Roman Questions II.pdf

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 Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien. My thanks go the editors of the series, Professors Géza Alföldy, Angelos Chaniotis and Christian Witschel. There were obstacles and delays; but the encouragement and support of Géza Alföldy, 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 Skutsch (Sk. “Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico-religioso romano”. Pease. Interea sol albus recessit in infera noctis. Diu. Catalano. 17] (1971) 44–74.] Remus auspicio se devovet [auspicio sedet Sk.):1 * This essay derives from the Agnes Michels Lecture delivered at Bryn Mawr College in April 1997. Wiseman = T.] e faucibus currus: sic expectabat populus atque ore timebat rebus [cf. Jocelyn = H. B.) = O. PCPhS 197 [n. Jocelyn. 77–96 V2)”. Linderski.) is preserved by Cicero. Div. Darmstadt 1963). I. In the poet’s soaring words he servat genus altivolantum. 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. ad loc.] veluti consul quom mittere signum volt. P.. 91–94 V. servat genus altivolantum. Linderski. Expectant [cf. The fragment (77–96 V. cf. Vaahtera = J. The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford 1985). E. ut apud Ennium est. It was published under the title “Founding the City” in S. Certabant urbem Romam Remoramne vocarent. repr. 1. Vahlen. “Urbs Augurio Augusto Condita: Ennius ap. Abbreviations: AL = J. Vahlen (V. Pease = A. “The Augural Law”. Sk.] utri magni victoria sit data regni. Catalano. Faris and L. It is dawn.16. Remus (Cambridge 1995). ANRW II. Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995).16. ad loc. Omnibus cura viris uter esset induperator.107–8. Roman Augural Lore in Greek Historiography (= Historia Einzelschriften 156 [Stuttgart 2001]). he looks out for the high flying tribe. Ten Years of the Agnes Kirsopp Michels Lectures at Bryn Mawr College (Bryn Mawr 2006) 88–107. omnes avidi spectant ad carceris oras quam mox emittat pictos [cf. itaque Romulus augur. = 86–89 Sk. M. RQ = J. in app.1 FOUNDING THE CITY Ennius and Romulus on the Site of Rome* The foundation day of the City. At Romulus pulcer in alto quaerit Aventino. S. Lundeen (eds. ANRW I.3 (1986) 2146–2312. 1 . cum fratre item augure curantes magna cum cura tum cupientes regni dant operam simul auspicio augurioque. 1923. RQ 527–30] atque secundam solus avem servat. In monte [in Murco Sk. Skutsch. 107 (= Ann. Catalano. It is here presented in a slightly revised version. Sk. The rays of the sun break out of the night’s darkness (Enn. D. Vaahtera. Romulus takes the auspices. Sk. Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale I (Torino 1960). For the sake of completeness and clarity. Catalano. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione Libri Duo (Urbana 1920. Ennianae poesis reliquiae2 (Lipsiae 1903).1 (1978) 440–553. “Aspetti” = P. Ann. Wiseman. and it is also the dawn of Latin literature. Contributi = P. Cic. = 72–91 Sk.) = J.s.). It nicely matches the locution pulcerrima praepes. altivolantes. Servius auctus.801–49). s. Ovid. s. Fondazioni di Roma Costantinopoli Mosca» (Campidoglio. 1. Conspicit inde sibi data Romulus esse propritim [cf. Sini. praepetibus sese pulcrisque locis dant. 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. passim.5). For the accounts of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. See esp. The word praepes is derived from peto in its original and lost meaning of flying. J. The verb servare is a well-known technical term: it describes an act of deliberate watching for signs as opposed to a casual observation. Some points are clear. The term was embraced by the poets. 91–92. This is a poetic epithet.vv. Certainly not. 62. Cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta avium.] auspicio regni stabilita scamna solumque”. praepetibus sese pulcrisque locis dant. the senator. 21–23 aprile 1997) [available online]. passim. Jocelyn.). also F. see Vaahtera. praepeto. Aug. Della Casa. still indispensable). simul aureus exoritur sol.5).4 Historia et Ius et simul ex alto longe pulcerrima praepes laeva volavit avis. A.107–8. Book IV (Cambridge 1998) 241–51. Vaahtera. Comunicazione presentata nel XVII Seminario Internazionale di Studi Storici “Da Roma alla Terza Roma”: «Initia urbis. 1. Rom.1–4) and Plutarch (Rom. 9.2 It must be interpreted in the light of our knowledge of augural lore. Swoboda.10). see the commentary by E. Pease ad Cic. Fantham.4 P. 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. praepes. Tassi Scandone. “Auspicium o augurium Romuli? Sul problema del rapporto tra auspicium ed imperium”. and all golden there came out the sun. but Ennius used it on purpose. in his Noctes Atticae (7. but in augural idiom it had a specific application. 2 3 4 5 . Nigidius Figulus. 6. n. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca VIII (Napoli 2001) 151–96 at 167. akin to Greek p°tomai.3 Romulus (and Remus too) observed the flight of birds. Thrice four hallowed shapes of birds moved down the sky. Nor is the word to be taken in this place in the collective sense (so Skutsch ad loc. Skutsch. simul aureus exoritur sol. and betook themselves to places lofty and of good omen”. 93. a lofty bird on the left. Nigidii Figuli operum reliquiae (Vindobonae 1889) 3–63 (Quaestiones Nigidianae. See A. sees in this bird the avis sent to Remus. praepes. See TLL (1987) 763–65. Fasti. 97–104. in Iuris vincula. Sk. 36–37. Nigidio Figulo (Roma 1962). Div.v. more importantly he also composed a treatise on augural signs. The commentators of Ennius valiantly struggled with this famous passage. the aerial templum. Linderski. “and just then there flew from the height the luckiest messenger. not recorded in technical handbooks. It was the first avis (of the twelve) to appear in the field of observation.5 An excerpt was preserved by Aulus Gellius in the second century. Aen. They were the high flying birds. E. 221–38. “La fondazione di Roma tra teologia e diritto nei poeti dell’epoca di Augusto (Virgilio e Ovidio)”.6.86.198: “servare enim et de caelo et de avibus verbo augurum dicitur”. Der Neue Pauly 10 (2001) 256–57. For the Ovidian account of the foundation (Fasti 4. P. ad loc. Cedunt de caelo ter quattuor corpora sancta avium. described in his Annales (Peter. who was in Roman tradition regarded as knowledgeable in every art of augury: “Postquam avem aspexit in templo Anchisa .. Ennius here followed strictly the established practice. Aspetti 467–72). praepes inferae”. “Discrepat dextra sinistrae. blessed through his augural staff. In the language of pontiffs it denoted a person or a thing that was perfect. The augurs used the adjective pulcher to describe a propitious sign or a person who received or was about to receive such a sign. Auspication. 2258–60. is lituo pulcher.6 The person who intended to auspicate would spend the night outdoors. He took his seat on a solida sella. see AL 2261. wrote the learned Nigidius. that is propitious and fortunate. in silence. made even more perfect. 2171–74. a term not employed here by Ennius but appearing in a similar context already in Naevius with respect to Anchises.). never turning his head or body. in particular a perfect offering. 34) deriving in both cases from a profound misconception of the ratio templi (cf. he would rise early in the morning.31] consueverant”. Licinius Macer. Taylor. 2276–78. by its gilded horns. a hypostasis of Romulus. tabernaculum. pontifical and augural. 6) the auspices of Romulus as auspicia pulchra et luculenta. praepetes must be birds which have a higher and loftier flight. a recent student replaces the stationary auspicant with an auspicant who “switched positions periodically” (R. Bell. MAAR 45 [2000] 1–40 at 21–22). Naev. = 2–4 Warm.375) Quirinus. aurea. and the Shrine in the Roman Forum”. fr. . 2282–89. Disregarding all explicit testimonies. and sleep in a hut. Aen.197: “ad captanda auguria [in Servius’ terminology = auspicia impetrativa.7 With his eyes he was thus marking out his field of vision. To this Gellius appended his own commentary: he astutely observed that since birds that are the opposite of praepetes are called inferae. splendid and excellent. fr. Pun.Founding the City 5 of Ennius. Servius. often of stone. Romulus was taking his auspices at dawn. AL 2297. 25 Strz. fattened to the extreme. and in Ovid (Fasti 6. This is exactly the error committed by Plutarch (Numa 7. and below. 2246. / immolabat auream victimam pulcram”. 2270–72. In Ennius Romulus when he watches out for favorable birds is pulcher himself. n. fit for the gods. 6 7 8 On the procedure and terminology of auspicatio. templum in augural parlance. cf. 22] post preces inmobiles vel sedere vel stare [cf. so that again no creaking noise would be heard. he proceeded to sacrifice a beautiful golden victim”. “Watching the Skies: Janus. “After Anchises had seen a bird in his field of vision. corresponds a pulchra victima. but it was also an expression of religious speech. Pulcher is a common adjective. n. bull or ox) “ad eximiam pinguitudinem perductus” (274 L. mane. Such an offering was called hostia opima (202 L. “the right is opposed to left. 2191–92. Cic. and while looking out for birds he sat motionless. 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. the “low” birds. praepes to infera”.). Div. 1. another contemporary of Cicero.. cf. so that no untoward noise would disturb the auspices. Vaahtera 107–8. 6. for it combines auspicia and sacra: to a propitious bird. C.1–3. apparently constructed of one piece. Catalano.8 A beautiful image – to a Roman reader. In that realm it occurs in two varieties. the Divine Voice par excellence. Cic. to no avail. north or west. divinités du silence dans la Rome antique”. were composed in Latin.9 No direct message. was qualified by Ennius as laeva. 56). Defosse (ed. known to us mostly through the intermediary of Cicero. J. that the Gauls were coming. cf. The aves apparently dropped down from the high sky. and an unusual kind: vultures (though Ennius does not specify this. and they did not have much to say. Dupont (ed. Should it then be north? Or perhaps the left side of the field of vision. 2. Div. de caelo. prayers and vows. from Jupiter or Mars or Minerva. offers loose divagations. but the occasion was also unusual. an unusual number. But what is left? Is it an established and immutable left. “La parole des dieux. “Divinités de la parole. cf. Ancient students of divination. who had. and rightly. What these places were no commentator of Ennius has so far succeeded in discovering. and later also Aramaic. taken to mean a laeva. but did not speak it. 1. Opus 6–8 (1987–1989) 125–36. 10 Sources and discussion in AL 2230–39. Scheid. Lau. or in any other language.10 We can follow their lead. 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. and not always fully comprehensible to the humans but crystal clear to the gods. why should laevus (and sinister too) have this connotation? These are not trivial questions. and of auspication too. warning the Romans.. the utterances of the Fauni. in F. In contrast the God of the Hebrews used the Hebrew tongue extensively. for avis is here hardly to be taken with Skutsch as a collective noun) the sun rose. in P. however. Paroles romaines (Nancy 1994) 45–51. We hear of the voces Faunorum. 9 . praepetibus sese pulchrisque locis dant. This is generally.101. “Aius Locutius et les voix de Rome”. in Latin.69. Dubourdieu. be it south or east. J. 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. n. “Paroles des dieux”. distinguished between two kinds of divination: natural and artificial. Addresses and entreaties.-L. Desnier. Hommages à Carl Deroux 4 (= Collection Latomus 277 [Bruxelles 2003]) 339–50.6 Historia et Ius To Romulus twelve birds appeared. 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. above all the Stoics. and D. toward Romulus. at least not to those conversant with Roman gods. hymns and songs. the formulas of dedication and consecration. precationes and vota. A. The favorable and high flying bird. and then they turned and flew away to the places Ennius describes as lofty and lucky. and above all of Aius Locutius. anchored according to the cardinal points. of a voice from the temple of Juno on the Arx. perhaps a little archaic. RHR 220 (2003) 259–82. L’originalité du dialogue des Romains avec leurs dieux”.). and Pease ad locc. “on the left” or “from the left” or perhaps “toward the left”. For here we stumble upon a curious but fundamental and surprisingly little noticed feature of Roman deities: they understood Latin. The difference is fundamental. spoken but once. pulcherrima praepes. and thus east (or north-east)? Or perhaps laevus is to be taken in a general sense of “favorable”? But if so. But only a few minor or ill-defined deities are on record to have actually spoken Latin. below.). The books thus served simply as an instrument of divination. They are the conduits for divine words. Acquired in the gray and hallowed past. 40. and the illumination of the will of the gods.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. The king Numa was regarded in Roman tradition as a great religious founder. 1. not a Roman product.16. This official tenor is reflected in Ennius (in a fragment of his tragedy Telamo). the decemviri (later quindecimviri) sacris faciundis. petty sacrificers and prophets. the Sibylline books. The Roman cult was not a revealed creed. and nobody was supposed to know their entire content. and of searching out and burning vaticinos libros.Founding the City 7 and extend this classification to the whole realm of religion. The books were believed to contain the fata populi Romani. libros adire. and the urban praetor issued the edict. §nyousiasmÒw. 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. to prophets and dreamers. There existed. and the passage thus selected was deemed to refer to the situation at hand. Nobody read them.29). The libri themselves were inspired and prophetic.11 They were. written in Greek hexameters. the books of prophecies. This was a standard procedure. they were not repositories of moral precepts.1. Natural divination (and natural or revealed religions) rely upon divine inspiration. upon instinctus divinus. however. . Livy (39. The senate decreed. there were kept under lock and key in a stone chest in a cellar under the Capitoline temple. but through the mouth of a vates the Deity may give an extensive message concerning all facets of life and death. In divination proper these words may give a glimpse of the future. Not at Rome.132) who quotes the poet’s ringing denunciation of “creduluous prophets. took hold of the minds of men and women. and become sacred books. crazy or crooked. but their interpreters were not. During the Hannibalic war sacrificuli and vates. clumsy. This kind of divination is proper to vaticinantes and also somniantes. 25. shameless gut-gazers. who do not know their own path yet point the way for another”. It was assembled through trial and error. The main ingredient is here emotion or furor. 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. by king Tarquin the Old. When the Bacchanalian conspiracy shook the city. Rzach in RE 2A (1923) 2105–17. These messages may be committed to memory or to writing. Only in times of particular danger or of particular need the senate would order the priests to approach the books.12). They were guarded by a board of priests in charge of foreign rites. The latter we would call today revealed. The scrolls were opened at random. of course. They tried to understand the 11 The most detailed account still A. The great conceptual divide will thus lie between the artificial and natural creeds. there was advice hidden in it. and in Cicero (Div. 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. the Greeks called it enthusiasm. sacrificers and prophets. obvious and natural. only to the signa oblativa (Servius. 14 On the books of augurs. but if you need to communicate on the spot. Their approval as diviners finds explanation in the following circumstance: although the core of their disciplina may have been revealed. a nova res. In Cicero’s account they appear together with the augurs as the main representatives of artificial. sacerdotes populi Romani. and of a good portion of the haruspical books. Bern. understood by the Chaldaeans. Although their services were in great demand they had never achieved the status of official priests.17: “in augurum certe disciplina constat neque diras neque ulla auspicia pertinere ad eos. . 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. however. observatio and coniectura. and boldly draw inferences.636. ad Lucanum 1. 1906. 2. Servius. any happenings that accompanied the signum or followed in its wake. the augurs would know its meaning or in any case could find it in their books. Aen. for future use.8 Historia et Ius selected passage in the light of the current situation and past experience. see AL 2241–56. that is ‘scientific’. Darmstadt 1968).14 These books were like dictionaries. it was based on two procedures characterized by Roman experts as observation and inference.15 Hence the principal ingredient of a good augur was memoria. or the various signs from the gods. 1909. 13 AL 2231. the augur or haruspex had to rely on all his knowledge and experience. How different is this avowed origin from that of the revealed scripts! If a recorded sign appeared. divination. and do not remember words. This procedure had resulted. it will be of little help to know that all the words are in the dictionary. Die etruskische Disciplin (Göteborg 1905. but they were deemed aliens. 15 Plin. 2240. of pontiffs.16 For there could come a sign that was entirely new or whose meaning was not well established. disciplinam haruspicinae dictavit. This branch of divination was an empirical science. Div. The sign would be recorded. coniecturae. be it the course and the significance of the stars. But there was also another requirement: ratio. taking above all into account the results of previous consultations. repr. To interpret such a sign.530: “nam nostri arbitrii est visa omnia vel inprobare. and Pease ad loc. vel recipere”. NH 28. Cic. apply the power of reasoning.12 At Rome the haruspices were fully accepted. the haruspices themselves were not prophets but experts. Aen. reason. 12. 5. This painstakingly assembled body of knowledge was committed to memory and to writing.O. already in the remote past. The Roman observer had to interpret signs immediately.13 The term observatio denoted the process of long-lasting observation (observatio diuturna) of phenomena. and he had either to accept them expressly or expressly reject as not pertaining to him. 2233–34. The aim of this procedure 12 Sch.259). This rule referred.50. 16 AL 2232–34. in the acquisition of positive knowledge. qui quamque rem ingredientes observare ea negaverint”. and also recorded were any eventus. concerning certain categories of signs. The unrivaled study of the haruspices and of their craft remains C. this is the origin of the books of augurs. 2237–38. Thulin. scientia . from the situation at hand. When Romulus climbed onto the Palatine (or was it Aventine as Ennius has it?) Jupiter spoke to him in the language of signs.12). L’orientamento nel mondo classico (Pisa 1998) 74–98. be it Hebrew or Jovian. Their ignorance of the augural stones from Bantia (see below. nn. The recent studies by B. and the signum would then be moved from the category of unknown or uncertain novae res into the category of veteres res. They received their full significance within a peculiar system of grammar.Founding the City 9 was to ascertain a causal and temporal link between the sign and the event. from the tripudia (ex tripudiis. the manner in which they manifested themselves.18 In Roman divine communications the basic lexical unit was a sign. An attentive student will realize that we are here in the process of decipherment of a (divine) language. and by P.17 When we study a language. 2287–89. Egyptian Grammar (Oxford 1927) 27. 1. 52–53) rendered their studies obsolete at the very moment of their publication. that is from the eating manner of the sacred chickens. First the signa were classified according to their material quality. so did the Roman augurs. 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. and the main concepts of this grammar were left and right. Here the Roman augures publici distinguished five categories of signs: from the sky (ex caelo. the established signs. we must consider not only vocabulary but also grammar and syntax. The frequent appearance of this sign is explained by its double function: as an ideogram it represented vulture. the pulli). A destra e a sinistra. 458. the result was a maze of crisscrossing semantic lines. Div. 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. “Dexter et sinister et leurs équivalents”. In a technical phrase this process was described as signa eventis notare (Cic. the precise meaning of the sign may finally be cracked. A. would fail the test of an augur. 19 Cf. that is from thunder and lightning). from the quadrupeds (ex 17 Skutsch 236–37. 18 AL 2258–60. signum.19 The Egyptian scribes mastered and perfected their complicated script. Aretini. . and in the more general sense any bird. Glotta 69 (1991) 194–201. Liou-Gille. Nor can signa be treated in isolation. AL 2269. And yet Romulus (and the readers of Ennius) had not the slightest difficulty in understanding the message. Gardiner. after many repeated observations. The augurs (and pontiffs) classified the signa in various ways. 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. But it also functioned as an alphabetic sign with the phonetic value of a glottal stop (corresponding to Hebrew aleph). from the birds (ex avibus). Signa represented words or rather notions. quite like Chinese characters or Egyptian hieroglyphs. Words alone are not sufficient. a temporal and spatial grid. 2280–86. In due course. they were ideograms. 22 Servius. and consequently between the signs that pertained to a concrete and well-defined undertaking. OCD3 (1996) 223–24. 613–14. Again the commentary on Vergil: “the lesser auguries (minora auguria) yield to greater (maiora). RQ 476–77.20 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). auspicium aquilae praevalet”. Dio 38. ex diris”. si parra vel picus auspicium dederit. The impetrative auspices pertained to the stage of contemplation. some were minora.5. and subsequently an eagle gave a contrary sign. 23 Servius auctus. The former are the auspicia. observed a Vergilian commentator. They could annul and override each other.13. ad agendi consilium (Cic. Aen.23 But it was signa ex caelo. ex tripudis.13: “minora enim auguria maioribus cedunt nec ullarum sunt virium. Servius auctus. . the latter the auguria. 3. so to speak. 24 Servius auctus. ad Ecl. Servius auctus. 572–73.26 The auspices referred to action.25 Further we have carefully to distinguish between action and status. but religiously distinguished by the augurs. Contributi 80–95. 2290–96. ex avibus. s. the sighting or observation of birds. 2239. Aen. AL 2217–18. RQ 613–14. Cass. In Servius the term augurium often appears in the sense of auspicium. 2. 3. that the augurs regarded as the greatest and strongest auspices. and finally from unusual or frightful occurrences (ex diris). on the one hand the signs especially solicited or impetrated (impetrare). Before any important task it was prudent to ask for divine permission.: “Quinque genera signorum observant augures publici: ex caelo.v. 3. 2212–16.374: “notum est esse apud augures auspiciorum gradus plures”.24 Next a sign could be sent by the Deity asked or unasked.22 and in another place: “if.32). Aen. and those signs that referred to the status of persons or things. ex quadripedibus. Rom. Aen. Hal.693. Auguria were administered solely by the augurs. contemplated or being executed. Dion. auspicium. licet priora sint”. 9. cf. and came to denote a whole variety of divinatory phenomena that had nothing to do with birds. the term became synonymous with signum. a barn-owl (parra) or woodpecker (picus) gave the auspicium. auspicia maxima. Catalano. and have no force whatsoever even if they (appeared) first”. This consideration produced two further fundamental divisions of signs. Contributi 33–71. and on the other the signa or auspicia oblativa which “offered” themselves spontaneously to a viewer. and the augurs appear to have used the auspices only in connection with the auguries. lightning and thunder. and by Ennius. hopelessly confused in everyday Latin and by modern students.3–4. 20 Festus ex Paulo 316–17 L. 3. especially auspicium impetrativum. Ant. Leg. 2.89.5. Cf.21 Some were stronger. a pecking order. “It is well known that among the augurs there are many grades of auspices”.10 Historia et Ius quadripedibus). These signs were arranged in. et deinde contrarium aquila dederit. 2. signa or auspicia impetrativa. And any action proceeded through two distinct augural phases: the stage of contemplation and the stage of execution. 21 Servius auctus.374: “ut puta.466. Aen. 26 Catalano. some were weaker. the eagle’s auspicium prevails”. for instance. 25 AL 2195–96. some were maiora. The adjectives used about such people and places were augustus and sanctus. The activation occurred at the ceremony of auspication. sacerdotes publici. Not every aedes sacra was a templum and not every templum was an aedes sacra. 2249–50 (sanctus). templum. and it introduces us to another fundamental division of auspices: the division into auspicia privata and auspicia publica. we frequently hear of the auspices concerning a particular day. Furthermore this permission or prohibition was valid for one day only. Catalano. and by conspicere.7.70): “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”). The locus classicus is Varro in Gell.7. a custom that survived long into the empire. 2290–91 (augustus). RQ 560–74. 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). OCD3 1483. auspicium eius diei. Contributi 42–45.28 The impetrative auspices revealed the will of Jupiter.178 (captare). the technical term was auspicia capere or captare. This was accomplished by servare.v. 2. They could consult the auspices only with respect to actions that lay within the sphere of competence of each particular office or priesthood.6 (habere). nn.27 Every person could auspicate – but only with respect to his own affairs. “increased” and “holy”. To be used they had to be activated. “Aspetti” 473–78. and inauguration was also necessary for higher priests and kings. and accepting the message. But these auspices were latent. but rather in the propriety of its being carried out on a given day. AL 2217–18. 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. See the sources in Catalano. Cicero states this explicitly (Div. Aen. This is an important limitation. watching for the signs. Servius auctus. and above. 2. AL 2215–25. An often quoted example of private auspices is the auspices taken before the marriage ceremony.31 27 28 29 30 31 Liv. J. The auspicia publica were administered by the magistrates and the public priests. Linderski. Contributi 211–334. In an ideal situation the deity either permitted or prohibited it.41. The auguries on the other hand had no temporal limitation. but only in a very limited sense. 6.30 This holiness lasted until it was removed by a reverse ceremony of exauguratio. 14. s.Founding the City 11 Every person could address a deity. observing. They did not reveal the future. At this ceremony the auspices were “taken”. Thus the auspicia impetrativa pertained to the present or more exactly to the action the auspicant was contemplating to undertake. This status was doctrinally different from that of sacer.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. Noct. 15. 3. comprehending. “sacred” (the latter was in the province of pontiffs). . Att. to us. another precatio. always interested in archaic diction. that the 32 Skutsch 223–24 may stand for all when he writes: “one and the same act is meant”. Norden. For Plutarch’s account of Numa’s inauguration (Numa 7. he strictly delimits his field of vision. leges or condiciones. his templum in the air. and then he described exactly (peregit verbis) the auspicia he wished to be sent. Next he pronounced another formula. The most important point is this: using the markers in the terrain below him. Terentius Varro.34 In Livy it is not Numa himself who takes the auspices (as Romulus does in Ennius).12 Historia et Ius The auguries were enacted by the means of auspices. a phrase spectacularly misunderstood by commentators.1–3). C. Pavone. M.32 The auspicant pronounced a formula. 3. Aus altrömischen Priesterbüchern (Lund 1939) 3–106. but Livy preserved well its augural flavor. does not explain. First. 31) or various studies of Valeton (see the list in AL 2311) to apprehend the augural incorrectness of that statement.33 It described the parameters.8. 7. As Ennius writes Romulus and Remus dant operam simul auspicio augurioque. Livy. 35 Varro. 1. Ling. BSL 23 (1993) 265–81. a study inspired by intuition and informed by erudition.35 In that formula much remains. see a detailed analysis in AL 2256–97. the auspicant exactly defined his fines. But he also looked straight ahead as far as he could see. but an (unnamed) augur who consults the gods concerning Numa’s regnum. to the end of the horizon. left and right. and hence Cicero (and perhaps also Ennius) duly specifies that the brothers were augurs. left toward the north. . De lingua Latina VII 8)”. and with this (imaginary) line he dissected his templum aerium in two parts. Cf. n. 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.89. 34 Liv. 190–91. as Ennius puts it. 4) esp. At the auspicy connected with augury the celebrant. See the stupendous analysis by E. It was sufficient to consult Catalano (above. Of this formula we have unfortunately only the version of Livy. placed most likely on the line of the pomerium. What specifically those auspices were to be. asked the deity for permission to inaugurate this place. stretching over the urbs and the ager.18. Unjustly: every act of inauguration included the taking of auspices. The locus classicus is Livy’s description of the inauguration of Numa as king of Rome. Tassi Scandone (above. At the auspicy pertaining to agere the celebrant asked for permission to act today: to fight a battle or hold an assembly. but still Varro and Livy very fortunately elucidate each other. “A proposito della formula augurale (Varrone. obscure. always an augur. AL 2267–79. Aen. of the ceremony. looking from the arx. Roma or Remora. But from the mention of urbs and ager in his description. This enunciation. 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. The augur asked Jupiter for signa certa. with full certainty. see AL 2296–97. 33 Servius auctus. and right toward the south. the right and the left border of his field of vision. Lat. 181–86. we can deduce. as is his exasperating custom. was defined as legum dictio. and the learned investigation by Vaahtera 104–13. n. and the trees as the markers of the fines in Varro.6–10. nuncupatio verborum. declare this man a king or found this city. The same principle obtained also in the augural law. It was a firm tenet of Roman cult that the gods should fend for themselves. dico. quae secundo auspicio ante eum volant. 8. and auspicium ratum facere). 3. naturally. qui auspicatur”. an avis incerta. 2285. a positive 36 Skutsch 225 (following Vahlen) is to be commended for having recognized the augural relevance of the adjective. 1.73. “deorum iniuriae dis curae” (Tac. Aen. How potent this formula was is best illustrated by the following circumstance (reported by Varro. as some earlier and current interpreters think. knowingly or unknowingly. and his impiety could not be washed away by any expiation. 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.30. see AL 2208. 2295. . Cf. he was (according to the opinion of the learned pontifex maximus Q.4. as Varro puts it. He was free.1.53): if the praetor inadvertently uttered these words on a dies nefastus he had to offer a sacrifice of expiation. the praetor could pronounce (fari) the three legal. a signum dubium. looks out for a favorable bird. 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. Wiseman 177. For instance. and. addico. Div. Ling. Lat. but his act was valid. only for favorable signs. on purpose. Hence the request of signa certa. In Ennius Remus secundam avem servat.361: “praepetes sunt. 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. This qualification of the bird is not redundant and illogical. Mucius Scaevola) impius forever. But if he uttered them prudens.4. 8. The auspicant thus asked.37 To characterize the positive answer the augurs employed the hallowed word addico: aves addicunt (they also used the expressions admittere: aves admittunt. vitio liber. 38 For the evidence. and magical. the signs the augural interpretation of which was not in doubt. do.30. if he manumitted a slave (this presupposes the manumissio in the form of vindicatio. this error did not affect at all the legal validity of the act he performed. cf. when he sent a sign of ambiguous meaning. 8. Furthermore the praetor was not subject to any human punishment but only to divine wrath. Servius auctus. continues objecting to secundam. in iure. on a dies nefastus.32. 2293. 1. only on dies fasti. 33. in civil law.34. most unnerving. words. maybe. dubie datum. fully understanding what he was doing.124). 37 It is of some interest to observe that Cicero in his lost treatise on augury discussed the concept of avis incerta (Cic. a hostia piacularis. It was possible to make an honest mistake: ascribe to an ambiguous sign. The praetor was guilty.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. in Charisius 122 Keil = 156 Barwick). incerta auspicia: Liv. 6. no.38 Now in a different field of Roman public life. Cf.4).7. It could happen that “aliquod signum dubie datum pro certo sit acceptum” (Cic.36 Jupiter’s answer could come in three forms: yes. and his freedom was not circumscribed in any way. but he achieved his new status in a faulty way. n. 6. Ann. dubia auspicia: Liv. in the court) the slave was. he could do nothing. an owl for instance. Agnes Michels had once observed that the Roman gods were divine citizens of Rome. RQ 615–16. Divine anger could descend not only on the head of the agent of deceit. Jaeger. Papirius was able to outwit Jupiter because he knew the law: it was the pullarius. the pulli. Linderski. and that the gods were in the battle on the side of the Romans. And thus undaunted he drew up his army for battle. if not expiated. Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions 30 (= 59. To facilitate Jupiter’s revenge. Cf. Papirius the best possible omen.1 [1985]) 41–53. thus perhaps tacitly endorsing the enunciation of the consul. Still worse an eager or unscrupulous observer could falsify the auspices (auspicia ementiri and auspicia ementita were the technical terms). a propitious bird ex nihilo. clara voce occinuit. admit it pro certo.40. Here we are in the presence of a peculiar phenomenon: the ritual formula was rather like a spell. He formally accepted this event as a good omen: he proclaimed that the guilty person had paid his penalty. Baratin and Claude Moussy (eds. “Fonction de la vérité dans un énoncé augural: le paradoxe du menteur Ateius Capito”.39 Now the falsified auspices were valid. not the consul. but also very astutely he took a religious precaution. 40 Liv. “Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio”. He could show his continuing displeasure by sending a dire sign. see J. The consul was soon apprised of the falsification. if properly pronounced it was so potent that it could create. in M. the Roman People and the army – an excellent sign. Schäublin. auspicium egregium.14 Historia et Ius interpretation. J. 49).4 (1997) 323–45 (reprinted in this volume. and hence it was – for him. uttered a clear cry. 10. CJ 92. 2206–7. a confused summary. “Numa et Jupiter ou les dieux citoyens de Rome”. Scheid. Wiener Studien 99 (1986) 165–81. so to speak. utilized by A. that is to say they were binding on the deity. see RQ 615–16. 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. CP 95 (2000 [2001]) 233.). C. he placed the keeper of the pulli in the front rank. for an augural interpretation. 623–24. could have irreparably polluted and constrained through a religious fault (religione constringere) the res publica itself. No. Feldherr. and bend the will of Jupiter himself. But it was a dangerous game to play. The Romans created their gods in their own image. also J. The ritual ball was now in the court of Jupiter. the tripudium solistimum: the chickens were eating greedily (whereas in fact they refused to eat). Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History (Berkeley 1998) 61–63. And indeed still before the battle began an errant javelin pierced the mendacious pullarius. his deed.41 They were also divine jurisprudents of Rome: legalistic Beings that could appreciate fictions and dodges. Livy gives a celebrated description of this augural tenet. The consul again formally accepted this message and ordered the trumpets to sound. but he insisted on the validity of the auspices: he had accepted the message of the pullarius as true. and entirely attributed to him by M. see AL 2200–2. who was guilty of deceit. . 39 On this concept. The consul (or rather the antiquarian author of Livy’s story) was very well versed in augural precepts. “Ementita Auspicia”. 41 For a discussion and appreciation of Agnes Michels as a student of the Romans and of their gods. The Romans duly routed the enemy. Conceptions latines du sens et de la signification (Paris 1999) 255–66. corvus. reported to the consul L. Kany-Turpin.40 Before a battle with the Samnites a zealous keeper of the sacred chickens. in Cicero’s poem Jupiter strengthened (firmavit) the sign of the eagle by the peal of thunder in the left part of the sky (partibus caeli sinistris). 44 We must not forget that Cicero was an augur! Unfortunately the book by F. Rom. Rom. Roma. On the other hand the presentation of the rites of auspication by A. lapsu. the eagle dropped the mangled snake in undas. into the sea. Att. quia secundum auspicium faciant praetervolantes”. not only observed but accepted it as a signum faustum. The birds flew in an optimal way. Cf. RQ 485–90. Julius Hyginus. 8. when the consul Papirius accepted his omen. Even more: he received the best possible auspices. and so in this version Romulus through his pronouncement will have successfully compelled the hand of Jupiter. . Quite wrong. 43 Cf. is with respect to res augurales very deficient. discussed in one of his scripts the augural meaning of aves praepetes. Carandini and R.5. In Livy. Now. exactly like the birds of Romulus. quae aut opportune praevolant aut idoneas sedes capiunt”. with auspicious wings on high. Carandini in A. But it is important to stress that this story appears only in Greek sources.6.: “praepetes aves quidam dici aiunt. Remo e la fondazione della città (Milano 2000) 119–34 (“Auspici. Hal.86. Festus 224 L. 7. in the poem about his great compatriot Cicero (Div. in a gliding course. 9. in Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Plutarch. The old question emerges again: what is the left part of the sky? Still this imitation of Ennius by a learned augur. Cappelli (eds. and this image corresponds to Ennius’ cedunt de caelo. Marius saw an eagle victoriously fighting against a serpent. we may say nullam sedem capiunt. a learned antiquarian.106) describes the omen Jupiter gave to Marius (whom Cicero pointedly calls divini numinis augur). We already know from Nigidius Figulus that they were the high flying birds.). they fly away toward the loca pulchra.42 All is upright in Ennius: Romulus.43 Otto Skutsch in his celebrated commentary regards the latter explanation of Hyginus as decisive. And like Romulus Marius conspexit the bird and notavit. who was appointed by Augustus director of the Palatine Library. Plut. Ant. 1.Founding the City 15 There is a story. (also Diod. whereas at that point no birds had yet appeared.5. and writes that “the settling of the birds foreshadows the settlement of Romulus and his followers” (236). presaging Marius’ return from exile and his renewed glory. and turned away from the west toward the shining east. had received auspicia certa. In Ennius the twelve birds do not settle at all. Philosophe et augure: recherches sur la théorie cicéronienne de la divination (= Collection Latomus 184 [Bruxelles 1984]). 1. Jupiter sent a corroboration in the shape of a raven. see Vaahtera 34–37).3) we learn that they either propitiously fly in front of the observer or alight in suitable places “praepetes aves ab auguribus appellantur. obitu a solis nitidos convertit ad ortus. like Numa in Livy. Guillaumont. Romolo.44 with its description of the 42 Dion. as Vaahtera (99) convincingly argues “the cheating Romulus is a Greek invention”. They duly appeared later. Noct. from Hyginus (in Gell. auguri e le Rome quadrate”) is well informed (although rather surprisingly he does not discuss or even mention the passage of Ennius). And exactly like the birds of Romulus the eagle of Marius flew praepetibus pinnis. that Romulus falsified the auspices: he sent messengers to Remus reporting the sighting of the vultures. unfavorable birds could have appeared to prevent him from undertaking any action. But the augurs interpreted silentium in a broad way. and the pronounced opposition between the west and the east. occentus soricum.71–72. and could not be repudiated. formally accepted the omen. but as Cassius Dio reports (58. directs us toward a better understanding of the Romulean foundation of the city. the future Corvinus. was a sure indication of a vitium. a strepitus.). On the helmet of Valerius a raven (corvus) alighted (consedit).45 Valerius. and 45 On this expression. Cf. 2173. We know that for valid auspication there was a prerequisite of silentium. strictly according to the augural precepts. For any signa infausta that appeared in the auspicant’s pre-established field of vision were addressed specifically and personally to him. 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. 47 Servius.223.46 (It would have been a great story. AL 2259. In this way they dismantled their field of vision. So does also a passage from Livy (7. and countermand his signal. And even when an impetrative favorable sign was observed and accepted. the absence of vitium. silentio surgere (Festus 474 L. Jupiter could still change his mind. shortly before his fall from grace. and said a prayer. 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. not just as mere silence. auspicia dirimere.4–5) describing the famous duel between the young Marcus Valerius. And it not only held steadfastly to its sedes. The raven is described as praepes. 46 Dirimere: AL 2151–52. Div.. a perfect augur. 2170. 2197–98. But any untoward sound. cf. AL 2172–73.26. and the ceremony of auspication had to be postponed to another day. the terrestrial templum. it came.5. AL 2273. silentium: Cic. like the birds of Romulus. and Pease ad loc. When Jupiter wished to deter the auspicant he could disrupt the ceremony of auspication. A good example of the ceremony of auspication that went terribly astray is the misadventure of Seianus. but also repeatedly attacked the Gaul aiming at his eyes. The direction of its flight again parallels exactly the volatus of the Romulean birds and of the eagle of Marius. 2. vitium: AL 2162–77. his templum in the air. In his capacity as consul he was taking auspices. but rather as the absence of any fault or error. But even when the auspicant took his seat. the bird flew off toward the east and was lost to sight (ex conspectu elatus orientem petit).16 Historia et Ius flight of the eagle. though worthy of Lucilius rather than Ennius. if the foundation of the City had been prevented by the squeak of a mouse!). Aen. and a mighty Gaul. a peritus.7) “not one bird of good omen appeared. occentus: Plin.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. 2. When the Gaul was cut down. . NH 8.699: (augures) “visis auspiciis surgebant e templo”. and to ascertain this a person versed in augural regulations was required. but many ravens (kÒrakew) flew around him and cawed. and the surest of all was the squeak of the shrew-mouse. from the sky (caelo missus). and established his field of vision. e.2–4. and Servius) we can reconstruct the system in greater detail. “Un templum augurale d’età repubblicana a Bantia”. Rom. 85. with some interpretations partially superseded. partially refined in a great article with an unassuming title: “Contributi al supplemento del CIL IX”. partes maximae dirae. It was the lowest in the west (i. 1. Ant. And because the sun rises in the east.5. 51 Dion. and the west to their right. Cf.693. The north was more honorable and stronger than the south. For further comments.52 The stones were placed in three rows forming a rectangle some nine meters long. was located in the north. It was not of an even height. but soon it was to become outrightly dire: the ravens did not fly away toward the east.142–43. were in the northwest. 2. They looked from their seats southward. AL 2282–85. RQ 493–95. or perhaps circaneae.5.Founding the City 17 then all flew together and perched on the o‡khma”. They were 48 The birds are naturally vagae (cf. NH 2. and of Jupiter. see AL 2258–60. their abode. They were on average some thirty to fifty centimeters high. Rend. n. but the complete arrangement has been brilliantly reconstructed by Mario Torelli. and had a diameter of about thirty centimeters. certainly not a pulcher locus. 4. Carm.12. Plin.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).Lincei 21 (1966) 293–315.48 Not only was their flight all wrong but also the cry. Hal. We now begin to understand why the laeva avis comes from the east. see the judicious remarks by Vaahtera 114. 2. this part of the world is propitious.) explains. and thus in that state they are the opposite of the augural birds that fly with a purpose. to this arrangement of the sky corresponds rather exactly the haruspical arrangement of the regions on sacrificial livers. Div.49 The sign was unfavorable indeed. their sedes.2). This system the augurs shared to a great degree with the haruspices. From various other sources (Dionysius of Halicarnassos.7. We happen to know exactly where the Roman gods lived. Right and left is here defined from the standpoint of the gods. 90. but the jail to which Seianus was soon to be dragged. and the east was more favorable and had preeminence over the west. 52 M. and consequently had the east to their left. Torelli. As Varro (in Festus 454 L. 50 Cass. Only three cippi were found in situ. flying in circles.50 Our final task is to define the seat of Romulus.Lincei 24 (1969) 39–48. Hor. 2284–85. Servius. circaneae: Paulus ex Festo 37 L. ab dextra caneret. . and thus the left auspices (sinistra auspicia) are regarded as better than the right (dextra). whereas Jupiter established that the raven functioned as a good omen only if it sang on the right. Rend. It was in that part of the sky that Jupiter himself had his domicilium and where the summa felicitas dwelt.e. The augurs would characterize the birds of Seianus as aves vagae. wandering aimlessly. on the meaning of o‡khma. but settled (in augural idiom sedem ceperunt) on the o‡khma. Pliny the Elder. The abode of the gods stretched on the north side from west to east. and why the propitious birds return to that quarter. north-east).4. Dio 58. It was heard all over the place. 49 Cic. Aen. and plot the course of birds with respect to both of them. northwest) and the highest in the east (i. On the other hand the most calamitous regions. a fount of erudition and acumen. In the south-west we find C(ontraria) A(ve): it positively prohibits the action. Barnes (ed. 34. The stones (which were not found in situ) are so arranged as to correspond to the northern row. Sol. The remores aves fortunately are also known from antiquarian sources: they are the “delaying birds”. 110–12. Romulus next. n. In the middle. both brothers received the message: Remus first. 111. Beck. He thus used the inscribed cippi as the markers on the ground to project into the air his field of vision. a bird that according to the augural definition vetabat aliquid fieri (Paulus ex Festo 15 L. positively assisting the auspicant in his projected undertaking. compelling the auspicant to delay whatever he intended to do. and strangely overshadowed the account of Ennius. and to what we know of the augural doctrine. The middle row corresponds to the mental line drawn by the Livian augur straight ahead up to the end of the horizon. On the middle stone the inscription most probably referred to avis arcula.55 Remus saw six vultures. The north-west is indeed maxime dirum: if a bird appeared in this region it meant not merely the prohibition to proceed. He sat on a large stone. it was a warning that a calamity impends. later. so that the inscriptions could be read only by the observer looking east. prevented the action. But for the readers of Ennius it is the middle stone in the southern row that offers a treat: it reads R(emore) AVE. Wiseman (171. The phrase “Remus auspicio se devovet”. a bird that allows us to proceed. 36. we have a relatively neutral region: avis arcula. The Sciences in Greco-Roman Society = Apeiron 27. the birds in this quarter are less strong. 53 Cf. it was not merely a contraria avis. according to an antiquarian notice a sign restraining and hindering (Paulus ex Festo 67 L. following Jocelyn 62–63) “tentatively” translates “Remus by his auspicy vows himself to the gods below”. Romulus. 55 Very well underscored by Wiseman 7. the north proper. It is not pestifera like its counterpart in the northwest but merely EN(ubra). is connected with the north-east. D. . bene iuvans. and inclined toward the west. found in situ.54 In the story of Romulus and Remus that became canonical. found in situ. The most propitious bird.18 Historia et Ius inscribed on top. thus taking auspicio as an instrumental ablative. but was not threatening. These stones remarkably corroborate the doctrine reconstructed from literary and antiquarian sources. and Flusa (an Oscan counterpart of Flora). and in the north-western corner the stone inscribed C(ontraria) A(ve) A(uspicium) P(estiferum). n. As expected. both less helpful and less dire than those in the north. but does not utter threats. In the south-east we have SIN(ente) Av(e).4 (1994) 101.53 For our purpose more interesting is the southern row. “Cosmic Models: Some Uses of Hellenistic Science in Roman Religion”. It has three stones with the names of deities. the region of summa felicitas.: “Remores aves in auspicio dicuntur. 171. their exact arrangement is a matter of dispute. but does not indicate divine assistance. In the north-eastern corner we have the stone inscribed B(e)ne I(uvante) AV(e). We begin deciphering the stones with the northern row. 54 Festus 345 L.). This is peculiar for to an augurally minded reader the name “Remus” must mean “the slow one”.). an auspicium pestiferum. Jupiter.). quae acturum aliquid remorari conpellunt”. in T. the illuminating remarks by R. Or. fÆnh pa›dÉ égagoËsa ka‹ §n y≈koiw égorhtØn ≤duep∞ ka‹ yoÚn §n pol°mvi. the vulture accepts neither a god’s testimony nor a joint sitting with the great eagle.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. but he certainly was not asking the underworld for help. 21–22. The regnum of Romulus was indeed firmly established. They flew in the direction not just of east but precisely north-east. But above all we look at the contest with genuine apprehension. the highest and best place in all the universe. lofty and fortunate. We can now admire not only the art of Ennius but also his augural prowess. Jupiter not only gave his nod – he actively supported Romulus. The vultures as birds of omen will be discussed at length in another paper. and we may surmise for the birth of cities too. nn. Like the followers of Romulus and Remus we are well aware of how many things could have gone wrong. Bastianini [Milano 2002] 48–49.1. and his augury prevailed – again strictly according to the rule that a subsequent stronger sign annuls the earlier weaker message. no mouse squeaked. Austin et G. above. and the present lecture. Ovid. Remus and his birds were slow. epigram 27). but manifests itself perfect in its kind: the most perfect of auguries. ediderunt C. in Austin’s translation: The best bird of omen when you enquire about the birth of children.817 (he specifies the birds solely as volucres). 1. 56 Liv. We are now in a position to solve this riddle. éllå tele¤h fa¤netai. and western civilization continued on its course from Rome to Bryn Mawr. toward the sedes of Jupiter. he does not consider the Bantian stones. no avis pestifera appeared. a veritable locus praepes and pulcher.7. and how many insidious dangers lurked around the auspicant’s augural templum. augurally or otherwise. . But we can already disclose their unexpected and overwhelming significance. The aves of Romulus were bene iuvantes. A new epigram of Posidippus reveals their auspical specialty (Posidippi Pellaei quae supersunt omnia. ofivn«n xr∞ma teleiÒtaton. a veritable augustum augurium: t°knvn efir`[o]m`°nvi geneØn ofivnÚw êristow. This makes little sense. the vulture was a most perfect augury. Fasti 4. But all ended well. a vulture that brought a child will make him in council a sweet-speaking orator and a nimble fighter in war. fÆnh martur¤hn oÈd¢ yeoË d°xetai oÈd¢ sunedreËsai m°gan éetÒn. We can either try to understand our sources or write our own fable. For the birth of children. Wiseman’s study suffers from an almost total neglect of the augural perspective.Founding the City 19 twelve. cf. Barwick. in a comical reversal of roles. isto vilius hominis erit caena. Keil 1857. Roth and Barwick expand the abbreviation as respondit. caena (so often in manuscripts) = cena. We read under the lemma Isto vilius:1 rex qui vocabat ad caenam. as Suetonius reports. he should also provide them with a loan so that they may start a business. This is clearly indicated in the apparatus of Keil. Micio drags his feet. 85) gives the following translation: A rex who regularly entertained.” with F. the codex Neapolitanus. istoc vilius (line 981). Gratwick follows Reifferscheid and opts for respondebat (which is reflected in his translation). 260 (the latter title Gratwick misleadingly quotes as Barwick/Kühnert 1964. would reply. Cf. 148-49 (fr.3 ut Tranquillus refert. and Reifferscheid adopted a form that may not be right for Suetonius. in this and other places. Roth 1858. 85. It is to this text that we ought now to direct our attention. indicating a habitual action. but the edition of 1964 is simply “editio stereotypa correctior editionis prioris. cena (col. He points out that – surprisingly – the commentators of Terence have generally neglected the testimony of Suetonius preserved by the late fourth-century grammarian Charisius. takes no notice of the abbreviation. This choice of words to express a petulant demurral has for centuries (or rather for millennia if we begin with the scholia) intrigued philologists. Lovers of words will love A. isto vilius hominis erit caena. Thus according to this argument we have a paradoxical situation: The editors of Charisius adopted a form wrong for this author. S. is the abbreviation R. Reifferscheid 1860. At the conclusion of Terence’s Adelphoe. and Gratwick guides us expertly through all the meanders of the argument. none of which pertains to our passage). 2 3 . 539–41. * 1 American Journal of Philology 123 (2002) 587–599 {with minor corrections and addenda}. TLL s. and when Demea suggests that in addition to freeing the crafty slave. 17) felicitously points out that the reading of our only authority. Micio responds. but not necessarily for Suetonius”. if a thing were stipulated (for him to provide) which he was unable to provide. lines 59–63). “is the right reading for Charisius. 112). 200. surprisingly and misleadingly.2 ISTO VILIUS. 304. respondit (respondebat). pp. A brief introduction. the stingy Demea goads the generous Micio into headlong spendthrift spending. 588 Gratwick (2000. Yet this is only part of the puzzle. He argues that respondebat. n. 775. Gratwick’s recent piece (2000) on this idiom. Keil. There exists a complement at the other end of the scale: Immo carum. Barwick 1925. IMMO CARUM Anecdotes About King Romulus* Isto vilius. Kühnert only providing “Addenda and Corrigenda” at the end of the volume. Gratwick (2000.2 si sibi ea res exhibenda indiceretur quam exhibere non posset. Syrus. and his female companion.v. he would also wish to have dancing girls. Isaac Casaubon.’ In this text the words in quotation marks belong to the rex.4 he takes hominis (or whatever hides in it) as belonging to the quotation itself. but rather a man of influence.. iste. 1534–1602).. 88) nihilo minus deserves acknowledgement. and will take this Micio-like petulant refusal for a conciliatory bon mot. he proposed his emendation in 1595). and discussed by Gratwick 2000. a perfect donnish joke that would fare very well indeed at an Oxonian high table. in addition to food. 1550–1614. his emendation dates from 1596). but a quotation given a deliberate twist”. isto vilius domini erit coena (Scriverius. has been overlooked in standard Latin grammars (and also in OLD). nihilo minus erit caena or (tortuously) “by that (much) the more meanly. but we observe that it is duly recorded in the Dictionary of Lewis and Short s. was to illustrate the witty comitas of some specific famous eques or senator of the past”. 24. n. his emendation is from 1726): isto vilius. and hoc est is the explanation of Suetonius and Charisius. oddly enough he published this emendation of Charisius in his Spicilegium Sallustianum [Francoforti 1580]). “caviar and striptease. Gratwick (2000. hac re. but (by) none the less will it be a feast”. 86–87): isto vilius nobis coena erit (Casaubonus.g. but his preferred urbane padrone who entertained boorish guests is none other than Atticus. “The more cultivated bystanders” will knowingly sneer at the illiterate boor and mentally applaud the refined host. 88–91).Isto vilius. Rex Atticus? Why not Maecenas. hoc est. eo. 1662–1742. But who is the rex who uttered this quip? Certainly not any real king. Following in the footsteps of several earlier erudites.. erit coena. corresponding to qua re. “for that reason. says Gratwick (2000. Jean Passerat.” as Gratwick puts it). and finally Bentleius (i. 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.e. i.v.e. a “boss. The twist would reside in the addition of nihilo minus and a play on the causal 5 and comparative interpretation of istoc.. 5 .e. i. an impudent guest makes an outrageous demand (e.” as defined by OLD s. and claimed a royal lineage? In point of fact this is not at all a likely context of the anecdote. Emendations were considered. Peter Schryver. We thus receive the text: Isto vilius. Yet it is much more likely that istoc functions here as the ablative of comparison. “The dictum has to be taken as a specific quotation of Terence’s Micio. and in opposition to Bentley.e. 4 Earlier conjectures are listed by Keil (1857.. and here Gratwick’s proposal (2000. 1576–1660. At a dinner.e. 83) rightly complains that this usage of isto(c). see below. The ill-mannered person will miss the subtlety (for a boor must ex definitione be also ill-educated). In addition to these ideas Roth (1858. The host gives a witty response. XCI) also lists haec mihi of Passeratius (i. Reifferscheid prints a variation on this idea: ‘isto vilius’ hoc est ‘erit caena. II C. isto vilius erit hodie coena (Palmerius. Immo carum 21 589 It has long been recognized. see Pökel 1882.. rex 8.. therefore”. in app. Richard Bentley. since the time of the Renaissance scholars. For biographical and bibliographical information. who thus takes the words following the semicolon as a gloss appended by Charisius or already by Suetonius. In sum.” a “padrone.. Gratwick concedes that this person must remain anonymous for us. Janus Meller Palmier. which (so it might appear) can hardly be forced into any sensible construction or meaning. “The point of Suetonius’ anecdote . that the main textual problem resides in the word hominis. hoc.. indeed. 200. who also loved to entertain.v. i. under each name. 2. 81 (with further examples). marveled at the skill with which Vergil had set out (at Aen. 7.. mensae regna) have a negative connotation. 902..v. to use Eduard Fraenkel’s apt description. 26): “In Roman Republican society . Dial. 9. The tyrannical rex occupies firmly the realm of comical and satirical tradition. see Damon 1997. and Fraenkel too)7 omitted the passage of Macrobius (Sat.15–16: Convivas alios cenarum quaere magister / quos capiant mensae regna superba tua.17. 2. he is addressed as rex mensae. n. with a distinction between rex parasiti and patronus liberti). 1. 331–32. the domineering host (or rex) became a sinister reminder of monarchy”. the difference between a convivium tumul6 Fraenkel 1922. These symposia and convivia were joyous meetings of equals. Cf.). Men. the clue does not reside in the term itself but rather in the composition of the convivium (see above in the text).” (“the breadmaster of parasites”). 230). as well put by Howell (1980. the rex appears in a convivial context.3) in which the rex appears as a civilized host. conv. Hor. 1. 2. One of the interlocutors.15. Thus. 1. Quaest. 7 8 9 . Epist.1.6 Now.1. but I am thankful for this suggestion for it has led me to rethink and refine the problem.8 This expression is not attested otherwise. 1. When at such gatherings the host or “president” is called rex. To the testimony of Macrobius. 9. The dinner was hosted by the refined and aristocratic Vettius Agorius Praetextatus (ca. Capt. 3. i.15–16 (cf. Sid. OLD (and Gratwick. A Reader for this journal (“Reader A”) suggested that rex mensae was a technical term. 320–84).18: regna vini. “der Brotherr des Parasiten. Iuv. Sen.2. See Plaut. Cf. 151–52. 181–82. 338 (and Donatus ad loc. 12.68. Bene dixit was their favored exclamation. 112.4. certainly a reminder of social chasm. 919.1–10). Similarly White 1978. Stich..4: rex convivii. si in convivio regis recumbere infra mensam vescique cum servis ignominiosa officia sortitis iubebitur? (but Seneca probably has in mind a “real” king). and that this circumstance may account for the positive meaning of the rex. Mau 1900. He is. Cath.. 436. Hardly so. 88–91. Plut.48. 173–74. But on closer scrutiny the rex reveals himself as overbearing. “the haughty patron’s handouts”. In these lines all technical expressions (magister.13.30: rex. and his mastery of the language.723 and 1. Ep. esp. Asin. Courtney 1980. for in several passages. he describes the rex as “the lordly figure who maintained a host of parasites and clients”.326. below. 191–93. sapiens) contumeliam . esp. but this indication must be set in a wider context of Macrobius’ convivium and the subject of the conversation (2.22 Historia et Ius 590 The perusal of evidence for rex in the sense of “patron” seemingly strengthens Gratwick’s conceit. rex B. but it immediately calls to mind the figure of the Greek symposiarch and the Roman magister cenae. there was no place at the table for clients. Avienus. we can add Hor. Phorm. 5. Mart. oddly enough.43 (and Porphyrio ad loc. 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”. For the later commentators and schoolmasters Vergil could do nothing wrong. 455. a far cry from Gratwick’s urbane host. 1.14 (and passim). 1. In Macrobius the initial subject of the conversation was Vergil. 1. The passage duly figures in Reifferscheid 1860. on that locution the learned study by Ussani 1946. rude and tyrannical. 611–12. also Gowers (1993. 12. Cf. Apoll.5: regis superbi sportulae.45 (cf. Ter. 264–65. Prudent. s. and in Lewis-Short.216) “well and shrewdly” (bene ac sapienter). sycophants and parasites. of the convivium at which water was changed into wine. 8). not of a capricious tyrant. explained by Porphyrio as magisteria convivarum. the term acquires the feeling of a congenial king.48. Carm. Marquardt 1886. Perhaps so.9 with the change of but a few words.136.. We read at Mart.112.7.1: non accipiet (sc.4 = 622 B: sumpos¤ou … basileÊw.e. 92. n.263–66. a story follows: Simplicissima suavitate et rei et orationis L. Gratwick 2000. n. Praetextatus was firm and curt: “No dancing girls”: ludicras voluptates nec suis Penatibus adsuetas nec ante coetum tam serium producendas. 23. Ei dicunt: ‘Romule. quantum quisque volet. nam ego bibi quantum volui. the commentary by Cèbe 1990. 193–95).14). Marshall (1990) has the identical text (though unlike Hosius it does not employ throughout the letter v). Our own banquet.Isto vilius. si istuc omnes homines faciant. haec sunt: “Eundem Romulum dicunt ad cenam vocatum ibi non multum bibisse. But we do not spice up the festivities with even a small bit of pleasure (nullo admixtu voluptatis).’ His respondit: ‘immo vero carum. Praetextatus. Yet in Plato. 1. 44–46 (cf. and fr. The most important extant ancient discussions of decorous banquets are Cic. C. quae scripsit. from Palmerius and the great Casaubonus to Gratwick. in spite of their high brows (supercilio). her natural charms artificially embellished. 8 Peter (1914. 13 Forsythe (1994. cf. 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). Teodorsson 1989. is not at all inferior to Socrates in character (in moribus) and certainly more influential in public affairs (in re publica). for our host (rex mensae). cum de Romuli regis vita atque victu scriberet. 11 I quote from the classic Teubner edition by C. combines the restraint (pudicitia) of the heroic age and the sophistication (elegantia) of our own age. Powell 1988.4 = 620–22 (cf.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. 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”). Rolfe in his Loeb edition of Gellius (1927). a riotous and a sober meal. produced it in less than four minutes. and below. one of the guests wished to call for admission of a psaltria so that the girl. Forsythe (1994. 1429–47. the Oxford edition of P. 26. Convivia and ioci was an established theme. quia postridie negotium haberet. 293–94). It resides in Gellius’ Noctes Atticae (11. a work one would expect the erudites of the past had known by heart. For more than four hundred years this text had eluded all the learned interpreters of Terence and Suetonius. 451–52) 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 .285–86. Friedländer 1922. 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. it surpasses Agathon’s banquet in Plato. vinum vilius sit. fr. 121). Hosius (1903).’ ”11 10 Convivial moderation was also the subject of Varro’s Menippean Satire Nescis quid vesper serus vehat. si. 89. The translation draws (with some alterations) on the translations of Forsythe and J. The day was saved by Symmachus who urged the guests to invent a lively amusement yet without wantonness (excogitemus alacritatem lascivia carentem). a sage machine. Piso Frugi usus est in primo annali. 10 BeckWalter (2001. but my computer. Immo carum 23 591 tuosum and sobrium. and esp. Piso’s fragment is fr. 2. Sen. 1. There exists a text that throws a new and unsuspected light on the person of the rex in Charisius. Avienus continued. conv. K. Ea verba. bibat. Plut.91–107). Quaest. 1. Cf. and proposed to discuss the jests of famous men of old. 451). 2. The convivial anecdote presented Romulus as a deipnosophistes. and recounted his witty retorts. pl. a common rhetorical ethos wives for doing so”. 7 Peter. and further rex . Calpurnius Piso Frugi.. 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. qui vocabat ad caenam. are as follows: “They say that the same Romulus. 149. with the same choice of words. for I drank as much as I wished. The unnamed rex in the fragment of Suetonius will thus be King Romulus. isto. Verr. cens. are resounding: Romulum . as he wrote them. and the story must ultimately derive from the same source as the story in Gellius. on the other hand. and he never mentions Suetonius as an excerptor of Piso. 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. n. But beyond and above those verbal echos. In the whole electronically searcheable corpus of Latin literature.7: Sunt apinae tricaeque et si quid vilius istis. 133.. His words.. cos. 14 Forsythe.. 185). in Martial we have a simple comparative construction... De Spectaculis 5: dehinc idem Romulus Iovi Feretrio ludos instituit in Tarpeio. 120) and a historian of renown. Peter takes no notice of this double embedding. in turn.. Reifferscheid [1860] 334. cf Cic. positum est apud Suetonium Tranquillum vel a quibus Tranquillus accepit. quos Tarpeios dictos et Capitolinos Piso tradit. ad cenam vocatum and rex.. They [i. indiceretur. 12 Mart. We thus have a fragment of Piso (fr. Charisius-Suetonius. his dinner companions] tell him: ‘if all men did this. And further: Qui quos quem per ordinem et quibus idolis ludos instituerint. and not just a story. It should be evident that we are dealing with two halves of the same anecdote. a form of iste (istuc. vocat ad cenam deinde ipse praetorem. The verbal and rhetorical affinities between the two fragments. In this fragment two words spring into the reader’s eye: istuc and vilius. Romulus. istis) and vilius are juxtaposed in only four passages: in Gellius-Piso.’ He replied: ‘No indeed! It would be dear if everyone drank as much as he wished. istoc. There is nothing in Piso’s text to sustain or even to suggest this interpretation. The preservation of the fragment we owe to Tertullian. Piso Frugi has employed a delightful simplicity of content and diction in the first book of his Annals. 23. 13 For such reciprocal invitations.’ ” 593 We have before us not just Gellius but a fragment from the Annals of L. but a story concerning a king. Forsythe. Terence. 13 ei dicunt and sibi . and Martial. In Terence we encounter an idiomatic expression with which Gratwick started his quest. 9 Beck-Walter) embedded in a fragment of Suetonius (Roth [1858] 278–79.. when he wrote about the life and habits of King Romulus. respondit and respondit. fr. did not drink much because he had business on the following day. 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. referring to worthless gifts. See below. a statesman (tr. fr. from Piso. erit.1. wine would be cheaper. Gellius-Piso and Charisius-Suetonius.24 592 Historia et Ius L.12 only Gellius and Charisius share between them a story. and his convivial witticisms. as a host and a guest.4. vinum vilius sit and isto vilius .62: deinde ipsum regem ad cenam vocavit. when he was invited to dinner. .e. 14. fr. Charisius was interested solely in a point of grammar and not at all in the literary environment of his quotation. see Barwick (1922. Gellius was interested in style. esp. 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. aedilis. where Piso recounts. .Isto vilius.).9. 63–66). and he presents a verbatim (so he claims) quotation of Piso. fr. 30 BeckWalter). while referring to Piso. isto vilius) followed by a rather diffuse divagation that tempers the sharpness of the response. Flavius. in Charisius it is the name of Piso that was lost in transit – but not his style. He repeated the name of Flavius three times. Piso wished to show Flavius’ mettle and his dignified comportment in the face of rude opposition. and to good effect. the famous curule aedile of 304. is the flavor of Piso. and earned his living as a scribe. see now Schenkenveld 2004}. Tertullian. and moreover. Romulus and the rex share a fondness for the same choice of words and they share a predilection for the same rhetorical figures. passim. But there is even more. Each reply consists of two parts: a short and pointed quip (immo vero carum. he does so in a moderate fashion. he did not get his lines directly from Suetonius but rather through the intermediary of the third-century grammarian Iulius Romanus. the sources of Charisius. XXI) points out that Charisius always indicates the passages he took from Romanus. In the other fragment. Flavius rose to this originally patrician office although he was born the son of a freed slave.). fr. when the rex himself entertains. = 246 B. the passage suffered abbreviation and perhaps mutilation. Repetition features prominently. and we detect it also in another fragment (Gell. Romulus shows moderation. sympathetically. and a method of exposition consisting in the repetition of key words and phrases. Flavius Anni filius. Immo carum 25 594 spans the fragments: At a dinner. There was to Piso a certain art: a touch of humor. when reproached (for dampening the spirit of the party). He duly appends the Romanus tag (190 K. and this flavor. Charisius does not identify the rex. and a critique of Barwick. the rex gives a witty and polite response. In the preface to his edition of Charisius Barwick (1925. he gives a witty and polite response. and that he “nihil fere de suo addidit”.) to his long disquisition de adverbio (246–89 B. fr. Cn. two stories from the life of Cn. This correspondence is all the more remarkable as the two fragments reached us through diverse routes. Gellius apparently had Piso in his hands. each time in its full form. but it still retained its distinct lexical and rhetorical flavor. 3–17. This leaves the field open for modern surmises. the third time with a poignant addition: Cn. when a guest remonstrates. The aristocrats opposed and heckled him. In this composition Flavius and his office were 14 On the sources of Charisius. {For Iulius Romanus. Is it his normal procedure? (a very pertinent question posed by Reader A. Flavius Anni filius. 7. 37 Forsythe.14 Along its tortuous journey. as the comparison with Gellius shows ad nasum. 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. A perusal of Charisius’ bulky work shows that he eschews prosopographical identifications. did not hide that he got his information from Suetonius. in both parts of the Romulus anecdote. They are the same literary person. The device he employed was repetition. 27 Peter. when other guests are drinking heavily. and the two others Apul. 38. Courtney 1999. Now it so happens that not only exhibere but also indicere has a convivial connotation: to impose oneself as a guest. coll. to set up a dinner or to provide for entertainment. 107–9. and the cena mitellita would be a transvestite affair.. a parody of the rites of the Bona Dea}. and cena rosaria at which they wore rose garlands). Suet.3: indicebat et familiaribus cenas. e x h i b e a t u r libertus. 19 Gowers (1993. The phrase has a legal flavor.17 There is a controversy about its origin: Some modern jurists believe that it may go very far back. and this was precisely the style Piso embraced. cui patronus operas i n d i c e re vellet (“for instance . 4. notes the solemn character of the enunciation. alteri pluris aliquanto rosaria (cena mitellita at which the guests wore silken head-dresses. 91. in several complementary applications – to serve food. exhibeo 6a) adduces only three examples. Sachers 1965. 143. see TLL s. 20. the actio ad exhibendum. Nero 27. we must place it in the secondcentury environment. 1419–21. the goal of which was “to enforce the defendant to produce in court the movable thing in dispute when sued for its delivery”.15 Repetitiveness of the formulae and an ample or redundant use of pronouns. For exhibere also appears often enough in convivial contexts. It immediately brings to mind the well-known legal procedure.24 and 10. She refers to OLD. while others think that it was of a more recent origin.v. 434. This procedure is treated at great length and detail in the Digest 10.16. are the hallmarks of a legal or legalistic style. 6.4. Kaser 1971. consonant with Piso’s taste. the names of his detractors remained unspoken.26 Historia et Ius 595 inscribed as if in high relief. 18 Cf. 10. who paraphrased Piso at great length. See also TLL s. 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. It is a tone appropriate for a light anecdote. and thus symbolically effaced. comic poetry and the mocking leges convivales. Forsythe (1994. in the jurist Gaius (Inst. exhibeo. and. On this locution. 20 Cf. 1429–430. The cena rosaria would be a mock celebration of the Floralia (a feast of meretrices).62): velut ut . quorum uni mitellita quadragies sestertium constitit. If the fragment in Charisius belongs to Piso. 463.. passim. if our fragment is the genuine Piso. I should have also adduced the ingenious interpretation of Higgins 1985. coll. 16 As pointed out very well by Forsythe 1994. n. 92. 128. remains baffling. n. 167) says that exhibere is “a standard term for serving food.19 Furthermore exhibere and indicere figure together in one other passage only. exhibeo. but this dictionary (s.18 In any case the earliest explicit references to the actio date from the late republican and Augustan age.16 This leads us back to Romulus and the cena. personal. The locus comicus resides at the intersection of the ponderous legalese and the convivial idiom. n. Watson 1968. for the production of a freedman whose patron wishes to impose services”).v. uses the full name-form only once. 17 Berger 1953. we may have the first direct glimpse of its existence. The scene at the dinner. . see Vössing. {For Nero’s banquets. one of them being our passage. 37–38. 37) does not remark on the expressive function of this device..46.v. deictic and relative. Met..1–12).20 in our passage a guest tries to invite himself to a bet15 We may observe that Livy (9. a conceit familiar from Roman comedy. 116–18. 2000. The context immediately reveals itself as quasi-legal.” but this overstates the actual use of the word. For a fuller collection of passages. 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. {Gratwick’s nihilo minus erit cena can positively be excluded. It. states the basic rule of the actio (Dig. The precise phrase erit cena does not seem to be otherwise attested. Sil. we need a witty sequel. The phrase itself nihilo minus .6–7): tibi cena cocta erit. 2.” so that in the final analysis. but cf. The concept of regia mensa has now been thoroughly investigated by Vössing 2004. regis Tyrii 14}). 781: cena ubi erit cocta. No mention of Romulus. 10. Serv..40. Romulus appears on its pages three times. Stat. but no other anecdote is suggested. Orig. 10. But above all.604–5: epulae ante ora paratae regifico luxu. opera pistoria . though in view of the construction of cena erit with the dative in Cato and Plautus.Isto vilius. quam aliquis in cella habet. auct. Here we have the quip. not in gastronomy. Epulae regales were proverbial.15): libitinarius fuit. as the examples adduced above (and others. Hist. erit is rare: only eight other instances.} . The glass may be perceived as empty or full. Plaut. 1. solebat sic c e n a re quomodo re x : apros gausapatos. Immo carum 27 596 ter meal. see the delightful Petronian description of a rich undertaker (Sat. For the attribution of our fragment to Piso it is significant that the locution occurs in two second-century authors. passim. esp. easily assembled electronically {cf. his phrase has an air of a feeble excuse and not a pungent rejoinder. and there is some discussion of “vino e ideologia. the king retorts with a folksy idiom: isto vilius.pr.3. Aen..22 and what the guest demanded was a royal feast whereas the king produced only the aver- 21 A referee (“Reader B”). e. {Zaccaria Ruggiu 2003. and that verbal echoes “must be common to any number of anecdotes dealing with dinner invitations.. 86 Peter (in Gell. all of them in the Digest.21: nihilo minus sensus integer erit. Cato. As electronic searches show.19): “all interested parties can sue for production” (ad exhibendum possunt agere omnes quorum interest ). Quite so.” but one searches in vain for the passage of Gellius and the fragment of Piso. 38. 6. fr. Theb. seem to demonstrate ad satietatem. 22–26. but in the former case it is now at least an informed emptiness..4. 11.. 240–44. plus vini sub mensa effundebatur.24.21 Above all there is nothing wrong with the sense of the transmitted reading hominis. Another jurist.g. while rejecting Gratwick’s conceit. Aen.. 10. 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. where the antithesis is not between the devouring king and the starving beggar but rather between the king’s and the commoner’s fare.9. Pun. Paulus. 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. with erit mostly appearing in a compound tense (five times) or connected with a pronoun (2 times) or an adjective (1 time). certainly. observes that the stylistic similarities championed in the article here presented may be illusory. A Referee (“Reader B”) notes that “the antithesis to rex is pauper vel sim.306. is primarily an archaeological and sociological study with only desultory attention to philology.} 22 Cf. Guests are the party naturally interested in food and drink. Apoll. neither enunciation offering support to Gratwick’s conceit. it is only vilius which suggests the linkage between Charisius and Piso. not homo which is the antithesis to deus”.. esp. 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. Verg. In philosophy. which is close enough. Gratwick’s nihilo minus erit cena is not witty at all. we should probably slightly emend the text of Charisius and read homini[s] erit cena (or perhaps cena <cocta> erit ). Cas.: nihilo minus utile erit iudicium communi dividundo. moderate and simple) to which corresponded three faulty types. The faulty form of the simple style he described (4. for men like you and not for kings). but meagre. 219–32. put it.28 Historia et Ius 597 age fare.16) as aridum et exsangue genus orationis. 262) of Caesar’s Commentarii: They are “straight and charming” (recti et venusti). the satires of Lucilius who has Romulus deliver at the concilium deorum a long speech condemning luxury (12–17 Marx. 96–97. Courtney (1999.24 Gellius loved Piso and his way of composition. Wessner 1905. The locution was current in the secondcentury Latin. Rawson 1976. in the second century Romulus became “ein Vehikel des Sittendiskurses”.. cramped and paltry”). 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. for the interpretation of Piso’s fragment in Gellius has often been noted. 1. de or. perceptively observed that Gellius’ characterization of Piso’s style as purus. he introduces a long quotation as locus . 14–18 Krenkel) and presents the king as eating in heaven a simple peasant fare of boiled turnips (1357 Marx.23 To the guest’s importune demand the king answers pointedly: Isto vilius! Homini[s] (understood: non regi ) erit cena. copious and flowing. cf. 61. The ascription of these lines to Romulus (and of line 1357 = 1375 to Lucilius) is conjectural but convincing. 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). In this reconstruction the exclamation mark is to be given its due weight. annales sane exiliter scriptos. 25 See also Brut. As Beck-Walter 2001. concisum ac minutum (“introduces a kind of diction that is not limpid. now Briscoe 2005. “Cheaper than that! We’ll have a dinner fit for men” (i. but in the eyes of Cicero he employed a jejune version of simplicity. 183: subauditur “quicquam” et “non dabo”.. The Auctor ad Herennium admitted three kinds of approved speech (genera orationis). 705–6 (= 1991. 260). 143–44) sides with Cicero. and in another place (7. 37. 81–83. quod non alienum est e x i l e nominari (“a dry and bloodless manner of speech which may aptly be called meagre”). 2. Speaking of earlier Roman historians. a younger contemporary of Piso. sed e x i l e . He praises Piso’s simplicissima suauitas of res and oratio. 106: Piso reliquit . cf.1). 1375 Krenkel). sermo). Gratwick 2000.9. Cicero (and Quintilian) often used the adjective exilis to characterize style (oratio.} . but rhetorically expressing the refusal of the thing the speaker was asked to produce in addition to what he had already given. but later went out of use. If only everybody were so admiring! We can count on Cicero to show contempt. he exclaims (de leg. Caesar was to Cicero a perfect example of the simple style. with isto grammatically functioning as the ablative of comparison or of measure. 24 Commentum Donati.. aridum.6): quid tam exile 25 quam isti omnes? (“what is more meager 23 Cf. venustus and suavis finds its exact counterpart in Cicero’s assessment (Brut. grave. dry. gives an excellent analysis of the confusion in the scholia. mediocre. 294. The precise grammatical classification of idiomatic expressions is a thankless task. historiae et orationis lepidissimae (“a passage graceful in story and speech”). so was Piso to Gellius. and defines it as res perquam pure et venuste narrata a Pisone (“a story told by Piso in a very pure and charming style”). see esp. non fusum ac profluens. among them Piso.159: (of the Stoic Diogenes): genus sermonis affert non liquidum. {Cf. delightful simplicity of content and diction.. Forsythe 1994. The relevance of Lucilius. and adtenuatum (grand. but two separate enunciations.. but we obviously deal in Terence and Charisius-Suetonius-Piso with one and the same idiom. Cichorius 1908. von Ungern-Sternberg 1993.e. We have not one conjoined sentence. 2001. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. C. Friedländer. In Aspects of the Language of Latin Prose. Md. so long as their narrative is understood. 1925.Isto vilius. Barwick. “Romulus in der römischen Republik”. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition. 1922. E. Tastes change: What was to Cicero arid dullness became to the archaizing Gellius charming simplicity. 2. No. 1. Adolf. 1922.58 he has Laelius bristle at the notion that Romulus might have been a king of barbarians: quite the contrary. ———. J. 26 Cf. 1. (= Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 1994. 1953. Rome: École Française. quibus rebus ornetur oratio .. 1999. 191. 1: Von Fabius Pictor bis Cn. 1908. and Romulus himself was endowed consilio et sapientia singulari (de or. and we leave this literary banquet taking with us as a sportula a fragment of Piso. Philologus 106:174–204. The Romulus of Piso was not an uncouth shepherd but an affable gentleman. “The Language and Style of the Fragmentary Republican Historians”. by G. Die frühen römischen Historiker. But we may have found at last our modest and urbane host (and guest). Hans. Gary. the age of Romulus was already an age of culture (de rep. et.26 Of course any Romulus is a fiction.37).18. Vols. 9.53: Cato et Pictor et Piso. Courtney. Varron. 1997. 1–4 (10th ed. Archaic Latin Prose.. Forsythe. Berlin: Weidmann. Hirzel. Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae Libri V. Classen 1962. Lipsiae: Teubner. unam dicendi laudem putant esse brevitatem (“Cato and Pictor and Piso. Uwe. 1990. 1922.: University Press of America. Satires Ménippées. and Walter. This should have pleased Cicero. translation. 43. vol. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.} Cèbe. Heft 2). Vol. Immo carum 29 598 than that whole bunch of them?”). Cynthia. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms. {Briscoe. Lanham. A Pathology of Roman Patronage. Conrad. The Historian L. Carolus [= Karl]. 1962. 2. On this verdict he offers a scathing elaboration at de or. Édition. Berger. Bibliography Barwick. and. Eduard. Beck.. traduction et commentaire. ed. Damon. however much he deplored Piso’s style. . Atlanta: Scholars Press. Karl. (= Philologus. Plautinisches im Plautus. eds. commentary). 20). Cichorius. qui neque tenent. Berlin: Weidmann. he does not discuss Piso’s image of Romulus. Remmius Palaemon und die römische Ars grammatica. Vol. 2005. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. London: Athlone Press. J.} Fraenkel. Classen. {Cf. dum intellegatur quid dicant.. Wissowa). 20. The Mask of the Parasite. Ludwig. At de rep. (= Proceedings of The British Academy 129): 53–72. Gellius (edition. 1980. whether he appears in the panoply of myth or the panoply of footnotes. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. J.-P. who have no clue how to adorn their speech . Supplementband 15. Untersuchungen zu Lucilius. Leipzig: S. Leipzig: Dieterich. regard conciseness as the single praiseworthy element of the exposition”). part 2). below in this volume. Vol. JRS 68:74–92. Roth. 1914. ed. 1 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 51). J. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Leiden-Boston: Brill. {Zaccaria Ruggiu. Reprinted in Rawson 1991. Saur}. Konrad. Vol. ed. Friedrich. Ungern-Sternberg. Gellii Noctes Atticae. Wessner. K. 1991. 1857. Powell.L. The Loaded Table. Pökel. 10:191–221. C. Gellii Noctium Atticarum libri XX. 1903. Das römische Privatrecht. Aeli Donati Commentum Terenti. White. 2000. Nero 27.30 599 Historia et Ius Gowers. J. 1860. Howell. Watson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ed. Vincenzo. London: Athlone Press. 1. 1971. E. Grammatici Latini.. Hirzel. W. Vol. 112. Vol. Peter. 1985. A. Lucilii Carminum reliquiae.3”. 1904. Marshall. Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RE 3:610–19. Paulus. Annapaola. Walter. Lipsiae: Teubner. Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon. ed. Mau). (2nd ed. Introduction to the Liber De Adverbio. C. A Rhetorical Grammar. Graf (ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. “Claudius bittet zum Imbiss: Die cenula condicta in Suet. Ussani. 1886. ed. 1978. Lipsiae: Teubner. Lipsiae: Teubner. G. 1988. In F.). Claud.G. ed.} Teodorsson. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.} Hosius. A Commentary on Plutarch’s Table Talks. “Romulus-Bilder: die Begründung der Republik im Mythos”. Vol. 1-2. ed. ed. Lipsiae: Teubner. 1900. 21. RhM 143:89–95. Roma: Quasar. München: C. Uwe. Max. “Exhibere”. {Higgins. 2003. Cicero: Cato Maior De Senectute (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 28). Gratwick. Reifferscheid. 1970. Das Paradigma Roms. Vols. 2. jr. “Cena rosaria. M. ed. 1905. 1965. Latomus 35:689–717. Lipsiae: Teubner. Augustus. München-Leipzig: K. 1–2. P. 2nd ed. Terence Ad. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lipsiae: Teubner. and commentary. RE Suppl. AJP 121:79–92. Lucilius. “Comissatio”. Peter.4”. Vössing. Werner.. cena mitellita: a Note on Suetonius. Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft. 2000. August. 981)”. Mau. 88–108. Satiren. Beck. A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial. C. Leipzig: S. Joachim. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen König und beim römischen Kaiser. {———. 1882. Roman Culture and Society. “Un problema di esegesi virgiliana antica”. Emily. Iulius Romanus. 1993. Keil. Lipsiae: Teubner. Marquardt. ed. 1858. The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic.. Mnemosyne Suppl. 245–71. 2004. 1990. 2004.} . 1980. 247. Mensa regia. 2nd ed. Suetonii Tranquilli quae supersunt omnia. Vols. Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner.S. Suetonii Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. 1976. Leipzig: Krüger. Kaser. Marx. Henricus. Hermannus. C. “The First Latin Annalists”. 1993. Elizabeth. More regio vivere. A. “Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome”. Dirk M. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. Alan. ———. Il banchetto aristocratico e la casa romana di età arcaica. by A. Peter. Hans. Das Privatleben der Römer. 1946. Sven-Tage. AJP 106:116–18. Sachers. Carolus. 1. A. F. C . SIFC 21:83–99. 1968. Jürgen von.H. Krenkel. {Schenkenveld. See Beck. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rawson. 1989. “Isto vilius (Suetonius fr. 1. which presupposes the rival reading in Asconius magistri vicorum. 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) 407–409 {with minor addenda}. No. Pubblicazioni di Storia Antica [Trento 1988. cf. then goes on to discuss the decree of the senate of 64 directed against the collegia and the ludi compitalicii.v. cf. Pp. i magistri dei collegi solevano fare i ludi compitali come i magistri dei vici li facevano. 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).” in Gesellschaft und Recht im GriechischRömischen Altertum 1 (Berlin 1968) 108–18 {= RQ 179–89. A major question looms: Quid ad Brutum? Niente. Ricerche di storia.” reprinted in this volume. If this promises an erudite pot-pourri. a feast of the dead (a proposition not everybody will be rushing to embrace). the connection with Brutus. Lucio Giunio Bruto. for this fundamental distinction. everything we know of the feast.3 THE FOUNDER OF THE REPUBLIC* Attilio MASTROCINQUE. Take the seven pages (pp. carefully: Brutus does not stand solely as the Founder. cf. its history. . 7 Clark) he reads (following J. at least originally. cioé praetextati” (p. “magistri. 61.1}. In the notorious text of Asconius (In Pis. But read the subtitle again. 35. 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. 293.” and hence the feast of the Compitalia was. Flambard. Edizioni La Reclame]). so far. and 646–47. one would say. religione e diritto della repubblica romana (Università di Trento. 59–65) the author devotes to the feast of compitalia.-M. but in his comment he writes: “Pertanto. All that may (or may not) have something to do with the “celebrazione dei funerali di Bruto”. The Lares were “anime eroizzate dei defunti. law and religion. 68–69). “Der Senat und die Vereine. our expectations – or fears – are not to be denied. but minor quibbles. Ecco. here his presentation is lacunose and careless. Dipartimento di Storia della Civiltà Europea. s. Linderski. He diligently summarizes. But let us not despair. in the sixth century. J. he is an emblem for the whole of the (not necessarily early) Republic. with full panoply of sources and literature. Having thus uncovered the methodology of the book. MEFRA 89 [1977] 118) magistri ludorum. Serious. also OCD3 911–12. especially the Brutus of Accius.36] over which Cicero presided.560–62]). 67–81): the ludi saeculares and their projection to the beginning of the Republic. and finally the auspices and their connection with the curiae: “il diritto agli auspici pubblici spettava ai patrizi non tanto in quanto . 17–38 [Warmington 2. J. and not a curule aedile.” hence its utilization by Augustus. CP 81 [1986] 339–40 {= RQ 494–95}). Taylor’s demonstration that Cicero was a plebeian.32 Historia et Ius 409 1) The literary tradition concerning Brutus (pp. Mania. the plebeian.. the bulla of the pueri to the fascinus of Liber. 171–233): the aediles (and their custody of the texts of the laws). 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). Brut. e quella dell’umano” (p. and in particular a) The cult of the Lares (pp. were in fact the ludi Plebei). 245–75) and Ceres (pp. 37–41. and that this orientation seems to be assumed also by the coniectores explaining the dream to Tarquinius (on the confusing subject of auspical orientation. 119–44). above]. as before him by Servius Tullius (165).44–45 = Accius. 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. 59–65 [cf. Here I note a truly marvelous discussion of the prophetic reversal of the course of the sun and of its Greek antecedents (Cic. but rejecting his contention that the patricians were not allowed to vote in the tribal assembly). Politically “il culto eroico” (a proposition sorely in need of proof) at the crossroads tended to be egalitarian and anti-aristocratic. de div. and that consequently the “ludi antiquissimi qui primi Romani appellati sunt” [Verr. Develin [Athenaeum 53 (1975) 302–37] that there existed only one kind of the comitia tributa. ANRW 2. Both cults were closely connected with the plebeian community of early Rome. Brutus emerges as an “eroe sagace” who “compie una mediazione salvifica fra la sfera del sacro .3 [1986] 2282–86. the ludi Tarentini and the legend of Valerius Publicola. 48–49).7. 3) The institutions and the history of the early Republic (pp. the ludi Romani and Plebei (rightly embracing Piganiol’s idea of the high antiquity of the latter games and pointing to L. instituted by Tarquin. 2. 1.R. 43). And it was Brutus who replaced the human sacrifices to the Mater Larum. b) The cult of Liber (pp. the ludi Taurei and the Sibylline books. by the offering of the effigies (Macr.. 145–69). Sat.5. c) The cult of Apollo and the various ludi (pp. the comitia tributa and the comitia tributa plebis (accepting the fuzzy theory of R. cf.34–35). “potenzialmente monarchico. but the author casts his net wide indeed and discusses everything from the toga pura. 51–56. Linderski. 2) The Roman religion. the consuls (and all the often trodden question of the praetor maximus and the clavis annalis). 13–35). Ceres leads to a discussion (hardly novel) of the leges sacratae (127–31) 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. the troubling fact remains that an early Latin praetexta presumes the orientation in the Greek manner toward north. 1.16. La cultura romana construisce la sua memoria (Firenze 2003) 21–38. see T.The Founder of the Republic 33 patrizi. but what does it actually mean? It is easy to be critical. Memoria e identità. “The Legend of Lucius Brutus.{1} but the nature of the field is such that erudition.e.” in Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. P. they are deceiving in their fullness for frequently they are incomplete. “The Roman Father’s Power of Life and Death.). Voci. is on the right track. spirited and ingenious. Wiseman. P. the members of the curiae [p. “Storia della patria potestas.} For a recent attempt to pierce the darkness. ma in quanto curiali” (i. But the question obtrudes: is that track going in the right direction? The book glistens with erudition. who all looked toward Greece. Arthur Schiller (Leiden 1986) 81–95. 4) one misses the works of W. footnotes and the author himself must disappear into the black hole of Archaic Rome to emerge as an another footnote.” Iura 31 (1980 [1983]) 37–100. or W. in the note on patria potestas and the domestic tribunal (p.{2} {1 {2 But let the credulous beware: the footnotes inform and disinform.} . Citroni (ed. Harris. Kunkel. 233]).” Kleine Schriften (Weimar 1974) 117–49. A nice phrase. “Das Konsilium im Hausgericht. e. 125 n.g. 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.” in M. and bristles with footnotes. the literature is cited in a selective manner. re-issued in a new edition in 1999) to the vastly erudite Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic (Cambridge 1992). He defines his aim as an attempt “to rescue Roman constitutional studies from the stigma of being old-fashioned. Leipzig 1887–1888]). The subject needs no justification. aediles and minor magistrates. 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 Römisches Staatsrecht (last edition.. next a systematic account of Roman political institutions (the assemblies. let us provide a short synopsis of Lintott’s compact book. An Introduction to Roman Legal and Constitutional History (Oxford 1973). 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. a wise procedure in a textbook. tribunes. and the Founding Fathers. all rounded off by three concluding chapters on the influence of society and religion. as Lintott charmingly and modestly puts it in his preface. criminal justice). . the senate. Lintott leaves it at that. which clearly fall into three distinct groups: an introductory part (the introduction proper.4 A CONSTITUTION FOR THE REPUBLIC?* Andrew LINTOTT. One group looks for enlightenment to various doctrines of sociology. a short presentation of the Roman political year. There are also twelve pages of bibliography (rather erratic. xii + 297. . and heavily weighted toward British publications) and two indexes. then. 590 The author needs no introduction. with other books and scores of articles for good measure. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (Berkeley 1980) and W. and yet Lintott decided to append an apology. the higher magistrates and the pro-magistrates. This * American Journal of Philology 122 (2001) 589–592 {with minor addenda and corrections}. 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. For the use of prospective teachers. and out of tune with modern approaches to the society” (v). 1999). chapters on Polybius and the origin of the constitution). The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press. Montesquieu. the former marred by an infelicitous rendering and the latter written by a Rechtswissenschaftler for students of law not history. pp. Nicolet.. It consists of thirteen sections. Kunkel. the balance of the constitution and finally the post-mortem: “The Republic Remembered” (often misremembered) from Tacitus to Machiavelli. The object of the present book. “is to provide a work in English to which teachers of ancient history can refer pupils on this topic” (v). 674–75). in his Public Law.A Constitution for the Republic 35 591 approach may indeed provide an occasional insight. Spanish. mulier. coercitio. servus and many others. especially in his analysis of “aristocratic families and their values” and of “plebeian connections and dependence” (164–81). Roman Questions 560–74. the guiding spirit of a social and political organism. ius. The real culprit is. and perhaps also Mommsen’s predecessor. . here F. Syme’s misunderstanding of Staatsrecht was profound (cf. none other but Ronald Syme. Lintott tries to rescue Mommsen’s opus by meekly averring that it is “much less narrowly legalistic than it is often supposed” (v). But there exist a conceptual chasm between constitutional or institutional history and the study of public law. miles. Linderski.” in Roman Questions [Stuttgart 1995] 32–43. The former is chronological and descriptive. Lex Publica [Berlin 1975] 1–51 at 23. lex. is above all concerned with concepts and notions. and his Römische Alterthümer (3 vols. In his Römische Geschichte. not mutually exclusive but complementary. French or Italian pupils. but also vir. or German states had so many of them that they could never achieve the hallowed reverence of the American Constitution. the last of the constitutional antiquarians. civis. and his profuse Storia della costituzione Romana (6 vols. another giant. such as (in Rome) magistratus. Italian. potestas. Like the British. “Mommsen and Syme. he gave a legal description of the Roman state. imperium. L. and the title of Lintott’s book. neither of them mentioned by Lintott. the best treatment of the problem) with the social insights of M. fas. This term. Thus constitutional history means very different things on the two sides of the Atlantic. but he also provides a generous discussion of Roman terms and of their precise legal application. to recreate order out of the chaos of our sources. auspicium. on the other hand. For British and continental scholars it is primarily a historical study of political institutions (Verfassungsgeschichte). Linderski. but by and large it is hardly an effective tool for a detailed study of particular institutions. J. in various editions). will not cause trouble to British. 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 its true goal is more ambitious: to discover the essence. 633). It describes the outward structures and catalogues their permutations. Gelzer’s Die römische Nobilität (Leipzig 1912) and Syme’s The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939). and in the last two hundred years the French. Lange. however. But he justly tempers Mommsen’s begriffslogische Staatsrechtslehre (I borrow this expression from J. mos. He was not writing merely constitutional history. between Verfassungsgeschichte and Staatsrecht. Mommsen created a spirited narrative history of the republic. the Romans did not have a founding document. De Martino comes to mind. [Berlin 1856–1879]. Very illustrative is here the debate concerning the auspicia in connection with the accession of the plebeians to the magistracies (cf. Public law. but will be confusing to American students. There exist various approaches to historical reality. These concepts were of course not static: their perception and interpretation were bound to change in response to social changes. and his prosopographical bent. This is not the point at all. in various editions). auctoritas. [Napoli 1951–1990]. Bleicken. and yet Lintott’s Republic hangs in a void: there are generous references to Sulla and Caesar. 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.3 (2001) 681–82. It produced an enormous concentration of riches in few hands. as the Gracchi and Caesar were to find. vols. He has nothing to say about the Roman conquest of Italy and the Mediterranean.. for example. but this process also rendered the Roman voting system inadequate.36 Historia et Ius 592 This is the right course to take for. like form and content. The other crucial link between a republic and the citizenry is military service. and I wish Lintott had devoted a few pages to a comparative assessment of this phenomenon (cf. it is true. In history there is no end. and the power inevitably flowed to those who held them. and thus undermined the cohesion of the senate. Those who cast voting tablets held no swords. a signal omission for military organization has been a defining element of every social organism (cf. and on that solid rock often crash those who wished to reform or reject them. The History of the Government. institutions and people are inseparable. Phoenix 56. offers fine pages on the maintenance of the balance (191–208).{1} {1 See now the probing assessments of Lintott’s book and of Roman constitution by T. the lex Caecilia Didia which. It is thus surprising that Lintott has no separate discussion of exercitus. [Berkeley 1968]). With the reforms of Marius and the introduction of a professional army. part alive. on “changes in the balance. produced after a devastating war a unified and Roman Italy. but along this path Lintott has made a good beginning and offered to students of Rome a fine book of instruction and reflection. the inspiring remarks by S. established for the first time strictly defined proceedings for the annulment of bills) and eschews the underlying causes of the constitutional turmoil.385–441 on the Roman Republic. never to be repaired. and thus the crucial link for every republic between the citizenship and vote was severed. the soldiers and their commanders. Military Organization and Society. Brennan. e. Tatum. and by W. Lintott. 1.. Few Roman citizens were able to travel many times in the year to Rome and vote. A true synthesis of Law and History is still to be written. J. an intelligent treatment). The Historian 63. E. and the social changes it wrought. 1–3 [Oxford 1997]. this link was also severed. the clamor of the Italian allies for Roman citizenship and the spoils that went with it. but one searches in vain for the name of Augustus. he is feeble and disappointing (208–13). inter alia. C. 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. part petrified. 2nd ed. He adverts mostly to symptoms and legislative remedies (as. and yet it was undoubtedly the worldwide imperium populi Romani that ultimately led to the dissolution of the old res publica. esp. S.” however. Hence their maintenance and change are of burning interest to a historian. Finer.} .g. a process that was to fuel civil wars.1–2 (2002) 191–94. The greatest triumph of the idea of Rome.. they are like a coral reef. guided by Polybius. Andreski. for example. obsolete and moribund. 273 [Rome 1989. diverse and complementary: Th. École Française de Rome]). Scattered throughout the book we find comments on 212 individual sessions of the senate (see the list on pp. thus paralleling the decision taken by L. The new book by Bonnefond-Coudry surpasses Mommsen and challenges Willems – at least in the number of pages.” the senate occupying 416 pages (vol. 126 The senate and the people formed the two parts of the Roman state. Stein. And long after the popular assemblies. Münster 1930]).” primarily a discussion of the senatorial procedure. Talbert. vi + 837. Livre I treats of “Le sénat dans l’espace et le temps civiques”. Thematically the monograph is divided into two Livres. 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. The theme of Livre II is “Les séances du sénat. First. with the War of Hannibal. Die Senatssitzungen der ciceronischen Zeit [Diss. the book is limited chronologically: it omits the uncertain centuries of Roman history and starts where Livy’s narrative resumes. the third part of which is devoted to the “Bürgerschaft und Senat. 3 [Leipzig 1888] 835–1251). R. the senate endured under the imperial autocracy as the only link with the libera res publica. 805–9). Of the republican senate two classical treatments exist. fasc. Chapter 1 contains a detailed discussion of all meeting places of the senate within and without the pomerium (the curia and the various temples).5 IN THE SENATE* Marianne BONNEFOND-COUDRY. Pp. We should not complain – we get various catalogues we have long been * American Journal of Philology 113 (1992) 125–128 {with minor addenda}. . and P. the manifestation and embodiment of the people. Mommsen’s Römisches Staatsrecht. Taylor in her classic Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar (Ann Arbor 1966). ceased to exist. Le sénat de la république romaine de la guerre d’Hannibal à Auguste: Pratiques délibératives et prise de décision (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome. J. chapter 2 deals with the calendar of the meetings in particular as regulated by the lex Gabinia and lex Pupia. Willems’ massive Le sénat de la république romaine in two volumes and 1508 pages (Louvain 1883–1885). The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton 1984): 520 pages versus the meagre 20 pages Mommsen devoted to this subject. But she has wisely refrained from covering all the ground and dealing with all the topics discussed by Mommsen or Willems. The imperial senate has been recently treated by R. 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. A. 16. as MRR does. 291–92. 63. The meetings of the senate (as every official state act) were preceded by the ceremony of auspication (Varro apud Gellium 14. and if the auspices were unfavorable the senate could not gather on that day. 32–47.. “Römischer Staat und Götterzeichen. 202–19) is attested.3. auspiciis operam dedisse”. Univ. 621–31) is not. prodigies and supplications (pp. 144–45). 296–304. the lists of the meetings concerning war and peace (pp.12. the catalogues.. for reasons of space. 2. But for the meetings of the senate lightning was not a vitium – quite on the contrary it was a favorable sign.9). Are those lists reliable? The list of “Interventions de sénateurs nommément cités au Ier siècles” (pp.3 [1986] 2196–98. 280–82).38 Historia et Ius 127 looking for. quod idem omnibus rebus optumum auspicium habemus”. 322–23. Cf. for the first century only. triumphs (pp. Fam. Linderski. Valeton. “The Augural Law. and it is for that reason that obnuntiatio against senatorial meetings was not possible. d. Next (and. and see the classic studies by I. the auspices. Düsseldorf [1969/70] 309–22 {= RQ 444–57}. the magistrates are not included. 229–70. 2213–14). And it is irritating that the catalogue does not provide. And the facts are not always the right facts.. J.173) Bonnefond-Coudry observes that (unlike the comitia) the meetings of the senate were never impeded by the nuntiatio or obnuntiatio. The opus of Bonnefond-Coudry will be immensely useful.43: “comitiorum solum vitium est fulmen. 146–47 for the meetings held extra pomerium) or date (pp. in particular the lists of the meetings of the senate whose place (pp. the numbers in the RE.” Jb. J. 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. embassies (pp.” Mnemosyne 19 [1891] 75–113. yet when we proceed to details (and the book will be used as an encyclopedia) doubts emerge. 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. this seems to prove that the auspices taken before the sessions of the senate did not have a character “officiel. de div. Not so. public et obligatoire” (224). last).” ANRW 2. Deep in their hearts most Roman historians are prosopographers: they jump for joy when they see lists of names. Following in the footsteps of Willems (Le sénat 2. “De modis auspicandi. 621–32). a list of (avowedly) all senators attested to take the floor (pp. To comment: First. Here is (exempli gratia) a (chronologically arranged) supplement of missing intervenants (and interventions) for one year only. succinctly expressed by Cicero.7. cf. 263–65. and finally. 325–27). the year of Cicero’s consulship: . 285–88. “De iure obnuntiandi.” Mnemosyne 18 [1890] esp. and if they are right they are not always presented in a right way. 423–56. Furthermore there is no clear indication of multiple interventions of single intervenants at the same session. at the height of the war against Antonius. 10. In April 43. it was reported pullariorum admonitu (and hence the auspices in question were presumably the auspicia ex tripudiis) that the presiding officer “non satis diligenter . The list contains only senators proper. M. 309–10). at the recommendation of the college of augurs the meeting was adjourned (Cic. There are often too many words and too few facts (morbus thesarum FrancoGallicarum). Lutatius Catulus. also “Senate intervenants in 61 B.. 14. It is a pleasure to conclude presenting a piece of gold: In the praescriptio of the senatus consultum de Thasiis of 80 B. 5) On 21 (or 22) October. 78.. Mur. pr. pr.C. (whereupon). L. 8) not long afterwards Q. cos. retorts and attacks Cato (Cic.” LTUR 1 [1993] 133–35. It is easy to carp. 15.” MEFRA 91 [1979] 601–22) opts for the atrium Libertatis. Sherk. 31. 4) at the meeting held on the day for which the elections were originally scheduled Catiline responds to Cicero’s accusations (Cic. 2) at the meeting held a few days before the session referred to sub 4) M. 30). 51. by 64. and incomplete. (R. Porcius Cato. Sulpicius Rufus.E. 7) On 8 November Catiline responds to Cicero’s First Catilinarian (Sall.In the Senate 39 128 1) Ser. reports on the conspirators’ preparations in Etruria (Plut. Cat. reads in the senate a letter from Catiline (Sall. It is no accident that Louis Robert never wrote a thèse. Arrius. 68.5–6). demands a severe lex de ambitu (Cic. Taylor.. but with the absurd academic system that rewards effuse scribbling and frowns upon concise lucidity. To read a thèse is an art: mixed with sloppy deposits there are veins of information and nuggets of insight to be mined. R. Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate [Stuttgart 1998] passim. Bonnefond-Coudry in an erudite demonstration (pp. and took this denomination to refer to the temple of Honos or Honos et Virtus.. threatens to bring a criminal charge against Catiline. ingeniously restored it as [ti]mhter¤vi. one of the principal locales of the censors. K. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 268 n. 34. Domitius Ahenobarbus. Saenius (no office attested) reads a letter reporting that Manlius arma cepisse cum magna multitudine (Sall. 357–75. Plut. Cat.. Cic. 3. but has no word to say about the restoration in the decree de Thasiis}. Mur. The blame rests not with the hand that wrote the book. Roman Documents from the Greek East [Baltimore 1969] 115–20.. Cic.. and whoever will do it will have to distinguish carefully between simple reports to the senate and the formal sententiae {see now F. and hence not inappropriately rendered in Greek as timhtÆrion {F. 6) Shortly after 27 October L. The whole list is to be redone. “Atrium Libertatis. This is also true of other years. pr. 3 and 5 took place two crucial meetings of the senate: the catalogue of the speakers is again confused.3). 20) the location of the meeting is hidden in the damaged word (line 5) [. 3) L.3).3). Q. and the aedileship of L. There is no reason to continue. 115–21... . 64 (?). On Dec. no.]mhthr¤vi. Plut.. 16. X. Sergius Catilina. and esp. Cic. Ryan.” Hermes 123 (1995) 82–90}. Cat. Coarelli. records the MEFRA article. qu. 65. 46–47). cf.. her earlier article “Le Sénat républicaine dans l’atrium Libertatis?.7–9. 51).C. Mur. La Collezione epigrafica dell’Antiquarium comunale del Celio (Tituli. 9–17.{3a} Their privileges and their comportment were regulated by rules of international law. p. T. 205–6. pp. esp. See also (although none of these studies intends to offer a complete dossier): C. “Balcanici e danubiani a Roma”. 13.) Fabius. 21. S. vobis bellum et pacem portamus: utrum placet. esp. bids the Carthaginians to choose war or peace. Diod. New York. They travelled. 239. 1989. the inscription in question is IGUR II.). p.6 AMBASSADORS GO TO ROME* Ambassadors and embassies fascinated the ancients. “Tod auf der Gesandschaftsreise”. Winged words of ambassadors were the stuff of legend and fiction. in the city itself. 1–14. 3. 241. 156. this point was forcefully stressed in the annalistic tradition. no. édités par Ed.4-12. 150. 1993. and on the return journey. Broughton. Roma. Gregori (ed. cf. p. no. pp. to produce dramatic speeches. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Calamity impends when the Greek embassy departs from Troy without Helen1 or when the Roman envoy (Q. respected by all but the most savage of barbarians. in G. {3a On ambassadors deceased during their travel to Rome. ut voluntariam magna pars crederet. n. 8). 167–68. 12. (so Livy) Fabius (Maxinus Verrucosus) or M. Fabius (Buteo). Not seldom would they die in a foreign land. he was subsequently accused by a tribune of the plebs before a popular assembly. Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana. see esp. 453–78 {with addenda}.2 So epos and tragic history. 11–12. 2 Livy. contra ius gentium pugnasset. his toga gathered into a fold. the ius gentium. It is uncertain whether the envoy was Q. 2001. Paris 1995. 13 (cf. p. Masci. When a Roman envoy (legatus-orator) sent to the Gauls in 389 engaged in a battle. 11. 20. 2. Dictys Cretensis 1. and they did talk of weighty matters. Roma. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 15–17 juin 1993. 18. 748. subtraxit. ab Cn. pp. “I Greci a Roma”.). ad quos missus erat orator. Mrozewicz and K. Livy. sumite.4 Les Relations Internationales. Pozna´ n. 747. cf. Ilski (eds. C. pp. in L. no. 1. 1951. L. Prosopographica. Habicht. R. Opuscula Instituti Romani Finlandiae 4. Canali De Rossi. 609 (provincial and municipal envoys in the imperial times). Travaux du Centre de Recherches sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce Antiques. Fabio. 231. 6: interim Q. 164. 25 a. Frézouls (†) et A. 14–16. 4. cf. no. L. Moretti. 1 Iliad. not to be missed. 157. 3. They could not engage in any act of hostility.} 4 The comportment of ambassadors was governed by the ius gentium. p. 1–9 the oratores of the * . Ambassadors did deliver speeches. At 38. they ate. Embassies provided historians with an opportunity. quod legatus in Gallos. pp. in index.3 Reality was more mundane. 3. esp. I. 749 (sixteen cases). 1997. Ricci. pp. from Homer to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus. and they slept. cui iudicio eum mors adeo opportuna. but they also talked of trifles. n. 3 On the presbeutikoi logoi. 6. 13: tum Romanus sinu ex toga facto ‘Hic’. Jacquemin (= Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg. 567 [not 566]). inquit. 13. A. more often compiled according to the rules decreed by rhetoricians than with any regard for historical accuracy. 230–31. F. Polyb. Marcio tribuno plebis dicta dies est. Studi Ellenistici 13. 138–42. 7. pp. 11. 1. simul primum magistratu abiit. 25. no. 2001. pp. “legatus”. pp. 1888. 485–90.] O’Brien Moore. Römisches Staatsrecht. 187–89}. Olshausen. 1997 (cf. Ius gentium. I. See also M. Ziegler. The book will become an indispensable tool for any study of the relations between Rome and the Greek world. and does not differentiate between the embassies coming to Rome and the embassies sent by the Romans. 1987. 1993. Rome. 741–42. 499–627. 11–12. 41. D.Ambassadors Go to Rome 454 41 When Rome became the center of the ancient world it also became the place to which embassies flocked. esp. there is no special discussion of embassies in E. Roma. p. S. Broughton. Canali De Rossi.v. and omits the embassies to Roman commanders in the field. pp. Perhaps surprisingly. 1887. Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana. vol. Das römische Gastrecht. Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece. 704. to appease the gods. 294–320. n. with express reference to this call for action). Phoenix. and Livy comments: et successisset fraudi. 1989.v. RE. had to be punished. Lipsiae. Le sénat de la république romaine. p. The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and Rome. 2. 1974. Die Fides im römischen Völkerrecht. Leipzig. 1155. 1.). Thus a proper diplomatic history of the Roman involvement in the East (and West) is still to be composed. stetisset fortuna. and their violators. J. and P. 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. dealing with a later period. Wiesbaden. I. Büttner-Wobst (the future editor of Polybius and the Excerpts of Constantine). Heidelberg. RE. A partial prosopography of Hellenistic ambassadors to Rome can be extracted from E. is a lucid introduction to Greek diplomatic practices. Kaser. 343–54. Nörr. D. pp. pp. {See also D. 302–46. 587–90: “Die Entwicklung der griechischen Gesandschaftswesen in römischer Zeit”}. pp. Von Triparadeisos bis Pydna. vol. More recent. T. 28. and by [A. Phillipson. Still very useful is C. Another very useful collection. 99–101. 1973. pp. Mommsen. 1148–57. 50–62. vol. XII. in Römische Forschungen. 22. See now also his Le relazioni diplomatiche di Roma. 33–35. esp. Studien zum römischen 5 . is G. von Premerstein. London. coll. n. Lovanii. 597. 333–47. Roma. Le ambascerie romane ad gentes. Berlin. I. unfortunately incomplete and not always reliable. coll. but still they do not constitute a corpus.-H. pp. Mosley. Suppl. Le sénat de la république romaine de la guerre d’Hannibal à Auguste. 2. 2. See the references and the discussion in K. Historia-Einzelschriften. Köln-Weimar-Wien. Louvain. Gruen. 730–32. Cf. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. “Presbeia”. III. 1136–38. ANRW. De legationibus rei publicae liberae temporibus Romam missis. On the other hand the ambassadors were protected from any mistreatment. is still the dissertation by Th. “Mistreatment of Foreign Legates and the Fetial Priests: Three Roman Cases”. 1991. with various lists of embassies. 2. A full collection of all references to foreign embassies to Rome (including a complete prosopography of ambassadors and their entourage) is a burning desideratum. “Völkerrecht der römischen Republik”. III. 2. Willems. s. 1973. ni pro iure gentium. and importance. pp. II. 1. R. will finally be properly published as a book. unfortunately it lists (and numbers) only those embassies that travelled to Rome itself. 280–84. 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. 2005). 803–4) the author unfortunately does not follow in the footsteps of Constantine. 1911. Two classic accounts of the reception of foreign embassies in Rome are those by Th. 1924. 1883. pp.C.5 In any study of Roman diplomacy the place of honor Tectosagi attempt to deceive the Roman consul. 1876. cuius violandi consilium initum est. Ziethen. n. (And we hope that a further collection by Canali De Rossi. Suppl. 138–43. Prosopographie der hellenistischen Königsgesandten. esp. are the accounts by A. but it stops before the advent of the Romans. Berkeley. and esp. s. also Mommsen. coll. and much more summary. “senatus”. RE. 4). Kienast. 1935. Gesandte vor Kaiser und Senat. 1864. {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. pp. 6. in his index (pp. I: Dall’età regia alla conquista del primato in Italia (753–265 a. Of use. See also below. 13. {M. 23. Bonnefond-Coudry. 1984. . Lipsiae. A Historical Commentary on Polybius. 1904. 7–9). the book (originally twenty-ninth) on embassies. ÉEkloga‹ per‹ pr°sbevn. This is particularly true of the later books of Polybius. vol. 12.. and this is the conviction of many Greeks and of many kings. the fates were less kind to the excerpts of Constantine. and he continues his discussion of foreign envoys in his enumeration of the senate’s prerogatives. 680–81.7 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. to impose demands. is to introduce embassies to the senate. pp. 456 For that reason. und 117 n. Polybius concludes. See the notes on these passages by F. “Zum Gesandtschaftsverkehr griechischer Gemeinden mit römischen Instanzen während der Kaiserzeit”. W. I–XII. 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. 13. See also C.42 Historia et Ius 455 occupies the great historical encyclopedia compiled on the orders of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (emperor 912–959). 6). 1957. Cf. This division is sensible inherently. 676. ed. Katharinen. de Boor) contains (part 1) Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum ad Gentes. Oxford. fortunately for us. Next. 11–27. It was a monumental collection in fifty three books of excerpts from historians ranging from Herodotos to the Byzantine Theophanes. containing fragments of books 20–40. The Digest survived intact. pp. more famous and more lasting. to offer friendly advice. Justinian’s Digest of Roman law. 13. 2). he writes (6. 1994. pp.} The standard modern edition of the Excerpta historica iussu imperatoris Constantini Porphyrogeniti confecta was published in four volumes (and six parts) by Weidmann Verlag.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. 2001–2002. to receive submission. One of the duties of the consuls. All these matters. I (1903. C. Archaiognosia. It recalls another Byzantine compilation. and the people have nothing at all to do with them”. Vol. Berlin. The embassy collection of Porphyrogenitus is hardly ever directly used by modern historians of the Republic or even noticed. Cassius Dio. Only four books are extant: on virtues and vices (de virtutibus et vitiis). 11. to declare war (6. he continues. on ambuscades (de insidiis) and. His stress is on the senate. 1903–1906. Habicht. Th. Chr. and of the purpose of those embassies: to settle differences. St. Buettner-Wobst in the Praefatio to his Teubner edition of Polybius’ Historiae. I. Chr. “are in the hands of the senate. and also from the procedural point of view. and (part 2) Excerpta de legationibus Gentium ad Romanos. Yet when in our search for legationes we pore over the editions of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. “the constitution appears entirely aristocratic. Appian or Polybius we may actually be consulting a passage preserved in the encyclopedia of Constantine. on sententious sayings (de sententiis). as all their affairs are decided by the senate” (6. Walbank. First he talks of the senate’s prerogative to dispatch Roman embassies to all countries.8 6 7 8 Gesandschaftswesen zwischen 30 v. 4. . Prusias II. as king Prusias of Bithynia addressed the senators. pp. and to beg as suppliants for pardon” (ut confitendo seu culpae seu errori veniam supplices peterent)”. iram et odium irritarent). deformis. see below).9 Times were changing. and offers an ingenious explanation: “it was surely from Macedon that Prusias claimed to be freed”. 37. p. 30. Historia. and the consul M. that the Greek embassies travelled. 441. For Prusias’ dealings with Rome. pp. 433–42. C. They were curtly dismissed. his head shorn. 18. our text of Livy breaks off. Historia. 37. Walbank. when the Romans were assembling a coalition against king Perseus of Macedonia (so also Eckstein. How different the treatment of the Aetolians! They were defeated (in 191) by the consul M’. And so when the Aetolian envoys were introduced into the senate (at the beginning of the consular year 189). D. 366–68. in a situation when they needed mercy they roused only anger and hatred” (vetera et oblitterata repetendo.. Commentary. comments that Prusias’ oratio was not so much honorifica to his audience as disgraceful. “Rome. CQ. 44. Livy.Ambassadors Go to Rome 43 To the philosopher Cineas. 5. they offended the senators by “the insolence of their speech” (insolentia sermonis). 10 Polybius. and was granted almost everything he begged for. (above. 353–54. It is to this body of gods and saviors.. gives an account from nostri scriptores. n. as if arranged by Fates. 11 Livy. Livy. Since the victory over Hannibal 9 Plutarch. 1988.11 The maxim parcere subiectis et debellare superbos (Aen. 28–37. As Polybius reports. Daphidas”. Roman annalists were embarrassed by Prusias’ abject behavior. Pyrrhus 19. 32. At this place. 1-8. 1987. and “by recalling their old and forgotten services to Rome. 1979. Only Polybius records it. when the Roman envoys arrived at the court of Prusias. 45. Braund. III. “Amynander. and now he sought to avert possible reprisals by humiliating himself before the Romans. wearing the pilleus of a libertus. as Livy writes.. “Prusias II of Bithynia and Third Party Arbitration”. but they still pinned their hopes on the success of Antiochus III. 36. 49-50. . . Books XXXIV–XXXVII. Cf. the king greeted them attired in the garb of a recently freed Roman slave. quibus misericordia opus erat. Scafuro. Fulvius Nobilior was entrusted with prosecuting the war against Aetolia. p. the envoy of king Pyrrhus. self-assured. 437. C. the senate appeared as a council of many kings – so at least the legend. 1982. 1981. 4–18. and particularly A. also dates the event after Pydna. see A. A Commentary on Livy.. M. 853) was not invented by Vergil. quoting Polybius. Prusias received a kindly welcome. Briscoe. From Polybius the picture of an overbearing. after the Roman victory the former Macedonian ‘slave’ became the Roman ‘freedman’. pp. Oxford. and Third Party Mediation”. 8). and at 19–21 he summarizes Polybius. J. yeo‹ svt∞rew. Eckstein. after all Prusias had been (initially) neutral in the war.10 But the senators were not displeased. 457 “although both their own interests and their situation urged them to confess guilt or mistake. 6. This is not likely: the behavior of Prusias fits much better into the period immediately after the battle of Pydna. and unpleasant power emerges. to himself. Acilius Glabrio. prostrating himself to kiss the threshold of the curia. . pp. the War with Perseus. tentatively dates this event to 172. . and further to plead one’s case. pp. and hence particularly to beseech a deity or a person. 6. 13 Occasionally also the generic term nuntius. Jocelyn. 37 (cf. 306 = H. with the quotation of epigraphical sources. The Annals of Q.15 Thus orator equals ‘ambassador’. n. 176) and Cicero (Phil. 8). was employed. it is generally agreed. 8. Goetz-Schoell): orator dictus ab oratione: qui enim verba haberet publice adversus eum quo legabatur. cf. 364–65. n. 16 Varro. 1985. of the praetor M. (above. especially before a court or an assembly. Orator was the original and solemn word. Vahlen2 = 593. and of the Scipios to Heraclea by Latmos in 190. and Walbank. orator. 1969. Thus the primary sense of orator was that of a person who pronounced a formula. 1969.v. 18. s. coll. and by Stroux to cum res maior oratione <egebat>. cum res † maiore ratione [corrected by Turnebus to cum res maior erat <act>ioni. 76: oro ab ore et perorat et exorat et oratio et orator et osculum dictum. II. K. 8).44 Historia et Ius it was the guiding light if not of Roman foreign policy then at least of Roman propaganda and ideology. loc. This popular connection between os and oratio was felt also by Ennius (Scaenica. the commentary. pp.14 This passage is preserved by Varro (De Lingua Latina. 1967. the commentary of O. pp. Latin expressed better this new relationship of dependency. In Latin two terms were used to describe the office of ambassador: orator and legatus. A representative collection of evidence in TLL. Its first appearance in Ennius is dramatic (Annales. but one who is also an accomplished speaker. Sherk. 892–93. (above. De Lingua Latina. 35.13 They tell an instructive story. as amply attested by Polybius and the epigraphically preserved letters of Flamininus to Chyretiae in 197/194. but such a derivation would be linguistically unprecedented. Varro connects orator and os. ab oratione orator dictus. 34. 27. and modern students of Latin reject this idea. 33. Skutsch. and the king Pyrrhus.. 582. 15 Varro.16 12 Polybius. 5. 207 Vahlen2 = 202 Skutsch): orator sine pace redit regique refert rem: “the envoy comes back without peace and reports the matter to the king”. Skutsch. 6. fr. 7.. “to pronounce a ritual formula”. Ennius.12 For all the richness of the Greek idiom. 211–18. 14)] legebantur potissimum qui causam commodiss<im>e orare poterant. Vahlen2. D. The Tragedies of Ennius. Greek presbeutÆw is a neutral term. Valerius Messala to Teos in 193. 730–31). 258: quam tibi ex ore orationem duriter dictis dedit) and by Plautus (Merc. cf. 7. Baltimore. is Cineas. 41). when the matter was of greater importance those were selected for the pleading who could plead most skillfully”. especially that of an ambassador charged with delivering an oral and formulaic message. ‘messenger’. 41 (ed. De Lingua Latina. 14 Cf. was called spokesman (orator). cit. 458 The envoy. Cato and Plautus. now to be consulted in R. It was on the lips of Ennius. from his speech (oratio). 597–98. 76. And indeed at De Lingua Latina. Commentary. Skutsch. 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. pp. Cambridge. nos. and – to add a touch of antiquity – on the pen of Cicero and Livy. . In fact both oratio and orator derive from the verb oro. Here Varro appends another citation from Ennius: oratores doctiloqui (Annales. Oxford. Roman Documents from the Greek East. 20). that is testari. the oratores. II. pp. Quellet.. Paris. quod reipublicae mandatas partis agebant. 119–65. Leeds.19 In another passage Verrius embraces a fantastic etymology.17 It is not clear what Verrius Flaccus wished precisely to convey by the verb agere. Lindsay: Orare antiquos dixisse pro agere (cf. pp.. and for a discussion. De officiis. 196). however. érçsyai. but the abridgment by Paulus preserves its essence (p. p. p. H. Linderski. Les dérivés latins en -or. <quod ad reges> gentes qui (-que) missi <ea quae mandabant 17 18 19 20 .. (were called) oratores. 196. 435. commentary. 42: cum pronuntiamus agimus. Madrid. Paris. quod reipublicae mandata peragerent. does not discuss the nomina agentis. pp. II3. n. 1958. because they acted parts entrusted to them on behalf of the republic”. p. 197. 3. in an excerpt extant in the dictionary of Festus. were originally supposed to do. 66. 1991. Epigrafía jurídica de la España Romana. 832. gives this explanation of the term orator: 459 “The ancients used orare in the sense of agere. B. Meillet. Cicero. p. et i qui nunc quidem legati. p. ambassadors. Heidelberg. So also later grammarians. cf. Lindsay attempted a fuller restitution of the passage. As this passage is of crucial importance for our discussion.. 16–18. Vahlen = 17. 187. qui nunc legati.) . cf. itaque ab eo orator agere dicitur causam. 2149. and also those who are now in fact called legati. et oratores. D’Ors. see A. Innsbruck. Lindsay): “Orators (oratores) are so named from the Greek érht∞rew (literally ‘those that pray’). 367–74. In the parlance of Roman public law those who rem agunt or gerunt are the magistrates. 224. XIV). 218. 1969.20 adduced by Jocelyn. 1953. 298. For a linguistic appraisal. because when they were sent to kings and nations. 21–22. and already Varro. Aen. So also Servius and Servius auctus. nos. pp. A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies. 1986. then. 391. Hofmann. Maltby. 19: egerunt praetores). Lindsay): Orare antiqui dixerunt pro agere. the word oratores is a proof for this. see esp. And this is exactly what the ambassadors. De Lingua Latina. Walde–J. but we have to remember that agere is not a synonym for gerere. 100. 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. 1951. “The Augural Law”.18 Thus agere (but not gerere) may denote nothing more than the performance of a ritual. 219. I reproduce it here in full: <Oratores ex Graeco quod est érht∞r>ew dictos exi<stimant> . Paris. 6. Cf. I Annalium (20. Ernout–A. tunc vero oratores. 1930. 3. 2293–95. 23 (egit legatus).. Festus. Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. testimonio sunt et oratores. Ennius quoque cum dixit in lib. the thorough study (impeccable philologically. p. the abridgment by Paulus (p. 1954. and in particular the augurs are said augurium agere. p. see A. but conducted in splendid isolation from history) by W. and the utterance of a formula. On orator. Patronus und Orator. the prescribed gestures. Lindsay. but his description of the orator’s function contains a kernel of truth. they used to call gods as witnesses. IV. ANRW. but gerere is not used with respect to priests. 2199. Now we call them legati”. Unde et oratores causarum actores. cf. but never gerere. Eine Geschichte der Begriffe von ihren Anfängen bis in die augusteische Zeit (Commentationes Aenipontanae. see J. p. De legibus. Skutsch. 20–21. (6 litt.Ambassadors Go to Rome 45 Verrius Flaccus. (cf. 175–76): Face vero quod tecum precibus pater orat (Anchises addressing Aeneas). p. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine3. 16. This passage is unfortunately mutilated. R. Neuhauser. A. 11. Cf. Festus. 2. In his edition of Festus in the Glossaria Latina. Lindsay): Oratores ex Graeco érht∞rew dicti. 5–14.. 32. Ferrary. book 2. Mommsen. Cloelius praetor Albanus oratores misit Romam cum . grave and potent. (10 litt. now a detailed investigation of the ius fetiale by A. Studien zum “Römischen Völkerrecht” (Göttingen 2001) 13–73. II3. 9): orator venio. 127–36. facite exorator sim. was the term orator. A Commentary on Livy. item et Afranius in Emancipato (92): sic est orator siquod (-id?) oritur tale. Here. 850. 6). 1887. 529. Fulvio consuli legatus sum in Aetoliam propterea quod ex Aetolia conplures venerant: Aetolos pacem velle.. 32. 676. ante quam conciperetur. p. finally. 5. 1. is preserved by Nonius. ut Cato in ea quam scripsit de suis virtutibus contra Thermum: M. 197.. Et in Originum lib. Observe the present tense.46 460 Historia et Ius It is not difficult to see that this passage describes almost to perfection the original duties of the fetiales. Zack. “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> érçsyai <id est testari deos non abesse r>em ab aequitate.-L. 86). R. “Ius fetiale et diplomatie”. declaring war by reciting a formula and throwing a spear into the enemy’s territory. per hos etiam nunc fit foedus. Eos nostri alii pro legatis appellant. M. “before the war was formally declared. n. pp. Lindsay: priusquam indicerent bellum i<i>s. Books 1–5. “it was through their agency that the just war used to be formally declared”. 1965. quos oratores vocabant. The meaning of the verb orare. Staastrecht. then. pp. cf. after a thirty day grace period. and further: ex his mittebantur.) . prefers to put a comma after fetiales. ut Terentius (Hec. 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.. naturally. and even puts this denomination into the mouth of the fetialis himself: iuste pieque legatus venio (1. whom they called oratores” .21 Now Livy describes the envoy as legatus (legatus ubi ad fines eorum venit). p.22 461 Why. Mercerius = p. {Cf. I (21): Propter id bellum coepit. qui res repeterent. Livy modernizes. it was from their number that (the envoys) used to be sent to demand satisfaction” (De Lingua Latina. the paper in the acts of this conference by J. id est testari. and then. comes to mind Livy’s rendition of the ceremonial. Hi modo appellantur legati. the fines. above all. Oxford. and Varro once again introduces a correction. f[a]etiales legatos res repetitum mittebant quattuor.} 22 This passage from De Vita Populi Romani. The text of Paulus reads (p. 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). with the envoy arriving at the border. which would produce a rather awkward sense of the fetials dispatching the envoys. 411–32. . and. replaced in the official language of the Roman State by the faceless and bureaucratic legatus? A semantic shift had occurred. Ogilvie. the college of priests who still in Varro’s time were in charge of the ceremonies attending the conclusion of a treaty. a quibus iniurias factas sciebant. 5. de ea re oratores Romam profectos. quod missi ad reges nationesque deos solerent érçsyai. 21 Livy. calling Jupiter as witness and demanding satisfaction. Alias pro decretoribus (deprecat-?). in app. 8–56. does not specify the purpose of Cato’s legatio. n. Heft: Ein lexikalisches Beispiel. 116. I2. see F. M. Macrobius. There is a lacuna at the end of Cato’s passage. and hence were the words of beseeching and asking for favor. 1-11. 20. pp. 1887. Jordan. 140–41. 2) the purpose of the mission was res repetere.26 23 For the semantic development of orare. 8. Patronus und Orator. 1978. see W. 3. (above. 30) and Peter (HRR. I. p. but Cato must have in some way participated in the negotiations with the Aetolians. pp. 363. from Cato’s speech De suis virtutibus contra <L. Porcius Cato. fr. pp. Patronus und Orator. propterea quod ex Aetolia conplures venerant: Aetolos pacem velle: de ea re oratores Romam profectos. 21. Polybius. n. Oxford. 127): two times in the sense of envoy (both times in the plural: oratores. cf. n. 48–49. V. and once to denote the public speaker (see below. Cato the Censor. 38. 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. 26 H. MRR. as diplomatic equals. 1955. p. and already W. a passage from Terence. 33). Gruen. Schröder. A. 5). Neuhauser. Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Semasiologie. 21. Lipsiae. originally “the reciter of a (solemn) formula”. after him. 91) print oratorum. p. 26. the correct reading is arator. 1914. Astin. 22. crit. 242. 3. Groebe. p. Peter. but one should always carefully distinguish between legati = senatorial envoys to Roman commanders in the field. Augustae Taurinorum. and its continuing and illustrious career to denote the public speaker. 22 (H. Broughton. Patronus und Orator. the Alban praetor. There were several Aetolian embassies to Rome in 190 and 189 (cf. Meisenheim am Glan. Heerdegen. p. 1. 21. 3. Livy. Mommsen. n. to demand restitution. 196 Lindsay. Erlangen. 37. n. to Rome. 1. Leipzig 1919. Catonis praeter librum de re rustica quae extant.23 Consequently. (above. describes Cato as “ein Gesandter Roms”. Malcovati. also orator. p. 183–87. Saturnalia. Origines. and . Das erste Buch der Origines. n. 73–74. (above. p. but they underestimate the original formal and formulaic application of the verb. 16). E. 7–19. 8–11. 676. pp. 16). 5) where Jordan (fr. and a passage from Afranius are adduced to illustrate the usage of the term orator. 16). J. 1881. p. 120–22. Drumann-P. esp. II3. In the De verborum significatu of Festus two passages from the elder Cato. states that Cato uses the word orator in the sense of legatus often (häufig). Staatsrecht. particularly Roman. See above. p. and legati = ambassadors to foreign nations. 66. 1963. sending the envoys. but in fact the word appears in all extant fragments of Cato only three times (cf. M. Lipsiae. a role totally unsuitable to a Roman envoy. 3-7) and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Antiquitates Romanae. For a detailed discussion of Cato’s passage. 1971. I. p. 5. and that the ambassadors (oratores) had departed for Rome” . I. 124. Cf.24 In Cato’s Origines we read of Cloelius. 52. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. Fulvio consuli legatus sum in Aetoliam. 130: M. Willis. We are fortunate enough to be able to detect this semantic shift at a very early stage. quite appropriately. 25. Geschichte Roms. Lipsiae. I2. p. (above. 29–32). Neuhauser. 58). 25 Cato.. 24 Festus. n. but as follows from Livy (1. was more and more perceived as a beseecher and pleader.> Thermum. 1860. The Hellenistic World. Neuhauser. A. In one curt passage from a liber incertus from the Origines (preserved by Macrobius. This explains the mystery of the disappearance of orator in the sense of envoy. p. Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2.Ambassadors Go to Rome 47 462 gods.25 Here the Albans and the Romans are treated. and. 140. the relevant passages adduced in this and in the next note). n. the index in H. Fulvius to Aetolia because many people had come from Aetolia (reporting) that the Aetolians wish (to conclude) peace. But in the other passage. fr. oratores. pp. 14. .31 and also only seven times are they it is difficult to establish the precise chronology of Cato’s mission. 3. Wallace and Edward M.48 Historia et Ius 463 The verbal locution legatus sum describes Cato’s position as a senatorial envoy to the consul (in 189) M. 35. a pleader: oratorem esse voluit me.). 351–52. 16). The passage of Afranius (O. Ambivius. n. neither Polybius (in the extant fragments) nor Livy mentions it.} Terentius. Transitions to Empire. On the other hand. 21. mostly Greek. who was besieging Ambracia. 11. 2). Only seven times are the oratores envoys between other states. oratorem non licet iniuriam pati. rightly points out that the word orator “is used not so much with reference to the spokesman or that the message is oral. claims (mistakenly) forty four instances. appears as orator . 196. p. 10.. an emendation Lindsay ought to have admitted into his text. Neuhauser. Commentum Terenti. 1878. 29. Linderski. 92) which Festus also adduces as an example for orator = deprecator lacks unfortunately any context.v. once the 27 28 29 30 31 . ed. 1905. 7). 2. 9–10: Orator ad vos venio ornatu prologi: | sinite exorator sim. to depict the comportment of foreign envoys. II. but in his analysis he does not consistently distinguish between the foreign and the Roman oratores. pp. Out of the forty-two occurrences of the word orator in the extant books of Livy. “Orator = Petitioner. Especially the connotation of orator as “beseecher” was conscientiously exploited by the annalists and archaizing historians. all three words orator. C. 143–50. and 15. Oddly enough. (above. 15. (above. Also in the prologue to Heauton timoroumenos (line 11) the prologus appears as orator. Comicorum Romanorum Fragmenta2. n. fr. {See now a detailed discussion by J. 1968. 376-408 (reprinted in this volume.28 This was to become in Roman literature the standard image of foreign embassies. Wessner. On the other hand Cato refers to the Aetolian ambassadors as oratores: they come to Rome to beg for peace. Neuhauser.30 twenty-six times the word refers to foreign envoys. 1996). in Robert W. 4. pp. p. 2. J. 134–35. the meagre remnants of whose efforts we have in the dictionary of Festus. ne expellatur.C. 11. in his remarks on the passage of Terence. 40. completely disregards the interpretation of Festus. OK. above all by Livy. who approach either the senate or the Roman commanders in the field. Lipsiae. 34. Lipsiae. The republican students of Latin. No. and deprecor deftly arranged like a Roman legion. Mass. Livy. Four times the envoys from or to Hannibal (21. s. orator. P. ornatu prologi. it has been brilliantly corrected by Scaliger to deprecatoribus. and pleads with the audience to give the author and the play a chance. Essays in Greco-Roman History 360–146 B. Patronus und Orator. Cf. Harris (eds. 24. 21. 12. 36.29 projecting Roman dominance also in the sphere of vocabulary. “Cato Maior in Aetolia”.. 34. W. in Honor of Ernst Badian (Norman. CR. 5. ideo ergo.: oratorem audire oportere ius gentium est. See D. Patronus und Orator. As a final illustration of the new connotation of the term Festus adduces a passage from the second prologue to Terence’s Hecyra. 21. as because the ambassador is a petitioner”. A Concordance to Livy. and envoys are protected by the international law: they should not be harmed (Donatus. They come to beseech and pray. The text of Festus reads alias pro decretoribus. L. non se prologum sed oratorem nominat). oro. 176. now on a third try. 12. apparently to assist him in arranging the Aetolian affairs.27 The play had failed twice before. Fulvius Nobilior. Kirtland. Neuhauser. the famous director. non prologum. Ribbeck. not rarely in close proximity to each other. 133–34. Suppliant”. ad loc. where decretoribus is clearly corrupt. Cambridge. Hecyra. 13. pp. he investigates them thoroughly. In the Scholia of Donatus we find a different explanation: the prologus comes as an envoy = orator. pp. 1897. 16). Packard. pp. 11. felt that the orator appears here in the role of a deprecator: he prays for favor. 354) tells the Aetolians: mittite oratores ad consulem (M’. 14 (a.. 45. 33 10. 39. 16. 2). [above. 6 (the orator sent to the Gauls. 36. 15. Of the remaining twenty-five only two come from the friendly states to ask the Romans for help and protection. And finally two oddities: Marcellus dispatches in 214 the legati to the Syracusans. and once the Rhodian envoy to Perseus (45. 10. 2. asking for peace or surrendering themselves to the mercy of the Romans. 5. above. n. 198): the inhabitants of Eretria besieged by Flamininus and Attalus send oratores to Attalus veniam fidemque eius petentes. 299): oratores Lucanorum ad novos consules venerunt questum (to protect them from the Samnites). 34. pp. 17.. 11 (a. Jordan. 5 (a. pacti cum consule. ad L. oratores ad Marcellum mittunt nihil petentes aliud quam incolumitatem sibi liberisque suis. 4)—all very special cases. n. 80). 11. 27.. 9. MRR. Admittedly in some instances the envoys – oratores only fake submission. 2 (a. 25. 19. ut aut mitterent subsidium (against the Volsci). 9. 1 (a. . cf. 38. Perusia. but this illustrates even better the suppliant behavior that was expected of them. Emblematic are the first two occurrences of the word in Livy’s annals: the oratores from Veii arrive to sue for peace. 25. 294): Volsinii.. Flamininus (cf. 16. once from Antiochus III (35. 191): the Aetolians pacis petendae oratores ad consulem miserunt. ut mitti Romam oratores liceret. On these passages.. 10 (oratores ad Marcium Coriolanum). 32. Acilius Glabrio). p.. orare patres. 18 (a. cf. 1 (the oratores sent to Delphi. vir bonus. 1 (a. pacem petitum (1. 6 (of M. 203): Cartaginienses . Laelius termed orator when he was sent by Scipio in 206 to Syphax (28. both in real history and by the historians. orator ad plebem). 5. at 5. dicendi peritus. 26. the envoy who actually addresses the Syracusans is described as orator (24. 190): Colophonii oratores . 2–7: Syracusani . 198): the inhabitants of Carystus send to Flamininus ad fidem . 16. 13. 25]. I.. In Livy’s 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. 8 (anno 494): oratores Latinorum ab senatu petebant. which brings to mind Cato’s own definition of orator: Orator est. Twenty-three times the oratores are the ambassadors from the defeated enemy. Arretium pacem petiere. 212): missi oratores ad Marcellum. Marce fili. 32.. 9.32 but very significantly five of these occurrences fall into the first six books. 304): Marrucini (and other tribes) send to Rome oratores pacis petendae amicitiaeque. 7). 5 (a. 32 2.Ambassadors Go to Rome 464 49 the Roman envoys. Neuhauser. 31.. 33. 43. 35. procubuerunt.. 6. 51. . 37. 37. and C.. ut mittere legatos Romam possitis. 17. 306): ad senatum pacis oratores missi (by the Samnites).. ut . 8 (Menenius Agrippa. 36.. (above. 5). 16. capere arma sinerent. dein suppliciter orantem advolutumque genibus tandem (Flamininus) audivit. aut se ipsos . 7). 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. Cato. 40. Lucanos in fidem accipiant. 3 and 5. 12 and 5. 9 (a. and attempt to deceive the Romans. 191): the legate T. 8 they are termed legati).. 16). 15. the deditio in populi Romani dicionem (1. 2 (a. . 25. 1. veniam civitati petebant).. per quos senatui de vobis permittatis. 5). oratores ad pacem petendam mittunt (to Scipio) triginta seniorum principes (the envoys more adulantium . 21 (a.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. 6). 30. 7). n. p. and later.. 3 (a. 195): orator Pythagoras sent by Nabis to Flamininus: first aspernatus. 34. 144–45. 23. Patronus und Orator. 30. the following passages (arranged chronologically) refer to foreign envoys: 2.34 envoy from Philip V (32.. 10. 11). 29. 15. petendam oratores. 34 In addition to the examples adduced in the text.. and finally and surprisingly only two times is the term orator used to denote the public speaker. 32. Broughton. qui indutias tanti temporis petant. 37. 31.. 189): the legati from Athens and Rhodes come to the consul M.. 189): oratores Tectosagum ad consulem venerunt petentes. 35. 189): Galli (in Asia Minor) oratores de pace ad consulem miserunt. 5 (a. 14.. 39. Livy mentions their preces and the senate’s venia. 2 (a. and further: oratores . 24. 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. 14 (a.. 151): cum legati (i. 2 (a. (but in reality trying to deceive the Romans). a consule petit impetravitque. 44. deprecantes pro Aetolis (before P. deprecari et (T.50 465 Historia et Ius Next the verb deprecor and the nouns deprecatio and deprecator.. cf. 34. cum ad eum legatos deprecatoresque misissent. the consuls refuse (ita precisa spe senatum adeundi deprecandique). 29. 175): simul (with the return of the Roman legati) venerant et ab rege Perseo oratores. the envoy of Antiochus III. 168): Perseus . 8 (a. 19. 17 (a. redissent (they were given by the senate an ultimatum: the Romans would abstain from war if the Carthaginians classem exussissent et exercitum dimississent). fidem praetoris populique Romani implorantes. 40. 6. A Concordance to Livy... Seventeen times.. 40. (above. 2 (a. Quinctius Flamininus). oratores cum infulis et velamentis ad Romanum (M. 169): deprecatio of the Acarnani to the Roman envoys that the Roman garrison not be introduced into Acarnania. 48 (a. 30). 190): Teii . 44. 38. and L. Cn. 180): Ligures saepe per legatos deprecati (sc. De imp. Cicero. This pattern apparently continued in the missing books of Livy. 5 (a. 4 (a. 49. 45.. 28. 190): legati Athenienses . 4 (a. 39.. 35: Cretensibus. like oro. cf. 17. to influence its tenor in malam partem. 169): the envoys of king Prusias state that the king had promised Perseus. always in need of an additional description to convey any mood or image. 15. 59.. Pomp. oratores cum caduceo ad Paulum misit. miserunt. 2 (a. 202): pro mea (patria) deprecantem (of Hannibal in his colloquium with Scipio). 172): defensio et deprecatio of the legati of Perseus in the senate. when the Macedonian ambassadors came to him in the matter of concluding peace with the Romans. 194): Menippus. 33. 37. 25.35 Aemilium. Aemilium Regillum) miserunt. The passages referring to foreign envoys (arranged chronologically) are as follows: 6. 184): Philip V sends his son Demetrius ad deprecandam iram senatus. 38. 185): deprecor (spoken by Philip V to the Roman envoys). 38.. 3. 168): Gentius sends oratores . 41. 190): caduceator ab Antiocho .. also 29. 5 (a.. 9. 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. 179): the inhabitants of Alce in Celtiberia praemissis oratoribus in dicionem se suaque omnia Romanis permiserunt.) Quinctium et patres instit. Periochae. Fulvius to intecede (ad deprecandum) for the Aetolians.e. (se) deprecatorem apud senatum futurum. 196): Achaei deprecantes (in behalf of the Boeotians before the consul T. not necessarily oratores. Scipio). 42. it remained a neutral term. 28. 37. 3 (a.. 24. 381): the Tusculans are given by the dictator Camillus deprecandi potestatem. and 10. 11 (a... spem deditionis non ademit. 6 (anno 383): the coloni Veliterni have a spatium deprecandi senatus. 44. the consul permits that et Rhodii et Athenienses deprecatores irent (Romam ad senatum). ad praetorem . 21. per quos indutias peteret. . 3 (a. 38. 7 (a. 9 (a. 5 (a. the Roman decem legati) ex Africa cum oratoribus Carthaginiensium . ut oratores mittere liceret regi. and an opportunity to dispatch a legatio supplex. consules). 30. vv. Livy uses the various forms of these words forty-six times. 1 (a.. 35 See Packard. This behavior of begging is quite often attributed to envoys who are described as legati. redeunt excusantes (in fact they wanted only to deceive the Romans). 30. the reference is to foreign envoys appearing either before the Roman commanders or before the senate. and 15 (a. 9 (a. 42. 6. 43. 26. 167): the Rhodian envoy begs the senate: deprecor ne nos propter illos (those Rhodians who had favored Perseus) pereamus. but as legatus did not have any cognate verb. s. 12. qui purgarent . 6 (a. 45. 14. 45. n. 37. a significant percentage. when they come back to report the responsum of the Roman commander they are termed legati. 1 and 3 (a. Acilius Glabrio as the commander in Greece) so that they might send an embassy to the senate. he wrote an epic history and not an antiquarian divagation. this regulation is amply though erratically attested in literary sources. 37 Livy. 1887. were introduced into the senate to sue for peace.. 5. praying for pardon. 7–12).37 From Livy’s 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. denuntiatumque.1–5). and was not accompanied by a Roman commissioner (legatus). qui eam provinciam obtineret. n. A Roman official was attached to the Aetolian ambassadors to safeguard their journey and to keep an eye on their movements (ad custodiendum iter). nisi permissu imperatoris. 7. deprecati sunt.} 38 Here is a list: Livy. But they offended the senators. 1–8: senatus consultum in M’. It was a standard procedure. 27. Terentius Varro (cf.. For from an earlier passage of Livy (37. (above. 22. {For a list of embassies ordered to leave Rome and Italy. si qua deinde legatio ex Aetolis. 5. 1. pro hostibus omnes futuros. Iug. record it frequently though not consistently. or asking for a favor. all members of the embassy would be treated as enemies. The emergence of Rome as a superior power produced a corresponding imperial ideology of international relations. III. 37. This was a decisive element governing the reception of embassies in Rome. 36 Mommsen. proficiscuntur. 7. Broughton. 5). and from Polybius (21. I. and as a result the senate passed a decree instructing the magistrates to order the Aetolians to leave Rome still on the same day. qui Aetolos Antiochumque devicerat. 49. 5 (a. 352): primum . MRR. and Livy.38 To Sallustius. Le ambascerie. see F.. 597. then at war with Rome on the side of Antiochus III. we learn that the Aetolians had in fact been granted truce (in 190 by the consul L. 4–7. 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. Staatsrecht. Envoys from states that were bound to Rome by a formal treaty of friendship were free to travel to Rome at any time. Cornelius Scipio. In 189 the envoys of the Aetolians.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. and other authors. p. 105): in Rome the legati of Bocchus errasse regem .36 envoys from other states and particularly the belligerents had normally to receive permission from the Roman commander in the field. factum est. 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. 104. 4 (a. Bell. ut Aetoli eo die iuberentur proficisci ab urbe et intra quintum decimum diem Italia excedere. and to depart from Italy within fifteen days. A. the successor of M’. et cum legato Romano venisset Romam. 749 (index). p. an element often curiously overlooked or disregarded both by students of the Roman constitution and students of Roman foreign policy. qui dederent Falerios. 363) ad custodiendum iter eorum missus. Canali De Rossi. p. and the Aetolians were further expressly warned that if any new embassy travelled to Rome without the consent of the Roman commander. and this ideology was duly mirrored in the language of diplomacy and history. 6. Acilii sententiam. begging for peace. 11–12 (anno 394): legati ad Camillum ad castra atque inde permissu Camilli Romam ad senatum. 171): the legati from Perseus come to Rome when the war had already been declared. 274) the multitudo of the Campani approaches the consul M. Livy does not mention by a word any consent from the Roman commander. 36. 8 (a. Briscoe. 106. 33. Permission goes with truce. 33. “Senatus”. 14 (a. . Perusia. the Etruscans) Romam. 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. pacti cum consule. and Polybius. 3. n. p. 294): Volsinii. Technically and formally he alone decided. n. Acilius Glabrio for truce in order to be able to dispatch the envoys to the senate (Livy. he may have further on mentioned the negotiations of the Aetolians with Fulvius. 5). nemini enim eorum per Italiam ire liciturum. 730. non esse. 37. 368. if the king wishes he might send his envoys to the consul P. 210): after the deditio of Capua (in 211 to App. col. though naturally he would take into account both the military and the political considerations. Bell. n. Linderski. Fulvius Flaccus. Perseus was further strictly prohibited from sending any ambassadors directly to Rome: Romam quod praeterea mitteret. ordered intra undecimum diem Italia excedere. 2: legatis potestas Romae eundi fit. and the text of Polybius is a mere excerpt. 5). the Aetolians (so Livy. 35. 7–8) immediately sent to Rome another embassy to try their last chance. 13. legatos ad senatum missurum.39 But from a careful reading of Livy and Polybius a clear chronological sequence emerges: the Aetolians. 24. Arretium pacem petiere. now (in 189) the consul M. 38. 36. dein permissu eorum ab senatu indutias peterent (sc.41 In fact we have to distinguish between two very different situations. (above. and. 40 Polybius 21. cf. 2 (a. (above. 384–86}. 197): Flamininus grants Philip V truce. 18. 10. (above. 27. 43. I. 18. et ab consule interea indutiae postulabantur. 189). 7–19 {and see the discussion by J. These acts stemmed from the commander’s imperium. they are dismissed. but when we deal with an (unequal) peace treaty or surrender. see below. especially heavily must have weighed the question whether the senate would ratify his arrangements.] O’Brien Moore.40 Thus during a war the Roman commander first agrees to a truce (indutiae) with the enemy. “Cato Maior in Aetolia”. p. 1–6 (a. the Falisci and the Tarquinienses). Bocchus speaking): si per Marium liceret. pp. Fulvius Nobilior. 10.. Commentary. on Roman terms. this embassy (which arrived in Rome in 190) was as ill-starred (37.. 26. 12 (a. 1. 14 (cf. 3–10. 11). indutias in quadraginta annos impetraverunt.. 300): permissum ab dictatore. Claudius Pulcher and Q. ut de pace legatos mitterent (sc. 10 (a. When the embassy of 189 returned empty-handed without any hope for peace. Licinius who will soon arrive with his army in Macedonia. 1–6) as the next one (of 189). 26. (a. and Polybius. 39 Cf. . 9–11). The enemy either begs for truce or concludes peace. 25. 26). 9–10. more intriguingly. Iug. 196): after the victory at Cynoscephalae Flamininus again grants the king truce so that he might send envoys to Rome. 10. 42. and 104. 5 (a. 42. 102. ut mitti Romam oratores liceret. Sallustius. 5. the consul a consulibus. 41 So [A. 38. and allows him to send ambassadors to the senate. 3–7). Flamininus to ask the consul M’. Valerius Laevinus ut sibi Romam ad senatum ire liceret. Broughton. had dispatched their embassy to Rome (in fact two embassies) before Fulvius landed with his army in Epirus. Omission of such a detail in Livy would not surprise us. 36. and then (or simultaneously) allows the ambassadors to go to Rome. 32.52 468 Historia et Ius stay with the Aetolians: already in 191 the Aetolians were advised by T. MRR. desperately seeking an accomodation with the senate. n. or surrenders. neither does Polybius (21. 38. Polybius. MRR. 10. 14. After the Aetolian assembly (concilium Aetolorum) had finally accepted (in 189) Roman peace conditions. Valerius Laevinus. 112. 10. Iug. 198): the envoys of Philip V accompanied to Rome by three Roman commissioners and by the envoys from Roman allies (cf. 2: postquam aprobasse pacem concilium Aetolorum accipit (sc. and intended. 143}. eius fidei . pp. 2 referring to the Aetolians and adduced in notes 37 and 43. 131). causam suam commendantes. 40. I. 23. in that it was the Samnites themselves who asked the Roman dictator to accompany their envoys to Rome. and a senator urged iubendosque Italia excedere et custodes cum iis usque ad naves mittendos (30. 10. 8.. left by the vagaries of chance no documentary evidence until the soil of Spain. The unconditional surrender of the enemy was often glowingly described by Roman historians. n. 2). The Roman general could of course refuse to agree to sign a treaty. the deditio. ipse in Cephallaniam traiecit. 314. 1–2). n. 4 (a. 43 Livy. Octavius Ruso. MRR. 104. they returned to Africa with Laelius and Fulvius (30. permissoque. And the terminology is formal – as brought into sharp relief by a recent epigraphical find. 37. 11–12 (a. p. 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. 12 (anno 323): a rather unusual and. 9. 30. 1: Legati ex Africa Romani simul Carthaginiensesque cum venissent Romam). the Athenians and the Rhodians are given permissum. 42. ut et Rhodii et Athenienses deprecatores (cf. and for that purpose the ambassadors of the people suing for peace had to appear before the senate. 30. that Fulvius dispatched to Rome not only C. 9. 8 (a. 293. termed as imperator (no doubt a governor of 42 In addition to Livy. 31. Sallustius. Livy. but Polybius does not mention explicitly the Roman commissioners. yielded in Alcántara. Carthaginienses Romam adduxit {cf. 32. above. But this event. dato. Broughtom. 30. fertile in bronzes. iussis proficisci Romam ad senatum. 1913. 202): three Roman commissioners sent by Scipio to Rome with the Carthaginian legati (cf. p. Leipzig. n. 38. p. Täubler. 30. 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. The next step was the ratification (or rejection) of the treaty by the senate. 17. and 21.Ambassadors Go to Rome 469 53 470 commands. Caesius C. Praetorship. 203): Q. 3–10. . I. our sources record the following instances of Roman commanders or commissioners accompanying the enemy envoys to (and from) Rome: Livy. 51). but does not go at all into the legal mechanism of sending off an embassy to Rome. returns to Rome with three ambassadors from king Bocchus. adduces here also Polybius 18. 8 and 38. qui quaestor stipendium in Africam portaverat. 35) irent. 36. 6). 364). fictitious situation. 319. and Polybius 18. f. Broughton. p. 36. n. 49. however. 2. 21. 1. and dispatched together with them his half-brother C. Imperium Romanum. cf. E. Brennan. not far from the famous bridge. 3 (a. Fulvius Nobilior).43 The Aetolians are iussi. n. the consul M. but once he signed it.. MRR. Broughton.. The contrast is clear.42 Again the negotiations with the Aetolians offer precious information. Fulvius Gillo. 105): Cn. a procedural chain was set in motion. gives the names of the Aetolian envoys. Bell. 9. legatus Scipionis. 8. 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). the Carthaginian envoys were dismissed by the senate. qui simul cum iis profisceretur C. Valerio fratre (cf. Valerius Laevinus but also some other men from among his friends (21. 25.. 38. no doubt. (below. 21. I. the consul Fulvius Nobilior ordered the Aetolians to go to Rome to the senate (iussis proficisci Romam ad senatum). he mentions. U. De consili sententia inperav[it arma transfugas captivos equos equas quas cepisent [ut dederent. dum populus [senatusque Roomanus vellet. provided that this disposition would be approved by the Roman people and the senate. Aspekte des römischen Völkerrechts. 1989 {Cf. 19. pp.44 The tablet is broken at the right edge. horses. The clause is both restrictive and temporal. Caesius C. imperator liberos esse iussit. acclaimed imperator after a victory). Romam mittere or Romam ad senatum mittere is a standard expression. is by D. Cren[us . For the sake of clarity. and the laws. N. Caesio C. . López Melero. but grammatically the sentence remains awkward (cf. f. deserters.F. Laffi. f. d. Mario C. prisoners. Caesius C. imperatore populus Seano[corum se suaque dedit. Now the general ordered them to be free ([liberos] esse iussit). L. and it will continue to be valid for an indefinite time provided that the 44 The editio princeps (with commentary) by R. dum populus [senatusque] / Roomanus vellet. mares which they had captured. After the populus of the Seano[ci] surrendered to the Roman imperator. Line 5: Nörr’s first choice is obsides. Lines 11/12: ven] | eire is enticing. and of various aspects of Roman international law raised by it. and restored to them all the things they had before their deditio: the land. quid eis im[perandum] censerent. 180). 265–314. quid eis im[perandum censerent. I reproduce here the text (with Nörr’s supplements. and S. This document not only illustrates the mechanism and the formalities of deditio and acceptio in fidem (or dicionem). The clue is offered by the obligation of the Seano[ci] to send the legati to Rome. but most restitutions are reasonably certain or likely. In fact neither option describes adequately the historical situation.5}. García Jimenéz. J. Then de consili sententia he ordered that they deliver arms. it also throws bright light on the embassies to the senate from the vanquished peoples. [se suaque] dedit... the buildings. The settlement is valid for the time being. The most detailed study of the document. imperator postquam [eos in fidem accepit. The Seano[ci] complied. ad consilium retolit. Taken in isolation the phrase dum populus [senatusque] / Roomanus vellet can be purely grammatically construed as restrictive or as temporal..[f. the commander consulted his council as to what orders ought to be given to them. Gerión. 20–23): C. Sánchez Abal. legates A few comments. München. 1984. Gnomon 65. for both words there is no space on the tablet. pp. Deinde eos L. and he ordered that concerning this matter their envoys go to Rome to the senate. but it is excluded (as Nörr notes) by the fact that all lines begin with a new word. in the latter the settlement stands until revoked by the people and the senate. Nörr. 101). below. Wiss. 2. Line 2: imperatore is the dative case. Haec omnia dederunt. Die Bronzetafel von Alcántara (= Abhandlungen d. Bayerischen Akad. In the former case the Roman people and the senate reserve for themselves the right of the final approval of the settlement. but transfugas is also common. agros et aedificia leges cete[raque omnia quae sua fuissent pridie quam se dedid[issent quaeque extarent eis redidit. 1993. L. No. deque ea re eos [Romam mittere eire iussit legatos. Flavio [cos L. Arco Cantoni f. p.54 Historia et Ius 471 Hispania Ulteror. Line 3: Nörr considers also the supplement dicionem (instead of fidem). v. {See now M. Historia. Hameter (eds.. 445). to pay a tribute. He missed the article here reprinted. Aspekte. (above. m°xri ên aÈtª (sc. . and to supply troops to the Roman army. a city of the Celtiberians. s. 173. and he adds: 472 “but the senate. p. n. Wien 2005. Livy and Polybius above all. for ultimately the Romans 45 Nörr. 444). 46 For a fair sample of epigraphically recorded embassies to Rome. pp. Gerhold. 12). 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. or even if they did not need any special authorization for their travel. A remark of Appian (Iberica 44) clarifies its import. 381. when granting such favors always stipulates that they will be valid only for as long as the senate and the people would wish”. Nach dem punktuellen Rechtsakt der Ratifikation ist “dum” jedoch in einem durativen Sinn zu verstehen: Der Rechtsakt soll gültig sein. (above. solange es Senat und Volk von Rom wollen”}. and thus twenty six years previously) they were prohibited only from fortifying new cities. this is the restrictive side of the clause. to adduce the Appian passage (p. It has been the great merit of C. tª boulª) ka‹ t“ dÆmƒ dokª. 441. He concludes that dum “zunächts stets einen restriktiven .. 1984. give a much more realistic picture than numerous epigraphic documents from the Greek East recording various embassies to Rome. 56–60. and in its powerful temporal dimension. Embassies. Cambridge. 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. and thus gives it a clear temporal understanding. Idem. and Sallust. pp. in this case its validity lasts until the senate takes such an action. they abound in polite phrases. Sempronius Gracchus (in 179. and it could change its mind at a later date. 55–62.45 Whether the ambassadors were ordered to go to the senate. s. insofern). p. in the index. “Dum populus senatusque Romanus vellet”. 438–48. not the old ones. quite conceivably. opts for a restrictive interpretation (insoweit. This is the temporal side of the clause. they all arrived in Rome uncertain as to what their welcome would be. He translates the clause as “for so long as the Roman people and the senate wished” (p. “Dum populus senatusque Romanus vellet”. This was true.46 For these documents were set up to display and preserve for posterity the favors received from the Romans. n. Here we have the dum-vellet clause in its Greek garb. But the senate may reject or alter the settlement.. presbe¤a (and the following entries). immediately or in the future. 44). was ordered by the senate (in 153) to stop building a wall. perhaps rightly. or merely permitted. as opposed to the temporal (solange als). Beutler and W. The envoys were apparently expected to leave for Rome immediately. see Sherk. pp. and the result of their mission.). 22. Sinngehalt aufweist. 1991. and hence a formal treaty of deditio) made by Ti. cf. und Ähnliches zum Geburtstag von Ekkehard Weber. Segeda.Ambassadors Go to Rome 55 Roman people and the senate ratify it. the senate could refuse to act at all. vol. but still the ratification process could take a long time or. in the index. “Eine ganz normale Inschrift” . In this respect the historians. The Celtiberians replied that by the treaty (sunyÆkaw. in F. Ebel. Documents.. also p. 4). Rome and the Greek East to the Death of Augustus (= Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. Nobody recorded on stone or bronze harm and injustice suffered by the Greeks.v. 40. Appian observes. when he arrived in Greece he met with the commander of the Roman fleet (there is a lacuna here. 78–82 (with a new edition of the stone. 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). see also O. but rather for the sake of extending the influence of Rome into the political backyard of Antiochus. Hegesias made “a long and dangerous journey by ship” to Massalia. but we know that it was the brother of Titus. 6). P. 1999. III: Decreti per ambasciatori greci al senato. TAPA. Now both Lampsakos and Massalia were the colonies of Phokaia. and C. 591 (unreliable). pp. 21. The stone is damaged. In 197 Antiochus III made an attempt to subdue the cities of western Asia Minor. Philhellénisme et impérialisme. pp. pp.47 “[He thought] nothing of the dangers involved in foreign travel”. pp. together with the ambassadors from Massalia. vol. 1978. L. and Aeneas came from Troy). MA. pp. n. 46). see also his Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche. no. pp. “Interstate Kinship and Roman Foreign Policy”. 133–41. esp. and thus practically guaranteed independence from the 47 SIG3. 1993. 1–5. Elwin. BEFAR 271. Hegesias. . As preposterous as this argument was (Lampsakos was located in the Troad. And so the envoy from Lampsakos and his party. no. (above. But Lampsakos. Cf. Polybius. L. (above. Curty. Die Inschriften von Lampsakos (= Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien. {Canali De Rossi. no. 273–74 {On the syngeneia between Lampsakos and Rome. Genève. 2002. 4–7. The physical and logistic aspects of a journey to Rome were daunting. not to be passed over. 38. Bonn. 261–86. Jones. 188}. too. recounts his achievements and tribulations. But above all Massalia enjoyed a treaty of friendship and alliance with Rome. 15–39. pp. it was very pleasing to the Roman admiral. and they spoke in favor of Lampsakos. English translation in Sherk. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête romaine du monde hellénistique. 123. but Hegesias still approached the (unfortunately unnamed) quaestor attached to the fleet. To a Greek ambassador even a minor Roman official was a potential master of the universe. 192–200. with translation and commentary. 5). Les parentés légendaires entre cités grecques. and it is not clear what the senate ultimately decided. Cambridge. though it appears that Lampsakos was in some way included in the treaty made with king Philip V. Kinship Diplomacy in the Ancient World. 13.-L. Quinctius Flamininus). peace. see S. Rome and the Greek East. For an incisive interpretation. see J. as the stone stresses. Roma. 33. Frisch. and presented to him his trump argument: the People of Lampsakos are the kinsmen of the Romans. no. Le ambascerie. 172}. They were received by the senate. Livy. Hegesias asked the ruling Council of Six Hundred to intervene on behalf of Lampsakos with the senate. 4. 5.56 Historia et Ius 473 brought the highest good. A marble stele honoring the envoy. n. and received words of goodwill from him as well. 95–96. On the claims of kinship with Rome. we may suspect not just because of Aeneas. Ferrary. decided to appeal for help to the Romans. P. 39). and hence the Lampsakeni were the relations of the Trojans. From Greece. 236e. and hence they were bound by the ties of kinship. 1–7. finally arrived in Rome. and therefore they deserve the Roman help. Hegesias himself stressed again the kinship of the Lampsakeni with the Romans. Paris 1988. 195–98. 1995. claiming its ancient liberty. Flamininus promised his support. no. And yet even in those documents the stifling atmosphere of Roman smug self-righteousness is overwhelming. pp. it tried to enter formally into the sphere of Roman amicitia. 507–13 = Opera Minora Selecta. 512–13) has shown convincingly that the patrons mentioned in the text are the patrons of Teos: “ayant amené les patrons de leur patrie à porter secours à notre peuple”. [patr¤]dow. Flamininus and the Ten Commissioners in Charge of Greek Affairs. “patient perseverance”. challenges (on good grounds) the traditional date. but very soon he almost changed his mind: “Wenn indess kein wirklicher Kriegsstand besteht. “Teos und Abdera nach dem dritten makedonischen Krieg. Oxford. n. why should have the Abderites needed the help of the Teians? The Greek text (lines 23–25) reads katasthsãmenoi d¢ toÁw pãtrvnaw t∞w [pÒl]evw efiw tØn Íp¢r toË ≤met°rou dÆmou boÆyeian ([pÒl]evw. 2002. 114–19. 5). Eine neue Ehreninschrift für den Demos von Teos”. Iscrizioni storiche. Herrmann. If so. 26. which would have been an interesting choice of expression. pp. and he had sent in that matter envoys to the senate.49 In particular 48 Mommsen. 1935. the stone is silent on that matter. pp. and received (not specified in detail) favorable answers. 337). 183). 60. pp. I. 59. 2000. powerfully strengthens the argument of Chiranky. In any case Hegesias was now instructed to confer with T. On the embassies from Lampsakos and Teos. Erskine. 461–81. C. Here our stone breaks off. Il ruolo dei patroni nelle relazioni politiche fra il mondo greco e Roma in età repubblicana ed augustea. n. Legally it is an interesting case. Two Problems”. 1982. The Thracian king Cotys claimed a territory which Abdera regarded as her ancestral possession. a marvelous parallel to the argument in my paper. he offers important new readings. Classics Ireland 1 (1994) 47–53. 1969. 139. pp. ZPE. The decree from Abdera concerning the Tean ambassadors . 291–94 (no. He met with them in Corinth. and Robert (pp. 656.48 but it is certainly striking that for all its detailed description of Hegesias’ peregrinations. 2. who was able to inspect the stone. Roman Patrons of Greek Cities. and by P. 320–26. wird die auswärtige Gesandschaft meistens ohne weiteres in die Hauptstadt gelassen”.Ambassadors Go to Rome 474 57 Seleucids (though Rome did not intervene when Antiochus besieged Lampsakos later in 196). SIG). Amsterdam. Herrmann. BCH. accepting the dating of Chiranky. Tyche 12. pp. but G. Robert (p. Eilers. Canali De Rossi. 509 = 322) proposes to›[w ≤goum°noi]w. English translation in Sherk. A comment on the words printed in square brackets: a) [leading men]: the SIG text (line 21) reads to›[w pr≈toi]w. Lampsakos was neither a Roman ally nor an enemy. (above. pp. Rome and the Greek East. As Massalia helped Lampsakos. Marek. b) [salutation]: SIG (line 22) has kayÉ ≤merå[n proskun]Æseow. “Rome and Cotys. Athenaeum. c) [their city]: Sherk translates “the (Roman) patrons of our country”. 46). no. The basic interpretation is by L. Le ambascerie. p. Robert. seems at first to incline to this view. III. pp. so also Teos in Ionia extended its help to Abdera. “Greek Embassies and the City of Rome”. (above. 169–77. It is not clear whether embassies from such states needed permission from a Roman magistrate for travel to Rome. esp. An honorific decree (commonly dated to ca 166) recounts their efforts. Staatsrecht. The inscription is normally dated to the period immediately after the Third Macedonian War (ca 166). (above. {Cf. 7. which had been founded (around the middle of the sixth century) by the Teians. 26–27. 1997. 1150–51. Chiranky. 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. 1971. 175–79 (no. thus taking the patrons to be the patrons of Abdera. see also A. pp. 191–92 (no. 74–75) reads kar]terÆsevw. pp. n. and assigns the inscription to the late second or early first century. but Herrmann (pp. To counter his claims two citizens of Teos undertook on behalf of the Abderites an embassy to Rome. 49 SIG3. text and translation). C. München-Leipzig. 470–81. p. 72–77. 47). F. pp. 75. and dates the document to the 90s or 80s of the first century. } 50 On the status of Abdera. A question obtrudes: why did the Abderites not send their own embassy to Rome. Teos must have been in a more advantageous position to deal with the Romans. so they turned to the Teians who had. RE. and “gives” to them the senate. n. and they induced the (Roman) patrons of [their city] to come to the aid of our People”. The Praetorship in the Roman Republic. but needed the services of their friends from Teos? We happen to know that Abdera was a civitas libera. C.51 The Abderites apparently did not have their own patrons in Rome. n. pp. And further. W. 57. see Robert. the ambassadors “by daily morning-calls at their atria won over their friendship”. Scribonio praetore urbano in senatum introductae (34. I. 1958. Thus he would entertain its envoys in Rome and introduce them into the senate”. 551. Badian in his classic Foreign Clientelae (264–70 B. but not to the curia. 34). 160. winning them over by their daily [salutations]. 476 No wonder that all those daily obeisances caused the ambassadors mental anguish. When Livy 34. He further writes: “The chief routine duty of the patron was to facilitate diplomatic relations between Rome and the client state concerned. They had to understand the Roman system of patronage and master it if they were to achieve success in their mission” (p. “It was difficult for a small city to get a hearing without the efforts of its patrons”. 3). p. pp. col. and (if the inscription belongs to ca 166) appearing for the first time in a Greek text.). though one wonders how the Pergamene domination over Teos is compatible with the Roman patrons of the city. 2000. 12]. But it is striking that the text of the decree does not mention any audience in the senate. n. no. A. 51). the conclusion is inescapable that the Teian ambassadors got only as far as the private atria. And the decree from Lampsakos gives “some impression of how much ‘mental and physical suffering’ the ambassadors may have to endure” (p.} . 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). 49). but they met with the Roman [leading men]. (above. and indeed a day earlier those same embassies were (technically and correctly) a C. This consideration may support Chiranky’s (above. 4.C. 3) to an epigraphical text (now Sherk. And it “gives a vivid impression of the difficulties the embassy encountered in Rome. [above. On the other hand Teos appears to have been at that time under the control of the Attalids. 143. (1934). 49) dating of the document to a later period. New York. and Badian himself points “for correct procedure” (p. Documents. 510–13. he is either inaccurate or the verb introduxisset is used informally: in 193 Flamininus was not in a position to convoke the senate. Oxford. nn. they were able to secure only private audiences with various magistrates and leading men. 59. the word pãtrvnaw simply transliterated from the Latin. 115–16. 137.58 475 Historia et Ius “in their embassy to [Rome] on behalf of our People they suffered both mental and bodily distress. 160. on Teos. {And see further T. 51 So E. The clue is offered by the mention of Roman patrons of Teos. where it is the praetor who is approached by the envoys. when some influential Romans supported Cotys.50 Thus although the legal status of Abdera was more elevated. 48). n. One would hope that other patrons entertained their clients more pleasantly than the patrons of Teos. 5. p. 4 writes: Quinctius legationes universas Graeciae Asiaeque cum in senatum introduxisset. and 293. Ruge. Brennan. 7. p.. Thus it would appear that only hostile states were subject to this requirement. When after the battle of Cannae the Carthaginian envoy was approaching Rome with the conditions for peace. cf. he first sent a nuntius.53 459 But even in a fantastic fiction there is a kernel of truth. and if it seemed proper. in response the dictator dispatched a lictor who ordered the Carthaginian to leave the Roman territory (no doubt the ager Romanus antiquus) before nightfall. in urbem admittebantur.. arrives and reports to king Latinus that tall men. or more precisely ouside the sacred boundary of the city of 52 Cf. ad Aen. 9: ubi Romam venire eos (the Carthaginian envoy was accompanied by the legati sent by the Roman captives) nuntiatum est. next the lower magistrates (magistratus minores) went out to meet them. Carthaloni obviam lictor missus. But it was a different affair with the enemy. (above. 49). 7. the ambassadors were granted admittance to the city”. 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. 22. a messenger on horseback. are coming.52 Again no mention of any formal permission to go to Rome. Finally. qui dictatoris (M. p. et tunc demum senatus ab eis extra urbem postulata noscebat. how was the Roman government apprised of the arrival of an embassy? First. et si ita visum fuisset. Broughton. all others were constitutionally divided into two categories: those that were admitted into the city.. Nobody seemed to have bothered very much about the embassy of the two humble Teians. 58. and only then the senate (met) outside the city (extra urbem) to learn from them their requests. 54 Livy. post ad eos egrediebantur magistratus minores. in unfamiliar garb. perhaps all the efforts and sufferings of the ambassadors were ultimately to no avail.54 Thus an embassy could be dismissed outrightly. 168: nam legati si quando incogniti venire nuntiarentur. In Vergil a nuntius. Robert. 53 Servius (and Servius auctus). ingentis ignota in veste . ut ante noctem excederet finibus Romanis.. an imaginary account from the pen of a late scholiast. But as our document despite all its verbosity is reticent about the outcome of the mission. advenisse viros (Aen. 248) verbis nuntiaret. 326. I. and those that had to stay outside the walls. first scouts were sent to reconnoiter what they wished. 168–69). n. .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. Iunius Pera. primo quid vellent ab exploratoribus requirebatur. MRR. Le Sénat. Staatsrecht. as Livy makes very clear. 296. referring to the Aetolian embassy which came to Rome (in 190) under the truce granted by Acilius Glabrio (in 478 191).55 55 See Mommsen. 26. (above. 85. pp. On the other hand. 6: dimissi urbe eodem die. 5). Le Sénat. 11 and 32. p. Only friends of Rome or neutrals or subjects could be received domi. still fails to realize that the states that had suffered deditio ceased to be technically hostes). As to the Rhodians in 166 we do not know in which place the senate granted them a hearing. 33. the term urbs is not synonymous with the phrase intra pomerium (or intra moenia). 1152. is inconclusive. 29–31: the deditio of Syracuse. (above n. also C. as yet. see further D. {On the reception and lodging of foreign envoys in Rome. 1: Campanis deinde [after the Syracusans] senatus datus est. 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. “The Formula Sociorum in the Second and First Centuries B. 3. 330–36 at 332–35.4. p. 26. also with respect to the Campani: 26. 45. 4: urbem ingressus ad forum a porta tribunalque Q. Bonnefond-Coudry. 1. A. III.} . though less certain. 23. 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. 14: the deditio of Capua. 31. pp. n. where. from the passage 26. Athenaeum.60 Historia et Ius Rome. and to continue war. 30. 2. it would appear that they were received intra moenia. he was still technically a Roman amicus. Thus. Fulvius was: se minime censere tutum esse Campanis potestatem intrandi Romana moenia fieri. 1990. Willems. Also the third case adduced by Bonnefond-Coudry is a non-case. 27.C. They could ask the senate for leniency. the opinion of Q. pp. 1: reductis in curia legatis. but through the act of deditio they had agreed to accept unconditionally any dispositions the Romans might wish to make (Livy. by the way. and remained so. Cette situation ne diffère pas essentiellement de celle des ambassadeurs venus négotier la paix à la faveur d’une trêve”. they have full right to reject any conditions the senate might wish to impose on them. 44. 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. no clear and certain exceptions to the rule established by Mommsen and Willems (cf. There is also nothing unusual in Prusias being in 167 received within the city (Livy. 37. The pomerium divided the city into two spheres: domi and militiae.”. Livy. Cassi praetoris perrexit): despite the fact that he was (but only initially) neutral in the war against Perseus. 25. efis∞lyon efiw tØn sÊgklhton. the envoys from the foes of Rome had to stay in the sphere of war. cf. offers no proof that the Aetolian envoys were heard and lodged within the pomerium. apparently also in the curia). 10–16: the Campani are given permission by the consul Valerius Laevinus to go to Rome. 322–23. in place of “Capoue se plaignant de Marcellus” one should read “Fulvius”) were received into the city: “Elles envoyient des députés pour tenter d’influencer le Sénat afin qu’on ratifiant les conditions imposées par le généraux vainquers il les adoucisse. CJ. 30–32: Siculi in senatum introducti. after this act they ceased to be the enemies of Rome and became her subjects. 31. 142. 26. 161. the pomerium. who while criticizing in his review the interpretation of Bonnefond-Coudry. Quite on the contrary. 485. both Syracuse and Capua had made their deditio. Polybius. This seems to be true. 7). Bowman. 1993. 88. and hence their envoys could be introduced into the city. in the curia or outside the pomerium. 5) II. Letta. also 26. in Honor of E. These phrases mark a semantic epoch.3 We happen to know that in 154 an embassy was sent by the Senate to install on Cyprus Ptolemy VIII Euergetes (Physcon). Ptolemy VI Philometor. was the Thermus against whom Cato defended his virtues? Now in addition to the speeches against Q. he adduces. then. in 189. in his speech. Thermus (who always comes equipped with his praenomen). Edited by Robert W. and in the next year he perished in Thrace on his way back to Rome. Fulvius (Nobilior).2 Who. inter alia. Thermus. Thermus was among the ten senatorial legates dispatched to Asia to implement the treaty with Antiochus III. The embassy consisted of five members and was headed by Cn. a passage from a speech of Cato. One of these speeches is De Ptolomaeo contra Thermum. When did Cato go to Aetolia. for in 189 Q.C. and in what circumstances? What did he do there? And.4 One would expect that as the leaders of the embassy Merula and Thermus were senators of praetorian status. De falsis pugnis and De decem hominibus. 360–146 B. 193) against whom Cato had delivered two speeches (in 190). Essays in Greco-Roman History. very probably our L.1 377 We observe the striking opposition between legatus sum and oratores profectos. then in a struggle with his elder brother. The footnotes are printed.” To illustrate this usage. but L. This establishes the (non)identity of Thermus: not Q. envoy or deputy: “Oratores. Fulvio consuli legatus sum in Aetoliam. and prompt us to turn from words to deeds. there are on record three titles of Cato’s orations against a Thermus. Thermus. as in the original publication. Thermus apparently survived Cato’s attack and even went on to become the Senate’s expert on Egyptian affairs: a Thermus. “ut Cato in ea quam scripsit de suis virtutibus contra Thermum”: M. . is attested in Alexandria as a * Transitions to Empire.. 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. as endnotes}. Harris (Norman. Wallace and Edward M. qui nunc legati. Festus explains in his dictionary De verborum significatu. propterea quod ex Aetolia conplures venerant: Aetolos pacem velle: de ea re oratores Romam profectos.5 The mission was unsuccessful. OK 1996) 376–408 {with minor corrections and addenda.7 CATO MAIOR IN AETOLIA* Auctori Aetolicorum Optimo Searching for words we stumble upon history. employed the word orator in the sense of legatus. Minucius Thermus (cos. (Cornelius) Merula and L. they also encapsulate history. whose praenomen our sources always omit to mention. Badian. The ancients. and amalgamate In Thermum post censuram and De suis virtutibus into one speech De suis virtutibus contra <L. Cato . In 191 the consul M’. Fulvius Flaccus in Hither Spain. he must have regarded it a signal success. The former is no doubt identical with the oration De lustri sui felicitate. Cato’s adversary remains an elusive figure. it is tempting (and almost inevitable) to see in him also the object of Cato’s ire in the speeches In Thermum post censuram and De suis virtutibus contra Thermum. however. a critical year. If. and was engaged in a vendetta against Cato.15 others have felt that he was dispatched to Aetolia “in connection with negotiations with the Aetolians. The historian pays close attention to Aetolian affairs. Thermus. was once – and once only – posted to the East on a diplomatic assignment: to assist M. but certainty cannot be achieved. immediately after his censorship.. would go one step beyond Fraccaro. Fulvius Nobilior in reaching an accord with the Aetolians in 189. Modern historians dismiss it in meagre asides. in the old handbook of Drumann. Livy.10 If it was one speech. or his source. but is silent about Cato’s involvement. who served under Glabrio as tribune of the soldiers (he was . including Malcovati.> Thermum post censuram..12 This squares well with his putative tribunate of the plebs in 183. Minucius served as a legate in 182–180 under the praetor (of 182) Q. was either not impressed or suppressed Cato’s exploits. when Philometor died and Physcon ascended to the throne.18 To place Cato’s mission in its political context. and he also would have had ample time to achieve the rank of a praetorius by 154. A L. Cato. Nor is Cato’s mission mentioned in the extant fragments of Polybius. we acquire the year 183. we must first review the relations between Rome and Aetolia since the beginning of the Syrian war. One thing is certain: he belonged to the family of the consul Q. and to establish its precise chronology. Acilius Glabrio defeated Antiochus in the battle at Thermopylae. the oratores. Several Aetolian embassies to Roman commanders and to the Senate are on record.14 If Cato chose to dwell on his mission to Aetolia. Minucius Thermus (no doubt the same person) served in 178 in Istria under the consul A.11 and a L. Manlius Vulso. as the date for Cato’s remark about his service in Aetolia. Thermus.” 9 A number of scholars. In 192 the Aetolian confederacy joined Antiochus III in the war against Rome. Here comes to mind the attack of the tribune Ti.6 Once we have found a well defined Thermus.” 16 or even more concretely “the gruff M. The felicitas lustri and the virtutes of Cato may indeed go well together. Broughton does not specify the purpose of Cato’s legatio.13 more precisely. De suis virtutibus was a separate speech. the younger son: the elder would have carried the praenomen of Quintus.62 Historia et Ius 378 Roman envoy in 145. offers a clue.” 17 The same sentiment was already expressed. accusing Scipio that “lustrum illo censore malum infelix fuisse.19 Cato’s mention of the Aetolian envoys. but not pursued further. indeed he was probably a son of Q. a precise date of its delivery cannot be established. Claudius Asellus on Scipio Aemilianus.7 and was Cato’s response to Thermus’s vilification (very likely as tribune of the plebs)8 of Cato’s censorial performance. now with Antiochus III defeated but unconquered. The campaign resumed. Valerius Flaccus (cos. Acting as an intermediary he persuaded the Aetolians to beg for a truce. by the harsh treatment of the ambassadors. posse et incolumes esse” (this presupposes a truce. and Philip V quietly extending his influence and domination. but that for the final approval the consent of the assembly was necessary. but this time it was to be offered directly to the Senate and not to the general in the field. is the prime exhibit for all scholars discussing the institution of Roman deditio. Glabrio granted them a tenday truce and ordered them to have a preliminary conference (in Hypata) with the legate L. and the apocleti too. The Aetolians began their plea by stressing their previous services to Rome. commanded the detachment that routed the Aetolians and through a mountainous path penetrated at the rear of the king’s army. but Flaccus advised then to behave suppliciter. Only when Glabrio took and plundered the city of Heraclea did the Aetolians send to him pacis petendae oratores.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. they performed a formal deditio.22 This incident. and its (initial or alleged) misunderstanding by the Greeks. efiw tØn ÑRvma¤vn p¤stin. he thought Glabrio was wasting time besieging Naupactus and prosecuting war against only the Aetolians. and the sending of envoys to Rome). “ut in fidem se permitterent Romanorum. The purpose of the truce was.” Thus. and the Romans incensed by Aetolian haughtiness. 195). and extended the truce for another ten days so that the Aetolian assembly might be convoked. and Glabrio to grant it. “ut mittere legatos Romam possitis. and its description by Polybius and Livy. “si paenitere possint. refused even to attend the meeting. But the Aetolians. It is into this climate of mistrust and misunderstanding that Cato plunged when two years later he sailed to Aetolia. in Flamininus’s (or Livy’s) words. were ready to comply with all his orders.Cato Maior in Aetolia 63 379 380 elected by the people.21 the Aetolian ambassadors forcefully objected. now assured the consul that they. after two months the city was about to fall to Glabrio when T. Glabrio had them thrown in chains. enraged by Roman demands. At the intervention of Valerius Flaccus the consul relented.1–4). released the ambassadors. in the Roman eyes.23 It also set the pattern for subsequent negotiations.” Acting on Flaccus’s advice the Aetolian embassy again approached Glabrio: they declared they had decided “se suaque omnia fidei populi Romani permittere. frightened and broken. But when Glabrio ordered them to surrender a number of anti-Roman politicians. .22. After the battle he was sent by the consul to Rome to report the victory to the Senate. not appointed by the general). the Aetolians complaining of Roman injustice. per quos senatui de vobis permittatis. In 191 the next stage of Roman operations was the siege of Naupactus. The Aetolians foolishly gave no answer (Livy 36. and entrust themselves. Quinctius Flamininus intervened. and tricked by fate as they received vain assurances of further help from Antiochus.” 24 Unconditional surrender was still the Roman demand. The ambassadors. and thus resolved to resume their armed resistance. 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. 5. Livy. vel mille talentum darent eosdemque amicos atque inimicos haberent.30 He also stood for the censorship. invoking the decision of the Senate. Cornelius Scipio. What the Aetolians attempted to negotiate was a partial or conditional surrender. When the envoys from an enemy state traveled to Rome during a truce they were normally accompanied by the legates of the Roman commander. handed over his army to L. The Aetolians were not able to pay. They wished to receive a precise statement as to which matters were to be left to the decision of the Senate. never interested in procedural details for their own sake. His imperium prorogued. For the consul of 190. they offered to surrender but only if the indemnity were reduced and the citizens (politiko‹ êndrew)28 and women excluded from total submission. Checkered negotiations with the Aetolians followed. He was to be frustrated again. the first item on the Senate’s agenda. But the Scipios were hastening to Asia. In the consular year 190 the reception of the Aetolian envoys was. 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). Two tribunes of the plebs were moved to accuse Glabrio before . refused to accept their plea. arrived in Greece with a new army. and that he offered assistance to the Aetolians. after religio. They again failed to comprehend the all-encompassing nature of deditio. The state of war continued. L. Scipio was met by the Athenian envoys who came to intercede in behalf of the Aetolians. Scipio. And so the envoys were ordered to leave the city on the same day. omits to mention that envoys from Glabrio arrived in Rome simultaneously with the Aetolians.29 when the Aetolians now begged for a truce of six months so that they might again send an embassy to the Senate. oddly enough. and Italy within fifteen days. and vindication for Glabrio.64 Historia et Ius 381 The Aetolian embassy was a disaster. and besieged the strategically located city of Amphissa in Locris. To no avail. as the mountainous road to Naupactus was blocked by the Aetolians. the Africanus. he captured Lamia in Malis. and his brother. This information we owe to Polybius. Cato among them. on the other hand. Livy. a heavy favorite against five other candidates. technically a legatus. Glabrio pursued energetically the operations against the Aetolians. Antiochus III.26 This may have been seen as embarrassment for Flamininus. and returned to Rome where in the second half of the consular year 190 he celebrated a triumph. The Senate gave no answer. an offense the Romans could not tolerate. understandably so. The Senate (so Livy translating Polybius into Roman officialese) gave them two options: “vel senatui liberum arbitrium de se permitterent. Quinctius Flamininus returned from Greece.1]).” 25 The Aetolians. Glabrio raised the siege of Amphissa. But his brother the consul reiterated the Senate’s 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. 21. The consul. they did not have ready funds to pay immediately the reparations [Polyb. were rather interested in exploring the first option (as it appears. records that at the same time also T. And by refusing to surrender in fidem they demonstrated that they did not trust the Romans. in this way they proposed to alter the legal nature of deditio. For the time being the Aetolians were saved again. Not far from Amphissa P. they got a favorable reply.27 Their eyes were set on a higher prize. but only as an embellishment of his narrative. 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 Glabrio’s 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 Senate’s 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 Livy’s 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 Scipios’s 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 Cato’s 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 Livy’s 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 37.50.1–8). 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 Polybius’s t“te and Livy’s 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 Cato’s 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 Glabrio’s 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 Senate’s 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 consul’s response was harsh, but contained interesting new elements (38.8.9–10): “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 consul’s 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 one’s 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 Glabrio’s 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: Gelzer’s “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 Cato’s 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. Cato’s 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 t∞w ÑR≈mhw; 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 Cato’s 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 Cato’s utterance. For Fulvius had already departed for Greece, no doubt taking his legates, his staff officers, with him; and Cato’s 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 Cato’s 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. Nobilior’s 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 consul’s permission for Rome; they were accompanied by the Athenian and Rhodian deprecatores, and by the consul’s 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 Cato’s 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 Flamininus’s brother from the Senate. He also clashed with Fulvius Nobilior; and it is testimony to Fulvius’s 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 Cato’s 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 Cato’s attack on Acilius Glabrio, and he paints with all the colors of his palette Cato’s 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 Fulvius’s 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 Lepidus’s 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 Lepidus’s 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 38.42.8–13). 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 38.43–44.1–3). 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 Alcántara (lines 7–10): “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 10–11), “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 Fulvius’s 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 11–12).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 Fulvius’s 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 Cato’s participation. To those who are not blinded by Livy’s art the fragments of Cato himself tell a different story. Festus has preserved a fragment of Cato’s 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 Festus’s description of its contents, edissertavit, we can assume that it contained a detailed (and critical) assessment of Fulvius’s 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 Fulvius’s triumph for Livy (whose account of the debate is very detailed) makes no mention of Cato’s intervention; c) Nor was this speech delivered in 185 for after Cato’s scathing critique Fulvius would have hardly dared to stand for the censorship of 184; d) Nor in 184 during Cato’s 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 Cato’s fragment referring to Fulvius’s 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 Fulvius’s triumph; (b) carries more weight, but Livy omits to mention many other political exploits of Cato that are known to us from Cato’s fragments; (c) is unproven and unprovable; (d) is cogent insofar as probrum was a technical term of censorial ignominia, and in Cicero’s 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 Cato’s.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. Scullard’s trump argument “ex circo Flaminio” thus proves inconclusive too. To sum up: there are no conclusive arguments for assigning the two fragments to Cato’s speech attacking the censorship of Fulvius. And the arguments against assigning them to the years 187–184 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 Fulvius’s 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 Cato’s 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 Fulvius’s 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 Fulvius’s 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 Fulvius’s 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 general’s 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 Lindsay’s 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. Cato’s adventure in Aetolia shows once again that history and philology are inseparable. ORF 26–29, Fr. 58–62; 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 73–74, Fr. 177–81. Polyb. 33.11.6–7. Ad rem, see F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius 3 (Oxford 1979) 553–55. {Cf. A. Lampela, Rome and the Ptolemies of Egypt. The Development of their Political Relations 273–80 B.C. (Helsinki 1998) 177–84.} So, forcefully, P. Fraccaro, Opuscula 1 (Pavia 1956) 458–63 (“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 (Münzer 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) 197–200, 203.} ORF 53, Fr. 135. So, convincingly, Fraccaro, Opuscula (above, n. 5) 1.462. Lucilius 394–95 Marx = 412–13 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) 105–6, n. 5. MRR 1.383, 385, 389. He is directly attested only in 180 (Livy 40.35.3–7, 36.1–5), but presumably he served in Spain from the beginning of Fulvius’s governorship, i.e., from 182. As this assignment would have thus come on the heels of L. Thermus’s attack on Cato’s 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 Fulvius’s 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] 121–22). 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 Terence’s 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) 83–88 {= RQ 295–300}. MRR 1.363. Astin, Cato the Censor (above, n. 10) 73–74. E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley 1984) 1.242. 2 3 4 5 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 erzählt, dass er während 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 Cato’s mission M. Gelzer (RE 22 [1953] 108–45, 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. Brandstäter, Die Geschichten des Aetolischen Landes, Volkes und Bundes (Berlin 1844) 441–76, 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) 406–47. On the meetings of the various Aetolian councils and assemblies, see Larsen, “Assembly of the Aetolian League,” TAPA 83 (1952) 20–33. 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 217–86 v. Chr. (Berlin 1971) 66–76, 96–108. On Livy’s and Polybius’s view of the Aetolians, see C. Antonetti, Les Étoliens. Image et religion (Paris 1990) 132–41 (with further literature). 20 Livy 36.17–18; 21.4-11. For other sources, see Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 18) 5.113–15; MRR 1.352, 354–55. Glabrio apparently dispatched to the Senate also L. Cornelius Scipio, cos. 190. On Cato’s (and Scipio’s) legatio to the Senate, see J. Briscoe, A Commentary on Livy. Books XXXIV–XXXVII (Oxford 1981) 253–54, and below, nn. 42–44. Cato’s 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] 56–57). 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 35.47.5–8; 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) 1–15, esp. 9–12. Cf. below, nn. 49, 60. 22 Polyb. 20.9–10; Livy 36.27–29, in a number of places severely misrepresenting or misunderstanding Polybius. Cf. the commentaries by Walbank (3.77–83) and Briscoe (259–67), and a detailed discussion by H. Tränkle, Livius und Polybios (Basel-Stuttgart 1977) 170–78. 23 Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.79–81; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 260, both with ample literature, to which add: E. S. Gruen, “Greek Pistis and Roman Fides,” Athenaeum 60 (1982) 50–68; J.-L. Ferrary, Philhellénisme et impérialisme (Paris 1988) 72–81; D. Nörr, Aspekte des römischen Völkerrechts. Die Bronzetafel von Alcántara (Bayerische Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl., Abh. N.F. 101, München 1989) 32–34, and passim. {On Glabrio’s 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) 271–89, with full utilization of the bronze from Alcántara 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, 34–35 (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 Flamininus’s 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 Glabrio’s march to Naupactus; his chronology is confused. Livy 37.1.5. In fact Polybius’s (21.2) wording didÒnai tØn §pitropØn per‹ pãntvn t«n kayÉ aÈtoÁw, and also Diodorus’s (29.4) tå kayÉ •autoÁw §pitr°pein ÑRvma¤oiw, reproduce faithfully the standard formula of deditio attested epigraphically in the Spanish bronze from Alcántara (lines 8–9): “cete[raque omnia] / quae sua fuissent” (Nörr, 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) 270–305, esp. on Aetolia 275–82.} Polyb. 21.2; Livy 37.1.1-6; Cass. Dio 19.19 (Zonaras 9.19-20). Cf. Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.90–91; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 289–90; Idem, “Flamininus and Roman Politics,” Latomus 31 (1972) 49–51. 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. Scipio’s 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) 80–87; 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) 119–44, with a list of correspondences (p. 122) for the years 200–188 between 15 March consular and the Julian dates. For this interpretation, see Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.95. Polyb. 21.4–5; Appian, Syr. 23. Cf. W. V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 B.C. (Oxford 1979) 223. Polyb. 21.4–5; (cf. Cass. Dio 19.19; Zonaras 9.20); Livy 37.4.6–7.7 and (triumph) 46.1–6: 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) 3.93–95; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 296–301, 362–63; and 28–30, 338 (on chronology); MRR 1.357. According to Livy (37.2.7–8; 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 37.57.9–58.1. As is visible from Livy’s 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) 736–38}. 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 responsibilità del magistrato in ordine alla preda,” SDHI 26 (1960) 105–75, esp. 156–58, 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) 85–115 (101–3 the case of Glabrio), an excellent study, subtly refining Bona’s argument}. In his testimony Cato seems to have also attacked Glabrio’s deficiency as a commander contrasting Glabrio’s conduct with his own marvelous performance, probably during his Spanish campaign (ORF 30, Fr. 66; cf. H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics 220–150 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) 549–57, Mommsen’s conjecture arma dedi (for the paradosis arum dedi) still remains vastly superior to A. Dacier’s aurum dedi; it conforms much better to Cato’s style and his gruff character. M. Dondin-Payre, Exercise du pouvoir et continuité gentilice. Les Acilii Glabriones (Rome 1993), a labyrinthine book, gives a short description of the trial (pp. 224–28), 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. Barzanò, “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 dell’Istituto di Storia Antica 22 [Milano 1996]) 129–44, offers interesting remarks on the legal aspect of the trial (pp. 134–38), though again he ignores Bona’s article}. The discussion of censorial elections (“eodem anno censuram ... petierunt”) comes in Livy (37.57.7–58.4) 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 Budé, 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] 325–56 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. 338–30); this is in concert with Livy 37.50.6: the Senate’s 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, Römisches 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, 48–49. 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 envoys”—but 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 37.49.1–8. Cf. Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 367–68. 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 15–17 juin 1993, édités par Ed. Frézouls (†) et A. Jacquemin (= Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg. Travaux du Centre de Recherches sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce Antiques, 13 [Paris 1995] 453–78 at 466–68, and n. 38 {reprinted in this volume, No. 6}. Livy 38.1–3.1–6 (the Aetolian conquests), 6–8 (the return of the embassy), 9–11 (the landing of Fulvius); Polyb. 21.25–26.2; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.118–20. 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) 64–67. Polyb. 21.26.2: sun°baine går tÒte politeÊesyai toÁw ÉAmbraki≈taw metå t«n Afitvl«n. Cf. Cass. Dio (Zonaras) 19.21, where, however, tÒte is contrasted with pÒte, the time when Ambracia belonged to Pyrrhus. Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.121. Though this is not the understanding of Weissenborn-Müller ad loc. (p. 119): Ambracia “früher die Hauptstadt im Reiche des Pyrrhus, war nach dessen Auflösung an die Ätoler gekommen; hiernach ist tum zu vestehen” (T. Livi Ab Urbe Condita Libri. Wilhelm Weissenborns erklärende Ausgabe neu bearbeitet von H. J. Müller. Bd. 8.13, Buch 35–36 [Berlin 1906]; Bd. 8.23 Buch 37–38 [Berlin 1907]). No comment in R. Adam (Tite-Live. Histoire romaine. Tome 28, Livre 38 [Collection Budé, 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-Müller. Astin, Cato the Censor (above, n. 10) 74, n. 69. He had his predecessor in E. Oberhummer, Akarnanien, Ambrakia, Amphilochia, Leukas im Altertum (München 1897) 185, n. 5: “Die Teilnahme des älteren Cato, der den Consul als Legat begleitete [“begleitete” is inaccurate], erhellt aus einem Fragment seiner Rede de suis virtutibus ...; vielleicht gehört hierher auch die fragwürdige Anekdote Frontin, strat. II 7, 14.” M. T. Sblendorio Cugusi, M. Porci Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (Torino 1982) 283–85, is inaccurate. She believes that Cato “si arruolò 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 Cato’s 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 Cato’s adventure in Frontinus to 189. Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms (above, n. 18), and Gelzer (RE 22 [above, n. 18]) do not quote Frontinus’s 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) 134–61. Appian, Syr. 17 (the landing in Apollonia); Plut., Cato Maior 12.3–5, 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 38.43–44.6). See below, n. 84. Livy 36.13–14 (esp. 14.9), 28.3; Briscoe, Commentary (above, n. 20) 239–41, 263; Appian, Syr. 17. Cf. above, n. 21. Polyb. 21.25.10-11; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.120; Livy 38.3.7–8. 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. 21.26.7–19; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.121–23. 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) 13.126–36, esp. 133–34. 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 39.4.9–10). 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. 21.27–28; Livy 38.4–7; Cass. Dio (Zonaras) 19.21; Oberhummer, Akarnanien (above, n. 42) 182–86; M. Holleaux, “M. Fulvius et le siège de Samé,” in: M. Holleaux, Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire grecques 5.2 (Paris 1957) 249–94, esp. 264, n. 3 (originally published in 1930); Hammond, Epirus (above, n. 24) 144–48; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.123–28. 56 Polyb. 21.28.18; Livy 38.8–9; Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 41) 109–12. 57 Yet, so far, Livy’s words have been taken as pure gold; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.127–28, repeats them without any comment or doubt. 58 Nörr, Aspekte (above, n. 23) 21–23. But it is well to remember that Caesar in Gaul regularly demanded the surrender of arms after a deditio (BG 1.27–28; 2.12–13, 15). 59 Polyb. 21.29–32; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.128–36. 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) 352–53, 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): “Über die näheren Umstände (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 zunächst 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) 53–71 at 53–54 {= RQ 301–19 at 301–2} gives a summary of the problem. To the literature there listed, add B. Schleussner, Die Legaten der römischen Republik (München 1978) 101–211, 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) 9–13, 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. 15–18. But above all it was Mommsen who with his eagle’s eye observed both the grammatical and the historical situation: “der der Verhandlung wegen abgesandte heisst gewöhnlich 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. Würzburg 1936) 23; Sblendorio Cugusi, Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (above, n. 42) 283–85, both minus accurate. MRR 1.363. Nor does Schleussner, Legaten (above, n. 63) 224, record Cato’s mission in 189 in his list of “die ständigen 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 fermò; gettò le basi della pace, isolando gli Etóli e inducendo gli Ateniesi a intervenire perché 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 völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit (Leipzig 1933) 69; W. Dahlheim, Struktur und Entwicklung des römischen Völkerrechts im 3. und 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (München 1968) 7, n. 9; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.128. Cf. MRR 1.275. See E. Badian’s classic work, Foreign Clientelae 264–70 B.C. (Oxford 1958) 157–58. He was praetor in 179 and suffect consul in 176, MRR 1.392, 400. Polyb. 21.30.1–5; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.128–30; Livy 38.9.9–11; Adam, TiteLive (above, n. 41) 111–13. 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), 116–17, upholds T. Quinctio in Livy as the date figuring both in the original (Nobilior’s) and the final (the Senate’s) version of the treaty. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (above, n. 71) 84–85. He does not mention Fulvius’s 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) 135–45. Polyb. 21.30.6–16; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.129–30; Livy 38.10.1–3. 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 Fulvius’s movements, see Holleaux, “Fulvius” (above, n. 55) 264-79, esp. 264-68; and (with important corrections), Warrior, “Chronology” (above, n. 32) 340–56, esp. 349. Polyb. 21.31–32; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.130–31; Livy 38.10.4–11. 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) 131–36; Livy 38.11; Adam, Tite-Live (above, n. 41) 113–15. 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) 26–28, 85; Walbank, Commentary (above, n. 4) 3.131–32 (with further literature); Gruen, Hellenistic World (above, n. 17) 26–32. 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) 139–43 {cf. in general S. Elbern, “Geiseln in Rom,” Athenaeum 78 (1990) 97–140}; and on the indemnity G. Rider, “Les clauses financières des traités 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) 267–77. {On the Greek embassies to Rome, see now F. Canali De Rossi, Le ambascerie dal mondo greco a Roma in età repubblicana (Roma 1997). For the Aetolian embassies of 190 (no. 30), 189 (nos. 34, 36, 37, 38–39), see pp. 27–28, 31–37. But no. 38–39 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. 38–39d, and thus he places Cato’s 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 Cato’s 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, Rückschritte. Zur verlangten Dedition von 190 und den Schwierigkeiten des römisch-aetolischen Verhältnisses (= 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]) 463–98, narrates the events of 191–189, 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. Tränkle, Cato in der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Abhandlungen Mainz 1971, 4) deals almost exclusively with Cato’s campaign in Spain, and does not mention at all his clash with Fulvius. For an analysis of Livy’s story, cf. H. Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius (Berlin 1863) 210–11. 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? Livy’s Account of the Elections of the Consuls for 189 B.C.,” RhM 123 (1990) 144–57, esp. 147, 154–56. {Cf. O. Licandro, “Unus consul creatus collegam dixit. A proposito di Liv. 7, 24, 11 e 37, 47, 7,” BIDR 98–99 (1995–1996 [2000]) 731–49 at 736–49. He does not know Warrior’s article; nor does he seem to realize that dixit in Livy’s 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 38.44.3–4. The text of Livy continues (5–6): “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) 179–80, and below, nn. 97, 98. Nörr, Aspekte (above, n. 23) 22–23, 44–64 (esp. 56–63 on the dum-vellet clause); see also the excellent study by C. Ebel, “Dum populus senatusque Romanus vellet,” Historia 40 (1991) 438–48. Livy 38.9.13; Polybius 21.30.10: §dÒyh dÉ aÈt“ ka‹ st°fanow épÚ talãntvn •katÚn ka‹ pentÆkonta, the term st°fanow 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 Livy’s 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 39.4.12–13 (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 tå dÉ égãlmata ka‹ toÁw éndriãntaw ka‹ tåw grafåw; 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] 108–10), 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 l’XI coorte pretoria,” Athenaeum N. S. 56 [= 66] (1978) 14–19.} 90 Livy 38.9.13–14; cf. Polyb. 21.30.9–10. Polybius (or his excerptor) also omits the details of the Ambracian settlement. Cf. Tränkle, Livius und Polybios (above, n. 22) 161–62. 91 Nörr, Aspekte (above, n. 23) 23. B. D. Hoyos, “‘Populus Seanoc[...]’, 104 BC,” ZPE 83 (1990) 89, n. 2; 92, suggests to read in lines 12–13 “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 Senate’s 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, 38.44.4–5: 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 39.4–5. In the speech Livy puts into Fulvius’s 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 Fulvius’s favor. The aedes of Hercules Musarum erected by Fulvius and adorned with the temple booty from Ambracia offers the proof (for sources, see F. Münzer, “Fulvius 91,” RE 7 [1912] 265–67 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) 1.247–53 (originally published in 1910), and was admirably summarized by Scullard, Roman Politics (above, n. 32) 266–67. 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 Cato’s critique, see E. Badian, “Ennius and His Friends,” in Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 18 (Vandoeuvres-Genève 1972) 151–99 at 183–95; H. D. Jocelyn, “The Poems of Quintus Ennius,” ANRW I.2 (1972) 993–98, 1005–6; Skutsch, Annals 553–56; E. S. Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden 1990) 113–23. See V. Maxfield, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981) 11–16, with a collection of evidence. Cf. Astin, Cato the Censor (above, n. 10) 110, n. 23; Janzer, Redefragmenten (above, n. 65) 58–60. 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 39.40–41.4; Plut., Cato Maior 16.3–6. 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. but after that time nothing remained in Rome safe. with the compact of 60 B. L. was shattered when Tiberius had his fellow tribune Marcus Octavius deposed from office. Broughton and the Roman Republic (“Historia Einzelschriften” 105 [Stuttgart 1996]). p. 187–213. and the dignity of the pontiffs thus emasculating at once both the people and the gods. the other the protection of the gods.). for a moment. an excellent study (although he seems to underestimate the ever present weight of the sacral foundations of the tribunate of the plebs). marvelously acute and incisive: E. in: J.). civil and divine. He was of course not writing a Symean history of revolution but a study of the sources.8 THE PONTIFF AND THE TRIBUNE: THE DEATH OF TIBERIUS GRACCHUS* I.} . but they could be accomodated within the boundaries of the constitution. But the constitution. of his sacrosancta potestas. Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica. 263–72. characteristically appended a subtitle: Studja zåród ¬owe do historii Rzymu w epoce rewolucji. R. Cornelius Scipio Nasica. “ANRW” I.C. 1. Period I: 133–70]. 1 (1972). 16: “With the Gracchi all the consequences of empire – social. Heftner and K. Syme.1 Yet the revolution began two generations previously. that as the main antagonist of the tribune rose the chief of the Roman cult. The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939). The greatest of modern historians of the Republic’s demise began his narration of the Roman revolution. Idem. Tomaschitz (eds. It was thus perhaps not through chance but rather as if by design. inaugurating a century of revolution”. pp. This clash was only seemingly resolved by the destruction of Tiberius. But cf. with a trenchant discussion of sacrosanctitas and auspicia. pp. Linderski (ed. the pontifex maximus P. in: H. in the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus. The will of the people prevailed.E. the imperium of the magistrates. “Ad Fontes! Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch” (Wien 2004). springing from the inner logic of Roman political life. always a necessary first step. too often omitted. The revolution continued. The Pig and the Priest. Tiberius Gracchus and the Beginning of the Roman Revolution. The upheavals ceased when Augustus united in his person the sacrosanct power of the tribunes. Plutarch a Appjan [Plutarch and Appian] (Poznanå 1921). These were bold and novel steps. * 1 Athenaeum 90 (2002) 339–366 {with addenda}. 668–731. Piotrowicz. Robert S. Okres I: 133–70 [Source Studies on the History of Rome in the Epoch of Revolution. Badian. economic and political – broke loose in the Roman State. And see now E. as those believing in the power of economic forces might wish to think. Nor did it originate from Tiberius’ bid for re-election. 8. Badian. pp. {And now we have his response to the present essay. pp. Imperium Sine Fine: T. sacred or secure – as Tiberius was soon to learn. It was a cosmic clash that was to reverberate through the ages: one tribune claiming the will of the people. It did not begin with the agrarian scheme. like Asinius Pollio before him. 1). S. pp. and His Successor. But. when deciphered and placed in proper context.The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 89 II. propounded in two famous papers. “Athenaeum” N. Yet not all the clouds surrounding the last moments of the tribune’s life have been dispelled. 117–43. R. to a historian. pp. Rubrius hesitated.14. Mummius or Minucius) and his identity. 497 n. pp. Pious and hostile. On the form of his name (Mucius. The story of Tiberius’ death. Pleb. “ANRW” I. pp. “Latomus” 19 (1960). Voting Procedure in Roman Assemblies. Appian and Plutarch on Tiberius Gracchus’ Last Assembly. it is hardly likely that Tiberius would have selected Rubrius as the lator of the law. all have co-operated to obscure. 43–49. Ingekamp.. and as P. 2. see T. Gr. Trib. After the removal of Octavius. Fraccaro. credulous and ignorant. but simultaneous in the electoral. 235–54 (originally published in 1913–14). is. Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus (Firenze 1958). pp. B. civ. For an analysis of their reports. R. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I (New York 1951). H. 3 4 5 . Hall. esp. Béranger. 376–97. Scardigli. pp. 238–50. The paper by H. 51–69. the voting was successive in the legislative and judicial assemblies. is based mostly upon the accounts of Plutarch (Ti. Gabba. pp. Plutarchs “Leben der Gracchen”. the clash of Nasica and Tiberius. 493. and the commentary by E. leading to our main topic. as told by our ancient authorities. of little use.5 the tribune who had been 2 Cf. selected to that function by lot. p. The tribes here vote successively. so U. The first two tribes to vote pronounced for Tiberius. 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.3 The president of the assembly was a certain Rubrius.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. 1. La procedura del voto nei comizi tributi romani.C. occurrences that at first blush appear unintelligible or negligible may provide unexpected intelligence linking the hitherto incoherent happenings into a logical chain of events. Plutarch a Appjan (n. 1 (1972). But our sources forcefully stress that Tiberius stood for re-election. abounds in strange coincidences and odd occurrences.58–16. The fight for Tiberius’ memory began immediately after his death. pp. S. Taylor.67). pp. “ANRW” II. 293. M. and sensing danger. Earl. in: Opuscula II (Pavia 1957). 37–40. see Piotrowicz. has established. 133 B. D. C. 733–63. 6 (1992). Ibidem 44 (1966). 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. If this had been the legislative concilium. 41 (1963). “Historia” 13 (1964). J. The simplest way out of this quandary is to assume that the simultaneous voting in elections was introduced after 133. 4298–346.4 but at that moment his opponents questioned the legality of Tiberius’ candidacy. pp. fearful of threats from his foes. G. Octavius. esp. 16–19) and Appian (Bell. 33. Die Römerbiographien Plutarchs (München 1979). distort or embellish facts. Rieger. 61–73. The passage of Appian and the finding of Fraccaro form the basis of the theory of L. 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?. but was persuaded to hand over the presidency to Mucius. Das Nachleben des Tiberius Gracchus in der lateinischen Literatur (Bonn 1991). 69–71. and nn. The following brief narrative. Les jugements de Cicéron sur les Gracques. Broughton. 666–69. pp. see below. Santangelo. pp. 92–164. esp.8 exhorted the consul to free the republic from the tyrant. when the news came that the “rich”. 425–28. see ibidem. He confuses cinctus Gabinus and caput velatum (see below. {Cf. and the meeting was adjourned amid strife and rancor. below. all sources are presented solely in French translation which precludes a limine any scholarly treatment of the affair. 1501–4. see F. G. cf. Le rôle de Scipion Nasica Sérapion dans la crise gracquienne. and then the catastrophe struck. 107.6 He never delivered his harangue. a prearranged sign. Binot. To “L’action contre Tibérius Gracchus” Binot devotes only a paltry four pages (192–95). On the possible symbolic meaning of the senatorial meeting in the temple dedicated to Fides. 18–19. Mucius presided. His followers had still before daybreak occupied the Capitoline hill.7 The leader of the anti-Gracchan opposition. 129–30). the senators and their henchmen. 38. in front of the temple of Jupiter. pp. Tiberius himself gave the signal for fight.68 (cf. Mucius Scaevola. Disturbances broke out. “RE” 4 (1901). It was in that atmosphere of hatred and uncertainty that the senate was meeting in the nearby temple of Fides. 20. Freyburger. C. Las contiones civiles y militares en Roma (Zaragoza 1989). 185–203. pp. “RE” 16 (1933).9 who had originally 6 This reconstruction is based on the account of the Rhetorica ad Herennium 4. On the location of the temple. As Tiberius recited the precatio. pp. that without an election declared himself tribune for the next year. Mucius 17. were ready to attack. This presupposes the dismissal by Mucius of the original concilium. 60). 105–8). 125–32 (esp. Münzer. and 7 8 9 . It was apparently at that moment that Tiberius. seeing his supporters wavering. n. pp. adjourned from the previous day. and on his agnomen Serapio. Around his person. a gathering either preliminary to the voting or called together by a magistrate to listen to an announcement or a speech. and the Gracchans. See on him F. Cornelius 354. the proceedings in the concilium were obstructed by Gracchus’ enemies. formally reconvened on the Capitol. Wild rumors circulated: that Tiberius deposed the resisting tribunes. See also a good study by F. who insisted that the new presiding officer should be appointed by lot. and his acquaintance with modern scholarship is rudimentary. But the consul. n. well prepared. Scipio Nasica. L. 311–12. perhaps by putting his hand to his head. Étude sémantique et réligieuse depuis les origines jusqu’à l’époque augustéenne (Paris 1986). the pontifex maximus P. took personally the command of the gathering. nn. Roman Voting Assemblies (Ann Arbor 1966). And thus the concilium plebis. “Pallas” 75 (2001). “Archiv für Religionsgeschichte” 7 (2005) 198–214. The Religious Tradition of the Gracchi. Pina Polo.} On his career. The opposing tribunes were driven from the assembly. On the religio in the Gracchan and anti-Gracchan propaganda. that he wished to seize supreme power and demanded the diadem of a king. were victorious. see the interesting article by F. but when he called upon the tribes to vote. He began with the customary invocation to gods. Münzer. p. pp. n.90 Historia et Ius 341 elected in place of Octavius. Taylor. Fides. though amid evil omens. On the distinction between the voting comitia or concilium and the contio. But Tiberius and Mucius met with stiff opposition from a majority of other tribunes. see below. une relecture. Cf. The next day Tiberius came prepared. and 277 (no. he must have been in charge of the meeting. Or perhaps he made this sign later. and who was a staunch supporter of Gracchus. 185: the contio of Tiberius). and. why not. 211. the eminent jurist P. and massed in the middle of the assembly. and ordered a contio to convene. R. 7–25. Cic. pp. UngernSternberg von Pürkel. 223–45.The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 342 91 collaborated with Tiberius. below. T. So also Vell.2. Max. pp. and so resolute. Senatusconsultum ultimum und hostis-Erklärung (“Vestigia” 11 [München 1970]). hesitated: the gist of his answer was that he was not prepared to execute any citizen without trial. which shows that the partisans of Tiberius were also armed. pp. Untersuchungen zum spätrepublikanischen Notstandsrecht. R. A. On the modalities of that kind of proclamation (evocatio). A Study of Roman Jurists in Their Political Setting (“Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiker Rechtsgeschichte”. his political and legal views.3: êkriton. E. pp. 44 (1965). III. P. Behrends. 74–80 (with further literature). 152–53. pp. The attendants of the senators were armed with clubs and sticks. nn. “CP” 67 (1972). Five Pronouncements by P. and apparently no one on the other side. the senators armed themselves on the spot with pieces of broken furniture and they also “wrested staves out of the hands of the Gracchans”.3. Ti. Gr. reprinted in: Idem. pp. cf. 19. Guarino. 272–75. originally so confident. 3. pp.(16). The Political Allegiance of P. “ZRG” 100 (1983). “Archivio Giuridico” 175 (1968). The proclamation was made at the time of a sudden danger to the Republic from an external or internal foe. S. For Plutarch’s usage of this term. 42–46. nn. passim. pp. Staatsrecht und Philosophie in der ausgehenden Republik. Bauman. Scores of the followers of Tiberius were killed. Gr. but the authors deem it appropriate to stop for a while to insert remarks on the startling subject of Nasica’s attire. A Note on P. J. Ti. G. Bernstein. A. pp. A. Plut. so organized. “Athenaeum” N. Mucius Scaevola. turned to flight. Plutarch and Appian say that the Gracchans yielded to the dignity of Nasica and the senators. O. . It has always been perplexing that the Gracchans.(16). Pat.4–6. Bell. 12 Plut. a vigorous polemic has swirled in recent years: see esp. see J. S. Cf. 18. La coerenza di Publio Mucio (Napoli 1981). Mucius Scaevola. 1. 106). Idem. Roman Questions (“Heidelberger Althistorische Beiträge und Epigraphische Studien” 20 [Heidelberg 1995]). pp. Grosso. S. pp. esp. Rome.3. It was made either by a magistrate or a private citizen.6.11 and dashed out from the temple followed by a throng of senators and their attendants. see below. Mucio Scaevola tra il diritto e la politica. and its place in Roman public law. 230–302. civ. Wiseman. 642–43. and see also Addenda. 19. Gruen. 321–32. H. The secret lies in the toga of Nasica. Appian. On Nasica as a dux privatus. esp. ultimately offered no resistance.51 (cf. Linderski. P.17: qui rem publicam salvam esse volunt me sequantur. 51. In a few minutes Tiberius will be slain. Coriol.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. Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics.10 Whereupon Nasica uttered his famous proclamation: “Let those who wish to save the commonwealth follow me”. App. 227–38. “Athenaeum” N. Mucius Scaevola. 19.147–53. 2. civ. Heft 75 [München 1983]). “JRS” 74 (1984).68. 11 Val. 48 (1970). For it is at this point that all the sources describing the action of Nasica display an unusual interest in his toga. Bell. Gr. 51–52. 10 Plut. and were slaughtered. 4. Mucius Scaevola. Tusc. “RIDA” 25 (1978). 458–84. Ti. Prosopography and the Career of P. Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the Genera Militiae and the Status of Octavian.69–70. 1. 204–11. This comportment defies any rational explication. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gracchen (Halle 1894). Briscoe in his Teubner edition of Valerius (1998) {and by D. 60). It is not impossible that Appian had in mind this or a similar military signal. Um das Kapitol . 2. According to them Nasica wrapped the hem of his toga round his head and not round his left arm.6. Catul. a conjecture accepted by J. 25. contorta toga. ßkastow d¢ t«n •pom°nvn aÈt“ tª xeir‹ tØn tÆbennon periel¤jaw §≈yei toÁw §mpod≈n. Marc. But curiosity apparently does not pay: Eduard Meyer harshly rebuked him for his fancy. 80.14. 2: “Appian zerbricht sich unnötig den Kopf.92 343 Historia et Ius Velleius Paterculus (2. Bell. Seneca. 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. the legs must be free. “sweating. Shackleton Bailey in his Loeb edition (2000)}.21). Gr. hair bristling. clamide contorta astu clupeat brachium. but it is not completely absurd.18 The logic of this argument is irresistible: 13 For the reading <im>a. 18. at the same time the toga wrapped round the head serves as a protection”. Amm. 213) fell into ambush during the Hannibalic war. see Petr. pp. signo solito demonstrabam. civ. Appian.16 Appian offers three explanations: Nasica covered his head with the border of his toga in order either (1) to induce t“ parasÆmƒ toË sxÆmatow (on the precise meaning of this phrase. §x≈rei prÚw tÚ Kapet≈lion.68: tÒ krãspedon toË flmat¤ou §w tØn kefalØn periesÊrato. Epist. Dial. It is to Appian’s credit (or to his source’s credit) that he saw the problem and did his best to solve it. e‡te t“ parasÆmƒ toË sxÆmatow pl°onãw ofl suntr°xein §pisp≈menow.3.12.7. p. 1. Calboli. There is no problem at all: “Appian puzzles himself needlessly to explain this very natural course of action.7. 19. e‡te yeoÁw §gkaluptÒmenow œn ¶melle drãsein.. e‡te pol°mou ti sÊmbolon to›w ır«sin …w kÒruya poioÊmenow.4: tÚ krãspedon toË flmat¤ou y∞menow §p‹ t∞w kefal∞w. where some think it goes under the name of cinctus Gabinus (cf.14 Plutarch and Appian convey a substantially different picture. 215. 53. Meyer. the commentary by G. In order to be able to charge up the Capitol. 186 Ribbeck2 = 190 Warmington: Currum liquit. Sempronius Gracchus (cos. 18 E. 25. toga awry”. Kempf in his edition of Valerius (Lipsiae 1888). in app. erecto capillo.68) speaks of Nasica rushing from the temple sudans. 435–37. oculis ardentibus. n. his eyes blazing. Cornifici Rhetorica ad Herennium (Bologna 1969). and Valerius Maximus (3. 14 The passage concerning Nasica is adduced as an example of the rhetorical figure of demonstratio (§nãgeia. Ti.6.2.13: porrecto extentius brachio. For street brawls. below. et summitatibus sagi contortis elatius. Cf. Cf.(16). The Auctor ad Herennium (4. R. but he singles out the conduct of Nasica noting that other senators wound their togas about their (left) arms. 19 n. 116. Sat. he then paludamento circa laevum bracchium intorto – nam ne scuta quidem secum extulerant – in hostes impetum fecit (Liv. Cf. adesse hostes. 15 Plut.2) informs us that Nasica exhorted his followers “having wrapped the hem of his toga about his left forearm”. 16 This was normal procedure in street brawls and in archaic battles.4. circumdata laevo bracchio togae lacinia. 17 This explanation is not correct.15 Why did he do so? Plutarch gives no answer. Trag.2: intorto circa brachium pallio composui ad proeliandum gradum. See Pacuvius.17) similarly reports that he “wound the lower part of his toga round his left arm”. crit. Occasionally it was applied on real battlefields: when Ti. see C. Cf. ÍpotÊposiw). laevam manum <im>a13 parte togae circumdedit. um diesen sehr natürlichen Vorgang zu erklären.16. Die Gracchen und ihre nächsten Vorgänger (Berlin 1847). Cornelius and the Pannonians. 40. 1) dropped his criticism of Appian. also P. 412 n. At the same time. He brushes aside any idea of a symbolic meaning of Nasica’s gesture. p. for otherwise he would not be able to run or strike effectively. for this could have been the attire of any priest at a sacrifice. C.. Of course we cannot tell which role Nasica would have played and which he would not – but neither can Eitrem. Eitrem points out that C. “Philologus” 78 (1922–23). below. 21 n. 21 K. cf. Aachen 1883). This circumstance. Gracchus und die Furien. provides us with the key to our puzzle. 5: the gesture of Nasica “ist nichts anderes als die Herstellung der Priestertracht”. G. 19. Nitzsch. Studia in Ti. muss man die Beine frei haben.19 Kornemann was. 39. Greve. 20 G. For a dissenting voice. Studi sull’età dei Gracchi (Città di Castello 1914). Cf. namely that it was in fact the chief pontiff who covered his head with his toga. Kornemann. he has missed a most obvious point. In 1903 Ernst Kornemann proposed an ingenious solution that gained at once wide acclaim. 21. nn. civ. G. L. p. Needless to say this interpretation is open to the same criticism as E. 183–86. p. p. Bijvanck’s excellent but modest dissertation has been unduly overshadowed by Kornemann’s Scharfsinnigkeit. “Historia” 23 (1974). 215 n. W. p. by implication. p.e. 394 n. Meyer in the second edition of his Untersuchungen (Kleine Schriften [Halle 1910]. Morgan. Zur Geschichte der Gracchenzeit (“Klio”. Piotrowicz. but nevertheless he maintains that “es scheint geradezu burlesker Gedanke zu sein. however. 185).C. i. 108. unworthy of an eminent historian.[16].G. Gr. We have either to discard Plutarch’s and Appian’s narrative altogether (and there is no likely reason why anyone should have invented the story of Nasica’s strange behavior) or we have to find a cogent explanation. of course. . and praised Kornemann’s acumen. see S. Already in 1879 G. On the other hand Eitrem is undoubtedly right when he says that Nasica’s velatio could not have pointed specifically to his office of pontifex maximus. p. repeated in the second edition of Kleine Schriften [Halle 1924].The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 344 93 when a togatus is on the point of plunging into a mêlée he should. Fraccaro. whereas none of the senators who followed him assumed this posture. 1. p. he believed. Meyer’s original opinion. T. 167 n. Kritik der Quellen zum Leben des älteren Gracchus (Progr.68) accord a strikingly prominent place to Nasica’s office of pontifex maximus. and seems to think that Nasica merely intended to protect his head. Beiheft 1 [Leipzig 1903]). Meyer’s is a pedestrian explanation. 79. free his legs and hands from the folds of the toga. Bijvanck observed in his dissertation that Nasica proceeded against Gracchus tanquam velatus pontifex. 1.21 hinaufzustürmen zu können. and so his first objection to Kornemann’s theory appears more imaginary than real. 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. 1.20 and still earlier Karl Nitzsch expressed in passing the same view. Nasica intended by his gesture to assume the ritual attire of a priest.3) and especially Appian (Bell. not the first scholar to come forward with this idea. Gracchi historiam (Diss. Cf. and Ti. dass der wütende Optimat die Rolle eines gewöhnlichen Opferpriesters spielen wollte – denn den Oberpontifex konnte man so wie so nicht an dieser sonderbaren Vermummung erkennen” (p. whose criticism of Kornemann has recently been approvingly noted by M. zugleich dient die um die Kopf geschlagene Toga zum Schutz”. 1). G. Leiden 1879). Bijvanck. 19 E. pp. 326. E. Eitrem. and to display the purple border of his toga. however. although it was quoted by some earlier scholars. p. the attire of the pontifex maximus. He observed that Plutarch (Ti. Plutarch a Appjan (n. More recent students of Tiberius do not seem to know it. Gracchus were presented in the optimate tradition not only as violators of laws but also as miscreants pursued by the wrath of the gods. 152. ricordando con quell’ impiego della veste la sua carica”. non leguntur. 33 (originally published in 1889). p. by the display of the purple border of his toga praetexta. cf. Appian’s Roman History III (Loeb Class. He pointed out that besides the pontifex maximus many other men in Rome wore the toga praetexta. 39–40. 25 E. Gracchus. In 1963 D. dass er sich dadurch den Schein geben wollte. was proceeding to the sacrifice necessary to save the state. L. Gabba follows in his translation (p. Kornemann and Earl (and most of their predecessors) have derived their bold and imaginative reconstructions of Nasica’s action from the accounts of Appian and 22 M. Certainly dramatic. M. C. 24.. 99–102. Schweighäuser. P.23 This might have been Appian’s idea. p. Gracchus was to be offered as a sacrifice . pp. Bijvanck and Kornemann has been brilliantly corroborated by M. J. 26 D. Badian characterized it). L. The real. Nitzsch. Studies Presented to H.. Earl.24 Yet it contains only part of the truth. 3). Gonin” (Pretoria 1971). Tiberius Gracchus. White. No less than Julius Caesar. Earl published his penetrating study on Ti. 23 I. Tod.22 The words of Appian e‡te t“ parasÆmƒ toË sxÆmatow pl°onãw ofl suntr°xein §pisp≈menow had normally been taken to mean that Nasica wished to induce a greater number of men to follow him “miro illo habitu” (Schweighäuser).26 IV. Civil Wars: Book I (Oxford 1902). pp. but it is ridiculous to ascribe such an intention to Nasica. F. “by (the display of) that part of his robe which indicated his (pontifical) office”. Three Notes on Appian. Vetera sunt. Appiani Romanarum Historiarum quae supersunt II (Lipsiae 1785). White).25 was that Nasica’s action “was meant to convey that Ti. There can be little doubt that this is a captivating reconstruction. Hence by covering his head with the border of his toga Nasica did not intend merely to emphasize his religious dignity. 4. So also Bijvanck. but not quite novel. Gabba. “CQ” 18 (1924). Badian. 20). p. more exactly.. in: “Pro Munere Grates. man hat ihm Schuld gegeben. 346 . London 1913). 326: Nasica “schlug seine Toga über den Kopf.. Earl’s dramatic observation (as E. pontifex maximus. Benecke’s translation “by displaying the badge of his rank”. The passage would mean “by the badge of his costume” or. p. 21). that is in our case the symbolic. significance of Nasica’s act was not grasped either by Appian or Kornemann or Tod. 17–18. Studia (n.. i.e. Three Fragments.. H. C. Strachan-Davidson. Die Gracchen (n. The case rested for nearly thirty years. It was reserved for another scholar to make an important and illuminating contribution. Cornelius Scipio Nasica. Tod took as his starting point E.94 345 Historia et Ius The interpretation of Nitzsch. 51–52. Gracchus perished for his regnum”. Appian. pp. “by the strangeness of his appearance” (H. Ti. Appian was not after all a thoughtless blunderer. A Study in Politics (“Collection Latomus” 66 [Bruxelles 1963]). N. pp. Appiani Liber Primus (n. als ginge er als Priester dem Juppiter zu opfern”. and after a careful study of the usage of the word sx∞ma 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”. 118–19. Library. pp. 24 Cf. 361) the interpretation of Tod: “sia . Tod’s study on the terminology of Appian’s passage. . Cf. tantam trucidationem facis. especially as that latter phrase is at the root of the compound carnifex (“Stückmacher”. p. Walde-J. Gracchus preserved by the grammarian Charisius. 170). for the commonwealth and for himself. a recontruction of genius. 25). p. Gracchus ut lex Papiria accipiatur: “qui sapientem cum faciet. C. p. In fact. however. 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. and thus we can venture an approximate translation: G. C. {Badian. Zu den Reden des C. As a comparison Jordan adduced the words of Cato from the oration In Q. 3–5. 494–95. 3. took suilla to mean “Schweine(fleisch)” and not simply “a pig”. prints two cruces: † cum faciet and pro † sylla. Jordan. A. Gracchus. All quotations in the text are taken from these pages. but still it is worth mentioning that long before Wölfflin the same emendation and the same interpretation of suilla (sc. and in a couple of places possibly corrupt. A difficult text. Meillet. “Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik” 9 (1896). Hofmann. when properly interpreted. 28 Charisius. cf. 263–65. Fortunately for us there is extant a contemporary source that. 1). was not convinced by this argument: succidias humanas facere is according to him a very different expression from humanam carnem trucidare. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I3 [Heidelberg 1938]. München 1915). pp. A. nor can ‘humanam’ mean ‘Menschenfleisch’ (as Wölfflin presumably thought)”. Minucium Thermum de decem hominibus (ORF2 p. we would rather expect a parallel expression to succidias facere to be carnem facere. In a brilliant article Ernst Badian has recently called attention to a hitherto unintelligible and (as he thinks) neglected fragment of C. 441: carnifices dicti quod carnes ex homine . 18.27 The passage as printed in Barwick’s edition of Charisius28 reads as follows: “Communiter” C. Wölfflin. observes: “it is obvious that (with trucidare) ‘suillam’ cannot mean ‘Schweinefleisch’. Marx. duly noted by N. 25). “Hermes” 6 (1872). authors not generally regarded as our best guide in matters concerning the fine points of Roman sacral and constitutional law. 179. may cast a beam of light on Tiberius’ death and on Nasica’s “sacrifice”. B. 29 H. 44–45. The Pig (n. non qui pro sylla humanum trucidet”. ed. Artis Grammaticae Libri V. p. pp. 59): succidias humanas facis.The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 95 Plutarch. Malcovati. qui et vobis et rei puplicae et sibi communiter prospiciat. p. if we take into account the original meaning of caro “a piece of (flesh)”. pp. 72. GL I. cf. frg. Gracchi orationem aduersus Scipionem. “RhM” 39 (1884). pp. O(ratorum) R(omanorum) F(ragmenta)2 (Augustae Taurinorum 1955). 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. 196). carnem) trucidet. caro) had been proposed by H. and consequently interpreted the whole passage in a rather peculiar way: pro suilla humanam (sc.} 30 Badian here follows the emendation of E. not he who slaughters a human being like a pig”. Barwick (Lipsiae 1925 [1964]). Badian. 180. 354. 28. as the dictionry of WaldeHofmann renders it). Sulla. “Abschnitt”. (“morceau”. Three Fragments (n. pp. 255–56 (= Keil. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine3 [Paris 1951]. Hec. Ernout-A. Donatus ad Ter. suilla. Three Fragments (n. proposes to read qui sapienter <uobis>cum faciat. Animadversiones criticae in Scipionis Aemiliani historiam et C. frg. Häpke. “Stück”. Badian may well be right (see below). who.29 but its general tenor is clear and loud. Semproni Gracchi oratoris Romani fragmenta collecta et illustrata (Diss. F. p. I Fasti dei tribuni della plebe (Milano 1934). pp. and better F. 153–54. 45–46) the inviolable precinct of the asylum Romuli. Alfonsi. hostia).33 they are of special political significance. pp. pro curia. Le tyrannoctone du Capitole et la mort de Tiberius Gracchus. but the application in the meaning of “pig” is not inconceivable. but her conjecture is not entirely convincing: the regular word order was humana hostia (cf. Fornix Calpurnius e la morte di Tiberio Gracco. ORF3 18. It is a pity that Badian did not offer a discussion of sapientem. Three Fragments [n. {Badian. TLL s. and contra.). n. Plin. E. In an answer to Badian and Malcovati. but also because the expression humana hostia seems to have been used much more frequently than humana victima (cf. C. pp. 6 n. L. by implifaciant.10. p. below. 30). “Athenaeum” 54 (1976). Malcovati.v. D. “Athenaeum” 53 (1975). see B. He notes that in poetic or solemn language humanus frequently appears as a noun. Badian observes that the speech “was .. Niccolini. esp. not only because of palaeographical reasons (so Badian. 154–59: centum gradus. Gracchus into a martyred popular hero . Marx’s emendation would have been to the point only if Tiberius had been killed within (on the locative pro. but he and A.) trucidet. Liv. a step in the campaign that was to convert Ti. which certainly was not the case. Badian’s interpretation is supported by the usage of the adjective suillus in religious contexts.7 (a report of a prodigy). Nasica must have been hailed by the admirers of his deed as sapiens 31 32 33 34 . pp. proposes to read <hostiam> humanam. But Marx’s own conjecture is not at all attractive: qui pro asylo (grammatically construed like e. Hostia is a much better supplement than victima. Francis. Palaeographically pro asylo is inferior to Jordan’s and Wölfflin’s pro suilla (based on the reading pro sullam humanam found in C.} On this bill (it did not pass). Papirius Carbo’s bill to permit re-election to the tribunate. 367. Yet we have to be aware that the expression suilla hostia would also be a hapax legomenon. “MEFRA” 81 (1969). Gracchus is contrasting the right sort of politician34 (qui . victima #5). and insists that “suilla can only mean (with caro understood) pork and not a pig”. lines 22 ff. cf. Hist.96 347 Historia et Ius tiam>31 trucidet. 11. especially as this political term is of considerable importance for the reconstruction of the ideological content and polemical thrust of Gaius’ oration. cf.. who communicated to him this observation. Bilinåski.32 As these words come from C.. p. see the sources in G.. 263–64. hostia. an apograph of a codex deperditus) nor is it convincing historically.De Vit s. 1). 3047. Alfonsi stresses the affinity between Gaius’ way of expression and the style of Cato.v.). in our passage both suilla and humanum would function as substantivized adjectives. 137–60.. “YCS” 23 [1973]. pro castris. 31.12. Gracchus’ speech delivered in support of C. A proposito di C. has presented a simpler and hence more attractive solution: non qui pro suilla humanum trucidet. seem unaware that Jordan noticed this more than one hundred years ago (see above. 173–75. Roncoroni.v. and take suilla and humanum functioning as the substantives. Rem in medio relinquimus. n. as Badian suggests.202.. cf. Forcellini . Indeed suilla functions as an adjective (or as a substantivized adjective in the sense of “pork”). Particularum quarundam varietas: prae and pro. vigorously defends humanam <hostiam>. The supplement <hostiam> and the change of humanum into humanam is not necessary. On the place of Tiberius’ death. pp. Nat. 264–82: clivus Capitolinus.g. p. see Paulus [Festus] 257 L. E. Nevertheless the exact grammatical construction of the fragment still remains unclear: we have either to take suilla as a noun (cf. Sempronius Gracchus. prospiciat) – probably. 25]. pro aede Castoris) hominem (so already the ed.. 22. Forcellini . princ. 32) or to interpret it. pp. “Helikon” 1 (1961). Tre frammenti di oratori Romani. Furthermore hostiam trucidare is troubling: electronic searches reveal that this collocation is not on record. Although the noun suilla in the sense of “a pig” does not seem to be attested (attested is only suilla [sc.De Vit s. 5).3 (offerings on account of the ver sacrum). caro]). and it even appears attested: cf. The Pig (n. as suilla (sc. Coarelli. It is probably better to read pro suilla humanum. connects the surname with Nasica’s presumed devotion to Serapis. Die Gracchen (n. discussed by G. Notes on Plautine and Other Latin. 39–40. “Cornelius and the Pannonians” (n. Mora. Bijvanck advanced virtually the same interpretation. The murderers of Tiberius were not optimi but pessimi. but I still think that sapienter may well have been another pointed barb aimed at the laudatores of Nasica.E. below.. Soprannomi teofori e soprannomi “servili” romani. 342. Hist. conjectures Bijvanck. “Hermes” 32 (1897). glor. Studia (n. 31).C. Mil. n. Morgan. p. p. Morgan. G. 215 n. pp. Hist. See the exemplary discussion of this cognomen by F. p. 19).) by the tribune C. pp. 51). 21). In the same year in which Earl published his perspicacious study.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). H. 55) because of his resemblance to a slave of that name. 151 (Plaut. G. n.35 We here may also record the proverbial juxtaposition of sues and homines. Zu den Fragmenten des Valerius Antias. It is this (supposed) excellence of Nasica that Gaius Gracchus attacked. and adduced it as decisive proof that when Nasica attacked Tiberius he acted in his capacity as pontifex maximus. 20). {F. Val. 4. and concludes that for that reason various anecdotes were invented to obscure the real origin of this and other similar oriental theophoric surnames. Cf. Nat. 660. Bijvanck also immediately perceived the importance of this fragment of Gaius’ speech for the explanation of Nasica’s behavior in Appian and Plutarch. Die Sprichwörter und die sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig 1890). 107–8. 39). who sacrifices a human being like a pig”. Liv. but he did not propose any textual emendation. p. 21. p. Cornelius and the Pannonians (n. interpreted Gaius’ text in this sense.38 Nasica was given this nickname in his consulate (138 B.} Bijvanck. Plin.3). and they were not sapientes as they claimed. but – to render suum cuique – more than a century ago G.36 and especially the expression sus occisa which M. 20]. 214–15. 470–71. Curiatius (who wished to ridicule him.The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 348 97 cation. A.51. Conspiracy theories have finally reached the field of Roman onomastics.14. M. C. Already Nitzsch. 336. “Antichthon” 4 [1970]. Caput velare (Diss. which was anathema to Roman aristocracy. 47–49. G. {These remarks are now to be read in view of Badian’s reconstruction qui sapienter <uobis>cum faciat (above. Freier worked on his dissertation Caput velare. his excellent brother – with his enemy. Freier. pp. 586–87. a pig dealer (Plin. Otto. This is a truly ingenious textual analysis and a brilliant historical exposition. “Aevum” 60 (1986).} H. pp. Tübingen 1963). Morgan perceptively adduced in the context of Gaius’ speech and the death of Tiberius. . He also restored the last sentence as qui pro suilla humanam trucidet. 9. and interpreted it as “acerbissime dictum pro: qui hominem oppressit tamquam suem immolaverit”. Ship.10) or a slave of a pig dealer (suarii negotiatoris vile mancipium. Nat. Studia [n.54). Per. especially as the pontiffs habitually offered the sacrifices capite velato. Max.39 Of course he also came to speak of (by Laelius or Scipio Aemilianus. Münzer. 35 36 37 38 39 . 19). 7. Nasica. Rud.. pp. Scipio Nasica’s second cognomen of Serapio. Now the original Serapio is described either as an assistant at sacrifices ( victimarius. and Cicero defended (Tusc. 27). with a nickname Serapio: what a perfect target for Gaius’ bitter pun! The pontifex Serapio slaughtering people like pigs. for Freier. 26. Crawford. i. . did not display any further interest in such a trifling matter as the death of Ti. 39) 39–53. 4 (1973). no. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (“MAAR” 22 [Rome 1955]) 14. rigorously pursuing his main objective. A. no. pilleus. pp.16 Helm). p. pp. von Schaewen. 498–99. pilleus. 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. 515. 40. 44–45.41 But all this still does not prove that the pontiffs habitually performed the sacrifices and other ceremonies pilleo velati. “JRS” 1 (1911). and p. Gracchus. Caput velare (n. 508. 532. no. “REL” 69 (1991). 607. tutulus. I. and in consequence failed to realize the full import of his statement. tutulus) as the headcover of the pontiffs. 461. at any rate it seems certain that there existed some differentiation between the caps worn by the different flamines. 605.. 491. Apol. p. It would imply that Nasica’s action was conceived on the spur of the moment. See also the works cited in n. no. 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. V. Flaminica cincta. 443 (cf. Freier’s interpretation is of obvious importance for our study. 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.525) there is no mention of apex. and used his toga as an improvised cover. the problem of the pontiff’s ritual headgear. 41 Apul. 494. 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. 614. the sacerdos publicus.4. 22. undoubtedly the pontifex maximus. p. and perhaps rightly so. apex. 611. and this information is corroborated by the evidence of coins on which the apex appears among other pontifical emblems. 533. It is well to remember that at least on one occasion. Freier. s. pp. Festus 484/6 L.7 (p.vv. but in the passage of Prudentius she cites (Peristeph. see K. mentioned is only vittatus olim pontifex. R. 49. Scott Ryberg. Boëls-Janssen. p. 480.19–20. In this situation we must take a closer look at the pontiff’s ritual attire. pp. Literary and antiquarian sources attest a cap (galerus. p. 212–26.39 a–b). when sacrificing to Ops Consiva. M. The Apex or Tutulus in Roman Art. 2. no. Gracchus. Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974). 502. Esdaile. Bonfante Warren.e. “ANRW” I. H. L. was required to wear on his head the suffibulum.98 Historia et Ius 349 Nasica and Ti. Cf. also N. Römische Opfergeräte. 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. Nasica simply did not take with him the pilleus when he went to attend the meeting of the senate. galerus. for if he had planned to stage a ritual attack on the Gracchani. 489 1–3. 59–65. no. Roman Costumes. ihre Verwendung im Kultus und in der Kunst (Berlin 1940). No eminent scholar commented on Freier’s dramatic observation. 10 (ed. Die Penaten. Decius Mus urging the admittance of the plebeians to the priesthoods). 13. 46 Dion. 44–45. L. 112. Bordenache Battaglia. Wissowa. Le ciste prenestine I. See also below. 325. The expression capite velato refers both to victimam caedet (a pontifical sacrifice) and to augurium . pp. LXVIII–LXX}. see for this interpretation A. “Ostraka” 3. Lat. Alföldi.” 78 (1971). {More recently R. Wiseman. and above all the very convincing interpretation of Varro’s passage by H. Abt. fig. 38 {but see her retractatio in “AJAH” 3. pp. Cf.The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 350 99 rial with a red border. esp. Faux triomphe et préjugés tenaces. G.16.2 (1989). pp. Serv. Il culto di Iuppiter Imperator e il trionfo su Mezenzio quali motivi di propaganda su una cista prenestina. Praenestinus Aeneas. 12. Aen. pp. M.. but in the late republican period this archaic spiked cap was regularly worn only by the flamen Dialis. pp. but removes the triumph: Jupiter arrives in a quadriga “to claim the year’s vintage of the wine of Latium”. neque semper praetextam. Aen. Festus 474 L. “MDAI. plate 12. Sat.45 Finally it is not without some interest to note that Roman antiquarians ascribed to Aeneas the introduction of this kind of sacrificial velatio.. pp.6. 3.1 (Roma 1979). Cf. Hal. 10. P. 42). 45 n. and fig. Utrecht. 35–42. so also G. auct. 161: a theatrical scene. capiet (an augural function). returns to Aeneas and the triumphal interpretation. Foerst. Röm. Aeneas. 44 See Ryberg. Idem.407. Galinsky. auct. p.. ingeniously and persuasively. Macr. A sacrificing priest with his garment drawn over his head appears on a cista Praenestina (dated to the second century B. Stehouwer. Ryberg. 89–91. Religion und Kultus der Römer2 (München 1912). 20–22. 7–30. 45 Liv. G. G. 34. whereas Augustus and other priests (among whom there must have been the pontiffs) appear with their heads veiled by their togas. <cum> capite velato victimam caedet auguriumve ex arce capiet? (from the speech of P.43 In the sacrificial procession represented on the Ara Pacis the flamines are clearly distinguished by their spiked caps.C. 20–22). a sacerdos officiating at the feast of Vinalia (pp.44 Also Livy implies that the pontiffs used the toga as their sacrificial headcover.42 The pilleus (galerus) with the apex may well have been the original headgear of the pontiffs. he did not do anything unusual. 42 Varro. A Latin Triumph on a Praenestine Cista. 22. K. Ant. and in the light of this passage it is a fair assumption that the same will hold true also of the pontiffs. 151–52. at any rate from the point of view of sacral formalities. as it seems. 34. n. 597–641. 43 Serv. 6. pp.7.22–23. T. 8. 59-61. Unusual was the political implication of his gesture. is <non> conspiciatur cum capide ac lituo.46 We may safely conclude that when Nasica covered his head with his toga. Serv. p. and more sensibly. Rites (n. Bonfante Warren. depicts the triumph of Aeneas. cf.E. neque apicem nisi tempore sacrificii gestare soliti erant. Menichetti. Adam. 10–11. 2. 85. retains Jupiter.17. Groningen 1956). We know that the augurs performed their functions capite toga velato (see the evidence collected by Freier.21. p. Caput velare [n. 39]. de ling. 3. Rites (n. pp. discovers in the scene the arrival of a personage into the underworld.} . and tabb. “AJA” 68 (1964). Sicily and Rome (Princeton 1969). interprets the scene as a sacrifice performed by an imperator from Praeneste. The Myths of Rome (Exeter 2004). still more recently. Rom. and the wine. Walters-Conway): Qui Iovis optimi maximi ornatu decoratus. in this respect very similar to the toga praetexta. 56–61.2 (1978 [1980]). pp. Aen. {or perhaps third or even late fourth}) which.288. 77–83). 40). Cf. Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1963). Étude sur Ops et Consus (Diss. pp.1 (1994). Die Gravierungen der pränestinischen Cisten (Roma 1978).552: etenim veteri sacrorum ritu neque Martialis neque Quirinalis flamen omnibus caerimoniis tenebatur . 8. p. Even the other flamines (Martialis and Quirinalis) wore the praetexta and the apex only at a sacrifice. 504–7. 40). Religion und Kultus (n. Plut. “MEFRA” 101. curru aurato per urbem vectus in Capitolium ascenderit.. N. pp. Aeneas und Latinus. Rom. Aeneas. 203. pp. Quaest. the velatus will be. Wissowa. 608–9. plebei contra patres concitatione et seditione nuntiata. Serv. quod erat flamen Carmentalis. 48 T. Liddell-Scott-Jones. s.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 krãspedon and of its function as the badge of rank. 49 On the laena. and for as long as. Helbig. 594–95. 10. ut erat laena amictus ita venit in contionem seditionemque cum auctoritate tum oratione sedavit. for instance in the senate. When describing the Roman velatio the Greek authors normally speak in general of the toga (flmãtion. überhaupt wo sie öffentlich erscheinen. 43).C. also zum Beispiel nicht im Senat. Aen. 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. A Greek-English Lexicon. p.vv. sondern abgesehen von den Volksfesten nur wenn und so lange sie als Priester fungiren”.). 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. J. but that he appeared at all in public wearing the toga praetexta. It is important to ask when they wore it. apart from public feasts. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto 1974). tÆbenna). As far as I can see this point has been missed by all scholars who have dealt with Nasica and Tiberius. pp. 359 B. cf. Gell. Following the lead of Cicero we certainly must 47 Cf. obviously the purple border of his toga. auct.15. who. see W. 40). wie die Magistrate. Mommsen. Mason. 56): cum consul esset eodemque tempore sacrificium publicum cum laena faceret. 165–66.552 (see n. Römisches Staatsrecht I3 (Leipzig 1887). useful with respect to inscriptions.100 Historia et Ius 351 Plutarch and Appian stress that Nasica put on his head tÚ krãspedon toË flmat¤ou. Roman Costumes (n.16. pp. Toga und trabea. Of course this does not refer to the flamen Dialis.E. But this dictionary is quite unreliable in this respect. . But a really striking fact about the behavior of Nasica was not only that he covered the back of his head with his toga. they perform a priestly function”. that many men in Rome wore the toga praetexta. Bonfante Warren. but. A comprehensive dictionary of Greek terms referring to res Romanae is a burning desideratum. The phrase is interesting for it is exceptional. Nasica’s deliberate manipulation of his toga finds an interesting counterpart in the behavior of M. 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. is very limited and also often inaccurate as far as literary texts are concerned.48 Before Nasica rushed out from the temple of Fides he had first to don the praetexta. as Earl does. 8. and H. For a privatus this was a most unusual thing to do. “Hermes” 39 (1904). Popillius (probably cos. It is not enough to point out. 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. as Cicero narrates (Brut. 422: “Indess tragen die Priester die Prätexta nicht. only when. 88–96.) Henzen. pp. 107: ut ex . nullam comitatem habuisse sermonis <et> ob eamque rem magnum et clarum fuisse. Graccho tum. A Commentary on Cicero’s De Officiis (Ann Arbor 1996). and the comments by P. Brut. pp. 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. and praetextati capite velato .51: Mihi ne Scipio quidem ille pontifex maximus. Le collège des Frères Arvales. pp. see G. qui rem publicam salvam esse vellent se sequi iussit. Gracchi conatus perditos vindicavit. e. 52 Cic. and then again praetextas acceperunt. In response to Earl’s “sacrificial” interpretation he has persuasively demonstrated that Nasica’s action could not be intended 50 Observe also the ceremonies of the Fratres arvales. Cf. Gracchi privatus in libertatem rem publicam vindicavit (Brut. where she discusses Cicero’s views on the sapientia of the statesman..53 VI.52 an ideal quality in a man quo duce privato Ti. Romulus et ses Frères. Acta Fratrum arvalium (Berolini 1874). 59-60. eum Scipionem.51 But Nasica was also a vir omnibus in rebus vehemens and acer in dicendo. sharp and vigorous in oratory. cum consulem languentem reliquit atque ipse privatus. . All key concepts are here present: pontifex maximus. R. de off. passion. 631. 119–39. in spirited praise of this spiritual killer of Tiberius. who put their praetextae on and off.. 54 Cf. (= W. pp. L. comitas. 519–20. and even if privatus he is never a private citizen..54 Ernst Badian is of the same mind. Untersuchungen zu dem Begriff sapientia von der republikanischen Zeit bis Tacitus (Bonn 1971).g. as the popularis propaganda tried to represent him. A. pp. see also Diod. Cf. unfortunately in an unduly philosophical way.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. Recherches sur le culte du Tibre (Paris 1953). hermaphrodites and parricides.2. Les fragments de l’histoire des Gracques dans la Bibliothèque de Diodore de Sicile (Genève 1992). This privilege was reserved for the monstra. for the sacrificial victims were not thrown into a river. 527–28. And the sage never acts in anger. 278–79. who was possessed of no graciousness. modèle du culte public dans la Rome des Empereurs (“BEFAR” 275 [Rome 1990]). And then he veiled his head. See also the commentary by J. 34/35. Dyck. On the lack of ira in the magistrate rendering the verdict of death. and because of that quality rose to greatness and fame. qui hoc Stoicorum verum esse declaravit. divorced from the unpleasantness of Roman politics (she does not consider Cicero’s passage referring to Nasica or the speech of G. iratus.16. sapiens. 572. Tusc. iratus videtur fuisse Ti. Botteri. 492–93. 212). numquam privatum esse sapientem. ardent and impetuous in life. agnam opimam imm(olaverunt). Gracchus occisus esset. cum omnibus in rebus vehementem tum acrem aiebat in dicendo fuisse. but a velatus pontifex and a Stoic sage. He was not furious. 4. J.5) adduced below in the text.. then praetextas deposuerunt and cenatoria alba sumser(unt) [sic]. U. Gracchus occisus esset and who ex dominatu Ti. esp. 564–67. quo duce privato Ti. and privatus. as the poet Accius remembered and Cicero approvingly noted.50 Already by this act he publicly proclaimed that he was going to exercise his religious functions.109: (Nasicam) illum qui Ti. 1.7. see the passage of Seneca (de ira 1. Klima. CCII–CCIV: the Brethren sacrificed to Dea Dia praetextati. a stern and unbending man. Scheid. Gracchus). magnum et clarum fuisse. On Nasica’s yumÚw. 53 Cic. Le Gall. Accio poeta sum audire solitus . pp. 51 Cic... So Cicero. ut si consul esset. But was it a ceremony of sacrifice? Hardly so. sapiens. an outlaw: by the deposition of Octavius he had violated the sacrosanct regulations of the tribunate. Plutarch (Tib. for Nasica’s position was well defined: he was the pontifex maximus. e. but this appears languid. heres. pp. 34. 1). but no one perished sidÆrƒ. as this word is always and correctly rendered in all translations of Plutarch. pp. as our sources qualify it58 (perhaps orig55 Badian. Cf. 270–72. T. pp. 42). quem populus iudicavit ob maleficium. The actual formula of proclamation does not seem to be on record: perhaps sacer est. But I still would prefer to preserve esto. It fits much better into the sequence of various ritual steps delineated in this essay. but the killer could be tried for murder if there was doubt whether his victim had really committed the crime.} 58 Cf. Sacer esto would thus correspond to the known legal phrases with esto (iudex. perceptively observes that “The phrase sacer esto can only apply to a future state: ‘Let him (henceforth) be sacer’”. The mention of the judgment of the people is troubling. parricidi non damnatur. sed. pp.56 If Nasica’s action was not a sacrifice. p. Very doubtful. Wissowa. 2. but this must have been an old prohibition {but see the remarks of Badian. a tyranny. the attire of Nasica was meant to convey “vague priestly authority”. 1). pp. 1). but I suspect too much has been read into his straightforward statement. Or. A proclamation (sacer esto) was probably always necessary and preliminary to the killing (cf. . s. 34–35. 1).57 But was it really a coincidence that no iron was used? This idea relies on the account of Plutarch.. The Pig (n. but on the human level this status of his was to be activated by a solemn pronouncement. On the other hand according to a religious rule it was not allowed to offer the homo sacer as a sacrifice. and indeed was regarded by his killers. But this is not to be taken literally in the sense “by iron”. Iovi sacer est. and I now embrace his view. neque fas est eum immolari. 19. The earliest sources refer to the late republican period. a reason that still remains a mystery for us. {Badian. 1. The Pig (n. then what was it? “It is perhaps impossible to be certain how to interpret the information we have” – Badian states rather resignedly. and was believed to aspire to regnum. he says. 725–26. On the divine level the miscreant became sacer automatically ipso facto. qui occidit. sacer: At homo sacer is est. n. The Pig (n.102 Historia et Ius 353 and cannot be explained as a sacrifice. for in strict ius sacrum the transgressor became sacer automatically upon committing his impious crime.v. 4–5. but certainly in the meaning “by sword”. Mommsen. pp. We have to remember that the carrying of weapons was not allowed in the city: in urbe and in publico. and it must have been for a very special reason that he covered his head. as sacer. very ably defends the ritual interpretation. {Badian. Religion und Kultus (n. 56 Festus 424 L. Three Fragments (n. Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899).g. 564 n. Perhaps. n.} 57 The claim repeated in Tiberius Gracchus (n. 657–58 n. 271–72}. hence rather a fuller formula. 270. The iudicatio of the popular assembly would establish that fact. next would follow the sacratio and the execution. and was identified as an official person by his praetexta. Again all quotations in the text are taken from these pages. Gr.6) says that more than three hundred of the followers of Tiberius were slain by blows from sticks and stones. damnas) which effected the transformation of the status of the person concerned. 109). 25).55 He points out that at the end of his life Tiberius could be regarded. 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. testis. pp. Of the studies that have appeared after Earl’s book. n. 223 n. 9). 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. Tradition and Apostasy (Ithaca 1978).60 Plutarch and Appian do not describe this rite. 365–410. Die Devotion der Decier. It must suffice to show that Earl’s explanation is moving in the right realm”.3. however alien this half might appear to him. 76 n. “Phoenix” 28 (1974). 183. Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford 1967). the classic study by L. “We are here – Badian writes – “on ground that is wholly non-rational: a complex of primitive emotion and (to us) alien mysticism. Cf. 150–51). but unfortunately he amalgamates velatio and cinctus Gabinus (cf. who speaks vaguely (and incorrectly) of “the possible significance of the cinctus Gabinus”. 59 Historians have been in general reluctant to enter this “alien” and “non-rational” ground.7. 237. p. “Five Pronouncements” (n. and see now H. Bernstein. but he certainly did not excogitate the story of Nasica’s velatio – in fact we do not know if he ever mentioned it. pp. Perhaps another approach is needed. H. Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford 1968). so also A. pp. The historian cannot abdicate half of his patrimony. 8.59 VII. the sacred boundary of the city which included the Capitol though not the Arx). 10. Stockton. Guittard. 194–95 (reprinted in: Eadem. {Regrettably equally pedestrian is also the account by A. pp. Sacrilege or not. Gracchus presented in his speech the murder of Tiberius as a brutal sacrilege. The Gracchi (New York 1968).The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 103 354 inally only within the pomerium. 43. 60). C. and least likely. Beiheft (1905).4–10. H. A. p. The devotio need not detain us for too long. “Archiv für Religionswissenschaft” 8. p. The Gracchi (Oxford 1979). Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century BC at Rome.9. 66–81. C. And finally D. Rawson. et le .} 60 Liv. However it might have been. Boren. Accius. Gracchus “who first put the known facts together into a picture of brutal and sacrilegious parody”. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. S. grants that Nasica appeared in the sacrificial dress of the pontifex maximus. The same confusion in E. p. Versnel. they were preparing for a fight but not for a war or coup d’état. the interpretatio of the Gracchani does not enlighten us a bit as to the real significance of Nasica’s gesture when he capite velato proceeded against Tiberius. Lintott. admits the possibility that Nasica’s velatio “was intended to suggest that he was ready to offer a religious sacrifice—in the person of Tiberius”. 65. 69. And finally. Few people will contest that C. E. “Mnemosyne” 29 (1976). 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. 217–26. 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. Tite Live. Astin. below. Deubner. pp. Two Types of Roman Devotio. p. Roman Culture and Society [Oxford 1991]. We must not despair. and in Bauman. W. The Gracchans and their opponents were armed with clubs and sticks. in a frightening display of sober-mindedness proclaims himself impervious to any fancy theories of a symbolic significance of Nasica’s gesture. perhaps it was C. pp. Lawyers (n. the essential feature of which was the girding up of the toga. 77–78. pp. G. Hommages à Henri Le Bonniec: Res sacrae (“Collection Latomus” 201 [Bruxelles 1988]). 421. and rituel de la deuotio.63 and this leads us back to the toga of Nasica. sacrificium and supplicium). On the other hand. 606–7.62 By this act the miscreant was abandoned to the gods to be destroyed by their wrath – which guided a human hand. His action was not meant as either devotio. A. Das Privatleben der Römer2 (Leipzig 1877). twisted? This question opens the gates to the land of death. 163–70. To my knowledge the first scholar to speak of the consecratio of Tiberius was A. Roman Costumes (n. pp. in: Du châtiment dans la cité. p. the consecratio capitis. 379 n. 61 Cf. Porte and J. p. 39). pp. Idem. Violence (n. Caput velare (n. 62 On this ritual. the oath taking. 560–62. Appian’s t“ parasÆmƒ toË sxÆmatow to refer to the purple border of the toga praetexta. Five Pronouncements (n. Badian. 1).-P. pp. The cinctus Gabinus. Fiori. 273–74 (but it is incorrect to describe consecratio as a “sacrificial act”). Fless. F. G.104 355 Historia et Ius There was no reason for Nasica to devote himself to do away with Tiberius. “CRAI” (1984). We are at the crossroads of politics. took. 9–30. Lintott. Bauman. See also the excellent short account in her book The Roman Goddess Ceres (Austin 1996). pp. Nisbet. Dalla “consecratio” alla “publicatio bonorum” (Napoli 1990). 16–20. observes in passing that the gesture of Nasica “presumably . 725. in: D. he was not an imperator. p. Why did the author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium describe his toga as contorta. has astutely remarked that “the actual killing of Tiberius corresponds in certain important ways to a consecratio capitis”. also speaks of sacratio. 91. 40). More recently B. Homo sacer (Napoli 1996). Tulli Ciceronis De Domo Sua ad Pontifices Oratio (Oxford 1939). but she did not provide a detailed elaboration. undoubtedly rightly. Stanley Spaeth. R. 59). esp. pp. 581–600. we remember. is not to be conflated with the simple velatio. Cf. F. Marquardt. M.. decided to refrain from any definition.g. but unfortunately he did not follow up this thread. Dubourdieu. pp. Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadrömischen historischen Reliefs (Mainz 1995). 9). Deux définitions du cinctus Gabinus chez Servius. there is no trace in the sources concerning Nasica and Tiberius. see J. Tiberius Gracchus (n. 192–93. see e. religion and law. 5 (this note is misleading for most authors there cited speak of consecratio only in general and not specifically of the consecratio of Tiberius). p. de domo 124 (with reference to consecratio bonorum). 153. and for still ampler literature.). pp. “Historia” 39 (1990). It was consecratio. The Goddess Ceres and the Death of Tiberius Gracchus. Cf. 183. pp. . R. and above all. No. was meant to authenticate the consecratio”. 60–63 (he does not distinguish clearly between sacratio. Our inquiry carries us straight into a strange land. pp. Linderski in the review of Du châtiment. but refuses to assign any ritual significance in this respect to the “misterioso gesto di Nasica”. with ample literature. Néraudau (eds. 232 n. Crifò. quae adversus exulem agitur”. “CP” 82 (1987). Mellor in his rather bad book Les conceptions du crime politique sous la république Romaine (Paris 1934). “Exilica causa. 456–80. VIII. But of the most important feature of a coniuratio. coniuratio (as some had thought61) or sacrifice. 76–78 (but again no discussion of the sources and terminology). and hence he was not entitled to perform this ceremony. 63 Cic. 221. Bonfante Warren. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (“Collection de l’École Française de Rome” 79 [Rome 1984]). 7 {reprinted in this volume. 18}. J. The officiant performed this awesome rite capite velato. the land of sacred laws. pp. cf. Kornemann and Tod. 8). pp. Salerno.. Freier. sacrosanctity and open killings of men forfeited to a deity. pp. 210–11. p. 55–56. O. (ed. then. iam candidus umbo. 40).11. 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. 77 (1970).67 the clavus of the velatus and praetextatus would be very well visible. 179 n. the famous “Arringatore”. 65 Fr.64 so that apparently it was not possible to distinguish between the inner and the outer side of the toga praetexta. M. Goethert and Bonfante do not go into this question. A. 77. If we accept the information of the Scholia that also the umbo of the toga praetexta was white. Amelung. Abt”. “YCS” 19 (1966). Fittschen. contrary to what Heuzey attempted to prove. however.69 On the statue of the so-called “Etruscan Orator”. ein römischer Bürger?. 69 Heuzey. 5. H. 245–52 (the chapter on the toga goes back to his articles published still in 1897).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. 66). and literary sources offer little or no help. and in fact this seems to be a common (though not always clearly articulated) belief. to have been unaware. Wilson. cf. pp. Palmer. 67 Cf. quotes Persius. pp. alioquin et in praetexta candidus umbo est. Erklärender Text zu den Tafeln XVI bis XX von S. But let us continue. Heuzey. [Leipzig 1843]. 590. Roman Costumes (n. 1654–55. Histoire du costume antique (Paris 1922). p. 252. as most historians still are. Nevertheless the reaction had been slow in coming. Amelung based his view on an analysis of monuments from the imperial period only. however. in an unpublished article. Der ‘Arringatore’.70 in Florence. Die Gewandung der alten Griechen und Römer. . “RE” 6A (1937). Bonfante Warren. Goethert. Yet more than seventy years ago Léon 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. W. 47. for instance the statue of the so-called “Arringatore”. p.68 The representations of the clavus are indeed confusing. Thus the theory of Heuzey and Amelung not only does not contradict. Heuzey adduced both republican and imperial sculptures and paintings. E. p. p. Roman Costumes (n.66 So far so good: as it was the upper hem that was pulled up from behind to cover the back of the head. Sat. 612–13 (with further literature). see below in the text. 324): Candidus umbo. W. Röm. The clavus appears to have been woven into the toga itself. Richardson. There existed. Jahn. E. p. there is a clear indication of a broad border at 64 L. 66 L. Ad Cohibendum Bracchium Toga: An Archaeological Examination of Cicero. for the theory of Wilson. 591. 40). They seem. we must place the purple border at the elliptic edge. and n. but he also interpreted away or rejected those monuments which did not square with his idea. The Roman Toga (Baltimore 1924). “MDAI. argues persuasively that the statue does not represent an orator but a magistrate (or a priest) in the act of oath-taking. Tabulae quibus antiquitates Graecae et Romanae illustrantur (Leipzig 1903). It is only recently that Klaus Fittschen has attempted to uphold a directly opposite view: the purple border ran along the rounded lower edge. Cybulski. referring to the toga pura of a boy who had just laid down his praetexta. Histoire du costume (n. Toga. sunekdoxik«w pro toga. but perhaps even supports the interpretation of Kornemann and Tod. Scholia ad loc. Bonfante Warren. pp. 260. Richardson and L. But it is generally agreed that umbo here stands as pars pro toto. Pro Caelio 5. 17. of the controversy surrounding the clavus of the toga praetexta.33. pp. 70 R. 35–36. a clear difference between the upper and the lower edge: the former was cut straight. 68 K. They depict a scene from Etruscan history. which strangely enough have not been fully utilized in this context. 20. a border at the lower hem also seems to be represented on the republican statue of a togatus in Copenhagen. 72 Plin. XXI and esp. slides down behind him.106 Historia et Ius 358 the lower rim of the toga. 211. 141–42.73 Yet it would be premature to conclude that Fittschen is right. pp. “JDAI” 100 (1985). p. Hist. with its red trimming standing out at the upper edge and as if encircling his whole figure. colos purpurae fit in statuarum praetextis.2. this is the question. 365–67. of Heuzey. Hence the particular importance of frescoes. 322–72. on the photograph of the statue one can hardly see any clear indication of the border. Cf.2. but a recent autopsy attests indeed to this location of the clavus: see H. 1. It may have been colored. 7. 141–42. offers a fascinating historical interpretation of the paintings. Laris Papathnas of Volsinii. apparently in their sleep. pp. Early Rome (n. Reuterswärd. 34. pp. L. Gabelmann. no. Alföldi. 74 F. 188–89. and it is not discernible at all on the heads of the velati. the assailant. 324–30. 223. 68). support the conclusion derived tentatively from the arrangement of the toga of the “Arringatore”. drives his sword into Pesna’s bare chest. Arringatore (n. see Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. but equally fascinating interpretation by F. 17. but he drew no conclusion and offered no solution. 221–31. 46). Coarelli. Dohrn. The white mantle of Pesna Arcmsnas. Römische Kinder in toga praetexta. see Varro in Nonius 867–68 L. Description des revêtements peints à sujets religieux (“Exploration archéologique de Délos” 9 [Paris 1926]). Nat. p. 528. 40). Heuzey and Amelung wrong. esp. For the old custom of using the toga also as the night dress. La religion domestique dans la colonie Italienne de Délos (“BEFAR” 131 [Paris 1926]). plates 18. Bulard. pourtant si logique. by their enemies. 21. pp. 526 n. plate 40. p. Nekropolen von Vulci (“JDAI Ergänzungsheft” 12 [Berlin 1930]). Messerschmidt. Una proposta di lettura. but the trabea was not white. 138–78. maintains that it corresponded to the Roman trabea. 611. According to Fittschen. XIX. pp.72 but no trace of paint is visible today. Le pitture della tomba François a Vulci. esp. A group of aristocratic warriors are surprised. 46. 29 n. Bonfante. pp. and speaks of the “separation at the time of the Gracchi of the knights from the patriciate” (p. Der Arringatore (“Monumenta Artis Romanae” 8 [Berlin 1968). The late republican paintings from Delos. H. p. Gabelmann. Bonfante Warren. Die ritterliche trabea. “Dialoghi di Archeologia” 2 (1983).71 Whether it was a purple border. pp. 137–53. 43–69. 73 M. 21. plates VII 2. pp. 190–91. was clad for the night in an identical mantle. “JDAI” 92 (1977). 82-83. Bulard registers his surprise that the paintings from Delos contradict the theory.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. esp. In his other book. p. plates 9 and 10. Rasce of Vulci. Billedtavler til Kataloget over Antike Kunstvaerker (Copenhagen 1907). Early Rome (n. Studien zur Polychromie der Plastik. 179 n. Roman Costumes (n. Unfortunately Gabelmann’s reconstruction of the historical development of the trabea and toga praetexta as symbols of rank is marred by serious misconceptions. Revixit Ars (Roma 1996). 3. He confuses the patriciate and the nobility. plates 2. Etruscan Dress (Baltimore 1975). 75 Alföldi.98: Cyprio si addatur plumbum. reprinted in: Idem. esp. Also another victim. 134. . and above all P. On Delos the purple border is consistently depicted at the lower edge of the toga. The magnificent wall paintings from the Tomba François in Vulci seem to offer equally decisive support to the theory of Heuzey and Amelung. 369). See now a different. 46). drawn over his head. Griechenland und Rom (Stockholm 1960). Bonfante (Madison 1994).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.30. quo magistratus. The Roman Toga (n. lines 2–4): ego vobis allego etiam ipsum [ipsum illud SB] sacrum praetextarum. 78 E. . S. but he acknowledged her idea in a subsequent paper Römische Kinder in toga praetexta. 64). 80 (Ps. offers no discussion of the problem. R. Der römische Genius (“MDAI. Min.. 345. “MAAR” 14 (1937). 20 Ergänzungsheft [Heidelberg 1974]). See also W.78 This is attractive and perhaps probable. pp. H. “JDAI” 94 (1979).79 “I bring to your attention” – we read in a declamatio – “the very sanctity of togas bordered with purple. 54.2 (no. 67). Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer (Kristiania 1915). 349). by J. pp. 83–84. The Toga: From National to Ceremonial Costume. p. On the Toga Praetexta of Roman Children. 509. R. Richardson and L. 63). pp. p. Roman Essays and Interpretations (Oxford 1920).77 An Augustan reform of official costumes is appealing. 64). 349 (p. 596–98. “CR” 10 (1896). quo infirmitatem pueritiae sacram facimus ac venerabilem. decl. Cf. it prominently had also an apotropaic function enclosing and protecting the most treasured members of the society: children. 5. Röm.. and above all Pers. pp. 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. but one is more reluctant to admit with Gabelmann the migration of the clavus. in this article he does not quote Wilson. 13–45. Ad Cohibendum Bracchium Toga (n. which envelops priests. p. Ein Eques Romanus auf einem afrikanischen Grabmosaik. Eitrem. 374. Kunckel. quo sacerdotes velantur. tab. 100 (1985). 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. 100–101. Goette. Besides denoting the social position. 356. its value was symbolic and magical. a rank. 67). Stone. Sebesta and L. It now appeared prominently in the umbo and sinus. priests and magistrates. p. Ibid. 79 Cf. L. cf. p. 211). Boyce. 31 (L. Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen (Mainz 1990). Ritter [Lipsiae 1884]). political and religious.80 The toga praetexta was not simply and solely a garment or even an official attire. No discussion of the clavus. p. Fowler. 77 Wilson. 33 (L.2 (no. pp. of a boy. 34 (L. and stood out at the velatio. Corpus of the Lararia of Pompeii. Shackleton Bailey [Stuttgardiae 1989]. where the purpura is described as the guardian. in some of 76 G. 75. 308. K. plate 19. Decl. This idea has now been accepted by H. pp. 526–27. Wunderlich. p.76 No perspicacity is required to see that neither the theory of Heuzey and Amelung nor that of Fittschen does justice to the monuments. Sat. H. Richardson. E. custos. H. 332. lines 10–13 and D. the red border prominently displayed at the upper rim. 20). 317–19. 90–100 (a corpus of Genii capite velato). 29 (the House of the Vettii). Gabelmann. Abt”. in: The World of Roman Costume. Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Griechen und Römer (“Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten” 20 [Giessen 1925]). 54. 42–52. p. magistrates. reprinted with additions in: Idem. S. lines 9–10 SB). and by which we render the tenderness of childhood sacred and inviolate”.)-Quint. but with the advent under Augustus of a much more voluminous toga it was transferred to the upper straight rim. 35 (L. ed. lines 21–22 Ritter. W. pp. plate 30. The purple border was not just a decoration that could be moved at will. 261. pp. 5. p. 340 (see the Teubner editions by C. and the other with the border at the lower edge.34–36. 59.7. It would be tempting to uphold the belief that the purple trimming was woven into both hems of the toga praetexta. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf. Griechisches Lesebuch vol. but would also have freed his legs from the folds of the toga. 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). Palmer (n. but the cumulative evidence of the “Arringatore” and above all of the paintings from Delos tells strongly against any such assumption. In this way he would not only have attracted the attention of the people. Yet the arrangement of clavus is bound to bear upon our interpretation of Nasica’s gesture. Vogue was no reason. 178–84.108 Historia et Ius 360 its applications and manifestations it appeared as a holy object. p. but it is not an elegant explanation for it leaves unresolved the contradiction between the various representations of the clavus. We might suppose that the former was the attire of kings. his senatorial (or patrician) shoes and the stripes on his tunica. 60). 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.2. 34. 82 Liv. It is therefore very doubtful that Augustus and the pontiffs. This privilege is attested for municipal magistrates82 and it would provide an obvious explanation for the border on the toga of the “Arringatore”. this we can infer from his ring. Horat. . 1. Arringatore (n. II part 1 (Berlin 1929). This would have robbed the gesture of Nasica of much of its dramatic prominence. just possible. the velatio capitis with the cinctus Gabinus (cf. 70). Sat. that there existed more than one sort of toga praetexta: one with the border at the upper edge. who were in charge of the res sacrae. At this juncture one might be tempted to leave the clavus by itself and issue a cautious verdict of non liquet. The border on his toga identifies him as a (local) magistrate or priest. 68). should have contemplated and still less carried out any innovation in religious symbolism without an overwhelmingly compelling reason. It is possible.83 A number of testimonies refer to the toga praetexta of the magistri vicorum. a thing of some practical importance as he was leading the attack against the Gracchani. Cicero and Asconius state expressly that the magistri of vici and collegia were praetextati when they celebrated the feast 81 U. 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. however. It would have been a highly unusual and awkward gesture. 83 Fittschen. pp. above. 78.5.68) may have had this unusual arrangement of the toga in mind when he described Nasica’s attire as contorta toga. but perhaps Nasica meant it to be so. The person whom the statue represents was undoubtedly a member of the local aristocracy. nn. Wilamowitz confuses. We have to explore other avenues. As far as Nasica is concerned this might be regarded a perfect explanation. And the Auctor ad Herennium (4. magistrates and priests (this would fit the velatio of Nasica) and also of deities (this would account for the representation of Genius in Pompeii). unless of course – as Wilamowitz thought81 – he chose to cover his head with the lower hem of his toga. A Latin phrase may offer a clue to the mystery of the peripatetic purple stripe. Plin. Kultus (n. and also H. La Follette. pp. des Ant. pp. 8. 12. 15}. pp. vol. quite on the contrary when Livy says that even a most humble sort of men. 58. had the right to wear the toga praetexta. 85 So A. Die Amtstracht der Vestalinnen. pp. Wissowa. 42). This is hardly likely. No. La religion domestique (n. hist. Magistri. 73). Paulus (Fest. the magistri vicorum. “Dict.169: magistratus et sacrificaturi togam praetextam habent (Bulard cites neither of these texts). p.12 (Hermeros threatens Ascyltos): nisi te toga ubique perversa fuero persecutus. see R. 911–12 {reprinted in this volume. magistratis vicorum. “RhM” 51 (1896)..7. On suffibulum. we may well seek the reason for the startling lack of consistency in the representation of its border not in the vogue. 35. A. 9. in: Gesellschaft und Recht im griechischrömischen Altertum. First of all. 828–29. 34. Petronius knows it as a proverbial saying. No. though not impossible. Yet both texts probably refer to the public cult. 143 L) says that the women (mulieres) sacrificed to Mutinus Titinus (on this deity.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. Roman Empire and Roman Religion [Philadelphia 1974]. 57–59. 291–94. Roman Questions (n.e. and Serv. Der Staat und die Vereine. Liv. above. Palmer. ad loc. togae praetextae habendae ius permittemus. E. n. Pis. Grenier. as far as the social division is concerned.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. The persons wearing the toga praetexta are almost certainly to be interpreted as the kompetaliasta¤. Linderski.84 The paintings from Delos provide an eloquent illustration to the literary sources. p. 87 Liv. 196) that the mulieres worshipped this god of fertility with their heads covered with suffibulum (as the Vestals were dressed during their sacrifices). most of them freedmen. 77). but rather in the cult and religio. offering the sacrifices. Cf. 88 Petr. 42.85 i. Schriften der Sektion für Altertumswissenschaft” 52 [Berlin 1968]). class or rank. Asc. The literary sources do not allude to any such distinction. Sat. pp. magistri compitales. They show the togati and velati. Dragendorff.127: (purpura) dis advocatur placandis.2-3.The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 109 of the Compitalia and arranged the ludi compitalicii. saw clearly that it was the puellae who “vor der Eheschliessung zum letzten Male noch in ihrer Mädchenkleidung opferten”. 361 IX. pp. and Addenda. Toga perversa persequi meant to hound one down to the bitter end. were separated from the municipal magistrates by as broad a gulf as the latter from the senatorial aristocracy. disagrees: any person could wear the toga praetexta when sacrificing. Nat. reprinted in: Idem. The Costume of the Roman Bride. cf. Idem. pp. “OCD3” (1996). 186–87. 186–206. 108. Religion u. 646–47 {and in this volume Addenda altera to RQ. I (“Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften. 11). This is certainly a better explanation than Palmer’s idea (p. If we consider that the toga praetexta was a holy garment.7. the foremen of wards. some of them praetextati. Paulus here uses the term mulieres incorrectly. 115–16. 179. 86 See J. Servius comments on Vergil’s puraque in veste sacerdos.” 5. Vicomagister. 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. 243. L.2: hic Romae infimo generi. pp.1}. 270–76) velatae togis praetextatis. 34. in: The World of Roman Costume (n. . auct ad Aen. p. 30. Bulard.88 84 Cic. 7 Clark. but shall display such countenance and shall be of such mind as I might if I were cutting down snakes or any venomous creatures. Cicero. Strafrecht (n. and committed suicide by choking himself to death with the help of a towel when he observed that (the praetor) M. p. 146–47 (“Loeb Class. 6. et illa sollemnia verba leni magis gravique quam rabida voce concipiam et agi iubebo non iratus sed severus.16.7 in the section discussing unusual circumstances of death.10 and Tac. quo serpentes et animalia venenata percutio. put off his praetexta and was about to read out the verdict (cum M. Moral Essays I. de ira 1. . 916 n. 58).3. Strafrecht (n. 90 On the formula lege age. sine ira eo voltu animoque ero. the historian and the father of Licinius Calvus the orator. p. W. 2. or sew up a parricide in the sack. Seneca. qui id iudicium cogebat. Sénèque. 58). praetextam ponentem vidisset sudario . but with the visage of the law. stood trial for extortion. n. 9. Basore. 6). Dialogues I (“Coll. de ling. see Mommsen. sed voltu legis. pp. procedam in tribunal non furens nec infestus. Et cum cervicem noxio imperabo praecidi et cum parricidas insuam culeo et cum mittam in supplicium militare et cum Tarpeio proditorem hostemve publicum imponam. p.2. This follows with all clarity from Seneca. 91 This passage is regularly mistranslated. Bourgery. Mommsen. prints “or send a soldier to his doom”. p. 89). Ann. 1.32. a balcony. and I shall pronounce those solemn words in a voice gentle and grave rather than furious.90–92. de mortibus non vulgaribus. 362 Here also belongs the text of Valerius Maximus 9. A. Ciceronem. Library” [1928]). Strafrecht (n. but to the summoning of the comitia centuriata to try a person charged with a capital offence. Seneca. 916–18. are unreliable. cum mittam in supplicium militare refers to the beheading in the military fashion with the sword. 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. pp. a passage that deserves to be reproduced in full: itaque. Cum cervicem noxio imperabo praecidi refers to the traditional Roman method of beheading with the axe. This does not make any sense.12. 4. I shall show no anger. compares Seneca. 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. or send a person to be executed in a military way 91 or stand a traitor or public enemy upon the Tarpeian Rock. above. 916 n. When the sententiae of the jurors were counted. Licinius Macer. Macer preferred to die as an accused (reus) and not as a damnatus. who presided over the court. Basore. does not belong here for the commentarium vetus anquisitionis which he quotes does not refer to the execution of a criminal. 20. Varro. ore et faucibus suis coartatis incluso spiritu poenam morte praecurrit). has “quand j’enverrai au supplice réservé aux soldats”. in this way he was able to save his property 89 The translation and comments by J. Contr. And when I command that a criminal be beheaded. 149. Budé” [Paris 1951]). Cf. Macer retreated to a maenianum. I. and when I order to carry out (the law)90 I shall not be angry but stern. et si perversa induenda magistratui vestis et convocanda classico contio est. Moral Essays (n.. 58).89 I shall proceed to the tribunal not in rage nor in rancor.. Mommsen. Lat.5.110 Historia et Ius but the expression itself stems from the legal practice and the language of law. 923–25. It is true that Seneca refers to the robe of the magistrate at the carrying out of the actual execution. Studi di storia romana e diritto (Roma 2001). La morte del reo nel procedimento de repetundis. the accusing and the presiding magistrate was one and the same person. 97) the magistrates purpuras ponunt. Staatsrecht. the convicted being allowed to go into exile. Of course in some cases. 58]. praetextam ponere automatically implied togam perversam induere. p. Two texts are of importance here.e. 62 ff. 95 Mommsen. mistakenly states that it was the accusing magistrate (der anklagende Magistrat) who wore his toga reversed. Petroniana. Friedländer. esp. I3 (n. with a postilla. Quite similarly at the funeral procession of Germanicus the magistrates appear sine insignibus. 6 (1891–1893). 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.93 When Cicero put off his praetexta. 48). 3.1). Cf. Untersuchungen zur Verbannung in der Antike (Padeborn 1978). pp. p. p. and the fasces are reversed. 916.92 There exists an obvious similarity between the situations described by Valerius Maximus and by Seneca. I3 (n. pp. . 7. the togae pullae. “Philologus” Suppl. Not all are of this opinion. 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. 77–80. Valerius Maximus speaks of the pronouncement of the verdict of guilty in a standing court. 3. Grasmück. fasces retro avertunt. p. and thus the verdict of guilty. but see now a cogent defense of the anecdote and of its legal implications by U. Klebs. 911). “ANRW” I. Laffi. and the presiding magistrate functioned not only as a judge but also as an investigator. 419. 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. back to 92 This story is valid only if in the late republican period the poena repetundarum was capital. When Cicero learnt of Macer’s death he did not pronounce the verdict (de eo nihil pronuntiavit). Laffi. Strafrecht (n. At the ceremony of aquaelicium (cf. Gladigow.94 Seneca solves this puzzle. Strafrecht [n. p. below. Mommsen.4. versi (Tac. 96 In the light of other sources there can be no doubt that by vestis Seneca denotes the magisterial toga praetexta. As the next step Cicero would have donned his toga as the vestis perversa. they put off their praetextae. and the convicted by going into exile was losing his caput in its sense of the existence as a citizen.The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus 111 363 from confiscation and preserve it for his family. 80. as in the old procedure of inquisitio and anquisitio.. 2 (1972). L. Staatsrecht. 58). 663–65. But the accusation of extortion was a capital charge.2. he certainly did not preside over the court clad only in a tunic. 231-256 (with ample literature){reprinted in U. Now in the republican quaestiones perpetuae the verdict of guilty was not followed by any physical execution. In fact this is a very unlikely proposition. E. i. 559-585. Exilium. de ieiunio 16). Mommsen argued that the expressions togam (praetextam) ponere and togam perversam induere were synonymous: one put off one’s praetexta by wearing it reversed. Petronii Cena Trimalchionis2 (Leipzig 1906). 93 Cf. n. pp. p. Mommsen’s idea has recently been revived by B. L. pp. Hence the swift reaction of the unfortunate and desperate Macer. 95–98. 586}. This can mean one of the three things: he could wear it inside out. 306. 48). Die sakralen Funktionen der Liktoren. 419 n. “put off their purple” and “reverse the fasces” (Tert. 94 Mommsen. E. Ann. Thus in the context of court procedure and the capital charge. 307 n. a function that belonged in the system of the quaestiones to the accusator. in: “Studi in onore di Albino Garzetti” (Brescia 1996). p.2. they had their fasces reversed (Tert. “unadorned standards” and “reversed fasces”. when the magistrates walked in a solemn procession to entreat Jupiter to produce rain. Idem. 105–23. cf. 117–39. 307 n. Annalen.2. Religion und Kultus (n. 72–89.101 then it would be wholly appropriate for the Genius to 97 Tac. Roman funeral customs corroborate this interpretation. Sibyllinische Blätter (Berlin 1890). pp.98 The world of the dead was an upside down copy of the world of the living: versi fasces. pp. Scheid. however. 3. et vidi versos iudiciumque mali. de ieiunio 16.) quoniam antiqui nostri omnia contraria in funere faciebant. Guarducci. “Archiv für Religionswissenschaft” 9 (1906). 42–57. 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. The first two arrangements would hardly have produced a desired effect. Samter. esp. 101 This is not the place to enter into the controversy concerning the origin and the nature of the cult of Lares. (Cornelius Tacitus. Sezione di Archeologia e Storia Antica” 6 (1984). 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. Diels. Cippo latino arcaico con dedica ad Enea. versa arma and the toga perversa are manifestations of this very widespread belief. pp. also F. 419) compares Epicedium Drusi 142: quos primum vidi fasces. Also at the ceremony of aquaelicium. “MDAI.-G. Eadem.100 If the cult of Lares and of Genius was connected at least in some of its manifestations with the cult of ancestors. Koestermann ad loc. pp. by incompta signa. Das Phänomen der verkehrten Welt in der griechisch-römischen Antike (Klagenfurt 1970). See J. 100). Die sakralen Funktionen der Liktoren (n. (Serv. He says that at funerals the ancients did everything in a reversed way. Röm. 52–57. Familienfeste der Griechen und Römer (Berlin 1901).2. Kenner. 312 n. of an archaic dedication to Lar Aineias or Aenias seems to have tilted the scales in favor of Samter’s theory of a connection between the Lares and the cult of ancestors. Wissowa. esp 119. n. 137–38. The warriors of the Tomba François are depicted at the very moment of their death. Aen. p. G. and E. von Duhn. Enea e Vesta. Aen. important to note that the discovery in ca. pp. and hence it is not surprising to see the red border over their heads.93: versis Arcades armis. above. 1–24.” 77 . Ibid. pp. pp. See M. Röm. 80. E. Lare Aineia?. I [Heidelberg 1963]. 94). in funere vidi. as Tacitus reports. Idem. It is. non cuspidem contra terram tenentes. Rot und Tot. When the body of Germanicus was carried through Italy to Rome the hearse was preceded. 166–75. “BCAR” 76 (1956–58). not far from Lavinium. 11. Kolbe. Ann.97 Still more telling is the comment of Servius auctus on Vergil. Contraria facere: renversements et déplacements dans les rites funéraires. Die Anfänge des römischen Larenkultes.99 The pictorial representations of the clavus are not opposed to this reconstruction. see Gladigow. 1947 in Tor Tignosa. 42). see the classic studies by H. Familienfeste (n. “Archiv für Religionswissenschaft” 10 (1907). Abt.” 78 (1971). 99 See H. pp.93: lugentum more mucronem hastae. 94). 1–13. Cf. versi fasces. Der Ursprung des Larenkultes. pp. 11. On a possible connection of aquaelicium with the underworld. the high point of which was the famous dispute between Samter and Wissowa at the beginning of the last century: see Samter. Abt. 98 Serv. where she responded to the objections raised by H. pp. 69–70. 95–102. “the Arcadians with arms reversed”. 368–92. 126–27. auct. 100 On the symbolic connection between death and the red color. “AION. pp. pp. 7 (1904). 117.112 Historia et Ius 364 front or upside down. vol. “MDAI. it certainly was not so pronounced as to be easily discernible at a distance. Gabelmann. has Nasica utter it on the way to the temple. Les leges sacratae: esquisse historique. The dream of a veiled Genius portended death to emperor Julian. see G. 598).68.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. Commentary (n. 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. Ogilvie. {and most recently B. 103). A Commentary on Livy.54. iudex atque arbiter rerum divinarum humanarumque?104 Gracchus was holding his gathering (contio) in the area Capitolina. 25.105 It was at that moment (if we are to believe the Auctor ad Herennium) that Nasica appeared running out of Jupiter’s temple. 77]. Pontifex maximus — iudex atque arbiter rerum divinarum humanarumque. Also Velleius Paterculus (2. and proposed a corrected reading Lare Aenia (p. even at the sacrifice. Appian. “Euphrosyne” 25 (1997) 61–84}. Cf. apparently this was the usual arrangement of the praetexta. M. 361–72.. But there is a problem: the Genius wears his colored border on the straight (upper) nor the elliptical (lower) edge of the toga (cf. p. be forfeited to Jupiter. 73). Marc. Gr. the guarantor of the constitution.). and of those who injured the tribunes of the plebs. Herzog. X. 176). circumdata laevo brachio togae lacinia ex superiore parte Capitolii summis gradibus insistens hortatus est.68. in front of the temple of Jupiter. H. p.. Die lex sacrata und das sacrosanctum. Festus 200 L. Corn.106 We know that the meeting of the senate (1970). place this proclamation in the senate.103 And who was better qualified to pronounce the curse than the pontifex maximus. 240–46. pp.3. the fine study by Z.102 And finally this theory would provide a marvelous explanation of Nasica’s gesture and of Appian’s text. Ein Eques [n. 500–503. Ti. Books 1–5 (Oxford 1965). On the togas of the sacrificing praetextati at the Delian Compitalia the clavi were consistently represented at the lower edge. La religion domestique (n. has observed. cf. Wissowa himself observed that the Genius often appears to continue the existence of the dead person in the netherworld (Religion u. Freier. the leges sacratae.2. Z˘migryder-Konopka. Kultus. 150–53. 3. 1–9. Cf. See also R.5. So Liv. p. the pontifex maximus.17.(16). 140–43. pp. the painters in Pompeii “usent parfois d’une grande liberté” in their representations of the praetexta of the Genii. 3.3.2. 494–95. 1. deos inciperet precari. He began the proceedings with the traditional prayer to the gods. pp. “Jahrbücher für classische Philologie” 22 (1876). 4. 252. Thus when Nasica displayed the purple border on his veiled head this was a striking arrangement: he was loudly proclaiming that he. ad Her. prescribed that the heads of those who attempted to establish tyranny (adfectatio regni). Enée et Lavinium (“Coll. But it is possible that the toga with the border at the upper edge was ritually described as toga perversa. standing on its steps. 19. (in Asc. pp. It is logical to assume 365 102 103 104 105 106 .3 and Liber de vir. 80). pp.1-2) places Nasica on the podium of the temple: Tum Scipio Nasica . evolat e templo Iovis. As Bulard. For further discussion and further literature. pp. Amm. ill. The old religious and public regulations of the Republic. 4. Plut. Cic. 77 C. Dury-Moyaers.7. Liou-Gille. still the most convenient collection of all pertinent texts. 64. qui salvam vellent rem publicam. civ. was proceeding to consecrate Tiberius and his followers to the wrath of the gods. 39). Rhet. se sequerentur (Val. Latomus” 174 [Bruxelles 1981]). E. Bell. pp. Max. Ogilvie. 53 n. “Eos” 34 (1932/33). Caput velare (n. Fides (n. 43–60. the classic study by M. 159–60. {The miscreant was forfeited to a particular deity: cf. the temple and not the hill. 1. reprinted in Idem. took to flight” 109 and – a visible testimony to the power of the Gods – Tiberius fell. 7). This does not mean that Nasica and his followers ran up the hill (as Meyer thought [n. Kleine Schriften [Weimar 1974] 87-89). like an oath. See Gabba. fugere coepit. tÚ Kapit≈lion denotes here. contagio. fragmine subsellii ictus vitam . had to be solemnly uttered. W. 4. 268–73. pp. Idem. Der Fidestempel auf dem Kapitol in Rom und seine Ausstattung (Roma 1993). Nasica’s curse proved more potent than Gracchus’ prayer. 30). qui quid adversus ea fecerit. “RE” 24 [1964] 765–68. Tum optimates. 19. Die Quellen zur Geschichte des Tiberius Gracchus (Diss. Ti. 1.1. Appiani liber primus (n. behind the back of Tiberius. et intacta perniciosis consiliis plebs inruere in Gracchum stantem in area cum catervis suis . Kunkel. C. Oros. 4. This was not a simple statement of fact. Cf. pp. Broughton. 61–62.107 Thus Nasica would have first proceeded with a few accomplices to the Capitoline temple. Freyburger. A Polish version (based on lectures delivered in May 1996 at the Universities of Poznanå and Warsaw) was published as a separate pamphlet in the series “Xenia Posnaniensia” (Poznanå 1997). subito timore perterrita..4: §x≈rei prÚw tÚ Kapet≈lion and Appian. his head veiled. . quibus sanctum est.. towering over the crowd. See Plut. pp. 144 n. Le tyrannoctone (n. ad Her. 50. p. he pronounced. 269). Erlangen 1911). and more recently Bilinåski [n. still unfinished. now the color of blood and death. Kaser.68: §w tÚ Kapit≈lion énπesan. Fides populi Romani / Publica. They ran away from the pollution. and before them already G. Cf. civ. and the red border of his toga prominent. H. 157–59. see Coarelli. Le tyrannoctone (n.} On the location of this temple in the south-west part of the area Capitolina. and 147.9. hence here certainly Iovi. R. and see addenda to n. Bell. 30). The Pig (n. S. Rhet. Quaestio. p. 413): sacratae leges sunt.108 and standing on its podium. terrified with sudden fear. and then the people). pp. 3). as often.. They were composed at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton as part of a larger work. spread by the sacer. Riecken. The hospitality of the Institute is here gratefully acknowledged}. p. 249–52. 30].). to the left of the clivus Capitolinus. 5. 128–86 (to be used with caution). {Badian. The vaga multitudo. Gr. Wagenvoort.114 Historia et Ius 366 took place in the temple of Fides. Reusser. p. 265–70. 1). persuasively argues that the final blow was delivered by Scipio Nasica himself. under the gaze of Jupiter himself. pp.68. in: Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae II (Roma 1995). pp. as in the standing courts where the formula was fecisse videri (or sim. Festus 422 Lindsay (as corrected in his edition in Glossaria Latina IV [Paris 1930]. pp. 56. We deal with a curse which. is fugiens decurrensque clivo Capitolino. fig.110 107 108 109 110 that Nasica uttered it at least twice: first he exhorted the senators. senatus atque equestris ordinis pars melior et maior. pp. In this respect we can compare sacratio to the later interdictio aqua et igni (cf. “the fickle multitude. {Early versions go back to the summers of 1972 and 1980. 18]. the dreadful curse of consecration: Iovi sacer esto. and in general on contagio. sacer alicui deorum si<t> (cf. on Tiberius Gracchus and the sacral foundations of the tribunate of the plebs.(16). Roman Dynamism (Oxford 1947).. Kaser 44–45). Das altrömische ius (Göttingen 1949). and in May 1996 at the University of Helsinki. Coarelli. immatura morte finivit.} This paper derives from a lecture delivered in November 1994 in Chapel Hill at a conference devoted to the memory of T. and engaged in systematic plunder. Cotta handed over his army to Lucullus.9 A MISSING PONTICUS* Strange are the ways and byways of scholarship. but nevertheless was followed by an array of eminent scholars. Aurelius Cotta!2 A surprise – for Cotta. who in their trust in the indices were. 149 This account requires comment. More than a decade ago Richard Thomas dispelled the pleasing myth that L. * American Journal of Ancient History 12 (1987 [1995]) 148–166 {with minor corrections and additions. . Here comes the crucial passage (39 = 59 = FGrHist 3B. As Thomas painstakingly argues. besieged in Chalcedon. suffered a humiliating defeat. He talks only of the action taken by the senate. no triumphal name for Lucullus. enraged at being preempted by Triarius. and seems to have been perpetrated” by Orelli in his Onomasticon Tullianum (Turici 1838). As in the original publication. Cotta undertook a siege of Heracleia Pontica. caught off guard. Perusing this script we encounter a Ponticus who was missed (nearly) by all: not Lucullus but his colleague in the consulship (in 74) M. who was blocking with his fleet the harbor of Heracleia. Licinius Lucullus gained for his exploits the triumphal agnomen Ponticus. but the story begins at Heracleia. the commander of the royal garrison and the chief magistrate of the city ultimately entered into secret negotiations with C.366): ı d¢ dØ KÚttaw …w efiw tØn ÑR≈mhn éf¤keto. Soon Cotta and his troops. Triarius and his soldiers immediately proceeded to pillage and murder. It was not. The myth was pleasing for Lucullus clearly deserved this honor. who in the war against Mithridates was in charge of Bithynia and the fleet. and was bogged down for two years. a legate of Lucullus. certainly no less than P. Servilius Vatia who after the capture of Isaura Vetus became Isauricus. arrived on the scene. In the following years when Lucullus pursued Mithridates.1 The story would end here if not a nagging doubt: perhaps. for once. Valerius Triarius. and departed for Rome. Alas. As Memnon records (35–36 = 51–52 = FGrHist 3B.362–64). after all. “the fiction was almost certainly disseminated. there is a source that would show Orelli right. though it took a decade to realize this: Memnon’s History of Heracleia Pontica. Memnon telescopes two separate events: the assumption by Cotta of the title imperator and the assumption of the victorious cognomen Ponticus. he was rescued by Lucullus. the footnotes are printed as endnotes}. set the city aflame. Orelli adduced no sources. The source was obvious. and the city opened its gates on the understanding it would be spared. tim∞w parå t∞w sunklÆtou tugxãnei PontikÚw aÈtokrãtvr kale›yai. the garrison was granted safe passage by sea. loaded the ships with booty and captives. 3 It only acknowledged it.36–38) one fact emerges with clarity: whereas his sententia formally stipulated that the supplicationes be instituted. but this body merely debated whether the acclamatio should be recognized: it was gained in civil war. habere exercitus. and argued that a thanksgiving had never been previously decreed in a civil war. not in context. 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. not cives). 14. and if the three heroes should receive a supplication (the senate in this way de facto admitting that they had fought against hostes. From Cicero’s formal motion (which he fortunately adduces in full. Pansa and Octavian did. then they also ought to be addressed (appellati) by the senate as imperatores (Phil. Caecilius Cornutus) would refer the matter to the senate.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. proposed to honor the three commanders with a supplicatio. Pansa. 14. 14. Pis. not against an external enemy. Instead. A. As proof that the senate occasionally took the initiative in bestowing the title Mommsen adduces Cicero. Macedonia] modo . Servilius Isauricus (cos. 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. L. As Cassius Dio makes plain. the governor of Syria (57–55). Phil. Pansa and Octavian as imperatores whenever he mentioned them in the text of his motion. Cicero simply referred to Hirtius. after the battle of the Forum Gallorum Aulus Hirtius. but he omitted to salute them as imperatores. and Cassius Dio 46. 44: “Ex qua provincia [i. Vibius Pansa and Caesar (Octavian) had been all acclaimed imperatores by the troops. 65] magnis rebus gestis me referente ab senatu5 imperator est appellatus”. Gabinius.. 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- . Cic. Cicero on the other hand refers only to the proceedings in the senate. Attempting to bolster Mommsen’s idea. consul. 71). imperator. In this sense we have also to interpret the passage of Cicero. and L. the consuls of 58. the governor of Macedonia (57–55). 44 Cicero explicitly states that both Gabinius and Piso had been acclaimed imperatores: “Esse duos duces in provinciis populi Romani. And the context of Cicero’s remark is his campaign of vilification against the duo vulturii paludati (Sest.116 Historia et Ius 150 The senate did not grant the title imperator – notwithstanding Mommsen’s assertion to the contrary.1–2.22).11–12. the presiding officer (in their case it was the urban praetor. But our understanding of any enunciation is bound to be flawed if we treat it in isolation. who was the first senator to be asked for his opinion. 54–55). but he misread both texts.38.e.6 This would be the sole and only example of the senate taking the initiative in this matter.22–29). The victorious general received it by acclamatio from his troops. Phil. but also joined the milites in addressing the three commanders as imperatores. M. The first line of his sententia will exemplify the procedure and the terminology: “Cum C. Calpurnius Piso. D. appellari imperatores” (cf. Now Cicero rose. 14..” When the senate accepted this motion it not only approved the supplication. Now at Pis. Torquatus [cos. it contained no explicit proposal that the three generals be given by the senate the title of imperator. P. 48). and his dealings with the senate. 38–39) nuntius ad senatum adlatus est nullus”. 44). but the details of the procedure he envisages had to make sense to his audience. and not by the consul Cicero as envisaged by Broughton). 79) styles himself “Serveilius C. Lucullus.. for it took place within the provincia of Cotta.11 . Torquatus. Piso did not write to the senate because he was afraid that if he styled himself “L. but his interpretation of the procedure is not accurate. he is not yet officially Isauricus. then recited in the senate. nor could his exploit be credited to his superior. Broughton wrote (MRR 1. imperator”. Why indeed this reluctance of Piso to write to the senate of his exploits? Gabinius did write: “ab altero allatae litterae. Thus upon the capture of the city the troops hailed Cotta imperator. 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. Calpurnius Piso imp.e. it was customary to use in official communications the title of imperator. Servilius C. There is no reason to doubt that Torquatus magnis rebus gestis styled himself imperator.[f. On the base of a statue that was apparently carried in his triumphal procession we read: “P. and Cicero followed this custom religiously in his dispatches from Cilicia.R. And at prov. Broughton rightly points to Torquatus’ report. It was only at the fourth stage that a motion (sententia) was formulated (from the floor. he presented the governor’s dispatch as a matter for discussion to the senate. at the moment of his triumph he appears with his cognomen ex victoria.7 After the appellatio. The result was lamentable: Gabinius was refused both the supplication and the triumph. If we wish to know how this sententia was formally crafted we have only to look at Cicero’s sententia in the Fourteenth Philippic.169) that Torquatus “received the title Imperator from the Senate on Cicero’s motion when he reported his achievements”.8 However. cons. Now in an inscription set up after the capture of Isaura Vetus P. recitatae. and it was in response to his communication that he was so appellatus also ab senatu. and he would thus suffer a signal humiliation. and again the familiar rebuke: “te imperatore (cf. Now follows the passage referring to L. 25) Cicero wonders why Piso “non audet nos certiores facere qua re imperator appelletur”. as a third stage Cicero (who happened to be the presiding consul) made his relatio.10 With this theory the report of Memnon stands in striking agreement: upon his return to Rome. 15 (cf.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 senate’s approval of his request to celebrate a triumph. Cicero is a partisan witness. Servilius Vatia (cos. i.S. All this throws light on Cotta’s titles. relatum ad senatum” (Pis. Cotta was addressed by the senate imperator and Ponticus.f. but Triarius as a legate did not have an independent command. Heracleia was in fact taken by Triarius. T.” the senate would fail in its response to address him by this title. Cicero intimates. The dispatch from Torquatus (bringing the news of his victories and his acclamatio) was first (like that from Gabinius) brought to the consuls.] / Isauricus / imperator cepi[t]” (CIL I2 741). Now. whether they acclaimed him also as Ponticus we do not know.A Missing Ponticus 117 151 lam sit ad senatum litteram mittere ausus”. Memnon adds detail. pp. §dÒkei fug∞w). D. M. then Cotta himself spoke. but when the fame of his misconduct arrived in Rome he incurred hatred nourished by envy of his wealth.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. To mute his critics he now deposited in the aerarium most of his booty. It. How to explain this phenomenon? By Cotta’s disgrace. was accused by C. This was accomplished either by the vote of the people or by decree of the . and to restore to the city its land and ports. which in Cotta’s case would have read “qui postea Ponticus appellatus est”. Many thought Cotta ought to be punished by exile (êjiow . Degrassi. and convicted.f. Inscr. Servilius C. Au[re]lius M. received as a reward the consular honors. and they only took away from him the latus clavus (épechf¤santo tØn platÊshmon aÈtoË). The Romans voted (§chf¤santo) to free the captives.14 Cotta made great money out of Bithynia.17 He tells us that the captives brought to Rome to grace Cotta’s triumph were subsequently set free. see 563–65] parum congruere videtur. 205).13 The entry for Scipio Africanus occupies only one line. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (cos. although he had served only as tribune. When he finished. Thus the standard formula. [f. 190). moderation prevailed. and Cotta’s return to Rome to this or (more likely) the next year. As so often. the next consular year. So Dio.n. L. but we can date the fall of Heracleia to 71 (or perhaps 70). Cotta]”. Next one of the Heracleotae delivered at a public meeting an accusatory speech against Cotta (kathgÒrhsen §pÉ §kklhs¤aw toË KÒtta15). This is the standard formula: it is preserved also for P. qui postea / Isauricus appellatus est”. Iunius Brutus Callaicus (cos. the general outline is clear. It takes up only one line.118 Historia et Ius 152 153 The exact chronology of the operations of Lucullus and Cotta is under dispute. 13. 79) provides a telling example: “P. Now the Consular Fasti regularly take notice of the triumphal agnomina. The following line is occupied by the entry for 73. 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 56–57).. About this lacuna Degrassi has this to say (565): “amplitudo lacunae versuum fere 30 cum 12 triumphis quos ex auctoribus novimus [for a list. but we cannot doubt that of the fate of his compatriots he was well informed. They also voted (c∞fon ≥yento) to free all Heracleotae who had been enslaved. 138). Vatia. and Cassius Dio. many thought. the entry for Isauricus (cos. They have never been elucidated in detail. legal aspects a quagmire. Aurelius Cotta. Carbo. Carbo rose attacking Cotta for his destruction of Heracleia. Carbo. is missing. he was seconded by other speakers.” 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. 84–85).n. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (cos.16 What did happen to Cotta and to his triumphal name? Memnon may not have been well versed in the court system of Rome. and drama. Two sources tell the story: Memnon again.. It reads: “M. not enough.1. After his return Cotta was showered with honors. . It so happens that in the Fasti Triumphales Capitolini there is a lacuna between 82 and 62 (see A. But it would be perverse to infer that Carbo was a tribune when he accused Cotta. who in turn because of his own transgressions fell victim to Cotta’s son (see below). Thus. It is also possible.23 This would date the trial to the period after the passage of the . having thus prepared the ground. the trial will have taken place not too excessively long after Cotta’s triumph. In his speech Pro Oppio (according to Quintilian 5.20) 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). This set the stage. but then was himself accused of corruption by Carbo. another passage of Quintilian (5. a most unlikely solution whether the accusation was de peculatu or de repetundis.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. receive their due. is described as a person of tribunician standing. but solely in association with convictions achieved in a quaestio (see below).A Missing Ponticus 119 154 senate. as the one so vividly pictured by Memnon. having obtained a contio (or contiones) from a friendly tribune. Furthermore we do not hear of the praemia in connection with prosecutions in the iudicia populi. Dio’s mention of Oppius allows us to narrow down the possibilities.21 However. Cotta also engineered his accusation. as to this technical point. Only a new literary or epigraphical find can provide a firm solution. His sin was venial: he confused an informal contio with the formal iudicium. If we decide to translate the Greek term as comitia or concilium (cf. {as E.13. From this story no precise date emerges either for Carbo’s tribunate or for his accusation of Cotta. All this precludes the iudicium populi as the venue for Cotta’s trial.13. Carbo’s tribunate would thus belong to a year preceding his clash with Cotta. Thus it is possible that Carbo started his agitation against Cotta as tribune. In Dio’s account C. 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. Next. Badian reminds me}. Memnon is inaccurate. and that next year. but received his award only in a subsequent year after he had laid down his office. Now Oppius had not only been dismissed by Cotta and sent back to Rome. and not as a tribune in office. and used contiones as his weapon. 14). Cassius Dio and Memnon. The freeing of the captives may have been accomplished through the vote of the people. for launching the accusation against Cotta. Cotta was still absent from Rome. The public meeting(s) need not be the product of his imagination. he formally accused Cotta before a standing court. Still on either interpretation both authors. n.19 But above all Memnon clashes with Dio. and the popular discontent with Cotta may very well have been fanned through the familiar medium of rowdy contiones. Now Memnon presents the trial as taking place §pÉ ¶kklhs¤aw. and the mood. As the freed captives were still present at Rome. Cornelius in 67: Cotta had dismissed his quaestor P.18 and it was accomplished – on Memnon’s chronology – before Cotta’s trial and conviction. that he attacked Cotta as privatus.22 A fair inference is that when the trial began. The trial is generally dated (on the basis of Cassius Dio) to 67 or later. we would have to postulate a tribunician Multklage. but his account will still contain a grain of truth. the accuser of Cotta.21) makes it clear that equites sat on the jury. Carbo. Oppius because of corruption and on suspicion of conspiracy. . but it is a fair inference that the same penalty also obtained in the quaestio in Rome.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- . But Memnon’s debate whether Cotta should be sent into exile or solely expelled from the senate was impossible in a Roman court. Of course the pecuniary penalty does not automatically exclude the poena capitis. A recent student avers that Memnon “reports what appears to be a debate in the Senate. the penalty.25 It is also agreed that upon his conviction Cotta lost his seat in the senate (so Memnon). hence almost certainly to 69. and Cotta may have been present in Rome when the trial itself was conducted. and in particular (if the accused was a senator) in the exclusion from the senate. “damnatio est .. Thus the penalty for peculatus was (in addition to the multa) either the poena capitis (which would lead in practice to interdictio. For as Cicero explicitly states (Sull. Legal troubles arise.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. 63). All in all we can assume that he returned to Rome either at the very end of 70 or (more likely) in 69.. If we accept Memnon’s report of Cotta’s expulsion from the senate. First. But Oppius’ receptio inter reos may have occurred still in 70.24 In view of Memnon’s hint at Cotta’s misappropriation of the booty. we can conclude that the conviction in the quaestio de peculatu resulted in infamia.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.26 the question arises whether the penalties indicated by Memnon are compatible with what we know from other sources of the poena peculatus. poena legis”. Consequently we can date Carbo’s accusation of Cotta to 68 or 67. peculatus is a much more likely solution. disagreement persists as to whether he was charged with peculatus or with repetundae. 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.e. and as Cotta lost his latus clavus. the penalty was fixed by the law.. perhaps we should also consider his story that there was a debate whether Cotta should be sent into exile. To this year will belong his triumph.28 This concerns the municipal peculatus. As the jurors did not have the choice between various penalties. senatorial status) rather than exile”. The penalty and the reward require a certain symmetry.120 Historia et Ius 155 lex Aurelia iudiciaria of 70. and that Carbo received as a reward the ornamenta consularia (so Dio). in which it is decided that Cotta should suffer loss of his latus clavus (i. The jurors voted to condemn or to acquit.. The popular agitation against Cotta and the freeing of the captives occurred either toward the end of 69 or in 68. exilium and the loss of the senatorial dignity) or the expulsion from the senate.. This leaves Memnon’s insistence that Cotta was threatened with exile unexplained.167. the most severe fine the fourfold payment. line 4). iudicum . 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. If it is thus generally agreed and certain that Cotta was accused by Carbo before a standing court. 116): “Itaque et maiestatis absoluti sunt permulti quibus damnatis de pecuniis repetundis lites maiestatis essent aestimatae”. 42).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. As to peculatus Cicero alludes to lites severe aestimatae (Mur. the court proceeded to the litis aestimatio. he speaks of lis capitis (Cluent. For Cicero is at pains to stress aestimationem litium non esse iudicium. and Dio’s. the argument ends here. a kind of name police. and he destroyed it not for any military reason or as punishment for treachery. But there is still one narrow (and many will say unlikely) way of escape left to Memnon. and even if it had been it was only a praeiudicium. He treasonously mistreated Heracleia. 116). in another place. and he failed to deposit in the treasury the booty so acquired. as it was the senate that had officially bestowed the honorific name upon Cotta. the assessment of damages the damnatus had to pay on each specific count of extortion or embezzlement. it is eminently possible that a vote of the senate was required to take it away from him. in particular the right to wear at the ludi the corona laurea (or myrtea). If not a debate in a iudicium populi. it is a pity that we do not know the wording of his entry in the Fasti Triumphales. Whether his lis was capitis aestimata (maiestas being a capital crime) we do not know. but solely to enrich himself.36 . If a trial de repetundis or de peculatu resulted in conviction.A Missing Ponticus 121 156 157 body (and we should not forget that technically exilium was not a penalty!). then probably we have only to do with informal perorations against Cotta in a contio which Memnon amalgamated with the proceedings in the quaestio. For it is most unlikely that having lost the latus clavus. not conviction. To use Memnon’s words he was thought worthy of exile. Now every Roman was free to use any cognomen he wished. 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. he would have retained the ornamenta triumphalia.34 And among the privileges of a triumphator the most precious was perhaps the cognomen ex victa gente.32 This misses the mark. Subsequently he was accused of maiestas (before the quaestio maiestatis) but was acquitted. a standing court or the senate. 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.33 The same procedure will also apply to trials de peculatu. he looted the city that opened its gates. Still only one thing is certain: Cotta lost his status of senator. 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. and with it also his status as a triumphator. in the context of repetundae. What he means is made clear by another remark (Cluent. 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. but ultimately lost only his senatorial standing. still the senate exercised general supervision in this area. Not an impossible legal context for Memnon’s story.31 If so. This ban persisted: he was listed in the Augustan Consular Fasti without his agnomen. postulavit peractumque reum iudicio adflixit”.4.42 In Tristia 4.40. Gaetulicus. protinus ut a Capitolio descendit. but apparently did not regain his senatorial status (or if he did it was his poetic son who forsook the senatorial career).47–48 Ovid reminisces: “Ponticus heroo.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”).5). we learn that Ponticus indeed composed a Theban epic.. like his friend Ovid. A recent commentator opines that Ponticus “was presumably of noble family”. his trial took place either still in 59 or perhaps rather in 58. the poetic friend of Ovid and Propertius. this precludes his tentative identification with M. and that the name “suggests a noble ancestor who had conquered Pontus”.122 Historia et Ius 158 There is a postscript to the story. the pious son of the conqueror of Heracleia. Cotta. Creticus).37 he was accused (presumably de repetundis) by Cotta’s son. unluckily. Juvenal addresses his eighth satire to a Ponticus (lines 1.38 Carbonem. but we should not assume that Juvenal’s Ponticus was a direct descendant of Aurelii Cottae.10. and was convicted (Cass. How did Ponticus get his name? It is perhaps not too adventurous to postulate that he descended from M.26). Now Ponticus appears to have been only an eques. quo togam virilem sumpsit. this Ponticus was about to assume the governorship of a province (87–88: “expectata diu tandem provincia cum te / rectorem accipiet”). later became himself governor of Bithynia.45 But his cognomen may well have been a recent inven- . and from Propertius. and poor Ponticus was not able to compose them! (9.9–15). Cotta. who addresses to him two carmina (1. The young M. Bassus quoque clarus iambis / dulcia conuictus membra fuere mei”. then at least avenged – privately revived for himself the honorific cognomen of Ponticus. and Ponticus may indeed belong to this category. Dio 36. As Carbo returned form Bithynia at the earliest in 59. The honorific names are invoked (Corvinus. the accuser of Cotta. The story of the name continues.39 We would not be surprised if he now – his father. also to Ponticus: “quid tibi misero nunc prodest grave dicere carmen . but we should not pin too much hope on it. C. M. The only conqueror of Pontus who assumed this name was the consul of 74. And indeed. Cotta was at that time about seventeen years old. 179). though Ponticus may have acquired his name through a (distant) cognatio with this ancient family. it came. He was much too young for this post.43 But he should not feel superior to Propertius who writes merely of his own amorous sufferings: “saepe venit magno faenore tardus Amor” (7.4) “eo ipso die. who in 49 was the Pompeian governor of Sardinia.?” “Carmina mansuetus levia quaerit Amor”. As the young Marcus Cotta was growing up. By Juvenal’s time the Aurelii Cottae had long been extinct.7 and 9).. Papirius Carbo. if not vindicated. Cotta avenged the disgrace of his father. apparently as a praetorius. Cn. a quo pater eius damnatus fuerat.41 But there is the enigmatic Ponticus. 75. he must have been imbibing the spirit of revenge for in the words of Valerius Maximus (5.40 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. its protagonists hereditary enmity and the fickleness of fortune. 388. Fictitious for Lucullus. in line b 6 Pon[ticum]). 48–49) but. But the destroyer of Heracleia continued to be famous as dux. Namenbuch 1367 {and sec. mentions the name Ponticus as coined in Greece and Rome (pp. now PIR 2 6 (1998) 340 (pp.24). He may have been a senator. Claudius Domitianus Ponticus. nine slaves and freedmen. 412). through design or omission. Athenaeum 34 [1956] 282). And there is also Valerius Ponticus condemned in 61 by the senate for praevaricatio and expelled from Italy (Tac. 194 [p. 407. 326]. Ann. 35–64. Rome and the Mediterranean World (Proceedings of the British Academy 114 [Oxford 2002]). Domitius Ponticus in the Appendix). Bull. 401–2. the note on Cn. p. Ameling to IK 27 [I. Chiron 6 (1976) 304. and L.47 {S.. the governor of Pontus-Bithynia in 40–34 (MRR 2. Klaudiu Polis]. ed. 1953.382.41). the reading is in line a 6 Ponti[c]um. they publish a Greek inscription from Dorylaion in Phrygia of a tribunus laticlavius [Ulp]ius Flavius Ponticus (cf. iure militabit secundum divi Traiani rescriptum: nam duces Sulla et Cotta memorantur eo habitu fuisse naturae”. and two senators. Domitius Ponticus. and on the cognomen Ponticus in Bithynia. Ép.46 APPENDIX Some Other Pontici The lesser Roman Pontici are worthy of a note. praetor. The name Ponticus is frequently used by Martial.} 159 . 1958. either triumphal or personal. behind it (cf. Eck. IGRR 3. and observe (n. and his grants of citizenship (J. Prusias ad Hypium]. offers no comment on the cognomen Ponticus. Solin adduces numerous Pontici: twelve incerti in status. Robert. but it is applied to persons entirely fictitious. 176]. On the cognomen Ponticus. “In Search of the Pontic Community in Antiquity. 2003. 785–87). Of particular interest is Cn. 43): “Der Name Ponticus ist bisher in der Nomenklatur des Senatorenstandes nicht bezeugt” (this is doubly incorrect – because of Cotta and because of Domitius).} In his Die Griechischen Personennamen in Rom.A Missing Ponticus 123 tion without any deed of valor. it can be traced back to Cn. cf. How Domitius acquired his cognomen we cannot divine. {Cf. 14. Domitius Ahenobarbus. Drew-Bear and W. at least in one respect equal to Sulla: “qui cum uno testiculo natus est quive amisit. see also T. Mitchell. H. 39–40. real of faked. But it is worth pointing out that the nomen Domitius is very frequent in Bithynia (in particular among the local aristocracy). see the adnotation of W. 476 [p.1424 = IK 31 [I. Gabba.” in Representations of Empire. and in 77/8 legatus pro praetore of the proconsul of Africa (IRT 342. 644}. 644}). 397. The family of Domitius may have come from this milieu (for the name. Solin. E. the name Ponticus was fatal for Cotta. Ein Namenbuch (Berlin 1982) 611 {see the updated list in the second edition.53. ). 23. Under 16 April we read: “[XVI k. n. Sigonius. historical and legal. ZRG 78 (1961) 404. Tulli Ciceronis Verrinarum libri septem (Berolini 1831) 811. Degrassi. 441–42). Shackleton Bailey. Magie. 350).M. on the father of Lucullus (p.14). 13. Ch. Onomasticon to Cicero’s Speeches2 (Stuttgart-Leipzig 1992) 21. Mommsen ought to have been well aware of this chronology. Graevius’ Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum. But even when assembling this evidence of omission.. but fortunately an excerpt from the Annales. and quoted the Philippics as evidence for the senatorial initiative in granting the title of imperator. Lucullus appears there both as consul and as triumphator (coll.. Lucius Licinius Lucullus (Bruxelles 1959) 106. 413. n. Part 1 (Thessalonica 1971) 92. The reference is to C.124 Historia et Ius NOTES 1 R. D. of this statement. RE 2 (1896) s. Pape-G. D. 3 [Leipzig 1887–88]) 13. vol. M. D. AJAH 2 (1977 [1979]) 172. It is worth pointing out that the manuscript reading is ab(p)sens. 235–36) without any honorific cognomen. surnommé Pontique”). Tulli Ciceronis in L. 3.G. attribute to Lucullus the cognomen Ponticus (cf. But even after Orelli embraced Ponticus as Lucullus’ cognomen.G. The meeting of the senate at which Cicero made his proposal took place five days later.G. all Greeks. Henry.. 14. Lucullus’ Triumphal Agnomen”.212). den Beinamen Ponticus annahm”. J.101. M. Kienast. Nisbet. 117.147: “Constat vero Pontici fuisse patrem”. Nor does C. Eo die Caesar primum imperator app]ellátus est”. p. “Aurelius 107”.) Zumpt. and refers to Zumpt’s note on 2 Verr. Thomas. paraphrases Memnon (“Cotta fut . Mommsen himself never mentions this passage. a discussion of Lucullus’ triumph).F. 11 (Venetiis 1735). but he does not betray any awareness of the implications. Römisches Staatsrecht (13. He discussed the Feriale on various occasions. 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 Budé edition by R. (K. The report of Cassius Dio is confirmed by the Feriale Cumanum (A. Rvma›oi êrxontew t∞w §parx¤aw Makedon¤aw. In fact no scholar before Zumpt seems to know this name. Broughton. MRR 2. avers that imperatores “could be created by 2 160 3 4 5 6 .v. and several times edited it. cit. Römische Altherthümer 32 (Berlin 1876) 217: he writes (quoting Memnon) that Cotta “wegen der Eroberung von Heraclea Pontica . the Feriale had totally slipped from his mind. But let it be observed that the TLG has no separate entry for Memnon. 4. was reprinted in J. ab senatu is the emendation of Manutius. loc. 4. doubt persisted: was it possible that inter tot lumina nobody ever recorded Cotta’s agnomen? After a long search one scholar was found to redeem the honor of the historians: the nowadays completely neglected L. Van Ooteghem. R. 224. Benseler.T. Orelli describes him as “Pontici pater”. 340–41. In the preceding entry. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio (Oxford 1961) 107. Degrassi. It. Onomasticon 90–91. 3 (cf. it was probably the invention of Zumpt himself.] Klebs. Mai. 123. on April 21 (Phil.2 [Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani] 278–80. it duly registered the “Ponticus” of Cotta. 123 verso. most commentaries and indexes continued to ignore this fictitious name. Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950). In Fastos Consulares ac Triumphos Romanos Commentarius (Venetiis 1556). so surnamed on account of their origo). 207–8. 4 [1965] 97). Inscr. Sarikakis.R.124. 1215. Th. W. Lange.. is even more positive: Manlius did not receive his title of imperator from the soldiers on the field of battle but from the senate. Yet when he wrote his fateful sentence in the Staastrecht. esp. In fact it can be shown that the fiction goes beyond Orelli. Does the fiction go back to Stephanus Vinandus Pighius and his Annales Romanorum (Antverpiae 1599–1615)? This work was not available to me. 239a (vol. Zumpt and Orelli further cite Pighius. 111. Pighius’ list of consuls and triumphators. 128 (although Broughton records the pertinent passage of Memnon). Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen3 (Braunschweig 1911) 1233–34 (lists many Pontici. “Imperator”. Pighius often dealt in fictions but not in this fiction. We may add that the search of TLG failed to yield the cognomen for Lucullus (thus proving Orelli definitely wrong). dating the appellatio to 15 April (cf. No mention of Cotta’s agnomen in: Orelli. “L. [E. éntikathgorÆyh ÍpÚ toË ufl°ow aÈtoË ka‹ ényeãlv. Henry (above. Servilius Vatia”. Develin. 122.. and a stunning regress with respect to the translation in Müller’s edition: “Cotta . …w ofike¤vn kerd«n ßneka thlikaÊthn pÒlin §jafan¤seie. Hall. nobilitatur”. Degrassi. Bittner. DiÚ ka‹ pollå t«n lafÊrvn efiw tÚ t«n ÑRvma¤vn efisekÒmize tamie›on. tÚn §p‹ t“ ploÊtƒ fyÒnon §kkroÊvn. aÈtoË d¢ pollå §k t∞w Biyun¤aw xrhmatisam°nou. efi ka‹ mhd¢n aÈtoÁw praot°rouw épeirgãzeto.366–67: ÑO d¢ dØ KÒttaw …w efiw tØn ÑR≈mhn éf¤keto. Akten des VI. 1. Klio 60 (1978) 429–38.40. Inscr. and translates the phrase as “Cotta se vit decérner par le Sénat le titre d’imperator pontique”—terminological nonsense. It. 2) does not report Schaefer’s conjecture.3–5: TÒ te sÊmpan oÏtvw §pimel¢w to›w ÑRvma¤oiw katå tÚn xrÒnon §ke›non tÚ mhd¢n dvrodoke›syai §g°neto Àste prÚw t“ toÁw §legxom°nouw kolãzein ka‹ toÁw kathgoroËntaw aÈt«n §t¤mvn. 52–53. RE 7 (1912) 428–29. §s°mnusan. it is worth while to adduce them in their entirety.. ka¤per dedhmarxhkÒta mÒnon. ka‹ ı per‹ aÈtÚn tosoËtow ploËtow fyÒnon ének¤nei. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (München 1973) 568–71 at 570. .134–35. ZPE 80 (1990) 157–64. esp. In actual practice. the senate’s agreement was indispensable. thus technically it was the popular assembly that was bestowing on him this honor. The regress is even more stunning if we realize that Müller merely reproduced (without any acknowledgement) the translation of Andreas Schottus (1552–1629) appended to Photii Myriobiblon sive Bibliotheca edited by David Hoeschelius. Degrassi. vol. Cf. 13. esp. vom Senat als Ehre den Titel imperator Ponticus”. however. 437. ToË goËn KÒttou toË Mãrkou tÚn m¢n tam¤an PoÊplion ÖOppion §p¤ te d≈roiw ka‹ §p‹ Ípoc¤& §piboul∞w épop°mcantow. Ka‹ otow m¢n t∞w te Biyun¤aw ka‹ aÈtÚw Ïsteron êrjaw. R. 54–55. Here are the texts. In the case of Hirtius. 3. but he does not consider the testimony of Cicero’s Pro Oppio (on which see below in the text). Pansa and Octavian the idea of Mommsen was also rejected by Kienast: he admits that the senate “deren Akklamation nur bestätigte”. 563.] Vonder Mühll. For sources. honore a senatu afficitur.57: “P. in tabula publica ad aerarium perscribenda curavit”. 48–49.128 he dates the return of Cotta to 70. Inscr. On the date of his triumph. cf. see now Broughton. Cassius Dio 36. Diabol∞w d¢ efiw tØn ÑR≈mhn éfiknoum°nhw. But we need not expect from Memnon terminological accuracy. “New Light on the Capture of Isaura Vetus by P. Staatsrecht 3. and cites the passage from the Staatsrecht refuted above in the text. J. Mommsen. Linderski. To perform a triumph the general needed the vote of the people allowing him to retain his imperium within the city. see A. 2 Verr. “The Surname of M. and 120. and published by Paulus Stephanus (Genevae 1612) 753–54. {The same inaccurate translation also in A. 1233–34.. Memnon 39 = 59 = 239 a-b = FGrHist 3B. (2) YrasumÆdhw (367) d¢ t«n §j ÑHrakle¤aw eÂw kathgÒrhsen §pÉ §kklhs¤aw toË KÒtta. ˜ti ßloi tØn ÑHrãkleian. 437–39}. 130. At MRR 2. et Pontici cognomento . 158–60 {= RQ 436–43.212–13. Müller in his Didot edition of Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. 46–47.. “Gabinius 11”. épÚ poll«n Ùl¤ga n°mein Ípolambãnontaw. 13. Servilius quae signa atque ornamenta ex urbe hostium vi et virtute capta belli lege atque imperatorio iure sustulit. m›sÒw te dhmÒsion §lãmbane.1108. see [F.1. Staatsrecht 13. Gãion Kãrbvna tÚn kathgorÆsanta aÈtoË tima›w Ípatika›w. Antonius Creticus and the Cognomina ex victis gentibus”.} On the operations in Asia Minor.A Missing Ponticus 125 7 8 9 161 10 11 12 13 14 162 the senate”. per triumphum vexit. Cf. It. Cf.. pp. tim∞w parå t∞w sugklÆtou tugxãnei PontikÚw aÈtokrãtvr kale›syai. Mommsen. MRR 3 (1986) 121–22. esp. Cic. 3 [1883] 557) PontikÚw <ka‹> aÈtokrãtvr.1 (Fasti Triumphales) 564.. Memnon’s text PontikÚw aÈtokrãtvr would be greatly improved if we adopted the conjecture by Schaefer (reported both by Jacoby and by C. ÉEchf¤santo d¢ aÈt¤ka ka‹ toÁw afixmal≈touw t∞w ÑHrakle¤aw éf¤esyai. ea populo Romano adportavit. “Tradition and the Development of Triumphal Regulations in Rome”. The inscription was published by A. ka‹ metri≈teron oÈd¢n toË KÒttou plhmmelÆsaw. Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike (= Asia Minor Studien 30 [Bonn 1998]) 211: Cotta “erhielt . n. oÈx‹ gn≈m˙ t∞w pÒlevw toËto drçn. Œ KÒtta”. tÒn te xrusÚn ka‹ tÚn êrguron t∞w pÒlevw énagrãfvn énar¤ymhton. Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899) 769–70. ˜pvw te tå égãlmata KÒttaw kayπrei ka‹ le¤an §poie›to toÊw te naoÁw kat°spa. 5: Index Graecitatis by W. Alexander. and (following Memnon).g. “ pÒlin •le›n éllÉ oÈx‹ kayele›n §petr°camen”. 2). Mommsen here distinguishes between criminelles Multverfahren. (originally 1909). M. Drumann-P. Mommsen. Niccolini. Broughton (MRR 2. the accusatio and the trial to 69). and only after Cotta’s return. ka‹ t«n ≤gemÒnvn §piklasy°ntvn t“ pãyei (ka‹ går par∞lye [239 b] ka‹ tÚ t«n afixmal≈tvn pl∞yow. and the “in der privatdeliktischen Form sich bewegenden Prozess”. Cf. MetÉ aÈtÚn d¢ ka‹ êlloi ımo¤vw KÒttan ºtiãsanto. Jacoby. and Henry (above. But cf.X. rightly observes that Carbo’s tribunate preceded his accusation of Cotta. éllÉ ≥ tinow t«n §festhkÒtvn to›w prãgmasin §japãt˙ µ ka‹ b¤& t«n §pitiyem°nvn.3 [1949] 1021–22.v. vol. He is quite right in saying that “gegenstand der anklage nicht die behandlung Herakleias war. 67”). {F. n. e. He first mentions Cotta’s instigation of the trial of Oppius (in 69. T.v. which he finds improbable. not privatdeliktisch. See also F. 2) as “mit Cotta en accusation devant les comices”. s. Historia 21 (1972) 197–98. Ph. in Vom Geist des Römertums (Stuttgart 1960) 117. cf. RE 15 (1932) 2187. as [F.. and instituted his accusation against Cotta “kurz darauf”. ÑHrakle≈taiw d¢ tÆn te x≈ran ka‹ tØn yãlassan ka‹ toÁw lim°naw épokat°sthsan. Cf. éntiparely∆n ı KÒttaw brax°a tª patr¤ƒ diel°xyh gl≈tt˙. Not likely.126 Historia et Ius tãw te t∞w pÒlevw efishgoÊmenow prÚw ÑRvma¤ouw eÈno¤aw. to “paulo ante 67”. below in the text. probably for peculatus or res repetundae”. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions (Toronto 1974) 100. §n peny¤moiw §syÆsesi yalloÁw flkes¤ouw metÉ Ùlofurm«n prote¤nontew). F..J. see esp.:Metriãsantew dÉ ˜mvw épechf¤santo tØn platÊshmon aÈtoË. but he is inclined to dismiss too easily the whole account of Memnon. and then goes on to write that “when Cotta returned. ÉApƒkt¤zeto d¢ tÒn te t∞w pÒlevw §mprhsmÒn. C&M 45 (1994) 185–86.40–41”. Münzer (RE 18.} Cf. The procedure described by Memnon was clearly criminal. fhs¤. For the fragments of 15 16 17 18 19 163 20 21 22 . Boissevain.283 (Kommentar). Geschichte Roms 5 (Leipzig 1919) 367–68 (Cotta’s letter dated to 70. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley 1974) 269. Ryan. “Oppius 17”. he was himself put on trial. I Fasti dei tribuni della plebe (Milano 1934) 436. sometime in the early 60s. As F. Heinze.. n. But we should not be gullible either. Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt. e‰ta §kay°syh. which ultimately gave rise to the quaestiones concerning sacrilegium and peculatus. “Mithridates”: “Später wurden ihm auf die Klage der Herakleoten die senatorischen Insignien aberkannt”. Münzer. ka‹ mhd°na douleÊein c∞fon ¶yento. s. see below in the text)). sondern die der beute”.1 (1939) 740 (he assumes that Oppius was accused “wahrscheinlich erst” in 69. Trials in the Late Roman Republic (Toronto 1990) 97. “The Magistrates in Dio 36. another trial before the iudicium populi (perhaps on the charge of Cotta’s mistreatment of Heracleia). e. consequently the tribunate is to be placed “by 68” or “by 68/67” (and not “ca. êndrew ımoË ka‹ guna›kew metå t°knvn. opts for a contio. ka‹ e‡ ti taÊthw épokl¤noien.] Geyer. E. Schott (above. postulates (on the basis of Cassius Dio) a trial before the quaestio repetundarum.145) dates Carbo’s tribunate (with a query) to 67. Groebe. W. Nawijn (Berolini 1931) 871–72. n. ka‹ tØn êllhn t∞w ÑHrakle¤aw ∂n §sfeter¤sato eÈdaimon¤an. “Ciceros politische Anfänge”. “The Roman General’s Authority over Booty”. RE 18. (3) ToiaËta toË YrasumÆdouw metÉ ofimvg∞w ka‹ dakrÊvn dielhluyÒtow.g. FGrHist 3. He thus omits to mention Cotta’s initial popularity and his praise from the senate. Cf. Ka‹ Kãrbvn énaståw “ ≤me›w. Lange (above. §chf¤santo can refer to both. Shatzman.. and G. Gruen. the remarks by R. Mason. ka‹ ˜sa êlla diÉ »mÒthtow §ly∆n §peprãgei. H. but this fails to explain the epistula). (4) Pollo›w m¢n oÔn êjiow ı KÒttaw §dÒkei fug∞w. I. ka‹ ˜sa to pËr éfan¤soi. 11) renders the phrase as “pro concione Cottam publice accusat”. “Papirius 35”) saw well: Carbo was tribune “gegen 67” (hence possibly shortly before 67). Trials [above. This appears to be the view of K. cf. Cf. Accordia Research Papers 9 (2001–2003) 105–22 at 113 (with n. n. “Sul concetto di ‘manubiae’ e sulla responsibilità del magistrato in ordine alla preda”. Diodorus (36. kgl. M. 5 Abh. esp. 439. Ricerche sull’ “exilium” nel periodo repubblicano 1 (Milano 1961) 300. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations (Göttingen 1984). n. 23. The Inscriptions of Heraclea Pontica (= IK 47 [Bonn 1994]) 92. 22) 117. Strafrecht 765–72. d. as postulated by Broughton}. Papirius Carbo klagt ihn de repetundis” – an inference presented as a fact. Mommsen.9. “Ornamenta”) states with deceiving certainty: “C. See the classic studies by E. R. “Quaestio”. Alexander. Ryan (above. Levy. Studi sul “crimen repetundarum” nell’età repubblicana (Milano 1979) 428–62. also above.v. The Fragmentary Speeches (above. 176–80 (the penalty of interdictio probably postdates even the lex Iulia). voted to forbid him the senatorial toga”. see the classic exposition by Mommsen. n. The exception is C. Levy. M. Cf. 26) 16. in her valuable M. n. RE 24 (1963) 745. Kapitalstrafe (above. 22) 25. The Fragmentary Speeches (2nd ed. following (with substantial modifications) in . n. PBSR 52 [1984] 62. “Praemia in the Quaestiones of the Late Republic”. Wiss. esp. Cf.}. 26 against E. The considerations advanced in the text also militate against Alexander’s 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 Missing Ponticus 127 23 24 25 26 27 28 164 29 30 31 32 Cicero’s speech. 302–12. 454–57. in his excellent “Delator and Index. Badian. Gnoli. see most recently I.1) intimates that Lucullus was sent into exile. but this was a quaestio extraordinaria. n.J. Atlanta 1994) 23–32.1 [1939] 1112.} Cf. Strafrecht 765–66. RIDA 37 (1990) 253–61. Phil. Crifò. {They are now assembled. Heidelberg 1931. F. 1968] 177. “Algunas consideraciones sobre el crimen de residuis a la luz de la legislación municipal”. 156–67. 19. Alexander. Alexander. The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time (Oxford 1901) 495–96. Licinius Lucullus in 102. Alexander. Greenidge. 19.492–93. 447. admits a senatus consultum as a possibility. d. Servilius Caepio may have gone into exile as a result of his conviction in the iudicium populi (cf. As to Cotta. Staatsrecht 13. RE Suppl. n. n. Sächs. esp. 52.. Puccioni. Gesammelte Schriften 1 (Berlin 1905) 146–61. Kunkel. is still fundamental. Ges. Crawford.1 (Leipzig 1865) 74. he postulates the poena capitis.) 14–25.. W. n. 449–50. mistranslates Memnon: “they . S. 32 on p. Venturini. Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts [Cambridge. but his argument is singularly unconvincing. “Peculatus”.-hist. 11) 213: “sprachen sie ihm durch Abstimmung die senatorische Toga ab”. Abh. Aurelius Cotta. Informers and Accusers at Rome from the Republic to the Early Principate”. 19) 176–205. but this was probably the case of repetundae (so E. {Cf. but his examples are inconclusive: a) the quaestio auri Tolosani in 103. So recently C. and esp. But there was no special senatorial toga: the latus clavus was a purple stripe on the tunica. 7 (1940) 826–27. 21) 185–86. Borzsák (RE 18. s. nn. Trials (above. n. cf. 120). and thus was quaestor in 74.945. Gnoli or Brecht. SDHI 26 (1960) 105–75. also F. Bona.879–85). Ricerche sul crimen peculatus (Milano 1979) 173–82. L.. n. Cf. 14. 16. Tulli Ciceronis Orationum Deperditarum Fragmenta (Milano 1963) 23–26. n. Brecht. The fragments of Pro Oppio are inexplicably missing from Jane W. 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 74–70”. 2. Die römische Kapitalstrafe (Sb. denies that a general was ever legally responsible for his handling of the booty. 3.H. there is no mention of his case in Mommsen. 5. Nipperdey. with useful commentary. Mass. Mentxaka. 770–71. b) the case of L. Tullius Cicero. 20] 33–34). esp. M. Trials 35–36). Cl. {A. esp. “Die leges annales der römischen Republik”. presses scepticism too far when he suggests that Quintilian here may be confusing the speech for Oppius with the Pro Cluentio. Shatzman (above. But I would submit that it is still not unlikely that he departed for Bithynia together with M. 155–56. Lintott. See A. T. The passage is difficult of interpretation. and Q. Mommsen. Crawford. Mommsen.. Jonnes. Kunkel. The same mistranslation also in Bittner (above. CP 80 (1985) 25. n. 20) 97. and G. but Heinze (above. Gruen. W. 333. Fasti 1. The inscription. 69. d. 1. Zumpt.3–5 and Valerius Maximus 5. He dates the beginning of Carbo’s coinage in the province to the last quarter of 61. n. 2). {Of the editors of Valerius.R. Die Griechischen Personennamen in Rom. 1.212–13. 84). We may be certain that he did not receive any elogium in the Forum of Augustus. 92–93. Chr. n. “Aurelius 108. Staatsrecht 3. 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]. Das Criminalrecht der römischen Republik 2. consequently he was praetor in 62 (MRR 2. The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (Johannesburg 1967) 85–87.] Klebs.128 Historia et Ius the footsteps of A. Broughton. n. aberkannt. Solin.16. As Carbo is attested as governor of Bithynia in 61. zuerkannt wurde”. Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien (122 v. Chr). vv. C. Staatsrecht 13. Mommsen.4. Sur une expression de Cicéron”.260. Cf. Sherwin-White. Stumpf. and Combès’ Budé edition.40.R. was found at via Salaria and published by G. R. A curious form. a frammento marmoreo. D. A mistake of Valerius or of scribes. Combès advert to this mistake: see Shackleton’s Loeb edition and translation. Hinard. 1. PBSR 17 (1949) 11. at 206 he mentions (in passing. Lange. and infers that this was also the approximate date of Carbo’s arrival in Bithynia.2 (Berlin 1869) 88–90. 54). MRR 2. 109”. Mélanges de littérature et d’épigraphie latines. Shackleton Bailey. Caecilius Metellus (cos. cum se is Calchedona contulisset. And that a praetor would lay down his office (in September!) in order to assume a provincial governorship is an absurd supposition. d’histoire ancienne et d’archéologie: Hommage à la mémoire de Pierre Wuilleumier (Paris 1980) 197–210. Badian calls my attention to the recent book by G. adduces (among the incerti) “C. On this basis he assigns Carbo’s praetorship to 61 for otherwise between his magistracy and promagistracy there would have been an interval of “mindestens neun Monaten” (p. in der Toga praetexta. Cf. “Paternus inimicus. Cotti Pontici” {Cf.438–39. das Recht die Ornamenta consularia bei den Spielen zu tragen.F. esp.. but never actually accused Cotta. he must have been praetor in 62. Münzer. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus 4 (Cambridge 1968) 208 (on 10. Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920) 355. [E. Servilius Vatia (cos. 2003. opsidione liberavit” (Degrassi. 1187. “Poena Legis Repetundarum”. 21. F. but Zumpt seems to have changed his mind in Der Criminalprocess der römischen Republik (Leipzig 1871) 396–97. 79) and Q. is assured by coins. Cf.4) that Carbo only threatened an accusation. 644: “C. in the following fashion (without a photograph but giving the measurements): 33 34 35 36 37 165 38 39 40 41 .3). Bauman. after mistakenly stating (in disregard of Cassius Dio 36. dem Carbo dagegen . D. Saarbrücker Studien zur Archäologie und Alten Geschichte 4 (1991) 59–69 (Carbo’s coinage). 252–53 (on Namensstrafe). and n. Epstein. H. 185. RE 2 (1896) 2489. H.?] Pontici”}. 13. It.N. Philologus 133 (1989) 252–59. now in the second edition. 42.593–94 (“alter Isauras aut Cretum domitas testificatur opes”) juxtaposes P. esp. Solin. Against the identification. rightly.173.Scavi 1919.h. This shows once again how fleeting was the cognomen Ponticus of Cotta.A. Inscr. observes that Ovidius. 339. vol. Cotti [--. See A. Shackleton Bailey and R. 69) because they were the last two men to receive in republican times an honorific name ex victoria. and not very accurately) the case of Cotta and Carbo. Gatti in Not. These dates are assured by numismatic evidence. “Namenwechsel und besondere Vornamen römischer Senatoren”... But when exactly in 61 Carbo arrived in Bithynia we do not know.R. zu erscheinen. E. s. durch welchen dem Cotta das Recht bei den öffentlichen Spielen mit den Ornamenta consularia.} Cf. D. (above. vol.498 (2000) ad loc. p.224 (1997).3 [Elogia]. ventures the following rather fantastic reconstruction: “die öffentliche Meinung kam in einem Volksbeschlusse zum Ausdruck. In 61–59. 191). F.–163 n. Personal Enmity in Roman Politics 248–43 BC (London 1987). Mommsen. Ein Namenbuch (Berlin 1982) 611. 154–55. M. but this depends on an (old and) doubtful conjecture. We would then deal with a funerary inscription of a slave or freedman of C. a Severan writer on military law (Dig. in any case the juxtaposition with Pontici is suggestive. and the Editor. Holder.109) and 361 (on 7. Petersen in PIR2 6 (1998) 340 (P. Courtney (above. quite frequent in inscriptions from Rome and Italy. Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz 1 [Leipzig 1896] 1144-1148). both successful as duces). So Arrius Menander.)..] Klebs. s.. E. 49... As E. and L. But perhaps in line 1 (of the current text. cf. {The connection of the poet with the aristocratic Cottae is admittedly fragile. Il primo libro delle elegie (Firenze 1980) 185–201.. Cottae et / [M].. Hosius.4 pr... PIR2 1. the only Ponticus listed in RE. if so Cotti would be the genitive of Cottius. .. [E. cum Aureliis Cottis ..A Missing Ponticus 129 42 43 166 44 45 46 47 C. COTTI.. PONTICI. n. a common Celtic name (cf. Cottius Ponticus. Fedeli (286. FR. 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. He is missing from Solin’s Namenbuch {he is now listed in the second edition. it is also only through an arbitrary surmise that the allusion to Ponticus is discovered in Ovid’s velivolique maris vates (ex Ponto 4. Schanz-C.16. is very useful for locating Ponticus in his literary milieu. Geschichte der römischen Literatur 24 (München 1929) 273.. 44) 244 (on 5. parentela . See on him K. 288–90) believes that also 1. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980) 380. coniunctus fuit”.12 is addressed to Ponticus. Ziegler. 2003. probably rightly. A. But it is probably safer to forget the aristocratic Cotta.21).. RE 22 (1953) 26–27. it is very likely that there is at least one line missing at the top of the stone) we should read COTTA\[E]. 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.... Fedeli. Pontici l(ibertus). Sesto Properzio.. for their probing and inspiring questions. 644}.304–7 (A 1486–88). FECIT. cf. refers this passage to the consul of 74... 785) is unconvinced: “vix . 229–51. 133. “Aurelius 107”.. The last Aurelius Cotta on record belongs to the Neronian epoch. I should like to thank the Referees.. Courtney..} See the erudite commentary by P..v. RE 2 (1896) 2489. and stick with the commoner C.. p. “Ponticus”. On the face of it we deal with two genitives (and this appears to be Solin’s understanding). Badian suggests (exempli gratia) a libertus of two brothers: C. Cotta Ponticus.94–95).16.. 386. E. Metellus Scipio [4] Q. The Gem II. Provinciae Privatis Decernuntur V. Linderski.4) [10] P. even if it consists of only three words. Metellus Pius Scipio [3] Q. by J. Abbreviations: Gruber. In a book entitled Antiche * † Imperium Sine Fine: T. 18. Gruber. Imperator Se Bene Habet I. Caecilius Q. Adoptione venit in familiam Metellorum III.A. Att. Scipio [12] Q. f.10 Q. Historia Einzelschrift 105 (Stuttgart 1996) 145–185 {with addenda}. SCIPIO IMPERATOR* CONTENTS I. Peace and Prosperity VII. Felix et Invictum Scipionum Nomen VI. ed. Robert S. The Nomenclature [1] Q. THE GEM† When a new document appears pertaining to a republican magistrate it cannot fail to evoke interest. CRR = H. Broughton and the Roman Republic. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum 1–3 (London 1910). Cornelius Scipio [11] P. Metellus Pius Scipio [2] Q. Metellus [5] Caecilius Metellus [6] Metellus Scipio [7] Metellus [8] Scipio Metellus [9] Scipio Cornelius (and Nepos. . Scipio [13] Scipio IV. The Language of Coins [1] The Elephant [2] The Sella Curulis [3] The Jug and the Lituus [4] The Trophy [5] Victory. Fab. Scipio Imperator 146 131 iscrizioni augurali1 e magiche dai codici di Girolamo Amati. AJAH 12 (1987) [1995]) 149–51. 1952.. 60. 42 as “tav. For the acclamatio imperatoria. 1226.20. see now (with discussion and further literature) J. 62. 2. and pl. III.C.. So D. Pomp. a publication not very likely to be perused by students of republican history.2. Kraner.. Magie. Gabriella Bevilacqua publishes2 (42–43. On the appellatio of Metellus Scipio. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .31–33) it would appear that despite any detrimenta Scipio was in full control of Syria5. H. 2) the following inscribed gem: Q(uintus) / SCIPIO / IMP(erator). In the East the title appears in two inscriptions from Pergamon: 1) SIG3 757 = IGRR 4. no. 5. Impronte gemmarie]. Att. Calpurnius Bibulus who in 51 suffered a discomfiture in the mountains of Amanus: sane plagam odiosam acceperat. F. feliciter reppulisset”. The passage of Cicero refers in fact to M. “Caecilius 99”. Cades. 1834. 9}. unfortunately repeats this misleading description. Arch. MRR 2.4. VIII.Q. 260–61.C. Plut. VIII. Lafaye in his commentary to IGRR 4. In 49 he was proconsul in Syria3. F. 9. T. 41. M. Roman Republican Coinage 1–2 (Cambridge 1974). “Caecilius 99” (above.. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1. The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London 1952). and together with Pompey consul in the latter part of 52. He was proud of his title of imperator (there cannot be any doubt that technically it was his soldiers who acclaimed him6). B. S. The texts published in this volume have nothing to do with Roman augurs or auguries.5.e.409: “cum Parthorum minas .” and on p. Teil I: Roma und Promagistrate (Tübingen 1979) 206 (on the base of a statue set up for Scipio): ÑO d[∞]mow MRR = T. n. the father-in-law of Pompey. C. tav. The gem in question was first published in the series Impronte gemmarie in Bull. Sydenham.. and was acclaimed imperator: his temporibus Scipio detrimentis quibusdam circa montem Amanum acceptis imperatorem se appellaverat.. p. 2. Combès. F. R. Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) 1. 3. 226 as “Cades [i. RRC = M. “A Missing Ponticus”. She correctly refers this text to Q. No. So contemptuously (and tendentiously) Caesar (B. Hofmann. The gem seems to have escaped the attention of students of Roman prosopography. 1. 275. di Corr. Att.1). 160–61 {reprinted in this volume. The sources listed below in the text (but not IGRR 4. RE 3 (1899). Billanovich in her review of Bevilacqua (Athenaeum 81 [1993] 351–53). The Parthians are too grandiose: much more likely he won “some sort of victory over the tribesmen of Mt.260–61. Amanus”. supposes that it was a battle with the Parthians. The exact place of publication Bevilacqua rather confusingly indicates on p. 31. Linderski. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii De Bello Gallico11 (Berlin 1912) 200–201. but from Caesar’s own account (B. Opuscula Epigraphica 2 (Roma 1991). say that detrimentis acceptis is corroborated by Cic. 1839.1. in 1831. Imperator (Paris 1966) 74–75. Actually re-publishes. H. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (Nasica). Atlanta 1986). MRR 2. R. CRR = E. 4) and in Broughton. 3 (New York 1951. The third instalment of the Impronte appeared in the Bull. G. Münzer. but neither author gives the exact wording of Scipio’s nomenclature.. Tuchelt. A.4. in 1839 (cf.C. Sydenham. Cf.411 = K. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien.403. 266”.31. Broughton. P. 3. n. Meusel. cf.421) are also recorded in Münzer. 11). Caes. dell’Ist.409 = Inschriften von Pergamon 2. This is a misnomer. About the engagement in the Amanus mountains nothing more is known 4. and he advertised it ceaselessly7. Crawford.6. Cic. {Cf. (cum imperio) . cf. (obverse and reverse). Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic (Berkeley 1985) 206–7: “actually governor of Syria. in seiner Eigenschaft als militärischer Befehlshaber”. Magie.297) refers to Crawford. But Stumpf also points out that in 49 as governor of Asia is attested C. He was not ‘Proconsul’ of Asia”. Crawford. Münzer. another partisan of Pompey.. but adduces verbatim only variant 1). 1257 (n. As to Fannius. Metellus Scipio was certainly not a governor of Asia. Wroth. Q. and the inscription:9 (above) Q. was more cautious. n. (obverse. M. Solin and M. It also appears on Pergamene coins: A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum. P. L. Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History (= Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 91 [Helsinki 1990]) 93. but active in Asia”. Aquila Legionis 5 (2004) 7–28. Fannius. 126: Scipio “issued coins in his military capacity (‘Imperator’). Metel(lus) Pius / Scipio Imp. we cannot doubt that Scipio will have upon his arrival assumed de facto the command of the province.421= I. Amela Valverde.471–72. sondern. 2) SIG3 758 = IGRR 4.42 (cf. MRR 2. he later appears in command in Asia”. Kajava (eds. and thus it is hardly likely that Scipio should have been formally appointed to that post.} 10 Crawford. but Stumpf’s argument is devoid of any force. (Oxford 1911) 535.. Kajava. 80). Metellus Pius (below) Scipio imper. MRR 3. M. . Epigraphic Evidence from the Republican and Augustan Period”. nos 459–61. R. Q. See also G.1580. Metell(us) Scipio Imp. But this was the period of civil war.)..412 = ILS 8777 = Tuchelt 207 (on the base of a statue set up for Scipio’s daughter8): ÑO d∞mow §t¤mhsen / Kornhl¤an Ko¤ntou Met°llou [P]¤ou / Skip¤vnow toË aÈtokrãtorow yugat°/ra. F. un ejemplo de las necesidades financieras durante la guerra civil de los años 49/48 a. He describes him as Propraetor: “originally sent to Sicily . wie der Imperator-Titel und der Legionsadler zeigen. Metel(lus) Pius Scipio Imp. Catalogue (as above in the text) XXXI. 49/48). Stumpf objects. 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. W.V. reverse). 4) 2. Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der römischen Statthalter in Kleinasien (Saarbrücken 1991) 41–42. Metel(lus) Pius Scip(io) Imp. Broughton. between them legionary eagle. RRC 1. Head. 9 A summary description also in B. Stumpf. (obverse). Roman Rule (above. Cecilio Metelo Pio Escipión. 2.. 8 Cf. Cf.C. who gives a list of all known exemplars. RE 3 (1899) 1596–97. Finally on a series of coins struck in Africa in 47–46 (where Scipio was in command of the Pompeian forces) his nomenclature exhibits four variants:10 1) 2) 3) 4) Q. He issued his coins “nicht als Statthalter.262. in H. on reverse two coiled snakes. “El cistóforo de Q. H. a. Historia Numorum2.”. (obverse). and whatever the legal situation. “Cornelius 417”. XXXI: Mysia (London 1892) 126 (cistophori minted in Pergamon.132 Historia et Ius 147 / [Ko¤]nton Kaik¤lion Ko¤ntou uflÚn / [M]°tellon P¤on Skip¤vna tÚn aÈto/ krãtora. lists Scipio Metellus as a governor of Asia. Broughton. “Roman Senatorial Women and the Greek East. 2. v. Every provincial governor was ex definitione also a military commander. O. A Historical Commentary on Asconius (Columbia. below. 12 See on him F. he had died by 78 for in a legal case in that year the future Metellus Scipio appears as a person sui iuris. 312–13. Scipioni. 197 (no. Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature2 (Atlanta 1991) 56. (Diss. Van Ooteghem. he owed to himself. Die römischen Militärhelme von der Zeit der Republik bis ins 3.Q. 16. 2. 4) 1224. Waurick. B. 13 Scipio’s adoptive (or rather assumptive) name-form was discussed by D. Les Caecilii Metelli de la république (Bruxelles 1967) 298–99. “Caecilius 99” (above. 10. also his Onomasticon to Cicero’s Speeches2 (Stuttgart 1992) 27. cf. “Caecilius 98”. n. the helmet will have belonged to a soldier in Scipio’s army. 13).87).14. “Cornelius 351”. 57. n. 69.W. subsequently the helmet would have come into the possession of a Celtic or Illyrian warrior.} 148 II. Chr. Q. MRR 2. 60. from Scipio’s (testamentary) adoption by Q. In Corn. section II). In fact it derives from Scipio’s assumption of the testamentary 11 For the career of this son of Numidicus. eximia virtute praedito non dedisset. 78] bonorum Cn. but the inscription was admitted only in 1986 to CIL I2. 153–54). so it is often maintained.. In particular the helmet and the inscription were discussed in detail by G. Münzer. RE 4 (1900) 1497. This find was first described in 1896. n. Sisenna [L. Krummrey in his erudite review of the monograph by Bevilacqua (Klio 80 [1998] 268–70 at 271) draws attention to another piece of documentary evidence for Scipio’s titulature. He attributed the inscription to Q. Scipio Imperator 133 the original cognomen Scipio. 112–13 (with notes on p. Caecilius Metellus Pius11 (see below. Cornelii possessionem ex edicto suo P.R. 174). and pontifex maximus. see F. BC 2. 13. Shackleton Bailey. He was praetor ca 93. an attribution accepted in CIL. 74. he inherited from Q. Cf. None of these scholars gives a full list of Scipio’s onomastic formulae. RE 3 (1899) 1221–24. It derives. A. A troubling topographical problem subsists. adulescenti summa nobilitate. pr. Metellus Scipio. . Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (= Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 97 [Helsinki 1992]) 8. After the battle at Pharsalos on 9 August 48 Scipio escaped to the island of Corcyra. Münzer. also Münzer. the text must postdate Scipio’s imperatorial acclamation in 49 and predate his arrival in Africa in the second half of 48. See Asc. Jh. Salomies. In the course of Scipio’s campaigns one of his soldiers must have lost it. Marshall. and a staunch Sullanian. lines 15–18 Clark: L. consul in 80. n. ADOPTIONE VENIT IN FAMILIAM METELLORUM The onomastic formula is of interest13. and the title of imperator. “Cicero on Praetors Who Failed to Abide by Their Edicts”. section III. Cornelius Scipio Nasica.3609a (with further literature). ad rem A. J. and subsequently he sailed to Africa (App. Cf. is occasionally inaccurate. MO 1985) 260–61. As Waurick saw. Caecilius Metellus Pius. Scipio he took from his father P. His movements in 49 and 48 are geographically far removed from the finding spot of the helmet. Cf. CQ 17 (1977) 184–86. {H. and ultimately it ended up in the river Colapis and in Berlin.12 and imp.. 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]. Lintott. Cornelius Sisenna. Mainz 1976) 30–33 (with notes on pp. This is unlikely: with the tract quoted by Plutarch Crassus was very displeased. to their duties belonged “die Aufsicht . over whom a cloud of suspicion hung. Crassus was carrying to Cicero anonymous letters disclosing the plot. [8]) came to Cicero to warn the consul of Catiline’s murder plot (Plut. and his assignment of the urban quaestorship in 62 to L. M. 3. i. M. Marcellus and Scipio were indeed high nobles. CP 37 [1942] 421–24). Att. Huber. Römisches Staatsrecht 23 [Leipzig 1887] 545).3: gÒnƒ m¢n uflÚw toË NasikoË v Ö n. below.3 Plutarch credits this information to Cicero’s own treatise de consulatu suo. whereas with Cicero’s speech he will have been satisfied: it was prompted by his own effusive praise of Cicero). Val. and although in that place Plutarch mentions only Crassus. n. Min.1). 38). The ini- . see his “Geldwechsler im Tempel”. {This argument is greatly fortified by the investigations of F. section III. cf. Cat.. without directly referring to Holmes. Mommsen. Taylor.172. Nomenclature [above.. R. but the story in Plutarch (Cat. Crassus. believes that the election date was 15 March: he writes he once came upon a text verifying this date. quaestorial rank). Crassus’ choice of his companions is perplexing. see below. For the first time it is on record (Plut. 60. 8. Tübingen 1971) esp.162). cf. 1–31. Max.15 •k d¢ dØ 14 The (approximate) date can be established in two ways. identifies the Per‹ tØw Ípate¤aw mentioned by Plutarch with Cicero’s speech in the senate delivered early in 61 [Cic. T.. that 15 March was a day marked in calendars as NP. At Crass. 13] 69. 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. 22) during the fateful night from 20 to 21 October 63: M. Min. X. Crawford. 7. Caesar succeeded Metellus Pius as pontifex maximus at the latest in July 63: after the trial of Rabirius. And so has everybody else {I regret to have missed the meticulous investigation by G. He points out. Kaik¤liow M°tellow Skip¤vn NasikoË ufl. it would appear that Marcellus and Scipio were to act as witnesses. R. n. and thus unsuited for elections. This is recorded by Cassius Dio 40. MRR 2. 5. Cornelius (Asc. He assigns Caesar’s election to the office of pontifex maximus to a date after the consular elections but before the election of praetors}). 15.5.3–4) makes much better sense if Marcellus was quaestor in the subsequent year (we may note that he is perhaps the future consul of 51. but omitted to take a note of it. 17] 132. line 21.134 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. 13. über die öffentlichen Papiere. 136. fortified himself against any deceit on the part of the consul. C&M 46 (1995) 151–56. Scipio’s new name.. Untersuchungen zu Caesars Oberpontifikat (Diss. saw well) Dio’s form in the index to book 40: K. Novius Niger. suggests that Scipio was at that time of senatorial. It is enticing to assume that they were the quaestores urbani. ufl. lines 22–23 Clark. it appears. this makes it virtually certain that the office for which he ran at a by-election in 60 was the aedileship (but see below. Cic. The Roman Republic and the Founder of the Empire 1 [Oxford 1923] 252–53. but not later than the elections of magistrates for 62 (cf. n.. Marcellus is certainly identical with Cato’s friend who is normally thought to have been Cato’s docile colleague in the quaestorship in 64. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations [= Hypomnemata 80.4]. In Corn. Marcellus and Scipio Metellus (on this name-form.51. Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 3. soweit dieselben bei der Kasse niedergelegt sind” (T. n. If Scipio was quaestor in 63 (Konrad. 102–5. n. and failed to find it since. L. 1.14. n. and the lex Labiena de sacerdotiis (although this law may not have concerned the modalities of the election of the pontifex maximus at all. “Also-Rans” [below. W.A3 (2002) 1. “L. 15 From this indication derives (as Shackleton Bailey. is an anachronistic reference to ca 73. cf. Next. He was still alive in 65: he appeared as a witness at the trial of C. 79. Novius Niger”.4). First. “The Election of the Pontifex Maximus in the Late Republic”.1.e.. we cannot doubt that he got the names of Marcellus and Scipio from the same unimpeachable source (J.. Plutarch writes that the three were êndrew ofl pr«toi ka‹ dunat≈tatoi ÑRvma¤vn. These considerations date Pius’ demise to 63 at the latest. which had to take place on a dies comitialis. MRR 2. Göttingen 1984]. n. Ryan. but young men. Holmes.} In this way Crassus. 18. 3. n. section III. HSCP 72 (1968) 247–78 at 251–61. below. Mommsen. 16 17 18 19 20 . In Mil. 14). Perhaps so. Livius Drusus Libo”. n. n. What tone he assumed with respect to Metellus Pius we do not know. see Boissevain in app.. F. His most notable predecessors had been W. he has retained the patrician status of the Cornelii. Römisches Staatsrecht III 1 (Leipzig 1887) 39–40. “Roman Officers in the Year of Pydna”. Marshall 276). Cf.Q. 79. It connects Scipio’s new §p¤klhsiw inextricably with Metellus Pius’ inheritance. Metellus Scipio is attested in 53 as interrex (CIL I2 2663c = ILLRP 1046). C. 104–15. Weinrib. and with it Scipio’s presumed plebity also vanishes17. 3–36 at 24. This idea was enthusiastically and unwisely embraced by Marshall. van België 32.. n. the testamentum of the deceased representing the adrogans18. It is incomprehensible why Münzer. ufl. AJP 111 (1990) 66 = Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 314. Dom. as was also a late Ciceronian scholiast (who supplied the caption for the present chapter. 4) 1224. *) 124–27}. Scipio Imperator 135 klÆrou diadox∞w §w tÚ toË Met°llou toË EÈseboËw g°now poihye‹w ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ tØn §p¤klhsin aÈtoË f°rvn (cf. his soon-to-be adoptive father. Hermes 3 (1869) 31–139 at 62–70 = Gesammelte Schriften 4 (Berlin 1906) 367–468 at 397–404. Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature [above. lines 16–20 Clark. Mededelingen Konink.16 About the legal consequences of such a testamentary disposition Dio was quite hazy. In Corn.. Schmitthenner. in a flattering way. Vlaamse Acad. “Zur Lebensgeschichte des jüngeren Plinius”. 4 (1970). “Les discours égarés de Cicéron pro Cornelio”. n. For with respect to Scipio even any contemplation of adrogatio can definitely be excluded. n. The conclusion: he did not turn into a plebeian. {in the codex Laurentianus. “Caecilius 99” (above. [3]). this still would not profit in any way the defenders of Scipio’s plebeian status. J. above.. 12) 260: “the date of the adoption is not known. Kumaniecki.. who was a witness for the prosecution (cf. “The Family Connections of M. 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. Cic. Commentary (above. The interrex had to be a patrician20.} represents (as Salomies. and precludes any notion that Scipio may have been “adopted” when Pius was still alive. But we note that the orator was not particularly kind to two of the consular witnesses (Asc.. 38. n. Linderski. “Notes on Roman Also-Rans”. Konrad (above. klÆrou diadox∞w is decisive. F. 17) 125. believes that Cicero in his speech Pro Cornelio chose to mention Scipio. T. lines 10–11 Clark. 106. n. 31. above. n. The phantom of “testamentary adoption” has been banished earlier in this volume by C. n. because he wished to ingratiate himself with Metellus Pius. Even if we wished to revive Mommsen’s singular idea that “testamentary adoptions” were regularly followed by the ceremony of adrogatio in the curiate assembly. [12]). Konrad. The indication §k . section II. and many of their modern colleagues. K. Oktavian und das Testament Cäsars: Eine Untersuchung zu den politischen Anfängen des Augustus2 (München 1973) 39–90. 13] 8. {Imperium Sine Fine (above. cf. J. Asconius. Prosopographical fish swim in a constitutional pond19. 12). 17) 128–31. and he has become a Caecilius Metellus only as far as the inheritance and onomastics were concerned. and perhaps Cicero knew of it. see below. and see Konrad’s discussion (above. but . points out) the praenomen replaced by filiation. Cf. and thus with his last will. Konrad. it is reasonable to assume that the adoption was at least contemplated in 65” (cf. tial K. E. Metellus Pius may have imposed an additional condicio that Scipio rename his future son(s). For that purpose the females were not particularly useful. was his daughter not called Caecilia? Münzer was obviously bothered. 23 “Automatically” is the operative word. where Scipio Metellus had a villa (cf. a son of the consul of 52.. Translated into Latin. Inscr. but he had an answer: she was born before Scipio “in die Familie der Meteller überging” 21. she is identified as Cornelia Q. 8) 1596. and thus even granting the very early age of Roman brides. “Cornelius 417” (above. see J. XIV. Cornelius Scipio changed his agnatic status to that of Q.421. and an ingenious and incisive investigation. or at least none who survived. not Scipio! (for full bibliography. adduced above. (Cornelius) Dolab(ella). Not even that. section III. below. Italiae XIII. perhaps no bar”. and pertained solely to the person who entered upon the inheritance. 279. Syme.3589). disappointingly he had none. He repossessed her from Cato: she was first betrothed to Scipio. 65–66: Cornelia “lays claim to Scipionic descent”. but also of all those who were at this moment in his power. A son of Metellus Scipio may still hide in Prop. it did not automatically extend to his dependents23. she will have indeed been born well before her father acquired the name of Metellus22. when Scipio broke the betrothal. Min.. Hence once again not an adrogatio. “a faint chance”. section I). R. esp. 285). ZPE 105 [1995] 279–96. Inscrutable are the fates of men and inscriptions. 7.29–30. see Plut. MRR 2. But his daughter continued to be Cornelia. 4. The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford 1986) 246–47. Cornelius (A. Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920) 314–16. p. 508–9. Licinius Crassus. Two years after Syme had proffered his surmise G. Metelli Pii Scipionis filia.11. That is indubitable. she had been married to P. In the Fasti Magistrorum Vici there appears under 35 as a suffect consul a P. as Mommsen plausibly conjectured. Bodel. and thus another exhibit of Caesar’s clementia. Caecilius Metellus.406 where Broughton prints as his cognomen “Scipio?”). In Tibur. So always in numerous literary sources in which her beauty vies with her misfortunes. [7]).1: Fasti Consulares et Triumphales [Roma 1947] 283. there is on attestation a [Met]ellus Scip[io]. “Chronology and Succession 2: Notes on Some Consular Lists on Stone”. He died young at the age of XIIX (CIL I. He would have been in his thirties at the moment of his father’s death. Cat. Münzer. cf. For the story of this operatic acrimony. then. Before Cornelia became in 52 Pompeius’ bride. Baci published in Kokalos 30–31 (1984–85 [1988]) 724–25 a new fragment of the Fasti Tauromenitani: the suffect consul of 35 was a P. This marriage took place in 55 (as established by Münzer). n. Degrassi. but indifferent to the problem at hand: for whenever she was born she was under her father’s potestas. The testator wished to preserve his family name. she became engaged to Cato. 13 [cf. conjectured that this man was “a son of Metellus Scipio born before his father changed his name”. but simple condicio nominis ferendi. 376]. Cf. and if that were not enough her name stands for all to see in an official dedication from Pergamon (IGRR 4. not Caecilia. 22 Scipio married Aemilia Lepida ca 73. That “no such son is on attestation anywhere . Now let us suppose that P. Why. and others accepted. I2. M. Athenaeum 65 [1987] 13 = Roman Papers 6 [Oxford 1991] 254). In another place (“Paullus the Censor”. F. If a real adrogatio had taken place it would have extinguished for good and ever the family name not only of the adrogatus. the ill-fated son of another ill-fated triumvir. He places it before Cato’s participation in 72 in the war against Spartacus. and she died in the year her brother was consul: the consul of 16 styles . p. She was called Cornelia.. 21 Münzer. This condicio was limited.136 150 Historia et Ius To Konrad’s cogent and erudite inquisition one small point begs to be added: the name of Metellus Scipio’s daughter. who in 53 together with his father perished at Carrhae. Domitius Tullus) where in lines 3–4 we read the condition si [. Why anyone. In particular “he cannot assign him to different tribe” 24. PIR 2 II [1936] 254–56. The tribe of Cicero was the Cornelia. the tribe. section V. recently.8. 98. and the filiation. and tribe”. As the tribe of the Scipiones Nasicae is otherwise not attested. section III. the brilliant disquisition by C. and see.]. 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. R. and have transferred residents of Rome from one rural tribe to himself P. How different the condition which the uninformed call “testamentary adoption”! (“there was no such thing”.5. L. Taylor. Cf. the so-called testamentum Dasumii (in reality probably of Cn. n. and particularly a Metellus. Aristocracy (above. nome]n meum laturum posterosque [suos laturos esse pollicitus erit . should have wished to change his registration from the Aniensis to the Fabia is not immediately obvious. F. and n. 24 R. 143. Syme admonishes his readers). Eck. see his “Zum neuen Fragment des sogenannten Testamentum Dasumii”. So trenchantly Syme. filiation. nomen. 37). In any case we can point nominatim to two tribes to which the Scipiones Nasicae and the Caecilii Metelli did not belong... 282. 6) was the Fabia (cf. . see below. 282–85 (on the tribes of the patricians). 2. R. 23) regards as certain that the Fabia was the tribe of the Nasicae. in the context supplied by Cicero’s letter it could not have been the tribe of either the Scipiones Nasicae or the Caecilii Metelli. the “adoptive father” of Scipio Nasica. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus.. Favonius himself probably belonged to the Oufentina. n. Taylor leaves the matter in aporia: it is uncertain whether this was the tribe of the Scipiones Nasicae or Caecilii Metelli.Q. cf. perhaps less pleasing candidate for Cornelia’s father. meam tribum tulit honestius quam suam. But at the same time she points out that Q. in the nomenclature the original tribe is retained. but the reader will observe that Taylor assumes for a fact the “adoption” of Scipio. Cornelius Scipio P. Metellus Scipio’s tribe as revealed by the prescripts to the senatus consulta recorded by Caelius (Fam. Thus “the possibility must be considered that a change of tribe in Metellus Pius’ line resulted from a successful prosecution” 25. For another.9) that Favonius. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 198. Aristocracy 246. Luccei perdidit. In 60 Cicero reports (Att.1. “Clues to Testamentary Adoption”. this still would not per se prove Scipio’s adrogatio: the change of tribe could be effected by censorial acts. “‘Domitius Calvisius’ in Plutarch”. [1]). The tribe of Lucceius is unfortunately unknown. f. First. 8. The supplements are due to W. and leans to intimate that Scipio inherited his tribal affiliation from Metellus Pius. Syme.. Even if the Fabia could be proven to have been the tribe of the Metelli. below. ZPE 103 (1994) 139–46.. was in the Aniensis. Scipio Imperator 151 137 Two delicate points still need to be considered. For a possible parallel to Metellus Pius’ disposition. in particular the censors “must have changed men’s tribes freely with change of residence. and his and Cornelia’s father may be the missing son of Scipio Metellus (Syme. ZPE 30 (1978) 277–95 at 286–87. who was great-uncle of Metellus Pius. Syme. who unsuccessfully competed with (Scipio) Nasica for a magistracy (cf. everything disappears: praenomen. 25 L. Konrad. cos. C 1438). “When a proper and plenary adoption has been conducted. P. below. n. For “no citizen by his last will and testament can change the legal status of his heir”. cf. in Epigrafia e ordine senatorio 1 = Tituli 4 (Roma 1982 [1984]) 397–410 at 397–98 = Roman Papers 4 (Oxford 1988) 159–70 at 159–60. A conflict between the filiation Q.2).138 152 Historia et Ius another in which they had acquired property”. and the banker Q. see Shackleton Bailey. To see all its faces. certainly much vaster than that he had inherited from his own father. a formal declaration”. 8. but . and peruse all cases. 260–61 (the tribe of Cicero). n. Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature (above. Nomenclature (above. long sought. it is suggested. does not abolish a man’s original paternity”. Weinrib. 13) 68. 13) 60. Iul. This declaration could have been pronounced at any place. Octavium etiam in familiam nomenque accepit (Suet. n. “Clues” (above. a full testamentary adoption and a mere condicio nominis ferendi.30 and Julius Caesar when he in ima cera C. n. Testamentary dispositions concerning the institution of heirs could come in a variety of forms and shapes. Dio. This discrepancy goes to the very heart of the matter. The following criterion declares a “testamentary adoption”: “At the head of the nomenclature normally stand the new praenomen and nomen (which adhere closely together). Fam. 282. cit. His natural father was P. Caecilius with respect to his nephew T. The Law of Succession in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford 1971) 188: “An inheritance was accepted (aditio) by cretio. “Bausteine und Lücken im römischen Rechtstempel”. 28 Shackleton Bailey. n. and the daughter’s nomen of Cornelia.27 Three documents (the senatus consulta in Cic.5. 17). It is doubtful whether this trick (as distinguished from a legal dodge) would have worked for Scipio. prima facie. 6. When the heir performed before the praetor the cretio and aditio hereditatis31 26 Taylor. ZRG 93 (1976) 1–18 at 3–5. under Greek influence. and he could also enjoin the posthumous assumption of the heir as his son.409. In the last decennia of the republic. f. f. “Drusus Libo” (above. n. n. 10. 73. who so acutely rebuked Mommsen’s belief in testamentary adoptions (253–61). Here. cf. and it pits against each other. We are dealing with two faces of a hybrid institution. however. A. This prefix. Salomies. as in fact he was. 29 R.. See also 206–8 (tribal affiliations of the Cornelii). 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”. 30 On his name-style. 25) 23. 13) 8–10. . 189–93). Next. 31 Cf.28 Not so: at best a double conflict. Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature (above. also Cass. a separate disquisition is called for. Thus. and a conflict between the filiation and the legal rule that the interrex had to be a patrician. n.8. 24) 398 = 160. the filiation.) and Salomies (p. visibly strains to explain Scipio’s new filiation (260): he may have been trying “to give the appearance of being not a heres extraneus. the proof. Index to book 40) proclaim that Scipio was Q. a glimpse.. Salomies. Appearances mislead. This was apparently what Metellus Pius envisaged with respect to Scipio Nasica. 9). so it appears. Voting Districts (above. Watson. onomastic and constitutional. 27 Syme. So Shackleton Bailey and Salomies. not necessarily before the praetor urbanus (cf. it failed to convince Shackleton Bailey (loc.26 And Scipio acquired through Metellus Pius’ last will and testament immense property.29 an innovation was made: a testator without sons would enjoin a principal heir to assume his name. but of being a heres suus.. Pomponius Atticus. and the dedication from Pergamon IGRR 4.. Düll. 13) 8–10. 213 (the tribe of Favonius).. n. Nomenclature (above. of genuine adoption. 4 [Roma 1966]) 329–38 = E. but only functioned loco filii. and in substance. Bd. Gai Institutionum Commentarii IV: Kommentar. before a praetor. Inst. quod ad sacra35. For the goal of Roman adoptio. an agreement. did not require any authorization either 32: it was a private agreement between two families.W. Bacch. But as he was in potestate the state was not interested. Konrad. Die Juristenkomik in Ciceros Rede Pro Murena (Zürich 1974) 123–25. Nelson.. and the procedure required the pontifical approval. see the detailed study by E. Gaius. Inst. 976). particularly if it involved a change of name. vol. 27 (and already Plaut. Volterra. and we may suppose that this was a normal course of action for all those claiming a major inheritance. and so also testamento adoptatus did not become a (posthumous) son of the testator. Zumptius. Murena (Berolini 1859) 49 (ad loc. of a filius familias. an agreement with all the consequences in civil law. 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. In form. but none in sacral or public. Tulli Ciceronis oratio Pro L. Roman Marriage (Oxford 1991) 28–30. and the commentaries by A. Mur.. 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. Bürge. Annalen. 2 (Heidelberg 1965) 79–82. n. this was no adoption at all. David and H. E. that entailed a complete change of status of the person adopted. Koestermann. 1. Nuove ricerche sulla “conventio in manum”. and of his sacra familiaria. n. Ann. In the situation where no fatherly power was instituted. 17] 125. The praetorian addictio (Gaius. however. 114. . 1 Lieferung (Leiden 1954) 168–71. Scritti Giuridici 3 (Napoli 1991) 81–90. Scipio Imperator 153 139 he accepted the testamentum in its entirety including his enjoined assumption loco filii. 134) was not an authorization or permission to perform the ceremony of adoptio. Cf.16. A wife in manu did not become a daughter of her husband but was solely loco filiae33. 4.. Volterra. 1. Tac. or perhaps we should say he was invited se pro filio gerere. see Cic. VIII. Cf. Inst. 32 33 34 35 Octavian to make his declaration headed to the tribunal of the urban praetor (cf. the status of the “adopted” remained perforce unchanged. We may observe that the adoptio proper. On this remarkable legal dodge to avoid the upkeep of the sacra.Q. Cornelius Tacitus. whether of a filius familias or a person sui iuris. On the other hand the adrogatio was in its essence a curiate law. 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. ser. “Also-Rans” [above. On the expression in loco. also S. he took the possession of his name. M.99. A. the comments by M. 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. 12. dei Lincei. (= Memorie della Accad.111.). Gaius. Together with the estate of the deceased. 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. 1. of the masks of his ancestors. W. fasc. L. 107). Treggiari. was to establish patria potestas.136. in iure. In the testamentary “adoption” there was no patria potestas to be created. even posthumously. practice. (on Caecilius Metellus) 94. Family and Familia in Roman Law and Practice (Oxford 1998). 1) 3–18. and soundness of the testamentary adoption. 17) 125–27. Buraselis in his review of Imperium sine fine. III. Yet the strife continues. [8]). con la condizione di prendere il nome del testatore”. Rosendorfer. he remained a Cornelius who. “Also-Rans” (above. and this may well be due to the circumstance that he was Caecilius Metellus nomine only but not genere.-L. R. Watson. and the remarks by A.47–49. as he did not perform the detestatio sacrorum. He rightly concludes: “Es hat also . was in any case obligated to take care of the sacra of the testator (see Cic. His argument (and also that by K. ZRG 116 (1999) 49–70. 37 Cf. The innovation was left. must have been a showplace of Rome”. Klio 78 (1996) 87–104 at 93–104. Fayer.. Kunst. as is proper. Very sensible is also the presentation by C. 54. J. however. Scipio became an heir to Pius. In a spirited and erudite article (though he missed the contributions in the Broughton memorial volume) L. section III. I regret that I had missed the study by H. Der Neue Pauly 1 (1996) 123... with the wax masks of two long lines of consular ancestors and with many more added from the female line. and in public law he was and he continued to be a patrician. Gardner.. 130). Kunst and Fayer. in sacral law. But there is no reason to assume that “die testamentarische Adoption des jungen Octavius .. The following forms are on record: 36 According to the pontifical law Scipio.140 Historia et Ius 154 To conclude: in private law. Die angebliche Adoption des Augustus durch Caesar (Abhandlungen Mainz. n. n. eine testamentarische Adoption nach römischem Recht nicht gegeben” (11). follows Syme. F. 45. He fails. Schumacher. however: certainly with respect to Metellus Scipio (cf. n. also took care of the ancestral sacra of the Caecilii36. were presented in an article that appeared almost simultaneously with my paper: C. THE NOMENCLATURE Scipio’s onomastic style shows a baffling variety. She concludes that the socalled adoptio testamentaria was solely “una semplice istituzione d’erede. In this sense also (briefly) M. Caesar’s testamentum imposed upon Octavius the condicio nominis ferendi. Klasse der Literatur 1990. to the divi filius37. and the new Caesar turned it – in a new legal departure – into an entitity pretending to be an equivalent of the old adrogatio. Taylor. 128–30. war entweder eine kühne oder vielleicht sogar freche Fälschung des Grossneffen des Diktators” (12). “Oktavian und das Testament Caesars”. L. La familia romana I (Roma 1994) 351–61. and interpreting it as solely the condicio nominis ferendi. Konrad. esp. as the main heres. {It must have been in the air: cogent arguments against the testamentary adoption as a genuine adoption. “Adoption und Testamentadoption in der späten Republik”. ZRG 117 [2000] 656) founders on the rock of Metellus’ office of interrex (which neither of them considers). Ways could be found to achieve a complete change of status. Deissmann-Merten. “Adoption”. but Scipio could now claim to perform them not only as a person ad quem pecunia venerit but also loco filii. 2.} . de leg. Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley 1949) 35: “His atrium. The Law of Property in the Later Roman Republic [Oxford 1968] 32–37). 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. Cf. defends the concept. and as far as the families of the Scipiones and the Metelli were concerned. and a member of Pius’ family. however. Metellus Pius Scipio IGRR 4. Metellus. where..”.1. formulas 1–3 (see above. and the tribe masquerades as Fabius. Scipio. Chr. 21) that his full name was “Q. and coins in Africa. Fab. Q. Geschichte Roms 2 (Leipzig 1902) 36.. Metellus Scipio may have stressed his Scipionic ancestry. erat enim munus Scipionis. De re rustica. it is generally accepted. 11. 51). June 60).31–42). Sest. 17] 123–24. the Scholiast explains: 38 In “The Dramatic Date of Varro. f. n. Asc. I stated that “as the Fasti Consulares for 52 are lost we do not know [Scipio’s] official style”.421.. MRR 2. Ryan.409 (see above. More likely Nasica was the name that the old-fashioned Favonius used (and Cicero repeated).15. whether the tribunate or the aedileship. Book III and the Elections in 54”. The charge. The office of Nasica in 60.. Drumann-P. ca 93. it is attested in the list of witnesses to the senatus consulta quoted in Caelius’ letter to Cicero (Fam. Why this exception? Cicero informs Atticus that Favonius lost election for an office (apparently it was a by-election. 8. 155 [2] Q. 21 = Roman Questions (above n.22 (in a rather formal notice: Q.8. 2). Sch.. thus disregarding Scipio’s assumed nomenclature. After his assumption of the Caecilian name Scipio himself does not seem to have used the cognomen Nasica. was always troubling. named earlier). Now elections were often decided by inherited clientelae. I also wrote (251. and unknown is Favonius’ victorious competitor. resp. 169–75. coins in Pergamon. esp. n. Caecilius Q. 16. [3] Q. 40 W. conquestus est).Q. 34. line 8 Clark (in a list of candidates for the consulship). The crime of Nasica is unknown. section I). As far as the cognomen Nasica is concerned this is incorrect. section I). Favonius accused Nasica. also MRR 3. 30. with the office cancelled. was de ambitu. the tribe is omitted. 5. and invoked his father Scipio Nasica (pr. but Nasica was not his rival at the elections. inaccurately print Q. Cf. See the illuminating discussion by Konrad [above. 175. 29 Sep. Metellus Scipio Cic. 639. the cognomen Scipio was here necessary to distinguish him from Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus. “Nochmals über Nasica’s Tätigkeit im Jahre 60 v. 60. See the apparatus ad locc. 124. . Following the accepted usage (in particular by Broughton in MRR). RSA 29 (1999). Bobiensia 137 Stangl: commenting on Cic. Metellus Pius Scipio The full official style38. 19) 103.9. and that he brought a suit against his victorius competitor Nasica: accusavit Nasicam inhoneste. n. has found an ingenious solution to the enigma of Nasica and Favonius. n. Cicero: Epistulae Ad Familiares 1 (Cambridge 1977) 164–65. {F. Har. Historia 34 (1985) 251. in the second the nomen and the tribe are left out. cf. n. but Cicero once refers to him by this name (Att. Cicero recounts two defeats of Favonius: at the polls and in the court. i. Scipio Imperator 141 [1] Q. n. in the edition by D. Metellus Scipio in senatu . X. Groebe. dignum et eo ipso et illo Metello cui dabatur.} 39 In this text there are numerous (but easy to correct) scribal errors: in the first decree the nomen is given as Caelius.R. Shackleton Bailey. cf. prosopographical order is restored. So also IGRR 4. 12 (in a list of pontifices40. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica”. certainly not for the tribunate of the plebs: almost certainly for the curule aedileship.e. Of course we do know his official style from the senatus consulta reported by Caelius. ac modeste tamen. 2. 39) 372. Familiares 2 (above.. Shackleton Bailey. Max. he may also have been a hortologist. Fasti Hydatiani. R.182) praises two exquisite kinds of lettuce.11.1 (a. This villa was called villa Metelli because Scipio inherited it from his assumptive (vulgo adoptive) father.8. Metellus This form appears in the dating formula in the tesserae nummulariae: CIL I2 2663c = ILLRP 1046: id. 8. Degrassi. utraque Caecilii de nomine dicta Metelli.13.7: nunc contra villam urbanam quam maximam ac politissimam habeant. [5] Caecilius Metellus In his hortological poem Columella (10.2.1. 5. 9.2 (a. 16. Ibid. also Cic. So also Cassiodorus: Cn. Q. 1. XIII. The identity of this Metellus is a mystery. 156 41 Cf. Lucanus 8. sub [8]). XIII. 1 (as in [4]) 496.1. It. N. Met(ello) int(errege) (a. Att.41 Fam. it was annexed by Antonius.R. Metellus also in Chronicon Paschale.196 (referring to Scipio’s pamphlet against Cato). 55. Metellus.19: in Tiburtino Scipionis42). see A. 50. 344. 116. 43 Cf. 46?): Bacchas istas cum Musis Metelli comparas most probably refers to Metellus Scipio. dant operam ac cum Metelli ac Luculli villis pessimo publico aedificatis certant. coins in Africa. 7. . formula 4 (see above.142 Historia et Ius Adoptione tamen venit in familiam Metellorum et. see Inscr. Inscr. 6..2.1.277 (in both passages describing Scipio’s daughter as proles Metelli). Pompeius et Q. reformatum est ut esset Q. Plin.109: villam Scipionis. [4] Q. I2 933 = 1051: Cn. [6] Metellus Scipio Val. Italiae..410. Me(tello) (a.17 (Feb. 1 (as in [4]) 496. Pomp. n. 44): villa Metelli (but at Phil. Q. XIII. Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (= Collection Latomus 142 [Bruxelles 1975]) 266. 1: Fasti Consulares et Triumphales (Roma 1947) 496. line 10 Stangl. section II). As Scipio Metellus was interested in fattening geese (see below [8]). the comment by Shackleton Bailey. 309. 42 Cf. cum illi fuisset nomen in praeteritum gentile scilicet et naturale Cornelio Scipioni. Caecilius Metellus Pius43. 53). see Inscr. reproduced below. Sch. 2.H. Metellus Scipio (see above. Cf. 12. Shatzman. section I). 9. Pomp(eio) Q. It. I. 52). Plut. Fam. Iun. but he may be our man. See also Varro.23. Bob. [7] Metellus So Cicero in his remarks following upon the passage Att. . The text may be corrupt.e. Min. Perhaps also in Val. R. I. above. and see also below in the text. This paper was missed or disregarded by Shackleton Bailey. Hermes 40 (1905) 50–100 at 93–100. 138] suum nescit censorem non fuisse? (cf.1. n. by D. 15. in addition to his Liber annalis) in aliis libris. K.16: aut triumphus alicuius. 13) 69. Marshall. Leipzig 1977). [9]. n. n. Max. 18.13. After Scipionis Cornelii a lacuna has been postulated. Endt) 3. cf. N. 31. strictly following the paradosis of Nepos.2.23: Cornelia Scipionis Metelli filia. Bruti rogatu Iuniam familiam a stirpe ad hanc aetatem ordine enumeravit. 22). 3. 47 C. Phil. Att. 48 F. cf. the commentary ad loc. above. n.17 in a contemptuous aside: Scipio hic Metellus proavum [i. P.Q. n. 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. 14). 6. There is nothing to recommend this view. He argues. 3. certainly refers to Metellus Scipio. Cichorius. De fastis consularibus antiquissimis (= Leipziger Studien zur class. Scipionis Cornelii parallels Marcelli Claudii..e.10. though the very form of his name may be questioned. Cat. pari modo Marcelli Claudii Marcellorum. Plut. 95) 67. 10. ut tunc fuit Scipionis Metelli. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus 3 (Cambridge 1968) 249–50. P. 10. [9] Scipio Cornelius (and Nepos. . R. cos. n.4) Despite reservations of Shackleton Bailey45. Münzer. the passage of Nepos. notans quis a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus cepisset. 1: horum greges (i.. [9]).e. Münzer. n. 2. 3. Scipio Nasica Serapio. Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. C. RE 4 (1900) 1506.44 This form also in Varro. 45 Shackleton Bailey. in which this form appears. 18. 1. Shackleton Bailey decreed “Better Scipionis Corneli<orum>”. Scipionis Cornelii et Fabii Maximi Fabiorum et Aemiliorum46. Att. “Cornelius 357”. is a prize lapsus calami: he explains Cornelius Scipio as “Scipio Africanus the Younger.1 (anachronistic as it refers to ca 73. “Atticus als Geschichtsschreiber”. Seius habent magnos aliquot. 7. 9.R. suggests that Atticus composed his liber for Scipio Salvitto (who appears to have adopted testamento a Pomponius). Billows “The Last of the Scipios” (below. below. 20.2. Cic. n.. Scipio Imperator 143 [8] Scipio Metellus So Cic. Nepos remarks on the genealogical works of Atticus: fecit hoc idem separatim (i. ut M. Cichorius sensibly proposed to read Scipionis Cornelii <Corneliorum>47. Att. Rolfe in Loeb Classical Library (1929) 685. The meaning is: “This Scipio who is Metellus”. Nomenclature (above. Cf.. F.H. that 44 Cf. unfortunately did not admit Cichorius’ conjecture even to his apparatus. the most recent editor of Nepos (Teubner.4.52 (also coupled with Seius and the geese). 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.2 [1887]) 236–37. who was Aemilius adopted by a Scipio”.78 (as socer of Pompeius). 46 The comment by J. Plin. of anseres) Scipio Metellus et M.1 (referring to 63. The passage has been treated at length by Münzer in his famous paper on Atticus as a historian48. Shackleton Bailey.. he was a wastrel.201). As one can easily see Fabius Maximus included in his statuary stemma only the descendants of L. He is the only link to the stemma of Fabius Maximus: the other son of L. This Q. and in this way he produced an immediate connection between Scipio and Fabius Maximus. Gli Elogia augustei del Foro Romano. 138. Fabius Maximus regarded himself as a scion of Fabii. ob auch Metellus Scipio etwas ähnliches unternommen hat”. the inscriptions (CIL I2. 96) will show that the genealogical connection between Fabius Maximus and Metellus Scipio was rather tenuous. were represented on the fornix. 28: nihil Maximus fecit alienum aut sua virtute aut illis viris clarissimis. Scipio Africanus (i. 181 (RE 105). 97): “es ist ein Zufall. dass wir nicht wissen. n. LTUR 2 (1995) 264–66.762. {On the fornix Fabianus. Eadem. certainly the Cunctator. RE 6 (1909) 1791–92. Aspetti epigrafici e topografici (= Opuscula Epigraphica 7 [Roma 1996]) 26–36. . is a welcome literary reference to the restored arch. Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos. Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. see below at the end of this section. RE 355) to P. This corresponds very well to Nepos’ indication that Atticus at the request of Fabius Maximus delineated the families of Fabii and Aemilii. Il Foro Romano 2 (Roma 1985) 172–73. Chioffi. the future new Africanus. Vat. 763 = ILS 43 and 43 a = ILLRP 392) are known from Renaissance copies. Münzer. Coarelli. cos. 179–80.e. On the fornix. pr. was the father of Allobrogicus (RE 110). see now L.. The common link is P. verum etiam videmus). Fabius Maximus. Cornelius Paulli f. 50 The elder son of L. his connection with the Cornelii is solely through the device of the younger son of Aemilius Paullus becoming a Scipio. and the line then descended through P.. Scipio Africanus. She argues that also other Fabii. RE 353). Fabius Maximus. which he restored as curule aedile in (no doubt) 57. and his son of the same name (cos. Africanis. 121). Fabius Maximus Aemilianus. the victor of Pydna and the natural grandfather of Allobrogicus50. RE 354). ca 93. Scipio Aemilianus). Paullis. flanked on the right by that of P. Fabius Maximus (RE 107.} On the names of Maximus’ sons. Q. MRR 2. Aemilius Paullus. RE 351) and to our Scipio Metellus. and that on top of the fornix Fabianus (originally erected by his grandfather Q. Scipio Nasica (pr. he placed the statue of L. and his son Q. Aemilius Paullus was adopted by Q. 111. spoken in 56. Now Münzer assigned the aedileship of Metellus Scipio also to 57 (cf. Scipio. Aemilius Paullus. “Fabius 108”. 145 (RE 109). but then he continued (p. 49 See on him F. and on the left by his own statue. In the middle of the stemma we have P. cos. Aemilius Paullus and Papiria was adopted by Q. and his line then descended through Allobrogicus (cf. Aemilius Paullus. see F. This script of Atticus Münzer rightly connected with Fabius Maximus’ renovation of the fornix. 162. Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus.144 157 Historia et Ius Scipio and Fabius Maximus49 joined together in asking Atticus to write about the Fabii and Aemilii. 51 The statues are lost.51 Cicero’s videmus. P. He points out that Q. the natural archegetes of his line. Maxumis. Cornelii and Aemilii (Cic. But a glance at Münzer’s stemma (p. quorum gloriam huius virtute renovatam non modo speramus. 49). his daughter married a member of a collateral branch of the Scipiones. 155. Fabius Maximus. the son of Africanus who adopted the younger son of L. hence the aedile’s glorification of his more distant ancestors) to our aedile. 147.) and 249–50 (commentary). Tullius Cicero 3 (Dublin-London 1890) 306–7. Cicero avers that he himself had been perplexed: at mehercule ego.. and thus Scipio Metellus was not entitled to appropiate its imago for his equestrian statue of Nasica. But above all he plausibly suggests (136–37. 132): he took a statue of the latter as representing the former. cens. Shackleton Bailey. The inscriptions on the bases of the two old 52 I follow the reading of the manuscripts {as does also W. {This interpretation of Cic. but everything he says about the placement of the statues by Metellus Scipio has to be referred to the statues of Aemilianus. Stadtrömische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischer Zeit (= Historia Einzelschriften 130 [Stuttgart 1999]) 222–24. though not as a presumptive aedile in 57 but as consul in 52.1.. 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. and with respect to the other (following Purser) he prints ‘cos. Y. E. imago ipsa declarat52. Coarelli’s main and brilliant contribution is in the area of topography. I. On the textual problems here involved.Q. 50). On a Statue of Africanus”. Scipio Metellus could legitimately take it to be a statue of Nasica Serapio who had been a consul. anulus. “Le tyrannoctone du Capitole et la mort de Tiberius Gracchus”. and as a result ascribed to Nasica the censorship Nasica had never administered. There is no need for those transpositions and emendations. Sehlmeyer. also his clear exposition in LTUR 4 (1999) 359 s.) in excelso est. prudently observes (223) that in Cicero’s letter “beide Lesarten des Textes sind . This refutes the argument by R. Letters to Atticus (above. thus linking in a powerful political program the two tyrant slayers. in illa autem quae est ad Polukl°ouw Herculem inscriptum est ‘consul’.’. n. R. But I am afraid Coarelli misreads the words of Cicero when he claims (146) that “on avait placé deux têtes de Scipion Emilien sur deux statues équestres dédiées à Scipion Nasica”. Coarelli. <cens. 1. erratum fabrile putavi. The Correspondence of M. AJAH 14 (1989 [1998]). But he should have noticed that this is a statue of the same man who in another statue is identified as CENS. 138) with the younger Africanus (cos. Cicero remarks on Atticus’ hilarious information de statua Africani. Scipio Nasica Serapio (cos. Purser. Cicero clearly speaks of two statues of Africanus but of only one of Nasica Serapio. Palmer.17–18 (and of the nature of Scipio’s error) has been endorsed (in passing) by R. and consequently the statue with COS was not his statue either. written in Laodicea on 20 Febr. Tyrrell and L. As Serapio had never been a censor this cannot have been his statue. Cf. denkbar”. The manuscript reading is also defended by F. but was rejected (not unexpectedly) by D.>’. Att. 55. 159–60) that it was Metellus Scipio who erected on the Capitol also a statue of Aristogeiton. “Two Passages in Cicero’s Letters. amictus. 6.v. who restated his earlier position. quam esse eiusdem status. 70–72. “ Statuae: Cornelii . Watt in his OCT edition (1965)}. nunc video Metelli. In a letter to Atticus (6.1. namely that Metellus Scipio had confused his great-grandfather P. n. Diiudicent sagaciores! M.17–18. 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. and no reason to accept Purser’s contention that it is unlikely that ‘censor’ would stand alone. With respect to the first statue (following Malaespina) he prints ‘cos. Ibid. 44) 94 (ad loc. in app. cum in turma inauratarum equestrium quas hic Metellus in Capitolio posuit animadvertissem in Sarapionis subscriptione Africani imaginem.. A. Scipio Imperator 145 158 In fact we do know that Metellus Scipio did undertake a similar statuary program. S. In which part of the Capitoline Hill Scipio Metellus planted his “equestrian cavalcade” Cicero does not tell us. see Shackleton Bailey. C. Cicero’s train of thought is this: as the statue ad Herculem has only the inscription COS. “Bullae Insignia Ingenuitatis”. MEFRA 81 (1969) 137–60 at 145–46. So far.6. It rests on his literary interests. On the composition and publication of the De re publica.} 53 Fam. But above all Metellus Macedonicus did not display the statues on the Capitol but within his portico (later rebuilt as Porticus Octavia). One wonders what face he selected for Africanus himself. Plin. the work of Lysippus. This curious circumstance illuminates Scipio’s error. and. in particular he does not differentiate between the paradosis and the conjectures in the letter of Cicero. Gesche. e. comments on Cicero’s description of the statues set up on the Capitol by Metellus Scipio as turma inauratarum equestrium (Att. f. Cicero had completed his De re publica before he departed in 51 for Cilicia. 6. E.64. N. 34.12–13) which Q. “Equus” is confused. he not only engraved the title of censor that belonged to Africanus but never to Nasica. They were thus never moved to the Capitoline hill. Iust. 40) 6 (1929) 71–74. omitting the honorific surname of Africanus (so incisively Shackleton Bailey). the turma Alexandri). Otherwise (we have charitably to grant this to Metellus Scipio) he would have discovered his mistake. n. The former was a work of Lysippus. and have nothing to do with the equestrian statues commissioned by Metellus Scipio. of course. Jb. Scipio Nasica Serapio) solely by status. The Cornelii and Caecilii parading in Macedonian attire and armor? (these statues. Gracchus. And when Cicero spoke of turma inauratarum equestrium he may have been hinting at the turma of Alexander (or Macedonicus).1.H.1. the slayer of Ti. in front of the two temples it enclosed (of Iuppiter Stator and Iuno Regina) and. Scipio Nasica Serapio.) whereas Metellus Scipio confused both the features and the titles of his (assumptive) Scipionic forebears. Metellus Macedonicus brought to Rome from Macedonia (in 146) and “auf dem Capitol aufstellte”. In the former the features of the fallen amici Alexandri were expressed summa similitudine (Plin. by the titles. very likely he erected the statues not of all Cornelii Scipiones but only of the members of his own branch of the Scipiones Nasicae.. It was not a flattering comparison. 13. as Velleius reports. ingenious and convincing. How did Atticus become involved in this comedy? Shackleton Bailey has produced an explanation. LTUR 2 (1995) 230 s. only part of the puzzle. she suspects. f. there is a connection. may be identical with the turma statuarum equestrium (Vell. In a modified form.53 The rolls fell also into the Scipiones”. represented the Macedonian cavalrymen who fell at Granicus. Tui libri politici omnibus vigent. anulus..v.. Papi. This turma. 11. see Drumann-Groebe. (as.17). he also assigned to his ancestor the very image of Africanus.4.146 Historia et Ius 159 statues of Africanus must have identified him solely by an abbreviated family name. it seems. They could be distinguished from the statues of the other Cornelii who were also P. 1. these statues were still at his time (hodie) maximum ornamentum eius loci. “Die Reiterstatuen der Aemilier und Marcier”. cf. The statues looted by Macedonicus were. n. P.. H. Geldgeschichte 17 (1968) 29. f. This turma may have served as an inspiration for Metellus Scipio. Also generous to Metellus Scipio. amictus. reports Caelius in May 51. commonly known as turma. Metellus Scipio correctly attributed the two statues to the same person. and thus “Caec. imago ipsa. Numismatik u.g. . It was an immediate success. the denomination both Pliny and Velleius give to it.11. that of Metellus Scipio an (opus) fabrile. And thus when he placed on the Capitol the equestrian statue of his great-grandfather P. but he wrongly and deplorably thought that this was his proavus: o énistorhs¤an turpem! He turned Africanus into Serapio. Geschichte Roms (above. P. Still. Metellus zur Zeit Ciceros vielleicht nur eine Umstellung vornahm und dabei gleichzeitig die vorhandenen Reiterbilder mit neuen auf seine Ahnen bezogenen Inschriften versah”. the explanation runs as follows. 8.3–4. Cornelius Scipio P. to inquire whether this was really so54. P. it strains the imagination to picture him engaged in 52 in a futile investigation of the Capitoline statuary. to be followed by a commentary: Nam et de duobus avis iam diximus. The singular should not distress us. gegeben haben. 1.. that it must be quoted in full. qui ex dominatu Ti. 57 Cf. Münzer concluded his analysis of the text of Nepos with a rather plaintive observation that “die Angaben des Nepos doch nicht ganz vollständig sind. and that Cicero would not have elaborated even more effusively than he does on Scipio’s ignorance. argues that the passage that aroused Scipio’s discomfort could not have been Laelius’ complaint. “Atticus” (above. As to the interjection. today extant only in the paraphrase of Macrobius (Somn. 54 Shackleton Bailey. Münzer actually assumed that Scipio committed his error “absichtlich55 oder unabsichtlich” in spite of his possession of Atticus’ genealogy of the Scipiones. This characterization is surprising and errant. Ziegler’s Teubner edition). he stumbled upon a disturbing passage (p. 48) 99. Scipio Imperator 147 160 hands of Metellus Scipio.. 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 Scipio’s density. Atticus apparently mentioned one statue only. Scipione. et de tribus proavis. Cicero. in response. and out of his memory produced two statues of Africanus. This is unduly complicated. “Atticus” (above. the supreme authority in such matters. When Metellus Scipio took in this information he ran to Atticus. 44) 115. Scipione et Crasso. that is that he conscientiously falsified the record. the Metelli very likely. The passage is so important. and genealogically so complicated. er muss die Scipionen. Douglas. that is the question. It was just sheer ignorance. But which Metelli. 124 in K.2): cum enim Laelius quereretur nullas Nasicae statuas in publico in interfecti tyranni remunerationem locatas. cuius quattuor <illi>57 filii. Scip. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus (Oxford 1966) in app. . sogar die Meteller hineingezogen haben” 56. but rather as a comment on Atticus’ report of Scipio’s misidentification of the actual statua. And he told the unbelieving Atticus his own story of mistaken identification.Q. M. The Scipiones certainly. n. Metello. de statua Africani. a dialogue in which in addition to Cicero and Brutus also Atticus participated. als die Familiengeschichte der Fabier und der Aemilier. In the letter of Cicero there is not even the slightest intimation that Metellus Scipio erred absichtlich. now lost. that must have identified the statue ab Opis parte as the statue of Africanus and not as that of Nasica Serapio. flaunted before Atticus his knowledge of the Capitoline topography. In book VI centered around the somnium Scipionis. E. A. together with their inscriptions. Letters to Atticus 3 (above. Q. 56 Münzer. 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. but some other passage. it is much better to take it not as a reference to a presumed mention of the statue in Cicero’s treatise. ad loc. 48) 90. to avoid his error it would have been sufficient for him to consult Atticus’ script. Atticus muss mehr . 55 Münzer. which Atticus duly reported to Cicero for his friend’s amusement in partibus barbarorum. There was no reason for Cicero to mention a statue of Africanus in a dialogue in which Africanus himself was one of the interlocutors. the one with the inscription censor (hence Cicero’s exclamation: Scipio hic Metellus proavum suum nescit censorem non fuisse?). n.4. n. as was his wont. Cicero expatiates on Scipio’s family tree: etenim istius genus est ex ipsius sapientiae stirpe generatum. At Brutus 212. The issue of this union was Licinia. Münzer suggests. Scipio Nasica. First. 155. he not only drew on his Scipionic ancestry but also showed a remarkable knowledge of the emblems of the Metelli (see below. very plausibly. qui est Corculum dictus. cos. and later. 59 Plin. The cognatic side is even more enveloped in sapientia. 140 (RE 3). Gracchus (Metellus Scipio’s shameful ignorance of his offices now passed over). the proavus P. RE 353. cos. On the side of the Scipiones we have the abavus P. the wife of P. acquired for wife a Metella. n. 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. qui peritissimus iuris idemque percomis est habitus. 117 (RE 21). Courtney. the abavus C. Scipio Nasica. 162. 1230. and a sister to four consuls. For the stemmata of Metellus Scipio and of the Caecilii. Laelius. cos. he was married to the elder daughter of Scipio Africanus. Mucius Scaevola the Augur. Scaevola augure. N.. as the Pompeian commander in Africa. qui bis consul fuit. 35. But the history of the Scipiones and the Metelli cannot be accomodated if we continue clinging to the transmitted text. that Cicero had before his eyes the very script Atticus composed for Metellus Scipio. we have to separate Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus. His daughter Laelia married the proavus Q. Metellus Scipio was now the keeper of the imagines and of the colored stemmata 59 of Metellus Pius. “Atticus” (above. Q. 111 (Cicero omits the pater: he was a mere praetor). . Thus no place for Metellus Pius and his line? It would be too rash to jump to this conclusion. From Cicero’s letter to Atticus we have learnt both of Scipio Metellus’ genealogical interests and ignorance. The book of Atticus will have been composed in two parts: one delineating the ancestry of the Nasicae. even more extensive than that envisaged by Cichorius and 58 Münzer.H. Cornelius Scipio Nasica. section VI). and of Atticus’ commissions. mater Gracchorum). C.148 Historia et Ius 161 Gracchi privatus in libertatem rem publicam vindicavit. the prolific Metelli appear prominently. Licinius Crassus the orator. cos.7. and mother of our Metellus Scipio. Cf. Iam duorum abavorum quam illustre est nomen. and the slayer of Ti. and his daughter Mucia married L. 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 paternal grandmother of Metellus Scipio. but they are not the branch of Scipio’s adoptive father Metellus Pius. cos. Scipio Nasica. cos. a sister of Cornelia. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus. alterius omnium sapientissimi. E. The paternal grandfather. 138. P. see RE 3 (1899) 1226. To make sense of Nepos. 95 (RE 55). 143. It was apparently not a history of the family ab ovo (as in the Liber annalis). Laeli. in the farthest reaches of the stemma. and traced back the various links in the stemma 58. and the other of Metellus Pius. and finally the avus P. The link between the two was Metella. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos. a daughter of the illustrious proavus Q. Scipionis. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980) 384–87. the consul of 111. 48) 98–99. The Metelli remain. and admit a lacuna. but rather it started with Metellus Scipio. This seems indeed to indicate that Metellus and Fabius were the aediles in charge of grain procurement. [10] P. Cf.23 in the description of the war in Africa: Duces autem Romani erant P. Scipionis <Metelli> Corneli<orum> et <Metellorum>. The separation of Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus in the text of Nepos has its repercussions in history. and claims (315) that Atticus composed (in 46–44) the genealogy “for Fabius and Scipio [to give] Caesar a weapon in his war of propaganda as he set up his dictatorship”. {On Metellus Scipio’s aedileship (certainly curule. the script of Atticus allegedly commissioned in unison by both of them. a rambling piece. f. “Atticus and the Genealogies”.2–3 (1997) 89–93 at 90–91: he may have been aedile in 57. RE 6 (1909) 1791. “Cicero’s De virtutibus liber?”. the inscription probably belongs to the second century. Cornelius Scipio ex genere antiquissimo Scipionis Africani. Clodio. AHB 11. So also. R. but she identifies the Cornelius as Cornelius (Scipio) Salvitto (cf. Fabii Maximi Fabiorum et Aemiliorum. section V). as he remained a patrician). Cecilio Metello e il grano tessalo”. Latomus 52 (1993) 305–15. and for Münzer’s interpretation. In any case if Metellus Scipio was aedile in 57 he did not suffer any consequences. . n. 17) 134–36. One pillar that united them in the aedileship of 57. Caecilius Q. “P. and his birth-date. Cf.} 61 Cf. F 47 and 48. PIR III (1943) 103–5. the Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. To his sons he gave the fatuous names of Paullus Fabius Maximus and Africanus Fabius Maximus61. 3 (1918) 223. Metellus Scipio died in glory fighting Caesar (see below. Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 377. but “it remains quite possible that he never held the post”. Ryan. vain but glittering ornaments of the new dispensation. This is unlikely. Metellus mentioned in the famous inscription from Larissa (SEG 34 [1984] no 558) concerning the transportation of the Thessalian grain to Rome. This rather unusual name-form finds its explanation in Scipio’s “Cornelian” propaganda in Africa (see below. also A(nn) Marshall. BPhW 40 (1904) 1277–78. We can venture to read: pari modo Marcelli Claudii Marcellorum. Syme. Endt) 2. grans senateurs de Romme et bien amez. 162 60 The other pillar is a mention in the fifteenth-century French writer Antoine de la Sale. The idea that Metellus Scipio was aedile in 57 was recently taken up by F. “Also-Rans” (above. see F. X. and to adopt Cichorius’ conjecture. as generally accepted. section XI). For the text of Antoine de la Sale. 95). 38. and as consuls in 11 and 10.473. to the effect that Metel et Fabien. Scipio Imperator 149 Shackleton Bailey. Canali De Rossi. n. referring to 49. She seems inclined to separate in the text of Nepos the Cornelii from the Fabii and Aemilii. Suppl. but not necessarily in the same year. see now F. Tulli Ciceronis de virtutibus libri fragmenta (Lipsiae 1908) 28–29. and the notice of Nepos is firmly assigned to the familiar Scipio Metellus. has crumbled60. Knoellinger. 49–50 (with a Latin translation and a commentary). Q. The unique name-form Scipio Cornelius pleasingly disappears. M. I. and above all H. Fabius Maximus died in ridicule as Caesar’s stooge on the last day of his suffect consulship. who excerpted Cicero’s lost De virtutibus. Gustafsson. They were like a walking fornix Fabianus. and smoothly advanced to the praetorship. 487. Cornelius Scipio Eutropius 6. n.Q. this is welcome for their future fate was dissimilar. “The Birth-Dates of Domitius and Scipio”. Miscellanea Greca e Romana 19 (1995) 147–59. See Konrad. he also argues that Metellus Scipio is the aedile Q. below. comment ilz perdirent l’amour du peuple et furent destruis par la chiereté survenue. RE 3 [1899] 1234. On the other hand Livy. P. Scipio Cass. this precluded the form Metellus Scipio. Nero . [12] Q.62 Scipio Cic. 6.51.. Servili. G. Caepio Brutus) as ‘Q.: oÏtow går gÒnƒ m¢n uflÚw toË NasikoË v Ö n §k d¢ dØ klÆrou diadox∞w §w tÚ toË Met°llou toË EÈseboËw g°now poihye‹w ka‹ diå toËto ka‹ tØn §p¤klhsin aÈtoË f°fvn. To distingish Metellus Scipio from Q. Tib. 131”. But Dio was trying to explain how Scipio got his new name and the praenomen Q. Att. Q. [3]). and it was reinforced by the mention of Scipio’s maiores: after all when he himself placed on the Capitoline the statues of his ancestors they were his Cornelian ancestors.. Dom. Atinius Labeo. Metelli .. Tulli Ciceronis De Domo Sua Ad Pontifices Oratio (Oxford 1939) 172. Scipionis substitutus) follow the same tradition. Nisbet.17.2: Pompeius selected as his colleague (in 52) KÊinton Skip¤vna. Atinius . Metellus (Creticus) Cicero had to use the cognomen Scipio (cf. 7. P.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. 13. P. Metelle. 143 (whose bona were consecrated by C.. Scipionem. avi tui. et tui.. 101) is a mistake. above.. No comfort here for the defenders of Scipio’s formal adoption.)63. consecravit. Metellus Macedonicus..5.24. cf. Münzer. 123: Atqui C. tr. In particular it is well to keep in mind that both Metellus Scipio and P. Scipioni delatum est. [7]. clarissimum virum maiorumque suorum simillimum. above. pl. 4 (Pater Tiberi. 100. in 132). Once Cicero decided on Scipio (and not Metellus). 64 Shackleton Bailey.150 Historia et Ius [11] P. Dio 40. and above. F.3 (P. Scipio as the socer of Pompeius) and Suetonius. and as the three pontifices appear equipped with praenomina and cognomina. cos. pontifex in locum P. bona Q. Scipio. Cornelius Scipio. 114 and at Seneca Rhet. in the female line: the mother of Vatia and the grandmother of Metellus Scipio were daughters of Macedonicus (cf.1.. 63 On the genealogy here indicated. He 62 Appian’ s LeÊkiow Skip¤vn (2. Valerius Maximus 9. the praenomen P. 13) 69. (and not the assumed praenomen Q. M. suggested itself. the inherited cognomen Scipio suggested the inherited praenomen P. Shackleton Bailey blasts Dio for this “blunder”: what Dio is doing is “like referring to M. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cos. cf. At Phil. in the description of Scipio’s death. All men appear equipped with the praenomen and either nomen or cognomen. 87. et proavi tui. [9].. Suas. Brutus’”64. see R. the Periocha stressing Scipio’s position of imperator. Brutus (Q. Per. 95. odd but simple. the combination of two cognomina. (Incidentally this again argues against Scipio’s formal transitio into the gens Caecilia). [9]). 113: Confirmatis in Africa Pompeianis partibus imperium earum P. 79) were descendants of Q. Nomenclature (above. res publica tenere potuisset. see above. . Scipio also at Per. Cic. “Caecilius 130.8. is to be explained in the same way as Eutropius’ P. n. 62. and he apparently died young. Florus 2.27 Stangl. where we read (Cicero speaking): Quid.-Quint.10. the forms listed under [12]. At the dramatic date of the dialogue he was already dead (dicitur fuisse). 1.2. et Ages. Dio (regularly Scipio. n. 8. 4. mihi sane bene et loqui videtur et dicere. 57) 154. Quint. Seneca Rhet. cf. As the cognoscenti will know.10.54. 35. but cf. Ann. Lucanus 2.Q. in the pontificate). 5. Licinius Crassus. In Cicero the prime exhibit is Brut.311.1. 56–58. 322. 2. 55. Groebe in Drumann-Groebe.J.8. 39.16. 66 P. Bob.11.3. In matters prosopographical his commentary is deficient.10. He did not even remark on the important fact that Crassus and Scipio were brothers. Suas. This is the form that now appears also on our gem. the younger brother apparently by his grandfather.. 310.7. 778. above [3]). To us of interest is not his stellar promise.2.3. {And see also the inscription on a helmet: Scip(io) imp(erator). Auct. and in n. but rather the way in which Cicero identifies him. is steadfastly Scipio.788.5. 78. See above. He is normally so called also by Cicero and Caelius.2. 53. Val. 40) 6 (1929) 683.8. 6. Max.65–68. 62). Pomp. 42.} Caesar in his Bellum Civile and the author of the Bellum Africum address him invariably simply as Scipio. 47. P. Crassus. 24. Per. Gronov. and was a good public speaker65. 195.3–4. Cass. B. 788.. Scipio qui ex dominatu Ti. Geschichte Roms (above. Scipio. H. 44. Gracchi privatus rem publicam in libertatem vindicavit. Upon Brutus’ remark Cicero embarks on a delineation of Scipio’s family tree (see above [9]). Decl. Pomp. Ep. Cat. 14. Mor. the orator. Min. istius Liciniae filium. 3. . Adnot. Oros.. 38.185. 62.5. he knew Latin well. Plutarch (normally Scipio: Caes. A. 3. line 25. cf.4. Tac. super Lucanum 6. Crassi testamento qui fuit adoptatus? Brutus answers: Summo iste quidem dicitur ingenio fuisse.34. Cicero was lingering in Rome torn between his loathing for Caesar and his fear that the victorious Pompeians may 65 Cf. and has no comment on Scipio’s genealogy. section I. for other forms. in fine.7.3.223. 67. Iul. 4.J.1. 66. Vell.1. Appian (he has both Scipio and the odd L. Ill.2. 7. and he continues: et vero hic Scipio. Pat. on the other hand his elder brother. 140. Ampel. Brutus (above. 291.7. “adopted” by Metellus Pius. Suet. 71. particularly stressing that P. 37.473. 30. Crassum. line 16 Stangl. 60.14. Josephus. Vir. 6. conlega meus (i.5. 163 [13] Scipio So the Livian tradition and an assorted variety of other authors: Livy. 24. Comp. but cf. Douglas. Ps.. the son of Licinia.e. ad loc.1. illum censes. 59.2. inquam. It is under his assumed cognomen of Crassus that he appears. 15). 107 and 114 (where Scipionem praetorem is probably a mistake for proconsulem.13.125. Lucani Commenta Bernensia (ed. Scipio Imperator 151 reduced Scipio’s adoptive name to its first and last component. 212.. was the younger brother of Scipio. 6. Jal in the Budé edition of the Periochae [Paris 1984] 87–88).9. Seneca. Both brothers were “adopted” testamento.223. n. 55. [8]). see above. Minores 377. n. 62.1. 7. 169. L. 6. Sch. Asconius (often Scipio.1. Usener) 2. Sch. 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. 80.473.2. Traditionally provinces had indeed been assigned to magistrates who 67 So Stangl. The senatus consultum ultimum had already been adopted. ad loc. n. [9]). yet ignorant as well as unworthy of his ancestors. See Douglas. Philippus et Cotta privato consilio praetereuntur. reliquae praetoriae. useful but gullible. R. 71 Exeunt most codices and editors. Metellus Scipio. but it could not overcome Caesar’s legions and the luck of the Julii. Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 40.8) anecdote of Scipio’s 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). 70 Praetor is here used in the sense of praetorius. qui in re publica iudiciisque tum plurimum pollebant. neque eorum sortes deiciuntur.1. 68 See also 1. Brutus (above. section III.4. In the Brutus he looks anxiously to the outcome in Africa (266): et praeteritorum recordatio est acerba et acerbior expectatio reliquorum.e. corrupt and debauched in the way of his life”. vaunting an unmatched pedigree. H.. ut de eorum imperio ad populum feratur paludatique votis nuncupatis exeunt (exeant)71. 57) in app.. 8 and 9 of 49. ‘corrupt’ hints at his electoral bribery (a thing of which most Roman politicians were guilty). duae consulares. Hofmann and Meusel (above. Klotz in his Teubner edition (1950).1). and lead the state to freedom. n. quos se pro necessitudine partiturum cum Pompeio arbitratur. improved on Caesar’s strictures: “Q. sic in istam domum multorum insitam atque <inseminatam>67 sapientiam! Sapientia may have flown into the house of Metellus Scipio. n. The sonorous and stirring sounds of rem publicam in libertatem vindicare were annexed at Philippi and at Actium by Caesar’s heir to serve in his newspeak as a formula for dominatio. cf.. and this is not the place to attempt to heal it. and ‘debauched’ refers to Valerius Maximus’ (9.261–62).e.15. But the best in the abuse of Scipio is served by J. and in particular he brands nominatim two senior generals.152 Historia et Ius 164 regard him as traitor (Att. 54): Provinciae privatis decernuntur69. see the commentary by Kraner.. stirpem et tamquam in unam arborem plura genera. 11. Scipioni obvenit Syria.5–7) Caesar denies constitutional legitimacy to Pompeian commanders. in reliquas provincias praetores70 mittunt. Even Brutus soon to become the liberator was not able to bend the verdict of history. ‘Ignorant’ refers to his venial sin of not knowing that his great-grandfather was not a censor (see above. IV. The phrase encapsulates an emotional appeal to the mos maiorum: one intuitively feels it is improper to give provinces to privati. of unequal value: 1) Provinciae privatis decernuntur. On the whole passage. The next sentence is corrupt. on Jan. Domitio Gallia (MRR 2.6. the consulars (Metellus) Scipio68 and L. quod superioribus annis acciderat.. 64. exeant U (codex Vaticanus ex bibliotheca Fulvii Ursini) followed by A. and in his commentary (155). 96). PROVINCIAE PRIVATIS DECERNUNTUR In his Bellum Civile (1.3: Scipionem eadem spes provinciae atque exercituum impellit (i. 69 This refers to the meeting of the senate proximis diebus extra urbem. i. Syme. n. Neque expectant. 5) 20–22. When Cicero finished describing Scipio’s multibranched ancestry he has Brutus exclaim (213): O generosam . Historia 4 (1955) 457. as of Lentulus. L. below. simul iudiciorum metus atque ostentatio atque adulatio potentium. Domitius (cos. Collins in his marvellous “Caesar and the Corruption of Power”. Caesar’s writ of accusation contains three points. . Caesar’s complaint appears to be this: of the four available consulars only two. H. 56) and L. if any. “À propos des pouvoirs d’Auguste”. ut semper. T. 298–299).e. . Consequently after that date the provinces had to be assigned to former magistrates.9 that he explicitly attacks the law: in se iura magistratuum commutari. J. esp. Scipio and Domitius.. esp. 110–17). argues that the lex Pompeia concerned only the praetors (293–307. “The Lex Pompeia de Provinciis (52 B. Ad Familiares 3. Raaflaub. and an extensive correspondence from Cilicia. K. 2) The selection of consular governors. “Caesar as a Political Propagandist”. sponsored and carried out contra Caesarem. Marshall. Girardet. we do not have a clear idea in which way his provincial appointment under the lex Pompeia came about. Of course we do remember that the Republic was destined to be saved privato consilio. RhM 130 (1987) 291–329. a heinous privilegium that unleashed the arbitrary rule of the pauci73. “Die lex Iulia de provinciis. esp.} 73 Cf. but here the phrase has a sinister ring. ne ex praetura et consulatu. ANRW I. 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.C.1 (1972) 887–921. from those former consuls who had not yet held a 72 On the Pompeian law.402–3. n. The law is not invalid. Solution accrues from a corner not unexpected but unexpectedly neglected. sed per paucos probati et electi in provincias mittantur. Brennan. M.1 (1972) 922–66.C. J. on the Bellum Civile 942–63. We do not know enough of the procedure envisaged by the lex Pompeia. It is only at 1. is not easy to gauge. Aurelius Cotta (cos. The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II. It is rather disconcerting that despite Cicero’s numerous asides (mostly complaints). were passed over privato consilio. 74 On Caesar’s art of propaganda. A master propagandist at work: mixing vera falsis. but it is against all precedent. Forthwith Caesar’s constitutional argument falls to the ground: observe that he does not directly impugn the validity of the lex Pompeia. misleading and underhanded. but not necessarily contra legem. Dignitatis contentio (= Vestigia 20 [München 1974]) 128.: Constitutional Aspects”. see the excellent study by A. but a senatorial decree. the two others.2. RQ 654. and hence perforce privati.) and Cicero’s Imperium in 51–50 B. Ferrary. on this passage. Vorgeschichte-Inhalt-Wirkungen”. see the inspiring piece by J. C. 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.Q. Collins. a passage not well served by interpreters. 91.-F. were admitted to the sortition for the two consular provinces. Scipio Imperator 153 165 would then proceed to administer them with a prorogued imperium.85. Its precise meaning. {K. 890–98 (with ample literature).1 (dated to February or March 51). L. and 794 (nn. moreover it was conceived ad personam (which it probably was). offers a clue: cum et contra voluntatem meam et praeter opinionem accidisset ut mihi cum imperio in provinciam proficisci necesse esset. but carrying the day74. it is true. ANRW I. Marcius Philippus (cos. Now if the law had prescribed that the two consular governors were to be selected by lot from all available former consuls (i. this appears unfounded: cf. 65). Cahiers Glotz 12 (2001) 101–54 at 105–8. n. 65. The senatus auctoritas of 29 Sep. Vorgeschichte-InhaltWirkungen”. 3) The imperium of the Pompeian governors. If this rule of “reverse seniority” applied also to consular provinces. for some reason. 249. Cicero’s perplexity is easily explained: before the line of the would-be appointees would reach 63 there were other consulars eligible for the provincial command. This is precisely the procedure of selection at which Caesar is hinting: openly partisan but perhaps not strictly illegal76. 76 A curious fact stands out: Metellus Scipio was consul in 52. 20. L. 14) 23. e. also disregard the import of praeter opinionem. 51 (transcribed by Caelius. by a law in the centuriate or tribal assembly to be followed by the lex curiata de imperio77. Aurelius Cotta. it would appear. Staatsrecht 23. and Marshall. 4. . or no rule at all. n.g. Cicero and Bibulus received their provincial commands on the basis of a senatus consultum. 27. perhaps contra spem. for a summary.154 Historia et Ius 166 provincial command) Cicero may well have asserted that his appointment happened contra voluntatem. We are apparently dealing with interim arrangements. n. L. As the prospective governors were privati. M. n.8. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Shackleton Bailey has no comment on this crucial passage. clearly. Mommsen. n. 249. The oldest consulars were Cicero and Bibulus”. 77 Cf. cos. n. the quinquennium could have been implemented in an orderly way only beginning with the fifth year after the lex Pompeia. 56. but as there were two consular provinces. the senate having a completely free rein. This requirement was complied with superioribus annis. he should (on Tyrrell-Purser’s theory) still have expected to go to a province. Mommsen. perhaps because of an illness. they could not receive the imperium simply by a decree of the senate. 894. n. and yet Caesar remarkably does not comment on that apparent violation of the lex Pompeia. it had to be bestowed upon them by a legislative act: first. “Lex Pompeia” (above. they were apparently excused. a procedure in two stages. Marcius Philippus. We have to discard seniority as the guiding principle for the selection of consular governors under the lex Pompeia. assert that “the oldest consulars who had not yet held a province were to draw lots. Staatsrecht (above.. 52) 5. and thus a quinquennium between his office and his provincial command had not elapsed. As we learn from Caesar. In the first stage there was no allotment but the senate by its vote would select nominatim provincial governors. 8. “Lex Pompeia” (above. they were to be assigned to those praetors who had not yet administered a province beginning with the collegium (it appears) of 55.8) regulated the distribution of the praetorian provinces. Marshall. and Cicero was the second in seniority. Various explanations have been offered. nn. “Lex Pompeia” (above. “Die lex Iulia de provinciis. there was an even older consular who had not yet held a provincial command. n. See now also the solid study by K. but hardly praeter opinionem (“quite unexpectedly”) for he certainly could not exclude the possibility of the sors with his name coming out. cos. Girardet. the Pompeian commanders did not wait ut 75 Tyrrell-Purser 3 (above. see Marshall. There must have been a different rule at play. It would be a normal thing to expect. 3. Now Cotta may not have been available in 51 for a governorship. and the imperium consulare was bestowed upon them extra ordinem “durch eine lex (tributa / centuriata) de imperio”. esp. 72) 892. apparently in 51 and 50. 1–2). n. Cicero’s appointment could not have come praeter opinionem. But. 72) 892–95. But if this were the rule. In the second stage the governors (consular and praetorian) and the provinces were matched by lot. and so Cicero went to Cilicia praeter opinionem. and then moving backwards until all gubernatorial posts were filled (cf. 72) 888. ad loc. Fam. 298–99: he argues that the lex Pompeia concerned only the praetors. Cicero was selected: against his will and contrary to his expectations75. 73) was not operative in 49. but not in 49: in their unseemly haste. n. and if Cicero and Bibulus were the oldest consulars. Hence. RhM 130 (1987) 291–329 at 293–307. The arrangement postulated for Cicero’s appointment (see above. uti curiata lege magistratus detur qui nullis comitiis ante est datus (Leg. Barwick. But in history it is not the constitutional cogency of propaganda but its political efficacy that is of importance. Sächs. Collins. possibilities obtrude. In any case in March 49 the augur Cicero had no doubts as to the validity of Scipio’s imperium (Att. 99. to Pompey.15. .-hist. Caesar must again be dealing in half-truths. agr. Cicero the consul was particularly indignant because the tribune lege curiata XVviros ornat. 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. the thirty lictors who represented the curiae were easy to assemble. In that situation they decided to satisfy themselves solely with the lex curiata. but it was not published until after Caesar’s death79. and Caesar was not wholly unjustified in describing them as privati.3). and only two. see J. Rullus had in fact intended that the lex curiata grant imperium and auspicium to those agrarian commissioners (XVviri) quos plebs designaverit. and conclude that no law was put before the people. 79 Cf. Two. disseminated in countless pamphlets. and the Pompeians. ANRW II. We should not blithely ascribe this amazing legal and ritual negligence to the senate. Everything depended upon constitutional and augural interpretation. as is also Caesar.. Scipio Imperator 155 167 de eorum imperio ad populum feratur. Thus it was not per se immediately a tool of propaganda. but they were never passed: the Pompeians were forced to abandon the city already on 18 January. Phil. This strains the imagination. “The Augural Law”. But it was a blueprint. 2. Kl. The senate could exempt the proposer of the law from this requirement. We may trust that the augurs would have come up with a suitable theory.Q. AJP 80 (1959) 113–32. 78 On the politically charged augural interpretations during the civil war.1 [Leipzig 1951]) passim. Cicero is thus partially disingenuous. H. Linderski. The Bellum Civile was probably written in instalments during the course of events. and in colloquia with the Pompeian soldiers. Tendenz. The Pompeians could not afford to wait that long. and to his generals. the classic study by K. had to be promulgated at least three Roman weeks (trinum nundinum) in advance before the scheduled date of the assembly. Abfassungszeit. 16 (1986) 2181–84. but he forgot to include in an earlier chapter of his law a clause stipulating the election of the commissioners by the plebs. in either case their imperium was tainted. Caesar’s claims will be engraved on his coins. Iam hoc inauditum et plane novum.26). J. but perhaps we should read Caesar’s text literally. The Pompeians forwent either the comitial law or the curiate law. 8. Stil (Berichte Verh. Caesars Bellum Civile. Akad. We can suspect that the comitial laws de imperio were duly promulgated. whether in the centuriate or tribal assembly. Every comitial law. the constitutional fault of the Pompeians receives illumination from an old stricture of Cicero. The strictures and accusations it contained would be spouted out at innumerable contiones apud milites. depending on whether they were on the side of Pompey or of Caesar78. It is in the context of the struggle for legitimacy that we have to read the Bellum Africum. “On the Date and Interpretation of the Bellum Civile”. If this was the case. Combatting early in 63 the proposal of Rullus. Cass. 281. Cf. tibi gratias ago – non enim te imperatorem appello.. Scipio imperator hoc tempore populi Romani. Af. 28: the execution of duo Titii .5–6: Scipio promises Iuba all Roman Africa. 57: Iuba takes his seat in the middle between Cato and Scipio. cf. At B.} . V.} 81 See B. join the optimus quisque. and awards. 168 80 For Scipio’s execution lust. A powerful motif in the Caesarian propaganda in Africa was the alleged subservience of Caesar’s opponents. Dio 43.4. tribuni legionis V. wore it in battle and at all official functions. to King Iuba of Numidia81. Considius haughtily replied: unus est .. and refuses to fight contra Caesarem imperatorem meum. Cato Min. 57 this motif is combined with ridicule of Scipio’s imperatorial pretentiousness. Before the arrival of the King it was Scipio’s custom to wear a purple cloak. 15: “Legio V in Messana”. the vestitum album is the toga pura. {On the incident between Juba and Scipio concerning Scipio’s paludamentum. responds (45): Pro tuo . No. Af. One of the captives. Af.. adulescentes. and had the messenger forthwith executed in conspectu suo for his importunate temerity. Af. who donned it upon the crossing of the pomerium when he departed from Rome for a campaign.. a centurion. urges them to abandon their sceleratus imperator. quorum patrem Caesar in senatum legerat. Considius Longus (MRR 2. Itaque factum est ut Scipio ad album sese vestitum transferret et Iubae homini superbissimo inertissimoque obtemperaret.. also M. and of Scipio himself.8. Scipio remains impassive. and changed to white dress: Namque cum Scipio sagulo purpureo ante regis adventum uti solitus esset. Scipio. and defend the republic. Scipio meekly submitted to the arrogant and inert barbarian. 290): when a messenger sent to him from the Caesarian camp referred to Caesar as imperator. but obeys Iuba’s order. After 49 it regularly appears in close connection with the title of imperator.156 Historia et Ius a tale of Cato and the two imperatores. thus indicating his superiority.. but Cato saves the day and Scipio’s face. Plut.300) disregards instructions from Scipio. 57: M. but Iuba remonstrated with him that he ought not to wear the same dress as the king.267. summo beneficio. At B. 44 Scipio addresses captive veterani and tirones. The sagulum purpureum is the paludamentum. Aquin(i)us (MRR 2. see also B. dicitur Iuba cum eo egisse non oportere illum eodem vestitu atque ipse uteretur. The author of the Bellum Africum (4) tells a poignant story of Scipio’s legate C. Reinhold. {And see below. 3. History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity (= Collection Latomus 116 [Bruxelles 1970]) 44–45. Enraged Scipio ordered the veterans nefario scelere contaminatos et caede civium saginatos to be led away and executed80. He promises them pardon. The Caesarians were equally obstinate. Max.. 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. FELIX ET INVICTUM SCIPIONUM NOMEN The inscription on the gem gives testimony that Scipio was the cognomen the general himself preferred and stressed. This was true particularly for the period of Scipio’s command in Africa in 47 and 46. the hallowed purpled cloak of the Roman commander.7. Val. the tirones he incorporated into his army. } 86 Cf.. when Caesar realized that it was impossible to hold his ranks back. and proceeded against the enemy line: signo Felicitatis dato . and preserving the distinction of rank and status85. and the proof was victory on the battlefield86.5: vocalia (signa) dicuntur quae voce . The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981) 89–90. B.. einig” 84. he went away alacer gaudio. The regular award for equestrian bravery consisted of armillae argenteae. “Caecilius 99” (above. 14) 13. Maxfield. on the award of the armillae. Af.. The award of golden armlets was reserved for officers. proiecto ante pedes Labieni auro. Linderski. See also the good study by P. But the story in Valerius Maximus 8.G. At the decisive and final battle at Thapsus (6 April 46) Caesar cautiously hesitates. 4.. however brave. n. rei milit. {On this award. They spontaneously begin to attack. Münzer cites the passage of Valerius only in order to show that Scipio. see Veget.. the golden armillae. felicitas. Scipio was thus a commander of old. 431–33 (paludamentum). see V.6: qui polliceantur . Caes.87 The result: ten thousand of enemy soldiers 82 Mommsen.5 (1986) 307–17. 87 On military watchwords.. Epit. 79–90. ipse ex praeda Gallica aurum equiti largitus est. De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium libri sex (Milano 1941) 114. B. Labienus (MRR 2. The cavalryman. But when he heard Scipio say imperator te argenteis armillis donat. esp. it was not given to simple cavalrymen. ashamed. “Caesar’s Continuators and Caesar’s Felicitas”. see now in detail J. observing the mos maiorum. who also happened to be a freedman. 84 Münzer.14. and it was certainly extravagant and socially disruptive to give it to a former slave. He does not discuss the contest in felicitas between Scipio and Caesar. After a brave exploit Scipio was distributing dona militaria to cavalrymen. imperio populi Romani obtemperare. Scipio refused: he contended the award would be compromised if given to a person who had been a slave (ne castrensis honos in eo. 83 I.5 presents Scipio as a paragon of old Roman virtue. 301) suggested that he should give to an eques fortis..82 The author of the Bellum Africum thus imputes to Scipio a virtual abdication of his command in favor of the king. 163. Latomus 60 (2001) 3–15. R. T. qui paulo ante servisset. he selected Felicitas as his watchword. for the moral of the story in Valerius is that it was Labienus who was to be blamed. who was very “untüchtig”. contra principes ire contendit (B. but his troops take a trepidatio among the enemy as a propitious sign portending victory.. 116. Wistrand. vultum demisit. 314–15 on the Bellum Africum. esp. 3. “Silver and Gold of Valor: the Award of armillae and torques”.. The verb obtemperare highlights Scipio’s 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. 4) 1227–28. E. No. Felicitas Imperatoria (= Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 48 [Göteborg 1987]) 1–43. Whereupon Scipio remarked to the eques: habebis . violaretur). not Scipio. Murphy. Staatsrecht (above. 4–5 on Scipio and Labienus (reprinted in this volume. and esp. 164. Labienus was contaminated by the Gallic gold he had plundered serving under Caesar. 14). n. Even this great scholar could not free himself from the pull of the victor’s propaganda.. A true imperator enjoyed divine favor. undaunted. donum viri divitis. Cf. He behaved like an oriental potentate.21. 128. Scipio Imperator 157 169 the dress of Roman civilians. Labienus. 85 On the dona militaria. was not always “mit dem tüchtigen Labienus . CW 79.Q. Pighi. 82–83). 408–9 (toga). distributing the dona according to valor. 47–48). 86) 41–43. 2. partim vivorum potiti sunt. humana pronuntiantur. Jal. On several occasions he denies the felicitas to Caesar. Deus nobiscum.. the widow of P. most explicitly in a letter to Cornelius Nepos (Ep. 183–88. The former is the verbum proprium to describe the joy. but even on this new ground the Caesarians had their answer. Felicitas (above. esp. Two words stand out: laetus and fortuna. the gaudium of an imperator after he had received a propitious sign promising victory88. Linderski. cf. n. Af. Alföldi. and the wife of Pompeius. Cn. Livius. speaking of Antonius. the gentle Cornelia. and not because of his skill as a commander.89). 45) nefario scelere contaminata et caede civium saginata? Cicero. Quod proprium gaudium bellantibus fortuna tribuere non decrevit (for the next day Caesar’s cavalrymen) equites Numidas Gaetulosque ex improviso adorti circiter C partim occiderunt. quibus Caesar usus est. incompatible with the capricious. REL 40 (1962) 170–200. and by Wistrand. . si potest ulla in scelere esse felicitas. Caesar’s was genuine. sicut in vigiliis vel in proelio pro signo dicitur. Scipio’s title of imperator proved fraudulent. 88 On the augural significance of laetus.158 Historia et Ius 170 killed. was to contaminate through her misfortune the felicitas of Magnus himself (on Pompeius’ felicitas see the locus classicus. victoria palma virtus. triumphus imperatoris et alia. 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.126–27).128)90. nulla potuit esse felicitas. 153 Watt): in perditis impiisque consiliis. Af. the cause (to paraphrase Scipio’s words at B. infelix coniunx et nulli laeta marito (Lucan 8. it was victrix because it was iustior (Lucan himself leaves this in aporia: quis iustius induit arma scire nefas.91) Cornelia so addresses her husband after the debacle of Pharsalos: Vicit. A. Aspekte seines Werkes (= Xenia. illusive Tyche of the Greeks” 89. It was manifestly through Caesar’s felicitas that victory was achieved. felix fuit.). And it was a causa clemens.5. Schuller (ed. 61: secundo equestri proelio facto Scipio laetus in castra nocte copias reduxit. fallen at Carrhae. felicitatem tuam mea fortuna. 86). “Roman Religion in Livy”. in W. Pomp. 1. 623.788) describes Metellus Scipio as infausta suboles of Scipio Africanus. is the permanent individual property of the imperator. p. 24) = Roman Questions (above. Alföldi in his review of S. Af..59): saturavit se sanguine dissimillimorum sui civium. 67 (n. 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. 2. Cicero’s account in De imp. and Scipio’s daughter. on all of this the fine pages by P. Lucan (6. 1. 89 A. Caesariana (Bonn 1984) 335] (but he is quite wrong in denying a special relationship of Caesar with felicitas). Weinstock’s Divus Julius. Magne. 19) 615–16. n. see J. In a fragment of Livy (preserved by the Lucani Commenta Bernensia 8. Cicero shifts the understanding of felicitas from that of a celestial force and favor to a personal moral judgment. fr. Gnomon 47 (1975) 162 = A. ut puta. Crassus. echoes this sentiment (Phil. 679. “Les dieux et les guerres civiles dans la Rome de la fin de la république”. Here also belongs the story in B. Caesar lost only fifty (B. Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 31 [Konstanz 1993]) 60–61. Their causa not only deis placuit (in Lucan’s bitter words. 90 Cf. Alföldi put it well: “felicitas . a suarii negotiatoris vile mancipium. secretly. “Africa” (Suet. Billows [see below] 63–64). On this shadowy Scipio. Caesar ( MRR 2. was routed at Trebia. Caesar. L..2–3. 52. and. Salvitto (Plin. 92 On the contrast between the crudelitas of the Pompeiani and Caesar’s clementia. cf.Q. Geschichte Roms (above. quid Faustum.12: Quamvis profligato urbis excidio tamen fatale Africae nomen Scipionum videbatur. Irrational opinions had to be fought on their own ground.. and esp. see the erudite and discerning treatment by K. Scipio Nasica (cos. from a Salvitto mimus. on the war in Africa 257–58. Thus he procured an antidote: he kept in his camp a Scipio. This oracle was invented for Scipio Aemilianus: Flor. Münzer. 59.3) avers. Caes. n.11. 9.C.1). Divus Julius (Oxford 1971). according to Dio (43. a detailed investigation by R. quid Libonem prae<ter>missurum sceleris putas quorum creditores convenire dicuntur? quid eos autem.57. n. for Scipio Aemilianus”. maintains that “The oracle was probably created for Scipio Maior during the Second Punic War and was used again in 147 B. Also Plut.1–2. This belief spread even to Caesar’s soldiers (Dio 42. and he found death in 211 in the company of his brother Gnaeus in their debacle in Spain. the mascot of Caesar.4).3). Familiares (above. AJAH 7 (1982 [1985]) 53–68.. 95 Sallustio (Plut. see C. 52. harsh and cruel Scipio he was not only inbued with felicitas. Hardly so.2–3) 91 Unfortunately things are not always as they seem or as the propagandists present them. In contrast to the inept. in civis effecturos? (Att. cui ad opprobrium Salvitoni 95 cognomen erat. 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. and Cornelius Scipio.H. Iul. and bequeathed this fame to his line. Fam.178. and many others. Iul. paid keen attention to the superstitions of the vulgus94.58. 94 This is well illustrated by a well-known incident: on disembarking in Africa he slipped (a bad sign!). Caesar was later killed. Billows. for variant readings. the father of Africanus. personally a sceptic. 59) puts it. Other sources in Drumann-Groebe. recently. without Caesar’s knowledge. and esp. “Cornelius 357”. 52. and portis patefactis Utica egressus Caesari imperatori obviam proficiscitur (B. 39) 2. 3.58. he was also imperator clemens92. 98.7.1. 59.8.54 Pliny explains the origin of this nickname.. his cognomen Scipio advertised his invincibility. A. The opprobrium will reside not in the name itself (no opprobrium was attached to the name of Serapio).1). inquit. 75. see F. Igitur in alterum Scipionem conversa res publica finem belli reposcebat.. Scipio. n. Mayhoff in his Teubner edition [1897] ad loc. Caes. but rather in the manner of life that in some way united the mimus and the aristocrat.297) professing his faith in Caesar’s clementia persuaded the people of Utica to surrender. Dignitatis contentio (above. n.3). Until Zama no Roman had ever conquered Africa. and better (though his belief that the testamentary adoption was a full adoption is quite misplaced).3). On Cic. but verso in melius omine: “Teneo te”. 73) 293–307. Salutio (Dio 42. 9. Raaflaub. Af. It was Africanus who through his victory became a dux fatalis. so Suetonius (Iul. 93 Suet. 138) the name of Serapio from a slave. Plutarch (Caes. facile et pro natura sua (89). But the characterization of Salvitto as despectissimus may derive from a hostile . oddly enough both an ancestor of Metellus Scipio and this Cornelius Scipio received their nicknames from their similarity to persons of lowly status. as Suetonius (Iul.. Weinstock. 1. 35. 88). cum vicerint. N. despectissimum quendam ex Corneliorum genere. If the title of imperator advertised Scipio’s felicitas. He knew well that to use reason against belief was to no avail. Caesar of course pardoned him91.5.58. see Shackleton Bailey.. S. Scipio Imperator 159 171 After Cato’s suicide the proquaestor L. Dio 42. There circulated a prophecy that a Scipio cannot suffer discomfiture in Africa: felix et invictum in ea provincia fataliter Scipionum nomen ferebatur93.12. 40) 3 (1906) 522. “The Last of the Scipios”. At 7. RE 4 (1900) 1505–6. on Caesar’s orders. Dio 42. 300.31. and until the arrival on the scene of the future Africanus the nomen Scipionum was calamitous to the Romans: P. 6. 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. but in divinatory reality the omen of Salvitto was stronger. as Plutarch reports. also the corn-ear. or in order to apppropriate the omen for himself (e‡te ka‹ spoudª tÚn ofivnÚn ofikeioÊmenow)96. there was at least an equal amount of opprobrium that could be hurled at his rival omen-bearer Metellus Scipio (see above. Schweizer Münzblätter 8/9 (1958/1959) 9 = Caesariana (Bonn 1984) 223. the consul in 16. Lucan 6. n. Alföldi. The Scholiasts are quite positive (and wrong): Adnot. overcome at Thapsus by the felicitas of Caesar” 99. Lucani Commenta Bernensia. as Michael Crawford (RRC 2. claims that in Scipio’s coinage “ist nur der Name des Feldherrn und seiner Legaten römisch. but it requires clarification. Scipio (pr. seque alterum fore Sullam inter suos gloriatur. 68). 100].. below. 149] appear on joint issues of Scipio and his legates. “Punic Iconography on the Roman Denarii of M.160 Historia et Ius 172 adds that Caesar paraded in battles this Scipio in the forefront as if commander of the army. his coinage. but they hardly predominate. Metellus Scipio could claim descent from the Africani only in the cognatic line97 (his abavus married a daughter of Africanus).738. Divus Julius (above. 93) 98: “one may not be so sure whether Caesar really had the other Scipio in his camp”. was none other than Salvitto! He also assigns to Cornelius Scipio Salvitto the suffect consulship in 35.788: Scipio nepos Africani. There may be a sequel to this bizarre tale. the head of Africa wearing elephant’s skin [cf. 174).e. 6. see Crawford.310: Scipio enim Africanus fuit. Not much better Weinstock. This is a gross exaggeration. MRR 2. who had curiosity but no discernment. on the other hand. the commander of the enemy. The other part is told by Scipio himself through the medium of coins he struck in Africa. and they tell it mostly from the vantage point of the victor. Paz García-Bellido. not inaccurate but misleading.2 Caesar records another unfulfilled prophecy: Lentulus (i. 37–49.256) . 5. 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. esp. qui vicit Hannibalem.. Salvitto was of the House of the Africani.738) aptly put it. Alles andere ist afrikanisch – ein Stück der Beschwichtigungspolitik der dorthin geflüchteten Senatspartei”. super Lucanum 6. 1. n.C. A. ex cuius genere hic Scipio in Africa est interemptus. qui fuit e familia Scipionis Africani. source. und die Pompeianer in Africa”. 23). n. AJN 1 (1989). 49. They not only display the proud denomination of imperator. Two omina of equal potency would annul each other. The recent paper by M. RRC 2. ad quem summa imperii redeat. wonders (xalepÚn efipe›n) whether Caesar kept this negligible nobody to mock Scipio. n. cos. more precisely from Africanus’ younger son L. n. Billows (59–60) proposed that the father of Propertius’ mournful Cornelia. but this idea must now be discarded for we have recently learned that the suffectus of 35 was a Cornelius Dolabella (see above. The latter is of course the right answer. esp. and a goddess with a mural-crown [cf. 95) 61–62. He descended. Billows (above. it has been suggested. “Iuba I. L.788–89: deplorat Libycis perituram Scipio terris / infaustam subolem. Cornelius Lentulus Crus. In view of this new find Billows’ stemma of the last Cornelii will have to be substantially revised.788: Scipio enim in Africa periit.4. 96 97 98 99 . from the line of the elder Africanus himself. The literary sources tell only part of the story. Plutarch. Scipio. Of course references to Africa (the lion-headed Genius Terrae Africae. At B. Plaetorius Cestianus”.. “is pathetically true to its author’s belief in the felix et invictum Scipionis nomen. n. cf. n. and the (adoptive father) of P. We may suspect that Scipio glossed over this fact. The images on Scipio’s coins evoke the past of his family. Scipio Imperator 161 VI. and pl. no 461). 4 (Bonn 1968) 9–18 (reprinted in Caesariana [Bonn 1984] 175–88) dated this issue to 47/46. and the capture of Carthaginian elephants.. XXIV a–c. misinterpreted by Alföldi: Ethiopia does not equal Africa. 14) the story in Pliny (N. This is the text as reproduced by Alföldi: it is the worst sort of quotation..119). Eppius (MRR 2. no 369. RE 72) over Hasdrubal at Panormus in 250. 102 A. stress the constitutional legitimacy of the imperator. So also does Aelian. laureate and wearing elephant’s skin”. dracones) Aethiopia Indicis pares. and IMP below100. also overestimates the African elements on the coins of Scipio while entirely disregarding Scipio’s Roman and anti-Caesarian message. Rh..Q. see now the excellent corpus by J. 100) 151–52. “Die Erklärung des Namens ‘Caesar’ in den spätrömischen Kompendien (zu v. 101 The elephant or elephant’s 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.. The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (Ithaca-London 1974) 279 (n.) Eppius there appears on the obverse “head of Africa r. Scipio was not an African chieftain. no 374.21: ÉEn ÉIndo›w . 251. Hist.. To conclude his account Pliny reports at 8. On the coins he minted alone (RRC 1. with CAESAR inscribed in the exergue (RRC 1.. A similar motif on a coin of Iuba. Ael. and we note that among the Caesarian mints there was also an issue displaying an elephant about to trample on a rising snake.21. the elephant. 443). and it also appears in a Punic inscription as a personal name. 2. idem (dracones) obvii deprehensi in adversos (elephantos) erigunt se oculosque maxime petunt. It should read: Elephantos fert Africa .48 he speaks in general of the bitterest enmity between the 173 . A. 390. Alföldi. Anim. However enticing the idea of Caesar countering with his elephant issue 37–41. Bd.301. Aelian. 2. no 269. 8.287–88. Victoria.472. On the representations of Africa..461. . dracones.H. Our curiosity should not turn into fantasy102. and produced an elaborate pageant of Caesar the Elephant trampling the Dragon of Africa. Anim.32–33): Elephantos fert Africa . Next the sella curulis and lituus. 387–88. nos 262–63. H. Licinius Crassus Iunianus (MRR 2. THE LANGUAGE OF COINS The idiom of symbols is opaque and allusive. Scullard. with the inscription SCIPIO above. Ostrowski. Hist. First.. no. but it has its own grammar. a truncated quote. caduceus and cornucopiae. Bonner Historia-Augusta Colloquium 1966/1967 = Antiquitas. 292–93. [1] The Elephant Scipio issued coins either alone or jointly with his legates. M. notes that in Ethiopia snakes are so big that they can kill elephants. The elephant was an emblem of the Metelli101. But as the peculiar place of the eternal struggle of elephants and giant snakes Pliny specifically names India. 100 On the denarii he issued together with his legate (M. and look forward to a prosperous peace after victory. RRC 1.. 3. RRC 1. bellantesque cum his perpetua discordia dracones tantae magnitudinis. 3. The Elephant (above. see Crawford.35: generat eos (sc. with the inscription Q METELL SCIPIO IMP (Crawford. §l°faw ka‹ drãkvn ¶xyista (at 5.301) and P. so also Diod. 137). adduced by H. 6. 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. sed maximos India bellantesque cum iis .9.. Next (p.3–5)”. Scullard.37. n. Then tropaeum. Les personnifications des provinces dans l’art romain (Varsovie 1990) 81–99. 4.471. The proof: according to late Roman sources Caesar was a word for elephant lingua Maurorum or Poenorum.. [2] The Sella Curulis The sella curulis was a seat proper to the magistratus curules. 5. Antiquités africaines 19 (1983) 7–33 at 32–33. a symbol of victory and strength. [2].. Schäfer. For over two hundred years. 84). Iug. On the legion in question.26) do we hear of a struggle between elephants and snakes (cf. and the future Emperors were to regard the elephant as their exclusive privilege and prerogative106. 2. RE 12 (1925) 1564–66. minted in 49–48. turreted. B. and refused to look further. also Plin. n. The story is instructive for it shows a great and perspicacious scholar so charmed by his theory that he saw in Pliny’s text only Africa. Carm. Imperii insignia: sella curulis and fasces (Mainz 1989) 50–52. Voisin. 399–402.. but hardly anyone bent upon the conquest of Africa would recall Regulus). Thus if there was any duel of symbols on coins104. Staatsrecht (above. 3). 399–400. see [E. Mommsen. Plin.. 12) to Manilius 4. much feared by the Caesarians. See Crawford. and the elephant on the reverse. Caesar the elephantine dragon slayer of Africa is a figment. T. {On the symbolism of the elephant. also Weinstock. 279–80. On Caesar’s association with elephants. promised destruction of his treacherous enemies103. The obverse with its pontifical emblems advertised Caesar’s dignity of pontifex maximus. 3. cf. but it was also used by the magistrates who functioned pro consule or pro praetore107. 8. But much more likely Scipio’s coinage simply continued the tradition of the Metelli that currently acquired a poignant topicality: the elephants of Iuba were an important ingredient of Scipio’s army.96 (cf. i.] Ritterling. 14) I2. “Le triomphe africain de 46 et l’idéologie césarienne”.e. He notes (197) that at Thapsus the Romans “had fought their last battle with elephants for some 300 years”. also Sall. n. The story of the elephants. Af. Cf.664 (who mentions horrendos angues and [666] vastos elephantas as inhabiting Libya). By putting the 103 104 105 106 107 elephant and the draco). Scullard. below in the text. Appian. 100) 195–201. BC 2. now it was all Caesar’s. ended at Thapsus: Caesar captured sixty four of the beasts.89. of great importance for his early steps in Italy and Rome. N. and to Horace. the elephant as its badge105. 110. VI.735. see also J. and his constitutional legitimacy. n. . 63–69. it was Scipio’s elephant that was a response to Caesar’s. 93) 77–78.} I very much doubt that the dragon head on RRC no 461/1–2 (reverse) “picks up and implicitly rejects the hostile reference of the dragon’s head on no 443/1”.162 Historia et Ius 174 the elephant issue of Scipio.H. from Panormus to Thapsus the Metelli had claimed a special relationship with the animal. real and symbolic. 86).18 (who refers to Mauris anguibus) are beside the point for in none of these texts (cf. Af.-L. The Elephant (above. Alföldi’s references (14. 89. with a vigorous critique of Alföldi’s dating and interpretation. N. the Alaudae. almost certainly it was his first issue of the civil war. n. When used by promagistrates in camp the chair was technically called sella castrensis (Mommsen I2. and n. Divus Julius (above. n. and paraded them. the evidence of hoards suggests an earlier date for Caesar’s coins.5. as Crawford tentatively suggests.37: nota est in Punicis bellis ad flumen Bagradam a Regulo imperatore ballistis tormentisque ut oppidum aliquod expugnata serpens CXX pedum longitudinis. before the walls of the city (B.H.. “Legio”. RRC 1.10. Cf. and for conspicuous bravery in fighting them he bestowed on the famed Fifth Legion. erased India. on Caesar’s elephant coin. Justitia sur les monnaies imperiales romaines (Varsovie 1974). altera ad manes. thinks that this is the Punic Ba’al Hammon. the sella curulis was not only a symbol of imperium. a symbol of Sicily. And indeed on our coin we have above the chair scales balanced on cornucopiae. Thus imperium iustum coupled with iustitia and abundantia110. 90: Atque etiam aequitas tripertita dicitur esse. Top. and perhaps “the scales suggest fairness in dispensing corn”. but as to the coin of Metellus Scipio it curiously neglects to give full weight to the symbolism of the sella. and the dragon’s head was perhaps an emblem of Numidia111.Q. The scales on Scipio’s coin may have. the island with which the Metelli hadbeen long connected. is on the obverse. see the solid book by B. 108 With the inscription CRASS IUN LEG PRO PR. Alföldi. and much to be said for seeing a simple symbol of the act of weighing”. The corn-ear refers to the grain-rich Africa. García-Bellido. Imperii insignia (above. Below the cornucopiae and immediately above the sella.e. 107) 57–58. Imperii insignia (above. with further literature in n. “Galba’s Aequitas”. silphium being another famous product of the continent. tertia ad homines pertinere. “Iuba” (above. but there is more to this image. of Iuba’s title. This interpretation is probably on the mark as far as various imperial coin types are concerned. Aequitas in libera republica (Milano 1973) passim. Imperii insignia [above. often identified with Jupiter. there is nothing to compel this interpretation. As Mommsen has shown. and thus overlooks the link between the imperator and the sella as the seat of authority and justice. Lichocka. 110 On iustitia. n. Wallace-Hadrill erroneously terms Metellus Scipio as “legate of Pompey in Africa” (28). 99) 9 = 223. una ad superos deos. “Iuba” (above. instead of a dragon saw rather a “Silphiumblüte”. Scipio’s inscription. and on the right a dragon’s head. see P. no 1047. On the left side of the sella there appears a corn-ear. Prima pietas. but also of jurisdiction. together with a bust of Jupiter. Cicero identifies iustitia and aequitas in the following definition. Pinna Parpaglia. 107) 98–99: der Drachenkopf as a Wappentier of Numidia. CRR 175. METEL PIUS SCIP IMP. no. 113 On the juridical concept of aequitas. 99) 9 = 223. Sydenham. n. is hardly persuasive. 460/1–2. She points out that “La liaison de la chaise curule avec les cornes d’abondance est la liaison des symboles du droit et de la richesse” (47. WallaceHadrill. Schäfer discovers the triskeles. The African corn suggested to some a different interpretation. For a sella curulis on a coin of Iuba II. Wallace-Hadrill. secunda sanctitas. . is thus under the direct protection of Jupiter (cf. points out that there is only scant evidence from Roman antiquity for the imagery of libra as a symbol of justice. n.472. i. With respect to the issue of Metellus Scipio he observes (28–29) that “the linking of scales and cornucopiae looks forward to the normal attributes of Aequitas”. 99) 38. A. n. that the sella on this coin “zugleich ein Abzeichen der von Rom verliehenen Königswürde gewesen ist”. NC 141 (1981) 20–39. “Punic Iconography” (above. reverse108) Scipio alluded to his legitimate imperium109. interprets the image as a “head of carnyx”. The imperator. eagle’s head and scepter. 109 The idea of Alföldi. the owner of the sella curulis. 107] 99). And further (31): “while Justice could conceivably be indicated. Schäfer. Unlikely. in an article that offers much more than its title might suggest112. n. n. when coupled with Aequitas it is rather a symbol of honest measure. Scipio Imperator 163 175 sella on his aurei and denarii (RCC 1. 112 A. 84). tertia iustitia aut (in a narrower sense) aequitas nominatur113.. 111 Schäfer. see Schäfer. Notae Numismaticae (Cracow) 1 (1996) 37–57: 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). 78) 2252. 3.vv. F. But at the same time he perceptively regards the tropaion as hinting at Scipio’s imperium. 488. The lituus was an augural instrument par excellence114. [3] The Jug and the Lituus Pride of place in ideology and propaganda goes to the reverse of a denarius (RRC 1.} 116 I quote this text according to the edition of C. et toga picta et corona triumphali laureaque honoratis . Decius Mus so argues for the admittance of the plebeians to the pontificate and augurate: cui deorum hominumve indignum videri potest . alluded to the dispensing of the African corn. CRR 175. 179–86..472.. I still believe we have to distinguish between the libation jug (pontifical) and the sortition jug (augural). esp. {The article by R. n. no 47. “capis”). no 1049.v. <cum> capite velato victimam caedet auguriumve ex arce capiet?116 114 It is important to note that lituus was used solely by the augurs. quos vos sellis curulibus. curru aurato per urbem vectus in Capitolium ascenderit. The inscription reads METEL PIUS SCIP IMP. 2.127–28.357–58. see Linderski. 1. 3. but in conjunction with the sella curulis the libra is better taken as an expression of the imperator’s aequitas = iustitia. For references. he does not explain what was its function and symbolic value as compared to that of simpuvium and simpulum (cf. n. 46) that the lituus and jug on the denarii of Metellus Scipio may have “a two-fold meaning: a reference to Sulla’s rule and an allusion to the imperium of the moneyer’s ancestor”. No literary source attributes it to the augurs or connects it with any known augural function..C. 172. “Pontificalia atque Auguralia Insignia and the Political Propaganda in the Coinage of the Roman Republic”. AJN 2 (1990) 37–63. This unfortunate terminology also in R. Religie w såwiecie staroz≥ytnym [Religions in the Ancient World] (Torunå 1993) 73–79. In Livy (10. a traditional (and unlikely) interpretation. Morawiecki. Nor do I see any immediate connection between the pontiffs and a magistrate’s claim to legitimate imperium. I remain unconvinced by her argument. Index s. n. it contains an abundant apparatus.97 in the Index s. pontificalia atque auguralia insignia adicere? Qui Iovis optimi maximi ornatu decoratus. especially in the articles “Symbole urze∫dów religijnych na monetach republiki rzymskiej” [“Augural and Pontifical Symbols in the Roman Republican Coinage”]. So also Sydenham. 412.2 (1997 [1998]) 170–89.164 Historia et Ius conceivably. Conway (Oxonii 1919). 115 Gruber. where he takes capis = jug as a pontifical attribute (cf.. and as an answer to Caesarian accusations of crudelitas. also 1. Stewart has in the meantime appeared: Phoenix 51. There certainly was no connection whatsoever (as intimated by Stewart. 176 . He believes (p.7. esp. n.537. 2271.10) P. n.). 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). and see below. “Augural Law” (above. Its association with the augurs is not self-evident. 55. in D. n. tunica palmata. CRR 2. Zió ¬ kowski (eds. eos viros. “A Dialogue of Power in the Coinage of Antony and Octavian (44–30 B. S.. the jug causes problems. 11) between lituus and litatio. n. no 460/3) displaying a tropaeum flanked by a lituus and a jug (with a handle). Now capis is attested as a pontifical vessel. Newman. Musia¬ and M. never by magistrates. toga praetexta. is <non> conspiciatur cum capide et lituo. Two widely used numismatic compendia ascribe to the jug the name of capis115.)”. 118). Walters and R. The priestly symbols on coins have also been treated by L. But capis is thus not only firmly established as a distinctive pontifical implement. Cahn and E. 121 The prime exhibits are the coins on which the pontifical and augural emblems are juxtaposed: RRC no 456 (obverse: axe and simpuvium. but her main point. RRC 2. was probably used interchangeably with the ladle (simpulum or simpuvium)”. she devised an ingenious explication of its use. Zwierlein-Diehl. To Taylor the jug looked “more like the ordinary Roman water pitcher.Q. She starts with the procedure of sortitio. literary descriptions virtually identify capis with simpuvium. axe. apart from the pontifical and sacrificial capis. 6 (obverse: axe. It was very different in shape from the much larger. “Symbols of the Augurate on Coins of the Caecilii Metelli”. simpuvium. combined with the lituus.. 78) 2254. rather short and stout. Tübingen 1963) 39–83. Cf. AJA 48 (1944) 352–56 at 353.). knife. 118 See R. Freier. “Augural Law” (above. in H.. with 117 See the collection of evidence in the little known dissertation by H. whatever its name and its function. lituus goes with augurium ex arce capere. This is welcome for in other texts it is simpuvium that is a characteristic feature of the pontiffs. Römische Opfergeräte. is inaccurate120. the templum. 119) 353. indeed it is amply attested that the pontiffs sacrificed and the augurs took auguries with the back of their head veiled117. 8: “The capis . reverse: simpulum.. n. In her famed article L. R. no 467 (reverse: simpuvium. Hilgers. R. a rarity in Taylor’s opus. It took place in an inaugurated spot. Lateinische Gefässnamen (= Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 31 [Düsseldorf 1969]) 138–39. The entry on capis in W. 119 L. is born out overwhelmingly by numismatic evidence121.. has unfortunately remained unknown to all recent scholars who discussed pontifical and augural implements on coins. in her later. aspergillum. and firmly in the sphere of the augurs. And she concludes: “Such a function of the augur may explain the symbol of the augurate frequently found on coins. Taylor. lean and tall jug that appears in the company of the lituus. Simon (eds. no 500/1. 2222–23. “Symbols” (below. urceus”. also Taylor. See now on priestly emblems the erudite paper by E. Caput Velare (Diss. “Simpuvium Numae”. is disappointing (he disregards the connection between capis and simpuvium). it was used for sacrificial libations118. von Schaewen. ihre Verwendung im Kultus und in der Kunst (Berlin 1940) 35–38. cf. Scipio Imperator 165 177 Two pairs of priestly emblems and of priestly functions stand out: capis goes with victimam caedere. . In every example the pitcher has a small opening usually with a spout. This thorough study. apex). even more famous work. n. no 489/1–3 (obverse: lituus. aspergillum. reverse: jug. raven. jug and lituus. which may mean that it represents not the urna versatilis of the comitia but a pitcher that could be used to decide. above: AUGUR. jug. and of its association with the augurs. n. see the references in Linderski. 421.860 (index): “Capis = Simpulum” (but he incorrectly identifies simpuvium and culullus). lituus). reverse: jug and lituus). in any case the augurs “had nothing to do with sacrifice” 119. The augurs were also called in to decide the validity of the lot. So also Crawford. Tainia Roland Hampe dargebracht (Mainz 1978) 405–22. Taylor was adamant: we ought to keep the jug. 120 On the sacrifices performed by the augurs. the pitcher. below: PONT MAX). Capis = simpuvium was a bowl or beaker with a handle. with ample references to literary and iconographical sources. the augural character of the jug. This statement. The templa and the activities conducted in them stood under the religious supervision of the augurs. . n. and caput velatum pertains to both functions. A. the division of command for consuls and praetors” 122. few of whom could have been priests themselves123. The essence of this “theology of victory” has been admirably summarized by J. on the connection between lituus and imperium: “Plus la notion d’imperator se charge d’éléments mystiques. 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. but a debate has raged about the very significance of augural symbols. A group of spirited scholars blazed past those traditional positions. H. 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 moneyer’s ancestor. 173. 124 J. R. He was augur by 57 (MRR 1. MRR 1. n.449–50.223) perhaps alludes to his own and not to his father’s augurate (so Crawford. G. the lituus did signify the augurate. but a technical augural point demands clarification. Broughton opted for dating his office of monetalis to ca 62 (MRR 1. The latter solution imposes itself for most of the issues minted by the triumviri monetales. R.88). the Samnites and . cf.. no 426/1–3). Gagé. Sutherland (eds. Fears (598) unfortunately continues to use the denomination capis for the jug that appears together with lituus. are they intimations of Sulla’s constitutional position. 3. esp. was the essential prerogative of the Roman magistrate. 160–61. “Augural Law” (above. MEFRA 47 (1930). 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. Antonius and Octavian. A fierce controversy first swirled aroud the lituus and jug on Sulla’s coinage: do these symbols refer to Sulla’s actual possession of the augurate or to the augurate he had only claimed for himself? Or perhaps.437.166 Historia et Ius 178 a smaller number of lots. and (with corrections to Taylor’s presentation) 2193–94. see also Linderski. The lituus refers to the supreme military authority of the charismatic leader”125. 81–89 (lituus as an attribute of imperatorial might). 32). Fears: “Down to Sulla . On the augurs. n. which along with imperium. Cornificius and Augural Symbolism on Late Republican Denarii”. RRC 1. Fears. Carson and C. Historia 24 (1975) 592–602 at 597. “Romulus-Augustus”. more in general. Taylor. Caesar and Pompeius. 125 J. and Crawford argues for placing his issues in 56 (RRC 1.). ayant pour lui les auspices”. L’imperator est le général hereux. templum and sortition. “The Main Aspects of Political Propaganda on the Coinage of the Roman Republic”. esp. However.76). A. such a priesthood had to be postulated for a suitable ancestor. Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly (Oxford 1956) 63–95. but with Sulla it underwent an important change: it came to symbolize the auspicium. “Sulla Imperator Iterum. Roman Voting Assemblies from the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar (Ann Arbor 1966) 73–74 and 144 (n. still upheld by Taylor.. in R. the legitimacy of his imperium? Into this fray I do not propose here to enter126. No better solution has since been offered. could often well be to the magistrate himself. Scholars who treated of these matters were all keen numis122 L. et plus l’exercise de l’auspication regagne sa valeur originelle. Martin. 78) 2173–75. If no ancestor with a suitable priesthood was on record. 123 The lituus on coins of Faustus Sulla (quaestor 54. Alföldi.207). R. 138–81.R. A. all young men. 126 See the summary of the discussion in T. 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. “The Coinage of Q. V. they could be accepted or rejected by the observer128. 2266. inaccurate.. cos. Scipio Imperator 167 179 matists and perceptive historians. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. . Cf. He was a pontiff (MRR 2. showing sanction or disapproval of his planned actions. n.Q. the patron deity aids his favorite. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus. n. 129 Taylor. The impetrative auspices.518–19. R. Arethusa 1 (1968) 26–46 at 27–28. “Symbols” (above. J. also 600: “the lituus ..390. 119) 354–56.113–14) but not an augur. and of the abstruse modern literature dealing with them..738. 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. Most oblative auspices. He could interpret the auspices as well as take them” 127. 109) is combined with two reverses. he Roman republican coin propaganda”. Only the points of intersection are germane to our discussion (see below). 80). Cf. Their disquisitions abound in statements loose. The magistrates and the augurs acted in separate but intersecting spheres.... n. “Romulus” (above. and did not require any particular interpretation. “The Coinage” (above. 125) 598. with its image and inscription reenforcing each other. The magistrate who was also an augur stood in a special position. The trouble with the obverse is that Q. no 374/1–2). already in a similar sense Gagé. n. 78) 2195–96. hence lituus and jug cannot denote his own priesthood. regularly taken by magistrates. augur et imperator. n. Fears adduces the coinage of Q. 472. Caecilius Metellus Pius was. The charismatic leader who was also an augur had received divine sanction to interpret these auspices”. but alas often ignorant of the baffling augural minutiae. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus.171. Metellus Numidicus was known for his opposition to the agrarian law of Appuleius Saturninus which. 7. “Sulla’s Augurate”. “Augural Law” (above. see Linderski. 172. in two stages. endorsed by E. n. R. 127 Fears. one showing an elephant.129 Scipio’s coin (like his elephant issue) is an imitation of the denarii struck by his adoptive father Q. The idea that only augurs could interpret the auspices is patently and manifestly wrong. n. This is not impossible. CORNIFICIUS AUGUR IMP. 2215–18. the signs that occurred unasked. back to Metellus Scipio. 4). a pontiff (even pontifex maximus. After this long but necessary detour. Taylor produced an elaborate explanation. Cornificius (RRC 1. Taylor suggests that the augural symbols refer to the (unattested) augurate of his father Q. capite velato and holding lituus in his right hand. Badian. 128 On all of this. and not an augur. MRR 2. 2228–29. Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 68 (1989) 19–44 at 20–24. were also easy to interpret. and by Crawford. L. no 509/1–4): on the reverses of his aurei and denarii Cornificius is represented as augur. misleading. were all well defined. like Scipio. must represent the idea that through the auspices . 124) 161. with IMPER in the exergue (RRC 1. and the other a jug and a lituus. the inscription proclaims Q. Fears employs this coin. The theme is rather . RRC 2. 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. 43–44. Arethusa 2 (1969) 189 and 195. The conclusion: the reverse of Scipio’s denarius “specifically recalled the reverse of his adoptive father Metellus Pius. Such an allusion was produced by B. The lex curiata was only one item in the chain of acts transmitting and bestowing the magisterial power. n. Crawford. And see now also incisive remarks by Stewart. Frier. If there was any fault in the impetrative auspices under which the assembly was convoked. serried but insecure”. RRC 1. Frier. 132 Syme. AJAH 7. Keaveney. n. “Symbols” (above. 128. for Augurs to be present to attest the passing of the Lex Curiata conferring a magistrate’s powers on him”. and he added perceptively: “it was apparently necessary . Metellus Scipio could also. Frier was perhaps off the mark. 133 See above. All these acts involved divine approval signified by the auspices134: a) The election in the comitia centuriata. ANS Museum Notes 13 (1967) 111–18.390. 131 B. n.2 (1982 [1985]) 150–71. “Sulla Augur”. He pointed out that Metellus Pius issued his coins when he was a Sullan commander operating in Cisalpine Gaul. n. Frier. The coalition of Sulla.168 Historia et Ius said. and he further observed that his augural reverse clearly imitates the reverse of Sulla’s aurei and denarii struck one or two years earlier. 158–60). in his “Index of Careers” (MRR 2. Frier invoked the potent name of Syme132. The augural symbols on Sulla’s coinage denoted that his imperium was iustum. no 374. if during the 130 Taylor. 115) 178–79. 134 This was well seen by A.. The validity of a magistrate’s or pro-magistrate’s imperium and auspicium depended on a series of constitutional acts. but also investigate whether it is possible to tie it with the present.374): “it seems more satisfactory to hold that they were regarded by Sulla as symbolizing a claim to imperium”. still Crawford’s proposition offers a clear legal and religious perspective in which to view the lituus on coins. and if he “was an augur. in vain: he was curtly dismissed by Badian and Crawford133. 119) 354. but he was on the right track: we should not only consider the past history of the emblem. Now about the jug and lituus on the issues of Sulla Crawford himself wrote thus (RRC 1. n. “Jug and Lituus” (above. Cf. but even more the earlier reverse of Sulla”. Describing the array of the camp of Pompeius in 49 (in 47–46 in Africa the ranks were thinner but the essence the same) he opined: “It was the oligarchy of Sulla. Broughton was moderately convinced (or moderately unconvinced). and would commemorate the augurate of his adoptive grandfather. his insistence on the unconstitutionality of the law becomes more intelligible” 130. manifest and menacing in its last bid for power.539) he recorded the augurate of Metellus Numidicus but with a query. . Badian’s article there adduced was a rejoinder to an earlier piece by B. in view of the onslaught of the Caesarian propaganda. “Augural Symbolism in Sulla’s Invasion of 83”. was not iure rogata. was gathering anew against Caesar” 131. The following disquisition owes much to his perceptive argument (see esp. The coin of Metellus Scipio would thus be merely an imitation of the coinage of Metellus Pius. “Sulla’s Priesthood”. but the meaning of the revived reverse should be much broader. This is a tepid association. 27. we need an allusion possessed of contemporary urgency. which Scipio might be said to symbolize. 68) 45. And further: “Whatever familial precedent Pius could claim.. Roman Revolution (above. but he was obliged to return to Rome ad auspicia repetenda138. Again. Rom. 6. was a constant and ubiquitous attendant of the magistrate. It could be vitiated by an adverse sign. n. denoting the actual command. If a fault was discovered the magistrate (or pro-magistrate) was not expected to resign. 134) 161–64. cf. 137 On the thorny question of the character of the lex curiata. n. Lat. Scipio Imperator 169 180 assembly any adverse signs occurred. “Augural Law” (above. 14) I3. The magistrates entering upon office. see the sensible remarks by Keaveney. but its symbolism on coins was new.86. b) The first auspication (“the auspices of investiture”) coinciding with the entry upon the office. 79–81. and then with the new election the renovatio auspiciorum (not to be confused with the repetitio auspiciorum. n. d) The taking of the auspices on the Capitol by the magistrate (or promagistrate) before his departure for a campaign. and if finally any error was committed in the ritual that caused the auspices to be vitiated. see Linderski. c) The passage of the lex curiata that granted the imperium militiae137. 2. Varro. n. 136 See the discussion in Linderski. and were disregarded. The magistrate was expected to abdicate136. “Augural Law” (above. But this monument remains an isolated example. impetrated auspicium de caelo in the shape of lightning. the magistrates were elected vitio. were magistratus vitiosi. and on imperial reliefs there 135 On the augural concept of vitium. “Sulla Augur” (above. Interregnum would follow.1–2. 168–71. and censors before the lustrum. There was no agreed way in which the auspices or the right to the auspices could be visually represented. the gods indicating that the auspicia of the magistrate were not in order. The pullarius. The military concept of imperio aupicio (and ductu. 88) 69.Q.774). see below).1–2. we find a representation of lightning accompanied by the inscription deo loci ubi auspicium dignitatis tale (CIL 8. Ant. Mommsen. and magistratus vitiosus. All these acts endowed the magistrate with imperium and auspicium. referring to a local magistrate. These auspices of departure (or of military investiture) corresponded structurally to the first auspication. Ling. Linderski. n. 31. n. 139 Dion. And indeed on a stone from Africa. “Roman Religion in Livy” (above. 78) 2168–72. 78) 2159–77.. divination from the eating behavior of sacred chickens. the pulli. 138 On the renovatio and repetitio auspiciorum. The commanders in the field employed before battles the auspicia pullaria. Hal. the keeper of pulli.5. Cf. 2.6. fulmen139. 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 auspices under which the curiate assembly was convoked had to be ritually without any fault. . Staatsrecht (above. and were expected to resign (though technically could not be forced to do so)135. the commanders without imperium fought ductu suo but imperio and auspicio alieno) was of course an old one. but in one significant way they were different from it. This was a bad omen for the whole year. and hence his imperium. Individual augurs had the right to announce (nuntiare) with binding force adverse signs that appeared after the beginning of the proceedings. Fulmen. fig. they were not well suited to indicate in abstracto the legitimacy of a general’s twin pillars of command. Scott Ryberg.133. which was unobserved or unheeded. 1885) 31–32. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art [= Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 22. imperium and auspicium. “Augural Law” (above. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione Libri Duo [Urbana 1920–23. Metellus Scipio had every reason to insist that his path to final success was open. The answer why this was so is to be sought in the augural doctrine. There were four canonical birds the flight or voice of which was observed at the auspicia impetrativa: picus.. and his auspices. at the entry upon office. 31).12. 79. 41. cornix. n. they did not guarantee felicitas or victory. the sortitio for the provinces. the college of augurs. 142 Full references. But this emblem too remains an isolated example. the instrument of auspicium and augurium. Rom. Die Fahnen im römischen Heere (= Abhandlungen des Archäologisch-Epigraphischen Seminars der Universität Wien. On the altar from the vicus Sandalarius. are represented on a third century bronze ingot. Livy 10. Two pulli. Rome 1955] 60–61.170 Historia et Ius 181 appear occasionally representations of the pulli. were 140 On the pulli and pullarii. “Simpuvium” (above. next to jug and lituus (RRC 1. see Zwierlein-Diehl. 78) 2151–25. on whose recommendation the senate would base its decree142. pecking on the ground. and at the ceremonies of departure for war. but they are perhaps connected with the Dioscuri (Crawford. “Augural Law” (above.6. De div.489. Heft V. M. and a pullus at his feet is pecking at something. Hal. and discussion. the cavea140.718. von Domaszewski. And indeed on a denarius of Antonius we encounter a raven (corvus). see A. were loudly denying legitimacy to Scipio’s position: he obtained his command in a rigged sortitio. The jug and lituus on the coins of commanders were like the stamps of approval. Ant. 1. n. The Caesarians. 3–4). Cf. but proclaimed nihil obstat: the path was open to proceed dis iuvantibus. 489/1–3).14. n. For further references. S. but also by an error in the ritual. and corvus allude each to a particular type of auspicium. and pl.71–74 (and the commentary ad loc.18. associated with the procedure of sortitio. in Linderski. 78) 2285–86. could be brought about not only by an adverse oblative sign. and it would appear that they could very well be employed as indications of auspicium. feeding. Cic. 2. from the sceleratus imperator himself down to a simple veteran. at elections. 141 Plaut. at the passage of the curiate law. RRC 2. Dion. And vitium. And the symbols of the augurate were the lituus. the inability to communicate with the gods. The augurs assisted at all public meetings. the new augur Lucius Caesar holds lituus. no.. n. Linderski. resulting in faulty auspices. Darmstadt 1963]). XVI. thus denoting the tripudium (I. or kept in the cage. 118) 409–13 (and pl. pulli. and in the second place the jug.. 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. The final decision rested with the senate. Asin. corvus. and the image of the pulli in a cage.. parra141. De div. For a military pullarius. 259–61. repr. and the college of augurs could pass decrees concerning errors in procedure. . see esp. 85.2. 2. RRC 1.40. by A. 2). no 12. Cic. but the presence of a vitium was always established by the board of experts. Pease. n. Gruber’s “Spanish trophy” was erected on a shaky ground. 144 Taylor.. 182 .. Rare and curious indeed. in eius castra perfugere catervatim non intermittunt.572) “it is composed of Spanish arms.572. 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. Elegant and ingenious certainly. ad te voluimus in tuaque praesidia confugere.357). helmet. 1). Het antieke tropaion (= Verhandelingen Vlaamse Akad.. like Gruber. 99) 9 = 223. Taylor shows no interest in the particular arms of 143 Alföldi. Scipio Imperator 171 contaminated with all sorts of irredeemable vitia. A. partim. 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. and round shield”. 119) 355. 145 B. Mari . but judiciously remarks: “waaronder-een zeer zeldzame verschijning – een boog en een pijlkoker”. His imperium was iustum. so also the tropaeum may be a memorial of Pius’ victory over Sertorius (cf. to Scipio’s current campaign in Africa. quod ipsi maioresque eorum beneficio C. CRR 2. n. imperator. “Symbols” (above. 35 (the speculatores Gaetuli speaking): Saepenumero . But above all. we have seen).390. [4] The Trophy On the coin of Scipio between lituus and jug there is a trophy. Crawford ventures no description. and L. repeats the assertion of Gruber about the Spanish arms. 146. no 374) Pius did not strike his coins in 79–77 in Spain in the war against Sertorius but rather when he was commanding in 81 in Cisalpine Gaul. consisting of cuirass with sword attached to the waist. “and may not have been intended to relate to the campaign for which these coins were struck” (CRR 2. Taylor once again offered a theory elegant and ingenious. But we have to remember that there is no tropaeum on the denarii of Metellus Pius. This “Numidian” trophy Taylor placed in a broader context of propaganda and counter-propaganda of the war in Africa.. i. “Iuba” (above. bow and quiver. and that according to Crawford (RRC 1. der Letteren 27 [Brussel 1957]) 176.e. qui sumus clientes C. Caesar made use of his adfinis Marius to win over the Numidians and the Gaetulians145. The answer to these slanders was the lituus and the jug. Afr. Marii usi fuissent Caesaremque eius adfinem esse audiebant. see below. complures Gaetuli. but Alföldi apparently had doubts about Spanish arms for in his description of the trophy he conspicuously attaches a mark of interrogation: “Tropäum mit spanischen (?) Waffen” 143. Not persuasive because too involved. Klasse. Scipio countered invoking on his coins the memory of Metellus Numidicus.Q. 32: Interim Numidae Gaetulique diffugere cotidie ex castris Scipionis et partim in regnum se conferre.. R. 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. According to Gruber (CRR 2. see also 56. If jug and lituus refer to Caecilius Numidicus (they hardly do. n. it was always ready for a reinterpretation. and certainly not persuasive. J. Janssen. n. This mark ought to be very large indeed for Gruber’s description was not based on an analysis of the arms themselves. Peace and Prosperity Will Scipio’s felicitas hold in Africa? No reason to ask: a Scipio could not fail on this continent. The interpretation of García-Bellido collapses: the bow and quiver on Scipio’s trophy have nothing to do with Africa or Tanit. The augural symbols.. 83) 162. Scipio’s felicitas was twice tested and proven. where .42). jug and lituus. 66. the message would be that of the victory over Africa and not of the victory in Africa. 3. and could put this title before his name and on his coins. and see now Ostrowski. the Acta of the Severan ludi saeculares: Pighi. and if the bow and quiver forming part of the trophy on the reverse belong to her. the victory impugned by Caesar147. 29. and celeritas was one of a true imperator’s cardinal virtues (Cf. In the Bell. On the obverse there is a representation of the lion-headed 146 [O.. n. This brings to mind Scipio’s victory in the Amanus mountains. “Sagittarius”. RE 1 A (1920) 1743–46. no. Parthia. Opfergeräte (above. but they are always Roman archers.472. Les personnifications (above. 89). n. they did not form a separate unit (App. Bienåkowski. On the reverse of a denarius (RRC 1. Bell. lines 48–49. Jug. and thus if the turreted deity on the obverse of the coin is Tanit (cf.172 Historia et Ius 183 which the trophy on Scipio’s denarius is composed. and in the left. 6] 280. See von Schaewen.2. Hisp. MRR 3. Numinous for it was only on the victorious battlefield that the felicitas of the commander. 148 Crawford thinks that she holds a patera. n. 99) 40–42. Now among those arms two pieces stand out: bow and quiver. 460/4) we encounter Victoria herself. 149).16. 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. De simulacris barbarorum gentium apud Romanos (Cracoviae 1900) 32–34. close to the body. Pomp. on the other hand Parthian and Syrian bowmen were famous146. 99): no trace of bow or quiver in the representations of Hispania (163–71) or Mauretania (186–88) or Numidia (192). Neither the Spaniards nor the Numidians were known for their prowess in archery. he was also imperator felix. and the laurel on his fasces. But cf. Cic. 115).36) Caesar himself stresses the celeritas of Scipio as a commander. Not only was Scipio’s imperium and auspicium iustum. indicated that no vitium contaminated the commander’s auspicium. Combès. standing. García-Bellido. she holds caduceus in her right hand. De ludis (above. De imp. n. Only after a victory was he a true imperator. Cn.] Fiebiger. “Punic Iconography” (above. De re rust. Sallust mentions the archers five times. the favor of the gods. but the final and only proof was victory. At the siege of Numantia Iugurtha brought to Scipio twelve elephants and a body of archers and slingers who were attached to them (toÁw suntassom°nouw aÈto›w). manifested itself. this is unlikely: the patera was normally held with the right (and outstretched) hand. and for a triumph the acclamatio imperatoria was a necessary prerequisite. Imperator [above. n. points out that bow and quiver were the attributes of Tanit. On bow and/or quiver as attributes on Roman representations of Armenia. It is most natural to take the trophy on Scipio’s coin as a reference to that glorious and numinous moment. But Scipio was not fighting Africa (Iuba was his ally!): he was fighting Caesar. 36. a round shield148. [5] Victory. Curiously enough. below. and Sarmatia. 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. n. in the Bellum Civile (3. The bow and quiver as a trophy represent the captured enemy arms. never Numidian. see the still very useful study by P. Hence the anticipation of victory so lavishly displayed on Scipio’s coins. n 118) 24. Q.738. and “Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature”. On this coin. 99) 38–41. interprets the object as a small round shield. according to Pighi’s reconstruction the patera would be held in the left hand. A Paradigm for Political Science”. Or “Imp. Images of corn-ears appear with the curule chair. Rome might have known a ruler bearing the style Imperator Scipio Invictus”. and its close association with Victoria and the insignia of victory spells a political program: pax terra marique. Plin. N. no 460/3). and with the Head of Africa. perhaps the city goddess of Utica or Tanit. Against the mirage of vainglorious hopes and aspirations the death of Scipio comes in the Bellum Africum (96) as an insignificant footnote. takes it as an emblem of felicitas. VII. RRC 2.27. 10. His vessel surrounded. n. n. not with Scipio. But not only victory. Other sources.3–5. to the fruits of peace. Still better – and real: Q. 29. has a lengthy discussion of “Victoria mit Schild” (98–135). and defiantly uttered the words that won him immortality. Syme. The program looks beyond the augural or auspical legitimacy. 151 R. and the felicity of victory. . The caduceus also appears on the obverse of another denarius (RRC 1. 150 Crawford. “Oligarchy for Rome. The caduceus was a symbol of peace150. Eppius). Gell. tell a heroic story of Scipio’s death. trophy and jug. 1). and promptly sunk: ibique Scipio interiit. but Varro. It flanks on the right the head of a female turreted deity. Sittius. laureate and wearing elephant’s skin (RRC 1.H. when the enemies inquired where the imperator was. Historia 7 (1958) 188 = RP 1 (1979) 377. 149 The former is the traditional interpretation. on the left there is a corn-ear. So Syme. no 461. “Punic Iconography” (above. Scipio imp. below. and the company of Cato and Lucretia: imperator se bene habet152. “Punic Iconography” (above. with the turreted goddess. less or differently partisan. but he does not mention the coin of Scipio. De vita populi Romani (in Nonius 528 Mercerius = 848 Lindsay) is explicit: caduceus.472. Scipio Pius”. holding an ankh. 99). The cornucopiae over the curule chair herald prosperity. Cf. Hölscher. below rostrum tridens.54. IMPERATOR SE BENE HABET “Had Fortune reversed her decision in the African campaign (in 46). This is the coin that shows on the reverse lituus. Victoria Romana (Mainz 1967). pacis signum. he plunged his sword into his chest. and above a rectangular object that may represent earth (so Crawford.. in the Roman interpretation the Dea Caelestis149. and not with Caesar. Peace came. the chief goddess of Carthage. RRC 2. in his right hand. Scipio Imperator 173 184 G(enius) T(errae) A(fricae). T. the symbol of life. caetra. Thus victory in Africa. another symbol of peaceful and fruitful labor. Diogenes 141 (1988) 63 = Roman Papers 6 (Oxford 1991) 329. inadvertently or perceptively substituting the blind Fortuna for the provident Felicitas 151.472. there is a plough. 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.738. Scipio’s joint issue with M. and prosperity. A golden age brought about by Scipio imperator. Also García–Bellido. n. 38. the latter was ingenuously proposed and argued by García–Bellido. Fehrle. Ann. hunc Brutum nusquam latrones et parricidas. 2. see E.10: Omnia licet fiant . but finds Lucretia even more admirable: ad moriendum non tam Cato et Scipio quam Lucretia). In Ampelius’ Liber memorialis 24 the history of the illustres Scipiones is so summarized: Scipio magnus Africanus qui vicit Hannibalem.. Scipio qui occiso Pompeio partes restituit et victus se interfecit.. mori?). 57). lost and notorious (cf. Words only: the Metelli lost their elephant. and the legend of Cato. that demanded the victor’s response.34. hunc ipsum Cassium.297 (add Quintilian 5. Suas. Eine Untersuchung der Testimonien und Fragmente [Darmstadt 1981]). n.1): Pompeius.18. It was Cato’s suicide. Mor.2.3: Titus Livius . R. Mor. and Broughton. On Caesar as a literary imitator of Scipio. H. and the Scipiones lost their Africa154. 22). Lentulus tuus. 154 As Seneca was well aware. 9. . Afranium. Other sources on Scipio’s death in Münzer. Porcium Uticensem invectiva”. et Scipionem in Africa nominis sui fortuna destituat. Ps. 3.. rivals in love (see above. and that Scipio (apparently as late as 56 or 55) composed an invective against Cato (Plut. Scipio. Caecilii Metelli Pii Scipionis in M. Cato Min. The victor Caesar used Scipio’s strictures as if spoils of victory in his own denigration of Cato.10. “De Q. We remember that Scipio and Cato had once been enemies. associates him with Cato. Scipionem a maioribus suis desciscentem generosa mors in numerum Scipionum reposuit. Scipio Nasica qui a senatu vir optimus est iudicatus. 152 Liv.8: P.. 6.11 adds: an aliter debebat imperator. Afranius foede perierunt. Caesars ‘Anticato’. Cato Uticensis (Darmstadt 1983). But it is well to remember that Imperator Caesar had only two years left for his felicitas to endure. Suas. sed amplius mortem153. Piotrowicz.13.. 2. quae nunc vocabula imponuntur. Scipionem. MRR 2. Tschiedel.10) – illum parem maioribus fecit et fatalem Scipionibus gloriam in Africa non est interrumpi passa.2.. 4. 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. With Scipio as an ally no wonder that this was one battle he lost. in life or death. Declamat. Berlin 1922) 436. At Cato praeclare. Meyer. n. Seneca. “Caecilius 99” (above.-Quint. 24. 294. Mor. Ep. Seneca Rhet. Max. But Scipio was not a worthy opponent of Caesar.. both scholars endorsing the incisive investigation by L. 24. 114.. On Livy’s admiration for Scipio. glowingly acknowledged even by the author of the Bellum Africum (88).. Or perhaps Scipio’s utterance was merely a hagiographic invention? 153 Cf. Scipio minor Numantinus qui Numantiam et Carthaginem diruit.11. 4) 1228. 71.. Seneca Rhet. et quidem Catonis.-J. Multum fuit Carthaginem vincere. n. see Tac.68. 7. Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompeius3 (Stuttgart u.. Ep. Per.9. saepe ut insigni<s> viros nominat.. Cicero probably did not yet know the exact circumstances of Scipio’s death when he wrote (Fam. Scipio Asiaticus qui de Antiocho triumphavit. Val. The response came in Caesar’s Anticato.13. Eos 18 (1912) 129–36. Minores 377.174 Historia et Ius 185 Vox haec – opines Seneca (Ep. Flor. who also admires Scipio’s courage in death.9 (Seneca 24. It refers to the youthful (and from the standpoint of the boni morally wretched) followers of Caesar. but for this sense we have to find a different Latin word. ‘lost’. 7.. pp. and the replacement of close attention to texts by sociological commonplaces. Fortunately from this disease the book suffers relatively little. Those who were born. March 45): ea nobis erepta esse quae hominibus non minus quam liberi cara esse debent. Perdita Iuventus. DETTENHOFER. honores omnes. pro tua dignitate ex hac iuventute (“that rascally youth”) generum deligere. in re publica . content German. XII + 359. 1992]). 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. credo. A glance at a Latin dictionary will show that although the primary meaning of perditus is ‘lost’. P. and further. 561 Latin title. honestatem. 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. mostly in the introduction. Antonius. The phrase comes from Cicero. 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. It asks the question: what would have been the careers of young aristocrats if not for Caesar. in a physical sense. a concept with a powerful resonance in European history. Cornelius Dolabella.11 WAYWARD AND DOOMED* Maria H. Caelius Rufus. Scribonius Curio. * Gnomon 68 (1996) 560–562 {with minor addenda}. yet she has decided to use the word in ‘its original meaning’ of ‘verloren’. M.. 7. 4. addressing Cicero with bitter irony: licitum est tibi. and apply it to the whole age group between Caesar and Augustus (9). patriam. dignitatem. 6: tam perdita iuventus coupled with tanta auctoritate dux. M. Att. and who lived. Thus the ‘lost generation’. M. Zwischen den Generationen von Caesar und Augustus (= Vestigia 40 [München: Beck. 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. In Rome the generation between Caesar and Augustus can also and not unjustly be described as ‘lost’. The author is aware of this context. 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. had to cope with turmoil and terror. or have grandchildren who honores ordinatim petituri essent. Iunius Brutus. 5. Directly addressing Cicero. Brutus joined Pompey. it was to Cicero (Tusc. but is repelled by the people who uphold it. Each life is split into three periods: the experience of the fifties. and Dolabella to escape his capture by Cassius committed suicide in the Syrian Laodicea. yet under his dispensation there was no place for the dignitas of others (163–64. than in her general ‘Zusammenfassungen’. in Dettenhofer’s book visible more clearly in her treatment of individual lives. Cassius Longinus. executed after a desperate uprising against Caesar. he was murdered in the senate house. ubi ad bellum et castra ventum sit. The military balance ought to have been obvious to others. Caelius never really decided for Caesar. Those seven lives the author presents with insight and acumen. he remarks: non dubito quin te quoque haec deliberatio sit perturbatura. and he also flirted with the Caesarian option: quoniam qui nihil possunt ii me nolunt amare. ut volunt esse et ut essent si quicquam haberent fidei. Curio lost his life in 49 fighting in Caesar’s service king Juba and the Pompeians in Africa. quamdiu civiliter sine armis certetur. Pompeium senatum quique res iudicant habiturum. 316–17. Caesar began the civil war avowedly in defense of his dignitas. defeated by Octavian. and Brutus awoke under the pressure of his name and the memory of a mythical ancestor (226. the murderer of his father. and (for those who survived) “the political chance” after the assassination of Caesar. The result was the conspiracy. firmiorem. and in 31 Antonius. . the experience of the civil war. war nun eben Caesar” (99). Indeed. die sich dazu bot. 250–51. 8. quod tutius sit. anticipating ea contentio quam fieri necesse est. political and military situation Caelius recognized with rare clarity: illud te non arbitror fugere. took his own life in Alexandria. A pattern emerges. honestiorem sequi partem. et id melius statuere. 14. it was only after Pharsalos that he and Cassius embraced Caesar’s pardon and the prospect of a new career. in 43 Decimus Brutus. For Cicero also hated the people whose political ideals he shared: non est credibile quae sit perfidia in istis principibus. 316–17). This is the most important sententia of the book. In a famous letter (Fam. demus operam ut ab iis qui possunt diligamur (Att. they felt the weight of the dead Republic on their shoulders. “Die einzige Alternative. one year later the ‘liberators’ Brutus and Cassius perished by their own hands at Philippi. 5. It is best encapsulated in Caelius’ deeds and utterances. June 56). captured by a Gaulic chieftain. ad Caesarem omnes. dated to August 50). 237–38.176 Historia et Ius C. 333–34). he loves the cause of Caesar’s opponents. and D. and ultimately against “die aussichtslose Sache”. 4. The moral. where the immediacy of the sources still shines. But Caesar too belonged to a ‘lost’ generation: instead of becoming an elder statesman. most other boni chose principle over expediency or personal rancor. 2. Caelius was dead in 48. 2. exercitum conferendum non esse. Caelius faces a dilemma: with the Caesarians he is bound by the ties of gratia and necessitudo. qui cum timore aut mala spe vivant accessuros. Yet Caesar’s clementia was offensive to proud nobles. Iunius Brutus Albinus. 38). was put to death at Antony’s behest. quin homines in dissensione domestica debeant. And with great clairvoyance he predicted the political alignment: in hac discordia video Cn. only against “unzuverlässige und rachsüchtige Optimaten wie Appius und Domitius”. Cicero vacillated. This is a serious misunderstanding. in K. His new state “was based on an absurd parody of natural selection – the survival of the unfittest”. LIV. The Deadly Reformer (Sydney 1970) 32. Dettenhofer points to two sources of Caesar’s early dominance: his gold. with many possible options and outcomes (cf. It is only against the background of languid senatorial incompetence that the rise of Caesar. won in Gaul. Meier. and his ability to foster military and civil careers. E. Between Republic and Empire (Berkeley 1990) 54–70. to the notorious piscinarii. becomes comprehensible if not necessarily inevitable. Caesar was a mass murderer (Gnomon 62 [1990] 30). She remarks on the great financial expenditures that were needed for a political career. Nor was Caesar’s ‘Alleinherrschaft’ a viable solution. and of other Caesars. see also his article “C. Dettenhofer’s relentless structural analysis does not allow for such thoughts: in her book the course of history is always tamed and explained. But a thought occurs: he did not kill the right people. This is right and true. 136. were also the cornerstones of Augustus’ power. Heuss and I. Toher (eds. For further succinct elaboration. C.2 The ‘Republic’ is an abstract concept. With Brutus died the personification of the Republic. and refers the reader to the books by A. It is the people who imbue it with life. Dettenhofer pays too little attention to the ‘rachsüchtigen Optimaten’. Lucius Sulla. Badian. writing of Sulla. . and the monopoly of patronage. LVII in the introduction to the reprint edition (Frankfurt 1980). and his system very viable. but he was pursuing a phantom: “die letzte Generation der Republik [stand] vor einem politischen Vakuum”. They were all either survivors or products of that ‘deadly reformer’. A. It took a great deal more 1 2 3 4 As E. Caesar Divi filius and the Formation of the Alternative in Rome”. a generation and a bloodbath later. or any other adventurer. Raaflaub and M. Asconius should not be omitted. has put it similarly and yet very differently: “The time for military monarchy had yet not come – as even Caesar found out. Their goals were anachronistic (309). powerfully restated in Gnomon 62 (1990) 26. Badian reminds us. and the course of history would have been very different. and L.Wayward and Doomed 562 177 The death of Brutus provides an epitaph. Another historian. If not for his clementia he perhaps would have lived. History is not a preordained and reproducible chemical reaction: it is a dynamic and chaotic process.). But first Brutus and Cassius had to die: “Ihr Tod machte den Weg frei für Octavian und den an monarchische Strukturen besser assimilierten neuen Adel” (332). Badian 37–38).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. Lucius Sulla.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. This perceptive author comments on a close connection between ambitus in the city and the extortion in the provinces (In Scaur. P. Shatzman. Res Publica Amissa (Wiesbaden 1966) 201–5.4 The overwhelming financial means. cold and clinical. 19 Clark). with wit and irony illuminating unpleasant truths. to quote a bitter poet. . Lucan. 1.6 5 6 Badian. Phars. E. Syme. was never very popular in German historiography (cf. 670. Alföldy. Meier’s {cf. and then by degrees. Syme’s style of writing and of seeing history. The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 9. 26. Dettenhofer does not know the essay of Badian. G. Gnomon 62 (1990) 22–39} or to both (Drumann’s Römische Geschichte is an immortal assemblage of facts with a thesis: glorification of monarchy. and she utilizes Syme very sparingly.. Roman and Prussian. SBHeid. and denigration of republicanism) or finally and most recently to pretentious sociologizing. Lucius Sulla.178 Historia et Ius slaughter to make it possible. often given to pedestrian enumeration of facts (as in Lange’s once popular Römische Alterthümer) or to romantic (and fatalistic) urges (as in Mommsen’s description of Caesar and recently C. Badian. prominently adduced by R. 1983. with caution and tact”. Heft 1).5 Or. Cum domino pax ista venit. they are never described as priests. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History: Books 55–56 (9 B. sacerdotes. So. Severy. 14) (American Clasical Studies 47 [New York 2004]) 351–52. the municipal priests were certainly under no direct patronage or control of the emperor. the Augustales and the sodales Augustales. The Augustan Succession. * 1 2 Original contribution. by K. B.2 The precise details of their cultic activities are. The confusion of Augustales and sodales Augustales is interesting for in his bibliography Clarke adduces the article by Duthoy (see below. particularly if propagated in a periodical of prestige. Interestingly in the city of Rome itself they are not on record (see below). All major collegia sacerdotum were certainly under the emperor’s control but hardly under his patronage (if we take the term patronus in its legal sense). ed. devoted to the cult of Augustus.” in Between the Republic and Empire. who did not normally have access to the civic magistracies. n. consisting largely of freedmen.3–5) and the Tabula Hebana (59–62) 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. see P. . Ostrow.D. For an excellent short account of sodales Augustales. an article quoted but disregarded or misunderstood by Severy. at 321. rightly. D. these Augustales. Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate. and they rapidly became a permanent and prominent fixture in the cities of Italy and the western provinces. A. I do it out of a conviction that errors acquire a life of their own sowing confusion and misinformation. E. Contrary to the casual statement by Severy. The incriminated passage reads as follows: both the Tabula Siarensis (2. These Augustales were relatively new priests in Roman society.–A. “Family and State in the Early Imperial Monarchy: The Senatus Consultum de Pisone Patre. In Italian towns. 3). Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids 2000) 63: “A distinction should be made between the official priestly collegia and the private associations. Serve the Community of the Church. Tabula Siarensis.” CP 95 (2000) 318–37.1. A similar array of misunderstandings and mistakes in A. The sodales Augustales were included in this group and created a forum for freedmen. and Tabula Hebana. “The Augustales in the Augustan Scheme. which was based on that of the Roman familia to the genius of its paterfamilias. Raaflaub and M. Swan. M. Clarke. at 364. to exercise influence”. Many of the former were under the direct patronage of the emperor and also incorporated those from the élites. The Augustales were the creation of the Augustan period. Toher (Berkeley 1990) 364–79.12 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. developed into a recognized social class between the town counselors and the common plebs. S. but apparently he either did not read this article or did not comprehend it.C.1 In this passage the principal error resides in the amalgamation of two vastly dissimilar organizations sharing a similar name. they were rather “members of collegial associations officially devoted to the imperial cult”. A. R. this process is well documented by Abramenko. 133–36. also B. Scheid. Combet-Farnoux. Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Tiberius Drususque [the son of Tiberius] et Claudius [cf.16. esp. Tatius retinendis Sabinorum sacris sodales Titios instituerat [cf.16. The groupings of Augustales were the associations predominantly of and for rich freedmen. For the history and prosopography of the college. as Tacitus (Ann.3 The inner arrangement of these associations was intricate and bore many faces: there existed separate organizations of Augustales. Severy (336) adduces Duthoy’s article.” See also his “Recherches sur la répartition géographique et chronologique des termes sevir Augustalis. 6] et Germanicus adiciuntur. Hoffman Lewis. “Augustales along the Bay of Naples: A Case for Their Early Growth. This variety of forms is well expressed in the title of the article by R.542. Claud. 65–68. J.” Epigraphische Studien 11 (1976) 143–214. 1. 3]. Augustalis et sevir dans l’Empire romaine.7 These documents contain the following provision: 3 4 See the lucid exposition by R. 642. 1. The associations of *Augustales were open to the ingenui.95]. at 1293–306. W. Duthoy. Hist. The college consisted of twenty-five members.” Historia 34 (1985) 64–101.180 Historia et Ius however. 646–49.54) puts it Idem annus novas caerimonias accepit addito sodalium Augustalium sacerdotio.5 the sodales Augustales were. 1. Die munizipale Mittelschicht [n. bien que participant au culte impérial. n. 639. immediately after the apotheosis of Augustus. Duthoy. 2. augustales et magistri augustales ainsi que ceux qui portent comme titre un de quelques 40 variantes dérivées des titres sevir augustalis ou augustalis” (1254. 91–95. ut quondam T.6 and the post occupied by Germanicus leads us directly to the Tabula Hebana and the Tabula Siarensis. 1.2 (1978) 1254–309..534 (commentary).532. at 618. Abramenko. S. Mercure romain (Rome 1980) 456–71. *). edited by M. on the other hand. but omits the asterisk. and they are not to be confounded with the sodales Augustales. Zu einem neuen Verständnis von Sevirat und Augustalität (Frankfurt am Main 1993) esp. “Les *Augustales. Crawford (London 1996) 1. 14.521. 5 6 7 . The Augustales are not mentioned at all either in the Tabula Hebana or the Tabula Siarensis. 1.4 The members of these associations were never called sodales. on the associations of the (magistri) Mercuriales and Apollinares as predecessors and models for the *Augustales. Sorte ducti e primoribus civitatis unus et viginti. A pity for in the same footnote Duthoy specifically excludes from his consideration “les sodales augustales qui. sont recrutés dans un tout autre milieu social que les *augustales. the supplements. I reproduce the text (I omit the subscript dots). 87–99. see M. Divus Augustus Pater (Olsztyn 2001) 34–40. E. Sajkowski. seviri Augustales (not to be confused with various other groups of seviri) and magistri Augustales.528 (translation). very sparse. H. Later three additional decuries were added for various imperial princes. 4] 44–125. “Les prêtres officiels sous les Julio-Claudiens. for this striking innovation a mythical precedent was at hand. As so often in the Augustan and Tiberian principate. but progressively they became purely libertine organizations. These documents refer to the sodales Augustales. Ostrow.516 (text). The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians (Rome 1955) 116–17.E. where the asterisk is employed to indicate “en un mot les seviri augustales.1 (1978) 610–54. recruited from the highest reaches of Roman aristocracy.” ANRW 2. 1. Suet. The college of the sodales Augustales was established in 14 C. Cf. and the translation (with minor modifications) according to the edition in Roman Statutes.” ANRW 2. “Les *Augustales” [n. and the general sense is clear. col. and L.. lines 2–5: . 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. quibus eo [rum . with the same sacrificial rite with which [inferiae are publicly performed] for the manes of C. The lex specifies in great detail that if one or more of the magistri should . [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].Augustales and Sodales Augustales 181 Tab. I.-]. Tab. and the Tabula Hebana reproducing the rogatio (or lex) Valeria Aurelia. Heb.. 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 [. fr. 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 . the former on the right side and the latter on the left. Siar.ius fasque erit habere] eo die sui coloris togam.. but such would not be the assessment of the Roman legislator.. lines 59–62: utiq(ue) eodem die magistri] sodalium Augustalium qui quoq(ue) anno erunt inferias ante tumulu[m divi Augusti manibus Germani Cae] saris mittendas curent. Caesar.-]... inferiae [be performed publicly] for [his] manes [by the magistri of the sodales] Augustales clothed in dark togas. eodem ritu sacrifici quo [publice inferiae mittuntur] manibus C(ai) et L(uci) Caesarum.publice i]nferiae manibus [eius mitterentur per magistros sodaliu]m Augustalium p[ullis] amictos togis. or if one or more magistri [shall not be able to attend at that sacrifice. This may seem a minor inaccuracy. are broken off. the Tabula Siarensis representing the text of a senatus consultum. those of them for whom [it shall be legal and proper to wear] a toga of natural color. 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. but they illuminate each other. The article here discussed expresses this sense (as we have seen) in three interconnected statements. b. 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). and thus most of the supplements are assured. The two bronzes. Michelotto. but we have a detailed description of the rite in the famous decreta Pisana in honor of Lucius and Gaius. 4.I. Cf. with further bibliography. was closely modeled on the proceedings in Rome.E. Decreta Pisana (Pisa 1980).7)”. “Les décrets de Pise et le culte des morts. 142.v. s. J. Vidman. G. Phillips in OCD3 (1996) 916–17.” Klio 53 (1971) 209-212. 9 See the lucid exposition by C. 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. “Inferiae und iustitium. esp. and the sodales Augustales were established only in 14 C. The original senatorial decrees and laws which instituted the celebrations are not preserved. they could not possibly have officiated at the sacrifices to the manes of the brothers. 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. also L.. La commemorazione di Germanico nella documentazione epigrafica (Roma 2000 [but containing papers delivered in 1991]) 131–40. By whom the rites for the brothers were performed we are not told. lines 16–21 (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 . LÒgiow énÆr. Segenni. The sacrifice was offered directly to the manes of Germanicus. Scheid.E. On the decrees from Pisa. “Problemi elettorali e amministrazione a Pisa alla morte di Gaio Cesare (CIL XI 1421 = I.” For the inferiae (offerings for the dead) and the ritual of parentatio.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. 193–200. Scheid. Att. “Die Parentalien für die verstorbenen Caesaren als Modell für den römischen Totenkult. Osservazioni sulla pubblicazione dei decreta Pisana.9 (c) this statement involves a chronological impossibility and a careless misreading of Latin. but it is an awkward misrepresentation to describe it as a sacrifice “to the dead in honor of Germanicus”. and see also the edition. VII 1. they should be replaced by those members who would hold the office in the following year.. as is now amply confirmed by the Tabula Siarensis. Studi di antichità in memoria di Mario Attilio Levi (Milano 2002) 379–95.2). 10 CIL XI 1420–21 = ILS 139–40. Cf.. and Lucius Caesar in 2 C. 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. “I documenti epigrafici pubblici prima dell’esposizione: i decreti decurionali.11 the official (publice) As we happen to know from the fasti found at Bovillae (CIL XIV 2388–91) the sodales Augustales (and later Augustales Claudiales) were presided over by three annual magistri.17. S. This provision offers a rare insight into the mechanism of a Roman ritual. In Pisa the magistrates of the colony officiated.E. (b) the sacrifice was indeed to be annual (on the anniversary of Germanicus’ death. translation and commentary by A.” Acme 56 (2003) 72-79. in P. October 10).” in A. This regulation opens interesting perspectives on the standing of the designati in Roman public and religious law. As Gaius Caesar died in 4 C. Fraschetti (ed. 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. R. and the Tabula Siarensis does not say this. esp. see also. Marotta D’Agata. R. “manes. see J.” Klio 75 (1993) 188–201.). We here have a clear and religiously important application of the term manes specifically to the soul of the deceased.182 Historia et Ius not be able to attend to the sacrifice.10 This rite. 11 See CIL XI 1420. eodem loco eodemque modo. Rubinsohn (Leiden 1995) 115–27.” ZPE 95 (1993) 81–120. ed. C[aes]ari parentari institutum est. a procedure nowadays too often forgotten or disdained.v. 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. 107–20. inferiae mit/tantur. lines 31–33 (the decree for Gaius): “ut[ique] eo die quodannis [sic] publice manibus eius per magistratus eosve.b.” 12 They are massively present at Ostia. togis pullis amictos. C. 14 It is disappointing to observe that also Oxford Latin Dictionary s. “La Tabula Siarensis. On p. Malkin and Z.14 ibi iuri dicendo pr[ae]runt. bosque et ovis atri infulis caerulis infulati dis manibus eiu[s] / mactentur. 90–91. “Recherches” [n. by I. Nicolet. esp. Studies in Honor of Zwi Yavetz. / quibus eorum ius fasque erit eo die [eiu]s vestis habendae.12 In point of fact the plebs urbana mentioned in the Tabula Siarensis is an altogether different corporate entity. la plèbe urbaine et les statues de Germanicus. 13 See the detailed studies by W. “Augustalis” fails to provide a clear and neat distinction between Augustales and sodales Augustales. “Roms Ritter und Roms Pleps in den Senatsbeschlüssen für Germanicus Caesar und Drusus Caesar.6–13) also mentions statues of Germanicus to be erected by the urban plebs. all critical census and political classifications of Roman society were thus brought into this commemoration of a fallen potential leader of the imperial house. Roman historians must also be attuned to the vagaries of the idiom. The original amalgamation of Augustales and sodales Augustales causes further fanciful conceits.Augustales and Sodales Augustales 183 celebrations were thus reserved for the members of local aristocracy. far above the level of the mostly libertine Augustales. 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. the pleps [sic] urbana quinque et / triginta tribuum (CIL VI 910 = ILS 168).” in Leaders and Masses in the Roman World. 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.13 Nomenclature can indeed be insidious. D. 322 we read about another honor to Germanicus: part of the inscription on the Tabula Siarensis (2.” CIL XI 1421. Particularly if we consider the Augustales to have been largely freedmen. parentetur. but Rome does not figure in the list of Duthoy. / qu[i Pi]sis iure dicundo praerunt. Lebek. quo / L. W. 100–3. 4] 151–52. . The author thus imagines that the Augustales participated in some way in the erection of the statues of Germanicus by the city plebs. Grammariens et rhéteurs (Paris 1993 [edition. 279. A.Chr. cornicularii”. Lewis-Short. an inscription and two (possibly three) literary texts in which the award of the corniculum is (supposedly) mentioned. Cornelii Frontonis Epistulae. 118) that “Bei Livius findet sich das corniculum als eine am Helm befestigte militärische Auszeichnung”. ill. 89–90. A. Maxfield 1981. Kaster.3 * 1 2 3 Original contribution. The title of the play ascribed to Plautus. now also Vacher 1993. Le Bohec. Criniti [n. cf. “corniculum”. Latomus 60 (2001) 3–15. Maxfield 1981. P. Leipzig 1988). [O. in addition to Livy. SCAURUS.Chr. TLL and OLD s. introduction and commentary]). and below. No. Van Den Hout (Teubner.–268 n.). Nicolet. L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine 2: Prosopographie des chevaliers Romains (Paris 1974). 97–99. Suétone.v. also below. Cornicula or Cornicularia probably refers to crows . K. Cornelii Frontonis Epistulae. commentary]). Büttner [n. Van Den Hout 1954 = M. M. J. n. 8. 97–98. Maxfield 1981 = V. The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981). Funktion und Bedeutung der offiziellen militärischen Verwaltungsdokumentation und zu deren Schreibern (Bonn 2004). Decoration it was. Maxfield. Linderski. is a fount of all information. translation. 4] 233. Das offizielle Schriftwesen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Gallienus (27 v. “Corniculum”. Cf. but Livy does not explicitly say that it was attached to the helmet. 94. Suetonius. lines 9–13.5 reports that after the victory over the Samnites and the capture of Aquilonia the consul L. Armilla was a bracelet. translation. P. 14}. Papirius Cursor equites omnes ob insignem multis locis operam corniculis armillisque argenteis donat. NP 3 (1997) 197–98 (omitting the passage from de vir. 84. Eine Untersuchung zu Struktur. “Silver and Gold of Valor: the Award of armillae and torques”. Van Den Hout 1988 = M. n. but with respect to cornicularii this information is not always accurate: he avers (p. AND THE AWARD OF CORNICULUM* I Under the year 293 Livy 10. n.v. “corniculum”. Vacher 1993 = M. Vacher.13 ORBILIUS.2 In her book on Roman military decorations Valerie Maxfield lists.-C.1 and corniculum has been traditionally held to be a small horn attached as a decoration to the helmet. RE 4 (1901) 1604. “Corniculum. J. with further literature {reprinted in this volume. 84. Maxfield 1981. Stauner. Nicolet 1974 = C. the dictionaries of Forcellini.] Fiebiger.44. TLL s..v. n. 959. 246. 5] 178. J. She follows in the footsteps of a long (and wrong) tradition: the same list of examples in Latin Dictionary of Lewis-Short s. M. ed. Van Den Hout (Lugduni Batavorum 1954). Cf.). and Y. De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (Oxford 1995 [edition. ed. The following abbreviations are employed: Kaster 1995 = R. g. Walbank. / armilla. I would opt for crows. This corniculum Büttner identified with the gaisos which according to Polybius 6. McCall. in the sense of a spear or javelin. he accepts the interpretation of Büttner [n.39. Cf. 10 (1958) 231–34 at 234 = Tra epigrafia e storia.37045 = ILS 8888 = ILLRP 515). cf. Steiner. opines that “The rewards for bravery – the spear. the award has a distinctly collective character. sandalarius. Lega. The Cavalry of the Roman Republic (London and New York 2002) 84. RhM 136 (1993) 269–71. A Historical Commentary on Polybius I (Oxford 1957) 721. cup. 4 5 6 . cioè oggetti di corno di varie fogge e usi”. but rather. This circumstance is of overriding importance. who. Arch. f. see Maxfield 1981. Moretti.E. W.3 was given as a reward for valor to the soldier who in a single combat wounded or killed the enemy. Cf. 232–34. the citizen cavalry in Livy.. the cornelian cherry.4 Both in Livy and in the inscription the award of corniculum is bestowed upon horsemen. The name of the epigraphically attested (AE 1960. and the Spanish riders in Strabo’s decree. Pompeo Strabone (Milano 1970) 227–38. as he mentions phalerae he apparently refers to the awards for cavalrymen. R. “military and civilian officials”. unguentarius). per synekdochen. The original editor of the inscriptions. K. 84–86 (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. palereis et frumen[t]um / duplex. however. but rather derives from cornus. “Untersuchungen über Ursprung und Entwicklung von Auszeichnungen im römischen Heer”. 61. Büttner. LTUR 5 (1999) 160–61. L. Criniti. and “Vicus Corvi”. Pompeius Sex. “The Cornicula Ascribed to Plautus”. BJ 114–15 (1906) 1–98 at 6–10 (surprisingly enough he does not discuss corniculum). and cornus was used. For a critique of Büttner’s theory. on analogy with other vici named after trades (as.C. Thus there is no reason to abandon the traditional interpretation that corniculum was a small horn. As javelins were often made of the cornel-tree wood. BJ 157 (1957) 177–80. A. 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”..6 and not to horns of valor. See P. as the inscription records. Scritti scelti e annotati (= Vetera 5 [Roma 1990]) 158] notes that this name is probably not connected with cornicularii. L’epigrafe di Asculum di Gn. J. however. Büttner has argued that the word corniculum is not the diminutive of cornu. and the Award of Corniculum 185 The inscription in question is the famous decree of Cn. esp. F. imperator / virtutis caussa turmam / Salluitanam donavit in / castreis apud Asculum / cornuculo et patella. “Vicus Cornicularius”. C. corniculum would mean “a small javelin”. Class. Scaurus. torque. We read (lines 54–60): Cn. 5]. B. vicus lorarius. concerning the turma Salluitana (CIL 6. “Vicus cornicularius”. “Die dona militaria”. and that the award of the gaesum in Polybius corresponds to the (later) amply attested award of the hasta pura. derives its denomination from artisans “lavoranti cornicula. Pompeius Strabo of 89 B.5 But in the case of the equites in Livy and the turma Salluitana there is no indication at all of any single combat. Grandiloquent fantasy riddled with errors (the author does not know Maxfield’s book). We observe that this award was not presented to a few soldiers only but to equites omnes and to a whole turma. N. e. Ehrmann. 63) vicus cornicularius in Rome (in the third region) is equally a puzzle. cf. At the same time he observes soberly that the noun cornicularius is not independently attested in this sense. 127).Orbilius. have been just given the Roman citizenship. For A. and then it takes exclusively the accusative and never the ablative. pupillus. ill. First of all mereo only rarely refers to the act of earning a specific military award or decoration.8 and yet corniculo merere is a very peculiar locution. II First let us approach Suetonius. Suetonii Tranquilli praeter Caesarum libros reliquiae. see the excellent study by Y. puts it cogently: “It would be a remarkable coincidence if this otherwise unattested nomen actually passed to O(rbilius) from his father. “La haste pure”.. Le Bohec. Solin and O. “bereft” are attested (Orbius. But also his gentilicium. His cognomen Pupillus clearly derives from the circumstance that as an orbus he was brought up as a ward. 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. If the award of corniculum to Orbilius is to be upheld. 26–27 (triumphum). Orfius / Orphius. Oddly enough. Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen [Berlin 1904] 454–56). meruit is ambiguous. corniculum . meruit. De gramm. The Latin Cognomina (Helsinki 1965) 287. Maxfield and other students of the dona militaria. W.9 Hence if we keep the transmitted text corniculo . and “cup” for patella (which was not a cup). Brugnoli. and – more surprisingly – also the compilers of Latin dictionaries. cf. Auctor de vir. “Orbilius”. 9. and although other names derived from the same root orb-. de grammaticis 9: <L. or in Vacher 1993. I. Kaster 1995. They raise a host of questions. who simply refer to Kajanto. 128. meruit in the sense of gaining the award of corniculum is impossible. and Orbilius is to be removed from the list of the recipients of military awards. and read corniculum ... meruit. Although the name itself falls seamlessly into a series of other names in -ilius.. lists several epigraphical instances of the cognomen.> Orbilius Pupillus7 Beneventanus morte parentum una atque eodem die inimicorum dolo peremptorum destitutus primo apparituram magistratibus fecit. then proved subsequently to be appropriate to his early orphanhood”. but missed this literary and republican example. REL 76 (1998) 27–34: it was pure because it had the tip of bronze (or occasionally silver and gold) and not of the sacrally impure iron. the phrase cannot be translated “he earned the award of corniculum”. Kajanto.3.. 72. we must introduce a conjecture into the text. A.. Schulze. Nor does R.. this is the only Orbilius on record. deinde in Macedonia corniculo. is suspect. while and thus presumably “spear” stands for corniculum. Pars prior: de grammaticis et rhetoribus2 (Lipsiae 1963). seem totally unaware of this grammatical (and ultimately) textual problem. textual. See TLL s. allude to any variant reading. Salomies. But if corniculo .186 Historia et Ius We can now turn to our three literary texts: Suet. meruit. Fronto 208. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Hildesheim 1988) 387.. Kaster in his Studies on the Text of Suetonius De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (Atlanta 1992) 64–65. RE 18 (1939) 876. On the hasta pura. lines 2–3 (van den Hout 1988). no comment on his names in E. Nor is it listed in H. grammatical and historical. G. namque iam persenex pauperem se et habitare sub tegulis quodam scripto fatetur.. 7 8 9 .v. Orbilius.. Bernert.. Brugnoli in his edition does not list any other readings or conjectures. Corniculo . 93–94. C. lines 16–19 (coronam and coronam civicam). “mereo” 804. but s. meruit continues to cause disquiet. repr.). equis). dass die cornicularii an der Spitze aller Principales stehen. 13 Nicolet 1974. 131–40). speculatores. 131. von Domaszewski. whereas in the phrase equo meruit it plainly indicates the service as a cavalryman (in opposition to that of a foot soldier). states without any discussion (thus obscuring all the problems here discussed). See also his Collegia militaria. To indicate service. Bembina to Terence’s Eunuchus 290: Quia non perpetuo muro Athenae cinguntur sed maxima ex parte alluuntur mari. 965. and the Award of Corniculum 187 grammatically correct. 17–40 (with footnotes on 127.. The Scholia Bembina (Liverpool 1934) 32–33.v. lines 38–42. is stylistically atrocious. M. La transformación de la función y del ‘Rangordnung’ del cornicularius en tiempos de Valentiniano I”. 959.18. “mereo”. Torelli. Harmand. frumentarii (Diss. Schol.9 and Mela 1. Scaurus. see S. see index. and in various places. 2] 118–25. Mountford.11 But the reading corniculo . with “Einführung. in 1981 as the so-called third ed. 24. Grammatically Nicolet’s reading is unassailable (for other examples of the construc- . and only once with another noun in the ablative. see J. Benevento Romana (Roma 2002) 172. 11 On the cornicularii. reprinted as the 2nd ed. esp. 72 (equo. For further insights and further developments. interprets it as referring to the award of corniculum. 400. it might appear preferable to emend corniculo to corniculum. Le Bohec and C. Die Rangordnung des römischen Heeres (Bonn 1908). Untersuchungen zu den principales des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diokletian. Ihr gegenseitiges Rangverhältnis bestimmt die Rang des Offiziers. But J. a cornicularius. TLL s.10 The phrase will refer to Orbilius’ service as an adjutant to an officer.114). 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). alluding to the iuventus Attica that served as coast guards. and seemingly not in sight. 8. Associaciones militares en el impero Romano (Madrid 1999) 279–81..v. F. But as equo meruit cannot be combined. see A. 12 Cf. The way out of this quandary is difficult. Liv. dem sie zugeteilt sind”. “Cornicularius seu princeps. mox equo meruit. we have to abandon this idea also with respect to corniculo . mereo is regularly coupled with equo. n. line 11.Orbilius. “corniculum”. 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?). is quite right when he criticizes Domaszewski for projecting back to the republican times (p. Berichtigungen und Nachträge” by B. Nor does he point out that according to the traditional interpretation the text refers to the award of corniculum. L’armée romaine de Dioclétien à Valentinien Ier (Lyon 2004) 451–72. Dobson (Köln-Graz 1967. but nevertheless states correctly. The most detailed study is offered by M. 41 (pedibus: only two instances adduced. Clauss. by any flight of fancy. 314. 803. Bochum 1973) 13. Perea Yébenes. where he expresses “der allgemeine Satz. with any notion of military reward. meruit. Kaster 1995. TLL adduces here (lines 41–42) also the text of Suetonius as referring to the service corniculo. quotes the text of Suetonius in the form deinde in Macedonia cornicularius. publicis illic custodiis merebatur.13 10 Cf. in Y. At lines 63–64 TLL records one example of the impersonal construction with the ablative. Wolff (eds. rarely with pedibus. see now also Stauner [n. L’armée et le soldat à Rome de 107 à 50 avant notre ère (Paris 1967) 200. 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. not only that of award but also that of service.).. Cornicularii. 73) this advanced and elaborate system of the Armeekommando. 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”.12 On either count. “corniculum”.v.1): Praefecturae cornicularios. Lehmann and K. esp. ill. the text of Suetonius. We are thus moving down chronologically closer to the time of Suetonius. In line 3 the two extant words jump into the reader’s eye: ] ex corniculo. post transactos corniculos nostram adorare purpuram volumus.. –i = “munus cornicularii”. “corniculum” the inscription CIL XIII 1832 was presented in the form qui militavit (centurio) ann(os) VII ex cornucl(o). completely obliterated] on this column. R. Part IV. OLD s. but this reconstruction is based on erroneous interpretation of cornucl(o) as referring to the horn of valor. The inscription is unfortunately mutilated: only the right edge of five lines is extant. and Perea Yébenes. in fine.v. In 1995 there came to light in Caesarea Maritima in the Roman province of Palestine an inscribed column. would form a natural and required counterpart to equo meruit. Lehmann. and on the text of Fronto.usd. see below. Vesp. .15 And for the grammatical construction. 72: vet(eranus) ex cornucl(ario)]. M.16 But this reading. it was promptly published (with photographs) online: C. s.html. and that may embolden us to consider adding to our dossier both the passage of Suetonius and the passage of de vir. “Cornicularius” [n. Iust.15. 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.v. 16 For this construction.52 [53].8 (= Cod. (dated to 365) Cod. 14 For corniculus. if understood as “served as a cornicularius”. An unexpected and fortunate epigraphic find reopens it. tion mereo + nominativus. 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.1 (between 365 and 373): qui principatum officiorum gerunt seu corniculum (no reservations. Still it would have been prudent to rest the case. it was too late for this document to be included in the corpus of C. but the instances adduced are all very late. s. The obvious expansion is ex cornucl(ario). with its internal accusative. cornicularius. meruit. “cornicularius”. nor does this important text seem to have yet found its way to AE). 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. M. Löfstedt. “mereo”.v. Syntactica2 I (Lund 1942 [reprinted 1956]) 259–61.v.edu/~clehmann/cmvpcol. meruit. [We may observe that in OLD s.3.v. Cf. lines 15–16: “incertum utrum de munere dictum an de signo”) Cod. It is inscribed in honor of a ]ianus v(ir) e(gregius) who was probably [proc(urator Augusti] nostri (lines 1–2). perhaps centurio] ex corniculo (the editor points out that “cornicularii serving with governors normally received promotion to the centurionate”. The Greek and Latin Inscriptions of Caesarea Maritima [Boston 2000].. Cf.5. qui annis singulis ex numero deputatorum exeunt. 957. see E. 37). n. Vera.7. but a date in the second century cannot be excluded”. Commento storico alle ‘Relationes’ di Quinto Aurelio Simmaco [Pisa 1981] 312–13). 959... 260. however. predating by at least half a century the texts in the Codex Theodosianus. 12. 72. lines 55–56. 15 On the origin and meaning of the term cornicularius. see Part V).. AE 1900. Part VI. This interpretation already in Forcellini. 42 (dated to 384): miles ad corniculorum (corniculariorum varia lectio) gradum inculpati laboris diuturnitate provectus (cf. esp. lines 27–28).. Kaster (per litteras) would not consider at all these examples of “late bureaucratese” as a possible parallel to the usage of Suetonius. cf. Here will also belong (despite the reservations of the TLL.188 Historia et Ius Corniculum . n. D. lines 14–15. 2. G. “Another Latin Honorific Column from Caesarea Maritima” (available at http://www. but we have to remember that the chancery style was often of a long duration. 8.): Equitare antiqui dicebant equum publicum merere. seems to offer an exquisite parallel: tribunatum militum in Thracia . however. also Paulus ex Festo (71 L. esp. 11] 456. Holum. Corniculus14 would here stand as pars pro toto for the office of cornicularius. 82.3 (on which see below. sub 2. Theod. 8. see TLL s. Rel. CIL VIII 12128 = CLE 522: Germaniae meruit specula[t]or et cornicul[ar]ius legionis). below. 803. and Symm. see TLL s. Theod. R. Ihm in his Teubner editio maior of Suetonius (1907) prints tribunatum. which is the manuscript reading. Libri VII–VIII (London 1930) 380. stipendium] merere. we should hold in leash all conjectures and follow the paradosis. when no persuasive alternative offers. C. von P. meruit or corniculum . he did not attribute to Orbilius the horn of valor. and the attraction is that of style. and the emendation to the accusative corniculum. Jones. Drumann.. Still. R. deteriores frequently have tribunus. nemini probaretis: in iudice enim spectari et fortuna debet et dignitas. Thompson Skerret. 20 Correct information in (e. P.. tr.19 This is not quite accurate. W.. In particular the reading tribunus was championed by G. 131. l’expression equo merere ne peut s’entendre que comme synonyme d’eques Romanus: par example. pl. attempted to show how the original tribunus could have been corrupted into tribunatum. Of one thing.g. 18 Kaster 1995. Or in D. modifiée par la rogatio de L. Antonius en 44)”.. the incriminated phrase. in 44) introduced again a third panel made up. quod est lautius. Suetonii Tranquilli De Vita Caesarum. Nicolet inclines to take this phrase as an indication of the equestrian status of Orbilius. Geschichte Roms (2 Aufl. suggested that the ablative in the paradosis may have resulted from assimilation to the following idiom equo [sc. He is uncritically followed by Vacher 1993. in the situation. Alexander. Phil. 20: quicumque equo meruissent (à propos de la loi judiciaire Aurelia. 965–66. remains deeply displeasing. . Stylistic dissonance persists.Orbilius.17 The emendation corniculum is a desperate surgery for whether the accusative is taken to denote the award or the service. H. I. 19 Nicolet 1974. Suetonii Tranquilli De Vita Caesarum Liber VIII.. Shackleton Bailey’s translation: “But if you and your colleague were making the same proposal with 17 M. Cornelius Dolabella) quicumque equo meruisset. has been vigorously attacked by other scholars. Robert Kaster. and more recently it has been ably defended by B.18 The theory of assimilation has its attraction. Antonius. Divus Vespasianus (Philadelphia 1924) 23. Hence another approach. of centurions without any census limitation (the law that was modified was thus the lex Iulia and not Aurelia). The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I (New York 1951) 316. Mooney. The context of Cicero’s enunciation is as follows. however.) T. but there are ways to make it complicated. Leges publicae populi Romani (Milano 1912) 431. Now Antony (there is no evidence at all that the law was sponsored by his brother. G. Suetonius: Vespasian (Bristol 2000) 18–19. The latter reading was accepted by a number of earlier editors. corniculum. Scaurus. and suggests that Orbilius may have received the equus publicus from his commander in Macedonia. Caesar abolished the third panel of jurors. W. Rotondi. S. 94. Some Textual Criticism on the Eighth Book of ‘De Vita Caesarum’ of Suetonius (University of California Publications in Classical Philology [Berkeley 1908]) 7–8. Equo meruit is simple. M. the only scholar among the moderni perceptive enough to be disturbed both by the transmitted reading corniculo meruit. C. mox equo meruit. L. Groebe) I (Berlin 1899) 84. we can be certain: whether Suetonius wrote corniculo . and the Award of Corniculum 189 while accepted by no less an authority than Einar Löfstedt. W. Cicero claims. He writes that “dans certains texts. composed of the tribuni aerarii. Broughton. his argument is well summarized by H. W.20 Cicero continues: at si ferretis (the plural clearly refers to Antony and his colleague in the consulship. meruit. In his reform of the courts. 190 Historia et Ius respect to every man who has seen service with the cavalry. The conclusion: in the text of Suetonius the phrase equo meruit need not. III. A New Inscription from Philippi”. nobody would be persuaded. 130”.21 The rendering of quicumque equo meruisset as “who has seen service with the cavalry” is on the mark. As Speidel (loc. 23 M. 90. Iulius Rogatianus who from the post of cornicularius on the staff of the legate progressed to that of decurio of the ala Flavia Numidica. . col. 11] 54. Equo meruit will have the same sense also with reference to Orbilius. Domaszewski [n. 128. 22 CIL I2 593. 194. cit. 1. an imperial author. as the second decuria. Cf. be taken as indicating a grant of equus publicus to Orbilius. The context makes this sense clear: “cum magnum captivorum civium suorum numerum a Pyrrho rege ultro missum recepissent. Nicolet himself observed that in the (so-called) lex Iulia municipalis the phrase stipendia equo facere simply denotes the service as a cavalryman. Fasti. To the latter Cicero cannot (and does not) refer: they certainly did not lack fortuna or dignitas. In any case this idea receives no support from the passage in the Philippics. the crucial evidence of the lex municipalis.22 Yet he continues: “Sous l’Empire et a fortiori à l’époque de Suétone. lines 90–91 = ILS 6085: nisi quei eorum stipendia / equo in legione III aut pedestria in legione VI fecerint. 24 AE 1917–1918. and it refers indeed to the centuriae equitum. And above all: they already sat on the juries. 215 Briscoe. ‘Philippics’ (Chapel Hill 1986) 17. v. like many others. but here the qualification legitimo is all important: it stands for publico.23 Such an officer will be L. and must not. Valerius Maximus. McCall [n.7. uses the phrase qui equo meruerant (2. The advancement of Orbilius was paralleled some two hundred years later by the career of C. In a juror both means and status ought to be considered”. In Suetonius the phrase functusque militia refers both to corniculo (or corniculum) meruit and equo meruit.15 = p. p. J. JRS 60 (1970) 146 = Roman Army Studies I (Amsterdam 1984) 180. Further enlightenment comes from students of res militares. decurio equitum Gallorum in Caesar’s Gallic War (1. “The Captor of Decebalus. Aemilius. The text of Ovid reads legitimo quique merebat equo. l’expression désigne communément les equites equo publico: Ovide.2). Also the promotion of Orbilius will be of the same kind. and already A.23. We are dealing with the military cavalrymen. they decreed that those of them who had served in the cavalry should serve as infantry”).24 21 Cicero. 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. It has long been observed that the imperial practice of “appointing legionary soldiers as lower officers in the auxilia” has republican roots”. Ala2 (Andover 1994) 107–9. which carries more of a cachet. line 14 Kempf. and not with the social class of equites equo publico. 74 (from Lambaesis in Numidia). 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.) points out “preference (was) given to men of the guard or on the staff of the commanders”. p. 15b Shackleton Bailey) to refer to the service in the cavalry. very perceptively interprets equo meruit as indicating Orbilius’ service in the cavalry. 6] 101. Suetonius does not remark on Orbilius’ social advancement: he recounts his military service. Speidel. Spaul. this would make him ca twenty years old in 94/93. Athenaeum 87 (1990) 287–318. There is no epigraphical attestation in Beneventum of the nomen Orbilius or the cognomen Pupillus. Marquardt (second ed. Balb. He would then have been already in his mid-twenties. After his promotion to an eques he probably served in the citizen cavalry attached to the legion. . Harmand [n. Sozialhistorische und onomastische Untersuchungen zu den antiken Inschriften Benevents (Berlin 1982) 64–100. Hülsen. “Beneventum”. A.28 25 Cic.. But of course we do not know exactly when he served in Macedonia. Scaurus. N. 11] 46–51. There is no mention of his participation in the war in Italy. but we should not derive arguments from mere possibilities. it is true. 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. and the Award of Corniculum 191 Nicolet dates Orbilius’ service in Macedonia to the first decennium of the first century B. was well qualified indeed. aut pedestria in legione VI fecerit. Cf. Norman 1998]) 79. the parents of Orbilius may have been in their number.E. in J. 27 J. 10] 134–36. and this in conjunction with his administrative experience may account for his immediate appointment to the post of cornicularius. E.25 Furthermore the Latins did not serve in Roman legions. and enrolled in the army as a new Roman citizen only after 89. the lists in M. Kromayer and G. 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 was fifty years old when in 63 he came to Rome. Orbilius. Espace urbaine et histoire (Rome 1987) 1–25.C. Domaszewski). Heerwesen und Kriegführung der Griechen und Römer (München 1928) 434–35. Of course some Roman citizens did live in Latin colonies. in: L’Urbs. Lo Cascio. Güterbock. Nicolet. v. “Le professiones della Tabula Heracleensis e le procedure del census in età cesariana”. possibly for several years. “vers les années 97–94”. Römische Staatsverwaltung II (Leipzig 1884) 389–400. 21: Ipsa denique Iulia . The Making of the Roman Army (London 1984 [re-issued with a new preface. After his service as a cornicularius he would have been promoted to the (allied) cavalry.Orbilius. 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. one of the cornicularii may have been drawn from the non-Romans. Sherwin White. RE 3 (1899) 274. as a substantial part of the garrison was made up of the socii and the Latins.. claim that the legionary cavalry disappeared after the reform of Marius and was entirely replaced by the auxiliary units. Veith. and for the job of an adjutant. as a former apparitor.. Torelli [n.. Many textbooks of Roman military history. Dessau and A. 28 CIL I2 593. a good age for military service. “La Table d’Héraclée et les origines du cadastre romain”. lines 89–91 = ILS 6085. and now also L. by H. but we have to remember that before he embarked upon his military career he had been employed. still worth reading. but in their own contingents. lege civitas est sociis et Latinis data. Keppie. as an apparitor in Beneventum.26 It is in such a contingent that Orbilius may have come to Macedonia. cf. If Orbilius really served in Macedonia at that time. very possibly he survived it as apparitor in his native city. 26 See the lucid exposition. The Roman Citizenship2 (Oxford 1973) 151–53. The governors of provinces normally had two cornicularii attached to their headquarters. On this document.27 but then these scholars are strangely oblivious of a piece of epigraphical evidence. see C. He came from Beneventum. . For the republic. 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. R. see also E. to the sphere of pure phantasy belongs the idea. Q. The best succinct commentary on these lines is still to be found in A. hence hardly in the possession of the equestrian census. Bernert. Heinze. “The scribae of the Roman Republic”. If it is most unlikely that Orbilius received in Macedonia the grant of equus publicus. 598–603. Shackleton Bailey as follows:31 29 E. this receives further elaboration: “Nach Suet.29 After the death of his parents Orbilius was destitutus. Purcell. RE 18 (1939) 876. Kiessling and R. Gundel.. MEFRA 113. Horatii Flacci opera. 1. 2. . There are known to us some five hundred apparitores (a full catalogue is a desideratum). Q. There is not a shred of evidence that his father was an eques.. 9. Badian. Opera (Stutgardiae 1985). 181) only thirty-four advanced to gain the equestrian status. A detour through poetry looms: Horace introduces a complication.1: Commentar zum ersten Buche der Satiren [1855] 324–31). 31 Horatius. Orbilius did not gain his fame as a soldier. Keller and A.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. Purcell. Kirchner.10. on Purcell’s count (146. In fact on Purcell’s own evidence the status of apparitores was substantially lower (not just “in general”) than that of the equestrians. propounded in two standard encyclopedias. aus dem Ritterstand und unterrichtete in Benevent. Pars 1. which again militates against his equestrian status. especially as his employment was in Beneventum and not in Rome.1. “The ordo scribarum: a Study in the Loss of Memory”. O. and the new study by N. Who was this strenuous preceptor? Who else but Orbilius! So exclaims many a commentator. “The Apparitores: A Study in Social Mobility”. and later (line 8) seems to allude to him as grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. Klio 71 (1989) 582–603. gramm.4). and the Horatian authorship of the first eight lines of the Satire has often been contested. Satiren5 (Berlin 1921) 157–60 (they regard the passage as spurious). bis er 63 Lehrer in Rom wurde”. Ep. Q. see N. n. We have to keep in mind this epithet for in Sat. Satiras cum apparatu critico continens (Lipsiae 1854) 140–44 (see also Pars II. Furthermore he apparituram magistratibus fecit. 9 stammte O.4–8 Horace mentions an educator who corrected his charges loris et funibus udis (line 5). Holder. Der Kleine Pauly 4 (1979) 329. He concludes (171): “At Rome and in its neighbouring towns (the apparitores) occupied a status that was in general lower than the equestrian”. “Orbilius”. Horatii Sermonum libri duo. 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. G. cf. Whether he won a military award or not. Suet.. A good overview of the readings and emendations. a teacher very much given to harsh discipline: plagosum .2 (2001) 633–74. Orbilium (Hor. Gramm. esp. These lines (which many editors print in brackets) read in the new Teubner edition by D. 155. In the pen of H.30 And even after he settled in Rome and started his career as a grammaticus his emolumentum continued to be insignificant. he gained it as a teacher of Horace. claims that Orbilius “stammte aus dem Ritterstand”. that he had been born into the equestrian class. But the text is uncertain. Horatius Flaccus. PBSR 51 (1983) 125–73.. 30 On the social position of the apparitores.70–71. Gramm. surmises (294. pervincam. Pökel. 32 For this sense of the paradosis (which he regards as Horatian). in Studi Classici in onore di Quintino Cataudella 3 (Catania 1972) 267–94 at 293–94.. and this is not the place to discuss all the twists of interpretation.32 Much better sense and wit yields the conjecture33 qui multum puerum <est> . In vol.. 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.1. D’Anna. The subsequent literature is immense. Heindorf (1774–1816. L. in an essay of psychology. I (Lipsiae 1864) 83–85. so also the Loeb translator H. D. 33] 210. it is the grammaticus eques himself who appears to have been severely castigated in his youth by his demanding (and anonymous) teacher. “Ancora sull’autore di ‘Lucili. As to that. Fraenkel.142.4). this edition I did not see. it conforms in all particulars to the original edition. i. see W.. According to Kirchner [n. In this edition I searched in vain for a notice of the famous emendation. of which he approves. qui multum puer et loris et funibus udis †exoratus†. III (1888) 291. this will be his Vorlesungen über lateinische Sprachwissenchaft (which included a discussion of Semasiologie). better known through his Semasiologie oder Bedeutungslehre as one of the founders of modern linguistics. cf. the historical problem remains. to Heindorf. it was apparently removed by the editor. but prints multum puer. as Doederlein explains in the preface.324) characterizes puerum as one “von den wilden Einfällen Reisig’s”. D’Anna. 9. yet Horace or Pseudo-Horace. Scaurus. though the present writer is ready to vote C(ondemno). The editor offers (in square brackets) a comment on the use of nempe. must remain sub iudice. see most resolutely G. hoc lenius. quam sis mendosus’”. Kirchner (II. n. and of course adduces the passage of Horace. and the Award of Corniculum 193 Lucili. L. subsequently revised and enlarged by various scholars (Berlin 1881–1890). Fairclough (1926). published posthumously by F. and his natura acerba (Suet. Hermes 86 (1933) 392–99. exoratus. also by Shackleton Bailey. but in the third edition by L. Haase (Leipzig 1839 [non vidi]).. and literary uneasiness persists. Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon [Leipzig 1882] 113. and all . He acknowledges Reisig’s puerum. ascribes this conjecture. A similar conceit already in Heindorf [n. First of all it would be remiss not to observe the obvious: if we hold to the transmitted text qui multum puer . ut esset opem qui ferre poetis antiquis posset contra fastidia nostra. Doederlein (Leipzig 1859. “Lucili quam sis mendosus”.. Mueller. qui male factos emendare parat versus. teste Catone. defensore tuo. with an elegant demonstration of the non-Horatian character of the first eight lines. below. Reisig proposed this conjecture “in praelectionibus academicis”. 33 We owe it to Karl Christian Reisig (1792–1829). 51) that the extreme severity of Orbilius. whose annotated edition of the Sermones appeared in Leipzig in 1875–1876. and for the passage itself refers to Fritzsche. may have been due to the fact that he himself had suffered “gravissimi dolori” and “amarezze”. 31] I. he is quite mistaken. grammaticorum equitum doctissimus.. F.Orbilius. Here I mention honoris causa solely the brilliant investigation by E. quam sis mendosus. ut redeam illuc: Whether it is Horace or an unknown versifier made Horatian by some editors. exhortatus (exhortatus being the reading vol. Satiren und Episteln des Horaz (Wien 1891) 120 ad loc. Adolf Theodor Hermann Fritzsche.e. Reisig discusses the meaning and application of nempe. 68) published in 1815 in Breslau a commented edition of Horace’s Satires. n. R.. ipse quo melior vir <et> es longe subtilior illo. for finding them thanks are due to my computer). also Petr. as Seneca puts it. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980) 314. 9. n. and he failed to instill in his charges (perhaps a good word can be said in favor of L.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. 34. 6. Macr. Klingner (Horatius.) records. lect. e x h o r t a t a ) solet. Impossible! Exhortor is a word of impeccable Augustan lineage. see his Analecta Horatiana [Berolini 1852] 115–17. esp. e x h o r t a t u s sum. but to make any topical sense the butt of these lines must be Orbilius – notorious as Horace’s irascible and learned teacher. how faulty you are I will prove definitely”. and addidi stimulos. with very good arguments against the reading exoratus) conjecture excoriatus. See the commentary by L. but we also note that no form of exoro is ever combined with any means of physical or educational persuasion. Returning to exoro it may be interesting to observe that it once appears in close connection with doctissimus. D.414–15: “vicinos humiles rapere et concidere l o r i s / e x o r a t a (var. TLL s. but in a context vastly dissimilar to that of the (pseudo)-Horatian passage. most notably by Kiessling and Heinze (though wihtout any mention of its originator). 148–61. changes and addenda are marked as such) the traditional reading puer is for all to see (cf. 134. . Keller-Holder ad loc. here the passage Ep. Friedlaender. and on equal footing with exhortatus.4.3: unde exoratus sit a nobis doctissimus doctor. addidi s t i m u l o s nec lente ire passus sum. qui iuventutem e x h o r t a t u r ) or more detailed. endorsed by various editors. Orbilius employed an actual goad. who observes the Horatian connection.). Horkels’s (1820–1861. 11.2 is worth reporting: ego cum vidissem indolem tuam. 43. Valerius Cato. 31] 395. but not by the recent Teubneriani. 35 P. cf. 34 F.v. They worked: his spiritual pupil. [K. 36 Kaster 1995. either general ( De tranquil..194 Historia et Ius of the deteriores).36 Quite true. namely to explain various passages of Vergil (spoken by Praetextatus and addressed to the Vergilian scholar Servius). and Kaster 1995.3. Seneca speaks figuratively. 105.3: ista res animo constat). and with good reason. 149–50. Bd. Similar problems face the editors in the verses of Juvenal. 6. above. A different matter with exhortor: in Seneca we encounter pedagogical or moral admonitions (although again without any actual castigation). animi = Dial.7. Lucilius. Gramm. excorio on the other hand is first attested in late Latin (cf. And a final textual note: Shackleton Bailey (following some earlier apparatuses. iam currentem hortor (a phrase of Ciceronian pedigree) et invicem hortantem. where Kaster rightly rejects “tortured” readings and interpretations referring to Cato the phrase grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. Junii Juvenalis Saturarum libri. Kaster (and many others before him) expressed doubts whether these lines refer to Orbilius at all. “I laid my hand upon you” (a legal phrase which indicates taking possession of an object). Quite on the contrary: “Lucilius. (A note: none of these passages has ever been adduced by the learned exegetes of (pseudo)-Horace. He points out that not only Orbilius was plagosus: schoolmasters were known to have been generous with the use of the rod. no such observation in the otherwise most learned explanations by E. Opera (3rd ed. Lipsiae 1959) and Shackleton Bailey [n. I (Leipzig 1895) 322. see Suet. Cf. 31] record it in the apparatus. Sat.3.] Urlichs’ [1813–1889] conjecture pueros) the love for old poets. he applied these methods of persuasion to animus (cf. also J. Two expressions stand out: inieci manum. “I applied the goad”. the latter obelizes exoratus. i n i e c i m a n u m . embraced the stoic learning and the stoic way of life. It might be of interest to note that puerum was also endorsed by Fraenkel [n. sed subinde excitavi. Sat. 32). Neither conjunction (multum exoratus or multum exhortatus) is otherwise attested... Courtney. cf. The Murena in question is either A. Suetonius reports. 40 Suet. n. cum iudicio frequenti testimonium diceret. Gramm.37 Thus the enunciation grammaticorum equitum doctissimus. quidnam ageret et quo artificio uteretur. but with a satire. 44). it is listed in the apparatus of Keller and Holder. Perhaps we should hold to the primary meaning of the word and take equitum in the sense of “cavalrymen”. The same tameness and pointlessness of satirical expression mars the traditional rendering “the most learned of the equestrian grammatici”. But then. 31). Scaurus. that constant staple of Roman humor. and palaeographically compelling. Q. 31].. cur. and will be factually accurate: Orbilius did serve in the legionary (or allied) cavalry. n. [n. cui in maxima celebritate et in media rei publicae luce vivendum est. who must have been well aware of the social status of his preceptor. he is worthless as a historical source. Orbilius is credited with a coarse pun himself. Kirchner. and a lot of it. 1995. who happened to be a hunchback. because of the cognomen Gibba a much more attractive proposition. If these lines belong to a Horatian impostor. 9.18: “ante omnia futurus orator. 38 This emendation was proposed by Karl Christian Jakob Kirchner (1787–1855). We can hardly ascribe such looseness of expression to Horace himself. where is sal? We shall find salt. But the pun lacks a sharp edge. Too cheaply. 134–36. diversae partis advocato.). gibberosos se de sole in umbram transferre respondit. if we take equitum as denoting equestrians. p. Terentius Varro Murena (aed. wishing to 37 Namely L. 72–73. 3. Still we have to make sense of these lines. but is not recorded by the two most recent Teubner editors.. We only have to turn to sex.1). Q. we may add Quint.38 Ingenious. On one occasion. adsuescat iam a tenero non reformidare homines neque illa solitaria et velut umbratica vita pallescere”.39 Where is the satirical zest. 34] and Shackleton Bailey. Horatii Flacci opera (above.. a horseplay. See Kaster’s commentary. or M. We are not dealing with a dry chronicle. 1. 39 With equidem understood as directly referring to the speaker. A different text has indeed been produced by the emendation of equitum to equidem. 31) proposed and defended this emendation in his commentary.Orbilius. [n.5: “ac ne principum quidem virorum insectatione abstinuit: siquidem ignotus adhuc. 31]. appears to be both inaccurate and feeble. quod Murena gibber erat”. 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”. Klingner. To Kaster’s examples of the opposition between sun/light and shade. Terentius Varro Gibba (Asc.2. Kaster 1995. if we attune our eyes and ears to the satirical play with words and images. ca. 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. Gramm. if pun be allowed. 331 [see n. the advocate for the opposing party. We can try either to produce a different text or find a different connotation for the term eques. it is his privilege to be mistaken and misleading. not yet known in Rome. 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. appeared as a witness in court. Clodius (Suet. Aelius Lanuvinus and his son-in-law Ser. The emendation emasculates the punch line.40 when Orbilius. This may be deemed to produce some humor. interrogatus a Varrone <Murena> [supplied by Kaster]. 55 C. . and only two other republican grammarians are known to have belonged to that order. Inst. Horatii Sermonum libri duo (above. 18. but points out that in the Vita Aesopi (Vita G.239: (Caesar Strabo speaking) “est etiam deformitatis et corporis vitium satis bella materies ad iocandum”.196 Historia et Ius put Orbilius down. not uncongenial to Orbilius’ reputation for natura acerba. The quip is directly topical to the proceedings: in Mediterranean folklore patting the hump of a hunchback brings luck.3. is both meaner and more risqué. 43 R. Perry. A. E. Another version of the quip. puts it well “the interlocutor’s deformity was significant in context because the man was distinguished by it: if the advocate had a squint.2): shortly before his death he dreamt that a golden hump grew out on his back (gibbam sibi pone cervicem auream enatam). Vita Planudea vel Accursiana. but it can be neutralized by the rite of laying on hands (here “rubbing”). the . Garland. B. and implying that the advocatus needed further instruction in his craft. Not a bad retort but perhaps not mean enough. At some point the encounter was transferred from the hunchback and advocatus Murena to the hunchback and advocatus Galba (of whom Suetonius. points out “this story is surely a fabrication”: chronological considerations preclude any possibility of Orbilius and Galba appearing together in a courtroom. literally “I remove hunchbacks from the sun into the shade”. says that “quamquam brevi corpore atque etiam gibber modicaeque in dicendo facultatis. Commentators of Suetonius leave this passage largely unexplained (cf. and the barbed reply follows: in sole gibbos soleo fricare. n. Orbilius’s was thus a rude joke) inrisit. Antiker Aberglaube in modernen Ausstrahlungen [Leipzig 1922] 45).. by verbal utterances. corrected by Perry in apparatu to read prosbaskãnion] toË svmatempor¤ou poiÆs˙. ed. Here also belongs the dream of Domitian (Suet. Corbeill. The Galba in question is the father of the emperor. Stemplinger. 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). dissimulata professione eius interrrogavit: quid artium facis? respondit: in sole gibbos soleo fricare”. On the other hand disfigured people were commonly regarded as a bad omen (cf. De Or. Eberhard. O(rbilius) would have said ‘strabones de sole in umbram transfero’”. 135. the figurines of hunchbacks. lines 11–12. Dom. line 3: blaisÚw ka‹ kufÒw) Aesop as a lucky talisman for his slave-trade business: ·na aÈtÚn prosbãskanon [so the paradosis.6. prodierat Orbilius in reum testis. In the earlier version the physical appearance of the advocate was accidental. see Cic. 116.43 and thus Orbilius through his 41 Macr. Aesopica [Urbana 1952] 40) one of Aesop’s fellow slaves suggests that their master. line 4 [Perry.4: “In eundem Galbam Orbilius grammaticus acerbius (previously Macrobius adduced honesti ioci. 1. Political Humor in the Late Republic (Princeton 1996) 20–30. 35–56. that is “I send hunchbacks back to school”. 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). preserved by Macrobius.41 The setting is the same: a courtroom. a hunchback lawyer asks the witness Orbilius “what is your job?”. ed. purchased the ugly and deformed (also humpbacked: Vita W. still worn today in some areas as a protection against the evil eye). causas industrie actitativit”) and given a ruder twist. He does not adduce any classical sources documenting this practice. a slave dealer. Galba 3. A. 2. quem Galba ut confunderet. Controling Laughter. Orbilius answered: gibberosos de sole in umbram transfero. E. 16. 42 Kaster 1995. Fabulae romanenses Graecae conscriptae I [Lipsiae 1872] 228. playing on the wellknown connection between umbra and the secluded mode of life of scholars and pupils. on gobbi and gobbetti. Sat. asked him what was his occupation. In the Eye of the Beholder: Deformity and Disability in the Graeco-Roman World (Ithaca 1995) 104. Garland. 196.. 2.42 here it bulges out as the pivot of the joke. On the Roman (approving) attitude to such jokes. How to explain this contradiction? A hunchback ranged against you is a bad occurrence. and by taking the possession of the hump and employing it as an amulet (cf. but as Kaster 1995. cf. “I rub humps (or hunchbacks) in the sun”.. 81]: ÍpÒkurtow. 135–36. 190. “in full light”).11–12. 45 Cf.4. Suetonius: Domitian [Bristol 1996] 156. But the emperor should have paid attention also to the significance of being transformed. More to the point would probably be the anecdote concerning the Cynic Crates. Garland [n. Bodel. coramque virginem inminuisset paratam pari constantia” (cf. s. 1320. Vigourt. col. consul factus est (preserved by Gell. NJ. but in the light of the ancient dream lore it makes perfect sense. 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. reprinted Hanau 1965] 51. he was bought at auction as a bonus together with an expensive candelabrum by a wealthy lady. Jahn’s commentary [Lipsiae 1843] ad loc. lines 21–26. who was ready to have sex with Hipparche in the open.49 [3. 44 The idea of a sexual interpretation of the joke in Macrobius is due to J. Scaurus. But fricare also insinuates sexual undertones.50. on the verse aimed at P. and see R. 43] 116–17. Adams. ix”. N.33 si unctus cesses et figas in cute solem (a vastly different phrase and image). cf. Adams 183) were also used in the context of the preparation and application of various medicamenta (see Scrib.6: “Dux Cynicus in porticum. 1. V.3). W. mox in testamentum (Plin..v. J. 116. Hunnink. 306. hence “the golden age” for Domitian. De gramm. Killeen. and the Award of Corniculum 197 utterance was wittily conjuring up success for his party and defeat of the hunchback advocatus. 307.3. see O. If the phrase in sole contains any other erotic allusion it eludes us. . Haffter. his reference is to G. who in turn leads to Persius 4. a brilliant investigation..v. Translation and Commentary [Park Ridge. Glossarium eroticum [Stuttgart 1932. Hermes 87 (1959) 91–102 at 92–94. The description in sole Killeen finds “somewhat strange”. For frico. see TLL s.44 and suggests the popular image of the sexually insatiable dwarfs and hunchbacks. Orbilius was possessed of a sharp tongue. but for the people of Rome it presaged the aurea aetas. Quintilian (11. NH 34. also Scholia ad loc. Apul.45 The retort (translated into the American vernacular) becomes unabashedly crude: “I screw hunchbacks in the open”. cf. A similar double-faced pun may be present in the phrase grammaticorum equitum doctissimus.. which very suitably puts the schoolmaster Orbilius again in the dominant position with respect to the advocatus. WS 82 (1969) 233–34. 15. 52]. 5. and to the depilated cinaedi (34–41. in loco celebri. Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford 1993) 169–70. coram luce clarissima accubuit.92. surprisingly no explanation in A. The Interpretation of Dreams: Oneirocritica by Artemidorus. Ibidem. calidus. 1. Plin. 156. “Interpretationen zur römischen Volkspoesie”. and now also J. and B. 14. 214–45.166). 1975] 75 [n. NH 20. even if only partially. esp. “Suetonius. and esp. The dream was thus a bad omen for Domitian. the story of Clesippus fullo g i b b e r et praeterea et alio foedus aspectu. H. Killeen (quoting Theocr. “apricum”. but this “mollis et otiosa apricatio” (to use Jahn’s description) is hardly of any direct relevance for the scene in Macrobius. a book that should feast on such passages!). White.. Apuleius of Madauros: Florida [Amsterdam 2001] 138). The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London/Baltimore 1982) 184 (he does not know Haffter). and after him.43 [and cf. into gold: for with respect to rich people this dream portended falling the victim to a conspiracy (Artem. umidus. the commentary by V. Larg.27) writes that the orator must be prepared to defend the accused in any circumstances. J. Cf. is not at all to the point]) informs us that the back functions as a symbol of old age. 175–77). cf. Les présages impériaux d’Auguste á Domitien [Paris 2001]. as it happens a hunchback (aucto gibbere). 76 [n. Hence my rendering “in the open” (or “publicly”. but this is presented as an aggravation along with a dies ventosus. CP 84 [1989] 224–31). Artemidoros (1. eadem ostentante in convivio empta ludibrii causa nudatus atque inpudentia libidinis receptus in torum.45 adduced by Vigourt. 202. “Trimalchio and the Candelabrum”. n.Orbilius. 17] 608. Flor. Gegania. 236–37.]) suggests that “the words gibbi or gibberosi means pueri pathici”. Ventidius: mulas qui fricabat. We may observe in passing that the phrases in sole fricare or terere (another word with sexual undertones. Vorberg. n. F. 55]). Dasen. but he himself was also solid commentaries by Mooney [n. also in sole. Jones. 4): equum cinaedus mutavit. the joke is factually correct and flat. 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. also a graffito from Pompei (CIL IV 1825): Cosmus equitaes (= eques) magnus cinaedus et fellator. and probably deriving from Domitius’ collection of poisonous epigrams. The position was regarded as slightly abnormal”. through the method of his scholarship and teaching. n. vol. 52 I take this rendering of grammaticorum from H. But once we translate equitum as “riders”. the satirical key to the lampoon hides in the word eques.1.47–50. 3). 302 (frg. 4). but recognizably Orbilius. 7 (“ex incertis libris”). p. 49 Fraenkel [n. 48 J. 21–22. great learning’s tomb?”48 Bibaculus lampooned also other grammarians. memorably puts it. frg. 31] 397 and n. Furius Bibaculus. esp. Gramm. 2. 1. 136. . 44 and 56.50 Bibaculus or another versifier.47 as poignantly expressed in Rolfe’s inspired rendering of Bibaculus: “Where is Orbilius.46 And another poet and litteratus. 44] 165: “the image is applied specifically to one schema. 193–94 (frg. If we take equitum as denoting cavalrymen. Courtney. that with the woman (or effeminate male) astride. he became the personified Lethe = oblivio of literature. On Bibaculus. penned this line: “Orbilius ubinam est. for our purposes especially telling is a phrase of Petronius (24. 31] II. with Kaster 1995. still worse. and cf. and we remember that in the eight verses attached in some manuscripts to Horace’s 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. 46 Suet.4. adduced with approval by Kaster. Among the examples collected by Adams (165–66) there is a passage of Horace (Sat. These eight lines. D. most particularly but goodnaturedly Valerius Cato. 51 Adams [n. 50 Kirchner [n. he also collects a doxography of interpretations. a poet contemporary with Maecenas and Vergil: “si quos Orbilius ferula scuticaque cecidit”.49 but one of his learned predecessors did: none other than Bibaculus. in Greek and in Latin.51 “The most learned of pedagogic52 riders” (horsemen or pederasts – cinaedi). 46] 192–200. Fogazza.7. “Hemlock”. Rolfe in his Loeb Suetonius (first printed 1914). Domitii Marsi testimonia et fragmenta (Roma 1981) 18. 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”. 13.329–30. C. the comment of Pseudo-Acro). E. 134. 33. n. preserved by Suetonius. 47 As Kaster 1995. M.198 Historia et Ius an object of joke and ridicule. Fairclough’s Loeb translation of Horace (1926). who might be the author Fraenkel did not venture to divine. form an excerpt from a longer satyrical piece.. 411. Next to Horace’s plagosus Orbilius we have a verse of Domitius Marsus. The Fragmentary Roman Poets (Oxford 1993) 300–305. pray. Fraenkel argued persuasively. the scales fall from our eyes for in this sense and with the image of “riding” the word has a well-attested erotic application. “equestrians”. 2. see also Courtney [n. R. litterarum oblivio?” Suetonius understands this verse literally as referring to Orbilius’ senile (he almost reached one hundred years of age) loss of memory. appropriately entitled Cicuta. esp. 9. His treatise De Antiquo Jure Provinciarum was originally published in Venice in 1567. Schott’s notae are also reproduced in the once famous edition of Samuel Pitiscus (Traiecti ad Rhenum 1696). 54] I. Gottlieb Christoph Harless. The mistaken attribution of this conjecture to Schott already in Harlesius. II”. “petita est a Turnebo”): “qui corniculo merebant. 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. volume II contains notae variorum taken from the edition of 1733 (Amstelodami et Traiecti ad Rhenum) by Joannes Arntzenius (Jan Arntzen. cornicularii dicebantur”. . 57 This reading was also defended by Arntzen. reprinted by A. The conjecture corniculo is thus due to Sigonius and not to Schott. Anna Fabri adopted in her edition corniculo (so also Pitiscus). Thus already older philologians were keenly aware of two textual choices. De Caesaribus. IV Our second literary text mentioning corniculum is Auctor de viris illustribus 72. in fact Schott himself pointed to the passage of Livy 10. Fabricius in the editio Bipontina of the Historiae Romanae scriptores minores (1789). l..53 Now Andreas Schott (Schottus. 54 On the history of the editions of Aurelius Victor (and other scripts attached to the corpus Aurelianum). J. and he did not gain the award of corniculum. Harlesius (i. A. 1702–1759).204).44. later many times reprinted. 1552–1629) published in 1579 in Antwerp in the officina Plantiniana his great edition of Aurelius Victor. 1738–1815) cum notis et interpretatione in usum Delphini (Paris 1681) by Anna Tanaquili Fabri filia (Madame Dacier. we shall see that Pichlmayr did not report it accurately.54 When we consult the actual annotation of Schott. Schott wrote:55 “Corniculum] sic vulgati: Corniculo. Yet she also observed (quoting Livy) that the reading corniculum “defendi potest” (Valpy [n. He served in Macedonia as a cornicularius.667. indicating service as cornicularius.5 (reproduced at the beginning of this paper) and concluded “Unde aliud quid esse colligere liceret. in Suetonius and in the Auctor De viris illustribus: corniculo meruit. and the Award of Corniculum 199 To conclude on a prosopographical note: Orbilius was not an eques Romanus. 56 Carlo Sigonio (c. Scaurus. 55 I quote from the publication of Valpy [n. vulgatamque lectionem defendere. and later as a cavalryman. and commented (her note. including De viris illustribus (he was the first to ascribe this script to Aurelius Victor). Valpy in Sexti Aurelii Victoris Historia Romana (London 1829). reprinted iterum in 1966 with addenda by R.Orbilius. Chr. teste Arntzenio. 54] II. denoting the acquisition of the award of corniculum. corniculum meruit”. 1523–1584). Pichlmayr (Lipsiae 1911.e. ed. They were not aware of the third 53 Sextus Aurelius Victor. Fr. auferendi casu legit Sigonius56 De Antiquo Jure Provinciarum.57 In proposing corniculo meruit Sigonius (as it follows from Schott’s commentary) was influenced by the text of Suetonius concerning Orbilius. 1654–1720). see the recensus editionum by J. and corniculum meruit. sub Oreste in Sardinia stipendia fecit. Volume I of this publication reproduces the edition (of 1787) by Th.3: (Marcus Aemilius Scaurus) Primo in Hispania corniculum meruit. Gruendel). but does not mention the cornicularian pretence). provides an ampler narrative: he gives the name of the emissary [L. and it is unmistakably military.4–34. In Suetonius. He believes that Scaurus made “his choice in favor of politics . Deeds of Famous Men (Norman 1973) 163. wie Suet. 11 (p. dann cornicularius.2. de gramm. 12 (= Kleine Schriften I [Stuttgart 1962] 20. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I [New York 1951] 160). der vorher magistratischer apparitor. lines 1-4) we read: 58 W. 130 (1986) 252 and n. M. The passage of Frontinus. Bloch.1 von einem Grammatiker.. Laetorius Mergus “cui Cominius tribunus pl. rather late. W. M.4) places this incident in the period of the Samnite wars (cf. Sherwin. Am. Rom.59 But M. he served in Sardinia under Orestes”. schliesslich Reiter gewesen war”.. Max. 9.60 The following phrase sub Oreste (L.1–3. a young man and one of his tentmates. 9. The manuscript (a palimpsest) is in many places grievously mutilated. it is only fair to observe that with reference to the republican times only two literary texts employ the term cornicularius. This said. Gelzer. the transmitted text corniculo meruit causes difficulty. and thus was able to penetrate through Caesar’s circumvallation and enter the city. Hisp. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ant. The other text is more problematic. Gelzer saw long ago the real meaning of the passage: Scaurus served as a cornicularius.11) adduces as an example of Roman rectitude the dire end of the tribunus militaris M. 16. In this Bates follows in the footsteps of G. K. In the next sentence we expect some new information.. Philos. we have seen. 276). Strateg. some progression: one is tempted to read stipendia <equo> fecit. the accusative denoting service.200 Historia et Ius choice. Dio. he describes the object of the tribune’s desire as nean¤an tinå t«n ımoskÆnvn. But the context is important.1. but not the understanding of the phrase by recent students of the Auctor and of Aemilius Scaurus. 12): “Corniculum merere muss hier so gut Unteroffizierdienst heissen. R.4 and Bell. n. S. Soc. Sherwin translates and interprets: “At first in Spain he earned the corniculum [horn-shaped ornament awarded for bravery]. V The third literary text is the Principia Historiae of Cornelius Fronto addressed to Emperor Verus. n. L. We deal with a fable the details of which were fluid. 43. Bates. T. (the praenomen from Val. Broughton. Proc. The text of Valerius Maximus cannot be used as a bona fide source for the cornicularii in the fourth-century Roman army.33. specifies that he was sent by Pompeius to assume the command of the city. 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”. 3. . K. This establishes the existence of the military post of cornicularius in the armies of the late republic (Cass. Valerius Maximus (6. Aemilius Scaurus (Paris 1908) 11–12. 60 M. 19)] Munatius Flaccus. cos. diem ad populum dixit. 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. Aemilius Scaurus”. lines 20–22 – 208.14. he passed himself off as Casesarianus tribuni cornicularius.58 So also R. R.1. “Rex in Senatu: A Political Biography of M. quod c o r n i c u l a r i u m suum stupri causa adpellasset”. Aurelius Orestes. In the newest edition (Van Den Hout [1988] 207. Bates in his biography of Scaurus. Thus corniculum meruit in the Auctor de viris illustribus appears sound. 59 L. Die Nobilität der römischen Republik (Leipzig 1912) 3. describes a ruse of a Pompeian emissary: during Caesar’s siege of Ategua in Spain (anno 45). lines 2–3: Pigros .. Van Den Hout also somberly observed that in the three lacunae (indicated by dashes) altogether “135 fere litt. S. C. Cornelii Frontonis Opera Inedita. with a helmet decoration or bronze or partly . vel corniculo vel [aureo]66 vel partim . The Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto II (Loeb Classical Library.. rec. R. 1988. n. 1988.. desunt”. lines 3–5. Scaurus. Haines.. the parentheses denote “dubiae lectionis vocabula”. and everything is clear: the subject is Trajan’s Parthian expedition. But should we accept the reading pigros. qui vel partam servum cuiusque ****61 In the first two sentences the text is by and large secure. The last sentence also seems reasonably complete. As he did not indicate the length of the individual lacunae no reliable reconstruction was possible. A. Plerosque adeo centuriatu vel corniculo vel aere duplo. very much out of place after several lines of boastful praise. 205.. Van Den Hout 1954.Orbilius. but omits the parentheses or brackets and prints aereo (not aureo) as if it were an assured reading.64 vel partim . He translates (205. 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. 10) or uncertain readings. sagittarum ictus post ingentia Dacorum falcibus inlata volnera despicatui habentibus. 63 Actually I used the edition M.. This is unfortunately the case with the passage containing the word corniculo. Cornelii Frontonis et M. but this is a misleading impression. a list of earlier editions and their assessment. see Van Den Hout 1954. LXVIII–LXIX. Mediolani 1815. Pigri milites ought to have been always surprising or suspect in this context. Next. multos pilo aut hasta principe provexerat.. London 1920). lines 24–25. vel corniculo vel (aureo). 67 In this text the only change with respect to Mai or Naber is the reading aereo in place of aureo. invenit et commentario praevio notisque illustravit Angelus Maius (Francofurti ad Moenum 1816) 353... such soldiers Trajan must have (in the lacuna) castigated 61 The next four lines Van Den Hout describes as illegible. the edition of Naber (1867):65 Pigros . . 65 M. Mai (1815):63 Pigros . and the Award of Corniculum 201 in bellum profectus est cum cognitis militibus hostem Parthum contemnentibus. 204. lines 19–20. 62 For a description of the manuscript... LXIV–LXV.. It is important to realize that Van Den Hout’s 1988 edition has in many places the quality of a reconstruction rather than that of a simple edition... His text is thus identical with that of Mai. VIII–LXXX.67 It is in this shape that the passage of Fronto was utilized by all (earlier) students of corniculum.. reproduces the text of Mai and Naber.cuiusque . 66 In Naber’s edition square brackets denote either supplements proposed by the editor (cf. and his rapport with the soldiers..vel corniculo vel aereo vel partim ... Naber (Lipsiae 1867) 205.”. Cf. cuiusque . And finally Van Den Hout (1954) 195. Aurelii Imperatoris Epistulae. multos militum imp(erator) suo quemque nomine proprio atque castrensi cognomento ioculari appellabat. cuiusque .. lines 26–28): “Those who hung back . IX–LXXXII. 64 As Mai indicates (CXIV). but this edition faithfully reproduces the editio princeps. This incarnation is. with wrong punctuation.. n. who until his death in 1941 had for some forty years been preparing in vain a new edition of Fronto. Kommentar I (Heidelberg 1963) 125. F. is hardly more promising. LXIX–LXX. Aug. who receives a reward. Cornelii Frontonis Reliquiae ab Angelo Maio primum editae meliorem in ordinem digestas .4: “natali Getae. filii minoris. however. omitting the commas after corniculo.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 .VII). Kommentar zur Vita Maximini duo der Historia Augusta (Bonn 1991) 308–11. In the absence of any epigraphical testimony. balteo and armillis. On L. and not any independent Auszeichnungen. Lippold.. The passage of Tacitus (Hist. n. with fragments rearranged and accompanied with various animadversiones. Indeed already the editor princeps. A slothful and reluctant soldier needs a counterpart: a brave soldier. 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 Heindorf’s Latin. Cf. mixtae sunt coniecturis lectiones. so perhaps were also the belts. 14. Heindorf. also adduced Heindorf’s restitution of the passage. Van Den Hout’s new and novel reconstitution of the passage. 65] 205. Cf. but he printed it carelessly.68 The passage concerning corniculum he so restituted: “Pigros exhortabatur. No. n. One year after the original edition of Mai a group of scholars led by G. Aug. P. A. 14. the dona militaria for bravery in war. No. 19. n. alias alius legit. The first two sentences 68 M. vel armillis. are not impossible. G. But we remember that Augustus himself gave a golden torc to the young Nonius Asprenas after his mishap at the lusus Troiae (Suet. not due to a new collation of the manuscript. Hauler. loco pecuniae tradebant”. Severus militares dabat ludos propositis praemiis argenteis. we now have a fully fleshed-out narrative. especially when studded with silver bullae? This is the opinion of H. 53).202 Historia et Ius or exhorted. we must remain sceptical. Heindorf. LXXXIV–LXXXVII. 33. t o r q u i b u s et b a l t e o l i s ”. Niebuhrius (Berolini 1816) 243.. Utmost confusion counsels utmost caution. and see below in this volume. iterum edidit B. n. should have been given at games.69 nor is ingentis . strenuos vel corniculo. One could perhaps adduce Hist. Maxim. 63]): “Corniculum doni militaris genus fuit. Die Historien.70 Van Den Hout found the notes of Hauler in a state of utmost confusion: “plerosque locos Frontonianos Hauler saepius contulit. but alas balteo must be wrong: the award of a belt for military valor is not positively attested. Where in his earlier edition we had bare threads only. Mai. ingentis partim pretii donis pro cuiusque dignitate ornabat”. but it is odd indeed that armillae and torques. it is only a result of Van Den Hout’s utilization of the schedae of E. B.2. In this perspective the award of corniculum fits well into the flow of Fronto’s text and Trajan’s action. 2. In his edition Naber [n. insignia armorum argento decora. appended to his text the following explanatory note (243. id est a r m i l l i s .. 70 Van Den Hout 1988. But these baltei are here clearly the leather harnesses to which the silver discs (phalerae) were attached. 32). pretii donis very convincing.. A. F. 2 [n. 13. 43. est discrepantia inter ea quae publicaverat et schedas ineditas” (1988. 1. . Heubner. awkwardly combined with belts. The ludi themselves though suspect. a major personage in Frontonian studies. 69 No mention in Maxfield 1981. 680–83 (and see below in this volume. Some of these comments were due to L. As phalerae were decorations given for valor. And so we now return to another tour de force. Van Den Hout 1954. 4. LXXVI–LXXIX. n. vel balteo. virtutis ergo conferri solitum”. see above. Niebuhr produced in Berlin in 1816 a new Fronto. Cornelius Tacitus. 74 and thus he takes it in the sense of a military award and not a mili- 71 M. and yet the commentary offers no word of instruction.. But there is nothing wrong with provexerat: we encounter the same construction in Suet. Van Den Hout thought of provehebat.Orbilius. 73 Hauler was uncertain as to the reading provexerat. Urbanae praefecturae officium eius inte[gritatem].. The provenience of the initial relative qui and of servum is not explained. This award TLL s. ex infima utrumque fortuna. 14).71 Most readers will find the final phrase qui vel partam servum cuiusque72 rather impenetrable. a veritable (though occasionally headless) mountain of labor. Mai’s partim is now replaced by Hauler’s partam. yet cuiusque is retained (Hauler read cuius . Cornelius Fronto (Leiden 1999) 472.v. but he indicated this proposal only in his apparatus.1. provexerat”. In his recent Commentary. Buecheler in CLE in apparatu. 72 Nor is the apparatus criticus as helpful as it should be.3 (from coemeterium Callisti in Rome). As the acrostic shows. Van Den Hout. line 13) CLE 744. proveherat. Van Den Hout attempted to provide elucidation. col. Ut rata sint ei prom[i]ssa munera lucis. ill. but the phrase depending on this verb displays an unusual construction. The tense would indicate that Trajan continued promoting pleros and multos throughout the course of the campaign. indeed the application of the pluperfect may appear baffling. And the instruction concerning the military honors bestowed on the soldiers by Trajan is both incomplete and misleading. “corniculum”. For that meaning he also adduces (apparently blindly following TLL s. the latter certainly off the mark). point out that Theodulus served as a cornicularius in the office of the urban prefect. and E. Scaurus. below n. J. col. dicerem semper.v.. above. But. One thing is certain: there is no mention in the verse of the award of corniculum. The next sentence arrives as a jolt. 78 for provehebantur). R. as Diehl points out. Commentary [n.). si sufficerem. .. as referring to the award of corniculum. Aug. This interpretation is adopted (albeit with a query) by J. hence his approval of [E. spectata inter bonos moderatio provehebat (and cf. A Commentary on the Letters of M. the name of the deceased was Theodulu[s]. and the general sense of the whole enunciation and the sense of each word is not in doubt.] Kalinka’s conjecture: “Eius enim fi<dem se>des ostendit corniculoru[m]” (he considers but rejects the readings <fides> fidem and fide<m uiti>s. F.73 a number of soldiers. [S –––]. 74 Van Den Hout. “corniculum”. and refrained from introducing it into the text. line 3 “vix integer est. He interprets the passages of Suetonius and of de vir. It is perhaps worth observing that the form provehebat appears to be attested only once and in an entirely different and appropriate context. Laudes eius. cum corniculus sit munus cornicularii” (cf. 959. n. P. 71] 472. Martindale in The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire II (Cambridge 1980) 1105. in Iust. Let us first observe that Van Den Hout explains corniculum as “helmet decoration”. et Cornelium Gallum. quem ad praefecturam Aegypti. Diehl in his annotation to the edition of this text in ILCV 452.1: quos (reges) ad fastigium huius maiestatis . quem ad consulatum usque. obscure and convoluted. and the Award of Corniculum 203 in the passage reproduced at the outset of this section – the genuine Fronto – flow smoothly.. 1. 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]. 66: “Salvidienum Rufum. The emperor promoted. . He translates (vol. by and large not incorrect. Fronto. 11. With a general sense of ‘promote’. in Scaur. 74. Alex.30. normally constructed with the prepositions ad 75 or in 76 but also with a direct object77 or absolutely. its syntactic constructs.4.. line 3 Clark (summos honores). censuras. quart. actio ad Gratianum 5. (inter cunabula consul p ro v e h e r i s ). 45. to decur(io) al(ae) Fl(aviae). Strat. Paneg.1.128.. He also observed that in military epigraphical documents it is rather the verb promovere that we encounter. 183a (ad ducenariae procurationis splendorem iamdudum te p ro v e h e re studens). quos impurus ille ex genere hominum turpissimo p r o v e x e r a t ).2 (militiae rectorem). 1. 128. This is also the understanding of Haines [n. p. 8. Front. 26. without any specific indication of the dignity or post: Plin. then tied up the four ends (cornicula). cos.5.7 (Tetricum ..69. 20. He admitted exceptions to his definition. 174. who was ex corniculario provectus. 2. where the term is applied to a lower functionary.24 (si provinciarum rectores non pretio sed iudicio p ro v e x i s s e t ).5 (proconsulatum). the soldiers folded their horse-cloths and filled them with feathers. the exemplum codicillorum of Marcus Aurelius.. Tib. wished to discover also in two passages of Fronto: the passage here discussed.4 (primum in locum).1. that this word was a technical expression to indicate the advancement of a high functionary. Marc. Vell. 144 (PIR2.1 = p.5 (Gomoarium .6. These cornicula have nothing to do with the donum militare”. only three passages from Suetonius (see above in this note). Plin.13–14 (ut provehi non potuerit ultra quaestoriam dignitatem). He came to the conclusion. 66]. This refers to the restoration of military discipline by M. Ep.. “Un lettre de promotion de l’empereur Marc Aurèle pour un procurateur ducénaire de Gaule Narbonnaise”. and chronological evolution. 23. lines 10–14) reads as follows: “Laelianus Pontius . Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus.3 (summam dignitatem)..9. Ep. Aug.24 (per omnes honorum gradus). AE 1962. Sev. a sedilibus equitum pluma quasi anseribus devolsa”. p. 15.204 Historia et Ius tary rank. Van Den Hout’s remarks are this time on the mark (Commentary 305): “Apparently.78 We may be thus justifiably inclined to reject Van Den Hout’s recon- 75 76 77 78 959. but his pool of examples was scant.. duo 5. 78).8 (ordines militiae).. 23. Its established military and political usage is to indicate advancement to a higher rank or status..-G.2 (consulatus. P 806). ad amic. but he missed the literary locus classicus for the interplay of provehere and promovere.. 55 (summam potentiam). Claudian. Asc. and by his orders the little pommels on them were slit open and the down plucked from their pillions as from geese”.. Paneg. Liv. The term appears once but significantly in an official document. 2. 10. BJ 171 (1971) 349–66 at 359 (= Scripta Varia II [Paris 1981] 12–29 at 22) offered a short comment also on the word provehere.8 (boni provehuntur).14..4 (Rufinum Aradium comitem orientis). lines 11–12. 6.. Caes. 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. cf. as in AE 1917–18. 9. This is a later usage: Aur.4 (hos ergo provehis). ad Hor. 21. Auson. Sen. suff.40. Sev. and thus he was not able to form any idea of the variegated application of this term. 2. Suet. . equos pulvillis instratos animadvertit. Iust. Pflaum. 3. praefecturam). Aug. Yet in the whole electronically searchable bank of Latinity the verb provehere never appears in connection with military awards. n. Cf. Hist. 39.2 (lucem famamque).1 (in excelsiorem dignitatis locum). Aug.5. The language of Roman advancement is in need of a comprehensive study. Victor 35. 66 (consulatum. 10. Sat.154–55 = Paneg.5 (tribunum legionis quartae). Amm...1 (consulare fastigium).27. mai. Alex. Maxim.1 (removit omnes iudices .5 (summos honores). Grat.. 72 (amplissimos honores). 41..8 (see below. 4. triumphos). 46. Porph. In his republication and discussion of this inscription H. Aur.... correctorem Lucaniae). Carm. M. cons.13 (dignitatem). 1. Hist. Hist. Plin. Benef. iussu eius c o r n i c u l a consecta.. magistrum armorum). Honor. Ep. and in another passage which in Van Den Hout’s edition (p. Aug. 2. 149): “he found horses saddled with cushions. a passage that offers some grammatical support.8 (de prov<eh>endis etiam sibi adnotabat . Aur. “Cornicularius” [n. in literature.. see above. For the term corniculus denoting the office. Maxfield 1981.. 11] 25–40.. and Fronto may indeed have used it. 99. p. see von Domaszewski [n. .. Commentary [n. both centurions”.. vol.Orbilius. ut Veri vitia et celaverit et defenderit. 37). 24. Pius 5. Alex.5 (quos administratio vel militia p ro v e x i t ).83 lines 5–7 Van Den Hout 1988 (decet a te . Theod. Generally. The centurions of this elevated cohort. virum . numeror. On the contrary: in the phrase “centuriatu vel corniculo vel aere duplo . 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 )]. Anton. Watson. displays again two unique expressions. Vita Iuvenalis 4 [= Scholia in Iuvenalem vetustiora. etiam pariter adnotatis et quis quo esset insinuante promotus [observe the virtual equation of provehere and promovere]). He has no word on principe. Hist. Aug. Cod. 15) that Marcus Aurelius “tantae autem sanctitatis fuit . line 19. Scaurus. centuriatus is a very rare word: only a handful of attestations. See also the list in Perea Yébenes. Cf. Van Den Hout. Clauss [n. 21. and once in Priscianus. he also fails to distinguish between centurions in general and the centurions of the first legionary cohort which included five double centuries. R.79 aere duplo to the status of a duplicarius. The construct aliquem aliquo provehere is thus assured. however.22. constituted a superior grade. and in the index. and a hapax legomenon in a suspect text is doubly suspicious. and the Award of Corniculum 205 struction of the text. Again a note of caution: the epigraphically attested promotions of the cornicularii to the centurionate postdate the reign of Trajan. 6. provehi [= ‘support’] et inlustrari).. Ann..] Fiebiger. 30–31. 272: “It was clearly possible to be advanced to the centurionate from a large number of posts. Collegia Militaria [n. 100–102. See [O.4.. 82. BJ 174 (1974) 245–92 at 270–78. explains pilo and hasta principe as metonymy: “pilum stands for pilus and hasta for hastatus. though with the exception of eques they were all held by soldiers receiving double pay”. Perea Yébenes.. Max.23). “The Organisation of the Career Structure of the immunes and principales of the Roman Army”.10 (quem ex gregario milite Alexander virtutis causa p ro v e x e r a t ). there exists. 238–40. RE 5 (1905) 1842–43. Sev. twice in Cicero (Pis. and to this sand dune of words it would be imprudent to anchor any firm historical inferences. The cognate centurionatus has only two attestations (Tac. Ae. P. Breeze. 13. 71] 472. Min. For the promotion patterns. Caution must be urged. Baehrens. Iust. ed.44. the rank of a primus pilus (primipilus) and the rank of a primus hastatus. centuriatu denotes promotion to the post of a centurion. 318. a soldier who received double pay or double rations.. D. De fig.5.... 1. De laude Anast. The author of the Historia Augusta writes (M. 20. The form centuriatu is otherwise not attested. but the passage of Valerius offers a welcome illustration to Fronto: “cum facta tum etiam uerba tua centurionatus honore d<on>ata sunt”. Gramm. “Duplarii”. 11] esp.80 and thus corniculo must denote advancement to the office of a cornicularius.82 The following phrase. The Roman Soldier (London [also Ithaca] 1969) 91–92. provexerat”. G. and primus hastatus is a spurious denomination....1: centuriatum petit). cf. multos pilo aut hasta principe provexerat. 272). 5 (Lipsiae 1883) 272.. once in Suet. tam doctum . Imp. quos Hadrianus provexerat. as the promotion path often led from the cornicularii to centuriones. 239–44 = Poetae Lat. p. 88. 11] 285–87. Pomp. from eques to cornicularius consularis. 3.2.. and were collectively known as primi 79 80 81 82 83 . 14. ed. the earliest example is recorded under Marcus Aurelius (p.. 415.3 (nulli eorum. Val. 11] 452–53. Prisc. 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 ”. This does not mean that equally assured is Van Den Hout’s understanding of the passage. Cn.81 This makes good sense. J.. successorem dedit). n. e. 139 (catalogue no. torques. sed quo ornabantur illi. G. 462). princeps posterior. Some believe that the cornicularii were selected from among those soldiers who had earned the award of corniculum. 6. 215) observes “not a single legionary ranker is known to have received military decorations during the whole of the Trajanic wars in ordines. But again the way in which Fronto – or Fronto’s modern editor – express this simple fact is peculiar indeed. During the Principate a rigid system of dona prevailed. The Roman Imperial Army [Totowa. may represent the long sought emblem of the cornicularii: a deer horn. s. Obiectele din os. exquisitely polished and with minutely crafted geometrical decorations. [O. 11. were worn by the cornicularii. The centurions of the remaining nine cohorts were called (again in order of seniority) pilus prior. D.. . not even to the immunes and principales. Cf. non omnibus militibus commune. 84 See above. based on rank: hastae were never awarded to common soldiers. 86 See above. 11] 13: “Der Name der cornicularii stammt von dem corniculum. at the base of the horn there are four perforations. that of the hasta pura. Ciugudean. corne et ivoire d’Apulum] (Alba Iulia 1997) 38–39. But this scheme we cannot assume. einem militarischen Abzeichen”. but not once do we hear of a bestowal of the award of corniculum. “Cornicularii”: “so genannt nach dem ihnen verliehenen Corniculum”. RE 4 (1901) 1603.84 This certainly is not true for the period of the empire: in the inscriptions numerous cornicularii appear. 85 As postulated by Büttner. qui res bene gesserant. 1998] 114). If we assume that this award persisted under the empire under a different denomination. 5. Marquardt [n. the only dona open to them were the minor awards of armillae. in order of seniority they were ranked as follows: primus pilus. phalerae. 26] 546: “so benannt von einem Helmschmuck.86 These awards. tentatively suggests that an object. 107. Webster. VI The origin of the term cornicularius is obscure. as Maxfield (1981. 3. princeps. In fact we do not know for certain what Abzeichen. moreover.3 cm long. 180 (plate XXX. qui tale corniculum meruerat” (Valpy [n. 54] II. reprinted Norman.85 it is not easily explicable why the person so honored should have been called cornicularius (and not hastarius). hastatus prior and hastatus posterior (See. hastatus posterior. 1985. corniculum”. Clauss [n. In the course of the campaign Trajan certainly could promote pleros to the post of a centurion. hastatus.g. n. 5. princeps posterior.667). maintains that in the Principate the cornicula are “nur noch ein Rangabzeichen”. and Maxfield 1981. NJ. corn sçi fildesç de la Apulum [with French summary: Les objects en os. and occasionally an exceptional award of a corona. see above. This interpretation already in 1733 in Arntzen: “Corniculum videtur fuisse ornamentum galeae. princeps or hastatus for in each legion there were only three such posts available. 3] 198. 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. found to the north of the camp of legio XIII Gemina. Hinc cornicularius honoratior miles.v. nn. In the first part of the enunciation Fronto mentioned promotions to the centurionate.] Fiebiger. But he is right to stress that under the empire the award of corniculum is not attested.1). pilus posterior. but he could not promote multos to the charges of primus pilus. Le Bohec [n.206 Historia et Ius To conclude: there is under the empire no record of corniculum as a military award. are attested almost exclusively in the period of the earlier Empire. OK. n. if any. princeps prior. 213–17. 220–26.87 The corniculum may have indeed been a small horn attached to the helmet. 92). 7. not war. but under the empire also whole units were so surnamed: frequently ala or cohors torquata. but they offer no detailed commentary of Lydus’ passage de mag. RE 6 [1909] 469–70). the award of corniculum goes to a turma equitum.Orbilius. Cap. Socr. John Lydus and the Roman Past. though in the context of a hunt. and the statistical data prohibits it. the reward of bravery”. The adjective corniculatus apparently appears only in these two passages. 248–49. All three books contain references to the post of cornicularius.88 But if the horned helmet was an emblem of a cornicularius. and his world. The ending -arius normally denotes in Latin a function or an occupation. n. The city of Eriza was located in the borderland of Caria and Phrygia ([W.89 We have again reached a terminological dead end. the inscription of Pompeius Strabo. Burocrazia e diritto nel “de Magistratibus” di Giovanni Lido (Milano 1984). 3. C. The explanation he gives (de magistratibus 3. M.124). For torquati.90 was also interested in the origin of the term. see Maxfield. we would rather expect the denomination corniculatus. see the monographs by J. On the other hand Orbilius and evidently also Scaurus progressed from the service as cornicularii to the service in the cavalry. A passage of Pliny (10. often adduced.7). 1. An early Byzantine scholar and bureaucrat. Caimi. rather a simple helmet decoration. It is true that the duplicarii received their double pay and rations on the account of their valor in the field. 11) we find fortythree denominations ending in -arius of military functions. 29–30. Caimi. Maas. 2004).3 (but for a brief notice. the latter must be the horn-like attachments of the helmet. Ruling the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge. charges and pay levels.. On Lydus. Furthermore in the only reliable piece of evidence from the republican times. 89 Apul. In this context it is interesting that Crates had a surname Monoceros. but the term itself refers to their status and not directly to the award. and explains it as “a horn shaped ornament. On the other hand those honorific denominations that patently derive from awards for bravery assume the ending –atus: not only the hero Manlius Torquatus. Pliny writes of “recens fama Crateri Monocerotis cognomine in Erizena regione Asiae corvorum opera venantis eo quod devehebat in silvas eos insidentes corniculis umerisque”. one ala bears the name of torquata et armillata. With respect to Crates it was hardly an award. with respect to the res militares in the index to Domaszewski’s Rangordnung (above.738. 88 Maxfield 1981. and the Award of Corniculum 207 Dacia and Parthia”). 99. 271–72. Johannes Lydus.15. a grade of soldiers in Vegetius (2. The ravens thus perched on his shoulders and the cornicula. Rackham in his Loeb Pliny (1940) translates corniculis as “on the crest of his helmet”. Scaurus. the new “horned” moon was called luna corniculata. Antiquarianism and Politics in the Age of Justinian (London and New York 1992). alludes to a helmet with horns. Kelly.3) is 87 Maxfield 1981. . Maas. Mart. cf. Not one of them is a derivation from a word describing a donum militare.] Ruge. The sources do not allow us to make any direct connection between the presumed horn of valor and the office of cornicularius. 565. A bucket of cold water for those who would still wish to discover an allusion to military dona in Fronto. 90 His dates are 490–ca. “Single–horned”. as it also does in the account of Livy adduced at the head of this paper. MA. H. And so do also the rules of Latin word formation. oddly (mis)translates “man on the wings” (he used the editions of Wuensch and Bekker. T. It was corrected by I. but he offers no comment ad rem. So also C. F. This fantasy hardly preserves an echo of the heroic deeds of the cornicularii. Clauss [n. D. They had various clerks under them. no. Roman Military Records on Papyrus (= Philological Monographs 26 [Cleveland 1971]) 352–54.91 J. used of animals. although possibly only the certification subscription in lines 27–31 was written by the cornicularius himself in his own hand: “Avidius Arrian(us) cornicular(ius) coh(ortis) II[I] It[ura]eorum scripsi. otherwise unattested. We are thus left with kera˝thw . Bandy renders it straightforwardly as “horn-bearer”. This Latin denomination Lydus tries to explain by two Greek terms kaira˝thw µ prÒmaxow. KS. 423). a lectio now adopted by A. the paper – or should we rather say – the papyrus-and-wax work. Fink. 2] 120. C. Of this word LSJ has only two examples.).95 And this leads us to the instruments of writing. 302–3. As chiefs of the officia they were dealing with documents. Oxy. but kaira˝thw is obviously corrupt. Fuss in the editio princeps (Paris 1812) proposed the emendation kerãsthw (cf. but the electronic TLG provides sixteen further instances: in all of them the meaning is that of “butting”. . Stauner [n. The person who heads the entire staff of an officium is called kornikoulãriow. 92 In a script entitled Ad Carolum Benedictum Hase epistola (Leodii 1820). 11] 23–25. 94 See R. this latter reading was unwisely adopted by R. N.C. 91] LXV. vessels. see Bandy [n. MacMullen. Byzantion 44 (1974) 479–501 at 498–99: kera˝thw = “the man on the top of the military wing or horn”. see Bandy LIX–LXIV. but not attested with respect to helmets). 91] 135. and in app. Soldier and Civilian in the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge. Tsirpanlis in his very superficial article “John Lydos on the Imperial Administration”. Carney. O. 430–31 (no. crit. a copy of a letter concerning recruits (from the Prefect of Egypt to the commander of a cohort). This is the reading in the oldest (and practically unique) codex.208 Historia et Ius of great interest and of no value. Bandy in his new edition of Lydus. with further literature. Cf. hardly an appropriate image for the chief of a bureau. the god Pan and the satyrs. It is only part and parcel of the fable of the heroic origin of the officia.94 Perhaps a clue to their name may lie in their occupation. which was first made known in 1852. but at least in one document we encounter a cornicularius in the very act of writing. 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. 95 P. the Caseolinus Parisinus of the IX/Xth century. but unfortunately does not indicate whether he translates the former’s kera˝thw or the latter kerat¤thw. the dictionary of Liddell-Scott-Jones and the electronic searches in TLG: “horned”. Hence his other explanation. in a mythical legio prima adiutrix.. John the Lydian. “front-line fighter”. but a few years later he changed his mind92 and read kerat¤thw.. De Magistratibus (Lawrence. 1971) 65. authenticam epistulam in tabulario cohortis esse” (subscript dots omitted). 1963) 70–75. MA. the late imperial chancery. the cornicularius was stationed first”.93 Lydus assevers that “in the so-called legio which consisted of six thousand foot soldiers in number . 93 Bandy [n. Wuensch in his Teubner edition of 1903. bovine or metaphorical. 87. Bandy. 91 A. prÒmaxow. and of their awards for bravery. Bekker in his Bonn edition (1837) to kera˝thw. VII 1022 = R. 52 (from Rome. Gilliam. A. and Gilliam neglecting CIL III 12402). Ferrua. Laminger-Pascher. Saria provided a learned commentary (reproduced with minor alterations in his entry in RE Suppl. a largely identical text also in Clauss [n. Hoffiller – B. Lycaonia and Isauria”.Oxy. Buckler. Dessau. line 37 (calamus scriptorius).] Wünsch.97 In the inscriptions and papyri occasionally occur administrative officials bearing the name of canalicularius. W. esp. H. W. It ought to be consulted in the original edition of W. cf. F. 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. Blümner. Scaurus. 100 The rendering of this text in AE 1926 is unsatisfactory. J. Roman Army Papers (Amsterdam 1986) 373–76 (where in the table of contents there is a troubling and revealing misspelling: Kanaliklarios). and he missed all papyrological attestations of the term. n. 7 [1940] 83–84) upon which all subsequent discussions (including Gilliam and Clauss) have heavily depended. XL 2925)”. esp. Cf. 98 They formed the subject of two excellent and almost simultaneous studies: M. P. The editor princeps. “Zu zwei kleinasiatischen Militärinschriften”. on which see below. Stauner [n. H. Cox. 122. p. “Der canalicularius”. still interpreted the term in the sense given in TLL: “colui che fabbrica e vende canaliculos. with some items of the commentary supplied to the British scholars by H. 262. M. He does not know the contribution of Gilliam (although he adduces Gilliam’s Roman Army Papers in his bibliography. but the reed employed to write in ink on papyri and other chartae looks promising. line 65–123. “Feder”. ILS 9074.v. Clauss and J. 97 TLL s. “Monuments from Iconium. 99 B. no. Calder. AE 1975.Oxy. In the meantime a further epigraphical attestation accrued. “calamus”. “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).100 As Clauss (254 = 43) observes. 56 = V. “Canaliclarius and Kananiklarios (P. F. no. BASP 13 (1976) 49–52.98 M. The other inscriptions are AE 1936. Gilliam assembled a full dossier (with all the documents belonging to the third century). surprisingly enough. 538: a Greek inscription recording the career of a soldier. 11] 41–45.v. 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. 2] 125–26. lines 25–29 (canna scriptoria). cioè canaletti per condutture d’acqua”. reprinted in J. P. we encounter here the same 96 See TLL s. F. Clauss.96 but another species of reed called canna. Gilliam discusses in particular a papyrological attestation. 231 (= ILS 2215). 226). Subsequently the inscription was reviewed by G. Clauss and Gilliam list each five inscriptions but between them they have six stones (Clauss omitting the text in Orelli-Henzen 10 [= IGUR 4. CIL VI 1110. Saria. Technologie und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen und Römern I2 (Leipzig 1912) 329–31. M. Ancient Society 6 (1975) 251–56. 103–25). 114. 56 (see above in the text). RE 6 (1909) 2099. does not go beyond Clauss. 34.Oxy.Orbilius. WS 86 (1973) 249–63 at . and one conclusion emerges with all clarity: “Der Posten des canalicularius ist mit demjenigen des cornicularius vergleichbar” (Clauss 255 = 44). 141–44 (nn. XLVII 3366. JRS 14 (1924) 24–84 at 74–76. There is also another papyrus. “canna”. RAL 29 (1974) 140–41. and the Award of Corniculum 209 Stilus and cera are of no help. Gilliam. who progressed from librarius to actarius to cornicularius. 109c. [1975] 7).1672]. not the ubiquitous calamus. [R. C. 74 (from Isauria) with corrections in AE 1973. Though. XL 2925 (see below in the text). 47: “Oportet ergo sumere pinnam anseris quam maximam vel calami scriptorii fistulam modice plenam”. The expression is peculiar for calamus means “reed”. in many respects still superior to the more recent effort by R. a term which he obviously employed in the general sense of “Schreibgerät” (“Kielfeder” = “quill”. 145–46. tum querimur crassus calamo quod pendeat umor. Reisch. and nn. Indeed other derivatives of canna retain the gemination: cannetum. but requiring a linguistic explanation. i. Cf. nigra quod infusa vanescat sepia lympha. cannosus (cf. AE 1973. It is fistula that attracts our attention. n. dilutas querimur geminet quod fistula guttas.vv. but Saria and Clauss point to scholars who tried to elucidate the origin and the meaning of the term. 103. but there is no doubt about the stages of his progression in the officium. Gilliam dispaired of any etymological explanation of canalicularius. See the invaluable commentary by Jahn. E. Commentum Cornuti in Persium (Monachii et Lipsiae [Bibl. It ought to be a diminutive of canna.14. 102 The reading of lines 12–13 is disputed. Jahn. though with the 257–63 (cf. Harvey. where the canalicularius appears in the function of the head of the officium. Reisch. see the apparatus in W. but never with a reference to canna. commenting on the just unearthed inscription from Poetovio.11–14) inque manus chartae nodosaque venit harundo. Persius paints the portrait of a would-be writer (3. Clauss (251 = 41) mistakenly reports that Reisch proposed the derivation from canicula. The text.). Canaliculus and canalicula are listed in TLL solely as diminutives of canalis. V. but here of course we are not dealing with a quill but with a reed). Clausen and J. the error is interesting for it parallels the popular or vulgar Latin phonetic development (see below in the text. but at least one passage suggests a (distant) connection with reed: Gell. too much water was added so that the blackness of the ink disappears. 112). derived canalic(u)larius from canalicula. and the pen (fistula) produces at once two diluted drops. see the editions by O.). but one would rather expect the form cannalicula.11. as it also attracted the Scholiast’s attention: “Fistula pro cannali calamo posuit exquisite”. referring to “natura stomachi fistulaeque eius”. G. 103. Teubneriana] 2004) 72 ad loc.. and on the right track. Here also belongs Persius 3. 24] 49. See also M. Clausen’s Oxford edition (1959).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 ”.210 Historia et Ius gradation as in the inscription from Poetovio. For the scholia.101 Ingenious. holding the post that was normally occupied by a cornicularius. V. canneus. and by W. The word canicula (see TLL s. Guards of the Roman Armies: An Essay on the Singulares of the Provinces (Bonn 1978) 101. and the very name of the deceased soldier. 4. JÖAI 16 (1913) Beibl. particularly that of the canicula stella. but instead of writing he begins to complain: the ink is too thick and clots upon the pen. . A Commentary on Persius (Leiden 1981) 81–82. in his account of “Die Grabungen des österreichischen archäologischen Institutes während der Jahre 1912 und 1913”. A. TLL s. 17.102 Fistula normally appears in the sense of “reed-pipe”. Zetzel. is mostly attested in various transferred meanings. Compos. There is at hand a sheet of papyrus and a pen of knotty reed. cannicius. Scribonius Largus. “der Kielfeder”. is still uncertain. E.e. Speidel. but here it denotes cannalis calamus. 101 E. and the comment of the Scholiast. and perhaps even succeeded. technically a diminutive of canis.v.. Spaul [n. Auli Persii Flacci Satirarum liber (Leipzig 1843) 295 ad loc. 538). 15. 105 H. 108 F. 97] 2099. B. 103 So G. The obvious solution (favored by Saalfeld and Ernout-Meillet) is to posit the original form cana from which. Tensaurus Italograecus (Wien 1884) 223–25. the term canalis was derived. A passage of Palladius (Agr. canalicularius completely disappears from the public view. Ernout and A. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine3 (Paris 1951) 166. and the Award of Corniculum 211 predominant sense of “pen”. a small channelled reed-pen. and 88. 11 [see below. cornicularii are ubiquitous. the collected papers of R. TLL s. Oströmische Beamte im Spiegel der Schriften des Michael Psellos (München 1973) mentions this office only in passing (106. Exkurs III (44–57): “Der §p‹ toË kanikle¤ou”. in the codes of Theodosius and Justinian. Cf.107 There is a further puzzle. canalicularius is absent. Cf. Attested only in a few inscriptions. . Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch I (Heidelberg 1938) 150.110 (I was led to this fine study by the article of S.. 107 We hasten to stress that in this sense these words are not directly attested. the keeper of the imperial inkstand. Weiss. Recherches sur les institutions byzantines I–II (Berlin 1967). harundineis inferre canalibus”.108 Dölger (p.2) provides an exquisite illustration: “canalibus ex canna factis mel . Scaurus.v.16) connects canna and canalis: “Canalis ab eo quod cava sit in modum cannae. this connection was also felt by other writers.Orbilius. 803. “Römische Schreibgeräte aus Pannonien”. but in the derivations the gemination is generally not present. Guilland. The Greek form is kãnna (kãnnh). There is no discussion of the term (or of the chancery and its writing implements) in the monumental multivolume opus by Ph. 220).104 but the retention of the gemination in other undisputed derivations from canna seems to tell against Isidor’s etymology. vol. still before the onset of gemination. in the apparently fashionable diminutive. 15. A. The best investigation of this office still remains Dölger’s paper. Dölger. and in Johannes Lydus. Koukoules. now more than seventy years old. with the stress on the channel through which the ink flows. E. Alba Regia 18 (1980) 61–90 at 67. Buzantin«n b¤ow ka‹ politismÒw I–VI (Athens 1948–1957) or in another mine of information. Wünsch [n. Meillet. “Der Kodikellos des Christodoulos in Palermo”. Saalfeld.106 Canalicularius was thus a clerk. n. Hofmann. Byzantinische Diplomatik (Ettal 1956) 25–74 at 50–65. Walde and J.105 It was not only the late antique (or early medieval) Isidorus who propounded the connection between canna and canalis.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. A. the indices to ILS.8. reprinted in F. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch I (Heidelberg 1960) 779. a person who wielded a canalis calamus or. 81 (no. ı §p‹ toË kanikle¤ou. Thus not just “pen of reed” but rather “pen of grooved reed”. 50). 106 Cf. A. Indeed Isidorus (Etym.265: “mella . 121]). A.. n. see I. and the ultimate Semitic source of the word has no gemination. “canaliculus”. a canaliculus (or canalicula). Archiv für Urkundenforschung 11 (1929) 1–65.. and thus they ought to be furnished with (so to speak) a semantic asterisk. 2. Etymologies proffered by the ancients are often suspect. Bilkei. Frisk. 115. Sane canalem melius genere feminino quam masculino proferimus”. III.. also Verg.. 110). Dölger. but Isidorus’ derivation has been generally embraced by modern linguists. tab. pars 2. 4. But canalicularius reappears in full splendor in the ninth century Byzantium as a high court official. Jilek. Excavations in Intercissa in Pannonia revealed remnants of grooved pens made of reed. infundere”. 104 Cf. following earlier antiquarians. G. 4. Georg. The text reproduced above is printed in a footnote to explain the phrase subscribente Christophoro protoasecretis. 98] 51 = 375).. The author of the nota variorum in question was F. Lydus explains this form as a diminutive of kalyx. Lat. This train of thought is on the right track undoubtedly. Interestingly also other scholars attempted to connect directly. 82] 253 (rejected by Gilliam [n.Oxy.14) description of the bureau of the praefectus praetorio. inter alia interpreting caniculum (caniculus) in the sense of “small dog”: the word would refer to the shape of the imperial atramentarium. These Notae remained unpublished. ink-horn and not a horn of valor. but at the time of this letter Horion was actually a former hypomnematographus: he is referred to as genom°nou Ípomnhmatogrãfou. Dölger rejected all those efforts. Dölger points out that kall¤klion will certainly be a “Nebenform” of kan¤kleion. 99]). 50–52) to Lydus’ (Magistr. It is only from one of the notae variorum attached (at 128. Quazza in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani 8 [1966] 204–7). but he missed the Byzantine connection. 129. and Breeze [n. Dölger further observes that small containers made of horn were called cornicula. Constantinopolitana quarta. Francesco Domenico Bencini (ca. The problem is. Whitehorse. 110 A. mostly fanciful. G. This is an example of popular etymology. XL 2925 is a fragmentary letter (dated to 270/271) addressed to Aurelius Heracleianus.212 Historia et Ius adduces a Latin explanation by Anastasius bibliothecarius (IXth c. but there is no indication in Migne’s edition that it stems from Anastasius himself. In an Egyptian papyrus Gilliam had in his hand a clue and a solution. 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. There were in the office two ink-wells: one was made of beaten gold. 1664–1744. n. 2. and was called by the common people kalamarion. as a variant spelling. and that this horn.110 These efforts are misplaced. cornicularii and canaliclarii.e. but were consulted by other erudites. hence “a little cup”. There is no linguistic or orthographic path from cornicularius to canalicularius and to the kan¤kleion. Bencinus. perhaps formed through the assimilation of n to l. pointed to their occupation as scribes. E.kan¤kleion precisely mean? Earlier scholars proposed various ideas. and was called kall¤klion. as he also recognized. 111 This cananiclarius appears to have been an official in Alexandria. and thence to Migne’s Patrologia. and submits that this may in turn explain “der Sinn der militärischen Auszeichnung der cornicularii”. qui curam et custodiam gerit caniculi. but in two crucial points it is either inaccurate or inconclusive. 1) describes Horion as “hypomnematographus and the secretary in charge of the distribution of grain in Oxyrhynchus”. the letter concerns a legal dispute pertaining to grain distribution.109 But what should caniculum .111 In this cana109 In a work entitled Sancta synodus octava generalis. 175A). Anastasio interprete (Patr. whether kan¤kleion can linguistically be derived from korn¤kl(e)ion. and has called attention (pp. the other was made of silver. 98] 49 = 373. i. id est atramentarii ex quo imperator phoniceas litteras scribit in chartis”. an ecclesiastic and a prolific author of works on ecclesiastical history. On this office. Alföldi commenting on the inscription from Poetovio (quoted and rejected by Saria [n. P. and utimately have flown into the variorum editions of Anastasius. inter alia of Notae et observationes on the writings of Anastasius. Gilliam ([n. see the entry by G.): “Praepositus caniculi apud Graecos est. et praeposito caniculi. of course. It was written by an assistant of Calpurnius Horion. He posits that cornicularii had as their emblem a small horn. most probably Alexandrian (and not Oxyrhynchite). kananiklar¤vi. see J. . Aegyptus 67 (1987) 101–25.v. XLVII. Die konsonantischen Fernwirkungen: Fern-Dissimilation.Oxy.28. 139) the suggestion of J. Misreadings and misunderstandings are of course always a possibility: to adduce a thematically related example.are extremely rare in Latin. 104–6. n. another cananiclarius surfaced in Egypt. Collectanea Papyrologica. see benigtate = benignitate in CIL III 7902.Oxy. Gilliam [n.in P. “cornicularius”. but in BGU 2. 430). His examples of l > n are instructive. XLVII (1980) 3366. Hanson (ed. and thus a linguistic explanation becomes much more plausible: the familiar phenomenon of creeping dissimilation. rejecting the attempts to correct this word into canonicarius112 or cancellarius. and a letter concerning this petition. interestingly he did not record this important text corroborating the reading cananiclarius.30–35). ii. which C. C. WS 25 (1903) 71. Coles and W.117 cananiclarius became caniclarius. There are also on record in Latin and Greek inscriptions several instances of the forms corniclarius and cornuclarius (TLL s. A. For an instructive example of haplology.not kanal-” (430). 1).116 In due course. saturnalicius and venalicius. we have in the papyri a number of references to cornicularii with the term spelt correctly. the next note). M. The former occurs only in words belonging to the families of canaliculus.114 He immediately realized that the new papyrus confirms the spelling cananicl. in a text presented by P. As a matter of personal favor. Scaurus. 957.Orbilius. Cf.Oxy. with a lucid and learned commentary (see esp. A perfect illustration of the phonetic process offer the codices of Pliny: at NH 27. 38). in A. in the same year in which Gilliam published his contribution. a letter of the tiro Valerianus. who refers to the still very useful monograph by E.113 Gilliam has brilliantly recognized the epigraphically attested canalic(u)larius. By a strange coincidence.and -nanic. So J. Il lessico latino nel greco d’Egitto (Barcelona 1971) 62. the dropping of syllables (often with the same initial consonant). Parsons. Lewis. XL 2925. the editor of P. 417. Youtie II (= Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 20 [Bonn 1976]) 409–46. with variant readings caniculata and cananiculata. J. for the Greek texts certainly have kanan. The text now resides at P. Daris. but ignorance twice on display is not doubly persuasive but rather indicative of a habit of speech.Oxy. But Parsons was bothered by “a problem of spelling. bananica and cananic(u)larius. (Cf.435. P. So R.115 Ignorance is attractive. “Notationes legentis”. “Petitions and a Letter: The Grammarian’s Complaint”. Adams. And he also came to the conclusion (adducing the dossier assembled by Clauss) that canaliclarius offers the closest parallel. The odd spelling also bothered Gilliam: he suggested that “the writer was not familiar with the title and misread or misunderstood it”.78 we have the form canaliculata. BASP 11 (1974) 44–59 at 54. we encounter the odd form kolliklar¤ƒ. Parsons. 98] 50 = 374. XL (p. esp. In his Roman Army Papers (1980) Gilliam provided the reprinted papers with some addenda. rightly adopting (p. Fern-Assimilation und Metathesis (Göttingen 1919) 96. and the Award of Corniculum 213 niclarius. J. but none of them presents a perfect parallel to the development canalic(u)larius > cananic(u)larius. Schopf. No wonder: electronic searches reveal that the sequences -nalic. by Lollius Homoius. and “The hypomnematographus in the Roman Period”. E. S. 84. N. the editors of P. Rea. adduced 112 113 114 115 116 117 . 117. classified under the heading of “mangelhafte Artikulation oder Schreibfehler”. So N. “Die lateinischen Elemente in der Gräzität der ägyptischen Papyri”. this petition was to be carried to the imperial comitatus (perhaps to Syria) by Heraklammon the cananiclarius (B: Recto col. It is a petition to the emperors Valerianus and Gallienus (and thus dated to 253–260). 111–13. who also adduces the form kornoulãriow. through another natural process.). For the latter sequence the only attestations are the words Acarnanicae. Haslam. Wessely. public grammarian of the City of Oxyrhynchus. Texts published in honor of H. R. 118 This solves the linguistic mystery of kan¤kleion. But there is one rather unobserved text from the British isles that prominently spills the ink out of the horn. La langue latine dans le sud-est de l’Europe (Bucuresçti 1978) 211. “calamus”. abbreviated and syncopated to canic(u)la (canic(u)lus). cornicularius (II. n. p. see the introduction by M. p.119 but his reference to corniculum in the meaning of a container (‘Gefäss’) is misleading. kan¤kleion. If canalicularius was etymologically connected with the writing reed. Adomnán’s Vita Sancti Columbae.15 [not 17!] and 7. cujusmodi fuit Caniclinorum apud Byzantinos”. This development exquisitely parallels the semantic fortunes of kalamãrion: both kalamãrion and kan¤kleion have etymologically nothing to do with ink and all to do with reed. through further semantic extention. loquenti. also variant readings at 19.v. already corrected by earlier editors.26: people born under certain astrological signs “erunt homicidiis publicis praepositi et exceptores earum sententiarum. cuniculatim and caniculatim (9. Ogilvie Anderson to Adomnán’s Life of Columba. glosses cornicu- .v. a funnel. Magistr.e. Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources II C (Oxford 1981) 493.v.36: “praefuit enim (the cornicularius) cornibus secretarii praetoriani”.18–20 s. Mathesis 3.vv. and continues: “Quin potius constat Cornicularios fuisse Exceptores et Commentarienses”. This idea had in fact been already enunciated by older erudites. “calamarius”.214 Historia et Ius ultimately in Byzantium we arrive at kan¤kleiow. and 123.20) refer to the procedure of pouring a liquid through a small horn down the nostril or down the throat (corniculo infundere. Favre [Paris 1937]). quae de hominum capitibus proferuntur. seu apice galeae”. Miha∑escu. see Du Cange s.119.v. Cf. one looks in vain for corniculum as an ink container. And in most dictionaries and data banks. Eorum autem munus fuit ad Cornua Secretarii stare.14. Ogilvie Anderson (Oxford 1991) XVI–XLIII. E. 118 See TLL s. to denote not a pen but rather a container for writing implements and. the Glossarium of Du Cange II. See TLL s.78. discussed above in the text. and this naturally yielded in Greek kan¤kleion. calamus and canna.5. “canaliculatim”. We also note that in several passages of Pliny’s Natural History the codices display the forms caniculato.130). scribenti. et ministrare judici agenti. edited and translated by A. 27. and comparing the description of Lydus. per corniculum infunditur).103). Orr Anderson and M. R. Also canalicula (canaliculus) will have been assimilated. here Du Cange adduces the passage reproduced above]. and the office of ı §p‹ toË kanikle¤ou. id est atramentariis: quam appellationis rationem attigit Senator [i. Cassiodorus. however.120 by H. he was the ninth abbot of Iona) and Columba (c. And further: “Unde recte a Corniculis appellatos censent viri docti. the mystery of the rise of this originally humble post to institutional prominence is still hidden in the void of our sources. and not a container. aut cornicularii aut commentarienses”. It is a perforated horn. 119 For the medieval instances of cornu = atramentarium.. see s. 569): he combats the view of Salmasius (in his commentary to Solinus) that cornicularii were so called “a Corniculo. 568 (of the edition by L. 628–704. There is no attestation in classical Latin unless we follow the tentative suggestion of Dölger ([n. taking cornibus not as “wings” but rather as inkstands. and interpret in this sense the passage of Cassiodorus. 120 On Adomnán (c. caniculi (9. 2. rescribenti. 520–597). and Mayhoff’s Teubner edition in app. “canaliculatus”. The passages of Columella he adduces (7. 230).5. Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch II (München 1999) 1897–98. Latham. it is indeed very likely that cornicularius may have been connected with cornu in the sense of ink-well. with a semantic twist. 108] 52. this sense of cornu is well attested in medieval Latin. an inkstand. atramentarium. Varia 11. adducing the passage of Firmicus Maternus. ancient and medieval. As Dölger notes. stood for a little while in front of the door.Orbilius. [Further. Artmann (1921–2000)]. lum solely as “a cusp of crescent moon”. Artmann)—Zum Gebrauch von Feder und Tinte im römischen Alltag”. bronze. . so as to protect the ink-horn.. but apparently so far no single ink-horn has been identified. beyond the strait of the island of Io. Festschrift für Friedrich Brein (= Forum Archaeologiae 14/III/2000 [http://farch. The implement and the expression corniculum atramenti was certainly not invented in post-Roman or Roman Britain. and incised in bronze. Scaurus. glass. Sed alia mox faciente causa inde recessit. But Johannes Lydus may have been right when he grasped for a heroic origin of the office. C. and awaited the arrival of the cumbersome guest.” This is an inexplicable lexicographical regress for in his earlier work. ‘cornet’. 3–5. But when the cornicularii appear in the full light of imperial epigraphy they are bureaucrats not heroes. eagerly advancing to kiss the saint. [Nota bene: the quotation in the title of Jilek’s article reproduces the title of a collection of poems (in dialect) by the Austrian writer H. Quem sanctus sedens in tegoriolo tabulis subfulto audiens clamorem dicit: ‘Homo qui ultra clamitat fretum non est subtilis sensus. 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. 121 An archaeological note of caution must be sounded: excavations in Roman provinces revealed inkstands of clay.’ Quod uerbum eius ministrator Diormitius audiens paulisper ante ianuam stans grauem exspectabat superuenturum hospitem. and it explains exquisitely the name and the imperial and late imperial function of the cornicularii. hearing him say this. 704”. and after he had withdrawn the disturbing guest arrived. but presently some other matter caused him to withdraw from there. Now today he will upset and empty the horn that holds my ink. The transformation of the horn of valor into horn of ink is a mystery as dark as the atramentum. sitting in the hut that was supported on planks. Revised Medieval Latin Word-List (London 1965). but Adomnán’s fable crowns a persuasive argument. c. clearly referring to the Vita Columbae. ut c o r n i c u l u m defenderet. 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 Columba’s corniculum atramenti to Roman castra and officia. And. 103] 68–71. See the solidly documented pieces by Bilkei [n. “‘Med ana schwoazzn dintn . and silver.’ (H. Latham annotated corniculum as “ink-horn. heard the shouting. 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 . et post eius recessum hospes molestus superuenit. reported by Adomnán in a paragraph (1. on another day there was a shouting.net]) esp. 116. and by S. The military award of corniculum at the times of the republic is a fact recorded in literature. and as “little horn.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. C. Jilek.25 [p. 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. The saint. in Altmodische Archäologie.’ His attendant Diormit.. nam hodie mei c o r n i c u l u m a t r a m e n t i inclinans effundet. and said: ‘The man who is shouting beyond the strait is not a man of delicate perceptions. DOMASZEWSKI. A. and the recent and excellent standard account of Roman military awards is in the matter of gold versus silver not always sufficiently probing. 86–91. p. The cavalry received silver armillae in recognition of generally distinguished conduct”. Sp. 44. . The Military Decorations of the Roman Army. . 152–55. IV: Book X. 278. p. (5) centuriones militesque quia primi portam murumque Aquiloniae ceperant. 1906. more barbarico. P. The main complaint concerns. BÜTTNER. 1996. STEINER. . 1–98 at p. Maxfield gives the following interpretation: “Sp. Papirium. A Commentary on Livy. 22–29. torques (though the Roman heroes did not wear the latter around the neck. Late Roman Military Decorations. and also to four centurions and a maniple of hastati who had been the first to capture the gate and wall of Aquilonia. The same award was made to his nephew Sp. Sp. 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. Die dona militaria in Bonner Jahrbücher 114–15. Armillae in RE 2. MAXFIELD. A. They were of silver or of gold. Papirius was of course not a nephew of Sp. 1].} V. We read (X. See also P. however. V. the other potentially troubling. col. {The comment by S. London [and Berkeley]. OAKLEY. Among Roman military decorations perhaps the most peculiar was the award of armlets. as the “barbarian” Gauls did. Papirius Cursor after the battle with the Samnites at Aquilonia in 293. SPEIDEL. Nautius but of the consul L. Untersuchungen über Ursprung und Entwicklung von Auszeichnungen im römischen Heer in Bonner Jahrbücher 157. A.2 This explication contains two inaccuracies. Nautium. Büttner. 2005. the metal of which the armillae were made. p. Papirius . around the neck. is rather not up to his usual standard of erudite discernment. iuuenem Papirium propter nauatam cum equitatu et in proelio operam et nocte qua fugam infestam Samnitibus ab Aquilonia clam egressis fecit. Oxford. but attached to the cuirass). 235–43 at 237–41. . P. p. p. 127–28. Papirius. 1189. 436–37. 1981. Maxfield takes the phrase armillis aureisque coronis donauit * 1 Latomus 60 (2001) 3–15 {with minor addenda}. About this gradation it is difficult to form a definite opinion—literary and epigraphical sources are obscure or contradictory. A. one venial. the torques began to be worn. . 3–5): Papirius . 90.v.} 2 . part I: Neck and Wristbands in Antiquité Tardive 4. . 1957. Military Decorations [n.1 Chronologically the earliest testimony is Livy’s description of decorations given for bravery by the consul L. Sp. 1896. p.14 SILVER AND GOLD OF VALOR: The Award of Armillae and Torques* Armies love decorations. armillae. Nautius . fratris filium. M. Vol. and of necklaces. cf. 175–76. {In later antiquity. MAXFIELD. received armillae of gold in addition to a gold crown. 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. 168–69. with further considerations. Nec tacite id Scipio tulit: namque equiti ‘habebis’ inquit ‘donum uiri diuitis’. But the conjunction -que conjoins aureis with coronis and separates this unit from the armillae. The crowns were of gold. MAXFIELD. It should be considered by the future editors. Metellus Scipio. J. a brief discussion of Valerius’ anecdote {reprinted in this volume. uiolaretur. ne castrensis honos in eo. Q.6 In the chapter de cupiditate gloriae Valerius Maximus tells the following story (VIII. cf. 80–81. see V. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften. did not warrant the bestowal of a crown. the metal of the bracelets Livy does not specify. A.” and the other “little silver horns and silver armlets”. diuidentem T. V. 1]. qui paulo ante seruisset. 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. BADIAN proposes (per litteras) an elegant and illuminating conjecture to Livy’s text: armillis aureis <aureis>que coronis. 97–98.4 Here the conjunction -que combines cornicula and armillae: both of those decorations were of silver. eoque se negante id facturum. LINDERSKI. quae dulcedine gloriae non tangatur. In addition the consul decorated all cavalrymen corniculis armillisque argenteis. ipse ex praeda Gallica aurum equiti largitus est. 128. 105). A. The exploits of the equites. Military Decorations [n. Orbilius. J. Nulla est ergo tanta humilitas. but not the cornicula. B. 14. qui strenuam operam ediderant. No. 5 6 7 . Scipio Imperator in Imperium Sine Fine: T. Idem. 1996. Quod ubi ille accepit. 10}. 1] p. Nautius and the young Sp. although commendable. Stuttgart. was given silver ones instead”. A. p. p. the cavalrymen received silver cornicula and silver armillae. p.5 Thus we have the following scheme: Nautius. 90. Labienus under the supreme command of Q. 145–85. The first enunciation he renders “armlets and wreaths of gold. 77. MAXFIELD. No. and the generic corona aurea3 which Sp. proiecto ante pedes Labieni auro uultum demisit. 13}.Silver and Gold of Valor 4 217 to indicate that the armillae were of gold. This happened during the Bellum Africum which pitted Caesar against the Pompeian forces led by Cato the Younger and T. LINDERSKI. Labienus ut forti equiti a u re a s a r m i l l a s tribueret admonuit. Military Decorations [n. {E. O. Scipionem dona militaria his. and the Award of Corniculum {in this volume. 3 4 V. 1].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. refused gold armillae because he was an ex-slave. On the corniculum. ut audiit Scipionem dicentem ‘imperator te a rg e n t e i s a r m i l l i s donat’. Robert S.} Cf. MAXFIELD. Papirius. Military Decorations [n. FOSTER in his Loeb translation of Livy (1926) brings out very well the difference between the two enunciations concerning the armillae. alacer gaudio abiit. esp. the centurions and hastati received gold crowns and (unspecified) armillae. Scaurus. Papirius earned for their feats of command and bravery. The crowns in question were patently the corona muralis (normally of gold) awarded to the centurions and soldiers (hastati = milites) who first stormed Aquilonia. 5): Atque ut imperatoribus militis gloriosum spiritum subnectam. and. Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. a hero who performed extraordinary acts of bravery.11 the mythical warrior L. Heidelberg. 10 This is not the place to dress up a corpus of examples. 7–30 at 17–18. militaris.: Calbeos armillas dicebant. IV.9 Hence usually (and this is crucial) not ordinary milites. cf. The passage of Festus (Paulus) thus may refer solely to the awards of armillae given to uiri militares. p. II. offers confirmation: it mentions armillas ex auro. no mention in H.. s. Praenestinus Aeneas.) very often indeed refers to an officer. col. and is characterized as ornamenti genus (cf. 952. 216. S. col. 1959. Il culto di Iuppiter Imperator e il trionfo su Mezenzio quali motivi di propaganda antiromana su una cista prenestina in Ostraka 3. Cf. which would indeed be even more fitting. GOETZ. e.8 At first blush it may appear perplexing that this text records only aurum. If so. see Gellius. 23 L. and this qualification we have to take in its particular meaning of “officers” or “heroes”. W. galbei would be a fitting and probably popular description of golden armlets. Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. A prosopography of all persons described as uiri or homines militares (or fortes) is a desideratum. Gloss. He is credited with the tribunate of the plebs in 454: see T.. also Festus (Paulus) 41.g. It is also often akin to uir fortis. calbae. Noct. I. 168–71 at 171. s. B. 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. 1994. 1970). R. 11. et quibus ob uirtutem milites donabantur. but registered by Steiner. A. it seems certain. The same form (galbeum) appears in Cato (quoted by Festus 320.. and rendered as xlvrÚw. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. 165–66. {We may note that on a Praenestine cista in Berlin we have a representation. p. quibus triumphantes utebantur. WALDE and J. HOFMANN. p. BROUGHTON.u. 1938. p.1. who around the middle of the fifth century earned more than 300 military decorations of various kinds. militaris. is not adorned with a bracelet. 3rd ed. Cf. VERSNEL. of a triumph: behind the triumphal chariot walks a tibicen. VI: Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum.u. 20–21 L. Siccius 3 in RE. 11 For this epithet. whoever he might be. Galba 3. 578. it did not attract the attention of students of ornatus triumphalis. see also G. M. where is listed also calbis: merces militi pro uirtute data). LINDSAY in his edition of Festus in Glossaria Latina. and also observe that on our cista the triumphator. Oxford Latin Dictionary. 1930. Lipsiae. MÜNZER. p.12 Festus 23. Paris. VI. Armillae in JHS 71. p. 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. 12 For an excellent analysis of “the lay of Siccius”. A mysterious passage (oddly enough. Vol. ERNOUT and A. 1923. s. 1951. 2–3 L.) and in Suet. M. #3. omitted by Maxfield. Paris. 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. A. Yet a better or rather more precise solution offers. on his right arm he wears an armband with small bullae attached to it. 266]. “yellow” (Corp. suspect that the word galbus may be a borrowing from the Celtic. It depends on the expression uiri militares. 1899.10 In view of this evidence we should beware of confusing or amalgamating uiri militares and simple milites. 2189–90. Att. 1951. p. Triumphus. Such a hero was the “Roman Achilles”. see F. but if we remember that this is only a pitiable excerpt. 12 the word appears as galbeum. quas viri militares ab imperatoribus donati gerunt. A. The term is probably connected with the adjective galbus. S. Lat. IIA. 481. Siccius Dentatus. 55–59.218 5 Historia et Ius 6 An entry in Festus or rather Paulus. attested only by the glossae. 47–68.. Leiden.} 9 TLG. MEILLET. At 85. MENICHETTI. RUMPF. But there are no bullae depicted on the extant representations of military armillae. 8 . p. among them 83 torques and 160 armillae. 956. 472–73 = 4th ed. ad loc.v. 168–69. Siccius recounts his military accomplishments. P. Cf. All extant sources seem to be ultimately dependent on the account of Varro. Scipio Imperator [n. we have only the word of a later poet. Fulgentius. IX. Oxford. On the story of Manlius and the Gaul. 264–71. at first during a ten year period as a common soldier. 3–39. Alae Named after their Commanders in Ancient Society 9. T. Punica XV. 1998. 10]. 10. but on other occasions Gauls are credited with golden torcs. Books VI–X. 257–73. Still. 11. 13. 7). with the one exception of Dionysius of Halicarnassus who reports that both the necklaces and the bracelets were of gold. 181. Silius Italicus. p. for a full thirty years as an officer holding commands “over a cohort or a legion”. p. Untersuchungen [n. see the collection of evidence in A.. and then. Hal. It must have received its name from its first commander. BROUGHTON. 134–36. I. 19 (the Gaul was also armillis decoratus. of officer versus private. II: Books VII–VIII. cf. 13 14 15 16 17 18 . esp. BÜTTNER.Silver and Gold of Valor 219 7 The sources do not specify the metal. for this event. must be fictitious. New York. p. Lieutenants”. p. 32. 4. LINDERSKI. p. 7]. 36.17 But the scheme of awards at Aquilonia. A formal distinction of rank. or at best a projection into the past of the late republican customs. as the story of Manlius Torquatus seems to indicate. Cf.16 This disregard of detail would not surprise us: Livy was composing an epic monument and not an antiquarian manual. Vol. We too should beware of pedantic inferences. 39) does not mention either torques or armillae. 37. very poignantly. esp. and exercise caution. Rom. a simple mistake). The Magistrates [n. p. esp. The poet apparently imagines that during the republic the torquis was worn round the neck. OAKLEY. as narrated by Livy. would in the matter of awards be unusual in the republican period. lists Nautius and Papirius (under 293) among “Legates. The turma Cassiana is otherwise unknown. Claudius Quadrigarius in Gellius IX. Papirius. however we wish to interpret it. VII. 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. Ant. 1951. where this suggestion was made in passing. BIRLEY. The metal is not specified. however. S. J. 13. see now the excellent analysis by S.15 As Livy writes in general of gold crowns and makes no distinction between the mural crowns and the crowns for valor. 43. In the speech Dionysius puts into the mouth of the hero. 113–48. the collar stripped from the enemy may have been paraded much earlier as an individual and private token of valor. as was the case with various alae. Expositio sermonum antiquorum 5. 256: hic torque aurato circumdat bellica colla. below. On the other hand the account of the pseudo-Caesarian Bellum Hispaniense (ch. Dion. 1]. 26) cannot easily be impugned: Caesar ob uirtutem turmae Cassianae18 The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. 1978. Q.. Nautius and Sp. E. 3 (some manuscripts give the number of armillae as sixty.14 Perhaps the award of golden armlets was reserved indeed for officers only. Liv.13 Golden torcs were also distributed by Scipio Africanus after the capture of Carthago Noua. gives the number (quoting or misquoting Varro) as 140. n. R. I. X. A Commentary on Livy. Now it is remarkable that in his description of Roman military awards Polybius (6. As a formal distinction they were thus probably adopted only after the middle of the second century. 146–48. 88: “während sie beim Zurückweichen in die nähe des Lagers zurückkommen” (cf. When the Caesarian cavalry executed the manoeuvre of receptus. 87. the translation by A. Paris.19 but this is hardly likely. {J. at ciues non nisi a rg e n t e i s . the Caesarian light-armed troops unexpectedly attack. cum in fuga essent multis amissis in castra se recipiunt. quas non dabant 19 A. KLOTZ. regards the prefect as the commander of turma Cassiana. praeterque a r m i l l a s ciuibus dedere. as we learn in the preceding sentence. at a proper moment the universi counterattacked. HARMAND. The Civil War.20 This was obviously also the case in the skirmish described in the Bellum Hispaniense (ch.220 Historia et Ius 8 donauit milia . Oxford. and in the Caesarian army praefecti equitum were often in charge of large groups of cavalry. belongs to the period of the Empire. To make it understandable he proposed to read: praeterque armillas (sc. 1967. and pursues the Pompeian riders. A. 1927. (38) Iidem. p. milia denarium tria. p. Military Decorations [n. Kommentar zum Bellum Hispaniense. p. quas non dabant externis. p. Alexandrian. 357: “while our cavalry was withdrawing to the camp. . 88. Pliny the Elder introduces correction or confusion (NH XXXIII.X. 87–88 for a convincing explanation of the tactics). p. uniuersi clamore facto impetum dederunt. African and Spanish Wars (in Loeb Classical Library. p. Kommentar [n. The Pompeians suffered heavy losses. though the award of five necklaces indeed appears rather unusual). p. Dinter’s obvious conjecture for the paradosis milia XIII) et praefecto torques aureos V. 25–26): ut nostri equites in receptu dum ad castra redeunt. Caesar’s cavalry now veers back. 357. 21 A. III (i. Ita metu perterriti.e. L’armée et le soldat à Rome. and Spanish Wars. 259. was placed by Caesar praesidi causa non longe ab opere. and fled to their camp. Prefects normally commanded alae not turmae. gold = extraordinary valor. also missed in his translation the tactical point. M. 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. but she credits him with the award of “a torques” (this seems to be a simple mistake. KLOTZ. But surely this expression must cover both leuis armatura and equites: the cavalry fakes a retreat. 1]. The decorated prefect is generally taken to have been the commander of the turma Cassiana. 20 J. we have to remember. KLOTZ.” misses the tactical nuance. MAXFIELD. and not of a single unit) his five necklaces both for his personal virtus and for pulling off this brilliant manoeuvre. quo magis miremur. observes that the torques belong to the lower dona militaria and were not given to officers (but this arrangement. Steiner found this passage disconcerting. Kommentar [n.21 the enemy pursued them too rashly. The term universi is often taken to denote the leuis armatura. was falling back toward the camp. also A. Julius Caesar. African. they draw the enemy into a trap. aureas) ciuibus dedere. 1997. G. 88. Caesar [n.22 which. 19]. and the praefectus (equitum. Leipzig-Berlin. aduersarii cupidius sunt insecuti. The sum of 3. 21]. 1955). 358–63. often displayed in a position of command. 37–38): auxilia quippe et externos t o rq u i b u s a u re i s donauere.000 denarii for a turma would produce 100 denarii for a single rider. i. G.e. It is at this juncture that the turma Cassiana earned its award ob virtutem. WAY. A. see below). CARTER. coronas ex auro dedere et ciuibus. Into this rather neat tableau: silver = valor. and mistranslated torques aureos as “bracelets of twisted gold”!} 22 So. oddly. p. still a considerable amount. With the anonymous Alexandrian. WAY in Caesar. 19]. NICOLET. a soldier of the Caesarian legio VII. 3886. the soldier (or soldiers) decorated by Scipio Africanus after the capture of New Carthage. and the prefect of Caesar’s cavalry. in marked distinction from Maxfield. CRINITI. His accuracy is not beyond suspicion. 27 M. P. but unfortunately they do not specify the metal. that golden torcs were given only to foreigners is worthless”. STEINER. Military Decorations [n. argenteas) or to supply nothing. but very likely he also enjoyed the equestrian status. II. P. p. Silius’ poetic account of the awards at New Carthage is largely anachronistic (as recognized by Maxfield herself25). 82. 1985.24 But Siccius is an apparition from a legend. The knights used to wear iron rings. he finds it (p. V. part I [n. ILLRP. 283–87 at 287 (= M. would attribute full credibility to Pliny and to his insistence on gold torcs solely for foreigners. L’epigrafe di Asculum di Gn. 394). and of scant historical value. and CIL.28 This evolution is so amply documented that no modern scholar was moved to express disbelief.. see the discussion by N. torque. 1]. 1966. p. p. J. 515. p. surely we have either to supply armillas (sc.26 M. 26 Cf. I2. 24. p. p.. Pompeo Strabone.1] p. on the award of uexilla. 280–84. donat(us) torq(uibus) armil(lis) paler(is) coron(is). by the end of the Republic they were occasionally made also of gold. 237. But Caesar’s prefect cannot easily be disposed of. p. 24 V. Paris. NH XIII. Military Decorations [n. a funerary monument of C. 40. See his Late Roman Military Decorations. In particular Maxfield found it surprising “if the allies were to have received decorations more valuable than those awarded to the Romans themselves”.. all of whom received gold torcs. A similar evolution may have occurred with respect to the award of necklaces and bracelets: originally of silver. n. P. n. Roman tradition insisted on the simplicity of early Roman customs. Milano. A..23 But aureas makes no sense. not the greatest of authorities. and see the studies adduced in n. lines 54–59: the commander ( imperator) uirtutis caussa turmam Salluitanam donauit . The Master of the Dragon Standards and the Golden Torc: An Inscription from Prusias and Prudentius’ Peristephanon in TAPA 115. and embraced the interpretation of Maxfield. MAXFIELD. L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine. MAXFIELD. 8888. 1992. ILS. 709. SPEIDEL. They are the famous decree of Cn. p. palereis (CIL.Silver and Gold of Valor 221 9 externis. Pliny the Elder describes in some detail the lengthy process through which they ultimately acquired rings of gold. wenn man bei den externi nicht an gewöhnliche Kriegsknechte. n. deren Treue und Gunst durch solche glänzenden Gaben gewonnen oder befestigt werden sollte”. 25 Cf. 11: “Pliny’s statement . and she points to the cases of Siccius Dentatus. and this gold species was then assigned by annalists and poets to hoary antiquity. 1]. I. 27. X. . 5) “verständlich.. Pliny’s perfect tense must not be overlooked: he does not describe the arrangements of his own time but those of the past. L’armée [n. 29 From the republican times only two epigraphical documents record the award of armillae and torques. 88. Stuttgart.} 28 Plin. 1]. sondern an die Führer der auxilia und socii denkt. and assume that the award of armlets was limited to citizens only. SPEIDEL. 235–37). Pompeius Strabo (of 89). armilla. 359–60. Canuleius. Dona militaria [n. cornuculo et patella. Speidel. 20].27 There is a middle way. 127. 9. 8–34. C. Roman Army Studies. 2225. {Subsequently he changed his mind.29 23 P. and that his torcs and armlets were of gold is attested only by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. cf. of the old Republic. on analogy with other praefecti equitum in Caesar’s army he must have been not only a Roman (and not an externus). ILS. 1970. A. As to the golden torcs given to the foreigners. HARMAND. The suggestion of Labienus makes it plain that in principle the award of gold armillae to a simple eques (or miles) was possible. but preserving the distinction of birth and status. The story in Valerius may be fictitious or certainly embellished. 127. 3. SPEIDEL. 25. 1971. proposes the award of gold armlets. Augustus did not disdain gold. {It was also a decoration for brilliant feats of bravery in war. who may have witnessed the cavalryman’s exploit. appealed only to those instincts of his soldiers that befitted his wretched leadership”. 393).} When the young Nonius Asprenas fell from the horse during the lusus Troiae. HARMAND [n. this is also Valerius’ theme. a fortis eques. p. among them silver armillae. Cf. and the obliteration of what he had been.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. and thus after the conclusion of the Bellum Iudaicum and the destruction of Jerusalem.32 He will have been rewarded for the manly way in which he endured pain and debility: this was an act of courage. 27].3) reports that the Princeps was rather generous with the awards of phalerae and torques – any decorations valuable for their gold and silver. 1]. 370–71. As V. and for an earlier period see W. he was overjoyed with the award of silver armillae. but not recognized. Augustus gave him golden torc and bestowed upon him the hereditary surname of Torquatus. When the eques had discarded the gold which Labienus personally lavished on him out of his own Gallic booty. and the scene evoked by Valerius ensues. But with respect to one particularly brave rider. of little monetary value. Aug. P. We should not overlook this all important point. p. 30 Under normal circumstances freedmen were not eligible for military decorations. among other awards. Military Decorations [n. But SPEIDEL grossly overestimated the purity and devotion of late republican armies: they yearned more for loot and money than for glory. On Nonius and his descendants. 20]. 128–29. who could be paid. cf. thus recognizing valor. gloriae cupidus. 31 M. points out. Golden Torc [n. see PIR2. A. “This is the one and only perfectly straightforward case of a freedman receiving dona for his services in the field”. {Suetonius (Aug. but because he was a freedman. Scipio awarded to him the armillae argenteae. Caracalla. n. N 126. a slave. 467–70. On War and Greed in the Second Century in AHR 76. HARRIS. 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. And for high-born bravery gold was the decoration. 32 Suet. 288 (= p. but it illuminates well Roman military ethos with all its fairness and prejudices. MAXFIELD. 1987. and suffered injury.31 Esteem versus money.30 An eminent student of Roman army put it well: “Awards of military decorations for gallantry mark a well-led army that harnesses its men’s pride and their eagerness to outdo each other”. We may visualize the following event: Scipio distributes the dona.. 374–75 (nos. p. the rider showed his moral fiber. 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. By rejecting Labienus’ gold. p. for they symbolized the recognition of what he has become. below. V. J. But this cavalryman happened to be a former slave. equal to the deed of Manlius the Gaul-slayer. in replacing such awards with gifts of money. Titus bestowed on valiant soldiers. and. 1371–85. though extraordinary. Labienus. a gallant soldier. . however brave. With this observation he coupled another: “By contrast. 53. 133). was called Cularo. 85–86 (= E. p.36 33 V. The military career of the deceased T. SALOMIES. f. Onomasticon. 1]. p. 123–24. 724–25. 72. a sister of the deceased by the name of Camulia. 2230 (= ILS. 1901.] IHM in RE. 145–47 (he dates the inscription to the period of Augustus. {The inscription has been recently republished with a brief commentary in B. 150. 129–30. RÉMY. p. 1910 (original publication 1887). SOLIN and O. see W. p. Iud. no.34 merits close inspection. it was erected. XIII. 48–49. p. and when we finally encounter one specimen. Military Decorations [n. no.Silver and Gold of Valor 223 also golden necklaces. 267–68). A. P. E. Steiner. On his first unit. XII. The text is known only from an old apograph. TLL. Camul(ius) T. 115). 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”. 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. MOMMSEN. 1] 64. Hildesheim. Papers 1929–1986. 1988. V. 1]. MAXFIELD. no. On his new troop of Raeti gaesati. Amsterdam. 36 CIL. 1980. BIRLEY. periaux°niã te xrusç (Jos. 90–91. 120. for the root Lauen-. 19. 1988. Cf. 1041 = ILS. 174. Grenoble à l’époque gallo-romaine d’après les inscriptions. Iulius Macer. by two women. 2002. With gold necklaces and gold bracelets he was honoratus by the suffragium of the legion and ex uoluntate of the Emperor. but at the time when this inscription was originally set up. First we have C. Raetien. ala Atectoridiana. I. in the land of the Allobrogi. see below) was clup[eo] coronis aenulis (sic) aureis (donatus) a commiliton[ibus]. 44. Leipzig. p. .} 35 DESSAU (ILS. Bell. Berlin. 179. a dating that has been generally accepted). SCHULZE. The inscription. Gesammelte Schriften. Ala2. BIRLEY. this township. 34 As the finding spot CIL gives anachronistically Gratianopolis (Grenoble). 1896. 1994. MAXFIELD.. SPAUL. p. 14). see J. A. p. 2313) regards the names as corrupt. IV. STEINER. p. it appears. Grenoble. cf. [M. Britannien und das römische Heer in Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 45. Berlin. and a freedwoman (the text is here very uncertain). Lauenus35 is described (in the genitive) as follows (lines 3–10): 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. Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum. Dona militaria [n. 1742.33 An intriguing case. p. and it has been admitted to their repertorium by H. col. The cognomen Lauenus does not seem to be otherwise on record. 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. II. see T. HOLDER.} Yet in the abundant imperial inscriptional documents golden torcs are difficult to espy. Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen. 2531. from Gallia Narbonensis. The Roman Army. 2313. p. In the case of our soldier from Grenoble it is clearly of Celtic origin. Dona militaria [n. Military Decorations [n. VII. VI. Andover. It is a funerary stone. and she observes that there is only one inscription that specifies the metal from which those decorations were made: “in this case gold”. 1]. A. and (rather in his previous unit than at that latter juncture. Cf. CIL. but Camulius is well attested as a nomen gentile: cf. it adorns a common soldier. 1904. col. with ample literature (cf. 1]. 3272. Granada. II. l. 2079. KÖLNGRAZ. no. 31200). f. It is true that it is difficult to amalgamate all information provided by the two inscriptions into one composite text. Military Decorations [n. BIRLEY. 2077–78 (no. A. 3272) and Q. 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. Dona militaria [n. the discussion by W. Prosopographia. 1993. Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian (= Epigraphische Studien. 98–101. see MOMMSEN. not only pursuing a similar career. These difficulties pale into insignificance when contrasted with the utmost unlikelihood of two equestrians from Spain. [Co]rnelius (CIL. Gal(eria) Valerianus (CIL. 97 adduces as a (distant) parallel the clupeus virtutis of Augustus. V. Leuven. Macer had been originally a soldier in an ala. 1981. II. ZPE 43. Cor]nelius M. P. E. 38 V. p. 436). 1987. Evocati Aug. 145. attempted to separate the two inscriptions and produce as a result two equestrian officers. 72. LEBEK. Prosopographie des chevaliers romains julio-claudiens. . Przedstawiciele ordo equester dzia¬aja∫cy na terenie Mezji [Members of the Ordo Equester Active in Moesia] in Studia Moesiaca. Military Decorations [n.: A Review. 1992.38 All these cases share one common and overriding feature: the awards are unusual. p. MROZEWICZ. 26–330). PASTOR MUÑOZ. A. without argument... p. R. 53–54. 175. Roms Ritter und Roms Pleps in den Senatsbeschlüssen für Germanicus Caesar und Drusus Caesar in ZPE 95 (1993) 102–5. 2713. cf. p. who describes it as “die dem älteren System angehörende Stellung”. We should abide by the secta of Mommsen. if at all authentic. I). This picture threatened to shatter when S. see V. ---]us T. Ever since Mommsen (cf. MAXFIELD. 42). STEINER. 250). Poznanå. MAXFIELD. of gold And finally on his position as euocatus. this should not bother us unduly for the two texts were not meant to be identical: one of them is an honorific monument (CIL. p. II. p. and the other funerary (CIL. 225 bis) and 2083–84 (no. addenda IV. 176. 357–61 (no. no. 120. by H. MAXFIELD. I2. Cf. prints T. and if minor discrepancies persist. P. 1]. PIR. 1530). Cornelius Valerianus. 1. and by officers) statuis. that is from the praetorian cohorts and the cohortes urbanae. 303–4 (C 250). Still we receive two accounts reasonably surveying the whole career of our eques. and by L. II. STEINER.224 Historia et Ius 12 The other case is that of an equestrian officer Q. II. p. p. DEMOUGIN. p. A. VI. p. the latter inscription. in connection with the tabula Siarensis. 37 CIL. 39 V. 1994. 72. H. Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum. 1]. f. 1967. Her proposition has been accepted. p. Inscripciones Latinas de la Provincia de Granada. no. wrong and unnecessary (see below in the text). 1]. 2079). from Iliberri in Baetica (ILS. 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. n. no. 3272). Dona militaria [n. 2079). p. MENDOZA EGUARAS. and see. II. 25–29 (= The Roman Army. but also both of them receiving dona militaria not from an emperor but directly from the troops. C 1471) these two texts have been combined and attributed to one and the same person. 9–11. 120.37 The third example is that of [T. coroni[s. SAXER. whereas in the developed Augustan system the euocati were drawn exclusively from the urban troops. Rome. They did not belong in the normal or official scheme of dona militaria . We thus have the award of clupei 39 (Macer and Valerianus). and CIL. [. p. and esp. with the same name of Cornelius. the other stone refers to him as donato coroni[s ---] / clipeis imaginib[us ---] / laudatione a numer[is ---]. 368. CIL ad loc. 1]. DEVIJVER. from Castulo in Hispania Tarraconensis. also the clupeus argenteus decreed by the senate to the younger Drusus upon his death (CIL. 1. 1987. Numenius who was hono]r(atus) ab exercit(u) corona aur(ea) / [---] laudation(e) publice. A. p. 1976. to be dated to a much later period. and a variety of proposed supplements amply attest to that difficulty. DEVIJVER. p.D. I. Military Decorations [n. which is either misprint or correction: if the latter. M. Der römische Ritterstand. with further literature (= Roman Army Studies. 1984. Valerianus was lauded a numeris. whereas imagines denote busts. 227–33. in JRS 60. 1]. 75–76). 142–50. esp. the honorific inscription of M. 44 V. Paris. 14–19: statuae (= signa) are free standing statues. V. p. Paris. As she points out (p.-G. The term does not appear to denote here any ethnic units. 1]. p. esp. 146. See also her subsequent detailed study. D. Scripta varia. 97 (cf. 41 We have to distinguish between statuae and imagines. from Zana [Diana Veteranorum]).. 122–27. in Des ordres à Rome. p. 1]. the classic account by A. Deux carrières équestres de Lambèse et de Zana (Diana Veteranorum). Military Decorations [n. Eadem. p.-G. 100) another famous document. A. Cf. “may have been lauded by the emperor for his spectacular deed before the army on parade”. 124. SPEIDEL. The Career of a Legionary. 145–46 (= H. De l’esclavage à l’anneau d’or du chevalier. 151 (= M. dass von den Kameraden nur die Empfehlung oder der Antrag auf diese Auszeichnung ausging”. 120). Ritterstand [n. and finally the honor of a public laudatio 42 (Valerianus and Numenius). and definitely established the anulus aureus as its symbol. 39]. M. 1978. p. The commilitones who honored Iulius Macer will be his fellow members of the ala Atectoridiana43 rather than his later subordinates. 1988. I. STEIN. 43 So. C. Systems of Reward in Relation to Military Diplomas. and see here a reference to the clipei cum imaginibus. Two of the men so honored were technically not eligible to win any official decorations. p. p. in Heer und Integrationspolitik. 2079) clipeis imaginib[usq(ue)]. 120. uncontroversial example [an inscription originally published in 1958. This makes good sense. 1352). and (with important observations). The Captor of Decebalus: A New Inscription from Philippi. 185) suggests that Claudius Maximus. p. 1927. PFLAUM. seems to think that Macer received his dona as euocatus. I. 142. Amsterdam. 1955. apparently. Roms Ritter [n. Epigraphie 3. 42. 42 The award of dona was certainly accompanied by words of praise. MAXFIELD. Paris. MAXFIELD. 1993 [1996]. of statues and imagines 41 (Valerianus). Le imagines Caesarum di un praefectus castrorum Aegypti e l’XI coorte pretoria in Athenaeum 56 [= 66]. in Libyca. 1970. and thus it refers to all troops mentioned previously. L’ordre équestre sous les Julio-Claudiens. p. For this meaning of numerus. S. II. the gaesati Raeti. 1983. 199–201). no. Dona and Peregrini. p. Valerius Maximianus (AE. quod manu sua ducem Naristarum Valaonem / interemisset. 1978. Roman Army Studies. SPEIDEL. who brought the head of Decebalus to Trajan. Archéologie. marvelous in its good sense and clarity. but a formal laudatio addressed to an individual recipient must have been a rare occurrence.Silver and Gold of Valor 225 13 rings40 (Macer). including the legions. Military Decorations [n. There are practically no examples under the Empire of decorations officially given to non-citizen soldiers in auxiliary units. MAXFIELD. PFLAUM. Köln- . (lines 8–11): in procinc/tu Germanico ab Imp(eratore) Antonino Aug(usto) coram laudato et equo et phaleris / et armis donato. Cf. Afrique romaine. in TAPA 112 (1982) 211–13. A. p. STEIN. 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. The best comment on that extraordinary award (corresponding to spolia opima secunda) is still that of the editor princeps. And she was able to trace down (p. As illustration Speidel adduces (n. but is to be taken in its generic meaning of a “troop unit”. see M. I. in ZPE 52. mentions “the law of Tiberius restricting the wearing of such rings” (Plin. Cf. 40]. LETTA. 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. p. But perhaps we have to read (in CIL. P. 789–91. The Ala Britannica. esp. NH XIII. 122) only “one straightforward. But it is hardly possible to follow STEIN when he writes that this is “wohl so zu fassen. A. DEMOUGIN. Maxfield provides no examples. H. Military Decorations [n. LEBEK. 1956.44 and Macer was (apparently) such a sol40 V. p. A. 104. 39–44. W. München. p. SPEIDEL. 1984. see below] of a decorated non-citizen auxiliary soldier”. Unusual are also the circumstances of those awards. 32). p. and a more general piece. On the other hand P. 92. p. p. whereas the troops lavished upon him rather extravagant honors. / stip(endiorum) X. A. the most difficult case to interpret is that of Cornelius Valerianus. most likely in recognition of his military prowess. Cornelius Valerianus (p. Unless he had received the citizenship from Julius Caesar. Varsavia.45 T. no. and the decem stipendia refer only to his service as evocatus triplicarius. n. thus a signal advancement for Antiochus. Ser. 41) compares his career to that of Iulius Macer (cf. He mentions the vexillatio of Q. SPEIDEL. And the dona may have been given to him on that occasion privately by his fellow alarii (V. 179–81). p. 671). 44]. SPAUL. and his brother used the term euocatus in a broad sense. see E. Aneksja Tracji za cesarza Klaudiusza [Claude et l’expansion romaine en Thrace]. 44]. 34) who was duplicarius in an ala and then euocatus. 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. 1086 = ILS. 173–87. 583)—only that his inscription. p. Military Decorations [n. and the Claudian Reform in Heer und Integrationspolitik (Köln-Wien. for this interpretation. would on the basis of this single inscription (AE. and yet the emperor did not decorate him. 1969–1970. 36]. Ala2 [n. A. This is the first attestation of the rank of triplicarius (though long suspected by DOMASZEWSKI. of the Tiberian age) “discard” the theory (going back to DOMASZEWSKI) of the exclusion of the non-citizens from dona. 53). II. MAXFIELD.48 Wien. 1]. 42]. Before Diplomas [n. from Mogontiacum. n. 42]. 122. no. In physics one contrary example invalidates a theory. 87–99. A misguided inference. J. Numenius was a freedman. V. above. At the time of his death he had served only for ten years. esp. 145–47 (= Roman Army Studies. p. in history one contrary example remains what it is: an exception. does not describe him as euocatus. the circumstances elude us. V. and thus (implicitly) upholds Mommsen’s identification. p. HOLDER. p. But perhaps it is not even an exception. Oxford. esp. cf. 34–36. The Captor of Decebalus [n. 70). Claudius Maximus who militauit as eques (and subsequently as uexillarius equitum) in the legio VII Claudia. in Studia Moesiaca [n. no. and was given dona by his commilitones. MAXFIELD. p. and freedmen were in principle ineligible for dona (the only exception being those imperial freedmen who were personal favorites of an Emperor). 2001. But with respect to Antiochus his description as euocatus remains a mystery. A. remains cautiously unconvinced. 1976 [1980]. MAXFIELD. 1986). V.} 45 46 47 48 . {This award of bigae auratae is missing from the list of J. Perhaps he was scheduled to be transferred (as triplicarius) to another unit. 495. 142–53. BIRLEY. J. One can compare the career of the famous “captor of Decebalus” Ti. Or perhaps Antiochus had served previously in some other unnamed unit. SPAUL. 1]. Before Diplomas. He was an equestrian. 26–43. 129. 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. euo/catus triplicarius. 176–78). and n. BIRLEY. Oddly enough. p. I [n. HOLDER himself (p. Cf.46 His services must have been remarkable indeed to be honored ab exercit(u). 39–41. A. KOLENDO. 1986. 254. Military Decorations [n. J. Systems of Award [n. and his accomplishments as the commander of a uexillatio in Thracia (no doubt in 45–46. 283. 34]. and was later transferred as duplicarius to an ala (AE. Cf.226 Historia et Ius 14 dier. 37]. esp. 253. A. and he certainly could not function as evocatus in his own original unit. Military Decorations [n. 1980. 32). Ala2 [n. see E. p. 28–29 (and p. 36–37. Studies in the Auxilia of the Roman Army from Augustus to Trajan (= BAR Int. 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. 167. correctly. donis don/atus. ZE ˘ LAZOWSKI. states erroneously that he was “twice decorated”). Honos bigae. Cf. Cf. p. Le statue onorarie romane su biga. esp. The closest (but not exact) parallel is offered by the career of the unnamed equestrian in CIL. when this old kingdom was annexed as a Roman province)47 must have been signal. p. p. 3. n. 1]. MAXFIELD. p. Legio. XII. p. The man in question. FRENCH. 50 M. 1997. in ZPE 100. Speidel was able to adduce only one example. now also J. This is all the evidence we have for the republic and the early empire. in RE. with full discussion of other literary and epigraphical sources. LASSÈRE. With respect to dona.53–68 at 64. Cf.49 A fine example of a similar procedure. 29–46. p. A. in Antiquités africaines 27. 52 One may well ask on what occasion Camulius covered himself with glory. in Roman Army Studies. with silver. recently came to light in an inscription from Tripolitania: an ordin(arius) qui ex fortia et suff(ragio) uex(illationis) profec(it). Legio III Gallica. As “eine treffende Parallele” Strobel quotes CIL. where he reads (line 2): promotus ex opt(ione) tri[b(unorum)]..51 In the mere award of torques and armillae there was nothing unusual. p. 124–28. Bordeaux. 235–36. 3719 from Potentia in Lucania. {RÉMY and DANGRÉAUX (who co-authored the note on the inscription of Camulius). Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae (Mésie Inférieure). 468–69. that is “auf Grund des Votums der Tribunen von fünf bei diesen Operationen des 2. 217–218). the proper elucidation of which we owe to K. because of his valiant deeds. 1994. has been masterfully presented by E. Cf. deals only with the history of the legion in the period between Vespasian and Trajan. 1925. 1988. XII. p. he connects (col. 47 bis. II [n. particularly those mentioning suffragium of the troops. 1517–31. Strobel: the person honored. on a newly published inscription from Nouae in Moesia. P. 120. 1994. X. His fortia facta must have been of such magnitude that his fellow legionaries petitioned the emperor Hadrian to decorate him with gold. the inscription of Camulius Lauenus. P. VIII. Krakòw. 84–85. 27]. an interpretation [with a corrected reading: op<t>(ione)] cautiously accepted by J.I. STROBEL. the very case of Camulius Lauenus. KOLENDO and V. BOZI ˚ LOVA. p. The Tribunes’ Choice in the Promotion of Centurions. The article by D. and not. M. a military tribune. 1].52 His case forms a perfect pendant to that of the fortis eques of Valerius Maximus. p.} 51 K.50 The fortia facta were often rewarded with dona. . a centurion. Aur(elius) Varixen was promoted ordinarius. 135 = ILS. though with respect to promotion not awards. Grenoble [n. no. Biographie d’un centurion (C. and this leads us to the inscription CIL. The history of his unit. MAXFIELD. In the case of Camulius unusual will thus be the gold of the necklace and of the armlet. 1991. Of golden armillae and golden torques {we hear again only in the perhaps fabulous 49 V. only the outcome was different. pannonischen Krieges beteiligten Legionen”. SPEIDEL. 217 (from Cillium): signifer factus ex suffragio leg(ionis) IV.Silver and Gold of Valor 227 15 All those examples belong to the Julio-Claudian times. Becoming a Centurion in Africa. 124. optioni (= optione) tribun[or(um) le]gionum quinque. 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”. Military Decorations [n. the legio III Gallica. RITTERLING. 1523–24) the deed of Camulius with the participation of the legion in the Jewish War in 131–134. and thus also all other examples of suffragium.-M. received dona of various kinds. 2230. nothing that would justify the suffragium of the legion or ala. in ZPE 75. 34]. as usual. present as a parallel solely CIL VIII. and on the recommendation of his detachment. SPEIDEL. but they missed the article of Speidel.L. Optio tribunorum legionum quinque – ein Phantomposten der römischen Militärgeschichte. in The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East. p. col. Brave Deeds and the Support of the Troops as Promotion Criteria. 27]. These events may be invented or embellished by the author of the Historia Augusta.. not yet a soldier. 96–98. 2 ème partie. Paris. XIX (Maxim. Paris. p. Budé). t o rq u i b u s e t b a l t e o l i s (cf. p. id est a r m i l l i s . 32). 248–54. 1]. and is decorated by the emperor Decius armillis et torquibus). torque aureo uno (Vita Probi 5). propositis praemiis argenteis. No. publice in contione donatus est (among numerous other awards) armillis aureis duabus. Cf. Tome V. p.. In this and other accounts of the Historia Augusta the dona appear in impossible combinations. already told. PASCHOUD. Again such dona did exist. who this time (on the spur of the moment) pairs him up with recentissimi and fortissimi milites. 69). 308–11. A. Histoire Auguste (Coll. he defeats them all. 2–3: the young Maximinus. they are anachronistic and invented.} . tertia forte die he again catches the attention of the emperor.228 Historia et Ius accounts of the Historia Augusta53}. Kommentar zur Vita Maximini duo der Historia Augusta. passim. F. part I [n.} 54 M. above in this volume. 235–43. p. 680–83. Late Roman Military Decorations. 1997. The future emperor Probus cum bello Sarmatico iam tribunus transmisso Danuvio multa fortiter fecisset. and sedecim acceptis praemiis minusculis non militaribus iussusque militare. also Idem. A. but no military awards are epigraphically attested after Caracalla. but this is another story. See V. (Cf. As a civilian. 1991. 1996. part II: GoldEmbroidered Capes and Tunics. Golden Torc [n. 70–71. Armillae reappeared as bracchialia with the corresponding rank of bracchiatus. 2001. 231–37 at 235. LIPPOLD. SPEIDEL. n. and Idem. golden torcs reappear as true military decorations in the later empire. P. He is ordered to compete with sixteen lixae. Tome V. {Cf. and certainly not impossible – if we remember the award of golden torc bestowed by Augustus on the young Nonius Asprenas (above. Military Decorations [n. and not with regular soldiers. Late Roman Military Decorations. participates in the ludi militares given by the emperor Septimius Severus natali Getae filii minoris . Vita Claudii 13. 241–43.54 {53 Hist. MAXFIELD. in Antiquité Tardive 5. Induced into the army. 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. he thus received the miniatures of the regular dona. p. 5–8: the adulescens Claudius competes at a ludicrum Martiale in campo. but the dona themselves are not implausible. 13. Aug. Bonn. 1ème partie. p. and fighting with lixae. 1]. duo). and told well. n. p. kann nur die Alaudae gewesen sein. RE 12 (1925) 1329–1829.). “Legio”.3 That legio veterana quinta equals * Original publication. Gundel.2 As Caesar vividly narrates (BC 3. 11. one of them under the command of the praetor P. civ. 28. III 101. and the other. followed by T. Abbreviations: Broughton. “Legio V Alaudae”. Franke. see Broughton. Cassius Longinus did indeed attack southern Italy and Sicily. Sulpicius and Pomponius. Gundel misunderstood the well attested technical term navis constrata. bell. and to assign to the legion at Messana the number V. But Pomponius was utterly unprepared. Reddé. “having a deck”. Caesar does not indicate which legion served as the praesidium at Messana.22. Broughton. 47 zu dem Feldzug in Africa aufbot (bell. R.51). He writes that Pomponius “verlor 20 Schiffe von seiner aus 35 Schiffen bestehenden Flottenabteilung”. H. see below). ex quibus erant XX constratae. 1 2 3 . Geschichte Roms 3 (Leipzig 1906). as often. Caesar says explicitly that Cassius Longinus omnes naves incendit XXXV. Les infrastructures. Pomponius. Afric. MRR 2. weil der Zusatz veterana sie als eine der dem gallischen Heere des Diktators angehörende Truppe mit Sicherheit kennzeichnet”. commanded by the otherwise unknown M. Les légions de Rome sous le haut-empire (Lyon 2000) 1. 3. Ritterling = E. “Pomponius 10”. see M. S. “covered ship”. Naves constratae (or tectae) were the heavy battleships of the line. ut amitteretur. he left behind him in various strategic places garrisons to guard Italy and Sicily. Ritterling. Drumann-Groebe = W. ut cum esset l e g i o praesidio Messanae vix oppidum defenderetur. MRR = T. but it is natural to combine this information with the accounts of Cicero (Att. 3 (Atlanta 1986). is. in Y. 273. et nisi eo tempore quidam nuntii de Caesaris victoria per dispositos equites essent adlati. for both passages. The expression constratae (naves) does not mean “destroyed”.283 (cf. le dispositif et l’histoire de la marine militaire sous l’empire romain (BEFAR 260 [Rome 1986]) 92–95.2.101. Sed opportunissime nuntiis allatis oppidum est defensum. 282. His military prudence paid off for the Pompeian fleet ably led by C. Mare nostrum. Groebe. Le Bohec (ed. keeping watch over the fretum Siculum. Caesar’s damning precision artfully highlights the ignominious defeat suffered by Pomponius. unreliable. Sulpicius was stationed at Vibo. welche Caesar im J.3) tantusque eo facto timor accessit. Caesar’s navy was divided into two squadrons.1 protected the port of Messana.2) and of the author of Bellum Africum (28.39. Ritterling 1565. 2 [correct: 3]). RE 21 (1952) 2327. Afric. i. Indeed Emil Ritterling opined that “die veterana legio quinta. Cassius Longinus caught him off guard and swiftly destroyed all his ships. 1) und die schon vorher in Messana gestanden haben muss (bell. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1–2 (New York [1951–1952]). existimabant plerique futurum fuisse.15 LEGIO V IN MESSANA* When Caesar embarked on the campaign against Pompeius in Epirus and in Greece.e. Drumann-P. For Cassius Longinus. Ritterling 1569–70. Christol and T. 81.2 as legio XXVII). “Legionen” 57). Keppie. including. 3] 43–45: the legion may have been disbanded even earlier). he embarked for Epirus with seven legions (BC 3. Hispania Antiqua 16 (1992) 297–304. The Making of the Roman Army from Republic to Empire (Norman 1998 [reprint of the edition London 1984 with “new preface and bibliography update”]) 110–11. T. 206–7. it is generally assumed that for some reason Antonius failed to realize his plan. L. it is a fair inference that all other legions that participated in the campaign were veteran units.6. Now Antonius. He reports that he had assembled in Brundisium twelve legions. and thus hardly a suitable candidate for the panic stricken garrison of Messana. after he had unloaded his troops in Lissus. Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies (BAR Int.1. Linguistically the argument is impeccable – unless we wish to ascribe ka‹ nËn to Appian’s source. Una erronea interpretacion de las fuentes”. esp. the latter is identified at 34. see also “Zur Geschichte der Legiones V (Macedonica) und VII (Claudia) in der frühen Kaiserzeit”. As in the course of his narrative Caesar does not mention any further reinforcements. As no other legion is described as consisting of recruits. n. and ceased to exist (cf. Some scholars.2).29.29. Paci (ed. Ser. argues that the veterana legio quinta of the African campaign was in fact not the Alaudae but the (rather shadowy) legio V Gallica (cf. regard Gallica as an earlier name of the legio V Macedonica. it appears.1) the honorific emblem of an elephant (App. “El elefante como emblema de la Legio V. Strobel. but perhaps Caesar employed the gerund (as opposed to a purpose clause) to imply 4 Cf. App. Hoffmann (eds.2–3).51–66 at 57–58. Some time later Antonius brought the reinforcement of four legions: three veteran formations and a legio tironum (BC 3.4 but doubts subsist whether it was this veteran legion (or any other veteran legion) that in 48 served as the garrison of Messana. This may be so. all veteran units (BC 3. “Legio V Alaudae” [above. Limes XVIII. Rodríguez González observes that Appian uses the present tense (ka‹ nËn épÉ §ke¤nou t“de t“ t°lei §l°fantew §w tå shme›a §p¤kentai).). J. Probleme des römischen Heeresgeschichte nach dem Ende des Bürgerkrieges: Die Truppengeschichte Galatiens und Moesiens bis in Tiberische Zeit und das Problem der Legiones Quintae”. Not impossible but unprovable. 7. Franke. in P. in Les légions [above.96). We arrive for the Pharsalos campaign at the sum of at least eleven legions. a notion explicitly contested by Strobel (pp. IXe Rencontre franco-italienne sur l’épigraphie du monde romain (Pisa-Roma 1998) 301–32 at 304–5. Afr. 303–4. K. perhaps Asinius Pollio (so Strobel. that the legio Alaudarum was annihilated under the Flavians in the Danubian wars. one legion may have thus been left behind in Brundisium.2). J. But even if Strobel’s thesis should be proven right. Bell. with the sources). BC 2. 84. Z. sent the ships back to Italy ad reliquos milites equitesque transportandos (BC 3.230 Historia et Ius legio Alaudarum. “Die Legionen des Augustus. this will not affect our own argument: legio V Gallica was also a veteran legion (Strobel dates its creation to 53/52).522–23).). Afr. in G. BC 2. 1084 [Oxford 2002]). 53–54. and that consequently the only legion with the number V in Appian’s time was the Macedonica.2. . Fiemia. Rodríguez González. The Fifth legion of the African campaign received after its heroic stand against the elephants at Thapsus (Bell. believes that it was the Macedonica that participated in the war in Africa. Epigrafia Romana in area adriatica. 1. Freeman. n. 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.96) is not implausible and has been almost generally accepted. 84. “Véterans et soldats légionnaires à Antiochie en Pisidie”. 3] 2. B. Drew-Bear. Bennett. most recently M. n. and that it participated with distinction in the African campaign of 46 (cf. Ritterling 1571–72. We can safely assume that all healthy ablebodied veterans made their way to Epirus. however.g. Cf. n.87. he sailed to Vibo. and the panic (timor) of the garrison at Messana stand in high relief. IX. without any order from the inert Sulpicius. in quarum altera erat Cassius. P. qui ex veteribus legionibus erant relicti praesidio navibus ex numero aegrorum.4): hae copiae quas videtis. That the Alaudae indeed sailed to Greece. It is generally assumed 5 As assumed by Groebe in Drumann-Groebe 3.6): milites. cohortes esse Brundisii factas? 6 . and consequently he felt that the subject did not require any further elaboration. If so we would have to posit that it was immediately transshipped across the strait to Messana.87. ex dilectibus horum annorum in citeriore Gallia sunt refectae. XII and XXVII. but he also posits that one full legion remained as a garrison in Brundisium. Alex. valiantly discomfited the Cassian fleet. and it was Cassius himself who. They were thus assigned to guard duty not by design but rather by the accident of fate. and forced Longinus to flee from his admiral’s vessel in a boat. ignominiam non tulerunt.3 (Labienus speaking): an non exaudistis ex iis qui per causam valetudinis remanserunt. 44). below.6 Caesar was wont to praise his veterans. if any full legion was left at Brundisium it will have to be a legio tironum. 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. et plerique sunt ex coloniis Transpadanis. the veteran legionaries.Legio V in Messana 231 the accomplishment of the plan. but his reticence is of little probatory weight: he records nominatim only six legions: VIII. they sua sponte manned the ships. It is a telling account. Pomponius at Messana. ceperunt – sed Cassius exceptus scapha refugit. The soldiers who defended Messana in 48 were no veterans. n.101. 711.440–41. These soldiers were selected from several legions and formed what would in later parlance be called a vexillatio. 6). barely. Sulpicius. BC 3. The day was saved not by the commander or the crews of the ships but by the troops of the line. Still it is possible that there was no third shipment of troops. X. was apparently almost as inept as M. We know.28. But this time the outcome was vastly different. barely. Seeing the impending disaster. their courage and spirit of enterprise (cf. XI. and that the legion that remained at Brundisium was the Alaudae. from Messana. Against this scenario strong arguments militate. escaped with his life (BC 3. too sick to undertake a strenuous campaign. When Cassius Longinus was repelled. and he again almost succeeded in burning down the ships of the second Caesarian squadron. also BC 3. who was in charge of Caesar’s ships at Vibo. On this interpretation the legio Alaudarum will have sailed to Greece either with Caesar or with Antonius5 or in the third and last transport. 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. 7. Caesar stresses that at the time when their legions were to sail across the Adriatic they were aegri. The gritty anger of the veterans at Vibo. sed sua sponte naves conscenderunt et e terra solverunt impetuque facto in Cassianam classem quinqueremes duas. with a neat opposition of the timidity of tirones and the valor of veterans). we can perhaps deduce from the speech of Labienus in the Pompeian war council (BC 3. which is not altogether likely (cf. and participated in the battle of Pharsalos. In his description of military operations Caesar does not mention the Alaudae. e. Münzer. Salienus crops up: together with two tribunes and two other centurions he is dismissed by Caesar from the army for unbecoming conduct. with T. 8 9 . a different person with the name incorrectly transmitted (quite probable). 64. n.2925 the correct reading is Sallienus and not Salienus). Salomies. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (Hildesheim 1988) 160–61. Ann. ne repugnarent seseque Vergilio traderent. 430. But one may observe that the normal phrase was oratione usus with a form of esse (see the electronic data banks). and not replaced by another name with the same metrical properties.3) who in 65 attacked in the senate Iunius Gallio. his edition of Caesar was published in Cambridge in 1706). as hostis and parricida. in command of the maritime Thapsus in Africa. He writes that Salienus while sailing to Africa was taken prisoner and executed on orders from Metellus Scipio. Afr. originally published by L. and his idea has been generally accepted by editors. 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. T. More recently an inscription was unearthed in Rome (AE 1960.”. the brother of Seneca. 9). F. This passage has not been served well by interpreters. and confidently (or blindly) identifies the discharged Salienus with the ringleader of the mutiny at Messana. He follows the oldest extant manuscript. see below. Remarkably at Bell.and two -ll.are attested (in CIL 10.C. 1). Sallienus”. or a phantom (but observe that Caesar addresses the unworthy centurions as a unit. 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. but he also points to inscriptions where name forms with one -l. also venerable. Class. Salienus7 centurio legionis eiusdem qui M. 55 a centurion T. 28 the following story: the Pompeian officer C. undertook to attack various scattered ships of the Caesarian fleet. even by the customarily exact Friedrich Münzer. Solin and O. 15.232 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. Klotz in his Teubner edition of 1927. branch of the tradition has Sallienus (a form favored by Münzer. et was secluded by Davisius (John Davies 1679–1732. As Münzer 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. Chrissanthos. Tiro. Schulze.9 But the author of the Bellum Africum reserves this dire fate only for the young Titii. C. Moretti in Arch. itaque deducti a Vergilio ad Scipionem custodibus traditi et post diem tertium sunt interfecti. but the other. Clusinas. Afr. the address opens in a limping way). Vergilius. is unaware of these textual and prosopographical questions. referring to W. “T. H. Saliene secluded. RE 1A (1920) 1908. et cum his T. He is either a different person with the same name (unlikely). S. JRS 91 (2001) 63–75 (a study in which no text is ever philologically analyzed). hic propter conscientiam peccatorum suorum persuasit adulescentibus. “Caesar and the Mutiny of 47 B. Saliene. list both Salienus and Sallienus. That scholar adduces the centurion’s name in the form Salienus. Salienus is the unanimous lectio of all editors. 10 [1958] 234 [= Tra epigrafia e storia (Roma 1990) 158]) reading: permi[iss]u T. Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin 1904) 224. about the fate of Salienus he says nothing. Afr. on the basis of the inscription it has probably to be corrected to Sallienus. M. Sallieni Clementis pr(aetoris). We read at Bell. G. This praetor is certainly identical with Salienus Clemens (Tac.73. but perhaps it is more expeditious to propose an emendation for curarat. Ruf.. e. Pecuniam retinere was a technical expression of Roman law. public money) domi re t i n e s . cf.14 10 F. Curt. Iulius Caesar.13 This was plainly the peccatum of which Salienus was guilty.13.202): tibi datam pecuniam (i. 3. Afrika und Spanien [Darmstadt 2004] 133): “(Salienus) auch die für Caesars Triumph bestimmten Gelder und Kostbarkeiten zurückbehalten und in Verwahrung genommen hatte”. 13 Curt. However. mostly with a neutral connotation (see the indices to the Digest). particularly as these motifs may throw light on his career and possibly also on the whereabouts of the Fifth legion. In this later article Münzer pointedly writes that the Titii were “durch einen hinterlistigen Gefährten verleitet”.11. 2. we would certainly have to ascribe a positive sense to Salienus’ exertions. a perfect parallel (though with the verb retentare not retinere) is provided by Tac. Equally vague is the recent German translation by A.3. 4.1. RE 6A (1937) 1557. qui publicam pecuniam delegatam in usum aliquem re t i n u i t neque in eum consumpsit. 25. App.g. Kriege in Alexandrien. compilaris and compilarant are: Cic.32.1. 5. he was not just “gefangen genommen”. ad accipiendam pecuniam regiam c u s t o d i e n d a m que missus.Legio V in Messana 233 cause. Mommsen. Bouvet in his Budé edition (1949) translates: “il avait aussi retenu sous bonne garde de l’argent et des ornaments destinés au triomphe de César”.60.6).e. We need a verb with a sense of “pilfer”: surripio and compilo offer themselves. The phrases pecuniam custodire or pecuniae custos imply confidence. Vat. Of this passage valiant translations exist. and the guardians are well positioned to pilfer it. 11 A.3. Ruf. Gnoli.5. Hist.31. in this case the quaestors): domi (used in opposition to militiae) pecuniam publicam c u s t o d i u n t o . . Baumstark and C.10 Salienus on the other hand had himself engineered the surrender of the ship to Vergilius. 5.10: par huic pecuniae (given by Alexander as largess to his soldiers) summa custodum fraude subtracta est. Römisches Strafrecht [Leipzig 1899] 762. For without the allusion to peccata and the explication et ob has causas sibi timebat.20.. There is no doubt that technically he was a transfuga to the Pompeian side.2 (referring to Civilis): tum pactus praedam castrorum dat custodes. Cicero’s regulation. how he looted Caesar’s loot remains grammatically a mystery.2. Dig. And in the Digest (48.pr) we read that lege Iulia (of Caesar or Augustus) de residuis (cf. Ricerche sul crimen peculatus [Milano 1979] 155–71) tenetur. by Cicero when talking of Verres’ depredations (Verr. 11.35. Leg.12 and per se never indicate any wrongdoing—but it is a wary trust: money corrupts.11. but the phrase was used also in culpable contexts as. “Titius 13”. A better and more pleasing translation is offered by J. Jahn (C.. (1955): “had been responsible for withholding under guard some money and trappings belonging to Caesar’s triumph”.e. 14 Several words may have fallen out. and see the ample discussion by F. 2.2.8: quaestor cum praesidio . Münzer. 1–2. We learn that Salienus pecuniam et ornamenta triumphi Caesaris retinenda et custodienda curarat. Verr. It is truly astounding that Münzer has no comment on the motifs of Salienus’ desertion. 12 Cf. 13 [15]. but compilarit. Way renders in Loeb Class Libr. Carter (Oxford 1997): “has been responsible for detaining and impounding money and trappings intended for Caesar’s triumph” (p. 16. qui pecuniam calones sarcinas re t e n t a re n t .2. A.1. the latter a perfect choice (I note that the contracted form compilarat does not seem to be attested.35. 6. On the other hand if we opt to assign to retinenda in our passage a positive sense. T. 202).6.6 (referring to minores magistratus. 6. 6. 5. Phaedr. i.11 but a nagging impression remains that there is something wrong with the whole sentence. Liv. nn. G. at Pharsalos. accepted by R. MRR 3. coupled. 1. Ponto. It might thus be safer to assume that Salienus was not originally a member of the Fifth. with the promotion to the post of a senior centurion. and his desertion. 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. and subsequently was entrusted with protecting and transporting to Rome money and exhibits for the triumph. 4.2). 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. but Münzer (above. Römische Studien (Leipzig-Berlin 1922) 252. Syme. his financial improprieties must have concerned the funds and exhibits destined for the Egyptian and Pontic triumphs.18 and by the admission of their father to the senate. 16 Cf. particularly the collection of ornamenta. Alex.206. its veterans were ultimately settled in the new colony at Arelate (colonia Iulia Paterna Sextanorum) in the Narbonese Gaul. Alexandria and Zela. it did not participate in the African expedition. and immediately after Zela Caesar sent it to Italy ad praemia atque honores accipiendos (Bell. it was later reconstituted in the triumviral period). is surely right to see in it a denomination on its way “von der Heimatsbezeichnung zum Beinamen”.16 Silence of the sources should certainly be neither dignified nor disparaged. hence his panic at the conscientia peccatorum. To be entrusted with guarding the Caesarian pretiosa Salienus must have enjoyed Caesar’s confidence. 17 Sources in Ritterling 1588.712. no doubt.15 Salienus. “Missing Senators”. must have thus participated in the Alexandrian or Pontic campaign or in both of them. if we are allowed to venture a guess. will have been Legio VI. It is a fair assumption that the legion brought with it to Italy also the triumphal train. but was transferred to this legion from another unit. Here of assistance is Bell.17 The legion thus ceased to exist as an active unit (in any case for the time being. Now. Broughton. Historia 4 (1955) 70 = Roman Papers 2 (Oxford 1979) 290.552–54. the exhibits to be borne in the triumphal procession. 77. Caesar no doubt began preparations for those triumphs immediately after his final success at Alexandria and his victory at Zela. Who were these Titii? A clue is offered by their denomination of Hispanus which clearly points to their ties with Spain. Groebe in Drumann-Groebe 3. Drumann-Groebe 3. it would appear. Cichorius. Aegypto. many of them of great value. the only legion to fight in all three major engagements. 10) 1557. Africa) in August 46 after his victory at Thapsus. but it is a call to caution. it does not disprove a proposition. This indomitable legion. n. above. As the story of Salienus’ peccata is placed before the start of the African campaign. But before he deserted he will have received his reward: the transfer to another legion. took it for a pure family cognomen. cf. 48–65 with its story of the turmoil 15 Cf. Unless one would wish to find a clue in the settlement of veterans of Legio V Gallica in the Pisiadian Antioch.234 Historia et Ius Caesar celebrated his four triumphs (de Gallia. the Fifth as it happened. n. 18 C. and identify it with legio quinta veterana of the African war. Alex. in the future to be called Ferrata. This unit. if we espy him in the east. . Cf. was now thoroughly depleted. n. especially from his full treatment in the article “Legio Vernacula. In any case the officers of the legion will have undoubtedly been Roman citizens. the Caesarian governor of the Ulterior. . Alex. cf. 61. Italian Manpower (Oxford 1971) 230–31. in this case he obviously cannot be identified with one of the youthful tribunes of the Fifth legion but will rather be their father. n. 20. esp. even armed in a native way (pp.e. Titius.18–21. one of which (probably of colloquial origin) manifests itself as a tense shift. nuntiat (i. a refutation has. for that latter view. T. Brunt. E. But if eo tempore combined with fuerat is unique. to be reserved for another occasion). In this text Münzer was (rightly) bothered by the pluperfect fuerat: it might mean. as is also the usage of other pluperfect verbs in the third person (some forty five examples). particularly with respect to pluperfects of esse and habeo: they acquire the sense of simple imperfects or perfects. Cassius Longinus. and with arguments repeated from his earlier studies. perhaps. see Ritterling 1437.3) is perfectly ordinary. Service in the PostMarian Roman Army (Manchester 1958) 54–56. Way (above. discessisse et ad secundam legionem 20 (which also rebelled) contendisse. 20.5). he thought. Titius. who was at that time a military tribune with the local legion”.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. 817–18: this is. contests this view and contends that it was not a “normal legionary unit”: scarcely romanized. and surrendered to Caesar. 54. as also did Varro. made up of those who were in provincia nati (Bell. P. the other opts for a simple perfect. 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. Fear. iusta legio?” Zephyrus 25 [1974] 457–71. most likely romanized Spaniards and the (technically) illegitimate sons of Roman settlers. M. Alex. Inter alia we read (57. But even Fear admits that the officers “may well have been Italians” (p. Alex.3) about the mutiny of a legio vernacula:19 Interim L. at Bell. It comes in several distinct varieties. 464–71). 11) “L. without a fight (Caes.4). A. the absolute use of the pluperpect is a well known and well documented phenomenon. “The Vernacular Legion of Hispania Ulterior”. 21 Of the two English translations one preserves the pluperfect. and cf. On the other hand J. see R. 11) has “the native legion in which he had been at the time a military tribune”. Roldán Hervás. It was a native legion. (78. to Cassius Longinus) eam a legione XXX [which remained faithful to Longinus] seditione facta centurionibus aliquot occisis qui signa tolli non patiebantur. referring to 48. only an overhasty inference from Bell. Latomus 50 (1991) 809–21. 20 On this legion.1. and Carter (above. Smith. Hisp.1 legio II and legio vernacula are referred to (in 47) as veteranas multisque proeliis expertas legiones. 53. Eo tempore coupled with fuerat looks indeed peculiar. 819). 698. alas. Terentius Varro. In 49 it was in the army of M. n. Titius was at that time no longer an active officer. that L.Legio V in Messana 235 caused in Spain by the wretched Q. many of them Romans in culture and language though not in the eye of the law. A. it was. There is a controversy concerning its status. qui eo tempore tribunus militum in legione vernacula fuerat. and consequently most scholars regard it as consisting mostly of peregrini. and was thus possibly already an older man. BC 2. however. the Pompeian governor of Farther Spain. prefers to see in it a iusta legio composed of Roman citizens. Los Hispanos en el ejército romano de época republicana (Salamanca 1993) 109–13 (with further ample literature. More recently. esp. Stegmann. in fact the only viable candidate. On the death of the Titii. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II. which does not advert at all to the dispute concerning fuerat). Titius.? Titius”. Untersuchungen zu Caesar und seiner Fortsetzern insbesondere über Autorschaft und Komposition des Bellum Alexandrinum und Africanum (Erlangen 1888) 40–41. n. was thus admitted to the senate for his services rendered in Spain to the party of Caesar.. nisi subsidium sibi submittatur. 2..22 Historians. Kühner–Stegmann (p. one would presume. for the father of the unfortunate Titii adulescentes. regards the use of fuerat and habuerat in place of the imperfect as a specific feature of the style of C. se diutius sustinere non posse. 141) classify this sentence among the passages in which either the reading is uncertain or a different explanation is possible. Bellum Alexandrinum (Roma 1956) 177. Landgraf. Afr. crit. In MRR 3. the pater.297 styles one of the brothers “L. does not vouchsafe it: dicitur. not uncommon among the historians when. Kühner-Stegmann 139). floats in time.7 (with the comment of Münzer. “Titius 13” [above. He thus envisages two possibilities: 1) the tribune in Spain is identical with one of the tribunes in Bell.206 he indirectly but resolutely embraced the latter option.23 In Spain L. who. the skeptical aporia of Fear. KühnerStegmann are loath to admit that an element of “Volkssprache” could have penetrated to Caesar’s style. . he hurriedly rushed to the governor to inform him of the situation. MRR 2.6. Afr. the subsequent Auflagen are only reprints) 139–41 at 140. 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. 19) 108. n u n t i o s ad eum m i t t i t . G.24 L. with the opposing centurions slain. To see in him one of the two doomed Titii is aberrant. qui t u m oppido (it refers to Bibrax. they direct their gaze to future events and thus perceive the reported fact as already belonging to an anterior past (cf. besieged by the Belgae) p r a e f u e r a t . Broughton. this is the second edition. 2) the tribunes in Bell. 68. unus ex iis qui legati de pace ad Caesarem v e n e r a n t (cf. and H. Asinius Pollio to whom he (rather adventurously) ascribes large parts of Bellum Alexandrinum and Africanum. Meusel’s advocacy of praeerat of the recentiores is not justified: see the app. 3. “The Vernacular Legion” [above. 24 He apparently felt responsible for their predicament. but as the two passages present grammatically twin utterances. But this should not mean that we are free to identify him with one of the tribunes in the Bellum Africum. should be interested in the peculiarities of the tense use in the sources—history.3. stating a fact. 19] 820). and describes him as a centurion.8. But all this may be just a moving but fictitious story. Afr. are the sons of L. n. The author of Bell. see also Val. L.3: Iccius Remus .1 (Hannover 1914. Titius. and the date of his admission will be the late autumn 22 See R. The only other explanation would be to posit in both passages the employment of anticipatory pluperfect. and thus the elder of them inherited the praenomen L. A very similarly structured sentence we find in Caesar BG 2. Hering’s Teubner edition of 1987. the tense is either in both of them colloquial or we must find another explanation. He was not the man who would listen to any beguiling words of surrender. L. in the Teubner edition (1961) by O. 23 As does Roldán. Max. Titius showed himself a man of quick decision: when the legio in which he served was engulfed in a violent mutiny. Titius was thus a military tribune at the time of the legion’s mutiny—as the sense of the story requires and as the grammar (we now see) concurs. Titius continues to be the prime candidate.236 Historia et Ius ple of that shift. after all.2). Giomini. There is no discussion of fuerat in this passage in the commentary of R. Kühner and C. however. mentions only one Titius. n. Los Hispanos (above. Seel (which is much ampler and more useful than the apparatus in W. the tribune in Spain (cf. and did not wish to behold the results of his credulity. But fuerat is the unanimous reading of all authoritative codices. 10] 1557). “blockade”. Carter (above.v. “surround”28. 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. seditiosissima oratione apud eum usus. Shackleton Bailey (Cicero’s Letters to His Friends [Penguin Books 1978] 1. 2: Prosopographie des chevaliers romains (Paris 1974) 1042. Cichorius was an acute student of res Romanae and of Latin texts. Inter alia. the addressee of Cicero’s letter of consolation Fam. 187). but this conceit of his is more than aberrant.v. has been cheated of nothing”. How can we imagine Cicero referring these words to the treacherous slaughter of the young Titii. impendere rei publicae quae qui reliquerit nullo modo mihi quidem deceptus esse videatur (or in the artistic translation of D. 11) opts for pallid “obstructed”. we have to embrace the good sense of D.29 and here immediately come to mind such phrases as from Cicero’s harangue against the Catilinarians: desinant insidiari domi suae consuli. who does not even mention the interpretation of Cichorius and Münzer. “beset”. from Tacitus’ description of the mutiny of the Danubian legions: ceteri tribunal ingenti agmine circumveniunt (Ann. n. “obstruct”.b (col. Salienus M. and rightly sees in the deceased children (“apparently boys”) of Titius the victims of an epidemic and not of war. C. obsidere cum gladiis curiam (Cat. Messalam legatum obsederat Messanae . Way (above. Titius. R. was none other than the father of the unfortunate military tribunes. L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine. an invitation to a splendid career that proved a passport to their destruction. 223). cf.25.3). when Caesar filled the senate with his minions. Nicolet. Messala”. he conjures up the house out of the verb obsederat. that L.Legio V in Messana 237 of 47. 11) in his interpretive translation imagines that Salienus “had laid siege to the house of M. with the commentaries in the editions of A. 27 So also Bouvet (above. Lenoir (Paris 1979 [Budé]) 50–53.2.27 But this verb denotes in general “besiege”. addressing him in the language of outright mutiny”.. Cicero wrote: (§4): hoc tamen non dubitans confirmare possum. ea misceri. De munitione (metatione) castrorum 11. or still better. This is precisely what must have happened at Messana. looming ahead of us. The legate will have been seated on an elevated platform. M.3). 25 Sources in Drumannn-Groebe 3. and threateningly addressed by the centurion Salienus. 11) “avait assiégé la résidence du légat M. n. but Salienus’ other peccatum was perhaps even graver: mutiny. 28 See OLD s. that to my mind at any rate whoever has left behind him the present political turmoil. embraced the idea of Cichorius. Messala. Shackleton Bailey. the tribunal. II.25 This will also be the date when his sons received their commission as military tribunes in the Fifth legion.321: “but this I can declare without hesitation. and whose sons had before them under the new dispensation the doors open to a bright career? No. and addressing them to the man who had just been elevated to the rank of a senator by Caesar personally. 18) 250–53. 26 Münzer (above. n. von Domaszewski (Leipzig 1887) 54–55. and esp. As the author of the African War puts it. and all that is in preparation. Römische Studien (above. circumstare tribunal praetoris urbani.32. . see Hyginus. As L.510–11.. R. Messala was “besieged” at the tribunal by the rebellious soldiers. parari.26 Embezzlement was grave enough. 5. and we have to recreate the event with the help of depictions of other mutinies and disturbances.16. n. 10) 1557–58. 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”). Cicero: Epistulae ad Familiares 2 (Cambridge 1977) 325–26 (no. Messala”. 1. Titius had held the post of a military tribune he may have been an equestrian. 1. “had beset at Messana the legate M. and TLL s. 29 For the tribunal in the camp. A. n. G. 35 M.20. Afr. including the Fifth. Here the troubles began. BC 3.v. ut opinor.3. Münzer.g. 11. 2. But it is the mention of (M. He is generally identified with P.2.281. however we might savor misadventures of others. RE 4. He is conspicuously absent from his rightful place in MRR 2. The troops were to be rested and replenished in Italy. writing from Brundisium. ergo ille huc veniet. . who refuse to go anywhere until they get their pay. R. Cornelius Sulla.g.2 = SB 235): M.2).22.1521. n. See Shackleton Bailey (above. eo protinus iturum 30 Drumann-Groebe 3. nisi acceperint. it postdates Att. qui se negant usquam.238 Historia et Ius After the victory at Pharsalos most legions were brought by Antonius back to Brundisium (Cic.21 of 25 Aug.3.2. Broughton. Phil. “Cornelius 386”. 3. They are hurrying off to Caesar. however. Caesar will be coming here. 32 The Sulla in question is patently P. Sumner’s argument (Phoenix 25 [1971] 265–66. Gallius is an unfortunate prosopographical case. and prepared for a new campaign in Africa. Oddly enough. will be here tomorrow with Messala. The conceit of Shackleton Bailey (above. 290. who was in danger from mutinous soldiers at Messana (Bell. contrary to the expectation. 11. points out that Sulla filius was at that time only in his mid–twenties (and thus certainly too young for the post of a legate).290. 99. that both at Pharsalos and here we are dealing with the would–be–consul’s son. n. 47. “Cornelius 387”).505–6.)”. though it won’t be soon”). tarde quidem 31 (or in Shackleton Bailey’s translation: “Sulla.89. Shackleton Bailey argued that “as the soldiers mentioned by C(icero) had not yet left Italy this must be a different misadventure”. 53) that attracts special attention. Broughton. MRR 2. .3) and 5 (1966) 296. Cicero. Münzer. and reportedly was pelted with stones (Att. 31 Att. Valerius) Messala (cos. What could be more straightforward than to combine Cicero’s letter with the passage from the Bellum Africum? Thus routinely the commentators33 – save one. Berry. Caesar was still in the east.290 on Messala: “Legate of Caesar.. Berry still endorses the idea of Shackleton Bailey. Att. So. Around the beginning of September of 47.. MRR 2. s.21. quod non putabant.. Cornelius Sulla who had commanded the right wing at Pharsalos (Caes. currunt ad illum pulsi a militibus.. 11. 28. Pro Sulla Oratio (Cambridge 1996) 12. The letter is generally dated to ca 1 Sept. 237). Shackleton Bailey. f. Broughton repaired this omission in MRR 3. Phil.34 Yet. RE 4 (1900) 1518–21. Cicero gleefully informed Atticus: Sulla. cras erit hic cum Messala. 34 In a note to Att.22. cos. 364) concerning textual problems in Cic. Gallius 35 Q. Cic. Cornelius Sulla32 approached the Twelfth legion.2 = D. 4. des. Among them was in all likelihood also Legio V.2.98.26. in an entry. 65. we should not multiply them without due cause. that seriously misrepresents G. Shackleton Bailey suggests that he might have already been a quaestorius. cf. 237. In the summer of 47 the once dependable veteran soldiers were clamoring for rewards and retirement. F.30 His emissaries had been singularly unsuccessful. A few days previously P. 11. 11. H. having been sent packing by the troops. the man whom Cicero defended in 62: see. That the legions. 33 Cf. venit ut legiones in Siciliam traduceret. e. has nothing to recommend it — of his poltical and military career we know nothing (cf. e.22.59). 31) 297 (no. I believe. 11. 31) 175–76 (on Att. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus 2 (Cambridge 1965) no.4). and thus was a man in whose military abilities Caesar put great trust. but D. and it is inconceivable that Caesar would have entrusted critical military commands to an unproven man. had not yet traversed to Sicily is an inference from Cicero’s earlier dispatch from Brundisium on August 15 (Att. he arrived in Italy only some time toward the end of September. . laudably and meticulously distinguishes between the two incidents]. mixes facts. . 11. It is not improbable that in 47 they obediently moved to Sicily.290–91. on the other hand. the passage is per se not necessarily conclusive. it is visible that we are more and more engaged in a petitio principii. 11. Att. to order certain legions to concentrate in Sicily . and thus not only to identify the unnamed legio of Cicero’s letter with legio V of Bellum Africum. and now only Caesar himself was able to quell the turbulence. it failed. falsehoods and inferences when he writes: “When Messala [an inference. The problem is threefold: 1) what was the function and status of M.2). Ritterling 1564–65. Sulla alone attempted to parley with the soldiers of the Twelfth legion (Att. a prophecy rendered true by the experience of Sulla and Messala with the unnamed legion in the letter here discussed. 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. and thus also the question 3) appears not answerable. a special envoy from Caesar with the task of assuaging the soldiers and organizing the transport of troops to Sicily. If he was the latter then Ockham’s razor forces us to identify the two incidents. one could perhaps imagine Messala. Yet we should pay attention to currunt: is is scarcely likely that a commander would simply abandon his legion to the rioters. 28.505. 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. The situation in the two letters of Cicero is somewhat different: P. 11. 37 Cf. All hinges on the status of Messala as a special envoy or as a legionary commander. Broughton. Sulla is clear: he was a special envoy. legatus legionis. Caesar apparently enfranchised them in mass at the beginning of the civil war. 1. so as P. But in view of Cicero’s letter he is generally regarded to have been. This complicates answers to questions 2) and 3). That last phrase seems to suggest that their mission was concluded.21. Yet with the problem so formulated.36 whereas at Att. If so. as the legatus legionis. “it is thought that none of them will move”.Legio V in Messana 239 Caesarem Patris. not a fact] and Sallust [not Sallust but Sulla – but still a fact] were sent by Caesar in August.2 where after the report of P. Though suggestive. Sulla. and take to flight. but also to locate it in Messana already in the summer of 47. also in this letter. We simply do not know. their unit transformed into a iusta legio. n. the unnamed legion in Cicero’s letter must be Legio quinta.2 the answer would have been simple and obvious: Messala was the commander of the Fifth legion. Drumann-Groebe 3. The status of P. But we should not be too severe: this is a hereditary error: cf. we have the prognostication: nullam putant se commoturam. and he moved from one legion to another.. and raised tumult only after they had learned 36 Way (above. MRR 2. and given its soon glorious number. the legions mutinied and the twelfth went so far as to pelt them with stones” [not them! just Sulla. more weight should attach to Cic.22 2 it is Sulla and Messala who were pulsi a militibus and who currunt (ad Caesarem). Sulla’s misadventure with the Twelfth legion. Thus in Cicero’s letter also Messala rather appears as a special envoy. 47. n.37 This was hardly a troop easily susceptible to rebellion. 11) 188.21. we have to consider the likely date and circumstance of Salienus’ outrage toward Messala. 11th ed. Second. and dishonorably dismissed. Domitius disposed of altogether 31 cohorts: meas XVIIII (i.1 we find Curio. however. almost unchanged in their composition (BC 2. by H. Of the two legions left in Sicily.e. and none exists.1 = SB 162A) offers clarification.28) for the invasion of Africa. of 1963 are simple reprints with Nachwort and bibliographische Nachträge by H. and Curio’s death. and his participation in the mutiny would weigh heavily as further proof of bad character. 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. 39 In the commentary by F.28. Meusel (Berlin 1906.30. had previously formed the army of L. more (amplius) than thirty in number (cf. of which he selected two (both made up of the former milites of Domitius. From BC 1. This reconstruction also offers the advantage of simplicity: it entails only one misadventure for Messala. but were placed under Domitius’ command) and suas XII.25. A letter of Pompeius adduced by Cicero (Att.38 And the instigator was not one of their own but a centurion of Italian stock. amplius XXX. His solution to his fears was to desert and to place his salvation with the Pompeians.1). He would not have participated in the African expedition. n. his depredations were likely to be discovered. the origin and the composition of the other is unknown or a matter of surmise.. Kraner and F.12A. a full complement for three legions. this legion is described as “die später nachgesandte Legion”.2)..39 One thing is certain: this legion did not consist of milites Domitiani. . then Salienus’ continuing commission as a centurion is explained. they were given to Curio. below).240 Historia et Ius of the mutiny of other legions.2–23. C. If it happened after Caesar quelled the mutiny.17. after Caesar’s swift invasion of Italy. For “später” no source is given.23. BC 2. Scribonius Curio was sent with propraetorian imperium to occupy Sicily and invade Africa (cf. and would have had no opportunity to desert to the enemy. when almost everybody was forgiven.5). In 49.. Caesar entrusted to him a force of three legions (BC 1. very likely in his capacity as a special envoy..17. one was thus composed of Domitianae cohortes. At BC 2. at 1. the cohorts that had been levied by Pompey’s officers. of 1959 and the 13th ed. Domitius Ahenobarbus. they went over to Caesar at Corfinium (BC 1. He was thus hardly a legatus legionis at that time.2) Caesar informs that he Domitianas . the 12th ed. Now. He distributed them 38 Cf. This enterprise ended in a debacle. but we have a good clue as to its identity. in the possession of four legions. Chrissanthos (above. 8. he would have certainly been immediately disciplined. A nagging question looms: what has become of the original unheroic garrison of Messana? We do not know. These cohorts.18 we are told that seven cohorts surrendered to Caesar in the nearby Sulmo. cohortes protinus a Corfinio in Siciliam miserat. 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”. Explained is also Salienus’ disquiet and fear: with war soon to be ended and Caesar’s triumph staged.. MRR 2.263–64). Salienus. Hofmann. But if his insubordination is placed in the environment of a general mutiny. Oppermann) 138–39 ad loc.2 (purporting to quote a letter of Pompey) we learn that the army of Domitius was made of cohortes . Earlier in his narrative (1. Min.1) follows Caesar. in contrast to Appian and Plutarch.1). vorgesandt. but in May Cicero received a letter from Curio informing him that Cato left Syracuse on 23 April (Att.e. Caesar states clearly: (Cato) adventu Curionis cognito . and to Domitius circiter XX (BC 1. and that consequently he himself would be using the services of these people in Sicily. Cato withdrew his troops and sailed away to Corcyra.41 [165]). indeed he paraded his six fasces. of Messana) fuga facta. does not mention Pollio. Cicero’s correspondence with Atticus throws further light. The island was still being held by Cato (cf. After having described the landing of Pollio and the departure of Cato. imprudente et inopinante Curione. this force was obviously Curio’s three legions (Plut.. he was sent to Sicily in advance of the main force. Cassius Dio (41.8–10) 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.15. but rather sent ahead of him to Sicily. ex provincia fugit. In any case not a sufficient number to organize a fourth legion. was able to reach the docks40 at Messana. App.16. and further: Nacti vacuas ab imperiis Sardiniam Valerius (cf. in fact according to some sources it was Pollio who parleyed with Cato and gained the island. This legion was thus not nachgesandt to Curio. had already departed. he placed them also in Sulmo and Alba. Vibullius Rufus (MRR 2. Curio Siciliam. Caesar’s brief account of the events in Sicily is very selective: he omits to mention that C.270). The situation is clear: Pollio was Curio’s subordinate officer. This produces the impression that Pollio acted as an independent commander. These numbers differ somewhat from Caesar’s own estimates: he ascribes to Pompey’s emissary L. 10. MRR 2. and ascribes the whole success to Curio alone: he occupied the island without a contest because Cato. cum exercitibus eo perveniunt (BC 1.3) a prefect of Pompeius at the head of a small fleet.5–31. . 40 ex navalibus eorum <navem unam> deducit (cf.266) preceded Curio in crossing over to Sicily. As Caesar relates (BC 2. it was formed through recent levies.4. Att.41.3–7). Under Curio’s stewardship Messana appears to have been guarded as ineptly as later under the command of M. Pomponius. being no match for him. probably one legion – the non-Domitianic legion which remained in the island when Curio set off for Africa. 10.Legio V in Messana 241 between three towns: in addition to Corfinium.3). is the prime and only candidate for the wavering garrison of Messana in 48.12. further: hac adiuncta ad reliquas naves cursum Massiliam versus perfecit).2). MRR 2. He arrived with some troops.30. Asinius Pollio (cf.40 [162]). and capture a ship propter repentinum terrorem principum et senatus (i. However. BC 2. Cat. On 14 April 49 he writes (10. (avowedly) to avoid the bloodshed. thus at this juncture Curio had already been appointed by Caesar (and nominally by the senate) to govern Sicily. but in reality upon hearing that a larger force was coming.. Appian remarks that Caesar selected Curio to take the governorship of Sicily in Cato’s place (BC 2. One of these two legions. About its composition one thing appears certain: it was not a veteran unit.271) only thirteen cohorts. either the legion originally Pollio’s or the legion originally Curio’s and previously Domitianic. 53. and in capitals. G.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. pp. and Bormann.. in the following shape: Since the publication in CIL almost ninety years had passed when “nell’agosto 1987 è stato recuperato in una discarica nei pressi di Mondaino (provincia di Forlì) . See on them the informative articles by R. XXXIX–XL. His authorities were Michael Fabricius Ferrarinius (Michele Fabrizio Ferrarini) and Iulius Fantagutius (Giuliano Fantaguzzi). In CIL the text was published by E. . CIL X. 1500) of Fantaguzzi (a historian from Cesena). Zaccaria and P. un blocco in marmo lunense fine non venato”.. 893. * 1 Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 142 (2003) 241–255 {with minor addenda}. It also illustrates vicissitudes of transmission and recovery of texts. On the collectanea (c. This inscribed stone was soon published with commendable speed and investigative acumen by Angela Donati. p. CIL XI. XXVII. pp. see ibidem. see Mommsen. Ferrarini composed in the last quarter of the 15th century an important sylloge of inscriptions. 3. Bormann (in 1901) on the basis of the manuscript tradition1. Fabbri in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 46 (1996) 687–88 and 44 (1994) 616–18. This is of editorial interest and instruction: Bormann adduced the same folium. n. As we learn from Bormann’s annotation. Trevisiol. n. The stone was wider but less tall. Only the central part of the stone is preserved. but without comprehensive search capabilities this bibliography was only half-useful. but it harbors a surprise: the lines are arranged very differently than in the manuscript copies utilized in CIL3. With the help of the new fragment Donati presented the following reconstruction of the whole text (p. p. Fonti letterarie ed epigrafiche per la storia Romana della provincia di Pesaro e Urbino (Roma 1999) 17 (no. did not list CIL XI 6053 among the stones preserved in the museum. In the version of Ferrarini preserved in a codex in Reggio Emilia (the photocopy of which Donati reproduces. it is thus very probable that it was engraved on the pedestal of the biga offered by the Urvinates to Vesnius. and as a consequence the rediscovered stone was again almost entirely buried in oblivion. Mennella. and according to Apianus (see below. according to Fantaguzzi the stone was extant in Urbino “apud aedem cathedralem”. When writing a review of Trevisiol’s book (JRA 15 [2002] 577–81 at 579–80) I found her lemma and her edition very suspicious. 65) there are twelve lines. but F. Francisci”. 15) “ad [aedem] S. Ubaldini (1610–57) was not able to locate it. their copies are based on an earlier copy in scriptio continua. Il Museo lapidario del Palazzo Ducale di Urbino (Genova 1973) 90. especially as G. and they only divined the disposition of the lines. Donati. A footnote in an article by J. Z˘elazowski (see below. but surprisingly appended no remark as to the distribution of lines. it would thus appear that the division in twenty lines derives either from Ferrarini’s copy in codex Parisinus (also used by Bormann) or from Fantaguzzi. “La ‘biga’ di Mondaino”. in the Palazzo Ducale. There are only nine lines on the stone and not twenty as in Bormann’s edition. and for further information concerning the stone. 67): 242 2 3 A. who intimates that the stone is extant at Urbino.Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 243 she immediately recognized in it a fragment of our urbinate inscription2. 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. which apparently has never been recorded in AE. but actually reproduces the text of Bormann. 69 photographs). Donati for kindly sending me a copy of her article. The article was signaled (with a succinct summary) in APh 60 (1991) 626 (no. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Macerata 21 (1988 [1989]) 63–69 (p. This important rediscovery received no notice in the recent collection by A. 9886). As Donati points out (p. I should like to thank Prof. 13) has ultimately led me to the publication of Donati. 4). 65) none of the Renaissance antiquarians had actually seen the stone. . 6 On this post. As Wilmanns shows (11–13. 7 F. heavily influenced by the Urvinum inscription. D. 5 I follow the expansion of Donati.. On line 4 = 9. BJ 171 (1971) 367–76 = Die Krise des römischen Reiches (Stuttgart 1989) 69–78. Kienast. Bormann prefers (in his apparatus) popul(us) Urvin(as). but on the wax tablet from Rottweil (Arae Flaviae in Upper Germany). Bormann corrected it to municip(i). indeed the authoritative opinion holds that the legion gained all of its surnames opposing and suppressing the rebellion of Maternus (which is identified. JRGZ 31 (1984) 427. Honorific Titles of Roman Military Units in the 3rd Century (Budapest 1983) 30–31. Egger. 66. Grosso. and in Rome he entered the (senatorial) career as IVvir viarum curandarum 6.. C. Molinier. I believe. is based on earlier studies without any knowledge of Wilmanns’ meticulous edition of the tablet. “Die Doppelurkunde von Rottweil und ihr Beitrag zum Städtewesen in Obergermanien”. Alföldy. Oldenstein-Pferdehirt. Cf. the recent statement to the contrary by A. in Epigraphische Studien 12 (1981) 1–182 at 50 (the date and the surnames) and 69–70 (the surnames).. 50. The All letters are neatly engraved. (n. rightly.244 Historia et Ius Apart from the new arrangement of the lines the fragment testifies to the overall accuracy of the copyists. Germania 36 (1958) 373–85 (= Römische Antike und Christentum 2 [Klagenfurt 1963] 268–91). B. see T. with the bellum desertorum)10. 186. Lines 3–7 (corresponding to lines 7–15 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). “Die Wachstafel von Rottweil”. 243 Commodus received the epithet Felix in 185 after the fall of Perennis7.. The historical interest of the document resides in Vesnius’ military service. Fitz. her text is reproduced in AE 1981. and they are clearly visible on the photographs appended to Donati’s article (and particularly well visible on the enlarged copies Prof. quo militante / cum liberata esset nova obsidione legio Pia Fidelis / Constans Commoda cognominata est. Honos bigae. and cf. We are dealing with a dedication set up by popul(us) Urvin(atium) 5 to honor its patron C. 69–71). 9 J. This edition supercedes R. “Marius Maximus source latine de la vie de Commode?”. Donati was kind enough to send me). see below in the text. Z˘elazowski. The surnames of the legion supply further chronological precision. Römisches Staatsrecht 23 (Leipzig 1887) 603–4. one of them of immediate import for the theme of the present investigation. Vesnius was thus styled a patron of populus and of municipium. Römische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt 1990) 149. Egger (384 = 290). “Bellum desertorum”. already figure the names Pia Fida9. It also settles two disputed readings4. ipse ut devotissimus / imp(eratori) Commodo Aug(usto) Pio Felici oblato honore / quaestor designatus est annorum XXIII. La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (Torino 1964) 192–93. In line 2 (= 4 in CIL) the stone vindicates the received reading municipii. The inscription was engraved after that date. with addenda. in Historiae Augustae Colloquium Argentoratense (Bari 1998) 230.. 79–80. At Urvinum (Mataurense) he was aedile and pontifex. had read into the tablet the following text: [cum . Wilmanns. already Die Legionslegaten der 4 . The inscription from Urvinum might seem to suggest that all four names were bestowed upon the legion simultaneously. 691. the text itself of the tablet has nothing to do with any legal proceedings after the suppression of a rebellion.. All four names appear together for the first time in CIL XIII 11757 of 1878. dated precisely to 4 Aug. 10 See esp. G. 13) 71. Vesnius Vindex. legione VIII] Augusta liberata (line 1). Cf. Mommsen. dates the death of Perennis to April or May of 185. “Die Geschichte der Legio VIII Augusta”. 8 See the list in J. (n. and later (in 186 or in 187) Constans Commoda 11. Hekster. For its bravery and devotion the legio Pia Fidelis would thus be additionally named (cognominata) Constans Commoda. by Y. It is not impossible that the legion first received the honorific titles Pia Fidelis. (n. precisely on the occasion of the obsidio to which our inscription refers. to be connected with the damnatio memoriae of Commodus. and certainly well before the death of Commodus14. Reddé. oblata potestate (Caes. (Lyon 2000) 119–26 at 123–25. di Epigr. Ferrarini read obiecto honore. Urban. Rebellen.2 (1925) 1652–61. 210–14: still no Wilmanns and no Donati}. 10) 130–31.v. and why we have Fida and not Fidelis. now (after Wilmanns’ edition) largely antiquated. 14. n. constans. again there is no attestation of the phrase. 7) 438. Eck. two years ahead of the normal cursus 12). culminating in the exemplary monograph Honos bigae. Cf. 14 The new find brought still another riveting piece of information: the stone displays two ample erasures in lines 6 and 7. 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. 10) 65. and the other with its steadfastness in the face of an enemy. He adduces the case of Vesnius. offers only cursory remarks. see the studies by J. Rivalen. Thus the inscription was set up at the earliest in 186. Eos 85 (1998) 121–33. 13 On this distinction. Brief and rather negligible accounts also in O. ed. Rächer (Stuttgart 1999) 178–95. F. Mommsen. Gr. 6) 13 (1887) 573. As to CIL XI 6053. Der Kleine Pauly 7 (1999) 1009. and relies on Egger (179) {No improvement in the English translation: Bandits in the Roman Empire: myth and reality (London-New York 2004) 123–37. 232. neither of them is aware of the fundamental article by Donati}. römischen Rheinarmeen (= Epigraphische Studien 3 [Köln-Graz 1967]) 45. 70–72 on the inscription from Urvinum. Even . pia. Z˘elazowski in Epigraphica 59 (1997) 173–203 (p. {R. Intern. Commoda. “Maternus 1”. Commodus. (n. The exact phrase oblato honore does not seem to be otherwise attested (honorem oblatum is frequent) but cf. s. Le Bohec. Räuber. the inscription from Urvinum).4. The first grant could be connected with some specific act of the legion’s loyalty at the time of the fall of Perennis. An Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam 2002) 65–67. Atti del XI Congr. Erhebungen in Gallien im Spiegel antiker Zeugnisse (Historia Einzelschriften 129 [Stuttgart 1999]) 84–85. An ample treatment now in two monographs: T. 175. “Legio VIII Augusta”. Hekster. however. “Legio”. {F. Grünewald. M. (n. in Les légions de Rome sous le haut-empire I. 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 6–7 = 14–15) oblato honore / quaestor designatus est annorum XXIII (i. Gallia rebellis. Le statue onorarie romane su biga (Varsavia 2001) esp. RE 12. Still the puzzle remains why at Rottweil only the first two surnames are listed. Zimmermann.. with footnotes on pp. BG 7. von Saldern. Ritterling. His discussion of the rebellion is. Studien zum Geschichtswerk Herodians (München 1999) 85–112. M.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. appear on the Rottweil tablet. In Wilmann’s edition the text reads (line 3): [legati felicissimi Augusti l]egionis Auguste pie fide.7). n. also assumes that fidelis is the actual name on the tablet.e. von Saldern. perhaps in 187. But observe the caution of W. 1 (Roma 1999) 881–89. e Lat. fidelis (sic). fide may be a simple mistake or perhaps we should not interpret it as fid(a)e but rather expand to fide(lis). Kaiser und Ereignis. 11 So Grosso. Studien zur Politik des Commodus (Rahden 2003) 129–35}. is inaccurate: he avers that all four epithets. E. but again he is not aware of Wilmanns’ edition of the Rottweil tablet. to a great extent vitiated by his reliance on Egger’s decipherment of the Rottweil tablet. 12 Cf. The reading NOVA is assured by the new fragment. the reading Novia also in I. Gallia Belgica (London [also Berkeley] 1985) 160. RE 12. so also Grosso. R. NOVIA deleta I) Ferr(arinius). Bormann’s adnotatio critica is as follows: “NOVA Fant(aguzzi). 19 = 72. n. 9) 379 = 285: “Das Neuartige besteht darin. at a time when Vesnius will have still been in the prime of his life (see Donati.. 68). non dico inusitatum. 1459. This is a truncated quotation. Wilmanns. 36: novum est. This stone reads: D. M. and G. For this application of the adjective Egger points to Cic. n. 19. 8) 30. and was misled by Bormann’s abbreviated quotation in the apparatus to CIL XI 6053. sondern im Frieden und von Aufständischen in der Provinz selbst”. This is also the reading of Fitz. 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. Ritterling. Wilmanns. And M. dass die Legion nicht im Kriege und nicht vom Feinde (hostis) zerniert war. referring to internal plots and rebellions. Die stadtrömische Münzprägung während der Alleinherrschaft des Commodus (Frankfurt am Main 1980) 33. C. The inscription says nothing of the kind: a historian should be able to distinguish between the actual wording of a text and its interpretation. / Quir(ina) Paternus / Novia specula(tor) / c(o)ho(rtis) V pr(aetoriae). f. {v. i. below. 21). (n. n. (n. The expression res novae denotes indeed revolutions and rebellions.1 (1924) 1307. M. NOVIA Ap(ianus) cum reliquis” 15. 10) 130. n. 19 = 72. E. apparently he did not check the text in CIL VI. / L. mostly in Roman Germany16. Wightman. verum omnino inauditum. 3714. and Egger. Licinius L. (n. 10) 370. adduces approvingly Grosso. “Legio”. Bormann’s adjectival interpretation gained an influential following. 10) 101. (n. The historical crux resides in line 4 (= 8–9): 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. (n. Alföldy. avers that the legion liberated itself from a siege “unter dem Kommando des Tribunen C. but there is all reason to look attentively at the enigmatic obsidio mentioned in the inscription from Urvinum. in this understanding he was seconded by Grosso: a siege “in modo del tutto nuovo”18. Alföldy. both with older literature (cf. (n. But what should the phrase nova obsidio exactly mean? For Egger it was “eine neuartige. 19. these lines were re-inscribed when the memory of Commodus was restored under Septimius Severus. 14 (she tentatively suggests an Italian location). 12. otherwise unknown. 9) 378 = 284. compares the locution res novas moliri. (n. Exempla inscriptionum Latinarum 1 (Berolini 1873) no. E. Egger very oddly calls the city Novia Specula. (n. but it troubled earlier editors and interpreters. Egger omitted the beginning of Cicero’s ironmore interestingly. writes that “an inscription refers to a ‘siege’ of the eighth legion at Strasbourg”. but sought in various places. and in the latter cum liberata esset Nova obsidione. 7) 438. Caec. n.246 Historia et Ius 244 There is no reason to discuss the rebellion of Maternus in detail again. Egger. Bormann’s own preferred lectio is not in doubt. 15 16 17 18 . Zimmermann. Orellius. Licinius gives as his origo a city of Novia.2 (1925) 1660. Inscriptionum Latinarum amplissima collectio 2 (Turici 1828) no. in particular Ritterling and Alföldy postulated that the legion was besieged by the rebels in its main camp at Argentorate17. 9) 11. but does not quote Egger}. Petrus Apianus was famous for his Inscriptiones sacrosanctae vetustatis (Ingolstadt 1534). Vesnius Vindex” – as if militante meant imperante. ungewöhnliche” obsidio. 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”.e. (n. Saldern. 10) 370. Kaiser-Raiss. n. n.. Agnati. Der historische Wert der vita Commodi in der Sammlung der scriptores historiae Augustae (= Philol. and disregarding the opinion of Bormann decisively opted for a city name: “Nova – vel Novia”. capitalia” (Ter.56. no hint of an earlier obsidio or oppressio hostilis. 2) 17 (no. Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum (Vindobonae 1889) 264. Urlichs. Defenders of the reading Nova (and the now discredited Novia) were besieged but never completely conquered.1. The . 7) 438. Thus the phrase should rather be perceived as conveying the generic sense of “recent”.50. places Novia (from CIL VI 3891) among incerta. “novum audaciae genus” (Calp. the translation by P. 22 Wilmanns. but possibly it expresses a new character of the second siege. in Jahrbücher des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande (a predecessor of BJ) 60 (1877) 61–66. atrox” (Quint. singular. 363). We 19 A few examples culled from Lewis-Short and OLD: “flagitia . “novus” 5). 6. 4. 9 [1904]) 1–208 at 103. Both authors express the opinion that the town may perhaps be identified with Nova Augusta in Hispania Tarraconensis (Plin.. and indeed the stone was set up soon after the legion withstood the assault. BC 3. 236–37): “Aber es ist wenigstens erkennbar. Att.33). In the collocation nova obsidio there is no such elucidation present. namque extemplo M. et ante hunc diem non auditum” (Cic. Suppl. Lig.v. OLD s.24). Jal in his edition of books 41–42 in the Collection Budé (Paris 1971): “la levée de ce siége fut suivie d’un second siége tout nouveau”. she observes. 2 [1905] p.. unheard of”. 2.1: “in novo genere belli novae ab utrisque bellandi rationes reperiebantur” (observe that Caesar is careful to specify “in novo genere belli”. dass die deutschen Stämme die Grenze überschritten und die achte Legion in Novia belagert hielten”. 14. Thus. Chiron 23 (1993) 313–21. Haliartum circumsedit”. Also Grosso toyed with the idea of an “assedio sostenuto nella località di Nova”. W. Kubitschek.2. ingentia. Domaszewski. 1921. and has not simply written “in novo bello”). “fresh” (cf. connected the remark in Vita Commodi 13 about the troubles in Germany with the inscription from Urvinum. Geschichte der römischen Kaiser 2 (Leipzig 1909) 236 (and sec. .5). see H.Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 247 245 ical enunciation: ‘Unde vi prohibitus?’ Sic nemo umquam interdixit. Lucretius . On this town.. who boldly wrote that the Eighth legion “wie wir aus den Inschriften wissen.. Trevisiol. v. 11). In our inscription there is. magna.27). 721–23). Zangemeister (CIL XIII. This interpretation has recently found some favor in the eyes of Wilmanns. also U. 20 The collocation alteri novae is odd. Mayer. Lentulus) locum alteri novae20 obsidioni dedit. following von Domaszewski21. “Una propuesta de identificación epigráfica: Lara de los Infantes / Nova Augusta”. “novum crimen . novum est (etc). He was seconded by his student. and adduces Novia (from the Urvinum inscription) only as a comparison.. he located the alleged Novia in the castellum in Niederbieber. 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. 4). J. although novus is often used in the sense of “novel. Caes. and comforted himself with the thought that “l’ablativo non sarebbe in un testo epigrafico una grande irregolarità” 22.1. 21 A. Grosso. nova. Heer. 1). however. however. (n. Decl. Ad. (n. strange. The only other characterization of a siege as nova appears in a passage of Livy (42. “video tibi etiam novum accidisse tamquam mihi” (Cic. M. La storia romana della provincia di Pesaro e Urbino (Roma 1999) 61. cf. Gimeno and M.. Verr. “si res agi videtur nova. he was ready to seek it in “territorio limitano”. für die tapfere Verteidigung von Novia den Ehrenbeinamen Commoda erhielt”.5): “haec soluta obsidio (of Haliartus by P. “nova tibi haec sunt? inopinata?” (Cic. 9) 11. C. NH 3. that “Es müsste dann allerdings wegen des Lokativs NOVIAe heissen”. unusual. J. (n. ed. Cf.. A similar idea was fully developed already by L. Most of the texts reproduced below are self-explanatory. If NOVA is the adjective it will stand in the ablative. (depending on the active or passive construction of the sentence).) 3) obsidione Titus liberatus 4) liberatus Titus obsidione 5) obsidione liberatus Titus 6) liberatus obsidione Titus. Trevisiol translates the phrase cum liberata esset Nova (so her text) obsidione as “poichè la città di Novia (sic) fu liberata dall’assedio”. a notion that may be linguistically pleasing though historically hardly enticing. are not particularly useful in recognizing patterns of expression. Regrettably more recent students of the problem showed no interest in these tools. and the obsessus – liberatus. In the phrase obsidione liberare there are three elements: the constant element obsidione (abl. nor were available various electronic data banks. TLL produced 18 examples of the phrase obsidione (or obsidio) liberare. the TLL articles on obsidio and obsidium were not yet available. The reading on the stone excludes the possibility of the legion being besieged in a place called Novia. here concordances and data banks are ideal instruments. This material we can arrange in six patterns: 1) Titus liberatus obsidione (a Marco) or (Marcus) Titum liberat obsidione 2) Titus obsidione liberatus (etc. or acc. annotations in the footnotes are intended to provide solely grammatical and semantic clarification (and not a historical commentary). mostly in the nom. of separation). At the time when standard studies dealing with our inscription and the rebellion of the deserters were composed. Outside this structure. the Pious Faithful legion was named Constant Commodian” (or “the legion was named Pious Faithful Constant Commodian”). and in a variety of other constructions. a search in the Packard Humanities Institute’s Latin Data Bank and in the electronic Bibliotheca Latina Teubneriana yielded 48 examples (including 17 passages from TLL. 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. On the other hand if it is a place name it will be in the nominative. So far theories and speculations. and finally Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg contributed one epigraphical attestation. . and the legion itself will be relieved from a “new siege”. The perusal of TLL (1983) yields interesting information.248 Historia et Ius should not abuse grammar or the marble. we arrive at 51 examples. abs. In that latter case the translation will sound: “when (the city of) Nova was freed from a siege. rebellion of Maternus infected parts of Gaul and Spain. is the obsessor and the liberator. Thus altogether. with the sole exception of the Elogium of Lucullus). being arranged according to grammatical and syntactic principles. but dictionaries. but also in abl. including CIL XI 6053. a form of the verb libero. but all important. Packard. 4.. “adventu . esse” (Liv.662 [p. Cf.17)25. But Livy may have aimed at a variatio.4).32). 377.10)24. Dictionaries and translators take this phrase as an example of liberare with an accusative of the burden removed. V 5. obsidio and obsidium.4). quam ii. in the senate. This may embolden us to consider an emendation. J. 5. and electronic searches). qui liberati obsidione sunt. regii praefecti non Corinthus tantum liberata obsidione . and we may wish to keep the accusative. in a convoluted passage.25. I 8.v.4 (the Carthaginians are reported to reason): “quippe classi ut felicissime geratur res.37. the regular Livian and Latin expression was obsidione liberare.. Books XXXIV–XXXVII (Oxford 1981) 321–23.Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 246 249 Pattern I:23 1.11.6. II 22. and they may well be right. dant ei duci qui liberavit” (Gell. Cf. At 37. 24 The city of Cumae was besieged by Hannibal.9. was repelled from under the walls of Pergamon by the bravery of the Achaean contingent (37.37.2). 2. 37.2): “ad liberandum Mogontiaci obsidium ducebantur”. W.v.v. A Commentary on Livy. . Cf.. Sempronius Gracchus through a successful eruptio confounded the Carthaginians. and Hannibal decided to withdraw. “iidem (sc.21.25. Obsidionem solvere is a frequent expression (cf. 36. Thurini) postea Fabricium donavere statua liberati obsidione” (Plin. the praetor L. At Liv..1). I 6. 31. in that case we must find another verb. Seleucus. 294. And then there is a passage of Tacitus (Hist.83–1310. “liberatus deinde obsidione . but the true reason for the retreat will certainly be the arrival of the Roman navy.48.. “to raise a siege” (cf. 32. TLL s. 5. “decreverunt (the senators) ut . Here indeed it is difficult to think of any alternate construction although we still may consider obsidione levanda. 1968). 31.. “coloniam liberatam obsidione . For the phrase. suamque gratiam consul in obsidione liberanda facturus esset”. isdem diebus (etc)” (Liv.5 (the opinion of Fabius Maximus delivered in the senate): “non ad Romam obsidendam sed ad Capuae liberandam obsidionem (Hannibalem) ire”. obsidentes” (Liv. 8.43). palaeographically. but the consul (of 215) Ti. the king besieges Lamia.. l. we must read ad Capuam liberandam obsidione (cf. If we wish to keep the verb. parte aliqua levari Uticae obsidionem” Caution is in place. “obsidionalis (corona) est. 7. Cf. TLL. But a glance at D. A Concordance to Livy (Cambridge. we read (the passage reproduces the thoughts of Philip V.8. Thilo]). 200) defeats the Gauls “Cremonam .. ed. 3. OLD s. 8. and the Romans simultaneously besiege Heraclea): “haud dubius quin si prius Heraclea capta foret. libero 3b. “quod obsidione se ac fratrem exemissent regnumque ab iniuriis Antiochi vindicassent”. 26 In oratio obliqua.11)26. Furius (a. Aen.53. 23 To this pattern may perhaps also belong the passage Liv. 26. “ara in Capitolio est Iovis Tutoris in qua (cives) liberati obsidione coria et sola vetera concremaverunt” (Serv. The verb that satisfies all requirements is levare: ad Capuae levandam obsidionem. solvere is not a good choice.52. NH 34. 6. which in view of Tacitus’ penchant for rare expressions we should certainly hesitate to alter. however.8). 5. 4. libero 1309. 31. 373. adiuvarem” (Liv. will show how formulaic Livy’s idiom was. According to Livy (and Polybius) the son of Antiochus. Lewis-Short s. the king of Pergamon.3 he thanks the senators.. VI 1. proficisceretur ipse ad coloniam liberandam obsidione” (Liv. 25 From the speech of Eumenes. Mass. “Quibus diebus Cumae liberatae sunt obsidione.. auct.21. Briscoe... see 30. ut eum . Pattern I 8). est” (Liv. consuli vestro occurri. Romanis se potius (the inhabitants of Lamia) quam sibi dedituri essent..5.. 23. 25)27. Chiron 15 (1985) 87–105 at 103–5 (= Römische Heeresgeschichte [Amsterdam 1987] 463–81 at 475–77). 33 Earlier publications: CIL II 2015 = ILS 1354a = (EDH) HD 018073.2). Syr. “Bellum Mauricum”. 8. Aen. Octavian) . 12. fortissime circa Mutinam administratum est et D. “Narbonensis colonia. 5. “qui (Octavian) ad D. an explanation which we can now fully savor. 38. Aemilium liberaret obsidione” (Liv. abs.12)30. Brutum obsidione liberandum profectus sit” (Cic. La ciudad Romana de Singilia Barba (Malaga 1988) 73.25–26): “numquamne (Teucros) levari obsidione sines?” (referring to Turnus’ siege of the Trojan camp). For obsidio = captivitas. 40...49.51). Baebius) “M.. n. 7. obsidione liberatus translato in Thessaliam bello . Alföldy. “Dec. Atencia Paez. and dispersed the Ligurians. 5. “exercitum obsidione liberatum domum reduxit” (Nep. Pattern II: 1.. Cornelius. This Spanish city was besieged by the Carthaginians and rescued by the Scipiones (in 215). Fonteium) ipsa nuper obsidione hostium liberata nunc eiusdem miseriis . 11. “ob municipium diutina obsidione et bello Maurorum liberatum patrono” (CIL II2 783)33. C. 7). ad Oct. Pat.v. Bruto obsidione Mutinensi a Caesare liberato” (Liv. 111). esercitato una pressione su Narbona. 119). gratias agentes commemorantesque . acie victus est” (Liv. obsidione sese ab eo (sc.23. Brutus obsidione liberatus” (Vell.2)32.. I Romani nella Gallia meridionale (Bologna 1974) 161: “i Volcae abbiano .250 Historia et Ius 9.9.2.61. Servius explains levari as liberari. ab eo (sc.72–226. commovetur” (Cic. 8. 9. When the relief force failed to materialize.4).8)28.. Per. a te . “Demetrius obsidione Parthorum liberatus” (Iust. 67–68)..11. “Levari obsidione sines] liberari” (Serv. obsidio. 10. 39. 6. 2. 3. 32 Epaminondas (while numero privati militis) extricates an army from a difficult situation: “locorum angustiis clausi ab hostibus obsidebantur” (7. see G. see R. II 15. 10. V 6.25. 33. 2. 10. The inscription was lost. quae per hunc (M. “bellum . Ep.1). Vallius Maximianus. Claudio Marcello scripsit ut exercitum e Gallia traduceret in Ligures et L..25.. 28 The Ligurians besieged castra Romanorum (24. Fam. 4. and only 2 of obsidio and levare (for the other example. Cf. 247 . 30 Abl. cos. praesidiis eius cum magna clade diversae partis expugnatis. 10. Cf. 29 Cf. “de proelio facto Brutoque et Mutina obsidione liberatis audivi” (Cic. 27 In Vergil Venus addresses Jupiter (Aen. cf. forse. 31 Demetrius (II Nicator) was taken prisoner by the Parthians. 34. “Pompeius ad Dyrrachium obsessus a Caesare et. 46)29.5–8). the comment by G.. di una vera e propria obsidio”. “Placentini Cremonensesque . below. 23). see n. (Cn. a usage favored by Justin.-Cic. anche se non si trattò. and rescued by his brother Antiochus VIII Grypos (App. Phil..1). and recently recovered. obsidio here equals captivitas (cf.. Epam.1)31.. 225. 7.. 197) liberatos” (Liv. Per. as there are 50 other examples of the collocation of obsidio or obsidione liberare.4: “non ferens captivitatem Demetrius”). “cogita . see TLL s. Clemente. Aemilius made an eruptio.1. Font. consulem obsidione liberatum” (Ps.. Accordingly Servius posits as a standard expression liberari obsidione.... The city was liberated by a detachment commanded by C. “Iliturgi obsidione liberato” (Liv. 23. procurator of Mauretania Tingitana. .34. Post red.. 11. 1. filium cum matre obsidione Amphipolitana liberare” (Iust. Cf. cum esset tribunus militum . “Gylippus . 67. 343) A.9). 14..3)38.21). The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley 1981) 67–69.. “urbem . captivitas (cf. “cum careret (sc. p.. Cf. 35. no.10)37. 7. Maxfield. 36 The Romans were trapped by the Samnites when the consul (a. “Quinctius (Cincinnatus) dictator dictus .. 20). II 22–25. Inscr.4)39. Div. Cf. VI 1. Aur. III 1. III 1. a letter of Pompeius). no. exercitum traducere constituerat . 37 Obsidio here denotes the whole invasion of Hannibal and his assault upon Italy..6..38).. 22. BG 4.. Syracusanos) obsidione liberavit” (Iust.e.. orabant. Cf.3. II 22–26. Plin. Cn. n. ad Quir.. veterani) D. Aug. consulem obsidio liberavit” (Vir. 27. II 22.1)35. ulcisci velle et Alexandri . 24. summis obsidionis periculis liberavit” (Cic. Antigonus) se Olympiadis mortem .. 21. “tales viros periculo obsidionis liberare cupio” (Cic. The corona obsidionalis could also be given for rescuing an army or a detachment from an ambush. 31. Cat. III 1. 15. Fabio Maximo dedit quod . NH 22. 8. 5. Cf. Decius . Cornelius “exercitum incaute in saltum cava valle pervium circaque insessum ab hoste induxit” (Liv. 25. p.. It. XXI. 35 The Volsci and the Sabini “Q. “P. III 1. Timoth.12. 15. Cyzicenorum ..10: (Fabius) “honoratus est Hannibale Italia pulso”. 1. 24–27.1–2). patriam obsidione liberarunt” (Nep.. V. Cf. 18.. 27. 19. “divulgat (sc. 38 Obsidio here in general for hostile oppression. socios (i. 23. CIL I2.4. and II 23–27.51)36. II 22–24. exercitum obsidione liberavit” (Cic.. 4. “Marius. filium Alexandri cum matre in arcem Amphipolitanam custodiendos mittit”). 17. “qui (sc. 27. occupation. “conlegam suum pulsum a rege Mithridat[e] cum se is Calchadona contulisset opsidione liberavit” (Elogium of Lucullus. 84)..6.. Imp.19. Att. 14. XIII.. 26. urbem Romam obsidione hostium liberavit” (Gell. “ad Gallias profectus Vindelicos obsidione barbarica liberavit” (Hist. 196. qui bis Italiam obsidione . 20. I 3.. cf. Marius) patria quam obsidione liberavisset” (Cic. “praesidium Lacedaemoniorum ex arce pepulerunt. 17.2.Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 251 248 13. 16. liberavit” (Cic. V 5. Pomp. II 22. see above. 25–27. 39 An earlier passage (4. “coronam gramineam senatus populusque Romanus Q.16.. ut sibi auxilium ferret.4).A. ut Ubios obsidione liberaret” (Caes. Pelop.. Cincinnatus was honored with a corona obsidionalis. 20). 4. Brutum obsidione cupiunt liberare?” (Cic. 23. .. For the usage. 3.1. quod graviter ab Suebis premerentur”.. Minucium consulem in Algido monte obsidebant”. Cf. “Cyzicum obsidione liberavit” (Nep.3)..13: “Cassander . ill.2)34.5) clarifies the sense of obsidio: “Ubii . Phil. 34 Obsidio here means confinement. III 1. II 8. 26. cf.. “Caesar . III 1. BG 5. Rab. I 3.6)41. 40 A Roman army was trapped in Liguria in a narrow saltus. regium patrium prope amissum recepissent” (Liv.4)43.252 Historia et Ius Pattern III: 1.4)..7). “ut abscesserit inde dictator. debere per quos obsidione miserrima liberati essent. 4. 43 Obsidio miserrima here may refer specifically to Antiochus’ siege of Alexandria (cf. Caesarem . 45.8). 45. ab oppugnando Sutrio . 42 This formed olim part of the experientia iuventutis. “eadem (corona graminea) vocatur obsidionalis liberatis obsidione abominandoque exitu. II 22. omnia sua secum una moritura arbitrabatur” (Cic.. “Mago. hostium copias in Italia fudisset atque obsidione rem publicam liberasset. 2.13.. “Etruriae populi . Cf. . orsi bellum. 8. eo . “pacis decus habebatur submota campis irruptio ferarum et obsidione quadam liberatus agrestium labor” (Plin. they felt as if they were rescued from a siege.. Pattern IV: No examples (but cf. n. extra vallum egressos fudisse ac fugasse hostes” (Liv.32. cum (Marius) . NH 22.25. when the dictator went away. 3.25. 7.. “Pompeius circumsessus ad Dyrrachium non tantum obsidione liberavit suos. 4. The dictator (Q. ipse circumfusus corona obligavit” (Front. ut obsidione liberatos. Strat. V 5. obsidione (obsidio) Mutinae liberat Brutum” (Flor. 6. “At. 4. Thus. “obsidionalis corona est.11.2)42.. “Ptolemaei legati communi nomine regis et Cleopatrae gratias egerunt: plus eos senatui populoque Romano . 22. 44 In a reported speech of a tribune of the plebs. 3.. consul cum exercitu ad liberandos obsidione socios venit” (Liv... 29). Paneg. “Octavius Caesar .).. 5.. credo (ironically). rumorem Hannibalem .9)44.13)40. ad liberandos obsidione Locros venire” (Front. 35..4 = 2.. 5.11).42–49). perd.. 2. I 3.. 3.4).7.. in fine). Fabius Maximus) keeps the army idle in a camp: “exercitum cupientem pugnare et magistrum equitum clausos prope intra vallum retentos” (22. 81. totis castris” (Plin.17.15. II 22. but also more generally to his design to dominate the whole of Egypt... VI 1. “quoniam obsidione liberatum Ciceronem sciebat” (Caes. verum etiam post eruptionem . quae datur imperatori ei. 440 L. Pattern VI: 1.. Pattern V: 1.. Cicero was besieged in his hiberna by the Nervii (cf. 9. II 22–27. Cf. 23.49. praefecto. cum Locri obsiderentur a . qui obsidione liberavit ab hostibus obsessos” (Fest. Cf. II 3.2). 41 Q.. diffudit .4. “et obsidione liberatus consul quo intenderat pervenit” (Liv.26). A ruse and a daring attack by the Numidian cavalry saved the day for the Romans.. Cf. e. Pliny and Tacitus. otherwise unattested (liberata . Pattern V displays Livy (3 examples).3)45.. 1 each from Pliny and Gellius. Livy has only 2 (to which. but telling examples: Cic. Let us for the moment accept that the legio covered itself with glory lifting a siege of Nova. The consideration of other causal cum-clauses in which liberatus appears will bring elucidation. and none from Cicero. style is a disruption of regularity. In that sentence Cicero’s evocation of Marius is laced with emotion and sarcasm against the obtrectatores of the hero. 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). 2. Statistical observations are of interest. we may add 2 examples from the Periochae). it hardly ever occurs in the middle position.14. There are only two. 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. the book de vir.-Cic. “placuitque liberari obsidio legiones et decedere omnem militem finibus Armeniorum” (Tac.C. Nova obsidione). the Hist. cf. It figures also in Caesar. On the other hand in the most popular Pattern II it is Cicero who leads with 9 examples. Florus. 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. Pat. there is thus visible a strong tendency to place the name of the besieged first or (as a distant second choice) last. and Patterns V and VI for 12 examples. Stylistic trouble immediately arises: this would form Pattern IV. the legion was named” etc). Vell.7: 45 A long story (15. in translation: “since Nova was liberated from a siege.8–16). and five other authors each with one passage (Caesar. an Augustan elogium and a second century inscription. however. and allow the legions to depart. is also the only author attested for Pattern III. Ann. Stegmann. Gellius. Frontinus. and consequently for the word order in this clause we would receive no clear guidance from the assembled patterns. These four Patterns represent standard idiomatic Latin from the late republic to the late empire. Kühner . Aug. 15. .Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 249 253 4. Interestingly Nepos and Justin employ this pattern only (each with three passages).). Frontinus.. In Pattern I there are 6 examples from Livy. 46 On this clause.. R... an imperial declaimer (Ps. Div. At the price of a virtual surrender the Parthians raise the siege. Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache II 2 (Hannover 1914 [Darmstadt 1976]) 346–47. ill. Pliny the Younger and Festus). As always. Between them Patterns I and II account for 37 examples. This stylistic obstacle need not be fatal: we may not be dealing with a temporal but with a causal cum-clause46 (i. A Roman army is trapped and besieged in their castra by the Parthians. 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. 2 from Servius. Pattern VI with 4 examples houses Livy. g. Decius (above. V 6. nam cum bene sit liberata probro familia. For his feat Cicero (Div. (ed.e. Decius (II 17).. Vesnius was a military tribune. a collocation relatively rare but stylistically perfectly acceptable. the Roman socii at Sutrium and the city of Locri. and n. In his account of corona obsidionalis Pliny (NH 22. For his tactical acumen and personal bravery Decius received from the consul the military award of corona aurea. it is bound to crash against the rock of history and topography. RE 3 [1899] 1373).34–37). one would expect that this other army.. stuprum) fecisset Mari propinquus. Yet even if it could overcome problems of style or grammar. Calpurnius Flamma in Sicily (on this Roman Leonidas.-Quint. 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. cf. Håkanson) 3.18 (Miles Marianus): “quodsi . only 47 For the golden crown and corona obsidionalis. We get Pattern VI (liberata . and so was the legendary P. but still we observe that the inscription does not indicate even by a word the manner in which the legion was saved (e. necessarium forsitan erat hac quoque eum (i.51) provides the phrase (exercitum obsidione liberavit). see Maxfield. A historical question immediately obtrudes: freed by whom? In two of the four idiomatically comparable examples (VI 2. Here belongs also VI 4. in an honorific document we cannot expect a sustained narrative. but soundly defeated the enemy. 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. n. eiusdem honoris index. Linguistically the reading Nova must be rejected. Vesnius was not a new Decius. also V 1. 67–69. 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. “Calpurnius 42”. would be a candidate for an award. mergi eos in acquam iussit”. (n. The information that this happened (Vesnio) militante offers no clue. and not our legio... Cornelius was trapped in a narrow valley by the Samnites. but in this case the exercitus was “liberated” not through heroic resistance but at the price of an ignominious retreat. quid attinet illud subinde Mario obicere?” The word order corresponds to Patterns V and VI. Altera corona..e. . He earned no military award. see F. respectively a consular army and the army of Hannibal. are saved (or are expected to be saved) by an external force. obsidione legio). 40). a praesidio suo inposita est” 47. Epaminondas (II 9). ultimately the Romans not only escaped unharmed.. maior. 28).. 3) the besieged. Marium) premi invidia. 1. In all these accounts we have a story.. Decius led a select group of soldiers (praesidium) to capture a hill (collis). Münzer. If the Eighth Augustan legion were rescued by such a force. II 17).6–13) knows of only one other military tribune so honored. and cf.. and Livy a detailed hagiographic story (7. M. eruptione facta). and he was also honored by his commilitones: “legiones gramineam coronam obsidionalem . Decio imponunt. 37) 80–81. So proceed the historians. viveret tribunus. . Ps. When the army commanded by the consul A. Decl. with a nice formulaic affinity to our text.254 Historia et Ius 250 “cum cavea liberati pulli non pascerentur. quod ista (i. and above all Pompey’s feat at Dyrrachium (I 3. and thus the phrase in the Urvinum inscription would remain without a parallel. M. How can this passive enunciation be endowed with a sense active. (n.6. 2. Especially valuable in civil war: Cic. Displayed in sieges: Bell. and the brigand’s mad designs on the imperial purple. Herodian and the Historia Augusta. Lucan. 10) 368 = 70. 73.5.489–91: “Caesar . very likely that the rebels were declared (by the 48 TLL s. Artistry and Ideology: Livy’s Vocabulary of Virtue (Frankfurt a. with ample literature and convincing arguments against the theory of Cassius Dio as the Hauptquelle of Herodian.13: “Romanos ne oppugnatione quidem urbis Romanae abstrahi a Capua obsidenda potuisse: tanto constantiorem inimicum Romanum quam amicum Poenum esse” (cf. is baffling (observe the energetic liberavit in the lay of Decius). a deserter who persuaded also other soldiers to abandon the ranks. Herodian was writing a romance – but on the canvas of history49. Zimmermann.6.11.85. 10) 185. 3. Phars. 30. Of the rebellion of Maternus he has an account both informative and inconsistent (1.16. fideliter. 3. He describes Maternus as a former soldier.15.7. Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la république (Paris 1963) esp. n. although this will hardly mean that a iustum bellum was declared50. “Herodian’s Historical Method and Understanding of History”. 50 So C.4.8: “De restituenda per constantiam acie” (with 14 examples). in the chapter de constantia obsessorum).Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 255 251 a relatively minor preferment in his magisterial career. T. Tac. J. In what kind of duel our legion was involved we can learn from two much maligned but indispensable sources. cf.2 (coupled with perseverantia). 36. see H. 50. but it was particularly eminent in the military sphere. 51 Grünewald. they were engaged in a duel of constantia48.8: “constantiaque militum veteranorum legionumque . depulsus Antonius”. tanta est constantia mentis.35.12. constans appear particularly often in close association with firmus. however. Constantia. Strat.10). a man of daring.24. much praised as an attribute of a Roman miles. esp. ANRW II 34. Alföldy.. J. 26. 283–85. above all. R. lines 52–77. 49 See.v. In particular the besieged and the besieging were in need of steadfastness: the former to endure assaults and privation. The passive phrasing. Hist. 26. As a virtue in battle: Front. Liv. and electronic searches).4 (1998) 2775–2836. Whittaker in an annotation to his Loeb translation.. and never more so than in adversis rebus in war (Liv. In this context some scholars also point to the well known legal rule. (n. (n. 4. the latter to overcome the defences through the firmness of purpose.17). 2.9. expugnantis opus”. Strat. Ulpian)51. For a more positive appraisal. “constantia” 504–7. Pat.14. in that latter case the notion of fides almost always precedes that of constantia (TLL 505. fortis and fides.. cum liberata esset nova obsidione legio. 2. 4. 49. Phil. Tac.1–2: …w mhk°ti l˙st«n éllå polem¤vn ¶xein éj¤vma) will come from a sober source. Ruf. Herodian’s remark that at some point the rebels were reclassified from latrones to hostes (1. 3. obsessusque (in Alexandria) gerit. Vell.18. He did not singlehandedly rescue the legion from a siege or trap. 1989) 63–66. with respect to rebels it is a wrong definition.6. 1 (1969) 61..10. qui nobis aut quibus nos publice bellum decrevimus: ceteri latrones aut praedones sunt” (cf. Dig. This definition refers to foreign enemies.. Strat. There is no reason to question the large geographical extent of the revolt. Here the denomination constans deserves special attention. Alex. It is. heroic and triumphant? The clue may reside in the epithets of the legion. Hist. 10) 102. 3.3. 2780–92.118 (Pomponius): “Hostes hi sunt. Curt. Constantia was a general virtue of mind and comportment. vol. Front. 10. Sidebottom.73. . Front. Hellegouarc’h. It was a particularly Roman virtue. See further below. Moore. Klio 13 (1913) 103: “Legation mit Spezialmandat in Gallien”. such enemies were regularly described and treated as bandits. latrones Italiae”.4: “hos qui consulem reliquerunt hostes necesse est iudicemus” (only that in this case they abandoned Antony. sec. M. v. Cat. 561–62. M. 2. Hist. (n. The motif of amicitia may indeed be an invention. and possibly after 4 Aug. Legally the latter were initially simple latrones.256 Historia et Ius 252 senate) hostes publici52. 1.e. Aug. but fabulous embellishments need not invalidate the historical kernel of the story55. The Sources of the Historia Augusta (Bruxelles 1978) 51. Herodian and the Hist. Premerstein. v. “Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Marcus”. Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (Amsterdam 1989) 351–52 (with further literature).3).32: “hostes patriae. We have to distinguish the letters to the governors and the command to organize a task force. Pesch. 4. and thus were patriots). Alföldy. 829. n. Mommsen.3–5). A. 55 Cf. Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899) 256–59. see T. T. speak of the country of the Celts and 52 On the declaration hostem iudicare (and particularly on its republican antecedents).5: “hostem illum et latronem et parricidam patriae” (of Antony). although particularly dangerous53. J. Strafrecht (n.. As Herodian paints it (and it is a very likely representation) the followers of Maternus consisted of two distinct groups: the army deserters.11 (of Maximinus). Phil. Leunissen. endorsed by PIR2 VI (1998) 93–94 (P. Kunkel. and more recently P. Ungern-Sternberg.. many from emptied jails. 10) 372–73 .10. Senatusconsultum ultimum und hostisErklärung (München 1970) esp. 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. Untersuchungen zum spätrepublikanischen Notstandsrecht. 4. see Dig. Mommsen. éyroisy∞nai). cf.16 5 (Arrius Menander lib. Legally of interest is the enunciation of Cicero. 52) 43. 1. Aug. 54 For the crime of desertion. 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. The biographer expatiates on the esteem of Severus for Pescennius and on their friendship. Barnes. the former formed a distinct category. de re milit. 111–22. 53 The (abusive) collocation hostis/latro has a long and elevated pedigree. When the Emperor realized the extent of the rebellion he dispatched menacing letters to the governors of the affected provinces accusing them of negligence. Cf. 49. 56 So A. W. the date of the Rottweil tablet). see the literature at EDH 006228). Pescennius Niger) is mentioned (on this much discussed inscription. he also issued orders to assemble an army against the rebels (ka‹ keleÊei stratÚn . 186. see Cic. in the time of war the penalty was invariably death54. and those who joined them. AE 1985. 21 (Maximus et Balbinus) 2. Herkunft und soziale Stellung der römischen Juristen [Weimar 19672] 233–34). Phil. De perduellione. Pescennius will have led the expedition against the rebels of Maternus as a special legatus Augusti56. crimine maiestatis et memoria damnata (Aachen 1995) 206–25.. where an expeditio Asiana against hostes publici (i. D. 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 186–189) missus erat ad comprehendendos desertores. It is at that time that Commodus will have ordered a sustained military campaign against the uprising (Herod. In the time of peace deserters were variously punished according to the gravity of their transgression. 254). qui innumeri Gallias tunc vexabant (3. and in small groups slipped into Italy. Pannoniae quoque conpositae <et> Brittannia. 10) 1306. it may still be an invention. and saved the day for the Emperor60. if so. The troops fighting the rebels appear to have been assembled from several provinces. and Alföldy. (n. However. and finally encircled the Eighth legion. Hohl. 7) 235–36. We should follow the good sense of Ritterling. captured cities. It is only at this point that Maternus conceived a wish of conquering the empire. Alföldy. Maternus ravaged “the Celtic territory” and Spain. Kaiser Commodus und Herodian (Sb Berlin 1954. he assaulted Roman garrisons. (n.Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 257 the Galliae as the theater of operations. even for a brigand. and it is this force that must have come to the rescue of the VIIIth Augustan legion of Argentorate. when faced with a large force arraigned against them.. Aug. {Hekster. But the legion offered steadfast resistance. E. 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. Herodian’s colorful story of Maternus’ last scheme caused the ire of many serious historians who brand the tale as a rank invention. bellum desertorum. abandoned the lands they were plundering. argues that Herodian may have taken this story from Cassius Dio. Piso. As the last desperate effort after a defeat in the open field. and as recently proposed again by Zimmermann. Bella et expeditiones (Stuttgart 1992) 109–10. (n. 7) 490–94. 10) 372 = 74. Comm. Pattern II 22–27. (n. and he planned on a march against Italy and the Emperor himself. rejects the whole story in the Life of Pescennius. where he intended to murder Commodus at the (March) festival of Magna Mater. and executed. 10) 67}. This is absurd. per legatos Mauri. Hist. victi Daci. and above. It is unlikely that the war against deserters for which we have a reliable denomination. 1) 17–19. in Germania et in Dacia imperium eius recusantibus provincialibus”. but his sequence of events is patently awry. A convenient doxography in I. Nr. the army of Maternus dispersed. As argued by Heer. It is indeed quite possible that the legion was besieged in its main camp at Argentorate. 10) 102–4. but it may have been simply hard pressed by the rebels. 10) 193–94. Alföldy. to some extent also Grosso. should be defined as expeditio Germanica. a picaresque romance61. Grünewald. n. and with several small groups of his followers succeeded in infiltrating into Italy and Rome. 40–41 (nn. (n. Grosso. (n. 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. His successes inflated his desires. These geographical denominations can refer not only to Gaul proper but also to the Germanic provinces57. (n. and indeed we hear of a rebellion of provincials against Commodus in Germany58. 89–95). and would rather entrust the liquidation of the rebellion to the governors of the German provinces. (n. So far we can rely on Herodian. In his account Maternus and his followers. 21) 104. (n. (n. When the relief force finally arrived.5: “Victi sunt sub eo . The likely order of events will certainly be very different. 74. 10) 374–76 = 76–78. Fasti provinciae Daciae I (Bonn 1993) 141. before he was able to execute his plan he was betrayed. III 1). but its chances of containing a kernel of truth would improve. the story need not be incredible. The troubles in Germany can easily be combined with the rebellion of Maternus. but he himself persisted in his plan. V. Zimmermann. 13. cf. line 48. Rosenberger. 372 = 72. 10) 370. But history is populated with bizarre plots. 57 58 59 60 61 . 32. (n. In a broader sense the term obsidio was also used de qualibet oppressione hostili (TLL 225.. = 74–75. 10) 89–100. 63 See the list (covering only the republican times) in L. Der Prodigienglaube und Prodigienstil der Römer (Progr. cf. although he did not combine it with any concrete event. repr. 3. But Herodian’s notice ést°rew går ≤m°rioi sunex«w §bl°ponto does not denote the prodigy of caelum ardere. (n. Burgdorf 1904. 56) refers only to Wülker and F. whose rather lacunose “Index of prodigies” (83–106) extends to the fourth imperial century. Leipzig 1903) 8. MacBain. 2) “eo anno (461) caelum ardere visum (many other prodigies occur). {The article by C. 1. M. Aug.3. 7. This report too will come from a reliable. De Ranieri. where the passage from Hist. Prodigy and Expiation: A Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome (Bruxelles 1982). Wülker. He observes that also Herodian (1.1 (1999) 343–66 at 351–52.258 Historia et Ius 253 We now turn to the Historia Augusta. Sen. 63] 10).5–10)64. Cf. quaest. 2. 20 where caelum ardere visum and stella arsit are clearly distinguished (cf.15. and in F. Ultimately. assembled in this place (16. however. Seneca (Nat. Obs. Kolb. An Interpretation of the Omens. Tacitus. 6. is duly noted. and ultimately probably official source62. MacBain mentions nominatim only one occurrence of caelum ardere (84). On the glowing of the sky. Darmstadt 1967) 22. Some of the other prodigies which the Hist. quaest. Anejos. The proclamation of feriae was of little immediate help: pestilence ensued and the renewed war with the Aequi and Volsci. Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1968/1969 (= Antiquitas. n. Rosenberger. 1. adds nothing of interest}. cf.6) as a presage of the war between Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus (see below in the text). the pestilence retreated.2). and Rosenberger (100. Luterbacher. The report refers to 464.1) “von dem in der Historia Augusta erwähnten Vorzeichen Kenntnis hatte”.5. R. “Omina mortis in der Historia Augusta”. The Life of Commodus (16. per quas omnia delubra pacem deum exposcentium virorum mulierumque turba implebantur” (Liv. Electronic searches provided additional examples. Gezähmte Götter.3 and 73.14. Montero. Several passages are especially revealing: 1) “caelum visum est ardere plurimo igni (other unspecified prodigies follow). and the Romans routed their enemies (3. 10) 369 = 71. On the prodigies and their expiation under the Empire. Libri per duumviros sacrorum aditi. It was missed by B. IV [Madrid 2000]) 41–94. “Gli omina del regno di Commodo come echi di battaglie propagandistiche nelle fonti storiografiche”. Krauss. Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des Prodigienwesens bei den Römern (Diss. B. cf.14.4. and Suetonius (Philadelphia 1930) 78–79. Mouchová. Aug. Neither MacBain nor V.4. see also B. n. The portent of the blazing sky is well known from (real or fictitious) accounts of prodigies (cf. F. 64 Cf.2) contains a curious notice: “ante bellum desertorum caelum arsit ”. In these accounts it is often connected with the fear of a war or a prediction of an unlucky war63. SCO 47. 7 [Bonn 1970] 16–17). Das Prodigienwesen der römischen Republik (Stuttgart 1998) discusses this prodigy.12.148) rationalize this prodigy as a natural phenomenon.1) and Pliny (NH 2. Herodian und der Historia Augusta (Bonn 1972) 142–45. His avertendis terroribus in triduum feriae indictae. pericula a conventu alienigenarum prae- 62 Alföldy.1–3. Books 1–5 (Oxford 1965) 403–4.1–7) are also mentioned by Cassius Dio 73. A Commentary on Livy. Wülker. S. caelum ardere visum”).3. Ogilvie.15. Trajano y adivinación (= Gerión. who points out that this prodigy appears in Cassius Dio (76. 27. The prodigy occurred in the midst of the war against the Aequi.24.20.5.5: “frequenter in historiis legimus.21. Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio. Rh. Portents and Prodigies Recorded by Livy. Nat. Oros. . [n. S. T.. the Sibylline books were again inspected. and sacrifices and supplications ordered. 108. among many other dire prodigies) Capuae speciem caeli ardentis fuisse” (Liv.12). R. obscure.. obscure.. MacBain.12). ne qui in loca summa urbis impetus caedesque inde fierent” (Liv. “caelum visum est ardere Arretii”67 (Liv. a. Iuventius Thalna in Corsica. 4. 66 Cf.10.4. 3. caelum arsit ” (cap.13. d) “in Gallia caelum ardere visum” (38.12. but we observe that this city frequently figures in prodigy reports. 22. F. “in Lucanis caelum arsisse adferebant” (Liv. The historical context is provided by the war against Perseus. cf. apud Tuscos caelum ardere visum” (Oros. a. anno 198). Livy explicitly connects this and other prodigies with the despoliation of the temple of Proserpina at Locri.13. (n.1. 14. “per idem tempus (March 217. anno 169).3. c) “Caere sanguinis rivi terra fluxerunt et nocte caelum et terra ardere visum ” (20. Capua was of course to become one of the flaming spots of the war. the role of Minturnae as the locus of caelum ardere is obscure. The Sibylline books were consulted. 147). The Sibylline books were consulted. The Sibylline books were consulted only in especially dire circumstances or when especially threatening portents were observed. no war in this year. “eo deinde anno (223) . and the religiones successfully expiated. This and other portents are connected with Flaminius’ disregard of auspices (contemptis auspiciis.6–7)65. and the capture of the Capitol by Appius Herdonius (3. and multifarious procurationes instituted. 4. . Quinctius Flamininus habito dilectu was about to depart for the war against Macedonia. internal discord. 63) 15–17. b) “Anagniae caelum nocte arsit ” (15. The mention of Tusci prefigures Flaminius’ later catastrophe at Lake Trasemene. This prodigy and many other portents were announced from various places in Italy precisely at the time when the consul T. 65 Ogilvie 416. anno 163). The gods were placated. 31. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1 (New York 1951) 232. Clearly a reference to Scipio’s expedition against Carthage. to no avail: the catastrophies of the Hannibalic war were not to be averted. 68 Cf. “Iuventius 30”. In due course the trial of Caeso Quinctius followed. Obsequens has several references to the prodigy of caelum ardere: a) “Formiis .9. 162).14) during his first consulship66. RE 10 (1919) 1371. a. 32. Broughton.Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 259 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 254 8) dicta.10–18). 67 The significance of Arretium escapes us. Numerous other prodigies were also reported. esp. unless we refer the report to the campaign of M. A supplication was decreed. “Menturnis quoque per eos dies caeli ardentis species affulserat” (Liv.3.13. and to his sudden death68. 113). on the oracular flavor of conventus alienigenarum. Münzer. Oros. this is immediately explained: “Cimbri Teutonique Alpes transgressi foedam stragem Romanorum sociorumque fecerunt”.. anno 200). 43. cf.). p. above.]). 32. 3.24. V of Boissevain’s edition]) 573. n. To the rescue comes Cassius Dio. fleg°yv and fl°gv). 9) “visas nocturno tempore ab occidente faces ardoremque caeli ” (Cic. anno 9. Three observations.33. 50. Aug. 8.4). 10) Chronologically this is the penultimate Latin reference to the prodigy. 2. s. 230. 10.22 [Xiph. a. the next is the passage from the Life of Commodus.v. 196. e) A sudden fire appeared at night in the northern sky so that people thought tÚn oÈranÚn aÈtÚn ka¤esyai (75 [76]. cf. 1. Cic. reprinted Darmstadt 1963) 104–17. The Hist. Here is the list of his references:70 a) tª Turshn¤di ka¤esyai toË oÈranoË polÁ ¶doje (Zon. but it was not the official translation of the idiom caelum ardere visum (see above). p. Cassius Dio here waxes more literary and less haruspical. most other portents hint at the unlucky end of Commodus. Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum index Graecitatis (Berolini 1931 [= vol. and the commentary by A.]). Pease (Urbana 1920. p. among the omina mortis of Augustus. oÈranÒw. d) ka¤esyai gar ı oÈranÚw tØn ≤m°ran §ke¤nhn ¶dojen (60 [61]. 27-28 D. a. 11. 4. almost entirely neglected by the students of prodigies (cf. c) ka‹ toË oÈranoË tÚ polÁ ka¤esyai ¶doje (56. 63). 27–28 Dindorf]). 71 In Greek literature this is a standard verb with respect to the glowing or burning celestial phenomena. Cat.38 [vol. among other dire happenings concerning the catastrophe of Quinctilius Varus. Nawijn. In the general climate of suspicion the isolated nature of this notice could easily have led to its rejection as an archaising invention.10 (vol. No events are known that could be connected with the prodigy. LSJ s. mostly referring in the annalistic fashion to the events of one year. 453. Among the prodigia Flaminiana. 94). Zon. 3. cf. The phrasing itself is a marvelous example of the Greco-Roman official prodigial idiom. on the other hand groups together all progidies that occurred during the reign of Commodus. among other prodigies preceding the war between Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus.18) – among other presages of the Catilinarian conspiracy69. a very interesting attempt at a technical and accurate rendering of the expression caelum ardere visum. 25–26 D.vv. Zon. no. Among these prodigies only the phenomenon of caelum ardere is connected with a specific event. above. the bellum desertorum. In all sources the prodigy of caelum ardere appears amidst a bevy of other portents. the sun.18–20.3. 3. It is an interesting col69 Cf. S. 2. .20 [vol. also lightning and thunderbolts (cf. As the search in TLG shows he is perhaps rather unexpectedly the only Greek author (not counting the Byzantines Zonaras and Xyphilinus who excerpted Dio’s history) to mention this species prodigii. the stars. a.260 Historia et Ius e) “in Vestinis fax in caelo apparuit et totum caelum ardere visum ” (51. Div. 70 Even in the pre-TLG times references to Cassius Dio could easily be assembled with the help of W. b) ka‹ ı oÈranÚw flegom°nƒ71 pollaxª §–kei (56.6). The baneful day is the day of Claudius’ adoption of Nero.29. 2–3: “utinam quidem di immortales fecissent ut tuus potius miles quam Cn. and thus indirectly supports the account of Herodian. salutem a tua clementia deposcimus”. a catastrophe is assured.. see also AE 1972.58. Several other legions bore at some point the surname of constans: I Adiutrix (CIL III 4300. 56] 140. 223. The deserters led by Maternus had on the other hand violated all the military obligation of fides and constantia. 744. that the military units could receive the surname pia fidelis also in wars against foreign enemies). 1592–93. EDH HD 001434 gives the name constans as figuring on a brick stamp found in Ratiaria: leg(ionis) XIII g(eminae) c(onstantis).8. and in Les légions. This is an interesting case. The very gravity of the portent forms a religious proof of the military seriousness of the war. 73 Constantia (and fides) stand in stark opposition to the action of deserere. 72 As Ritterling. XII Fulminata (the legion earned the surname certa constans from Marcus Aurelius during the rebellion of Avidius Cassius. De amic. this is a potent portent. Ritterling. Danoff (Danov) in JOEAI 31.1 (1938) Beiblatt 118. no. Ann. 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. [n.12. whence AE 1938. finds this reading and expansion very doubtful. above. (n. (n. perhaps XIII Gemina. 1438–39. justification is needed. see Cic. 1580. VI Ferrata (Ritterling. the legion received the epithet fidelis constans from Septimius Severus in the war against Pescennius Niger). CIL XVI 160. 58). Bell. cf.. 19. for the desertores were ultimately defeated and Commodus saved from the plot of Maternus. Ritterling. . Piso. [n.11-12. 33.. II Adiutrix (AE 1953. Bertrandy and B. and esp. 17) 1307 (cf. perhaps XXII Primigenia (AE 1990. is silent about any procurationes. qualem me illi praestiti. 1307. 46. I. the surnames pia fidelis point to the “Bekämpfung eines inneren Feindes” (but cf. 253. I. this prodigy was associated not only with war and general calamities but often specifically with the fate of the emperor. 1456). Ritterling. F. The legion deservedly earned its honorific epithets: in the face of the extreme danger from innumeri desertores it proved faithful72. Val. as in the case of Flaminius. 34. “Bolli laterici di Ratiaria”. steadfast73 and devoted to Commodus. Loå rincz.4: “si mihi vitam tribues. Tac. n. 8] 181. in Les légions. nn. 64. cf. Fitz. CIL III 3521. 17. Rémy.. 1708. The stamp would thus belong to the detachment of the legion stationed in the castellum of Pontes. 3. as the examples from Cassius Dio demonstrate. 1809). Pompeio sum desertus. Bollini. å in Les légions. 154. she suspects that the last letter was rather an s. 14. If one changes sides or surrenders. relicti et deserti a Pompeio . in Ratiariensia. no. Aug. 179). 1451) felicitously observes.68.Caelum arsit and obsidione liberare 261 255 location for under the Empire. 1389–90. Max. I. 1394. n. but see the doubts of Ritterling. 215. 10) I. non in illius calamitate praestarem! (But now) . see Ritterling. its gravity often underscored by the consultation of the Sibylline books. Hisp. and consequently she expands P(ontibu)s (comparing CIL III 14599). Next. The Hist. The presence of only Pia Fida (or Fidelis) as the epithets of legio VIII Augusta in the Rottweil tablet is a complication (see above. if so it is surprising that the brick was reportedly unearthed at Ratiaria. The brick in question was published by C. tali virtute et constantia futurum me in te esse praestabo”. Piso. but religious remedies must have been undertaken. But M. On the possible surname pia fidelis. 1720–21. quoniam ab Cn. as in two petitions to Caesar. and they will have proved successful. I (Bologna 1980) 113–14. Pompei factus essem et hanc virtutis constantiam in tua victoria. 9–11). and the observation of B.7–8 on constantia combined with fides in the face of death after capture by the enemy in civil war. If the gods are not properly propitiated. Liv. 4. in Les légions. 716).2. who was not able to retrace the brick itself. however. An invaluable book. King Fl(avius) Dades. 1015 (accepting Braund’s chronological reconstruction). have presented (this cup) to Bersouma. attests to the existence of the king Fl(avius) Dades. Georgia in Antiquity. but Russian titles are often mutilated. Also in F. 43 (1996) 380–81. No (subscript) iotas are indicated on the plate. Eranos 44 (1946) 229–43 at 232. no. Russian titles are given in the original form. “I. transliteration and translation. and titles of publications by Georgian and Armenian scholars are given only in western translations without any indication of the original language). Epigrafia greca. It reads: ÉEg∆ basileÁw Fl~ Dãdhw §xarisãmhn BersoÊm& pitiajª. Braund. Helbing. pitiax”. Georgia = D. Georgian titles in simplified transliteration and translation. Un repertorio (= Inschriften griechischer Städte Kleinasiens 65 [Bonn 2004]) 2. modern Georgia. S. cf. H. She continued her work. 175: “HÓ‚˚ „˜ÂÒÍË ̇‰ÔËÒË ËÁ AχÁË”. though in Russian always as K‡Ûı˜Ë¯‚ËÎË but in western languages principally either with the initial K or Q. Various transliterations adopted by various scholars quoted in this paper have been faithfully (and bafflingly) reproduced. 782. 2 (a very useful collection. Qaukhchishvili (this name is transliterated in a variety of ways. Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco. no. and almost fifty years later she published a new 1 . Braund. I [Roma 1967] 402). Georgian title: Sakartvelos SSR mecnierebata akademiis moambe. “Quelques inscriptions antiques découvertes en Géorgie”. reprinted Chicago 1974] 38. and republished with a Georgian commentary by T(inatin) S. surprisingly. Cf.1 As Mtskheta/Armazi was * Original contribution. it makes available to western readers results of the many decades of scholarship in Russian and Georgian. There are unfortunately several conflicting systems of scientific (and national) transliteration. Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions [originally 1940. Auswahl aus griechischen Inschriften [Berlin-Leipzig 1915] 24.. M. but see Braund. also a German title: Mitteilungen] 2 (1941) 169–76 at 171. Canali De Rossi. A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia 550 BC–AD 562 (Oxford 1994). no. There was. Qaukhchishvili in her Berdznuli tsartserebi sakartveloshi [Greek Inscriptions from Georgia] (Tbilisi 1951) 264–66 (non vidi). 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. “King Flavius Dades”. Braund. The find was originally published (in Georgian. Its scholarly usefulness is. Guarducci. “Dades” = D. Abbreviations: Braund. “Novye grecheskie nadpisi iz Armazi” [“New Greek Inscriptions from Armazi”]) by S. Nyberg. AviYonah. now M. 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). inter alia. The earliest occurrence dated to II/III c. with a short Russian summary on p. After the letters FL there is visible a horizontal wavy line (not indicated in SEG. ZPE 96 (1993) 46–50.17 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. they are (mostly tacitly) supplied by the editors (though not by the editor princeps: see below). “Dades” 49) which the editor princeps persuasively interpreted as an abbreviation sign (adducing R. SEG 16 (1959) 211. 32]). J. “the next-in-line” to the throne).2 Dades is generally assumed to have been an Iberian king. JRS 33 (1943) 82–86 at 83–85 (in his important review of G. Nyberg. 1) 21–22. Zãlissa. but in April 1939 on Beria’s personal orders he was released. He lived to the ripe age of 85 (1895–1981). and after several months he was restored to all his academic posts.? 263 the capital of Iberia. Arsacids and Sasanians. 3. when his Georgian compatriot L. The dish was found in the burial of Bersouma who held the office of pitiãjhw. Armazi is Strabo’s (11.. N. Yu. cf. it seems better to accept that . Tod. B. For other attestations of the name. paginated consecutively. see ü. and the excavations. a discussion of all inscriptions. 1–3. 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. 207 (no. Metzger. M. Braund. The editor princeps was a major figure in Georgian Greek and Byzantine studies. S. see also A. 49. and L. Yet no arrest followed. n..v. Titres et noms propres en Iranien ancien (Paris 1966) 50–65. he was arrested and accused of being “an agent of German imperialists” (he studied in Germany in 1921–1923). Boltounova [i. 251a). Georgia 211–14.. 5.3 (cf. see H. it denoted a high official at the Iberian court.How Did King Flavius Dades . and their Russian translation (unfortunately no original texts are given). armeno bdea s˚x: ı ÙfyalmÚw toË basil°vw. û. as so many others he was lucky to escape with his life. ép. Pagliaro. and 2. as Braund. On the vicissitudes of his life.501) ÑArmozikÆ. Bull. Braund. 1) 237 (cf. This term is known from other epigraphical texts. RE 2 [1895] 1177. and on his scholarly career. vols. ép. V. Sorokina]. 2 3 4 . Beria was the chief of the political police. cf. also phonetically. 261. Periplus 11]. with the English title Men and Destiny (more exactly People and (their) Fates). AÔ‡ÍˉÁÂ]. n. perhaps Mestl∞ta recorded by Ptolemy. “A Greek and Aramaic Inscription Discovered at Armazi in Georgia”. 1) 229–30. in English transliteration. “Quelques inscriptions” (above. A Bilingual Inscription from Armazi near Mch…eta in Georgia [see below. Georgia 227–30. Bull. n. tentatively suggests. CÓÓÍË̇ [Ya. see Braund. Vasil’kov and M. The Iranian etymology of pitiãjhw is obscure (A.355–66. n. For the history of epigraphic finds at Armazi. B‡ÒËÎ˙ÍÓ‚ Ë M.e.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 1999–2000). Yet. JNES 15 (1956) 18–26 at 18. almost certainly a person second in rank after the king. n. 207. “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. Dades was indeed a king of Iberia”. but in Iberia the holder of this office will have clearly been “the second after the king” (though not necessarily.. For the inscription of Dades. Cf. Nyberg (above. n. Boltunova]. with German summary in vol. 1948. β‰Ë Ë ÒÛ‰¸·˚ [L’iudi i sud’by. M. Georgia 212. Robert. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 12 [1929–1930] 160–68.) by another locality. On the archaeological complex of Mtskheta. with the presumed Iranian term for the “eye of the king”). and a telling subtitle: A biographical and bibliographical dictionary of oriental scholars – victims of political repression during the Soviet era] (Sankt-Petersburg 2003) 197–98. 2. Metzger (above. s. and as an Iranian import also in Armenia. and index in vol.267–68.. The inscription is mentioned in passing by B. undoubtedly Armazi.] Tomaschek. and its etymology. Geogr. in the absence of any ethnic. Robert. no. 251a). ÉÓÓ‰‡ ‰‚ÌÂÈ ÉÛÁËË [Goroda drevney Gruzii (Cities of Ancient Georgia)] (Tbilisi 1968) 178–237 (212–18. no.344. Benveniste. 1948. “Mediopersano bitaxs˚. on the dignity of “the second after the king”: it was an Iranian institution attested in Persia under the Achaemenids. Apakidze [A.3 Caution is advised. A. In October 1938. the inscription of Dades). and has been recorded by J. [W. 46). see 2. Tsereteli. attempts to connect the title. Georgia 211. I. and L. and E.11. Braund. and was expelled from the Tbilisi university and the Georgian Academy of Sciences. The ancient name of Mtskheta is unknown. but we observe that in Ptolemy Mestleta is separated from ÉArmãktika (corrected into ÑArmãstika. AχÁËÒı‚ÒÍË ÔËÚˇı¯Ë [Armaziskhevskie pitiakhshi (The pitiaxes from Armaziskhevi)] (Tbilisi 1978) 8–10. See esp. to which we ought to add C. In his Noms propres sasanides (below. Nyberg (above. Not unusual. A good argument. Braund. and among the members of the royal family we encounter Radamistus and Amasaspos. S. 144.5 But again caution is advised. n. 219–26. and reports that much of the inscription is not visible at all. Yet. Rhesmagas. Amiranachvili (i. apparently a gift from a pitiax of the Sasanian king Ardashir I (ca 224–242) for an Iberian pitiax. and that the plate was a gift from a Sasanian pitiax. trouvée à Mtskhetha”. wished to see in Dades a Georgian name. M. possesseur d’une coupe d’argent”. which he etymologically connected with the Iranian -dates. Apakidze. 213–15. On gifts of precious objects from kings to their “second in rank”. Klio 53 (1971) 213–22 at 220–21. the pitiax mentioned first bore the name Pabaµk ([p]’pky). inscribed in Aramaic script.7 but Dades appears to be Iranian – not surprising for also other kings of Iberia bore Iranian names: Pharnabazos. honoring an Iberian pitiax.6 Thus quite conceivably Dades could have well been a foreign king. P. but Nyberg. n. A.9 The editor princeps. Studia Iranica 13 (1984) 19–40 at 28–30 (no. 1) 21–22. in English transliteration. objected to this etymology. 11. n. king of the Sanigae (Arrian. with further literature. Pharasmanes. for a king of Iberia. “Éléments de prosopographie: II. one misses in the inscription an indication of Dades’ ethne. Metzger (above. 55–56 (and n. esp.present in the Scythian names from Olbia. if this were the case. Cf. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 34 (1959) 149–62. Mithridates. Georgia 237. nor has it found its way to the Supplements of 1968 and 1996).3). Amiranashvili). Gignoux. see Benveniste (above. and pointed to the element dad. but hardly decisive.264 Historia et Ius would thus be a gift from the king to his high courtier. in his own capital. Gignoux was able to examine the plate in the Museum in Tbilisi. 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. may have been deemed superfluous. n. on the other hand. Georgia 141–42. on phonetic grounds. n. 243. n.8 But this is true also of various kings of various other Caucasian and Pontic nations. and Spadagas. But if Pabak was the owner of the plate. with some wishful readings. Les possesseurs de coupes sasanides”. Qaukhchishvili. Dio 36. (We observe in passing that the word pitiãjhw is not listed in the Dictionary of Liddell-Scott. fils d’Ardaxs˚ ir. 156–57. 1). as Braund points out (see above. but this cannot be right: the name-form Pabaµk son of Ardashir has impeccable Sasanian credentials. 1) 232. Of the two names. 13) Gignoux identifies him as “vice roi. Such an indication. Georgia 237. whose name cannot be read (Amiranashvili divined it as Arsmes) was an Iberian dignitary. 31. The exact reading is uncertain. Cf. . and in one of them a silver bowl was found. Braund. “Une coupe en argent de début de l’époque sasanide provenant des fouilles d’Armasiskhevi (Géorgie)”. king of the Albani (Cass. In Armazi graves of other high royal officials were uncovered. and already in the old Persian 5 6 7 8 9 “Quelques notes sur l’inscription de Vespasien. king of the Abasci.e. 19). Bersouma is patently Aramaic. Saurmag (Sauromakes). Xepharnougos. *Dadi. appearing as the second element in such names as Tiridates or Mithridates. see Braund. tentatively suggests that Papak (= Pabaµk) was the Iberian pitiax. 232–34.. Still there are “bien sans doute” two pitiaxes (bidaxs˚) attested. a regulus from Caucasus or the steppes to the north of Caucasus.. 4) 54 (and n. Peripl. makes a good case for the hereditary nature of this office in Iberia. 3).54). Oroises. 5). S. also the addendum on p. 1948. “mit intervokalischer Erweichung”. As to Nyberg’s observation that in the old Persian epoch “le t intervocalique était sûrement intact en iranien”. *Daµtaka containing the element daµta (“gegeben. 43.1146. ép. apparently neglected by all those who wrote about the king. Abaev [B. I. 683). Zgusta compares the middle Persian name Daµdaµ and the Ossetian Dado and dada (“Väterchen”). For all things Ossetian one has always to turn to V. and the suffix -ka. for the etymology of Dades important is Schmitt’s proposal to see the continuation of -daµta.10 The Scythian and Sarmatian names are conveniently assembled in the collection of Zgusta.1–8): Dada.1201. Schmitt attempts to diffuse it by invoking the possibility of ‘Fernassimilation’ of *Datãkhw to Dadãkhw.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. 40. but king Dades hardly hailed from this part of the world. Dadhw. Schmitt.. 251a. Zgusta connects them with the root *daµ-. Hence perhaps simple Lallnamen. n.as the first element.? 265 name Dadãkhw mentioned by Aischylos (Pers. Gignoux interprets it as “nom abrégé de l’un des nombreaux composés déterminatifs avec daµd.12 Among those names we encounter Dadhw a perfect onomastic match for Dades of the silver plate.894. 207 [no. 341 he treats of dada and dadäg (dadaeg). 10). in the Scythian or Sarmatian names Dadagow and Dadakow and in the Ossetian Dadäg (cf. There are numerous Sasanian and middle Persian names containing daµd. 1) 232 (adduced with silent approval by J. 244.. On the name Dadãkhw. 301–2 (no. and misreported in Index du Bulletin Épigraphique 1938–1965 [Paris 1974]. Asia Minor is a Lallnamen paradise. à. Dadeiw.1039. For further attestations of the name Dadhw in Asia Minor. Onomastica Persepolitana. But Zgusta observed that short name-forms beginning with -dad also appear in Asia Minor and in Greece. which also appears as a separate name in its own right. but this etymology has been explicitly rejected by Schmitt (above. Robert. “geben. geschaffen. 44. For our purposes it is only a detour. Bull. He follows the interpretation of M. Das altiranische Namengut der Persepolis-Täfelchen (SbÖAW 286 [Wien 1973]) 145. see now R. it continues the inherited *daµtaka. As to dadäg (denoting a “small haystack”). 38. partially because we know comparatively so little of indigenous languages. Zgusta. and we can find for him a plausible Iranian etymology. setzen”. To the names attested in Asia Minor Zgusta soon devoted another important monograph. Die Iranier-Namen bei Aischylos (SbÖAW 337 [Wien 1978]) 37. 99): Dadagow and Dadakow. Gesetz”). ‘créé’ 10 Nyberg (above. Zgusta lists (no. 40.How Did King Flavius Dades . 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. and we find there a complete dossier of names with the initial element -dad. and L. where Dades. On p. is assigned to Olbia). in fine]. see SEG 36. A·‡Â‚]. Phrygia and Galatia. 1210. 12 L. Dadvn. Dadeaw. Dadaw. and thus can indeed be adduced to elucidate the name Dades. àÒÚÓËÍÓ-˝ÚËÏÓÎӄ˘ÂÒÍËÈ ÒÎÓ‚‡¸ ÓÒÂÚËÌÒÍÓ„Ó flÁ˚͇ [Istoriko-etimologicheskiy slovar’ osetinskogo yazyka (The Historical and Etymological Dictionary of the Ossetian Language)] I (Moskva-Leningrad 1958 [also reprint Moskva 1996]). Daddow (cf. 598): Dadaw and Dadow. Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prag 1964) 139–42 (no. and connects it with Iran. and not just the element -dad.5) some twenty examples of this name from Mysia.713. 304). Zgusta. the next note). P. Die Personennamen der griechischen Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste (Praha 1955) 92 (no. Mayrhofer. and asks: “Ob kleinasiatisch?” The trouble with such names is that they indeed may be genuine Lallnamen or abridged forms of compound names. n. 11 L. . 244. .16 When Dades was brought on his silver plate to the attention of historians. The date of king Dades has indeed elicited dispute.15 At the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius the throne of Iberia was occupied by Pharasmanes (II). no.192). in the third or fourth century. So Braund. Cf. 15 See the doxography in Boltunova (above. 8 for -aµd (< *-aµta) and -eµn (< *-aina). where Zimmer considers various possible interpretations of -daµd. Archaeology is against it. Canali De Rossi (above. 16 See the sources in PIR2 VI (1998) 133–34 (P 342). 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. 1. SEG 20.13 Among the compound names we find Daµdeµn (70. ILS 8795. 270–97).133. daµta-)”.. Band II: Mitteliranische Personennamen. Faszikel 3]) 30 (no. We also know that under Hadrian the king of Iberia was Pharasmanes.14 and that Amazaspos. “Zur sprachlichen Deutung sasanidischer Personennamen”. OGIS 379. Hence Dades is to be dated approximately to the epoch of Trajan. 14 Printed in: CIL III 6052. < *daµtaina-”. 86).). 48–49. PIR2 VI (1998) 132 (P 341). We proceed on the assumption that he was a king of Iberia. probably taking heed of the arguments of S.. 282). 4) 221. And thus Boltunova states straightforwardly: we find out that after the death of Mithridates king Dades ruled in Iberia. this introduced a computational complication. A number of scholars posited that he or his ancestor received the grant of Roman citizenship from a Flavian emperor. The wavy abbreviations Fl~ dates the inscription at the earliest to the beginning of the second century (see n. Noms propres sasanides en moyen-perse épigraphique (= Iranisches Personennamenbuch. and the decoration of the dish seems to point to the third century. n. n. 1) 1. 1). appeared in the entourage of Trajan at Nisibis (where he died) around 115–116 (IGRR 1. Altorientalische Forschungen 18 (1991) 109–50 at 128–29. “Dades”. Faszikel 2 [Wien 1986]) 68–74 (nos.. no. The name Dades is at home rather among the Sarmatians or in Iberia in a later period. And Pharasmanes was in turn a son of Mithridates. We know from inscriptional evidence that in 75 the king of Iberia was Mithridates son of Pharasmanes. The etymology of Dades is to be sought along a similar path. The burial of Bersouma will thus belong to the later part of the third century and possibly to the fourth century. We also observe that the names of the Iberian kings were construed differently: they were solemn and reverberating compounds. 17 Boltunova (above.18 13 P. The coins establish 251 as the date post quem of the grave. n.112.17 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. Zimmer. which Gignoux explains as “hypocoristique du nom abrégé Daµd . Gignoux modified his interpretation: he now accepts the meaning “donné”. Consequently this will also be the date of Dades.. a brother of king Mithridates. 18 Braund. Gignoux.266 Historia et Ius (plutôt que ‘donné’.. If he was not an Iberian ruler his floruit is wide open. and observes that “Gignouxs durchgehendes ‘créé’ ist also nur als aus Vereinfachungsgründen gewählte Chiffre zu verstehen”. ou ‘loi’ (< av. See p. 4) 221–22. In his Supplement (Wien 2003 [= Mitteliranische Personennamen. IGRR 3. Dades is the only (presumed) king of Iberia for whom a Roman name is directly attested. “Die Alanen und die römische Ostpolitik unter Vespasian”. rather underestimates the Flavian involvement. Vespasian and his sons extended precious help in rebuilding fortifications in the vicinity of Mtskheta. we may envisage a different solution. If Dades (or his immediate forbear) acquired the name and the ius civitatis from the Constantinian family. Keenan observed in his now classic paper “virtually all the Flavii known from the papyri were assuredly already citizens who. . In his rather very summary paper Mócsy did not provide prosopographical underpinnings for his theory. Mócsy. Klio 62 (1980) 379–88. 75 . As J. II [1980] 474–78) 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. G. H. Thus at least under Constantine the name denoted “die Vertrauten des Kaisers. The Limits of the Empire.? 267 What would then be the origin and the date of the king’s 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. A complication ensues. filoka¤sari ka‹ filorvma¤ƒ. as Julii or Claudii”. Titus or Domitian. In Georgia 229. from his father”. Braund. eine neue Gruppe von ‘flavischen’ Aristokraten”. Akte des IV. 20 So. “Der Name Flavius als Rangbezeichnung in der Spätantike”. to this Mithridates. “Le limes anatolien et la frontière caucasienne au temps des Flaviens”. Also E. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 9 (2003) 175–91 at 188–90. n.How Did King Flavius Dades . 19 Braund.20 and it is quite possible that some members of the Iberian aristocracy. the later Flavians. In either case the name would denote the acquisition of Roman citizenship. a reprint of the edition of 1990. n. The Roman Army in the East (Oxford 1992 [a “revised edition”. Flavian interest and investment of resources in the Caucasus is undeniable. his date would be a late date indeed.e. “Vespasian’s Reorganization of the North-East Frontier”. 129. a ‘Rangbezeichnung’. 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.. HSCP 81 (1977) 217–55. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (Wien 1964) 257–63. Epigraphica Anatolica 8 (1986) 39–50. 14). he somewhat modified this statement: “the royal family of Iberia under the Flavians will have long held Roman citizenship.. 74–77. failing that.. Halfmann. Now while the break in the dynasty remains a valid option. among them the ancestor of Dades. plus an appendix]) 42–46. but perusing the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (I [Cambridge 1971] 350–61.21 The numerous Flavii of the fourth and fifth centuries could not possibly be all new citizens or descendants of the first century Flavii. Da∫browa. but Braund observes that “after Augustus kings without Roman citizenship were a notable rarity” and that “the King Mithridates who ruled in A. forcefully. “Dades” 49. Antichthon 10 (1976) 63–78. should have inherited a Julian nomen from his grandfather or. “Arrian and the Alani”.D. 21 A. The new dynasty would take its origin from an Iberian noble who had gained his citizenship from Vespasian. Isaac.. Bosworth. i. Some forty years ago in a suggestive paper A. esp.19 As a famous inscription informs (see above. Mócsy adverted to the employment of the name Flavius in late antiquity as an honorific title. D. at 226–28. “Notes from the Black Sea and Caucasus”. B. A. B. were rewarded and enticed by the grants of Roman citizenship. Clephonis filium supra memorati principis. This reflects. Between them he divided all his territory”. The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles (Oxford 1996) 52. as Paul the Deacon narrates “At vero Langobardi cum per annos decem sub potestate ducum fuissent. ÉÓÓ‰‡ (above. G. A. He would form a counterpart to the Lombard king Authari (584–590). 38 (with n. A. Fl. the division of power between the kings of Iberia and their pitiaxai. Aelius Gessius. The diarchy. Langob. n.16. 3. ZPE 11 (1973) 33–63 at 40. but.22 This may be true also of Dades. “The Names Flavius and Aurelius as Status Designations in Later Roman Egypt”. 22 J. This archaeological conclusion Apakidze bolsters invoking history and philology. Apakidze. according to the view of Ingoroqva (shared by some other scholars).. Thomson provides a complete translation of Georgian chronicles and of their Armenian abridgement. were entitled to replace their own gentilicia (in most cases this was Aurelius) with the name Flavius”. 24 Apakidze. and that consequently the floruit of Dades and Bersouma will belong to an earlier epoch. Ulpius). Keenan. W. the chronicles describe them as contemporaries of Vespasian. transliterates them as Bartom and K‘art‘am (but in another scheme of transliteration of two different letters denoting k and t. But if Bartom is Bersouma. ZPE 11 (1973) 33. 23 Paul. 301–2. Worp. Archaeology proves and disproves. 1) 215. Kartam). R. see now also K. admits that coin finds (the aurei of Decius and Hostilian) establish 251 (253 Apakidze per errorem) as the date post quem for Bersouma’s burial. He approvingly adduces the conceit of P. tandem communi consilio Authari. 47–48 on double names among the prefects and praesides of Egypt (Flavius Antonius. 25 Apakidze. was to continue for several generations. “On the Aureliate of Clergy and Monks”. who acquired from Constantine (or a successor of Constantine) as a token of friendship the right to bear the new imperial name of Flavius. ZPE 151 (2005) 145–51. 24). esp. For the chronicle states clearly that Bartom ruled in Mtskheta and K‘art‘am in Armazi. Ingorokva (Ingoroqva). n. Quo praenomine omnes qui postea fuerunt Langobardorum reges feliciter usi sunt”. 52) that (king) “Aderki had two sons who were called. He may have been a descendant of the old Iberian royal line. this is indeed an inescapable conclusion. felicitously adduced by Keenan. a Iulius or Claudius Dades. as it began. 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.24 If we are dealing with a reburial.25 The Georgian chronicle. and esp. it is all wrong. Hist. . and 39. 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 excavator of Mtshheta/Armazi. one Bartom and the other K‘art‘am. Diac. regem sibi statuerunt.23 Unfortunately the story of Dades’ Flavian name does not end feliciter. Quem etiam ob dignitatem Flavium appellarunt. Thomson. so the chronicle. in doubt and debate. Rewriting Caucasian History. Fl. ÉÓÓ‰‡ (above. who also remarks on the wide extension of the imperial name Flavius to the Romano-German aristocracy in late antiquity. For the Aurelii.268 Historia et Ius upon entering government service. p. The History of the Kings of K‘art‘tli (or Kartli) states (in Thomson’s translation. 13 (1974) 283–304. These names are here given in transliteration from Russian transliteration of the original Georgian form. 1) 212–17. but he argues that we are dealing with a reburial. His identification of the vitaxae of Gogarene. esp. “Introduction to Armenian Historical Geography IV: The Vitaxates of Arsacid Armenia”.. mixing historical fatuity with linguistic absurdity. Kavtaradze. is gratuitous and devoid of any foundation in contemporary epigraphical sources.e. and so only Mithridates I can have borne it”. 277). even if they arrive in a cloud of uncertainty. 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. L. mostly Iranian. Ä. Yet it is one thing to formulate a sensible program. Mithridates I (58–106) bears in the inscription of 75 (see note 14) the epithets filoka›sar and filorvma›ow. Orbis Terrarum 6 (2000) 177–237. is very likely an Aramaic epithet meaning ‘friend of Flavius. in the years 69–96. “Chronology of the Early Kings of Iberia”. part 1. 27 C. but we need not trust them.. 20). Correspondences between Georgian and Armenian chronicles and the classical and Iranian sources are notoriously flimsy. n. first attested by the Georgian and Armenian sources in the fourth century. 147–59 on the vitaxate of Gukark‘. He does not directly discuss Toumanoff’s thesis. esp. 15) that demonstrates how even the most erudite and judicious scholars may fall prey to a preconceived notion of order and symmetry. for the international commerce. is beyond any reasoned refutation. It is often assumed that Iberian kings used two sets of names: the native one for the internal consumption (reflected in the chronicles). Ibid. The argument goes as follows. Dades is an Iberian king of the mid-third century. part 2.g. 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. Toumanoff in his many works. with the pitiaxai of the first and second century the graves of whom were discovered at Armazi (p. 22 (1990–91) 147–83. and most pertinently in the piece on the chronology of the Iberian rulers. see in particular his masterful demolition of the ideas of Ingoroqva (3–6. ‘friend’”).. A. . 28 On the vitaxae of Armenia.27 Toumanoff dispelled many misconceptions and fantasies. 293). This may account for the name Flavius Dades: “This Hellenized name. 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. The Georgian Chronicles and the raison d’être of the Iberian Kingdom”. an Iranoid formation like Mithridates” (but the very name Dãdhw Toumanoff interprets as “a Hellenized form of the Semitic daµd. Melikishvili [É. Hewsen. See also the interesting (and adventurous) piece by G. “Caucasica II. Was it not easier to assume that Dades was not an Iberian king at 26 See e. Toumanoff’s own reconstructions are to be approached gingerly. built around the Roman name Flavius.How Did King Flavius Dades . Revue des études arméniennes 21 (1988–89) 271–319 (esp. and the other. see R.26 Slippery ground. maddeningly self-assured: the name Flaouiodãthw “can have been assumed only under the Flavian Emperors. And the conclusion. and another to execute it. He regards Dades as a foreign king (463. H. 5). ä ËÒÚÓËË ‰‚ÌÂÈ ÉÛÁËË [K istorii drevney Gruzii (On the History of Ancient Georgia)] (Tbilisi 1959) 56–58. This is the sense conveyed by C. esp. Traditio 25 (1969) 1–33. i. Toumanoff.? 269 whereas on Ingoroqva’s theory it is Bartom that should have ruled in that stronghold. åÂÎËÍ˯‚ËÎË]. Still we must cultivate native sources.’ or else Flaouiodãthw. n. G. 211–18. This wild concatenation. Greek and Iranian sources. and ended up fathering a linguistic monstrosity.28 But it is his treatment of Dades (p. also hailing from Aquileia. and possibly there is no slot for him at all. The text on the rim is punched with a needle. This word is very well delineated in the drawing of T. But the dating of any object according to its artistic features is guided by a subjective eye. Now under the words BERSOUMAPITIAJH (BersoÊm& pitiajª) there is scratched (not punched) the word MAKEDONI (MakedÒni). of much higher standing for already a praetorius. and a kin to the tribune. It would be adventurous to propose other explanations or identifications. ZPE 73 (1988) 162–63 = Roman Papers VI (Oxford 1991) 350–51. Apakidze and V. 262 (no. Antiquarian Journal 74 (1994) 16–54 at 23–24.30 To sum up. on the emperor’s return journey. Chronicles [above. 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. 31 The entry in PIR2 VI (1998) 433 (P 1038) is irreparably confused. no. see PIR2 II (1936) 36 (C 182). 355. 1) 2. and the name he bears is not the courtly Iulius. esp. he accompanied Hadrian on his travel through Asia Minor in 129. including king Pharasmanes of Iberia (cf. but neglected in all other editions or reproductions of the inscription. 26]) Mithridates I was remembered as Armazel.270 Historia et Ius all. Syme. Claudius or Flavius. Claudius Secundinus L. For Macedo’s career (he was to reach the post of praefectus annonae). below n. Itinera principum (Stuttgart 1986) 206–8. and the observations of R.31 He appears on another famous stone from Armazi. see IGR IV 869. and it will be prudent not to entertain this notion. Statius Macedo. and for Caesernius Macedo and his brother. 53–59 Thomson. The Constantinian date of Dades (and the Constantinian origin of his Flavian name) resides at the outer reaches of probability. Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen (Bonn 1977) 347–50. Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain I (Paris 1960) 261–64. see H. He is called Publicius Agrippa. n. G.29 The dish of Dades harbors one final mystery. Georgia”. very similar in its execution to the dish of Dades. 249. 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. and PIR2 II (1936) 245 (C 1015). also crops up in Hadrian’s entourage in the east. has been variously dated from the first century to the beginning of the Sasanian era. 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. The dish itself has rightfully been invoked as indicator of chronology. Agrippa is presented as “filius Iodmangani”! .-G. 43. His brother. Pflaum. apparently in 131: T. when Hadrian was reviewing arrangements with eastern vassal princes. ILS 1339. “he of Armazi”. We have to rest the case. 43). 40. 109). and their presence in Asia Minor. “An Aristocratic Tomb of the Roman Period from Mtskheta. Cf. not yet quaestor. 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 44–50 = pp. 261. nn. Alföldy. n. See A. A tribune of the praetorian guard. For the careers of these men. Only one other person in the early and mid-imperial Iberia is known to possess a Roman name. Korpusi (above.267 (and 344). Nikolashvili. 29 A silver vessel with a Parthian inscription recently found at Mtskheta. “Journeys of Hadrian”. 2) Another Macedo. H. Qaukhchishvili. 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. Caesernius Statius Quinctius Macedo Quinctianus. 39. was also Hadrian’s comes in oriente (probably in 129). below. His home town was Aquileia. Halfmann. esp. n. For the interpretation of the text. H. Korpusi (above. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften I5 (Wiesbaden 2002) 67. ÄχÁÒ͇fl ·ËÎËÌ„‚‡. Nyberg (above. with French summary: “Interprétation nouvelle d’un passage de l’inscription bilingue d’Armazi”].C. although only in transliteration (and with Russian translation). VDI [ÇÑà] 1984. The Aramaic text in H. n. the founder of the Iberian royal dynasty in the third century B. Schmitt. 176–80. esp. 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). Metzger (above. no. 187. 3–57). Metzger [above. “Caucasica”. n. SEG 16 (1959) 781. 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. 25]). the name Parnavaz (Pharnabazos). 235). à. and is described as father of Iodmanganos who was epitropos of the great king of the Iberians Xepharnougos. É. Canali De Rossi (above. Röllig. The full edition of the Aramaic text. 4 (=187). .. Das Partherreich und seine Zeugnisse (Stuttgart 1998) 173–74. Wiesehöfer (ed. but he unfortunately follows in his translation of the lines 7–8 of the Aramaic text the reconstruction by G. 1). Much more likely. Shifman [É. Chronicles [above. who died young and was peerless in beauty. Tsereteli (89–93) 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 51–54 = pp. “чÌÌ˚ „˜ÂÒÍÓ-ÔÂı΂ËÈÒÍÓÈ ·ËÎËÌ„‚˚ ËÁ ÄχÁË ‰Îfl ËÒÚÓËË ÚÂÏË̇ ezoismojGuar-i ˝ÁÓÈÒÏÓ‰Á„Û‡-Ë ‚ ‰‚Ì„ÛÁËÌÒÍÓÏ” [“Dannye grechesko-pekhleviyskoy bilingvy iz Armazi dl’a istorii termina ezoismodzg(h)uar-i v drevnegruzinskom”] in the same volume of Soobshcheniya (see above) 181–87 at 184 (p. T. this king is startlingly out of place in the inscription commemorating Serapeitis. 168–81. 276. JRAS (1943) 1–5. V. Qaukhchishvili in Soobshcheniya (see above. 1). who believe to have discovered in the word prnws˚. 175 (Russian translation). 61–65 Thomson. in J. Ñ‚ÛflÁ˚˜Ì‡fl ̇‰nËÒ¸. W. see the articles by Tod (above. ò‡ÌˉÁÂ]. 1) 255 (no. “ä ËÌÚÂÔÂÚ‡ˆËË ‡χÁÒÍÓÈ ·ËÎËÌ„‚˚” [“K interpretatsii armazskoy bil’ingvy”. The most detailed linguistic discussion of the Aramaic text to date has been offered by K. 5). S. 58–114) [Zamechaniya k arameyskomu tekstu armazskoy bil’ingwy (Notes on the Aramaic text of the bilingual inscription from Armazi)] (Tbilisi 1992). II3 (1973 [= II2 (1968) = II4 (1979)]) 328–30 (bibliography and commentary). ò. ̇ȉÂÌ̇fl ÔË ‡ıÂӄ˘ÂÒÍËı ÓÒÍÓÔ͇ı ‚ åˆıÂÚ‡ÄχÁË [Armazskaya bil’ingva. and in Russian: á‡Ï˜‡ÌËfl Í ‡‡ÏÂÈÒÍÓÏÛ ÚÂÍÒÚÛ ‡χÁÒÍÓÈ ·ËÎËÌ„‚˚ (pp. G. also Apakidze. Giorgadze and I.). Donner and W.How Did King Flavius Dades . Qaukhchishvili. It is the latter edition that is often and wrongly regarded by western scholars as the editio princeps (cf. Tsereteli in a study published both in Georgian: Shenishvnebi armazis bilingvis arameul tekstze (pp. Bailey. n. It reads: Shrape›tiw Zhouãxou / toË nevt°rou: pitiãjou / yugãthr Pouplik¤ou ÉAgr¤ppa piti/ãjou ufloË ÉIvdmangãnou gunØ / toË pollåw ne¤kaw poiÆsantow / §pitrÒpou basil°vw ÉIbÆrvn / megãlou JhfarnoÊgou ép°/yane nevt°ra §t«n ka / ¥tiw tÚ kãllow éme¤mhton / e‰xe. G. French summary: “Données de l’inscription bilingue grecque-pehlevie d’Armazi pour l’histoire du terme ezoismojguar-i ‘procurateur’”). R. n. n. and also by A. Shanidze [Ä. The Greek text was originally published by S. fasc. Shanidze also published the Aramaic text (185–86). no. but still uncertain. 4. K. cf. n. 338. a possibility most forcefully advocated by Nyberg (see below).und Namenüberlieferung aus arsakidischer Zeit”.. n. Georgia 212–14. ÉÓÓ‰‡ (above. òËÙχÌ]. n. 1) 218–25.? 271 a bilingual Greek and Aramaic funerary inscription of Serapeitis. É. 4). ñÂÂÚÂÎË].32 In the Greek version Agrippa bears the title of pitiaxes. See also Braund. This work was republished in 1942 in Georgian accompanied by the only slightly abbreviated version in English (non vidi). 1) 2 (1941) 172–73. we owe to G. 32 The Greek text in AE 1947. Tsereteli [É. To a sceptical observer. “Parthische Sprach.E. Ñvuyazychnaya nadpis’. 1] 18–19. normally taken to correspond in some way to nevt°ra in the Greek text. 125. with extensive commentary. 1) 3. n. ÉËÓ„‡‰ÁÂ. Ç. “Life of Georgia”). n. n. Agrippa (Agriµ p) appears without his Roman name of Publicius. and is described not as a pitiax but as chief of the court of Parsman. Nyberg is inclined to identify the offices of pitiaxes and epitropos. n. The reign of Pharasmanes spanned the times of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. and that Xepharnougos was another name of Amazaspos. although the terminological vacillation between the Greek and Aramaic versions precludes any firm conclusions about the career of Agrippa. . and so. places king Amazasp at about the same time. “Kings of Iberia” (above.e. Toumanoff. See also C.. n. Zeouachos and Agrippa are high court officials of the former. Korpusi (above. his wife was a daughter of the Armenian king Vologeses. He ruled (so Moses) for twenty years. above. Cf. n. 69. n. 25]). Toumanoff. It reads: [. Robert. and Agrippa’s son Iodmanganos of the latter. No deeds are ascribed to him. son of Mithridates I. W. Zevakh (= Zeouachos) is characterized more precisely as pitiax (bit\axs˚) of king Parsman (= Pharasmanes). Xepharnougos will thus belong to the period of Marcus Aurelius (and at the earliest to the later years of Antoninus Pius). 273–74. it provides further information. argues that in this text we are rather dealing with Pharasmanes I. History of the Armenians. Cf. 1) 2. 1978) 210–11. Chronicles [above. The Georgian Chronicle. 1] 239) corresponds to Greek §p¤tropow.35 We 33 This phrase (a hapax. The Aramaic version is similar but not identical. 59–60 Thomson. The History of the Kings 57. interestingly his sister was the wife of the (unnamed) king of Armenia – but certainly Vologeses. 15) credits him most improbably with a reign of ten years (106–16). Thomson (Cambridge. above on Toumanoff’s 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. 27) 15–16. if he ruled at all. This does not make much sense as here again (cf. 35. no. The same Aramaic term (rb trbs\) is also used with respect to his son Iodmangan. A Greek inscription found in Armazistsikhe (“The fortress of Armazi” [= Harmozica]) in 1996 confirmed the existence of the Iberian king Amazaspos. Amazaspos is briefly mentioned as king of Iberia in The History of the Kings (50 = pp.227–28 (cf. to 180. see the inscription reproduced in the next note. 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 (148–192). 4). esp. Opera Minora Selecta VII (Amsterdam 1990) 711–12 (originally published in 1969). K. 28) 82–83. Toumanoff (p. but this is unlikely: epitropos may well have been next in rank to pitiax. daughter of pitiaxes Zeouachos the Younger. yugatr‹ d¢ basil°vw] / ÉArmen¤aw OÈlo/ga¤sou gunaik‹ d¢ / basil°vw ÉIbÆrvn / megãlou ÉAmazãs/pou ÉAnagrãnhw ı / trofeÁw ka‹ §p¤tr[o]/pow fid¤& dunãm(e)i / tÚ balan(e)›on éfi°rv[sen]. translation and commentary by R. n. who ruled in Armenia toward the end of the second century. and a neat chronological progression: king Pharasmanes (undoubtedly Pharasmanes II)34 is (apparently) succeeded by king Xepharnougos. below.272 Historia et Ius The wife of Iodmanganos was Serapeitis. 35 T. see Nyberg [above. i. “le nourricier et le pédagogue d’un enfant royal” is well attested at the Hellenistic courts. Revue des études arméniennes 6 (1969) 233–81 at 243–44. For the combination of the offices of epitropos and trofeus. see Moses Khorenats’i. (The inscription does not seem to have yet found its way to AE or SEG). his reign was probably of very short duration. 339). Tsereteli (above. The subject requires a separate investigation. 34 So generally assumed. Kartlis Tskhovreba (K’artlis c’xovreba. 199. see L. Qaukhchishvili. A Chronological and Genealogical Commentary”. In any case the Aramaic version suggests the hereditary principle also for the dignity of epitropos (cf. See Thomson.. This also establishes that in the Iberian royal line there is no place for Dades before the reign of Marcus Aurelius or Commodus. The office of trofeus.33 A telling case of aristocratic marriage alliances. “The Third-Century Armenian Arsacids. n. MA. Toumanoff. 59 [= 69] (1981) 276–77 = Roman Papers III (Oxford 1984) 1439–40. n. 4) passim. Syme (more suo) does not explain. Syme. Endorsed by Kavtaradze (above. 261. Kettenhofen. “Die Arsakiden in den armenischen Quellen”. “Kings of Iberia” (above. n. Da∫browa. Die dreisprachige Inschrift Saµbuhrs I. fought the incursion of the Alans. Rankov. 20) 231. 124. 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. n. 32) 325–53. He disregarded the warning of Bosworth: Agrippa “cannot have been the Iberian noble who received Roman citizenship. is rightly skeptical as to the historical value of the Armenian tradition.192). Quinctius Certus Publicius (or Poblicius) Marcellus. n. governor of Syria in ca 131–135. Austin and N. in Das Partherreich (above.s.39 What would be the precise mechanism or procedure. Huyse. Bosworth ascribes this development to the personal initiative of Arrian who for six years (131–137) was governor of Cappadocia.4. quite rare. E.1] (London 1999) 1. and we should expect the recipient to bear an imperial name”. Here at once attention is drawn to Publicius Marcellus. R. E. quoting disprovingly the phrase of R. 26) 218. and took Chronicles (above. 149. n.150–51. Marcellus hailed from Aquileia. The Greek text also in Canali De Rossi (above.? 273 recall that during the reign of Trajan we encountered Amazaspos. ÉAmazãspou.37 The onomastic custom of the traditional compound names continued in the Iberian dynasty well into the Sasanian period. 337. 27) 17. So oracularly Syme. Bosworth conceived an ingenious idea. no.40 Hence perhaps a Roman who migrated to Iberia and climbed to the highest offices of the kingdom? Doubtful. Huyse (1. Bosworth. 36 37 38 39 40 . n. 170). Athenaeum n. see Boltunova (above.. 59. B. for grants to distinguished members of client kingdoms would have been conferred by the emperor. a brother of king Mithridates (IGRR 1.36 And finally still another king of Iberia by the name of Amazaspos appears in the great trilingual inscription of Shapur I (engraved ca 262). the family name Publicius is. 379. Mithridates’ son also bore this name.. In which way Publicius Agrippa came by his names is a mystery. in all probability he is mentioned (with the spelling Amasaspos) in the inscription from Mtskheta of 75. §44 (middle Persian. n. the form in -hw is otherwise unattested. and also by N. The reading is disputed. and Greek text). commonly known as Res Gestae Divi Saporis (line 60 of the Greek text). in IGR I 192 we have the ending -ow. The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus (= Antiquitas I 45 [Bonn 1998]) 92–94 and 177–78 (notes). For the debate. The name appears in the genitive. §44. an der Ka‘ba-i Zardus˚t [= Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum III.How Did King Flavius Dades . The fundamental critical edition of the whole document is now Ph. 25) 65–68. E. The cognomen Agrippa is common enough in the Roman world (also in the eastern provinces). Hewsen. 342. his full name was C. however. but – as the new inscription demonstrates – in these texts “nuggets of the real history” are still to be found (cf.116) reconstructs the nominative as ÉAmazãsphw or ÉAmazãspow. dates the reign of Amazasp to 185–189. n. His relations with Hadrian were strained. J. n. Thus Publicius Agrippa was installed at the Iberian court as a virtual Roman viceroy. 2.38 He may have been the source of the nomen. Pharasmanes was an uncertain and troublesome ally. “Arrian” (above. “Hadrian and the Vassal Princes”. n. 1) 153–66. PIR2 VI (1998) 434 (P 1042). H.36. Parthian. He needed to be reined in and closely supervised. Cass.44 To do so he must have passed through Mtskheta/Armazi. 34. and for a fusion of the ideas of Syme and Bosworth. Die 34. Pharasmanes and Antoninus Pius: Cass. Syme. Schneider. Cf. G. 43 Of course only a surmise. p. 45 Pharasmanes and Hadrian: Hist. B. the brothers Caesernii. of Hadrian] and extending to a lavish and elaborate interchange of gifts”. 106. Fasti Ostienses2 [Pragae 1982] 124–25). and continues: ka‹ di°bainon m¢n strathgo‹ ÑRvma¤vn PÊlaw Kasp¤aw.3. the orator Themistius.e. the capital of Iberia. Inscriptiones Aquileiae (Udine 1991) I 617. Macedo. 21. 52–56. ed. in D. esp. CIL V 798 = Brusin I 295.s.6. When this matter was ventilated. 30). “Emperors. Hist. II. there came to light a splendid silver dish displaying in its center the bust of Antinous. Roos in his Teubner edition of Arrian. also originated from Aquileia. Arrian of Nicomedia (Chapel Hill 1980) 32–49 and 203–8 (notes). 20) 228–30]).e. The governor’s home town was Aquileia (cf. and we may conjecture that it was at this juncture that he introduced Publicius Agrippa to the Iberian court.1–2. 36 [= 46] (1958) 219–28 (AE 1959. §jÆlaunon d¢ ÉAlanoÁw §j ÉArmen¤aw. published with a commentary by H. and a bronze medallion featuring Antinous was . line 10 (dated to 165): Myrinus Agrippinae (servus). Plotius Agrippa. Fronto. Dio 69. n. 38. Ant.42 This opens the way for Publicius Marcellus. Aug. the commander of the praetorian cohort that accompanied Hadrian on his eastern journey in 129. but he should have paid attention to archaeology.15. It was a lasting success of Hadrian’s imperial policy. Governors of provinces were not permitted to engage in foreign policy ventures of their own. “Hadrian” (above.13. who were to become suffect consuls respectively in 138 (or 139) and in 141 (see above. Aug.45 41 PIR2 III (1943) 137–39 (F 219). Nesselhauf. Hadr. 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. Georgia 255. 42 See the excellent piece by D. 20) passim. 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. and we observe that the cognomen Agrippa is attested in Aquileia: CIL V 1008 = J. Athenaeum n. It might be of some interest to point out that L. and a suitable candidate sought. and that he also crossed the Caspian Gates. 38). col.15. n. Bosworth. as also did the two comites of Hadrian in the east.41 But surely if this was indeed what came to pass Arrian must have acted on orders and instructions from the emperor. 31) 278 = 1442. ¶tatton d¢ ÖIbhrsin ˜rouw ka‹ ÉAlbano›w. and cf. Iunius Rusticus [PIR2 IV 3 (1966) 345–46 (I 814). 2. n. test. L. outside the Historia Augusta] suggests relations of amity with the Iberian [i. Orat. “Arrian” (above. H. Pharasmanes] resumed in the late epoch of the reign [i. P. 44 Themistius. Van Den Hout (Teubner 1988). “Arrian” (above. Syme’s acumen and his prose can enchant.. Bosworth.e. Publicius Marcellus may have suggested to Hadrian a relative of his who probably was already on the spot in his entourage in Syria.). L. Rede des Themistius (Winterthur 1966) 113.43 A later but (where it can be checked) a generally reliable source.274 Historia et Ius keen interest. Arrian proceeded to settle a border dispute between the kingdoms of Iberia and Albania. 13] mentions Arrian (whose career and activity he partially confuses with that of Q.8 (33–34) [also printed by A. lines 6–7. their borders and their neighbours: the scope of the imperial mandata” .9. 13. 45–46. in the affairs of the Caucasus and the Black sea region. Dio 69. n.. 17. The Roman Army in the East (= JRA Suppl. n. Pius 9. Braund. as administrator and writer. p. line 17: C. Kennedy (ed. Potter. Vidman. Stadter. above. Braund. opines that “nothing elsewhere [i. and a fragment of the Fasti Ostienses. informs us that after he repelled the Alans. In Armaziskhevi (“the valley of Armazi”) near Mtskheta.10–12. Georgia 178–204. Brusin. LXII. 18 [Ann Arbor 1996]) 49–66. 212–15). But it is important to remember that the necropolis at Armazi was not a royal burial ground but rather that of pitiaxes. and n. 27. He married a noble lady. Here comes to mind Arrian. Talbert (ed.15. and produced a son by the name of Iodmanganos (Yod µ mangan) who suceeded him to his high office. Klio 78 [1981] 208–19. 46 Nyberg (above. “Hadrian and Pharasmanes”. Georgia 235. 11) 103 (nos. and 433 (quoting Abaev) for a possible Ossetian explanation of the element yoµd in these names. 122): Ivdaw.. 32) II. ëÂ·flÌ˚ ÙˇÎ˚ ËÁ ÄχÁËÒıÂ‚Ë [Serebryanye fial’y iz Armaziskhevi. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (Princeton 2000). also Donner and Röllig (above. and see also his earlier piece. Publicius Agrippa did not append an Iberian (or Iranian) name because he had none. the king of the Apsilae. with French summary: Les coupes d’argent d’Armaziskhevi] (Tbilisi 1970) 15–27. If Publicius Agrippa was a Roman. 1) 238.46 Iranian names. 151. 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. His son’s name is local.3). though an Iranian etymology can be envisioned.How Did King Flavius Dades . Cf.). Ivdesmagow. with its list of various petty kings. yaod “kämpfen”. Among them there was a certain Iulianus. These considerations have direct bearing on the nomenclature of king Dades. the philoromaios king Mithridates does not flaunt his presumed Roman nomen. adducing the middle Persian Yod µ mart and the Sogdian Yod µ razmag (or Yod µ arazmak). Personennamen (above. He was a Roman. n. contests this identification). n.47 found at Mtskheta itself. 121. esp. though I would put it differently: after initial obstinacy.3 records that when Pharasmanes visited Rome in the reign of Antoninus Pius. and his Periplus 11. 凘‡·ÂÎË]. From another burial at the same site comes a dish that may depict Hadrian himself (though Machabeli 40–50. and consquently Agrippa was not able to acquire patria potestas over his son and transmit to him his nomen. Sinclair and D. were prevalent among Iberian royalty and aristocracy. Whether Iodmangan also bore a Roman name. Iodmangan may have simply chosen not to use his Roman name. but also by the pr«toi ÉIbÆrvn). But observe that the funerary stone of Serapeitis was destined for the Iberian eyes. esp. If his mother was not a Roman citizen. esp. Braund) and 88 (prepared by . Dades’ ancestor stands with his Roman name isolated among Iberian aristocrats. Publicius Agrippa became domiciled in Iberia. É.. and that even in the “international” text from Armazi. 24–25. we have seen. who “received his kingship” from Trajan (11. For a native Iberian we would have expected a combination of a Roman nomen and a local cognomen. See K. 48–49. Machabeli [ä. further Zgusta. and assign to him the role of a minor regulus. Braund. n. then her marriage to Agrippa was in the eyes of the Roman law not a iustum matrimonium. he was accompanied not only by his wife and son. advertizing Iberian and Roman cooperation. 47 For the geography of the region. comparing Avest. In this perspective his father’s Publicius and Agrippa stand out. G.? 275 The bilingual inscriptions is eloquent in both languages. All difficulties of chronology and nomenclature will vanish if we deprive Dades of the dignity “the great king of the Iberians”. The cognomen Agrippa is particularly telling. see R. Machabeli quite rightly regards the dish as a Roman gift to a pitiax. Pharasmanes found it more advantageous to assuage Hadrian and fully submit to Rome. as in the case of king Flavius Dades.329. Braund is undoubtedly right (pace Syme) when he argues that after the original tension Pharasmanes and Hadrian “were soon reconciled” (Georgia 232. Braund observes: “It is not hard to imagine that this vessel was one of Hadrian’s gifts to Pharasmanes”. maps 87 (prepared by T. the inscription does not reveal or decide. Lordkipanidze. 131–96. or after a domestic strife. 11) 342. they may have been “durch die einheimischen Leute von den Römern entlehnt oder den römischen Namen nachgeahmt”. 223–76. “ñ‡¸ î·‚ËÈ Ñ‡‰” [“Tsar’ Flaviy Dad”. a specialist in ancient numismatics. This is the idea of A. ë. 50 And now Publicius Agrippa and Flavius Dades are spearheading the efforts of Georgia to join NATO and the European Union.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. 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.50 D. Arrien: Périple du Pont-Euxin (Paris 1995 [Collection Budé]) esp. but they need not always indicate Roman citizenship. See the curious pamphlet by T. Balakhvantsev [Ä. 33–37. O. Rather their kingship was confirmed and recognized upon their accession to the throne. but we should not imagine that they were arbitrarily appointed. and as a reward received from Marcellus the grant of Roman citizenship (p. Ň·ı‚̈‚]. as Zgusta. to some. notes 79–90. entitled Publicius Agrippa. the name Flavius may have been given by Domitian to Dades himself. and probably later. n. Dundua believes that Publicius Agrippa led a Georgian expeditionary force to help Publicius Marcellus quell the rebellion in Judaea. 5). His ancestor will have received his Roman name from a Flavian emperor. 45). 48 But we should not press this point too hard: in the north Pontic region we encounter a good number of Roman names. He regards Dades a king of Iberia. Dundua. 67–121. a vessel of abiding contention. . Das alte Georgien (Kolchis und Iberien) in Strabons Geographie (Amsterdam 1996) esp. For further proof Dundua. S. 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. 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]). puts it.48 This is the company for Dades. Personenamen (above. “King Flavius Dades”] in ÄÌÚ˘ÌÓÒÚ¸ ‚ ÒÓ‚ÂÏÂÌÌÓÏ ËÁÏÂÂÌËË [Antichnost’ v sovremennom izmerenii (Antiquity in Contemporary Soundings)] (Kazan’ 2001) (I know this article only from a summary online). Braund). after two millennia. n. but at the time of Domitian there is certainly no place for him in the Iberian dynasty. See also A. that Dades was not an Iberian. and that Agrippa was a Roman. either in the normal line of succession. 49 If we accept the earliest possible date. the solution advocated in this paper. 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. and thus. will be a disappointment. But even in that latter case most of them will have been members or relations of the ruling dynasty.276 Historia et Ius Arrian mentions several other kings who were “given” their regna by Trajan or Hadrian. Silberman. see above. The “Georgian contingent” is a phantom born of contemporary politics. -P. the insubordination of Hera and her punishment by Zeus. les morts dans les sociétés anciennes (Paris-Cambridge. Between l981 and l984 the French School also published eleven volumes in the first series of its Bibliothèque (dealing with Antiquity) and three volumes in the second and third series (dealing with the Middle Ages). 1984. The volume contains eighteen contributions ranging from early Greece to Byzantium. and more gruesome.3 the punishment of Tantalus and of Prometheus (which * 1 Classical Philology 82 (1987) 377–380 {with minor corrections and additions}.” in La mort. “La belle mort et le cadavre outragé. Contributo alla protostoria del diritto greco (Milano. Collection de l’École Française de Rome. A British Prime Minister at the turn of the century observed that the main qualification for his job was that of a butcher. The present volume bears the number 79. and was published in 1984. The volume would have profited greatly from the executioner’s hatchet. 378 The délit religieux. Here she quotes. Segal.” pp. This is also the main qualification for the editor of the acta of a colloquium.1 and now mutilations and executions – the colloquia organized by the French School in Rome become more and more enjoyable. Pp. This diverting task now falls to the reviewer. They also become more voluminous and more wordy (if this be possible). 79. “Per una preistoria del castigo” (pp. Palais Farnèse. This was vol. one of them with the financial assistance of the Italian Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. The Theme of the Mutilation of the Corpse in the “Iliad” (Leiden. with addenda 677}. Vernant. P. Cantarella. but hardly to anybody else. 1982) 45–76. And we should not forget the yearly Mélanges always in four bulky volumes. She thus returns to the subject of her earlier study. 10–35). not surprisingly. and it was published in 1981. Rome: École Française de Rome. 1980). one volume in the series Acta nuntiaturae Gallicae. and eight volumes hors collections. Table ronde organisée par l’École Française de Rome avec le concours du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (Rome 9–11 novembre 1982). 48 of the Collection of the French School. Norma e sanzione in Omero. ii + 590. E. 1971). On the Greek side we begin with the gods. By way of introduction also an unpublished paper of Louis Gernet is presented (“La droit pénal de la Grèce ancienne.18 PUNISHING* Du châtiment dans la cité. In the same period the American Academy in Rome published two volumes. On the rite of 2 3 . 37–73) 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). 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. Such are the dangers and delights of state-supported research. See the review in CP 79 (1984) 174–77 {reprinted in RQ 592–95. J. Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique. but omits C. of great interest certainly to his acolytes. Contribution à l’étude de la peine de mort sous la république romaine (Paris. Since Rome began with fratricide. 142). see also W. 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. the sacer. J. “Carcer et uincula: la déten- 4 5 . Precipitation from the Rock was a form of the ritual abandonment of the miscreant. E. Lovato. The carcer was also a place of abandonment. the people acting as a collective executioner. 2 (Lund. Nardi. it is auspicious to turn to parricidium. see C. 439–52) offers divagations on the duumviri perduellionis. “The Uses of Neco. Hal. Il carcere nel diritto penale romano dai Severi a Giustiniano (Bari. A.-M. Are we forgetting the menace of d∞mow tÊrannow? Nor should we disregard the tyranny of a polis as A. 1933) 148–60. see R. Y. Fascination with judicial killings and imprisonment continues unabated. On the subject itself I have nothing to add to what I said in CP 79 (1984) 176–77. Idem. Syntactica. the remarks on neco in RQ 429–35. and this applies even more to the article by A. Loraux (“Le corps étranglé. C. Dion. Ampolo (pp.278 Historia et Ius she interprets as a form of épotumpanismÒw. Rivière. and the most public punishment of all is the stoning. M. “Two Latin Words for ‘Kill. A punishment can be inflicted in the oikos or openly. the word would derive (as suggested by Wackernagel) from *parso-cida. “A Note on fÒnow. 69 (1991) 94–123. 549–70). 429–38). of more recent studies. Lovisi. Adams. 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. 225–40) talks about an approche comparative to the modes of execution in early Rome. A. Maffei does in his article on Athenian criminal jurisdiction in the allied cities (pp. to the gods. which he regards as cruel and barbarian in the ancient East.’” Glotta 51 (1973) 280–90. and D. 45–48) and the light it throws on the punishment of murderers. see E. was transformed into “un instrument décisif dans l’apprentissage de la vie démocratique” (p. “Cité grecque et lapidation” (pp. Schulze. in the later Republic it was reserved for violators of the tribunician sacrosanctity. argues convincingly that paricidas (parricida) originally meant the murderer of a free man. 50–52. 1956) 380–81. 1980). yus¤a and masxalismÒw.” Glotta 68 (1990) 230–55. 75–88) concludes that in the Greek world this practice. J. Late Latin (Oslo. Parker. Briquel (pp. Magdelain (pp. Santalucia (pp. 1994).” pp. 1959) 191–94. {And see now his further excellent study. Here some extensive textual mutilations would be in place. The Tarpeian rock and the carcer are the familiar places of execution. 1999). 195–218). This is the subject of the learned study by N. those who crossed its gates descended to the nether world to die of hunger or by strangulation. Kleine Schriften (Göttingen. L’otre dei parricidi e le bestie incluse (Milano. For the ritual of punishment.5 Magistrates cum masxalismÒw. the burial of Vestals. N. 87). following Verrius Flaccus (Festus 247 L. vol. On the meaning and usage of necare (p. 4. 97–128) on that perennial favorite of all colloquia. and cf. 131–75) envelops them in erudition and bibliography. *parso corresponding to the equally hypothetical Sanskrit *pursa = homo (the spelling without gemination would reflect solely the archaic orthography and not phonetics).” LCM 9 (1984) 138.). Fraschetti (pp. Gras. Löfstedt.4 B. David (pp. 91–96) discusses the case of Turnus Herdonius (Livy 1. half religious. M. mais un mode non sanglant de tuer” (p. see H. “Storia della patria potestas da Costantino a Giustiniano.” Jahrb. certainly the most dramatic. Kaser.4}). sacer e il rapporto uomo-dio nel lessico religioso latino. P.-U.7 Patria potestas is in vogue – at least among the romanists. P. Krause. 6 7 8 . 1940). and now we have a reliable guide in G. vol. vol. 1949) 45–53.” and “nex n’est pas la mort. Crook. On the banishment and the Strafopfertheorie. Wierzbowski. Thomas writes profusely on the “Vitae necisque potestas” (pp. 88) “prévoyait que l’on habillât de rouge le cadavre. There is no dearth of attempts to understand this strange world. “Lat. J. class. Fiori. II. Altheim. Per lo studio della patria potestas.” SDHI 51 (1985) 1–72. 509). The exposure of the corpse and its laceration by the mob were the fruits and adornments of the new dispensation. 1986) 81–95. Lobrano. No. and the tribunes could order incarceration. Morani. and L. manifestation of the father’s power. devotio and deditio. Hasenfratz.” We may note that in a tion publique à Rome (sous la République et le Haut-Empire). 1982). Harris. W. Arthur Schiller (Leiden.-P.” Aevum 55 (1981) 30–46. under the tyranny of the Empire one could only hope that the ruler would grant a reprieve. no. 1996). 1996).” MH 55 (1998) 37–59}. 22 (1876) 139–50. the exsecratio. H. n. S.” Annali del Seminario Giuridico di Palermo 31 (1969) 162–74. L. Phil. “Some Unexplored Aspects of the devotio Deciana. “Die lex sacrata und das sacrosanctum. Cf. all belong to the same circle of notions. F. “The Roman Father’s Power of Life and Death. M. He probably places too much trust in the definition of Festus (158 L. David asserts (p. Effetti personali della patria potestas.” Labeo 29 (1983) 164–74. Carcer. 45. Lex sacrata (Amsterdam. A. “Strutture costituzionali romane e irrituale assunzione di pubblici uffici. II. Lobrano. if rare. le contraire de la vie. see col. 1 (Milano. and on the devotio.” MEFRA 106 (1994) 579–652. line 5) pilleum color(atum). “Storia della patria potestas da Augusto a Diocleziano. Crifò (pp.” in Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. G. “Patria Potestas. F.” AJA 37 (1933) 549–53. 1 (Milano. 499–548 {cf. and finally aqua et igni interdictio. Cerami. “Two Types of Roman devotio. cf. 1984). the leges sacratae. B. “Fondamento e natura del potere tribunizio nella storiografia giuridica contemporanea. “I limiti spaziali al potere del pater familias. “Qui terminum exarasset. Prison et privation de liberté dans l’antiquité classique (Paris.” Mnemosyne 29 (1976) 365–410. the senate. 188–93. and a collection of articles. M. During the Republic the prisoner could be rescued by the tribunes of the plebs or by public uproar.” In fact it is the libitinarii who are dressed in red. on the leges sacratae and the notion of sacer. E. below in this volume. His exposition is systematic and learned – and inevitably controversial. half legal.8 Y. “La consécration du Champ de Mars et la consécration du domaine du Cicéron. M. Herzog. 196) that the famous lex libitinaria from Puteoli (AE 1971. Liou-Gille. according to Thomas “vita est générique. they wear (col. 1979). Tresåcå w¬adzy ojcowskiej w rzymskim prawie poklasycznym [Inhalt der Vatersgewalt im römischen nachklassischen Recht] (Torunå. V. Versnel. Pater et filius eadem persona. 443–97). f.): “neci datus proprie dicitur. also B.” Mnemosyne 34 (1981) 357–81. J. De Robertis. Adams Holland. 1977). The formula is ambiguous. Idem. Gefängnisse im römischen Reich (Stuttgart.” Index 3 (1972) 235–62.” Iura 31 (1980 [1983]) 37–100. Rabello. F.” CQ 17 (1967) 113–22. line 13: oper(a) russat(a). Das altrömische ius (Göttingen. To Crifò’s extensive bibliography we can add. qui sine vulnere interfectus est.6 The sacratio capitis offers rare insights into the primitive system of punishment. {and now the exhaustive and effuse study by R. Homo sacer (Napoli. as a result the carcer was the place of death for common criminals and the hostes publici. 1999)}. Voci. Janssen. 174.Punishing 279 379 imperio (but also the tres viri capitales). Die toten Lebenden (Leiden. G. For a different interpretation. E. Tib. see G.. 9 Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Collection de l’École Française de Rome. The Rock. . the securi percussio are almost endearing words when we look at the carnival of carnifices under the Empire. nose. 1966) 17–24 (missed by Thomas). Ann. Adams (see above. Hinard maintains that during the triumviral proscriptions “le corps n’est plus l’objet d’un enjeu particulier” (p. On p. 532 we read that wives in manu and daughters in potestate were not subject to vitae necisque potestas.g. or tongue). “Tortures mortelles et catégories sociales. mutilated. est purement domestique. 1985]). “Byzance et le blason pénal du corps” (pp. judicial rape. but what a sober jurist of Mommsen’s persuasion would like to say I do not dare to utter. 61. western and eastern. La condanna allo stupro delle vergini cristiane durante le persecuzioni dell’impero romano (Palermo. 83 [Paris. N. 295–311). Claudius Maximus.9 and now he turns to “La male mort. chasseurs de têtes” (pp. n. Sense? Never mind. beginning with the very term proscriptio. D. 10 Cf. 310).” p. I wonder what Cicero would say. castration. Caes. 405–26). Proscription. whatever its method of infliction. Patlagean. parce qui’il est constitué en dehors d’elle” (p.. Proof? “La condamnation ou l’exécution d’une femme . 361–403.-L. 5) came to the conclusion that “neco was a generic term for execution. cremations. Aucun droit ne la fonde.10 pouring molten lead down the throat. et s’inscrit dans une continuité qui est moins celle de la cité que celle de l’ordre paternel auquel la loi curiate renvoie. 5. Callu. thrown into the Tiber. excellent).-P. Grodzynski. F. They present a panorama of decapitations. Three articles introduce us to this world: J. 539). Crescenti. his severed head lacerated by Fulvia and affixed (with his right hand) to the rostra. Celle des fils s’autorise au contraire d’un pouvoir reconnu a priori aux pères. 284). 241–92). was a humiliating affair. blinding. Les Summa Supplicia dans le droit romain aux IIIe et IVe siècles” (pp. 542 quoting Suet.280 Historia et Ius 380 detailed study of the word J. the heads paraded on spikes and publicly exposed.5: “quia more tradito nefas virgines strangulari. delightful and instructive.” although at the end of the Republic it “was becoming disproportionately common in application to murder without weapon” (“Two Latin Words. acclaim among readers of the Annales is assured. crucifixions. The prize goes to Helvius Cinna who lost his head “par erreur” (Suet. “Les Romains. 313–59). with the edifying procession of Roman heroes from Cornelius Cossus (who defeated in combat and decapitated the Veientan king Tolumnius) to Ti. Exécutions et status du corps au moment de la première proscription” (pp. the carcer. “Le jardin des supplices au Bas-Empire” (pp. and those great favorites of the Byzantines. amputation of hand.9). the soldier who brought to Trajan the head of the Dacian king Decebalus.” they had first to be raped by the carnifex (cf. 85). Thomas. Tac. Jovian and Christian.. Hinard has recently produced a basic historical and prosopographical study of the proscriptions. deliveries ad bestias and of a plethora of other more exotic penalties (as e. p. Voisin. The severed heads of the proscripti pave the way to J. 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). ” Chiron 16 (1986) 147–66. Honig. But from the time of the civil wars judicial savagery was the parole. 1960). “La mort du tyran.12). Humanitas und Rhetorik in spätrömischen Kaisergesetzen (Göttingen. it reached its grim apogee under the Christian Emperors.11 11 Cf. “What Difference did Christianity Make?. 4. Cicero proudly praised the moderation of Roman criminal law: the XII Tables punished with death only few offences (De rep. R.” Historia 35 (1986) 322–43. “Judicial Savagery in the Roman Empire. Scheid. MacMullen. . M. 177–90). R. Idem.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. adorned with protestations of humanitas.” pp. * American Classical Review 3 (1973 [1976]) 98–99 {with minor addenda}. curia. unus mihi omnia Gratianus” (Ausonius. But suum cuique: Staveley has valiantly bridged the gap between historians of Greek and Roman elections. 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. 207 {see now AL 2196–98}). Nicolet. 635–36}. Another writer derided sterile casting of votes and extolled the Leader: “tribus non circumivi. but amidst the legal incompetence of classical historians Staveley’s book is a rara avis indeed! It is a superb achievement. Also contributions by the reviewer have not found favor in Staveley’s eyes.Y. rostra. The magistrates could report the omina only before. Pp.. The list could be prolonged. {cf.. (“Aspects of Greek and Roman Life”). Assyria? The fact is that systems based upon effective right to vote constitute a rare occurrence in history.. . centurias non adulavi. 9 text figs.. Ithaca. . 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. and has successfully steered between rough waters of social generalizations and the morass of technical details. inter senatum et principes comitia transiguntur” (Symmachus.. . STAVELEY. sitella venalis. Sest. Romanus populus. and the augurs only during.7). Orat. RQ 107–8}. . Gratiarum actio ad Gratianum 3. 1972. Some inaccuracies: Cic.: Cornell University Press.19. Egypt. Western scholars and politicians do not like to remember this. S. Greek and Roman Voting and Elections. 13). But what about China.. .13). N. Martius campus.1 ELECTIONS* E. 146–47 {see now RQ 91–94. 4. 271. These declamations bear out Montesquieu’s observation that despotism is more natural than any other political system.1–11 MINIMA DE MAXIMIS 19. In the bibliography I miss important articles by C. 129 does not say that Cicero was to conduct a vote (p. senatus. the holding of an assembly (p. although one of them propounded in 1966 virtually the same interpretation of professio as that argued on pp. 145).... About 350 a new form of extraordinary presidency over the elections appears: the dictatorship comitiorum habendorum causa. 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.Minima de Maximis 283 19.17. and also may help to explain. Kallmünz: M. 395 The subject of Jahn’s book is both interesting and intricate.1) that the interrex abdicated upon the renuntiatio of the first new consul. (But his suggestion that the interreges were probably granted dispensation by the senate from the provision of the lex Caecilia Didia. This is at any rate possible. but it could happen that the consuls were prevented by some obstacle from convening the comitia. In that case the republican constitution had recourse to two extraordinary institutions: the interregnum and the dictatorship comitiorum habendorum causa. In the first part of his book (9–53) Jahn discusses general constitutional and political problems concerning the two institutions. and performing the lustrum. 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). Both the interregnum and the Roman dictatorship have been much studied. the constitutional background of Pompey’s election in 52 as consul sine collega. He contends further that the long interregna constituted a serious obstacle * Phoenix 25 (1971) 394–395 {with minor addenda}. the thesis of Staveley that the interrex nominated two candidates and that no other candidates were admitted.2 EXTRAORDINARY ELECTIONS* Joachim JAHN.35 and Plut. Marc. and he especially points to the interrelation between the right to the auspicatio and the prerogative of presiding over elections. The elections were normally conducted at Rome under the presidency of a consul. but Jahn’s 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. On the whole. 1970. but the list of interreges of 355 in Livy 7. or that there were no consuls at all at the time when elections should be held. 6. requiring the announcement of the comitia in trinum nundinum. Nevertheless he offers some interesting suggestions. who immediately took over the presidency and completed the election of his colleague (26). rightly in my opinion. he has not much original to say. It is also possible that the individual interreges were chosen by lot (19). And finally Jahn rightly stresses the importance of the concept of the auspicia for the study of earlier Roman history. Pp. Lassleben (Frankfurter Althistorische Studien 3). Most important is his theory (based upon Livy 22. a specialized form of the dictatorship rei gerundae causa. reluctance to be original may also be a virtue. What was the cause of this development? Jahn thinks that the religious and magical components of the dictatorship may have played some role here. 195. . In that connection Jahn rejects (50–52). Yet when one is on such shaky ground as that offered by the problem of the Roman interregnum. appointing a dictator. Interregnum und Wahldiktatur. as Jahn thinks.11 does not seem to be wholly in favour of this thesis. 1972. She devotes a separate chapter to assignations of land and grants of citizenship. and his approach to it intelligent. the author proposes to analyze the political and military importance of common soldiers and veterans. But in fact he himself demolishes this thesis when he observes that in 356/355. and that in each case the elections were finally held under the presidency of an interrex (32–34). On the same page we find tribus rustici (sic) and a misquotation of the title of L. 19. Cato could not attempt as tribune to bring forward his proposals before the comitia tributa. the soldiers’ influence at the elections and on extension of a general’s command. 133–36}. but technically only before the concilium plebis tributum. but Jahn following Wilcken holds that Caesar’s first dictatorship was in its essence a “Wahldiktatur” and that the subsequent dictatorships of Caesar also to some extent retained that character (45–46). This is laudable.. R. RQ 117.3 EXERCITUS* Elisabeth H. but it is unfortunately flawed by a number of inaccuracies and errors. In the second part of his monograph (55–190) 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. AL 2181–84}.284 Historia et Ius to the normal conduct of warfare. zur Kandidatur nicht angemeldet hatten.” Jahn holds that the comitia were prevented in 56 by the intercessio of the tribunes C. 140. She discusses the problem of the soldiers’ loyalty toward the commander versus their loyalty to the civil government. Sufenas (his real praenomen was Marcus) – in reality it was the obnuntiatio that played the principal role {cf. and her conclusions are irritating. ERDMANN.. Taylor’s book on Roman tribes. Page 168: the maneuvers of Pompey and Crassus in 56 look like a puzzle: they “meldeten ihre Kandidatur nicht rechtzeitig. these shortcomings are especially to be regretted. and that it must have been more expedient to perform the elections under the presidency of a dictator. C. Unfortunately her discussion is flat and superficial. Schmidt.” but a few lines below we read that they “sich . She tries to apply the Problemstellung of the modern Militärsoziologie * American Classical Review 2 (1972 [1975]) 216–217 {with minor addenda}. 217 In reaction to studies on leading personalities and their closest followers. {Cf. Porcius Cato and Q. Die Rolle des Heeres in der Zeit von Marius bis Caesar: Militärische und politische Probleme einer Berufsarmee. and 352/351 it was the dictators who were unable to perform the elections and had to resign. That kind of dictatorship is last recorded in 202. A few examples from a single page will suffice. W. C. As the subject of Jahn’s monograph is of considerable historical importance. 353/352. Neustadt/Aisch: Druck und Verlag Ph. This part of his book will be much used. Pp. further the army’s role as a basis for personal Machtstellung and a means for seizing power. . pp. in H. criss-crossed by treaties and alliances. alien in tongue and tradition entered a world entangled in itself. Sertorius also completely disregarded the constitutional government’s authority. Catonis praeter librum de re rustica quae extant (Leipzig 1860) 77. 19.. What happened when a distant and superior power. composed of a myriad of various states. while often narrow-minded and dull. a world seething with old animosities. Libri ad Marcum filium. the author continues. Epistles. This demonstrates the striking fact that the political culture was in constant flux. large and small. were almost invariably very useful as they collected dispersed evidence or presented interesting solutions of particular problems. {Since these lines were composed the pest has spread far and wide producing vast libraries of hot air}.” This famous verse could have figured as a motto in Gruen’s book: both Gruen and Horace talk of the Roman accommodation to Greek ways.156. Old German dissertations. Horace. Yet history viewed solely from the heights of the Capitol is a singularly one-sided event. But it is Roman wiles that fascinate modern historians. Berkeley 1984. The formidable Censor Cato the Elder warned of the wiles of the Greeks: the Greek learning corrupts.1 * 1 Journal of Interdisciplinary History 16 (1985) 305–307 {with minor addenda}. but an effort at explanation” (p.2. 862. He breaks decisively with “the Anglo-Saxon obsession with Roman motives”. 8). 2 vols. laboriously concluded and easily broken. Jordan (ed. 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. 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. his subject is “the Roman experience in Hellas and the Hellenic experience under the impact of Rome. 2. Using Finer’s concept of the four levels of “political culture” (characterized by the degree of absence or presence of military intervention). Gruen is as boldly revisionist as Horace and Cato before him. A pretence of sociological open-mindedness coupled with philological negligence is an excellent formula for producing a useless book. This apparently is no more in vogue. whereas Catiline wanted at first to schieve his goals by legal means.Minima de Maximis 285 (mostly English and American: it is well to remember the source of the pest) to Roman military and political history. GRUEN. she concludes that the march on Rome as executed by Sulla or Caesar was normally (gewöhnlich) a sign of the lowest level of political culture. University of California Press. Cato. Very illuminating indeed.). 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?). The felicitous expression about Anglo- . On the other hand. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome.” and his approach sine ira et studio: “neither approbation nor condemnation motivates the quest.4 GRAECIA CAPTA* Erich S. M. the Greek idea of Roman intent was still more blurred. uncertain. second. and hesitant policies in Greece. If the Romans did not clearly know what they were doing.. The keenest mind in all of Greece. Yet philhellenism existed only as a cultural phenomenon. . Henrichs. Rome et la conquête du monde méditerranéen. in Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984) 209. could escape the allure of the Greek culture. Polybius. which constitutes the second volume of the work. Yet the economic motives. Part III. not even Cato himself. as Gruen points out in his magnificent chapter on philhellenism. Part I is devoted to diplomacy and propaganda. “commended the Roman accomplishment ... Rome was bellicose in Italy. and a system of formal and binding treaties were the rule. Gruen firmly – and rightly – opts for the primacy of politics over economics. And so. but there is no evidence that she actively strove to extend her domination over the East. well after the fact. a contrast and a divide between Roman behavior in Italy. “conquest brought tangible benefits”. at least not until the destruction of Carthage and Corinth in 146 BCE. No wonder. whether the Romans were aware of what they were achieving or not. the conviction that we cannot understand Saxon obsessions is borrowed from Michael Crawfords’s review of Claude Nicolet. The conception of Rome as the mistress of the world developed only toward the end of the second century BCE. but proved unable to explain it” (p. 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). HSCP 97 (1995) 243–61}. 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. Gruen rightly observes that Roman aristocracy was averse to professionalism and jealous of individual accomplishment. A.286 Historia et Ius 306 The book falls into three parts. 288). but which was foisted on Rome by the Greeks themselves after her great victories over Macedon and the Seleucids). nobody in Rome. but a natural adaptation to Hellenic categories” [p. where conquest. but in both cases they largely adopted Greek forms and formulas). it would appear. Three theses are crucial to Gruen’s vision of Rome’s expansion: first. The topic of Part II is less tangible but no less weighty: attitudes and motivations. 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). “Graecia Capta: Roman Views of Greek Culture”. Still. annexation. It deals with formal treaties and informal arrangements of “friendship” (the Romans preferred the latter. 356). There was never a philhellenic policy: the Romans admired Greek cities and looted them. so heralded by contemporary Italian scholars. for war meant booty and victory meant indemnity (p. Did the Romans have any concept of empire? Not at all. the slogans “Freedom for the Greeks” (again “not a duplicitous artifice of Rome. and the vacillating. 157]). {Cf. are we. the role of Rome in the international arbitration between the Greek states (a role which the Romans did not actively seek. did not constitute a motive for expansion. pp. Flavio [cos. 730). RQ 1–31. the deditio. left by the vagaries of chance no documentary trace – until the soil of Spain. Mario C. then what Gruen’s book seems to be telling (perhaps against the intentions of the author himself) is this: that. recording the deditio in 104. It transcends the bounds of Greek and Roman history. . editor of the venerable Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung. The tablet was found in Alcántara in Hispania Ulterior to the south of the Tagus. the bold recognition that there is no uniform explanation for the imperial expansion of the Republic.5 DEDITIO* Dieter NÖRR.F. 21. in fidem or in dicionem (no legal difference between those locutions. Aspekte des römischen Völkerrechts.. and how many a time the vanquished surrendered to the victors’ mercy? This event. is domination and empire {cf. but because the Greeks persistently drew the westerner into their own structure – until it was theirs no longer” (p. institutions and attitudes of the Greeks. acclaimed imperator after a victory). yielded a tablet of thirteen lines (broken off at the right edge). Patterns and structures are not. fertile in bronzes. Pp. Caesius C.. next the role of the general and his consilium: it is de consilii sententia that Caesius imper* American Journal of Philology 112 (1991) 558–559 {with minor addenda}. It was neither due to a grand design nor was it achieved in a fit of the absence of mind. The conclusion of the book is telling: “Hellas ultimately fell under Roman authority not because the Romans exported their structure to the East. offers us an excellent. third. His is a work of grand design. Abhandlungen. 559 Who could count how many wars the Romans waged. when weak or defeated states come into close and prolonged contact with a great power. 30–31. 16–18. pp. 1989. whatever initial designs and wishes. the ultimate result. and was originally published with an initial commentary in Gerión 2 (1984) 265–314.” a salutary principle (p. Heft 101). 174. often described by historians. For in history events are often isolated or bizarre. 721). and acclaimed for his earlier contributions to Roman legal history.f. of the hitherto unknown populus Seano[corum? to the (also until now unattested) Roman commander L. München. 632}. (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. If this claim is true of the Romans.Minima de Maximis 287 307 the Roman actions unless we study “structures. This is an ominous lesson for contemporary Europe. crafted by a master stylist. termed as imperator (no doubt a governor of the Ulterior. the contrary holds true of Gruen’s book. N. 65–71). He assembles and analyzes all the parallels for the technical phrases appearing in the inscription or postulated for the supplements: se suaque dedere. philosophisch-historische Klasse. Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Now Dieter Nörr. C. But what is the essence of structure? If power is the essence of history. Die Bronzetafel von Alcántara. 19. erudite and exhaustive study of the document itself within the broad theme of Roman international law. 95–101) accipere (or recipere – again only a terminological variation. on the religious aspects of Roman warfare (the forthcoming monograph by N. XVIII.. 1972. liberos] / esse iussit. In his Lives. Pp. today of course it is vulgar sociology and other aberrations..{1} P.. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. Batsford).. GREENHALGH. Hoyos. Ronald Syme once remarked that “biography offers the easy approach to history. obsides] / captivos equos equas quas cepisent [ut dederent. Aemilius Paullus of 189 de servis Hastensium. Seavey. After a brilliant discussion (pp. All important is the restitution formula referring both to the populus itself and its possessions: the commander eos . 45}). XV. A. Rosenstein will throw further light on this fascinating subject {now published.. the rights of war. Pp. 271.} See now the second edition (a corrected reprint of the first edition). Ius Belli. T. But this brief review cannot do justice to the legal riches of the inscription and of the monograph we are fortunate it elicited. Robin SEAGER. above. XIV. ILS 15). Berkeley 1990}). on the bellum iustum and ius belli {on that latter concept. rewritten.} This was written at the high tide of erudite prosopography. and also agros et aedificia leges cete[raque omnia] . 23. * {1 American Historical Review 81 (1976) 830–831 {with minor addenda}.288 Historia et Ius avi[t arma. New York: Barnes and Noble. N. But modern historians are different. 300.: Doubleday and Company.Y.. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Tiberius. not history. and illustrated edition” as The African Emperor: Septimius Severus in 1988 (London: B. 22.. Garden City. with the afterword and additional bibliography (Oxford: Blackwell. see the Chapel Hill dissertation (1993) by W. 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. Pp.{2} Plutarch says that he wrote biography. 1972. strictly to be distinguished from the concept of just war. 56–60) Nörr opts for the restrictive (“insoweit. The book was reissued in an “updated. history is only a background against which he depicts the noble and base deeds of his heroes. and as Septimius Severus: The African Emperor in 1989 (New Haven: Yale University Press). No. not yet published but available on microfiche}. n. 398.” “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. 6. Here follows the much ventilated clause dum populus [senatusque] Roomanus vellet (it also appears in the decree of L. 1975. eis redidit.} {2 {3 .6 EMPERORS* Anthony BIRLEY. D.” When a contemporary ancient historian professes to be writing biography he certainly will wind up writing his kind of history. 2005). The Year of the Four Emperors. expanded. 19.. L. ea re (pp. 60–63). is singularly unconvincing}) de . [. On top of his extended commentary Nörr presents inspiring thoughts on the legal framework of Roman foreign policy. ZPE 83 (1990) 92. whatever the form and name of government. sexual and otherwise. But the strange peculiarity of an authoritarian regime is that there also is a despot. In matters of scholarly erudition both books are beyond reproach. Greenhalgh is a specialist in the history of early Greek warfare. the bet is that what he really has in mind is prosopography. The Roman Revolution [1939]. The principate was forced upon Tiberius against his will by Augustus (and the senate). But “to preserve moderation in matters of honours was not easy” (p. also interested in raising the “moral” standards of society. 132). but he has not learned too much from it. and Anthony Birley has published extensively in the field of imperial history. in the case of Birley’s book. Robin Seager has made a name as a historian of the Republic. but Seager is somehow convinced. 101). Nor is it easy to believe in Tiberius’ propaganda of moderatio. a detailed and very valuable prosopographical appendix. and. Obviously they cannot be of any importance to a “sober” historian. following Suetonius. Seager’s Tiberius is a rationalistically inclined gentleman – Seager would have none of his idiosyncrasies and follies because they are not of particular interest to him.” but both authors agree that “counting of heads misses the point” . It is a misunderstanding to speak of sincerity or dissimulation. A. credits Tiberius also with sumptuary measures – “limiting the activities of food-shops and restaurants. they have footnotes. For security reasons some people had to be “removed. and probably nothing more needs to be said of it. and “to deny Tiberius’ sincerity is perverse” (p. 143). It is informative and readable. 142). magical and political ritual. his first book dealing with Roman history. Tiberius was. is a popular and straightforward account of the fateful year 68–69. Syme. cruel or benign.” P. 141). Seager. and arena (p. The three books under review exemplify all the virtues and shortcomings of the maxims “through biography to history” and “oligarchy first. republic or democracy. Republican or Imperial. and Roman history. The old trick of despots and other benighted minds obviously works: Seager swallows the bait. p. of course. but even he could not do too much about it.{3} This is in keeping with another “Symean law” according to which “in all ages. is the history of the governing class” (R. and nothing is a farce. who. and forbidding altogether the sale of pastries” (p. bibliographies. an oligarchy lurks behind the façade. despot next. L. He tried to refuse it. 7). seriously maintains that “Tiberius’ principal virtue was moderation” and that “the servility of senate and people gave him ample opportunity to exercise it” (p. Following in the footsteps of Augustus. This ceremony was not a “polite comedy” but a religious. like Seager. as was to be expected of their authors.Minima de Maximis 289 831 when he says history. Tiberius the republican loved freedom. The Year of the Four Emperors. To find him one need not look behind the façade: he lurks everywhere. Seager quotes Béranger’s brilliant study on the ceremony of the refusal of power. be it monarchy. Nor can Birley refrain from condemning the “levity” of women. “nor was it easy for Tiberius to maintain the appearance of republican freedom in his dealings with individual senators” (p. 56). The books by Seager and Birley are important scholarly monographs. stage. In an authoritarian regime everything tends to be ritualized. when after the death of Nero four emperors occupied the throne in succession. The second edition of the book was published by Bristol Classical Press in 1989. purges. and in 2000 there appeared the third edition under the title The Year of the Four Emperors (London. and that “it is no good counting heads” (Birley. servility. Attentive readers will observe with some interest that Ronald Syme is tacitly passed over. 239). which often reflects the prejudices and sympathies of the conservative Roman consular and the conservative French academician. 281). 69. If they knew better the history of China or Russia they would be much less perplexed. His behavior was “much more normal than historians of Rome like to remember” (p. XVI. But it is not an easy thing to emulate Tacitus (and Sir Ronald).{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. XII). New York: Rutledge). but readable and informative.D. As the author of the Penguin translation of Tacitus’ Histories. of an erudite commentary on the third book of the Historiae. The result of this odd though (some would say) not completely incongruous patronage is a book.} Classical World 72 (1978) 483 {with minor addenda}. 279). (incl.) 4 maps. Pp. 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. p. Boulder. Egypt is characterized as a country indifferent to the rule of law (at any rate in Roman eyes – Wellesley adds cautiously). 239). The Oriental Despotism (New Haven: Yale University Press. For a historian of imperial Rome Machiavelli and Wittfogel{4} are as important as Tacitus and Syme. and that it is Jérôme Carcopino who receives together with Tacitus warm thanks and glowing praise (p. on 8 pls. and still less to compete with them. 19. But what about democracy in Rome? Wellesley seems to be committing a freshman’s error of confusing republican and democratic system – unless of course {4 * {1 The reference is to K. Seager admits. with a new preface by Barbara Levick. and ignorant of democratic government (p.290 Historia et Ius (Seager. The Long Year A. he is no doubt well qualified for this task. Birley on the other hand defends Septimius Severus against the obtrectatores (ancient and modern) who called him “Punic Sulla. He rates rather low in comparison with Vespasian (who executed few senators).” He was neither Punic (his accent was provincial) nor a cruel tyrant. p. Wittfogel. 110). 234. less than brilliant. but rather high if compared with Commodus or Domitian. that Tiberius’ rule degenerated into a reign of terror (p.} .7 INCAPACES AND CAPAX* Kenneth WELLESLEY. and adulation are not vices but virtues. Colorado: Westview Press 1976 [1977]. In an autocracy. and of numerous articles dealing with Roman imperial history. however. signs not of decadence but of political skill. (plus) 24 ill. 1957). but he tries to rehabilitate Galba and Vitellius. and then to accept. München: C.. nomination to the principate” (p. XI. nisi imperasset. Vespasian. As far as the three tragic protagonists of the long year are concerned. Perhaps in Plato’s Republic. Vitellius was “a comfortable. And yet there is nothing like success. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 28). the source basis has considerably increased. H. 29). Since that time. the book by C. because he won and stayed alive. thanks to new epigraphical finds. emerges as the savior of Rome not only in the Flavian propaganda. 52). and Antonius Primus holds his war council in Ptuj. With respect to Galba. 127). apart from the .” p.. Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Vestigia. 95). but also in Wellesley’s book.. Beck. and so the Tacitean verdict. 29). 105) of Vitellius’ brother Lucius. the “designing wife” (p. And it is nothing but a sophism to maintain that “our questions relate to the life. omnium consensu capax imperii. Ancient place names appear throughout the book in their modern guise. original decision to invite. Most impressive is the author’s knowledge of Roman topography from the centuriationes of the ager Cremonensis to the mouth of the Rhine to the Danubian frontier. it is hard to find much amiss. Caecina’s wife behaved in a brazen manner (she “paraded on horseback in a loud purple dress. Simshäuser dealt with the administration of justice in Italy (Iuridici und die * American Historical Review 85 (1980) 607–608 {with minor addenda. The last study concerning the organization of Italy under the principate. Regrettably this did not apply to Triaria. Wellesley agrees with Martial that Otho found his greatness only in his death. Pp.} . Women should not meddle in politics. Galsterer discussed the organization of republican Italy (Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien [{München} 1976]). Recently H. not in faece Romuli. 1970. The highest arcanum imperii in an authoritarian regime is to stay alive.8 EMPERORS AND ITALY* Werner ECK. not the death. p. Jullian. and so the route of Licinius Mucianus leads via Istanbul. 196). of Galba” (p. but fortunately Vitellius’ womenfolk presented “a pleasing contrast with many of the women around them” (p. Just so: quite enough to disqualify him as a politician. “of his qualifications for the principate there could be no doubt” (p. as Cicero would say. In the author’s zeal for modernization we are also treated to a Christmas camp dinner (saturnalicium castrense. appeared almost one hundred years ago. 326. Transformations politiques de l’Italie sous les empereurs romains ({Paris} 1884). 201). and many magisterial monographs have been written on various aspects of imperial government.Minima de Maximis 291 he chooses to call democracy the oppressive rule of Roman aristocrats. easygoing family man” and “among [his] acts of state .. and W. I would also submit that not only the Orientals are capable of spreading rumors that magnify the events (p. still stands. 19. J. The supervision of strategic roads. It was only the introduction of the governmental assistance (alimenta) to children of needy parents. the imperial program of social welfare. which will often be consulted: the list of curatores viarum. He would also be pleased to see that his concept of the ancient “bourgeoisie” is still alive. vol. erudition. (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. With the exception of the city of Rome. 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. primarily of their finances. But the main importance of Eck’s book resides in the structural problems of the imperial administration that it raises and elucidates. the army and the money. of iuridici. Eck points out that the curtailment of local autonomy was not the goal of the government. editor. 609. and the collection of indirect taxes introduced by Augustus did not require an elaborate administration. The emperor was interested in the two pillars of his power. the officials in charge of cursus publicus. but still there was no new comprehensive book on the administration of imperial Italy. 1983. 467. Italy paid no direct taxes. deuxième série. a military necessity. of curatores rei publicae. the supervisors of roads.} .292 Historia et Ius 608 Munizipalgerichtsbarkeit in Italien [{München} 1973]). Bibliothèque de l’Institut Français de Naples. the supervisors of Italian cities. This had prepared the ground for the virtual reduction of Italy to the status of a province under Diocletian. the book here under review fills a sore gap. The Social and * American Historical Review 90 (1985) 657–658 {with minor corrections and additions. In view of modern parallels this development is both interesting and disturbing. It came about as a result of other concerns of the emperor. Pp. and sound judgment. the officials in charge of the jurisdiction.9 DOMI NOBILES* Mireille CÉBEILLAC-GERVASONI. of praefecti vehiculorum. and. primarily with a view to encouraging the procreation of children. First of all it contains several prosopographical lists. as Werner Eck displays all the customary features of his scholarship. and no army was stationed in it. 6). Michael Rostovtzeff would be pleased to observe the current upsurge of interest in Roman social and economic history. this process was conspicuously slow in Italy for a number of reasons. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. N. Thus. hence for a long time there was no need for a massive government intervention. Naples: Publications du Centre Jean Bérard. the state dispatch and courier service. and in a general docility of the populace. and finally of various officers who administered the alimenta.-C. it is bound to remain a standard work on the subject for the next several decennia. Les “bourgeoisies” municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier siècles av. In his classic book. 19. Sciences Humaines. 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. And Italy is above all the local “bourgeoisies” (observe the quotation marks) or the domi nobiles as Roman senatorial aristocracy saw them. the collection attempts to reverse the traditional vision of the Roman world: it does not view Italy from the heights of Rome but. P. Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47–14 B. considers Rome from the vantage point of Italy (p. 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. 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. Emilio Gabba analyzes the ways and means by which the Roman government supported local ruling classes {reprinted in E. Le Latium et la Campania (BEFAR 299 [Rome 1998])}. The collection under review makes it clear. It contains thirty papers (mostly in French and Italian) delivered at a conference organized in 1981 by the French Institute at Naples. rather. Filippo Coarelli. he writes: “An alliance between the Italian bourgeoisie and the Italian proletariate . now U. Larinum (Phillippe Moreau’s important social analysis of Cicero’s Pro Cluentio). Cébeillac-Gervasoni dissects this group as it appears in inscriptions and literary texts {see now her monograph Les magistrats des cités italiennes de la second guerre punique à Auguste. it is a full scale study of the veterans in Italian cities {cf. Proscriptions. and. now L. Gabba. 1957 {revised by P. M. the domi nobiles did not represent a static entity. (London 1983). As the editor. Laffi. Italia Romana (Como 1994) 51–57)}. Studi di storia romana e di diritto (Roma 2001) 455–80}. 8). those who rose in the ranks of the Roman army. resulted in the collapse of the hegemony of the two privileged orders of Rome. Capua (Jean-Marc Flambard’s new interpretation of the inscriptions of the magistri Campani {cf. 2nd ed. if one misses anything in this fine collection. E.C. Mireille Cébeillac-Gervasoni. and Paul Zanker discuss the image the local aristocracies projected in their building activity and displayed in their statuary. . such as the contributions dealing with Aquileia (by Gino Bandelli and Monika Verzár Bass). amply though indirectly (the name of Rostovtzeff is not mentioned even once). puts it. This class was composed of various strata: old local aristocracies claiming a hereditary right to rule their native cities. Caesar. RQ 647}). The final theme is politics: François Hinard discusses the Sullan proscriptions and how they affected the Italians {see now his comprehensive study Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome 1985)}. an increasingly large group of those who gained wealth through commercial and financial ventures. Mario Torelli. Several papers are dedicated to case studies of single cities or regions. Umberto Laffi illuminates the composition and competence of the local senates {cf.. Fraser}). XI–XII). finally. and the settlement of veterans by Sulla. Keppie. and Augustus disrupted many communities and produced a new class of local notables. Puteoli (Jean Andreau’s study of the financiers Cluvius and Vestorius). and Pompei (by Paavo Castrén).Minima de Maximis 293 658 Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1926. Wiseman treats of the contacts between local notables and Roman intellectuals. land confiscations.. Ségolène Demougin shows that increasing numbers of municipal notables gained admission (often via the military tribunate) to the ordo equester. and T. To conclude. the senatorial and the equestrian” (pp. and literary sources. Finland is a bastion of Roman brick studies (cf. Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire .{1} 19.3}) and of Roman name studies. P. f. Method is as important as substance: in most papers the reader is struck by the close blend of archaeological. 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. Salomies. In the latter field Iiro Kajanto. Classes sociales dirigeantes et pouvoir central (Rome 2000). n. praenomen (cf. 35. the polyonymous nomenclature in the Roman empire.} We got. 1992. Roman Female Praenomina. 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. “Cela ne veut pas dire que le mot ‘bourgeoisie’ soit devenu plus univoque” (p. as Marcus Tullius Cicero. 1987.10 NAMES AND ADOPTIONS* Olli SALOMIES. as e. {and. The main goal of adoptions was to ensure the continuity of the gens and of the name. nomen and cognomen. and normally three. No. epigraphical.} . Scipio). as Claude Nicolet expressed it in his concluding remarks. Cornelius P. as of now. Lamoine) proceeds to embrace the whole world: Les élites et leur facettes. In the Republic everything was simple. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Cornelius P. A subsequent volume (co-edited by L. or prosopography. We need another colloquium. 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. Les élites municipales de l’Italie péninsulaire de la mort de César à la mort de Domitien entre continuité et rupture. P. CP 78 [1983] 89–90 {reprinted in this volume. Mika Kajava. Cébeillac-Gervasoni): Les élites municipales de l’Italie péninsulaire des Gracques à Néron (Naples-Rome 1996). Paullus adopted by P. f. n. Who can now seriously study Roman epigraphy. hence we hear very little of the adoptions of women: apart from adoptions in imperial families there are attested only four or five cases. three of them (edited by M.294 Historia et Ius Todisco. Die römischen Vornamen. 97). but retained his previous gentilicium with a modified ending in -anus. iv + 179 pp. Scipio Aemilianus (a son of L. I veterani in Italia in età imperiale (Bari 1999)}. for women. Les élites locals dans le monde hellénistique et romain (Rome 2003).g. 408). but. (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum. f. none under the * {1 American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 629–630 {with minor addenda. without having at hand Kajanto’s The Latin Cognomina (1965) or Solin’s Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom (1982) or Solin’s and Salomies’ Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum (1988 {reprinted with addenda in 1994})? Of many detailed monographs we can list Solin’s delightful Namenpaare (1990) and now Salomies’ study of that pervasive (and for prosopographers frustrating) phenomenon. Aemilius L. or social history. P. 1994}). A Roman had always two names. XXXVII. As a handbook it forms a counterpart to {A.g. R. Schiller’s goal is to elucidate the mechanism of development of Roman law. Salutaris M. Curvius Sex. Arthur SCHILLER.3: Curvii fratres).4864). 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. they probably came from the name of Tullus’ (natural) mother.18. Following in the footsteps of the classic study by D. 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. 20. Mart. (pp. Luccius Valerius Severus Plotius Cilo (CIL 10. His new work is useful in a number of ways. Sex. Take. 83). Such names are onomastic and prosopographical puzzles. but would now often also retain his original cognomen or even the whole original name. 19. an orator from Nemausus. New York: Mouton. Shackleton Bailey on adoptive nomenclature in the late Republic (2nd ed. Roman Law. 1991) Salomies ventures into the Empire.} Berger’s Encyclopedic Dictionary {of Roman Law (Philadelphia 1953)}. 10}) by Cn. Mechanisms of Development. he published a collection of his articles under the very telling title An American Experience in Roman Law (Göttingen 1971). p. no. and it will be much * Classical World 73 (1979) 50–51 {with minor addenda. 606. and at the same time to provide a textbook for the student.Minima de Maximis 295 630 Republic (pp. Pulfennius M. n. Pp. This produced long strings of names as e. Their natural father appears to have been another notable from Nemausus Sex. The Hague. 51 Arthur Schiller had taught Roman law in Columbia University School of Law for almost half a century.5) Lucanus and his brother Tullus were adopted (testamento {cf. 37–38) Cn. at the conclusion of his distinguished teaching career. Volt(inia tribu) Afer Titius Marcellus Curvius Lucanus (ILS 990). Domitius Sex. Domitius Afer. f. Ter. and a handbook for the scholar.11 ARS BONI ET AEQUI* A. A few years ago.28. As we know from Pliny (Ep. Vol(tinia) Tullus (cf. old and new elements variously collocated. This leaves the elements Titius Marcellus unexplained. Paris. f. The adoptee would normally include in his style the adoptive praenomen and nomen. and those who enjoy solving them will love the book of Salomies. 19). sometimes with further items inherited from other relatives. On the basis of a full catalogue of adoptions (58 cases. for example.} . 5. in this volume. 4. 1978. 1). 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). 8. f. 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. Original texts constitute the heart of the book.. real or imaginary... is that it affords an unequaled exposition of the way by which .. “Roman law is the most purely legal law we have. of the governing class. In the introductory chapter he quotes with apparent approval rather peculiar ideas about Roman law held by some eminent European and American legal scholars. like any other law. But when we repeat after our Roman masters high ringing words. Roman jurisprudence characterized law as the ars boni et aequi. 12). He presents the rules of Roman law in splendid isolation from their social and political environment. not accusation. . By this it also meant the law of slavery. Yet reason and logic constitute only one side of Roman law. subjugation of women. The existence of the other side Schiller does not indicate. for it is entirely apolitical” (p. and supervised the . and are illustrated by copious references to modern discussions.. they are given in translation. the jurists worked out the precepts of a legal system . and Schiller’s heroes are the jurists and jurists’ law. 9)... Internal logic of Roman Law shines from every page. served the interests. we ought to pause and consider their true meaning. application of the law so that the ideals of justice and the welfare of the society might be realized (p. It also reflected idiosyncrasies of the emperors. Roman supremacy. The student will find the presentation of the material innovative and felicitous.296 Historia et Ius used {a rush and false prophecy}. They cast revealing light on a lawyer’s perception of historical realities: “The chief value of the study of Roman law . This is a statement of fact. Roman law.. II HISTORIA ET PHILOLOGIA . . is taken by the testimonia and apparatus printed at the bottom of each page). in fact much less: a substantial space. consul in 133. and the historiographic background.. L. pp. 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. Calpurnius Piso. First. censor in 120. a computation. Ogilvie [Oxford 1965]) contains 774 pages (the ratio is 2. and by an extensive bibliography and index (499–552). 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. to secure for Rome * American Journal of Philology 117 (1996) 329–332 {with minor addenda. This demonstrates vividly that the book de Pisone rerum scriptore must be concerned with something more than just Piso. more than one-third. but the pages of the commentary are larger. his Annales. and a writer of history.” Thus Piso. Chapter 1.20 COMPOSING THE ANNALS* Gary FORSYTHE. and so the real ratio is in the neighborhood of 3:1). The Historian L. The question arises whether it is necessary in a book about historiography. Lipsiae 1914) the extant forty five fragments of the Annales of Piso cover twenty pages (118–37. should be pleased: this is a learned monograph. Furthermore some interpretations are questionable: the idea (3–7) that the mission (in 210–209) of a forebear of the historian. and then turns to a discussion of the Annales as a work of history and literature (25–73). Peter. C. Hence a full treatment of the historian’s family is welcome. For the sake of a further comparison we may note that the standard commentary on the first pentad of Livy (by R. and finally to a minute analysis of each fragment (75–408). bibliography and the edition of the fragments) to 408 pages.03:1. and it is a very erudite commentary. Münzer. but his article is very brief. In the standard edition by H. The subtitle informs us that the subject of the book is not only Calpurnius Piso but also “the Roman Annalistic Tradition.} . Piso. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (2nd ed. The text itself plunges directly into Piso’s political career (1–24). M. The book is rounded off by a new edition of the testimonia and fragmenta (409–97). for example Livy. Forsythe’s monograph runs (excluding indices. Unfortunately the book lacks an introduction in which the author would have set forth his goals and charted the way of achieving them. if we applied the same method to an author partially or fully extant. VIII + 552. University Press of America). Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition (Lanham-New York-London 1994. This amounts to about thirty or so pages of discussion for one page of Piso. The Calpurnii Pisones were treated in the RE by F. a great authority. Chapter 2 deals with Piso’s education and with his work. 115) of P. Gracchus “should perhaps be viewed in the context of his family’s possible involvement with milling and the state grain supply. and they deal in astounding detail with the fragments of the Annales. O. 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. Equally important is the stress on the tralatician nature of the annalistic tradition. The author elucidates very well Piso’s legalistic tone and vocabulary (36–38 {cf. Skutsch’s . of his character. This chapter is a major contribution to the history of the republican historical writing. and of Piso’s Greek and Latin sources. Frier (who dates the compilation to the imperial period). The eighty books of the Annales Maximi were indeed compiled during the pontificate (130–ca. A commentary on a fragmentary work normally requires much more space than a commentary on a fully surviving author. in this volume. In a surviving author the context for every piece of information is automatically provided. The family’s surname meant ‘mortar’. But the author’s choice appears to be sound. The discussion of Piso’s style is delightful. “to grind grain”) will strike many as far-fetched. It is also awkward to speak of “the Lex Acilia of C.g. 418 as indicating Piso’s pontificate. Forsythe felicitously illuminates the religious nature of the original notices: it was important to assemble empirical data. and as the author amply demonstrates. of Greek influences on the method of argumentation in his Annales.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. A similar conceit crops up on p. Chapters 2–5 constitute the bulk of the book. Gracchus” (23).” This borders on the ridiculous – in an otherwise sober account. Forsythe may also be right in rejecting M. 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). the comparison between Cato’s Origines and Piso’s Annales) culminating in a clear assessment of the importance of Piso’s Annales (which may or may not have been the original title of his work) for the Roman historiographic tradition: Forsythe argues persuasively for Piso’s priority in the annalistic writing. The truly detective work to establish the date (after 120) of the composition of the Annales is also remarkable (32–36). and cautious. “to steer the state safely past the unlucky days of every year” (62). and a list of prodigies. No. Crawford’s interpretation of the coin Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge. 2}). especially the comparison of the opinions held by Cicero and Gellius. e. The discussion of the book arrangement (38–53) is perforce more problematic: there are many fragments not assigned by our sources to any definite book. 1974) no. 21: Piso’s concern over the agrarian law of C. Hence the comparisons adduced at the beginning of this review may be somewhat misleading. Mommsen is again proven to have been right. and their disposition must remain a matter of choice. for fragments the historical and literary context of each piece has to be divined by a modern commentator. It contains a good discussion of Piso’s personal surname Frugi. Mucius Scaevola. a list of events. All in all an exemplary chapter (cf. this development squares well with contemporary antiquarian interests. but we should form an idea of the author’s plan and of its execution. A line by line appraisal is not possible. it is necessary also to indicate the page in the current standard edition of Lindsay. 2.. Warmington’s translation (and also Krenkel’s) is on the mark: “I . {Cf.” which is very literal and not very understandable. Farney. . but an apparatus would be a great enhancement for the fragments proper. A.. Its lack in Forsythe’s edition will force any serious scholar to consult the edition of Peter or the critical editions of the authors in which the fragments of Piso’s Annales are preserved. the author makes a dubious (and very involved) claim for assigning this remark to Piso’s Preface.. inter alia. and a serious contribution particularly to early Roman history and historical mythology. {The same deplorable omissions in H. In an era of impressionistic literary musings it is very pleasing to read a work of erudition. Beck and U. {Cf. 16:1. For instance Fragment 1: “At vero Piso ille Frugi in annalibus suis queritur adulescentes peni deditos esse” (the rest is Cicero’s comment. but it is marred by several flaws (or bad editorial decisions). Take for example Testimony 6 (p.1–2).” To conclude. 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. The inclusion of English translation is to be commended. G. Die frühen römischen Historiker I (Darmstadt 2001)}. but rather provides an account of the whole underlying political and mythical history for each piece of Piso’s information. snorted out my anger in the very end of my nose. is treated to almost seven pages of commentary in which. the review by P.35:1). but occasionally the translation is not felicitous.. For Forsythe does not simply try to place the fragments in their context. It is a book about how the history ab urbe condita looked before Livy. Warmington and Krenkel. In Forsythe’s book the ratio of the actual commentary (333 pages) to the fragments (ca.9): “Denique non Italia a vitulis. Fragment 2 (from Varro. 413). 20 pages) is ca. De re rust. The collection of testimonies and fragments will be very useful.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. It throws a beam of light both on Roman history and on the writing of Roman history. D. or more exactly. One can understand that for the testimonia pertaining to Piso’s life no apparatus criticus is necessary. This fragment is adduced from Nonius Marcellus. Schröder has 18 pages of fragments and 155 pages of commentary (the ratio of 8. 9. and the page is given according to the old edition of Mercier.6:1). It is an encyclopedia. BMCR 96. To understand the verse we have to consult the explanations of the idiom appended to the editions of Lucilius. Nor does Forsythe indicate which editions of these authors he has used: a surprising and inexcusable omission. a work firmly grounded in history and philology.22.9}. Lucilius’ “eduxique animam in primoribu’ naribus” is rendered as “I . snorted my anger through the nostrils at the tip of my nose. ut scribit Piso” also gets seven pages of discussion. Secondly in the case of Lucilius it would also be advisable to inform the reader of the fragment’s number in the editions of Marx. and in his commentary on the first book of Cato’s Origines (Meisenheim 1971) W. Fam. a fragment from Lucilius. still a much higher ratio than in any comparable study. Walter.1.10. how it looked at the end of the second century. There is a wealth of information here. . despite all the technological progress. As a postscript the reader of the book may also read Forsythe’s note on “Electronic Technology and Blindness: A New Solution to an Old Problem” (TAPA 124 [1994] 333–35). It painfully demonstrates the many and daunting obstacles that.302 Historia et Philologia Wiseman. a person in the position of Gary Forsythe has still to overcome. It is also a tale of indomitable spirit. JRS 86 (1996) 200–1}. His book is an edifice of scholarship. exclude the use of the Annales. Papers of the British School at Rome and Journal of Roman Studies) are now united in the present volume.} . of culture and business: they deal with Roman society in all its dimensions. LETTERS. Thanks to the efforts of Fergus Millar thirty one articles (originally published in various leading periodicals. to these we have to add eight papers that either appeared or are about to appear as chapters in various collective works. get their lists of prodigia? Not from the Annales Maximi is Rawson’s conclusion. But what sets them apart is the quality of thought. n. including three chapters in the new edition of the Cambridge Ancient History.21 HISTORY. she travelled the road from the dour Lacedaemon to modern Europe. 25 When Elizabeth Rawson died suddenly in December 1988 in Beijing. of history and literature. The Spartan Tradition in European Thought (Oxford 1969). Clarendon Press). now a model for other similar endeavours. Roman Culture and Society. Take the 1971 article that opens the procession. of argument. “Prodigy Lists and the Use of the Annales Maximi ” (pp. she had just finished a term of teaching Classics at Nankai University. pp. And if they did not use the Annales for the prodigies. A Commentary on Livy. a prodigious achievement. at the age of fifty four. she became above all a student of Rome. Briscoe. and the range of topics. All these contributions were composed over a short span of seventeen years. 4. Collected Papers (Oxford 1991.1 (1992) 24–27 {with minor addenda. The Romans treated seriously divine signs. to many the best and fairest general introduction to Cicero’s success and failure. Two books grace her Roman bibliography. so she had been an intrepid traveller along the treacherous paths of Roman history. But being stimulating and original need not mean being always right. 1–15). J. from 1971 to 1988. and the erudite Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London 1985). 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. The circumstances of her death may stand as an emblem for her scholarly life: as she was opening a trail for Classics in China. per se. above all in Classical Quarterly. From where did the Roman annalists. Cicero: a Portrait (London 1975). E. and ultimately Livy. For although in her first book. AND RELIGION* Elizabeth RAWSON. Her articles are perched at intersections of religion and politics. of republican history and literature. noted that inconsistencies in the prodigy lists do not. x + 615. Ruoff* Ploutarchos 9. A debate ensued. they used them for very little else. and the senate debated them at length even with the enemy ad portas. Books XXXI–XXXIII (Oxford 1973) 11–12. ” and as the procurationes were based on precedents. 145–48. And finally B. though it may very well be that Livy got his reports of prodigies through Valerius Antias.304 Historia et Philologia 26 Väänänen. Most papers penned by Rawson evoked discussion and polemic. 296). pp. arrange their material? We will find an answer in “The Introduction of Logical Organization in Roman Prose Literature” (1978. All these debates have one thing in common: they start with Rawson’s article.” CP 83 (1988) 289–99. How did the Roman litterati.” Arctos 7 (1972) 142–43. a perceptive illustration of the validity of Polybius’ comment on the importance of religio in Rome. the antiquarians. far removed from the style and the composition of the chronicle. 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. . but again this does not demonstrate that they did not exploit the Annales Maximi. Libri Annales Pontificorum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition (Rome 1979). “The First Roman Annalists” (1976. 23). 324–51). linguists. he argues convincingly that the Annales Maximi “were a record of past prodigies. the last scholar to use the Annales Maximi was the antiquarian Verrius Flaccus (esp. “New Light on the Capture of Isaura Vetus by P. 20–22. 80–101). expiations. 297) is not persuasive. 27–37. But we can attempt to perceive the flavor. were likely to be sympathetic to the Roman optimates. and that is likely to have meant opposition to Caesar” (p. Etruria and the Disciplina Etrusca ” (1978. Frier. and also for the historians. Three papers tackle the religio: “Scipio. Servilius Vatia. pp. and the Disappearance of the Annales Maximi. and B. Next R. Furius and the Ancestral Religion” (1973. they all require an extensive follow-up.. Drews seized the pen. pp. rhetoricians.. the Annales formed an indispensable practical guide (p. Hall. 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. “Caesar. “The Roman Public Prodigia and the Ager Romanus. and eventus. stated the obvious: the annalists drew their examples of prodigies from various sources.” 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. pp. Prodigies.” in: Akten des VI. “Religion and Politics in the Late Second Century BC at Rome” (1974. pp. and the range of her work. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik [München 1973] 568–71). 289–323): “experts in the disciplina Etrusca . W. and that Antias was the last historian to consult the Annales (p. Laelius. jurisprudents. believed he found a Copernican solution to the problem: the prodigy lists in Livy derive from the pontifical chronicle but indirectly. MacBain. and of the formula for the devotio of Carthage stands out (to be supplemented by A. 294). it was Fabius Pictor who fashioned the literary style of the annalistic history. Prodigy and Expiation: a Study in Religion and Politics in Republican Rome (Collection Latomus 177 [Bruxelles 1982]) 1–24. But his claim that the Annales fell into obsolesence in the first century (p. 312). Here this cannot be done. For Rawson the fragmentary held a special appeal: this goes for the antiquarians and the grammatici. In “Pontiffs. 269–74). where the marvellous discussion of the evocatio. 149–68). literature or economic life. pp. pp. A mere list shows the range: “Architecture and Sculpture: the Activities of the Cossutii” (1975. pp. next “The Eastern Clientelae of Clodius and the Claudii” (1973. Crassus and Cicero: The Formation of a Statesman. When was chariot racing intro- . Cossutius who was engaged by Antiochus IV to complete the Olympieion in Athens. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century BC’ (1979. and “More on the Clientelae of the Patrician Claudii” (1977. Historiography. 227–44). 125–48 {Cf. CP 72 [1977] 55–60 {= RQ 137–60. 363–88). G. No such problems at the races – but there are others. “The Identity Problems of Q. Powell and J. 468–87) treats the stage as a social institution. pp. that fascinated Rawson. now to be read in conjunction with C. and “Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis ” (1987. and 641}). the first fourteen rows reserved for the equestrians. taking as a starting point the colorful figure of the architect D. “Theatrical Life in Republican Rome and Italy” (1985. and the delightful “Cicero and the Areopagus” (1985. Finally theater and races. A. 444–67).). 34–57. who the members of this group exactly were (ad rem. “Crassorum funera” (1982. Cic. pp. “Why Not Sallust on the Eighties?. above in this volume.History. where the literary and iconographic sources are skilfully used to illuminate each other. And we should not omit the ingenious textual and prosopographical analysis of a passage from the invective against Cicero: “Homo Novus Arpinas ex M. F. Cicero’s Republic (= BICS.” AHB 2 (1988) 12–15. North (eds. fundamental).” (1971. 58-79). Two papers are concerned with the army and the arms: “The Literary Sources for the Pre-Marian Roman Army” (1971. 20}. and this vein of research continued in “L. 3” (1976. Cassius Hemina and L. Suppl. and in particular the much debated quattuor ordines. and if the latter. pp. 546–69). and Religion 305 27 245–71). [Sallust]. now J. 408–15). Linderski. one stands unchallenged as the best introduction to a difficult work: “The Interpretation of Cicero’s De legibus ” (1973. attempts to establish the political stance of L. cf. Crassi Familia. The burning issue is whether all who boasted the equestrian census were entitled to this privilege or only a more limited group. pp. 416–26) does not treat of funerals but rather of M. and “History. 76. with a list of Cicero’s friends and acquaintances who were members of that august body. Konrad. After religio. 16–33). Cornificius” (1978. Letters. pp. 102–24). pp. pp. but always in connection with culture. pp. London 2001)}). fragments and Cicero it was prosopography. two approach the Arpinate from the vantage point of writing history: “Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian” (1972. F. 272–88) sorts out literary and historical allusions to this noted figure of the Caesarian and early Triumviral period. and following the vicissitudes of the family till the late republic). 582–98). Here also belongs “Sallust on the Eighties” (1987. Crassus and his sons. No. pp. and three deal with Cicero as a politician: “L. Six papers have Cicero as the subject. also J. pp. 189–203. Calpurnius Piso {cf. and Cicero’s Expositio Consiliorum Suorum ” (1982. and “The Antiquarian Tradition: Spoils and Representations of Foreign Armour” (1990. pp. pp. 508–45) discusses the theater seating as an expression of social order. 223–26). pp. but she never mentions the sonorous stanza of Ennius (79–81 Skutsch): Expectant ueluti consul quom mittere signum Volt. “The Life and Death of Asclepiades of Bithynia” (1982. omnes auidi spectant ad carceris oras Quam mox emittat pictos e faucibus currus. see O. The Annals of Q. and other questions Rawson discusses with zest and verve (“Chariot-Racing in the Roman Republic” [1981.} . but for the reading pictos. About Plutarchus Romanus she would have had much to say. 427–43). 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. pp. Skutsch. pp.306 Historia et Philologia duced in Rome? When did the factiones originate? This. Ennius (Oxford 1985) 229–30. 389–407]).{1} All in all joy for others but disappointment for the readers of Ploutarchos: no article dealing directly with our patron. {1 The paradosis is pictis. and 234 (commentary). Sblendorio Cugusi. See H. Ad Atticum 5. and Cato’s acerbic speech D e s u m p t u s u o . i.2: Nos tamen . text and translation).e. praeter eum accepit nemo. T. R. we descend to the field to attack an obelus. ad Att. The letter is tortuous. and the scrupulousness of his entourage. sic in provincia nos gerimus. Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2 (Augustae Taurinorum 1955) 70–72. We read in the edition of that summus Ciceronianus. In his letters from Cilicia Cicero frequently advertises his scrupulousness as governor. Tullius. Most often the dragon wins. The only exception was the legate L. 412–21. 114.. They did not have to pay even a terruncium. and many editors advise a radical surgery. accepit. i.2 He may well have had before his eyes the great example of Cato the Elder.5. D. ready for the next victim. cf. for any person on Cicero’s staff. Win or lose. 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.17. D. 289 The context is important. and an inscription. non ut alii solebant omnibus vicis (praeter eum semel. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus III (Cambridge 1968) 66–69 (no. Cf. M. hic facit ut mihi excipiundus sit cum terruncium nego sumptus factum. facilitate. Cicero’s * 1 2 3 Philologus 143 (1999) 288–299 {with minor addenda}. the crux remains. either in rem publicam. Shackleton Bailey prefers to allow Cicero “to labour his point”. Malcovati.21. 406–11 (commentary). Those who slay them may gain a place in the text or a mention in the apparatus. is ceteroqui abstinens. Porci Catonis Orationum Reliquiae (Augustae Taurinorum 1982) 110–11 (frg. nemo). no. This note takes its origin from a crux in the text of Cicero. M. R. Id fit etiam et legatorum et tribunorum et praefectorum diligentia. . Tullium leg<atum>.3 As Shackleton Bailey notes sumptus means “expense incurred by provincials”..22 TRANSITUS Official Travel Under the Sign of Obelus* To philologians corruptelae are like dragons. and from a fortuitous and fortunate association of Cicero with another author. Shackleton Bailey. “for any public purpose. or in quemquam meorum. over and above the ordinary taxation”. 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. quod ad abstinentiam attinet. 169). clementia. 5. sed Iulia lege † t r a n s i t a m † semel tamen in diem. ut nullus terruncius insumatur in quemquam. XLIV. but even he stayed within the bounds prescribed by the law.e. not a penny. 45 = VII: G. only once a day. G. On Bosius. see Shackleton Bailey. Goetz. G. thus pursuing ad absurdum the principle of not quoting texts later than the second century of the Empire. ergo semel in diem L. transeuntes acciperent”. 5 6 . Oxford Latin Dictionary adduces transito (with a query) only from our passage of Cicero. sed et semel in diem. Boot. C. this reading is also found in Y = Codex Decurtatus sive Scidae Bosii (cf. but Watt’s idea.). Tullius acceperit. According to I.6 4 I. C. Boot. W. no one has taken anything. A. e Iulia lege translaticia would then correspond “almost exactly” to ad Att. If we follow Watt we would get (with an additional conjecture) [s]e[d] Iulia lege trans<lat>icia.308 Historia et Philologia letters can indeed lapse into a rather lax style. S.16. ca 1535–1580). Cicéron. vigorously defended the emendation of Manutius: even if hapax legomenon. but he did take the ordinary(?) allowance under the lex Julia. Manutius in his edition of 1540 (cf. Watt. and records his conjecture only in his apparatus. It is time to face the cross. is not much better. tantum quod necessarium esset: cum alii.) the verb transito is in fact attested but only as a gloss explaining parodeÊv.3: quod e lege Iulia dari solet. “transitans (sc. Cf. But the Decurtatus is a figment. even if laborious it is a minor point. Moricca (editio Paraviana. Sjögren (Upsaliae 1929) and H. XLVII–XLVIII). Bayet. Shackleton Bailey translates the passage in which the crux is embedded thus: He is generally scrupulous. pp. transita may well conceal an object to accepit such as translaticia (Watt)”. As a further remedy he proposes to emend sed to e.). magistratuumque comitibus ut foenum aliaque ab oppidis et uicis subministrarentur. transeuntibus. lege Iulia abusi. Wesenberg in his Teubner text (1872) obelized the passage. iubebat.4 A conjecture conjuring up a verb not attested in any elevated author5 may indeed be “worse than dubious”. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus I (1965) 93–95. C. transitans. Be that as it may. Constans et J. Orelli and I. Tulli Ciceronis Epistulae II: Epistulae ad Atticum (Oxonii 1965). As noted by Sjögren (in app. Other editors of note who accepted transitans were H. ad loc. et tamen lege Iulia: quae. M. Glossae Latinograecae et Graecolatinae (Lipsiae 1888) 398. who also accept transitans. the only emendation admitted by Shackleton Bailey into his apparatus. Gundermann. prints in his text †sed Iulia lege transitam†. provinciae oppida vicosque) aptissimum est”. Him aside. Goetz et G. 1953). M. The manuscripts read transitam (ORD) or transitum (N). Tulli Ciceronis Opera III2: Epistulae (Turici 1845) 485 (ad loc. is worse than dubious. 5. M. Watt in app. Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum (1901) 362 and 608. He explains: “Transitare. Baiter. however. also Manutius’ remarks in his In Epistolas Ciceronis ad Atticum Commentarius (Venetiis 1557) 148 verso: “ut transitans L. Tullius. Bayet in L. Originally he proposed this reading in Mnemosyne 16 (1963) 377–78. but in his Emendationes alterae sive Adnotationes criticae ad Ciceronis Epistolarum editionem (Lipsiae 1873) 106–7. J. Pomponium Atticum I (Amstelodami 1865) 247. S. He observes that even with the reading translaticia “the sentence remains impossibly formless”. ex omnibus uicis etiam quod necessarium non esset. Among the editors who read transitans was I. See Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum II: G. The reading transitans was first proposed by P. G. Tulli Ciceronis Epistularum Ad T. not at every village as used to be the practice of others – and apart from him on one occasion nobody has done so.-A. And he comments: “The most popular conjecture. So he obliges me to make an exception of him when I say that not a penny of expense has been incurred. est uno die multa loca abire”. quod ex hoc uno loco notatur. an invention of Bosius (Siméon Dubois. the verb does not occur in literary Latin and assorts oddly with praeter eum semel below. Hauniae 1884. de impunitate. a description unduly vague. On this law. Rotondi. Madvig’s prandia (Adversaria critica III. see F. {See now D. 33.).10. 5. Pontenay de Fontette. Marquardt. OLD s. Ñaso del Hoyo. only some of its dispositions. J. Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Römischen Reich (Berlin 2000). i. Chiron 27 (1997) 355–68. n. not private travellers. 3. In this passage hospes clearly denotes a 7 8 . The Julian law in question was the lex Iulia de repetundis.25) translates: “We take nothing under the lex Julia or as private guests”. offers no comments on official travel. si quid contra alias leges eius legis ergo factum sit.5. Römisches Staatsrecht I3 (Leipzig 1887) 293–306. and would denote contributions and services customarily received from the provincials (on the basis of the Julian law) by the governor and his staff.} Shackleton Bailey (III. At ad Att. He does not discuss or even record the passages from the ad Atticum discussed in this note. H. and the sense depends exclusively on the context (cf. 2. Herrschaft und Regierung. ad Att. 75). he could be liable de pecuniis repetundis). He writes from Athens. and n. Leges repetundarum (Paris 1954) 107–18. Die Beherbergung von ‘Staatsgästen’ in der hellenistischen Polis.114. This translation obscures Roman terminology. for the republican period. N. Milites in oppidis hibernabant. (If he requisitioned more than the allowed maximum. cf. There is no discussion of billeting in R. in T. summam or pecuniam). Verres introduced there ignorant and partisan innovations (Verr.v. In particular Cicero so defines that part of the praetor’s edict that had customarily been handed down from one praetor to another. she does not adduce at all the passage here discussed. listed in G. however. 2001. Mommsen.C. as so often. Moricca also adduces (P. and T. it contains the traditional clause.8 Correspondance IV (Paris 1950) 129.) Peerlkamp’s pransitans.e. Cicero specifies various contributions and services allowed under the Julian law in two other letters to Atticus.2 Cicero specifies that in the (ill-fated) tribunician bill concerning his return from exile alterum caput est tralaticium. El hospitium militare invernal en ciudades peregrinas y los abusos de la hospitalidad sub tectis durante la República. but is rather removed from the paradosis. nihil accipitur lege Iulia. Roms Regiment in den Provinzen in der Zeit der Republik (Padeborn 1997). Leges Publicae Populi Romani (Milano 1912) 389. Römische Staatsverwaltung I2 (Leipzig 1881) 533–35.21. DHA 27/2. not a serious contender. and the comprehensive study by A.1. Consequently Shackleton Bailey (following Watt) takes translaticia as the object of the verb accepit.Transitus 290 309 The term translaticius (more frequently spelled tralaticius) is well attested in legal contexts. where he stopped on his way to Cilicia (ad Att.23. 176) which makes some sense. Schulz. 490. passed by Caesar as consul in 59 B. Strangely. He also records (and so do also Sjögren and Moricca) I. Now Cicero and his entourage were official guests. Also still useful and informative. esp. Venturini. 5. Hospes can mean either “guest” or “host”.2): adhuc sumptus nec in me aut publice aut privatim nec in quemquam comitum. 363–68 on the Roman hospites. 63–90. 28–39: “Reisen staatlicher Amtsträger”. Nor does C. Studi sul “crimen repetundarum” nell’età repubblicana (Milano 1979) offer any discussion of the Ciceronian passages. Cic.7 The lex itself could not of course be described as translaticia. esp. the idea of Constans: transitoriam (sc. The most detailed information on “magistratische Emolumente” is still to be found. adduces ad loc. he merely mentions them in passing as indicating the prohibition of the lex Iulia “di introdurre nelle province nuove forme di imposizione tributaria” (472. 117). They are. nihil ab hospite. Hennig. found in all or most laws. Kolb. The term would thus be neuter plural. Y. Eck in his otherwise remarkable contribution (above. nichts von einem Gastfreunde”. cities and villages.310 291 Historia et Philologia Next. the latter as voluntary gifts ab hospite. accipi ab hospitibus uetuit”. W.9 we encounter a proscriptus. Die Schwurgerichte der römischen Republik II. n. nec praeter quattuor lectos et tectum quemquam accipere quicquam. rien de ce que peut offrir un hôte”. Tullius Cicero III2 (Dublin 1914) 40 (no. refers to the services rendered to the travelling official either collectively by public entities.. 9. Drew-Bear. see also two new fragments. 5. publicis negotiis intra h o s p i t i u m eodem die exiturus uacarem). 4) 139: “publice enim hospitia magistratibus in provincias proficiscentibus dabantur. where we read: sen[a]tori p. but in six of those texts the term hospes is not mentioned at all (Cic.H. from the host. 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.21. see below. scito non modo nos faenum aut quod e lege Iulia dari solet accipere sed ne ligna quidem. C. correctly interpret hospes in our passage as “the name given to a provincial on whom the governor or his suite were billeted”.1: in Asiam cum a quaestore essem stipendio eductus. who pretending to be a praetor vehicula conprehendit. 8) observes (368.2. hospitium Pergami accepi. W. and is rightly classified under this heading in OLD. The Correspondence of M. Robert. Ep. N. Purser. of unknown provenance. I stress this meaning of hospes in this letter for in official documents the term also appears in the opposite sense of “official guest”. R. Plin.33.2. and of the animal’s popularity leading to its death: iniuriae potestatum in h o s p i t a l e s ad 9 . Herrmann. 9. Tyrrell and L. nece[ss]e non esse invito hospitem suscipere.3): levantur tamen miserae civitates quod nullus fit sumptus in nos neque in legatos neque in quaestorem neque in quemquam. Plin. ad Att. For the latter he provides thirteen references. Eck. 5.10 refers to the story of the tame dolphin: confluebant ad spectaculum magistratus quorum aduentu et mora modica res publica atterebatur.. 364–65. 5. 10. the copies of which were found in Paros. On the sacrae litterae. publice aut privatim. Also R. and not to hospites = “official guests”. 7. P. Another copy from Asia Minor. So also A. ubi cum libenter habitarem non solum propter cultum aedicularum.10.26. Sat. at Val. as e. or by private individuals. and the list of all known examples in C. n. Chiron 7 (1977) 355–83 at 355–57.g. multis locis ne tectum quidem et in tabernaculo manere plerumque.16.17. BCH 102 (1978) 432–37 {= Documents d’Asie Mineure (BEFAR 239 bis [Paris 1987]) 128–33}.81. Correspondance III (Paris 1950) 229: “on n’accepte rien de ce qu’autorise la loi Julia.3. and all those who “im staatlichen Auftrag unterwegs waren”. Jones. he has just entered his province. the story of a friendly dolphin at Hippo Diarrhytus in Africa ex hominum manu vescens. lege Iulia.9 In the other letter Cicero specifies hay person “who provides hospitality for the visiting official”. Sacrae Litterae. 95)}. The former were received under the law. W. and he again informs his friend (ad Att.. P. 20]. 5. hospitia occupavit [see below. Phrygia and Lydia. sed etiam propter h o s p i t i s (clearly the host) formosissimum filium. The phrase in the first letter. First of all ad Att.2 (Berlin 1869) 315: “Wir nehmen nichts nach dem Julischen Gesetze an. Zumpt.-A. 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 finally already Manutius (above. Cicéron. 5. n. Chiron 14 (1984) 93–99.1: cum Prusae ad Olympum . the very passage that prompted this terminological investigation.3. Exact translation is given by L. See T. in L. 198). Next Petr. 85. and n. cum hospes cuique suus assignaretur: sed Cicero sumptum ubique fecit de suo.5 ff. and in four texts the reference is patently to hospites = “hosts”. in the letter of Septimius Severus and Caracalla (of 204).16. Max. The Sacrae Litterae of 204: Two Colonial Copies. Constans. Cicero is not the only author to record travels of Roman officials. to mean “guests”).10 Thus Cicero would purchase.. (p. But above and beyond hay and wood. as is well rendered by G.1. 13. (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. “four couches and a roof”. Pliny the Younger draws a stark contrast between the travels of Domitian and Trajan (Paneg. ad Q. 1. pointedly employing the terminology of billeting): O h o s p i t e m mihi tam gravem.. . A.1: Aulus Manlius consul. the hospites are here the “Quartiergeber”. cum abactus †hospitum exsereret. 15. take it. accepit. XII Panegyrici Latini (Oxonii 1964).7: mirifica expectatio Asiae nostrarum dioecesium.4 (of the young Trajan): quod denique tectum magnus h o s p e s impleueris. quite wrongly.. not requisition. Nullus in exigendis vehiculis tumultus. A Latin Dictionary.181 [Loeb Class. annona quae ceteris. Mynors.21..218) hesitatingly surmises that it may indicate “three for the dining room (triclinium) and one for the bedroom”. Eck also adduces Philostr. apparently as a minimum lodging requirement.. cum comperisset coniurasse milites in hibernis Campaniae. fodder and wood. and finally Front.. Paneg.9: cum . Strat. For the sense of “guest” there remain only two but important references: Cic.21. . And these contributions one may feel tempted to identify with the tralaticia hypothesized by Watt (and favored by Shackleton Bailey) at ad Att. tectum / praebuit et parochi. Burdens and aggravations caused by republican magistrates pale into insignificance when compared to expenses incurred by the provincials to support the imperial comitatus. but there is nothing wrong with this phrase.5: <e> Iulia lege translaticia . 807) classifying hospitales (masc. ligna salemque. Bendz.9.11 omniavisendum venientium Hipponenses in necem eius compulerint..45-46): proxima Campano ponti quae villula. Cf. and a simple lodging. as substantive) as “persons offering hospitality” (on the other hand Lewis-Short.3–4): Iter inde placidum ac modestum et plane a pace redeuntis. 1.5. Again. ad hoc comitatus accinctus et parens. ut iugulatis h o s p i t i b u s ipsi res invaderent eorum. 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 (kat°lusen §n tª toË Pol°mvnow ofik¤&). 20. 11 The text is that of R.. non expilatorem recepisse videatur. Rackham (Pliny. 534. Eck 370) promptly forced the future emperor to vacate his quarters. 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”. Library. Frontin. Rackham rightly understands hospitales in the sense of “hosts”. 10 Quattuor lectos is perplexing. or in the translation by H. 1. pl. Kriegslisten (Berlin 1963) 51. Vitae sophist. 5. nullum circa hospitia fastidium. numquam h o s p i t e m viderat. 5. but this Greek text cannot offer any contribution to Latin terminology. the Julian law appears to have authorized also other contributions: quod e lege Iulia dari solet. and Plin. Also in two other passages of Cicero hospes denotes “compulsory guest”: ad Att. 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.52 (of Caesar’s visit to Cicero. quae debent.. and in many places he and his entourage would not exercise their right of billeting.Transitus 292 311 (faenum) and fire-wood (ligna). The manuscripts have abactus hospicium exereret .. and further: Habes hospitium sive §pistayme¤an. the meaning resides in the context. so also OLD s. but the latter apparently claiming as a philosopher exemption from billeting (cf. Shackleton Bailey (III. Horace in his Iter Brundisinum (Sat.v. B. and. quae sex mensibus imperi mei . non populatio fuit. Natural History III. He inserts a crux. fr. domus h o s p i t e m . si milites erunt. Of the two verbs. and by his edict regulated the expenses the provincials were obliged to sustain for the imperial travels. See also the marvellous chapter on Imperial Journeys in F. We can translate: “the pillage of hosts was on display”.] Baehrens proposed in his Teubner edition of the Panegyrici (1874). onera maxima sustinet tantoque grauiores iniurias quanto est infirmior patitur. But perhaps we should follow Haupt. statim coerceantur. 10. Exsereret would on the other hand be employed in the meaning familiar in silver Latin “to reveal oneself”. 10. 1969). cum abactus hospitium exederet. Hospites are the hosts who provided lodgings for the emperor and his comitatus. Stuttgart 1986) 70–89.10.12 The story of transitus does not end here. but does not discuss its terminology. Lipsiae 1886. 12 For the organization of the imperial iter. “to be visible”.2: nihil (accipitur) ab hospite (see above. n. as to more serious transgressions Trajan distinguished two categories of commeantes: the soldiers (milites) travelling on (defended by M. Opuscula III. 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. and translate with B. Library. or with M. edicat quod absumpserit. mihi scribis. keep the reading abactus hospicium (or hospitium) ex(s)ereret. II. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisenden im Römischen Reich (= HABES 2. Persuadendum provinciis erat illud iter Domitiani fuisse. Radice. Trajan followed in the footsteps of Caesar. see Durry’s extended defence of this reading in his Pline le Jeune.312 Historia et Philologia 293 que dextera laeuaque perusta et attrita.77): cum sit perexigua.367: “when houses were forcibly emptied to provide lodgings”. quid in utrumque uestrum esset impensum. see H.78). 8). Millar. si in urbem uersus uenturi erunt. The Emperor in the Roman World (London 1971) 28–40 (no reference to Pliny). with the variants hospitum and exerceret. Panégyrique de Trajan (Paris 1959) 20: “où il expulsait pour trouver gîte”. Livre X. and it is guaranteed by Cicero’s reference at ad Att. Adsuescat imperator cum imperio calculum ponere. exerceret has nothing to recommend it: it would have to refer to Domitian whereas both the preceding and the following sentence are construed impersonally. But here we are not interested in the deeds of the optimus princeps. Haupt. Pliny. Panégyrique de Trajan (Paris 1938) 116. aut. He adduces the passage of Pliny (p. the passage of his comitatus. ingeniously and adventurously. [= E. Itaque non tam pro tua gloria quam pro utilitate communi edicto subiecisti. Itinera principum. Letters and Panegyricus (Loeb Class. Durry. plurimisque per eam commeantibus t r a n s i t u m p r a e b e n t . Pliny was to punish immediately all minor offences. Who these travellers were. 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. we learn from Trajan’s reply (Ep. legatis eorum quod deprehenderis notum facies aut. 72). . Iuiopolitani) in capite Bithyniae. 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. si plus admiserint quam ut in re praesenti satis puniantur. Tome IV: Lettres. The emperor declined to take any direct action. ut si uis aliqua uel ipsi barbari quos fugiebat inciderent. 2. Finally we may note that A. These burdens were caused by travellers on official missions: Sunt enim (sc. This is the official term for the iter of an emperor. it is the words that matter. In this context hospes is a technical term. And one word jumps into the eyes of the reader: transitus. 495–96). Halfmann. 5. non principis. Pline le Jeune. sic exeat sic redeat tamquam rationem redditurus. above. Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus. 8). Pekary. 16 For a detailed topographical description.14 This long bilingual edict (25 lines in Latin. n. The Letters of Pliny. 6: The Roman Empire from Augustus to Hadrian (Cambridge 1988) 55–56 (no. The governor defined in detail the services to be provided for official travellers in the individual towns and villages (lines 5–6: formulam eorum quae [pra]estari iudico oportere in singulis civitatibus et vicis). And see now (on the senators’ freedom from the billeting) the excellent study by Eck on the “rechtliche Sonderstellung des Senatorenstandes”. Mihailov. As the erudite editor of this document points out. Vol.2 (Sofia 1964) 102–25. What burdens this service entailed. Sherwin White. 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 8–9: ministerium carrorum decem et mulorum totidem praestare debent ad usus necessarios transeuntium). Requisitioned Transport in the Roman Empire: A New Inscription from Pisidia. Bonn 1968) 135–38. Sherk. They had to offer this service for the whole vast stretch of the territory belonging to their city. T. 174–75. Untersuchungen zu den römischen Reichsstrassen (= Antiquitas I. Mitchell (111–12) very conveniently provides a list of other texts referring to the requisitioned transport. for this service they were to receive a payment. The text and a French translation now in AE 1976 [1980]. K. Zawadzki. 29). 120–25 (no. as far as the cities of Cormasa (ca 55 km. we have only recently learned in detail from an extraordinary inscription that came to light in Pisidia in Asia Minor. they are of little help in deciding a textual problem in a Latin letter. 27 in Greek) was issued by Sex. Sagalassus in Pisidia”. REA 62 (1960) 80–94. see the comment by A. in a direct line to the west of Sagalassos) and of Conana (ca 35 km. . esp. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome. but the whole phrase: transitum praebere. see Mitchell 117–19. JRS 66 (1976) 106–31 at 106 (cf. G. Sur un inscription de Phrygie relative au cursus publicus. and those officials who journeyed directly to Rome. N. A. he was almost certainly a governor of Galatia. An English translation also in R. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford 1966) 665-669. If they wished they could provide two donkeys for one mule. in particular ne quis gratuitis vehiculis utatur. 653. Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae III. Chiron 7 (1977) 365–83 (cf. Mynors. to the north of Sagalassos). 1982.17. “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. 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. B. legatus pro praetore of the emperor Tiberius. C. Mitchell. 100–1). but as almost all of those documents are in Greek. 14 S. On these two letters.16 But the Sagalasseni were 13 The text according to R. also for minor corrections ZPE 45.13 In this passage it is not only the term transitus that jumps again into the reader’s eye. This is the term and the locution to be restored to its rightful place in the letter of Cicero: the provincials transitum praebent. Plini Secundi Epistolarum Libri Decem (Oxonii 1963).15 It was based on dispositions of Augustus and Tiberius (lines 3–4: quod Augusti alter deorum alter principum maximus diligentissime caverunt) concerning the official travel and also curbing its abuses. Of earlier literature on angareia always instructive: T.Transitus 313 294 orders from their commanders (legati). this province included central Pisidia with the city of Sagalassos. 15 As Mitchell (113–14) argues. 1689). the travelling official transitum accipit. and printed by Shackleton Bailey and Watt. These oppida correspond to civitates mentioned earlier in the letter. and that here really the son of the procurator is meant. Napoli 1993) opts for the locative: “if faudra rechercher quelles cités remplissent habituellement ces charges. 163. Lachmann. A recent traslation by a group of French scholars (Siculus Flaccus. ita ut reliqua ab invitis gratuita non e(x)sigant.3: when the inhabitants of Cilicia learned of Cicero’s abstinentia. how to decide to which civitas (be it municipium.165 [Berolini 1848] = C. 17 Mitchell 119 explains civitates as “self-governing cities which had been subordinated to Sagalassus. see (against Mitchell). in singulos mulos et in singula carra id quod accepturi erant si ipsi praeberent dare praestent iis qui alterius civitatis aut vicis munere fungentur. but as solitae clearly refers to civitates. 99).18 two categories of militantes: qui diplomum habebunt. We can compare here Cic. The grammar is strained. 19 Apparently from the governor of the province. and to civitates in the edict of Sotidius. Corpus agrimensorum Romanorum I. see Mitchell 125–27. 18 That the text is not corrupt (as Mitchell thought). G. Les conditions des terres. ut idem procedant). On the system of the distribution of diplomas (written authorizations for lodging and transport). For the arrangement itself of distributing the obligations. Thulin. 5. 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. n. 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. ex <oppidis> omnibus. everywhere on his arrival (adventus) incredibilem in modum concursus fiunt ex agris.129 [Lipsiae 1913]). The manuscripts read nominibus. ex vicis. si l i g n a aut s t r a m e n t a deportanda. . at least for the purpose of administering the transport liturgy”. Chiron 11 (1981) 201. quaerendum quae ciuitates quibus pagis huius modi munera praebere solitae sint (C. Lodging should be provided without payment for all members of my own staff. For our purposes particularly important is the final disposition (lines 23–25): Mansionem omnibus qui erunt ex / comitatu nostro et militantibus ex omnibus provinciis et principis optimi libertis et servis et iumentis / gratuitam praestari oportet.19 and qui ex aliis provinciis militantes commeabunt. ad Att. including senator populi Romani.17 Next (lines 14–23) 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. the closest parallel is offered by the gromaticus Siculus Flaccus (he lived in the second century) in his treatise de condicionibus agrorum. et dans quel pagus” (p. and centurio). and a note explains: “Le texte paraît concerner plus particulièrement les pagi frontaliers des cités voisines”.16. Gromatici veteres I. eques Romanus cuius officio princeps utitur. 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). Die Ritter in der Führungsschicht des Imperium Romanum. If there is a controversy. corrected by Ernesti.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 11–12: si malent. Alföldy. 5. but he attributes it to a certain Pomponius (cf. “There were clearly some similar regulations concerning the transport used by officials in the provinces during the republic. Anecdotes preserve precious information. the transitus itself. do not directly concern transport. 16) briefly mentions this text.Transitus 315 The edict thus clearly distinguished between transport (for which a payment was due) and lodging (that was to be provided gratis). penetrauit. n.21. certissimum tunc proscriptorum perfugium. When we compare ad Att. Sentius Saturninus Vetulo. 9. Some details can indeed be reconstructed. we beg to disagree. continuo praeturae insignia inuasit praecedentibusque in modum lictorum et apparitorum et seruorum publicorum subornatis u e h i c u l a conprehendit. . 5. Les proscriptions de la Rome républicaine (Rome 1985) 518–19.21 20 The text according to C. So Mitchell (p. but also in the fact that he did not pay for the requisitioned boats.45) recounts an identical ruse. The particular licentia of Sentius Saturninus may have resided not only in his impersonation of a magistrate.45: Quid enim tibi navi? qui si quo publice proficisceris. 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 is to be taken in the sense of hospitium (Mitchell 109. see F. above.16. obuios summouit ac tam audaci usurpatione imperii in maxima luce densissimas hostilibus oculis tenebras offudit.C. h o s p i t i a occupauit. Hinard. but also various services during the iter. 128). without any tenebrae. 296 We beg to disagree. praesidi et vecturae causa sumptu publico navigia praebentur. we should probably assume that this was covered by a separate ruling. The Julian law thus appears to have authorized the travelling official to demand not only the overnight accomodation. Valerii Maximi Factorum et dictorum memorabilium libri novem (Lipsiae 1888).3. On the person of [C]. and not only vehicula but also naves. 2 Verr. and he continues: but since the clauses of that law. that a republican magistrate on an official mission (publicum ministerium agens) was entitled to requisition not only hospitium but also transport. Cic. Mitchell (114.5 (the letter with the crux) and ad Att. Appian (B.3. but he dissociates it from the provisions of the lex Iulia (cf. 115). The term mansio appears here for the first time in an epigraphical text. 5. Again. Cf. 21 The magistrate had of course to pay for the ships. 4. which might have taken the form of another lex or an imperial edict. whereas in the former it is on the travel itself.9 narrates the daring escape of [C]. who perhaps was a praetorius. Mitchell (p. Valerius Maximus 7. Kempf. but details of these cannot be reconstructed”.20 This passage demonstrates lucidly. we shall see that they do not describe the same situation: in the latter the stress is on the overnight lodging. perinde ac publicum ministerium agens summa cum licentia correptis n a u i b u s in Siciliam. 127). the passing through the villages. n. ut Puteolos uenit. idem. Cf. in so far as they can be reconstructed from the traces they leave in the literary and epigraphic sources. Sentius Saturninus Vetulo: qui cum a triumuiris inter proscriptos nomen suum propositum audisset. Hinard 507). 231. 136) does not belong here. But to travel Cicero and his entourage certainly needed carriages. draft and pack animals. and Sotidius in his edict spoke of a prohibition to use gratuita vehicula. annona 2 d. Itinera principum (above. from one night’s accomodation (hospitium = mansio) to another. in all the villages through which he was passing.23 The travellers were entitled under the Julian law to hospitium.316 Historia et Philologia 297 These are precisely the contributions ad usus necessarios transeuntium of which speaks the edict of Sotidius Strabo. 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. Halfmann. food and fodder. He paid for those services. Tiberius. n.. Silvae 4. adduced in this context by OLD (s. and they were apparently gratuitous (see below). 12) 70. “The term transeuntium .3. Governors on the Move. also an occasional rest. The requisitions with which we here are dealing can easily be surmised. and thus he could not blame his legate if he had accepted it as well. and Statius. 23 Cf. and it is only due to chance that the term annona is not attested in this application before the empire. and this certainly included also the evening and morning meal. and there can be no doubt that this was the chief use for transport which Sotidius envisaged when he drafted the regulations”. 130–31) has in mind the regular tours of the governor and his retinue from conventus to conventus.17–19 (cf. In the sense of subsistence provided to travelling officials or soldiers by the populace the term annona appears in the Panegyric of Pliny (20. Tullius.v. in the gromaticus Siculus Flaccus (above. n. These 22 See also the splendid piece by A. In any case carts and animals would hardly be requisitioned in each village. J. Cicero himself occasionally accepted the lodging. and (if we keep intact the sentence in the parenthesis) he made them only during one particular journey.9. The institution was republican in origin. and indeed despite or perhaps through Cicero’s silence we can detect here an original prescription of the lex Iulia. and the best time for a stop was certainly the midday. n. ut alii solebant. Marshall. n. Tullius made also other requisitions for his travel though only once a day and not. see above in the text).22 Three generations previously in another province of Asia Minor another governor was making his slow progress from vicus to vicus. . 17).. fodder and water. Those requisitions were made under the Julian law. with further literature). But the legate L. and hence no sumptus was involved.2. But during their day’s journey. Why does Cicero not remark on those burdens? The answer is simple. Suet. and as he was legally entitled to. among his comites the legate L. hence not the vehicula. Sotidius does not mention ships but for this means of locomotion there was no need in Pisidia or Galatia. Phoenix 20 (1966) 231–46 (he does not discuss the lex Iulia). Augustus. 249. The operative word in Cicero’s letters is sumptus. the travellers and their animals needed food. somewhat less scrupulous than the others. This will hardly be an Augustan innovation. p. In this evocative description Mitchell (pp. and they can be subsumed conveniently under one term: annona. Halfmann 76. The provincials did not incur any expenses or only very minimal. readily conjures up a picture of officials making a regular progress along the main roads through the territory of Sagalassus. Galba 7. Transitus 317 298 services and provisions were offered by the villages that were unfortunate enough to be situated along a public road. 399–401. hence they were not paid for their offerings! (in any case we know from ad Att. cum aut lavandi aut gestandi aut ludorum gratia prodierit praetor aut proconsul legatusve Caesaris. Tullius. n. 1. But Cicero is jocular here.3 that faenum and ligna were provided gratis). §n parÒdƒ”. as in ad Att. the villagers incurred sumptus. Inst. 26 Cicero’s Letters to Atticus III. But now rested at a mansio or hospitium. Hermathena No. praebui regem regnumque servavi. Pflaum. line 9: ad usus necessarios t r a n s e u n t i u m . Y. we can proceed to remove it..20. and perhaps Vulg.27. in the edict of Sotidius. 1. the text is here given according to the edition by R. 17). H.3): quod o b t r a n s i t u m exercitus confertur ex fructibus. Fink.6: Ariobarzanes opera mea vivit.9: frumentum ex omni Syria i n t r a n s i t u suo parari constitutit. Agr. Cleveland 1971. Les procurateurs équestres sous le Haut-Empire romain (Paris 1950) 156–57.24 Furthermore these provisions were offered gratis. and the warning of Columella. Transire was and remained an official term: in a letter (ca 208) of the governor of Syria L. Omnibus vicis is decisive. How do we know this? Because when L. regnat. with many official travellers transeuntes or praetereuntes. 40.1. He repaired 24 In addition to the very term transitus. no.. that blot (sordes) on Cicero’s reputation. . On the counting and reporting of expenses. 1 rerum cottidianarum): Non est omnino necesse pro tribunali manumittere: itaque plerumque in t r a n s i t u servi manumitti solent. adeo ut uel in t r a n s i t u manumittantur. but he adduced no examples. 25 Ciceroniana. 5. Marius Maximus to various military commanders and to procurator Minicius Martialis concerning the travel and entertainment of a Parthian ambassador we read (AE 1933. Roman Military Records on Papyrus.. 7 (1890 [sic]) 38. Compare also Ulpian’s phrase (Dig. Over all these disquisitions still hangs the long shadow of the crux.61 So also already Manutius (above. veluti cum praetor aut pro consule in balneum vel in theatrum eat. Watt and Shackleton Bailey are right: we need an object to the verb accepit. 98): curae tibi sit et quaesturas nn(ostras) per quos t r a n s i t Goces legatus Parthorum .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. Dig.2.7 (Gaius. Tyrrell. what to do with accepit? In his article Tyrrell observed that “Cicero often uses accipere absolutely in his letters”. in the agrimensor Siculus Flaccus: militi p r a e t e re u n t i (above. accepted them.26 A better parallel and a ready Latin expression offer two legal passages: Gaius. This was denied by R. cf.25 He proposed to read in transitu. 4) 146 verso: “in cursu: quasi enim praeteriens et alias res agens”.16. secundum morem x e n i a [= hospitia] ei offer<r>e quid autem in quoque numero erogaueris scribe mihi. 15 (1889) = vol.20: Maiores vero triginta annorum servi semper manumitti solent. Judith 2. §n parÒdƒ consilio et auctoritate . but Manutius’ transitans is a poor choice. which was according to him “an interlinear explanation of the Greek words. 7.-G. and provided with annona and vehicula. The phrase should mean “in the progress through my province”. O. n.. this was well seen by Shackleton Bailey who translates “just en passant I rescued king and kingdom”. 5.5. Still. 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. 107. cf. the services to be rendered for the travel by the provincials. does not appear to be a likely construct.13 (this passage does not contain an absolute construction: iis qui aliquid a c c e p e r i n t ). non ut alii solebant omnibus vicis (praeter eum semel. the word transitus was also employed to denote the passage of a deity. 299 The passage of a Roman official. no. n. Anatolia. On balance. certainly of a republican governor or later of an Emperor. fuisse. nisi a c c e p e r i n t .29 Fittingly enough. s. the reading of N. . of Mithra.69 translates: “who refuse to go anywhere until they get their pay”. and Gods in Asia Minor I (Oxford 1993) 63–69. Deux décrets hellénistiques d’Asie Mineure. J. is the right word. (in transitu) lege accipere. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus V.27 where he produced three passages: ad Att. nemo). 28 Shackleton Bailey.8: promulgatum . BCH 96 (1972) 453–54. 27 The Correspondence of M.17. 250. was to provincials like the passage of a god. Mitchell. the references in Eck [above. quaereretur).. see T. but also quae ad transitum pertinent. S. 71). Men. 8] 370. DrewBear. 1.1. accepit. 30 M. In its technical application it denoted not only the physical act of the passage of the official or later the emperor. It could bring destruction or favor. Land. n. We can confidently restore in Cicero’s letter this piece of bureaucratic Latin: is ceteroqui abstinens.2: qui (sc. 29 It was an expense but also an honor to serve as a host to an emperor (cf.. milites) se negant usquam.30 But that is another story.180–81. and the term attested in an identical context by Pliny (Ep. or of the God of the Christians. 1. And at the time of the republic Greek cities occasionally lauded in honorific decrees those citizens who successfully entertained Roman officials.v.22. 11. But transitus. Vermaseren.77: transitum praebent). Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae II (Hagae Comitis 1960). Tullius Cicero III2. fr. 10. without any object. see index. sed Iulia lege t r a n s i t u m semel tamen in diem.318 Historia et Philologia this omission in his commentary. ut de eis qui ob iudicandum a c c e p i s s e n t .28 and (mistakenly) ad Q. W. rursus res publica magnitudine sui imperatorum atque magistratuum vitia sustentabat ac.V. II. . For a list of recent editions of Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae. revised ed. (6) Sed memoria mea ingenti virtute. with the supposed meaning effetae parentis = effetae inter parentes. quorum optimus”. R. he does not record any other reading.J. but he also adduces effeta parente. the reading of (some of) the recentiores and deteriores is effeta parente. C. He offers no discusssion of the ideology of this passage (but cf. M. Budé (1960).5* Ac mihi multa agitanti constabat paucorum civium egregiam virtutem cuncta patravisse.A. curante et imprimente A. Kurfess = De Coniuratione Catilinae. and in Kritz 284–86 ad loc. Reynolds = editio Oxoniensis (1991). kommentiert von K. Leeman. Jordan = editio tertia Weidmanniana (1887). 8). A very ample list of earlier editions and translations of Sallust is given in the editio Bipontina secunda (1780) reprinted (with addenda) in C. F. (Heidelberg 1976). A Systematical Bibliography of Sallust (1879–1964). (5) sed postquam luxu atque desidia civitas conrupta est. the cure uncertain. the notes in usum Delphini and Variorum. Antoine . P. Reynolds registers both readings: effeta parente (among “lectiones in uno vel pluribus codicibus recentioribus inuentae”) and effeta parentum (as the consensus codicum). and reprints). . 52 (1999) 257–265. cf. Cortius = editio Lipsiensis (1734).D. Vretska = C. Wirz .3 * 1 2 3 Mnemosyne Series IV.: “Vix alibi magis se torquerunt interpretes. Salluste: Conjuration de Catilina (Paris 1888). Eussner = editio Teubneriana (1887. 309–11: Appendix VII). K.. F. Sallustii Crispi Conjurationem Catilinariam (Monachii 1836).R. A. G.2 The text is corrupt. 8.H. Caesar. in the article by Kunze (below. see McGushin 270 (not always accurate. A. 7. cf. R. in Valpy 1. Ahlberg) Teubneriana (1953) = editio tertia stereotypa (1957). 4) sicut effeta aetate parentum. I) is that of Cortius (veluti effoeta parentum). 15–19. An ample list of earlier emendations and interpretations in E. Kritz himself prints a strange text: sicuti effetae parentum. Dietsch = editio quarta Teubneriana (1874. Sallustii Opera Omnia. H. and reprints). deriving from codices “interpolati vel omnes vel aliquot. Valpy (Londini 1820). below. Bellum Catilinae. McGushin. coll. 461–62. Lallier. Valpy’s text (in vol. (Leiden 1965). multis tempestatibus haud sane quisquam Romae virtute magnus fuit. Ernout = editio quarta.D. Jacobs . divorsis moribus fuere viri duo. n. and 840–45 (addenda). 53. see A. Sallustius Crispus: De Catilinae Coniuratione. 5. Sallustius Crispus. Kritz(ius) = editio Lipsiensis (1828). Cato et C. and reprints). 459. L. and adopted the reading (presumably following Dietsch. Kurfess defines parentum as given by “consensus codicum mutilorum et integrorum”. Ahlberg = editio Teubneriana (1919. CAT. 26). nn. quam in hoc loco explicando”.486–87. Richter. Kurfess = editio secunda (post A. A.J. In a subsequent edition (Lipsiae 1856) he tacitly recanted. in Antoine-Lallier 199–200. Jordan registers effeta parentum.23 EFFETE ROME: SALLUST. editio undecima Weidmanniana (1922). For a recent synopsis of proposed medicines. Commentarius in C. sicuti effeta †parentum†. below. A Commentary (Lugduni Batavorum 1977). Abbreviations: A.. n.1 Effeta parentum is the consensus of the better codices.797–839. We may finally record that H. sondern als ‘Vorältern’ gefasst. in fact it is No. 8 BPhW 23 (1903). 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). 7 Originally he introduced it in the eleventh edition (1922) of Jacobs-Wirz (cf. n. 1. pp. Kunze: sicuti <esset> effeta pariundo (or pariendo). n. n. 1243–46 (McGushin quotes it incorrectly as vol. above. A. Mnemosyne 34 (1981). Of all other emendations Vretska chose to discuss only the forgettable parente tum of S. n. 6 He has found an impressive following. n. 81.5 All previous emendations (with the exception of Dietsch’s aetate) Ritschl condemned with disdain as mere “Künsteleien”. who proposed (only orally!) a similar conjecture: sicut vi effeta parentum (see Kunze [below. n. reprinted in Ritschl’s Opuscula Philologica. Shackleton Bailey has pronounced a memorable verdict: “Attempts to remedy the evidently defective text have produced nothing which Sallust is likely to have written”. 8) 1244. 1165. Undaunted. where he adopted the order sicuti effeta <esset> partu. Another variation on Ritschl’s conjecture was the proposal by M. a proposal not without its attraction.6 and McGushin found this reading “the most convincing of the versions proposed”. Gertz (reported by Kunze 1244): sicuti effeta pariendi <vi>. 10 Sallustiana. quotes in extenso a long passage giving the gist of Wirz’s argument. again embraced the vulgate effeta parente. But Wirz and Kunze (below.C. n. Mazzarino.8 accepted into his edition by Ernout. 352. but his successor Kurfess admitted into the text his own conjecture: sicuti effeta <esset> partu. 38 of 47 Jahrgang). above. 5). Weidemann. Eussner. Shackleton Bailey and Reynolds incorrectly report Ritschl’s conjecture as effeta parentum <vi>. but in a slightly different shape: sicuti <esset> effeta partu. and as to parentum he remarks: “Dieses parentum natürlich nicht im Sinne von ‘Erzeuger’. 4 . 39. Vretska. V–VI). 7. 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. and later provided a detailed argument in PhW 47 (1927). mox daturos / progeniem vitiosiorem. it is a review of the second edition [1876] of Jordan). His new reading “sicuti esset effeta” Wirz introduced into the text of Jacobs (in any case it figures in the ninth edition of 1886). III (Leipzig 1877). 5 Originally published in RhM 21 (1866). 8) 1244. 38 [1937]. Wirz would read <esset> effeta [parentum]. Jordan returned to the lectio of the recentiores: effeta parente. non vidi (according to Bursians Jahresbericht 8 [1877 but 1878]. 3. only very few scholars sided with Dietsch or Ritschl.10 He expressed some sympathy for Ritschl’s 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. 8] 1244. Ahlberg followed Ritschl. but he attributed it mistakenly not only to Ritschl but also to Jordan! He assigns this reading also to Antoine. McGushin.R. Ritschl had apparently a predecessor. removing parentum as a gloss. Antoine-Lallier 199). He does not adduce any parallels. 9 Zeitschrift für das Gymnasialwesen 31 (1877). Cf. the paradosis sicuti concealing sicut <v>i. 316.46–48: aetas parentum peior avis tulit / nos nequiores.320 258 Historia et Philologia 259 Dietsch had originally proposed sicuti effeta <aetate> parentum.” Kurfess.9 On all those efforts D. 818–19. Recently Vretska 615–16 (in a rather disappointing discussion) accepted the emendation parentum vi (cf.4 but in his fourth edition he enthusiastically embraced (p. but Kunze (above. See the list in Kunze (below.6. 283. 39 of 23 Jahrgang).7 This conjecture is akin to the earlier effort of A. Even the successor of Dietsch as editor Teubnerianus. in fact it is No. VII) the emendation of the great Friedrich Ritschl: effeta <vi> parentum. Carm. 85. Valpy I. quae vos a stirpe parentum / prima tulit tellus. This solution appeared to Gronov so obvious “ut mirer qui factum sit. 53.12 including Shackleton Bailey: in an act of utmost desperation he obelizes both effeta and parentum: †effeta parentum†. 17. In condemning their predecessors Ritschl and Shackleton Bailey had an illustrious predecessor. and Verg. nn. 53. n. . 22): “hoc manifestum est tÚ effoeta parentum esse sermonem praecisum. it contained the observationes variorum collected by A. the editores Bipontini [Valpy II. Gallicos adhuc. & in illa hanc vocem subaudiendam. Oakley in his laudatory review of Reynold’s edition (CR 107 [1993]. He obviously loves the obeli at Cat. Wirz. nondum exoleta stirpe gentis. ut a nemine possit intelligi. servantes animos. but the second edition contains the text of the first. 31–32) he presented his new understanding of the passage: “Nunc magis placet tÚ effoeta parentum dici per intellectum alius vocis. who so characterized our passage: “Locus in hunc diem frustra tentatus. not by his acceptance of the vulgate.P. nemini tam facilem explicationem in mentem venisse”. Nihil est propinquius t“ multis tempestatibus.5 321 260 nomical”. Thysius in his edition of 1654). Rivius [1500–53]. Rivius’ famous edition of Sallust cum castigationibus appeared in 1539. ut nec aliis nec mihi dudum in mentem venerit”.5. and was several times reprinted). Lucretius and Manilius (cf. 23). Amicitiae philologorum ! 12 In his austere apparatus he records only the conjectures of Ritschl. nimirum virtute. line 7. This will not sway many. Aen. Apuleius. chapter 1 (pp.F. J. lassata et effoeta provenire et propagari desiisset”. 3) retorted: this new ratio “eiusmodi est. Valpy II. A better example offers. 58–61 at 58) professes: “I struggled to find even a handful of passages where Kurfess’s choice of reading seemed preferable”. / eadem vos ubere laeto / accipiet reduces. In his apparatus he points to two texts that militate against <vi> and provide illustration for effeta. Quid si igitur. below.864 (Aeneas inquiring of Anchises in the underworld): anne aliquis magna de stirpe nepotum?. would have none of the above. Verg. Gronov (1611–1671). virtute) parentum. Aen. But in the second edition of his Observationes (Lugduni Batavorum 1662) he finally understood it: “tÚ effoeta respectum habere ad virtute. most likely to be placed after sicuti: hence sicuti <stirpe> effeta parentum.4 (referring to the Galati in Asia Minor): bellicosiores ea tempestate erant. Apologia 76 (p. Gronov’s comments are also printed in Valpy I. Kritz (above. His own favorite lost word is stirpe. quae habetur in proximo orationis membro. The first edition of Gronov’s Observationum Libri Tres (1639) was not available to me. Gronovius rejected the vulgate effoeta parente (praised by J. 3. ad quem integrandum aliquid ex propinquo intelligendum est.11 Hence sicuti effeta (sc. Two texts are adduced to bolster this emendation: Liv. Kunze and Kurfess. As illustration he adduced Columella. quamvis miretur. S. even to a friendly eye perhaps not exactly a perfect support. As so often. accipiendam”. The most recent editor of Sallust. I quote from an editio variorum. but discarded vis as not a ‘mot juste’. a differ11 Gronov’s edition of Sallust appeared in 1665 (cf. with addenda.8.486.94–96 (the oracle of Apollo): Dardanidae duri.Effete Rome: Sallust. quae in parentibus et majoribus illustrium domuum fuit. subaudiamus tempestate?” At the end of Book I.487. Reynolds. & quasi bis posita esset. L. Est quasi illa virtus. Helm): Ceterum uxor iam propemodum uetula et effeta. & intellectus nemini.821–22. 6. but by his polemic against the conjecture of Ritschl. Nos quoque diu in eo operam lusimus”. Cat. and observed (p. First. No reason to be despondent. 37. Amstelodami 1690 (“Ex Officina Henrici & Viduae Theodori Boom”. cum audimus effoeta parentum.823] identify this edition as Thysio-Gronoviana IV). 16. cf.D. it was Jordan who has shown the way. 981. for the general concept and the terminology of exhaustion.1150–52: iamque adeo fracta est aetas effetaque tellus / vix animalia parva creat quae cuncta creavit / saecla deditque ferarum ingentia corpora partu. The comment by C. To support this idea a whole array of texts and phrases can be led into the fray. crux still looms. Manilii Astronomicon liber quartus (ed.1. Sherwin-White. .21): Sum ex iis qui mirer antiquos. 7) 1165. and for a long stretch of time no man in Rome was great in virtue. produced in politics citizens of virtue and in literature minds of achievement. Effeta. the Republic lay fallow. 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. when young and strong. On the other hand the TLL article effetus. is here very disappointing: no parallels at all! The passage of Lucretius was adduced in this context already by Gronov.16 So also Manilius 4. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford 1966). M. combats the doctrine of natural exhaustion. 16) and our passage of Sallust. but the text of Pliny removes at least one (recent) obelus: effeta is the right word. was available already in 1931. Pliny omits or rather contests this middle period: his Nature is not yet wholly exhausted. The other. non tamen (ut quidam) temporum nostrorum ingenia despicio. two centuries previously anticipated by Gronov. ingenii elegantia. sed curam. with many pertinent passages. Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. famous probitate morum. Bailey. This is only partly correct. He claims that Quintilian 1. The Republic or the Nature.. parit makes it not unlikely that the cure lies in an emendation of parentum: there is no need to postulate with Dietsch.322 Historia et Philologia 261 ent matter with his other reference (already known to Cortius). manifestum est non naturam defecisse.. and older.15 First. 14 His proposal (in 1882 in a Gymnasialprogramm) was <virtute> (adduced by McGushin and Antoine-Lallier). ad loc. His argument concerns the process of aging. These proposals involve palaeographically a relatively small change: par(i)en(do) or par[en]tu[m]. The Nature has also produced a remarkable ingenium at the time of Pliny: one Vergilius Romanus.13 ornavit virtutes. Kunze. 16 Kurfess (above. Housman. the Republic has again produced ingenti virtute viri duo: Cato and Caesar. The Letters of Pliny. it was brought to his attention by A.825–28: et fecunda suis absistunt frugibus arva / continuosque negant partus effeta creando. Pliny and Sallust share the same image and concept. but not the debilitating effect of bearing offspring. n. But Sherwin-White perceptively adduced as parallels Lucretius (see below. Plin. in his own times. and if it emoritur aetate. Ep. / rursus quae fuerant steriles ad semina terrae / post nova sufficiunt nullo mandante tributa. Ritschl.1–2. 17 No comment on negant partus effeta creando in the celebrated edition and commentary by A. insectatus est vitia. This man. (Ph. This train of thought leads to the proposals of Kunze and Kurfess: effeta pariendo or partu. 6.14 Ahlberg and Shackleton Bailey that a word modifying parentum has fallen out. 2. Cantabrigiae 1937).E.17 13 A. Quintilian says that the vis percipiendi is natural to men. Lucretius 2. 381.21 (Jordan per errorem 5. II (Oxford 1947). (p. observes kindly: “as yet unknown”. The identity of concept need not solve a textual riddle. operum varietate monstrabilis. n. a non-entity to us. felicitously refers to this passage.N. exhausted. And yet Pliny’s natura . In Sallust. Neque enim quasi lassa et effeta natura nihil iam laudabile parit.) Klimscha. 4: Septicia . Commenting on Georg. 18 19 20 21 22 23 112). Columella thus recognizes exhaustion partu with reference to individual animals. Val.339–40 (the words of Marcia on her return from Hortensius to Cato): geminos excepi feta maritos: / uisceribus lassis partuque exhausta reuertor. The irate Valerius exclaims: nubis effeta. and then.8: nec ultra octo annos matres (referring to goats) servandae sunt. but they appear in a close enough association to render their employment by Sallust respectable and probable. esp. but here it is the commentary of Servius that is of import. after the centuries of creation. Max.20 The concept and the wording reminds us of Manilius and Pliny. See the long list of quotations from Sallust in J. pigs. This universal scheme of Lucretius and Manilius is also the Sallustian scheme: the austere Rome brought forth men big in virtue. but he refuses to admit it as a general Lucretian principle valid for all natura and tellus. offenbar nach dem Vorbild der Philopoimen-Monographie des Polybios”. 1–2). the fertile fields are also exhausted by production.T.. contra effetis.B. quin meliora mundus nondum effetus ediderit (adduced by Cortius).7. Publicio seni admodum nupsit. Mountford and J. sow’s vulva.A. Schultz. 11). K. two items of husbandry. n.593–94): Nondum post genitos tellus effeta gigantas / terribilem Libycis partum concepit in antris (of Antaeus). Catilina 53. cum iam parere non posset.6. 53. I. No discussion of effetos agros in the otherwise excellent commentary by R.. effetos .F. 53. and criticizes the opinion of those who existement ubertate nimia prioris aevi defatigatum et effetum solum nequire pristina benignitate praebere mortalibus alimenta (1. Sallust. the earth is exhausted. praef.44: neque enim dubium est. 255. WJA 18 (1992). 396 (frigentque effetae in corpore vires): effetae: exhaustae. Plin. Feldmann. Also this passage was utilized by Rivius and Gronovius.23 So also. In Lucan the earth is much more vigorous (4. The passage from the Georgics was utilized in this context already by Rivius (cf. . 7..5 262 323 263 In Lucretius. They refuse to bear continuous fruit. now it produces only small animals. Cat. Cf. adduced as a (sole) comparison precisely the passage of Sallust. Cat.210 contains a long divagation on that delicious dish. also the locus of Manilius was known to Gronov. Servius explains: continua fertilitate lassatos. quas frequens partus debiles reddit. Here also belongs (adduced by Cortius) Lucan 2. 149–51. Columella 7.81. Seneca. above. It used to give birth to big beasts. Cf. Mynors. 90. 1. Like the passage of Lucretius. and effeta and partu we finally encounter combined as a grammatical unit. NH 11. 202.21 and combined by a commentator who was an eager reader of Sallust. sicut etiam frequenti partu effeta dicitur mulier. 5. like the Manilian arva. where he comments on “das Bild von der erschöpften Gebärkraft der Erde. Virgil. Van Wageningen in his rather little observed Commentarius in M. quod assiduo partu fatigatae steriles existant. et est translatio a mulieribus.5. unexpectedly supplied Cato and Caesar. they become sterile..22 Next. in Lucretius and Manilius these terms are not combined grammatically. 195–203. The exhausted fields is also a Vergilian theme. per agros. exhausted by this creation the Republic kept producing faulty mediocrities. Cf. Index rerum et nominum in scholiis Servi et Aelii Donati tractatorum (Ithaca 1930).Effete Rome: Sallust. On the other hand. and closer (stylistically) to Sallust. Georgics (Oxford 1990). 18. Manilii Astronomica (Amsterdam 1921). but then unbidden they furnish unexpected crop.18 In Manilius. It is primiparae suis optima. Ep. Servius repeats this definition in his comment on Aen.19 Similar concepts require similar terms: effeta and partus spring to one’s eyes. urbibus genitis Lepti. in the words of Pliny (NH 5. On Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae. CSEL 6 [1882]. although the grammar does not require it. 25 It might be of interest to note that the Sallustian combination luxu atque desidia occurs also in Lucretius 5. 31. 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. 71. F. pario (col. n. but Suetonius does not impugn the special connection between Sallust and Lucretius. vis. nec fit effeta gignendo sed per uices fructuum fecundatur. produced also Suet.A. This passage is recorded in TLL s. line 6). 24 Epist. or men of virtue or talent. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. The incriminated phrase is embedded in the midst of Sallust’s description of those barren tempestates. The statistical data can now easily be gathered from Latin Data Bank or from A.) of sentences introduced by sicut(i) not once do we encounter this construction. and Hist.. lines 1–2) = (ed. The genetrix of cities now bringing forth only molluscs! But there is always hope. The computer search yielded no other examples of the collocation. luxus atque desidiae. Utica et illa aemula terrarumque orbis avida Carthagine. it spans the whole history between the original virtue and the new virtue of Cato and Caesar. At Cat. virtus or stirps look grammatically forward to haud sane quisquam Romae virtute magnus fuit. Repeated without attribution by McGushin. Hartel.76). ut video. 60. G. 587.5 we read of Catiline: Postremo dissimulandi causa aut sui expurgandi. etiam Gadibus extra orbem conditis: nunc omnis eius nobilitas conchylio atque purpura constat. and the wording itself – in view of the parallels here assembled – appears agreeable if perhaps not unimpeachable.26 Indeed in thirty-five occurrences (in Cat. the impartial statistics of style powerfully support the inclusion of <esset>. regions and countries bringing forth ingenia. at least in Liguria – if you trust Magnus Felix Ennodius (ca 473–521). where to express a similar concept a different verb is employed: Dein cum ager adsiduitate fructuum in maciem decoquatur. For instance. and all emendations supplying a missing noun. The vulgate and Jordan’s sicuti effeta parente. Auctores Antiquissimi 7 [1885]. where there are assembled also other examples of cities.22.B. This sentence is a grammatical twin of the enunciation here debated. 56 = 2. Nero 52.3 (OCT. III (XI).W.324 Historia et Philologia 264 Whether bringing forth goats.B.2. 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. pigs. 8). . be it aetas. 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. Latomus 40 (1981).19 (ed. R.A. the city of Tyre olim partu clara. Index verborum Sallustianus (Hildesheim 1970).v. the bishop of Ticinum (Pavia): non est. sicut iurgio lacessitus foret. imperatoris nostri posterior liberalitas uincit priorem. ed. This is consonant with Sallust’s train of thought. Iug. scriptores. Sallust resolutely avoids it. effeta Liguria: nobilitatem pariendi nec in temporum extremitate deposuit. Mynors). 408. And thus.24 Grammar and style must be considered. also Paneg. it was a labor not likely to last for long. 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. 240. W. in senatum venit. Bennett.48: quid luxus desidiaeque? Vretska 615 claims that these are the only instances of the locution. milites. Fletcher. Vogel. 26 Kunze 1244 (above. Cf. lines 24–34). rather with than without esset.27 However eloquent these examples.46–48 (reproduced above. they offer scant support to those scholars who would construct an ablative absolute with effeta and attach it to parentum. Only five times do we encounter the word parentum in a negative context.540–41 (of Andromeda and her parents): hanc quondam poenae dirorum culpa parentum / prodidit .. n. and we should not hesitate to deem this phrase worthy of Sallust. There are two passages of Horace: Carm. 3. is a handy tool. Next Seneca. There are some two hundred thirty examples of gen. desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum.5 325 165 The Latin Data Bank. and Sallust’s personal aversion to placing ablative absolutes after sicut(i) powerfully strengthen each other. de orat.Effete Rome: Sallust. in childbirth) gignuntur..45–46. and rather in the form sicuti <esset> effeta partu. 28. 4). 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. Dial.. 1. conveys very well the almost Lucretian concept of a declining and exhausted Republic.47: Auspicatius enecta parente (i. Silvae 3. parente in some forty authors. and preclude any textual medicines like effeta (aetate.. plur. although regrettably still incomplete.. For not once in our whole data bank does the genitive parentum appear in conjunction with an ablative absolute. rather gruesome instance of abl. Cat. 27 Statius. parentum in some fifty authors. Plin.e.2: quis enim ignorat . Thyestes 28–29 (the Fury speaking): rabies parentum duret et longum nefas / eat in nepotes.. It reveals almost one hundred fifty occurrences of abl.2. 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..3. and Carm. stirpe) parentum. Manilius 5. fourteen in Vergil. as the helpful Porphyrio instructs the boys. vi. Further two examples of neglegentia and culpa: Tac. and seventeen in Silius Italicus). eloquentiam . NH 7. abs. Considerations of style and usage are again paramount. where. Semantically the context is most often reverential and epic (fifteen examples in Cicero. does not belong here.. virtute. The general tendency of Latin idiom not to associate the genitive parentum with this construction. To conclude: sicuti <esset> effeta pariundo is possible.23–24: audiet pugnas vitio parentum / rara iuventus. . 53. descivisse ab illa vetere gloria . But the terse and parenthetical effeta partu. and in support of this conjecture we can adduce Manilius’ effeta creando.6. but there is only one. 6). 38]. couples visceratio with a banquet (epulum)” (p. 18) to the passage of Varro reproduced below in the text. even if sacrifices did play an important role in Roman triumph” (p. Kajava. in direct polemic with Kajava. but only as evidence for the gen- . Horti Romani (BCAR Suppl. 123). It may even be that Caesar was not the first triumphator to do so. 213–54: “Le problème du banquet sacrificiel romain”. Cima and E. Roma 1998. “rather than suggesting a connection with sacrificial meat. 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. the meat needed for the visceratio did not necessarily come from sacrificed animals. philology and social history. D’Arms. visceratio mostly belongs to the category of largitio and munificentia” (pp. 33–43.24 BANQUETING* I.. and that the fundamental meaning of the word was either “public distribution of meat” or “a meal (based on meat)”. H. 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. 124–25). aut collegiorum cenae 102 Still another marvelous contribution to scholarship from Helsinki: the article by Mika Kajava on visceratio. n. J. and to call attention to an important text not included in his argument. M. And thus.). However. Arctos 32 (1998) 109–31 {See now. it is likely that doles of meat were now and then added to the more normal epula. Paris 2005. 38. a rich blend of epigraphy.1 It has been an often held belief that visceratio normally denoted the distribution of sacrificial meat. “Between Public and Private: The epulum publicum and Caesar’s horti trans Tiberim”. 130). see now the excellent study by J. Les rites sacrificiels des Romains. s’est croire.2 and that some meat could specially be * 1 2 Arctos 34 (2000 [2001] 101–107 {with minor additions and corrections}. Quand faire. Iul. And among public banquets of particular importance were those associated with a triumph (pp. 125–31). Now it can indeed be positively shown that Caesar was not the first to include dishes of meat in his triumphal banquets. But the aim of this note is rather to offer support to Kajava’s interpretation. “Visceratio”. in M. who powerfully restates the sacral and sacrificial element of Roman public epulum. 120. He observes that “most of the evidence. literary and epigraphic. Scheid. Suet. He refers in passing (p. Triumphus alicuius . La Rocca (eds. Kajava demonstrates that the term and the procedure must be separated from a sacrificial context. 109–11. “Mostly” – this limiting adverb is a prudent insertion.. On Caesar’s triumphal feasts. But this should not be taken to mean that all meat consumed at public repasts derived from sacrificial offerings}. n. 1929). Varron. spero. 325. A clever defense. Keil in his edition of Varro. materterae meae fundum in Sabinis qui est ad quartum vicesimum lapidem via Salaria a Roma. ut tunc fuit Scipionis Metelli. Mensa regia (above. Cf. non tibi decoquet [non]6 ornithon. and the ever proliferating dinners of the collegia pushed up food prices in Roman markets”. Louvain 1895. M.Banqueting 327 purchased for that purpose. Schindel. an unlikely proposition – although turdus is indeed on record as a dish ante cenam at a pontifical banquet (Macr. Classen (ed. 190. see the still indispensable J. Buch 3. {Flach retains the second non.. <et> spero. Commentarius in Varronis Rerum rusticarum libros tres. Guiraud. Rüpke. and various further republications. Gesner in his Scriptores rei rusticae veteres latini. Goetz (ed. ed. 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 . non tibi decoquet non ornithon. {J.. “Kommensalität und Gesellschaftsstruktur: Tafelfreu(n)de im alten Rom”.13. {See now the excellent edition.14–16 (Varro speaking): Certe nosti . interprets collegiorum cenae as referring to priestly banquets. opus erit tibi aut e p u l u m aut triumphus alicuius. n. Professor der Poesie und Beredsamkeit 1734–1761”. 3. re-instituted by Keil (1884). n. Reliquis annis omnibus si <non>5 hanc expectabis summam. 2) 235. and defends it in his commentary. An old correction of Victorius (1541) for accedit. and partially devises a new conjecture: reliquis annis omnibus et<iam si> hanc expectabis summam. A. 6}.. 4}. Die klassischen Altertumswisssenschaften an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Göttingen 1989) 9–26. p.2. ut decipiaris.. Flach. {Flach (above. Paris 1997. where he discusses the Textgestaltung. Gespräche über die Landwirtschaft. points out that the neuter plural epula is a modern invention not attested in ancient literary texts or in epigraphy. but nunc is a convincing and necessary emendation by H. below. n. “Johann Matthias Gesner. I. 17) of his Scriptores}. but this time with consummate artistry that requires no defense}. non tibi decoquet non ornithon. {Flach proposes accidet}. most recently by C. Das Bankett beim hellenistischen König und beim römischen Kaiser. On the repasts of the collegia (and on Varro’s indication). P. see U. 205: Varro employed it “um der Verneinung grösseren Nachdruck zu verleihen”. Very instructive is H. and duly secluded by Goetz and Guiraud. Lipsiae 1884. ut sexaginta milia ea pars reddiderit eo anno villae . and ed. with rather much too harsh appraisal (p. 3 4 5 6 7 eral proposition that “the public banquets. <non> was added by G. n. . in C. Lipsiae 1773. Keil. Vössing. [non] was already deleted by J. Marcus Terentius Varro. (16) . 1929. rightly accepted by subsequent editors. (15) . neque hoc accidit7 his moribus nisi raro. spero. I still prefer the idea of Goetz. the last as the editio Bipontina in 1787 {on Gesner. XXII). accepted by Guiraud. triumphs. {K. The source in question is Varro. ex eo uno quinque milia scio venisse turdorum denariis ternis. Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains 1. Darmstadt 2002. Rust. but rightly again deleted in his Teubner edition of 1889 (cf. his own and of his predecessors. Lipsiae 1735 (a second edition with minimal revisions by J. Saeculum 49 (1998) 193–215 at 201. praef. J. Livre III (Collection Budé). Cf.12). still we should not overdo negations. München-Leipzig 2004. The paradosis is tunc. Atque in hac villa qui est ornithon. n. who also changed the paradosis et to si (cf. Keil (1884) reads reliquis annis omnibus et hanc expectabis summam. Lipsiae 1891. He accepts Keil’s conjecture}.). altera. Sed ad hunc bolum <ut> pervenias. p. aut colleg i o r u m c e n a e 3.. 230–31. 6). below. Ernesti. Commentarius 230). 4) partially follows Keil. Sat. Teubneriana 1912. Waltzing. Vössing. especially as in the next sentence Varro employs non twice. 3. which does not make much sense (cf. Économie rurale. 4. Mensa regia.. translation and commentary by D.. We stand corrected}.. C. and the triumph of Metellus Scipio (as a praetor from an unknown province) is to be dated to 54 or 53. but in English: “Scipionis Metelli: the name in this form presents a difficulty. 10 As I have argued in another place (Historia 34 [1985] 248–54. Linderski (ed. Caecilius Metellus Pius 71 v. il s’agit donc d’une erreur de Varron”. Imperium sine fine: T.6 he refers (with some exaggeration) to Varro: M. but far from celebrating a triumph.).. 8 The bracketed words were deleted by J.”.” But as this Metellus “ne s’appelait pas Scipio. I. esp. n. 498) that he observes: “Mihi hac pars orationis inepte ex superiori [sic] loco repetita . p. so that her total income from that single division of the villa was in that year sixty thousand sesterces. 10}: in reality the latter form is more common with at least eight attestations against five attestations of the former. 56–57). 204}. I. for three denarii apiece. Terentius ternis saepe denariis singulos emptitatos esse significat avorum temporibus. The reference can only be to that Metellus who celebrated a triumph in 71 B. 280.C. 4) 29–30. see Varro. Stuttgart 1996.9 But Varro makes it clear that it was rather an unusual haul (bolus): it occurred in the year of the triumph of Metellus Scipio. qui triompha dans le dernier jours de 71.. Guiraud (above. Tilly. n. non vidi) {in the meantime I procured a copy of Schneider’s edition.. it turns out that – contrary to what Goetz and Guiraud report – Schneider preserved this phrase in his text. Schneider (in his Scriptores rei rusticae veteres latini.. Stuttgart 1995. {Vössing. It is only in his commentary (vol. G. und dies dürfte der spanische Triumph des Q. quibus qui triumphabant populo dabant epulum. experienced the defeat of the Pompeians at the battle of Thapsus in 46 B. also C. It is pleasant to observe that the right answer was already given by Schneider in his commentary (above. 100–106. is usually called Metellus Scipio. in her otherwise valuable Varro the Farmer. pars 2. 253 = Roman Questions. {endorsed by Flach (above.C. sein.328 103 Historia et Philologia Quotus quisque enim est annus. .C. Obviously it is a marginal gloss elaborating on the unusual excandefaciunt. the dramatic date of Book III is 50 B. Linderski.60 who reports that according to Cornelius Nepos turdos paulo ante saginari coeptos. On the name-forms Metellus Scipio and Scipio Metellus.. in identical phrases.7. London 1973. B.10. in Imperium sine fine 155–56 {reprinted above. and he believes that the passage cannot refer to the consul of 52 for “loin de célébrer un triomphe. Not at all: the error is not of Varro but of Varro’s commentator. 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 Varro’s maternal aunt succeeded in selling from her aviary five thousand thrushes. presents the same errant idea. “Q. videtur”. 3. persists in this prosopographical and chronological aberration: “Das ut tunc fuit kann sich nur auf den Triumph (und das anschliessende Mahl) beziehen. il fit l’expérience de la défaite des Pompeiens à la bataille de Thapsus” (p. 105). 9 For the fattening of turdi. 139–40. No. Plin. . see J. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Historia Einzelschriften 105). Chr. Nat. and specifically must have purchased a good number of turdi. . Rust. Mensa regia (above. His adopted son who was consul in 52 B. 4. esp.10). At 8. F. and now also by Flach}. 2) 235. in J.5. 4) is confused: he is utterly unaware of the recent literature on the dramatic date of Book III (pp. Cf. “Notes on Roman AlsoRans”. Guiraud concludes that “le triomphe ne peut concerner que son père adoptif. and it is this opinion that is reflected in the brackets introduced by Goetz and Guiraud. Scipio Imperator”. n. Robert S. but removed it in 1889 (and in Commentarius 231 he described it {paraphrasing Schneider} as “ex superiore [sic] loco inepte repetita”).10 who must thus have given particularly lavish banquets. n. Keil (1884) kept this intrusion in the text. A peculiar argument to impugn Varro’s clear testimony – as if Metellus Scipio’s defeat in 46 precluded any possibility of an earlier triumph. and especially the extensive account of Columella (8.. This piece of misinterpretation is in fact a piece of purloined misinterpretation. dem Varro hier zu Unrecht den Beinamen Scipio gibt”. Lipsiae 1794. 63). Konrad. 10. 1999. 2) 37.2.51 and 92. Sat. Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la république. Addenda altera. In the course of his argument D’Arms makes the following statement: 105 “there is the Elder Pliny’s emphatic assertion – an assertion which he claims he based on his reading of Caesar’s own correspondence – that Caesar was the first in Rome to create official sanction for public feasting”. M. 11 See e.72. is a relatively small bird weighing at the most slightly over 200 g (7. 14. Perrins and A. A. 330–35 (cf. n.). RQ.v. 2. 8) 498: “Scipionis] Q. esp.5. s. The Encyclopedia of Birds. turdus (“thrush”. but more importantly it never served as a sacrificial animal. where the term is contrasted with potestas and imperium). II. Ornithologia latina. Genova 1979. n.11 Thus it was a sort of delicacy. and pp. Oxford (also New York) 1985. and for the republican times. . Middleton (eds. 2. 157–58. Les noms d’oiseaux en latin. 87–90. For those linguistically inclined there is a recent and excellent piece on the i-e etymology of the birdname: R. L.13 In note 25 the source reference is duly produced: “Plin. 308.7) there were served pastry thrushes stuffed with raisins and nuts (turdi siliginei uvis passis nucibusque farsi). “grive”. 13. “tordo”. Fr. 1.10–11. 2. At the dinner of Trimalchio (Petr. see J. 69. J. For ancient testimonies. Caecilii Metelli Pii Scipionis Nasicae. Auctoritas Principis. 13 D’Arms (above.12 and not the main course of a meat dish.14 on the other hand it certainly n. Paris 1963. where auctoritas is defined as “l’influence politique sous toutes ses formes”. “Drossel”). “fieldfare”. Auctoritas Caesaris No. 295–314. publicis epulis) dedit. Sat.40–41: cum sit obeso nil melior turdo. F. Paris 1967. 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.5 oz. Mart. 14 See the classic study by A. C. 495–99. Athenaeum 87.74.5. this is not another study about the concept of auctoritas Caesaris or Augusti. Thrushes.Banqueting 329 Now the bird in question. Capponi (above. cf. 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. 79–92. ut epistulis eius apparet”. 309–10. esp.15. our subject is not constitutional history but something much more important: wine. See further below. Paris 1947. Nat. Magdelain. Germ. Cf. André. Epist. 11) 499. For auctoritas in the sense of “sanction” makes its gingerly debut only under the Empire. of which some three hundred species exist. qui a Metello Pio fuit adoptatus”. 8}. 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. 66: is enim primus auctoritatem (sc.). Bracchi. No.g. Hellegouarc’h. In an erudite article on the triumphal cenae John D’Arms contrasts the almost total silence enveloping the banquets of Pompeius with the truly extraordinary din of publicity surrounding Caesar’s prandial triumphs. “Turdus e i suoi corrispondenti: l’uccello ‘che cova nel fango inaridito’”. It. 12 See Hor. see another book of renown. Capponi. 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 Pliny’s 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 (14,59–66) 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 Pliny’s 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 D’Arms 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 D’Arms, the latter must have been influenced by the former, and indeed D’Arms quotes Purcell’s 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 l’Italie romaine (BEFAR 261), Paris 1986, 29, 345–47 (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 53–54. 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 à mode le Mamertin, quatrième grand cru classé”. So also the translations of H. Rackham (Loeb 1945), J. André (Budé 1958) and R. König (Tusculum, München 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 60–80), 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 Budé edition by J. André (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 Caesar’s letters. The reading epistulis can be saved only if we place the stress on primus: what Pliny may have learned from the dictator’s letter (it would be nice to know its addressee!) was Caesar’s explanation of the reason that prompted him to give his auctoritas to the vina Mamertina. It was a bold innovation, very much in Caesar’s 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 D’Arms 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 Radermacher’s edition, was endorsed by no less an authority than W. A. Baehrens, “Beiträge 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] 1886–1887. 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 Quintilian’s 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 André (above, n. 19) 125. 25 FATALIS: A MISSING MERETRIX* Sunt qui ... Some catalogue senators, others prostitutes. Ronald Syme’s 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 Horace’s 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 Porphyrio’s detestabile is akin to Ps.-Acro’s 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 fates’5. They make no mention of Ps.Acro’s terminological excursion6. This excursion was clearly influenced by the * 1 Rheinisches Museum 140 (1997) 162–167 {with minor addenda}. J. N. Adams, “Words for ‘Prostitute’ in Latin”, RhM 126 (1983) 321–58 {Cf. now also B. E. Stump, Prostitution in der römischen Antike (Berlin 1998) 18–24: “Bezeichnungen für 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 ‘verhängnisvoll’, 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 6–8: dum Capitolio / regina dementis ruinas, / funus et imperio parabat. The only scholar to notice it was W. Heraeus, “Sprachliches aus Pseudoacronischen 2 3 4 5 6 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. 10.55–60: 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. Lucan’s 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. 69–70). But who would not forgive Antonius his insane love durum cum Caesaris hauserit ignis pectus (10. 70–72)? Caesar: sanguine Thessalicae cladis perfusus adulter (cf. 367) who miscuit armis inlicitosque toros et non ex coniuge partus (10.74–76). He was oblivious of his past conjunction with Pompey, and of his daughter, Pompey’s Horazscholien”, RhM 58 (1903) 464. He remarks: “Schwierig ist die Erklärung ... prostantes fatales dicuntur, wofür mir kein Beleg zur Hand ist”. The passage is also recorded in TLL (1915) 334, s. v. ‘fatales’. Lines 9–10. 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. 10,1–171 (Frankfurt a. M. 1986) 102–11 (with further literature). For Lucan’s picture of Cleopatra, see also I. Becher, Das Bild der Kleopatra in der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur (Berlin 1966) 117–22. 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 Lucan’s 10.62 Hesperios auxit ... Cleopatra furores finds its mirror image in Horace 1.37.12–13: sed minuit furorem / vix una sospes navis ab ignibus. This seems to be the only Horatian echo explicitly observed by the commentators. 7 8 9 334 Historia et Philologia wife (10. 77–78): 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. 357–59): 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 Cleopatra’s sexual services. Florus (who unlike Lucan omits to mention Caesar’s liaison with Cleopatra) so describes her dealings with Antonius (2.21.2–3): 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 Canopus”11. He too mentions the price: (3.11.31–32): 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) 119–31. 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) 120–21, while admitting this flavor points out that the term will certainly also refer to Cleopatra’s 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 1920–23, 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) 67–88 (“L’androgino e i prodigi a Roma”). On the Roman concept of monstrum, see C. Moussy, “Esquisse de l’histoire de monstrum”, REL 55 (1977) 345–69. {I see now that M. Hendry, in a piece that is erudite and ingenious, “Three Problems in the Cleopatra Ode”, CJ 88.2 (1993) 137–46, 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 “à 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) 647–58, 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 Schimfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen (Heidelberg 1965) 179–80. 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. 3.3.19–21: 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. Horace’s narrative at 1.37.12–13: 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. 86–87, 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¢ •ta¤raiw ta›w §p‹ kasvr¤oiw •st≈saiw m¤gnusyai) signifies a little shame and a small expense, but it is also auspicious for all undertakings: for they are called ‘working girls’ (§rgãsimoi), and they offer themselves without any resistance. On the other hand it is inauspicious to dream of entering a brothel ( porne›on), 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 place’20, and many human seeds perish there (koinÚw går ı tÒpow otow kale›tai, …w ka‹ ı toÁw nekroÁw dexÒmenow, ka‹ poll«n spermãtvn ényrop¤nvn §ntaËya g¤netai fyorã). 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.-Acro’s 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 Porphyrio’s present tense into a past tense; cf. A. Langenhorst, De scholiis Horatianis quae Acronis nomine feruntur quaestiones selectae (Bonnae 1908) 23–28, endorsed by M. Schanz - C. Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur II4 (München 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 koine›on = 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 20–22 (H. Dörries, E. Klostermann, M. Kroeger, Die 50 geistlichen Homilien des Makarios [Patristische Texte und Studien 4], Berlin 1964]): ka‹ porne›a ka‹ tÒpoi, ˜pou étaj¤ai g¤nontai ka‹ ésvt¤ai are for the yeosebe›w ... …w nekrã. A comparison between tombs and t«n porn«n tå katag≈gia, poll∞w t∞w dusvd¤aw g°monta poll∞w t∞w shpedÒnow, is found in Joannes Chrysostomos, In Matthaeum homilia 28.2 (Patr. Gr. vol. 57, p. 355, lines 42–44). I owe these two passages to Herter, RAC 1193–94 (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 8–10): ÉEån épantÆs˙ pary°now, ..., épraktow ≤ ≤m°ra g¤netai: §ån d¢ épantÆs˙ pÒrnh, dejiå ka‹ xrhstØ ka‹ poll∞w §mpor¤aw g°mousa. 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) 1154–1213; “Die soziologie der antiken Prostitution im Lichte des heidnischen und christlichen Schrifttums”, JbAC 3 (1960) 70–111. They contain a mine of information. He registers the passage of Artemidoros at RAC 1179. Ps.-Quint. Decl. Maiores (ed. L. Håkanson, 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 Pliny’s 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 2 3 4 Classical Philology 96 (2001 [2002]) 305–308 {with minor addenda}. So C. Mayhoff, ed., C. Plini Secundi “Naturalis Historiae” libri, vol. 3 (Leipzig [Teubner], 1892). J. André, ed., Pline l’Ancien: “Histoire Naturelle,” livre XIX (Paris [Budé], 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), 71–82, 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), 1:55–87; 2:313–404. On the living conditions in poor tenements in Rome, see A. Scobie, “Slums, sanitation, and mortality in the Roman world,” Klio 68 (1986): 399–433, esp. 401–4; H.-D. Bottke, Römische Mietshäuser. Die Wohnverhältnisse sozialer Unterschichten von der ausgehenden Republik bis zur hohen Kaiserzeit und deren bautechnische sowie ökonomische 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 André resolutely speaks of “pots de fleurs sur les fenêtres.” 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 André, Pline (n. 1 above), 46: “le spectacle d’espèces de jardins, image quotidienne de la campagne.” {According to C. Kunst, Römische Wohn- und Lebenswelten. Quellen zur Geschichte der römischen Stadt (Darmstadt, 2000), 123, Pliny’s passage refers to the “Balkonbegrünung”; 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), 105–9. André, Pline (n. 1 above), 119; Kay, Martial, 106. The two passages are also juxtaposed in TLL s.v. “Fenestra,” col. 479, lines 48–49, and in many older commentaries; see e.g., L. Friedländer, M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton libri mit erklärenden Anmerkungen (Leipzig, 1886), 2:177. In Juvenal’s evocation of urban dangers “broken or leaky vessels fall from the windows” (rimosa et curta fenestris vasa cadant, Sat. 3.270–71), 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. Pöhlmann, Die Übervölkerung der antiken Grossstädte (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. 15.112–13. The search in TLG revealed some thirty passages recording the ÉAd≈nidow k∞poi, most of them already known to pre-TLG scholars; see W. Atallah, Adonis dans la littérature et l’art grecs (Paris, 1966), 211–28; M. Detienne, Les jardins d’Adonis (Paris, 1972), 191–205; and especially the articles by J. D. Reed, “The Sexuality of Adonis,” ClAnt 14 (1995): 317–47, esp. 323–28, 338–40, and “Arsinoe’s Adonis and the Poetics of Ptolemaic Imperialism,” TAPA 130 (2000): 319–51, esp. 321–22. 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, “Mémoire sur les Jardins d’Adonis,” RA 8 (1851): 97–123, at 105–23. {Cf. ZPE 145 (2003): 86, n. 16, reprinted in this volume, No. 27}. 6 7 8 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 Martial’s rus ... in fenestra, but first, judging by Martial’s 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 “Blumentöpfe” 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; Mau’s 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ˆstraka: 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): 142–44, at 143}. See esp. Eust. Od. 11.590, who so describes the gardens of Adonis: futãria taxÁ énayãllonta ¶sv xÊtraw ≥ érr¤xou, ka‹ ˜lvw kof¤nou tinÚw ka‹ aÈt¤ka =iptoÊmena katå yalãsshw, “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 [Göttingen, 1839], 1:19). According to Reed (“Arsinoe’s 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. 10:911.11–15), who stresses the requirement of warm temperature. Philostr. Vita Apoll. 7.32: ımvrof¤ouw aÈtoÁw futeÊontew. 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), 192–93, 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 Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen Redensarten der Römer (Leipzig, 1890). “Fenestra,” RE 6 (1909): 2180–85, at 2182. See also G. Cressedi, “Finestra,” Enciclopedia dell’arte antica 3 (1960): 694–96; and above all R. Herbig, “Fensterstudien an antiken Wohnbauten in Italien,” MDAI(R) 44 (1929): 260–321; J. E. Packer, The Insulae of Imperial Ostia (= MAAR, vol. 31 [Rome, 1971]), 24–30 (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 Pliny’s lifetime,19 but it may well be only an example of Pliny’s 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 André, Pline [n. 1 above], 119). For a legal analysis, see J. M. Rainer, Bau-und nachbarrechtliche Bestimmungen im klassischen römischen Recht (Graz, 1987), 273–74 (with an unfortunate misprint in the Latin text). 18 So Rackham, Pliny (n. 1 above), 459. André, Pline (n. 1 above), 46, translates as follows: “jusqu’au moment où les horribles brigandages d’une multitude innombrable eurent constraint à clore tous les jour des demeures.” 19 Cf. Bottke, Römische Mietshäuser (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 Friedländer, 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, Friedländer 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 idées politiques et morales de Pline l’Ancien (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 Friedländer (cf. n. 19), {however, as modified by Pöhlmann in his once famous, now half-forgotten gekrönte Preisschrift (n. 7 above), 53: “Während man, wie Plinius bemerkt, in früherer Zeit in den nach der Strasse zugehenden Fenstern oft Grünes und Blumen gezogen, war man zu seiner Zeit wegen des “zahllosen” Raubgesindels genöthigt, sich selbst die Aussicht zu verbauen. Und dass es sich hier nicht bloss, wie man geglaubt hat, um eine vorübergehende Steigerung der Unsicherheit in Folge des Bürgerkrieges von 69 handelte, zeigen die Schilderungen Juvenals und Äusserungen der Rechtsquellen zu genüge.” 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): 1166–67. 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 Institute’s 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 8–17. 22 On the various kinds of shutters, see Mau, “Fenestra,” (n. 15 above), 2183–84; Bottke, Römische Mietshäuser (n. 4 above), 16–17, 62–63. 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 Pliny’s 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 Martial’s rus in fenestra with Pliny the Younger’s meandering description of his villas, with their elegant windows overlooking the manicured gardens (Ep. 2.17.13–16; 5.6.19–23). 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 Mayhoff’s punctuation, three, it would appear: Timarete, Irene, and Aristarete. But there is a problem: one of Irene’s creations, the nymph Calypso, threatens to become an independent paintress herself. So, at least, if we give ear to the recent and excellent Budé editor and commentator, J-M. Croisille (1985, 99), who places a semicolon after Eleusine, and translates thus: “Calypso a peint un Vieillard, Théodorus l’illusioniste, Alcisthénès le danseur”. In his commentary (256–57) he observes that according to a number of authorities2 “le nom de Calypso serait un accusatif, et désignerait non * 1 2 Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 145 (2003) 83–96, 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, 256–57 (with some further literature, but he is curiously uninterested in dates). Münzer’s (1895, 525–26) analysis of Pliny’s 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 Pliny’s sources. As will soon become apparent all existing discussions and commentaries are thoroughly inadequate. The present disquisition is intended as a contribution to Pliny’s 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, IX–XIV. 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 Fröhner, 1834–1925 (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 d’Eiréné”, and concludes: “le doubte subsiste, mais l’accusatif Calypso nous paraît 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 Fröhner.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 Pliny’s credibility (cf. n. 1), it was retained by Münzer 1895, 526, and also by Sellers 1896, 170 (whose text mostly follows that of Detlefsen), by Brunn 1889, 2.202, by Ferri 1946, 206–7 (although he notes that Calypso might be “un soggetto di pittura, anzichè una pittrice”; cf. 23), and now also by König-Winkler (1978, 106–7, 250, cf. 305; 1997, 112–13, 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. Knüverer; he avers that “die ältere 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 ungewöhnlich für eine sterbliche Frau sei [it is!] und Plinius sie womöglich mit der kurz zuvor von ihm erwähnten Malerin Eirene verwechselt haben könnte” [this misstates Pfuhl’s argument]); {Muller-Dufeu 2002, 1018–19, no. 3053}. Rackham (1952, 368–69), while keeping to Mayhoff’s 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 ...) irrtümlich einen Namen einer weiteren Künstlerin gemacht haben könnte”. Misplaced irony does not replace philology}. Cf. Immisch 1890–97, 940–42; Rafn 1990, 945–48. Fröhner 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. 24–30. 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 Caesar (as we learn from Quintilian. Calypso. Exactly right: see PapeBenseler 1911. It is only in the next sentence that Pliny introduces two lady painters whose patronymics he did not know. Cf. only Calypso. for references. col. See TLL Onomasticon 2. Sappho. when applied to persons.v. Warmington 1936.63). 11–12. a freedwoman Antonia A. also (Ps. nam et Pacuvius sic declinat “eundem filios / sibi procreasse per Calypsonem autumant”. The great Priscian decided that both declensions. 79. As an example of acc.9 7 This was well observed by Fröhner 1884. But other later grammarians (Phocas. In his earlier publication (1982. Calypso. eighty years later sadly a grammatical regress: TLL s. we are hardly dealing with a real person). 308) preserved and praised by the late fourth-century grammarian Charisius as an example of exquisite Latin usage. 17. Caesellius Vindex. most notably C. her name hardly that of a free woman. Warmington 1936. huius Didus. See also Solin 1996. by other authors. Ius. l. a grammarian of the second century. or had forgotten.344 Historia et Philologia How odd that the supporters of Calypso the paintress. 402–3) in addition to this inscription he adduced also IG 14. and a slave woman at Lukian.v. GL 1855. where the name may refer to a freeborn woman.209–10. see TLL Onomasticon 2. fab. quae ideo quidam Graece declinare maluerunt. Dido. Sapphus. The name Calypso had in Latin three accusative forms. were equally correct. an orphan. Macrobius (Sat. The passage of Pliny is rigorously structured: each artist is supplied with the name of her father. the ringing verse of Livius Andronicus (Od.2 (= Periochae Homeri 29): nymphae Calypsonis. CIL VI 7680.7 And what a pity that the editors and commentators of Pliny had not read. when they edited Pliny and wrote about art.5. Diomedes) continued favoring the Greek declension. But as this name comes in the text of an oracle. or a fragment of Pacuvius (Inc. sed melius esset secundum Latinam consuetudinem huius Sapphonis Didonis dicere. 2.113. Calypsonem he adduced (like Charisius before him) the lines of Livius Andronicus and Pacuvius. In later antiquity. 50. 1. 938.113 {On the concept of 8 9 . 15.)-Ausonius 448. 30): apud nimpham Atlantis filiam Calipsonem. and Calypsonem.2. Fröhner also remarks that Calypso.1648. in the midst of the account. 23–24) takes Calypso as a nominative and a paintress. but the reading of the name is uncertain.10). In the four so far published volumes of LGPN there is no record of the name Kaluc≈. Inst.309: he lists only one (and late) occurrence. were so insensitive to the shape of Latin prose. Alex. 2. after Livius Andronicus and Pacuvius. as a scholarly authority. all of them presumably attuned to shapes and colors. was pointedly a slave name. Greek and Latin. 5. Calypson. In this article Calypso in Pliny is regarded as an accusative and a painting. “praestigiator” (1991. The same two names already in TLL Onomasticon 2 (1907–13) 113 (s. lines 13–20): nullum autem nomen o producta finitur nisi peregrinum veluti Io. in addition to Charisius. the form Calypsonem (and Calypsonis) was favored by another literary connoisseur of the epoch.8 and this last form was employed. “Calypso”). 610 (they know of only two literary texts in which the personal name Calypso appears: the presumed paintress in our passage of Pliny. The full argument of Charisius is of interest (Barwick 1925. fr. and in addition. stands alone. -ouw. 676–79. 1. Caesar utitur hac ratione declinandi. 281–83) seems to assume that Pliny endorsed the form Didun (and Didus).63): Nunc recentiores instituerunt Graecis nominibus Graecas declinationes potius dare. ‘hospitio Didus exceptum esse Aenean’. and thus use the accusative Calypso. Della Casa (1969). like Quintilian. the Bambergensis. There may be a snag. neque enim iam ‘Calypsonem’ dixerim ut ‘Iunonem’. he says. 153. All three authors. was to observe the Greek declension. Quintilian and Pliny. the prevailing (or recommended) usage. lines 6–11): Didun. quod tamen ipsum non semper fieri potest. mihi autem placet rationem Latinam sequi.10 We should not rejoice prematurely. He rather adduced Ateius (and Cornutus) as examples of an extreme Graecizing tendency. Dubii sermonis libri. in apparatu. 162. Charisius knows the book or rather the title of the book by Ateius only from Pliny. hanc Io. Two observations. 87) Pliny confronts the controversy. ut refert Plinius consuetudinem dicens facere hanc Callisto. though he positively disliked Calypsonem.5. The fragment is again preserved by Charisius. and to that subject he devoted an extensive monograph. We are in the midst of a grammatical battle between antiqui and moderni. Quintilian disapproved of the usage. stress consuetudo. Charisius. and interpreted it. quamquam secutus antiquos C. passim. but himself. 11 On Ateius and Cornutus. 43–53}. . The current consuetudo. itaque et L. 99. Ateius Philologus librum suum sic edidit <in>scriptum. 10 B has sinem. of the tenth century) mistook the form Calypsonem. It so happens that in one of the fragments (Della Casa 1969. but Quintilian occupied the middle ground. as Calypso senem. and by Schenkenveld 2004. fr. now to be used in the edition and with the commentary of A. What would be the opinion of Pliny himself? Pliny was acutely interested in the usages of Latin idiom. see Hosius 1927. ‘An amaverit Didun Aeneas’.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. of which only fragments are extant. but this is far from certain. <hanc> Allecto. almost ingeniously. And with respect to Greek feminine names in -≈. His quotation of Annaeus Cornutus probably comes from the same source. sed auctoritatem consuetudo superavit. 580–81 and 1935. at least and precisely with respect to the name of Calypso (Inst. and it is advisable to reproduce the full passage in which Pliny’s text is embedded (Barwick 1925. see the instructive remarks by Grebe 2000. as did also all modern editors. see Croisille 1985. The usage of the ancients was again embraced by the later grammarians and literati. VRF senem. almost certainly from his Dubii sermonis libri. there were three periods of grammatical vogue with consuetudo.11 Della Casa (1969. Annaeus Cornutus in Maronis commentariis Aeneidos X Didus ait. quousque patitur decor. struck the reasonable middle course. hanc Calypso. 23 (Lindsay 1913): Calypsus.12 (Helm 1931. Met. 256. and Io appears only in the nominative (16. Allecto and Callisto (but cf. fuit) sex annis pulchram fovisse Calypso” (with variant reading Calypson).5: “ad Calypso” (var. Did Pliny follow the precepts laid down in his Dubii sermonis libri also in the Natural History? Of the six names adduced by Charisius. cf. Thus Calypso Calypsonem was miscorrected to Calypso [Calyp]senem.346 Historia et Philologia 86 the accusative Calypsonem preferred by the ancients. 237–39). Pfuhl 1923. calypsis. In the manuscripts of Pliny the form Calypso needed an annotation to indicate that it was an accusative (and not a nominative). cf. Cret. There is medicine. 35.132. Touchefeu-Meynier 1968. Servius auctus. Ovid. See Sellers 1896. 2. penetrated.20 we read “Phaonem Lesbium dilectum a Sappho” (and not a Sapphone). 1658–1719. 3. also the textual problems in the phrase vice Calypsonis in Apul. 2. 408.829. and at 35. A similar situation exists in manuscripts of Paul. Dict. Croisille 1985. 24. where according to the Editio Harvardiana (Stocker-Travis 1965) the manuscripts read calipsis. 4. already Pfuhl 1923. Once set in motion the damnatio memoriae is arduous to reverse.. n. Cora16 and the nymph Calypso. as the glossae often did.239. At 22. and again Calypsonem advocated or tolerated by some later authorities. Irene painted two young female divine figures. 188. 171. 16. 546.141 we learn of a painter: “pinxit .. The Old Man must be condemned. 6. Calypsonem. but at 3. who very sensibly suggested that the painting of the Greis may owe its existence only to “einer Textverderbnis”. the nymph Calypso receives back her painting.14 This annotation. Calypso by the recentiores.12 Pliny was thus very consistent in his usage. but do not follow them in practice. formas)”.96 we encounter a nice Greek genitive: Calypsus. 339) and Rafn 1990. ad Aen.132 we have two occurrences of the nominative Calypso: in quibus sunt Calypso (some prefer to read here Callisto. In view of these examples no doubt can subsist with respect to the disputed passage 35. 11) do not make their appearance on the pages of Natural History. into the text. lect. Dos Santos Palma 1970.15 The passage is now exquisitely balanced. Dido (hard to believe). and admitted into the text by subsequent editors (though Thilo 1878. 11).132). Croisille 1985. 14 For this kind of annotation or variant readings. thought it to be a manuscript reading). Pont. The reading Irene . cf. 13 Two other paintings representing Calypso were attributed to the Athenian Nicias (NH 35. Maaswyck. and 12 At 35. not useful for our purpose. corrected to Calypsus by Pancratius Masvicius [P. and the rule hanc Calypso obtains also for the Natural History. Ferri 1946. but Sappho speaks with a clear grammatical voice. pinxit) stands.147.829. again Calipson). Fest. Lucas 1940. Pökel 1882. cf. the paintress Calypso vanishes.10. Leon Sappho” (and not Sapphonem). including the period of Pliny and Quintilian. We have seen how the accusative Calypsonem made its comeback in later antiquity. but he offered no textual argument.171.. 206. merely observes that Pliny “parece preferir as gregas (sc. spawned the spurious senem. There are people who proffer theoretical rules of usage. adduce in their list of representations of Calypso the paintings of Nicias but not the painting of Irene. and in turn. 239) and Calypso sedens. but one codex has Calypsonis. 54–59. 16 It is generally accepted that Pliny’s puella translates ≤ pa›w. through a subsequent surgery. Under this grammatical barrage. Cf.. 1. 200 (cf. thus the painting represented Cora (KÒrh). 15 Cf. Calypso (sc.13: “an grave (sc. .13 but what are we to do with The Old Man? The reading senem. Croisille 1985. and the placement of the conjunction et remain as troubling as ever. 163] in his edition of Vergil and Servius in 1717. II. Her paintings had been appropriated by a phantom. 347–64. though in that case the nice symmetry of Irene painting two mythological figures would be destroyed. We are at the end of our textual nostos. Raoul Rochette (Paris 1855. Calypso [senem] et praestigiatorem Theodorum. and her own identity17 had been questioned by no less an authority than Friedrich Münzer. 17 It is amusing to observe that Irene (or Eirene) does not have an entry in the RE. Pliny’s reliance on Antigonos . Lévesque” (i. see the erudite discussion by Clinton 1974. No paintings of the initiates seem to be on record. quae est Eleusine. archéologique. one notes with interest a substantial number of titles in German. Preller (1837. 1994. 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 Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres Rochette was a leading French antiquarian of the day. p. Brunn (1889. a juggler and a dancer (observe how et now conjoins and opposes those two different subject matters). 51–55 (“La fortuna odierna”. 2. The correct text will read: 87 Pinxere et mulieres: . many of them multi-volume sets. pp. 17-23 on Antigonos and Duris in Pliny). but the paintress Kalypso boasts of an article (10 [1919] 1799). 61-70.. 5–29 (esp. Alcisthenen saltatorem.18 And Duris was notorious for It is generally believed (also by Croisille) that this suggestion was first made by Raoul Rochette (1783–1855) in his once often quoted book Peintures antiques inédites (Paris 1836) 222. strangely no mention of Münzer or Dorandi). The catalogue contains 3363 items. For the developments since Wilamowitz an excellent account in Dorandi 1995a. On Duris (4th/3rd century). IRENE Irene has suffered enough of abuse and deprivation. and a list of statues representing the initiates (all boys). Librairie de J. but the nymph Calypso is again immortal on the pages of Pliny in her refurbished Greek accusative dress. 377) that we here have to do with a painting of a pa›w éfÉ •st¤aw. {and see also Dorandi’s magisterial edition of 1999 (with an ample introduction and translation). unlike Odysseus. pp. Techener. Pierre-Charles Lévesque. Cratini pictoris filia et discipula. 1995b. and a great book collector. see recently Landucci Gattinoni 1997. and this textual traveller. Calypso probavit [senem] damnavit L. 461” (non vidi). This merited scholar had argued (1895. an initiate into the mysteries.. esp. I.e. this is an attractive possibility. Rochette himself.201) also considers the idea of (again once famous) L. attributes this “ingénieuse conjecture” to a “M. with a prosopographical list. On the category of “hearth-initiates”. puellam. Irene. historique et littéraire de feu M. Among many other works both Duris and Antigonos wrote books on the art of painting and on painters. 535–36) that Pliny’s account of women painters derives from Duris of Samos though through the intermediary of Antigonos of Karystos. VIII–IX a short vita)]. however. esp. The paintress Irene is restored to her rightful place.The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 347 two male performers. de l’Inst. hopes in the company of Calypso for immortality in some dusty and unread apparatus criticus to a future edition of Natural History. 18 On Antigonos (flourished in the third century) the monograph of the young Wilamowitz (1881) remains not replaced but not irreplaceable. member of the Academy) in “Mém. the paintress Calypso and the painting of an Old Man regrettably disappear. CVII–CXI on the sources of Pliny}. As among those initiates there were both boys and girls. See Catalogue des livres composant la bibliothèque artistique. disappointing. 98–114. t.. 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. 19 For the name Calypso we know the cure: give it back to the nymph. cf. in Pliny (so Pape-Benseler 1911. Alexander’s ball-player (sfairistÆw). cf. but we have to distinguish between people playing ball for recreational purposes and professional ball-players who received awards because of their t°xnh.3). or in any case of bronze. 5. 39. 20–21). and “the dancer Alkisthenes and the juggler Theodoros. Suda S 1719.56. Aristonikos was Alexander’s partner at a ball-play (susfairistÆw. Plut.67. 3A. if inscriptions had not existed! 20 They are recorded in a number of inscriptions. 1526. 2. und ich will es auch nicht durchweg und ausschliesslich für Gebilde seiner Phantasie halten”. And so the Athenians made Aristonikos of Karystos. 437. ed.61. 129. 536): “Derartiges aus Duris herzuleiten bleibt natürlich Vermutung. Wegner. Diog. and jugglers (called sfairopa›ktai or pilarii in Latin) who handled many balls at the same time (for a neat distinction between these two categories.21 A balland Antigonos’ reliance on Duris (especially for anecdotes) have often been taken for granted. and the portraits of the two performers will serve. a good and skillful ballplayer.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 Münzer himself relented.3.348 Historia et Philologia embroidering his stories: in particular he was partial to tales of women (“ein Lieblingsthema”) and of Alexander. 19 Münzer’s distrust spilled over also to the exposition of Sellers (1896.19a–b) he writes with indignation about honors accorded by various cities to professional performers of often low or questionable arts. They are all verdächtig. 2832–34. Laert. 5. Irene and Aristarete are not “above suspicion”. Irene has now regained her paintings. LXV): as she puts it. see LGPN 1. And among the latter we have to differentiate between athletes who played ball-games (for various kinds of games. LSJ does not in fact reference this passage of Athenaios but rather another passage from the same author (12. 1896. What a perfect world of imagination it would have been. Nearchos was the name of Alexander’s admiral. are evident Duridian personages”. In the Deipnosophistai (1. as a charm against the maledictions of Münzer. se si escludono i pochi luoghi dove Antigono è citato direttamente. In literary texts there are several occurrences of Timarete. For it so happens that Theodorus is a person of flesh. negli altri casi la sua presenza è stata più postulata che realmente dimostrata”. like two amulets. Alex.51. To meet him we have to join Athenaios at a symposium. 1938). and he certainly did everything to pretend that Alexander was able to keep up with him (for Alexander’s interest in this exercise. The names Timarete and Aristarete were common enough. Wegner 1938. 21 The Dictionary of LSJ renders the term sfairistÆw simply as “ball-player”. 428. see Manilius. 73. but clearly only an amateur {but cf. and made this confession (1895. 22) concludes his dissection of Pliny’s sources with a somber remark: “credo sia risultato palese che. he writes. a passage which seems to suggest that as a young man Lykon participated in competitive ball playing}. not inaccurately. Athenaios indicates . and the name Calypso is practically unknown. see Mau. 428. but Dorandi (1994. but only one of Aristarete. Astr.548b) concerning the Peripatetic Lykon. their finding corroborated by electronic searches). painted by Kalypso. the leader of the Lyceum. “came in later times to appreciate vulgar skills of hand (tåw banaÊsouw t°xnaw) much higher than ideas achieved through education”. and they also put up his statue. cf. and not solely of paint.165–71. Adler). a citizen on account of his art (t°xnh). Enough of phantoms. who was also sfairistØw égayÚw ka‹ §pid°jiow. “The Greeks”. Ultimately Münzer’s analysis tells us more about attitudes of philology and philologians at the turn of the nineteenth century than about Duris or Irene. the names Timarete and Aristarete are suspiciously similar. histrio gesticulatur ceterique omnes 22 23 24 25 26 . pebble thief. psephokleptes and praestigiator. 49–51}. funerepus [i. But truly indispensable are the various studies by Louis Robert. pebble shuffler.v. rope-dancers. and frg. both of Pliny and of Athenaios. TLL s.547d) that he owes information concerning Lykon to Antigonos of Karystos {cf. see esp. a mine of information.26 Those performers employed several pebbles (probably three). The best introduction to this amazing world remains Blümner (1918). 83). Hug (1954). strong men. A list of references and a good discussion in Blümner 1918. The precise connection between Histiaia and Oreos is the subject of a dispute.335–62 (now unjustly forgotten). 1997. 1567. who made things appear and disappear. see now the collection of contributions edited by Fortenbaugh and White (2004). sometimes there. Hug 1954. 599–603. {Muller-Dufeu (2002. Kroll (1935).. cf. 133–41). The great Isaac Casaubonus (1550–1614) proposed the emendation chfopa¤ktou. whom probably we would today call magicians or conjurers. See also Geyer 1924. not entirely inaccurately. OMS 1. 179. No author in this collection remarks on Lykon as a ball player and the lore of ball playing}. et que Oréos est le nom de la ville principale”. Histiaia is the spelling of the name in the local inscriptions. It is time to have a look at this entertainment underground of the Greeks and the Romans. Jones 1987. Theodorus was such a trickster. but König-Winkler (1978.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 (toË chfokl°ptou). Hestiaia in many other texts including Athenaios.23 English translations. and by (12. 210–12) has suggested that from the second part of the fourth century through the third and second centuries “ ÑIstiaie›w est le nom du people qui occupe tout le nord de l’Eubée . The entry in LSJ is again inadequate. he was represented as holding a pebble (c∞fow). 1940. with notes 110–15. 1938. is even more expressive. 206–7) and Croisille (1985. Flor.2. and various tricksters.893–96. as “juggler”. 77–78. No comment about the painting in the Loeb translation of Athenaios (Gulick 1927. 267) are positive in their negativism: Theodorus “ist nicht zu bestimmen”. pp. snake charmers. 19. tragoedus vociferatur. but the commentators of Athenaios do not know of his portrait and the commentators of Pliny do not know of his statue. 33}. funambulus] periclitatur. cf. 934–38. 18. puppeteers.. 2. 1019) mistranslates praestigiator as “charlatan”.This indication will be of importance for our further argument (see below in the text).24 There were many specialties: jugglers. Oneir. but Croisille’s “illusioniste” is closer to the mark. We are dealing with a milieu of performers loosely and generally described as yaumatopoio¤. This is of course the praestigiator painted by Irene. a brilliant investigation.e. LXIII–VI.4. n. 76–108.. n. 23.55: if one dreams of performing tricks with pebbles (cefopaikte›n) this signifies a great gain which will come through lie and deceit because a performer steals many stones (pollåw cÆfouw kl°ptein) and shows them sometimes here. His particular skill was normally described as that of a chfopa¤kthw. “praestigiator” (1991). {On Lykon. comoedus sermocinatur. but Robert (1951. in his marvelous description of the doings of the various kinds of performers: “mimus halucinatur. 750. 242. 3. and points to Artemid.223–25. 132–42. 45–46 (nn. acrobats. render both words. And see now Dickie 2001. Ferri (1946. below. as amazing in their erudition and brilliance of argument as the ancient performers were in their skill. praestigiator furatur. The same concept also in Apul. but Kaibel in his Teubner edition (1887) rightly retains the manuscript reading. Also useful Böttiger 1850. 257) are silent about Theodorus. The entry in LSJ is very inadequate. Dorandi 1999. 2. “wonder-doers”.25 but chfokl°pthw. nicely compares the art of pebble shufflers to deceitful arguments in philosophy: we know that what they are demonstrating is not true. And Alkiphron (see below in the text. 45–46). He inveighs against those writers who compose in an overwrought manner. purporting to be written by various Athenians of old. The Greek text is here corrupt. and. and the third from a man’s head.8: praestigiatorum acetabula et calculi. 45. in quibus me fallacia ipsa delectat. but the word {in its Attic shape} is quite fittingly on record in a fragment of Eudoxos. Cf. 601–3.332.20]) is from a rustic.250. Ep. Then under these cups he hid (¶skepe) some little round white pebbles (liy¤dia).29 and at another moment (I don’t know how) he would show them all under a single cup. they are similar to a person who at a meal instead of eating in a normal fashion “oleas suas in altum iaciat. a playwright of the New Comedy. but we do not know how they are deceiving us. we are watching a psephopaiktes. 274 (frg. and it was in a theater. in the process borrowing many motifs from the New Comedy.31 The show described by Alkiphron took place in a theater. and. Blümner 1918. I reproduce here the excellent Loeb translation by Benner and Fobes (1949). At one moment he would hide them one under each cup. they may have been simply used in the manner of pebbles. 600. drawing forward the spectators who stood near him. see Schepers 1905 and Benner-Fobes ad loc. 17. Pyrrh. Sextus Empiricus. Dickie 2001. 603. 89 Although Alkiphron does not use this term. Here acetabula corresponds to paroc¤daw (cf. One of the letters (2. 46. and after picking them up he would make them disappear from sight again. p. CAF 3. Böttiger 1850. 360–61. Dickie 2001.. very convincingly suggests that those performances took place not just in theaters but precisely in the orchestra of a theater. an Attic form of chfopa¤kthw. Cf. exceptas ut calculos praestigiator primoribus labris ostendet”. no doubt the site of his triumph. ore operto excipiat. Sen. Thalheim): chfopaiktoËsi tÚ d¤kaion. another from a man’s ear. PCG V (1986). 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. Fronto 156 Naber (Lipsiae 1867) = 154 Van Den Hout2 (Stuttgart [Teubner] 1988). and then again he would make them entirely disappear from under the cups and exhibit them between his lips.350 Historia et Philologia swift movements of their hands they made the stones vanish from sight and again materialize. The calculi are properly dice.30 Then he would swallow them. placed three little cups (paroc¤daw)28 on it. and to amuse himself went to a theater and witnessed an amazing show:27 A man came forward. Cf. 27) characterizes his pebble performer as klept¤statow ênyrvpow. 27 28 29 30 31 ludiones ostentant populo quod cuiusque artis est”. a “thievery” gent. ed. Blümner 1918. hypot. Dickie 2001. 1).17 [= 3. in most unexpected places. The shows of that kind must have been popular enough already in the fifth century. he would take one pebble from a man’s nose. whether the praestigiatores also performed tricks with (loaded) dice we do not know. 2. Cf. all stock characters. so that Lysias could use the verb in a transferred sense of “juggling away the right“ (fr. Today this trick is commonly called “cups and balls”. I wish to record my thanks to Professor Kassel for his helpful comments}. 139. such as we find on the banks of rapid streams. .1 {as established by Kassel and Austin. setting down a three-legged table. in the fragment of Eudoxos the correct reading is chfopa¤sthw. n. and n. for the healing attempts. that the Histiaians and Oreitai erected the bronze statue of Theodoros. who came with his produce to the city. we can trust that he was well versed in the affairs. p. If the account of Athenaios is organized chronologically. nor does in Latin saltator equal funambulus.e. Irene. Robert (OMS 1. LXV. and the ball-playing. 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. even excellent.The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 351 90 This brings us back to Irene and to the thorny problem of her floruit. he and Aristonikos shared the same city of birth.33 If this should be true. high and low. it is obvious that their names form merely an artificial pendant to Theodoros and Alcisthenes. 33 This argument was wholly adopted by Sellers 1896. 536) “out of the few names of jugglers (Gaukler) and rope-dancers (Seiltänzer) of antiquity which are adduced by Athenaios (1. and pebble-shuffling. n. But for Münzer’s 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. Read 1. and their accounts may indeed derive ultimately from Duris. 19a–f. and Oreos of Theodoros the juggler’s fame was not far away. 1019) . Karystos. throwing this time aspersions of non-existence on the praestigiator Theodorus and Alcisthenes the saltator. 8) has shown that the term ÙrxhstÆw was as a rule never employed to denote high rope acrobats. and the illusionist Theodoros.35. The independence of Calypso was a complication. yet through the intermediary of Antigonos. were hardly the technai to be rewarded with grants of honorary citizenship. and consequently Louis Robert. as he puts it (1895. {Muller-Dufeu (2002. would it matter at all 32 The citation is incorrect. and thus also the rather derogatory detail of Lykon’s prowess as a ball-player (12. And thus according to some scholars Irene had to her credit only one painting. Antiochos II. Athenaios indicates that he took from Antigonos his long account of Lykon the peripatetic philosopher. and thus all four performers are suspect. 19d)32 several come from Duris”. the puella on display at Eleusis. as it appears to be. the only way to establish Irene’s date was to seek the date of her father. Certainly for the exploits of the praestigiator or psephopaiktes Theodoros we have only the word of Pliny and of Athenaios. 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. ruled 261–246). these divagations are largely moot: Irene can be dated by her regained paintings of Theodorus and Alcisthenes. Now L.34–35 = p.19c) was an ÙrxhstØw at the court of King Antiochos (i. the pictor Cratinus. and therefore are somehow unreliable. 21).437).435–36. see above. n. 165. of his native island of Euboia. were either roughly contemporaneous with Aristonikos who played ball with Alexander. or perhaps more likely would postdate him. Münzer’s remark about “Seiltänzer” seems to refer both to Pliny’s Alcisthenes saltator and to Archelaos who according to Athenaios (1. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of accounts in Pliny and Athenaios.. Now after the mischief of Calypso’s presumed independence has been uncovered.547d–548b. As this piece cannot be dated. Antigonos was hardly a mere copyist of Duris. who knew about ancient entertainers more that any other scholar. But this is not the end of spurious troubles. Münzer again appears. quoted the passage of Athenaios without any hint of distrust (OMS 1. “a terrible masterpiece”. 242. n. (In the end the fumbles of Münzer as a critic are more amazing than the exploits of thaumatopoioi. and was prepared by J. the Alkisthenes of the stone is ineluctably the dancer who posed for Irene. and the text of document A. 42 (no. and LGPN 3A. see nn. 2. 6 (Paris 1863). was published in 1863. n. And we also realize that this stone offers the sole secure chronological peg for establishing the date of Irene’s floruit. A. and still König-Winkler (1978. Münzer who dedicated his epochal opus Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920) to two classical friends who had “den Heldentod fürs Vaterland gefunden” (p. another mistranlation in the land of Louis Robert (cf. like this student of texts and people. 895. Nachtergael 1977. as aptly characterized by T. 1. unearthed at Delphi. no. his name and his profession engraved in stone. also of performers. any possibility of Cratinus’ identity renders saltator as “acrobate”. IX). 48. 183. The editio princeps was by C. above. This feast commemorated the miraculous deliverance of the shrine from the onslaught of the Gauls in 279.30. RE 1 (1894) 1550. Cf. followed by Stephanis 1988. Earlier scholars dated the stone to the end of the third or the beginning of the second century. recording the participants at the feast of the Soteria at Delphi. For other senseless losses. 267). 34 35 36 37 . Wescher and P. 10.35 It forms the fourth document in the series of four texts incised in five columns. esp. himself wasted away in 1942 in the concentration camp at Theresienstadt. 404 and 691. a synopsis of their dates. but under no. he assigns our document to ca 253. Ridley in the preface to her translation of Adelsparteien (Baltimore 1999) LV. a dancer Alkisthenes of feet and flesh had been on record already for some thirty years. and his book of 1897 on the Naturgeschichte remains fundamental for our understanding of Pliny’s method of research (cf. it is Cratinus who receives his firm date from the date of his daughter. no. Baunack.34 The stone in question. The document records (line 48) Alkisthenes the son of Aristogenes.37 As the entia. Kneppe and J. s. 424 one can find a short discussion of all four texts pertaining to the Soteria.v. and for the Delphic performance of Alkisthenes. and in due course found its way to collections of inscriptions. Foucart. 1997. It now resides at SGDI 2566 (the fascicle containing this number was published in 1896. are not to be multiplied.36 G. 422–24 (no.} It is only fair to say that in Münzer’s article there is nevertheless much that is worth reading. 10). Kirchner. It was also admitted into the first two editions of Dittenberger’s Sylloge (1888 and 1900) as nos. Nachtergael 1977.829. have long admired and continue to admire that great scholar of tragic fate). We have to abandon the patriarchal prejudice: it is not Irene who is to be dated through her father. J.352 Historia et Philologia whether Alkisthenes did not exist as a saltator or as a funambulus? But by cruel irony when Münzer penned his ill-advised remarks about dancers. Wiesehöfer. 127–49. Pfuhl 1923. Dorandi 1994. 52. Michel 1900. 19). who reviewed the stone). “Alkisthenes 2”. And as her floruit belongs now decisively to the middle of the third century. non vidi. A similar date (269) already in Skalet 1928. This establishes a terminus post quem for the whole dossier. Inscriptions recueillies à Delphes. the third edition omits it. he is described as énØr xoreutÆw. 42 (in fine). Friedrich Münzer: ein Althistoriker zwischen Kaiserreich und Nationalsozialismus (Bonn 1983). of Sikyon. 143). 25). Nachtergael has recently carefully reviewed and republished the entire epigraphical dossier pertaining to the celebration of the Soteria. and most disheartening to those who. 40 pompeo Mayhoff. III. Pökel 1882. no. CRATINUS About Cratinus Pliny imparts interesting information (NH 35.The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 353 91 with the comic poet evanesces entirely (see below. To their credit. si de pictore veterem lectionem [Pozzi does not explain where Barbarus found this reading] sequamur quae ait ‘Cratinus comoedos in pompio pinxit’”. but the Lexicon and the Persons have again failed to do justice to the paintress. 302. 38) who printed it in his Cologne edition (Plinii naturalis historiae opus ab innumeris maculis vindicatum) of 1524. Traill (Persons of Athens 6 [1997] 194. Mayhoff and Croisille did not fall prey to this argument. Cf. zum 2. Mayhoff and Croisille print the following text: Cratinus comoedos Athenis in pompeo40 pinxit. 39 Strom. 4. 382070) assigns Irene to the end of the fourth / the beginning of the third century.139. 12) who made the proposal in his Castigationes Plinianae primae published in Rome in 1493. and to Hermolaus Barbarus (1454–1495. The note of Barbarus is worth reproducing (III 1140). and uses him to date the presumed paintress Calypso}. 1973–1979. the rival of Eupolis and Aristophanes. {Herbert 1989. 1468–1551. this Cratinus must be the father of Irene. I) containing especially a detailed discussion of Barbarus’ method of work and of his contacts with other humanists. but pompeio is supported by B. pompeio Croisille. In a recent volume (10 [2001] 568–69. and three other authoritative manuscripts exhibit the same word in the mediaeval spelling and pronunciation. is difficult to divine.4 (p. As entia are again certainly not multiplicanda.38 The paintings of Irene offer a small glimpse into an often neglected corner of ancient life. and observes: “si de comico accipiam Pompeium pingere not potuit. 375–78. and the underlying Greek form was pompe›on. he attributes to Irene only the painting in Eleusis. We can safely place Cratinus in the later part of the fourth century or even in the first part of the third century. Which form Pliny himself had used. Her name was still remembered at the close of antiquity by Clement of Alexandria. comoedus. 41 So still Sellers 1896. and adopted the conjecture comoedos. He corrects the received text Cratinus comedus Athenis Pompeium pinxit. As is evident from his quotation of Pliny.140). 165. part III) and for ever. Jh. 584365) he dates Kratinos to “circa post medium ante finem” of the 4th c. no. Schmidt 1854. 272 dates both Kratinos and Eirene (with a query) to the fourth century. The Bambergensis has comoedus. See now the critical edition by Pozzi. She appears among other famous women. establishes his identity with the comic writer.19 Stählin-Früchtel [Berlin 1960]).39 before finally succumbing to the ravages of art historians insensitive to images and philologians insensitive to words. with ample introduction (in vol. 173. places Alkisthenes (incorrectly) “um die Wende vom 3. n. below.122. he derived his information from the Symposiaka of the Alexandrian polyhistor Didymos. 42 This reading modern editors owe to Iohannes Caesarius (c. Pökel 1882.41 Irene would have thus belonged to the second half of the fifth century.”. Barbarus thus produced the correct . 190.42 An unbiased look at the text of Pliny will show that this is an obvious read38 LGPN 2. It is perhaps unfair to criticize these two mountains of labor and erudition. and thus presumably regards Calypso as the paintress of Alcisthenes. comedus. As Clement indicates. Cf. but some erudites had also thought that his description. 42. but here again we stumble upon a textual problem. Reinach 1921. 1656. Unfortunately the right reading does not automatically entail the right interpretation: Jex-Blake and Sellers (1896. Reinach with a superficially pleasing (but. Soon the identification of the painter and the statuarius was made.5787. who won the boys’ wrestling match. We should honor Barbarus and Caesarius for many later scholars. Pökel 1882. 9. and was rightly abandoned by subsequent scholars (cf. and he painted them in a structure called pompeion. this statue was made by Cratinus the Spartan. VI–XXXIII [XI–XIII on Paul Milliet]).9. did not see or chose not to see this textual macula. and it was the assembly point for the great pageant of the Panathenaia and of other processions. there is no wonder “modern” text. Etym. already in that sense Lippold. Yet a glance at the standard OCT edition of Lindsay shows that in both passages the correct reading is comicorum (not comoedorum). utterly false) argument: it would be a strange coincidence if Kratinos the painter of comédiens bore the same name as the comic poet. In that short amount of time he accomplished a prodigious work. cf.272 shows that Kratinos was a frequent name in Athens.354 Historia et Philologia 92 ing: Pliny occasionally uses the predicate pinxit intransitively. . the part treating of the painters was ultimately published through the efforts of his uncle. The statue was made by Cantharus of Sicyon”.7. even in our own times. 43 Hoepfner 1976. and not as a graecising nom. but as this date falls safely in a period after the death of Kratinos the playwright.43 It thus provides for the paintings of Cratinus only a date post quem. Cratinus the painter painted likenesses of “comedians”. without any indication of the subject of the picture. S. A glance at LGPN 2. and yet they still identify the writer and the painter. the famous Salomon Reinach (on Adolphe Reinach and his family. 2. when he was only twenty four years old. see Rouveret 1986.6 and 7 where comoedus would refer to comic playwrights and satyrical poets. 57) in his edition of Pliny (1587). 172–73) adopt the reading comoedos (and their translations show that they take it as an acc. 7.83. 112–29. and when he won the wrestling match for boys the Eleans allowed him to set up a statue of his trainer as well. 1513–1588.4629.3. 35. But we should not judge Reinach too severely. he undertook the commission to produce a “new Overbeck” (see Abbreviations) in 1911. when the location of the painting is indicated. comedian”. it is generally attributed to Dalecampius (Jacques Dalechamps.). The structure was erected in the last decade of the fifth century or in the opening years of the fourth century. Sillig 1827. It derived its name from pompÆ. 162. 1922. cf. as it turns out. cf. it stood at the entrance to the Kerameikos. kvmƒdÒw). Jones’ Loeb translation [1933]): “Cratinus of Aegeira in Achaia was the most handsome man of his time and the most skilful wrestler. solemn procession. 1.201). that of Phylles of Elis. see Valpy 1826. What exactly does it mean that Cratinus painted comoedos? The Oxford Latin Dictionary informs us curtly that comoedus means “a comic actor. 164–65) and Reinach (1921. as to Cratinus he pointed to Pausanias “qui et alio loco [6. LSJ s. The assiduous excavations have revealed the history of the building. And the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae defines the word as “is qui comoedias agit”. Barbarus confused this passage with another locus (6. This identification is unlikely.6] celebrat artificem Cratinum ex Aegira”. 8. the identity of the painter of the comedians and of the comic poet again entirely evaporates. The identity of the painter and the playwright collapses. between the Dipylon and the Sacred Gate. 44 But oddly enough the TLL adduces two passages of Isidorus. three years later as a lieutenant of the French cavalry he perished in the first month of the war. This edifice is well known. but he never uses it in this way.v.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. Brunn 1889. cf. H.4) where we read about another statue at Elis. Here he entirely misrepresented Pausanias who of Cratinus of Aigeira has this to say (in W. the author of Praeparatio Sophistica. Nowicka 1993. Maiuri 1933. applies it to Aristophanes (p.. He ingeniously explained it as the subscription under the portrait of Menander that graced the wall. KLdA 2001. and not to the third to which Brueckner assigned (rightly) Cratinus and Irene. i.45 But they should have read the small philological print. As LSJ puts it. But as it is hardly likely that Phrynichos invented that sense. 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. 107 (“Schauspieler für komische Rollen”). 220.849 hesitates.43). whether in Antigonos or Xenokrates. This brings the date of the painter down at least toward the end of the fourth century. 2. Diogenes the Cynic used to linger there (Diog. But the pompeion always remained a public hall. It was probably always very unlikely to assume in the pompeion a gallery of comic actors and not of poets. Vollkommer). Schefold 1943.22). The first editor of the inscription. the word may well have been present in that meaning in Pliny’s Hellenistic sources. we should expect that not only comic poets were honored but also tragedians. Croisille 1985. 2. 79 de Borries [Teubner 1911]). 34. at that time the name of Menander.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. “later”. Pfuhl 1923. 935d) speaks of tØn t«n kvmƒd«n proyum¤an he may be referring to poets and not actors (though LSJ hesitates to admit this sense). Still there were scholars who correctly. 1997. but only intuitively. accepted the term comoedos in the sense of comic poets: Rochette 1836. Laert. Thus beginning in the last quarter of the fourth century the pompeion was slowly transformed into a veritable museum of Athenian cultural history. without any philological analysis. he argued. 164.e.201 (“Darstellungen aus der Komödie”). 426 (R. 46 And perhaps it was used in this meaning already by Plato. This state of things finds an easy explication. A. . We know that a portrait of Isokrates was displayed there (Ps. in the second century of the Empire. 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.-Plut. 839c). Sellers and Jex-Blake 1896. 12–14) immediately connected that find with the testimony of Pliny. and not solely Isocrates but also other orators. Brueckner (1931. 365. 96 (“a peint des Comédiens”). 141 (“painted comic actors”). referring 45 Brunn 1889. originally probably executed in paint. 6. the word also denoted the comic poet: Phrynichos. so also Rackham 1952.46 Two epigraphical and archaeological discoveries make certain that Cratinus indeed painted the images of poets and not of actors. 117. 81.. Vitae decem orat. Reinach 1921. These discoveries were made practically simultaneously some seven decades ago at two distant points of the classical world. almost certainly painted by Cratinus. Laert. in the refurbishing of the pompeion in the second century. 1656. and also a bronze statue of Socrates moulded by Lysippus (Diog. Lippold 1922. 2. But with respect to the inscription itself Brueckner honestly indicated a chronological problem: judging by the lettering it belonged to the later second century. 221. König-Winkler 1997. was engraved on the plinth found by the excavators. 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. It was used for the distribution of grain (Dem.39. Isocr. When Plato (Nom. 173 (“peignit des comédiens”). also destroyed but preserved. 43–44. See the edition by M. and to recognize in the Pompeian portrait of Menander an imitation of Cratinus’ painting in the pompeion. We now move from pompeion to Pompei. apparently not very successful (but on the other hand Lord Byron too left his name inscribed on a temple column). 149 (= 1972. his torso bare. 1952. left wall” (i. mosaics and paintings) embraced this idea. 502–5) in one of his reports on the excavations in Italy to combine the two discoveries. 277–78. The ephebs will have received there cultural education.. 1. in small cursive black letters. 50. Ling 1991. quoted by Technau 1932. and the excellent discussion by Gigante 1979.49 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. XIVB where the location is confusingly indicated as “Exedra 23. 218). These particular scratchings belong to ca 123/22–119/18 (Brueckner 1931. also on the plinth bearing the name of Menander. 67. {Ling and Ling 2005. 132–37. but see Maiuri’s magisterial monograph 1933. at the feet in bright yellow paint the label: Menander. 50 Schefold 1957. the excellently preserved portrait of Menander in the house that was immediately dubbed Casa del Menandro. Ling 1997. 49 The inscription is in Latin. 14). pl. are discernible. We get a perfect symmetrical composition: originally three comic masks must have accompanied the portrait of Menander.106–21. a white robe covers his left shoulder and flows onto the knees and ankles.356 Historia et Philologia 94 to the year 337/6). 149 (= 1972.48 The poet is sitting in a chair. in which seven lines. is a group of three comic masks”. In his thorough study of Menander’s statues K. 121–23 at 122. Schefold 1957. 1952.51 It was reserved for Werner Technau (1932. die neben dem . The hordes of young men left their names scratched everywhere. 85–88}. 51 “Il ritratto di Menandro”. but he was not yet aware of Brueckner’s publication of the Menander inscription. 2.116–17. 502–5). 159. 48 Maiuri 1933.47 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.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. Ling 1991. pp. 1. and thus an original contribution of the Pompeian painter. 159 (“the right side of an exedra”). XII and XIII. through a slip of the pen or eye maintains that “on the adjacent wall. 43–44. Fittschen (in a rather hasty postsctript on the reliefs. Bolletino d’Arte 25 (1931) 248 (non vidi. and above all from about the middle of the second century it served as a place of education and training for the epheboi. Subsequent scholars were apparently not aware of Technau’s insight. In 1931 Amedeo Maiuri published a riveting artistic find. The portrait is located on the right wall in an exedra in the peristyle. In his left hand he holds a volumen.e. Surprisingly no discussion of ephebs in the pompeion in Pélékidis 1962. The most recent (and questionable) reconstruction of the inscription in Varone 2003. {The references are conveniently assembled in PCG VI 2 (1998). but cf. they are now missing.50 Maiuri referred with great ingenuity but only in passing to the paintings in the Athenian pompeion. Cf. of the peristyle). an ivy wreath adorns his head. 31. 54}. 35. 52 Fittschen 1991. test. 47–48. 218). pl. Della Corte in CIL IV 7350. He avers that “nach der antiken Überlieferung befanden sich im athenischen Pompeion Gemälde eines sonst unbekannten Malers Kratinos. but attributed it to Schefold.13–14. whether he also painted a portrait of Isocrates we do not know.53 In another recent study the painter of the portrait is identified with the painter of the Iphigenia in the Casa del Poeta Tragico. 1524. XIVB. the obituary by W. and “Craterus” is a textual ghost branded as “sine auctoritate in recentioribus editionibus” already by Brotier in 1779.D. 91. Nowicka 1993. 220: “wohl nach einem Gemälde eines um 280/70 v. A mosaic in Thuburbo Maius in Africa depicts a sitting poet. n. 16. 1527. 138. almost identical text already in 1943. 87. In a recent and authoritative treatment of the Roman painting the question of the original is not posed at all. the mantle does not cover the shoulder(s). although “the Menander portrait is an interesting accomplishment”. 4264–65).229. This is inaccurate: Cratinus is attested by Pliny as the painter of comoedi. To Schefold (1943. however. The mosaic portrait in Mytilene represents an entirely different tradition. 505). 131. he rather knew the general features of the poet from the sculpted heads}. but still not a Redner Isokrates auch einige Komodoi wierdergaben”. The goal of the book was. see Valpy 7. but the mantle covers the whole upper body. 164. Cf. and the poet holds in his hand a comic mask. von dem berichtet wird. she either implicitly rejects or is not aware of the attribution of the original of the Pompeian Menander to Cratinus. 164) Menander appeared on the painting very positively as a “junge vornehme . 340–41. and concludes that “il est donc probable que l’artiste local ait créé un portrait fictif dans une grande mesure”. 228. two comic masks sit on a table. Cf. 27–31. Technau assigned the (original) portrait “nach seinem Stil” to the second half of the third century. 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.The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 357 elusive. 53 Ling 1991. he wears an ivy wreath. with his torso bare. that the painter was working from a copy-book. 164–65. In his earlier study (1955. 17. 1525. He dates the portrait to the third quarter of 1st century A. He does not seem to have pursued the matter further. he perished in another great and useless war (cf. and with the (presumed) image of three comical masks on a table. 150) Richardson was quite critical of the painting. see Charitonidis-KahilGinouvès 1970. {the notice by W. Maiuri 1933. The painter is judged to be “comparatively undistinguished”. 129–46 at 144. entstandenen Gemäldes des sonst unbekannten Kratinos. 54 Richardson 2000. Dunbabin 1978.54 The original was probably more distinguished. 1997. not a scroll. reject the idea. Charitonidis . 42). the question of the ultimate source of the likeness of Menander is again not posed. solely to identify the painters according to their style and mannerisms. his time was consumed by academic obligations and regrettably also “im Dienste der Partei”. “also in die Lebenszeit des Kratinos” (1932. Chr.Kahil . n. 82–83: she stresses that “la ressemblance entre le portrait de Pompéi et les portraits sculptés est infime ou nulle”. he holds a scroll in his right (not left) hand. Cf. and in a few years (in 1941). essential for the view here presented. As she mentions Cratinus and his paintings in the pompeion (81). Gnomon 18 [1942] 334–36. Reinach before him (cf.1). We read only that “the features of Menander are sketchily indicated and bear no strong resemblance to the authenticated portraits in bronze and stone”. {Ling and Ling 2005. 29 (and pl. 2. the question of the originals did not lie within the scope of the study. Schefold 1943. 159 and pl. with the poet sitting. and its Pompeian copy to the period of the fourth style. 287–88 expunges Technau’s ideological views and political activity}). er habe Lustspieldichter im Pompeion von Athen gemalt” (he does not quote the articles of Brückner or Technau). and thought that it was probably based “on a sketch of a statue or a bust”. To this artist a variety of paintings in a plethora of locations are ascribed. Bieber 1961. the Pompeian painting appears to bear some weak resemblance to the Vatican (previously Lateran) and Princeton (previously Stroganoff) reliefs (cf. 116–17).Ginouvès 1970. Schiering in Archäologenbildnisse 1988. In these reliefs. like A. H. Schuchhardt. See Schefold 1997. Richter 1965. however. and figs. perhaps Menander. In its composition. 95 Dorandi. Clinton. MDAI(A) 106. cf. Amer. EMC 25. (ed. K. R. 1884.) 1949. I. the famous statue in the Dionysos theater in Athens.138). 1995a. 1–96. concerning objects of art (or literature). in seine inneren Gesichte versunkenen Dichter. 1: Die Statue des Menander”. The Letters of Alciphron. “Prolegomeni per una edizione dei frammenti di Antigono di Caristo”. Böttiger. “Germaine Greer and the female artists of Greece and Rome”. Soc. Fittschen 1991. and the theatre”. Histoire Naturelle. changeable and changing. W. Brueckner. {Fortenbaugh. Fahrendes Volk im Altertum (= SBAW Jg. V (Berolini). Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae Libri V (Lipsiae [Teubner]). (ed. H. Geschichte der griechischen Künstler2 1–2. “Zur Rekonstruktion griechischer Dichterstatuen. W. Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta III (Lipsiae). 2001. and White. Fröhner. J. W. S. Della Casa.Kahil. Philologus Supplementband 5. A. S. Bieber. 64. CAF = Kock. H. Benner. Aelian and Philostratus (Loeb Class.e. A. A. 3 [Philadelphia]). Opinions. C. Philos. T. (edd. RhM 138 (1995) 347–68. N. III.) 1925. Brunn. 1969. H. 1918. K. II. 1889. MDAI(A) 56. Ferri. Croisille. The mosaics of Roman North Africa: studies in iconography and patronage (Oxford). Kleine Schriften III2 (Leipzig). L. “Mitteilungen aus dem Kerameikos V”. 1961. CQ 51. 1970. 270–75].. Livre XXXV (Collection Budé [Paris]). Dunbabin. The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (= Trans. 1946. 243–79. F. ancient and modern. (ed. ZPE 106 (1995) 61–90.S. MH 51 (1994) 5–29. (eds.) 1873. W. 1918. esp. Charitonidis. 2nd ed. der Sinnend auf der grossen Kathedre sitzt”.) 1985. 1974. vol. Fifty years later the same romantic impression (1997. edited by R. lost and variously reconstructed. thaumaturgy. Detlefsen. K. Pline l’Ancien.358 Historia et Philologia masterpiece. 1999. Fittschen. and Fobes. C. D. and this fluidity is in itself an interesting subject of reflection. Heft 1. 1931.) 1888. Storia delle arti antiche (Roma). R. 1995b. S. The history of the Greek and Roman theater. (Princeton).} Baldwin. 1978. Antigone de Caryste (Paris)}. 1981. Barwick. {———. . 18–20. A. 1850. 1–32. Blümner.) 2004. . 599–603. B. Il Dubius Sermo di Plinio (Genova). T. Plinio il Vecchio. (Stuttgart).-M. Plinii Secundi Naturalis historia. 1991. Dickie. Porträts und Kurzbiographien von klassischen Archäologen deutscher Sprache. Dichter”. Abh. Lullies and W. Les mosaïques de la maison du Ménandre à Mytilène (Bern). M.Ginouvès. . C. 220): “Die Auffassung ist erstaunlich verschieden von der der Statue [i. vornehmen. M. 1994. 6 [München]). REFERENCES: {Archäologenbildnisse 1988 = Archäologenbildnisse. “Kritische Analekten”. A. are of course not to be taken too seriously: they are mere impressions. MA]). Library [London and Cambridge. Lyco of Troas and Hieronymus of Rhodes (New Brunswick)}. Schiering (Mainz). (ed. “Mimes. This squares well with the opinion of Pliny (and his Greek mentors): he classified Cratinus among those painters who were primis proximi (NH 35. Sie verklärt die Erinnerung an den jungen. Soc. vol.) 1927. Keil (1880). Landucci Gattinoni. 1933. Immisch. vol. Kaibel.The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 359 Geyer. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. 3 (Lipsiae [Teubner]). The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. RE 22.) Apulei Platonici Madaurensis Metamorphoseon libri XI. vols. Ä.1–2 (Rome). I: The Structures (Oxford). 2 edited by M. Athenaeus. with a preface and Supplementary Bibliography 1897–1975 by R. Duride di Samo (Roma). 1933. 1. 1656. 1988. W. 940–42. Athenaei Naucratitae Deipnosophistarum libri XV. 1987. 1979. (ed. C. 2 (1994). vol. and Winkler. “Die Kalypso des Nikias”. 1. vol. commentary and historical introduction by Sellers [There exist reprints by Ares Publishers. R. in A. Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli epitome (Lipsiae [Teubner]). Jones. Roman Painting (Cambridge). 1. Helm. vol. F. G. 1954. Plastik. See PCG}. . Hug. Die Quellen der Kunstgeschichte des Plinius (Berlin). The Deipnosophists. A. RE Suppl. vols. 1986. W. 5 (Loeb Class. RE Suppl. Mutschler (eds. vol. ed. H.-H. GL = Grammatici Latini ex rec. “Kriterien für die Latinitas bei Varro und Quintilian”. {Lullies. W. vols. 1997. 1985. 1567–68. M. 7. 1890-97. Lindsay. 1989. the series and vols. Buch XXXV (München). Malerei und Kunsthandwerk der Griechen vom vierten bis zum zweiten Jahrhundert (= Grazer Beiträge. Kalkmann. LGPN = A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names. Gigante. Keili. Schriftquellen zur hellenistischen Kunst. ed. Schoder]. 1997. 1922. Supplementband IV [Horn–Graz])}. Vol. 1991. The Elder Pliny’s chapters on the history of art (London). [G]. C. “Kalypso”. and Austin. R. ———. V. Translation by Jex-Blake. 1935. Matthews. 1–2. A. {Kassel. Osborne and S. 750–57. Lucas. F. 2 (München). 1. sec. Haltenhoff and F. Vol. 3A (1997). Hosius. 1890. 2000. Fraser and E. 1935. The Insula of the Menander at Pompeii. 1931 (ed. “Histiaia”.2. See Archäologenbildnisse. Civiltà delle forme letterarie nell’antica Pompei (Napoli). 1898. S. C. 2: Prisciani Institutorum Grammaticarum libri XVIII ex rec. and L.). 1924. A. of the Amer. B.). 3 (Lipsiae [Teubner]). Byrne (Oxford).) 1887. Public organization in Ancient Greece: a documentary study (Mem. G. (edd. II: The Decorations (Oxford)}. 54–59. 1927. B. Ausfürliches Lexikon der Griechischen und Römischen Mythologie (Roscher) 2. Gulick. “Kratinos 6”. J. Chicago 1967 and 1976. 4. H. R. 1976. E. JÖAI 32. Kroll. MA]). 6.} Maiuri. Plinius Secundus d. 3A and 3B edited by P. 1896. 1913 (ed. 1278–82. 3B (2000). Lippold. N. Das Pompeion und seine Nachfolgebauten (= Kerameikos. vol. ed. 1940. (ed. M. {Grebe. O. W. Vollkommer (MünchenLeipzig). vol. Jex-Blake. Festschrift für Hans Arnim Gärtner 191–210 (Heidelberg)}. RE 11. Philos. X [Berlin]). K. 2005. 176 [Philadelphia 1987]). Library [London and Cambridge. Geschichte der römischen Literatur. La casa del Menandro e il suo tesoro di argenteria. and Schiering. M. “Yaumatopoio¤”. 1 (1987). ed. “Praestigiator”. Hortus Litterarum Antiquarum. Naturkunde. {Ling. and Sellers. Bd. C. M. vol. Ling. König. 1997. R. {Herbert. by R.) 1978. Hertzii (Lipsiae 1855). G. Hoepfner. KLdA 2001 = Künstlerlexikon der Antike. R. R. F. (ed. C. Chicago 1981. Vol.). Hermes 30. Recueil Milliet. B. Münzer. (ed. Austin (edd. A. G. Pliny. 1880. ———. III–IV (1979) (Patavii). Textes grecs et latines relatifs à l’histoire de la peinture ancienne (Paris). La sculpture grecque. 1951. The Portraits of the Greeks. LIMC 5. 1977. G. E. vol.1. Princeton University: Greek originals. Demeter und Persephone (Hamburg). vol. J. ———. RE 2. “Kalypso”. 9 (Loeb. Pélékidis. M. Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon (Leipzig). 3. Natural History. {Muller-Dufeu. W. 2832–34. 1921.1 [Bruxelles]). II (1974). C. 96 Pozzi. M. 1962. 1994. Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den Griechen (Leipzig). 2000. A. F. Pompeii: The Casa dei Dioscuri and its painters (= Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 23 [Rome]).360 Historia et Philologia Mau. OMS = Opera Minora Selecta. Class. Overbeck. Poetae Comici Graeci . Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes. 499–547. R. 1938. Richardson. 1896. C.) 1897. M. vol. ———. A catalogue of identifiable figure painters of ancient Pompeii. vol. C. vol. Richter. Greek sculpture in the Art Museum. Nowicka. (ed. 2 (1969) (Amsterdam). Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. Reinach. Mayhoff. Malerei und Zeichnung der Griechen. Auflage (Braunschweig). 945–48. 1940. “Zur Kunstgeschichte des Plinius”. MA and London]). G. 1 (Limoges). . Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius (Berlin). Old age among the ancient Greeks. Peintures antiques inédites. Rochette. (and others). Nachtergael. and Stabiae (Baltimore and London). and Benseler. W. 1836. B. 1993. “Ballspiel”. Pfuhl.) Hermolai Barbari Castigationes Pliniane et in Pomponium Melam. L. vol. vols. 2 (London). Library [Cambridge. Rafn. The Greek portrayal of old age in literature. Histoire de l’éphebie attique (Paris). VI 2 (1998) (Berlin)}. Sources littéraires et épigraphiques (Paris)}. 1911. vols. Le portrait dans la peinture antique (Varsovie). Kassel and C. E. 1897. L. 2002. B. {PCG = R. L. 1965. Hellenica. 1990. Roman copies and variants (Princeton). Herculaneum. ———. art and inscriptions (Baltimore). Études de numismatique grecque (Paris). A. vol. 1900. Robert. 1. Oehmichen. 1837. vols. Plinianische Studien zur geographischen und kunsthistorischen Literatur (Erlangen). 1–3 (München). G. E. Ridgway. G. Études épigraphiques et philologiques (Paris). H.) 1952. Recueil d’inscriptions grecques (Bruxelles). ———. Recherches d’histoire et d’épigraphie hellénistique. 1933. 1895. précédées de recherches sur l’emploi de la peinture dans la décoration des édifices sacrés et publics chez les Grecs et chez les Romains (Paris). Pökel. Richardson. jr. S. Michel. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri XXXVII. 1923. V (1986). I (1973). [In the reprint of Ares Publishers. 5: libri XXXI–XXXVII (Lipsiae [Teubner]). the indication Recueil Milliet is inexplicably missing from the title]. 1882. Mémoires de la Classe des Lettres 63. 1868. (Académie Royale de Belgique. Pape. Preller. 1955. Rackham. Rostock 1938 [Würzburg]). Persons of Ancient Athens. E. vol. 1 (Lipsiae). Servii Grammatici quae feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii. M. Pompejanische Malerei (Basel). F. 1985. A. Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen. A.) Menander. Bechtel. Stocker. J. vol. M. 1997. A. 1854. Schmidt. Valpy. W.) 1905. ———. 2003. Schefold. Ancient Sicyon with a prosopographia Sicyonia (Baltimore). J. A.) 1878.) 1851. [J. 247 [Leiden-Boston])}. Introduction. K. E. J. J. C. in G. Collitz and (later) by F.) 47. M. Warmington. (edd. Thèmes odysséens dans l’art antique (Paris). 1 and 2 [Basel]). C. I. Vons. dos. Sillig. vol. Schepers. See Jex-Blake. Édition revue et augmentée (Bruxelles). D. I–III (Stuttgart). L’image de la femme dans l’oeuvre de Pline l’Ancien (= Collection Latomus 256 [Bruxelles]). Catalogus artificum (Dresdae et Lipsiae). Stephanis [Sthfanhw]. (ed. 1972. Valpy). 5 (Hamburgi et Gothae). Technau. ———. Wilamowitz-Moellendorf. 1952. individual sections compiled by various authors (Göttingen). C. Dionusiako‹ texn›tai. H.) 1936. 10 (Toronto). vols. 2001. 1938. 187–89. “Gli abitanti della casa”. M. JDAI (Arch. Sellers. O. C. 1968. Wegner. Die Wände Pompejis (Berlin). ———. Antigonos von Karystos (Berlin). 1881. Solin. notis variorum [they are taken “ex editione Gronoviana”.The Paintress Calypso and Other Painters in Pliny 361 Rouveret. Euphrosyne 4. Le peinture pompéienne. U. Iulius Romanus. Ein Namenbuch (Berlin). H. Didymi Chalcenteri grammatici Alexandrini fragmenta quae supersunt omnia (Lipsiae). S. 2000. Redner und Denker (ed. A. {Varone. 1957. {Schenkenveld. E. corrigenda. the collection edited by H. 1996. 1896. 3 (Oxonii). Remains of Old Latin. Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom. (ed. compléments bibliographiques to the reprint of Reinach 1921 (Paris). Servianorum in Vergilii carmina commentariorum Editionis Harvardianae. Introduction to the Liber De Adverbio (Mnemosyne Suppl. H. Alciphronis Epistulae (Lipsiae [Teubner]). 1827. vol. 502–5. Library [London]). 1943. Italien”. . 1970. addenda. H. Ludguni Batavorum 1668] (Londini 1826. 2004. Das Ballspiel der Römer (Diss. “Archäologische Funde. vols. Ein Namenbuch. 2 (Loeb Class. 1928. ———. A. Traill. curante et imprimente A. E. (ed. 1997. SGDI = Sammlung der Griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften. 1932. Skalet. variis lectionibus. La casa del Menandro di Pompei 45–55 (Milano)}. A Rhetorical Grammar.) 1965.]. Sumbol¢w stØn prosvpograf¤a toË yeãtrou ka‹ tØw mousik∞w t«n érxa¤vn ÑEllÆnvn (Herakleion). von. Thilo. and Travis. Die Bildnisse der antiken Dichter. 6. ———. 1982. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri XXXVII. Touchefeu-Meynier. Santos Palma. (ed. I. Stefani (ed. Anz. G. 1988. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libri XXXVII ex editione Gabrielis Brotier cum notis et interpretatione in usum Delphini. 1826. “Nota sobre o nome Calypso”. G. W. Oden und Epoden3. 587) quotes Horace. 4) this passage and Sat. the first day of the Saturnalia. Berlin 1898. wo das Opfer des porcus den Laren galt”. Bruxelles 1970. lucerninas. 272. The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic.3. and among those strenae prominent were the lamps. Mariotti. Champlin. and in particular. Q. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton libri. but perceptively observed that XVI Kal. So also. Gowers.17. 274 ad loc. Leipzig 1886. Thus sub die XVI kal. 71–72. lucerninas1. Horatius Flaccus.164–65: inmolet aequis / hic porcum laribus. Ueber Geschenke und Glückwünsche zum römischen Neujahrfest in “RhM” 130.71: Iste tibi faciet bona Saturnalia porcus4. Buecheler-Heraeus. First of all we read in the poem Officia duodecim mensium the following verse about December (Ant. This was the day on which gifts were traditionally exchanged. But the passages of Horace have nothing to do with the Saturnalia. by G. Oxford 1993. Strenarum commercium..14–16: cras genium mero / curabis et porco bimenstri / cum famulis operum solutis. M. 269. P. 490a [olim 763] 12. Kalendae Lucerninae in “RCCM” 20. Representations of Food in Roman Literature. On the lucernae as the NewYear’s gift. Lat. Wissowa). as the mention of genius demonstrates. On the Testamentum. Kiessling and R. {E. 44. Leipzig 1885. and this date for the death of porcellus squares exquisitely with Martial 14. . Heinze.17. 1021–25. He comments on porcus: “Der gewöhnliche Festbraten . its literary genre and its social ambience. 78. 27. 2.. see also M.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. W. The expression kalendae lucerninae has long intrigued scholars.22 (ed. 3. The Testament of the Piglet in “Phoenix” 41. Carm. the lucernae3. is confused. Lucerninas will refer to the first day of the Saturnalia. Riese): More sues proprio mactat December 106 * 1 2 3 4 Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 39 (1997 [1998]) 105–107 {with minor addenda}. ed. Römische Staatsverwaltung III (2nd ed. London 1899. Marquardt.. 1978. This was also the last day of his life2. juxtaposing Martial and Horace.10–11: ductus sub die XVI kal. Testamentum porcelli. 1987. missed the article by Mariotti. Berlin 1912).14–16 refers to the celebration of the master’s birthday: it is for that reason that the servants are operum soluti. In an erudite article Italo Mariotti has ingeniously established that this description refers to the kalends of January. 41–42. L. but a convincing solution was offered only in 1978. 174–83. This was well seen by A. 3. Friedländer’s note ad loc. lucerninas will correspond to 17 December. The Loaded Table. in addition to the sources and literature quoted by Mariotti (notes 20–26). Carm. see now the excellent study by E. Now for the sacrifice of porcus at the Saturnalia Marquardt (p. 17 December}. Fowler. La fête des kalendes de janvier dans l’empire romain (“Collection Latomus”. and for the sacrifice of the porcus to the Lares he adduces (p. 1–28 at 20–21. In support of these statements he adduces J. Mariotti’s discovery finds support in further literary evidence. 128. published as an appendix to Petronii Saturae5. Baudy. 1987 [1988]. Meslin. 115). I. namentlich auch an den Saturnalien. 268. n. D. p. The Roman Months in Art and Literature in “Mus. it was their blood. is Ioannes Lydus. 174. 1988. so Stern argues. In October there is time sues lucis inducere . p.. Salzman.. Wandalbertus Prumiensis (IXth century) in his De mensium duodecim nominibus signis culturis aerisque qualitatibus6 follows the fate of pigs from October to December. 10 Stern. see the erudite argument by E. pp. 33–57 at 36. 7 Ibid. Le calendrier 207–10. ˜yen ka‹ nËn fulãttetai katå tÚn Dek°mbrion ≤ xoirosfag¤a. p. The theme also appears in early medieval poems on the menses.. also of the ninth century. G. In the reliefs on the so-called Porte de Mars in Reims the slaughter of pigs is attributed. / Horridus effuso saepe cruore madet9. Berolini 1884.158. Salisb. Berkeley 1990. Courtney. masterfully collected and analyzed by Henri Stern. n. On Roman Time. Wuensch): ofl d¢ gevrgiko‹ prÚw yerãpeian KrÒnou ka‹ DÆmetrow ¶sfatton xo¤rouw. Paris 1953. 46–48. dates this poem (with a query) to the fifth century... In another poem8 we read: Decidua porcos pascit quia glande Novimber. 3.2 (1981).9–11 (ed. ed. Poetae Latini Aevi Carolini 2. Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique”. Le Calendrier de 354. 1441–46 at 1445.” 45. / Porcorumque greges silvis consuescere faetis. one of the Carmina Salisburgensia. 208. 5 .. LV). 141–85 at 146–49) opted for a Carolingian dating. / Maturo hibernum ut frangant tempore glandem (lines 297–98). This is doubtful.. nominibus 317–18: Tunc et apros silvis cura est quam maxima duros / Quaerere et ex luco canibus producere nigro. 286-294. prius salis fuerint cum sparsa madore (lines 357–60). to the month of November10. XI). Next. 9 As the porci are still alive (to be slaughtered only in December) the cruor must be of some other animal. Wandalbertus Prumiensis. Étude sur son texte et sur son illustrations (“Institut Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth. Das lateinische Epigramm im Uebergang von der Spätantike zum frühen Mittelalter. 431–75 at 452. E. 9. Bruxelles 1962. München 1968. / Glande sues reduci pastos pastore Decimber / Rimatur fibris.. the Ydioma mensium singulorum7. The Roman Months 36. 6 Monumenta Germaniae Historica. vol. 646 (Carm.Finis Porcelli 363 adultas5. 644–45. Duemmler. Still more to the point. Helv. we have iconographical representations of menses. for Kronos-Saturnus is mentioned. See on those poems Courtney.” 45. Arch. but in a later article (Poésies et représentations carolingiennes et byzantines des mois in “Rev. 8 Ibid. 1955. in November Prodest . and for December: Tunc quoque de silva porci mactantur obesi (line 47). This is surprising: in November pigs were still being fattened foraging in oak H. / Dum pinguem vento tribuit quassante ruinam / Quercus dumque nemus glandis vestitur honore (lines 313–16).4. See also his articles Le cycle des mois de la Porte de Mars à Reims in “Hommages à Albert Grenier” (“Collection Latomus” LVIII). Stern. The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. De mensium . 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. see M. records for November: Tunc alit in silva porcos bene saepe subulcus (line 43). Now in November the apri were hunted.12. Stern tentatively dates the reliefs to the first part of the third century. For an updated list of calendar cycles. 604–16. Quite similarly. Cf. 269–72. sordet et obsonio (lines 21–24). Les calendriers romains illustrés in “ANRW” II. and plate XXXVIII. Bernt. De mensibus IV. n. In a Carolingian cycle of months. . Le calendrier 208. the miniatures illustrating the Carmina Salisburgensia. Poésies et représentations 143. 9 See above. 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. whereas December “brandit un grand couteau pour tuer l’animal”12. November is represented “comme un pâtre qui tient un porc”. XVI kal. a fateful day for the porcellus. may begin.d. cf. 149. a. 9. 10 Stern. The miniatures are reproduced in Stern.364 Historia et Philologia 106 forests. Now the Saturnalia. lucerninas. Borsari veröffentlicht (Notizie degli Scavi 1901. Solin 196. doch bin ich versucht. In Nomentum. wurden sie zuerst von L. das die sogenannten lateralen Konsonanten aufwies. entdeckt. Assimilation ist eine gute Antwort. Audollent in seine Defixionum Tabellae (Paris 1904) aufgenommen worden. Dessau. 430}. Nun bemerkt Solin (der die Gelegenheit hatte das Täfelchen im römischen Thermenmuseum im Original nachzuprüfen): “der dritte Buchstabe scheint in seinem heutigen Zustand eher ein L zu sein”. eine andere Erklärung vorzuschlagen. wie diese Form erklärt werden kann. Siehe auch AE 1993 [1996]. Für den kleinasiatischen und ägäischen Raum. 207–10). einer latinischer Stadt. J. . der Laut wurde von den i. Borsari 3 A = Audollent 135 A (S. verstehe ich nicht. Und er fragt sich: “Wenn melilas gelesen werden sollte. siehe etwa H. d = sab. Arctos 23 (1989) 195–200 {nachgedruckt in H. er ist letzten Endes (wie es scheint) auf die Wirkung eines vorindoeuropäischen Substrats zurückzuführen. und sind dann mit einigen Verbesserungen von A. in Zeile 8 erscheint. senza risalire piú indietro”. Sie kommt zum folgenden Schluss (S. l]. und weiter: “I Latini. 518): “Forse i Sabini piú di altri popoli della penisola mantennero vivo il fenomeno”. betrachtet merilas als “la forme ancienne du mot. Solin auf die nomentanischen Fluchtafeln zu sprechen1. zwischen ossu(m) und venter (= ventrem).-e. LEW 2 (1954) 58–59. die Rätselhafte Bezeichnung merilas. Einwanderern als d oder als l interpretiert. Der Wandel d/l (oder l/d) ist in einem weiten Raum von Indien bis Spanien (auch in Italien) gut bezeugt3. 106 * 1 2 3 Glotta 71 (1993 [1994]) 203–204 {mit bibliographischen Addenda}. Nach einer älteren Arbeit von Conway hat besonders Maria Grazia Bruno diese Frage gründlich behandelt4. die vom Fluch getroffen werden sollten. Das Wort wurde von verschiedenen Gelehrten überzeugend als medullas gedeutet (mit vulgärlateischem Wandel von d zu r)2. MSL 15 (1908–9) 366–67.29 ZUM WANDEL D/L: MEDULLA / MELILA* In seinen neuen (und wie immer anregenden) Analecta epigraphica kommt H. wo er den hier vorliegenden Aufsatz notiert. in base al confronto fra i loro termini e quelli corrispondenti dei Sabini [lt. ILS 8751. Vendryes. 196). conservée en Italie même dans la langue populaire”. Kronasser. Solin. cf. 4. Etymologie der hethitischen Sprache 1 (Wiesbaden 1962) 61–64. Analecta Epigraphica 1970–1997 (= Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 21 [Roma 1998]) 315–19 und 407. Auf diese merkwürdige Erscheinung hatten schon die römischen Antiquare und Grammatiker ihre Aufmerksamkeit gelenkt: sie präsentieren sie vornehmlich als eine Besonderheit der sabinischen Sprechweise. 191–92) enthält eine lange Aufzählung verschiedener Körperteile. als eine Art Fernassimilation?” (S. ritennero il fenomeno peculiare sabino. Walde-Hofmann. Anm. 4 5 6 7 R. “noto a Varrone ‘sabino’ e ai suoi interlocutori. Varro erklärt die Form melica wie folgt (RR 3. Literatur und Kunst. Livre III (Collection Budé [Paris 1997]) 89 “Cela fait penser au flottement de type d/l dans dingua/lingua.(illo-). Marcus Terentius Varro.in medulla versus -l. wie dem auch sein mag. postea propter similitudinem amplae omnes” (vgl. G. Guiraud. Économie rurale.in melila. quod antiqui ut Thetim Thelim dicebant. Buch 3 (Darmstadt 2002) 249: “dass die Römer die Verschlusslaute d und t mit dem Fliesslaut l verwechselten. I Sabini e la loro lingua. Gespräche über die Landwirtschaft. Kl. und mit Recht.9.19): “ad hanc rem electis maximis gallinis. IF 2 (1893) 157–63. 1. ist für unsere Zwecke das Wort melica besonders wichtig. die den Wandel d/l aufweisen7. On the change of D to L in Italic. beobachtete er [Varro] als Sprachwissenschaftler”. Dieser Vokalismus “pourrait s’expliquer par la fréquence du suffixe -illa. Graeca Italica (Brescia 1983) 39–47. Medullas / meli(l)as (wenn richtig gelesen) ordnet sich also in die Reihe der “sabinischen” oder volksprachlichen Wörter ein. f. nec continuo his. Berlin. dacruma/lacruma. und siehe auch die Ausführungen von V. quae ex Medica propter magnitudinem erant adlatae quaeque ex iis generatae. Diese Entwicklung kann aber ebensogut vulgärlateinisch wie “sabinisch” sein5. 199–200) gegen die geläufige Datierung des Textes in die spätere Kaiserzeit. da es ganz exakt die vorgeschlagene Entwicklung medulla / melil(l)a illustriert. quas m e l i c a s appellant falso.v. M. seht gut vorstellbar. 3) 58–62. odor/oleo”. 515). Flach. Ernout-Meillet. der wahrscheinlich gegen Ende der Republik oder in der frühen Kaiserzeit6 von einem Sklaven oder Freigelassenen in Nomentum (“nahe dem sabinischen Gebiet”. Selbst in unserem Fluchtext lesen wir capilo. quasi tutti ‘sabini’”. Vendryes (366) sieht hier kein Problem. Sprachen.} Für diesen Zeitansatz zwingend Solin (195. 512–26. Bruno bemerkt (S. Festus (Paulus) 111 L. Conway. DELL3 (1951) 702. Medica2. Giacomelli. betont Solin) verfasst worden ist. D. dass es sich um einen Ausdruck “degli agricoltori” handelt. Hae primo dicebantur. Väänänen 61–62). die den Wandel d/l aufweisen.63 (mit Literatur). sic M e d i c a m M e l i c a m vocabant. Siehe auch R. Walde-Hofmann.366 Historia et Philologia Aus dem von Bruno aufgestellten Corpus der lateinisch-italischen Wörter. ist eine phonetische Erscheinung dieser Art in einem vulgären Fluchtext. RIL 95 (1961) bes. . Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes3 (Abh.). für inschriftliche Belege siehe die Indices von ILS (III. b) der Vokalismus medulla versus melil(l)a. Ganz abwegig OLD 1088 s. Varron. mamilas und mamila . Anm. {Vgl. LEW 2. notamment dans des noms de parties du corps” (Vendryes 367. Zwei weitere Probleme sollen noch berücksichtigt werden (für freundliche Hinweise bin ich Herrn Professor Klaus Strunk sehr dankbar): a) Die Gemination -ll. da die Einfachschreibung der Geminata eine Erscheinung von vulgärlateinischen Schreibweise (und wie es scheint auch Sprechweise) ist. 802–3). 1958. Väänänen. auch C. 2. vgl. Bruno. III HISTORIA ET EPIGRAPHIA . . and 665}. Epigraphica 52 (1990) 85–96 = Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 396–406. 1–6) and 8. 5.30 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY: PART 2* SUPPLEMENTA ITALICA. Pisaurum. No. “Il bollo dell’officina falisca di Tito Veltureno in un inedito frammento di patera a vernice nera”. 1. 7. . Vol. The first three volumes of Supplementa Italica were reviewed in JRA 3 (1990) 313–20 {= RQ 407–14. cf. 1991). 9 they will be analyzed in this Journal by J. MRR = T. Forma = F. 475–508 (Hildesheim 1994). P. I take leave of them with regret and relief: beginning with vol. Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains 1–4 (Louvain 1895. 71. * Journal of Roman Archaeology 11 (1998) 458–484 {with minor addenda and corrections}. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 1–2 (NewYork 1951–52). Van Wonterghem. Van Wonterghem. Bodel (see JRA 11 [1998] 485–98). 31. regio IV: SuperaequumCorfinium–Sulmo (Firenze 1984). see G. Waltzing. 1990.} I follow the format adopted in the first installment. Vol. Zimmer. 7 (containing extensive indices to vols. reprinted below. editio nova (or rather reprint of ed. 1900). pp. VOL. 313. ICI 6 (1989) 199–207 (nos. NUOVA SERIE. For Christian inscriptions. 621). ICI = Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae septimo saeculo antiquiores (Bari).} Solin-Salomies. Waltzing. First it behooves to provide a few addenda to vols. S. Solin – O. 6. AE 1994 [1997]. 1899. Salomies. Forma Italiae. 2. Velitrae. I present here. 3 (Atlanta 1986). see now a detailed study by J. Binazzi. Di Stefano Manzella. 237. R. to be dated to the end of the third century (cf. {And also see the retractatio in JRA 13 (2000) 562. Repertorium = H. Abbreviations: Broughton. 4. 1. L’Abruzzo e il Molise in età romana tra storia ed epigrafia 1–2 (paginated consecutively) (L’Aquila 2002). For a reviewer they are exciting and demanding companions. 261. Falerii Novi. 1896. Buonocore. Pp. the series is well and healthy: so far fifteen volumes have appeared. regretfully magno temporis intervallo. despite early clouds. Berufsdarstellungen = G. But I am happy to observe that. and 665 (addenda). On the expression certis calendis. Römische Berufsdarstellungen (Berlin 1982). 1991. 5. in Epigrafia della produzione e distribuzione (Roma 1994) 241–55. 133–35). 8 (Edizioni Quasar. “Certis Calendis”. Linderski. {L’Abruzzo = M. No. A most interesting new find: I. 622. Corporations = J. an analysis of volumes 4. Zimmer. 1989. 343. Repertorium Nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum. Epigrafia = Epigrafia. 6. Rome 1988. Actes du colloque en mémoire de Attilio Degrassi (Rome 1991). 1988) with addenda. Broughton. 228. 1–3. however. 145 are to be attributed to Corfinium.370 Historia et Epigraphia Vada Sabatia.6. 8 (1891). M. see now G. and we acquire the two companions of Lucilia Calybe. There is also a Greek inscription. contributed after the death of Calybe the impensa for the monument.3227a should belong to Sulmo. Now linguistic clarity rules. gone is also the presumptive son of the deceased (C. 4–8. more than fifty percent. AE 1990 [1993]. Petiedius Stephanio). in Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 49–59 at 50. Solin. 4 (1988) Vol. first with a contubernalis (the very Lucilius Ichimenus). Epigraphica 59 (1997) 241–50 (5 texts). and a supplement (7 texts) in Eph. Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 98–99}. Buonocore. Tegianum. This avidly disputed text has now been again reviewed by M. 5–6). Ital. also C. n. on the other hand 9. No. Vol. 61. 231. Ep. are now irretrievable. 11–106: SULMO (Regio IV. 569. H. It was inscribed in the tribus Sergia. Buonocore. and was governed by a board of quattuorviri. who had already published a number of contributions dealing with the Paelignian area. 1993 [1996]. n. {See now a new supplement by Buonocore in Suppl. A full collection of Christian inscriptions in ICI 9 (1995) 55–71 (nos. Coccoluto. 5. Buonocore. Locri. New inscriptions: AE 1992 [1995].141. both of whom. Genua. 4. 17. pp. ICI 9 (1995) 72–85 (nos. though Solin tries to prevent a happy ménage à trois. Corfinium. In his historical introduction (17–24) it is interesting to note that the city was urbanistically completely restructured after it became a municipium in 89. This was a bothersome text. Sabina et Samnium) by Mario Buonocore. 328–32. 25–32). As a result CIL 9. Ep. Mennella and G. VOL. Ora a Luna ad Genuam. Angeli–Bertinelli and A. traces this epigraphical and archaeological progress (and loss) vividly and with a sure hand. In addition to Latin inscriptions . Of these texts 46. 46. Mommsen (71 texts and 7 falsae). 9.). dis iuvantibus. the patria of Ovid. AE 1992 [1995]. and opts for a succession of happy amores of Lucilia. Buonocore proposes important corrections to the delimitation of the territory of Sulmo with respect to Corfinium. 8. Donati (eds. ingeniously reads in lines 11–12 impensa facta{m} <a> coniuge utroque meo (in place of Paci’s and Buonocore’s [p]ro\que n\a\to). ITAL. No.C”. For Christian inscriptions. were published in CIL 9 (1883) by T. Buonocore. Lucilius Ichimenus).2408. With nato gone. in the land of Paeligni. And now. 3. Pani. In lines 5–6 he now reads utei pecuniam (followed by a triangular punctuation) a / populo pageis retribueret. The inscriptions from Sulmo (Sulmona in the province of L’Aquila). 459 SUPPL. 5–6). 313–14. Christian texts now in M. ibid. as originally. and not. Letta. 33–39). Arctos 24 (1990) 121–24 {= Analecta Epigraphica (Roma 1998) 335–37}. Christian inscriptions in G. IG 14. and then with a husband (T. retribueren\[t]. “Problemi di amministrazione paganico-vicana nell’Italia repubblicana del I secolo A. Cf. Cf. ICI 5 (1987) 9–11 (nos. ICI 3 (1986) 10 (nos. onward to Vols. and also his handy aggiornamento of inscriptiones falsae vel alienae in G. 22 (2004) 95–105.3121a and Eph. / Precario itur. Buonocore adduces the opinion of Van Wonterghem. non turpes. “May you fare so well that your enemies distrust themselves”. Ancient Society 19 [1988] 99–100. hence an eques (like Ovid and his father). no. Arruntius Issus and Arruntia Asia to their son Matinus. 2. Forma 229. and almost certainly a relative of the poet. do not distrust . This woman will not be. Sed eas mulieres esse oportet firmas. sed casis repentinis imbres vitant. a marvellous discussion of the onomastics. Van Wonterghem. Asiaticus. observe. and occasional improved readings to the stones still extant. but with respect to those pastores who in saltibus sunt et silvestribus locis pascunt et non villa. Another reference to transhumance may hide in 9. the carter’s wife. and who finds this “prohibition” analogous to the one expressed in CIL 9. and many others.1831 = ILLRP 489: Via inferior / privatast / T. Devijver and F. iis mulieres adiungere. ut hostes vestri diffidant sibi. The loss of CIL 9. Ovidius L.10. but sibi was accepted by Buecheler and Degrassi.6–7: 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 fellow–slaves (conservae).38). The old supplement is diffidat [sibi]. f. Pani. Grelle. and a woman.1776 = CLE 184 = ILLRP 975. 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.471 = I2. Morizio (the editor of the stone from Canosa). CIL 9. Ser(gia) Ventrio who was tr(ibunus) mil(itum) and praef(ectus) fabrum. It is a funerary inscription of L. It was found in the locality of Introdacqua. Canosa romana [Roma 1993] 97–100). it was used to corral recalcitrant or stray animals). see the list on pp. quae sequantur greges ac cibaria pastoribus expediant eosque adsiduiores faciant. Only one Christian inscription: G. these two epitaphs are eloquent testimonies to the contacts between the land of the Paeligni and Apulia (Daunia). ICI 3 (1986) 8–9 (no. a loaded cart with a carter.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 371 Sulmo produced also a crop of 19 Paelignian texts. but rather one of those female companions of whom Varro writes at de re rust.3128 = I2. plostru(m) / niquis agat. and it is in this area that we have to search for Ovid’s rura paterna (Am. Buonocore provides for the “old” texts ample bibliography. Buecheler (in CLE) aptly compares the last line (82) in the prologue to Plautus’ Rudens: valete. f. This is bad understanding of Latin driven by obsessive preoccupation with economy and transhumance. / Pecus. Umbreni C. dated to the second century). “Dialectical” texts are excluded from Suppl. As both Buonocore and V. but fortunately it is the editorial policy to “signal” them. for instance: “I warn men. Diffidere does not equal agere (not to speak of pecus agere!). As usual. Mommsen was diffident (he considered suis or deo). 4). 2. 22–23. Ital. with a relief showing a shepherd with his flock. leaning upon a curved stick (identified as pedum by H. Our inscription yields a pleasing sense.3113 is an epitaph set up by M.. The inscription itself reads [––– ho]mines ego moneo nequei diffidat [–––].3082 will be bemoaned by all students of Ovid who are aware of stones. utile arbitrati multi.16. as Rostovtzeff (see below) kindly supposes. 78. according to whom the inscription “sembra contenere un divieto”. the same parents bury another son. in Canusium (Le epigrafi romane di Canosa 1 [Bari 1990] 112. Guarducci (in Scritti sul mondo antico in memoria di Fulvio Grosso [Roma 1981] 229–34). Champeaux. In times of need or danger people had offered vows to him. and he extends those blessings (felixque patet) to the faithful. In lines 2–3: spectat / nam debita solvere vota. Jourdain–Annequin (eds. 2. Linderski. see most recently. so far only 17 lost. a conjunction that has in Roman life been so many times replayed on great battlefields and in pious hearts (on this ideology and belief. J. but of special importance are the graffiti (nos. “blessed”. 5–35) discovered in the sanctuary (to be dated to the period of one hundred years spanning the two eras). of divine blessing and success. – undoubtedly V(ictor). 10}). now also L’Abruzzo 178. Scipio Imperator”. He is also felix. Broughton and the Roman Republic [Stuttgart 1996] 167–72 {reprinted in this volume. and the verb spectare does not take the infinitive. The relief. “Q. Héraclès (Bruxelles 1992) 319–51. and you will be rich and happy”. See now the survey by F. “Il culto di Ercole fra i popoli osco–sabellici”. S. of H. No. 188–89}). 39). NUOVI TESTI: 102 pieces. where he was surnamed Victor [cf. Qu(e)irinus). with further literature.488–89: numen confessis aliquod patet: ultima certe / vota suos habuere deos). Solin (Arctos 17 [1983] 102–3 {= Analecta Epigraphica (Roma 1998. 280–82). Buonocore follows the reading of Guarducci. both with respect to grammar and content. Only 26 had previously found their way to AE. Here Guarducci offers a particularly sensitive elucidation: the verse combines Vergilian fervor (Aen. “Sors oraculi”.). that is “work willingly. and of Buonocore {cf. 6. Van Wonterghem. below]. he wrote. but he also understood the appropriateness of a gnomic utterance on a stone that appears to have been part of a funerary monument.46: deus ecce deus!) with Ovidian diction (Met. “Il santuario di Ercole a Corfinium (loc. and now 24 have been admitted from the publication of Buonocore (AE 1989 [1992]. Sulmo was a center of the cult of Hercules with the surname Curinus (also spelled Corinus. Bonnet and C. This translation (and interpretation) is from the pen of M. . Lines 4–5 describe the epiphany of the god: numenque sacratum / ecce venit felixque pat[et]. “perhaps represents the yearly migration from mountain to plain (or the reverse)”. 4. Ippolito): prime acquisizioni epigrafiche”. 5. This is possible but not necessary. Rostovtzeff in his classic The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire 12 (Oxford 1957) 20. 10. Xenia Antiqua 4 (1995) 179–98 {= L’Abruzzo 601–26}. no. No. and the new contribution by M. Buonocore. Despite valiant efforts of the editor princeps M. much remains unclear in this remarkable text. The Supplement reproduces several dedications to the god (nos. In line 8 the god is called H(ercules) C(urinus) V. But it is well to observe that many (some thirty) of these texts are extremely fragmentary as are also 10 out of 13 inedita. in C. Robert S. with his help they had succeeded. and now they humbly come to discharge their obligation (vota solvere). 24}. 237–60).372 Historia et Epigraphia 460 yourselves”. But she also attributes to Hercules Curinus an oracular character. MEFRA 102 [1990] 273–76. in our text he appears as God–Saviour. for although Hercules was indeed known in Italy (in Tibur. This is the mystic or numinous conjunction of felicitas and victoria. 3. but he should not have disregarded Solin’s objection: spectat does not mean “it is proper”. and in Ostia) also as a god of sortes (see now J. in: Imperium Sine Fine: T. and his observation in Suppl. 49. no. 2. Kajava. Champlin. Ital. No.C. 36: the poem is not by Ovid. 25. we have an inscription: Nasonis. but merely “attribuito dall’anonimo estensore ad Ovidio”}. No. No. with a more extensive text. Caution is in place. If this is a poem by Ovid. and thus has contracted the obligation to repay the vow. Now the phrase vivere in se appears in inscriptions. Berufsdarstellungen. and to his discussion of philanthropy toward the communities (155–68). a miles. Votum solvit is a standard expression in inscriptions (cf. In Zimmer.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 373 No.E. and addendum 600}). a funerary inscription with laudes of a deceased wife (although originally published in Epigraphica 20 [1958] it was not recorded in AE). 22 (2004) 99. Gasperini promises an extensive study. 195. but was for the first time discussed in detail by Buonocore in 1986 (in Decima Miscellanea Greca e Romana. with images of two broad knives (cultri) engraved below the inscription (CIL 10.3984). on a column. No. For above the hexameters. “alcune integrazioni siano ex ingenio”). and referring to two spouses it means “live together. 50. It is to be added to the list of testamenta in E. 353–59 {= L’Abruzzo 593–99. not all supplements proposed by Buonocore are convincing or likely (as he himself confesses. Lines 3–5: erga adfe[ctum torum] / mari- . in larger letters and by a different hand. no. and see now Buonocore. also from the sanctuary of Hercules Curinus. Only one other example of the praenomen Aula appears to be known. 137). there is no representation of a sword–maker. where did he utter these words? The phrase is not on display in any of the extant works. Roman Female Praenomina (Rome 1994) 35. Nonius from Sulmo. Line 3: [glad]iario. Musa Lapidaria [Atlanta 1995] 290). ready to offer the sacrifice. inter alia. Final Judgments. only the right edge remains) of a testamentum. with each other” (cf. 250 (Berkeley 1991) 198–99. The right edge is broken off. E.–C. 55. but vivere circa se does not seem to be attested. He (lines 2–6) 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. This supplement is justified by the circumstance that below the inscription “è scolpita un’arma che ha forma di pugnale a punta rotonda”. He is just present (adest). In lines 2–3 he reads: consuet\[ae vivere vel manere] / circa se solam. At the end of the first hexameter two lone deciphered words jump into avid eyes: osque gigantum. but this is perhaps a unique text in which we see a damnatus in the very act of repaying the god. {so far it does not seem to have appeared.E. A most interesting document: a fragment (the stone is broken. 47 (= CIL I2. for cir]c\enses and pecuniam in annonam f]rumentariam. L’Abruzzo 178. Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills 200 B. A group of twelve hexameters stands out. No. no. see now M. 39). nos. unfortunately only a few words can be more easily read. 36 (edited by L. He survived. A number of graffiti. For the praenomen. The inscription (still extant) was published in a local publication in 1899. 7. by different hands. but see a very similar representation of a cultrarius (p. The testator provides. Gasperini).3216): A(ula) Tetia. Courtney. but there is a promise (or illusion) of a literary sensation. A possessor of such a pious heart was C. torus and adfectus appear juxtaposed at Plin. cf. no.92 where comportare refers to oratorical style). various literary examples in Lewis–Short s. {The text now also in L’Abruzzo 178–79. with all epigraphical examples dated to the seventh century. of a wife: semper toru(m) maritale(m) dilexit). OLD (p. 245 reproduced this supplement. NH 35. and if anybody should have inquired qui hoc comporta(ve)rit (line 31). and only a nepotulus remained. Now astutus in the sense of sapiens. found in 1926. coll. a riveting text. The comma after maritalem is to be removed. 58. nam ipsa / miseria docet etiam barbaros / scribere misericordias” (lines 31–34). The preposition erga we have to take in its Silver Latin meaning “with respect to”.v. The inscription may thus be later than the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century (as suggested by Buonocore). In line 5 she is described as astuta. prudens is rare and late. makes a request: Et nunc rogo vos omn/es natos nascentesque. on stones (almost) exclusively with the spelling adfectio. A father and a mother decry their fate: they have buried their six children. Buonocore translates qui hoc comporta(ve)rit as “chi a fatto questo”.87: nec torum tantum suum. 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. Here resides the extraordinary interest of this document: . rarissimi e\[xempli femi] / nae. with or without maritalis. To justify the supplement torum Buonocore adduces CIL 6. Mancini in 1935 in a local publication. The surprising barbaros is immediately explained: Murranus. now speaking in propria persona. Murranus was both proud of his composition. 1179–80. and 6. The text now renders the following sense: “with respect to her affectus (affectio) maritalis the deceased was a rarissimi exempli femina”. 987. This is the palmary solution to our lacuna: erga adfe[ctum or -ctionem eius] / maritalem (or perhaps: adfe[ctionem eximiam]). printed by G. The marital bed disappears. In literature and inscriptions affectio and affectus maritalis are used interchangeably. Treggiari. 1881). but adfectus referring directly to torus would be unusual. “on account of”. is indeed often used as a designation for marriage: cf. On the other hand the expression affectio maritalis is a standard juristic locution. lines 71–84. AE 1989. He is exhorted to take care of the grave. a technical term denoting the feeling which was legally constituent of a Roman marriage (cf. B (p. “affectio”. TLL s. 247) only from Buonocore’s re-edition (on the basis of autopsy). and anxious as to its Latinity.v. with a query: “torum maritalem (= mariage)?” Now torus. et hoc sephul/crum (sic) tuorum tutaris (lines 29–30). 3. and admitted to AE (1989. taking the verb to refer to the grave monument. 26}. Roman Marriage [Oxford 1991] 54–56). ut si quid l\a<p>sus / me praeterit hominem barbarum natu\ / Pannunium (sic). forty-eight lines long.v. col. and he remarks that this locution appears “nel nostro caso con l’aggiunta di adfectum”. sed etiam adfectum donavit artifici (of Alexander the Great who conceded his paelex to Apelles). adfectus. S.1779 = CLE 111 (lines 45–47: munus deorum qui maritalem torum / nectunt amicis et pudicis nexibus).12853 [Buonocore 12583 per errorem] = 34060 = CLE 548 (line 3. No. de or. ignoscatis rogo (lines 34–38). AE is even more explicit: “qui l’a fait construire”.. cf.374 Historia et Epigraphia 461 talem. TLL s.. 1952). he should answer: “Avus meus Murranus. “torus” IV. multis ulceri<bu>s et malis / perturbatum. In two epistles of Cicero (Fam. which would not be surprising in Pannonia. e un dittico”. Hence a conjecture. “Reminiscenze poetiche in un Pannone d’Abruzzo”. servus) / Insequens. etc”. but there also existed a Latin cognomen Murranus. as Buonocore points out. a trite and formulaic ending. / Quartio / fr(ater) p(osuit). though the meaning is clear enough: “sconvolgere l’ordine naturale” (accepted without any qualms in AE). This is a definition much too rigid. it is quite different from the first P. Schulze. In his earlier study. OLD defines stator as “an official servant of provincial governors acting as a messenger. Decrii are known in the area) himself composes a long epitaph and does not entrust it to a professional scribbler. Buonocore rightly considered also fr(atri)] p(osuit). Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz 2. 108. cf.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 375 462 a native of Pannonia. No. for that matter. later attached to the Emperor.32: ea quae consuetudo saeculi mutavit. Solin-Salomies.658 [Leipzig 1899]). Buonocore. but apparently they not only car- .1 stator tuus is a messenger from a provincial (pro)quaestor (and not a governor). Still we can easily imagine that statores existed also in private households. In line 5 perperavit is printed as if it were fully assured. from W. and more correctly. 17. it is well to see whether a less exciting solution is available. referring to changes in the meaning of words and locutions. but if it is a P. A funerary stone: Statori Apri (scil. But below the text of the inscription there is on the stone a representation of “una theca calamaria. army commanders. {But cf.2.387).. In the partially obliterated middle part the earlier photograph seems to display the beginning of an M or N. but in his commentary Buonocore notes that this reading was suggested to him by A.19. although linguistic flaws (catalogued by Buonocore) indeed abound. It is worth observing that in the neighboring Noricum the name Murranus is not attested (cf. Lines 5–8: iniquitate Orchi. un sigilllo su cui è inciso il nomen Inseq[uens]. and a bold one for perperare is a hapax. Holder. fecerunt miseri{s} pater et mater / filis dulcissimis suis. Bullettino della Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria 80 (1990 [1992] 57–76}. If so it would be odd not to recognize here the implements representing a stator. Inscriptionum Latinarum Provinciae Norici Indices [CIL Auctarium] 2. / quod debuerant facere filii patri et / matri.17. On both photographs one can clearly read only PER–––AVIT. Fam. 62. In this text we would thus have a slave Insequens and his owner Statorius Aper. 2. Lines 1 and 32: the cognomen Murranus may be Celtic (as suggested by Buonocore’s reference to A. at Cic. and the other of 1982. His dirge is genuinely moving. An unusual and poetic beginning. messenger”.1) statores appear (once in the company of lictors) as trusted carriers of letters. Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Eigennamen (Berlin 1904) 335. I propose permutavit (although the phrase itself permutare saecula does not seem to be attested nor. is attested perturbare saecula. Repertorium 366. But before we add a new word to our dictionaries. Ep. living in Sulmo and married to a local woman of servile extraction (Decria Se [––– S]e\cundae l(iberta) Melusa = Mellusa. on the later photograph there is perhaps a flicker of a P. Mazzarino. qui perperavit s\a\e\cula. Lewis-Short describe the stator more generally. 2. and interpret Statori (or rather statori) in line 1 as referring to that function. A few words and phrases may profit from further comment. as “a magistrate’s attendant. See now the discussion by M. PP 39 [1984] 437. Sen. servant. There are two photographs appended: one of 1935. the seal-stamp. for the third. and thus points to the person who used the seal. for instance C. Recently O..3565 = CLE 1504. Berufsdarstellungen. Vol. 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. and M. No. 1 . but also committed them to writing: the calami. but perhaps not in all. f. 4. He returns (p. the brother or cousin or nephew) of the man mentioned in the same inscription or in one set up in the vicinity” (p. p. But the precise arrangement of the text remains unclear. n(epos). or filius (whether abbreviated or spelled out in full) indicates that the man so characterized “is the son (and not e. Scavi 33 [1979] 340–41) 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). He was on the right track. also one text in CIL VI. L. reserved for the oldest son. The meaning of the inscription is enigmatic (“una frase rivolta al viandante” or “una disposizione relativa al sepolcro”). For instance. This is undoubtedly the correct explanation in most cases.g. f. in the case of our Lollia we would have to read Lollia C(ai) f(ilia) f(ilia). and that its termination resulted from the attraction to statori. Above. Zimmer. The cases of statori (dat. 117–240: TREBULA SUFFENAS (Regio IV.376 Historia et Epigraphia ried messages. pp. thought that the stone was dedicated by Insequens and Quartio to their father Aper who performed the function of a stator. f. a plaque. Salomies (Arctos 17 [1993] 95–101) has subjected this interpretation to a most erudite critique. His idea was accepted in AE 1984. po(suit). Forma 289. a small stone. 4. The name of our stator will surely be Insequens: it figures on the seal–stamp (although this cannot be verified on the much too small photograph reproduced by Buonocore). Dessau in 1887 in CIL XIV (38 texts. He accepts the explanation of S. “con evidente significato apotropaico”. 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). and 6 falsae). below representations of the instruments of a mason: libella (not regula). f. indicated at a glance the descent through the main or elder family line. see now Buonocore.g. and so. On the right two phallic symbols. 328. on the left. for the second. including the expansion of the last line f(ilii) r(everentissimi) p(osuerunt). an inscription: [––– i]n\ferius si place\b\it . Sabina et Samnium) by Maria Grazia Granino Cecere. In this system the abbreviation C. e. Buonocore argues that we here have to do with a “double filiation”: C(ai) f(ilii) f(ilia).) and Apri (gen. Priuli (Not.) are awry – unless we suppose that Apri stands for Apro. gives only a drawing. but the verb placeo in conjunction with the phallic representations brings to mind a line from a priapic poem (CIL 14. and the note-book provide eloquent illustration. 98). a big puzzle {For the representations on stones of thecae calamariae and codices. lines 2–3): “da mihi ut pueris et ut puellis / fascino placeam bonis procaci”. But this will not do either. The inscriptions from Trebula were published by H. f. This stretches credulity. C. would be equivalent to C(ai) f(ilius) C. and he failed to recognize the fascinus. 215. 98) to the older view that an additional f. but this reconstruction will not do. 65: Lollia C. Van Wonterghem. rutrum and perpendiculum. 95. No. L’Abruzzo 117–20}. f. The city was inscribed in the tribus Aniensis. von Iasos 280 (line 19). First 3516: contacts between Baetica and the area of Tibur. line 17. subsequent studies and discoveries have tended to corroborate his intuition.2. Many of these texts were published originally by L. Inschr. A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the Historia Augusta (Chico 1980). and the families of Messii Rustici. Pliny assigns both Trebulae to the Sabini. To comment: No. In the historical record it is often difficult to distinguish between the two Trebulae.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 377 463 (1894). a friend of Hadrian mentioned in Hist. NUOVI TESTI. the inscription is now reproduced in IK 28. CP 79 (1984) 79. See now R. and one marked bis) some 60 are mere fragments. She presents also 40 inedita (27 extremely fragmentary).3492 = ILS 1938 (known already to Dessau only from an apograph of Diego De Revillas. For the other occurrence of the name Granino Cecere adduces GIBM 4. in his erudite and deservedly critical review of H. Cutii and Aemilii. the first collector of Trebulan inscriptions in the early eighteenth century) the reading Tebulae sue was corrected by Dessau into Trebulae Suf(fenatium). Ep. Hadr. Dessau assigned it to the modern locality of Ciciliano and. ingeniously identified by H. a lamella of thin gold with a magical inscription and a representation of a deity entwined with a snake. but this is true only of Trebula Mutuesca (localized today at Monteleone Sabino). a veritable carnage of stones. Livy (10. and in CIL 14. Greek Magical Amulets 1 (Opladen 1994) 118–20.2 (1985). He says that it was “misplaced” by the Museo Nazionale . It lay somewhere between Praeneste and Carseoli. 4. from the publication or re-publication by Granino Cecere 16 new and longer documents are now reproduced in AE 1990 [1993].–G. as Granino Cecere points out in her most instructive introduction (119–25). and one in Eph.. Kotansky.14) reports that in 303 Roman citizenship (probably sine suffragio) was given to Trebulani and Arpinates. 272–87. mentions in regio quarta “Trebulani qui cognominantur Mutuesci et qui Suffenates”. A few addenda. Berni Brizio in Atti. Benario. Of 135 texts (134.1 (1893) 924 C. and in epigraphical documents it appears as a municipium administered by duumviri. But it is encouraging to report that out of 135 new texts only four very fragmentary stones have disappeared. Centro Studi e Documentazione sull’Italia Romana 2 (1969–70) 137–216. It was the home of Plautii Silvani and (perhaps: so cautiously Granino Cecere) of Nonii Sufenates. {Further texts in AE 1995 [1998]. 9 (1903). and E. Aug. On Aemilius Papus. the same man (C. Forbeius Pacatus) also in Iasos 278. following Groag) with Papus. displaying often only a letter or two. Trebula itself remains somewhat of a mystery. Repertorium 81. but certainty is impossible. Pflaum (in 1963. Trebula Suffenas (or correctly Suffenatium) was rather a city of the Aequi.9. 1996 [1999]. both families of some note in Roman history. 8bis. Solin-Salomies.107. Of these documents 31 (and a falsa) are now lost. Cf. 422–26. As to the name of the city. 515}. Granino Cecere offers very numerous corrections. Pliny. W. To the inscriptions published in CIL 14 Granino Cecere provides exemplary bibliography. NH 3. Only 23 texts were suo tempore recorded in AE. Next 3522: the rare name Forbeius. Granino Cecere (and many others) opt for Trebula Suffenas. see also a more detailed study by Pflaum in Klio 46 (1966) 331–37 = Scripta Varia 2 (Paris 1981) 366–72. Champlin. Soc. Silvanus described as praetor. and patronus – probably of Trebula: the stone was set up ex d(ecurionum) d(ecreto). f. B. The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians (Rome 1955) 58. 13. f.378 Historia et Epigraphia Romano. W. 21–26 (cf. 2 B. Taylor. 51 B. but extended to the whole course of each aqueduct. 160. 44. H. Hoffman Lewis. administered it. 162”. but hesitates as to his identity. Plautius A. 28 (AE 1990. f.E. The new cippus confirms Ashby’s reconstruction of this part of the course of the aqueduct (but Ashby’s calculations of the total length of the Marcia are invalid. and later was stolen from his oreficeria at via Frattina in Rome. “Le profil social des patrons municipaux en Italie”. CIL 14. The supplement Mae]cio is certain: in no. A Study of Roman Imperial Administration (Helsinki 1991) 149. 164–71. R. Le Patronat sur les collectivités publiques des origines au Bas-Empire (Paris 1957) 222–33. Bruun. mentions “the numerous cippi which were erected along the courses of the Anio. Silvanus. Silvanus. cos. a pity for the consecutive numbering of the cippi may have a bearing on the problem of “the geographical extension of the cura aquarum”. pp. pr. 20 (AE 1990. Iulia. and Taylor.D. cf. 276. Plautius M. Duthoy. 1991. 1972. / salio. 278).3509. it rejoins other cippi of the series. Plautius M.E. For once the Museum has to be exonerated. the consular date . but does not pursue this subject. an Augustan cippus of Aqua Marcia with the number 991. 24: A Note on Inscription AE. Vogel-Weidemann.C. an ineditum. Water Distribution of Ancient Rome (Ann Arbor 1994) 89. 15–17 (1984–86) 148. Harmand. Anc.C. apparently (so rightly Granino Cecere following U. In no. Mari. n. He is to be added to the list of the septemviri epulones in M. No. 603).E. 26). n. II viro. praetor a. Ashby. 27: [––– Urg]ulan[i –––]). He is also to be added to the (oddly arranged) list of senatorial municipal patrons in Italy in L. a dedication: [– Mae]cio L. and the father of M. 22 (cf. see Z.C. 33 we read (line 2) II[vi]ratu Maeci Luciliani.. for further and full addenda. 23) there appears M. C. “Trebula Suffenas and the Plautii Silvani”. Nos. Mari 171). Trebula Suffenas”. duly lists him. Evans. we know that also the consul of 2 B. “Nuovi cippi degli acquedotti Aniensi. septemvir epulonum. are indispensable supplements to the classic study by L. 27 and 42) record various members of the influential family of Plautii Silvani of the early imperial age. No. “M. omits the evidence of the cippi in his short discussion of Augustus’ restoration of the Marcia. Granino Cecere argues that this priesthood became hereditary in the family. Plautius. / Luciliano. Tepula and Marcia”. The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (Oxford 1935) 93. in Epigrafia e ordine senatorio 1 (= Tituli 4 [Roma 1982]) 671–77. Acta Classica 19 [1976] 135–38) a younger son of A. Granino Cecere reports that the plaque was found in Ciciliano on the property of signor Manni (as also numerous other inscriptions). no. MAAR 24 (1956) 9–30. Considerazioni sull’uso dei cippi acquari”. f. M. R. The comments of Granino Cecere and her earlier article “Iscrizioni senatorie di Roma e dintorni. he was the husband of the notorious Urgulania (cf. It is quite likely that the cura did not pertain solely to the city itself and its close surroundings. equiti Romano. PBSR 59 (1991) 151–171. / quaest(ori) pro alim(entis). The Water Supply of Ancient Rome. Granino Cecere provides also other addenda to the list in T. esp. (cf. 29. Now municipal salii are attested only in relatively few cities (cf. Faccenna. it is also attested in Athens. index). cf. quinq(ennalis) eiusdem ordinis: he thus combined municipal offices and an (honorific) office in the corporation of the seviri augustales. Roman Onomastics in the Greek East. Social and Political Aspects (= Meletemata 21 [Athens 1996]) 125 and n. but soon a substantial part of the stone was lost. AE 1952. R. e. Ladage.29681. a rare name: the editor princeps D.-G. 35). Rizakis (ed. 86. Sempronius Verus. Petraccia Lucernoni. to Trebula Suffenas) was published in 1787 by E. I questori municipali dell’Italia antica [Roma 1988] 369–70. Unfortunately Granino Cecere does not give a full lemma that would show all the supplements so far proposed. no.g. Biesius Attalus. but to that list we certainly must add Trebula Suffenas. “Contacts between Italy. Sal[vius]. Verus is also described as sevir. 156) and H. Unnecessarily: Granino Cecere notes that Biesius is attested in CIL 6. Salomies.). 35. As Granino Cecere points out. Among his heredes there appears L. q(uin)q(ennali) eiusdem ordinis in CIL 14. She remarks that also two other duumviri from Trebula were salii. As the stone . D. As he was eques Romanus. Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres 1 (Paris 1960) 387. Visconti (and republished in his Opere varie in 1827). 163) Granino Cecere justifies by the reference to the phrase seviro augustalium. The stone has now been edited (with a short commentary) also by M. Scavi 1951. No. Macedonia and Asia Minor during the Principate”. Sardinia et Corsica (= Vetera 6 [Roma 1992]) 46–47 (no. Städtische Priester. (above. E.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 379 464 assigns this inscription to 215. 42 (= CIL 6. no. The expression quaestor pro alimentis is new. The comma after sevir (no punctuation in AE 1972.. A reference to a salius may also hide in the fragmentary inscription no. 23). Vibius Apronianus. Not. below. now only the first fifteen lines (with the right edge broken off) are extant. regarded Biesius as an error and were inclined to correct it to Blesius. Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente Romano III. if the eques Lucilianus could conceivably have been a salius in Rome. Pflaum. [Mae]cius Lucilianus (above. above. Petraccia Lucernoni. M. with the consular (and duumviral) date of 193 (3 August): the seviri augustales erect a statue for A. p. No.3500) and C. No. salius and quaestor pec(uniae) publ(icae). 21–26]. on the latter function Granino Cecere provides essential bibliography. but belonging. The last expression is quite common.13585 and probably 13586. as shown by L. F. the funerary inscription of L. nos. Q. C. where in view of sacr[ it may be preferable to read sal[ius and not (as suggested by Granino Cecere). 28). in C. no. Regiones Italiae II–V Sicilia. cit. IIvir quinquennalis. The document contains remnants of the once very extensive fasti of a collegium. this is the first and only attestation of alimenta for Trebula. the normal locution is quaestor alimentorum (cf. 76 (cf. Buonocore. but does not discuss the character of the priesthood. he may have been a salius in Rome and not in Trebula (cf. Thessalonica and Pergamon: see now O. this is hardly likely for Verus or Rufus.und Kultämter im lateinischen Westen des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit [Köln 1971] 8). 41: sal\[– – –] / qui eo a[nno –––] / sacr[–––]. tr(ibunus) mil(itum) and adiutor albei (sic) Tiberis et cloacarum. 28). each entry displaying both a consular and a duumviral date. loc. Metilius Rufus (CIL 14.2809 and 4140. Taylor [cf. below. Athenaeum 79 (1991) 589–96: he pronounces himself decisively in favor of attributing the document to the seviri Augustales. ILSAC 7165). 21) thought (hesitatingly) of magistri Augustales (cf. Granino Cecere embraced the expansion of G. so also but without any query Abramenko. To scrutinize these attempts it will be well to have before our eyes the text of the lines in question. In column 1 there were inscribed the fasti of the years 22. 22 (lines 10–11) we read: honor. approximately at the height of the sixth line of the entry for 22 (in col. Aurelianus 15. Abramenko proposes to read VIvi[ri Aug. An attractive solution for it is based on the phrase written out in full in line 19 (C. Aug.. H. 23 and (opening the lower ledger) the first line (displaying the consular dating) of the entry for 108. this idea was already at least partially anticipated by Oliver. Leistungen (p. in column 2.4: vidimus proxime consulatum Furii Placidi tanto ambitu in circo editum (cf.E. in 23 five. et]. consulatum edere. Traebulanus (sic) Felix (cf. no. 595. In lines 14–18 we have the names of five officials. Lines 19–24 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 . Henzen in Orelli-Henzen. 17) was cautiously inclined to solve the abbreviations as honor(e) p(ublice) d(ato). on the kalends of August. This did not scare off A. p. “where the emphasis is on the performance of games”. 593. 43). “Gerusiae and Augustales”. Granino Cerere despairs of any “sicura interpretazione”. and in 30 four. it was divided into two columns. qualified as praec(o).E. At the end of line 3 the traditional supplement had been VIvi[ri et] / [h]o\nore functi. and consequently each column contained in its upper ledger. But this expression is a puzzle. Paschoud in his Budé edition [1996] 104–6). 178 is only a misprint] d(ederunt). cf. and this would be the approximate date for the foundation of the collegium (cf. below. “CIL VI 29. in Hist. Taylor (p. 487) proposed honor(aria) p(ecunia) d(ata). esp. To deflect this objection Abramenko produced a remarkable shield of an argument: the stone does not contain any veritable full fasti. quadriduum] fecerunt. the commentary by F. Under C. Abramenko (he does not cite her contribution). ludos in foro / per IIII [i.380 Historia et Epigraphia 465 was originally seen. 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. It will be a list of those seviri who organized each year various public celebrations. d. 1) there were three last lines of the entry for 29 followed by the entry of 30. T. 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. already G. the fasti of seven or eight years. Column 2 thus started with the fasti for 24.681 aus Trebula Suffenas und die innere Organisation der *Augustalität”. Taylor (p. J. column 1 (which seems to have been also the first column of the original document. Taylor (p. Historia 7 [1958] 485) will have thus begun with the fasti for 16 or 17. Oliver (p. The identity of that body has been vigorously disputed. p.. Oliver. the date of their entry upon office. it lists only those officials who could show off some particular achievements. 487). Rather 12 or 13. no. 43). 23): honorem edederunt. the last one. p. depending on the length of each entry. Ville.e. La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien (Rome 1982) 191: honor(em) p(ublice [p(ublico) on her p. 18) points to the late phrase. 36) understands under honorem a religious ceremony.16. but semicolon in line 10 after d(ederunt). p. 191. 191. n. 177. the praeco (see Granino Cecere. He puts a comma after edederunt. 94. 2924–25). “honos”. 594. 589–90. The associations of these two groups is remarkable. Augustalis et sevir dans l’Empire romaine”.v. “Recherches sur la répartition géographique et chronologique des termes sevir Augustalis.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) [–––]. and now Buonocore. n. 37. coll. “in particolare al plurale. Oliver. a risky proposition for seviri would have to refer at the same time both to the decurions and the augustales. Ville. and thus separates this activity from the ludi. Abramenko. also Granino Cerere. 191. n. Taylor’s reference presumes the ludi forming part of the editio honoris. Granino Cecere in both cases places a semicolon. For in the intricate world of “augustality” there existed separate organizations of augustales.2 [1978] 1303–4). If we put a period (or better semicolon) after dederunt the words eorum sevir[– – –] would begin a new sen- . procession (cf. 22) believed that the VIviri (mentioned in lines 3 and 23) formed an executive board of augustales. e. R. 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. p.. 47. but at the same time he assigns both honorem edere and the ludi to all five officials. 484). in Epigraphische Studien 11 [1976] 204. Taylor (p. “Les *Augustales”. “Les *Augustales”. p. 18: “the IIII primi refers to the four regular officers. sacrifice. 177. Taylor (and also Oliver) read cenam . p. pp. Thus in her vision the editio honoris belonged to all five men.. 17) she puts two periods. seviri augustales (not to be confused with other groups of seviri) and magistri augustales (see now above all Duthoy. esp. that augustales stands here as an abbreviated expression for seviri augustales (cf. assumes that the college was presided over by four annual magistri). Lines 22 and 23 offer further puzzles. ANRW 2. p. The collegium was composed of the actual seviri (augustales) and the former seviri who in line 4 are described as [h]onore functi. Duthoy. The expression IIII primi (line 20) does not denote an office (as postulated by Taylor. 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. p. p. p. 487. who comments on the not infrequent usage of sevir. Buonocore speaks of a unified collegium of seviri and seviri augustales which again would have been an unprecedented arrangement). TLL s. cf. but the mention of augustales causes perplexity. The question arises whether ludos fecerunt stands in apposition to honorem edederunt or denotes an entirely separate activity. 1260–65). excluding the praeco”. 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.g. pp. 1254–1309. Ville (p. 592–94). per seviri augustales”). Duthoy. Abramenko. Rather we have to assume with Abramenko. Ville. one after edederunt and the other after IIII primi.. p. It is therefore rather surprising that in her reproduction of the inscription (p. but the ludi were arranged only by the first four (so also Oliver. but such an arrangement would have been quite unparalleled (see the critique by R. / dederunt eorum sevir[i]. and esp. p. 38) following Henzen (in Henzen-Orelli) eorum sevir[i munus ?] / familia gladia[toria dederunt ?]. he may also have been a patronus: patrons were often called upon to serve as duumvirs (cf. Abramenko develops line 23 exempli gratia as familia gladiat[oria data est –––]. Sabbatini Tumolesi. 18.E. b) (taking IIII primi as the subject): dederunt. Ateius Capito (cos. In the latter Taylor (p. Gladiatorum Paria (= Tituli 1 [Roma 1980] 51–53.6). where familia would be “l’ablatif de moyen”. The latter solution is preferable (see above). 67–69 (nos.382 Historia et Epigraphia 466 tence. suff. 55–57.e. pugnavit] / familia gladiat[(oria)] with the name of the owner in the genitive. 21. in particular seviratu in the sense of “during their term as seviri” does not seem to be attested. 31). and n.C. see Ville.) whose father (tr. 25.) m(ortuus) e(st) C. nos. in the lacuna before Sestuleio). “assuming that the nomen was found in the previous line” (i. CIL 11.E.29681 supplied sevir[atu]. 21) decided that Capito was a duumvir and – an amazing flight of fantasy – that he died in office. he was praetor in C. an unlikely scenario. above. We should rather follow Taylor (p. 20. . Buonocore suggests eorum sevir[atu munus cum ?] / familia gladiat[oria dederunt ?]. 191–92. The restored phrases appear forced. 387). pl. Lines 3–5 read as follows: [– – – C]a\pito. 31). Huelsen in CIL 6. in 5 C. We can now return to the beginning of our inscription where another host of unsolved problems still awaits us. p.5. Taylor. CIL 10. This entertainment may have been conjoined with the cena (on combats inter epulas. but Abramenko (p.E. Abramenko misconstrues her supplements). an odd conceit. Under the consular year C. 594. an impossible supplement (familiam gladiatoriam dare is not the same expression as the frequent gladiatores dare). If Taylor is right.4760)] / familia gladiat[(oria) (name of the owner?) pugn(avit)]. and thus this function would have become hereditary in the family of Plautii (cf. Thus the seviri of the year 22 and the former seviri asked Capito ut eo honore fungeretur. 29. 8. n. 23 (line 13) there are listed as duumviri L. a supplement Granino Cecere prints with a query. She produced two solutions: a) (taking eorum seviri as the subject of dederunt): dederunt eorum sevir[i. but not in the shape proposed by Taylor. (or mag. in 55) belonged to the tribe of Trebula Suffenas. 24. Furthermore she recognized in Capito the famous jurisconsult C. On the other hand Taylor’s idea is grounded in real Latin: the phrase familia gladiatoria pugnabit recurs frequently in the Pompeian announcements of gladiatorial games. Fam. n. if it was given separately we would probably need a further supplement indicating the date or the occasion. Plautius. 595) with full conviction. 20) again discovered a member of a prominent family: the eldest son of the consul of 2 B. and p. In line 2 (damaged at the left edge) we have the rest of the duumviral dating: [–– –] Sestuleio I[I vir(is)]. Thus eorum sevir[orum] will refer to the IIII primi.E.? C]apito. What honor is here meant by the pronoun eo? Taylor (p. 30. 22. they gave the banquet and provided for the gladiatorial entertainment. the Aniensis (Cic. and Ville (pp.. She restored the lacuna in line 2 as [in m. eorum sevir[orum] / familia gladiat[(oria) pugnavit]. We should rather consider a slightly different expansion: eorum sevir[orum impensis (cf. hunc VIvi[ri Aug.8.. (accepting the expansion of Abramenko) et] / [h]o\nore functi rogarunt ut eo / honore fungeretur. Taylor’s reconstruction presupposes that the IIII primi owned the familia. see P. Manlius and M.5062) or pecunia (cf. in fact. in Trebula no. Indeed it is most unlikely that this characteristic cognomen should have been omitted. 6176). 154): the stone (in two pieces.. consider at all any “exceptional admission into the quattuor primi”. 304–5. e probabilmente a ragione. it has been unanimously restored as [Sex. 37). No. Oliver goes on to say that the office “must have been mentioned specificallly . He settles on “something like” [Q(uin)Q(uennalis) L. Plautius is not the aristocratic M. 42). see L.E. This is of importance for at the head of the album (disposed in two columns). and in this case we may indeed assign this honor (on patronatus as honor. (8 C. vindicate Taylor. 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. cf. Ville. R. It. Scavi 1932. p. 178) writes that Oliver and Ville “pensano piuttosto. and recognized in him T. Granino Cecere (p. cf. eiusdem ordinis). and (judging from the photograph) nothing seems to be obliterated either on the left or on the right side. strangely enough. Still the date is certain: 14 C.445–46. Abramenko. ad un’eccezionale ammissione nel gruppo del quattuor primi”. ILS 6175. in Degrassi. Die munizipale Mittelschicht im kaiserzeitlichen Italien. Zu einem neuen Verständnis von Sevirat und Augustalität (Frankfurt am Main 1992) 216.415–16) to Ateius Capito. at least partially. points out that the cognomen Silvanus is missing. This is a surprising statement.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 383 21–26. p.]. 35. an annual office both in the professional collegia and in the associations of the augustales. 1. 4. 43 (AE 1972. see Granino Cecere. A. Traebulanus Felix praec(o). Line a7 displays the consular date. Trebulanus and Treblanus.. 486) did not. Granino Cecere ingeniously supplied [T. p. Appuleio] Sex. no. dated to 193: sevir. “Les *Augustales”. quinq. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic [Rome 1960] 194) and Oliver (see below). n. Miss Taylor rightly rejected this interpretation”. Albius C]apito (the name is attested in Trebula Suffenas. Oliver’s indication. and must have been one within the power of the Augustales to offer”. see Waltzing 1. line 9 there appears [– ––]lix praeco. This raises again the question of the identity of the two collegia. Treb(u)lanus Fe]lix praeco (both spellings. He writes explicitly: “Some students have thought that the phrase eo honore referred to the sevirate. Pompeio [cos. both fragments broken off at the right and left edge) contains (a substantial) part of the album of a collegium composed exclusively of freedmen. Now Oliver (p. The duumvir M.E. in fine). 53 = Not. Fasti Antiates minores. Inscr. Abramenko followed Taylor in accepting Capito as Ateius the jurisconsult. But [patr(onus)] is also a possible solution (for the abbreviation. Plautius Silvanus. for both consuls remained in office for the whole year (cf. Taylor. Not. Thus a mystery. But Taylor is hardly right. see Duthoy. 303). engraved in larger letters. 13. 191. and thus.1. 132. no. First of all Attilio Degrassi (per litteras. in col.E. is inaccurate). in AE is an aberration). 1275–76. for a few lines below she assumes that the expression IV primi (at least with reference to C. or coss. Others remained unconvinced. Pompeio is engraved almost in the middle of the line. At the beginning of the inscription we have the names of three persons. 23) is not to be taken as a description of the office (cf. appear in the album). n. they are identified (in still larger . Scavi 1948. p. but let us observe that Sex. pp. 99. one of the magistrates of 23 in the collegium of (we have argued) the seviri augustales (above. and not by curators (on curatores in the collegia. The inscriptions from Albingaunum (Albenga). A major problem is the extension of its territory. Ital. AE 2001 [2004]. for the remaining Mennella provides detailed descriptions and occasional corrections. the fourth oldest attestation of the distribution of crustulum and mulsum. as pointed out by N. 4. pp. Lines a4–6 Granino Cecere reads and restores as follows: [– –– Cae]sarum. 11. 93–6. on the other hand. and at the end of the line. Cae]sarum. Waltzing 1. Helttula. no.211–31. The collegium of seviri augustales would start small. An inscription on a cippus: aditum. Mommsen and many others argued that it may have extended far north.16. 14. esp. Waltzing 1. We note the complaint (p. The two associations may have shared some of the personnel. Imagines Caesarum et scholam ex pecuni[a collata] / [– – –]nt idemque dedicaverunt et populo crustulum et mul\[sum dederunt] / X k(alendas) Aug(ustas).. cf. 42). but they will have formed separate entities.1174. Still Mommsen was cautious and devoted to the Upper Valley a separate section. So far 6 inscriptions are lost. 250) that “rimane tutt’oggi insoddisfacente la sistemazione del patrimonio epigrafico”.437–39). see (in addition to her earlier article) A. AE 1972. the coastal and main city of the Liguri Ingauni. 80. One of them was [–––] M. l. Etrilius Eros (although this Eros appears without the denomination tibicen). 250). 989}). Studies on the Latin Accusative Absolute (Helsinki 1987).2586) or scholam facere (CIL 3. altogether 18 texts (and 2 falsae). Liguria) by Giovanni Mennella. but it is unlikely that we deal with one and the same collegium.. 1266–71). with six members only. Vallis Tanari Superior). In line 8 (immediately after the consular date and before the beginning of the album proper) we read: [–––]es in ordinem redegerunt. mostly against the Liguri Montani (see below. line 8. ex pecuni[a sua / feceru]nt. starting with the notice of Pliny. were published in CIL 5 (1877) by T. ANRW 2. In our inscription. NH 3. appointed by the duumvirs (see Duthoy. 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. p. hence not an association of seviri augustales but rather simply of augustales. 243–304: ALBINGAUNUM (Regio IX. 6. on scholae. perhaps it is not unjustifiable to espy him again on the inscription of the collegium of the seviri (col. In . Albingaunum was since 201 an ally of Rome. Eros.1. 12 {cf. No. Vol. Mommsen.406–13). As to pecunia (collata not sua) we should probably follow Granino Cecere. tub(icen). Criniti (Aevum 47 [1973] 498–99). but AE’s feceru]nt is on the mark: the expressions imagines facere (CIL 8.285) recur in inscriptions of the collegia (cf. The initial date of the association of the (seviri) augustales can perhaps (though with difficulty) be lowered to 14 (see above. it probably received Roman citizenship under Caesar (inscribed into tribus Publilia). 4. and in this he is followed by the Editors of Suppl. anno 22) in the person of M.46: Ingaunis agro tricies dato. vol. pp. This is.2. 5 are re-edited among the Nuovi testi. It was administered by IVviri (attested in nos. 154 presents a restoration fuller and bolder: [in honorem . we have a long enumeration of at least 23 names. For accusatives in such constructions. probably of augustales.384 Historia et Epigraphia 467 letters) as cu\[r(atores). and included the whole valley of Tanarus. sotto la statua di Costanzo” (“Rutilio Namaziano ad Albingaunum”. B has generally been taken (also by Mennella) to refer to Albingaunum. from Book II came to light (published by M.7781 = ILS 735 = CLE 893) extant in Albingaunum. Ughelli (1595–1670. He expressly criticized the earlier attempts of F. B) refer to Arelate. The series of Suppl. but not adduced ad loc. Mommsen’s idea naturally gained universal acceptance. Rutilio sia stato invitato dai cives a dettare un’epigrafe da incidere . a carmen epigraphicum (CIL 5. This Constantius Mommsen (in CIL ad loc. but this compendium still does not know the new Rutilius] 321–25). see also Maia 17 [1975] 3–26. and dated the reconstruction of Albingaunum to 354. Cf. Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 16 [1973] 15–30. PLRM 2 [1980. but he says nothing of its historical importance. Romanobarbarica 5 [1980] 89–103 at 101). Syme. S. Ital. Sivan. he wrote. It is possible to think. 26. but with the discovery of the Rutilian fragments we have returned full circle to Tillemont. and the discussion it evoked in connection with the new Rutilius. exempli gratia). many of them. where several Italian philologians offer improved readings. “Rutilius Namatianus. In 1973 two new fragments.. is concerned with stones. in his Histoire des empereurs) to connect the inscription with Constantius III. conjectures. “Spigolature bobbiesi”. rejects the Rutilian authorship of the epigraphic poem and argues that the new verses of Rutilius (frg. surpassing the labors of all previous builders of fortifications. portas (line 1). in his Italia sacra) and S. 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. 268–69. The literary fame of Albingaunum would have been assured by the sojourn of Rutilius Namatianus. that “durante il suo scalo ad Albingaunum. abomination to epigraphers. Doubts subsist. Della Corte (in a contribution listed by Mennella in his bibliography. tecta. Constantius III and the Return to Gaul in Light of New Evidence”. Emperors and Biography (Oxford 1971). and F.12) who makes it a home town of the bogus usurper Proculus (under Probus). badly mutilated. but his poem De reditu suo breaks off at the beginning of Book II. For it was all too natural to combine the parchment and the stone. and restitutions. and so are we: but the fragment of Rutilius leads to a stone of note.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 385 later antiquity Albingaunum was an important Christian center. Mediaeval Studies 48 (1986) 522–32. The poet heaps fulsome praise on the consul Constantius: he has built (or rebuilt) the ramparts (propugnacula) and the fortress (arces) of a city. Toward the end of the fourth century the city attracted the attention of the compiler of the Historia Augusta (29. including those of Troy. We should go one step further and take away the inscription from Constantius III and bring it back to Constantius II. Ferrari. frg. Mennella gives its description. Although the name of the city itself is not mentioned. 17. Lenain de Tillemont (1637–1698. and not parchments and poets. The Constantius in question is the future emperor (for a short time in 421) Flavius Constantius III. R. 468 . portus. For the poem on stone praises in a fulsome way a certain Constantius for the rebuilding of a city..) went so far as to ascribe the epigraphical poem to Rutilius himself. H.) identified as Constantius II (emperor 337–361). and it produced a surprisingly large number of Christian texts. of its moenia. forum. he was consul iterum in 417 (cf. ICI 9 (1995) no. a grave stone (of 515) with a formula of imprecation against the profanation of the sepulture (lines 4–7): Coiuro / per CXµM (= Christum) ne apereas l\[o]/cum istu[m]. and esp. “Beobachtungen zu den epigraphischen Belegen der Muttergottheiten in den lateinischen Provinzen des Imperium Romanum”. No. Thomsen. he strove to imitate the Rutilian diction}. Our inscription reflects the pattern. this stone. at that era often the true capital of the Empire. 989. The book by C. See now new texts and new corrections in AE 1991 [1994]. No. offers a detailed and erudite commentary of the carmen: it refers to Constantius III. 26. Most instructive are his maps (pp. 563. and the carmen epigraphicum continue to generate excitement and controversy. and now from the publication of Mennella ten more are reprinted in AE 1990 [1993]. Mennella points out that formulas of that kind are frequent in Liguria in the funerary inscriptions from the Byzantine period. 738–39 (but cf.41). “Il Campus di Albingaunum”. and Constantius must have in some way re-organized that province. B. 369. 6–7) showing the spread of the cult of Matronae with epithets (mostly in Germania) and without epithets (mostly in Liguria and Cisalpine Gaul). and late in 354 arrived in Mediolanum where he stayed also for a few months in 355 (see O. {Albingaunum. 406. 2002 [2005]. Additional literature in AE 1990. 369–78. MEFRA 106 (1994) 119–37. 2). An inscription in a paleochristian baptistery in Albenga. still the best source of information on Constantius. only one longer text is lost. Vallis Tanari Superior. vol. Studien zu seiner Tätigkeit und Stellung im Westreich 411–421 (Bonn 1998) 198–206. 506}. The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Invasion [Copenhagen 1947] 237–40). Seeck. 2001 [2004]. 20 or so are Christian. and a new text AE 1994 [1997]. 650. No. Mennella and G. 12 were reported suo tempore in AE. Constantius III. need not necessarily have belonged originally to that city. W. 1997 [2000]. me primam protulit urbem. NUOVI TESTI: 68 texts (but about a half of them mere fragments). see now the (amply illustrated) volume Matronen und verwandte Gottheiten (Bonn 1987). below. Lütkenhaus. Spadea Noviero. {See further AE 1995 [1998]. 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. no.386 Historia et Epigraphia Furthermore. even if coming from Albenga. Rutilius Namatianus. Vogler. R. Constance II et l’administration impériale [Strasbourg 1979] does not discuss chronology and has no reference to our inscription). RE 4 [1900] 1044–94 at 1071–75. 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. with a list of saints. Now in later antiquity Mediolanum was the capital of Liguria (cf. the contribution by C. 2 inedita (meagre fragments). ICI 9. In line 7 we read: Dumque refert orbem. Its author may have been a poet from the circle of Rutilius. Rüger. . On these deities. 535–37. “irremediabilmente danneggiata” during the works of restoration at the end of the previous century. 40. 1–30. esp. 30 (AE 1975. 2. after the most instructive publication by G. In 353 Constantius II defeated Magnentius and recovered Gaul. 6. An arula with a dedication: Matronis. 22). in Rupes loquentes. Lazzaro opts for this last understanding. 40–73). Degrassi. 32 (AE 1937. also 2002 [2005]. Bellunum (Belluno) became a Roman municipium after 49. With respect to Mommsen’s reconstruction. it is still sub iudice (cf. Lazzaro introduces us into the midst of the polemic: is the word GREGORI to be interpreted as a signum (so Mommsen. 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. none lost (this seems to be due to the very active Museo Civico in Belluno). Suppl. Bassignano. but it is safer to say that although the monument may not any longer be sub Iove. pp. Coccoluto. 795). If it is a signum.2381) have been a frequent subject of investigation and disagreement. 198. S. Vol. 7 recorded in AE (and now an additional nine in AE 1990 [1993]. For the Venetic inscriptions from Bellunum. NUOVI TESTI: 24 documents. Ital. 21–24 Thulin. 161.2381). 22 (2004) 218–19}. Lazzaro slightly curtails the extension of the ager of Bellunum. 1877) by T. This is the last document recording the Byzantine rule in Albingaunum before the Lombard invasion. Malaise). Three rock inscriptions demarcating for a stretch of some five km. Ital. Degrassi. ICI IX. Prosdocimi.2044 = IG 14. M. all edited previously. Mommsen. 3 republished from CIL. Buchi. the border line between Bellunum and Iulium Carnicum. and as a result he attributes three texts to Opitergium (Oderzo). L. 219. on the river Silis (modern Piave of tragic memory). Documents from Bellunum were collected in CIL 5 (1872. 1 (AE 1939. An old settlement of the Veneti. 401–9. Bassignano. Venetia et Histria) by Luciano Lazzaro. are returned to the neighboring Feltria (cf. and later in 1888 by E. 542–46}. Vidman. And if it is an exclamation. Malaise). ICI 9.2044 = IG 14. {And see the new supplement by M. Mennella and G. See now E. 24 Lachmann) concerning such marks. Liguria reliqua trans et cis Appenninum (Bari 1995) 86–141 (nos. No. Suppl. S. and was ascribed to the tribus Papiria. “Le iscrizioni confinarie del Monte Civetta nel Bellunese”. Moretti. not mentioned by Lazzaro. Egger and Kajanto) or as the imperative of the verb grhgor°v (watch!)? (so N. Regio IX. below in the discussion of vol. A Christian epitaph dated to the fifteenth year of the emperor Mauritius. AE 1991 [1994]. 5). is it connected with the cult of Isis? (Egger). 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. and two further. see G. 22 (2004) 208–40}. 4. This nicely illustrates the report of the gromaticus Hyginus (p. La lingua venetica 1 (Padova 1967) 451–53. erroneously classified by Mommsen as found in Bellunum. the year 597.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 387 No. and 14 falsae. Pais in his Supplementa Italica (there is also one Greek inscription. Pellegrini and A. B. It may here be observed that all Christian inscriptions from Albingaunum are now collected and updated by G. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio sulle ‘Iscrizioni rupestri di età romana in Italia’ (Roma 1992) 117–49: the inscription 469 . {Cf. 307–43: BELLUNUM (Regio X. p.45). Brusin. the fin(es) (in is a ligature) / Bel(lunatorum) Iul(iensium). Rodenwaldt. altogether 43 texts (16 lost). with an instructive note on local toponomastics (447–49). {cf. 5. Vidman. Its reliefs with the scenes of hunting and its enigmatic inscription (5. such collections are of scant use. ‘concurrite’! Brandbekämpfung im Imperium Romanum (= Grazer Altertumskundliche Studien 7 [Frankfurt am Main 2001]). and normally explained as due to their common employment in Roman cities as fire-fighting brigades. Ginestet. Lafer. rather unlikely: cf. 252). Mattsson. Tridentum no. fines. Ital. with a list of all epigraphically attested Feuerwehrvereine (pp. and a representation of ascia. Also if it was only an urn? {Cf. “Les collèges de fabri. the fetial formula in Livy 1. The new stone contains an identical text (at least of the first four lines). This find allowed M. Vol. {Cf. His effort shows that without full reproduction of all sources. 8 and 9 (AE 1888. 1976. R. and have a unified college or two separate groups. Omnes collegiati. In a more recent monograph. and not very likely) the ascia indicated that the monument was dedicated before it was completed. however. 241–66). 22 (2004) 230–31}. No. M. S. Salamito. new is also the epithet Iuventus divina. 14 (CIL 5. B. with a reference (p. M. AE 1976. AE 1992 [1995]. which Bassignano ingeniously associates with the imperial cult and the prominence of the dea Iuventus on the coinage of Marcus Aurelius. M. have been much discussed. as to the circumstance that the three collegia often have the same patron.4779 = ILS 7305 from Virunum in Noricum: iuventutis Manliensium gentiles qui consistunt in Manlia). 164. Bassignano. a patron colleg(i) dendrophor(um) et fabr(orum). 1) we read: Finis inter / Trid(entinos) et Feltr(inos). Carminius Pudens. Nos. but perhaps (an old suggestion. Les organisations de la jeunesse dans l’Occident romain (Bruxelles 1991). See now J. “ce phénomène s’expliquerait aussi bien par la tendence des notables à rassembler sous leur patronage les associations les plus prestigieuses de leur cité” (p. He believes that only fabri and centonarii participated in fire-fighting. centonarii et dendrophori dans les villes de la regio X à l’époque impériale”.2065. He concludes that most inscriptions give no clue as to the meaning of the symbol. and photographic documentation. with a dedication. To the bibliography assembled by Lazzaro. Cf. Our inscriptions do not offer enlightenment for (depending on our presuppositions) we can well supply either patrono colleg(i) or patrono colleg(iorum). Bassignano. 22 (2004) 229. 4). Suppl. 3 (AE 1976. S.-M. 173) to our inscription. but the two texts have different syntactic structure. Perhaps. in: La città nell’Italia settentrionale in età romana (Trieste-Roma 1990) 163–77. M. 730. The close contacts between those colleges.6: audite.78* (condemned by Mommsen. CIL 3. and Livy’s explanation: cuiuscumque gentis sunt. add P.388 Historia et Epigraphia can be solved also as f(inis) Bel(lunensium) Iul(iensium). nominat.} No. S. 253). 7). A cinerary urn. Ital. It is true that in another text (see below. {Cf. was also. and re-edited by Lazzaro as no. Lazzaro very wisely refuses to enter into any discussion of the possible significance of that symbol. The singular f(inis) is. A most interesting dedication: Iuentuti (sic) / divinae / gens sacra / Iuentutis (sic) / posuit. 249). The honorandus (in both inscriptions). inter alia. . 6. The Ascia Symbol on Latin Epitaphs (Göteborg 1990). and also the collegia centonariorum.32. Bassignano (in 1977. As a denomination of a group of iuvenes the expression gens sacra Iuventutis is new (but cf. unfortunately in a not easily available regional journal) to rehabilitate CIL 5. Suppl. 12. n. collected 1194 references to ascia (he missed our urn). Aug. An important source for local history for it attests for Rubi the tribus Claudia. Cf. 546 on no. 18. 535–37 on nos. Rubi (modern Ruvo) probably became a Roman municipium only after the Social War. Nuovi Studi Messapici 1 (Mesagne 1982). 7–8. Santoro. C. Rhegion et Zancle [Paris 1958]). The extension of its territory is difficult to define.315) to Canusium. 43. Pietrangèli. in Epigrafia e territorio. 656) ascribed by Mommsen to Melfi in Lucania (they were found in the locality Molfetta.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 389 470 G. old and new. probably an afterthought: filiae nos/tre excluse sint (sic).3. 206–10). VOL.4). pp. Chelotti removes one text (9. Pavan. Vol.2044. At this time Octavian spared the city and did not impose on it a veteran settlement. identifies at least three texts as coming from Ruvo. M. in the north it bordered on Canusium (unfortunately Chelotti does not append any map. 29–84: REGIUM IULIUM (Regio III. Politica e società. 22. but in 36 it received a settlement of veterani classiarii. and two already in CIL are republished from autopsy.} No. only one previously printed in AE. CIL 12.. Atti I (Roma 1999) 629–37. 101. 4 are lost. ÑRÆgion (cf.653. Ep. The main inscription on its base is destroyed. Dio 56. 18). Even before the war with Pyrrhus it was already a civitas foederata. Considerazioni”. The inscriptions from Rubi. in her study “Epigrafi monumentali di Ruvo”. 5.32. The Editors of the Series should see to it that cartographical illustration form an integral part of every contribution). two are lost. not far from Rubi). “L’Ascia in Cisalpina. but on the acroterio sinistro we read a riveting injunction. but O. No. to be added to the list in L. Temi di antichità romane II (Bari 1987) 17–94. 14. a very useful complete prosopography of the women of Bellunum (see esp. Regium (Reggio Calabria) had a long and eventful history as a Greek city. (5 texts now from Chelotti in AE 1990 [1993]. Before becoming a Roman municipium in 89. 8 (1899). Arrigoni Bertini. Apulia et Calabria) by Marcella Chelotti. This brings to mind the most famous exclusion of a daughter (and granddaughter) in Roman history. 549 on no. in 42 Regium acquired the surname Iulium. 5. “Ricerche sulla società della Venetia: le donne di Bellunum”.3176). that of Julia and Julia the Younger by Augustus from his Mausoleum (Suet. in XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Lucania et Bruttii) by Marco Buonocore. pp. Nevertheless during the early Empire the city retained its Greek character as evidenced by numerous Greek inscriptions . Capozza. R. The inscriptions from Rubi were collected by Mommsen in CIL 9 (1883): only 9 texts (and 2 falsae). NUOVI TESTI contain 6 inscriptions. 5 (1989) Vol. ITAL. but restores to Rubi two inscriptions (9. and 4 in Eph. 530–31 on CIL 5. Studi Messapici (Milano 1960) 40. A funerary urn. Veneto 152 (1993–94) 519–64. SUPPL. G. Atti Ist. and in greater detail. She does not indicate whether any pre–Latin inscriptions were found in Rubi. Taylor. A city of the Peucetii (Poediculi). No additional texts in C. 11–26: RUBI (Regio II. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) 161. Chelotti had already treated previously. Vallet. 1 (AE 1973. 45. Cass. a periodical not easily available even in Italy (non vidi {in the meantime I have succeeded in obtaining a copy}). preserved and lost (12). and not merely as an appendix to the discussion of CIL 8337. Le Bohec (ed. It is a sensation. This explanation has been generally accepted. X Fretensis at the very beginning of its existence” {an assertion he repeats in “Legio X Fretensis”. Ep. Mommsen re-published three glandes found at the promontory of Leucopetra (Lazzáro-Capo D’Armi. 5) of Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae (Bari 1987). Dio 48. as usual. 1–4). Da∫browa. CIL 10 (1883): 24 texts (and some 20 pieces of inscribed instrumentum).390 Historia et Epigraphia 471 and by the circumstance that the municipal magistrates bore Greek titles (e. Buonocore provides. but he rightly observed that although the sources mention the re–enlistment of the Tenth legion. d–g) found in Vibo Valentia. 6 (1985 [= Studi storici e ricerche archeologiche sulla Calabria antica e medioevale in memoria di Paolo Orsi]) 327–55 (for a photocopy of this article I am grateful to Umberto Laffi). Ihm) in Eph. Greek inscriptions assembled by Kaibel in IG 14 (1890): 13 texts (and 2 pieces of instrumentum). they are silent about its further participation in civil war.8337. in Y. Rivista Storica Calabrese. E.s. especially a volume (vol.a–c is a joy for military historians: slingshots. Mommsen remarked that another exemplar from Leucopetra was preserved in the (National) Museum in Reggio. 1 falsa. incisive comments and corrections.A. RE 12 (1925) 1671. Legio X Fretensis (Stuttgart 1993) 11. T. also by Ritterling. 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. It is also a treasure trove for prosopographers as those glandes plumbeae attest the title of imperator for Q.18. It reads: SA(lvidienus) // L(egio) X. Salvidienus Rufus. He is splendidly qualified to do so for he had in the past devoted many important studies to the epigraphy of Southern Italy. Catania (2 exemplars) and one of unknown provenience. MRR 2.). among other localities comprising also the inscriptions from Regium Iulium (nos. 20 km. an exemplary bibliography.366.625) Buonocore transfers from Regium to Locri. Inscriptions from Regium were collected. A pity. to the south of Reggio). but he did not see it and did not reproduce it. 8 (1891). Pompeius. In his classic monograph “Legio”. and it took its name from the fretum Siculum. Ritterling points out that the old legio decima of Caesar must have served as Stammtruppe for the two legions known from the Empire. still maintains that “there are no documents concerning leg. To all those texts. Mommsen who explained. n. All of them display (with slight variations) the formula Q(uintus) Sal(vidienus) im(perator). 6 further texts (published by M. E. is confusing: Cass. Costabile in Rivista Storica Calabrese 6 (1985) 357–75. prÊtaniw. The entry in Broughton.13 and IG 14. Les légions de Rome sous le haut-empire 1 (Lyon 2000) 317–18}. and a most informative piece on “L’Epigrafia latina dei Bruttii dopo Mommsen ed Ihm”. égoranÒmow).g. by Mommsen. once again. and four others (nos. but he does not report that Salvidienus was acclaimed imperator. and it ought to have been included among the Nuovi testi. Pompeius out of Regium. Military historians should read their sling- . It has now been published (with an extensive commentary) by F. It was. as so often. CIL 10. the X Fretensis and X Gemina.1–2 records that in 42 Salvidienus Rufus drove Sex. Two texts (CIL 10. Another excellent contribution by this indefatigable scholar {see now his further supplement in Suppl. 372. and thus attesting to the continuing presence of Scribonii (descended from the freedmen of Scribonia?) in Regium. 87–144: SUPERAEQUUM (Regio IV. Vol. see now Addenda and corrigenda in Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 663–64 {and also in this volume. only one lost. from the publication of Buonocore. and that it received its surname from the victorious Agrippa and Octavian. in 40.2. Concerning his governorship of Sicily one should not omit the remarks of E. 2 mere fragments.). The glans offers definitive proof that Legio X was indeed involved in the campaign against Sex. H. Sabina et Samnium) by Marco Buonocore. Pompeius. and Legio X is not yet Fretensis. Two years later. but ultimately settles upon the first one: super aequum. There are 38 NUOVI TESTI: 2 unpublished. 213–16. If the dedication belonged to the elder Norbanus it is unlikely that his title would be omitted. ZPE 72 (1988). 10 are Greek (4 recorded in SEG). 15 and 16. see M. Superaequum seems to have been constituted as a municipium only after . Addenda altera. Norbanus. 39}.S]k\reib≈niw = Scribonius.418). 37. or those who live super Aequos. He dates Norbanus’ assignment to the period from 89 to at least 87. The inscriptions record a freedman of Scribonia and two freedmen of Julia the daughter of Augustus. A lead defixio (dated to the second century) interestingly directed against a [. Nos. and his coinage. A thought occurs: perhaps it was Salvidienus as imperator who addressed the legion with its honorific name Fretensis? This thought is to be discarded. Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) 79. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. 5. Broughton. 18 recorded suo tempore in AE. and four admitted to AE 1990 (1993). Buonocore regards this man as governor of Sicily and the future consul in 83. No. But Münzer has a strong point in his favor: the man is amtlos. Norbanus C.13–14) about Norbanus’ success in saving Regium from an attack by the Italic forces. On this plumbum Salvidienus is not yet termed imperator. Ital. “above the plain”. pp. f. “above the land of the Aequi”? Buonocore adduces also other explanations. 181–200.41 tacitly ascribes the inscription to Norbanus pater. To my earlier article “Julia in Regium”. A Greek inscription honoring C. Donati (eds. MRR 2. Crawford.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 391 shots. RQ. that it participated in the final campaign against Sex Pompeius. Münzer (Hermes 67 [1932] 233–35) that the honorandus was the homonymous son of the consul. No. On the younger C. We should rather suppose that the legion continued to be stationed around Regium. Badian in his Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford 1964) 84–86. 11 (SEG 1. But it is undoubtedly the soldiers of this legion that were soon to acclaim him imperator. Salvidienus was disgraced and dead. He rejects the idea of F. he does not mention the inscription. monetalis in 83. No. Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 100–101}. 22 (2004) 135–46. the bellum piraticum in 37–36. it is most unlikely that the legion would have been allowed to perpetuate the memory of his exploit. Superaequum (with the ethnicon Superaequani) in the land of the Paeligni (Castelvecchio Subequo in the province l’Aquila) offers a puzzle in its very name: those who live super aequum. and aggiornamento of inscriptiones falsae vel alienae in G. and although he comments on Diodor’s report (37. however. 65–76. The Columbia dissertation of P. Ant. 5 already printed in CIL I2. 95). 4. 4: Lucus S(ilvani) A(ugusti). by and large. ILLRP 143). There are also three texts in Paelignian very laudably reproduced by Buonocore (p.3253. This cult went back to pre-Roman times as attested in Superaequum by an inscription in the Paelignian dialect (p. A well known inscription (of the Augustan period) listing the cursus honorum of Q. see the fundamental paper by C. and 14 in AE 1990 [1993] from this Suppl. 96). “Le culte d’Hercule chez les Paeligni”. ICI 3 (1986) 11–24 (nos. “Tribuni militum a populo”. 282). today this edge is . AE 1984.3254. 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. 7 (ILS 9007). Cf. No. Nicolet. 2 (CIL 2 I . We happen to know from Superaequum also another holder of this office: T. He is honored for various works of construction and restoration. NUOVI TESTI: 57 inscriptions (two only mentioned. 7–21).3181. 79. p. De Nino. He does not record this text. Pani. The limits of the Superaequan territory were. Buonocore (mostly following F. 15 are now lost. 14 lost. but not reproduced. Sulmo. (Corfinium and Sulmo). Among his various functions was also that of trib(unus) mil(itum) a populo. and one from Superaequum to the Marsian territory (9. The inscriptions from Superaequum were published by Mommsen in CIL 9 (1883): 38 texts. F. He observes (p.Ep. 333–34. 1984. already established by Mommsen. In the third century. The tribe of the city was Sergia. F.2486. He had already produced outstanding work on the Paelignian territory: not only contributions in Suppl. and one republished in Eph. and 1 in ILS. Van Wonterghem. a dedication to Hercules Victor and no.392 Historia et Epigraphia 472 49: originally the chief magistrates were the duumviri.3307 = ILS 5599. and this arrangement was characteristic of the municipal reforms of Caesar. the chief magistrates were. another inscription mentioning Octavius Sagitta. No. Two additional texts AE 1992 [1995]. 42 (1973) 36–48 (and 9 plates). 2–35). 48) that the inscription of Sagitta is one of the three texts showing conclusively that tribuni militum a populo belonged to the equestrian order. Ital. Pompullius Lappa (CIL 9.3324). 10 or so mere fragments). 292). Van Wonterghem) proposes small adjustments: as a result two inscriptions move from Corfinium to Superaequum (CIL 9. 8 (AE 1898. There are surprisingly numerous Christian texts: G. 1 (CIL I2. 283): a dedication to Hercules. 15 in AE. AE 1984. Lines 4–5 read: viam\[que ad templum] / Romae et Augusti Ca\[es(aris) sternendam cur(avit)]. esp. On this office. nos. 37). Octavius Sagitta. but also a spate of articles and a full corpus of inscriptions from Superaequum: L’Epigrafia latina di Superaequum (Castelvecchio Subequo 1985). A Study in Roman Folk Religion (Leiden 1992). Class. Buonocore’s comments and bibliographical aggiornamenti are again exemplary. Dorcey adduced by Buonocore has now been published: The Cult of Silvanus. the IVviri. Hercules Victor is also mentioned in no. No. No. 8 (1891). 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. Nicolet. MEFRA 79 (1967) 29–76. 3245). 3 (CIL I2. Romae was seen on the stone by the editor princeps A. 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.816).. Herrscherkult im römischen Reich (Stuttgart-Leipzig 1999) esp. Surely also the cities in Italy will have needed official permission to build a shrine dedicated to Augustus. Van Wonterghem (Forma 83. As Buonocore notes. Suet. Latomus 64 (2005) 619–25}). 411–21. The text mentions Gallia Coma[ta –––]. Aug. Cassius Dio 51. Taylor in her classic work. C. esp. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers (Rome 1985) 17–18. Gradel.7553 = ILS 916). No. 282) was more cautious and read: viam\[–––] / Romae et Augusti Ca\[esaris – – –]. Rodriguez. From Republic to Principate. 11 (AE 1990 [1993]. CIL 10. and despite recent peremptory remarks (cf. But C. 10. M. It is difficult to agree with M. lists in Italy in addition to Superaequum five other centers of the cult of Augustus that are to be dated to his lifetime.. 23) “che vada cercato qui . Her argument has attracted a large and influential following. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio Books 49–52 (Atlanta 1988) 154. Henlein-Schäfer 17) it has never been directly (or theologically) disproved.20. Clauss. un tempio del culto imperiale” (as accepted by C. Letta. no bar anywhere to private worship of him as god or hero. No. 52) indeed maintains that in Rome and in Italy no emperor allowed the establishment of his personal cult. L. F. Il culto della dea Roma [Pescara 1976] 252). and thinks (n. Scheid. argued that technically this was not the cult of Augustus but rather the cult of his Genius (as explicitly attested for Pompei. 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.. Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford 2002) 73–84 (to be read with the devastating review by P. There was. “Deus praesens.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 393 broken off. Fayer. Klio 70 [1996] 400–33. indeed. 54–75 (to be read with the review by J. In her most careful investigation H. Yet despite all doctrinal nuances the living emperor – beginning with Augustus himself – was commonly worshipped as a god. and after him AE 1984. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown 1931) 214–22. who will thus be the dedicants together (lines 2–3) with the aediles: aed(iles) ded(erunt) / pag(i) decre[to ––– {in erasure}]. R. Veneratio Augusti.2 [2005] 641–48). Reinhold. 133–42. “L’epigrafia pubblica . CIL 11. Der römische Kaiser als Gott”.. In line 5 Buonocore reads mag(istri) p(agi). yet Dio’s statement appears to be refuted by the growing epigraphic evidence. 144–45. 234). 77) that the text may have referred to an altar or a priesthood connected with the cult of Roma and Augustus. even publicly by cities and peoples of the empire”. this is the second epigraphic attestation of this expression (cf. Henlein–Schäfer. {Idem. I. To conclude: we should not hesitate to assign to Superaequum a temple of Roma and Augustus and to restore it in our inscription. “The Puluinar at the Circus Maximus: Worship of Augustus in Rome?”. JRA 18. Gnomon 75 [2003] 707–11)..g. Kaiser und Gott. Herz.6–8 (cf. and not only by provincials but also by cives (cf. In his short monograph Superaequum nel periodo romano (Castelvecchio Subequo 1984) he doubts (p. 148–52. e. when he writes that “Dio deals here only with the officially authorized cult centres of Augustus. The patrimonio epigrafico was collected in CIL 9 (1883) again by Mommsen (and in Eph. not iter (cf. He thus imagined a road (iter) leading to a locality called Paganica: (versus) Paganicam. “Forum NovumVescovio: Studying urbanism in the Tiber valley”. Salomies. But if so. 11) boldly cuts this Gordian knot. No. In lines 4–6 the first editor (N. Its inhabitants were called Foronovani. in the east and south-east on the ager of Reate and Trebula Mutuesca. CIL I2. Of the three magistri one is called Crisplius: this is the first and only attestation of the name (cf. Roberts. Very sparse literary sources were already fully utilized by Mommsen in CIL. Cf. 145–238: FORUM NOVUM (Regio IV. “paganicus” {Cf. 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). L’Africa Romana 8. He takes paganica in the (unattested) sense of aedes or aedicula. Patterson. 12 (AE 1914. This area was probably assigned viritim to Roman citizens still in the the first part of the third century (p. 295). Vol. {See now V. AE 1993 [1996]. H. another displays the filiation Sex. The territory of Forum Novum was delimited toward west and southwest by the course of the Tiber. 51 and n. A college of five freedmen termed viocuri. Ital. and was inscribed into tribus Clustumina.3255). “ A propósito de los paganica de Africa”. one would rather expect via paganica. 5. rejects the attempts to correct paganicam into paganicum}). Narnia and Interamna. 22 (2004) 138–39. M. 270. Filippi supplies additional information especially on the late antique and early medieval history of the city. Die römischen Vornamen (Helsinki 1987) 96. altogether 89 inscriptions (including the instrumentum) .1 (1991) 421–28}). 148). P. 13 {In Suppl. no. below. Letta. Buonocore again. 36–37 (see above.v. Repertorium 64).394 Historia et Epigraphia 472 di vici e pagi nella regio IV: imitazione del modello urbano e peculiarità del villagio”. in the north-west and west it bordered on the ager of Ocriculum. collegando i vari vici tra loro e col santuario comune” (cf. Buonocore strongly disagrees and reconstructs: mag(istri) pag(i) iter(um) / paganicam fac(iundam). O. Sabina et Samnium) by Giorgio Filippi. Ep. the praenomen Vibius being several times attested in the Paelignian area. f. pp. proposes to expand mag(istris) p(agi): in an imitation of the “modello urbano” the magistri appear as eponyms. and assumes that paganicam is a mistake of the stone cutter to be corrected into paganicum. proposes V(ibii) f. He may be right: the noun paganicum appears three times in inscriptions from Africa in the sense of a building (TLL s. Pagàn. No. JRA 14 (2001) 59–79}. 13 (AE 1984. An attractive solution that persuaded Buonocore himself. in L’Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 33–48 at 40–41. pp. Gaffney. 8 [1891]). Apicius V. and finally toward the south the precise position of its border with Cures is still uncertain. 571. It is the first appearance of this term outside the framework of senatorial careers. More recently C. AE 1993 [1996] 570). The very name of Forum Novum (Vescovìo) betrays the Roman (and not native) origin of this city in the northern part of the Sabine territory. no. Buonocore offers no expansion. and rightly. Mayer and I. ibid. The inscription offers puzzles and novelties.. Solin-Salomies. The iter paganicum would be a road “che attraversava tutto il territorio del pagus. 9. The municipium was governed by IIviri. Vibius C. vol. was inscribed into tribus Menenia. The first attestation in Forum Novum of the local senate of centumviri. Bellunum). 247–71. Suppl. {See also 1998 [2001]. vol. Maruleius T. As Filippi points out this name-form finds a close counterpart in the name of M. 62). 41). above. Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Helsinki 1992). Pais (2 texts). Bassignano. 49). at least neither name appears in his index. the first attestations of Herbuleius (no. 474 Vol. 4. but some 40 merely meagre fragments). This crop substantially enriches the onomastics of Forum Novum. and suspects foreign origin also of five “frustuli di tituli”. 75 inedita (so far a record for all Supplementa. Sulmo). pp. Ital. mentioned by jurists but so far not recorded epigraphically. and in the old series of Supplementa Italica (1888) by E. No. 49: C. A mosaic inscription: C. 40). vol. never mind: the name this inscription . There are also 10 falsae. originally a settlement of the Raeti. 22 (2004) 240–54}. 241–61: FELTRIA (Regio X. and a large number of falsae: 27). the cognomen Curin(us). 20 published previously (7 recorded in AE). Buonocore. Clu(stumina) Celer Státór / ex – decretó C virum s(ua) p(ecunia) f(ecit). Filippi adopts this interpretation also for our text. It became a municipium after 49. 483) and perhaps of Macretius (no. f. {See now also the new supplement by M. Filippi removes 9 texts as not belonging to Forum Novum. Panciera discovers there a case of arrogatio libertini. 44. Two stones Lazzaro transfers to Feltria from Bellunum (cf. 5. 311 is insufficient). the “old” texts are revised. in G.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 395 of which 40 have disappeared. 224–29). Filippi takes Státór (note the apices) as a second cognomen which according to him “conferma il rango elevato dell’individuo”. attested as a surname only with respect to Hercules (see above. The inscriptions from Feltria were assembled in CIL 5 (1872. Mommsen (23 texts. cf. bordering on Bellunum and Tridentum (the map on p. Neither case seems to have been discussed by O. Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 122–25}. Scavi 1975. 48. and another hapax (no. Solin-Salomies. Felix. Suppl. Still there are only few texts of a more general interest: No. Flacci libertus. controlled a rather extensive ager. but Lazzaro bans it from Feltria. Panciera (Not. It appears on an urban stone published with an extensive commentary by S. It is more natural to interpret the word as indicating the office of stator. Marullius (no. no. see addenda and corrections by M. 18. Repertorium. S. Antonius M(arci) f(ilius) Pap(iria). 4. and was governed by IVviri. but the reading is uncertain). {For falsae and alienae. this is of some interest for the municipal history: the inscription can archaeologically be dated as far back as the time of Caesar. 411–12}. in this case an attendant or messenger of the centumviri (cf. Venetia et Histria) by Luciano Lazzaro.). Donati (eds. and provided with bibliography. Flavius Aug(usti) l(ibertus) Primigenius. Pais (nos. As usual. 106). and removes one inscription as extranea. Sulmo. 25 now admitted to AE 1990 [1993]. Feltre (Feltria). Angeli-Bertinelli and A. NUOVI TESTI: 95 texts. Salomies. including such rare gentilicia as Fesinius (no. only 2 stones are lost. 1877) by T. 4. 447 and 1233) and Lazzaro rehabilitate one of the falsae (no. above. La lingua venetica 1 (Padova 1967) 445–46. praetor in 56. ITAL. Ktema 17 (1993 [1996]) 55–76 at 60–62 {reprinted in this volume.24. this account is badly confused (“Appian BC 2. This text of 12 lines (with a number of uncertain readings and supplements) has been frequently discussed by students of economy and numismatics. and one belongs to the city of Rome. 3 additional texts are in Eph. S. Suppl. Linderski. According to a widespread belief Scaurus was twice prosecuted de ambitu: first in 54 under the lex Tullia.. see also in this volume. from Lazzaro 5 texts now in AE 1990 [1993]. as G. does not inspire confidence. 6 (1990) Vol. 663. 7 (1888). In another place (p. There are 8 Nuovi Testi. The belief in a second trial of Scaurus de ambitu is entirely based on Appian’s account (BC 2. pp. S. Broughton. and governor of Sardinia in 55 (cf. centonariorum) with the stipulation that the interest (usura) from that sum should be used to celebrate the natalis of the donor. There are also 21 falsae. anno del proconsolato. recording a legatum of five hundred thousand denarii given to the coll(egia) fab(rum) and cc (i. 3. Two remarks on “old” inscriptions: CIL 10. SUPPL. CIL 10 (1883) displays 23 inscriptions from Setia (published by Mommsen).811 = ILS 5529 = ILLRP 393) reads: – – –] Scaurus pr(aetor) pro co(n)s(ule) bas[ilicam –––]. 396–400. “Games in Patavium”. VOL. Ep. Volpe argues (p. B. Bassignano.24 and the Trial De Ambitu .6462 (= 12. In fact. A second trial hardly qualifies as “ennesimo”. {See further 2002 [2005]. as a Latin colony in 382. and closes – with the notation N CCCLXII (such notations are known also from Patavium). This person is generally identified with M. Bucher has recently demonstrated in a brilliant investigation. Its territory extended from via Latina to via Appia. but the pride of place goes to no. and it retained that status until after the Social War. Caupius Albicius. But it is of interest also for another reason: it opens with the indication of the consular date of 323.e.396 Historia et Epigraphia records. it disappears altogether. in the part of Latium occupied by the Volsci. Pellegrini and A. Addenda altera. 34. No. MRR 1.89) but. Latium et Campania) by Rita Volpe. 15 are now lost. From Feltria come also “due lapidi etruscoidi”: see G. and then in 52 he was convicted under the lex Pompeia.208. That N stands for n(atali die). Prosdocimi. Setia (Sezze) was established in the Monti Lepini. anno in cui Scauro fu costretto all’esilio dopo un ennesimo processo per corruzione”. RQ. e il 52. Harris ( ZPE 27 [1977] 283–93) and the present writer (ZPE 50 [1983] 227–32 {= RQ 369–74. 11–33: SETIA (Regio I. 22 (2004) 251–53}. See also M. 547–49}. Lazzaro inclines to accept the theory advanced by W. Of interest is no. 217–18). only 1 lost. 1 (AE 1925. 17) that the inscription is to be dated “tra 55. 38}) that this notation indicates the – date according to the local era. Aemilius Scaurus. see now further remarks by J. Ital. No. 82) recording the cult of Anna Perenna. and only 1 recorded in AE. 23) Volpe very confusingly describes the stone as attesting a dedication “da parte di un praetor urbano”. when it became a Roman municipium. 6. published in 1907 (and promptly reprinted in ILS 9420). L. 3. Broughton. 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. he will hardly have done this when he was away as governor of Sardinia. and Pompt. S. 47) hesitatingly comments: “Pontorus nescio an cognomen potius sit quam Pont(ina) . Mommsen printed C. but he despaired as to the meaning of the last two words. and thus its ascription to the Pomptina may seem reasonable. indeed suggested that we have in this line the mention of the tribe: Pon[t(ina)]. his Zu den lukanischen Inschriften [Helsinki 1981] 51. It. Broughton did not persuade Degrassi (ILLRP 393. PONI POM / IUS. Badian’s review in Gnomon 51 (1979) 792–94] esp. The trial began in 54 and was concluded in 53.. R.248. n. nn. 25). Chr. We have to look not only at the title(s) but at the whole text. Kloft. “Notes on Roman Magistrates”.6465. Thanks to our inscription we know where part of Scaurus’ spoils ended up: in the basilica at Setia. 648. but Bracco’s text has been verified by Solin) C. f. but it is not entirely unfounded. p. T. is “in pessimo stato di conservazione”. n. it resulted in Scaurus’ conviction and exile. consulatum iniret”. Pont / oro.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 397 475 of M.. oddly enough does not discuss this particular question). CIL 10. cf. pro cos (which occurs also in a number of other texts). 1–2 (and CIL 1. the incriminated letters must conceal either solely a cognomen or a tribe and a cognomen. Upon his return from Sardinia to Rome Scaurus was immediately accused of extortion but ultimately acquitted. On its lato sinistro. Bracco) from Tegianum reads: C. [Meisenhaim am Glan 1977. but the city was situated in the ager Pomptinus. expressed doubt: perhaps we should put a comma between the two titles (H. 402 ad locc. Mommsen. 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. ed. et . Pon[t(ina)] may thus appear a desperate reconstruction. V. Kubitschek. H. Solin has recently discovered a consular pair of 263 (Tituli 4 [1982] 527–28). R. to be read with E. Oppio C. The inscription thus indicates his two highest previous functions. 24). Scaurus either built or restored a basilica in Setia. Another problem is this: it is not immediately clear how to interpret the indication pr. and controversial. 188). TAPA 77 (1946) 38–39. One would wish he had also ascertained the reading of line 1 of the main text.310 (= Inscr. Taylor who found his evidence “weak” (The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic [Rome 1960] 111. 64. nor pro cos. He failed to persuade Volpe (“lettura estremamente dubiosa”) or earlier L. but even his sguardo linceo was of no avail (cf.). praetor proconsule. tribus. The normal order being nomen. Historia 44 [1995] 396–421). T. CIL 10. W. Imperium romanum tributim discriptum (Vindobonae 1889) 30. For the history of Setia this stone is an important document. 2. Prorogation und ausserordentliche Imperien 326–81 v. F. ante quam de eo iudicari posset. cognomen. and 342. Römisches Staatsrecht 23 (Leipzig 1887) 650.1. imperfectly read by Mommsen. but as far as Scaurus was concerned he was undoubtedly right (although actually he does not adduce the case of Scaurus). as Volpe observes. This line. Aemilius Scaurus”. Now the tribe of Setia is not attested. but at that time he was neither pr. The perusal of Kubitschek’s own material shows that regular abbreviations were Pom. n. Kubitschek (p. Buculeio [Mommsen read Puculeio. argued that this denoted “ein Amt”. which he ultimately ventures to read C. however. A republican monumental inscription: [– Post]umiu[s Albi]nus consol f[ecit ––– ?]. 5 lost. Note epigrafiche”. The Temples of MidRepublican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context [Rome 1992] 201–58. we would deal with a Roman praetor and acquire a most interesting document. M. As Tegianum belonged to the Pomptina (see CIL 10. 282)}. only 2 in AE. on the basis of architecture and lettering assigns the text to the consul of 110 (cf. 426).23. We may read de m[ultaticia pecunia. but if the supplement m[anubiis is correct. 51): “Die Graphie Pont. Aberson. 6441) as colonia Privernatium. but perhaps we should read S(etinorum). 24) – a surprise! – solely the inscription from Setia. one already in CIL I2. Thus a classic case of a reconstruction supporting another reconstruction and in turn supported by it. Undoubtedly. but as support he adduces (n. the dating accepted by the editors of AE 1996 [1999]. Volpe (p. Nos valde dubitantes rem in medio relinquimus. the last 151). 135). Orlin. Gasperini. p. Mommsen’s argument is now less cogent. Temples. Volpe points out that local praetors are attested in Setia (CIL 10. Solin (pp. M. and reads C. 3. {L. and 6 now in AE 1990 [1993]. S(etinae) is generally accepted. In view of Solin’s redating of the stone to the third century. Postumius Albinus. De Romanarum tribuum origine et propagatione [Vindobonae 1882] 45). no.6466). Gnomon 68 (1996) 532. AE 1997 [2000]. our inscription as being “infimae aetatis”. f. But above all no senatus sententia (or consultum) was necessary for manubial dedications (see A. In line 7 there appears the abbreviation PCS. but Mommsen (CIL 10. Pont(ina) Pom/pus[iano]. 186.6440. Kubitschek’s proposal deserves serious consideration. also R. Zió¬kowski. cos. 39. 4a (AE 1991 [1994]. The same complaint applies also to E. No. Epigrafia 381–83}. Buculeio C. 14) points out that p(atrono) c(ivitatis) S(etinae) is also possible. and refer the inscription to the local senate and a local praetor. 50–52) embraces it (he quotes the earlier study of Kubitschek. He regarded. also refers the text to a local praetor. however. cit. 3) 274–78. 8095).ist auch sonst bekannt”. is much less cogent and fails to provide clear legal distinction between various categories of dedications and dedicants. L.3 and attributes the inscription to Sp. NUOVI TESTI: 17 inscriptions. Religion and Politics in the Roman Republic [Leiden 1997]). Pont(ina) F\oro (or perhaps Oro = Horo).398 Historia et Epigraphia Orus”. f. 132–37. seem to argue against this supplement. solved by Mommsen as p(atrono) c(oloniae) S(etinae). 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 254.291. Forni that no other texts with the reading Pont(ina) are known. Gasperini. Haensch. {R. 637) buttressed his expansion by the reference to the neighboring Privernum which is described in two inscriptions of the fourth century (10. op. Another republican inscription: [– – – us] pr(aetor) de s(enatus) s(ententia) refec(it) de m[anubiis ? – ––]. The verb refecit (as opposed to fecit) would. “Lazio tardo-repubblicano. 398 (p. MGR 21 (1997) 271–74. Oppio C. he . though not without some merit. He states (p. 307–17. (above. Volpe. {Cf. All this despite the information from G. No. adduces Liv. Temples votifs et butin de guerre dans la Rome republicaine [Rome 1994]. pp. LF. a funerary stone of C. and LIRU (so read by the excavators. and that “etiam Cingulo quod oppidum Labienus constituerat suaque pecunia exaedificaverat ad eum legati veniunt quaeque imperavit se cupidissime facturos pollicentur”. (a) with frgs. Another passage. cf. Laffi. perd.We begin. Laffi points out in his most instructive survey (“Sull’organizzazione amministrativa dell’Italia dopo la guerra sociale”.1–2 relates that. 261). now lost. Licinius Asclepia[de]s (10. also for this supposition Taylor and Cicero offered resounding corroboration. (b): [–––] E D [–––]. R. 22 (2004) 147–51}. 541) and by other scholars. and all missed by J. On the basis of this passage it was possible to suspect that originally Cingulum was one of the Picentine praefecturae. No. had long been utilized for the history of Cingulum.6469). 242). when he entered the ager Picenus. It was also possible to suspect that Cingulum was the home town of the gens Labiena. and L. Gasperini and AE print Ru[f]us. and (c): [–––]GUN[–––].Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 399 combines frg. Das Medizinalpersonal im antiken Rom (Helsinki 1987). but where we should read the patronymicon LF. Caesar. ager Picenus universus. but do not indicate where the letters us are attested. now illegible). changed the history of Cingulum. and as U. medicus and sevir Augustalis. Picenum) by Gianfranco Paci {See now Paci’s new supplement. in Akten des VI. all of Greek and ultimately servile extraction. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik [München 1973] 37–53 at 47–48 {= U. “Labienus and the Picene Town of Cingulum”. regio. and in a series of pointed rhetorical questions forcefully reminds Labienus that his own father and propinqui vestri. 283. also a sevir Augustalis (CIL 10. f. ?] Quinctius Theoxenus. This is a third medicus attested in Setia.6471. As municipium Cingulum (ascribed to tribus Velina) was governed by duoviri (and not by quattuorviri). Cf. vicinitas vestra. AE 1997 [2000]. Ital. CR 35 (1921) 158–59. [Var]gun[teius] L. 6. The two other are [L. Gasperini seems to have rather imagined the reading Ru[f(us)]}. AE 1992 [1995]. 10 (AE 1961. with a tribute to L. Taylor adduced the passage of Cicero (Rab. Barbius Cleon. had stood firm against the tribunicius furor of Saturninus and supported the consularis auctoritas. Taylor: Her two page article. Labienus. 37–53: CINGULUM (Regio V. Korpela. and later Caesar’s trusted general in Gaul and his bitter opponent in the civil war. This yields an ingenious restoration: L. Studi di storia romana e di diritto (Roma 2001) 113–35 at 125–26}) 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 . and he further connects with the inscription three minute frustula bearing the letters L (only traces.15. and RU. Taylor and the utterances of Cicero turned this supposition into certainty. p. the first letters of a cognomen). also concerning Labienus. In his defense of Rabirius (in 63) Cicero addresses T. equites Romani. joining Paci. Ru[fus] pr(aetor) de s(enatus) s(ententia) refecit [i]dem[q(ue) probavit dedicavitq(ue). 476 Vol. then a tribune of the plebs. furthermore omnis praefectura. Suppl. 22) which had been curiously overlooked by Mommsen (CIL 9. “cunctae earum regionum praefecturae libentissimis animis eum recipiunt”. BC 1. There are only 7 NUOVI TESTI: 1 belonging to Rome. preserved in the Corpus Gromaticorum. precisely the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia. Thus Caesar’s terminology is no obstacle. Thus perhaps Labienus was appointed to constitute Cingulum as municipium in pursuance of another statute. 27) Caesar employs the term oppidum with reference to towns that were technically municipia or coloniae: Iguvium. 179). 1 damaged. Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien (München 1976) 36 (and various scholars before him) searched for a legal basis of Labienus’ intervention. Auximum (in both places he also mentions municipes). 5 lost. Labienus oppidum constituerat. 3. The inscriptions from Cingulum (Cingolo) Mommsen collected in CIL 9 (1883): 20 texts (and 2 falsae). Athenaeum 77 [1989] 179–90. invoking Emilio Gabba (p. p. We can accept that it was Labienus who transformed Cingulum from a praefectura into a municipium. No certain solution is at hand. On the other hand H. Why not? Perhaps because Caesar uses the term oppidum and not municipium? Now in the first Book of BC (see chapters 12. at least if we follow a novel and powerful argument of M. The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors (London 2000) 321–22}). 41). Brundisium. distinct from the lex Iulia. and Labienus simply made this transformation possible through his earlier building activity. apparently at a time when he had collected enough Gallic loot to carry out the exaedificatio. Aniensis. 21–22. Furthermore Caesar appears to juxtapose the praefecturae and Cingulum. and the support he received from that city would not have been so extraordinary. now an oppidum. he suggests hesitatingly the lex Iulia agraria of 59 or a senatorial decree. This scholar is of the opinion that the three chapters. municipium praefecturam forum conciliabulum constituerit”. of the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia belonged in fact to the lex Iulia agraria. the former is a reasonable suggestion but perhaps not in the way imagined by Galsterer. p. H. Crawford (see “The Lex Iulia Agraria”. perhaps he indeed acted on the basis of the lex Iulia agraria. 184). 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.763–67 {now accepted by B. The inscription was found on the territory of Cingulum. see the bibliography in Crawford. 18–19. shows that he was . Cingulum may have well been organized as a municipium after 49. 15–16. and now 5 from Paci (4 from his earlier publication) in AE 1990 (1993). 1 recorded in AE. Labienus to the framework established by our statute” (Crawford. Roman Statutes [London 1996] 2. 1 re–edited. Galsterer. f. Corfinium. there is no particular reason to relate the constitution of Cingulum by T. Campbell. Ani(ensis) Optatus / scríba aed(ilium) cur(ulium) / sexs prímus (observe the apices). When did Cingulum become a municipium and what was the role of Labienus in this process? No legal role at all: so Paci. a funerary inscription of P. Statius Q.400 Historia et Epigraphia 477 municipia were administered by quattuorviri). Athenaeum. Not so: “Unfortunately. Athenaeum. 312–16. Sulmo (he also mentions oppidani as opposed to milites). 3 minute fragments. No. but the tribe of Statius. et fortasse recte 55) we read: “Qui hac lege coloniam deduxerit. Asculum. In chapter 5 (vulgo. The latter we can safely exclude. and to be dated to 55 (as some scholars had supposed. 369) read in the first four lines T. only 2 previously admitted into AE (and now 5 texts after Marengo in AE 1990 [1993]. No. In passing we may observe that S. 57–79: CAMERINUM (Regio VI. Bormann: 17 texts (and 14 falsae). The editio princeps (Epigraphica 46 [1984] 176–77. “The scribae of the Roman Republic”. esp. and one inscription assigned in CIL 11. 2097. 6. The early history of Camerinum (Camerino) and its foedus with Rome does not interest us here. The original editor of that inscription. Panciera’s reconstruction of the organization of scribae in the Late Republic (in Epigrafia 273–78) differs very substantially from that of Badian (esp. Suppl. (ibid. 322–26). it is more difficult to decide whether there is an F or a T in the previous title. As the inscription may belong to the “età protoimperiale” we should perhaps add Statius to the list of late republican clerks in E. pp.E. from the second century B. . 313 (from Iesolo in the province of Venezia) adduced by Marengo. As to the cognomen. Paci suggests that after his career as scriba at Rome he retired to Cingulum. Non arma virumque. 2. S. Sinon is. Cor. reprinted in F. of which 4 are now lost. Sartori. line 95). {See now her new supplement. “The ordo scribarum: a study in the loss of memory”. and several are damaged. RSA 6–7 [1976–77] 195–213.7884 to Spoletium but belonging to Camerinum. Marengo is certainly right in discarding praetor and opting for praefectus. / Sinoni / praet(ori) quinquennali / Camerini.2 (2001) 633–74. 210–11). {Cf. p. In the inscription AE 1958. Klio 71 (1989) 582–603. 595–98). That much is obvious. The inscriptions from Camerinum were published in CIL 11 (1901 and 1926) by E. a slave. There is an earlier attestation. MEFRA 113. Umbria) by Silvia Maria Marengo. Panciera. but in the light of the evidence assembled by M. 11314 a. 887. an ingenuus.} Vol. Marengo observes that it is “di origine greca” and “assai raro”. did come by this name. Purcell. 96) notes as the only other example a person from the Athenian ephebic catalogue of 169/70 (ÉIoÊl[iow] S¤nvn. and AE 1985. Badian. Bassignano (in Epigrafia 515–37) on the praefecti iure dicundo. “Ficolenses foederati”. and the comprehensive study by N. Ital. but in view of the Vergilian notoriety of the perfidious Sinon one wonders how Vetilius. now the comments of A. appropriately. Dall’Italía all’Italia [Padova 1993] 93–104. IG II2. a marvellous display of antiquarianism and local pride (the best study is that of S. Cristofori. Veneto 116 [1957] 244–55.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 401 not a native of that city. Le occupazioni nell’ epigrafia di Piceno (Bologna 2004) 250–54. Vetilio T. To the “old” texts Marengo provides corrections and rudimentary bibliography. Marengo proposes praef(ectus) quinquennalis. after the Social War it was a municipium inscribed into the Cornelian tribe. f.C. The photograph renders the reading quinquennalis (in the nominative) indubitable. but these Greek examples do not carry the weight of the Roman connotation of the name. 22 (2004) 161–71}. 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). esp. A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names 2 [1994] 399). F. cf. NUOVI TESTI: 11 inscriptions (but 2 of them only small fragments). Sartori (Atti Ist. Kajava kindly adverts me that he has in fact discussed this inscription but s. Today 8 texts are lost. NUOVI TESTI: 20 items (3 meagre fragments). Two additional inscriptions (7671.E. 1 ineditum. the inscription added by Pais in his Suppl. the city was a municipium (CIL 5. 324): Q. 738–39). He regards Maior Vibia as the dedicant. Although the name Tridentum may ultimately be of Celtic origin. and one is almost completely damaged. 978) was in fact already published by Mommsen (7801). above. 6. 739 (without any indication of the previous publication). By 46 C. vol. 83–108: VALLIS TANARI SUPERIOR (Regio IX. 86–91). 2 republished (no. M. Vol. The inscriptions were collected in CIL 5 (1877) by Mommsen: 13 texts (and 4 falsae. Mennella in Suppl. pp. 44. 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). 6.v. 7730) Cresci Marrone transfers to Vallis Tanari from Augusta Bagiennorum and from the area designated by Mommsen as Ora a Luna ad Genuam.7804. but one of them [915*] perhaps genuine).5050). no. f. {See now a further supplement by G. Cresci Marrone delineates this complicated story very well. Titulenus Q. 9 (AE 1990. Venetia et Histria) by Alfredo Buonopane. The text is assigned to the environs of Albingaunum.The Upper Valley of Tanarus was a territory of the Liguri Montani. and Q. A marvellous edition and commentary. 1 = CIL 5. An interesting onomastic puzzle: is Maior the cognomen of Titulenus or the praenomen of Vibia? Marengo. De Pasquale in Bolletino storico-bibliografico subalpino 89 (1991) 184–87 (non vidi). Probably the most important 478 . an excellent map helps the reader to follow in detail her propositions concerning the delimitation of the territory (pp. since their subjection by the Romans at the beginning of the second century B. MAIO(S). This inscription was published again by A. none recorded in AE (now 9 texts in AE 1990 [1993]. 17 = 7803). their territory was in some way attached (through the process of adtributio) to the city of Albingaunum (cf. 115–27).E. p. with Albingaunum). Ital. No. Kajava. 360–68. but his evidence supports the idea of combining Maior and Vibia (whether Maior was felt as a true praenomen or a reversed cognomen). pp. The history of the city (today Trento) Buonopane paints with clarity and erudition (pp. Vol. 4). 360 reproduces the cognomen (in gen. (no. belonging to the tribus Papiria. the city itself was a Roman foundation. Liguria) by Giovanella Cresci Marrone.402 Historia et Epigraphia No. 22 (2004) 189–95}. but the photograph vindicates Cresci Marrone’s reading T\e\ssellae (although the initial T is hardly visible). 111–82: TRIDENTUM (Regio X. Roman Female Praenomina (Rome 1994) does not discuss this case. to be dated perhaps as late as the proconsulate of Caesar. a new reading and a new text in AE 1991 [1994]. Publilia.C. a name so far not otherwise attested and not listed in Repertorium of Solin and Salomies. and it achieved full municipal status only in the second century of the Empire (but continued to share its tribe.) as Tessalae. Titulenus as the dedicatee}. Ital. 2: AE 1990. opts for the latter solution. and again reproduced in AE 1991 [1994]. {M. Panciera. following the opinion of S. / Maior Vibia / hoc m(onumentum) p(osuit). In the second century it acquired the rank of a titulary colonia. NUOVI TESTI: 41 items (10 extremely fragmentary). Rehm. 741–44.). 16. 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. Pökel. but were published only in 1914 by A. cf. “L’iscrizione confinaria del Monte Pèrgol in Val Cadino nel Trentino orientale”. 753). Bellunum.5016. See now an extensive discussion by E. On the juxtaposition of pontifical and augural symbols. 627. For a very useful aggiornamento of rock inscriptions. and then the attributes of Minerva (lance and shield. 38 texts. above. 10}. Scipio Imperator”. It is worth observing that here we deal with representations of three distinct sorts of emblems: on the right side the augural emblems.) mentioning a negotians vinarius whose origin is described as domo Iulia Tridentum. Cavada. 2 inedita. 1992 [1995]. 2001 [2004]. see L. 3 texts (9 are now lost). Robert S. he also provides an extensive bibliography. But perhaps the most eloquent is no. called Aventinus (1477–1534. to the local cult of Fortuna and Sol [Invictus ?]. Broughton and the Roman Republic (Stuttgart 1996) 175–77. 27 (and cf. lituus. The inscriptions from Tridentum were published by Mommsen in CIL 5 (1872. and finally in the Tables générales 1911–1920 (p. 145a. cf. Saxa scripta. after four hundred years rediscovered. Nos. Buonopane (p. Thus fortunately copied. 1). E. “Q. 1877). {Also 1995 [1998]. culter.). 2 republished from CIL and Pais. in Rupes loquentes (1992) 99–115 (and cf. Tibiletti (Epigraphica 35 [1973] 156–75 at 173–74). 2000 [2003]. No. and patella. W. 24 already in AE (and now 7 in AE 1990 [1993]. 707. 4. Vollmer (Hermes 49. see W. Gasperini.) on Monte Pèrgol: Finis inter / Trid(entinos) et Feltr(inos) / Lim(es) lat(us) p(edes) IIII. 5 (or 6) lost. 125): these texts share common but uncommon vicissitudes. 3) their provenience was mistakenly given as Tarente (instead of Trente). no. 606. No. Actas del Simposio Internacional Ibero-Itálico sobre epigrafía rupestre (La Coruña 1995) 297–331. J. and n. Philologisches SchriftstellerLexikon [Leipzig 1882] 279). 1073–83}. lancea and scutum. Rodríguez Colmenero / L. an inscription carved high (2019 m. Simon. 4. Die Götter der Römer [Darmstadt 1990] 170). All these stones Buonopane describes with meticulous attention. 21 {reprinted in this volume. CIL 5. Altmann. Die römischen Grabaltare der Kaiserzeit (Berlin 1905) 181 (Fig. and by Pais (Suppl. patella. his . ca II/III c. Linderski. and on the left first the pontifical emblems. 1999 [2002]. Imperium Sine Fine: T. in idem (ed. a dedication to Minerva. they again almost disappeared from the history of Tridentum until recalled by G. 311–14). 421–27). “Iscrizioni rupestri di età romana in Italia”. 1888). Gasperini (eds. 26. 9. in A. Ital. securilla. On the right side of the stone there is a representation of urceus. simpulum and jug). inter alia. They attest. They were copied by the Bavarian Renaissance erudite Johann Turmair. 1 (AE 1964. vol. 255–58. Four of them were next admitted to AE 1914. 197. with the erroneous attribution of the publication to A. p. soon forgotten. 26: all persons involved have fine epichoric names: the husband [–––] Tauci f(ilius) prepares a grave monument for himself and for Luppa. on the left side of simpulum.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 403 recent find for the history of Tridentum comes from Passau in Germany: an inscription (AE 1984. and often a detailed discussion. the collection continued by Pais (Suppl. Laffi. How quickly did the natives acquire Roman phrases and legalities! No.E. 293). CIL 6. 11 (AE 1990. Unpublished. It was probably subdued by the Romans at the beginning of the first century. and in his discussion (pp. 424). 6 in AE (and now 4 in AE 1990 [1993]. NUOVI TESTI: 16 inscriptions (2 lost). A late (4th or 5th century) epitaph. a new attestation of the local grandee [C. 20 (AE 1990. Ital. Amaros et Matrona. 422). 429–32). a daughter of Biumus son of Bursacus. Venetia et Histria) by Alfredo Buonopane. 1888). and he figures prominently and unpleasantly in the concluding injunction: huic monumento Turus. No. 1877) the inscriptions from Anaunia. The Edict of Claudius was published by Mommsen (Hermes 4 [1870] 99–120) and he also collected in CIL 5 (1872. We note the usage (first attested in Silver Latin) of the plural fratres to denote brother and sister.5050).. The area was inhabited by the tribes of Anauni. 6. 194–95) provides an extensive bibliography (two full dense pages!). Opinions vary: either a piper or (less likely) a producer of water pipes. 188–90) he largely follows U. Vale]rius [Mari]anus [patro]n(us) colon(iae). No. but ultimately and de facto they formed genus hominum permixtum cum Tridentinis. still the best treatment of the document and of the phenomenon of adtributio. Buonopane (pp. although some scholars prefer to assign the conquest to the period of Augustus (16 and 15 B. 137–38).404 479 Historia et Epigraphia uxor carissima. exheres esto. 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. Buonopane’s comments on CIL 5. 19 (AE 1977. pp. 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. 29–36. also described as puer and puella. 578–79}. Adtributio e Contributio (Pisa 1966) esp. Anaunia (later also Anagnia) is the ancient name of Val di Non to the north of Trento. the name of the son is Turus.C. 183–228: ANAUNI (Regio X. 181–91. Tulliasses and Sinduni. 3 minute fragments. altogether 36 inscriptions (and 2 falsae). and his equally exemplary bibliography. 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. cf. and were arrogating for themselves the rights of Roman citizens.). 13 are lost. The adtributi appear to have legally remained at the level of peregrini. and fr(ater) et soror. . Tulliasses and Sinduni.5036. I should wish to stress again the exemplary presentation of old and new texts by Buonopane.4444). who appears to have flourished in the second half of the second century or at the beginning of the third century (cf. {Also 1998 [2001]. filius meus. 597. abounding in linguistic peculiarities and oddities. 2002 [2005]. A funerary stone of a fistulator (only the second epigraphical attestation. irrespective of whether they were formally attached to Tridentum. pp. Vol. ITAL. the specifically epigraphical publications will be marked with the plus sign (+). 11–313: INDICI DEI VOLUMI 1–6 by Ivan Di Stefano Manzella and Claudia Lega. DIECI ANNI DOPO”. 7 (1991) Vol.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 405 SUPPL. and provided with a particular symbol. Barium (Bari). and other publications with the minus sign (–). will produce a comprehensive {unicode} computer program for epigraphy and make it commercially available? {so far a cry in the wilderness . 8. Ital. pp. much more appropriately. Krummrey had fully elaborated in the preceding year (Tituli 2 [1980] 205–15). Apulia et Calabria) by Marcella Chelotti. Panciera presented the system of segni diacritici which he and H. 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. VOL. 25–44: BARIUM (Regio IV. Monumenti epigrafici reediti o nuovi (for the sake of brevity I will refer to them as Monumenti nuovi). by Silvio Panciera. But plunge into that varietas notarum we will (if not must). became in the third century a 480 .. 17–20 contain corrections to vols. Tables of comparison make all those minute details easy to appreciate. Our previous supreme deity. See the remarks at the close of this paper. L’Année Épigraphique makes do with only nineteen notations. or perhaps the Association Internationale d’Épigraphie Grecque et Latine. If anything can be perfect. This latter notation may seem redundant. raised half-brackets and bars above letters (all of them important!) are difficult or impossible to achieve with any standard computer program. Vol. in the future brave world of cyberspace high resolution photographs will accompany every textual discussion of an epigraph. All the nuances.. but it sets out the titles very neatly. hence a modest proposal: perhaps the office of the Suppl. 2) The Nuovi testi will now be called. heroes. foibles and tragedies (like erasures of names upon the damnatio memoriae) of epigraphical production and all the sagacities of editorial intervention are accounted for. originally a city of the Peucetii. But perfection is for gods. Here let it only be observed that pp. ITAL. Theodor Mommsen. sublinear dots. SUPPL. 8 (1991) Vol. 1 (1981) 13–19. A line (or two. VOL. We should also not underestimate the technical difficulties of the notations. and notes subsequent experiments in inscriptional notation. In Suppl. And there are photographs.1–6.}. the new slightly altered system of Panciera is a study in perfection. Ital. 9–21: “STRUTTURA DEI SUPPLEMENTI E SEGNI DIACRITICI. In the present volume Panciera reviews the (recent) history of epigraphic notations (before and after the Leiden system). Altogether there are forty different notations the description of which consumes almost three full pages. defends his own system against critics. and the Publisher of the series. flourished in a much simpler heaven. mere mortals are overwhelmed. pp. pp. or three) of description is more eloquent than the most ingenious bracket. 7. 8. and scribes of epigraphy. now G. Bari dalle origini al X secolo (Bari 1988. recorded 8 of these inscriptions from an earlier publication. The most detailed study is still that of the editor princeps L. Camodeca. IIIIvir iterum and IIIIvir quinq(uennalis). See now also AE 1991 [1994]. Morizio et M. 126 a. Along with curatores rei publicae also the supervisors of municipal account (or interest) books. They appear to have been appointed by the emperor. and ultimately after the Social War was organized as a municipium ascribed to tribus Claudia. 427. Jones. Gellius Poplicola. 2 (CIL I2. a municipal cursus honorum of C. AE 1990 [1993]. There is also a Greek text in IG 14. 358}. C. and Chelotti has apparently now decided to attribute it to the latter. The inscriptions were published again by Mommsen. ZPE 115 [1997] 263–70. f.} No. inaccurately quoted as M. C. Gellius L. 439–456 (so also in the list of Ouvrages. Moretti. 504). Tra epigrafia e storia (Roma 1990) 317–25. / pr(aetor) d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia) / LII (scil.12.406 Historia et Epigraphia Roman ally. is missing from Suppl. C. Aemilius Lepidus. The person in question may have been (as Moretti hesitatingly considers) L. CIL 9 (1883). {Duly recorded by T. 26 texts of which 23 (!) are lost. 360–68. a stone recording the career of Q. 201 (original publication in 1988) oddly enough is not in Chelotti. 3 (AE 1988. Clau(dia) Aequos who was aed(ilis). become ubiquitous in the second and third century.. and consul in 72 (MRR 1. Baebius. Chelotti. V. Saint Nicholas of Myra. the inscription was found between Barium and the neighboring Caelia. Licinius. and V. milia passuum). {now in AE 1996 [1999]. praetor peregrinus in 94. curatores kalendarii. Brennan.). now reprinted in L. 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 città in età romana). but whose seventeen year old son was . and M. duly destroyed by construction workers (they believed that the cippus because of its tubular shape contained a treasure).. le assegnazioni graccane e la via Aemilia in Hirpinia”. cos. 2 re-edited). Chelotti gives a description of scarce remnants. No. [H]erennius C. pp.2978. Silvestrini. W. Chelotti. RFIC 100 (1972) 172–80. Bari. f. La città in età romana (1988). Moretti. 270. 264. edited by G. as was also the case with our man. esp. it was probably later subsumed by the via Minucia (cf. 323). 367. AE 1991. p. a miliarium of L. who himself was not an equestrian.C. “Un nuovo ‘cursus’ municipale di Bari”. 504–7 (from Suppl. Perhaps the most important new find. Ital. We may observe that AE 1988. AE 1988 [1991]. 361). A good city for St. Radina).116). Andreassi and F. This is the first (and so far the only) attestation of an assignment to build a road given to a praetor de senatus sententia. and a rudimentary bibliography. Nicholas (cf. 2000 [2003]. The Praetorship in the Roman Republic (Oxford / New York 2000) 453. Ital. Epigrafia e territorio. Melchiorre. MONUMENTI NUOVI: 10 texts (3 lost. “M. A. In any case this inscription and the considerations it evoked ought to have been included in MRR 3 (1986) 99. politica e società 4 (Bari 1996) 157–62. further texts in 1990 [1993] 201. Bari & San Nicola [Bari 1986]). n. 48). and Manhattan [Chicago 1978]. but not a good city for inscriptions. The actual title of the book in question is Archeologia di una città. A mention of a patronus and curator kal(endarii) Barinor(um). and normally belonged to the municipal aristocracy. The via (Gellia) will have led from Canusium to Barium. We may safely assume that it became a municipium only after 49: it was governed by duoviri. A text in many respects both interesting and instructive: C. “Osservazioni sul ruolo del curator rei publicae”. Cf. This will also have been their function in Aufidena. M. but the enclosures (saepta) served also as a place for gladiatorial shows and other exhibitions. On curatores kalendarii. MONUMENTI NUOVI: 15 texts. Lebek. Chelotti now reads M. VITTORE DI CINGOLI (Regio V. 8 (1891). v(ixit) a(nnis) / XVII. 366). the literary texts he adduces concern the porticus and saepta in Rome. and this structure of administration was typical for the municipia organized after Caesar’s reform.C. after the death of Augustus and not already in 19 B. in that year was established the feast of Augustalia (including the circenses) and of Fortuna Redux commemorating the return of Augustus from the East. pp. hort(ator). 543). 8. 12 new (2 lost). Ep. Picenum) by Gianfranco Paci. In our text the porticus and saepta attract attention. 22 (2004) 67–73}. No. No. 5 recorded in AE (and now 14 in AE 1991 [1994]. Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohem Kaiserzeit (München 1979) 228–30. 539–52). AE 1988. 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). Buonocore is here less accurate: the ludi (scaenici) were established only in 14 C. Sabina et Samnium) by Marco Buonocore. Athenaeum 67 (1989) 5–20. D. Eck. is the right solution: on the stone there is a representation of a boat. No. and 1 inscription in Eph. pp. Caesius (?) Cosmus (her earlier reading was Cal[vi]sius. In this .E. and on curatores rei publicae. a city of the Samnites Pentri. Aufidena produced rather few texts in Oscan (Buonocore refers the reader to the collections of Vetter and Poccetti). 5 (AE 1991 [1994]. Herrius Se/verus. Ital. AE 1988. at least originally. Vol. 8. Aufidena (Castel di Sangro). 152.E. 3 re-edited from CIL (2 lost). “un jardinier ou gardien de jardin”. Buonocore adduces other epigraphical attestations of various constructions realized pro ludis (or pro impensa ludorum)..Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 407 481 exornatus equo publico. 73–88: S. Sartori. see W. “Augustalspiele und Landestrauer”. 12 are lost. Certainly not. Once again Buonocore gives an excellent assessment of these texts. Chelotti’s hortator. 363. The ludi Augustales were celebrated in Rome and in the cities of the Empire at the beginning of October in memory of Augustus. cf. was captured by the Romans in 298. {And see now the new supplement in Suppl. Ital. These structures were connected. Vol. A funerary stone (lines 2–4): Cn. 506). 1991. 22 (2004) 153–59}. {See now a new supplement in Suppl. Its tribe was Voltinia. Acellius Clemens portic(um) / et saept\a pro ludis Augustalibus / faciend(a) curavit. ZPE 75 (1988) 59–71. CIL 9 (1883): 37 texts (including instrumentum domesticum). For this juxtaposition Buonocore was not able to find any epigraphical parallels. with the voting arrangements in the popular assemblies. 47–69: AUFIDENA (Regio IV. believes it would be preferable to read hort(icola) or hort(illo). 5 (AE 1933. W. the person who beats the drum for the rowers (= pausarius). 9. Latin inscriptions were collected by Mommsen. Religio Deorum (Barcelona 1992) 95–123. 2 of them lost after being transferred to the Museo di Cesena).). MA. his argument is. Ital. He points out that the text does not contain “any provision for ritual purification in the event of violations to the area”.). Picenum (1995) 48–51 (nos. CIL 11. There are in CIL 14 texts. Liguria) by Giovanella Cresci Marrone. see Paci Suppl. For the inscriptions from S. 22 (2004) 156–57}. 113–38: CARREUM POTENTIA (Regio IX. pp. He thinks we here deal with a lex sacra intended to protect a local sanctuary and a healing stream. Lepidus and L. Corbier. 8. “Indulgentia principis: l’image e le mot”. MONUMENTI NUOVI: 9 texts (3 lost. 24–6). {2002 [2005] 477}. Arruntius (6 C. 693–701. A lex prohibiting contamination of an area. Aemilia) by Francesca Cenerini. MONUMENTI NUOVI: 14 texts (7 extremely fragmentary). and the tribal assignation of Caesena is still unknown (p. Paci refers to his detailed discussion in Miscellanea Greca e Romana 12 (1987) 115–36. esp. Vol. 112–13 (indulgentia and the fiscal remittances). Graveyards and Groves. This need not be so: see the excellent investigation of similar prohibitions by J. I: L’Evo antico (Rimini 1982).408 Historia et Epigraphia locality existed a Roman settlement. however. 110). 1994 = AJAH 11 (1986 [1994]). for further detail the reader has to turn to one of those marvellous Italian local and scholarly histories. On the concept of indulgentia.E.2. Vol. 8. Vittore and not from Cingolo. vol. 91–109: CAESENA (Regio VIII. faulty. its Roman name is unknown. 358. but the settlement became a municipium probably only in the Sullan era.2 [1926]. and 4 in 1991 [1994]. The Roman occupation of the territory of Caesena (Cesena) is to be dated to the mid-third century. and Paci concurs {That we here deal with a separate municipium is now firmly established: the inscription CIL 9. and only 1 in AE (but now 4 in AE 1990 [1993]. esp. Cenerini’s comments (as was the case also with respect to most other contributions to Suppl. 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. M. 313–16.556 concerns the balneum Aurelianum and. 2 re-edited. perhaps Probus. A Study of the Lex Lucerina (Cambridge. referring to an emperor. 10 lost. 616–19). in M.5688 recording the IIviri comes from S. 94). pp. and thus the area in question need not have been a locus sacer. 1235) that the tribe of Caesena was Pollia. 1 (AE 1985. p. cf. She provides an erudite introduction. and now 8 texts in AE 1991 [1994]. ICI 10. If it was a municipium in its own right. 344). only 1 lost. Vittore (and the surrounding area) Mommsen decided to reserve in CIL 9 (1883) a separate section. No. dated to the consulship of M. Storia di Cesena.) will be the starting point for any further study of these texts. 1987. Christian texts now in G. 102 (n. mentions servata indulgentia pecuniae eius quam deus Aurelianus concesserat. Mayer (ed. Binazzi. and posted d(ecreto) d(ecurionum): Qui intra stercus / fuderit multae a(sses) III d(abit). This strange collocation of place names derives from Pliny the 482 . 30–31. Ital. Bodel. it may have belonged to Cingulum (see above. 2 already in AE. 6). Bormann suggested (in CIL XI. 523}. For Christian texts from Carreum Potentia. 1 (5. and this will be the tribe of Carreum-Potentia. 6 (7497) where Mommsen proposed se[xvir] / [Taurin]is. as Cresci Marrone plausibly suggests. perhaps to [Dia]na. who as the only ancient author mentions (in the ablative) Carrea (var. Correa. and to Victoria . 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. It is very characteristic that in two (but cf. as Carrio. no. but he also added rightly and cautiously “sed certum quod sit. in abl. 2 (5. Pollia. That the full name of the deceased was incised on each of . 715–25). MONUMENTI NUOVI. Of these texts 4 figure in CIL. No.37202 leaves no doubt: here a praetorian describes his city of origin. it is the indigenous name that is employed. AE 1998 [2001]. We do not have any epigraphical document that would spell out the official name of the city. and the reading Karrei (which Cresci Marrone adduces as established) is in fact uncertain. but Pollia was the tribe also of several other neighboring communities). 1–3). But CIL 6. and this phenomenon explains well its continuation to the present day in the form of the Italian Chieri. The dedicant (lines 7–8) solo suo inter quattuor terminos / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). affixed. see now ICI 9 (1995) 1–10 (nos. Next there are 9 new texts (3 lost). and three others which Mommsen classified as Pedemontana incerta. che recavano con ogni verosimilianza il nome del defunto.7496 (from Chieri) an augustalis indicates that he performed that office Karrei et Industriae. This rather insignificant place produced rather a good number of inscriptions. which was probably placed in the middle of the area. no. Cresci Marrone opts for Carreo. now lost) was apparently another copy of the same dedication. The same man indicates as his tribe Pol(lia). Hasta. but it is well to note that the stone was known already to Mommsen only from manuscript tradition. oggi perduto”.49). at the other side of the edicola. above). and here are re–edited: see esp. where in line 1 Cresci Marrone reads [Fon]t\i\. but the two denominations must have in some way coexisted. Two texts warrant further observations: No. hence the nominative Carreum. There are 13 texts in CIL 5 (1877) assembled by Mommsen (7 lost). and two other felicitously named cities. whereas Mommsen thought of [For]tu[nae]. 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. delimitata da quattro cippi.7494. Its territory bordered on Augusta Taurinorum. This document is to be considered together with another more recent and fortunate find. Of its municipal administration we have no direct account.7493). Industria and Pollentia. some of them not without interest. In CIL 5. 1 (CIL 5. Cresci Marrone comments: “L’urnetta era presubilmente posta in un’area sepolcrale di dodici piedi per sette. non habemus”. Cresci Marrone more likely [Augustal]is. Carreo) quod Potentia cognominatur (NH 3. Carrea is the reading Mayhoff adopted in his text. below) inscriptions in which the city is mentioned. it is true that Mommsen himself inclined to this reading. Cresci Marrone transports to Carreum one (lost) stone from Taurinum (on the strength of the tribal registration. lect. none recorded suo tempore in AE (11 texts now in AE 1991 [1994]. the following inscription on a funerary urn (no.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 409 Elder.7493).. A dedication to Fons (cf. . in the Inscriptiones Italiae. A. cf. In Vercelli the four stones mark the limits of a sanctuary (a nemeton). The whole corpus has been recently reviewed and republished in a truly great edition. 88 alienae. 2274–79. Linderski. Rend. Lincei 31 [1976] 375–76. a technical term) openly and officially. vol. X. Alcune osservazioni intorno a CIL I2 1486”. ad Aen. G. where we read: fines campo quem dedit Acisius . Festus 146 L. partes I. 1877). to indicate how many new inscriptions his collections contain in comparison to CIL and Pais. Ital. Garzetti. Brixia. “The Augural Law”. Ital. and by Pais in his Suppl. part III inscriptions found “in agro adtributo et in Camunnis”. 4 incertae). The main interest lies. They were important exhibits in any legal suit concerning property rights (cf. Panciera. VALLES SUPRA BENACUM. comunem [sic] deis et hominibus ita uti lapides IIII statuti sunt. ut ex una parte pateat. Celtic and Latin.. who writes that templum est locus ita effatus aut ita s(a)eptus. ANRW 2. however. ibid. 10 the limits of a locus religiosus. 1 the limits of a private locus sacer. Piccaluga. It. and Servius clearly abbreviates. “Lapides profaneis intus sacrum.2 (1986) 2156–58. CAMUNNI (Regio X. SABINI. 1985. The inscriptions from Brixia (Brescia) and the neighboring tribal areas were collected by Mommsen in CIL 5 (1872. with numerous addenda. 10) even new photographic illustration. This calls to mind the Varronian definition adduced by Servius. Tibiletti Bruno. To many of these texts Garzetti provides further corrections and new ample literature (pp. For the various problems connected with terminatio. The broader context of Varro’s enunciation is lacking. Terminus. S. G. 141–237: BRIXIA. cf. and this act was accompanied by religious ceremonies. 1986) by A. how many . TRUMPLINI. If I had to choose a complaint I would complain that amidst various indices Garzetti did not find place either in Inscr. angulosque (corrected by Valeton to angulosque IIII) adfixos habeat ad terram. II. and the excellent discussion of the Latin text by P. 2. in both texts. p. III (Roma 1984. of quattuor termini. 8. regio X. pp. The termini were implanted (statuti. Valvo. in no. and (exceptionally. Baldacci. esp. the author of the present supplement. 97–140. altogether 1281 texts (and 120 falsae. (1888). Venetia et Histria) by Albino Garzetti. or in Suppl. BENACENSES. Aevum 61 (1987) 113–22. 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. V. in the mention. cf. Vol. 161–187). Varro may have talked of precincts. I segni di confine nella religione romana (Roma 1974). But above all the closest parallel is provided by the famous bilingual inscription. It. found in Vercelli (see the original publication by M. Piccaluga 110–18). 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. and in no. fasc. 33 [1977] 335–48). J. This supplement is thus a supplement not to CIL but to Inscr. 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.16.410 Historia et Epigraphia 483 the four terminal stones is doubtful. Part I contains inscriptions found in Brixia “et in suburbio ad III lapidem”.512: Varro locum quattuor angulis conclusum aedem docet appellari debere. part II mostly the stones from ager Brixianus. Cavazza. Zaja∫c. 95–100. Surely we have to postulate [Ep]orediae (correcting the m on the stone to r). 784–92. 1997 [2000]. e dei suoi presunti sinonimi e le relative mansioni”. “Les ‘fastes imperiaux’ de Brescia”. there have accrued surprisingly numerous MONUMENTI NUOVI: 44 texts (although many of them small fragments or rock incisions). Cf. L. nos. 8 ). 2002 [2005]. “L’epigrafia del territorio bresciano”. 75. now a linguistic study of the term aedituus: F. J. Cébeillac-Gervasoni (ed. 853–54. “Gli augustali bresciani e le connessioni con l’élite dirigente di Brescia”. recorded in AE (but actually no. Nos. {13}]). F. 625. none. Lines 5–6 read: proc(uratori) sacr(ae) annon(ae) / civitat(e) Veronen- 484 . and how many are known only from manuscript tradition. L’Augustalità a Brescia (= MAL IX. A baffling text. 818–30. also [Nic]omediae. “Il significato di aeditu(m)us. in Epigrafia 93–117. 850–52. 728–40. This Asiatic city in the company of the three communities from North Italy is a surprise and anomaly. 1. esp. “Galba’s Aequitas”.8. Wyzwolenåcy w antycznej Brixii: studium prozopograficzne [with German summary: Freigelassene in der antiken Brixia: prosopographische Studien] (Torunå 2000)}. Tridentum. NC 141 (1981) 20–39. 821). Wallace-Hadrill. Verona. {1999} [= Vetera 7. See also the monograph by G. No. 836. Arctos 25 (1991) 45–50 (from Val Camonica). 29. in M. In the six years since the publication of Inscr. it might seem. 834–35. On the cognomen Tappo. this volume of AE displays also 10 further texts published after the conclusion of Garzetti’s supplement. 160. ZPE 48 (1982) 219–34 at 224–27.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 411 inscriptions seen by Mommsen have now disappeared. Brescia Romana. 1999 [2002]. 3 (AE 1991. Bellicius Primus. not indicated by Garzetti). 745–52 (a new examination of a number of rock inscriptions. with commentary. On Aequitas as a goddess of honest measure connected with the market place. 721. 570}. Konrad. {II: Analisi dei documenti} (Roma 1990. 22 = AE 1986. 843–45. 744 (recording a re-edition. {Also S. v(ir) e(gregius). “Gli aggettivi in -î-tîmus e il rapporto fra aedituus ed aeditumus”. No. 251–52. 2000 [2003]. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia locale. No. ibid. and his articles “Tra epigrafia e filologia: un gladiatore di nome Rutumanna”. La mobilità sociale a Brescia Romana (Milano 2000). the famous imperial fasti that once were displayed on the Capitolium of Brixia. 841–42. 1065–71. see also A. see C. We need another city from Padania. I. It. 1998 [2001].3 [1997]). 846. of no. Di Vita–Evrard. 837–40. “Quaestiones Tappulae”. Garzetti provides an important re-evaluation of the disposition of these documents. Gregori. 2001 [2004]. Mollo. No. Les élites municipales de l’Italie péninsulaire de la mort de César à la mort de Domitien entre continuité et rupture (Rome 2000) 347–71. Latomus 54 (1995) 58–61. Further texts in AE 1992 [1995]. 594–95. mostly from Val Camonica). now 26 texts are in AE 1991 [1994]. I documenti. 831–33.). by and large following the reconstruction by G. some 20 inedita. 603–5. {1995 [1998]. No. A dedication to C. 847–48. in Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 333–54. 276: a decurion of Brixia. 4–5. Ital. Waltzing. No. We need not only an electronically prepared concordance but also and above all a concordance electronically searchable. Still I would not wish to abandon altogether the paper (“hard-copy”) editions. Corporations 1. In the first six volumes of Suppl. new is the epithet sacra with respect to annona. new is also the denomination of Verona as civitas. Casinum and Aquinum (CIL 10. (Vol. Hence it is rather disappointing not to find in the newest Index to Suppl. 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. Coll(egium) aen(eatorum). 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. 5415).. half with capital and half with minuscule letters. they offer visual and tactile delight. covering Vols. 823). Cf. / 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. with an elaborate system of notation employing more than half a century of various sigla. “HIS” is the abbreviation for Histonium. “a” = “a solchi”. 8–13) even the slightest mention of the electronic future. For instance the line *Honori. and it is difficult to find one’s way through this unkempt forest {See now Suppl. Other collegia aenatorum are known from Rome (CIL 6. 4. “E” = “bronzo”). a ‘Key Word In Context’ concordance to all vocabula.519. “E” denotes the month of May. Ital. 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. The volume also comprises the indexes of numerals. 14 [1997]. and finally extensive concordances with other publications. but that is not enough. and what better theme offers itself than indices? For without detailed indices all texts but particularly inscriptions are half mute. But it is especially in that area . 1181 inscriptions were published. vol. 4 (AE 1991. All in all a splendid instrument for the previous century. Each contribution was provided with its own ample index. Ital.412 Historia et Epigraphia sium.10220–21). and “p” stands for “post Christum”. “materiali”. of trumpeters. of dates. i. 7) we have a useful and usable tool based on an electronic elaboration of the material. but not adequate for the twenty-first century. 22 (2004) 61–264: “Supplementorum supplementa”}. the next letter pertains to “la materia di cui è fatto il supporto” (sixteen categories. “2” the volume of the collection. informative and unwieldy. First and foremost we have “parole in contesto”. Now in the Indici of Manzella and Lega (see above. “R” = “lastra”). “384” is the date. and are a joy to use. They came from 32 different areas of Italy. “engraved”). the following minuscule letter describes “la tecnica di scrittura” (fourteen categories. It is time to conclude. “003” the number of the inscription. “tecniche di scrittura”.e. 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. of “supporti”. “5” the day.5173. As Garzetti points out. Updating the CIL for Italy: part 2 413 that the cyber-realm should lend a helpful pulse. but also for the usefulness and simplicity of keeping the collection alive. We need electronic editions (on disks and on Internet) not only for a full freedom of search. current and growing. And thus animo grato the toast: Ad multos annos chartaceos electronicosque! . Ital. Harris. Epigraphica 62 (2000) 137–211. . in which they illuminated and rescued from oblivion scores of texts. finally. No. 11–189. and published a good number of inedita. Here two volumes. 383–400). 13 (1996) This volume comprises five communities. NUOVA SERIE. SUPPL. AE 2000 [2003]. 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. they display magnificent photographs much superior to the illustrations in the Suppl. VOLS. and extensive aggiornamenti (cf. Pp. Ital. The other volume brings more stones either unpublished or little known. pp. re-published many texts still extant. Cordella and Criniti have pursued their epigraphical harvest: they offer “Mantissa Nursina”.. Sabina et Samnium) by Romano Cordella and Nicola Criniti. Thus this writer is back in the lapidarium fortunately sharing the munus with John Bodel. 328. In the first volume they reviewed inscriptions contained in CIL. Cascia e Valnerina (Spoleto 1988 [1989. four insignificant or little known and one of some historical fame. Despite the asseverations in the previous installment (JRA 11 [1998] 458 {reprinted in this volume. 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.2 (2000) 562–567 {with addenda and corrections. VOL. Nursia-Ager Nursinus (Regio IV. particularly from the area of Cascia and Valle del Nera (Valnerina). 13 and 14 (Edizioni Quasar. 237.31 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY: PART 4* SUPPLEMENTA ITALICA. Iscrizioni latine di Norcia e dintorni (Spoleto 1982 [henceforth C & C I]) and Nuove iscrizioni latine di Norcia. Roma 1996 and 1997). the original publication contained a note by W. including 24 inedita.. see also their piece “Il patrimonio epigrafico dell’ager Nursinus e della * Journal of Roman Archaeology 13. ITAL. NSc and AE. They offer commentaries that are often much ampler than those printed in Suppl. here not included. they provide instructive accounts of the erudites from Norcia and of the local tradition of epigraphic studies. {After the publication of Suppl. V. JRA 11 (1998) 485–98]}. with which we begin. These two volumes remain indispensable for any serious study of Nursia and its territory. [Nota bene: “Updating the CIL for Italy: part 3” was composed by John Bodel. The two authors are well deserving of Nursia (today Norcia) and its patrimonio epigrafico. henceforth C & C II]). one of texts and one of indices. They won epigraphical gratitude through two earlier publications. in 205 it was organized as a prefecture. This persistence of tradition should not surprise us in the Sabine countryside. Mommsen (nos. 1991. practically all longer or more important documents. For instance Maltignano clearly continues the family name Maltinius recorded in nos. 6353.). pauci tamen tituli supersunt.. 580–86 [mostly from C & C I and II]. and in 241 was (re)assigned to the tribus Quirina (at least 18 epigraphic attestations). see D. 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. Bilancio di un’esperienza”. On falsae and alienae. 201–31. Manconi.5). 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. It turns out that the Master omitted no less than some twenty literary sources. the epigraphical landscape is much more pleasing than it was at the time of Mommsen. Epigraphica 63 (2001) 225–34}. Ital. 1989. but above all the Italian scholars pay close and refreshing attention to the tradition of local toponyms. the remaining are most often merely frustula. he penned the plaintive words: universum oppidum diruit. when Mommsen visited Norcia. 69 are lost (see 42–64 for a systematic review of all texts published in CIL and a bibliographical aggiornamento). In 268 Nursia perhaps proceeded to full citizenship.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4 415 563 Valnerina. but it also revealed a few inscribed stones which had been hidden in ruined buildings. 427–28) provided the customary short historical account. Ibid. and 1996 [1999] 524–69. 44). Here C & C provide the following count (and they also carefully indicate the present location of all extant stones [37–41]): out of those 104 inscriptions (they remove two texts as not belonging to Nursia.1.e. 118–19. {and now see AE 2001 [2003]. For further inedita. in G. rumes) .. 383–400. ut ante dicebant (RR 2. 1988. Epigraphica 63 (2001) 225}. which was still suffering from devastations of the great earthquake of 1859. In CIL IX (1883) the inscriptions from Nursia were collected by T. In the section Monumenti epigrafici reediti o nuovi C & C present 162 inscriptions of which 151 (101 extant. the local denomination of “due isolate protuberanze del terreno”. 901–7}). Madonna dell’Assalto = ad saltus. see M.. and the grant of civitas sine suffragio. the viritim assignations followed. from Suppl. 4534–4635. In 113 years since the close of CIL IX the number of stones from Nursia has more than doubled. The new terrible earthquake of 1979 caused futher destruction. and split one text into two) only 35 are extant.. neque fere ex antiqua hereditae Nursinis quicquam hodie superest praeter nomen (CIL IX. and “rume”. Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 201–23. Donati (eds. In 1878. As a preamble to the stones from Nursia Mommsen in CIL IX (pp. Buonocore. p. we now have to read the instructive introduction of Cordella and Criniti (19-36). Of these texts a good number are listed in AE (1983. 292–314. 50 lost) were either not included in CIL or are entirely new. and 2 falsae of which 411* is now rehabilitated by C & C as no. the penetration of Roman and Latin elements. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. and after the Social War became a municipium (the . Thanks to the efforts of local archaeologists and now of Cordella and Criniti. Nursia came under Roman sway in 290. 2002 [2004]. 471–85. 428).20 and 11. 1 and 65. No epigraphic monuments of the republican gens Sertoria are on record. and to the south on the main Sabine center and Varro’s and Vespasian’s home-town of Reate. The ager of Nursia was quite extensive (27–30): to the northeast it bordered on the Picene Falerio and Asculum. 55 on the local tradition and myth of Sertorius). A local peculiarity. 292. the epithet is exquisitely chosen for it is redolent of Cato’s celebration (cf. where he is paired with another illstarred loser. l.] / Eutichus (sic) / Sertoria Q. And there is also Q. According to the Passio Sancti Feliciani this martyr was bringing the light of faith to Nursia as early as the third century. AE 1988. 99. If we were asked today what is Nursia’s greatest title to fame the answer would certainly be: Sanctus Benedictus. to the north. But in epigraphy one should never abandon hope. it is surprising that no ancient Christian inscription was found in the city (22. the Parallel Lives of Plutarch.. Fulginiae. and the first positively attested bishop of Nursia was active at the end of the fifth century. Sertorius. 1. Scolastica. the (perhaps mythical) sister of the founder of the monastery of Monte Cassino (on the local hagiography. unfortunately only in a late and libertine shape. 205 Naber = 207 van den Hout {Teubner 1988}). 485). attested in a number of inscriptions.416 Historia et Epigraphia precise dates and details of this long process are a subject of dispute). the comment to no. 1* (cf. but we know of the efforts of local patriots to remedy this situation (cf. Konrad. is incorrect). see C & C I. Sertorius was born and educated in Nursia (Plut. C & C also call attention (20–21) to a new text (which they were unable to include in this volume of Suppl. 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. hist.V. A century and a half after the death of Sertorius another family from Nursia was to leave its mark on history. been unearthed in Valle del Nera: see C & C II. 247–48 ). was the board of octoviri. Sert. 18) of hard labor in the Sabine fields (Fronto was an avid reader of Cato). cf. Yet it would be unfortunate if that late monastic fame overshadowed the previous eight centuries of history. rightly branded with the asterisks of falsehood. / Antiopa (AE 1983. Sertorius / Rufus (no. Plestia. Spoletium and Interamna Nahars. C & C II. F. 21. Q. Suetonius (Vesp. no. Rosa’s manuscript. the excellent discussion by C. engraved (so Rosa) on a seal around the image of a doe (the famous cerva alba): Q. II. Rosa. . [l. and cf. municipes and praef(ectus) Nur[siae] or praef(ectura) Nur[sina].S. A Christian inscription [now lost] has. 27). containing indications of various inscribed texts. Among them no. 78. Six of them are now reproduced as nos. however. Princ. Benedict adorns the city.S. 1*–6*. and indeed the gens Sertoria has at long last appeared on a genuine local stone. Sertorius Q. Ital. west and southwest on the Umbrian Camerinum. 23). The cathedral of St. Still. C & C II. from G. 82: Q.) recording decuriones (also in no. no. and there is also the church of S. which Nursia shared with other cities of the Sabini and Vestini. Trebiae. perhaps genuine. In 1985 Cordella published the account of a 17th century manuscript by G. 201). A Historical Commentary [Chapel Hill 1994] 34-39).3) reports that Vespasia Polla. 83. below. Eumenes. 2. at the time of Benedict’s youth (21). but this passio is “tarda e malfida”. Sertorius / P. an example of Nursina duritia (Fronto. p. a “mattone”. and yet. II. Yet in CIL IX there is no record of Vespasii. Vesp.3) is perhaps still dimly recognizable in the modern place name of Forca Vespia (C & C II. Nursinus. 31): ]SPAS[ / ]CASTR\[ / ]RIMA[. Vespasiae. the left side came into view (as it was seen by Sordini).Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4 417 564 mother of the emperor. fig. bequeathed his property to Sex. the stone was cleared.58) Cicero tells an uplifting story: C. and the rise of the Vespasii was still in the future. Paris and G. 83. because of the restrictions of the lex Voconia. but the Italian scholars recognized Alföldy’s mastery. this was the only way of ensuring the passage of one’s estate to a woman . This stony silence was almost broken with the rediscovery in 1977 (the text figured in the manuscripts of P. and such instruments were at the time of Cicero not enforceable. but fortunately the fragment attracted the keen eye of Géza Alföldy. Peducaeus son of Sextus. Sordini from the beginning of the 20th century) and the publication in 1982 (C & C I.46) of this insignificant fragment encased in a wall of a private house: ]AS[ / ]STI[ / ]MA[. locus .. ter tribunum militum praefectumque castrorum. but moriens asked him to return it to his wife. 1. Nursiae honesto genere orta patrem habuit Vespasium Pollionem. Ve]spas[io -. 59). in 1987 he visited Nursia. the pride of place in Nursia may have belonged to the Peducaei. Legally we are dealing with a fideicommissum. The grandfather of Vespasian now again bestrides his home town. 58–59. ad sextum miliarium a Nursia Spoletium euntibus . Not much could be made of these letters. ubi Vespasiorum complura monumenta extant (Suet. tribuno militum] / [leg(ionis) p]rima[e et – ––]. and adopted his text (with some minor and rather unnecessary alterations) for reproduction in Suppl. Plotius. 55–56. and yet Peducaeus ultro ad mulierem venit eique nihil opinanti viri mandatum exposuit hereditatemque reddidit. though the homestead of that clan.. CIL XI 4778). 16). fig. At the time when Sertorius was a falling and fallen star.f(ilio) Qui(rina tribu) Pollioni] / [praef(ecto)] castr\(orum) [trib(uno) mil(itum) III/ [? P]rima [?].Ve]spas[io . In De finibus (2. / [praef(ecto)] castr[or(um).. and – also with Suetonius in hand – presented a superior text and a magnificent historical elucidation (ZPE 77 [1989] 155–60): [-. 74. but Cordella and Criniti persisted. f(ilio) Qui(rina) Pollioni].. known today perhaps only to the most devoted aficionados of prosopography and of Cicero. 65 and fig. The marriage of Vespasia Polla to T. an impressive and eloquent specimen of lettering (C & C II. There are two points: moral and legal. Armed with their copy of Suetonius C & C were now able to produce (in 1988 [1989]) the following reconstruction: [. eques Romanus splendidus. 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. In the last line queries remained. (no. There was no written record. Flavius Sabinus of Reate was an alliance of two families of notables from two adjoining cities.. but we are still waiting for the appearance in Nursia of the emperor’s mother (she is probably present at the neighboring Spoletium where she seems to have erected a dedication to Caligula. C & C (I. Ital. cleared line 3 (in the meantime again covered over). The two reconstructions were produced simultaneously and independently. of course. Peducae(us) St(atii) f(ilius). To bolster his case.und Kultämter im lateinischen Westen des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit [Köln 1971] 47–64). Instadius. argues forcefully for the solar eclipse. Now a Q. re-published. and R. Syme conjectured (Historia 13 [1964] 121 = Roman papers II [Oxford 1979] 599) that Plotius’ friend Sex. ZPE 77 [1989] 167–76) of a stone-cutter bent upon presenting to prospective cus- . Peducaeus. Ladage. pl. Tettidenus. 42–44 and fig. Peducaeu(s) St(atii) f(ilius) and T. The law of succession in the later Roman republic [Oxford 1971] 36–38). AE 1983. Münzer. Städtische Priester. The senatorial clan may as well have had its domicile in this town. Augur is on record in Spoletium. expanding his earlier remarks in ZPE 77 (1989) 160–67. Nursia can also boast of two inscriptions among the strangest in Latin epigraphy. M. This Peducaeus was praetor in 77. as no. only a likely possibility. where they list all important or rather semi-important republican members of the gens) they turn into fact what is.418 Historia et Epigraphia 565 (cf. Peducaeu(s) P. Wiseman. D. equally upright son) were also the products of Nursia. Ital. Tittidienus. Görgemanns. with Supplement 1994]). Watson. 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. as a municipal priest he must have belonged to the local aristocracy (CIL XI 4902.. Köhler. and reading in line 4 [i]n\ferat}. Caesiarus. Peducaeus (and his. tr. 29. The document in question is CIL IX 4582. and cf. cf. Mentedius. probably the wife of one of the brothers. and thus Nursia would have acquired its first senatorial family for it is very likely that Sex. Plotius hailed from Nursia (on stones this family is twice mentioned at Nursia: CIL IX 4585 and 4588). There is. but when C & C speak of “la gens senatoria nursina Peducaea” (55. 1989. Die römischen Vornamen [Helsinki 1987] 90–91).. a prosopographic point. Satriarius. in H. The moral point is that Peducaeus did not fail his friend. It is true that the praetor’s honorable comportment conforms very well to the idea of Sabine honesty. which would also explain quite satisfactorily their close ties with the Nursine Plotii. Alföldy. f. according to Cicero. T. Pulsinienus. Salomies.). 72 (cf. here attested for the first time. cf. The unusual Septumiena reminds us of another and peculiar Nursia: an incubator of onomastic hapax legomena or grafomena. alas. convincingly. We are in this text in a solidly Italic milieu: observe the Oscan praenomen Statius (cf.”. Pompuedius. The other (no. a re-publication of CIL IX 4549) if not a fake. This does not look like a senatorial family. There also appears Septumiena T. H. C & C I. Titedienus.“Stürmend auf finsterem Pfad . G. f. 23. it was published by Mommsen only on the basis of the manuscript tradition. F. C. Holvienus. and. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum [Hildesheim 1988. O. is an advertisement (so. 17). The stone re-appeared in 1979. To give a list: Audenus. and the family name Septumienus.. The first (CIL IX 4599. II. now resides in Suppl. Alföldy. RE 19 [1937] 47–51. P. Baumbach (eds. Salomies. H. Ein Symposion zur Sonnenfinsternis in der Antike (Heidelberg 2000) 99–111. New men in the Roman senate [Oxford 1971] 250). “Eine Sonnenfinsternis in Nursia”. of 113 was an ancestor of the praetor (cf. apparently two brothers. Solin and O. 4. Vettidienus (cf. republished with corrections as no. 295. We encounter there (with several ligatures) Q. Syme points out that the Peducaei are epigraphically attested in Nursia. A. Septempeda (Regio V. 18 (AE 1989. 88. 128). frag. We hasten to no. The epigraphic record in Septempeda begins only in the first century B. And nowhere is this better expressed than on Roman tombstones. the odd convocato VIIvir(o) and the enigmatic or “monstrous” sefitio socurtali. but already a first glance at the inscription recalled a famous text. Goetz. Situated in the central valley of Potenza. This peculiarity allows us to recognize in Septempeda an old prefecture: as U. con vocabolario abbastanza ricercato ed inusuale”. silicibus repastinandis atque conserendis (E. 240 [not 239]. pp. significantly in the company of opes. Malcovati. so it appears.E. agro colendo. ORF2. of course. no senatorial family. Normal uncertainties abound: the liber coloniarum (I. The search in The Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank revealed frugalitas and parsimonia appearing side by side in Seneca (Dial.30) and Fronto (Ad Verum Imp. 56.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4 419 tomers a specimen of his art. probably on purpose a very odd assemblage figuring next to the mundane vixit ann(is) XXIII and the normal magistro iuvenum. 228). At C & C II. We cannot stay forever in this epigraphic heaven of oddities for behind each odd name hides a real person. This small community (today San Severino Marche) played absolutely no rôle in Roman history. p. so appropriate in the Sabine countryside of Nursia. 9. the engravings of various names and titles. 51. and yet despite – or because of – this insignificance. on stones it appears as a municipium governed by duoviri. it is an epitaph “costruito in prosa commatica e ritmica.9. For this contribution my computer deserves credit. and observe that the word parsimonium is rare (parsimonia is. Ep.10. Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum 7: Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatus 2 [Lipsiae 1901] 51).>Thermum: Ego iam a principio in parsimonia atque in duritia atque industria omnem meam adolescentiam abstinui. it is very representative of the Italy that was becoming Roman. 228). as is also the combination of parsimonium / parsimonia with frugalitas (no example in CLE). Picenum) by Silvia Maria Marengo. lines 2–3: qui partam nimia frugalitate substantiam / in diem mortis servavit incolumem sibi). C & C propose to supply in line 3 [con]stantiam or [sub]stantiam (the latter on the basis of CIL VIII 27587 = CLE 1869. 111 van den Hout [Teubner 1988]). and human affairs always end in death and sorrow. Marengo presents Septempeda with a sure hand (196–201). Laffi has shown this board was characteristic of the cities that before the Social War possessed no municipal structure (see JRA 11 [1998] 476 . of Cato’s lines. It is immediately apparent that our epitaph contains an echo. amazingly neglected both by C & C and the learned editors of AE (1989.C. In lines 5–6 we encounter pater III liber\or\[um –––] / [––– i]n\felicissimus. 169–70 they offer a fuller commentary. saxis Sabinis. Lines 2–4 offer a literary puzzle: [–––] suum ad cultum agror[um –––] / [–––]t\iam et fidem maximis opib\[us –––] / [––– f]rugalitate et parsimonio [–––]. it produced. and note that in glossaries parsimonia is often glossed as frugalitas (see G. even imitation. It is Cato’s proud self-praise in his speech De suis virtutibus contra <L. 258 Lachmann) describes Septempeda as oppidum. pp. frequent). The stone is broken on all sides. 193–228). Again following in the footsteps of Mommsen.1. its closest but distant Roman neighbor was the colonia Firmum founded in 264. Of these 19 texts Mennella removes 7 to Hasta (7456–62) and 5 to Industria (7463–66 [so on p. The inscriptions from Vardacate were published by Mommsen in CIL V (1877). 2). Thus in line 3 probably hides a col(onus). n. / [–––]ritio / [–––]us col. one lost. 2). Picus 18 (1998) 63–88. “Fasti Septempedani”.5. was published with an extensive commentary by S. though the exact location of the center of the ancient city remains uncertain. a dedication to Iuppiter Iuventus. 5 and 15 bring new names: Ruficanius and Oplelius. Fulvius Flaccus. 8 (1899) no. The lapides in Septempeda can smile: in 1972 they received a new epigraphic museum. as were also the neighboring towns of Hasta. 240. 674–76). Harris. Suppl. 7454–55 and 7463 corrected by Pais. and 7 falsae). Monumenti nuovi bring 6 pieces (no. 1. nos. Marengo rightly concurs. later discussed only occasionally. Mommsen collected in CIL IX (1883) 72 texts (5573–5643. 4 is a re-edition of CIL V 7449. the form preferred by W. providing firm dates for a number of suffecti. 829. 3 re-editions of CIL. and she carries the day. We deal in this text with lowly folks. Harris. The inscription reads (Marengo re-edits it as no. and it is most unlikely that a patron of the colony should have been in any way involved with these people. 949–51). inaccurate on p. only one in AE.420 Historia et Epigraphia 566 {reprinted above. Athenaeum 59. 240–42. No. The inscription (discovered in the 1930s!). originally published in 1942. 533). Industria and Forum Fulvii. Marengo objects. 61). of the remaining 7 only 4 are extant. {In the meantime Septempeda acquired its most important inscription: the badly mutilated but precious fasti consulares for the years 78–82. No. 17): [–––]a (mulieris) l. [1888] nos. most recently and excellently by W. The Romans appeared in the area with the campaigns in 125–124 of the consul M. 1 attracts attention. Marengo. It. uncertain also is its precise name: Vardacate (so in most texts) or Vardagate (only in CIL V 4484 = Insc. a freedman or a slave (l. 419}. but above all the famous “rescript from Vardacate” (no. 238]).). V. In the section of Monumenti nuovi Marengo edits 20 documents (4 lost. and was inscribed into the tribe Pollia. Nos. 784) Mommsen supplied [patro]nus col[oniae]. but see now AE 1996 [1999]. pp. In the Index (p. 231–49). its territory astride the Po. Of these texts of interest is a dedication to Constantine (no. 579–87bis from Suppl. 1). and admitted to AE 1998 [2001]. although Mommsen on the basis of CIL IX 5630 intended to raise Septempeda to that rank. CIL XI 3245 from Sutrium). Ep. Ital. one text was later published in Eph. a tenant. “The imperial rescript from Vardagate”. Ultimately Vardacate. 6 in AE. only the second occurrence of that combination (cf. X. 30}). since Mommsen’s time 8 stones have disappeared. attained the status of a municipium (CIL V 7452).275. Liguria) by Giovanni Mennella (epigraphy) and Emanuela Zanda (historical introduction) (pp. and see now AE 1996 [1999]. Ital. M. Thus the presence of duoviri in no way implies the status of a colony. V. quite inaccurately for there is no n on the stone. Vardacate (Regio IX. . 7449–67 (nos. Athenaeum n. and he repeated this assertion in his historical account of the town (p. a freedwoman (l. with a photograph that could be better). [1981] 351. Today Casale Monferrato / Terruggia (province of Alessandria). he seems to have established various fora and conciliabula. Archeologici e Artistici della Provincia di Cuneo. Liguria) by Enrica Culasso Gastaldi (historical introduction) and Giovanni Mennella (epigraphy) (pp. where it also duly figures in the atlas of Kiepert. Two other stones mentioning the town (CIL V 7836 and no. Thus again the name of the city depends on the expansion we choose to select. Val(erius) L(uci filius) Pol(lia tribu) Geminus For(o) Germ. in the locality S. nos. Mommsen (CIL V. The title of the article would seem to suggest that the mystery of the exact denomination of this community has been finally solved. but not in many places beyond the Alps and the ocean). which Mommsen placed in Pollentia and Aug. The text Monumenti nuovi no. to find an answer we have to consult an article in Bolletino della Società per gli Studi Storici. certainly easily available in Turin. 567 Forum Germa(– – –) (Regio IX. Germanici. Bagiennorum. The rescript is addressed to a Clodius Secundus and concerns the munera of freedmen. is now assigned. who was also able to examine the bronze table itself. Insc. 59 [= 69] (1981) 338–52. Mennella objects (242). 251. but chose not to divulge them (259–60. (1888). see the original publication. but this is. p. Mommsen proposed to locate Forum Germ. 910) did not hesitate to restore Germa(norum). (Mennella. Harris argued that the rescript almost certainly belonged to Nerva. 9 (with the name of Diocletian erased and replaced by that of Constantine) has ordo Germa(–––) / cum plebe. Germaniciensium?). and 1 falsa. and it is to this locality that the Forum Germ. attributes to Forum Germ. 9) were. It. by a lapsus calami. Sauer makes a very good case for Forum Germ(anorum) and for its location in the ninth region (Liguria)}. Damiano in the valley of Maira. p. pp. now assigned to Forum Germ. and 7836 reads cur(atori) r(ei) p(ublicae) Germa[–––]. . attributed by him to Augusta Bagiennorum and Pollentia.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 4 421 s. 566–67}. vet(eranus leg(ionis) [I ]I Aug(ustae). and one wonders what other possibilities there might be (Germani. 1011–13. Harris composed an extensive note in which he restated and amplified his earlier argument {here not included.1 (1948) nos. which had the important consequence of assigning the town to the province of Alpes Maritimae. Ital. also inscriptions 7142–7208. by Pais in Suppl. None of these stones is discussed in Aggiunte e correzioni. not the case: a funerary inscription found at Alchester in Oxfordshire records L. “Forum Germanorum in NorthWest Italy: the Home Community and Life of Arguably the Earliest Known Legionary Veteran in Britain”. with a detailed discussion of the name of the settlement and of its location. Sauer. CIL V 7832 displays Foro Ger(–––) / IIvir bis. Culasso Gastaldi alludes to other proposals. which Mommsen classified as Pedemontanae incertae. The main controversy concerns its date and author. 251–92). This is the place most epigraphers would wish to be: its full name is uncertain. {See now E. In response to Mennella’s comments W. however. OJA 24 (2005) 199–214. On the basis of the findspot of CIL V 7832. by Ferrua. it thus moved closer to Pollentia and Augusta Bagiennorum. and migrated from Alpes Maritimae to Liguria. The inscriptions were edited by Mommsen in CIL V (1877) 7831–46. and equally uncertain is its location. IX. 269–72). 208–9. alas. and also falsae 883*–1005*. found in San Lorenzo di Caraglio (where also were uncovered “le significative indicazioni archeologiche”). 5 and 8. eloquent testimony to the persistence of pre-Roman elements.. 4. France. they are arranged according to the same principle as the indices to vols 1–6 (vol. Mennella (ad loc. no. they display a fine collection of epichoric names: Veconus L\u\lonius Carant(i) f(ilius). Silvio Panciera kindly sent a letter of clarification {11 Dec. IX. when this occurred cannot be established with precision (mid or late first century). In response to my observations. {See now AE 1998 [2001]. mostly minor. of which only five are lost. Dalmazzo in the borderland between Alpes Maritimae and Liguria (a statio quadragesimae was located there. VOL. 40–41}. This town is certainly to be placed in Borgo S... 9 figured in AE. nos. 8–13. to the series of laborious Indici composed by Claudia Lega. I only note that the text vol. SUPPL. Quadragesima Galliarum [Rome 2001] 70–75}). Altogether the patrimonio epigrafico of this uncertain place comprises 34 pieces. 91–95). Mommsen calls the place Pedo (CIL V. is a peregrinus.422 Historia et Epigraphia There are 19 Monumenti reediti o nuovi: 6 are re-published from CIL or Inscr.1. 30 above}. Insc. 14 From Nursia. 542. Liguria) by Enrica Culasso Gastaldi (historical introduction) and Giovanni Mennella (epigraphy) (pp. although only in some late Passiones (Cassiod. 1. of new and republished texts 9 were reproduced in AE.) and Culassi Gustaldi (302–3. and Monumenti nuovi. S. ITAL. 15–23 contain Correzioni ai volumi 8–13. forms a joint with CIL IX 5688 = CIL I 1424. Dircon\[is f(ilia)] Disia uxor. As to the indices themselves. 293–328). five stones are now re–assigned from Augusta Bagiennorum and Pollentia (Ferrua. Vittore di Cingoli. the pre-Roman elements are very conspicuous in local onomastics. The point is not . of which 11 are lost. 8.36: in Pedonensi civitate is inconclusive). and from the Alpine nooks and crannies. It. {See now new readings and new inscriptions in AE 1998 [2001]. As in the neighboring Forum Germ. 7). nos. 15 and 16 attract attention. CIL V 7852. {cf. 1999 [2002]. Ulatun\[us] f(ilius) et Enist[alus] f(ilius). Pedona (Regio IX. we proceed to the volume that encapsulates. no. p. J. 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). and it is this form that Culasso Gastaldi and Mennella adopt. Var. and makes easily accessible the mountain of information and erudition assembled in vols. It. Nos. 1998} with which I am happily in agreement. 677–78}. thus altogether 37 texts (and 2 anepigrapha). There are 20 Monumenti nuovi (17 pieces) o reediti (3). for which see JRA 11 (1998) 484 {= No. In CIL V (1877) Mommsen published 17 texts (7848–64). 375) reads: Nicus / Roucarius / Dissi f(ilius) / decurio. with Mommsen assigning it to the former and Culasso Gastaldi to the latter. but this form is actually not attested. as shown by the form of his name. sums up. 308) point out that our decurio. 912). attested is Pedona. 7 (AE 1982. Pp. 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”. . although some scholars advocate an Etruscan etymology of the name. 665}. Ferentinum (cf. No. It appears that they became Roman citizens only in the wake of the Social War. Latium et Campania) by L. 31}. p. Rome 1998. 13–90). Gregori (historical introduction and aggiornamento of “old” texts) (pp. Anagnia. the task at hand is posed by the two volumes comprising an array of varied communities from 5 regions of Italy. 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. see J. (3): 11 (1998) 485–98 (by J. Aletrium (Regio I. L. see CIL X 5808–9) had the good sense not to rebel against Rome. JRA 16 (2003) 482–94}. 205. and the building activity in the II/I c. (2): 11 (1998) 458–84 {= in this volume. vol. and Cicero indeed mentions meos vicinos et amicos Aletrinatis * Journal of Roman Archaeology 14 (2001) 513–535 {with addenda and corrections}. VOLS. Frusino and Verulae. Pp. Ital. 16 (1998) In this volume we begin our tour of Italy in Latium and proceed northward to Etruria. (4): 13. but Aletrium remained formally independent as a civitas foederata. {for (6). Mommsen’s introduction in CIL X (1883). NUOVA SERIE. The Romans invaded the area in 354. 17 (Edizioni Quasar. This we leave to the care of others. Galli (new inscriptions) and G. 16.2 (2000) 562–67 {= in this volume. . VOL.32 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY: PART 5* SUPPLEMENTA ITALICA. 566. Aletrium (modern Alatri) was originally a city of Hernici. 1999). comprising Suppl. The series moves on at a brisk pace. when a new series of supplements and reviews will be needed. and will be concluded by the end of this century. Bodel. Venetia and Transpadana. SUPPL. see (1): JRA 3 (1990) 313–20 {= RQ 407–14. The Arpinum of Cicero was not far away. testifies to their profits from Rome’s conquests. The Aletrinates (for the ethnicon. is now solidly supplemented by Gregori with ample discussion of modern literature (he also provides copious annotations to the CIL texts). 30}. ITAL. annexed a large tract (the Latium adiectum). Bodel). JRA 3 [1990] 315). No. 398. For previous installments. most of them lowly but none unimportant. 15. cf. Anceta. o errata”. Galli ingeniously combines these deities with transhumance routes. The stone is fully preserved in its upper part. 2 republished from CIL I2. Among the new texts several stand out because of their language. et L. the lower part is diagonally broken off.}. 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”. hostia pura.2 In CIL X Mommsen published 21 inscriptions (and 24 falsae). The spelling with c may be a learned archaism. Anagtia. . 295–333. and for i (in place of e). Anaceta. but the best parallel is offered by the various spellings of the name of the goddess Angitia: Ancitie.. The first two lines read: Deis Indicit(ibus) / agnum marem. a forerunner of the modern name) muro ducta colonia and informs us that ager eius per centurias et strigas est adsignatus. 1 (an ineditum). {See now AE 1998 [2001]. As to the form of the name. indigito. See G. 8 (1899) there are 2 texts (8 lost). a lex sacra. The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors (London 2000) 414. subject or difficulty. Into the controversy concerning the Indigetes this is not the place to enter. ex municipio Aletrinati is not on the local stones.. 56. cf. This is in fact a secondo aggiornamento. Monumenti nuovi contain 57 items (many of them small frustula). 230. Radke. Chouquer and F. His explanation of the formula pec(us) a vi is. 13 lost. There are 4 inedita. G. Fiscellus will be the deity (here attested for the first time) of Mons Fiscellus (Gran Sasso in the Abruzzi at 2912 m. p. Ital. however. But there are indeed traces of centuriation in the area. from Suppl. Aletrium is solidly a municipium (CIL X 5808). ed. Ep. come l’agnus mas”. Cadastres et paysages ruraux (Rome 1987) 119–23. Die Götter Altitaliens (Münster 1965) 65–66. Anacta. will discomfit a host of exegetes. Vis can indeed mean “impeto 1 2 3 In Structures agraires en Italie centro-méridionale. though closer to Frusino and Verulae than to Aletrium. The family name of the two rogues (so Cic. The Liber coloniarum (Grom. Lachmann) places at Aletrium (very characteristically calling it Alatri. Fucinus is the deity of the lake of the same name in the country of the Marsi. 49). Favory tried to bolster with this evidence the notice in the Liber coloniarum. in Eph.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 425 514 (Clu. The stones from Alatri had the good fortune to attract the attention of the young Lidio Gasperini: Aletrium 1: I documenti epigrafici (Alatri 1965). Campbell declares the evidence of the grid very uncertain and impossible to date. Summanus is the god of nocturnal thunderbolts. entirely off the mark: “da intendere forse come una pecora inviolata.1 Gregori remains skeptical.. Galli observes that it might be “dativo plurale di una forma arcaica. vet. Clu. indigitamenta. 2 stones from CIL X substantially refurbished. Fabricii fratres gemini . No. Most recently B. I. There are no epigraphical testimonies of a colonia. and only 4 recorded in AE.3 In lines 2–6 we have: F\ucino pe\c(us) a vi / Summano pec(us) a\ v[i] / Fiscello pec(us) a\ [vi] / Tempestat\[ibus –––] / Iovi [– ––].). Tempestates and Iuppiter do not require any special explanation. 46) C. 4.D. and the electronic searches produced no example of the application of this phrase in the sense required by Galli. and they were very much afraid of vis atque ira deorum.16. hac praesertim imbecillitate magistratuum.45. and see ad loc. praestare nihil possum: vi excepta possum confirmare te et senatus et populi Romani summo studio amplitudinem tuam retenturum. and for that reason he opts for Augus[ti l(ibertus). 1. It is the latter form that seems to have figured in official formulas and denominations (see esp. but we are not dealing here with the word vis per se. A small fragment. Cornelius Lentulus (Fam. deorum Penatium. 2 (= AE 1922. It so happens that in Aletrium (CIL X 5808) decuriones.54. For the Indigetes the offering was specifically agnus mas. No. where Augustales and seviri Augustales existed side by side. Varr.2. 1. Now if we follow the teaching of Epicurus metus omnis a vi atque ira deorum pulsus esset (Cic. particularly the last one. Liv. 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. In another passage Cicero lamely comforts P. 35. municipes and incolae are on record honoring C. 14. 1363–64). to gods of storms and to thunderbolt–wielding gods of night and day. 947. The locution a vi is thus naturally and easily to be understood as referring to each of the deities specified: we offer you pecus. The beginning of line 3 is erased. His other suggestions a(nnorum) VI or pe<i>c(um) avi(m) = picum avem. “Les *Augustales”. of agnus mas there seem to be only two attestations (TLL s. (formally very much to the point. in Scaur. seviri.11. Asc. Iulius Augusti l(ibertus) on 4 See R.v. Degrassi in 1940. RGDA 19. lines 59–71). the other deities would apparently be satisfied with any pecus. and of difficult solution. Duthoy. The last line offers a problem and a pseudoproblem. he himself regards as unlikely or desperate. and subsequently lost..426 Historia et Epigraphia sessuale”. given to the Museo Civico in 1931. ANRW 2. A good argument but not entirely cogent: we know of a number of cities.. The electronic search has revealed 5 instances of the gen.). inscription on an altar: Deum / Penatium.17–18 L. . as there is a space on the stone between a and vi. 21 C. 48. copied by A. at the end the letters ]eri are visible. to be liberated from your vis. also in Latium. Galli points out that in Aletrium there are known only VIviri Augustales but not Augustales. A good thing to do for a rich augustalis – but also for an imperial freedman.2 (1978) 1261. 28. Nat. But e may stand in ligature. 204.v.. o Fuscinus (etc).4 Pegasus was engaged in an act of civic munificence: he probably built or refurbished an aqueduct. and Fest. for allegedly in a lex sacra of Numa Pompilius: Ianui Quirino agnum marem caedito). Should we read Augus[ti l(ibertus) or Augus[tal(is)? This is a legitimate question. and 6 of deum Penatium. but rather with the phrase a vi. the comment of Pease). The unspecified pecus appears in sacrificial contexts not infrequently in literary sources (TLL s. LL 5.3 (in a report of prodigium: agnus mas idem feminaque natus). n. No. 100). The shepherds were not Epicureans. Probably it reads: aquam in oppi[dum – – –] / Pegasus Augus[–––].3): ego tibi a vi. and perhaps we should read Al]etri(natium). a word of direction where to seek them.7 Rusellae (Regio VII. 2 (1926): only 15 texts (4 lost). of its inhabitants and its onomastics. He does not adduce this example. For the phenomenon of pairing. De nominibus equorum circensium. Avetta. Solin’s delightfully erudite Namenpaare (Helsinki 1990). Afonas and Resinna (nos. Bormann in CIL XI (1888) and (posthumously) in XI.8 In the Monumenti nuovi there appear three Etruscan names only: Aco. Pars occidentis (Barcelona 1996) 208. all the evidence. in one place. provides ex professo a home for Latin inscriptions only. Rix. and all other cities of Etruria. the nicely paired brothers Eudromus and Pegasus (AE 1972. Darder Lissón. Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen (Stuttgart 1996) 307. Paci. pose a thorny problem for a historian and epigrapher. on Marruvium and its Italic heritage) a mention of non-Roman documents. Epigraphica 38 [1976] 74–79). the circus horses. V. Marmorale (GIF 18 [1965] 97–116) wished to see in our Pegasus the famous jurisprudent of the Flavian era. Etruscan and Latin.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 427 515 account of his (unspecified) merita (cf. JRA 3 [1990] 318. though he lists the names in Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom (Berlin 1982) 394. Latin inscriptions from Rusellae were published by E. 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.6 And there are two slaves from the domus of Sergia Paulina. Champlin. The Suppl. All Etruscan inscriptions from Rusellae. Nevertheless one still misses in the chapter on Rusellae (and also in other chapters. and rejected. Manacorda) he transfers 7251 to Cosa. The appetite to discover stony traces of famous people is insatiable. by Bormann). G. 3. 4. imperial councillor and praefectus urbi) received his surname after the name of the liburna his seafaring father commanded (Schol. are reproduced in H. The current supplement brings 135 inscriptions (finally 1 falsa. Rusellae (Grosseto). They present a double patrimonio. Conti removes 2619 (= 7256) to Rome (a possibility already considered. 12 lost). pp.5 Marmorale’s conceit – he claimed that the name Pegasus was borne only by freeborn – is fanciful (cf. and two sets of inscriptions. with ample literature. 71. The jurisprident (who was also a consul. There are several Pegasi. in Roma – Via Imperiale (= Tituli 3 [Roma 1985]) 102. now PIR2 VI (1998) 219–20 (P 512). he missed the brilliant and seminal article by E. E. There are no falsae. and (following D. and in all languages. See the list in M. 6 7 8 . They are also listed by A. 38–39). 93–192). Zavaroni at his Internet site Philologia Etrusca. systematic excavations at Rusellae began only in 1959 but the results have been spectacular. Ital. horses and slaves. Etruria) by S. from all periods.77). See the new edition with a short commentary by L. Conti (pp. Difficult to believe. The name is rare but apt for things one wishes to be swift: boats. For practical reasons this is hardly possible. 51) – a triumph of Romanization. cf. 63). ZPE 31 (1978) 269–78. cf. 38 ineditae. it would be ideal to have at hand. Etruscan and Roman. and by the same measure is enlarged also our knowledge 5 To identify this person Galli adduces only the antiquated entry in PIR1. Etruskische Texte II (Tübingen 1991) 130–32. For a true history of such a city. see H. no. Iuv. with further bibliographical indications. or a note on their relation to Latin documents. even if devoid of inscriptions. For these denominations. These documents were the object of several detailed studies. He suggests that the statues were located in the headquarters of the Augustales of Rusellae. {See now AE 1998 [2001]. and by I. MDAI-R 66 (1959) 212–21. however.L. 2000 [2003].I. 11 To her list we have to add the pagus Stellatinus. “Vano Statue”. 13. in J.v. Agrippa. Caligulan and Claudian. the articles by A. come numerous statues (hence the denomination given by the excavators. from Suppl. Kultanlagen der Augustalen und munizipale Einrichtungen für das Herrscherhaus in Italien (Wien 2004) 187–93: Rusellae. Saladino in ZPE 39 (1980) 215–36. 40 (1980) 159–86. daughter of Claudius (nos. Fortunately for Rusellae most of important “new” inscriptions are already well known. Fac. to Augustus. Decisive.. 10–11. 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. Lucus Feroniae). but disappointing on epigraphy. Cogitore.10 They join similar outpourings of official piety from other places in Italy (Brixia and Val Camonica. s. González (ed. 39. no. they had been published and discussed in major journals. Gasperini. Good on statues.. Caere. Forum Clodii. and Octavia. The ciclo statuario was discussed in several earlier contributions. 10 Especially by Conti himself in Ann. Siena 18 (1997) 101–27 (non vidi). 14). THE AUGUSTEUM AT RUSELLAE Several groups of texts stand out. below. 443–501. Rose characterizes the Rusellae find as “one of the most important dynastic groups from the Julio-Claudian period”. Casinum. Kaisersaal. Luna. Germanicus and his son Drusus Caesar (nos. 54.428 Historia et Epigraphia of Roman Rusellae. topography and history. Mazzolai. Lett. cf. no. 9. 8. Ciudades privilegiadas en el occidente romano (Sevilla 1999) 177–85. It is true that no. 229–49. 7. 6. The author disregards the publication of the inscriptions in Suppl. 12 Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period (Cambridge 1997) 116–18. p. hence the proposed supplement. {W. Telesia. XI 3040)”. Rose12 appeared too late to be considered by Conti. a tiny fragment mentioning seviri [aug(ustales)] was found at “Vano Statue”. 14). V. but we still await a comprehensive publication. MGR 19 (1995) 248–70. 16). Ital. ZPE 38. Wohlmayr.9 and as a result at least 48 have found their way to AE. and the contribution by Torelli adduced below in the text}. the interpretations proposed in this essay. Saladino.11 Now in the description of the site it is imperative to include also the statuary. and “Considerazioni sull’arredo epigrafico e scultureo degli augustei di età primo–imperiale in Italia”. by V. clearly an Augusteum. see above. from an edifice at the Forum. is no. Herculanum. Ital. Univ. see the excellent articles by L. 5. Veleia. The fine monograph by C. 215–36. 9 515 .). 96). 1] but not seviri or Augustales. “L’iscrizione del Pago Stellatino (C. a dedication to Drusus See esp. Cogitore in MEFRA 104 (1992) 817–67. 12. 15. and gives a list of all statues. 558–63}. 14. Aletrium. the place destined for the cult of the imperial family. First of all. Nero Caesar (another son of Germanicus). perhaps also to Agrippa Postumus. Gaius and Lucius Caesar (who are also styled as patroni coloniae).. diligently catalogued by I. distinguishing two phases. B. and a series of dedications to various members of the imperial house. This is unlikely. Veii. Ladage. No inscription records a cursus honorum. 14) 586–87. Demougin. He locates the schola of the Augustales in another building. “Zum Problem der Identifizierung von munizipalen Kaiserkultstätten”. we can confidently restore it to Rusellae.. Demougin accepted the identity of the two Vicirii. Witschel. Praetores Etruriae XV populorum [Bruxelles 1969] 68–79. Klio 84 (2002) 114–24 at 119. inconsiderately expands as Aug(usti). Consequently Liou (82–84) argues that originally the chief federal officer was called aedilis. f. f. n. n. this inscription was often assigned to Clusium but now. posu[it] (interestingly the vow for Claudius employs numerous apices. 3. Arn. probably under Hadrian. {See now M.13 In no. 3 the supplement flamen Aug(ustalis) is assured by no. Vicirius A.. 16 For this honor. 19 Funus publicum (supra.und Kultämter im lateinischen Westen des Imperium Romanum zur Kaiserzeit (Köln 1971) 13. A proposito della ‘Casa dei Mosaici’ di Rusellae”. Prosopographie des chevaliers romains Julio-Claudiens (Rome 1992) 586. Vicirius A. a list of 5 known aediles. S. a collection of epigraphical testimonies. tr(ibunus) mil(itum) (so no. v\o\to\ [s]uscepto [p]ro salut\e et reditu et victoria Britannica. and its fulfillment: ex voto suscepto [p]ro salute . see the thorough study by G. Saladino. 63–82 on municipal public funerals. 457–58). He styles himself flamen Aug(ustalis). and a vow for Britannicus. and ultimately he received by the decree of the decurions the recognition of a funus publicum. later. come spesso se sente ripetere. Liou. victoriae Britannicae votum solvit. Städtische Priester. with the tribe of Rusellae established as Arnensis (see below. 43–44. Wesch-Klein was inclined to assign the epitaph to the father and the two dedications to his son. see B. the editor princeps (ZPE 39 [1980] 229–33). He writes (207): “L’aula absidata di Rusellae va dunque considerata non un luogo di culto degli Augustali. 4 = AE 1980. and the title of aedilis was replaced by the more prestigious title of praetor Etruriae. 1).17 but H. Wesch-Klein. in no.19 The opposing arguments are based on the invocation 13 For the priesthood. 29. [aedilis] Etruriae.16 Yet in epigraphy and prosopography things are hardly ever simple. 694. Such a priest was A. Torelli. 18 Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum V = Suppl. the “Casa dei Mosaici”. no. This Vicirius was a military tribune in legio IV Scythica. 17 Prosopographie (supra. but they are absent from the Britannicus dedication). The edifice “Vano Statue” was undoubtedly a municipal Augusteum. which was set up ex d(ecurionum) d(ecreto) p(ecunia) p(ublica). Funus publicum (Stuttgart 1993) esp. perhaps administered by priests of the imperial cult. and its fulfillment. Devijver was doubtful.18 and G. As the tribe of Vicirius was Arn(ensis) and the tribe of Saena was Oufentina. a reform took place. and 124–211. II (Leuven 1993) 2283 (V 111 bis).Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 429 Caesar. C. 3. 15 For this post. “Augustalium sedes Rusellanorum. argues that our man may be identical with A. 14 S. In an erudite disquisition V. n. . persists in rejecting the identification of “Vano Statue” as an Augusteum}. in Rome et ses provinces. 4: flamen [A]ugustalis.14 The inscriptions of Vicirius display a vow for Claudius. 4 the order in which his titles are listed is reversed). 16) 165–66.15 fla[men augustalis]. the progression from the post of aedilis to that of praetor. Hommages à Jean-Charles Balty (Bruxelles 2001) 201–19 at 205–207. attested on an inscription found at Siena (CIL XI 1806). Proculus (nos. see D. ma il luogo originario del culto dinastico dell’intera città”. no. [trib(uni) mil(itum) / leg IIII Scythi(cae). RE 12 (1925) 1556–59. and in this lacuna we may well supply Proculi. that in the meantime it may have been located for a short time in Germany. 25 Cf. Kienast. It records the following titles of Claudius: tr. We must seek divine assistance.430 Historia et Epigraphia 517 to the gods. The Twin Towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates (JRA Suppl. 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. and discards the significance of the invocation d(is) m(anibus) for the dating of the inscription. X. Now if Vicirius of no.26 Why did Vicirius wait for so long to fulfill his vow? A possible answer is this: he himself participated in the expeditio Britannica. this legion will have perforce been IV Scythica: let us bear in mind that the CIL stone is a funerary text. 2796–97. Ritterling. E. the cognomen (or its absence). pot. as Wesch-Klein darkly intimates. Groag. Vicirius does not indicate the legion in which he served as a military tribune but.20 and it is for that reason that Devijver.). who thus reverses his earlier opinion. IV. Saladino (ZPE 39 [1980] 230) admits a longer lacuna: [––– trib(uno) mil(itum)]. Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy (Berkeley 1983) 40–41. f. The epitaph begins with the invocation d(is) m(anibus). and that no other military posts are listed for the deceased. feeble indications. 24 “Legio IIII Scythica. The problems surrounding the early history of legio IV Scythica had long ago been admirably summarized by E. des. in The Twin Towns (supra. A. Groag. however. n. and in 44 celebrated in Rome a splendid triumph. It is in this context that no. imp. 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. 3 participated in the British campaign.27 and returned to Rusellae only late in 46. ibid. 24) 220. no. Speidel. Arn. H. Judging by these indications the stone (and probably also no. 4) belongs to the second half of 45. 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 and now by M. and the murky history of the legio IV Scythica. Römische Kaisertabelle (Darmstadt 1990) 91. E. if he is identical with the man from CIL XI 1806. in: D. 27 So Wesch-Klein (supra. V. Gordon. although occurring sporadically earlier. n.21 following a communication from A. . cos. Birley. This formula. assigned the epitaph to that period.25 This is interesting. its movements and men”. Claudius left Britain in 43. RE 3 (1899) 2798–99. 16) 165. But both scholars agree that the unity of the two Vicirii would cause.22 Either way the argument is inconclusive. A. 27 [1998]) 164–66. and if he served in the legio IV Scythica. Kennedy (ed. But this historical reconstruction springs solely from her epigraphical reconstruction of CIL XI 1806 where she reads (lines 2–3): A. D. at the beginning of Nero’s reign it was transferred to Syria. becomes more frequent with the Flavians. 23 “Legio”. however. 22. these two premises might form an argument for locating the legion in Germany – a proposition few military historians are ready to 20 Cf. There exist. In the crucial place. Devijver.24 The legion was originally stationed in Moesia. “weitreichende Konsequenzen” for the history of the Fourth Scythian legion. 3 comes into play. Viciri A. and consequently all reconstructions will remain hypothetical. generally discounted. “Commanders and officers of legio IIII Scythica”. The inscription is lost. 26 Cf. 21 Prosopographia II (1977) 873–74. The dating is disputed: the statues seem to belong to the 1st century. q[u]aestor r(ei) p(ublicae). On the pedestals only the cognomina were inscribed. Valerianus frater. 1 = AE 1980. The five cognomina are as follows (nos. The forum at Rusellae provided also another riveting text (no. 637 a–e): Bassus avos. In that situation one would wish to invoke Ockham’s razor (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and opt for one Vicirius only: the municipal priest of the imperial cult at Rusellae. Now. on the other hand Bassus [–––] appears as a person of an advanced middle age. Bassus [–––]. The father was probably a freedman. A curious circumstance attracts attention: in their public careers neither of our Vicirii progressed beyond the military tribunate – a remarkable coincidence. a dedication in good lettering Iano Patri sacrum. The people in Rusellae loved statues. 37–41. Titinius Vitalis sevir (ir in ligature) Aug(ustalis) and his son L. 99). Priscilla his sister. “un ampio vano absidato”.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 431 518 endorse. not only domi but in his later capacity as aedilis Etruriae also in the whole region (for a similar case. filius Pelagianus. avos and [pater]. In addition to the Augusteum. below under Bergomum). he was thus a pivotal figure. To make sense of this family tableau Conti wisely follows Panciera’s suggestion: we have two Bassi. Legio IV Scythica was not among them. put up ex voto by L. 99). For we are in the presence of a distinguished notable. Priscilla soror. but as Conti points out. AE 1991. and our Vicirius may well have been their progenitor (cf. and he gives as his tribe the Arne(n)sis. Four full legions participated in the invasion of Britain: II Augusta and XIV Gemina from Upper Germany. this vexillatio need not have come from Germany: if the IX Hispana could have marched from Pannonia. cf. The future held for the family greater things in the offing: senators and consuls. But. Maximu[s –––]. the nomen gentile perhaps was on display above the entrance to the basilica. and thus Vicirius could have arrived in Britain solely with a vexillatio detached from that legion. But let us review the situation in greater detail. Maximus will be filius. a military tribune in the Fourth Scythian legion. This indication. 53 (an ineditum) attests that he was quaes(tor)? ali]mentorum and aed(ilis). The precise stemma is difficult to establish. After his return from Britain Vicirius refrained from further public advancement – by his own choice. should we opt to read curat(ori) ali]mentorum this would produce for Maximus an equestrian office. and their local careers were strikingly similar. Titinius L. p. municipal functions. there existed at the Forum also a private statuary complex. No. the so-called “Basilica dei Bassi” (p. Why this prominence accorded to Maximus? Perhaps he was the first in the family to achieve honors in Rome. XX from Lower Germany and IX Hispana from the distant Pannonia. but they were apparently re-used later and their pedestals furnished with new inscriptions. At the top of the family line we have Bassus avos. his age is hidden. but his son appears in full panoply of his Roman nomenclature and municipal career: he was aedilis. we may suppose. 435). at the bottom Priscilla soror and Valerianus frater who is clearly represented as an adolescent. The statue of Maximus stood in the central niche. and a participant in the Claudian expedition to Britain. and Valerianus his (younger) brother. as the head of his statue is missing. in an inscription . a legionary detachment may have well been dispatched from Moesia. Cic.31 We may compare a late and peculiar inscription from Trier. 2. Thulin. non fefellit. 30 Not 6. III. 13. Leg. 449–51 and RE 7 (1912) esp. p(rimarius) is unprecedented. Ep. Val. Diz. har(us)p(ici) de L[X].32 where 28 L. Taylor spoke of “the semi-hereditary character of the haruspices”. and as he himself was an augur. and secondly. she owed her material to the works of C. and proposed to read patri et magistro. Div. 2437. and Tacitus (Ann. quam a patre. but actually he and his father were official haruspices. . Ep. The context is jocular: the ratio is applied to the inspection of politics and not to the inspection of liver.. still does not lead us immediately to the sources but rather to the book by L.6 as in Thulin and Taylor. Taylor. 2437–41. R. the teacher of his son? H.92 (cf. but as Cicero elaborates on his joke by a reference to augural divination. har(uspici) p(rimario) de LX. Fam. 1. Conti observes that “l’ereditarietà di tale professione è frequentamente attestata”. 42. 3 (1911) esp. we have to remark that. 651. O. the editor of CIL XIV. 11. acceperas. a word that is not attested. reprinted in one volume but with the original separate pagination. Mommsen based his expansion on CIL VI 2161 which displays a mag(ister) pu(blicus) haruspicum. 6. no. but he also noted Mommsen’s idea: magistro har(uspicum) p(ublico) de L[X]. and Cic. 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. parts I–III (Göteborg 1905. Darmstadt 1969). Let us observe that the son does not describe himself as haruspex. 32. but provides no references. Taylor. 151. Saladino (ZPE 38 [1980] 162–64. 1. 7) who. 2438) quoted CIL XIII 1821 (from Lugdunum): har(uspicis) prim(arii) de LX. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome 1960) does not adduce Rusellae in her list of “communities with tribes”. III. it is advisable to go back to Mommsen. Cicero (Div. As so often.432 Historia et Epigraphia belonging to a local magistrate. finally and unequivocally establishes Arnensis as the tribe of Rusellae (Arnensis figures also in nos. 142–56. R. 1. unjustly. The deceased was a member of the official corporation of 60 haruspices. 29 We have to go to the original publication by V. In line 3 Thulin read magistrator(um). The text and the names are certainly odd. retinuisse scientiam et in familias propagasse. Yet the only direct literary match for our inscription is Cic. Local Cults in Etruria (Rome 1923) 235. See esp. Dessau. Fla/viu{i}s Clau/dianus fili/us patri et magistro / harp. 163. 1906.30 Addressing A. Caecina. as Taylor herself acknowledges. Max. n. see also his articles in Diz. This became the leading opinion. 1909. however. RE 12... cf. The crucial lines (3–6) read: T. and a mistake he repeated three times: Etr. 3.21 (Etruria principes disciplinam doceto) is very general. To be fair. and adduced (without discussing them) four literary sources and two epigraphical. A strange mistake.. On the other hand Thulin (RE 7. But this skill and scientia were undoubtedly often hereditary. opted for the latter interpretation.1) does not explicitly say that the principum filii were trained in the haruspicina by their fathers. p. de L[X]. while the abbreviation p(ublicus) is common. but the question is: was he magister haruspicum or rather magister. Cicero writes: si te ratio quaedam <m>ira Tuscae disciplinae. 31 Another text invoked by Thulin and Taylor is CIL XIV 164 (from Ostia). and read in our text patri et magistro. especially to his grand Die etruskische Disciplin. CIL XIII 3694. probably also Caecina was not merely knowledgeable of the disciplina Etrusca.15) affirms: primores Etruriae .1.29 Of the literary sources.92) implies it.. nobilissimo atque optimo viro.28 The two men identify themselves as haruspices.3. 80). 53. Disc. a list and a discussion of testimonia for individual haruspices. 77. The name Arzygius could well stand alone in a verse (or in a dedication: Pelagonius ascribed his Hippiatrica to an Arzygius. he will be our man. Kajanto. 5. 77. 34 Cf. Kajanto. Venetia et Histria) by A. an ineditum. Forum Iulii Iriensium (Voghera). 2) a colonia in the IXth region of Italy. Giavitto’s discussion 205–6).. As Conti points out. again probably our dignitary). insignificant in Roman times. and finally 4) the Forum here discussed (today Cividale del Friuli). Cassiodorus (Var. quos scrupulosius dicere non attineat. who designates the city as FÒrow IoÊliow kolvn¤a.130) adduces Foroiulienses cognomine Transpadani in a long list of localities.v. I. And no wonder: Forum Iulii was the first city captured by the Lombards when in 568 they swept down into Italy. 3) a Forum mentioned in passing by Pliny among the communities of Umbria (NH 3. where in the last of the four lines we read the pentameter: has rector thermas dedicat Arzygius. ibid. Giavitto (pp. i. 195–276). There existed four Roman foundations combining the denomination Forum with the name Iulius (cf. each perhaps with five names (there is space for two names in the withered lacuna) honored by their respective sons. next we have a notice in Ptolemy 3. 8642 = no. but in the baths the poem was undoubtedly accompanied by a prose inscription listing the full name and all the titles of Betitius. 689). who was consularis Tusciae et Umbriae (CIL VI 1702 = ILS 1251) after 366 (PLRE 1. cf. about which there is no need to waste words. rather repudiated: there are attested in the city as chief magistrates the quattuorviri. . but the city came into its own only on the pages of Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards.e. RE s. a piece of information not confirmed by epigraphy. literary sources fall silent for more than three centuries. 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. the public haruspices.): 1) a colonia in Narbonese Gaul (Fréjus). Pliny (NH 3. Supernomina (Helsinki 1967) 15. 46. 31.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 433 we appear to have two fathers. 519 Forum Iulii (Regio X. an erudite treatment. 4. but contrary to Conti’s statement there actually exist only very few direct attestations of that phenomenon. King Alboin established the city as the capital 33 Cf. its name apparently deriving from Augustus.33 This observation leads us to no. The haruspicina was thus transmitted within families. In the inscription from Trier the names Arcadi Nycteri suspiciously look like signa (or agnomina) and not like regular cognomina. and no.26) mentions the Foroiulienses in passing as supplying provisions for the army.113: Foroiulienses cognomine Concupienses).1.25. it owed its surname to Caesar and was in antiquity by far the most known and important of all its namesakes. 12. These parentes were indeed almost certainly the teachers of their sons in the disciplina. After Pliny and Ptolemy. a carmen. of enduring presence thereafter. a sure indication of the status of a municipium (CIL V 1767. Plin. According to A. Ant. As a result. Asconius specifies that Pompeius Strabo non novis colonis eas constituit sed veteribus incolis manentibus ius dedit Latii. and thus the Irienses could certainly be described as “Cispadani”. Rossi. Altoadr. 2. Lang. n. with its own language (and own cuisine). Asconius (3 C.9). Paulus (Hist. the denomination lex Pompeia de Transpadanis is a modern construct.35 Pliny used this denomination (not attested epigraphically) to distinguish the inhabitants of Forum Iulii in Histria from the Foroiulienses in Gallia Narbonensis. 35 “Il territorio di Aquileia”.2 (1979) 546–47. In Roman times Forum Iulii was totally overshadowed by its rich neighbor Aquileia. but its full Latin name it not recoverable – certainly not de Transpadanis. whence the Friulan Cividale. to the old local name would be added the official denomination colonia. it is imperative to pierce this semantic bubble. while the city itself began to be simply described as Civitate(m). 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. but at 3.49 Pliny places Iria poignantly ad Padum. 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. Why not from the Irienses? The denomination Forum Iulii Iriensium is known only from inscriptions. 163) hesitated between Caesar and Augustus. id est ut petendo magistratus civitatem Romanam adipiscerentur. 36 Most recently in “Aspetti amministrativi dei centri urbani del territorio aquileiese”. the exact extension of its territory is a matter of dispute.1 (1979) 42. 34. also by Giavitto (204).138). Grilli. The official name of the law in question is not known. in the sphere of toponomastics. In this context Pliny’s curious phrase cognomine Transpadani attracts attention. 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. but most students are now in the camp of the dictator. But we have to return to the Romans. Now. Pompeius Strabo established Transpadanas colonias. p. As Rossi’s theory has been greeted with applause from various quarters. . 15. rather de coloniis Latinis trans Padum (or in regione or Gallia Transpadana) deducendis . Mommsen (CIL V. and one of these dates will be the date of the foundation (Giavitto 203 offers an extensive doxography of opinions). Hence indeed a lex Pompeia (cf. but it is of interest to point out that it straddled the current borderline between Italy and Slovenia (217–18).434 Historia et Epigraphia 520 of a separate ducatus (Hist. it is advisable to keep it in the area of geography. F. ut possent habere ius quod ceterae Latinae coloniae.) tells us solely that Cn. The inhabitants of those communities would flaunt their superiority of status over their less fortunate neighbors by proudly calling themselves Transpadani. in 56 and 50. Lang.14) ascribes the foundation of this negotiationis forum to Caesar. one may ask. Antichità Altoadriatiche 15. NH 3. Not so at all says R. 2. Caesar passed through the region twice. Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 435 The inscriptions were collected by Mommsen in CIL V (1872. 4 = CIL V 5127. cf. cf. less than one quarter. {See now AE 1998 [2001]. 548. and apparently none ever listed in AE. p. e su trascrizioni di epigrafi perdute”. no. Mommsen’s note. 1781. Vavassori does not adduce another piece by Caldarini Mazzucchelli (much shorter but much more accessible). All these texts. 717). 9–47).}. Iscrizioni di Bergamo dall’epoca romana. Thus altogether 40 documents. Bergomum – Ager inter Olium et Sarium – Valles Serina et Sassina (Regio XI. Vavassori (300) draws our attention to a volume she had edited in 1994. Of these stones 24 are lost. Caldarini Mazzucchelli (pp. of which 1 is transferred to Iulium Carnicum (8643). altogether 120 texts (and 11 falsae). Transpadana) by M. the review by G. 279–367). Le antiche lapidi di Bergamo descritte ed illustrate (Bergamo 1876). Mommsen’s edition immediately eclipsed the simultaneous collection by G. extant and lost. 1773. 15 = V 5155). for an epigrapher excavations in the archives are as important as digging in the ground. 3. Cf.38 There are 2 Monumenti reediti (no. AE 1994. 252–53. often with extensive bibliography and discussion of particular points. among them 6 re-editions (CIL V 8642. but – with the speed with which he worked – sometimes an important source escaped his sguardo linceo. As is well known our knowledge of many lost stones depends on copies made by early erudites. 11 mere snippets. . establishing the exact provenance of a number of inscriptions. Epigraphica 56 (1994) 224–26 (cf. Epigraphica 56 (1994) 275–78. 38 Oddly enough. who discovered several manuscripts unknown to Mommsen. “Notizie non note al Mommsen sulla provenienza di epigrafi rinvenute a Bergamo nei secoli XVIII e XIX. Finazzi. and a wealth of bibliographical data. 1768. 8644 = 1787. Calepio (1693–1762). Of the new texts only one gained some renown. Vavassori scrupulously registers the present whereabouts of extant stones. with numerous though mostly minor corrections. mentioning a stolata femina and an evok(atus). 6 texts were added by Pais. and moved to other places (CIL V 5188. however. 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) 9–47. 5191. (1888). 1877) and by Pais in his Suppl. (1888). 4 lost. of the “auctores cividalesi” of the 16th–18th centuries. But perhaps the most important contribution is Giavitto’s re-utilization of manuscript sources. among them in particular a precious opus by P. The inscriptions from Bergomum (Bergamo) and the surrounding territory were published in CIL V (1872–77) by Mommsen. and 24 nuovi. and 8 are lost. and 5 are declared alien. receive an exemplary treatment. Suppl. Susini. no. there is also one Greek text (IG XIV 2379) which. from Suppl. Ital. Vavassori (pp. Ital. pp.37 and to an article published in that collection by S. 1780). 5193–95). 568–82. 5 inedita. gives a detailed description of each monument. Mommsen was a supreme connoisseur of the manuscript evidence. Ital. “non adeguatamente consultati o ignorati dal Mommsen” (221–25). The section Monumenti nuovi contains 22 items. does not belong to Forum Iulii. Bailey in his commentary on Lucretius (Oxford 1947) surprisingly shows ad loc. 521 . 158. which displays a striking similarity of the formula: vir prior ordinis.960 is hardly a convincing example). Sulpi[cio] L. 599–615. but the search in Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg produced a couple of nonChristian examples. but see AE 1991. the scepticism of the editors of AE 1998 [2001].41 In the field of onomastics the stone offers also another peculiarity: L. b) the cognomen ‘Marciana’ is not a cognomen “di tipo libertino”. Sulpicius Marcianus interestingly owes his surname to his mother Ursia Marciana (EDH reveals a similar case in Cuicul in Mauretania. 617}. discedo (p. Löfstedt. disc(essit) XVI Kal(endas) Feb(ruarias). esp. see E. 1283) will show that with reference to dying the application of the verb is rather rare in literary Latin. cf.v. Of these texts a few attract attention: No. She argues that a) it is unlikely that a freedwoman should have married a quattuorvir. / Vot(uria) Cas[–––] / IIIIvir(o) iu[r(e) dic(undo)] / quaest(ori) a[er(arii) et / Ursiae M. AE 1913. no inscriptional parallel offers.40 Argument a) also appears cogent. it is difficult to gauge from the photograph whether there are any clear signs of withering. According to Vavassori none of the new texts was recorded in AE. I. as is also the absolute use (for Lucr. Ital. 855 and 856 for nos. no awareness of the linguistic problem. in the locative. Kajanto finds in CIL only one freedwoman among 123 bearers of the name Marciana. 10. especially in view of the analysis by M. particularly a quattuorvir who was not her patron. the aura of a medieval fabrication. [fi]L. Vavassori proposes to read M. For the apposition. the use with de is late. and now also 1997 [2000]. but perhaps only in order to fill better the space. Le Latium et la Campanie (= BEFAR 299 [Rome 1998]) 213–20. 608. Vavassori defends its authenticity. but only with the prepositions a and ex. where we encounter M. 13. it has a good Ciceronian pedigree. There is no comment on discessit. 40 The Latin cognomina (Helsinki 1965) 150. the text exudes. and for that reason it had rightly been omitted by Mommsen. 736 (from Altava in Mauretania. f. [fi?]l. 22). AE 1969/70. Marcianus and his mother Claudia Marciana). from Suppl. dated to 329). Syntactica 2 (Lund 1956) 73–78. vicxit (sic) / annis LXXX. loci. 6.39 The perfect discessit is particularly frequent in Christian funerary inscriptions. provincia Gallia. however. 9. a(nno) p(rovinciae) CCXC. 5. 3. f. Cébeillac Gervasoni concerning the “Alliances matrimoniales et familiales” of the municipal aristocracy. 728 for no. In this 39 C. No. / Marcia[nae] / L. {Cf. also a funerary stone: L. 41 Les magistrats des cités italiennes de la seconde guerre punique à Auguste.436 Historia et Epigraphia in 1291!) commemorating the martyr Asteria (no. Sulpicius Marcianus / et / Sulpicia Ge[rm]ana / parentibus s[u]i[s]. Indeed. menses VI. now a glance at TLL s. of the place of death. AE 1995. Papius M. 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. but for the general phenomenon. they are slightly apart.}. In line 5 the letters M and L are clearly visible on the photograph. the replacement in late Latin of the locative by the abl. {and 1998 [2001]. f. 7. pp. We are thoroughly in the Roman world. and thus increases our knowledge of the ceti superiori of the city. SherwinWhite42 notes that the manuscripts have Maesius or Mesius. R. Maesius. but the history of the Roman Bergomum commences rather late. 6 supplements CIL V 5139. Mynors in his OCT text (1962) prints Maesius. Secunda. Cornelius Minicianus. f.2 (1983) 144 (M 77). Sulpicius L. / Vot(uria) Maximo / praef(ecto) fabr(um) / IIIIvir(o) i(ure) d(icundo) q(uinquennali) / patrono / d(ecreto) d(ecurionum). in 49 of civitas Romana with the enrollment of the municipium (cf. libertus (written out in full) Eutyches sets up a monument sibi et Ursiae Myrine (sic) uxori optimae. 19: L. and Maecius are known. In line 4 q(uinquennali) is the expansion adopted by Vavassori and PIR V.43 and remarks that “contemporary senators bearing the nomen of Messius. CIL V 5138. 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”). and grandson of Rufus. f. Sulpicius Protus). a dedication. L. The development is common to all Transpadana: in 89 the bestowal of ius Latii. 6.25 are addressed to a Maesius Maximus.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 437 connection no. Pupius Castus (CIL V 5167. 6 the denomination quaestor aerarii may have been applied. 304. N. Sulpicius Q. but it is difficult to establish the precise line of demarcation (294–95). and pp. 322. Maesius Maximus and C. Cas[. The Roman influence had been present since the beginning of the 2nd century. who may have been a daughter of M. Voccius and Virsullus – and reminds us of the Celtic past of the area. Maesio M. Sulpicius L. to distinguish this post from that of quaestor alimentorum (see also pp. Now Rufus was married to Pupia M. cf. Rufus. as Vavassori notes.20 and 4. which reads: M. he should have looked for an equestrian. f. M. Sedatus. Eutyches was – on his own level – also a successful member of the community: he styles himself as augustal(is). f. In line 4 of no. 3. documenting a union between the liberti of the two families is of interest: L. The ager of Bergomum bordered on the territories of Comum. 43 Mesius is the reading in many earlier editions. If so. He does not know the stone from Bergomum. . 317) in the tribe Voturia. But above all no. 42 The Letters of Pliny. and in no. A. 290. 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. see also no. argues) is probably the son of a younger brother of Sedatus. F. but none is called Maximus” – yet at the same time he concedes that Maesius was probably not a senator. A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford 1966) 259–60. 330). Mediolanum and Brixia. We may now have three generations of quattuorviri from the gens Sulpicia: Q. That latter man (as Vavassori elegantly. and adventurously. A. his son Q. 10 displays an array of Celtic names – Trobio. Pliny’s Ep. 321–22 for a note on CIL V 5138–39). B. Sulpicius Q. (For the Sulpicii. CIL V 5128. but no. it is thus possible that L. 452–54 (originally 1985). 719 (originally published in 1968). 93. and esp. Soc. 15–17 (1984–86) 127. {M.46 The dedication deserves closer scrutiny. of course. distinct faces to the title praefectus fabrum is beyond doubt: honorific and purely municipal. 145. above in this section. That there were two. the excellent short account by H. quoted (with misspellings) by Vavassori. This is off the mark. Epigrafia romana in area adriatica (Macerata 1998) 333–41 at 339–41. n. 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. p. coll. also ibid. “Un préfet des ouvriers d’Arles”. (or sim. “Praefecti fabrum of the Julio–Claudian period”. 47 “Bergamo romana: ricerche storico-epigrafiche”.). “The praefectus fabrum in the early principate”. in M. 331).). 101. The trouble is that the inscription does not reveal any further equestrian advancement for Maesius. no. Anc.51 He even expressed doubt whether the administration of the praefectura fabrum can be taken per se as proof of the equestrian status. Demougin. n. Britain and Rome. see CIL V 5139. 46 Roman Papers II (Oxford 1979) 708. 211. and he did not fail to identify the notable in Bergomum with the correspondent of Pliny. Dobson (eds. “capo di gabinetto” of a magistrate. G. often the gate to further equestrian career (321). 441 (cf. 51 “Le profil social des patrons municipaux en Italie sous le haut–empire”. 359 (originally 1957).438 522 Historia et Epigraphia Petraccia Lucernoni44 proposed to place a comma after d(icundo). Saddington.52 Duthoy keeps Maesius firmly at 44 I questori municipali dell’Italia antica (Roma 1988) 274. no. in M. Essays Presented to Eric Birley [Kendal 1965] 61–84. Altertumskunde und Epigraphik. Berni Brizzo47 took the post of praefectus fabrum as an office in the local collegium. 49 Ibid. 52 To the article by B. we have to add D. 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. V (1988) 440–41. no. 4. Festschrift für Artur Betz (Wien 1985) 529–46. in Römische Geschichte. Paci (ed. L. a title bestowed by the emperor upon local worthies or their sons. 48 Cf. Harmand. 50 Cf. “La praefectura fabrum”. cf. Vavassori rightly rejected this conceit. H. In point of fact we are dealing here with a purely honorary prefecture.48 Harmand’s discussion of the phenomenon is not adequate. Les élites municipales de l’Italie péninsulaire de la mort de César à la mort de Domitien entre continuité et rupture. Der Kleine Pauly 4 (1975) 1100.49 He seems to compare the standing of the praefectura fabrum to that of the praefectura cohortis. and read q(uaestori). Jarrett and B. B. Dobson.45 R. . Cébeillac-Gervasoni (ed. fabr. The post will be a military or governmental appointment. Le Patronat sur les collectivités publiques des origines au Bas-Empire (Paris 1957) 251–52. PIR V 2 (1983) 144 (M 77). knew the stone. Cerva. Atti del Centro Studi e Documentazione sull’Italia romana 1 (1967–68) 88. 45 For this placement of the quaestorship in cursu or perhaps extra cursum (cf.50 In the formulation of R. reckons the praefectura fabrum among the munera civilia. and finally purely military as the chief engineer. Devijver. Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum I [Leuven 1976] 13. Syme. Classes sociales dirigeantes et pouvoir central (Rome 2000) 177–96. L. There need not have been any. 321–23.). but in this case we would rather expect praef. these are the people who have never left the “cadre municipal”. Volkmann. Duthoy. administrative with a magistrate. in G. Petraccia Lucernoni 331). S.). 6. or rather three. Cf. esp. Birley. esp.54 Maesius turns out to be a student of history. Cornelius Minicianus must now fight to retain this coveted distinction. Athenaeum 67 (1989) 5–20. with further literature. see M. PIR VI (1998) 260–64.20 establishes the topic and sets the tone: Meministine te saepe legisse. Ep. But this remark is due to the editor of the volume and the compiler of the index.. quantumque ipsi latori vel gloriae vel reprehensionis attulerit? – that is. his fellow Bergamese C. At the end of his career Syme was of two minds. P. CIL V 5126 (= ILS 2722). Syme remarks rather peremptorily that Pliny “informs him about frivolous behaviour in the Senate”. On this function. 262 (P 602). ibid. the tacitum suffragium. the secret balloting for the elections in the senate. Roman Papers II. On the one hand. 696–97. Sherwin-White ad loc. Pompeius Falco58 who was at that time (ca 105–8) the praetorian legate of Judaea. a patron of his patria.). But this was not a level to be despised. The opening sentence of Ep. . Now the Third Augustan legion was stationed in Africa (later in Numidia). 4. with the help of Syme. M. Maesius Maximus rose from the stone in Bergomum to reclaim. 3.22). and this interest he shared and communicated with Pliny.12 (on the topic of literary recitations). Sartori. 1469): “not necessarily identical with the person in Pliny”. “Osservazioni sul ruolo del curator rei publicae”. who directed to him three letters.53 But this behavior was caused by the introduction of a lex tabellaria. a dedication from the plebs urbana. 719. pontifex. to the polyonymous Q. Now to the other man. i. Birley who first questioned the identity of the two men. and in this sense a social counterpart of Pliny. which perhaps justifies Pliny’s grandiloquent praise of Minicianus as ornamentum regionis meae seu dignitate seu moribus (Ep.9. trib(unus) mil(itum) legionis III Aug(ustae). Certainly the hearts of all fautores of Bergomum fell when they encountered this remark in the index to Symes’s Roman Papers (III. Hence the two Miniciani must be distinguished. Maesius was clearly a domi nobilis. his status as a correspondent of Pliny. for it was E. A. the contentiones in the Republican times. and also flamen divi Traiani at Mediolanum and curator rei p(ublicae)55 Otesinorum (a small city in the VIIIth region). whereas Pliny (Ep. praef(ectus) fabr(um). he was inclined to buy Birley’s objection: “Probably not Pliny’s friend” (in 1985). “A new commentary on the Letters of Pliny”. 3.11 (pertaining to public affairs) and 8. Cornelius Minicianus is indeed a well-known correspondent of Pliny. 17. Cf. 53 54 55 56 57 58 186–91. also C. Roman Papers II. He also shared his interest in history.22) recommended his friend for a military tribunate to Falco. n. and it need not be identical with Syme’s point of view: it may rather reflect the family tradition.57 The reason? The person on the stone was praef(ectus) coh(ortis) prim(ae) Damascenorum. He was IVvir i(ure) d(icundo). Jones. Roman Britain and the Roman Army (Kendal 1953) 141. 7.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 439 523 the municipal level. flamen divi Claudii and patronus at Bergomum. Cf. records his municipal and military career (and provides him with the praenomen C. Phoenix 22 (1968) 117. quantas contentiones excitarit lex tabellaria. 197–224}. Syme.e. 7. “Il praefectus fabrum e il problema dell’edilizia pubblica”. cf.56 But whereas M. Verzár-Bass. 52) 75–76. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic II (New York 1952) 310. pointed out) as a Roman forum64 by C. and the autochthonous live on as Chieri and 59 Roman Papers V.60 A simpler scheme offers. n. probably as proconsul. publishing the evidence of his amicable exertions”. Birley. 30}). 453. So E. C 240). cf. see E. CIL V.62 In this Dobson has been followed by Devijver. 65 Sources in T. “Falco appointed Cornelius Minicianus to the prefecture of a cohort. In the years 45–44 he was governor of Cisalpine Gaul. Papers 1929–86 (Stuttgart 1988) 153. 60 Roman Papers II.59 Syme had considered that latter scenario already in 1960: Cornelius Minucianus got his appointment with Falco. R. n. coh. The name itself tells a tale. 298 (no. A. but preferred not to go to Judaea. unfortunately do not end well: in the printing the index to Bergomum was crossed with the list of nomina and cognomina from Forum Iulii (274–75). I Damascenorum. also his The Equestrian Officers of the Roman Imperial Army (Amsterdam 1989) 185 (an article of 1981). Ruoff-Väänänen. Originally a Ligurian or Celtic oppidum. in Judaea. through a lapsus calami. The remote Forum Vibii had left hardly any mark on history.65 We can be more precise. To be fair: this reconstruction already in Sherwin-White (Commentary 429–30).63 Yet perhaps the praefectura fabrum may again be (as in the case of Maesius) a municipal title. so that only 45 and the very beginning of 44 remain as the date for the establishment of the Forum. when cecidit fato consul uterque pari.. Forum Vibii Caburrum (Regio XI. n. 18. Vibius Pansa. p. Caburrum has. it will have been organized (as Mommsen.2 attests him in 44 on April 21 in Campania. not connected with militia or public administration at all. a tribunate in III Augusta in Numidia was to come later”. In both places the Roman names fell into oblivion. Studies on the Italian fora (Wiesbaden 1978) 4–53. n. 18 (a revision of the paper quoted above. Sherwin-White (430) speculates that Minicianus administered it “in an unknown province. 434. Broughton. Birley. The combination of the original pre–Roman name and of the new Roman denomination occurs also in other places of the region – see esp. Onomasticon to the Younger Pliny (München-Leipzig 2000) 52}.61 with a change of heart. X Fretensis. IV (1987) 1527. 62 “The praefectus fabrum” (supra. Att. 479–80. rather than a tribunate in its one legion. R. Transpadana) by G. Carreum Potentia (cf. JRA 11 [1998] 482 {reprinted in this volume. 57). Cic. {Cf. Filippi 375 calls him. 331. 68. S. “console” at that time. 61 The Roman Army. 14. 369–98). He must have departed from the Cisalpina immediately after he had heard the news of Caesar’s assassination. Ital. n. Filippi (historical introduction) (pp. apparently after his military posts”. 64 On the status of the fora. 63 Prosopographia I.11. Cresci Marrone (inscriptions) and F. a monster of an index issued with alien names partly mingled with the local and partly pushing them off the page.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. 524 . For the people of Bergomum things at the Suppl. On the praefectura fabrum Birley has no comment. Dobson would assign Minicianus as praefectus fabrum to the proconsul of Africa. consul in the fateful year of 43. 825. No. MEFRA 100 (1998) 139–45 at 143. map 39. whereas he is well aware of the double denomination of Carrea (var. cf. and better. JRA 13 [2000] 567 {= in this volume. Filippi speaks of “soldati caburriensi morti altrove” (375). No. n. 68 Italian fora (supra. Filippi and Cresci Marrone with full right revindicate it for the Transpadana. We simply do not know. and “is not justified by ancient sources”. 13 (1996) 270. cur(ator) r(ei) p(ublicae) Germa(–––). . the Barrington Atlas. This is the only attestation of the name in antiquity. cur(ator) r(ei) p(ublicae) Cabur(rensium). Ital. lect. 67 Taking the text according to the revision by G. In this process the inscription of the anonymous curator plays an interesting part. 31}. VI 32638b.20.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 441 Cavour.g. 66 CIL XIII 6900. 374–75) that the names Forum Vibii and Caburrum never occur together in one and the same text. Carreo) quod Potentia cognominatur (3. It relies on the continuity of the settlement on the site of Cavour. cf. proposes Germanici..131. 7288. The official name could well have been (e. The name apparently reappears only in 1041 as Castrum Caburri (379). Observe that he does not know of the name Caburrum. to the Alpes Cottiae. Mommsen. cf. perhaps a toll station existed also at Caburrum (375). Forum Germa(norum) and Caburrum. 64) 34.69 Whereas in the past it served as the mainstay for those upholding the distinction between the res publica Cabur(rensium) and Forum Vibii. His unequivocal placement of the city in the Transpadana is worthy of note. and on the conviction that there was in the area no place for two separate communities (374–75). now it appears significant that one and the same person was a curator in Pedona. This inscription was found in the locality of Busca which lay in the territory of the ancient Forum Germ(anorum). on flimsy grounds. As the two former localities appear to have housed stations of the quadragesima Galliarum. Suppl. Now it is with Vibi Forum that Pliny begins his enumeration of the cities of Transpadana regio (NH 3. Filippi (374) has res publica Caburiensium. attributed Forum Vibii. 69 For the name. Mennella. The identity of Forum Vibii and of the (later) res publica Caburrensium is thus not borne out by any linguistic considerations. n. but all these milites give as their origo solely Forum Vibii and the tribe Stellatina. and thus – through design or oversight – removes an r and adds an i. 117: Forovibienses).) Forum Vibii Caburrensium. cf. under the consular year 178. that Forum Vibii and Caburrum must have been two different places. VIII 23252. sub Forum Fulvii). 211. 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.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]. It is important to stress (as this does not emerge at all with any clarity from Filippi’s presentation. as she assumes.68 But this need not mean. laterculum praetorianorum.49. Thus the precise denomination Forum Vibii Caburrum is a modern conceit: so rightly Ruoff-Väänänen: this name-form is only Mommsen’s conjecture. disregarding the polyhistor. below. Camillo Benso conte di Cavour (1810–61). attract attention.E. and the tribe Pollia. but R. In the mutilated no. Der Staatsfeind in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Disius Pramianus Momi f(ilius). 390).. Drusilla. 8. Prosopographie des femmes de l’ordre sénatorial I (Louvain 1987) . of which 2 are republications (no. sister and lover of Caligula. 72 Cf.73 Recently a stone came to light in another obscure 70 Cf. 14–15 = AE 1993. V(ivus) f(ecit) / V\alius / T\itioni/s sibi et / Vibio / fratri / militi. all republications of CIL (7338. Ital. 71 La romanisation de la celtique du Pô (Rome 1983) 57. she probably shared. Untersuchungen zur “damnatio memoriae” (Berlin 1936) 102–3. 382–83). his son Moccus. in the also informal condemnatio of Caligula72) of that vain and unworthy person of a princess. 7339. 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. 7 displays a fine collection of epichoric names. 3 inedita. 823–24. actus and heredia “qui doit dater de la fondation par Vibius Pansa”. 650–61. Ital. But quite obviously these (lost) stones. 73 M. There are no stones in Forum Vibii commemorating priests of local or imperial cult. Ital. no. Vittinghoff. were brought there from the other side of the Po. We have before us a soldier of Vibius Pansa. 9 = 7349). Valius70 and Titio are epichoric names.442 Historia et Epigraphia which again would corroborate its assignment by Pliny to regio XI. who was civitate donatus. Mommsen was baffled: “ad quem rem publicam spectant nescio”. 1 = CIL V 7338. Schulze. in the south and east (where Pollentia was situated) it must have been the course of the Po (379–80).-T. died on 10 June 38. {And see now 1998 [2001]. F. The Suppl. Valius functions as if a Roman nomen gentile. The stele is dated “per la paleografia e il formulario onomastico” to the second half of the first century B. 383) and piscinam to her municipes. Historically of special import is no.71 We take leave of Cavour and its Rocca with a remark on the vagaries and inequities of epigraphic fortune. is silent about the centuriation. 5 brings another attestation of the Stel(latina). Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin 1904) 376. W. Raepsaet-Charlier. no. to the north Forum Vibii bordered on Augusta Taurinorum with which it shared the Stellatina tribe. the birthday of Augustus. part 2 (1877) Mommsen collected 15 texts (and 17 falsae). The “new” section contains 18 pieces. they will belong to Pollentia the tribe of which was Pollia (379. 8 are lost. (1888) has 3 stones. if only unofficially. The borders of its ager are still ill-defined. with one exception: CIL V 7345 celebrates a flam(inica) Divae Drusillae who gave baline]um (cf.C. but it is unlikely that its bearer was a Roman citizen. In CIL V. 4 we have a d(ecretum) d(ecurionum). 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.}). 3 Christian. Chevallier is adamant about centuries. from Suppl. once in the church at Lombriasco. Among those texts 7340 and 7341 recording an aedilis and a veteranus. Suppl. Pais. in the west the border ran “sul crinale delle Alpi”. 7346). Hence the supposition that he assumed this name “all’atto del reclutamento” (375. 3 lost. This is not very precise. p. and wife Ena. and was consecrated as diva on 23 Sept. and apparently none ever recorded in AE (actually nos. and no doubt received his viritim land assignation in the Forum Vibii at the moment of its establishment. 76 Opuscula (Pavia 1957) II. SUPPL. and placed the Forum.74 Two schools of thought emerged. Pollentia. among them Industria. and spelt with one l only. both of whom were active in Liguria. Mommsen was swayed by the identity of the tribe. The name and the place pose a puzzle indeed. Zanda offers 7 eruditely meandering pages (15–22). in the locality of Villa 375. 82 as the origo of a praetorian (with the indication of the tribe lost in the lacuna). not attested independently: it is only a modern backward formation from the very toponym Forum Fulvii). and their patrimonio epigrafico has increased dramatically. Zanda (historical introduction) (pp. We begin with Forum Fulvii-Valentia (Regio IX. 11–36). 17 (1999) The volume deals with three cities from Northern Italy which. cognominatur). 75 In his classic Italische Landeskunde II (Berlin 1902) 156. is most unhelpful in this respect. have two things in common: the extent of their territories. ITAL. is PIR IV 3 (1956) 315–17 (I 664) at 316. assigned Valentia to Valenza. recording [I]unia C. III. as so often. 336). a Forum called Fulvium. on the right bank of the Po. 127–30. impossible to verify as the stone perished) Va/lentia (CIL XIII 6877). as S. most notably H. the cities of Pollentia. has been substantially redrawn. and in AE 1940.1. Fraccaro. the major modern city in the region. On the other hand. 526 .] Procula. Nissen75 and above all P. and a settlement of Roman citizens (but not a formal colonia) called Valentia. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. VOL. whose name would thus form a counterpart to other Roman foundations in Liguria.49) that between the Apennines and the Po omnia nobilibus oppidis nitent. [f. Mommsen located his Forum Fulvii-Valentia on the site of modern Valenza Po. it also figures in the Tabula Peutingeriana. Foro Fulvi quod Valentinum (sc. with respect to the presentation of Mommsen. sacerdos diva[e] Drusillae (AE 1992. 30}). 74 Cf. Where Mommsen needed only 17 lines (CIL V.) Polia (sic! spelt out in full. Carrea [better Carreo] quod Potentia cognominatur (on the name-form of this city. 125). Potentia and Industria. however. The denomination Forum Fulvii is attested epigraphically in CIL XIII 6884 (from Mogontiacum) as the origo of a legionary (leg. Others disagreed. naturally enough. IV Macedonica) gives as his home town (in abl. p. Fraccaro. No.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 443 place. no. and ascribed to him three creations: a road (the via Fulvia. 179) or M. Pollia.76 Forum Fulvii must owe its origin either to Q. Panciera and M. north-east of Alessandria. We can call them unitarians and dualists. cf. and decided that Forum Fulvii Valentinum and Valentia were one and the same locality. Fraccaro opted for Marcus. Liguria) by G. invaluable. JRA 11 [1998] 482 {= in this volume. 79–83. Pinna (in regio IV). 437. XIII Gemina): Pol(lia) For(o) Fulvi. But from Mogontiacum comes also another inscription in which a soldier (leg. this name is. CIL XIII 7235 where the name of the city may also be lurking in the lacuna: Vale[ntia]. Mennella (epigraphy) and E. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. Enumerating the cities of Italy Pliny remarks (NH 3. 840). following in the footsteps of various local erudites. Guarducci stress in the preface. But there is a curious notice in the History of the Lombards by Paulus Diaconus (6. Whether there was forest in the place called Forum. he hurried back to Ticinum (Pavia. 5. at night. In view of this archaeological evidence Zanda and Mennella espouse unitarianism. 42 records a praefectus Sarmatarum Gentilium stationed Foro Fulviensi. on the river Tanarus (some 20 km. The forest in question was an old hunting ground of Lombard kings. it is true. quam Urbem appellant (cf. and could also be reached from . along the modern brooks Bormida and Belbo. when at the hunt the king’s nephew was accidentally struck with a javelin. a holy man lived in loco cui Forum nomen est. one may perhaps inquire about the “Urbs” that turned into forest. but also the territory to the south of Tanarus. eumque peteret. The two localities were apparently at some distance from each other but not too far apart. from Valenza). This testimony establishes. ut pro vita eiusdem pueri Christum supplicaret. Zanda’s topographical conviction becomes less certain. the king statimque unum e suis equitem misit. and induced the girl to his bedchamber (he later dispatched her to a nunnery. it was the king who in Urbem silvam venatum isset. The rationale is murky. As the archaeological remains at Villa del Foro presently do not appear to reach beyond the third century of the empire. If the hermit lived at “Forum”. the future Monferrato.39: Urbem vastissimam silvam) and ordered his wife to go with him. Perhaps the elusive Valentia? A much more likely explanation is at hand. qui ad virum Dei Baodolinum curreret. the localization of Forum (Fulvii) on the banks of the Tanarus. Paulus does not tell us. Futhermore the anchorite and the king did not meet. also for the period of late antiquity.444 Historia et Epigraphia del Foro. once and forever. which Mommsen treated in a separate section (CIL V 7532–54. and turned into wilderness.58). of which nos. the Lombard royal residence). iuxta fluvium Tanarum. Yet. Recent excavations leave no doubt that in this place existed a substantial Roman settlement. but unlike Mommsen they squarely place the unified Forum Fulvii-Valentia at Villa del Foro. 7532–36 Mennella and Zanda now incorporate into the area of Forum Fulvii). on the south-west side of Alessandria.37). King Cunibertus (ruled 688–700) was burning with love for a maiden. Notitia Dignitatum Occ. The forest was thus not far from Forum (Fulvii). How to elude the watchful eyes of his wife? He went hunting in silvam. with traces of a road. At the time of the Lombard king Liutprand (ruled 712–744). In late antiquity and early middle ages that whole area. was largely abandoned. Zanda considers locating this garrison “forse più sulle rive del Po che sulle quelle del Tanaro”. an option not available to statesmen today). This entity would now embrace not only the area assigned to it by Mommsen. then. whereas no such claim can be made on behalf of Valenza. as we move into the later empire. Zanda (21) gives a rather inaccurate account of the story: intorno al 740 l’eremita Baudolino si era ritirato nella selva un tempo chiamata ‘forum’ dove incontrò il re Liutprando che cacciava nella zona detta ‘urbe’. Paulus tells an amusing story (5. not far from modern Valenza. 31}). Dertona (Pomptina). Vardagate (Pollia. Petracco Sicardi. Zanda 18. a centuriation moreover “con la stessa misura e direzione dell’agro tortonese”. a long ride. perhaps. 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. see Dizionario di Toponomastica.78 Even if the forest extended somewhat to the north. 4 inscriptions were found displaying the registration Pom(ptina). Both maps tacitly discard the possibility that we may be dealing with two separate entities. A. the Plinian name. and Mon.79 The riddle of Valentia remains. Forum Fulvii. Waitz in the index to his edition of Paulus Diaconus (Hannover 1878) 265. see below). CIL V 7443 (= Mon. Claudius Claudianus. nuovi 4. and we also have a notice in loco et fundo Urbe [i. by various authors (Torino 1990) 455. as it is currently conceived.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 445 527 Ticinum in less than a day’s (or night’s) ride.77 In any case we deal with a pre-Roman toponym. reconstructs the nominative as Urbis silva. it took its name from the river. the name Valentia in large letters. De bello Gothico 555 clearly interprets it as Urbs: Alaric Ligurum regione suprema / pervenit ad fluvium miri cognominis Urbem. uncertain. n. 78 Cf. by R. in medieval documents the river appears as Urba. 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. nuovi 2. Furthermore. elaborated by M. 147. we immediately encounter in the required area Urbs fluvius (modern Orba): it flowed into Bormida not far from the latter’s juncture with Tanarus. Talbert [Princeton 2000]). where he carefully records the ancient (and. no inscription was unearthed in this area attesting the Pollia. Urbae]. In Talbert’s atlas (map 39. Now if we cast a glance at H. and rightly so. Unease persists. the distance to Ticinum was still some 50 km. but on the left bank of the Tanarus. by this “particolarità”. as in the phrase super fluvium Urbae. Aquae Statiellae (Tromentina). from west through north and east to south (with tribal registration given in parentheses): Hasta (Pollia). but cf. 80 Opuscula (supra. Toponomastica storica della Liguria (Genova 1981) 225.e.1. n. was surrounded by the following communities. cf. missing them. 79 For various feats of speed in antiquity. 5. . It is in this vicinity that the royal forest is to be sought.. ed. J. but with the wings of amor perhaps not impossible to accomplish in one night. 76) III. No. cf. in smaller letters. JRA 13. G. Pearce and P. The tribe of Forum Fulvii was Pollia (CIL XIII 6884. and below.2 [2000] 566–67 {= in this volume. Tozzi) the localization is on the Tanarus. Kiepert’s Formae Orbis Antiqui (map XXIII). The old orthodoxy is well represented on Kiepert’s map XXIII: the localization on the Po. and see above). 7445. Fraccaro was disturbed. J. G. 7448. The area of Forum Fulvii / Valentia. Linderski. silva ad Urbem. and the name reads Forum Fulvii Valentinum.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. and significantly. and it is fuelled by the consideration of tribal assignations. with a very opportune reminder that Alessandro Manzoni in his I promessi sposi still described the river as Orba selvosa. however. Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 244. It is his merit to point to the existence in the area of the remains of Roman centuriation (duly noted in the Barrington Atlas). concluded that its tribe could not be securely established. none of the cities of that name was known to belong to the tribe Pollia. in 1957. Mennella83 also ascribed to the Ligurian Valentia. In Gallia Narbonensis there was colonia Valentia (modern Valence). 207). will now go to its Narbonese namesake). Blanc. and the tribe Pollia (16–19. and this legion contained an unusually large percentage of soldiers originating from Gallia Narbonensis (whereas only 3 came from Liguria.Stor.Ant. not yet introduced into our discussion: CIL V 6919 (from the “ager inter Durias duas” to the north of Turin). the stone from Mainz did not escape his attention. Soon afterward a lucky confirmation: a snippet of a stone came to light in Valence bearing these letters: ] Q. 26. Hirschfeld. But even Mommsen and Fraccaro can be accused of a myopic concentration on Italy. now assured for Valence. but must be removed to Valence (also the legionary in CIL XIII 7235 whom G. everything now hinges on an obscure text. no urban remains but ample indications of the centuriation on the left bank of the Tanarus (and the tribe Pomptina). apparently never acknowledged in AE. 55). 170–71. see A. as certainly can all those who have recently expressed themselves on the subject of Valentia. after the middle of the first century of the empire. PO[l(lia).446 Historia et Epigraphia 528 tribe Pollia). is based on a stone from Mainz (CIL XIII 6877) where the tribe Pol(l)ia is coupled with the locality Valentia. Mommsen did not see the stone. With this removal disappears the only support for the Pollia on the left bank of the Tanarus. Pomptina reigns there unchallenged. 1960 and 1962. 83 “I Liguri nell’esercito romano”. as we have seen at the outset of this essay. The matter so rested for over seventy years. The editor of its inscriptions in CIL XII (1888). If we combine these data with the tribe Pollia. 82 For these documents. At the time of Mommsen. 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). This ascription and denomination. 29). it appears certain that our legionary did not hail from the Ligurian Valentia. Colonia Valentia (Paris 1982) 77–78. Blanc points out. see the article of Mennella cited in n. and 1 from Alba Pompeia.82 The anonymous legionary from Mogontiacum. F. We are thus presented with an entirely new equation. 10 (1980) 160. 2 from Hasta. and only later. with the testimony from the stone in Mainz redirected to Valence. Riv. This seems to point to viritane assignations (the date is disputed). four of them more or less aberrant but one. and Valenza with Pomptina. 43. . But must this Valentia be Valenza Po? There were other Roman foundations of that name. an eminent pupil of Mommsen. The three terms of this equation are Dertona with Pomptina. Zanda and Mennella consequently believe that this area was originally under the administration of Dertona (which was in the Pomptina). and that circumstance explains the lure of Forum Fulvii Valentinum with its registration in the Pollia. as was to be 81 And was published in rapid succession three times. The name Valenza may or may not continue the Roman denomination Valentia. and even that of Fraccaro. served in legio IV Macedonica. by Maffei. Forum Fulvii with Pollia. was transferred to the territory of the then formally constituted municipium of Forum Fulvii / Valentia. but whether this legionary “ex Valentia Galliae Narbonensis originem duxerit incertum est” (p. 93 (nos. O. however. 83 below). and printed five copies by different hands. we have on the stone Forum Pacatum. Here he begins a southern descent. 90 Nota bene: on Kiepert’s map Potentia is completely misplaced to the south of Augusta Bagiennorum. Inscriptions Latines de Narbonnaise. Fréjus (Paris 1985) 15–16. Thomsen. in Narbonese Gaul. he eschews). a denomination echoed by Mela 2. He starts with Libarna. and published it as Suppl. 85 Cf.90 and furthermore between Potentia and Augusta Bagiennorum (where his outer loop ends) he inserts Forum Fulvii quod Valenti84 E. . 89 See Galsterer-Kroll (supra.84 The stone is neatly cut on both sides. turned out to be almost correct. Ital. but Pliny (NH 3.77: Forum Iuli Octavanorum colonia. with the exception. D. next a short distance to the northeast to Iria (whose full name Forum Iuli Iriensium. in each region he enumerates the cities alphabetically. of regiones XI. it would be impossible to divine the full and actual name of the city. 5.35) introduces it in a full panoply of names: Forum Iuli Octavanorum colonia quae Pacensis appellatur et classica. Epigraphische Studien 9 (Bonn 1972) 57–61. 88 Missed by Detlefsen. no. 41. 86) 58–59. ILN 117). and with the change not only of its gender: we would expect Forum Pacense. Galsterer-Kroll.87 In that latter region. then further northwest to Industria. Pais retraced the stone. and IX. In one sole inscription there appears. Janon. for the nomenclature can be tricky. If we had only this one document.. see B. listing the cities between the Apennines and the Po (including Forum Fulvii). Liguria. The Italic regions from Augustus to the Lombard invasion (Copenhagen 1947) 126–31. J. He reverses the position of Pollentia and Carrea quod Potentia cognominatur.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 447 529 expected. 87 Cf. First straight north to Dertona colonia (more suo89 he omits its imperial surname Iulia). n. Transpadana. Cic. Observe that the surname Pacensis (now assured by an epigraphical text.40: the inhabitants of Vibo Valentia are called Valentini) or from Valentinum. from Nemausus). Detlefsen. and moves in a circular way. however. “Untersuchungen zu den Beinamen der Städte des Imperium Romanum”. Of interest to us is line 3.86 Now Pliny arranged his descripton of Italy according to the eleven Augustan regions. Die Anordnung der geographischen Bücher des Plinius und ihre Quellen (Berlin 1909) 42–43. Consequently the Plinian denomination Forum Fulvi quod Valentinum may hide a variety of names. the name Forum Iulium Pacatum (CIL XII 3203. 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). is attached directly to Forum. however. and recently G. and by R. referring to colonia. modern Fréjus.85 In countless inscriptions it bears a simple denomination: Forum Iulii. Iuncius I\anu\[arius – – –] / carissimae et [–––] / cur(atori) rei p(ublicae) Valen[tinorum –––] / amissorum + [– – –].88 We have to look at the map. and the status of colonia. 928. For the sake of comparison let us consider the names of another Forum. and some letters are partially withered. 86 On Pliny’s use of surnames of cities. We can proceed in two ways: we can take Valentinorum as deriving from Valentia (cf. We read: Q|. Gascou and M. he follows an interesting geographical scheme. Cresci Marrone again inspected the text and published it with a photograph and commentary: Per pagos vicosque. the presumed surname of Forum Fulvii – presumed. 2 Verr. Torino Romana fra Orco e Stura (Padova 1988) 44–45. We move now to the more solid ground of stones – even if broken or effaced. this happened. it fell into the wrong place. Peola. 3 lost. and which had already entered into the scholarly discourse. and then Forum Fulvii on the Tanarus. 17 in the series Biblioteca della Deputazione di Storia Patria. 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. from Suppl. supplanted local denominations of local settlements. Ital. Those indications are important for they show which texts. however. This omission in the lemma is rather discouraging for in the past the contributors to Suppl. 651–55. sezione di Alessandria (Alessandria 1940) 215 (non vidi).448 Historia et Epigraphia num. 484}. 2002 [2005]. Thus the analysis of Pliny’s geographical arrangement brings welcome literary confirmation for the location of the Forum Fulvii on the Tanarus (and not on the Po). Gasparolo. but not randomly: it was attracted by another city bearing a surname: Potentia. Ital.7443. often originally published in local periodicals of limited circulation. 4. 92 P. after Hasta and before Aquae Statiellae: this arrangement would have produced a symmetric quadrangle consisting of the four communities of inner Liguria (Alba Pompeia. and above all the awkward collocation of Forum Fulvii quod Valentinum between Potentia and Augusta Bagiennorum. Rivista di storia. arte e archeologia per la provincia di Alessandria 28 (1919) 246 (non vidi). It is most unlikely that Pliny should have missed first the presumed Valentia on the Po. It is a funerary monument of a tribune of cohors (spelt chors) prima F\lavia. and when. 414. Industria and Potentia. Protostoria e romanità dell’agro alessandrino. had religiously indicated the concordances with AE. No. entirely disparate. . The section Monumenti epigrafici riediti o nuovi contains 1 re-edited text (no.. 1 is a good example. the surname Valentinum was added to the clearly pre–existent Roman foundation of Forum Fulvii. CIL 5. Forum Fulvii. vol. are genuinely new to the larger scholarly community. these cases are. This is the last stop: further east lies Libarna where his tour of Liguria had begun. remains an enigma. Historically. However. Aquae Statiellae). Yet appearances often mislead: in any case nos. Roman names boni ominis. Hasta. in abeyance must also remain the vexing problem of the tribus Pomptina on the left bank of the Tanarus. once Forum Fulvii had been bypassed (rather by Pliny’s copyists than by Pliny himself). In this rather straightforward itinerary two disturbances strike the reader: the transposition of Pollentia and Potentia. 415 and 1987. and 9 new texts (3 of them minuscule fragments). {See now 1999 [2002]. continues to Hasta. and linguistically. How. and apparently none ever recorded in AE. Zanda (20) juxtaposes this surname with the surnames of Industria (Bodincomagus) and Potentia (Carreum). 1 and 4 did in fact find their way to AE 1985. and then swings south-east to Aquae Statiellae. and also some confirmation for the authenticity of its cognomen Valentinum. see below on the indication of the tribe). I wish to suggest that the suus locus for Forum Fulvii was on the inner loop. 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. published by Mommsen on the basis of a copy. whence it flowed into Suppl. of text (b) hardly legible) and manuscript tradition by G.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 449 530 the subject by H. Boscolo. Oddly enough. attested in numerous inscriptions. 522}. n. Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains 1 (Louvain 1895) 408.97 However. the latter two legions no doubt one and the same legio which was called Hispana or Hispaniensis.s. lines 7–8: Iunoni / Cissoniae Aphrodite. 3). it can as well be an A. {See now the comprehensive study by F. Mennella. “Alla ricerca di un’arca perduta: il ‘sarcofago’ romano di Pietra Marazzi (AL)”. J. RE 12 (1925) 1670. and AE 1997 [2000]. Interestingly.93 Only after its republication by G. 534. was a favorite place for military recruitment and retirement. 98 Cf. Among its officials there were four annually elected curatores. later. XIII 1853 = ILS 2119). n. This is the fourth attestation of the arca and the third attestation of its name Titiana. The inscription was published twice in local venues. “Collegium fabrum et centonariorum Mediolaniensium”. Ritterling. though with respect to the dative. Serta antiqua et mediaevalia. the bursars of the common purse. had been an official in an important collegium in Mediolanum. It offers the third attestation of this unit (when it was stationed at Lugdunum. Moreover. 4. See E. This collegium is one of the best known in the whole Roman world. 97 Cf. a quadrangular urn. three other texts also refer to soldiers. a soldier and a veteran leg(ionis) IX Hispaniensis (nos. if any trace is at all visible. and again on the basis of early photographs (the picture of text (a) is excellent. or vice versa. . Freis.96 The defunctus. and the second attestation of its surname Flavia (cf. he missed the contribution of Mennella}. The first line (or two) of text (a) are lost. and evanesced. a soldier leg(ionis) VIIII. Waltzing.95 No. later it was smashed into pieces. Epigraphica 46 (1984) 234–37. Ital. with a dossier of inscriptions. 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. inscribed on two sides. but in the broader world of the collegia reelections to the curatorship were not unknown. CIL XII 2602 = ILS 2118.98 for the vocalism arce Titianae we find a close parallel in another inscription also emanating from the milieu of the Milanese fabri and centonarii. arca. but the last three lines are intact: II collegi fab(rum) / et centonariorum arces / Titianae c(oloniae) A(–––) A(ugustae) M(ediolani). was last seen in 1921. but most probably we do not deal here with an archaizing genitive but rather with simple and common monophthongisation. but also often appears without any surname. The person in question exercised this function twice. the first example of the iteration in the Milanese college. 2 {cf. 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 (Köln-Graz 1967) 29–30. On the photograph. true to its name. 4). while apparently buried in the ager of Valentia. Väänänen. the reading arces raises doubts. V. P. 1 (1997) 171–81. We have a veteran perhaps [legionis] III [August]ae (no. AE 1998 [2001]. Mennella94 and admission into AE has this important document become generally accessible. the cohors was moved to Carthage). 6. CIL V 5869. Hence an easy supplement at the end of the preceding line: cur(ator)] or cur(atori)]. probably under Hadrian. Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes3 (Berlin 1966) 23–24. AIV 161 (2002–2003) 369–424. apparently Forum Fulvii / Valentia. next the various containers (esp. Barbieri (Mennella is of course also a veteran contributor to Suppl. 19 pieces in all (7595–7613). Alba Pompeia. the bulk from the first two centuries of the empire (549–68). and “La documentazione epigrafica della città e del territorio” (569–609).450 Historia et Epigraphia chre should pay as a penalty 15.000 sesterces apparently to the second centuria of the collegium (line 4). Mennella and S. pars 2 (1877) by Mommsen. Of the latter we have two recent and simultaneous testimonies: the present fascicle of Suppl. Ital. and the massively lavish volume Alba Pompeia. saeverit). stones were rescued and preserved in the local Museo Civico (opened in 1897) which now bears his name. 37–117). Robert against restorations exempli gratia have apparently been forgotten in Paris. Here particularly questionable appears the sequence aut in eam idem severit (i. Filippi (102–293). Ital. Then there are lamps. both of them authored by G. Filippi (ed. 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]. a truly exhaustive study. And we should not forget coins found in Alba or its territory: 89 pieces. some of it inscriptum. only 3 republican.99 The contribution by Giorcelli Bersani is to be read side by side with two pieces from the Alba volume. Archeologia della città dalla fondazione alla tarda antichità (Alba 1997).. 531 . in quarto. and of course brick stamps 99 F. Our man will have thus belonged to the second century. in CIL V 5612 each of the four curators of the arca indicates the century to which he belonged. Whether this duplication of effort was reasonable. The inscriptions from Alba (so called still today) were collected in CIL V. but it belongs to the language of poetry or elevated historical narrative and one would hardly expect it in a legalistic injunction. The locution saevire in aliquem or aliquid is well known.e. with most objects produced in Italy but a few coming from Gaul. At the end of the century Federico Eusebio began his fervent archaeological activity in Alba.. The Alba Pompeia volume contains also the full documentation of instrumentum domesticum (by various authors). Some places are lucky in stones and for stones. Mora (30–40). Giorcelli Bersani (pp. we leave to the locals to ponder. as is also the exemplary publication by G. After his death in 1913 periods of abbandono followed and of renewed activity. for olive oil and wine) with some 35 different marks (530). in his edition Mennella wisely resists the lure of supplements. and “La documentazione archeologica” by F. We know that the Milanese collegium of fabri and centonarii consisted of 12 centuries. Of lines 1–3 only meager relics are on record. the fulminations of L. in particular the numerous pieces of terra sigillata displaying 16 different potters’ marks (447). Liguria) by S. Alba Pompeia (Regio IX. Spagnolo Garzoli of a rich area sepolcrale at via Rossini (295–418).): “La città e il territorio nella testimonianza delle fonti scritte” (17–29). Closely related are the articles “Il popolamento del territorio: la carta archeologica” by C. 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. some again with inscriptions (453). and of 624 pp. the readers may rejoice.). and bundled them together in a special section covering regions X. and their contacts with Mommsen. cf. Claudi(o) P. “Padre Luigi Bruzza e l’archeologia vercellese”. Here our text duly figures as no. Steinby. and as a rule they do not appear in Suppl. 1 (1948) XXXIV–XXXV. this text. XI and IX (CIL V. 958ff. On Promis (1808–73) and Muratori (1804–70). see the illuminating remarks by A. and that he published it originally in “Bull. thanks to the efforts of Mommsen. Promis in his Storia dell’antica Torino (Torino 1869) 216. Ital. 142. (Mommsen used the proofs of Bruzza’s book. Sommo. this is the Internet edition of the first two chapters from G. 2. (pp. 30] observes that a note of 1900–1 “segnala il laterizio come già incastrato in un muro di casa Mermet”. IX. Leone”. Inscr. Mommsen was kind to . 540). 1876. Sommo. pp. Eusebio. p. 211. 545. Epigraphers religiously catalogue “Consules aliaeque annorum determinationes”.102 Now. 2 [1877]. Bloch. Inscriptions on such objects were admitted into CIL very unevenly. Bruzza. and also the publications (from a manuscript of Gazzera) by G. Vercelli 1994). and by L. From CIL we know that it was there already in 1868 when Mommsen visited Alba). 55”. 18.C. neither admitted into Suppl. but understanding does not mean approval. XV and 736]. The name in line 1 is that of the entrepreneur. pp. Documenti per una lettura storica e territoriale delle collezioni archeologiche locali del Museo “C.E. n. 100 See the indices of H. M.. See G. Iscrizioni Romane dei Vagienni (Torino 1869). F.) Muratori. No. and fully edit only those inscriptions that are of special historical. nunc Mermet” (the brick is presently in the Museum. E. Ital. The lemma informs us that Mommsen saw and copied it “in hortis olim Veglio. De Marchi credits L. 10 in the chapter on “Bolli laterizi” by C. De Marchi reads: Q. Bruzza with the publication of the document in his Iscrizioni antiche Vercellesi (Roma 1894 [the correct date is 1874!]). HSCP 58–59 (1948) 82–87. also Atti del convegno di studi nel centenario della morte di Luigi Bruzza. but De Marchi [548. (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). 543. Iscrizioni antiche Vercellesi (Roma 1872 [sic]). But the Master also acknowledged the true editio princeps by C.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 451 with a plethora of names (540–48). and ascribes its elucidation to F. Tulli / Ti.). Indici complementari ai bolli doliari urbani (Roma 1987) 107–8. photo on p. 101 “Cenni particolari sul materiale epigrafico del museo d’Alba”.101 Yet when Eusebio presented (in 1903) his findings to the Congress. in line two we have the consular date of 13 B. The whole opus appeared in 1874 [cf. There is a middle way: indicate all the variant marks (and their frequency). F (or in Latin I. though the introduction was added only in 1875). Quintil(io) cos. will illustrate this contention: First. 984). 102 Mommsen in his edition of CIL V had separated the texts inscribed on the instrumentum domesticum from all other inscriptions. CIL V. Ferrua. a brick. 8112. dell’Inst. 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. had already been well known and well understood for more than a quarter of a century. no. One can understand this decision. Corrispondenze archeologiche vercellesi. But there is more to this particular brick than meets a casual eye: it shows how elusive the bricks can be. Two examples from the Alba Pompeia volume.82 (p. The precise finding place is unknown. Ital. economic or cultural import. 1883–1983 (Vercelli 1987). Certainly it is absurd to omit a consular date only because of the material of its “supporto”. in Atti del congresso internazionale di scienze storiche 2 (Roma 1905) 134 (non vidi). TAPA 89 (1958) 14–24.I. Culasso Gastaldi published in a local journal. p. it is a collector’s item and a souvenir. For interpretation we are directed to an excellent article103 by E. Here ends. 416. 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. This is of course our very tegula (registered indeed erroneously among the amphoras). in Fil¤aw xãrin. un confronto è offerto dal rinvenimento di una tegola a Pollenzo”. symbols of eternal life. see now also the discussion by H. it missed our tegula. Symbol des Lebens in der alten Welt (Bern 1982) esp. 1 (1999) 20–21 (Q 30). 110–11. see Ferrua. and rude to Muratori. sotto il titolo delle Amphorae (V.L. 103 104 105 106 . Our text figures there. De Marchi (547) states that for our “marchio consolare . 77–92. 736. Quintil(ius). Gazzera (1788–1859). In the chapter on “Ceramica comune” A. see CIL V. but the inscription it bears certainly is not common: calos Acti Castre(n)sis. It belongs in the series of various cups and other objects sporting the names of famous entertainers. {Cf. “Epigraphica subalpina (‘Viva Azio Castrese’)”. as “urne funeraire”. F.. 20–24. religiösen und kulturellen Tourismus im antiken Römerreich (Mainz 2002) esp. Bolletino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 82 (1984) 441–50 (I am very obliged to the author for kindly sending me a copy). is of course the Greek acclamation kalÒw. misleadingly. S. Common piece it may be. “The gladiator Petraites and the date of the Satyricon”. Der Granatapfel.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. 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.} Cf. for now. 8112/82)”.. AE describes the cup. Histrionen (Bonn 1992) 191–94. Panciera. The cup in question was found in a rather interesting grave (Filippi 291). Muthmann. he also took with him a small beaker (“coppetta”) with representations of grapes and (probably) pomegranates. H. Quercia (506–7) identifies it as belonging to the class of “vasi potori”. T. XXIV). of whom the former assigned the consular pair to the year 51. and the latter to 235. Zeugnisse des geschäflichen. and later brought to Alba. It may well have been found in Pollentia. but it is wrongly described (following Mommsen) as signac. Künzl and G. Rowell. Claudius in the consular dating during the first and second consulship of the future emperor Tiberius (CIL XV 4539). E.452 Historia et Epigraphia 532 further confusion – or a discovery. {It continued slithering through the fingers of editors. PIR II (1936) 219 (C 941) knows of only one example of the name-form Ti. Cf. We are not told that this article was analysed in AE 1984 [1987].106 Promis. Leppin.}. Improvement in PIR VII. and begins the strange story of a small cup. ibid. In his edition Mommsen corrected the errors of lectio and interpretatio of Promis and Bruzza. the slippery story of a small brick. Oddly enough. n. 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. On C. mostly gladiators.104 The first word. and not any other specimen with the same inscription. Koeppel. Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di Eugenio Manni V (Roma 1980) 1637–51. “Catilina e Catone su due coppette romane”. it seems to be the only example of the form and abbreviation P. Souvenirs und Devotionalien. calos. in amph. CIL IV 2150). He appreciated Bruzza: for his laudes Bruzzae. 7548–54. and the drinking cup joyously speaking to us from the grave. and only 5 registered as reproduced in AE. 529. 413. Fulvius Flaccus (cos. and by G. 485–86. see Mommsen. The story is now amply retold by Giorcelli Bersani in Suppl. A. In 49. also on the coast. cf. 657–76. the patrimonium lapideum of Alba consists at the present time of 74 “pezzi riperibili” (p. extant or lost. 17 and 25 found their way to AE 1996. Mommsen did not wish to divine the exact extent of its territory. mostly the handiwork of that master falsarius Iosephus Franciscus Meyranesio (1728–93). 7543–45. and added to Mommsen’s original 19 texts (7 lost) a substantial number of stones from the “holding” sections of CIL V: nos. 2002 [2005]. p. 987. in Alba Pompeia we get more: photographs. the city was granted in 89 the Latin rights under the lex Pompeia (Strabonis). 2. and Albingaunum far south on the coast to the Publilia. 863). Barbieri in Alba Pompeia. 7585–89 (6 lost). Q. associating in the consular date the man who was to become the recluse emperor and the man who was to lose the legions. {See also 1999 [2002]. on his mischief in Alba. Ital. 10. Ferrua. the coloniae Latinae of the area were transformed into municipia civium Romanorum. Alba (as also the neighboring Augusta Bagiennorum) was assigned to the tribus Camilia. 863. Ital. 1995. Mennella and S.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 453 The brick. And we should not omit the falsae: more than 60 pieces of imagination. although in Alba the chief magistrates appear to have remained the duoviri. There are 55 Monumenti nuovi (2 re-edited): only 6 small fragments lost. and Hasta to the north. pp. 536–61 contains many texts from the Alba volume. tell a melancholy story. 1987. 2. No. 59). And now AE 1997 (2000). 2001 [2004]. Ital. may have appertained to the Stellatina or to Camilia – which complicates the stuation. wrote Mommsen. its ager must have primarily extended in the eastern and southern direction. To the history of Alba Mommsen devoted one page (CIL V. 179) and M. 647). Fulvius Flaccus (cos. and a new edition of all stones. JRA 3 [1990] 318 {= RQ. As Alba was situated in close proximity to Pollentia and Augusta Bagiennorum to the west. and for a general appreciation. and again (see above under Forum Fulvii) we can attribute the decisive rôle to one or both of the Fulvii. 41}). Aquae Statiellae in the east to the Tromentina. and the matter largely so stands. extensive commentaries and bibliography. a detailed description. But as Pollentia and Hasta belonged to the tribe Pollia. Of all extant pieces published in CIL we get in Suppl. from the Alba volume and Suppl. Originally a Ligurian settlement. Ital.. under the regime of Caesar. 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. Inscr. 125). CIL V. and assigned inscriptions from these two areas to separate sections entitled “Inter Hastam et Albam ad Belbum et Tanarum” and “Inter Bormidam et Belbum”. they should not be banned from the Suppl. 678. and 1994. “De origine non constat”. Moreover the Alba volume provides a most . p. and also one piece from Augusta Bagiennorum (7681 = AE 1994. XI. 109–11.} In sum. 16. Successors of Mommsen have thus redrawn the territory of Alba. Ital. but in fact also nos. The Romans appeared in this area in the second century. and it was probably at that time that the appellative Pompeia was added to the old name of Alba. 646. 1. all the renaissance glory in front of her. 863). optimistically adamant: Ter. we should choose the easiest solution: read the alleged TER as PER. and perhaps his brother P. 144). He reconstructs lines 6–7 as follows: P. gives a slightly different text. who ruled for almost three months in 193. and with this hopeful thought let us take our leave from Alba.1. a stone surfaced in Alba (Alba Pompeia no. 586–87. The editor princeps. f. Helvio P.107 About the family of Pertinax Mommsen penned this incautious phrase: “stirpis eius ignobilis titulos memoriam non servasse mirum non est“ (CIL V. Ter(etina) Tenax. 32. 646) recording C. 1. 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). Alba Pompeia no. 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. and to explain it Mennella (followed by Giorcelli Bersani) builds intricate hypotheses. 7607. 5) names (L. to be murdered by the praetorians. 38 = Suppl. 121–205). G. Helvius (the cognomen is lost). and several more in CIL. 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. Ferrara. His father was allegedly of servile extraction. The monument is partially effaced. Cam(ilia) Felix. This information or fable Giorcelli Bersani repeats faithfully (54). We may be dealing with the relatives of the emperor. (Pert. Ital. nuovi. Of the Hedii. Suppl.454 533 Historia et Epigraphia valuable list of all stones found throughout the empire that mention Alba. On the stones themselves the frequency of the formula v(ivus) f(ecit) attracts attention: 6 examples among Mon. f. How a Helvius could receive this name from a Hedius remains cheerfully unexplained. Helvius P. and Tenaci (and not Pertinaci) are the correct readings. despite all the pious efforts. however. 108 Rivista di Studi Liguri 59–60 (1993–94) 133–44. Pupillo (pp. Dio 73. Hedius Rufus) Lollianus Avitus (cos. 7543 which exhibits a similar procedure). mostly as origo (18–20). P. p. Helvius P. but an anachronism with a good pedigree. The tribe Ter(etina) of the dedicant’s brother is puzzling. Ter(etina) Tenaci [TE in ligature] / fr(atri). and cf. she converts tenuous and circular hypotheses into firm pseudo–facts (cf. and the writing is very difficult to divine.3. sprang forth from a Byzantine fort with no obvious Roman past. much less certain in the second part of line 6: T\e\r\(etina) T\ena++ / fr(atri). so far no secure epigraphical trace was found in Liguria. Giorcelli Bersani. was born in Alba (Cass. . Given the indisputable fact that the stone is barely legible. Recently. 7681. and in the Alba Pompeia volume. however. Mennella108 is. Ferrara cum agro (Regio X. pp. Ital. 25. but in 2 cases he appends this notation only to his own name (V 7544. AE 1996. In 3 cases the dedicant equips all the names on the stone with the tribal assignation (CIL V 7601. also on the basis of autopsy. The tribe is in all cases Camilia. Claims to fame Alba Pompeia had but few. The title of this section is an anachronism. his son C. 56). Helvius Pertinax. AE 1994. and thus restore in line 6 Pertinaci or Pertina[ci]. The administrative position of the vast delta of the Po is uncertain.1). Venetia et Histria) by D. f. yet only few cities in Italy could claim an emperor. as patris patronus the Hist. 11). no. no. Aug. Pupillo notes. ultimately on the side of Vespasian. Ital. Of that number. in the new military port (Classis). although at least part of the delta must have belonged to the ager of Ravenna. Unfortunately her map of Ferrara cum agro is practically illegible. a good number of lead lumps bear the inscription AGRIP. often attributed to Ateste. 225): “nam quae sunt tria maxima vitia. including a large load of lumps of lead. That this Hispanus found his lasting place in the Po delta is rather surprising and calls for an explanation. probably referring to M. Zerbini. malae artes falsariorum et translatio genuinorum titulorum et antiqui status ignorantia. of Pais (1888). municipium or colonia. Domergue. 14 admitted into AE. 27 are lost. First. “La nave romana di Comacchio”. There are 34 Monumenti nuovi. In CIL V (1872. On inscriptions from the area there occur two attestations of the tribus Romilia and three of Camilia.2 (2002) 821–28. 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. p. of a squadron of the imperial navy. 75}. vi/xit an(nis) LX. however. and we should not hastily exclude Atria. Now legio VII Gemina was recruited by Galba in 68 in Spain. 8. so Zerbini (p. {See now L. Vipsanius Agrippa. CIL V 2389. who (lines 4–8) milit(avit) in / leg(ione) VII Gemi/na Felice. of the remaining most are preserved in the Lapidarium of the Museo Civico of Ferrara and Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Spina. since the time of Augustus. In that aporia (persisting also today) Mommsen decided to group the inscriptions from the Ferrarese under one convenient and arbitrary heading. occasional corrections. La nave romana di Comacchio (Ferrara 1990). only 2 lost. In doing so he uttered in his pithy Latin a lament and warning (CIL V. but this is of little help as none of these documents was found in situ. Iulia Pusinca. dated to the late republican {or perhaps rather Augustan} period: see the discussion by various authors: Fortuna maris. to her patron. 823) following C. sailors and veterans. was from 74 stationed again in . oddly included in CIL XI (1888. furthermore Camilia was the tribe of both Ravenna and Atria. Berti in Fortuna Maris. two miles to the south of Ravenna proper. “Les lingots de plomb de l’épave romaine de Valle Ponti (Comacchio)”. three of them “new”: No. L’Africa Romana 14. Pupillo prefers to keep in the area of Ferrara. Next.Updating the CIL for Italy: part 5 455 534 of a forum. All these texts receive a detailed description. The delta displays an unusually large percentage of stones commemorating soldiers. probably from Spain. Epigraphica 49 (1987) 109–75 at 118–22. an interpretation already favored by F. and after a vigorous participation in civil wars. Iulio Urbano. In her introduction Pupillo underscores several salient features of the social and economic life in the delta. a stone set up by a her(es). further addenda (6 items) were. No. and a bibliographical aggiornamento. and 1 text in Suppl. / mil(itavit) an(nis) XXVI. p. and no town in the vicinity is known to have belonged to the Romilia. the presence. 7. na(tione) Hispano. To preserve the continuity with CIL Pupillo (125–32) prudently adopted the Mommsenian arrangement. T. in all 16 (or perhaps 17) pieces. 1926). classis Ravennas. 1877) Mommsen published 66 texts (and a good number of falsae). a veteran of cohors XIIII urbana. ea hic omnia concurrunt”. But our inscription may belong to an altogether later period.14.”Hispanien und das römische Heer”. Roxan. Imperial slaves and freedmen are on record in several texts in CIL V (2385–86.110 For that supposition there is no direct proof.2). 112 Or so: 60 is the beginning of senectus. It was unearthed in the course of excavations at Voghenza. servus) saltuarius (cf. 3.12. Lutatius Catulus saved Italy by defeating the Cimbri in a bloody battle fought at tÚ ped¤on tÚ per‹ Berk°llaw (Plut. 142). Pupillo’s is the first reading of the text after the bronze had been cleaned. 2. and there is nothing more pleasant than to depart on a note of drama and supposition. Flor. Zennari 109 Cf. according to all legal rules. 24–26). Now according to P. and his vast estates. Ritterling.111 On the other hand we know for certain that in the wars of 68/69 the legion first advanced with Galba to Rome. Caes(aris) n(ostri) serv(us) librarius (hardly a “secretary”. The son.456 Historia et Epigraphia 535 Spain. 6). 1. 5. and subsequently re-edited and commented in the standard collection by M. 25. Iulius Urbanus had served in the army for 26 years. dated to 12 June of 100 (no.5). Le Roux. a Caes(aris) n(ostri) ser(va). rather a book-keeper) and his son Ulpius Festus. This consideration would lead us from the enrollment in 68 to the missio in 94. 4. thus testifying to a separate estate (saltus) of an imperial lady. and as he died at the age of 60112 he would have been enrolled at a rather ripe age (for a tiro) of 34. 2411) and in Monumenti nuovi: No. Mar. Roman military diplomas 1985–1993 (London 1994) 258–59 (no. The Ulpii appear on 3 other stones (nos. But in 1956–58 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. Life in the delta stood triply under the sign of the emperor: through his fleet. It is high time to take leave of this treasure-trove of stones. perhaps of Livia. But this fits rather well the circumstances of an extraordinary levy when a whole new legion was created. ill. 111 Cf. 142). Pat. . Marius and Q. a Dalmatian by origin. In 101 C. 195. no corrections. G. Clemens. p.5. and then again descended (from Pannonia) on Italy against the Vitellians. RE 12 (1925) 1630–35.38. E. a freedwoman rather than freeborn. first published in 1989. 67. and such a round figure may be suspect. No. De vir. no doubt imperial freedmen or their descendants. Yet the most important military find will certainly be a diploma of honesta missio given to a classiarius of the Ravenna fleet. coniunx. a socially interesting document. No.109 In 88/89 it marched from Spain to help quell the rebellion of Antonius Saturninus in Upper Germany. set up a monument to Ulpia Athenais. his retired soldiers. on that occasion the legion may have also passed through northern Italy and Aquileia. This is still the only place of that name in the Barrington (or Talbert’s) Atlas. 110 L’armée romain et l’organisation des provinces ibériques d’Auguste à l’invasion de 409 (Paris 1982) 158. Latin sources supply the name of the plain: Campi Raudii or Campus Raudius (Vell. Alföldy. bears the name of the mother. Gerión 3 (1985) 394–96 = Römische Heeresgeschichte (Amsterdam 1987) 497–99. Halus / Augustae (scil. Modern scholars had commonly located the engagement somewhere in the vicinity of the Piemontese Vercellae. 3) also argued that vercellae was a common Celtic word denoting “un terreno metallifero alluviale”. Corso di cultura sull’arte Ravennate e Bizantina 43 (1998) 757–79. 115 “La regio Padana Vercellensium Ravennatium: un’ipotesi”. Mommsen bristled at the suggestion: “Vercellenses hos male distinguit Passerius ab notis Transpadanis. / verna disp(ensator) / region(is) Padan(ae) Vercellensium / Ravennatium / b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit). The vercellenses would then be the people who worked in the fodinae. Inst.115 113 Historia 11 (1962) 217. and precisely to the area between the modern cities of Ferrara and Rovigo. It reads: D(is) M(anibus) / Atiliae / Primitivae / coniugi / incomparab(ili) / Herma Augg.114 The inscription and the location of the battle continue to be debated (Pupillo 143–44. a dream vainly dreamt by many a falsarius (cf. on the left bank of the Po. Now Zennari (quoted by Van Ooteghem 220.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. 1. Zennari placed the ager Vercellensis in close proximity to Ferrara.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). 30. This idea has gained a large following. with recent bibliography). Yet the Vercellenses in our inscription may appear to have been in some way subordinated to the Ravennates. see Pupillo 143). Badian: “This study makes all earlier discussions of the battle – or later ones written in ignorance of it – obsolete”. Righini. This text had been known for more than two hundred years. 114 See his map reproduced by J. at Petr. . According to a legal definition servi quibus permittitur administratio pecuniae. Ferrara may have had after all a heroic past. 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.122. The most recent exploratrix of the scholarly swamps of the Po. and the excitement of the moment is still resonant in the lines of E. Sat. the opinion of Mommsen prevailed – for a time. CIL V 169*). Caius Marius (Brussels 1964) 219. 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. As usual. a settlement in the vicinity of which Marius destroyed the Cimbri.Van Ooteghem. aureos numerantem. perhaps they inhabited a vicus in the ager of Ravenna.. n. 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. referens ad illos nescio quem rivum Verznes prope Voghenzam”. V. resolutely returns to Piemonte and to Mommsen’s sobriety.. dispensatores appellati sunt (Gaius.9 we observe dispensatorem . for further references. 1908–13). There exists an English translation. 1981. Leipzig. not all of them good. Gladiatorzy a polityka. Friedländer’s classic Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der Antoninen1 and L. Futrell. fills her pages with empathy. A. G. Palais Farnèse. To a speculative genre belongs the book by P. below. Lendon. {In the intervening two decades a good number of general books dealing with the phenomenon of gladiators have appeared. Roman Life and Manners. The Spectacle of Roman Power (Austin. Blood in the Arena.-C. is a monumental compendium. gives a rather sober popular overview. P. Welch. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome (London and New York.” Dict. see D. Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome. pp. with whose eminently sensible remarks on the phenomenon of the gladiatura I am in full agreement.33 GLADIATORS* Georges VILLE. Igrzyska w okresie pózånej republiki rzymskiej [Gladiators and Politics. JRA 14. CJ 95. and K. and to some extent also that by T. is a brief introduction with excellent photographs. S¬apek. 1–30. xi + 519 + 7. Grant. des Ant. C. “Gladiator. Pp. A. G. 2. Rome: École Française de Rome. Schneider. Wiedemann. Golvin. JRA 14. 1988). Plass. pp. E. 1997). 4 vols. 1983). Savi. despite the dripping title. 1967). and see now her comprehensive study. is an intelligent essay. Robert’s masterly Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec (Paris. Hopkins’ chapter “Murderous Games” in his Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History (Cambridge. “Gladiatores. On the books of Barton. see the review article by J. Very useful is the lexicographical study by M. J. . F. Emperors and Gladiators (London. and K.2 (2001): 479–84. 1992)}. Mosci Sassi. see D. La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien. Pious condemnation or gory titillation – much nonsense has been written about Roman gladiatorial games. On the gladiatorial arenas. 1998) is an original contribution offering a detailed presentation of the grim task of the disposal of corpses. The great merit * 1 Classical Philology 80 (1985) 189–192 {with bibliographical addenda}. although beset by the nowadays popular and lucrative practice of presenting commonplaces as insights. n. 1980). 205–75 (10th edition by G. 1921–22). The Roman Amphitheatre (Cambridge. pp. tears and anger. avoiding both the technical and the Latin. 4. Vol.2 (2001): 492–98. admirable in its scathing rejection of fashionable idiocies and disappointing in its contempt for the intellectual joys of epigraphy. Wissowa. For the late republic. For a fine appreciation of Kyle’s book. 2 (1896): 1563–99. Gladiatorial Games in the Late Republican Period] (Wroc¬aw. 1995). iconografia (Rome. and vol. 7a). L’amphithéâtre romain (Paris. Barton. organizzazione. (London and New York. Potter. recent work on amphitheatres and spectacles (including Futrell’s book) is discussed by K. Futrell and Kyle (and Fora. 3 (1918): 760–84. Such titles as Cruelty and Civilization speak for themselves. 5–112. Kyle. 245. 1940). 2005). Gladiators (London. On the other hand. The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans. Lafaye. the book by D.” RE Suppl. Storia. cf. M. fasc. is a short popular account. Il linguaggio gladiatorio (Bologna. 1995). 1992). Until very recently there existed only two comprehensive and reliable studies of the gladiatura: L. 1992). The Gladiator and the Monster (Princeton. I gladiatori. Also of use are G. The Game of Death in Ancient Rome: Arena Sport and Political Suicide (Madison.4 (2000): 399–406. the damnati. now K. Ville seemed predestined to fill the gap.N. References to modern literature do not go. (Paris. 147–55. the ludi in question are of course the famous games of Pompey at the dedication of his theatre in 55. He also elucidates many baffling aspects of the terminology: his interpretation of the expression primus (secundus. 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.S. and we look in vain for an 2 3 4 5 6 His promised Nouveaux documents de gladiateurs dans l’orient grec has not yet appeared {and apparently the book was still unfinished at the time of his death in 1985}. In 1960 he published a long article on the gladiatorial games under the Christian emperors. After years of patient work G. 355 Maecius is presented as the editor of the ludi apparatissimi (Cic. after only thirty years. pp. and this means that the readers who will consult the book as an encyclopedia will spend many useless hours tracking down the quotations. he provides an equally detailed discussion of the “personnel” of the ludi – the gladiators themselves.4 but then fate intervened.” MEFRA 111 (1999): 883–917. with his expert guidance.1–2). . now P.5 Four members of the School prepared a detailed index. Gladiatori e venationes a Hieropolis di Frigia (Mem. why this particular caesura was chosen is not immediately apparent. and of course the editores.2 the volumes of Friedländer. etc. Fam. beyond 1966. the immense popularity of the gladiatorial games in the Greek East under the Empire. Weege6 he declares himself decisively in favor of the Oscan (not Etruscan) origin of the gladiatorial games. Following in the footsteps of F.” JDAI 24 (1909) 134–35. Robert.Gladiators 459 190 of Robert was to demonstrate. Yilmaz.R. Cf.” in La mosaique gréco-romaine. Colloques internationaux du C. in the meantime {and forever} we are thankful for his numerous contributions to the subject published in the Hellenica. 1965). Lincei.3 and a few years later an important study of the famous gladiatorial mosaic from Zliten. Ritti and S. In the preface to the reprint of his book in 1971. serie IX.} “Essai de datation de la mosaique de Zliten. the bestiarii. 235–37. Origins Ville disposes of swiftly. leaving behind him a manuscript only partially finished. {For further gladiatorial monuments from Asia Minor.” MEFRA 72 (1960): 273–335 {Cf. we can intelligently follow if not necessarily enjoy. 4 [1998]). 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. fasc. and finally he takes us to the spectacle itself which. R. Veyne. which published it. “Païens et chrétiens devant la gladiature. are in need of replacement. Maecius “had chosen the plays for the afternoon performances” (Cicero: “Epistulae ad Familiares. In 1967 Ville perished in an accident. who prepared it for publication. Shackleton Bailey notes. 7.} “Les jeux de gladiateurs dans l’empire chrétien. Sp. 1978) 65–87. see T. against the entrenched wisdom. “Oskische Grabmalerei. and of P.” vol. unfortunately there is no comprehensive bibliography. Veyne. 28–31) may serve as a brilliant example. X. filling the gaps in the manuscript and adding a number of references. For it is an encyclopedia. however. As D. The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage (Oxford. recognized the need for a supplement. vol.) palus (pp. The death of Domitian is the chronological limit of Ville’s study.1. 1977] 325). 1 [Cambridge. One of these additions is rather unfortunate: on p. Dunbabin. after more than a century of service. among whom towers the emperor. Carter. made more valuable by the key-word concordances. {See now M.} . Robert. V. IV. see the recollections by S. 4) touch upon this subject only in passing (both with further literature). Roma. the trinci. D. 21. VI. we learn only in passing. the authors listed above have produced enduring monuments of uncompromising scholarship. by G. lamps. Gallia Narbonensis. 15 [Edizioni Quasar. Germaniae. Regiones Italiae II–V. Considerazioni sulla loro documentazione epigraphica (Napoli.7 The book of Ville remains a torso.” Phoenix 57 (2003): 83–111. Regio Italiae I: Latium. 1). None of the papers delivered at the colloque devoted to the martyrs of Lyon (Les martyrs de Lyon [Paris. 2. But men (and women) of standing and substance often prefer 7 See J. Gregori (1989). L. and P. II. that in fact there was to be a second volume comprising iconographic documentation. are only first steps in this direction. Regiones Italiae VI–XI. “Gladiatorial Ranking and the SC de pretiis gladiatorum minuendis (CIL II 5278 = ILS 5163). vols. 4. which includes a corpus of eighty-two texts and a full discussion of each of them. Vismara and M. be assembled is now a major desideratum. the contributions of M. containing a corpus of inscriptions. L. an excellent piece. That such a volume. n. 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. Sabbatini Tumolesi (1988). Whether due to design or adverse fate this is most unfortunate. by C. Sardinia et Corsica. 1996). Palmer. 6. by P. for the author was constrained to disregard a great number of later sources. It was initiated by Patricia Sabbatini Tumolesi (in the meantime. 1) and M. so far six volumes arranged geographically have appeared (in the series Vetera. See also M. 14. mosaics. reliefs. RFIC 112 [1984]: 101–11). E. Sordi (p. like Veyne. I munera gladiatoria in Italia. and the persecution. 1978]) dealt with the possible connection between the Senatus consultum. Ville (and Veyne) assembled in the footnotes copious references to inscriptions. Buonocore (1992). Fora. Sabbatini Tumolesi. Fora (1996). Tres Galliae. but the book has no epigraphical or iconographical appendix. Le Glay (p. Caldelli (2000). on page 64. (See also the important review of Ville’s book by P. Roma.460 Historia et Epigraphia 191 explanation either in the preface or in the body of the book.{7a} And inscriptions continue to provide enlightenment – and puzzles.} {7a The project here envisaged is now well under way. While some academics empathize and ruminate (cf. Gladiatorum paria: Annunci di spettacoli gladiatorii a Pompei (= Tituli 1 [Rome. by M. Sabbatini Tumolesi. III. The preface is silent as to Ville’s original plan. by S. Britannia. Sicilia. 11. n. “Minutes of an Act of the Roman Senate. It is entitled Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’Occidente Romano (with photographic documentation). 181. One of the more bizarre aspects of the munera was the voluntary participation of senators and equestrians as gladiators. Robert’s book contains a corpus of epigraphical documents with minute description and generous photographic illustration of the accompanying reliefs. Faccenna. Orlandi (2004). 1980]). a corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum. Geographically the volume is limited to Rome and the western provinces. Roma]): I. prematurely deceased. Why did they risk their lives? Some scholars have invoked the impoverishment suffered during the civil wars and the need for monetary rewards. and other artefacts illustrating the munera. H. “Rilievi gladiatorii. Panciera in Vetera 11 [1996] 7–9). by M. Alpes Maritimae. Anfiteatri e strutture annesse con una nuova edizione e commento delle iscrizioni del Colosseo. A.” Hesperia 23 (1954): 320–49. n. the author prudently refrained from competing with L.” BCAR 76 / BMCR 19 (1955–58): 37–75. Oliver and R. 2–3) and Servius (Ad Aen. n. Levick. 1978): 374–82.” Sesta miscellanea greca e romana (Roma. statistically this made it rather difficult to survive more than five fights. repeated countless times on television screens. Tertullian (De spect. really. Munera sine missione became popular. This should not surprise us: today the high point of car races is the spectacular crash.67. “A propos du sénatusconsulte épigraphique de Larinum. out of which he “occidit XI gladiatores primarios Campanos. arbitres et valets d’arène de condition sénatoriale ou équestre.” JRS 73 (1983): 97–115 (with further literature).” REL 61 (1983): 36–48. “The Senatus Consultum from Larinum. from Caesar onward.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. This they did at the expense of those who would often perish at their first try. Juvenal’s (3.E. hence the name bustuarii given to these gladiators.37) occidunt populariter is matched by an inscription of C. Moreau. the burial alive of Greeks and Gauls. Yet such behavior undermines the facade of decorum that every ruling class must maintain: hence a long but erratic series of prohibitions. also P. 7) and Africa with its human sacrifices to Saturn (the damnati ad bestias performed this role) form an exception. B. D. a veritable “goût de la mort” developed. Gladiateurs. {Cf. 12. da Larino. Lebek. AE 1978. against polluting in this way the high ordines. What makes the race exciting is apparently not the competition but the play with death. 318–25) that in the first century at each munus some twenty percent of engagements ended in the death of one of the combatants. 146.Gladiators 461 192 excitement and danger to boring propriety. 255–62) are already half obsolete: a bronze tablet found in Larinum and carrying a portion of a Senatus consultum of C. “Standeswürde und Berufsverbote unter Tiberius. Gallia with its trinci (see above. but their character was always agonistic. Malavolta. “A proposito del nuovo S. 19 was published in 1978. The chances for survival diminished in the succeeding centuries. Das SC der Tabula Larinas. and the forfeiting of the sacri 8 M. and popular art delighted in scenes of slaughter of vanquished gladiators. 10. 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. never sacrificial (pp. To some this interpretation will appear unduly pedestrian: in a country that knew entombments of Vestals.” ZPE 81 (1990): 37–96. 3. 249 from the small town of Minturnae (ILS 5062). C. The editor is praised for having produced eleven pairs of fighters. to fight in the arena? Ville calculates (pp. W. 9–19).” Was there any religious significance in the swordsmen’s fights? Violent and sacred often go together. It is prohibited to engage (auctoramento rogare) any of them “ut in harena depugna] / ret aut ut pinnas gladiatorum raperet aut rudem tolleret” (lines 9–10. Great champions went on to fight an astounding number of bouts. The pages that Ville devoted to this subject (pp.519) maintain (this information may derive from Varro) that the gladiatorial fights were originally a species of funerary sacrifice.E. with Levick’s 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. over one hundred we are told.} . The populus loved it. As Veyne remarks (Ville left unfinished the chapter devoted to the ideology of the arena). . From this perspective the munera dedicated to gods pro salute appear interesting. but Ville dismisses them in a few curt pages (118–19. 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. But this is a subject for another melancholy book. “la lubricité leur a toujours paru plus dangereuse que le sadisme. 466). Some (including Cicero and Seneca) found it inhuman.462 Historia et Epigraphia homines to gods. 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.” and “le souvenir des chrétiens jetés aux lions n’avait nullement incité l’Église à condamner dans le principe que l’on jetât les criminels aux lions” (p. 160–61).607. For the Fathers of the new faith the turpitudo theatri was even more objectionable than the saevitia harenae. there is nothing intrinsically impossible or improbable in the sacrificial bouts of gladiators at a bustum. Dyrrachium). 16. A. C. Annalen. E. pp. Hannoverae. Milano. 4117 (Notae variorum: they are taken from the edition by J. {W. Valpy’s edition In usum Delphini. by L. XXVII–XXX] to his 1960 Teubner edition of the Annales.21. AJP 109.. 1475. but omitted in that of 1607 (non vidi). She rightly observes that in view of the second prologue to Terence’s Hecyra (lines 25–28) a possible coexistence at the games in Patavium of dramatic performances and of pugiles should not bother us. in posterioribus sprevit”. 1988. Heidelberg. i. Caestata is a hapax. olim utrisque infensus.. 67. Cornelius Tacitus. PUTEOLANUS (edd. 21. with industry and acumen. 1801). 1871). Athenaeum. Londini. JACOBS avers that it “lends support to Doederlein’s emendation of Ann. Valpy’s edition In usum Delphini. and for biographical information on various older philologians here mentioned. BROTIER (edd. F. 277–78. 377–78. a) asticis: Valens ACIDALIUS (1607).e. Jacobs. 492–93 {also a good collection of earlier interpretations in A.34 GAMES IN PATAVIUM* Nero virtutem ipsam exscindere concupivit interfecto Thrasea Paeto et Barea Sorano. eaque offensio altius penetrabat. unde ortus erat. G. “The Tradition of Antenor and its Historical Possibility”. Here is a list of conjectures. ad loc. ludis cetastis a Troiano Antenore institutis habitu tragico cecinerat. 1834. Cf. is similar to that of the text of Tacitus” (p. JACOBS. J. 1771. A. LIPSIUS (ed. 16. as he points out it was in fact first proposed by J. USSANI. 275–77. ingenious or fantastic2. he indeed records this emendation. 1882. Accepted. J. 1960. “Tacitea”. in the edition by F. 1924. S. 1672}. Now Acidalius himself explicitly recognized the priority of Lipsius: “Lipsius ipse Asticis in prima edit. and saepius). and the ludi cetasti Patavinorum. Amstelodami. 275–81 (a good account also in the edition of Tacitus by G. F. JACOBS. 28. see W. DOEDERLEIN (ed. Leipzig. inter alios. Cf. Watt. as collected by JACOBS. Londini. KOESTERMANN in the Preface [pp. 1968. Libro XVI. American Journal of Archaeology. On the text of Tacitus. Band IV. for the context in which it appears. not in Jacobs. pp. Now caestata may indeed be deemed to lend some feeble support to the emendation caestatis in the text of . see E. 277). L. revives this conjecture. Leipzig. cum de Agrippina <re>ferretur. 1821. J. vol. MASCIALINO. Annales. 358. KOESTERMANN. Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon. vol. pp. see A.. “Ludi cetasti Patavinorum”. quia idem Thrasea Patavi. Cf. pp. with a few additions and corrections (for a list of older editions of Tacitus. Nomenclator philologorum. Watt also asserts that the last scholar to mention Lipsius’ asticis was apparently Ruperti. 51–52. et accedentibus causis in Thraseam. of the pugiles): F. a musical or dramatic presentation. pp. Lipsius in the notes appended to his edition of 1574. ECKSTEIN. p. 1989. 11. quodque Iuvenalium ludicro parum spectabilem operam praebuerat. 236 an intriguing phrase is on display (lines 5–6): ] caestata can[ebat] / comica Atella[nica]. but ascribes it to Acidalius. Gronovius. ideas and interpretations. quod senatu egressus est. 2771 = CLE. 1776). They have been collected. b) celebratis: V. Tacito. THALLON. . p. c) cesticis (games of the c(a)estus. OBERLIN (ed. V. In the unfortunately mutilated inscription CIL. J. Annali. (hesitatingly) by J. pp. XIV. 2092–93}. pp. 1821. 1574. scores of conjectures have been offered. and by I. * 1 2 Ktema 17 (1992 [1996]) 55–76 {with ample addenda}. Ruperti. conjecerit. IX. PÖKEL. 1841): caestatis. 1497). 1897. cf. BASSIGNANO. Ritual transvestitism was of course well known in antiquity (cf. his comment is reproduced in A. This temptation an explorer cannot resist. n. 276. p. e. p. e) iselasticis: L. D. but there appears to exist one avenue that has not yet been traversed. Griechische Feste von religiöser Bedeutung mit Ausschluss der attischen.C. 278–79. cf. traditionally taken as the girdle of Venus. omits altogether the cultic dimension and deals exclusively with prohibitions against transvestitism in Roman law. and (independently) A. writes Maria Silvia Bassignano in a recent and authoritative collection of studies on the history of ancient Padua3. (above. III a. n. 193–312 at 223–24. 39 Lindsay: caestus vocantur et hi. Valpy reproduces also the polemic against Alciatus by (Marcus Maurus) Vetranius. of Pennsylvania.. pp. Lugduni Batavorum. S. Let us first assume that the text of Tacitus is sound. L.464 56 Historia et Epigraphia Yet after the dust raised by so many intellects has settled. as above. 25–27. pp. f) vetustis : R. Londini. “Padova nello stato romano dal sec. but refrains from commenting on their precise character (I should like to thank Prof. 32. and risk ending up as another footnote to the text of Tacitus. Corneli Taciti Annalium libri XV–XVI. MOHLER. aut Cesticos dictos. 1625 (in the notae variorum in Valpy’s edition quoted from a Latin translation. Padova. all’età dioclezianea”. p. PIGNORIUS (Lorenzo PIGNORIA) in Le origini di Padova. La legenda di Antenore. DÜMMLER. P. quid ad rem (i. Festus. but rather from k°stow. cf. JACOBS. d) cetariis: K. but which could be used generally of a woman’s attire or ornament. SEYFFERT (1843). JACOBS. Philologus. id epitethon ad ipsos ludos translatum”. g) xysticis : H. 3 4 . Sartori. in Padova antica da comunità paleoveneta a città romano-cristiana. see below. Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité. 279–80. 1926. Cetastis is the reading of the only authoritative manuscript of the Annales. 1722 = vol. NILSSON. 1884. L. 56. discussing the figure of Thrasea Paetus mentions in passing the ludi cetasti (p. Manfredini. Padova. V. 32. Bassignano for kindly sending me a photocopy of these two articles and of the article by M. pp. a mid-sixteenth century French jurist. 14. pp. and that the reading cetasti is to be retained4. Trieste. 1985. cc) cesticis (but not interpreted as derived from caedo. and particularly for the reading cerastis. NIPPERDEY (ed. as he puts it. part 3 of J. 1981. Tacitus. 2). The article by A. 1984. concludes that the cestus was “either a shoulder-belt or a cross-belt”. ALCIATUS (ed. JACOBS. “Qui commutant cum feminis vestem”. see F. p. p. but not as Doederlein had conceived it. habitu mulierum. 1906. G. n. JACOBS. It is then foolhardy indeed to ask the question again. p. and ultimately “any ornamental article of woman’s attire”): A. pp. The Cestus.e. “Sittengeschichtliche Parallelen”. P. the Mediceus. As a musical connotation of caestatus was yet unknown at his time (the inscription was first published in Notizie degli Scavi. n. quod. 278. et genus quoddam ornatus mulierum. P. RÖMER. Univ. Billanovich quoted below. pp. W. Wien. p. 193) he quite properly thought of pugiles: “Nam caestati haud dubiae pugiles dicebantur. 257–71. J. 35). 1821. pp.. VALPY’s edition In usum Delphini. a boxing competition) faceret habitus Tragicus? Nisi immutatam longo saeculo ludorum formam quis crediderit. 2092: “Ceterum. Philadelphia. 6. 153). quibus pugiles dimicant. 112. but it was hardly practiced in the stern Patavium. F. 276. “Il municipio Patavino”. Cf. F. cf. viri in his exercerentur”. GROTIUS (reproduced in the apparatus and the notae in Valpy’s edition). 1976. 1857). 369–74). vol. below. refers for information on the ludi cetasti to the study of Bassignano. ibid. M. the verdict is non liquet: “è impossibile definire cosa fossero i ludi cetasti”.g. pp. BRACCESI. Origines Patavinae. S. 278. Diss. pp. 99–189. M. GRAEVIUS’ Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae). confusing caestus and k°stow. “su quel poco che se ne sa”. and JACOBS. VAN BUREN (1924). 71–72. 146–47. 1517). JACOBS. For the readings of the recentiores. Jahrhundert (= Epigraphische Studien. 12. 19–20).. in 44 and governor of Germania Superior in 49?/50–54/55?.-3. p. 1894.HOSIUS (above. 1. yet it was observed that in Patavium. W. Die Statthalter der germanischen Provinzen vom 1. 1857. 1922. HOSIUS. 77. 5–11. pp. ‘cum ratio cetaribus’ inquit Plinius. On his literary activity. 7). 10. This is attested not only by Tacitus but also by Cassius Dio (62. 13. from his Dubii sermonis libri 8. gained his fame as a tragic poet. Pomponius Secundus ad Thraseam. 475–77. n. 423–32. Genova. 272). pp. Bonn. 3. Pliny alludes to a script of Pomponius ad Thraseam: Pomponius used there the word cetaria in the ablative case in the form cetariis. P. Ann. C. II4. Tacitus informs us that Thrasea ludis cetastis . praised by Tacitus and Quintilian7. ed. Keil. 13. BARWICK. C. 125–26 = Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae libri V. KOESTERMANN. vol. Parilia Parilibus. Archivio Veneto. see M. She points out that “L’irregolarità che Plinio pone in rilievo. The quote adduced by Charisius comes. 2. pp. 14). ECK. and the Dubii sermonis libri. is cetaribus. C. Pliny argues that the correct form. see now W. on the other hand moenia. nor sacrifice to Nero’s Divine Voice as did the rest. 26. Plinii Secundi librorum dubii sermonis VIII reliquiae. “Ludi cetasti”. 780–82. ea enim nomina quae i ante a habent. Oxford. in bus necesse est desinant’. 3–4): Thrasea was condemned to die because – inter alia – he would never listen to the emperor’s singing and lyre-playing. cf. Lipsiae. 28. [Calv?]isius Sabinus Pomponius Secundus. 1965. 160. SCHANZ . and Pliny records a work of Pomponius sent or dedicated to Thrasea in which Pomponius used the form cetariis. pp. 1969. On the full name and political career of Pomponius. 11. Tacitus. lines 3–7. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. DELLA CASA. cos. There exist two monographic treatments of the latter script: one older and concise by J. 98. I. (esp. see R.Games in Patavium 465 The next step is to introduce a notice in Charisius5: Cetariis. 745–48. 19–22 (with further literature). pp.. 1985. H. 1979. SYME. nor give any public exhibitions (oÎte §pede¤jato oÈd°n). Dial. Lipsiae. and later composed a biography of his friend and hero. ilia ilibus. pp. ilia are pluralia tantum (p. Quintilianus. no doubt. per noi non esiste: cetarius è aggettivo. the other newer and massive by A. ed. 1935. he served in Germany as an officer under Pomponius. . Cichorius. pp. BECK. Il dubius sermo di Plinio. he had acted in a tragedy given in pursuance of some old custom at a festival held every thirty years: 5 6 7 8 Grammatici Latini. and on his life of Pomponius Secundus. Pliny the Elder was bound to Pomponius Secundus by ties of admiration and friendship. ut moenia moenibus. che poi si è sostantivato”. pp. II. Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Lipsiae. 1979. habitu tragico cecinerat. ilia and Parilia. Römische Studien. on analogy to moenia. his native place. “Pliny the Procurator”. also E. suff.. What kind of festival? It included dramatic performances. On Pliny’s military service in Germany. SCHANZ and C. 1925. ut cetaria. 57 This text has been illuminated by Conrad Cichorius6. Neither Beck nor Della Casa discusses the historical circumstances of Pomponius’ script. Leipzig. München.. It would be perverse to deny that cetastis and cetariis refer to one and the same festival. ‘poscat. 204–8 = Roman Papers. 73. pp. p. “a fishpond”. PROSDOCIMI. Manuel de la langue vénète. 1988. L. pp. 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. was preserved solely by Tacitus10. -a. cetarius. 391–92 (we of course remember that Syme had spun his own slender thread from which to suspend the origin of Tacitus). 424–25. -ii (cet[us] + -arius). cit. More than ninety years ago Wilhelm Schulze presented a morphological analysis of the word cetasti: “die ludi ceta-sti heissen nach den cetae”. IV. Heidelberg. precisely on the occasion of Thrasea’s performance at the ludi cetasti – perhaps he even composed the play in which Thrasea appeared habitu tragico9. 1983. N. 6. and n. vv. And finally (not listed in Oxford Latin Dictionary) cetaria (or rather Cetaria). Padova. -ae or cetarium. Oxford Latin Dictionary. pp. and the other displaying the Venetian element. 120 = Roman Papers. 1955. Berlin. “a large sea animal” (with the [Greek] plural cete). plur. The suffix -st(o). n. However. Papers of the British School at Rome. . 5). KRAHE. “of or pertaining to sea-fishes”. 13 See Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. LEJEUNE. -i (m. Wiesbaden. V. in: G. -i. (with the ablative forms cetariis and cetaribus).). 244–47 (with further literature). 108–9: “egest(os) wäre dann ein Synonym von egetor. p. 6). SCHULZE. cetaria. it probably marks the nomen agentis12. 1967.F. 6). “a fisherman or fishmonger”. pp. 51. 11 W. The correct form. Neither he nor Pliny knew the correct form of the word. L. A clue to the meaning of the word itself is offered by the Latin form cetariis (which Schulze did not consider).466 Historia et Epigraphia ka¤toi §n Pataou¤ƒ tª patr¤di tragƒd¤an katã ti pãtrion §n •ortª tini triakontaethr¤di Ípokrinãmenow. the sense was not: “Dass wir den Sinn der Bezeichnung nicht verstehen. cetosus. “Eight Consuls from Patavium”.. 71. -um. It is patently derived from tÚ k∞tow. 109–10. with whom he was connected by the ties of old friendship. II. The accusation is unjust. A. following in the footsteps of Accius he may have composed for Thrasea a play about Antenor or the Antenoridae. Too slender a thread—retorts Ronald SYME. cetasti. (above. n. 12 J. s. La lingua venetica. Cetariis and cetastis will be the forms derived from the same root by different means: one with the help of a Latin suffix. the name of a festival in Patavium. Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Abhandlungen Göttingen. FORCELLINI. pp. 9 CICHORIUS points out (above.is in fact well attested in the Venetian material. That Tacitus should have known the local name of the ludi Koestermann finds significant—a further support for his theory of the Patavine origin of Tacitus. 47. Prosdocimi. 1974. 1904. UNTERMANN. The Greek word spawned in Latin a whole family of descendants13: cetus (cetos and cetum). 10 Op. neutr. Die Sprache der Illyrier. pp. 58 Cichorius (followed by Koestermann) suggested that Pomponius addressed his writing to Thrasea. that a praetexta entitled Aeneas is explicitly attested for Pomponius. H. p. M. PELLEGRINI and A. p. Wiesbaden. although its precise meaning eludes us. ist am Ende kein Wunder: denn weder das Wort noch sein Suffix ist griechisch oder lateinisch”11. if the morphology was for him clear. B. Die venetischen Personennamen. 1961. 50. Oxford. das eine für uns nicht mehr feststellbare Bedeutungsnuance ausgedrückt haben kann”. 1857. Berlin. Heidelberg. 48–50 (he dates the ludi to 8 June. 42. ad loc. to ensure their good fortune and safety: it would appear that the catch of this day was offered to Vulcanus16. LE GALL. loc. lines 10–12. No. pp. n. 232. but in favor of the traditional date. (above. quorum quaestus non in macellum pervenit. Thus although the editor was the urban praetor. London. As a grammatical counterpart to Cetaria Pliny adduced Parilia: if we have the form Parilibus so also we should have Cetaribus (and not Cetariis. the founder of Patavium. And Ovid (Fasti. Cf.. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. II: Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani. A. fieri solent pro quaestu piscantium (p. {Cf. and that.). Recherches sur le culte du Tibre. 1. The feast of Parilia was an ancient festival of pastores. 1. apparently on the day of the games. 1963. H. XIII. argues (not altogether convincingly) that it was not the whole catch of this day but rather only the small fishes. It predated Rome itself: according to the tradition it was on this day that Romulus urbem condidit. 232) L. 15 Festus. DEGRASSI. p. fasc. and its most spectacular event was the purificatory leaping over flaming bonfires. quoted below). II. Roma. on the other hand the celebration of the ludi cetasti was an event rare and major. p. This interpretation does not do justice to the notices in Festus that the piscatorii ludi . The example was aptly chosen. 75) speaks of annua pastorum convivia and lusus in Urbe. not only from the point of view of grammatical rules: the Cetaria. 27). the ludi were celebrated on 7 June in gramine campi. Cf. the quaestus of the fishermen non in macellum pervenit (274–76 L. pisciculi. 6. pp. In the form it was presented. The first scholar to connect the ludi in Patavium with the piscatores tynnorum was LICETUS (cf. p. (above. it is inadmissible. F. cit. as in the script of Pomponius Secundus to Thrasea). whenever caught. 1958. Paris. 274–76 (cf. 6. 72. 267. H. It was a popular feast of humble folk. was a Patavine counterpart of the Roman Parilia. for as Varro (De re rustica. Fasti. quod id genus pisciculorum vivorum datur ei deo pro animis humanis15. in this volume. 15).. that were offered to Vulcanus pro animis humanis. SCULLARD. 4. 148.Games in Patavium 467 59 Quid novi? – will ask an impatient reader. qui quotannis mense Iunio trans Tiberim fieri solent a praetore urbano pro piscatoribus Tiberinis. 235–37. it was also a feast of the whole populus. Hence not simply and solely a festival of fishermen. It was a festival both public and private17. 4. the games were exclusively pro piscatoribus. qui lina madentia ducunt / quique tegunt parvis aera recurva cibis. 1981.). but it was not a festival of piscatores. The festival in Patavium derives indeed its name from the sea-animals. According to Ovid. 2. 1953. The calendars display for 14 I used the second edition. It was believed that the ludi were established by Antenor himself. BÖMER. Thus although it was specifically a feast of pastores.} 17 Varro apud Scholia in Persium. 239–40) writes: festa dies illis. 9) reminds us. Ovidius Naso. 279–80. sed fere in aream Volkani. P. we may surmise. JACOBS. we know from Ovid (Fasti. 731–34) that in the public celebrations participated the Vestal Virgins. see DEGRASSI. 466. 2). 16 LE GALL. In Rome we hear of the ludi piscatorii.. L. J. Inscriptiones Italiae. pp. n. . Has it not already been proposed that the ludi cetasti (or cetarii) were the games of fishermen? This proposition goes back to Karl Nipperdey’s edition and commentary of the Annals of Tacitus14. Die Fasten. 352–53. Propertius (4. Romanorum vero populum a pastoribus esse ortum. below. n. Its ritual purpose was to purify the flocks and the people. Fasti. see J. V. 1977. also BÖMER’S commentary on Ovid. The true meaning of this enigmatic notation was discovered by William Harris: it denoted the era of Patavium21. 3). BEARD. 1983. “Epigraphica Patavina minima”. WARDLE. LINDERSKI. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. See also J. 5. Fasti (above. n. Harris proposed to read n(ostro) a(nno). H. 15). 11] is not as novel as the author seems to intimate). 220–22 {the article by Sartori has now been reprinted. Atlanta. 178. p. 1987. pp. Hurley. 20 For a collection of evidence and illuminating discussion. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. in Ovid’s account (Fasti. 90. and that the evidence (from the acts of the arvals) for March 18 as Caligula’s dies imperii is strong. p. see DEGRASSI. The Parilia and the natalis urbis were the events separate. normally appended at the end of an inscription. 1989. Roma. pp. 443–45. n. 50. 1971. 255. pp. Bruxelles. 228–29). p. 1977–78. 38}. Temenos. “On Parilia”. Supplementa Italica. D. “Feltria”. Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia Patavina di Scienze.. Caligula: the Corruption of Power. argues that Caligula’s dies imperii coincided with the Parilia. Addenda altera. 4. London (or New Haven). Scarcely so: the jump of Remus was an act of defiance not purification). The Parilia and the natalis urbis20 coincided. n. LAZZARO. 225). pp. and yet intimately connected. it was the beginning of their new era. 102: the leaps over bonfires correspond “to Remus’ jumping over the walls”. pp. and Caligula had a decree passed ut dies quo cepisset imperium (18 March) Parilia vocaretur velut argumentum rursus conditae Urbis19. SARTORI. “Natalis Patavii”. 4. 62. 4.468 Historia et Epigraphia this day the notations Paril(ia) and Roma cond(ita) or natalis Urbis18. 1989. p. pp. 1994. but see the polemic by F. 283–93. 1–15 (an interesting piece. 27. – An epigraphic peculiarity of Patavium is the notation N (or N ) followed by a numeral. saluisse colonos? / quod fit natali nunc quoque. Accepted by L. 23. 271–82 (but Bömer’s distinction between a Geburtstag and a Gründungstag of a city is quite inaccurate. BARRET. see below RQ. A Commentary (= Collection Latomus. 22). Cf. 31. n. C. This tradition gained an oppor18 DEGRASSI. 15). 41. Caligula (= American Classical Studies. 721ff. M. it is displayed on eleven stones. Lettere ed Arti. 19 Suetonius. and he is partially followed by D. 15). 15). pp. n. 16. Suetonius’ Life of Caligula. 71–72. 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. (above. . 1993. that was called Parilia”. and below. VANGAARD. W. He was also the reputed founder of the ludi cetasti: Antenor and the ludi cetasti thus correspond to Romulus and the Parilia. 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. tuo. The deliverance by the Romans was for the Patavines like a new birth of their city. 27. and n. pp. No. But the past was valuable too: the founder Antenor advertized the Trojan syngeneia of the Patavines with the Romans. HARRIS. 90–103 (p. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. and there are reasons to believe that the ludi cetasti were celebrated on the dies natalis of Patavium. Roma. An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius’ Life of C. “A Complex of Times: No More Sheep on Romulus’ Birthday”. SCULLARD (above. 21 W. 443. 103–5. 33. Fasti (above. 805–6) the two feasts imperceptibly blend together: per flammas saluisse pecus. rightly points out that “Suetonius’ vocaretur indicates that it was a different day. not April 21. Cal. “The Era of Patavium”. 7. see MOMMSEN. 1930. and lusit (5174 a. 1652 (Thesaurus. pp. p. p. 214. 156. R. DESSAU was not convinced. SARTORI. 25 For this abbreviation. triplici commentario. originally in his De quaesitis per epistolas. OGILVIE. V. III. 227–32. ad loc. all of them of some contemporary fame. vol. 1. in relazione all’esaltazione nazionalistica delle lotte fra Veneti e Galli. 35–37. 13. 317–20 at 318 (reprinted in F. Leipzig. pp. sect. passim. are reprinted by Albertus Henricus DE SALLENGRE in his Novus Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum. all texts that display this littera singularis will have commemorated events that took place on an anniversary of the foundation of the city. III e II. Mommsen and Dessau also considered A(pono) A(ugusto). 564–84. 5202 : Q. n. Fortunii Liceti. l. 79–92. 663. Memorie della Accademia Patavina. 2]. Lus(or) was advocated by O. p. Those contributions were in fact reprinted by DE SALLENGRE (cf. ad loc. 59). Magurius Q. He was the first to adduce for the interpretation of the word . 2]. VI. p. and esp. Hagae. Thomae Reinesii. 1841. but it may well go back to earlier layers of the Patavine and Venetian national mythology22. 296–98). cf. RQ.Games in Patavium 469 60 tune currency in the late third and early second centuries. p. n. Fortunius LICETUS (Fortunio LICETO. its dies natalis23. 23 J. pp. pp. Kleine Schriften. p. but they deserve to be rescued from oblivion. 2787. PÖKEL [above. n. p. was professor of philosophy and medicine in Padua. on whose property the stone was found in 1641). his preface. Addenda altera. 38}. ECKSTEIN [above. n. Licetus’ divinatio is rather fantastic (as was seen by Reinesius). f. 3). 1735. He concludes (p. 26 pertic(am) rather than pertic(as). p. for comparison he adduced (CIL. 1646. 92): “la prima rivitalizzazione della legenda di Antenore su suolo italico avviene dunque a cavaliere dei secc. JAHN. “Una particolarità epigrafica di Patavium”. 6 (of estratto). 24 Or: lus(or). and published in URSATUS’ Monumenta Patavina. But A(pollini) A(pono). rightly BÜCHELER (above. 5. Books 1–5. M. Mommsen ad CIL. BÜCHELER. I used the Venice edition. a solution less likely: cf. Parisiis. 4886 = ILS. Rheinisches Museum. 5225): Caesaris lusor / mutus argutus imitator. but he has his merits. Specimen epigraphicum in memoriam Olai Kellermanni. 6) from an earlier reprint (or edition): Marmoris Patavini inscripti obscuri interpretatio. 5173). BÜCHELER. I. is also possible. Among these inscriptions there is also the famous and enigmatic CIL. BASSIGNANO (above. cf. V. p. ILS. 50. 1903. 369–74. The contributions of three scholars. His note. Lettere ed Arti. As the inscription 22 Cf. 27 It evoked the eager interest of early erudites. was also appended to the edition of the stone by Sertorius URSATUS AB URSATIS (a Patavine nobilis and medicus. Oxford. “Artisten-Wörter”. rejected by Mommsen. A Commentary on Livy. Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 58. 1716–1724. But in other inscriptions we read lusi (ILS. LINDERSKI. vol. p. De saxo Patavino Maguriano divinatio. 582). below. n. {= RQ. and DESSAU. 219. 24). 271. pp. e nel variegato contesto dell’espansionismo romano nell’Italia padana prima e dopo la seconda guerra punica”. 2787). 3). “nur so darf man auflösen”: F. Their efforts are never referred to in recent discussion. 1577–1657. BRACCESI (above. 1667. Patavii. 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).: lus(it). 2. In this text27 the word cetaes immediately attracts attention. 31 (cf. 1962–63. 1983. ILS. n. Utini. n. 1965. part 1. No. N CCLIX. Classe di Scienze Morali. 87 (accepted by MOMMSEN. “Natalis Patavii”. f. 2787 = ILS. pp. CIL. F. 318. edente Friderico BRUMMERO. Kiliae.). 3894 a. cf. V. 334). confecta. et Lucae Holstenii. CIL. 75. V. A(quis) A(poni)25 dicavit euras VIII / et pertic(am) – uncinor(um)26 XII. Fab(ia) / Ferox / lus(it)24 epidixib(us) et cetaes I II III in / greg(e) Veturian(a) quae et iuni / orum. and in this volume. URSATUS (Sertorio ORSATO. Ursatus recognized that in our inscription Fab. n.470 Historia et Epigraphia comes from Patavium and refers to games or exhibitions. A. 508–1131). 19–20 {and the comprehensive study by I. n. But hoc loco he preferred to interpret them as ferramenta vel muro vel trabibus ligneis infixa . & 3).. 1887. stands for ad (apud) aquas. see T. and inferior to Holstenius’. p. MAFFEI.. 276–77. 2). C. conclavis in locis thermalibus. if perticas. Genova. and cetaes should be read ceteses = zhtÆseiw. i. in Thesaurus. His brief script. see MOMMSEN. 164. C. And he takes N as denoting n(umero pedum). 1828.. inter alia he wrote De notis Romanorum commentarius. 69. or. Museum Veronense. 1985).. sedilia for the recitantes. ECKSTEIN (above. it would again be pereurae the passage of Pollux. “Tribù romane e problemi connessi dal Biondo Flavio al Mommsen”. p. as A(quis) A(poni). and not only to the recitations of poets and rhetors. Lucas HOLSTEIN (1596–1661. pp. III. see Oxford Latin Dictionary. . 1969. 458–59. C. 583–84). Euras should be read edras = exedras = sedes. 1694–1699. quaestiones and controversiae. G.. HAGENBUCHIUS: fortasse eurae fuerunt loca ampla.v. He fiercely criticises Licetus somnians. p. 125. CIL. quibus lavantium vestes suspenderentur (this is also lifted from Holstein). CALABI LIMENTANI. Römisches Staatsrecht. 255) was ultimately (from 1636) a librarian of the cardinal Barberini. see PÖKEL. but his own interpretation is also often fantastic. no 2620. breite Gänge (fantastic). pp. below. Turici. And he points out that the epidixes refer to all kinds of ludi and artificia. Reinesius. “Appunti su J. MOMMSEN. 1. see ORELLI in his Praefatio. mistakenly dated to 1651). 1872. That Magurius was a civis Patavinus is possible. ECKSTEIN. 423–66}. and to inscriptions of tribules corporis iuniorum and seniorum tribus Palatinae (on these groupings. 2). s. secundae. XI. V. ECKSTEIN. certainly not uncinorum but unciarum. Lugduni Batavorum. p. on Hagenbuch. ECKSTEIN. see PÖKEL (above. pp. 571. ORELLI in his Inscriptionum Latinarum selectarum amplissima collectio. n. quibus axes currorum muniuntur et quae rotis atteruntur. correcting Licetus’ nonsensical fab(er). p. ECKSTEIN. 35). 266. G. like Liceto. in the Venice edition. 196. 1617–1678. GRAEVIUS’ Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum. p. part 1. pp. PÖKEL. Patavii. 1672 (reprinted in J. PÖKEL. 414) was himself a noted antiquarian. ut vel lavantium vel potius sese exercentium vestimenta sustinerent. following S. pp. 221. pp. The grex Veturiana staged its exhibitions and exercises in xysto sive porticu aquis imminenti. in three cubicula: has enim zetas veteres dixere. Perticas must be porticus. p. qua perticas uncinis clavatas sustinerent. stands for tribus Fabia. 1749. was published in Rome on 24 August 1652 (Thesaurus. pp. and Ursatus. Cetaes he interpreted as zetaes: de . diaetis tribus intelligo. and ultimately kurfürstlicher Rat in Leipzig.. 1736. and on Johann Kaspar Orelli himself. Maffei. To explain iuniorum he refers to inscriptions in Gruter’s collection pertaining to the lusus iuvenum. Veronae. His Interpretatio Marmoris Patavini appeared in Leipzig in 1661 (Thesaurus. p. 1985. Leipzig. From the indication of the tribus Fabia he concluded that Magurius was probably a Patavinus. On Scipione Maffei. 146: he understood eurae as ferra axi initentia (cf. tertiae. and Carolus SILVESTRIUS (in 1732): eurae were ferramenta incurva . For euras he also quotes Pollux: eurae sunt ferramenta. qui pro Z posuit C (cf.e. Grex Veturiana are the iuniores tribus Veturiae (no tribus Veturia is known. III. 414. 350–51. 445–47). 571–79. A. FORNI. p. Thomas REINESIUS (1587–1667. 281. FORNI. Epidixibus refers to declamations. in Studi di storia antica in memoria di Luca de Regibus. and also Holstein. vel potius scriptoris Patavinitatem agnosco. pp. below.. See also Orelli’s remarks on Holstein. p. cf. pp. even among the pseudo-tribes. p. The inscription was also printed by I. G. Roma. Le Tribù Romane. 47–55). but not necessarily proved by the indication of his tribe (quite right). I. 1: Le Pseudo-Tribù. Perticarum autem et uncinorum usum eum fuisse puto. 462) was. A. vol. And further: Ideoque in voce cetaes errorem quadratarii. in grege scaenicorum (this explanation already in Holstein).. 8. with explanations of Maffei: Lusor dietae primae. a medicus. and he took perticae et uncini as perhaps connected cum agri mensura (on pertica in this sense. p. De Monumento Maguriano ad Joannem Rhodium epistula. Hagenbuch (1700–1763) cultore di studi epigrafici”. Quaderni ticinesi di numismatica e antichità classiche 14. On Ursatus’ work. I. 1. nn. PÖKEL. He also solved the abbreviation A. 31 = 723. 208. XL. but cetaes. pp. Abano Terme. pertic(am). 2787. p. 61. 854) DESSAU interprets cetaes as dat. with uninformed commentary. 16. but perhaps not fatal. in the Index to ILS (vol. so also A. and 185 = 569.C. ceta. 28 = 781. 63c). Addenda altera.. WALDE . 2787. 1939. Iscrizioni e rilievi sacri latini. B.D. p. 65 = 689. 29 MOMMSEN. Heidelberg. p.U. if cetaes refers to this festival we get the following dates of previous celebrations: A. as we undoubtedly should. Already HOLSTEIN (above. 176 = 578. 5): “Mi chiedo . 95 = 659. no 70: edited inaccurately. V. 1995. insisted that epidixib. 56 = 809. 60 = 694. propterea non minus ignoramus”.C. 35 = 719. 28 This was clearly recognized by O. in S. The only clear exception is iuniorum. A short history of the stone. 89 = 665. As cetaes is coupled with epidixib(us).C. and most recently. pp. also almost all the remaining nouns and adjectives appear in an abbreviated form: lus(it) or lus(or).D. 55–56. greg(e). 2 = 752. and of its publications. 2003. ERKOS. Fons Aponi.J. 65–66. . n. MODONESI. JAHN in the preface to his edition of Persius. (= A. and cetaes must be taken as being in the same case. in any case the number 259 cannot accomodate either a thirty or an inclusive twenty nine year cycle. 194–95 (see also in this volume: RQ. The origin of the ludi cetasti – like that of the Roman Parilia – lies beyond the reach of our sources. this leaves for further consideration two words: cetaes. As a commemoration of the 40–41. 1981. Museo Maffeiano. 155 = 599. The inscription also in D. and the enigmatic euras. 419. come epidixib è abbreviazione per epidixibus non potrebbe anche cetaes stare per cetaestis. Studi in Onore di Franco Sartori.. uncinor(um). pp. “I numeri di Patavium”.II. CIL. s. 38)}. 57 = 810. Panciera. teste Livio (10. About the latter nothing can be said with certainty (see below). {See also L. Roma.. 147 = 607.v. n. 69–70. the certamen navium. the intrusive e is disturbing. Padova. and does not adduce earlier antiquarian literature. A better solution offers. 125 = 629. V. 5 = 749. is a good candidate for expansion: why not read epidixib(us) et cetaes(tis)? This produces a pleasing symmetry. Arena (below. B.. n. In 302 the Patavines defeated a Greek fleet led by the Spartan Cleonymus. 158–61. 14–15) those who visit Patavium can still see rostra navium spoliaque Laconum in aede Iunonis veteri fixa.21?”}. in view of the Tacitean cetastis. 2.III. MOMMSEN. we will get a slightly different set of dates: A. vedasi cetastis in Tac. Leipzig. 118 = 636.D. III. Lateinisches etymologisches Wörterbuch3. But if we count inclusively. Cassius Dio maintains that the festival in which Thrasea participated was celebrated every thirty years. Mommsen sensibly concluded that it also stands in the ablative. 27). It springs to one’s eye that in addition to the common abbreviations of the tribe and the A(quae) A(poni). is given by MOMMSEN in CIL. No. Ann. ad loc. who does not know the article here reprinted.Games in Patavium 61 471 62 verse to deny a connection between cetaes and the ludi cetasti 28. Veturian(a). but with a good photograph. I. arrived at the same interpretation (p. This festival may very well predate another famous Patavine celebration. 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. plur. ad loc. with an excellent photograph. 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. videtur esse casus sextus Graeca ratione declinatus”. {R. 26 = 779. Abano e Montegroto nell’Antiquità. HOFMANN. 839). epidixib(us). with the Greek ending -aes29. CIL. LAZZARO. followed Jahn.: “nam cetaes I. 1843. B. pars II. ad loc. but concluded somberly: “sed quid proprie ita significetur. vv. II. 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. a date derived from the era of Patavium as established by Harris. Van Buren imagined that “cetaes I. cf. . Schulze regards it as “vermuthlich . Manganaro’s interpretation has been accepted by R. n. Vindobonae. La romanisation de la celtique du Pô (BEFAR. Leipzig. habitu tragico). 1983. In the inscription of Magurius after cetaes follow the numerals I II III. p.D. and lus. n. particularly those of declaimers. This was well seen already by HOLSTEIN (above.. 422–25. As ususal in Tacitus. the word epidixis is a hapax in Latin. “played the role of a cetus”. III. II. 23. the phrase is ambiguous. pp. 21.. s. but his silence did not scare off three brave scholars. But even if the ultimate origin of the ludi is lost in myth.W. n. does not list it. musicians. Now in the same Patavium Q. p. 1970. 184. epidixib(us). n. n. 1904. In the account of Cassius Dio the word §pede¤jato stands out. Alt-Celtischer Sprachschatz. W. Mommsen refrained from making any attempt at an explanation. 21”. J.. 27). 114 (but the indication of the tribe is of course not identical with the indication of the origo. REINESIUS. 1924. 249). 27). 33 G. cetaes. n. Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum.. . would seem to indicate that we are dealing with some sort of stage exhibitions.) were used with reference to a variety of shows.. 75–88 at 79–80. above. KUBITSCHEK. LSJ. fits in very well indeed with the fateful chronology of Thrasea and Nero. quotannis sollemne certamen navium in flumine oppidi medio exercetur. and “three grades of exhibitions” present a mystery of their own. p. XVI. Magurius Felix. displays and performances. “Tacitus. CHEVALLIER. p.472 Historia et Epigraphia 63 victory.. and the context of the inscription itself. these numbers are normally taken to refer to cetaes – so explicitly Mommsen in his note in CIL.. or some spectacles having to do with these creatures” 32. Siculorum Gymnasium. would seem to refer to three grades of exhibitions of sea animals. 30 Fabia was the tribus of Patavium. exhibitions. 51. A. di belva marina. W. “Pankarpeia di epigrafia latina”. pp. HOLDER. Rome. 31 The verb §pide¤knumi and the noun §p¤deijiw (cf. Annals. At the Neronian Iuvenalia. n. above. orators. but its Greek original31. instituted in 59. 508. And he had every right to feel so as only two or three years previously Thrasea appeared on the stage in Patavium. eo die quo pugnatum est. pp. cf. it is gratifying to see that the date of their celebration in 56 or 57 A. certamente nei ludi cetasti” 33. 32 A.. This is awkward grammatically for lusor (or lusit) would have to carry a double meaning: lus. keltisch”. but whatever Thrasea did or did not do. MANGANARO. 110–11 at 110 (cf. “performed at the epideictic games”. performed epidixib(us) et cetaes(tis). 386. The nomen Magurius is at home in northern Italy. 38. VAN BUREN. cf. Manganaro speculates that Magurius “aveva per ben tre volte svolto il ruolo di cetus. although it does not refer directly to Thrasea’s performance in Patavium. G. 11). but he never displayed himself (§pede¤jato) for Nero. 2). Thrasea parum spectabilem operam praebuerat. 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). very likely a fellow Patavine 30. SCHULZE (above. but it is probably not a Venetian name: UNTERMANN (above. Nero felt offended. 1889. the comparison with Thrasea. Classical Review. Following A. 12). pp. Met. 1847 [not 1874]. II. pp. 44. 23. and hence was an equivalent of Latin palus35. 73. Manganaro’s explication tacitly assumes the singular cetus. 3: Cyclopea etiam luserunt omnes apenarii. One cannot help but be captivated by this whirlwind of argument.. Storia e arte. Cf.Games in Patavium 473 which would require the accusative34. and that he occupied the pr«tow o‰kow in the ludus. and thus disregards both the number and the case of cetaes. 15. ludo. And the idea of three consecutive performances would have to be expressed by the numeral adverb ter. She believes that Magurius was “un giovane lottatore”. 29) that already G. Rome. Historia Augusta (Gallienus). La gladiature en occident (BEFAR. Furthermore if the games at Patavium were really held every thirty years. {M. There exists no 34 See TLL. 136. ROBERT. secundis. Cf. 35 M. P. In Greek texts the term palus was always transliterated. 1940. bÄ. p. and which ought to have had also a secondary sense of “classe”. s’exerçant ensemble. I. as ingenious as Van Buren’s and Manganaro’s. . 8. Padova. III. FURLANETTO. CARTER. it denoted the rank of a gladiator: “palus désignant d’abord le poteau d’escrime.. lines 29–48. 22. Cassius Dio writes that the title of Commodus as a gladiator was prvtÒpalow sekout≈rvn37. In fact this interpretation goes back all the way to Holstein. see above. BILLANOVICH. and no less precarious. v. The proof? The word cetaes itself! For ceta must correspond to zeta which is a common transliteration of Greek d¤aita which in turn denotes not only “modo di vita” but frequently also “stanza. tr¤tow pãlow. She notes (p. 27. colle sue rappresentazioni date in tre diverse sale di Abano”. never translated. Historia Augusta. Magurio Feroce . giochi gladiatorii e duelli giudiziari nell’antica Padova”. a désigné aussi la salle d’armes. 3: nec ille deerat. et par suite. Le antiche lapidi patavine illustrate. 2003. And finally we have the explication offered by Maria Pia Billanovich. Robert brilliantly demonstrated. 8. in the sense of ‘sala’: “Q. 8: appellatus est sane inter cetera triumphalia nomina etiam sescenties vicies palus primus secutorum. 1985.. As L. on the palus system}. s. Phoenix. Comune di Albignasego. qui magistratum fa<s>cibus purpuraque luderet. (Commodus) 7. Ludi cetarii. gÄ. 28–31. -ae. 11. cioè un ingenuus che spontaneamente si dedicava ai giochi gladiatorii”. in: ALBIGNASEGO. 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 pr«tow. pa. are impossible in this sense. aÄ. 245). but alas it sets in motion the windmills of fantasy only. “Lo ‘Stangato’ di Roncon. tertiis. The terms epidixib(us) et cetaes “stavano evidentemente ad indicare i gradi attraverso cui il gladiatore era passato”. dÄ. ceux qui vivent dans cette salle. Paris. 37 Cassius Dio. VILLE. “Gladiatorial Ranking and the SC de Pretiis Gladiatorum”. 1781. p. de deuxième. il y aurait ainsi une hiérarchie de gladiateurs de première. 123–37 at 128–30. composées d’hommes de même force. or pal. it functioned as a technical loan-word. n. 89–98. Palus was indeed a technical term of gladiatorial parlance. Magurius could have hardly impersonated a marine beast on three separate occasions. Apuleius. n. 83–111. aula”. whether cardinal or ordinal. esp. deÊterow. 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. 36 L. a gladiator. dans chaque ludus les gladiateurs ont dû être groupés en sections. See also G.. col. de troisième et de quartrième classe” 36. Les gladiateurs dans l’orient grec. took ceta. pp. or p. 57. 324. “forse un auctoratus. 1981. also TLL. ILS.474 Historia et Epigraphia 64 evidence whatsoever that the word d¤aita was ever used as an equivalent of palus: once this is realized Q. Neither TLL nor OLD adduces epigraphical material. arranged in a 38 See TLL. ILS. n. pars. Inscriptions recording victories and prizes of gladiators are structured very differently43. partium is normally omitted in inscriptions. v. esp. as e. Caec. s. Bücheler himself believed that the numerals denoted prizes won by Magurius.g. multum submittere40. OLD.g. 1951. II. 5094. e. He does not adduce any parallels. second and third42. but leaves iuniorum unexplained and unparalleled. 5198 = CIL X. Secundarum. as in (e. we have also the following stones set up by actors or for actors: C. 5087. but most often it appears in connection with histriones and mimi38. n. Roma. Cicero. 5283.g. perhaps a troupe of actors established or directed by a certain Veturius. 2329–34. 5102. furthermore in inscriptions of actors we have the numerals of partes always written out in full. 465. I). 5199 = VI. the first. 10118. Cf. 5083. and no exact parallel seems to be available. The TLL lists here also the inscription of Magurius.g. 40 Cicero. 24). 42 BÜCHELER. III. p. this interpretation fits our inscription syntactically rather well: Magurius participated both in stage displays (epidixibus) and the ludi cetasti. lines 44–61. More promising are the monuments of aurigae44. col. s. 5098. lines 25–46. and he (was) an actor primarum. regards the grex Veturiana as “una compagna drammatica”. 814. col. P. 5280–95. s. as so often. But there are grave objections also: this kind of cursus honorum of an actor. Dessau prints the inscription of Magurius among the tituli pertaining to scaena. 5200 = XIV. 39 ILS. 5201 = VI. 44. 41 BÜCHELER. 312–17. in connection with grex. An inexcusable omission. tertiarum and quartarum refers to the part played by the actor. is instructive: in actoribus Graecis fieri videmus. cum possit aliquanto clarius dicere quam ipse primarum. is unparalleled in our material (and we would then rather expect the reverse order. 318. GASPAROTTO. Div. Faenius Faustus / quartar(um). 9 b. 10103. 48. grex. [quart]arum in mimis saltantibus utilis actor39. the factiones in the circus. 5278. cit. loc.v. as Franz Bücheler warns us.. And above all. The numerals I II III would seemingly find the easiest explanation within the confines of the stage. 4198. pars. Padova Romana. and the discussion in VILLE (above. As in the inscriptions of actors we have a bare numeral only. a list of achievements of the agitator Scirtus. coll. lines 7–23. for occasionally they record not only victories but also second and third finishes. secundarum and tertiarum (partium) in the grex Veturiana. “Artisten-Wörter” (above. an indication of his advancement from partes tertiae to partes primae. Magurius was not a professional actor41. p. with both the verb (est or fuit) and partium omitted. For Magurius was a member of the grex Veturiana. Esq(uilina) Nig[er] / tertiarum. but it is usually spelled out in literary texts. The term grex was used to denote various groups. v. For the idiom. and on the same page of ILS on which this inscription finds its place. 36). f. pp. Cornelius P.. 43 See e. lus(or) does not equal ludius or histrio. saepe illum qui est secundarum aut tertiarum partium. Also C. 2333. 464. L. Norbani / Soricis / secundarum. 44 See. .) ILS. and detached from cetaes. Magurius the gladiator vanishes together with the etymology from which he had been conjured up. 46 Martialis. 87–88). The passage crucial to us comes at 1. tert. sÊrinj is the hole in the nave into which the axle is fitted. a brief notice by M. no progress. {On Q. pp. hence Magurius performed as a kontopa¤kthw. ˘ tr¤bei tÚn êjona. Magurius Ferox and CIL. Studi Linguistici Friulani 1 (1969). and three third prizes. ZACCARIA. RE. tÚ dÉ §ntÚw t∞w plÆmnhw sidÆrion..Games in Patavium 475 65 form of yearly fasti. 5. 142–47 Pollux discusses in great detail technical terminology pertaining to mÆrh toË ërmatow. 157 and 188 (no. “Kontopaiktes”. adduces cetaes (p. C. A. was balancing on his forehead weights appended (obviously by uncini!) to a pole. 8–9. eÍra¤. s. pp. and thus apparently regards him as a mimus. ZAMBONI.. sec(undas sc.. BONARIA. pp. 1343.. 1922.} . and following largely in the footsteps of Billanovich. For instance. pertica46. . and perhaps also acrobatic displays. From Pollux the following terminological picture emerges: plÆmnh is the (solid wooden) nave of a wheel. (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akad. p. 12. see also H. (1. gãrnon µ d°stron. aÈtÚ d¢ tÚ perieiloÊmenon t“ êjoni plÆmnh. “Testimonianze epigrafiche di spettacoli teatrali e di attori nella Cisalpina romana”. also “una sorta di combattimenti simbolici tra iuniores o tra iuniores e seniores”. Fahrendes Volk im Altertum. but offers no new interpretation. BLÜMNER. As to eurae Bücheler followed in the footsteps of earlier erudites when (without quoting them: see n. two second. so far. 1992])..v. tulit) II. nn. 2787. 1223). 2. V. 110–82. KROLL. sc. He lists Magurius also in his Mimorum Romanorum Fragmenta. H. 11. 33.. 10 (1965). According to this scheme Magurius would have won one first. Thus. It should be read in a broader context: (1. n. pp. LEPPIN. in: Spettacolo in Aquileia e nella Cisalpina romana [= Antichità Altoadriatiche 41 [Udine 1994]). 41 [Bonn. 24). 318–20. pp. and thus they present no immediate similarity with the inscription of Magurius. This hole in the middle of the nave is protected by a metal plate called gãrnon or d°stron that rubs against the axle. pp. . For displays of this kind. Histrionen (= Antiquitas I. cf. 146. Il Lessico”. But in inscriptions of agitatores the numerals refer to the number of victories or second and third finishes. For as Bücheler argued the objects dedicated by Magurius to A(quae) A(poni) represented the equipment of a juggler and acrobat45. . At 1. sec. “Contributo allo studio del latino epigrafico della X Regio Augustea (Venetia et Histria). ter(tias. 1918. 145) tÚ d¢ kenÚn toË troxoË tÚ §narmozÒmenon t“ êjoni sÊrinj. Even if the numerals nude positi continue to baffle. Those sid°ria on the axle that are rubbed against by the 45 BÜCHELER (above. inter alia the attachment of the wheels to the axle.. fasc. 27) he adduced the Onomasticon of Pollux. 144). 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. 2 (Genova.. 1956). similar to Martial’s Masclion who nutantia fronte perticata gestat pondera. Suppl. 75–76 (cf. 6). 136) and epidixibus and euras (p. it seems advisable to keep apart the epideixeis and the cetasti. He takes pertica as equivalent of Greek kontÒw.. RE. 382–83. 33–37. The victories themselves and other placements are written out: vic. Norbanus (a. W. “Magurius”. 146) tå d¢ t“ êjoni §gke¤mena sidÆria ka‹ tribÒmena ÍpÚ toË troxoË. The former will include exhibitions of various character: theatrical performances and dramatic recitations. 316: “Um einen professionellen Histrionen handelt es sich aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach nicht”.. München. 15) we read: vic(it) I. tulit) V. under the consulship of Drusus Caesar and C. a rather improbable supposition. assumes a connection with ludi cetarii. p. Cf. II. Trakijskata kolesnitsa. in particular of the nave: “Per tutta la lunghezza del mozzo negli anelli interni è inserita un’asta di ferro . As Miniero notes (p. one in the Onomasticon of Pollux. and the other in the Lexicon of Hesychius. esp. München. 99. 31). BEKKER. 1846. Chariots and Related Equipment from the Tomb of Tut’ankhamun. Reifen. p. . EÍra¤ was the unanimous reading of all earlier editors49. linch pins and wheels). dass die eurae zur Ausrüstung desselben Spieles gehören wie die pertica”. but unfortunately archaeology cannot adjudicate terminological disputes. kann bei Pollux falsch überliefert sein. GINZROT. 319–20. at least in our inscription. 24). esp. And see above. Sofia. 1. C. n. 78–98. the plate inside the nave) are called eÍra¤47. How is this possible? “Wie die eÍra¤ zwischen Achse und Rad. pp. 27). 1960. 1987. Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome. . with the pertica: “Es ist wahrscheinlich. 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 Körper. Antiquité.476 Historia et Epigraphia 66 wheel (or rather more exactly and more immediately by gãrnon. “Studio di un carro romano dalla villa c. 246. pp. oddly enough. Die Wagen und Fahrwerke der Griechen und Römer. Schlingen von Metall. “Currus”. 49 See. hat im Latein jederzeit wegfallen können”. Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines. But. esp. I.. but here his theory is pure fantasy. ich denke mir eine Art Ketten. diese vom Rade geriebenen Eisenteile heissen eÍra¤”. (above. 33. 48 Op. where he treats of the eurae. cit. e.. per impedirne l’usura del legno”. and we have to treat them as such – provided that the word exists in Pollux at all. The spiritus asper. H. For the sake of comparison. MINIERO calls this asta “thyra”. 74–79 (on axles. he prefers to connect them. should not deter us from the identification of Pollux’eÍra¤ with the eurae of the inscription “denn die Aspiration kann im Griechischen nachträglich entstanden. on the terminology. 1633–43. 90 (cf. I. Oxford. 191–93. all other manuscript families 47 Still very useful J. MINIERO. A good discussion by E. A. He admits that “Die in die Achse eingelassenen Eisenstücke. on the construction of wheels. p. but Erich Bethe discovered that eÍra¤ is the reading only of B and C. Pollux. I. n. VENEDIKOV. plate V. Bücheler was a philologian erudite and bold. Hildesheim. 192.. SAGLIO. It is the question of method that lifts them above the level of mere antiquarian curiosity. Bücheler points out. Berolini. wo der Wagen und die Wagenachse abgehandelt wird. a similar construction was reported also by I. 1975). 1985.g. 1635. from which to hung vestes in a bath (see n. welche seitwärts an die grosse Holz-Stange angeschlossen und eingehakt als Träger oder Stützen für die Wunderdinge des p°teuron dienten” 48.. inchiodata nella parte inferiore dell’asse nel punto in cui esso entra nel mozzo.. 1887. LITTAUER . CROUWEL. In Pollux eÍra¤ are implements in a wagon.d.. see M. ed. pp. n. a pertica with uncini. a sezione rettangolare . pp. and perhaps even solved it. 111). p. 171–209. By and large this bears out the description of Pollux. 1817 (reprint.J. 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. The problem in Pollux Bücheler approached resolutely. Onomasticon. Our knowledge of Roman carts and of their construction advanced greatly thanks to a recent archaeological find: P. For we are here facing two textual and terminological problems. 27. p.. di Arianna a Stabia”. BETHE. Bücheler was not convinced51. E. “eura”) that euras might stand for eoras representing the Greek éi≈raw is better swiftly forgotten}.. He prints in his edition: eÍra¤: plÆmnai. X–XI. vol. 80. Ienae. 2. Einfügung in Holzwerk. 53 Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon post Ioannem Albertum recensuit Mauricius SCHMIDT. and the meaning of eurae mysterious. entry 11. The marginal siglum D indicates the ascription of that entry ultimately to Diogenianus (cf. On this page 50 Pollucis Onomasticon. MONTGOMERY. YÊrai was for him “nur die Conjektur eines Byzantiners . 1. RE. eura (pl. XXXV–VI. vol. 1. 1966. A corruption is certain – such was the verdict of Kurt Latte55.Games in Patavium 477 displaying yÊrai.. and concludes: “dal pl. 1860. The latter is identified in the apparatus as Latte’s own conjecture. Mus. This is inaccurate. Buecheler Rh.. Hesychii Alexandrini Lexicon. Hauniae. eÍra¤)”. He accepts Bücheler’s explanation of pertica and uncini. p. 1953. vol. but believes that eura is an abbreviated form of Greek p°teuron / p°tauron. 1900. See vol. 1124–25). vols. and in his annotation he continues: “Defendi potest coll. a corruption is possible54. Reibung durch Drehung und Bewegung von aussen” (p. 2. 2. 47. vol. this reasoning is perilously close to a circulus vitiosus. ultimately it would appear that the strongest argument for retaining the reading eÍra¤ is the presence of the word euras in the inscription of Magurius. Another interpretation of eurae was offered by MANGANARO (above. the axle-tree. 2. cf. 1. and the annotation in the apparatus. 55 Op. eÈa¤nv aliis id genus. n. p. 48). . cit. LIII). 729). 53). entry E 7096 (= 96). eurae). Magurio avrebbe quindi dedicato anche otto p°taura. although it is not made clear at all on what grounds. eÈlhra. 53). n. Not impossible. was not completely satisfied. As eÍra¤ is uncertain. 54 SCHMIDT (above. vol. In the apparatus Latte notes the reading of H (codex Marcianus. cit.l. XXIV–XXXIII): aurai (sic: without breathing and accent). Polluc. p. 58. Hauniae. welcher ein unverständliches Wort verständlich zu machen suchte. (above. Oxford. pp.. nel gergo di teatro tendenzialmente grecizzante. pp. ed. pp. 811) it gives the following definition: “pl. with the following annotation: “cf. C. 233. A glance at the text of Pollux will suffice to see that yÊrai or eÍra¤ is not the pluralia tantum. n. in this sense also H. 320). line 16. used by tumblers and acrobats”. The point is well taken but inconclusive: technical terminology need not always be logical. An eÈrÒyen arai?”. bastoni usati per mantenere l’equilibrio sulla corda o per prendere lo slancio dei funamboli” (LSJ interprets the word as “springboard. 1940) was: it describes eÍra¤ as a falsa lectio for yÊrai (p. but another scholar was inspired by it to a bold (or adventurous) emendation. but again this is interpretatio ignotorum per ignotiora.” The concept of yÊrai has nothing to do with “Eisen. 319”. 33).. Poll. 52 Op. LATTE. and that it does not denote the whole axle. yÊra 6 (p. and it is that word that he introduced into his acclaimed edition50. n.v. but only the iron attachments that Pollux clearly distinguishes from the axle itself. 1931 (the moving preface to the second volume is very much worth reading). VI. vol. (above. 19. pp. In the Addenda et Corrigenda to his edition of Pollux Bethe reported Bücheler’s defence of eÍra¤ noncommittally52.JONES (New Edition = Ninth ed. Schmidt53 annotated: “Aliud est eÈra¤ [sic: with spiritus lenis] ap.v. Lipsiae. 1. For a severe criticism of this edition. p. 1. 1. 230.146 (v. and not as a bastone. p. p°t-eura· si sarebbe formato. and p. axle-trees. And s. In the Lexicon of Hesychius in older editions we find the following entry: eÔrai: aÔrai. 51 But the Greek-English Lexicon of LIDDELL . 1. “P°tauraon”. But it is certainly suspicious that the term to be elucidated is explained by a word differing in the initial letter only. see K. 1937. I 146”.SCOTT . 256. {The idea of Heraeus (recorded in TLL s. XLII–XLIV. 38). “Sors oraculi: les oracles en Italies sous la république et l’empire”. modern students of res Venetorum did not neglect to point out that the Veneti were famous throughout antiquity for their horses. p. 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. 218–20. 38). changed or omitted (see above). and was always described as belonging to the Patavini. 17. Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’École Française de Rome. n. 1). CALZAVARA CAPUIS. 58. and the name of Aponus is still preserved in the denomination Abano Terme. and not as the nave of a wheel. 36. 1932.. n. Fons Aponi (above. and that eÍra¤ is the correct reading in Pollux. “Aspetti e problemi della religione di Padova preromana”. and the theater (in which Thrasea will have recited his tragic lines) was destroyed only in the middle ages. n. a merited chariot horse. and still more to the point the text itself of Pollux precludes any identification of eÍra¤ and plÆmnai. in any case a remarkable inscription dedicated to Aegyptus. 222–24. BASSIGNANO (above. 5241) is on record. of which thousands have been found. On the rarity of horse and chariot races in Italian cities. The conclusion: the word eura. III. n. n. One can see well why Bücheler was tempted to take the numerals I. 64: Aegypto / intro / iugo / primo. 3). many dating back to preRoman Venetian times. The modern name of the locality is San Pietro Montagnon. Antiquité. For the sake of further exploration let us assume that Bücheler is right. n. but 56 GASPAROTTO (above. Atti. and forming a marshy lake. A permanent circus may also have existed. 102. L. see below}. J. the repository for votive offerings. II. pp. 57 See on all of this the sources and ample modern literature in GASPAROTTO (above. 1990. For Pollux explains eÍra¤ as tå . outside of our inscription. pp. The objects he deposited were rather gifts of thanks to Aponus for Magurius’ performance at the games. 571–78. Eurae of Magurius (and of Pollux) may also point in that direction. 63). passim}.. 1980–1981. The lesson is this: one should not trust lexicons and lexicographers blindly. See GASPAROTTO (above. t“ êjoni §gke¤mena sidÆria. “per il buon esito dei giochi Caetasti”. 3). BASSIGNANO (above. Hardly so. pp. n. {LAZZARO. it is claimed56. whether we read lus(it) or lus(or) the games are already over. see HUMPHREY (below. 27). CHAMPEAUX. 64–80 at 69–71. n. pp.478 Historia et Epigraphia 67 Bücheler observes that breathings can easily be distorted. 138–42. 279–80. but his discussion of eÍra¤ (or eÈra¤). healing and oracular. and n. pp. it was a sacred spring. (1984). The fons Aponi was located in the vicinity of Patavium. Then the eurae in the inscription of Magurius must also be connected with wagons or chariots. 115–21. spewing warm and sulphurous waters. 38). . which indicates that at the fons itself flutists performed and perhaps also other exhibitions took place. A calamaula Aponensis (ILS. Centro ricerche e documentazione sull’antichità classica. attests to the celebration of ludi circenses58. Magurius offered eurae and pertica as votive gifts to Aponus. pp. 58 AE. s. 11 (n. and in Patavium the remains of an amphitheater are still visible.. pp. as indicating the prizes won by Magurius. and that they offered a white horse as a sacrifice to Diomedes57. Among these vota there are also bronze figurines of horsemen and especially of horses. Now at all races it was important that all competitors have a fair chance and that all start together at the same time. On the description of Magurius as performing in grege iuniorum. 5). nn. 6. also P. L. 198. 5 (R. MARQUARDT. In Apuleius’ story this pertica is arrepta. by G. Mau’s criticism of Marquardt [above. 159–69). a wooden detachable bar for fastening together the valvae. 255–61. 62 Funes and perticae appear together as parts of a machina in Digesta. 1999. 228–31. 126. iconographical and archaeological sources. p. n. vol. 12.Games in Patavium 479 68 why Magurius dedicated just eurae. but perhaps here also we may pursue the race connection. 1886. Hysplex. reserati. Humphrey notes (p. Perhaps repagulum was a bar with hooks. see below. 61 On the construction of ancient doors. 3. and not any other part (or model) of a chariot. and finds a new use as an instrument to flog the asinus. pp. ed. 157) that “the gates were kept shut by repagula. 15 (HELM. 7. Berkeley. see the splendid book by J. oppidis et castellis rotundi ponantur lapides gravissimi ponderis. 649–52 (the quotes in the text are from pp. Dessau adduces (after Gatti) the passage of Hieronymus. 91–96. a mystery. the leaves of a door61. qua stabuli fores offirmari solebant60. As to pertica and uncini. {For the terminology. 230–31. 53–56: “Representations of a Hysplex in Monuments of a . 13. Roman Circuses. below. to each uncinus there would have been attached a rope that pulled the bar upwards and released the latches62. p. the locks or bars”. 63 On the starting gates of the carceres and the mechanism for opening them. C. pp. but all these terms seem to have been used very loosely. She does not mention the inscription of Magurius}. by A. VII. pp. line 2) the doors are closed pessulis iniectis et uncino firmiter immisso. Leipzig. 259. 177. See Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum. 1901. HUMPHREY. 63. The precise application of that uncinus is disputed (cf. Cf. remains. s. 132–74. BARBERA. ZPE. pp. but probably not the serae. 61]. pp. pp. The pertica here functions as a sera. that in Palestine in viculis. pp. also P. 2. 59 Cf. Fouilles de Delphes. 7: Le stade. 175. 60 Apuleius. VALAVANIS. II: Topographie et architecture. ropes and bolts. Goetz : Thesaurus Glossarum Emendatarum. In large imperial circuses at the starting gates a complicated mechanism was employed consisting of pulleys. 589. Met. In Zach. 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. sera. 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.. 134 and 169). 18. n. Licinius Moschus negotians perticarius (CIL VI 9672 = 25081)”. ILS. repagulum. {Cf. and eight of them. Met. Still it is interesting to observe that the glossae describe repagulum (cf. with full collection and discussion of literary. an old tradition: a pertica was employed for the same purpose in Plautus. and probably will remain. 1980. Das Privatleben der Römer (second ed. 5.. 5174 a (from Salonae in Dalmatia): lapide lusit ponderibus his: XXXX. AUPERT. The twelve uncini on Magurius’ pertica may perhaps correspond to the canonical number of the twelve carceres. 176. 381. Asin. uncinus. vv. and identify sera as moxlÚw yÊraw. In Roman circuses the starting gates (fores) of the stalls. 63) as kÒraj sideroËw yÊraw or in a latinate way as moxloË ˆgkinow. The Starting Mechanism in Ancient Stadia. 60–61. line 4). 1986. 7. it is not impossible to see the iuvenis Magurius as a strongman59. “had to be unbarred or unlocked”. 1999. In a passage of Apuleius we are arrested by the indication of pertica. n. Lipsiae.. At Apuleius. still very useful J. Berkeley. ad quos iuvenes exercere se soleant et eos pro varietate virium sublevare. and various applications of pertica. “M. but these repagula must be different from the serae. HELM. Mau). see the excellent piece by R. esp. Paris.. carceres. Their efforts are critically discussed in two recent publications by Renato Arena and Franco Sartori63c. beckons us to confront the eurae again. M. Amicitiae causa. 7 (1996). Kokalos 12. PECORARI (ed. n. Iscrizioni greche lapidarie del Museo di Palermo. Mario Torelli strongly objected: we should read eÏran. I. 51–52. Naples. pp. pp. 103. p. {An archaic inscription from Selinus in Sicily. The mechanism concerned foot races. persists in reading eÈxãn. Roman Date”. Nuove ricerche e studi sulla Magna Grecia e la Sicilia in onore di P. and 54. 1997 [1998]. 53) eÔrai:aÔrai. 56 (with tav. 1973. 295–97. 179–98 at 190–99. 2001. TORELLI. 143–46. “Adnotatiunculae. ARENA. “Ancora su EURAN nella dedica di Selinunte alla Malophoros”. 1992. nn. But the pertica. and on pictorial representations there are no hooks attached to the bar}. In line 4 the word EURAN. pp. Scritti in memoria di Mons. Manganaro called attention to the gloss of Hesychius (see above. In order not to prejudge the interpretation. 143. 1986. ARENA in his magnificent collection Iscrizioni greche arcaiche di Sicilia e Magna Grecia. coll. {63a I reproduce this text from the excellent edition (and photographs) by M. see M. 1999. XXXIII). the eurae. n. Some scholars. “Note di epigrafia selinuntina arcaica”.480 Historia et Epigraphia This interpretation brings together the pertica with its twelve uncini. long unnoticed in this context. It had a checkered history. 195–202 at 195–96. 418–20 (cf. In particular G. 39. Milano./ EURAN §n:pelã/gei63a. Y°#llow Purr¤a / én°ye Since its publication in 1894 this dedication has been the object of vivid interest of Greek epigraphers. Aquileia Nostra 70. 39. 46–54 at 48. 1966. passim. in APARXAI. Roma. and later again Maria Teresa Manni Piraino have definitely established that EURAN is indeed the correct reading63b. 63a). but this eminent epigraphist decided to assume an error of lapicide. pp.} . 38–40. “Studi di epigrafia siceliota”. Various readings have been proposed. GUARDUCCI. Dewailly (above. 33–40.} {63c R. “Segnalazioni di epigrafia greca”. 40–41. esp. also his note “Arcaismi ad Aquileia”. MANNI PIRAINO. is perhaps too insecure an instrument to bear the weight of this hypothesis. Treviso. in P. pp. Two eminent scholars attempted to offer an elucidation. baffled. 43–46). Pisa. I reproduce it in the original capital letters. E. Kokalos 14–15. DEWAILLY. and I2. Les statuettes aux parures du sanctuaire de la Malophoros à Sélinonte. students of Greek religion. SARTORI. Luigi Pesce. On Demeter Malophoros. preferred to read the natural and easily imagined eÈxãn. Arias. no. the Aura velificans. p. 357–60. She provides a complete dossier of earlier bibliography. It reads: -ke tçi / MalofÒroi . and the ludi: Magurius would have dedicated to Aponus the implements (or their models) significant for his success at the races. and took the dedication to refer to a statuette of Aura. This interpretation was embraced by Manni Piraino who accordingly printed EÎran. and students of Sicily. which would be “la forma di aoristo debole di eÍr¤skv”. 86–87. and would denote the dedication to Malophoros of an object found in the sea63d. Palermo. Ultimately Margherita Guarducci. “L’anathema di Theyllos figlio di Pyrrhias alla Malophoros di Selinunte”. That this is the correct reading had already been well seen by M. RAL IX. MANGANARO. pp. I: Iscrizioni di Megara Iblea e Selinunte. springs into the reader’s eyes. 1989. and proposed to read eÈ<x>ãn. and her sanctuary at Selinus. pp. despite its twelve hooks.} {63b Accepted by R. PP 52 = fasc.).} {63d G. L’eura (?) Selinuntina e le eurae aponensi”. no. pp. 1996. F. 1968–69. T. no. DELLA CORTE. Still. ad loc. M. but he obviously regards eurae of Patavium and EURAN of Selinus as completely unconnected and denoting totally different things. 224 (with inaccurate square brackets in line 4). 545–602) of the lusus Troiae (560–61): tres equitum numero turmae ternique vagantur ductores. 1924.. It reads: {63e MANGANARO. the correct number on p. They were called the games of k°th. unnecessarily. Bruxelles. p.. The text of the inscription is reproduced by Della Corte (p. for the Patavines too. 1964. Wroc¬aw. See the drawing of the inscription in CIL. p. 3). and in line 4 misspelling pares as parce. who had previously commented on the inscription of Magurius (see above.} 64 CIL. GINESTET. and no doubt. there is. and in Patavium with the source of Aponus.“graficamente e foneticamente uguali”. mentions this inscription again in his “Segnalazioni” (p. though Sartori finds the idea of Manganaro “senza dubbio suggestiva”. Arena is the first scholar to connect explicitly63e this text with the dedication of Magurius from Patavium. Here springs to mind Vergil’s description (Aen. the most significant. n. in Selinus with the sea. one Greek and one Latin. correct text in her earlier monograph. Torunå. IV. is composed and scratched out in such a fashion as to reproduce the sinuous shape and imitate the hissing sound of a serpent64. and voices further scepticism (p. Arpino. 40): we may deal with two words. P. 213). Now in a Pompeian inscription there is attested a lusus serpentis. . p. 24. 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. 5. 196. he observes soberly (p. of marine beasts. and (592–95): haud alio Teucrum nati vestigia cursu impediunt texuntque fugas et proelia ludo. Les associations de la jeunesse romaine sous le Haut-Empire. 164). a graffito on a wall of the palaestra. 29. Sartori concurs. The inscription (in elegiac dactyls). Still. 1978. quos into quo<s>). p. 31. The young riders were delphinum similes: their spiral course resembled the frolicking evolutions of dolphins. delphinum similes qui per maria umida nando Carpathium Libycumque secant. Les organisations de la jeunesse dans l’Occident Romain (= Collection Latomus. In line 2 he corrects. 1595. but indicating different objects. JACZYNOWSKA. nn. 52). with a wrong number [1795]. and in M. a glimmer of hope. This may show the sagaciores the way toward the solving of the eurae mystery}.Games in Patavium 481 Arena and Sartori remain sensibly unconvinced. but for us. 74 (omitting si in line 1. Mirabile dictu. perhaps. In the inscription of Magurius his participation in the cetaes forms a second item of his exhibitions. Collegia Iuvenum. Iuventus. 1991. In each case the eura or eurae are not just simple offerings – they are the offerings that are connected with the water. and without any indication of the lacunae. 420): “Dall’accostamento operato tra i due testi non emergono però elementi che consentano di progredire nell’interpretazione del termine”. 33. p. solely a literary lusus.e. 927. J. p. you will be equally satisfied”. n. very close to Sepumius. for studiosus equorum. rejected by others{67a}. WOJACZEK. As SCHULZE (above. 1988. 24. IV. without any reference to any actual game or games. Wojaczek does not seem to be aware of the “athletic” interpretation of Della Corte and of other scholars. M. P. Roma. 66 DELLA CORTE (above. Athletics in the Ancient World. n. 1896. I graffiti figurati. 1460. 2. II. gives the following rendering: “If you have seen the skill with which Septimius performs the serpent ride. Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. 228. 802. IV. but prefers to print Sep(t)umius. The poem contains at least two Ovidian echos. This text has long ago been brilliantly elucidated by M. {Also F. points out. 2. A captivating idea. 66). 11). 1993. Bruxelles. MAULUCCI VIVOLO in a rather popular book. Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum. 29–31. n. whether you are a lover of the shows or of horses. X. H. n.-P. sii tu amante dell’effetto scenico e coreografico. 52. is attested in inscriptions a number of times. n. 65 Sepumius is a hapax. n. {67a See especially G. pp. an excellent piece. 64). 831. and observes that “il moto sinuoso dei delfini per mare è esattamente paragonabile a quello dei serpentes in terra”. and CLE. Zwei figurale Texte aus Antike und Mittelalter”. p. 1595. He omits our iuvenis. Les associations (above. and for si qui sibi forte notavit. MOREL. 102). He offers (p. The correction is unnecessary. 189 (without quoting Della Corte)}. 1: Non ego nobilium sedeo studiosus equorum. i. 29) the following paraphrase of the distichs: “Se tu rifletti quale e quanta perizia e maestria metta il Iuvenis Septumius nell’eseguire il lusus serpentis. still hesitate: “Sepumius = Sep(t)umius oder Sepunius?” No hapax requires automatic condemnation. 127. 224). He adduces two earlier German translations of the poem (by W. and hence it is normally corrected to read Sep(t)umius. / das der junge Sepumius mit seinem Ingenium geschaffen hat – / Magst du ein Zuschauer beim Theater. either as Sepumius or Septumius). a more “prosaic” rendering (p. Hommages à Marcel Renard (Collection Latomus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompei [= Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae. Hildesheim.482 69 Historia et Epigraphia Ser]pentis lusus si qui sibi forte notavit Sepumius65 iuvenis quos fac(i)t ingenio. referring to chariot races. He adduces the lines of Vergil. sii tu inamorato dei cavalli e della tecnica dell’equitazione. 64) gives. Both the lusus Troiae and the lusus serpentis in Pompei were performed by the turmae equitum. N. magst du ein Pferdenarr sein: / immer und überall mögest du so gleiche Waagschalen haben!”. GINESTET (above. 24. che da quelle evoluzioni di squadre equestre risulta. Krenkel and H. Not. 205: si forte notasti (see CIL. 1930. see P. p. p. . 529. Della Corte (above. 1. p. and in particular four times in Pompei (CIL. It was accepted by some scholars67. Foggia. CASTRÉN. which I regret very much to have missed in the original publication. JACZYNOWSKA. / Que tu sois attiré par le spectacle ou amateur de chevaux / Alors partout et toujours tu apprecieras également l’un et l’autre”.) 67 GARDINER (above. spectator scaenae sive es studiosus e[q]uorum sic habeas [lanc]es s[emp]er ubiq[ue pares]. n. 1988. Amores. 74 (cf. degli Scavi. n. pp. GARDINER. Pompei. p. Solin and O. p. “Pantomimus allectus inter iuvenes”. 2. cf. n. 241–52 at 248–52. 1975. 1969. 64]. VIII]. 225): “S’il t’est arrivé de porter attention aus jeux du serpent / Que le iuvenis Septumius exécute avec talent. SALOMIES. 277. p. le tue inclinazioni resteranno egualmente soddisfatte ad appagate”. p. as he puts it. Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 14. 64). Della Corte66. 168. Heroides. “Schlüssel und Schlange. ad loc. E. 3. GINESTET [above. Cancik) and gives the following literal (wortgetreue) rendering: “Wenn einer das Schlangespiel zufällig zur Kenntnis genommen hat. you can hold the scales level. Oxford. Wojaczek sees in the poem an example of poesia figurata. cf. 64). 20. on the gens Sepunia in Pompei. 219. adverts to the existence of the gens Sepunia in Pompei. n. 127. the name-form Sepunius. pp. . pp. n. LANGNER.. Beiträge zur römischen Geschichte und Archäologie (= Bonner Jahrbücher. M. SCHNEIDER. KRUSCHWITZ. He reproduced the inscription in his Carmina Latina Epigraphica. Klagenfurt. On the other hand K. peculiar or ingenious. RE. and the plural may well have been intended to refer to the various figures Sepumius had so flawlessly executed. pp. “Lusus Troiae”. 57) the idea of any connection between the Troia and the lusus serpentis as abwegig. Still these two interpretive aproaches need not exclude each other. of the lusus serpentis was offered by F. Cf. 28–29. von Petrikovits) points out that the movements of the turmae did not resemble in any way “le jeu de serpent”. and so may have also the scribbler in Pompei. also P. Bücheler (whose interpretation was conspicuously omitted by Della Corte). n. Ancient Society. “Troiae lusus”. pp. For there is little semantic difference between the game and the games of serpent. but the figures traced by the riders were obviously different. 15. (Palilia 11).h. 429. finds (p. PETRIKOVITS. An arresting explanation. 1976. 171–96. but he combines this insight with a rather unlikely explanation: the verse (following Wojaczek) is indeed an example of technopaegnion. Atlanta. 134. 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.Games in Patavium 483 70 More recently Pierre Ginestet (following in the footsteps of H. Wiesbaden. wovon uns die pompeianische Inschrift CIL IV 1795 . at 141. 1897. 82. COURTNEY. p. 1952. n. constat autem id genus artificum maxime inter alios quales tertio uersu denotantur ludos prodisse”. Ginestet observes further that the word lusus is employed in the accusative plural (lusos . Antike Graffitizeichnungen. 224–25. v.. 5. E. WEEBER. PETRIKOVITS. d.. 36). 2064 (cf. and that Vergil in his description of the lusus Troiae “ne dit non plus rien qui puisse faire penser à un serpent”. einen Begriff gibt”. Arctos 38 (2004) 56–57}. 126–36 at p. Bonn. “Carmina latina epigraphica Pompeiana: ein Dossier”. ce qui éloigne encore davantage cette activité de ce que l’on sait sur le lusus Troiae” 68. 189–96).. and on the other very adventurous: he argues that the lusus Troiae was excogitated by Sulla. but (following Bücheler’s 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”. quos fecit). p. and that thus in the inscription is not recorded “un jeu mais des jeux du serpent. 15. 13. “Troiaritt und Geranostanz”. and here we have a clear similarity with the Troia (Weeber’s piece is on the one hand exceedingly hypercritical. 1974. in schlangenartigen Windungen. pp. pp. rightly. an interpretation rather far-fetched than ingenious. with the following explanation: “praestigiator marsus suae arti ut attendant homines admonet aut admirator eius. 68 GINESTET (above. Musa lapidaria. 69 H.-W. discusses the inscription as an exquisite example of “Buchstabenbilder”. Lipsiae. 64). To the last line Courtney atrributes the following meaning: “then may you never be cheated by a shopkeeper putting false weights on the scales”. Quite so. K. Reiten in ‘Schlangenlinie durch die ganze Bahn’ ” 69. A correct observation but of scarce practical import. “das . I. Festschrift für Rudolf Egger. In an earlier . no. pp. but his purely literary understanding of the piece is attractive. 135–50. 2001. n. 2065) writes that “die Knaben führen ihre Evolutionen aus wie die Delphine im Meere. and discovers a philosophical content: the two distichs refer to “Schlangenspiel und den Windungen des Schicksals” (“halte immer und überall die Waagschalen im Gleichgewicht”). A Selection of Latin Verse Inscriptions. This leaves unexplained studiosus equorum. So.. Della Corte and his followers did not argue that the lusus serpentis was identical with the lusus Troiae: both were equestrian exercises. II. and the epithet iuvenis. Beiheft. 1995. But Sepumius did perform an equestrian exercise. reprinted in H. 1927. v. No labyrinth at the lusus serpentis but rather as von Petrikovits puts it. 328–29. 927. Hellenica. Epistulae. It was a sign of extravagance when L. 4. 132–42. 1886. / sed Caesar legi paruit ipse suae: / lex erat. p. Here lances are platters. but platters on which the exta were carried (cf. Virgilius Maro Grammaticus. This seems to be intimated in line 4: sic habeas lances semper ubique pares. to article (“Die pompeianischen Wandinschriften”. 194: lancibus et pandis fumantia reddimus exta). 22 = p. Martialis. hence no image of scales and balance is implied. I.. 1981. 2. 8. n. all these passages also in TLL s. 1. lines 11–12. line 2. the comment on the passage of Persius by R. 62. Fahrendes Volk (above. equi in the other. 22. 160. Cf. 2: pari pendere cunctos lance. coll. 426. C. ad digitum posita concurrere parma (palma?): / quod licuit. and also. subcubuere pares. For silver . lances donaque saepe dedit. pp. The search through the (unfortunately still incomplete) electronic file of the Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank did not produce any other examples. 163–67. Epistulae. 1857. BLÜMNER. 2.484 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. ed. Bücheler assigns the verse a general sense: “ut Sepumi lusus notatu dignos putasti. Limoges. in particular Symmachus. M. They do not mention the inscription of Sepumius. Spect. 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. Rheinisches Museum. 66) seems to dissociate “le spectacle” and “amateur de chevaux”.. B. 12. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton liber. See ad loc. pp. Leiden. 939. At Vergilius. 60 (= Relationes. ed. ROBERT. n. 29. HARVEY. Georg. I.. 71 The only other passage where dictionaries list lanx and par as appearing together is Arnobius. A Commentary on Persius. Apuleius. 927 (see above. Lances pares habere is an unusual phrase71. Here iustum is placed in each lanx. 118. 108–9. 2–8: at the gladiatorial bout of Priscus and Verus missio saepe viris magno clamore petita est. pp. VILLE (above. 10. Leipzig. Verus gave lances to all convivae (Hist. n. Silver platters were frequently offered as gifts and awards. 46). Epitomae 4 = p. Carmina minora. line 3. 405–6. as we learn from the acts of the Severan ludi saeculares. 74. 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). Ginestet in his translation (see n. Both would appear to have been part of lusus serpentis. 2. / inventus tamen est finis discriminis aequi: / pugnavere pares. to the scenic effect of the exercises and to the art of equitation (see his translation reproduced in n. MORESCHINI (1991). “lanx”. ed. 36). 4.v. He is right. the lances are not gifts. 14. 72 Cf. see two works of stunning erudition: H. 394: lancesque et liba feremus. Spectator scaenae and studiosus equorum patently refer to two kinds of vastly different exhibitions: to stage performances and to equestrian exercises. 56. ita semper iuste iudices” 70. FRIEDLÄNDER. With the exception of Virg. 5. ed. 6. I. Gramm. L.23–940. 2. 9-10: scis etenim iustum gemina suspendere lance / ancipitis librae. 70 CLE. As a parallel he adduced Persius. L. 75. Leipzig. Aug. Lances pares is not the same idiom as aequa lance. {In fact pari lance appears to be a relatively common idiom: the search in Bibliotheca Latina Teubneriana brought three examples: Ps. 94–95) Bücheler regarded Sepumius as a rider who “die Windungen der Schlange nachzuahmen verstand”. 47–49. pp. 1940. and the search in Patrologia Latina produced several other instances. On serpent charmers. 5. and nn. 66). SEECK). p. a different image from the one present in our verse where lances pares signify a balance of enjoyment. 40. 2–3). scaena in one lanx. G.1}. HUEMER (1886). A. LÖFSTEDT (2003). Claudius Claudianus. Asclepius. and the iuvenis Sepumius excelled in both of them. to gladiators72. 69). 26. 1915. 255 = Kleine Schriften. but more frequently a platter. and Sidonius Apollinaris.. Adversus nationes. on that basis G. 212 Kühn zu sein. Also H. his argument is disputed by Dinzelbacher. or at least a fusion of duality. Amsterdam. 556): Baebius tamen Macer dicit. where the lusus Troiae is separated from the venatio. also by E. B. Eranos. p. 355) she deals with the lusus Troiae. “‘Spiele’ und ‘Spiele’. now the lances were awarded to the nine boys who participated only in the chorus. the “Trojan Ride”. 888–905 at 902–3). n. rightly observes that the Severan acta had been so far overlooked by the students of lusus Troiae.. “Observations on the distribution and ownership of late Roman silver plate”. it is at the venatio not the lusus that the praetorian squadron participated. Ithaca. According to the index (p. dass der lusus später nicht mehr aufgeführt wurde” (but on the text of Galen. 1990. surprisingly does not know this document. 178–85. 73 I. p. RE. 80. see P. “Über Troiaritt und Pyrriche”. and also in various early medieval texts (pp. and thus she succeeds in being singularly uninformed. v. doch ist damit nicht gesagt. p. and writes that after Augustus “il ne s’agissait plus de l’ancien lusus Troiae dont on n’avait conservé ni le nom ni le caractère infantile. p. 71. De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium libri sex. . 46) also refers to an event from the time of Augustus. 621–39). 420. Buc. 1965). n. 151–61 at 161. Quos perfe[cto] sacrificio Augg. 5. hon[orauerunt / pueris] n. The qualification. pp. historians are to be warned. “mais en y faisant participer des prétoriens”. is of interest: Pighi (p. PETRIKOVITS. Milano. 1956. DINZELBACHER. REED DOOB. See also the lists of pueri qui carmen cecinerunt and qui Troiam luserunt (pp. GINESTET (above. 3: Troiae lusum exhibuit et Africanas. 32. 215–20. 1896. The epigraphical data is lacking on the awards given at the earlier secular games. see Alan CAMERON. Those who had ridden in the lusus had already previously received their lances. reliquis. 148. RE. on numerous pages. even if he participated both in the lusus and the chorus. We read73: carm[e]n cone[x]is manibus [pue]ri puellae dix[erunt ch]orosque hab<u>erunt.. Claud. pp. 1941 (reprinted with Addenda and Corrigenda. 251). In the real Rome and the real games she is not interested. conficiente turma equitum praetorianorum. 1939. Baebius Macer is a shadowy authority74. 2731) regards him “dem Anscheine nach als zeitgenössiche Zeuge”. PIGHI. Après Claude on n’en parlera plus” (!). This glaringly misreads Suetonius. 1992. 167. MEHL in his otherwise quite exhaustive article “Troiaspiel”. is fleetingly possible”. ad Vergilium. lines 75–76. 8. The Idea of the Labyrinth from Classical Antiquity through the Middle Ages. 74 His other fragment (Servius auctus. n. VIIII lances arge[nteas 10 dantes. Dinzelbacher. the appearance of the stella Caesaris in 44. He also states that according to Suetonius Claudius celebrated the lusus. pp. donatas esse galeas et bina hastilia: ad quod Vergilium constat alludere. in De sexto consulatu Honorii. hunting down African panthers. 64). 160–61). Of the book by P. “Troiae lusus”. 243–46). 118) explains it in the sense that not all the boys who sang the carmen had participated in the lusus Troiae. but commenting on Vergil’s description of the lusus Troiae Servius writes (ad Aen.Games in Patavium 485 72 the boys who participated at the games either singing in the chorus or riding in the lusus Troiae. 1981. 169. H. Thus each puer received one lanx. GALSTERER. n. p. p. 188: “Für die Zeit nach Nero wird sie (sc. PETER. 1982. 160. p. 32. although he rejects his identification with Ovid’s friend Macer. also disregards the Severan acta when he writes that “der letzte Beleg für ein Troiaspiel scheint Galen XIV p. finds echoes or descriptions of the lusus in Claudius Claudianus (esp.. 59. a Caesare Augusto pueris qui luserant Troiam. Equally incorrect WEEBER (above. 2. H. Journal of Roman Archaeology. die Troia) namentlich nicht mehr erwähnt”. the award of the galeae does not seem to be attested vessels as gifts in the later Roman empire. On the other hand. 5. Die Organisazion der ludi Juvenales in der Kaiserzeit”. Athenaeum. 174. 21.. WISSOWA (“Baebius 31”. pp. ut] reliquis [c]um Troiam lusissent. 69). 209–20. Klio. 9. Suppl. but her lusus is a product of pretentious literary fancy (it shows that “unity. HOSIUS (above. SCHANZ . This gives us an idea of the versatility that was a mark of an accomplished young man. R. 75). Oxford. A Historical and Social Commentary. And it is quite possible that a similar award. 339). 20). But in military idiom only the term hasta was used. 1898) fastalia (cf. places him among the writers of the Augustan age. the cete. Lipsiae. 829 identify him with Baebius Macer. line 14. HELM. pp. 158–83. 84–86. At the imperial cavalry exercises officers and accomplished horsemen wore richly decorated helmets and (perhaps) face-masks (MAXFIELD. on one exemplar holding a long spear77. Berkeley. PETRIKOVITS. 5. We are left with lances as an award in the lusus Troiae and a possible award in the lusus serpentis. 673. but on p. caution is in place: a strong impression remains that Baebius Macer spun his scheme directly from the lines of Vergil. All this is very tenuous. 75 It is not listed in V. 69]. 1981. MAXFIELD. a friend of Pliny the Younger (especially on the basis of Plinius. The Letters of Pliny. was often employed by poets as pars pro toto in the sense of the whole weapon. 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. = p.v. C. one thing. SHERWIN-WHITE. But until further epigraphical documents come to light. a reading of two codices) sacrorum scripsit. Vergil was not its originator.: perhaps festalia. pp. “Troiaritt” [above. II4. where Ascanius galeam . 76 MAXFIELD (above. This flavor we perceive also in the Patavine inscription of Magurius. should not be doubted. the identification of our Macer with Bebius Macer.desultores. The two passages in Servius and Servius auctus concern festivities and ceremonies. and the term hastilia is taken directly from Vergil (Aen.. A remarkable series of coins from Tarentum (Taras). it is not impossible that subsequently they would receive them as awards. ed. s. who according to Fulgentius (Expositio sermonum antiquorum. was recorded in a missing part of the Severan acta. E. II. 328. no comment. 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. the riders’ evolutions similar to the movements of marine beasts. B 20 and 21 (1933) hesitate. The award of hasta (or hastae) was a distinction reserved for officers76. 113. München. the riders who would in battle spring from one horse to another. 74–75. pp. “Die Herrschaft der Reiterei in Griechenland und . This presents him as an antiquarian. v. and not necessarily as scriptor rerum (Caesaris) et Augusti (as he is described in PIR). Lipsiae. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. 77 See the memorable article by A. properly denoting only the shaft of a spear or javelin.. 1906. N. classify him among die Schriftsteller über Augustus of the early Principate (pp. but Servius takes pressa corona (5. and the riders perhaps wearing the appropriately decorated helmets. 3. proicit). The ludi cetasti in Patavium may have included equestrian performances. 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. ALFÖLDI. n. In his description of the lusus Vergil does not mention galeae. perhaps rightly. Ep. TLL. GROAG and A. 6. 557: cornea bina ferunt praefixa hastilia ferro). 133–39 = 141–46). 1966.486 Historia et Epigraphia elsewhere75. and widespread. pp. Hastile. The idea that equestrian displays resembled the games of dolphins is an old one. STEIN in PIR2. contains representations of the equitation technique of k°lhtew . The Military Decorations of the Roman Army. n. 5. dated to the fifth century. in A. 556) to denote galea (pointing to 5. however. n. in addition to lances. 7). 1935. 145–57. and 71–72. WISSOWA. also F. M. n. pp. 1955.. A treasure trove of information in M. ALFÖLDI (above. also G. Die Dioskuren als Retter zur See bei Griechen und Römern und ihr Fortleben in christlichen Legenden. pp. 186–89. and the Apollinian dolphin was among the sacred animals that led colonists to a new city or pilgrims to Delphi. In this context it is of interest that the Dioscuri. Tarente. and was primarily associated with the color of the sea and the waves (cf. 554–55. 4. 3. and on its coins78. n. In Greece the cult of Poseidon Hippios is well attested. 101–2. 77). Still very useful K. J. see also P. 1901. Hommages à Henri Le Bonniec. n. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. Journal of Roman Studies. ingeniously argues that in this passage the color caeruleus has nothing to do with the sea or Neptune. 74. Rom nach dem Sturz der Könige”. and. 8: et quos Tarentinos vocabant equites. and thus the dolphin figures prominently in the foundation legend of this city. 5. Bruxelles. 99). Apollo Delphinios was the god of sailors. 666–68. le labyrinthe et les dauphins”. 28. “Rome. RÜPKE. 24–26. 201). and in general always G. whether Poseidon or Neptune. see J. 36–38. WELLMANN. binos secum trahentis equos. Religion und Kultus der Römer2. unum russeum. “Delphin”. 27). The founder of Taras (Tarentum) Phalantos was saved by a dolphin. The Tarentine cavalry was famous throughout the Hellenistic epoch. p. Paris. 97–101. pp. Basel. pp. and the term Tarentini came to denote the military desultores. pp. 77). P. Les jeux athlétiques dans la civilisation étrusque. ad Aen. “Virgile. In Vergil (Aen. 1939. were also protectors of sailors80. 1912. DÜMMLER (above. pp. 25–34. But even more telling is the cultic connection between horses and horsemen and the sea-god. n. 4 Beiheft zu Antike Kunst. 19–20. and a subject of numerous tales. 8. see M. would show to sailors from which direction a favorable wind will blow. 25. in D. cf.. München. {Cf. 1901. Paris. pp. Servius. 3–8. Festschrift Karl Schefold. pp. and the articles by JESSEN and [P. II. ANDRÉ. and death. pp. THUILLIER. a cuius deo equum constat esse inventum81. pp. 63). Diss. München. esp. 420–21.-P. J. On the Tarentine desultores. it denotes nigrum. Res Sacrae.). RE. and he departs in his chariot pulled by fiery horses. CAPDEVILLE. 1993. 799–826) Neptune assures Venus of his goodwill toward Aeneas. 1. Rheinisches Museum. Livius. quod erat equitum – caeruleus color maris est. in: Gestalt und Geschichte.Games in Patavium 487 73 The dolphin was a k∞tow par excellence. and signifies that the outcome of the war must be either victory or death. pp. 35. I2. 136.] STENGEL in RE. At the time of a sudden war in Italy. 2504–9. 77). Caeruleum could indeed on occasion mean nigrum as the color of mourning (Servius. Néraudau (eds. 1950.. 64–82}. Ad rem. and plates 9. the divine patrons of horsemen. Thuillier is surprised that in Tarentine iconography “on ne voit jamais de représentations de desultores” (p. München. et unum caeruleum. 4. 374–76. cf. but he does not seem to know the article of Alföldi. 76–77 {= RQ. pp. pp. the tumultus. 1988 (= Collection Latomus. but it covered a whole range of shades. A similar legend of marine animals that guided or helped Antenor may have obtained in Patavium. and in particular of desultores. “Vexillum caeruleum”. 1984. LINDERSKI. On Apollo Delphinios and the feast(s) of Delphinia. pp. pp. he would often come to the rescue of the people who suffered shipwreck. 2511–15. WUILLEUMIER. immania cete among his comites (822). 268–71. WUILLEUMIER (above. J. 149–50}. Aphrodisias and the Res Gestae: the Genera Militiae and the Status of Octavian”. the man who was to lead the army went to the Capitol to fetch duo vexilla. cf. and the ludi cetasti would be the games named in the commemoration of that event79. Cf. 1907. He was famous for his friendliness toward men. more recently.-P. NILSSON. n. Tübingen. and would warn them of the approaching storm. P. 1985. NILSSON (above. des origines à la conquête romaine. THUILLIER (above. 1967. quod pedites evocabat. 78). 78 79 80 81 . JAISLE. ad Aen. Porte and J. 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. 2510–11. London. 64). 262–65. 22. see N. they also performed on the stage. Particularly interesting is the stone from Lepcis Magna dedicated to a freedman of Caracalla. both animals sacred to Poseidon-Neptune. n. 523–35. See the spirited article by J. pp. see GALSTERER (above. 1953. Archeologia Classica. and for the color of the rica of the flaminica. n. d’adulescentes produits en spectacle”. II. n. n. with a masterly commentary. 67. 1952. VII. 4. Les associations (above. They were not professionals. The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. JACZYNOWSKA. RE. no. pp. For a possible association of the iuvenes of Vienna in Gallia Narbonensis with the scaenici asiaticiani (CIL. J. the forty-four Étude sur les termes de couleur dans la langue latine. 188. Rüpke’s theory disregards the hippic associations of Poseidon . 189–200. Aug. “Delphines 2”. mais de Jeunes-acteurs. 5205). including that of desultores. Mediolano inter iuvenes recepto85. pp. and this association of iuvenes and the theater persisted throughout the imperial period. Morel perceptively observed that “il ne s’agit pas des jeunes acteurs. nn. 73). 1969. esp. esp. 145–68. 1901.-P. 1970. n. pp. and in the amphitheater. and leaves unexplained why the symbolism of fighting to death should have applied only to the equites. 4. 63). 151–63 (“Regiones. In Rome equestrian exhibitions were not limited to the lusus Troiae. XII. 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. Older literature in POLLACK. see now HUMPHREY (above. PANCIERA. MOREL. S. 43. BOËLS-JANSSEN.. 67). 419–38. 208–52. 221–35.. “La iuventus et les origines du théâtre romain (TiteLive. by Silvio Panciera87. 4)”. 158–59. 5193. J. MOREL (above. 2. 4: in circo aurigas cursoresque et confectores ferarum. p. 162–71. and hence the operative terms for their activities were lusus and ludere83. Valère Maxime. pp. pp. 1929 = ILS. “Tra epigrafia e topografia. 132). 1989. recording again a pantomimus sui temporis primus (a freedman of Commodus) who was allectus inter iuvenes. XIV. I”. vici e iuventus”). REYNOLDS . n. produxit. et nonnunquam ex nobilissima iuventute. Dramatic displays of iuvenes stood at the origin of the Roman theater84. 606 = AE. pp. Revue des Études Latines. [1990]. 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 ménage”86. and to explain the term adulescentes producti he felicitously adduced the passage of Suetonius. Paris. “La prêtresse aus trois voiles”. This we have learned from a funerary carmen found in Rome and published. pp. 660.-P. 2121 = ILS. the pueri and iuvenes performed in a variety of equestrian displays.488 Historia et Epigraphia 74 If dolphins were the horses of the sea. See also CIL. B. 48–66. pp. WARD PERKINS. M. 527–31.Neptune. 82 83 84 85 86 87 . The deceased. from Lanuvium. 64). This was true not only of actors but also of circus professionals. pantomimo temporis sui primo Romae adulescentium productorum condiscipulo . 62). 159.J. then horses were the dolphins of the land.. Revue des Études Latines. GINESTET (above. 1949. see GINESTET (above. 47. and concludes that Lavicanus “poté gareggiare come auriga per un collegio avente la sua sede nella sesta o settima regione cittadina” 88.. Lavicanus was thus (despite his age) a member of an association of iuvenes. . n. the expressions grex adulescentium (Cicero. 79–102 at 83–84. Panciera’s interpretation was enthusiastically accepted by GALSTERER (above. and (perhaps wisely) refrains from proposing any particular solution. 1996. 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. M. Roma.. pp. but provides no definition for the former. 39. opts for Cisiani as “eine . 77–79. 162–63. 5: barbatuli iuvenes. 14. Nat. 6146. 9. distinguishes between “aristocratic and non-aristocratic youth groups”.. I questori municipali dell’Italia antica (= Studi Ist. a light two-wheeled carriage89. 636. and the iuvenes decurionum qui Ostiae ludunt (CIL. Att. 426–28. But the most arresting information is this: hanc mihi coniuvenes titulum posuere sepulto. FORA. 1994. MAU. 87) of the former.. This association. lokale Untergruppe”. pp. 79). seems to identify cisiani with cisiarii. 87]. SOLIN . the name of which clearly derives from the two vici. Iuvenes cisiani attested in Ostia may have also participated in races – provided that they are so named after cisium.} 91 Cf. PETRACCIA LUCERNONI. 7303) for whom a vicus Oecianus or Oeci is still to be discovered (cf. line 16 = ILS. septima quem regio sextaqu(e) amavit idem. p. iuvenum (Livius. 26 = ILS. III. 1899. 1. 90 The name Cisius is very rare. Cicero. 3. cf. n. vicus Raciliani Minoris and vicus Raciliani Maioris. SCHULZE (above. totus ille grex Catilinae). St. 73). Ital. Ant. perhaps not the sign of victory but rather (so Panciera) a banner of the collegium. deor. 1899. 1988. p. Epigrafia anfiteatrale dell’ occidente Romano. 73). Louvain. F. 11). cf. VI. 89 CIL.SALOMIES (above. Tusc. 975 = ILS. in the sixth (Alta Semita) and the seventh regio (Via Lata). was based territorially.. epheborum (Cicero. Panciera argues. M. cf. The 88 Pp. 1. 305. regards them as a corporation of producers or drivers of small carts. p. pp.. as Panciera points out. 1. RE. KLEIJWEGT.Games in Patavium 489 years old Sextus Vetulenus Lavicanus. Also A.. both in regio XIV (CIL. n. or still better from a local district. no. In Patavium Magurius lus(it) . XIV. 5. PANCIERA [above. “Iuvenes and Roman Imperial Society”. gives a list of various interpretations. Lavicanus carries in his left hand a vexillum. p. (professional) drivers (or makers) of cisia. Panciera points to the various feasts and athletic competitions organized regionatim and vicatim. 77: adulescentium greges Lacedaemone vidimus ipsi incredibili contentione certantes pugnis). is described as delicium populi. pp. which J. At Ostia the iuvenes cisiani would be an example of the latter. 2588–89. In that interpretation the denomination iuvenes remains puzzling and unexplained. but he disregards the denomination of our cisiani as iuvenes. Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains. WALTZING. Regio Italiae I: Latium (= Vetera 11). 65). a vicus Cisianus90. GALSTERER (above. n. pp. 6073). IV. Roma. circi quoque nuntiu(s) ampli. probably Maximus but. VI. 4448. further referred to as sodales. P. 409. in greg(e) Veturian(a) quae et iuniorum. Lavicanus is characterized as a nuntius in a circus. cisiae. 41). The term iuniorum applied to grex qualifies it immediately as a group of iuvenes91. 22. and was thus similar to the collegium iuvenum Racilianensium (AE 1927. They would thus be similar to iuvenes Oeciani (CIL. AE 1969–70. and she thus returns to the idea of Mau. 145). regards as “peu vraisemblable”. 56. Acta Classica 37. OLD distinguishes cisianus and cisiarius. 4. But perhaps more likely is a derivation from the name Cisius. {M. Dessau suggests that “cisiani fortasse iidem qui alibi dicuntur cisiarii”. “Cisium”. The stone was set up by coniuvenes. XIV. 159–61). 256. TLG provides five more examples: one. 6. eccl. n. A Study in Latin Epigraphy (= Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum.Berlin. XIII. no. This certainly does not apply to Patavium of the imperial epoch.v. 4. 87). more popular in the later Empire. line 7 (in these two Ptolemaic texts the term denotes a period of thirty years. 4448. 2714. from Leptis Minor. 62]. 1. no. and thus have the meaning of the “thirtieth anniversary” of his rule. V. grex. 94 Cf. 257–73. p. For iuniores were the iuvenes of a particular kind. Flaviana). Auriana. n. BIRLEY. WILCKEN. but that Veturiana is a new name that was given to the grex iuniorum. our text. Helsinki. Les curies municipales en Afrique romaine. 1968. triakontaethr¤w (§n •ortª tini triakontaethr¤di) is very rare. the text of Dio stands unparalleled and alone – as almost everything pertaining to the games in Patavium. Flori. The unit names derived from personal names can be either in the genitive (e. p. Leipzig . 96 Iuniores vici (of Beda vicus. line 2). 9. but the category of iuniores also evokes and implies a contrast with the seniores96. As to grex. 2. KOTULA. leader or benefactor. 38) refer to the tricennalia of Constantine. Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde. Hist. 97 The term used by Cassius Dio. Here may also belong CIL. ala Patrui. VIII. recording the seniores of the curia Sabina. 4. 1912. On this interpretation the iuvenes of Patavium were organized for the ludi cetasti in units called greges. 120–21. after a founder. TLL. Ancient Society. This leads us to a crucial feature of the games in Patavium. GINESTET [above. passim. T. pp.. from Lambaesis. “Alae named after their Commanders”. at De laudibus Constantini. Cf. 4131 = ILS. with the meaning: “a festival occurring every thirty years”. 64). 2.g. however. see E. Nigri) or in adjectival form (e. He discusses only personal names. 1). recording the iuventus cur(iae) Ulp(iae). 40.U. A contrast between seniores and iuvenes is implied in African curiae: see CIL. and were denominated iuniores. 95 GINESTET (above. 3063. col. ala Apriana. 18. . four (three from Eusebius. 40. 18118. and one from Socrates. Wroc¬aw. The term evokes the old Roman centuriate organization: as Ginestet argues a iuvenis became iunior upon his integration into the army95. and appears in a list of royal titles). Scaevae. In names of persons qui et or quae et is on display in many scores of agnomina93.490 Historia et Epigraphia 75 denomination Veturiana may derive from a Veturius by whom this group was perhaps established or led92. s. see CIL. but did not ask the question. Qui (quae) et is possibly unparalleled in the names of groups or associations. denotes a period of thirty years (in connection with the epochs of human life). 4. from the Scholia vetera in Iliadem (1. 1969/70. the first to ask it – and to answer – was Maria Pia 92 On the ending in -ana in the names of Roman military units. Supernomina. Eusebius mentions triakontaethrikãw (this word is missing from LSJ) •ortãw of Constantine. the famous stone from Rosetta (OGIS. Veturiana seems to be the only example of the latter form. The word became. in praescriptione. Thus. LSJ lists only three examples. In addition.g. 2332. 1978. KAJANTO. 2793. and a papyrus (L. 7056. 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). 109. 3. 45. For Veturii in Patavium. as the groups of marine animals were also called94. 207). cohors Facundi. 47. MITTEIS . 138. from Ostia: iuv[enes de]curion(um) / q[ui Ostia]e ludunt (cf. 90. Vita Constantini. 51–63. AE. pp. The copula quae et is intriguing. lines 45–57. I. XIV. and 22901. 250). 93 See I. in the territory of Augusta Treverorum) are attested in 245 (CIL. 1967. 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. 92. to the Athenian military classes. and the iuvenes in a variety of displays. In Patavium we hear of the participation in the ludi cetasti of Thrasea. “Die Einteilung des menschlichen Lebens im römischen Altertum”. XXXIX. HÄUSSLER. and of the boys100.. Lyc. 100 Plutarch. pp. 4. Brussel. p. De jonge Romein (Verhandelingen van de Academie van België. less compellingly. points. . 313–41. 150–90. pp. Rheinisches Museum.Games in Patavium 491 76 Billanovich in her recent and rare publication: “furono dei ludi connessi . In Rome it was the pueri who participated in the lusus Troiae. and the celebrations so organized call to mind Plutarch’s famous description of the three choirs at the festivals in the Lykurgean Sparta. 21. The ludi cetasti would thus celebrate the foundation of Patavium and the passing and beginning of a generational cycle. 35). no. Magurius in stage displays and. BILLANOVICH (above. They would correspond at once both to the Roman Parilia and the ludi saeculares. of the old men. Jaarg. 35). 98 BILLANOVICH (above. in equestrian exercises or chariot races. pp. 1973. 130. After our disquisition we do not necessarily know more about the Games in Patavium. n. According to various theories current in Roman antiquity the human life was naturally divided into three. four or five aetates99.. a iunior. and of Q. con ‘le classi di età’. 2. See also R. n. pp. a senior. 230–55. “Roman Notes on the Course of Life”. 130–31. she does not mention at all the Roman opposition of iuniores and seniores.. but it is an informed aporia. 116. Klasse der Letteren. In Patavium a tripartite division would obtain. of the young men. 81). Thrasea appeared in a tragic role. The Patavines do not yield their secrets gladly. EYBEN. Il fatto che essi si celebrassero in forma solenne ogni trenta anni ne è una conferma: trenta anni nel mondo antico sono considerati esattamente la durata di un ciclo generazionale” 98. Hermes. it appears.. 1964. 99 See the detailed studies by E. 7–40. 1977. “Vom Ursprung und Wandel des Lebensaltervergleiches”. pp. Ancient Society.. Magurius. 1973. Frederiksen. NP 10 (2001) 1250–51}. Luperci {cf. 145 pp. ** Archaeological News 10 (1981 [1982]) 99–100. Flambard. Giorgio Bretschneider. Lat.2A–B THE STONES OF CONCORDIA** 35. * The Oxford Classical Dictionary3 (1996) 911–912 {with bibliographical addenda}. Scheid}. {M.) many ills. J.–III d. Religion und Kultus der Römer2 (München 1912). I (Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto. Vici et pagi dans l’Occident romain (Rome 2002)}.35. . Royden. Pobjoy.C).. M. J. Niebling.). Linderski. and (b) the boards of magistri (collegia magistrorum) who acted as supervisors of shrines (curatores fanorum). J.C. 254). 312 35. Roma. M. with addenda 645–47. Scheid. Salii {cf. Romulus et ses frères (Rome 1990). G. G.1–3 MINIMA EPIGRAPHICA 35. Wissowa. indices. and in this volume: RQ. such as the magistri attested in Capua. We have to distinguish between (a) magistri. funerary. Also the state priesthoods of quindecimviri {cf. H. The cult of Lares Compitales was in the late republic and under Augustus supervised by the magistri of vici.–M. J. 16). Iscrizioni lapidarie latine del Museo Nazionale Concordiese di Portogruaro (I a. (incl. often assisted by flamines {cf. Arctos 32 (1998) 175–95.1 MAGISTRI* Magistri (Festus.2A Fulviomario BROILO. Addenda altera. 16 (1991) 108–109 {with corrections and additions}. 15}. fratres Arvales. No. N.. Tarpin. the presidents of various associations. OCD3 (1996) 892} (and haruspices) possessed as administrative officers the (normally) annually elected magistri. Excavations at Minturnae 2: Inscriptions 1: Republican Magistri (Philadelphia 1933). Gesellschaft und Recht im Griechisch-Römischen Altertum 1 (Berlin 1968) 94–132 {= RQ 165–203. Minturno) in the last century of the Republic. religious. Gloss. NP 10 (2001) 713–14}. in M. and professional (collegia) or territorial (vici. Johnson. The Magistrates of the Roman Professional Collegia in Italy (Pisa 1988). They also performed sacrifices. Historia 5 (1956) 303–31. Opuscula Instituti Romani Finlandiae 2 (1982) 67–77. Delos and Minturnae (mod. 1980. pagi). Andreev and others (eds. Campania (Rome 1984). and perhaps most important. but the exquisite print (with occasional misprints) and exquisite photographs catch the eye of the reader. 1877): one is struck by their excellent preservation. they often contain ample historical and epigraphical commentary and thus bring the study of inscriptions in question up to the present level of knowledge.C–III d. and yet not only the exquisite paper. 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. q(aestor) prov(inciae) Asiae. of these 17 were so far published only in Notizie degli Scavi. But even on a less dramatic level. The book here under review does not contain anything dramatic. through re-examinations of stones they often arrive at new readings. 18.E. some important: No. Brusin and P. It contains 69 inscriptions. but another edition of late antique inscriptions from Concordia has appeared: G. Line 3 reads ]ni praeto/[ri]. and more recently G. it reached the peak of its fortunes in Late Antiquity when it became an important garrison town. not far to the west of Aquileia. 1875. last. Le iscrizioni sepolcrali tardoantiche di Concordia (Trieste 1983). he provides no indices and no table of comparatio numerorum either with CIL or with the edition of Broilo}. The first two volumes will deal with inscriptions dating from the first through third centuries C. and another list of inscriptions from Concordia now preserved in other museums and collections. the third volume will contain inscriptions from the fourth through sixth centuries. but on the photograph no trace of q is discernible. have been excavated since 1873. even if they do not bring scores of inedita. Occasionally they make history: L. 10 = 8661 {= Lettich 21}. Zovato. they provide good photographs – as is well known the lack of illustration is a major shortcoming of older epigraphical collections. oddly enough. 52 were printed by Mommsen in CIL V (1872. 29 = CIL V 1940. Under Augustus. 1891). Hence we look forward with special interest to the promised third volume {it has not yet been published. Lettich produced a corpus of earlier imperial stones: Iscrizioni romane di Iulia Concordia (sec. One also is struck by the excellence of Mommsen’s edition: Broilo was able to propose only few corrections. Monumenti romani e cristiani di Julia Concordia (Pordenone 1960). for the time being let us turn to volume I. in Supplementa Italica of Pais (1888) or in other books and articles. This is the first volume of the projected three volumes of Latin inscriptions from the Museo Nazionale Concordiese of Portogruaro. 9.. Lettich. it is a veritable Corpus Inscriptionum Concordiensium. Robert’s Collection Froehner {Paris 1936} or the edition of Greek inscriptions from the British Museum come readily to mind. Broilo’s supplements are not unreasonable. Thus this is not only a museum corpus.Minima Epigraphia 493 100 Editions of lapidaria from various museums and collections occupy an important and honorable place in the history of epigraphical studies. The ruins of Concordia. Concordia received the status of a colony and the name of Iulia Concordia. some trifling (see nos. Mommsen saw here the name of an . L. such editions are very welcome: they provide information about the present location of inscriptions published in standard corpora . omitted by Mommsen. Line 4. may contain an indication that the person in question (a certain [P]erses {or rather [P]ersa} was also [trib(unus) pl(ebis)]. a cursus honorum.C) (Trieste 1994). the best recent study is G. I a. 2a}). 105 pp. 114. six appear also in Supplementa Italica of E. 144).4 [1981] 99–100 {above.. II (Collezioni e Musei Archeologici del Veneto.494 Historia et Epigraphia emperor. Unfortunately he missed a major contribution to the history and epigraphy of Concordia. 1931. Ital. especially when he treats of prosopography.g. the article by G. 1984. 94 = NSc. but direct advancement from the praetorship to the praefectura aerarii Saturni was very exceptional: M. e. produced by a competent editor. 140. 1931. No. and A. 169–70. 399. 123 (a better text in Alföldy. No. 298). nos. Corbier. 299–300). 8665. 867.g. 1890. Roma. 34. 74. it is misleading to maintain that a private dedication to Di Manes legally established the grave as a res religiosa (p. Iscrizioni lapidarie latine del Museo Nazionale Concordiese di Portogruaro (I a. was in 1954 reconstituted from four fragments (CIL V 1897–1900). 8680. 30 = 1888. Aquileia Nostra 51 (1980) 257–328 at 264–68}. knows of only three such cases before the end of the second century {cf. 35. It contains sixty-seven texts (the numbering is consecutive. Of these texts only twenty-seven figured already in CIL V (1872.C). but Broilo does not make clear that D. 99 (cf. Broilo very reasonably follows Pais.) many ills. Suppl. “Res divini iuris”. pp. (incl. for one should expect that Concordia as a colony was administered by the IIviri. “Beiträge zur Prosopographie von Concordia”. Pais [1888]). Alföldy. mentions a IIIIvir which causes perplexity. Bertolini (NSc 1877) already saw that the fragments belong together. Giorgio Bretschneider. pp. e. Degrassi. and nos. and that Mommsen took notice of Bertolini’s observation in his re-edition of the inscription in CIL V 8664. 35. cf. Alföldy. the stone recording a testamentum. To recapitulate: this is a reliable and useful Corpus. A few texts call for further comments: .C. p. 1951. indices. in attributing this inscription to the neighboring municipium of Opitergium (Oderzo). p. 1877) and one in CIL I2. Broilo’s commentary is useful but often it contains only general encyclopedic information. Novissimo Digesto Italiano 15 (Torino 1968) 554. 73. 1924. Broilo opts for [– –– praef(ecto) aer(arii) Satur]ni. To a number of inscriptions published in CIL and NSc Broilo offers corrections (mostly minute): see esp. Aquileia Nostra 51 (1980) 257–328. he seems less sure in other areas.2B Fulviomario BROILO. three were published in various collections and twenty-five in Notizie degli Scavi (of these.–III d. 72. Fabbrini. “Beiträge zur Prosopographie von Concordia”. Scritti vari di antichità 1 (Roma 1962) 117–18. Broilo’s commentary to the inscriptions is rather well informed. 70–136).. and there are eleven inedita. F. dated mostly to the first two centuries of the Empire. Alföldy. G. 87. listed by Mommsen among the inscriptions from Concordia. No. and almost all coming either from Concordia itself or its territory. This is ingenious. 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. 28). 132 = CIL V 1948. Traia]ni. L’aerarium Saturni et l’aerarium militare (Paris 1974) 522–27. all illustrated by excellent photographs. Ad rem.Minima Epigraphia 495 109 No. 118 = CIL V 8712. 16–17). 194}) read as follows: “Pagi / Facanis / ped(es) M DCC / LV” and “Pagi / Valent(is) / p(edes) CCCCLI”. Line 3 Auruncl(eius) Mommsen. (?)] / tr(ibunus) pl(ebis)”. 257–64) 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. the obvious solution is Lucretius (Alföldy. The inscription is oddly construed. Alföldy. R. T. Broughton. and esp. cf. n. Friggeri and C. Lettich. Broilo connects these inscriptions with the viasii vicani mentioned in the lex agraria of 111 (CIL I2 585. No. “Roman Republican RoadBuilding”. line 1 is broken off and only traces of letters are discernible): “Andetius Cra[ssi (?) f. Alföldy 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. on the grounds that only the form Aurunculeius is attested. Pileiu[s M. 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. No. SI 411 {Lettich 16} reads (lines 2–4. this is unlikely. MRR 3 (1986) 156–57}. Pekary. Aurunci(us) Broilo. T. I wonder if the dead avus was not Pileius himself: the sign for obitus stands normally in front of the name of the deceased. Wiseman. Alföldy (pp. Now in a recently published Roman inscription (Tituli 2 [1980] 111. p. PBSR 37 [1970] 146–49). probably in the late Republic or under Augustus {a conclusion accepted by T. W. On the strength of the cognomen Iu]bae in line 2 Broilo rightly assigns this inscription to a member of the senatorial . but see the pantomime M. Also the theta nigrum calls for attention: to the handbook literature adduced by Broilo add the now fundamental study by R. 336) and 78 (= G. 19). and Broilo suggests that avo in line 3 may be a cognomen of Andetius. Broilo ingeniously reads V]ottic[ius/a] {cf. and thus the tribune may have been connected by ties of family and business with the Pilii known from Cicero. 303. no. No. Nos. Broilo postulates Arretius or Aretius. 129}). p. no. This is apparently an archaic form of the well attested Pilius. P. 203) observes that Auruncius “si adegua meglio all’impaginazione del testo”}. 298–99 {accepted by Lettich. Erman. Broilo claims that the gentilicium Pileius is not otherwise attested. 11) the syncopated form Auruncleius/Auruncleia appears four times {Lettich (p. Monumenti romani e cristiani di Iulia Concordia [Pordenone 1960] 60 {= Lettich 193. No. “Vivo e morto nelle iscrizioni di Roma”. Reduzzi Merola. Pelli. Die staatliche Organisation Italiens in der hohen Kaiserzeit [München 1979] 76). an inscription of a servus vicarius (a slave of a slave). But the viasii vicani are an elusive entity (cf. No. lines 11–13. and that the partially broken off last letter can be only L or I. Eck.] / avo y M. Brusin. Untersuchungen zu den römischen Reichsstrassen [Bonn 1968] 117–19. Servo parere (Napoli 1990)}. p. S. 90 = Pais. Servus vicarius (Lausanne 1896) {F. f. 200}. 77 (= NSc 1892. 76 = CIL V 1943. Tituli 2 (1980) 95–172. 75 = CIL V 1915 {Lettich 123}. 119 = CIL V 1879 {= Lettich 31}. 113 = CIL V 1950: ]retius. see the still basic study by H. Pileius Pierus (CIL IV 1901. pp. “Nuovi bolli laterizi di Ostia”. but he failed to see that the following fragments of nomina and cognomina belong to the same polyonymous man (see Alföldy. Bodel. See especially V.496 Historia et Epigraphia family of Desticii. with an excellent introduction (pp. Camilli. 391. F. 6 + 224 pls. Henrik LILIUS. Bloch. VII. I bolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana (Roma 1947) (originally published in BCAR 64–66 [1936–38]). Pp. 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. I bolli laterizi romani. vol. Margareta STEINBY e Jaakko SUOLAHTI sotto la direzione di Jaakko SUOLAHTI. Roman Brick Stamps in the Kelsey Museum (Ann Arbor 1983). This meant time-consuming “excavations” in various museums. 1 of the CIL. 1 and 2. Of especially great importance was the appearance of the fundamental study by H. La collezione Di Bagno (Bologna 1975). G. pts. part 2: tavole a cura di Margareta STEINBY. {L. A close collaboration of Italian1 and * 1 Classical Philology 78 (1983) 89–90 {with minor corrections and additions}. 1977. G. Paivi SETÄLÄ. In recent years Finland has emerged as a major scholarly power in the field of Roman bricks and brick stamps. Terza Miscellanea Greca e Romana (Roma 1971) 257–89. Tauno HUOTARI.557 entries. it was only in 1965 that a new round of studio approfondito of Roman bricks from old excavations began. Garofalo Zappa. publication of the inedita. Taglietti. 290–91). appendix di Heikki SOLIN. Jussi KUUSANMÄKI. C. J. As M. Among these works H. In 1930 L. “Nuovo contributo allo studio dei bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano”. Roma. P. pp. G. Camilli. it comprises 2. RAL 29 (1973) 295–348. Steinby recounts in her instructive introduction to Lateres signati Ostienses. Alfonsi Mattei. Helena PYÖTSIÄ. Taglietti. 1–5) on the history of the stamped brick studies. {See also the outstanding American contributions: J. Anderson. Schede a cura di Tapio HELEN. In Bloch’s 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. 1978. Roman Brickstamps: The Thomas Ashby Collection in the American Academy in Rome (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 3 [London 1991])}. Zara. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae. reprinted in one volume in 1948. F. and the checking of old readings against the originals. and 58–59 (1948) 1–104.3 STAMPED BRICKS* Lateres signati Ostienses. Hannele SOINI. Part 1: testo di Margareta STEINBY in collaborazione con Tapio HELEN. Righini. “Contributo allo studio dei bolli laterizi del Museo Nazionale Romano”. RAL 34 [1979] 187–212}. L. C. Dressel’s publication in CIL XV 1 of brick stamps from Rome and its vicinity occupies a place of honor. Wickert published a number of brick stamps from the new excavations at Ostia in the Supplementum Ostiense to CIL XIV (pp. 35. XV. Bloch also published an invaluable Supplement to vol. Pavolini. HSCP 56–57 (1947) 1–128. 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). 753–56). . Steinby. 15 (1978) 1489–1531. and the studies by M.304 entries. Organization of Roman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries A. Each entry is accompanied by a full lemma giving a list of earlier publications or discussions. Latin language and paleography. RE Suppl. Linc. Setälä.3 (1974) 61–109. 32 unpublished fragments. prosopography. “Ziegelstempel von Rom und Umgebung”. 1) [Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae XI (Roma 1987)}. the Finnish scholars studied the lateres from diverse points of view as a source for social and economic history. A discussion of the adopted reading or of the proposed solution of an abbreviation often follows. and reproduction of the text in minuscule with an attempt to solve all abbreviations. 33 lateres sine textu. “I bolli laterizi degli Antiquari del Foro e del Palatino”. A rich crop of books and articles2 brings credit to their authors. including 47 inedita. 17. indication of the shape of the brick. Following in the footsteps of Bloch.D. Steinby. be published separately as part 3 {these indices ultimately appeared as a much larger project: M. Private Domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire (Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 10 = Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae IX 2 [Helsinki 1977]). 2 See especially T. Suolahti was assigned the edition of the bolli laterizi preserved in the Castello of Giulio II in Ostia. For practical reasons the entries are arranged according to the numeration of CIL XIV and XV. and some 250 corrections to CIL XIV and XV 1. exact measurements of the brick and of the lettering. Helen. 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. BCAR 84 (1974–1975 [1977]) 7–132. Indici complementari ai bolli doliari urbani (CIL XV. . P. The edition contains a number of concordances and indices. however. Finally. This edition contains 1. “La cronologia delle figlinae doliari urbane dalla fine dell’età repubblicana fino all’inizio del III secolo”. and the exemplary edition of Lateres signati Ostienses crowns the efforts of the group. Acc.Minima Epigraphia 497 90 Finnish scholars characterized this new era of brick studies. indication of the number of known copies. full indices will. (Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 5 = Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae IX 1 [Helsinki 1975]). A team of Finnish scholars working under the direction of J. reproduction of the text in capital letters. Mem. . IV HISTORIA ET RELIGIO . . The bounds are thus established: the work is not intended to rival Wissowa as a mine of information. 1. Pp. Leiden (Brill). 2. I: A History. the great handbook of Roman religion. F.. is still a mine of information” (389). By J. keen minds.Soc. Proc. is not intended as a handbook or encyclopedia. 389–431. Wissowa (1912). PBSR 44 (1976) 1–12. JRS 70 (1980) 12–27. and to its execution the three noted authors bring erudition. Vol. e. XIV + 416. By S. A. So far some 150 (very uneven) volumes. This was certainly true of Rome.. JRS 70 (1980) 186–91. R. and above all it opposed oriental creeds to the religion of Rome itself. and is directed to people who may not be familiar with German. 43 figs. The reference is to Georg Wissowa’s immortal Religion und Kultus der Römer (2nd ed. vol. and style. 5 maps. Perhaps as a sign of the times it has since been replaced by an English appellation.1 Confident and inclusive is also the present opus. Beard: “The sexual status of Vestal Virgins”. 25 (1979) 85–103.Soc. there is 3 .g. 33 (1987) 1–15. and Pp. and this state of affairs was well expressed by the title of the well-merited series Études préliminaires aux réligions orientales dans l’Empire romain.Camb. John NORTH and Simon PRICE. Religions of Rome. Price: Rituals and power: the Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984). Philol.2 (2000) 453–463 {with minor modifications and addenda}.Camb.Philol. hence to a larger audience than the shrinking band of pristine classicists. 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”. Munich 1912).36 RELIGIO ET CULTUS DEORUM* Mary BEARD. “Religious toleration in Republican Rome”. figs. II: A Sourcebook (Cambridge University Press 1998). JRS 70 (1986) 38–43. “Between man and god: sacrifice in the Roman imperial cult”. This tendency is also present in the otherwise very expertly assembled ample bibliography (vol. 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. Schulz is listed only as History of Roman legal science (Oxford 1946 [the edition of 1953 ought to have been cited]). it will be useful to adduce a quote: “For those who know even a little German. 3 [Ann Arbor 1991]) 35–58. 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). sanguine and all-inclusive: Religions in the Graeco-Roman World. the standard book by F. Proc. “Writing and Religion”.3 Wissowa proceeded * 1 2 Journal of Roman Archaeology 13. Vol. “A complex of times: no more sheep on Romulus’ birthday”. Among their previous contributions there are many general favorites (though this epithet should not imply automatic agreement): by M. in Literacy in the Roman World (= JRA Suppl. North: “Conservatism and change in Roman religion”. XXIV + 454. (unnumbered).2 To form an idea of the intention and the scope of the enterprise. 375–401). “Novelty and choice in Roman religion”. .. Elm. D. 4 (1966) 89–104. Part III (380–566) treated of the “forms of cult”. M. North. a gripping analysis of the religio Romana versus “the other”: mysteries and mystery cults. It is followed by “The religions of imperial Rome”. feasts. games. – sacrifices. E. and the reception of his Religion und Kultus. “Roman religion and Roman Empire”. The brief introduction (1–17) he devoted to the sources and to a succinct and highly selective account of modern explorations of Roman religion. Price.2 (1989) 573–624. “The Roman nobility and the religion of the republican state”. shrines. not to say discursive. J. A. for instance “Religion and action” (42–54. Christians. and of oriental creeds (which Wissowa kept at a distance as sacra peregrina). a pioneering contribution to our understanding of the functioning of the state cult. in the middle of the book. Stoffel. Journ. Rüpke. “The Place of Religion: Rome in the Early Empire”. and magic). Even more expressive and programmatic are the titles of single chapters. “Religion in Republican Rome”. but they mix history. Jocelyn. development and transformation (especially the hellenization) of the Roman religion. is all reflection. D. and finally of the spread of oriental cults down to the eradication of all ancient religions under the onslaught of Christianity. Beard. CAH VII. Frateantonio. Part II (103–379) contained a systematic presentation of deities officially recognized by the Roman state. 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”. Prescendi. Gerión 20 (2002) 537–68. Among the publications in English. which was “ihrer Natur nach intoleranteste . perhaps the most inexplicable is the omission of H.Hist. M. and the probing articles by P. with a diachronic treatment of religious concepts and institutions and with general reflections on religion and religiosity. “Religion”. 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 römischen Rechtswissenschaft (Weimar 1961) which contains much ampler quotations of original sources. see the erudite and appreciative study by J. of the imperial cult. F. “The boundaries of Roman religion”.502 Historia et Religio 454 chronologically and systematically. A. These parts appear at first sight relentlessly chronological. that is persistence and change. North and Price! Where Wissowa was encyclopedic the three authors are story-telling. The fifth part. Jews. Of the three parts of the handbook the first (38–102) is a historical and narrative sketch of the origin. it showed that religio and pietas were well and very much alive in the last century of the Republic.Rel. S. and priests. “Cien años de Religion und Kultus der Römer”. aller Religionen” (95). C. indeed. of the Augustan reforms. Delgado Delgado. Pfaff-Reydellet in Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 5 (2003) 4-99.. {3a On Wissowa.4 that voluminous mastodon much advertised and little read.} 4 J. CAH X (1996) 812–47. R. and that consequently we should not place too much trust in the doubting literati or assertive Augustan propagandists (cf. The result is uneven.{3a} How different is the layout chosen by Beard. 150–51). impossible to summarize: it deals with everything) or “Defining the acceptable” and “Patrolling the acceptable” (214–44. and the intriguingly posed final problem of “Roman religion and Christian emperors”. three chapters of the book derive (though with substantial changes) from the pieces they contributed to the new edition of Cambridge Ancient History. CAH IX (1994) 729–68. Div.. Mercury (from Plautus’ Amphitryo). Bits and pieces of priests. for instance. the deities of Rome. on the other. Livy (perhaps surprisingly) leads with twenty excerpts followed by Cicero with twelve. But the praise is mixed: it is magniloquent if we regard the book as a work of informed. For all excerpts are in translation. Minucius Felix’s 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).10: penthiacum et eiusmodi nenias rustici faciunt). There is. See Cic. Dionysius of Halicarnassus. inspired scholarship aimed at a broad readership. threats to Roman order. Jupiter and Trajan (the arch at Beneventum). gods. only they are too short and there are too few of them. it is much more expressive: long extracts speak louder and clearer than short quotes and mere citations. Plutarch with eight. religious groups. Pliny the Younger with six. divination and diviners. still substantially short of Wissowa’s massive accumulation of sources (although it contains a number of texts either unknown or not utilized by Wissowa). Dom. It consists of thirteen parts: earliest Rome.Religio et Cultus Deorum 503 455 into one pot (Petr. phrases.5 or the inspection of the liver. 40. individuals and gods: life and death. no systematic account of Roman gods or of Roman priests or of the procedures of the cult itself.74. Latin and Greek are not allowed to speak for themselves. Greek. and from inscriptions (115 entries). but muted if we reckon it as a work of pure Wissenschaft. resp. religious places. we will find merely a cursory description and only the briefest theoretical investigation of the notions of sacrifice or divination. on the one hand. Let us take up gods and ritual. In the chapter on “The deities of Rome” (26–59) we have the following procession: Venus (a painting from Pompeii). their textual analysis. in addition there are scores of texts from authors obscure to most classicists. the reader whose bent is toward “liturgy” would prefer more Roman facts and less modern talk. it is to be acknowledged. Varro. Sat. 2. Rome outside Rome. and of sacrificial animals (like those of Pentheus) crop up in various (s)pots of the book. and not only to the “educated public”. This volume thus appears as a sort of antiquarian counterpart to the volume of historical explorations. Roman and Christian). but. the calendar. perspectives (the view of the religio. the volume of sources will be a treasure trove. for so early in the chapter). step by step. Direct references to ancient sources are scant (Wissowa bristles with substantial footnotes). No scientific study of any topic in history or the humanities can proceed without the engagement of original sources. sacrifices. festivals and ceremonies. . and yes. 47. Scholars lose.. These accounts. next (rather oddly. This documentation is. The educated public perhaps gains. or the observation of birds. are often models of precision and good sense. Pliny the Elder. but on closer inspection the antiquarian is only half-satisfied. priests and priestesses. and terms. Har. and coins (10). But if we wanted to learn how the act of Roman sacrifice proceeded. 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. There is a middle way (though more expensive): to provide both original texts and translations. 48. papyri (11). Still. and Ovid with five. and Augustine with seven each. investigation of the idiom. “one god” (an inscription from Lycia). or 2. They are expertly explained. The same observation applies to the chapters on sacrifices and diviners: again a procession of evocative texts and images. an impressionistic aside. Yet this is an appealing mixture. and two excerpts from Livy and an excerpt from Lucretius).. further various volumes of EPRO–RGRW with their rich iconographic documentation. Turcan.g. These maps speak more eloquently than would perhaps any narrative. next the location of the sanctuaries of Magna Mater. At the very outset of vol. Rites of the State Religion (Mem. 7 [1990] 142–71) treats of the shaping of the national sacred space from the French revolution to the Nazis. relief of Aeneas on the Ara Pacis. In their sensitivity to that fundamental fact the three authors surpass most of their textbook predecessors. and of course Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. Scott Ryberg. of Mithras (40 entries).504 Historia et Religio gods. They are to be warmly commended for their presentation of sacral topography and geography and. the paper by K. also of the visual face of the cult. 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). Magna Mater – Cybele (reliefs depicting her arrival in Rome and her chariot. 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. I take this opportunity to recommend the periodical Visible Religion (Leiden. Romulus (as an example of becoming a god). Vis. Lares (two statuettes). the deities of the marriage bed (more ridicule. so appealing that it is difficult to put the volume down. 2. Euhemerism (Ennius in Lactantius). invisible (Minucius Felix defends the Christian worship). Students of Roman history and of Roman religion will derive from this paper much instruction. Vesta (from Ovid). R. but still only a scattered insight.85. Juno (her evocatio from Veii as imagined by Livy). For instance. Religions exist not only in time but also in space. one god. the deification of abstract ideas (here in the chapter on Roman gods Cicero makes at last his appearance after two Christians). Syro-Phoenician and Egyptian deities (31 entries).307. with significant details often clearly marked (e. this time by Augustine). the deification of Antoninus Pius and Faustina (a relief). the Sibylline books and the introduction of Aesculapius. non-Roman and un-Roman. that cannot replace a systematic presentation of the world of gods.Am. Caesar on Gallic gods. a great resource with an unfortunate denomination intimating that all ancient religions were just mythologies.Rel. a prayer to Robigo (from Ovid). the ass-headed god (ridicule of Christians).Ac. through the many illustrations. Certainly an assemblage of texts and images that instructs and fascinates. Religion romaine 1–2 (in the series Iconography of religions [Leiden 1988]). Hoffmann-Curtius (“Altäre des Vaterlandes: zur Genese eines neuen Typus von Kriegerdenkmälern in der Weimarer Republik”. Brill). Commodus as Hercules (a statue). Honos et Virtus (a coin). and not only for contributions dealing with ancient religions. Attis (three figurines). two inscriptional dedications from Britain to Mars Alator and Nudens Mars. Roman debate on the character of the gods (from Cicero). a mixture of things Roman. and of Jewish and Christian catacombs (68 entries). . Mithras slaying a bull). in Rome 23 [Rome 1955]). They bring ad oculos the extraordinary spread and appeal of oriental 6 The unsurpassed collections remain I.6 And those illustrations are not merely reproduced and left to the untutored imagination of the viewer. Apollo Caelispex and Fortuna in and around the Roman Cattle Market”. It is a guided tour. As a result very many and very pertinent publications by R. A. Was it possible to be converted to the Roman religion? Hardly. To name here only a few: “The neighborhood of Sullan Bellona at the Colline Gate”.Arch. Students of religions must be courageous. “C. Gods of the Hills. This is the highest praise for any feat of mind. However. 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. Yet there are degrees. In the act of conversion it is certainty that replaces another certainty. MEFRA 87 (1975) 653–65. and the best recommendation for a book in search of debate. E. intrigues. a vociferous argument. Certainly not from the cult of Rome to that of Athens or vice versa.7 If there is place for general presentations.Acad.. “Jupiter Blaze. it is true. Verres’ legacy of charm and love to the city of Rome: a new document”. infuriates. A. the present book fills it admirably. This goes to the heart of the matter: we may defend a theory to the bitter or ridiculous end. But you were also free to worship any 7 But it must be observed that these chapters treat primarily of the Empire. “The landscape of official cults at Rome” and on “The visibility of religion” (171–81. “Cults of Hercules. are not even mentioned. it is a signal achievement born of erudition and the spirit of intellectual adventure. The sacra publica formed part and parcel of the res publica. see below) in the very capital of the empire. containing inter alia a marvelous investigation of Mercury and his Roman doings (esp. otherwise we are not scientists. As such. and a market of ideas. Rend. and now an engrossing monograph. and the Roman topography of CIL VI 377”. Palmer. Religions. It is also testimony to scholarly courage. but these were the exceptional times when the old religion assumed many features of the new. And everybody will agree that the chapters on “Myths and place”. . 1979–80) 111–36. 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. an insistent reflection. writes objectively about religion” (XII). for whatever they proffer or profess there will be a legion of malcontents. 51–52 (1978–79. It instructs.Religio et Cultus Deorum 505 456 cults (on this denomination. but at least notionally we must be prepared to toss it away. D. pageantry and politics. deal in absolutes. as theories do not exist without agents who propound them. introductions and advocacies. JRA 3 (1990) 234–44. monuments. and believers do not regard their creed as subject to refutation or “falsification”. and there is a test.. on the other hand. of “conversions back from Christianity to paganism” (156–60). The authors wisely concede that “no one . 249–78) belong to the best in the book with their dazzling amalgamation of space. AJA 80 (1976) 43–56. Rome and Carthage at Peace (= Historia Einzelschriften 113 [Stuttgart 1997]). This inelegant term defines the foundation stone of modern science: scientific are only such views that can be proven wrong or “falsified”. and if you were a Roman citizen it was your civic duty to honor and worship the gods of the state. It has to do with the concept of falsibility. a treasure trove for urban topography and religious history and a lesson in the method of investigation. and despite all the wealth of information they offer only a very selective tour of the sacred places of the city. 80–103). very sparingly of the Republic.Pont. Nock in his famous Conversion (Oxford 1933) speaks. M.8 decided to discuss in his vast encyclopedia of Antiquitates the res humanae before the res divinae. Jocelyn.J. de omni natura deorum) but rather of the cult.8). In his rebuttal Augustine concentrates on Varro’s admission that if he were writing of the whole nature of gods he would have indeed written first about the gods. and thus to the ultimate reality of animus. very consequently. as he put it. and their heirs. were not only exclusive of other deities. In other words. Terentius Varro.9 By and large this was also the stance 8 9 Cf. It was that openness of the system that was unnerving to its ancient and modern opponents. the first twelve books Varro devoted to the organization and details of the cult. Quite wrongly. and selecti). who quotes this statement of Varro.4). provided that it was not a cult deemed dangerous to the state and declared by the legally constituted authorities a prava religio.Rylands Library 65 (1982) 148–205. Bull. 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. This is disingenuous for Augustine (whom we cannot accuse of obtuseness) must be only pretending not to understand Varro’s position. of individual civitates. prior faber quam aedificium. The church author exclaims incredulously quasi hic de aliqua scribat et non de omni. D. incerti. It was in this way that Varro could reconcile the plurality of gods with the idea of a . “Varro’s Antiquitates Rerum diuinarum and religious affairs in the late Roman Republic”. Many modern scholars and ideologues of that bent were hardly prepared to regard the religio of the Romans as a religion at all. postea de hominibus. Augustine. a localibus ad inlocalia. He argued that “just as the painter exists before the picture. was scandalized. Varro did not dispute the existence of gods or the possibility of a philosophical investigation of their nature.D. Thus. H. so the states (or societies) precede the institutions that are set up by them” (sicut prior est pictor quam tabula picta. and opposed to Varro’s historical approach a dogmatic statement: vera autem religio non a terrena aliqua civitate instituta est (C. but also convinced that that there was only one true god—their own. the res divinae. according to whom Varro in his philosophy proceeded a visilibus ad invisibilia. 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. who knew more of the Roman religion than any modern scholar ever will. attempted an underhanded rebuttal. the Christians. He did not write of gods as such (or. We can here adduce the opinion of Claudianus Mamertus. and the builder before the building. And he concluded that res divinae ab hominibus institutae sunt. and not the whole”. 6. 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. “as if in this place he were dealing only with part of divine nature.506 Historia et Religio other deity and practice any cult. si de omni natura deorum scriberet). but he claimed that the existing cults were the product of men. quae a civitatibus instituta sunt). he distinguished cult from philosophy. ita priores sunt civitates quam ea. whom he divided into three categories (dei certi. and only in the second place about the men (dicit autem prius se scripturum fuisse de diis. and only in the last three books did he turn to the object of worship and treat of individual gods. a corporeis ad incorporea (De statu animae 2. a fifth century presbyter from Gaul. by contrast. 11 The allegorical treatise by Martianus Capella is not utilized in either of the volumes. with the censorship of thought inescapably ensuing and the purging of discordant views: certainly “modern” but hardly a sign of “sophistication”. Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport. J. M. Calder has aptly labelled English dilettantism versus German Wissenschaft: see his “Classical scholarship in the United States”. “The theological efforts of the Roman upper classes in the first century B. A. in which Marcus speaks in his own Academic and sceptic voice. 45. 12 The book was published nine years after the first edition of Wissowa’s Religion und Kultus. for among many other delights it is also a major source for the Etruscan (and Roman) doctrine of the heavenly abodes of the gods. Varron théologien et philosophe romain (Collection Latomus 237 [Bruxelles 1997]) 366–67. Y. cf. (ed. Lehmann. This nicely underscores a feature of that epoch. 1994) XXV. J. we hasten cosmic Jupiter as animus mundi. “traditional Roman paganism was strikingly complex – in its priestly organization. Momigliano. a phenomenon that W. and one year before the second edition. but it still misses a pivotal point. into the mouthpiece of God in His demand for the righteousness of man. very felicitously draws attention to the passage of Mamertus.10–11. Div. . 199. Cf. 1). “Cicero and Roman Divination”.45–61). That new creed regarded moral questions not only as its proper province but indeed as its exclusive domain. For as they say. quid malum. for instance as to how we should behave with respect to our parents. All this is right and correct. The three authors announce (XI) that their book “focuses on the changes in religious life at Rome”. what is morally right. in its range of divinities. 10 Cic. No student of religion can ultimately avoid or evade choosing between Varro (and Cicero) and Augustine. moral obligations. but at the same time they point out that this is “not a matter of tracing a linear development. or morally wrong. and in its relations with the religious systems of its neighbours”.12 But in order not to be accused of blatant partisanship.”. the author of the once standard book in English on Roman religion. Linderski. from primitive religious simplicity in the early city to something approaching modern sophistication a thousand years later”.. in this volume. Nor do we consult haruspices about our officia. CP 79 (1984) 199–211 (cf. brothers or friends.3}. quid neutrum. regiones caeli (1. we do not consult diviners but turn for answers to philosophers to whom such questions rightfully belong. In the second book of the latter treatise. as did the wise men or seers of Israel. the nuptiae Philosophiae et Christi (the Neo-Platonists paving the way). PP 37 (1982 [1983]) 16–19 = Roman Questions (Stuttgart 1995) 462–65. the Roman diviner merely assisted the pontifex in his work of robbing religion of the idea of righteousness” (292). 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. {Cf.). W. but does not discuss its implications for Varro’s theology.C. Cf. He wrote of the Roman priests: “instead of developing.10 Cicero’s statement illuminates the profound chasm between the religio Romana and religio Christiana. a pity. or neither the one or the other. One scholar who chose Augustine was W. 2.Religio et Cultus Deorum 507 458 of Cicero in his treatises On the Nature of Gods and On Divination. Briggs. The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London 1911). in W. Jr. No. And this point is – to paraphrase the title of Martianus Capella’s De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii11 – the annexation of philosophy by the Church. Warde Fowler. he says that when we wish to be informed quid bonum sit. 2. CT. n.177. had obliterated the temples of local religions in the north. an evolutionary product of human brain. Wes. This writer. historian in exile. he found it still alive. as after the Islamic conquests the Christians themselves were painfully to discover. The New York Review of Books 46. and appears in the text under the innocuous heading “Imperial religious policy” (369–75). then at least the reader ought to be informed where the author stands. he went to India (in 1936–37) where. ANRW 2. This was an unpleasant affair. only the truth. They brutally spell out the puzzling but all-too-real transition from the old to the new Rome. Michels and the religio”. they had penetrated deep into the south and desecrated temples there”. Russian roots in an American context (Historia Einzelschriften 65 [Stuttgart 1990]) 79–81. When Michael Rostovtzeff wished to re-create for himself the long-gone and destroyed past that he had studied in Greece and Rome.15 somebody must speak for Jupiter. he wrote. “A. {Cf.16 Why have the “pagan” cults of India survived.4 (1997) 323–45 at 336–37 {= No. 108. The Preface in the book here dissected opens with the fulminations of Pope Gelasius (ca 495) against the feast of Lupercalia. from that great writer between the two worlds. The other persecution. Naipaul.14 The Rome of Gelasius was also a desecrated city. A. This is not a condemnation. and ineffectual. CJ 92. the moment and the subject are brilliantly chosen.. If Ronald Syme decided to speak for Antonius. as should be obvious. “The writer and India”. the great and lasting persecution that resulted in the closing of thousands of temples. 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”. apparently a fertility ceremonial). 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. 49 in this volume}. Linderski. Another quote comes to mind. the historians of religion must. They set the tone. Those churches (we may add) rose on the ruins of ancient temples. The person.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. In the index there is the entry “persecution of Christians”. but somehow endowed with luminous significance. In this perspective religion is solely a social phenomenon. n. If students of religion hold any certainties of their own. but short-lived. For if nobody writes objectively about religion. the bitter words about the calamities of India: “the Muslim invaders . it has no less been bedeviled by those adherents of the Enlightenment whose rationalism is so fierce that they cannot take seriously any religion.16. 4 (March 4. whereas those of Rome and Greece. or. S.. “that old pagan ritual that would not die” in a Rome that was now “securely Christian” (IX).3 (1986) 2207. Cf. No. more exactly. The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1939) 104–5. is an adherent of Science. and why do they thrive today. 46 in this volume}. receives no mention in the index. have succumbed to another but doctrinally similar and equally zealous enemy? The antiquarian descriptions of cult need not pose those questions. 226.13 Thus one ought to read prefaces. Michael Rostovtzeff. no less so than the Delhi of the Moguls or the Moscow of Lenin. V. K. they should reveal them. M. By word alone it was not a pre-ordained outcome. and of northern Europe. 13 14 15 16 . 1999) 12. but in real history the sword is a very persuasive missionary. “The Augural law”. The authors point out that the cult of Mithras had little in common with the Egyptian cults of Sarapis and Isis. If this is hateful. beginning with the ill-fated worshippers of Bacchus of Bacchanalian fame. as used by Roman authorities of Christian cult (cf. 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 (214–27). “for a general critique of ‘Orientalism’”. 242). In addition to two classicists who question the term. or collectively classical or ancient religions. It is for this reason that the authors’ ultimate insensitivity to words is so startling. Said. Greek. 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. 2). This term was made canonical by the great Franz Cumont through his book Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain (Paris 1905. namely as an organized community of believers outside the bounds of the civic religion (cf. It is not “politically correct”. but above all. a book by E. and hence “oriental cults” is a convenient. 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. It is even more startling because of the battle they wage against the denomination “oriental cults” (246–47). “Pagan” in a scientific discourse has its place only if put into the mouth of Christians. Now. certainly those of Isis and Mithras. and that in general “there is as much to separate these new ‘Eastern’ cults. they all came from the East. and seemingly innocuous description. they were precursors of the Christian Church in something as important as the message itself. Iberian. All those contortions are unnecessary when an apt and neutral description is at hand: Roman religion (or cult). so is paganus. the Christians themselves thought otherwise: in a truly ecumenical spirit they destroyed the shrines of Jupiter along with the Isaea and Mithraea. W. but we have found ‘traditional civic polytheism’ (and similar alternatives suggested) more cumbersome and no less – if differently – loaded” (IX. a celebrity scholar and noted advocate of Near Eastern causes. If we really are in need of a loaded and unpleasant word we have not far to seek: superstitio. North and Price are excellent historians. 4th ed. not so. 225–27. belonged to the same ideological spectrum as the Christianity. and that consequently it is solely a modern assumption to regard them as “precursors and rivals to Christianity”. not inaccurate. and it is mystifying even to suggest that this linguistic monster is equally loaded as the plain and dismissive paganus. This is doubly lame. Historians can be expected to be aware that words do matter. the authors adduce also. n. Orientalism (New York 1978) is . There remains the label itself.Religio et Cultus Deorum 509 The captivating opening strikes a disconcerting note. His book. Celtic. Some of those religions. Of course. They further point out that not all of those cults “shared a common preoccupation with ‘salvation’”. as there is to group them together into a single category”. Somehow we do not hear of cults from Iberia or Germany invading Rome. not merely one lux but the whole array of luces ex Oriente. No doubt an ideologically neutral term would be preferable. 1927). Beard. 42–43). in origin a specifically Christian way of describing its enemy. 510 Historia et Religio 460 instructive. so as Cicero and Varro were able to view it. often offering in beguiling disguises tradition as innovation and innovation as a return to the past.. in catastrophe and suppression. Only then we might be free to move backwards to the middle Republic and perhaps consider disentangling Greek and Roman elements. The authors sensibly take as their point of departure the last three centuries of the republic (16–17) and observe that as far back as we can go. We know how and when religio et cultus deorum ended. but always keeping an eye on the Italic. 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. K. But such an “uncontaminated” strand had never existed. and J. and misleading. 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. Latte. And there is no reason to abandon history. 18 For assessments that do not mince words. tried to project them onto the Roman mind. Michels. East and West are not merely fictions of imagination and products of imperialist propaganda: they are all that but also hard facts of history. 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. Now. but these images “are central to the way the Romans made sense of their own religion” (4–5).18 17 Provided that we do not abscond into the dreamland of Dumezilian tri-functional fantasies. 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. Indo-European17 and Etruscan backdrop of Roman cult. Let us first reconstruct the practice of Roman cult. in her review of the notoriously misguided book by K. trying to find in some remote past a pure and “uncorrupted” version of Roman religiosity. 12). n. this is how the scholarly investigation of Roman religion has actually and historically proceeded. strong and personal – much stronger than they receive in the book (11–12). insightful. we always find “an amalgam of different traditions” (13). “finding the religion of the early Romans”. As a matter of fact. Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1960). They are also central to the way many modern scholars made nonsense of Roman religion. see A. an insult to Wissowa as his replacement in Müller’s Handbuch. the three authors seemingly begin at the beginning. day by day and place by place. . (7) It is this feature of the Roman cult that was particularly abhorrent to those scholars who. Even god(s) had to start somewhere. . Laudably they find nothing of the kind: the sources being largely inadequate and misleading we deal only with images of early Rome. AJP 83 (1962) 434–44. The upholders of this baleful procedure deserve rejection and condemnation. and then attempt a much more difficult step: to comprehend the theory or (if we wish to call it so) theology of that cult. In the book Dumézil receives a polite but firm rebuttal (14–16). describing the first chapter as a process. Linderski (above. But then there is also the problem of the beginning. attached to their own certainties.. They were constantly re-interpreted and re-explained by their participants”. Every religious system is a shimmering mix of continuity and change. magistrates and the senate could keep them on the side of the city” (34). Pliny in his Natural History (11. At the same time they “could not be reliably controlled or predicted”. rather. “Roman state religion”. not continuities. The authors put it rather well: the Roman gods were not “irresponsible”. 2. How did this communication proceed? The authors list (in this order) auspices (21–23). The exact year of the “reign” of the rex sacrorum is conspicuously not given. would have been recorded” (10). cum rex Pyrrhus ex Italia decessisset. but also various explicit examples of this ubiquitous phenomenon. was amended to take account of the heart in addition to other vital organs”. no matter: for in order to comprehend what it really says. An important observation. But then gods “could be negotiated with”. crit. vows. and the mention of Pyrrhus’ departure from Italy provides the historical circumstance for the consultation. 196. interpretation upon interpretation – a normal process. sacrifices. The authors further claim that “the date of the change is given by the year of the reign of the rex sacrorum”. We observe that the paraphrase given in the book changes the concrete into the abstract. “Only changes. R. we do not deal here at all with the dating according to his years of office. The Romans called this desired status pax deum.23–24 (Göteborg 1906. and one would wish that the authors had provided not only a theoretical disquisition. opts for 275. What was the goal of Roman cult? Through all the changes this goal remained unchanged: to assure for Rome the protection of gods. Postumio L. cor in extis haruspices inspicere coeperunt. The date is 274. we must consult the original: L. see C. S.. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York 1951) vol. . Mayhoff in his Teubner text (1875). and “the skill of the priests. reprinted Darmstadt 1968). 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). Broughton. see his app. but by whom? It turns out not by Roman priests but by Etruscan haruspices. prayers. <f. This is rather peculiar for the subject itself – the communication between the republic and its gods – is naturally broached in many places. always a distortion. Thulin. especially animal sacrifices and the inspection 19 So C. That apparently important passage does not figure in vol.> Albino19 rege sacrorum post CXXVI Olympiadem. 20 For this understanding of Pliny’s passage.Religio et Cultus Deorum 511 461 Thus change upon change. Is it likely that a Roman source would have known precisely the date of a major innovation in the practice of haruspicina ? Not very. the dating. but T. 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. O. and unless the numeral had fallen out in the manuscripts. The Olympiad date leads us perhaps to an (intermediary) Greek source. and the active into the passive.186) “notes the precise year in which the standard procedure for examining entrails of sacrificial animals . which was probably conducted under the supervision of the rex sacrorum.20 Next. 1.. as welcome as it is. as is also another familiar denomination. The entrails are examined. Die etruskische Disciplin 2. and thus Pliny (and his ultimately priestly source) will hardly be informing us about a new doctrinal departure in the Etrusca disciplina . The example they chose is not entirely fortunate. This term is absent from the discussion. Thus the Roman religion was not a revealed religion. 22 For this concept. and the rules by which they are governed. for instance: what was the distinction between prodigies and oblative auspices? (The answer: the former pertained to the general status of the republic. “The Augural law”.16. We divide all religious acts into two categories: those initiated by the gods and those initiated by the people.23 The communication with the god(s) is always a two-way path.42–43.3 (1986) 2238–39. The god of the Hebrews dictated or inspired whole reams of sacred texts in the language of his people. laudably translated in 2. The latter are numerous: all kinds of addresses to the deity (precationes). as was to be expected. and much was shared with the Italics. next the consultation of the Sibylline books and of the oracles. but the amalgamation. 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. and that ought to be discussed in every book on Roman religion. The result was described as scientia.5. the latter to a concrete action which was underway). Silent gods are useless to a religion. its modus operandi. are few and far between: occasional voices. and this provides a ready and objective approach to the cult. The former. a concept that offers a key to the mind of Roman priests.6 and 50. and he has made this obvious but profound observation: the auspices descend from the sky. Linderski. but also assume that the deity is interested in the people. Yet we must not forget that we are dealing not with a haphazard assemblage but with a system of practices and beliefs. further all sorts of sacrifices. and that the people are able to communicate with it. ANRW 2. in particular animal sacrifices and the inspection of the exta. it had no founder – a point that has to be repeated again and again. Many questions immediately obtrude.512 Historia et Religio 462 of entrails. and a category of auspices (the so-called auspicia oblativa). but for the Roman gods only few utterances in Latin are on record. 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. Livy 5. elaboration and systematization of all these strands was the work of the priests. it seems to be dictated by the vagaries of the narrative and of sociological theories. . 1. although they may find their place in a philosophical system like that of the Epicureans. here again we encounter the fundamen21 Aius Locutius. And such a system is not unlike any other phenomenon of nature: it has its own internal rules. Much in it goes back to the common Indo-European heritage.21 they spoke in the language of signs the exact significance of which had to be established by trial and error.32. the humans receive the former but send the latter. especially the address asking for a sign (auspicium impetrativum). an idiom mutually understandable to humans and to gods.22 When Georges Dumézil did not try to impose India upon Rome. see J. Now every religion must posit not only the existence of gods or god. The order is baffling. above all the pontiffs and the augurs. hence to the maintenance of the pax deum. 277. But to communicate a language is needed. but especially the prodigies. cf. prodigies (32–39). 23 Mythe et épopée (Paris 1968) vol. the sacrifices rise from the earth. 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. much is due to the Etruscans. he was a keen observer of Roman realities. g. Essays in honor of Anna Lydia Motto and John R.). with the gods never assembled together. the gentes. For it is omnipresent in the Roman world in countless dedications. friendly or hostile. but who were not recognized as the gods of the republic (e. This is philosophical speculation. and continued through all other manifestations of the cult. This approach. and of doctrinal speculation. and Varro (Festus 454 L. Veritatis Amicitiaeque causa. one small step after another. puts at its heart “The Religion of Rome” and not “The Religions of Rome”. and not from the once fashionable Polynesian mana or from the currently supreme eminences of sociology and ethnography. In this way we will be drawn. J. . families and households. in S. into the intricate logic and performance of the religio. Martianus Capella (cf. animal sacrifices versus fruit offerings.. For we must beware of transferring the cool legalism of Roman state cult to popular religiosity. 2. Byrne and E. we should rather think of the priestly doctrine of the sedes deorum as exemplified by the Piacenza liver. And then we should ask who were the administrators of those earthly rites. Illusions of course. next. A similar dissection ought to be conducted with respect to sacrifices (e. overpowering. but also realities of mind and life. of ritual. 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. 49–50. in the chapter on “Individual and gods: life and death”. “Roman religion: fragments and further questions”. We are rather referring to that spontaneous. 11). And they pertained not so much to individuals but to subdivisions of the community. and that history is mainly a history of politics. Roman words and Roman images. N. 25 See the excellent piece by W. but it will endure and the vogue will pass. Clark (Wauconda. Cueva. The approach here advocated derives its inspiration from Roman realities.. of the religious duties of magistrates. and who were the particular addressees in the sky and in the underworld. and of “mentalities” (a diffuse Parisian invention). or regular sacrifices versus piacular). In the book by Beard. accorded a high place. Mithras or Christus). This approach may be deemed old-fashioned if not obscurantist. 26 Cf. 1998) 273–91. and finally of the rôle of the senate and of the popular assemblies in the realm of religio. above. all of them for the Romans largely irrelevant. reverence and understanding. 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. 216–36. vows and offerings. At vol. Tatum.146–67) on the sedes deum sanctae. and humble feeling of attachment to the Deity that individuals experience out of fear or gratitude. a passage from Lucretius (5. P. North and Price all the accumulated moles of Roman cult.26 There are a few remarks about 24 Cf. the pontiffs. IL.g.25 Only the blind or deaf or indoctrinated will not see or hear or comprehend it.Religio et Cultus Deorum 513 463 tal division between the action and the status). as will readily be discerned.38. 42–43. This whole world is relegated to a few peremptory paragraphs. The first question would entail a systematic discussion of obligations and prerogatives of individual priests and of priestly colleges – a fundamental differentiation. But above all this history of religions is a godless book. This we must not deny to the Romans. n. 2. A separate disquisition will be needed of those deities with whom the Roman state had official dealings. is only a preamble to history. 33–40) is intimately revealing. There is no mention of the numerous dedications ex visu or iussu. This creates the false impression that the common people did not care for the Capitoline gods. Yet the readers will render thanks for there are many novel and riveting riches in this authoritatively imposing History. is a battlefield. as alive in the lives and dreams of ordinary people. The subject may well have been pursued in some detail for it offers an insight into popular religiosity. reproach unspoken. Acts of the Apostles. aristocratic and imperial funerals. so must this essay of conversation and confrontation. Caesar and emperors as gods. we part. 1.79. Lucretius. and the dreambook of Artemidorus is of interest not only because of his interpretation of the dream of having intercourse with one’s mother (Oneir. Porphyry. Thus. and salvation through Osiris). and dreams (13). with many a praise unsung. Aelius Aristides. Jupiter the Best and the Greatest and Mars the Parent of the Romans. for it shows gods and goddesses.514 Historia et Religio the anatomical vota. the theme of carpe diem. question unasked and lesson not learnt. like the religion itself. The field of religious studies. . But if the saecula must end someday. with much human business presumably unfinished and perfection not achieved. the whole turba of other deities and the countless cultores may complain. His systematic description of divine appearances in dreams (Oneir. This is not the book about them. we have a parade of republican nobles. 2. Juno. Augustine. not wise but wiser. Origen. and so it will remain (let us fervently pray. not swords) ad saecula saeculorum.192–93). with words only. Arnobius. and only four documents commemorating humble people (the discharge of vota to Hercules and Bona Dea. to us mere pictures. translated at 2. Pp. 33). defined by the rotation of the earth. Those tools are calendar and chronology. . It sinks.37 A CALENDAR FOR ROME?* Jörg RÜPKE. These celestial bodies figure prominently in early religions. and would be appalled by the style. Calendar is as much a province of religion as of history. The opening chapter on “Social Dimension of Time” combines the shallowness of American politology with the ponderous weight of German idiom. the excellent Domi Militiae. for in the past Rüpke produced works of erudition and lucidity. 1995. Basic units offer themselves: day. possessed them. the progress of the moon and the apparent progress of the sun. They would welcome the subject. and the change of seasons controlling the rhythm of cultic and civic life spawned a variety of festivals and celebrations.4 (1998) 464–468 {with minor addenda}. They narrate. No. Historians have no such trouble. Like many other current German publications (cf. massive and erudite (it boasts of seventy two pages of densely packed bibliography. 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 Wünsch (of Sethianische Verfluchungstafeln and Ioannes Lydus fame). the title of which can perhaps be best rendered as “The Calendar and the Public.5 pages of text. month and year. the progress of time as it engenders and engulfs one civilization upon another. Die Geschichte der Repräsentation und religiösen Qualifikation von Zeit in Rom (Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 40).. . 11}) it threatens to be the miscarriage of a mésalliance between sociology and antiquarianism. Thus it is only appropriate that the book by Rüpke. Historians have refined the latter. though most titles are never actually quoted). dass beide Zeiten stark strukturiert sind” (p. The book. the remarks in Gnomon 68 [1996] 560 {reprinted in this volume. Kalender und Öffentlichkeit. a slim but probing monograph devoted to a scholar for whom both * Classical Journal 93.. Die religiöse Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (Stuttgart 1990) and Römische Religion bei Eduard Norden (Marburg 1993). verstanden als sozial geschichtetes Gebilde. applaud the erudition. sie unterscheiden zwischen input-Zeiten und outputZeiten. This is a pity. To calibrate that senseless process tools are needed. Filterfunktion. For instance: “Die Kalender der Teilsysteme haben gegenüber der Gesellschaft. Für das religiöse System sei nur soviel gesagt. 740. with detached serenity. but every civilization. and the historians themselves.” illustrates well the distance from the founders. Philosophers fret about the direction of the arrow of time. and astronomers the former. however primitive. a ratio of one page of bibliography to 8. Berlin-New York: Walter De Gruyter. the last foreign modern masters mentioned appear to be Mommsen. Fortunately we soon leave the morass of spurious theory and reach the lacunose but solid ground of epigraphy. his impiety unable to be washed away by any atonement. Rüpke offers intelligent summaries. Fasti Sorrinenses maiores and minores. Degrassi. Only a few fragmentary pieces came to light after this date: minor addenda to the Fasti fratrum Arvalium. 191–484). fully understanding what he was doing. Flavius who was credited with publishing the fasti – although what precisely he did or did not do is a matter of perennial controversy (despite Rüpke’s efforts it remains a bog of interpreters{1}). useful aggiornamenti. which Rüpke very aptly characterizes as “zeitliches Eigentum von Gottheiten. 2. No Michels (cf. Fasti Capuani. Fasti vici Iugarii.516 Historia et Religio 465 Rüpke and the present writer share common admiration. Almost all of these documents were published with an extensive commentary by A. doubts and disagreements. an engaging discussion of the decemviral reform of the calendar. the feriae. A peculiar feature of Roman calendar was cautious definition of the cultic and civic character of each day. It was a serious business. if the praetor inadvertently (imprudens) uttered these words on a dies nefastus. Tra fantasie e favole romane e romanistiche (Roma 1996). he was (according to the opinion of the learned pontifex maximus Q. and finally of the introduction of the Julian calendar. of the lex Acilia and the pontifical intercalation. could take place only on days that were fasti (from fari. 41–42. 161–69). on purpose. Part III “Kalender und Gesellschaft” (pp. 6. Degrassi’s opus remains a monumental achievement of Roman studies. and it deserves to be presented clearly and plainly. 45–188) deals with the specimens of Roman calendars (fasti). pp. 487–628) is devoted to religious feasts. inter alia. Cancelli. points out. About the calendar it is fantastically and fabulously uninformed. he had to offer a sacrifice of expiation. Fasti villae Maxentii. Part I (pp. Mucius Scaevola) impius forever. discussions and propositions we select a few crustula. Italiae XIII. 53). and proffer agreements. ‘to speak’): only on those days could the praetor utter the hallowed formula do dico addico. and probing questions. Lat. But if he uttered them prudens. Like many other books compiled by modern Italian jurisprudents it is studded with footnotes – and vacuous.29–30.” Out of this copia of facts. As Rüpke (pp. 130–48. 1–2 (Rome 1963). and especially the calendar and menologia rustica under the church of S. How refreshing to turn back to the erudition of Rüpke!} . In the system of legis actiones the proceeding in the court of law. Marquardt and Madvig. Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani = Inscr. problems. this was not a division into lucky and unlucky days. Part II presents “Die Geschichte der fasti” (pp. 249–58). Maria Maggiore (on which see the excellent study by M. in iure. His new topic of the calendar is as important as it is intricate. a hostia piacularis. First of all we observe a division of all days into fasti (with the notation F) and nefasti (with the notation N). of the lex Hortensia. It was a division pertaining solely to the field of civil law. It contains. La giurisprudenza unica dei pontefici e Cneo Flavio. of the scribe Cn. Salzman. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity [Berkeley 1990]). As Varro reports (Ling. The early connection of Roman law with utterances of magical charac{1 Almost simultaneously with the book of Rüpke there appeared the study by F. following Varro. In the republican calendar forty two days are marked F. 252-53) likewise conflates the scholar Varro and the fabulist Livy. and only one F day in February.7) that Numa “nefastos dies fastosque fecit. Livy carelessly amalgamates dies fasti and dies comitiales (perhaps influenced by a law of P. Correct. quia aliquando nihil cum populo agi utile futurum erat. rather one-sided. We do not know when exactly the notae dierum were conceived. McCormack. and not the others? We do not know. no record survives.” he allies himself (perhaps inadvertently) with Cicero and Livy. 256) are not answers. 252–58. The two acts ought to be kept apart. a deed. When the praetor pronounced the tria verba on a dies nefastus it was not nefas that was . it is Livy who speaks of cum populo agere. Clodius of 58 “ut omnibus fastis diebus legem ferri liceret. Rüpke (pp..” Irish Jurist 4 [1964] 153–67).19.74). but Rüpke continues: “Nefas ensteht also nicht durch einen kultischen Fehler wie Versprechen oder durch das Erscheinen von Prodigien. and if the pontiffs knew.” This formulation is misleading. Speculations (pp. When Rüpke writes that temporal limitations of the ius cum populo agere have “politisches Gewicht. and why. Kaser. verbietet sozusagen das Tätigwerden der ‘Schnittstelle’ Staatsapparat-Bürger. esp. But political preoccupations of the late Republic should not be imported into “hoary antiquity. The popular assemblies could meet only on dies comitiales (calendrical mark C). June and July).. the convocation of the voting assemblies of the people. there were 195 days so marked.42) was introduced “rei publicae causa . M. or an object: they were also circumscribed by time. they are distributed very unevenly (there are no N days in January. Livy’s idea (1. No. 2. 97) offers no discussion. Zauberei und Recht in Roms Frühzeit [Osnabrück 1923] and by M.. “Haegerstrom’s Magical Interpretation of Roman Law. 18}) and various spells.. Why were some particular days so marked. 33). Das magistratische Ius in seinem Zusammenhang mit dem römischen Sakralrechte [Uppsala 1929]. His explication that the supply of comitial days was limited because of utilitas publica is akin to Cicero’s argument that the augural regulation “Iove tonante fulgurante comitia populi habere nefas” (De div. and see also its exposition and critique.” Cic. and fifty eight N.” into the origins of the calendar. 251). das cum populo agere.” Not quite so. 2. R. carmina and incantationes (the best treatment by F. He writes (again in the genus sociologicum): “Die Note nefas verbietet die Prozesskonstitution vor dem Prätor in den legisactiones. p.” is only a later rationalization. In the case of Varro and the praetor the note N prohibits lege agere. August and November. principes civitatis essent interpretes” (De div. Sest. as illustration he adduces the passage of Varro referring to the fari of the praetor. Books 1–5 (Oxford 1965. Here belong not only the curses of the type sacer esto (see the bibliography in CP 82 [1987] 379 {reprinted in this volume. ut comitiorum . Beckmann. by G.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 Hägerstrom. tendentious and inaccurate. Ogilvie in his Commentary on Livy. But unlike the other verba the praetorian utterances were not connected solely with a person. The praetorian formulas were “keine Sakralakte” (p.. Das altrömische Ius [Göttingen 1949]) but also the legal formulas of the praetor. Linderski. As to the matter at hand it was irrelevant whether the act that caused vitium was deliberate or accidental. 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. wird nirgends ausgedrückt” (p..1. sometimes broad category of transactions. It will be a day “vitiated” for any and every activity. all ominous). “The Augural law. schwarze Tage: kalendarische Divination” (pp. If a slave was manumitted in iure on a dies nefastus he was. sometimes narrow. he had to offer a piaculum (Varro in Macr. Iudicium de iure legum. 6. J.16. Reduzzi Merola.3 [1986] 2162–77.” This is the subject of a most interesting chapter “Weisse Tage. An equivalent expression to diem vitiare is diem tollere. 259).518 Historia et Religio 467 created but vitium. the Nundinenkollisionen (i. dies Alliensis. 14 January. Rüpke resignedly concedes that “welche Konsequenzen es implizierte. It was a remarkable innovation. as Rüpke intimates.g. Any day could become a “black day. not the res. nonae and the principium anni. were unsuitable only for a strictly specified. If on such a day a magistrate inadvertently called together an assembly. the nuptiae or iter). and was pursued by the wrath of the gods (cf. A movable feast (feriae conceptivae) could fall on a C day. 436). and the planetary week.” But all acts of such a magistrate were contaminated by vitium. In a letter to Atticus (4. 1. Lat. dies atri.19). The birthday of Antonius. 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. J. 437). Similarly a law vitio lata was normally annulled by the senate (cf. religiosi or atri. 27 April 55) Cicero inquires “num censum impediant tribuni diebus vitiandis. Varro observes (Ling. bleibt ungeklärt” (p. Varro adds that also “magistratus vitio creatus nihilo setius magistratus. Sat. and was normally persuaded to abdicate. became a peculiarly baleful day: it was declared dies vitiosus ex senatus consulto. e.” ANRW 2. 623).9.16. the pax deum) but mostly by errors in the auspices. Any public act on this day would be tainted with vitium. but never for all conceivable public or private acts (among the latter. The comitial vitia were not caused. error.” Rüpke again confesses: “Worum es konkret geht und ob Cicero den Begriff wirklich als terminus technicus verwendet. But the meaning of this notation is all but evident. Other unlucky days. It was the only day so permanently marked. exactly like a praetor who mistakenly engaged in lege agere on a dies nefastus (p. 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. Prudentia and imprudentia affected only the praetor. We hear (in 54) that “comitiorum quotidie singuli dies tolluntur obnuntiationibus” . by prodigies (which referred solely to the status of the republic. he was a danger to the republic’s peace with gods. 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. {and see now the well-informed study by F. a discussion of dies religiosi. legally free but he was liber vitio. Senato e legge nella tarda repubblica [Napoli 2001]}). 562–92).30). Roman Questions [Stuttgart 1995] 476–77.e. 615–16. the coincidence of nundinae and the feriae. Linderski. the best book on the subject. nefasti posteriores. nefas (feriae) publicae. No. a virtue that after struggling through Rüpke’s forest shines very bright indeed. This reminds one of the work of P. 607 for a quotation of Jürgen Habermas) may be charitably excused or forgotten. All NP days are named days.. Michels (Princeton 1967).74). 258–69) we find an idea. 3. . by either group they will be read with profit. Still this Einfall requires further elaboration.17. Linderski.” and the offerings to celebrities (cf. Q. the ligature NP. Le Calendrier romain (Ottawa 1983). PAR(ilia) on 21 April. parte. Thus the nuntiatio of fulmen could not transform this day into a dies vitiosus in general.2) and “obnuntiationibus . 49}. No doubt the operations of the census in 55 were also impeded by tribunician obnuntiations.4). and the easiest to read. It may be the right path. public and private (cf. e. Nefastus prior. it rendered it vitiosus only for the holding of an assembly.. It affected 49 days. The “theory. All said. remains The Calendar of the Roman Republic by Agnes K. Tucked away in a rather meandering argument (pp. “Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio. interpositis singulis diebus .. Lightning was a prohibitive sign for the comitia but a favorable sign for most other activities.e.” CJ 92. J. p. Rüpke’s solution: NP is an abbreviation for N(efas) P(iaculum).2 2 Cf. 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.. Brind d’Amour. But most explicit is the notice in Festus (268 L. fr.A Calendar for Rome? 519 468 (Cic. 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. Now obnuntiatio was a report of fulmen. in addition to the notation NP they also display the abbreviated name of a festival (feriae) falling on that day. De div. purus.. nefastus publicus were the past ideas. To conclude. 331–34 {reprinted in this volume. 2. Various individual chapters offer food for the pensive or fodder for the polemicists. of which every great scholar of the past would be proud: the explication of that mysterious notation.g..4 (1997) 323–45. principio. 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). i. Cic. Vitiare diem here appears unmistakenly as a terminus technicus. esp.. Att. sublatis” (Cic. dicitur vitiare diem morbo”. and perhaps a discovery. 4.) referring to the morbus comitialis: “Prohibere comitia.3. 28).Chr). the way is open for using the speech as a means of obstruction. {Cf. The only study of this phenomenon in Rome has been the short (and not always accurate) article by P. “Die Obstruktion im römischen Senate. Her discussion is disjointed: the filibuster. Le sénat de la république romaine de la guerre d’Hannibal à Auguste: pratiques déliberatives et prise de décision (Paris. 142. next she proceeds to the formal means of obstruction. 234–36. We visit the crossroads of religion and politics in search of new insights. . It will take its place alongside such dissertations as Paul Stein’s Die Senatssitzungen der römischen Republik (Münster. They are dangerous places to modern scholars too. 1 The book by Claudia Bergemann. (Palingenesia. 1912). R. Loretana DE LIBERO. crawl around and mingle with the living. the pontiffs warn. they are treated promiscue. but we may stumble upon the day when the gate to the underworld is open. If the speaker’s freedom of speech is absolute. 28–52). 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. 1992. No. it is better to refrain from any new undertaking. 14–28) 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). Politische Praktiken im Senat und in der Volksversammlung der ausgehenden römischen Republik (70–49 v. intercession. When this happens. when mundus patet. Pp. (Hermes Einzelschriften. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. 1989). to the book by Loretana de Libero (originally a dissertation at the University of Göttingen) the gods must have given their nod. and the lack of the quorum are treated in various places of the book. 1930). with a full and subtle discussion of terminology and procedure. I am afraid. the larvae and lemures. 5}. 59). Fortunately.38 RELIGIO ET RES PUBLICA* Claudia BERGEMANN. when the malignant spirits. Pp. Filibuster is a peculiar outgrowth of parliamentary systems. above in this volume. No progress in Marianne Bonnefond-Coudry. the intercession and the errors in the procedure (pp. It is a serious contribution. Politik und Religion im spätrepublikanischen Rom. Paul Groebe. was conceived on such a day. if the oratio cannot be interrupted. a book much appreciated by L. The sources in Georg Wissowa. and in a discursive manner. 443–45 (dies religiosi).2 De Libero presents (pp. Obstruktion. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. iv + 166. Religion und Kultus der Römer2 (München. 1992. informed and useful. Taylor.” Klio 5 (1905): 229–35. Groebe. * 1 2 Classical Philology 90 (1995) 192–195 {with bibliographical addenda}. 193 Crossroads are magical and dangerous places – not only in Roman lore. ANRW 2. n. Orationes Philippicae 2. Römisches Staatsrecht.. The terms servatio and spectio de Libero regards as synonymous (p. 57. the counterarguments of de Libero are only doxai not proofs. the actual and personal announcement of the fulmen. Lukas Thommen. but a serious discussion has to reserved for another place and time.” and the obnuntiatio. Das Volkstribunat der späten römischen Republik (Stuttgart. Pp. and one again misses the great work of Valeton. And I am afraid that she seriously misinterprets the crucial passage of Cicero. 266–92. She rightly distinguishes between the servatio (servare de caelo).3 [1986]: 2198). of the feriae. {See now F. In particular she argues persuasively (against the opinion of a number of eminent scholars) for the annulment of the agrarian law of Appuleius Saturninus. I still believe that the servatio alone had no binding force. The chapter on Kassation (pp. the augurs] enim nuntiationem solum habemus [i. 23).16. an excellent investigation. and of instaurationes (pp. 9 below). with a thorough discussion of the loca intercessionis (pp. also Festus 446 L. to be binding it had to be followed up by the actual and personal obnuntiatio (cf. These disagreements may be abstruse. 90–96. n. but cf. withdrawn. but they go to the heart of the comitial procedure.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. but the most prominent means of obstruction was the notorious obnuntiatio. ignored. Orationes Philippicae 2.81: “Nos [sc. “erkaufte” and “erbetene” when the intercessor was either bribed or entreated to interpose his veto.Religio et Res Publica 521 The intercession as an institution of Roman public law was extensively treated by Mommsen. consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spectionem.4 3 4 Theodor Mommsen.e. Reduzzi Merola.” it would rather appear that the spectio (cf. It is a pleasure to discuss them with a serious scholar. Here belongs the manipulation of the calendar.81 (cf. insightful and erudite. She provides a new list of intercessions. 56–68).. “the watching of the sky. the announcement of unfavorable divine signs (pp. 37–41). see n. and not merely referred to in the footnotes. 1989). From a different point of view there existed four categories of vetoes: actually interposed. 14. 1887). unsolicited signs]. contains a very useful list of all cases of annulment.} . Senato e legge nella tarda repubblica (Napoli 2001). The intertwining of public and sacral law offered opportunities for religious obstruction. 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. and impeded. 87–109). She demonstrates that even in the last years of the Republic most intecessions were obeyed. both times at the behest of the triumvirs). and not the act of the “watching” itself. 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. Iudicium de iure legum. and a thorough discussion of the procedure. I3 (Leipzig. 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. the right to announce solely the oblative. below. 53–56). But from Cicero. 207–32. the annulment of laws by the senate. particularly of intercalation. where spectio sine nuntiatione is mentioned) denoted the right to the observatio. Historia 14 [1965]: 425 {= RQ 73}). vol. and none in Italian: not even a tiniest article. more grievously still. 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). 1960). one solitary entry in French. and of the utilization of the state cult in the political competition. and loses sight of the historical progression of our investigations. with further additions}. and the “sakrale und nichtsakrale Konfiskation. Bibliography appended to the book is haphazard. presents a list of the pontiffs (on the basis of RE. and not from the spring of the original masters.5 Frequently the book draws its information from the tepid tap of recent distillations. quae adversus exulem agitur. The topic of sacratio and consecratio (or “religious confiscation”) has been frequently debated in the previous and in this century. But we miss here the imposing work by Pierangelo Catalano.” The discussion of the procedure is neither original nor illuminating. the critique of this theory by T. Taylor). 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. Un concurrent du christianisme.” in: Du châtiment dans la cité: Supplices corporels et peine de mort dans le monde antique (Paris.6 The book treats of two important themes: of religion and politics in Cicero’s speech De domo. and it is not free from errors. Cerfaux and J. the scholarly oligoglottism.” a tendency as pernicious as it is ahistorical: for it consigns to neglect great minds of the previous generations. C. “Exilica causa.8 One peculiarity 5 On this pernicious custom. not the priests. and finally tackles “institutionelle Verflechtungen von sacrum und publicum. See the discussion and extensive bibliography in G. 3–85) offers a summary of the speech. 1984). n. see my remarks in Gnomon 52 (1980): 784. Brennan. The lone French title is the book by L. Bergemann quotes it incorrectly omitting the words “Un concurrent du christianisme. Unfortunately it is a familiar disease – for it also thrives in American graduate programs. no. Tondriau. Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale (Torino.522 194 Historia et Religio Pergamus ad deteriora. from Bergemann’s account the reader will get no inkling of the intricacy of the theme and of the controversiae it has evoked. 70). The bibliography is sloppy: for books the place of publication is never given. 18 in this volume.7 The best pages are probably 36–40: here the author presents a good exposition of the interaction between priests and magistrates. Le culte des souverains dans la civilisation gréco-romaine (Paris–Tournai. n. R. together with another pest. This analysis is to be applauded. pp. 7}. 1959: 171.” including the pontifical and senatorial procedure. 453–80. The relevance of that “rapide synthèse” (as Robert characterizes it) for the study of politics and religion in republican Rome is not immediately apparent. 7 {= RQ 286. and it is infested by the belief “the newer the better. and. Crifò.” Perhaps a venial sin for Louis Robert remarked that these words “n’ont aucune justification” (Bull. and L. 7 {= No. 1968). 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. and the additions in CP 82 (1987): 379. Originally a dissertation at the Technische Universität in Berlin. avoiding the difficult and the technical. n. 6 7 8 . who communicated with the gods: hence the overriding religious and political role of the magisterial auspices. Ep. MRR. Bergemann adduces modern literature only in German and English. The part on the de domo (pp. she rightly observes that in most undertakings pertaining to the administration of the res publica it was the magistrates. no distinction is made between simple reprints and new editions. BMCR 2 [1991]: 62–64). According to the augural doctrine if during an assembly thunder was heard (and reported by an augur) the gathering had to be disbanded. the collection is useless: it is riddled with errors. “The Augural Law.13 All these vitia on a mere two pages. obligations and prerogatives of individual priests and those of the priestly colleges in their capacity as boards of experts. Wessner]). 2151–2225. nisi quiescetis. the opponents of Saturninus demanded that he disband the assembly.12 There is no differentiation between the functions. 125.14 9 I. it will hail (intimating the lapidatio). J. vol.11 and fails to distinguish between prodigia and auspicia oblativa. lines 13–15.16. Pichlmayr): “Huic legi multi nobiles obrogantes (the context requires obnuntiantes. the second part of the book is a disaster.9 Next she confuses the concepts of auspicium and augurium. [ed.Religio et Res Publica 523 195 stands out: all quotes from the speech are in German. 89–90. Numerous examples of portents. n. und brachte das Gesetz durch” (p. Now the conjunction of thunder and hail the augurs called calamitas (Donatus. prodigies and auspices pile up indiscriminately. cf. 2. inquit. grandinabit.” Mnemosyne 19 (1891): 75–113.” ANRW 2. Commentum Terentii. This is another fundamental distinction: see Linderski. cum tonuisset. pp. Cf. angeblich mit der Bemerkung. Cf. Appuleius Saturninus presented his lex agraria “versuchten die Anhänger der Senatspartei. and the law could later be annulled by the senate as vitio lata.” The passage can be fully understood only if we pay attention to the augural flavor of Saturninus’ jest and threat. 98). 454–57). If the part dealing with the De domo is unoriginal and often mistaken. Neither scholar is ever mentioned by Bergemann. cf. Linderski. “Cicero and Roman Divination. dass es bald auch hageln werde. vitium et calamitas will indeed be produced. n. See Valeton. It thundered. Bergemann adduces in her bibliography the famed commentary of Nisbet. 229–70. wenn die Leute nicht still seien. never in Latin.” Latomus 24 [1965]: 576–80). He retorted: if you do not calm down. Mnemosyne 18 (1890): 447–48. “A Witticism of Appuleius Saturninus.” Athenaeum 29 [1951]: 21–23) and Erich Gruen (“The Exile of Metellus Numidicus. 18 (1890): 208–63. J. “The Augural Law” (above. for a modification of Valeton’s analysis. 9). 42–45. 406–56 (pp. often enigmatic. 408–29 deal with the alleged assistance of the augurs at the magisterial auspications. Linderski. and certainly does not seem to profit from Nisbet’s linguistic subtlety and historical sense. “De iure obnuntiandi comitiis et conciliis. and subsequently repeated many times. the article adduced at the end of this note. That is all. clamarunt: Iam. She assumes that the consultation of the (impetrative) auspices by the magistrates always required the assistance of the priests. Contributi (above.” PP 37 (1982): 30 {= RQ 476}. 19 (1891): 94–98. This is a fundamental distinction: it has been illuminated by Catalano.10 amalgamates the magisterial obnuntiatio and the augural nuntiatio. but the text is sound.” RFIC 111 (1983 [1984]): 10 11 12 13 14 . and individual cases. M. J. The crucial text is De viris illustribus 73. This error would have been set straight by the erudite and illuminating studies of Valeton.” Mnemosyne 17 (1889): 275–325. “The Augural Law” (above. p.3 [1986]: 2190–95). but she never quotes it. Doch Saturninus setzte sich über die Obnuntiation hinweg. not for Saturninus or his law – but for his enemies. 193. 6–8 (ed. n. die Abstimmung in der Volksversammlung mit dem Hinweis auf ein Donnern abzuwenden. 2195–2215. One example will suffice for all: when the tribune L. 418–52. J. 8). no textual and terminological problems are ever confronted. “De modis auspicandi Romanorum. 9). if the legislative assembly were not disbanded vitium would ensue. are never subjected to a rigorous analysis. Linderski. A detailed reconstruction of the proceedings we owe to Emilio Gabba (“Ricerche su alcuni punti di storia mariana. Valeton. Bergemann’s idea of the formalities pertaining to the auspicia is hazy. Linderski. pp. accepting this interpretation}. De Libero also discusses this event (pp. J. written and published a(ve) c(ontraria) a(uspicio) p(estifero). .} 15 This augural bird.{14a} If the augurs had read these two books. n. CJ 90. 4). n. A shining exception is the review by W. 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. Tatum. Most are either perfunctory or uninformed or both.524 Historia et Religio De isto libro satis. 9): 2259–60. and declared it conceived. 59-60). 32. philologia and bibliographia. n. cf. “The Augural Law” (above. is mentioned by Cicero in his treatise on auguries. 29. 2292. the other terms are attested on the cippi in the augural temple in Bantia. b(ene) iu(vante) av(e). and appropriately critical. although a persnickety augur would spot an occasional avis incerta. erudite in religo.15 452–59 {= RQ 534–41. Reduzzi Merola (above. Linderski. well known to most scholars. cf. as to the latter they would have agreed with the pontiffs.3 (1995) 332–34. the other. {14a Out of curiosity I have consulted several reviews of Bergemann’s book. ius. however. 16. 310. Minime. 4). a fatali itinere Titi. 190). I. F. quae corda animosque hominum intret et eos ad aliquid faciendum impellat3. 2. orsus est. ut videbimus. REL 67. Heidelberg 1968. in libro a M. ad locc. sed vim permagnam sentiendi a numine quodam missam. BLECHER. SORDI edito. G. 1) Titus. SYME. de initiis principatus Vespasiani scripturus (Hist. Nach Besichtigung der obligaten Sehenswürdigkeiten stellt er eine sehr überlegte Befragung dieses Orakels an”). II. cum orbis terrarum bello intestino commotus esset. Nam cupido in iunctura ista nihil aliud est nisi pÒyow: non esse. BRIQUEL. praecipue 86–88 (p. Cupido ei sola visendi inerat. R. P. opinionem profert: “Paphos and Serapis [i. E. HEUBNER conscriptum. in volumine cui titulus est Les écrivains et l’Etrusca disciplina de Claude à Trajan (= Caesarodunum. Dux ille historicorum. 170–78. CHILVER. Oxford 1958. sont évoqués des haruspices. Studien zur römischen Literatur. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories I and II. mais dans un contexte qui n’a rien d’étrusque” (n. SCOTT. 1–4). 164–66. et Vespasianus de imperio cogitaret? Ita mihi persuasum est. Rome 1968. Non est satis. Vespasiani filii. Ut CHILVER (p. miracula a Vespasiano Alexandreae facta] are frankly exotic. ad propositum nostrum minimi fere momenti est. Tito al santuario Pafio e il ricordo di Enea (Tac. Vide commentarium pereruditum a H. Religion and Philosophy in the Histories of Tacitus (= Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome. Grimal congesto. 4). 87: “Titus den Vergnügungreisenden nur nach aussen hin spielt. Tacite et l’haruspicine. ut BÜCHNERUM aliosque prudentes sequar.e. 83–98. Mox iter retro vertens rursus ad patrem navigare statuit.39 DE TITO TEMPLUM VENERIS PAPHIAE VISENTE SIVE DE HOSTIIS VOVENDIS ET DELIGENDIS* Tacitus. 70–84. Sed. 27–37. nihil pretii invenies. 36). A&R 31. 1989 (1990). II. In articulo a P. Iunctura cupido incessit a commentatoribus variis sed nudis exemplis illustratur2. Gissae 1905. Santuari e politica nel mondo antico (= Contributi dell’Istituto di Storia Antica 9). IV. BARZANÒ. de obitu Galbae et de armis Othonis Vitelliique certior factus est. qui locum Taciti inter testimonia ritus Etrusci sive Romani adducit (p. 1986. Tacitus. 1. GUERRINI. merum voluntatis indicium. Cornelius Tacitus. almost extraneous”. Hist. De extispicio capita tria (Religiongeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten. A patre e Iudaea Romam missus. 28–29. Galba adhuc incolumi. de arte haruspicinae Paphi florente ea solum verba annotat: “en 2. Tacite et les présages. Vide K. De notione cupidinis. II. 1995). II. dico. Il santuario di Pafo e i Flavi. 20–39. utrum Tito solam et simplicem templi inclyti visendi cupidinem tribuere debeant4 an credant ei ab incepto * 1 Hermes 130 (2002) 507–510 {cum addendis minimis}. 164) adseverat firmissime (“a sight-seeing jaunt”). consultatio hostiarum et in primis ritus hostiarum deligendarum optime ad doctrinam haruspicorum Etruscorum spectant. vide G. 2 3 4 . Die Reise des Titus. sed struente iam fortuna1 initia causasque imperio (Hist. BÜCHNER. Magna est inter commentatores contentio. optime eruditeque disseruit R. De Fortuna Flaviana et de Vespasiano duce fatali (“a man of destiny”). cum Corinthum navi advectus esset. 64. Non aliter HEUBNER. p. Oxford 1979. Suppl. 20–21. A.. Die Historien. D. T. quae Titum ut antea Alexandrum illum Magnum moverat. II. Wiesbaden 1964. Sed cum navigaret illum cupido incessit adeundi visendique templum Paphiae Veneris. vide R. XXII). 140–49. diceres. De extispicio. {De Flaviorum cum Venere Paphia coniunctione. C. 501. Quinctio consulibus [anno a. pars II. 3. n. MITFORD. 546 = 208 a. vide etiam T. c. Duae enuntiationes ex scriptoribus Christianis haustae accedunt: Tert. 12 Linguae Latinae Thesaurus electronicus (The Latin Data Bank). quasque hostias maiores voverat.. Suppl. facerent. locum Taciti et Calpurnium Flaccum. 1). U. Ita ad sacrificandum hostiae. W. III (= Caesarodunum. opus auspicaliter inchoatum sed miserabiliter nondum perfectum. 1906. 28–34.526 508 Historia et Religio eam rationem adeundi fuisse.} 8 De extispicina Graecorum vide quae BLECHER. 27. THULIN. sacrificaverant) et voverant. 56. BARZANÒ. 45. Nam templum ipsum praecipue et scientia et arte haruspicum inclytum erat8. ANRW II. Declamationum excerpta 24: feriat hostiam. occultam et secretam. At religionem consideremus. The Emperor Titus. 15. n. c. vide Thulin. 11–12)12. Göteborg 1905. sed rebus sic stantibus eo magis miror virum eruditum Titi Veneris Paphiae consultationem silentio alto praeterisse. 1909 (= Darmstadt 1968). sic domui Flaviorum Venus Paphia imperium praedictura paraturaque erat. optime verbis Livii illustratur (XXX. tres solos locos exhibet in quibus locutio hostiam vovere usurpatur: locum Livii. 253). 9 De consultatione inusitata extorum caprarum haedorumque. 937 (= SEG XX. quam dis penatibus vovit (feriat ad patrem spectat. De omine oraculoque imperii nobis Tacitoque sermo est. 42-44. Titus templum Veneris. imperatorum) hostias et fecerant (i. Hostia. Suppl. B. 552 = a. JONES. RE.. 236–82. ut eos ludos consules. II. costituì il primo appoggio concesso dal mondo religioso orientale alla nuova dinastia flavia”). in libro La divination dans la monde étrusco-italique. 38. Cf. II. 11 De notionibus istis elucidationem aliquam in articulo valde utili a C. 1986). passim profert nec non C. 6 Ita optime GUERRINI. KRAUSE composito. . Vide infra.e. nomen ipse urbis. cf.. praecipue iecur. Manlius dictator. ut quisque vovit. London 1984.18. 18. de reditu Titi ad Vespasianum scribit: T¤tow d¢ katå daimÒnion ırmØn épÚ t∞w ÉEllãdow efiw tØn Sur¤an én°plei. quos M. nempe hostias vovere et hostias deligere11. 5 Vide quae Josephus. Claudio Marcello. GUITTARD. sed mares deliguntur: certissima fides haedorum9 fibris10 (Hist. Ut domus Caesarum originem suam a Venere duxit. 5. 1931.. 10 Fibrae = exta. 5: qui pro salute eorum (i. I. 21. et minime ut machinator doli. C. 5: voverant hostias inepto ut deo orando (de Hercule). II. 55–56. et 67. si per quinquennium res publica eodem statu fuisset. B. ut Aeneas alter adit6. et nuper C.e. n.3 (1990) 2179–80. frustra quaesivi. priusquam ad bellum proficiscerentur. Sed ea a diis reguntur. praecipue 147–49 (p. 2). gratiam Flaviorum visitantibus ostentabat: SebastØ Klaud¤a Flaou¤a Pãfow7. Qua in descriptione locutiones duae interpretatione egent. Haruspicine et “devotio”: “caput iocineris a familiari parte caesum” (Tite-Live. BJ IV. 947. Instr. Itaque non est dubium.] T. 7 IGRR III. The Cults of Roman Cyprus. O. sed numine monente deaque ipsa ducente5. quo in loco senatum legimus decrevisse et ut placatis dis omnia inciperent [scilicet consules anni a. n. praecipue 50–54. Quid sit hostias vovere. 9. ut futura exploraret. THULIN in libro suo inclyto Die etruskische Disciplin. Nomen Augustae ab imperatore Augusto urbi concessum est. ludi Milano 1983. quin (ut Tacitus aperte narrat Flaviorum fabulam suam faciens) Titus templum non ut praetervehens aliquis inierit. 149: “L’oracolo favorevole dato dalla dea di Pafo a Tito . T. 149. U. inierit omnino non sponte sua. Commod. 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. Et cum Vespasianus rerum potitus esset. 202] agerentque ludos. nomen novum. at the Corinth meeting”. VIII. Ad Scapulam II. et hostia ad eiusdem patris filium). Stuttgart 1999. et cum res publica in eodem statu per quinquennium permansisset. München 1912. vide G. Iul. et ante eum A. F. Cf. Paris 1979. I). Suet. Tit. Deam per ambages de fortuna sua quaesivit scilicet non ut eam confunderet sed ne in hominum suspiciones incideret 13 HEUBNER. Hist. cultes. ut super rebus imperii consuleret. 14 De litatione Romana. 3 (ed. Nam Titus. in volumine cui titulus est Zwischen Krise und Alltag. II. si dei eas hostias mente benigna accepissent. sed de Titi consultatione verbum nullum. E. de navigatione primum consuluit. IV. SCHILLING. Antike Religionen im Mittelmeerraum (Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge. 5. 418–19. Schilling. 41–55. 111–24. Hommages à Albert GRENIER. Tacitus narrat (II. dieux de Rome. 82. TOWNEND. G. M. 183–90). Rites. de se per ambages interrogat caesis compluribus hostiis15. sed luce clarius est hostias ab Manlio votas et post quinquennium a consulibus caesas valde diversas fuisse ab eis quae Veneri Paphiae sacrificabantur. Bruxelles 1962. 1: altior inde Vespasiano cupido adeundi sacram sedem. consules ut votum exsolverent dis singulis ut votae erant rite hostiis sacrificarunt. de consultatione extorum verbum nullum. 63–67. 5). Religion und Kultus der Römer2. ZORZETTI): Sed uictimas immolanti numinibus in oppido Numidarum. III. ut quae uellet auderet peteretque celsiora natalibus meritisque maiora: siquidem cuncta uidebatur fauor spondere fortunae. Etsi non improbabile est. Has ambages et statim exceperat fama et tunc aperiebat. dum de navigatione consulit. ad loc. Sat. ingentes termini. Phoenix 50. Tacitum Ciceronemque legenti parum persuasit. quod exta hostiarum votarum caesarumque inspecta fuerint. id est ad statuendum. MORGAN. Vota Manlii eorumque solutio ad locum Taciti illuminandum vulgo ab interpretibus adducuntur13. Oxford 1985. ut lingua haruspicum utamur. et praecipue quae ante annos fere quadraginta disseruit R. III (= Collection Latomus 58). haruspices magna quaedam impendere Mario responderunt atque hortati sunt. 1371-1378 (articulus prelo denuo expressus in libro: R. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus’ Histories IV and V. Histoire de la divination dans l’antiquité. 37. IV. 4). {Cf. negat Romanos distinctionem ullam inter hostiarum genera observasse. G. multum hominum”. Nam in Livio votum solum. Sed nuper C. 1996. Basilides sacerdos inspectis identidem extis. quod paras. 15 Cf. 5: Sed ubi turbari rursus cuncta sentit. Exup. pro certo apparet eam inspectionem more Romano solum ad litationem valuisse. À propos des “exta”: l’extispicine étrusque et la “litatio” romaine. 78. et quae de ea re THULIN scripsit mihi valida et lectu semper digna videntur. et non ad futura scrutanda. Dictator dis hostias maiores voverat. datur tibi magna sedes. aditoque Paphiae Veneris oraculo. Paris 1882. etiam responsum C. facta est eius voti compos. plane de eis hostiis quae consultatoriae dicuntur sermo est14. animo firmato. II. etiam de imperii spe confirmatus est. seu domum extruere seu prolatare agros sive ampliare servitia. NASSE. quamquam Livio tacente. Cum Titi Veneris Paphiae consultatione Vespasiani extorum consultationem apud aram inclytam in monte Carmelo factam comparare debemus (Tac. cui nomen est Utica.. 82–83. Vespasian and the Omens in Tacitus Histories 2. Zum Begriff hostia consultatoria (Macr. “quidquid est” inquit.. redit ex itinere. HEUBNER 274–76. At in Tacito.78. B. tunc capiendi consulatus inuasit magna cupiditas. Sed in primis vide quae Tacitus de Vespasiani Serapidis consultatione narrat. Mario datum. hostiaeque quibus votae erant dis caesae. Hist. 3–4): cum Vespasianus ibi sacrificaret et cum spes occultas versaret animo. voti damnatio et voti solutio ante oculos sunt. CHILVER and G. WISSOWA. Nunc Titus.De Tito templum Veneris Paphiae 527 509 in circo per quadriduum facti. At mihi Livium. 11–16. opus ingenii plenum eruditumque. N.} . Consultatio bene evenit: pandi viam et mare prosperum. “Vespasiane. Cf. De hostiis consultatoriis optime egit Thulin.. BOUCHÉ-LECLERCQ. . petito secreto20. Sostratus nomine. in primis Verg. Hist.. et modus immolationis inusitatus. / pandetur. quae potentibus insperatum honorem pollicentur. Locutio caesis compluribus hostiis diversam significationem habet a locutione pluribus hostiis caesis (Suet. 22 THULIN. HELLEGOUARC’H. et in primis Liv. Dubium non est. Tito secreto aperte principatum praedixerit. 46–47. 18 Memoria dignum est. ut ait Tacitus.. et si doctrinam non solum haruspicum sed etiam Stoicorum sequemur. 70.. VI. Nam planum est omnes eas complures hostias ex numero multo maiore animalium delectas fuisse. re vera publice responsum dedit faustum: laeta18 et congruentia19 esse exta. 1989. Tiberium haruspices secreto ac sine testibus consuli vetuisse (Suet. 56. petit . velut si prolapsus esset. I. II. 150) argumentum Vergilianum ab GUERRINI propositum multis verbis laudat. 189. privatis et humilioribus hereditates.528 Historia et Religio 510 principatus appetendi16. 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. 3) darunter sind”. 109–10. Et sacerdos. via . De notione deligendi HEUBNERUS nullum praebet commentarium.. 78. / qua tua te Fortuna sinet. II.. Numerus hostiarum permagnus fuit. nam legimus in Livio cupido incessit animos iuvenum sciscitandi ad quem eorum regnum Romanum esset venturum. 21 Ut GUERRINI monstrat (p. II. Tib.. Sed eorum. 20 Sacerdotis secreti colloquii petitio magni momenti est. Aen. In loco Suetonii aliisque locis similibus is qui sacrificat. 9–10: Brutus cum iuvenibus Tarquiniis Tito et Arrunte oraculum Apollinis Delphis consulens aureum baculum inclusum corneo cavato ad id baculo tulisse donum Apollini dicitur. homo prudens. III. futura aperit21. Lemma Festi ad propositum pertinet (336 L.. ut in extis signum aliquod regale appareret. qui vestrum primus . dass sie also durchweg günstig und keine contraria exta (Suet. futura. qui in commentario ad editionem Historiarum Taciti sub auspiciis societatis a Budaeo nominatae publici iuris factam (Paris. . 11. contigit. 63). I. Tac. per ambages effigiem ingenii sui. Sed ut praedictionem istam fibris firmare posset non solum laeta et congruentia esse debuerunt exta sed etiam regnum significantia. Iul. Brutus cum responsum audisset. non solum exta sed etiam animum sacrificantis scrutans. 29). III. Locus ille Livii cum tenore Taciti optime congruit. eo ipso temporis momento. qui de imperio per ambages deum sive deam interrogaverunt. 17 Ut HEUBNER (p. Et statim. / secreta Sibyllae . quo Titus hostias delegit et de se deam interrogavit. 95–97: tu ne cede malis. osculum matri tulerit. 39): “Gemeint ist. Titus certe inter potentes numerabatur.. osculo terram. Illa exta regalia cum fulminibus regalibus et auspiciis regibus datis comparanda sunt22. ab ea effectum fuit. 4)17.. magnisque consultis adnuere deam. Vide etiam J. pauca in praesens et solita respondens. De extispicio 182–83. matrem communem omnium.. quin sacerdos... 2: (Titus) Syriam audentioribus spatiis petebat]. 81.. 23).): Regalia exta appellantur. 98–99: Talibus ex adyto dictis Cumaea Sibylla / horrendas canit ambages.. 46) et Quintilianum (Inst. dass die Zeichen bei den complures hostiae übereinstimmen. 19 HEUBNER lucide annotat (p. sed contra audentior ito [cf. narratio Taciti sermone Vergiliano redolet: cf. descriptionem laeta exta ab haruspicibus frequenter usurpatam fuisse.. cum consideremus. 9–12: pius Aeneas . filio familiae dominationem. exempla alia extant... cum litare non possit. Vide BLECHER. 39) apte annotat. sed videamus quid Cicero de hostiarum deligendarum ratione scripserit (De 16 HEUBNER Vergilium adducit (Georg. 185. vates aperit . hostias singillatim caedit usque ad litationem.. Otho 8. cui / Delius . De Tito templum Veneris Paphiae 529 div. Posidoni. 412–13. quae toto confusa mundo sit. aucto animo – et re vera pater eius non multo temporis intervallo et post eius obitum ipse Titus imperium adepti sunt. 309. eundem vitulum si alius delegerit. Marcus Academicum agens ita fratri respondere studuit (II. . PEASE. deorum enim numini parere omnia. Sed mirum est. Quintus loquitur): Nam et ad hostiam deligendam potest dux esse vis quaedam sentiens. credebat multitudo ipsa sacrificantium. Credebat Titus. quae est toto confusa mundo. I. quod vir iste eruditissimus locum Taciti omittit. S. tum fieri extorum mutationem.. Illud vero multo etiam melius. 35–36): pudet me non tui quidem . quod et a te usurpatum est et dicitur ab illis: cum immolare quispiam velit. sine capite iecur inventurum. Et facete addidit: An censes. Antipatri. cum capite? Haec decessio capitis aut accessio subitone fieri potest. et tum ipsum cum immolare velis extorum fieri mutatio potest. ut aut absit aliquid aut supersit. Urbana 1920–1923 = Darmstadt 1963. ad hostiam deligendam ducem esse vim quandam sentientem atque divinam. et se exta ad immolatoris fortunam accomodent?23 Rideant Academici! Credebant sacerdotes. sed Chrysippi.. M. ut aut absit quidquid aut supersit. si alius. Tulli Ciceronis De Divinatione libri duo. 23 Vide ad locc. 118. qui idem istuc quidem dicunt quod est dictum a te. was the scholarly province of Roman antiquarians. “Like the veil. Treggiari supplements her opus with “Putting the Bride to Bed. 1. 293–307). His enunciation (and its misleading paraphrase by Valerius Maximus 2. La Familia romana II (parte seconda): Aspetti giuridici ed antiquari. the auspices. Viximus insignes inter utramque facem (Prop. it should not be confused with the consultation of the exta. The Conflation of Wedding and Funeral Rituals in Greek Tragedy (Princeton 1994). none on the funereal. it contains only a description of monuments. Of this morbid symbolism the author of this learned. U. The ceremony. Bartocci. sober and wise book takes no notice. with its pageantry. The most detailed modern description remains that of A.s. corrections and additions}. only a handful of pages on the wedding itself (161–70).1) is often invoked. Only a word on the wedding torches.” a terminological monstrosity). and S.. Le species nuptiarum (Roma 1999).40 MATRIMONIUM* Susan TREGGIARI. inquired after the will of the gods.} . 4. re omissa nomen tantum tenent. but no photographic reproductions. despite the title. adduced by Treggiari. The recent book by C. Ehe. 12–13. Untersuchungen über die römische Ehe (Stuttgart 1853) 252–389. Fayer studies “La difficile scelta del dies nuptialis presso i Romani. Milan 1972. Marriage to Death. 13] (1994) 31131. On the morning of the wedding. does not deal. There is no serviceable collection of iconographical sources: Rossbach’s Römische Hochzeits-und Ehedenkmäler (Leipzig 1871) is outdated.1. Humbert. private diviners. Sponsalia. xv + 578 pp. Two excellent Vorarbeiten have appeared: C. 1991). Roman Marriage.11. well into the imperial period (Rossbach.46): nuptiae evoke funus. even by Treggiari. but is solely concerned with matrimonium and manus. murky customs and the symbolism that was already obscure to the Romans themselves. signifying the public approval of the couple’s friends” (164). This misses the point: in ritual it was the opinion of the gods that counted. nuptiae had to be conducted auspicato. It still is.. Rehm. speaks of “le sacrifice auspicial. the auspices were part of a proper formal wedding. Like every important event in Roman public and private life.” EMC 38 [n. matrimonio. Fayer. Rossbach. not that of the friends. Cicero complains (Div. the entrails of the sacrificial victims (M. Le remariage à Rome. Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (Oxford: Clarendon Press. This ceremony is amply attested in the sources. Wedding and funeral is an old theme: see R.{1} It is the religious aspect that is most often underrated and neglected. rarely ana* {1 American Journal of Philology 116 (1995) 154–156 {with minor changes. The Roman wedding as a social happening and as a religious ceremony still awaits its modern author. dote (Roma 2005) is an indispensible encyclopedia.” in Studi offerti a Ettore Paratore (Chieti 1990) 513–20. with nuptiae.28) that nuptiarum auspices . Georg. LL 6. two high priests officiated at the confarreatio. Varro. According to Roman antiquarians. {and also above in this volume.8). in Social Struggles in Archaic Rome. 4. Linderski. What question did the officiating auspex ask? Treggiari does not pose this question. Mélanges à T. 671–73}. on the vitiosus magistratus. Its occurrence was especially feared at confarreationes: cum fuissent iuncti (sc.161. 2. During the ceremony itself unfavorable omens could appear.31). Sat. ad Aen.3 [1986] 2295–96). Raaflaub (Berkeley 1986) 244–61 {= RQ 542–61. Har. 21. N. 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. 1. 3. his cultic functions could be performed by pontiffs (Tac. This explains why flaminica quotiens tonitrua audisset feriata erat donec placasset deos (Macr. Boëls-Janssen. coemptione”).30. cf. in particular.” Not so. ZRG 101 (1984) 301–11 {= RQ 154–64. J. REL 67 [1989] 119-21).4).Matrimonium 531 155 lyzed. N. Now the office of flamen Dialis was vacant for seventy-five years between 87 and 12 B.58: saepe pontifices sacra Dialia fecisse). Radke. Cicero does not say that the auspicia ceased to be taken. he rather intimates that they were consulted in an improper and perfunctory way.72–73. most forcefully and most recently. edited by K. G. Att.339).42 and Pease ad loc. resp. scirent tonuisse: quae res dirimit confarreationes (Serv. Catalano. Gymnasium 96 (1989) 209–16.16. though legally it remained valid (cf. (cf. P. auct. the Pontifex Maximus and the Flamen Dialis (Serv. Servius and Serv. 37}). never understood.C. ad Aen. A. 4. If disregarded they would render the marriage ritually flawed and unlucky.9. It was a well established tenet of the augural doctrine that the validity of an auspical sign pertained to one day only (cf. 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. Zawadzki (Fribourg 1989) 211–14 {= RQ 579–82} (on the inscription ILS 1455 from Antium recording a sacerdos confarreationum et diffarreationum). 2. was regarded as a perpetual bride. auct. auctus. Radke’s argument is spurious: when the Flamen Dialis was incapacitated. What comes together may come asunder. nova nupta (cf.. 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. but Rossbach (294) did: “ob (die Götter) der Ehe geneigt waren oder nicht.16.33).2. ANRW II. and the deity’s reply. No. 1.27.D. and in Historia Testis. Contributi allo studio del diritto augurale [Torino 1961] 42–45. her remarks on the ritual of confarreatio can be supplemented by J. in one of her ritual aspects. Roman divorce was a relatively easy . Thunder. 166-67). L. disrupted nuptiae (as also the popular assemblies. Treggiari herself hesitates (23). RIDA 37 [1990] 347–83). Sancho. Aeneas and Dido). Ann. 1. Div. farre. 644–45} (on the phrase “usu. the flaminica. Linderski. 4. The procedure of taking the auspices (the auspicia impetrativa) consisted of a question addressed to a deity. 2. The passage is to be read in conjunction with other similar strictures. Leg.E. The wife of Flamen Dialis. and likewise in the stead of the Pontifex Maximus any pontiff could officiate (Cic. 2. Of the concept of manus and the forms of its acquisition Treggiari presents a succinct discussion (16–36). see Cic. hence the need for formal divorce or (even better) annulment proceedings. Huber. The dissertation of J. in: La definizione essenziale giuridica del matrimonio [Roma 1980] 29–87. the chapters on Greek philosophical background. D. C. but that obscures the ideological context and premise of Huber’s book). Robleda. coniugalis amor. In his analysis of “Nah-und Treuverhältnisse” (Die Nobilität der römischen Republik [Leipzig 1912] 49–50) M. Roman marriage was based on “continuing consent”: when the reciprocal will to live as husband and wife disappears. The formula of divorce was only an outward manifestation of that fact (Treggiari. modernity would thus stand doubly condemned. Volterra established once and forever that according to Roman jurists. and sexual relations are a treat to read (183–319). and still is. Der Ehekonsens im römischen Recht (Analecta Gregoriana 204 [Roma 1977]). offers an obscure but instructive footnote (cf. Castello. whether daughters or wives. and society. and 516–19. It was. P. and frequency Treggiari devotes pages enlightened and enlightening (435–82.532 Historia et Religio 156 affair: to its terminology and procedure (which became more formal during the course of the Empire). effects. and J. “We seem to be approaching once more the original Roman custom” (505). . a list of attested divorces). It is therefore perhaps surprising that in her bibliography (encompassing twenty pages) one searches in vain for two epochal works: La conception du mariage d’après les juristes romains by Edoardo Volterra (Padua 1940) and La Cité antique by N. many in the law. Corbett’s The Roman Law of Marriage (Oxford 1930). and the pervasive social consequences of the agnatic and patrilineal system. philosophy. E. the cornerstone of the subordination of women. Fustel de Coulanges (Paris 1864). Huber. that in Roman marriage consent “stets initial ist. Volterra. and it did not grant divorces. She treats of “ideals and reality in the relationship of husband and wife”. and many more in the actual life of the society. 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. Indeed in the contemporary Western world large chunks of suffocating medieval dogma have been removed. 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”. Treggiari [54] adduces the monograph of Huber as an example of simple scholarly disagreement with Volterra. The impulse to rewrite history is always strong. Treggiari mixes law. The previously reigning book in English on matrimonium. Huber strains to establish. was relentlessly legalistic. quoting a later work of Volterra. Gelzer drew his inspiration from Fustel de Coulanges’ Les origines du système féodal (Paris 1890). E. For nobody stressed better the religious character of the Roman family. it is a pity that students of Roman matrimonium neglect The Ancient City. the marriage automatically ceases to exist. theories of marriage. In Rome marriage and divorce were free and private: the state did not ratify marriages. also the debate between O. not unexpectedly. and also to its causes. to protect its share of the market even a most petrified religious institution has been forced to grant decrees of nullity in unprecedented numbers. 28) and Caesar (9–10). the profanation (in 62 B. Early in December is Brouwer’s conclusion (pp. Leiden: E. In Mil. Frontispiece. pp. The affair is of interest not only to the Ciceroniani but also to the Plutarchistae: Plutarch mentions the scandal in his Lives of Cicero (19–20.” Historia 15 (1966) 65–73 (often quite inaccurate). 1989 (Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans L’Empire Romain. overpriced (according to the publisher’s 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. Gallini. 1887]. are well known. Balsdon. V. a minor scandal that weighed so heavily on the political history of the later Republic.E. 259] that the behavior of Clodius was not.” but rather “un cosciente atto di disprezzo e di sfida” – a most unlikely interpretation). 52–53 Clark). {The series has now been sensibly renamed to Religions in the Graeco-Roman World.” CP 85 (1990) 202–8 {and see now his The Patrician Tribune. Publius Clodius Pulcher (Chapel Hill 1999) 62–86.) of the nocturnal celebrations of matrons and Vestals in honor of the Goddess (from which all men were excluded) by Publius Clodius.-C.} This event is. Now details. xxvii + 507. 270–80}. It sowed enmity and hatred between Clodius and Cicero. 28 The uneven.41 THE GOOD GODDESS* H.C. “il colpo di testa di uno sbarbatello.” Studi e materiali di Storia delle Religioni 33 (1962) 257–72 (who surmises [p. p. and as the quaestors entered upon the office on December 5 (T. J. The Sources and a Description of the Cult. “Cicero and the Bona Dea Scandal. we may be more precise: when Clodius sneaked into the house of Caesar he was quaestor-elect (Asc. D. P. 110). BROUWER. 2–4).2 (1991) 27–30 {with minor corrections and additions}. “Politica religiosa di Clodio. 5 maps. of course. 534. Brill. and the most notorious event relating to her cult dates to the period of the Republic. 1982). and in recent years the affair has been extensively treated: see esp. (Paris. First the date of the celebration in 63 and 62. The facts. . as Plutarch presents it. and relies almost exclusively on C. 364). J. and what passes for facts. J. “Fabula Clodiana. Tatum. 5 figures. Clodiana religio: un procès politique en 61 av. 359. and discusses the cult of the Goddess in his Roman Questions (20). the rites of the Goddess * Ploutarchos 7. nn. and on J. Moreau. J. Mommsen. and W. and spelt calamity for most of the protagonists. Römisches Staatsrecht 23 [Leipzig. He does not know the book by Moreau. How does Brouwer handle Plutarch’s testimony? On the affair of Clodius (pp. Bona Dea. 363–70) he will not be very high on my list of suggested readings. H. P. 52 plates. Tatum {1990}. p. 225. Now the sacrifice was offered pro populo. Far from being evident (cf.4 he states emphatically that in 62 it was Caesar’s wife Pompeia who was in charge of the feast. 130) is based on Plut.3) that the main role was played by the Vestals: they were the sacrificants}. The precise mechanism eludes us.534 Historia et Religio 29 had to be celebrated before that date (cf. went to the Forum to be installed as quaestor (cf. and that leads us to our third point. n. Wrong.” MNEMAI: Classical Studies in Memory of Karl K. Bob.g. The ceremonies were conducted by the wife or the mother of the magistrate. among the participants in the feast (in 62) Brouwer lists also a servula and the ancillae (p. pp. C&M 52 (2001) 223–56 at 251–53. We have to distinguish carefully between the celebrants and others.C. 20. One thing is certain: the magistrate’s wife was a necessary ingredient. argues that both consuls were present on Dec. This communis opinio (cf. and that they carried through on this day a piece of legislation. resp.4. Lorsch Wildfang. Caesar was Praetor Urbanus and. But after the presence of Clodius was revealed. We do not know whether Caesar was urban praetor (cf. 130. 10. 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. The mother of a magistrate or a priest had no particular standing in public cult. Broughton. 87. MRR 2. 1. Wiseman (Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays [Leicester. {R. and it is unlikely that the consuls of 62. says Brouwer (p. . 1984). a wife did (cf. p. R. but we should not follow Plutarch blindly. 37). “In 62 B. Next the place. “The Vestals and the Annual Public Rites”. Sch.13. n. fresh from his dangerous. 9. Now according to Cicero the sacrificium . Next. Brouwer’s healthy doubts.14–19 Stangl). the participants. as is apparent from the feast being celebrated in his house. 9). resp. the question poses itself how the choice of the domus was made. n. e.) this is inconceivable.173). 364). p. Their conclusion is that the feast was fixed permanently for the night preceding the Nones.. it was Aurelia who took control (she had kept close watch over her daughter-in-law). Wiseman. but the episode tells us nothing about Aurelia’s role at the sacrifice proper. 97–101. T. 224). 5. Hulley (Chico. Now T. Cic. P. This led to hesitation and confusion in Plutarch and in modern authorities. 15–20) 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.. 1) and Moreau (pp. 1974]. 66) Plutarch errs: Caesar’s mother Aurelia “evidently” presided over the celebrations. Licinius Murena had already left Rome: no provinces are attested for them. Badian. concludes very sensibly (on the basis of Cic. who were simply present. the flaminica Dialis). “An Unrecognised Date in Cicero’s Text?. “fit in ea domo quae est in imperio” (Har. this adds spice to the affair for on the Nones Clodius. sacrilegious and unlucky rendezvous with (Caesar’s wife) Pompeia. according to Balsdon (p. 19. 204. D. 37 and Att. 295).g. and last. it was performed by the Vestals and the mulieres nobilissimae (we do not know how they were selected). At Caes. slaves and various performers (Clodius was disguised as a flute-girl). p. S.1–3 had telescoped the meetings of the senate of December 3 and 4). e. the highest magistrate present in Rome” (p. Iunius Silanus and L. har. In fact E. e. Appian. a few notes will have to suffice. AE 1983 [1986]. Brouwer’s book. no. 2. in a splendid article (“A Dedication to Bona Dea Reconsidered. 76. lucernam aeriam). Propertius. the Scholiast of Bobbio. the governor of Numidia. and the dictum of Servius.1735 (cf. 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. {Cf. pp. Thomasson. Capdeville. Rom.” “Polished stones” is aberrant. But we should be thankful for what we have. Isidore. Idem. Petronius Probatus Iunior Iustus. but does not pause to ask the really pertinent question. back to Plutarch. S. 69 = ILS 3495: a certain Aurunceia Sp. Die Staathalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus 2 (Lund. may be repetitive and lacking in finesse. turquoise-coloured polished stones. p. “Substitution de victimes dans le sacrifices d’animaux à Rome. Martial. There are omissions. Macrobius. Livy (Periochae). There is much to comment upon. Tibullus (and Lygdamus). and a bronze lamp. Acte offers to Bona Dea “tunicas / duas et palliolum / rasas caleinas / et lucerna aeria” (i. “greenish-blue. Servius (auctus). originally an Utrecht dissertation (1982). IV): “The Roman Festival for Bona Dea and the Greek Thesmophoria” (and a more popular version in G&R 39 [1992] 31–55). Martianus Capella. CIL 11. reliefs). Brouwer translates: “two tunics. G. P. now the engrossing study by H. In Quaest. 140. Versnel. where it is possible to read B(onae) D(eae) – this would apparently be the first dedication to the Goddess from Spain.” To conclude. Dio Cassius. the Historia Augusta. 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. 327–36) wine and milk in cult. 213–14 {cf. The merit of Brouwer is to lead us away from the charmed circle of Cicero. Aen.116: “et sciendum in sacris simulata pro veris accepi”). 1996). Ovid. Velleius Paterculus. And he also presents all epigraphical and archaeological evidence. a small cloak. cf. f.” MEFRA 83 [1971] 283–323. see also the . 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. Fasti Africani (Stockholm. Suetonius. was Cn. and caleinas is a peculiar spelling for callainas. Lactantius. 138 bis = AE 1960. There are inaccuracies: P. Nor does he place the cult of the Goddess within the broader theme of secrecy in Roman religion.g. no. Seneca. AE 1982 [1985].” ZPE 70 [1987]: 210–16) M. Tertullian. E. Arnobius. Festus (and Paulus). 637. Transition and Reversal in Myth and Religion (= Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion II [Leiden 1993]) 229–88 (ch. B. Pliny the Elder. 20 he says that women in their libations in honor of the Goddess pour wine but call it milk. that of ritual substitution (cf. 107: the reference in AE is not to Bonner Jahrbücher 158 (1958) 123–24 but to Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques 1955–56 [1958] 123–24. 382).e.The Good Goddess 535 30 But there is more to the Bona Dea than Clodius’ misadventure. Placidus. 1960). a corpus of 141 texts (again in extenso and with a translation) and archaeological monuments (statues. Brouwer discusses at length (pp. 184}. Juvenal. The full name of the dedicant Petronius Iustus. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion (London-New York 1998).} .536 Historia et Religio interesting essays by A. Staples. Degrassi 466) the Ludi Piscatorii were celebrated a praetore urbano pro piscatoribus Tiberinis. Fratres arvales. VIII + 521. 6. also informative is W.42 FORGING VOLCANUS* Gérard CAPDEVILLE. 1).” RSI 96 [1984] 811–54).). Rome. Penates. École Française de Rome. Mercurius. Now we have a book about Volcanus. (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome. but useful. Capdeville’s book we have for speculations. and those who are transposed by the dazzling and uncertain art of comparativistic pleading. Ops. Recherches comparatistes sur les origines du culte de Vulcain.. Ling. “Volcanus. an encyclopedia that would systematically list and discuss all the literary. J. 425–75) stands for learning. Degrassi. Le délit religieux (cf. No. Palais Farnése. religious architecture (Aurea templa). a paradise for those eager to delve into murky origins. XIII. On 7 June (cf. but at the Ludi Piscatorii the offering was not pro animis but rather pro quaestu piscantium (Festus 232 L. perhaps pedestrian. Surprisingly we find no Hittites or Turks (the relevance of the latter the reader will see revealed at the end of this piece). For information we still have to turn to Georg Wissowa. At the feast of Volcanalia on 23 August (see the references in A. CP 79 [1984] 174–77 {= RQ 592–95)}. Lat. [München 1912] 229–32. Linderski. The book opens with an evocation of Georges Dumézil. cf. Fasti anni Numani et Iuliani (= Inscr. It would be very pleasing to have such a book. Italy. Eisenhut. iconographic. in Rome. 14 [1974] 948–62. Providentia deorum. Volcanus. sed fere in aream Volkani.” RE Suppl. JRS 78 [1988] 207–8 {reprinted in this volume. J. Pp. 645 In the last twenty years the French School has published every two years one book on Roman religion: monographs dealing with Fortuna. Camassa. fasc. 1995. 288). to his ageless Religion und Kultus der Römer (2nd ed. d’une interrogation sur les pisciculi des Volcanalia” (p. and epigraphical evidence. 45. the Bacchanalia. La vie religieuse des matrones. First let us remark on what this book is not: it is not a study of the cult of Volcanus.. .5}). A rather balanced account of the origines appears in G. If bibliography (fifty-one pages. it is a learned monograph. and the provinces. “Sull’origine e le funzioni del culto di Volcanus a Roma.20). Ktema 17 (1992 [1996]) 58 * American Journal of Philology 118 (1997) 644–647 {with minor addenda}. quod id genus pisciculorum vivorum datur ei deo pro animis humanis (Festus 274–76 L. Recherches sur le culte du Tibre (Paris 1953) 48–50. L’association dionysiaque (cf. Le Gall. It.). quorum quaestus non in macellum pervenit. The monograph “est né . Where do his manes lead the author? They lead to the fish. it ranges from Rome through Etruria to Crete and Cyprus. a subject which intrigued Dumézil himself (REL 36 [1959] 121–30).2 [Romae 1963] 500–502) populus pro se in ignem animalia mittit (Varro. This calls to mind the sacrifice of the rutilae canes to protect the crops from the burning sun (Festus 358 L..” Thus “la disparation de Romulus est donc bien placée sous le signe de la foudre” (93). Agni. this explains the Roman ritual (so Dumézil). Felicitas: Public Rites of Human Fertility in Ancient Rome. mas ignis . In Rome much of this lore was a result of the amalgamation of Volcanus with Hephaistos. Of all of this Capdeville. And where was he murdered? In the temple of Vulcan! . not unknown in many other modern mythographical mirages. and this sign was in turn “l’homologue” of the sign accorded by Vulcan to Caeculus (see below). Thurmond. and his doublet..). but still it was “un signe igné. a symbol of water.3–4): Igitur causa nascendi duplex: ignis et aqua . the doctrinal underpinning we find. one of his ancestors.61. Most scholars tacitly assume that pisciculi vivi were offered also on the Volcanalia. Indeed the nourishing power of fire is not to be denied. were burnt. it makes sense that to propitiate him not only fish. No. L. 1992). and although Romulus himself is not represented as fulmine ictus. an aspect that manifested itself in the work of the blacksmith. Here we have a series of miraculous conceptions of kings and heroes (pp. but that the feast of Tubilustrium on 23 May is described in calendars as feriae Volcani (Degrassi 460–61) may point (despite Wissowa’s objections) to the existence in early Rome also of Volcanus the craftsman.. Caeculus (the founder of Praeneste). 8–59. he offered to Vulcan a quadriga he captured in battle. the Indian god of fire. surprisingly. G. Romulus founded the Volcanal. This strand Capdeville pursues with verve and erudition. Capdeville claims that Volcanus was not at all. 34}).” But Dumézil too saw the beneficial aspect of the fire of Volcanus. only to be disregarded. cf. Volcanus was a god of destructive fire (so Wissowa. aqua femina (Cf. all of them filii Volcani. 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. For Capdeville. nor its association with fecundity. 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).538 Historia et Religio 646 {reprinted in this volume. the Alban king Romulus Silvius was indeed struck by a thunderbolt. does not write at all: after their debut on p. but Varro speaks generally of animalia: if he wanted to say pisces he would have said so.. It is true that thunderbolts were sent by Jupiter. 1 the pisciculi and the Volcanalia feebly reappear at the very end of the book (420–23). and finally he disappeared and was taken to heaven during a storm – but storms are accompanied by thunderbolts. The proof is special pleading. 97–146): of Servius Tullus. Lat. Capdeville wishes to demonstrate that Romulus also counted among the filii Volcani (83–94). on sacrifices of that sort. Capdeville. in Varro (Ling. as so often. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. a god of “feu destructeur. 5.” which cannot be separated from the lightning that confirmed Romulus’ regnum. Univ. now the solidly based study by D. and never. Volcanus is above all a god of fertility. but also other animals (perhaps as a substitute offering. Dumézil and many other scholars). at least according to one strand of legendary tradition. and Cacus. Diss. “La fulguration” was an ambiguous event that could be regarded either “comme une récompense ou comme un châtiment. MEFRA 83 [1971] 283–323). hated water and fish. and thunderbolts. Technically they are to be classified as omens. a splendid heap of misapplied erudition! A thunderbolt is not one and the same thing as lightning.3 [1986] 2150.” ANRW II. Linderski. But we know that in the Volcanal there were placed various objects that were struck by lightning. Aen.” in Mélanges P. 78). flashes of lightning in their application as auspicia. 2. not prophecy. cf.649). C. 509–14). 2169–70.16. And the storm (with or without lightning) during which Romulus disappeared does not belong here at all: it marked the end. the ritual funeral (Festus 190 L. Cicero distinguishes strictly between fulmina. not the future or the present. his putative heroo The Roman Volcanus cannot be disjoined from the Cretan Velchanos (or Zeus Velchanos). J. Die Struktur des . all presumably connected with Tarhu. “La loi du foudroyé. his exposition is engrossing. H.Forging Volcanus 539 647 A marvelous sorites.74). est flamma circumdatus (Servius. The fulmen regale and the flamma of Caeculus prophesied the future. Tarkondimotos. fulgura (cf. And thus si quem principem civitatis vel regem fulmen afflaverit et supervixerit. Boyancé (Rome 1974) 681–89. but the role of Fortuna in the story of Servius Tullus is a reflex of the original situation] et orienté principalement vers les jeunes guerriers [like Romulus!].. ut eum filium comprobaret . Le Bourdellès. The lightning Romulus received was an auspicium.. Now Caeculus of Praeneste invocato Vulcano. 2282–83). “The Augural Law. We have no space left to accompany the author on this arduous journey (155–409). also the Etruscan Tarchon and Tarquinius. De leg. dont la metallurgie a fait partie à l’origine” (423). Thunderbolts had to be expiated (Cic. Coarelli (Il Foro Romano I [Roma 1983] 161–99) has brilliantly identified the Volcanal with the area of the Lapis Niger. 2229. Aen. mais participant également à la tutelle de toutes les activités liées à la souveraineté. R. points out that while Romans leaned toward an unfavorable interpretation of the thunderbolts. 2. the Cyprian Valchanos.678). De div. 2. posteros eius nobiles futuros et aeternae gloriae (Servius auctus.21). in particular it was sought by the magistrates entering upon office – and by Romulus when he assumed his kingship (cf. C. Alföldi. the conclusions uncertain. the spot struck by lightning (fulguritum) was regarded as locus religiosus (Festus [Paulus] 82 L.” Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie 14 [1906] 369–91. fulmen und Wortfamilie. and the person killed by lightning was denied the iusta. “Iuppiter Fulgur. and the Etruscan Velchans and Sethlans. Thulin. Thulin in his classic book Die etruskische Disciplin (Göteborg 1905–9. this was also the place of the heroön of Romulus. the author admits. 7. 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. F. dont il est le prototype et dont il garantit l’initiation [in Etruria. Schilling.).42–43. “Fulgur. Was . the Hittite thunder god (A. Lightning (fulmen) figures prominently in the augural lore: it was a vitium for the comitia but for all other things optumum auspicium (Cic. no trace of this in the sources].” REL 51 (1973) 62–76 (Capdeville lists and ignores these articles).n a puteal? Romulus indeed fulmine ictus. divine permission. Vulcan (whose name is to be connected with the word for “wolf”) was a god “anciennement subordonné à une Grande Déesse [not in Rome.). Etruscans would interpret them in malam or in bonam partem. reprinted Darmstadt 1968) 90–91 (cf. 2. where we meet Turkic and Mongolian chieftains (with the suggestive name of office: tarchan or darchan) who happen to be semi-divine Schmied-Könige. rois forgerons. It is a long way to Rome. . Capdeville restrains himself from following up this lead.540 Historia et Religio voretruskischen Römerstaates [Heidelberg 1974] 181–219). perhaps a pity for Alföldi takes us also on an expedition to Central Asia. The idea of the rebuilding of the sanctuary. Recent excavations have revealed further traces of Roman military presence. 7314. and stayed longer. These two inscriptions are clearly contemporaneous. extruere). V. is derived from the partially damaged inscription in honor of Iuppiter Dolichenus which S-Z-S reconstitute in the following way (no. dass das in den Jahren 139-161 restituierte Heiligtum spätestens unter Antoninus Pius ca. by T. {For the precise phrase templum a solo constituere. Cf. mit einem Holzbau handelte” (p. 325 {AE 1998 [2001]. see e. 1154}): Herculi sacr(um) / pro salute imp(eratoris) / Antonini Aug(usti) et M(arci) / Aureli(i) Caes(aris). Savelja. 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)]. 9155 (templum a solo instruere. 1.Ja. O. 2.} 2 . 1998. as S-Z-S observe they stratigraphically belong to the “ersten festgehaltenen Bauphase” (p. They have been published. pp.43 IUPPITER DOLICHENUS.M. 4231-32. 4384. 150 gegründet wurde”.” Historia 47. but all chronological troubles will disappear if we find another persuasive supplement for the lacuna in line 6. 333). The formula a solo restituere is indeed well known. 2 kann entnommen werden. 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). bloody and heroic battle of British and Russian troops during the Crimean War. For the phrase templum constituere. 333). ILS 235. Roman historians are pleased to observe that Roman troops were there earlier. calls for an explanation. 333): “Dem Textinhalt der Inschrift Nr. p. 321–41 (hereafter = S-Z-S). That the sanctuary was after its foundation almost immediately rebuilt. * 1 Historia 49 (2000) 128–129 {with addenda and corrections}. Such a supplement is at hand: templu[m a solo cons] / titui[t]2. “Zum religiösen Leben der niedermoesischen Vexillationen auf der Südkrim. {609. AND VOLCANUS IN BALACLAVA* To modern historians Balaclava is the name of the great. Sarnowski.776 (a fundamentis)}. About the date of this military sanctuary the authors of the article have this to say (p. with an erudite commentary. The Antonine date is derived from a dedication to Hercules (no. also under Antoninus Pius. 326–29 {AE 1998 [2001]. This is complicated and unnecessary. Zubar. Inschriftenfunde aus dem neuentdeckten Dolichenum von Balaklawa. see Appendix at the end of this piece. remnants of a Dolichenum. and Antoninus Pius died in 161.g. Marcus Aurelius became Caesar in 139. AE 1983. and a number of Latin inscriptions1. 4484 (templum a solo facere). HERCULES. The authors speculate “dass es sich zunächst um eine Kultstätte unter freiem Himmel bzw. Declamationum excerpta 24: feriat hostiam. The phrase is practically limited to epigraphy. The closest match is AE 1925. and they suggest that the blood of the victim may have been meant to reproduce the red color of the fire (p. Tac. ILS 3859 (ut vovit). are separated by triangular punctuation marks. Giessen 1925. 338). d.37. 4202 (ut voverat.11–12: quasque hostias maiores voverat (sc. Manlius dictator in 208). and further: hostiaeque quibus votae erant dis caesae (in 202). 9). sed mares deliguntur (of Venus Paphia {cf. 1974. and only two fairly close examples.3. In support of their interpretation S-Z-S adduce the study of Volcanus by W. and if there are any epigraphical attestations. Volcanus. 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). but his reference is not to the blood but to the reddish color of the victims’ pelt. 14 (from Rome): voto suscepto / ex hostia quam / ipse fecit / Silvano / d. For the expression hostiam vovere S-Z-S adduce no examples. it bears the following inscription (no. they are not easily ascertainable4. In line 3.). Eisenhut writes indeed: “die rote Farbe der Opfertiere gibt die Farbe des lodernden Feuers wieder”. ut quisque vovit. 330–31 {AE 1998 [2001]. 249. 39}). RE Suppl. v. 337–38). on the red color as a symbol of sun and fire. See also C. The formula ut vovit (or voverat) is indeed well known3. Eisenhut5. “Hostia”. The victims in question are mentioned in the remarkable inscription CIL VI 826 = 30837 b = ILS 4914. 3) produced three instances: Liv. esp. the temple was devastated by a fire and was indeed reconstituted. RE Suppl. 3674. and his son is the hostia!). 2. The vow and the dedication were made incendiorum arcendorum causa. v. 10. ut voverant). The abbreviation in ILS 3210. The search in the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg produced eight inscriptions (all from AE) in which appears the word hostia. v. but not in the combination hostiam vovere. No. 331).g. 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. No. The search through the (unfortunately still incomplete) electronic files of The Packard Humanities Institute Latin Data Bank revealed no exact literary matches. To this later phase belongs the altar dedicated to Volcanus (pp. also as evidenced by the sacrifice of rutilae canes at the ceremony of canarium sacrificium (Festus 358 L. host.2 (see above in the text). 96–99. {Cf. 14. 30. 2. Liv.} 4 5 . The Latin Data Bank (as in n. pp. but they have misread his statement. 1931. No discussion in G. Capdeville. S-Z-S propose to read host(iam) u(t) v(ovit). 5. 5.2: hostiae. in this volume. Flaccus. and hence no particular “sympathetic” connection can a priori be established or even postulated between sacrificial blood and Volcanus or fire. as is well visible on the appended photograph (no.3. Hist. and v. e. An ingenious but unlikely supposition: the blood of all victims was red. Calp. Die Bedeutung der roten Farbe im Kultus der Griechen und Römer (= Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten XX. in this volume. 1161}): Volcano / sacrum / host. S-Z-S surmise that the hostia was sacrificed to Volcanus when the altar was set up (p. “Volcanus”. T. Hist. 42. 955.27. The best study of the symbolism of the red color in Roman cult is still E.542 Historia et Religio 129 Later in the century. and it often appears abbreviated as v. 4206 (sic ut voverat). 1). v.15 (ut Romulus antevoverat) and Tac. 243. / Anto(nius) Proc(ulus ?) / > (centurio) leg(ionis) XI Cl(audiae). 246. quam dis penatibus vovit (feriat refers to a father. Krause. Wunderlich. Rome 1995. The combi3 Written out in full. 306). 1 and 5 they introduce no changes either in the text or interpretation (pp. ADDENDUM When I was reading proofs of this note I was just able to consult the new contribution by T. Hercules. Stratum plus 2000 [2002]. C. no. Ň·Í·‚˚ Ë ï‡‡ÍÒ‡” [“New Latin Epigraphical Monuments of the Second Century down to the Middle of the Third Century from Chersonesos.Sarnowski (but again only in the Russian text) record it as a varia lectio (pp. Marpurgi Cattorum 1894. Römische Militärstation und Heiligtum des Iupiter Dolichenus (= SÅwiatowit Supplement Series A: Antiquity. For our purpose of importance are “Lateinische Inschriften und Ziegelstempel” by A. Savelja and T. No.M. 15–54. De Romanorum hostiis quaestiones selectae.). 280: templum / [a solo c]onstituit (cf. Savelja (eds. 42–43): Herculi sacr(um) / sub cur(a) Ant(onii) / Val(entis) trib(uni) milit(um) / vexill(atio) exerc(itus) / [Moesiae inf(erioris)]. 44–45. 95–96). 248–64. now they convincingly supply vexillat(io) [ex(ercitus) Moes(iae)]. however. V [Warschau 2000]. and also wonders (but only in the Russian text. Inscriptions Latines de l’Algérie I. n. Zubar.} . I am now able to adduce two almost certain examples (I owe them to the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg): Inscriptçiile Daciei Romane III. 8.3. {See now a comprehensive volume devoted to the excavations at Balaclava: T. Balaklava. 2. no.} 6 Cf. 96. Cf. Balaclava and Charax”]. Sarnowski (pp.Iuppiter Dolchenus. 43–44). 83–98) and “Zu den Familienverhältnissen der römischen Soldaten und Offiziere auf der Südkrim” by O. line 2 (pp. With respect to inscriptions no. 35.1026: templum a solo c(onstituit). 1998 (1999). 89. a new dedication (pp. the title also in Russian. 4. 198). Sarnowski and O. 6. On the basis of this text they propose a new supplement in inscription no. retaining the reading u(t) v(ovit). 86–88.Ja. Sarnowski. 2) Filippenko acknowledges the supplement templu[m a solo cons] / titui[t. 1281. and all contributions both in German and in Russian. Archeologia (Warsaw) 49. In the inscription no. 197–200). 51–52). and Volcanus in Balaclava 543 nation of vitulus and verres is attested only in this inscription and only with respect to Volcanus6. “ço‚˚e ·ÚËÌÒÍË ˝ÔË„‡Ù˘ÂÒÍË ԇÏflÚÌËÍË II – ÒÂ‰ËÌ˚ III ‚‚. accepting the supplement cons] / titui[t]. The same set of inscriptions was again discussed by V. p. AE 1959. 5. vol. {This conjunction also occurs in a dedication to Hercules from Sulmo: see JRA 11 (1998) 460. n. 41–42. no. no. also AE 2000 [2003]. 95. see the inscriptions: Balaclava. ËÁ ïÂÒÓÌÂÒ‡.Ja. no. Filippenko and also Savelja . 30). but thinks that the ordinatio of the text favors restituit (pp.Ja. Their original idea was vexillat(io) [Moesiae]. Savelja.A. Filippenko (pp. In lines 5–6 they still read templu[m a solo res] / titui[t. 12) whether there exists any example of the precise phrase templum a solo constituere (and not merely of templum constituere). As to the expansion host(iis) v(itulo) v(erre) in inscription no. “Das Dolichenum von Balaklawa und die römischen Streitkräfte auf der Südkrim”. Krause. 7 (reprinted above. O. They publish. One wonders whether this sacrifice does not provide a clue to a better comprehension of the Balaclava inscription: perhaps we should read in lines 2–3 Volcano / sacrum / host(iis) v(itulo) v(erre). 2 (see above. THE SYMPHONIACI. sono state incise le lettere F C. a question obtrudes: who set up the stone? The answer is connected with symphoniace in line 3. pp. we acquire the personal name Symphoniace. tra le linee 2 e 3. If it is the nominative. and here lies the problem: individual words are assured and comprehensible and yet the meaning of the entire text is mystifying. These letters were apparently omitted. co/iugi benemerenti / fecit. we should emend it to Rubriae. 2884 = ILS. “sul listello esterno a sinistra e a destra. she would be the person who erected the stone. lines 2–6: Purricina Iu/veni provocanti. 3 . 5107 (from Patavium). Sensi also considers the expansions f(liae) or f(eminae) c(arissimae). pp. This may well be the case in our inscription. “Epigraphica”. The masculine name Symphoniacus appears to be only once on record: CIL. 216–17): Rubria Felici tati v(ixit) a(nnos) XXV symphoniace Mercurio tuo sic valeas canta 186 The text is surrounded by a border. M. 11. 23369 (cf. If so. And in epitaphs the name of the deceased normally stands first. con una leggere scalpellatura dei listelli”. But above all she suggests that there is a stone cutter’s mistake in line 1: the reading Rubria is wrong. however. Occasionally. next the indication f(aciumdum) * 1 2 Epigraphica 65 (2003) 185–195 {with minor addenda}. The letters F C we have probably to expand as f(aciundum) c(uravit). 194–224. Cf. Among these texts there is also the following funerary stone (no. the order is reversed. This is not very attractive: first of all the feminine name Symphoniace does not seem to be attested3. La collezione archeologico epigrafica di George N. N. The omission of an E before F is indeed an easy mistake. H.44 SIC VALEAS: A LATIN INJUNCTION. VI. and as Sensi describes it. qui vixit an/nis XXI (provocanti = provocatori). Sensi. CIL. and added after the whole text had already been incised. Sensi observes that this word can be construed as a Greek feminine noun standing either in the nominative or vocative. 63 (2001). 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. The excellent photograph verifies the reading. The stone would appear to be set up by a Rubria for a deceased named Felicitas who had lived for twenty five years. Olcott. In this way by a stroke of pen though not of chisel we acquire the full name of the defunct: Rubria Felicitas2. Olcott1. V. pp. both in medical authors (in addition to dictionaries and electronic data banks. if she was a cantante. KAJANTO. Bibliotheca Latina Teubneriana. In its musical sense it is absent from the entire Greek literature as it is also from Plautus and Terence. the inscription now reads: Ode / C. -Òn. Helsinki 1967.. M. ROSSI. Cic. be a new supernomen: it is not listed in I. 308. Sensi suggests that it will be the vocative of Rubria’s supernomen5. Bari 1986. VI. And. COCCO. This is unlikely. The collegium symphoniacorum.Sic valeas 545 187 c(uravit) was normally placed after the name of the person responsible for the monument and not before4 – i. L. Lexique des termes de botanique en Latin. This is certainly true. in particular: the Packard Humanities Institute’s Latin Data Bank and Documentary Disk (including Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri). and the Revised Supplement (1996. 33372: Europe / Octaviae / symphoni/aca. This statement can easily be verified by running a search for the phrase faciundum curavit in the Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg. The Oxford Latin Dictionary indicates that Lat. 2–3. 33373 = IGUR. Concordantiae in Carmina Latina Epigraphica.. 55. The word itself. however. and several in Christian. 15). symphoniaca is. II. CIL. A. adducing various names for ÍoskÊamow says that some (ıi d¢) call it sumfvn¤akam. 269 reads: ÉOstç / ÉAgayoË/tow su/mfvnia/k∞w ÉOkt/aou¤aw7. tanto più che tre righe sotto la si invita a cantare a Mercurio. The feminine sumfvniakÆ. It is interesting to observe that Dioscorides. RICCI. seems to have been a Roman invention. p. we miss the nomen gentile. ed. P. n. 217. -Æ. on record as an alternate name for henbane (hyoscyamos). see nn. For the denomination of the trade the Greek-English Lexicon of LIDDELLSCOTT-JONES adduces under the entry sumfvniakÒw. C. W. frequently in Latin and rarely in Greek: TLG lists only two instances. II. Mil. VI. P. From the same columbarium comes a parallel inscription. L. Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg . Cassi / symphoniaca / vixi(t) an(nis) XIIX / Moschion / contubernali (cf. VI. presumably a slave. Mat. lists of names. and concordances. then symphoniace will not be a soprannome but rather a description of her trade. however. M. E. but the Greek term is as yet not attested (see above in the text). Die griechischen Personenamen in Rom. symphoniacus = sumfvniakÒw. Romae 1972. solely a Latin reference.e. with a number of further references). Concordanze dei Carmina Latina Epigraphica. Hildesheim 1988. Yet. FELE. L. 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. it makes its first appearance in Cicero (altogether five attestations in Cicero and at least five in other classical authors. by P. MASSARO. 11. Sensi avers “non é escluso che Rubria Felicitas fosse membro del collegio dei Symphoniaci” 8. Paris 1956. GLARE) still does not know of any genuine Greek term6. 68. 23369. On the other hand the vocative appears appealing. M. see J.. no. ANDRÉ. FLORE. 1024). She writes that “si fa riferimento alla bella voce o all’attività di cantante della defunta. thirdly. line 3. 1. Here the contribution of epigraphy stands in high relief: The inscription CIL. It would. She also observes that DESSAU in ILS lists inscriptions containing the appellative 4 5 6 7 8 . the collegium Solin. it is unlikely that the exequiae of Rubria Felicitas should have been supervised solely by a person called Symphoniace. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. IV. MORETTI in his annotation in IGUR corrects on the basis of autopsy the reading symphoniaci into symphoniaca in CIL. COLAFRANCESCO. G. 3). Patrologia Latina Database. med. Supernomina. Berlin 1982. whether in its musical or botanical application. In this and other searches I acknowledge the help of various databanks. on our stone it ought to have been added between lines 3 and 4 (and not 2 and 3). the Latin termination betrays the Roman origin of the word. che forse era il marito o il padre”. Macr.. SENSI refers here (p. We may be dealing with the vocative of the masc. XLIII. pp. qui sacris publicis praesto sunt.. WILLE. and it is unlikely. For the epigraphical and literary dossier. and in his Indices he lists the symphoniaci in the section entitled “Artes et officia privata” (vol. FLESS. 2192. G. Adv. symphoniacus and not with the (otherwise unattested) vocative (or nominative) of the Greek sumfvniakÆ in Latin garb. XI. and also in Christian authors they are associated with flutes and pipes15. 83. I. cf. (Paulus libro XXII ad edictum). tibiis. Yet it need not necessarily refer to her. M. DESSAU. 132–35. Gaius. de musica. Cicero thus refers to a band of musicians. 2. 89–90. 3877a. 64 and 73.. III. n. 5) a symphoniacus appears cum minimis . pp. 55. Inst. to the Bacchic cult.. 3877... Lat. 12. ut inflandis bucculas distenderent tibiis. but the author is infected with the irritating habit of presenting simple reprints of older works as new editions. the remaining depreciate in value. There is no evidence. p. 212. On the other hand all epigraphically attested members of the collegia of tibicines and fidicines were either ingenui or liberti12. 3696.. 5. 28. in Petronius and in Macrobius11. Louvain 1900. XXXII. but in this chapter De Robertis is concerned solely with the lex Iulia (de collegiis) and the legal standing of the collegia. II.546 Historia et Religio 188 tibicinum and fidicinum were officially recognized associations of public utility. pp. 2. and thus instead of the history of an argument we get a wobbly pile of titles). 2584. II. In Cicero the word appears always in the plural. III. she will be a private musician.. 54–55. col. and does not discuss at all the composition of that collegium or the meaning of the term symphoniacus. col. Cic. IX. Who were the symphoniaci (-cae)? They were musicians. 1054. see J. 880A): ut . This is brilliantly corroborated by iconographical evidence: the tibicines and fidicines who appear on reliefs pertaining to official ludi. Sat.. sacrifices and solemn processions are represented as togati. Bari 1972. that is as cives Romani13. 79–84. Pis.. Augustinus. 5. Étude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les Romains. 4416). 55. 2191. P. 28. they are all slaves in Cicero. VI. CIL. including the collegium symphoniacorum (CIL.. They are thus assumed to be slaves. Indeed legal authors treat the symphoniaci as a unit: if one of them is killed. 18. If the invocation symphoniace refers in fact to Felicitas. 1. V. Tibiae were symphoniacus among Tituli pertinentes ad ludos. col. III. DESSAU takes the denomination ludi in a broad sense. Lat. 195–237. 4. III. This refers. IV. Sat. Arnobius. quorum tibia et scabella fregistis. DE ROBERTIS. Certainly not. Div. 217. 22. esp. 742). in Caec. Petr. I. 110) to F. see also below. but Servius auctus (Aen. n. 240. 843. Mil. We must now ask what sort of musicians they were. Verr. and thus “ritiene che tale termine indichi membri di questo collegio”. 737) explains Vergil’s curva tibia as an instrument of symphoniaci14. gentes. F. p. 38 (Patr. Musica Romana. WALTZING. But in this case symphoniac(a)e would be awkwardly separated from Felicitati. A not unattractive possiblity is to postulate the dative symphoniac(a)e.. Storia delle corporazioni e del regime associativo nel mondo romano... pp. 737): s y m p h o n i a c i daemoniorum. Lat.. IDEM. Contra Gaudentium. male and female. ILS. that women were ever admitted to these associations9. Whenever they are introduced as a group no indication is given as to the instruments they used. s y m p h o n i a c a s agerent et fistulatorias hic artes. Dig. 1115): velut cum s y m p h o n i a c i sca- 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. In Petronius (Sat.. a spelling of the dative not infrequent in inscriptions10. 42 (Patr. 1 (Patr.. VI. 83 (iconographically this is a well researched study. II. however. Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadtrömischen historischen Reliefs. Mainz 1995. Amsterdam 1967. . cit. regard the collegium symphoniacorum as an amalgamation of the collegia tibicinum and fidicinum. On the other hand she very sensibly argues that under Augustus “une nouvelle association de musiciens du culte ait été créée. V. p. and also at various cultic processions. 13). 14). The fidicines functioned at celebrations ritu Graeco. {Cf. 17 FLESS. op. op. 133–34. col. 107–22 at 113–16. “BCH”. 16 Plut. n.. 4. LIEBENAM. 22–23.). J. 18 WALTZING. 9). pp. and keep the symphoniaci separate from the old and privileged association of tibicines. WILLE. cf. pp. The Isis Book (Metamorphoses. super Apocalypsin Joannis. freedmen and in general among the lower bella et cymbala pedibus feriunt . Hist. but we soon learn that this musician fistulas manu gerebat. who. cit. Leiden 1975 (= EPRO 39). 184–85. in M. 11]. cit. also ritu Romano17. Rennes 2001. 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. Musiciens romains de l’antiquité. pp. op.. n. following some earlier scholars (particularly MOMMSEN) regards them as identical with the collegium tibicinum. 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. München 1912. 715. 18 (Patr. Felicitas was in some way connected with Mercurius.Sic valeas 547 189 ubiquitous in Roman cult.. cf. n. D. pp. 706. cantandi arte victum quareret. (above. in P.. XXI.. Collegium tibicinum romanorum. did not propose any positive solution. pp. Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen Vereinswesens. 14). “L’Italia centro meridionale tra repubblica e primo impero. 9). et symphoniacorum. pp. (above. 75–91. all those whose instruments and voice produced a symphonia. The collegium symphoniacorum will be the association of the musicians who performed at the newer sacra and ludi. Book XI). 247–49 on the symphoniaci. (above. We should follow the good sense of G. and that it was subsequently reorganized under the lex Iulia of Augustus. esp. Tibicines populi Romani qui sacris publicis presto sunt tra Roma e Tibur. 16 (Patr. rom. pp. And finally Primasius Adrumetanensis (VIth c. 135. 711. also A. 83. 227–50. Milano 1999. et tubicinum. monach. Roma 2003. COMAND. On this concept. 307–38. tenore perpetuo. col. Quaest. and the collegium tibicinum belonged to the oldest associations the creation of which was ascribed to Numa16. however. pp. GRANINO CECERE. une association de musiciens au service de la religion romaine. A. Now Mercurius was a name relatively frequent among slaves. See further the excellent piece by M. Rufinus Aquileiensis. V. Lat. also sees in the collegium symphoniacorum an association comprising various kinds of musicians.). LAZZARINI and P. p.. Comment. both tibicines (they will use the curva tibia that had no place in the ritus Romanus. see WILLE. Münster 1930 (reprint 1972). qui . fidicines and other performers. 62 (1988). 55. 132. 908B) speaks of vox citharaedorum et musicorum. for the history and the legal standing of the collegia she relies almost exclusively on Waltzing. LXVIII. L. Alcuni aspetti culturali e istituzionali” [= “Opuscula Epigraphica”. Musik und Gesang in den Kulten der heidnischen Antike und christlichen Frühzeit. 40–44. 435C): he mentions a s y m p h o n i a c u s . n. 34. Les termes grecs et latins désignant des spécialités musicales. see A.. QUASTEN. pp. Apuleius of Madauros. G. G. n. Leipzig 1890. 498. BAUDOT. pp. Musique et religion dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine”. Collegium Symphoniacorum. GRIFFITH. (above. op. Montréal-Paris 1973.} . pp. in “Scritti in memoria di Giambattista Impallomeni”. WALTZING. p. BRULÉ and C. LOMBARDI (eds. BÉLIS. He thus opposes the citharoedi and symphoniaci. PÉCHÉ. n. 333). cit. BÉLIS. but this idea was rightly contested by W. “RPh”. cf. at the festivals of Isis a symphonia may have included the sound of harp. the latter must be the tibicines. ita ut si tibias non audias. 323–39.. a rather uneven study. 337–38}. WISSOWA. “Chanter les dieux.). adoptant le nom symphoniaci qui correspondait mieux à la diversité des instrumentistes réunis en son sein” (p. Lat. Contrary to her assertion (p. 31–32 125. Religion und Kultus der Römer2. J.. esp. cit. nullo modo ibi notare possis quousque procurrat connexio pedum {for scabellum. above. 112 (1988). op. VENDRIES (eds. qui saepe laqueos et muscipula effugerat. but in fine literature it occurs only once: Ovid. in dem vielleicht das Mehl in seiner Eigenschaft als kraftlos verdebliches Nahrungsmittel gesehen wird”. Stuttgart 2000. Furius Secundus mari/tus et sibi vivus fecit. KAJANTO. s. 3653 (from Verona).548 Historia et Religio classes of ultimately servile origin19. but it is here that the crux resides. in this epitaph it is the postscript (lines 12–14) that fully clarifies the family situation: Ulpius Gorgonius / piissimus Celerine conpari / pientissime (sic). that you are dust. inquit. canta! 22 Cf. Ars amat. Let us assume for the sake of argument that it is the deceased who is addressed as symphoniace. E. deinde perit et tertius Aliquot secutis venit et retorridus. . 14292 (from Salonae). Opinion has been expressed that this phrase utilizes an old “Eid. 23 O. 283–84.e. OBERG. 2. V. farina. und setzt sich mit einem befremdlichen Vergleich fort. AE 1977. About this phrase Sensi has nothing to report. I. set (sic) vivis vivesque Secun/do Laelia tuo. The Latin Cognomina. Helsinki 1965. v. I. pp. p.und Selbstfluchungsformel” 23. and only four examples in the literature. 28–29. Sic 19 I. 1043 = CIL. involvit se farina et obscuro loco abiecit neglegenter. may you indeed turn to dust)22. but their precise status remains unexplained. 20 And in the divine sphere. coll. The phrase is not only rare: also its usage is peculiar. Ein Namenbuch.. 595: si vox est. lines 4–5: Functa iaces hic. Phaedrus-Kommentar. 2173 = CIL. Stuttgart 1996. Phaedrus-Kommentar. SOLIN. pp. Mus escam putans adsiluit et compressus occubuit neci. She is to sing sic valeas. 21 The imperative canta is frequently adduced by grammarians. CLE. cf. Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen. you who are lying” (i. But he will hardly be the father of Felicitas. line 16: [P]roserpina cum tuo Plutone. IV. H. Felicitas is thus encouraged to sing21 for Mercurius. not available to me. 163–64. Exclamations and exhortations with various forms of valeo are frequent and frequently banal. 584. 134. 164. pp. but sic in conjunction with valeo is rare: only two epigraphical examples. For this usage of tuo in epitaphs two parallel examples can be adduced20: CLE. but quoted non-committally by OBERG. The experienced wizened mouse so addresses the sly weasel: “May you so prosper. Alter similiter. The prescript provides clarity (lines 1–4): Laeliae Clementine (sic) / uxori incomparabili / Q. SCHÖNBERGER in an article of 1991. 10–19: 190 Mustela cum annis et senecta debilis mures veloces non valeret adsequi. comments: “Die Rede beginnt ironisch formell: sic valeas. III. lines 2–3: Ulpia Celerina dulcis habe (= have) / Gorgonio tuo castissima senper (sic). tuo marks him rather as husband (or contubernalis). This is well illustrated by a passage of Phaedrus.. TLL. proculque insidias cernens hostis callidi: “s i c v a l e a s ”. you who are lying covered with meal and pretending to be food. 216. quae iaces!” The last punch line contains a word play: farina denotes not only flour but also dust. “ut farina es. In the inscription of Felicitas there is no such clarification: tuo connects her intimately with Mercurius. in quibus nulla esse potest. and on the dialogue itself.. 3-4 (Martial’s interlocutor Faustinus speaking): “s i c leve flavorum v a l e a t genus Usiporum. et in exsecrationibus: “ut v a l e a n t qui inter nos discidium volunt”26: unde etiam haec mortuis dicimus. p. Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la république. 391–92 (historical background). when in Phaedrus the mouse addresses the weasel sic valeas. D.. Martial. may acquire on occasion a negative connotation. 108. Studio letterario e prosopografico. s. esp. Varro probably commented on the etymology and usage of valeo in Messala de valetudine. .. quicumque alius transiliet moenia mea”). Grammatici Latini. hoc est ita a nobis discedant. Varro logistoricus. GREWING. but in those formulas it is not associated with valeo. it receives its point from the context. BOLISANI. I. ZUCCHELLI. Hinc ortum est ut etiam maledicti significationem interdum “vale” obtineat. The Oxford Latin Dictionary (p. He repeats the same explanation in a slightly different form at XI. 2 (“s i c deinde. In this perspective. 24 It will suffice to quote Liv. cf. sed quod ab his recedimus eos numquam visuri. 7. OPELT. 388–97. repelling and even outrightly cursing25. Keil. 26. At V. Cambridge (MA) 1993. p. VIII. exsecratio and maledictio. ut Terentius “v a l e a n t qui inter nos discidium volunt”. he really says sic pereas! The same flavor the phrase has in a verse of Martial VI.. Göttingen 1997. and 392. Heidelberg 1965. Parma 1980. Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. Roman grammarians and commentators were also well aware of that aspect of the verb. II. 25 There is no discussion of this application of valere in J. Padova 1937. 4 (“s i c eat quaecumque Romana lugebit hostem”). ideo mortuis “salve” et “vale” dici. E. 502 (the sense of valeo. HELLEGOUARC’H. 493 Servius interprets this and other similar usages as per contrarium inventa maledicta. 50–52. 8 (“populum Romanum s i c ferito ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam”). ut ostendamus. nos sic digredi. At III. Buch VI. Servius in his commentary to the Aeneis addresses the problem three times. including Greek parallels and antecedents). Thus not only “scornful dismissal” but also occasionally (interdum) curse and abuse. non quo eis optemus salutem. line 33) quoting Terence explains valeat as pereat. ut numquam ad nostrum revertantur aspectum . 2006. SHACKLETON BAILEY in his Loeb edition and translation of Martial’s Epigrams. pp. eos numquam in nostram communionem venturos.Sic valeas 549 191 figures indeed prominently and pointedly in various formulas of oath and curse24. 26 Terent. Lipsiae 1880. excellently. In isolation the meaning of sic is obscure. / quisquis et Ausonium non amat imperium”. Yet valeo itself. v. normally robust and positive. The poem is directed against a real or fictitious poetaster Pompullus: the Usipi “may . 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”. R. See also the erudite commentary by F. 24. 97: Varro in libris logistoricis dicit. I logistorici varroniani. 61. 696–97. 47. In the same vein the author of Fragmenta Bobiensia ad grammaticam pertinentia (ed. Paris 1963 or in I. 544. and they provided more insightful descriptions than their modern Oxonian colleagues. 80 he invokes the opinion of Varro: “salve” et “vale” secundum Varronem in logistoricis synonyma sunt: unde his et in salutatione utimur. H. a sense wistful. non quod valere aut salvi esse possunt. Andria. pp. see B. 27 So. sed ut significemus. perish as the works of ‘Pompullus’ will” 27. p. 83–85. J. 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. 13.e. quo fato. MARQUARDT. But it is unlikely that she is to utter an imprecatio. The inscription assumes as a fact that somebody had harmed the infant. Epist. laesit in the inscription versus laeserit in Phaedrus. / quo fato. 8. and “may the boys prosper” sic.. IV. and as she is dead. 29 Ut igitur ad quasdam res natura loci pertinet aliquid. 22). Leipzig 1886. Das Privatleben der Römer2. The subjunctive valeat depends on the limiting interjection si vis.e. . Before marriage dolls were offered by girls to Venus30. The use of tenses. (citing Varro). pp. where a pupa is likened to Venus). 233): Tu pupa s i c v a l e a s / sic habeas / Venere(m) Pompeianam / propytiam. but its precise sense in the inscription of Felicitas remains elusive. ad omnes certe non valebit. 1574. CLE. / s i c cum suis v a l e a t . referring probably to the sons of Germanicus. IV. the adverb must refer to her present state. the only thing not known is the person of the wrongdoer. come to mind (cf. n. The pronoun tuo imparts to the whole 28 Cf. i. sic affectio astrorum valeat si vis ad quasdam res. ad quasdam autem nihil.550 Historia et Religio 192 192 CIL VI. 6842. We come back to Phaedrus: the epitaph displays affinity of form and content with the maxim expressed by the fabulist (I. Valerio infanti / raptus qui est subito. / quisquis eum laesit. ex Pont. the pupae nocturnae mentioned in CIL. The former implies the fact. 43. is an epitaph and a curse (lines 4–10): L. We read. we may here have a reference to this custom. / ab(i)it noctis ab h(ora) VI. and thus forms no parallel to the usage in our inscription. votum commune deorum. 26. The main reason is the lack of obvious context. and thus the distinction is between “whoever harmed” and “whoever may have harmed”. More promising is Ovid. n. The immediate context is missing. CIL.. What does sic refer to? Now. 4353. In sentences introduced by si there are in the authors seven cases of the use of laesit and five of laeserit. At Cicero. is of some interest. The last line is not an injunction againt grave violation. de fato. 1–2): Nulli nocendum: siquis vero laeserit / multandum simili iure fabula admonet28. This line echoes the preceding verses (45–46): sic capto Latiis Germanicus hoste catenis / materiam vestris adferat ingeniis. “with the enemy captive in Latin chains”. i. A more frivolous and more likely interpretation will take pupa in the sense of puella. non scitur. in an Pompeian inscription the same phrase is employed in a joyous and jocular way worthy of Ars Amatoria. 70..e. OBERG. universally entrusted to divine care. Other sources mention in this context the Lares. Whoever harmed the infant (by a spell?) let him prosper in the same manner. / natus noctis h(ora) VI / vixit diebus LXXI. as it is Felicitas who seems to be singing. It takes up the statement raptus . the latter a possibility. i. 30 Pers. Ovid’s Ex Ponto was a poetry serious and fruitless. but two interpretations offer. and treat the graffito as an invocation to amor. cf. as “the universal vow to the gods”. may he perish with all his family. “may Germanicus provide a subject for your (poetic) talents” sic. Sat. Phaedrus-Kommentar (above. and the Scholia ad loc. Against this background the injunction sic valeas in the inscription of Felicitas seems to assume a sinister sound. 12. non scitur. IV. 47: s i c v a l e a n t pueri. II. 4007 (cf.. We are now rather well informed about the phrase sic valeas. IV. 28044 = CLE. the phrase has a simple declarative value29. The mention of sui indicates that the object of the curse is a human and not an irate or evil deity. 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. 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. STEUDING. 2821. Mercurius. op. 235–36. -a. 35 The scholion (a comment on Aen. s. Hermes. II. ROSCHER. It was precisely Hermes-Mercurius who was credited with the invention of the lyre34. 2. 32 B. 1894–1897. 34 See W. Mercure romain. (above. Its harmony reflected the harmony of celestial spheres. In this perspective death is not the end but the beginning of a journey. pp. SAVAGE. n. very scarce. pp. This will be the beginning of her song. The first sentence appears to refer to the evocation of souls from the 31 Cf. She was possessed of musical talents (lines 3–4): vox ei grata fuit. A scholiast on Vergil reports: dicunt tamen quidam liram Orphei cum VII cordis fuisse. She will be a fidicina. VI. To the reader of the epitaph a musical invitation is extended (line 9): pia voce cane: Aelia Sabina vale. 18). may have also comprised fidicines (see above. 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. cit. It was soon analyzed with acumen and erudition in two . M. 489 = CIL. KHANUSSI. cf. however. esp. but we never encounter a deceased singing for the living33. 2 (1990). (ROSCHER) Ausführliches Lexikon. s. set up by the husband. We are dealing with an eschatological injunction. 10501 (from Aquincum). 102. Is Mercurius dead too? Hardly. very much in the style of Servius auctus) was first published by J. n. pp.Sic valeas 551 194 message a delicate if wistful tone. pulsabat pollice cordas / set cito rapta silet. I. But if Mercurius is alive. We have seen that the term symphoniacus. commemorates (line 1) coniunx pia cara Sabina. 33 CLE. H. unde teologia (sic) assignatur. “MEFRA”. COMBET-FARNOUX. striking the strings of the lyre and intoning sic valeas. et negantur animae sine cithara posse ascendere35. “TAPA”. The epigraphical and iconographical references are. (ROSCHER) Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie. If he had predeceased Felicitas he would scarcely have needed any instruction or encouragement from a newcomer to the netherworld. 368–73. et celum (sic) habet VII zonas. Now in the carmina epigraphica we find occasional references to canere and cantus. 2814–16. The very names of Felicitas and Mercurius may have suggested the invocation. coll. Paris 1980. v. Notes on Some Unpublished Scholia in a Paris Manuscript. J. III. col. and he continues with this precious nugget of information: Varro autem dicit librum Orfei (sic) de vocanda anima liram nominari. 31). 647–49. 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. Now Felicitas cannot be imagined as a tibicina: one cannot play the flute and sing at the same time. coll. 2372–73. in which way is he to prosper? Perhaps so as Felicitas – ultimately in death. STEUDING. 2. 56 (1925). v. Mercure psychopompe en Afrique romaine. 1886–1890. a formula of greeting addressed to Mercurius. 119. although most often associated with flutists. 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. 27–32. however. pp. 1–4. “CR”. 41 (1927). Satires Ménippées. I. in “Munus amicitiae. 9–27. Die Werkstattgruppen der oberitalischen Sarkophage.. 298–99. 50–51.. PEEK. 29–32. F. both of them representations of Tetratia Isias (p. The Lyra of Orpheus. Frankfurt am Main 1995. she intones a harmonious melody for which Hermes discovered the rhythm on the lyre articles by A. 2). She prints the Greek texts as they are on the stone. Griechische Versinschriften. see esp. excellently argues for two female figures. Le iscrizioni greche di Ravenna. pp. 18–19. L’harmonie des sphères dans les Satires Ménippées de Varron. pp. On the concept of the cosmic lyre and the ascent of souls. MERKELBACH who discovers (through a supplement) a reference to the music of celestial spheres. 16. for a reconstructed Greek text. BOLLINI. cit. in Latin characters. no. The two occupants are Sosia Iuliana who died at the age of eight. Faenza 1975.H. Rome 1990. the commentary by A. pp. 1483. 8. 1. 36). tabb. surprisingly does not discuss these passages (but cf. Recherches sur le symbolisme funéraire des Romains. 1951. no. 36 (1979). 72–81. Et negantur animae sine cithara posse ascendere’. pp. COMBET-FARNOUX. VI. pp. followed by and large by subsequent scholars. Die Sphaerenharmonie auf einem ravennatischen Mystensarkophag. esp. 6 (1970). PATERLINI. in his erudite La vicenda dell’anima nel commento di Servio a Virgilio. Of earlier scholars always worth reading and inspiring remains CUMONT. but the statement “it is denied that souls can ascend without the help of a lyre” expresses the belief in the soul’s ascent to heaven. {See also N. and her mother Tetratia Isias. Sosius Iulianus. 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.552 Historia et Religio 195 underworld. pp. where Scipio Africanus describes the music of the spheres. (above. IX. pp. 606–7. 169–71. op. 13. pp. 107–13. pp. HERDEJÜRGEN. and ample bibliography. M. 38 Most scholars see here C. HERDEJÜRGEN (who revised the manuscript of Kollwitz) opts for the representations of the daughter Sosia Iuliana (p. 373–76. Berlin 1955. WEST. vol. 32). a short commentary. The defunct had learned to pronounce the sacred grammata (text b). Bologna 1992. and tabb. see M. Orfeo e la musica delle sfere. Varron. L. p. aperuerunt sibi reditum in hunc locum36. J. Somnium Scipionis. NOCK. n. 152–58. Of various interpretations I should like to mention the idea of R. esp. CÈBE. GABELMANN. (above. pp. On the left a female is represented seated and holding a stringed instrument. GABELMANN. 37 For the edition of inscriptions. ‘. 15. This circumstance strengthens the case for the invocation symphoniace as referring to the deceased herself.} 36 Cf. A. Scritti in memoria di Alessandro Ronconi”. 125–58. 1. . Septem discrimina vocum. op. VIII. On the right a seated reader holds an open volumen. below there is an ascia. 36–37. The Orphic Poems. see esp. cit. Berlin 1979. 35). 147–54. Varro and Orpheus. below there is a bust of Hermes psychopompos38. M. Tetratia’s husband. H. CUMONT. For the reliefs (and further bibliography). DESCHAMPS. Between those representations there is a simple and conventional Latin dedication. Die ravennatischen Sarkophage (= Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs. pp. RONCONI. 262. Firenze 1986. “Latomus”. see W. This belief recurs in Cicero’s Somnium Scipionis (de rep. pp. 2–4.-P. LAMBARDI. an idea contested by J. pp. 148). A 35. pp. D. KOLLWITZ .. Paris 1942. n. n. Firenze 1961. 18). above enigmatic Greek texts in Latin characters. “ZPE”. This path was open to those who had learned beforehand what tone to strike and what words to chant. 76–77). Oxford 1983. L. Bonn 1973. “CR”. 60–61 (he attributes Varro’s fragment to his Menippean ÖOnow lÊraw. Cicerone. A much discussed sarcophagus in Ravenna (dated to the third century) leads us straight into the mysteries of life and death37. no. 22). pp. 43 (1929). 27–78. SETAIOLI. Sic valeas 553 (text a). nervi and cantus and the Ravennate sarcophagus. Still. Alas in these matters certainty is not possible. reveals a not unusual eclectic nature of the belief. but the presence of the lyre. elusive as it is. ascensio. The monument is often assigned to the Isiac cult. the epitaph of Felicitas stands as a somber stony trace of the airy musings of philosophers. Varro and Cicero with their cithara. . provide a luminous illustration to our inscription. and of Hermes. For Isocrates “è . Religion and politics is a subject timely and difficult: it requires a mind open and erudite.. Religione e politica nel mondo antico (Contributi dell’Istituto di storia antica 7). The best example is the famous fourth chapter in L.. the concept of religious utilitarianism awaits a comparative study (an auspicious beginning has been * American Journal of Philology 105 (1984) 499–500 {with minor addenda}. Marta Sordi presents the collection as dealing with three major themes: il divino come fondamento del potere. If it is tilted in any direction it is toward antiquarianism. What was the point of view of ancient intellectuals as to the social role of religion? C. 97). ma ciò che è utile” (p. viii–ix). la divinizzazione del potere umano.). The collection under review consists of nineteen articles spanning the whole of antiquity from the Mycenaean wanax to Aetius. G. often useful..1–9 VARIA DE RELIGIONE 45. We cannot discuss critically all of them. 102). seldom inspiring. The ideas of Isocrates resemble the theologia tripertita of Varro and Mucius Scaevola (cf. for religion itself is a social matter. If there is no golden age. Pubblicazioni della Università Cattolica. when we study religion we do not deal with absolutes but only with points of view. but at the same time in his Busiris he presented religious piety as the bulwark of the state. The diagnosis is correct. Mikkola. It is a subject the shrewdest scholars find disconcerting. ix + 277. . 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. Isokrates (Helsinki 1954) 118–59. ANRW I 4 [1973] 63–115). which is not the worst fare we could be served. are footnoted extensively though erratically.45. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. la politica religiosa or la religione . Bearzot takes Isocrates as her example (pp. R. only change. Pp. It invites shallow profundity. Taylor’s celebrated Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley 1949). In other words. there is no corruption.1 THE USES OF RELIGION* Marta SORDI (ed. Lieberg. 97–114). The individual articles. Progress and decay are interchangeable notions. buono non ciò che è vero. but it does not go beyond what one can read in E. free of corrupting influences of social matter – a noble illusion.. This attitude presupposes the existence of epochs when religion stood pure and pristine. 1981. come strumento di lotta politica (pp. 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. He was a person “di scarsa sensibilità religiosa” (p. A dilemma? Scarcely. or A. such as M. but the tribunician sacrosanctity does not derive from this act: it stems from the original lex sacrata. Studies in Greek and Roman Religion. Van Gennep’s grand work.” Roman Essays and Interpretations (Oxford 1920) 42–52. S. She points out that the tenor of Tiberius’ speech in Plutarch Tib. runs counter to the basic tenets of Roman sacral law. Abendland 24 [1978] 43–56). Döring. Les rites de passage (Paris 1909). The editor of the series. Brill. “Roman Costumes. in the light of A. VERSNEL (ed.” ANRW I. and L. This is the second volume in the new Brill series. “On the Toga Praetexta of the Roman Children. H.Varia de religione 555 500 made by K. “Antike Theorien über die staatspolitische Notwendigkeit der Götterfurcht. 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. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 2). Amiotti (pp. Versnel. By its vote the plebs elects the tribunes.). voluntas et vires desunt. the plebs cannot delete it (unfortunately her remarks on the lex curiata are confused: the lex curiata de imperio was not a lex sacrata. And as to the toga praetexta and toga pura. Negativism is a bad habit. Kaser. Warde Fowler. 341–52. S. Das römische Privatrecht (München 1971) 60–71. 131–40) proposes to study the assumption of the toga virilis. but it rested on a sacral foundation. Watson. which means I do not think much of recent work on this subject in England and America {cf. The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (Oxford 1967) 77–101. The author will be well advised to consult the standard textbooks of Roman law. faith and rationalism are twin and disparate obstacles. as she calls it. The senseless collecting of bizarre footnotes is a high ideal of antiquarianism.2 SPES IN FIDE* H. but the trust they place in his analysis of the tribunate is quite misplaced: the tribunate was a political institution. The superstitious Livy is a much more reliable guide to the Roman mind than the rationalist Polybius. one ought not to miss the studies by W. The moral of the story is this: in the study of the sacrum. To describe them all spatium. Leiden. the sworn law). Bonfante. 124–30). No. Faith. 4 (1973) 59–92. Hope and Worship. Sordi “La sacrosanctitas tribunicia e la sovranità popolare in un discorso di Tiberio Gracco” (pp. who made his name with his * American Journal of Philology 105 (1984) 111–113 {with minor addenda}. 1981. Too many articles in our collection come close to this ideal. . The admiration for Polybius of the British and American authors is politically quite understandable. I am happy to be emphatically positive with respect to the article by M. 45. Anthropology is now the fad: classical erudition appears quaint and superfluous. As it is not given by the plebs. ix + 284. or the iniziazione romana.” Antike u. G. 15. 64. Pl. 8}. in this volume. Pp. Versnel treats of “Religious Mentality in Ancient Prayer” (pp. gifts representing the offerer (often engaged in prayer or performing a sacrifice) or the deity. Greek Votive Offerings (Cambridge 1902) has not yet been replaced. 65–151).. Versnel. S. 1–64) and concludes that “it is hard to perceive a sharp distinction between Greek and Roman attitudes to prayer or between ancient and modern ones. H. An abyss appears to divide ‘normal’. middle of the road. Rouse. much of the ancient votive lore has survived to our days in the customs of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. “a distressing sign of the preset state of ancient historical research. and as any traveler to these parts of the world can attest. a liber certus in re incerta. himself a “middle of the road” scholar. Dionysos. and above all sickness figure most prominently as occasions calling for votive offerings. contests. 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. The ancient prayer was composed of two major elements. of which van Straten provides a full catalogue. and worship sounds sentimental enough. invocatio and preces. is also the editor of the present volume and one of its chief contributors.” The precatio was either silent (often associated with magic) or loud or sung. goes on to describe his own encounter with Derrida. D. 93. was their most striking feature. so often misunderstood by earlier excavators disappointed not to have found beauty where functional ugliness was the goal. Isis. as it still is: compare Livy 5. and his own feeling of disbelief (30–31). As to the preces. Initiations.12: “precibus ab dis petitum ut exitium ab urbis tectis . and somebody has to call juvenile fancies by the name they deserve. Of the last {1 This admonition evoked an interesting reaction from H. is the anatomical ex-vota. hope. van Straten discusses “Gifts for the gods” (pp. Hermes. Interestingly. He grants that the review was “balanced and honest”.{1} The book is at times diffuse. The invocation posed some problems: whom to invoke? This depended on the nature of the problem and on personal persuasion. Introitus. the Gebetsegoismus. 10). F. Versnel traces the intermingling of the polytheistic and henotheistic elements in the invocations. no-nonsense historical techne from the ‘funny’. but he deplores the reference to the Parisian gurus as a “frantic reaction”. ancient and modern. When we contemplate the bare walls of Greek temples we have to imagine them cluttered with gifts. but the alarm is premature. for as the author points out. And gifts are also of importance for the study of religious continuity. gifts as a token of the arete of the devotee and as a monument to the arete of the deity.} . words have been even more pleasing than gifts. arcerent Veiosque eum averterent terrorem” with Missale Romanum. the intermingling mirrored today in the cult of specialized or local saints and virgins. The chasm exists. Three Studies in Henotheism (= Inconsistencies in Geek and Roman Religion I (Leiden 1990) 30.18. n. Versnel in his eminently scholarly and eminently fascinating book Ter Unus. selfishness. T. H. He provides a useful classification of the ex-vota: gifts in the fulfillment of a vow. but van Straten’s catalogue is a step in the right direction. speculative history”. S. Faith.556 Historia et Religio 112 Triumphus (Leiden 1970). either from a thematic or an emotional point of view” (p. Here the most interesting category. The book by W.. But to the gods. 9th Sunday after Pentecost: “averte mala inimicis. the practice and theology of votive offerings in Greece. He calls this an example of faith. Gods and men co-existed within the material world. not gods). and it is to the latter that H. Because Neptune was helping Sex. it was entitled to a remuneration. 193–215). he discusses the concepts expressing the superiority of the deity and the subservience of the worshipper. beheaded. S. According to Pleket the self-humiliation of the worshipper before the imperious deity reflects the despotic structure of oriental societies. for through their rage men were proclaiming the very existence of gods or saints. P. containing texts. F. Roman Prayer Language: Livy and the Aeneid of Vergil (Stuttgart 1993). which he explains as deriving from “emergency situations. Chapot and B.} If the deity acceded to the preces. “Invocations et structures théologiques dans la prière à Rome”.. and commentaries. No doubt. 16). The gods were expected to live up to their end of the bargain: if they did not listen. That common people believed in gods and that statesmen both believed and found it useful need not surprise us. and gods need men..Varia de religione 557 113 form. Greek Hymns: Selected Cult Songs from the Archaic to the Hellenistic Period I–II (Tübingen 2001). Laurot. but it is also an inarticulate realization of a simple truth: men need gods. Philosophically there is nothing wrong with the idea of beings more powerful than . Brulé and C. translations. Pleket turns his attention. Hence the philosopher was not forced to choose between a supreme being and matter. For the doule¤a toË teoË 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.). F. Hickson. Guittard. But even worse things could happen: statues were flogged. Bömer. unlike Bömer. V. but P. Pleket is inclined to find traces of this attitude in fourth century Greece. men felt deceived and would occasionally vent their anger on the gods themselves. auct. Bremer provides a typology and a useful survey of extant texts (pp. But in Greek and later antiquity the counterpart to preces was not grates but rather laudes. the hymn. Augustus removed his statue from the pompa deorum (Suet. Corpus de prières grecques et romaines (Turnhout 2001). 152–92). REL 76 (1998) 71–92. but why did the philosophers believe in gods? Some apparently did so because of fear (of men. Freyburger and L. D.103). M. on hymns. 4. Pompey. Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford) 1997. {Prayers for more studies on ancient prayers have been answered: see G. ad Aen. A. broken. Aug. see W. Pernot. J. This conclusion echoes the ideas of F. Chanter les dieux: musique et religion dans l’antiquité grecque et romaine (Rennes 2001). W. Meijer is certainly right in trying to find a philosophical (and not only social) explanation for the insignificance of atheism in antiquity (pp.” especially with respect to the healer-god Asklepios. and for this attitude Versnel again adduces illuminating parallels from the Christian Mediterranean. We can approach a deity in an active or passive way. Vendries (eds. Still I see no reason why oriental influences should be excluded from fourth century Greece. In a very competent epigraphical study on the “believer” as servant of the deity in the Greek world (pp. C. The deity was not perceived as deus creator. Pulleyn. 216–63). but. Bibliographie analytique de la prière grecque et romaine (1898–1998) (Turnhout 2000). It is a feature alien to Greek society. Furley. The religions of antiquity are to be approached on their own terms. a localibus ad inlocalia. It is divided into three parts of which the weakest is devoted to Varro’s ‘spiritual journey’. Evans [1939]. the middle and middling to his theological system.g. doctissimus Romanorum. 237). and advocated a Stoic and Roman idea of virtue: ‘vivere patriae et propter patriam filios procreare’ (Aug. Spadoni Cerroni and Reggiani Massarini [1992]) does not inspire confidence. and an opportune reference to Claudianus Mamertus (de statu animae 2. takes no account of Varro’s humour. and thus to the ultimate reality of animus. 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. But L. argues that Varro’s ethics centered (following Antiochus of Ascalon) around the concept of summum bonum. vol. language and Varro’s home city of Reate (Poucet [1963]. illus.. L. receives no debate. and the best to his philosophical doctrine. Varron: théologien et philosophe romain (Collection Latomus. surprisingly paying little attention to the filter of Augustine and never drawing a clear distinction between Varro the philosopher (‘theologian’) and Varro the antiquarian. has not been served well by philology. L.3 VARRO DE DEIS* Yves LEHMANN. a natural stance for a Roman aristocrat). of gods being products of communities. and the best general treatment still remains the RE article by H. Lehmann’s book is diffuse. The book opens with a tribute to Dumézil’s ‘rehabilitation’ of Varro as a ‘penseur religieux original’ (29). but a treatment that missed standard books on Sabine myth. cults. Bruno Tibiletti [1962]. Pp. 394. also covers the familiar ground of theologia tripertita and of Divine Antiquities. insists on Varro’s ‘sabinisme’. 1997.8) according to whom Varro proceeded ‘a visilibus ad invisibilia. Dahlmann (1935). L. There is a good discussion of Varro’s rationalistic reinterpretation of religious accounts (e. A compliment to Varro? * Journal of Roman Studies 90 (2000) 227. CD 19. 45. of Hercules). propounded a compromise between otium and negotium (or in other words between Varro’s own scripta and gesta.4). Bruxelles: Éditions Latomus. Varro. We still do not have a commented edition of all fragments. that so disquieted Augustine (CD 6. on the other hand when the deus creator is made superfluous he simply disappears. 1). In particular Varro’s famous statement.558 Historia et Religio men. but has points of interest. a corporeis ad incorporea’. and for an attempt to do so we owe thanks to the authors of this book. . Römische Geburtsriten. 7] that the omen impetrativum was “ein selbstgeschaffenes Vorzeichen”). and footnotes devour the text (still one misses that small mine of odd information. La familia romana I (Roma 1994) 140–78}. Munich: Verlag C. Dei 6. the bibliography covers eighteen dense pages. De vita populi Romani (frg. This restores the full sense to Varro. Deverra) protected the woman “ne deus Silvanus per noctem ingrediatur et vexet. Heft 87). Conception. Varro (in August.” Three men (tres homines) representing these deities * American Journal of Philology 113 (1992) 303–304 {with minor corrections and addenda}. Arthur Schiller [Leiden 1986] 93–95. exposition by C.” in: Studies in Roman Law in Memory of A. B. We deal here with an auspical omen (though Köves-Zulauf is quite wrong when he claims [p. What was legally decisive was the utterance of the father: tolli iubeo. .” where L. 81 Riposati = Nonius 848 Lindsay): “natus si erat vitalis ac sublatus ab obstetrice. B.” Index 28 (2000) 273–78: a precise and binding legal expression. The book by Köves-Zulauf is immensely learned. D. W. Fayer.Varia de religione 559 45. (Zetemata. though not understanding. “Tollere liberos. Müller’s conjecture aspicetur seduced both Lindsay and Riposati into corrupting the text. Harris. also the encyclopedic. Monographien zur klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. who. By lifting the baby from the ground the father was legally acknowledging it as his legitimate child. de civ. Santoro. The tollere infantem was a physical and a legal act. W. Birth and Infancy in Ancient Rome and Modern Italy [Coconut Grove 1948]). The book treats of three thorny problems: of tollere infantem. the more learning is required to crack its code. of Intercidona. So the communis opinio. with supreme disregard for clarity or the reader. It is also written. Deverra. 304 Birth and death are the two mysteries of living matter. V. Pilumnus. McDaniel. “Raising and Killing Children: Two Roman Myths. {Discussion continues. Pilumnus. Pp. which surround them with bizarre rites. in all religions.H. Capogrossi Colognesi. “Sul ‘tollere liberos’.4 NATALICIA* Thomas KÖVES-ZULAUF. 1990. statuebatur in terra ut auspicaretur rectus esse. and diffuse. “The Roman Father’s Power of Life and Death. 31) that in fact the father did not touch the child at all: the physical act of tollere was normally performed by an obstetrix. 1–92. Herein resides the father’s ius vitae necisque: he could as well have the baby exposed (cf. N.” MEFRA 102 (1990) 107–27: a ceremony that after the archaic period rapidly lost its juridical content. as befits a German Ordinarius.” Mnemosyne 54 (2002) 31–77: no such ceremony ever existed. unbeknownst to Köves-Zulauf.. and of the risus of the Luperci. esp. Are we reading the same sources? Cf. L. The more bizarre a rite. Shaw. On the basis of an impressive array of sources Köves-Zulauf demonstrates (pp. and they inspire awe. 8–14. expressed this idea briefly and cogently). XXVI + 419. It was not an act of “recognition” but rather an order and permission to bring the child up. Beck.9) reports that post partum three gods (Intercidona. J. and the Greeks and Romans did not know they were ‘pagans’. The amiculum Iunonis (Festus 75 L. Am. Pp. 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. 30}). 146-47. FREYBURGER. C.4–5) is an enigma. By striking the limen with a pilum the father symbolically placed his newborn son on the threshold “in der Gestalt eines pilum”.‘Sect’ also sounds suspiciously Christian. F. . 21. FREYBURGER-GALLAND. P. above in this volume. but it has a good though restricted classical pedigree. Rom. The ritual of the Luperci is an initiation rite. Michels. By O. Sectes religieuses en Grèce et à Rome dans l’antiquité païenne (Collection Realia). 218). vollzog die Eingliederung eines neuen pilumnus in seine Familie” (p. Dorcey. his explanation is impenetrable.” Proc. perhaps the three deities were protectors against the three hypostases of the god. Peter. 217). E..” and corresponds to the “Hervorbringen eines Menschen” (pp. domesticus and agrestis (as suggested by R. in this way “ein Angehöriger des pilumnus populus . and the Chair of St. K. No. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. A. as placid as Köves-Zulauf and Palmer are adventurous}). pamphlet at rear. n. DE CAZANOVE [and others].560 Historia et Religio walked at night around the house. it represents the “birth” of pilum “aus einem Baum. A. and first struck the threshold with an axe (limen securi ferire). Palmer. 8 plates. Responsible scholars long ago stopped applying abusive terminology to the religions of Africa or Asia. 16 plates. (Collection de l’École Française de Rome. The rite has to do with a symbolic “Pilum-Herstellung”. The “insight is unavoidable” (“unausweichlich”) that the female Opfertier (capra) “that stood at the center of the ritual” represented Iuno herself (pp. Sylvester. then with a pestle (postea pilo). in this volume. L. 1986. What is a ‘religious sect in pagan antiquity’? ‘Pagan antiquity’ is a misnomer. L’association Dionysiaque dans les sociétés anciennes. 338. Applied to the fol* Journal of Roman Studies 78 (1988) 207–208 {with minor addenda}.. 6 text figs. But what if the baby was a girl? The theory collapses. 89). 122 [1978] 222 {cf. The Cult of Silvanus.5 SECTAE ET SECTATORES* M.) with which the Luperci struck women demonstrates that the feast was dedicated to Iuno. and their laughter represents the first risus of an infant (p. Soc. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’École Française de Rome (Rome 24–25 mai 1984). Pp. 245–55). “The Topography and Interpretation of the Lupercalia.” TAPA 84 [1953] 52–55 {cf. and thirdly swept it with a broom (tertio deverrere scopis). Philos. 106. claims Köves-Zulauf. Oddly enough the role of Silvanus is utterly neglected. 1986. “Silvanus. G. 237). 45. 36}. {Cf. TAUTIL. A Study in Roman Folk Religion [Leiden 1992] 36–40. 318. Rome: École Française de Rome. the Silvanus orientalis (residing in a grove). 49. No. The laughter of the Luperci (Plut. Köves-Zulauf devotes more than a hundred pages to this ritual (95–218).. scripta manent’ – unfortunately) to sober epigraphy and even more sober prosopography. Geyer. Cumont: the inscription testifies to a migration to Latium of hundreds of ‘sectateurs des mystères gréco-asiatiques’ (AJA 37 [1933]. Alföldy. no other ancient cult seems ever to have been described as secta. Nor did there obtain in the thiasos any social equality: the senators head the list. suff. Among the imperial Bacchic associations the thiasos from Torre Nova (IGUR I. and sometimes were perceived as being dangerous and subversive (as the worshippers of Bacchus and occasionally those of Isis in Rome). 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. is symptomatic of the current interest in the religious and irrational aspects of social history. from the initiates into the mysteries (Eleusinian and of the Cabiri) to the Pythagoreans and the cultores of Cotys. Pompeius Macrinus (cos. Classical antiquity. loose associations. All these cults had one thing in common: they were only partially integrated into the official religion of Greek cities or of Rome. The authors of Sectes bring this forth very well. 275–90) gives an illuminating interpretation of the thiasos. Seniority depended not upon the degree of initiation but on the class. 107. did not know the atrocity of religious wars. an aggiornamento of the epigraphic evidence. and the inscription . It contains sixteen contributions by fifteen scholars. John Scheid (pp. “Secta: de la ligne de conduite au groupe hétérodoxe”. a fundamental difference. and dubious assertions (‘verba volant.2) of the prefect of the city Gracchus destroying (in 376) a Mithraic sanctuary is an emblem of the times. will be disappointed.Varia de religione 561 208 lowers of a philosophical school the term appears for the first time in Cicero. {See now P. save for short interludes it harboured peacefully a multitude of creeds and philosophies. 550). Boulhol. their book. p. hence the conclusion of F. We deal with the familial cult of two senatorial clans: the Gavii of Verona and the Pompeii Macrini. 150). Not at all. devotees of a particular deity. The volume deals with l’association Dionysiaque. terminological and onomastic treasure trove. If they finally succumbed. Those who expect a systematic treatment of Dionysiac associations. the latter ultimately descended from the celebrated Theophanes of Mytilene. and related to the Gavii by the marriage of Pompeia Agrippinilla to M. The thiasos was probably established by Agrippinilla’s father. and Diocletian fulminates against the Manichaeans ‘qui novellas et inauditas sectas veteribus religionibus obponunt’ (FIRA II.} Yet the term is not inappropriate: the authors of Sectes deal with well-defined groups of followers of a particular creed. M. and above all Dionysus (also Zagreus and Sabazius). and proceeds from high ecstasy. 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. And it is to the God of ecstasy that the French School at Rome dedicated a table ronde. Building upon the studies of A. Bendis. H. Adonis. Cybele and Attis. and not with Dionysiac associations. 160) is a prosopographical. Gavius Squilla Gallicanus (cos. Most of its some four hundred members bear Greek names. 115). destined for the broad reading public. whatever its faults. they did so not to persuasion but to force: Jerome’s glowing praise (Ep. Tertullian uses it with respect to the Christians. RHR 219 (2002) 5–33. Solin and G. Still. 237). Isis and Mithra. M. were two lasting achievements. Liebenam (1890) and the massive opus of J.-M. P. ‘Dionysos en ses parousies’. Carolsfeld (1933) and F. Untersuchungen zu Organisation. and reached its culmination in the monograph of W. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Schnorr v.. Lavagne (pp. 45. 31–51). Mommsen was speaking of collegia et sodalicia. in epigraphy clarity rules. viii + 310.. 261–73). Turcan’s discussion (pp. But the most delightful epigraphic treat is R. “I processi ‘intra cubiculum’: il caso di Valerio Asiatico”. Ritual und Raumordnung (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 13). 129–48) studies the imperial policy toward the associations of the technitai in Gaul.1–3) his ‘troupe théâtrale . EGELHAAF-GAISER. Pp.6 RELIGIOUS ASSOCIATIONS* U. A. Mommsen’s slim volume (1843). 149–64) gives an informed overview of the Dionysiac associations in Roman Africa. The present age. CISA 22 [1996] 249–59. Hanoune (pp. In the last two hundred years there were two great and distinct periods in the study of Roman collegia. The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus (1983). and H. Musti (pp. ‘Images du ménadisme féminin’ or ‘Le thiase et son double’. J. 247–59) 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. the law of association.-C. Tagliafico. 227–46) of the famous archaic inscription from Cumae and of its orphic connections: oÈ y°miw §n toËya ke›syai fi m¢ tÚn bebaxxeum°non. both the Ptolemies (but Dunand hardly goes beyond E. . R. 85–104) and D. de Robertis of diritto. Waltzing of corporations professionnelles. L. 2002. a du jouer un rôle importante’: it spread Asiaticus’ popularity. Pailler considers the term ‘bacanal habere’ (pp. Dunand (pp. SCHÄFER (edd. Tac. Lavagne is not cited}). de Robertis (with numerous articles and books from 1932 to 1995).562 Historia et Religio itself would date to 160–165. and this made Claudius nervous – as it does the reader (the key or picklock to this reconstruction is CIL XI. ills. and the pres* Classical Review 54 (2004) 205–206 {with minor addenda}. The first was inaugurated by T.). recording scaenici Asiaticiani {cf. 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. the third element. fenomeno and regime associativo. Rice. Collection of inscriptions. Moretti (pp. But politics was nothing new to Dionysus: as F. Ann. and M. Religiöse Vereine in der römischen Antike. make one long for some Apollinian light. Waltzing (1895–1900). continued to be hotly debated in the next century.. a sober study. 11. he claims that in the debacle of Valerius Asiaticus (cf. 1929 = ILS 5205 from Vienna. Even if misdirected. elucidation of realia. ‘Bacchos au coeur de la cité’. L. Schnorr of juristische Person. E. with two protagonists rising. with whose dating she disagrees) and the Attalids used the god in their dynastic propaganda. Villanueva Puig presents a dossier of the Delphic Thyiadae (pp. 105–28) point out. and we get a lot of it. they indeed permeated the whole society. 97–120] who. on the francophone nineteenth century legal studies of the collegia}). R. 81–96) studies the exercise of cult in the professional associations in imperial Asia Minor (including Jews and Christians). a topic that lends itself to ponderous jargon. I would define them as public bodies to which in practice only members of the ‘upper class’ were able to gain entry. and of their response to entreaties and expiations. Schäfer with respect to . Römische Vereinshäuser (Mainz. Anales de Arqueologia Cordobesa 6 [1995]. Bendlin rightly stresses the extreme variety of Roman associative arrangements. 123–72).). N. the communal experience of space. He defines them as ‘Religiöse Vereine der Oberschicht’ (pp. a thorough study of the scholae collegiorum in Italy (for the provinces. S. IJCT 8. see J. 41–67). 9–40). Markschies [pp. In the present volume U. adorned with honorific inscriptions and statues (a situation of which both the ancients and the scholars of the last two centuries were well aware. not on doctrine or deliberations. The second part is devoted to ‘Raumwahrnehmung und Gemeinschaft’. Allegedly neither pontiffs nor augurs possessed an Amtslokal and a permanent archive. Avram discusses the dionysiac thiasos in Kallatis (pp. The topic is pursued by A. they are rich in ‘theory’ and poor in history. And what is a religious association? J. Perry. Bollmann. A. Dittmann-Schöne (pp. Yet the net is cast impossibly wide. does not discuss schools as associations but rather delves into the content of Christian education). 29–77 at 48–62). in the first place praise is due to B. 69–80). 205–16 (also with interesting observations on Waltzing and the syndicalisme {cf. Now we do not have Roman central archives at all (of the senate. For what useful goal is served when we talk in this context of res publica. His stress is on sacerdotal banquets. ergo they did not exist? Priestly archives were an indispensable tool in maintaining the pax deorum. however. Carillo Díaz-Pinés. Tran. ‘Ancient Collegia. and I. Cahiers Glotz 12 (2001) 181–98. Modern Blackshirts?: The Study of Roman Corporations in Fascist Italy’. 1998). careful record had to be kept of the gods’ anger and favor. A pity for archaeological investigations have vastly enriched our knowledge of the topographical and material environment of the Vereinswesen. ‘Las sedes de corporaciones’. Any remarks on historia studiorum must be grounded in the epoch in question. for an exemplary treatment of a selected subject. and prefers to ponder weightier subjects described as Strukturen and Raumordnung. Bendlin offers ‘Forschungsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu den Mustern sozialer Ordnung in Rom’ (pp. Egelhaaf-Gaiser discusses ‘Religionsästhetik und Raumordnung’ taking as an example seats of corporations (some quite putative) in Ostia (pp. Two papers deal with religious associations of the Unterschicht: A.Varia de religione 563 206 ent collection of articles. Rüpke bridges – or obscures – the gap between public and private and includes here the official collegia sacerdotum. retreats from law and from detailed exegesis of literary and epigraphical texts. see J. censors. populus or cities? Or of schools? (as does C.2 (2001). etc. 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. and moreover they were able to describe it in simple language). 173–220). TURCAN. surprising that no author in this volume evinces interest in the status. Indeed who would not be amazed. Hermes 118 (1990) 35–56} and the Historia Augusta. and bearing the title Die Ssabier und der Ssabismus.7 EX ORIENTE TENEBRAE* M. 397. professor at the Petersburg University. Les cultes orientaux dans le monde romain. The emperor in question is. Verstegen’s study of the space arrangement (one notes various levels of exclusion of penitents) in Christian basilicas of the fourth and fifth centuries (pp. We ought to try new lenses and sieves to view and sift our material. An updated Waltzing is also urgently needed (we have only a limited first step: G. A. Cassius Dio. from the heights of the Roman curia and Christian basilica to the scholae in the humble world of the collegia. Optendrenk. 261–97). A. 45. Thus a very catholic collection. of Roman templa). incensed or envious. may throw light on the beliefs and doings of a Roman emperor. 1911). and by H. The arrangement and control of space reveals itself as an instrument of social stratification and political power. 2000]). Stuttgart: Steiner. 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. R. Mennella and G. 221–60). 24 pls. sacral and augural. The amazement flows directly from our ancient authorities (if they are to be called so). with a full catalogue of the finds (pp. Scheithauer. but interestingly no author utters a complaint that the various associations of cultores deorum are still waiting for a corpus of testimonies. 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. Goethe’s command applies to rulers too. Pp. Chwolsohn. legal. of course. Apicella. 1819-1911. Un aggiornamento al Waltzing [Napoli. Le corporazioni professionali nell’Italia Romana. Hay entitled his book. FREY. ‘the amazing emperor Heliogabalus’ (as J.564 Historia et Religio the headquarters of the Iobacchi in Athens. Few Roman historians will suspect that a book published in 1856 in St Petersburg in German by a Jewish-Russian oriental scholar (D. The volume is rounded off by U. how to understand them? It is not only to understand the poet that you have to go to his country. 1989. Pp. Go (at * Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990) 235–236 {with bibliographical addenda}. Herodian {cf. . however. But if the ‘facts’ continue to be amazing. of inclusion and exclusion. Schwarzer who writes about Vereinslokale in Hellenistic and Roman Pergamon (pp. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. S. Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal (Historia Einzelschriften 62). but we will be well advised not to take fancy words as a cipher to knowledge. 5 figs. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal im Spiegel der Historia Augusta [1969]). iv + 125. 1989. 1855-94). Varia de religione 565 least spiritually) to Emesa! Immerse in the cult of the sun god Elagabal (originally Ilaha Gabal. but the way was prepared for him by the work of eminent students of Semitic religions and of Syria. Clemen. 3 (1986) 1805–25).) (Stuttgart 2004) 51–55. and the sacred serpents (but if you want to know everything you ever wanted to know about snakes in cult. Nöldeke. . what the Roman sources describe as excesses (and modern scholars often explain as ‘perversity’) finds often explanation in the rites of Syriac religions: from Elagabal’s attempted (or pretended) self-castration. Isis. . Pietrzykowski. Roland. mix with the worshippers of Allath. Dussaud. 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. replacing Jupiter. S. Now the solution to the ‘problem’ of Elagabalus emerges: he was a sincere devotee of his god. H. Syme’s writings on the subject). and the presentation stresses read M. Thus the subjects treated are familiar: Magna Mater. Hence only a few words of comment on Turcan’s theoretical position. 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. in Rome he was to lead a new Trinity. because of the paganisme in the title. Atargatis. and child sacrifices. his prostitution (no doubt cultic). the terminology. the cults from Syria. Chr. Dea Syria and Astarte. Frey himself is not an orientalist. Schlüter. Dera narrative rather than argument. Mithras. (193–337 n. This is the premise on which the intelligent monograph (originally a Mannheim dissertation) by M. R. ANRW II. visit Hatra. Frey builds (following the lead of M. H. W. Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain. Turcan. Chiron 21 (1991) 175–78. the Thracian Rider.gôn und Götzedienst [1982]). to his marriage with the Vestal Aquilia Severa. Dionysos and Sabazios. such as T. and ultimately led to the fall of the emperor and of his god. J. R. now H. it was preceded by the elevation of the god Elagabal to the position of the highest god in Rome. magic and astrology. 16. C. First. with old gods serving as his ministri (discussion whether this can be called ‘henotheism’ appears to me sterile). Palmyra and Harran. ‘Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal’. Turcan points out that in the classic book by F. 9). Edessa. 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). Hadad. Drijvers (all these names are significantly missing from Optendrenk’s commentary and from R. This marriage paralleled the ‘marriage’ of the god Elagabal with the Carthaginian Dea Caelestis (Tanit). {Cf. addresses his book above all to the educated public. Berrens. Seyrig.} Some scholars (even the great Cumont) fancy that Elagabalus intended to introduce monotheism. Christianity and Judaism are ‘logically excluded’ (p. Cumont. ‘Gott Berg’). who in the past twenty-five years has contributed many substantial studies to the history of ancient religions (among them Héliogabale et le sacre du Soleil [1985]). These moves caused an uproar in Rome. represented by a black stone. and possibly coincided with the Emesan New Year Festival. Sonnenkult und Kaisertum von den Severern bis zu Constantin I. Frey and Turcan (and Pietrzykowski) recoil from that idea: in Emesa the god Elagabal was at the apex of a Trinity. le mithriacisme se marginalisait dangereusement’ (p. On the other hand when dealing with the famous tumultus Iudaicus.E. e. the Jewish uprising in Cyrenaica in (ca) 115–117 C. occasionally irritating – these will probably not be unfair characterizations of the book under review. 28). Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene. subjects discussed in great detail in F. Euesperides–Berenice. ANRW II.566 Historia et Religio 236 There is no reason to continue in that vein. F. Rituals and Power (1984). This is vaticinium ex eventu. The author apparently aimed to compose a history of the Jews in ancient Cyrenaica (which embraced the cities of Cyrene. Apollonia. The Galileean God succeeded where the Emesan had failed because of the Constantinian luck.). its geography. agriculture (pp. 1 (1981) 3–141). but obviously he felt impelled to proceed ab ovo. 1979. Ptolemais. Leiden: E. 45. XVI + 367. obscures the spread and popularity of the Roman cult (on the vitality of the imperial cult. 1–7. And so he treats of the beginnings of Greek colonization and of Cyrene under the rule of the Battiads.g. never was a contender. Chamoux’s book Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades (Paris 1953). climate. J. 74 ff. The preoccupation with the propagation of oriental religions. Also on other subjects he offers a number of shrewd observations.. The cult of Mithras. . Brill. J. Greeks and Romans? After all it was the Romans who annihilated the Jewish community of Cyrene). see S. Vol. In der Begrenzung zeigt sich der Meister. Price. and with the system of late Roman autocracy (as Turcan perceptively notes. Pp. on * Journal of American Oriental Society 102. Taucheira (Teucheira)–Arsinoë. 240). Perhaps the Roman world longed indeed for mystery and salvation. 337). and with the alleged moral values of the various luces ex oriente. awkward construction. R. a book partially useful. and because the Christian cult was compatible with the tradition of Roman religious severitas. Turcan admits that the oriental cults played their part ‘dans se qu’Eusèbe appelait la Préparation evangélique’ (p.. (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity. also severe and quite well organized. Christianity was one of the many oriental cults in the empire. Until the ‘Machtergreifung’ in the fourth century. R. 338). Consequently. Misleading title (why not Jews. and only very loosely connected with the history of the Jewish community as the Jewish settlement begins only under the Prolemies.8 CYRENAICA IUDAICA* Shim’on APPLEBAUM. hardly in a position to vie for power with Jupiter. Fears. 17. and on the cult of Jupiter. During WW II the author was responsible for the care of the Antiquities of Cyrenaica under the British Military Administration. the author is carried away by the drama of history to devote an inordinate number of pages to the insurrection in Judaea and Mesopotamia. because of the highly organized clergy. Jupiter perished by the sword – and not by the Word alone. he is at his best when he describes the land of Cyrene. for ‘en se coupant des femmes. and this would have been a much better book if the author had stuck rigorously to his subject.1 (1982) 210 {with corrections and addenda}. p. “Die römischen Provinzbeamten in Cyrenae und Creta zur Zeit der Republik”. 1. Antiquités Africaines 38–39 (2002–2003 [2005]) 211–57. 17. This region was pacified by the Roman commander Varro (Jos. Masson in ZPE 20 [1976] 87–100 {reprinted in O. 173–74). Iud. 167 ff. Insc. Perl. cit. 240). in the close proximity of Trachonitis. Iud.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. 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. 97–109 Applebaum discusses the famous Cereal Stele from Cyrene. but 1990] 243–56}) there appears one [Ity]alammvn son of Apellas. far-fetched or unwarranted.} 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. Now everything becomes obvious. In a list of ephebes from Ptolemais (Applebaum quotes it as unpublished. 173). G. These lamps constitute “the Jewish response” to the “iconic propaganda” of Victory on the Roman lamps (p. Klio 52 (1970) 321–54.296–97}.555) is nothing but a fine example of Volksetymologie.E.. Onomastica Graeca Selecta 1 [Paris n. “Liste onomastique libyque”. There are glaring omissions: e. The lamps in question were manufactured . 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). they brought with them the Syrian place-name which survives till today as ‘Ein Targhuna (pp. 169. classes of the Jewish community. This settlement he discovers in the region of ‘Ein Targhuna. Lüderitz.C. 53 (1971) 369–79. Bell. that Herod settled a unit of Jewish mounted archers from Babylonia (Jos. no.) or on the contrast between the upper.. 36}). in the meantime it was edited by J.24–25). 238). {The name is. more hellenized. Too often his conclusions are adventurous. 98–99 and Antiquités Africaines 10 (1976) 60–61 {= Onomastica Graeca Selecta 1. op. 224 ff. the Roman agri publici” (pp. O. Terentius Varro Murena (ILS 897. not far from the city of Cyrene: “The name Targhuna recalls the Aramaic form of the Greek name (Trãxvn) applied to the el-Lejja region of Hauran” (p. Reynolds and O. 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. probably a governor of Syria in ca. Masson. on pp. 25–23. Some of the Roman lamps “carry the letters s(enatus) c(onsulto) evidencing that they were manufactured officially under the state auspices” (p. Corpus jüdischer Zeugnisse aus der Cyrenaika [Wiesbaden 1983] 56–58. 63 ff. Unfortunately his treatment of sources and of modern literature is erratic. It was in Batanaia. the most recent study he quotes dates from 1939! In his discussion of the Roman province of Cyrene (pp. has persuasively documented the Libyan character of this name. Applebaum (pp. but at the same time his attempt to concoct a Hebrew etymology for Itthalammon by connecting it with the name Yitshalom (Corp. Camps.) suspects him of Jewish extraction. Iud. it enters into the series of theophoric names the second part of which is -ammon. missing from G. not impossible. {cf.g. and the masses which were easily swayed by charismatic leaders. Masson.d. Ant. however. 1.) one misses references to the important article by G.98). 172). 560 In 1877 an old friend from Mommsen’s Breslau years contributed an article to honor the sixtieth birthday of the princeps philologorum. 642): matri pientissimae religioni(s) Iudeicae [sic] metuenti. 2001) 279–98. Jacob Bernays. 1969) 322–42.C. Laks (eds. The letters S. Fraenkel. which was offered to Augustus by the Senate and the People {RGDA 34. Erim. (Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society. Iud. in Quinto Contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Roma. {See also M. 45. MA. No matter of great importance. D. Jewish sympathizers. The Past as Revelation (Cambridge. Urbach on Bernays’ Breslau years (16–28). despite its Kleinheit. Greek Inscriptions with Commentary: Texts from the Excavations conducted by Kenan T. 1996) esp. Ein Lebensbild in Briefen (Breslau. The sons of such fathers mox et praeputia ponunt (14. Bernays. and still worse with consistent misspelling of scores of names and titles of books and articles. Bernays. Momigliano. H. Gesammelte Abhandlungen 2 (Berlin. a fount of classical learning. and the brief but insightful account by A. Eine Biographie. 1975 [originally published in 1969]) 127–58. 1885) 71–80. Theodor Mommsen. 1974) esp. M.. esp. an inspired evocation. 347–50 (but he is quite wrong in giving too much credence to the disgruntled Bernays. On this remarkable scholar. also the various articles published in J. and today a standard commentary on Juvenal proclaims * 1 Gnomon 63 (1991) 559–561 {with addenda}. I. and its author Jacob Bernays. he averred. corresponding to ofl sebÒmenoi (or foboÊmenoi) tÚn yeÒn appearing in Josephus and in the Acts side by side with the actual Jews. 88 (= ILCV 4927 = Corp. Commentationes philologae in honorem Theodori Mommseni (Berolini. Jacob Bernays: ein Beitrag zur Emanzipationsgeschichte der Juden und zur Geschichte des deutschen Geistes im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (Tübingen. still. IX.). refer to this fact. It became a classic.1 In his fourteenth satire Juvenal pours scorn on fathers who give pernicious example to their sons. J.96–101). the famous clupeus aureus. Grafton in his collection of essays Bring Out Your Dead.9 APHRODISIAS IUDAICA* Joyce REYNOLDS and Robert TANNENBAUM. quite apt to show how much inscriptions can offer to elucidate a literary text. 1932). as “grimy” and “barbarous”. But reaction against Bernays’ interpretation was to set in. 121–69. 199–200 (on Bernays’ stay in Breslau and on his contacts with Mommsen). 19 plates. 339–40 on the arrestingly amusing exchange of letters between Bernays and Mommsen concerning the metuentes. The book is stocked with numerous misprints. reprinted in J.2}. Bach.568 Historia et Religio under Augustus and his immediate successors. To elucidate Juvenal Bernays adduced the inscription CIL V. Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias. Wickert. Supplementary Volume 12). Glucker and A. E. I. Jacob Bernays. 1877) 563–69. They often display a shield. III (Frankfurt a. A.} . and his friendship with Mommsen. Inscr. he upbraids metuentem sabbata patrem and all those who Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges / Iudaicum ediscunt et servant et metuunt ius. and calling the old and verdant city of Breslau. 190–91. The title of the piece was “Die Gottesfürchtigen bei Juvenal”. and argued that here we are in the presence of the category of the metuentes. with its university. E. Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society 1987. see L. Jacob Bernays: un philologue juif (Villeneuve d’Ascq. 149 pp. and H. HSCP 96. it achieved immediate fame circulating in private copies. 152–55.1 (Edinburgh. see B. 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. Millar). in P. Jews. F. S. Corp. First reported by Erim in AJA 81 (1977) 306 and AS 27 (1977) 31. we have a definite edition of this gem of a text set out in a precious ring of commentary.4 the prime exhibit for this phenomenon is now the inscription unearthed in Aphrodisias in Caria during the excavations conducted by Kemal T. For a critique of Robert’s position. 121–32 (and 2–12 on “Die Geschichte der Erforschung”. and interpret the mysterious pat°lla (“dish”) to denote “the soup-kitchen” (in the dative).Varia de religione 569 that Bernays’ view “is now discredited”. 1998) esp. to a burial society. II. The Disappearance of the “GodFearers”. they denoted the whole gamut of sympathizers. {4a Cf. Iud. R. {Cf.2 But if we wish to have things clean and tidy we had better quit studying human affairs. Wander. 281–99. following above all the influential article by L. This is a sensible conclusion reached by Fergus Millar in the new edition of the venerable Schürer. n. Athanassiadi and M. Trebilco. a solution championed by Palmer Bonz and adopted by many other scholars. The terms in question (as also yeosebe›w known from Greek Jewish inscriptions) were often used loosely indeed. 160–71 (this chapter was revised by F. Bellen. H. The editors divide pat°ll& do\[.748. Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes (Paris.} 4 For Miletos. Goodman. 71. See below. A New English Version Revised and Edited by G. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge. M. P. Regni Bosp. JAC 8–9 (1965–66) 171–76. and who are the Theosebeis?. Brilliant and (many would say) far-fetched. esp. Inscr. Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25 (1975) 167–95. The first group of names (on the face a) is characterized (lines a 2–8) as Ofl Ípotetagm°noi t∞w dekan(¤aw) t«n filomay«[n] t«n k¢ panteulog(et«n) or rather -ount«n [pp. Courtney. Mitchell. combining epigraphica and Iudaica. 5.3 In some cities the “God-fearers” seem to have been formally attached to the Jewish community. Schürer. 1986) 150–76. 26. to the 2 E.} . B. Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten. Studien zum heidnischen Umfeld von Diasporasynagogen (Tübingen. This could refer to the minyan (the quorum of ten men). 115–21. points out (289–91) that this formula is not recorded in inscriptions “dated any earlier than the fourth century”. TAPA 81 (1950) 200–208. beginning with Bernays). Numen 28 (1981) 113–26. Robert. 1967) 25–26. the absence of the article is interesting. also A. 34–37] efiw épenyhs¤an t“ plÆyi ¶ktisa[n] ¶j fid¤vn mn∞ma. Hommel. 1999) 81–148. Donateurs et fondateurs dans les synagogues Juives (Paris. Kraabel. esp. 1980) 571. p. and H. Stein. M. EA 33 (2001) 119–25 (against Mitchell). Millar.4a followed by the letters patellado\[. Frede (eds. 1994. It opens (line a 1) with the customary invocation YeÚw bohyÒw. 1964) 41–45. 1991) 145–68. The text (altogether 88 lines) is inscribed on two faces of a block of marble. The Jewish Donor Inscriptions from Aphrodisias: are they both third-century. and Christians. Lifshitz. M. it is composed of a preamble and a list of names. Feldman. esp. Thus either this will be the first occurrence of the formula or the text on face a must be dated to a later period. for Pantikapaion. Erim. 3 E.). III. The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans. T. It is worth noting that this was also the opinion of L. Corp. A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London. Palmer Bonz. Inscr. Vermes. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity (Oxford. cf. Jewish “Sympathisers” in Classical Literature and Inscriptions. now thanks to the efforts of Reynolds and Tannenbaum. esp. nine of them were bouleutai. II: Kleinasien (Tübingen. and is inclined to place the . 14) at 85–86. Cohen. the remaining fourteen will be Jews simpliciter. HTR 82 (1989) 13–33. This proves beyond any doubt that proselytes and yeosebe›w formed distinct categories. 168–74. judging by the lettering. also known as Those who Continuously Offer Benedictions or Eulogies” (307). Of the 19 names on face a three are qualified as prosÆ(lutow) and two as yeoseb(Æw). but denotes an occupation. introduced by the phrase Ka‹ ˜soi yeoseb›w (sic). 43. An important recent contribution is A. The Jews of Aphrodisias. and that the latter participated in Aphrodisias in the life of the Jewish community (pp. Kolb. and argues for a later date. Feldman. apparently of full Jews. H. Varieties. {And see now his monograph The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries. Williams. 362–82. perhaps a tomb {Cf. where the genitive patel[l]ç is not a personal name. of 52 names. Most of the yeosebe›w display ordinary Greek and Roman names. as to pat°lla. patellçw. H. 47) “principally. the “lovers of learning” and “those who wholly praise (the Lord)” {Cf. The true solution was apparently found by P. on the inscriptions from Aphrodisias and their implications. Uncertainties (Berkeley. to borrow this phrase from the title of the brilliant article by Shaye J. EA 36 (2003) 115–19}. He also points out that.570 Historia et Religio 561 governing body of the synagogue or to some sort of educational group. line 1 seems to be a later addition. They founded (or constructed) at their own expense efiw épenyhs¤an (a new word. Bd. the patellçdew “wären dann eine Art Imbissinhaber”. as the editors believe (p. the editors adduce the adjective ép°nyhtow. eluding any strict doctrinal definition. 48–66). Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton. owners of food joints. Chaniotis (following the lead of several inquisitive scholars) powerfully objects. This illustrates well the flexibility of belief prevalent in this group. Respect for Judaism by Gentiles According to Josephus. 419–20. On face b we have two separate lists: a list of 55 names (with a few additional names lost at top). Historia 41 (1992) 297–310: a “Burial Society of the Law-Lovers. I would opt for the latter and explain the dekan¤a as the governing body of the association of the students of the Law. D. esp. D. Chaniotis. Reynolds and Tannenbaum (cautiously) dated the documents to ca 200. M. she reconstructs an imperative invocation patelladÒ[w]: “put (food) upon our plate” (309). esp. “without suffering”. A. 1999) 150–74. HTR 80 (1987) 409–30. the city-councillors. He assigns the inscription b to the fourth century. J. Another list follows. 2004) 70–112 (no. van Minnen in a note in ZPE 100 (1994) 253–58 at 256–57. 213–18 (with extensive bibliography). SCI (2001) 209–42. For we are in the presence of the phenomenon of “Crossing the boundary and becoming a Jew”. and translate “for the relief of misfortune” or “suffering”) for the members of the community (pl∞yow) a “memorial” (building). and as such had to be present at the official sacrifices. if not entirely. who opts in line 1 for the plural patellãdv[n]}. born Jews”. See also L. 1993) esp. Van Minnen’s interpretation has now been fully endorsed in a new excellent commented edition of the text by W. Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew. but as none of them is described as proselyte they will all be born Jews. Cohen. Inscriptiones Iudaicae Orientis.5 As 5 S. cf. Ameling. between the reigns of Galerius and Theodosius. also Idem. 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 Gevrg¤ou patel[l]ç. and religious environment of the document. Also Ameling supports dates in later antiquity. For the Greco-Roman world a proselyte was a Jew. it contains a wealth of onomastic and lexicographical material as the text specifies the occupations of many of the persons listed. conversion and mundane occupations blend together – in Aphrodisias and in the learned commentary of Reynolds and Tannenbaum. for the Jews a proselyte was “a Jew of a peculiar sort” (an attitude so well manifested in our inscription). inscription a “sometime in the fifth century” (218). But our inscription is a treasure trove not only for the students of Judaism. this phenomenon had two sides to it: Greco-Roman and Jewish. Certainty remains elusive. This new prevailing consensus obviously entails a vastly divergent interpretation of the social. political.Varia de religione 571 Cohen points out. Thus religion. and a yeosebÆw was certainly not a Jew but merely an “adherent”.} . . V ANTIQUA ET RECENTIORA . . The chapters on “Russian émigrés and the * Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 108 (1995) 229–230 {with addenda}. J. Marcone. Russian Roots in an American Context (Historia Einzelschriften. still uncertain. Michael Rostovtzeff. Heft 65). fleeing the Bolsheviks. he was already forty eight years old. but the main thrust of the book is “a prosopographic reconstruction of Rostovtzeff’s life before and after his departure from St Petersburg” (p. he was a creation of Russian culture and German Altertumswissenschaft. 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. 4). dominated both the study and the understanding of ancient history. D. Studies on Modern Scholarship [Berkeley 1994] 32–43}). The fruit of this intellectual travel is the present book {and see also his Classics in Russia 1700–1855: Between Two Bronze Horsemen (Leiden 1992)}. Bowersock and T. an established professor at the Petersburg University. his book Das Ende des Kaisertums im Westen des römischen Reiches [Amsterdam 1967]). 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. he immersed himself in Russian language and Russian culture. Momigliano. Cornell in A. A. Stuttgart 1990. this personal peregrination gains its tragic pathos from its constant intertwinement with the fate of Russia and of thousands of Russians. But when Rostovtzeff in 1918 came to the West. Rostovtzeff himself does not need any presentation: scores of his books and hundreds of articles. Historian in Exile. Franz Steiner Verlag. True to the precept of Goethe that anyone who wishes to know the poet must go to the poet’s land. XXXI +106. 13 plates. Wes traces the path of Rostovtzeff from Russia and St. and by A. In his monograph. WES. and of his initial. Petersburg to America and Yale. Von Gibbon zu Rostovtzeff [Darmstadt 1972] 334–49. not a full biography but a series of engrossing essays. W. Historia 41 [1992] 1–13 {and also earlier short assessments by K. years in Europe and in America. the author of numerous and acclaimed studies in Russian and in German. Wes captures the drama of the revolution. A student of Roman history (cf. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford 1926) and The Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941). he became fascinated by the great figure of Michael Rostovtzeff. Momigliano whose curiously and instructively unperceptive essay of 1954 has been conveniently reprinted by G. Christ. of Rostovtzeff’s voyage from Russia. Pp.46 ABOUT ROSTOVTZEFF* Marinus A. As scholar and humanist. 230 The author of this book combines in a unique way Classica et Russica. Next Rostovtzeff’s career in Russia. above all his two great summae. . The latter he mentions in his Preface and in a number of footnotes. the old teacher of 1 {This text was included in the original version. A. correspondence referring to the offer of a chair at Harvard (very relevant to Wes’ chapter on “Rostovtzeff and Harvard” (see now G. and perhaps differently (cf. work and times we owe our thanks to Wes. Elias Bickerman. For this luminous introduction to a great historian’s life. Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 185–91}. The Bolsheviks have won: for the exiles there was no way back. C. Ulrich Kahrstedt (in 1929 he contemplated leaving Germany). Rostovtzeff”. Wes utilized numerous printed and archival documents. W. but was excised by the editors of the Journal. D. the splendid review article by B. Westermann (see now G. {Its story is as follows1 (I owe this information to the kindness of Professor John Oates): upon Rostovtzeff’s death his personal library (and apparently some boxes with his correspondence) devolved upon C. Michelotto. and with his help for Vladimir Nabokov. “Un’opera «anomala» di M. Acme 54 (2001) 37–73}. I. P. But personally most revealing are the essays on Rostovtzeff’s attitude to religion (the horrors of the Revolution steered him from rationalism to an appreciation of religion. I print it here with bibliographical addenda.C. Three important chapters deal with Rostovtzeff’s efforts on behalf of Russian (and European) refugees. More can be said. But it is only a first step. in particular with his bringing to Yale the historian of medieval Russia George Vernadsky (in 1927). B. It is currently held at the Special Collections Library of Duke University (Durham. 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). Elias Bickerman and the Belgian Hellenist and Byzantinist Henri Grégoire (1939–1941). JRS 92 [1993] 216–28). After Welles’ death the whole collection was acquired by the American Papyrological Society and was housed at the University of Toronto. G. Bongard-Levin and Yu. Welles. 346–65). Franz Cumont (including a splendid photograph of both scholars taken probably at Dura). Nock. and on Rostovtzeff’s 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. and Thaddaeus Zielinåski. Litvinenko in Scythian Novel [see below] 548–70. L. There exists one important collection of Rostovtzeff’s papers that Wes has not consulted. D. B. and above all letters from various Russian émigrés and from various scholars in Europe and America. Welles.} . The wealth of prosopographical detail renders the story intimate and compelling. Friedrich Münzer. Tenney Frank. in 1972 it was moved to Duke University. It contains several hundred letters (beginning in 1918 and ending with condolences upon Rostovtzeff’s death): correspondence with the Clarendon Press. 27708–0185).576 Antiqua et Recentiora Allied Powers” and on “The Paris Peace Conference” make riveting reading: futile hopes and unbending reality. Ulrich Wilamowitz. Shaw. the pupil of Rostovtzeff and his successor at Yale. among them Adolf Berger. Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 192–99. Bowersock and G. N. his book Mystic Italy [1927] is a testament to this evolution {cf. Raphael Taubenschlag. and in Philologus 140 [1996] 334–48). See now G. edited by G. Rostovtzeff’s Bio-bibliography”. “M. Rostovtzeff”. “The Epistolary Heritage of M. 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. Rostovtzeff’s Unpublished Materials (University and Public Lectures)”. less ideological. The five parts of the book deal with “The Archival Heritage of M.). spearheaded by the valiant efforts by G. Russia–Great Britain–United States”. Heinen (in German translation) of the newly found chapters of Rostovtzeff’s great Skythien und der Bosporus (Stuttgart 1993). On pp.I. later professor in Warsaw. The literary gems are Rostovtzeff’s recommendation for Vladimir Nabokov (in 1939. and the letter from the American writer Upton Sinclair asking the famous historian to read critically the manuscript of Sinclair’s short novel “dealing in a playful manner . Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 290–99). 7. Rostovtzeff”.About Rostovtzeff 577 Rostovtzeff at Petersburg. See esp.2 (2003). the massive collection of documents and of photographs concerning Rostovtzeff. Zuev assembled the invaluable “Materials for M. Rostovtzeff: il “caso” dell’Egitto ellenistico-romano (= Memorie dell’Istituto Lombardo 41.. See further an informative and probing collection of articles edited by A. and of articles about Rostovtzeff by various mostly Russian scholars (623 pp.1 [Milano 1999]). {More recently a whole spate of incisive publications has appeared. BongardLevin under the telling title ëÍËÙÒÍuu∑ ÓÏ‡Ì [Scythian Novel] (Moscow 1997). 6. his books and his manuscripts “ein Raub der Flammen”.2 (2002). Bongard-Levin in Scythian Novel [see below] 329–45). a shining evocation of this new Anacharsis and his adventurous path in life and in scholarship. 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. G. A number of important studies dealing with Rostovtzeff and his legacy appeared in recent issues of Mediterraneo Antico: 5. 200–230 V. Colleagues. “Meetings: Friends. Michelotto. 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. who. Bongard-Levin.. more factual. Marcone under the largely misleading title Rostovtzeff e l’Italia (Napoli 1999). see now G. by Bickerman and Zielinåski.1 (2004). have recently been published by H. .} To conclude: we now appreciate more Rostovtzeff’s pre-revolutionary achievements. 2 [1992] 15–25. La riflessione storicoeconomica di M. Of great interest is also P. Geremek in DHA 18. Enemies”. fleeing from the burning city. “The Life of the Scholar. associate professor. Broughton. farmers.B. who became a noted scholar in Romance philology. From 1936 to 1939 he was editor of the American Journal of Philology. He received his A. in classics and geology (1898) and his M. Several books dealt with Latin literature. Frank’s professional career led him from Chicago (instructor in Latin. But it was his expertise in Roman history that propelled Frank to international fame. An Economic History of Rome * American National Biography 8 (New York 1999) 367–368 {with minor addenda and alterations}. He died in Oxford. and in 1938–1939 was Eastman Visiting Professor at Oxford. England Famous for his dry wit. originally the Sather lectures at the University of California. 1913–1919) to Johns Hopkins University (professor in Latin. They had no children. as exemplified by his dissertation Attraction of Mood in Early Latin (1904). In 1928-1929 he was president of the American Philological Association. was born in Clay Center. professor. he provided a powerful stimulus for his students. 1909–1913. were to achieve fame matching his own. the son of Oliver Frank and Caroline Danielson.47 TENNEY FRANK* Frank. fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1935). in classics (1899) from the University of Kansas. historian of ancient Rome and philologist. He received numerous academic distinctions: he was a member of the American Philosophical Society (1927). The remarkable Roman Imperialism (1914). 1904-1909. and his Ph. In 1934 he was elected honorary member of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (London). He pursued his studies on a sabbatical at the Universities of Göttingen and Berlin (in 1910–1911). the first American so honored. In 1916–1917 he served as Annual Professor and in 1922–1923 and 1924–1925 as professor in charge of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome.D. the Swedish Royal Society of Letters in Lund (1933). corresponding fellow of the British Academy (1934).A. Tenney (19 May 1876–3 April 1939). Lily Ross Taylor and Thomas Robert S. and to illuminate history one must keep a constant eye on literature. two of whom. and he continued to publish in this field throughout his life. 368 . 1901–1904) through Bryn Mawr College (associate in Latin. the title of Life and Literature in the Roman Republic (1930. and numerous reviews. 1919–1939). Kansas. 1929–1930) spelled out Frank’s program: to understand literature one must study the social and economic setting in which it is produced. some 150 articles. His scholarly output comprises twelve books. His early publications were in the field of philology and linguistics (also Germanic and Scandinavian). in classics (1903) from the University of Chicago. In 1907 he married Grace Edith Mayer. An Attempt to Date Them from Their Materials (1924) he put to use his early geological training. argued Frank. revised and extended in 1927 to cover the Empire). such as Rome. [that] accept territorial expansion as a matter of course”. 566–67. 358). and the increasingly despotic state. 304) with an explanation for Rome’s downfall – and a warning for America: the decline of Rome began with a betrayal of “the free yeomanry” by the selfish “landed gentry. dealing with Roman provinces. His major project was An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (5 vols. This was in sharp contrast to Michael I. and espoused the idea of a fatal conflict between the city bourgeoisie.. vii–viii. producing people “soft of fiber. A History of Rome (1923) was for a time a most popular textbook. and Aspects of Social Behavior in Rome (1932) established him as a leading scholar in the field.” He caps his Survey (vol.. but died before completing the fifth. of his Scandinavian origin.” Frank’s American identity (although his father had came from Sweden. there existed “cross-currents to neutralize . were compiled by a group of American and European scholars. Frank’s books (with the exception of the Survey volumes) have scant documentation: they are works of ideology driven by the belief that there exists an .. 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. p. To Frank. weak of will. Frank was “proud of his rural beginnings. it was because after defensive wars law and order had to be imposed on unruly tribes.. 1933–1940). which was written under the influence of the Bolshevik revolution. Frank himself wrote the first volume. along with slavery and “the thorough-going displacement of Romans through non-Romans” (pp. the pervasive admixture of an oriental “brood” with the Roman “melting-pot” proved fatal. in an agricultural republic.. the (mostly) rural proletariat. Darwinian and Mendelian principles permeated Frank’s work. Nor did he neglect archaeology: in Roman Buildings of the Republic. 2–4.. But no work of vast scope is devoid of a thesis. for his goal was to present evidence and eschew grand theories.” If Rome had become mistress of the world. mentally fatigued. and of the acquaintance with the manual labor . His American heritage was his most prized possession. Rome and Italy of the Republic (1933). Rostovtzeff’s imposing The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (1926). F. vols. On the eve of World War I he argued in his Roman Imperialism against “Oldworld political traditions . beginning with his famous article “Race Mixture in the Roman Empire” (American Historical Review 21 [1916]: 689–708). the blind instinct to acquire.Tenney Frank 579 to the End of the Republic (1920. 5.” Unlike his detailed articles. As a collection and elucidation of sources Frank’s volumes continue to be indispensable. In A History of Rome he reiterates that “Rome’s rapid and ill-considered expansion” was a prime cause of her decline. 574).. As Frank’s colleague. Rome and Italy of the Empire (1940). 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. Albright observed in the obituary he wrote for the Year Book of the American Philosophical Society (1939). W. Taylor and Broughton}. A small collection of Frank’s letters is in the Special Collection of the Milton S. “Si vis pacem para bellum: Concepts of Defensive Imperialism. A full bibliography of his books and articles (but not of his reviews) is in the American Journal of Philology 60 (1939): 280–87. F. Briggs and W. Broughton). seeking a unified approach to the work of Frank. S. {For a longer appraisal. A Biography (1922. Imagined Histories. Year Book of the American Philosophical Society (1939): 444–46 (by W. Harris (ed.” TAPA 131 (2002): 315–27. and for specific points. Classical Scholarship. R.” in: W. No. 1939.). Eisenhower Library of the Johns Hopkins University. As such they remain an important part of the American intellectual tradition. The Imperialism in Mid-Republican Rome (= Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 29 [1984]): 145–49. . Albright). S. “Roman History and the American Philological Association 1900–2000. Catullus and Horace. DeWitt). Pease)}.). and an English translation of Cornelius van Bynkershoek’s [a Dutch jurist. Molho and G. 4 and 6 Apr. {Italian translation 1930}). W. Johns Hopkins Alumni Magazine 27 (1939): 107–10 (by T. n. Wood (eds. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 74 (1940–1942): 123–25 (by A. See now also R. pp. Linderski. Books not mentioned in the text are: Vergil. Potter. 68–76}. V. Broughton in W. D. see J. 160-62 {reprinted in RQ 1–31. “Classical American Historiography. Calder III (eds. 223–25. pp. Two Poets in Their Environment (1928). Rostovtzeff. American Journal of Philology 60 (1939): 273–80 {(by N. American Historians Interpret the Past (Princeton 1998).580 Antiqua et Recentiora American way to ancient Rome. 2. S. There are obituaries in the London Times. A Biographical Encyclopedia (1990). R. W. M. Saller.” in A. 1673–1743] Quaestionum juris publici libri duo (1930). 49. cf.). also in this volume. see T. S. she was a member of the American Philosophical Society (1945) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1951). Her professional career took her to Vassar College (1912–1927). where she was a student of Tenney Frank. in classics from Bryn Mawr College (1912). She was also awarded the gold medal. Guggenheim Fellow (1952 and 1960). as a principal social sciences analyst in the Office of Strategic Services (1943–1944). She received her A. In 1917 and 1919–1920 she was the first woman fellow at the American Academy in Rome.D. Professor Agnes Michels. in classics from the University of Wisconsin (1906) and Ph. Her public service in the two world wars took her with the American Red Cross to Italy and the Balkans (1918–1919) and to Washington.” But above all she nurtured independence: “she made one feel that what is known now is the jumping-off place into new discoveries. 1886–18 Nov. some seventy articles. * American National Biography 21 (New Yok 1999) 390–391 {with minor addenda}. a corresponding member of the Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia (1953). 1969). reminisced that “she was gentle with the obtuse and she enlightened ignorance. the daughter of William Dana Taylor. University of Wisconsin (1950). and a score of reviews) an intellectual adventure. D. Columbia University (1954). and back to Bryn Mawr as Professor of Latin (1927 until her retirement in 1952) and as dean of the Graduate School (1942–1952). This makes the encounter with her work (comprising six books.” of the city of Rome (1962). was born in Auburn. Curiosity (she wrote in 1959 a piece “In Praise of Curiosity”) and clarity were her badges.48 LILY ROSS TAYLOR* Taylor.. . an honorary member in 1960 of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (London). and the Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Munich (1965). historian of ancient Rome.” Scholarship was for her a frontier to be pushed farther and farther. Taylor achieved rare brilliance as a teacher (she was listed in a 1950 Life magazine survey among “the great teachers”) and as a scholar. where she progressed from instructor of Latin to professor. president of the American Philological Association (1942). Lily Ross (12 Aug. she was a Visiting Professor at Harvard (1959) and at the University of Wisconsin (1962–1963). and the recipient of that association’s Goodwin Award (1962).C.B. In 1934–1935 and 1952–1955 she was Professor in Charge of the Classical School at the American Academy in Rome. one of her pupils. a noted railway engineer. the British Academy (1963). Alabama. Mills College (1947). and a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (1959–1960). Smith College (1961)}. and made one eager to make the leap. She was showered with academic honors including five honorary degrees {from Wilson College (1944). and Mary Forte Ross. “Cultori di Roma. She never married. She showed how the senatorial oligarchy and the new leaders Pompey. Taylor produced a lasting account of the late republican politics centered around the persons of Cato and Caesar. but is somewhat one-sided in its thesis that the ruler cult was mainly a political rather than a religious phenomenon. and where there is obfuscation there is no true scholarship. 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. Three fields of the Roman past were her special province: religion. Following in the pathbreaking footsteps of two eminent students of Roman history and prosopography. and as not much new material is likely to accrue. is a painstaking collection of all pertinent sources. but the people “passed from the domination of an oligarchy to the domination of a monarch” (p. whether she encountered them in person or in print. If her book on the imperial cult has a slightly old-fashioned air. originally Jerome Lectures at the University of Michigan and the American Academy in Rome. a book that abounds in information and insight. whom Taylor immensely admired. Matthias Gelzer and Ronald Syme. A comparison suggests itself: the study of the Roman constitution stood in the shadow of the great German scholar Theodor Mommsen. The culmination of that effort was The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (1931). 1964–1965). The next book. and Caesar. she produced a remarkable monograph. vied with each other for vast popular clientelae. Yet Taylor saw well that in no society can religion be separated from politics. Her last and perhaps finest book was Roman Voting Assemblies (1966. Crassus. originally Sather Classical Lectures at the University of California 1947). both utilizing and subverting the traditional constitutional framework of the republic. for voting procedures at Rome were fabulously complicated. Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (1949. and inscriptional evidence.582 Antiqua et Recentiora 391 and she did not suffer gladly pretentious academic fools. but also a lesson on how scholarship ought to be practiced: Taylor showed that clarity and rigor go hand in hand. in contrast. The subject was as politically important as it was technically difficult. . was followed by Local Cults of Etruria (1923). Party Politics is strikingly modern in its outlook. it will remain a standard work for many years to come. Although Taylor adhered to no religion. Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960). and this led her to immerse herself in the late republican politics. both are exhaustive collections of literary. though now in need of extensive supplements. After many seminal articles (mostly on Cicero and Caesar). The Cults of Ostia (1912). His work was as solid as a pyramid and as difficult to navigate as a labyrinth. her book still looks at ancient cults from a perspective largely informed by Christianity. archaeological. Taylor died in Bryn Mawr in an accident. Her enduring legacy is not only her published work. politics. Taylor’s book is full of light and soaring like a Venetian palace. Her published dissertation. 182). and constitutional history. Her numerous articles of that period treated various aspects of Roman religion but particularly the Hellenistic and Roman ruler cult. struck by a car. and illustrative of the modish sociological morass}. Price. 1969. 27 Nov. 20 Nov. pp. Sicherman and C. p. For a remarkable evocation of her work and her person. pp. Robert S. A Biographical Encyclopedia (1990). Molho and G. eds. Briggs and William M. see S.). see T. Rituals and Power (1984). {R. “Classical American Historiography”. A complete bibliography of her writings (through 1966) was published as a pamphlet by Bryn Mawr College (1966). pp. and in Ward W. opines that “Taylor had a limited appreciation of ancient Rome”. Notable American Women (1980). Imagined Histories. F. and the London Times. Wood. Broughton in Year Book of the American Philosophical Society (1970). 454–61. updated bibliography is appended to the French translation of her Party Politics. R. 677–78. and} in Classical Outlook 68 (1990–1991) 52–53. in A. 225. 1969. pp. Saller. see Agnes Kirsopp Michels {in B. Obituaries are in The New York Times. Calder III. This is vastly unfair. And for an Italian perspective on her work. La politique et les partis à Rome au temps de César (1977). 7–19. American Historians Interpret the Past (Princeton 1998). For an intelligent evaluation of studies of Roman imperial cult that allows one to place Taylor’s earlier work in an informed perspective.Lily Ross Taylor 583 A collection of Taylor’s papers and correspondence is in the Bryn Mawr College Archives. Classical Scholarship. H.. Green (eds. for an appraisal of her achievement. 172–79. S. . see Giancarlo Susini in Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 42 (1969–1970) 42–45. A full. Lorett Treese. K. (or Agnes) K. and on personal conversations. she produced two major monographs and a crop of brilliant articles. Monograph Series.” in M. a thing she would have disliked. Taylor continued throughout the twenties and thirties to be preoccupied with the Roman cult.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. R. If there is here much more assent. Haase (eds. Broughton. briefly in 1962 at Bryn Mawr. 47} and. and this is not the place to engage in a polemic concerning various points of interpretation and detail. Linderski in American National Biography {8 (1999) 367–68. an honor and trust for which I am grateful.” That Agnes Lake should have become a student of religio was almost preordained. R. No. Michels. Local Cults in Etruria (= Papers and Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 2 [Rome 1923]). Classical Scholarship. Michels (cf. above all. Its goal. as the past is fast slipping away. Scott of Bryn Mawr College. and frequently in Chapel Hill from 1979 to the very week of her death. in W. It was published in the same year (= Bryn Mawr College Monographs.3 It was under the direction of Taylor that the young Agnes Lake wrote in 1930–1934 at Bryn Mawr and Rome her monograph on the “Tuscan Temple. by T. 7. see T. Her early publications are signed A. this is due to the fact that my view of Roman religion largely coincides with her insight. A Biographical Encyclopedia (New York-London 1990) 68–76. For biographical data and a list of publications.4 (1997) 323–345 {with minor addenda}. For a story of Taylor’s life (1886–1969). reprinted in this volume. is to present the achievement of a remarkable person and a remarkable scholar and teacher. Professor Michels asked me to serve as her literary executor. The Classical Tradition in the Americas 6 ({still}forthcoming). Leslyn Goodrich.1 The progenitor was Tenney Frank. vol. But this essay is not intended as an encomium. and to Ms. Michels. Reinhold and W. A Bibliography (Bryn Mawr 1966).). “Ancient Historians in the United States in the Twentieth Century. and an appraisal of her achievements as 324 2 3 4 . also the critical remarks by J. The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (= Philological Monographs 1. Bryn Mawr College Archivist. For additional information I am very obliged to Professor Russell T. 27) in June 1941 she generally used the form Agnes Kirsopp Michels (but also Agnes Michels. below. Africa.2 It was under his direction that Lily Ross Taylor.). Michels’ daughter. Agnes K. See Lily Ross Taylor.4 and her research interests were like a magnet to her precocious * 1 Classical Journal 92. W. the teacher of Michels. Mrs. nn. 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). Agnes K. wrote in 1912 her Bryn Mawr dissertation on The Cults of Ostia. The photograph that graces this essay {here not reproduced} I owe to the kindness of Mrs. Calder III (eds. Briggs and W. L. On Tenney Frank. after her marriage to Walter C. S. than disagreement. By 1934 Taylor had also produced some sixteen articles dealing with Roman and Hellenistic cult. American Philological Association [Middletown 1931]). A. (or Kirsopp) Lake. and admiration. XI). see the appendices at the end of this paper. Lake Michels). M. Cf. believes. Miss Lake. where often dogmas rule. the qualities not always appreciated. at this point. No. For intolerance and dogmas Agnes Michels felt only disdain. see T.8 “that my father began to doubt the teacha scholar. he died in Chapel Hill a few months before Michels’ demise.Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 585 325 pupil. where Michels rejoined him in 1977. Jr.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. S.). (ed. Linderski in Gnomon 67 (1995) 91–93 {reprinted. n. He told me the stories of the classics and. Around the time of her marriage to Walter Michels she joined the Religious Society of Friends. Swinburne. still an undergraduate. in Classical Scholarship (above. Tennyson. His attitude to his own work made me think of scholarship as the opening to a world of adventure. Briggs. But the name of Lake conjures up another abiding presence in her scholarly life. read to me a strange assortment of Browning and the Bible. that shaped her as a scholar. As she herself wrote.” Adventure it was. Imperium Sine Fine: T. CT. Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport.5 saying. 50}. But as a true student of Roman religion she loved rituals. but adventure requires a mind open and bold. see the obituary by J. 1990b {and J. and a biographical and bibliographical notice in W. After Frank and Taylor. S. Houston. The quote comes from her application for the Ford Foundation Faculty Fellowship (she held it in 1953–54). as she later recounted. W. conceived a plan of producing a comprehensive account of Roman religion. In “Biographical Note” appended to Quantulacumque. When a curate at St. 1994) 64–66. I believe.” writes his son Gerard Lake. Religion und Kultus der Römer2 (München 1912). with addenda. Broughton himself (1900–1993). Linderski in American National Biography 21 (1999) 390–91. and Taylor’s guidance and numinous presence. but she kept her independence even from this gentle creed. of its deities and priesthoods. “this has already been done” (audita refero). R. Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (London 1937) vii.).” in J. G. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 1–30. Agnes Michels never stopped worshipping Wissowa as a god of scholarship. 35–42. R. S. I found this document among her papers. long before I could understand them. that of her father. and then her colleague in the Department of Latin at Bryn Mawr until his retirement and emigration to Chapel Hill in 1965. W. and eagerly attended family weddings and baptisms. Michels 1980a. “It was. 48}. No. 5 6 7 8 . and immersed himself in the study of the Synoptic problem. the formidable Kirsopp Lake. and intolerance. or knows). 2) 454–61. He had been among the Bryn Mawr teachers of Michels. and Josephus. Linderski (ed. and. Broughton. in this volume. and least of all in the study of living religions. during her stay in Chapel Hill she never participated in the meetings.7 and one can suspect that much of her bold and fair spirit arose from a consideration of her father’s theological and scholarly vicissitudes. It was at this juncture that Taylor showed her the magisterial volume of Georg Wissowa. R. Mary’s in Oxford (1897–1904). 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. On Broughton’s life and achievement. not as a retirement from reality. above all. “Broughton Remembered” and “Fasti Broughtoniani. reprinted in this volume. the third member and mainstay of that dynasty was T. and it was this exhilarating experience. Kirsopp Lake became engaged in cataloguing Greek manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (1903–1904). and not what one feels. that Agnes Lake was born. It was a scholarship suffused with curiosity. pronounced with glee and gusto. and in 1919 Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical Literature.” and he added. others may write who knew her earlier or longer or better. not her favorites. a place of teaching: Bryn Mawr was destined to become her life. When. a place of professional career. I have never written anything controversial. suffering and emotion of history to a parade of names. “her insatiable curiosity. At Cambridge. but it was a teaching always informed by hard. This led to rejections of a good number of Michels’ submissions. she attended the Buckingham School. a virtue Lily Ross Taylor herself extolled and practiced. and he stayed there until 1914. 10 St. modestly. 1990b). that Agnes Lake grew to maturity (with a year in an exclusive boarding school in England. and reduces the blood. but hardly for controversy. Broughton whether he ever suffered this ignominy. 11 L. a further peregrination soon followed. 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. viii. Rescue and redemption came when in 1926 she entered Bryn Mawr College.” Agnes Michels. this time across the ocean. “which he held until circumstances forced him to resign it and join the Department of History in the College in 1932. S. he answered truthfully: “Never. R. In 1904 Kirsopp Lake assumed the chair of New Testament Exegesis in Leiden.” Boston University Graduate Journal 8. MA. along with her capacity for work and a sense of humor. 2 (1959) 35–43. To Agnes Lake it was not merely a place of study. R. After a year of grace. and rightly so.” his son cryptically alludes. even as distant as that of the Romans. Teaching was not only her vocation. In particular prosopography dispassionately describes and catalogues personages. in desperation. “a chair.. she once asked (again. It was at Leiden.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 singled out as a most arresting characteristic of Taylor.” Michels cherished this anecdote. and original scholarship. for a true scholar is engaged in discovering things quite like a child. where in 1914 he became Professor of Early Christian Literature. The phrase has an endearing ring. then.” 9 Thus it was in the rarefied atmosphere of an elevated professorship and Harvard Yard. uncompromising.11 but a curious mind often tackles problems that cannot be solved or problems that more pedestrian readers and editors do not appreciate. Many years after her student days. was less polite and oblique: “heresy” was her word.” (Michels 1980a. it was the better part of her existence. “In Praise of Curiosity. Of Agnes Michels as a student. in conversations. For Kirsopp Lake. audita refero) T. Taylor. The study of religion. and a colleague.10 an experience she remembered with a mixture of resentment and fascination for England and English history). on 31 July 1909. and several years after Taylor’s death. passionate teacher. there is a place for disagreement. and in many a reader it would evoke the memory of childhood and of Kipling’s Elephant’s Child. Paul’s Girls’ School in London. he was obliged to deliver his lectures in Dutch. no. and his family. to Harvard. 9 Ibid. a family story his daughter repeated with horror and amusement. “but. . In her application for the Guggenheim Fellowship (cf. another great name in Greek. a student and translator of late Greek philosophy and of Latin medical treatises. Taylor. Lang in Biographical Dictionary 560–61). H(enry) J. W(illiam) B(ell) Dinsmoor (1886–1973. Broughton (cf. and which is divided into three latitudinal parts. Lang in Biographical Dictionary 726–27). Briggs in Biographical Dictionary 457–58). Lullies and W. Archäologenbildnisse. 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.. n. It was for that work that she was technically awarded her doctorate. Schiering (eds. Broughton in R. perhaps at that time the most eminent American student of Roman archaeology). particularly Cretan. she lists Henry N(evill) Sanders (1869–1943.6–7. W. a student of archaeology and Roman religion. and an authority on Roman folklore. see the note by T. L. difficult. Juno. 4). and Mary H(amilton) Swindler (1884–1967. mainly Athenian. Wilmer C(ave) Wright (1868–1951. the formula requires a temple whose breadth is to its length as 5:6. Minerva? The logical thing to do. see the note by W. Cadbury (1883–1974. R. L. a prolific student of Biblical history). below. completed in 1934. was to start with the remnants of temples that seemed designed to house triads.2): “Reduced to its simplest terms. S. 4] 86–88). It is not possible not to offend somebody. a student of Greek. and much discussed: who has not heard of the Capitoline triad of Jupiter.6. and this discovery resulted in a substantial publication (1935b). while in Italy. the note by M.. the central division to occupy four tenths of the breadth and each side division threetenths” (91). Porträts und Kurzbiographien von klassischen Archäologen deutscher Sprache [Mainz 1988] 244-45}). Rhys Carpenter (1889–1980. V(alentin) Müller (1889–1945. see M. There she came across a large deposit of pottery. cf. Lang in Biographical Dictionary [above. even of pottery. Broughton in Biographical Dictionary 287–89). nn. . a Greek scholar.” The topic was large. and in 1933 from 27 March to 19 July in the University of Pennsylvania excavations at Minturnae. The author goes on to observe that “the influence of Vitruvius has . The paper starts with the famous formula of Vitruvius concerning the Tuscan order (4. and at the American Academy M(arbury) B(laden) Ogle (1879–1964. a student of Greek religion).Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 587 327 incites emotions and nourishes enduring animosities. R. Broughton and also Louise A(dams) Holland (1893–1990.). a famed scholar of towering presence and influence in Greek archaeology. S.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. In 1931–1933 she was a Fellow in the School of Classical Studies at the American Academy in Rome. and as her other Bryn Mawr teachers. But Agnes Lake almost veered off her original path. a student of Greek and oriental archaeology {cf. she also participated in 1932 for six weeks in the excavations at Samaria (organized by her father). R. 15) she describes as her principal teachers Taylor. Thus what originally was to be a study in religious history and Italic and Etruscan theology turned into an archaeological investigation. and published as a long paper in 1935 with a rather modest title “The Archaeological Evidence for the ‘Tuscan Temple’” (1935a). the history of Greek art. S. L. archaeology). 3. in addition to those mentioned in her dissertation. Edith Dohan (1877–1943. archaeology and history). see M. he was Professor in Charge at the School of Classical Studies in 1931–34. and early Greek history. and became a student of archaeology. and A(lbert) W(illiam) Van Buren (1878–1968. the biographical note by T. R. n. T. . Segni. received her doctorate. and discovered teaching. Agnes Michels comments how. an idea that does not seem to have found favor among the Petronian scholars. . found in Signia. another extraordinarily personal document. as a result of her courses.16 was joined by short articles on “Lapis Capitolinus” (1936). T. also the review 1949c). she published only two short papers. to complete the reconstruction of a partially preserved temple. and her understanding of religio. J. dogged hunt for facts. The reason is simple.. 15 In her application for the Guggenheim Fellowship (which she held in 1960–61). and independence of mind.588 Antiqua et Recentiora 328 formula. as has often been done in the past. one cataloguing the coins and sculptures on which the Capitolium is represented (138–43). and yet her next monograph was to appear only after thirty two years (1969). The monograph systematically treats. when the actual measurements are lacking” (137). It was from this deep but slow spring that her thoughts. Gantz. It can never be used to supply reliable statistics. 14 “That I should go into teaching was the inevitable result of my upbringing. we never find them exactly fulfilled. Religio Etrusca (Graz 1975) 52. see L.14 She also discovered Latin poetry. and mind. and most scholars are now of the opinion that they were rather an exception than a rule. now CIL I2. she became interested in Latin literature. Pfiffig. “Divine Triads on an Archaic Etruscan Frieze Plaque from Poggio Civitate (Murlo).13 This youthful work shows all the hallmarks of a mature scholar: painstaking attention to detail. 16 In this note. “Il culto del cosidetto ‘tempio di Apollo’ a Veii e il problema delle triadi etrusco-italiche.2864 = ILLRP 166). were now to flow. “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. above. after her thesis and dissertation. and how her new interest in poetry. 6). and her old interest in Roman religion conspired to lead her away from archaeology. was appointed instructor. Orvieto.17 13 This conclusion is quoted with approval by A. Rome. The result is disappointing – for Vitruvius: “although in many cases we find an approximation to the terms of the formula. 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. contra. n. distrust of fancy theories. cf. In this field. instead of comparing such evidence with the doctrine of Vitruvius” (89). Her first published piece on Roman cult. N.” SE 39 (1971) 3–24. of all (then) known temples with triple cellae. 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. After her stay in Rome. she argues (rather adventurously) that Signia was the original home of the cult of Juno Moneta. We are not justified therefore in using the formula. the latter continuing her study of the “Tuscan Temple” (cf. especially poetry. with a remarkable sureness of hand.15 This is not to say that in the next ten years her published contributions were few or negligible. It shows also capacity for sustained work. Pfiffig. (1937d) and (1941a).” SE 17 (1943) 187–224. The paper is rounded off by two still very useful appendices. and establishes the temples in Florence. Religio 33–36. . eye. and. a note on “Juno Moneta” (1933). Banti. Terracina and Minturnae as the genuine examples of the type. the twenty five year old Agnes Lake returned to Bryn Mawr. on the basis of the inscription Iunonei Monetai donom (in 1933 not yet admitted to CIL. and the other containing a list of all republican temples “which are sufficiently well preserved to supply any measurements” (143–48). Her goal is to provide such a comparison. The problem of triads continues to be debated. Veii. 19 The Consualia. this explains why “Aeneas shows no recollection of Anchises’ prophecy” (143). Fedeli. sacred to Proserpina. in the other. the preserve of perhaps the greatest commentary ever written on any book of Vergil. Bernstein. of course. 22 I mean. Cf. Further. consequently. and their attitude to that unavoidable reality. 3. more recently M. however.18 and a note on “The Consualia of December”(1944c). Entre hommes et dieux (= Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 391 [Paris 1989]) 27–41 (who. the erudite study by W. “Vergil must have agreed with Horace (Od. she plunged into Hades itself. 4. on Horace (1944b) and on Lucretius and Vergil (1944a. She crossed it in a novel way. “Lucretius. Römisches Substrat und griechische Überlagerung. It was the aureus ramus (Aen. and concludes that there did not exist any particular link between the supplicatio and the decemviri sacris faciundis. but cope with the present” (146). Servius comments that 18 The article discusses the connection between the supplicatio. pulvinaria and lectisternia. and together with Aeneas crossed the Styx. mors. always stout of heart.“The Insomnium of Aeneas” (1981b).137). cf. a feast of harvest and abundance. Il Primo Libro delle Elegie (Firenze 1980) 502–3. and courageous indeed must be a scholar who ventures into this territory. that gave Aeneas the right to traverse the river. was celebrated on 21 August and on 15 December. 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”.” Latomus 35 [1976] 469–503.29–33) that God deliberately conceals the future from mortal men. . “Der Traum des Tarquinius. as have also all other recent students of Vergil. who should not be unduly concerned with it. “Les lectisternes républicaines. found among her papers. where the whole and widespread symbolism of the aries purpureus is thoroughly illuminated). P. Ops et la conception divine de l’abondance dans la religion romaine jusqu’à la mort d’Auguste (BEFAR 241 [Rome 1981]) 102–13 {I am pleased to note that recently this idea of Michels has found at last an erudite follower: F.“The Many Faces of Aeneas” (1997). 6. But Consus and Ops are clearly concerned with grain. missed Michels’ contribution).22.21 “Lucretius and the Sixth Book of the Aeneid” [1944a] and “The Golden Bough of Plato” [1945] are pieces courageous and imaginative.. these last two pieces inaugurating her life-long fascination with the critic of religio and the singer of pietas.” in A. 38}. Finally. and published in this issue of CJ. she ingeniously interprets Lucretius’ discussion of the cult of Magna Mater (2. also OCD3 (1996) 837}.{Cf. Sesto Properzio. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI (2nd ed.29.Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 329 589 330 “The Supplicatio and the Graecus Ritus” (1937b).19 And there were four articles on the poets. Fauth. Next.22 In the former article Agnes Michels interpreted Aeneas’ journey to Hades as a dream.” Hermes 125 (1997) 413–46 at 420 and n. on Propertius (1937c.-F. Cf. Nouilhan. in which she discusses with arresting empathy the phraseology of Lucretius and Propertius. Laurens (ed. 20 But her defence of the transmitted sit in 1. P. 21 See her articles “Death and Two Poets” (1955b). 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. The prophecy of Anchises had thus no influence on the action of the story and.600–60) as an echo of Cicero’s accusation of Clodius in the De Haruspicum responso. Pouthier.42–45 (unfortunately she has missed. the book by Eduard Norden. 194020).6 has not been kindly received. 1945). the latter festival Michels explains as concerned with the olive crop. and Michels’ idea does not seem to have found followers. Leipzig 1916). P. “Verständnisund Entwicklungsstufen der archaischen Consualia. Clodius and Magna Mater” (1966a).). ” a conceit for which Vergil was too civilized (59). will be amazed. and limit themselves solely to the observation that “kl«na . And thus here religio and poetry came together. F.” . for both rely on logos. but rather from the exact measurements of Tuscan temples and antiquarian notices to a golden and elusive bough of literary interpretation.604 (commentary). 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 frees Vergil from the cumbersome Platonic connection. just as Socrates showed the fate of the soul to Glaucon by means of a myth.” 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. it was reserved for Norden to supply details (pp. while. This would produce. of myrtle. 2. Gow and D. “a rather pointless allusion to a bloody survival of primitive ritual. Michels argued. so that he could see the after-life. a creation of Vergil’s imagination. The equation between Bough and myth seems plain” (60–61). . L.. Page. This is the source of Vergil’s golden ramus.23 If it was a period of poetry and reflection. A. and of gold.. An observant reader of Vergil. and startled: for the article vividly illustrates the road traversed by its author.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. 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. In Vergil’s own mind it would have been connected with Platonic doctrine.” And her quest as a teacher was to try to break down “mis-understandings and prejudice between religious groups. and of Michels. quiddam esse mysticum adfirment. not just or only across the Styx. The Greek Anthology. The phrase comes from the Garland of Meleager of Gadara who described the epigrams of Plato as xrÊseiow kl≈n. But Norden has perspicaciously pointed to a parallel interpretation of Servius. He was also an “omnivorous reader. “de hoc ramo hi qui de sacris Proserpinae scripsisse dicuntur. like all great poetry. and here the advantage lies with Michels: her observation corrects Norden’s statement (173) that in the literature it was Vergil who first introduced the image of the golden bough.. S.” 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.215. But logos – for a scholar – is a treacherous guide. Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge 1965) 1. To this day Norden’s interpretation and erudition remain unsurpassed. He shows that in her mysteries Persephone received from her devotees as a gift mystic branches. Here the advantage lies with Norden for his interpretation accounts both for the image in Meleager and in Vergil.” and promote “open and friendly arguments” between 23 Norden did not know the passage of Meleager. of which aureus ramus is “a legitimate translation. it can mean to readers of the Aeneid what they can discover in it” (63). 163–79).” Servius does not elaborate. do not remark (perhaps prudently) on any possible connection with Vergil. lines 47–48 (text).. and not unjustly.. it can mean various things to various people. suggests shrub or tree rather than flower. and of retreat from archaeology and antiquarianism. It was in connection with this course that she received (in 1953) the Ford Foundation Faculty Fellowship. of mistletoe. Michels admitted this when in the conclusion of her article she wrote: “The Golden Bough was .. there also appeared her most important paper to date. and the religious manifestation of those changes were the festivals celebrated according to the progress of the agricultural year. March through December. be it the Pontifex Maximus Julius Caesar. “The history of any calendar is the history of the reforms to which it has been subjected” (321). and subsequent scholars.” 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” . in the end. but any calendar reform itself is always introduced abruptly by a superior authority. accept the answers which religion offers. and occasional atheists” (Lily Ross Taylor among the last named. But there are equally strong indications that the earliest Roman year (ascribed to Romulus) consisted of ten months. with January and February according to the Roman tradition added by Numa (hence the denomination. it seems to me to matter very little whether the student. that is with the system of the lunar month. but rather on the observation of seasonal changes. 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. and there are powerful indications that the lunar month was introduced by the Etruscan dynasty (322–28). the “Numan year”). and her visible achievement is a book that many will regard as antiquarian in character. These reforms are normally the result of technological progress in time-reckoning or of a radical social change. “The ‘Calendar of Numa’ and the Pre-Julian Calendar” (1949b). though rather to the era of the Etruscan kings. in whatever month was in progress at the time. Nones and Ides. the Pontifex Maximus (sive Papa) Gregory or the French revolutionaries. Catholics. 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). Michels points out that as these festivals fell on fixed days they must have been correlated with the system of Kalends. it might be added). so long as he understands the problem. 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. Jews. and would be announced on the Nones after which they were to occur. but the book she contemplated never saw the light of day. And in another place she wrote: “From the academic point of view. This ten-month year was based (as argued by a number of scholars) not on the movement of the sun and moon. Here a profound teacher and thinker speaks. In the epigraphically preserved Roman calendars there appears a cycle of specifically named religious festivals with their abbreviated names recorded in large letters.Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 591 332 “Protestants. continued dating them to the regal epoch. and knows for himself why he rejects or accepts the solutions” (1949a). including Wissowa. In the same year in which Michels delivered her talk to Bryn Mawr alumnae on “The Teaching of Religion” (1949a). a work of stunning erudition and acute historical sense. 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. Mommsen assigned these festivals summarily to the period of Numa. Agnes Michels squared her wits with Mommsen.”. Schilling. the opus slender but magnum: The Calendar of the Roman Republic. 25 Michels’ theory that the intercalary month always had twenty seven days (and not twenty seven or twenty eight). This book belongs to the necessary equipment of every student of Rome. many books on early Rome would not have been conceived so infeliciter. P. and that it was inserted either after 23 or 24 February was characterized by R.592 Antiqua et Recentiora 333 334 (333). Another lesson in method is this: there is much in the book that is hypothetical. but only a person of courage could make it. part II with the “History of the Republican Calendar.” ANRW I..” and is in turn subdivided into two chapters. and the dating of the calendar (with some corrections to her previous discussion of 1949). but vigorously combatted by Wissowa and Nilsson. nundinae and trinum nundinum. dealing. After a perceptive (though rather involved) discussion Michels revived. with the history of the calendar from the first to the fourth century B. Part I deals with “The Calendar of the First Century B. firmly: to a mind vague and not used to scholarly dis24 M. one of the great names in the study of Roman cult. as much else in archaic Rome. Wissowa and Nilsson. 26) 191–288. and finally nundinal letters and nundinae.25 the character of days. 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. “I am uncomfortably aware of many loose ends in my discussion” (p. with new arguments. This mine of information is supplemented by appendices on Roman intercalation. 1961). in 1967. The problem now arises when the festival cycle with its fixed dates was codified. and then surveys in an encyclopedic fashion the character of the days in the calendar of the first century B. must be made. more: she takes every precaution not to pass theories for facts.24 that this momentous change was due.C. and she stood her ground. in this order.C. see his “Les études relatives à la religion romaine. and from that firm ground we move to things more distant and more obscure. he denies the existence of the original ten-month year. If other scholars had followed this example and admonition. Its very arrangement is a lesson in method. and then with the fifth century. 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. as a hypothesis “plus économique que l’explication précédent”. dies comitiales and dies fasti.C. however. dies nefasti and the days marked NP. See now a new discussion of the early Roman calendar by Rüpke. Nilsson is best known for his numerous studies in the history of Greek religion culminating in the massive and erudite Griechische Religionsgeschichte I2–II2 (München 1955. One point. n. The author is keenly aware of that circumstance. but he also published a number of papers dealing with Roman cult and history. It is composed of two parts and four appendices. and finally. but upholds the idea (with various modifications) that it was the decemvirs who introduced the republican calendar.. .2 (1972) 321. Part I gives (in five chapters) an account of the pre-Julian calendar. an old suggestion of Ideler (1826). We start with things better known and illuminated by contemporary sources. VIII). Kalender (below. to the decemvirs (338–46). accepted by many scholars. Scholarly honesty dictated this confession. Several years later there followed a short article on “The Intercalary Month” (1962a). The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome. three bright peaks attract one’s gaze.. R.” With this statement from the grand master of the res Romanae Agnes Michels herself entered the realm of the history of scholarship. all three an honor to the Goodwin Award of Merit of the American Philological Association (in 1953. with melancholy.27 26 For a list of major reviews of the book. Dominae Doctissimae Dilectissimae. a leading authority on ancient astronomy and astrology. the vast desert of books published in the last several decennia. Taylor perished struck by a car. As she writes in the Preface (p. J. The pupil has repaid her debt to the teacher. fasti. Broughton. nefasti and the nundinae. im Grundgedanken aber ist . Le Calendrier romain (Ottawa 1983). after the appearance of two new books on the Roman calendar: P.2 [Rome. No.” This is still true today. stand as a worthy counterpart and indispensable complement to L. reprinted in this volume. When one reviews. This last book bears a dedication: L.. see Bibliography. Very differently is structured also the book by Rüpke. her book. For Agnes Michels was keenly aware of the intricate and intimate connection between the calendar. I could never have written Chapter 1 without the help of his gift for explaining the mysteries of astronomy in simple terms. who was Professor of Physics at Bryn Mawr College (1936–1972). mag in Einzelheiten noch hypothetisch und verbesserungswert sein. There was also another person to whom Agnes Michels felt deep gratitude: her own husband.. but it is not the product of an antiquarian mind but of a mind imbued with history and religion. 1951–1952) by T. The Calendar of the Roman Republic was greeted with a chorus of appreciation. Michels . 1962.26 Most significant (and dear to the author’s heart) was the praise from the pen of Attilio Degrassi. Kalender und Öffentlichkeit (Berlin 1995). 1963]). Brind’Amour describes Michels’ book as “le principal ouvrage récent” (353). 37}. see the review by J. Brind’Amour.Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 593 335 cipline the book may appear dry and technical. and the rhythm of Roman religion and Roman public life. Rüpke. X) he “has debated the problems of the Roman calendar with me for some twenty years. Linderski in CJ {93.. 27 It was very fortunate that The Calendar was published in 1967: two years later L. Das Ergebnis . Taylor’s soaring classic. dem reichlich spröden Material abzugewinnen was immer ihm beim heutigen Forschungsstand abgewonnen werden zu können scheint. In the conclusion of his learned and sympathetic review he wrote (Latomus 28 [1969] 468): “Non é arrischiato dire che sia l’opera di maggior rilievo sul calendario Romano apparsa dopo Mommsen. the measurement of time. werden ihrem Buch dankbar verpflichtet sein. Michels (1906–1975). Taylor.. Walter Michels winning in 1964 the Oersted medal of the American . the monuments to Bryn Mawr’s golden age. some resuscitated or gilded by a fancy award (tituli sunt odiosi). he himself offers mostly a series of chronological studies. and The Calendar of the Roman Republic (Princeton. R.” And he added: “lectores.. R. K. T. and in particular her chapters on the dies comitiales. He concluded his review (Gnomon 41 [1969] 785–90) with the following statement: “Der Verf(asserin) ist es gelungen.. Roman Voting Assemblies (Ann Arbor. Walter C. the author of the monumental Fasti Anni Numani et Iuliani (= Inscriptiones Italiae XIII. 1960) by L.4 (1998) 464–68. 1967) by A.” But Agnes and Walter Michels shared something more than mere interest in the calendar: both were dedicated teachers. one of the most stupendous achievements in Roman studies in this century. R. and thus his book is structured very differently from that of Michels. S. R. völlig überzeugend. In addition to the praise from Degrassi most significant was probably the opinion of Hans Georg Gundel. 1966). qui erunt . 1970): The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York. Le Sacrifice dans l’ Antiquité (= Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 27 [Vandoeuvres-Genève 1981]) 289-328 (the original essence of the ritual cannot be recovered). Zió¬kowski.” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 15 (1989) 126–38 (he opts for ‘Wachstumsbitter’). The few who were more fortunate could learn and test her ideas through a personal discussion. each presenting a drama of an emblematic female figure: Tanaquil. 26) 87–96. and there it lies buried.e. Überlegungen zum römischen Lupercalienfest. 59–66. and also ingenious. {And see now the ingenious investigation by A. the problem of the trinum nundinum. for instance.4}. he does not quote Michels).193). “Ritual Cleaning-up of the City: from the Lupercalia to the Argei. and a number of other scholars) Michels’ topographical finding concerning the course of the Luperci. n. This is probably one point where she was positively wrong: cf. P. he rejects any connection with the werewolves but accepts (as before him also M. “Zur Erforschung der römischen Opfer (Beispiel: die Lupercalia). she argues. “‘Wolfsabwehr’ oder ‘Wachstumsbitter’. with all its maddening nooks and crannies.30 still another surveys the cult of Diana (1957). in this volume.” SCO 44 (1994 [1995] 347–64. She intended to be nothing but systematic. Scholz. is fruitful and salutary. Michels opted for twenty five days (197-206). Tullia. Das römische Lupercalienfest (Darmstadt 1982). G. was a purificatory festival “intended to protect the community against the power of the dead manifesting themselves at this season [i. Rudhardt and O. the Romans’ relation to the universe and the gods. T.).28 she was also thinking of Religio with a capital R. Lucretia.” in J.29 another paper deals with the feast of the Lupercalia (1953).594 Antiqua et Recentiora 336 But all the time Agnes Michels labored on the technical problems of the calendar. see only four studies. and 28 29 30 31 . and that it had various connotations and associations. in February] in the form of wolves” (51). immensely learned and in the same degree difficult of comprehension {cf. Brind’Amour. 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. The calendar was only a vessel for this relationship. M. Ulf. with new arguments for the run around the Palatine}. 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. This article was published in a little known Festschrift. 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. Agnes Michels enjoyed Wortstudien. But it should be widely known for Michels’ insistence that the term religio ought to be studied separately in each author. See also. 45. esp. from 1953 to 1991. Reverdin (eds.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). C. always revealing and always spirited. The Lupercalia. Her interest in early Rome.” Latomus 15 [1956] 133–36. and that of Ideler and Kubitschek of a seventeen day period. The subsequent literature on the Lupercalia is too voluminous to be adduced here. Römische Geburtsriten (München 1990) 221–89 (on the risus of the Luperci. “Les Luperques. Köves-Zulauf. Radke. He characterizes Michels’ contribution as a “ground-breaking article” (p. all with extensive bibliography: U. is visible also in “The Drama of the Tarquins” (1951). W. Munzi. 141–44. Nilsson. “Sulla topografia dei Lupercalia: il contributo di Costantinopoli.” Ancient Society 29 (1988–99) 191–218 at 193–210. and in Roman depictions of early Rome. No. A review article of 1955 presents in painstaking detail publications in the field of early Roman religion. Le Calendrier (above. and the Luperci did not run (as was generally assumed) around the Palatine (45-6). Against Mommsen’s idea of a period of twenty-four days. at different times some more prominent than the others. As. as distinct from a description of its practices.” This writer and Michels shared another bête noir. Forsythe. 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. Brelich. “Kurt Latte. and that this genuinely Roman element was later obscured by foreign importations. while again recognizing his erudition and achievement: W. and his activity as a scholar and teacher.). Wissowa and Latte provide “well-documented accounts”. J.” 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.” she would describe him. and too appreciative of Latte’s obvious erudition to describe his book.” These papers remain in a rather inchoate state. It was devised and advertized as a replacement of Wissowa’s Religion und Kultus der Römer. her APA presidential address “Myth. 34 In private conversations she was quite adamant: “that awful book. as one critic did. {For the biography of Latte. in C. see C. n. {G.16. and much work was still needed to bring them up to the standard set by the Calendar. too kind. la Römische Religionsgeschichte di Kurt Latte. 230) that criticisms directed at Latte’s Römische Religionsgeschichte have “keinen Bestand”}. and there is no better place to which to turn than her critique of Kurt Latte’s Römische Religionsgeschichte (1962b). as every scholar must. 2. Of course. “A minor Anglican official. J. J. opines that the books by Fowler are perhaps still the best modern treatments of early Roman religion. and inevitably involves many subjective judgments” (440). with the remarkable hagiographic statement (p. a step all too often omitted. that “any account of the character of the Roman religion. “The Augural Law. But Latte’s very assumptions are questionable. must rest on one’s interpretation of the evidence.Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 595 337 marized it: “in classical Latin religio seems to mean almost anything rather than ‘religion’. A singular lack of discernment!} . “Un libro dannoso. one must turn to her reviews. n. one cannot replace Wissowa. but Wissowa “is sometimes gullible in accepting later Roman explanations”.” 32 But in order to find her more general pronouncements on religio.” and “The Flamines Maiores. Die klassische Altertumswisssenschaft an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Göttingen 1989) 197–233. 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. A Critical History of Early Rome (Berkeley 2005) 126.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 32 (1961) 311–54. as a libro dannoso. and the longer papers on “The Vowing and Dedication of Temples During the Republic. Michels admits. Was it a failure also as an independent and fresh vision of the Roman cult? Michels was too fair. And indeed his widely read The Religious Experience of the Roman People (London 1911) is a sectarian triumph and a scholarly debacle (cf.34 The three salient pages of her review (440–42) should be compulsory reading for every student of religio. Classen (ed. 1945–1957”. 33 A.” 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). Linderski.3 [1986] 2207.” ANRW 2. Who’s Got the Myth?”. Professor der klassischen Philologie 1931–1935.33 but reading her lines one can see that she could barely contain her dissatisfaction. Classen. and in this respect Latte’s effort was generally adjudged a failure. 226). Warde Fowler. Myth. The book of Latte was published in Munich in 1960 as a volume in the venerable Müller’s Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften. in all its applications and shades. ” Augustine.” The Roman religion was created by the Romans and for the Romans. But in the case of Latte (and of his accomplices) the fantasy has only in part been scholarly. Latte. this means that it was in some way deficient. That does not mean that it was lifeless or not satisfying to the Romans themselves. They felt compelled to invent for the Romans a religion that suited them better.D. as we know it from actual history. absorption and accommodation. could not imagine or accept a thriving cult that was not interested in personal salvation.. that a state cult which had as its purpose the preservation of Rome and her citizens .” 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. or were created by. it was a fantasy guided by ulterior confessional motives. the gods were expected to serve and preserve her just as her citizens were.” And further: “of course.. and method. or with some ideal religion.4). one will be disappointed. No student of religion can ultimately avoid or evade choosing between Varro and Augustine. Latte (and Fowler before him) finds the Roman religion.” And thus “res divinae ab hominibus institutae sunt. but that one has been asking the wrong questions.” 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. To such a mind change. that was legalistic and not spiritual. was exactly what they needed and wanted. are suspicious and abhorrent. a religion that was a prefiguration of a near eastern creed that ultimately dethroned Jupiter. prior faber quam aedificium. 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. and that this deficiency made it inadequate for the Romans. who knew more about the subject than anybody else will ever know: M. as one would be in looking for those things anywhere in Roman culture. and the less we know the more fertile is the ground for scholarly fantasy. was shocked. of its early stages we know very little. and the hallmarks of Roman history and of Roman religion. He argued: “sicut prior est pictor quam tabula picta. In his Antiquitates he discussed the res humanae before the res divinae. and therefore failing to discover what its positive values were to those who created it.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. quae a civitatibus instituta sunt. if one studies Roman religion looking for original metaphysical concepts or an interest in the transcendental.. 6. those triple foundations of Rome’s greatness. . the needs of the Romans in their own circumstances. It stems from an obsession with purity and corruption. The goal of Roman religion was the salvation of Rome. This premise Agnes Michels shared with another scholar. utterly wanting. he oppposed to Varro’s historical approach the quest for the vera religio (C. the religion of Rome is found not to possess certain qualities. If Latte’s.. image of Roman cult was a fantasy. ita priores sunt civitates quam ea. who preserved this statement of Varro. and others of a similar emotional inclination. Michels gave a devastating description: if on comparison with some other religion. Of this assumption. and Fowler’s. . Terentius Varro. 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 Römer. R. The reviews of the books by Koch and Latte appeared in 1961 and 1962. Taylor.” They were never published. Merely two years later Michels gave at the Oberlin College (in January 1969) her Martin lectures on “Rome and the Gods. What was to be a luminous culmination of a 35 Der römische Juppiter (Frankfurt am Main 1937). but . but how such a belief can advance our understanding of a religion not interested in the metaphysical and transcendental. Agnes Michels was well aware of this twin danger. One can understand how “a deeply felt belief” (Christian.Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 597 339 Agnes Michels was personally drawn to the figure and message of Paul of Tarsus. not even references to the sources. she wavered. but in his maturity he saw further into it. He handles the evidence as objectively as he did in his earlier work. is entitled “The Manipulation of the State Religion.” Namely: “increasingly he allowed his own deep religious convictions to become apparent. one suspects. only to deepen it. exactly because Koch had a firmly held belief of his own. This book came out in 1967. a true pupil of Lily Ross Taylor. Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley. he was able to grasp the reality of ancient belief. because they implicitly and explicitly denied to the Romans any serious attachment to their cult and their gods. Michels observes that the two books35 which Koch wrote before he was thirty show that “he was already a master of his subject . unfinished and abandoned. After the author’s death the manuscript was discovered in a drawer.” 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. a bare text. as the Roman religion was. “ And further: “one feels that. she was a scholar first and foremost. impersonal scholarship. and a fortiori the cool and distant religion of the Romans.. In the face of an ideology.. in Koch’s case) might be useful in comprehending (and not merely describing) a parallel mystery cult.. . The rationalists may have trouble in taking any religion seriously. The fourth chapter of the celebrated book by L. religious or secular. past or present. Of her mature understanding of religion. Still. an unspoken addressee: none other than Lily Ross Taylor. but she never allowed this ideology to color her study of Rome..” Agnes Michels always thought (though she never expressed it in writing) that these were the weakest pages in the whole oeuvre of Taylor. 1949). he did not allow them to distort his understanding of the ancient texts. contemporary and Roman. Gestirnverehrung im alten Italien (Frankfurt am Main 1939). working in the tradition of objective. without any of the customary offerings to the gods of scholarship. it is well to remember that it was the time when Agnes Michels was hard at work on her Calendar book. another review offers a vivid illustration (1961). 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.” But from his articles “more emerges. the footnotes and references. it is difficult to be so detached as scientists are with respect to their retorts. is not a self-evident proposition. 1–2 {III. or rather an uncritical reading of his philosophical works.” 36 This is the last we hear of the book. . see the now classic paper by H. “The Roman Nobility and the Religion of the Republican State. now the excellent studies by S. Fishwick. or an insidious disease creeps in. 38 Cf. Murphy. She extended its scope.598 340 Antiqua et Recentiora 191 scholarly career was to become its silent end. the longing to be alone with the subject. 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. Jocelyn. the college for the performance of sacred rites was frequently an instrument of innovation.” A most intriguing disposition. Professor of Classics at Oberlin and the (former) Chairman of the Martin Lectures Committee. if necessary. 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. 1992 {2002. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge 1984). It is for that reason that they had to be appeased and cultivated. and the prodigia). Ritual and Power.” Journal of Religious History 4 (1966) 89–104.” the other with “The present. 37 For a similar sentiment. protection and justice. It also.37 The future was the province of the decemviri (since Sulla quindecimviri) sacris faciundis. the rise of Augustus.” The essential characteristic of Roman gods was not their moral nature but their power. The turning point was first the period of civil wars. it was now to cover the ground till the end of the classical antiquity. If the pontiffs guarded the past. Price. She was reading the letters of Symmachus. F. and by D. When one reads the yellowed typescript of the lectures one has a keen sense of sunken treasure. 1991. job.” and the last is entitled “The turning point.1–2. Why. They (and the magistrates) did it through the means of the auspices. and the rise of the emperor cult. “a pretty dull. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West I. forcefully.” the third with “The future. II. This cult was not “merely a device by which loyalty to the empire could be demonstrated. the guardians of the tradition (the rest of the chapter is devoted to the caerimoniae and sacra. then.1–2. R. makes another salutary point: the Romans treated the signs from the gods very seriously. 2004}).” It satisfied a need for safety. There are four chapters. The first deals with “The past. If the pontiffs and the augurs were largely the protectors of the status quo. 3} (Leiden 1987. This was the obligation of the pontiffs. the augurs guarded the present. D. and any distinction between the religious and the secular was meaningless to them. Agnes Michels was still working on the book in 1973. the guardians of the Sibylline books that contained the fata Romae.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. R. T. without any interference of footnotes and secondary literature. She comments on the tenacity and vitality of the Roman cult even in the face of “the ardent efforts of the Christian emperors. The story is often retold: a project too ambitious to be concluded.” But she was already disheartened: “I must admit that I sorely miss the stimulus of arguing about points with L. 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. S. and as a pupil of L. June 4. 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 (1850–1928). “An Audacious Commitment” (1974) she describes. M. but verba volant and scripta latent. 1946–55. in 1888. and the wisdom with which Agnes Michels peered into the mind of the Romans. and when men came to be more concerned for their own souls than for their city. Andrew 39 She was also a citizen of the American Academia. and will remain. Married Walter C. the reading of the poets. Assistant Professor. Bryn Mawr College 1934. Bryn Mawr College: Instructor. But it is a stone still rough and unpolished.. that is. Agnes Michels was. We may be certain that the lectures of Agnes Michels on religio at Oberlin sparked many a mind. Associate Professor. 1941. nor does it matter that on a number of points disagreement is possible and warranted. the Calendar. Ph. N. Together with the Capitoline gods and their priests. Naturalized U. Netherlands. with her venerated Vergil. It deserved a better fate than lingering in the archives and waiting for an occasional reader who may never come. 1924. citizen. Thus it is with some regret that we repeat the familiar refrain: we should be thankful for what we have. Professor. with pride. Michels.D. 1964–74.B.Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 599 Rome. 31 July 1909.C. the history of the Graduate School at Bryn Mawr College from its foundation (together with the College) in 1885.D. Bryn Mawr College 1930. and its first Ph.A. The review may serve as an admonition that vogue and partisan agenda is not identical with scholarship. Department of Latin. the scholarship generations of women had struggled bravely to be allowed to practice. and her hero Aeneas. magna cum laude with Honors in Latin. 1931–33. the gods of Rome died and the city fell into the hands of the barbarians. even if the author’s avowed goal was to address not primarily scholars but rather the educated public.” This is the last sentence of this wise manuscript bristling with ideas that often foreshadowed the concepts now commonly accepted. 30 November 1993. 1955–75. That this precious stone lacks the setting of references is perhaps a minor point. Fellow of American Academy in Rome. Bryn Mawr College 1931. A.. with Cicero whom she once called a dear friend. But it is the fate to which the very author consigned it for more than twenty years now.. R. 1938–45. died in Chapel Hill. a true citizen of an eternal Rome. . Chairman. Taylor one of the last links to the heroic age of women colleges and to the early women scholars. out of which perhaps only the hand of the author could bring forth the full light. the Past President of the American Philological Association (1972). 1934–38.39 342 Appendix AGNES KIRSOPP LAKE MICHELS Biographical Data Born (of British parents) in Leiden. In her piece. the famous author of Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (1903) and of Themis (1912). If it had been promptly published it would have been a seminal document. ” Transactions of the American 343 40 “Chairman” and “Emeritus” are the forms A.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 64 (1933) xlix–l. Lindback Foundation Award for Distinguished Teaching. Member.” Classical Review 51 (1937) 53–55.” Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (February 1949) 9.600 Antiqua et Recentiora Mellon Professor of Humanities. 1977–79. (1941b) “A Note on the Location of the Cena Trimalchionis.” Bollettino dell’Associazione Internazionale per gli Studi Mediterranei 5 (1934–35) 97–114. Oberlin College. 32.” Classical Philology 31 (1936) 72–73. Visiting Professor of Latin (Part-time). Chairman. (1934) “A Coin of Roman Corinth. (1949b) “The ‘Calendar of Numa’ and the Julian Calendar.” Latomus 10 (1951) 13–24. Ford Foundation Faculty Fellowship for College Teachers. (1953) “The Topography and Interpretation of the Lupercalia. 1972. 1974. 1973–76.40 1975–93. (1949a) “The Teaching of Religion.” American Journal of Philology 65 (1944) 135–48. (1944b) “PARRHSIA and the Satires of Horace.” Classical Philology 39 (1944) 173–77.” in Quantulacumque 243–51.” American Journal of Archaeology 41 (1937) 598–602. K. Bryn Mawr College.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 80 (1949) 320–46. American Philological Association. 1960-–61. 7. Michels herself used and preferred.” American Journal of Archaeology 45 (1941) 71–72. (1937a) Co-editor: Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to Kirsopp Lake (Christophers: London 1937).” Numismatic Chronicle 14. (1935a) “The Archaeological Evidence for the ‘Tuscan Temple’. (1937b) “The Supplicatio and Graecus Ritus.” American Journal of Philology 62 (1941) 495–96. (1935b) “Campana Supellex: the Pottery Deposit at Minturnae. (1944c) “The Consualia of December. 1953–54. (1944a) “Lucretius and the Sixth Book of the Aeneid. Ancient Roman Construction in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus (Washington 1947) in American Journal of Archaeology 53 (1949) 325–27. . Part 2 (1934) 131–32. Duke University. (1937d) “The Origin of the Roman House. 1981–88. 1969. UNC-CH. 29. Goodwin Award of Merit of the American Philological Association. Guggenheim Fellowship. (1936) “Lapis Capitolinus. (1940) “A Note on Propertius I. Charles J. (1941a) “A Note on the Pediment of the ‘Tuscan Temple’.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 12 (1935) 89–149. 1970. Professor Emeritus. Visiting Paddison Professor of Latin. (1945) “The Golden Bough of Plato. Nominating Committee. Series 5.22. Advisory Council of the American Academy in Rome. 1973–76. 1969–75.” American Journal of Philology 66 (1945) 59–63. (1951) “The Drama of the Tarquins.” Classical Philology 35 (1940) 297–300. Martin Lecturer. Bryn Mawr College. (1937c) “An Interpretation of Propertius IV. (1949c) Review of Marion Elizabeth Blake. BIBLIOGRAPHY (including selected reviews) (1933) “Juno Moneta. Scholar in Residence 1988–93. President.” Classical Philology 39 (1944) 50. Agnes Kirsopp Michels and the Religio 601 344 Philological Association 84 (1953) 35–59.” Classical Journal 77 (1981) 80–81. xvi + 227 + 4 pl. Drummond. CR 19 (1969) 330–32. Helmantica 20 (1969) 421–22. H. Bibliotheca Orientalis 28 (1971) 93. Archaeologia Classica 31 (1969) 141–45. I.” in Notable American Women. Clodius. (1989) “Macrobius on ‘Chromatic Sheep’. Ogilvie. Essai sur les dévotions et les organisations cultuelles des femmes dans l’ancienne Rome (Bruxelles 1963) in American Journal of Philology 86 (1965) 322–23. Berni Brizio. (1962b) Review of Kurt Latte.” in The Mediterranean World. Dumont. The Flamen: A Study in the History and Sociology of Roman Religion (Copenhagen 1988) in American Journal of Philology 111 (1990) 118–21. I.” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 3 (1957) 963–72. Weiler. [Reviewed by (short notices are not included): A. (1990b) Review of H. Lucretius and the Transpadanes (Princeton 1979) in Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (Spring 1980) 34–35. Johnson. Paul. Maia 21 (1969) 280–86. H. ”Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (Winter 1974) 6–9. 1980) 677-78. A. (1973) Review of Stefan Weinstock. W. CJ 65 (1969) 86–89.” Bryn Mawr Alumnae Bulletin (Summer 1966) 7–9. (1965a) Review of Jean Gagé. L’Antiquité Classique 37 (1968) 760–62. (1981a) “Harry Louis Levy. (1966a) “Lucretius. JRS 71 (1971) 282–83. (1975) “The Versatility of Religio. G. Archaic Roman Religion (Chicago. W. Religio. M. Richard. L. (1981b) “The Insomnium of Aeneas. 114–16.” Classical Outlook 67 (1990) 76–77. and Magna Mater. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (Rome 1955) in American Historical Review 62 (1956–57) 372–73. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire 47 (1969) 205]. Scullard. Gnomon 41 (1969) 785–90. CP 65 (1970) 63–64. (1956–57) Review of Inez Scott Ryberg. (1972) Review of Georges Dumézil. Papers Presented in Honour of Gilbert Bagnani. Den Boer. Studien zu Kult und Glauben der Römer (Nürnberg 1960) in American Journal of Archaeology 65 (1961) 414–15. MA. Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (New York 1988) in Classical Outlook 67 (1990) 137. (1984) Review of H. (1980b) Review of Louise Adams Holland. 41–45. Della Corte. M. 1945–1952.-C. AHR 74 (1968) 123. Lily Ross. 68 (1990–91) 10–12. (1962a) “The Intercalary Month in the Pre-Julian Calendar. Zehnacker. V. H. Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich 1960) in American Journal of Philology 83 (1962) 434–44. A. 1970) in American Journal of Archaeology 76 (1972) 104–6. REL 46 (1968) 54–62. (1957) “Diana. Oost. 1906–1981. P. J. Revue de Philologie 44 (1970) 165–67. A Biographical Dictionary (Cambridge. . M. Stewart. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic (Ithaca 1981) in Classical Philology 79 (1984) 82–85. J. (1961) Review of Carl Koch. Gundel. Trent University Press (Trent 1975) 36–77. F. Bernardi. (1974) “An Audacious Commitment.” Classical Weekly 48 (1955) 25–35.-C. Princeton University Press (Princeton 1967). L.” in Hommages à Albert Grenier (= Collection Latomus 58 [Bruxelles 1962]) 1174-78. G. Vanggaard.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 86 (1955) 160–79. Orosio. Pp. (1980a) “Taylor. van den Bruwaene. Matronalia. (1967) The Calendar of the Roman Republic. (1990a) Review of Jens H. Z. (1990c) “Roman Festivals. S. Divus Julius (Oxford 1971) in Classical World 67 (1973) 363–64. Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 23 (1970) 187–89. The Modern Period.” American Journal of Philology 110 (1989) 104. AJP 90 (1969) 358–60. (1966b) “Toward a New Library. Parke.” Classical Quarterly 31 (1981) 140–46. Latomus 28 (1969) 463–68. (1955b) “Death and Two Poets. Degrassi. Rivista Storica Italiana 71 (1969) 174–79.” Mélanges d’archéologie.d’épigraphie et d’histoire offerts à Jérôme Carcopino (Paris 1966) 675–79. R. (1955a) “Early Roman Religion. 602 Antiqua et Recentiora 44–48.” Classical Outlook 68 (1990–91) 52–53. 345 .” Classical Journal 92 (1997) 399–416. (1990d) “Lily Ross Taylor. Jane Ellen Harrison: The Mask and the Self (New Haven 1988) in 86 (1991) 362–64. (1997) “The Many Faces of Aeneas. Peacock. (1991) Review of Sandra J. a year later). a long monograph in the fourth volume of An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome. see G. he lived through two world wars and the rise and fall of fascism and communism. in Classics at the University of Toronto in the distant year of 1921 (and his M.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. W. He took his B. Broughton died on 17 September 1993 in Chapel Hill. n. which was also his dissertation) and Roman Asia Minor (1938. R. His life spanned a turbulent century. 2 (1946) 44–64. from the sturdy farmer stock of Anglo-Irish descent.A. and a score of learned articles he produced in the meantime. Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists (Westport 1994) 64–66. 31–33) an excerpt from Broughton’s Autobiography concerning the origin and gestation of the MRR. see Idem. as he often proudly remarked. with photographs and explanatory notes}. 49. and he himself was not a stranger to farm work. and full bibliography of his writings. W. 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. S. 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. 12. In Imperium Sine Fine there was printed (pp. Thanks to the efforts of Professor T. Budé N. even after his final retirement in 1970 he was a constant and nourishing presence working every day long hours in his book-filled office.).). He received his doctorate in 1928. Robet S. and for a detailed chronicle of Broughton’s life and work. He came. 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. (ed. but friendly Fates kept him within the peaceful walls of Canadian and American university campuses. Bulletin de l’Association G. His first two books. edited by Tenney Frank. C. “Broughton Rememered”. on 17 February 1900. had put him in the forefront of the students of Ancient Rome. Professor Broughton was born in the small village of Corbetton in Ontario. Imperium Sine Fine: T. 92 . for another addendum. Briggs. in J. Ibidem 35–41. Jr. Houston. despite new archaeological and epigraphical finds it still remains the basic treatment of the subject). see in this volume No. Canada. There are two addenda to Broughton’s bibliography: “Les Études classiques en Amérique (1940–1945)”. * Gnomon 67 (1995) 91–93 {see also the entry in W. The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis (1929. and for personal reminiscences. “Fasti Broughtoniani: The Professional Activities and Published Works of Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton”. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 1–30. S. Brennan and his collaborators at Rutgers University this fascinating document will soon be published in its entirety.A. Linderski (ed. Three Universities with which he has been connected awarded him Honorary Doctorates: the Johns Hopkins University (1968).S. in Professor Broughton’s eightyseventh year. B. In Rome every year many dozens of various magistrates were elected or appointed: consuls. only the third American so honored by this body. many of his students and colleagues will attest. T. stretching far beyond the Magistrates. S. Broughton their honors: he was Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Institute (1971). many of them small masterpieces). But this work cast a shadow over its author too. Various attempts had been made (the first in the late sixteenth century by Stephanus Pighius). the monumental Magistrates of the Roman Republic. Asia Minor or Africa (it also overshadowed some fifty articles and ninety reviews. staff officers. and in his adopted U. In this century four scholars changed the landscape of Roman studies: Friedrich Münzer’s prosopographical contributions. patience and wisdom. arranged in a clear pattern of their political careers. Frank and Taylor had been a great presence in Broughton’s scholarly life. a veritable American Roman dynasty. He won twice the Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship (1945. distributed into single years. and the University of North Carolina (1974). or to be found on coins and inscriptions. Matthias Gelzer’s Die Nobilität der römischen Republik (1912). R. praetors. and in profusion. and in 1986. also a student of Frank’s. military tribunes. Ronald Syme’s The Roman Revolution (1939)—and Broughton’s Magistrates. aediles. A scholar of this rank had little reason to think of earthly honors. in his Canadian patria. another Supplement. tribunes of the plebs. was possessed of a phenomenal memory: with Broughton at one’s side. Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy (1968). But they have been coming. A Biographical Encyclopedia. 1990). It concealed his immense learning. none successful. he has also been variously honored. The two others were his teacher Tenney Frank and his Bryn Mawr colleague Lily Ross Taylor. deservedly. 1959).. In 1960 there followed a Supplement. many thousands of names. This was the task that the MRR has accomplished. On the North American continent. scattered throughout several scores of Greek and Roman authors. R. the American Philosophical Society (1955) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1962) counted him as their Member and Fellow. In 1959–1969 he was Vice-President of the Federation Internationale des Études Classiques. envoys and ambassadors. He had been President of the American Philological Association (1954) and was the recipient of that Association’s Goodwin Award of Merit (1953). there was little need . The task was too daunting: five hundred years of history. moneyers and priests. a labor of infinite erudition. Modern Roman historians had a dream that all these men (and women: the Vestals) would once be securely identified. and he venerated their memory (see most recently his evocation of Frank’s and Taylor’s personality and scholarship in Classical Scholarship. S.604 Antiqua et Recentiora But then in 1951/52 there appeared his magnum opus. Most Roman republican historians at work today grew up in the monumental shadow of MRR. and Honorary Member of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies (1967). Three exclusive European scholarly institutions awarded T. the University of Toronto (1971). he cherished the title of his last monograph (1991) on the candidates defeated in Roman elections: “Also-Rans”. Canada{1}). He loved literature. D. and from the English poets. from Homer to the Greek Anthology. We can also venture a prophecy: for centuries to come travellers to Rome’s republican past will be taking with them as their trusted guide The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. When the Association of Ancient Historians was honoring Professor Broughton in 1987 (at its meeting in Hamilton. he would not have to learn all those names by heart: he would have found them all in T. generals. A sense of gentle humor emanated from him. SOCIETAS STUDIORUM HISTORIAE ANTIQUAE PROVEHENDORUM SOCIO SUO PRINCIPI SCRIPTORUM T. his great heart. and his self-effacing kindness. C. Broughton’s Magistrates. triumphators. In the sixth book of the Aeneid Vergil leads Aeneas to the underworld where he beholds a procession of the future Roman heroes. VI NON. R. U. and would often recite long passages from an astounding variety of Greek and Latin authors.} . S.Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton 605 93 for Pauly-Wissowa. ROBERT S. 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). MAI. {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. New information on the republican magistrates is not likely to accrue in great numbers. A. it was remarked that if Aeneas today went to the underworld. We shall remember his laughter. ANNO MMDCCXXXX. BROUGHTON SALUTEM SOCIIS UNIVERSIS ADCLAMANTIBUS ACTUM HAMILTONIAE CANADENSIUM A. consuls. . ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA ALTERA to Roman Questions I . . in this sense RQ 19–20. For an interesting and informed presentation of modern discussions of Roman imperialism. originally published in 1989. ed. “Si vis pacem. Ïu u ∂uÔÎÓχmufl ‚ 220–146 „Ó∂‡ı ∂Ó Ì.. Kostial. particularly valuable for the inclusion of Russian literature and a criticism of Marxist conceptions. 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”).. B. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Budapest 1977) 721–57. ˝. The question mark need not bother us. der Frieden des . in K. Cf. 䇢‚]. and peace had to be the Roman peace. B. Kleine Schriften zur römischen Geschichte (Historia Enzelschriften 177 [Stuttgart 2004]) 74–98.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.. Peace and Diplomacy in the Years 220–146 B. M. Champion (Oxford 2004) 4–10. Kashcheyev [Ç. Readings and Sources. Haase. e. More recently a review of various theories also in C. (The Hellenistic World and Rome: War.-W. [Ellinisticheskiy mir i Rim: Voyna. Imperium Romanum” (p. Res publica und Imperium. embracing the “realist” approach to the phenomenon of war in . para bellum. 87). The monograph by M. an erudite piece. “Si vis pacem..E. ùÎÎËÌuÒmu˜ÂÒÍuu∑ Ïu u êuÏ: ÇÓuÌ ∑ ‡. an introduction to Roman Imperialism. “The Study of Roman Imperialism”. Kriegerisches Rom? Zur Frage von Unvermeidbarkeit und Normalität militärischer Konflikte in der römischen Republik (= Palingenesia 55 [Stuttgart 1995]) is relentlessly theoretical and legalistic. para bellum – eine Maxime römischer Politik?”. one of the three contributions under the same evocative title that appeared within the span of twelve years. Welwei arrives at a clear and powerful statement: “Pax ist . mir i diplomatiya v 220 –146 godakh do n. it starts with the Greeks and Cicero and ends with Vegetius. Champion and A.C. see V. The other contribution was by W. by C. Welwei. Welwei. Zur Beurteilung militärischer Stärke in der römischen Kaiserzeit”. à.-W. This may be so: but it was a permanent (and always just) exception. in Limes: Akten des XI. I. Eckstein.)] (Moskva 1993) 46–88. a marvelous disquisition (though with only a cursory reference to prosopography. Pp. R. On the British reactions to Mommsen’s theories of Roman expansion. Realistische geschiedschrijving. Groningen 2005. 167–227. esp. 183–242 on “Rome en Italië”. esp. and of its historical and intellectual background. “Roman Imperialism: The Changed Outward Trajectory of the Roman Empire”. The real question is: “why was Rome so successful?” (pp. see now the excellent disquisition by J. In the Addenda priora (RQ 633) I missed the comprehensive study by I. esp. “Imperium ‘maius’: Politische und Verfassungsrechtliche Aspekte.. A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography (London 1998) 23–37: “Theodor Mommsen and the Italian Question”. see P. 45–54 = 106–15: On Cicero’s De oratore and his art of constructing the dialogue. Heinen. see E. Italian Unification. On Staatsrecht versus Geschichte. and without a comparison with Varro). B. Flach. “Amici populi Romani”. 39–43 = 49–53: On R. Giovannini (ed. K. W. Historia 54 (2005) 315–30 (on the changing face of Roman imperialism between the Republic and the Empire). M. 54–59 = 115–20: On the literary form of Varro’s RR III. 7). 31–32. Coskun and H. J. 169–75 (and the discussion 228–36). 49–77. “Mommsen to Haverfield: the origins of studies of Romanization in late 19th-c. 3 GARDEN PARLORS: NOBLES AND BIRDS (1989) Pp. Suppl. Theodor Mommsens Römische Geschichte (diss.). cf. M. Overbeek. Very much worth reading is also the essay by H. see A.610 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera antiquity: “The occurrence of war needs no special explanation. ibid. Traktat Rerum rusticarum libri tres Marka Terencjusza Warrona . Marcus Terentius Varro. Britain”. but is inherent in any anarchic interstate system”. Ancient Society 34 (2004) 44–75. La révolution romaine après Ronald Syme. see D. They are won. Bilans et perspectives (= Entretiens sur L’Antiquité Classique 46 [Vandoeuvres-Genève 2000]) 39-63 (and the discussion 64-72). Mouritsen. 6. For a thorough investigation of Mommsen’s Römische Geschichte. Versuch einer Klärung”. Girardet.I. Miko¬ajczyk. The Roman World of Cicero’s De Oratore (Oxford 2004) esp. A. Mattingly (ed. We conclude with a proposition: Empires do not happen. Dialogues in Roman Imperialism (= JRA. 243–82 on “Imperialisme en wereldrijk”. Gespräche über die Landwirtschaft. Series 23 [Portsmouth. Scheid.). in A. 57-59. “Ronald Syme et la religion des Romains”. H. Fantham. Syme and religio. Freeman. available online) esp. Sidebottom. in: D. Buch 3 (Darmstadt 2002) 28–39. 1997]) 27–50. 2 MOMMSEN AND SYME: LAW AND POWER IN THE PRINCIPATE OF AUGUSTUS (1990) Pp. ca 107. Aurelius Orestes (cos. de insania”. Wittmann. 71 = 423. 198). M. 6 WERE POMPEY AND CRASSUS ELECTED IN ABSENCE TO THEIR FIRST CONSULSHIP? (1966) On professio. Inscr. cf. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 12 (2005) 163–72. As Cicero informs us (De domo 35) Cn. 552. 2 Abschnitt: Die Magistratur (München 1995) 65–85. as Ryan points out he could have borne all three names at the same time (i. He does not discuss the question of the presidency in the senate or over the elections. The title of Varro’s Logistoricus. adoptavit”. cf. P. “Free as a Bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3”.n. Kunkel . see now C. Spadoni Cerroni. 58–59 = 116.It. Simpson. M. 87 = 125. 64.1. P. and thus Orestes’ full style is unknown (MRR 1. On the Reatine prosopography. His praenomen Cn. not fact). . P. with a detailed discussion of Varro’s sources. Axius. 727. C. Reate (Pisa 1992) esp. Fundilii). also “Terms of Venery: Ars Amatoria I”. . see (sceptically) C. MRR 1. 2) “nostra memoria summa senectute .. Aufidius (pr. n. It should read “Cn. utterly confused). 119–20: For a brilliant appreciation of Varro’s citizenbirds.551. eq(ues) is attested at Collatia in the late republican period (AE 1974..’ Retrojection or Restoration?”. X. Agrius C. 71)” is incorrect. 5 CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CONSULAR ELECTIONS IN 59 B. and the literary form of his dialogue. 70–71 (Fundanii. 13. Ryan (in a letter of 16 October 1996) notes that the denomination “Cn. 88 = 125. Staatsordnung und Staatspraxis der römischen Republik. Pp. Aurelius Orestes) only if he was named Cn. will almost certainly refer to the consul of 71. (1965) Pp. will derive from his adoptive father. “Orestes.e.. He must have thus originally been an Aurelius Orestes from the family that produced consuls in 126 and 103. n. 64. Fasti Consulares.C.. Oresten . see now W. “Docta Otia: Garden Ownership and Configuration of Leisure in Statius and Pliny the Younger”. Aufidius Orestes. 76 (Murrii).” is misleading: this filiation is a supposition. f. And for the intellectual pleasures of gardens in a later age. J.R. n. 57 = 118 (and p. Aufidius Orestes”. Meyers. 76–81 = 428–33: On the alternation of fasces.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 611 [The Treatise of Marcus Terentius Varro Rerum rusticarum libri tres] (Torunå 1992). n. S. but other sources (see Degrassi. 88: a C.. AJP 118 (1997) 427–48. 486–87) give as his name-form Cn. f. at birth. Index): F. cf. The Fasti Capitolini for 71 are lost. “The Fasces and the ‘Custom of Alternation.768–69. n. K. 87: The correct reference to the book by Nicolet is 2. 55. Cn. 63–64 (Q.121: “Cn. Green. C. Arethusa 38 (2005) 103–29. TAPA 126 (1996) 230–31. il était alors possible d’être élu consul sans être personnellement present à Rome au moment des comices”. is not aware of any recent work on that subject. 100–108 = 248–54: The date of the aedilician elections mentioned by Varro at 3. C. M. triumphans urbem est invectus” (cf. accepts the idea that the obligation of professio in person was introduced between 63 and 60. Pompeius needed no exemption from the lex annalis prohibiting elections in absence. M.e.. 24. Cic.2. Oxford 2002 [1st ed. Pompey the Great. D. sans plus de précision” (for further remarks. On the other hand. ed. 10. 5): “Contrairement à ce qui se passera plus tard (i. 2. Qui cum extra urbem triumphi causa esset. Marcus Terentius Varro. he still places the elections “dans la décennie 60-50. 23).-F. In the introduction to the first volume of Varro’s . Seager.24). Chr. and that it may well have been contained in the Lex Tullia Antonia (as he correctly calls it) de ambitu. “La legislation de ambitu. an assembly that convened outside the pomerium. p. He continues confusing election and profession. and between extra and intra pomerium. 8 THE DRAMATIC DATE OF VARRO. and the regulation requiring professio in person was introduced only several years later. 204. Livre III (Collection Budé [Paris 1997]) 56. in Iuris vincula. 202) asserts that “the senate passed a decree exempting [Pompey] from the provisions of the lex annalis and allowing him to stand in absence”. No.612 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera Pp. Gespräche über die Landwirtschaft. Green. J. Économie rurale. also in absentia. No. 80. AJP 118 (1997) 431–32. 123. The legal situation of Pompeius and Crassus finds a nice parallel in the election to the consulship of Q. Also R. see above in this volume. DE RE RUSTICA. 92–93 = 524–25: K.” This flies in the face of all available sources (esp. that had plagued the historical scholarship for so long.. maintains that Pompeius received “offenbar das Privileg . A Political Biography (sec. Guillart in his edition of book XL (Collection Budé [Paris 1986]) comments (p. the apparatus in Guillart’s edition). More recently the dramatic date in 50 has been accepted by C. de Sulla à Auguste”. Addenda to RQ. Girardet. and below. n. Following Nicolet’s article of 1970. C.1-3.. consul est creatus cum L. 40.43. Ferrary. Here we have again the same blinkered lack of distinction between election and profession. “Imperia und provinciae des Pompeius 82 bis 48 v. BOOK III AND THE ELECTIONS IN 54 (1985) Pp. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca III (Napoli 2001) 176–77. “Free as a Bird: Varro De Re Rustica 3”.” He further thinks that Pompey also received “das Privileg der Wahl in absentia.. With respect to the latter scholar this represents a (tacit) change of heart. 1979]) 36 (with n. n. durchführen zu lassen.”. Buch 3 (Darmstadt 2002) 29–30. die professio durch Beauftragte.4): “Q. Manlio Acidino et post paucos dies cum militibus quos secum deduxerat. Fulvius Flaccus in 180 (Liv. Varron. Guiraud. agr. leg. Fulvius Flaccus ex Hispania rediit Romam cum magna fama gestarum rerum. and I can only restate the obvious: as the elections to the consulship took place in the comitia centuriata. C. Chiron 21 (2001) 153–209 at 170. Flach. with respect to Caesar). Populo et scaenae serviendum est. Schuller. in just one year). Einige neue Gesichtspunkte”. an electoral malpractice. Ferrary. “Die Beeinflussung von Entscheidungen durch ‘Bestechung’: Zur Funktion des ambitus in der römischen Republik”.000 lampreys (murenae. This proves. Appius Claudius. Riggsby. In his comment to 3. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca III (Napoli 2001) 161–98. Yakobson. but it was “eine Spielart. But that time span is impossible: one of the main interlocutors. 291–92) Flach has fully recognized this chronological reality. Untersuchungen zum Phänomen der Wahlbestechungen in der römischen Republik (= Prismata 6 [Frankfurt am Main 1997]). Jehne (ed. A. M.3 Varro mentions that [C. they were to be returned in kind). We should regard it as “eine Spielart des Euergetismus oder des Patronatssystems”. who argues that Varro composed his entire treatise in 37.171 specifies that the fish (according to Pliny 6. it was a practice closely connected with the system of clientela.3 (Buch 3. in: M. “La legislation de ambitu. 3]. Also of interest G. Gabba (Athenaeum 85 [1997] 266–71 at 267) rightly describes this study as excellently argued and documented. Hyperboreus 6 (2000) 349–61: ambitus was not merely bribery. was composed much earlier. and above all. Jehne. with Varro making unfortunate addenda. J. Traktat 26–39 [above. Addenda to RQ. in Iuris vincula. And further.] Hirrus lent to Caesar on one occasion (uno tempore) 2. Nadig. wrote Flach. the conclusion presented in my piece (93–94 = 113–14). 193–200): “Ambitus and the Varieties of Economy”. conflicting with his carefully construed chronological scheme (but cf. and that it was only revised in 37.000) were destined for Caesar’s triumphal banquets (cenis triumphalibus Caesaris dictatoris). 9 BUYING THE VOTE: ELECTORAL CORRUPTION IN THE LATE REPUBLIC (1985) Of the more comprehensive studies.17. E. RR 1. This was also. Varro simply forgot or disregarded this fact. including book III.). by and large. die schärfstens missbilligt wurde” (p.1). two years before Caesar’s triumphs. I suspect that the whole opus. cf. a veritable tour de force in argument and lucidity. Also M. Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome (Austin 1999) 21–49 (endnotes on pp. that the dramatic date of book III falls between 46 (the date of Caesar’s four triumphs) and 37 (the date of Varro’s dedication of the whole opus to his wife Fundania in his annus octogesimus. he brushed aside both the traditional dramatic date in 54 and the new date in 50 as “willkürlich”. pp. Demokratie in Rom? Die Rolle des Volkes in der Politik der römischen Republik (= Historia Einzelschriften 96 [Stuttgart 1995]) 51–76.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 613 Gespräche (Buch 1 [Darmstadt 1996]) 12-13. Miko¬ajczyk. Ardet ambitus. Schuller (who quotes the paper) has apparently misread these pages. and Pliny. died in 48. 126–38.-F. see now the well-informed monograph by P.17. Very insightful is W. At 3. NH 9. No. 358). A Study of the Political System of the Late Republic . de Sulla à Auguste”. “Ambitus. A. Elections and Electioneering in Rome. Laser. Die Bedeutung der städtischen Masse in der späten römischen Republik (= Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 29 [Trier 1997]) esp. Chr. 318–23). cf. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Sk¬odowska (Lublin) 38–39. Felmy. Recht. adduces the passage of Ausonius (Grat. Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Bari 41 (1998) 335–49.9) is mentioned in passing by A. F.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”. 438–40. “Odpowiedzialnosåcå karna za przeste∫pstwa wyborcze w Rzymie (II–I wiek p.E. Cosi. On the other hand T. 107 = 87: The passage of Symmachus. 1. Kowalski. Zum Umgang lateinischer Autoren des 4. . Die Römische Republik im Geschichtsbild der Spätantike. Classen. 26): “The votes of the city population in general – if not those of the proletarii specifically – were certainly courted by the candidates. 425–42). See also II. with a very sensible conclusion (p. 112 = 92: On divisores. p.)”. and 807–8 (nn. P. 277–94. J. is best consigned to oblivion.7 (cf. 402. and by M. “Leges de ambitu”. also Or. and retains the manuscript reading fauisores. Pabst.391–92. 294–302).n. A. and must have been worth courting”. 17–23). Brennan. 257–77. The Case for Prosecution in the Ciceronian Era (Ann Arbor 2002) 119–44 (endnotes on pp.-C. Zandberg. On the trials of Murena and Plancius I recommend the discussions by C. und 5.n.e)” [“Penal Responsibility for Electoral Malpractices in Rome. 312. 287). and 787–88 (nn.418–20. a short account but intelligent and well versed in the sources. 4. follows Del Chicca. and 803–5 (nn. J. Meander 56 (2001) 103–26.. a quick but competent overview of the legislation. 161. Rhetorik. Antiquitas 9 (= Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis 497 [1983]) 107–18. Wallinga. A. “Ambitus in the Roman Republic”. gives an incisive appreciation of the “serious . See also his “Organizacja przekupstw wyborczych w Rzymie w okresie schy¬ku republiki” [with German summary: “Die Durchführung der Wahlbestechungen in Rom in der Zeit der Untergang der Republik”]. Reden (Darmstadt 1989) 102–3. R. Jahrhunderts n. and 815–16 (nn.”]. argues against Seeck’s conjecture diuisores. actio 3. mit den exempla maiorum (Berlin 2001) 35. Folia Societatis Scientiarum Lublinensis (Biuletyn Lubelskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego) 34 (1993) 73–83.C. issue of ambitus” against the broad panorama of Sulla’s innovations. with a number of acute legal and prosopographical observations. “Le degenerazioni politiche tardorepubblicane: i ‘divisores’”.e. C. The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II. Alexander.614 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera (= Historia Einzelschriften 128 [Stuttgart 1999]) esp. Politik. Untersuchungen zu Cicero’s rhetorischer Strategie (Darmstadt 1985) 120–79. 22–43 on electoral bribery and largitiones. Or. RQ 638–39) H..) [with French summary: “La violence en tant que méthode de la lutte électorale à Rome à l’époque de la décadence de la République (78–50 av. II–I century B. Quintus Aurelius Symmachus. The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor 1998) 199–200. 5 (1983–1984) 75–92. P. Millar. 422–424. especially the increase of the number of praetors from six to eight – which exacerbated the competition for the consulship. I was finally able to consult (cf. “Przemoc jako metoda walki wyborczej w Rzymie w okresie schy¬ku republiki (78–50 r. T. RIDA 41 (1994) 411–42. see the excellent exposition by J. also G. “Octavian in the Year 32 BC: The S. 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. L’ORDRE ÉQUESTRE À L’ÉPOQUE RÉPUBLICAINE.15. C&M 47 (1996) 207–15 at 211–14.: SUFENAS. T. and very skeptically. CATO. Pp. Ryan. he does not discuss at all the role of the XIV ordines in the definition of the late republican equestrian order. 141–42 = 59–60: On the passage of Pliny (NH 33. de Aphrodisiensibus and the genera militiae”. “Mark Antony’s Judiciary Reform and its Revival under the Triumvirs”. A. JRS 95 (2005) 20–37 at 33–34. assigns the poem to 56. AD ATTICUM 4. The Praetorship of the Roman Republic (New York 2000) II. cf. 140–41 = 58–59: On the lex Roscia and Iulia. and more recently. see F. No loss. C. Brennan. “Some Persons in the pro Cluentio”. Kearsley.29–32) concerning the decuriae iudicum and the ordo equester. La lex Roscia theatralis e Marziale: il ciclo del libro V [Biblioteca di Athenaeum 49 [Como 2002]) 16-41. Ryan. 13 ROME. and his postulated praetorship in 55. Haller. Eranos 93 (1995 [1997]) 113–21. PROCILIUS AND CICERO. “Four Republican Senators”. Nonius Sufenas was aedile or praetor in 56 (and not tr. cf. She rightly . in 56. Pp. 121–22 = 287–88: On C. 118–20 = 284–86: F. Münster 1967). C. APHRODISIAS AND THE RES GESTAE: THE GENERA MILITIAE AND THE STATUS OF OCTAVIAN (1984) Pp. see F. Pp. 36). Conobbio. T. X. TOME 2: PROSOPOGRAPHIE DES CHEVALIERS ROMAINS (1977) Pp. CP 78 (1983) 359. 152–53 = 79–80: R. and pr. and argues that M.C. Pp.C. 18–21) is not worth consulting. X. “The date of Catullus 52”. 11 REVIEW OF: CLAUDE NICOLET.4 (1969) Pp. Asinius Pollio als Politiker und zeitkritischer Historiker (Diss.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 615 10 THREE TRIALS IN 54 B. V. X. 247–54). RhM 142 (1999) 52–67. On Gutta (n.417. Ryan. Tyche 11 (1996) 195–205 at 199–200. 129–32 = 295–98: Both in the original contribution and in the Addenda priora I missed B. 124–29 = 290–95: On Procilius. I am not convinced: he does nor give enough chronological credit to Catullus’ per consulatum peierat Vatinius. Ramsey. Cato. pl. in 55). Sumner. Cato in 54 (pp. and 803 (nn. A. Piro. She rightly rejects the idea of M. matrimonio. Still we may safely say that on . 154 = 301. The Emperor’s Retrospect. 1 and 2: I was finally able to consult E. farreo. dote (Roma 2005) 185–325. and omit to mention his imperium. Herrschaft und Widerstand im augusteischen Prinzipat. that usus was a sacral form of marriage and not merely a legal form of manus acquisition. Augustus was very fastidious in recording his honors. in addition to the coniuratio Italiae. Die Konkurrenz zwischen res publica und domus Augusta (= Historia Einzelschriften 140 [Stuttgart 2000]) 52–59. 14 USU. taken by R.2 because he took it for granted that people knew he had imperium. esp. but at the same time she also rightly stresses the religious aspect of Roman marriage. Augustus’ ‘Res Gestae’ in Epigraphy. and because of its territorial limitation he could not rely solely upon his proconsular imperium. and (following Girardet. as always sensible. Riti iniziatici e matrimonio tra archeologia e storia (Roma 1984) 117–47. nn.616 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera stresses that “no evidence exists for Octavian continuing to call himself triumvir” (53). These involved and competent studies show that it will be difficult to arrive at any generally accepted consensus. Ridley. The more important task was to ensure posterity believed the extent of his backing was overwhelming”. also the grant of imperium by the popular assembly (either centuriate ot tribal). and concludes (66) that “Augustus did not use the language and vocabulary of Roman government in RG 25. a veritable encyclopedia of conventio in manum (cf. His solution was coniuratio and the position of a dux. Dettenhofer. U. Historiography and Commentary (Leuven 2003) 187-192. Lavinio e Roma. 223–45 on confarreatio). coemptione’: ipotesi recenti sul matrimonio romano”. Sponsalia. in Incontro con Giovanni Pugliese (Milano 1992) 97–107. Kearsley relies heavily on the account of Cassius Dio (50. see RQ 643–44) calls attention to Octavian’s provincia which would provide him with imperium consulare. Torelli. and the books by I. with a trenchant conclusion: “The oath was in sum a substitute for the legalisation of Octavian’s position—otherwise lacking” (p. It certainly did not apply to Italy. But strictly speaking this was imperium proconsulare. Le species nuptiarum nell’ esperienza romana arcaica (Rome 1999). also the position. La Familia romana II (parte seconda): Aspetti giuridici ed antiquari. 190). “Usu” in manum convenire (Napoli 1994). FARRE. See now L. COEMPTIONE. “‘Usu. This is a specious argument: it would have taken only one additional line to record. Bartocci. This is. Pepe. In this sense also M. H. “Storie di parole. I am pleased to observe. We can conclude that he was not given the imperium for the war by a lex or plebiscitum. BEMERKUNGEN ZUR ÜBERLIEFERUNG EINES RECHTSATZES (1984) P. Fayer. As any reader of the RG will immediately see. and Kearsley (like others) does not discuss its territorial dimension and limitation. Sul diritto matrimoniale romano arcaico”.2–11). storie di istituti. SDHI 63 (1997) 123–96. Cantarella. and C. it is inconceivable that he would not define strictly and completely his constitutional position in the war against Cleopatra. Waltzing and De Robertis (cf. Addenda to RQ. Kloppenborg and S. Pp. with illuminating chapters on Mommsen. 304–9. 165. La fête à Rome au premier siècle de l’Empire. in E. is very cursory. 45. S. I. 193) = 94. Arnoutoglou. unfortunately an all too common failing). S. Mentxaka. and a derivative and frequently erroneous narrative (cf. de Ligt. a. “Roman Law and Collegia in Asia Minor”. 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. 174–78 = 103–7: F. esp. And on the life and scholarly path of Silvio Accame. BIDR 98–99 (1995–1996 [2000]) 199–218 (although in adducing secondary literature she does not separate chaff from grain. a. “El derecho de associación en Roma a la luz del ca 74 de la lex Irnitana”. Cf. Aspetti della politica religiosa in Gallia Cisalpina tra il III e il II sec. gives a short presentation of compita. Cotter. regrettably without any attempt to connect it with subsequent scholarship. C. G. Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London and New York 1996) 74–89. RIDA 49 (2002) 27–44. The Roman Collegia: The Modern Evolution of an Ancient Concept (Leiden 2006). Le collège pontifical (3éme s. “The Collegia and Roman Law: state restrictions on voluntary associations. “Collegia in the Province of Egypt in the First Century AD”. see above all the erudite monograph by J. also above in this volume. N. Addenda to RQ. 1–3 (p. p. “Governmental Attitudes towards Markets and Collegia”. This endeavor features a crowd of defective footnotes (“vetera non leguntur”). ludi . Lo Cascio (ed. Silvio Accame: Studioso del mondo antico (Roma 2000). The religious aspect was.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 617 one level matrimonium was a religious institution and nuptiae a religious ceremony. 16). Recherches sur l’univers festif sous les règnes d’Auguste et des Julio-Claudiens (= Collection Latomus 248 [Bruxelles 1999]) 299–316. Fontana.) Mercati permanenti e mercati periodici nel mondo romano (Bari 2000) 237–52. a summary of Accame’s magisterial article on the collegia. nn. in the oft quoted collection edited by J. also L. however. C. compitalia. Ancient Society 35 (2005) 197–216. see F. Wilson. 55). . 64 BCE–200 CE”. a rather hagiographic account. below. Benoist. 122): For the historical background of the XIXth and XXth century studies of the Vereinswesen. 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. On the legislation concerning collegia there is no reason to note the superficial article by W. intertwined with the legal: the groom becomes maritus. Fabbrini. On the other hand I can fully recommend the exposition by R. nn. 1–3 (p. Perry. (See also below. No.6). I culti di Aquileia repubblicana. No.) (Bruxelles-BrusselRome 2002) 393–95. The account of confarreatio and diffarreatio given by F. C. No. and the sponsa becomes uxor (but remains under the patria potestas or sui iuris or gets under manus mariti).4éme s. S. Van Haeperen. 15 DER SENAT UND DIE VEREINE (1968) P. (Roma 1997) 52–65. I have restated my idea of the magistri collegiorum versus the collegia magistrorum in the article “Magistri”. 199 = 128. Pobjoy. ILS 6037). esp. Pobjoy. but rightly criticizes Fraschetti for denying the existence of magistri vicorum before Augustus (132–35). 107. . This said. 418–21: the pagus Herculaneus and the collegium sive magistri Iovei Compagei. Capua romana. in L’Epigrafia del villagio (Faenza 1993) 407–44. n. ma anche per la prerogativa di sedere in teatro durante gli spettacoli”. esp. and compares them to the magistri Campani! Subsequently a comprehensive discussion of the conlegium seive magistrei Iovei Compagei has been presented by M. 49-59 at 53. but not the magistri vicorum and the feast of compitalia itself (303–5.C. n. 63). 83–86. Guadagno and the present writer (esp. gives a rapid overview of magistri vici and collegia compitalicia. ignoring entirely the older literature of the subject. Vici et pagi dans l’Occident romain (Collection de l’École Franç. 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.1]) (cf. Arctos 32 (1998) 175–95. discusses compitalia and magistri vici under the republic (128–35). organisation vicinale et rapports de voisinage à Pompéi”. 23) the mistaken attribution to Schulten of the idea that the pagus Herculaneus was the only pagus of the ager Campanus (p. Oxford Classical Dictionary3 (1996 [reprinted in this volume. Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 11 (2000) 47–86. “The Decree of the pagus Herculaneus and the Romanisation of ‘Oscan’ Capua”. The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome (Cambridge 2004) 41–44. n. cf. a recent entrant into the fray. n. and writes very sensibly (p. He supports the view of Mommsen. Lott. Pp. This was also the conclusion reached in my article (but Benoist does not bother himself excessively with bibliography or priority). 182. see also G. J. M. 128. 128. 19). D’Isanto. No. B. largely siding with the views expressed by the present writer. 35. an excellent piece. “Problemi di amministrazione paganico-vicana nell’Italia repubblicana del I secolo A. A full investigation of social and administrative life in Capua is offered by G. and thus regards those magistri not as a collegium magistrorum but as the governing board of a larger association. 20). “Autels de carrefour. He follows Mommsen. de Rome 299 [Rome 2002]). Frederiksen. speaks of “magistri del collegium di Iuppiter Compagus”. n. 184. But it is rather disappointing to see that in the same volume M. He sensibly concludes that in 64 only the subversive collegia and the ludi compitalicii organized by the magistri collegiorum were prohibited. “Pagi e vici della Campania”. p.618 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera and collegia compitalicia. Van Andringa. pp. RQ 646). Guadagno. 181–85). and mostly following Flambard. it is only fair to add that the book brings together a wealth of information (especially epigraphical) on vici and pagi. See also the instructive piece by W. and considering Fraschetti (cf. Tarpin. 72–80. 51–60. Ricerche di prosopografia e storia sociale (Roma 1993). non solo per l’organizzazione stessa del corpo in collegium. 180–82 = 109–11 (and nn. 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. 52–63): On magistri Campani. 25 in fine). He confuses the feriae of Compitalia and the ludi compitalicii (p. exactly as the magistri ad fana templa delubra known from the lex Ursonensis (cap. in passing he corrects (p.”. Buonocore. Müller.. Rome 256 [Rome 1999] 41–53 at 41–47). Aproximación a los Collegia de la Hispania republicana través de sus paralelos italianos y delios”. She claims.1 (1995) 89–123. Fontana.-C et le Ier siècle ap. 330–31. Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge 2001) 149–51. H. in Il capitolo delle entrate nelle finanze municipali in Occidente ed in Oriente (Coll. Temi di antichità romane 5 (1999) 181–204: fat in bibliography. of 56 and of the lex Licinia. I culti di Aquileia repubblicana. they hardly were the magistri of a larger association (as postulated by the editor princeps.UND VEREINSGESETZGEBUNG DER AUSGEHENDEN REPUBLIK (1961) F. Most recently. “Il teatro di Minturnae e i magistri collegiorum repubblicani”. Cosi. in Histoire. This disregards the connection between . in Ch. J. 344–47. Marc and J. B. BCH 119. and “Les Compitalia à Délos”. also Le solidarietà politiche nella Repubblica romana (Bari 2002) 33–58.-C. and more recently the studies by C. She perceptively regards the Delian associations as collegia magistrorum.-C. “L’aedicula dei Lares Compitales nel Compitum degli Hermaistai a Delo”. C.). Espaces et Marges de l’Antiquité 3 (Hommages à Monique Clavel-Lévêque [Besançon 2004]) 215–21. Politica e società. “Les collèges de magistri et la communauté Italienne de Délos”. On the magistri on Delos. as presidents of larger associations. see also P. esp. Hasenohr (eds. Cl. without a shred of proof. Aspetti della politica religiosa in Gallia Cisalpina tra il III e il II sec. J. that this law and the lex Iulia prohibited the celebration of the games at the compita. “Rapporti di sodalitas e degenerazione politica a Roma”. in: Epigrafia e territorio. in J. BCH 127. confuses collegia and sodalitates. “Heisce Magistreis. J. Hasenohr. Franç. av. Bruneau.. Coarelli.1 (2003) 167–249. Constructions publiques et programmes édilitaires en Grèce entre le IIe siècle av. Gerión 22 (2004) 441–78. (Roma 1997) 62. Moretti (eds. misunderstands the scope of the S. unwisely follows Flambard (cf. esp.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 619 Also magistri mercuriales (AE 1999 [2002] 538. (= BCH Suppl. RQ 646–47). 39 [Paris 2001]) 328–48. at Minturnae. Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque imperiale (BEFAR 217 [Paris 1970]) 594–603. and regards the magistri in Campania. Cf. T.-Y. and on Delos. 16 CICEROS REDE PRO CAELIO UND DIE AMBITUS. from Hirpinia). slim (and occasionally erroneous) in results (cf. devinrent bientôt une cérémonie officielle de la communauté italienne dont l’organisation fut confiée au collège des Compétaliastes” (p. 218). 193–96). esp. Les Italiens dans le monde grec (BCH Suppl.). In particular “les Compitalia .)”. 209–18.-C. “Les monuments des collèges italiens sur l’‹‹Agora des Compétaliastes›› à Délos (IIe –Ier s. Écol. 44–53. 41 [Paris 2002]) 67–72. Mouritsen. This also seems to be the view of F. presents a competent analysis of the lex Licinia de sodalitatibus: it dealt exclusively with electoral bribery and did not apply to Clodian bands. a. also R. esp. Díaz Ariño.C. will rather form a collegium magistrorum. D. Mavrojannis. Nonnis. M. 46. 1. W. min. 10.A2 (2003) 1–2: the generally accepted view that the elections of priests regularly took place between the consular and the praetorian comitia is incorrect. n. such frugality was abhorrent. F. Cat. Ramsey. cf. gave the actors inexpensive and common foodstuffs as prizes. 20 THE AEDILESHIP OF FAVONIUS.9) or a senator (Sall. Elliot. “A Lately Missing Aedile: M. C. “The Minimum Age for the Quaestorship in the Late Republic”. observes that Vargunteius’ expulsion from the senate “would neatly account for the uncertainty whether he was an eques (Cat. while noting the objection of Nicolet. X. Pro Sulla Oratio (= Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries [Cambridge 1996]) 141. 242 = 192: F. And above all. Ryan. H.7. administered the games in two separate venues (cf. ni même n’introduisit de dérogation les affectant. Ryan. austere and frugal.1) in 63 when with C. 54: On the speed of travel. X. de Sulla à Auguste”. 22). CURIO THE YOUNGER AND CICERO’S ELECTION TO THE AUGURATE (1972) P. P. 54 = 194. it applied only to elections during an interregnum. and in particular the clause in the senatorial decree proposing for the sodalitates and decuriati the penalty quae est de vi. 234 = 184: On the quaestorship of Curio.3. to Lurco. Studia Humaniora Tartuensia 4. Favonius. He proposes an ingenious solution to the fact that Favonius and his colleague organized theatrical performances simultaneously but separately in two different theatres. “New . This sequence of elections was “eine seltene Ausnahme”. No. “Der für die Priesterwahlen vorgeschriebene Zeitpunkt”. et c’est la raison pour laquelle elle n’abrogea ni la loi Tullia Antonia ni la loi Plautia. MH 53 (1996) 37–43 at 41–42.620 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera the SC of 56 and the lex Licinia.-F. Cat. Pp. Aufidius Lurco”. 18 CICERO AND SALLUST ON VARGUNTEIUS (1963) D. endorses Willems’ emendation LOURKVN at Plut. X. Ryan. I do not quite follow his argument. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca III (Napoli 2001) 182. 28. Berry. with a marvelously precise and illuminating description: “La loi Licinia n’était en fait ni une loi de ambitu ni une loi de ui. Les crimes qu’elle définissait relevaient en effet d’une quaestio particulière”. n. Athenaeum 86 (1998) 517–21. divided by their gustatory preferences. 236–40 = 186–90: F. “The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post”. 17. see J. in Iuris vincula. and argues that Lurco administered his aedileship as a colleague of Favonius. and so the two plebeian aediles. see also A. Cornelius he attempted to murder Cicero at the salutatio on 7 November”. Cicero. JRS 15 (1925) 60–74. Pp. also above in this volume. 38). and aided by Cato. No. n. a notorious gourmet (cf. “La legislation de ambitu. Ferrary. 244. and he argues (29–31) for “la nécessaire distinction” between those two families. . “Les Alfidii dans le monde romain: étude d’un nom (fin IIe siècle avant J. for the name of Livia’s mother he adduces solely the article by Wiseman. économique et sociale du monde romain (Rennes 1999). J. Cassius Longinus as quaestor. Fulvia. see Ö. and his quaestorhip. Christol.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 621 Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post”. comment on Cassius’ actual position of pro quaestore. Paci (ed. . Nor does F. 23 TWO QUAESTORSHIPS (1975) P. Phoenix 9 (1955) 76-80. takes Eutropius 6. see also his articles “Comment avoir une illustre parenté? Alfidii et Aufidii au Ier s. Pp. 265-272 = 466-473: F. Eutropii Breviarium ab Urbe Condita (= Palingenesia 56 [Stuttgart 1995]) 217. Cf. W.-C.I. XII 5390)”. n. and L. ÉEpigrafa¤. Histoire d’un nom. Athenaeum 86 (1998) 517–21.). cf. and for a comprehensive history of the gens. Bird.début IIIe après J. Ryan. N.-C. 21 THE QUAESTORSHIP OF MARCUS ANTONIUS (1974) On the career of Antonius. X. In his discussion of Lurco (133–35). K.L.-C”. Mathieu. Breviarium (= Translated Texts for Historians 14 [Liverpool 1993]) 106. “Antony. he essentially follows the argument presented in my article. Wikander. and the Ghost of Clodius”. BSAF (1997) 61–73. Travel in the Ancient World (London 1974) 188. “Un pagus dans l’arrière–pays de Narbonne (C. 281 = 36: H. Opuscula Romana 15 (1985) 155–63. G&R 42 (1995) 182–201 at 186.18 literally and still describes C. Aufidius Lurco”. 24. accepts the identification of Lurco the magistrate and Lurco the gourmet. av. L. 22 THE MOTHER OF LIVIA AUGUSTA AND THE AUFIDII LURCONES OF THE REPUBLIC (1974) For the republican Aufidii. also M. Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest 105 (1998) 7–33. “Senators and Equites I. Eutropius. in G. The Case of the Aufidii”. Welch. with a list of Italian Alfidii and Alfedii (260–62). “A Lately Missing Aedile: M. Müller. and he does not know the contributions of Mathieu. Casson.)”. Les Aufidii dans la vie politique. Miscellanea epigraphica in onore di Lidio Gasperini I (Tivoli 2000) 247–73. He points out that the analysis is aggravated by the “voluntary” or “involuntary” confusion in ancient authors between the Aufidii and Alfidii. About the Alfidii. P. but that the aediles and quaestors were elected in 54. For the (pre-emptive) refutation of this line of thought. Historia 34 (1985) 250 = RQ 102. No.C. 26 DE VILLA APPIO PULCHRO FALSO ATTRIBUTA (1981) The conclusions of this article concerning the passage of Varro. “New Light on the Roman Stage. A Revival of Terence’s Phormio Rediscovered. Book III and the Elections in 54”. A.45.19 are at best inconclusive in this respect. OCTAVIUS AND TI. 27 PATIENTIA FREGIT: M. Tansey. see R. argues that in 54 only the elections for the higher magistracies were postponed till 53. CP 97 (2002) 133–44. Pepe. Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 43 (1996) 47–64 at 62–64. 2. and the presumed villa of Appius Claudius. MITCHELL. 28 THE AEDILES AND THE DIDASCALIAE (1987) Cf. Addenda to RQ.622 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera L. Iunius Brutus.1 and App.5. I do not believe that the proponents of democracy in Rome succeeded in installing it in the Forum or Comitium. 30–31). have now been fully endorsed by D. 25 REVIEW OF: THOMAS N. triumvir monetalis e quaestor”. BRUTUS 95) (1982) On the concept of patientia. THE ASCENDING YEARS (1979) P. “M. where he ably and . Polybius got it right: Rome enjoyed a mixed constitution. 23–24. 27. GRACCHUS (CICERO. RR 3. LTUR 2 (1995) 83–84. they indeed do not say explicitly that the quaestors and aediles were not elected. Kaster. He does not mention the case of Octavius. 8). see “The Dramatic Date of Varro. B.2. Palombi. but certainly they can and must be interpreted in the sense that no magistrates (including the lower magistrates) were elected (see above. 288 = 276: It would be otiose to list here and discuss the mushrooming publications for and against democracy in Rome. The texts of Cass. “The Taxonomy of Patience. or When is Patientia Not a Virtue?”. CICERO.” RhM 144 (2001) 22–43 (esp. Dio 40. De re rustica.3. all of whom were thus elected iterum.3 by D. Cf. there exists an important precedent for such a procedure. Klio 78 (1996) 68–86.e. Sexuality. HORTENSIUS. Brennan points out (BMCR 8. 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”. 330–33: On the lex Licinia de sodaliciis. Livy 22. quia in tali tempore nulli novus magistratus videbatur mandandus”. now the translation of Val. This refers specifically to the other consul. Ryan adduced in Addenda priora (RQ 656) as forthcoming has now appeared: “Ten Ill-Starred Aediles”. he also killed the girl herself”. neminem eo anno placere. praeteritis aliquot fortibus ac strenuis uiris. 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. another emergency year. 158 (printed version) = (electronic) 1997. P. Aemilius Paullus. cf.7 reports that in 216. 314–15 = 66–67: The provision for 168 concerning the military tribunes “creari . . 298 = 86: The article by F. see above. 30 THE DEATH OF PONTIA (1990) On Pontia’s execution. A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CORPUS ORATORUM OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC (1961 [revised 1994]) Pp. “omnes absentes creati sunt.. Prostitution. As T. C.2). Max. Whether this procedure was observed also with respect to the lower magistrates and the military tribunes. Addenda to RQ.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. nec cuiquam eorum praeter Terentium consulem mandatus honos quem non iam antea gessisset. 29 ROMAN OFFICERS IN THE YEAR OF PYDNA (1990) Pp. 31 TWO SPEECHES OF Q.. X. T. 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. and to the praetors. L. in fine).1. and the Law in Ancient Rome (New York – Oxford 1998) 206. R. he (i. 16. McGinn. No. 44.. Pontius Aufidianus) was not content to punish the rascally slave. J. nisi qui honorem gessisset” (Liv. 6. A.2 [1997] p.2.35. Shackleton Bailey in his Loeb edition (2000): “Learning that his daughter’s virginity had been betrayed to Fannius Saturninus by her tutor.9.21. Livy does not tell us. Com. on the other hand. in P. SaatsogluPariadeli. 2): On the causia.624 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera 32 VERGIL AND DIONYSIUS (1993) On the tradition about Aborigines (and Pelasgians). Introducción a la etnogénesis latina (= Gerión. The emendation canusinatus in the passage of Seneca is not adduced. 66–78 on Varro and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. 346 = 91). and C. with full collection of literary sources (due to F. 16: On the Saufeii. with a list of all attested members of this gens. 344–48 = 89–93: A. oddly enough. Prestiani Giallombardo accepts the oriental origin of causia and differentiates it from petasos. As to the Epicurean L. Grelle missed. argues (against Kingsley) for the native Macedonian (Emathian) origin of that headgear. M. more philologorum emendantium he is unaware of the Roman res vestiaria. “Aspects of ancient Macedonian costume”. Anejo VI [Madrid 2002]) esp. Rom. Grelle) and epigraphical documents (due to M. Kolb (cf. Silvestrini. Coprocapi come segni di potere: la Kausia”. Silvestrini). Ingenious. accepts Muretus’ canusinatus. The most elegant conjecture remains that of Schultess. Epigrafia e territorio. 210–11). as already Muretus realized. see also A. Radici Colace and M. He does not discuss his philosophical views or antiquarian writings. Atti del I Seminario di Studi sui Lessici Tecnici Greci e Latini (Messina 1991) 165–87. “Senators and Equites III. Watt does not consider it. “Notes on Seneca. La prehistoria mítica de Roma. “Per un lessico greco dell’abbigliamento. On paenulae. pannos possidebit foetidos. P. S. 206–7. With respect to the corrupt sententis. see the solid study by Ö. The case of the Saufeii”. see the book by J. but he opportunely points out that the paenulae Canusinae were not really a luxury item (94–101). Saufeius he adopts the prosopographical reconstruction of Raubitschek (pp. Frag.3 180): tunica et togula obunctula / adimetur. see now the comprehensive and excellent study by F. and proposes to read <pannis> foetentibus. perhaps understandably. foetentibus). MartínezPinna. 33 TWO CRUCES IN SENECA. P. Watt. 340 = 7.). both articles with ample collection of evidence. Opuscula Romana 17 (1989) 205–12. Saatsoglu-Pariadeli. Prestiani Giallombardo. “Lane apule e tessuti canosini”. n. 344 = 89: On the wool of Canusium. 5 = 91). 346. adducing as a comparison Titinius 138–39 (Ribbeck. JHS 113 (1993) 122–47. Grelle and M. Wikander. the fundamental article by F. Caccamo Caltabiani (eds.2 (1982) Pp. . but rhetorically it is still a lame figure (cf. Temi di antichità romane 6 (2000) 91–136. n. Phoenix 37 (1983) 48–52 at 50 (a piece I missed in Addenda priora). Politica e societa. DE VITA BEATA 25. Dialogi”. he points to the reading of g fetentibus (in which probably hides. P. 345 = 90 (and n. 104) that “According to Trimalchio. REA 99 [1997] 253) accepts its presence in Alfred’s Orosius. Those scholars rightly speak of both the Commentarii and the map. n. see now K. T..7 and Mart. Wiseman’s article “Julius Caesar and the Hereford World Map”. 354. “Trimalchio’s Corinthian Ware”.11 (1992) I was finally able to consult the book by A. “Trimalchio’s Corinthian Plate. As to the tradition of Agrippa’s opus. I also duly note a contribution omitted in the original publication: B. Augusteische Oikumenegeographie und Universalhistorie im Werk Strabos von Amaseia (Geographia Historica 12 [Stuttgart 1999]) 359-377. informative. Studien zur römischen Raumerfassung (Spudasmata 59 [Hildesheim 1995. The existence of a text. A Miscellany (Exeter 1992) 22–42 (p.11. has been vastly expanded as “Julius Caesar and the Mappa Mundi”. He ignores “Aes olet”. Phasis 4 (2001) 127–31. R. cf. Roddaz. On Agrippa’s opus and its traces. published in Wiseman’s collection of essays Talking to Virgil. RQ 660). 273. perhaps an inscription. 2nd ed. J. Brodersen (p. Corinthium Aes (Mainz 1992). P. and adventurous study. T. 285). Marcus Agrippa (BEFAR 253 [Rome 1984]) 573–91.. n. He believes that “Die ‘Weltkarte’ Agrippas war gar keine Karte sondern . 41 on Alfred and Agrippa).. Terra cognita. History Today 37 (1987 [not 1976 as mistakenly in RQ 660] 53–57. Craddock. 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 Agrippa’s commentarii. Brodersen. “Zum Einwand des Titus gegen die Harnsteuer des Vespasian”. 124. had a noticeable smell”. a most interesting. Roddaz (p. cautiously states (p. 6 = 352. 36 (1995) 101–5. They do not discuss the passages Petr.-M. ein Text” (p. Ryan. . Das schwarze Gold der Alchimisten. AAntHung. a belief not shared by chemists (cf. 2003]) 268–87.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 625 34 AES OLET: PETRONIUS 50. X. 358 = 436: T. Giumlia-Mair [at RQ 660 her name is mistakenly given as Giumlia-Muir] and P. a brilliant piece. the Corinthian bronze . 35 ALFRED THE GREAT AND THE TRADITION OF ANCIENT GEOGRAPHY (1964) P. discusses the witticism of Vespasian. Grüll. Baldwin. is obvious – but it is a false conclusion that this must preclude the existence of a map! Cf J. P.” CP 68 (1973) 46–47. 6: F. n.. Engels.59. 50. n.59.7 AND MARTIAL 9. 9. he believes that coins “besitzen einen metallischen Geruch” (128). 588. ut ex colonia in municipii statum redigerentur.Sc. who (Gell. Text und Kommentar zu den Saturnischen Versinschriften (Hermes-Einzelschriften 84 [Stuttgart 2002]) 127–38 (no. He opportunely adduces an inscription from Praeneste (CIL XIV 2974). but not in the shape n(atali scil. no. Carmina Saturnia Epigraphica. Courtney. Repertorium. in this volume. 352 has been reedited by G. 1926. “Osservazioni sul concetto di “giorno natalizio” nel mondo greco e romano e sull’espressione di Seneca dies aeterni natali”. The beginning of the Praenestine era Abramenko convincingly connects with the unusual request of the Praenestines. No.626 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera 36 NOTES ON CIL I2 364 (1958. Pp. urbis or municipii). 369. Revista de Ciencias de las Religiones 6 (2001) 169–81. esp. P. W. 374 = 232: The inscription Not. Linderski. Ktema 17 (1992 [1996]) 55–76. 59–68 (reprinted. Ramelli. 4 and 5 = 227: The articles of Sartori have now been conveniently reprinted in F. where the same notation appears (on the pars aversa): N XX. ZPE 91 (1992) 156–57. Dall’Italía all’Italia 2 (Padova 1993) 163–74. 175–82. Musa lapidaria (Atlanta 1995) 34–35. Keuleers. Einleitung. RQ 661) and assigns both the saturnian and the prosaic text to the the coqui. “Ein weiterer natalis municipii”. Kruschwitz. vertaling en studie (Licentiaat thesis Vrije Universiteit Brussel 2003) 147–49 (available electronically in Word format). he follows Wachter (cf. 8). he accepts the expansion n(atali). ’Ilu. All these authors take notice of the article (Keuleers in its revised version in RQ). with ample addenda. and that the collegium of the coqui probably had its seat in Falerii (and not in Sardinia). die) but rather n(atali scil. 16. nn. Kruschwitz has definitely established that the metric inscription was inscribed first (128). . and the dating of the beginning of the era to 173 (cf. 204–7 (commentary). below). “Games in Patavium”.13. P. 163. no. 34). Alföldy. In Addenda priora (RQ 663) I also missed A. 373–74 = 231–32: On the inscription CIL V 2787 and the ludi cetasti. P. Courtney and Keuleers by and large accept its conclusions. Abramenko. an unlikely proposition. 2 (text and translation). He is duly cautious with respect to two main points: the expansion of the abbreviation N. see now the well informed paper by I. 38 NATALIS PATAVII (1983) P. Sartori. see J. Römische Statuen in Venetia et Histria (Heidelberg 1984) 120. Latijnse epigraphische poëzie uit de Republiek.5) maximo opere a Tiberio imperatore petisse orasseque. printing it as N(atali?). revised 1994) Several recent studies deal with this inscription: E. 370 = 228: On the dies natalis in antiquity. especially that the inscriptions on the two sides of the tablet belong to two different groups. .).48: “qui per consules annorum colligit numerum” (explaining Horace’s “qui redit ad fastos”). diligenter posuit”.3. who oddly suggests that the notation “potrebbe corrispondere al numero della concessione del terreno o del permesso di innalzare la pietra”. Broglio and L. 190). in La città nell’Italia settentrionale in età romana (Trieste-Roma 1990) 266. allo stato. very appropriately in a volume in honor of Franco Sartori. More recently. explicitly rejected by L.. ERKOS. Books VI–X. A Commentary on Livy. 33... Zerbini. ut per eos numerus colligeretur annorum”. Bandelli. 2 [Oxford 1998] 73–81. 2. 49 (ed. n. (ed.. Panciera himself concedes this point (p. 110. and further: “Volsiniis quoque clavos indices numeri annorum fixos in templo Nortiae comparere . Clark) 76. he uses the former to indicate a date. see OCD3 s. n. I still find this idea doubtful. Liu. Cracco Ruggini (eds. Lindsay): “clavus annalis appellabatur. 1–7). 190. Harris’ idea of an era of Patavium. Panciera. In Corn. (About clavus itself.v. but rejects the initial date of 173 (p. 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. P. n. He resoundingly endorses W. “Storia totale di una piccola città: Vicenza romana”.6–7: “Eum clavum .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. . “Munificenza privata nelle città della Regio X”. Annali dei Musei Civici di Rovereto 6 (1990) 39. Fest. when Patavium on the basis of the lex Pompeia de Transpadanis will have acquired the status of a (fictitious) Latin colony (pp. “The Era of Patavium Reconsidered”: see abstracts of the papers delivered at the 2006 APA Annual Meeting [available online]).14: “Elephantos Italia primum vidit . It was.. Suppl. For a brief overview (through which I was directed to the two last titles). and disregarded by L. S. in this sense J. but concludes somberly: “ma purtroppo mancano dati a riguardo”. The phrases numerare annos and numerus annorum are (in various particular applications) frequently attested. When Pliny juxtaposes anno and numerum. Studi in Onore di Franco Sartori (Padova 2003) 187–202 (with editions and photographs of inscriptions. 22 (2004) 251–53. but with respect to cities only few literary examples can be found: Asc. “Colonie e municipi delle regioni transpadane in età repubblicana”. for a less sceptical approach. however.1. vol. notam numeri annorum fuisse ferunt”. 103.. offers a thorough renewed discussion of the whole question: “I numeri di Patavium”. S. non conosciamo altre ère sicure che siano così indicate”. Cracco Ruggini. and the latter to count years. Porphyrio ad Hor. in A. and above all the well known passages referring to the clavus annalis: Liv 7.. but there is not a whiff of a phrase that would be most appropriate for dating purposes: n(umero scil. anni or annorum). 198) returns (without much further argument) to the expansion n(umerus). “Nortia”). figs. Bassignano. Epist. Years were counted and numbered. As to the abbreviation N Panciera (p. Paul. see the very cautious comments by S. NH 8. 198): “E vero che.26–27: “numerum quidem annorum [anni Mommsen] post reges exactos . and after a detailed consideration of all pertinent inscriptions and a careful chronological argument proposes as annus primus the year 89. qui figebatur in parietibus sacrarum aedium per annos singulos. see M. Cincius adfirmat”. Oakley. 197). Ital. Storia di Vicenza I (Vicenza 1987) 211–12. Roma autem in triumpho VII annis ad superiorem numerum additis. p. 262. eadem plurimos anno DII victoria L.e. this was a prominent but a secondary point. Cicero1/4. Seneca 2/0. Digesta 1/1. et ‘natale astrum’. i. The statistics for individual authors. This is a pseudo-learned construct based solely on two examples. Commentum Terenti (vol. and thus this flimsy construct immediately collapses (also observe that the Donatian Life of Vergil [6. Here of interest are the comments of grammarians on the usage of the word. In my argument. 2. he employs natali in a dating formula (NH 14. Rather in his variorum commentary Donatus adduced various explanations.1). On the other hand (as I had pointed out. Helvius Cinna. Pliny the Elder 2/5. Donatus. Horace 1/0. licet posteritas natalis dies coeperit”. 373 = 231). Servius ad Verg. from Plautus and Cicero to late antiquity. I do not intend to contest Panciera’s assertion that the abbreviation n(atali) does not appear “in contesti comparabili” (p. Historia Augusta 6/1..2. 20. 3. Martianus Capella 0/1. are as follows (with the number of instances following the name): natali and natali die: Plautus 0/5. Valerius Maximus 1/0.76 remarks: “sane natalis apud maiores plenum fuit. and one from Juvenal (12. Metelli . numero. Sulpicia 1/0. does not. ed.210). 2. 3. sed Vergilius seruiens personae rusticae ‘meus est natalis’ inquit ‘Iolla’ (Ecl. fully spelled out. Censorinus 1/4. writes: “cum adiectione temporis cuiuslibet natalis melius dicitur. fr. nec addidit dies”. Petronius 1/0.] Buechner [Lipsiae 1982]. Skok] employs natali without the addition of die!).) 1/0. Tacitus 0/1. equally wrong. municipii etc. Acta Fratrum Arvalium (for the years 38 and 39) 7/0. Martialis 3/0. Donatus (Vita Verg. p. Wessner [ad Phorm. Fronto 1/4. 1. Juvenal with the addition of dies (“Natali. so far. Ael. The invocation of the same line of Vergil both by Servius and Donatus is interesting. ed. Lucretius 1/0. does appear “in contesti comparabili”. p. captos”. 48]). But this is something of a quibble: the point is that whereas natali. ut ‘natalis <hora>’. The expansion n(atali anno) or n(atali) coloniae. commenting upon ubi erit puero natalis dies. for that matter.) as an attempt to explain the relative paucity of such notations. W. Morel-C. [=K. F. but his chronological explanation is markedly different from the social and aesthetic approach of Donatus. die mihi dulcior haec lux”). Neither Cicero nor Lucretius (and many others who speak in their own voice and not that of a dramatic persona) were rustics. one of them found its way to what now we . Nepos 0/1. coloniae etc. Buc. but as even a cursory search will show both locutions flourished throughout the whole history of ancient Latin. Iuvenalis 0/1. in Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum. Horace indeed applies the word nude positum (“natalis grate numeras?”). here given only for the ablative case (as it was used in dating formulas). 114).. Ovid 6/0. I proposed n(atali die.76). Suetonius 4/3. one from Horace (Epist. Now Servius excerpted the commentary of Donatus. 198).) may indeed appear to be a simpler solution. Panciera objects in particular to the expansion n(atali die). p. nor does. Ausonius 1/0. Pliny the Younger 1/0.55 [not 102!]): natali urbis DCXXXIII (cf. We can expect that Donatus will have advocated a similar interpretation also in his Vergilian commentary. Thus perhaps Servius’ original contribution? Not likely.. ed. Corvine. Another grammarian propounded another theory.628 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera anno urbis CCCCLXXII. n(umero). Varro 0/1. . natali urbis suffectum consulem currus quo vehebatur evolvit per ferociam bigarum. and secondly the explicit or even silent addition of die was not perceived as required. Rumor percolated that they were killed by bandits.. Sontius Pineius Iustianus “duumvir et munerarius natalis coloniae”. From a decree of the Augustales of Misenum (AE 1993 [1996] 468).. The distribution of the proceeds was to take place on 12 June.14 (PL 41.g. In a dream Stephanus appeared. not only of humans but also of cities.4. Att. col. Commento storico al libro VI dell’epistolario di Q. cuius curator fuerat Iustianus”. The dies Romanorum civitatis is probably to be understood as 21 April.. 131. Epist. natalis Romae (so L. the day selected was the anniversary of the foundation of the municipium.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 629 have of his Terentian commentary. according to the doctrine of the disciplina Etrusca (fulmina fatidica) . Beschaouch. 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. cogently explained by Dessau ad loc. 11. he sent his son with a servant to purchase pigs. ad rem A. natalis Brundisinae coloniae. 370 = 228 (cf. we learn that the curator Tullius Eutychus gave to the association of Augustales a substantial sum of money and stipulated that (lines 12–14) “cuius summae reditum quod annis pr(idie) idus | Iunias. praeterquam aut . 4. natale [i. p. Cic.e. were believed to be imbued with great significance and prophetic force. nam proelia maxima natali suo die fecit omnia”.3: “Haec ad te die natali meo scripsi”). Att. omens occurring on primus dies natalis. Aurelio Simmaco [Pisa 1983] 117). but perhaps it was the anniversary of the foundation of the colonia Uzalis.1. 1. 5.3: “die tuo natali [of D.9. For our theme this excursus clarifies two things: in a dating formula natali would be most naturally applied to die (and not anno). already adduced previously. Nep. Cic. precisely dated to 3 January 102. Marcone. Münstersche Beitrage zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 11 [1992] 59). and cf. and assured the father that the rumor was false: in fact they had successfully acquired forty four pigs. quae triumphum vehebant” (cf. I would also wish to advert to a curious social phenomenon: various events were recorded or described as taking place natali die. 6. and to such coincidences people often ascribed special significance: see e.. Günther. ad Brut. 11. the natalis municipii. corpori nostro uiritim diuisio | fiat”. p. Suet. Tit.8]). “existimant non ultra decem annos portendere privata. 139 Stangl.14. Here also belongs the story reported in De miraculis Sancti Stephani promartyris 1. Bob.8 [= SB 23. Symm. on one occasion. Fam. hora prima”. 841.15.1: “Ad hanc hominis excellentem bonitatem mirabiles accesserant casus. recently definitively located. “Schweine für Uzalis”..-M. CRAI 2001 (4) 1525–34) lived a butcher named Rusticanus. ad loc. and “venient autem die Romanorum civitatis. however. Sest.2). natali] municipi.: “Dies natalis coloniae celebrabatur munere gladiatorio. which indeed came to pass. of a person or a city (cf. Brutus] victoria nuntiata in multa saecula videbamus rem publicam liberatam” (cf. In the cities of the empire. Timol. 5. In particular. Here also belongs CIL IX 1340 = ILS 4186 from Beneventum recording L.40: “gravibus civitas sollicitatur ostentis . see A. the day of birth.): in the African city of Uzalis (near Utica. various distributions and banquets were often staged on the dies natalis of the benefactor. and Schol. 39 JULIA IN REGIUM (1988) On the vicissitudes of Julia. This is to put it mildly: the idea of a vote is legally inane and politically inept. The concept also appears in funerary epitaphs: RAL 26 (1971) 424. cf. and brought her from the island . there was a loud public outcry for her return. B. 2. Caput velare [Diss. O. Hist.1 (the excerpt of Xiphilinus). Aug. 374 = 232. Among the inscriptions displaying the notation N there are four funerary stones (p. and W. Nat. Carac. Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire (New York and London 2003) 183.31).v.. of the poet Antipater of Sidon (Val. who was murdered die natalis sui (Hist. Le voci del dissenso.13. Hadr. praeterquam in deductione oppidi” (Plin.C. D. An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History: Books 55–56 (9 B. M. reprinted Darmstadt 1968] 81–82). 65.6). claims that “after her banishment. To the literature listed in n. haec sunt fulmina.8. 417).3.172). quaest. in a short account of Julia’s affair. Tib.6–10. 16. ext. cf.. publica non ultra tricesimum annum. 74. Epist. quae prima accepto patrimonio et in novo hominis aut urbis statu fiunt (ad rem. Seneca (Ep. (p. It derives from hasty misreading of our two sources. Ramelli 178–81).630 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera primo patrimonio facta aut natali die. see C. see H. Tübingen 1963] 148–50). 1. Ïsteron d¢ §jebiãsato Àste §w goËn tØn ≥peiron aÈtØn §k t∞w nÆsou komisy∞nai. Sen. 14) (American Classical Studies 47 [New York 2004]). Freier. from Aquinum: “Die natalis [sic] luce / est privatus”.–A. on this passage. 26. Lebek’s reconstruction of an inscription from Formiae (ZPE 65 [1986] 65): “hic est natali] Prisca sepulta die”. Max. P. as presented by Cassius Dio. and the chronicles of emperors report omina mortis received on the last birthday (Suet. and of Caracalla. Severy. Plin. see now the solid commentary by P. 58. NH 7. frequently misinterpreted. yçsson ¶fh pËp Ïdati mixyÆsesyai ≥ §ke¤nhn kataxyÆsesyai. Suetonius. ka‹ ı d∞mow purå §w tÚn T¤berin pollå §n°bale: ka‹ tÒte m¢n oÈd¢n ≥nusen. The people clamored (cf. Panciera 198).139). Levick in her review of Severy’s book finds this idea “implausible” (CR 55 [2005] 245). ·na katagãg˙ tØn yugat°ra aÈtoË. in index s. 106–10 (the fall of Julia). Swan. cf. cf. 102. Ottaviano Augusto e i suoi oppositori (Padova 2000) 208–50. 6. Similarly death coming on the natalis of their city may well have been perceived by some Patavines as a remarkable conjunction. Aug. 2 add the well informed presentation by F. The Augustan Succession. CLE 1160. Die etruskische Disciplin 1 [Göteborg 1905. 376 = 182: B.26) defines the day of death as aeterni natalis (a concept that was to flourish in Christian thought. which was voted on in assembly”.47: “perpetua (fulmina) quorum significatio in totam pertinet vitam . cf. Aug. Rohr Vio. the cases of Plato (Sen. Cassius Dio reports toË d¢ dÆmou sfÒdra §gkeim°nou t“ AÈgoÊstƒ. and Cassius Dio 55. NH 2. Thulin. after some time Augustus bowed to the pressure. Swan 140) for Julia’s return. esp.D. The demise of a person on one’s own natalis was an event collectors of mortes singulares could not fail to record. but Suetonius resumes the narrative.4) a reference to Julia’s peculium. For Histonium. no. Ital. 1). Abramenko. Melli. 99–100 (Corfinium). see the new ample studies by R. no. Cébeillac-Gervasoni. Angeli-Bertinelli and A. reprinted in this volume. Cf. 22 (2004) 73–84 (esp. in G. 5. 11): Swan 313–14 points out that “disinheritance did not disqualify (Julia) as a legatee”. Tiberius would not (legally) be able to take it from her. R. deprecanti saepe p. see now the new supplementum supplementorum by M. . RQ 664). et pertinacius instanti tales filias talesque coniuges pro contione inprecatus”. For inscriptiones falsae vel alienae. but “ut omnino revocaret.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 631 to the mainland. Suppl. see the aggiornamento by M. “Un exécrable affranchi dans une inscription inédite d’Ostie”. a nonvoting public meeting. 106–34. Buonocore. Pp. the excellent piece by A. n. No. accepting the idea that the term selectus probably indicated a functionary in “qualche collegio”). JRA 11 (1998) 458. cf. So the sources: always a good antidote to loose surmises. see G. no. on the term fucinalis). 185–200. and for that reason I still believe it is preferable to see in Dio’s dvr°a (56. esp. esp. esp. in Fil¤aw xãrin. 97–98 (Teate Marrucinorum). Suetonius mentions peculium. 76. “Partus ancillae in fructu non est”. 422–23 (and n. Augustus post quinquennium transferred Julia ex insula in continentem. 91–96. Teate Marrucinorum and Corfinium. Learned disquisitions (although neither author considers the solution proposed by Gardner. Buonocore. and also.32. Donati (eds. La nozione giuridica di fructus (Napoli 2000) 82–132. 380–84 = 186–90: On the freedmen of Julia and the legal status of partus ancillae. Suppl. 173–87. ZRG 114 (1997) 422–34. “Eine übersehene Stellungnahme des Trebatius zum Eigentumserwerb am partus ancillae furtivae”. the inscription on an urn. Cinque studi dedicati ad Aldo Dell’Oro (Padova 2001) 185–326. Cardilli.). see M. Swan 314. and by F. but if Julia had received from Augustus a legacy. 18): Filie nos / tre excluse sint (sic). 84–95 (p. Augustus castigates them in a contio. 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. Pp. Ital. 378–84 = 184–90 (esp. and that in Dio dvr°a regularly means ‘legacy’ in testamentary contexts”. 30. 425. 17. and for “Genua – Ora a Luna ad Genuam”. in Antecessori oblata. 89. 41 UPDATING THE CIL FOR ITALY (1990) Some addenda are provided in “Updating the CIL for Italy. Mennella and P. 384–86 = 190–92: For epigraphical examples of the exclusion from a grave. This is true and correct. Pp. The people now agitate for Julia’s full return. ibid. very appositely for the case of Julia. 4 (1988) 337 (Bellunum. p. Here the excerpt of Cassius Dio breaks off. Zuccotti. part 2”. exorari nullo modo potuit. Cf. Varia epigraphica (Faenza 2001) 93–94 (Histonium). Miscellanea di Studi Classici in onore di Eugenio Manni 2 (Roma 1980) 453–61. Austin (eds. Birds (Oxford 1995) 492–93 (lines 822–23).D. Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire Auguste (Collection Latomus 208 [Bruxelles 1990]) 44–45. Pp. Poetae Comici Graeci V (Berlin 1986) 375 (frg. 148). 80–-83. ANTONIUS CRETICUS AND THE COGNOMINA EX VICTIS GENTIBUS (1990) Pp. Ciceroniana 8 (1994) 85. Pars II. 423 = 158: For Amianus as the correct reading in Cic. Pp. 425–27 = 138–40: On Theogenes. The name Amianus now appears also in an inscription from Macedonia (Mandalon in Bottiaia). also A.632 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera 44 AMIANUS (1978) P. 45A FUMUM VENDERE AND FUMO NECARE (1987) Pp. B. and the note in R. nn. 432–33 = 145–46: The death of Peregrinus (Lukianos. Bertrand-Dagenbach. “Urkunden aus Messene”. also the learned commentary by N.13. Pilhofer in Lukian. Att. 595–96 (lines 1125–29). 10 (1998) 72. 428–30 = 141–43: C. 46 THE SURNAME OF M. Aristophanes. Wilhelm. Salway. 190–91. pp. Scholia in Aristophanem. Der Tod des Peregrinus (Darmstadt 2005) 73. The Transmission and Scholia to Lucan’s Bellum civile (= Münsteraner Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie 5 [Hamburg 1998]) 145–49. with the line numbering slightly differing from that in White’s edition. Fasc. Pp. see S. Solin. 173.). commentary” (p. cf. JÖAI 17 (1914) 102 (reprinted in A. Dunbar. 21. to A. Cf. The notes by P. De morte Perigr. Holwerda. and the scholia to Aves. containing only “scraps of an earlier variorum commentary” (p. see further remarks of H. with the important characterization of these two sources as “a chapter in the history of Carolingian. see now the new and authoritative edition of the scholia by D. cf.C.1. “What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. a rather negligible note on fumum vendere. 128. not ancient. III: Scholia vetera et recentiora in Aristophanis Aves (Groningen 1991) esp. 700 B. 700”. with the customary formula of abuse: “Seine schimpflichen Misserfolge trugen ihm den . see BCH 117 (1993) 375–77: teleutÆsan/tow ÉAmianoË. Wilhelm. 145). Werner. Kassel and C. 135). 436–43 = 157–64: On the cognomina ex virtute. Antonius. JRS 84 (1994) 127–28. 434–35 = 250–51: On the passages in the Adnotationes super Lucanum and the Commenta Bernensia. Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur griechischen Inschriftenkunde I [Leipzig 1984] 568). 6. 24). 139. On the cognomen Creticus of M. are uninformed. Robert S. 64. her temple. Monaco. dis volentibus. and many contributions pertaining to the res augurales have appeared. a painstaking analysis of the sources. and are rather uninterested in the historian’s craft. 47 RÖMISCHER STAAT UND DIE GÖTTERZEICHEN: ZUM PROBLEM DER OBNUNTIATIO (1971) Pp. Linderski (ed. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge1999) 141–48. 47. offer cursory accounts. 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. “Tribuni plebis and Res Publica”. 50. 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. some much less so. and the archives of priests. “Moneta and the Monuments: . Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 187–213 at 197–202. 53. Cf. 54. Roman Augural Lore in Greek Historiography (= Historia Einzelschriften 156 [Stuttgart 2001]). and P. 50 THE LIBRI RECONDITI (1985) Pp. Two new entrants. 10. Vaahtera. Imperium Sine Fine: T.). He wins the argument. in J.3 [1986]) two decades have elapsed. I here mention only the excellent study by J. some excellent. and Addenda altera to RQ. Badian.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 633 Spottnamen Creticus ein”. L. 38. see the erudite study of A. de Souza. 56. Williams. in this volume Nos. Nos.16. 454–55 = 319–20: On the vexed problem of the auspices and the plebeian tribunes. Solin. Persecutio piratarum (Napoli 1996) 104–5. That the surname was not meant to be derogatory has been accepted by H. 1. They will be discussed in another volume. see E. Ciceroniana 8 (1994) 85. Meadows and J. 502–3 = 213–14: On Moneta. n. L. substantially enlarged. Iudicium de iure legum. . The article (pp. Tucci.1 (1982) Negative addenda have their arete: they knock out negligence. JRS 91 (2001) 27–49. Apuleio Saturnino. “‘Where high Moneta leads her steps sublime’: the ‘Tabularium’ and the Temple of Juno Moneta”. 66 (1999 [2000] = La divination dans le monde étrusco-italique 8) 125–30.. briefly deals with Oct. Der Historiker C. Juno Moneta.. 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 newer additions are reproduced below. 53 “AUSPICIA ET AUGURIA ROMANA . 14–16). Licinius Macer (Stuttgart und Leipzig 1997) 83–85. JRA 18 (2005) 6–33. in Index 29 (2001) 199–207 at 203 and 207 (n. And above all. Reduzzi Merola.1 (p. rejects the connection of Moneta and moneo. Cf. also S. L. Walt. and proposes to derive the . most of these additions derive from the addenda in RQ 671–73. and the review by F. 113–14. “pendentif” (pp. 15). Senato e legge nella tarda repubblica (Napoli 2001). OCTAVIUS 26. doubts the existence of libri lintei (pp. see the excellent book by F. Reduzzi Merola. she endorses (p. D.634 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome”. 14). 3–7).. 126). Cavaggioni. 26. 54 A WITTICISM OF APPULEIUS SATURNINUS (1984) See now the discussion by F. “collier”. Briquel. but is ignorant of any debate concerning this passage. in a monograph that is oddly learned and exceedingly speculative. 32.. 38. SUMMO LABORE COLLECTA”: A NOTE ON MINUCIUS FELIX. The page numbers refer to RQ and the original edition. esp. “Minucius Felix”. No. appellative from the proto-Latin root *mone One should be very suspicious of history from asterisks. 31–32. n. Caesarodunum. Aux sources de la monnaie (Milano 2002). The antidote may be found in the careful study by P. 223–38) contains addenda in endnotes. Haudry. ‘Tribunus plebis seditiosus’ (Venezia 1998) 101–15. above in this volume. esp. 29) the interpretation of Saturninus’ witticism as presented in my paper (cf. J. suppl. A list of all children described as patrimi et matrimi is a desideratum. n. Bartocci. she rightly observes (p. rather fancifully trying to establish (on the basis of Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus!) the actual law of the regal period. n. “L’urnetta n. So also M. the comprehensive article by L. n. Le species nuptiarum 117 (and n. P. 80). 2: Of recent legal literature on confarreatio. Piro. P. but at the same time refuses to see in velatio the sacrificial attire. A. La Familia Romana II. “Storie di parole. Boëls-Janssen. Indeed possibly in earlier times but hardly in the late republic and the empire. 1–6 in the internet edition. and denies any connection of the figurines with nuptial rites (see esp. in G. and thus the whole rite remains largely inexplicable. p. parte seconda (Roma 2005) 223–45. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the excellent contribution by B. “Minima de iure civili 2. However. 20 (in fine) = 251. La vie religieuse des matrones dans la Rome archaïque (Rome 1993) 148–60. La divorziante confarreata”. maintains that “Né altri cittadini all’infuori dei nati ex (con)-farreatis potevano dirsi patrimi et matrimi”. 20: patrimi et matrimi. Index 25 (1997) 253–99. Fridh-Haneson. Le species nuptiarum (above. 2260 di Chiusi ed il matrimonio romano arcaico”. B. For all details. Sul diritto matrimoniale romano arcaico”. Ricerche dedicate al Professor Filippo Gallo (Napoli 1997) 97–139 at 103–9. Le manteau symbolique. part X: “Una ipotesi sulla forma di confarreatio” (pp. U. Fayer 236. SDHI 63 (1997) 123–96 at 156–60. n. Piro. Étude sur les couples votifs en terre cuite assis sous un même manteau (= Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae. in Nozione formazione e interpretazione del diritto dall’età romana alle esperienze moderne. see C. Pp. 122. Franciosi (ed. Addenda to RQ. failed to take into account the merely equestrian status of the epigraphically attested . interpreting confarreatio as a matrimonial rite with legal effects. Ricerche sull’organizzazione gentilicia romana 3 (Napoli 1995) 71–83 at 77–83. Fayer. Pepe. storie di istituti. also I. Albanese. but he again does not distinguish sharply enough between the two rites (nor does Fayer 231–32).Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 635 P. 14) 114–22. 553–54 = 255–56: More recently also Pepe. 82). series in 4o. “Unioni” 280. Pepe. see esp. “Brevi studi di diritto romano (III). No. XL [Stockholm 1983]) does not mention confarreatio. Annali del Dipartimento di Storia di Diritto dell’ Università di Palermo (= Annali del Seminario Giuridico) 47 (2002) 9–120. On the ceremony of confarreatio. M. “Storie di parole” 157–58. in Sodalitas. without the indication of the original pagination). 155) that velatis capitibus cannot refer to “voile nuptial”. L. Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino 4 (1984) 1530–34 at 1532. 543 = 245. “Unioni confarreate e diffarreatio”. 19: velare and obnubere. see N. a disappointing account: she offers no critical analysis of the sources. 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]. Biscardi. Taglialatela Scafati. tanto che essi poterono esser talora designati come farreati”. and missed most of the pertinent modern literature. for which periods we certainly have to accept as operative the definition: “the children whose parents are still alive”.). 549. “Cinna e la ‘confarreatio’”. 548 = 250. an erudite piece. and Bartocci. 4éme s. . Pp. and concludes her rather superficial account with an unambiguous statement: Caesar was not inaugurated as flamen Dialis. Cf.636 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera sacerdos confarreationum et diffarreationum. 2) even if Caesar had divorced Cornelia. Ann. in S. rightly observes that on my interpretation the confarreate marriage of flamen Dialis could occur between the captio and inauguratio.. p. 394–95. 3. 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. opts for Caesar’s inauguration. P. figlia di Cinna” [here Zecchini confuses Cossutia whom Caesar obediently rejected and Cornelia whom he opportunely married. Schäfer (eds. Stepper. H. J. In rank it corresponded to that of pontifex minor (and thus it was a post open to the equestrians). Festschrift für Martin Hengel II (Tübingen 1996) 265–85 at 271–77. Untersuchungen zum römischen Kaiser als Priester (Stuttgart 2003) 25–26. Aurelia. is both obscure and uninterested in prosopography. 122) suggests that this was “une prêtrise spécifique” established by Marcus Aurelius. Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca IV (Napoli 2001) 257–74 at 268–69.. Gechichte .-C. (eds. When Caesar refused to divorce Cornelia. forse perchè la madre di Cesare. Cancik. Giunti. Scheid. This raises an interesting question: was Caesar captus. Lichtenberger.). J. C. Histoire d’une aristocratie (IIe siècle av.Tradition .). speculates that the inauguration of Caesar as flamen Dialis was blocked “per vizio di forma . El sacerdote de Júpiter en la religión romana (Madrid 1996) 171-174. era plebea [an argument rendered otiose by observations made in my paper: in particular if this was a formal vitium. Demougin et al. Augustus und sacerdos. 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. Flamen Dialis. a. it is. in Iuris vincula. Zecchini. and provides a remarkable and novel argument: Caesar’s 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. P. J. follows the explication of Scheid. J.58). – IIIe siècle ap. L’ordre équestre. vitiated by two logical and ritual flaws: 1) as pointed out in RQ 672. in H. Cesare e il mos maiorum (Historia Einzelschriften 151[Stuttgart 2001]) 35–36. he was deprived of the priesthood. “Innovationsmechanismen kultischer Religionen: Sakralrecht im Rom der Republik”. in the absence of the flamen Dialis his functions were performed by the pontiffs (Tac. Le collège pontifical (3éme s. “Iuris civilis minima: ancora sulla natura della diffarreatio”.) (Bruxelles-Brussel-Rome 2002) 84. This argument may appear cogent. Caesar would have never been destinatus] o forse perchè lo era la moglie Cornelia. “Les sacerdoces publiques équestres”. C. by confarreatio]. however. Fayer 239–43. G. follows Liou-Gille (cf. Marco-Simon. on Rüpke’s theory. below). 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. 554–56 = 256–58: Caesar as flamen Dialis destinatus.-C) (Collection de l’École Française de Rome 257 [Rome 1999]) 82–83 (cf. as Zecchini also admits. he still. Van Haeperen.. the emperor) at the tedious ceremonies of confarreate marriages and divorces. Its holder acted as a substitute for the pontifex maximus (i.Reflexion. F. no doubt. would not have . F. Rüpke.e. Perhaps the pontifex maximus Q. Why? It is indeed baffling that Cinna did not see to the completion of his plan. was unable or refused to summon an augur to perform the inauguration (452–53). Badian. in J.E. 46: Against the idea that the patricians “have” the auspices. “Tribuni plebis and Res Publica”. Fimbria at the funeral of Marius early in 86. ‘Flamen Dialis Destinatus’”. most recently by M.). “La carriera giovanile di Cesare: aspetti cronologici”. as often maintained. and the plebeian magistrates only “administer” them. ÜOrmow. “Cinna” 71–77. regards the view of plebeians “possessing” but not “owning” the consular auspices as “fully established” (Cf. Petrucci. Imperium Sine Fine: T. REA 101 (1999) 433–59. “César. see Taglialatela Scafati. But Cinna (and Marius) soon returned. and ingeniously interprets the act of Merula as devotio: he was taking with him to the inferi Cinna. Liou-Gille. Mucius Scaevola.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. Linderski (ed. quos saepe pro salute rei publicae flamen Dialis precatus erat deos. and their impious partisans. In 87 L. a tapestry of arguments. Crifò. eos in execrationem Cinnae partiumque eius tum precatus optime de re publica meritum spiritum reddidit”. who was wounded at the instigation of C. Staatlichkeit 85. in the words of Velleius Paterculus (2.2) “incisis venis superfusoque altaribus sanguine. his colleague in the consulship.). Cornelius Cinna was expelled from Rome by Cn. and again Iura 45 (1995 [2000]) 168. 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 Cinna’s daughter. . and proceeded to a bloodbath. 572 = 41–42. Leone. Pp. certainly still in 86 (and not only in 84. All these contributions have been eclipsed by the intervention of B.22. Cornelia (439–442). But ultimately Caesar was never inaugurated. see G. So also Rüpke 273.C. Marius. Never mind: I am gratified to see that E. and that Cinna was not a patrician. Quaderni dell’ Istituto di Storia Antica dell’ Università di Palermo 2 [2000] 95–99). in the review of A. The flamen Dialis. 557–58 = 257–58: For the view that the rite of confarreatio was open to the plebeians. 567–68. Petrucci also argues against this concept (68–69). was elected consul in Cinna’s place. elegant. Il trionfo nella storia costituzionale romana dagli inizi della repubblica ad Augusto (Milano 1996). lucid. below). 56 THE AUSPICES AND THE STRUGGLE OF THE ORDERS (1990) Pp. but hardly offers a persuasive explanation of his own. Cornelius Merula. Broughton and the Roman Republic (= Historia Einzelschriften 105 [Stuttgart 1996]) 187–213 at 202. Liou-Gille pays full attention to the phrase in execrationem Cinnae. Merula committed suicide. Robert S. Octavius. and compelling. L. the only priest of Jupiter to hold the consulship in the whole history of the republic. De augurum publicorum libris . Commentarii Fratrum Arvalium qui supersunt. L’expiation des prodiges de 207”. Bunse. competent.304 ap. but the idea that in Rome the remedial rituals were shaped by experience. Champeaux. das alleinige Eigentum der Patrizier. see now J. 64 ROMAN RELIGION IN LIVY (1993) Pp. 57 HELIOGABALUS. He further argues (p. 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. P. on the other hand. ALEXANDER SEVERUS AND THE IUS CONFARREATIONIS: A NOTE ON THE HISTORIA AUGUSTA (1989) Pp. 87) that throughout the whole period of the so-called consular tribunate (444–367) three praetors (praetor maximus and two praetores minores) continued to serve as chief magistrates. haruspices et décemvirs.) (= Roma Antica 4 [Paris 1998]). 372 = 46). J. I only note a few points. Recherches archéologiques à La Magliana. . 580–81 = 212–13: On the sacerdos confarreationum et diffarreationum. 62 REVIEW OF: IDA PALADINO.-C. and in full agreement with the thesis presented in my paper assumes (p. “Pontifes. with good photographs of the texts. Bunse. 145) that “Die auspicia blieben aber auch danach. Regell. a study detailed. and bold. 570–72 = 44–46: The problem of the consular tribunes has recently been discussed by R. which enables him to write his own (not uncompelling) version of history. Here it cannot be analyzed in detail. Bunse argues (esp. 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 Jörg Rüpke). während den Plebejern lediglich die Möglichkeit des Besitzes eingeräumt wurde”. Das römische Oberamt in der frühen Republik und das Problem der “Konsulartribunen” (Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium 21 [Trier 1998]). An engrossing investigation. see above Addenda to RQ. 146) that the plebeians received the ius auspicii only through the leges Liciniae Sextiae in 367. 533–34 = 255–56. p. No.638 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera Pp. 55. 611–13 = 56–58: On the ritual of expiation. is not new: cf. detects a pervasive falsification everywhere. um es im modernen juristischen Sinne zu formulieren. addenda to pp. Les copies épigraphiques des protocoles annuels de la confrérie arvale (21 av. REL 74 (1996) 67–91. Rosenberger. admits that “si tratta forse di haruspices”. esp. “Les débordements du Fleuve”.1–55. “Le Tibre. Flory. 619 = 64: M. 89). Commento storico a Cassio Dione LIII (Biblioteca di Athenaeum 22 [Como 1994]) 163.. B. le pont et les pontifes. “there are degrees of technicality in Latin writing on religious matters”. Champeaux. . terminology) is S. largely adopting the interpretation developed in my article. 28–33.Addenda et Corrigenda Altera to Roman Questions I 639 (Vratislaviae 1878) 3–7. Roman Religion in Valerius Maximus (London and New York 2002) 108–17. ANRW 2. Contribution à la histoire de prodige romain”. Tacitus and Ammianus on Their Gods (Cambridge 2004) 21–143 (cf. “The Augural Law”.16. The Augustan Settlement (Roman History 53. Livy and Early Rome (= Historia Einzelschriften 132 [Stuttgart 1999]) 87–98. Spectacle and Society in Livy’s History (Berkeley 1998) 61–63.2 (1988 [1997]) 113–38 at 135. AJAH 13. Pp.-L. P. but does not comment on the novelty of that interpretation. also A. As well put by V. cf. P. Davies. Also useful and informative (but again paying little attention to procedure and . On the passage of Valerius Maximus (7. an interesting chapter on “Livy and the Divine”. On the auspices at the battle of Aquilonia. N. Desnier. W. This will be the new divinatory environment of the interpretation recorded by Cassius Dio (cf. J. n. “The Meaning of Augusta in the Julio-Claudian Period”. points out that only catastrophical floods were traditionally interpreted as prodigia.3 (1986) 2230–36. Koncepcja historii rzymskiej w Ab Urbe Condita Liwiusza [The Concept of Roman History in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita] (Kraków 2000) 84–117 (“Kult bogów i natura religii” [“The cult of gods and the nature of religion”]).2.20. but utterly uninterested in technical religious terminology. Gezähmte Götter. Såniezewski. it was an embarrassment for Aug(ustus)”. Cassius Dio.-F. remarks in passing on the flooding of the Tiber and the interpretation of “the priests”. Forsythe observes that Livy in the first ten books regularly qualifies miraculous happenings. J. 615–16 = 60–61: G. 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. Linderski. 24. Forsythe. J. J..5) describing the same event. “das Prodigienwesen (erweist sich) als ein nur . E. Das Prodigienwesen der römischen Republik (HABES 27 [Stuttgart 1998]) 245. Rome’s Religious History: Livy. Le Gall.9) (Warminster 1990) 153 (on 53. see the exemplary terminological and doctrinal analysis by H. the case of the pullarius at Aquilonia is one of the six unusual events on which the historian profers no sceptical comment (p. perceptively observes “since Tiber floods were usually held to be unfavourable portents. He believes that “the monarchical interpretation reported by Dio must have come from private soothsayers”. J. REL 81 [2003 [2004]) 25–42. Latomus 57 (1998) 513–22. and they are worth investigating. Very much worth pondering is the intelligent study by J. Horsfall (CR 48 [1998] 202) put it cogently: “The topic of ritual acts and prayer language is not mere sterile antiquarianism”. Rich. Noè. 224–25. below). perceptively observes (520) that we here are dealing with the procedure of “aversio ominis”. Recherches sur le culte du Tibre [Paris 1953] 62–66). Mueller. Feldherr. Why? The official haruspices were certainly more than eager to support Augustus and gain his favor.1). 640 Addenda et Corrigenda Altera in der römischen Republik eingeschlagener Sonderweg im Umgang mit Vorzeichen. Ogilvie. Observe that we here are dealing with a private search for the pax deum. A Commentary on Livy. . cernentes in omnibus vicis sacellisque peregrina atque insolita piacula pacis deum exposcendae”. novos ritus sacrificandi vaticinando inferentibus in domos quibus quaestui sunt capti superstitione animi. mit der Aufkommen monarchischer Strukturen in Rom hatte es seine Bedeutung verloren”. donec publicus iam pudor ad primores civitatis pervenit. I tried to place the prodigy of the Tiber flood in 27 in the interpretative field between Cassius Dio. more suo. multiplex religio et pleraque externa invasit. The aediles will have been involved as police officers and not as “primarily religious officers” (so R. and the pontiffs. 621–22 = 66–67: in the discussion of the pax deum in the first decade of Livy I missed (I am thankful to my former student Dr. The aediles were instructed (Livy does not say by whom) “ut animadverterent ne qui nisi Romani di neu quo alio more quam patrio colerentur”. M. and Augustus. also the consuls and the senate must have intervened. Pp. 428).9–10): there was a terrible draught (a..30. as a result “animos .. telescopes the procedural stages. Livy. Rome’s Religious History 48–51. the search was allowed to proceed but only more patrio. Michael Johnson for pointing this out to me) an interesting passage (4. Books 1–5 [Oxford 1965] 583). Livy. If this is at all a historical event. this approach has been fortified by the fine pages of Davies. W. 101–4.M. 365 Aupert. 250. 271 Baiter. 132 Ameling. 308 Balakhvantsev. P. 391. 47. 36 Angeli–Bertinelli. 244–46. 250 Athanassiadi. 322 Albanese. 158. 563 B Bach. 436 Bailey. 632 Austin. 569 Audollent. 533–34 Bandelli. A.J. 171.G. 99. H. B. F. 457. 387–88 Artmann. 279 Altmann.G. 79. 480–81 Aretini. 215 Ashby. 119. 627 Bandy.W. 114. 342. 94–97. A. C. 338–39 Atencia Paez. 492 Andreski. Modern Authors A Abaev. G. 82–85. 370. M. 255–58. 463 Adam. 268. J. 243. 561. 410 Baldwin. 103 Atallah. U. 19.P. W. C. 378 Astin. V. 391. 626. 427 Avi-Yonah. C.A. 96 Alfonsi Mattei. 177–78. A. J. 335 Africa. 584 Agnati.N. 214 André. 293 Andreev. 273 Aventinus. P.S. 178. G. 617 Arntzen. C. P. 264 Ampolo. 314. T. 340. 99 Adams. L. 9 Arnoutoglou. 312 Baehrens. 189 Alföldi. A. 276 Baldacci. V. J. 487. 180. L. 167–68. 58. E. 539–40 Alföldy. 566–67 Arena. H. 403 Amati. 126–27. see Turmair Avetta. 631 Antoine. 456. 358.M.) 205.INDICES I. 87–88. J. M. 319–20. 350. A. 265. G. P. R.I. G. 406 Andreau. 570–71 Amelung. 331 Bailey.(= E. R. 319 Antonetti. 199. 208 . G. 633.E. 131 Amela Valverde. 395. 256. I. 79 Apakidze. 247 Ahlberg.C. 635 Albright. 380–83. 401.I. 246 Apicella. 464 Alexander.C. 197–98. P. G.N. 293. 160–63. W. J. S.) 263–64. T. 262 Avram. 270. J.C. A. A. R. W. M. 545 Andreassi. 494–96. L. 479 Austin. 359–60. S. 617 Acidalius. 625 Balsdon. 579–80 Alciatus. G. 626 Alfonsi. 136 Badian. 322. 192. 87. G. A.F. 78–79. 486–87. 123. A. 206 Arrigoni Bertini. 614 Alexander. A.N. 568 Baci. 278 Anderson. 534. 270–71 Apianus. 631 Accame. S. G. 332. 106. 496 Anderson. H. 127–29. N. W. W. A. 278. 275 Abramenko. W. 105–7 Amiotti.E.O. 217. 84.(M. I. 496 Altheim. 471. 564 Applebaum. 337–38. 637 Baehrens. 82. S. 212. 213. 555 Amiranashvili. 417–18. B. F. A. 166.D. V.H. O. 280. 214 Anderson. 415. M. 329–31. W. 554 Becher. 261 Beschaouch. 19 Bates. 100. J. 126. 127 Blanc. 377.H. M. C. 333–35 Bechtel. C. F. 37–39. H. R. 98–99. 601 Bernstein. 565 Berry. 617 Benseler. 496–97 Blümner. 589 Bernt. 127 Bonaria. C. 233 Baunack. 263–64. 348. G. 369. 478. A. G. I. A. 344–45. A. 525–26 Basore. 97–98 Bilinåski. 212 Benveniste. 450. A. 547 Bellen. 263–64 Béranger. 458 Barwick. 60. 114 Bilkei. M. 576–77 Bonnefond-Coudry. 490–91 Billows. H. 135. S. 172 Bijvanck. 395–96. F. 20. 98. 344. H. 635 Bittner. 488. 563 Boltunova. 289 Bergemann. A. E. 446 Blecher. 155. 468 Bartocci. 408. 484 Boatwright. 125. 208. A. 475 Bonfante. T. 467–68. 273 Bona. G. 103 Bernstein. 424. J. E.E. 632 Bertrandy. E. 295. S. 453 Barnes. 91 Bekker. 363 Berrens. H. A. J. 501–2. 616. 212 Bendlin. 192 Berni Brizio. A. M. M. 26. 209. F. A. P.L. G. H. C. 23–25. J. 361 Beck. 200 Baudot. F. F. 256 Barret. 369. E. R. A. 494 Bertrand-Dagenbach. E. 464. 476–77 Beutler. 635 Bömer. 569 Benario. 104–7.642 Indices Bernert. 547 Baudy. P. 465 Barzanò. J. M.A. N. H. 230 Benoist. G. R. 476 Bélis.(= K.D. 557 Böttiger. 555 Bongard-Levin. A. 496 Boëls–Janssen.H. 131. 407 Binot. J. 479 Barbieri. 197.) 13. 418 Baumstark. 89. 358 Boissevain. 266.S. 219. 288–90. C. 522–24 Berger. 387–88. 29. L. 18 Beckmann. 261. R. 475. G. 358. D. 509. F. 93–94.A. 128 Baumbach. M. 531. 349–50. 358. 133 Bickerman. 620 Berti.C. 468. 464. R. E. 96. 91. 331 Banti. F. 238. 260 Bolisani. J.A. 80–81. J. 549 Bollini. 513 Bearzot. 45 Bevilacqua.W.W. G. D. L.P. 517 Behrends. 82 Bennett. 110 Bassignano. 353–54. 18. 621 Birley. 601 Bernays. 362 Bauman. 324 Bennett. 627 Bastianini. 211. A. 357–58 Bienåkowski. 563 Bendz. O. C. 552 Bollmann. 95.R. C. 438. 350. 159–60 Binazzi.G. R. 200 Bloch. E. 103–4. 35 Bloch. 490 Biscardi. 439–40 Birley. 311 Benner. 226. 81.D. 360 Bentley. 41. U.A. 635 Barton. B. A. 215 Billanovich. I. 430. 124. B. 520. 520 Bonnell. L. 308 Beard. 28–29. G. 528 Bleicken. 129. 136. H. 29. 465 Beck. I. 360 Barbera. 337 Bodel.E. S. 401. 352 Bayet. J. G. M. F. 588 Baratin. 301 Beck. 358 Bennett. 455 Bertolini. M. 91. 576–77 Bieber.W.W.W. G. 14 Barbarus. 568–69 . 131.I. 223–24. 525–26. D. 349–50. 82.M. C. 90 Bird. M. A.T. 473. 469. 25. 143. A. 414. 438–40. 475. 186. F. 377 Bencini (Bencinus). M. 451. A. 629 Bethe. C. 576 Bernardi. 558 Brunt. 337. 238–41. M. 347. 397 Brandstäter. P. 219 Büttner-Wobst. W. D. A. 159–61. 52. 101 Bottke. 278. 246–47. I. 618. L. 28–29. 280 Calzavara Capuis. 511. A.N.–P. 533–35 Brueckner. 59. 172. 587. W. 402–4 Buraselis. 631 Buonopane. 130–34. J. D. A.J.M. 317 Bordenache-Battaglia. 387 Buckler. G. 372 Bonz Palmer.L. 186 Brulé. A. H. 359 Byrne. 152. R. 400. H. 156–57. A. 469 Bruneau. 580.C. 233. 303 Brodersen. 229. 580. 227 Braccesi. 587 Cades.R. H. 106. T. 99 Boren. 547. W. C. 369. M. 329 Bracco. C. 483–84 Büchner. S. A. A. 83.C. 537 Cameron.C. 308. 403. G. 206. 513 C Caccamo Caltabiani. 40–41. 627 Broilo. 365–66.H. C. 372.M. 140 Bynkershoek. W. 259. 557 Brennan. L. 267. 390–91. H. 60 Boyce. S. 357. 53. 153. J. 534. 200. 495 Bruun. 41–42 Bulard. 378 Bruwaene. D. 336. 274–76 Brecht. 308 Bosworth. 396 Buchheit. 580. 127 Breeze. 212 Breglia Pulci Doria. 624 Cadbury. F. 603 Brind d’Amour. S. 165 Caimi.S. 387. 578. 623 Briggs. 216. 469.–D. J. 470 Calboli. 637 Brouwer. 493. M. 85. 567 . 249.J. S. L. 136. 611. 340–41 Bouché-Leclercq. 478 Camassa.K. 401. G. 184–85. I. F. 435 Caldelli.G. 435 Callu. 379.G. 557 Brummer. 92. J. L. 449 Bosius (= Dubois). 84. 522. 237 Bowersock. 389–95.A. 114.) B. 271. G.J. 362. 110 Bouvet. 234. 415. 603. 406. 51–53. F. 79 Braund. 525. 205. T. H. 407. 381–82. M. 369–76. L. A. F. 525 Bürge. 633. 427 Borries.Indices Bonnet. K. 614–15. 425 Camps. J.B. 109. 58.G. 92 Caldarini Mazzucchelli. 262–64. K.W. 139 Büttner. C. 355 Borsari. 141. M. V. 464. 563 Boot. 496 Campbell. 485 Camilli. V. R. 79–82. 396–97. I. 595 Bremer. A. 209 Calder III. 507.H. 495. 358 Bruno. 273–74 Botteri. 519. 49. 236. 343. 406. G. 463 Broughton. 354–55. D. 440.A. 190. 331 Buchi. 625 Broglio. 209 Buecheler (Bücheler). 235 Brusin.) 127 Boscolo. 113 Bunse. 474–78. 103 Bormann. G. 460. 274. P. 123–28. 410. 583–87. 593. P. 638 Buonocore. K. G. 575–76 Bowman. 71–82. 355–58 643 Brugnoli. B. 522. L. 38. 353 Cahn. 582–85. 166–68. 561 Bourgery. G. 36. 603–5. S. 451–52 Bucher. 43. P. 580 Byrne. P.C. F. T. M. G. 328. E. 174. 593–94 Briquel. 619 Brunn. P.A. 144. 203. 43. 460 Calder. P. 507.W. 266–67. 469 Bracchi. 334 Brelich. 131 Caesarius. 62. E. V. 634 Briscoe. 107 Božilova. 361. T. 217–19.S. A.M. 47. 492–95 Brotier. van. 371. 583–84 Calepio. 89. 408.(= I. J.A. 189. van den. A. 601 Bruzza.(= G. 365 Borzsák. 242–44. 207 Calabi Limentani. 117. 527 Boulhol. M. H. de. 209 Cracco Ruggini. G. 397. 337 Citroni. 262. 387 Cogitore. 638–39 Champion. 627 Craddock. 619 Coskun.R. 535. F. G. 109. 408 Cerami. 133–35. J. 271. 460. 144 Chiranky. 557 Charitonidis.D. 436.F. 626 Cox. 237.H. 551–52 Conobbio. M. G. 99. 627 Clarke. G. M. R. 428 Cohen. 372. 5. 149. 566 Champeaux. 96. F. 234.F. 400 Crescenti. 322–23 Cosi. 40–41. 427–33 Conway. 487. 619 Cocco. 631 Cenerini. 308–10 Conti. 390 Cotter. R. 22. 26.H. 155 Collitz. C. 494 Cordella. 565 Clemente. 595. 411. J. 414–19 Canali De Rossi. 104. 33 Citroni Marchetti. J. D. 527 Chioffi. A.G. F. 531 Cavada.B. 609 Champlin. 300. 213 Collins. 30. 221. 180. 552 Cébeillac-Gervasoni. 266. 440–41. 347. 250 Clinton. S. 319. 240 Christ. 402. P. H. 15 Capponi. 438 Chamoux. T. 15 Carcopino. 631 Carillo Díaz-Pinés. F.H. D. W. 614. G.644 Indices Cima. 152–53. 438. 131–32. 293. 361 Colson. S. 447 Cressedi. 171–73. J. 57–58 Chouquer. 621 Churchill. P. 473 Casaubonus. 533. 172 Combet-Farnoux. 208–10.M. K. 621 Castello. 279. 187. 177.B. P. 414–19 Cornell. 165–68. 516 Cancik.J. E. 547 Combès. 237 Carter. 625 Crawford.D.S. 483. 80 Chwolsohn. 233. 232. G. 472 Chilver. 326. 164. M. C. 365–66 Corbeill. 539. J. F. 56–57. 391. 273 Cancelli. F.A. G. 569. 522 Cerva. 522–23. 427 Chaniotis. 338. 559 Cappelli. 196 Corbett. 179 Classen. P. 636 Cantarella. 403 Cavaggioni. 293. 442. 563 Carney.V. M. 425 Chrissanthos. L. 129. M.W. 615 Constans. 10–12. 575 Christol. I. R. 614 Clausen. R. C. P. D. S. 587 Carson. 230.W. M. E. 327. 206 Clark. 23. L. 637 Criniti. M. 148–49.P. 39. 29. 610 Costabile. 148. 292–94. 357–58 Chelotti. 51. 405–7 Chevallier.J. 634 Cavazza. 210 Clauss. E. 411 Cèbe. 370. 134 Crawford. 213. 384. 166 Carter. 532 Castrén. M. 127. 373. 85. F. C. 194. S. 141. B. 616 Capdeville. 478. K. 542 Capogrossi Colognesi. C. L. 570 Chapot.A. 205–6. R. J. L. 28–29. F. 329 Carandini. R.G. 393 Clemen. 575 Cortius. 349 Casson. 408–10.E. 339 Crifò. 331 Comand. 204. 220. 28.J. 160–62. M. 235. 131.E. I. 279 Cerfaux. 198. 545 Coles. A. 545 Coccoluto. S. 482 Catalano. 23. 128. 280 Cresci Marrone. J. 408. 532 Corbier. 537–40. F. 98.A. R. 29. 20–21. L. A. N. F. 465–66 . 362. 114. 377. 31. 525. R. W. E. G. 363. J. T. P. 180. A. G. 522. 290. G. 482. R. G. 208 Carpenter. 144–45. 3. 570 Colafrancesco. F. 184–85. 286. 373. 127. 340 Ciugudean.M. 564 Cichorius. 358 Coarelli. A. R. C. A. 389. 601 Cardilli.T.-A. 617 Courtney. C. A. 143. H. M. L. 277.C. 401 Croisille. P. 82. A. H. 242–46.H. J. 636 Den Boer. 207. A. 616 Deubner. 524 De Marchi. 352. 356. 509. A. F. 371.D. 545–46. 310. 84. B. 601. 494. S. 234. J. 125 Devijver. 126. F. 353 Dittmann-Schöne. 193.W. 178. 81. 223. 237. 271. 227 Danoff (Danov). C. 261 Darder Lissón. D.M.W. 267. L. 560 De Libero. C. H. H. 203 Diels. 170. 469. 392. M. 187. 258 De Revillas. 562. L. 516. F. 395. 358. 467–68. 35 De Nino. 463–64 Dölger. 56 D D’Anna. 429–30. J.A. 230. 293. 474. 103 Develin. 347–49. B. 631 Dondin-Payre. E. 481–84 Demougin. 349. 371. 580 Di Stefano Manzella. A. 376–77.J. 209. 237–39 . 354 Damon. J. 293 David. A. H. 338–39 Detlefsen.-L. 614 Delgado Delgado. N. 6. O. 106 Domaszewski. 22. L. O. R. G. 319–20. 489. A. 496 Drew-Bear. 189. 151–52 Dragendorff. S. 275 Dorandi. C. 385. 304 Drijvers. A.P.-M. 84 Dahlmann. G. 576 Curty. H. 45 Da∫browa. 187. 593. V. 455 Donati. G. 128. W. 62. 147. 353. A.B. 184. 47. 561. J. 112 Dieterich. C. 392–93 De Pasquale. 141. 601 Della Corte. B. 429. 213 Dasen. 205. E. 365. 279 Crouwel. 619 Dickie. D. 336 Dohrn. 421–22. 79. M. 318 Drews. E. T. 224. von. A. 639–40 De Boor. 440 Doederlein.P. 142. 438. 555 Dörries. 438. 537–38.H. 358. 342–43. 370. 397. 558 Dalecampius (Dalechamps). H. 611 Degrassi. 326. 440 Dewailly. M. J. 451–52 De Martino. 438. I. M. 146. 402 De Ranieri. 377 De Robertis.–L. 193 D’Arms. 415. J. 81 Donner.-M. M. 552 Desnier. 4. E. 426. 601 Derrida. L. 587 Dinter. I. L. 211–12.F. 617 De Sallengre. 199 Dahlheim. 485 Dittenberger. 513 Culasso Gastaldi.H. 229. N. 427 Daris. 214 Döring. 118. 390 Dacier. 6 Degrassi. C. 618 D’Ors. 216. 358 Dorcey. H. 432. M. 232 Davies. 387 Deininger. 329–31 D’Isanto. 260 Dinsmoor. F. 188 Defosse. 79 Deissmann-Merten. H. L. 546. 278–79. 247 Domergue. V. 220 Dinzelbacher.W. 29 Dangréaux. 109 Dressel. P. J. T. 471. 96. F. 520–21. 355. 639 Dessau. J. 369. 565. 476 Cueva.H. 80. 197 David. 447 Dettenhofer. W. 411 Díaz Ariño. A. 369. M. 502 Della Casa. 383. K. R. 452 Cumont. H. 345. 629 Detienne. 342–43. W. 231. 279. 349–50. 515 Dietsch. 465 645 Della Corte. 123. 358 Diehl. 405 Di Vita Evrard. 159. W. 565 Drumann. 224–25.E. 358 Crook. T. 563 Dobson. 151. W. 136. 391. 556 Deschamps. 469 De Vit. J. 226. C. 552.Indices Cristofori. 139 Davies (Davisius). A. B. M. 124–25. J. 560 Douglas. F. 32. 479. 191. 273. J. 345–47. 42 De Cazanove. 322 Dindorf. P. 190–91. A. 175–78. 480 DeWitt. 140 Del Chicca. M. 137. 261 Flach.) 242–43 Fantham. 57 Eisenhut. 610. 545 Flory.A. 366.R. S. 542 Eitrem. 494. J. C. W. 112 Dumézil. J. K. 291–92. G. 598 Fittschen. G. 172. 566 Fedeli. 85 Eberhard. E. S. 129. 6.B.A. D. S. 100–101. S. 93. 463. C. 450–51 Eussner. 211. F. 425 Favre. D. 378 Eyben. 358 Ferrua. 279 Fishwick.L. W.C. 313. 379. 209. 276 Dupont. F. 105–8.A. 635–36 Fear. 214 Dubourdieu. 491 F Fabbri. H. 492. 387. S. 196 Eck. 153. 358 Fitz. 324 Flore. 218. 317 Fiori. 242–43. 625 Epstein. 56. 383–84. O. G.K. 301 Fauth.B. R. 487 Duhn. 31.H. 244. L. A. 43. 98 Eusebio. 198 Fantaguzzi (Fantagutius). 381.A. 46. T. 81 Engels. 245 Ferrary. 36. 571 Feldmann. F. K. E. 546–47 Fletcher. Z. 349. W. A. 55. 334.F. 452 Filippi. D. F. 293. U. R. 6 Durry. 614 Ferrari. 244–46. G. 495 Eckstein. 99 Fogazza.–M. 327–28. J. G.B.D. 465. 358 Foerst. 214 Fayer. 565 Duthoy.W. A. 235–36 Fears. 385 Ferrarini(us). 183. A. 639 Fobes. K. 610 Faris. 346.T. 620 Ferri.-C. J.A. 94. 95. O. 378. 57 Esdaile. J. 103 Ebel. 460 Fairclough. 639 Feldman. 530. 285 Fink. 363 Dümmler. 104 Düll. M. F. 464. F. S.T. 558 . 632 Dundua. 184. 569. 558.M. M. A. 617 Fabricius. 495 Ernesti. 407. 545 Felmy. R. R.F. H. 543 Filippi. 123. P. G. 609 Eckstein. 230 Filippenko.-L. A. 537–38. K.H. J. 394–95 Finazzi. G. A. 618–19 Fless. 483 Ehrmann. 199 Faccenna. 97–98. 104. 166–67. 79. 450.T. H.G. C. 242 Fabbrini. R. 451–53 Fiebiger. 559. N. 512. M. 469–70 Egelhaaf-Gaiser. F. 350. 502 Elwin. A. 438 Dyck. 45. G. 510. 393. S. 56 Engel. 601 Du Cange.C. J. 366 Erskine. A. A. E. D. D. 89.R. M. 435 Finer. C. 616. 589 Fehrle. F. 284–85 Erim. 312 Dury-Moyaers. 245. von. 612–13 Flambard. 440–41. 537. 612–13. 589 Favory. 356. 569 Erman. M. 208. 107 Elbern.(= I. 421–22. 205–6 Fiemia. 562–64 Egger. D. 3 Farney. 310–11. 323 Fele. 82 Elliot. 459 Dunbar. 4. 246.–M. 319–20 Evans. A. 601 Dumont.B. 140. 179–80.R. 198 Earl. R. J. 128 Erdmann. F.H. 174 Feldherr.646 Drummond. 343. J. 113 Dussaud. E. K. 185 Eilers. 426. E. 318. L. F. 79. 314. 293. A. C. P. A. 601 Dunand. 101 E Indices Evans. R. 138 Duemmler. 319–20. A. 327 Ernout. 357–58. 104.E. 562 Dunbabin.A. 520 Elm. 14. F. G.M. 194. L. 560 Frézouls. C. K. 449 French. 45 Gernet. M. 30. 229–30 Fraschetti. 636 Gladigow. W.W. 418 Goethe. 28–29. W. A. 568 Gnoli. 569 Frederiksen. 533 Galsterer.D.P. 358 Foster.W. P. 502 Frede. F. P. 595. 209–10. 153–54. 561 Geyer. A. 400. 557 Fuss. 56 Frisk. 458 G Gabba. H. J. 23–26. G. 184. 635 Francis.W. 358 Früchtel. 94. 575 Goethert. 485. 425. G. L. 576. 578 Frank. 618 Freeman. 97–99..H. 458. 584–85. V. 398–99. J. E.M. 227 Frey. 320 Gesche.C. 9 Gardiner. O. P.D. 264–66 Gilliam. 424–27 Gallini. H. 618 Fraser.W. M. 458–59.O. P. 78. 616 Giumlia-Mair. R. W. 35. P. L. 104. 352 Fowler. 123.A. R. F. 111–12 Glare. 193–94. 373. J.N. M. 212–13 Gimeno. M. A. 631 Garland. 208 Fustel de Coulanges. L. 400. 89. 359 Giacomelli. E. B. 488. 81 Fridh–Haneson. 22. E. 349. T. 146 Gesner. M. 292–93. 490 Ginouvès. 349. 466 Forni. T. 478 Gasperini. J. 582. 127. 410–12 Gascou. 479 Gazzeta.Indices Fontana. 62. 595–96 Fraccaro. 621 Gatti. 217 Foucart. 105 . 193 Fröhner. 89. R. 356. 357–58 Ginzrot. 188. 635 Friedländer. 555. 304 Friggeri. 160–61. 560 Freyburger-Galland. 577 Gerhold. B. 532. P. 114. 327 Geyer. 299–302.W. H. 338. 342–44. G. 394 Gagé. 54 Gardiner. 340. A. 247 Ginestet. 353 Furlanetto. 451–52 Gelzer. H. A. 99 Galli. F. 196–97 Garofalo Zappa. 568 France. 87.G. 96 Frank. C. 106–7. 481–85.(= E. 293. 211 Fritzsche. 532 Futtrell. B. 388.D. 630 Freis. 601 647 Galinsky. 69–71. 182. 23. 578–81. A. 114. G. 362.T. 639 Fortenbaugh. 476 Giomini. P. C. 448 Gasparotto. 447 Gasparolo. R. 403. J. 198 Fraenkel. K. 546 Glucker. 495 Frisch. M. 473 Furley. 163.M. 168. A. H. 278. 90.F. 172–73 García Jimenéz. 523. P. 233 Görgemanns. M. F. W. 588 García-Bellido. S. M. M. 496 Garzetti. 447 Gantz. 291. 236 Giorcelli Bersani.M. 433–35 Gigante. 165. 10 Girardet. 81. 113.G. 625 Giunti. 40. 200. 111. 489 Forcellini.E. 610 Freier. 366 Giavitto. L. 488–89 Galsterer-Kroll. J.D. 507. F. 619 Fora. 128. 610. P. 422 Franciosi. A. 492. 359 Frateantonio. 428. M. W. 93. 398.N.M. 460. 443–46 Fraenkel. H. 450.F. 470 Forsythe. 612. 166–67. 557. G. 29. 603–4 Franke. C. J. P. 126. 613 Gabelmann. J. 604 Geremek. 359 Gignoux. 230. 453–54 Giorgadze.L. E. B. H. 79. E. D. 82–83. 564–65 Freyburger. B. 552 Gaffney. J.C. 277 Gertz. N. H. M. 107. H. 484 Frier. 617. 113.) 96. A. 482 Gardner. 362. 271 Giovannini. 474. 564. R. 140. 300. G. G. S. T. H.G.648 Indices Guilland. 601 Gundermann. 204 Håkanson. 479 Golvin. M. F.M. 103. 359 Hameter. 257 Grosso.L. 627 Harrison. 213 Harlesius. 87 Hanoune. A. 549 Green.L. 484 Hasenfratz. 625 Gruen. 359 Gundel. A.E. E.R. 141. 280 Groebe. T. 93 Griffith. W. 47. 464. 420–21. F. 308 Gustafsson. 470 Haines. W.L. 42 Hägerstrom. E. 547 Grilli. 599 Hartel. 430. 78–79. R.D. 171 Grüll. 491 Haffter. J.A.G. T.M. 149 H Haase. B. 611–12 Greenhalgh. 79. A. 28. 580. 151. L. J. 362 Gradel. 349. F. 192. J.) C. 525 Groag.B. 327–28. 438 Harris. L. C. E. 30. A.M. 615 Haltenhoff. F. 371. 312 Hay. 316 Hall. 279 Hasenohr. 288–89 Greenidge. A. B.G. 424–25. C. 245. 189. J. 267.G. 460 Grelle. 378. 414. L. 187. 193 Haase. H. 130. 304 Hall. A. 624 Grenier. 377. 569 Goodrich. 520 Gronov(ius). J. 255. 593. I. 618 Guarducci. R. U. T. 126–27. P. 270. A. 278 Grasmück. 519 Habicht. 191. 201. 40. 480 Guarino. 47 Heftner. C. 80. 376–84. 372. 15 Guiraud. R. 112. 559. 336 Halfmann. 321–23. 61. 48. 202–3 Haupt. 95 Häussler.E. C.C. 191 . 47. 91 Günther.–P. J.-C. C. 86–87. 197 Hagenbuch. J. 419. H. 430 Gow. 20–24.A. 471–72. C. 308. 312. 107 Goetz. 218. W. 220–22. 463 Grosso. H. 619 Haslam. 22. 222.S.H. 438 Harmand. F. 234. W. F. 285–87. 547 Grant. 146. E. 458 Gras. 91. 458 González. 211 Guillart. 612 Guillaumont. 590 Gowers. 564 Head. S. G.F. 517 Haensch. N. 464 Gruber. 229. 237–39. R.C. N. A. 44. 470 Graf. 443. G.V. P. T. D. 30 Grafton. Harris.M.H. 210. M.S. 428 Goodman. 486 Grodzynski. 125. 396. 164. R.S. 82–83.V. 584. 359 Grewing. 557 Gulick.L.(= G. H. A. 55 Hammond. 525–26. F. M. 89 Haller. 366.J. 327–28.A. I. 41. R. 111 Gratwick. 91 Grotius. 562 Hanson. 199 Harmand. 213 Haudry. G. 109 Greve. M. 33. E. R. 634 Hauler.F. 468. 254. J. 231. J. 324 Harvey. 411. 398 Häpke. H. 584 Gordon. 88 Goette. 127 Grégoire. A.R.E. P. H. F.M. 583 Green. 393 Graevius. 244–47. 257 Heerdegen. 124. 199 Grünewald. 82. 132 Heer. 26. A. J. 126. M. 612 Guittard. 79. 229. M. C. 568 Grainger. 609 Habermas. 434 Grimal. A. H. 576 Gregori. 247. 279. J. 345. 159. G. 257 Guadagno. 528 Güterbock. 523 Gruendel. 526. 84. 40. W. 30 Grebe. C.S. C. G. 262. 85 Granino Cecere.J. E. M. 629 Guerrini. L. H. J. 458 Horkel. O. 469. 471 Jaisle. V. A. R. 467 Jacobs. 211. 528. 601 Holleaux.Indices Heindorf. 257 Helbig. K. 345. O. 603 Howell. 471 Hohl. 230 Hoffmann-Curtius. 240 Hofmann. 359 Humbert. W. N. 393 Herzog. T. J. 124–26 Henzen. L. L. 469–73.F. T. J. A. 359. 335.J. 89 Ingoroqva. 192. T. V. 255. 113. 171 Janssen. 549 Helm. 279 Heubner.) 332. 310 Herter. G. 226 Holland. 26.(= G. 362. P. 197 Huotari. 100 Helbing. 105–7 Hewsen. W. 504 Hofmann. M. R. 343.M.V. 359 Ingekamp. W. 585. 131. 488 Hunnink. D. A.D. K. 343. 129. B.M. 158. 332. 336. 193. 152. 321. 335 Huber. 359 Herz. 557 Higgins. 281 Hopkins. R. 30. 286 Henry. 479. 134 Huber. B. R. 223. 262 Helen. 125–26 Jacquemin. 83–84 Holstenius (Holstein). Ph. 382 Heraeus. 476 Holmes. L. 365–66. 340 Hölscher. 332. 525. M. L. 218. 236 Herrmann. 532 Huelsen. C. R.H. 472 Holder. 484 Hug. H. 319–20 Jacoby. 336 Hertz. 390 Ilski. B. 438 Jashemski. 177 Heuzey. 202. 197. 488 Jaeger. 268–69 Ireland. 359. K. F. M. 82 Isaac. 86. 322 Houston. 463–64. G. 151. 189. 380. F. J. 81 Jaczynowska. 632 649 Hommel. H.W. 465. 105.R. 126–27.G. O. 279 Janzer. 309 Henrichs. M. 95. 552 Hering. 332. 188 Holwerda. 587. 346.A. 134 Holum. 315 Hirschfeld. 356. M. 359 Hoffiller. 527–28 Heuss. 353. M. 173 Hoepfner. 354. 279. P. 639 Hosius.E. 577. 487 Jal. 192. 269. 194.W.G. R. 486 Hendry. 223. 293. 477 Herbert. 613 . 23. J. M. 592. H. 362 Hekster. A. 530 Humphrey. 247 Janon. 202 Heinen. K. 496 Huyse. 375. M. 382 Huemer. I. G. 273 Hickson. C. 349. E. F. K. 84. 359 Herbig. 334 Henlein-Schäfer. F. 86–87 Jarrett. 45. J. 194–95. 329. M. 337 Jehne. R. 594 Ihm. 233 Jahn. 569 Honig.F. 40. 194 Horsfall. Adams L. 30 Hoyos. 447 Janssen. 98. 209. A. 22. 83. 245. H. M. see Lewis Hoffmann.B. M. R. B. 283–84 Jahn. E.F. 128.G. H. O. J.) 101.(= W. M. 40 Immisch. 233. W. T. 288 Hubbard. 57. 280.T. 273 I Ideler.L. 478–79. A. 267 J Jacobs. A. P. W. J. P. B. 30 Hilgers. H. 393 Hennig. 257 Holder. P. 165 Hinard. 14 Jahn. 339 Herdejürgen. 610 Heinze. W. 496–97 Hellegouarc’h.I. H. C. 209 Hoffman Lewis. 481–82. D. 210. R. 446 Hitzig. H. C. P. 486 Housman. 129. L. 490. B. 267–68 Keil. 137. H. 549 Keller. J. 433. 330. B. R.C. 335. 197. 411. G. 551 Kienast. 191. 152. 44–45. 416 Koonce. 418 König. 3–4. H. 362 .L. M. 226–27 Kollwitz. 609 Kassel. 20–21. 466 Kraner. 78. 274. 465. 215 Jocelyn. P. 101 Klimscha. 186. F. G. 387. O. 614 Kraabel. 336 Knüverer. 377 Kotula. 197 Kingsley. 56. 139. W. 47. 343. H.A. 28. 328. 194. 244. 198 Kirchner. B. E. N. J. 517. 198. 184. 269. 168–69 Keenan.–G. 352 Knoellinger. M. H. 194–95. 397 Kloppenborg. C.S. 477. 372 Jullian. A. 95. 30. 332 Kelly. 436. 615–16 Keaveney. 186–89. W. 352 Kirtland. H. 279. 359 Kany-Turpin. 310. F. 124–25. J. 133. 349. L. A. 327–28. 622 Kavtaradze. 131. 402. 273 Keuleers. 349. V. 359.R. 26. 194–96. 359 Koeppel. 112 Keppie. 552 Konrad. 624 Kolbe. E. 421. T. H. 322 Klingner. 576 Kaibel. 211 Kowalski. 390 Kaiser-Raiss. 192. 309. 439 Jones. 220.H. P. B.W. 343. H. V. 570 Kolb. 132. 139. M. 30. 463. 359–60.P. 116.F. 240 Krause. 195. H. 49. 365 Krummrey. W. 246 Kajanto.L. H. 359. 406 Jones. 203 Kalkmann. 361 Jilek. C. J. H.I. 140–41. 359. 286. 293 Kettenhofen.T. F. 548 Kajava. M. 104–5 Korpela.M. A. 640 Johnson.J. 594 Klostermann. M. 502.A. C. J. 13. 359. 319. L. C. H.G. 315 Kennedy. C. J. 483. 624 Kipling. 41. 279 Krauss. 445. 100. J. 208. 349. R. K. 48 Klebs. T. D. H. 626 Khanussi. 617 Klotz.L. 487 Jex-Blake. 482 Kritz(ius). M. 30. U. 506. 359 Jones. 93–94. E. E. 190. A. 18. 545 Jones. H. 475 Kromayer.F. 490 Koukoules. 152.W. 535 Kalinka. 586 Kirchner. J. 355. 526 Jones. 465–66 Köves-Zulauf. I. 301. N. 350. 189. 598 Johnson. 542–43 Krause. 41. 258 Krenkel. A. 373. 601 Jones.650 Indices Killeen. 211. 87. R. 95–96. 555 Kashcheyev. F. 112. 232 Kneppe. 338–40 Kearsley. 192. J. 430 Kenner. 326. 86 Kornemann. 111. 14 Kaser. 569 Krahe. 191 Kronasser. C. 294. M. 559–60. S. 207 Kempf. 124. 332. 192–93. U. A. 273 Kay. 134–35. 447 Kiessling. J. C. 149. 127 Jordan. M. R. 82. G. 354–55. L. 526. 452 Koestermann. 354 Jonnes. R. 405 Kruschwitz. 194–95 Kloft. 305. 343 Kolb.S. 492 Johnson. 319–22 Jourdain-Annequin. 321 Kroeger. E. 357–58 Kahrstedt. J. 230.F. Ph. 632 Kaster. O. 114. 258.) C.S. 291 K Kahil. 430 Kiepert. 352. 79.(= K. E. P. C. 626 Jessen. A. 609 Kotansky.–U. C. 112 Kolendo. 349. 597 Köhler. D. K. 545. R. C. 336 Kroll. 399 Kostial. H. 294. J. 149 Koch. 128–29 Kleijwegt. 489 Klima.D. 92. M. 305. 452 Kumaniecki. A. 407 Lewis. 466 Lendon. 186–87. 637. 639 Lindsay. 483 Larsen. 101. O. 114. 374–75. 124. 569 Ligt. 319 Lega.–C. 595–97. 405. 445. 639 651 Le Glay. 311. 633. 217. L. 460 Le Roux. J. 568 Lallier. 547 Lazzaro. W. B. M. 133 Liou. J. 85 Licetus (Liceto). de. 558 Lejeune. 100.M. Bernard 429 Liou-Gille. 468. L. 359 Lintott. 31–32. B. 356–57. H. 467. 135 Kunckel. 113.G. 249. 109 La Rocca. A. 559. 206. 163 Lichtenberger. 594 Kühn. 595. H. A. N. 576 Liu. 111. 512. 313 Licandro. R. 236. 140. 485 Kühner. 369. 48. 627 Ling. 125. 378 Lewis. H. 425. M. 184. 589. Y. P. 78. 135.A. 601 Lewis. 396. 6 Laurens. R. J. D.. A. 562 Lieberg. 476 Litvinenko. 169–70.W.L. C. G. F. 319–22. 225. 495 Leunissen. 554 Lifshitz. 403. G. 264. 21–22. G. 601 Lau. 399. 253 Kühnert.M. J. 603. S. W. 236 Landucci Gattinoni. 219. 60. 127. H. 510. 107 Kunkel. L. W. 557 Lavagne. 390. 531. J. 157–58. 547.Indices Kubitschek. 429 Lafaye. 354–55. 359. C. D. 496 Kyle. 330. 510. 184. 419. 328. 493.M. 458 L La Follette. G. 458 Lenoir. Hoffman M. 128. H. G. A. 347. 178 Langenhorst. 472. 356–57. A. 539. see Michels Lake. 228 Lippold.L. 86. E. 636 Liddell. G. L. 88. 86 Laser. Bernadette 9. 229.M. 395–96. 164–67. 419 Lake. 54. 412. 585–86 Lake. E. 293. 227 Latham. F. M. 185. 626. 52. 3–5. 387–89.E. 518–19. U. R. 319–22. 379. 256. 461.T. C. 127 Levy. 91. 337 Lachmann. 130–31. 627 . M. 587 Lange. 611 Kunst. 507. 390 Le Bourdellès. 336 Langner. L. E. 456 Lebek. 224–25. C. 458 Lafer. 469–70 Lichocka. 464. 496 Linderski. M. 131. 218. 397–98. 477. 208. 613 Lassère. 359 Ling. L.D. 109. 214–15 Latte. M. 8–17. 467. 636–37 Lippold. H. F. 114. 237 Leone. 155. 552 Laminger–Pascher.W. 34–36. 324 Kurfess. 256 Lévesque. 314. 370. K.G. 83. 471. 584–85. 387. 279. 477. A. B. 319–20. 45–48. 452. 78. 463 Littauer. J. 393–94 Lettich. 338 Kunze. 245. 589 Laurot. 617 Lilius. 103–4. G. G. Y. 35. 359 Lipsius. K. 188 Lehmann. A. 410. 475 Letta. 539 Le Gall.-F. Yu. 537. 478 Le Bohec. 38. J. K.G. 126.E. A.L. J.O. 202. 468. 407. 388 Laffi. 593. 247. 522–24.–M. H. 422 Lehmann. 290. 35. 537. 80 Landgraf. 184. N. 354. 294 Lampela. A. 173. 326. B. P. 562 Lazzarini. H. 247. 461 Leeman. 545 Liebenam.W. 404. R. W. 33–34. 495 Ladage. C. 637 Leppin. 78–79. 630 Levy. M. P. 81. 372. K. 507–8.D. 180. 20 Künzl. 127. 301. 418. 85. 347 Levick. D. R. 78 Lanciotti. 585–86 Laks.A. 322 Lambardi. 183. J. 359 Lang. 324 Kuusanmäki. 492. 209 Lamoine. C. 346. 580. A. 567 Lütkenhaus. A. 40 Mascialino. 45 Manacorda. 54 Loraux. A. 545 Masson. 359. 485 Meier. J. 516 Maffei. 183 Maltby. 479. N. A. V. 261 Lorsch Wildfang. R. 135 Marshall. 319–320. 463 Mason. 304 MacMullen. L. 166 Martindale. 470 Magdelain. 258 M Maas. E. 87. 309. 95. 415 Manfredini. 362 Markschies. 188–89. 624 Marx. 78. 636 Marcone. B. 578 Mayer. 388 Mau. I. 184–86.V.E. G. 446. 461 Malcovati. 278. 309. 550 Marshall. 511 Mayrhofer. N. I. 621 Matthews. 278. 221–228.A. S.K. 387 Malavolta. 30. G. 341. 408. 143 Martin. 278 Lucas. 394. 359 Malaespina. 348. D. 567 Mastrocinque. 375 Mazzarino. 214. 322. 464 Manganaro. 278 Maffei. 320 Mazzolai. 30. Mayhoff. 428 McCall.B. R. 575. 479.R. 62. M. H. A. 30. 24. 124. M. P. T. W. 23. J. 401–2.J. 153–54.B. A. 203 Martínez-Pinna. 78. 206. 3 Luterbacher. 131–32 Mai. B. 516. R. E. F. 427 Marotta D’Agata. 301 Masci. 337. A.R. 480–81 Manni Piraino. 477. 191. 190 McCormack. 366 Meister. 577. F. A. 436 Lombardi. H. M. L. K. 386 Lullies. A. T. 202. 275 Machiavelli. 177–78 Meijer. 374 Manconi. 362.(= E. B. 100. O. 182 Marquardt. 406 . S. 185. C. å B. D. F. 547 López Melero. 427 Mancini. 278 Lovisi. 316 Marshall. F. A. 317 Manzoni. 31–33 Masvivius (Maaswyck). 218. O. E. 281 Machabeli.B. T. 265 Mazzarino. A. 486 Mayer. 324 Meadows. 57 Marengo. P. A. 563 Marmorale. P. D. 22. 623 McGushin. C. 346 MacBain. 278 Lordkipanidze.J. C. 419 Malkin. I. C. 310. 205–7.N. E. P. F. B. E. 489 Maulucci Vivolo.D. 587 Lundeen.R. 517 McDaniel. 124.O. A. 482 Mavrojannis. 22. 557 Meillet. 353. 308.J. 617 Lobrano. 618 Lovato. J.-Y. 159. 358–59. 191.P. 95–96. 290 Madvig. 378 Mariotti. E. 484 Löfstedt. 279 Löfstedt. 342–43. 149 Marshall. A. 208. 346. 247. 126 Massaro. 145 Malaise. A. 534 Lott. W. G. H. P.652 Lo Cascio. 472–73. 207 Maaswyck (Masvicius). 480 Manutius. A. 276 Loå rincz. 254. 331 Melchiorre.A. 330. 329 Magie. 104. 360. M. R. 133. 211. A. T. 419–20 Mari. 559 McGinn.) 47. J. J. 157. 307. G. 409. S.M. 30. C. V. P. R.J. 201–3 Maiuri. 619 Marco-Simon. 45. J. A. 28. 339. F. 359 Mattingly. Z. 258–59. A. N. G. P. 355–57. 95–96. 629 Indices Marek.A. 633 Mehl. D. M. 216–18. 619 Maxfield. 445 Marc.G. 359 Lüderitz. 251. M. 610 Mattson. 346 Mathieu. 464 Molho. L. 402–411. 341. 134–36. 97. 598 Murphy. 147–50. 86. 587 Münzer. 97. K. 446. 193. 562 Morgan. 244 Mollo. 78. 87. 173. L. S. A. R. J.A. J. 418. 334–35 Mrozewicz. 469–72. F. L. D. L. 391. 450 Mora. 224 Menichetti. 576–77 Michels. G. 154. 360 Miniero. 269 Melli.B. A. 318. 106 Metzger. 157 Murphy. 631 Mentxaka. 303. 568. 92–93. R. 360. 323–24.A. 582. H. 258. 575 Mommsen. N. E. H. 598 Musia¬.-P. 628 Moreschini. 622 Mitchell.L. C. S. F–H. 243.(= I. 552 Meslin. 559 Müller. 60. M. M. 299. 394–400.G. 255 Mora. 323 Mouritsen. 116. E. 362 Messerschmidt. 619 Müller. 507. 387.S. 46–47.) F. C. 453–54. 157. B. 41 Mouchová. 631 Mellor. 360 Munzi. 446. V. van. F. 152.W. 351–52.G.J. I. 99. 371. 164 Moreau. A. M. 359 Mynors. 312.F. 508. 420–22. 533.J. 562. H. 194 Mendoza Eguaras. 593 Middleton.L. 169. P. G. A. 370. S. 583–602 Michels. 617 Mercerius (Mercier). 212 Miha˚escu. H. 402. 236. 313–16.J. 124–28. H. 100. 545. 471 Mohler. 384–87.C. 114. D. 185. 569 Mitford. 451–52 Muretus. 614 Milliet. 174 Meyers. 313 Mikkola. 240 Meyer. J. 564. 37. A. D. 157. 41. F. 510.B. 450–55. D. A. 300.A. 271 Meusel. 182. 482. 57. W. 258 Mountford. 576. 335 Montgomery. 282 Mooney. 484 Moretti. 440–44. 34–35. L. P. C. I. 301 Merkelbach. 595 Müller. 93. 477 Montesquieu. 214 Mihailov. 349. 453 Michel. 223–24. 624 Murphy. 619 Moretti. 293.K. 254. 434–36. 547. 510. 488 Morel. C. 448. T. 411 Momigliano. 604 Muller-Dufeu. 461.G. P. 329 Migne. 591–94. G.R. 560.A. 406. 102. 14–15.-F. 519. Ch. 131–33. 568. S. 244–45. 84 Mosley. 526 Mitteis. A. 554 Miko¬ajczyk. T. 611 Meyranesio. 81. G. 424–25. von. 457. 128. 178. B. 126. 40. 97 Morani. 521. 226. 448–50. 138.J. 581. 256. J. F. 189. 216 Mennella. M. P. 232–38. T. C.M. 583 Molinier. 232. 110–11. 342–43. 632 Montero. 279 Morawiecki. 197 Moore. 570 Mitchell. 387–90. 594 Muratori. 3. 267 Modonesi. 415. 34. 259. 617–18. 127. 613 Millar. V. 392. R. 360 Michelotto. I. C.T.-C. F.L.Indices Melikishvili. 90. 164 Musti. M. 580. 242. 527 Moricca. M. 83. F. 174. 384–85. 476 Minnen. 51. 351. 516. 46. 418–22. T. 224 Müller. 347–48. 533–34 Morel. 370–71. 263–64. M. 14. 441. J. 490 Mócsy. 311. C. 342–43. M. D. 437 . 313. 443–44. 627 653 Monaco. 131. 308–9 Morizio. 493–95. 309. 40. 352. P. M. 187. 82 Müller. 143–44. 516. 639 Müller. 125 Müller. 458 Moscovich. 162–63. H. 610 Moussy. G. 452 Mutschler. 135–36. 621 Mueller. P. 159.F. 610. 569. 233. L. P. 406 Mosci Sassi. 354. W. H. 218. 280. 123. 432. 585.-P. 562 Muthmann.C. 610. A. R. 587 Olcott. A. P. 249 Packer. E. 50. 41. 54–55. M. D.M.B. 435. 305.H. 615. M. 470 Orlandi. 34.E. J. 370. J. 82. 202 Nikolashvili. 517. 78 Newman. 622 Panciera.B. G. J. 187. 380 Passeratius. F. 560 Palmerius. 274 Neuhauser. R. 405.W. 213 Paschoud. V. 104. 360 Nadig.-P. 335 Nissen. de. 339 Overbeck.B.654 N Indices Oliveira.M. 460 Orosio. F. 21 Passeri. 308. 332. 179–80 Ostrowski. 487 Nesselhauf. 594 Nipperdey. 613 Naipaul.L. 127. 447. 105. 515. H. 139 Néraudau. 286. 108–9. 271–72. 124. 395. 48. E. K. 395. R. 614 Paci. 282. S. G. 399–401. 601 Naber. J. 552. 627 Oates. 380. 340 Oliver. 407–8. 589–90 North. 380–81. 601. A. 359 Ostrow. 246. H. R.J. 370–71. 562 Pais. 354. 339. 527 Nawijn. 146 Paris. 150. 467 Nisbet.L. R. P. 383. J. 221. E. 294. R. S. 438. 216. 96. G. A. 278 Parsons.S.A. 214. 41 Oost. 352. 552 Patlagean. 443 Nitzsch. 422–23.W. A. W. 79. 452. P. 392. 41. 565 Nörr. H. 228. 202–2.A. A.J. 402–4. P. 469. E. H. 124. 443. 401–2. 523 Nisbet. T. 339 Oakley. 126 Nicolet. 224 Paterlini. 189–91. 417 Parke. 464. E. M. W. K. 638 Palmer.S. 610 P Pabst. 457 Pastor Muñoz. 309 Nasse.-M. 621 Pack. 230. 336 Packard. 124–25. 394 Paul. E. R. E. D. T. 410. 145. 544 Oldenstein-Pferdehirt. 387. I. 82–83 Oberlin. G. 260 Nelson. 576–77 Nachtergael. 237. D. 12. 83.H. I. 416 Nabokov. 52 Oehmichen. 576 Oberg.G. 270 Nilsson. 455.C. 342. S.K.A. S. 427. 219. 360 Papi. 509. T. 590 Pagliaro.(= J. 93–94. 601 Opelt. 85–86. 442. 263 Pailler.A. 275 O Oakley. I. 513 Nowicka. 564–65 Orelli(us). 460. 549 Oppermann. 126. C. 463 O’Brien Moore. P. 630 Pani. G. B. 183–84. 505. 280 Patterson. J. J. 420–21.W. 164 Niccolini. 209. 97. J. 342. 640 Ogle. E. 394 Page. A. 460. G. M.I. I. 299. 287–88 Nonnis. 639 Nöldeke. 620 Niebling.E.A. G.P.) 115.D. C. 410. J. 492 Niebuhr. 493–95 Paladino. 45. 350. M. 601 Osborne. J. 341 Pagàn. 382. 592. 548. 505. 357. 460 Olshausen. 611–12. 46.B. 23 Palombi. 576 Noè. 240 Optendrenk. 431. A. S. 104. H. 161. 501–2. 258–59. 85–86. 321. 360 Overbeek. 79–80. 627–28. 360 Nyberg. 21. 355. W. G. 602 Parker. 113. E. 262–65. 278 Ñaso del Hoyo. H. 97 Nock. 550 Oberhummer. G.J.N.G. V. 244 . W. 508 Nardi. 488–89. D.M. J. 464. 619 Norden. 344. D. E. 487. J. 348. 47–49. V. 392 Pape. 360 Ogilvie. 471. 335. G. 172 Otto. S.C. L. 182 Phillipson. 565 Pighi. 469–70 Pollack. 270. 337–38.Indices Pavone. D. 442 Rafn.E. W. 567 Pernot. 225. C. G. 127 Pulleyn. 452 R Raaflaub.R. 489 Petracco Sicardi. J. 340 Pökel. 270–72 Quasten. C. 30. G. 262–64. 271 Qaukhchishvili. 16. 563. 557 Pobjoy. L. 30.M.M. H. 425. 360 Premerstein. 485–86 Petrucci. G. S. 403. 496 Pearce. 379. 464 Pilhofer. T. 501–2. 604 Pignorius. 360 Radermacher. 157. B. 448 Pepe. M. T. M. G. 212 Quellet. 312 Radici Colace. 379 Pfuhl.L. E. 264. J. 343. 466 Puccioni. 407 655 Pöhlmann. 401 Purser. 396. 47. H. 557 Perrins. 377. 376 Promis. 309 Pekary. 338. L. 483. L. 480 Peek.J. 531. J. 356. L.F. 153. P. 485 Pighius. A. 488 Pontenay de Fontette. P. I. A. 299. 311. 104. 389 Pietrzykowski. 192. 187–88.M. 347.–T. 463. 552 Peerlkamp. L. 24–25. I. 310 Puteolanus. 207. A. 502 Prestiani Giallombardo.F. P. 618 Poccetti. 355. F. 179. L. S. 340. 170. C. 547 Quazza. 445 Petrikovits. P. 566.M. K. 630 Ramsey. I. C.G. C. 305 Pozzi. G. 177. 616. H. 589 Powell. F. 509. P. 340–41 Ramelli. 346. P. 495 Pélékidis. 531. 622. 360 Phillips.H. P. H. G.M. 598 Priuli. 301. 30. 154. 205 Perl. 360 Pellegrini. 338 Potter. 616.W. C. 279 Rackham. I.–G. 426. 396. C. 557 Pupillo. 617 Persichetti. S. 88–89.S. 458 Pleket. 360 Rainer. 8. 620 . P. A. B. P. 260. 466 Pelli. 41. 21. M. 487 Post. 346. 492.B. 635 Piso. S. 496 Q Qaukhchishvili. 458. 580 Poucet. 632 Pina Polo. D. 331 Radice. 485 Petersen. 174 Piro. 199 Pietrangèli. 387. N. 463 Pyötsiä. 454–57 Purcell. B. 352. 313. 129 Petraccia Lucernoni. S. 547 Pecorari. 262–63. M. 594 Raepsaet–Charlier. J. E. 159. 394 Pesch. 3–4. 309 Porte. 23. A. 124. 502 Pfiffig. L. 90 Pinna Parpaglia.) B. 451–52 Prosdocimi. M. 637 Pfaff-Reydellet. 353–54. 41 Piccaluga. 193. O. 346. 445 Pease. 343. 558 Pouthier.S. 410 Pichlmayr. L. 145. H. M. 580 Péché. A. C. von. 353. D.R. N. 583. 163 Piotrowicz. 387. 360. 334. 406 Radke. 624 Price. 199 Plass. G. 27. 343. 256 Peter. 172. 513. 93. 330. 329 Perry. A. (= G. 6. A. V. 588 Pflaum. 626. A. F. S.F. W. 45 Quercia. 355. 624 Radina. I. A. 531 Rabello. 204. 256 Prescendi. F. 330–31. 274. 317. H. 257. 196 Perry. F. J. 495 Peola. 529.V.S. P. R. 12 Pavolini. 261 Pitiscus. 437–38. von. 635 Perea Yébenes. 360 Preller. H. F. 57–59. 630 Roland. 496 Ritschl. G. H. O. J. V. 518. 567–71 Reynolds. 360. 615 Rankov.X. 625 Rodenwaldt. 257. 357. G.T.R. 84 Ridgway. 149. 263. 457. Z. 360 Reinach. 393. 288 Rossbach. 636–38 Ruge.M. 114 Reuterswärd. J.L. 394 Robleda. 261 Reusser. 508. 310. 495. 521. 473. 338. 524. 502. W. E. 427 Rizakis. R. 234–35. 28. 103. 522. 449. 156. F. 29. 563. 320–22 Ritter. A. W. 551 Rose.J. C. C. 48. E. 105.L. 23. 556 Rouveret. 611. 440–41 Ruperti. N.E. 218 Ruoff-Väänänen. 321. H. A. 430. 625 Ryberg. 273 Rawson. 20–22. 428 Rosenberger.C. 20–21. 39. M. 601 Rzach. 114 Rieger. 162. A. 303–6 Rea. F. R. M. E.E. B. J. M. 275 Römer. C. 360 Rider. 193 Reitzammer.D. 198 Ronconi. A. E. W. 532 Rochette. 106 Reverdin. 386 Rüpke. 245 Reduzzi Merola. 170. 613 Righini. 223. A. 371–72. J. 488.-M. 393 Rodríguez Colmenero. Scott I.R. L. T. 484. 362 Riggsby. 105. 485 Regell. 562 Rich. 134. A. G.B. 594 Reynolds. 387 Rodriguez. 545 Rossi. 403 Rodríguez González. 493. A.B. 634 Reed. 472 Reinhold. 292–93. 464 Rohr Vio. 579–80 Roth. P. N. 24. 272. 257–58. L. A. J. 620–21. J. 569 Roberts. 343. 207 Rumpf. 265 Robert. R. 239. J. P.F. T.D. 123. 327. C. 450. P. 456 Royden. F.-C. 351–52. G. 123. 89 Riese. 360 Roddaz.M. 98–99. B. J. W. T. C.A. 30. 265.656 Indices Rix. H. 530 Reifferscheid. A. 235–36 Rolfe.C.H. 379 Robert. 263. 245–46. M. G.H. 492 Rubinsohn. 189. 107 Ritterling.M. O. 530–531 Rossi.W. J. 30 Rotondi. 616 Ridley. 303. 623. 584 Reisch. G. 458–60. 309 Rouse. 354 Reinesius. 565 Roldán Hervás. 339 Rémy. 143. G. 30 Reinach. 504. 210 Reisig. 126–27. 96 Roos. R. 360 Richardson. J. C. 360 Ridley. 403 Rehm. S.E. 107. 360 Richter. 230 Röllig. 390. 229–30. E. H. 58. 319–21 Ribbeck. 278 Rivius. 107 Richardson. F.G. C.H. V. J. 354. 638 Reggiani Massarini. 323 . 338–39 Reed Doob. 347. B. 545 Rice. 92. 213 Reddé. 357. L.B. C. 271. 274 Rosa. 575–77. 558 Rehm. 452 Roxan. O. 227. 592–93. 319 Richter. J.M.D. 469–70. 434 Rostovtzeff. 552 Roncoroni. A. 416 Roscher. E. 7 Ramsey.T. 352 Riecken. P. 140 Rosenstein. 40 Ricci. 360 Rowell. 261. 624 Ricci. A. M.A. 487–88.S. 141. A. 227. 355. 353–55. 456 Ritti.M. E. 459 Rivière. 601 Richardson. H. 183 Rüger. L. 24. 349. E. 357. 229. 639 Richard. 639 Rosendorfer. Y. H. K. A.W. J. 515–19. 615. 463 Ryan. A. O. L.Ja. M. R. M. 25. 327 Schleussner. 489 Salway. A. 464. 47. 361 Schiering.Indices S Saalfeld.W. G. 484. 565 Schmidt.L. M. F. 458 Saxer. 541–43 Savi. 223. N. A. W. 48 Scardigli. B. 208.N. W. 161–62. 501 Schulz. O. 361. 209–10. 87.S. 54 Sancho. A.M. 584 Scott Ryberg. T. 271 Schmitthenner. 236 Segal. 294–95. 587 Schiller. 288 Sebesta.A. F. von. J. 580. I. 389 Santoro. 6. F. R. L.G. R. J. P. 186. W. 281. P.P. F. 407. 14 Schaewen. 295–96 Schilling. 361 Saria. R. F. 472. 245–46 Sale. 44 Schönberger. 277 Segenni. R.A. 369. 614 Seel. 180 Saladino. 307 Scafuro. 460 Sachers. 551 Savelja. 82. 84. F. T.J. 224 Sblendorio-Cugusi. O. K. 94 Scobie. 477 Schmidt. M. D. 569 Schuller. C. 382. 158. 214 Salomies. 90 Santori. 545 Scott. R. 337 Scott. R. 107 Seeck. 353. see Ryberg Scriverius. W. 77.Ch. 112. 516 Samter. U. 140 Schwarzer. 564 Schweighäuser. W. 626–27 Sartori. 638 Scheithauer. 466. 133.T. 83–84 Schlüter. 213 Schott(us). R. 548 Scholz. 30. 112 Sánchez Abal. 361 Schepers. 509 Sajkowski. 129. 402. J. E. J. de la. H. 232. 125–26. P. 613 Schulten. 531 Sanders. J. 468–69. 309 Schulze. 602 Seager. 465. 212 Sarikakis. 421 Savage.H. L. 477. I. 632 Salzman. 612 Seavey. 138. B. 104 Saller. S. 182. 21 Scullard. 393. 492. A.D. 624 Sabbatini Tumolesi. A.T. D. 172 Schanz. A.T. 439 Sauer. 487 Scheid. 618 Schultess.J. 278 Santangelo. 100. 483 Schnorr v.A. 211 Saatsoglu-Pariadeli.A. 482. R. J. 323 Schulz. 84–85. 471. 278. 135 Schneider. 135. 30 Saddington. 180. 636.E. J. 388 Saldern. 89 Schäfer. 438 Sage. 361. F. 333–34 Schmitt. 624 Schultz. H. 587 Santalucia. G. 386. 346. M. 562 Schoell. 350. O. 363.T. W. 264.B. 379. C. E. 358–59. 124 Sarnowski. 592 Schindel. 265. W. 149 Salerno. B. 125 Schäfer. M. 301 Schuchhardt.W.H. 432 Salamito. 82 Said. 101. 541–43 Sartori. 527. Carolsfeld. 561. 223.L.G. U. 489 Schumacher. C. 357 Schürer. 562–63 Schaefer. 428–30. C.G. 486 657 Schefold. 336. A. 442. K.A. dos. 43 Scaliger. 328 Schneider. 559 Santos Palma. 482. 345. B. 274 Schneider. 162–63 Schäublin. 199 Schröder. 375–77. 401. E. 375. 480–81.-M. M. O. von. E. 610. 525. E. R. 14. 394–95. V. E. A. 326. 26.. 594 Schopf. 355–57.H. H.C. H. 98. 186. 564 Schenkenveld. C. M. 182 . 288–89. E. 583 Salmasius (de Saumaise). 467–68. 636 Schäfer. 539. 458. 80–81. B. 232. 418. Th. F. 165. J. M. M. 346. C.H. M. 486 Shifman.L. 230 Stroux. 291 Sinclair.M. P. 482. G. H. 92. 263 Souza. D. S. M. M.S. 352. 536 Stauner. U.K. G. 294. 142. 496–97 Setaioli. D. 569 Stein. 223–24 Stemplinger. 300.R. 630–31 Swindler. 128. 317–18. J. 191. 145–47. 164. A. 154. 611 Spaeth.A. H. M. M. 427. 313 Sherwin. C. 361 Silvestrini. 125 Stepper. M. O. 226 Speidel. A. 200 Sherwin–White. Thompson H. 489. M. E. 168 Stewart. 348. 502 Stone. 44–45. 322. 216. H. 6. P. 403 Simpson. 417 Sorokina. 122–23. 44 Strunk. S.A. 151–52.C. 253 Stehouwer. 192–95. K.E. 12–13. 639 Soini. 633 Spadea Noviero. 615 Suolahti. 496 Solin. 132. C. 210. 361 Stephanus. R. 126–27. T. 237–38. M. C. 166 Swan. 44. 133–34. P. P. 190.S. 21–22. G. 149–50. 470 Simon. 235 SÅniez≥ewski. 306 Słapek. 87. 437. 9. 451. 124. K. K. 307–9. 128. 353 Stangl. 179.H. 611 Simshäuser. 190. de. 189 Skok. 4 Sydenham. 94 Straten. 332 Stumpf. R. 583 Sidebottom. A. 189–90. 628 Skutsch. 238. 386 Spadoni Cerroni. 359. 496. 196 Stengel.V. G. 418. F. H. 179–80. 361 Sensi. 459. 187.N. 375. 372. 377. 128–29. 225. 128. H. 397–98. 353–55. 544–46. 97 Short. 549. 525. 236. (= J. 276 Sillig. 552 Seuffert. R. 210. 159.K. 632–33 Sommo. 556 Strobel. I. 496–97 Steiner. 610 Sigonius. F. 271 Ship. B. 141–42. 295. 554–55 Sordini. 369–70. 87. 520 Steinby. 249. 565 Shackleton Bailey. 313.E.H. 351. 131.F.G. P. 366 Stump. J. 623 Shanidze. 314. 99 Stein. 354. 624 Silvestrius. 274 Stählin. 460. O.J.S. 630 Seyrig. 583 Sutherland. 37. H.N. 464 Severy. E. 107 Strachan-Davidson. 435. 551 Stewart. 145 Sellers.Yu. 103 Stoffel. 559. 361 Skerret. M. 330. E. 363–64 Steuding. 402. D. 394–95. R. 141–43.M. 57–58. 104 Spagnolo Garzoli. 587 Swoboda. 55. 548. P. C. 451 . 458 Smith. B. 343. G. E. 430 Speidel. J. P. 576 Sherk. 601 Stocker.R. 223. 4 Sivan. R. H. C. 534. 374–75. 346. 558. 365–66. 81.M. B. 545. W. F. 496–97 Susini. 308–9 Skalet. A.) 342. 440.T. Z. 320–22. E. 275 Sinclair. 385 Sjögren. 124.D. 344. van.658 Indices Sordi. W. 247. A. Stanley B. 406. 232. 311. 407 Sicherman. 271 Shatzman. 352. E. A. 548 Setälä. G. 15. 361. I. 165. 220–21. 185. E. A. C. 486 Stein. J. 107. G. 184. 223. 216. 227. 221–22. 636 Stern. 208–9 Staveley. 163–64 Sehlmeyer.G.E. B. T. H. 439. I. 138. 39. 561. 186. 184. 255. 3–4. 361 Stockton. 311. 199 Silberman.P. 577 Sini. 487 Stephanis. G. 282–83 Stegmann. I. 450 Spaul. A. P. 132 Sumner. 225–28 Stadter. 218. 629 Staples. K. 177 Shaw. Mario 17. 630 Thurmond. 361 Teodorsson. 568 Urban. 317 U Ubaldini. 361 Thomas. I. 527 Tozzi. 530–32 Trevisiol. R. H. A. 399. E. 165–68. 13.N. J. 22. 256 Untermann. 356–57. 472 Urbach. S. 346. W. 137–38. P. 152.) 194 Urlichs. R. 131–32 Turcan.W. F. J. E. W. 410 Van Andringa. 321. 366. 385 Ulf. J. 635. 140.) 263.A. F. 321 Tibiletti. 23. 558. 319. 601–2. P. A. 584 Treggiari. A. R.J. L. 403 Turnebus. N. 463 V 659 Vaahtera.J. 463–64 Valvo.. 487 Thulin. J. 94. 268. jr.-P. 469–70 Ussani. 539. 565. V. 393. 593. 616 Touchefeu-Meynier. G. M. 277. 495. G. 245 Urlichs L.G. 524. 428–29. 154.R. 568–71 Tansey. 271–72 Tsirpanlis. K. 173. 638 Tatum. E. L. 564–66 Turmair. 432. 208 Tucci.J. 361 Trebilco. 504. 513. M. 288–90. 91. 15. 386. 353. F.H.(K. 403 Tibiletti Bruno. 5 Tchernia. 30. 293 Toher. 562 Taglialatela Scafati. 89–90.B. A. 3. 191 Torelli.L. M. 346. R. 569 Treese. von. 330 Technau. 124 Thomas. 361 Tran. 247–48 Tsereteli. 168. I. 328 Tod. C. 149.J. J. 37. M. R. 12 Tassini P. 189 Vahlen.N. 85–86 Traill. 136–38. 38. E. 88. 249. G. G. 346. S. 610 T Täubler. A. 523 Vallet. A. 580–87. 37. 284. 508. 30 Thalheim. 449 Vacher. 139. 206. 179 Tomaschek. 521. 604. 199.M. 522. P. 533–34 Taubenschlag. see also Bruno Tillemont.(V. 432. 560 Taylor. 463 Thiel. 177. 604 Taylor. 582. 554. R.L. M. J. P. J. 622 Tarpin. 44–45 Valavanis. 357. 35. 410. 44. 171. 293. 314. 526–28.R. 563 Travis. 466. 263 Tomaschitz. 480. 385. 445 Tränkle. 378–83. 12. 634 Tuchelt. 178. 79. 36. 186. W. 184. 492. 30. 28. 270–72 Thuillier. R. 275. B. 633 Väänänen. 8. D. K. Y. 279–80 Thomasson. 53 Tagliafico. 273–75. 32. 496 Talbert. 270. 3–5. R. B.Y. 389. 522 Torelli. R.O. 521 Thomsen. G. 594 Ungern-Sternberg. M. 535 Thommen. C. 269–70. 271 Todisco. 199 Tyrrell. 578. M.-C. 39. W. A. 576 Tautil.C. 83. 456 Tannenbaum. 243 Ughelli. J. Marina 187. 354. 361 Toumanoff. 341–42. L. 525. 350 Thallon. 385 Tilly. 271 Tsereteli.S. L. 82 Thilo. C. 243. 387. R. 397.Indices Syme. 389 Valpy. 591. 438–40. P.H. 637 Taglietti. V. 134. 418. 310. 374. S. 562. 447 Thomson. Lenain de. J. 618 Tassi Scandone. C. 104–5.–V. 272–73 Townend.E. 410.F. 520. 247 Ursatus (Orsato). T. O. 511. 597–99. S. K. 4. 465–66. 618 . 263. 12. 332. R. 140. J. 479 Valeton. 538 Thysius. 234. 445. 17.E. 88 Tondriau. 115. 145.C. 361. 84–85 Watson. F. 280 Volkmann. A. 133. 188 Vermaseren. K. 61 Wallace-Hadrill. 158. W. H. 439 Vetranius. 200–5. A. 555–57 Verstegen. D.660 Indices W Wachter. G. 471 Wallace. 135. A.Q. 114 Waitz. K.S. 138. 418. 145. 570 Van Ooteghem. 508.W. 392–93 Vangaard. 33. 419 Van Gennep.W. 365–66 Venedikov. 449. 279 Vössing. 575–76 Wesch-Klein. 429–30 Wescher. 445 Walbank.S. M.L.G. 624 Waurick. W. 535. H. 197 Vretska. 473–74. 48. 233. C. K.J. 32. G. C.-C. 435–38 Veith. 274. K. 411 Wallinga. R. 348. R. M. 80–81. 483. 343. 327–28 Vogel. 293. 133 Way. C. J. 343. 532 Vonder Mühll. 42–44. 371–72. 621 Welles. W. 125 Vons. 458.W. 213 Wessner. C. 323 Van Wonterghem.P.S. 139. 309 Vera. E. 546–47. 277 Versnel. L.R. G. 205 Watt. 403 Volpe. P. C. 308 Wessely. M. 162.–W. 30. F. G. 263 Vavassori. G.W. 220. E. 324 . J. 30 Van Buren. U. 361 Vasilkov. 327 Vidman. R. 632 White. M. 376. J. 99. 569 Vernadsky. 576 Vernant. K. A. 476 Venturini. 164 Waltzing. 601 Weinrib. E. 30. 92.P. F. 383–84. 562–64. 218.H. 636 Van Minnen. 103. D. F. J. C. 205. 632 Wes. 127. 355. 464 Vetter. 211 Weissenborn. 587 Van Den Hout. G. 279. S. 344. 138 Weinstock. 162. 416. 22. 463. 239 Webster. 301 Walters. 457 Van Wageningen. 569 Ward-Perkins. 609 Werner. 94 White. 369. 26–27. J. 626 Wackernagel. 396–98 Volterra. 197 Villanueva Puig. A. 352 Wesenberg. J. M. 387 Vigourt. 319–20. 324 Vogel-Weidemann.J. 191 Vendries. 379 Vismara. 327. 576 White. 438 Vollkommer. 407 Veyne. 386 Voisin.–W. 30. 311. 359 Vollmer. I. F. 617 Wander.B. P. 211. A. 361 Vorberg. S. 412. B. G. 45. 124.A. 557 Vendryes. 460 Vittinghoff. 48. G. C. 205. E. Ya. 601 Weiss.–L.–P. E. 576 Wellesley. T. 464. P. 485 Weege. 369. 26. 547. 218. F. 523. U. 562 Ville. M. 82 Welch. 235. P. 290–91 Wellmann. 459–62 Victorius (Vettori). 361 Warrior. J. J. 459 Wegner.H. M. 468 Warmington.F. K. V. 206 Weeber. 318 Vermes. 555 Watson. C. R. P. 28. A. 185 Walde. 555 Van Haeperen. 487 Welwei. 459–62. 163. I. 468 Varone. S. 617. A. A. 356. 488 Wardle. 28–30. P. 95.F. 317. K.V. 182. H. 23–25. J. 365–66. 361 Weiler.J.B. 186. 301.M. 278 Wagenvoort. 237. 378 Vogler. 78–87. F. 380–83. 442 Voci. 308–9. G. 350. 158–60. 184. I. 628 Westermann. G. G. 489. 614 Walt. 564 Verzár Bass. H. M. 314. 484 Visconti. E. 472–73. 634 Walter U. 274. A. 140. 105. E. von. A. 29. 157–58 Witschel. E. 226. 627 Zetzel. 568 Wiedemann. 527 Zovato. 242 Zaccaria–Ruggiu. 170 661 . C. 625 Wissowa. 27. J. 247 Zanker. S. G. 547. 631 Zuev. K. 275–76 Ziegler. 244–47 Wilson. 352 Wightman. J. 108. 132 Wülker. 482–83 Wolff.M. R. H. 411 Zamboni. 636 Zehnacker.W. A. 587 Wroth. 164 Z˘migryder-Konopka. 284. 583 Worp. Ö.E. 510. C.A. 614 Zangemeister. 398. 576 Wilcken. E. 255. L. 243–45 Zennari. G. P. 549 Zuccotti. 30 Zack. 591–92. V. 420–21. 458 Wierzbowski. 211.M. A.S. C.G. 613 Yilmaz. 3.H. L. P. 210 Zgusta. K. 577 Zumpt. 60. 369. 255 Wickert. 490 Wilhelm. 41. J.R. 102. L 265. 527. 487. 129. 515 Wuilleumier. 456–57 Zerbini. 624 Wilamowitz-Moellendorf. 290 Wittmann. 99.-H. 293. G. G. G. 495. 601 Ze ˘ lazowski. 429 Wittfogel. U. 373. 109. 46 Zaja∫c. 617 Winkler. 459 Z Zaccaria.L. 537–38. T. 85 Wirz. 99.E. R.P. 485. V. W. 443–48 Zandberg. A. 418.Indices White. 352. C. 455. R. P. 112–13. 458.A. 359 Wirth. 349. 358 Whitehorse. 621. Z. 496. 268 Wright. 47 Wilmanns. 620 Williams.G. 355. (= K. C. 139. A. 632 Wille. E. T. K. 633 Williams. G. G. 363. 343. W. 107. 570 Willis. 580.T.G. 13. W. J. 41 Zielinåski. 427 Zawadzki. 313 Zecchini. 493 Zubar. R. 475 Zaccaria. 95–96 Wohlmayr. 107 Wilson. L. G. 611 Wölfflin. 475 Zanda. J. 208–9. T. N.J. 147 Ziegler. L. 91. 187 Wood. M.C. 347.M. 293 Zara. 546 Willems. 18–19. 245–46. 349.) 124 Zwierlein-Diehl. A. H. 492. E. 257 Zió¬kowski. 595 Wistrand. J. 301. B. 258 Wuensch (Wünsch). 376 Zimmer. U. 113 Zorzetti. P. 246 Wilmanns. 266 Zimmermann. A. 361.C. 165. S. 197 White. 585. 319–21 Wiseman. 542 Y Yakobson. 507. B. 428 Wojaczek. E. 271. 279 Wiesehöfer. 496 Zavaroni. K. 128. 212–13 Whittaker. 33. F. A. 541–43 Zucchelli. 362.G. S. G. J. 487 Wunderlich. 534. G. T. 621. J. 594 Zió¬kowski. 37–38. A. G. 41 Zimmer. 520. 310 Zumpt. 246 Wikander. M. S. 501–3. 576–77 Ziethen. M. J. C. 67: 89 1. p. 11): 346 3. 175A: 212 Anthologia Latina (ed.12: 362 Appianus Bellum Civile 1.(14).5.(41).(40). 176. line) 1. 160 7.2. 85.2: 204 Ampelius 24: 151.5: 204 23. 150 2. O.17 (= 3. Anderson) 1.62: 151 6.89: 396 2. 160 6.21: 161 5.6.87: 133.16: 26 11.5 (p.7): 321 Florida 14.7 (p.15: 207 Metamorphoses (ed.560–62): 32 Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed.58–(16). Ribbeck2) 92: 46 Alciphron 2.310: 151.78: 143 Adomnán Vita Sancti Columbae (ed.20): 350 Ammianus Marcellinus 18.45: 315 Iberike 44: 55 89: 172 Syriake 17: 79.25: 214–15 Aelianus Historia Animalium 2.O and M.21: 161–62 Aeschylus Persae 304: 265 Aesopica Vita Aesopi G 16 (p. 230 2.18.6. line 3 Eberhard: 196 Afranius Comica (ed. 63.24: 150 2.(16).4: 204 25. 228. Riese) 490a.8.96: 162. Helm.68–70: 91–93. page.23: 143 6.O.(3).3: 473 . PL 129.9.(24). line) 22.4): 479 10.662 Indices II. I. 113–14 2. 26.15 (p. 81. p.2): 479 6. lines 11–12 Perry): 196 Vita Aesopi W 1 (p. Endt) 2.95: 150 2. 82 21: 80 23: 80 67–68: 250 Apuleius Apologia (ed.6: 197 18. A.778: 151.100–1: 150 2.48: 162 6. Auctores Accius Brutus 17–38 (Warmington 2.14: 92 26.3: 113 25. R. Helm.223: 151 10.1. Ancient Sources 1.12 (p.16): 98 76 (p. 174 38: 151 Anastasius bibliothecarius Sancta synodus octava. R.165: 241 4.19: 622 2.4: 349 de Genio Socratis 1.473: 149 3. A. 40. line 4 Perry): 196 Vita Planudea vel Accursiana.13: 92 20.162: 241 2.24: 26 7. page. 3–4: 231 3.6.16. 596 6.2: 240 1.1: 240 2.2: 240 1.12–13.50.21 (in Corn.28: 240 3.2: 230 3.Indices Arnobius adversus (Gentes) Nationes 2.3–7: 241 1.92: 197 2. Pack) 1.5–18 (in Corn.17–28: 83 1.49–50: 197 1.16–20 (in Corn.2–3: 230 3.): 426 23.3 (in Scaur.99.2: 230 3. 108–109 19.4.): 434 7 (in Pis. page.15–16: 400 1. 396 21.A.4: 238 3.5–7: 152 1.85. 558.18–19: 400 1.38: 546 de Musica 3.101.1: 558 contra Gaudentium 1.): 135 79. 614 5.4: 506.8 (in Mil.): 134 Athenaeus 1.27: 204 Caesar Bellum Civile 1.2: 484 Arrianus Periplus 11: 263–64.23.9: 559 19.5–31.): 135 34.3: 229 3.): 141 31.5: 131 1. line) 3.1: 546 Aurelius Victor 35.1: 247 3.19.31–33: 131 3.): 177.19a–f: 351 12.3: 152 1.25.17. Mil. R.17.26–27 (in Corn.3: 238 3.547d–548b: 348–49.5: 240 1.28: 231 3.55: 349 4.6.): 133 76.45: 197 3.29.30.79: 514 1. A.): 134 74.10–11 (in Mil.34.24: 204 6.): 195 60.3: 241 2.13: 282.2–23.7–12 (in Pis.15 (in.4.21–22: 400 1.18–21: 235 2. 275–76 Artemidorus Oneirokritika (ed.42: 546 6.): 533 55.78: 336 1.23.): 204 30.36: 172 3.15.2: 160 1.11–15 (in Scaur.9: 336 Asconius (ed.7: 204 41.30.2: 230 3.22 (in Mil.3: 190 2.5: 251 663 .33–40: 514 3.87.6: 231 Bellum Gallicum 1.15.): 113 79. Clark.8 (in Scaur.a–b: 348 1.22–23 (in Corn.12: 400 1.6.2: 240 1.101.): 31.1–2: 399 1.3: 236 2. 351 Augustinus de Civitate Dei 6.): 627 77 (in Corn.89.6.9: 153 2. 15: 83 4.): 141 52–53 (in Mil.24: 204 Ausonius Gratiarum Actio 3.1: 241 1.27: 400 1. 1–2: 116 48.12. 238–39 32: 171 35: 171 44–45: 156.6–8: 393 53.2: 341 ad Marcum Filium (ed.3: 235 Bellum Hispaniense 17.19.22: 260 62.57.47: 363 11.6: 258 Cato de Agri Cultura 14.1: 241 42. 77: 286 p.3: 274–75 73.1: 235 77. 490 69.4.58.43: 363 10.41.2: 255 44: 231 48–65: 234 53.40.3–4: 10 40 (index): 134–35 40.4: 260 56. H. 162 88–89: 159.21: 82–83 36.54: 264 38.4: 389.6: 260 76.6: 7.40–41: 126 36.33.40.5: 159 42.1: 159 42.1: 454 73.1–3: 258 75 [76].3: 159 43.32.1–3: 200 46.18.13.26: 433 Cassius Dio 19.21.2: 150 40.1: 622 40.36: 422 .2–11: 616 51.3.22: 473 73.5: 122 36.1: 630 56. Duemmler) 10.7: 251 157 252 236 Indices 11.21. 80: 49 Orationes (ORF4.7: 16–17 60 [61].5.6: 5. 128 36.3: 258 73.26.1: 235 61. 230 86: 158. 471–72.3–4: 465. 174 96: 173 Bellum Alexandrinum 26.1–2: 274 69.4.3–5: 125.49. 158 55: 232 56: 171 57: 156 61: 158 81: 230 82–83: 157 84: 162.3: 134–35 41.2: 234 78.4: 4.5–6: 156 43.15.3: 159 43.13.20. 58–62: 78 fr.51. E.4.4.3: 260 56. H. 232.4: 261 20: 235 25–26: 219–20 Calpurnius Flaccus Declamationum excerpta 24: 526.36: 214 12.58.20.24.4–34.664 4. Malcovati) fr. ed.3: 235 57. 631 58.33.1–2: 390 50. Jordan) p. 59: 95 [Caesar] Bellum Africum 1: 232 2: 236 4: 156 28: 156.5: 235 54.38. 229.21–24: 363 Cassiodorus Varia 1.1: 639–40 55.18: 330 12. 542 Carmina Salisburgensia (ed.45.51.19: 80 19.29.15.24.2–3: 261 19: 200 19. 310.5: 489 1. 256 3.18–20: 260 1. 310 5. Keil) 79. H.3.4: 131 9. ed.2: 309 4. 135: 78 fr.18: 260 4.31: 5 665 .7.10.3: 238 4.1.2: 176 4.6: 317 5.9: 620 1.17. 170 1.20.1.15.16.11.23. Barwick.9. 150: 86 fr.1: 240 8.11. 141 3.13. 318 13. 177–81: 78 Origines (HRR2. = 125–26 K. 173–75: 307 fr.2: 182 4.21.2: 238–39 11.1. 66: 80 fr. = 200 K.11. 124: 47 Catullus 52: 615 116. Caecilium 55: 546 de Divinatione 1.12A. 21: 46 fr.1. 86: 27 fr.: 345 246 B.2: 142 pro Balbo 21: 191 Brutus 56: 100 95: 622 106: 28 107: 101 212: 101. 314–15. 147: 78 fr.Indices fr. Peter) fr. 128: 419 fr.4: 615 4.: 95–96 260 B.22.15. = 190 K.4: 531 4.15.1: 152 11.2: 307.9.12A.1: 518 4.17. 313 5.17–18: 142–43.7: 92 Charisius (ed.8–10: 241 10.8: 318 2.21.3–7 B.4: 134 1.2: 309–10. 22: 47 fr.13: 632 6.: 465 162. H.12.4: 131 5.6: 175 8.3: 534 ` 1.3: 155 9.13–29 B.32: 237.15.17.28: 530 1.5. 149: 76 fr.3: 308.2: 238 11.16.52: 311 14.: 13 160. 315 5.2: 241 10.12: 9.5: 309–11.3: 241 11. 238–39.2: 251 8.1.17.14. 145–46.2. 147 213: 152 262: 28 ad Brutum 1.4: 159 10.: 25 255–56 B.3: 629 11. C. 317 5.6–11 B.14.7: 311 6.4: 629 4. 151. 148: 75 fr.2: 229. = 196 K. = 122 K.1.4: 519 5.21: 251 pro Cluentio 46: 425 49: 425 56: 425 116: 121 Divinatio in Q.4.5: 247 6. 130: 47. 17.9: 137.20.: 20–21.21.8: 629 pro Caecina 36: 246 in Catilinam 1. 23–28 Cicero de Amicitia 64: 261 ad Atticum 1. 150 7.2: 440 16. 78 fr.27: 531 1.: 344 156 B.20. 2: 142 8.14: 176 9.1: 174 9.37: 29 2.17. Watt) fr. 254 1.666 1. 539 de Domo 35: 611 38: 135 40: 503 123: 150 124: 104 Epistularun fragmenta (ed.45: 426 1.72: 16. 531–532 2.26: 155 de Legibus 1.8: 154 8.S.22.98: 334 1.8.8.109: 101 2.159: 28 2.18.2. 170 1. 153): 158 ad Familiares 1.1: 142 Indices de Fato 8: 550 de Finibus 2.4: 146 8.14.92: 432 1. 517.58: 417 pro Fonteio 46: 250 de Haruspicum Responso 12: 141 21: 531 37: 534 48: 503 de Imperio Cn.42: 517.2.268: 78 3.5: 175 5.1.53: 29 2.66: 45 de Oratore 1.124: 13 1.47–49: 140 3.109: 101 3. 519. W.19.10–11: 507 2.51: 251.35–36: 529 2. 539 2.33: 531 2.118: 529 1.16: 237 6.2.239: 196 2.107–8: 3–4 1.92: 374 5.132: 7 2.4.3: 38 11.19: 142 .43: 38.11.73: 170.74: 170.1–2: 301 10.24: 611 2.71: 16.69: 6 2.2: 375 3.5–6: 137–38.1–2: 159 9.3: 432 7. 170 2.104: 15 1. 141.44–45: 32 1. 531 2.7: 76 pro Ligario 1: 247 pro Milone 55: 545–46 pro Murena 27: 139 42: 121 46–47: 39 51: 39 de Natura Deorum 1.7.1.23.3: 629 12.12.2: 250 10.6: 28 1. 432.70: 11 2. 539 2.79: 489 2.20–21: 45.32: 10 2. 503.50: 8 2.5 (p. 531.3: 426 2.9: 531 de Officiis 1.7: 253 2.101: 6 1.6: 233 3. 382 8.1–2: 459 7. Pompei 20: 251 29: 172 35: 50 37: 205 47–48: 158 de Lege Agraria 2.1: 375 2.1: 153 4. 539 2.85: 17. 170. 1: 188 Columella de Re Rustica 1.38: 251 13.1.4–5: 256 5.5.11–12: 116 14.147: 124 II.36–38: 116 in Pisonem 8: 109 38–39: 117 44: 116–17 54–55: 116 83: 546 88: 205 de Provinciis Consularibus 15: 117 25: 117 ad Quintum Fratrem 1. 558 667 Claudius Claudianus de Bello Gothico 555: 455 Carmina Minora 26.20: 44 5.2.3.36: 32 II.1.104: 336 II.4: 353 Codex Iustinianus 12.20: 29 4.45: 315 II.109: 142 3.18: 552 post Reditum ad Quirites 20: 251 de Senectute 44–46: 23 pro Sestio 33: 517 71: 116 124: 141 129: 282 131: 629 Topica 90: 163 Tusculanae Disputationes 1.3.122.5.9: 311 1.15.62: 24 II.19: 150 14.51: 91.2: 519 pro Rabirio 22: 399 29: 252 de Re Publica 1.40: 447 II.51: 250 11.1: 188 Codex Theodosianus 6.1.59: 158.5.1. 238 2.77: 489 in Vatinium 5: 233 11: 233 28: 144 in Verrem II.5: 205 8.22.58: 29 2.5.75: 484 Panegyricus de Quarto Consulatu Honorii 154–55: 204 de Sexto Consulatu Honorii 621–39: 485 Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata 4. 101 5. 1–2: 323 1.35: 233 II.81: 521 2.22–29: 116 14.7: 317 .57: 125 II.13: 318 3.Indices Philippicae Orationes 2.26: 238 4.7.8: 506.5.5.8: 188 8.202: 233 II.18: 29 2.52 [53].3: 76 2.1.38: 176 4.117: 309 II.4.1.114: 309 II.8: 255 3.64: 546 II.5. praef.24: 247 II. 97.14: 124 14.1.4.73: 546 [Cicero] Epistula ad Octavianum 7: 250 Claudianus Mamertus de Statu Animae 2.12: 281 6. 22–23: 99 16.4: 219 12. Cent.: 129 49.16: 340 9.16.6.22: 355 Dionysius Halicarnassensis Antiquitates Romanae 1.5: 10 2. p.16. p.35: 233 40. P.4: 80 29.1.1: 546 10.16.5: 526 Indices 49.45–48: 278 10.6.2.36.3.165–66: 218 6.13.2: 40 29.10: 328 10.11.9. p.pr. 1.pr.5: 256 50.668 7.8: 323 8.86.24: 255 49.: 27 10.20: 214 7. 15 2.3–39.6: 340 8. 911.pr. 1.10: 233 6.9: 81 34/35.1: 127 37.5.1.7: 317 47. Goetz) 2.1–4: 4.15.16.5: 15 20.2–4: 17 2. 183 (Diogen.5.11. 183): 28 Hecyra prol. 2 (p.4–12: 40 6.15.608: 308 Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum 1.4: 26 10.49): 339 1.9: 161 8.3: 317 8. 19 (Zenob.5.7: 340 48.15.6.2.481: 218 7.20: 233 5.1.4: 200 Dioscorides Pedanius De Materia Medica 4.2: 101 36.5.5.2: 47 4.2.39: 355 Dictys Cretensis 1.19: 27 13.22.2.262: 308 7. Cent.68: 545 Domitius Marsus fr.5: 346 Digesta 1.2.4.2: 233 6.5. 4 (Courtney): 198 Donatus Commentum Terenti (ed.1–2: 169 2.11–15: 339 Commodianus Instructiones 1.27.5.4.14: 255 5.: 233 . 193): 523 9–10: 48 441: 95 Phormio 48: 628 338: 22 Vita Vergilii 6: 628 Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum (ed.43: 355 6.32: 233 Demosthenes 34. 7 (Fogazza) = fr.1–2: 169–70 3.3: 340 7.182: 142 Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 10.118: 255 Diodorus 3.1.45: 308 6. G.398.3.7.6.7: 479 16.37.14): 339 Curtius Rufus 4.2.6: 233 6.15: 214 7.51: 419 7. Wessner) Adelphoe 981 (p.11.13–14: 391 Diogenes Laertius 2.9. 19: 324 Epicedium Drusi 142: 112 Eudoxos fr. 274): 350 Eusebius de Laudibus Constantini 6. 542 422: 114 424: 102 440: 252 446: 521 454: 17.40.12: 159 1.31.2–3: 218 49: 627 67: 18 71: 188 75: 560 82: 539 85.45.12: 218 111: 366 143: 109 146: 410 158: 279 182: 80 190: 539 196–97: 45–47.47: 490 Eustathius Commentarii ad Homeri Odysseam 11.13.68: 173 2.38.18: 621 6. W.4: 252 2.23: 149 (Iulius) Exuperantius (ed.13.1: 311 2. 513 474: 16. 82.10–12: 467 247: 278 257: 96 268: 519 274: 5 274–76: 467.14: 456 2.23: 346 23.15.65–68: 151 2. 1 (PCG V.23: 218 336: 528 345: 18 356: 86 358: 538.8: 255 669 . p.26: 214 Florus 1.21.9.3: 490 4.18: 490 Vita Constantini 4. 85 2.33: 549 Frontinus Strategemata 1. 78 200: 113 202: 5 204. 537 316–17: 10 320. N.590: 339 Eutropius 6.2: 490 4. Lindsay) 15: 18 16. 78 224: 15 232: 537 232.17–18: 426 218–19: 45. 99 484/86: 98 Firmicus Maternus Mathesis 3.Indices Ennius Annales 20 Vahlen = 17 Skutsch: 45 77–96 = 72–91: 3–19 84–86 = 79–81: 306 207 = 202: 44 582 = 593: 44 Scaenica 306 Vahlen = 258 Jocelyn: 44 Ennodius Epistulae 56 = 2.14: 66–67.M.544. Zorzetti) 3: 527 Festus (and Paulus) de Verborum Significatu (ed.7.2–3: 334–35 Fragmenta Bobiensia ad Grammaticam Pertinentia Grammatici Latini VIII.20–21: 218 37: 17 39: 464 41. 6–7: 274 111: 419 128.14.240: 419 I. p.1: 258 Hesychius (ed.2: 561 in Zachariam 2.6.6.1: 3. Morel–Buechner): 628 Herodianus 1. 78 4.413: 114 C.13. ed.19: 219 10.134: 139 1.198.14. line) 106. 118: 95 Gromatici veteres (ed.3–5: 173 11.9: 274 17.G.1. 212 : 485 Gellius Noctes Atticae 2. C.17.5–7: 204–5 207: 416 207.16: 100 .9: 25.4.7.20: 317 1.122: 457 1.20–22: 200–1 208.3: 4.27.24 = 161.146 L.114: 139 1. H.136: 139 3.7: 11 14. Latte) A 1231: 338 E 7096: 477 Hieronymus Epistulae 107.5.212: 546 4.24: 75 7.6–7: 27 10. page) 4.230: 425 I. E. = 110 T.1–4: 200–1 208 2–3: 186 Fulgentius Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum 5: 219 6: 486 Furius Bibaculus frg.10: 251 5.2: 210 Glossaria Latina (volume. 1 (FPL.62: 26 Galenus (ed.: 495 I. Courtney): 198 Gaius Institutiones 1.13.10–14: 204 154: 350 174.7. Thulin) I.298: 45.165: 314 I.6: 4.7: 219 9.5: 626 17.111: 139 1.2: 377 13.10: 255–56 1. Van Den Hout 1988.11.9: 38 15. Malcovati) fr.18.(Festus) 216: 218 4. K.3: 15 7.3: 197 16. Kühn) XIV. Lachmann.4: 3.11: 218 5.99: 139 1.7.21–24 : 387 I.26: 200 252 255 204 255 252 Indices 10. K.6.15. page.8: 249 5.10–12: 274 21.670 3.24. ed. Gracchus Orationes (ORF2.14: 22–23 14.13.13: 274 26.8: 4. 3 (ed.258: 419 Helvius Cinna fr. ed. C. 28 9.6.6.12: 479 Historia Apollonii Regis Tyrii 14: 27 Historia Augusta 1 (Hadrianus) 4.6–10: 630 Fronto (ed.10: 4–5 7. 1: 454 5: 454 11 (Pescennius Niger) 3.4: 202 5.21: 332 3.7.185: 151 1.17.195: 151 4.8: 204–5 19 (Maximini Duo) 2–3: 228 2.14–16: 362 3.11: 256 23 (Gallienus) 8.6: 274 15: 205 5 (Verus) 5.5–8: 228 26 (Aurelianus) 15.6–7: 354 15.70–71: 192 2.205–6: 40 11.5: 336 in Matthaeum Homilia 28.37.5: 204 9.1.46–48: 320.4.3.17.2.5.3.1–7: 258 16. 335 1.1–8: 192–95 2.6: 274 4 (Marcus Aurelius) 2.4.1: 204 21.5: 204 21 (Maximus et Balbinus) 2.210: 628 2.98: 567 1.45–46: 311 1.15.2: 258 8 (Pertinax) 1.156: 286 2.19–21: 335 3.5.14: 223 Contra Apionem 2.2–3: 484 7 (Commodus) 13: 247 13.8: 473 16.12–13: 333.10.37.74: 329 2.2.29–33: 589 4.4: 251 28 (Probus) 5: 228 29 (Quadrigae Tyrannorum) 12: 385 Homerus Ilias 3.138–42: 40 Horatius Carmina 1.23–24: 325 1.3: 473 25 (Claudius) 13.Indices 3 (Antoninus Pius) 5.18: 162 3.2.7.5.2: 336 Iosephus Antiquitates Iudaicae 14.2.43: 22 2.5: 257 15.3: 205 9.2: 17 Epistulae 1.10–11: 329 2.47–50: 198 Hyginus De munitione castrorum 11: 237 Ioannes Chrysostomus ad Illuminandos Catecheses 2.10.40–41: 329 Saturae 1.3–5: 256 13 (Caracalla) 6.6: 630 18 (Alexander Severus) 15.501: 526 7.125: 151 14.9–10: 333 1.4: 380 35.37.5.24–25: 567 Bellum Iudaicum 1.140: 151 17.72: 329 1. 325 3.164–65: 362 2.29.34–36: 108 1.6.8.50: 78 Isidorus Etymologiae 8.18: 22 1.16: 211 Iulianus Caesares 329d: 339 671 . 13.270–71: 338 5.9.50–52: 278 1.4: 13 8.87–88: 122 8.10.5–14: 46 1.37.34–37: 254 7.6.9–10: 528 2.40: 14.7: 49 2.4: 250 39.20: 122 8.12–13: 146 13.1.3–5: 216 10.25.1.15.19.17.18.16.672 Iustinus 1.12: 49 5. 170 10.12: 556 5.56.1.2: 549 1.54.6.4: 48 21.19.34.3: 49 5.3–7: 47 1.7.1.414–15: 194 7.4.27.5–10: 258 3.1–14: 40 21.11.14–15: 471 10.6: 50 6.37.2: 252 9.41.5: 49.18: 49 9.5.32.6: 11 7.1: 203 4.15: 542 10.5.8: 49 2.7: 517 1.1.9–10: 640 5.9.136: 22 3.1: 204 11.22.6–7: 259 Indices 3.9: 489 1.26.39.12.10: 99.4.30.15.6: 40.1–2: 251 8.3: 96 22.34.49.46.11: 219 7. 6: 5 Livius 1.7.7: 632 22.1–12: 26 10.5–8: 250 . Licinius Macer (HRR2.24.10: 205 14.21: 49 9.21.2: 48 21.6–10: 12 1.14: 377 10.36.14: 22 6. H.179: 122 12.32.24.4.12: 250 24.35.5: 184.8: 549 1. ed.34.58.2.11: 48–49 10.9: 49 10.16. 164 10.6–7: 627 7.1: 19 1.10: 249 23.37: 461 3.9: 251 11.4–5: 16 7.1: 628 14.10.9: 187 24. 52 10.15.3: 48 21.32.13.75: 122 8.45: 22 8.32.7: 13 8.1.8: 49 5.7.38.35: 283 22.43.14: 258 3.12: 52 10.3.4.2: 49 1.9: 59 23.1: 250 Iuvenalis 1.8: 49 2.10–18: 259 3.5: 333 38.30.32.2: 50 6.5: 113 4.22.12: 259 22.96–101: 568 C.11: 283 7.45.10: 49 3.44.4: 549 1.18.25.1: 122 8. 199 21.37.1: 49 5.8–9: 252 22.5: 51 7.3: 251 15.1: 13 8.2: 251 29. 49 6.5: 49 1.2: 48 22.11–12: 51 6. Peter) fr.5.30.44.26.18.12: 53 9.18.6: 388 1.26.10. 542 30. 73.6: 49 36.17.8.13: 255 26.2: 48–49 34.27.22.33.21.15: 48.5: 70 38.57.7.1: 249 32.26.5: 249 26.8–9: 83 38.3: 50.1: 49 25.3: 426 28.12.4: 259 31. 82.1–6: 80 37.10: 87 30.17–18: 79 36.6. 52.2: 249 31.13.5: 82 36.5: 50 37.9: 79 36.9: 53 30.8.5: 49.3.57.1.49.9: 49 37.1: 79 31.6.7.3–10: 52–53 33.8: 53.5: 50 37. 85 38.9.40.1–8: 66 37.8.6: 53 30.29.9.17: 249 37.12.5: 80 37.30: 79 36.1–8: 51.16.4. 81 37.23.7: 80 37.7–58.46.27.10: 52 26.5: 48 37.6: 81 37.1: 79 36.14: 49 32.14: 52 33.4–7: 51 37.5.9–58.11–12: 526.21.49–50: 43 37.11.25.14: 60 26.7–8: 52.1–6: 52.8.4: 249 31.1: 250 33.7.1.7: 49 29.9.21. 60.1: 80 38.52.8: 233 26.4–11: 79 36.58.31.11–12: 53 30.26.2–3: 108–9 34.16.11–12: 261 34. 80 37.45.59. 50 30.36.40.4: 58 34.25.51.15.1: 60 28.13: 252 35. 83 38.31.3: 49 30.6: 50 35.27–29: 79 36.23.1–11: 47 38.11: 255 36.17.7–8: 80 37.48–49: 47.12: 7 25.7: 85 37.1.5.11: 249 32.4: 321 37.16.3: 259 32.50.17: 50 30.34–35: 79 36. 81 37.11.12.33.28.25.4–7: 83 38.1: 53 31.9.6: 255 30.5: 80 37.53.30–32: 60 26.28.10–16: 60 26.38.1: 50 37.4: 83 673 .Indices 24.6–7.49.4: 249 37.47.13–14: 82 36.1: 49 32.9.1.1–7: 56 34.3: 249 37.48.29.11.1–4: 63 36.3.2–7: 49 25.29–31: 60 25.5: 49 25.57. 79 36.1: 83 38.1–3: 81 38.59.38.9..24.21.47.2: 49 36.35.11: 50 33.7: 49 32.4: 53 30.3: 58 34.21.2.21: 92 25.48.9–10: 68 38. 81 37.50.1–5: 51 37.53.5–8: 79 35.30.4: 81 37.7: 96 31.6: 49 34.12.4: 249 30.3–7: 52 33.27.27.6: 81 37.47.14.5: 249 36. 473: 151 4.3: 50 39.14.277: 142 10.40–41.2: 52–53 38.5: 247 43.1–3: 74.489–91: 255 Lucianus Alexander 50: 344 de Morte Peregrini 21: 632 24: 632 Lucilius 12–17 Marx = 14–18 Krenkel: 28 394–95 = 412–13: 78 1347 = 1375: 28 Lucretius 2.56.24.4: 50 40.4.311: 151 6.25.10.29: 7 40.7: 50 44.35.410: 142 9.9.35.19.10.11: 252 45.89: 158 8.4: 612 40.21.62: 333 10.42.9: 50 44.44.36. 17 (Warmington): 344 Lucanus 1.5.9.4–5: 86 39.5: 87 39.23.6: 75.49.25.8.69–78: 333–34 10.3: 50 38.13–14: 85–86 38.35.10.3–7: 78 40.43.38.43–44.16. 82 38.17.7: 86 39.9–11: 84 38.35.4: 50 40.3–6: 85–86 38.51.674 38.44.3: 84 38. 82 38.8: 52 42.2: 50 Indices 45.3: 259 43.14: 170 41.46.55–60: 333 10.17: 76 39.60: 332 10.44.8: 53 38. 160 7.43.593–94: 323 6.25.5: 204 39.8: 7 39.9.3: 468 42.24. 158.7: 86 41.9–10: 83 39.8–13: 74 38.14: 85 40.4.23.40.2: 50 42.45.7: 84 38.788–89: 151.3: 50 38.8: 250 40.13.28.1.5: 50 45.56.43.3: 398 39.13.2: 85 38.4: 252 45.670: 178 2.11: 84 38.12–13: 86 39.27.8: 50 38.5: 50 41. 60 Livius Periochae 38: 86 48: 50 55: 97 107: 151 111: 250 113–14: 150–51.223: 151 8.126–28: 158 1.2: 623 44.5.4–21: 43.1: 85 38.18.2: 50 42.37.5: 78 41.9.36.11: 85 38.4: 87 40.1–9: 40–41 38. 173 114: 173 119: 250 Livius Andronicus Odissia fr.1–11: 84 38.357–60: 334 10.1–5: 78 40.339–40: 323 2.600–60: 589 .14.11: 49 45.14: 50 39. 17: 99 3.12: 327 5.1.71: 362 de Spectaculis 29. Johannes de Magistratibus 2.7.61.165–71: 348 5.158: 363 Lysias fr.1–10: 22–23 2.5: 22 5.8: 531 1.666: 162 4.3: 194 Somnium Scipionis 1.3: 295 6. 3B.7. Page) 1.4.48: 324 5. W.14. 125–26 Minucius Felix Octavius 26.14 (PL 41.177: 447 675 Meleager of Gadara The Greek Anthology.112: 22 2.S.540–41: 325 Martialis Epigrammata 1.34–35: 32 1.3: 207–8 de Mensibus 4. 559 850: 46.15–16: 22 13.14: 212.48. 214 3.362–64: 115 39 = 59 = FGrHist.L.738: 207 Mela 1.2.51: 329 13.2: 336 Macrobius Saturnalia 1.16.47–48: 590 Memnon 35–36 = 51–52 = FGrHist.5: 47 1.960: 436 5.177: 507 7.Indices 2.M. Gow and D.664: 162 4.2: 250 Pelopidas 3.12: 475 5. 17 (Thalheim): 350 Macarius Homiliae Spirituales 12.F.92: 329 14.5.5: 527 3.11: 625 11. 841): 629 Naevius Bellum Punicum fr.6.4: 143–49 Vitae Epaminondas 7.1: 629 Timotheus 1.16.2: 147 Manilius 4. 2–4 Warmington: 5 (Cornelius) Nepos Atticus 18.28: 546 2.6. 78 867–68: 106 Notitia Dignitatum Occ.68: 22 3.19: 518 2.59.114: 187 2.1. 25 Strzelecki = fr. 42: 444 .13. Lindsay) 845: 559 848: 173.7. p.18: 338 12.3: 251 Timoleon 5.366: 115.45–61: 507 2.7: 24 14. Hellenistic Epigrams (ed.4: 196 3.215. A.3–4: 549 9.146–67: 513 Lydus.28.2–8: 484 Martianus Capella 1.825–28: 322 5.1: 634 de Miraculis Sancti Stephani promartyris 1.3: 251 Nonius (ed.4.1150–52: 322 3.10: 344 6. 3B. 3: 324 .4: 198 28.4: 354 Persius 2.10.9: 457 38.9: 434 2.5: 546 30.2: 211 Panegyrici Latini (ed.7: 625 58.7: 329 80.721: 468 4. fab.16: 268 5.10.14: 259 5.A.37: 444 5.14: 434 3.13.26.6: 233 Philostratus Vita Apollonii 7.9.239–40: 467 6.6: 354 6.375: 5 Heroides 20.731–34: 467 4.676 Obsequens 14–15: 259 20: 258–59 38: 259 51: 260 Orosius 2.12: 109 69.45–47: 550 Fasti 1.33: 105 Petronius Satyricon 18.130: 190 4.235–37: 467 6.1: 310 105.12.5: 546 24.1: 482 Ars Amatoria 1.38: 371 3. 79: 355 Pacuvius Inc.2.4: 194 Phaedrus Fabulae 1.9.11–14: 210 4.16.16.58: 444 Pausanias Graeciae Descriptio 6.2: 258 4.13.32: 339 Vitae Sophistarum 534: 311 Phrynichus Praeparatio Sophistica (ed.47: 346 4.33–41: 197 5. de Borries) p.22.13.70: 550 3.47–48: 122 Indices Paulus Diaconus Historia Langobardorum 2.13.10: 503 50. R.59: 444 6.593–94: 128 3.13: 346 4.1–2: 550 4.16. J.805–6: 468 4.15: 27 47. Mynors) III (XI).10–19: 548 Appendix Fabularum 13 [15].801–49: 4 4.3.21: 129 Tristia 4.595: 548 Epistulae ex Ponto 4. 11–12 Warmington: 344 Trag.2.12: 259 4.30: 107 5.3–4: 151 Ovidius Amores 2.1: 114 6. 186 Ribbeck2 = 190 Warmington: 92 Palladius de Agricultura 4.488–89: 372 ex Ponto 4.205: 482 Metamorphoses 10.817: 19 6.B.2: 92 85.15.9–10: 484 4. 223: 16 9. 7 Peter (= 14 Forsythe = 9 Beck–Walter): 24 fr.130: 214 9.107: 377 3.87: 374 35.202: 96 11.130: 433 3.46: 384 3.171: 613 10.108: 330 19. Della Casa) fr.49: 409.64: 146 34.210: 323 13.10: 251 22.131: 441 3.20: 346 27. A.100: 343 35.142–43: 17 2.166: 197 21.96: 346 3.32: 249 34.76: 324 7.148: 258 3.138: 434 5.32: 225 14.8–34: 221 13.119: 334 9. 27 Peter (= 37 = 30): 25 Plato Nomoi 935d: 355 Phaedrus 276b: 339 Plautus Asinaria 259–61: 170 589: 479 919: 22 Bacchides 976: 139 Captivi 92: 22 Casina 781: 27 Cornicula(ria): 184–85 Menaechmi 902: 22 Mercator 176: 44 Miles Gloriosus 179: 341 586–87: 97 Rudens prol.32–33: 161 8.7: 148 35. 441.27: 247 3.8: 159 35.10: 97 22.6–13: 254 22.47: 325 7.35: 161 8. 443 3.139: 630 2.78: 213–14 28.14: 627 8. Calpurnius) Piso fr.35: 447 3.59–66: 329 14.127: 109 9.52: 143 10. 87: 345 Naturalis Historia 2.132: 346 677 .119: 214 20.Indices (L.54: 97 7.7: 252 22.17: 8 29.26: 310 9.54: 173 33.97: 331 16.103: 214 9.26: 330 35.98: 106 35.37–38: 220 34.11–12: 197 34.124: 207 11.29–32: 615 33.113: 433 3.172: 630 8.60: 328 10.24: 330 35.26: 162 5.186: 511 11. 82: 371 660: 97 Stichus 455: 22 Plinius Maior Dubii Sermonis Libri (ed.196: 142 8.117: 441 3.239: 346 19.36: 162 8.55: 628 14. 8 Peter (= 13 = 10): 23 fr. 25: 437 5.81.12: 439 8.1: 151 55.7: 151 42.1: 310 Panegyricus 10.1: 151 Cicero 14.22: 439 8.5: 43 Plinius Minor Epistulae 2. 174 60.3: 39 19–20: 534 28: 534 Comparatio Agesilai et Pompei 4.20: 486 3.3: 39 16.5: 151 Pyrrhus 19. 151 66.1: 151 53: 241 56–58: 151 57: 156.4: 348 Caesar 9–10: 534 30.3: 91.138: 35.1–3: 5.17.3: 134 Ti.3–5: 82 14: 82 16.7: 151 Coriolanus 18.8: 204 81.6: 91 Crassus 13.5: 295 9.3–6: 87 Cato Minor 7: 136 7.5: 151 67.140: 35.7: 620 47.2: 151 52. 439 4.678 35.21: 322 7.3: 151 62.3: 93 Marcellus 6. 113 19.3: 348 73.6.11: 439 4.4: 92.1: 151 44.18.5–6: 39 15. 318 10.3–6: 91 19.14.20: 437.77–78: 312.9: 439 3.13: 204 10. Gracchus 15: 555 16–19: 89 19.4 = 622–24b: 22–23 Quaestiones Romanae 10–11: 99 20: 535 55: 547 Vitae Alexander 39.1: 151 Cato Maior 12.3–4: 134 46.3–4: 311–12. 143 14: 82 18.6: 101 21.1: 134.4: 204 15.2: 252 Plutarchus Moralia 560c: 339 839c: 355 Quaestiones Convivales 1. 114 19. 346 Indices 53.147: 358 353 346 342.5: 456 Numa 7.2–3: 151 39.33. 143 15. 12 Pompeius 55.10: 310 10.4: 311 20.141: 35.2: 204 9.2: 131.4: 151 62.1: 142 55.5. 316 45.4: 204 46.2–3: 159 .1: 283 Marius 25.19–23: 341 6.1: 134.13–16: 341 3. 37. GL III.11.26.272.414. Keller) Carmina 1.37. 15 21. GL II.9–10: 79 21. Austin and G.17.37. 82–83 21.7–12: 51 21.12–13: 335 1.4–5: 560 Pollux Onomasticon 1. 209–10: 344 de Laude Anastasii 239–44 (= PLM 5.47–50: 198 .13.10.30.13: 84 30.29.18: 547 Priscianus de Figuris Numerorum.11.1–5: 56 21.31–32: 84 21. O.30.1: 332 1.4.6–9: 42 6.31.7: 600 4.32.5: 4.11. pp. Ae.525: 98 Ps.9–10: 333 1.18: 22 1.26.20: 22 Peristephanon liber 2. 83 21.7–19: 72.146: 470 Polybius 6.29–32: 47.37: 44 18.1–5: 84 21.10–11: 82 21.9.4: 83 21. Holder) Carmina 1.65–66: 136 Prudentius Cathemerinon liber 9.12–13: 335 Saturae 2.2.2: 82 21.42.7.13.37.6–16: 84–86 21.21: 332 Epistulae 1. p.2: 80 21.14: 84 21. ed.11.12: 129 1.39: 334 4.25a.46: 530 4.2: 42 6.26: 122 1.26.9–10: 52 18.25–26: 47.18: 43 30.14: 53 21.25.37. Bastianini) Epigrammata 27: 19 Primasius Adrumetanensis Commentum super Apocalypsin Joannis 5.29.43: 22 2.5.23–24: 325 1.4.8: 53 18. 52.1: 64 21.9: 53 21.11.11.31–32: 334 3.75: 467 4.1–2: 53 21.30.1: 71 21.37.7.9–15: 122 1.4–5: 80 21.12.17: 70 21.13–14: 204 679 Posidippus (ed.29.142–47: 475–78 1.5. Baehrens): 205 Propertius 1. line 29: 205 Institutiones Grammaticae.6.22.23. A.3: 185 12. 81 21.1–6: 52–53 20.3: 40 18.29–30: 136 4.Indices Sertorius 2: 416 Romulus 9.1.6–7: 78 Porphyrio Commentum in Horatium (ed.27–28: 83 21.17.3: 60 33.48: 627 Saturae 1. A.39: 219 6.-Acro Scholia in Horatium Vetustiora (ed.39.22: 600 1.6: 589 3.9–10: 333 1. 5: 162 102. Jahn) 1. 32–33 (Ter. H. 131): 629 169.77: 427 Scholia in Lucani Bellum Civile.5.27: 197 Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.3: 263 Quintilianus Institutio Oratoria 1.): 151.112–13: 338–39 Scipio Aemilianus Orationes (ORF4.11.98: 465 11.23: 528 4. Eun. J.1.473: 151 6.F.2–4 Shackleton Bailey): 107 349 (p. T.3: 620 . 104. 324): 105 Scholia Platonica Phaedrus 276b: 338–39 Scholia in Theocritum 15.27: 151 Scholia in Iliadem (scholia vetera) 1.13. 62. line) 87. page.14–19: 634 116. Isocr. Malcovati) fr.1. 160 8. 839C: 355 Ps.7. 374.-Plutarchus Vitae decem oratorum. O.10: 151.11.16: 151 Scholia Gronoviana (ed.= 332. C. 174 5.788: 151. 290): 187 Scholia Bobiensia (ed.70: 550 3.18: 195 1.10–13 Ritter = 308. 174 Ptolemaeus Geographia 3.-Apuleius (ed.11.10: 142 137 (Sest. Moreschini) Asclepius 22 (p.2 (= Periochae Homeri 29): 334 Ps. Stangl.-Quintilianus Declamationes Maiores 3.18 = 373.2: 52 104.16: 28 4. 345. Stangl.4–6: 319–25 Scholia Bembina (ed.250: 490 Scholia in Iuvenalem (ed. Mountford) pp. T. P.5: 324 34.63: 344–45 1.9–10 SB.1–2: 322 1.1.20–21: 119 10.25: 151 322.11–14: 210 5. 420.680 Ps.68: 90.11: 336 Declamationes Minores 340 (p. 19.14: 52 104. Wessner) p.2. lines 11–12): 484 Indices 28. line) 291.3: 39 53.91: 158 Scholia in Persium (ed.636: 8 2. 108. Usener) 1. 124): 141–42 139 (Sest.-Ausonius 448.22 SB. 22: 78 Scribonius Largus Compositiones 47: 210 Ps.): 107 377. H.3.21–22 R.25: 433 5.72: 467 2.18: 254 15.3: 53 104. Commenta Bernensia (ed.34: 331 3.33: 247 5.4: 51 de Coniuratione Catilinae 17.9 (p. 92.1: 620 30–31: 39 31. page.1.33 (p. 1 (Vita Iuvenalis 4): 205 4. ed. 113–14 Rufinus Aquileiensis Historia Monachorum 16: 547 Sallustius de Bello Iugurthino 89. 46: 485 in Vergilii Georgica Commentarii 1.44: 323 102.25–26: 250 8.361: 13 3. 174 Servius (and Servius auctus) in Vergilii Aeneidos libros Commentarii 1.21: 27 2.3.2: 194 43.9: 173 24.169: 109 12.2.519: 461 11.493: 549 4. 173 7.10–11: 174 34.30: 419 90.178: 11 2.10: 151.673: 486 5.552: 99–100 8.288: 99 8.97: 549 11.47: 630 6.10: 151 24.678: 539 8.799–826: 487 6.26: 630 108. 12 3.15.396: 323 5.20.63: 487 3.5: 258 2.100: 45 11.8: 150.530: 8 5.198: 4 7.32: 375 Quaestiones Naturales 1.3: 194 45.25: 250 10.16.556: 485–86 5.339: 531 5. 17 2.137: 589–90 6.1: 419 Epistulae Morales 24.31: 630 71.512: 410 2. 110 VII de Vita Beata 25.2.) Commentarii 3.2: 624 IX de Tranquillitate Animi 3.4: 92 15.3: 258 7.10: 419 58.76: 628 9.649: 539 2.374: 10 3.699: 16 3.116: 535 2.31: 531 1.5: 101.3: 204 Dialogi II de Constantia Sapientis 7.3: 194 9.67: 461 3.103: 557 4.80: 549 5.13: 10 9.1: 487 8.5: 336 9.Indices 156: 197 202: 197 Seneca de Beneficiis 3.93: 112 11.259: 8 in Vergilii Bucolica (Ecl.89: 10.693: 10.2: 151.407: 99 3.12: 92 56.30.81: 323 681 .466: 10 3.10: 110 Suasoriae 6.3: 334 53.171: 346 3.662: 249 10.168: 59 7.161: 531 4.1: 258 Tragoediae Thyestes 28–29: 325 Seneca Rhetor Controversiae 1.1: 22 III de Ira 1.737: 546 12.197: 5 6.166–67: 531 4.8: 350 51. 174 88. 614 Relationes 40: 484 42: 188 .2: 629 55: 204 61.9.2: 138 75.4: 30 Domitianus 18.682 Sextus Empiricus Pyrrhoneioi hypotyposeis 2. 200 11: 194 24.3: 159 81.4: 528 85: 280 Caligula 16.2: 196 Galba 3: 218 3.2: 324 Otho 8. Adler) A 517: 338–39 A 807: 339 S 1719: 348 Suetonius Fragmenta p. 222 43.3: 528 Tiberius 4: 150 5.501: 263 Suda (ed.3: 26 52.1: 195 9: 186. 629 Vespasianus 1. 148–149 Reifferscheid (fr.58: 490 Statius Silvae 3.60: 484 Orationes 1. 192–95. 304 Roth = pp.4: 488 52: 393 65.3: 485 21.5: 4 101. 112): 20–21 pp. 278–79 = 334 (fr.4.13. 221 Socrates Historia Ecclesiatica 1.17–19: 316 Thebais 2.7: 282.40: 629 8.9: 614 4.306: 27 Strabo 11. 159 72: 204 73. 185): 24 de Grammaticis 3.250: 350 Sidonius Apollinaris Epistulae 2.3: 417 2.3: 188 5: 523 Symmachus Epistulae 2.1: 484 9.3: 389 Indices Caesar 35.2: 316 Nero 27.3: 630 66: 203–4 93.2: 202. 197–98.3: 222 43.40: 27 15.1: 205 Vitae Augustus 16: 557 25.1: 151 38: 326 59: 151.3. A.5: 280 63: 528 74: 630 Titus 5: 527.2: 151 37.4: 22 Silius Italicus 11.3: 196 7.56: 484 6.45–46: 325 4.256: 219.74: 484 10.4: 468 Claudius 6: 180 21. 35: 255 2. 222.68.82. 16: 630 2.1.1–3: 562 11.5: 526 de Spectaculis 5: 24 12.16: 139 4.1.3–4: 527 2.4: 323 8.3..21: 463.34.37.3: 237 1.3: 232 16.54: 426 5.1–4: 525–26. 315–16 7.54: 180 1.3: 253 15. 542 2.2.7: 110–11 9.1.5: 151. ed.9: 310.2: 261 5.57. 128 6.3: 151.3–4: 527 3.3: 623 6.1: 527 Terentius Adelphoe 721–23: 247 981: 20 Andria 696–97: 549 Hecyra 9–10: 46.4.4: 122.1.4: 13 2.7.2–3: 461 Testamentum Porcelli p.8: 274 Theocritus 5.14.5.61.14.7.2.73: 255 4.15: 432 12. 471 Dialogus 13. 227 9.2. 152 9.78.5: 205 1. 217.17: 255 3. 528.4.73.28. Ribbeck): 624 Valerius Maximus 1.87: 83 6.86: 46 5.1: 111 3.95: 180 3.4: 134 8.44. 173 3.2.73.3–4: 538 5.2.15: 190 3.43: 197 683 Titinius 138–39 (CRF3.1: 530–31 2.3: 465 28.7–8: 261 5.25. 157.32.2: 202 2.5: 639 7.3: 97 Varro de Lingua Latina 5.78.8.11: 200 7.2: 465 14.13: 465 11.4: 200 9.2: 111–12 3.13: 143.3: 150 9.2: 325 Historiae 1. 113 3.Indices Tacitus Annales 1.2: 249 4.12. 636 4.5.8. 156.20: 537 .1: 432 1.7: 151.2: 233 4.23: 205 3.8. 174 4. 236 3.60.8: 142.41: 123 15.1.58: 531. 48 25–28: 463 441: 95 Phormio 338: 22 Tertullianus de Ieiunio 16: 111–12 ad Scapulam 2.14.8–16: 253 15. 269.9: 280 11.22 (Buecheler–Heraeus): 362 Themistius Orationes 34.3: 110 2.ext.2.17: 91–92. 2: 637 2.2.128.2.10.3–4: 146 2.81: 323 2.2: 335 Vitruvius 4.42–45: 589 Georgica 1.6–7: 587 Wandalbertus Prumiensis (ed.6.2.7: 328 3.168–69: 59 8. L.16: 143.17.20: 260 9.1.22.6–7: 371 2.5: 622 3. 118.11.3: 186.4: 255 2.61. 199 73.5.7: 113 67.216: 22 1..20: 415 2.5: 157–58 Velleius Paterculus 1.3: 613 4.5: 456 2.684 6.10.604–5: 27 6.394: 484 4.29–30: 516 6.8: 151 80.12.557: 486 5.2: 456 72.19: 366 3.9: 301.7: 142 2.30: 13.169: 59 Eclogae (Bucolica) 3.1–3: 612 3. Duemmler) de Mensium .46: 372 6.3: 151 86.119: 551 6.853: 43 6. 14.8: 12 7.2.545–602: 481 5. 467 2.5: 415 3.53: 13.11.76: 44 6.2: 151 2.1: 143 3. 516 6. E.1: 204 2.265: 211 Virgilius Maro Grammaticus Epitomae 4 (p. 188.86: 169 6.9–12: 528 6. Dindorf) 8.2: 204 Vergilius Aeneis 1.1: 613 1.194: 484 2. 172 3.3 Huemer = p.6–8: 523 78.673: 486 5.723: 22 2..799–826: 487 6. 559 in Nonius 850 L: 78 Vegetius de Re Militari 2.21: 99 6.95–99: 528 6.19–20: 80 .4: 250 2.573: 333 Indices 3.54.1: 251 64.9.90–92: 110 7.93: 112 12.1.864: 321 7.137: 589 6.13.3: 91–92. 531 6. nominibus 297–98: 363 313–18: 363 357–60: 363 Zonaras (ed.7: 207 3.46: 528 2.12: 281 Saturae Menippeae Nescis quid vesper: 23 de Vita Populi Romani in Nonius 848 Lindsay: 173.42: 45 6.2 Löfstedt): 484 de Viris Illustribus 17. 113–14 2.41: 44 de Re Rustica 1.69. 519.76: 628 4.94–96: 321 5.14–16: 327–28 3.85.25–26: 250 11. 12: 388 1898. 292: 392 1984. 63: 426 1972. 637: 535 1983. 413: 453 1987. 252–53: 388 1976. 418 1983. G. 12: 261 1953. 255–58: 403 1914. 179: 261 1973. 361: 406 1988. 38: 274 1959. 270: 394 1917–18. 22: 389 1973. 198: 611 1975. 82: 396 1926. 107: 535 1961. 197: 403 1969–70. 82: 443 1947. 369: 401 1985. 367: 406 1988. 107: 317 1933. 125: 271 1952. CCII–CCIV: 101 Alba Pompeia (ed. 14: 542 1925. 583: 226 1969–70. 691: 244 1982. 382: 535 1983. 457–58: 429 1981. 201–31: 415 1989. 416: 452 1984. 202: 415. 145: 489 1933. 485: 415–16 1989. 14: 261 1939. 74: 209 1927. 156: 379 1953. 707: 403 1985. 22: 387 1940. 414: 448 1988.38: 260 11. 87: 489 1969–70. Filippi [Alba 1997]) Bolli laterizi 10: 451–52 Documentazione epigrafica 32: 454 38: 454 L’Année Épigraphique 1888. 471–84: 415 1988. 292: 415–16 1983. 52: 209 1975. 152: 407 1936. 242: 399 1962. 88: 279 1972. 251–52: 411 1987. 495: 226 1976. 64: 232 1960. 204 1922. 124: 225 1958. 358: 408 1985. 237–60: 372 685 2. 228: 419 1989. 435: 431 1980. 375: 422 1982. 584: 548 1980. 72: 188 1913. 293: 404 1977. 158: 436 1914. 653: 313 1977. 61: 185 1960. 538: 209–10 1974. 295: 415. 776: 541 1984. 360–68: 406 1988. 415: 448 1985. 249: 388 1976. 56: 209 1937. 79: 392 1900. 328: 376 1984. 366: 407 1988.21: 83 10.10: 260 1971. 188: 488 1956. 283: 392 1984. 295: 394 1984. 63: 185 1960. 74: 190. 163: 379 1972. 154: 383–84 1972. 406: 386 1976. 162: 378 1972.Indices 9. F. 219: 387 1938. 183a: 204 1964. 282: 392–93 1984. 344: 408 1987. 829: 265 1986. 100: 426 1925. 363: 407 1988. 736: 436 . 306: 543 1960. 293–314: 415 1983. 418 1989. 313: 401 1959. Henzen) pp. Inscriptiones Acta Fratrum Arvalium (ed. 206–10: 389 1990. 597: 404 1998. 850–54: 411 1991. 728: 436 1998. 538: 619 1999. 818–30: 411 1991. 650: 386 1995. 616–19: 408 1991. 411–12: 395 1998. 231: 370 1990. 429–32: 404 1990. 606: 403 1995. 855–56: 436 1992. 312–16: 400. 419: 420 1998. 360–68: 402 1990. 201: 406 1990. 328–32: 370 1992. 721: 411 1997. 278: 378 1990. 637a–e: 431 1991. 1154: 541 1998. 282: 398 1997. 823–24: 442 1993. 245: 374 1989. 617: 436 1998. 608: 436 1996. 693–701: 408 1991. 570: 394 1993. 430: 365 1993. 401–9: 387 1990. 1161: 542 1999. 522: 449 1998. 571: 394 1993. 422: 403–4 1990. 421–27: 403 1990. 333–34: 392 1995. 324: 402 1990. 529: 453 1995. 603–5: 411 1995. 536–61: 553 1997. 646: 453–54 1994. 843–45: 411 1991. 369–78: 386 1990. 580–86: 415 1991. 132–37: 398 1990. 523: 409 1998. 322–26: 401 1990. 276: 378 1990. 744–52: 411 1992. 426: 398 1991. 677–78: 422 1999. 1156: 541 1998. 594–95: 411 1998. 741–44: 403 . 728–40: 411 1999. 40–41: 422 1998. 657–76: 453 1999. 336: 443 1992. 247: 374 1990. 524–69: 415 1996. 398: 398 1996. 535–37: 386 1995. 422–26: 377 1995. 647: 453 1994. 621–22: 369 1994. 831–40: 411 1991. 730: 388 1992. 795: 387 1991. 650–61: 442 1998. 56: 454 1996. 599–615: 436 1998. 715–25: 409 1991. 234: 393 1990. 504–7: 406–7 1991. 744: 261 1991. 515: 377 1996. 295–333: 425 1998. 569: 370 Indices 1993. 579–87bis: 420 1996. 651–55: 448 1999. 283: 399 1997. 534: 449 1997. 468: 629 1993. 568–82: 435 1998. 539–52: 407 1991. 427: 406 1996. 402 1991. 543: 407 1991. 1352: 225 1994. 443–501: 428 1998. 678: 453 1997. 674–76: 420 1996. 313–14: 370 1992.686 1989. 738–39: 386. 408 1990. 261: 399 1992. 213–16: 391 1990. 753: 403 1993. 563: 386 1997. 247–71: 395 1990. 542: 422 1998. 603: 378 1991. 847–48: 411 1991. 272–87: 377 1990. 333–34: 392 1992. 396–400: 396 1990. 424: 403–4 1990. 485–86: 453 2002. 386 2001. 625: 411 2000. 783: 250 III. 383–400: 415 2001. lines 45–47: 374 184: 371 233: 550 236: 463 489: 551 522: 188 548: 374 744: 203 893: 385 927: 482–84 1043: 548 1160: 630 1504: 376 1574: 550 1869: 419 2173: 548 Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum I. 1065–71: 411 2001. 558–63: 428 2000. Saria) 314: 209 Carmina Latina Epigraphica 111. Hoffiller and B. 578–79: 404 2002. 484: 448 2002. 1424: 422 I2. 987: 453 2001.555: 567 I. XXI: 251 II. 1460: 482 1595: 481–83 1795 : 481. 570: 411 2002. V. 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. 506: 386 2002. 477: 408 2002. 1086: 226 2015: 250 2079: 224–25 3272: 224 5278: 460 II2. 383–400: 414 2000. 627: 403 2000.Indices 2000. 364: 626 585.642: 568 II. lines 89–91: 190–91 709: 221 741: 117 762–63: 144 811: 396 933: 142 1486: 410 1776: 371 1793: 618 1831: 371 2193: 617 2486: 392 2663c: 135. 16–17: 495 593. 483 1825: 198 1901: 495 2150: 452 4007: 550 4353: 550 6842: 550 687 . 358: 406 2000. no. 542–46: 387 2002. 1073–83: 403 2002. 547–49: 396 2002. lines 11–13. 196. 1281: 543 2001. 989: 384. 901–7: 415 Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslawien I (ed.748: 569 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum I. 142 2864: 588 2978: 406 3176: 389 3216: 373 3253–54: 392 3255: 394 3609a: 133 p. 435 8643–44: 435 8661: 493 8664–65: 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 2191–92: 546 2584: 546 . 78*: 388 106*: 395–96 169*: 457 915*: 402 88: 568 792: 617 798: 274 867: 494 1008: 274 1767: 433 1768: 435 1773: 435 1780–81: 435 1787: 435 1875: 493 1879: 495 1888: 494 1891: 493 1897–1900: 494 1915: 495 1924: 494 1931: 494 1940: 493 1943: 495 1948: 494 1950: 495 1951: 494 2044: 387. 404 5126: 439 5127: 435 5128: 437 5138–39: 437–38 5155: 435 5167: 437 5188: 435 5191: 435 5193–95: 435 Indices 5612: 450 5869: 449 6919: 446 7338–41: 442 7345: 442 7346: 442 7349: 442 7443: 445. 441 7852: 422 8112. 471. 475. 83: 451–52 8642: 433. 626 2793: 490 2884: 544 3063: 490 3653: 548 4484: 420 5016: 403 5036: 404 5050: 402. 448 7449: 420 7452: 420 7454–55: 420 7456–62: 420 7463–66: 420 7493–94: 409 7497: 409 7532–36: 444 7543–45: 453–54 7548–54: 453 7585–89: 453 7601: 454 7607: 454 7671: 402 7681: 453–54 7730: 402 7781: 385 7801: 402 7803: 402 7804: 402 7832: 421 7836: 421. 389 2065: 388 2155: 257 2385–86: 456–57 2389: 455 2411: 456 2787: 469.688 7350: 356 V. Indices 3696: 546 3877–77a: 546 3891: 246–47 4416: 546 4444: 404 4886: 469 7680: 344 9672: 479 10103: 474 10118: 474 10220–21: 412 12853: 374 13585–86: 379 23369: 544–45 25081: 479 28044: 550 29681: 379–80. 245–46. 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 5808–9: 424–26 5882: 424 6440–41: 398 6462: 396 6465: 397 6466: 398 6469: 399 6471: 399 8095: 398 8337: 390 XI. 422 X. 556: 408 1420–21: 182–83 1735: 535 1806: 429–30 1929: 562 2619: 427 3245: 420 4549: 418 4599: 418 4778: 417 4902: 418 5062: 382 5631: 401 6053: 242–43. 411*: 415 315: 389 471: 371 653–56: 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. 1929: 488 689 . 248 7251: 427 7256: 427 7553: 393 7884: 401 XII. 382 30837b: 542 31200: 224 32638b.20: 441 33372–73: 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. 278.Brusin) 295: 274 617: 274 Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae (volume. line) 6. Audollent) 135A: 365–66 Ephemeris Epigraphica VIII 141. 1041: 223 1821: 432 1832: 188 1853: 449 3694: 432 4131: 490 6877: 443. 280: 543 Inscriptiones Aquileiae (ed. no. 160: 261 Corpus Inscriptionum Regni Bosporani 71: 569 Defixionum Tabellae (ed. number) 9.17: 377 28. 227 2602: 449 3203: 447 5390: 621 XIII. 11: 544–53 Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg 001434: 261 006228: 256 018073: 250 Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui I2. 4: 56 27. number. Peek) 1951: 552 Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien (volume.2.3.192: 266.95: 401 11314: 401 XIV. 2097. no. 280. 24: 123 28.19: 377 31. 625: 390 968a: 433 1648: 344 2379: 435 2381: 387 2408.690 2230: 223. W.B. 6: 370 Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes 1. 273 . no. 145: 370 Le Epigrafi Romane di Canosa 78: 371 Indices Epigraphica 65 (2003) 216–17.167. 446 6884: 443 6900: 441 7235: 446 7288: 441 11757: 244 XIV.4: 120 Griechische Versinschriften (ed.411: 131 2. 53: 123 Inschriften von Pergamon 2. no.40–41: 386 9.45: 387 Inscriptiones Graecae II2. 164: 432 285: 384 2121: 488 2388–91: 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: 490–91 XV 4539: 452 XVI. no.2. A. J.412: 132 Inscript∫iile Daciei Romane III. no. no. 84: 128 Inscriptiones Iudaicae Orientis (ed.869: 266 526 526 123 131.1672: 209 Inscriptiones Italiae III. 496: 142 pp.2 pp. 248: 397 IX.5. 142 1051: 142 Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ed. 278–80: 124 pp. Degrassi) 57: 618 143: 392 166: 588 168: 183 342: 397 392: 144 393: 396–97 402: 397 489: 371 515: 185. 122: 125 p. 303: 383 p.133: 3. no.1.14: 570 Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (ed. 120: 125 p.1424: 4. 563–64: 125 XIII. 67. Ameling) 2. 221 975: 371 1046: 135.269: 545 2. 441–42: 124 XIII. 138. Dessau) 15: 288 43–43a: 144 139–40: 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 2118–19: 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 . 52–55: 125 p.1. A. Moretti) 1. 141 131–32. W.1 pp. 141 270 691 Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae (ed.947: 3. 1: 411 75: 411 95–100: 411 160: 411 275: 420 276: 411 XIII. 84: 250 p. 136.421: 4.409: 4. Diehl) 452: 203 4927: 568 Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae (ed. L. H. 91–95: 422 208–9: 421 X. 130: 125 p.937: 3. H.160: 561 2. 46–49: 125 pp.Indices 3.567: 40 4. 183: 136 p.3 p. 508–9: 136 pp. F.B. 128): 618 6073: 489 6085 (lines 89–91): 190–91 6146: 489 6175–76: 383 7056: 490 7303: 489 7305: 388 7314: 541 8751: 365 8777: 132 8795: 266 8888: 185. Ward Perkins) 342: 123 606: 488 Indices Inscriptionum Latinarum amplissima collectio (ed.118–19: 495–96 II. J. Canali De Rossi) 1: 266 2: 262 4: 271 261: 273 Le iscrizioni greche di Ravenna (ed. Reynolds and J.114: 494 II. Orellius) 3714: 246 Iscrizioni dello estremo oriente greco (ed.1026: 543 Inscriptions Latines de Narbonnaise Fréjus 117: 447 The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania (ed.87: 494 II.18: 493 I. I.9: 493–94 I.72–77: 494–95 II.29: 493 I. Röllig) 276: 271 Kokalos 30–31 (1984–85 [1988]) 724–25: 136 Notizie degli Scavi 1884. 228: 482 .30: 494 I. Broilo) I.132: 494 Iscrizioni Romane di Iulia Concordia (ed. 193: 464 1892.99: 494 II. 562 5225: 469 5241: 478 5278: 474 5280–95: 474 5283: 474 5529: 396 5599: 392 6037 (cap. G.94: 494 II. 542 5062: 461 5083: 474 5087: 474 5094: 474 5098: 474 5102: 474 5107: 544 5163: 460 5173: 469 5174a: 469.692 4231–32: 541 4384: 541 4484: 541 4914: 538. M. H.C.M.34: 494 II.113: 495 II. p. Bollini) 8: 552 Iscrizioni lapidarie latine del Museo Nazionale Concordiese di Portogruaro (ed.90: 495 II. 479 5193: 488 5198–5201: 474 5202: 469 5205: 488. Lettich) 10: 493 16: 495 31: 495 123: 495 129: 495 193–94: 495 Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften I5 (ed. 221 9007: 392 9074: 209 9155: 541 9420: 396 Inscriptions Latines de l’Algérie I.123: 494 II. 336: 495 1896.10: 493 I. Donner and W. G. p. p. Sulmo 5: 372 7: 373 36: 373 47: 373 49–50: 373 55: 373–74 58: 374–75 62: 375–76 65: 376 95: 376 4. p. 352: 626 1948. Forum Novum 18: 395 49: 395 693 .521: 180–81 Sakartvelos berdznuli tsartserebis korpusi [Korpus der griechichen Inschriften in Georgien] (ed. Bellunum 1: 387–88 3: 388 7–8: 389 8–9: 388 14: 388–89 18: 389. Hyuse) 44: 273 Roman Statutes (ed. 163–64: 157 Res Gestae Divi Augusti 19: 426 25. 270 Sammlung der Griechischen Dialekt–Inschriften 2566: 352 Supplementa Italica (ed. lines 48–49: 172 p. city. pp. 631 4. Corfinium 9: 370 17: 370 4. pp. 162. p. line 2: 490 379: 266 I. number [testi nuovi]) 2.Indices 1901. Pais) 399: 494 411: 495 447: 395 928: 447 949–51: 420 978: 402 1011–13: 421 1233: 395 Supplementa Italica (volume. Kauchtschischwili [= Qaukhchishvili]) 199: 272 235: 271 261: 263. p.S. De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium p. T. Feltria 1: 396 3: 396 5. 114: 157 p. 116: 157 p. 304–5: 383 1951. 207–10: 365 1919. pp. 42: 128–29 1926. 340–41: 376 Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae 90. 383 42: 379–83 43: 383–84 53: 383 80: 384 5. Albingaunum 2: 386 11–12: 384 26: 386 30: 386 32: 387 4. Velitrae 71: 369 3.2: 568 35. 76: 379 1975. M. P.2: 616 34. Pighi. pp.2: 426 Res Gestae Divi Saporis (ed.H.516: 180–81 1. E. Trebula Suffenas 8bis: 377–78 20: 378 21–26: 378 28: 378–79 29: 379 35: 379. Crawford [London 1996]) 1.B. 224–29: 395 1979. Forum Vibii Caburrum 8: 442 16. S.713: 265 40. Setia 3: 398 4a: 398–99 10: 399 6.1146: 265 . Brixia 3: 411–12 4: 412 8. Tridentum 1: 403 4.1201: 265 38. Rusellae 1: 431–33 3–4: 429–31 14: 428–29 31: 433 37–41: 431 54: 428 17.418: 391 16. Superaequum 1: 392 2: 392 7–8: 392–93 10–13: 393–94 6. 9.782: 262 20. Vittore di Cingoli 1: 408 4: 422 13. 449 6: 449–50 Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 1. Ferrara 1: 455 3–4: 456 5–6: 456–57 8: 455–56 17. Aufidena 5: 407 8. Pedona 7: 422 13. 27: 403–4 11: 404 19: 404 20: 404 6. Cingulum 3: 400–1 6. Vardacate 1: 420–21 16. Barium 2: 406 3: 406–7 5: 407 9: 407 8.112: 266 20. 26. 16.781: 271 16. Bergomum 5: 436 6–7: 436–37 10: 437 22: 435–36 16. Aletrium 1: 425–26 2: 426 14: 426–27 16. Carreum Potentia 1–2: 409 12: 409–10 8.253: 526 34. Camerinum 2: 401 9: 402 6.558: 149 36. Vallis Tanari Superior 2: 402 8. Septempeda 1: 420 5: 420 15: 420 17: 420 13. Rubi 1: 389 5.694 5 Regium Iulium 11: 391 15–16: 391 37: 319 5. Nursia 1*: 416 4: 418 16: 417 18: 419 23: 418 Indices 44: 415 82–83: 415 13. Forum Germa[---] 9: 421 15–16: 422 13. Forum Fulvii 1: 448–49 2–4: 445. Alba Pompeia 10: 451–52 11: 454 25: 454 17. Tuchelt. 41 (pp. 206–7: 131–32 G. 269: 161 no. 13 (pp. Bevilacqua. 167–68. Frühe Denkmäler Roms in Kleinasien I (Tübingen 1979) pp. 72–73. 191) war against Antiochus III and Aetolia 62–65. 153–54. Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde I.Indices 40. 460/4: 172 no. 213 695 Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum3 591: 56 656: 57 757: 131 758: 132 Tabula Hebana lines 59–62: 181 Tabula Siarensis fr. 69.2925: 209. 187) 75 M’. 532: 98 3. 165. Exempla inscriptionum Latinarum 1459: 246 4. Ancient Persons A M. no. lines 2–5: 181 K. 175) and M. Aemilius Lepidus (RE 68. 112–13. H.435: 213 Grundzüge u. 12: 170 nos. Aburius (RE 2. 173 no. 456: 165 nos. 79–86 Actius Castrensis (actor) 452 L. 262–63: 161 no. 174): 133 G. Fulvius Nobilior 73–75 Aemilius Papus 377 (see Messius) . Aelius Lanuvinus (RE 144. (volume. 30–33. 161 no. Crawford. 369: 161 no. 480/19–20: 98 no.1210: 43. 170 no.).126: 132 M. Die römischen Militärhelme (Mainz 1976) no. 509/1–4: 167 no. 72. 69. Nummi. praef. col. 460/3: 164. 109. line 7: 490 III. tr. 42–43): 131 A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum XXXI. 187. pl.894: 43. wife of Metellus Scipio) 136 Aemilianus. 494/39a–b: 98 no. Fabius M. I. unfavorable auspication 16–17 Aemilia Lepida (RE 166. 212–13 47.1039: 265 265 262 265 P. grammaticus) 195 L. Oxy. 418: 300 no. Papyri Berliner Griechische Urkunden 2. 374: 161. 467: 165 no. Gemmae G. see Cornelius. 80 accused of peculatus 64–65.3366: 209. 502/4: 98 no. Wilmanns. 459–61: 132. 49.2. 61–67. Acilius Glabrio (RE 35. number) 7. Waurick.1015: 44.6: 165 no. 500/1. 51–52.1022: 208 40. cos. 67. 172–73 no. Antiche iscrizioni augurali e magiche (Roma 1991) no. 443: 98. Aelius Seianus (PIR2 A 255. b. 489/1–3: 98. 161–64. Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge 1974) no. cos. praet. 426/1–3: 166 no. 171 no. 80–81 and Cato Maior 43. 236. 56–57. 219. 313. 605 Afer. 297 M. Ateius Capito (RE 7. 526. cos. 321. 504. 351–353 Alexander (the Isian. 433–34. pr. Antonius (RE 30. 115) 199–200. tr. 228. 216) 623 L. 393. Fabius Agathon (in Plato and Macrobius) 23 Agorius. 177. 140. 621 M. 233. 316. see Cornelius. 5 C. Ateius Capito (RE 8. 248. legate in Bellum Africum) 156 Ardashir I 264 Aristogeiton (tyrant slayer) 145 Aristonikos of Karystos (ball–player) 348. 99. 175. 442. 292–93. 74) 632–33 L. 345.E. 408 L. 455. jurist) 129 Arzygius (signum) 433. 61–67.696 Indices Antoninus Pius (emperor) 311. Appuleius Saturninus (RE 29. 252 adoption by Caesar 138. jurist) 382–83 L. see Publicius. 526. Aurelius Cotta (RE 102. grammaticus) 345 Antenor 463–64. Aemilius Scaurus (RE 140. 158. 541 and Caucasian Iberia 266. 65) 152–54 L.. Aemilius Paullus (RE 118. 521. grammaticus) 345 C.pl. 351 Antiochus III 43. historian) 88. Iunius. 40. Octavius 138. cos. 260. 557 as C. 634 M. 140 acclaimed imperator in 43 116 as dux 616 Aurelia (RE 248. 249 Antiochus IV 305 Antiochus VIII Grypos 250 Antiochus (of Ascalon. Agrius 611 Ahenobarbus. 391.pl. 599. suff. 179–181. see Nonius C. 528. (Flavius) Arrianus (RE 9}. and the map of Agrippa 625 Allobrogicus. 333–35. by 64) 39 Arrius Menander (RE 24. 321. 523. pr. 504. 241. Ateius Philologus (RE 11. 120. cos. 88. 508. 399. 41) 189 M. see also Betitius Asellus. Aetolian envoy to Rome) 82–83 Amasaspos (king? of Iberia) 273 Amazaspos (Iberian prince) 266. Aemilius Scaurus (RE 141. see Domitius Albinus. as governor of Cappadocia 273–74 Q. 168) 144 M. and religio 506–7 Augustus 4. Valerius C. 71) 611 Augustinus. 255. cos.pl. 189. 273 Amazaspos (king of Iberia. Vipsanius Agrippa Postumus 428 C. Antonius Creticus (RE 29. 492–93. 79. donis donatus) 226 . 518. see Cornelius. 116. 589–90. 166. pr. 428. 49–51. Aemilius Paullus (RE 114. 107–8. 56) 396–97 Aeneas 45. cos. 103. 99) 167. 175–176. cos. 202. 69. 466–69. 70. 389. 71–72. 636 Aurelianus (emperor) 380. 374 Alexander Severus (emperor) 638 Alfidii/Aufidii 621 Alfred the Great. Postumius Alboin (Lombard king) 433 Alcisthenes (saltator) 342–43. 348. Atinius Labeo (RE 10. 404. tr. the triumvir) 142. Caesar’s mother) 534. 174. 79–80. Antonius Saturninus (PIR2 A 874) 456 L. 252. cos. 589 takes auspices 5 L. see Fabius Alypus (of Ambracia. 407. 55) 382 falsifies auspices 14 C. 132) 150 Atticus. 36. 495. 170. 351. see Vettius Agrippa. married to Armenian princess) 272 Amazaspos (king of Iberia) 273 Amianus (name) 632 Amynander (king of Athamania) 67. Aufidius Orestes (RE 32. 487 Antinous 274 Antiochus II 252. see Claudius Asiaticus. 140. 351 L. cos. evocatus. Aquin(i)us (RE 2. 274–75 L. 230. Aetolian politician) 67. 487. 218. Aufidius Lurco (RE 25. see Domitius Africanus. Aufidius (RE 6 and 7. tr. 547. 238. 205. 615 Asprenas. 267. 61) 620–21 Cn. 27. 166. tr. 233. 100. Arrius (RE 8. Antonius (RE 23. academic philosopher) 558 Antiochus Parthus (eques. 99. see Pomponius Aufidii/Alfidii 621 Cn.pl. pr. Asinius Pollio (RE 25. see Clodius. 82–83 Alexander (Magnus) 145. 289. 83–84 Anchises 45. 230–31. 32. ca 107) 611 M. 56. 222–23. 272. 378. 485–86. Annaeus Cornutus (RE 5. 531. cos. 488.] Aurelius Orestes. 74 Caligula (emperor) 417. 143) 137. greges of 143 cognomen of Nasica 141 coins. 149 anseres. see Fabius C Caecilia Metella (RE 131. see Ateius Caracalla (emperor) 222. symbols on 161–73 and Favonius 137–38. 52) 130–74 acclamatio imperatoria 131–33 adoption (presumed testamentary) 133–40 aedileship in 57 (?) 144. 227 C. pont. pr. gov. Calpurnius Piso (RE 61. see Calpurnius Biesius (name) 379 Britannicus (son of Claudius) 429 Brutus. see Furius Bibulus. pr. 148. 268–70 Betitius Perpetuus signo Arzygius (PLRE I. Caecilius (RE 23). Aurelius Cotta (RE 108. donis donatus) 227 Aurunc(u)leius (name) 495 Avidius Arrianus (cornicularius) 208 Avienus (interlocutor in Macrobius) 22–23 Avitus.Indices M. cos. 211) 299 L. of Sardinia 49) 122 Aurelius Heracleianus (cananiclarius) 212 [Cn. the annalist) 299–301 fragment in Charisius 20–29 his style 25–29 Calypso (presumed paintress) 342–48 T. 428. 274 C.) 133–34. see Iunius. 148. 154 Calpurnius Horion (hypomnematographus) 212 C. 133.865–70) 27. antiquarian) 485–86 Baudolinus (anchorite) 444 Benedictus. Caecina (RE 7). see Aufidius L. 58). donis donatus) 221 Capito. son of the preceding). Baebius (municipal cursus honorum) 406 Baebius Macer (RE 31. cos. 251). Caesius (imp. Caeselius Vindex (RE 2. 150 697 Q. donis donatus) 223. Aurelius Symmachus (PLRE I. see Iunius.). Caecilius Metellus Pius (RE 98. see Iulius L. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (RE 94. 138) 145–49 statuary program on the Capitol 145–48 triumph (in 54 or 53) 328 villa in Tibur 136. 282. Aurelius Cotta (RE 109. 167–68. cos. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (RE 87. and the deditio of Seano[ci] 53–55. Axius (RE 4. Canuleius (miles Caesarianus. 630 Carbo. Servilius Caesar. grammaticus) 344 T. cos. Calpunius Piso Caesoninus (RE 90. Caelius Rufus (RE 45. 222 last words 173–74 official style 141 his putative son 136–37 and Scipio Nasica (cos. 142. daughter of Macedonicus) 148 Q. testamentary adoption of Atticus 138 M. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (RE 97. and the Etrusca disciplina 432 Caeculus (founder of Praeneste) 538–39 M. 45) 116 L. Aurelius Cotta (RE 107. Caecilius Metellus (RE 72. see Hedius Q. 124–25 captures Heracleia Pontica 115. 141 and Iuba 156–57 and Labienus 157. 171. 228. 74) triumphal agnomen Ponticus 115–18. 442. cos. max. Calpurnius Piso Frugi (RE 96. 69) 150 Q. see Papirius . 266. cos. 59) 131. sanctus 416 Bersouma (Iberian pitiaxes) 262–64. 523–24 Q. Camulius Lauenus (miles. 146.689. Papirius Carbo 122 M. Servilius Buteo. 468 Callaicus. 142 A. cos. cos. 167 Q. pr. 118. 109) 133. see Iunius M. 484. 310. and elephants 161 Q. Caesernius Statius Quinctius Macedo Quinctianus (PIR2 C 182) 270. 598 Aurelius Varixen (centurio. Caecilius Cornutus (RE 45. cos. 125–27 M. 126) 199–200 Q. consularis Tusciae et Umbriae) 433 Bibaculus. cos. 125–26 trial (de peculatu) 118–121. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (RE 99. Calpurnius Bibulus (RE 28. accuses C. 48) 175–76 Caepio. Aurelius Orestes (RE 180. 217. 80. senator from Reate) 611 B C. 614 as interlocutor in Macrobius 23 as a source on religio 594. acclaimed imperator 116–17 L. 589. 488. tr. 160 P. 465 Cato. 155) 144. Clodius Thrasea Paetus (RE 58.pl. 138. Cornelius Scipio Africanus (RE 336. 504 C. 562 Ti. des. propr. cos. Aeg. 16) 136–37. 113–14 and Metellus Scipio 145–49 Cornelius Scipio Salvitto (RE 357) 143. and the rescript of Vardacate 421 P. 421. Cornelius Scipio (RE 325.pl. grammaticus) 20–28. Cassius Longinus (RE 59. cos. 78 Claudius Domitianus Ponticus 123 Claudius Gothicus (emperor) 228 M. 601.698 Indices Cornelia (RE 413. max. Cornelius Scipio (RE 330. 270. cos. 274 Clemens. Considius Longus (RE 11. son of Africanus) 144 P. Cornelius Mammula (RE 258. Cornelius Lentulus Crus (RE 218. 56) 463–67. 218) 159 P. 344–46. qu. 111) 144. cos. 149. Claudius Lepidus (RE 204) 65. Cassius Longinus (RE 70.) 203 L. Clodius Pulcher (RE 48. 147) 144. cos. pl. 478. 159 and Ti. 244–46. Flavius Sosipater (RE 8. Claudius Marcellus (RE 229. ca 93) 133. 280 App. 621 Q. legate in Bellum Africum) 156 Constantinus I 267–268.suff. 72 P. 135–36. cos. 64 or 63) 134 Claudius Maximus (slayer of Decebalus) 225–26. see Sal(l)ienus Cleopatra 333–35. 78 L. 144.) cognomen Serapio 90. 290. see Cornelius Cornelia (RE 406. suff. 158 Cornelia (RE 419. see Porcius. tr. 189 P. cos. 95. wife of Caesar) 636–37 Cornelia (RE 417. Cornelius Minicianus (notable of Bergomum) 439–40 L. 566 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus. tr. 81 M. Cornelius Dolabella (RE 141. Cornelius Merula (RE 269. 87–84) 635–37 P. Claudius Secundinus L. 613. suff. Helvius Claudius (emperor) 180. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (RE 238. 160 P. Cornelius (RE 18. 190) 80 Cn. envoy to Egypt in 154) 61 L. 67) 134 L. daughter of Metellus Scipio) 132. 140). 267. Cornelius Cinna (RE 106. pont. 148 P. suff. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (RE 355. pr. 622 Ti. see Tullius Cinna. 473. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus (RE 335. cos. cos. cos. cos. Valerius Cicero. 108. Cornelius Merula (RE 272. 229. 260. Clodius Albinus (emperor) 258. 159–60 C. Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus (RE 337. 49) 235 Catilina. 616 Clesippus (gibber) 197 Ser. 148 P. 148 P. 190) triumphal agnomen 118 and Aetolians 64. 260 P. cos. cos. see Cornelius. pr. 490. Gracchus 88–105. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Serapio) (RE 354. 485. 260–61. cos.(?) Cominius (RE 2. ca 312) 200 Commodus (emperor) 242.E. see Lutatius Chalepus (Aetolian politician) 82–83 Charisius. 471–72. tr. 256–58. 159 and Claudius Asellus 62. Clodius (RE 11. grammaticus) 195 D. Statius Macedo (PIR2 C 1015) 270. in Propertius) 160 C. 97. 57) 426 A. 143. cos. 54) 176. suff. pl. 58) 517. 49) 152. 44) 175–76. and Aetolians 64 triumphal agnomen 118 P. and Scipio Aemilianus 62. mater Gracchorum) 148 . 231. 621 Clodius Secundus. 205) descendants 144 legatus in 190. pl. daughter of Cinna. 162. 41) 176–77. Claudius Asellus (RE 63. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (RE 351. 404. flamen Dialis) 637 C. Cornelius Scipio (RE 333. Cornelius Dolabella (cos. 87. 491 L. Cornelius Gallus (RE 164. cos. 143–47. see Sergius Catulus. 272. 428–30. C. praef. younger daughter of Scipio Africanus. 174) 160 P. Cornelius Scipio (RE 331. 533–35. 160 C. tr. 35) 136. elder daughter of Scipio Africanus) 148 Cornelia (RE 407. his historical encyclopedia 40–42 Constantius II 385–86 Constantius III 385–86 Corculum. Claudius Pulcher (RE 297. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Corculum) (RE 353. 65) 238–39 Q. 421. Flavius (RE 15. 620 Felix. pro pr. 637 augurate of 166–69 P. 141. cos. 223. cos. Fulvius. 148–49 Q. 311–12. 173 Eupolemos (Aetolian general) 68 F M. cos. 138) 97 Curio. see Flavius Flaccus. see testamentum Dasumii Drusilla (sister of Caligula) 442–43 Drusus (son of Tiberius) 180 Drusus Caesar (son of Germanicus) 224. 516 . Domitius Ahenobarbus (RE 18. 83. see Claudius Domitianus (emperor) 267. poet) 198 Cn. 483. 87. by 52). Cornelius Sulla (RE 386. Favonius (RE 1. 428–29 E Eirene. cos. 10) 149 Paullus Fabius Maximus (RE 102. 129. 308. aed. cos. 121) 144 Q. pl. 77–78) 123 Cn. 351–58 Creticus. 312. Curvius Tullus (notable from Nemausus) 295 D Dades (king in Caucasus) 262–76 Damoteles (Aetolian politician) 66–69. Fabius Buteo (RE 53. Cornificius (RE 8. 612–13. Munatius. Fabricii (of Aletrium) 425 Falco. see Cornelius Domitianus. 542 omen mortis 196–97 Cn. 81. 214. qu. Eppius (RE 2. cos. see Irene Ennius 76. 356. see Scribonius Cursor. 45) 144. see Nigidius Fimbria. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus (RE 109. 304) 25. 32) 123 699 L. 280 P. 215. Cornelius Valerianus (praefectus vexillariorum. 45?). Fabius Maximus Allobrogicus (RE 110. augural symbols on coins 166 L.Indices L. donis donatus) 224–26 Q. cur. orator form Nemausus) 295 Cn. in Bellum Africum 161. 598. 228. 209) 40 C. see testamentum Dasumii Decebalus (Dacian king) 225–26. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (RE 116. cos. 295) 99. see Licinius Crates (cynic philosopher) 197 Crates Monoceros. see Aurelius Cottius 129 Cotys (Thracian king) 57–58 Crassus. Caecilius Crus. qu. cos. 297. see Annaeus. 187) 74. pr. et L. see Calpurnius Flavius. 177–78. 78) 133 Faustus Cornelius Sulla (RE 377. Cornelius Sulla (RE 392. Decius Mus (RE 16. 49) 137–38. 504 and the foundation of Rome 3–19 M. Domitius Tullus. 88. 176. bethrothed to Caesar) 636 Cotta. augural symbols on coins 166–67 Cornutus. Caecilius Corvinus. 217) 259–61 C. 245) 40 Africanus Fabius Maximus (RE 101. suff. cos. cos. cos. des. Cornelius Sisenna (RE 374. 54) 152–53. pr. and corvi 207 Cratinus (painter) 342. Domitius Ahenobarbus (RE 27. see Cornelius Cunibertus (Lombard king) 444 C. cos. 82–79) 123. tr. Fabius Maximus (RE 108. 285. 620. dict. cos. Flaminius (RE 2. Domitius Afer (RE 14. see Cornelius M. see Calpurnius. Domitius Ponticus (leg. 181) 144 Q. cos. see Pompeius Faustina (empress) 504 Faustus. 561 Dolabella. pr. 233. 145) 144 Q. Domitius Ahenobarbus (RE 23. see Antonius. Flaminius (RE 3. 54). 276. as honorific title 267–68 Cn. 293. 240–41 Domitius Marsus (RE 66. cos. epithet of Commodus 244 Figulus. see Siccius Diocletianus (emperor) 292. see Papirius Sex. 166 Demea (person in Terence) 20 Dentatus. pr. Fabius Maximus (RE 107) 144 Q. 80. 83 Dasumius. see Valerius Cossutia (RE 7. 347. Valerius Flamininus. Curiatius (RE 3. 192) 84 Cn. see Quinctius C. Fabius Maximus (RE 105. 11) 149 Q. 85 Forbeius (name) 377 Frugi. 443. 240–41 campaign in Africa 149. 429. 78. 227. Iunius Brutus (RE 65a. 189) war against Aetolia 43. Hirtius (RE 2. Fulvius Flaccus (RE 61. 428. 79. 200) 53 M. 455–56. acclaimed imperator 116–17 Gaius Caesar 179. see Calpurnius Hyginus. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus (PIR2 H 40. see Servilius Itthalammon (etymology of) 567 Iuba (I) (king of Numidia) 156–57. see Iunius M. 46) 159 Iulius Hyginus (RE 278. proqu. established by 433–34 dominatio (and regnum) 94. in Alba Pompeia 454 Heraklammon (cananiclarius) 213 Hipparche (and Crates) 197 A. 182. 230–33. cos. 223. 66. 52–53. 47. 161–62. 228 Gibba. 212. antiquarian). 428 Galba. pr. Iunius Brutus (RE 49. 72) 406 Germanicus 111–12. Gallius (RE 5. pr. cos. 272–76 L. Fulvius Flaccus (RE 59. see Cornelius M. Fulvius Gillo (RE 69. see Acilius Goces (legatus Parthorum) 317 Gracchus. 68. 125 Hispanus. pr. 449 . see Fulvius Glabrio. Iulius Caesar 433–34. 237. emperor) 113 Iulianus (king of Apsilae) 275–76 C. acclaimed imperator 116. Gellius Poplicola (RE 17. cos. 351–53. symbols on 161–62 colonies. Aemilius Lepidus 73–75 and Cato Maior 47–48. see Sulpicius Galba (emperor) 163. Flavius Sabinus (RE 165. 61–62. 70–73. 43). 171–72 Iuba (II) (king of Mauretania) 163 Iulia Maior 389. justification of 152–56 coins. see Dades C. by 140) 631 Flavius Dades. 30. 638 Helvii. cos. 179) 62. 66–73. 361 Iunianus. Furius Bibaculus (RE 37. 630–31 Iulia Minor 389 Iulianus (Julian. Licinius Crassus L. 175–177 and elephants 161–62 flamen Dialis destinatus 636–37 pontifex maximus 134. 612 Q. Iulius Macer (duplicarius and evocatus. 50. 238–41 and civil war. Flavius Fimbria (RE 88) 637 T. Iulius Romanus (RE 434. 534 triumph 233–34 L. Fulvius Flaccus (RE 58. see Titius Homoius. 60 Q. 80–84 siege and capture of Ambracia 48. 150) 561 Gegania (and Clesippus) 197 Gelasius (papa) 508 L. Fulvius Nobilior (RE 91. the Liberator) 31–33. pr. 181–82. 179–183. 270. Gabinius (RE 11. 71–72. see Gavius Gallienus (emperor) 213 Gallio. 525 Gallicanus. 443. father of Vespasian) 417 M. 453. 528 M. see Iulius I Iodmanganos (official in Caucasian Iberia) 270–72. 144) 454 Hegesias (envoy from Lampsakos) 56–57 Heliogabalus (emperor) 564–65. 377. 75–78. by 45) 238–39 Gallus. 550 Geta (emperor) 202. poet) 198 G A. see P. on augural birds 15 C. 156–60. 346–49. see Terentius Gillo. see Sempronius Gratianus (emperor) 282 Gutta 615 H Hadrianus (emperor) 205. 275 Irene (paintress) 342–43. cos. cos. 160–63. 85–87 and M.700 Indices and Caucasus 266. donis donatus) 223–27 C. 613 campaign against Pompeius 229–31. 355 Isauricus. 453 Q. 391. 209) 52. 86–87 and Ennius 83. see Lollius Horion. 58). 290–91. 74–75. Iulius Caesar (RE 144. 87 M. 534 banquets of 329–31. Gavius Squilla Gallicanus (PIR2 G 114. 224. cos. 125) 420. 61–62. cos. grammaticus) 25. cos. 224. see Valerius Lauenus. cos. 163) 259 K Kratinos. Licinius Macer (RE 112. cos. 85 Marcellus. 224. 622 D. 151. 140) 148 Laelianus. des. Laelius (RE 2. Claudius Licinia (RE 183. 472–75. 151 M. 78) 39 Lykon (peripatetic philosopher) 348–49. see Baebius. 582. cos. Catilinarian conspirator) 39 L. Labienus (RE 6. Licinius Lucullus (RE 103. 292. 305. des. Maesius Maximus (notable of Bergomum) 437–39 Magnentius (emperor) 386 Q. the orator) 148. 151 L. 340). cos. 65). triumphal agnomen 118 L. 428 Lucretia 173–74. see Cornelius Lepidus. see Aemilius. 178) 182 Cn. 181–82. cos. 284. cos. 158 P. 456. mil. elder daughter of cos. brother of Metellus Scipio) 151 L. 272. Manlius Torquatus (RE 82. see Pompeius Sp. Maecius (RE 24) 459 M. 189) 62. 388. cos. 95) 148. cos. and the Gaul 207. 53. see Hedius Lollius Homoius (public grammarian) 313 Longinus. his fundus 86–87 M. 97. 55) 134. Licinius Crassus (RE 76. cos. 99 M. his presumed agnomen Ponticus 115 C. elder daughter of cos. 104–100) 251–52. Marius (RE 14. cos. see Aufidius Q. cos. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (RE 57. 344. 147–48 T. 71. 629 D. and Bellum Africum 161. trial de peculatu or repetundis 127 L. pl. pr. Licinius Crassus (cos. see Licinius Lurco. Licinius Crassus Iunianus (RE 75. 594 Lucullus. 636 C. cos. pr. 73–74. 351 Lykopus (Aetolian politician) 82–83 Lysippus (sculptor). Licinius Crassus (RE 55. tr. 102) 456 Q. 78. see Atinius Laelia (RE 25. 41) 147. Marcius Philippus (RE 76. 274 Macedonicus. 107. 541. 104). Lutatius Catulus (RE 7. cos. 460. tr. 614 Liutprand (Lombard king) 444 Livia (wife of Augustus) 381. dict. as jurist 631 A. Iunius Silanus (RE 163. 67) 137 Lucius Caesar 170. Licinius Crassus (RE 63. 175–77. 304 C. the triumvir’s son) 136. Manilius (RE 12. 222 Laenas. Manlius Vulso (RE 90. 62) 534. 491 Mammula. cos. Licinius Crassus (RE 55a). 124 T. cos. 489. see Popillius Larcius. Iunius Brutus Callaicus (RE 57. see Cassius Longus. see Considius L. see Claudius. pr. ca 312) 200 Laevinus. cos. by 59?) 231 and Cingulum 399–400 and Metellus Scipio 157. cos. 217. 208) 526. Licinius Lucullus (RE 104. 542 A. Manlius Vulso (RE 91. 53). Quinctius L. (C. see Pontius Latinus (king) 59. 190) 49. 477–81.?) Laetorius Mergus (RE 11. 222 L. Manlius (duumvir in Trebula Suffenas) 382 T. Lucceius (RE 6. 486. pr. accused de repetundis 110–11 701 L. Licinius Macrinus. Iunius Gallio (PIR2 I 757) 232 D. see Cornelius M’. 637 . 70.Indices M. 42) 176. Manlius (RE 18. 621 Lollianus. Laelius (RE 3. Publicius. 73. Iunius Brutus Albinus (RE 55a. Iulius. see Pontius C. 261. turma Alexandri 146 M Macedo 270. Magurius Felix (of Patavium) 469–70. 95. acclamatio imperatoria 116–17. 179. 140) 29. 163 L. 138). 74). cos. Manlius Torquatus (RE 79. Manlius (RE 10) 311 C. see Camulius Lentulus. 611–12 P. see Caecilius Macer. 56) 152–53 Marcus Aurelius (emperor) 204–5. Iunius Brutus (RE 53. cos. 149). cos. 347. 68?). 150–52. Iuventius Thalna (RE 30. Licinius Murena (RE 123. see Cratinus L Labeo. 235. 219. 62) 534 M. Lutatius Catulus (RE 8. see Cornelius Minicius Martialis (PIR2 M 618. Octavius (RE 20. 126–27 <L. ca 89–82) on impiety and expiation 13. Gracchus 90–91 and annales maximi 300 as jurist 631 Q. 426.pl. Nigidius Figulus (RE 3. pr. 261 Mauritius (emperor) 387 Maximianus. 293. 87) 637 M. see Clodius Pansa. Munatius Flaccus (RE 19. 465. 289. see Caecilius O Octavia (daughter of Claudius) 428 C. on augural birds 4–5.702 Indices N Nasica. Oppius (RE 17. 105) 53 P.> Orbilius Pupillus (RE 18. 133) 89–90 P. Messius Rusticus Aemilius Papus (PIR2 M 524) 377 Metellus. III (kings of Iberia) 266–67. governor of Syria) 317 Marsus. 117) 148 Mucius (RE 1. Numenius (donis donatus) 224–26 Numidicus. qu. tr. 430. 62) accuses M. monetalis) 391 Numa (king of Rome) 7. 622 Cn. qu. 591. 12. 139–ca 115) and Ti.) 148 Q. cos. see Licinius. ca 74–70). 78 Q. 219 C. see Fulvius C. Pompeian praefectus) 200 Murena. ca 55) 284. pr. 133. 207 Orestes. see Aufidius. Papirius Cursor (RE 53. pl. 219 Nero (emperor) 26. Papirius (RE 26. 228 M. 133) 88–90. see Caecilius. 269–70. 272) and auspicia ementita 14. 128 L. Marius. Norbanus (RE 6. donis donatus) 216–17. see Claudius. Nonius (miles) 373 Nonius Asprenas (PIR2 N 126). see Caecilius [Met]ellus Scip[io] 136 Micio (person in Terence) 20–21 Minicianus. see Minicius Maternus (rebellion of) 243–46. 102. procurator in Syria) 317 L. see Vibius Papiria (RE 78. pr. 260. 255–57. pont. 58). Papirius Carbo (RE 35. Norbanus (RE 5. Minucius Thermus (RE 63). Nautius (RE 4. 14–15. cos. see Augustus Cn. 525 P Paetus. Maesius. donis donatus) 216–17. Aurelius Cotta 118–19 convicted (de repetundis) 122. cos. pl. trial of 119–20. Valerius Menander. 191 omen aquilae 15–16 in Caesar’s propaganda 171 L.max. grammaticus) 184. wife of L. Minucius Thermus (RE 65. tr. Fabius. 186–87. 193). Papirius Carbo (RE 33. Mucius Scaevola (RE 17. pl. Aemilius Paullus) 144 Sp. 516 and theologia tripertita 554 and the flaminate of Caesar 637 L. 472. and lusus Troiae 202. Minucius Thermus (aedile after 166) 78 Mithridates I. pont. Octavius Ruso (RE 82. see Valerius M. see Valerius Maximus. and Cato Maior 61–62. Mucius Scaevola (RE 21. see Laetorius Merula. 517. 248. Octavius. cos. and Cato Maior 61. cos. 275 Mithridates VI (king of Pontus) 115 Mucia (RE 27. tr. by 68/67. Aurelius Otho (emperor) 290–91. see Cornelius Messala. see Arrius Mergus. Nonius Sufenas (RE 52. daughter of cos. Cornelius Sp. 222. 80 Q. see Domitius Martialis. 272–73. 189–199. 639 battle of Vercellae 456–57 military reforms 36. Marius Maximus (PIR2 M 308. 485. Octavius (RE 31. 131) 96 C. 615 C. see Decius . 15 Nikodemos (Aetolian general) 68 Nobilior. tr. 542 Nero Caesar (son of Germanicus) 428 Nerva (emperor) 421 P. 600 T. Terentius Murranus (epitaph from Sulmo) 374–75 Mus. cos. max. 463. Mucius Scaevola (RE 22. II. cos. aug. 117. 83) 391 C. 95. 72. 333–34. Caesar’s wife) 534 Q. Pompeius Magnus (RE 33. see Gellius C. see Aemilius. suff. 459. govenor of Syria) 273–74 L. Antoninus epithet of Commodus 244 Plautii Silvani 378.) 511 Sp. 144) 204 M. 270–76 Philippus V (of Macedon) 56. cos. suff. 150. 44) 465–66 703 Pontia (in Val. Fabius Papus. 235.) 623 Ponticus (cognomen) 115–29. 61–63. tr. see Vespasia Pollio. 166. Minucius Thermus (cos. 52) 131–32. 270. 108) 439–40 M. 249 Philippus. 49. Porcius Cato (Minor) (RE 16. Quinctius Certus Publicius Marcellus (PIR2 P 1042. 174. 229–30. cos. 419 in Aetolia 47–48.E. 117–18. 195. Ulpius. 143. 511 Q Quinctius. Caesernius C. 217 death 159. 156. 120. cens. 89) 185. praet. Fulvius Nobilior (cos.) 495 Piso. see also Aurelius. 241 T. 113) 418 Sex. cos. 190. 453 M. pl. Pomponius (RE 11) 229. 382–83 M. 75–77. 72–73. 54) 39. Postumius Albinus (RE 45.Indices and military awards 184. 35) 390. 216–17 Paullus. Postumius Albinus (RE 44. 136. Plautius Silvanus (PIR2 P 479. praef. 612 Sex. 77) 418 Pegasus (PIR2 P 512. 56) 284. Porcius Cato (RE 6. 254. 84 . pl. 434. 615 M. 74. tr. Peducaeus (RE 19. 61–67. cos. 261 Phaeneas (Aetolian politician) 68. 44. 63. 398 Sp. 582. 192) 61 M. see Asinius. 192) 56. 66. Pompeius Strabo (RE 45. 250–52. adopted (testamento) by Q. 184) 29. 557 Cn. 168. Quinctius Flamininus (RE 43. 389. 87 and M. 79. cos. 156. 231. 61–62. 283–84. Domitius. 189) 47–48. pr. 129 a governor in Juvenal (PIR2 P 786) 122. 78–79. 69. 520. 70. cos. 266. cos. 359) 100 Poplicola. 69. 272–765 Publicius Marcellus. Porcius Cato (Maior) (RE 10. 115) 561 Cn. suff.) 244–45 Pertinax (emperor) 454 Pescennius Niger (emperor) 256–57. 82. Plotius (eques from Nursia) 417–18 Polla. see Orbilius Pyrrhus 43–44. cos. 136. 70–73. C. Messius Peducaei (of Nursia) 417–18 Sex. Plinius Secundus (Minor). Pomponius Secundus (PIR2 P 754. 46–47. poet. Procilius (RE 1–2) 615 Proculus (usurper) 385 Publicius Agrippa (official in Caucasian Iberia) 262. 55. see T. 173–74 and Metellus Scipio 136. 221. 51–52. Pomponius Atticus (RE 102). Valerius Augustan poet (PIR2 P 785) 122. 79–81 and M. 67. 78 and Q. Minucius Thermus 61–62. 129 in Martial 123 triumphal agnomen 115. 186) 7. 85 and L. 42 Pompeia (RE 52. cos. 329. des. jurisprudent) 427 Peregrinus (in Lucian) 632 Perennis (RE Tigidius 1.’Acilius Glabrio 43. see Vettius Probus (emperor) 228. 385. 155. cos. 146. 71–72. 240–41. Pompeius Falco (PIR2 P 602. pr. see Quinctius Publicola. cos. Pompeius Macrinus (PIR2 P 627. 241. 83–84 and Ambracia 66–67. 110) 398 Praetextatus. Pompeius Magnus (RE 31. 82. 285–86. see Valerius Pulcher. Peducaeus (RE 5. 173–74 L. 70. Vespasius Polybius on embassies to Rome 42–43.Max. suff. 158. 70. Pontius Laelianus Larcius Sabinus (PIR2 P 806. 82–83 Phalantos (founder of Taras) 487 Pharasmanes I. 24) 378 C. suff. pr. Popillius Laenas (RE 20. Pileius (tr. 55 and excerpts of Constantine 41–42 and Roman constitution 34–36. 52. cos. 416. see Caecilius. cos. see Marcius M. rex sacr. 408 L. 159. 49. Postumius Albinus (RE 39. and Bergomum 437–40 C. 134. 620 and Bellum Africum 151. 122 M. Caecilius 138 P. Claudius. see Claudius. 176.E. pl. II (kings of Iberia) 264. C. see Aemilius. Clodius Pupillus. see Calpurnius Pius. 82–83. 163. 79. 207. grammaticus) 194. before 67?) 235. Saenius (RE 1) 39 T. see Aurelius Syphax (king of Numidia) 49 Syrus (slave in Terence) 20 T Tanaquil 594 A. pr. 49–50. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (RE 93.pl. Sentius Saufeii 624 Scaevola. 285. tr. 416–17 Q. 159 L. see Flavius. the emperor’s father) 196 Ser. 215. 52. 51) 39. 83) 171. see Iunius Silvanus. 150 Servius (RE 8. 240–41. Salvidienus Rufus (RE 4. 143–47. 246. see Claudius Secundus. see Nonius Sulla. Statius Macedo. pr. and Aetolians (in 189) 65. tr. cos.704 Indices Septimius Severus (emperor) 228. 467. 258. see Cornelius Scipio Saturninus. Siccius Dentatus (RE 3. 18–19 Romulus 504 convivial anecdote 20–29 foundation of Rome 3–19 and Volcanus 538–39 Rubrius (RE 1. pr. 316–17 Socrates in Macrobius 23 statue of by Lysippus 355 and Glaucon 590 Spinther. 5. 254 Ti. 68) 39. cos. 390–91 Salvitto. 97. tr. pr. Sulpicius Rufus (RE 93. Terentius Varro (RE 80. see Antonius. 133) 89 Rufus. cos. Sulpicius Rufus (RE 95. Caesernius. Sulpicius. see Caecilius. Sulpicius Galba (PIR2 S 999. tr. 510. 328. 63–64. see Plautius Sinon (name) 401 Sisenna. Roman hero) 218–19 Silanus. Appuleius. tr. 310. pl. 11–13. cos.] Sentius Saturninus Vetulo (RE 4. tr. 489 Q. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 53. 288–90. see Servilius Ruso. pl. Hedius. 103. 594 L. 461. Cornelius Scribonia (PIR2 S 274. 79) 117. Vibullius Rullus. see T. 175 Symmachus. 219. Servilius Rullus (RE 80. pl. Iunius Brutus P. 177) 96 Ti. 300 Ti. see Clodius. Servilius Caepio (RE 49. foundation of Rome 3–4. 259 R Remus. 81 M. cos. see M. Sotidius Sufenas. Scribonius Curio (RE 11. suff. pr. 123–22) 95–97. Pomponius Seianus. Plinius. 13. des. 198) 44. wife of Augustus) 391 C. 516–17 T. see Pompeius. 416 as antiquarian 5. proscriptus) 315 . 125. Seius (RE 4). 73. cos. see Cornelius Sex. 79–80. 38. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 43. 213) 92. 454. 401 Serapeitis (a noble woman in Iberia) 271–72. Sal(l)ienus (centurio) 232–34. 620 Secundinus. legate of Tiberius) 313–14. see Aemilius Scipio. 275 Serapio (nickname of Scipio Nasica) 90. pr. Sertorius (RE 3. see Octavius Rutilius Namatianus and Albingaunum 385–86 and CLE 893 S Sabinus. 249. cos. Servilius Caepio Brutus. see Caelius. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 54. 56–58. see Mucius Scaurus. pl. pl. 106) 127 Q. 237. Claudius Secundinus Strabo. greges of anseres 143 C. 256. see Cornelius L. Quinctius Flamininus (RE 45. 628–29 Servius Tullus (king) 538–39. 48) 239 C. see Cornelius Sulpicii (notables in Bergomum) 436–37 P. Sal(l)ienus Clemens (PIR2 S 74. 63) 155 P. 138) his death 88–114 tribunician sacrosanctity 555 A. 506–7. Sempronius Gracchus (RE 51. Sergius Catilina (RE 23. 261. see Aelius M. cos. 452. Sempronius Verus (notable in Trebula Suffenas) 379 [C. Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus (PIR2 S 790. ca 65) 232 Q. 240 T. Terentius Varro (RE 84. 184). suff. 503. 39) 203. Pontius L. 50) 175–76. Salvidienus. see Servilius Velleius. Ventidius (RE 5. 198 M. Titius (RE 13. see Valerius Tullia (daughter of Servius Tullus) 594 L. 193. Valerius Flaccus (RE 173. as speaker in Macrobius 22–23. Valerius Messala (RE 268. 442 L. 455. 451–52. 416–17. Valerius Laevinus (RE 208. 101 as literary critic 28–29 and Metellus Scipio 141. 43) acclaimed imperator 116 and Forum Vibii 440. 155 in civil war 176 consulship 37–39. 273. Valerius Triarius (RE 365. legate of Caesar) 241 P. 73. 117 C. 455. 525 Vologeses (king of Armenia) 272 Vulso. aed. Vergilius (RE 2. 237–40 Valerius Ponticus (RE 295. 280. Tullius (RE 9. 3. class. 60 and alliance with Aetolia (in 211) 72 M. pr. Valerius Asiaticus (RE 106. 225–26. Tullius Cicero (RE 29. 53) 232. 145–151 presides as praetor (in 66) over the trial of Licinius Macer 110–11 provincial appointment 153–54 Tullus. cos. legate in 74–73) 115. see Clodius Tiberius (emperor) 180. cos. 525–29. see Terentius Vatia. 313. pr. 210) 52.cur. 267. 428. see Sentius C. suff. and Aetolians (in 189) 53. pl. 49–48) 241 L. Valerius Laevinus (RE 211. 316–17 M. 267–68. Valerius Messala (RE 252. cos. see Fabius C. cos. 625 Torquatus. 509) 32 C. see Manlius. see Iuventius Theodorus (praestigiator) 342–43. 290–91. 97. Valerius Triarius (RE 363. Terentius Varro Gibba (RE 89. see Curvius. 266. praef. Valerius Orca (RE 280. senator?) 123 Q. suff. 625 Vespasius Pollio (of Nursia. 203. cos. Valerius Cato (RE 117. cos. officer of Pompeius) 241 A. 254 Vespasia Polla (emperor’s mother) 417 Vespasianus (emperor) 188. cos. 288–90. Terentius Varro Murena (RE 91. donis donatus) 225 Valerius Maximus. 155 and the Gracchi 89. Latin usage 249 P. 225. 311–12. 85 M. his scaenici. emperor’s grandfather) 417 Vettius Agorius Praetextatus (PLRE I. 195) 77 705 and Aetolians (in 191) 63 C. cos. 232–34. 220?. cos. 176). 596 and religio 506–7. 188) 44. Latin usage 628 M. Cicero’s legate in Cilicia) 307–8.. 528. tr.722–24). and trial under Claudius) 562 P. 236–37 L. cos. Nonius Traianus (emperor) 201. 366. 348–351 Theodulus (cornicularius) 203 Thermus. Vesnius Vindex (of Urvinum Mataurense) 242–46. 71–72 M. 275–76. 626. Valerius Maximianus (slayer of Valao. 503 Triarius. omen corvi 16 L. 461. see Cornelius Valerianus (emperor) 213 D. suff. 340. Valerius Corvinus (Corvus) (RE 137).Indices and Augustine 506–7. 525–27. 596 M. ca 44) 195 Thalna. 62) 232 Vergilius Romanus (litteratus) 322 Verrucosus. Servius U Ulpius Flavius Ponticus (tribunus laticlavius) 123 V Valao (dux Naristarum) 225 Valerianus. 316. 43) 197 C. 42) 195 A. 205–6. tr. grammaticus) 194. senator) 235–37 Titus (emperor) 222. Vicirius Proculus (notable in Rusellae) 429–31 M. see Minucius Thrasea. see Manlius . Vipsanius Agrippa (RE 2. 625 Vitellius (emperor) 290–91 456. 63) as augur 15. 134. 194 Vetulo. 37) 391. Vibullius Rufus (RE 1. Valerius Publicola (RE 302. mil. Vargunteius (RE 3) 620 Varro. Vibius Pansa (RE 16. 631 Titii Hispani (adulescentes) 156. 450–54 Albingaunum 384–87. 411 aerarium 80. 453 Albania (in Caucasus) 264. 431. 512 ala (military) 190. 561 adoptio 294–95 (presumed) testamentary 133–40. 74–75. 402. 273–74 Alba Longa 46–47. 437. 615. aedilitas 25. 60–86 Africa. 494 aes Corinthium 625 Aesculapius. 471. 431. 431 municipal 244. 234 annona 311. tribe of Caecilii 137 anima. ascensio in caelum 551–52 ankh 173 Anna Perenna 396 annales. 316–17. 327–28. 588 Apollonia (in Cyrenaica) 566 Apollonia (in Illyria) 66. and Rome 43. 141. 165 Aphrodisias (in Caria) 91. 400. 528. 620 Ambracia and Aetolia 66–67. 71–72. 406. 448. 303–5 Antigonos of Karystos. 131–33. 393. 404 aedilis. 118. 223–27. 149. 355 Antiochia (in Pisidia) 230. 446. 134. 437 Alpes Cottiae 441 Alpes Maritimae 421–22. 538 Alba Pompeia 241. embassy to Rome 57–59 Aborigines 624 absentia (at elections) 611–12. 640 Etruriae 429. 612–14.706 X Xepharnougos (king of Iberia) 264. 615 Apollo 32. 69. 145–46. 32. representations of 160–61. 516–18 and gerere 45 Agni (Indian deity) 538 Aius Locutius 6. 124–25. 396–97. constituere 541–43 Abdera. 66. 68. on painters and performers 347–49. 351. 204 207. 82–83. legati 44–50 ambages 527–28 ambitus (electoral malpractices) 37. 505. General Index A a solo restituere. Anaunia 404 angareia 313 Angitia (dea) 425 Aniensis. 159. 46–53. 82 siege and capture by M. 487. 442 aedituus 411 Aemilia (regio) 408 aenatores 412 aequitas (concept). 321. 612. 78. 557 aetates (of life) 491 Aetolia. 224–25 apex (headcover of priests) 98–99. 39. 173 agere 12. 379. and Annales Maximi 300. 82 and Cato 66–67. 478. 85–87 Anagnia 259. Fulvius Nobilior 48. 34. 295 adrogatio 135–37. 371 cum populo 517 lege 110. mount 131 ambassadors 40–60 termed oratores. 144–45. 504. 424 agnus mas 425–26 Anauni. 315 . 490 Alani 267. 620–23. 219–20. 141. aediles. Aequitas (deity) 163–64. Asclepios 342. 373 sacra 411–12 anulus (as status symbol) 108. 568–71. 604. 172 actarius 209 actio ad exhibendum 26–27 Adonis 338–39. 487. 66. 125. 200. 27. 271–72 Indices Z Zeouachos (official in Caucasian Iberia) 271–72 IV. 191–92. 623 Acarnania 50. 274 Aletrium 424–28 alimenta 292. 39. 213 acceptio in fidem (dicionem) 54 acclamatio imperatoria 115–17. 120. 139–40 libertini 395 adtributio 402. 460 Amanus. 221. 82 Aponus 469. 70. 480–81 apparitor 186–187. 155. 226 aureus (coin) 163. 428–29. sodales Augusteum 428–31 A(ula) 373 Aura 480 auratus (inauratus) 99. 504 Arae Flaviae (in Germania Superior) 244–45. 559. 170 augurium. 16–17 captare 5 conspicere 9 legum dictio 12–13 orientation at 6. 629. 167. 13. 206–7. seviri. 10–11. 215–22. 182 insignia and emblems 164–70. 219. 411. 633 incerta 13 interpretation of 167 laeva 4. 379–81. 170. 633–34 Arelate 234. 61. 448. argenteum 68. 15–18. 490 Augustalia 407 augustales 179–83. 409. auguria 3–4. 164–65. 52. 484–85 aries purpureus 589 Armazi (in Caucasian Iberia) 262–64. 377. 400. 639 ara 249. 268. 15 maxima 10 oblativa 10. 399 senatus 154 Aufidena 407 707 augur. 512. 316. 207. 542 Pacis 99. 202. 214 atramentum 215 Atria 455 atrium libertatis 39 auctoritas 35. 317. 219. aureus 4–5. 201–2. 175. 216–23. 457 aureus ramus 589–90 auriga 474–75. 268–72. 257 argentum. 274–75 Armenia. 169 coacta 531 contempta 259 ex diris 9–10 dubia 13–14 ementita 13–15 genera of 9–10 gradus of 9–10 impetrativa 5. 167–170. 568. 329–31. 453 Augusta Taurinorum 409. 184. 563. 262–63. 403 nuntiatio by 38 and politics 155 and Remus 3. 393. 276. 196–97. 619 Aquilonia. 164. 227–28 Arpinum 424 Arretium 49. 270. 411. 321. 121. 459. auspicia ex avibus 4. 10–12. 132. 157. 12–13. 512. 254. 523 Augusta Bagiennorum 402. 114. 100. 617. 589–90 auspicatio (procedure) 5. 345. 563 astutus 374 asylum (Romuli) 96 Atectoridiana. 69. 389. 493. 212. 253. 416 Asia (Minor) 58. 447–48. 262. 74. 446 Augusta Treverorum 432. 145–46. 264–66. 481 Aquae Statiellae 445. 73. ala 226 arca 449–50 archers 172. 383–84. 9 ex caelo 9–10. 598 assistance at public acts 168–70. 421–22. 80. 212. 293. see adoptio arvales. 480. 531. 268–69. see also ludi. 426. 261 Araborum. 523. magistri. 524 Aquae Aponi 469. 279. 488–89 aurum. 437. 227–28. ala 223. 523 . 99. 216–17. 442. 64–65. 71. 221. 567 archives 304. 16. Armenian 172. 378. see fratres ascia 388. 273–74. augures 8–9. 552 Asculum 185. 272–74 armillae (military decoration) 157. 157. 202. 310–11. 18–19 and sortitio 164–66. 456. 434. 45. 270. 184–86. 405 Aqua Marcia 378 aqua et igni interdictio 112. 225 Ateste 455 atheism 557–58 Attis 504. 32 servare 4 silentium 16 auspices nuptiarum 530 auspicium. 15–16. 426 aquila (legionary) 132 Aquileia 270. 265. 256. 561 atramentarium 212. 399. 539. 313. 224.Indices Apulia 371. 6. 216–228. battle of 184. 18–19 and Romulus 3. 385 Argentorate 246. 259 arrogatio (adrogatio). 276. 512. 248. 19. 453 aquaelicium 111–12 aqueducts 75. 81. 274. 528. auspicia and auguria 10–12. 591–95. 228 Bendis (deity) 561 benignus. 564 Balaclava (in Crimea) 541. 169–70. as award 202. 503. 433. 214 calendar 80–81. 393 Bodincomagus 448. 17 praepes 4–6. 524 inferae 5 laeva 6. 400. L. 546. 323–25. 263 biga. 230–31. 509. 629 Bruttii 389–90 C Cabiri (mysteries of) 561 Caburrum. 363. 492. 17. 169 spheres of 551–52 Caesena 242. 453 bellum desertorum 244. 599–601 calos (exclamation) 452 Calypso (nymph) 342–48 Camerinum 401–2. 395. 523 and imperium 167–171 of magistrates 166–71. 618–19 canalicula 210 canalicularius 209–215 cananiclarius 212–14 . 467. 533–35 Bormida (stream) 444–45. 260 iustum 46. 19 cornix 170 corvus 14. 565 caelum ardere 242. 134. 191–92. designations of arcula 18 bene iuvans 18 circanea 17 contraria 18 enubra 18 incerta 13. 115. 6. 9–10. 15. 537. 15–16. 524 Beneventum 187. 18–19 aves augurales. 629 Bergomum 431.708 pestiferum 18 pullaria (ex tripudiis) 14. 408 Calabria 389–90. 561–62. 306. 522–23 and nuptiae 530 and patricians 637–38 and plebeians 637–38 renovatio of 169 repetitio (repetere) of 169 and the struggle of the orders 35. admittunt 13 B Bacchanalian conspiracy 7. 435–40 birth 19. 538. 170 vultur 6. 521. 453 bourgeoisie 292–93 bracchialia. 238. 52. 633 valid for one day only 531 and vitium 169 aves augurales aquila 10. 172–73 Caelestis (dea) 173. benignitas and Scipio Africanus 64 Beria. 515–19. 283. 442 Barium 405–7 Belbo (stream) 444. 452. 597. 543 balnea (thermae) 317. 428. 214 calamaula 477 calamitas (augural term) 523 calamus 209–11. 503. 408. 424. 514. 631 Indices balteus. 16. 122–23. 255. 559–60. 440. 256–58. 80. 396. 437 Brundisium 65. 531 pulchra 5 ex quadrupedibus 9–10 auspicium. 293. 629 Bithynia 43. 170 picus 10. augural templum 9. 99. 311. 283 and tribunes of the plebs 88. 416 Campani. 405 calamarion 212. 60. 118. Campania 31. see Forum Vibii caduceator 50 caduceus 50 on coins 161. victoria 429–31 Brixia 410–12. bigae 629 award of 226. 258–61 ascent of souls into 551–52 and auspicia 4. 510. 127–28. see also Industria Bona Dea 26. bracchiatus 228 Breslau (and Mommsen and Bernays) 568 Britannica. 562 Bacchus 509. 288 Bellunum 387–89. 243–45 Bantia. 38. 15–16. 15 remores 18 secunda 13 sinens 18 vagae 17 avem aspicere 5 aves addicunt. 170 parra 10. 403. 19. 216–17. 81. 108 Cingulum 399–401. 81. 449. 569. conte di 441 celeritas. 523 comitia tributa 32 commentarienses 214 . 231. 640 terminology of 313–14 classiarii 389. 425. as offering 538. 453. 557. 563. 455–56. 445–46 centuriatus. 522. 502–9. 544–45. 455. carceres prison 278–80 stalls at races 3. 641 centumviri. centurionatus 205 Ceres 32. 318. 176–77. 90. 629. 547–48. 50. 539. 155. legionary epithet 261 certus. 568 codicarius 209 coemptio and manus 139. 488 Flaminius 77 Maximus 393. 60. 307. 234–27. 618 carcer. 519–21. see ius civitatis sine suffragio 377. 479 Carmelus (mons) 527 Carnicum 435 carnifex 95–96. 596 foederata 389. 517–19. 448–49. 612 and adverse signs 38. 319. 168. 632–33 cohors. 478. 616–17 sacrorum interimendorum causa 139 cognomen. 156. 240. 274 causia 624 Cavour. 528. 219. collegia 383. 443. 246 urbanae 224. 493–94. 314 Cimbri 259. 261 and Cicero 307 and Scipio Africanus 64 Clusium 429 clupeus (virtutis) 224–25. 188–89. 412. 283–84. 626–29 Iulia Paterna Sextanorum 234 comitia 73. 388. 314. 324. 128. 481. dendrophori. 613 centenarius (rank) 436 centonarii 388. 402. 474–76. as virtus imperatoria 172 Celtiberia. 173. 448 Carthago 219 Carthago Nova 219 Caucasus 264–65. 232. 630 Cilicia 117. 52. epulum) 20–29. 119. 492. 205 sacerdotum 179. 551 canis. 310. 513. 103–4. 433–34. 165. 618 and sodalitates 619 of tibicines. 434. 153–54. 425. 124–25. 415 709 civitas = city (town) 49. 455 Colapis (river) 133 Collatia 611 collegium. municipal 395 centurio. 309. 492. 146. 424 libera 58 = Rome 180. fabri colonia. 171 Capua 31. Celtiberi 50. 255. 227. 292. 336. 492. 491 Christiani. 531. 191. 92. 442. 485. 55 cena (convivium. 541–42 centuriatio 291. 326–31. 110. in augury 12–13. symphoniaci 546–47 see also centonarii. 280 Carreum Potentia (Chieri) 408–10. 396. 108–9. 398. 624 capis 164–66. 617–20 banquets of 327–28 compitalicia 31. 313–14. 487–88. 259. 158–59. 446–47. 15 chariot racing 305–6. coloni 17. 440–41. inherited from mother 436 cognomina ex victa gente 115–18. fidicines. 307 and Caesar 136. 456–57 cinaedi 197–98 cinctus Gabinus 90. 506. 422. 562–64. 406. 229. 482. 223. 411–12. 404. 314.Indices canarium sacrificium 542 canere 17. centuriones 76–77. 550–53 Canusium 371. 267. 449–50. 389. 408 circus 474. 478–79. 471 clavus annalis 627 clemens. 618–19 magistrorum 31. 214 cantare 465. clementia 64. 618–19 militaria 187. 231–32. 428. 618–19 magistri of 31. 596–98. 306. canes. 398. 241. 115. cohortes I Damascenorum 439–40 I Flavia 448–49 III Ituraeorum 208 praetoriae 224. 282. 456 classis (navy) 56. 104 certa. 382. 560–66. Camillo Benso. 249–50. 517. 182. 400. 419–20. 205–6. christiana religio 280–81. 489 starting mechanism 479–80 cistae Praenestinae 99 civitas (citizenship). 249. 492. 542 canna 209–11. 293. 517. in scholarship 581–82. 254 triumphalis 164 vallaris 76 corona. 600 consuetudo (grammatical concept) 344–45. aurea. 631 cornicularius. 251–52. 403 imperatorum 179. 173 cornus (cornelian cherry) 186 corona. 110. 429. 110. curiae senate house 37. 155 municipal divisions 490 Curinus. 400. 120–22. 537 Cyrene. 221. 586 curia. cornicularii 184–215 Cornicularius vicus 185 corniculum 184–215 corniculus 188 cornucopiae 161. 122. 32. 96. 628 corvus. 399–400 constitutional history. 449–50. Cyrenaica 566–67 D Dacia. 108–9. 618 (of pagus) of the senate. 501–2. Hercules 372–73 curriculum 330 custodire. 237. 279. 388. 13. 461 voti 373. 261 constituo (legal sense) 386. 589 contio 90. 372. 287 principis 636 privatum 152–53 constans. 386–88. 421. 280 damnatio memoriae 245–46.710 Indices Cularo (city in Gaul) 223 cultores 31. 441. 378. see senatus consulta decuria judicial 190. 100. 282. 392–93. 598 culullus 165 cupido. 113. 255–56. 163. 387. curatores alimentorum 431 civitatium (rei publicae) 292. pecuniam 233 Cybele 504. 60. 567 crudelitas 159. 121. 43. 222. 88. 582–83. 375 Consus 99. 439. 459. 164 . 155. 58. corvi 14. 119. 525. 618–19 comportare 374 Comum 437 conciliabulum 400. 566. 372–73. 280. 126. 561 Cyprus 61. 442. 381. 224. as gift 74 corona (military and civic decoration) 75. 113. 629 fanorum 492 kalendarii 406–7 viarum 292 Cures 394 curiosity. 207. 634–38 coniuratio 104 Italiae 616 consecratio 6. 253. 226. 392. 77. 16. 408. 527–28 cura aquarum 378 curator. 381. 370. 185 Cosa 427 Cotys (deity) 561 Creta 537. 616–17. 223 aurea 216–17. 564 cultus deorum 7. 564 voting units in Rome 32–33. 112–13. 561. see quindecimviri declinatio Graeca 344–47 decretum Augustalium 629 of Greek cities 56–58 municipal 182–83 (Pisana). 437. 447 in collegia 384. 170. 522 capitis 104. 631 conversion 505 Cora (KÒrh) 346–47 Corfinium 240–41. 254 civica 186 graminea 251–52. 527 Daunia 371 Dea Dia 101 death glorious 173–74 and red color 112 decemviri sacris faciundis. 395. 396. Daci 201. 109. 353–55 Compitalia 31. 393. Roman 34–36 Consualia 589. 420 Concordia (town in Italy) 492–96 condicio nominis ferendi 133–40 confarreatio 531. cupiditas 217. 384. 261. 431. 257. 615 in priestly colleges 180 comoedus 349. 406–7. 217. 228. 103–4. 428–29. 405. 220. 206. constantia 244–45. 254 laurea 121 muralis 75. pressa 486 Corvinus 16. 442 damnatus 102. 114 consilium of magistrate 54. 526. 226 myrtea 121 obsidionalis 249. 442. 189–90. 442. 79. and reception in Rome. 627–28 and Africa 161–62. see somnium ducere. 408. NH 14. 5. 279. 88–90. 407–8. 635–36. 627 on coins 160–62. 74. devotissimus 244–45. 481. 439 diffarreatio 531. 72 derectarii 340 Dertona 445–47 desidia 319. military 225–26. 134. Afr. 432–33. 309 provincial governor 313–17 tribune(s) of the plebs 133 effetus. 556.55–60: 332–33 Plinius. 268. 169–70. 617. bolting of 479 dreams. 288 duoviri (duumviri) (IIviri) municipal 191. 492. 517–18. 515 dona militaria 76–77. 379. 579 desultores 486–88 detestatio sacrorum 140 devotio 103–4. 282–84. 409. 486–88 Demeter Malophoros 480–81 democracy 289–90. deprecatio 631 and envoys to Rome 46. 167.1–8: 192–95 Livius 26. 516–19. 134. 489 deditio. 483. 230. 392. 592–93 imperii 468 nefasti 13. 289–90. 399. 184–228 doors. 526. 619 Delphi 49. 494. effeta (exhausted) 319–25 elections 73. procedure of 52–55. initiates 346–47. 1.10. Sat. 85 dum vellet 54–56. 560–63.21. 50–51. 81. 487 diploma (authorization for travel) 314 diplomata. 141. 48. 528. 71–72.59: 337–41 . 426.19a–b: 348–50 Bell. 592–93 fasti 13. 304. 378. 620. 391 Delhi 508 Delos 106. 629 dispensator 457 divination. 381. 516–17. 28: 232–33 Cicero. 453. 394. 74–75. 377. Att. 635–36 711 d/l (phonetic change) 365–66 domi (opposed to militiae) 60. 622 dendrophori 388 deprecor. 629 perduellionis 278 sacrorum 258 duplicarius 205. 592–93 religiosi 518. 627–28 Eleusinian mysteries. rules of 51–53. 590. 387. 287–88 defixio 365–66. 419–21. on painters 347–48. 175–76. 230. 304.Indices decuriati 620 decurio. 411. 63–64.66: 329–31 19. 279. 96. 324–25 despotism 282. 557. 60. 429. 53. 226 Duris of Samos. 637 devotus. 56–60.8. 404 (urban) praetor(s) 7. 525. 223. 586. 479. 83. 638 Dionysiac associations 561–63 Dionysos 537. 108–9. natural and artificial 6–9 divisores 614 divortium 23. 85.5: 307–18 Hesychius E 7096: 477–78 Horatius. 204. 63–65 emendation and/or exegesis of: Athenaeus 1. 525 Octavian 616 privatus 91. 422. 360. 382–84. 594 Diana Veteranorum (in Africa) 226 dictatura 283–84 dies atri 518 comitiales 73. 80. 69. 561 embassies 40–60 Polybius and Livy on embassies to Rome 42–44 travel to Rome. 416. 155. decuriones equitum 190 alae 190 municipal 182. technical term at elections 73. 351 dux fatalis 159. 101 dwarfs 197 E eclipse 418 edictum of emperor(s) 312–17. 437. 612–14. 520 vitiosi 518–19 dignitas 169. 565 Dioscuri 170. 622–23 elephant(s) 172–174. 233. 133. 511. 173 emblem of legio V 230 and snakes 161–62 in war 162. 352. 173. 173.5: 249 Lucanus 10. 261 Diana 342. 456 discedo (= to die) 436 disciplina auguralis 8 Etrusca 8. 531–32. 85–86. deprecator. 562 delphinus 310. 157. Setia 4a: 398–99 13.140: 353–55 35. 431–32. 326–31. 440. 304. 100. 304. 406–7. 172–74. 189–190. 216–17. 475–81 evocatio military 91 of gods 304. 504 of souls 551–52 evocatus. Etrusci 39. 203. 62. 229–30 equites (legal and social category) 114. 229–31 Eporedia 411 epulum 27. 4. eurae 469–71. 46. concept of 41. felicitas 17–18. 620–21. 582 eura. 392. 631. 200. 516. 335–36 monstrum 332–34 Scipionum nomen (gloria) 159. equi at races 426–27. 382 epulones 378 equites (military cavalry) 76–77. 449–50. 314. 15. Epirotae 52. 192. 638 exsecratio 279. 388 fideicommissum 417–18 fidelis 244–45. 87. 299. 516. 204–5.73. 427. Sulmo 55: 373–74 4. 82–83. 538 Feltria 387–88. 270. 79. 410 Firmum 419 35. 53. see also praefectus Falerii 51. 282. 396. 244–45. convivial and legal term 26–27 exilium 120–21 expeditio tertia Germanica 257 expiatio 13. 538 fetiales 41. 464. Ital.83: 451–52 Suppl. 539.5: 319–25 Tacitus. evocati 223–26. 157–58. 429. 526–30 F Fabia. 261 filiation and adoption 138–39 double 376 filibuster 520–21 finis. principle of 505 fasces alternation of 611 laureati 172 reversed (avertere. Nursia 18: 419 16. 518–19.712 Indices exhibere. 66–68.147: 342–53 Pollux 1. 563. 436–38. 635–36 equus. 424. 305. 511–12. 237. 417. 412. 626–30 of Praeneste 626 erga 374 Etruria. 261 fides (musical instrument) 551 fides. 372. 412–13. 174 Felicitas deity 551 watchword 157 felix.7. 431. RR 3. fatale dux 159 meretrix (prostans) 332–33. 618 Ferrara 454–57 fertility 109. 409. 426. 626 Falerii Novi 369 Falerio (in Picenum) 416 falsibility. 224–26. 371. 435 executions 110 exheres 404 . 521. 406–7 era of Patavium 396. 526 Fides (deity) 90.2. 195. 549–50. 399. 378–79. fines 12. 486–88. 422. 184–191. 255. Sulmo 58: 374–75 4. 293. 170. 435. 538 Ferentinum 424 feriae 258. 335. 468. 591. 471–72. 538. 199. 551 fidus. 130. Aletrium 1: 425–26 epheboi 355–56 epichoric names (in Italy) 403–4. 222. 261. 508. 395–96. 468–69. 79. 114. 637 exta 484. 442 Epicurus 426 epideixis 469–75 epigraphical notations 405. 90.145–46: 475–78 Quintilianus 1. 226–27. 114 fidicines 546–47. 478 as sacrifice 477 equus publicus 189–192. 85. 119. 252. 258. Cat. 624.14–16: 327–29 CIL IV 1595: 481–84 CIL V 2787: 469–81 CIL V 8112. 438. 122. 46. 627 femina 374. 156–60. 221. versi) 111–12 fatalis. 387–88. 422–23 Epirus. 73.3: 232 Varro. 403. 220. 511. 460–61. 429. fida 244–45. 615.34: 331 Sallustius. Ann. 70. 140. 253. Trebula Suffenas 42–43: 379–84 4. 268. 537. tribe of Metellus Scipio 137 fabri 388. 447–49 (cf. 362 of Augustus 393 Terrae Africae 160. 443–45. 531. 223. 171. 225 gaesum 185 Gaetuli 171 Gaetulicus 122 galerus (headcover of priests) 98–99 Galli 16. 484. 441. 139. 539. 629 glandes (slingshots) 390 gold. 411. 385–86. 506. 452. 390 frico 197 Frusinum 424–25 Fucinus (lacus) 425 (deus) 425 Fulginiae 416 fulgur 538–39 as vitium comitiorum 517 fulmen as auspicium 13. 250. 409. miles. 38. 169–70. 420. 446–47. 521. 61. 173 gerere. 619 Comata 392 gaudium 158 Gellius on augural birds 4–5. 539 Redux 407 forum administrative district 400. 433–34.Indices Fiscellus (mons) 425 (deus) 425 fistula 210. 51–53. 461–62. 447 Forum Novum (Vescovio) 394–95 Forum Vibii Caburrum (Chieri) 440–42 fratres (denoting frater et soror) 404 fratres arvales 638 713 magistri 492 praetextae 101 fretum Siculum 229. 68–69. 173–74 infima 203 and Vespasian 525. 534 Divae Drusillae 442 Flora (dea) 26 Floralia 26 Flusa (dea) 18 foedus (treaty) 46. 84–85. 460–61. 436. 60 Forum Clodii 428 Forum Fulvii 420. 562. 386. 530. 430–31. 149 Foroiulienses (in Umbria) 433 fortis (vir. 227–28. 168. 488. 177. 250–51. 473–74. 447 Forum Iulii Iriensium (Voghera) 433–34. 393. 300 Genius 106–8. 222. 257. 407. 28–29. and agere 45 Germania 188. 552 and contraria facere 112 publicum 429 G gaesati Raeti 223. Valentia) Forum Gallorum 116 Forum Germa[ ] 421–22. 399. 488. 422. 222 Gallia 83. 72–74. 440–41. 245–46. 217–18. 440 Forum Iulii (Fréjus) 433–34. 401 Fons (deity) 409 Fons Aponi 471. 537. 519. 55–56. 547 fistulator 404 fistulatorius 546 flamen Augustalis 429 Carmentalis 100 Caesar destinatus as 636–37 Dialis 99–100. 259. 248. facta) 157. 219. 531. 112–13. 505. 636–37 Martialis 99 Qurinalis 99 divi Claudii 439 divi Traiani 439 flamines 492 ritual attire 99–100 flaminica 98. Germanica expeditio 257 procinctus 225 gibber 195–97 gladiarius 373 gladiatores 382. 234. 478 fornix Fabianus 144. 458–62. 617. 455 Augusti (in Rome) 128 Romanum 32. 256–57. 336. 539 fatidicum 629–30 perpetuum 630 regale 528. 441 Forum Iulii (Cividale del Friuli) 433–35. 255 fortuna 41. 539 fumus 632 funus 111–12. 538–39 as vitium comitiorum 38. 527–28 = wealth 189–90 Fortuna (deity) 403. 15 on literary style 25–26. 231. 450. 325 and felicitas 158. 179. 465 Germanicus. see aurum . 152. 168–72. 394. 304. 578–80. 626 gratia 176 Gratianopolis 223 Greek. of Caesar as flamen Dialis 636–37 incendia 538. 420. 387. 452. 52. 45. 153–55. 78. 158. 124–25. hostes 60. 140. 609–10 imperium (concept of) 4. 63. 337–41. Parisian 556 Hades 589–90 hanging 277–78 hapax legomena 375. horti 326. 165. 631 in loco. 611 hospes. 392. 402. 344–45. 166. 157. 60. 131 imperialism 285–87. 548–49. 445–46. 380–84. see gibber hypomnematographus 212–13 I H Ianus 426. 404. 226. hospites 309–12 hospitium 45. 507. 482. rendering of Latin official idiom 260–61 grex. 489–90 gurus. interregnum 135. 69. 223. 384 award of 224–25 hortorum 337–38 immunes 205–6 imperator. 345 hostages 49. 490 referring to humans 333. 138. 80 and embassies to Rome 49–52. 25. 486 pura 185–86. 65. 570 haruspices. 121–23. 84. 163–64. 219 heads counting of 289 severed 280 Hephaistos 538 Heracleia Pontica 115. 363. 217. grammatici 20. 283–84. 315–17. 254. Iberi (Caucasian) 262–76 kings of 264. invictum Scipionum nomen 156. 469–71. 474. 95–96. 205–6. 576 Indigetes 425–26 indulgentia 408 Industria (city in Italy) 409. 334 impius. 300. 433–34. 516. 504–5. 110. 244–45. 472. 549 publici 91. 157. 371. 512. 434 India 161–62. 125. Iberi 509 Iberia. 117–18. 216–17. 542 incestus 333–35 incolae 426. 17. 349. 525–29. 526. 418. 416 intercessio 284. 479. 538. 395. 420. 88. 71. 268–70 ignis (in cult) 538. 394–95. 525–28. 232. 447–48 indutiae (truce) 49–52. 128 instauratio 521 Interamna Nahars 394. kings. and places 11–13. 443. 508.714 Indices hortator 407 hortus. 175. 542 imago. 68. 511. 80. 116. 213. 334. and Lucanus 333–34 . 256. 145. 631 history constitutional 34–36 senseless process 515 Histria 78. 514. 550. 392. 418 statue on the Capitol 145 Hermes 551–53 Hippo Diarrhytus 310–311 Hippo Regius 173 Histiaia (on Euboea) 349 Histonium 412. 335. 541. 402. 13. 395. legal concept of 139 inauguratio (augural term) of priests. 309–12. 395 Musarum 86 Victor 372. haruspicina 8. title of 115–17. 203–5. 143. 454. 565 grammaticus. 425. 224–25. 206 hastatus 205–6. 159–60. 287 hostis. 432–33. 492. honorare 76. hereditary 122. 201. 279 hostia 5. 520–21 interrex. 148. 255–56. greges of animals 143. impietas 13. 512 presumed. 504 Horatius. 192–98. 542–43 hunchback. 186. 164. 452. 169. 95. 410. 474–75 honor. 558 Curinus 372–73. 420. honores. 329 populi Romani (Romanum) 84. 348. 63–64 inferiae 181–83 inimicitia. 173 Sol 403. 528 Honos (temple of) 39. 126 Hernici 424 Hercules 372–73. 260. 475 histriones 205. 54. 425. 448. 543. 638–39 Hasta (city in Italy) 409. 431 Iberia. 35. 453 hasta 112. 518 imprecatio 386. 516. 251. 234. 620 invictus. imagines 86. 194. 102. 64–65. 255–56. 189. 249–50. 120. 553. 504. latrones 174. 90. 496–97 Latin. 51–53. 307 iustum. 164–68. 616 715 Latii 434. 311–12. 362. 450–53. 550. 518 iterum 166. 226. and the death of Ti. 437. 561 latro. 246–55. 273. 509. Latini ethne 85. 495 Dertona 447 Iria 447 Tridentum 403 iuniores 470–71. 126–27. 588. 523 Lapis niger 539 Lares 31–32. 275 iron (excluded from cult. Iranian 263–66. 48 iurandum 104–5. 426. 403 K kalendae lucerninae 362. 474–75. 596. 504. iratus 101. 235–36. 123. 256. 565 Italia 36. capture by Titus 222–23 jug. 163–64. 619 lateres signati 261. 119. 316. 447 Iran. 633–34 Moneta 588. 123. 300. 170–73. Iulium (in names of cities) Arelate 234 Carnicum 435 Concordia 493. 479. 364 kan¤kleion 11–15 L lac. 437. 49. 229–30. 538. 99. 257. 315. 179. 24. 503. 204. 114. 424. 238. 309–17 Latinus. 627 administration of 291–93 iter 51. 185. 566–71 iudex 102. 121–22. 615 iudicare 102. 556. 411–12. 559 iustitia 163–64. 240. 110. 453. 269. 489–91 Iuno 6. 481–84. 394.Indices Iona. 393. 125 Isis 387. 472 iuvenes. 377. 337. 627 Latium 99. lances 484–86 Lanuvium 488 lapidatio 278. 565–66. 470. 627 vitae necisque 279–80. 636–37 Compagus 618 Dolichenus 541. 112. 191. 426 Iria 433–34. 112–13. 266–68. 587. 434. 486. 394. 507–9. 9. 40. 521. 490 Lampsakos. isle of 215 ira. 113. 284. iuventus 175. 471. 313. 420. 340 laudatio publica 224–26 Lavinium 112–13 . 157 legal category 191. 396. 318. 419. 425. 528 Lallnamen 265 Lambaesis 190. augural symbol 130. 406. 623 Iudaei 222. 227. 397 iudicium 27. 504. 547. 424. 561. 388. 271–73. 488–91 Iuventus (dea) 388 epithet of Iuppiter 420 J Jerusalem. 286. 65. 234. 187. 560. 258–60. 65. 223. 252. 176. 146. 384. Gracchus) 102–3 Isaura Vetus (captured by P. 161. 183. 517. 502. 634 Iulia. 335. 404. 294. style and usage 25–29. 251–52. 479. 514. 46. 600. iusta auspicium 172 bellum 64. 385. 505. 549. 195. 255. 301. 442 gentium 40–41. 276. 152. 288 causa 158 imperium 163 matrimonium 275 iuvenalia 463. 558. 345. 449. 325. 11–19. as sacrificial offering 535 laena 100 lana (wool) 624 laesit / laeserit 550 laetus 158. 422. 518. Servilius Vatia) 117. 321. 110. and Rome 56–58 lanx. 112–14. 492. 514. 415. 543 Feretrius 24 Fulgur 539 Imperator 99 Iuventus 420 Lapis 588 Stator 146 Tutor 249 ius belli 288 civitatis 36. 633–34 Regina 146 Iuppiter 6. 617. 439 staff officer 70–71. 431 III Augusta 439–40. 83. 83.716 Indices Lepcis (Leptis) Minor 490 lex. 555 tabellaria 439 Tullia de ambitu 120. of Numa Pompilius 426 sacrata 32. 307. 113–14. 168–70. 76. 261 VII (of Caesar) 221 VII Claudia 226. 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 546–47. its character 295–96 (cf. 227 IV 204 IV Macedonica 443. 523–24 Aurelia iudiciaria 120. ius) lectisternium 589 left and right. 261 VI (of Caesar) 234 VI Ferrata 234. 390–91 X Fretensis 390–91. 396. agere 110. 244 pro praetore 123. 274. Vittore di Cingoli 408 Papiria de tribunis reficiendis 95–96 Plautia de vi 620 Pompeia de ambitu 241. 396 Pompeia de provinciis 152–54 Pompeia (de Transpadanis) 434. 239 V Gallica 230. 449 X (of Caesar) 231. 189 belli 125 Caecilia Didia 36. 261. 229–31. 443 XIV Gemina 431 XX 431 XXII Primigenia 261 XXVII (of Caesar) 230 XXX (of Caesar) 235 vernacula 235–36 Lenin 508 Lepcis (Leptis) Magna 479. 453. Roman. 238 XI Claudia 542 XII (of Caesar) 231. 283 Calpurnia de repetundis 300 Clodia (de legibus ferendis) 517 convivales 26 curiata (de imperio) 139. 254. 50. 247–48. 261 IX (of Caesar) 231 IX Hispana (Hispaniensis) 431. 516–18 legio prima adiutrix (mythical) 208 I Adiutrix 261 I Italica 541 II (of Caesar) 235 II Adiutrix 261 II Augusta 421. 619 Iulia iudiciaria 189 Iulia municipalis 190–91 Iulia de peculatu 120. 235. 446 IV Scythica 429–31 V (of Caesar) 156. 182. 209. 488 . 219. 439 legionis 190. 620 Ursonensis 618 Valeria Aurelia 181 law. 313 lege age. 612. 234 V Macedonica 209. 238–39 XII Fulminata 261 XIII Gemina 206. 315–16 Iulia de residuis 233 Iulia theatralis 305. 316 Augusti (Caesaris) 256. 317. 440 X Gemina 390 XI (of Caesar) 231. 70–71. 317 governor 163. 15–17. 19 legatus envoy 44–48. 279. leges Acilia de intercalatione 516 Acilia de repetundis 300 agraria (of 111) 495 de ambitu 39. 229–39 V Alaudarum 162. 76. 230 VII Gemina 455–56 VIII (of Caesar) 231 VIII Augusta 242–45. 127 Iulia de provinciis 153–54 Iulia de repetundis 307–11. 623 Liciniae Sextiae 638 Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia 400 municipii Tarentini 120 municipal from S. 521. 238. 230. 615 Labiena de sacerdotiis 134 libitinaria 279 Licinia de sodaliciis 619–20. from Aletrium 425–26 sacra. 614 annalis 612 Antonia iudiciaria 189 Appuleia agraria 167–68. 627 Pupia de senatu 37 repetundarum 309 Roscia theatralis 615 sacra. 280. 154–55. 237–40. 449 III Gallica 223. in augury 6. 256–57. 162. 484–85. 186–87. 136. 17. Liguria 50. filiae 139–40 Locri 252. 537 Plebei 32 Romani 32 saeculares 32. 101. 384–87. 434. 105. and Horatius 332–33 lucernae (lamps) 450. 494 mansio 314–17 manubiae 80–81. 492. 127. 289. 488. and religio 639 loco. 617 Apollinares 180 augustales 180. 57–59. 618–19 gladiatorii 381. 478–79. Lupercalia 492. 157. 491 luxuria. 148. 130. 589 maiestas. 485–86. 473. 107–12. 261. 250. 11. 139. crimen of 121. 164. 254. 166–70. 192. 90–91. 492. 227. 559–60. 175 libra (scales) 163–64 librarius 209. 155. 504. 45. 108–9. 308–11. 164–73 Livius. 618–19 cenae 22 compitales 109 collegiorum 31. 539 sacer 408. 128 Maior (praenomen) 402 mana 513 Manes 164. 375. 410 Lokris 64 Lombards. 324 lyra 551–53 M magic 13. 380–81 Campani 31. 438. 389 Lucanus (poet). 261 libertas 74. 508. 315. 103. 473–74. 626 circenses 380. 597 Tarentini 32 717 Taurei 32 votivi 526–27 and Augustales 381 Lugdunum 432. 40. 449. 420–22. 602 Liguri. 38. 259. 390 locus effatus 410 inauguratus 11 pulcher 15. 151–52. 594 lustrum and auspicium 169 felicitas of. 456 libri lintei 634 reconditi 633 Sibyllini 7–8. 459 iuvenales (iuvenalia) 463. 590 ludere 469. 443–44 Lucani. 491. 112. 616–17 .Indices Visellia 225 vitio lata 523 Voconia 417 Libarna 447–48 Liber (deity) 32 liberare. 604. 471. 445–48. 472. 134. 440. 478–79. 101. Lucania 49. 511. 222. 32. 71. 518. 228 piscatorii 467. 370. 534. 450. luxus 27–28. 504. 19 religiosus 410. 528. 618 magistratus (magistrates) 7. 336 Luperci. 530–31. 622–23. 259. 557. 531. 99. 152–53. 34–35. 460. 488–89 militares 202. 319. 108–9. magistri 492. 283. 565 magister. 556. 402. 319. Lombardia 268. 164–68. 278. 488 compitalicii 31. 460 lumen 418 as legal term 339–40 lupanar 152. 527–28 litis aestimatio 121 litterae laureatae 116 lituus 5. 535. 377. 407. 502. 233. obsidione 242–55. 470. 387. 403 on coins 161. 51. 539. 428. 598. 80. 181–83. 481–83. 161. 107. 512. 443. 137. 521–23. filii. 88. 637–38 Magna Mater 257. 619 pagi 393–94 sodalium Augustalium 181–82 vicorum 31. 80–81. 257. 453–54 litatio 164. 567 as New Year’s gift 362 lucus (grove) 392. 126–28. 258–59. 100–1. 259. 560. 32. 408. 565. 488–90 ludi (games) Augustales 407 cetasti 463–91. 618–19 on Delos 619 equitum 252 haruspicum 432 Laverneis 618 ludorum 31 Mercuriales 180. 486–88 Troiae 202. 426. 324. 481–84. 398 manus (legal concept) 139. 200. 109. infelix 62. 282–83. 78 lusus 467. 280. 204. 408. 252. 73. 516–17. 172. 551–53. 255. 443. 318. 250. 222. 436 medici 306. 258. milites 35. 452. 228. municipes 244. 292–94. 518–19. 114. 257. 169. 488 Melfi (in Lucania) 389 Menander. 253. 362. see also femina multa (pecuniary penalty) 120. 425. and CIL XI 6053 242–43 monstrum. 453. see dies Neptunus 487–88. Roman 130–52. Caesar’s garrison of 229–41 Messapii 389 metuentes 568–71 miles. 374. representations of 172 naves constratae 229 necessitudo 176 neco 278–280 nefas 158. 587 Minturnae 259. 206. 557 Nicolaus. of Agrippa 625 maritalis affectio 373–74 torus 373–74 Marrucini 49. 174. 456 Mithra. 483 Marsyas 32 Mataurense. 246. 270–71. 417. 387. 514 Marsi 11. 314. 629 envoys of 40 leges 120. 619 mereo 186–90. 314 militia 91. 431. 334–35. 349. 449. 418. 442. 504. 504. 389. 395. 565–66 Moesia 227. 411. 262–276. 446. 488. 183. 258. 619 Misenum 629 missio gladiatorial 461. a diffuse concept 513 Mercurius 180. 358. 631 Marruvium 427 Mars 6. 615 militiae (opposed to domi) 60. 363–64. 399 Mediolanum 386. 334–35. 519 N (epigraphic notation) 396. 489. 332–36 Messana. 370. Theodor method of Staatsrecht 34–35 and Syme 35 monarchy 22. 507. 541. 482. 314. militantes 244. 261. Mithraism 209. 626. 175. 446 Mommsen. 468–70. 406–9. 204–5. 177–79. 201–2. 612 militans. 494. 616–17. 461. 416.718 Indices drowned 101 fatale (Cleopatra) 332–35 Roman concept of 334–35 mors 40. 420. 534. 522. 396. 436–40. 408 municipium. 437. 400. 379. 420. 399–400. portraits of 355–58 menses. 587–88. 565. 505. 484 honesta 223. 273–75 mulier 35. 439. 404. 509. 403. paired 427 Napoleon III 342 Naristae 225 Narnia 394 natalis 202. 447 Nomentum 365–66 Nortia (dea) 627 Nova Augusta (in Hisp. 392 magistrates 108–9. 267–68. 589. 626–30 nationes. 503. 487. 399– 402. 311–12. mimi 159. 519 and vitium 517–18 nefastus. 379. sanctus 406 Nicomedia 411 nobilitas (as social category) 106 nomenclature. 619. 442. 228. 425–26. 530–32. 342. 280. 537. 377. Mauretania 161–62. 398. 419. 549. 395–96. 492. 277–81. 377–78. 431 Mutinus Titinus 109 N N (in calendars) 516–17. 216–18. 441–42. 550. 495. 406–7. see Urvinum matrimonium 11. 438–40. 430–31. 431. 381. 109. 275. 371. 373. 391. 238–40. monstra . 495 sacerdotes 179. 455. 464. 249. 394. 468–69. 325. 392. 188. 110–11. 433. 561. 626–27. 347. descriptions and representations of 362–64 “mentalities”. 324. 289 Mondaino. 440. 513. 190–91. 635–37 Matronae (deities) 386 Mauri. 199–200 meretrix 26. 632 mortes singulares 630 Mtskhteta (in Georgia) 262–63. 250. 630 names. 77. 474–75. 317–18. 294–95. 465. 230–31. 543 Mogontiacum 226. 233 mimus. 75. 186. 552. 495 Minerva 6.) 247 Novia (urbs) 246–48 NP (notation in calendars) 519 map. 442. Tarrac. 323. 260. 504. 250. 443. 108. 562 Osiris 514 Ossetia. 279–80. 526–28 orator as envoy 44–50 as envoy and beseecher (deprecator) 44. and Sulmo 371. 173. 456 pantomimus 452. 250. 492. 190. 527. 252 deum 511–12. 371. 523. patroni liberti 22. 398. 163. Parthi 131. 530–31. 287 obsideo. 215 Olbia (on the Black Sea) 264–65 oligarchy 168. 542 parcere subiectis. 582. 483. in scholarship 582 obnubere 635 obnuntiatio 38. 169. 436. 564–66 orientalism. 317 Parthorum. 232. 561. 110. 562 of Greek cities (and states) 57–58. 537. 526. 252. obsides 54. 394 paganica. 467–68. 504–5. 563. 26. parricida 101–2. 260. 626–630 patella 569–70 patera 172–73 patientia 622 patria potestas 33. 560. 439–40. 432. 454–55. 171–72. 582 omen 4. 478. 485–87. 140. 479. 363. 253. orphica 551–52. 491 parricidium. 589 oraculum 321. 373 Oxyrhynchus 212–13 P 719 Padus (flumen) 420. 338. 257. 521. 173. Ossetian 265. 382–83. 425. 495 Paphos 525–27. 275. religions 97. 637 patrimi et matrimi 635 patronatus. usage of 237 obsidio. 477–79. 507–9. 639–40 . 616. 555. 47–49 pax 49. 623. 14–17. 630 Ops (Consiva) 98–99. 419. 518. 544. 391–92. 259. paganicum 394 paganus. 422 O oath 104–5. 563. 557. 512. 172. 275 Ostia 183. 258. see also ius iurandum obfuscation. 106. 207. 618. ala 226 partus ancillae 631 exhausting 320–25 illegitimate 333 pastores 3. 565. 616–17. 501–2. 208. paganism 503. 488. 372. 69. 584 Ovidius. 559. 409. 256. officia (chancery) 203. 257. 209. 210. 159–60. 420. 174. 375. 428. 533 obses. 489–90. 454–55. 201. 370. 442–48. 535 Numidica. 494 oppidum 75. 139. 549. 229. 526. 196–97. 178. 114. 481. 211. 149. 314. 278 partes (referring to actors) 474 Parthia. 529. 136. 617 patricii 25. 200. 32. 179 patronus. parentum (semantic and grammatical constructions of) 324–25 Parilia 465. 475. 448. 135. 496–97. 576 pagus 314.Indices novus 246–47 numerus (military term) 225 Numidia. 165. 482. 569. 282. 406. of signs by augurs 38. 472. 505. 467–68 Patavium 396. Numidians 156. 236. 47 and oro 44 Oreos (on Euboea) 349 oriental cults. 250. 509. 270–73. 399–400. 404. 137–38. 635 Nursia 414–19. 77. 489–91. 344. 457 Paeligni 370–71. 393–94. 518–19. 518. 66. 63. 630. 523 nuptiae (wedding) 334. 463–73. 19. 471. 567 = orator 45. 437–39. 288–89. 639 Opitergium (Oderzo) 387. bogus 509–10 Orpheus. 495. 261 obtemperare 156–57 Ocriculum 394 octoviri 416 officium. ala 190 nuntiatio. 428. debellare superbos 43–44 parentatio 182 parente. 72 collegii 388 municipal 244–45. 431. 378. 621 paludamentum 156–57 Pannonia 133. patronage tabulae of 45 of emperors 177. 284. obsidione liberare 242–55. 720 Indices Po (river). 327. 202. 75. 127. 640 Picenum 399. 93–94. Acilius Gabrio accused of 64–65. 52. 101–4. 507. 139–41. 407. 214. 405 phalerae (military decoration) 185. 77. 637–38 plebs urbana 114. 537 pisces. as sacrificial offering 467. 416. see Padus poena (penalty. pia 244–45. equi) 426–27 Penates 99. 41. 202–3. religious 508–10. 126–27 peculium 631 pecunia 80. 230–31. 234. 253. 309. 561 Persephone 590 pertica 469–71. 340–41 peculatus penalty for 120–21. 247. 636–40 emblems and ritual attire 97–99. 225 Pharsalos (battle of) 133. 427 vehiculorum 292 vexillariorum 224 praefigo 337. petere. 437–40 iure dicundo 401 military 76–77. 277–81. 534. 238 piaculum 13. 623 poesia figurata 482–83 Poetovio 209–10. 88. 99–100. 80–81 M. 85–86. Aurelius Cotta accused of 119–21. see also patria praeco 381. 220–21. 135. pontifices 5. and envoys to Rome 49 Peucetii 389. 158. 518. 447–48. 217. 384. 551 plebei (legal category) 32. 312–13. 598. 523. 359 pontifex. 520. 140. 206. 300. 439–40 equitum 219–21 fabrum 371. 620. 421–22. 340. navis. 522. 157. 620. praefecti Aegypti 208 aerarii Saturni 494 annonae 270 castrorum 86. punishing) 13–14. 86. 35. 591. 337. 120–21. 419 pictores 342–58 pila ludere 348–49. 133–34. 442–43. 118. 369 piscatores 467. 537–38 pitiax (pitiaxes). 439 Pontus 122–23 porcus 362–64 porticus 407 Octavia 146 portentum 258–61. 441 pedum 371 Pegasus (cognomen. 351 pilleus of libertus 43 headgear of pontiffs 98–99 Pinna 443 piratae 632–33 Pisa 182 Pisaurum 243. 125–28 M’. 110–11. 382. 164. 221–22. see Carreum potestas 35. 426. 403 municipal 244. 605. 512–13. Latin usage of 235–36 . 397–99. 13. 563. office in Caucasian Iberia. 516. 314. 340–41. 526. 212. 164–65. 419 Aegypti 203 aerarii Saturni 494 praetorio 188. 383 praeda 65. 528. Iran and Armenia 262–64. 516–17. 513. 175–76 perperare 375 persecutions. 225. 623. 162. 77. 88. 370. 233 praefectura administrative unit (township) 191. 256. 639 Portogruaro 492–94 Poseidon 487–88 Potentia. 8–9. 452–54 pompeion (in Athens) 354–57. 617. 475–80 Perusia 49. perditi 101. 150–51. 261. 158. 561 Sarmatarum Gentilium 444 urbi 203. 439 and Tabula Siarensis 183 Plestia 416 pluperfect. 542 penthiac 502 perditus. 232–33. 304. 113. 127–28. 524. 444 municipal 401 praetorio 212. 80–81. 417 cohortis 418. 212 Pollentia 409. 271–72. 307. 97–99. 90. 176. 408. 268–69. 450. 167. 457 pecuniam custodire 233 retinere 233 pecus (as offering) 425–26 pecus a vi 425–26 Pedona 422. 275 pius. 11. 214 urbana 203 praefectus. 108. 531. 537. nomen servi. 415–16. 399–400. 373. 465 prodigia 38. 66. 386. 249. 127 military 202. 157. 388–89. 237. 492. 312. 598 quinquennalis 379. 84. 439–43. 96. 621 proscriptiones. 419–22. 132. 293. 638 Aetolian. 416–17. 313 proquaestor (pro quaestore) 159. 391. 110. 90. proscripti 280. 431. 406. 614–15. 441 quae et 469. 552 in Italy 369–70. 533 municipal 279. 378. 386–87. 457. 552–53 Reate 394. 426 R Raeti 223. and provinciae 130. 100–1. 433. 399–400. 535 praetorianus. 401 urbanus 7. 383. 399. 516–19. 232. 205–6 princeps. 44. 375. 401–2. 638–40 professio (at elections) 282. 134. 159. 489. 19 pullarius 14. 60–62. 627 in provinces 207 in Rome 185. 314 princeps (in the ranking of centurions) 206 principes Roman leading men 432. 270. 336. see toga praetextam ponere 111 praetor. 489. assigned in 49 by Pompeians 152–56 psephopaiktes 349–50 psychopompos 551–52 pulcher. 411–12. 151 = non-magistrate 91. 517–18. 533–34. 56. 101. 475. 328. 537. 604. 534. 334–35. 233.Indices praemia in courts 119. 58. 394–96. praetorship 7. 410. 38. 406. as augural and pontfical term 5–6. 370. 148. 639 principales 187. 116. regiones caeli 17–18. 24. 315 721 proselytos 569–71 prosopography 35. 310. 384. 447. 303–4. 431. 162. 166. 507. 437–38. 426. pro alimentis 379. 225. 494 viarum curandarum 244 quindecimviri sacris faciundis 7. 460. 310. 598. 512. 493. 119 Privernum 398 probrum. 490 quaestor. 349–51 praetexta. 395 Ravenna 455–57. 382. 494. 441. 379. 542 regalia (exta. 392. 204. 439. 12. 436–37. 148–49. 78. 398–99. 119. 116. 395. 511–12. 628 praestigiator 342–44. 127. 166. see also cohors precatio (prayer) 6–7. 315. 254 procinctus 225 pro consule 396–97 procurator 250. 436–38 quaestorius 204. 16. 504. probri 76–77. 244–45. 300. 317. 375. 239 quattuorviri (IVviri) municipal 191. 234 Praeneste 99. 347. 240. 50. 384. 82 military rank (in acies triplex) 157 privata auspicia 11 fulmina 629 sacra 513 via 371 privati. 237. 228. 409. 558. 404–5. 406. 379. 133–34. 13. 611 receptus (military manoeuvre) 220 red color (of offerings) 538. 113–14. 454. 407–8. 317. 270. 424. 376–77. 638 municipal 45. 128. 517 non-Roman leading men 49. 274. 485. 639 pupa 550 purpura 156–57 purpuras ponere 111–12 Q quadragesima Galliarum 422. 450–51. 80. 454. 626. 523. 138–39. 335–36 proveho 203–5 provinciae. 336. 68. 611–12 propraetor (pro praetore) 65. 401. 427. see strategos Albanus 46–47 Etruriae 429 maximus 32. 135. 339–41 prostans 332–33. 58. 270. 258–61. 169–70. 151–54. quaestorship 53. praetoriani 246. 443. 437 designatus 244–45. 172. 229. 538–39. 238. 396–98. 270. 467. 414. 314. 377. 123. signa) 528 regio. 620. praetextatus. 445. 418. privatum consilium 152–53 dux 91. 122–23. 620–22 alimentorum. principes (emperor) 282. 488–89 . 589. 586 prospectus 337. 138–39. 437 Quirinus 5. fulmina. 309–10. 623. 433–35. 637. 556–57. 152–55 privatus. Sabina 180. 535. 179. 391. 546. 636–39 sacratio (consecratio) capitis 102. 322–25. ritual 7. 39. 460–61. 431. saeptus 407. 570. 410. 478. 429. 513 Samnium. 475. 69. 175–78. 526 scriba 192. scaenici 407. 531. 461. 287. 77. 525. 45–46. 542–43. 116–18. 502–3. 444 Sasanians 263–65. 163. 224–25. 513. 517. 509. 590. 31. 530–31. 406 seniores 470. 407. 522–24. 153. 534. 376–77. 122. pecuniam 233 reus 110. 428. 93–95. Samnites 14. 447 res religiosa 494 retinere. 114. 251. 255. 400. 152. 279. 432. 105. 633. 98–100. 378–79. 80. 560. 507. 492 sanctus. 110. 86. 484. 93–94. 501–4. 86. 517 = sacred 11. 429. 518. 373. 522–23. 482. 381. 442–43. 74–75. 408. 114. 249. 400–1 Scythia. 396–97. 585. 159. 126–28 res publica (Roman) 14. 310. 379–84. 426. 558 sacer = accursed 102. 518. 228. 316 salius. 410 Sagalassos (in Pisidia) 313–14. 584–99. 630 religio 14. 461 sacrosanctitas 88. 406–7. 512. 16 Setia 396–99 seviri 180. 102–4. 565 Sabini. 465. 538. 381–84 augustales 180. 102–3. 287–88 sedes deorum 513 in the north 17–18 Selinus 480–81 sella curulis 162–64 senatus 37–39 and acclamatio imperatoria 116–17 and auspicia 38 consultum 7. 414 San Vittore di Cingoli 407–8 sapientia. 474. 431. 237. 107. 467. 169–70. 563. 555 Saena (Siena) 429 saepta. 104. 637 res publica (municipal) 292. 554–55.722 Indices humanum 32. 282–85. 104. 362. 612. 182. and Aetolia 60–87 Rottweil. 29. 90. 179–80. on coins 172–73 Regium (Iulium) 389–91. 547. 278–79. 501–14. 488 Asiaticiani 562 schola 384. 273 Saturnalia 362. 599 scientia 8. 169. 14. 599. 399. 170. 107–9. 525. 278–79. 270. 641 secta 560–61 Seano[ci?]. 184. 259. 113. 565 enmity with elephants 161–62 serpentis lusus 481–84 servare. 289–91. 181–82. 426. 107. 326. 508. 112. 522. 530. 370. 141. 640 and Livius 639 repetundae. 199–200. 393. 51. 109. 519–24. 251. 53. 511–13. 620. 279. 526. 31–37. sapiens. 594 . 13. 65. 534–35. 265–66. 93. Scythian 264–65. 563. 259. 164. 565. 150. 594. 526. 636. sacerdotes (priests) 7–8. 196 rex convivii (mensae) 20–27 Nemorensis 590 sacrorum 511 ritus. 527 serpens. 155. 439. 104. 11. 91. 510. 582. salii 378–79. 190. 410 sacerdos. 486. 334–35. 516. 365–66. 278–79. 181–82. 408. 470. 492. 505. 289. 11. poena 110–11. 626 Sarmatia. 32. uninformed 90. 327. 464. 98–99. 431 shield. Sarmatae 172. 492. 319. 579–80. 556. 38. 200. 374 Sardinia 122. 147–48. deditio of 53–55. 254. 610. 394. 64. 95–97. 638–40 Robigo 504 Roma et Augustus 392–93 Rome. de caelo 4. 490–91 Septempeda 419–20 Serapis (Sarapis) 97. 418. 44–45. 241. 216. 376. 195–96. 304. sanctum 4. 101. sapienter 22. 97–104. 391. serpentes 15. 49. 49. 162. 327. 394. 511–13. 114. 74–75. 164–68. 364 scabellum 546–47 scaena. 407. 95. 119. 565. 577. 483–84. 441. 538–39. 414–19. 604. 522 sacrificium (sacrifice) 5–7. 517 esto 102. 79–80. 547. 618–620 sententia 398. 109. 153–54. 614. 113. 165. 421. lazy. 563–64 scholarship. amateurish. 102. 370. see Arae Flaviae Rubi (Ruvo) 389 Rusellae 427–33 S Sabazius 561. 552. 555. 602 sic valeas 544. symphoniaci 544–48. 471. 349. 170 Sinduni 404 socii 191. 583. 235 = statues 86. 172. 375. 224 tabularium 208. 610 symphonia 547 symphoniacus. femina 435 stoning 278 (cf. 515. 301. 397 navales 67 sociologizing. 598. 310 stolata. 528 = standard 112. 176. 225 = watchword 157–58 attached to a name 387. 565 Tarentum 486–87 Tarhu 539 Teate Marrucinorum 631 Tegianum 370. 565 somnium. 629 sors. 109 suffragium legionis. 189–91. 448 Tanit 172–73. 315. 261. 131–32. and word 508 Syme. 548–51 Sicilia 238. 372 sortitio 180 and augurs 164–66. 112. 150. 430. 223. 551–52 Syria 116. 528. 567 T tabula.v. 227 tacitum 439 sui iuris 133. Titii 180 sodalicium 562. 152. 403 simpuvium 164–65. lapidatio) strangulation 278. 504. tabulae Clesiana 404 Hebana 179–80 Heracleensis 191 Larinas 461 picta 85. Ronald. 519. 309–10. 72 suffibulum 98–99. 369–73. 528. sortes 152. 397–98 Tempestates 425 . 513. see s. 226. 317. 392. 634 Tages. 147. 226 statue(s) of Hercules (on the Capitol) 145–46 Scipio Aemilianus (on the Capitol) 145–46 Scipio Nasica Serapio (on the Capitol) 145–46 723 turma Alexandri 146 stipendium 53. 512. 617 suicide 110. 559–60 silver.Indices Sibylline books 7–8. 619. 589. 113. signa in divination 8–10. 391–94 supplicatio 38. 599 sodales Augustales 179–183 Claudiales 182 and coniuvenes 489 Luperci. 556. 125. 12–13. 213. 506. 542. 637 suilla 95–97 Sulmo 240–41. see argentum simpulum 164–65. 258–59. 16. 254. 565. 240–41. symphoniaca. and revealed religion 8 Tanarus (flumen) 384. 543 Summanus 425 sumptus (legal meaning) 307. somnia 7. 420 sword. 517. 596 Peutingeriana 443 publicae 125 Siarensis 179–83. 170 sortition jug 164–65 spectio 521 Sparta (Lacedaemon) 251. 280 strategos (Aetolian) 68–69. 402. 600 supplicium militare 110 sus occisa 97 Sutrium 252. and Mommsen 35. 174. 330 Siculi 60 Signia 588 signum. 550 Spina 455 Spoletium 401. 196–97. imagines) terminology of 86 award of 224. specious 509. 336. 259. 32. 342. 354. 395. 623 sodalitas 619–20 Sol (deity) 403. 176. 416–18 spolia opima 225 stator 375–76. 273–74. 433 Silvanus (deus) 392. 303. vexillationis 223. 254. 589. 199–200. 514. 489. 395 statuae (signa. 386. 491 spells 14. 400. 444–46. 32. 139. 170 provinciarum 152–54. 316–17 superstitio 509 Superaequuum 369. 116–17. 429–31. 631 testamentum Dasumii 137 testiculum. 62. 284. transeuntes 308. 118–19. 551 Tibur. 165–66. 454 tribunal in castris 237 domestic 33 legati legionis 237 of a magistrate 110 praetoris 60. 227–28 Torre Nove. 188. 99–114. tribuni. 633–34. 151. 490 tribal registration 137–38. 156. modern. 373. 197. 113–14 of Iuppiter Stator 146 of Ops (on the Capitol) 145. 307. 448. 315. 128. 202. 200. 295. 114 of Iuno Regina 146 of Iuppiter (on the Capitol) 90. 98–100. 244. 184–85. 107–8. 410 termini 279 quattuor 409–10 Terminus 588 tesserae nummulariae 142 testamentum 133–40. 188–89. 278–79. 627 transvestitism 26. 399. 326. 623 militum a populo 392 militum consulari potestate 638 plebis 32. 147 of Roma et Augustus 392–93 templum field of vision 4–5. unum 123 testis (witness) 134 in courts 65. 521. 105. 456 toga and cinctus Gabinus 104 contorta 92. 417. 252. 173. 251. 101. 108 of Nasica 91–94. 546–47. 316–17 transitus 307–9. 531 toponyms. 143. and ancient topography 415 torquata. 444–45 tiro. 312–13.724 Indices tonitrus. 396. 309. 637 plebis (municipal) 495 praetorianorum 270 temple (aedes) of Fides (on the Capitol) 90. 604. 75. Bacchic thiasos 561–62 trabea 106 tralaticius (translaticius) 51. 213. tonare 523. 94. 232. 142 Ticinum 324. 635 virilis 122. 541. 439–40. 495. 309. city. 433–35. 16 locus effatus/inauguratus 11. 216. 384. 12. 280. 311 transire. 76–77. tirones 156. villa of Metellus Scipio 136. 94. 227–28. and battle of 157. 555 pulla 111. 237 pro tribunali 317 tribunus. 440–41. 108. 134–35. 224. 64–65. 141. 293. Bacchic of Torre Nove 561–62 Thracia 57. 313. 162. 96–97. 86. 394 Trebula Suffenas 376–84 Treveri. tribunatus aerarii 189 laticlavius 123 militum 62. 464 travel official 307–18 speed of 620–21 Treba 424 Trebia (flumen) 159 Trebiae 416 Trebula Mutuesca 377. 34. 523. 98–101. 101. 204. 467. 206. 16–17. 104. 494. 230–31. 232. 113–14 night dress 106 perversa 109–13 picta 164 praetexta (and praetextata) 31. 447. 19. 604. 103. 139. 80. 394. 126. Transpadana 231. 102. 156–57. 362. 40. 437. 518–19. 533. 240. 555. 113–14. 555 (presumed) senatorial 127 sinus of 40 and velatio capitis 92. 218–23. 104. 160. 226 Tiberis 57. 254. 155. torquati ala 207 milites 207 torques (military decoration) 157. 38. 555 Tomba François 106 . 195–196 in senate 141 gods as 45–46 Teutoni 259 Thapsus. 61. 639 tibia 546–47 tibicines 218. 234–37. 230. 457. 425 Transpadani. 88–91. 234. 317–18 transhumance 371. 379. 181 pura 32. see Augusta Treverorum triad 587–88 triakontaethr¤w 466. 493. 246. 424. 159. 328 theosebeis 568–71 theta nigrum 495 thiasos. 100. 218. 543. 102. 561 verres (as offering) 373. 238–40 legio 229–32. 453 Pomptina 397–98. 472. 556. Vibo Valentia (in Gallia Narbonensis) 446 valeo 544. 449. 455 vetera sunt. 283. 171–72 truncated quotations 330 Tubilustrium 538 Tulliasses 404 tumultus 311. 293. 594 triplicarius. 448 Publilia 384. 280. 71–73. 167. 158. 143. 548. 421. 204. 406 Clustumina 394–95 Cornelia 137–38. 402 Pollia 408–9. 226–27. 635 introduced by Aeneas 99 Velitrae 369 Veneti 387. 478 Venetia 387. and religio 506–7 Veii 49. 234–35 settled in colonies 230. 207. 420–21. 538. 255 mutiny of 235. see Forum Fulvii. 231. 542–43 Verulae 424–25 Vesta 112. 395. 402. 467. 253–54 Uzalis (in Africa) 629 V 725 Vada Sabatia 370. 445–46. 428 Valentia. 415 veteranus. 377. 453 Quirina 415. 64–65. 445–46. 395. 424. 170. 174. 550 Vercellae 410. 536.Indices tribus Aniensis 137. 115–21. as topic for discussion in Macrobius 22–23 Verona 411–412. 401 Fabia 130. 454. 469. 487. 428. 613 tropaeum 161. veterani. 445. russeum 487–88 military award 221. 529. at lusus Troiae 481–83 equitum praetorianorum 485 inauratarum equestrium 145–46 Salluitana 185. 533–34. 395. 400 Arnensis 429–32 Camilia 453–55 Claudia 389. 542. 171–72. 543 vexillum caeruleum. 232–34. 424. 431. 164–65. 566 tuo (usage in inscriptions) 548. 487. 326–39. 221 tutulus (headcover of priests) 98–99 U Umbria 401. 226 standard 487. 472 Menenia 395 Oufentina 137. 453 Teretina 454 Tromentina 445. 68. 470. 464. 93. 83. 422 Romilia 455 Sergia 370. 404. 565. 278. 433. 503. 461. 550–51 turma Alexandri (sculpture by Lysippus) 146 Cassiana 219–20 equitum. 99. velatus. 137. 489 via Aemilia 406 Appia 396 Fulvia 443 Gellia 406 Latina 396 . 218. 331. 525–27. 548–51 Vardacate 420–21. 164. 80–81. 416. 402–4. 453 Velina 399 Voltinia 407 Voturia 436–37 Tridentum 388. 392 Stellatina 441–42. 451. 456 Vercellenses 457 Vergilius. 447 Varro. 97–109. 442–43. evocatus 226 triumphus 38. non leguntur 94 vexillatio 224. 389. 504. 284. 504 vestales 109. 604–5 Vestini 260. velare. 234. 410. 141. 475 Venus 250. 592. 389. 501. 382. 430. 421 faithfulness and courage of 156. 453 Val Camonica 411. 123–25. 231. 240. 588 velatio. 541. 473 cenae at 326–31. 75–77. 293. 371. 466. 402. 186. 429 Palatina 470 Papiria 387. 411 trinci 460–61 trinum nundinum 155. veterana 241. 164. 442. velatum (caput) 90. 433 Urbs (fluvius) 445 Urbs (silva) 444–45 Urvinum Mataurense 244–47. 469–70. 169–172. 251. 164–65 victimarius 97 victoria 3. 447 vicinitas 399 victima 5. 317–18. in libertatem 101. 18. 144. vici 307. 640 in Augusta Treverorum Beda 490 in Ostia Cisianus (?) 489 in Rome Cornicularius 185 Corvi 185 Lorarius 185 Oecianus or Oeci 489 Raciliani Maioris. 224. 618–19 vindicare. Minoris 489 Sandalarius 170. 15. 341 Wissenschaft. 231. 61–62. 108–9. 556 votum. 16. military 157–58 wheel. and sword 508 Z Zagreus (deity) 561 Zela. 529. 386 Britannica 429 Victoria (dea) 161. versus dilettantism 507 word. 261. 258. 531. 513. 185 Unguentarius 185 magistri of 31. 372–73. 556 vultures. 492.726 Indices virtus 46–47. 542–43 vivere in se 373 Volcanalia 537–38. 324–25. 319. 313–14. 396 voluntas. 172–73. 125. 511. 504 vis (violence) 620 vis deorum 425–26 visceratio 326 vitaxae (office in Armenia) 269 vitium. 82. 99. 158. as augural birds 6. 148. 136. 77. genera of 330–31 as sacrificial offering 535 viocuri 394 vir fortis 218 militaris 218 . 429–31. 523. 18–19 W watchwords (signa). 133. battle of 234 militaris 317 Minucia 406 privata 371 Salaria 327 vicinalis 495 viasii vicani 495 Vibo (Valentia) 229. imperatoris 223 votives 478. Greek terminology 475–78 window-boxes 338–39. 542. 409 victory. 96. 636 vitulus (as offering) 373. 185. 617–18. 122. vovere 6. 38. theology of 166–67 vicus. vitiosus 13. 518–19. 526–27. 539. 541–43 Volsci 49. 158. 172–73. 372. 463 Virtus (temple of) 39. 537–39. 390. 220. 419. 321–22. 550. 386. 151–52 vinum. 261. 542 Volcanus 467. 205. 538.