Anda di halaman 1dari 738

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

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

viii

Contents

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

Contents

ix

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

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

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

I HISTORIA ET IUS

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


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

Historia et Ius

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

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

3 4

Founding the City

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

6 7

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

Historia et Ius

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

Founding the City

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

11

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

Historia et Ius

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

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

Founding the City

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

10

Historia et Ius

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

Founding the City

11

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

27 28 29 30 31

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

12

Historia et Ius

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

Founding the City

13

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

14

Historia et Ius

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

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

Founding the City

15

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

16

Historia et Ius

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

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

Founding the City

17

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

18

Historia et Ius

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

Founding the City

19

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

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

2 ISTO VILIUS, IMMO CARUM Anecdotes About King Romulus*


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

Gratwick (2000, 85) gives the following translation:


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

2 3

Isto vilius, Immo carum

21

589

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

22

Historia et Ius

590

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

7 8

Isto vilius, Immo carum

23

591

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

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

24
592

Historia et Ius

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

593

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

Isto vilius, Immo carum

25

594

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

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

26

Historia et Ius

595

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

Isto vilius, Immo carum

27

596

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

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

28

Historia et Ius

597

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

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

Isto vilius, Immo carum

29

598

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

30
599

Historia et Ius

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

3 THE FOUNDER OF THE REPUBLIC*


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

408

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

32

Historia et Ius

409

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

The Founder of the Republic

33

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

{1

{2

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

4 A CONSTITUTION FOR THE REPUBLIC?*


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

590

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

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

A Constitution for the Republic

35

591

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

36

Historia et Ius

592

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

{1

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

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

126

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

38

Historia et Ius

127

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

In the Senate

39

128

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

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome
454

41

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

42

Historia et Ius

455

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

456

For that reason, he continues,


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

7 8

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome

43

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

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

they offended the senators by


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

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

44

Historia et Ius

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

458

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

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome

45

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

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

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

17

18 19

20

46
460

Historia et Ius

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

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

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome

47

462

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

48

Historia et Ius

463

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

27 28

29 30

31

Ambassadors Go to Rome
464

49

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

50
465

Historia et Ius

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome
466

51

467

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

52
468

Historia et Ius

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome
469

53

470

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

54

Historia et Ius

471

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome

55

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

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

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

56

Historia et Ius

473

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome
474

57

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

58
475

Historia et Ius

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

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

476

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

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

Ambassadors Go to Rome

59

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

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

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

60

Historia et Ius

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

7 CATO MAIOR IN AETOLIA*


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

377

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

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

62

Historia et Ius

378

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

63

379

380

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

64

Historia et Ius

381

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

65

382

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

66

Historia et Ius

383

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

384

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

67

385

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

68

Historia et Ius

386

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

69

387

388

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

70

Historia et Ius

389

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

71

390

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

72

Historia et Ius

391

392

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

73

393

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

74

Historia et Ius

394

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

75

395

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

76

Historia et Ius

396

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

397

Cato Maior in Aetolia

77

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

398

78

Historia et Ius

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

2 3 4

6 7 8 9 10
399

11

12

13 14

15 16 17

Cato Maior in Aetolia

79

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

80

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

25

26

27

28 29
401

30

31

Cato Maior in Aetolia

81

32

402

33 34

35 36 37

38

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

82

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

39

40 41

42

403

43

44 45 46 47

48 49 50

51 52

Cato Maior in Aetolia

83

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

84

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

66 67

68
405

69

70 71 72 73 74

75

76

77

78

Cato Maior in Aetolia

85

79

406 80

81

82

83 84

85

86

87

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

86

Historia et Ius

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

Cato Maior in Aetolia

87

97

98 99

408

100 101

102 103

104

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

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


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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

89

II.
340

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

90

Historia et Ius

341

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus


342

91

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

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

92
343

Historia et Ius

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus


344

93

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

94
345

Historia et Ius

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

346

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

95

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

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

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

96
347

Historia et Ius

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

31

32

33 34

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus


348

97

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

35 36 37

38

39

98

Historia et Ius

349

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

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus


350

99

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

100

Historia et Ius

351

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

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

101

352

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

102

Historia et Ius

353

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

103

354

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

104
355

Historia et Ius

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

105

356

357

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

106

Historia et Ius

358

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

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

107

359

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

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

108

Historia et Ius

360

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

109

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

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

110

Historia et Ius

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

362

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

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

111

363

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

112

Historia et Ius

364

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

The Pontiff and the Tribune: The Death of Tiberius Gracchus

113

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

365

102

103

104

105 106

114

Historia et Ius

366

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

107

108

109

110

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

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

149

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

116

Historia et Ius

150

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

A Missing Ponticus

117

151

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

118

Historia et Ius

152

153

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

A Missing Ponticus

119

154

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

120

Historia et Ius

155

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

A Missing Ponticus

121

156

157

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

122

Historia et Ius

158

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

A Missing Ponticus

123

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

159

124

Historia et Ius

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

160

3 4

5 6

A Missing Ponticus

125

7 8

161 10

11

12

13 14

162

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

126

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

15

16

17

18

19

163

20 21

22

A Missing Ponticus

127

23

24

25

26

27

28

164 29

30

31 32

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

128

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

33

34

35 36

37

165

38

39

40

41

A Missing Ponticus

129

42

43

166 44

45 46

47

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

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

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

Q. Scipio Imperator
146

131

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

3 4

132

Historia et Ius

147

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

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

133

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

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

134

Historia et Ius

149

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

135

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

16

17

18

19 20

136
150

Historia et Ius

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

Q. Scipio Imperator
151

137

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

138
152

Historia et Ius

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

Q. Scipio Imperator
153

139

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

32

33

34

35

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

140

Historia et Ius

154

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

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

141

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

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

142

Historia et Ius

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

156

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

143

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

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

144
157

Historia et Ius

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

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

145

158

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

146

Historia et Ius

159

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

147

160

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

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

148

Historia et Ius

161

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

149

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

162

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

150

Historia et Ius

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

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

151

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

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

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

152

Historia et Ius

164

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

153

165

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

154

Historia et Ius

166

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

155

167

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

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

156

Historia et Ius

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

168

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

157

169

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

158

Historia et Ius

170

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

159

171

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

160

Historia et Ius

172

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

96

97

98

99

Q. Scipio Imperator

161

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

173

162

Historia et Ius

174

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

103

104

105 106 107

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

163

175

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

164

Historia et Ius

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

176

Q. Scipio Imperator

165

177

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

166

Historia et Ius

178

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

167

179

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

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

168

Historia et Ius

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

169

180

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

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

170

Historia et Ius

181

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

171

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

182

172

Historia et Ius

183

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

Q. Scipio Imperator

173

184

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

174

Historia et Ius

185

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

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

11 WAYWARD AND DOOMED*


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

561

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

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

176

Historia et Ius

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

Wayward and Doomed


562

177

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

3 4

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

178

Historia et Ius

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

5 6

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

12 AUGUSTALES AND SODALES AUGUSTALES*


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

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

180

Historia et Ius

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

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

Augustales and Sodales Augustales

181

Tab. Heb. lines 5962:


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

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


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

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

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

182

Historia et Ius

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

Augustales and Sodales Augustales

183

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

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

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

13 ORBILIUS, SCAURUS, AND THE AWARD OF CORNICULUM*


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

1 2

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

185

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

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

4 5 6

186

Historia et Ius

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

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

187

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

188

Historia et Ius

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

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

189

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

190

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

191

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

192

Historia et Ius

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

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

193

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

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

194

Historia et Ius

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

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

195

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

196

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

197

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

198

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

199

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

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

200

Historia et Ius

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

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

201

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

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

Next, the edition of Naber (1867):65


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

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


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

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

202

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

203

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

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

204

Historia et Ius

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

75

76

77

78

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

205

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

79

80

81 82

83

206

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

207

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

208

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

209

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

210

Historia et Ius

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

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

211

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

212

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

213

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

112 113 114

115

116

117

214

Historia et Ius

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

Orbilius, Scaurus, and the Award of Corniculum

215

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

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

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


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

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

Silver and Gold of Valor


4

217

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

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

218
5

Historia et Ius

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

Silver and Gold of Valor

219

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

13

14 15 16 17

18

220

Historia et Ius

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

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

Silver and Gold of Valor

221

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

222

Historia et Ius

10

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

Silver and Gold of Valor

223

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

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

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

224

Historia et Ius

12

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

Silver and Gold of Valor

225

13

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

226

Historia et Ius

14

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

45

46 47

48

Silver and Gold of Valor

227

15

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

228

Historia et Ius

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

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

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

1 2

230

Historia et Ius

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

Legio V in Messana

231

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

232

Historia et Ius

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

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

Legio V in Messana

233

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

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

234

Historia et Ius

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

Legio V in Messana

235

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

19 This legion was raised in Spain by a legate of Pompeius apparently well before the beginning of the civil war; at Bell. Alex. 61.1 legio II and legio vernacula are referred to (in 47) as veteranas multisque proeliis expertas legiones. In 49 it was in the army of M. Terentius Varro, the Pompeian governor of Farther Spain, and surrendered to Caesar, as also did Varro, without a fight (Caes. BC 2.1821, esp. 20.4). There is a controversy concerning its status. It was a native legion, made up of those who were in provincia nati (Bell. Alex. 53.5), and consequently most scholars regard it as consisting mostly of peregrini, most likely roma