriers [like Romulus!], dont il est le prototype et dont il garantit linitiation [in Etruria, the author admits, no trace of this in the sources], mais participant galement la tutelle de toutes les activits lies la souverainet, dont la metallurgie a fait partie lorigine (423). It has indeed been suggested that the link between forge and regia originated in Asia Minor and that it can be discovered in the names of various dynasts like Tarkumuwa, Tarkondimotos, also the Etruscan Tarchon and Tarquinius, all presumably connected with Tarhu, the Hittite thunder god (A. Alfldi, Die Struktur des

540

Historia et Religio

voretruskischen Rmerstaates [Heidelberg 1974] 181219). Capdeville restrains himself from following up this lead; perhaps a pity for Alfldi takes us also on an expedition to Central Asia, where we meet Turkic and Mongolian chieftains (with the suggestive name of office: tarchan or darchan) who happen to be semi-divine Schmied-Knige, rois forgerons. It is a long way to Rome.

43 IUPPITER DOLICHENUS, HERCULES, AND VOLCANUS IN BALACLAVA*

To modern historians Balaclava is the name of the great, bloody and heroic battle of British and Russian troops during the Crimean War. Roman historians are pleased to observe that Roman troops were there earlier, and stayed longer. Recent excavations have revealed further traces of Roman military presence, remnants of a Dolichenum, and a number of Latin inscriptions1. About the date of this military sanctuary the authors of the article have this to say (p. 333): Dem Textinhalt der Inschrift Nr. 2 kann entnommen werden, dass das in den Jahren 139-161 restituierte Heiligtum sptestens unter Antoninus Pius ca. 150 gegrndet wurde. The Antonine date is derived from a dedication to Hercules (no. 1, p. 325 {AE 1998 [2001], 1154}): Herculi sacr(um) / pro salute imp(eratoris) / Antonini Aug(usti) et M(arci) / Aureli(i) Caes(aris). Marcus Aurelius became Caesar in 139, and Antoninus Pius died in 161. This dedication was erected by Anton(ius) / Valens trib(unus) milit(um) / leg(ionis) I Ital(icae) per Novi / um Ulpian(um) > (centurionem) leg(ionis) / eiusd(em). The idea of the rebuilding of the sanctuary, also under Antoninus Pius, is derived from the partially damaged inscription in honor of Iuppiter Dolichenus which S-Z-S reconstitute in the following way (no. 2, pp. 32629 {AE 1998 [2001], 1156}): I(ovi) o(ptimo) m(aximo) Doliche[no] / vexillat(io) [Moesiae] / inf(erioris) quae est [ ] / sub cur[a Ant(onii) Valen] / tis trib(uni) [milit(um) leg(ionis) I Ital(icae)] / templu[m a solo res] / titui[t per Novium] / Ulpi[an(um) > (centurionem) leg(ionis) / eiusd(em)]. These two inscriptions are clearly contemporaneous; as S-Z-S observe they stratigraphically belong to the ersten festgehaltenen Bauphase (p. 333). That the sanctuary was after its foundation almost immediately rebuilt, calls for an explanation. The authors speculate dass es sich zunchst um eine Kultsttte unter freiem Himmel bzw. mit einem Holzbau handelte (p. 333). This is complicated and unnecessary. The formula a solo restituere is indeed well known, but all chronological troubles will disappear if we find another persuasive supplement for the lacuna in line 6. Such a supplement is at hand: templu[m a solo cons] / titui[t]2.
* 1 Historia 49 (2000) 128129 {with addenda and corrections}. They have been published, with an erudite commentary, by T. Sarnowski, V.M. Zubar, O.Ja. Savelja, Zum religisen Leben der niedermoesischen Vexillationen auf der Sdkrim. Inschriftenfunde aus dem neuentdeckten Dolichenum von Balaklawa, Historia 47, 1998, 32141 (hereafter = S-Z-S). For the phrase templum constituere, see e.g. ILS 235, 4231-32; {609; AE 1983,776 (a fundamentis)}. Cf. 4384, 4484 (templum a solo facere), 7314, 9155 (templum a solo instruere, extruere). {For the precise phrase templum a solo constituere, see Appendix at the end of this piece.}

542

Historia et Religio

129

Later in the century, the temple was devastated by a fire and was indeed reconstituted. To this later phase belongs the altar dedicated to Volcanus (pp. 33738); it bears the following inscription (no. 5, pp. 33031 {AE 1998 [2001], 1161}): Volcano / sacrum / host. v. v. / Anto(nius) Proc(ulus ?) / > (centurio) leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae). In line 3, as is well visible on the appended photograph (no. 9), host. and v. v. are separated by triangular punctuation marks. S-Z-S propose to read host(iam) u(t) v(ovit). The formula ut vovit (or voverat) is indeed well known3, and it often appears abbreviated as v. v. For the expression hostiam vovere S-Z-S adduce no examples; and if there are any epigraphical attestations, they are not easily ascertainable4. The Latin Data Bank (as in n. 3) produced three instances: Liv. 30,27,1112: quasque hostias maiores voverat (sc. T. Manlius dictator in 208), and further: hostiaeque quibus votae erant dis caesae (in 202); Tac. Hist. 2,3,2: hostiae, ut quisque vovit, sed mares deliguntur (of Venus Paphia {cf. in this volume, No. 39}); Calp. Flaccus, Declamationum excerpta 24: feriat hostiam, quam dis penatibus vovit (feriat refers to a father, and his son is the hostia!). S-Z-S surmise that the hostia was sacrificed to Volcanus when the altar was set up (p. 331), and they suggest that the blood of the victim may have been meant to reproduce the red color of the fire (p. 338). An ingenious but unlikely supposition: the blood of all victims was red, and hence no particular sympathetic connection can a priori be established or even postulated between sacrificial blood and Volcanus or fire. In support of their interpretation S-Z-S adduce the study of Volcanus by W. Eisenhut5, but they have misread his statement. Eisenhut writes indeed: die rote Farbe der Opfertiere gibt die Farbe des lodernden Feuers wieder, but his reference is not to the blood but to the reddish color of the victims pelt. The victims in question are mentioned in the remarkable inscription CIL VI 826 = 30837 b = ILS 4914, recording the dedication by the emperor Domitian of an area and ara in the belated discharge of the vow made at the time of the great fire under Nero. The vow and the dedication were made incendiorum arcendorum causa. The lex dedicationis specified that each year an offering (sacrum) be made to Volcanus on the day of the Volcanalia (23 August) vitulo robeo et verre r(obeo). The combi3 Written out in full, e.g. ILS 3859 (ut vovit), 4202 (ut voverat; ut voverant), 4206 (sic ut voverat). The abbreviation in ILS 3210, 3674. The phrase is practically limited to epigraphy. The search through the (unfortunately still incomplete) electronic files of The Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank revealed no exact literary matches, and only two fairly close examples, Liv. 10,37,15 (ut Romulus antevoverat) and Tac. Hist. 2,3,2 (see above in the text). The search in the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg produced eight inscriptions (all from AE) in which appears the word hostia, but not in the combination hostiam vovere. The closest match is AE 1925, 14 (from Rome): voto suscepto / ex hostia quam / ipse fecit / Silvano / d. d. Volcanus, RE Suppl. 14, 1974, 955. See also C. Krause, Hostia, RE Suppl. 5, 1931, 243, 246, 249. The best study of the symbolism of the red color in Roman cult is still E. Wunderlich, Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Griechen und Rmer (= Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten XX, 1), Giessen 1925, esp. 9699, on the red color as a symbol of sun and fire, also as evidenced by the sacrifice of rutilae canes at the ceremony of canarium sacrificium (Festus 358 L.). No discussion in G. Capdeville, Volcanus, Rome 1995. {Cf. in this volume, No. 42.}

Iuppiter Dolchenus, Hercules, and Volcanus in Balaclava

543

nation of vitulus and verres is attested only in this inscription and only with respect to Volcanus6. One wonders whether this sacrifice does not provide a clue to a better comprehension of the Balaclava inscription: perhaps we should read in lines 23 Volcano / sacrum / host(iis) v(itulo) v(erre). ADDENDUM When I was reading proofs of this note I was just able to consult the new contribution by T. Sarnowski and O.Ja. Savelja, Das Dolichenum von Balaklawa und die rmischen Streitkrfte auf der Sdkrim, Archeologia (Warsaw) 49, 1998 (1999), 1554. With respect to inscriptions no. 1 and 5 they introduce no changes either in the text or interpretation (pp. 4142, 4445, 5152). They publish, however, a new dedication (pp. 4243): Herculi sacr(um) / sub cur(a) Ant(onii) / Val(entis) trib(uni) milit(um) / vexill(atio) exerc(itus) / [Moesiae inf(erioris)]. On the basis of this text they propose a new supplement in inscription no. 2, line 2 (pp. 4344). Their original idea was vexillat(io) [Moesiae]; now they convincingly supply vexillat(io) [ex(ercitus) Moes(iae)]. In lines 56 they still read templu[m a solo res] / titui[t. {See now a comprehensive volume devoted to the excavations at Balaclava: T. Sarnowski, O.Ja. Savelja (eds.), Balaklava. Rmische Militrstation und Heiligtum des Iupiter Dolichenus (= Swiatowit Supplement Series A: Antiquity, vol. V [Warschau 2000], the title also in Russian, and all contributions both in German and in Russian. For our purpose of importance are Lateinische Inschriften und Ziegelstempel by A.A. Filippenko (pp. 8398) and Zu den Familienverhltnissen der rmischen Soldaten und Offiziere auf der Sdkrim by O.Ja. Savelja and T. Sarnowski (pp. 197200). In the inscription no. 2 (see above, n. 2) Filippenko acknowledges the supplement templu[m a solo cons] / titui[t, but thinks that the ordinatio of the text favors restituit (pp. 8688, 9596), and also wonders (but only in the Russian text, p. 95, n. 12) whether there exists any example of the precise phrase templum a solo constituere (and not merely of templum constituere). I am now able to adduce two almost certain examples (I owe them to the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg): Inscriptiile Daciei Romane III.3, no. 280: templum / [a solo c]onstituit (cf. AE 1959,306); Inscriptions Latines de lAlgrie I.1026: templum a solo c(onstituit). As to the expansion host(iis) v(itulo) v(erre) in inscription no. 5, Filippenko and also Savelja - Sarnowski (but again only in the Russian text) record it as a varia lectio (pp. 89, 96, 198). Cf. also AE 2000 [2003], 1281. The same set of inscriptions was again discussed by V.M. Zubar, oe II III . , [New Latin Epigraphical Monuments of the Second Century down to the Middle of the Third Century from Chersonesos, Balaclava and Charax], Stratum plus 2000 [2002], no. 6, 24864; see the inscriptions: Balaclava, no. 4, accepting the supplement cons] / titui[t]; no. 8, retaining the reading u(t) v(ovit).}
6 Cf. C. Krause, De Romanorum hostiis quaestiones selectae, Marpurgi Cattorum 1894, 35. {This conjunction also occurs in a dedication to Hercules from Sulmo: see JRA 11 (1998) 460, no. 7 (reprinted above, No. 30).}

44 SIC VALEAS: A LATIN INJUNCTION, THE SYMPHONIACI, AND THE AFTERLIFE*

In a recent volume of Epigraphica Marta Sensi has enriched the patrimonio epigrafico publishing with akribeia and acumen a number of inscriptions from the collection of G. N. Olcott1. Among these texts there is also the following funerary stone (no. 11, pp. 21617):
Rubria Felici tati v(ixit) a(nnos) XXV symphoniace Mercurio tuo sic valeas canta

186

The text is surrounded by a border, and as Sensi describes it, sul listello esterno a sinistra e a destra, tra le linee 2 e 3, sono state incise le lettere F C, con una leggere scalpellatura dei listelli. These letters were apparently omitted, and added after the whole text had already been incised. The excellent photograph verifies the reading, and here lies the problem: individual words are assured and comprehensible and yet the meaning of the entire text is mystifying. The stone would appear to be set up by a Rubria for a deceased named Felicitas who had lived for twenty five years. The letters F C we have probably to expand as f(aciundum) c(uravit); Sensi also considers the expansions f(liae) or f(eminae) c(arissimae). But above all she suggests that there is a stone cutters mistake in line 1: the reading Rubria is wrong; we should emend it to Rubriae. In this way by a stroke of pen though not of chisel we acquire the full name of the defunct: Rubria Felicitas2. If so, a question obtrudes: who set up the stone? The answer is connected with symphoniace in line 3. Sensi observes that this word can be construed as a Greek feminine noun standing either in the nominative or vocative. If it is the nominative, we acquire the personal name Symphoniace; she would be the person who erected the stone. This is not very attractive: first of all the feminine name Symphoniace does not seem to be attested3; next the indication f(aciumdum)
* 1 2 Epigraphica 65 (2003) 185195 {with minor addenda}. M. Sensi, La collezione archeologico epigrafica di George N. Olcott, Epigraphica, 63 (2001), pp. 194224. The omission of an E before F is indeed an easy mistake. And in epitaphs the name of the deceased normally stands first. Occasionally, however, the order is reversed. This may well be the case in our inscription. Cf. CIL, V, 2884 = ILS, 5107 (from Patavium), lines 26: Purricina Iu/veni provocanti, co/iugi benemerenti / fecit, qui vixit an/nis XXI (provocanti = provocatori). The masculine name Symphoniacus appears to be only once on record: CIL, VI, 23369 (cf. H.

Sic valeas

545

187

c(uravit) was normally placed after the name of the person responsible for the monument and not before4 i.e. on our stone it ought to have been added between lines 3 and 4 (and not 2 and 3). And, thirdly, we miss the nomen gentile; it is unlikely that the exequiae of Rubria Felicitas should have been supervised solely by a person called Symphoniace, presumably a slave. On the other hand the vocative appears appealing; Sensi suggests that it will be the vocative of Rubrias supernomen5. She writes that si fa riferimento alla bella voce o allattivit di cantante della defunta, tanto pi che tre righe sotto la si invita a cantare a Mercurio, che forse era il marito o il padre. Yet, if she was a cantante, then symphoniace will not be a soprannome but rather a description of her trade; and on the other hand if it was a supernomen it need not have had anything to do with the vocal abilities of the deceased. For the denomination of the trade the Greek-English Lexicon of LIDDELLSCOTT-JONES adduces under the entry sumfvniakw, -, -n, solely a Latin reference, Cic., Mil., 55, and the Revised Supplement (1996, ed. by P. G. W. GLARE) still does not know of any genuine Greek term6. Here the contribution of epigraphy stands in high relief: The inscription CIL, VI, 33373 = IGUR, II, 1, Romae 1972, pp. 23, no. 269 reads: Ost / Agayo/tow su/mfvnia/kw Okt/aouaw7. Sensi avers non escluso che Rubria Felicitas fosse membro del collegio dei Symphoniaci 8. This is unlikely. The collegium symphoniacorum, the collegium
Solin, Die griechischen Personenamen in Rom, Berlin 1982, II, p. 1024). In this and other searches I acknowledge the help of various databanks, lists of names, and concordances, in particular: the Packard Humanities Institutes Latin Data Bank and Documentary Disk (including Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri); Bibliotheca Latina Teubneriana; Thesaurus Linguae Graecae; Patrologia Latina Database; Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg ; P. COLAFRANCESCO, M. MASSARO, M. L. RICCI, Concordanze dei Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Bari 1986; M. L. FELE, C. COCCO, E. ROSSI, A. FLORE, Concordantiae in Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Hildesheim 1988. This statement can easily be verified by running a search for the phrase faciundum curavit in the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg. It would, however, be a new supernomen: it is not listed in I. KAJANTO, Supernomina, Helsinki 1967. The Oxford Latin Dictionary indicates that Lat. symphoniacus = sumfvniakw. This is certainly true, but the Greek term is as yet not attested (see above in the text). The feminine sumfvniak, symphoniaca is, however, on record as an alternate name for henbane (hyoscyamos), frequently in Latin and rarely in Greek: TLG lists only two instances, both in medical authors (in addition to dictionaries and electronic data banks, see J. ANDR, Lexique des termes de botanique en Latin, Paris 1956, 308, with a number of further references). The word itself, whether in its musical or botanical application, seems to have been a Roman invention. In its musical sense it is absent from the entire Greek literature as it is also from Plautus and Terence; it makes its first appearance in Cicero (altogether five attestations in Cicero and at least five in other classical authors, and several in Christian; see nn. 11, 15). It is interesting to observe that Dioscorides, Mat. med., IV, 68, adducing various names for oskamow says that some (i d) call it sumfvnakam; the Latin termination betrays the Roman origin of the word. From the same columbarium comes a parallel inscription, CIL, VI, 33372: Europe / Octaviae / symphoni/aca. L. MORETTI in his annotation in IGUR corrects on the basis of autopsy the reading symphoniaci into symphoniaca in CIL, VI, 23369, line 3; the inscription now reads: Ode / C. Cassi / symphoniaca / vixi(t) an(nis) XIIX / Moschion / contubernali (cf. n. 3). P. 217. She also observes that DESSAU in ILS lists inscriptions containing the appellative

4 5 6

546

Historia et Religio

188

tibicinum and fidicinum were officially recognized associations of public utility, qui sacris publicis praesto sunt. There is no evidence, and it is unlikely, that women were ever admitted to these associations9. If the invocation symphoniace refers in fact to Felicitas, she will be a private musician. Yet it need not necessarily refer to her. We may be dealing with the vocative of the masc. symphoniacus and not with the (otherwise unattested) vocative (or nominative) of the Greek sumfvniak in Latin garb. A not unattractive possiblity is to postulate the dative symphoniac(a)e, a spelling of the dative not infrequent in inscriptions10. But in this case symphoniac(a)e would be awkwardly separated from Felicitati. Who were the symphoniaci (-cae)? They were musicians, male and female. In Cicero the word appears always in the plural; Cicero thus refers to a band of musicians. Indeed legal authors treat the symphoniaci as a unit: if one of them is killed, the remaining depreciate in value. They are thus assumed to be slaves; they are all slaves in Cicero, in Petronius and in Macrobius11. On the other hand all epigraphically attested members of the collegia of tibicines and fidicines were either ingenui or liberti12. This is brilliantly corroborated by iconographical evidence: the tibicines and fidicines who appear on reliefs pertaining to official ludi, sacrifices and solemn processions are represented as togati, that is as cives Romani13. We must now ask what sort of musicians they were. Whenever they are introduced as a group no indication is given as to the instruments they used, but Servius auctus (Aen., XI, 737) explains Vergils curva tibia as an instrument of symphoniaci14. In Petronius (Sat., 18, 5) a symphoniacus appears cum minimis ... tibiis, and also in Christian authors they are associated with flutes and pipes15. Tibiae were
symphoniacus among Tituli pertinentes ad ludos, and thus ritiene che tale termine indichi membri di questo collegio. Certainly not. DESSAU takes the denomination ludi in a broad sense, and in his Indices he lists the symphoniaci in the section entitled Artes et officia privata (vol. III, 2, p. 742). SENSI refers here (p. 217, n. 110) to F. M. DE ROBERTIS, Storia delle corporazioni e del regime associativo nel mondo romano, I, Bari 1972, pp. 195237; but in this chapter De Robertis is concerned solely with the lex Iulia (de collegiis) and the legal standing of the collegia, including the collegium symphoniacorum (CIL, VI, 4416), and does not discuss at all the composition of that collegium or the meaning of the term symphoniacus. For the epigraphical and literary dossier, see J. P. WALTZING, tude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains, IV, Louvain 1900, pp. 13235; see also below, n. 12. DESSAU, ILS, III, 2, p. 843. Cic., Div. in Caec., 55; Verr., II, 5, 64 and 73; Pis., 83; Mil., 55; Petr., Sat., 28, 5; Macr., Sat., II, 4, 28; Gaius, Inst. III, 212; Dig. (Paulus libro XXII ad edictum), IX, 22, 1. CIL, VI, 240, 1054, 2191, 2192, 2584, 3696, 3877, 3877a. F. FLESS, Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadtrmischen historischen Reliefs, Mainz 1995, pp. 7984, 8990, esp. 83 (iconographically this is a well researched study, but the author is infected with the irritating habit of presenting simple reprints of older works as new editions, and thus instead of the history of an argument we get a wobbly pile of titles). This refers, however, to the Bacchic cult; cf. G. WILLE, Musica Romana, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 5455. Arnobius, Adv. gentes, II, 42 (Patr. Lat., V, col. 880A): ut ... s y m p h o n i a c a s agerent et fistulatorias hic artes, ut inflandis bucculas distenderent tibiis; Augustinus, Contra Gaudentium, I, 38 (Patr. Lat., XLIII, col. 737): s y m p h o n i a c i daemoniorum, quorum tibia et scabella fregistis; IDEM, de musica, III, 1 (Patr. Lat., XXXII, col. 1115): velut cum s y m p h o n i a c i sca-

10 11 12 13

14 15

Sic valeas

547

189

ubiquitous in Roman cult, and the collegium tibicinum belonged to the oldest associations the creation of which was ascribed to Numa16. The fidicines functioned at celebrations ritu Graeco, and also at various cultic processions, also ritu Romano17. Thus it is eminently possible that the collegium symphoniacorum qui sacris publicis praestu (sic) sunt of the Augustan period embraced both the tibicines and fidicines18. Felicitas was in some way connected with Mercurius. Now Mercurius was a name relatively frequent among slaves, freedmen and in general among the lower
bella et cymbala pedibus feriunt ... tenore perpetuo, ita ut si tibias non audias, nullo modo ibi notare possis quousque procurrat connexio pedum {for scabellum, see A. BLIS, BCH, 112 (1988), pp. 32339, esp. 33738}; Rufinus Aquileiensis, Hist. monach., 16 (Patr. Lat., XXI, col. 435C): he mentions a s y m p h o n i a c u s , qui ... cantandi arte victum quareret, but we soon learn that this musician fistulas manu gerebat. And finally Primasius Adrumetanensis (VIth c.), Comment. super Apocalypsin Joannis, V, 18 (Patr. Lat., LXVIII, col. 908B) speaks of vox citharaedorum et musicorum, et symphoniacorum, et tubicinum. He thus opposes the citharoedi and symphoniaci; the latter must be the tibicines. 16 Plut., Quaest. rom., 55; cf. WALTZING, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 13334. 17 FLESS, op. cit. (above, n. 13), p. 83. 18 WALTZING, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 132, 135, following some earlier scholars (particularly MOMMSEN) regards them as identical with the collegium tibicinum, but this idea was rightly contested by W. LIEBENAM, Zur Geschichte und Organisation des rmischen Vereinswesens, Leipzig 1890, pp. 3132 125, who, however, did not propose any positive solution. J. QUASTEN, Musik und Gesang in den Kulten der heidnischen Antike und christlichen Frhzeit, Mnster 1930 (reprint 1972), pp. 2223; WILLE, op. cit. (above, n. 14), p. 34; A. BAUDOT, Musiciens romains de lantiquit, Montral-Paris 1973, pp. 4044, regard the collegium symphoniacorum as an amalgamation of the collegia tibicinum and fidicinum. We should follow the good sense of G. WISSOWA, Religion und Kultus der Rmer2, Mnchen 1912, p. 498, n. 4, and keep the symphoniaci separate from the old and privileged association of tibicines. The collegium symphoniacorum will be the association of the musicians who performed at the newer sacra and ludi, both tibicines (they will use the curva tibia that had no place in the ritus Romanus; cf. above, n. 14), fidicines and other performers, all those whose instruments and voice produced a symphonia. On this concept, see WILLE, op. cit., pp. 706, 711, 715; at the festivals of Isis a symphonia may have included the sound of harp, cf. J. G. GRIFFITH, Apuleius of Madauros. The Isis Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI), Leiden 1975 (= EPRO 39), pp. 18485. {Cf. also A. BLIS, Les termes grecs et latins dsignant des spcialits musicales, RPh, 62 (1988), 22750, esp. 24749 on the symphoniaci; V. PCH, Collegium tibicinum romanorum, une association de musiciens au service de la religion romaine, in P. BRUL and C. VENDRIES (eds.), Chanter les dieux. Musique et religion dans lAntiquit grecque et romaine, Rennes 2001, pp. 30738, a rather uneven study; for the history and the legal standing of the collegia she relies almost exclusively on Waltzing. Contrary to her assertion (p. 333) there is no shred of evidence that the old collegium tibicinum was among the associations suppressed in 64 by the decree of the senate, and that it was subsequently reorganized under the lex Iulia of Augustus. On the other hand she very sensibly argues that under Augustus une nouvelle association de musiciens du culte ait t cre, adoptant le nom symphoniaci qui correspondait mieux la diversit des instrumentistes runis en son sein (p. 333). D. COMAND, Collegium Symphoniacorum, in Scritti in memoria di Giambattista Impallomeni, Milano 1999, pp. 10722 at 11316, also sees in the collegium symphoniacorum an association comprising various kinds of musicians. See further the excellent piece by M. G. GRANINO CECERE, Tibicines populi Romani qui sacris publicis presto sunt tra Roma e Tibur, in M. L. LAZZARINI and P. LOMBARDI (eds.), LItalia centro meridionale tra repubblica e primo impero. Alcuni aspetti culturali e istituzionali [= Opuscula Epigraphica, 11], Roma 2003, pp. 7591.}

548

Historia et Religio

classes of ultimately servile origin19. But he will hardly be the father of Felicitas; tuo marks him rather as husband (or contubernalis). For this usage of tuo in epitaphs two parallel examples can be adduced20: CLE, 1043 = CIL, V, 3653 (from Verona), lines 45: Functa iaces hic, set (sic) vivis vivesque Secun/do Laelia tuo. The prescript provides clarity (lines 14): Laeliae Clementine (sic) / uxori incomparabili / Q. Furius Secundus mari/tus et sibi vivus fecit; CLE, 2173 = CIL, III, 14292 (from Salonae), lines 23: Ulpia Celerina dulcis habe (= have) / Gorgonio tuo castissima senper (sic); in this epitaph it is the postscript (lines 1214) that fully clarifies the family situation: Ulpius Gorgonius / piissimus Celerine conpari / pientissime (sic). In the inscription of Felicitas there is no such clarification: tuo connects her intimately with Mercurius, but their precise status remains unexplained. Let us assume for the sake of argument that it is the deceased who is addressed as symphoniace. Felicitas is thus encouraged to sing21 for Mercurius. She is to sing sic valeas. About this phrase Sensi has nothing to report, but it is here that the crux resides. Exclamations and exhortations with various forms of valeo are frequent and frequently banal, but sic in conjunction with valeo is rare: only two epigraphical examples, and only four examples in the literature. The phrase is not only rare: also its usage is peculiar. This is well illustrated by a passage of Phaedrus, IV, 2, 1019:
190

Mustela cum annis et senecta debilis mures veloces non valeret adsequi, involvit se farina et obscuro loco abiecit neglegenter. Mus escam putans adsiluit et compressus occubuit neci. Alter similiter, deinde perit et tertius Aliquot secutis venit et retorridus, qui saepe laqueos et muscipula effugerat; proculque insidias cernens hostis callidi: s i c v a l e a s , inquit, ut farina es, quae iaces!

The last punch line contains a word play: farina denotes not only flour but also dust. The experienced wizened mouse so addresses the sly weasel: May you so prosper, that you are dust, you who are lying (i.e. you who are lying covered with meal and pretending to be food, may you indeed turn to dust)22. Opinion has been expressed that this phrase utilizes an old Eid- und Selbstfluchungsformel 23. Sic
19 I. KAJANTO, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki 1965, pp. 134, 216; H. SOLIN, Die stadtrmischen Sklavennamen. Ein Namenbuch, Stuttgart 1996, I, pp. 2829. 20 And in the divine sphere, cf. AE 1977, 584, line 16: [P]roserpina cum tuo Plutone. 21 The imperative canta is frequently adduced by grammarians, but in fine literature it occurs only once: Ovid., Ars amat., I, 595: si vox est, canta! 22 Cf. TLL, s. v. farina, coll. 28384. E. OBERG, Phaedrus-Kommentar, Stuttgart 2000, pp. 16364, comments: Die Rede beginnt ironisch formell: sic valeas, und setzt sich mit einem befremdlichen Vergleich fort, in dem vielleicht das Mehl in seiner Eigenschaft als kraftlos verdebliches Nahrungsmittel gesehen wird. 23 O. SCHNBERGER in an article of 1991, not available to me, but quoted non-committally by OBERG, Phaedrus-Kommentar, p. 164.

Sic valeas

549

191

figures indeed prominently and pointedly in various formulas of oath and curse24, but in those formulas it is not associated with valeo. Yet valeo itself, normally robust and positive, may acquire on occasion a negative connotation, a sense wistful, repelling and even outrightly cursing25. The Oxford Latin Dictionary (p. 2006, s. v. valeo 3 c and d) classifies these usages as in taking leave of the dead and as a formula of scornful dismissal to persons and things. Roman grammarians and commentators were also well aware of that aspect of the verb, and they provided more insightful descriptions than their modern Oxonian colleagues. Servius in his commentary to the Aeneis addresses the problem three times. At V, 80 he invokes the opinion of Varro: salve et vale secundum Varronem in logistoricis synonyma sunt: unde his et in salutatione utimur, et in exsecrationibus: ut v a l e a n t qui inter nos discidium volunt26: unde etiam haec mortuis dicimus, non quo eis optemus salutem, in quibus nulla esse potest; sed ut significemus, nos sic digredi, ut ostendamus, eos numquam in nostram communionem venturos. He repeats the same explanation in a slightly different form at XI, 97: Varro in libris logistoricis dicit, ideo mortuis salve et vale dici, non quod valere aut salvi esse possunt, sed quod ab his recedimus eos numquam visuri. Hinc ortum est ut etiam maledicti significationem interdum vale obtineat, ut Terentius v a l e a n t qui inter nos discidium volunt, hoc est ita a nobis discedant, ut numquam ad nostrum revertantur aspectum . At III, 493 Servius interprets this and other similar usages as per contrarium inventa maledicta. Thus not only scornful dismissal but also occasionally (interdum) curse and abuse, exsecratio and maledictio. In the same vein the author of Fragmenta Bobiensia ad grammaticam pertinentia (ed. H. Keil, Grammatici Latini, VIII, Lipsiae 1880, p. 544, line 33) quoting Terence explains valeat as pereat. In this perspective, when in Phaedrus the mouse addresses the weasel sic valeas, he really says sic pereas! The same flavor the phrase has in a verse of Martial VI, 61, 3-4 (Martials interlocutor Faustinus speaking): s i c leve flavorum v a l e a t genus Usiporum, / quisquis et Ausonium non amat imperium. In isolation the meaning of sic is obscure; it receives its point from the context. The poem is directed against a real or fictitious poetaster Pompullus: the Usipi may ... perish as the works of Pompullus will 27.
24 It will suffice to quote Liv., I, 7, 2 (s i c deinde, quicumque alius transiliet moenia mea); 24, 8 (populum Romanum s i c ferito ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam); 26, 4 (s i c eat quaecumque Romana lugebit hostem). 25 There is no discussion of this application of valere in J. HELLEGOUARCH, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la rpublique, Paris 1963 or in I. OPELT, Die lateinischen Schimpfwrter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen, Heidelberg 1965. 26 Terent., Andria, 69697. Varro probably commented on the etymology and usage of valeo in Messala de valetudine; cf. E. BOLISANI, I logistorici varroniani, Padova 1937, p. 108; and on the dialogue itself, see B. ZUCCHELLI, Varro logistoricus. Studio letterario e prosopografico, Parma 1980, pp. 5052. 27 So, excellently, D. R. SHACKLETON BAILEY in his Loeb edition and translation of Martials Epigrams, Cambridge (MA) 1993, II, p. 47. See also the erudite commentary by F. GREWING, Martial, Buch VI, Gttingen 1997, pp. 38897, esp. 39192 (historical background), and 392, 502 (the sense of valeo, including Greek parallels and antecedents).

550

Historia et Religio

192

192

CIL VI, 28044 = CLE, 1574, is an epitaph and a curse (lines 410): L. Valerio infanti / raptus qui est subito, / quo fato, non scitur. / natus noctis h(ora) VI / vixit diebus LXXI, / ab(i)it noctis ab h(ora) VI. / quisquis eum laesit, / s i c cum suis v a l e a t . The last line is not an injunction againt grave violation. It takes up the statement raptus ... quo fato, non scitur. Whoever harmed the infant (by a spell?) let him prosper in the same manner, i.e. may he perish with all his family. The mention of sui indicates that the object of the curse is a human and not an irate or evil deity. We come back to Phaedrus: the epitaph displays affinity of form and content with the maxim expressed by the fabulist (I, 26, 12): Nulli nocendum: siquis vero laeserit / multandum simili iure fabula admonet28. Against this background the injunction sic valeas in the inscription of Felicitas seems to assume a sinister sound. But before we embrace this interpretation let us inspect the three cases in which the phrase has a propitious or at least a neutral sense. At Cicero, de fato, 8, the phrase has a simple declarative value29, and thus forms no parallel to the usage in our inscription. More promising is Ovid, Epist. ex Pont., IV, 13, 47: s i c v a l e a n t pueri, votum commune deorum, referring probably to the sons of Germanicus. This line echoes the preceding verses (4546): sic capto Latiis Germanicus hoste catenis / materiam vestris adferat ingeniis, may Germanicus provide a subject for your (poetic) talents sic, i.e. with the enemy captive in Latin chains; and may the boys prosper sic, i.e. as the universal vow to the gods, universally entrusted to divine care. Ovids Ex Ponto was a poetry serious and fruitless; in an Pompeian inscription the same phrase is employed in a joyous and jocular way worthy of Ars Amatoria. We read, CIL, IV, 4007 (cf. CLE, 233): Tu pupa s i c v a l e a s / sic habeas / Venere(m) Pompeianam / propytiam. The immediate context is missing, but two interpretations offer. Before marriage dolls were offered by girls to Venus30; we may here have a reference to this custom. A more frivolous and more likely interpretation will take pupa in the sense of puella, and treat the graffito as an invocation to amor; the pupae nocturnae mentioned in CIL, IV, 4353, come to mind (cf. IV, 6842, where a pupa is likened to Venus). We are now rather well informed about the phrase sic valeas, but its precise sense in the inscription of Felicitas remains elusive. The main reason is the lack of obvious context. What does sic refer to? Now, as it is Felicitas who seems to be singing, and as she is dead, the adverb must refer to her present state. But it is unlikely that she is to utter an imprecatio. The pronoun tuo imparts to the whole
28 Cf. OBERG, Phaedrus-Kommentar (above, n. 22), pp. 8385. The use of tenses, laesit in the inscription versus laeserit in Phaedrus, is of some interest. In sentences introduced by si there are in the authors seven cases of the use of laesit and five of laeserit. The former implies the fact, the latter a possibility, and thus the distinction is between whoever harmed and whoever may have harmed. The inscription assumes as a fact that somebody had harmed the infant; the only thing not known is the person of the wrongdoer. 29 Ut igitur ad quasdam res natura loci pertinet aliquid, ad quasdam autem nihil, sic affectio astrorum valeat si vis ad quasdam res, ad omnes certe non valebit. The subjunctive valeat depends on the limiting interjection si vis. 30 Pers., Sat. II, 70, and the Scholia ad loc. (citing Varro). Other sources mention in this context the Lares, cf. J. MARQUARDT, Das Privatleben der Rmer2, Leipzig 1886, 43, n. 12.

Sic valeas

551

194

message a delicate if wistful tone. Is Mercurius dead too? Hardly. If he had predeceased Felicitas he would scarcely have needed any instruction or encouragement from a newcomer to the netherworld. But if Mercurius is alive, in which way is he to prosper? Perhaps so as Felicitas ultimately in death. We are dealing with an eschatological injunction. In this perspective death is not the end but the beginning of a journey. The very names of Felicitas and Mercurius may have suggested the invocation. As divine figures Mercurius and Felicitas are known to appear side by side31, and one of the functions of the god (inherited from Hermes) was that of psychopompos32. Now in the carmina epigraphica we find occasional references to canere and cantus, but we never encounter a deceased singing for the living33. An enlightening thought occurs: Mercurius the receiver of the song is not a mortal companion of Felicitas but the Psychopompos himself! In this perspective the address symphoniace (whether it is a supernomen or a reference to the occupation of Felicitas) acquires a mystical dimension. We have seen that the term symphoniacus, -a, although most often associated with flutists, may have also comprised fidicines (see above, esp. n. 18). Now Felicitas cannot be imagined as a tibicina: one cannot play the flute and sing at the same time. She will be a fidicina, striking the strings of the lyre and intoning sic valeas. This will be the beginning of her song, a formula of greeting addressed to Mercurius. It was precisely Hermes-Mercurius who was credited with the invention of the lyre34. On that interpretation tuo would identify him as both the inventor and patron of the art of fides and as the personal guide of Felicitas in the realm of the afterlife. For in the numerological and eschatological speculations of the Pythagoreans and the Orphics the lyre assumed a cosmic dimension: its seven strings expressed the order of the universe corresponding to seven planets and seven zones of the heaven. Its harmony reflected the harmony of celestial spheres. A scholiast on Vergil reports: dicunt tamen quidam liram Orphei cum VII cordis fuisse, et celum (sic) habet VII zonas, unde teologia (sic) assignatur, and he continues with this precious nugget of information: Varro autem dicit librum Orfei (sic) de vocanda anima liram nominari, et negantur animae sine cithara posse ascendere35. The first sentence appears to refer to the evocation of souls from the
31 Cf. STEUDING, s. v. Mercurius, (ROSCHER) Ausfhrliches Lexikon der griechischen und rmischen Mythologie, II, 2, 18941897, coll. 281416. 32 B. COMBET-FARNOUX, Mercure romain, Paris 1980, pp. 36873. The epigraphical and iconographical references are, however, very scarce; cf. M. KHANUSSI, Mercure psychopompe en Afrique romaine, MEFRA, 102, 2 (1990), pp. 64749. 33 CLE, 489 = CIL, III, 10501 (from Aquincum), set up by the husband, commemorates (line 1) coniunx pia cara Sabina. She was possessed of musical talents (lines 34): vox ei grata fuit, pulsabat pollice cordas / set cito rapta silet. To the reader of the epitaph a musical invitation is extended (line 9): pia voce cane: Aelia Sabina vale. 34 See W. H. ROSCHER, s. v. Hermes, (ROSCHER) Ausfhrliches Lexikon, I, 2, 18861890, coll. 237273; STEUDING, op. cit. (above, n. 31), col. 2821. 35 The scholion (a comment on Aen. VI, 119, very much in the style of Servius auctus) was first published by J. J. SAVAGE, Notes on Some Unpublished Scholia in a Paris Manuscript, TAPA, 56 (1925), pp. 23536. It was soon analyzed with acumen and erudition in two

552

Historia et Religio

195

underworld; but the statement it is denied that souls can ascend without the help of a lyre expresses the belief in the souls ascent to heaven. This belief recurs in Ciceros Somnium Scipionis (de rep., VI, 18), where Scipio Africanus describes the music of the spheres, and says that learned men by imitiating it on strings and in song opened for themselves the path of return to that (celestial) region: quod docti homines nervis imitati atque cantibus, aperuerunt sibi reditum in hunc locum36. This path was open to those who had learned beforehand what tone to strike and what words to chant. A much discussed sarcophagus in Ravenna (dated to the third century) leads us straight into the mysteries of life and death37. The two occupants are Sosia Iuliana who died at the age of eight, and her mother Tetratia Isias. On the left a female is represented seated and holding a stringed instrument; below there is an ascia. On the right a seated reader holds an open volumen; below there is a bust of Hermes psychopompos38. Between those representations there is a simple and conventional Latin dedication; above enigmatic Greek texts in Latin characters. The defunct had learned to pronounce the sacred grammata (text b); she intones a harmonious melody for which Hermes discovered the rhythm on the lyre
articles by A. D. NOCK, The Lyra of Orpheus, CR, 41 (1927), pp. 16971; Varro and Orpheus, CR, 43 (1929), pp. 6061 (he attributes Varros fragment to his Menippean Onow lraw, an idea contested by J.-P. CBE, Varron, Satires Mnippes, vol. IX, Rome 1990, p. 1483, n. 22). On the concept of the cosmic lyre and the ascent of souls, see esp. F. CUMONT, Recherches sur le symbolisme funraire des Romains, Paris 1942, pp. 1819, 262; L. DESCHAMPS, Lharmonie des sphres dans les Satires Mnippes de Varron, Latomus, 36 (1979), pp. 927; M. L. WEST, The Orphic Poems, Oxford 1983, pp. 2932; COMBET-FARNOUX, op. cit. (above, n. 32), pp. 37376. {See also N. LAMBARDI, ... Et negantur animae sine cithara posse ascendere, in Munus amicitiae. Scritti in memoria di Alessandro Ronconi, 1, Firenze 1986, pp. 12558, esp. 15258; M. PATERLINI, Septem discrimina vocum. Orfeo e la musica delle sfere, Bologna 1992, esp. pp. 7281; A. SETAIOLI, in his erudite La vicenda dellanima nel commento di Servio a Virgilio, Frankfurt am Main 1995, surprisingly does not discuss these passages (but cf. pp. 7677).} 36 Cf. the commentary by A. RONCONI, Cicerone. Somnium Scipionis, Firenze 1961, pp. 10713. It is the mortui themselves who strike the nervi of cithara (as is quite common no distinction is here made between the lyre and the cither) and sing. This circumstance strengthens the case for the invocation symphoniace as referring to the deceased herself. 37 For the edition of inscriptions, a short commentary, and ample bibliography, see M. BOLLINI, Le iscrizioni greche di Ravenna, Faenza 1975, no. 8, pp. 2732. She prints the Greek texts as they are on the stone, in Latin characters; for a reconstructed Greek text, see W. PEEK, Griechische Versinschriften, I, Berlin 1955, no. 1951, pp. 6067, followed by and large by subsequent scholars. Of various interpretations I should like to mention the idea of R. MERKELBACH who discovers (through a supplement) a reference to the music of celestial spheres, Die Sphaerenharmonie auf einem ravennatischen Mystensarkophag, ZPE, 6 (1970), pp. 2778. Of earlier scholars always worth reading and inspiring remains CUMONT, op. cit. (above, n. 35), pp. 29899. For the reliefs (and further bibliography), see esp. H. GABELMANN, Die Werkstattgruppen der oberitalischen Sarkophage, Bonn 1973, pp. 14754, and tabb. 5051; J. KOLLWITZ - H. HERDEJRGEN, Die ravennatischen Sarkophage (= Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs, VIII, 2), Berlin 1979, no. A 35, pp. 3637, tabb. 13, 24; 15, 14, 16, 1. 38 Most scholars see here C. Sosius Iulianus, Tetratias husband; GABELMANN, however, excellently argues for two female figures, both of them representations of Tetratia Isias (p. 148); HERDEJRGEN (who revised the manuscript of Kollwitz) opts for the representations of the daughter Sosia Iuliana (p. 36).

Sic valeas

553

(text a). The monument is often assigned to the Isiac cult, but the presence of the lyre, and of Hermes, reveals a not unusual eclectic nature of the belief. Varro and Cicero with their cithara, ascensio, nervi and cantus and the Ravennate sarcophagus, provide a luminous illustration to our inscription. Alas in these matters certainty is not possible. Still, elusive as it is, the epitaph of Felicitas stands as a somber stony trace of the airy musings of philosophers.

45.19 VARIA DE RELIGIONE 45.1 THE USES OF RELIGION*

Marta SORDI (ed.), Religione e politica nel mondo antico (Contributi dellIstituto di storia antica 7). Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Pubblicazioni della Universit Cattolica, 1981. Pp. ix + 277.

Religion and politics is a subject timely and difficult: it requires a mind open and erudite. It is a subject the shrewdest scholars find disconcerting. It invites shallow profundity. The collection under review consists of nineteen articles spanning the whole of antiquity from the Mycenaean wanax to Aetius. If it is tilted in any direction it is toward antiquarianism, which is not the worst fare we could be served. The individual articles, often useful, seldom inspiring, are footnoted extensively though erratically. We cannot discuss critically all of them; and as this is an amoeboid collection any article could be dropped or replaced without any visible difference to the whole an arbitrary selection will offer a fair representation. Marta Sordi presents the collection as dealing with three major themes: il divino come fondamento del potere; la divinizzazione del potere umano; la politica religiosa or la religione ... come strumento di lotta politica (pp. viiiix). As to the last point we have to be on our guard: one is too easily inclined to see in the manipulation of religion a sign of decay. The best example is the famous fourth chapter in L. R. Taylors celebrated Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley 1949). This attitude presupposes the existence of epochs when religion stood pure and pristine, free of corrupting influences of social matter a noble illusion, for religion itself is a social matter. If there is no golden age, there is no corruption, only change. Progress and decay are interchangeable notions. In other words, when we study religion we do not deal with absolutes but only with points of view. What was the point of view of ancient intellectuals as to the social role of religion? C. Bearzot takes Isocrates as her example (pp. 97114). He was a person di scarsa sensibilit religiosa (p. 97), but at the same time in his Busiris he presented religious piety as the bulwark of the state. A dilemma? Scarcely. For Isocrates ... buono non ci che vero, ma ci che utile (p. 102). The diagnosis is correct, but it does not go beyond what one can read in E. Mikkola, Isokrates (Helsinki 1954) 11859. The ideas of Isocrates resemble the theologia tripertita of Varro and Mucius Scaevola (cf. G. Lieberg, ANRW I 4 [1973] 63115); the concept of religious utilitarianism awaits a comparative study (an auspicious beginning has been
* American Journal of Philology 105 (1984) 499500 {with minor addenda}.

Varia de religione

555

500

made by K. Dring, Antike Theorien ber die staatspolitische Notwendigkeit der Gtterfurcht, Antike u. Abendland 24 [1978] 4356). Anthropology is now the fad: classical erudition appears quaint and superfluous. G. Amiotti (pp. 13140) proposes to study the assumption of the toga virilis, or the iniziazione romana, as she calls it, in the light of A. Van Genneps grand work, Les rites de passage (Paris 1909). A laudable undertaking but marred by a grievous error: the author imagines that on the assumption of the toga pura the young Roman was liberated from the patria potestas! The legal passages she quotes have nothing in common with the assumption of the toga virilis: they refer to the minors sui iuris. The author will be well advised to consult the standard textbooks of Roman law, such as M. Kaser, Das rmische Privatrecht (Mnchen 1971) 6071, 34152, or A. Watson, The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford 1967) 77101. And as to the toga praetexta and toga pura, one ought not to miss the studies by W. Warde Fowler, On the Toga Praetexta of the Roman Children, Roman Essays and Interpretations (Oxford 1920) 4252, and L. Bonfante, Roman Costumes, ANRW I. 4 (1973) 5992. Negativism is a bad habit. I am happy to be emphatically positive with respect to the article by M. Sordi La sacrosanctitas tribunicia e la sovranit popolare in un discorso di Tiberio Gracco (pp. 12430), which means I do not think much of recent work on this subject in England and America {cf. in this volume, No. 8}. She points out that the tenor of Tiberius speech in Plutarch Tib. 15, runs counter to the basic tenets of Roman sacral law. By its vote the plebs elects the tribunes, but the tribunician sacrosanctity does not derive from this act: it stems from the original lex sacrata. As it is not given by the plebs, the plebs cannot delete it (unfortunately her remarks on the lex curiata are confused: the lex curiata de imperio was not a lex sacrata, the sworn law). The moral of the story is this: in the study of the sacrum, faith and rationalism are twin and disparate obstacles. The admiration for Polybius of the British and American authors is politically quite understandable, but the trust they place in his analysis of the tribunate is quite misplaced: the tribunate was a political institution, but it rested on a sacral foundation. The superstitious Livy is a much more reliable guide to the Roman mind than the rationalist Polybius. The senseless collecting of bizarre footnotes is a high ideal of antiquarianism. Too many articles in our collection come close to this ideal. To describe them all spatium, voluntas et vires desunt.

45.2 SPES IN FIDE*

H. S. VERSNEL (ed.), Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 2). Leiden, Brill, 1981. Pp. ix + 284. Pl. 64.

This is the second volume in the new Brill series, Studies in Greek and Roman Religion. The editor of the series, H. S. Versnel, who made his name with his
* American Journal of Philology 105 (1984) 111113 {with minor addenda}.

556

Historia et Religio

112

Triumphus (Leiden 1970), a liber certus in re incerta, is also the editor of the present volume and one of its chief contributors. Faith, hope, and worship sounds sentimental enough, and the code words aspects and mentality arouse the worst suspicions in the skeptic who dreads a torrent of semi-profound banalities in the fashion of the Parisian gurus.{1} The book is at times diffuse, but the alarm is premature. F. T. van Straten discusses Gifts for the gods (pp. 65151), the practice and theology of votive offerings in Greece. He provides a useful classification of the ex-vota: gifts in the fulfillment of a vow, gifts as a token of the arete of the devotee and as a monument to the arete of the deity; gifts representing the offerer (often engaged in prayer or performing a sacrifice) or the deity. Initiations, contests, and above all sickness figure most prominently as occasions calling for votive offerings. Here the most interesting category, of which van Straten provides a full catalogue, is the anatomical ex-vota, so often misunderstood by earlier excavators disappointed not to have found beauty where functional ugliness was the goal. The book by W. H. D. Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge 1902) has not yet been replaced, but van Stratens catalogue is a step in the right direction. When we contemplate the bare walls of Greek temples we have to imagine them cluttered with gifts. And gifts are also of importance for the study of religious continuity, for as the author points out, and as any traveler to these parts of the world can attest, much of the ancient votive lore has survived to our days in the customs of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. But to the gods, ancient and modern, words have been even more pleasing than gifts. H. S. Versnel treats of Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer (pp. 164) and concludes that it is hard to perceive a sharp distinction between Greek and Roman attitudes to prayer or between ancient and modern ones, either from a thematic or an emotional point of view (p. 10). The ancient prayer was composed of two major elements, invocatio and preces. The invocation posed some problems: whom to invoke? This depended on the nature of the problem and on personal persuasion; Versnel traces the intermingling of the polytheistic and henotheistic elements in the invocations, the intermingling mirrored today in the cult of specialized or local saints and virgins. As to the preces, selfishness, the Gebetsegoismus, was their most striking feature, as it still is: compare Livy 5.18.12: precibus ab dis petitum ut exitium ab urbis tectis ... arcerent Veiosque eum averterent terrorem with Missale Romanum, Introitus, 9th Sunday after Pentecost: averte mala inimicis. The precatio was either silent (often associated with magic) or loud or sung. Of the last
{1 This admonition evoked an interesting reaction from H. S. Versnel in his eminently scholarly and eminently fascinating book Ter Unus. Isis, Dionysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism (= Inconsistencies in Geek and Roman Religion I (Leiden 1990) 30, n. 93. He grants that the review was balanced and honest, but he deplores the reference to the Parisian gurus as a frantic reaction, a distressing sign of the preset state of ancient historical research. An abyss appears to divide normal, middle of the road, no-nonsense historical techne from the funny, speculative history. Interestingly, Versnel, himself a middle of the road scholar, goes on to describe his own encounter with Derrida, and his own feeling of disbelief (3031). The chasm exists, and somebody has to call juvenile fancies by the name they deserve.}

Varia de religione

557

113

form, the hymn, J. M. Bremer provides a typology and a useful survey of extant texts (pp. 193215). {Prayers for more studies on ancient prayers have been answered: see G. Freyburger and L. Pernot, Bibliographie analytique de la prire grecque et romaine (18981998) (Turnhout 2000); F. Chapot and B. Laurot, Corpus de prires grecques et romaines (Turnhout 2001), containing texts, translations, and commentaries; S. Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford) 1997; F. V. Hickson, Roman Prayer Language: Livy and the Aeneid of Vergil (Stuttgart 1993); C. Guittard, Invocations et structures thologiques dans la prire Rome, REL 76 (1998) 7192; on hymns, see W. D. Furley, Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period III (Tbingen 2001); P. Brul and C. Vendries (eds.), Chanter les dieux: musique et religion dans lantiquit grecque et romaine (Rennes 2001).} If the deity acceded to the preces, it was entitled to a remuneration. But in Greek and later antiquity the counterpart to preces was not grates but rather laudes. The gods were expected to live up to their end of the bargain: if they did not listen, men felt deceived and would occasionally vent their anger on the gods themselves. Because Neptune was helping Sex. Pompey, Augustus removed his statue from the pompa deorum (Suet., Aug. 16). But even worse things could happen: statues were flogged, broken, beheaded, and for this attitude Versnel again adduces illuminating parallels from the Christian Mediterranean. He calls this an example of faith, for through their rage men were proclaiming the very existence of gods or saints. No doubt; but it is also an inarticulate realization of a simple truth: men need gods, and gods need men. We can approach a deity in an active or passive way, and it is to the latter that H. W. Pleket turns his attention. In a very competent epigraphical study on the believer as servant of the deity in the Greek world (pp. 15292), he discusses the concepts expressing the superiority of the deity and the subservience of the worshipper. According to Pleket the self-humiliation of the worshipper before the imperious deity reflects the despotic structure of oriental societies. It is a feature alien to Greek society. This conclusion echoes the ideas of F. Bmer, but, unlike Bmer, Pleket is inclined to find traces of this attitude in fourth century Greece, which he explains as deriving from emergency situations, especially with respect to the healer-god Asklepios. Still I see no reason why oriental influences should be excluded from fourth century Greece. For the doulea to teo of a legally free person an interesting and unexpected parallel can be found in later commentators of Vergil who describe (incorrectly) the position of the wife in manu mariti as the conditio liberae servitutis (Serv. auct., ad Aen. 4.103). That common people believed in gods and that statesmen both believed and found it useful need not surprise us; but why did the philosophers believe in gods? Some apparently did so because of fear (of men, not gods), but P. A. Meijer is certainly right in trying to find a philosophical (and not only social) explanation for the insignificance of atheism in antiquity (pp. 21663). The deity was not perceived as deus creator. Hence the philosopher was not forced to choose between a supreme being and matter. Gods and men co-existed within the material world. Philosophically there is nothing wrong with the idea of beings more powerful than

558

Historia et Religio

men; on the other hand when the deus creator is made superfluous he simply disappears. The religions of antiquity are to be approached on their own terms, and for an attempt to do so we owe thanks to the authors of this book.

45.3 VARRO DE DEIS*

Yves LEHMANN, Varron: thologien et philosophe romain (Collection Latomus, vol. 237). Bruxelles: ditions Latomus, 1997. Pp. 394, illus.

Varro, doctissimus Romanorum, has not been served well by philology. We still do not have a commented edition of all fragments, and the best general treatment still remains the RE article by H. Dahlmann (1935). Lehmanns book is diffuse, takes no account of Varros humour, but has points of interest. It is divided into three parts of which the weakest is devoted to Varros spiritual journey, the middle and middling to his theological system, and the best to his philosophical doctrine. L. argues that Varros ethics centered (following Antiochus of Ascalon) around the concept of summum bonum, propounded a compromise between otium and negotium (or in other words between Varros own scripta and gesta, a natural stance for a Roman aristocrat), and advocated a Stoic and Roman idea of virtue: vivere patriae et propter patriam filios procreare (Aug., CD 19. 1). There is a good discussion of Varros rationalistic reinterpretation of religious accounts (e.g. of Hercules), and an opportune reference to Claudianus Mamertus (de statu animae 2.8) according to whom Varro proceeded a visilibus ad invisibilia, a localibus ad inlocalia, a corporeis ad incorporea, and thus to the ultimate reality of animus. But L. fails to observe that it is in this way that Varro could reconcile the plurality of gods with the idea of a cosmic Jupiter as animus mundi. L. also covers the familiar ground of theologia tripertita and of Divine Antiquities, surprisingly paying little attention to the filter of Augustine and never drawing a clear distinction between Varro the philosopher (theologian) and Varro the antiquarian. In particular Varros famous statement, that so disquieted Augustine (CD 6.4), of gods being products of communities, receives no debate. L. insists on Varros sabinisme, but a treatment that missed standard books on Sabine myth, cults, language and Varros home city of Reate (Poucet [1963], Evans [1939], Bruno Tibiletti [1962], Spadoni Cerroni and Reggiani Massarini [1992]) does not inspire confidence. The book opens with a tribute to Dumzils rehabilitation of Varro as a penseur religieux original (29). A compliment to Varro?

Journal of Roman Studies 90 (2000) 227.

Varia de religione

559

45.4 NATALICIA*
Thomas KVES-ZULAUF, Rmische Geburtsriten. Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1990. Pp. XXVI + 419. (Zetemata. Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Heft 87).

304

Birth and death are the two mysteries of living matter, and they inspire awe, though not understanding, in all religions, which surround them with bizarre rites. The more bizarre a rite, the more learning is required to crack its code. The book by Kves-Zulauf is immensely learned; the bibliography covers eighteen dense pages, and footnotes devour the text (still one misses that small mine of odd information, W. B. McDaniel, Conception, Birth and Infancy in Ancient Rome and Modern Italy [Coconut Grove 1948]). It is also written, as befits a German Ordinarius, with supreme disregard for clarity or the reader. The book treats of three thorny problems: of tollere infantem, of Intercidona, Pilumnus, Deverra, and of the risus of the Luperci. The tollere infantem was a physical and a legal act. By lifting the baby from the ground the father was legally acknowledging it as his legitimate child. So the communis opinio. On the basis of an impressive array of sources Kves-Zulauf demonstrates (pp. 192, esp. 814, 31) that in fact the father did not touch the child at all: the physical act of tollere was normally performed by an obstetrix. This restores the full sense to Varro, De vita populi Romani (frg. 81 Riposati = Nonius 848 Lindsay): natus si erat vitalis ac sublatus ab obstetrice, statuebatur in terra ut auspicaretur rectus esse, where L. Mllers conjecture aspicetur seduced both Lindsay and Riposati into corrupting the text. We deal here with an auspical omen (though Kves-Zulauf is quite wrong when he claims [p. 7] that the omen impetrativum was ein selbstgeschaffenes Vorzeichen). What was legally decisive was the utterance of the father: tolli iubeo. It was not an act of recognition but rather an order and permission to bring the child up. Herein resides the fathers ius vitae necisque: he could as well have the baby exposed (cf. W. V. Harris, The Roman Fathers Power of Life and Death, in: Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. Arthur Schiller [Leiden 1986] 9395, who, unbeknownst to Kves-Zulauf, expressed this idea briefly and cogently). {Discussion continues. N. Santoro, Sul tollere liberos, Index 28 (2000) 27378: a precise and binding legal expression; L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Tollere liberos, MEFRA 102 (1990) 10727: a ceremony that after the archaic period rapidly lost its juridical content; B. D. Shaw, Raising and Killing Children: Two Roman Myths, Mnemosyne 54 (2002) 3177: no such ceremony ever existed. Are we reading the same sources? Cf. also the encyclopedic, and diffuse, exposition by C. Fayer, La familia romana I (Roma 1994) 14078}. Varro (in August., de civ. Dei 6.9) reports that post partum three gods (Intercidona, Pilumnus, Deverra) protected the woman ne deus Silvanus per noctem ingrediatur et vexet. Three men (tres homines) representing these deities
* American Journal of Philology 113 (1992) 303304 {with minor corrections and addenda}.

560

Historia et Religio

walked at night around the house, and first struck the threshold with an axe (limen securi ferire), then with a pestle (postea pilo), and thirdly swept it with a broom (tertio deverrere scopis). Kves-Zulauf devotes more than a hundred pages to this ritual (95218); his explanation is impenetrable. The rite has to do with a symbolic Pilum-Herstellung; it represents the birth of pilum aus einem Baum, and corresponds to the Hervorbringen eines Menschen (pp. 106, 146-47, 217). By striking the limen with a pilum the father symbolically placed his newborn son on the threshold in der Gestalt eines pilum; in this way ein Angehriger des pilumnus populus ... vollzog die Eingliederung eines neuen pilumnus in seine Familie (p. 218). But what if the baby was a girl? The theory collapses. Oddly enough the role of Silvanus is utterly neglected; perhaps the three deities were protectors against the three hypostases of the god, the Silvanus orientalis (residing in a grove), domesticus and agrestis (as suggested by R. E. A. Palmer, Silvanus, Sylvester, and the Chair of St. Peter, Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 122 [1978] 222 {cf. P. F. Dorcey, The Cult of Silvanus. A Study in Roman Folk Religion [Leiden 1992] 3640, as placid as Kves-Zulauf and Palmer are adventurous}). The laughter of the Luperci (Plut., Rom. 21.45) is an enigma. The ritual of the Luperci is an initiation rite, claims Kves-Zulauf, and their laughter represents the first risus of an infant (p. 237). The amiculum Iunonis (Festus 75 L.) with which the Luperci struck women demonstrates that the feast was dedicated to Iuno. The insight is unavoidable (unausweichlich) that the female Opfertier (capra) that stood at the center of the ritual represented Iuno herself (pp. 24555). The Luperci continue enticing scholars to their doom: perhaps the best proof that they were not entirely efficient in protecting the society from werewolves (cf. A. K. Michels, The Topography and Interpretation of the Lupercalia, TAPA 84 [1953] 5255 {cf. in this volume, No. 49, n. 30}).

45.5 SECTAE ET SECTATORES*

M. L. FREYBURGER-GALLAND, G. FREYBURGER, J. C. TAUTIL, Sectes religieuses en Grce et Rome dans lantiquit paenne (Collection Realia). Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1986. Pp. 338, 16 plates, pamphlet at rear. Lassociation Dionysiaque dans les socits anciennes. Actes de la table ronde organise par lcole Franaise de Rome (Rome 2425 mai 1984). By O. DE CAZANOVE [and others]. (Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome, 89). Rome: cole Franaise de Rome, 1986. Pp. 318, 8 plates, 6 text figs.

What is a religious sect in pagan antiquity? Pagan antiquity is a misnomer. Responsible scholars long ago stopped applying abusive terminology to the religions of Africa or Asia, and the Greeks and Romans did not know they were pagans. {Cf. above in this volume, No. 36}.Sect also sounds suspiciously Christian, but it has a good though restricted classical pedigree. Applied to the fol* Journal of Roman Studies 78 (1988) 207208 {with minor addenda}.

Varia de religione

561

208

lowers of a philosophical school the term appears for the first time in Cicero, Tertullian uses it with respect to the Christians, and Diocletian fulminates against the Manichaeans qui novellas et inauditas sectas veteribus religionibus obponunt (FIRA II, p. 550). Still, no other ancient cult seems ever to have been described as secta. {See now P. Boulhol, Secta: de la ligne de conduite au groupe htrodoxe, RHR 219 (2002) 533.} Yet the term is not inappropriate: the authors of Sectes deal with well-defined groups of followers of a particular creed, devotees of a particular deity, from the initiates into the mysteries (Eleusinian and of the Cabiri) to the Pythagoreans and the cultores of Cotys, Adonis, Bendis, Cybele and Attis, and above all Dionysus (also Zagreus and Sabazius), Isis and Mithra. All these cults had one thing in common: they were only partially integrated into the official religion of Greek cities or of Rome, and sometimes were perceived as being dangerous and subversive (as the worshippers of Bacchus and occasionally those of Isis in Rome). If they finally succumbed, they did so not to persuasion but to force: Jeromes glowing praise (Ep. 107.2) of the prefect of the city Gracchus destroying (in 376) a Mithraic sanctuary is an emblem of the times. The fact that it was a brutal and sustained persecution that brought an end to the religions of the ancient world must not be allowed to be swept under the rug of triumphant piety. Classical antiquity, whatever its faults, did not know the atrocity of religious wars; save for short interludes it harboured peacefully a multitude of creeds and philosophies. The authors of Sectes bring this forth very well; their book, destined for the broad reading public, is symptomatic of the current interest in the religious and irrational aspects of social history. And it is to the God of ecstasy that the French School at Rome dedicated a table ronde. Those who expect a systematic treatment of Dionysiac associations, an aggiornamento of the epigraphic evidence, will be disappointed. The volume deals with lassociation Dionysiaque, and not with Dionysiac associations, a fundamental difference. It contains sixteen contributions by fifteen scholars, and proceeds from high ecstasy, loose associations, and dubious assertions (verba volant, scripta manent unfortunately) to sober epigraphy and even more sober prosopography. Among the imperial Bacchic associations the thiasos from Torre Nova (IGUR I, 160) is a prosopographical, terminological and onomastic treasure trove. Most of its some four hundred members bear Greek names; hence the conclusion of F. Cumont: the inscription testifies to a migration to Latium of hundreds of sectateurs des mystres grco-asiatiques (AJA 37 [1933], 237). Not at all. Building upon the studies of A. Geyer, H. Solin and G. Alfldy, John Scheid (pp. 27590) gives an illuminating interpretation of the thiasos. He points out that the Greek names do not indicate ethnic origin but in a great majority of cases denote servile status or servile origin. Nor did there obtain in the thiasos any social equality: the senators head the list. Seniority depended not upon the degree of initiation but on the class. We deal with the familial cult of two senatorial clans: the Gavii of Verona and the Pompeii Macrini, the latter ultimately descended from the celebrated Theophanes of Mytilene, and related to the Gavii by the marriage of Pompeia Agrippinilla to M. Gavius Squilla Gallicanus (cos. 150). The thiasos was probably established by Agrippinillas father, M. Pompeius Macrinus (cos. suff. 115), and the inscription

562

Historia et Religio

itself would date to 160165. The members of the familia belonged to it not because of a sudden outburst of devotion but because such was the fancy of their masters and patrons. L. Moretti (pp. 24759) concurs: treating of the Athenian Iobacchi (who had as their head Herodes Atticus) he stresses il carattere politicoclientelare that the Dionysiac associations assume in the imperial age. But politics was nothing new to Dionysus: as F. Dunand (pp. 85104) and D. Musti (pp. 10528) point out, both the Ptolemies (but Dunand hardly goes beyond E. E. Rice, The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (1983), with whose dating she disagrees) and the Attalids used the god in their dynastic propaganda. But the most delightful epigraphic treat is R. Turcans discussion (pp. 22746) of the famous archaic inscription from Cumae and of its orphic connections: o ymiw n toya kesyai m tn bebaxxeumnon. J.-M. Pailler considers the term bacanal habere (pp. 26173), and M.-C. Villanueva Puig presents a dossier of the Delphic Thyiadae (pp. 3151). R. Hanoune (pp. 14964) gives an informed overview of the Dionysiac associations in Roman Africa, and H. Lavagne (pp. 12948) studies the imperial policy toward the associations of the technitai in Gaul; he claims that in the debacle of Valerius Asiaticus (cf. Tac., Ann. 11.13) his troupe thtrale ... a du jouer un rle importante: it spread Asiaticus popularity, and this made Claudius nervous as it does the reader (the key or picklock to this reconstruction is CIL XI, 1929 = ILS 5205 from Vienna, recording scaenici Asiaticiani {cf. M. Tagliafico, I processi intra cubiculum: il caso di Valerio Asiatico, CISA 22 [1996] 24959, a sober study; Lavagne is not cited}). Even if misdirected, in epigraphy clarity rules; Bacchos au coeur de la cit, Dionysos en ses parousies, Images du mnadisme fminin or Le thiase et son double, make one long for some Apollinian light.

45.6 RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS*

U. EGELHAAF-GAISER, A. SCHFER (edd.), Religise Vereine in der rmischen Antike. Untersuchungen zu Organisation, Ritual und Raumordnung (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 13). Pp. viii + 310, ills. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.

In the last two hundred years there were two great and distinct periods in the study of Roman collegia. The first was inaugurated by T. Mommsens slim volume (1843), and reached its culmination in the monograph of W. Liebenam (1890) and the massive opus of J. P. Waltzing (18951900). Collection of inscriptions, elucidation of realia, were two lasting achievements; the third element, the law of association, continued to be hotly debated in the next century, with two protagonists rising, L. Schnorr v. Carolsfeld (1933) and F. de Robertis (with numerous articles and books from 1932 to 1995). Mommsen was speaking of collegia et sodalicia, Waltzing of corporations professionnelles, Schnorr of juristische Person, de Robertis of diritto, fenomeno and regime associativo. The present age, and the pres* Classical Review 54 (2004) 205206 {with minor addenda}.

Varia de religione

563

206

ent collection of articles, retreats from law and from detailed exegesis of literary and epigraphical texts, and prefers to ponder weightier subjects described as Strukturen and Raumordnung. A. Bendlin offers Forschungsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu den Mustern sozialer Ordnung in Rom (pp. 940); they are rich in theory and poor in history. Any remarks on historia studiorum must be grounded in the epoch in question; for an exemplary treatment of a selected subject, see J. S. Perry, Ancient Collegia, Modern Blackshirts?: The Study of Roman Corporations in Fascist Italy, IJCT 8.2 (2001), 20516 (also with interesting observations on Waltzing and the syndicalisme {cf. N. Tran, Cahiers Glotz 12 (2001) 18198, on the francophone nineteenth century legal studies of the collegia}). Bendlin rightly stresses the extreme variety of Roman associative arrangements; they indeed permeated the whole society. Yet the net is cast impossibly wide. For what useful goal is served when we talk in this context of res publica, populus or cities? Or of schools? (as does C. Markschies [pp. 97120] who, however, does not discuss schools as associations but rather delves into the content of Christian education). And what is a religious association? J. Rpke bridges or obscures the gap between public and private and includes here the official collegia sacerdotum. He defines them as Religise Vereine der Oberschicht (pp. 4167); I would define them as public bodies to which in practice only members of the upper class were able to gain entry. His stress is on sacerdotal banquets, not on doctrine or deliberations. Allegedly neither pontiffs nor augurs possessed an Amtslokal and a permanent archive. Now we do not have Roman central archives at all (of the senate, censors, etc.); ergo they did not exist? Priestly archives were an indispensable tool in maintaining the pax deorum; careful record had to be kept of the gods anger and favor, and of their response to entreaties and expiations. Two papers deal with religious associations of the Unterschicht: A. Avram discusses the dionysiac thiasos in Kallatis (pp. 6980), and I. Dittmann-Schne (pp. 8196) studies the exercise of cult in the professional associations in imperial Asia Minor (including Jews and Christians). The second part is devoted to Raumwahrnehmung und Gemeinschaft, the communal experience of space, a topic that lends itself to ponderous jargon, and we get a lot of it. A pity for archaeological investigations have vastly enriched our knowledge of the topographical and material environment of the Vereinswesen; in the first place praise is due to B. Bollmann, Rmische Vereinshuser (Mainz, 1998), a thorough study of the scholae collegiorum in Italy (for the provinces, see J. R. Carillo Daz-Pins, Las sedes de corporaciones, Anales de Arqueologia Cordobesa 6 [1995], 2977 at 4862). In the present volume U. Egelhaaf-Gaiser discusses Religionssthetik und Raumordnung taking as an example seats of corporations (some quite putative) in Ostia (pp. 12372). She rightly dwells on the hierarchic arrangement of space within and without the buildings (some areas being generally accessible and some only to a limited group) and on the role of scholae as places of collective memory and current propaganda, adorned with honorific inscriptions and statues (a situation of which both the ancients and the scholars of the last two centuries were well aware, and moreover they were able to describe it in simple language). The topic is pursued by A. Schfer with respect to

564

Historia et Religio

the headquarters of the Iobacchi in Athens, with a full catalogue of the finds (pp. 173220), and by H. Schwarzer who writes about Vereinslokale in Hellenistic and Roman Pergamon (pp. 22160). The volume is rounded off by U. Verstegens study of the space arrangement (one notes various levels of exclusion of penitents) in Christian basilicas of the fourth and fifth centuries (pp. 26197). Observations by Egelhaaf-Gaiser and Verstegen may give an impulse to a thorough investigation (with a full corpus of testimonies and not merely scant references) of space classification and space restrictions (it is, however, surprising that no author in this volume evinces interest in the status, legal, sacral and augural, of Roman templa). The arrangement and control of space reveals itself as an instrument of social stratification and political power, of inclusion and exclusion, from the heights of the Roman curia and Christian basilica to the scholae in the humble world of the collegia. Thus a very catholic collection, but interestingly no author utters a complaint that the various associations of cultores deorum are still waiting for a corpus of testimonies. An updated Waltzing is also urgently needed (we have only a limited first step: G. Mennella and G. Apicella, Le corporazioni professionali nellItalia Romana. Un aggiornamento al Waltzing [Napoli, 2000]). We ought to try new lenses and sieves to view and sift our material, but we will be well advised not to take fancy words as a cipher to knowledge.

45.7 EX ORIENTE TENEBRAE*

M. FREY, Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal (Historia Einzelschriften 62). Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989. Pp. iv + 125. R. TURCAN, Les cultes orientaux dans le monde romain. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989. Pp. 397, 24 pls, 5 figs.

Few Roman historians will suspect that a book published in 1856 in St Petersburg in German by a Jewish-Russian oriental scholar (D. A. Chwolsohn, 1819-1911, professor at the Petersburg University, 1855-94), and bearing the title Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus, may throw light on the beliefs and doings of a Roman emperor. The emperor in question is, of course, the amazing emperor Heliogabalus (as J. S. Hay entitled his book, 1911). The amazement flows directly from our ancient authorities (if they are to be called so), Cassius Dio, Herodian {cf. A. Scheithauer, Hermes 118 (1990) 3556} and the Historia Augusta. Indeed who would not be amazed, incensed or envious, reading of an emperor who habitually rode in a cart pulled by four naked beauties? How to sift fact from fancy? Students of the Historia Augusta have been laboriously attempting to reach this goal (witness the recent word by word commentary of T. Optendrenk, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal im Spiegel der Historia Augusta [1969]). But if the facts continue to be amazing, how to understand them? It is not only to understand the poet that you have to go to his country. Goethes command applies to rulers too. Go (at
* Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990) 235236 {with bibliographical addenda}.

Varia de religione

565

least spiritually) to Emesa! Immerse in the cult of the sun god Elagabal (originally Ilaha Gabal, Gott Berg), represented by a black stone; visit Hatra, Edessa, Palmyra and Harran, mix with the worshippers of Allath, Hadad, Atargatis, Dea Syria and Astarte. This is the premise on which the intelligent monograph (originally a Mannheim dissertation) by M. Frey builds (following the lead of M. Pietrzykowski, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal, ANRW II. 16. 3 (1986) 180525). Frey himself is not an orientalist, but the way was prepared for him by the work of eminent students of Semitic religions and of Syria, such as T. Nldeke, R. Dussaud, C. Clemen, H. Seyrig, H. J. W. Drijvers (all these names are significantly missing from Optendrenks commentary and from R. Symes writings on the subject). Now the solution to the problem of Elagabalus emerges: he was a sincere devotee of his god; what the Roman sources describe as excesses (and modern scholars often explain as perversity) finds often explanation in the rites of Syriac religions: from Elagabals attempted (or pretended) self-castration, his prostitution (no doubt cultic), and child sacrifices, to his marriage with the Vestal Aquilia Severa. This marriage paralleled the marriage of the god Elagabal with the Carthaginian Dea Caelestis (Tanit), and constituted a hieros gamos of the ruler with the goddess (normally of the Astarte type) represented by the chief priestess and in Rome for that role only the chief Vestal was available. This momentous event occurred towards the end of 220 (on the basis of coins and inscriptions Frey establishes exact chronology for the whole reign of Elegabal), and possibly coincided with the Emesan New Year Festival; it was preceded by the elevation of the god Elagabal to the position of the highest god in Rome, replacing Jupiter. It is only from that time on that in the official documents Elagabalus appears with his new priestly title: sacerdos amplissimus Dei Invicti Solis Elagabali. These moves caused an uproar in Rome, and ultimately led to the fall of the emperor and of his god. {Cf. now H. R. Roland, Chiron 21 (1991) 17578; S. Berrens, Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severern bis zu Constantin I. (193337 n. Chr.) (Stuttgart 2004) 5155.} Some scholars (even the great Cumont) fancy that Elagabalus intended to introduce monotheism. Frey and Turcan (and Pietrzykowski) recoil from that idea: in Emesa the god Elagabal was at the apex of a Trinity; in Rome he was to lead a new Trinity, with old gods serving as his ministri (discussion whether this can be called henotheism appears to me sterile). Turcan, who in the past twenty-five years has contributed many substantial studies to the history of ancient religions (among them Hliogabale et le sacre du Soleil [1985]), addresses his book above all to the educated public. Thus the subjects treated are familiar: Magna Mater, Isis, Mithras, Dionysos and Sabazios, the cults from Syria, the Thracian Rider, magic and astrology, and the sacred serpents (but if you want to know everything you ever wanted to know about snakes in cult, - gn und Gtzedienst [1982]), and the presentation stresses read M. Schlter, Dera narrative rather than argument. Hence only a few words of comment on Turcans theoretical position. First, the terminology. Turcan points out that in the classic book by F. Cumont, Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, because of the paganisme in the title, Christianity and Judaism are logically excluded (p. 9).

566

Historia et Religio

236

There is no reason to continue in that vein. Until the Machtergreifung in the fourth century, Christianity was one of the many oriental cults in the empire, hardly in a position to vie for power with Jupiter. The Galileean God succeeded where the Emesan had failed because of the Constantinian luck, because of the highly organized clergy, and because the Christian cult was compatible with the tradition of Roman religious severitas, and with the system of late Roman autocracy (as Turcan perceptively notes, p. 337). The cult of Mithras, also severe and quite well organized, never was a contender, for en se coupant des femmes, le mithriacisme se marginalisait dangereusement (p. 240). Perhaps the Roman world longed indeed for mystery and salvation; Turcan admits that the oriental cults played their part dans se quEusbe appelait la Prparation evanglique (p. 338). This is vaticinium ex eventu. The preoccupation with the propagation of oriental religions, and with the alleged moral values of the various luces ex oriente, obscures the spread and popularity of the Roman cult (on the vitality of the imperial cult, see S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power (1984); and on the cult of Jupiter, J. R. Fears, ANRW II. 17. 1 (1981) 3141). Jupiter perished by the sword and not by the Word alone.

45.8 CYRENAICA IUDAICA*

Shimon APPLEBAUM, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Vol. 28). Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979. Pp. XVI + 367. Misleading title (why not Jews, Greeks and Romans? After all it was the Romans who annihilated the Jewish community of Cyrene), awkward construction, a book partially useful, occasionally irritating these will probably not be unfair characterizations of the book under review. The author apparently aimed to compose a history of the Jews in ancient Cyrenaica (which embraced the cities of Cyrene, Apollonia, Ptolemais, Taucheira (Teucheira)Arsino, EuesperidesBerenice, but obviously he felt impelled to proceed ab ovo. And so he treats of the beginnings of Greek colonization and of Cyrene under the rule of the Battiads, subjects discussed in great detail in F. Chamouxs book Cyrne sous la monarchie des Battiades (Paris 1953), and only very loosely connected with the history of the Jewish community as the Jewish settlement begins only under the Prolemies. On the other hand when dealing with the famous tumultus Iudaicus, the Jewish uprising in Cyrenaica in (ca) 115117 C.E., the author is carried away by the drama of history to devote an inordinate number of pages to the insurrection in Judaea and Mesopotamia. In der Begrenzung zeigt sich der Meister, and this would have been a much better book if the author had stuck rigorously to his subject. During WW II the author was responsible for the care of the Antiquities of Cyrenaica under the British Military Administration. Consequently, he is at his best when he describes the land of Cyrene, its geography, climate, agriculture (pp. 17, 74 ff.). Also on other subjects he offers a number of shrewd observations, e.g. on
* Journal of American Oriental Society 102.1 (1982) 210 {with corrections and addenda}..

Varia de religione

567

the desert ideology among the radical currents of Judaism and on the importance of these trends for the interpretation of the rebellion in Cyrene (pp. 224 ff.) or on the contrast between the upper, more hellenized, classes of the Jewish community, and the masses which were easily swayed by charismatic leaders. Unfortunately his treatment of sources and of modern literature is erratic. There are glaring omissions: e.g., on pp. 97109 Applebaum discusses the famous Cereal Stele from Cyrene; the most recent study he quotes dates from 1939! In his discussion of the Roman province of Cyrene (pp. 63 ff.) one misses references to the important article by G. Perl, Die rmischen Provinzbeamten in Cyrenae und Creta zur Zeit der Republik, Klio 52 (1970) 32154; 53 (1971) 36979. Too often his conclusions are adventurous, far-fetched or unwarranted. In a list of ephebes from Ptolemais (Applebaum quotes it as unpublished; in the meantime it was edited by J. Reynolds and O. Masson in ZPE 20 [1976] 87100 {reprinted in O. Masson, Onomastica Graeca Selecta 1 [Paris n.d. but 1990] 24356}) there appears one [Ity]alammvn son of Apellas. Applebaum (pp. 167 ff.) suspects him of Jewish extraction; not impossible, but at the same time his attempt to concoct a Hebrew etymology for Itthalammon by connecting it with the name Yitshalom (Corp. Insc. Iud. 1.555) is nothing but a fine example of Volksetymologie. O. Masson, op. cit. 9899 and Antiquits Africaines 10 (1976) 6061 {= Onomastica Graeca Selecta 1.29697}, has persuasively documented the Libyan character of this name; it enters into the series of theophoric names the second part of which is -ammon. {The name is, however, missing from G. Camps, Liste onomastique libyque, Antiquits Africaines 3839 (20022003 [2005]) 21157.} Applebaum identifies this person with Itthalammon son of Apellas (again not impossible) who together with Simon son of Simon was an envoy of Ptolemaei Cyrenenses to their patron A. Terentius Varro Murena (ILS 897; {cf. G. Lderitz, Corpus jdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika [Wiesbaden 1983] 5658, no. 36}). He sees in them two Jews representing either the Greek city of Ptolemais (highly unlikely) or the settlers of the past lands of the Ptolemaic kings, the Roman agri publici (pp. 169, 173). This settlement he discovers in the region of Ein Targhuna, not far from the city of Cyrene: The name Targhuna recalls the Aramaic form of the Greek name (Trxvn) applied to the el-Lejja region of Hauran (p. 172), It was in Batanaia, in the close proximity of Trachonitis, that Herod settled a unit of Jewish mounted archers from Babylonia (Jos. Ant. Iud. 17.2425). This region was pacified by the Roman commander Varro (Jos. Bell. Iud. 1.98), probably a governor of Syria in ca. 2523. Now everything becomes obvious, at least to the author: a unit of Jewish archers was moved by the Romans from Trachonitis to Cyrenaica in the last decades of the first century B.C.E.; they brought with them the Syrian place-name which survives till today as Ein Targhuna (pp. 17374). An extraordinary flight of fancy sustained by disregard for chronology and onomastics! Another example: two clay lamps were found in Cyrene with the representation of the seven-branched candlestick (menorah). These lamps constitute the Jewish response to the iconic propaganda of Victory on the Roman lamps (p. 240). Some of the Roman lamps carry the letters s(enatus) c(onsulto) evidencing that they were manufactured officially under the state auspices (p. 238). The lamps in question were manufactured

568

Historia et Religio

under Augustus and his immediate successors. They often display a shield, the famous clupeus aureus, which was offered to Augustus by the Senate and the People {RGDA 34.2}. The letters S.C. refer to this fact. The book is stocked with numerous misprints, and still worse with consistent misspelling of scores of names and titles of books and articles.

45.9 APHRODISIAS IUDAICA*

Joyce REYNOLDS and Robert TANNENBAUM, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias. Greek Inscriptions with Commentary: Texts from the Excavations conducted by Kenan T. Erim. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society 1987. IX, 149 pp. 19 plates. (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Supplementary Volume 12).

560

In 1877 an old friend from Mommsens Breslau years contributed an article to honor the sixtieth birthday of the princeps philologorum. No matter of great importance, he averred; still, despite its Kleinheit, quite apt to show how much inscriptions can offer to elucidate a literary text. The title of the piece was Die Gottesfrchtigen bei Juvenal, and its author Jacob Bernays. It became a classic.1 In his fourteenth satire Juvenal pours scorn on fathers who give pernicious example to their sons; he upbraids metuentem sabbata patrem and all those who Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges / Iudaicum ediscunt et servant et metuunt ius. The sons of such fathers mox et praeputia ponunt (14.96101). To elucidate Juvenal Bernays adduced the inscription CIL V. 88 (= ILCV 4927 = Corp. Inscr. Iud. I. 642): matri pientissimae religioni(s) Iudeicae [sic] metuenti, and argued that here we are in the presence of the category of the metuentes, Jewish sympathizers, corresponding to o sebmenoi (or fobomenoi) tn yen appearing in Josephus and in the Acts side by side with the actual Jews. But reaction against Bernays interpretation was to set in; and today a standard commentary on Juvenal proclaims
* 1 Gnomon 63 (1991) 559561 {with addenda}. J. Bernays, Commentationes philologae in honorem Theodori Mommseni (Berolini, 1877) 56369, reprinted in J. Bernays, Gesammelte Abhandlungen 2 (Berlin, 1885) 7180. On this remarkable scholar, and his friendship with Mommsen, see L. Wickert, Theodor Mommsen. Eine Biographie, III (Frankfurt a. M., 1969) 32242, esp. 33940 on the arrestingly amusing exchange of letters between Bernays and Mommsen concerning the metuentes. {See also M. Fraenkel, Jacob Bernays. Ein Lebensbild in Briefen (Breslau, 1932); A. D. Momigliano, Jacob Bernays, in Quinto Contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Roma, 1975 [originally published in 1969]) 12758, an inspired evocation; H. I. Bach, Jacob Bernays: ein Beitrag zur Emanzipationsgeschichte der Juden und zur Geschichte des deutschen Geistes im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Tbingen, 1974) esp. 12169, 19091, 199200 (on Bernays stay in Breslau and on his contacts with Mommsen); also the various articles published in J. Glucker and A. Laks (eds.), Jacob Bernays: un philologue juif (Villeneuve dAscq, 1996) esp. E. E. Urbach on Bernays Breslau years (1628); and the brief but insightful account by A. Grafton in his collection of essays Bring Out Your Dead. The Past as Revelation (Cambridge, MA, 2001) 27998, 34750 (but he is quite wrong in giving too much credence to the disgruntled Bernays, and calling the old and verdant city of Breslau, with its university, a fount of classical learning, as grimy and barbarous.}

Varia de religione

569

that Bernays view is now discredited.2 But if we wish to have things clean and tidy we had better quit studying human affairs. The terms in question (as also yeosebew known from Greek Jewish inscriptions) were often used loosely indeed; they denoted the whole gamut of sympathizers, adherents and partial converts to Judaism who adopted various elements of the ius but refrained from circumcision; this final step was reserved for full proselytes. This is a sensible conclusion reached by Fergus Millar in the new edition of the venerable Schrer.3 In some cities the God-fearers seem to have been formally attached to the Jewish community;4 the prime exhibit for this phenomenon is now the inscription unearthed in Aphrodisias in Caria during the excavations conducted by Kemal T. Erim. First reported by Erim in AJA 81 (1977) 306 and AS 27 (1977) 31, it achieved immediate fame circulating in private copies; now thanks to the efforts of Reynolds and Tannenbaum, we have a definite edition of this gem of a text set out in a precious ring of commentary, combining epigraphica and Iudaica. The text (altogether 88 lines) is inscribed on two faces of a block of marble; it is composed of a preamble and a list of names. It opens (line a 1) with the customary invocation Yew bohyw,4a followed by the letters patellado\[. The editors divide patll& do\[, and interpret the mysterious patlla (dish) to denote the soup-kitchen (in the dative). Brilliant and (many would say) far-fetched; the absence of the article is interesting. The first group of names (on the face a) is characterized (lines a 28) as O potetagmnoi tw dekan(aw) tn filomay[n] tn k panteulog(etn) or rather -ountn [pp. 3437] ew penyhsan t plyi ktisa[n] j dvn mnma. This could refer to the minyan (the quorum of ten men), to a burial society, to the
2 E. Courtney, A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London, 1980) 571, following above all the influential article by L. H. Feldman, Jewish Sympathisers in Classical Literature and Inscriptions, TAPA 81 (1950) 200208; cf. also A. T. Kraabel, The Disappearance of the GodFearers, Numen 28 (1981) 11326. It is worth noting that this was also the opinion of L. Robert, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes (Paris, 1964) 4145. For a critique of Roberts position, see B. Lifshitz, Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues Juives (Paris, 1967) 2526. 3 E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman, III,1 (Edinburgh, 1986) 15076, esp. 16071 (this chapter was revised by F. Millar). {Cf. P. R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1991) 14568, esp. 15255; B. Wander, Gottesfrchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen (Tbingen, 1998) esp. 12132 (and 212 on Die Geschichte der Erforschung, beginning with Bernays); S. Mitchell, The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians, in P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede (eds.), Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 1999) 81148, esp. 11521; M. Stein, EA 33 (2001) 11925 (against Mitchell).} 4 For Miletos, Corp. Inscr. Iud. II.748, and H. Hommel, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25 (1975) 16795; for Pantikapaion, Corp. Inscr. Regni Bosp. 71, and H. Bellen, JAC 89 (196566) 17176. {4a Cf. p. 26. M. Palmer Bonz, The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: are they both third-century, and who are the Theosebeis?, HSCP 96, 1994, 28199, points out (28991) that this formula is not recorded in inscriptions dated any earlier than the fourth century. Thus either this will be the first occurrence of the formula or the text on face a must be dated to a later period, a solution championed by Palmer Bonz and adopted by many other scholars. See below, n. 5.}

570

Historia et Religio

561

governing body of the synagogue or to some sort of educational group. I would opt for the latter and explain the dekana as the governing body of the association of the students of the Law, the lovers of learning and those who wholly praise (the Lord) {Cf. A. Kolb, EA 36 (2003) 11519}. They founded (or constructed) at their own expense ew penyhsan (a new word; the editors adduce the adjective pnyhtow, without suffering, and translate for the relief of misfortune or suffering) for the members of the community (plyow) a memorial (building), perhaps a tomb {Cf. M. H. Williams, Historia 41 (1992) 297310: a Burial Society of the Law-Lovers, also known as Those who Continuously Offer Benedictions or Eulogies (307); as to patlla, she reconstructs an imperative invocation patellad[w]: put (food) upon our plate (309). The true solution was apparently found by P. van Minnen in a note in ZPE 100 (1994) 25358 at 25657. With the help of PHI CD ROM #6 he discovered in a funerary inscription (published in 1904 in an obscure journal) a phrase mentioning a daughter Gevrgou patel[l], where the genitive patel[l] is not a personal name, but denotes an occupation, patellw; the patelldew wren dann eine Art Imbissinhaber, owners of food joints. He also points out that, judging by the lettering, line 1 seems to be a later addition. Van Minnens interpretation has now been fully endorsed in a new excellent commented edition of the text by W. Ameling, Inscriptiones Iudaicae Orientis. Bd. II: Kleinasien (Tbingen, 2004) 70112 (no. 14) at 8586, who opts in line 1 for the plural patelldv[n]}. Of the 19 names on face a three are qualified as pros(lutow) and two as yeoseb(w); the remaining fourteen will be Jews simpliciter. On face b we have two separate lists: a list of 55 names (with a few additional names lost at top), apparently of full Jews, as the editors believe (p. 47) principally, if not entirely, born Jews; but as none of them is described as proselyte they will all be born Jews. Another list follows, of 52 names, introduced by the phrase Ka soi yeosebw (sic). This proves beyond any doubt that proselytes and yeosebew formed distinct categories, and that the latter participated in Aphrodisias in the life of the Jewish community (pp. 43, 4866). Most of the yeosebew display ordinary Greek and Roman names; nine of them were bouleutai, the city-councillors, and as such had to be present at the official sacrifices. This illustrates well the flexibility of belief prevalent in this group, eluding any strict doctrinal definition. For we are in the presence of the phenomenon of Crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew, to borrow this phrase from the title of the brilliant article by Shaye J. D. Cohen.5 As

S. J. D. Cohen, Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew, HTR 82 (1989) 1333; cf. also Idem, Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus, HTR 80 (1987) 40930, esp. 41920. {And see now his monograph The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley, 1999) 15074, esp. 16874. See also L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, 1993) esp. 36282, on the inscriptions from Aphrodisias and their implications. An important recent contribution is A. Chaniotis, The Jews of Aphrodisias, SCI (2001) 20942, esp. 21318 (with extensive bibliography). Reynolds and Tannenbaum (cautiously) dated the documents to ca 200. Chaniotis (following the lead of several inquisitive scholars) powerfully objects, and argues for a later date. He assigns the inscription b to the fourth century, between the reigns of Galerius and Theodosius, and is inclined to place the

Varia de religione

571

Cohen points out, this phenomenon had two sides to it: Greco-Roman and Jewish. For the Greco-Roman world a proselyte was a Jew; for the Jews a proselyte was a Jew of a peculiar sort (an attitude so well manifested in our inscription), and a yeosebw was certainly not a Jew but merely an adherent. But our inscription is a treasure trove not only for the students of Judaism; it contains a wealth of onomastic and lexicographical material as the text specifies the occupations of many of the persons listed. Thus religion, conversion and mundane occupations blend together in Aphrodisias and in the learned commentary of Reynolds and Tannenbaum.

inscription a sometime in the fifth century (218). Also Ameling supports dates in later antiquity. This new prevailing consensus obviously entails a vastly divergent interpretation of the social, political, and religious environment of the document. Certainty remains elusive.}

V ANTIQUA ET RECENTIORA

46 ABOUT ROSTOVTZEFF*
Marinus A. WES, Michael Rostovtzeff, Historian in Exile. Russian Roots in an American Context (Historia Einzelschriften, Heft 65). Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 1990. Pp. XXXI +106, 13 plates.

230

The author of this book combines in a unique way Classica et Russica. A student of Roman history (cf. his book Das Ende des Kaisertums im Westen des rmischen Reiches [Amsterdam 1967]), he became fascinated by the great figure of Michael Rostovtzeff. True to the precept of Goethe that anyone who wishes to know the poet must go to the poets land, he immersed himself in Russian language and Russian culture. The fruit of this intellectual travel is the present book {and see also his Classics in Russia 17001855: Between Two Bronze Horsemen (Leiden 1992)}. Rostovtzeff himself does not need any presentation: scores of his books and hundreds of articles, above all his two great summae, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1926) and The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941), dominated both the study and the understanding of ancient history. But when Rostovtzeff in 1918 came to the West, fleeing the Bolsheviks, he was already forty eight years old, an established professor at the Petersburg University, the author of numerous and acclaimed studies in Russian and in German. As scholar and humanist, he was a creation of Russian culture and German Altertumswissenschaft, but in the West a third creation occurred: he wrote his great book on the Roman Empire under the influence of the Russian Revolution (cf. A. Marcone, Historia 41 [1992] 113 {and also earlier short assessments by K. Christ, Von Gibbon zu Rostovtzeff [Darmstadt 1972] 33449; and by A. Momigliano whose curiously and instructively unperceptive essay of 1954 has been conveniently reprinted by G. W. Bowersock and T. J. Cornell in A. D. Momigliano, Studies on Modern Scholarship [Berkeley 1994] 3243}). In his monograph, not a full biography but a series of engrossing essays, Wes traces the path of Rostovtzeff from Russia and St. Petersburg to America and Yale. First he conducts a rapid but insightful tour of nineteenth century Russian social and cultural history and against this background he sketches the rise of the Rostovtzeff family from humble origins to the gentry class. Next Rostovtzeffs career in Russia; but the main thrust of the book is a prosopographic reconstruction of Rostovtzeffs life before and after his departure from St Petersburg (p. 4). Wes captures the drama of the revolution, of Rostovtzeffs voyage from Russia, and of his initial, still uncertain, years in Europe and in America; this personal peregrination gains its tragic pathos from its constant intertwinement with the fate of Russia and of thousands of Russians. The chapters on Russian migrs and the
* Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 108 (1995) 229230 {with addenda}.

576

Antiqua et Recentiora

Allied Powers and on The Paris Peace Conference make riveting reading: futile hopes and unbending reality. The Bolsheviks have won: for the exiles there was no way back. The wealth of prosopographical detail renders the story intimate and compelling. Three important chapters deal with Rostovtzeffs efforts on behalf of Russian (and European) refugees, in particular with his bringing to Yale the historian of medieval Russia George Vernadsky (in 1927), and with his help for Vladimir Nabokov, Elias Bickerman and the Belgian Hellenist and Byzantinist Henri Grgoire (19391941). But personally most revealing are the essays on Rostovtzeffs attitude to religion (the horrors of the Revolution steered him from rationalism to an appreciation of religion; his book Mystic Italy [1927] is a testament to this evolution {cf. P. G. Michelotto, Unopera anomala di M. I. Rostovtzeff, Acme 54 (2001) 3773}, and on Rostovtzeffs grand travel to India (1937) where (as he wrote) he found the destroyed past he had studied in Greece and Rome still alive: The life of the pagan religion and cult {see now G. Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 18591}. For this luminous introduction to a great historians life, work and times we owe our thanks to Wes. But it is only a first step. More can be said, and perhaps differently (cf. the splendid review article by B. D. Shaw, JRS 92 [1993] 21628). Wes utilized numerous printed and archival documents. The latter he mentions in his Preface and in a number of footnotes, but unfortunately he does not give a list of documents he used (one would wish to have precise information about their current location and their archival codes). There exists one important collection of Rostovtzeffs papers that Wes has not consulted. It is currently held at the Special Collections Library of Duke University (Durham, N.C. 277080185). {Its story is as follows1 (I owe this information to the kindness of Professor John Oates): upon Rostovtzeffs death his personal library (and apparently some boxes with his correspondence) devolved upon C. B. Welles, the pupil of Rostovtzeff and his successor at Yale. After Welles death the whole collection was acquired by the American Papyrological Society and was housed at the University of Toronto; in 1972 it was moved to Duke University. It contains several hundred letters (beginning in 1918 and ending with condolences upon Rostovtzeffs death): correspondence with the Clarendon Press, correspondence referring to the offer of a chair at Harvard (very relevant to Wes chapter on Rostovtzeff and Harvard (see now G. Bowersock and G. Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 19299, and in Philologus 140 [1996] 33448), and above all letters from various Russian migrs and from various scholars in Europe and America, among them Adolf Berger, Elias Bickerman, Franz Cumont (including a splendid photograph of both scholars taken probably at Dura), Tenney Frank, Ulrich Kahrstedt (in 1929 he contemplated leaving Germany), Friedrich Mnzer, A. D. Nock, Raphael Taubenschlag, C. B. Welles, W. L. Westermann (see now G. Bongard-Levin and Yu. Litvinenko in Scythian Novel [see below] 54870, 34665), Ulrich Wilamowitz, and Thaddaeus Zielinski, the old teacher of
1 {This text was included in the original version, but was excised by the editors of the Journal. I print it here with bibliographical addenda.}

About Rostovtzeff

577

Rostovtzeff at Petersburg, later professor in Warsaw, who, fleeing from the burning city, his books and his manuscripts ein Raub der Flammen, found refuge in the land of the enemy (in Bavaria) whence in 1940 he bewails ein trauriger Abschluss eines allzulangen Lebens (Two letters from the Duke collection, by Bickerman and Zielinski, have recently been published by H. Geremek in DHA 18, 2 [1992] 1525. See now G. Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 32945). The literary gems are Rostovtzeffs recommendation for Vladimir Nabokov (in 1939; see now G. Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 29099), and the letter from the American writer Upton Sinclair asking the famous historian to read critically the manuscript of Sinclairs short novel dealing in a playful manner ... with the resemblance between present day America and the Roman Republic.} With the opening of the Russian archives new documents are bound to accrue: the harbinger is the publication by H. Heinen (in German translation) of the newly found chapters of Rostovtzeffs great Skythien und der Bosporus (Stuttgart 1993). {More recently a whole spate of incisive publications has appeared, spearheaded by the valiant efforts by G. Bongard-Levin. See esp. the massive collection of documents and of photographs concerning Rostovtzeff, and of articles about Rostovtzeff by various mostly Russian scholars (623 pp.), edited by G. BongardLevin under the telling title uu [Scythian Novel] (Moscow 1997), a shining evocation of this new Anacharsis and his adventurous path in life and in scholarship. The five parts of the book deal with The Archival Heritage of M. Rostovtzeff; The Life of the Scholar. RussiaGreat BritainUnited States; Meetings: Friends, Colleagues, Enemies; The Epistolary Heritage of M. Rostovtzeff; M. Rostovtzeffs Unpublished Materials (University and Public Lectures). On pp. 200230 V. Zuev assembled the invaluable Materials for M. Rostovtzeffs Bio-bibliography. See further an informative and probing collection of articles edited by A. Marcone under the largely misleading title Rostovtzeff e lItalia (Napoli 1999). A number of important studies dealing with Rostovtzeff and his legacy appeared in recent issues of Mediterraneo Antico: 5.2 (2002); 6.2 (2003); 7.1 (2004). Of great interest is also P. G. Michelotto, La riflessione storicoeconomica di M.I. Rostovtzeff: il caso dellEgitto ellenistico-romano (= Memorie dellIstituto Lombardo 41.1 [Milano 1999]).} To conclude: we now appreciate more Rostovtzeffs pre-revolutionary achievements, more factual, less ideological. But the foundation of his fame that transcends mere facts and soars into the realm of idea will remain forever the Social and Economic History.

47 TENNEY FRANK*
Frank, Tenney (19 May 18763 April 1939), historian of ancient Rome and philologist, was born in Clay Center, Kansas, the son of Oliver Frank and Caroline Danielson, farmers. He received his A.B. in classics and geology (1898) and his M.A. in classics (1899) from the University of Kansas, and his Ph.D. in classics (1903) from the University of Chicago. In 1907 he married Grace Edith Mayer, who became a noted scholar in Romance philology. They had no children. He pursued his studies on a sabbatical at the Universities of Gttingen and Berlin (in 19101911). Franks professional career led him from Chicago (instructor in Latin, 19011904) through Bryn Mawr College (associate in Latin, 1904-1909; associate professor, 19091913; professor, 19131919) to Johns Hopkins University (professor in Latin, 19191939). In 19161917 he served as Annual Professor and in 19221923 and 19241925 as professor in charge of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome. He received numerous academic distinctions: he was a member of the American Philosophical Society (1927), the Swedish Royal Society of Letters in Lund (1933), corresponding fellow of the British Academy (1934), fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1935). In 1928-1929 he was president of the American Philological Association. In 1934 he was elected honorary member of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (London), the first American so honored, and in 19381939 was Eastman Visiting Professor at Oxford. From 1936 to 1939 he was editor of the American Journal of Philology. He died in Oxford, England Famous for his dry wit, he provided a powerful stimulus for his students, two of whom, Lily Ross Taylor and Thomas Robert S. Broughton, were to achieve fame matching his own. His scholarly output comprises twelve books, some 150 articles, and numerous reviews. His early publications were in the field of philology and linguistics (also Germanic and Scandinavian), as exemplified by his dissertation Attraction of Mood in Early Latin (1904), and he continued to publish in this field throughout his life. Several books dealt with Latin literature; the title of Life and Literature in the Roman Republic (1930; originally the Sather lectures at the University of California, 19291930) spelled out Franks program: to understand literature one must study the social and economic setting in which it is produced, and to illuminate history one must keep a constant eye on literature. But it was his expertise in Roman history that propelled Frank to international fame. The remarkable Roman Imperialism (1914), An Economic History of Rome
* American National Biography 8 (New York 1999) 367368 {with minor addenda and alterations}.

368

Tenney Frank

579

to the End of the Republic (1920; revised and extended in 1927 to cover the Empire); and Aspects of Social Behavior in Rome (1932) established him as a leading scholar in the field. A History of Rome (1923) was for a time a most popular textbook. Nor did he neglect archaeology: in Roman Buildings of the Republic. An Attempt to Date Them from Their Materials (1924) he put to use his early geological training. His major project was An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (5 vols.; 19331940); vols. 24, dealing with Roman provinces, were compiled by a group of American and European scholars; Frank himself wrote the first volume, Rome and Italy of the Republic (1933), but died before completing the fifth, Rome and Italy of the Empire (1940). As a collection and elucidation of sources Franks volumes continue to be indispensable, for his goal was to present evidence and eschew grand theories. This was in sharp contrast to Michael I. Rostovtzeffs imposing The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (1926), which was written under the influence of the Bolshevik revolution, and espoused the idea of a fatal conflict between the city bourgeoisie, the (mostly) rural proletariat, and the increasingly despotic state. But no work of vast scope is devoid of a thesis. As Franks colleague, W. F. Albright observed in the obituary he wrote for the Year Book of the American Philosophical Society (1939), Frank was proud of his rural beginnings, of his Scandinavian origin, and of the acquaintance with the manual labor ... His American heritage was his most prized possession. Franks American identity (although his father had came from Sweden, and Swedish was the language of his parental household) influenced to an uncommon degree his perception of Rome as an ancient America and of America as a new Rome. On the eve of World War I he argued in his Roman Imperialism against Oldworld political traditions ... [that] accept territorial expansion as a matter of course; in an agricultural republic, such as Rome, there existed cross-currents to neutralize ... the blind instinct to acquire. If Rome had become mistress of the world, argued Frank, it was because after defensive wars law and order had to be imposed on unruly tribes. Thus the free Roman people stumbled on falteringly and unwittingly into ever increasing dominion until the burden of the empire leveled the whole state to the condition of servitude (pp. viiviii, 358). In A History of Rome he reiterates that Romes rapid and ill-considered expansion was a prime cause of her decline, along with slavery and the thorough-going displacement of Romans through non-Romans (pp. 56667, 574). Darwinian and Mendelian principles permeated Franks work, beginning with his famous article Race Mixture in the Roman Empire (American Historical Review 21 [1916]: 689708). To Frank, the pervasive admixture of an oriental brood with the Roman melting-pot proved fatal, producing people soft of fiber, weak of will, mentally fatigued. He caps his Survey (vol. 5, p. 304) with an explanation for Romes downfall and a warning for America: the decline of Rome began with a betrayal of the free yeomanry by the selfish landed gentry. Unlike his detailed articles, Franks books (with the exception of the Survey volumes) have scant documentation: they are works of ideology driven by the belief that there exists an

580

Antiqua et Recentiora

American way to ancient Rome. As such they remain an important part of the American intellectual tradition.
A small collection of Franks letters is in the Special Collection of the Milton S. Eisenhower Library of the Johns Hopkins University. A full bibliography of his books and articles (but not of his reviews) is in the American Journal of Philology 60 (1939): 28087. Books not mentioned in the text are: Vergil. A Biography (1922; {Italian translation 1930}); Catullus and Horace. Two Poets in Their Environment (1928); and an English translation of Cornelius van Bynkershoeks [a Dutch jurist, 16731743] Quaestionum juris publici libri duo (1930). {For a longer appraisal, see T. R. S. Broughton in W. W. Briggs and W. M. Calder III (eds.), Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia (1990), pp. 6876}, and for specific points, see J. Linderski, Si vis pacem para bellum: Concepts of Defensive Imperialism, in: W. V. Harris (ed.), The Imperialism in Mid-Republican Rome (= Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 29 [1984]): 14549, 160-62 {reprinted in RQ 131; cf. also in this volume, No. 49, n. 2. See now also R. Saller, Classical American Historiography, in A. Molho and G. S. Wood (eds.), Imagined Histories. American Historians Interpret the Past (Princeton 1998), pp. 22325; D. Potter, Roman History and the American Philological Association 19002000, TAPA 131 (2002): 31527, seeking a unified approach to the work of Frank, Rostovtzeff, Taylor and Broughton}. There are obituaries in the London Times, 4 and 6 Apr. 1939; American Journal of Philology 60 (1939): 27380 {(by N. W. DeWitt); Year Book of the American Philosophical Society (1939): 44446 (by W. F. Albright); Johns Hopkins Alumni Magazine 27 (1939): 10710 (by T. R. S. Broughton); Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 74 (19401942): 12325 (by A. S. Pease)}.

48 LILY ROSS TAYLOR*

Taylor, Lily Ross (12 Aug. 188618 Nov. 1969), historian of ancient Rome, was born in Auburn, Alabama, the daughter of William Dana Taylor, a noted railway engineer, and Mary Forte Ross. She never married. She received her A.B. in classics from the University of Wisconsin (1906) and Ph.D. in classics from Bryn Mawr College (1912), where she was a student of Tenney Frank. In 1917 and 19191920 she was the first woman fellow at the American Academy in Rome. Her professional career took her to Vassar College (19121927), where she progressed from instructor of Latin to professor, and back to Bryn Mawr as Professor of Latin (1927 until her retirement in 1952) and as dean of the Graduate School (19421952). In 19341935 and 19521955 she was Professor in Charge of the Classical School at the American Academy in Rome; she was a Visiting Professor at Harvard (1959) and at the University of Wisconsin (19621963); Guggenheim Fellow (1952 and 1960); and a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (19591960). She was showered with academic honors including five honorary degrees {from Wilson College (1944), Mills College (1947), University of Wisconsin (1950), Columbia University (1954), Smith College (1961)}; she was a member of the American Philosophical Society (1945) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1951); a corresponding member of the Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia (1953), the British Academy (1963), and the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Munich (1965); an honorary member in 1960 of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (London), president of the American Philological Association (1942), and the recipient of that associations Goodwin Award (1962). She was also awarded the gold medal, Cultori di Roma, of the city of Rome (1962). Her public service in the two world wars took her with the American Red Cross to Italy and the Balkans (19181919) and to Washington, D.C., as a principal social sciences analyst in the Office of Strategic Services (19431944). Taylor achieved rare brilliance as a teacher (she was listed in a 1950 Life magazine survey among the great teachers) and as a scholar. Professor Agnes Michels, one of her pupils, reminisced that she was gentle with the obtuse and she enlightened ignorance. But above all she nurtured independence: she made one feel that what is known now is the jumping-off place into new discoveries, and made one eager to make the leap. Scholarship was for her a frontier to be pushed farther and farther. This makes the encounter with her work (comprising six books, some seventy articles, and a score of reviews) an intellectual adventure. Curiosity (she wrote in 1959 a piece In Praise of Curiosity) and clarity were her badges,
* American National Biography 21 (New Yok 1999) 390391 {with minor addenda}.

582

Antiqua et Recentiora

391

and she did not suffer gladly pretentious academic fools, whether she encountered them in person or in print. Three fields of the Roman past were her special province: religion, politics, and constitutional history. Her published dissertation, The Cults of Ostia (1912), was followed by Local Cults of Etruria (1923), both are exhaustive collections of literary, archaeological, and inscriptional evidence, though now in need of extensive supplements. Her numerous articles of that period treated various aspects of Roman religion but particularly the Hellenistic and Roman ruler cult. The culmination of that effort was The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (1931), a book that abounds in information and insight, but is somewhat one-sided in its thesis that the ruler cult was mainly a political rather than a religious phenomenon. Although Taylor adhered to no religion, her book still looks at ancient cults from a perspective largely informed by Christianity. Yet Taylor saw well that in no society can religion be separated from politics, and this led her to immerse herself in the late republican politics. After many seminal articles (mostly on Cicero and Caesar), she produced a remarkable monograph, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (1949; originally Sather Classical Lectures at the University of California 1947). If her book on the imperial cult has a slightly old-fashioned air, Party Politics is strikingly modern in its outlook. Following in the pathbreaking footsteps of two eminent students of Roman history and prosopography, Matthias Gelzer and Ronald Syme, Taylor produced a lasting account of the late republican politics centered around the persons of Cato and Caesar. She showed how the senatorial oligarchy and the new leaders Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar, vied with each other for vast popular clientelae, both utilizing and subverting the traditional constitutional framework of the republic. But at the end she somberly concluded that all of this ultimately mattered very little for the common people: under the Empire the Roman nobles lost their liberty, but the people passed from the domination of an oligarchy to the domination of a monarch (p. 182). The next book, Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960), is a painstaking collection of all pertinent sources, and as not much new material is likely to accrue, it will remain a standard work for many years to come. Her last and perhaps finest book was Roman Voting Assemblies (1966; originally Jerome Lectures at the University of Michigan and the American Academy in Rome, 19641965). The subject was as politically important as it was technically difficult, for voting procedures at Rome were fabulously complicated. A comparison suggests itself: the study of the Roman constitution stood in the shadow of the great German scholar Theodor Mommsen, whom Taylor immensely admired. His work was as solid as a pyramid and as difficult to navigate as a labyrinth; in contrast, Taylors book is full of light and soaring like a Venetian palace. Her enduring legacy is not only her published work, but also a lesson on how scholarship ought to be practiced: Taylor showed that clarity and rigor go hand in hand, and where there is obfuscation there is no true scholarship. Taylor died in Bryn Mawr in an accident, struck by a car.

Lily Ross Taylor

583

A collection of Taylors papers and correspondence is in the Bryn Mawr College Archives. A complete bibliography of her writings (through 1966) was published as a pamphlet by Bryn Mawr College (1966). A full, updated bibliography is appended to the French translation of her Party Politics, La politique et les partis Rome au temps de Csar (1977). For a remarkable evocation of her work and her person, see Agnes Kirsopp Michels {in B. Sicherman and C. H. Green (eds.), Notable American Women (1980), pp. 67778, and} in Classical Outlook 68 (19901991) 5253; for an appraisal of her achievement, see T. Robert S. Broughton in Year Book of the American Philosophical Society (1970), pp. 17279, and in Ward W. Briggs and William M. Calder III, eds., Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia (1990), pp. 45461. For an intelligent evaluation of studies of Roman imperial cult that allows one to place Taylors earlier work in an informed perspective, see S. R. F. Price, Rituals and Power (1984), pp. 719. And for an Italian perspective on her work, see Giancarlo Susini in Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 42 (19691970) 4245. {R. Saller, Classical American Historiography, in A. Molho and G. S. Wood, Imagined Histories. American Historians Interpret the Past (Princeton 1998), p. 225, opines that Taylor had a limited appreciation of ancient Rome. This is vastly unfair, and illustrative of the modish sociological morass}. Obituaries are in The New York Times, 20 Nov. 1969, and the London Times, 27 Nov. 1969.

49 AGNES KIRSOPP MICHELS AND THE RELIGIO*

With the death of Agnes Kirsopp Lake Michels in Chapel Hill on 30 November 1993 a great and honorable dynasty of American letters came to a close.1 The progenitor was Tenney Frank.2 It was under his direction that Lily Ross Taylor, the teacher of Michels, wrote in 1912 her Bryn Mawr dissertation on The Cults of Ostia.3 It was under the direction of Taylor that the young Agnes Lake wrote in 19301934 at Bryn Mawr and Rome her monograph on the Tuscan Temple. That Agnes Lake should have become a student of religio was almost preordained. L. R. Taylor continued throughout the twenties and thirties to be preoccupied with the Roman cult; she produced two major monographs and a crop of brilliant articles,4 and her research interests were like a magnet to her precocious
* 1 Classical Journal 92.4 (1997) 323345 {with minor addenda}. For biographical data and a list of publications, see the appendices at the end of this paper. Her early publications are signed A. (or Agnes) K. (or Kirsopp) Lake; after her marriage to Walter C. Michels (cf. below, nn. 7, 27) in June 1941 she generally used the form Agnes Kirsopp Michels (but also Agnes Michels, Agnes K. Michels, A. K. Michels, Agnes K. Lake Michels). The present essay is based in part on papers and documents that came to my knowledge after Professor Michels death (they are now deposited at Bryn Mawr College Archives), and on personal conversations, briefly in 1962 at Bryn Mawr, and frequently in Chapel Hill from 1979 to the very week of her death. For additional information I am very obliged to Professor Russell T. Scott of Bryn Mawr College, and to Ms. Lorett Treese, Bryn Mawr College Archivist. The photograph that graces this essay {here not reproduced} I owe to the kindness of Mrs. Michels daughter, Mrs. Leslyn Goodrich. Professor Michels asked me to serve as her literary executor, an honor and trust for which I am grateful. But this essay is not intended as an encomium, a thing she would have disliked. Its goal, as the past is fast slipping away, is to present the achievement of a remarkable person and a remarkable scholar and teacher. If there is here much more assent, and admiration, than disagreement, this is due to the fact that my view of Roman religion largely coincides with her insight, and this is not the place to engage in a polemic concerning various points of interpretation and detail. On Tenney Frank, see T. R. S. Broughton, in W. W. Briggs and W. M. Calder III (eds.), Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia (New York-London 1990) 6876. Cf. also the critical remarks by J. Linderski in American National Biography {8 (1999) 36768, reprinted in this volume, No. 47} and, above all, by T. Africa, Ancient Historians in the United States in the Twentieth Century, in M. Reinhold and W. Haase (eds.), The Classical Tradition in the Americas 6 ({still}forthcoming). It was published in the same year (= Bryn Mawr College Monographs. Monograph Series, vol. XI). Local Cults in Etruria (= Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 2 [Rome 1923]); The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (= Philological Monographs 1, American Philological Association [Middletown 1931]). By 1934 Taylor had also produced some sixteen articles dealing with Roman and Hellenistic cult. See Lily Ross Taylor, A Bibliography (Bryn Mawr 1966). For a story of Taylors life (18861969), and an appraisal of her achievements as

324

3 4

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

585

325

pupil. Miss Lake, as she later recounted, still an undergraduate, conceived a plan of producing a comprehensive account of Roman religion, of its deities and priesthoods. It was at this juncture that Taylor showed her the magisterial volume of Georg Wissowa,5 saying, this has already been done (audita refero). Agnes Michels never stopped worshipping Wissowa as a god of scholarship, and it was this exhilarating experience, and Taylors guidance and numinous presence, that shaped her as a scholar. But the name of Lake conjures up another abiding presence in her scholarly life, that of her father, the formidable Kirsopp Lake. As she herself wrote,6 my general interests should be attributed mainly to the influence of my father who was a New Testament scholar with a classical education and a passionate love of beauty. He told me the stories of the classics and, long before I could understand them, read to me a strange assortment of Browning and the Bible; Swinburne, Tennyson, and Josephus. His attitude to his own work made me think of scholarship as the opening to a world of adventure, not as a retirement from reality. Adventure it was, but adventure requires a mind open and bold, the qualities not always appreciated, and least of all in the study of living religions, where often dogmas rule, and intolerance. For intolerance and dogmas Agnes Michels felt only disdain,7 and one can suspect that much of her bold and fair spirit arose from a consideration of her fathers theological and scholarly vicissitudes. When a curate at St. Marys in Oxford (18971904), Kirsopp Lake became engaged in cataloguing Greek manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (19031904), and immersed himself in the study of the Synoptic problem. It was, I believe, at this point, writes his son Gerard Lake,8 that my father began to doubt the teacha scholar, see T. R. S. Broughton, in Classical Scholarship (above, n. 2) 45461; Michels 1980a; 1990b {and J. Linderski in American National Biography 21 (1999) 39091, reprinted in this volume, No. 48}. After Frank and Taylor, the third member and mainstay of that dynasty was T. R. S. Broughton himself (19001993); he died in Chapel Hill a few months before Michels demise. He had been among the Bryn Mawr teachers of Michels, and then her colleague in the Department of Latin at Bryn Mawr until his retirement and emigration to Chapel Hill in 1965, where Michels rejoined him in 1977. On Broughtons life and achievement, see the obituary by J. Linderski in Gnomon 67 (1995) 9193 {reprinted, with addenda, in this volume, No. 50}, and a biographical and bibliographical notice in W. W. Briggs, Jr. (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport, CT, 1994) 6466; and, above all, G. W. Houston, Broughton Remembered and Fasti Broughtoniani, in J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T. R. S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 130, 3542. Religion und Kultus der Rmer2 (Mnchen 1912). The quote comes from her application for the Ford Foundation Faculty Fellowship (she held it in 195354). I found this document among her papers. It is a remarkable piece: the confession of a scholar (unimaginable today when in applications one rather writes what the assorted purse-masters wish to hear, and not what one feels, believes, or knows). Around the time of her marriage to Walter Michels she joined the Religious Society of Friends, but she kept her independence even from this gentle creed; during her stay in Chapel Hill she never participated in the meetings. But as a true student of Roman religion she loved rituals, and eagerly attended family weddings and baptisms. In Biographical Note appended to Quantulacumque. Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (London 1937) vii.

5 6

586

Antiqua et Recentiora

326

ings of the church and to think in terms of history and exegesis rather than theology and parish difficulties. Agnes Michels, in conversations, was less polite and oblique: heresy was her word, pronounced with glee and gusto. In 1904 Kirsopp Lake assumed the chair of New Testament Exegesis in Leiden, and he stayed there until 1914. After a year of grace, he was obliged to deliver his lectures in Dutch, a family story his daughter repeated with horror and amusement. It was at Leiden, on 31 July 1909, that Agnes Lake was born. For Kirsopp Lake, and his family, a further peregrination soon followed, this time across the ocean, to Harvard, where in 1914 he became Professor of Early Christian Literature, and in 1919 Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical Literature, a chair, his son cryptically alludes, which he held until circumstances forced him to resign it and join the Department of History in the College in 1932. 9 Thus it was in the rarefied atmosphere of an elevated professorship and Harvard Yard, not her favorites, that Agnes Lake grew to maturity (with a year in an exclusive boarding school in England,10 an experience she remembered with a mixture of resentment and fascination for England and English history). Rescue and redemption came when in 1926 she entered Bryn Mawr College. To Agnes Lake it was not merely a place of study, a place of professional career, a place of teaching: Bryn Mawr was destined to become her life. Of Agnes Michels as a student, passionate teacher, and a colleague, others may write who knew her earlier or longer or better. Teaching was not only her vocation; it was the better part of her existence, but it was a teaching always informed by hard, uncompromising, and original scholarship. It was a scholarship suffused with curiosity, a virtue Lily Ross Taylor herself extolled and practiced,11 but a curious mind often tackles problems that cannot be solved or problems that more pedestrian readers and editors do not appreciate. This led to rejections of a good number of Michels submissions. When, in desperation, she once asked (again, audita refero) T. R. S. Broughton whether he ever suffered this ignominy, he answered truthfully: Never, and he added, modestly, but, then, I have never written anything controversial. Michels cherished this anecdote, and for a good reason: it illustrates not so much a difference between her scholarship and that of her illustrious colleague and friend as a difference between their fields of study. In particular prosopography dispassionately describes and catalogues personages, and reduces the blood, suffering and emotion of history to a parade of names; there is a place for disagreement, but hardly for controversy. The study of religion, even as distant as that of the Romans,
9 Ibid., viii. 10 St. Pauls Girls School in London. At Cambridge, MA, she attended the Buckingham School. 11 L. R. Taylor, In Praise of Curiosity, Boston University Graduate Journal 8, no. 2 (1959) 3543. Many years after her student days, and several years after Taylors death, Agnes Michels singled out as a most arresting characteristic of Taylor, along with her capacity for work and a sense of humor, her insatiable curiosity. (Michels 1980a; 1990b). The phrase has an endearing ring, and in many a reader it would evoke the memory of childhood and of Kiplings Elephants Child, and rightly so, for a true scholar is engaged in discovering things quite like a child.

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

587

327

incites emotions and nourishes enduring animosities. It is not possible not to offend somebody. But Agnes Lake almost veered off her original path, and became a student of archaeology, even of pottery. In 19311933 she was a Fellow in the School of Classical Studies at the American Academy in Rome; she also participated in 1932 for six weeks in the excavations at Samaria (organized by her father), and in 1933 from 27 March to 19 July in the University of Pennsylvania excavations at Minturnae. There she came across a large deposit of pottery, and this discovery resulted in a substantial publication (1935b). It was for that work that she was technically awarded her doctorate.12 But the main purpose of her stay in Rome was to turn into a monograph her thesis (of 1931) on Divine Triads in Italy. The topic was large, difficult, and much discussed: who has not heard of the Capitoline triad of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva? The logical thing to do, while in Italy, was to start with the remnants of temples that seemed designed to house triads. Thus what originally was to be a study in religious history and Italic and Etruscan theology turned into an archaeological investigation, completed in 1934, and published as a long paper in 1935 with a rather modest title The Archaeological Evidence for the Tuscan Temple (1935a). The paper starts with the famous formula of Vitruvius concerning the Tuscan order (4.6.67.2): Reduced to its simplest terms, the formula requires a temple whose breadth is to its length as 5:6, and which is divided into three latitudinal parts, the central division to occupy four tenths of the breadth and each side division threetenths (91). The author goes on to observe that the influence of Vitruvius has ... resulted in a tendency to interpret the material remains to fit the requirements of the
12 In her Vita appended to the typescript of her dissertation she lists as her principal teachers at Bryn Mawr with whom she had taken graduate seminars (in that order): L. R. Taylor, T. R. S. Broughton (cf. nn. 3, 4), H(enry) J. Cadbury (18831974; a prolific student of Biblical history), V(alentin) Mller (18891945, a student of Greek and oriental archaeology {cf. the biographical note by T. R. S. Broughton in R. Lullies and W. Schiering (eds.), Archologenbildnisse. Portrts und Kurzbiographien von klassischen Archologen deutscher Sprache [Mainz 1988] 244-45}), Rhys Carpenter (18891980, a famed scholar of towering presence and influence in Greek archaeology, the history of Greek art, and early Greek history; cf. the note by M. L. Lang in Biographical Dictionary [above, n. 4] 8688), W(illiam) B(ell) Dinsmoor (18861973; another great name in Greek, mainly Athenian, archaeology and history); and at the American Academy M(arbury) B(laden) Ogle (18791964; he was Professor in Charge at the School of Classical Studies in 193134, and an authority on Roman folklore; see the note by W. W. Briggs in Biographical Dictionary 45758), and A(lbert) W(illiam) Van Buren (18781968; perhaps at that time the most eminent American student of Roman archaeology). In her application for the Guggenheim Fellowship (cf. below, n. 15) she describes as her principal teachers Taylor, Broughton and also Louise A(dams) Holland (18931990; a student of archaeology and Roman religion; see the note by T. R. S. Broughton in Biographical Dictionary 28789), and as her other Bryn Mawr teachers, in addition to those mentioned in her dissertation, she lists Henry N(evill) Sanders (18691943; a Greek scholar; see M. L. Lang in Biographical Dictionary 56061), Wilmer C(ave) Wright (18681951; a student and translator of late Greek philosophy and of Latin medical treatises; see M. L. Lang in Biographical Dictionary 72627), Edith Dohan (18771943; a student of Greek, particularly Cretan, archaeology), and Mary H(amilton) Swindler (18841967; a student of Greek religion).

588

Antiqua et Recentiora

328

formula, instead of comparing such evidence with the doctrine of Vitruvius (89). Her goal is to provide such a comparison. The monograph systematically treats, with a remarkable sureness of hand, eye, and mind, of all (then) known temples with triple cellae, and establishes the temples in Florence, Orvieto, Rome, Veii, Segni, Terracina and Minturnae as the genuine examples of the type. The result is disappointing for Vitruvius: although in many cases we find an approximation to the terms of the formula, we never find them exactly fulfilled. We are not justified therefore in using the formula, as has often been done in the past, to complete the reconstruction of a partially preserved temple. ... It can never be used to supply reliable statistics, when the actual measurements are lacking (137).13 This youthful work shows all the hallmarks of a mature scholar: painstaking attention to detail, dogged hunt for facts, distrust of fancy theories, and independence of mind. It shows also capacity for sustained work, and yet her next monograph was to appear only after thirty two years (1969). The reason is simple. After her stay in Rome, the twenty five year old Agnes Lake returned to Bryn Mawr, received her doctorate, was appointed instructor, and discovered teaching.14 She also discovered Latin poetry. It was from this deep but slow spring that her thoughts, and her understanding of religio, were now to flow.15 This is not to say that in the next ten years her published contributions were few or negligible. Her first published piece on Roman cult, a note on Juno Moneta (1933),16 was joined by short articles on Lapis Capitolinus (1936),17
13 This conclusion is quoted with approval by A. J. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca (Graz 1975) 52. The paper is rounded off by two still very useful appendices, one cataloguing the coins and sculptures on which the Capitolium is represented (13843), and the other containing a list of all republican temples which are sufficiently well preserved to supply any measurements (14348). The problem of triads continues to be debated, and most scholars are now of the opinion that they were rather an exception than a rule; see L. Banti, Il culto del cosidetto tempio di Apollo a Veii e il problema delle triadi etrusco-italiche, SE 17 (1943) 187224; Pfiffig, Religio 3336; and, contra, T. N. Gantz, Divine Triads on an Archaic Etruscan Frieze Plaque from Poggio Civitate (Murlo), SE 39 (1971) 324. 14 That I should go into teaching was the inevitable result of my upbringing, but I have continued in it because I find it brings me more pleasure than any other way of life (from the application for the Ford Foundation Faculty Fellowship; cf. above, n. 6). 15 In her application for the Guggenheim Fellowship (which she held in 196061), another extraordinarily personal document, Agnes Michels comments how, as a result of her courses, she became interested in Latin literature, especially poetry, and how her new interest in poetry, and her old interest in Roman religion conspired to lead her away from archaeology. In this field, after her thesis and dissertation, she published only two short papers, (1937d) and (1941a), the latter continuing her study of the Tuscan Temple (cf. also the review 1949c). A Note on the Location of the Cena Trimalchionis (1941b) may also be regarded as an offshoot of her work in Minturnae in that she (tentatively) proposes to localize the Cena precisely in Minturnae, an idea that does not seem to have found favor among the Petronian scholars. 16 In this note, on the basis of the inscription Iunonei Monetai donom (in 1933 not yet admitted to CIL; now CIL I2.2864 = ILLRP 166), found in Signia, she argues (rather adventurously) that Signia was the original home of the cult of Juno Moneta. 17 The article very ingeniously attempts to establish a connection (or even original identity) between the stone of Terminus in the cella of Juppiter in the Capitoline temple and Iuppiter Lapis.

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 329

589

330

The Supplicatio and the Graecus Ritus (1937b),18 and a note on The Consualia of December(1944c).19 And there were four articles on the poets, on Propertius (1937c, 194020), on Horace (1944b) and on Lucretius and Vergil (1944a; 1945), these last two pieces inaugurating her life-long fascination with the critic of religio and the singer of pietas.21 Lucretius and the Sixth Book of the Aeneid [1944a] and The Golden Bough of Plato [1945] are pieces courageous and imaginative, and courageous indeed must be a scholar who ventures into this territory, the preserve of perhaps the greatest commentary ever written on any book of Vergil.22 In the former article Agnes Michels interpreted Aeneas journey to Hades as a dream, in the other, always stout of heart, she plunged into Hades itself, and together with Aeneas crossed the Styx. She crossed it in a novel way. It was the aureus ramus (Aen. 6.137), sacred to Proserpina, that gave Aeneas the right to traverse the river. Servius comments that
18 The article discusses the connection between the supplicatio, pulvinaria and lectisternia, and concludes that there did not exist any particular link between the supplicatio and the decemviri sacris faciundis. Cf. more recently M. Nouilhan, Les lectisternes rpublicaines, in A.-F. Laurens (ed.), Entre hommes et dieux (= Annales Littraires de lUniversit de Besanon 391 [Paris 1989]) 2741 (who, however, missed Michels contribution).{Cf. also OCD3 (1996) 837}. 19 The Consualia, a feast of harvest and abundance, was celebrated on 21 August and on 15 December; the latter festival Michels explains as concerned with the olive crop. But Consus and Ops are clearly concerned with grain, and Michels idea does not seem to have found followers. Cf. P. Pouthier, Ops et la conception divine de labondance dans la religion romaine jusqu la mort dAuguste (BEFAR 241 [Rome 1981]) 10213 {I am pleased to note that recently this idea of Michels has found at last an erudite follower: F. Bernstein, Verstndnisund Entwicklungsstufen der archaischen Consualia. Rmisches Substrat und griechische berlagerung, Hermes 125 (1997) 41346 at 420 and n. 38}. 20 But her defence of the transmitted sit in 1.22.6 has not been kindly received; cf. P. Fedeli, Sesto Properzio. Il Primo Libro delle Elegie (Firenze 1980) 5023. 21 See her articles Death and Two Poets (1955b), in which she discusses with arresting empathy the phraseology of Lucretius and Propertius, and their attitude to that unavoidable reality, mors. Next, Lucretius, Clodius and Magna Mater (1966a); she ingeniously interprets Lucretius discussion of the cult of Magna Mater (2.60060) as an echo of Ciceros accusation of Clodius in the De Haruspicum responso. Further,The Insomnium of Aeneas (1981b), perhaps her most significant and brilliant contribution to the understanding of the Aeneid: Vergil intended the whole journey through the underworld to be interpreted as a dream from which Aeneas now wakes; this explains why Aeneas shows no recollection of Anchises prophecy (143). The prophecy of Anchises had thus no influence on the action of the story and, consequently, Vergil must have agreed with Horace (Od. 3.29.2933) that God deliberately conceals the future from mortal men, who should not be unduly concerned with it, but cope with the present (146). In a note Macrobius on Chromatic Sheep(1989) she gently points out that various literary students of Vergil thoroughly misunderstood the religious meaning of varicolored sheep at Ecl. 4.4245 (unfortunately she has missed, as have also all other recent students of Vergil, the erudite study by W. Fauth, Der Traum des Tarquinius, Latomus 35 [1976] 469503, where the whole and widespread symbolism of the aries purpureus is thoroughly illuminated). Finally,The Many Faces of Aeneas (1997), found among her papers, and published in this issue of CJ. 22 I mean, of course, the book by Eduard Norden, P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI (2nd ed., Leipzig 1916).

590

Antiqua et Recentiora

331

according to the publica opinio the bough was identical with the branch which a fugitive slave would pluck from a sacred tree in the Grove of Diana at Aricia when he was about to proceed to a duel with the current rex Nemoresis. This would produce, Michels argued, a rather pointless allusion to a bloody survival of primitive ritual, a conceit for which Vergil was too civilized (59). He was also an omnivorous reader. The clue to the mystery of the golden bough is not to be sought in folklore or comparative religion but rather in the field of literature. The phrase comes from the Garland of Meleager of Gadara who described the epigrams of Plato as xrseiow kln, of which aureus ramus is a legitimate translation. Aeneas descent to Hades resembles the Myth of Er: It was by means of the Golden Bough that Aeneas made Charon carry him across the Styx, so that he could see the after-life, just as Socrates showed the fate of the soul to Glaucon by means of a myth. The equation between Bough and myth seems plain (6061). And thus here religio and poetry came together, and not unjustly, for both rely on logos. But logos for a scholar is a treacherous guide; it can mean various things to various people. Michels admitted this when in the conclusion of her article she wrote: The Golden Bough was ... a creation of Vergils imagination. ... In Vergils own mind it would have been connected with Platonic doctrine, while, like all great poetry, it can mean to readers of the Aeneid what they can discover in it (63). An observant reader of Vergil, and of Michels, will be amazed, and startled: for the article vividly illustrates the road traversed by its author, not just or only across the Styx, but rather from the exact measurements of Tuscan temples and antiquarian notices to a golden and elusive bough of literary interpretation.23 If it was a period of poetry and reflection, and of retreat from archaeology and antiquarianism, we shall not err if we identify as the engine of this transformation the course on Judaism and Early Christianity that Agnes Michels began to teach in 1938. It was in connection with this course that she received (in 1953) the Ford Foundation Faculty Fellowship. In her application she described her quest as trying to understand the way in which the human race attempts to express its relation to the universe sometimes in its religion and sometimes in its poetry. And her quest as a teacher was to try to break down mis-understandings and prejudice between religious groups, and promote open and friendly arguments between
23 Norden did not know the passage of Meleager, and here the advantage lies with Michels: her observation corrects Nordens statement (173) that in the literature it was Vergil who first introduced the image of the golden bough. But Norden has perspicaciously pointed to a parallel interpretation of Servius, de hoc ramo hi qui de sacris Proserpinae scripsisse dicuntur, quiddam esse mysticum adfirment. Servius does not elaborate; it was reserved for Norden to supply details (pp. 16379). He shows that in her mysteries Persephone received from her devotees as a gift mystic branches, of mistletoe, of myrtle, and of gold. This is the source of Vergils golden ramus. Here the advantage lies with Norden for his interpretation accounts both for the image in Meleager and in Vergil, and frees Vergil from the cumbersome Platonic connection. To this day Nordens interpretation and erudition remain unsurpassed. A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge 1965) 1.215, lines 4748 (text), 2.604 (commentary), do not remark (perhaps prudently) on any possible connection with Vergil, and limit themselves solely to the observation that klna ... suggests shrub or tree rather than flower.

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

591

332

Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and occasional atheists (Lily Ross Taylor among the last named, it might be added). And in another place she wrote: From the academic point of view, it seems to me to matter very little whether the student, in the end, accept the answers which religion offers, so long as he understands the problem, and knows for himself why he rejects or accepts the solutions (1949a). Here a profound teacher and thinker speaks, but when we search for universal problems even if not for answers to them we can easily be carried away from the scholarship in the sense of a Wissowa or a Taylor into scintillating but vain speculation. A dichotomy ran through Michels life as a scholar: as a student of Roman religio she achieved a deeper and wiser insight than most of her contemporaries, but the book she contemplated never saw the light of day, and her visible achievement is a book that many will regard as antiquarian in character. In the same year in which Michels delivered her talk to Bryn Mawr alumnae on The Teaching of Religion (1949a), there also appeared her most important paper to date, The Calendar of Numa and the Pre-Julian Calendar (1949b), a work of stunning erudition and acute historical sense. The history of any calendar is the history of the reforms to which it has been subjected (321). These reforms are normally the result of technological progress in time-reckoning or of a radical social change, but any calendar reform itself is always introduced abruptly by a superior authority, be it the Pontifex Maximus Julius Caesar, the Pontifex Maximus (sive Papa) Gregory or the French revolutionaries. In the epigraphically preserved Roman calendars there appears a cycle of specifically named religious festivals with their abbreviated names recorded in large letters. Mommsen assigned these festivals summarily to the period of Numa, and subsequent scholars, including Wissowa, continued dating them to the regal epoch, though rather to the era of the Etruscan kings. Michels points out that as these festivals fell on fixed days they must have been correlated with the system of Kalends, Nones and Ides, that is with the system of the lunar month, and there are powerful indications that the lunar month was introduced by the Etruscan dynasty (32228). But there are equally strong indications that the earliest Roman year (ascribed to Romulus) consisted of ten months, March through December, with January and February according to the Roman tradition added by Numa (hence the denomination, the Numan year). This ten-month year was based (as argued by a number of scholars) not on the movement of the sun and moon, but rather on the observation of seasonal changes, and the religious manifestation of those changes were the festivals celebrated according to the progress of the agricultural year. It was the Etruscans who added two months to this seasonal year and combined it with their own lunar year into the lunisolar calendar (which required occasional intercalations). How were the dates of festivals fitted into this system? It was at this juncture that Michels produced a momentous insight: Since the festivals were still feriae conceptivae they would be celebrated when the season required, in whatever month was in progress at the time, and would be announced on the Nones after which they were to occur. And further: It is clear that with a system of this type it would have been impossible to have fixed days for festivals in each month as long as they retained in peoples minds their functional relationship with the real agricultural activities of the year

592

Antiqua et Recentiora

333

334

(333). The problem now arises when the festival cycle with its fixed dates was codified. After a perceptive (though rather involved) discussion Michels revived, with new arguments, an old suggestion of Ideler (1826), accepted by many scholars, but vigorously combatted by Wissowa and Nilsson,24 that this momentous change was due, as much else in archaic Rome, to the decemvirs (33846). I have dwelt on this paper at some length for in the life of each scholar worth his or her mettle there comes a time when you square your wits with the heroes and giants of your scholarly childhood. Agnes Michels squared her wits with Mommsen, Wissowa and Nilsson, and she stood her ground. Several years later there followed a short article on The Intercalary Month (1962a), and finally, in 1967, the opus slender but magnum: The Calendar of the Roman Republic. This book belongs to the necessary equipment of every student of Rome. It is composed of two parts and four appendices. Its very arrangement is a lesson in method. Part I deals with The Calendar of the First Century B.C.; part II with the History of the Republican Calendar, and is in turn subdivided into two chapters, dealing, in this order, with the history of the calendar from the first to the fourth century B.C., and then with the fifth century. We start with things better known and illuminated by contemporary sources, and from that firm ground we move to things more distant and more obscure. If other scholars had followed this example and admonition, many books on early Rome would not have been conceived so infeliciter. Part I gives (in five chapters) an account of the pre-Julian calendar, and then surveys in an encyclopedic fashion the character of the days in the calendar of the first century B.C., dies comitiales and dies fasti, dies nefasti and the days marked NP, and finally nundinal letters and nundinae. This mine of information is supplemented by appendices on Roman intercalation,25 the character of days, nundinae and trinum nundinum, and the dating of the calendar (with some corrections to her previous discussion of 1949). Another lesson in method is this: there is much in the book that is hypothetical. The author is keenly aware of that circumstance; more: she takes every precaution not to pass theories for facts. I am uncomfortably aware of many loose ends in my discussion (p. VIII). Scholarly honesty dictated this confession; but only a person of courage could make it. This is not the place to discuss each and every statement and observation made in the book or to enter into a dispute concerning this or other particular point. One point, however, must be made, firmly: to a mind vague and not used to scholarly dis24 M. P. Nilsson is best known for his numerous studies in the history of Greek religion culminating in the massive and erudite Griechische Religionsgeschichte I2II2 (Mnchen 1955, 1961), but he also published a number of papers dealing with Roman cult and history. See now a new discussion of the early Roman calendar by Rpke, Kalender (below, n. 26) 191288; he denies the existence of the original ten-month year, but upholds the idea (with various modifications) that it was the decemvirs who introduced the republican calendar. 25 Michels theory that the intercalary month always had twenty seven days (and not twenty seven or twenty eight), and that it was inserted either after 23 or 24 February was characterized by R. Schilling, one of the great names in the study of Roman cult, as a hypothesis plus conomique que lexplication prcdent; see his Les tudes relatives la religion romaine, ANRW I.2 (1972) 321.

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

593

335

cipline the book may appear dry and technical, but it is not the product of an antiquarian mind but of a mind imbued with history and religion. For Agnes Michels was keenly aware of the intricate and intimate connection between the calendar, the measurement of time, and the rhythm of Roman religion and Roman public life; her book, and in particular her chapters on the dies comitiales, fasti, nefasti and the nundinae, stand as a worthy counterpart and indispensable complement to L. R. Taylors soaring classic, Roman Voting Assemblies (Ann Arbor, 1966). The Calendar of the Roman Republic was greeted with a chorus of appreciation.26 Most significant (and dear to the authors heart) was the praise from the pen of Attilio Degrassi, the author of the monumental Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani (= Inscriptiones Italiae XIII.2 [Rome, 1963]), one of the most stupendous achievements in Roman studies in this century. In the conclusion of his learned and sympathetic review he wrote (Latomus 28 [1969] 468): Non arrischiato dire che sia lopera di maggior rilievo sul calendario Romano apparsa dopo Mommsen. With this statement from the grand master of the res Romanae Agnes Michels herself entered the realm of the history of scholarship. When one reviews, with melancholy, the vast desert of books published in the last several decennia, some resuscitated or gilded by a fancy award (tituli sunt odiosi), three bright peaks attract ones gaze, the monuments to Bryn Mawrs golden age, all three an honor to the Goodwin Award of Merit of the American Philological Association (in 1953, 1962, 1970): The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York, 19511952) by T. R. S. Broughton, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome, 1960) by L. R. Taylor, and The Calendar of the Roman Republic (Princeton, 1967) by A. K. Michels . This last book bears a dedication: L. R. T., Dominae Doctissimae Dilectissimae. The pupil has repaid her debt to the teacher.27
26 For a list of major reviews of the book, see Bibliography. In addition to the praise from Degrassi most significant was probably the opinion of Hans Georg Gundel, a leading authority on ancient astronomy and astrology. He concluded his review (Gnomon 41 [1969] 78590) with the following statement: Der Verf(asserin) ist es gelungen, dem reichlich sprden Material abzugewinnen was immer ihm beim heutigen Forschungsstand abgewonnen werden zu knnen scheint. Das Ergebnis ... mag in Einzelheiten noch hypothetisch und verbesserungswert sein, im Grundgedanken aber ist ... vllig berzeugend. And he added: lectores, qui erunt ... werden ihrem Buch dankbar verpflichtet sein. This is still true today, after the appearance of two new books on the Roman calendar: P. BrindAmour, Le Calendrier romain (Ottawa 1983); J. Rpke, Kalender und ffentlichkeit (Berlin 1995). BrindAmour describes Michels book as le principal ouvrage rcent (353); he himself offers mostly a series of chronological studies, and thus his book is structured very differently from that of Michels. Very differently is structured also the book by Rpke, see the review by J. Linderski in CJ {93.4 (1998) 46468, reprinted in this volume, No. 37}. 27 It was very fortunate that The Calendar was published in 1967: two years later L. R. Taylor perished struck by a car. There was also another person to whom Agnes Michels felt deep gratitude: her own husband, Walter C. Michels (19061975), who was Professor of Physics at Bryn Mawr College (19361972). As she writes in the Preface (p. X) he has debated the problems of the Roman calendar with me for some twenty years. I could never have written Chapter 1 without the help of his gift for explaining the mysteries of astronomy in simple terms. But Agnes and Walter Michels shared something more than mere interest in the calendar: both were dedicated teachers, Walter Michels winning in 1964 the Oersted medal of the American

594

Antiqua et Recentiora

336

But all the time Agnes Michels labored on the technical problems of the calendar, with all its maddening nooks and crannies,28 she was also thinking of Religio with a capital R, the Romans relation to the universe and the gods. The calendar was only a vessel for this relationship. The interested reader can today cull a sampling of her ideas solely from a sprinkling of articles and reviews she published over the period of almost forty years, from 1953 to 1991. The few who were more fortunate could learn and test her ideas through a personal discussion, always revealing and always spirited. She intended to be nothing but systematic. A review article of 1955 presents in painstaking detail publications in the field of early Roman religion;29 another paper deals with the feast of the Lupercalia (1953),30 still another surveys the cult of Diana (1957), and a long article of 1975 The Versatility of Religio analyzes on the basis of an extensive lexicographical material (from the early Latin to Symmachus) the meaning and application of the term religio.31 As she tersely sumAssociation of Physics Teachers for his work in revolutionizing high school and college physics curricula in the post-Sputnik era (from the official Bryn Mawr College obituary). As, for instance, the problem of the trinum nundinum. Against Mommsens idea of a period of twenty-four days, and that of Ideler and Kubitschek of a seventeen day period, Michels opted for twenty five days (197-206). This is probably one point where she was positively wrong: cf. BrindAmour, Le Calendrier (above, n. 26) 8796. Her interest in early Rome, and in Roman depictions of early Rome, is visible also in The Drama of the Tarquins (1951). The painfully vivid description of the death of Servius Tullus in Livy is due to a dramatic influence: there existed a trilogy of fabulae praetextae, each presenting a drama of an emblematic female figure: Tanaquil, Tullia, Lucretia. The Lupercalia, she argues, was a purificatory festival intended to protect the community against the power of the dead manifesting themselves at this season [i.e. in February] in the form of wolves (51), and the Luperci did not run (as was generally assumed) around the Palatine (45-6). The subsequent literature on the Lupercalia is too voluminous to be adduced here; see only four studies, all with extensive bibliography: U. W. Scholz, Zur Erforschung der rmischen Opfer (Beispiel: die Lupercalia), in J. Rudhardt and O. Reverdin (eds.), Le Sacrifice dans l Antiquit (= Entretiens sur lAntiquit Classique 27 [Vandoeuvres-Genve 1981]) 289-328 (the original essence of the ritual cannot be recovered); C. Ulf, Das rmische Lupercalienfest (Darmstadt 1982), esp. 5966, 14144; he rejects any connection with the werewolves but accepts (as before him also M. P. Nilsson, Les Luperques, Latomus 15 [1956] 13336, and a number of other scholars) Michels topographical finding concerning the course of the Luperci; G. Radke, Wolfsabwehr oder Wachstumsbitter. berlegungen zum rmischen Lupercalienfest, Wrzburger Jahrbcher fr die Altertumswissenschaft 15 (1989) 12638 (he opts for Wachstumsbitter); T. Kves-Zulauf, Rmische Geburtsriten (Mnchen 1990) 22189 (on the risus of the Luperci; immensely learned and in the same degree difficult of comprehension {cf. in this volume, No. 45.4}; he does not quote Michels). {And see now the ingenious investigation by A. Zikowski, Ritual Cleaning-up of the City: from the Lupercalia to the Argei, Ancient Society 29 (198899) 191218 at 193210. He characterizes Michels contribution as a ground-breaking article (p.193). See also, and also ingenious, M. Munzi, Sulla topografia dei Lupercalia: il contributo di Costantinopoli, SCO 44 (1994 [1995] 34764, with new arguments for the run around the Palatine}. This article was published in a little known Festschrift, and there it lies buried. But it should be widely known for Michels insistence that the term religio ought to be studied separately in each author, and that it had various connotations and associations, at different times some more prominent than the others, is fruitful and salutary. Agnes Michels enjoyed Wortstudien, and

28

29

30

31

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

595

337

marized it: in classical Latin religio seems to mean almost anything rather than religion. 32 But in order to find her more general pronouncements on religio, one must turn to her reviews, and there is no better place to which to turn than her critique of Kurt Lattes Rmische Religionsgeschichte (1962b). The book of Latte was published in Munich in 1960 as a volume in the venerable Mllers Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften. It was devised and advertized as a replacement of Wissowas Religion und Kultus der Rmer. Of course, one cannot replace Wissowa; and in this respect Lattes effort was generally adjudged a failure. Was it a failure also as an independent and fresh vision of the Roman cult? Michels was too fair, too kind, and too appreciative of Lattes obvious erudition to describe his book, as one critic did, as a libro dannoso;33 but reading her lines one can see that she could barely contain her dissatisfaction.34 The three salient pages of her review (44042) should be compulsory reading for every student of religio. Michels admits, as every scholar must, that any account of the character of the Roman religion, as distinct from a description of its practices, must rest on ones interpretation of the evidence, and inevitably involves many subjective judgments (440). But Lattes very assumptions are questionable. He assumes (and he shares this belief with many other scholars) that the characteristic features of Roman religion are to be found in its earliest period, and that this genuinely Roman element was later obscured by foreign importations. To this

with good reason: before we proceed to a literary or historical study we have first to know in the analyzed text the sense of every word, in all its applications and shades, a step all too often omitted. 32 The quote comes from an unpublished Introduction to the never completed collection of essays on Roman religion in which she intended to reprint her Versatility of Religio. This collection was also to include the papers on Responsibility and Authority (mostly dealing with the prerogatives of the senate in the matters of religio), her APA presidential address Myth, Myth, Whos Got the Myth?, and the longer papers on The Vowing and Dedication of Temples During the Republic, and The Flamines Maiores. These papers remain in a rather inchoate state, and much work was still needed to bring them up to the standard set by the Calendar. 33 A. Brelich, Un libro dannoso, la Rmische Religionsgeschichte di Kurt Latte, Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 32 (1961) 31154. {For the biography of Latte, and his activity as a scholar and teacher, see C. J. Classen, Kurt Latte, Professor der klassischen Philologie 19311935, 19451957, in C. J. Classen (ed.), Die klassische Altertumswisssenschaft an der Georg-August-Universitt Gttingen (Gttingen 1989) 197233, with the remarkable hagiographic statement (p. 230) that criticisms directed at Lattes Rmische Religionsgeschichte have keinen Bestand}. 34 In private conversations she was quite adamant: that awful book. This writer and Michels shared another bte noir, while again recognizing his erudition and achievement: W. Warde Fowler. A minor Anglican official, she would describe him. And indeed his widely read The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London 1911) is a sectarian triumph and a scholarly debacle (cf. J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW 2.16.3 [1986] 2207, n. 226). {G. Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome (Berkeley 2005) 126. n. 2, opines that the books by Fowler are perhaps still the best modern treatments of early Roman religion. Wissowa and Latte provide well-documented accounts, but Wissowa is sometimes gullible in accepting later Roman explanations. A singular lack of discernment!}

596

Antiqua et Recentiora

338

assumption Michels opposes the sane approach of a historian: the genuine Roman religion is that practiced by the Romans throughout their history. It has to be stressed again and again that the only Roman religion of which we can say anything with any authority is the religion of the developed Republic and the Empire; of its early stages we know very little, and the less we know the more fertile is the ground for scholarly fantasy. But in the case of Latte (and of his accomplices) the fantasy has only in part been scholarly. It stems from an obsession with purity and corruption. To such a mind change, absorption and accommodation, those triple foundations of Romes greatness, and the hallmarks of Roman history and of Roman religion, are suspicious and abhorrent. Latte (and Fowler before him) finds the Roman religion, as we know it from actual history, utterly wanting. Of this assumption, and method, Michels gave a devastating description: if on comparison with some other religion, or with some ideal religion, the religion of Rome is found not to possess certain qualities, this means that it was in some way deficient, and that this deficiency made it inadequate for the Romans. To this ideological preconception Michels again opposes an alternative firmly grounded in history: one might assume that the Roman religion had certain qualities of its own which responded to, or were created by, the needs of the Romans in their own circumstances, that a state cult which had as its purpose the preservation of Rome and her citizens ... was exactly what they needed and wanted. And further: of course, if one studies Roman religion looking for original metaphysical concepts or an interest in the transcendental, one will be disappointed, as one would be in looking for those things anywhere in Roman culture. That does not mean that it was lifeless or not satisfying to the Romans themselves, but that one has been asking the wrong questions, and therefore failing to discover what its positive values were to those who created it. And she rounded off her writ of accusation with a momentous insight: from the very early period the real focus of Roman religion was Rome herself, ... the gods were expected to serve and preserve her just as her citizens were. The Roman religion was created by the Romans and for the Romans. This premise Agnes Michels shared with another scholar, who knew more about the subject than anybody else will ever know: M. Terentius Varro. In his Antiquitates he discussed the res humanae before the res divinae. He argued: sicut prior est pictor quam tabula picta, prior faber quam aedificium, ita priores sunt civitates quam ea, quae a civitatibus instituta sunt. And thus res divinae ab hominibus institutae sunt. Augustine, who preserved this statement of Varro, was shocked; he oppposed to Varros historical approach the quest for the vera religio (C.D. 6.4). No student of religion can ultimately avoid or evade choosing between Varro and Augustine. If Lattes, and Fowlers, image of Roman cult was a fantasy, it was a fantasy guided by ulterior confessional motives. The goal of Roman religion was the salvation of Rome; Latte, and others of a similar emotional inclination, could not imagine or accept a thriving cult that was not interested in personal salvation, that was legalistic and not spiritual. They felt compelled to invent for the Romans a religion that suited them better, a religion that was a prefiguration of a near eastern creed that ultimately dethroned Jupiter.

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

597

339

Agnes Michels was personally drawn to the figure and message of Paul of Tarsus, but she never allowed this ideology to color her study of Rome; she was a scholar first and foremost, a true pupil of Lily Ross Taylor. Of her mature understanding of religion, contemporary and Roman, another review offers a vivid illustration (1961). It is a review of the collected articles of Carl Koch which were published posthumously in 1960 under the title Religio: Studien zu Kult und Glauben der Rmer. Michels observes that the two books35 which Koch wrote before he was thirty show that he was already a master of his subject ... working in the tradition of objective, impersonal scholarship. But from his articles more emerges. Namely: increasingly he allowed his own deep religious convictions to become apparent, but ... he did not allow them to distort his understanding of the ancient texts, only to deepen it. And further: one feels that, exactly because Koch had a firmly held belief of his own, he was able to grasp the reality of ancient belief. He handles the evidence as objectively as he did in his earlier work, but in his maturity he saw further into it. The statement to the effect that a scholar who has a firm (religious) belief will be better able to grasp the reality of another cult had, one suspects, an unspoken addressee: none other than Lily Ross Taylor. The fourth chapter of the celebrated book by L. R. Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley, 1949), is entitled The Manipulation of the State Religion. Agnes Michels always thought (though she never expressed it in writing) that these were the weakest pages in the whole oeuvre of Taylor, because they implicitly and explicitly denied to the Romans any serious attachment to their cult and their gods. In the face of an ideology, religious or secular, past or present, it is difficult to be so detached as scientists are with respect to their retorts. The rationalists may have trouble in taking any religion seriously, and a fortiori the cool and distant religion of the Romans; and the scholars who are imbued with religious fervor may not bring themselves to treat seriously any religion that does not resemble their own creed. Agnes Michels was well aware of this twin danger. Still, she wavered. One can understand how a deeply felt belief (Christian, in Kochs case) might be useful in comprehending (and not merely describing) a parallel mystery cult, but how such a belief can advance our understanding of a religion not interested in the metaphysical and transcendental, as the Roman religion was, is not a self-evident proposition. The reviews of the books by Koch and Latte appeared in 1961 and 1962; it is well to remember that it was the time when Agnes Michels was hard at work on her Calendar book. This book came out in 1967. Merely two years later Michels gave at the Oberlin College (in January 1969) her Martin lectures on Rome and the Gods. They were never published. After the authors death the manuscript was discovered in a drawer, unfinished and abandoned, a bare text, without any of the customary offerings to the gods of scholarship, the footnotes and references, not even references to the sources. What was to be a luminous culmination of a
35 Der rmische Juppiter (Frankfurt am Main 1937); Gestirnverehrung im alten Italien (Frankfurt am Main 1939).

598
340

Antiqua et Recentiora

191

scholarly career was to become its silent end. The story is often retold: a project too ambitious to be concluded; or an insidious disease creeps in, the longing to be alone with the subject, without any interference of footnotes and secondary literature. Agnes Michels was still working on the book in 1973. She extended its scope; it was now to cover the ground till the end of the classical antiquity. She was reading the letters of Symmachus, a pretty dull, if necessary, job. But she was already disheartened: I must admit that I sorely miss the stimulus of arguing about points with L. R. T. 36 This is the last we hear of the book. When one reads the yellowed typescript of the lectures one has a keen sense of sunken treasure. There are four chapters. The first deals with The past, the other with The present, the third with The future, and the last is entitled The turning point. A most intriguing disposition. At the very outset Michels makes two observations that must form the two cornerstones of a scholarly study of Roman religion: the Romans did believe in their gods, and any distinction between the religious and the secular was meaningless to them. She comments on the tenacity and vitality of the Roman cult even in the face of the ardent efforts of the Christian emperors. The essential characteristic of Roman gods was not their moral nature but their power. It is for that reason that they had to be appeased and cultivated. This was the obligation of the pontiffs, the guardians of the tradition (the rest of the chapter is devoted to the caerimoniae and sacra, and the prodigia). If the pontiffs guarded the past, the augurs guarded the present. They (and the magistrates) did it through the means of the auspices. The lecture provides a lucid account of the role of the auspices in Roman public life with a salutary insistence that the augurs and the auspices did not foretell the future. It also, forcefully, makes another salutary point: the Romans treated the signs from the gods very seriously. Why, then, the widespread idea among modern scholars that in the late republic and the early empire the mood of the age was one of skepticism ? The culprit is Cicero, or rather an uncritical reading of his philosophical works.37 The future was the province of the decemviri (since Sulla quindecimviri) sacris faciundis, the guardians of the Sibylline books that contained the fata Romae. If the pontiffs and the augurs were largely the protectors of the status quo, the college for the performance of sacred rites was frequently an instrument of innovation. The turning point was first the period of civil wars, the rise of Augustus, and the rise of the emperor cult. This cult was not merely a device by which loyalty to the empire could be demonstrated. It satisfied a need for safety, protection and justice.38 And then came the point of no return: the gods of Rome had existed for

36 She expressed this sentiment in a letter of 11 July 1973 to Charles T. Murphy, Professor of Classics at Oberlin and the (former) Chairman of the Martin Lectures Committee. 37 For a similar sentiment, see the now classic paper by H. D. Jocelyn, The Roman Nobility and the Religion of the Republican State, Journal of Religious History 4 (1966) 89104. 38 Cf. now the excellent studies by S. R. F. Price, Ritual and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984), and by D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West I.12, II.12 {III.12, 3} (Leiden 1987, 1991, 1992 {2002, 2004}).

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

599

Rome, and when men came to be more concerned for their own souls than for their city, the gods of Rome died and the city fell into the hands of the barbarians. This is the last sentence of this wise manuscript bristling with ideas that often foreshadowed the concepts now commonly accepted. If it had been promptly published it would have been a seminal document, even if the authors avowed goal was to address not primarily scholars but rather the educated public. That this precious stone lacks the setting of references is perhaps a minor point; nor does it matter that on a number of points disagreement is possible and warranted. But it is a stone still rough and unpolished, out of which perhaps only the hand of the author could bring forth the full light. It deserved a better fate than lingering in the archives and waiting for an occasional reader who may never come. But it is the fate to which the very author consigned it for more than twenty years now. We may be certain that the lectures of Agnes Michels on religio at Oberlin sparked many a mind, but verba volant and scripta latent. Thus it is with some regret that we repeat the familiar refrain: we should be thankful for what we have, the Calendar, the reading of the poets, and the wisdom with which Agnes Michels peered into the mind of the Romans. Together with the Capitoline gods and their priests, with Cicero whom she once called a dear friend, with her venerated Vergil, and her hero Aeneas, Agnes Michels was, and will remain, a true citizen of an eternal Rome.39

342

Appendix AGNES KIRSOPP LAKE MICHELS

Biographical Data
Born (of British parents) in Leiden, Netherlands, 31 July 1909, died in Chapel Hill, N.C., 30 November 1993. Naturalized U.S. citizen, 1924. Married Walter C. Michels, June 4, 1941. A.B. Bryn Mawr College 1930, magna cum laude with Honors in Latin; M.A., Bryn Mawr College 1931; Fellow of American Academy in Rome, 193133; Ph.D., Bryn Mawr College 1934. Department of Latin, Bryn Mawr College: Instructor, 193438; Assistant Professor, 193845; Associate Professor, 194655; Professor, 195575; Chairman, 196474; Andrew

39 She was also a citizen of the American Academia, the Past President of the American Philological Association (1972), and as a pupil of L. R. Taylor one of the last links to the heroic age of women colleges and to the early women scholars. In her piece, An Audacious Commitment (1974) she describes, with pride, the history of the Graduate School at Bryn Mawr College from its foundation (together with the College) in 1885, and its first Ph.D. in 1888. It is thus perhaps appropriate that the last piece that appeared in print during her lifetime (1991) is a review (a very critical review) of a book dealing from a psycho-analytical perspective with Jane Ellen Harrison (18501928), the famous author of Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903) and of Themis (1912). The review may serve as an admonition that vogue and partisan agenda is not identical with scholarship, that is, the scholarship generations of women had struggled bravely to be allowed to practice.

600

Antiqua et Recentiora

Mellon Professor of Humanities, Bryn Mawr College, 196975; Professor Emeritus,40 197593. Visiting Paddison Professor of Latin, UNC-CH, 197779; Visiting Professor of Latin (Part-time), Duke University, 198188; Scholar in Residence 198893. Ford Foundation Faculty Fellowship for College Teachers, 195354; Guggenheim Fellowship, 1960-61; Martin Lecturer, Oberlin College, 1969. American Philological Association, President, 1972; Nominating Committee, Member, 197376; Advisory Council of the American Academy in Rome, Chairman, 197376. Charles J. Goodwin Award of Merit of the American Philological Association, 1970; Lindback Foundation Award for Distinguished Teaching, Bryn Mawr College, 1974.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (including selected reviews)

(1933) Juno Moneta, Transactions of the American Philological Association 64 (1933) xlixl. (1934) A Coin of Roman Corinth, Numismatic Chronicle 14, Series 5, Part 2 (1934) 13132. (1935a) The Archaeological Evidence for the Tuscan Temple, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 12 (1935) 89149. (1935b) Campana Supellex: the Pottery Deposit at Minturnae, Bollettino dellAssociazione Internazionale per gli Studi Mediterranei 5 (193435) 97114. (1936) Lapis Capitolinus, Classical Philology 31 (1936) 7273. (1937a) Co-editor: Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (Christophers: London 1937). (1937b) The Supplicatio and Graecus Ritus, in Quantulacumque 24351. (1937c) An Interpretation of Propertius IV, 7, Classical Review 51 (1937) 5355. (1937d) The Origin of the Roman House, American Journal of Archaeology 41 (1937) 598602. (1940) A Note on Propertius I.22, Classical Philology 35 (1940) 297300. (1941a) A Note on the Pediment of the Tuscan Temple, American Journal of Archaeology 45 (1941) 7172. (1941b) A Note on the Location of the Cena Trimalchionis, American Journal of Philology 62 (1941) 49596. (1944a) Lucretius and the Sixth Book of the Aeneid, American Journal of Philology 65 (1944) 13548. (1944b) PARRHSIA and the Satires of Horace, Classical Philology 39 (1944) 17377. (1944c) The Consualia of December, Classical Philology 39 (1944) 50. (1945) The Golden Bough of Plato, American Journal of Philology 66 (1945) 5963. (1949a) The Teaching of Religion, Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (February 1949) 9, 29, 32. (1949b) The Calendar of Numa and the Julian Calendar, Transactions of the American Philological Association 80 (1949) 32046. (1949c) Review of Marion Elizabeth Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus (Washington 1947) in American Journal of Archaeology 53 (1949) 32527. (1951) The Drama of the Tarquins, Latomus 10 (1951) 1324. (1953) The Topography and Interpretation of the Lupercalia, Transactions of the American

343

40 Chairman and Emeritus are the forms A. K. Michels herself used and preferred.

Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio

601

344

Philological Association 84 (1953) 3559. (1955a) Early Roman Religion, 19451952, Classical Weekly 48 (1955) 2535, 4145. (1955b) Death and Two Poets, Transactions of the American Philological Association 86 (1955) 16079. (195657) Review of Inez Scott Ryberg, Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (Rome 1955) in American Historical Review 62 (195657) 37273. (1957) Diana, Reallexikon fr Antike und Christentum 3 (1957) 96372. (1961) Review of Carl Koch, Religio. Studien zu Kult und Glauben der Rmer (Nrnberg 1960) in American Journal of Archaeology 65 (1961) 41415. (1962a) The Intercalary Month in the Pre-Julian Calendar, in Hommages Albert Grenier (= Collection Latomus 58 [Bruxelles 1962]) 1174-78. (1962b) Review of Kurt Latte, Rmische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1960) in American Journal of Philology 83 (1962) 43444. (1965a) Review of Jean Gag, Matronalia. Essai sur les dvotions et les organisations cultuelles des femmes dans lancienne Rome (Bruxelles 1963) in American Journal of Philology 86 (1965) 32223. (1966a) Lucretius, Clodius, and Magna Mater, Mlanges darchologie,dpigraphie et dhistoire offerts Jrme Carcopino (Paris 1966) 67579. (1966b) Toward a New Library, Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (Summer 1966) 79. (1967) The Calendar of the Roman Republic. Princeton University Press (Princeton 1967). Pp. xvi + 227 + 4 pl. [Reviewed by (short notices are not included): A. Bernardi, Rivista Storica Italiana 71 (1969) 17479; L. Berni Brizio, Archaeologia Classica 31 (1969) 14145; M. van den Bruwaene, LAntiquit Classique 37 (1968) 76062; A. Degrassi, Latomus 28 (1969) 46368; F. Della Corte, Maia 21 (1969) 28086; W. Den Boer, Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 (1971) 93; A. Drummond, JRS 71 (1971) 28283; J.-C. Dumont, Revue de Philologie 44 (1970) 16567; H. G. Gundel, Gnomon 41 (1969) 78590; V. L. Johnson, AJP 90 (1969) 35860; R. M. Ogilvie, CR 19 (1969) 33032; S. I. Oost, CP 65 (1970) 6364; P. Orosio, Helmantica 20 (1969) 42122; G. M. Paul, CJ 65 (1969) 8689; J.-C. Richard, REL 46 (1968) 5462; Z. Stewart, AHR 74 (1968) 123; I. Weiler, Anzeiger fr die Altertumswissenschaft 23 (1970) 18789; H. Zehnacker, Revue Belge de Philologie et dHistoire 47 (1969) 205]. (1972) Review of Georges Dumzil, Archaic Roman Religion (Chicago, 1970) in American Journal of Archaeology 76 (1972) 1046. (1973) Review of Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius (Oxford 1971) in Classical World 67 (1973) 36364. (1974) An Audacious Commitment, Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (Winter 1974) 69. (1975) The Versatility of Religio, in The Mediterranean World. Papers Presented in Honour of Gilbert Bagnani. Trent University Press (Trent 1975) 3677. (1980a) Taylor, Lily Ross, in Notable American Women. The Modern Period. A Biographical Dictionary (Cambridge, MA, 1980) 677-78. (1980b) Review of Louise Adams Holland, Lucretius and the Transpadanes (Princeton 1979) in Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (Spring 1980) 3435. (1981a) Harry Louis Levy, 19061981, Classical Journal 77 (1981) 8081. (1981b) The Insomnium of Aeneas, Classical Quarterly 31 (1981) 14046. (1984) Review of H. H. Scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (Ithaca 1981) in Classical Philology 79 (1984) 8285. (1989) Macrobius on Chromatic Sheep, American Journal of Philology 110 (1989) 104. (1990a) Review of Jens H. Vanggaard, The Flamen: A Study in the History and Sociology of Roman Religion (Copenhagen 1988) in American Journal of Philology 111 (1990) 11821. (1990b) Review of H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (New York 1988) in Classical Outlook 67 (1990) 137. (1990c) Roman Festivals, Classical Outlook 67 (1990) 7677, 11416; 68 (199091) 1012,

602

Antiqua et Recentiora

4448. (1990d) Lily Ross Taylor, Classical Outlook 68 (199091) 5253. (1991) Review of Sandra J. Peacock, Jane Ellen Harrison: The Mask and the Self (New Haven 1988) in 86 (1991) 36264. (1997) The Many Faces of Aeneas, Classical Journal 92 (1997) 399416.

345

50 THOMAS ROBERT SHANNON BROUGHTON*

(17 February 1900 17 September 1993) An epoch in the history of Roman studies has come to an end: Professor T. R. S. Broughton died on 17 September 1993 in Chapel Hill. His life spanned a turbulent century; he lived through two world wars and the rise and fall of fascism and communism, but friendly Fates kept him within the peaceful walls of Canadian and American university campuses. Professor Broughton was born in the small village of Corbetton in Ontario, Canada, on 17 February 1900. He came, as he often proudly remarked, from the sturdy farmer stock of Anglo-Irish descent, and he himself was not a stranger to farm work. He took his B.A. in Classics at the University of Toronto in the distant year of 1921 (and his M.A. a year later); after an interval at the University of Chicago he continued (1925) his studies at the John Hopkins University in Baltimore under the direction of the then pre-eminent Roman historian Tenney Frank. He received his doctorate in 1928, and in the same year he began his long and productive career at Bryn Mawr College where in 1937 he rose to the rank of Full Professor. After his retirement in 1965 (in the meantime he had rejected in 1948 an offer from the University of California at Berkeley) he began his second career at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as Paddison Professor of Latin; even after his final retirement in 1970 he was a constant and nourishing presence working every day long hours in his book-filled office. His first two books, The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis (1929, which was also his dissertation) and Roman Asia Minor (1938, a long monograph in the fourth volume of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, edited by Tenney Frank; despite new archaeological and epigraphical finds it still remains the basic treatment of the subject), and a score of learned articles he produced in the meantime, had put him in the forefront of the students of Ancient Rome.
* Gnomon 67 (1995) 9193 {see also the entry in W. W. Briggs, Jr. (ed.), Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport 1994) 6466; and for a detailed chronicle of Broughtons life and work, and full bibliography of his writings, see G. W. Houston, Fasti Broughtoniani: The Professional Activities and Published Works of Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton, in J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robet S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 130; and for personal reminiscences, see Idem, Broughton Rememered, Ibidem 3541. There are two addenda to Broughtons bibliography: Les tudes classiques en Amrique (19401945), Bulletin de lAssociation G. Bud N. S. 2 (1946) 4464; for another addendum, see in this volume No. 49, n. 12. In Imperium Sine Fine there was printed (pp. 3133) an excerpt from Broughtons Autobiography concerning the origin and gestation of the MRR. Thanks to the efforts of Professor T. C. Brennan and his collaborators at Rutgers University this fascinating document will soon be published in its entirety, with photographs and explanatory notes}.

92

604

Antiqua et Recentiora

But then in 1951/52 there appeared his magnum opus, the monumental Magistrates of the Roman Republic. In this century four scholars changed the landscape of Roman studies: Friedrich Mnzers prosopographical contributions, Matthias Gelzers Die Nobilitt der rmischen Republik (1912), Ronald Symes The Roman Revolution (1939)and Broughtons Magistrates. In Rome every year many dozens of various magistrates were elected or appointed: consuls, praetors, aediles, tribunes of the plebs, military tribunes, staff officers, envoys and ambassadors, moneyers and priests. Modern Roman historians had a dream that all these men (and women: the Vestals) would once be securely identified, distributed into single years, arranged in a clear pattern of their political careers. Various attempts had been made (the first in the late sixteenth century by Stephanus Pighius), none successful. The task was too daunting: five hundred years of history, many thousands of names, scattered throughout several scores of Greek and Roman authors, or to be found on coins and inscriptions. This was the task that the MRR has accomplished, a labor of infinite erudition, patience and wisdom. In 1960 there followed a Supplement; and in 1986, in Professor Broughtons eightyseventh year, another Supplement. A scholar of this rank had little reason to think of earthly honors. But they have been coming, deservedly, and in profusion. In 19591969 he was Vice-President of the Federation Internationale des tudes Classiques. Three exclusive European scholarly institutions awarded T. R. S. Broughton their honors: he was Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Institute (1971), Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy (1968), and Honorary Member of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (1967), only the third American so honored by this body. The two others were his teacher Tenney Frank and his Bryn Mawr colleague Lily Ross Taylor, also a student of Franks, a veritable American Roman dynasty. Frank and Taylor had been a great presence in Broughtons scholarly life, and he venerated their memory (see most recently his evocation of Franks and Taylors personality and scholarship in Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia, 1990). On the North American continent, in his Canadian patria, and in his adopted U.S., he has also been variously honored. Three Universities with which he has been connected awarded him Honorary Doctorates: the Johns Hopkins University (1968), the University of Toronto (1971), and the University of North Carolina (1974). He had been President of the American Philological Association (1954) and was the recipient of that Associations Goodwin Award of Merit (1953). He won twice the Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship (1945, 1959); the American Philosophical Society (1955) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1962) counted him as their Member and Fellow. Most Roman republican historians at work today grew up in the monumental shadow of MRR. But this work cast a shadow over its author too. It concealed his immense learning, stretching far beyond the Magistrates, Asia Minor or Africa (it also overshadowed some fifty articles and ninety reviews, many of them small masterpieces). T. R. S. B. was possessed of a phenomenal memory: with Broughton at ones side, many of his students and colleagues will attest, there was little need

Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton

605

93

for Pauly-Wissowa. He loved literature, and would often recite long passages from an astounding variety of Greek and Latin authors, from Homer to the Greek Anthology, and from the English poets. A sense of gentle humor emanated from him; he cherished the title of his last monograph (1991) on the candidates defeated in Roman elections: Also-Rans. We shall remember his laughter, his great heart, and his self-effacing kindness. In the sixth book of the Aeneid Vergil leads Aeneas to the underworld where he beholds a procession of the future Roman heroes, consuls, generals, triumphators. When the Association of Ancient Historians was honoring Professor Broughton in 1987 (at its meeting in Hamilton, Canada{1}), it was remarked that if Aeneas today went to the underworld, he would not have to learn all those names by heart: he would have found them all in T. R. S. Broughtons Magistrates. New information on the republican magistrates is not likely to accrue in great numbers. Horace wrote that his poems would be read for as long as the Pontiff and the Vestal Virgin climb the Capitoline Hill (a signal understatement). We can also venture a prophecy: for centuries to come travellers to Romes republican past will be taking with them as their trusted guide The Magistrates of the Roman Republic.

{1

He was presented on that occasion with an honorific plaque that read: AFRICAM ET ASIAM LIBRIS ORNAVIT OMNES MAGISTRATUS ROMANOS PRIMUS ORDINE TEMPORUM ORDINAVIT ET SUPPLEMENTIS FELICITER AUXIT. SOCIETAS STUDIORUM HISTORIAE ANTIQUAE PROVEHENDORUM SOCIO SUO PRINCIPI SCRIPTORUM

T. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON
SALUTEM SOCIIS UNIVERSIS ADCLAMANTIBUS ACTUM HAMILTONIAE CANADENSIUM A. D. VI NON. MAI. A. U. C. ANNO MMDCCXXXX.}

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA ALTERA to Roman Questions I

ROMAN QUESTIONS (1995) ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA ALTERA

(The first page number refers to the pagination of RQ; the second to the pagination of the original contribution)

1 SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM: CONCEPTS OF DEFENSIVE IMPERIALISM (1984)

We begin with the piece by K.-W. Welwei, Si vis pacem, para bellum eine Maxime rmischer Politik?, in K.-W. Welwei, Res publica und Imperium. Kleine Schriften zur rmischen Geschichte (Historia Enzelschriften 177 [Stuttgart 2004]) 7498, originally published in 1989, one of the three contributions under the same evocative title that appeared within the span of twelve years. The question mark need not bother us. Welwei arrives at a clear and powerful statement: Pax ist ... der Frieden des ... Imperium Romanum (p. 87). Cf. in this sense RQ 1920. The other contribution was by W. Haase, Si vis pacem, para bellum. Zur Beurteilung militrischer Strke in der rmischen Kaiserzeit, in Limes: Akten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Budapest 1977) 72157, an erudite piece; it starts with the Greeks and Cicero and ends with Vegetius. The monograph by M. Kostial, Kriegerisches Rom? Zur Frage von Unvermeidbarkeit und Normalitt militrischer Konflikte in der rmischen Republik (= Palingenesia 55 [Stuttgart 1995]) is relentlessly theoretical and legalistic. This time the question mark tells it all: despite the multiplicity of wars peace was regarded in Rome as a rule (Normalzustand) and war as an exception (Ausnahmezustand). This may be so: but it was a permanent (and always just) exception, and peace had to be the Roman peace. For an interesting and informed presentation of modern discussions of Roman imperialism, see V. I. Kashcheyev [. . ], umuuu u u u: u , u u umu 220146 . . [Ellinisticheskiy mir i Rim: Voyna, mir i diplomatiya v 220 146 godakh do n. e. (The Hellenistic World and Rome: War, Peace and Diplomacy in the Years 220146 B.C.E.)] (Moskva 1993) 4688, particularly valuable for the inclusion of Russian literature and a criticism of Marxist conceptions. More recently a review of various theories also in C. B. Champion and A. M. Eckstein, The Study of Roman Imperialism, an introduction to Roman Imperialism. Readings and Sources, ed. by C. B. Champion (Oxford 2004) 410, embracing the realist approach to the phenomenon of war in

610

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

antiquity: The occurrence of war needs no special explanation, but is inherent in any anarchic interstate system. The real question is: why was Rome so successful? (pp. 6, 7); A. Coskun and H. Heinen, Amici populi Romani, Ancient Society 34 (2004) 4475, esp. 57-59; H. Sidebottom, Roman Imperialism: The Changed Outward Trajectory of the Roman Empire, Historia 54 (2005) 31530 (on the changing face of Roman imperialism between the Republic and the Empire). For a thorough investigation of Mommsens Rmische Geschichte, and of its historical and intellectual background, see A. B. Overbeek, Realistische geschiedschrijving. Theodor Mommsens Rmische Geschichte (diss. Groningen 2005; available online) esp. 183242 on Rome en Itali; 24382 on Imperialisme en wereldrijk. Very much worth reading is also the essay by H. Mouritsen, Italian Unification. A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography (London 1998) 2337: Theodor Mommsen and the Italian Question. On the British reactions to Mommsens theories of Roman expansion, see P. W. M. Freeman, Mommsen to Haverfield: the origins of studies of Romanization in late 19th-c. Britain, in: D. J. Mattingly (ed.), Dialogues in Roman Imperialism (= JRA, Suppl. Series 23 [Portsmouth, R.I., 1997]) 2750, esp. 3132. We conclude with a proposition: Empires do not happen. They are won.

2 MOMMSEN AND SYME: LAW AND POWER IN THE PRINCIPATE OF AUGUSTUS (1990)
Pp. 3943 = 4953: On R. Syme and religio, see now the excellent disquisition by J. Scheid, Ronald Syme et la religion des Romains, in A. Giovannini (ed.), La rvolution romaine aprs Ronald Syme. Bilans et perspectives (= Entretiens sur LAntiquit Classique 46 [Vandoeuvres-Genve 2000]) 39-63 (and the discussion 64-72). On Staatsrecht versus Geschichte, cf. K. M. Girardet, Imperium maius: Politische und Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte. Versuch einer Klrung, ibid. 167227, esp. 16975 (and the discussion 22836).

3 GARDEN PARLORS: NOBLES AND BIRDS (1989)

Pp. 4554 = 10615: On Ciceros De oratore and his art of constructing the dialogue, see E. Fantham, The Roman World of Ciceros De Oratore (Oxford 2004) esp. 4977, a marvelous disquisition (though with only a cursory reference to prosopography, and without a comparison with Varro). Pp. 5459 = 11520: On the literary form of Varros RR III, see D. Flach, Marcus Terentius Varro, Gesprche ber die Landwirtschaft, Buch 3 (Darmstadt 2002) 2839. In the Addenda priora (RQ 633) I missed the comprehensive study by I. Mikoajczyk, Traktat Rerum rusticarum libri tres Marka Terencjusza Warrona

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

611

[The Treatise of Marcus Terentius Varro Rerum rusticarum libri tres] (Torun 1992), with a detailed discussion of Varros sources, and the literary form of his dialogue. On the Reatine prosopography, cf. M. C. Spadoni Cerroni, Reate (Pisa 1992) esp. 6364 (Q. Axius; utterly confused), 7071 (Fundanii, Fundilii), 76 (Murrii). P. 57 = 118 (and p. 727, Index): F. X. Ryan (in a letter of 16 October 1996) notes that the denomination Cn. Aurelius Orestes (cos. 71) is incorrect. It should read Cn. Aufidius Orestes. The title of Varros Logistoricus, Orestes, de insania, will almost certainly refer to the consul of 71. The Fasti Capitolini for 71 are lost, and thus Orestes full style is unknown (MRR 1.121: Cn. f. - n. is misleading: this filiation is a supposition, not fact), but other sources (see Degrassi, Fasti Consulares, Inscr.It. 13.1, 48687) give as his name-form Cn. Aufidius Orestes. As Cicero informs us (De domo 35) Cn. Aufidius (pr. ca 107; MRR 1.551, 552, n. 2) nostra memoria summa senectute ... Oresten ... adoptavit. He must have thus originally been an Aurelius Orestes from the family that produced consuls in 126 and 103. His praenomen Cn. will derive from his adoptive father; as Ryan points out he could have borne all three names at the same time (i.e., Cn. Aurelius Orestes) only if he was named Cn. at birth. Pp. 55, 5859 = 116, 11920: For a brilliant appreciation of Varros citizenbirds, see now C. M. C. Green, Free as a Bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3, AJP 118 (1997) 42748; cf. also Terms of Venery: Ars Amatoria I, TAPA 126 (1996) 23031. And for the intellectual pleasures of gardens in a later age, cf. K. S. Meyers, Docta Otia: Garden Ownership and Configuration of Leisure in Statius and Pliny the Younger, Arethusa 38 (2005) 10329. P. 64, n. 87 = 125, n. 87: The correct reference to the book by Nicolet is 2.76869. P. 64, n. 88 = 125, n. 88: a C. Agrius C. f. eq(ues) is attested at Collatia in the late republican period (AE 1974, 198).

5 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CONSULAR ELECTIONS IN 59 B.C. (1965)

Pp. 71 = 423; 7681 = 42833: On the alternation of fasces, see (sceptically) C. J. Simpson, The Fasces and the Custom of Alternation. Retrojection or Restoration?, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 12 (2005) 16372. He does not discuss the question of the presidency in the senate or over the elections.

6 WERE POMPEY AND CRASSUS ELECTED IN ABSENCE TO THEIR FIRST CONSULSHIP? (1966)
On professio, see now W. Kunkel - R. Wittmann, Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der rmischen Republik, 2 Abschnitt: Die Magistratur (Mnchen 1995) 6585.

612

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

Pp. 9293 = 52425: K. M. Girardet, Imperia und provinciae des Pompeius 82 bis 48 v. Chr., Chiron 21 (2001) 153209 at 170, maintains that Pompeius received offenbar das Privileg ... die professio durch Beauftragte, also in absentia, durchfhren zu lassen. He further thinks that Pompey also received das Privileg der Wahl in absentia. This flies in the face of all available sources (esp. Cic. leg. agr. 2.24). Also R. Seager, Pompey the Great. A Political Biography (sec. ed., Oxford 2002 [1st ed. 1979]) 36 (with n. 80, p. 202) asserts that the senate passed a decree exempting [Pompey] from the provisions of the lex annalis and allowing him to stand in absence. He continues confusing election and profession, and I can only restate the obvious: as the elections to the consulship took place in the comitia centuriata, an assembly that convened outside the pomerium, Pompeius needed no exemption from the lex annalis prohibiting elections in absence; and the regulation requiring professio in person was introduced only several years later. The legal situation of Pompeius and Crassus finds a nice parallel in the election to the consulship of Q. Fulvius Flaccus in 180 (Liv. 40.43.4): Q. Fulvius Flaccus ex Hispania rediit Romam cum magna fama gestarum rerum. Qui cum extra urbem triumphi causa esset, consul est creatus cum L. Manlio Acidino et post paucos dies cum militibus quos secum deduxerat, triumphans urbem est invectus (cf. the apparatus in Guillarts edition). C. Guillart in his edition of book XL (Collection Bud [Paris 1986]) comments (p. 123, n. 5): Contrairement ce qui se passera plus tard (i.e., with respect to Caesar), il tait alors possible dtre lu consul sans tre personnellement present Rome au moment des comices. Here we have again the same blinkered lack of distinction between election and profession, and between extra and intra pomerium, that had plagued the historical scholarship for so long. On the other hand, J.-F. Ferrary, La legislation de ambitu, de Sulla Auguste, in Iuris vincula. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca III (Napoli 2001) 17677, accepts the idea that the obligation of professio in person was introduced between 63 and 60, and that it may well have been contained in the Lex Tullia Antonia (as he correctly calls it) de ambitu.

8 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF VARRO, DE RE RUSTICA, BOOK III AND THE ELECTIONS IN 54 (1985)
Pp. 100108 = 24854: The date of the aedilician elections mentioned by Varro at 3.2.1-3. C. Guiraud, Varron, conomie rurale, Livre III (Collection Bud [Paris 1997]) 56, is not aware of any recent work on that subject. Following Nicolets article of 1970, he still places the elections dans la dcennie 60-50, sans plus de prcision (for further remarks, see above in this volume, No. 24, n. 10; and below, Addenda to RQ, No. 23). More recently the dramatic date in 50 has been accepted by C. M. C. Green, Free as a Bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3, AJP 118 (1997) 43132; D. Flach, Marcus Terentius Varro, Gesprche ber die Landwirtschaft, Buch 3 (Darmstadt 2002) 2930, 204. With respect to the latter scholar this represents a (tacit) change of heart. In the introduction to the first volume of Varros

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

613

Gesprche (Buch 1 [Darmstadt 1996]) 12-13, he brushed aside both the traditional dramatic date in 54 and the new date in 50 as willkrlich. At 3.17.3 Varro mentions that [C.] Hirrus lent to Caesar on one occasion (uno tempore) 2,000 lampreys (murenae; they were to be returned in kind), and Pliny, NH 9.171 specifies that the fish (according to Pliny 6,000) were destined for Caesars triumphal banquets (cenis triumphalibus Caesaris dictatoris). This proves, wrote Flach, that the dramatic date of book III falls between 46 (the date of Caesars four triumphs) and 37 (the date of Varros dedication of the whole opus to his wife Fundania in his annus octogesimus; cf. RR 1.1). But that time span is impossible: one of the main interlocutors, Appius Claudius, died in 48, two years before Caesars triumphs. In his comment to 3.17.3 (Buch 3, pp. 29192) Flach has fully recognized this chronological reality. Varro simply forgot or disregarded this fact. I suspect that the whole opus, including book III, was composed much earlier, and that it was only revised in 37, with Varro making unfortunate addenda, conflicting with his carefully construed chronological scheme (but cf. Mikoajczyk, Traktat 2639 [above, Addenda to RQ, No. 3], who argues that Varro composed his entire treatise in 37, in just one year).

9 BUYING THE VOTE: ELECTORAL CORRUPTION IN THE LATE REPUBLIC (1985)

Of the more comprehensive studies, see now the well-informed monograph by P. Nadig, Ardet ambitus. Untersuchungen zum Phnomen der Wahlbestechungen in der rmischen Republik (= Prismata 6 [Frankfurt am Main 1997]). And further, and above all, a veritable tour de force in argument and lucidity, J.-F. Ferrary, La legislation de ambitu, de Sulla Auguste, in Iuris vincula. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca III (Napoli 2001) 16198. Also M. Jehne, Die Beeinflussung von Entscheidungen durch Bestechung: Zur Funktion des ambitus in der rmischen Republik, in: M. Jehne (ed.), Demokratie in Rom? Die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der rmischen Republik (= Historia Einzelschriften 96 [Stuttgart 1995]) 5176. E. Gabba (Athenaeum 85 [1997] 26671 at 267) rightly describes this study as excellently argued and documented. Very insightful is W. Schuller, Ambitus. Einige neue Gesichtspunkte, Hyperboreus 6 (2000) 34961: ambitus was not merely bribery, an electoral malpractice; it was a practice closely connected with the system of clientela. We should regard it as eine Spielart des Euergetismus oder des Patronatssystems, but it was eine Spielart, die schrfstens missbilligt wurde (p. 358). This was also, by and large, the conclusion presented in my piece (9394 = 11314). Schuller (who quotes the paper) has apparently misread these pages. Also of interest G. Laser, Populo et scaenae serviendum est. Die Bedeutung der stdtischen Masse in der spten rmischen Republik (= Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 29 [Trier 1997]) esp. 12638; A. M. Riggsby, Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome (Austin 1999) 2149 (endnotes on pp. 193200): Ambitus and the Varieties of Economy; A. Yakobson, Elections and Electioneering in Rome. A Study of the Political System of the Late Republic

614

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

(= Historia Einzelschriften 128 [Stuttgart 1999]) esp. 2243 on electoral bribery and largitiones, with a very sensible conclusion (p. 26): The votes of the city population in general if not those of the proletarii specifically were certainly courted by the candidates, and must have been worth courting. T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II.39192, 402, and 78788 (nn. 1723), gives an incisive appreciation of the serious ... issue of ambitus against the broad panorama of Sullas innovations, especially the increase of the number of praetors from six to eight which exacerbated the competition for the consulship. See also II.41820, and 8035 (nn. 25777, 287); 422424, and 8078 (nn. 312, 31823); 43840, and 81516 (nn. 42542), with a number of acute legal and prosopographical observations. On the trials of Murena and Plancius I recommend the discussions by C. J. Classen, Recht, Rhetorik, Politik. Untersuchungen zu Ciceros rhetorischer Strategie (Darmstadt 1985) 12079; and by M. Alexander, The Case for Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era (Ann Arbor 2002) 11944 (endnotes on pp. 294302). A. Zandberg, Leges de ambitu, Meander 56 (2001) 10326, 27794, a short account but intelligent and well versed in the sources. On the other hand T. Wallinga, Ambitus in the Roman Republic, RIDA 41 (1994) 41142, is best consigned to oblivion. I was finally able to consult (cf. RQ 63839) H. Kowalski, Odpowiedzialnosc karna za przestepstwa wyborcze w Rzymie (III wiek p.n.e) [Penal Responsibility for Electoral Malpractices in Rome, III century B.C.E.], Folia Societatis Scientiarum Lublinensis (Biuletyn Lubelskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego) 34 (1993) 7383, a quick but competent overview of the legislation. See also his Organizacja przekupstw wyborczych w Rzymie w okresie schyku republiki [with German summary: Die Durchfhrung der Wahlbestechungen in Rom in der Zeit der Untergang der Republik], Antiquitas 9 (= Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 497 [1983]) 10718; Przemoc jako metoda walki wyborczej w Rzymie w okresie schyku republiki (7850 r. p.n.e.) [with French summary: La violence en tant que mthode de la lutte lectorale Rome lpoque de la dcadence de la Rpublique (7850 av. J.-C.), Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skodowska (Lublin) 3839, 5 (19831984) 7592. P. 107 = 87: The passage of Symmachus, Or. 4.7 (cf. also Or. 1.9) is mentioned in passing by A. Felmy, Die Rmische Republik im Geschichtsbild der Sptantike. Zum Umgang lateinischer Autoren des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts n.Chr. mit den exempla maiorum (Berlin 2001) 35. A. Pabst, Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, Reden (Darmstadt 1989) 1023, 161, follows Del Chicca, argues against Seecks conjecture diuisores, and retains the manuscript reading fauisores. F. Millar, The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor 1998) 199200, adduces the passage of Ausonius (Grat. actio 3.13) as an example of learned antiquarianism and a recognition [I would say appalled recognition] that in the republican city-state there had been real political competition and a real need to court and please the voters. P. 112 = 92: On divisores, cf. R. Cosi, Le degenerazioni politiche tardorepubblicane: i divisores, Annali della Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia dellUniversit degli Studi di Bari 41 (1998) 33549.

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

615

10 THREE TRIALS IN 54 B.C.: SUFENAS, CATO, PROCILIUS AND CICERO, AD ATTICUM 4.15.4 (1969)
Pp. 11820 = 28486: F. X. Ryan, The date of Catullus 52, Eranos 93 (1995 [1997]) 11321, assigns the poem to 56, and argues that M. Nonius Sufenas was aedile or praetor in 56 (and not tr. pl. in 56, and pr. in 55). I am not convinced: he does nor give enough chronological credit to Catullus per consulatum peierat Vatinius. Pp. 12122 = 28788: On C. Cato, and his postulated praetorship in 55, cf. also G. V. Sumner, CP 78 (1983) 359; and more recently, and very skeptically, T. C. Brennan, The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II.417, and 803 (nn. 24754). On Gutta (n. 36), see F. X. Ryan, Some Persons in the pro Cluentio, Tyche 11 (1996) 195205 at 199200. Pp. 12429 = 29095: On Procilius, see F. X. Ryan, Four Republican Senators, C&M 47 (1996) 20715 at 21114. Pp. 12932 = 29598: Both in the original contribution and in the Addenda priora I missed B. Haller, C. Asinius Pollio als Politiker und zeitkritischer Historiker (Diss. Mnster 1967). No loss; but as this work is occasionally quoted I thought it incumbent upon me to observe that his discussion of Asinius Pollio as the accuser of C. Cato in 54 (pp. 1821) is not worth consulting.

11 REVIEW OF: CLAUDE NICOLET, LORDRE QUESTRE LPOQUE RPUBLICAINE. TOME 2: PROSOPOGRAPHIE DES CHEVALIERS ROMAINS (1977)
Pp. 14041 = 5859: On the lex Roscia and Iulia, cf. A. Conobbio, La lex Roscia theatralis e Marziale: il ciclo del libro V [Biblioteca di Athenaeum 49 [Como 2002]) 16-41; he does not discuss at all the role of the XIV ordines in the definition of the late republican equestrian order. Pp. 14142 = 5960: On the passage of Pliny (NH 33.2932) concerning the decuriae iudicum and the ordo equester, see the excellent exposition by J. T. Ramsey, Mark Antonys Judiciary Reform and its Revival under the Triumvirs, JRS 95 (2005) 2037 at 3334.

13 ROME, APHRODISIAS AND THE RES GESTAE: THE GENERA MILITIAE AND THE STATUS OF OCTAVIAN (1984)
Pp. 15253 = 7980: R. A. Kearsley, Octavian in the Year 32 BC: The S.C. de Aphrodisiensibus and the genera militiae, RhM 142 (1999) 5267. She rightly

616

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

stresses that no evidence exists for Octavian continuing to call himself triumvir (53), and (following Girardet; see RQ 64344) calls attention to Octavians provincia which would provide him with imperium consulare. But strictly speaking this was imperium proconsulare, and Kearsley (like others) does not discuss its territorial dimension and limitation. It certainly did not apply to Italy. Kearsley relies heavily on the account of Cassius Dio (50.211), and concludes (66) that Augustus did not use the language and vocabulary of Roman government in RG 25.2 because he took it for granted that people knew he had imperium. The more important task was to ensure posterity believed the extent of his backing was overwhelming. This is a specious argument: it would have taken only one additional line to record, in addition to the coniuratio Italiae, also the grant of imperium by the popular assembly (either centuriate ot tribal). As any reader of the RG will immediately see, Augustus was very fastidious in recording his honors; it is inconceivable that he would not define strictly and completely his constitutional position in the war against Cleopatra, and omit to mention his imperium. We can conclude that he was not given the imperium for the war by a lex or plebiscitum; and because of its territorial limitation he could not rely solely upon his proconsular imperium. His solution was coniuratio and the position of a dux. This is, I am pleased to observe, also the position, as always sensible, taken by R. Ridley, The Emperors Retrospect. Augustus Res Gestae in Epigraphy, Historiography and Commentary (Leuven 2003) 187-192, with a trenchant conclusion: The oath was in sum a substitute for the legalisation of Octavians positionotherwise lacking (p. 190). In this sense also M. H. Dettenhofer, Herrschaft und Widerstand im augusteischen Prinzipat. Die Konkurrenz zwischen res publica und domus Augusta (= Historia Einzelschriften 140 [Stuttgart 2000]) 5259.

14 USU, FARRE, COEMPTIONE. BEMERKUNGEN ZUR BERLIEFERUNG EINES RECHTSATZES (1984)

P. 154 = 301, nn. 1 and 2: I was finally able to consult E. Cantarella, Usu, farreo, coemptione: ipotesi recenti sul matrimonio romano, in Incontro con Giovanni Pugliese (Milano 1992) 97107. She rightly rejects the idea of M. Torelli, Lavinio e Roma. Riti iniziatici e matrimonio tra archeologia e storia (Roma 1984) 11747, that usus was a sacral form of marriage and not merely a legal form of manus acquisition, but at the same time she also rightly stresses the religious aspect of Roman marriage. See now L. Pepe, Storie di parole, storie di istituti. Sul diritto matrimoniale romano arcaico, SDHI 63 (1997) 12396; and the books by I. Piro, Usu in manum convenire (Napoli 1994); U. Bartocci, Le species nuptiarum nell esperienza romana arcaica (Rome 1999); and C. Fayer, La Familia romana II (parte seconda): Aspetti giuridici ed antiquari. Sponsalia, matrimonio, dote (Roma 2005) 185325, a veritable encyclopedia of conventio in manum (cf. esp. 22345 on confarreatio). These involved and competent studies show that it will be difficult to arrive at any generally accepted consensus. Still we may safely say that on

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

617

one level matrimonium was a religious institution and nuptiae a religious ceremony. The religious aspect was, however, intertwined with the legal: the groom becomes maritus, and the sponsa becomes uxor (but remains under the patria potestas or sui iuris or gets under manus mariti). It is only on the purely legal level that manus appears: the maritus acquired it either through usus or immediately through the religious and legal ceremony of confarreatio or through the legal procedure of coemptio. The account of confarreatio and diffarreatio given by F. Van Haeperen, Le collge pontifical (3me s. a. C. - 4me s. p. C.) (Bruxelles-BrusselRome 2002) 39395, is very cursory. (See also below, Addenda to RQ, No. 55).

15 DER SENAT UND DIE VEREINE (1968)

P. 165, nn. 13 (p. 193) = 94, nn. 13 (p. 122): For the historical background of the XIXth and XXth century studies of the Vereinswesen, see above all the erudite monograph by J. S. Perry, The Roman Collegia: The Modern Evolution of an Ancient Concept (Leiden 2006), with illuminating chapters on Mommsen, Waltzing and De Robertis (cf. also above in this volume, No. 45.6). And on the life and scholarly path of Silvio Accame, see F. Fabbrini, Silvio Accame: Studioso del mondo antico (Roma 2000), a rather hagiographic account, esp. 3049, a summary of Accames magisterial article on the collegia, regrettably without any attempt to connect it with subsequent scholarship. On the legislation concerning collegia there is no reason to note the superficial article by W. Cotter, The Collegia and Roman Law: state restrictions on voluntary associations, 64 BCE200 CE, in the oft quoted collection edited by J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson, Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London and New York 1996) 7489. On the other hand I can fully recommend the exposition by R. Mentxaka, El derecho de associacin en Roma a la luz del ca 74 de la lex Irnitana, BIDR 9899 (19951996 [2000]) 199218 (although in adducing secondary literature she does not separate chaff from grain, unfortunately an all too common failing). Cf. also L. de Ligt, Governmental Attitudes towards Markets and Collegia, in E. Lo Cascio (ed.) Mercati permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo romano (Bari 2000) 23752; I. N. Arnoutoglou, Roman Law and Collegia in Asia Minor, RIDA 49 (2002) 2744; Collegia in the Province of Egypt in the First Century AD, Ancient Society 35 (2005) 197216. Pp. 17478 = 1037: F. Fontana, I culti di Aquileia repubblicana. Aspetti della politica religiosa in Gallia Cisalpina tra il III e il II sec. a. C. (Roma 1997) 5265, starting from a dedication to Lares set up by magistri (CIL I2 2193 = V 792) launches an investigation of the ludi compitales and collegia compitalicia. This endeavor features a crowd of defective footnotes (vetera non leguntur), and a derivative and frequently erroneous narrative (cf. below, Addenda to RQ, No. 16). S. Benoist, La fte Rome au premier sicle de lEmpire. Recherches sur lunivers festif sous les rgnes dAuguste et des Julio-Claudiens (= Collection Latomus 248 [Bruxelles 1999]) 299316, gives a short presentation of compita, compitalia, ludi

618

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

and collegia compitalicia. He sensibly concludes that in 64 only the subversive collegia and the ludi compitalicii organized by the magistri collegiorum were prohibited, but not the magistri vicorum and the feast of compitalia itself (3035, n. 25 in fine). This was also the conclusion reached in my article (but Benoist does not bother himself excessively with bibliography or priority). M. Tarpin, Vici et pagi dans lOccident romain (Collection de lcole Fran. de Rome 299 [Rome 2002]), a recent entrant into the fray, discusses compitalia and magistri vici under the republic (12835), ignoring entirely the older literature of the subject, and mostly following Flambard, and considering Fraschetti (cf. RQ 646). He confuses the feriae of Compitalia and the ludi compitalicii (p. 128, cf. 107, n. 20), but rightly criticizes Fraschetti for denying the existence of magistri vicorum before Augustus (13235). This said, it is only fair to add that the book brings together a wealth of information (especially epigraphical) on vici and pagi. J. B. Lott, The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome (Cambridge 2004) 4144, 5160, gives a rapid overview of magistri vici and collegia compitalicia, largely siding with the views expressed by the present writer. See also the instructive piece by W. Van Andringa, Autels de carrefour, organisation vicinale et rapports de voisinage Pompi, Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 11 (2000) 4786, esp. 7280, 8386. Pp. 18082 = 10911 (and nn. 5263): On magistri Campani, see also G. Guadagno, Pagi e vici della Campania, in LEpigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 40744, esp. 41821: the pagus Herculaneus and the collegium sive magistri Iovei Compagei. He follows Mommsen, and writes very sensibly (p. 421) Nel contesto paganico quindi i magistri Iovei Compagei si vengono a porre in parallelo ai collegia dei pontefici a degli auguri in ambito municipale, non solo per lorganizzazione stessa del corpo in collegium, ma anche per la prerogativa di sedere in teatro durante gli spettacoli, exactly as the magistri ad fana templa delubra known from the lex Ursonensis (cap. 128, ILS 6037). But it is rather disappointing to see that in the same volume M. Buonocore, Problemi di amministrazione paganico-vicana nellItalia repubblicana del I secolo A.C., 49-59 at 53, speaks of magistri del collegium di Iuppiter Compagus, and thus regards those magistri not as a collegium magistrorum but as the governing board of a larger association. Yet at the same time commenting on the magistri Laverneis (CIL IX 3138 = I2 1793 = ILLRP 57) he observes that they formed a collegium of four persons, and compares them to the magistri Campani! Subsequently a comprehensive discussion of the conlegium seive magistrei Iovei Compagei has been presented by M. Pobjoy, The Decree of the pagus Herculaneus and the Romanisation of Oscan Capua, Arctos 32 (1998) 17595, an excellent piece. He supports the view of Mommsen, Frederiksen, Guadagno and the present writer (esp. pp. 18185); in passing he corrects (p. 184, n. 23) the mistaken attribution to Schulten of the idea that the pagus Herculaneus was the only pagus of the ager Campanus (p. 199 = 128, n. 63). I have restated my idea of the magistri collegiorum versus the collegia magistrorum in the article Magistri, Oxford Classical Dictionary3 (1996 [reprinted in this volume, No. 35.1]) (cf. Pobjoy, p. 182, n. 19). A full investigation of social and administrative life in Capua is offered by G. DIsanto, Capua romana. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia sociale (Roma 1993).

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

619

Also magistri mercuriales (AE 1999 [2002] 538, from Hirpinia), will rather form a collegium magistrorum; they hardly were the magistri of a larger association (as postulated by the editor princeps, D. Nonnis, in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in Occidente ed in Oriente (Coll. col. Fran. Rome 256 [Rome 1999] 4153 at 4147). On the magistri on Delos, see also P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Dlos lpoque hellnistique et lpoque imperiale (BEFAR 217 [Paris 1970]) 594603; T. Mavrojannis, Laedicula dei Lares Compitales nel Compitum degli Hermaistai a Delo, BCH 119,1 (1995) 89123; and more recently the studies by C. Hasenohr, Les monuments des collges italiens sur lAgora des Comptaliastes Dlos (IIe Ier s. av. J.-C.), in J.-Y. Marc and J.-C. Moretti (eds.), Constructions publiques et programmes dilitaires en Grce entre le IIe sicle av. J.-C et le Ier sicle ap. J.-C. (= BCH Suppl. 39 [Paris 2001]) 32848, esp. 33031; 34447; Les collges de magistri et la communaut Italienne de Dlos, in Ch. Mller, Cl. Hasenohr (eds.), Les Italiens dans le monde grec (BCH Suppl. 41 [Paris 2002]) 6772; and Les Compitalia Dlos, BCH 127,1 (2003) 167249, esp. 20918. She perceptively regards the Delian associations as collegia magistrorum. In particular les Compitalia ... devinrent bientt une crmonie officielle de la communaut italienne dont lorganisation fut confie au collge des Comptaliastes (p. 218). Most recently, B. Daz Ario, Heisce Magistreis. Aproximacin a los Collegia de la Hispania republicana travs de sus paralelos italianos y delios, Gerin 22 (2004) 44178, unwisely follows Flambard (cf. RQ 64647), and regards the magistri in Campania, at Minturnae, and on Delos, as presidents of larger associations. This also seems to be the view of F. Coarelli, Il teatro di Minturnae e i magistri collegiorum repubblicani, in Histoire, Espaces et Marges de lAntiquit 3 (Hommages Monique Clavel-Lvque [Besanon 2004]) 21521.

16 CICEROS REDE PRO CAELIO UND DIE AMBITUS- UND VEREINSGESETZGEBUNG DER AUSGEHENDEN REPUBLIK (1961)
F. Fontana, I culti di Aquileia repubblicana. Aspetti della politica religiosa in Gallia Cisalpina tra il III e il II sec. a. C. (Roma 1997) 62, confuses collegia and sodalitates, misunderstands the scope of the S.C. of 56 and of the lex Licinia. She claims, without a shred of proof, that this law and the lex Iulia prohibited the celebration of the games at the compita. Cf. also R. Cosi, Rapporti di sodalitas e degenerazione politica a Roma, in: Epigrafia e territorio. Politica e societ. Temi di antichit romane 5 (1999) 181204: fat in bibliography, slim (and occasionally erroneous) in results (cf. esp. 19396); also Le solidariet politiche nella Repubblica romana (Bari 2002) 3358, esp. 4453. H. Mouritsen, Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge 2001) 14951, presents a competent analysis of the lex Licinia de sodalitatibus: it dealt exclusively with electoral bribery and did not apply to Clodian bands. This disregards the connection between

620

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

the SC of 56 and the lex Licinia, and in particular the clause in the senatorial decree proposing for the sodalitates and decuriati the penalty quae est de vi. And above all, see J.-F. Ferrary, La legislation de ambitu, de Sulla Auguste, in Iuris vincula. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca III (Napoli 2001) 182, with a marvelously precise and illuminating description: La loi Licinia ntait en fait ni une loi de ambitu ni une loi de ui, et cest la raison pour laquelle elle nabrogea ni la loi Tullia Antonia ni la loi Plautia, ni mme nintroduisit de drogation les affectant. Les crimes quelle dfinissait relevaient en effet dune quaestio particulire.

18 CICERO AND SALLUST ON VARGUNTEIUS (1963)

D. H. Berry, Cicero. Pro Sulla Oratio (= Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries [Cambridge 1996]) 141, while noting the objection of Nicolet, observes that Vargunteius expulsion from the senate would neatly account for the uncertainty whether he was an eques (Cat. 1.9) or a senator (Sall. Cat. 17.3, 28.1) in 63 when with C. Cornelius he attempted to murder Cicero at the salutatio on 7 November.

20 THE AEDILESHIP OF FAVONIUS, CURIO THE YOUNGER AND CICEROS ELECTION TO THE AUGURATE (1972)
P. 234 = 184: On the quaestorship of Curio, cf. F. X. Ryan, The Minimum Age for the Quaestorship in the Late Republic, MH 53 (1996) 3743 at 4142. Pp. 23640 = 18690: F. X. Ryan, A Lately Missing Aedile: M. Aufidius Lurco, Athenaeum 86 (1998) 51721, endorses Willems emendation LOURKVN at Plut. Cat. min. 46.7, and argues that Lurco administered his aedileship as a colleague of Favonius. He proposes an ingenious solution to the fact that Favonius and his colleague organized theatrical performances simultaneously but separately in two different theatres. Favonius, austere and frugal, and aided by Cato, gave the actors inexpensive and common foodstuffs as prizes; to Lurco, a notorious gourmet (cf. No. 22), such frugality was abhorrent, and so the two plebeian aediles, divided by their gustatory preferences, administered the games in two separate venues (cf. also above in this volume, No. 10, n. 38). P. 242 = 192: F. X. Ryan, Der fr die Priesterwahlen vorgeschriebene Zeitpunkt, Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 4.A2 (2003) 12: the generally accepted view that the elections of priests regularly took place between the consular and the praetorian comitia is incorrect. This sequence of elections was eine seltene Ausnahme; it applied only to elections during an interregnum. I do not quite follow his argument. Pp. 244, n. 54 = 194, n. 54: On the speed of travel, see also A. M. Ramsey, The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post, JRS 15 (1925) 6074; C. W. Elliot, New

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

621

Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post, Phoenix 9 (1955) 76-80; and L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World (London 1974) 188.

21 THE QUAESTORSHIP OF MARCUS ANTONIUS (1974)

On the career of Antonius, and his quaestorhip, cf. K. Welch, Antony, Fulvia, and the Ghost of Clodius, G&R 42 (1995) 182201 at 186.

22 THE MOTHER OF LIVIA AUGUSTA AND THE AUFIDII LURCONES OF THE REPUBLIC (1974)
For the republican Aufidii, see . Wikander, Senators and Equites I. The Case of the Aufidii, Opuscula Romana 15 (1985) 15563; and for a comprehensive history of the gens, N. Mathieu, Histoire dun nom. Les Aufidii dans la vie politique, conomique et sociale du monde romain (Rennes 1999). In his discussion of Lurco (13335), he essentially follows the argument presented in my article. He points out that the analysis is aggravated by the voluntary or involuntary confusion in ancient authors between the Aufidii and Alfidii, and he argues (2931) for la ncessaire distinction between those two families. About the Alfidii, see also his articles Comment avoir une illustre parent? Alfidii et Aufidii au Ier s. av. J.-C, BSAF (1997) 6173; Les Alfidii dans le monde romain: tude dun nom (fin IIe sicle avant J.-C. - dbut IIIe aprs J.-C.), Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de lOuest 105 (1998) 733. Cf. also M. Christol, Un pagus dans larrirepays de Narbonne (C.I.L. XII 5390), in G. Paci (ed.), Epigrafa. Miscellanea epigraphica in onore di Lidio Gasperini I (Tivoli 2000) 24773, with a list of Italian Alfidii and Alfedii (26062); for the name of Livias mother he adduces solely the article by Wiseman, and he does not know the contributions of Mathieu. Pp. 265-272 = 466-473: F. X. Ryan, A Lately Missing Aedile: M. Aufidius Lurco, Athenaeum 86 (1998) 51721, accepts the identification of Lurco the magistrate and Lurco the gourmet.

23 TWO QUAESTORSHIPS (1975)

P. 281 = 36: H. W. Bird, Eutropius, Breviarium (= Translated Texts for Historians 14 [Liverpool 1993]) 106, n. 24, takes Eutropius 6.18 literally and still describes C. Cassius Longinus as quaestor. Nor does F. L. Mller, Eutropii Breviarium ab Urbe Condita (= Palingenesia 56 [Stuttgart 1995]) 217, comment on Cassius actual position of pro quaestore.

622

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

L. Pepe, M. Iunius Brutus, triumvir monetalis e quaestor, Annali dellIstituto Italiano di Numismatica 43 (1996) 4764 at 6264, argues that in 54 only the elections for the higher magistracies were postponed till 53, but that the aediles and quaestors were elected in 54. For the (pre-emptive) refutation of this line of thought, see The Dramatic Date of Varro, De re rustica, Book III and the Elections in 54, Historia 34 (1985) 250 = RQ 102. The texts of Cass. Dio 40.45.1 and App. B.C. 2.3.19 are at best inconclusive in this respect; they indeed do not say explicitly that the quaestors and aediles were not elected, but certainly they can and must be interpreted in the sense that no magistrates (including the lower magistrates) were elected (see above, Addenda to RQ, No. 8).

25 REVIEW OF: THOMAS N. MITCHELL, CICERO, THE ASCENDING YEARS (1979)

P. 288 = 276: It would be otiose to list here and discuss the mushrooming publications for and against democracy in Rome. I do not believe that the proponents of democracy in Rome succeeded in installing it in the Forum or Comitium. Polybius got it right: Rome enjoyed a mixed constitution.

26 DE VILLA APPIO PULCHRO FALSO ATTRIBUTA (1981)

The conclusions of this article concerning the passage of Varro, RR 3.2.5, and the presumed villa of Appius Claudius, have now been fully endorsed by D. Palombi, LTUR 2 (1995) 8384.

27 PATIENTIA FREGIT: M. OCTAVIUS AND TI. GRACCHUS (CICERO, BRUTUS 95) (1982)
On the concept of patientia, see R. A. Kaster, The Taxonomy of Patience, or When is Patientia Not a Virtue?, CP 97 (2002) 13344. He does not mention the case of Octavius.

28 THE AEDILES AND THE DIDASCALIAE (1987)

Cf. P. Tansey, New Light on the Roman Stage. A Revival of Terences Phormio Rediscovered, RhM 144 (2001) 2243 (esp. 2324, 27, 3031), where he ably and

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

623

with great erudition defends the value of the didascaliae as a source for the dates of revivals. P. 298 = 86: The article by F. X. Ryan adduced in Addenda priora (RQ 656) as forthcoming has now appeared: Ten Ill-Starred Aediles, Klio 78 (1996) 6886; see 86: the alternation between the pairs of patrician and plebeian curule aediles was no longer required by the time of the elections in 104.

29 ROMAN OFFICERS IN THE YEAR OF PYDNA (1990)

Pp. 31415 = 6667: The provision for 168 concerning the military tribunes creari ... neminem eo anno placere, nisi qui honorem gessisset (Liv. 44.21.2). As T. C. Brennan points out (BMCR 8.2 [1997] p. 158 (printed version) = (electronic) 1997.2.9, in fine), there exists an important precedent for such a procedure. Livy 22.35.7 reports that in 216, another emergency year, omnes absentes creati sunt, nec cuiquam eorum praeter Terentium consulem mandatus honos quem non iam antea gessisset, praeteritis aliquot fortibus ac strenuis uiris, quia in tali tempore nulli novus magistratus videbatur mandandus. This refers specifically to the other consul, L. Aemilius Paullus, and to the praetors, all of whom were thus elected iterum. Whether this procedure was observed also with respect to the lower magistrates and the military tribunes, Livy does not tell us. Furthermore it does not appear that we here deal with a formal regulation (as in 168): the phrase praeteritis aliquot fortibus ac strenuis viris shows that there were other candidates; the election iterum of the higher magistrates will thus be the result of an informal but persuasive argument presented to the people by the leading men in the state.

30 THE DEATH OF PONTIA (1990)

On Pontias execution, cf. T. A. J. McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome (New York Oxford 1998) 206. Cf. now the translation of Val. Max. 6.1.3 by D. R. Shackleton Bailey in his Loeb edition (2000): Learning that his daughters virginity had been betrayed to Fannius Saturninus by her tutor, he (i.e., Pontius Aufidianus) was not content to punish the rascally slave, he also killed the girl herself.

31 TWO SPEECHES OF Q. HORTENSIUS. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CORPUS ORATORUM OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC (1961 [revised 1994])
Pp. 33033: On the lex Licinia de sodaliciis, see above, Addenda to RQ, No. 16.

624

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

32 VERGIL AND DIONYSIUS (1993)

On the tradition about Aborigines (and Pelasgians), see the book by J. MartnezPinna, La prehistoria mtica de Roma. Introduccin a la etnognesis latina (= Gerin. Anejo VI [Madrid 2002]) esp. 6678 on Varro and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. P. 340 = 7, n. 16: On the Saufeii, see the solid study by . Wikander, Senators and Equites III. The case of the Saufeii, Opuscula Romana 17 (1989) 20512, with a list of all attested members of this gens. As to the Epicurean L. Saufeius he adopts the prosopographical reconstruction of Raubitschek (pp. 2067, 21011). He does not discuss his philosophical views or antiquarian writings.

33 TWO CRUCES IN SENECA, DE VITA BEATA 25.2 (1982)

Pp. 34448 = 8993: A. S. Watt, Notes on Seneca, Dialogi, Phoenix 37 (1983) 4852 at 50 (a piece I missed in Addenda priora), accepts Muretus canusinatus; more philologorum emendantium he is unaware of the Roman res vestiaria. With respect to the corrupt sententis, he points to the reading of g fetentibus (in which probably hides, as already Muretus realized, foetentibus), and proposes to read <pannis> foetentibus, adducing as a comparison Titinius 13839 (Ribbeck, Com. Rom. Frag.3 180): tunica et togula obunctula / adimetur, pannos possidebit foetidos. Ingenious, but rhetorically it is still a lame figure (cf. 346 = 91). The most elegant conjecture remains that of Schultess; Watt does not consider it. P. 344 = 89: On the wool of Canusium, see now the comprehensive and excellent study by F. Grelle and M. Silvestrini, Lane apule e tessuti canosini, Epigrafia e territorio. Politica e societa. Temi di antichit romane 6 (2000) 91136, with full collection of literary sources (due to F. Grelle) and epigraphical documents (due to M. Silvestrini). The emendation canusinatus in the passage of Seneca is not adduced, perhaps understandably. On paenulae, Grelle missed, oddly enough, the fundamental article by F. Kolb (cf. 346, n. 5 = 91), but he opportunely points out that the paenulae Canusinae were not really a luxury item (94101). P. 345 = 90 (and n. 2): On the causia, see also A. M. Prestiani Giallombardo, Per un lessico greco dellabbigliamento. Coprocapi come segni di potere: la Kausia, in P. Radici Colace and M. Caccamo Caltabiani (eds.), Atti del I Seminario di Studi sui Lessici Tecnici Greci e Latini (Messina 1991) 16587; and C. Saatsoglu-Pariadeli, Aspects of ancient Macedonian costume, JHS 113 (1993) 12247, both articles with ample collection of evidence. Prestiani Giallombardo accepts the oriental origin of causia and differentiates it from petasos; SaatsogluPariadeli, on the other hand, argues (against Kingsley) for the native Macedonian (Emathian) origin of that headgear.

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

625

34 AES OLET: PETRONIUS 50.7 AND MARTIAL 9.59.11 (1992)

I was finally able to consult the book by A. R. Giumlia-Mair [at RQ 660 her name is mistakenly given as Giumlia-Muir] and P. T. Craddock, Das schwarze Gold der Alchimisten. Corinthium Aes (Mainz 1992), a most interesting, informative, and adventurous study. They do not discuss the passages Petr. 50.7 and Mart. 9.59.11. I also duly note a contribution omitted in the original publication: B. Baldwin. Trimalchios Corinthian Plate, CP 68 (1973) 4647. T. Grll, Trimalchios Corinthian Ware, AAntHung. 36 (1995) 1015, cautiously states (p. 104) that According to Trimalchio, the Corinthian bronze ... had a noticeable smell. He ignores Aes olet. P. 354, n. 6 = 352, n. 6: F. X. Ryan, Zum Einwand des Titus gegen die Harnsteuer des Vespasian, Phasis 4 (2001) 12731, discusses the witticism of Vespasian; he believes that coins besitzen einen metallischen Geruch (128), a belief not shared by chemists (cf. RQ 660).

35 ALFRED THE GREAT AND THE TRADITION OF ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY (1964)

P. 358 = 436: T. P. Wisemans article Julius Caesar and the Hereford World Map, History Today 37 (1987 [not 1976 as mistakenly in RQ 660] 5357, has been vastly expanded as Julius Caesar and the Mappa Mundi, a brilliant piece, published in Wisemans collection of essays Talking to Virgil. A Miscellany (Exeter 1992) 2242 (p. 41 on Alfred and Agrippa). On Agrippas opus and its traces, see now K. Brodersen, Terra cognita. Studien zur rmischen Raumerfassung (Spudasmata 59 [Hildesheim 1995; 2nd ed. 2003]) 26887. He believes that Die Weltkarte Agrippas war gar keine Karte sondern ... ein Text (p. 285). The existence of a text, perhaps an inscription, is obvious but it is a false conclusion that this must preclude the existence of a map! Cf J.-M. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa (BEFAR 253 [Rome 1984]) 57391; J. Engels, Augusteische Oikumenegeographie und Universalhistorie im Werk Strabos von Amaseia (Geographia Historica 12 [Stuttgart 1999]) 359-377. Those scholars rightly speak of both the Commentarii and the map. As to the tradition of Agrippas opus, Roddaz (p. 588, n. 124; cf. REA 99 [1997] 253) accepts its presence in Alfreds Orosius; Brodersen (p. 273, n. 6) cautiously admits of the possibility that Alfred may have utilized the late antique or early medieval geographical scripts (like the Dimensuratio provinciarum and Divisio orbis terrarum) that preserved traces of Agrippas commentarii.

626

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

36 NOTES ON CIL I2 364 (1958, revised 1994)

Several recent studies deal with this inscription: E. Courtney, Musa lapidaria (Atlanta 1995) 3435, no. 2 (text and translation), 2047 (commentary); P. Kruschwitz, Carmina Saturnia Epigraphica. Einleitung, Text und Kommentar zu den Saturnischen Versinschriften (Hermes-Einzelschriften 84 [Stuttgart 2002]) 12738 (no. 8); W. Keuleers, Latijnse epigraphische pozie uit de Republiek. Repertorium, vertaling en studie (Licentiaat thesis Vrije Universiteit Brussel 2003) 14749 (available electronically in Word format). All these authors take notice of the article (Keuleers in its revised version in RQ); Courtney and Keuleers by and large accept its conclusions, especially that the inscriptions on the two sides of the tablet belong to two different groups, and that the collegium of the coqui probably had its seat in Falerii (and not in Sardinia). Kruschwitz has definitely established that the metric inscription was inscribed first (128); he follows Wachter (cf. RQ 661) and assigns both the saturnian and the prosaic text to the the coqui, an unlikely proposition.

38 NATALIS PATAVII (1983)

P. 369, nn. 4 and 5 = 227: The articles of Sartori have now been conveniently reprinted in F. Sartori, DallItala allItalia 2 (Padova 1993) 16374, 17582. P. 370 = 228: On the dies natalis in antiquity, see now the well informed paper by I. Ramelli, Osservazioni sul concetto di giorno natalizio nel mondo greco e romano e sullespressione di Seneca dies aeterni natali, Ilu. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 6 (2001) 16981. Pp. 37374 = 23132: On the inscription CIL V 2787 and the ludi cetasti, see J. Linderski, Games in Patavium, Ktema 17 (1992 [1996]) 5576, esp. 5968 (reprinted, with ample addenda, in this volume, No. 34). P. 374 = 232: The inscription Not.Sc. 1926, 352 has been reedited by G. Alfldy, Rmische Statuen in Venetia et Histria (Heidelberg 1984) 120, no. 163. He is duly cautious with respect to two main points: the expansion of the abbreviation N, printing it as N(atali?), and the dating of the beginning of the era to 173 (cf. below). In Addenda priora (RQ 663) I also missed A. Abramenko, Ein weiterer natalis municipii, ZPE 91 (1992) 15657; he accepts the expansion n(atali), but not in the shape n(atali scil. die) but rather n(atali scil. urbis or municipii). He opportunely adduces an inscription from Praeneste (CIL XIV 2974), where the same notation appears (on the pars aversa): N XX. The beginning of the Praenestine era Abramenko convincingly connects with the unusual request of the Praenestines, who (Gell. 16.13.5) maximo opere a Tiberio imperatore petisse orasseque, ut ex colonia in municipii statum redigerentur.

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

627

The idea that the abbreviation N denoted the era of Patavium (and of Feltria) has been (in passing) accepted by G. Bandelli, Colonie e municipi delle regioni transpadane in et repubblicana, in La citt nellItalia settentrionale in et romana (Trieste-Roma 1990) 266, n. 103. It was, however, explicitly rejected by L. Cracco Ruggini, Storia totale di una piccola citt: Vicenza romana, in A. Broglio and L. Cracco Ruggini (eds.), Storia di Vicenza I (Vicenza 1987) 21112, n. 33, and disregarded by L. Zerbini, Munificenza privata nelle citt della Regio X, Annali dei Musei Civici di Rovereto 6 (1990) 39, n. 110, who oddly suggests that the notation potrebbe corrispondere al numero della concessione del terreno o del permesso di innalzare la pietra, but concludes somberly: ma purtroppo mancano dati a riguardo. For a brief overview (through which I was directed to the two last titles), see M. S. Bassignano, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 25153. More recently, S. Panciera, very appropriately in a volume in honor of Franco Sartori, offers a thorough renewed discussion of the whole question: I numeri di Patavium, ERKOS. Studi in Onore di Franco Sartori (Padova 2003) 187202 (with editions and photographs of inscriptions, figs. 17). He resoundingly endorses W. Harris idea of an era of Patavium, but rejects the initial date of 173 (p. 190), and after a detailed consideration of all pertinent inscriptions and a careful chronological argument proposes as annus primus the year 89, when Patavium on the basis of the lex Pompeia de Transpadanis will have acquired the status of a (fictitious) Latin colony (pp. 190, 197). But an objection to this theory springs forth immediately: why of all the communities elevated by the Pompeian law only Patavium should have sported this era? The era of Patavium remains a Patavine peculiarity (cf. in this sense J. Liu, The Era of Patavium Reconsidered: see abstracts of the papers delivered at the 2006 APA Annual Meeting [available online]). As to the abbreviation N Panciera (p. 198) returns (without much further argument) to the expansion n(umerus). I still find this idea doubtful. The phrases numerare annos and numerus annorum are (in various particular applications) frequently attested, but with respect to cities only few literary examples can be found: Asc. In Corn. (ed. Clark) 76.2627: numerum quidem annorum [anni Mommsen] post reges exactos ... diligenter posuit; Porphyrio ad Hor. Epist. 2.1.48: qui per consules annorum colligit numerum (explaining Horaces qui redit ad fastos); and above all the well known passages referring to the clavus annalis: Liv 7.3.67: Eum clavum ... notam numeri annorum fuisse ferunt, and further: Volsiniis quoque clavos indices numeri annorum fixos in templo Nortiae comparere ... Cincius adfirmat; Paul. Fest. 49 (ed. Lindsay): clavus annalis appellabatur, qui figebatur in parietibus sacrarum aedium per annos singulos, ut per eos numerus colligeretur annorum. (About clavus itself, see the very cautious comments by S. P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy. Books VIX, vol. 2 [Oxford 1998] 7381; for a less sceptical approach, see OCD3 s.v. Nortia). Years were counted and numbered, but there is not a whiff of a phrase that would be most appropriate for dating purposes: n(umero scil. anni or annorum). Panciera himself concedes this point (p. 198): E vero che, allo stato, non conosciamo altre re sicure che siano cos indicate. When Pliny juxtaposes anno and numerum, he uses the former to indicate a date, and the latter to count years, NH 8.14: Elephantos Italia primum vidit ...

628

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

anno urbis CCCCLXXII, Roma autem in triumpho VII annis ad superiorem numerum additis, eadem plurimos anno DII victoria L. Metelli ... captos. On the other hand (as I had pointed out, p. 373 = 231), he employs natali in a dating formula (NH 14.55 [not 102!]): natali urbis DCXXXIII (cf. Helvius Cinna, in Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum, ed. W. Morel-C. [=K.] Buechner [Lipsiae 1982], fr. 1, p. 114). I do not intend to contest Pancieras assertion that the abbreviation n(atali) does not appear in contesti comparabili (p. 198); nor does, for that matter, n(umero). But this is something of a quibble: the point is that whereas natali, fully spelled out, does appear in contesti comparabili, numero, so far, does not. Panciera objects in particular to the expansion n(atali die). In my argument, this was a prominent but a secondary point. The expansion n(atali anno) or n(atali) coloniae, municipii etc.) may indeed appear to be a simpler solution; I proposed n(atali die, i.e., coloniae etc.) as an attempt to explain the relative paucity of such notations. Here of interest are the comments of grammarians on the usage of the word. Servius ad Verg. Buc. 3.76 remarks: sane natalis apud maiores plenum fuit, licet posteritas natalis dies coeperit. This is a pseudo-learned construct based solely on two examples, one from Horace (Epist. 2.2.210), and one from Juvenal (12.1). Horace indeed applies the word nude positum (natalis grate numeras?), Juvenal with the addition of dies (Natali, Corvine, die mihi dulcior haec lux), but as even a cursory search will show both locutions flourished throughout the whole history of ancient Latin, from Plautus and Cicero to late antiquity. The statistics for individual authors, here given only for the ablative case (as it was used in dating formulas), are as follows (with the number of instances following the name): natali and natali die: Plautus 0/5; Cicero1/4; Lucretius 1/0; Varro 0/1; Nepos 0/1; Horace 1/0; Ovid 6/0; Sulpicia 1/0; Valerius Maximus 1/0; Acta Fratrum Arvalium (for the years 38 and 39) 7/0; Petronius 1/0; Seneca 2/0; Iuvenalis 0/1; Pliny the Elder 2/5; Suetonius 4/3; Pliny the Younger 1/0; Tacitus 0/1; Martialis 3/0; Censorinus 1/4; Fronto 1/4; Historia Augusta 6/1; Ael. Donatus (Vita Verg.) 1/0; Ausonius 1/0; Martianus Capella 0/1; Digesta 1/1. Another grammarian propounded another theory, equally wrong. Donatus, Commentum Terenti (vol. 2, p. 262, ed. Wessner [ad Phorm. 48]), commenting upon ubi erit puero natalis dies, writes: cum adiectione temporis cuiuslibet natalis melius dicitur, ut natalis <hora>, et natale astrum. sed Vergilius seruiens personae rusticae meus est natalis inquit Iolla (Ecl. 3.76), nec addidit dies. Neither Cicero nor Lucretius (and many others who speak in their own voice and not that of a dramatic persona) were rustics, and thus this flimsy construct immediately collapses (also observe that the Donatian Life of Vergil [6, p. 20, ed. F. Skok] employs natali without the addition of die!). The invocation of the same line of Vergil both by Servius and Donatus is interesting. We can expect that Donatus will have advocated a similar interpretation also in his Vergilian commentary. Now Servius excerpted the commentary of Donatus, but his chronological explanation is markedly different from the social and aesthetic approach of Donatus. Thus perhaps Servius original contribution? Not likely. Rather in his variorum commentary Donatus adduced various explanations; one of them found its way to what now we

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

629

have of his Terentian commentary. This explanation was suppressed by Servius who chose for his school commentary solely a rival theory that stressed in the usage of natalis and natalis dies the opposition between maiores and posteri. For our theme this excursus clarifies two things: in a dating formula natali would be most naturally applied to die (and not anno); and secondly the explicit or even silent addition of die was not perceived as required. I would also wish to advert to a curious social phenomenon: various events were recorded or described as taking place natali die, of a person or a city (cf. Cic. Att. 11.9.3: Haec ad te die natali meo scripsi), and to such coincidences people often ascribed special significance: see e.g. Cic. Att. 4.1.4, natalis Brundisinae coloniae, already adduced previously, p. 370 = 228 (cf. Sest. 131; and Schol. Bob. ad loc., p. 139 Stangl; and cf. Suet. Tit. 5.2); Fam. 11.14.3: die tuo natali [of D. Brutus] victoria nuntiata in multa saecula videbamus rem publicam liberatam (cf. ad Brut. 1.15.8 [= SB 23.8]); Nep. Timol. 5.1: Ad hanc hominis excellentem bonitatem mirabiles accesserant casus. nam proelia maxima natali suo die fecit omnia; Symm. Epist. 6.40: gravibus civitas sollicitatur ostentis ... natali urbis suffectum consulem currus quo vehebatur evolvit per ferociam bigarum, quae triumphum vehebant (cf. ad rem A. Marcone, Commento storico al libro VI dellepistolario di Q. Aurelio Simmaco [Pisa 1983] 117). Here also belongs the story reported in De miraculis Sancti Stephani promartyris 1.14 (PL 41, col. 841.): in the African city of Uzalis (near Utica; recently definitively located, see A. Beschaouch, CRAI 2001 (4) 152534) lived a butcher named Rusticanus; he sent his son with a servant to purchase pigs. Rumor percolated that they were killed by bandits. In a dream Stephanus appeared, and assured the father that the rumor was false: in fact they had successfully acquired forty four pigs, and venient autem die Romanorum civitatis, hora prima, which indeed came to pass. The dies Romanorum civitatis is probably to be understood as 21 April, natalis Romae (so L.-M. Gnther, Schweine fr Uzalis, Mnstersche Beitrage zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 11 [1992] 59), but perhaps it was the anniversary of the foundation of the colonia Uzalis. In the cities of the empire, various distributions and banquets were often staged on the dies natalis of the benefactor; on one occasion, however, the day selected was the anniversary of the foundation of the municipium. From a decree of the Augustales of Misenum (AE 1993 [1996] 468), precisely dated to 3 January 102, we learn that the curator Tullius Eutychus gave to the association of Augustales a substantial sum of money and stipulated that (lines 1214) cuius summae reditum quod annis pr(idie) idus | Iunias, natale [i.e., natali] municipi, corpori nostro uiritim diuisio | fiat. The distribution of the proceeds was to take place on 12 June, the natalis municipii. Here also belongs CIL IX 1340 = ILS 4186 from Beneventum recording L. Sontius Pineius Iustianus duumvir et munerarius natalis coloniae, cogently explained by Dessau ad loc.: Dies natalis coloniae celebrabatur munere gladiatorio, cuius curator fuerat Iustianus. In particular, omens occurring on primus dies natalis, the day of birth, not only of humans but also of cities, were believed to be imbued with great significance and prophetic force; according to the doctrine of the disciplina Etrusca (fulmina fatidica) ... existimant non ultra decem annos portendere privata, praeterquam aut

630

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

primo patrimonio facta aut natali die, publica non ultra tricesimum annum, praeterquam in deductione oppidi (Plin. NH 2.139); cf. Sen. Nat. quaest. 2.47: perpetua (fulmina) quorum significatio in totam pertinet vitam ... haec sunt fulmina, quae prima accepto patrimonio et in novo hominis aut urbis statu fiunt (ad rem, see C. O. Thulin, Die etruskische Disciplin 1 [Gteborg 1905, reprinted Darmstadt 1968] 8182). Among the inscriptions displaying the notation N there are four funerary stones (p. 374 = 232; cf. Panciera 198). The demise of a person on ones own natalis was an event collectors of mortes singulares could not fail to record; cf. the cases of Plato (Sen. Epist. 58.31); of the poet Antipater of Sidon (Val. Max. 1.8. ext. 16; Plin. NH 7.172); and of Caracalla, who was murdered die natalis sui (Hist. Aug. Carac. 6.6); and the chronicles of emperors report omina mortis received on the last birthday (Suet. Tib. 74; Hist. Aug. Hadr. 26.610; on this passage, frequently misinterpreted, see H. Freier, Caput velare [Diss. Tbingen 1963] 14850). Seneca (Ep. 102.26) defines the day of death as aeterni natalis (a concept that was to flourish in Christian thought; cf. Ramelli 17881). The concept also appears in funerary epitaphs: RAL 26 (1971) 424, from Aquinum: Die natalis [sic] luce / est privatus; cf. CLE 1160; and W. D. Lebeks reconstruction of an inscription from Formiae (ZPE 65 [1986] 65): hic est natali] Prisca sepulta die. Similarly death coming on the natalis of their city may well have been perceived by some Patavines as a remarkable conjunction.

39 JULIA IN REGIUM (1988)

On the vicissitudes of Julia, as presented by Cassius Dio, see now the solid commentary by P. M. Swan, The Augustan Succession. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dios Roman History: Books 5556 (9 B.C.A.D. 14) (American Classical Studies 47 [New York 2004]), in index s.v. (p. 417), esp. 10610 (the fall of Julia). To the literature listed in n. 2 add the well informed presentation by F. Rohr Vio, Le voci del dissenso. Ottaviano Augusto e i suoi oppositori (Padova 2000) 20850. P. 376 = 182: B. Severy, Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire (New York and London 2003) 183, in a short account of Julias affair, claims that after her banishment, there was a loud public outcry for her return, which was voted on in assembly. B. Levick in her review of Severys book finds this idea implausible (CR 55 [2005] 245). This is to put it mildly: the idea of a vote is legally inane and politically inept. It derives from hasty misreading of our two sources, Suetonius, Aug. 65.3, and Cassius Dio 55.13.1 (the excerpt of Xiphilinus). Cassius Dio reports to d dmou sfdra gkeimnou t Agost, na katagg tn yugatra ato, ysson fh pp dati mixysesyai kenhn kataxysesyai. ka dmow pur w tn Tberin poll nbale: ka tte mn odn nusen, steron d jebisato ste w gon tn peiron atn k tw nsou komisynai. The people clamored (cf. Swan 140) for Julias return; after some time Augustus bowed to the pressure, and brought her from the island

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

631

to the mainland. Here the excerpt of Cassius Dio breaks off, but Suetonius resumes the narrative. Augustus post quinquennium transferred Julia ex insula in continentem, but ut omnino revocaret, exorari nullo modo potuit, deprecanti saepe p. R. et pertinacius instanti tales filias talesque coniuges pro contione inprecatus. The people now agitate for Julias full return; Augustus castigates them in a contio, a nonvoting public meeting. So the sources: always a good antidote to loose surmises. Pp. 37884 = 18490 (esp. n. 11): Swan 31314 points out that disinheritance did not disqualify (Julia) as a legatee, and that in Dio dvra regularly means legacy in testamentary contexts. This is true and correct, but if Julia had received from Augustus a legacy, Tiberius would not (legally) be able to take it from her. Suetonius mentions peculium, and for that reason I still believe it is preferable to see in Dios dvra (56.32.4) a reference to Julias peculium. Pp. 38084 = 18690: On the freedmen of Julia and the legal status of partus ancillae, see the new ample studies by R. Cardilli, La nozione giuridica di fructus (Napoli 2000) 82132, esp. 9196; and by F. Zuccotti, Partus ancillae in fructu non est, in Antecessori oblata. Cinque studi dedicati ad Aldo DellOro (Padova 2001) 185326, esp. 185200. Learned disquisitions (although neither author considers the solution proposed by Gardner; cf. RQ 664), but I still do not detect in either study a decisive proof that the sententia of Brutus became dominant soon after his dispute with Manius Manilius and Publius Mucius Scaevola. Cf. the excellent piece by A. Abramenko, Eine bersehene Stellungnahme des Trebatius zum Eigentumserwerb am partus ancillae furtivae, ZRG 114 (1997) 42234, esp. 42223 (and n. 1), 425. Pp. 38486 = 19092: For epigraphical examples of the exclusion from a grave, see M. Cbeillac-Gervasoni, Un excrable affranchi dans une inscription indite dOstie, in Filaw xrin. Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di Eugenio Manni 2 (Roma 1980) 45361; and also, very appositely for the case of Julia, the inscription on an urn, Suppl. Ital. 4 (1988) 337 (Bellunum, no. 18): Filie nos / tre excluse sint (sic). Cf. Swan 314.

41 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY (1990)

Some addenda are provided in Updating the CIL for Italy, part 2, JRA 11 (1998) 458, reprinted in this volume, No. 30. For Histonium, Teate Marrucinorum and Corfinium, see now the new supplementum supplementorum by M. Buonocore, Suppl. Ital. 22 (2004) 7384 (esp. p. 76, no. 5, on the term fucinalis); 8495 (p. 89, no. 17, accepting the idea that the term selectus probably indicated a functionary in qualche collegio); 10634; and for Genua Ora a Luna ad Genuam, see G. Mennella and P. Melli, ibid. 17387. For inscriptiones falsae vel alienae, see the aggiornamento by M. Buonocore, in G. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. Donati (eds.), Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 9394 (Histonium), 9798 (Teate Marrucinorum), 99100 (Corfinium).

632

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

44 AMIANUS (1978)
P. 423 = 158: For Amianus as the correct reading in Cic. Att. 6.1.13, see further remarks of H. Solin, Ciceroniana 8 (1994) 85; 10 (1998) 72. The name Amianus now appears also in an inscription from Macedonia (Mandalon in Bottiaia); see BCH 117 (1993) 37577: teleutsan/tow Amiano.

45A FUMUM VENDERE AND FUMO NECARE (1987)

Pp. 42527 = 13840: On Theogenes, and the scholia to Aves, see now the new and authoritative edition of the scholia by D. Holwerda, Scholia in Aristophanem, Pars II, Fasc. III: Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves (Groningen 1991) esp. pp. 128, 139, 173, 19091, with the line numbering slightly differing from that in Whites edition. Cf. also the learned commentary by N. Dunbar, Aristophanes, Birds (Oxford 1995) 49293 (lines 82223), 59596 (lines 112529); and the note in R. Kassel and C. Austin (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci V (Berlin 1986) 375 (frg. 135). Pp. 42830 = 14143: C. Bertrand-Dagenbach, Alexandre Svre et lHistoire Auguste (Collection Latomus 208 [Bruxelles 1990]) 4445, a rather negligible note on fumum vendere. Pp. 43435 = 25051: On the passages in the Adnotationes super Lucanum and the Commenta Bernensia, see S. Werner, The Transmission and Scholia to Lucans Bellum civile (= Mnsteraner Beitrge zur Klassischen Philologie 5 [Hamburg 1998]) 14549, with the important characterization of these two sources as a chapter in the history of Carolingian, not ancient, commentary (p. 148), containing only scraps of an earlier variorum commentary (p. 145). Pp. 43233 = 14546: The death of Peregrinus (Lukianos, De morte Perigr. 21, 24). The notes by P. Pilhofer in Lukian. Der Tod des Peregrinus (Darmstadt 2005) 73, nn. 80-83, are uninformed.

46 THE SURNAME OF M. ANTONIUS CRETICUS AND THE COGNOMINA EX VICTIS GENTIBUS (1990)
Pp. 43643 = 15764: On the cognomina ex virtute, cf. B. Salway, Whats in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 700, JRS 84 (1994) 12728. On the cognomen Creticus of M. Antonius, cf. also A. Wilhelm, Urkunden aus Messene, JAI 17 (1914) 102 (reprinted in A. Wilhelm, Abhandlungen und Beitrge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde I [Leipzig 1984] 568), with the customary formula of abuse: Seine schimpflichen Misserfolge trugen ihm den

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

633

Spottnamen Creticus ein. That the surname was not meant to be derogatory has been accepted by H. Solin, Ciceroniana 8 (1994) 85. Two new entrants, L. Monaco, Persecutio piratarum (Napoli 1996) 1045, and P. de Souza, Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge1999) 14148, offer cursory accounts, and are rather uninterested in the historians craft, a painstaking analysis of the sources.

47 RMISCHER STAAT UND DIE GTTERZEICHEN: ZUM PROBLEM DER OBNUNTIATIO (1971)
Pp. 45455 = 31920: On the vexed problem of the auspices and the plebeian tribunes, see E. Badian, Tribuni plebis and Res Publica, in J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 187213 at 197202, a shining example of salutary scepticism and bold innovation: arguing against the antiquarian tradition and modern interpretations he grants the tribunes (in any case after the lex Hortensia of 287) the right to the auspicia impetrativa. He wins the argument, I believe.

48 CICERO AND ROMAN DIVINATION (1983) 49 WATCHING THE BIRDS: CICERO THE AUGUR AND THE AUGURAL TEMPLA (1986)
Since the publication of these pieces and of The Augural Law (ANRW 2.16.3 [1986]) two decades have elapsed, and many contributions pertaining to the res augurales have appeared; some excellent, some much less so. They will be discussed in another volume, dis volentibus. I here mention only the excellent study by J. Vaahtera, Roman Augural Lore in Greek Historiography (= Historia Einzelschriften 156 [Stuttgart 2001]). Cf. in this volume Nos. 1, 10, 38; and Addenda altera to RQ, Nos. 47, 50, 53, 54, 56, 64.

50 THE LIBRI RECONDITI (1985)

Pp. 5023 = 21314: On Moneta, her temple, and the archives of priests, see the erudite study of A. Meadows and J. Williams, Moneta and the Monuments:

634

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome, JRS 91 (2001) 2749. Cf. also S. Walt, Der Historiker C. Licinius Macer (Stuttgart und Leipzig 1997) 8385. J. Haudry, Juno Moneta. Aux sources de la monnaie (Milano 2002), in a monograph that is oddly learned and exceedingly speculative, rejects the connection of Moneta and moneo, doubts the existence of libri lintei (pp. 37), and proposes to derive the - - , collier. pendentif (pp. 1416). appellative from the proto-Latin root *mone One should be very suspicious of history from asterisks. The antidote may be found in the careful study by P. L. Tucci, Where high Moneta leads her steps sublime: the Tabularium and the Temple of Juno Moneta, JRA 18 (2005) 633, esp. 3132.

53 AUSPICIA ET AUGURIA ROMANA ... SUMMO LABORE COLLECTA: A NOTE ON MINUCIUS FELIX, OCTAVIUS 26.1 (1982)
Negative addenda have their arete: they knock out negligence. D. Briquel, Minucius Felix, Caesarodunum, suppl. 66 (1999 [2000] = La divination dans le monde trusco-italique 8) 12530, briefly deals with Oct. 26.1 (p. 126), but is ignorant of any debate concerning this passage.

54 A WITTICISM OF APPULEIUS SATURNINUS (1984)

See now the discussion by F. Cavaggioni, L. Apuleio Saturnino. Tribunus plebis seditiosus (Venezia 1998) 10115, esp. 11314, and the review by F. Reduzzi Merola, in Index 29 (2001) 199207 at 203 and 207 (n. 15). And above all, see the excellent book by F. Reduzzi Merola, Iudicium de iure legum. Senato e legge nella tarda repubblica (Napoli 2001); she endorses (p. 32, n. 29) the interpretation of Saturninus witticism as presented in my paper (cf. above in this volume, No. 38, n. 14).

55 RELIGIOUS ASPECTS OF THE CONFLICT OF THE ORDERS: THE CASE OF CONFARREATIO (1986)
An updated edition of Social Struggles in Archaic Rome appeared in 2005 (Oxford: Blackwell). The article (pp. 22338) contains addenda in endnotes; most of these additions derive from the addenda in RQ 67173; the newer additions are reproduced below, substantially enlarged. The page numbers refer to RQ and the original edition.

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

635

P. 543 = 245, n. 2: Of recent legal literature on confarreatio, see esp. the comprehensive article by L. Pepe, Storie di parole, storie di istituti. Sul diritto matrimoniale romano arcaico, SDHI 63 (1997) 12396 at 15660; also I. Piro, Unioni confarreate e diffarreatio, Index 25 (1997) 25399, rather fancifully trying to establish (on the basis of Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus!) the actual law of the regal period; U. Bartocci, Le species nuptiarum (above, Addenda to RQ, No. 14) 11422, interpreting confarreatio as a matrimonial rite with legal effects. For all details, see C. Fayer, La Familia Romana II, parte seconda (Roma 2005) 22345. P. 548 = 250, n. 19: velare and obnubere. L. Pepe, Lurnetta n. 2260 di Chiusi ed il matrimonio romano arcaico, in Nozione formazione e interpretazione del diritto dallet romana alle esperienze moderne. Ricerche dedicate al Professor Filippo Gallo (Napoli 1997) 97139 at 1039, an erudite piece, but he again does not distinguish sharply enough between the two rites (nor does Fayer 23132). On the ceremony of confarreatio, see N. Bols-Janssen, La vie religieuse des matrones dans la Rome archaque (Rome 1993) 14860; a disappointing account: she offers no critical analysis of the sources, and missed most of the pertinent modern literature. However, she rightly observes (p. 155) that velatis capitibus cannot refer to voile nuptial, but at the same time refuses to see in velatio the sacrificial attire, and thus the whole rite remains largely inexplicable. B. M. Fridh-Haneson, Le manteau symbolique. tude sur les couples votifs en terre cuite assis sous un mme manteau (= Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, series in 4o, XL [Stockholm 1983]) does not mention confarreatio, and denies any connection of the figurines with nuptial rites (see esp. p. 82). It is a pleasure to acknowledge the excellent contribution by B. Albanese, Brevi studi di diritto romano (III), Annali del Dipartimento di Storia di Diritto dell Universit di Palermo (= Annali del Seminario Giuridico) 47 (2002) 9120, part X: Una ipotesi sulla forma di confarreatio (pp. 16 in the internet edition, without the indication of the original pagination). After a brilliant and erudite argument he arrives at the conclusion that il rito comportasse aspersione dei protagonisti delle nuptiae con la mola salsa [the main ingredient of which was far], tanto che essi poterono esser talora designati come farreati. P. 549, n. 20 (in fine) = 251, n. 20: patrimi et matrimi. A. Biscardi, Minima de iure civili 2. La divorziante confarreata, in Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino 4 (1984) 153034 at 1532, maintains that N altri cittadini allinfuori dei nati ex (con)-farreatis potevano dirsi patrimi et matrimi. So also M. Taglialatela Scafati, Cinna e la confarreatio, in G. Franciosi (ed.), Ricerche sullorganizzazione gentilicia romana 3 (Napoli 1995) 7183 at 7783; Fayer 236. Indeed possibly in earlier times but hardly in the late republic and the empire, for which periods we certainly have to accept as operative the definition: the children whose parents are still alive. A list of all children described as patrimi et matrimi is a desideratum. Pp. 55354 = 25556: More recently also Pepe, Storie di parole 15758; Piro, Unioni 280, and Bartocci, Le species nuptiarum 117 (and n. 80), 122, failed to take into account the merely equestrian status of the epigraphically attested

636

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

sacerdos confarreationum et diffarreationum. J. Scheid, Les sacerdoces publiques questres, in S. Demougin et al. (eds.), Lordre questre. Histoire dune aristocratie (IIe sicle av. J.-C. IIIe sicle ap. J.-C) (Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome 257 [Rome 1999]) 8283 (cf. 122) suggests that this was une prtrise spcifique established by Marcus Aurelius. In rank it corresponded to that of pontifex minor (and thus it was a post open to the equestrians). Its holder acted as a substitute for the pontifex maximus (i.e., the emperor) at the tedious ceremonies of confarreate marriages and divorces. This does not make much practical sense for the pontifical college already offered an ample and tested pool of substitutes for any ritual duty that might have been demanded of the chief pontiff. The other suggestion that Marcus Aurelius established this priesthood in order to honor Aurelius Papirius on the occasion of his entry to the consilium principis we may safely consign to oblivion. F. Van Haeperen, Le collge pontifical (3me s. a. C. - 4me s. p. C.) (Bruxelles-Brussel-Rome 2002) 84, 39495, follows the explication of Scheid. P. Giunti, Iuris civilis minima: ancora sulla natura della diffarreatio, in Iuris vincula. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca IV (Napoli 2001) 25774 at 26869, is both obscure and uninterested in prosopography. Cf. Fayer 23943. Pp. 55456 = 25658: Caesar as flamen Dialis destinatus. G. Zecchini, Cesare e il mos maiorum (Historia Einzelschriften 151[Stuttgart 2001]) 3536, speculates that the inauguration of Caesar as flamen Dialis was blocked per vizio di forma ... forse perch la madre di Cesare, Aurelia, era plebea [an argument rendered otiose by observations made in my paper: in particular if this was a formal vitium, Caesar would have never been destinatus] o forse perch lo era la moglie Cornelia, figlia di Cinna [here Zecchini confuses Cossutia whom Caesar obediently rejected and Cornelia whom he opportunely married, no doubt, as Zecchini also admits, by confarreatio]. F. Marco-Simon, Flamen Dialis. El sacerdote de Jpiter en la religin romana (Madrid 1996) 171-174, rightly observes that on my interpretation the confarreate marriage of flamen Dialis could occur between the captio and inauguratio. This raises an interesting question: was Caesar captus, and then he dutifully dissolved his engagement to Cossutia or did he after his destinatio cancel his engagement so that he might be captus? R. Stepper, Augustus und sacerdos. Untersuchungen zum rmischen Kaiser als Priester (Stuttgart 2003) 2526, follows Liou-Gille (cf. below), and concludes her rather superficial account with an unambiguous statement: Caesar was not inaugurated as flamen Dialis. J. Rpke, Innovationsmechanismen kultischer Religionen: Sakralrecht im Rom der Republik, in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, P. Schfer (eds.), Gechichte - Tradition - Reflexion. Festschrift fr Martin Hengel II (Tbingen 1996) 26585 at 27177, opts for Caesars inauguration, and provides a remarkable and novel argument: Caesars confarreate marriage to Cornelia had a ritual flaw it was concluded without the participation of the flamen Dialis (this office being vacant at that time), and was thus ritually invalid. When Caesar refused to divorce Cornelia, he was deprived of the priesthood. This argument may appear cogent; it is, however, vitiated by two logical and ritual flaws: 1) as pointed out in RQ 672, in the absence of the flamen Dialis his functions were performed by the pontiffs (Tac. Ann. 3.58); 2) even if Caesar had divorced Cornelia, he still, on Rpkes theory, would not have

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

637

been able to contract a valid confarreate marriage for the office of flamen Dialis remained vacant also under the regime of Sulla (and altogether for 75 years until 12 B.C.E.). Pp. 55758 = 25758: For the view that the rite of confarreatio was open to the plebeians, and that Cinna was not a patrician, see Taglialatela Scafati, Cinna 7177. So also Rpke 273. All these contributions have been eclipsed by the intervention of B. Liou-Gille, Csar, Flamen Dialis Destinatus, REA 101 (1999) 43359, a tapestry of arguments, elegant, lucid, and compelling. In 87 L. Cornelius Cinna was expelled from Rome by Cn. Octavius, his colleague in the consulship. The flamen Dialis, L. Cornelius Merula, was elected consul in Cinnas place, the only priest of Jupiter to hold the consulship in the whole history of the republic. But Cinna (and Marius) soon returned, and proceeded to a bloodbath. Merula committed suicide; in the words of Velleius Paterculus (2.22.2) incisis venis superfusoque altaribus sanguine, quos saepe pro salute rei publicae flamen Dialis precatus erat deos, eos in execrationem Cinnae partiumque eius tum precatus optime de re publica meritum spiritum reddidit. Liou-Gille pays full attention to the phrase in execrationem Cinnae, and ingeniously interprets the act of Merula as devotio: he was taking with him to the inferi Cinna, Marius, and their impious partisans. A religious antidote was needed: is was found in the intended elevation of Caesar to the flaminate of Jupiter and in his marriage (by confarreatio) to Cinnas daughter, Cornelia (439442), certainly still in 86 (and not only in 84, as often maintained, most recently by M. Leone, La carriera giovanile di Cesare: aspetti cronologici, Ormow. Quaderni dell Istituto di Storia Antica dell Universit di Palermo 2 [2000] 9599). But ultimately Caesar was never inaugurated. Why? It is indeed baffling that Cinna did not see to the completion of his plan. Perhaps the pontifex maximus Q. Mucius Scaevola, who was wounded at the instigation of C. Fimbria at the funeral of Marius early in 86, was unable or refused to summon an augur to perform the inauguration (45253).

56 THE AUSPICES AND THE STRUGGLE OF THE ORDERS (1990)

Pp. 56768, 572 = 4142, 46: Against the idea that the patricians have the auspices, and the plebeian magistrates only administer them, see G. Crif, Staatlichkeit 85, and again Iura 45 (1995 [2000]) 168, in the review of A. Petrucci, Il trionfo nella storia costituzionale romana dagli inizi della repubblica ad Augusto (Milano 1996). Petrucci also argues against this concept (6869), but hardly offers a persuasive explanation of his own. Never mind: I am gratified to see that E. Badian, Tribuni plebis and Res Publica, in J. Linderski (ed.), Imperium Sine Fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 187213 at 202, regards the view of plebeians possessing but not owning the consular auspices as fully established (Cf. below).

638

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

Pp. 57072 = 4446: The problem of the consular tribunes has recently been discussed by R. Bunse, Das rmische Oberamt in der frhen Republik und das Problem der Konsulartribunen (Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 21 [Trier 1998]), a study detailed, competent, and bold. Here it cannot be analyzed in detail. I only note a few points. Bunse argues (esp. p. 87) that throughout the whole period of the so-called consular tribunate (444367) three praetors (praetor maximus and two praetores minores) continued to serve as chief magistrates. This is the thesis I briefly considered but ultimately (and perhaps timidly) rejected because it would entail a wholesale re-writing of the history of the supreme magistracy by the annalists (p. 372 = 46). Bunse, on the other hand, detects a pervasive falsification everywhere, which enables him to write his own (not uncompelling) version of history. He further argues (p. 146) that the plebeians received the ius auspicii only through the leges Liciniae Sextiae in 367, and in full agreement with the thesis presented in my paper assumes (p. 145) that Die auspicia blieben aber auch danach, um es im modernen juristischen Sinne zu formulieren, das alleinige Eigentum der Patrizier, whrend den Plebejern lediglich die Mglichkeit des Besitzes eingerumt wurde.

57 HELIOGABALUS, ALEXANDER SEVERUS AND THE IUS CONFARREATIONIS: A NOTE ON THE HISTORIA AUGUSTA (1989)
Pp. 58081 = 21213: On the sacerdos confarreationum et diffarreationum, see above Addenda to RQ, No. 55, addenda to pp. 53334 = 25556.

62 REVIEW OF: IDA PALADINO, FRATRES ARVALES: STORIA DI UN COLLEGIO SACERDOTALE ROMANO (1991)
We had not to wait too long for a new and excellent edition of the arval documents: John Scheid (in collaboration with Paola Tassini and Jrg Rpke), Recherches archologiques La Magliana. Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt. Les copies pigraphiques des protocoles annuels de la confrrie arvale (21 av. - 304 ap. J.-C.) (= Roma Antica 4 [Paris 1998]), with good photographs of the texts.

64 ROMAN RELIGION IN LIVY (1993)

Pp. 61113 = 5658: On the ritual of expiation, see now J. Champeaux, Pontifes, haruspices et dcemvirs. Lexpiation des prodiges de 207, REL 74 (1996) 6791. An engrossing investigation, but the idea that in Rome the remedial rituals were shaped by experience, is not new: cf. P. Regell, De augurum publicorum libris

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I

639

(Vratislaviae 1878) 37; J. Linderski, The Augural Law, ANRW 2.16.3 (1986) 223036. Pp. 61516 = 6061: G. Forsythe, Livy and Early Rome (= Historia Einzelschriften 132 [Stuttgart 1999]) 8798, an interesting chapter on Livy and the Divine, but utterly uninterested in technical religious terminology. N. Horsfall (CR 48 [1998] 202) put it cogently: The topic of ritual acts and prayer language is not mere sterile antiquarianism; there are degrees of technicality in Latin writing on religious matters, and they are worth investigating. Forsythe observes that Livy in the first ten books regularly qualifies miraculous happenings; the case of the pullarius at Aquilonia is one of the six unusual events on which the historian profers no sceptical comment (p. 89). On the auspices at the battle of Aquilonia, cf. also A. Feldherr, Spectacle and Society in Livys History (Berkeley 1998) 6163, largely adopting the interpretation developed in my article. On the passage of Valerius Maximus (7.2.5) describing the same event, see the exemplary terminological and doctrinal analysis by H.-F. Mueller, Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus (London and New York 2002) 10817, 22425. Also useful and informative (but again paying little attention to procedure and . terminology) is S. Sniezewski, Koncepcja historii rzymskiej w Ab Urbe Condita Liwiusza [The Concept of Roman History in Livys Ab Urbe Condita] (Krakw 2000) 84117 (Kult bogw i natura religii [The cult of gods and the nature of religion]). Very much worth pondering is the intelligent study by J. P. Davies, Romes Religious History: Livy, Tacitus and Ammianus on Their Gods (Cambridge 2004) 21143 (cf. below). P. 619 = 64: M. B. Flory, The Meaning of Augusta in the Julio-Claudian Period, AJAH 13.2 (1988 [1997]) 11338 at 135, n. 24, remarks in passing on the flooding of the Tiber and the interpretation of the priests, but does not comment on the novelty of that interpretation. J. W. Rich, Cassius Dio, The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53.155.9) (Warminster 1990) 153 (on 53.20.1), perceptively observes since Tiber floods were usually held to be unfavourable portents, ... it was an embarrassment for Aug(ustus). He believes that the monarchical interpretation reported by Dio must have come from private soothsayers. Why? The official haruspices were certainly more than eager to support Augustus and gain his favor. E. No, Commento storico a Cassio Dione LIII (Biblioteca di Athenaeum 22 [Como 1994]) 163, admits that si tratta forse di haruspices. J. Champeaux, Le Tibre, le pont et les pontifes. Contribution la histoire de prodige romain, REL 81 [2003 [2004]) 2542, esp. 2833, points out that only catastrophical floods were traditionally interpreted as prodigia; and that since the last years of the Republic the prodigies have been more and more perceived as signs of predestination and not as indications of the rupture of pax deum. This will be the new divinatory environment of the interpretation recorded by Cassius Dio (cf. J. Le Gall, Recherches sur le culte du Tibre [Paris 1953] 6266). J.-L. Desnier, Les dbordements du Fleuve, Latomus 57 (1998) 51322, perceptively observes (520) that we here are dealing with the procedure of aversio ominis. As well put by V. Rosenberger, Gezhmte Gtter. Das Prodigienwesen der rmischen Republik (HABES 27 [Stuttgart 1998]) 245, das Prodigienwesen (erweist sich) als ein nur

640

Addenda et Corrigenda Altera

in der rmischen Republik eingeschlagener Sonderweg im Umgang mit Vorzeichen; mit der Aufkommen monarchischer Strukturen in Rom hatte es seine Bedeutung verloren. I tried to place the prodigy of the Tiber flood in 27 in the interpretative field between Cassius Dio, Livy, and Augustus; this approach has been fortified by the fine pages of Davies, Romes Religious History 4851. Pp. 62122 = 6667: in the discussion of the pax deum in the first decade of Livy I missed (I am thankful to my former student Dr. Michael Johnson for pointing this out to me) an interesting passage (4.30.910): there was a terrible draught (a. 428); as a result animos ... multiplex religio et pleraque externa invasit, novos ritus sacrificandi vaticinando inferentibus in domos quibus quaestui sunt capti superstitione animi, donec publicus iam pudor ad primores civitatis pervenit, cernentes in omnibus vicis sacellisque peregrina atque insolita piacula pacis deum exposcendae. The aediles were instructed (Livy does not say by whom) ut animadverterent ne qui nisi Romani di neu quo alio more quam patrio colerentur. Observe that we here are dealing with a private search for the pax deum; the search was allowed to proceed but only more patrio. The aediles will have been involved as police officers and not as primarily religious officers (so R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy. Books 15 [Oxford 1965] 583). If this is at all a historical event, also the consuls and the senate must have intervened, and the pontiffs. Livy, more suo, telescopes the procedural stages.

INDICES
I. Modern Authors
A Abaev, V.I. 265, 275 Abramenko, A. 180, 38083, 626, 631 Accame, S. 617 Acidalius, V. 463 Adam, R. 8285, 99 Adams, J.N. 19798, 213, 278, 280, 332, 335 Africa, T. 584 Agnati, U. 247 Ahlberg, A.W. 31920, 322 Albanese, B. 635 Albright, W.F. 57980 Alciatus, A. 464 Alexander, M. 12627, 614 Alexander, W.H. 189 Alfldi, A. 99, 106, 158, 16063, 166, 171, 212, 48687, 53940 Alfldy, G. 178, 24446, 250, 25558, 270, 314, 41718, 456, 49496, 561, 626 Alfonsi, L. 96 Alfonsi Mattei, G. 496 Altheim, F. 279 Altmann, W. 403 Amati, G. 131 Amela Valverde, L. 132 Ameling, W. 123, 57071 Amelung, W. 1057 Amiotti, G. 555 Amiranashvili, S. 264 Ampolo, C. 278 Anderson, A.O. 214 Anderson, J.C. 496 Anderson, O.M. 214 Andr, J. 32931, 33738, 340, 487, 545 Andreassi, G. 406 Andreau, J. 293 Andreev, M.N. 492 Andreski, S. 36 AngeliBertinelli, G. 370, 391, 395, 415, 631 Antoine, F. 319 Antonetti, C. 79 Apakidze, A.(M.) 26364, 268, 27071 Apianus, P. 243, 246 Apicella, G. 564 Applebaum, S. 56667 Arena, R. 471, 48081 Aretini, P. 9 Arnoutoglou, I.N. 617 Arntzen, J. 199, 206 Arrigoni Bertini, M.G. 38788 Artmann, H.C. 215 Ashby, T. 378 Astin, A.E. 47, 7879, 82, 87, 103 Atallah, W. 33839 Atencia Paez, R. 250 Athanassiadi, P. 569 Audollent, A. 365 Aupert, P. 479 Austin, C. 19, 256, 350, 35960, 632 Austin, N.J.E. 273 Aventinus, see Turmair Avetta, L. 427 Avi-Yonah, M. 262 Avram, A. 563 B Bach, H.I. 568 Baci, G.M. 136 Badian, E. 58, 79, 84, 8788, 9497, 1014, 114, 119, 12729, 16768, 17778, 192, 217, 391, 401, 457, 534, 633, 637 Baehrens, A.(= E.) 205, 312 Baehrens, W.A. 331 Bailey, C. 322, 436 Bailey, H.W. 271 Baiter, I.G. 308 Balakhvantsev, A.S. 276 Baldacci, P. 410 Baldwin, B. 342, 358, 625 Balsdon, J.P. V.D. 53334 Bandelli, G. 293, 627 Bandy, A.C. 208

642

Indices Bernert, E. 186, 192 Berni Brizio, L. 377, 438, 601 Bernstein, A.H. 91, 103 Bernstein, F. 589 Bernt, G. 363 Berrens, S. 565 Berry, D.H. 238, 620 Berti, F. 455 Bertolini, D. 494 Bertrand-Dagenbach, C. 632 Bertrandy, F. 261 Beschaouch, A. 629 Bethe, E. 47677 Beutler, F. 45 Bevilacqua, G. 131, 133 Bickerman, E. 57677 Bieber, M. 35758 Bienkowski, P. 172 Bijvanck, G.G.C. 9394, 9798 Bilinski, B. 96, 114 Bilkei, I. 211, 215 Billanovich, M.P. 131, 464, 473, 475, 49091 Billows, R.A. 143, 15960 Binazzi, G. 369, 407 Binot, C. 90 Bird, H.W. 621 Birley, A. 28890, 430, 43940 Birley, E. 219, 22324, 226, 43840, 490 Biscardi, A. 635 Bittner, A. 125, 127 Blanc, A. 446 Blecher, G. 52526, 528 Bleicken, J. 35 Bloch, G.M. 200 Bloch, H. 451, 49697 Blmner, H. 209, 34950, 358, 475, 484 Boatwright, M.T. 337 Bodel, J. 129, 136, 197, 369, 408, 414, 424, 496 BolsJanssen, N. 98, 488, 531, 635 Bmer, F. 46768, 557 Bttiger, C.A. 34950, 358 Boissevain, P. 126, 135, 260 Bolisani, E. 549 Bollini, M. 261, 552 Bollmann, B. 563 Boltunova, A.I. 26364, 266, 273 Bona, F. 8081, 127 Bonaria, M. 475 Bonfante, L. 9899, 100, 1047, 555 Bongard-Levin, G. 57677 Bonnefond-Coudry, M. 3739, 41, 60, 520 Bonnell, E. 331

Banti, L. 588 Baratin, M. 14 Barbarus, H. 35354, 360 Barbera, R. 479 Barbieri, S. 450, 453 Barnes, T.D. 18, 256 Barret, C. 468 Bartocci, U. 616, 635 Barton, C.A. 458 Barwick, C.(= K.) 13, 20, 25, 29, 95, 155, 34445, 358, 465 Barzan, A. 81, 52526 Basore, J.W. 110 Bassignano, M.S. 38788, 39596, 401, 464, 469, 478, 627 Bastianini, G. 19 Bates, R.L. 200 Baudot, A. 547 Baudy, D. 362 Bauman, R.A. 91, 1034, 128 Baumbach, M. 418 Baumstark, A. 233 Baunack, J. 352 Bayet, J. 308 Beard, M. 468, 5012, 509, 513 Bearzot, C. 554 Becher, I. 33335 Bechtel, F. 361 Beck, H. 2325, 2829, 301 Beck, J.W. 465 Beck, R. 18 Beckmann, F. 517 Behrends, O. 91 Bekker, I. 208, 476 Blis, A. 547 Bellen, H. 569 Benario, H.W. 377 Bencini (Bencinus), F.D. 212 Bendlin, A. 563 Bendz, G. 82, 311 Benner, A.R. 350, 358 Bennett, A.W. 324 Bennett, C.E. 82 Bennett, J. 230 Benoist, S. 617 Benseler, G.E. 124, 344, 348, 360 Bentley, R. 212 Benveniste, E. 26364 Branger, J. 89, 289 Bergemann, C. 520, 52224 Berger, A. 26, 29, 295, 576 Bernardi, A. 601 Bernays, J. 56869

Indices Bonnet, C. 372 Bonz Palmer, M. 563 Boot, I.C.G. 308, 317 Bordenache-Battaglia, G. 99 Boren, H.C. 103 Bormann, E. 24244, 24647, 401, 408, 427 Borries, de, J. 355 Borsari, L. 365 Borzsk, S.(= I.) 127 Boscolo, F. 449 Bosius (= Dubois), S. 308 Bosworth, A.B. 267, 27374 Botteri, P. 101 Bottke, H.D. 337, 34041 Bouch-Leclercq, A. 527 Boulhol, P. 561 Bourgery, A. 110 Bouvet, A. 233, 237 Bowersock, G.W. 57576 Bowman, D.A. 60 Boyce, G.K. 107 Boilova, V. 227 Braccesi, L. 464, 469 Bracchi, R. 329 Bracco, V. 397 Brandstter, F.A. 79 Braund, D.C. 43, 83, 26264, 26667, 271, 27476 Brecht, C. 127 Breeze, D.J. 205, 212 Breglia Pulci Doria, L. 334 Brelich, A. 595 Bremer, J.M. 557 Brennan, T.C. 36, 53, 58, 153, 336, 406, 522, 603, 61415, 623 Briggs, W.W. 507, 580, 58285, 587, 603 Brind dAmour, P. 519, 59394 Briquel, D. 278, 525, 634 Briscoe, J. 2829, 43, 52, 7982, 85, 92, 190, 249, 303 Brodersen, K. 625 Broglio, A. 627 Broilo, F. 49295 Brotier, G. 357, 361, 463 Broughton, T.R.S. 38, 4041, 47, 49, 5153, 59, 62, 7182, 84, 89, 114, 117, 12328, 13034, 136, 141, 144, 152, 15657, 15961, 16668, 172, 174, 189, 200, 21719, 229, 234, 236, 23841, 259, 328, 369, 372, 39091, 39697, 403, 406, 440, 495, 511, 522, 534, 578, 580, 58387, 593, 6035, 611, 633, 637 Brouwer, H.H.J. 53335 Brueckner, A. 35558

643

Brugnoli, G. 186 Brul, P. 547, 557 Brummer, F. 469 Bruneau, P. 619 Brunn, H. 343, 347, 35455, 358 Bruno, M.G. 36566, 410, 558 Brunt, P.A. 235 Brusin, J.(= G.) B. 274, 387, 493, 495 Bruun, C. 378 Bruwaene, van den, M. 601 Bruzza, L. 45152 Bucher, G.S. 396 Buchheit, V. 331 Buchi, E. 387 Buckler, W.H. 209 Buecheler (Bcheler), F. 203, 362, 371, 469, 47478, 48384 Bchner, K. 525 Brge, A. 139 Bttner, A. 18485, 206, 216, 219 Bttner-Wobst, T. 4142 Bulard, M. 106, 109, 113 Bunse, R. 638 Buonocore, M. 36976, 379, 38182, 38995, 407, 415, 460, 618, 631 Buonopane, A. 4024 Buraselis, K. 140 Bynkershoek, van, C. 580 Byrne, S.G. 359 Byrne, S.N. 513 C Caccamo Caltabiani, M. 624 Cadbury, H.J. 587 Cades, T. 131 Caesarius, I. 353 Cahn, H.A. 165 Caimi, J. 207 Calabi Limentani, I. 470 Calboli, G. 92 Caldarini Mazzucchelli, S. 435 Caldelli, M.L. 460 Calder, W.M. 209 Calder III, W.M. 507, 580, 58384 Calepio, P. 435 Callu, J.P. 280 Calzavara Capuis, L. 478 Camassa, G. 537 Cameron, A. 485 Camilli, L. 496 Campbell, B. 400, 425 Camps, G. 567

644

Indices Cima, M. 326, 337 Citroni, M. 33 Citroni Marchetti, S. 340 Ciugudean, D. 206 Clark, A.C. 31, 109, 13335, 141, 177, 204, 397, 533, 627 Clarke, A.D. 179 Classen, C.J. 29, 327, 595, 614 Clausen, W.V. 210 Clauss, M. 187, 2056, 20810, 213, 393 Clemen, C. 565 Clemente, G. 250 Clinton, K. 347, 358 Coarelli, F. 39, 96, 114, 14445, 293, 539, 619 Cocco, C. 545 Coccoluto, G. 370, 387 Cogitore, I. 428 Cohen, S.J.D. 570 Colafrancesco, P. 545 Coles, R.A. 213 Collins, J.H. 15253, 155 Collitz, H. 361 Colson, F.H. 331 Comand, D. 547 Combs, R. 128, 131, 172 Combet-Farnoux, B. 180, 55152 Conobbio, A. 615 Constans, L.-A. 30810 Conti, S. 42733 Conway, R.S. 99, 164, 36566 Corbeill, A. 196 Corbett, P.E. 532 Corbier, M. 408, 494 Cordella, R. 41419 Cornell, T.J. 575 Cortius, G. 319, 32223 Cosi, R. 614, 619 Coskun, A. 610 Costabile, F. 390 Cotter, W. 617 Courtney, E. 22, 26, 2829, 129, 148, 194, 198, 338, 363, 373, 483, 569, 626 Cox, C.W.M. 209 Cracco Ruggini, L. 627 Craddock, P.T. 625 Crawford, J.W. 127, 134 Crawford, M.H. 98, 13132, 16062, 16568, 17173, 180, 286, 300, 391, 400 Crescenti, G. 280 Cresci Marrone, G. 402, 40810, 44041, 447 Cressedi, G. 339 Crif, G. 104, 127, 279, 522, 637 Criniti, N. 18485, 221, 384, 41419

Canali De Rossi, F. 4041, 51, 5657, 85, 149, 262, 266, 271, 273 Cancelli, F. 516 Cancik, H. 482, 636 Cantarella, E. 277, 616 Capdeville, G. 487, 535, 53740, 542 Capogrossi Colognesi, L. 559 Cappelli, R. 15 Capponi, F. 329 Carandini, A. 15 Carcopino, J. 290, 601 Cardilli, R. 631 Carillo Daz-Pins, J.R. 563 Carney, T.F. 208 Carpenter, R. 587 Carson, R.A.G. 166 Carter, J.M. 220, 233, 235, 237 Carter, M. 460, 473 Casaubonus, I. 2021, 23, 349 Casson, L. 621 Castello, C. 532 Castrn, P. 293, 482 Catalano, P. 3, 5, 1012, 52223, 531 Cavada, E. 403 Cavaggioni, F. 634 Cavazza, F. 411 Cbe, J.P. 23, 29, 552 Cbeillac-Gervasoni, M. 29294, 411, 436, 438, 631 Cenerini, F. 408 Cerami, P. 279 Cerfaux, L. 522 Cerva, M. 438 Chamoux, F. 566 Champeaux, J. 372, 478, 63839 Champion, C.B. 609 Champlin, E. 362, 373, 377, 427 Chaniotis, A. 570 Chapot, F. 557 Charitonidis, S. 35758 Chelotti, M. 389, 4057 Chevallier, R. 442, 472 Chilver, G.E.F. 525, 527 Chioffi, L. 144 Chiranky, G. 5758 Chouquer, G. 425 Chrissanthos, S.G. 232, 240 Christ, K. 575 Christol, M. 230, 621 Churchill, J.B. 80 Chwolsohn, D.A. 564 Cichorius, C. 28, 30, 143, 14849, 234, 237, 46566

Indices Cristofori, A. 401 Croisille, J.-M. 34243, 34547, 349, 353, 355, 358 Crook, J. 279 Crouwel, J.H. 476 Cueva, E.P. 513 Culasso Gastaldi, E. 42122, 452 Cumont, F. 509, 552, 561, 565, 576 Curty, O. 56 D DAnna, G. 193 DArms, J.H. 326, 32931 DIsanto, G. 618 DOrs, A. 45 Dabrowa, E. 267, 273, 390 Dacier, A. 81, 199 Dahlheim, W. 84 Dahlmann, H. 558 Dalecampius (Dalechamps), J. 354 Damon, C. 22, 29 Dangraux, B. 227 Danoff (Danov), C. 261 Darder Lissn, M. 427 Daris, S. 213 Dasen, V. 197 David, J.-M. 27879, 293 David, M. 139 Davies (Davisius), J. 232 Davies, J.P. 63940 De Boor, C. 42 De Cazanove, O. 560 De Libero, L. 80, 52021, 524 De Marchi, C. 45152 De Martino, F. 35 De Nino, A. 39293 De Pasquale, A. 402 De Ranieri, C. 258 De Revillas, D. 377 De Robertis, F.M. 279, 546, 562, 617 De Sallengre, A.H. 469 De Vit, V. 96, 184, 188 Defosse, P. 6 Degrassi, A. 118, 12425, 128, 136, 142, 369, 371, 383, 397, 426, 46768, 494, 516, 53738, 593, 601, 611 Degrassi, N. 387 Deininger, J. 79 Deissmann-Merten, M.-L. 140 Del Chicca, F. 614 Delgado Delgado, J.A. 502 Della Casa, A. 4, 345, 358, 465

645

Della Corte, F. 84, 385, 601 Della Corte, M. 356, 48184 Demougin, S. 22425, 293, 429, 438, 636 Den Boer, W. 601 Derrida, J. 556 Deschamps, L. 552 Desnier, J.L. 6, 639 Dessau, H. 191, 209, 223, 365, 37677, 432, 469, 471, 474, 479, 489, 54546, 629 Detienne, M. 33839 Detlefsen, D. 34243, 358, 447 Dettenhofer, M.H. 17578, 616 Deubner, L. 103 Develin, R. 32, 125 Devijver, H. 224, 371, 42930, 438, 440 Dewailly, M. 480 DeWitt, N.W. 580 Di Stefano Manzella, I. 369, 405 Di Vita Evrard, G. 411 Daz Ario, B. 619 Dickie, M.W. 34950, 358 Diehl, E. 203 Diels, H. 112 Dieterich, A. 515 Dietsch, L. 31920, 322 Dindorf, L. 260 Dinsmoor, W.B. 587 Dinter, B. 220 Dinzelbacher, P. 485 Dittenberger, W. 353 Dittmann-Schne, I. 563 Dobson, B. 187, 438, 440 Doederlein, L.D. 193, 46364 Dlger, F. 21112, 214 Dring, K. 555 Drries, H. 336 Dohrn, T. 106 Domaszewski, von, A. 170, 187, 19091, 205, 207, 216, 226, 237, 247 Domergue, C. 455 Donati, A. 24246, 370, 391, 395, 415, 631 Dondin-Payre, M. 81 Donner, H. 271, 275 Dorandi, T. 34749, 352, 358 Dorcey, P.F. 392, 560 Douglas, A.E. 147, 15152 Dragendorff, H. 109 Dressel, H. 496 Drew-Bear, T. 123, 230, 310, 318 Drews, R. 304 Drijvers, H.J.W. 565 Drumann, W. 47, 62, 79, 82, 126, 141, 146, 151, 159, 178, 189, 229, 231, 234, 23739

646
Drummond, A. 601 Du Cange, C. 214 Dubourdieu, A. 6, 104 Dll, R. 138 Duemmler, E. 363 Dmmler, F. 464, 487 Duhn, von, F. 112 Dumzil, G. 510, 512, 53738, 558, 601 Dumont, J.-C. 293, 601 Dunand, F. 562 Dunbabin, K. 35758, 459 Dunbar, N. 632 Dundua, T. 276 Dupont, F. 6 Durry, M. 312 Dury-Moyaers, G. 113 Dussaud, R. 565 Duthoy, R. 17980, 183, 378, 381, 38384, 426, 438 Dyck, A.R. 101 E

Indices Evans, H.B. 378 Eyben, E. 491 F Fabbri, P.G. 242 Fabbrini, F. 494, 617 Fabricius, J.A. 199 Faccenna, D. 379, 460 Fairclough, H.R. 198 Fantaguzzi (Fantagutius), G.(= I.) 24243 Fantham, E. 4, 610 Faris, S.B. 3 Farney, G.D. 301 Fauth, W. 589 Favory, F. 425 Favre, L. 214 Fayer, C. 140, 393, 530, 559, 616, 63536 Fear, A.T. 23536 Fears, J.R. 16667, 566 Fedeli, P. 129, 334, 589 Fehrle, R. 174 Feldherr, A. 14, 639 Feldman, L.H. 569, 571 Feldmann, K. 323 Fele, M.L. 545 Felmy, A. 614 Ferrari, M. 385 Ferrarini(us), M.F. 24243, 245 Ferrary, J.-L. 46, 56, 79, 153, 61213, 620 Ferri, S. 343, 346, 349, 358 Ferrua, A. 209, 42122, 45153 Fiebiger, O. 172, 184, 2056 Fiemia, Z.T. 230 Filippenko, A.A. 543 Filippi, F. 44041, 450, 452 Filippi, G. 39495 Finazzi, G. 435 Finer, S.E. 36, 285 Fink, O. 208, 317 Fiori, R. 104, 279 Fishwick, D. 598 Fittschen, K. 1058, 356, 358 Fitz, J. 244, 246, 261 Flach, D. 32728, 366, 610, 61213 Flambard, J.M. 31, 293, 492, 61819 Fless, F. 104, 54647 Fletcher, G.B.A. 324 Flore, A. 545 Flory, M.B. 639 Fobes, F.H. 350, 358 Foerst, G. 99 Fogazza, D. 198

Earl, D.C. 89, 94, 9798, 100101, 103 Ebel, C. 55, 85 Eberhard, A. 196 Eck, W. 123, 137, 245, 29192, 31011, 313, 318, 407, 465, 495 Eckstein, A.M. 43, 79, 609 Eckstein, F.A. 463, 46970 Egelhaaf-Gaiser, U. 56264 Egger, R. 24446, 387, 483 Ehrmann, R.K. 185 Eilers, C. 57 Eisenhut, W. 537, 542 Eitrem, S. 93, 107 Elbern, S. 82 Elliot, C.W. 520 Elm, S. 502 Elwin, S. 56 Engel, J.M. 81 Engels, J. 625 Epstein, D.F. 128 Erdmann, E.H. 28485 Erim, K.T. 569 Erman, H. 495 Ernesti, J.A. 314, 327 Ernout, A. 45, 95, 211, 218, 31920, 366 Erskine, A. 57 Esdaile, K.A. 98 Eusebio, F. 45051 Eussner, A. 31920 Evans, E.C. 558

Indices Fontana, F. 617, 619 Fora, M. 458, 460, 489 Forcellini, A.(= E.) 96, 184, 188, 466 Forni, G. 398, 470 Forsythe, G. 2326, 2829, 299302, 595, 639 Fortenbaugh, W.W. 349, 358 Foster, B.O. 217 Foucart, P. 352 Fowler, W.W. 107, 362, 507, 555, 59596 Fraccaro, P. 62, 78, 81, 87, 89, 93, 44346 Fraenkel, E. 22, 29, 19394, 198 Fraenkel, M. 568 France, J. 422 Franciosi, G. 635 Francis, E.D. 96 Frank, O. 578 Frank, T. 576, 57881, 58485, 6034 Franke, T. 22930 Fraschetti, A. 182, 278, 618 Fraser, P.M. 29293, 359 Frateantonio, C. 502 Frede, M. 569 Frederiksen, M. 492, 618 Freeman, P.W.M.. 230, 610 Freier, H. 9799, 104, 113, 165, 630 Freis, H. 449 French, D. 227 Frey, M. 56465 Freyburger, G. 90, 114, 557, 560 Freyburger-Galland, M.L. 560 Frzouls, E. 40, 81 FridhHaneson, B.M. 635 Friedlnder, L. 23, 30, 111, 194, 338, 340, 362, 45859, 484 Frier, B. 168, 300, 304 Friggeri, R. 495 Frisch, P. 56 Frisk, H. 211 Fritzsche, A.T.H. 193 Frhner, W. 34244, 358 Frchtel, L. 353 Furlanetto, G. 473 Furley, W.D. 557 Fuss, J.D. 208 Fustel de Coulanges, N.D. 532 Futtrell, P.A. 458 G Gabba, E. 89, 94, 114, 123, 293, 400, 523, 613 Gabelmann, H. 1067, 113, 552 Gaffney, V. 394 Gag, J. 16667, 601

647

Galinsky, K. 99 Galli, L. 42427 Gallini, C. 533 Galsterer, H. 291, 400, 485, 48889 Galsterer-Kroll, B. 447 Gantz, T.N. 588 Garca-Bellido, M.P. 16061, 163, 17273 Garca Jimenz, S. 54 Gardiner, A. 9 Gardiner, E.N. 482 Gardner, J.F. 140, 631 Garland, R. 19697 Garofalo Zappa, G. 496 Garzetti, A. 41012 Gascou, J. 447 Gasparolo, F. 448 Gasparotto, C. 474, 478 Gasperini, L. 373, 39899, 403, 425, 428, 621 Gatti, G. 128, 479 Gazzeta, C. 45152 Gelzer, M. 35, 6971, 79, 8283, 200, 532, 582, 604 Geremek, H. 577 Gerhold, M. 45 Gernet, L. 277 Gertz, M.C. 320 Gesche, H. 146 Gesner, J.M. 327 Geyer, A. 561 Geyer, F. 126, 349, 359 Giacomelli, R. 366 Giavitto, A. 43335 Gigante, M. 356, 359 Gignoux, P. 26466 Gilliam, J.F. 20910, 21213 Gimeno, H. 247 Ginestet, P. 388, 48185, 488, 490 Ginouvs, R. 35758 Ginzrot, J.C. 476 Giomini, R. 236 Giorcelli Bersani, S. 450, 45354 Giorgadze, G.G. 271 Giovannini, A. 10 Girardet, K.M. 15354, 610, 612, 616 Giumlia-Mair, A.E. 625 Giunti, P. 636 Gladigow, B. 11112 Glare, P.G.W. 546 Glucker, J. 568 Gnoli, F. 127, 233 Grgemanns, H. 418 Goethe, W. 564, 575 Goethert, F.W. 105

648

Indices Guilland, R. 211 Guillart, C. 612 Guillaumont, F. 15 Guiraud, C. 32728, 366, 612 Guittard, C. 103, 526, 557 Gulick, C.B. 349, 359 Gundel, H.G. 192, 229, 593, 601 Gundermann, G. 308 Gustafsson, F. 149 H Haase, F. 193 Haase, W. 584, 609 Habermas, J. 519 Habicht, C. 40, 42 Hgerstrom, A. 517 Haensch, R. 398 Hpke, N. 95 Hussler, R. 491 Haffter, H. 197 Hagenbuch, I.C. 470 Haines, C.R. 201, 204 Hkanson, L. 254, 336 Halfmann, H. 267, 270, 312, 316 Hall, A. 125, 304 Hall, U. 89 Haller, B. 615 Haltenhoff, A. 359 Hameter, W. 55 Hammond, N.G.L. 79, 8283, 87 Hanoune, R. 562 Hanson, A.E. 213 Harlesius, T.(= G.) C. 199 Harmand, J. 187, 191, 22022, 438 Harmand, L. 378, 438 Harris. E.M. 48, 61, Harris, W.V. 33, 80, 222, 279, 396, 414, 42021, 468, 47172, 559, 580, 627 Harrison, J.E. 599 Hartel, W. 324 Harvey, R.A. 210, 484 Hasenfratz, H.P. 279 Hasenohr, C. 619 Haslam, W.M. 213 Haudry, J. 634 Hauler, E. 2023 Haupt, M. 312 Hay, J.S. 564 Head, B.V. 132 Heer, J.M. 247, 257 Heerdegen, F. 47 Heftner, H. 88

Goette, H.R. 107 Goetz, G. 44, 218, 308, 32728, 419, 479 Golvin, J.-C. 458 Gonzlez, J. 428 Goodman, M. 569 Goodrich, L. 584 Gordon, A.E. 430 Gow, A.S.F. 590 Gowers, E. 22, 26, 30, 362 Gradel, I. 393 Graevius, J.G. 124, 464, 470 Graf, F. 30 Grafton, A. 568 Grainger, J.D. 85 Granino Cecere, M.G. 37684, 547 Grant, M. 458 Gras, M. 278 Grasmck, E.L. 111 Gratwick, A.S. 2024, 28, 30 Grebe, S. 345, 359 Grewing, F. 549 Green, C.H. 583 Green, C.M.C. 61112 Greenhalgh, P.A.L. 28889 Greenidge, A.H.J. 127 Grgoire, H. 576 Gregori, G.L. 40, 411, 42425, 460 Grelle, F. 371, 624 Grenier, A. 109 Greve, T. 93 Griffith, J.J. 547 Grilli, A. 434 Grimal, P. 525 Groag, E. 377, 430, 486 Grodzynski, D. 280 Groebe, P. 47, 79, 82, 126, 141, 146, 151, 159, 189, 229, 231, 234, 23739, 520 Gronov(ius), J.F. 32123, 463 Grosso, F. 24447, 257 Grosso, G. 91 Grotius, H. 464 Gruber, H.A. 130, 164, 171 Grll, T. 625 Gruen, E.S. 41, 47, 7879, 84, 8687, 91, 12627, 28587, 523 Gruendel, R. 199 Grnewald, T. 245, 255, 257 Guadagno, G. 618 Guarducci, M. 112, 262, 372, 443, 480 Guarino, A. 91 Gnther, L.M. 629 Guerrini, R. 52526, 528 Gterbock, M. 191

Indices Heindorf, L.F. 193, 202 Heinen, H. 577, 610 Heinze, R. 12627, 192, 194, 332, 335, 362 Hekster, O. 245, 257 Helbig, W. 100 Helbing, R. 262 Helen, T. 49697 Hellegouarch, J. 255, 329, 528, 549 Helm, R. 98, 321, 346, 359, 479, 486 Hendry, M. 334 Henlein-Schfer, H. 393 Hennig, D. 309 Henrichs, A. 286 Henry, R. 12426 Henzen, G.(= W.) 101, 209, 380, 382 Heraeus, W.(= G.) 332, 362, 477 Herbert, B. 343, 353, 359 Herbig, R. 339 Herdejrgen, H. 552 Hering, W. 236 Herrmann, P. 57, 310 Herter, H. 336 Hertz, M. 359 Herz, P. 393 Herzog, E. 113, 279 Heubner, H. 202, 525, 52728 Heuss, A. 84, 177 Heuzey, L. 1057 Hewsen, R.H. 269, 273 Hickson, F.V. 557 Higgins, J.M. 26, 30 Hilgers, W. 165 Hinard, F. 128, 280, 293, 315 Hirschfeld, O. 446 Hitzig, H.F. 340 Hlscher, T. 173 Hoepfner, W. 354, 356, 359 Hoffiller, V. 209 Hoffman Lewis, M.W, see Lewis Hoffmann, B. 230 Hoffmann-Curtius, K. 504 Hofmann, F. 131, 152, 240 Hofmann, J.B. 45, 95, 211, 218, 36566, 471 Hohl, E. 257 Holder, A.T. 129, 192, 19495, 223, 332, 375, 472 Holder, P.A. 226 Holland, Adams L. 279, 587, 601 Holleaux, M. 8384 Holstenius (Holstein), L. 46973, 476 Holmes, T.R. 134 Holum, K.G. 188 Holwerda, D. 632

649

Hommel, H. 569 Honig, R.M. 281 Hopkins, K. 458 Horkel, J. 194 Horsfall, N. 639 Hosius, C. 23, 30, 129, 336, 345, 359, 465, 486 Housman, A.E. 322 Houston, G.W. 585, 603 Howell, P. 22, 30 Hoyos, B.D. 86, 288 Hubbard, M. 332, 335 Huber, G. 134 Huber, J. 532 Huelsen, C. 382 Huemer, I. 484 Hug, A. 349, 359 Humbert, M. 530 Humphrey, J. 47879, 488 Hunnink, V. 197 Huotari, T. 496 Huyse, Ph. 273 I Ideler, C.L. 592, 594 Ihm, M. 189, 223, 390 Ilski, K. 40 Immisch, O. 343, 359 Ingekamp, H.G. 89 Ingoroqva, P. 26869 Ireland, R.I. 82 Isaac, B. 267 J Jacobs, L. 46364, 467 Jacobs, R. 31920 Jacoby, F. 12526 Jacquemin, A. 40, 81 Jaczynowska, M. 48182, 488 Jaeger, M. 14 Jahn, C. 233 Jahn, J. 28384 Jahn, O. 105, 197, 210, 233, 469, 471 Jaisle, K. 487 Jal, P. 151, 158, 247 Janon, M. 447 Janssen, A.J. 171 Janssen, L.F. 279 Janzer, B. 83, 8687 Jarrett, M.G. 438 Jashemski, W. 337 Jehne, M. 613

650

Indices Killeen, J.F. 197 Kingsley, B. 624 Kipling, R. 586 Kirchner, C.(= K.) C.J. 19293, 195, 198 Kirchner, J. 352 Kirtland, J.C. 48 Klebs, E. 111, 124, 12829 Kleijwegt, M. 489 Klima, U. 101 Klimscha, P. 322 Klingner, F. 19495 Kloft, H. 397 Kloppenborg, J.S. 617 Klotz, A. 152, 220, 232 Kneppe, A. 352 Knoellinger, H. 149 Koch, C. 597 Khler, H. 418 Knig, R. 330, 343, 349, 352, 355, 359 Koeppel, G. 452 Koestermann, E. 112, 139, 463, 46566 Kves-Zulauf, T. 55960, 594 Klostermann, E. 336 Knverer, P. 343 Kolb, A. 309, 570 Kolb, F. 258, 624 Kolbe, H.G. 112 Kolendo, J. 22627 Kollwitz, J. 552 Konrad, C.F. 13435, 137, 139, 14041, 149, 305, 328, 411, 416 Koonce, K. 86 Kornemann, E. 9394, 1045 Korpela, J. 399 Kostial, M. 609 Kotansky, R. 377 Kotula, T. 490 Koukoules, Ph. 211 Kowalski, H. 614 Kraabel, A.T. 569 Krahe, H. 466 Kraner, F. 131, 152, 240 Krause, C. 526, 54243 Krause, J.U. 279 Krauss, B. 258 Krenkel, W. 28, 30, 78, 301, 482 Kritz(ius), F. 319, 321 Kroeger, M. 336 Kroll, W. 349, 359, 475 Kromayer, J. 191 Kronasser, H. 365 Krummrey, H. 133, 405 Kruschwitz, P. 483, 626

Jessen, O. 487 Jex-Blake, K. 35455, 359, 361 Jilek, S. 211, 215 Jocelyn, H.D. 34, 18, 4445, 87, 502, 506, 598 Johnson, J. 492 Johnson, M. 640 Johnson, V.L. 601 Jones, B.W. 189, 197, 526 Jones, C.P. 56, 310, 439 Jones, C.W. 406 Jones, H.S. 100, 208, 477, 545 Jones, N.F. 349, 359 Jones, W.H.S. 354 Jonnes, L. 127 Jordan, H. 47, 49, 82, 9596, 286, 31922 Jourdain-Annequin, C. 372 Jullian, C. 291 K Kahil, L. 35758 Kahrstedt, U. 576 Kaibel, G. 349, 359, 390 Kaiser-Raiss, M.R. 246 Kajanto, I. 186, 294, 387, 433, 436, 490, 545, 548 Kajava, M. 132, 294, 326, 373, 402, 535 Kalinka, E. 203 Kalkmann, A. 343, 359 Kany-Turpin, J. 14 Kaser, M. 26, 30, 41, 114, 279, 517, 555 Kashcheyev, V.I. 609 Kassel, R. 350, 35960, 632 Kaster, R.A. 184, 18689, 19496, 198, 622 Kavtaradze, G.L. 269, 273 Kay, N.M. 33840 Kearsley, R.A. 61516 Keaveney, A. 16869 Keenan, J.G. 26768 Keil, H. 13, 2021, 30, 95, 32728, 359, 465, 549 Keller, O. 192, 19495, 332 Kelly, C. 207 Kempf, C. 92, 190, 315 Kennedy, D.L. 274, 430 Kenner, H. 112 Keppie, L. 191, 230, 293 Kettenhofen, E. 273 Keuleers, B. 626 Khanussi, M. 551 Kienast, D. 41, 79, 116, 12425, 244, 430 Kiepert, H. 421, 445, 447 Kiessling, A. 192, 194, 332, 335, 362

Indices Kubitschek, J.W. 247, 39798, 472, 594 Khn, K.G. 485 Khner, R. 236, 253 Khnert, F. 20 Knzl, E. 452 Kumaniecki, K. 135 Kunckel, H. 107 Kunkel, W. 3334, 114, 127, 256, 611 Kunst, C. 140, 338 Kunze, A. 31922, 324 Kurfess, A. 31922, 324 Kuusanmki, J. 496 Kyle, D.G. 458 L La Follette, L. 109 La Rocca, E. 326, 337 Lachmann, C. 314, 387, 419, 425, 495 Ladage, D. 379, 418, 429 Lafaye, G. 131, 458 Lafer, R. 388 Laffi, U. 54, 111, 293, 390, 399, 404, 419 Lake, A., see Michels Lake, G. 58586 Lake, K. 58586 Laks, A. 568 Lallier, R. 31920, 322 Lambardi, N. 552 LamingerPascher, G. 209 Lamoine, L. 294 Lampela, A. 78 Lanciotti, S. 80 Landgraf, G. 236 Landucci Gattinoni, F. 347, 359 Lang, M.L. 587 Lange, L. 35, 124, 126, 128, 178 Langenhorst, A. 336 Langner, M. 483 Larsen, J.A.O. 7879, 86 Laser, G. 613 Lassre, J.M. 227 Latham, R.E. 21415 Latte, K. 477, 510, 59597, 601 Lau, D. 6 Laurens, A.-F. 589 Laurot, B. 557 Lavagne, H. 562 Lazzarini, M.L. 547 Lazzaro, L. 38789, 39596, 468, 471, 478 Le Bohec, Y. 184, 18687, 206, 229, 245, 390 Le Bourdells, H. 539 Le Gall, J. 101, 467, 537, 639

651

Le Glay, M. 460 Le Roux, P. 456 Lebek, W.D. 183, 22425, 407, 461 Leeman, A.D. 319 Lega, C. 185, 405, 412, 422 Lehmann, C.M. 188 Lehmann, Y. 507, 558 Lejeune, M. 466 Lendon, J.E. 458 Lenoir, M. 237 Leone, M. 637 Leppin, H. 452, 475 Letta, C. 60, 86, 225, 370, 39394 Lettich, G. 493, 495 Leunissen, P.M.M. 256 Lvesque, P.C. 347 Levick, B. 290, 461, 630 Levy, E. 127 Levy, H.L. 601 Lewis, C.T. 2122, 184, 247, 249, 311, 330, 37475, 407 Lewis, Hoffman M.W. 180, 378 Lewis, N. 313 Licandro, O. 85 Licetus (Liceto), F. 467, 46970 Lichocka, B. 163 Lichtenberger, H. 636 Liddell, H.G. 100, 208, 264, 477, 545 Liebenam, W. 547, 562 Lieberg, G. 554 Lifshitz, B. 569 Ligt, de, L. 617 Lilius, H. 496 Linderski, J. 35, 817, 3132, 35, 38, 48, 52, 78, 81, 83, 85, 88, 91, 109, 125, 13031, 135, 155, 15758, 16467, 16970, 184, 217, 219, 305, 328, 369, 372, 396, 403, 410, 445, 468, 492, 5078, 510, 512, 51819, 52224, 531, 537, 539, 580, 58485, 589, 593, 595, 603, 626, 633, 637, 639 Lindsay, W.M. 4548, 78, 114, 173, 218, 301, 346, 354, 359, 464, 559, 627 Ling, L. 35657, 359 Ling, R. 35657, 359 Lintott, A.W. 3436, 1034, 127, 133 Liou, Bernard 429 Liou-Gille, Bernadette 9, 113, 279, 63637 Lippold, A. 202, 228 Lippold, G. 35455, 359 Lipsius, J. 463 Littauer, M.A. 476 Litvinenko, Yu. 576 Liu, J. 627

652
Lo Cascio, E. 191, 617 Lobrano, G. 279 Lfstedt, B. 484 Lfstedt, E. 18889, 278, 436 Lombardi, P. 547 Lpez Melero, R. 54 Loraux, N. 278 Lordkipanidze, O. 276 Lo rincz, B. 261 Lorsch Wildfang, R. 534 Lott, J.B. 618 Lovato, A. 278 Lovisi, C. 278 Lucas, H. 346, 359 Lderitz, G. 567 Ltkenhaus, W. 386 Lullies, R. 35859, 587 Lundeen, L.E. 3 Luterbacher, F. 258 M Maas, M. 207 Maaswyck (Masvicius), P. 346 MacBain, B. 25859, 304 MacMullen, R. 208, 281 Machabeli, K.G. 275 Machiavelli, N. 24, 290 Madvig, I.N. 309, 516 Maffei, A. 278 Maffei, S. 446, 470 Magdelain, A. 278, 329 Magie, D. 124, 13132 Mai, A. 2013 Maiuri, A. 35557, 359 Malaespina, L. 145 Malaise, M. 387 Malavolta, M. 461 Malcovati, H.(= E.) 47, 62, 78, 9596, 307, 419 Malkin, I. 183 Maltby, R. 45 Manacorda, D. 427 Mancini, G. 374 Manconi, D. 415 Manfredini, A.D. 464 Manganaro, G. 47273, 477, 48081 Manni Piraino, T. 480 Manutius, P. 124, 308, 310, 317 Manzoni, A. 445 Marc, J.-Y. 619 Marco-Simon, F. 636 Marcone, A. 575, 577, 629

Indices Marek, C. 57 Marengo, S.M. 4012, 41920 Mari, Z. 378 Mariotti, I. 362 Markschies, C. 563 Marmorale, E.V. 427 Marotta DAgata, A.R. 182 Marquardt, J. 22, 30, 104, 191, 206, 309, 362, 479, 516, 550 Marshall, A. 149 Marshall, A.J. 15354, 316 Marshall, B.A. 133, 135 Marshall, P.K. 23, 30, 143 Martin, T.R. 166 Martindale, J.R. 203 Martnez-Pinna, J. 624 Marx, F. 28, 30, 78, 9596, 301 Masci, A. 40 Mascialino, F. 463 Mason, H.J. 100, 126 Massaro, M. 545 Masson, O. 567 Mastrocinque, A. 3133 Masvivius (Maaswyck), P. 346 Mathieu, N. 621 Matthews, E. 359 Mattingly, D.J. 610 Mattson, B. 388 Mau, A. 22, 30, 339, 341, 348, 359, 479, 489 Maulucci Vivolo, F.P. 482 Mavrojannis, T. 619 Maxfield, V. 87, 157, 18486, 202, 2057, 21618, 221228, 251, 254, 486 Mayer, E. 578 Mayer, M. 247, 394, 408, Mayhoff, C. 159, 214, 330, 337, 34243, 353, 360, 409, 511 Mayrhofer, M. 265 Mazzarino, A. 375 Mazzarino, S. 320 Mazzolai, A. 428 McCall, J.B. 185, 190 McCormack, G. 517 McDaniel, W.B. 559 McGinn, T.A.J. 623 McGushin, P. 319320, 322, 324 Meadows, A. 633 Mehl, E. 485 Meier, C. 17778 Meijer, P.A. 557 Meillet, A. 45, 95, 211, 218, 366 Meister, F.O. 331 Melchiorre, V.A. 406

Indices Melikishvili, G.A. 269 Melli, P. 631 Mellor, A. 194 Mendoza Eguaras, A. 224 Menichetti, M. 99, 216 Mennella, G. 243, 370, 38487, 402, 42022, 441, 44344, 446, 44850, 45354, 564, 631 Mentxaka, R. 127, 617 Mercerius (Mercier), J. 46, 173, 301 Merkelbach, R. 552 Meslin, M. 362 Messerschmidt, F. 106 Metzger, B.M. 26364, 271 Meusel, H. 131, 152, 236, 240 Meyer, E. 9293, 114, 174 Meyers, K.S. 611 Meyranesio, I.F. 453 Michel, C. 352, 360 Michelotto, P.G. 182, 57677 Michels, A.K. 3, 1415, 508, 510, 516, 519, 560, 581, 583602 Michels, W.C. 585, 593 Middleton, A.L.A. 329 Migne, J.-P. 212 Mihaescu, H. 214 Mihailov, G. 313 Mikkola, E. 554 Mikoajczyk, I. 610, 613 Millar, F. 303, 312, 569, 614 Milliet, P. 354, 360 Miniero, P. 476 Minnen, van, P. 570 Mitchell, N. 622 Mitchell, S. 123, 31316, 318, 569 Mitford, T.B. 526 Mitteis, L. 490 Mcsy, A. 267 Modonesi, D. 471 Mohler, S.L. 464 Molho, A. 580, 583 Molinier, A. 244 Mollo, S. 411 Momigliano, A. D. 507, 568, 575 Mommsen, T. 3435; 37, 41, 4647, 51, 57, 60, 81, 83, 87, 100, 102, 11011, 116, 12428, 13436, 138, 154, 157, 16263, 169, 178, 22324, 226, 233, 242, 24445, 256, 280, 300, 309, 341, 37071, 38485, 38790, 392, 394400, 402411, 415, 41822, 42425, 432, 43436, 44044, 446, 448, 45055, 457, 46972, 49395, 516, 521, 533, 547, 562, 568, 582, 59194, 610, 61718, 627

653

Monaco, L. 632 Montero, S. 258, 335 Montgomery, H.C. 477 Montesquieu, C. 34, 282 Mooney, G.W. 189, 197 Moore, T.J. 255 Mora, C. 450 Mora, F. 97 Morani, M. 279 Morawiecki, L. 164 Moreau, P. 293, 461, 53334 Morel, J.-P. 482, 488 Morel, W. 628 Moreschini, C. 484 Moretti, J.-C. 619 Moretti, L. 40, 185, 232, 387, 406, 545, 562 Morgan, M.G. 93, 97, 527 Moricca, H. 3089 Morizio, V. 371, 406 Mosci Sassi, M.G. 458 Moscovich, M.J. 84 Mosley, D.J. 41 Mouchov, B. 258 Mountford, J.F. 187, 323 Mouritsen, H. 610 Moussy, C. 14, 33435 Mrozewicz, L. 40, 224 Mller, C. 125 Mller, Ch. 619 Mller, F.L. 621 Mueller, H.-F. 639 Mller, H.J. 82 Mller, von, I. 510, 595 Mller, L. 193, 559 Mller, V. 587 Mnzer, F. 78, 86, 90, 97, 126, 128, 13133, 13536, 14344, 14750, 157, 159, 174, 218, 23238, 254, 259, 299, 34243, 34748, 35152, 360, 391, 418, 576, 604 Muller-Dufeu, M. 34243, 349, 351, 360 Munzi, M. 594 Muratori, G.(= I.) F. 45152 Muretus, M.A. 624 Murphy, C.T. 598 Murphy, P.R. 157 Murphy, T. 598 Musia, D. 164 Musti, D. 562 Muthmann, F. 452 Mutschler, FH. 359 Mynors, R.A.B. 311, 313, 32324, 437

654
N

Indices Oliveira, de, F. 340 Oliver, J.H. 38081, 383, 460 Olshausen, E. 41 Oost, S.I. 79, 82, 601 Opelt, I. 335, 549 Oppermann, H. 240 Optendrenk, T. 56465 Orelli(us), I.C.(= J.K.) 115, 124, 209, 246, 308, 380, 382, 470 Orlandi, S. 460 Orosio, P. 601 Osborne, M.J. 359 Ostrow, E. 17980 Ostrowski, J.A. 161, 172 Otto, A. 97, 339 Overbeck, J. 342, 354, 360 Overbeek, A.B. 610 P Pabst, A. 614 Paci, G. 230, 370, 399401, 4078, 427, 438, 621 Pack, R.A. 336 Packard, D.W. 48, 50, 249 Packer, J.E. 339, 341 Pagn, I. 394 Page, D.L. 590 Pagliaro, A. 263 Pailler, J.-M. 562 Pais, E. 387, 395, 4024, 410, 42021, 435, 442, 447, 455, 49395 Paladino, I. 638 Palmer, R.E.A. 105, 1089, 145, 460, 505, 560 Palmerius, J. 21, 23 Palombi, D. 622 Panciera, S. 395, 4012, 405, 410, 42223, 431, 443, 452, 460, 471, 48889, 62728, 630 Pani, G. 37071, 392 Pape, W. 124, 344, 348, 360 Papi, E. 146 Paris, P. 417 Parke, W. 602 Parker, R. 278 Parsons, P.J. 213 Paschoud, F. 228, 380 Passeratius, J. 21 Passeri, G.B. 457 Pastor Muoz, A. 224 Paterlini, M. 552 Patlagean, E. 280 Patterson, H. 394 Paul, G.M. 601

Naber, S.A. 2022, 350, 416 Nabokov, V. 57677 Nachtergael, G. 352, 360 Nadig, P. 613 Naipaul, V.S. 508 Nardi, E. 278 aso del Hoyo, T. 309 Nasse, C. 527 Nawijn, W. 126, 260 Nelson, H.L.W. 139 Nraudau, J.-P. 104, 487 Nesselhauf, H. 274 Neuhauser, W. 45, 4749, 78 Newman, R. 164 Niccolini, G. 96, 126 Nicolet, C. 34, 18384, 187, 18991, 221, 237, 282, 286, 294, 392, 61112, 615, 620 Niebling, G. 492 Niebuhr, G,B. 202 Nikolashvili, V. 270 Nilsson, M. P. 464, 487, 592, 594 Nipperdey, K. 127, 464, 467 Nisbet, R.G. 104, 150, 523 Nisbet, R.G.M. 12425, 332, 335 Nissen, H. 8586, 443 Nitzsch, K.W. 9394, 97 Nock, A.D. 505, 552, 576 No, E. 639 Nldeke, T. 565 Nrr, D. 41, 5455, 7980, 83, 8586, 28788 Nonnis, D. 619 Norden, E. 12, 515, 58990 North, J.A. 305, 5012, 509, 513 Nowicka, M. 355, 357, 360 Nyberg, H.S. 26265, 27172, 275 O Oakley, J.H. 339 Oakley, S.P. 216, 219, 321, 627 Oates, J. 576 Oberg, E. 548, 550 Oberhummer, E. 8283 Oberlin, J.J. 463 OBrien Moore, A. 41, 52 Oehmichen, G. 342, 360 Ogilvie, R.M. 46, 113, 214, 25859, 299, 469, 517, 601, 640 Ogle, M.B. 587 Olcott, G.N. 544 Oldenstein-Pferdehirt, B. 244

Indices Pavone, C. 12 Pavolini, C. 496 Pearce, M. 445 Pease, A.S. 34, 6, 8, 16, 170, 260, 334, 426, 529, 531, 580 Pch, V. 547 Pecorari, P. 480 Peek, W. 552 Peerlkamp, P.H. 309 Pekary, T. 313, 495 Plkidis, C. 356, 360 Pellegrini, G.B. 387, 396, 466 Pelli, C. 495 Peola, P. 448 Pepe, L. 616, 622, 635 Perea Ybenes, S. 18788, 205 Perl, G. 567 Pernot, L. 557 Perrins, C.M. 329 Perry, B.E. 196 Perry, J.S. 563, 617 Persichetti, N. 394 Pesch, A. 256 Peter, H. 2425, 27, 30, 47, 299, 301, 485 Petersen, L. 129 Petraccia Lucernoni, M.F. 379, 43738, 489 Petracco Sicardi, G. 445 Petrikovits, von, H. 483, 48586 Petrucci, A. 637 Pfaff-Reydellet, M. 502 Pfiffig, A.J. 588 Pflaum, H.G. 204, 225, 270, 317, 377, 379 Pfuhl, E. 343, 346, 352, 355, 360 Phillips, C.R. 182 Phillipson, C. 41 Piccaluga, G. 410 Pichlmayr, F. 199 Pietrangli, O. 389 Pietrzykowski, M. 565 Pighi, I. (= G.) B. 157, 172, 485 Pighius, S.V. 124, 604 Pignorius, L. 464 Pilhofer, P. 632 Pina Polo, F. 90 Pinna Parpaglia, P. 163 Piotrowicz, L. 8889, 93, 174 Piro, I. 616, 635 Piso, I. 257, 261 Pitiscus, S. 199 Plass, P. 458 Pleket, H.W. 557 Pobjoy, M. 492, 618 Poccetti, P. 407

655

Phlmann, R. 338, 340 Pkel, W. 21, 30, 193, 346, 35354, 360, 403, 463, 46970 Pollack, L. 488 Pontenay de Fontette, F. 309 Porte, D. 104, 487 Post, E. 338 Potter, D. 274, 458, 580 Poucet, J. 558 Pouthier, P. 589 Powell, J.G.F. 23, 30, 305 Pozzi, G. 353, 360 Preller, L. 347, 360 Premerstein, von, A. 41, 256 Prescendi, P. 502 Prestiani Giallombardo, A.M. 624 Price, S.R.F. 5012, 509, 513, 566, 583, 598 Priuli, S. 376 Promis, C. 45152 Prosdocimi, A.L. 387, 396, 466 Puccioni, I. 127 Pulleyn, S. 557 Pupillo, D. 45457 Purcell, N. 192, 33031, 401 Purser, L.C. 145, 154, 310 Puteolanus, F. 463 Pytsi, H. 496 Q Qaukhchishvili, S. 26263, 264, 271 Qaukhchishvili, T.S. 26264, 27072 Quasten, J. 547 Quazza, G. 212 Quellet, H. 45 Quercia, A. 452 R Raaflaub, K. 153, 159, 177, 179, 531 Rabello, A.M. 279 Rackham, H. 207, 311, 330, 33738, 340, 343, 355, 360 Radermacher, L. 331 Radice, B. 312 Radici Colace, P. 624 Radina, F. 406 Radke, G. 425, 531, 594 RaepsaetCharlier, M.T. 442 Rafn, B. 343, 346, 360 Rainer, J.M. 34041 Ramelli, I. 626, 630 Ramsey, A.M. 620

656

Indices Rix, H. 427 Rizakis, C.E. 379 Robert, J. 123, 263, 265 Robert, L. 29, 5759, 123, 263, 265, 272, 310, 349, 35152, 360, 450, 45860, 473, 484, 493, 522, 569 Roberts, P. 394 Robleda, O. 532 Rochette, R. 338, 347, 355, 360 Roddaz, J.-M. 625 Rodenwaldt, G. 387 Rodriguez, C. 393 Rodrguez Colmenero, A. 403 Rodrguez Gonzlez, J. 230 Rllig, W. 271, 275 Rmer, F. 464 Rohr Vio, F. 630 Roland, H.R. 565 Roldn Hervs, J.M. 23536 Rolfe, J.C. 23, 143, 198 Ronconi, A. 552 Roncoroni, A. 96 Roos, A.G. 274 Rosa, G. 416 Roscher, W.H. 551 Rose, C.B. 428 Rosenberger, V. 25758, 639 Rosendorfer, H. 140 Rosenstein, N. 288 Rossbach, A. 530531 Rossi, E. 545 Rossi, R.F. 434 Rostovtzeff, M. 29293, 37172, 508, 57577, 57980 Roth, C.L. 2021, 24, 30 Rotondi, G. 189, 309 Rouse, W.H.D. 556 Rouveret, A. 354, 360 Rowell, H.T. 452 Roxan, M. 456 Royden, H. 492 Rubinsohn, Z.W. 183 Rger, C.B. 386 Rpke, J. 327, 48788, 502, 51519, 563, 59293, 63638 Ruge, W. 58, 207 Rumpf, A. 218 Ruoff-Vnnen, E. 303, 44041 Ruperti, G.A. 463 Ryan, F.X. 39, 12627, 134, 141, 149, 611, 615, 62021, 623, 625 Ryberg, Scott I. 9899, 170, 504, 601 Rzach, A. 7

Ramsey, J.T. 615 Rankov, N.B. 273 Rawson, E. 28, 30, 103, 3036 Rea, J.R. 213 Redd, M. 229, 245 Reduzzi Merola, F. 495, 518, 521, 524, 634 Reed, J.D. 33839 Reed Doob, P. 485 Regell, P. 638 Reggiani Massarini, A.M. 558 Rehm, A. 403 Rehm, R. 530 Reifferscheid, A. 2022, 24, 30 Reinach, A. 35355, 357, 360 Reinach, S. 354 Reinesius, T. 46970, 472 Reinhold, M. 156, 393, 584 Reisch, E. 210 Reisig, K.C. 193 Reitzammer, L. 339 Rmy, B. 223, 227, 261 Reusser, C. 114 Reuterswrd, P. 106 Reverdin, O. 594 Reynolds, J.M. 488, 56771 Reynolds, L.D. 31921 Ribbeck, O. 48, 92, 624 Ricci, C. 40 Ricci, M.L. 545 Rice, E.E. 562 Rich, J.W. 639 Richard, J.-C. 601 Richardson, B.E. 343, 360 Richardson, E.H. 105, 107 Richardson, L. 105, 107, 357, 360 Richter, E.J. 319 Richter, G.M.A. 357, 360 Rider, G. 84 Ridgway, B.S. 360 Ridley, R. 616 Ridley, T. 352 Riecken, G. 114 Rieger, H. 89 Riese, A. 362 Riggsby, A.M. 613 Righini, V. 457, 496 Ritschl, F. 32022 Ritter, C. 107 Ritterling, E. 162, 227, 22930, 23435, 239, 24546, 257, 261, 390, 430, 449, 456 Ritti, T. 459 Rivire, Y. 278 Rivius, J. 321, 323

Indices S Saalfeld, G.A.E.A. 211 Saatsoglu-Pariadeli, C. 624 Sabbatini Tumolesi, P. 382, 460 Sachers, E. 26, 30 Saddington, D.B. 438 Sage, E.T. 82 Said, E.W. 509 Sajkowski, R. 180 Saladino, V. 42830, 432 Salamito, J.-M. 388 Saldern, von, F. 24546 Sale, de la, A. 149 Salerno, F. 104 Saller, R. 580, 583 Salmasius (de Saumaise), C. 214 Salomies, O. 133, 135, 138, 186, 223, 232, 29495, 369, 37577, 379, 39495, 402, 418, 482, 489 Salway, B. 632 Salzman, M. 363, 516 Samter, E. 112 Snchez Abal, J.L. 54 Sancho, L. 531 Sanders, H.N. 587 Santalucia, B. 278 Santangelo, F. 90 Santori, C. 389 Santoro, N. 559 Santos Palma, dos, M.G. 346, 361 Saria, B. 20910, 212 Sarikakis, Th.Ch. 124 Sarnowski, T. 54143 Sartori, F. 401, 464, 46869, 471, 48081, 62627 Sartori, M. 407, 439 Sauer, E. 421 Savage, J.J. 551 Savelja, O.Ja. 54143 Savi, F. 458 Saxer, R. 224 Sblendorio-Cugusi, M.T. 82, 84, 307 Scafuro, A.C. 43 Scaliger, J.J. 48 Scardigli, B. 89 Schfer, A. 56263 Schaefer, G.H. 125 Schfer, P. 636 Schfer, T. 16263 Schublin, C. 14 Schaewen, von, R. 98, 165, 172 Schanz, M. 129, 336, 465, 486

657

Schefold, K. 35557, 361, 487 Scheid, J. 6, 14, 101, 112, 180, 182, 281, 326, 393, 492, 561, 610, 636, 638 Scheithauer, A. 564 Schenkenveld, D.M. 25, 30, 345, 361 Schepers, M.A. 350, 361 Schiering, W. 35859, 587 Schiller, A.A. 29596 Schilling, R. 527, 539, 592 Schindel, U. 327 Schleussner, B. 8384 Schlter, M. 565 Schmidt, M. 353, 361, 477 Schmidt, M.G. 33334 Schmitt, R. 265, 271 Schmitthenner, W. 135 Schneider, H. 274 Schneider, J.G. 328 Schneider, K. 458, 483 Schnorr v. Carolsfeld, L. 562 Schoell, F. 44 Schnberger, O. 548 Scholz, U.W. 594 Schopf, E. 213 Schott(us), A. 12526, 199 Schrder, W.A. 47, 301 Schuchhardt, W.H. 357 Schrer, E. 569 Schuller, W. 158, 613 Schulten, A. 618 Schultess, F. 624 Schultz, J.T. 323 Schulz, F. 501 Schulz, R. 309 Schulze, W. 186, 223, 232, 278, 375, 442, 466, 472, 482, 489 Schumacher, L. 140 Schwarzer, H. 564 Schweighuser, I. 94 Scobie, A. 337 Scott, R.S. 100, 208, 264, 477, 545 Scott, R.T. 525, 584 Scott Ryberg, I., see Ryberg Scriverius, P. 21 Scullard, H.H. 77, 8081, 8485, 87, 16162, 46768, 602 Seager, R. 28889, 612 Seavey, W.D. 288 Sebesta, J.L. 107 Seeck, O. 386, 484, 614 Seel, O. 236 Segal, C.P. 277 Segenni, S. 182

658

Indices Sordi, M. 81, 460, 525, 55455 Sordini, G. 417 Sorokina, M.Yu. 263 Souza, de, P. 633 Spadea Noviero, G. 386 Spadoni Cerroni, M.C. 558, 611 Spaeth, Stanley B. 104 Spagnolo Garzoli, G. 450 Spaul, J. 190, 210, 223, 226 Speidel, M.A. 430 Speidel, M.P. 190, 210, 216, 22122, 22528 Stadter, P. 274 Sthlin, O. 353 Stangl, T. 14142, 15152, 534, 629 Staples, A. 536 Stauner, K. 184, 187, 2089 Staveley, E.S. 28283 Stegmann, C. 236, 253 Stehouwer, H.N.G. 99 Stein, A. 225, 486 Stein, M. 569 Stein, P. 37, 520 Steinby, E.M. 451, 49697 Steiner, P. 185, 216, 218, 22021, 22324 Stemplinger, E. 196 Stengel, P. 487 Stephanis, I.E. 352, 361 Stephanus, P. 125 Stepper, R. 636 Stern, H. 36364 Steuding, K. 551 Stewart, R. 164, 168 Stewart, Z. 601 Stocker, A.F. 346, 361 Stockton, D. 103 Stoffel, E. 502 Stone, S. 107 Strachan-Davidson, J.L. 94 Straten, van, F.T. 556 Strobel, K. 227, 230 Stroux, J. 44 Strunk, K. 366 Stump, B.E. 332 Stumpf, G.R. 128, 132 Sumner, G. 238, 615 Suolahti, J. 49697 Susini, G. 435, 583 Sutherland, C.H.V. 166 Swan, P.M. 179, 63031 Swindler, M.H. 587 Swoboda, A. 4 Sydenham, E.A. 131, 16364

Sehlmeyer, M. 145 Sellers, E. 343, 346, 348, 351, 35355, 359, 361 Sensi, M. 54446, 548 Setl, P. 49697 Setaioli, A. 552 Seuffert, R. 464 Severy, B. 17980, 630 Seyrig, H. 565 Shackleton Bailey, D.R. 92, 107, 124, 128, 13334, 138, 14143, 14547, 14950, 154, 159, 18990, 19295, 23738, 295, 3079, 311, 314, 31718, 32022, 459, 549, 623 Shanidze, A.G. 271 Shatzman, I. 87, 12627, 142, 177 Shaw, B.D. 559, 576 Sherk, R.K. 39, 44, 55, 5758, 313 Sherwin, W.K. 200 SherwinWhite, A.N. 128, 191, 313, 322, 437, 439, 440, 486 Shifman, I.S. 271 Ship, G. 97 Short, C. 2122, 184, 247, 249, 311, 330, 37475, 407 Sicherman, B. 583 Sidebottom, H. 255, 610 Sigonius, C. 124, 199 Silberman, A. 276 Sillig, I. (= J.) 342, 354, 361 Silvestrini, M. 406, 624 Silvestrius, C. 470 Simon, E. 165, 403 Simpson, C.J. 611 Simshuser, W. 291 Sinclair, T. 275 Sinclair, U. 577 Sini, F. 4 Sivan, H.S. 385 Sjgren, H. 3089 Skalet, C.H. 352, 361 Skerret, Thompson H.M. 189 Skok, F. 628 Skutsch, O. 34, 6, 9, 1213, 15, 4445, 87, 300, 306 Sapek, D. 458 Smith, R.E. 235 Sniezewski, S. 639 Soini, H. 496 Solin, H. 12223, 12829, 132, 186, 223, 232, 294, 344, 361, 36566, 36970, 372, 375, 377, 39495, 39798, 402, 418, 427, 482, 489, 496, 545, 548, 561, 63233 Sommo, G. 451

Indices Syme, R. 35, 88, 13638, 140, 149, 152, 168, 173, 178, 234, 270, 27375, 28890, 332, 385, 418, 43840, 46566, 508, 525, 565, 582, 604, 610 T Tubler, E. 53 Tagliafico, M. 562 Taglialatela Scafati, M. 635, 637 Taglietti, F. 496 Talbert, R.J.A. 37, 275, 445, 456 Tannenbaum, R. 56871 Tansey, P. 622 Tarpin, M. 492, 618 Tassi Scandone, E. 4, 12 Tassini P. 638 Tatum, W.J. 36, 513, 524, 53334 Taubenschlag, R. 576 Tautil, J.C. 560 Taylor, L.R. 32, 37, 39, 8990, 134, 13738, 140, 16568, 171, 284, 37883, 389, 393, 397, 399, 432, 520, 522, 554, 578, 58087, 591, 593, 59799, 6012, 604 Taylor, R. 5 Tchernia, A. 330 Technau, W. 35657, 361 Teodorsson, S.V. 23, 30 Thalheim, T. 350 Thallon, I.C. 463 Thiel, J.H. 82 Thilo, G. 249, 346, 361 Thomas, R.F. 115, 124 Thomas, Y. 277, 27980 Thomasson, B.E. 83, 535 Thommen, L. 521 Thomsen, R. 386, 447 Thomson, R.W. 268, 27072 Thuillier, J.-P. 487 Thulin, C.O. 8, 314, 387, 432, 495, 511, 52628, 539, 630 Thurmond, D.L. 538 Thysius, A. 321 Tibiletti, G. 403 Tibiletti Bruno, M.G. 410, 558; see also Bruno Tillemont, Lenain de, S. 385 Tilly, B. 328 Tod, M.N. 94, 1045, 263, 271 Todisco, E. 293 Toher, M. 177, 179 Tomaschek, W. 263 Tomaschitz, K. 88 Tondriau, J. 522 Torelli, Marina 187, 191 Torelli, Mario 17, 293, 42829, 480, 616 Touchefeu-Meynier, O. 346, 361 Toumanoff, C. 26970, 27273 Townend, G.B. 527 Tozzi, P. 445 Trnkle, H. 79, 8586 Traill, J.S. 353, 361 Tran, N. 563 Travis, A.H. 346, 361 Trebilco, P.R. 569 Treese, L. 584 Treggiari, S. 139, 374, 53032 Trevisiol, A. 243, 24748 Tsereteli, G.(V.) 263, 271 Tsereteli, K. 27172 Tsirpanlis, C.N. 208 Tucci, P.L. 634 Tuchelt, K. 13132 Turcan, R. 504, 562, 56466 Turmair, J. 403 Turnebus, A. 44, 199 Tyrrell, R.Y. 145, 154, 310, 317 U Ubaldini, F. 243 Ughelli, F. 385 Ulf, C. 594 Ungern-Sternberg, von, J. 28, 30, 91, 256 Untermann, J. 466, 472 Urbach, E.E. 568 Urban, R. 245 Urlichs L.(K.) 194 Urlichs, L. 247 Ursatus (Orsato), S. 46970 Ussani, V., jr. 22, 30, 463 V

659

Vaahtera, J. 35, 12, 15, 17, 633 Vnnen, V. 366, 449 Vacher, M.-C. 184, 186, 189 Vahlen, J. 3, 13, 4445 Valavanis, P. 479 Valeton, I.M.J. 12, 38, 410, 521, 523 Vallet, G. 389 Valpy, A.J. 199, 206, 319, 321, 34142, 354, 357, 361, 46364 Valvo, A. 410 Van Andringa, W. 618

660

Indices W Wachter, R.W. 626 Wackernagel, K. 278 Wagenvoort, H. 114 Waitz, G. 445 Walbank, F.W. 4244, 7887, 185 Walde, A. 45, 95, 211, 218, 36566, 471 Wallace, R.W. 48, 61 Wallace-Hadrill, A. 163, 411 Wallinga, T. 614 Walt, S. 634 Walter U. 2325, 2830, 301 Walters, C.F. 99, 164 Waltzing, J.P. 327, 369, 38384, 412, 449, 489, 54647, 56264, 617 Wander, B. 569 Ward-Perkins, J.B. 488 Wardle, D. 468 Warmington, E.H. 32, 92, 301, 344, 361 Warrior, V. 8081, 8485 Watson, A. 26, 30, 138, 140, 205, 418, 555 Watson, G.R. 205 Watt, W.S. 145, 158, 3089, 311, 314, 317, 463, 624 Waurick, G. 133 Way, A.G. 220, 233, 235, 237, 239 Webster, G. 206 Weeber, K.W. 483, 485 Weege, F. 459 Wegner, E. 348, 361 Weiler, I. 601 Weinrib, E.J. 135, 138 Weinstock, S. 15860, 162, 601 Weiss, G. 211 Weissenborn, W. 82 Welch, K. 458, 621 Welles, C.B. 576 Wellesley, K. 29091 Wellmann, M. 487 Welwei, K.W. 609 Werner, S. 632 Wes, M.A. 508, 57576 Wesch-Klein, G. 42930 Wescher, C. 352 Wesenberg, A.S. 308 Wessely, C. 213 Wessner, P. 28, 30, 48, 205, 523, 628 Westermann, W.L. 576 White, H. 94 White, J.F. 632 White, P. 22, 30

Van Buren, A.W. 464, 47273, 587 Van Den Hout, M.P.J. 184, 186, 2005, 274, 350, 416, 419 Van Gennep, A. 555 Van Haeperen, F. 617, 636 Van Minnen, P. 570 Van Ooteghem, J. 124, 133, 457 Van Wageningen, I. 323 Van Wonterghem, F. 369, 37172, 376, 39293 Vangaard, J.H. 468 Varone, A. 356, 361 Vasilkov, Ya.V. 263 Vavassori, M. 43538 Veith, G. 191 Vendries, C. 547, 557 Vendryes, J. 36566 Venedikov, I. 476 Venturini, C. 127, 309 Vera, D. 188 Vermaseren, M.J. 318 Vermes, G. 569 Vernadsky, G. 576 Vernant, J.P. 277 Versnel, H.S. 103, 218, 279, 535, 55557 Verstegen, U. 564 Verzr Bass, M. 293, 439 Vetranius, M.M. 464 Vetter, E. 407 Veyne, P. 45962 Victorius (Vettori), P. 327 Vidman, L. 182, 274, 387 Vigourt, A. 197 Villanueva Puig, M.-C. 562 Ville, G. 38083, 45962, 47374, 484 Visconti, E.Q. 379 Vismara, C. 460 Vittinghoff, F. 442 Voci, P. 33, 279 Vssing, K. 2627, 30, 32728 Vogel, F. 324 Vogel-Weidemann, U. 378 Vogler, C. 386 Voisin, J.L. 162, 280 Volkmann, H. 438 Vollkommer, R. 343, 355, 359 Vollmer, A. 403 Volpe, R. 39698 Volterra, E. 139, 532 Vonder Mhll, F. 125 Vons, J. 343, 361 Vorberg, G. 197 Vretska, K. 31920, 324

Indices White, R.J. 197 White, S.A. 349, 358 Whitehorse, J.E.G. 21213 Whittaker, C.R. 255 Wickert, L. 496, 568 Wiedemann, T. 458 Wierzbowski, B. 279 Wiesehfer, J. 271, 352 Wightman, E.M. 246 Wikander, . 621, 624 Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, von, U. 108, 347, 361, 576 Wilcken, U. 284, 490 Wilhelm, A. 632 Wille, G. 546 Willems, P. 3738, 41, 60, 620 Williams, J. 633 Williams, M.H. 570 Willis, J. 47 Wilmanns, G. 246 Wilmanns, J.C. 24447 Wilson, L.M. 105, 107 Wilson, S.G. 617 Winkler, G. 343, 349, 352, 355, 359 Wirth, G. 85 Wirz, H. 31921 Wiseman, T.P. 3, 13, 1819, 33, 91, 99, 293, 301, 418, 495, 534, 621, 625 Wissowa, G. 29, 99, 102, 109, 11213, 362, 458, 485, 487, 492, 5013, 507, 510, 520, 527, 53738, 547, 585, 59192, 595 Wistrand, E. 15758 Witschel, C. 429 Wittfogel, K. 290 Wittmann, R. 611 Wlfflin, E. 9596 Wohlmayr, W. 428 Wojaczek, G. 48283 Wolff, C. 187 Wood, G.S. 580, 583 Worp, K.A. 268 Wright, W.C. 587 Wroth, W. 132 Wlker, L. 258 Wuensch (Wnsch), R. 2089, 211, 363, 515 Wuilleumier, P. 487 Wunderlich, E. 107, 542 Y Yakobson, A. 613 Yilmaz, S. 459 Z Zaccaria, C. 475 Zaccaria, R. 242 ZaccariaRuggiu, A. 27, 30 Zack, A. 46 Zajac, J. 411 Zamboni, A. 475 Zanda, E. 42021, 44348 Zandberg, A. 614 Zangemeister, C. 247 Zanker, P. 293 Zara, G. 496 Zavaroni, A. 427 Zawadzki, T. 313 Zecchini, G. 636 Zehnacker, H. 601 Ze lazowski, J. 226, 24345 Zennari, J. 45657 Zerbini, L. 455, 627 Zetzel, J.E.G. 210 Zgusta, L 265, 27576 Ziegler, K. 129, 147 Ziegler, K.-H. 41 Zielinski, T. 57677 Ziethen, G. 41 Zimmer, G. 369, 373, 376 Zimmer, S. 266 Zimmermann, M. 24546, 255, 257 Zikowski, A. 398, 594 Zikowski, M. 164 Zmigryder-Konopka, Z. 113 Zorzetti, N. 527 Zovato, P.L. 493 Zubar, V.M. 54143 Zucchelli, B. 549 Zuccotti, F. 631 Zuev, V. 577 Zumpt, A.W. 128, 139, 310 Zumpt, C.T. (= K.G.) 124 Zwierlein-Diehl, E. 165, 170

661

662

Indices

II. Ancient Sources 1. Auctores

Accius Brutus 1738 (Warmington 2.56062): 32 Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. I. Endt) 2.473: 149 3.23: 143 6.62: 151 6.310: 151, 160 6.778: 151, 160 7.223: 151 10.78: 143 Adomnn Vita Sancti Columbae (ed. A.O and M.O. Anderson) 1.25: 21415 Aelianus Historia Animalium 2.21: 161 5.48: 162 6.21: 16162 Aeschylus Persae 304: 265 Aesopica Vita Aesopi G 16 (p. 40, lines 1112 Perry): 196 Vita Aesopi W 1 (p. 81, line 4 Perry): 196 Vita Planudea vel Accursiana, p. 228, line 3 Eberhard: 196 Afranius Comica (ed. O. Ribbeck2) 92: 46 Alciphron 2.17 (= 3.20): 350 Ammianus Marcellinus 18.6.13: 92 20.9.5: 204 23.1.4: 204 25.2.3: 113 25.6.14: 92 26.5.2: 204 Ampelius 24: 151, 174 38: 151 Anastasius bibliothecarius Sancta synodus octava, PL 129, p. 175A: 212 Anthologia Latina (ed. A. Riese) 490a.12: 362 Appianus Bellum Civile 1.(14).58(16).67: 89 1.(16).6870: 9193, 11314 2.(3).19: 622 2.24: 150 2.87: 133, 150 2.(24).89: 396 2.95: 150 2.96: 162, 230 2.1001: 150 2.(40).162: 241 2.(41).165: 241 4.45: 315 Iberike 44: 55 89: 172 Syriake 17: 79, 82 21: 80 23: 80 6768: 250 Apuleius Apologia (ed. R. Helm; page, line) 22.7 (p. 26.16): 98 76 (p. 85.7): 321 Florida 14.6: 197 18.4: 349 de Genio Socratis 1.15: 207 Metamorphoses (ed. R. Helm; page, line) 1.12 (p. 11): 346 3.15 (p. 63.2): 479 6.24: 26 7.18.5 (p. 176.4): 479 10.16: 26 11.8.3: 473

Indices Arnobius adversus (Gentes) Nationes 2.42: 546 6.2: 484 Arrianus Periplus 11: 26364, 27576 Artemidorus Oneirokritika (ed. R.A. Pack) 1.4950: 197 1.78: 336 1.79: 514 1.92: 197 2.3340: 514 3.45: 197 3.55: 349 4.9: 336 Asconius (ed. A. Clark, page, line) 3.712 (in Pis.): 434 7 (in Pis.): 31, 108109 19.1115 (in Scaur.): 177, 396 21.8 (in Scaur.): 426 23.3 (in Scaur.): 204 30.8 (in Mil.): 141 31.1011 (in Mil.): 135 34.22 (in Mil.): 141 5253 (in Mil.): 533 55.15 (in. Mil.): 195 60.21 (in Corn.): 134 74.518 (in Corn.): 133 76.2627 (in Corn.): 627 77 (in Corn.): 113 79.1620 (in Corn.): 135 79.2223 (in Corn.): 134 Athenaeus 1.19.ab: 348 1.19af: 351 12.547d548b: 34849, 351 Augustinus de Civitate Dei 6.4: 506, 558, 596 6.9: 559 19.1: 558 contra Gaudentium 1.38: 546 de Musica 3.1: 546 Aurelius Victor 35.7: 204 41.24: 204 Ausonius Gratiarum Actio 3.13: 282, 614 5.24: 204 6.27: 204 Caesar Bellum Civile 1.4.2: 160 1.4.3: 152 1.6.5: 131 1.6.57: 152 1.12: 400 1.15.12: 399 1.15.37: 241 1.1516: 400 1.17.2: 240 1.17.223.5: 240 1.1819: 400 1.2122: 400 1.25.2: 240 1.27: 400 1.30.2: 240 1.30.531.1: 241 1.85.9: 153 2.3: 241 2.1821: 235 2.23.1: 240 2.28: 240 3.2: 230 3.6.2: 230 3.28: 231 3.29.23: 230 3.3133: 131 3.34.2: 230 3.36: 172 3.50.1: 247 3.87.34: 231 3.89.3: 238 3.99.4: 238 3.101.3: 229 3.101.6: 231 Bellum Gallicum 1.1728: 83 1.23.3: 190 2.6.3: 236 2.1213, 15: 83 4.16.5: 251

663

664
4.19.4: 4.21.6: 5.49.6: 7.4.7: 251 157 252 236

Indices 11.36: 214 12.18: 330 12.26: 433 Cassius Dio 19.19: 80 19.21: 8283 36.40.35: 125, 128 36.40.5: 122 36.4041: 126 36.54: 264 38.13.34: 10 40 (index): 13435 40.45.1: 622 40.51.2: 150 40.51.3: 13435 41.41.1: 241 42.57.5: 159 42.58.1: 159 42.58.3: 159 43.4.56: 156 43.12.3: 159 43.33.434.13: 200 46.38.12: 116 48.18.12: 390 50.211: 616 51.20.68: 393 53.20.1: 63940 55.13.1: 630 56.24.4: 260 56.29.3: 260 56.32.4: 389, 631 58.5.7: 1617 60 [61].33.22: 260 62.26.34: 465, 47172, 490 69.15.12: 274 69.15.3: 27475 73.3.1: 454 73.21.3: 258 73.22: 473 73.24.13: 258 75 [76].4.6: 260 76.4.6: 258 Cato de Agri Cultura 14.2: 341 ad Marcum Filium (ed. H. Jordan) p. 77: 286 p. 80: 49 Orationes (ORF4, ed. H. Malcovati) fr. 5862: 78 fr. 59: 95

[Caesar] Bellum Africum 1: 232 2: 236 4: 156 28: 156, 229, 232, 23839 32: 171 35: 171 4445: 156, 158 55: 232 56: 171 57: 156 61: 158 81: 230 8283: 157 84: 162, 230 86: 158, 162 8889: 159, 174 96: 173 Bellum Alexandrinum 26.2: 255 44: 231 4865: 234 53.5: 235 54.3: 235 57.1: 235 61.1: 235 77.2: 234 78.3: 235 Bellum Hispaniense 17.23: 261 19: 200 19.4: 261 20: 235 2526: 21920 Calpurnius Flaccus Declamationum excerpta 24: 526, 542 Carmina Salisburgensia (ed. E. Duemmler) 10.43: 363 10.47: 363 11.2124: 363 Cassiodorus Varia 1.36: 422

Indices fr. 66: 80 fr. 128: 419 fr. 130: 47, 78 fr. 135: 78 fr. 147: 78 fr. 148: 75 fr. 149: 76 fr. 150: 86 fr. 17375: 307 fr. 17781: 78 Origines (HRR2, ed. H. Peter) fr. 21: 46 fr. 22: 47 fr. 86: 27 fr. 124: 47 Catullus 52: 615 116.7: 92 Charisius (ed. C. Barwick; H. Keil) 79.1329 B.: 344 156 B. = 122 K.: 13 160.37 B. = 12526 K.: 465 162.611 B.: 345 246 B. = 190 K.: 25 25556 B. = 196 K.: 9596 260 B. = 200 K.: 2021, 2328 Cicero de Amicitia 64: 261 ad Atticum 1.13.3: 534 ` 1.14.4: 134 1.14.5: 489 1.17.8: 318 2.1.9: 137, 141 3.23.2: 309 4.1.4: 629 4.2.4: 531 4.3.3: 238 4.5.2: 176 4.9.1: 518 4.15.4: 615 4.17.2: 182 4.17.4: 519 5.10.2: 30910, 313 5.16.3: 308, 310, 31415, 317 5.17.2: 307, 310 5.20.4: 131 5.20.6: 317 5.21.5: 30911, 315 5.21.7: 311 6.1.5: 247 6.1.13: 632 6.1.1718: 14243, 14546, 150 7.7.6: 175 8.12A.1: 240 8.12A.2: 251 8.15.3: 155 9.1.4: 131 9.11.4: 159 10.4.810: 241 10.12.2: 241 10.16.3: 241 11.9.3: 629 11.15.1: 152 11.20.2: 238 11.21.2: 23839 11.22.2: 229, 23839, 318 13.52: 311 14.11.2: 440 16.11.2: 142 pro Balbo 21: 191 Brutus 56: 100 95: 622 106: 28 107: 101 212: 101, 151, 147 213: 152 262: 28 ad Brutum 1.15.8: 629 pro Caecina 36: 246 in Catilinam 1.9: 620 1.32: 237, 256 3.18: 260 4.21: 251 pro Cluentio 46: 425 49: 425 56: 425 116: 121 Divinatio in Q. Caecilium 55: 546 de Divinatione 1.12: 9, 17, 170 1.1820: 260 1.27: 531 1.28: 530 1.31: 5

665

666
1.4445: 32 1.51: 251, 254 1.85: 17, 170 1.92: 432 1.98: 334 1.101: 6 1.104: 15 1.1078: 34 1.118: 529 1.124: 13 1.132: 7 2.7: 253 2.1011: 507 2.3536: 529 2.42: 517, 531, 539 2.43: 38, 539 2.50: 8 2.69: 6 2.70: 11 2.71: 16, 170 2.72: 16, 170, 531 2.73: 170, 531532 2.74: 170, 503, 517, 519, 539 de Domo 35: 611 38: 135 40: 503 123: 150 124: 104 Epistularun fragmenta (ed. W.S. Watt) fr.2.5 (p. 153): 158 ad Familiares 1.4.3: 426 2.17.1: 375 2.19.2: 375 3.2.1: 153 4.5: 175 5.16: 237 6.3: 432 7.1.12: 459 7.23.2: 142 8.1.4: 146 8.8.56: 13738, 141, 382 8.8.8: 154 8.14: 176 9.7.12: 159 9.18.1: 174 9.22.12: 301 10.11.2: 250 10.12.3: 38 11.14.3: 629 12.2.1: 142

Indices de Fato 8: 550 de Finibus 2.58: 417 pro Fonteio 46: 250 de Haruspicum Responso 12: 141 21: 531 37: 534 48: 503 de Imperio Cn. Pompei 20: 251 29: 172 35: 50 37: 205 4748: 158 de Lege Agraria 2.24: 611 2.26: 155 de Legibus 1.6: 28 1.109: 101 2.2021: 45, 432, 539 2.32: 10 2.33: 531 2.4749: 140 3.6: 233 3.7: 76 pro Ligario 1: 247 pro Milone 55: 54546 pro Murena 27: 139 42: 121 4647: 39 51: 39 de Natura Deorum 1.45: 426 1.79: 489 2.9: 531 de Officiis 1.109: 101 3.66: 45 de Oratore 1.37: 29 2.53: 29 2.159: 28 2.239: 196 2.268: 78 3.92: 374 5.19: 142

Indices Philippicae Orationes 2.59: 158, 238 2.81: 521 2.109: 142 3.8: 255 3.26: 238 4.45: 256 5.20: 44 5.51: 250 11.38: 251 13.19: 150 14.1112: 116 14.14: 124 14.2229: 116 14.3638: 116 in Pisonem 8: 109 3839: 117 44: 11617 5455: 116 83: 546 88: 205 de Provinciis Consularibus 15: 117 25: 117 ad Quintum Fratrem 1.1.9: 311 1.1.13: 318 3.3.2: 519 pro Rabirio 22: 399 29: 252 de Re Publica 1.58: 29 2.18: 29 2.20: 29 4.12: 281 6.18: 552 post Reditum ad Quirites 20: 251 de Senectute 4446: 23 pro Sestio 33: 517 71: 116 124: 141 129: 282 131: 629 Topica 90: 163 Tusculanae Disputationes 1.3: 76 2.38: 176 4.51: 91, 97, 101 5.77: 489 in Vatinium 5: 233 11: 233 28: 144 in Verrem II.1.35: 233 II.1.57: 125 II.1.104: 336 II.1.114: 309 II.1.117: 309 II.2.24: 247 II.3.202: 233 II.4.62: 24 II.4.147: 124 II.5.36: 32 II.5.40: 447 II.5.45: 315 II.5.64: 546 II.5.73: 546 [Cicero] Epistula ad Octavianum 7: 250 Claudianus Mamertus de Statu Animae 2.8: 506, 558

667

Claudius Claudianus de Bello Gothico 555: 455 Carmina Minora 26.75: 484 Panegyricus de Quarto Consulatu Honorii 15455: 204 de Sexto Consulatu Honorii 62139: 485 Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata 4.122.4: 353 Codex Iustinianus 12.52 [53].1: 188 Codex Theodosianus 6.22.5: 205 8.7.8: 188 8.15.5.1: 188 Columella de Re Rustica 1. praef. 12: 323 1.5.7: 317

668
7.5.15: 214 7.5.20: 214 7.6.8: 323 8.10: 328 10.182: 142 Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 10, p. 911.1115: 339 Commodianus Instructiones 1.15.5: 526

Indices 49.15.24: 255 49.16.4.pr.: 129 49.16.5: 256 50.16.118: 255 Diodorus 3.37.9: 161 8.5: 15 20.1.2: 40 29.4: 80 29.9: 81 34/35.7.2: 101 36.9.1: 127 37.2.1314: 391 Diogenes Laertius 2.43: 355 6.22: 355 Dionysius Halicarnassensis Antiquitates Romanae 1.86.14: 4, 15 2.5.12: 169 2.5.24: 17 2.5.5: 10 2.6.12: 16970 3.2: 47 4.4548: 278 10.36.339.4: 219 12.16.2223: 99 16.4: 200 Dioscorides Pedanius De Materia Medica 4.68: 545 Domitius Marsus fr. 7 (Fogazza) = fr. 4 (Courtney): 198 Donatus Commentum Terenti (ed. P. Wessner) Adelphoe 981 (p. 183): 28 Hecyra prol. 2 (p. 193): 523 910: 48 441: 95 Phormio 48: 628 338: 22 Vita Vergilii 6: 628

Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum (ed. G. Goetz) 2.398.45: 308 6.16566: 218 6.481: 218 7.51: 419 7.262: 308 7.608: 308 Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum 1, p. 19 (Zenob. Cent. 1.49): 339 1, p. 183 (Diogen. Cent. 1.14): 339 Curtius Rufus 4.6.14: 255 5.1.20: 233 5.5.2: 233 6.2.10: 233 6.11.6: 233 6.11.32: 233 Demosthenes 34.39: 355 Dictys Cretensis 1.412: 40 6.5: 346 Digesta 1.15.3: 340 7.1.27.3: 317 8.2.6: 340 8.2.16: 340 9.22.1: 546 10.3.9.pr.: 27 10.4: 26 10.4.19: 27 13.5.6.7: 479 16.3.1.35: 233 40.2.7: 317 47.11.7: 340 48.13.2.pr.: 233

Indices Ennius Annales 20 Vahlen = 17 Skutsch: 45 7796 = 7291: 319 8486 = 7981: 306 207 = 202: 44 582 = 593: 44 Scaenica 306 Vahlen = 258 Jocelyn: 44 Ennodius Epistulae 56 = 2.19: 324 Epicedium Drusi 142: 112 Eudoxos fr. 1 (PCG V, p. 274): 350 Eusebius de Laudibus Constantini 6.18: 490 Vita Constantini 4.40.2: 490 4.45.3: 490 4.47: 490 Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam 11.590: 339 Eutropius 6.18: 621 6.23: 149 (Iulius) Exuperantius (ed. N. Zorzetti) 3: 527 Festus (and Paulus) de Verborum Significatu (ed. W.M. Lindsay) 15: 18 16.23: 346 23.2021: 218 37: 17 39: 464 41.23: 218 49: 627 67: 18 71: 188 75: 560 82: 539 85.12: 218 111: 366 143: 109 146: 410 158: 279 182: 80 190: 539 19697: 4547, 78 200: 113 202: 5 204.1718: 426 21819: 45, 78 224: 15 232: 537 232.1012: 467 247: 278 257: 96 268: 519 274: 5 27476: 467, 537 31617: 10 320.23: 218 336: 528 345: 18 356: 86 358: 538, 542 422: 114 424: 102 440: 252 446: 521 454: 17, 513 474: 16, 99 484/86: 98 Firmicus Maternus Mathesis 3.26: 214 Florus 1.31.12: 159 1.38.14: 456 2.13.6568: 151 2.13.68: 173 2.15.4: 252 2.21.23: 33435 Fragmenta Bobiensia ad Grammaticam Pertinentia Grammatici Latini VIII.544.33: 549 Frontinus Strategemata 1.9.1: 311 2.7.14: 6667, 82, 85 2.8: 255

669

670
3.14.1: 3.17.4: 3.18.3: 4.1.8: 4.5.6: 4.7.26: 200 252 255 204 255 252

Indices 10.24.67: 27 10.27.35: 173 11.14: 2223 14.7.7: 11 14.7.9: 38 15.4.3: 197 16.13.5: 626 17.11.2: 210 Glossaria Latina (volume, page) 4.(Festus) 216: 218 4.298: 45, 78 4.413: 114 C. Gracchus Orationes (ORF2, ed. H. Malcovati) fr. 118: 95 Gromatici veteres (ed. C. Lachmann; ed. C. Thulin) I.146 L. = 110 T.: 495 I.165: 314 I.198.24 = 161.2124 : 387 I.230: 425 I.240: 419 I.258: 419 Helvius Cinna fr. 1 (FPL, ed. MorelBuechner): 628 Herodianus 1.10: 25556 1.14.1: 258 Hesychius (ed. K. Latte) A 1231: 338 E 7096: 477 Hieronymus Epistulae 107.2: 561 in Zachariam 2.12: 479 Historia Apollonii Regis Tyrii 14: 27 Historia Augusta 1 (Hadrianus) 4.2: 377 13.9: 274 17.1012: 274 21.13: 274 26.610: 630

Fronto (ed. Van Den Hout 1988; page, line) 106.67: 274 111: 419 128.1014: 204 154: 350 174.57: 2045 207: 416 207.2022: 2001 208.14: 2001 208 23: 186 Fulgentius Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum 5: 219 6: 486 Furius Bibaculus frg. 3 (ed. E. Courtney): 198 Gaius Institutiones 1.20: 317 1.99: 139 1.111: 139 1.114: 139 1.122: 457 1.134: 139 1.136: 139 3.212: 546 4.62: 26 Galenus (ed. K.G. Khn) XIV, p. 212 : 485 Gellius Noctes Atticae 2.11: 218 5.6.8: 249 5.6.10: 251 5.6.24: 75 7.6.3: 15 7.6.10: 45 7.9: 25, 28 9.13.7: 219 9.13.19: 219 10.15.16: 100

Indices 3 (Antoninus Pius) 5.3: 205 9.6: 274 4 (Marcus Aurelius) 2.5: 204 9.6: 274 15: 205 5 (Verus) 5.23: 484 7 (Commodus) 13: 247 13.5: 257 15.8: 473 16.17: 258 16.2: 258 8 (Pertinax) 1.1: 454 5: 454 11 (Pescennius Niger) 3.35: 256 13 (Caracalla) 6.6: 630 18 (Alexander Severus) 15.1: 204 21.8: 2045 19 (Maximini Duo) 23: 228 2.4: 202 5.5: 204 21 (Maximus et Balbinus) 2.11: 256 23 (Gallienus) 8.3: 473 25 (Claudius) 13.58: 228 26 (Aurelianus) 15.4: 380 35.4: 251 28 (Probus) 5: 228 29 (Quadrigae Tyrannorum) 12: 385 Homerus Ilias 3.2056: 40 11.13842: 40 Horatius Carmina 1.2.2324: 325 1.4.18: 22 1.37.910: 333 1.37.1213: 333, 335 1.37.21: 332 3.3.1921: 335 3.6.4648: 320, 325 3.10.18: 162 3.17.1416: 362 3.29.2933: 589 4.4.2: 17 Epistulae 1.17.43: 22 2.1.7071: 192 2.2.156: 286 2.2.210: 628 2.15.4041: 329 Saturae 1.5.3436: 108 1.5.4546: 311 1.5.72: 329 1.10.18: 19295 2.2.74: 329 2.3.16465: 362 2.5.1011: 329 2.7.4750: 198 Hyginus De munitione castrorum 11: 237 Ioannes Chrysostomus ad Illuminandos Catecheses 2.5: 336 in Matthaeum Homilia 28.2: 336 Iosephus Antiquitates Iudaicae 14.125: 151 14.140: 151 17.2425: 567 Bellum Iudaicum 1.98: 567 1.185: 151 1.195: 151 4.501: 526 7.14: 223 Contra Apionem 2.50: 78 Isidorus Etymologiae 8.7.67: 354 15.8.16: 211 Iulianus Caesares 329d: 339

671

672
Iustinus 1.1.1: 203 4.4.9: 251 11.5.1: 204 11.6.1213: 146 13.4.10: 205 14.6.3: 251 15.1.2: 251 29.1.5: 333 38.9.4: 250 39.1.1: 250 Iuvenalis 1.136: 22 3.37: 461 3.27071: 338 5.14: 22 6.41415: 194 7.45: 22 8.1: 122 8.20: 122 8.75: 122 8.8788: 122 8.179: 122 12.1: 628 14.96101: 568 C. Licinius Macer (HRR2, ed. H. Peter) fr. 6: 5 Livius 1.4.9: 489 1.7.1: 19 1.7.2: 549 1.15.5: 49 1.18.610: 12 1.19.7: 517 1.22.37: 47 1.24.8: 549 1.26.4: 549 1.32.514: 46 1.32.6: 388 1.38.2: 49 1.5052: 278 1.56.910: 528 2.13.7: 49 2.30.8: 49 2.32.8: 49 2.39.10: 49 3.510: 258 3.5.14: 258 3.1018: 259 3.10.67: 259

Indices 3.54.5: 113 4.30.910: 640 5.15.3: 49 5.15.12: 49 5.16.1: 49 5.16.8: 49 5.18.12: 556 5.27.1112: 51 6.1.6: 40, 49 6.21.6: 50 6.26.2: 50 6.41.6: 11 7.3.67: 627 7.10.11: 219 7.17.11: 283 7.22.5: 51 7.26.45: 16 7.3437: 254 7.34.12: 251 8.30.1: 13 8.32.4,7: 13 8.34.4: 13 8.36.12: 53 9.32.2: 252 9.43.21: 49 9.45.18: 49 9.46.112: 26 10.2.1415: 471 10.5.12: 52 10.7.10: 99, 164 10.9.14: 377 10.11.11: 4849 10.19.9: 49 10.37.5: 49, 52 10.37.15: 542 10.40: 14, 170 10.44.35: 216 10.44.5: 184, 199 21.12.4: 48 21.13.2: 48 21.18.114: 40 21.24.3: 48 21.34.2: 48 22.1.12: 259 22.10.3: 96 22.25.89: 252 22.35: 283 22.35.7: 632 22.58.9: 59 23.37.10: 249 23.49.12: 250 24.18.9: 187 24.25.58: 250

Indices 24.33.5: 49 25.1.12: 7 25.16.21: 92 25.2931: 60 25.29.1: 49 25.31.27: 49 25.31.8: 233 26.14: 60 26.8.5: 249 26.12.13: 255 26.27.10: 52 26.27.1016: 60 26.3032: 60 26.33.1: 60 28.11.3: 426 28.17.7: 49 29.15.12,15: 48, 50 30.7.6: 255 30.9.4: 249 30.16.3: 49 30.21.1112: 53 30.23.6: 53 30.25.9: 53 30.26.10: 87 30.27.1112: 526, 542 30.30.17: 50 30.38.4: 53 30.40.1: 53 31.11.4: 249 31.12.4: 259 31.12.7: 96 31.21.2: 249 31.28.1: 79 31.48.11: 249 32.5.7: 49 32.9.3: 259 32.16.14: 49 32.17.1: 49 32.25.1: 249 32.36.310: 5253 33.13.14: 52 33.23.1: 250 33.24.37: 52 33.29.11: 50 33.38.17: 56 34.5.6: 49 34.7.23: 1089 34.40.2: 4849 34.57.3: 58 34.58.1112: 261 34.59.4: 58 34.59.6: 50 35.11.13: 252 35.47.58: 79 35.51.6: 49 36.9.1: 79 36.9.11: 255 36.1314: 82 36.14.9: 79 36.1718: 79 36.21.411: 79 36.21.5: 82 36.22.14: 63 36.25.5: 249 36.2729: 79 36.27.2: 49 36.30: 79 36.3435: 79 36.35.5: 49, 52, 79 36.53.5: 48 37.1.16: 52, 60, 80 37.1.5: 80 37.2.78: 80 37.4.67.7: 80 37.6.47: 51 37.6.5: 50 37.7.15: 51 37.8.4: 321 37.21.4: 249 37.26.9: 49 37.28.1: 50 37.45..5: 50 37.46.16: 80 37.47.6: 81 37.47.7: 85 37.4849: 47, 81 37.48.5: 80 37.49.18: 51, 81 37.49.8: 53, 81 37.4950: 43 37.50.18: 66 37.50.6: 81 37.52.3: 249 37.53.17: 249 37.57.758.4: 81 37.57.958.1: 80 38.13: 81 38.111: 47 38.3.1: 83 38.3.78: 52, 82, 85 38.47: 83 38.8.1,5: 70 38.89: 83 38.8.910: 68 38.9.3: 50, 73, 83 38.9.4: 83

673

674
38.9.7: 84 38.9.8: 53 38.9.911: 84 38.9.1314: 8586 38.10.111: 84 38.10.2: 5253 38.10.3: 50 38.11: 84 38.25.19: 4041 38.25.1,3: 50 38.35.1: 85 38.35.3: 84 38.37.8: 50 38.42.813: 74 38.4344.13: 74, 82 38.43.2: 85 38.43.11: 85 38.44.36: 8586 38.44.6: 75, 82 38.56.5: 87 39.45: 86 39.4.910: 83 39.4.1213: 86 39.5.7: 86 39.5.17: 76 39.16.8: 7 39.23.3: 398 39.28.14: 50 39.35.3: 50 39.40.5: 204 39.4041.4: 87 40.25.8: 250 40.29: 7 40.35.37: 78 40.36.15: 78 40.38.4: 50 40.43.4: 612 40.46.14: 85 40.49.4: 50 40.51.7: 86 41.8.5: 78 41.18.14: 170 41.19.5: 50 41.27.3: 468 42.14.2: 50 42.24.2: 50 42.36.8: 52 42.56.5: 247 43.13.3: 259 43.17.9: 50 44.14.7: 50 44.21.2: 623 44.45.2: 50

Indices 45.11: 252 45.13.4: 252 45.23.11: 49 45.24.5: 50 45.44.421: 43, 60 Livius Periochae 38: 86 48: 50 55: 97 107: 151 111: 250 11314: 15051, 173 114: 173 119: 250 Livius Andronicus Odissia fr. 17 (Warmington): 344 Lucanus 1.12628: 158 1.670: 178 2.33940: 323 2.473: 151 4.59394: 323 6.311: 151 6.78889: 151, 158, 160 7.223: 151 8.89: 158 8.410: 142 9.277: 142 10.5560: 333 10.60: 332 10.62: 333 10.6978: 33334 10.35760: 334 10.48991: 255 Lucianus Alexander 50: 344 de Morte Peregrini 21: 632 24: 632 Lucilius 1217 Marx = 1418 Krenkel: 28 39495 = 41213: 78 1347 = 1375: 28 Lucretius 2.60060: 589

Indices 2.115052: 322 3.960: 436 5.48: 324 5.14667: 513 Lydus, Johannes de Magistratibus 2.14: 212, 214 3.3: 2078 de Mensibus 4.158: 363 Lysias fr. 17 (Thalheim): 350 Macarius Homiliae Spirituales 12.2: 336 Macrobius Saturnalia 1.7.3435: 32 1.14.5: 47 1.16.8: 531 1.16.19: 518 2.1.110: 2223 2.4.28: 546 2.6.4: 196 3.5.5: 527 3.6.17: 99 3.13.12: 327 5.2.10: 344 6.7.3: 194 Somnium Scipionis 1.4.2: 147 Manilius 4.664: 162 4.666: 162 4.82528: 322 5.16571: 348 5.54041: 325 Martialis Epigrammata 1.112: 22 2.68: 22 3.7.5: 22 5.12: 475 5.28.3: 295 6.61.34: 549 9.59.11: 625 11.18: 338 12.48.1516: 22 13.51: 329 13.92: 329 14.1.7: 24 14.71: 362 de Spectaculis 29.28: 484 Martianus Capella 1.4561: 507 2.177: 507 7.738: 207 Mela 1.114: 187 2.177: 447

675

Meleager of Gadara The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams (ed. A.S.F. Gow and D.L. Page) 1.215.4748: 590 Memnon 3536 = 5152 = FGrHist. 3B.36264: 115 39 = 59 = FGrHist. 3B.366: 115, 12526 Minucius Felix Octavius 26.1: 634 de Miraculis Sancti Stephani promartyris 1.14 (PL 41, p. 841): 629 Naevius Bellum Punicum fr. 25 Strzelecki = fr. 24 Warmington: 5 (Cornelius) Nepos Atticus 18.4: 14349 Vitae Epaminondas 7.2: 250 Pelopidas 3.3: 251 Timoleon 5.1: 629 Timotheus 1.3: 251 Nonius (ed. W.M. Lindsay) 845: 559 848: 173, 559 850: 46, 78 86768: 106 Notitia Dignitatum Occ. 42: 444

676
Obsequens 1415: 259 20: 25859 38: 259 51: 260 Orosius 2.12.2: 258 4.13.12: 259 4.13.14: 259 5.9.1: 114 6.16.34: 151 Ovidius Amores 2.16.38: 371 3.2.1: 482 Ars Amatoria 1.595: 548 Epistulae ex Ponto 4.13.4547: 550 Fasti 1.59394: 128 3.130: 190 4.721: 468 4.73134: 467 4.80149: 4 4.8056: 468 4.817: 19 6.23537: 467 6.23940: 467 6.375: 5 Heroides 20.205: 482 Metamorphoses 10.48889: 372 ex Ponto 4.10.13: 346 4.13.47: 346 4.16.21: 129 Tristia 4.10.4748: 122

Indices Paulus Diaconus Historia Langobardorum 2.9: 434 2.14: 434 3.16: 268 5.37: 444 5.59: 444 6.58: 444 Pausanias Graeciae Descriptio 6.3.6: 354 6.9.4: 354 Persius 2.70: 550 3.1114: 210 4.910: 484 4.3341: 197 5.30: 107 5.33: 105 Petronius Satyricon 18.5: 546 24.4: 198 28.5: 546 30.9: 457 38.15: 27 47.10: 503 50.7: 625 58.12: 109 69.7: 329 80.2: 92 85.1: 310 105.4: 194 Phaedrus Fabulae 1.26.12: 550 4.2.1019: 548 Appendix Fabularum 13 [15].6: 233 Philostratus Vita Apollonii 7.32: 339 Vitae Sophistarum 534: 311 Phrynichus Praeparatio Sophistica (ed. J. de Borries) p. 79: 355

Pacuvius Inc. fab. 1112 Warmington: 344 Trag. 186 Ribbeck2 = 190 Warmington: 92 Palladius de Agricultura 4.15.2: 211 Panegyrici Latini (ed. R.A.B. Mynors) III (XI).22.3: 324

Indices (L. Calpurnius) Piso fr. 7 Peter (= 14 Forsythe = 9 BeckWalter): 24 fr. 8 Peter (= 13 = 10): 23 fr. 27 Peter (= 37 = 30): 25 Plato Nomoi 935d: 355 Phaedrus 276b: 339 Plautus Asinaria 25961: 170 589: 479 919: 22 Bacchides 976: 139 Captivi 92: 22 Casina 781: 27 Cornicula(ria): 18485 Menaechmi 902: 22 Mercator 176: 44 Miles Gloriosus 179: 341 58687: 97 Rudens prol. 82: 371 660: 97 Stichus 455: 22 Plinius Maior Dubii Sermonis Libri (ed. A. Della Casa) fr. 87: 345 Naturalis Historia 2.139: 630 2.14243: 17 2.148: 258 3.27: 247 3.35: 447 3.46: 384 3.49: 409, 441, 443 3.96: 346 3.107: 377 3.113: 433 3.117: 441 3.130: 433 3.131: 441 3.138: 434 5.26: 162 5.76: 324 7.47: 325 7.54: 97 7.172: 630 8.14: 627 8.3233: 161 8.35: 161 8.36: 162 8.196: 142 8.223: 16 9.26: 310 9.103: 214 9.119: 334 9.127: 109 9.130: 214 9.171: 613 10.52: 143 10.60: 328 10.124: 207 11.186: 511 11.202: 96 11.210: 323 13.834: 221 13.32: 225 14.55: 628 14.5966: 329 14.97: 331 16.239: 346 19.108: 330 19.119: 214 20.166: 197 21.10: 97 22.613: 254 22.7: 252 22.10: 251 22.20: 346 27.78: 21314 28.17: 8 29.54: 173 33.2932: 615 33.3738: 220 34.1112: 197 34.32: 249 34.64: 146 34.98: 106 35.7: 148 35.8: 159 35.24: 330 35.26: 330 35.87: 374 35.100: 343 35.132: 346

677

678
35.138: 35.140: 35.141: 35.147: 358 353 346 342, 346

Indices 53.1: 151 55.1: 151 Cato Maior 12.35: 82 14: 82 16.36: 87 Cato Minor 7: 136 7.1: 134, 143 14: 82 18.34: 134 46.7: 620 47.1: 151 53: 241 5658: 151 57: 156, 174 60.3: 151 62.1: 151 Cicero 14.56: 39 15.1: 134, 143 15.3: 39 16.3: 39 1920: 534 28: 534 Comparatio Agesilai et Pompei 4.7: 151 Coriolanus 18.6: 91 Crassus 13.3: 134 Ti. Gracchus 15: 555 1619: 89 19.36: 91 19.3: 91, 113 19.4: 92, 114 19.6: 101 21.3: 93 Marcellus 6.1: 283 Marius 25.5: 456 Numa 7.13: 5, 12 Pompeius 55.1: 142 55.4: 151 62.2: 131, 151 66.5: 151 67.5: 151 Pyrrhus 19.5: 43

Plinius Minor Epistulae 2.17.1316: 341 3.5.20: 486 3.9: 439 3.20: 437, 439 4.11: 439 4.25: 437 5.6.1923: 341 6.21: 322 7.22: 439 8.12: 439 8.18.5: 295 9.14.2: 204 9.33.10: 310 10.13: 204 10.7778: 312, 318 10.81.1: 310 Panegyricus 10.4: 204 15.4: 311 20.34: 31112, 316 45.4: 204 46.8: 204 81.2: 252 Plutarchus Moralia 560c: 339 839c: 355 Quaestiones Convivales 1.4 = 62224b: 2223 Quaestiones Romanae 1011: 99 20: 535 55: 547 Vitae Alexander 39.3: 348 73.4: 348 Caesar 910: 534 30.23: 151 39.7: 151 42.1: 151 44.2: 151 52.23: 159

Indices Sertorius 2: 416 Romulus 9.5: 4, 15 21.45: 560 Pollux Onomasticon 1.14247: 47578 1.146: 470 Polybius 6.12.2: 42 6.13.69: 42 6.39: 219 6.39.3: 185 12.25a.3: 40 18.910: 52 18.10.8: 53 18.37: 44 18.42.16: 5253 20.910: 79 21.2: 80 21.45: 80 21.5.1: 64 21.5.712: 51 21.13.15: 56 21.17.9: 53 21.25.1011: 82 21.2526: 47, 52, 81 21.26.2: 82 21.26.719: 72, 8283 21.26.17: 70 21.2728: 83 21.2932: 47, 83 21.29.1: 71 21.29.4: 83 21.29.14: 84 21.30.15: 84 21.30.616: 8486 21.30.14: 53 21.3132: 84 21.31.12: 53 21.32.13: 84 30.18: 43 30.23.3: 60 33.11.67: 78 Porphyrio Commentum in Horatium (ed. A. Holder) Carmina 1.2.2324: 325 1.4.18: 22 1.37.910: 333 1.37.1213: 335 1.37.21: 332 Epistulae 1.17.43: 22 2.1.48: 627 Saturae 1.6.1314: 204

679

Posidippus (ed. A. Austin and G. Bastianini) Epigrammata 27: 19 Primasius Adrumetanensis Commentum super Apocalypsin Joannis 5.18: 547 Priscianus de Figuris Numerorum, GL III, p.414, line 29: 205 Institutiones Grammaticae, GL II, pp. 20910: 344 de Laude Anastasii 23944 (= PLM 5.272, ed. Ae. Baehrens): 205 Propertius 1.7.26: 122 1.9.915: 122 1.12: 129 1.22: 600 1.22.6: 589 3.11.3132: 334 3.11.39: 334 4.4.75: 467 4.7: 600 4.11.2930: 136 4.11.46: 530 4.11.6566: 136 Prudentius Cathemerinon liber 9.20: 22 Peristephanon liber 2.525: 98 Ps.-Acro Scholia in Horatium Vetustiora (ed. O. Keller) Carmina 1.37.1: 332 1.37.910: 333 1.37.1213: 335 Saturae 2.7.4750: 198

680
Ps.-Apuleius (ed. C. Moreschini) Asclepius 22 (p. 62, lines 1112): 484

Indices 28.1: 620 3031: 39 31.5: 324 34.3: 39 53.46: 31925 Scholia Bembina (ed. J.F. Mountford) pp. 3233 (Ter. Eun. 290): 187 Scholia Bobiensia (ed. T. Stangl; page, line) 87.1419: 634 116.10: 142 137 (Sest. 124): 14142 139 (Sest. 131): 629 169.16: 151 Scholia Gronoviana (ed. T. Stangl; page, line) 291.25: 151 322.27: 151 Scholia in Iliadem (scholia vetera) 1.250: 490 Scholia in Iuvenalem (ed. P. Wessner) p. 1 (Vita Iuvenalis 4): 205 4.77: 427 Scholia in Lucani Bellum Civile. Commenta Bernensia (ed. H. Usener) 1.636: 8 2.473: 151 6.788: 151, 160 8.91: 158 Scholia in Persium (ed. O. Jahn) 1.72: 467 2.70: 550 3.1114: 210 5.33 (p. 324): 105 Scholia Platonica Phaedrus 276b: 33839 Scholia in Theocritum 15.11213: 33839 Scipio Aemilianus Orationes (ORF4, ed. H. Malcovati) fr. 19; 22: 78 Scribonius Largus Compositiones 47: 210

Ps.-Ausonius 448.2 (= Periochae Homeri 29): 334 Ps.-Plutarchus Vitae decem oratorum, Isocr. 839C: 355 Ps.-Quintilianus Declamationes Maiores 3.18: 254 15.11: 336 Declamationes Minores 340 (p. 345.1013 Ritter = 308.24 Shackleton Bailey): 107 349 (p. 374.2122 R.= 332.910 SB.): 107 377.9 (p. 420.18 = 373.22 SB.): 151, 174 Ptolemaeus Geographia 3.1.25: 433 5.11.3: 263 Quintilianus Institutio Oratoria 1.1.12: 322 1.2.18: 195 1.5.63: 34445 1.7.34: 331 3.11.23: 528 4.1.33: 247 5.11.10: 151, 174 5.13.2021: 119 10.1.98: 465 11.3.27: 197 Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.16: 28 4.68: 90, 92, 104, 108, 11314 Rufinus Aquileiensis Historia Monachorum 16: 547 Sallustius de Bello Iugurthino 89.5: 162 102.14: 52 104.2: 52 104.3: 53 104.4: 51 de Coniuratione Catilinae 17.3: 620

Indices 156: 197 202: 197 Seneca de Beneficiis 3.30.3: 204 Dialogi II de Constantia Sapientis 7.4: 92 15.1: 22 III de Ira 1.16.5: 101, 110 VII de Vita Beata 25.2: 624 IX de Tranquillitate Animi 3.3: 194 9.1: 419 Epistulae Morales 24.9: 173 24.10: 151 24.1011: 174 34.2: 194 43.3: 194 45.8: 350 51.3: 334 53.12: 92 56.10: 419 58.31: 630 71.10: 151, 174 88.30: 419 90.44: 323 102.26: 630 108.32: 375 Quaestiones Naturales 1.15.5: 258 2.47: 630 6.3.3: 258 7.20.1: 258 Tragoediae Thyestes 2829: 325 Seneca Rhetor Controversiae 1.2.5: 336 9.2.10: 110 Suasoriae 6.2: 151, 173 7.8: 150, 174 Servius (and Servius auctus) in Vergilii Aeneidos libros Commentarii 1.21: 27 2.116: 535 2.178: 11 2.512: 410 2.649: 539 2.693: 10, 17 2.699: 16 3.63: 487 3.67: 461 3.89: 10, 12 3.171: 346 3.361: 13 3.374: 10 3.407: 99 3.466: 10 3.493: 549 4.103: 557 4.161: 531 4.16667: 531 4.339: 531 5.80: 549 5.530: 8 5.396: 323 5.556: 48586 5.673: 486 5.799826: 487 6.137: 58990 6.197: 5 6.198: 4 7.168: 59 7.678: 539 8.1: 487 8.2526: 250 8.288: 99 8.552: 99100 8.662: 249 10.25: 250 10.519: 461 11.93: 112 11.97: 549 11.100: 45 11.737: 546 12.169: 109 12.259: 8 in Vergilii Bucolica (Ecl.) Commentarii 3.76: 628 9.13: 10 9.46: 485 in Vergilii Georgica Commentarii 1.31: 531 1.81: 323

681

682
Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhoneioi hypotyposeis 2.250: 350 Sidonius Apollinaris Epistulae 2.4.1: 484 9.13.4: 22 Silius Italicus 11.40: 27 15.256: 219, 221 Socrates Historia Ecclesiatica 1.58: 490 Statius Silvae 3.3.4546: 325 4.9.1719: 316 Thebais 2.306: 27 Strabo 11.501: 263 Suda (ed. A. Adler) A 517: 33839 A 807: 339 S 1719: 348 Suetonius Fragmenta p. 304 Roth = pp. 148149 Reifferscheid (fr. 112): 2021 pp. 27879 = 334 (fr. 185): 24 de Grammaticis 3.1: 195 9: 186, 19295, 19798, 200 11: 194 24.1: 205 Vitae Augustus 16: 557 25.3: 222 43.2: 202, 222 43.4: 488 52: 393 65.3: 630 66: 2034 93.5: 4 101.3: 389

Indices Caesar 35.2: 151 37.1: 151 38: 326 59: 151, 159 72: 204 73.2: 138 75.3: 159 81.4: 528 85: 280 Caligula 16.4: 468 Claudius 6: 180 21.3: 485 21.4: 30 Domitianus 18.2: 196 Galba 3: 218 3.3: 196 7.2: 316 Nero 27.3: 26 52.2: 324 Otho 8.3: 528 Tiberius 4: 150 5.2: 629 55: 204 61.5: 280 63: 528 74: 630 Titus 5: 527, 629 Vespasianus 1.3: 417 2.3: 188 5: 523 Symmachus Epistulae 2.56: 484 6.40: 629 8.74: 484 10.60: 484 Orationes 1.9: 614 4.7: 282, 614 Relationes 40: 484 42: 188

Indices Tacitus Annales 1.25.3: 237 1.44.5: 205 1.54: 180 1.73.4: 13 2.32.3: 110 2.78..34: 527 3.2.2: 11112 3.4.1: 111 3.58: 531, 636 4.16: 139 4.34.3: 151, 174 4.68.2: 261 5.9: 280 11.13: 562 11.13: 465 11.15: 432 12.28.2: 465 14.41: 123 15.816: 253 15.14.3: 253 15.73.3: 232 16.21: 463, 471 Dialogus 13.3: 465 28.2: 325 Historiae 1.57.2: 202 2.14: 52526, 528, 542 2.35: 255 2.78.34: 527 2.95: 180 3.17: 255 3.73: 255 4.37.2: 249 4.60.2: 233 4.82.1: 527 Terentius Adelphoe 72123: 247 981: 20 Andria 69697: 549 Hecyra 910: 46, 48 2528: 463 441: 95 Phormio 338: 22 Tertullianus de Ieiunio 16: 11112 ad Scapulam 2.5: 526 de Spectaculis 5: 24 12.23: 461 Testamentum Porcelli p. 269.22 (BuechelerHeraeus): 362 Themistius Orationes 34.8: 274 Theocritus 5.43: 197

683

Titinius 13839 (CRF3, ed. Ribbeck): 624 Valerius Maximus 1.1.1: 432 1.8.ext. 16: 630 2.1.1: 53031 2.7.15: 190 3.2.13: 143, 173 3.2.17: 9192, 113 3.2.23: 205 3.8.7: 151, 156, 236 3.8.78: 261 5.4.4: 122, 128 6.1.3: 623 6.1.11: 200 7.2.5: 639 7.3.9: 310, 31516 7.7.4: 323 8.5.4: 134 8.14.5: 151, 157, 217, 222, 227 9.1.8: 142, 152 9.2.4: 200 9.5.3: 150 9.12.7: 11011 9.14.3: 97 Varro de Lingua Latina 5.54: 426 5.61.34: 538 5.86: 46 5.87: 83 6.20: 537

684
6.21: 99 6.2930: 516 6.30: 13, 519, 531 6.42: 45 6.53: 13, 516 6.76: 44 6.86: 169 6.9092: 110 7.8: 12 7.41: 44 de Re Rustica 1.1: 613 1.13.7: 142 2.1.9: 301, 467 2.1.20: 415 2.10.67: 371 2.11.5: 415 3.2.13: 612 3.2.5: 622 3.2.1416: 32728 3.2.16: 143, 172 3.5.7: 328 3.9.19: 366 3.10.1: 143 3.17.3: 613 4.12: 281 Saturae Menippeae Nescis quid vesper: 23 de Vita Populi Romani in Nonius 848 Lindsay: 173, 559 in Nonius 850 L: 78 Vegetius de Re Militari 2.7: 207 3.5: 15758 Velleius Paterculus 1.11.34: 146 2.3: 9192, 11314 2.12.5: 456 2.22.2: 637 2.54.2: 151 2.61.4: 250 2.69.1: 204 2.85.4: 255 2.128.2: 204 Vergilius Aeneis 1.216: 22 1.723: 22 2.573: 333

Indices 3.9496: 321 5.545602: 481 5.557: 486 5.673: 486 5.799826: 487 6.912: 528 6.46: 372 6.9599: 528 6.119: 551 6.137: 589 6.6045: 27 6.853: 43 6.864: 321 7.16869: 59 8.2526: 250 11.93: 112 12.169: 59 Eclogae (Bucolica) 3.76: 628 4.4245: 589 Georgica 1.81: 323 2.46: 528 2.194: 484 2.394: 484 4.265: 211 Virgilius Maro Grammaticus Epitomae 4 (p. 14.3 Huemer = p. 118.2 Lfstedt): 484 de Viris Illustribus 17.1: 251 64.7: 113 67.2: 456 72.3: 186, 188, 199 73.68: 523 78.8: 151 80.3: 151 86.2: 335 Vitruvius 4.6.67: 587 Wandalbertus Prumiensis (ed. E. Duemmler) de Mensium ... nominibus 29798: 363 31318: 363 35760: 363 Zonaras (ed. L. Dindorf) 8.20: 260 9.1920: 80

Indices 9.21: 83 10.38: 260 11.10: 260 1971, 88: 279 1972, 63: 426 1972, 154: 38384 1972, 162: 378 1972, 163: 379 1972, 179: 261 1973, 22: 389 1973, 538: 20910 1974, 198: 611 1975, 52: 209 1975, 406: 386 1976, 249: 388 1976, 25253: 388 1976, 495: 226 1976, 653: 313 1977, 293: 404 1977, 584: 548 1980, 435: 431 1980, 45758: 429 1981, 691: 244 1982, 375: 422 1982, 637: 535 1983, 292: 41516 1983, 293314: 415 1983, 295: 415, 418 1983, 382: 535 1983, 776: 541 1984, 282: 39293 1984, 283: 392 1984, 292: 392 1984, 295: 394 1984, 328: 376 1984, 416: 452 1984, 707: 403 1985, 358: 408 1985, 369: 401 1985, 415: 448 1985, 829: 265 1986, 25152: 411 1987, 344: 408 1987, 413: 453 1987, 414: 448 1988, 36068: 406 1988, 361: 406 1988, 363: 407 1988, 366: 407 1988, 367: 406 1988, 47184: 415 1988, 485: 41516 1989, 20131: 415 1989, 202: 415, 418 1989, 228: 419 1989, 23760: 372

685

2. Inscriptiones
Acta Fratrum Arvalium (ed. G. Henzen) pp. CCIICCIV: 101 Alba Pompeia (ed. F. Filippi [Alba 1997]) Bolli laterizi 10: 45152 Documentazione epigrafica 32: 454 38: 454 LAnne pigraphique 1888, 12: 388 1898, 79: 392 1900, 72: 188 1913, 158: 436 1914, 25558: 403 1914, 270: 394 191718, 74: 190, 204 1922, 100: 426 1925, 14: 542 1925, 82: 396 1926, 74: 209 1927, 145: 489 1933, 107: 317 1933, 152: 407 1936, 56: 209 1937, 219: 387 1938, 14: 261 1939, 22: 387 1940, 82: 443 1947, 125: 271 1952, 156: 379 1953, 12: 261 1953, 188: 488 1956, 124: 225 1958, 313: 401 1959, 38: 274 1959, 306: 543 1960, 61: 185 1960, 63: 185 1960, 64: 232 1960, 107: 535 1961, 242: 399 1962, 183a: 204 1964, 197: 403 196970, 87: 489 196970, 583: 226 196970, 736: 436

686
1989, 245: 374 1989, 247: 374 1990, 13237: 398 1990, 201: 406 1990, 20610: 389 1990, 21316: 391 1990, 231: 370 1990, 234: 393 1990, 24771: 395 1990, 27287: 377 1990, 276: 378 1990, 278: 378 1990, 31216: 400, 408 1990, 32226: 401 1990, 324: 402 1990, 36068: 402 1990, 36978: 386 1990, 396400: 396 1990, 4019: 387 1990, 42127: 403 1990, 422: 4034 1990, 424: 4034 1990, 42932: 404 1990, 744: 261 1991, 426: 398 1991, 5047: 4067 1991, 53952: 407 1991, 543: 407 1991, 58086: 415 1991, 603: 378 1991, 61619: 408 1991, 637ae: 431 1991, 693701: 408 1991, 71525: 409 1991, 73839: 386, 402 1991, 795: 387 1991, 81830: 411 1991, 83140: 411 1991, 84345: 411 1991, 84748: 411 1991, 85054: 411 1991, 85556: 436 1992, 261: 399 1992, 31314: 370 1992, 32832: 370 1992, 33334: 392 1992, 336: 443 1992, 730: 388 1992, 74452: 411 1992, 753: 403 1993, 430: 365 1993, 468: 629 1993, 569: 370

Indices 1993, 570: 394 1993, 571: 394 1993, 82324: 442 1993, 1352: 225 1994, 62122: 369 1994, 646: 45354 1994, 647: 453 1994, 650: 386 1995, 33334: 392 1995, 42226: 377 1995, 529: 453 1995, 53537: 386 1995, 6035: 411 1995, 606: 403 1995, 608: 436 1996, 56: 454 1996, 398: 398 1996, 427: 406 1996, 515: 377 1996, 52469: 415 1996, 57987bis: 420 1996, 67476: 420 1996, 678: 453 1997, 282: 398 1997, 283: 399 1997, 534: 449 1997, 53661: 553 1997, 563: 386 1997, 721: 411 1997, 728: 436 1998, 4041: 422 1998, 295333: 425 1998, 41112: 395 1998, 419: 420 1998, 443501: 428 1998, 522: 449 1998, 523: 409 1998, 542: 422 1998, 56882: 435 1998, 59495: 411 1998, 597: 404 1998, 599615: 436 1998, 617: 436 1998, 65061: 442 1998, 1154: 541 1998, 1156: 541 1998, 1161: 542 1999, 538: 619 1999, 65155: 448 1999, 65776: 453 1999, 67778: 422 1999, 72840: 411 1999, 74144: 403

Indices 2000, 358: 406 2000, 383400: 414 2000, 55863: 428 2000, 625: 411 2000, 627: 403 2000, 1281: 543 2001, 383400: 415 2001, 987: 453 2001, 989: 384, 386 2001, 106571: 411 2001, 107383: 403 2002, 477: 408 2002, 484: 448 2002, 48586: 453 2002, 506: 386 2002, 54246: 387 2002, 54749: 396 2002, 570: 411 2002, 57879: 404 2002, 9017: 415 Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslawien I (ed. V. Hoffiller and B. Saria) 314: 209 Carmina Latina Epigraphica 111, lines 4547: 374 184: 371 233: 550 236: 463 489: 551 522: 188 548: 374 744: 203 893: 385 927: 48284 1043: 548 1160: 630 1504: 376 1574: 550 1869: 419 2173: 548 Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum I.555: 567 I.642: 568 II.748: 569 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum I. 1424: 422 I2. 364: 626 585, lines 1113, 1617: 495 593, lines 8991: 19091 709: 221 741: 117 76263: 144 811: 396 933: 142 1486: 410 1776: 371 1793: 618 1831: 371 2193: 617 2486: 392 2663c: 135, 142 2864: 588 2978: 406 3176: 389 3216: 373 325354: 392 3255: 394 3609a: 133 p. 196, no. XXI: 251 II. 1086: 226 2015: 250 2079: 22425 3272: 224 5278: 460 II2. 783: 250 III. 607: 462 1174: 384 3521: 261 4300: 261 4779: 388 6052: 266 7902: 213 10501: 551 12402: 209 14285: 384 14292: 548 14599: 261 IV. 1460: 482 1595: 48183 1795 : 481, 483 1825: 198 1901: 495 2150: 452 4007: 550 4353: 550 6842: 550

687

688
7350: 356 V. 78*: 388 106*: 39596 169*: 457 915*: 402 88: 568 792: 617 798: 274 867: 494 1008: 274 1767: 433 1768: 435 1773: 435 178081: 435 1787: 435 1875: 493 1879: 495 1888: 494 1891: 493 18971900: 494 1915: 495 1924: 494 1931: 494 1940: 493 1943: 495 1948: 494 1950: 495 1951: 494 2044: 387, 389 2065: 388 2155: 257 238586: 45657 2389: 455 2411: 456 2787: 469, 471, 475, 626 2793: 490 2884: 544 3063: 490 3653: 548 4484: 420 5016: 403 5036: 404 5050: 402, 404 5126: 439 5127: 435 5128: 437 513839: 43738 5155: 435 5167: 437 5188: 435 5191: 435 519395: 435

Indices 5612: 450 5869: 449 6919: 446 733841: 442 7345: 442 7346: 442 7349: 442 7443: 445, 448 7449: 420 7452: 420 745455: 420 745662: 420 746366: 420 749394: 409 7497: 409 753236: 444 754345: 45354 754854: 453 758589: 453 7601: 454 7607: 454 7671: 402 7681: 45354 7730: 402 7781: 385 7801: 402 7803: 402 7804: 402 7832: 421 7836: 421, 441 7852: 422 8112, 83: 45152 8642: 433, 435 864344: 435 8661: 493 866465: 494 8680: 494 8712: 495 VI. 26: 489 231: 209 240: 546 260: 341 826: 542 910: 183 975: 489 1054: 546 1110: 209 1702: 433 1779: 374 2161: 432 219192: 546 2584: 546

Indices 3696: 546 387777a: 546 3891: 24647 4416: 546 4444: 404 4886: 469 7680: 344 9672: 479 10103: 474 10118: 474 1022021: 412 12853: 374 1358586: 379 23369: 54445 25081: 479 28044: 550 29681: 37980, 382 30837b: 542 31200: 224 32638b,20: 441 3337273: 545 34060: 374 37045: 185 37202: 409 41127: 257 VIII. 217: 227 774: 169 2586: 384 2714: 490 12128: 188 18118: 490 22901: 490 23252: 441 27597: 419 IX. 411*: 415 315: 389 471: 371 65356: 389 1340: 629 3082: 371 3113: 371 3121a: 370 3128: 371 3138: 618 3181: 392 3227a: 370 3245: 392 3297: 370 3307: 392 3324: 392 4549: 418 4582: 418 4585: 418 4588: 418 4599: 418 5630: 420 5688: 408, 422 X. 13: 390 135: 227 291: 398 310: 397 802: 482 814: 474 816: 393 831: 482 2925: 232 3886: 221 3984: 373 4760: 382 4864: 295 5173: 412 5415: 412 58089: 42426 5882: 424 644041: 398 6462: 396 6465: 397 6466: 398 6469: 399 6471: 399 8095: 398 8337: 390 XI. 556: 408 142021: 18283 1735: 535 1806: 42930 1929: 562 2619: 427 3245: 420 4549: 418 4599: 418 4778: 417 4902: 418 5062: 382 5631: 401 6053: 24243, 24546, 248 7251: 427 7256: 427 7553: 393 7884: 401 XII. 1929: 488

689

690
2230: 223, 227 2602: 449 3203: 447 5390: 621 XIII. 1041: 223 1821: 432 1832: 188 1853: 449 3694: 432 4131: 490 6877: 443, 446 6884: 443 6900: 441 7235: 446 7288: 441 11757: 244 XIV. 164: 432 285: 384 2121: 488 238891: 182 2771: 463 2809: 379 2974: 626 3492: 377 3500: 379 3509: 378 3516: 377 3522: 377 3565: 376 3589: 136 4140: 379 4198: 474 4448: 49091 XV 4539: 452 XVI. 160: 261 Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani 71: 569 Defixionum Tabellae (ed. A. Audollent) 135A: 36566 Ephemeris Epigraphica VIII 141, 145: 370 Le Epigrafi Romane di Canosa 78: 371

Indices Epigraphica 65 (2003) 21617, no. 11: 54453 Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg 001434: 261 006228: 256 018073: 250 Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui I2.167.4: 120 Griechische Versinschriften (ed. W. Peek) 1951: 552 Inschriften griechischer Stdte aus Kleinasien (volume, number, line) 6, no. 4: 56 27, no. 24: 123 28.2, no. 278.17: 377 28.2, no. 280.19: 377 31, no. 53: 123 Inschriften von Pergamon 2.411: 131 2.412: 132 Inscriptiile Daciei Romane III.3, no. 280: 543 Inscriptiones Aquileiae (ed. J.B.Brusin) 295: 274 617: 274 Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae (volume, number) 9.4041: 386 9.45: 387 Inscriptiones Graecae II2. 2097.95: 401 11314: 401 XIV. 625: 390 968a: 433 1648: 344 2379: 435 2381: 387 2408, 6: 370 Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes 1.192: 266, 273

Indices 3.133: 3.937: 3.947: 3.1424: 4.409: 4.421: 4.869: 266 526 526 123 131, 138, 141 13132, 136, 141 270

691

Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae (ed. L. Moretti) 1.160: 561 2.269: 545 2.567: 40 4.1672: 209 Inscriptiones Italiae III.1. 248: 397 IX.1. 9195: 422 2089: 421 X.5. 1: 411 75: 411 95100: 411 160: 411 275: 420 276: 411 XIII.1 pp. 4649: 125 pp. 5255: 125 p. 120: 125 p. 122: 125 p. 130: 125 p. 183: 136 p. 303: 383 p. 496: 142 pp. 5089: 136 pp. 56364: 125 XIII.2 pp. 27880: 124 pp. 44142: 124 XIII.3 p. 67, no. 84: 250 p. 84: 128 Inscriptiones Iudaicae Orientis (ed. W. Ameling) 2.14: 570 Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (ed. H. Diehl) 452: 203 4927: 568

Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae (ed. A. Degrassi) 57: 618 143: 392 166: 588 168: 183 342: 397 392: 144 393: 39697 402: 397 489: 371 515: 185, 221 975: 371 1046: 135, 142 1051: 142 Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ed. H. Dessau) 15: 288 4343a: 144 13940: 182 168: 183 235: 541 432: 401 609: 541 735: 385 897: 567 916: 393 990: 295 1251: 433 1339: 270 1354a: 250 1455: 531 1509: 457 1574: 257 1938: 377 211819: 449 2215: 209 2225: 221 2313: 223 2531: 223 2712: 226 2713: 224 2722: 439 3210: 542 3495: 535 3674: 542 3719: 227 3859: 542 3894a: 469 4174a: 479 4186: 629 4202: 542 4206: 542

692
423132: 541 4384: 541 4484: 541 4914: 538, 542 5062: 461 5083: 474 5087: 474 5094: 474 5098: 474 5102: 474 5107: 544 5163: 460 5173: 469 5174a: 469, 479 5193: 488 51985201: 474 5202: 469 5205: 488, 562 5225: 469 5241: 478 5278: 474 528095: 474 5283: 474 5529: 396 5599: 392 6037 (cap. 128): 618 6073: 489 6085 (lines 8991): 19091 6146: 489 617576: 383 7056: 490 7303: 489 7305: 388 7314: 541 8751: 365 8777: 132 8795: 266 8888: 185, 221 9007: 392 9074: 209 9155: 541 9420: 396 Inscriptions Latines de lAlgrie I.1026: 543 Inscriptions Latines de Narbonnaise Frjus 117: 447 The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania (ed. J.M. Reynolds and J.B. Ward Perkins) 342: 123 606: 488

Indices Inscriptionum Latinarum amplissima collectio (ed. I.C. Orellius) 3714: 246 Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco (ed. F. Canali De Rossi) 1: 266 2: 262 4: 271 261: 273 Le iscrizioni greche di Ravenna (ed. M. Bollini) 8: 552 Iscrizioni lapidarie latine del Museo Nazionale Concordiese di Portogruaro (ed. G. Broilo) I.9: 49394 I.10: 493 I.18: 493 I.29: 493 I.30: 494 I.34: 494 II.7277: 49495 II.87: 494 II.90: 495 II.94: 494 II.99: 494 II.113: 495 II.114: 494 II.11819: 49596 II.123: 494 II.132: 494 Iscrizioni Romane di Iulia Concordia (ed. G. Lettich) 10: 493 16: 495 31: 495 123: 495 129: 495 19394: 495 Kanaanische und Aramische Inschriften I5 (ed. H. Donner and W. Rllig) 276: 271 Kokalos 3031 (198485 [1988]) 72425: 136 Notizie degli Scavi 1884, p. 193: 464 1892, p. 336: 495 1896, p. 228: 482

Indices 1901, pp. 20710: 365 1919, p. 42: 12829 1926, p. 352: 626 1948, pp. 3045: 383 1951, p. 76: 379 1975, pp. 22429: 395 1979, pp. 34041: 376 Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae 90, line 2: 490 379: 266 I.B. Pighi, De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium p. 114: 157 p. 116: 157 p. 162, lines 4849: 172 p. 16364: 157 Res Gestae Divi Augusti 19: 426 25.2: 616 34.2: 568 35.2: 426 Res Gestae Divi Saporis (ed. P. Hyuse) 44: 273 Roman Statutes (ed. M.H. Crawford [London 1996]) 1.516: 18081 1.521: 18081 Sakartvelos berdznuli tsartserebis korpusi [Korpus der griechichen Inschriften in Georgien] (ed. T.S. Kauchtschischwili [= Qaukhchishvili]) 199: 272 235: 271 261: 263, 270 Sammlung der Griechischen DialektInschriften 2566: 352 Supplementa Italica (ed. E. Pais) 399: 494 411: 495 447: 395 928: 447 94951: 420 978: 402 101113: 421 1233: 395 Supplementa Italica (volume, city, number [testi nuovi]) 2. Velitrae 71: 369 3. Corfinium 9: 370 17: 370 4. Albingaunum 2: 386 1112: 384 26: 386 30: 386 32: 387 4. Bellunum 1: 38788 3: 388 78: 389 89: 388 14: 38889 18: 389, 631 4. Sulmo 5: 372 7: 373 36: 373 47: 373 4950: 373 55: 37374 58: 37475 62: 37576 65: 376 95: 376 4. Trebula Suffenas 8bis: 37778 20: 378 2126: 378 28: 37879 29: 379 35: 379, 383 42: 37983 43: 38384 53: 383 80: 384 5. Feltria 1: 396 3: 396 5. Forum Novum 18: 395 49: 395

693

694
5 Regium Iulium 11: 391 1516: 391 37: 319 5. Rubi 1: 389 5. Superaequum 1: 392 2: 392 78: 39293 1013: 39394 6. Camerinum 2: 401 9: 402 6. Cingulum 3: 4001 6. Setia 3: 398 4a: 39899 10: 399 6. Tridentum 1: 403 4, 9, 16, 26, 27: 4034 11: 404 19: 404 20: 404 6. Vallis Tanari Superior 2: 402 8. Aufidena 5: 407 8. Barium 2: 406 3: 4067 5: 407 9: 407 8. Brixia 3: 41112 4: 412 8. Carreum Potentia 12: 409 12: 40910 8. S. Vittore di Cingoli 1: 408 4: 422 13. Forum Germa[---] 9: 421 1516: 422 13. Nursia 1*: 416 4: 418 16: 417 18: 419 23: 418

Indices 44: 415 8283: 415 13. Pedona 7: 422 13. Septempeda 1: 420 5: 420 15: 420 17: 420 13. Vardacate 1: 42021 16. Aletrium 1: 42526 2: 426 14: 42627 16. Bergomum 5: 436 67: 43637 10: 437 22: 43536 16. Forum Vibii Caburrum 8: 442 16. Rusellae 1: 43133 34: 42931 14: 42829 31: 433 3741: 431 54: 428 17. Alba Pompeia 10: 45152 11: 454 25: 454 17. Ferrara 1: 455 34: 456 56: 45657 8: 45556 17. Forum Fulvii 1: 44849 24: 445, 449 6: 44950 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 1.418: 391 16.781: 271 16.782: 262 20.112: 266 20.253: 526 34.558: 149 36.1201: 265 38.713: 265 40.1146: 265

Indices 40.1210: 43.894: 43.1015: 44.1039: 265 265 262 265 P. Oxy. (volume, number) 7.1022: 208 40.2925: 209, 21213 47.3366: 209, 213

695

Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum3 591: 56 656: 57 757: 131 758: 132 Tabula Hebana lines 5962: 181 Tabula Siarensis fr. b, col. I, lines 25: 181 K. Tuchelt, Frhe Denkmler Roms in Kleinasien I (Tbingen 1979) pp. 2067: 13132 G. Waurick, Die rmischen Militrhelme (Mainz 1976) no. 13 (pp. 3033, 11213, 15354, 174): 133 G. Wilmanns, Exempla inscriptionum Latinarum 1459: 246

4. Nummi, Gemmae
G. Bevilacqua, Antiche iscrizioni augurali e magiche (Roma 1991) no. 41 (pp. 4243): 131 A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum XXXI.126: 132 M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) no. 12: 170 nos. 26263: 161 no. 269: 161 no. 369: 161 no. 374: 161, 16768, 171 no. 418: 300 no. 426/13: 166 no. 443: 98, 161 no. 456: 165 nos. 45961: 132, 16164, 17273 no. 460/3: 164, 173 no. 460/4: 172 no. 467: 165 no. 480/1920: 98 no. 489/13: 98, 165, 170 no. 494/39ab: 98 no. 500/1,6: 165 no. 502/4: 98 no. 509/14: 167 no. 532: 98

3. Papyri
Berliner Griechische Urkunden 2.435: 213 Grundzge u. Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde I.2. no. 109, line 7: 490

III. Ancient Persons

A M. Aburius (RE 2; tr. pl. 187) 75 M. Acilius Glabrio (RE 35; cos. 191) war against Antiochus III and Aetolia 6265, 67, 69, 72, 80 accused of peculatus 6465, 8081 and Cato Maior 43, 49, 5152, 6167, 69, 7273, 7986 Actius Castrensis (actor) 452 L. Aelius Lanuvinus (RE 144; grammaticus) 195 L. Aelius Seianus (PIR2 A 255; praef. praet.), unfavorable auspication 1617 Aemilia Lepida (RE 166; wife of Metellus Scipio) 136 Aemilianus, see Cornelius, Fabius M. Aemilius Lepidus (RE 68; cos. 187, 175) and M. Fulvius Nobilior 7375 Aemilius Papus 377 (see Messius)

696

Indices Antoninus Pius (emperor) 311, 504, 541 and Caucasian Iberia 266, 272, 27475 L. Antonius (RE 23; cos. 41) 189 M. Antonius (RE 30; the triumvir) 142, 158, 166, 170, 175176, 189, 23031, 238, 255, 33335, 508, 518, 621 M. Antonius Creticus (RE 29; pr. 74) 63233 L. Antonius Saturninus (PIR2 A 874) 456 L. Appuleius Saturninus (RE 29; tr.pl. 103, 100, 99) 167, 399, 521, 523, 634 M. Aquin(i)us (RE 2; legate in Bellum Africum) 156 Ardashir I 264 Aristogeiton (tyrant slayer) 145 Aristonikos of Karystos (ballplayer) 348, 351 L. (Flavius) Arrianus (RE 9}, as governor of Cappadocia 27374 Q. Arrius (RE 8; pr. by 64) 39 Arrius Menander (RE 24; jurist) 129 Arzygius (signum) 433, see also Betitius Asellus, see Claudius Asiaticus, see Cornelius, Valerius C. Asinius Pollio (RE 25; cos. 40; historian) 88, 230, 236, 241, 615 Asprenas, see Nonius C. Ateius Capito (RE 7; tr.pl. 55) 382 falsifies auspices 14 C. Ateius Capito (RE 8; cos. suff. 5 C.E.; jurist) 38283 L. Ateius Philologus (RE 11; grammaticus) 345 C. Atinius Labeo (RE 10; tr.pl. 132) 150 Atticus, see Pomponius Aufidii/Alfidii 621 Cn. Aufidius (RE 6 and 7; pr. ca 107) 611 M. Aufidius Lurco (RE 25, 27; tr.pl. 61) 62021 Cn. Aufidius Orestes (RE 32; cos. 71) 611 Augustinus, and religio 5067 Augustus 4, 32, 36, 88, 99, 1078, 116, 120, 140, 166, 175, 177, 179181, 202, 22223, 228, 233, 252, 260, 267, 289, 29293, 313, 316, 378, 389, 391, 393, 404, 407, 428, 43334, 442, 455, 48586, 49293, 495, 526, 547, 557 as C. Octavius 138, 140, 252 adoption by Caesar 138, 140 acclaimed imperator in 43 116 as dux 616 Aurelia (RE 248; Caesars mother) 534, 636 Aurelianus (emperor) 380, 408 L. Aurelius Cotta (RE 102; cos. 65) 15254

L. Aemilius Paullus (RE 118; cos. 219, 216) 623 L. Aemilius Paullus (RE 114; cos. 168) 144 M. Aemilius Scaurus (RE 140; cos. 115) 199200, 297 M. Aemilius Scaurus (RE 141; pr. 56) 39697 Aeneas 45, 56, 99, 218, 321, 345, 487, 504, 526, 528, 531, 58990. 599, 605 Afer, see Domitius Africanus, see Cornelius, Fabius Agathon (in Plato and Macrobius) 23 Agorius, see Vettius Agrippa, see Publicius, Vipsanius Agrippa Postumus 428 C. Agrius 611 Ahenobarbus, see Domitius Albinus, see Clodius, Iunius, Postumius Alboin (Lombard king) 433 Alcisthenes (saltator) 34243, 348, 351353 Alexander (the Isian, Aetolian politician) 67, 70, 8283 Alexander (Magnus) 145, 205, 233, 248, 351, 374 Alexander Severus (emperor) 638 Alfidii/Aufidii 621 Alfred the Great, and the map of Agrippa 625 Allobrogicus, see Fabius Alypus (of Ambracia, Aetolian envoy to Rome) 8283 Amasaspos (king? of Iberia) 273 Amazaspos (Iberian prince) 266, 273 Amazaspos (king of Iberia, married to Armenian princess) 272 Amazaspos (king of Iberia) 273 Amianus (name) 632 Amynander (king of Athamania) 67, 69, 7172, 79, 8384 Anchises 45, 321, 589 takes auspices 5 L. Annaeus Cornutus (RE 5; grammaticus) 345 Antenor 46364, 46669, 487 Antinous 274 Antiochus II 252, 351 Antiochus III 43, 4951, 5657, 6167, 7980, 174, 249 Antiochus IV 305 Antiochus VIII Grypos 250 Antiochus (of Ascalon; academic philosopher) 558 Antiochus Parthus (eques, evocatus, donis donatus) 226

Indices M. Aurelius Cotta (RE 107; cos. 74) triumphal agnomen Ponticus 11518, 12425 captures Heracleia Pontica 115, 118, 12526 trial (de peculatu) 118121, 12527 M. Aurelius Cotta (RE 108; son of the preceding), accuses C. Papirius Carbo 122 M. Aurelius Cotta (RE 109; gov. of Sardinia 49) 122 Aurelius Heracleianus (cananiclarius) 212 [Cn.] Aurelius Orestes, see Aufidius L. Aurelius Orestes (RE 180; cos. 126) 199200 Q. Aurelius Symmachus (PLRE I.86570) 27, 282, 484, 614 as interlocutor in Macrobius 23 as a source on religio 594, 598 Aurelius Varixen (centurio, donis donatus) 227 Aurunc(u)leius (name) 495 Avidius Arrianus (cornicularius) 208 Avienus (interlocutor in Macrobius) 2223 Avitus, see Hedius Q. Axius (RE 4; senator from Reate) 611 B C. Baebius (municipal cursus honorum) 406 Baebius Macer (RE 31; antiquarian) 48586 Baudolinus (anchorite) 444 Benedictus, sanctus 416 Bersouma (Iberian pitiaxes) 26264, 266, 26870 Betitius Perpetuus signo Arzygius (PLRE I.689; consularis Tusciae et Umbriae) 433 Bibaculus, see Furius Bibulus, see Calpurnius Biesius (name) 379 Britannicus (son of Claudius) 429 Brutus, see Iunius, Servilius Buteo, see Fabius C Caecilia Metella (RE 131; daughter of Macedonicus) 148 Q. Caecilius (RE 23), testamentary adoption of Atticus 138 M. Caecilius Cornutus (RE 45; pr. 45) 116 L. Caecilius Metellus (RE 72; cos. 251), and elephants 161 Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (RE 87; cos. 69) 150 Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (RE 94; cos. 143) 137, 146, 148, 150

697

Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (RE 97; cos. 109) 133, 16768, 171, 52324 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (RE 98; cos. 80, pont. max.) 13334, 142, 148, 167 Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (RE 99; cos. 52) 13074 acclamatio imperatoria 13133 adoption (presumed testamentary) 13340 aedileship in 57 (?) 144, 149 anseres, greges of 143 cognomen of Nasica 141 coins, symbols on 16173 and Favonius 13738, 141 and Iuba 15657 and Labienus 157, 217, 222 last words 17374 official style 141 his putative son 13637 and Scipio Nasica (cos. 138) 14549 statuary program on the Capitol 14548 triumph (in 54 or 53) 328 villa in Tibur 136, 142 A. Caecina (RE 7), and the Etrusca disciplina 432 Caeculus (founder of Praeneste) 53839 M. Caelius Rufus (RE 45; pr. 48) 17576 Caepio, see Iunius, Servilius Caesar, see Iulius L. Caeselius Vindex (RE 2; grammaticus) 344 T. Caesernius Statius Quinctius Macedo Quinctianus (PIR2 C 182) 270, 274 C. Caesius (imp.), and the deditio of Seano[ci] 5355, 74 Caligula (emperor) 417, 428, 442, 468 Callaicus, see Iunius M. Calpurnius Bibulus (RE 28; cos. 59) 131, 154 Calpurnius Horion (hypomnematographus) 212 C. Calpurnius Piso (RE 61; pr. 211) 299 L. Calpunius Piso Caesoninus (RE 90; cos. 58), acclaimed imperator 11617 L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (RE 96; cos. 133; the annalist) 299301 fragment in Charisius 2029 his style 2529 Calypso (presumed paintress) 34248 T. Camulius Lauenus (miles, donis donatus) 223, 227 C. Canuleius (miles Caesarianus, donis donatus) 221 Capito, see Ateius Caracalla (emperor) 222, 228, 310, 488, 630 Carbo, see Papirius

698

Indices Cornelia (RE 413; daughter of Cinna, wife of Caesar) 63637 Cornelia (RE 417; daughter of Metellus Scipio) 132, 13536, 143, 158 Cornelia (RE 419; in Propertius) 160 C. Cornelius (RE 18; tr. pl. 67) 134 L. Cornelius Cinna (RE 106; cos. 8784) 63537 P. Cornelius Dolabella (RE 141; cos. suff. 44) 17576, 189 P. Cornelius Dolabella (cos. suff. 35) 136, 160 C. Cornelius Gallus (RE 164; praef. Aeg.) 203 L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus (RE 218; cos. 49) 152, 160 P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (RE 238; cos. 57) 426 A. Cornelius Mammula (RE 258; propr. 190) 80 Cn. Cornelius Merula (RE 269; envoy to Egypt in 154) 61 L. Cornelius Merula (RE 272; cos.suff. 87; flamen Dialis) 637 C. Cornelius Minicianus (notable of Bergomum) 43940 L. Cornelius Scipio (RE 325; pr. 174) 160 P. Cornelius Scipio (RE 330; cos. 218) 159 P. Cornelius Scipio (RE 331; son of Africanus) 144 P. Cornelius Scipio (RE 333; cos. suff. 16) 13637, 160 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (RE 336; cos. 205) descendants 144 legatus in 190, and Aetolians 64 triumphal agnomen 118 P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus (RE 335; cos. 147) 144, 159 and Claudius Asellus 62, 78 L. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (RE 337; cos. 190) triumphal agnomen 118 and Aetolians 64, 72 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (RE 355, cos. 111) 144, 148 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (RE 351; pr. ca 93) 133, 144, 148 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Corculum) (RE 353; cos. 162; 155) 144, 148 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Serapio) (RE 354; cos. 138, pont. max.) cognomen Serapio 90, 97, 14347, 159 and Ti. Gracchus 88105, 108, 11314 and Metellus Scipio 14549 Cornelius Scipio Salvitto (RE 357) 143, 149, 15960

C. Cassius Longinus (RE 59; cos. des. 41) 17677, 229, 231, 621 Q. Cassius Longinus (RE 70; tr.pl. 49) 235 Catilina, see Sergius Catulus, see Lutatius Chalepus (Aetolian politician) 8283 Charisius, Flavius Sosipater (RE 8; grammaticus) 2028, 95, 34446, 465 Cato, see Porcius, Valerius Cicero, see Tullius Cinna, see Cornelius, Helvius Claudius (emperor) 180, 260, 267, 404, 42830, 485, 562 Ti. Claudius Asellus (RE 63; tr. pl. 140), and Scipio Aemilianus 62, 78 Claudius Domitianus Ponticus 123 Claudius Gothicus (emperor) 228 M. Claudius Lepidus (RE 204) 65, 81 M. Claudius Marcellus (RE 229; qu. 64 or 63) 134 Claudius Maximus (slayer of Decebalus) 22526, 280 App. Claudius Pulcher (RE 297; cos. 54) 176, 613, 622 Ti. Claudius Secundinus L. Statius Macedo (PIR2 C 1015) 270, 274 Clemens, see Sal(l)ienus Cleopatra 33335, 616 Clesippus (gibber) 197 Ser. Clodius (RE 11; grammaticus) 195 D. Clodius Albinus (emperor) 258, 260 P. Clodius Pulcher (RE 48; tr.pl. 58) 517, 53335, 589, 601, 621 Clodius Secundus, and the rescript of Vardacate 421 P. Clodius Thrasea Paetus (RE 58; cos. suff. C.E. 56) 46367, 47172, 478, 491 L.(?) Cominius (RE 2; tr. pl. ca 312) 200 Commodus (emperor) 242, 24446, 25658, 26061, 272, 290, 473, 488, 504 C. Considius Longus (RE 11; legate in Bellum Africum) 156 Constantinus I 267268, 270, 421, 490, 566 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, his historical encyclopedia 4042 Constantius II 38586 Constantius III 38586 Corculum, see Cornelius Cornelia (RE 406; elder daughter of Scipio Africanus) 148 Cornelia (RE 407; younger daughter of Scipio Africanus, mater Gracchorum) 148

Indices L. Cornelius Sisenna (RE 374; pr. 78) 133 Faustus Cornelius Sulla (RE 377; qu. 54), augural symbols on coins 166 L. Cornelius Sulla (RE 392; cos. 88, 80; dict. 8279) 123, 129, 17778, 285, 293, 356, 483, 598, 61213, 620, 637 augurate of 16669 P. Cornelius Sulla (RE 386; cos. des. 65) 23839 Q. Cornelius Valerianus (praefectus vexillariorum, donis donatus) 22426 Q. Cornificius (RE 8; pr. 45?), augural symbols on coins 16667 Cornutus, see Annaeus, Caecilius Corvinus, see Valerius Cossutia (RE 7; bethrothed to Caesar) 636 Cotta, see Aurelius Cottius 129 Cotys (Thracian king) 5758 Crassus, see Licinius Crates (cynic philosopher) 197 Crates Monoceros, and corvi 207 Cratinus (painter) 342, 347, 35158 Creticus, see Antonius, Caecilius Crus, see Cornelius Cunibertus (Lombard king) 444 C. Curiatius (RE 3; tr. pl. 138) 97 Curio, see Scribonius Cursor, see Papirius Sex. Curvius Tullus (notable from Nemausus) 295 D Dades (king in Caucasus) 26276 Damoteles (Aetolian politician) 6669, 81, 83 Dasumius, see testamentum Dasumii Decebalus (Dacian king) 22526, 280 P. Decius Mus (RE 16; cos. 312, 308, 297, 295) 99, 166 Demea (person in Terence) 20 Dentatus, see Siccius Diocletianus (emperor) 292, 421, 561 Dolabella, see Cornelius Domitianus, see Claudius Domitianus (emperor) 267, 276, 31112, 542 omen mortis 19697 Cn. Domitius Afer (RE 14; orator form Nemausus) 295 Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (RE 18; cos. 192) 84 Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (RE 23; cos. 32) 123

699

L. Domitius Ahenobarbus (RE 27; cos. 54) 15253, 176, 24041 Domitius Marsus (RE 66; poet) 198 Cn. Domitius Ponticus (leg. pro pr. 7778) 123 Cn. Domitius Tullus, see testamentum Dasumii Drusilla (sister of Caligula) 44243 Drusus (son of Tiberius) 180 Drusus Caesar (son of Germanicus) 224, 42829 E Eirene, see Irene Ennius 76, 83, 87, 504 and the foundation of Rome 319 M. Eppius (RE 2; qu. by 52), in Bellum Africum 161, 173 Eupolemos (Aetolian general) 68 F M. Fabius Buteo (RE 53; cos. 245) 40 Africanus Fabius Maximus (RE 101; cos. 10) 149 Paullus Fabius Maximus (RE 102; cos. 11) 149 Q. Fabius Maximus (RE 105; pr. 181) 144 Q. Fabius Maximus (RE 107) 144 Q. Fabius Maximus (RE 108; cos. suff. 45) 144, 14849 Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus (RE 109; cos. 145) 144 Q. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (RE 110; cos. 121) 144 Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (RE 116; cos. 233, 228, 215, 214, 209) 40 C. et L. Fabricii (of Aletrium) 425 Falco, see Pompeius Faustina (empress) 504 Faustus, see Cornelius M. Favonius (RE 1; pr. 49) 13738, 141, 620 Felix, epithet of Commodus 244 Figulus, see Nigidius Fimbria, see Flavius Flaccus, see Calpurnius, Fulvius, Munatius, Valerius Flamininus, see Quinctius C. Flaminius (RE 2; cos. 223, 217) 25961 C. Flaminius (RE 3; cos. 187) 74, 85 Forbeius (name) 377 Frugi, see Calpurnius Flavius, as honorific title 26768 Cn. Flavius (RE 15; aed. cur. 304) 25, 516

700

Indices and Caucasus 266, 270, 27276 L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus (PIR2 H 40; cos. 144) 454 Hegesias (envoy from Lampsakos) 5657 Heliogabalus (emperor) 56465, 638 Helvii, in Alba Pompeia 454 Heraklammon (cananiclarius) 213 Hipparche (and Crates) 197 A. Hirtius (RE 2; cos. 43), acclaimed imperator 116, 125 Hispanus, see Titius Homoius, see Lollius Horion, see Calpurnius Hyginus, see Iulius I Iodmanganos (official in Caucasian Iberia) 27072, 275 Irene (paintress) 34243, 34649, 35153, 355 Isauricus, see Servilius Itthalammon (etymology of) 567 Iuba (I) (king of Numidia) 15657, 16063, 17172 Iuba (II) (king of Mauretania) 163 Iulia Maior 389, 391, 63031 Iulia Minor 389 Iulianus (Julian; emperor) 113 Iulianus (king of Apsilae) 27576 C. Iulius Caesar 43334, 534 banquets of 32931, 613 campaign against Pompeius 22931, 24041 campaign in Africa 149, 15660, 23033, 23841 and civil war, justification of 15256 coins, symbols on 16162 colonies, established by 43334 dominatio (and regnum) 94, 175177 and elephants 16162 flamen Dialis destinatus 63637 pontifex maximus 134, 16162, 534 triumph 23334 L. Iulius Caesar (RE 144; proqu. 46) 159 Iulius Hyginus (RE 278; antiquarian), on augural birds 15 C. Iulius Macer (duplicarius and evocatus, donis donatus) 22327 C. Iulius Romanus (RE 434; grammaticus) 25, 30, 361 Iunianus, see P. Licinius Crassus L. Iunius Brutus (RE 65a; the Liberator) 3133, 528 M. Iunius Brutus (RE 49; pr. by 140) 631

Flavius Dades, see Dades C. Flavius Fimbria (RE 88) 637 T. Flavius Sabinus (RE 165; father of Vespasian) 417 M. Fulvius Flaccus (RE 58; cos. 125) 420, 443, 453 Q. Fulvius Flaccus (RE 59; cos. 237, 224, 212, 209) 52, 60 Q. Fulvius Flaccus (RE 61; pr. 182, cos. 179) 62, 78, 443, 453, 612 Q. Fulvius Gillo (RE 69; pr. 200) 53 M. Fulvius Nobilior (RE 91; cos. 189) war against Aetolia 43, 47, 50, 5253, 6162, 6673, 8084 siege and capture of Ambracia 48, 66, 68, 7172, 7475, 79, 8587 and M. Aemilius Lepidus 7375 and Cato Maior 4748, 6162, 7073, 7578, 8687 and Ennius 83, 87 M. Furius Bibaculus (RE 37; poet) 198 G A. Gabinius (RE 11; cos. 58), acclaimed imperator 11617 Gaius Caesar 179, 18182, 428 Galba, see Sulpicius Galba (emperor) 163, 29091, 45556, 525 Gallicanus, see Gavius Gallienus (emperor) 213 Gallio, see Iunius M. Gallius (RE 5; pr. by 45) 23839 Gallus, see Cornelius M. Gavius Squilla Gallicanus (PIR2 G 114; cos. 150) 561 Gegania (and Clesippus) 197 Gelasius (papa) 508 L. Gellius Poplicola (RE 17; cos. 72) 406 Germanicus 11112, 179183, 224, 428, 550 Geta (emperor) 202, 228 Gibba, see Terentius Gillo, see Fulvius Glabrio, see Acilius Goces (legatus Parthorum) 317 Gracchus, see Sempronius Gratianus (emperor) 282 Gutta 615 H Hadrianus (emperor) 205, 223, 227, 377, 429, 449

Indices M. Iunius Brutus (RE 53, cos. des. 41) 147, 15052, 17577, 622 D. Iunius Brutus Albinus (RE 55a; cos. des. 42) 176, 629 D. Iunius Brutus Callaicus (RE 57; cos. 138), triumphal agnomen 118 L. Iunius Gallio (PIR2 I 757) 232 D. Iunius Silanus (RE 163; cos. 62) 534 M. Iuventius Thalna (RE 30; cos. 163) 259 K Kratinos, see Cratinus L Labeo, see Atinius Laelia (RE 25; elder daughter of cos. 140) 148 Laelianus, see Pontius C. Laelius (RE 2; cos. 190) 49, 53, 73, 304 C. Laelius (RE 3; cos. 140) 29, 97, 14748 T. Labienus (RE 6; pr. by 59?) 231 and Cingulum 399400 and Metellus Scipio 157, 217, 222 Laenas, see Popillius Larcius, see Pontius Latinus (king) 59, 99 M. (C.?) Laetorius Mergus (RE 11; tr. mil. ca 312) 200 Laevinus, see Valerius Lauenus, see Camulius Lentulus, see Cornelius Lepidus, see Aemilius, Claudius Licinia (RE 183; elder daughter of cos. 95) 148, 151 L. Licinius Crassus (RE 76; brother of Metellus Scipio) 151 L. Licinius Crassus (RE 55; cos. 95, the orator) 148, 151 M. Licinius Crassus (RE 55a), his fundus 8687 M. Licinius Crassus (cos. 70, 55) 134, 151, 284, 305, 582, 61112 P. Licinius Crassus (RE 63; the triumvirs son) 136, 158 P. Licinius Crassus Iunianus (RE 75; tr. pl. 53), and Bellum Africum 161, 163 L. Licinius Lucullus (RE 103; pr. 104), trial de peculatu or repetundis 127 L. Licinius Lucullus (RE 104; cos. 74), his presumed agnomen Ponticus 115 C. Licinius Macer (RE 112; pr. 68?), accused de repetundis 11011

701

L. Licinius Murena (RE 123; cos. 62) 534, 614 Liutprand (Lombard king) 444 Livia (wife of Augustus) 381, 456, 621 Lollianus, see Hedius Lollius Homoius (public grammarian) 313 Longinus, see Cassius Longus, see Considius L. Lucceius (RE 6; pr. 67) 137 Lucius Caesar 170, 179, 18182, 428 Lucretia 17374, 594 Lucullus, see Licinius Lurco, see Aufidius Q. Lutatius Catulus (RE 7; cos. 102) 456 Q. Lutatius Catulus (RE 8; cos. 78) 39 Lykon (peripatetic philosopher) 34849, 351 Lykopus (Aetolian politician) 8283 Lysippus (sculptor), turma Alexandri 146 M Macedo 270, 274 Macedonicus, see Caecilius Macer, see Baebius, Iulius, Licinius Macrinus, see Pompeius Sp. Maecius (RE 24) 459 M. Maesius Maximus (notable of Bergomum) 43739 Magnentius (emperor) 386 Q. Magurius Felix (of Patavium) 46970, 47275, 47781, 486, 489, 491 Mammula, see Cornelius M. Manilius (RE 12; cos. 149), as jurist 631 A. Manlius (RE 10) 311 C. Manlius (RE 18; Catilinarian conspirator) 39 L. Manlius (duumvir in Trebula Suffenas) 382 T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (RE 57; cos. 347, 344, 340), and the Gaul 207, 219, 222 L. Manlius Torquatus (RE 79; cos. 65), acclamatio imperatoria 11617, 124 T. Manlius Torquatus (RE 82; cos. 235, 224, dict. 208) 526, 542 A. Manlius Vulso (RE 90; cos. 178) 182 Cn. Manlius Vulso (RE 91; cos. 189) 62, 71, 7374, 78, 85 Marcellus, see Claudius, Publicius, Quinctius L. Marcius Philippus (RE 76; cos. 56) 15253 Marcus Aurelius (emperor) 2045, 261, 272, 292, 388, 460, 541, 636 C. Marius (RE 14; cos. 107, 104100) 25152, 637

702

Indices N Nasica, see Caecilius, Cornelius Sp. Nautius (RE 4; donis donatus) 21617, 219 Nero (emperor) 26, 260, 289, 430, 463, 465, 472, 485, 542 Nero Caesar (son of Germanicus) 428 Nerva (emperor) 421 P. Nigidius Figulus (RE 3; pr. 58), on augural birds 45, 15 Nikodemos (Aetolian general) 68 Nobilior, see Fulvius C. Nonius (miles) 373 Nonius Asprenas (PIR2 N 126), and lusus Troiae 202, 222, 228 M. Nonius Sufenas (RE 52; pr. ca 55) 284, 615 C. Norbanus (RE 5; cos. 83) 391 C. Norbanus (RE 6; monetalis) 391 Numa (king of Rome) 7, 12, 1415, 426, 517, 591, 600 T. Numenius (donis donatus) 22426 Numidicus, see Caecilius O Octavia (daughter of Claudius) 428 C. Octavius, see Augustus Cn. Octavius (RE 20; cos. 87) 637 M. Octavius (RE 31; tr.pl. 133) 8890, 102, 622 Cn. Octavius Ruso (RE 82; qu. 105) 53 P. Oppius (RE 17; qu. ca 7470), trial of 11920, 12627 <L.> Orbilius Pupillus (RE 18; grammaticus) 184, 18687, 189199, 207 Orestes, see Aufidius, Aurelius Otho (emperor) 29091, 525 P Paetus, see Clodius Pansa, see Vibius Papiria (RE 78; wife of L. Aemilius Paullus) 144 Sp. Papirius (RE 26; donis donatus) 21617, 219 C. Papirius Carbo (RE 33; tr. pl. 131) 96 C. Papirius Carbo (RE 35; tr. pl. by 68/67; pr. 62) accuses M. Aurelius Cotta 11819 convicted (de repetundis) 122, 128 L. Papirius Cursor (RE 53; cos. 293, 272) and auspicia ementita 14, 639

battle of Vercellae 45657 military reforms 36, 191 omen aquilae 1516 in Caesars propaganda 171 L. Marius Maximus (PIR2 M 308; governor of Syria) 317 Marsus, see Domitius Martialis, see Minicius Maternus (rebellion of) 24346, 248, 25557, 261 Mauritius (emperor) 387 Maximianus, see Valerius Maximus, see Claudius, Fabius, Maesius, Marius, Valerius Menander, see Arrius Mergus, see Laetorius Merula, see Cornelius Messala, see Valerius M. Messius Rusticus Aemilius Papus (PIR2 M 524) 377 Metellus, see Caecilius [Met]ellus Scip[io] 136 Micio (person in Terence) 2021 Minicianus, see Cornelius Minicius Martialis (PIR2 M 618; procurator in Syria) 317 L. Minucius Thermus (RE 63), and Cato Maior 6162, 78 Q. Minucius Thermus (RE 65; cos. 193), and Cato Maior 61, 80 Q. Minucius Thermus (aedile after 166) 78 Mithridates I, II, III (kings of Iberia) 26667, 26970, 27273, 275 Mithridates VI (king of Pontus) 115 Mucia (RE 27; daughter of cos. 117) 148 Mucius (RE 1; tr. pl. 133) 8990 P. Mucius Scaevola (RE 17; cos. 133, pont. max. 139ca 115) and Ti. Gracchus 9091 and annales maximi 300 as jurist 631 Q. Mucius Scaevola (RE 21; cos. 117, aug.) 148 Q. Mucius Scaevola (RE 22; cos. 95, pont.max. ca 8982) on impiety and expiation 13, 516 and theologia tripertita 554 and the flaminate of Caesar 637 L. Munatius Flaccus (RE 19; Pompeian praefectus) 200 Murena, see Licinius, Terentius Murranus (epitaph from Sulmo) 37475 Mus, see Decius

Indices and military awards 184, 21617 Paullus, see Aemilius, Fabius Papus, see Aemilius, Messius Peducaei (of Nursia) 41718 Sex. Peducaeus (RE 19; tr. pl. 113) 418 Sex. Peducaeus (RE 5; pr. 77) 418 Pegasus (PIR2 P 512; jurisprudent) 427 Peregrinus (in Lucian) 632 Perennis (RE Tigidius 1; praef. praet.) 24445 Pertinax (emperor) 454 Pescennius Niger (emperor) 25657, 261 Phaeneas (Aetolian politician) 68, 70, 72, 8283 Phalantos (founder of Taras) 487 Pharasmanes I, II (kings of Iberia) 264, 266, 27076 Philippus V (of Macedon) 56, 63, 67, 69, 7172, 79, 249 Philippus, see Marcius M. Pileius (tr. pl.) 495 Piso, see Calpurnius Pius, see Caecilius, Antoninus epithet of Commodus 244 Plautii Silvani 378, 38283 M. Plautius Silvanus (PIR2 P 479; pr. C.E. 24) 378 C. Plinius Secundus (Minor), and Bergomum 43740 C. Plotius (eques from Nursia) 41718 Polla, see Vespasia Pollio, see Asinius, Vespasius Polybius on embassies to Rome 4243, 55 and excerpts of Constantine 4142 and Roman constitution 3436, 42 Pompeia (RE 52; Caesars wife) 534 Q. Pompeius Falco (PIR2 P 602; cos. suff. 108) 43940 M. Pompeius Macrinus (PIR2 P 627; cos. suff. 115) 561 Cn. Pompeius Magnus (RE 31; cos. 70, 55, 52) 13132, 136, 143, 150, 155, 158, 163, 166, 168, 174, 176, 22930, 235, 24041, 25052, 254, 28384, 329, 33334, 459, 582, 612 Sex. Pompeius Magnus (RE 33, cos. des. 35) 390, 557 Cn. Pompeius Strabo (RE 45; cos. 89) 185, 207, 221, 434, 453 M. Pomponius (RE 11) 229, 231, 241 T. Pomponius Atticus (RE 102), adopted (testamento) by Q. Caecilius 138 P. Pomponius Secundus (PIR2 P 754; poet; cos. suff. C.E. 44) 46566

703

Pontia (in Val.Max.) 623 Ponticus (cognomen) 11529; see also Aurelius, Claudius, Domitius, Ulpius, Valerius Augustan poet (PIR2 P 785) 122, 129 a governor in Juvenal (PIR2 P 786) 122, 129 in Martial 123 triumphal agnomen 115, 11718, 122 M. Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus (PIR2 P 806; cos. suff. 144) 204 M. Popillius Laenas (RE 20; cos. 359) 100 Poplicola, see Gellius C. Porcius Cato (RE 6; tr. pl. 56) 284, 615 M. Porcius Cato (Maior) (RE 10; cos. 195, cens. 184) 29, 44, 4647, 49, 28586, 416, 419 in Aetolia 4748, 52, 6163, 70, 7879, 8384 and Ambracia 6667, 8283, 87 and M.Acilius Glabrio 43, 49, 5152, 6167, 69, 7273, 7981 and M. Fulvius Nobilior (cos. 189) 4748, 6162, 66, 7073, 7577, 79, 82, 85 and L. Minucius Thermus 6162, 78 and Q. Minucius Thermus (cos. 192) 61 M. Porcius Cato (Minor) (RE 16; pr. 54) 39, 134, 136, 241, 520, 620 and Bellum Africum 151, 156, 159, 217 death 159, 17374 and Metellus Scipio 136, 146, 156, 17374 L. Postumius Albinus (RE 39; rex sacr.) 511 Sp. Postumius Albinus (RE 44; cos. 186) 7, 398 Sp. Postumius Albinus (RE 45; cos. 110) 398 Praetextatus, see Vettius Probus (emperor) 228, 385, 408 L. Procilius (RE 12) 615 Proculus (usurper) 385 Publicius Agrippa (official in Caucasian Iberia) 262, 270, 272765 Publicius Marcellus, see Quinctius Publicola, see Valerius Pulcher, see Claudius, Clodius Pupillus, see Orbilius Pyrrhus 4344, 74, 82, 190, 389, 511 Q Quinctius, see T. Caesernius C. Quinctius Certus Publicius Marcellus (PIR2 P 1042; cos. suff. 120; govenor of Syria) 27374 L. Quinctius Flamininus (RE 43; cos. 192) 56, 84

704

Indices Septimius Severus (emperor) 228, 246, 256, 258, 261, 28890, 310, 401 Serapeitis (a noble woman in Iberia) 27172, 275 Serapio (nickname of Scipio Nasica) 90, 97, 14347, 159 L. Sergius Catilina (RE 23; pr. 68) 39, 452, 489 Q. Sertorius (RE 3; pr. 83) 171, 285, 41617 Q. Servilius Caepio (RE 49; cos. 106) 127 Q. Servilius Caepio Brutus, see M. Iunius Brutus P. Servilius Rullus (RE 80; tr. pl. 63) 155 P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (RE 93; cos. 79) 117, 125, 150 Servius (RE 8; grammaticus) 194, 62829 Servius Tullus (king) 53839, 594 L. Siccius Dentatus (RE 3; tr. pl. 454; Roman hero) 21819 Silanus, see Iunius Silvanus, see Plautius Sinon (name) 401 Sisenna, see Cornelius Sex. Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus (PIR2 S 790; legate of Tiberius) 31314, 31617 Socrates in Macrobius 23 statue of by Lysippus 355 and Glaucon 590 Spinther, see Cornelius L. Statius Macedo, see T. Caesernius, Claudius Secundinus Strabo, see Pompeius, Sotidius Sufenas, see Nonius Sulla, see Cornelius Sulpicii (notables in Bergomum) 43637 P. Sulpicius Rufus (RE 93; pr. 48) 239 C. Sulpicius Galba (PIR2 S 999; cos. suff. 5; the emperors father) 196 Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (RE 95; cos. 51) 39, 175 Symmachus, see Aurelius Syphax (king of Numidia) 49 Syrus (slave in Terence) 20 T Tanaquil 594 A. Terentius Varro (RE 80; pr. 184), and Aetolians (in 189) 65, 81 M. Terentius Varro (RE 84; pr. before 67?) 235, 416 as antiquarian 5, 1113, 38, 219, 328, 461, 467, 503, 5067, 510, 51617

T. Quinctius Flamininus (RE 45; cos. 198) 44, 4950, 52, 5658, 6364, 73, 7980, 259 R Remus, foundation of Rome 34, 13, 1819 Romulus 504 convivial anecdote 2029 foundation of Rome 319 and Volcanus 53839 Rubrius (RE 1; tr. pl. 133) 89 Rufus, see Caelius, Hedius, Salvidienus, Sulpicius, Vibullius Rullus, see Servilius Ruso, see Octavius Rutilius Namatianus and Albingaunum 38586 and CLE 893 S Sabinus, see Flavius, Pontius L. Saenius (RE 1) 39 T. Sal(l)ienus (centurio) 23234, 237, 240 T. Sal(l)ienus Clemens (PIR2 S 74; pr. ca 65) 232 Q. Salvidienus Rufus (RE 4; cos. des. 39) 203, 39091 Salvitto, see Cornelius Scipio Saturninus, see Antonius, Appuleius, Sentius Saufeii 624 Scaevola, see Mucius Scaurus, see Aemilius Scipio, see Caecilius, Cornelius Scribonia (PIR2 S 274; wife of Augustus) 391 C. Scribonius Curio (RE 11; tr.pl. suff. 50) 17576, 24041, 620 Secundinus, see Claudius Secundus, see Clodius, Plinius, Pomponius Seianus, see Aelius M. Seius (RE 4), greges of anseres 143 C. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 43; tr. pl. 12322) 9597, 103, 300 Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 51; cos. 215, 213) 92, 249, 254 Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 53; cos. 177) 96 Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 54; tr. pl. 138) his death 88114 tribunician sacrosanctity 555 A. Sempronius Verus (notable in Trebula Suffenas) 379 [C.] Sentius Saturninus Vetulo (RE 4; proscriptus) 315

Indices and Augustine 5067, 596 and religio 5067, 596 M. Terentius Varro Gibba (RE 89; tr. pl. 42) 195 A. Terentius Varro Murena (RE 91; aed.cur. ca 44) 195 Thalna, see Iuventius Theodorus (praestigiator) 34243, 348351 Theodulus (cornicularius) 203 Thermus, see Minucius Thrasea, see Clodius Tiberius (emperor) 180, 225, 28890, 313, 316, 45152, 461, 528, 626, 631 Titii Hispani (adulescentes) 156, 23234, 23637 L. Titius (RE 13; tr. mil., senator) 23537 Titus (emperor) 222, 267, 52529, 625 Torquatus, see Manlius, Nonius Traianus (emperor) 201, 203, 2056, 22526, 266, 273, 27576, 280, 31112, 503 Triarius, see Valerius Tullia (daughter of Servius Tullus) 594 L. Tullius (RE 9; Ciceros legate in Cilicia) 3078, 31617 M. Tullius Cicero (RE 29; cos. 63) as augur 15, 155 in civil war 176 consulship 3739, 134, 155 and the Gracchi 89, 97, 101 as literary critic 2829 and Metellus Scipio 141, 145151 presides as praetor (in 66) over the trial of Licinius Macer 11011 provincial appointment 15354 Tullus, see Curvius, Servius U Ulpius Flavius Ponticus (tribunus laticlavius) 123 V Valao (dux Naristarum) 225 Valerianus, see Cornelius Valerianus (emperor) 213 D. Valerius Asiaticus (RE 106; his scaenici, and trial under Claudius) 562 P. Valerius Cato (RE 117; grammaticus) 194, 198 M. Valerius Corvinus (Corvus) (RE 137), omen corvi 16 L. Valerius Flaccus (RE 173; cos. 195) 77

705

and Aetolians (in 191) 63 C. Valerius Laevinus (RE 208; cos. suff. 176), and Aetolians (in 189) 53, 7172 M. Valerius Laevinus (RE 211; cos. 220?, 210) 52, 60 and alliance with Aetolia (in 211) 72 M. Valerius Maximianus (slayer of Valao, donis donatus) 225 Valerius Maximus, Latin usage 628 M. Valerius Messala (RE 252; pr. 193, cos. 188) 44, 73, 85 M. Valerius Messala (RE 268; cos. 53) 232, 23740 Valerius Ponticus (RE 295; senator?) 123 Q. Valerius Orca (RE 280; legate of Caesar) 241 P. Valerius Publicola (RE 302; cos. suff. 509) 32 C. Valerius Triarius (RE 363, 366; legate in 7473) 115, 117 C. Valerius Triarius (RE 365; praef. class. 4948) 241 L. Vargunteius (RE 3) 620 Varro, see Terentius Vatia, see Servilius Velleius, Latin usage 249 P. Ventidius (RE 5; cos. suff. 43) 197 C. Vergilius (RE 2, 3; pr. 62) 232 Vergilius Romanus (litteratus) 322 Verrucosus, see Fabius C. Vesnius Vindex (of Urvinum Mataurense) 24246, 254 Vespasia Polla (emperors mother) 417 Vespasianus (emperor) 188, 26768, 29091, 340, 41617, 455, 52527, 625 Vespasius Pollio (of Nursia; emperors grandfather) 417 Vettius Agorius Praetextatus (PLRE I.72224), as speaker in Macrobius 2223, 194 Vetulo, see Sentius C. Vibius Pansa (RE 16; cos. 43) acclaimed imperator 116 and Forum Vibii 440, 442 L. Vibullius Rufus (RE 1; officer of Pompeius) 241 A. Vicirius Proculus (notable in Rusellae) 42931 M. Vipsanius Agrippa (RE 2; cos. 37) 391, 428, 455, 625 Vitellius (emperor) 29091 456, 525 Vologeses (king of Armenia) 272 Vulso, see Manlius

706
X Xepharnougos (king of Iberia) 264, 27172

Indices Z Zeouachos (official in Caucasian Iberia) 27172

IV. General Index

A a solo restituere, constituere 54143 Abdera, embassy to Rome 5759 Aborigines 624 absentia (at elections) 61112, 623 Acarnania 50, 66, 69, 8283, 213 acceptio in fidem (dicionem) 54 acclamatio imperatoria 11517, 12425, 13133, 172 actarius 209 actio ad exhibendum 2627 Adonis 33839, 561 adoptio 29495 (presumed) testamentary 13340, 159, 295 adrogatio 13537, 13940 libertini 395 adtributio 402, 404 aedilis, aediles, aedilitas 25, 32, 34, 39, 78, 134, 141, 14445, 149, 400, 604, 612, 615, 62023, 640 Etruriae 429, 431 municipal 244, 393, 406, 431, 442 aedituus 411 Aemilia (regio) 408 aenatores 412 aequitas (concept), Aequitas (deity) 16364, 411 aerarium 80, 118, 125, 437, 494 aes Corinthium 625 Aesculapius, Asclepios 342, 504, 557 aetates (of life) 491 Aetolia, and Rome 43, 4653, 6086 Africa, representations of 16061, 173 agere 12, 27, 371 cum populo 517 lege 110, 51618 and gerere 45 Agni (Indian deity) 538 Aius Locutius 6, 512 ala (military) 190, 204 207, 21920, 22327, 490 Alani 267, 27374 Alba Longa 4647, 538 Alba Pompeia 241, 446, 448, 45054 Albingaunum 38487, 402, 453 Albania (in Caucasus) 264, 274 Aletrium 42428 alimenta 292, 379, 431, 437 Alpes Cottiae 441 Alpes Maritimae 42122, 460 Amanus, mount 131 ambassadors 4060 termed oratores, legati 4450 ambages 52728 ambitus (electoral malpractices) 37, 39, 120, 141, 39697, 61214, 620 Ambracia and Aetolia 6667, 82 and Cato 6667, 82 siege and capture by M. Fulvius Nobilior 48, 66, 68, 7172, 7475, 8587 Anagnia 259, 424 agnus mas 42526 Anauni, Anaunia 404 angareia 313 Angitia (dea) 425 Aniensis, tribe of Caecilii 137 anima, ascensio in caelum 55152 ankh 173 Anna Perenna 396 annales, and Annales Maximi 300, 3035 Antigonos of Karystos, on painters and performers 34749, 351, 355 Antiochia (in Pisidia) 230, 234 annona 311, 31617, 32728, 373 sacra 41112 anulus (as status symbol) 108, 14546, 221, 22425 apex (headcover of priests) 9899, 165 Aphrodisias (in Caria) 91, 487, 56871, 615 Apollo 32, 321, 487, 505, 528, 588 Apollonia (in Cyrenaica) 566 Apollonia (in Illyria) 66, 70, 82 Aponus 469, 471, 478, 48081 apparitor 186187, 19192, 200, 315

Indices Apulia 371, 389, 405 Aqua Marcia 378 aqua et igni interdictio 112, 114, 279, 524 Aquae Aponi 469, 481 Aquae Statiellae 445, 448, 453 aquaelicium 11112 aqueducts 75, 378, 426 aquila (legionary) 132 Aquileia 270, 27374, 293, 434, 456, 480, 617, 619 Aquilonia, battle of 184, 21617, 219, 639 ara 249, 542 Pacis 99, 504 Arae Flaviae (in Germania Superior) 24445, 256, 261 Araborum, ala 226 arca 44950 archers 172, 567 archives 304, 563, 63334 Arelate 234, 385 Argentorate 246, 248, 257 argentum, argenteum 68, 157, 184, 202, 212, 21522, 224, 22728, 262, 26466, 270, 274, 276, 48485 aries purpureus 589 Armazi (in Caucasian Iberia) 26264, 26872, 27475 Armenia, Armenian 172, 253, 26263, 26869, 27274 armillae (military decoration) 157, 18486, 202, 2067, 21623, 22728 Arpinum 424 Arretium 49, 52, 259 arrogatio (adrogatio), see adoptio arvales, see fratres ascia 388, 552 Asculum 185, 221, 400, 416 Asia (Minor) 58, 61, 6465, 69, 71, 73, 80, 132, 207, 265, 270, 31011, 313, 316, 321, 393, 411, 459, 493, 539, 563 astutus 374 asylum (Romuli) 96 Atectoridiana, ala 223, 225 Ateste 455 atheism 55758 Attis 504, 561 atramentarium 212, 214 atramentum 215 Atria 455 atrium libertatis 39 auctoritas 35, 100, 175, 317, 32931, 345, 399 senatus 154 Aufidena 407

707

augur, augures 89, 155, 512, 598 assistance at public acts 16870, 182 insignia and emblems 16470, 403 nuntiatio by 38 and politics 155 and Remus 3, 1819 and Romulus 3, 1819 and sortitio 16466, 170 augurium, auguria 34, 1012, 19, 45, 99, 16465, 170, 523 Augusta Bagiennorum 402, 42122, 44748, 453 Augusta Taurinorum 409, 442, 446 Augusta Treverorum 432, 490 Augustalia 407 augustales 17983, 37981, 38384, 399, 409, 411, 426, 42829, 437, 629; see also ludi, magistri, seviri, sodales Augusteum 42831 A(ula) 373 Aura 480 auratus (inauratus) 99, 14546, 164, 219, 226 aureus (coin) 163, 167, 268, 276, 457 aureus ramus 58990 auriga 47475, 48889 aurum, aureus 45, 74, 81, 121, 157, 19697, 2012, 212, 216228, 254, 377, 528, 568, 58990 auspicatio (procedure) 5, 1213, 1617 captare 5 conspicere 9 legum dictio 1213 orientation at 6, 1518, 32 servare 4 silentium 16 auspices nuptiarum 530 auspicium, auspicia ex avibus 4, 9 ex caelo 910, 1516, 169 coacta 531 contempta 259 ex diris 910 dubia 1314 ementita 1315 genera of 910 gradus of 910 impetrativa 5, 1011, 13, 16, 167170, 512, 523, 531, 559, 633 incerta 13 interpretation of 167 laeva 4, 6, 15 maxima 10 oblativa 10, 512, 523

708
pestiferum 18 pullaria (ex tripudiis) 14, 38, 16970, 531 pulchra 5 ex quadrupedibus 910 auspicium, auspicia and auguria 1012, 523 and imperium 167171 of magistrates 16671, 283, 52223 and nuptiae 530 and patricians 63738 and plebeians 63738 renovatio of 169 repetitio (repetere) of 169 and the struggle of the orders 35, 99, 283 and tribunes of the plebs 88, 633 valid for one day only 531 and vitium 169 aves augurales aquila 10, 1516, 19 cornix 170 corvus 14, 16, 170 parra 10, 170 picus 10, 170 vultur 6, 15, 1819 aves augurales, designations of arcula 18 bene iuvans 18 circanea 17 contraria 18 enubra 18 incerta 13, 524 inferae 5 laeva 6, 17 praepes 46, 15 remores 18 secunda 13 sinens 18 vagae 17 avem aspicere 5 aves addicunt, admittunt 13 B Bacchanalian conspiracy 7, 509, 537, 562 Bacchus 509, 546, 56162, 564 Balaclava (in Crimea) 541, 543 balnea (thermae) 317, 408, 433, 442 Barium 4057 Belbo (stream) 444, 453 bellum desertorum 244, 25658, 260 iustum 46, 255, 288 Bellunum 38789, 395, 403, 631

Indices balteus, as award 202, 228 Bendis (deity) 561 benignus, benignitas and Scipio Africanus 64 Beria, L. 263 biga, bigae 629 award of 226, 24345 Bantia, augural templum 9, 17, 19, 524 Beneventum 187, 19192, 503, 629 Bergomum 431, 43540 birth 19, 32325, 55960, 629 Bithynia 43, 115, 118, 12223, 12728, 306, 393 Bodincomagus 448; see also Industria Bona Dea 26, 514, 53335 Bormida (stream) 44445, 453 bourgeoisie 29293 bracchialia, bracchiatus 228 Breslau (and Mommsen and Bernays) 568 Britannica, victoria 42931 Brixia 41012, 428, 437 Brundisium 65, 80, 23031, 238, 400, 629 Bruttii 38990 C Cabiri (mysteries of) 561 Caburrum, see Forum Vibii caduceator 50 caduceus 50 on coins 161, 17273 Caelestis (dea) 173, 565 caelum ardere 242, 25861 ascent of souls into 55152 and auspicia 4, 6, 910, 1516, 169 spheres of 55152 Caesena 242, 408 Calabria 38990, 405 calamarion 212, 214 calamaula 477 calamitas (augural term) 523 calamus 20911, 214 calendar 8081, 134, 363, 467, 503, 510, 51519, 521, 538, 59195, 597, 599601 calos (exclamation) 452 Calypso (nymph) 34248 Camerinum 4012, 416 Campani, Campania 31, 52, 60, 293, 311, 396, 424, 440, 452, 492, 61819 canalicula 210 canalicularius 209215 cananiclarius 21214

Indices canarium sacrificium 542 canere 17, 528, 551 canis, canes, as offering 538, 542 canna 20911, 214 cantare 465, 485, 54445, 54748, 55053 Canusium 371, 389, 406, 624 capis 16466, 171 Capua 31, 52, 60, 249, 255, 259, 293, 492, 618 carcer, carceres prison 27880 stalls at races 3, 306, 479 Carmelus (mons) 527 Carnicum 435 carnifex 9596, 280 Carreum Potentia (Chieri) 40810, 44041, 448 Carthago 219 Carthago Nova 219 Caucasus 26465, 267, 274 causia 624 Cavour, Camillo Benso, conte di 441 celeritas, as virtus imperatoria 172 Celtiberia, Celtiberi 50, 55 cena (convivium, epulum) 2029, 32631, 613 centenarius (rank) 436 centonarii 388, 396, 44950, 641 centumviri, municipal 395 centurio, centuriones 7677, 156, 18889, 2056, 21617, 219, 223, 227, 232, 23427, 240, 314, 54142 centuriatio 291, 425, 442, 44546 centuriatus, centurionatus 205 Ceres 32, 104 certa, legionary epithet 261 certus, in augury 1213, 15 chariot racing 3056, 47476, 47879, 482, 48788, 491 Christiani, christiana religio 28081, 318, 336, 5029, 513, 522, 557, 56066, 569, 59698, 630 Cilicia 117, 146, 15354, 307, 309, 314 Cimbri 259, 45657 cinaedi 19798 cinctus Gabinus 90, 92, 1034, 108 Cingulum 399401, 408 circus 474, 478, 488 Flaminius 77 Maximus 393, 489 starting mechanism 47980 cistae Praenestinae 99 civitas (citizenship), see ius civitatis sine suffragio 377, 415

709

civitas = city (town) 49, 292, 310, 31314, 398, 41112, 422, 434, 506, 539, 596 foederata 389, 424 libera 58 = Rome 180, 319, 324, 517, 629, 640 terminology of 31314 classiarii 389, 456 classis (navy) 56, 115, 173, 229, 23132, 241, 45556, 471 clavus annalis 627 clemens, clementia 64, 307 and Caesar 136, 15859, 17677, 261 and Cicero 307 and Scipio Africanus 64 Clusium 429 clupeus (virtutis) 22425, 568 codicarius 209 coemptio and manus 139, 531, 61617 sacrorum interimendorum causa 139 cognomen, inherited from mother 436 cognomina ex victa gente 11518, 12425, 128, 63233 cohors, cohortes I Damascenorum 43940 I Flavia 44849 III Ituraeorum 208 praetoriae 224, 246 urbanae 224, 44849, 455 Colapis (river) 133 Collatia 611 collegium, collegia 383, 388, 412, 449, 481, 492, 56264, 61720 banquets of 32728 compitalicia 31, 61819 magistri of 31, 1089, 492, 61819 magistrorum 31, 492, 61819 militaria 187, 205 sacerdotum 179, 563, 618 and sodalitates 619 of tibicines, fidicines, symphoniaci 54647 see also centonarii, dendrophori, fabri colonia, coloni 17, 50, 81, 182, 191, 231, 24950, 314, 382, 398, 400, 402, 404, 41920, 425, 428, 43334, 443, 44647, 453, 455, 49394, 62629 Iulia Paterna Sextanorum 234 comitia 73, 81, 90, 110, 119, 155, 165, 168, 28384, 51719, 612 and adverse signs 38, 282, 517, 51921, 523 comitia tributa 32 commentarienses 214

710

Indices Cularo (city in Gaul) 223 cultores 31, 384, 387, 561, 564 cultus deorum 7, 13, 32, 88, 109, 11213, 37273, 381, 38688, 39293, 396, 403 imperatorum 179, 381, 388, 393, 42829, 431, 442, 5012, 566, 58283, 598 culullus 165 cupido, cupiditas 217, 222, 525, 52728 cura aquarum 378 curator, curatores alimentorum 431 civitatium (rei publicae) 292, 4067, 421, 439, 441, 447 in collegia 384, 44950, 629 fanorum 492 kalendarii 4067 viarum 292 Cures 394 curiosity, in scholarship 58182, 586 curia, curiae senate house 37, 43, 58, 60, 96, 237, 282, 564 voting units in Rome 3233, 155 municipal divisions 490 Curinus, Hercules 37273 curriculum 330 custodire, pecuniam 233 Cybele 504, 561 Cyprus 61, 526, 537 Cyrene, Cyrenaica 56667 D Dacia, Daci 201, 207, 257, 261, 280 damnatio memoriae 24546, 405, 442 damnatus 102, 110, 12022, 280, 459, 461 voti 373, 527 Daunia 371 Dea Dia 101 death glorious 17374 and red color 112 decemviri sacris faciundis, see quindecimviri declinatio Graeca 34447 decretum Augustalium 629 of Greek cities 5658 municipal 18283 (Pisana), 378, 395, 408, 429, 437, 442, 618 (of pagus) of the senate, see senatus consulta decuria judicial 190, 615 in priestly colleges 180

comoedus 349, 35355 Compitalia 31, 1089, 113, 61819 comportare 374 Comum 437 conciliabulum 400, 420 Concordia (town in Italy) 49296 condicio nominis ferendi 13340 confarreatio 531, 61617, 63438 coniuratio 104 Italiae 616 consecratio 6, 1034, 279, 522 capitis 104, 114 consilium of magistrate 54, 287 principis 636 privatum 15253 constans, constantia 24445, 253, 25556, 261 constituo (legal sense) 386, 399400 constitutional history, Roman 3436 Consualia 589, 600 consuetudo (grammatical concept) 34445, 375 Consus 99, 589 contio 90, 100, 110, 113, 119, 121, 126, 155, 228, 631 conversion 505 Cora (Krh) 34647 Corfinium 24041, 370, 372, 392, 400, 631 cornicularius, cornicularii 184215 Cornicularius vicus 185 corniculum 184215 corniculus 188 cornucopiae 161, 163, 173 cornus (cornelian cherry) 186 corona, aurea, as gift 74 corona (military and civic decoration) 75, 206, 221, 223 aurea 21617, 220, 224, 226, 254 civica 186 graminea 25152, 254 laurea 121 muralis 75, 77, 217, 226 myrtea 121 obsidionalis 249, 25152, 254 triumphalis 164 vallaris 76 corona, pressa 486 Corvinus 16, 122, 628 corvus, corvi 14, 16, 170, 185 Cosa 427 Cotys (deity) 561 Creta 537, 567 crudelitas 159, 164

Indices decuriati 620 decurio, decuriones equitum 190 alae 190 municipal 182, 378, 381, 408, 411, 416, 422, 426, 429, 437, 442, 489 deditio, procedure of 5255, 60, 6364, 69, 7172, 7475, 79, 80, 83, 8586, 279, 28788 defixio 36566, 391 Delhi 508 Delos 106, 1089, 492, 619 Delphi 49, 352, 479, 528, 562 delphinus 310, 481, 483, 48688 Demeter Malophoros 48081 democracy 28990, 622 dendrophori 388 deprecor, deprecator, deprecatio 631 and envoys to Rome 46, 48, 5051, 53, 72 derectarii 340 Dertona 44547 desidia 319, 32425 despotism 282, 28990, 557, 579 desultores 48688 detestatio sacrorum 140 devotio 1034, 279, 304, 526, 637 devotus, devotissimus 24445, 261 Diana 342, 387, 409, 590, 594 Diana Veteranorum (in Africa) 226 dictatura 28384 dies atri 518 comitiales 73, 134, 51718, 59293 fasti 13, 51617, 59293 imperii 468 nefasti 13, 51619, 59293 religiosi 518, 520 vitiosi 51819 dignitas 169, 17576, 18990, 204, 268, 439 diffarreatio 531, 617, 63536, 638 Dionysiac associations 56163 Dionysos 537, 556, 56063, 565 Dioscuri 170, 360, 487 diploma (authorization for travel) 314 diplomata, military 22526, 456 discedo (= to die) 436 disciplina auguralis 8 Etrusca 8, 304, 43233, 511, 525, 629 dispensator 457 divination, natural and artificial 69 divisores 614 divortium 23, 53132, 63536

711

d/l (phonetic change) 36566 domi (opposed to militiae) 60, 233, 515 dona militaria 7677, 157, 184228 doors, bolting of 479 dreams, see somnium ducere, technical term at elections 73, 85 dum vellet 5456, 74, 85, 288 duoviri (duumviri) (IIviri) municipal 191, 377, 379, 38284, 392, 394, 399, 4078, 41921, 453, 494, 629 perduellionis 278 sacrorum 258 duplicarius 205, 223, 226 Duris of Samos, on painters 34748, 351 dux fatalis 159, 525 Octavian 616 privatus 91, 101 dwarfs 197 E eclipse 418 edictum of emperor(s) 31217, 404 (urban) praetor(s) 7, 133, 309 provincial governor 31317 tribune(s) of the plebs 133 effetus, effeta (exhausted) 31925 elections 73, 81, 8890, 96, 134, 141, 155, 16970, 28284, 61214, 620, 62223 elephant(s) 172174, 62728 and Africa 16162, 173, 230, 586, 627 on coins 16062, 167, 173 emblem of legio V 230 and snakes 16162 in war 162, 173, 230, 62728 Eleusinian mysteries, initiates 34647, 561 embassies 4060 Polybius and Livy on embassies to Rome 4244 travel to Rome, and reception in Rome, rules of 5153, 5660, 6365 emendation and/or exegesis of: Athenaeus 1.19ab: 34850 Bell. Afr. 28: 23233 Cicero, Att. 5.21.5: 30718 Hesychius E 7096: 47778 Horatius, Sat. 1.10.18: 19295 Livius 26.8.5: 249 Lucanus 10.5560: 33233 Plinius, NH 14.66: 32931 19.59: 33741

712

Indices exhibere, convivial and legal term 2627 exilium 12021 expeditio tertia Germanica 257 expiatio 13, 258, 304, 335, 516, 563, 638 exsecratio 279, 54950, 631, 637 exta 484, 51112, 52630 F Fabia, tribe of Metellus Scipio 137 fabri 388, 396, 438, 44950; see also praefectus Falerii 51, 626 Falerii Novi 369 Falerio (in Picenum) 416 falsibility, principle of 505 fasces alternation of 611 laureati 172 reversed (avertere, versi) 11112 fatalis, fatale dux 159 meretrix (prostans) 33233, 33536 monstrum 33234 Scipionum nomen (gloria) 159, 174 Felicitas deity 551 watchword 157 felix, felicitas 1718, 62, 130, 15660, 170, 17274, 24445, 268, 282, 372, 409, 412, 538 Feltria 38788, 39596, 468, 627 femina 374, 426, 435, 464, 538 Ferentinum 424 feriae 258, 516, 51819, 521, 538, 591, 618 Ferrara 45457 fertility 109, 508, 538 fetiales 41, 46, 73, 388 fideicommissum 41718 fidelis 24445, 253, 261 fides (musical instrument) 551 fides, concept of 41, 79, 90, 114, 203, 255, 261, 526 Fides (deity) 90, 100, 114 fidicines 54647, 551 fidus, fida 24445, 261 filiation and adoption 13839 double 376 filibuster 52021 finis, fines 12, 46, 38788, 403, 410 Firmum 419

35.140: 35355 35.147: 34253 Pollux 1.14546: 47578 Quintilianus 1.7.34: 331 Sallustius, Cat. 53.5: 31925 Tacitus, Ann. 15.73.3: 232 Varro, RR 3.2.1416: 32729 CIL IV 1595: 48184 CIL V 2787: 46981 CIL V 8112,83: 45152 Suppl. Ital. 4, Sulmo 55: 37374 4, Sulmo 58: 37475 4, Trebula Suffenas 4243: 37984 4, Setia 4a: 39899 13, Nursia 18: 419 16, Aletrium 1: 42526 epheboi 35556 epichoric names (in Italy) 4034, 422, 442 Epicurus 426 epideixis 46975 epigraphical notations 405, 41213, 42223 Epirus, Epirotae 52, 6668, 70, 79, 8283, 85, 87, 22931 Eporedia 411 epulum 27, 32631, 382 epulones 378 equites (military cavalry) 7677, 15758, 184191, 200, 2045, 21617, 220, 222, 22627, 22930 equites (legal and social category) 114, 119, 122, 140, 189190, 192, 195, 199, 221, 22426, 237, 270, 293, 305, 314, 371, 37879, 392, 399, 4067, 417, 429, 431, 43638, 440, 46061, 48688, 615, 62021, 624, 63536 equus, equi at races 42627, 478 as sacrifice 477 equus publicus 189192, 4067 era of Patavium 396, 46869, 47172, 62630 of Praeneste 626 erga 374 Etruria, Etrusci 39, 252, 299, 304, 424, 427, 429, 43132, 511, 537, 539, 582 eura, eurae 46971, 47581 evocatio military 91 of gods 304, 504 of souls 55152 evocatus, evocati 22326, 435 executions 110 exheres 404

Indices Fiscellus (mons) 425 (deus) 425 fistula 210, 547 fistulator 404 fistulatorius 546 flamen Augustalis 429 Carmentalis 100 Caesar destinatus as 63637 Dialis 99100, 139, 531, 63637 Martialis 99 Qurinalis 99 divi Claudii 439 divi Traiani 439 flamines 492 ritual attire 99100 flaminica 98, 488, 531, 534 Divae Drusillae 442 Flora (dea) 26 Floralia 26 Flusa (dea) 18 foedus (treaty) 46, 5153, 5556, 61, 6869, 7274, 8485, 401 Fons (deity) 409 Fons Aponi 471, 478 fornix Fabianus 144, 149 Foroiulienses (in Umbria) 433 fortis (vir, miles, facta) 157, 21718, 222, 22728, 250, 255 fortuna 41, 325 and felicitas 158, 17374 infima 203 and Vespasian 525, 52728 = wealth 18990 Fortuna (deity) 403, 409, 505, 537, 539 Redux 407 forum administrative district 400, 420, 455 Augusti (in Rome) 128 Romanum 32, 60 Forum Clodii 428 Forum Fulvii 420, 441, 44345, 44749 (cf. Valentia) Forum Gallorum 116 Forum Germa[ ] 42122, 441 Forum Iulii (Cividale del Friuli) 43335, 440 Forum Iulii (Frjus) 43334, 447 Forum Iulii Iriensium (Voghera) 43334, 447 Forum Novum (Vescovio) 39495 Forum Vibii Caburrum (Chieri) 44042 fratres (denoting frater et soror) 404 fratres arvales 638

713

magistri 492 praetextae 101 fretum Siculum 229, 390 frico 197 Frusinum 42425 Fucinus (lacus) 425 (deus) 425 Fulginiae 416 fulgur 53839 as vitium comitiorum 517 fulmen as auspicium 13, 38, 16970, 539 fatidicum 62930 perpetuum 630 regale 528, 53839 as vitium comitiorum 38, 519, 521, 539 fumus 632 funus 11112, 336, 46162, 530, 539, 552 and contraria facere 112 publicum 429 G gaesati Raeti 223, 225 gaesum 185 Gaetuli 171 Gaetulicus 122 galerus (headcover of priests) 9899 Galli 16, 219, 222 Gallia 83, 152, 168, 171, 177, 223, 231, 234, 24546, 248, 25051, 25657, 259, 38586, 393, 399, 422, 43334, 436, 44041, 44647, 450, 46061, 488, 506, 562, 617, 619 Comata 392 gaudium 158 Gellius on augural birds 45, 15 on literary style 2526, 2829, 300 Genius 1068, 11213, 179, 362 of Augustus 393 Terrae Africae 160, 173 gerere, and agere 45 Germania 188, 257, 386, 43031, 465 Germanicus, Germanica expeditio 257 procinctus 225 gibber 19597 gladiarius 373 gladiatores 382, 407, 411, 452, 45862, 47374, 484, 629 glandes (slingshots) 390 gold, see aurum

714

Indices hortator 407 hortus, horti 326, 33741, 611 hospes, hospites 30912 hospitium 45, 30912, 31517, 345 hostages 49, 54, 69, 84, 287 hostis, hostes 60, 68, 80, 116, 25556, 549 publici 91, 110, 232, 256, 279 hostia 5, 13, 9596, 425, 516, 52529, 54243 hunchback, see gibber hypomnematographus 21213 I H Ianus 426, 431 Iberia, Iberi 509 Iberia, Iberi (Caucasian) 26276 kings of 264, 26870 ignis (in cult) 538, 542 imago, imagines 86, 145, 148, 22425, 384 award of 22425 hortorum 33738 immunes 2056 imperator, title of 11517, 12425, 131 imperialism 28587, 57880, 60910 imperium (concept of) 4, 35, 52, 88, 125, 15355, 16364, 166, 16872, 329 populi Romani (Romanum) 84, 157, 334 impius, impietas 13, 158, 334, 516, 518 imprecatio 386, 550, 631 in loco, legal concept of 139 inauguratio (augural term) of priests, kings, and places 1113, 165, 512 presumed, of Caesar as flamen Dialis 63637 incendia 538, 542 incestus 33335 incolae 426, 434 India 16162, 508, 512, 538, 576 Indigetes 42526 indulgentia 408 Industria (city in Italy) 409, 420, 443, 44748 indutiae (truce) 4952, 63, 65, 71, 80 and embassies to Rome 4952, 60, 6364 inferiae 18183 inimicitia, hereditary 122, 128 instauratio 521 Interamna Nahars 394, 416 intercessio 284, 52021 interrex, interregnum 135, 138, 140, 169, 28384, 620 invictus, invictum Scipionum nomen 156, 15960, 173 Sol 403, 565

grammaticus, grammatici 20, 25, 45, 78, 95, 186, 19298, 213, 300, 34445, 348, 394, 54849, 626 gratia 176 Gratianopolis 223 Greek, rendering of Latin official idiom 26061 grex, greges of animals 143, 363, 371, 425, 490 referring to humans 333, 46971, 474, 479, 48990 gurus, Parisian 556

Hades 58990 hanging 27778 hapax legomena 375, 39495, 402, 418, 420, 452, 472, 482, 570 haruspices, haruspicina 8, 17, 260, 304, 335, 43233, 492, 507, 511, 52528, 63839 Hasta (city in Italy) 409, 420, 44546, 448, 453 hasta 112, 201, 2056, 486 pura 18586, 206 hastatus 2056, 21617, 219 heads counting of 289 severed 280 Hephaistos 538 Heracleia Pontica 115, 11718, 12123, 126 Hernici 424 Hercules 37273, 392, 395, 5045, 514, 526, 541, 543, 558 Curinus 37273, 395 Musarum 86 Victor 372, 392, 418 statue on the Capitol 145 Hermes 55153 Hippo Diarrhytus 310311 Hippo Regius 173 Histiaia (on Euboea) 349 Histonium 412, 631 history constitutional 3436 senseless process 515 Histria 78, 387, 395, 402, 404, 410, 43334, 454, 475 histriones 205, 349, 452, 47475 honor, honores, honorare 76, 143, 157, 164, 175, 2035, 217, 223, 226, 234, 24445, 251, 254, 38084, 528 Honos (temple of) 39, 504 Horatius, and Lucanus 33334

Indices Iona, isle of 215 ira, iratus 101, 110, 426 Iria 43334, 447 Iran, Iranian 26366, 269, 27173, 275 iron (excluded from cult, and the death of Ti. Gracchus) 1023 Isaura Vetus (captured by P. Servilius Vatia) 117, 125 Isis 387, 509, 547, 553, 556, 561, 565 Italia 36, 49, 5153, 6465, 123, 179, 183, 22930, 234, 238, 240, 25152, 257, 286, 301, 316, 393, 627 administration of 29193 iter 51, 65, 31112, 315, 394, 518 iterum 166, 385, 394, 406, 623 Iudaei 222, 227, 502, 504, 56671 iudex 102, 113, 120, 189, 204, 313, 335, 615 iudicare 102, 176, 256, 318, 397 iudicium 27, 40, 65, 110, 112, 119, 12122, 12627, 152, 195, 518, 521, 634 Iulia, Iulium (in names of cities) Arelate 234 Carnicum 435 Concordia 493, 495 Dertona 447 Iria 447 Tridentum 403 iuniores 47071, 47475, 479, 48991 Iuno 6, 146, 345, 449, 471, 504, 514, 560, 588, 63334 Moneta 588, 600, 63334 Regina 146 Iuppiter 6, 9, 1119, 24, 46, 90, 99, 102, 11214, 161, 16364, 24950, 420, 425, 503, 505, 5079, 514, 517, 538, 558, 56566, 587, 596, 63637 Compagus 618 Dolichenus 541, 543 Feretrius 24 Fulgur 539 Imperator 99 Iuventus 420 Lapis 588 Stator 146 Tutor 249 ius belli 288 civitatis 36, 123, 185, 191, 223, 226, 26668, 273, 276, 284, 377, 384, 404, 41112, 415, 422, 424, 434, 437, 442 gentium 4041, 48 iurandum 1045, 114, 549, 616

715

Latii 434, 437, 453, 627 vitae necisque 27980, 559 iustitia 16364, 307 iustum, iusta auspicium 172 bellum 64, 255, 288 causa 158 imperium 163 matrimonium 275 iuvenalia 463, 472 iuvenes, iuventus 175, 187, 194, 252, 325, 388, 419, 470, 479, 48184, 486, 48891 Iuventus (dea) 388 epithet of Iuppiter 420 J Jerusalem, capture by Titus 22223 jug, augural symbol 130, 16468, 17073, 403 K kalendae lucerninae 362, 364 kankleion 1115 L lac, as sacrificial offering 535 laena 100 lana (wool) 624 laesit / laeserit 550 laetus 158, 321, 528 Lallnamen 265 Lambaesis 190, 490 Lampsakos, and Rome 5658 lanx, lances 48486 Lanuvium 488 lapidatio 278, 523 Lapis niger 539 Lares 3132, 11213, 362, 492, 504, 550, 617, 619 lateres signati 261, 294, 45053, 49697 Latin, style and usage 2529, 23536, 24655, 25860, 300, 30917 Latinus, Latini ethne 85, 157 legal category 191, 627 Latium 99, 396, 424, 426, 561 latro, latrones 174, 25556, 337, 340 laudatio publica 22426 Lavinium 11213

716

Indices Lepcis (Leptis) Minor 490 lex, leges Acilia de intercalatione 516 Acilia de repetundis 300 agraria (of 111) 495 de ambitu 39, 614 annalis 612 Antonia iudiciaria 189 Appuleia agraria 16768, 521, 52324 Aurelia iudiciaria 120, 189 belli 125 Caecilia Didia 36, 283 Calpurnia de repetundis 300 Clodia (de legibus ferendis) 517 convivales 26 curiata (de imperio) 139, 15455, 16870, 182, 280, 555 Gabinia de senatu legatis dando 37 Hortensia 516, 633 Irnitana 617 Iulia agraria 400 Iulia de ambitu 120 Iulia de civitate danda 191 Iulia de collegiis 54647, 619 Iulia iudiciaria 189 Iulia municipalis 19091 Iulia de peculatu 120, 127 Iulia de provinciis 15354 Iulia de repetundis 30711, 31516 Iulia de residuis 233 Iulia theatralis 305, 615 Labiena de sacerdotiis 134 libitinaria 279 Licinia de sodaliciis 61920, 623 Liciniae Sextiae 638 Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia 400 municipii Tarentini 120 municipal from S. Vittore di Cingoli 408 Papiria de tribunis reficiendis 9596 Plautia de vi 620 Pompeia de ambitu 241, 396 Pompeia de provinciis 15254 Pompeia (de Transpadanis) 434, 453, 627 Pupia de senatu 37 repetundarum 309 Roscia theatralis 615 sacra, from Aletrium 42526 sacra, of Numa Pompilius 426 sacrata 32, 11314, 279, 555 tabellaria 439 Tullia de ambitu 120, 396, 612, 620 Ursonensis 618 Valeria Aurelia 181

law, Roman, its character 29596 (cf. ius) lectisternium 589 left and right, in augury 6, 1517, 19 legatus envoy 4448, 50, 7071, 76, 83, 238, 317 governor 163, 274, 439 staff officer 7071, 76, 83, 219, 235, 307, 316 Augusti (Caesaris) 256, 317, 439 legionis 190, 23740, 244 pro praetore 123, 313 lege age, agere 110, 51618 legio prima adiutrix (mythical) 208 I Adiutrix 261 I Italica 541 II (of Caesar) 235 II Adiutrix 261 II Augusta 421, 431 III Augusta 43940, 449 III Gallica 223, 227 IV 204 IV Macedonica 443, 446 IV Scythica 42931 V (of Caesar) 156, 22939 V Alaudarum 162, 22931, 239 V Gallica 230, 234 V Macedonica 209, 230, 261 VI (of Caesar) 234 VI Ferrata 234, 261 VII (of Caesar) 221 VII Claudia 226, 230 VII Gemina 45556 VIII (of Caesar) 231 VIII Augusta 24245, 24748, 254, 25657, 261 IX (of Caesar) 231 IX Hispana (Hispaniensis) 431, 449 X (of Caesar) 231, 39091 X Fretensis 39091, 440 X Gemina 390 XI (of Caesar) 231, 238 XI Claudia 542 XII (of Caesar) 231, 23839 XII Fulminata 261 XIII Gemina 206, 209, 261, 443 XIV Gemina 431 XX 431 XXII Primigenia 261 XXVII (of Caesar) 230 XXX (of Caesar) 235 vernacula 23536 Lenin 508 Lepcis (Leptis) Magna 479, 488

Indices Visellia 225 vitio lata 523 Voconia 417 Libarna 44748 Liber (deity) 32 liberare, obsidione 24255, 257, 259, 261 libertas 74, 101, 148, 15152, 175 libra (scales) 16364 librarius 209, 456 libri lintei 634 reconditi 633 Sibyllini 78, 32, 112, 25859, 261, 504, 512, 528, 598, 602 Liguri, Liguria 50, 80, 250, 252, 324, 38487, 402, 408, 42022, 440, 443, 44548, 450, 45354 litatio 164, 52728 litis aestimatio 121 litterae laureatae 116 lituus 5, 99, 161, 16468, 403 on coins 161, 16473 Livius, and religio 639 loco, filii, filiae 13940 Locri 252, 254, 259, 370, 390 locus effatus 410 inauguratus 11 pulcher 15, 17, 19 religiosus 410, 539 sacer 408, 410 Lokris 64 Lombards, Lombardia 268, 387, 44344 Lucani, Lucania 49, 204, 227, 259, 389 Lucanus (poet), and Horatius 33233 lucernae (lamps) 450, 460, 535, 567 as New Years gift 362 lucus (grove) 392, 408, 428, 560, 590 ludere 469, 471, 47374, 47879, 48890 ludi (games) Augustales 407 cetasti 46391, 626 circenses 380, 407, 47879, 488 compitalicii 31, 109, 61819 gladiatorii 381, 459 iuvenales (iuvenalia) 463, 472, 48889 militares 202, 228 piscatorii 467, 537 Plebei 32 Romani 32 saeculares 32, 157, 172, 48485, 491, 597 Tarentini 32

717

Taurei 32 votivi 52627 and Augustales 381 Lugdunum 432, 449, 460 lumen 418 as legal term 33940 lupanar 152, 336 Luperci, Lupercalia 492, 508, 55960, 594 lustrum and auspicium 169 felicitas of, infelix 62, 78 lusus 467, 470, 48184, 48688 Troiae 202, 222, 48183, 48586, 488, 491 luxuria, luxus 2728, 319, 324 lyra 55153 M magic 13, 32, 107, 283, 289, 377, 502, 51617, 556, 565 magister, magistri 492, 617 Apollinares 180 augustales 180, 38081 Campani 31, 61819 cenae 22 compitales 109 collegiorum 31, 1089, 492, 61819 on Delos 619 equitum 252 haruspicum 432 Laverneis 618 ludorum 31 Mercuriales 180, 619 pagi 39394 sodalium Augustalium 18182 vicorum 31, 101, 1089, 136, 492, 618 magistratus (magistrates) 7, 11, 3435, 38, 40, 45, 51, 5759, 71, 73, 8081, 88, 9091, 1001, 103, 105, 10712, 12628, 130, 134, 137, 139, 15253, 155, 162, 164, 16670, 18687, 192, 200, 233, 278, 28283, 30811, 315, 319, 375, 426, 434, 438, 473, 511, 518, 52123, 531, 534, 539, 604, 62223, 63738 Magna Mater 257, 504, 565, 589 maiestas, crimen of 121, 128 Maior (praenomen) 402 mana 513 Manes 164, 18183, 494 mansio 31417 manubiae 8081, 127, 398 manus (legal concept) 139, 280, 53031, 557, 61617

718

Indices drowned 101 fatale (Cleopatra) 33235 Roman concept of 33435 mors 40, 11011, 114, 174, 258, 260, 27781, 495, 522, 549, 552, 589, 632 mortes singulares 630 Mtskhteta (in Georgia) 26263, 26768, 27071, 27375 mulier 35, 109, 258, 323, 33435, 342, 347, 371, 417, 420, 464, 534; see also femina multa (pecuniary penalty) 120, 398, 408 municipium, municipes 244, 250, 29294, 314, 370, 37778, 387, 389, 391, 39596, 399 402, 404, 4069, 411, 416, 420, 42526, 433, 43640, 446, 453, 455, 465, 494, 619, 626, 629 envoys of 40 leges 120, 19091, 392 magistrates 1089, 377, 379, 394, 399400, 4067, 419, 431, 43840, 442, 489, 495 sacerdotes 179, 379, 418, 431 Mutinus Titinus 109 N N (in calendars) 51617, 519 N (epigraphic notation) 396, 46870, 62627, 630 names, paired 427 Napoleon III 342 Naristae 225 Narnia 394 natalis 202, 228, 362, 381, 396, 442, 46869, 51819, 62630 nationes, representations of 172 naves constratae 229 necessitudo 176 neco 278280 nefas 158, 280, 325, 519 and vitium 51718 nefastus, see dies Neptunus 48788, 557 Nicolaus, sanctus 406 Nicomedia 411 nobilitas (as social category) 106 nomenclature, Roman 13052, 183, 262276, 29495, 395, 431, 447 Nomentum 36566 Nortia (dea) 627 Nova Augusta (in Hisp. Tarrac.) 247 Novia (urbs) 24648 NP (notation in calendars) 519

map, of Agrippa 625 maritalis affectio 37374 torus 37374 Marrucini 49, 631 Marruvium 427 Mars 6, 36364, 504, 514 Marsi 11, 392, 425, 483 Marsyas 32 Mataurense, see Urvinum matrimonium 11, 275, 33435, 374, 504, 53032, 550, 565, 61617, 63537 Matronae (deities) 386 Mauri, Mauretania 16162, 250, 257, 436 medici 306, 399 Mediolanum 386, 437, 439, 449, 488 Melfi (in Lucania) 389 Menander, portraits of 35558 menses, descriptions and representations of 36264 mentalities, a diffuse concept 513 Mercurius 180, 503, 505, 507, 537, 55153, 619 mereo 18690, 199200 meretrix 26, 33236 Messana, Caesars garrison of 22941 Messapii 389 metuentes 56871 miles, milites 35, 75, 77, 188, 2012, 206, 21618, 222, 228, 23031, 23840, 250, 255, 261, 31112, 314, 31718, 324, 373, 400, 44142, 612 militans, militantes 244, 246, 253, 314 militia 91, 169, 186, 2045, 440, 442, 487, 615 militiae (opposed to domi) 60, 233 mimus, mimi 159, 349, 358, 452, 47475, 482, 488, 495 Minerva 6, 403, 587 Minturnae 259, 461, 492, 58788, 619 Misenum 629 missio gladiatorial 461, 484 honesta 223, 456 Mithra, Mithraism 209, 318, 504, 509, 513, 561, 56566 Moesia 227, 43031, 541, 543 Mogontiacum 226, 249, 443, 446 Mommsen, Theodor method of Staatsrecht 3435 and Syme 35 monarchy 22, 175, 17779, 289 Mondaino, and CIL XI 6053 24243 monstrum, monstra

Indices novus 24647 numerus (military term) 225 Numidia, Numidians 156, 163, 17172, 190, 252, 43940, 535 Numidica, ala 190 nuntiatio, of signs by augurs 38, 523 nuptiae (wedding) 334, 518, 53031, 61617, 635 Nursia 41419, 422 O oath 1045, 114, 549, 616; see also ius iurandum obfuscation, in scholarship 582 obnubere 635 obnuntiatio 38, 284, 51819, 521, 523, 533 obses, obsides 54, 69, 287 obsideo, usage of 237 obsidio, obsidione liberare 24255, 257, 259, 261 obtemperare 15657 Ocriculum 394 octoviri 416 officium, officia (chancery) 203, 208, 210, 215 Olbia (on the Black Sea) 26465 oligarchy 168, 173, 28889, 582 omen 4, 1417, 19, 15960, 169, 19697, 258, 260, 282, 409, 448, 526, 559, 630, 639 Opitergium (Oderzo) 387, 494 oppidum 75, 165, 229, 236, 314, 399400, 419, 443, 472, 479, 527, 630 Ops (Consiva) 9899, 537, 589 oraculum 321, 344, 478, 512, 52628 orator as envoy 4450 as envoy and beseecher (deprecator) 44, 47 and oro 44 Oreos (on Euboea) 349 oriental cults, religions 97, 338, 5012, 5045, 509, 526, 557, 561, 56466 orientalism, bogus 50910 Orpheus, orphica 55152, 562 Osiris 514 Ossetia, Ossetian 265, 275 Ostia 183, 372, 432, 48990, 49697, 563, 582, 584 Ovidius, and Sulmo 371, 373 Oxyrhynchus 21213 P

719

Padus (flumen) 420, 44248, 45455, 457 Paeligni 37071, 39192, 394 paganica, paganicum 394 paganus, paganism 503, 505, 5079, 560, 565, 569, 576 pagus 314, 370, 39394, 428, 492, 495, 618, 621 paludamentum 15657 Pannonia 133, 209, 211, 257, 375, 431, 456 pantomimus 452, 482, 488, 495 Paphos 52527, 529, 542 parcere subiectis, debellare superbos 4344 parentatio 182 parente, parentum (semantic and grammatical constructions of) 32425 Parilia 465, 46768, 471, 491 parricidium, parricida 1012; 110, 174, 232, 256, 278 partes (referring to actors) 474 Parthia, Parthi 131, 172, 201, 207, 250, 253, 27073, 317 Parthorum, ala 226 partus ancillae 631 exhausting 32025 illegitimate 333 pastores 3, 363, 371, 425, 46768 Patavium 396, 46373, 475, 47779, 481, 483, 48587, 48991, 544, 626630 patella 56970 patera 17273 patientia 622 patria potestas 33, 136, 139, 275, 27980, 555, 617 patricii 25, 32, 77, 106, 108, 135, 13738, 140, 149, 200, 623, 637 patrimi et matrimi 635 patronatus, patronage tabulae of 45 of emperors 177, 179 patronus, patroni liberti 22, 26, 436, 45455, 562 of Greek cities (and states) 5758, 72 collegii 388 municipal 24445, 250, 378, 38283, 398, 404, 406, 420, 428, 43739, 567 = orator 45, 4749 pax 49, 63, 66, 173, 178, 252 deum 51112, 518, 563, 63940

720

Indices Po (river), see Padus poena (penalty, punishing) 1314, 41, 77, 11011, 118, 12021, 12728, 256, 27781, 31213, 340, 450, 620, 623 poesia figurata 48283 Poetovio 20910, 212 Pollentia 409, 42122, 44243, 44748, 45254 pompeion (in Athens) 35457, 359 pontifex, pontifices 5, 89, 11, 13, 75, 8586, 88, 90, 9394, 9799, 1014, 108, 113, 13334, 13941, 15051, 162, 167, 300, 304, 327, 507, 51213, 51617, 520, 522, 524, 531, 534, 563, 591, 598, 605, 617, 63640 emblems and ritual attire 9799, 16465, 403 municipal 244, 439 Pontus 12223 porcus 36264 porticus 407 Octavia 146 portentum 25861, 523, 639 Portogruaro 49294 Poseidon 48788 Potentia, see Carreum potestas 35, 88; see also patria praeco 381, 383 praeda 65, 8081, 127, 157, 217, 233 praefectura administrative unit (township) 191, 314, 399400, 41516, 419 Aegypti 203 aerarii Saturni 494 praetorio 188, 212, 214 urbana 203 praefectus, praefecti Aegypti 208 aerarii Saturni 494 annonae 270 castrorum 86, 225, 417 cohortis 418, 43940 equitum 21921 fabrum 371, 43740 iure dicundo 401 military 7677, 22021, 307, 444 municipal 401 praetorio 212, 214, 561 Sarmatarum Gentilium 444 urbi 203, 427 vehiculorum 292 vexillariorum 224 praefigo 337, 34041

peculatus penalty for 12021, 12528 M. Acilius Gabrio accused of 6465, 8081 M. Aurelius Cotta accused of 11921, 12627 peculium 631 pecunia 80, 86, 140, 202, 23233, 309, 370, 373, 382, 384, 39799, 408, 457 pecuniam custodire 233 retinere 233 pecus (as offering) 42526 pecus a vi 42526 Pedona 422, 441 pedum 371 Pegasus (cognomen, nomen servi, navis, equi) 42627 Penates 99, 426, 526, 537, 542 penthiac 502 perditus, perditi 101, 158, 17576 perperare 375 persecutions, religious 50810, 561 Persephone 590 pertica 46971, 47580 Perusia 49, 52, petere, and envoys to Rome 49 Peucetii 389, 405 phalerae (military decoration) 185, 2023, 206, 22122, 225 Pharsalos (battle of) 133, 158, 176, 23031, 234, 238 piaculum 13, 513, 516, 518, 640 Picenum 399, 407, 416, 419 pictores 34258 pila ludere 34849, 351 pilleus of libertus 43 headgear of pontiffs 9899 Pinna 443 piratae 63233 Pisa 182 Pisaurum 243, 247, 369 piscatores 467, 537 pisces, as sacrificial offering 467, 53738 pitiax (pitiaxes), office in Caucasian Iberia, Iran and Armenia 26264, 26869, 27172, 275 pius, pia 24445, 253, 261, 528, 551 plebei (legal category) 32, 35, 77, 99100, 135, 164, 620, 623, 63738 plebs urbana 114, 337, 34041, 439 and Tabula Siarensis 183 Plestia 416 pluperfect, Latin usage of 23536

Indices praemia in courts 119, 127 military 202, 228, 234 Praeneste 99, 377, 53839, 626, 628 praestigiator 34244, 347, 34951 praetexta, praetextatus, see toga praetextam ponere 111 praetor, praetorship 7, 13, 24, 44, 50, 58, 6062, 78, 84, 110, 116, 12223, 128, 13334, 13839, 14849, 15154, 166, 172, 229, 232, 237, 249, 270, 30910, 315, 317, 328, 336, 378, 382, 386, 39698, 406, 418, 467, 51619, 534, 537, 604, 61415, 620, 623, 638 Aetolian, see strategos Albanus 4647 Etruriae 429 maximus 32, 638 municipal 45, 39899, 401 urbanus 7, 58, 116, 13839, 237, 336, 535 praetorianus, praetoriani 246, 270, 274, 409, 441, 443, 454, 485, 494; see also cohors precatio (prayer) 67, 12, 16, 90, 11314, 157, 504, 51112, 55657, 637, 639 principales 187, 2056 princeps, principes (emperor) 282, 312, 314 princeps (in the ranking of centurions) 206 principes Roman leading men 432, 517 non-Roman leading men 49, 66, 68, 82 military rank (in acies triplex) 157 privata auspicia 11 fulmina 629 sacra 513 via 371 privati, and provinciae 130, 15255 privatus, privatum consilium 15253 dux 91, 101, 148, 151 = non-magistrate 91, 1001, 119 Privernum 398 probrum, probri 7677, 254 procinctus 225 pro consule 39697 procurator 250, 270, 314, 317, 41112, 465 prodigia 38, 96, 25861, 300, 3034, 33435, 426, 512, 51718, 523, 598, 63840 professio (at elections) 282, 61112 propraetor (pro praetore) 65, 80, 123, 132, 162, 240, 313 proquaestor (pro quaestore) 159, 375, 621 proscriptiones, proscripti 280, 293, 310, 315

721

proselytos 56971 prosopography 35, 135, 586 prospectus 337, 33941 prostans 33233, 33536 proveho 2035 provinciae, assigned in 49 by Pompeians 15256 psephopaiktes 34950 psychopompos 55152 pulcher, as augural and pontfical term 56, 19 pullarius 14, 38, 16970, 639 pupa 550 purpura 15657 purpuras ponere 11112 Q quadragesima Galliarum 422, 441 quae et 469, 489, 490 quaestor, quaestorship 53, 56, 119, 127, 134, 159, 166, 204, 233, 238, 24445, 270, 310, 375, 379, 43738, 493, 53334, 62022 alimentorum, pro alimentis 379, 437 designatus 24445, 533 municipal 279, 431, 43638 quaestorius 204, 239 quattuorviri (IVviri) municipal 191, 370, 384, 392, 395, 399400, 406, 433, 43637, 439, 494 viarum curandarum 244 quindecimviri sacris faciundis 7, 492, 589, 598 quinquennalis 379, 383, 401, 406, 437 Quirinus 5, 426 R Raeti 223, 225, 395 Ravenna 45557, 55253 Reate 394, 41617, 558, 611 receptus (military manoeuvre) 220 red color (of offerings) 538, 542 regalia (exta, fulmina, signa) 528 regio, regiones caeli 1718, 507, 552 in Italy 36970, 37677, 379, 384, 38687, 38889, 391, 39496, 399, 4012, 4045, 4078, 410, 414, 41922, 424, 427, 431, 43335, 43943, 445, 447, 45051, 454, 457, 460, 475, 489, 627 in provinces 207 in Rome 185, 48889

722

Indices humanum 32, 461 sacrosanctitas 88, 91, 102, 104, 112, 27879, 555 Saena (Siena) 429 saepta, saeptus 407, 410 Sagalassos (in Pisidia) 31314, 316 salius, salii 37879, 492 sanctus, sanctum 4, 11, 107, 163, 513 Samnium, Samnites 14, 49, 53, 184, 200, 216, 251, 254, 370, 376, 391, 394, 407, 414 San Vittore di Cingoli 4078 sapientia, sapiens, sapienter 22, 29, 9597, 101, 14748, 152, 374 Sardinia 122, 199200, 241, 39697, 626 Sarmatia, Sarmatae 172, 228, 26566, 444 Sasanians 26365, 270, 273 Saturnalia 362, 364 scabellum 54647 scaena, scaenici 407, 470, 474, 482, 484, 488 Asiaticiani 562 schola 384, 429, 56364 scholarship, amateurish, lazy, uninformed 90, 52224, 599 scientia 8, 432, 512, 526 scriba 192, 4001 Scythia, Scythian 26465, 641 secta 56061 Seano[ci?], deditio of 5355, 69, 7475, 7980, 86, 28788 sedes deorum 513 in the north 1718 Selinus 48081 sella curulis 16264 senatus 3739 and acclamatio imperatoria 11617 and auspicia 38 consultum 7, 31, 39, 51, 65, 7475, 80, 86, 11618, 141, 15354, 170, 182, 190, 22425, 249, 255, 259, 400, 46061, 526, 547, 612, 618620 sententia 398, 406 seniores 470, 475, 49091 Septempeda 41920 Serapis (Sarapis) 97, 509, 525, 527 serpens, serpentes 15, 110, 162, 48384, 486, 565 enmity with elephants 16162 serpentis lusus 48184 servare, de caelo 4, 16 Setia 39699 seviri 180, 38184 augustales 180, 37984, 399, 426, 428, 431 shield, on coins 17273

Regium (Iulium) 38991, 630 religio 14, 64, 90, 109, 304, 50114, 51924, 55455, 58499, 610, 640 and Livius 639 repetundae, poena 11011, 12628 res publica (Roman) 14, 3137, 95, 150, 153, 159, 17578, 19596, 237, 279, 28285, 287, 28991, 319, 32225, 505, 517, 522, 526, 563, 577, 57980, 582, 614, 637 res publica (municipal) 292, 310, 4067, 421, 431, 439, 441, 447 res religiosa 494 retinere, pecuniam 233 reus 110, 119, 122, 196 rex convivii (mensae) 2027 Nemorensis 590 sacrorum 511 ritus, ritual 7, 14, 38, 4445, 49, 93, 9899, 1024, 107, 113, 155, 164, 16970, 18182, 27879, 289, 33435, 408, 464, 467, 508, 510, 513, 518, 525, 53031, 535, 53839, 547, 560, 590, 594, 636, 63840 Robigo 504 Roma et Augustus 39293 Rome, and Aetolia 6087 Rottweil, see Arae Flaviae Rubi (Ruvo) 389 Rusellae 42733 S Sabazius 561, 565 Sabini, Sabina 180, 251, 327, 36566, 370, 37677, 391, 394, 407, 410, 41419, 558 sacer = accursed 102, 104, 114, 27879, 517 esto 102, 114, 517 = sacred 11, 408, 410 sacerdos, sacerdotes (priests) 78, 11, 4546, 77, 9394, 98100, 1023, 105, 1079, 16468, 17980, 327, 37879, 393, 418, 429, 431, 44243, 492, 5023, 507, 51113, 52223, 531, 534, 563, 565, 585, 599, 604, 620, 633, 63639 sacratio (consecratio) capitis 102, 104, 114, 279, 522 sacrificium (sacrifice) 57, 13, 32, 9395, 97104, 109, 113, 165, 169, 179, 18182, 259, 326, 362, 373, 381, 426, 461, 465, 478, 492, 5014, 51113, 516, 518, 530, 53435, 538, 54243, 546, 556, 565, 570, 594

Indices Sibylline books 78, 32, 112, 25859, 261, 504, 512, 528, 598, 602 sic valeas 544, 54851 Sicilia 238, 24041, 315, 330 Siculi 60 Signia 588 signum, signa in divination 810, 1213, 16, 528 = standard 112, 235 = statues 86, 125, 225 = watchword 15758 attached to a name 387, 433 Silvanus (deus) 392, 542, 55960 silver, see argentum simpulum 16465, 403 simpuvium 16465, 170 Sinduni 404 socii 191, 254, 397 navales 67 sociologizing, specious 509, 513, 515, 519, 556, 583, 599 sodales Augustales 179183 Claudiales 182 and coniuvenes 489 Luperci, see s.v. Titii 180 sodalicium 562, 619, 623 sodalitas 61920 Sol (deity) 403, 565 somnium, somnia 7, 32, 113, 147, 19697, 336, 349, 514, 552, 589, 629 sors, sortes 152, 372 sortitio 180 and augurs 16466, 170 provinciarum 15254, 170 sortition jug 16465 spectio 521 Sparta (Lacedaemon) 251, 301, 303, 354, 471, 489, 491 spells 14, 517, 550 Spina 455 Spoletium 401, 41618 spolia opima 225 stator 37576, 395 statuae (signa, imagines) terminology of 86 award of 224, 226 statue(s) of Hercules (on the Capitol) 14546 Scipio Aemilianus (on the Capitol) 14546 Scipio Nasica Serapio (on the Capitol) 14546

723

turma Alexandri 146 stipendium 53, 18991, 199200, 223, 226, 310 stolata, femina 435 stoning 278 (cf. lapidatio) strangulation 278, 280 strategos (Aetolian) 6869, 72 suffibulum 9899, 109 suffragium legionis, vexillationis 223, 227 tacitum 439 sui iuris 133, 139, 555, 617 suicide 110, 150, 174, 176, 637 suilla 9597 Sulmo 24041, 36973, 375, 392, 395, 400, 543 Summanus 425 sumptus (legal meaning) 307, 30910, 31617 superstitio 509 Superaequuum 369, 39194 supplicatio 38, 11617, 259, 589, 600 supplicium militare 110 sus occisa 97 Sutrium 252, 254, 420 sword, and word 508 Syme, Ronald, and Mommsen 35, 610 symphonia 547 symphoniacus, symphoniaca, symphoniaci 54448, 55152 Syria 116, 13132, 152, 172, 176, 213, 27374, 317, 430, 528, 565, 567 T tabula, tabulae Clesiana 404 Hebana 17980 Heracleensis 191 Larinas 461 picta 85, 342, 506, 596 Peutingeriana 443 publicae 125 Siarensis 17983, 224 tabularium 208, 634 Tages, and revealed religion 8 Tanarus (flumen) 384, 386, 402, 44446, 448 Tanit 17273, 565 Tarentum 48687 Tarhu 539 Teate Marrucinorum 631 Tegianum 370, 39798 Tempestates 425

724

Indices tonitrus, tonare 523, 531 toponyms, modern, and ancient topography 415 torquata, torquati ala 207 milites 207 torques (military decoration) 157, 18485, 202, 206, 216, 21823, 22728 Torre Nove, Bacchic thiasos 56162 trabea 106 tralaticius (translaticius) 51, 309, 311 transire, transeuntes 308, 313, 31617 transitus 3079, 31213, 315, 31718 transhumance 371, 425 Transpadani, Transpadana 231, 424, 43335, 437, 44041, 447, 457, 627 transvestitism 26, 464 travel official 30718 speed of 62021 Treba 424 Trebia (flumen) 159 Trebiae 416 Trebula Mutuesca 377, 394 Trebula Suffenas 37684 Treveri, see Augusta Treverorum triad 58788 triakontaethrw 466, 490 tribal registration 13738, 454 tribunal in castris 237 domestic 33 legati legionis 237 of a magistrate 110 praetoris 60, 139, 237 pro tribunali 317 tribunus, tribuni, tribunatus aerarii 189 laticlavius 123 militum 62, 7677, 156, 18889, 200, 204, 22728, 232, 23437, 244, 246, 251, 254, 293, 307, 309, 417, 42931, 43940, 448, 541, 543, 604, 623 militum a populo 392 militum consulari potestate 638 plebis 32, 34, 38, 40, 62, 6465, 75, 80, 8891, 9697, 102, 11314, 11819, 126, 141, 155, 218, 252, 27879, 284, 399, 493, 495, 51819, 521, 523, 533, 555, 604, 63334, 637 plebis (municipal) 495 praetorianorum 270

temple (aedes) of Fides (on the Capitol) 90, 100, 114 of Iuno Regina 146 of Iuppiter (on the Capitol) 90, 11314 of Iuppiter Stator 146 of Ops (on the Capitol) 145, 147 of Roma et Augustus 39293 templum field of vision 45, 12, 16 locus effatus/inauguratus 11, 1617, 19, 16566, 410 termini 279 quattuor 40910 Terminus 588 tesserae nummulariae 142 testamentum 13340, 143, 151, 159, 197, 295, 362, 373, 396, 494, 631 testamentum Dasumii 137 testiculum, unum 123 testis (witness) 134 in courts 65, 86, 102, 13435, 195196 in senate 141 gods as 4546 Teutoni 259 Thapsus, city, and battle of 157, 160, 162, 173, 230, 232, 234, 240, 328 theosebeis 56871 theta nigrum 495 thiasos, Bacchic of Torre Nove 56162 Thracia 57, 61, 188, 224, 226 Tiberis 57, 101, 280, 326, 379, 394, 467, 639 tibia 54647 tibicines 218, 384, 54647, 551 Tibur, villa of Metellus Scipio 136, 142 Ticinum 324, 44445 tiro, tirones 156, 213, 23031, 456 toga and cinctus Gabinus 104 contorta 92, 104, 108 of Nasica 9194, 98100, 104, 108, 11314 night dress 106 perversa 10913 picta 164 praetexta (and praetextata) 31, 94, 99114, 128, 555 pulla 111, 181 pura 32, 101, 105, 15657, 555 (presumed) senatorial 127 sinus of 40 and velatio capitis 92, 94, 98101, 103, 1078, 635 virilis 122, 555 Tomba Franois 106

Indices tribus Aniensis 137, 377, 382, 400 Arnensis 42932 Camilia 45355 Claudia 389, 406 Clustumina 39495 Cornelia 13738, 401 Fabia 130, 137, 141, 46970, 472 Menenia 395 Oufentina 137, 429 Palatina 470 Papiria 387, 395, 402 Pollia 4089, 42021, 44243, 44546, 453 Pomptina 39798, 44546, 448 Publilia 384, 402, 424, 453 Quirina 415, 422 Romilia 455 Sergia 370, 392 Stellatina 44142, 453 Teretina 454 Tromentina 445, 453 Velina 399 Voltinia 407 Voturia 43637 Tridentum 388, 395, 4024, 411 trinci 46061 trinum nundinum 155, 283, 592, 594 triplicarius, evocatus 226 triumphus 38, 6465, 68, 7173, 7577, 8081, 83, 99, 11521, 12325, 143, 158, 164, 17172, 174, 186, 204, 218, 23234, 240, 32639, 331, 430, 473 cenae at 32631, 613 tropaeum 161, 164, 17172 truncated quotations 330 Tubilustrium 538 Tulliasses 404 tumultus 311, 487, 566 tuo (usage in inscriptions) 548, 55051 turma Alexandri (sculpture by Lysippus) 146 Cassiana 21920 equitum, at lusus Troiae 48183 equitum praetorianorum 485 inauratarum equestrium 14546 Salluitana 185, 207, 221 tutulus (headcover of priests) 9899 U Umbria 401, 416, 433 Urbs (fluvius) 445 Urbs (silva) 44445 Urvinum Mataurense 24447, 25354 Uzalis (in Africa) 629 V

725

Vada Sabatia 370, 453 Val Camonica 411, 428 Valentia, see Forum Fulvii, Vibo Valentia (in Gallia Narbonensis) 446 valeo 544, 54851 Vardacate 42021, 445, 447 Varro, and religio 5067 Veii 49, 280, 428, 504, 556, 588 velatio, velare, velatus, velatum (caput) 90, 93, 97109, 16465, 167, 635 introduced by Aeneas 99 Velitrae 369 Veneti 387, 466, 469, 472, 478 Venetia 387, 389, 395, 402, 404, 410, 424, 433, 454, 475 Venus 250, 371, 464, 487, 503, 52527, 529, 542, 550 Vercellae 410, 451, 456 Vercellenses 457 Vergilius, as topic for discussion in Macrobius 2223 Verona 411412, 470, 548, 561 verres (as offering) 373, 538, 54243 Verulae 42425 Vesta 112, 504 vestales 109, 278, 461, 467, 501, 53334, 536, 565, 6045 Vestini 260, 415 veteranus, veterani, veterana 241, 284, 293, 421 faithfulness and courage of 156, 170, 231, 255 mutiny of 235, 23840 legio 22932, 23435 settled in colonies 230, 234, 293, 389, 421, 442, 449, 455 vetera sunt, non leguntur 94 vexillatio 224, 22627, 231, 431, 541, 543 vexillum caeruleum, russeum 48788 military award 221, 226 standard 487, 489 via Aemilia 406 Appia 396 Fulvia 443 Gellia 406 Latina 396

726

Indices virtus 4647, 6162, 77, 82, 122, 125, 133, 144, 158, 185, 205, 220, 224, 261, 319, 32122, 32425, 386, 419, 463 Virtus (temple of) 39, 504 vis (violence) 620 vis deorum 42526 visceratio 326 vitaxae (office in Armenia) 269 vitium, vitiosus 13, 16, 38, 169172, 51819, 523, 531, 539, 636 vitulus (as offering) 373, 529, 538, 54243 vivere in se 373 Volcanalia 53738, 542 Volcanus 467, 53739, 54143 Volsci 49, 251, 258, 396 voluntas, imperatoris 223 votives 478, 556 votum, vovere 6, 18, 37273, 42931, 511, 513, 52627, 542, 550, 556 vultures, as augural birds 6, 15, 1819 W watchwords (signa), military 15758 wheel, Greek terminology 47578 window-boxes 33839, 341 Wissenschaft, versus dilettantism 507 word, and sword 508 Z Zagreus (deity) 561 Zela, battle of 234

militaris 317 Minucia 406 privata 371 Salaria 327 vicinalis 495 viasii vicani 495 Vibo (Valentia) 229, 231, 390, 447 vicinitas 399 victima 5, 96, 99, 16465 victimarius 97 victoria 3, 158, 17273, 261, 372, 386 Britannica 429 Victoria (dea) 161, 17273, 409 victory, theology of 16667 vicus, vici 307, 31314, 31718, 61718, 640 in Augusta Treverorum Beda 490 in Ostia Cisianus (?) 489 in Rome Cornicularius 185 Corvi 185 Lorarius 185 Oecianus or Oeci 489 Raciliani Maioris, Minoris 489 Sandalarius 170, 185 Unguentarius 185 magistri of 31, 1089, 136, 492, 61819 vindicare, in libertatem 101, 148, 15152 vinum, genera of 33031 as sacrificial offering 535 viocuri 394 vir fortis 218 militaris 218