American Journal of Ancient History 9781463206673, 1463206674

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

3.2

The American Journal of Ancient History is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering ancient history and classical studies. It was established in 1976 and edited by Ernst Badian until 2001. It is continued by the American Journal of Ancient History: New Series, edited by T. Corey Brennan.

American Journal of Ancient History

Volume 3.2 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2017

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2017 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1978 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܐ‬

1

2017

ISBN 978-1-4632-0667-3

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

E.M. Wightman: Peasantsand Potentates:An Investigationof Social Structure

and Land Tenure

in Roman

Gaul

....................

97

G.L. Snider: Hesiod'sSailing Season(W & D 663-665) ................

129

Larissa Bonfante: Historical Art: Etruscan and Early Roman ...........

136

T.P. Wiseman: Flavianson the Capitol ..............................

163

P. Harding: O Androtion, You Fool! ................................

179

J.R. Melville-Jones: The Value of Gold at Athens in 329/8 BE ..........

184

K.R. Walters: Diodorus 11.82-84and the SecondBattle of Tanagra .....

188

¸ 1980by E. Badian.All rightsreserved.

AMERICAN

JOURNAL OF

ANCIENT

Volume 3

HISTORY

1978

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

An Investigation of Social Structure and Land

Tenure 1. The

in Roman

Gaul

Problems

The ideaspresentedherespringin a generalway from a considerationof

thepossible waysof reconstructing theagrariansocietyof RomanGaulin a manner which takesinto accountnot only archaeologicalremains,but also other typesof evidencefor the nature of Gaulish societyprior to Romanization. The particular approach selected,with emphasison the relationship betweenthose at the top and bottom of the socialladder, suggested itself in the courseof enquiry into the nature of the late Roman colonate and the vexed questionof its origins.l The link is formed by the fact that both investigationsdemand a careful considerationof the relationship betweenrich and poor• powerfuland oppressed.The evidencefor all Celtic societies,including Gaulish society at the time of conquest, indicates a socialhierarchy with strong vertical ties of interdependencybetweenthe rich and powerful and the poor and weak. Most scholarsare also agreed that in Caesar's Gaul these links were already expressedin terms of the pattern of land-holding, although anything beyond such a generalized statementremainsa matter for debate.2In late Roman timesinsecurityand fiscal pressuresresultedin an intensificationof the patron-clientrelationship between rich land-owners and poor coloni. Although the forces in operation now included the taxation systemof a bureaucratic state, the actual resultsat the local levelin Gaul beara strikingresemblanceto earlier conditions. The possibility naturally suggestsitself that there existed in Gaul throughout the period of Roman domination a hereditary bound peasantry,and that the conditionsof the later Empire brought, in practice, a minimum of change.The further possibilityarisesthat the attitudes of late Gaulish senatorial land-owners,of whom we have articulate representatives in Ausonius, Paulinus of Nola, Paulinus of Pella and Sidonius

(to mention the most obvious), might be different from those of their contemporarieselsewhere.Indeed, if differencesof attitude to land and to the peasantrycould be established,this might go someway to elucidating the first suggestion.Alsocrucialto any considerationof possiblecontinuity in peasantbondageand related patterns of land tenure is an attempt to estimatethe effe.ctsof Romanizationon traditional Gaulishsocietyand to evaluate the extent to which its inclusion within a Mediterranean-based

empire eroded the principleson which it was based.3 97

98

E. M.

WIGHTMAN

The problemsinherentin the abovelinesof enquiry hardly needto be stressed.The evidence available for Gaul is often sparse, indirect or intractable--in a word,treacherous.Literary sources,betheyCaesaror the late Gaulish senators,rarely if ever give the desiredtype of information, and epigraphy has only a very modest contribution to add. Moreover, a well-excavatedGallo-Roman villa (a phenomenonstill lesscommon than is desirable) can only with difficulty, and subtle argument, be made to provide evidencefor socialstructureat any levelbeyondsuperficialclich•s, and many archaeologiststend to rest content with a description of the physicalremains.4 The detailed archaeologicalpicture which would allow specific well-founded comparisonsand contrasts to be drawn between different areas of Gaul is not yet an actuality. Even within a single area there are difficulties enoughattendant on any attempt to date and interpret trends in the developmentof rural settlementassuggestedby villas, though notable progressis being made.s Given suchdeficienciesin the evidence,it is inevitablethat much of what can be said at the presenttime mustbe by way of prolegomena.Even so, however,the subjecthas certainly not been exhausted,and some helpful clearing of the ground can be accomplished. The nub of the problem lies in the fact that for any reasonably detailed and coherent reconstructionof Gaulish or Gallo-Roman agrarian society,extensiveusemust be made of evidencewhich comesfrom outside the area or the period under scrutiny. Recourse either to the recorded examplesof Italian agrarian organizationor to that other extremelytricky and still barely respectablesource, common Celtic custom as filtered through early medieval Ireland or Wales, cannot be completely avoided. It is noteworthy that French scholarssuch as Fustel de Coulanges, Camille Jullian and Albert Grenier, despitedifferencesin approach,seem to have supposedthat once Gaul was incorporated into the Roman Empire, agrarian matters, both tenure and estatemanagement,came to be regulated on the Italian pattern.6 Without giving details of how they imagined the changeoverto have taken place•they depictedthe introduction of both latifundia (includingthe useof slaves)and contractualtenure of Italian type. True• they stressedthat tenant farming was more widespreadin Gaul than the useof slaves,and Fustel de Coulangesat leastsaw customary tenure as the norm, though curiously enough again arguing from Italy. In this at least he was surely right, in opposition to modern Marxist studies which not unnaturally lay more emphasis on slavery-there is singularly little evidencefor rustic slavery in Gaul, and more especiallyin the Three Gauls, though (to be fair) the Marxist could retort that there is little evidencefor anything else either.7 Now, it cannot be deniedthat the Gauls may have imitated Roman customs,especiallywhenthey sawsomeadvantagein them. But giventhat they had a systemof their own, it can certainly be seriouslydoubted whether alignment to Italian patternswas all-pervasiveor even normal just as it can also in fact be questionedwhether contractualtenure was the

PEASANTS

AND

99

POTENTATES

norm throughout Italy, given the client-tenant-soldiersof a Pompey or Ahenobarbus.

s

True, usingthe other possibility--a studyof the common featuresof later Welsh and Irish laws as a basisfor establishingpre-Roman Gaulish custom--and proceedingto hypothesizethe changesthat Romanizationis likely to have broughtis a processwide opento the chargethat unknownis being built on unknown. It can, however, be argued that the assumptions involved

are not in fact so much more difficult

or less reasonable

than the

others, especiallyas the study of Welsh and Irish customis seeingsome notable advances.Fustel de Coulanges,like many others since, remained sceptical,but was curiouslyprone to a third possibilitywhich is certainly neither easiernor lessprone to error: that of arguingback from the French early Middle Ages and assuming continuity at that end) Space may therefore reasonably be devoted to outlining the probable features of Gallo-Roman societyand land-tenure, interpreted as the result of Celtic customsinfluencedby Roman law rather than as a systemimported from Italy. 2. Social Structure and Land Tenure in Pre-Roman

Gaul

Basicto all descriptions of Celticsocieties, whetherseenfrom theoutsideor from the inside, is a hierarchicalstructurewith a high degreeof what may be called vertical interdependency. The statusof a man from the higher 6chelons--Caesar's'noble'--was defined by the extent of his entourage or clientela.lOFor the lower classesthere was dependencywith little hope of

bettermentexcept,in certaincircumstances, that of changingan ineffective patron for a better one, sincethe maintenanceof a noble'sposition dependedon efficientprovisionand protectionfor his clients.Although suspectedof some exaggerationand blurring of distinctions,Caesar's famous descriptionof the powerlessand indebtedGaulishplebs doesnot seem too far off the mark. Athenaeus hints at further gradations in the social ladder, and Poseidonius in his lost works may have given a considerablyfuller description,TM but it isto the Welshand Irish sourcesthat we must go for the distinction--basicto the societyitself but not necessarily obviousto an outsider--betweenthe free clients(who might themselvesbe lessernobles)and the clientswho were baseor semi-free.Personalslaves also existed, but not in such numbers as to make them a major social or economic

factor. 12

There are, it is true, certain differences between the Welsh and the

Irish pictures,yet the underlyingrealitiesare now consideredto be even closerthan was believedto be the caseby earlier scholars.• One lrish tract devotesmuch spaceto the rulesof freeand baseclientage,while makingno link between status and land-tenure (hence the old view, now abandoned, that the land was held in commonby the whole tribe or people,with individualsor family groupshavingrightsof usebut noneof ownership).•4The

lOO

E. M.

WIGHTMAN

relevant sections of the Welsh law codes, on the other hand, concern

themselvesprimarily with types of land-holding which reflect status.15 Thus the baseIrish client lacks his honour price, the semi-freeWelshman lacks mobility and the right to bear arms.Nevertheless,in both societiesit appearsthat the free clientsheldland of their own, whilestill owingrenders and services--in Ireland the free clients,being wealthier, actually paid a higher percentageof intereston the borrowedlivestockwhich symbolized their clientagethan did the base.•6The baseclientsin Ireland do not appear to have owned land--one word for them means 'rent-payers'•?--and therefore presumably lived on the lord's property. In Wales there was a semi-free or serf class, bound to land that was itself considered to have

unfree status:in return for this they werehoweverguaranteeda sharein a communalplot, whichwasdividedup by the 1ord'sofficersaccordingto the number of adult malesin the group, which was often in the order of nine households.Now the main Welsh Law Code is as late as the 10th century,

and ancientcustommay thereforebe tainted with feudality: more important howeverwas the long exposureto Roman Law, the effectsof which cansometimesbe identified.When Welshand Irish customsagree,thereis the likelihood of a commonstoreof widely spreadancientpractices.When they diverge,one likely reasonis Roman influencein Wales,and thisraises the expectationthat Welsh and Gaulish developmentsmight run parallel. Common to both areas,despitedifferencesin mode of expression,is the conceptthat clientsof all levelsowed both rendersin kind (including entertainment dues) and labour services,which included work at specific times of the year suchas harvestand, in addition, help with fortifying the 1ord'sdwelling.This impliesthe retentionof part of the lord'sland for his own purposesand benefit, and we seemto have quite clearly here the principle out of which a demesnecould grow, even if we do not know exactly how the systemwas organizedin spatialterms.Sincethe existence of demesneswith labour servicesin Italy has recently been brought into question,•8it is particularly interestingto havea sourcein Celtic tradition for this feature,which could thus occurin Gaul quite independentlyof any Italian

influences.

Also common to both Irish and Welsh societieswas the joint ownership of land by family groups with a complicated systemof partible inheritance,which meant that all male heirsof the originalfounderof the line for four generationshad a right to equalshares.Indeed,a right to some share in the land could be claimed until the thirteenth generationunder Welsh law, even by a family member whosebranch had meanwhile left the actual settlement.This custom did not lead to the actual splitting of the land into geographicallyand legally separateentities, but to joint cultivation of the common inheritance,though the branchesof the family might inhabit separatehomesteads. •0 That similar systemsto the above existedin pre-Roman Gaul can reasonablybe supposed.Since Caesar refersto ownershipof land by the

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

lol

Gauls as if it were self-evident, it may also be acceptedthat the greater noblescontrollednot simply large numbersof clientsbut alsothe land on which the baser at least were settledSø The principle of food-renders, entertainmentand labour serviceshelpsexplain the power of the Gaulish chiefsdescribedby Caesaras well as the remarkablefortificationsof the late Iron Age in Gaul.2• When, as happenedby Caesar'stime, the publicly recognizedpowerof theelectedmagistratewasaddedto that of land-owner and patron, the resultcould be figureslike Dumnorix the Aeduan,with his potential for somethingapproachingarchaic tyranny over his civitas.22 Alongsideof suchextremesof wealthand power,however,theremusthave been many free clientswho, while not entirely independentof the major chiefs,had establishedclaimsto their own land, which they very probably cultivatedin the family groupsdescribedabove. Of course, there will have been variations in both time and place,

periodsof relativepeaceand prosperitytendingto favourthe holdingof land by free families,periodsof stressincreasingthe bondsof dependence betweenlesserand greater. Moreover, the influencesfrom the Mediterraneanworld which madethemselvesfelt in a variety of ways(for instance the introduction of a denarius-basedsilver coinage to the Rh6ne-Sa6ne

basin after the Roman conquestof Provence)may have createdor increaseddisparitieswhich were reflectedin land-holding.23It is at present impossibleto advancebeyondgeneralitiesto the analysisof trendsor the studyof nuances,and it may alwaysremainso. Fortunately,evengeneralities are useful, and the picture that pre-Roman Gaul knew private landholdingboth by family groupsand by chiefscontrollingvariousdegreesof clients,includingserfs,may be acceptedwith reasonableconfidence. 3. The Social and Economic

Effects of Romanization

There is of courseno sourcewhich documentsthe changesbrought about by entry into the Roman Empire and the subsequentprocesses of Romanization:nevertheless, variousapproachesto the questionareavailable.It is

permissibleto speculateon what is possibleor likely, given the social context, and the resultscan sometimesbe checkedagainst casesdocumentedin historicalor epigraphicalsources.Archaeologicalevidencehas obvious relevanceand importance, provided it is borne in mind that patternsattestedfor the Roman period were not drawn on a tabula rasa, but are the result of developmentfrom an earlier state of affairs. Finally, the late authors can be checkedfor any information or attitudeswhich may have a wider relevancethan their own particular circumstances. Entry into the Roman Empire would not in itself necessarily bring dramaticchangesin thegeneralpatternof land-tenure,thoughafter Caesar there will have been a scramble for the lands of the dead and disgraced. Land seems sometimes to have been among the praemia awarded by

Caesarto loyal Gauls,and the possibilityalsoexistedof Italiansacquiring

102

E. M.

WIGHTMAN

it by purchase.24The taking of censusesunder Augustusmust have lent somefinality to the current pattern, and also heraldeda certain changein function of land. Whereas previouslyit had essentiallybeen a basis of support for chiefs and their followers, it was now subjectto a regular tribute. In consequence, whereasany surplusesgeneratedwerepreviously dissipatedin extravagantgestureswhichhelpedmaintaina chief'sposition, or at most sometimesexchangedagainstimportedluxury goods,the land now had to producea calculableprofit. It can be arguedthat stepsin this direction had already been taken, at least among the more advanced civitates of central Gaul, and that the changewould in consequencebe greaterin someareasthan in others.25In any case,speedof comprehension and adaptation would certainly vary at the level of individuals. It is likely that registrationof land ownershipfor Roman purposes would give impetusto two distincttrends,not necessarilyentirely new. On the one hand the most powerful man in a family group would tend to oust his kinsmen by overriding their claims to ownership. Analogies from Ireland and Scotlandsuggestthat someof the kinsmenand clientsof a chief might hold land becauseof the chief's beneficencerather than through establishedhereditary claim:26under a more Roman system,they could most readily be seenas tenants. Prominent men who obtained the Roman citizenshipcould also exploit the possibilitiesof bequeathingproperty by testament,wherebypotentialheirscould be excludedor treatedunequally: this processcould readily lead to the consolidationand maintenanceof very large estates.On the other hand, it is likely that jointly-owned properties of non-citizen families were sometimessplit up into distinct holdingsregisteredunder individual headsof households,this beingoneof the normal Roman ways of dealing with joint inheritances? The extent to which all separatepropertiesweregivenofficial namesderivedfrom that of the holder cannot be firmly established,but epigraphicalas well as later literary sourcesshow that larger estates at least were so named, and certainly delimitation of a named property by referenceto neighbouring named propertieswas standard Roman practice.28 Reasonablespeculationon the changesbroughtto the variousgrades of Gaul by the pax Romana can be carrieda little further. The powerful man found his positionas a great land-ownerstabilized:at the sametime hisopportunitiesfor expansionat the expenseof hisneighbour'sclientsor land were curbed.Competitive instinctshad to find new outlets,but these were to hand in the endowment of public buildings or the seekingof municipalor equestrianoffices.The TreveranJuliusIndusmay serveasan exampleof many Gaulswhosefamilieshad madethe transitionto more Romanized life with outstandingsuccess--doubtless by cleverexploitation of opportunities,for othersfell by the waysideto turn into rebels? To maintain suchpositionsof pre-eminence,it would be necessaryeither to maintain consolidatedfamily estates,or to makegoodby freshacquisitions the loss of any which were split off by sale, dowry or bequest.

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

103

Among the client gradesof Gaul, it is the free clientsthat can most readily be imaginedas deriving profit. With luck, they might have established their own firm title to land, have freed themselvesfrom some or even

all the duties of clientship and thus gained the potential to prosper modestly.The pattern of land-holdingcould becomequite varied if they boughta smallplot of land hereand there--for which there would now be opportunity--or rentedland in addition to their own. Their equivalentto the richer man's offices was probably service in the auxiliary forces, especiallythe infantry cohorts.3ø Along with them may be placed the artisansand skilledcraftsmen.Once membersof a chief'sclientela,though holding an honoured place within it, they too are likely to have found increasedpossibilitiesfor independencespringingfrom more varied marketingfacilities,especiallyif they werein a positionto supplygoodsfor the army. 31

For the base clients, the true plebs rustica, ignorant not only of Roman law but alsoof Latin, it is harderto seeRomanizationbringingany substantialchangesor benefits.A few indeed may simply have fled their hereditary position of dependenceand found an alternative livelihood somewhere,for instancein the growing new urban centresor roadside villages, whereas previously such action would have resultedin loss of status and outlawry. Some may have been encouragedto go by landowners who did not want more clients on their land than were required to work it.32The majority musthavestayedon the land, and it is hard to avoid the conclusionthat their Gaulishclient statusformed the basefor a type of customary hereditary tenure which is likely to have remained the norm throughout the Three Gauls. Moreover, debtor bondagewould providean additionalform of constrainton someof thepoor,arisingout of theneedto borrow extra seedcorn or livestockafter a bad year.33If Caesar'sreference to obaerati is not simply a Roman's attempt to describeGaulish base clientage,it was endemicin pre-conquestGaul, and evenwithout Caesarit can be arguedthat its existenceis to be takenfor grantedin thecontextof a primitive agrarian society.The fact that debtscould be calculatedeither in moneyor in kind (which wasprobablyalreadythe caseover manyareasof pre-conquestGaul) neednot havebroughtalleviation:analogiesfrom later agrariancontextsshowthat abusesmay be evengreater,sincethe lenderis at liberty to set the rate of conversion.34From debtor bondagea certain number would descendfurther into chattel slavery. Somechangesin the forms of traditionalpatronagearelikely to have occurred,with the more intricate aspectsof client obligationsperhaps disappearing.The end of the druids as guardiansof custom may have contributed:yet, sinceevennon-druid chiefsmust have beenwell enough aware of the parts of customarylaw which governedrelationshipswith their clients,they would certainly continueto observeand enforcewhatever was to their advantage.35 One of the principalchangeswasthat there was no longer a place for military serviceto the chief, evenif the eventsof

104

E. M.

WIGHTMAN

AD21 and 69/70 suggestthat thiscustom'sdeathwasa lingeringone.36The gradualcessation of thisaspectof clientage,themostobviouswayin which clientsreciprocatedthe protectionextendedto them by a patron, would tend to transform the purely personal bond into the more economic relationshipof tenant to landlord; good parallelsfor this processcan be found in the history of the Scottishhighlandclansin the 18th century.37 Moreover the buying and selling of estates,possibleunder Roman law where it had not beenbefore,would of necessityunderminethe personal and hereditary nature of patronage, since (on what seems the most reasonableassumption)the peasanttenantswould probably be conveyed with the estate.38The extent to which the original Gaulish systemwas in fact underminedwill be further discussedafter a brief summaryof the relevant archaeologicaland literary evidence. Although archaeologicalknowledgeof late Iron Age settlementsin Gaul is still in its infancy, the recentexcavationsof the small( 1.5 ha) hillfort near Bundenbach(Kr. Birkenfeld)givesan excellentillustrationof the defended establishmentof a Treveran nobleman, with one group of rectangular huts (somewhat larger than the others on average) set apart behind a palisade.39 Rich graves of the conquestor immediately postconquestperiod are also bestdocumentedamong the Treveri, wherethey are distinguishedby imported amphoraeand swords(Goeblingen-Nospelt, Luxembourg4ø),wagons and/or swords(the open village of some40-50 families at Wederath, Kr. Bernkastel, Germany4l) or simply wagons (Hoppst•idten, Kr. Birkenfeld, where the gravesare clearly connectedwith a smallhill-fort42).Elsewhere,aerial photographyin the Sommevalleyhas shown a number of farm-enclosuresof a superficiallynon-Roman type: however, in the only instance(Cond•-Folie, Somme) wherethere is definite archaeologicalevidencefor occupationin the late Iron Age it is not certain whether the substantialrectilinearwooden houseand surroundingenclosure actually belong to this early period.43The Iron Age hut near Mayen which later developedinto a small Roman villa lies in isolation from any surrounding remains, and while the evidencefrom Rosmeer (Hainaut, Belgium)may point to a largertype of settlement,like that of Bundenbach without the defences,the plan is not yet clear.44Thus we still lack the spectrumwhichmightshowwhat kind of establishment is appropriatefor a major chiefas opposedto a minor one or a personof freeclientstatus,and how the hovels of base clients were normally related to the patron's dwelling. It is worth bearingin mind that in an agewherepower restedon personal status and size of following, it need not necessarilyalso be reflectedin the sizeand decorationof a person'sdwelling;at Bundenbach differences,while undeniable,are lessthan striking.4• Recentyearshave seena steadyincreasein evidencefor rural settlement prior to the mid-I st centuryAD, asit becomesclearthat a numberof later Roman villa sitessaw earlier buildingsin wood. Unfortunately the dating evidenceis usuallyimprecise,and the plansfar too fragmentaryto

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

105

allow of usefulcomparisons.Some examplesmay representthe dwellings of prominentmen, suchasthe villa which Tacitus'accountof the troubles of the year ^D 21 clearlyascribesto JuliusSacrovir.46It is from the middle of the 1stcenturyAD that the buildingin the countrysideof establishments on stonefoundations,to which the term villa is normallyapplied,becomes frequent.Fashionmay haveplayeda part, aswell aseconomicfactors,such as increased availability of quarried stone for the civilian population. Currently available evidencedoes not make it possibleto judge whether certain areasof the Three Gauls werein advanceof the others,thoughthe occurrence of the peristyle houses at Bibracte during Augustus' reign suggeststhat the Aedui might be in the vanguard.47 If the archaeological evidence of the stone villas is to be briefly summarized,it suggestsa very substantialnumber of rural establishments closelycomparablenot simply in function but often in plan? Associated farm buildingsmay either surroundthe main dwelling(usualin the smaller villas)or be rangedalonga separatecourtyard.(normalin the mediumand larger). For the main dwelling, a form of the corridor or winged-corridor plan is predominantin the north: in the centreand southsquarecourtyards increasein number, but these may or may not have been common in the earlier phases,since detailed dating is still minimal. In the most fully documented areas (the Somme valley, Belgian Hainaut, parts of the Saarland and Lorraine) it appearsthat villasfrequentlycommandedareas of between 50 and 100 ha.49 Not all of this, of course, was necessarily exploitable,and evidencethat all villas in any givenarea were simultaneously inhabited is also lacking.soIf the regularity of pattern nevertheless remainsstriking,it is to someextent offsetby the occasionaloccurrenceof establishmentssuchas St. Ulrich near Sarrebourg(Moselle), which appear from the beginningto have beenon a larger scaleand to haveexploiteda greater area of surroundingcountryside.sl Occasionally,too, there are villages or hamlets,for instancein the Auvergne, the Vosgesor the Eifel, the last area providing the fascinatinginstanceof a Gallo-Roman hamlet just outside a small hill-fort of the late Iron Age at Landscheid (Kr. Wittlich). s2Since thesenucleatedsettlementsof the Roman period occur mostly in lessfertile and more out-of-the-wayareas, it may be surmised that normally dependentpeasantsweretidied up into the modelfarmyards that are so particularly clearly shown by aerial reconnaissancein the Somme Valley. Sometimes,however, there are indications of grouped settlementsdependenton particular villas--e.g., Anth•e and Vellereille-leBrayeux--and sincesuchhamletslend themselveslessreadily to discovery than the more substantialvillas, there may be many more to find.s3 While archaeologydoes therefore documentboth well-to-do and

poorer,thereare otherpointsthat it doesnotsufficiently illumine.It hasto be remembered,and it is not alwayssufficientlystressed, that the patternit reveals is of farming units rather than of estates.Occasionallyfurther inferencesmay be drawn, for instancethat a large villa• or one richly

106

E. M.

WIGHTMAN

decoratedwith mosaics,is onein whicha well-to-dopropertyownerspent time, and that when a very small dwelling is attachedto a large farmyard the farm unit involved

was either rented out or under the control

of a

bailiff.54Otherwise,a regular pattern of villas can equally well denotea numberof owner-occupiersof approximatelythe samestandardof wealth, or the splitting up of larger estatesinto farm units that were separately administered.The regularitysuggests that farm unitsof between50 and 100 ha had some special conveniencein terms of the manpower or animalpower requiredto cultivate suchan area, though what it was remainsto be worked out. The evidence so far adduced for centuriation in Gaul, if it is accepted,may denote the regularization of an existingsystem:evenif this did entail minor reorganizationof estateboundaries,it certainlyneednot meanthe impositionof an arbitrary and inappropriatepattern.5sA regular pattern therefore, while it does suggestcertain developments,does not necessarilyimply a total destructionof the old Gaulish social pattern. Archaeologicalevidence,at least that which is currently available, unfortunatelyfails to giveinformation on another point whichiscrucialto understandingthe rural settlementpattern in terms of land-tenure and socialstructure. At leastuntil we havethe clueswhich a fuller knowledgeof the field systemsassociatedwith villas might bring, we are left to guess whether the people inhabiting the farmyards were slaves,labourers, or tenantswho rented small plots of their own and in return alsoworked on the main farm. 56 In terms of Gaulish social structure the last alternative

is

not only possiblebut probable; the problem is to know whether suchan arrangement was and remained widespread,and whether the coloni of inscriptionsare a group of poor tenants on a singlefarm unit or men of sufficient meansto rent out the various units which belongedto a single larger estate? That slavesexistedis certain, quite apart from the very rare discoveryof manacleson a villa site, but it is unlikely that their employment in large numberswas economicallyviable in a country with an ample supply of peasantlabour.s8The housingof landlesslabourersor cottarsis possible,especiallyif theyare thoughtof as depressed clientswho had lost their full rights. Since there is so much ambiguity inherent in the archaeological evidence,anything that may reasonablybe extractedfrom the later writers becomespotentially so much the more valuable. Some of the information is, however, like the archaeological,ambivalent, in that it can be interpreted either as a development of Celtic custom or as the adoption of Italian ways.Ausonius'ex-bailiff, Philo, who appearsto be a freedman,is a case in point, like the slave or freedmen vilici or actores mentioned in inscriptions?The obviousItalian parallelis weakenedby the existencein Wales of a 10rd's officer called the landmaer

who administered

the bond

villagesand was himselfnormally a slave:6øthere is a likely archaeological parallel in the one rich gravein the tiny settlementat Landscheid,thoughit cannot be proven to be that of an underling rather than of some petty

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

107

villagechief.6• Both Ausoniusand Sidoniusmay illustratethe effectsof Roman law in that scattered estates seem to be the norm in their world, the

result of inheritance,buying and selling(and perhaps,for the family of Rutilius Namatianus and Paulinus of Nola, the old prescription that senatorsshouldhold land in Italy).62Yet the estatesto whichtheydevote mosttime are thoseacquiredby way of inheritanceor dowry,63and thereis no evidencethat they ever bought and sold land quite so readily or unsentimentallyas wasdone in late RepublicanItaly--if they in fact did,

perhapsit was treated differently from the other estates. 64 In effect, Ausonius' own estateswere dispersedwithin two generations,yet he regardedas regrettableand shamefulthe possibilitythat this fate might befall the estatesof the Paulini becauseof his friend's neglect.65 Also ambiguousis the practice of settlinggrown sonson separateand even distantholdings,whichcould be Celtic, Italian, or simplycommonsense. 66 It is interesting,however, that both Lucaniacusand Avitacum, estates acquiredby way of dowry(againa customwhichcouldbe eitherItalian or Celtic)•bear the family namesof the ladiesconcerned.Althoughthe view that estate names go back to the original owners at the time of the first censusis probably too extreme,Avitacum at leastcan be reasonablytraced back for severalgenerations. 67Moreover, it is preciselyin suchareasas Auvergne--important at the time of the conquestbut lying apart from all major trade routes--that continuity might be expectedto be strong. On estate sizes,Ausoniusalone givesany information: his herediolurn,pre-

sumablyinheritedfrom hisgrandfathdr, wassome260 ha, a figurewhich reminds us that 50-100 ha must not be taken as the norm for all parts of Gaul at all times;the way in which it isdescribedsuggests a singlefarm unit, yet cultivated by a plurality of coloni.68 The distinctive contribution of Ausonius, Paulinus of Pella and

Sidonius,for which no parallel can befound in the writingsof Symmachus, is somethingmuch vaguer, yet nonethelessstriking: their strong sentimental attachmentto family, family property and the area in which they live becauseof it. Sidoniuswaxesparticularly eloquentover Avitacum and the way in which it has led him to adopt the country of the Arverni as his secondpatria. 69At the sametime, while theyare muchconcernedwith their land (and regard suchconcernas a virtue), there is no sign of the kind of anxiety which Pliny expressesover finding the right kind of coloni.TMOn the one hand they give the impressionthat their estateswere a very real

sourceof pride and prestige,and on the other that they couldtake their turba clienturnTM for granted.It may be suggested, thoughit is incapableof proof, that the source of these attitudes is neither purely 4th- and 5thcenturyrealities,nor merely literary conceits,but the traditions of the land itself.

A very definitehint that Gaulishlegalcustomsremainedalive, if to an indefinableextent, is alsoprovidedby the anonymouscomedyproducedin Roman Gaul 'of the late 4th or early 5th century and known as the

E. M. WIGHTMAN

108

Querolus. The cantankerouscharacter from whom the play's name is derivedis advisedby a householdspirit to repair to the Loire valley, where people live by ius gentium. That a continuationof, or rather a return to, traditional customis intendedrather than somemore generaland neutral conceptis impliedby the slightlyscathingreferenceto sentences, including the death penalty, being delivered from the oak tree and inscribedon bones. The interests of the audience clearly lay with the established Romanizedsystem--butthe point ismade,and customarylaw couldeasily have included the regulation of land.72 4. The Extent of Change

If an attemptis madeto producea balancesheetof argumentsfor and againstthe continuationof Gaulish customsthroughoutthe Roman

period,the povertyof the availableevidence, no matterwhateffortsbe made,againbecomesoverwhelmingly evident.Essentiallythe endearour involvesestimatingthe extent to which a traditional social systemwas changed asa resultof economic impulses arisingfrom its inclusionin the wider context of the Empire--and this in the absenceof the typesof documentationwhich normally form the basisfor such studiesin the contextof othersocieties. If thequestionisto beansweredsatisfactorily, an appealmustbe madeto someformof conceptual frameworkof changein suchsocieties, anda frameworkapplicableto the Romanprovincesisyetto be worked out.73Meanwhile, in the context of exploratoryessays,facile

assumptions aboutchange andappeals to theinnateconservatism of rural societiesmust alike be discardedas inappropriate. Indications of both changeand continuity certainly exist, though somedependon hypothesisor interpretationand they do not at present

add up to a systematic treatmentof the subject.The greaterdegreeof absenteeismwhich was almost certainlyattendantupon the adoption of Romanizedlife-stylesby therichwouldbothdilutetheelementof personal

loyaltyin theclient-patron bondandencourage thesplittingupof theland intoseparately manageable unitswhichisattested byarchaeology; evenif these were originally administeredby clients or family members,the

practicewouldlead to dispersalof estatesand furtherattenuatelocal traditionsof loyalty to a particularlineage.The land-ownerswho thus treatedtheir estates--ina sensetheymaybeconsidered 'improvers'---could

originallythroughGaulishcustoms havecalledon tied labourto build villas(aspreviouslyhill-forts)aswellasto exploittheland.At a laterstage,

wouldit perhaps havebeenmoreprofitableto phaseouttheoldreciprocal relationships andsimplypayfor hiredlabour,at mostturninga fewclients into cottagerswhohad lostthehereditaryclaimto till landfor themselves? That

Gallo-Roman

landowners were to some extent cost-conscious

emerges from theuseof machinery suchasthereaping-machine (vallus)as well as from generalreflectionson the more varied opportunitiesavailable

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

109

to them.TMOne plausibleinterpretationof the disappearancefrom the epigraphicrecordof the familiesof Julii who appearso prominentlyat first is that they were largely supersededas land-owners by men of a more entrepreneurial outlook who would have lessrespectfor custom--those whosesculpturedtombstonesform an importantbody of evidencefor Gaul in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. 75

On the side of continuity, that rich land-ownersdid not invariably absent themselvesfrom their estatescan be shown by the occurrenceof largefunerary monumentsin the countryside.An excellentexampleisthat from Mersch (Luxembourg), for which a 2nd-century date has recently beensuggested and wherethe nameless manin questionhadfollowedin the footstepsof the early Julii by pursuingan equestriancareer.76Further studyof funerary monumentswith suchquestionsin mind will clearlyhave a contribution to make. Practicessuchas the undividedexploitation of jointly-owned family propertiesmay also havecontinued;it can hardly be chancethat both West Roman vulgar law and Welshlaw containtracesof a concept of double dorniniurnwhich was foreign to the classicalRoman tradition, but could easily arise in areas which had customarymultiple ownershipand had to expressit in Roman terms.??It has beensuggested more than once that the subsidiarydwelling in the villa-complexes,generally interpretedas that of a vilicus,could have beenoccupiedby a junior branch of the family--and, for that matter, the main dwelling in all but the very smallestexamplescould havehousedmore than onenuclearfamily in addition to a few slaves. TMThe classicalconcept of locatio-conductio, which normally involvedthe exchangeof money,is significantlyabsentin vulgar law• and renting by contract was rare in medieval France while common in Italy--further indicationsthat customarytenure of a more or less traditional nature was the norm in the Gaulish provinces? In the evidence(admittedlyscanty)for the presenceof artisanson estates,as well as in road-sidevillages,there may be a hint of continuedCeltic patronage resultingin self-sufficientestatesof a kind which wererecommendedonly by later writers such as Palladius? While some tombstonesdo show

moneychanginghandsin a ruralcontext--mostprobablythepaymentof rent--others, showingthe presentationof animalsand produceto the landowner, whether by way of rent or entertainmentdues,suggestthe retention of older customs.s• It has also been reasonablydoubted on numismatic groundsthat the economyof the northernprovinces,especiallyin the rural areas, was ever fully monetized, and many matters must have been regulatedwithout moneychanginghands? The extent to whichpayments were made in kind or money,however,may simplyhavefluctuatedwith the readily available supply of coinage. It must also be borne in mind that eventualitieswhich are beyondhope of documentation,suchas a succession of bad harvests,would not be without their effect on rural life. When further archaeologicalinformation is available, it will probably emergethat variety evenwithin the Gaulishprovincesis the keynote.

110

E. M.

WIGHTMAN

In someremote and lessfertile areassuchas the Eifel (north-eastof Trier), there was continuity of pre-Roman stylesof burial and dress--hardly a likely area for extensivecommercializationof rural relationships. 83Areas with the highest density of villas, on the other hand, are all on or near important trade-routes,as well as beingin the area of north-easternGaul whichcan be shownto haveadopteda moreLatinizedform of terminology for agriculturalimplements.84Intensivesurveysof villas in Aquitania and Narbonensiswould give interestingand necessarymaterial for comparison. As it is, the area around Narbonne showscertain characteristicsin the

early medievalperiod whichcould derivefrom a more Italianized type of land-tenure;it is also the only area of Gaul with considerable,thoughstill limited, evidencefor rural slavery.8s Even in areas where maximum changesor 'improvements'did take place, it cannot of course be supposedthat patron-client relationships would cease to exist as such. They are simply too basic to all ancient society,and the smallland-owner,tenant,cottageror villageartisanwould

still tend to look to somemore powerfulindividual,probablynot just in caseof need but as part of the natural conditionsof society.86Clientship pyramidsmusthaveexistedevenin areaswherea regularpatternof villas suggeststo the modern eye, at least at first glance,a more egalitarian system. Everywhere, the large land-owner would be the natural patron, especiallyif, being of decurial status,he wasalso the local embodimentof the Roman administrativesystem. It is however not entirely otiose to ask whether the patron-client relationshipcontinuedto be regulatedin a traditional manner, evenif the questioncannotbe finally answered.To beginwith, it islinked to thevalue given to land within the society.From its traditional value as a meansof support for patron and clients and a necessarysource of wealth and prestigefor the former, how far did it advancetowardsbeing a sourceof incomewhich could be spentelsewhereand a placeof investmentfor riches otherwiseacquired? 87Other questionsarealsointerconnected.How far did loyalty to family and clients continue to restrict the pattern of sale and inheritance,even when a largemeasureof freedomwasapparentlyavailable?How far, in return, did clientscontinueto hold particular familiesin respect as hereditary patrons? Last but not least, how far did estate management continue to be based on traditional customs?It has been arguedabove88that the principleof demesneand labour servicesis likely to havebeenestablishedbecauseof pre-Roman practices.That this remained the norm in backward areas seemshighly probable. Even in the more developed ones, it may fairly be claimed that until it is shown that the systemwould have been untenableand unprofitable, or that it cannot be reconciledwith the archaeologicalevidence,its existenceis more likely than its absence.

In any case,any period of troubles and hardship is likely to have increasedthe dependencyof peasantsand small land-ownerson patrons,

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

111

inasmuchas the latter weremore likely to beequippedto weatherthe storm and provide loans or other appropriate assistance.The courseof the 3rd century, with both invasionsand the disruptionscausedby the failure of the independentGallic Empire, may have brought additional hazardsin the form of the death or disappearanceof patrons,but it is not inherently probablethat there was any increasein the power or independenceof the rural poor? A recent re-evaluationof the Bagaudaehas very plausibly suggestedthat they were local men of standingsupportedby their clientsin an attempt to usurppower overa widerarea ratherthan peasantsrevolting againsttheir patrons? Admittedly there are many problemsinvolvedin trying to interpret the effect of the secondhalf of the 3rd century on the economicand sociallife of Gaul. Among otherthings,a gooddeal of land may have changedhands for one reasonor another, and certain families, who were among the landed aristocracyof the 4th century and later, may have made or increasedtheir fortunes--the Paulini, for instance,who were to become one of the great land-owning families, seem to have entered Gaulish societyfrom Italy at this time? Yet none of this needimply any fundamental changesin the relationshipsbetween rural patrons and clients,but simplycertainmodificationsor trendswhichcanbe relatedto the specialcircumstancesof the later Empire. 5. The Late Roman

World

and the Land-Owners

of Gaul

The later Empire saw two important developmentswhich, while not confined to Gaul, certainly had an effect on the Gaulish countryside. On the one hand, the men of standingwere more permanentlyresidenton, and immediatelyconcernedwith, their estates. 92The competitivelife of prominent Gauls no longer revolvedaround the citiesand municipal honours, and althoughhighofficein the Empire wasmuchsoughtafter by thosewho attainedsufficientwealth and status,for most(there weresomeprominent exceptions)this was to take them away as short a time as possiblefrom their country residences?At the sametime, the increasedfiscal demands of the later Empire necessitatedmore than ever before the steadyproduction of an agriculturalsurplus,and thisdespitethefall in populationwhich, thereis reasonto believe,afflicteda gooddealof the Gaulishcountryside.94 Sincecarefulestatemanagementwasnecessary if fiscaldemandswereto be met while leavinga profit or surplusfor the land-owner(Ausonius'barns, we learn, were alwaysstockedwith two years'produce),the two developments are not altogether unconnected? The late Roman taxation systemis a complex subjectposingmany problems. Fortunately, to understand some of its effects on Gaul it is necessaryonly to considercertainaspectsof this bureaucraticattempt to subjecteveryone,including the rural poor, to more rigorousand centrally supervisedtaxation? The two most relevantfeaturesare the bindingof the colonate to the soil (in order to ensure the collection of predictable

112

E. M.

WIGHTMAN

amounts of tax revenue),and the imposition on land-ownersof the responsibility for the paymentof taxesby their landless tenants,whowere

permanently registered as part of the estates?Together,theyservedto strengthenfurther the dependenceof client on patron, sometimesin mannerswhich do not seemto have been foreseenby the imperial legislators;this, in turn, is likely to haveaffectedthe mannerin which estateswere organized.

Of course, if thearguments putforwardaboveareaccepted, manyof theruralpoorin Gaulweredefactoalreadyboundto thesoilbytraditional patternsof land-tenure,and thisaspectof the late Roman colonatewould

byitselfmakelittledifference. Ascriptio, theregistration bftenants aspart of the land-owner's taxable assets,can also be seenas a reasonableand

appropriate way of dealingwith largeestates cultivatedby hereditary bound tenants? If taxation had not beenburdensome,the effectsof the

legislation wouldthushavebeenminimalin Gaul,exceptin anyregions whereeconomicchangeshadbroughtabouta loosening of thetraditional system. It is clear,however,thattheburdenof taxationwaspassed onto thetenantsevenwhentheland-ownerwasresponsible for thetaxes,andin spiteof legislationwhichforbadethe increasing of rentsto covertaxes.99 Even worse hit were the tenants who also owned a little land of their

own, and who were directly responsiblefor their own taxes•as well as the small land-ownerswho, although not coloni in the strict senseof tenants, were also much afflicted by taxation.lOO It is over the plight of the latter classesthat Salvian waxesespeciallyeloquentin the early 5th century.lol To all who could not meet the tax burdens,illegalflight, preferablyto the protection of an effectivepatron, was virtually the only option.102An effectivepatron had to be a land-ownerlargeenoughto offer better terms,bestof all one of senatorialstatuswho had the bestchanceof avoidingany strict enquiry, keepingthe tax collectorsat bay or seeingto it that histax assessmentwas kept lighter than it should have been. The amount of legislationwhich attempted to stop this processis testimonyto its frequency,even if Salvian did not describeit in somedetail for Gaul. 103Thus powerful land-ownerswere able to build up a greater supply of labour, profitable because often untaxed, and because of the illegality of the situation the client coloni were entirely at their mercy. Salvian indeed

describeshow a smallland-ownermightfall to beinga mereinquilinus,a housedhand or cottager, with no right, hereditaryor otherwise,to work land on his own behalf.104On the other hand, a kindly patron might in some circumstances(despitethe illegality of the act) raisean ascripticiusto the rank of an unregisteredcolonusresponsiblefor his own taxesand clearly enjoying a higher status, if not easier circumstances. 105The custom of ascriptioneverappliedto all estates,but it seemsboth to havestartedin the west and to have been retained in Gaul after it had been abandoned

in the

Danube provinces.It has been reasonablysuggestedthat vestedinterests may have helpedkeep it: Gaulish land-ownerswould very likely welcome

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

113

legislationwhich gave additional securityto ancestralcustomaryprivileges,especiallyif the latter had grown thin in someareas.z06 Given that thereare a numberof literary figuresfrom amongthe rich 4th- and 5th-century Gaulish land-owners, it might be expected that information on the running of estateswould be ready to hand. In fact, details of estatemanagementare conspicuously lacking even in an agricultural writer suchas Palladius,himselfprobablya 4th-centuryGaulish land-owner, apart from his general advice on the desirability of making estatesself-sufficient. z07It is his very silenceon provisionsfor the housing of coloni that has led to the suggestion that thesemay now normallyhave been housedin villagesrather than closeto the land-owner'sdwelling.to8 From Ausonius there is next to no information--he

does not even think to

completehisdescriptionof the herediolum,whichquitecloselyresembles a tax declaration, by adding the number of coloni, apart from the simple comment that there were sufficient.to9$idonius does at least drop a reference to clients' womenfolk in the context of his villa Avitacum, where

they are clearlyvery much at home;he also'refers,thoughin regrettably vagueterms, to a weavingestablishmentat Burgus,the fortified villa of the Pontii Leontii.tto It can be shown that Ausonius, Paulinus of Pella and

Sidoniusall usethe word cliensin a sensethat isvery little, if at all, different from colonus.• The positiveinformationto be gleanedfrom thesewriters againconsistslessof precisefactsthan of a generalmood. Paulinusof Pella talks of taking a very personalinterestin the day-to-day running of the estatewhich formed his wife's dowry, in a fashionwhich suggests more than a literary commonplace--or,at least,a literary commonplacebased on reality.tt2 In Sidonius, interest in the agricultural side of estatesis elevatedinto one of the expectedaristocraticvirtues.tz3Such care could indeedyield dividendswhichweremorethan merelypractical,aswhenhis brother-in-lawEcdiciusfed largenumbersof starvingfellow-countrymen in a period of famine.TM The presenceof the land-ownerson their estates,and the increased attentionpaid to them, partly becauseof the increasedburdenof taxation, would naturally tend to greaterefficiencyin supervisionand administration. Another likely result is the consolidationof estatesinto continguous areasof land whereverpossible:probableexamplesare the estatesof the Paulini near Bordeaux known from literary sources,and the N6bouzan around Montmaurin known from a mixture of archaeologicaland later

documentaryevidence.t t5The effortsto concentrate resources and maximize returnsare in turn likely to have causeda greateremphasison the principle of labour servicesin the working of the central portion of the estates,as indeedthe presenceof the womenfolkat Avitacum suggests. This would be evenmorethecaseira loweredrural populationresultedin a comparativeshortageof manpower,as there is somereasonto believe.zt6 Theoretically,sucha shortagecould have resultedin the peasants'being able to better their conditions, but the effects of taxation seem to have

1 14

E.M.

WIGHTMAN

nullified this, or at leastreducedit to the possibilityof taking refugewith a more compliant patron.•7 Archaeological evidenceon the late Gallo-Roman villas is still far from satisfactory.Briefly, it suggests that fewer villas were occupied,but that a fair number of theseenjoyeda marked degreeof opulence--a picture correspondingwell with what might be anticipated from the literary sources.•8 Conspicuouslymissingis any firm evidencefor the physical form of the dependencies. Thus it is perfectlypossiblethat life went on in the farmyards of establishments where the main dwelling had beenabandoned; if indeed this were the case, it would imply no major changes beyond a diminution in the numbers of large tenants, agentsand small land-owners,with administration being consequentlylessdispersedthan previously.•9 Some of the late Roman cemeteriesof north-easternGaul suggestthat labour was sometimesconcentratedin hamlets or villages differently locatedfrom the earlier villas.•20Sometimes,however,thismay have beendue to the settlementof peopleof Germanicorigin, a complication which cannotyet be readily evaluated.TMNeverthelessit is clearfrom the literary sourcesthat land-owners' patronage extended over whole villages,whether becausethis was in fact where the majority of coloni normally lived or becausepowerful men had extendedtheir patronageto originally independentvici. The latter might be true of Ebromagus,where the namesuggests a marketcentre:but Ausoniusseemsto speakof hisvilla Lucaniacusas if, taken with the closelyassociatedvillage of Condate, it made up a singleagglomeration.•22Unfortunately, Sidoniusgivesus no real impressionof the number of peoplewho lived within the encircling wall of the palatial Burgus:quite conceivablyenoughto makeit in practice a fortified village with manor house,a distant and more gloriousdescendant of Bundenbach.

•23 6. Echoes of Pre-Roman

Gaul

Against this background of anxiety over taxation, of intensifiedand extendedpatronageand consolidatedestates,moved the urbane literary figuresof late Roman Gaul, along with other rich Gaulishsenatorswho sometimesplayeda prominentpart in the running of the Empire. Keenly competitive,as ever,for honours,they nevertheless mostly remainedtrue to their roots. The sourceof their wealth (imperial fayours apart) lay in their control of land and of the client-colonitheytook somuchfor granted. It almost seemsas if land had largely returned to its traditional value as a sourceof wealth and prestigefor the patron, and nourishmentfor the clients.

But in fact it was also a source of taxation

for the central

government,and the land-owners'powerdependednotjust on custombut on beingintermediaries for the centralizedsystem.It is not surprisingthat they made good servants,so long as the emperornoticedthem, but were also preparedto supportusurpersin periodswhen Rome seemedtoo far away.

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

115

The power of the late Gaulishpotentatesthushasa verycleardouble root, one springingfrom within their own societyand one originating outside it. Nonetheless,there are many features of late Gallo-Roman agrariansocietywhichcannotbut remindthe modernobserverof late Iron

Age conditions--whichis not to say that the Gauls themselves (despite sentimentalclaims of druid descentamong Ausonius'circleTM)were, or could be, aware of this. The echoesare clearlyheardin Sidonius'description of the fortified villa of Burgus(probablyBourg-en-Gironde),which providesa literary parallel to the epigraphicallyattestedTheopolisprovidedby ClaudiusPostumusDardanusin the Basses Alpes.•25To thesecan be added innumerable anonymous examples known from archaeology, often taking the form of re-fortificationof Iron Age sites.The later Roman Empirethusbecomesonemoreageexemplifyingthe periodicflight to the

hill-topswhichstartedbackin the late BronzeAge--eachperiodwith its own particularfeaturesand causes,eachsharingan underlyingpattern. Always,thefortifiedsitesarethe reflectionof a highlystratifiedsociety,of the possibilities of utilizinglabour,and of uncertaintimes.Despitewide differencesin culture and loyalties,a parallel betweenPontius Leonflus and Caesar'sCadurcan chief Lucterius,who had patronageover .thehillfort of Uxellodunum, is not hard to see.126

Moreover, the entire settlementpattern, insofar as it can be established, resemblesthe conditionsof the late Iron Age as much as it doesthe earlierEmpire. Not only werethe cities(with a few exceptions)diminished

in size and importance,but many of the roadsidevici were virtually deserted.•27Their function as centresfor craftsmen was now taken over by

the large estates,their population absorbedwhere it had not simply vanished.At the sametime there are the hints of true dependentagricultural villages,thoughin viewof theargumentspresentedearlierthismay be seenasa changein outwardform ratherthan in socialstructure.The whole emphasisis on the self-containedestate,with fortification affordedwhen necessary, and the socialstratificationis more clearlymirroredthan it was in the earlier Empire. Troubled times also brought back a tendencyto raise and even

maintain privatearmies,in spiteof prohibitions.Sometimes,as with the bodyguardsof Rufinusor Aetius,an influx of Germaniccustomformeda corpsveryreminiscent of theAquitaniansolduriiof Caesar's time.•28More closelyconnected with rural patronagewasthe army whichEcdiciusthe Arvernian raised from his clients to meet the Goths in an emergency.1•9 Thanks to Sidonius it is among the Arverni that we can most clearly see another resurgentfeature--the manner in which jostling for primacy

amongthe localland-owningfamiliesbecamemixedup with thepoliticsof empire,the latter servingalmostasan extensionof theformer.13ø It maybe suspectedthat more lay behindEcdicius'gestureof feedingthe starving throng than simplemagnanimity.Indeed,Sidoniushimself,onceinstalled asbishopandthusin a sensethepatronof thewholecivitasaswellasof his privateclientela,is in many ways,despitedifferences in the sourceof his

116

E. M. WIGHTMAN

authority, reminiscentof an Eporedorix or a Diviciacus.TMAnd when he acts as a grand seigneur,arranging a marriage for a client or meting out summaryjusticeto a group of men caughtviolatinga family grave--more maiorum, he claimed--he again forms a Janus-figure,looking both backward to a traditional past and forward to a new age.•32 7. Conclusion

Although there is muchthat is admittedlyhypothetical,controversialand incapable of strict proof, it has been argued above that the social differentiationsof Iron Age Gaul wereby and largereflectedin specificforms of land-tenurewhich had a basein commonCeltic, perhapsin turn derived from primitive Indo-European, traditions. Features very probably included the principle of labour servicesby way of rent from dependent tenants, by means of which a demesnereservedfor the use of the landowner could be cultivated, and other tasksperformed, without the widespreaduse of hired labour. It has been seenthat inclusionwithin the wider economicsystemof the Roman Empire causedsome increasein variety and mobility. Our understandingof the pattern of the early Empire is still very incomplete, and disagreementis likely over the extent to which one aristocracymay have replacedanother and the customsregardingland-tenureand inheritancemay have escapedfrom the straitjacketof tradition. Further studies of the detailed evidenceavailable in the inscriptionsand monumentsof Gaul, as well as more theoreticalattemptsto producean acceptablemodel for the type of transitioninvolved,may bringgreaterclarity. Meanwhile,it has been suggestedabove that the extent of change may readily be overestimated,and that the changewhich did occur need not have totally undermined the traditional society.There was, in effect, no major transformation in the systemsof production such as was later to cause the agriculturalrevolution in Britain; thisis not to deny,however,the existence of certain trends and modifications.

133

Agrarian society in late Roman Gaul seemsin many ways to be characterizedby a return to earlierforms, although,strangelyenough,one of the factors behind this was the taxation systemof the central Empire. The sentimentalattachmentto land and family shownby the late writers may be no mere literary commonplace but the result of adherence to traditional customsconcerningthe land. It has been suggestedbefore now that the regular coincidenceof patron with land-owner was one of the features which distinguished the western provincial societiesfrom the eastern,wherea more varied pattern prevailedand a patronfrom outside could be used against the land-owner.TMFurther studiesare admittedly necessaryto supportthe suggestionthat the Gauls were marked out even within westernsocieties:if the claim cannot be upheld, then the argument for a high degreeof continuity in Gaulish societyis thereby weakened.

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

117

In effect, it has been argued that there is a strong unbroken thread between Gaul of the late Iron Age and the early Middle Ages, and that

modifiedcontinuityratherthan radicaltransformationis the key-noteof agrariansociety,and particularlyof the relationshipbetweenpeasantsand potentates.The attemptmay bethoughtover-ambitiousin the presentstate of knowledge,and certainlyboth argumentand conclusions canonlybe of a speculativenature. But the social and economic realities which we endeavour,howeverunsatisfactorily,to reconstructaffectedthe livesboth of free Gauls and Gallo-Romans, and our understandingof their world can only be increasedby an attemptto follow up thecluesthat areavailableand by the discussionwhich suchan endeavouris bound to provoke.135 E.M. Wightman

McMaster University NOTES

1. The bestconspectusof the variousviewson the origin of the colonate remains R. Clausing, The Roman colonate: The theoriesof its origin (New York 1925,repr. Rome 1965). It is not necessaryto agreewith Clausing'sown viewson soil exhaustion.Modern work has tendedto return to stressingthe administrative and fiscalimperatives,e.g.A.H.M. Jones,'The Roman colonate',P&P 13(1958) 113 (repr. in The Roman economy, ed. P. Brunt (Oxford 1974) 293-307) and The Later Roman Empire, 284-602 (Oxford 1964) 796-9. 2. The protagonistfor the view that the Gauls did not have private property in land was H. d'Arbois de Jubainville; seehis Recherchessur l•rigine de la proprigt•foncikre (Paris 1890) 4 if., summarizingearlier articles.The idea was basedon Irish evidence,discussedin his Coursde litt•rature celtique7 (Paris 1895) 118 ff. It wassimultaneouslycounteredfor Gaul by N.D. Fustelde Coulangesin 'Le probli•medes originesde la propri•t• fonci•re', Rev. des questionshist. 45 (1889) 349-439.The debateis summarizedin T. Rice Holmes, Caesar'sconquestof Gaul2 (Oxford 1911) 509-512. Caesar'sreferencesto boundarydisputesand to the lack of private land-ownershipamong the Germans,BG 6.13.5, 6.22.1-3, make Fustel de Coulanges'view more probable, and most scholarshave adopted it; C. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule6 2 (Paris 1920) 71 ff.; H. Hubert, Les Celtesdepuisl'dpoquede la Tkne(repr. Paris 1974)229 ff.: J. Moreau, Die Weltder Kelten3(Stuttgart 1961) 84; J. Harmand, Les Celtesau secondage du fer (Paris 1970) 57. 3. For a general statement of the conceptsinvolved, see G. Dalton, Economicanthropologyand development(New York 1971) or T.F. Carney, The economiesof antiquity (Lawrence 1973). 4. E.g.G. Fouet, La villa gallo-romaine de Montmaurin (HauteGaronne) (Gallia Suppl. 20, Paris 1969). For a recentdiscussion,J. Percival, The Roman villa (London 1976) 118-144. 5. Areas where archaeologicalknowledge is sufficient to suggesta pattern are listed in E.M. Wightman, 'The pattern of rural settlementin Roman Gaul', Aufstiegund Niedergangder r6mischenWelt 2.4, edd. H. Temporini, W. Haase(Berlin 1975;henceforthANRW) 639. The mostrecentand comprehensive illustrationof villa patternsin the Sommebasinis R. Agacheand B. Br•art, Atlas

118

E.M.

WIGHTMAN

d½lrchdologie adriennede Picardie(Amiens 1975). On the problemsof dating such sites,seeAgache, 'La campagneromaine du nord de la France', ANRW 2.4, pp. 658-713,specificallyp. 674;cf. H. Hinz, ArchiiologischeFundeund Denkmdilerdes Rheinlandes,Kreis Berghelm(Dtisseldorf 1969) 48. 6. Fustelde Coulanges,Histoire desinstitutionspolitiquesde l•lncienne France 4: l'Alleu et le domainerural(Paris 1889),esp.pp. 31 if.; Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule 8, esp. pp. 159-160; A. Grenier, Manuel d½lrchdologie gallo-romaine 2: l'Occupationdu sol (Paris 1934)884-941. Fustel de Coulanges,in his studyof the colonate(Recherchessur quelquesproblbmesd'histoire(Paris 1885) 1-186),also soughtits origins in Italy rather than in the provinces,as suggestedby someother scholars,includingA. Schulten;seeClausing(above n. 1) 138-201. 7. N.N. Belova, 'Sur les conditionsde l'apparition des villae en Gaule romaine (Ier-1Ie si•cles de notre &e)', summary in Bull. analytique d'histoire romaine 8 (1969) 608-9 and 'Sur lesformesde d•pendancede l'•conomie rurale de la Gaule romainedesler-IIIe si•cles',ibid. 9 (1970) 538-9. The inscriptionsquotedby Belova are all from Narbonensis.Most inscriptionsmentioningservi or libertl in the Three Gauls are from towns (especiallyLyon), and a number are specifically connectedeither with soldiersor with public bodies,e.g. CIL 13.1807, 1815, 1862, 4291: cf. 5239, 8830, 8002. On slavery in Narbonensis,seeA. Daubigney and F. Favory in Actes du colloque1972 sur l•sclavage, Universitdde Besan½on (Paris 1974) 315-388. 8. Caesar, BC 1.34.2, 1.56.3 and the discussionby M.I. Finley, 'Private farm tenancy in Italy before Diocletian', Studies in Roman property, ed. M.I. Finley (Cambridge 1976) 115. 9.

See for instance Histoire des institutions 1.120 and 4.220,227 if. For a

criticism of the general method of Fustel de Coulanges, see W. Goffart, 'From Roman taxation to medieval seigneurie',Speculum47 (1972) 165-187, 373-394. 10. Among many discussions of the evidence,mostrecentlyE.M. Wightman, ANRW 2.4, 587 if. Caesar'sdescription: BG 6.13. 11. Athenaeus4.152B; Wightman, op. cit. 591 n. 22 for further discussion. The classictreatmentof Posidoniuson thissubjectremainsJ.J. Tierney,'The Celtic ethnographyof Posidonius',PRIA 60 C 5 (1960) 189-275.Most of the fragments discussedby Tierney are howeverexcludedfrom C. Edelsteinand I.G. Kidd, Posidonius:Thefragments 1 (Cambridge1972),on the groundsthat attributionis indirect, not certain. For a recentdiscussionshowingscepticismover the extensiveness of Posidonius' observationsand arguing for the value of Caesar as an independentwitnessrather than a slavishcopier, see D. Nash, 'Reconstructing Poseidonios'sCeltic ethnography:Some considerations',Britannia 7 (1976) 111126.

12. The most readily available brief discussionis in M. Dillon and N. Chadwick, The Celtic realms (London 1973) 124-144. 13. The fullestdiscussionis to be found in a recentand unfortunatelystill

unpublishedOxford D.Phil. thesisby T.M. Charles-Edwards, A comparisonof Old Irish with medieval Welshland-laws. The argument proceedsby analysisof the

main texts,includingunpublishedOld Irish manuscripts, in orderto distinguishthe variousstrata in the entriesand commentaries,and thereafterby linguisticanalysis of the mostimportantterminology.As a result,a numberof institutions,including the fief of clientship,are shownto havetheir rootsin older,commonCelticcustom. Irish and Welsh developmentsafter separationcan be shown to be sometimes

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

119

parallel, sometimesdistinct. On the falsity of somecommon conceptionsabout early Ireland, including the sometimessupposedubiquity of the small freehold farm, cf. the passingremark by K. Hughesin herinaugurallecture,Theearly Celtic idea of history and the modern historian (Cambridge 1977). 14. The tract on clientage,part of the SenchasMor or'great tradition', is consideredto date from the 9th century,althoughno extant manuscriptis so old. For discussion,seeR. Thurneysen, 'Aus dem irischenRecht 1: das Unfrei-Lehen', and '2: das Frei-Lehen', Zeitschr.fiir celt. Philol. 14(1923) 335 if. and 15(1925) 230 ff. It isa pity that the old misconception that Irish land wasnot heldprivatelyat all (seeaboven. 2) hasbeenrecentlyrevivedwith wide implicationsby S. Lewuillonin 'Histoire, soci•t• et lutte desclassesen Gaule', ANRW2.4, 425-583. For a general statement of the more modern view, see E. MacNeill• Early Irish laws and institutions (London 1935) 32 if. 15. T.P. Ellis, Welsh tribal law and custom 1 (Oxford 1926). 16. H. d'Arbois de Jubainville, op. cit. (above n. 2) 126 if., Thurneysen, op. cit. (1925) 257. 17. 'Aithech': see M. Dillon, Celts and Aryans (Simla 1975) 96. 18. J. Percival arguedfor Italian 'demesnes'in 'Seigneurialaspectsof late Roman estate management', EHR 84 (1969) 449 if. M.I. Finley has recently

suggested in Studiesin Romanproperty 120that the evidencefor tenantsperforming labour serviceson the landlord's'home farm' is lessthan compelling. 19.

Good accounts for Wales are to be found in R.J. Jones, 'The tribal

systemin Wales:A re-assessment in the light of settlementstudies',WelshHistory Review 1 (1960-62) 111-132; T. Jones Pierce, 'Social and historical aspectsof the Welsh laws', Welsh History Review, SpecialNumber: The Welshlaws(1963) 33-51; also the relevant sectionsof T.P. Ellis (above n. 15), and G.R.J. Jones, The agrarian history of England and Wales 1, ed. H.P.R. Finberg (Cambridge 1972) 320 if. Detailed modern accounts of the Irish laws are harder to find; for an introduction

seeD. Binchey,'The linguisticand historicalvalueof the Irish law tracts',PBA 29 (1943) 195-228. For parallels to joint family cultivation as far away as Hindu custom,suggestingan even older, common Indo-European root, seeBinchey,op. cit. 216 and M. Dillon, Celts and Aryans (above n. 17) 95 if. Archaic Roman consortiumis presumablyalsorelated,and a detailedstudyof the mannerin which it gave way to individual ownership would clearly be of relevance: see H.F. Jolowicz and B. Nicholas, Historical introduction to the study of Roman law3 (Cambridge 1972) 296. 20. Caesar, BG 6.15.2; seeabove n. 2, especiallyMoreau p. 84, for the suggestionthat there may havebeenusurpationof the land by aristocrats.A similar view is given by G. Schulte-Holtey, Untersuchungen zum gallischenWiderstand gegen Caesar(Diss. MOnster 1968)60. 21. Fortifications vary from those of 1-2 ha, which may be thought of as fortified manor houses,to thoseof 20 ha and upwards,which are regionalor tribal centres;even the smallestwould require considerableexpenditureof manpower, though no calculationshave as yet been offered. R. Schindler suggeststhat the smalleronesmay be identifiedwith Caesar'scastella,the largerwith hisoppida;see his Die Altburg von Bundenbach(Trierer Grabungenund Forschungen10, Mainz 1977), esp. pp. 78 if. 22. On D.umnorix, seeSchulte-Holtey(above n. 20) 138if., also D. Nash, 'The growthof urbansocietyin France',in Theoppidaof barbarianEurope,edd.B.

120

E.M.

WIGHTMAN

Cunliffe and T. Rowley (British ArchaeologicalReports SupplementarySeries11, Oxford 1976) 95-133. 23.

For an overview of Mediterranean influences on Celtic Gaul, the

paper by C. F.C. Hawkes remainsof paramount importance:'The Celts:Report on the study of their culture and their Mediterranean relations 1942-1962', in Le

rayonnementdescivilisations grecqueet romainesurlesculturespdriphdriques, 8e cong. internat. d•rch. class., Paris 1963 (Paris 1965) 63-79. For discussionand bibliography on the introduction of the denarius-basedcoinage,seeE.M. Wightman, 'I1 y avait en Gaule deux sortesde Gaulois', in Assimilation et rdsistance• la

culturegrdco-romaine danslemondeancien.Travauxdu6econg.internat.d •tudes classiques, Madrid sept. 1974 (Bucure•ti/Paris 1976)407-419. 24. Caes. BC 3.59 for the Allobrogans Roucillus and Egus; Cic. pro Quinct. 20 for an earlier analogy of Romans buying estatesin Narbonensis. 25. D. Nash, op. cit. (above n. 22) 106-7. 26. For Ireland, E. MacNeill, Early Irish laws (above n. 14) 34-39. For Scotland, T.C. Smout, A history of the Scottishpeople 1560-1830(London 1972) 129 and E.R. Cregeen, 'The House of Argyll and the Highlands', in History and social anthropology, ed. I.M. Lewis (London 1968) 153-192, esp. 161 if. 27. De communi dividundo, CJ 3.37, Dig. 10.3;cf. A. Watson, The law of property in the late Roman republic (Oxford 1968) 121 if. 28. The locusclassicuson Gaulish estatenamesremains the discussionby Fustel de Coulanges,Histoire des institutions vol. 4 (above n. 6) 83 if. It is not necessaryto follow his view that all or most namesgo back to the original ownerat the time of the Augustancensusand remainedunchangedthereafter--though CIL 13.1533 does give an estate name (Ammatiacus) with no obvious relationshipto that of the owner (Flavius Strato). That delimitation of propertieswas normally made by referenceto neighboursis shown by Dig. 50.15.3 and CIL 11.1147(the Veleia list). 29. Tac. Ann. 3.42. On this type of successfulGaul, seeR. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford 1958) 453-62; cf. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule 4.15, and N.J. de Witt, Urbanization and thefranchise in Roman Gaul (Lancaster 1940) 58 if. 30. On recruitment, see K. Kraft, Zur Rekrutierung der Alen und Kohorten an Rhein und Donau (Bern 1951)69 ff. For a view of the outletsoffered by the existenceof a frontier zone, seeS. Dyson, 'The role of comparativefrontier studiesin understanding the Roman frontiers',in Actesdu 9econgrksinternational sur lesfrontibresromaines,Mama•i• 1972,ed. D.M. Pippidi(K61n/Bucuresti1974) 277-283.

31. On the army as an instrumentof Romanization in this way, seeR. MacMullen, 'Rural Romanization', Phoenix 22 (1968) 337-341.

32. An impressionof the rapid developmentof many vici in the north of Gaul can be gained from M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlierand G. Raepsaet,'Gallia Belgica et Germania Inferior. Vingt-cinq ann6es de rechercheshistoriqueset arch•ologiques'•ANRW 2.4, 129 if. 33.

Caes. BG 1.4.2 and 6.13 on debtors; cf. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule

2.75 if.

34. Seefor instanceE. le Roy Ladurie•Paysansde Languedoc(Paris 1969) 142 if.

35.

Fustel de Coulanges,Histoire des institutions 1.119 if. stresses,per-

hapsto excess,the effectof the stampingout of the druids.Sincethe druidshad

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

121

been drawn from the aristocracy,a certain amount of knowledgecould have been retained and handed on if it Wereto the nobles'advantage. 36. E.M. Wightman in ANRW 2.4, 621 and 'I1 y avait en Gaule deux sortesde Gaulois', Assimilation et r•sistance (above n. 23) 418-9. 37. See Cregeen(above n. 26). 38. That coloni might be conveyedwith estatesprior to the conditionsof the later Empire is shown by Dig. 30.1.112 and Paulus, Sentent. 3.6.48. Whether or not this was commonerin Gaul than in Italy is admittedlynot subjectto proof. 39. Schindler, Die Altburg yon Bundenbach(above n. 21), or see the preliminary report in Germania 52 (1974) 55-76. 40. G. Thill, 'Ausgrabungenbei Goeblingen-Nospelt',H•mecht 18(1966) 483-491;'Die Keramik ausvier sp•itlat•nezeitlichen Brandgr•ibernvon GoeblingenNospelt' and 'Die Metallgegenst•indeaus...', Hfmecht 19 (1967) 199-213and 8798.

41. A. Haffner, 'Belginum, eine keltisch-r6mischeSiedlungan der Ausoniusstrasse',KurtrierischesJahrb. 10 (1970) 203 if. and Das keltisch-r6mische Griiberfeldyon Wederath-BelginumI and 2 (Trierer Grabungenund Forschungen 6, Mainz 1971-74).

42. A. Haffner, 'Das Treverer-Gr•iberfeldmir Wagenbestattungen von Hoppst•idten-Weiersbach,Kreis Birkenfeld', TZ 32 (1969) 71-127; R. Schindler, 'Die Sp•itlat•ne-Burgenvon Landscheid,Weiersbachund Ehrang', TZ 32 (1969) 31-70.

43. R. Agache, D•tection a•rienne des vestigesprotohistoriques,galloromains et m•di•vaux dans le bassinde la Somme et sesabords(Amiens 1970) 34 and fig. 395;for other'native farms',of uncertaindate, seeAgacheand Br6art, Atlas (above n. 5). 44. Mayen: E. Oelmann, 'Ein gallor6mischerBauernhof bei Mayen', BJ

133 (1928) 51-140. Rosmeer:'Een nederzettinguit de Ijzertijd op de Stabergte Rosmeer', Archaeologia Belgica 109 (1969); for another nearby settlement see Arch•ologie 1969,20, and cf. A. Cahen-Delhaye,'Sondagedansun sited'habitat de l'•,gedu fer h Orp-le-grand',Arch. Belg. 151 (1973). 45. The picture is somewhatobscuredby the problemof decidingwhether smallerhuts outsidethe palisadewere mostly for storagepurposes(as argued,but with misgivings,by Schindler on the basisof other Rhineland parallels) or for habitation; seeDie Altburg (above n. 21) 81 if. 46. Tac. Ann. 3.46 for Sacrovir. Wooden 'villas' at Rosmeer:Arch•ologie 1969,20; at Haccourt:G. de Boe,'Haccourt 1',Arch. Belg. 1968(1974);at Seeb:W.

Drack, 'Der r6mischeGutshofbei Seeb',HA 1 (1970)38 if.; at Velaines-Popuelles: H. Lambert, 'Vestigessuperpos6s d'unevilla gallo-romaineet d'unehabitationen boish Velaines-Popuelles', Arch. Belg. 133( 1971); at Mortsel:G. de Boe,'De galloromeinsenederzettingop de Steenakkerte Mortsel', Arch. Belg. 94 (1966). 47. The most accessibleplan and accountof Bibracteis J. Ddchelette, Manuel d•rchdologiepr•historique,celtiqueet gallo-romaine2.3 (Paris 1914)948 if.

48. A forthcoming publicationby G. de Boe, with plansof villas from the northernprovincesdrawn to a unified scaleand discussionof the architecture,will render most othersobsolete.Meanwhile seeAgache,ANRW 2.4 (above n. 5) and Percival, The Roman villa (above n. 4) 67-87. 49.

See n. 5 for literature. On Hainaut, add G.V. Lux, 'De romeinse

122

E.M.

WIGHTMAN

overblijfselentussenTongerenen Maastricht', Arch. Belg. 121 (1970) and G. de Boe, 'Haccourt 3', Arch. Belg. 182 (1976), pl. 1. 50. On the problems of dating, see above n. 5. Preliminary indications given by Agache,op. cit. 204, are againstthe contemporaneousoccupationof all villas in a given area. 51. A. Reusch, 'Rbmische Villen im Kreise Saarburg', Jahrb. Gesell. Lothring. Gesch.u. Altertumsk. 24 (1912) 302-340; M. Lutz, 'Le domainegalloromainde St. Ulrich', Gallia 29 ( 1971) 17-44.For thelargevilla at Emmerich,Kreis Berghelm, see H. Hinz, Kreis Bergheim(above n. 5) 58-9, or 'Zur rbmischen Besiedlungin der Kblner Bucht', in Germania Romana 3: RdmischesLeben auf germanischemBoden,ed. H. Hinz (GymnasiumBeiheft7, Heidelberg1970)62-69. For Neerharen-Rekem,north of Tongres,where, as at Emmerich,a large villa is surroundedby a number of smallersatellitesites,R. de Maeyer, De overblijfselen der romeinschevilla• in Belgi• I (Antwerp 1940) 111 if. 52. Referencescollectedin Wightman, ANRW 2.4, 606 if. and 646 if. 53. For the artisanal village at Bois-des-Dames near Anth•Se,see E. de Marmol, 'Foullies du Bols-des-Dames • Morville-Anth•e', Ann. $oc. Arch. Namur

15 (1881) 220-4; an aqueductleadingto the villa passedby the hamlet,but it is not clear whetherit alsoservedit. For a tile-kiln and remainsof wood and clay hutsvery close(60 m) to the probablemain villa buildingat Vellereille-le-Brayeux,seeR. de Maeyer, De romeinschevillag in Belgi• (Antwerp 1937) 107-8. 54. For two discussions out of many, seeAgache, Ddtectiona•rienne 195 and ANRW 2.4, 688 (nn. 43 and 5). 55. Seemy remarksin ANR W 2.4 andthoseofO. Dilke, The Roman land surveyors(Newton Abbot 1971)94 ff., 149f., 188ff. Admittedlythereis muchthat isasyetimperfectlyunderstood.I cannothoweveragreewith thealternativeviewof a strict and even egalitarian allotment of land, as expressedby G. de Boe in 'De romeinsevilla op de Meetberg te Val-Meer', Acta Arch. Lovaniensia4 (1971) 4-5 and in 'Haccourt 3' (above n. 49) 38 if. 56. The evidence available suggeststhat long rectangular (or subrectangular) fields, two to six or more times as long as they are wide, was the predominanttype. To the examplesdiscussed or citedby Wightmanin ANRW2.4, 607, 61 l, 617-8 should be added M. Born, 'Rbmerzeitliche Flurrelikte im Saar-

kohlenwald', Beitriige z. saarliind. Arch. u. Kunstgesch.19 (1972) 273-88. In ANRW 2.4, 693-5 Agache suggests that Picardy openfieldmay go back to Roman times;if thisis so,it wouldstronglyimplythat someat leastof the landwasdivided into strip-likepeasantholdings.A Roman date hasalsobeenarguedfor the stripfields of Alsace by E. Juillard, 'Formes de structureparcellairedans la plaine d'Alsace. Un indice de l'anciennet•des limites agraires:les cratesde labour', Bull. Assoc.gdog.francaise 1953, 72-77. 57. CIL 13.4228and Finke, BRGK 17 (1927), no. 89; cf. my discussionin ANR W 2.4, 652-3. The inscriptionsshowthat the coloniof an estatefelt themselves to be a corporate group, and the fact that both are dedications(to Mercury and Juno, i.e. deitiesmore Romanized in name than in nature) may indicatesomeform of religioussanctions. 58. For manaclesat Andlily, see P. Ballet, La Haute Marne antique (Chaumont 1971) 15. 59. CIL 13.37, 66, 4352, 5476; Auson. Epist. 26 (ed. White). 60. R.J. Jones,'The tribal systemin Wales' (above n. 19).

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

123

61. R. Schindler,'DasummauerteFamiliengrabder gallor6mischenWtistung in Landscheid', TZ 36 (1973) 37-76. 62. On Ausonius' estates, I prefer the view of A. Loyen, 'Les villas d'Ausone', REA 62 (1960) 113-126to that of P. Grimal, 'Les villas d'Ausone', REA 55 (1953) 113-125. Cf. J. Matthews, Westernaristocraciesand imperial court ,4D 364-425 (Oxford 1975)82-3. On Sidonius,seeC.E. Stevens,SidoniusApollinaris and his age (Oxford 1933) 20. 63. Lucaniacus and Avitacum respectively;likewise, Paulinus of Pella paid particularattentionto the propertyhe acquiredasa dowry:Eucharisticon194 if. Sidonius, Epist. 4.21 stressesthe importanceof the female line as well as the male, and in Epist. 2.2.3 prefersAvitacum to his own family property near Lyon, though the latter is mentioned in Epist, 2.12. 64. For lack of sentimentamonglate RepublicanRoman land-owners,see E. Rawson, 'The Ciceronian aristocracyand its properties',in Studiesin Roman property (aboven. 8), esp.p. 90. That inheritedfamilylandmightsometimes evoke greaterfeelingis howevershownby J. Crook, 'ClassicalRoman law and the saleof land', ibid. 82-83.

65. Auson. Epist. 27, 115-6(ed. White). Paulinusof Pella, Eucharisticon 422 expressesthe desireto recoversomeof his grandfather'sproperty. 66. Auson. Epist. 18 (ed. White) showsHesperiuson a separateestate. 67. See the commentsof K. Stroheker,Der senatorischeAdelim spiitantiken Gallien (Ttibingen 1948) 152 f. 68. 69.

Auson. 3.1.24 (ed. White). Sidon. Epist. 2.2.3.

70. Plin. Epist. 10.8--admittedly from a very different age. 71.

Paul. Pell. Euch. 437.

72. Incerti auctoris Querolus sire Aulularia, ed. F. Corsaro (Catania 1964) 32; cf. id., Querolus:Studio introduttivo e commentario(Bologna 1965)99. That the rustici involved,even if correctlyidentifiedwith the Bagaudae,were not simply poor peasantsis shown by the old man's reaction that he does not wish to join them becausehe is not rich. That non-Roman custom continuedin use in the provincesand was respectedby the Romans evenafter the constitutioAntoniniana is shownby CJ 8.53.1-2; cf. the remarksof C.E. Stevens,'The socialand economic aspectsof rural settlement',in Rural settlementin Roman Britain, C.B.A. Research Report 7, ed. C. Thomas (London 1966) 109-110. 73. Although it dealswith a verydifferentarea and period,thereare some suggestiveand pertinentideasin D. Chirot, Social changein aperipheral society (New York 1976).

74. Discussionon the vallusand its implicationsis convenientlybrought togetherin K.D. White, 'The economicsof the Gallo-Roman harvestingmachine', Hommages • Marcel Renard vol. 3, ed. J. Bibauw (Coil. Latomus 103, Brussels 1969) 804-809.

75. Aboven. 29, and Wightman'sbrief commentsin ANR W2.4 (aboven. 5) 633.

76. For large sculptured monuments in the countryside, see E. Esp•randieu, Recueil des bas-reliefs,statueset bustesde la Gaule romaine (Paris 1907-1966), nos. 4485 (Bierbach), 5123 (St. Wendel), 5261 (Jtinkerath). A detailed discussionof the Mersch inscriptionis given in J. Krier and L. Schwinden,'Die Merscher Inschrift CIL XIII 4030', TZ 37 (1974) 123-147.

124

E.M.

WIGHTMAN

77. C.E. Stevens,'A possibleconflict of laws in Roman Britain', JRS 37 (1947) 132-4;Charles-Edwards in unpublishedD.Phil. thesis(aboven. 13);E. Levy, WestRoman vulgar law (Philadelphia 1957)40 if. On can only specualtewhether the customaryproceduresdescribed--or caricatured--in the Querolus(above n. 72) includedsuchquestions. 78. Agache,ANR W2.4, 681. The questionhasmostlybeendiscussed with referenceto the aisledbuildingsof Britain; seeJ.T. Smith• 'Romano-Britishaisled houses',AJ 120 (1964) 1-30. 79. M. Bloch, 'The rise of dependentcultivation and seignorialinstitu-

tions'in CambridgeEc. Hist. of Europe,repr. in Mglangeshistoriques(Paris 1963) 219-220;also L. Ruggini,Economiae societitnell'Italia annonaria(Milan 1961)in index under livellarii. On the absenceof locatio-conductio,seeE. Levy, Westrb'mischesVulgarrecht:das Obligationsrecht(Weimar 1956) 251 ff. 80. Palladius 1.6.3, and seediscussionin R. Martin's edition (Paris 1977) 29 if.

81. Esp&andieu,Recueil(aboven. 76), nos.4102 (Arlon)• 5148(Neumagen), 5268 (Igel, where paymentboth in kind (p. 442) and in money(p. 446) is depicted). 82.

M. Crawford, 'Money and exchangein the Roman world', JRS 60

(1970) 40-48. 83. H. Koethe, 'R6merzeitliche Grabhtigel des Trierer Landes', TZ 14

(1939) 113-153. 84. E. Tappolet, 'Nom gallo-romain du moyeu', Romania 49 (1923) 481525. The conclusionsto be drawn from thisphenomenonareadmittedlydebatable, and not necessarily thoseof C. Parain, who discusses it in 'Le d6veloppement des forces productivesen Gaule du Nord et les d•buts de la f•odalit6', Recherches internationalesit la lumikre du marxisme37 (1963) 26-37. 85. E. Magnou-Nortier, La socigtg laique et lYglise dans la province

gccldsiastique de Narbonnede latin du Vill eit latin du XI ½sikcle(Toulouse1974) 131 if. On slaves• see above n. 7.

86. For a generaldiscussion,seeR. MacMullen, Roman socialrelations 50 BCto AD 284 (New Haven/London 1974),chap. 1, or M.I. Finley, Theancient economy(London 1973),chaps.3 and 4. 87. That the valueof landin Gaul underwentsucha shiftissupposedby A. Grenier in An economicsurveyof ancient Rome 3, ed. T. Frank (Baltimore 1937) 539 and by M. Rostovtzeff,Thesocialand economichistoryof the Roman empire2, ed. P.M. Fraser (Oxford 1957) 219. While not denying sucha shift altogether, recentstudiessuchas thosecitedin theprecedingnotehaveemphasized that wealth generatedfrom a sourceother than land in the first instancewas extremelyrare. And even Rostovtzeff

allowed

for the continuation

of tribal

aristocrats

as land-

owners;this would tend to perpetuatetraditional values. 88. See p. 00 above. 89. That the 3rd-centurytroublesbroughta disruptionof rural relationshipsis briefly arguedby E.M. Wightman, Roman Trier and the Treveri(London 1970)57, and at greaterlengthby J.F. Drinkwater in hisOxford D.Phil. thesis,A historyof the Gallic Empire of the third centuryAD (1974). 90. The sourcesfor the Bagaudaehave been recentlycollectedby B. Czuth, Die Quellender Geschichte der Bagauden(Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica 9, Szeged1965).The traditionalinterpretationisthat of A.E. Thompson,'Peasant

PEASANTS

AND

POTENTATES

125

revolts in late Roman Gaul and Spain'• P&P 2 (1952) 11-23:a more tendentious accountis given by N.N. Belova, 'Etude de la Gaule romaine b,la chaire d'histoire g•n•rale de l'universit• de l'Oural'• as summarizedin Bull. Anal. d'Hist. Rom. 7 (1968) 679-80. The attractive radical re-interpretationis that of R. van Damm in a Cambridge (England) Ph.D. thesis,Heretics, bandits and bishops:Studiesin the religion and society of late Roman Gaul and Spain (1974). 91. See A.H.M. Jones,J. Martindale• and J. Morris, Theprosopography of the Later Roman Empire I (Cambridge 1971)681-2and Stroheker,Senatorische Adel (above n. 67) nos. 287• 291. 92.

Stroheker, Senatorische Adel 38 ff.

93. J.F. Matthews, 'Gallic supportersof Theodosius',Latomus 30 (1971) 1073-99• also Western aristocracies(above n. 62) 77-80, 349-51. 94. The fiimsinessof mostargumentsfor depopulationin the later Empire has been demonstrated by C.R. Whittaker, 'Agri deserti', in Studies in Roman property, ed. M.I. Finley (above n. 8) 137-165. Nevertheless,archaeological evidencestronglysuggests a populationdecreasein someregionsof Gaul at least, and not simply in the area north of the Bavai-Cologne road where special conditionsprevailed.Evidenceof occupationin the Hunsrtickissparse;Wightman, Roman Trier, 163. Many vici were desertedor diminished;of thosementionedby M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlierand G. Raepsaet(aboven. 32), lessthan half showtraces of late occupation.The overall numberof occupiedvillas is alsosmaller,though this is a subjectwhich requires more study. That certain areasby contrast could even seean upswingin occupiedsitesis suggested,though with reservations,by Hinz, Kreis Berghelm(above n. 5) 48. Information from regionssuchas Aquitania is desperatelyneeded. 95. For well-stockedbarnsseeAuson. 3.1.27 (ed. White), cf. Sidon. Carre. 22.170: the idea may be a commonplace,but is not thereforeentirely fictitious. If there is validity to the theoriesof Clausing(above n. 1) that poor agricultural methodscausedwidespreadsoil exhaustionin the later Empire, this would be a further factor demandingcloserconcernwith the productivity of land. 96. The 'standard' account is A.H.M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire (above n. 1) 62 ff., 449 ff. A convenientsummaryof differing view-pointsis in A. Chastagnol'sreviewof A. C6rati, Caract•reannonaireet assiettede l'imp6tfoncier au BasEmpire (Aix-en-Provence 1968) in Latomus 30 (1971) 495-501. W. Goffart, Caput and colonate(Toronto 1974), stresses the abstractnatureof the systemand givesan interestingaccount(apart from somecontroversialdetails)of the way in which tax liability was transferredfrom men to land. 97. I follow the 'fiscal'reasonsfor the bindingof the colonate(aboven. 1) andpace Goffart (seelast note)acceptthe law CTh l 1.1.70fAD 332, despitesome lack of clarity in the wording, as referring to that institution. CTh 11.1.14 of 371 givesdetails on registeredlandlesstenants.The most forcefulexpressionof the 'binding' is in CH 11.53.1 (371)and 11.52.1 (396). 98. In fact Ulpian in Dig. 50.15.4.8showsthat tenantsand farm-workers had beendeclaredin censusreturnsfrom an earlier period;the calculationsof tax liability had howeverbeenlessrigid and the coloni,in legaltheoryat least,stillhad

mobility.That the idea of bindingthe colonatemay havesprungfrom practicesin the provinceshas been suggestedmore than once (above n. 6). 99.

100.

CTh

11.50.1.

CTh I1.1.14.

E. M. WIGHTMAN

126

101. Salvian, Gub., esp. Book 5; cf. Caesariusof Aries, Sermo 154.2. 102. That suchflight had already started in the early 4th centuryis shown by Paneg.8.(5) 14.3,cf. 12.3(Galletier),thoughhereit israther to the woodlands.In Salvian it is to patrons, the barbariansor the Bagaudae:Gub. 5.5-6: 5.8. For the last, cf. also Merobaudes, Paneg. 2.8-15. 103. CTh 11.1.7 of 332 wasalreadyconcernedwith gettingcoloniback to their origo; the harbouringland-ownerhad to makeup thetaxesdue.CJ 11.48.6of 365 (addressedto Gaul) and 11.48.8of 371 repeatmore clearly that coloni must be returned,and CJ 11.53.1of 371 stipulatesthat any lossof labour mustbe madeup, again by the harbouring land-owner. That land-ownersactively endeavouredto increasetheir coloni is graphicallyshownby Corp. Script. Eccles.Lat. 1, pp. 254-6, which however

from the nomenclature

refers to Africa

not Gaul. While it is true

that most anti-patronagelegislationis directedtowards the east (e.g. CTh 11.24), CTh 12.1.146 is addressedto a western prefect. On the development of the precarium as a result of patronage, seeLevy, WestrdmischesVulgarrecht(above n. 77) 257 if. 104.

Salv. Gub. 5.8.

105. Sidon. Epist. 5.19; this passageraisesthe questionof whethernutrix is to be taken literally as a nurseor simplydenotesa femaleclient--cf. Epist. 2.2.10, clientularum

vel nutricum.

106. Jones,Later Roman Empire (above n. 1) 795 if. Although (p. 800) the rulesgoverningascriptiowereloosenedslightlyin 400, they weretightenedup again for the West only by Valentinian III. 107. Pallad. 1.6.3 recommendsthe keeping of artisans on estates.On Palladius himself, see Bud• text, ed. R. Martin, Introduction.

108. Martin, op. cit. 29. 109. Auson. 3.1.24 (ed. White). For the censusdeclaration, see Dig. 50.15.3.

110. Sidon. Epist. 2.2.10 and Carre. 22.193.

111. L. Bieler, 'Zur Mosella des Ausonius:"cliens"in der Bedeutung "colonus"', RhM (1937) 285-7, makesthe point, whether or not one acceptshis emendation 112.

in Mosella 206. Paul. ['ell. Euch.

194.

113. E.g. Sidon. Epist. 5.11; cf. the epitaph in 3.12, consultissimus utilissimusque/ ruris militiaeforique cultor. 114. Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc. 2.24. 115. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule 8, 145 n. 4; cf. Fouet, Montmaurin (above n. 4) 290 if. This processcould give rise to a massafundorum; seePercival, The Roman villa (above n. 4) 129. 116. Above n. 94 for depopulation.Althoughstartingfrom a verydifferent source,the argumentsused here lead to a conclusionnot unlike that of Percival in 'Seigneurialaspectsof late Roman estatemanagement',EHR 84 (1969) 449-73. 117. For the type of benefitpeasantslater derivedfrom a labour shortagein the 15th century, seele Roy Ladurie, Paysansde Languedoc(above n. 34) 46 if. 118. Wightman, Roman Trier, 162 if., but see above n. 94. The picture presentedby de Maeyer of the abandonmentof villas in northern Belgiumin De romeinschevilla• (above n. 51) has not been substantiallyaltered. An overall picture is still hard to derive from the publishedliterature, but cf. the relative paucity of late cemeteriesdemonstratedby A. van Doorselaer, Les n•cropoles d'•poque romaine en Gaule septentrionale(Brugge 1967) 252 if.

PEASANTS

AND POTENTATES

127

119. This hypothesis is stillto be testedin Gaul,but wouldcorrespond to conditionsalreadyknown in Britain;seeK. Branigan,Latimer:Belgic,Roman, Dark Age and early modernfarm (Bristol 1971). 120. Someof the late cemeteries of van Doorselaer(aboven. 118)are also large,andfurthersuggestions canbe extractedfrom a comparison of hisworkwith that of H. B6hme, GermanischeGrabfundedes4. bis 5. Jahrhundertszwischen untererElbe und Loire (Munich 1974). 121. Seediscussionin B6hme, op. cit. 195 if.

122. Epist.23.15:Pauliniad moenia,Hebromagumloquor;in Epist.26the inhabitantsare calledhominestui, in 26.35it is Hebromagumtuum.Yet the name should be that of a village, since-magus means'market': Jullian 8, 131, 140. Incidentally the referencesmake it clear that the place is not very far from Bordeaux,not in Spain,as is sometimes suggested (e.g.PLRE I, p. 682). Auson. Epist.26 seemsto referto hisvilla Lucaniacus asan oppidum,unlesstheplaceis simplynearby.For theimportanceof patronageovervillages,seeL. Harmand,Le patronatsurlescollectivitds publiquesdesoriginesau Bas-Empire(Paris 1957)and I. Hahn, 'Das b•iuerlichePatrociniumin Ost und West',Klio 50 (1968)260-276. 123.

Sidon. Carm. 22; for Bundenbach see above n. 21.

124. Auson. 5.10.6 (ed. White). 125.

CIL 12.1524, ILS 1279.

126. Caes.BG7.32.5for Lucterius. Of course,theremayhavebeenregional variationsin typesof fortification,the usethat wasmadeof them,and the manner

in whichtheyreflectthelocalaristocracy. It isnotyetpossible, however, to provide a distribution mapof latefortifications, muchlessa typology.Furtherarchaeologicalevidenceis alsorequiredto setagainstthearguments for regionalvariationin the strengthof the aristocracypresented by M. Rouch6in 'Le changement de nom deschefs-lieux de cit6enGauleau Bas-Empire', Mdm. Soc.Nat. Antiq.de France,

9• s. 4 (1968)47-64.Rouch6arguesthat therewasa stronger Latin-speaking aristocracyin thosecivitateswherethe tribal namefor the capital(e.g. Parisii, Treveri) prevailedthan in thosewhere toponyms(e.g. Tullum, Tarvenna)were used.The argumentdoeshoweverpresentproblems,notablyin theassumption that civitas-namesrather than toponyms(many of the latter mentionedby Caesar) representpre-Romantraditions,andin thespecialpleadingwhichprovesnecessary for Bordeaux

and Autun.

127. Aboven. 94. On thepossibility of inhabitedquartersoutsidecitywalls, seeM. Roblin,'Citesou citadelles? Lesenceintes romainesdu Bas-Empired'apr•s

l'examplede Paris',REA 53 (1951)301-11:evenso,the occupied spaceappears considerablyreduced.

128. On the privatearmiesof Rufinus,etc.,seeH.-J. Diesner,'DasBuccellariertumvon Stilichound Sarthobis auf Aetius',Klio 54 (1972) 321-350.The Aquitaniansolduriiof Caes.BG 3.22.1-2sworenot to outlivetheir king:cf. the vengeancetaken by the adherentsof Aetius against Valentinian III. 129. Sidon. Epist. 3.3.7•cf. Stroheker,SenatorischeAdel(above n. 67) 60. 130. Stroheker, 41 n. 176, 48 n. 28, 86-7. For Sidonius' attitude to Seronatusand Ecdicius,seeEpist. 2.1, 3.3, 5.13. See also C.E. Stevens,Sidonius Apollinaris (above n. 62) 178.

131. With Seronatusplayingthe role of Dumnorix. 132. Sidon. Epist. 3.12. Cf. the remarks of MacMullen, Roman social relations(aboven. 86) 1 if., on extralegalactivityand brute strengthin the countryside.

128

E.M.

WIGHTMAN

133. On the agricultural revolution in Scotland, Smout, History (above n. 26) 282 ff. 134. E.g. by Hahn (above n. 122); cf. M.T.W. Arnheim, The senatorial aristocracy in the later Roman Empire (Oxford 1972) 148 fl. 135. The author would like to take this opportunity of thanking the Editor

and the anonymousreadersfor this journal for their constructivecriticismsof earlier versions of this article.

HESIOD'S

SAILING

SEASON

(W & D 663-665)

It appears to bethecommonly accepted viewthat,in onescholar's words, • 'Hesiodurgedallsailors to stayawayfromtheseaexcept forthefiftydays afterthe summersolstice, in July and August'.In thispaper,however,I

shallarguethatthisviewrestsuponaninterpretation of W & D 663-665 whicha closereadingof TheSailor'sGuide(618-694)asa wholedoesnot justify. Let us look first at the critical verses vv. 663-665:

These verses,at leastas rendered by most modern translators, seemto

suggestthat Hesioddoesindeedrecommenda sailingseasonof only fifty days' duration at mid-summer. Mazon, 2 for example, rendersthe verses thus:

C'estcinquantejours,h partir du moment off tourne le soleil,au coeur du lourd 6t6, que, pour les mortels, dure la saisonnavigante. The successof this translation, of course,dependsupon our accepting the phrase'au coeurdu lourd 6t6' as an adequatetranslationof the genitive absoluteof v. 664, whoseliteral meaning is surely'when summerhas come to an end'. 3

Lattimore's translation better preservesthis literal meaning of v. 664:4

For fifty days• after the turn of the summer solstice, when

the wearisome

season of the hot weather

goes to its conclusion then is the timely seasonfor men to voyage.

But a moment's reflection suggeststhat this translation is also inadequate.For in what sensecan one say that in the daysfollowing the solstice(21 June) the summer is drawing to its close?Indeed a passagein The Farmer's Year (381-617), which precedesThe Sailor• Guide in the

129

130

G.L.

SNIDER

Works and Days, makes it clear that Hesiod regarded the solsticeas marking the beginningrather than the end of summer, whoseexhausting heat is signalledby the rising of the Dog-star (Sirius) in particular? which occurred about 12 July in Hesiod's day.6 The most recent translator of Hesiod appears to have appreciated thesedifficulties,for her translationleadsto quite a different interpretation of the passage?

The time for men to sail is fifty days After the solstice,when the exhaustingheat of summertime

is over.

Hesiod,therefore,recommendsa sailingseasonwhichisto open(not close)fifty days after the solsticeor about 10 August by our calendar.The versesfollowing 663-665 make this clear. After recommendingthis as the safest time to sail ('the sea is calm then, the winds steady'), he urges mariners to make their voyage as quickly as possible,returning home before the new wine is ready. This will allow them to avoid the onsetof the autumn rain (6r•top•,,6½ 6•.13po½) whichmakesthe seasroughagain(670-677). This referenceto the new wine helpsus to date the mariner'sreturn voyageto sometimebetween15 September,whenthe grapesare harvested, and 1 October,whenthe new wine is ready.8 Sincethe onsetof the autumn rain in early October also signalledthe critical seasonfor ploughingand sowing?we may assumethat this was further incentivefor the mariner to make a timely return voyage.For Hesiod'smarinersare farmersfirst of all. Although he himself has no taste for the sea, he recognizesthat some farmerswill want to supplementtheir incomeby engagingin trade, as his father apparently did.1ø But a continuedspellof fair weather(one supposes)might still permit marinersto make brief voyagesafter I October,11for Hesiod'sinstructions for layingup the shipsand readyingthemfor winter, with whichhe begins The Sailor• Guide(618-622),specifyonly that thisshouldtake placebefore the setting of the Pleiadesor about 26 October.12 Clearly, then, we must discardthe view that Hesiod would restrict sailingto the fifty daysfollowing the solstice(21 Juneto l0 August). Simple arithmetic saysthat a sailing seasonwhich beginswith the solsticeand extendsto mid-Septemberor late October is more than twice that number of days. Rather W & D 663-665, when examined in the light of the two other key passagesdiscussedabove, implies a sailingseasonthat opens about mid-August and closesas late as (possibly)late October.13 Hesiod'sdatesfor the closeof the sailingseason,15 Septemberto 1 October or 26 October at the outside, are consistent with what other ancient authorities have to say on the subject.Vegetius,14writing in the fourth centuryAD and summingup ancientpractice,givesthesesamedates as 14 Septemberor 10Novemberat the outside.The latter date,somewhat

HESIOD'S

SAILING

SEASON

131

later than Hesiod's 26 October• may simply reflect a later date for the

settingof the Pleiadesowing to the precessionof the equinoxesin the interveningcenturies,since10 Novemberis the date whichPliny givesfor the settingof the Pleiadesand the beginningof winter.•5The Theodosian Code,•6 compiledin the next century(^D 438), suspendednavigationfor governmentshipperson 1 November, perhaps becauseexperiencehad shown that this earlier date was more in keeping with actual weather conditions.More or lessthesesamedateswould be observedby Mediterraneansailorsfor centuriesto come.In thesixteenthcenturytheVenetians, after heavy lossesin shipping, forbade sea voyagesafter 15 November:•7 until the end of the eighteenthcentury Levantine sailors put to sea only betweenthe feastsof St. George(5 May) and St. Dmitri (26 October), while for Greece in the early nineteenth century we have the testimony of Chateaubriand that 'the galleysof the beysspendthe winter (at Nauplia) ß.. ordinarily from the month of Novemberuntil the feastof Saint George, which is the day when they put out to sea again...,•8 As for the opening of the sailing season,some at least of Hesiod's contemporariesrecognizeda date early in the spring, as his discussionof the •.•p•,6c r•x6oc. at vv. 678-694 implies. We shoulddate the openingof this 'spring navigation' to no earlier than late February or early March, since the poet has earlier said that it is the appearanceof the swallow(X•X•Sd•,), somesixty days after the winter solstice(22 December), which signalsthe beginningof spring.•9The swallowis a remarkablyconsistentharbingerof spring,and Hesiod'sdate (after 20 February) for its arrival is in accordwith that of other ancientauthors,notablyPliny (22 February)20and Columella (23 February),2• as well as with modernfield observation(20 February).22 But although later poetsconnectthe openingof the seato navigationwith the arrival of the swallow, 23 Hesiod chooses to date this instead to the

burgeoningof the fig-tree (679-681): As soon as one can see,

On the tips of the branchesof the fig-tree, Leavesas tiny as the footprintsa crow makes, Then the sea is open to navigation. This referenceto the fig-tree suggestsa date in late (rather than early) March, 24which would be somewhatlater than Vegetius'earliestdate (10 March) 25for the opening of navigation, but considerablyearlier than the date (27 May) which that writer regardedas ideal. Of this spring sailing seasonHesiod saysflatly (682-683): 'I do not recommendit.' In the eighth century only desperatelypoor men, one may assume,put to seaat suchan early date, seizingthe opportunity offered to engagein trade and yet return home in time for the harvestin early May. But the poet himself clearly regardedsuchactivity as foolhardy. Hesiod'sadvice,then, to his contemporariesis to sail only in the late

132

G. L. SNIDER

summerand early fall, duringapproximatelythe periodfrom 10Augustto 1 October or 26 October at the outside.In oneimportant respectthisadvice runs contrary to what other ancient authorities have to say about the sailingseason•and this is what (in part) has led interpretersof the Works and Days astray. To cite Vegetius26again, ancient marinersconsideredthe summer months (27 May to 14 September) ideal weather for sailing. Hesiod, on the other hand, saysthat it is dangerousto put to seabefore roughly mid-August. We must now ask why he saysthis. There is a passagein theArgonauticaof ApolloniusRhodiuswhichis instructive,and to which Paley27longagodrewour attention.Apollonius28 narrates how, in the course of their voyage north to the Black Sea, the Argonautsweredetainedby the appearanceof the Etesian(Annual) winds, which customarilyblow for forty daysfollowing the risingof the Dog-star (12 July). It seemslikely that it is thismeteorologicalfact whichliesbehind Hesiod'sreferenceat v. 663to the'fifty days'followingthesummersolstice, for we also have Aristotle's29testimonythat thesewinds, includingtheir precursors(•p68po•o•),begin to blow at the solstice(21 June). The Etesians blow steadily from the north during the summer months;they springup in the morning, increaseoftento galeforceby early afternoon, and fall off again in the evening.30 In antiquity they were a formidablebarrierto shippingwhichattemptedto moveup the Aegeanin summer. When, for example, Pliny set out from Italy to assumethe governorshipof Bithynia in AD 111, his progressby shipup the coastof Asia Minor was seriouslyhamperedby thesesamewinds.3• The evidenceof Pliny and others32makesit clear that eventhe largest of ancient shipshad difficulty in making headwayagainstthe Etesians. Even today small steamersare said to havedifficultiesat times in navigating when the Etesians are blowing.33 For the relatively inexperienced mariner of the eighth century, sailing in his own small ship,34which was designedin the first instancefor running before the wind,35it would have been well-nighimpossibleto plan a voyageagainstthesewinds. Hesiod's adviceto avoid the seaduring July and early August,whenthe Etesians reach their greatestforce, seems,therefore, to suggesta pattern of trade acrossthe Aegean,movingnorth throughthe islandsto Ionia and perhaps to Aeolia whencehisfather hademigratedto Boeotia. Suchtrade may have allowed the farmer to disposeof his surplusagriculturalproduce(•/.Og), 36 whetherby barter or for 'cash'(Xp/•z•) 37in the moneyeconomywhich wasjust beginningto emergein the late eighth century. In what hasgonebeforeI havebeenat painsto arguefor an interpretation of W & D 663-665 which is consistentwith what Hesiod saysabout the sailingseasonin the broader context of The Sailor's Guide (618-694). At the same time I am aware that this interpretation raises certain difficultiesof its own, mainly syntactical,which shouldnot be glossedover. Let us now consider these.

If we ignore the broader context of vv. 618-694, it is natural to

HESIOD'S

SAILING

SEASON

133

construe the expression•[,•z• rrz,•z•xo,•z•[,zz&zOorr• at v. 663 as an accusativeof extent of time, meaning 'during the fifty days following the solstice', and this is how most scholars, of course, have understood the verse.But it is preciselythe broader context(so I havearguedabove)that requiresthat we construethis neuter accusativeexpressionas being the equivalent in Latin of 'quinguagintadiebus post solstitium',as an early editor38of Hesiod suggested.The Greek neuter accusativetranslateshere as the Latin ablative• and the meaningis, therefore, 'beginningfifty days after the solstice'.

In similar expressionsof time Greek, of course,employsthe dative case, but this is in classicalusageonly. Like the ablative in Latin, 39the Greek dative is used to signify measureof differencein expressionsof comparisonand in analogousexpressions,including suchexpressionsof time? Thus we find in Thucydides(5.47) the expressionzO•xo•z• •.•0•½ trpD'OXu•rrtto,,, 'thirty days before the Olympic games'. In certain circumstancesclassicalauthorscouldapparentlychooseto replacethis dative with a neuter accusativewithout alteringtheir meaning at all. Thus one finds both the dative and the adverbial

accusative

used to

expressthe notion of comparativesize,'much greater':rroXXt••t[to,, and rroX½ •.•[to,,. As onemightexpect,Latin usageat this samepoint alsoadmits either the ablative

or the accusative

case. 41

If we turn now to epic usage, we find this dative of measure of differenceappearingonly in a few set phrases.To expressthe notion of comparative size Homer regularly uses the adverbial accusativewhere classicalusage would also admit the dative? Thus Achilles says to Agamemnon (//. 1.167): •o• z• ¾•p•½rroX••r•.o,,, 'your prize is much greater'. Similarly Hesiod tells us that Memory gave birth to the Muses

(Th. 62): zuz06,••rr' •xOoz•z•q• xo•uq>q½ ,•[c?6e'•zo½ 'OX6?.rrou, 'a little belowthe highestpeak of snowyOlympus'.This epic usagewould seemto justify our construingthe phraseq•z• rr•,,zqxo,,z• at v. 663 as an adverbialaccusative rather than as an accusativeexpressingextent of time. But we need not rely here merely on our own senseof the Greek language. The ancient scholia for vv. 663-672 are illuminating in this regard? They suggestthat at leastsomecriticsin antiquity were prepared to interpret the versesas we have done, although the scholiasthimselfdid not follow them. The scholiastalsoassumedthat the bestsailingmonthsin the AegeanwereJuly and August,whenthe Etesianswereblowing.Hesiod knew

better.

McGill University

G.L. Snider

134

G. L. SNIDER

NOTES

This paper is a revisedand expanded version of one which I originally presentedorally before the Second International Conferenceon Boeotian Antiquities in Montreal in November 1973. I should like to thank two of my colleaguesin particular for their assistance with details of this paper: ProfessorT.F. Morris, Department of Physics,for his help in interpretingHesiod'sastronomicaldata, and ProfessorJohn M. Fossey, whosefamiliarity with the Boeotiancountrysidehasbeenan invaluablesupportto me.

1. L. Casson, Ships and seamanshipin the ancient worM(Princeton 1971) 270. So too C.G. Starr, OCD 2 (1970) s.v. 'Navigation'. 2. P. Mazon, Hdsiode (Paris 1928). 3. For the idiom cf. W & D 217-218: 8•x• 8'6rrkp6•3p[o½ •Xe[ / •c•z•Xo½ k[eX0o•ot.Cf. also LSJ s.v. •[•pxo•ot[II, for the classicaluse of this verb in expressionsof time. 4. R. Lattimore, Hesiod (Ann Arbor 1959). 5. W & D 582 ff., and esp. v. 584, which v. 564 echoes. 6. See A.W. Mair, Hesiod (Oxford 1908) 139. Mair's appendix on 'The Farmer'sYear in Hesiod' containswhat is still the fullest discussionof the poet's method of dating by referencesto astronomicalphenomena.Helpful, too, for specific dates is T.A. Sinclair, Hesiod.' Works and Days (London 1932), who acceptsMair's conclusionsin this regard. 7. Dorothea Wender, Hesiod and Theognis(Harmondsworth 1973). It was, incidentally,a reading of this fine, new translation that prompted me to reexaminethe passage. 8. Hesiod'sdiscussionof the grapeharvestat W & D 609-614enablesusto establishthis date for the new wine. See Sinclair (above, n. 6) ad v. 610. 9. Cf. W & D 448-451, and Sinclair (above, n. 6) ad loc. 10.

Cf. his advice to Perses at W & D 630 ff., which includes the famous

autobiographicalpassage. 11. Cf. Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 2.12, where the young men of Methymna are said to go sailingduring the daysof merrymakingwhich follow the vintage,but are careful to bring their shipsashoreeachnight lestthere be a change in the weather.

12. For the date cf. W & D 383-384, and Sinclair (above, n. 6) ad loc. Note how the referenceto the settingof the Pleiadesat vv. 614-617, which marks the close of the old year for the farmer and the beginningof the new, leadseasily into the discussionof seafaring. 13. See F.A. Paley, The epics of Hesiod(second edition revised;London

1883)ad v. 663, who recognizedthis. So too G. Glotz, Ancient Greeceat work (English edition; New York 1967) 116: '... in the VIIIth century wise folk sailed during only one month, after the dog-days...' 14. Cited by Casson(above,n. 1) 270. 15. Pliny, HN 2.47.125. 16. Cited by Casson(above,n. 1) 270, n. 3. 17.

For the later evidence see F. Braudel, The Mediterranean and the

Mediterranean wormin theageof PhilipH(Englishedition;London1972)1248ff.

HESIOD'S

SAILING

SEASON

135

18. Ibid., p. 250. 19.

W & D 564-569.

This is the first allusion

in Greek

literature

to the

swallowasthe bird of returningspring.SeeD'Arcy Thompson,A glossaryof Greek birds2 (London 1936) 319 for later references. 20. Pliny, HN 2.47.122 and 18.65.237. 21.

Columella,

RR 11.2.22.

22. This is for Cyprus only. See D.A. and W.M. Bannerman,Handbook of the birds of Cyprus (Edinburgh 1971) 132. 23. Anthologia Graeca 10.1.2, et passim (Leonidas and his imitators). 24. Olck, RE 6 (1909) 2101, s.v. 'Feige'. The evidenceis for Attica, but the date is not likely to have been earlier elsewherein Greece. Cf. Matthew 24:32-36 (the parable of the fig-tree) and TheologischesW6rterbuch zum Neuen Testament. ed. G. Friedrich, 7 (1960) 753, s.v. ,ux•, where the date given for this same phenomenon in Palestine is also late March. 25. Cited by Casson(above, n. 1) 270. 26.

Ibid.

27.

Paley (above, n. 13) ad v. 663. Argon. 2.498 ff., and esp. 524-529. Meteor. 361b24-362a13. Cf. Rehm, RE 6 (1909) 713 if., s.v. 'Etesiai'. See E. Semple, The geographyof the Mediterranean region (Irondon

28. 29. 30.

1932) 58O. 31.

Pliny, Ep. 10.15, 17a,and cf. A.N. Sherwin-White,ThelettersofPliny 2

(Oxford 1968) 580-584. 32. Cf. Aratus, Phaen. 152-155; Lucian, Nav. 9; Cicero, Ad Art. 6.7. 33. Semple (above, n. 30) 580-581. 34.

W & D 623-629.

35.

Casson (above, n. 1) 68-70, 273 ff.

36.

W & D 689, and cf. vv. 31-32.

37. W & D 686. It is a bit misleadingto translateXt:/•0t-r0t hereas'money',as Wilamowitz, HesiodosErga (Berlin 1928)ad loc., and othersdo. But the versemay imply one or another pre-coinageform of currency. 38. Cf. Joannes Clericus, Hesiodus (Amsterdam 1701) ad loc. 39. Cf. Ktihner-Stegmann,LateinischeGrammatik I (reprinted, Hanover 1966) 81, 17, pp. 401 ff. 40. Cf. Ktihner-Gerth, GriechischeGrammatik 1 (reprinted, Munich 1963) 425, 13, pp. 440 f. 41. Cf. Ktihner-Stegmann (above, n. 39) p. 402. 42. Cf. P. Chantraine, Grammaire homdrique 2 (Paris 1963) 105, p. 77. 43. See A. Pertusi, Scholia Vetera in Hesiodi Opera et Dies (Milan 1955) 207.

HISTORICAL

ART:

ETRUSCAN

AND

EARLY

ROMAN

Two monumentswhosedates have recently been fixed can now be more confidentlyinterpreted.They provide us with graphicillustrationsof the wars taking placein centralItaly during the fourth centuryBC,and show the differencebetweenthe Etruscans'and the Romans' approach to history. Both monumentshave indeedlong interestedhistoriansas well as archaeologists. The first is Etruscan:the Franqoistomb of Vulci, built in the fifth

century BCand usedfor over two centuries. • Its paintedwall decoration includedportraitsof importantmembersof the Satiesfamily,for example that of Vel Saties,"the first full-lengthstandingportrait in Europeanart".2 But most famous is the battle scene,featuring figuresknown to us from Roman tradition and identified--as are all the figuresin the tombruby painted inscriptions:Tarquin of Rome (here being killed by Marce Camitlnas); Mastarna, later identified with ServiusTullius; and Aulus and

CaeliusVibenna.Thereisgeneralagreementnowon datingthesepaintings in the latter part of the fourth century BC(340-310 BC).3 The followingpassage,by one of its excavators,A. NoEldesVergers, comesfrom the account of its discoveryin 1857: At the last blow of the pickaxe, the stonewhich sealedthe entranceof the crypt gaveway, and the light of our torcheslit thosehollow rooms whose silence and darkness had not been troubled

for more than

twenty centuries.Everythingwasstill the way it had beenon the day the entrancehad beenclosed,and ancientEtruria appearedto usjust as when it was in its glory. On their funeral coucheswarriors,covered by their armor, seemedto be restingfrom the battlesthey had been waging againstthe Romans and our ancestorsthe Gauls. Shapes, garments,cloth, color, all were clearly distinguishedfor someminutes, then everythingdisappearedas the outsideair came into the underground chamber, where our flickering torches were almost blown out. The past which had beenconjuredup lastedno longer than a dream, and disappeared,as though to punish us for our foolhardy curiosity. While thesefrail remnantsturnedto dustuponcontactwith theair, the atmospherearound us wasbecomingmore transparent.We then sawthat weweresurroundedby anothergroupof warriorscreatedby

136

HISTORICA[

ART

137

the artists of Etruria. Paintings decoratedall the walls of the tomb and seemedto cometo life in the tremblinglight of our torches.Soon I becamecompletelyabsorbedin looking at them, for theyseemedto me to be the most beautiful part of our discovery.On one side, the paintings recalled Greek myths, and the Greek names written in Etruscan letters left no doubt as to their subject. They had been inspiredby the poemsof Homer. Undermy eyes,oneof the bloodiest eventsof the Iliad was taking place, the sacrifice,by Achilles, of the Trojan prisonersover the tomb of Patroclus.In contrastthe fresco whichformeda pendantto it no longerhad anythingGreekaboutit, except for the sophisticationof the art, the modellingof the naked bodies,the bulgingmuscles,the expressiveness of the faces,animated by violent passions,and the skill with which the lights, the shadows, and the half-tones were rendered.As to the subject,it was obviouslya local theme, as was shown by the names, completely Etruscan in character, inscribed above each figure.... 4 The romanticized detail of the preservationof the bodies, the frail remnants of cloth and flesh visible for one split second before they disappearedforever--a featureof thisdescriptionwhichstruckthe popular imagination--is contradictedby the more sobercontemporaryaccountof the principal excavator, Alessandro Franqois.5 Otherwise, Noel des Vergers'account is accurate. He identifiesthe paintingson the left, from their "Greek nameswritten in Etruscanletters",as representingthe sacrifice of the Trojan prisonersby Achilleson the tomb of Patroclus;and those on the right, from their purely Etruscaninscriptions,as a local scene.He also notes "the skill with which the lights, the shadows,and the half-tones were rendered,,.6 The use of chiaroscuroand of highlights is most clearly seenon the faceand crown of Vel Saties.This technique,found for thefirst time in Etruscanpainting, wasjust beginningto be usedin Greek art in the fourth century BC:the artist commissionedby the Satiesfamily to execute the ambitious decoration of the Franqois tomb evidently learned it from Greek originals of the period.7 Noel des Vergers'account of the original effect of thesepaintingsin the tomb is useful, for they were removed in 1862. Only a few fragments now remain in situ.8 The detachedpiecesbelongto the Torlonia family and can be seenin the Villa Albani, in Rome. There are alsocopiespreservedin the Vatican (fig. 1). The painted decoration was carefully planned. The paintingsran alongthe two main roomsof the tomb, whoselayoutasusualreproduced that of a house(fig. 2). As Noel des Vergerssays,the "local scene"or historical painting in the back room or tablinum originally formed a pendant to that of the sacrificeof the Trojan prisoners.The movement starts on either side of the door to the back chamber, with two mirror

138

LARISSA

BONFANTE

images:the boundfiguresof CaeliusVibennaand the Trojan prisoner,each providingthe climax or conclusionfor oneof the scenestaking placeon the side walls. (The Trojan is being led up to the tomb of Patroclus to be sacrificedby Achilles.CaeliusVibenna, beingfreed from his chains,will soon be led out to liberty by his victoriouscompanions.)The artist was clearly emphasizingthe relationship between the two scenes.Though scholarsdo not agreeabout the interpretationof sucha relationship,9most seeimplied here a comparisonbetweenthe victory of the Greeksover the Trojansand that of theheroesof Vulci overthe menof Romeand herallies. The bilateral symmetryof the decorationis thought, therefore,to express the formula, Greeks:Trojans=Vulcians:Romans. •øSomehavealso seenan allusion to cyclesof history, a peculiarly Etruscannotion.tt The paintingsin the front room or atrium are alsoall clearlylabeled, so their identification is not a problem. Their overall arrangement has, however, remained obscure.They have always been "read" accordingto the bilateral symmetryof the back room, startingfrom the entranceto the tomb, with local, Etruscansceneson the right and Greek "mythological" figures on the left.t2 But according to a recent suggestionby Filippo Coarelli,t3 the set of portraits of Vel Saties and his wife marks the conclusionof the cycle.The decorationwould thus beginat the door of the principal burial chamber--where Vel Saties'father or grandfatherwas buried--and

lead to the door of the burial chamber of Vel Saties, the

triumphator in whosehonor the tomb was decoratedwith thesepaintings. Moving from the final restingplace of an earlier generation,this arrangement would focuson Vel Saties,who hasjust broughtthisdistinctionto his family. t4 The spectatorwould thus move from (1) the Homeric past, with Achillesand the Trojan prisoners,to (2) the period of the Vibenna brothers of Vulci and Tarquin of Rome, to (3) the contemporaryconflict between Vulci and Rome, and the presenttriumph of Vel Saties,the sameevent being seen in contexts which we would call (1) mythological,(2) semilegendary,and (3) historical.To the Etruscanway of thinking, however, thesecontexts simply representeddifferent cyclesof history. Let us follow the artist'sdepiction of thesethree hypotheticalcycles, starting from the recent past. By the door of the "master bedroom" was portrayed,full-length,the couplewho musthavecommissioned the paintings(figs. 1-2: Nos. 6-7), husbandand wife togetheras wascustomaryin south Etruscan cities. Vel Saties stood to the left of the door (fig. 3). The

portrait of hiswife,Tanaquil,unfortunatelydestroyed, • stoodto theright. Vel Saties' dress and attitude

indicate his honors and titles as if in an

honorary inscription or epitaph. He wears the crown and ceremonial purple robe of a generalwho has beenawardeda triumph, evidentlyfor victories won for Vulci over Rome.•6 The decoration of his robe, on which

armed male dancersare showndancing the Pyrrhic dance,further recalls the triumphalcelebration.t7He alsoheldpriestlyoffices.The publicomens

HISTORICAL

ART

139

or auspiciahe is readingfrom the flight of the birds beingreleasedby his young assistant,the slaveArnza, •8might evenrefer to the battle in which he won the triumph. Thus, the atrium was decoratedwith triumphal paintings,like those whichhungin aristocraticRomanhousesalongwith the funeraryimagines of the family'sancestors. 19The triumphalcontextof the tomb'sdecoration, implied in the paintingsof the tablinum, is carried down to contemporary times,with the triumph over Rome and her allies. In the tomb itselflay the bodies of those Etruscan warriors whose remains NoEl des Vergers saw, resting, on their funeral couches,from their strenuousefforts. Triumphal allusionsare found elsewherein the atrium. Corresponding to the figures of Vel Saties and his wife are those of the two wise counselors,Nestor and Phoenix, standingby their palm treesacrossthe hall (fig. 1, bottom register,center). Once more the artist hasemphasized the relationshipof two of the figures:NestorcloselyresemblesVel Saties (fig. 3) in poseand dress.The venerableGreekgeneral,too, wearsa purple robe, though his himation, draped in the Greek manner, is not decorated like a triumphal vestispicta. Both their gazesare turnedupwards.Nestor, like Vel Saties,seemsto be readingthe omens.TMIs eachone looking into the future, seeingthere the outcome of the war? Such a depiction of divination would result in a telescopingof time if Vel Satieswere, in fact, seeingthe war'svictoriousend,to be celebratedby histriumph.21Eventhe palm treesbehind Nestor and Phoenix might be read as symbolsof the triumph, the recentEtruscanachievementbeingthuscastinto Greekterms, like a bilingual inscriptionin Greek and Etruscan.22 In keepingwith the triumphal contextof the paintingsof the atrium, as well as with Etruscancyclesof history, is the allusionto mythological Greek ancestorswhich scholarshave seenin the figures of Nestor and Phoenix (Dohrn) or Sisyphosand Amphiaraos (Coarelli).23 Such an allusion would not be surprising.From at least the seventhcentury on, family ancestorswere shownin tombsas imagesof the heroizeddead.24In Etruria, men and womenwere picturedfeastingat banquetsheld in their honor. In Rome, too, ancestorcult wasimportant from earliesttimes.I will leave to others,however,the difficult task of identifyingsuchfiguresof Greek mythological ancestorsin this tomb. Let usgo on, instead,to the secondcycle:thelocalscenewhichbegins in the atrium, around the corner from Vel Saties. On either side of the wall

which leadsinto the tablinumisanothersetof mirror images:on the left (or "Greek") side, the mutual fratricide of Eteoclesand Polyneices(both brothers are bleeding profusely) (fig. 1, bottom register,right). On the right, Marce Camitlnas is about to thrust his sword into CneveTarchunies Rumach, better known to us as Tarquin of Rome.25 This group forms the first of a seriesof five epic confrontations making up a battle scenewhich continuesalong the right-handwallsof the secondroom (fig. 4).26Painted inscriptionsidentify two kings of Rome:

140

LARISSA

BONFANTE

Illustrations

1.

2.

3.

Wall paintings from Francois tomb, Vulci Top register:Vel Satiesand Arnza. Sisyphusand Amphiaraos Middle register: Sacrifice of the Trojan prisoners(Agamemnon; ghost of Patroklos; Achilles killing a Trojan prisoner,flanked by Vanth and Charun; Ajax son of Telamon and Ajax son of Oileus,each with a Trojan prisoner).Caile Vipinas Bottom register:Ajax and Cassandra.Phoenix. Nestor. Eteocles and Polyneices Copiesin the Vatican, Museo Etrusco Gregoriano (F. Messerschmidt,Nekropolenyon Vulci (1930) 111) Layout of Fran,coistomb (Messerschmidt,Vulci 113) Wall paintingsfrom Francoistomb Vel Saties and Arnza

4.

Rome, Villa Torlonia (DAI(R) 63.790) Wall paintingsfrom Fran.coistomb

4a. 4b.

5.

Mastarna (Macstrna: he is freeing Caile Vipinas, on next wall, not shownhere). Larth Ultheskilling Laris Papathnas Velznach (from Volsinii) Pesna Arcmsas Sveamach (from Sovana) being killed by Rasce. Venthical .... plsachs(from Falerii?) being killed by Aule Vipinas

Rome, Villa Torlonia (DAI(R) 63.788-789) Etruscan mirror from Tuscania, ca. 300 BC The hero Tarchon learning the art of divination from Pava Tarchies Florence, Museo Archeologico

(M. Pallottino, RAL 6 6 (1930) 49 if., pl. 2). 6.

Lid of a Praenestine cista, ca. 300 BC Oracular

scene

Rome, Villa Giulia Museum

7.

8.

(Photo Alinari) Fragmentof a wall paintingwith historicalscene,early 3rd centuryBC Tomb from Rome, Esquilinenecropolis Rome, ConservatoriMuseum (Comune di Roma No. 5553) (Photo Savio) Praenestine cista, ca. 300 BC

'Triumphal' scene Berlin, Staatliche Museen

(Drawing from Monlnst 10, 19)

HISTORICAL

FIGURE

ART

i

Wall paintingsfrom Fran•;oistomb, Vulci

141

142

LARISSA

BONFANTE

FIGURE

2

(From Messeraehmidt, Nekropolonyon Vulei, 19•0, p. 113). Key to paintings:

I. Locrian Ajax and Cassandra 11. Phoenix

11I. Nestor

IV. Eteoclesand Polyneices V. Sisyphusand Amphiaraus VI. VII. VIII.

Thanchvil Verati Vel Saties and Arnza M. Camitlnas and Cn. Tarchunies

IX, X. Mastarna, the Vibennaeand their opponents XI, XII. Achilles sacrificingthe Trojan prisoners

Layout of Franqoistomb

HISTORICAL

FIGURE

ART

3

Wall paintingsfrom Franqoistomb

143

144

LARISSA

BONFANTE

FIGURE

4

Wall paintingsfrom Franqoistomb

HISTORICAL

FIGURE

ART

145

5

'/,/z

-,

Etruscan mirror from Tuscania, ca. 300 .C

FIGURE

6

Lid of a Praenestine cista, ca. 300 BC

146

LARISSA

BONFANTE

FIGURE

7

Fragmentof a wall paintingwith historicalscene,early 3rd centuryBC

FIGURE

8

Praenestine cista, ca. 300 BC

HISTORICAL

ART

147

one of the Tarquins, and farther on, Mastarna, which was the Etruscan name for ServiusTullius, accordingto that Etruscanscholar,the emperor Claudius.Though it refersto a semi-legendarypast, two centuriesearlier, this scenehaslong beenrecognizedto havehistoricalvalueand qualifiesas historicalart? Starting with the killing of Tarquin of Rome, it continues with the successful surpriseattack on Etruscanalliesof Rome by a groupof heroesfrom Vulci. Their helplessenemieshave all been overcome.Some are still wrapped in their mantles,asif surprisedin their sleep.Blood spurts out, thick and red, from their wounds. The victims, who are identified by city, comefrom Volsinii, Falerii, Sovana,and Rome. Of particularinterest is Aulus Vibenna, who is killing an adversary from Falerii. 28 The climax, as we haveseen,showsthe missionbeingaccomplished. And this climax concernsRome. At the far corner of the secondroom (fig. 2), Mastarna frees Caelius Vibenna, Aulus Vibenna's brother (fig. 1, middle, right, Caelius Vibenna; fig. 4a, left, Mastarna). Festustells us that these Vibenna brothers were from Vulci, and that they were friends of Mastarna. They were connectedwith Rome, perhapswith its occupation, for the Caelian Mount was said to have been named after Caelius Vibenna,

and the Capitolium after Aulus (caput oli, "head of Olus", or "Aulus", accordingto some etymologies). 29 But though someof thesefiguresare mentionedby Roman sources,the particular eventdepictedis unknownto the Roman tradition which has come down to us. We have here, in fact, an Etruscan sourcereflecting semi-legendarydeedscarried out by Etruscan military leadersof the sixth century BC. This battle scene(fig. 4) clearly parallels the Greek mythological sceneon the oppositewall, showingAchilles sacrificingthe Trojan prisoners,30and bringingusto the third level, or cycle,of Etruscanhistory(fig. 1, middle register, left). Achilles is slaughteringwith his own hands a captured Trojan prisoner (Etruscan Truials) in the presenceof his companions,Ajax and Agamemnon. The action is further witnessedby two purely Etruscan figures:the female, winged angel of death, Vanth, and the death demon, Charun, shownlifting up his hammer (his color is that of rotting flesh). Vanth and Charun watch Achillesintently, almost menacingly,as he slits the throat of the first Trojan. Two other Trojans wait their turn, blood pouringfrom their legswhichhavebeenhackedto preventtheir escaping. 31 The ghostof Patroclusstandsby, hisbandagesindicatingthe woundsfrom which he died.32The blood spurtsfrom the first prisonerAchillesis killing. This remarkable emphasison blood, here and even in the animal frieze of the border decorationabove,33wasan Etruscanpeculiarity,surely connected with ritual

sacrifices in honor

of the dead. This custom con-

tinued in the gladiatorial gamesthe Romanstook over from the Etruscans, and in the celebrationof the Roman triumph, basicallya purification ceremonyto cleansethe army from blood guilt. In this tomb, the bloody scene of sacrifice fits the funerary context. It also fits the triumphal

148

LARISSA

BONFANTE

context.34There may well be, furthermore, historicalallusions.In Etruria, in historicaltimes,enemyprisonerswere still sacrificed.Two famouscases are recorded in the fourth century, in the course of the fierce struggle betweenthe Etruscancitiesand Rome: in 356 BC,307 captured Roman soldierswere sacrificedby the men of Tarquinia (Livy 7.15.9-10). The following year, the Romansretaliated, killing 358 noble TarquinJanprisoners.Both slaughters,or "sacrifices",werecarriedout publicly,asrituals, in the forum of each city.35 It wasprobablyaccordingto an Etruscanritual that the Romans,just after the battle of Cannae, in 216 BC, sacrificedtwo couples,Gallus et Galla, Graecuset Graeca,burying them alive in the Forum Boarium:a desperatemeasure,which Livy found shockinglyun-Roman (Livy 22.57).36 It was probably also becauseof their ritual connotationsthat the bloody scenesof the killing of the Trojan prisoners,and the deathsof Eteoclesand Polyneices,were sofrequentlyrepresentedin Etruscanart in this period.37 Severalcontemporarymonumentsfrom central Italy illustrate Achilles' slaughterof the Trojan prisoners,and the well-organizedcompositionin the Franqoistomb was clearly modelled on a famous painting of this subject.Not surprisingly,on the other hand,the Homericsceneof Achilles' slaughterwas not popular in Greece,wherecrueltyto prisonerswascasual rather than ritual?

Little attention has been paid to this ritual, "religious"aspectof the decoration of the Franqois tomb, those scenesof blood and sacrifice,

auspices,and triumphs. A ritual significancefor these scenescan be acceptedeven if we do not agreewith the "cyclicaltheory". There is, furthermore,evidencethat the paintingsfrom the Franqois tomb are not an isolated example of the religieus, ritual context of Etruscan "historical" art at the end of the fourth century BC. Such a mixture is representedon another contemporary Etruscan monument, which also qualifiesas historical becauseit depictsa specificepisodeof a local legend. This is the back of a fourth- or early third-centurymirror found in

Tuscania,probablycopiedfrom a paintingat Tarquinia(fig. 5).39Tarchon, the eponymoushero of Tarquinia, is learningfrom a qualifiedpriestthe techniqueof readingomens.He and his teacherare peeringcloselyat the liver of the sacrificialanimal. Both men are dressedin their specialpriestly hats and mantles and are facing west, accordingto prescribedritual, as shownby the sunrisingat theirbacks.4øThe religiouscontextremindsusof Vel Saties dressedin ceremonial costumereading the bird omens. Here, too, inscriptionsidentifyeachcharacter,guidingusin the understandingof the particular iconographyworked out for scenesfrom local Etruscan "history". Each city had its own fated saecula.4•This we know from a passagein Censorinus(d.n. 17.5):

HISTORICAL

ART

149

sed licet veritas in obscurolateat, tamen in una quaquecivitate quae sint naturalia saecula, rituales Etruscorum libri videntur docere....

But thoughthe truth is not clear, still it seemsthat theritual booksof the Etruscansteach, in eachcity-state,what its real [historical]cycles were

....

So in the decoration of the Franqoistomb we seemto see glimpsesof episodespertaining to the saeculaof Vulci. The mirror from Tuscania perhapstellsusof the momentwhenTarquinia'shero, Tarchon,learnshow to foretell his city'sspecialsaecula.A sceneon the lid ofa Praenestinecista of this period, showinga man readingfrom a tablet beforean assembled crowd (fig. 6),42seemsalmostto illustrateanother sentencefrom this same passage:

haec portenta Etrusci pro haruspicii disciplinaequesuae peritia diligenter observatain libros rettulerunt.... Theseomensthe Etruscanscarefully observed,thanksto the skill of the scienceof the haruspex and of their own learning; and they recorded them in their books ....

The considerable numberof Etruscanrepresentations of figures readingomens(Vel Saties,Calchas,Tarchon, Tagesor the oracleat Praeneste)showsthe Etruscans'concernfor this ritual element,whichwas

linkedwhenever possible to a specific city(likeVulci)orfamily(likethatof the Satiesin the Franqoistomb).

In Latiuminthissameperiod,asin theEtruscan cities,theheroicpast wasincorporated intolocalhistorywithina religious, funerarycontext.In theso-called tombof Aeneasat Lavinium,a seventh-century tumulus(cist) grave was opened,offeringswere added, and a heroon was built into one

sideof the barrow--all in the late fourth centuryBC.43 In Rome,too,ancestors werehonoredin a funerarycontext,aswesee on another monument of historical art which concerns us here. Recent

research hasmoresecurely datedsomeRomanhistoricalpaintings, froma tomb on the Esquiline Hill, to about the same time as these Etruscan

paintings(fig. 7). In contrastto the Etruscanexamples,theseRoman picturesdepict--oneistemptedto say"document"--recent events,without mythological,legendary,or ritual elaboration.

Only a fragmentremainsof the decorationin four registers of this Romantombfromthe Esquilinenecropolis, whichoriginallyran arouv'] the roomfor some20 meters.Recentlyrestored,and studiedby Filippo Coarelli,thesescenes, paintedin theearlythirdcenturyBC,referto events of the SecondSamniteWar.44As in the Franqoistomb and the Tuscania

150

LARISSA BONFANTE

mirror, the principalfiguresare labeled.Q(uintos)Fabios,wearinga toga and thereforeclearlya Roman, is portrayedtwicecomingto somesortof agreementwith a generalin military uniform, M. Fanios Stai filios. His costume shows he is a Samnite.

"Quintos Fabios" must be Quintus Fabius Rullianus, five times consuland honoredwith a triumph in 322 BC.The paintingsdepictinghis -'•,91oitsin thisfamily tomb of the Fabii, after hisdeath,sometime after 280 Be, probablyrecalledthe picturescarriedin his triumph. There musthave beena seriesof scenes,showingbattles,sieges,victories,and treaties,with topographicalfeaturesand city walls like the one shown in his tomb. Just as historians have trouble reconstructingthe events of the Second Samnite War from written sources,however, so here too the exact

significanceof the episodeseludesus. Why is Fanius,the Samnitegeneral, holdinghis hand out to Fabius?Is he offeringpeace,a treaty,or a truce?He might be handingover the city; but there is no siegein progress,for the figuresthrongingthe city walls wear white, civilian clothes. 4• In the lower register, the man standingwith his back to the two commandersis probably not a fetial priest hurling his lance, as was once suggested, but a soldierfighting.Below,in the lowestregister,too, Samnite soldiersare fighting. The narrativecompositionis not too differentfrom that used later in the column of Trajan. Though the techniqueshows Hellenisticinfluence,the flavor of the style is provincial. The narrative intentisforemost.Hierarchicproportionsidentifytheprincipalcharacters, who literally loom larger than the other figures;and local color, suchas detailsof arms and costume,helpsto tell the story.46 Here, too, thecontextistriumphalaswell asfunerary,confirmingthe importanceof thetriumphin thisperiod.Nearbyin theEsquilinecemetery in another,latergraveof a nobleRomanfamily,are scenes from a triumph. The crucifixionof a beardedman, perhapsa slave,or perhapsillustrating the killing of enemyprisonersat the conclusionof the triumphalprocession, also remindsus of the bloody sceneof the Francoistomb.47 From the first moment of its discovery,the name of Fabius Pictor was mentionedin connectionwith the Esquilinetomb of the Fabii. These paintingsfrom the Esquilinemay, in fact, allow usto imaginethe pictures with whichFabiusPictordecoratedthetempleof Salusin Romein 304BC. He signedthese--as Valerius Maximus tells us--and may also, as here, have identifiedthe figureswith inscriptions. 48 The family tombs of the EtruscanSatiesand the Roman Fabii have many featuresin commonwith anothertomb of this period,the so-called Tomba dell' Orco in Tarquinia,belongingto the Spurinnafamily, whose epitaphshave recentlybeenstudiedby Mario Torelli.49Of thesefeatures, the moststrikingis the closeconnectionof triumphalhonorsand funerary context sharedby the Etruscanand the Roman monuments.This connection so impressedPolybiusas somethingalien to his own Greek heritage that it inspiredhisfamousdescriptionof Romanfuneraryprocessions,•ø in

HISTORICAL

ART

151

which, as in triumphal processions, the descendants participatedalong with theimaginesof theirancestors. Weknowthatancestors' portraitsand triumphal paintings,kept in the houseand reproducedin the tombs, celebratedthoseancestors'publicactsand honors.Sucha publicdisplay, suggestsMario Torelli, becomesparticularly important in the fourth century BC for the newly established"patrician-plebeian"aristocracyof southernEtruria, Latium, and Campania.5•Thus,near the end of itscycle, Etruscanpainting in somewaysdraws closerto Roman historicalart, with its taste for narration and portraiture. The triumphal insigniawhich marked Vel Satiesout as a victorious commander seemto have had the samemeaningfor Romans and Etrus-

cans. This shared symbolismrepresentsone important aspectof the existenceof a culturalkoine in central Italy in this period.52Within this cultural koine we find political hostility and ethnic pride. Unity and diversity coexistedat all levels.There were wars betweenRome and the Samnites, between Rome and Etruscan alliances.53 In art, local customs

and dressof enemiesand neighborswereemphasized,and differentstyles occurred together, even within the same monument. We have seenhow both Etruscan and Roman examples exhibit a mixture of Hellenistic technique,classicalGreek models,and the literal, awkward tendenciesof local art. 54

Yet the contrast between the sophisticated,ritual Etruscan view of "historical art" and the Romans' straightforward, factual, documentary approachis evenmore strikingthan their similarities.While the epicbattle of the Francois tomb is seen in relation to Etruscan rituals and Greek mythology,and within the wider context of world historyand divine will, the scenesof the Esquilinetomb, chroniclingactual eventsof the on-going Samnitewars, illustratethe Romans'view of their historyascontemporary events,and the pragmatismwhich in the end helped them to win.55 Larissa Bonfante

New York University

APPENDIX

The BerlinCistawith a Representation of a Triumph I mentionhere,in orderto removeit fromtherunning,a monumentoften referredto in connection with Romanhistoricalart. Thisisan engraved bronzetoiletbox or cistafrom Praeneste, nowin Berlin(fig. 8),56whose date and interpretationhave long beencontroversial. Its date, which, like that of the Franqois tomb, once oscillated betweenthe fourth and first centuriesBC,hasnow settleddown asfourth or

152

LARISSA

BONFANTE

early third? Evidentlyderivedfrom a paintedmodel or a drawing,it has no inscriptionsidentifyingthe figures.While it probablycould be "read" without too muchdifficulty at the time it wasmade, therefore,it continues to puzzlemodernscholars.Hierarchicproportionscharacterizethisscene, like those of the Esquilinetomb: the triumphator looms larger than the other figures,like the generalsFabius and Fanius, and breaksthrough the frame above and below. 58

It has long beenthought to representsomekind of Roman or Latin triumph? but there are obstaclesin the way of suchan interpretation: Jupiter driving his own chariot; a bloodlesssacrifice;the funny, frontal figureof the generaldressedin a mixtureof triumphaland stagecostume. Theseodd featureswere variouslyexplained. Alf61di thought the scenerepresentedthe mythologicaltriumph of Aeneas, or perhaps of Ascanius,wearing Phrygian trousers. 6ø Others suggested that local color accountedfor thesepeculiarfeatures.The scene was held to representa triumph on the Alban Mount (but sucha triumph did not exist before 231 BC),or a Latin triumph? Most recently, in the forthcoming corpus of cistae, Gabriella Battagliaacceptsand elaborateson K•ihler'sintriguingsuggestionthat the artist wasdepictinga theatricalscene. 62That would explainJupitermaking his entrance, or exit, as the deus ex machina, his awesome, classical

appearancecontrastingwith the comical realism and costumeof the triumphator.63 A theatrical theme would agree with the many other reflectionsof SouthItalian vasepaintingto beseenin thedecorationof the cista,for suchsubjectsfrequentlyappearedon South Italian vases.Some detailsare evenreminiscentof the storyof Amphitryo as we know it from Plautus:Jupiter returningto Olympusafter his long night with Alcmena;

Amphitryo, the cuckold,sacrificingto the godsin thanksgivingfor his victory.64

The triumphal ritual, oncemoreemphasized,confirmsthe triumph's importancein this period, but the lack of inscriptionscontrastswith the carefullabelingof historicalfiguresand sceneson the othermonumentswe have looked at. In any case,becauseof its many peculiarities,this cista must no longer be includedin a discussionof historical art.

NOTES

A shorterversionof thispaperwaspresented at a panelonhistorical art at the meetingof the Archaeological Instituteof Americain Atlanta,Georgia,on December 29, 1977.Laterversions benefited fromhelpfulcriticism byfriendsand

colleagues of FloridaStateUniversity (Tallahassee) andStanford University. Italianscholarship inparticular hasaddressed itself totheproblems herediscussed: GabriellaBattagliaBordenache, FilippoCoarelli,Mauro Cristofani,Mario

HISTORICAL

ART

153

Torelli, and othershave,in the last 10years,fixed the datesof thesemonumentsand setthemfirmly within a historicalcontext,making it possibleto understandtheart and history of the cities of Italy in the fourth and third centuriesBC.Especially usefulfor this whole periodis Roma medio repubblicana,editedby Filippo Coarelli (Rome 1973). For an understandingof Etruscanhistoricalart, I owe muchto G.A. Mansuelli, "Individuazione e rappresentazionestorica nell'arte etrusca", SE 36 (1968) 3-19. I am gratefulto Gabriella Battaglia Bordenacheand EugenioLa Roccafor their kind assistance; to the editor of thisJournal,who hasmuchimprovedmy text; and to its two anonymous readers.

1. The basicpublicationis F. Messerschmidt,A. von Gerkan,Nekropolen yon Vulci. JDAI, Erg•inzungsheft12 (1930) 62-163. Still usefulis G. K6rte, JDAI 12 (1897) 57-80. Most recently, T. Dohrn, in W. Helbig, Ftihrer dutch die 6ffentlichen SammlungenklassischerAltertb'merin Rom, 4th ed., edited by H. Speier, Vol. 4 (Tiibingen 1972) 204-217, no. 3239. 2. M. Pallottino, Etruscan painting (Geneva 1952) 120, and Mostra dell•rte e della civiltg etrusca (Milan 1955) 128-129, no. 420, pl. 107. 3. M. Cristofani, DArch 1 (1967) 186-219. The author's conclusions, basedon a closestudyof the ornamentalfriezes,haveput an endto a long-standing debate in the courseof which severalscholarsargued for a date in the first century BC,basedon a comparisonwith the secondstyleof Pompeii.The first-centurydate, suggestedby A. von Gerkan, MDAI(R) 47 (1942) 142if. (who changedhis mind from his earlier publication, supra n. 1), was acceptedby Pallottino, Etruscan painting 115, and Mostra etrusca. Contra: see R. Herbig, review of Pallottino, Etruscanpainting, in Gnomon 26 (1954) 324. 4. A. NoEl desVergers,L'Etrurie et lesEtrusques(Paris 1862-1864)I14748. Quoted by G. Dennis, The cities and cemeteriesof Etruria (3rd ed., London 1883) II 508, and G. K6rte, JDAI 12 (1897) 61. (My translation.) 5. In Bullettino dell'Instituto di CorrispondenzaArcheologica1857, 103, A. Franqoisspeaksonly of bronze objectson the floor, badly oxidized.The main room did contain funerary urns, sarcophagi,and four funerary couches,on eachof which lay two bodies(surelynot aswell preservedasNoEldesVergersclaimed).See K6rte 61-63 for criticism of Noel des Vergers' account. 6. "... l'impasto dei colori...": Noel des Vergers, loc. cit. 7. R. Bianchi Bandinelli and A. Giuliano, Etruschi e Italici prima del dominio di Roma (Milan 1973)257-260,on "... la tecnicacomplessadell'impasto dei colori, come non troviamo in altre pitture etrusche",and on the highlights, i lumi, which appear in this period in Apulian vasepainting. On Pliny the Elder's terms for reflectedlight, lumen and splendor (HN 35.29), see E. Gombrich, The heritageof Apelles. Studiesin the art of the Renaissance(New York 1976)3-20. Cf. J.J. Pollitt, Theancientviewof Greekart: Criticism,history,and terminology(New Haven 1974)227 if. V.J. Bruno, Form and color in Greekpainting(New York 1977) 17, 59; and bibliography. Cf. infra n. 46. 8. See, for example, Vel Saties portrayed as a triumphator; the lower portion, still visibleon the end wall of the right-handsideof the atrium, is illustrated in M. Moretti and G. Maetzke, Theart of the Etruscans(New York 1970),pl. 105. Copies--not very reliable--made beforethe paintingswereremovedare now in the Vatican: Messerschmidt,Vulci (supra n. l) 111.

154

LARISSA

BONFANTE

9. D. and R. Rebuffat, "De Sidoine Apollinaire h la Tombe Franqois", Latomus 37 (1978) 88-104, esp. 99. The authors (95, 97) point out the similar placementof Trimalchio'spaintings,in which Homeric scenesfacethe "historical" scenesof hisown life. A. Alf61di,Early Romeand the Latins(Ann Arbor 1965),sees a contrastrather than a parallel:"... the peopleof Vulci... believedin their own Trojan origin. On thesepaintingsthe inevitableend of the originalTrojansafter their captureisconfrontedwith the miraculousescapeof theTrojan offspringfrom the same hopelesssituation" (224). Cf. also 278-287, on the Trojan legend in Etruria.

10. F. Zevi, "Considerazionisull'elogiodi ScipioneBarbato", Omaggioa R. Bianchi Bandinelli(Rome 1970)70; F. Coarelli, DArch 6(1972) 102;M, Torelli, Elogia Tarquiniensia (Florence 1975) 85. On Greek and Trojan originsadopted by barbarians,seeE.J. Bickerman, "Originesgentium ", CP 47 (1952) 65-81; on barbarian adoption of Greek language and Greek traditions, A. Momigliano, Alien wisdom: The limits of Hellenization (Cambridge/New York 1975) 7: "It was an unsystematicsyncretismwhich was particularly successful in Italy (Etruria and Rome).... "In favor of an Etruscan origin for the Roman Aeneaslegend,and an early date for the Roman legend:F. B6mer, Rom und Troia (Baden-Baden 1951) 39-40 (early fifth century Bc); A. Alf61di, Die trojanischenUrahnender R6mer (Basel 1957) 19 f., and Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1965) 251-287 (sixth century Bc, for Alba). G.K. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton 1969), ch. 3, 103-140, with refs., believes that "Aeneas was known in Rome...

as the hero of the Etruscans"

in the

sixth century Bc (131), but that "... in the first part of the fourth century the Romans had not yet come to considerthemselvesas Trojans" (137; cf. 143). T. Cornell, "Aeneas'arrival in Italy", LCM 2 (1977) 77-83, doesnot believethat the Trojan legendexistedin Romebeforethethird centuryBC.Similar conclusions in J.

Gag6,"Comment•n6e estdevenul'anc•tredesSilviiAlbains",MEFR 88(1976)730; E. Weber, "Die trojanischeAbstammungder R6mer alspolitischesArgument", WS 85 (1972) 213-225; J. Perret, "Rome et les Troyens", REL 49 (1971) 39-52. On the conflicting claims of both sidesto representthe successors of the Greeks--that is, the victors of the Trojan war--in the Aeneid, seeM. Wigodsky, "The arming of Aeneas", C&M 26 (1965) 197-221. 11. For the saecula,seeA. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca(Graz 1975) 158-161;cf. S. Mazzarino, ll pensiero storico classicoII 1 (Bari 1966) 525-526, n. 447; R. Turcan, "Encore la proph6tiede Vegoia", MdlangesHeurgon (Rome 1976) 10091019.

12. Layoutsin K6rte (supran. 1) 58; Messerschmidt,Vulci(supran. 1) 13; Dohrn, in Helbig (supra n. 1) 205. For the relation of Etruscantomb architectureto domesticarchitecture,seeF. Prayon, FriihetruskischeGrab- und Hausarchitektur (Heidelberg 1975). 13. F. Coarelli, "Le pitture della tomba Franqois--strutturae significato": Paper presentedat a colloquium,Etruria and the Etruscansin thefourth century B.C., held at the American Academy in Rome, November 22, 1977. I am grateful to Filippo Coarelli for discussinghis theorieswith me. 14. Censorinus, de die nat. 17.2: saeculum est spatium vitae humanae longissimumpartu et morte definitum ("a saeculumis the longestpossiblehuman life span, betweenthe limits of a birth and a death"). See Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca 159.

HISTORICAL

15.

ART

155

CIE 5278, 5279. Messerschmidt, l/ulci 136-137, doubts NoEl des

Vergers (III 25), who attributed to her an inscription referring to a "Tanchvil Verati", or Tanaquil Verati. After Vel Satieswasburiedin thisright-handchamber, anotherportrait representinghim dressedin histriumphal finery waspaintedon the door: a fragment still remains in situ (supra n. 8). Also visibleat this point is a partitionwall, perhapsbuilt laterto setoff thisareaasa placefor specialveneration (Coarelli, supra n. 13; but seePallottino, Etruscanpainting 120, who refersto the "wall area made available by blockingup a door"). 16. Dohrn (213) callsthe crown a Totenkranz;seeTorelli, Elogia (supran. 10) 65 on the corona graminea. On the vestispicta, see Torelli, Elogia 65; F. Coarelli, "I1 sepolcrodegli Scipioni", DArch 6 (1972) 102; L. Bonfante Warren, JRS 60 (1970) 64-65. I have suggested that the himation representedon figuresof

menwhohavedied,insteadof theusualtoga,or Etruscantebenna,maybea signof heroization: AJA 75 (1971) 282-284; Etruscandress(Baltimore 1975)41, 121. For heroic dressworn by ancestors,seeTorelli, Elogia 55. 17. On the armeddancein Etruria, I.S. Ryberg,Ritesof thestatereligionin Roman art. MAAR 20 (Rome 1955) 7; R. Bloch, MEFR 70 (1958) 7-37. Cf. Servius,ad Aen. 8. 285. Dancing Salii were representedon the shieldof Aeneas: Vergil, Aen. 8, 663. Messerschmidt(l/ulci 133-134)thinks the dancingfigureson Vel Saties'mantle representgladiatorsrather than armeddancers,in spiteof their closeresemblanceto dancing Cureteson Augustan monuments. 18. P. Goidanich, in SE9 (1935), identifies the bird as a femalepicus, the bird traditionally used for the auspicia;the male has presumablyalready been released,and his flight is being closelywatchedby Vel Saties.Seealso Rebuffat (supra n. 9) 101-103. Some scholarsinterpret the bird insteadas a bantam falcon, in an aristocratic hunting scene (Pallottino, Etruscan painting 120; Bianchi Bandinelli-Giuliano (supra n. 7) 258); but it bears no resemblanceto a falcon. On the birds in archaic Etruscan art (e.g. the Monteleone chariot) as representing omens,seenow O.J. Brendel,Etruscanart (PelicanHistory of Art, New York 1978) 146.

On the auspicia,seeS. Mazzarino, Dalla monarchiaallo statorepubblicano (Catania 1945) 39-43: "Primitive culturesdo not make a sharpdistinctionbetween sacredand secular"(43); seealso his remarkson institutionsand rites sharedby Etruscansand Latins in early times (42). J. Gag6, "De Tarquiniesh Vulci ...", MEFR 74 (1962) 93, connectsthe representationsof dancing Salii on the mantle with theaucupiumrather than with the triumph. Arnza: "little Arnth", or "Arruns"; on slavenames, see G. Colonna, MDAI(R) 82 (1975) 181-192. 19. Ancestralportraits in the atrium of a Roman house:seeA.N. Zadoks JosephusJitta, Ancestralportraiture in Rome (Amsterdam 1932) 32. Rebuffat (supra n. 9) 92-93. Cf. infra n. 24. On elogia and imagines,seeG.M.A. Hanfmann, Observationson Roman portraiture. Coll. Latomus 11 (Brussels1953) 39. R. BianchiBandinelli,"Sulla formazionedel ritratto romano",Archeologiae Cultura (Milan-Naples 1961) 172-188. Torelli, Elogia 45-56. On the difference between

ephemeral"triumphal"paintings,carriedin processions andtemporarilydisplayed on temples or other public places,and contemporaryhistorical paintings--frequently representingtriumphal subjects--which decorated private housesand tombs like that of the Satiesfamily as well as temples,seeB.M. Felletti Maj, La tradizione italica nell•trte romana (Rome 1977) 59-65.

LARISSA

156

BONFANTE

20. Perhaps,for an Etruscan,this wasthe properway to representa "wise man". Etruscans liked to show the technical details of "workers in action"; for example, the Greek seer Calchas, shown on an Etruscan mirror, reading a liver,

Etruscanstyle;or Daedalus,on an Etruscanbulla, shownas a craftsman,with all his tools carefullydepicted(as they neverare in Greek art). Etruscanmirror with Calchas:J.D. Beazley, JHS 69 (1949) 5, pl. 4a; A. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca (Graz 1975)117-120,fig. 47. On the Etruscanbulla in the WaltersArt Gallery,seeG.M.A. Hanfmann, "Daedalus in Etruria", AJA 39 (1935) 189-194.On work scenesin Italic art, see Felletti Maj, La tradizione italica, 194-196,239, etc.; L. Bonfante, rev. of Felletti Maj in AJA 83 (1979) 242 if. 21. Coarelli, supra n. 13. 22. Cf. J.D. Beazley,Etruscanvase-painting(Oxford 1947)4: "If this is Greek, it is Greek spokenwith a strongaccent." 23. Supra nn. 1, 13. Greeks and Romans sought their cities' and their families' founders and prefigurationsin the world of what is for us Greek "mythology", but was for the ancientstheir common "prehistory":E.J. Bickerman, "Originesgentium'; CP 47 (1952) 65-81. Cf. M. Torelli, Elogia (supran. 1O)45-56, 85, on the elogiaand divinizationof membersof the Spurinnafamily, portrayedin the fourth-centuryTomba dell'Orco in Tarquinia. Mario Torelli (85) and Santo Mazzarino (Ilpensiero (supran. 11) II 1 (wronglycited as I in Torelli, loc. cit.) 5960) contrastthe Greek customof attributingdivine"ancestors"to a family with the Roman aristocrats'emphasison their famous historical ancestors,whosedeeds were recordedin their laudationesfunebres.On the differencebetweenthe Etruscans'and the Romans'acceptanceof Greekmythology,seealsoreferences citedin L. Bonfante,"Etruscaninfluencein Northern Italy", ArchN 5 (1976) 93, 106,and "The Corsini Throne",JWA G 36 (1977) (Essaysin honor of Dorothy K. Hill) 122. 24. On ancestor cult: T. Dohrn, "Totenklage im friihen Etrurien", MDAI(R) 83 (1976) 195-205;F. Prayon, "Zum urspriinglichenAussehenund zur Deutung des Kultraumesin der Tomba delle CinqueSedie",Marburger Winckelmann-Programm 1974, 12; F. Magi, "L'ossuario di Montescudaio",Atti del Primo Simposiodi Protostoria d'Italia (Orvieto 1967) 122-133;G.A. Mansuelli, SE 36 (1968) 17 n. 48; G. Colonna,"Basiconoscitiveper una storiaeconomicadell'Etruria", SupplementoAnnali dell'Istituto Italiano di Numismatica22 (Naples 1975) 13. On ancestralimagesin the Franqoistomb, seeRebuffat (supran. 9) 98-101. 25. I. Krauskopf, Der thebanischeSagenkreis(Mainz 1974)53, nos. 337338, pl. 23, 1. On Eteoclesand Polyneicesin Etruscanart, seeG. Ronzitti Orsolini, II mito dei settea Tebenelleurne volterrane(Florence 1971);J. PennySmall, AJA 78 (1974) 49-50. M. Cristofani deniesany connectionbetweenthe episodesof the Vibenna brothers and of Cneve Tarchuniesand Marce Camitlnas on the ground that they are in differentrooms,onefacingthe scenewith the Trojan prisoners,the otherindependentlyrelatedto the scenewith Eteoclesand Polyneices(reviewof A. Hus, Vulci dtrusqueet dtrusco-romaine,in ASNP 3 (1973) 1130);but Coarelli's reading of the cycle(supra n. 13) would explain this lack of symmetry. 26. A. Alf61di, Early Rome (Ann Arbor 1965)228, suggests that the artist deliberatelychoseto reproducethe heroicfeatsof the Vibennabrothersasa series of epic duels like those of the Iliad becausethis style reflectedthe way the oral tradition

narrated

their deeds.

27. For the historicalinterpretation,seeG. K6rte, JDAI 12(1897) 73-80; E. Petersen,JDAI 14 (1899)43-49; I. Scott [Ryberg_-I, "Early Roman traditions in the

HISTORICAL

ART

157

light of archaeology",MAAR 7 (1929) 71-80; A. Momigliano, L'opera dell•mperatore Claudio (Florence 1932) 30 if., and Claudius. The Emperor and his achievement (Oxford 1934) 11-16; P. de Francisci, Primordia civitatis (Rome 1959) 625648; A. Alf61di, Early Rome 212-231, and R6mischeFrfihgeschichte(Heidelberg

1976)27, 75-76,175-176; J. Heurgon,La viequotidienne chezles[;trusques (Paris 1961) 54, 65-67, 308-309;G.A. Mansuelli (supra n. 24) 3-19, esp. 6-10; R. Ridley, "The enigma of ServiusTullius", Klio 57 (1975) 147-177,esp. 163-169;G. Radke, "Etrurien--ein Produkt politischer,sozialerund kultureller Spannung",Klio 56 (1974) 29-53, esp. 45-49; T.N. Gantz, "The Tarquin dynasty", Historia 24 (1975) [1976] 539-554,esp.549-552.On the historicalcontext,seeJ. Heurgon,Rome et la Mdditerrande occidentale(Paris 1969) 236-260. 28. Larth Ulthes (Lars Voltius) is killing Laris PapathnasVelznach (Lars Papatius, or Fabatius, from Volsinii). Rasce(Rascius)is killing PesnaArcmsas Sveamach (from Sovana). Aule Vipinas (Aulus Vibenna) is killing an adversary whosename(Venthical... plsachs)is mutilated,but suggests a manfrom Falerii. 29.

Varro, LL 5.46 if.; Tacitus, Annals 4.65; Paul. Fest. 38 L; Fest. 486 L

(Verrius Flaccus). G. Radke, s.v. "Vibenna", RE8 A 2 (1958), cols.2545-7 (on the anti-Roman interpretation of the scene),with references. 30. Supra n. 10. 31. On the wounding of the legs, F. Poulsen, Etruscan tomb paintings. Their subjectsand significance(Oxford 1922) 52. On Charun and Vanth, see Pallottino, Etruscanpainting 118:"Charun foreseesthe doom of Achilleshimself." On Vanth, see A. Rallo, Lasa. Iconografia e esegesi(Florence 1974) 50-53; E. Richardson, The Etruscans(Chicago 1964) 146-149. 32. J.D. Beazley, Etruscan vase-painting(Oxford 1947) 89. Similar bandagesare worn by the ghostof Agamemnonin the Tomba dellOrco: seeF. Weege, Etruskische Malerei (Halle 1921) 29, fig. 24. 33. R. Bloch, Etruscanart (New York 1959)40-41, pl. 14 (color); Mostra etrusca (Milan 1955), no. 420, pl. 108. 34. For the gladiatorial games,seeM. Pallottino, The Etruscans(Bloom-

ington 1975;Harmondsworth1978)101;J. Heurgon,La vie quotidiennechezles Etrusques(Paris 1961)263-264= Daily life of the Etruscans(Engl. tr., New York 1964) 210-211; id., Capouepr•romaine (Paris 1942) 423. For the triumph as a purification rite, seeL. BonfanteWarren, JRS 60 (1970) 53-57; reviewof H.S. Versnel, Triumphus,in Gnomon46 (1974) 577-578; Ryberg, Rites (supra n. 17)33. To be eligible for a Roman triumph, a generalhad to have commandeda war in which at least 5,000 of the enemy had been killed. 35. Heurgon, Vie quotidienne263, with refs.;Torelli, Elogia (supran. 10) 84-85.

36. For the earlier sacrifice(228 nc) in the sameplace,mentionedby Livy (22.57), see Oros. 4.13.3; Zon. 8.19, fin.; Tzetzes, in Lycophr. Alex., p. 603; Plutarch, Marcellus 3.4. Discussionin G. Dum6zil, La religionromainearchaii?ue (Paris 1966)436-437= Archaic Roman religion (Engl. tr., Chicago1970)449-450; and D. Briquel, "Les enterr6svivantsde Brindes",M•langes Heurgon (Rome 1976) 65-88. (It was also perhapsinspiredby the example of the only-too-successful Carthaginians,who had long practicedhuman sacrifice:B.H. Warmington, Carthage (Harmondsworth 1964) 131, 158-59.) Many scholars have seen it as an originally Etruscan rite. The Etruscans would have been more likely than the Romans to have sacrificedGauls and Greeks,as representativesof their enemiesto

158

LARISSA

BONFANTE

the north (the Cisalpine Gauls) and to the south(the Campanian Greeks),according to C. Cichorius, R6'mischeStudien (Leipzig 1922) 7 if., esp. 12-21; K. Latte, R6'mischeReligionsgeschichte(Munich 1960) 256-257, cited by Torelli, and by Dumdzil, loc. cit. On the Etruscan origin of the practice, seealso F. Altheim, A history of Roman religion (Engl. tr. by H. Mattingly, London 1938) 286, 521-522, with refs. According to tradition the Sibylline books, on whoseauthority the rite wascarriedout, had beengivento Tarquin. They containedrulesfor appeasingthe gods,derivedat leastin part from the booksof Etruscadisciplina;the sibylto whom they were attributed was probably a later invention of Greek and Roman historians, meant to obscurethis further debt to Etruscandivination and omen-reading: R. Bloch, Tite-Live et les premiers si•cles de Rome (Paris 1965) 48-50. (On the Sibylline books, see Livy 5.5.5; R.M. Ogilvie, A commentary on Livy, Books 1-5 (Oxford 1965) 654.) The very fact that two couplesare involved--rather than single individuals--makesthe Etruscanconnectiona likely one. 37. Trojan prisoners:J.D. Beazley,Etruscanvase-painting(Oxford 1947) 8-9, 89-92. For the cista Rdvil in the British Museum, seeG. Battaglia Bordenache, Corpusdi cisteprenestine (forthcoming),no. 29. Thereisa differencein the waythe mythologicalfigureswereexecuted,and the techniqueusedfor the local Vanth and Charun; seealso the contrastin compositionbetweenthe unified pattern of the scenewith the Trojan prisonersand the choppysequenceof pairsof figuresin the "historical",local scene:Dohrn (supran. 1) 207, 209; cf. supran. 25. Eteoclesand Polyneices:supra n. 25. 38. Cf. the shock expressedby a Greek at the brutal stoning of the prisoners,the men of Caere capturedat the battle of Alalia (Corsica),ca. 535 Bc (Hdt. 1, 167). For crueltyto prisonersin Greece,seeP. Ducrey, Le traitementdes prisonniersde guerre dansla Graceantique (Paris 1968) 201-215, 339. In the Iliad, thisscene(whichtakesup only two lines:23.175-176)represents an exampleof cruel and unusual punishment.On the non-Greek, Etruscan taste for cruel, bloody

scenes, seeF. Poulsen,Etruscantombpaintings(Oxford 1922)12-13,and Beazley, EVP, loc. cit. In Etruscangemsof the fourth centurythere appearsa new theme, that of dismemberment,"which reflectsEtruscantasteor practice":J. Boardman, review of W. Martini, Die etruskischeRingsteinglyptik(Heidelberg 1971), in Gnomon45 (1973) 637. Accordingto A. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca(Graz 1975)217218, ancientchargesthat the Etruscanshad a crueland bloodthirstycharacterare contradictedby their reputationfor imbecillitas;suchchargesprobablystemmedin the first place from their religiouspractices. 39. M. Pallottino, "Uno specchiodi Tuscaniae la leggendaetruscadi

Tarchon", RAL 6 (1930) 49-87; The Etruscans(Bloomington1975),fig. 37; A. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca37-38; G.A. Mansuelli, SE 36 (1968) 3-6. 40. Mansuelli,op. cit. 4: this orientationdistinguished the ritual of haruspicinafrom the auguralritual. (Was Vel Satiesalso shownwith a specific orientation within the Franqois tomb?) 41. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca 159.

42. Rectangular cistafrom Praeneste in the Villa GiuliaMuseumin Rome: Mostra etrusca(Milan 1955)108,no. 362, pl. 85; R. Herbig,"Etruskische Rekruten", Charites, Studien z. Altertumswissenschaft (Bonn 1957), pl. 32; O.J. Brendel,"Two Fortunae,AntiumandPraeneste", AJA 64(1960)45if.; F. Coarelli,

in Romamediorepubblicana (Rome 1973)278-281,pls. 79-80.The absence of inscriptions makea positiveidentification difficult.Herbighad suggested it illustrated themythof Tages.Now,Coarelliaccepts Brendel's interpretation ofthe

HISTORICAL

ART

159

principalsceneas a representationof the oracleof Praeneste.We havehere,then, another sceneof local and historicalinterest.The boy is readingomens(sortes... in robore insculptae).More doubtfully, Coarelli suggests that the sceneson the two shortsidesmight refer to the story of Caeculus,the mythicalfounderof Praeneste. 43. P. Sommella, RPAA 44 (1971/ 2) 47-74. Its identification asthe tomb of Aeneasis doubted by T. Cornell, "Aeneas'arrival in Italy", LCM 2 (1977)82: "The mostlikely reconstructionisthat the Trojan legendfirst cameto theattentionof the Romans in the courseof the third century BCwhen... Roman aristocratsbeganto acquaint themselveswith Greek literature, and in particular with Greek writings that dealt with

Rome."

44. C.L. Visconti, BCAR 17 (1889) 340 if.; C. Htilsen, MDAI(R)6 (1891) 111;I.S. Ryberg,An archaeologicalrecordof Rome (London/Philadelphia 1940) 83, 145 ff., 200; F. Coarelli, "Due tombe repubblicanedall'Esquilino", Affreschi romani dalle raccohedell'Antiquariumcomunale(Rome 1976)3-11, no. 1= Roma mediorepubblicana(Rome 1973)200-208,no. 283;B. Andreae,in Helbig4II (supra n. 1) 401-403;E.T. Salmon,Samniumand the Saranires(Cambridge 1967) 141;G. Zinserling,Eirene I (1960) ! 53-187; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, L •rte romana al centro delpotere (Milan 1962) 115, pls. 114, 117;B.M. Felletti Maj, La tradizioneitalica (supra n. 19) 145-!52, pl. 18, fig. 43. 45. Felletti Maj, La tradizione italica 146-149. 46. Felletti Maj (La tradizioneitalica 150-151)pointsto the coexistence of Italic and Hellenisticelementsin both compositionand antiquarian details,and seesthe style of this historical painting as foreshadowingthe use of continuous narrativecomposition.It representsthe earliestexamplein Italy of a combination of successive episodesand emphasison the role of the protagonists,and precedes the Telephosfrieze by somefifty years.Cf. E. Courbaud, Le bas-reliefromain• reprdsentationshistoriques (Paris 1899) 196-214; Bianchi Bandinelli, L•rte romana 114. Accordingto Coarelli, Affreschi 10,a date in the first half of the third centuryBe is suggested by its style,no longercharacterizedby a contourline as in fourth-centuryexamples,but marked insteadby lively, rapid brush strokes,a macchia,as in the headsof the group in the third register;and also, in the group of soldiersin the fourth register,by the use of highlightsor lumi, probably the splendorPliny refersto (supra n. 7), an innovation introducedat the turn of the fourth centuryBC.The artisticlevelof the paintingas we seeit after cleaningseems to be considerablyhigherthan anythingknownfrom Etruria or Campania.(For an impressionof the painting before it was restored,seeSalmon, Samnium and the Saranires 115.) 47. Felletti Maj, La tradizioneitalica 156:"un suppliziomitico." Coarelli (Affreschino. 2, pl. A2) convincinglyconnectsthe crucifixionwith the triumph

(16). ThiswasthedeathCleopatra'ssuicidesparedher;onthetriumph,seesupran. 34. On crucifixion, see Ducrey (supra n. 38) 208-213. Coarelli suggeststhat the triumphwasgrantedfor a "guerraservile";but triumphswerenotgrantedfor wars against slaves(cf. Gellius, NA 5.6.20 f., Plut. Crass. 11.8) nor for civil wars. 48. M.B. Marzani, EAA 3, 565-566,s.v. "FabiusPictor"; Felletti Maj, La

tradizioneitalica 147.Coarelli,Affreschi11: FabiusPictor'sstylewaspraisedby Dionysiusof Halicarnassus (Ant. Rom., exc. 16.6), high praise,indeed,from a Greek! The temple of Saluswas dedicatedby C. Bubulcusin 303 Bc followinga Romanvictoryin the SecondSamniteWar (Val. Max. 8.14.6),and the subjectsof its paintingsevidentlyreferred to eventsof this war. For Fabius'ssignature,seeVal. Max. 8.14.6;cf. the contemporarysignature

160

LARISSA

BONFANTE

of Novios Plautos on the Roman Ficoroni cisla. On Etruscancraftmen'ssignatures in the archaic period, influenced by Greek practice, see G. Colonna, "Firme arcaichedi artefici nell'Italia centtale", MDAI(R)82 (1975) 181-192.Cf. A. Pfiffig, "Etruskische Signaturen", SA WW 304 (1976) 2, 48. Signaturesare found only on Praenestine mirrors and the Ficoroni cisla, never so far on Etruscan mirrors: D. Rebuffat-Emmanuel• Le miroir dlrusque (Rome 1974) 634; reviewed by L.

Bonfante, AJA 80 (1976) 215. For signatureson later Praenestinestrigils,seeE.

Fernique,[7ludesur Praenesle, villedu Latium(Paris1880)203:cf. L. Bonfante Warren, AJA 68 (1964) 41, pl. 16;Roma mediorepubblicana(Rome 1973)283,fig. 21. In Etruria and Latium (even in the earlier period, when a "cultural snobbism" and Greek influenceprevailed),namesof aristocratswho commissioned,gave,and received objects as gifts are more frequent than names of slave or lower-class craftsmenwho made them (Colonna 181, 191). Cf. $. Mazzarino, [lpensiero slorico romano (supra n. 11) II 1,322: R. BianchiBandinelli,,,trcheologiae cullura (Milan 1961) 172-188. 49. M. Torelli, Elogia (supra n. 10). 50. Polybius 6.53.

51. M. Torelli,Elogia57;id., "Beziehungen zwischen GriechenundEtruskern im 5. und 4. Jh. v.u.Z.", in HellenischePoleis,ed. E. Welskopf(Berlin 1974)II 823-840•esp.834-835;and "Contributo dell'archeologiaalia storiasociale:l'Etruria e l'Apulia", D,,trch 4-5 (1970-71) 437. 52. Torelli, "Beziehungen",834-835; Felletti Maj, La lradizione ilalica (supra n. 19) 43 ff. and passim. 53. F. Coarelli, "I1 sepolcrodegli Scipioni", DArch 6 (1972) 102,thinks its dateand the subjectsrepresentedmakeit likely that it wasthe family tomb of oneof the Etruscan generalswho took part in the wars against Rome. For the wars betweenRome and Etruria, seeM. $ordi, Irapporli romano-cerili e l'origine della civilassinesuffragio(Rome 1960),and W.V. Harris, Rome in Elruria and Umbria (Oxford 1971) 47 if. For the Samnite wars, see M. Sordi, Roma e i Sannili nel quario secoloa.C. (Bologna 1969); Salmon (supra n. 44) 187-279. 54. For the style, cf. supra nn. 7, 36, 45. For eclectic tendenciesin contemporaryItalic and Roman art, seeR. Bianchi Bandinelli,"Romana, Arte", EAA 6 (1965) 948. Local color in the dressof the fourth century Bc: Bonfante, Etruscan dress(supra n. 16) 39, 53, 65; cf. supra n. 45. 55. For the historicalcharacterof Roman art, see$. Mazzarino, Ilpensiero (supran. 11)60, 102-4;Coarelli,,,tffreschi(supran. 44) 18;O.J. Brendel,reviewof Ryberg, Riles (supran. 17), in AJP78 (1957) 301-307.Mansuelli, SE36 (1968) 18: Roman historicalart dealswith real-life situations.Only in the last centuryof the Republicdo the Hellenisticidealsof charismaticpower and the mystiqueof victory bring other, "supernatural"elementsinto thesedepictions.See Felletti Maj, La lradizione ilalica 59-64, esp. 64, on the Italic tendencyto representactual events, and the preferenceof Romanart for peacefulscenes, evenwhencelebratingmilitary victories.

56. G. BattagliaBordenache,Corpusdi cisleprenesline(forthcoming),no. 7 (listingpreviousbibliography)•B. Felletti Maj, La lradizioneilalica 77-78. 57. The late date I once suggested(ca. 100 Bc: L. Bonfante Warren, "A Latin triumph on a Praenestinecista",AJA (1964)35-42)is no longertenable.Such a date was, in fact, basedon comparisonswith the Fran,coistomb (then datedin the first centurysc: supra n. 3). The classicalappearanceof the beardedpriest,with

HISTORICAL

ART

161

long toga and capite velato, so strikingly reminiscentof the figure of Aeneas sacrificing on the Ara Pacis, can now be understood in the context of the classicizingtaste and the revival of Etrusco-Italic art under renewedGreek influence in the fourth century, when the production of cistae began. (Cf. Messerschmidt's comparisonof the figureson Vel Saties'mantleto dancingCuretes on Augustan monuments: Vulci (supra n. 1) 133-134.) The productionofcistaeandmirrorsendsaroundtheendof the third century BC:J.D. Beazley,"The world of the Etruscan mirror", JHS 69 (1949) 1 if.; G.A. Mansuelli, SE 29 (1948) 92, and SE 36 (1968) 3-19. 58. Bonfante Warren (supra n. 57) 37, n. 13. 59. Ryberg, Rites (supran. 17) 21 if., callsit "the first representationof a religiousrite that can in any sensebe termed Roman". 60. A. Alf61di, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1965)45, n. 2; G.K. Galinsky, Aeneas, Sicily, and Rome (Princeton 1969) 34. 61. Seeworks citedsupran. 56, for surveysof the varioustheories.Felletti Maj, La tradizione italica 79: "The original model was a local monument with 'historical' subject." 62. H. K/ihler, Rom undseine Welt (Munich 1960)50 if., fig. 28, pl. 23. G. Battaglia Bordenache,supra n. 56. 63. The violent contrast between the dignified god and priest and the awkard "actor"remindsus of Plautus'prologue,in whichthe play is describedasa tragi-comedybecauseit includesboth the awe-inspiringgods of tragedy and the runningslavesof comedy.For the short mantle of the triumphator, which is neither triumphal toga nor militarypaludamentum, comparethe mantle on the statuetteof an actor: J. Heurgon, The daily life of the Etruscans(London 1964),fig. 17. As G. Battaglia Bordenachesuggests,even the two youths riding on horsebackmight representthe twins born to Alcmena,the anachronisminvolvedherebeingno more shockingthan in the play. 64. For theatrical scenesand stage costumeson Praenestinecistae and Etruscan mirrors of the fourth and third centuriesBC,seeD.K. Hill, "Two bronze cistaefrom Praeneste",JWA G 35 (1977) 13, n. 24; M. Sapelli, "Temi letterari nei graffiti prenestini",Acme 28 (1975) 221-250,esp. 238-241(on a parody of a myth, based perhaps on Sophocles'satyr play): L. Bonfante, Etruscan dress(Baltimore 1975)40, 54, 121, 129;and ead., "An Etruscanmirror with 'spiky garland' in the J. Paul Getty Museum",J. Paul Getty Museum Journal,forthcoming. For Hellenistic urns, see F.H. Pairault Massa, "Ateliers d'urnes et histoire de Volterra", in Caratteri dell•llenismo nelle urne etrusche,Suppl. I: Prosperriva(Florence 1977) 160, nn. 145-154, esp. 145.

Additional

Note

The presentarticle was already in proof when the editor of this journal kindly brought to my attention the reprint of Andreas Alf61di's Der frt2hrdimische Reiteradel und seineEhrenabzeichen(1979). In the Preface•Alf61di takes note of the restorationof the frescofrom the Esquilinegrave(pp. 149f. above),and accepts its new date, now definitely shown to be the first half of the third century, by F. Coarelli, in the catalogof the exhibit, Roma mediorepubblicana(1973). At the

162

LARISSA

BONFANTE

same time he defendshis own interpretation, in the original edition of this work (1952) 50-51, of the two principal figures depictedon the fragment, which was ignored by Coarelli. According to Alf/51di,M. Fanio (there is no room for S[tai] F[ilio] in the inscription)and Q. Fabio are both Romans. M. Fannius is twice representedbeing decoratedby his commandinggeneral, Q. Fabius, once in the presenceof a cheeringcivilian throng, or conrio,and again beforehis soldiers.His uniform (yellow subligaculum,mantle, leatheror coppergreaves,plumedhelmet) identifieshim asa Roman officer, rather than a $amnite;and his important role in the sceneshows that the tomb belonged, not to the Fabii, but to the old Roman family of the Fannil. This interpretationwould explain certain strangefeatures noted in my article: the civilian dressof the spectators,and the gestureof M. Fannius (certainly not one of submission).It doesnot greatly affect the arguments of this article. The triumphal and funerary context remains;the time would still be that of the Samnite Wars; and even if the tomb is not that of the Fabii, its decoration

still allows us to imagine the picturesof the Temple of Salus of 304 BC.

FLAVIANS

ON THE

CAPITOL

On December18,AD69, anticipatingVitellius'abdication,FlaviusSabinus and a numberof othersupportersof Vespasian's causeoccupieda fortified positionon the CapitolineHill. The next day it wasbesiegedand captured by the Vitellian soldiers,and as a result of their assaultthe temple of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus was burnt down. It is universally accepted that the Flavians were besiegedon the south-westernsummitof the Capitoline,the Capitolium proper;I believe that this is a mistake, and argue below that they were on the northern summit, the arx. It isa matter of little significancefor the historyof the civil war itself, but that is not the only thing worth our attention. There are severalgood reasonsfor gettingthis detail right:firstly, Tacitus'narrative representsa substantialproportion of our evidencefor the topographyof the Capitol; secondly,our interpretationof the story of Domitian's escape has consequences for the history of Isiac worship in Rome; thirdly (and perhapsmost important), there is a methodologicalpoint at issue.The misapprehension,if I am right in thinking that it is one, derivesfrom a failure to recognisewhereTacitus is writing oratorio genere.The purpose of this article is thus to point out one particular example of a phenomenon which is not sufficientlyallowed for by scholars--theall-pervadingeffects on historiographyof a rhetoricaleducationsharedby the historianand his readers alike.

Kenneth Wellesley, with his translation of the Histories, his commentary on Book III and his narrative history of'the long year', hasdone more than anyone to make the civil war of AD 69 intelligible.Although I frequentlydisagreewith him by namein what follows,I hopehe will accept that as the implied complimentit is:for only he hasbeenpreparedto argue what everyoneelseevidently takes for granted.I

Having shown his hand too soonat Vitellius' abortive abdication,Flavius Sabinuswascompelledto defendhispositionby force:'Sabinusre trepida, quod tutissimume praesentibus,arcem Capitolii insedit.'Wellesleytranslates the last phraseas 'he occupiedthe Capitoline Hill', and comments: a strangebut not unusual expression:strictly the Arx is the northeasternsummit, and the Capitol the south-westernsummit,of the hill as a whole; so correctlyA xi 23,4 Capitolio et arce Romana; Livy i 33,1 Capitolium atque arcem.2

163

164

T.P.

WISEMAN

FIGURE

1

Ancient Capitol with Forum and Adjacent Areas

If theexpression isreallynotunusual,onemightexpectparallelsto becited of its usein the way imputedto Tacitushere.I doubtif any suchparallels exist.We cannot,I think,takethewordasmeaningsimply'astronghold'in generalterms,as when Sabinus'envoyat 70,2 is madeto complainof Vitellius' retreat 'in Palatium, in ipsam imperii arcem'; in a Capitoline context, as here, 'arx' shouldmean the stronghold,the citadelpar excellence, and any other sensewould be impossiblymisleading.As Wellesley

rightlyobserves, thearx isthenorth-eastern summit;theonlyreasonfor supposing that that was not what Tacitusmeantherewouldbe if his subsequent narrativeprovedit to be impossible. But doesit? At 69,4 Domitian and Sabinus'sonsare brought in Capitolium; at

70,2 Sabinus'envoyMartialisrefersto thesiegeof theCapitolium;andat 71,1 he returnsin Capitolium.Althoughthe word 'Capitolium'is frequentlyusedto distinguish the south-western summitfrom the arx, it equallyoftenrefersto thehillasa wholewithoutspecifying onesummitor the other.3 If Tacitus meant what he saidwhen he referredto arx Capitolii

FLAVIANS

ON

THE

FIGURE

CAPITOL

165

2

PIAZZA VENEZIA

I•PERIAL I MUSEO DEL RISORGIMENTO

.SCALA DELL'ARCE CAPITOLINA SS LUCA MARTINA

SURVIVIN.G"•

'INSULt"

GIUSEPPE DEI FALEGNAMI ARCH

OF

SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS

CORDONATA

VIA DELL•ARCO DI SETTIMIO

SALITA DELLE TRE PIL

SEVERO

TEMPIO

S MARIA DELLA

?ONSOLAZIONE

S OMOBONO

0

Metres

Modern Capitol and Adjacent Areas

150

166

T.P.

WISEMAN

at 69,3, then the secondusagemustbe inferredhere;if not, asthe communis opinio holds, the first is equally possible.Becauseof the ambiguity, these passagesprove nothing either way. It is the detailed narrative

of the Vitellians'

attack in section 71 on

which the argument must concentrate.Here• if anywhere,Tacitus would surelyhave avoidedambiguityand specifiedexactlywhereaboutson the hill the attack was launched.And what does he say?That the Vitellians attacked usquead primas Capitolinae arcisfores (71,1). Wellesleytranslates'asfar as the outergateof the CapitolineHill', and makesit clearin his commentarythat he takes it as referring to the south-westernsummit in particular:'the first or outer gate of the sacredarea' (sc. of the templeof Iuppiter Optimus Maximus).4 Again, the innocent reader proteststhat violenceis being done to Tacitus' language:why not believehim when he saysarx? The description of the attack beginsas follows (71,1): vixdum regressoin Capitolium Martiale furens miles aderat, nullo duce, sibi quisque auctor. cito agmine forum et imminentia foro templa praetervectierigunt aciem per adversumcollem usquead primasCapitolinaearcisfores.erantantiquitusporticusin latereclivi dextrae subeuntibus,in quarum tectum egressisaxis tegulisque Vitellianos

obruebant.

Accordingto Wellesley,the Vitellians camefrom the Castra Praetoriafi via the 'Clivus Argentarius' or the Argiletum; the temples imminentiaforo which they passedwere thereforethose of Concord and Saturn, respectively on their right and left astheywent up the ClivusCapitolinustowards the south-western

summit. 6 But it was from the Palatium

itself that the

soldiers had attacked Sabinus and his followers the previous day (70,2 inde), and the fact that Martialis had to leave Vitellius by a back entrance to avoid their hostility (70,4) clearly shows that the Palatium was their base.At leastsincethe time of Nero therehad beena cohorsquae in Palatio stationemagebat, in whosepresencethe military ratification of each new emperor regularly took placepro gradibusPalatii; there are good reasons to supposethat the Domitianic halls betweenthe Horrea Agrippianaand the Castor temple were its quarters, replacing an earlier guard-house installed by Claudius in the 'vestibule'built by his predecessor. ? The natural assumption, then, is that on this occasiontoo the Vitellian soldiers issued from the Palatium, and that the temples imminentiaforo were thoseof Castor, Saturn and Concordin that order. In that case,it doesnot follow that theyattackedup the ClivusCapitolinus.If they camefrom the Palatium, an attack on the arx at or nearthe way that led up betweenthe Concordtempleand the Tullianum would equallywell fulfill the necessarycondition of their having gone past the temples overlookingthe Forum. And their chargeup the slopeoppositethem ('per

FLAVIANS

ON THE

CAPITOL

167

adversumcollem') is more easily intelligibleif they attackedfrom the south-east,at right anglesto the main slopeof the Capitolineas a whole. The clivus to which Tacitus refers,with itsporticus in latere dextrae subeuntibus,is identified as the Clivus Capitolinus; Wellesleyeven prints the word 'clivus'in the text with a capitalinitial, asif it werea propername.

But theevidencefor porticoesalongtheClivusCapitolinus,supposedly put up by the censorsof 174 BC, is very uncertain indeed. In a desperately corrupt passage(XLI 27,7), Livy has this: ß . . et clivom Capitolinum silice sternendumcuraverunt [sc. censores],et porticum ab aede Saturni in Capitolium ad senaculumet super id curiam. Whether or not Coarelli is right to infer simplyaporticus adsenaculumet curiam (which he identifieswith the republicanarcadebetweenthe Saturn templeand the imperialRostra),8it is certainthat no sensecanbe madeof the receivedtext without substantialemendation.Whatevertopographical descriptionof theporticus Livy gave,the fact that he gaveone at all seems to suggestthat it was not coterminouswith the Clivus Capitolinus he had just mentioned. So Tacitus' clivus cannot be identified by the porticus. The Clivus Capitolinusis certainlya possibility,but sotoo, I think, isthe slopeup from the Forum to the level of the Tullianum ('carcerimminensforo'),9 which is clearlyvisibletoday in the pavingof the AugustanSacraVia underthe arch of SeptimiusSeverus.Where exactly that slopebecamethe stepsthat led to the arx, and whetherthe portico continuedalongsidethe stepsas well, we do not know.•0 Presumably not even the enragedVitellians would have chargedin an aciesup a stair. But if we supposea slopingstreetwith a

portico,runningasfar asa gate(primaefores)at thebottomof thestepsup the sideof the hill, Tacitus' descriptionseemsto work perfectlywell. The porticocouldhavebeensituatedjust southof theTullianum, parallelto the stepsand pronaos of the Concordtemple, runningfrom the cross-roads with the 'ClivusArgentarius'to the foot of the cliff--that is, underneathS.

Giuseppedei Falegnami.The present-daystaircasedisguises the topography completely;a better idea of the gradient of the proposedclivus-though not, of course,its actuallevel--may be had from photographsof the nineteenth-century Via dell'Arcodi Settimio Severo.• Sucha portico would have formeda sort of projectionfrom the lower defencesof the arx ('in prominentemporticum', 71,2), with easyaccessto its roof from above the primae fores. The narrative continues(71,2):

neque illis manusnisi gladiisarmatae, et arcesseretormenta aut missiliatelaIongumvidebatur;facesin prominentemporticumiecere et sequebanturignemambustasque Capitolii forespenetrassent, ni

168

T.P.

WISEMAN

Sabinusrevulsasundiquestatuas,decoramaiorum,in ipsoadituvice muri obiecisset.

The Capitoliiforesare evidentlythe sameasthe Capitolinaearcisfores of 71,1, but the ambiguityof the word 'Capitolium'(p. 164above)meansthat no inference can be drawn from this piece of harmlessvariatio. It is normally assumedthat the statuesusedby Sabinus'men as a barricade werethoseof thearea Capitolinain front of thetempleof Iuppiter Optimus Maximus; but the tacit premise that there were no honorary statues anywhereelsemust be rejected.The templeson the arx summit--Juno Moneta, Concord, etc.--could surely have provided enough for the purpose.

The next section(71,3) is the most important one: tum diversos Capitolii aditus invadunt iuxta lucum asyli et qua Tarpeia rupescentum gradibusaditur. improvisa utraque vis; propior atque acrior per asylumingruebat.necsistipoterant scandentes per coniunctaaedificia, quae ut in multa pace in altum edita solum Capitolii aequabant.

Here again, Capitolii aditus and solurn Capitolii are vague expressions whichcannotprove anythingeitherway. On the orthodoxview, theymay be taken in their strict senseas referring to the south-westernsummit;if on the other hand, as I believe,Tacitus was satisfiedthat he had alreadymade it clear where exactly the Flavians were, they refer merely to the hill in general, and the reader knows which part of it is meant. The crux of the problem lies not there but in the descriptionsof the diversi aditus themselves.

Where was the lucusasyli?The Asylum itself was inter duoslucos-that is, in the 'saddle'betweenthe two summits,acrosswhich it waspossible to go (as Metellus Nepos went in November 57) from the Forum to the CampusMartius.12But it wasalso identifiedas one of the two luci themselves,as in Ovid (Fasti III 431) and asTacitus'phraseimplieshere.Was it the wood on the southslopeof the arx summit,or that on the north slopeof the Capitolium proper? Livy tries to tell us (I 8,5), but the scribeshave frustrated

him:

locum, qui nuncsaeptusdescendentibus inter duoslucosest,asylum aperit. As Wellesleyrightly remarks, escendentibusis a more likely readingin a topographicaldescriptionl3--butwasit on the left or on the right 'asyou go up'? The crucial word has fallen out. WellesleyrestoresLivy's text by arguing from Tacitus, taking as proved the very point we are trying to establish;so evenif his readingTM happensto be right, it would not helpusto

FLAVIANS

ON THE

CAPITOL

169

decidethe Tacitean problem. The lucusasyli attack is equally explicable whichever

summit the Flavians

were on.

Where were the Tarpeia rupesand the Hundred Steps?It is natural to supposethat the former phraseis a Taciteanvariationfor the morenormal saxum Tarpeiurn,and the TarpeianRock is usuallyplacedat the southern

extremity of the Capitoline,overlookingthe Vicus Iugariusat the place now occupiedby the Piazza di S. Maria della Consolazione.For four reasons, however, I believe that this idea is erroneous.

(1) There are two passageswhere Dionysius of Halicarnassusexplicitly describesthe Rock as overlookingthe Forum. (2) Festus' article on saxurn Tarpeiurn, though mutilated, clearly impliesthat it was not part of the Capitolium proper. (3) Dio's account of the fall of Sejanusseemsto suggestthat the Rock was above the Scalae Gemoniae.

(4) The annalistictradition on the trial of Manlius Capitolinus is, I think, unintelligibleunlessthe Rock was at the northernendof the hill and not visible from the Tiber bank near the Pons Aemilius. 15

It is true that Caesar'splannedtheatre,later completedasthe Theatre of Marcellus, was to have been built 'Tarpeio monti accubans',but rnons Tarpeiusis a much more generalphrase,referring to the Capitoline as a whole;16and in any case,the Theatre of Marcellus is a long way from S. Maria della Consolazione.Despiteconstantrepetition to the contrary, the saxum Tarpeium was evidently on the arx summit, somewhereabove the Tullianum.

This conclusionrules out the identification of the centurngradus with the flight of steps,known from the Severanmarbleplan, leadingup to the south-westernextremity of the Capitolinefrom outsidethe Porta Carmentalis.17If Tacitus was really referring to the Tarpeian Rock, then the 'hundredsteps'musthavebeenan ascentto the arx eitherfrom the Forum (betweenthe Tullianum and the Concord temple•8) or from the 'Clivus Argentarius' (north of the Tullianum). The view that the Flavians were besiegedon the arx is inconsistentwith the former alternative--since ex hypothesi that was the way they had just blocked with statues--but not with the latter.

Filippo Coarelli, in his splendid ArchaeologicalGuide to Rome, suggests that therewere only threepointsof accessto the entireCapitoline --the Clivus Capitolinus, the ScalaeGemoniae betweenConcord and the Tullianum,and the stepsdown to the Porta Carmentails.That is evidently a false inferencefrom this very passage(Tacitus does not say that the Vitellians took the only way up), and seemsto ignorenot only the staircase under the Tabularium to the Veiovis temple but also the routes from the Forum and the Campusattestedby the episodeof Milo and Metellusin 57 BC.19SOthereis no apriori argumentagainstpositinga flightof stepsfrom the north-easternside of the arx, leadingdown towards the gate that openedon to th'eVia Flaminia.The present-day Scaladell'ArceCapitolina

170

T.P.

WISEMAN

roughly representsthe suggested line of descent:from the porch of the Frati di S. Maria in Aracoeli down to the paved area in front of the Museo del Risorgimento, it consistsof 113 steps. Tacitus' credit can still be maintained:if the Flavianswere,ashe says, on the arx, then the Vitellians first attackedthe obviousway, straightup between Concord and the Tullianum,20and then, frustrated by Sabinus' improviseddefences,mounted simultaneousassaultsfrom two opposite points (diversiaditus)--the Asylum grovejust south of the arx, and the centurngradus to the north-east. Wellesley assumesthat the party who 'climbed up through the adjoining buildings' did so at the fourth point, which he, following the orthodox view, would put on the north (better NNW) sideof the Iuppitertemple summit, facing the Campus behind the rear of the temple itself.21 This idea couldeasilybe transposedto fit the arx theory,if we took it that Tacitus was referringto buildingslike the partially survivinginsulajust north of the Cordonataand the stepsto S. Maria in Aracoeli;22but it seems to me more likely that the detachmentclimbingup throughthe buildings was the one basedon the Asylum grove, and that the buildingsin altum edita were therefore at or near the 'saddle' between the two summits. That

was where Teia lived (a fille de joie of Propertius' acquaintance),and perhaps Ovid too.23 The republicancity-wall, followingthe natural contourof the rock, evidentlymadea deepre-entrantbetweenthe summitson the Campusside, underneath

what

is now the Cordonata

and the Salita

delle Tre Pile. 24

Building up againstthe wall, originallyforbiddenfor reasonsof security, waspermittedafter 88 Be when the locapublicain circuituCapitolii were soldto private buyersto raisemoney for the Treasury? the 'long peace'to which Tacitus refers must have resulted in this valuable building space beingexploitedall round the hill? not only reducingthe wall's effectiveness(much to the Vitellians' advantage)but alsonarrowingthe re-entrant angleon the Campusside,as buildingsup againstthe south-westslopeof the arx and the north slopeof the Capitolium oppositeapproachedeach other on either side of the road leading down from the 'saddle' to the CampusMarflus? This proximity must be borne in mind as we read on. Tacitus continues (71,4):

hic ambigitur,ignemtectisobpugnatores iniecerintan obsessi, quae crebriorfama, quo nitentesac progressos depellerent.inde lapsus ignis in porticusadpositasaedibus;mox sustinentes fastigium aquilaeveterelignotraxereflammamalueruntque. sicCapitolium clausisforibus indefensumet indireptum conflagravit.

Hic,'atthispoint',clearly identifies thetectatowhich thedefenders setfire

asthoseoftheconiuncta aedificia justmentioned. If, aswehavesuggested,

FLAVIANS

ON THE

CAPITOL

171

thesebuildingswere near the Asylumgrovebelowthe arx, it is easyto see how the fire spread to the buildingsoppositeand thenceto the porticoes around the Iuppiter temple.Wellesleyrightly identifiestheseasthe colonnadesoriginally set up by Scipio Nasica in 159 BC(no doubt rebuilt by Catulusor Augustusafter the fire of 83 Bc),and assumesthat it wasbehind the temple, on the north (i.e. NNW) side,that they caughtfire.28But it is equally possible,as I hope I have made clear, that the fire reachedthem from the north-east, having sweptthrough the homesof thosewho dwelt 'between the two groves'. Finally, the fire caught the temple itself. Here Tacitus usesCapitoliurn in its strictestsense,the context and the adjectivalphrasesremoving any possibleambiguity. The descriptionof the temple is of the greatest interest: the doors were locked, it was undefended and unplundered. According to Wellesley,Tacitus believed'that the defendersand attackers were driven back from the temple[sc. by the flames],and that there was consequentlyno 1ooting'29--butis not the whole senseof the passagethat the temple was never defended,that it was not part of the fight at all and so its burning was all the more terrible?That seemsto me to be what an uncommitted reader would understand Tacitus to mean; at any rate, I think it is just as possibleas the meaninginferred by Wellesley. Tacitus comments on the disaster in 72,1:

id facinus post conditamurbem luctuosissimumfoedissimumquerei publicaepopuli Romani accidit,nullo externohoste,propitiis,si per moresnostrosliceret, deis,sedemIovis Optimi Maximi auspicatoa maioribuspignusimperii conditam,quam non Porsennadeditaurbe neque Galli capta temerare potuissent,furore principum exscindi. arserat et ante Capitolium civili bello, sedfraude privata; nuncpalam obsessum,palam incensum, quibus armorum causis, quo tantae cladis pretio? stetit profecto dum pro patria bellavimus. Here we must again look out for the ambiguity of'Capitolium', and this time also for Tacitus' exploitation of it for rhetorical effect. He moves from sedes Iovis O.M. to Capitoliurn, which remains the understood subjectin the brief historyof the templethat follows(siturnest, 72,3) until the final sentence:'ea tunc aedescremabatur.'30But though he is using 'Capitolium' to mean the temple,the ambiguityof the word and his own detei'minationto emphasisethe horror of the event would, I submit, have enabledhim to slip in palarn obsessurnevenif the templeitself had never been besieged:the Capitoliurn in its wider sensehad been besieged(and burnt too, for that matter), so Tacitus could achievehis highly-wrought sententia without actually resorting to a falsehood. We shouldneverforget the sophisticationof the Romansin matters of rhetoric. Tacitus was writing for an audiencethat had beenbroughtup on it and could recogniseand appreciateits finer points. Like Cicero's

172

T. P. WISEMAN

Scaevola,3t he expectedthem to be ableto distinguishbetweenpersuasive eloquenceand literal truth: satis id est magnum quod potes praestare,ut in iudiciis ea causa quamcumque tu [sc. Crassus] dicis melior et probabilior esse videatur,ut in contionibuset in sententiisdicendisad persuadendum tua plurima valeat oratio, denique ut prudentibus diserte, stultis etiam vere videare dicere.

In this case,havingtold his readersthat the Flavianswere on the arx and that the templewas not their base,he couldafford to exploit the ambiguity of the word 'Capitolium' for rhetorical effect without fear of misleading them. They wereprudentes,and understoodthe technique. It is of courseopento the defendersof the communisopinio to deny this, and insist on the literal meaning of Capitolium [i.e. the temple]... palam obsessurn. But they shouldrecognisethat in sodoingtheyare trying to preserveTacitus' accuracy in an emotive passageat the expenseof denying it in his narrative. For it cannot be too strongly emphasisedthat Tacitus specificallysaysarx Capitolii at 69,3 and Capitolina arx at 71,1, and that no other detail of his narrative

of the Vitellians'

attack is incon-

sistentwith the natural senseof the phrase. Furthermore, in 78,2 Tacitus recordsthe criticismslevelledagainst Sabinus for having failed to hold 'munitissimamCapitolii arcem'; Wellesleytranslatesit 'the strongly-fortified Capitoline Hill'32--but that is not what Tacitus says.

The argumentI havesetout hereis not new.In essentials it goesback more than half a century,to an articlepublishedby G.A.T. Daviesand H.J. Rose in 1923,33unfortunately in a little-known journal which ceasedpublication not long afterwards.34 It is referred to with approval in Platner and Ashby,35 but otherwise has made no impact at all, despite the wit and cogencywith which the authorsrevealed'how audaciouslythe supporters of the receivedview were prepared to manipulate the Latin language';if they had been able to read Wellesley'sdescriptionof arx Capitolii as 'a strangebut not unusualexpression',they might have had somethingto say about English too.36 It seemedbetter to repeatand expand the argumentsof Davies and Rose rather than merely draw attention to their article, both becauseof the progressof topographicalstudiessincethey wrote, and becauseat one point I think theymadean unnecessary concession whichcomplicates,and weakens, their case.

After his sketch of the history of the Iuppiter temple, Tacitus describesthe panic of Sabinusand his men at 73,1, and then goeson with 'inrumpunt Vitelliani' (73,2). According to the orthodox view, the Vitellians broke into the area Capitolina around the temple;Davies and Rose were preparedto acceptthis becauseof prima inruptione at 74,1, where

FLAVIANS

ON THE

CAPITOL

173

Tacitus describesthe escapeof Domitian. 37But does his narrative really require it?

Domitianus prima inruptione apud aedituum occultatus,sollertia liberti lineo amictu turbae sacricolarum immixtus ignoratusque, apud Cornelium Primium paternum clientem iuxta Velabrum delituit. ac potientererum patre, disiectoaeditui contubernio,modicum sacellum Iovi Conservatori aramque posuit casussuosin marmore expressam;mox imperium adeptus Iovi Custodi templum ingens sequein sinu dei sacravit. It is generally assumedthat the aedituuswas the guardian of Iuppiter's temple--but why? If, as I maintain, the reader has throughout beenled to understandthat the Flavians were on the arx, the vicinity of the Iuppiter temple is not wherehe expectsDomitian to be hiding. Only by accepting the orthodox

view can one understand

Tacitus to mean 'the caretaker

of

the temple'? Davies and Rose made things too hard for themselves. If there is no expectationin the reader'smind that Tacitus meansone aedituus rather than another (except that, whichever temple he looked after, he lived on the arx), the lineusamictus in the next phrasemight even suggestto him that the personreferredto wasthe caretakerof Isis'temple; however,Tacitus could have specifiedit if he had meant that, and the fact that it was not the aedituusbut a freedmanwho suggested the Isiac disguise perhapscounts against the idea. In Suetonius' shorter narrative the reader might well infer that Iuppiter's aedituus was meant:

irrumpentibusadversariiset ardente templo apud aedituum clam pernoctavit,ac maneIsiaci celatushabitu interquesacrificulosvariae superstitionis... latuit... But Suetonius' account, despite the verbal resemblancessuggestinga common source,is notoriouslyinconsistentwith that of Tacitus: he makes Domitian stay overnight with the aedituus,and then escapein his Isiac disguisestraight to the Transtiberine house of the mother of one of his schoolfellows,whereas in Tacitus Domitian escapesin disguiseto the houseof CorneliusPrimus in the Velabrum, and evidentlyspendsthe night there before presentinghimselfto the Flavian leadersthe next day (86,3).39 Whatever mental picture Suetoniushad of the hiding-placeon the Capitol, it clearly cannot be usedto convictTacitus of self-contradiction. Wellesley, however, not only makes a bold attempt to weld the two versionsinto one, but in the courseof it evendeniesthe very possibilitythat therewasa templeof Isison eithersummitof the Capitoline.40It istrue that there were periodic'purges'of the Egyptian ritesbetweenthe late Republic and Tiberius, in which the shrinesof Isis and Serapiswere knocked down

174

T.P.

WISEMAN

or their priestsexpelled;4• but it is quite misleadingto speak in general terms, as Wellesleydoes,of'the disfavourwith which the worship of Isis wasviewedofficially in the periodfrom Sulla to Vespasian'.The fluctuations of'official' attitudesincludethe Triumvirs' proposalto build a temple in 43 13c,and the actualbuildingof thegreatlseum in the CampusMartius, perhaps by the Egyptophile emperor Gaius.42 Wellesley'smore specific argument, that Isis would certainly not have been allowed on the Capitol, 'the national shrineof Rome', is no more compelling.The Egyptian gods were Capitolio expulsi in 58 13c, yet when a swarm of bees settled ominouslyon the Capitol ten yearslater, sacrificesto Isis wereagainbeing performed there. The shrineswere razed again at public order; but if the cult'spopularity had brought it back once,it coulddo soagain. Augustus insistedin 28 that Isiac ritesshouldbe held outsidethepomerium,but even in those post-Actiumyears,when thingsEgyptian were naturally out of favour, they still managedto get back into the city: in 21 Agrippa had to enforcethe rule yet again.43In the face of that kind of record, it would be rash indeedto argue that there could not have beena shrineto Isis on the Capitol in AD 69. 'Evidence allegedly in favour of the theory (CIL I 1034; VI 2248) is Republican' and therefore predatesthe prohibition.44But though this is probablytrue of the first of theseepigraphicalreferences to Isis Capitolina, the secondis a very different matter. A marble altar bearing the name [ V]olusius[C]aesario sacerdoslsidis Capitoline,it wasindeedincludedby

Lommatzschin CIL 12,but only on the non-epigraphical groundsthat it must beearlierthan the prohibitionof 58 BC:45to arguefrom its supposedly Republican date that it was earlier is therefore simply circular, a peririo principii. In fact, the use of marble and the priest'scognomen(derived from 'Caesar') make a date before 58 13cin the highestdegreeunlikely, and the rediscoveryof the inscription has duly confirmed its imperial date.46 There is also a third inscription, not mentioned by Wellesley--a dedication to Isis Frugifera which was preservedfor centuriesin the church of S. Maria in Aracoeli. That church occupies the arx summit of the Capitoline. Moreover, there was until 1542 an obelisk next to it, which would be appropriate to an Isiac shrine? Both inscription and obelisk could have beenbrought to S. Maria in Aracoeli from elsewhere,but there is no compellingreasonto supposethat theywere.48Giventhe independent evidencefor the existenceof Isis Capitolina underthe Empire, the simplest hypothesisis to supposethat the northernsummit of the hill wasthe siteof her temple. In fact, a positionon the arx would be a very appropriateone for the Egyptiangoddess--worthyof her majesty,but savingthe scruples of the conservatives by being,in the strictlytechnicaldefinition,not part of the urbs proper.49 It follows, therefore, that the a priori argument on which Wellesley baseshis entire reconstructionof Domitian's escape--the supposedimpossibility of an Isiac processionfrom the Capitol--will not stand up. As

FLAVIANS

ON THE

CAPITOL

175

Tacitus saysand Suetoniusimplies,the trick with the Isiac disguisecame before Domitian's arrival at a 'safe house'--whether in the Velabrum or acrossthe Tiber--and not, as Wellesley'scombination of the two accounts hasit, after reachingthe houseof CorneliusPrimus.5øThe inconsistency of Tacituswith Suetoniuscannotbe reconciledafter all. More important, the evidencewhich proves that an Isiac processionwas possiblemay also suggestthat its route wasfrom a shrineon the arx, and not from the vicinity of the Iuppiter temple.That would fit in very well with the restof Tacitus' account of the siegeof the Flavians. Finally, the chapelof Iuppiter Conservatorand the ternplumingens of Iuppiter Custos.The former, at least, was on the site of the aedituus' lodge, but that does not prove that he was the keeper of the temple of luppiter Optimus Maximus: Domitian's devotionto luppiter (Suet. Dom. 5,4 etc.), splendidly demonstratedby the restored Capitoline temple, is enoughto accountfor the identity of the divine rescuer.As we have seen, there is no needto supposethat he wasthe keeperof Isis'templeeither, so there is no question of 'ingratitude' to the goddess. 5• He was just an unspecifiedaedituus;the positionof hislodgemust be inferredfrom that of the Flavians' strongholdas describedby Tacitus, and not viceversa. As for the templeof Iuppiter Custos,whichpresumablyreplacedthe moremodest Conservatorchapel•Wellesleyidentifiesit astheconcretepodiumfoundin 1896 close to the south-eastcorner of the Iuppiter Optimus Maximus temple.52But recenttopographicalresearchprefersto attributethe podium to the Augustan temple of Iuppiter Tonans?3 or else to the aedes tensaturn.54It is, of course,impossibleto be certain:my point is that thereis no archaeologicalreason to insist that Domitian's temple was on the southwesternsummit of the hill. And so the lodge of the aedituuscould easily have been on the arx.

Three times in his narrative of the siegeof the Flavians Tacitus usesthe phrasearx Capitolii or arx Capitolina. The normalmeaningof that phrase is the north-easternsummit of the Capitoline; nevertheless,the orthodox view is that Tacitusreallymeantthe othersummit.Only if the natural sense of thephrasecanbeprovedto beimpossibleshouldweacceptthisidea,and

I submitthat that casehasnot beenproved.With thesingleexceptionof an ambiguousphrasein an emotive passagewhere Tacitus had a rhetorical point to make, the orthodox view hasno supportat all. Tacitustellsusthat the Flavianswereon the arx, and the detailsof hisnarrativeare perfectly consistent

with that.

University of Exeter England

T.P.

Wiseman

176

T.P.

WISEMAN

NOTES

1. 'Three historical puzzlesin Histories 3', CQ n.s. 6 (1956) 207-214; Tacitus, The Histories (Harmondsworth, 1964); Cornelius Tacitus, The Histories, Book III(Sydney• 1972);'Livy 1 8,5', Latomus 33 (1974) 912-5; The longyearA.D. 69 (London, 1975). These works are referred to below by the author's name and date of publication only. 2. Tac. Hist. Ill 69,3. Wellesley1964, 188(my italics);1972, 167. So too H.

Heubner, P. Cornelius Tacitus,Die Historien, Band III (Heidelberg, 1972) 166. 3. TLL Onomasticon 2 (1913) coll. 161,81-162,25; 164•10-15 ('arx et Capitolium'); 165,68-79(synonymouswith mons Capitolinus). 4. Wellesley 1964, 189; 1972, 170. 5. The significanceof the Praetorian barracks in Wellesley'snarrative (1975, 192) is not based on anything in Tacitus (III 78-9). 6. Wellesley 1964, 189 n. 2; 1972, 169 f.; 1974, 913; 1975, 192. So too Heubner,op. cit. 150(with an error on the positionof the Concordiatemple), 169. 7. Tac. Hist. I 29,2 (cf. Ill 74,2); Suet. Nero 8, Vitellius 15,2. B. Tamm, Auditorium and Palatium, Stockholm Studiesin ClassicalArchaeology2 (Stockholm, 1963) 79-84--though I disagree with her argument from the Porta Roman(ul)a at p. 83. 8. F. Coarelli, DArch 9-10 (1976-77) 349-50, cf. PP 174 (1977) 196 n. 91, with plan at p. 168: he reads'... in Capitolium ad senaculumet superid

curiam'.

We know from Festus 470L that there was no senaculum

on the

Capitol: nor wastherea curia there(the Senatemet in the templeof luppiter O. M.); 'in Capitolium' is therefore inexplicable. For the arcade, see E. Nash, Pictorial dictionary of ancient Rome (London, 1968) 1, 131 and 2, 295 (figs. 140, 1056). 9. Livy I 33,8. The Concord temple and senaculum were 'above the Graecostasis'(Varro, LL V 156) and 'betweenthe Capitol and the Forum' (Festus 470L), though the technical description of Concord was 'in foro Romano' (Fasti Verulani, Inscr. Ital. XIII 2, 161). 10. Strictly speaking,the stepswerepart of the SacraVia itself,which led to the arx (Varro, LL V 47, Festus372L); the Clivus Capitolinuswas not, as is often said,a continuationof the SacraVia, but rathera separateroutethat left it at right angleswhere 'de foro in Capitolium currusflectere incipiunt' (Cic. I/err. V 77), in front of the temple of Concord. For the juxtaposition of clivus and steps,cf. Martial V 22,5-6; ILLRP

464,4-7; Festus 318L.

11. E.g. Nash, op. tit. (n. 8) 1,292 (fig. 344). 12. 13. 14.

Vell. Pat. I 8,5; Dion. Hal. II 15,4; Cic. Att. IV 3,4. Wellesley 1974, 912; suggestedby H.J. Edwards in 1912. Wellesley 1974, 913-4: (dexter) escendentibus. In fact I think he is

probably right, but for the wrong reasons.He assumesthat Livy is imagining a visitorascendingthe Capitol from the Campusside,whichseemsimprobable:there was indeeda road up that way, as we know from Cicero (n. 12), but it was not the main ascent,and so Livy's descriptionwould be a very unnatural one. Wellesley placesthe asylum'in the northwesternportion of the saddle',but a positionthat far towards the Campus side would hardly have been visible from the south-east,as Virg. Aen. VIII 342 seemsto require. The only reasonfor putting it there is the assumptionthat the Vitellians came up where the Cordonata now is, and thence 'towards the Capitol proper in a rightward movement'. It seemsto me just as

FLAVIANS

ON THE

CAPITOL

177

possiblethat they (like Livy's imaginaryvisitor) cameup from the Forum side,and thence towards the arx in a rightward movement. 15.

Dion. Hal. VII 35,4; VIII 78,5; Festus 464L ('noluerunt funestum 1ocum

r Capitoli coniungi'); Dio LVIII 15,2-3; Livy VI 20,10-12: etc. For the full argument,seemy 'Topographyand rhetoric:The trial of Manlius', forthcoming in Historia.

16.

Suet. DJ44,1; cf. Rhet. Her. IV43;Varro,

LLV41,Plut.

Rom. 18,1;

etc.;the evidenceis setout in full by I. Lugli, Fontesad topographiamveterisurbis Romaepertinentes VI 2 (Rome, 1969) 112 f. and 121-6. 17. Acceptedby Wellesleyin 1964(p. 314, map 10),thoughhewaslesssure in 1972(p. 170),and preferreda differentsolutionin 1974(p. 913). See F. Coarelli, MEFR(,4) 81 (1969) 154-6, whoseidentification of thesestepsas the gradussuper Calpurniumfornicem (Orosius V 9,2) remains very attractive. 18. Thus Wellesley 1975, 193. 19. F. Coarelli, Guida archeologicadi Roma (Verona, 1974) 41, cf. 20. Tabularium: Nash, op. cit. (n. 8) 1,407,491. Milo and Metellus: Cic. ,4tt. IV 3,4, with Wellesley 1974, 914 f.

20. Dio LVIII 5,6 showsthat thiswasthe mainroute,aswe shouldexpect: see n. 10 above.

21. Wellesley1972, 170-1; 1975, 193 ('on the north and northeastsides'). Would a comma be better than a full stop after ingruebat? 22. On which seeJ.E. Packer, BC,4R 81 (1968-9) 127-148. 23. Prop. IV 8,31: Ovid, Tristia 1 3,30;cf. Cic. div. I140 on 'habitantesinter duos lucos'.

24. See G. S•iflund, Le mura di Roma repubblicana (Lund, 1932) 136-7. 25. Orosius V 18,27: S•iflund, op. cit. 244. 26. Even on the Forum side:Milo had a houseon the Clivus Capitolinus (Cic. Mil. 64).

27. Archaeologicalevidencesummarisedin Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 19) 49, with plan at p. 40. 28. Wellesley 1972, 171; Vell. Pat. II 1,2; App. BC I 25; Diod. Sic.

XXXIV/XXXV 28a(121!•c);cf.Cic. l/err.IV 69;Livy,per.98(Catulus),Aug.RG 20,1 (Augustus).

29. Wellesley1972, 171(cf. 1975,193),with referenceto Dio (Xiphilinus) LXIV

17,3.

30. Cf. Wellesley1972, 16-18on variatio and ambiguity. 31.

Cic. de or. I 44; cf. Brut. 42, 'concessumest rhetoribus ementiri in

historiis,ut aliquid dicerepossintargutius',a principlewhich I discussin detail in Clio• cosmetics(Leicester,1979), ch. 3. 32. Wellesley1964, 195 (my italics). 33. 'Arx Capitolina',AberystwythStudies5 (1923) 33-41. 34. Vols. 1 (1912)-14(1936). I am indebtedto Dr. C.J. Gill for information about the journal. 35. Topographicaldictionary of ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929) 54. Rose

had sentAshbyan offprint, which is now in the Library of the BritishSchoolat Rome.

36. 37.

Op. cit. (n. 33) 35; Wellesley 1972, 167. Op. cit. 39.

38. Wellesley 1964,192(myitalics).Explicitin 1956,213(withn. 2),where

178

T.P.

WISEMAN

Wellesleyis rightly embarrassedby the supposedsurvivalof the caretaker'slodge after the fire; cf. also 1972, 176 (on contubernio at 74,1) and 1975, 203. 39. Suet. Dom. 1,2• Wellesley 1956, 211 f. 40. Wellesley 1956, 2124. 41. E.g. Varro ap. Tertullian, ad nat. I 10,17-18(59-58 Bc);Dio XL 47,3 (53 Bc): Val. Max. 1 3,4 (50 •c ?); Dio XLII 26,2 (48 •c); Tac. Ann. II 85; Suet. Tib. 36 (^D 19); Jos. AJ XVIII 3,4 (^D 30?). 42. Wellesley1956,212 n. 3. Fortheupsanddownsofofficialapproval,see M. Malaise, Les conditionsdep•n•tration et de diffusiondescultes•gyptiensen Italie (Leiden, 1972) 357-406, esp.395401 on Gaius. Lucan VIII 831 is the terminus ante quem for the Campus Martius temple; Dio XLVII 15,4 recordsthe triumviral project. For Isis on a curule aedile'scoin issuein 67 •c, seeM.H. Crawford, Roman Republican coinage (Cambridge, 1974) 436 f. 43. Tertullian, Apol. 6; Dio XLII 26,2; LIII 2,4 (cf. XL 47,4); LIV 6,6. 44. Wellesley1956, 212; the first inscriptionis more accessibleas CIL 12 1263, ILS 4405 and ILLRP

159.

45. CIL 12986, among the inscriptionsaetatis minus certae. 46. G.Q. Giglioli, BCAR 69 (1941) 21 f.; his attempt to date the other inscriptionto the Empireaswell(correctedby A. Degrassi,Scritti vari di antichiti•1 (Rome, 1962)339) doesnot affectthevalidity of Giglioli'sproof that IsisCapitolina existed in Imperial times. 47. CIL VI 351. Obelisk: Nash, op. cit. (n. 8) 1, 139-141;ibid. 148-154for the obelisksfrom the Iseum in the Campus. 48. M. Malaise, Inventaireprdliminaire des documents•gyptiensd•couvertsen Italie (Leiden, 1972)214, associates the inscriptionwith a marblebas-relief of Isis found near the Theatre of Marcellus; E. Iversen, Obelisks in exile 1 (The obelisksof Rome (Copenhagen, 1968)) 106, thinks that the obelisk came from the Campus Martius Iseum. But cf. Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 19) 49. 49. Caes.BC I 6,7; cf. Festus(Paulus) 102L, 'salvaurbe arceque'.Perhaps Isis had beenon the southernsummitin the late Republic(Dio XLI126,1-2 seemsto suggestit, and Schol.Veron. Aen. II 714 reportsan altar of Isisdesertabehindthe Ops temple);if so, a move to the arx, away from Iuppiter O.M., may havebeena concessionto religious conservatism. 50. Wellesley 1956, 213 (not explaining how Domitian was 'smuggled down the slopes of the Capitol): 1972, 175 f.; 1975, 203. Rightly rejectedby Heubner, op. cit. (n. 2) 153 f. 51. Cf. Malaise, op. cit. (n. 48) 186. 52. Wellesley 1972, 176, following Nash, op. cit. (n. 8) 1, 518. So too Heubner, op. cit. 154. 53. E.g.W. von Sydow,AA 88 (1973), Abb. 34. The descriptionof Tonans as the Janitor of Iuppiter O.M. (Suet. Aug. 91,2; Dio LIV 4,34) is consistentwith the position of the podium. 54. Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 19) 45; CIL XVI 4 and 30 (cf. Festus500L; Suet. Vesp. 5,7).

0 ANDROTION,

YOU FOOL!

In a recent number of the American Journal of Ancient History, • K.R.

Waltershasarguedthat disputeabout thepatriospoliteia originatedin the fourth century,rather than at the time of the oligarchicrevolutionsof the fifth century. In itself the thesisis not unattractive,though one shouldnot forget that the leadersof the oligarchicrevolutions,Antiphon and Kritias, were theoretical sophists,at least one of whom was concernedwith constitutional matters.2 At about the sametime the sophistThrasymachos

wrote of a patriospoliteia.3Somediscussionwasundoubtedlyin the air. More particularly,however,I take issuewith someof the premisesbehind Walters'thesisand hiswholeapproachto themethodof source-criticism of the Ath.

Pol.

Walters maintains that 'the notion of a written and concretepoliteia defining the structureof the statewas not possibleuntil the democratic anagraphai of the laws were completed in 403/2'? an extension of his assertion

that there was little or no information

available

to Athenians

about their constitutionbeforethe end of the fifth century.This is simply not true. As E. Ruschenbusch has shown, the laws of Solon, inscribed on the axones, were available for consultation at least down to the end of the

fourth century, probably longer.s Aristotle wrote a five-book monograph about them. Further, although a centralized archive may not have been establishedin Athens until 409, there were clearly archives,for the archon basileusundoubtedlyhad a copy of Drakon's homicide-lawsin his possession.6 The assumptionthat the sackof Athensby the Persiansin 480 had destroyed'many materials' is facile and unproven.7 Anyway, clearly the Persiansdid not destroythe laws of Solon and Drakon. In order to get around this Walters seemsto assume that the recodified laws of 403/2 defined 'the structure of the state' in some way in which Solon's laws did not. He producesno evidencefor this, and there is no evidence.The recodification of the laws can be explained, as it usuallyis, merely by the fact that many laws had been passedsince Solon's nomothesia, with resultant inconsistencies

and anomalies.

The law-code

of Athens needed to be re-

assembledand brought up to date. There is no reasonto believethat the new laws formed a politeia any more than the old, or, conversely,that Solon's laws were any lessa politeia than the recodified laws. More objectionableis hiscavalierapproachto source-criticism of the Ath. Pol. Having arguedthat disputeover the constitutionaldevelopment of Athensdid not beginin the fifth century,he askshimselfwhenand where

179

180

P. HARDING

such a dispute originated and finds a ready scapegoat,like many before him, in the work of the AtthidographersKieldemosand Androtion in the middle of the fourth century. 'It wastheseatthidographers,and especially Androtion, a well-known source for Aristotle's AP, who formed the view

of Athenian constitutionaldevelopmentas a seriesof successively more democratic politeiai which embodied explicit structural outlines of the organization of the state' (p. 135). In support of his assertion that Androtion is a 'well-knownsourcefor Aristotle'sAP', he refersto Day and Chambers (page 7, note 25), 'where a select bibliography of scholars claiming [my italics] reliancein the AP on Androtion is given'(note 32). But claims do not representknowledge, nor is the counting of heads a substitutefor scholarship.Even Felix Jacoby, who espousedthis view as warmly as anyone, concededthat it had not been systematicallyproved that Androtion was the main sourcefor the Ath. œol.8 In fact, there is only one case (Androtion fr. 6 and Ath. Pol. 22) where Androtion can be demonstratedto have been Aristotle'ssource.All the rest is supposition. This suppositionis basedupon Androtion'simaginedpolitical bias and the belief that he can be classifiedideologicallyas a 'conservative'or 'moderateconservative',of a party in fourth-centurypoliticswhosedomestic platform was the restrictionof the franchiseto the hoplite census,the abolition of pay for magistratesand the restoration of the powersof the Areiopagos. Further, this party traced its ancestry back through Theramenes, Nikias, Thucydides son of Melesias to, of all people, Kimon.9 Only while this interpretation of fourth-century politics was current was it reasonableto hypothesizethat Androtion was Aristotle's sourcefor the oligarchicrevolutionsof411/10 and 404 and the favourable accountof Theramenes'part in these,for there is no fragmentof hisA tthis to support the idea. Unfortunatelyfor this theory, Androtion'spolitical careerrevealsno such ideologicalbias. In fact, a whole seriesof independentstudiesof fourth-centurypoliticsand politicianshasutterly revisedour understanding of real political strife from the Corinthian War down to the Lamian War. l0The resultantconclusionis that politiciansdid not disagreewith one anotheron ideologicalprinciples,only on mattersof immediatepolicy.We can no longer define the politics of this period in terms of a two-party dichotomy, the conservativewealthy againstthe radical poor, both with fixed and constant ideologies.TMThus Androtion's supposedmotive for distorting the constitutional history of Athens, namely, to influence the political strife of his own day, vanishes,for political strife was not about suchmatters. Critics of the putative fourth-centurysourcesfor the Ath. œol. cannot fail to take these new revelations into account.

I am surprisedat the confidencewith which it is assertedthat the Atthidographers,especiallyAndrotion,'formedtheviewof Athens'constitutional developmentas a seriesof successively more democraticpoliteiai which embodied explicit structural outlines of the organisation of the

0 ANDROTION,

YOU FOOL!

181

state'. Anyone who has read the fragmentsof the Atthidographersknows that there is not a shredof evidenceto supportthis claim. Their preserved statementson the Areiopagos will serve as examples.•2 They are all concernedwith its educational,moral and judicial position, none with its placein the constitution.•3This may be chance,but it hardly forms a basis for Walters'assertion.Even in the caseof ostracism,Androtion, like a good politician, saw it as a deviceaimedat political opponents.It wasAristotle who tried to put it in the perspectiveof constitutionaltheory.•4The fact is that we know of one group that set out to collect,define and systematize politeiai, namely, Aristotle and his students.I maintain that it is perverseto

foist upon anyoneelseresponsibilityfor material for which there is no evidencein the preservedfragmentsof his work. There is, however,a part of Walters'thesisthat is superficiallymore plausible. He maintains that Androtion was Aristotle's source for the account of Theramenesbecausehe was 'urged by an intent to vindicate Theramenesas a constitutionalist'.•5If he meansby this that Androtion did this for personal reasons, because his father was an associate of Theramenes,rather than with a view to influencingthe political strife of his own day, this is not impossible. It is, however, uneconomical•6 and unnecessary,since there is nothing in Aristotle's defenceof Theramenes that could not come from Aristotle

himself. Walters' desire to attribute

this

defenceto Androtion, becauseit 'helpsexplain where Aristotle getshis information... and givesa motive to the Tendenzthat is shownthroughout the account',•7is basedupon a commonbeliefamongcriticsof theAth. Pol. that Aristotle neededto get his information from somewritten source and that his bias was not his own. 18

Far more repugnant is the repeated attribution to Androtion of misinterpretationof basicconstitutionalideasand terminology. Given the fact that Androtion was an activepolitician for more than forty yearsof his life, I find this mostunlikely, especiallyas it is not supportedby his extant work. The Androtion who emergesfrom Walters'article is not, as Jacoby would have it, a politicianwho distortedAthenianconstitutionalhistory

for politicalpurposes,but a fool, who misunderstood the basicpointsof the history of an age in which his father was involved. On the contrary, studyof his fragmentsfor this periodshowshim to beabnormallyaccurate and well-informed.

•9

P. Harding

University of British Columbia

NOTES

1. AJAH I (1976) 129-144. 2. Diels-Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 2• no. 88. frs. 6, 31-37. 3. Op. cit. 2, no. 85, ft. 1. Incidentally, in view of Thrasymachos'opening

182

P. HARDING

(•o•X6•v •.•v,& 'A0'•v•ot,•a•oX•v •x•vo• •o• X•6vo•':o• •X•to•), it is not easyto agreewith Walters' claim that fifth-centuryAtheniansdid not distinguishpastfrom presentbut had 'the feelingthat nothing essentiallyhad changed,that the Athenian democracywasbasedupon the sameprinciplesand had the samelawsasin earliest times'.Admittedly Thrasymachos'concerniswith morality, aswasIsokrates'in his Areiopagitikos.Men werebetterin the'goodolddays'.Thistheme,whichiscentral to the humour of severalof Aristophanes'plays(not leastthe Clouds), requiresthe applicationof historicalperspective.It had beenfosteredby the wholegenreof the Funeral Oration. Likewise, referencesto the past (whether to the early lawgiversor to PersianWars) in the real political oratory of the fourth centuryservedthe same purpose,to incitethe Atheniansto emulatethe supposedmoral superiorityof their ancestors.It wasnot symptomaticof political strifethat had its focusin the nature of the constitution. There was no audiencefor such quibbling in the Athenian assembly. 4. Op. cit. (above, n. 1) 135. 5. ZOAf2NOZ NOMOI (Historia Einzelschrift9, 1966) 32-38. 6. Stroud, Drakon • law on homicide(Berkeley and Los Angeles1968)2829.

7. Ruschenbuschcitesthe example of the survivalof the woodenstatueof Athena Polias (op. cit. (above, n. 5) 33). 8. FGrHist 3b Suppl. 2, 100. See P. Harding, 'Atthis and Politeia', Historia 26 (1977) 148-160. 9. See on this P. Harding, 'Androtion's political career', Historia 25 (1976) 186-200.

10. See R. Seager,'Thrasybulus,Conon and Athenian imperialism',JHS 87 (1967) 95-115;S. Periman,'Atheniandemocracyand the revivalof imperialistic expansionat the beginningof the fourthcenturyB.C.', CPh63 (1968)257-267;R. Sealey,'Callistratosof Aphidnaandhiscontemporaries', Historia5 (1956)178-203 and 'Athens after the Social War', JHS 75 (1955) 74~81;Fordyce W. Mitchel, LykourganAthens(Cincinnati1970);in general,S. Periman,'Thepoliticiansin the Athenian democracyof the fourth centuryB.C.', Athenaeum41 (1963) 327-355. AlongthesamelinesisG.L. Cawkwell,'Eubulus',JHS 83(1963)47-67,althoughhe is rather inconsistentin arguingfor someintellectualinfluenceof Isokratesand XenophonuponEuboulos.He seems to believethatbehindall threewasa groupof like-mindedconservatives, who wereagainstradical democracybecausetheywere againstthe imperialambitionthey associated with it. His own studyshowshow little similaritytherewasbetweentheproposalsof IsokratesandXenophonandthe

policyof Euboulos.The changedinternationalsituationis sufficientto explain Athens'policyafter the SocialWar andthereisno reasonto suppose anyonegroup in Athenswas in favour of that policy more than any other. In foreignpolitics Eubouloswasclearlynota pacifist,whilstinternallyhemadeno attemptto limit the franchiseor to give additionalpower to the Areiopagos. l l. Nor is there any evidence for a middle-of-the-road group. Recent attemptsat a socio-economic analysisof fourth-century Athensprovidean explanation. Besidesa smallgroupof very wealthyfamilies,from amongstwhomthe

leadingpoliticiansand generalsregularlycame,the greatmajorityof Athenians were essentially from the sameeconomiclevel.SeeA.H.M. Jones,'The social structureof Athensin the fourth centuryB.C.'(Athenian democracy(Oxford 1966)

75-96),and for the individualpoliticiansand magistrates, J.K. Davies,Athenian

O ANDROTION,

YOU FOOL!

183

propertiedfamilies (Oxford 1971). The radical mob is a fiction. Fourth-century democracywas essentiallyconservative. 12. Androtion frs. 3 and 4; Phanodemos ft. 30 and Philochoros ifs. 20 and 196.

13. As Jacoby (FGrHist 3b Suppl. 1, 113) saw, it was Aristotle who 'endeavoured to outlinethe true positionof the old Councilin theconstitutionand to determine

its functions ....

'

14. SeeJ.J. Keaney,'The text of Androtion F6 and the originof ostracism', Historia 19 (1970) 1-11. 15. Op. cit. (above, n. 1) 135.

16. See P. Harding, 'The Theramenesmyth', Phoenix 28 (1974) 111. 17. Op. cit. (above, n. 1) 144 n. 41. 18. See further P. Harding, 'Atthis and Politeia', Historia 26 (1977) 159 n. 68.

19.

Ibid.

THE VALUE

OF GOLD AT ATHENS

IN 329/8 BC

It is by now agreed that at Athens, and probably in the rest of the Greek world, the relative valuesof gold and silver,which had stoodat 12:1or 11:1 through the earlier part of the fourth century, had reached 10:1 by the beginningof the reign of Alexanderthe Great, and that they stayedin that relationshipto one another, exceptin Egypt, through mostof the Hellenistic period.• There is no needto doubt the accuracyof this generalpicture, but it is also possibleto show that for a short time a ratio slightly less favourable to gold was used. The evidenceis to be found in IG II 2 1672,an inscriptionof 329/8 BC from Eleusis,which publishesthe accountsof the epistatai of the sanctuary and of the treasurersof Demeter and Persephone.Towards the end there appearsa statementof the sumsrecentlytaken from the offertory boxes: Taken from the thesauroiof the two goddesses: from that of the elder, two Philips, a gold triobol, two gold obols,a Chalcidiandrachma,a Delphic triobol and obol, and five hundreddrachmasfive and a half obolsof nomisma(i.e., Attic currency);from that of the younger,two gold obols and five hundred and forty drachmasfive and a quarter obols and one chalkous of nomisma; total, with the value of the gold and the foreign coin, one thousand and ninety-two drachmasfour obols and one chalkous. 2

Fromthisit iseasyto findthevalueat whichthegoldandthenon-Attic silver were taken into the accounts,by subtractingfrom the total the amount which was in Attic silver and bronze coinage. Grand Total Total of nomisma Remainder

1092 drachmas 4 obols 1 chalkous

1041 drachmas 43• obols 1 chalkous 50 drachmas 51A obols

At thisperiod,andin a document of thiskind,a 'Philip'wouldhavebeen exactlythat;it isonlylater,andin literarytexts,thatit became a synonym for any goldcoin.The 'Philips'will therefore havebeenAttic-weight Macedoniandidrachms, thegoldtrioboland obolswerealsopresumably Macedonian, or at anyrateof Atticweight,andthetotalof goldcoinage must have been five drachmas and one obol.

184

THE

VALUE

OF GOLD

185

How was this convertedinto a silver equivalent for the purpose of beingenteredin theseaccounts?The 10:1ratio, whichwe shouldotherwise considerto be normal for this period, will not work here, becauseif it is applied, the value of the gold at 51 drachmas4 obols will exceedthe amount of 50 drachmas 5¬ obols which has been shown to be the value of

the gold and the foreign silver combined. It would not be right to suggest that someallowancehasbeenmadefor the costof changingthe money;this neverforms part of the calculationsin any of the similarinscriptionswhich we have from Athens or from Delphi, where the only time that a moneychanger'sfee affects the result is when an actual exchangeis recordedas having taken place.3 A lower ratio must therefore have been used.4 Before deciding what this might have been, we must estimate the value of the non-Attic silver. There are two fourth-century coins which might have been describedas 'Chalcidian drachmas'. Of these, the less attractive candidate is an issue of the Chalcidian League, which at 2.4 gramsis a tetrobol on the 'Phoenician'standardusedfor the tetradrachms which the Leaguealsominted, and would havebeenequivalentto 3¬ obols on the Attic standard; it is not likely that this would have been called a drachma at Athens. Chalcis on Euboea, however, which had not coined

independentlyfor more than a hundred years,beganin the middle of the century to strike drachmas,hemidrachmsand obols; the drachma of this seriesis of a weight belowthe Attic at about 3.8 grams,but it is nevertheless clearly a drachma, and should have been valued at 5¬ Attic obols. Four obolson the Aeginetanstandard,whichwasalwaysusedfor the coinageof Delphi, would weigh between5« and 5•A Attic obols. If the lower of these values was taken--which

would

be natural

in the circum-

stances-the foreign silver would have been entered in the accounts as being worth 1 drachma and 4•A obols altogether, leaving a value for the gold of forty-nine drachmasand half an obol. This is exactlythe resultof convertingfive drachmasand one obol from gold to silver at a rate of 9«:1. 5 It is not difficult

to find the reason for such a decrease in the value of

gold at this time. In the previoustwo years Alexander had acquired the contents of the major Persian treasuries at Susa, Persepolisand Pasargadae.6 Some at least of the spoils of his victoriesmust have found their way back to Greece as his Greek soldiersbegan to return. There is, of course, no reason to suggestthat Athens would have been specially favoured in this respect,except as a city which many might have passed through on their homeward journey. Now sincegold, rather than silver, was the Persian royal metal,7 the result must have been temporarily to depressthe price of gold even below the level which it had reachedafter Philip's exploitation of the Pangaeangold mineshad brought it down from the 12:1ratio whichhad operatedsincethe 360s.This wasonly a temporary phenomenon;it had certainlygoneback to 10:1by the end of the century, becausein an Athenian inscriptionof 305/4 BCwe have,amongitemslisted

J. R. MELVILLE-JONES

186

for the previousyear, an equationbetweeneighteenthousandchrysoi,or gold didrachms,and sixty talents,i.e.• three hundredand sixty thousand drachmas,in silver;8thereis, however,no reliableevidencewhichcanhelp us to decide when, in the intervening two decades, this might have happened,or whetherthe price of gold fell in any other part of Greeceat this time. 9

University of Western Australia

John R. Melville-Jones

NOTES

1. The fundamentalstudiesof this subjectare thosepublishedby Th.

Reinach('De la valeurproportionelle del'or et del'argentdansl'antiquit6',RN 311 (1893)1-26and 141- 166;'Surla valeurrelativedesm6tauxmon6taires dansla Sicile grecque',RN 3 13(1895)489-511;'Le rapportdel'or • l'argentdanslescomptes de Delphes',RN4 6 (1902)66-68;'Du rapportdevaleurdesm6tauxmon6taires dans l'Egypteau tempsdesPto16m6es', REG41(1928)121-196). Somefurthermaterial wascollectedby F. Heichelheim,An ancienteconomichistoryII (1964),and there have been two specializeddiscussions of the Athenian evidence:WesleyE. Thompson, 'Goldandsilverratiosat Athensduringthefifthcentury'• NC74 (1964) 103-122and D.M. kewis,'New evidencefor the gold-silverratio'in C.M. Kraay and G.K. Jenkins(ed.), Essaysin Greekcoinagepresentedto StanleyRobinson(1968) 105-110.

2.

Lines 300-303.

3. In the third of the articlescitedabove,Reinachclaimedthat the inscription which is discussed hereshouldbe treatedasanotherexampleof the 10:l ratio, writing (p. 68 note 2): 'La difference,environ49 dr., repriseritela valeur de 5,1 dr. d'or, ce qui, en tenant comptedesfrais, repriseritebien la ratio 10:1.'He did not explain why an allowanceshouldbe made for the costof exchangein this instance, when it doesnot haveto beconsideredin other inscriptionswherethe 10:1ratio was applied.If therehad beenany feepaid for money-changing, we shouldexpectit to be mentioned,asin Fouillesde DelphesllI 5, 25 lines10-11,58 lines7 and 15and IG IV (2) 103, lines 41, 121 and 126.

4. I discountthe possibilitythat theremight be an error in the text of the inscription,although,as Kirchner'snotesshow,thereare certainlytwo minor ones elsewhere.Eachof theseis of a commonkind: in onecasea figureisomitted,and in the othera figureis repeatedfour timesinsteadof three.But if the 10:1ratio wasin fact usedhere, the total must have been understatedby two drachmasthree and a half obols, or the amount of foreign silver must have been overstatedby that amount; or there is some more complex error or combination of errors. Any of theseexplanationsis possible,but since,as will be shown,thereisa goodreasonfor the price of gold to havefallen at this time, they shouldall be rejected. 5. There is a numismaticproblem here which I have not attempted to discussin thetext, becauseit doesnot affecttheargument:but it isin fact not easyto suggestwhat these Delphian coins might have been. In the fourth century the independentmint of Delphi seemsto have issuedonly two denominations,a trihemioboland a three-quarterobol, to judge from their weights(althoughone wonderswhether,becausemanysumsof moneycouldnot possiblyhavebeenmade

THE

VALUE

OF GOLD

187

up from coins of thesevalues,the coinsmay not havebeenovervaluedfor local use, and issuedas obols and diobols). The triobol is not known from this mint. On the other hand, at a time not long before the date of our inscription (336-334 BC),an

Amphictyoniccoinagewas issuedat Delphi, and it is very likely that this would have beencalled 'Delphian' at Athens, to avoid confusionwith the administrators of Delos.The triobol wasstruckaspart of this issue,althoughit is an exceptionally rare coin nokv(E.J.P. Raven in his study of this coinage,NC 6 10 (1950) 1-22,was able to find only oneexample).In sucha situation,and bearingin mind that in the apousiainscriptionswhich recordedthe strikingof thiscoinage(seeRaven,op. cit., and Dunant and Pouilloux, BCH 76 (1952) 32-60) someof the totals end in halfobols, it seemslikely that obols and hemiobols were also issued,although no specimenof either denomination is at presentknown. 6. For a discussionof Alexander's booty, see Alfred R. Bellinger, 'The King's finances'in his Essayson the coinageof Alexander the Great (Numismatic Studies 11), 35-80, particularly 66 if. 7. The evidenceof hoardssuggeststhat the Persiansilvercoin, the siglos, circulated almost exclusively in western Asia Minor; elsewhere,the nature of Persian societywas such that coinagewas little used by the vast majority of the King'ssubjects,and this explainswhy so muchof what survivesis in the form of gold coinsof high value;seeColin M. Kraay, Archaic and ClassicalGreekcoins,3334.

8.

IG II 2 1492, 101-103.

9. Reinach(op. cit., note 3 above)claimedthat the inscriptionsCIA II 719 (IG 1121468)and 718 (IG 1121479),of 321/ 0 and 319/ 8 Bcrespectively,alsoprovide evidencefor a 10:1 ratio. There is nothing in either to encouragesuchan assumption; a golden crown of eighty-five drachmas is indeed mentioned in line 19 of the first inscriptionand in line 23 of the second,but as Lewis has shown,this fits an approximate 12:1ratio (unthinkable at this time) evenbetter, and it is more likely that in suchcaseswe shouldthink of the crownsashavingbeenawardedby weight, ratherthan by theirvaluein silvercoinage.At Delphi,two yearsafterthedateof the Eleusisinscriptionwhich suggests a 9«:1 ratio, some'Darics' werevaluedat seven Aeginetan staterseach (FD III 5, 58 lines5-8 and 61, IIA lines 2-3; for the date see now P. Marchetti, 'A proposdescomptesde Delphessousles archontatsde Th•on (324/3) et de Caphis (327/6)', BCH 101 (1977) 133-164). It has generallybeen assumedthat these Darics, although lighter, were given the same value as Atticweight gold staters,but I do not believethat the Greekswere socasualin calculating the value of gold. It is more likely that the word 'Daric' had beenused,while gold coins were still rare in Greece, to describeany gold coin: we have one certain example of this in an Attic inventory which was compiled ten years earlier (Dareikoi Philippeioiin IG II 2 1526lines22-23). So thesewere probably Macedonian gold staters,and in that case,sincesevenAeginetanstatersare equivalentto twentyAttic drachmas,we havethe 10:1ratio again.The marketrateat Delphiand at Athens need not necessarilyhave been alwaysthe same,so this text cannot be usedto settlethe question,but it encourages usto suppose that the9«: 1ratio wasin force for only a short time in any cities where it was used.

DIODORUS

11.82-84

AND

THE

SECOND

BATTLE

OF TANAGRA

For the year 457/6 Diodorus Siculus relatesa curiousevent in Athenian history. Betweenthe battlesof Tanagra and Oenophytahe recountsstill a third battle. He says,•ox• •' • •p• •6z• •z• 0•oXzi•0• r• • zor• •po•0z• Zp6•o•½ yzyz•• •p•z•z• zo•½'A0•to• (11.82.1). Indeed, he compares this exploit favorably with the battles of Marathon and Plataea and laudsthe generalshipof Myronides(11.82.1, 4-5). What is odd about this description, of course, is that none of our other sources, including Thucydides(1.108), mentionsany suchbattle, much lessone so important and glamorous.And in fact Diodorus(or hissource,Ephorus) complainsabout just this silence(11.82.4): z&, 8• •.yyp•,, x•t•zp z• K•Z• z•dz• •voG• yzyzv•K•v• , o68z[• odzz zbv zp6•ov •6z•4 odzz z•v &•z•v &v•yp•z. 1To solvethis problem modernhistoriansfollow Busolt's explanation and see this fabulous conflict as a doublet of the Athenian victory at Oenophyta.• But Hermann Strasburgerhas expresseddisquiet with this judgment and suggestedas a possiblesourcefor the story in Diodorus an Attic funeral oration.3 For if Ephorus found no mention of the battle in earlier historians, where did he get his information, unless from such a popular and notoriously tendentioustradition of Athenian prowessin war? Strasburger made his remark en passant and did not enlarge on it. But it is possibleto adduce some further evidenceand to expand his suggestion. First, in 11.82.2 Diodorus recites a claim that has direct antecedents

in the funeralorationtradition. Myronides'triumph overthe Boeotians,he says,was secondto none of the Athenians' other victories, no matter how renowned.Thosewerewagedeitheragainstbarbariansor with allied help, but this battle the Athenianswon single-handedly and againstthe toughest

x•l •06½robeaVlozo,½ &zy•,•o•,ro. The wordingand claimof thisstatement echoanother famousAthenian boastso typical of the epitaphlos,that the Athenians defeated the Persianssingle-handedlyat Marathon. Thus it appearsin Lysias'funeral speech:V6,o•Ya06•V a•io• z•½'EZZiao••V6• •oZZa• V,•i8• z• •i• &zx•aO•z,o• (2.20). It is a frequenttoposand a typical distortion, since the Plataeans had aided the Athenians at Marathon (Hdt. 6.108-111),and their helpwaswell knownat Athens(Hdt. 6.111; Dem. 59.94-106; Paus. 1.15.3).4 What is important here is that the structureof this boast and its very wording have been taken over for a similar claim. In fact, the insistencethat the Athenians acted monoi (or

188

DIODORUS

11.82-84

189

protoi ) in their exploitsisa usageextremelyfrequentin thefuneraloration tradition, one that is peculiarly characteristicof it. 5 Secondly, it is possiblethat Ephorus took his information for the imaginary battle from the samesourceLysiasdrew on in his epitaphiosto illustrateAthenian valor in the first PeloponnesianWar. In that speech,to be sure, Lysias omits altogether the Tanagra and Oenophyta campaigns, instead concentrating on the conflict a year earlier with Corinth and Aegina(2.48-53). But strikingly, Myronides'nameturns up here,and he is creditedwith a crushingdefeat of the enemyin the Megarid. In fact, Lysias (or his source)has telescopedtwo battlesinto one: the first wasa standoff (Thuc. 1.105.5), but the Athenianserecteda trophy, and whenthe Corinthians,ashamed,came back to put up one of their own, they wereroutedand sufferedseverecasualties(Thuc. 1.105.6-106).Now, although Myronides was a popular general at Athens? his name occurs nowhere else in an extant funeral oration. That is no doubt becauseit was very rare to single out individualsby name in thisdemocraticinstitution(cf. Cic. de leg.2.64). But sometimes a mention did occur, as here, or for instance in the case of

Themistocles (Lys. 2.42; cf. Thuc. 1.74.1). Thus, the funeral oration languagein Diodorus 11.82.2and the singularglorificationof Myronides

in both Diodorusand Lysiasgivereasonto speculatethat both passages may stemfrom the samesource,ex hypothesia now lostepitaphioslogos.? This contentioncan be supportedby an analysisof how Lysiasand Diodorus-Ephorushandle their materialsfor the campaignsin the Megarid and in Boeotia. In both cases, there is a conflation of two battles into

one:the first, hard-fought but indecisive;the second,a total victory for the Athenians. On this hypothesis,the imaginary third battle describedin Diodorus 11.81-82 is not a doublet just of the Athenian victory at Oenophyta, as Busolt explained, but derived from a conflation in the sourceof both the battlesof Tanagra and Oenophytainto a singleAthenian victory. We should not be surprisedthat the distortion is violent, if the sourcewe are dealingwith is indeeda funeral oration, a genrenoted for its biasedtreatment of Athenian history.8Thus, in 11.81.2-3the Lacedaemonians are describedas still in Boeotia after the battle of Tanagra, although Thucydides(1.108.2) assertsthey withdrew after their victory: in fact the battle had beenfought to securethisretreat. Indeed, Diodorus mentionsno such withdrawal, and in his account the Lacedaemoniansretain a large forceat Tanagra to help restoreTheban hegemonyover Boeotia(11.81.3). It is here, accordingto Diodorus, that the battle mentionedin no other sourcetakes place. But, remarkably, the Athenians Myronides leadswin their victory solely against the Boeotians(11.82.1-4). That large force of Lacedaemoniansmentionedearlier as stationedat Tanagra (11.81.3) has suddenlydisappearedfrom the accountaltogether,and Myronides,following up his victory, stormsand sacksTanagra without any Spartan opposition, an event that concurswith Thucydides'accountof the aftermath of Oenophyta (1.108.3).9

190

K. R. WALTERS

Thus, this third battle in Diodorus has aspects of both contests, Tanagra and Oenophyta, that are contradictory when combined in the same story: while the Lacedaemonians are in Boeotia before the extra battle, they are nowhereto be found when it is saidto be fought. Thus, the

contestappearsto be a conflation,similarto Lysias'epitaphictreatmentof Myronides' exploits in the Megarid (2.48-53). Since the account in Diodorus did not derive from earlier historians(11.82.4), and sincethere are suggestivesimilaritiesin it to known epitaphic literature, it is quite possiblethat Ephorusdrew thisaccountfrom an Attic funeral oration. The episode may have been so distorted, glorified, and conflated that the historianmisapprehendedit asa separateeventand setit down betweenhis descriptionsof the battlesof Tanagra and Oenophytaasyet anotherbattle, while in fact it wasno more than the ghostlyoffspringof patriotic oratory. K.R.

Wayne State University

Walters

NOTES

!.

I assume,as many historians do (see below, n. 2), that Diodorus was

following Ephorushere. If it is correct,as I propose,that the secondbattle of Tanagrastemsfrom a conflationin an Attic funeraloration,it wouldbemorelikely that Ephorus rather than Diodorus would have had that material to hand in describingthe Boeotian campaign. See also A. von Mess, "Untersuchungentiber die ArbeitsweiseDiodors", RhM 61 (1906) 244-266, esp. 248-250. 2.

G. BusoiL Griechische Geschichte (Gotha 1897) 3,1,319 n. 2. Busolt is

positiveEphoruswas responsiblefor the "Verdoppelung"(seealso 315 n. 1) and feelshis sourceherewas probably in Atthis, perhapsHellanicus'(24 n. 2). Seealso E. Meyer• GeschichtedesAltertums5(Basel1954)4,1,562n. 1:"Ephoros... hat die Schlachtverdoppelt";RE• s.v. Myronides col. 1132(V. Ehrenberg);A.W. Gomme, Historical commentaryon Thucydides(Oxford 1945) 1,317. 3. H. Strasburger,"Thukydidesund die politischeSelbstdarstellung der Atheneif', Hermes 86 (1958) 25 n. 3. 4. Other occurrencesof the topos are Plato, Menexenus 240C; Demosthenes,60.10-11; Hdt. 9.27 (shown by E. Meyer, Forschungenzurahen Geschichte (Halle 1889) 2,219 ff., to derive from an epitaphios logos). On the distortion involving Plataean aid at Marathon seemy article "We fought alone at Marathon: Historical falsification in the Attic funeral oration", forthcoming in RhM 122 (1979).

5. O. Schroeder,De laudibusA thenarum a poetis tragiciset ab oratoribus epidicticisexcuhis (Diss. G6ttingen 1914)5 if.; K. Oppenheimer,Zwei attische Epitaphien(Diss.Berlin 1933)14ff.; J. Ziolkowski,Thucydides and thetraditionof funeralspeechesat Athens (Unpub. Diss., Chapel Hill N.C. 1963)91 if. 6. On Myronides' popularity seeRE, s.v. Myronides coil. 1132-1133(V. Ehrenberg). It should be noted that in the recent Kerameikos finds there were eleven ostraka bearing Myronides' name. The number is not statisticallysignificant, however,and doesnot counterthe contentionthat Myronides wasa popular general. In fact, they may merely indicate typical Greek phthonos at another's successand popularity (cf. schol. Arist. Eq. 855; Pollux 8.20; Plut. Arist. 7).

DIODORUS

in Plato's

11.82-84

Menexenus

191

7.

Cf. similar treatment

8.

See,for example,P. Wendland•"Die TendenzdesplatonischenMenex-

242.

enus",Hermes 25 ( 1õ90) 183-191; M. Pohlenz. Aus Platos Werdezeit (Berlin 1913) 247 ff.: H. Strasburger (above• n. 3) 17-40, esp. 20-28.

9. There is evidenceof an independenttradition concerningMyronides' exploits in Boeotia: Plut. Apophth. 185F; Polyaenus 1.35.1-2; Frontinus• Strat. 2.4.11:4.7.21. None of this, however,contradictsthe view that therewasa separate and distinctepitaphictreatment of thesedeeds.