American Journal of Ancient History 9781463206284, 1463206283

Citation preview

American Journal of Ancient History

American Journal of Ancient History

2.1

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 2.1 Edited by

Ernst Badian

gp 2016

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2016 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1977 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. ‫ܛ‬

1

2016

ISBN 978-1-4632-0628-4

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE

OF CONTENTS

Editor's Note ..............................................

1

John G. Griffith: A Note on the First Eisphoraat Athens............

3

G.V. Sumner:The Pompeiiin Their Families.....................

8

Allen M. Ward: Caesar and the Pirates II: The Elusive M. Iunius

Iuncus and the Year 75/4 ...............................

26

Chr. Hahicht: AthenischesEhrendekretvomJahre desKoroibos

(306/5) fiir einenk•niglichenOffizier......................

37

Robin Seager:Amicitia in TacitusandJuvenal...................

40

SarahB. Pomeroy:Technikai kai Mousikai......................

51

R.J.A. Talbert: SomeCausesof Disorderin A.D. 68-69 ............

69

Ronald Syme: Scorpusthe Charioteer..........................

86

EDITOR'S

NOTE

The fact that we are now beginningour secondyear of publicationcalls for gratituderatherthanself-satisfaction..The loyalsupportof oursubscribers, especially(but not only) membersof the Associationof Ancient Historians,encourages the hope that thisJournalis filling a needand giving somesatisfaction. Particularthanksare due to the (inevitably)increasing numberof colleagues who havebeencalleduponto assess typescripts submitted to us: althoughthey could not evenreceivepersonalthanksin print, they haveinvariablyacceptedour invitationandhave,on the whole, combineda passionfor highstandards with patientwillingness to giveadvice for improvement.Not least we want to thank our contributors-both thosewho (asmusthappen)havebeendisappointed in their hopesof publicationand haveadmittedthe fairnessof our proceduresor havehelped us improvethem, and thosewho, when facedwith a journal that took a

positiveinterestin theirworkafteracceptance have(afterthe firstshock) been willing to co-operatewith us in takingpainsto setout their viewsin the clearestway and to besteffect. If there is one thing in which this]ournal may take somepride,it is the fact that it is, at all stages,a co-operative effort.

Financeis still the main problem. We receiveno subsidyand, in the long run, ought not to. For the present,the lossis privatelyabsorbed.' An applicationto the National Endowmentfor the Humanities,guardianof the taxpayer'spatronageof scholarship,for a limited and temporaryino itial grantwasturneddownwith the explanationthat the Endowmentwas

just embarking on a majorandspeciallyfundedstudytq establish whether academicjournals need financialsupport:the result could not be anticipated. The only help we continue to receiveis logisticsupport from the Department of History at Harvard University (itself hard pressedfor funds):thishasplayeda majorpart in enablingus to keepgoing. Costshave increasedconsiderablyover the two yearssincethis]ournal was planned,and must continueto increase.Postageis an ever-rising expense, and this has led to a decision to publish only two numbersa year. (The total number of pageswill remain unchanged,as this issue

shows.)It doesnot seemdesirable to reducefrequencyto oneissueperyear, and we hope to remainat two. Also, from next year subscriptionrateswill haveto go up. They will then remainconstantagainfor at leasta second year. Our hope is still that circulation,which is still increasing(espe-

cially overseas), can increasesufficientlyto pay for publication.Weagain

(•) 1977 by E. Badi•n. All rightsreserved.

urge all privatesubscribers, who are supportinguswith their own money, to make surethat their institution'd librariesare alsosubscribing. Even apart from the changesforced on us, there will be others-

these (we hope) for the better. First of 'all,we havea new printer, and Greek may now be used (in moderation)in the text. Tids rids us of an annoying restriction. It will still be editori'd policy to discouragethe excessiveuseof Greek and, for that matter, Latin Quotations,whichis part of an unfortunate profession'dtradition that confusespedantry with scholarship.Contributors of major articleswill also be pleasedto hear that they will now receiveproperly bound reprints. Editorially, we are trying to extend our interests beyond the standardrange of academic Greek and Romanhistory;thoughof course,this will alwaysremaincentral to the Journal. And we are pleasedto welcomeour first contribution in a foreignlanguage.Our nost importantchange,however,hasbeenon our Editori'd Board. Most readersof this Journal will know that Mary White died early this year after a heart attack. She was by far our most experienced member, and her reports on manuscriptswere a model of firmnessjoined with kind advise:she could see somehope of improvement evenin a very poor productandwasneveroffensiveto the authoror unhelpfullycontemptuous in her manner.Shegot morethanher fair share of the assessing, from an Editor who inevitablyoverworksthe mostre-

liableof hiscollaborators, yet shenevercomplained andwasprepared to be helpfulwell outsideher field of specialinterest.Sheis irreplaceable. Two new members havejoinedthe Board,givingusmorestrengthin Greekhisroryandextending ourrangeto newfields,in the lateEmpire andearlyChristianity. Theiradvicehasalreadybeenwelcome in thepast, whentheyactedasoutsidereaders at varioustimes.Theywill helpusin developing andimprovingtheJournal.

A NOTE ON THE FIRST EISPHORA

AT ATHENS

It is worth reopeningdiscussion of' the problemof the date of the first Athenianeisphora,sincethe institutionof thiscapitallevyhasan interest whichgoesbeyondthe historyof publicfinanceat Athensin thelatterpart of the fifth century.The matterturnson the interpretation of a passage of

Thucydides (III 19,1),relating to th• year438/7,whichruns:(theAthenians,needingmoneyfor the siegeof Potidaea)Ka• aOro••oeve?K6vre½ r6re •cb•ega

....

The participialclausehasbeentaken to admit of two interpretations, either that in this year the eisphorawas levied for the first time sincethe outbreak of the war, or, alternatively,that this was the first occasionon which it had everbeencollected. 1 Thesehowever,as will appear,do not exhaustthe possibilities. In his discussion of this passage in hiscommentary(II 278) Gomme,

referringto hisearlierandmoreextended treatment?argues thatthewords wouldnaturallybe understood in the secondsense,but in view of the mention of eisphorain the secondKalliasdecree(usuallydatedto 434/3 B.C.) saysthat 'this canhardlybe true'. That documentis importantin this connection,sincein it the procedurefor obtainingimmunity (adeia)before proposingan eisphorais explicitlycited as a precedentto be followedin anotherkind of financialmeasure,involvingexpenditurefrom the fundsof Athenain excessof 10,000 drachmas.Thiscanonly meanthat the eisphora was alreadyan established and familiar institutionat the time of the de-

cree.It is true that the dateof thisdecreehasbeenchallenged, s but the casefor the later dating(to 422/1) doesnot seemto havebeenmadeout, so that it isbestto baseone'sview of Thucydides'statementon the assumption that the eisphorapredates434/3. It would not howeverbe fatal to

the argument developed here,if the laterdatewereto besubstantiated. • It is perhapscuriousthat Thucydideswasndt more specific,if he wished his words to be taken in the first of the two sensessuggested;al-

thoughit might be maintainedthat sincethere would havebeenmany amonghis readerswho had themselvesfelt the impact of this tax, he did not feel it necessary to saymore about its previousincidence.His phrasing however,for all its apparentsimplicityon first reading,allowsof another interpretationaltogether:it may be taken to meanthat this wasthe first occasionon which the Atheniansraiseda sumashigh as200 talentsfrom the eisphora,with no implicationsaboutthe dateof its first employment. Enquiryshowsthat this interpretationhad occurredindependentlyto R. Thomsen,the authorof the most thorough-going treatmentof the eisphora

4

J.G. GRIFFITtt

to date, publishedin 1964.5 Although two of the book's numerous reviewerscommendedit,s othersunderstandably concentratedon the intricate controversiessurroundingthe eisphorain the fourth century, which form the greaterpart of the work, andsodid not drawattentionto this proposalconcerning the levy in 428/7.? If howeverthis rendering could be confirmed by other considerations, it would cover the facts

neatly anddispose ofa minor buttiresome problem.

"

On casualreadingthereseemsnothingto choosestylisticallybetween either of the two generallyacceptedinterpretationsand the one now beingrecommended, but more carefulattentionto Thucydides'usagein regard to word-order may assistin deciding.This will centre on the relationof the temporalexpression r6re ,to,roy to its surroundings. This word-grouphasbeenrecentlydiscussed from a differentpoint of viewin relationto a controversial fragmentof Androtion,by G.V. Sumner, 8 to

whosearticlethe readermay be referred.For the presentpurposeit is unfortunate that Thucydideshas not the benefit of a recent index or concordance,and the possibilitythat somethingof relevancehas been

overlooked cannotbe entirelyexcluded. 9 If howeverthe eightpassages, other than the one underdiscussion (III 19, 1), in which the phrase7dre

np•37oo indubitablyoccursare setout,lø a patternof word-order emerges whichis at leastindicative,if not decisive. In fiveof these(I 96,2; II 56,2; III 40,2; III 104,2; VII 4,6) the words•6•e •rpff•rov (in II 56,2 :rpt3•ov r6re)ll precedethe verbin the clause,whetherthis standsin the finite moodor is usedparticipially.In two passages this doesnot happen:at II

68,5 the sense isplain,andsinceThucydides istherediscussing thespeech of contemporary Ambraciots (r//v v•v ?},t$ooap), it mayhaveseemed to him stylisticallyeffectiveto introducethe main verb (r)XX•pioO•oap)at the beginningof the sentence.In the other example (VII 97,1) the word-orderseemsto be influencedby the length of the apposed/•4v clause, and the sentenceis somewhatroughhewnin that eOOO•r6re :rod•70vis not picked up until •'X•at Oo•eoo•nv•ai •olat somelines later; thus e006½seems to cohere rather with r6re, and npc$r0pto be

appendedas an afterthought.In one other passagethe text is insecure (VIII 86,4) and discussionis best reservedfor a note.•e Nuancesof

word-order arealwaysdelicatein Greekprose,ando•erconfident assertion is perilous,but the inversionat IIl 19,1, wherebythe participle •oe•,e?•6vTe½ precedes the temporalindicator•6•e •rp•ot, againstwhat is

evidentlythe preferredword-orderin Thucydides, canhardlybe overlooked. Had he written •al aOro• r6re •rp•3rov•oe•,e7•6vre• ....

,

the renderingnow proposedmightseemlesslikely, sincer6re nOeStoo couldthenbe takencloselywith the immediately following participle, ratherthanwith the numerical expression. Sincehehasexpressed himself as he has,a reasonable degreeof confidence may be felt by thosewho wishto takethewordsin themannernowsuggested. If theinstitution of theeisphora canbe safelycarriedbackbeyond

A NOTE

ON THE

FIRST

EISPHORA

AT ATHENS

5

428/7 or (assumingthe accepteddate for the Kalliasdecreeto be correct) beyond 434/3, there are implicationsfor the dating of the Tetralogies

whichgo underthe nameof Antiphon.15 It wouldfall outsidethe scope of this note to examinein any detail the unresolvedproblemsposedby these curious works, which many have found to be of specialinterest becauseon groundsof content and style they may arguablybe the earliest specimensof Attic literary Greek prose which have come down to us. To this view the claim of the defendantin the First Tetralogy(secondspeech, section 12) to have contributed 'many heavy eisphorai' OroXX6½ lae?dXac•o½o0dc)wasan obstacle,so long as it wasthoughtthat this referencegavea terminuspost quem of 428/7 (or possibly434/3): indeedif the adjective •roXXdc was stressed,a date some years later might be required. Now however that Thucycides' words may be viewed in another light, and the institution of the eisphora carried back into the middle yearsof the fifth century, there is no longerany impedimenton this score to upholding an early date for the Tetralo.•es if this accordsbest with other considerations. 14

JesusCollege,Oxford

John G. Griffith

NOTES

1. As implied by G.H. Stevensonin]HS 44 (1924) 1 f. 2. In Historia 2 (1953) 17 f. (the pagereferenceis wrongly givenin the Commentar'y,ad 1oc.II 278). 3. The later date was urged by H.B. Mattingly in BCH 92 (1968) 450 if. and by C.W. Fornara in GRBS 11 (1970) 185-96. Strong and, to many, convincingalefences

of the accepteddate (434/3) wereput forwardby W.E.Thompson(C (ffM 28 (1969) 219 fl.) and by D.W. Bradeen(GRBS 12 (1971) 469-83). 4. There are two other epigraphicalreferencesto eisphora in fifth-century documents, but these throw no light on the question, since not only is the context where the word occurs fragmentary in each case, but the inscriptions relate to payments made by foreign communities (Miletus and Histiaea) and do not imply that

eisphorahad been levied at that time in Athens.These texts are A TL II, D 11, p. 59 line 58 (= SEG X 14) and IG 12 42 (or SEG X 37) line 23; alsoaccessible in MeiggsAndrewes(1951) 303, part of B 54. 5. R. Thomsen, EISPHORA, a study of direct taxation in ancient Athens (HumanitaslII, 1964) 144 f. 6. These are E. Seidl, HZ 201 (1966) 179 and W. Peremans,RBPh 42 (1965)

1176-8. (Peremans' wordsare: 'les Ath4nienslev•rentl'imp6t de l'eisphorapour la premiere fois au taux de 200 talents. Le •rta•rovdoit •tre reli• /• &a•dotar&•avra.') 7. So, to list the fuller reviewsknown to me, CR 80 (1966) 90-3 (de Ste Croix); JHS 86 (1966) 245-7 (Brunt); Gnomon 38 (1966) 521-2 (Treucker);Mnemosyne20 (1967) 206-10 (Pleket); RFIC 95 (1967) 113-9 (CalabiLimentani);REA 68 (1966) 456-8 (Peyrau).

6

j. (-;. (;RIFFITH 8. In BICS 11 (1964) 79 f. •on Androtion 1'6).

9. B•tant'slexiconto Thucydides(1843) is serviceable, thoughit omitsparticles and is basedon an old text. Essenin his more recent one (1887) reproveshis predecessorfor omissions,but is himself vulnerableto the samecharge,as appearsfrom his failure to register II1 40,2 in his entries s.v. np•roc (-roy). 10. The texts of these passagesare: I 96,2 •al 'E•vora•iat rtre np•rov '•O•valot• •ardor• &pxr•,ol •dXOVrO rbv •6pov.

II III

56,2 68,5

III

40.2

•ai 'A•pax•r•'v

•uvut•odvrwv.

•a• •X•a•av

•uv4Xe•ov,•v

Ill 104,2 VII VIII

4,6 97,1

VIII

86,4'

The absence of inst•ces of rfire •0•ov

•v

e60• r•re •o•ov

• r•v •vf•a

in books IV-VI is cert•nly s•ge,

but

authorsboth •cient •d modembehaveunpredictablyin the frequencywi• which

theyuseparticles •ndo•er idioms inclose proximity, •d equ•y avoid(•consciously, no doubt)ch•cterisfic m•erism overlongstretches of a work. 11. Gommeon •s p•age (ll 163) c•ls attentionto •e •mbi•ity inherentin •d•e -o•o, and m•kes a cross-reference to IIl 19,1, without howevercommitting h•self to more than a subjectivejud•ent. 12. At VII 86,4 •e text in almost all the MSS h e0&•oc rt•e ... Ap•t from three Parisini kno• to Bekker but not reported in the app•atus of modern

e•tions, the only MS to offer n0&•o• is B {Vatic. 126, saec.xi). ThisMS hasa speci• •terest after VI 92, s•ce at thh point it breaksfree from its congenerMSS and caries a number of v•riants which derive from a different text-type and need to be

consideredseriously,althoughby no me•s •1 of thesecomm•d assent.(On this

shiftof MS-•le•ce

seeA. •ei•ogel, Geschichte desThukydidestextes (1965) 1 f.)

At VIII 86,4 e•tors •e divided, and somehesitate.Thus while Poppo-St•hl (1872,

1883), Cl•sen (1905), Stunt-Jones(1942) and Romilly (1972) promote-0•o• to the• text, • a•st Hude (1901) •d o•e•, both Poppo-Stahl•d Cl•sen-Steupin the commenta• of 1963 advice powerful •guments againsttheir chosenrea•ng no•ou. It is odd, to s•y the le•t, • view of hh referencesto Alcibiadese•lier, that Thucy•des shouldsay that it w• not until 411 that ;Mcibiadesdid si• se•ice to his count•. -o•oe is not perhapsfree from •fficulty, but can h•dly be •smissed as tautolo•c• •d yields a sathf•cto• sere: Alcibiadesw• the first, i.e. he took •e initiative •ong those at Samos,• urging a courseof action that w• of outstanding benefit to Athens.The reading-o&•oe may gain somesupportfrom Plut•ch's phr•e (Alelb. 26,5) describingthe same•cident: •fiuoe •)•dh•a•u. However the questionto •k

oneself in •

e•tor•

decisio•

of •is

kind h.

'utra leerio in alteram abitura

A NOTE

ON THE

FIRST

EISPHORA

AT ATItENS

erat?' If Thucydides wrote nocSroqr6re it is easy to see how rroc3rovcould have arisen from recollection of the phrase rdre ,p•rov elsewhere, and this is almost certainly what has happened in B. But that an original •p•rov should have given place to ,o&roe in the whole body of the textual tradition here is in the highest degree unlikely. If, in spite of this, ,•c3rov is retained, it may best be taken as meaning imprimis (cf. Poppo-Stahl'smaximum beneficium) rather than in a temporal sense. Thus, whatever the reading, it becomes clear that this instance must stand on a different footing from the others and as such has to be left aside in this discussion. 13. On the Tetralogies, see among recent discussionsP. von der Miihll in MH 5 (1948) 1-5; G. Zuntz in MH 6 (1949) 102-3; K.J. Dover in CQ 44 (1950) 58-9. 14. I should like to acknowledge the helpful criticisms and encouragement I received

of A]AH

from

Mr.

de Ste Croix

and Mr.

D.M.

Lewis

and also to thank

the editor

and his referees for their suggestions,which much improved this note.

THE POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

VelleiusPaterculus,after describingthe ffnalstagein the stormycareerof Cn. PompeiusStrabo(2.21.1-4), appendsan interesting prosopographical note on the Pompeiiof the Republic: 'seu duae seu tres Pompeiorumfuere familiae,primuseiusnominis ante annos fere CLXVII (?readCLXXI) Q. Pompeiuscum Cn. Servilio

consul

fuit.'

The principalstatementhere dealsof coursewith the fact that Q. PompeiusA.f., cos.141 (RE 12), wasthe firstof the nameto hold the consulship.The author'suncertaintywhetherthereweretwo or threefarniliae of Pompeiiseemsto be due to the presence of threeinheritedcognornina amongthe principalbearersof the name:(a) 'Bithynicus',whichwasfirst acquiredby Cicero'sfriend Q. PompeiusA.f., quaestorby 75 (OratorsR 186), and transmittedto his son, propraetor44-42 (Phoenix 1971, $60); (b) 'Rufus', cognomen ofQ. Pompeius Q.f., cos.88 (RE $9), and of hisson, killed in 88 (RE 40), and alsoof Q. PompeiusQ.f. Arn., praetor65 (RE 42), and Q. Pompeius,tr.pl. 52, grandsonboth of Sullaand of the consul of 88 (RE 41); (c) 'Magnus',the cognomenassumedby Cn. Pompeius (Pompey)andtransmittedto histwo sons(RE $1-$$). It has generallybeen believedby scholarsthat the PompeiiRuff and the PompeiiBithyniciwerecloselyrelatedbranches,but that the family to which the PompeiiMagnibelongedwasquite distinct.Sucha view is expressed,for example,in Drumann-Groebe (GR 4.$12). It wasadoptedby Gelzerin hisfundamentalessayon PompeiusStrabo(KS 2.109), and taken for granted in Miltner's presentationof the Pompeii (RE 21.2050 if.). Miltner's stemma (2051 f.) portrays 'the line of the Magni' as entirely separatefrom 'the line of the Bithynici and Ruff'. Lily RossTaylor challengedthe cornrnunisopinio with characteristic forthrightness(VDRR 245). 'The Bithynici', she wrote, 'usedthe praenomina A. and Q. whichwere found amongthe PompeiiRuff, but not among the Magni. But they also used Sextus,which wasemployedby the Magni, but not by the Ruff. Moreoverthis memberof the Bithynici [sc.A. PompeiusA.f., RE 4] wasin the tribe of the Magni [i.e. Clustumina],while the PompeiusRufuslistedbelow [sc.the praetorof 63] is in the Arnensis. I thereforehold that the relationshipwaswith the Magni,rather than with the Ruff.'

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

Miss Taylor had reasonablegroundsfor insistingon a connection betweenall thosePompeiiattestedas.belongingto the tribe of Clustumina. On the one hand we haveA. PompeiusA.f. Clu. (ILLRP 364); it is not preciseto call him a 'memberof the Bithynici',but he wasalmostcertainly relatedto Q. Bithynicus,whetheras'brother (RE 4) or asnephew.On the other side we have three examples:Cn. PompeiusCn.f. Clu., senator129

(RDGE 12.36), andtwo Pompeiion Strabo'sconsilium in 89 (ILLRP 515), Sex. PompeiusSex.f. Clu. and Cn. PompeiusCn.f. Clu. (presumablythe later Magnus). It is obviousthat only one of thesecanclaimto be of 'the Magni', but it is of coursehighlyprobablethat the other two wereclosely relatedto Pompey. However, Miss Taylor was scarcelyjustified in denying the close connectionbetween the 'Bithynici' and the 'Ruff' (cf. Badian,Historia 1963, 138 f.). Her statementsabout the praenominausedby the Pompeii need somerefinement.Aulusis not actuallyattestedfor any bearerof the names Pompeius Rufus or PompeiusBithynicus. It is, however, the praenomenof the fatherof Q. Pompeius,cos.141,and the latter is generally presumedto be the father of Q. PompeiusRufus,cos.88. Aulusisalso the

nameof the ill-starred tribuneof 102 (RE 3), probablythe fatherof Q. Pompeius Bithynicus.The fact that the nameSextusis neverattestedfor the Ruff, but in one caseis usedby a presumedbrother of Bithynicus

(S/G3 1125),isinteresting but notprobative. Theneedfor a thirdpraenomen after Quintusand Auluswouldonly ariseif there werea third brother, and there is no signof this occurringamongthe PompeiiRuff. Nor is it decisive that one of the Rufi has a different tribe, Amensis instead of

Clustumina. Different tribes are occasionallyattested in branchesof the same family, and there were ways in which individualscould have their

tribe changed. All thishasbeendocumented by MissTaylorherself(VDRR 280 fl.). In fine, it wouldbe paradoxicalto admit'the descentof Q. PompeiusQ.f. Rufus,cos.88, from the first-attestedA. Pompeius,while at the sametime denyingthe descentof A. Pompeius,tr.pl. 102, or A. Pompeius A.f. Clu., from the selfsameA. Pompeius. The only sensibleconclusionto be drawn from our data is that the familiesconveniently,thoughinexactly, referredto as 'Bithynici', 'Ruff', and 'Magni' were all connectedto one another. The tie between the 'Bithynici' and 'Ruff' was close, whereastheir link with the 'Magni' was more distant.

At this point it seemsadvisable,in the interestsof clarity, to refer the readerto the stemmashowingthe positedrelationshipsof the Pompeii. By meansof it he shouldbe better ableto follow the discussion of questions of detail. He mustbe warnedthat, in the presentstateof our information, a numberof minor uncertaintieswill inevitablyremain.

G.V. SUMNER

10

r.t.

141.erin.

I•11-0

;I tr. pt

{4.} A. I'mqmdmnA.L

(4.) A. P•

I. A. Pompeiusand his descendants

AulusPompeius(RE 1) is known only throughhissonQuintus,cos.141. Sincethe latter was a new man (Cic. Font. 23, Mur. 16), 'homo per se cognitus'(Brut. 96), 'humili atqueobscuro1oconatus'(2 Verr. 5.181), the father was certainly a non-senator.The notion in Psuedo-Plutarch (Apophth.Scip.min. 8) that Auluswasanauletes(hesitantlyacceptedby Wiseman,NMRS 73 n.1) derivesfrom a misinterpretationof Scipio's sneerabout 'waitingfor an aul•t•s' where the flute-playeris actuallythe

sonQuintus,with a play on dulifilius (Astin,SA 257,312). The entryin the Chronographer of 354 (MGH, AA 9.54) for the consulshipof 141 ('Ceploet Nepote')impliesthat the FastimentionedA. Pompeius' father in the filiation of his son,in the form Q. POMPEIVSA.F. - NEPOS(GR 4.313 n.3;Inscr. It. 13.1.52 f., 125, 346, 468 f.;MRR 1.477).

As Aulus' son wasborn by 184 (OratorsR 47), Aulushimselfwas evidentlybornbeforetheendof the SecondPunicWar.He musthavebeen approximatelycontemporary WithPompeius, thebravemilitarytribunein the WaragainstPerseus, recordedby Livy (42.65.6 ff., 171 B.C.),andwith the evenbraverlegatusinterceptedand tortured by Gentiusin 168 (Val.

Max. 3.2.2).The legatus is givenno?aenomenin Valerius Maximus; the tribuneappears, in the text of Livy,with the surprising praenomen 'L.', which is otherwiseunexampledand probablyneedsto be emended.But before we change'L.' to 'A.' and identify the tribuneand !cgatuswith

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

11

1

6. Cn. Pompeiu&Ca.f. Glu. •e•a

I

('P•)

t o•

129

cos. 89 ' •eL (?Nonms Sufc•

31.Cn.P•ius

Cn.f.•x.n. Clu.M•nu* : (3) Muc•

I

C. Memmius(17) - 53. Pompeia= (2 •) P Sulla q. 77/& cos.d•s. 66

?pt. 55)

32.Cu.Pom•iusMaim •o•.

74745,

I

Faultus $ulh(l) : 54. P•h

a (2) L. CinM

I

33. Scz. Pompeiu. MagnusPlus = ScribonL•

Procos. 39-35, f35 5s.

Aulus Pompeius,we have to considerthat Aulus is made out to be so

lowly in rank that he couldhardlyhaveheldeventhoseposts.Still,as Wiseman haspointedout (NMRS 65 fl.), the kind of comments we hear aboutQ. Pompeius' familycannotsafelybe takentooliterally. Q. Pompeiuswas not, of course,Aulus' first-born, who must have

beennamedAulustoo.2 Recognition of thisled Miltnernot only 'auf Grunddesr6mischen Namengesetzes' to postulate A. Pompeius (RE2) as elderbrotherof Q. Pompeius, but alsoto envisage him aspossibly the actualfatherof A. Pompeius, tr.pl. 102 (RE 3). Yet thefirst-born sonof A. Pompeius (1) maynot havesurvived to becomea parent.The Roman rulesof nomenclature wouldbejustaswellsatisfied if A. Pompeius, tr.pl. 102, wasa sonof Q. PompeiusA.f.

Theonlyoffspring of Q. Pompeius actuallycertifiedis hisdaughter Pompeia, whowasthe motherof C. Sicinius, quaestor ca 74 (Cic.Brut. 263; OratorsR 203), andperhaps also,for all we know,of Cn. Sicinius, tr.pl. 76 (MRR 2.93). Her husbandSiciniusis unknown.The dateof birth

of her sonGaius,roundabout105, suggests that sheherselfwasborn between ca 145andthelate120s.Thatwill accordwith theprobable birthdatesof A. Pompeius, tr.pl. 102, andQ. Pompeius Rufus,cos.88--both in the 130s.

Q. Pompeius Q.f. Rufus(cf.ILLRP361;Inscr. It. 13.1.482f.) wasa closecontemporary of Cn. Pompeius Strabo,as is illustrated by their consulships. So far as we know,theywerethe firstPompeiito adda cognomen to theirnames. • Rufusis generally identified asthetribuneof

12

G.V. SUMNER

the plebs who in December 100 (MRR 2.2) participatedin the promulgation of a bill for the recall of Metellus Numidicusfrom exile. Sinceour source (Orosius5.17.11) namesmerely 'Pompeius',it is not absolutely certain that PompeiusRufus is to be preferredover PompeiusStrabofor this role.

-•

If Q. PompeiusRufuswas the tribuneof (100-)99, it is finlikelythat he was the elder brother of A. Pompeius,tr.pl. 102. Unlesswe shouldfall back on the hypothesisthat they were not brothersbut fratrespatrueles, we could suppose(what is not improbable)that Q. PompeiusA.f. (born by 184) had an earliersonQuintuswho died after the birth of Aulusin the 130s. Hence the praenomen Quintus would be available for Q. PompeiusRufus as the younger brother of A. Pompeius,tr.pl. 102. Q. Rufus was certainlypraetorin 91 (MRB 2.20), so that his consulshipin 88 was fight on schedule;he need not have been born much before 1-31. This considerationagain points to his being younger than Aulus, the tribune of 102, whose birth-date was almost certainly prior to 132-probably about 135. (For this periodcompareC. CoeliusCaldus,born ca 140,

tr.pl. 107, and C. AureliusCotta, born 124, tribuniciancandidatefor 90;

OratorsR 109, 1434.) The descendants of Q. PompeiusRufus are not without problems. He himself was killed late in 88 while still consul(Veil. 2.20.1;Val. Max. 9.7. rnil. Born. 2; App. 1.63; Liv. per. 77). Beforethat he had lost a sonin the Sulpicianseditionof the sameyear. The youth (BE 40) is almostnever givena name, but appearsas 'Q. Pompeiconsulisfilium' (Veil. 2.18.6),

'the lad of the consulPompeius', 'the sonof the other'[sc.consul](Plut. Mar. 3õ.2, $ull. 8.3), 'the sonof Pompeius'(App. 1.56). In Livy, periocha 77 theMSSread'Q. Pompeiconsulisfilio', the sameformulaasin Velleius. For no good reason'Q. Pompeio'hasbeen restoredbefore 'Q. Pompei'in modern editions.The singlesupport for the belief that this son of the consulof 88 hasthepraenomenQuintushappensto be Suetonius'reference to Caesar'swife Pompeia-QuintiPornpeifiliarn, L. Sullaeneptem(D] 6.2). This bringsus to the problemof Q. PompeiusRufus(RE 42), the man who appearsin the senatusconsulturnof 73 (RDGE 23), with certainsupplementation,asQ. Pompeius Q.f. Am. Rufus.He is listedafter M. Ciceroand Q. Axius,andso musthavebeenquaestor75 or 74. He wasthereforeborn by 106 or 105 respectivelyand is obviouslythe samepersonasQ. Pompeius

Rufus,praetor63 (Sail. Cat.30..5),bornby 103. If it istruethatthesonof the consulof 88 who died in that year wasnamedQuintus,there seemsto be only oneway to explainthe nameof the praetorof 63: it is necessary to hypothesizethat the consulof 88, after the death of his son,had to make an adoption (Mommsen,Hermes1885, 284). Badian(Historia1963, 139) arguedthat the tribe of Arnensiswasretainedby theyouth fromhisoriginal statusbefore adoption,'and tells us nothingabout the originaltribe of the Ruff' (in polemicagainstTaylor, VDRR 245). Now we do not know the

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

13

tribe of the consulof 88. He might have changedfrom Clustuminato Amensis,or the sonmight havechangedfrom Clustuminato Amensisby 73. Thisisnot to denythat Badian'sexplanationis a verysatisfactoryway of accountingfor the appearanceof the tribe Amensisamongthe Pompeii. Of the two, Q. PompeiusRufus (RE 40) was almostcertainlythe elder since, when killed in 88, he had sired by Cornelia Sullae f. at least

one son, Q. PompeiusRufus (RE 41), and a daughter(RE 52). Perhaps the wedding took place in 89, with a view to the joint consularcandidature of the two fathers-in-law, Sulla and Rufus. A birth-date in 88 or, even

better, 87 (posthumously) will suit the careerof the sonproducedby the

marriage.He wasa moneyerabout54 (Crawford,RCC 434), tr.pl. 52 (MRR 2.236), andalreadytumsup in 63 whenFaustus Sulla,hisslightly youngerstep-uncle, wrote from Asiarequesting the purchase of gladiators (Cic. SuIl. 55). He might be the PompeiusRufuswho wasa Caesarian ofricer at Thapsusin 46 (BAfr 85.7: not in MRR), unlessthis is an unattestedsonof the praetorof 63. Whenhis tribunateended(9 Dec. 52), Q. PompeiusRufuswas prosecutedand convictedby his fellow-tribuneand contemporary,M. Caelius Rufus (born ca 88/87: OratorsR 217). The relationsbetweenCaeliusand

the PompeiiRuff are distinctlycurious.In 62-1, Q. PompeiusQ.f. Am. Rufus (RE 42) waspropraetorof Africa, and Caeliusservedwith him as contubernalis(Cic. Cael. 73). As a result Rufuswas calledto givecharacter testimony on Caelius' behalf at his trial in 56; after that he disappears from record. The other Q. PompeiusRufus, his nephew (RE 41),

wasan extremelyclosefriendof P. ClodiusPulchei(Ascon.50 f. Clark), and consequentlyon the oppositeside to Caelius.In 52, as tribune, he joined with T. MunatiusPlancusin stirringup the populaceafter the murder of Clodius(Ascon.32 fl.), raisinga stormof indignationagainstMilo. This led to the burning of the curia, which causeda revulsionof feeling. CaeliusgrantedMilo a contio and personallyspoketo the peoplein his defence. After the senatusconsulturnultimum was passed,Caeliusdemanded before Pompeythat the slavesof Q. PompeiusRufus (and Plautius Hypsaeus)be producedto him for questioning; thiswasin response to demandsby others for production of Milo's slaves,and those of his wife Fausta and also of P. Clodius. Later, Q. PompeiusRufusjoined with Plancusin interrogatingon the Rostra a triumvir capitaliswho had taken into custodya slaveof Milo's. Next day, Caeliusand a colleagueseizedthe slaveand restoredhim to Milo. Q. Pompeius,in companywith Plancusand Sallust,held rowdy contionesvituperatingMilo and alsoCicero.But later, saysAsconius(37), PompeiusandSallustweresuspected of havingreturned to favour with Milo and Cicero. Plancus, however, indicated that he in-

tended to put Ciceroon trial-this had earlierbeenQ. Pompeius'intention. The idea wasto deter Cicerofrom defendingMilo. (Seefurther A. Lintott, JRS 1974, 68 fl.). In spiteof everything,after CaeliushadsecuredPompeius

14

G.V. SUMNER

Rufus' convictionde vi (Dio 40.55.3), and Pompeiushad goneto live in penuryat Bauli(Cic.Faro.8.1.5), Caeliusis foundactingon hisbehalfin a privatesuit againsthis motherCornelia:'cummaterCorneliafidei commissapraedianon redderet,atqueiste auxiliumsuumlitteris inplorasset, pertinacissime absentiadfuit.' (Val. Max. 4.2.7). He evenreadPompeius'

letteroutin courtto provehisdireneed.Thesefriendly relations suggest that Caeliusmay havesomehowprotectedQ. PompeiusRufusat the same time as he brought about his conviction.Certainly Pompeiusseemsto have receiveda light penalty, seeingthat he was allowed to stay in

Campania. 5

Hissister, Pompeia (RE52),daughter ofQ.Pompeius Rufus (RE40)

and Cornelia, wasmarriedto Caesarafter his return from the quaestorship

in Spain(accordingto Plutarch,Caes.5.7). He musthavereturnedby the end of 68, ashe wasin time to supportthe Lex Gabiniaearly in 67 (MRR Sup. 30). The marriageto Pompeiais well placedin 67, when it fits in with Caesar'spolitical attachment to Pompey (pace Strasburger,CEG 135). The Bona Dea intrigue between Pompeiaand P. Clodius,which resuited in Caesar'sdivorcingher (cf. Wiseman,Cinna 130 if.), hasits corollary in the closefriendshipbetweenher brother and Clodius(Ascon.50 C1.).As shewasstill only in her late twenties,and Caesarhad beenscrupulous not to disgraceher, Pompeiais perhapsa candidateto be the second

wife of P. Vatinius,tr.pl. 59 (Cic.Faro.5.11.2, 'quodmihi feminamprimariam, Pompeiam,uxorem tuam, commendas':45 B.C.); thoughVatinius may still have been marriedto Antonia in 56 (Schol.Bob. 149 Stangl). Miltner thought of Pompey'ssisterfor Vatinius (RE 53), but he overlookedher marriageto P. Sulla(Cic. Q. Fr. 3.3.2), andin any caseshewas probably too old for Vatinius (who was born about 95: Phoenix 1971, 260). Admittedly,theremay havebeenother Pompeiaein thisgeneration, not recorded.

An inscriptionfrom Eleusis(SIG• 1125) was dedicatedby three

brothersPompeii. 6 Cichorius(RS 187) conjectured that theprincipaldedicator was Q. PompeiusA.f. Bithynicus(RE 25), perhapswhen he was actually on his way to Asia and Bithynia, and presumablybefore he acquired his distinctivecognomen.Cichorius'conjecturecan hardly be improved on. (The alternative,that the three brotherswere nephewsof

Bithynicus,sonsof his brother Aulus, is not in the least attractive.) Cichorius,however,madethe commonassumption that Aulus,bearingthe praenomenof the father, must havebeen the eldest.Once againit hasto be observedthat the assumption is not necessary; a first-bornAuluscould just as well havedied in infancy, leavingQuintusasthe eldest.On the inscriptionQuintussurelylookslike the eldestbrother. Gruen(LGRR 165), followingWillems(Sgnat1.457),presumes that Bithynicusreachedthe praetorshipin the early 60s. He providesno evi-

dence,andWillems'solewarrantfor hisremarkably positiveview('il n'est pasdouteuxqu'il n'arriv'•tensuite/a la pr•ture,probablement en68 ou67')

THE POMPEII

iN THEIR

FAMILIES

15

is Cic. Faro. 6.17.2, addressedto Bithynicus' son, and containing the phrase 'iudiciis patris tui de me, summi viri'. This is scarcelyenough, thoughit cannotbe deniedthat Q. Bithynicusmay haveheld the praetorship.Cichorius,however,thoughtof him for one of the Pompeiiiuvenes who, accordingto Florus (1.41.9), were assignedcommandof the mare Aegyptiumin Pompey'spirate campaign(RS 188); the other,he thought, would be Aulus, even though he believed him to be the eldest. Two younger brothers of Bithynicus would best fit Florus' description;the only other suitable candidate is the future praetor of 63, Q. Rufus. PompeiusBithynicus,obviouslythe son of Q. Bithynicus(RE 26), was governorof Sicily when Sex. PompeiusMagnusbeganoccupyingthe island late in 43. He had probably been there since 44, and he was killed by Sextusearly in 42. He held praetorianimperium, but it is not certain

that he had held thepraetorship (cf. phoenix1971, 360). He is patentlya differentmanfromA. Pomp.M.f., quaestor or proquaestor in Africa47/6 (ibid. 263), who seemsto be a Pomponius.A. POM, late Republican quaestor (?) in Sicily (MRR 2.479), could conceivablybe Bithynicus (Grant, FITA 26 n. 19), whosepraenomenis unknown. But he might insteadbe A. PomponiusM.f., Sicilianquaestoron the Pompeiansidein 50 or 49, forced to switch to Africa by the C,aesariantake-overin Sicily, hencecallinghimselfquaestor(• proquaestor) in 48-46. tAbout Q. PompeiusBithynicus'brothersAulus and Sextusnothing more is known for sure.Aulus is commonlyidentifiedwith the quaestor honouredin an inscriptionfrom Terni (ILLRP 364; cf. Cichorius,RS 185):

A. PompeioA.f. / Clu., q., patrono/ municipiInteramnat./ Nahartis,quod eius/ operauniversurn / municipium ex summis/ periculeiset diffi/cultatibusexpeditum/ et conservatum est, ex / testamentoL. Licini T.f. / statuastatutaest.

Degrassi,in his note, had endorsedCichorius'view, adding:'nec recte Bo.rrnanndixerat litterarum formas aetati Augusticonvenirevideri.' But he shortlychangedhis mind (ILLRP2, p. 327): 'cum ex litteris rum ex ornamentispersuasumnunc habeo titulum esseimperatoriaeaetatis ineuntis, ut iam Bormann statuerat.' L.R. Taylor had already observed (VDRR 245): 'the possibilitythat the peril from which A. Pompeiusrescued InteramnaNaharsmay belongto the Catilinarianperiodor the time of the PerusineWar should still be considered.'In the light of Degrassi's reviseddating, it is clear that the inscriptioncanhardly be earlierthan 49 and probablybelongsto the period of the Triumvirate,not to the Sullan period, as supposedby Cichorius.The easy solution is to identify this quaestoras the son of Q. Bithynicus'brother Aulus.As for Sex. Pompeius A.f., his only contributionis to point to a Sex. Pompeiusfurther back in the line of descentof this family, at a junction with the other main line of the Pompeii.

16

G.V. SUMNER

II. Cn. Pompeiusand hisdescendants Cn. Pompeiusis known only throughfiliation, in particularthat of Cn. PompeiusStrabo,cos.89, who wasSex.f.Cn.n.(cf. Inscr.It. 13.1.480 f.). SextusPompeiusdied in 119 at the handsof the Celtic Scordisci whenhe wasgovernor(stratbgos) of Macedonia(Sarikakis,RAEM 48 f.). The inscriptionwhichis the solesourceof thisinformation(SIG3 700) is dated to July 119 (M.N. Tod, BSA 23, 211), and describes alsothe restorationof Roman supremacyby the stalwartaction of the quaestorM. Annius. The timing makesit likely that Pompeius'governorshipdid not beginin 119 but earlier,probablyin 120 (RE 14.764 f.; Jashemski,OHHPI 129; OratorsR 51). SEX. POM, moneyerin the 130s (137, accordingto Crawford,RRC 235), is usuallyassumed to be the sameperson(thougha Sex. Pomponiusseemsa possiblealternative).His denariuscoinagefeatures a gooddealof symbolism from the Romulus'myth: wolf andtwins,shgpherd Faustulus,fig-tree, woodpeckers,milk-jug.? Sex. Pompeius(the governor)is evidentlythe son of Cn., and the father of Cn. Pompeius Strabo.

Cn. PompeiusCn.f. Clu. is found as the 31st namein the consilium whichadjudicatedon the agerPergamenus (RDGE 12). The date is usually givenas 129, mainly becauseof the fragmentarynamesof consulsin lines 9 and 17 of the document.Wewouldsupposedly requirea pair of consuls whose names end in -v•Mo½and -vto½,and whose year falls after the acquisition of the provinceof Asia (line 15) and precedesCaesar'sreform of the calendar(line 21). Only two pairsanswer:the consulsof 129 (C.

Semproniusand M'. Aquillius) and those of 63 (M. Tullius and C. Antonius). The latter can be eliminatedas a possibilityby variousprosopographicalconsiderations (e.g. the presentPompeiuscould not be fitted into a consiliumof 63) and by the fact that betweenSulla (ca 85) and Caesar(ca 48) Pergamumwasdeprivedof its freedom(cf. Sherk,RDGE 68 n.1, 281 n.1, 282 n.2). H.B. Mattingly has recently revivedthe idea that the hypatoi of line 9 need not be the consulsof the current year, so that the consul -vhht0cof line 17 could be identified as M'. Aquillius, cos. 101 (AJP 1972, 412 fl.; cf. Magie,RRAM 2.1005 n.25). Mattingly does not appearto haveoffered valid argumentsfor replacingM'. Aquillius, cos. 120, with M'. Aquillius, cos. 101. There is, however, further reason to hold that the consuls of line 9 should not be the consuls of 129.

That reason is the order of their names. The evidence of the Fasti, as re-

presentedby the Chronographerof 354, the Fasti,Hydatiana, and the ChroniconPaschale,as well as Cassiodorus, Orosiusand Cicero (cf. Inscr. It. 13.1.470 f.; MRR 1.504), makesit obviousthat the correctorder of the namesfor 129 wasC. SemproniusM'. Aquillius.Nor is this surprising, sinceSemproniusTuditanuswas of noble family and M'. Aquilliuswas not, henceTuditanuswas morelikely to be electedprior consul.In line 9, however, the nameswould have to be restored in the order M•ivtoe'A Kb?t?ttoe

I'dtoe Ze•npdo]vto½. The sameobjectionappliesto the alternativeresto-

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

17

ration mentionedby Mattingly (op. cit. 417), viz. the consulsof 131. The correct order of their names is not Valeflus Licinius, but P. Licinius L.

Valerius (Inscr. It. 13.1.52 f., 126, 470 f.; MRR 1.500). The restoration that will best fit is quite obvious-the consulsof 133, P. Mucius L. Cal-

purnius. s That the documentshouldthus refer back to the first time when the questionof Pergameneland oameto the attention of the Roman governmentappearswholly appropriate.

Asisnormal,thearrangement of names in th• consilium of 129follows the order of senatorialrank. Thus, (1) Q. CaeciliusQ.f. Ani. mustbe MetellusMacedonicus,cos. 143, cens.131-0. (2) C..... ius C.f. Men. appearsto be C. Laelius,cos. 140. (5) L. MemmiusC.f. Men. mustbe an expraetor, son of the praetor of 172, and probably turns up againas a distinguishedsenatorf•ted in Egypt in 112 (Orators90, cf. 87). (7) L. Iulius Sex.f. Fal. (Fab.?) is almostcertainly the son of Sex. Iulius Caesar,cos. 157, and the father of L. Iulius L.f. Sex.n. Caesar,cos.90. He is presum-

ably an olderbrotherof Sex. Iulius Caesar,praetor123.9 He is likely to be a praetorius(born by 170); if not, he must be very closeto the rank. (12) M. CosconiusM.f. Ter. is not the praetorof 135 (Liv. per. 56, IGRR

4.134), whosefiliationwasC.f. (IGRR 4•.1537;cf. RE 4, Cosconius 8; MRR Sup. 21; RAEM 44 f.). He is evidentlyfirst cousinto the praetorof

135, andprobablyslightlyjunior.•0 (15) C. RubriusC.f. Pup./Pob.isvery probablythe tribuneof 133 (Taylor, VDRR 251), andstill belowpraetorian rank in 129. (22) L. AnthestiusC.L Men. is patently the sameasthe moneyer L. AntesflusGragulus,dated to the 130s (136, accordingto Crawford, R½½ 238). (29) C. Numitorius C.f. Lem. must likewisebe the moneyerC. Numitoriusof only slightlylater date (133, accordingto RRC 246).

We are'now approachingCn. Pompeius.About his immediatepredecessorin the list, (30) L. CorneliusM.f. Rom., not muchcanbe said.He couldbe a son of M. CorneliusCethegus,cos.160.,Thesucceeding name, (32) P. PopilliusP.f. Ter., is alsounknown.He is morelikely to be the son of the junior colonialtriumvirof 180 (MRR 1.390) thanof the consulof 132. (33) L. DomitiusCn.f. is more placeable.He is obviouslyan Ahenobarbus(Taylor, VDRR 211), and in thissettingmustbe a sonof the consul suffectof 162, andyoungerbrotherof the consulof 122 (MRR Sup. 23). The latter, GnaeusDomitiusAhenobarbus, will haveheldthe quaestorship(if he held it) betweenabout 138 and 135 (cf. Orators52, 79, on the standardintervalin this period).This givesus a line on L. Domitius' senatorialstandingin 129-probably quaestorius,certainlynot aedilicius. Cn. Pompeius,then,is placedin a context of junior senators,who are

likely to haveheldthequaestorship in the middle130s.He ispatentlythe brother of Sex. Pompeius(Cn.f.), praetor ca 120, probablythe elder brother(Sextuswouldhaveheldthe quaestorship betweenabout133 and 130). It isreasonable to assume that Sex.Pompeius' tribewasClustumina,

sincethat wasthe tribeboth of hisbrotherandof hisgrandson, Pompey.

18

G.V. SUMNER

Of the two sonsof Sex.Pompeius,Sextus(RE 18) was,accordingto Cicero,an expert in jurisprudence,geometryand Stoicphilosophy(Brut. 17õ; De Or. 1.67; 3.78; Off. 1.19). He must obviouslyhavebeeneitheran equesor a senator,and as Cicero does not style him an eques,it is likely that he was a senator.We do not hear that he playedany ver• activepart

in public life,except asa would-be peacemaker intheSocial '•ar in 89 (Cic. Phil. 12.27). We cannotbe sure whether he even followed in his father's footstepsas far asthe praetorship,thoughthis seemsa very plausible hypothesis.The assumptionthat becauseof his praenomenhe was the elder brother of Strabo is, once again, unnecessary. He may even have been praetor at Rome in 90. It was from Rome that he went in the early part of 89 on the missionto the campof the consul,hisbrother(Cic.Phil.

12.27;Gelzer,KS 2.113f.).11 At first sight it would seema natural assumptionthat Sex. Pompeius Sex.f. Clu., who appearsside by side with Pompey(Cn. PompeiusCn.f. Clu.) as a tiro in PompeiusStrabo'sconsiliumof November89 (ILLRP

õ1õ) will be Pompey's firstcousin, sonof Sex.Pompeius thephilosopher. 12 The ingenuityof Cichorius(RS 16õ) detecteda snag,and discovereda solution (acceptedby Criniti, Pompeo Strabone137 f.). Accordingto him, PlutarchmentionsSextus,sonof the philosopherSex. Pompeiusand nephewof PompeiusStrabo,as a boy of about 15 underthe dictatorship of Sulla (Cat. min. 3.1). ThereforeSex. PompeiusSex.f.,tiro in 89 (born ca 107), wouldhaveto be a sonof a differentSex.Pompeius, who in turn would have to be a son of Cn. PompeiusCn.f. Clu., senator129 (dated 110 by Cichorius•

It is necessary to takea closerlook at Plutarch's text.13Theunnamed son of Metella SullaewasM. AemiliusScaurus,praetor 56, thereforeborn by 96 (cf. Plut. Sull. 33.3, Pomp. 9.2; Cic. Sest. 101; Ascon. 16). Cato himself wasborn in 95 (MRR 2.16õ n.õ; Orators138). 'Sextus'mustcertainly havebeenborn aboutthe sametime, ca 96/õ. We haveto agreewith Cichorius that he cannot be the same personas the Sex. Pompeiusof Strabo'sconsilium,which convenedwhen 'Sextus'was only about six or sevenyearsold. WhereCichoriusmay havegonewrongis in assuming that the Pompeiuswho was 'Sextus" uncle was PompeiusStrabo. Strabohad died in 87, well before the incidentin question.MoreoverPlutarch,when he refers to PompeiusStrabo, calls him Zrpd•ov not Hol•r•to½(Pomp. 1.1; 4.1). And in the context,which is the dictatorshipof Sulla,it would certainly be more natural for Pompey to be the uncle in question.Since Pompey apparentlyhad no brother, let alone one old enoughto havebegotten a son only ten yearsyoungerthan Pompeyhimself, he could not have had an adelphidousexcept through a married sister.Now his sister Pompeia(RE 53) was marriedto C. Memmius,quaestor77/6 (MRR 2.97 n.3), by 81 (Plut. Pomp. 11.2), and after his deathin 75 wasremarriedto P. CorneliusSulla (cos.des.66: MRR 2.157). Shewaspresumablythe mo-

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

19

ther of C. MemmiusC.f., tr.pl. 54 (cf. Orators86 f.), aswell asof P. Sulla's son mentionedin 54 (Cic. Q. ft. 3.3.2). Thesesonswill havebeenborn respectivelyabout87 and 73. Pompeiacanhardlyhavebeenmuchyounger than her brotherPompey(born Septe. mber 106: OratorsR 184), nor is she likely to have been much older, in view of her subsequent marriage ca 74. It is evident that she is most unlikely to have had by Memmius a son born ca 96/5-nor is the praenomen Sextus ever found among the Memmii. Unlesswe assumean earliermarriagethan that to Memmius,we

will be forcedto hypothesize anotherandolder'sisterof Pompey,born about 111/0, whocouldhaveproduceda sonca96/5 (cf. K. Hopkins,Population Studies 1965, 309 fl., on child marriagein the upperclass). There may evenbe someprospectof conjecturingthe nameof Sextus' father, Pompeia'shusband,Pompey'sbrother-in-law. The praenomen Sextusis not of highfrequencyandhelpsto limit the choice. An interesting candidate

would be

(a) Sex.IuliusCaesar,consul91,whodiedin thecampaign at Asculum in 90 or perhaps earlyin 89 (Appian1.48;'MRR2.27, 31 n. 11);hereisa significantlink with PompeiusStrabo,who campaignedat Asculumboth before and after Sex. Caesar(Appian 1.47; Vell. 2.21.1; Oros. 5.18.21; Gelzer, KS 2.111 ff., esp. 112 n. 31). The only drawback-we do not hear of a son, Sextus Caesar.

(b) Sex. Lucilius,tr.pl. 87, killedby Mariansat the end of that year (MRR 2.47), mightbe includedas a remotepossiblilty,seeingthat there wasalreadythe marriagetie betweenPompeiusStraboand Lucilia(Veil. 2.29.1). But Sex.Lucilius,militarytribunekilledin 51, seems to be too youngto be his son,andin any caseoughtto be adoptive,sincehe was the filius of T. GaviusCaepio(Cic.Art. 5.20.4; ShackletonBailey,CLA

3.227f.). Conceivably thesonof Gavius wasadt3pted by Sex.Lucilius, son of the tribune

of 87.

(c)'Sex.Peducaeus, praetor 77 (MRR2.94),canprobably beruled our. His son Sextus,tr.pl.? 557, praetor?497, propraetor48 (MRR 2. 277, 600, omitted257, cf. 217,220 n. 2), shouldhavebeenborn about five or six yearsafter Pompey'snephewSextus(ca 89, insteadof 96/5).

(d) Finally,andperhaps thebestchance, thereis Sex.Nonius SUfenas,praetor81 (MRR 2.76;cf. RCC421), whocouldwellbeidentical with Nonius,nephewof Sulla(Plut.Sull. 10.3). Herewedo knowof one son,M. NoniusSufenas(tr.pl. 56, promag.51-49: MRR 2.209,243,262), whosepraenomenshowsthat he had had an eider brother, Sextus.If Nonius 'Struma' (Catull. 52.2) was a praetorof 55 (Taylor,Athenaeum 1964, 18; Linderski,Studi Volterra2.285 if.), Sex. NoniusSufenasfilius would fit better.than M. NoniusSufenas,.since a tribune of the plebsof 56 would normallybe too youngto hold a praetorshipin 55 (the sameapplies to Linderski'sadditional conjecturethat C. Cato, tr.pl. 56, was praetor

20

G.V. SUMNER

55). Plutarch'sSextus,bornca 96/5, wouldhavebeenof exactlythe right ageto be praetorin 55.14 About Sex.Pompeius Sex.L, consul35 (Inscr.It. 13.1.136,508 f.), we know virtuallynothing.He is supposed by l•flltner(RE 19) to be Plu-

tarch'sSextus(seeabove),bornabout95--withoutcommenton hisfeat of attainingthe consulship in his sixtiethyear? There is a t!•orctical possibilitythat the consulof 35 wasa sonof Sex.PompeiusA.f. But it is far more probablethat Symewasright to make him 'the gra!ldsonof PompeinsStrabo'sbrother' (RR 200 n.7). Thus, four monthsafter the defeat of Sex. PompeiusMagnusat Naulochus,at a time when he was still at

largein Asia (Appian5.133 fl.; Dio 49.17 f.),16 hisdistantcousinSex. Pompeius entered office on 1 January as consul ordinarius: 'And so Sextus [PompeiusMagnus]died in the consulshipof L. Cornuficiusand a certainSex. Pompeius'(Dio 49.18.6). It seemsmore than a remarkable coincidence.Perhapsa deliberateeffort was beingmade at Rome.to win the support of 'Pompeians'for the regio'me. 'To the defeatedof Philippi and Peo•.sia it had seemedfor a time that the youngPompeiusmightbe a

championof the Republican cause'(Syme,RR 228). Because the Pompeianswere so repeatedlydefeated,we tend to overlookhow strongand durable was the appealof the name Pompeius:'quae (res ad consulatum recepit) SexturnPompeiumaliosquePompeios,nisi uniusviri magnitudo?' (Seneca,de bern4.30).

Thebetter-known Sex.Pompeius Sex. f., cos.A.D.14 (towhom

Senecahere refers), is imaginedin RE (69) to be the son of 'Sex. Pompeiuscos. 5 v. Chr. Nr. 61', and 61 is alsofound as 90! .Unfortunately neither 20 nor 61 existed(De Laet, $R$ 79; Syme, TST41 n.6). The consul of 14 is presumablydescendedfrom Sex. Pompeius,cos.35, whether as son or grandson.He was somehowrelated to Augustus(Dio 56.99.5), hence also to G•,manicus, who was his friend (Ovid, Pont. 4.5.95 f.), and to Germanicus'son Gaiuswho, asEmperor,sawto hisdeath(Seneca, tnmq. •. 11.10; N•.tus•uzs, hospesnovus'). Q. PompeiusSex.f. was a friend whom Cicero recommendedto a certain Curius,governorof someprovinceI•nl•nown,about 47-45 (Farn. 13.49). He might conceivablybe a third-bornson of Sex. PompeiusA.f., but we hear of no sonsof this man_It is rather more likely that he was third-bornson of Pompey'suncle, the philosopherSex. PompeiusSex.f., than of the latter's son, Pompey'scousin, the tiro of 89; i.e. he was a youngerbrother of the t/ro, who wasCicero'scontemporary. Cn. PompeiusQ.f. was suffect consul in 31 (Inscr. It. 13.1.136, 510; MRR 9.420), frater arvalisby 90 (Pasoli,AFA 8) until his death in A.D. 14 (/b/d. 107), perhapsalsoXVvir by 17 B.C. (ILS 5050, 167;PIR1 P 447). As l•fdtnerobserves (RE 7), it seemslikely that he belongedto the main branch of the Pompeii.The only satisfactorycombinationis that he

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

21

was third-born son of Q. PompeiusSex.f. (if Sex.n. Cn.pron.); the unattractive

alternatives

are that he was fourth-born

son of one of the other

Q. Pompeii.He will be first cousinto Sex. Pompeius,consulof 35, four yearsbefore him. There shouldbe little doubt that Cn. PompeiusAugur, who succeededto his place in the Arval collegeduring A.D. 14 and was still a member in A.D. 20 (Pasoli,AFA 10, 107), was his son; the cognomen 'Rufus' added to the name in RE 112 has no authority whatsoever. III.

Conclusion

The patternsofpraenomina and tribal membershipshowthat the consular branchesof the gensPornpeiawere not completelydistinct.They probably traced back to a common ancestorin the third century. Hence, for example,Q. PompeiusRufus, the consulof 88, is to be regardedasa distant cousinof Cn. PompeiusStrabo•the consulof 89. Thereis no needto claim invariablehistoricalsignificancefor suchconnections.But the relationshipbetweenthe consulsof 89 and 88 cannotreasonably be dismissed as mere coincidence.Similarly, the even more distant connectionbetween Pompeyand Caesar'swife Pompeiaought not to be rejectedout of hand asa relevantconsiderationat a time when the quaestoriusCaesarwasseeking a new wife in the early 60s. The rule of thumbseemsto be that such remoteconnectionscountedfor somethingwhen (and only when) it was convenientthat they shouldcount for something. It may be worth while to recall attention to someparticular results that haveemergedin the courseof thisdiscussion of the Pompeii.

(1) A. Pompeius,father of the consulof 141, can be not unreasonably identified with a junior officer of the Third Macedonian War, military tribunein 171 andlegatusin 168. ThisprovidesQ. ßPompeiusA.f. with more of a backgroundthan he hastraditionally beengiven. (2) Relationsbetweenthe PompeiiRuff and the oratorGaeliusseem to follow a chequeredcourse,directed sometimesby personal and at other times by political considerations. This may account for the apparent inconsistencywhen Gaelius securesthe condemnation of Q. PompeiusRufus, tr.pl. 52, and shortly thereafter acts on his behalf.

(3) The possibilityshouldbe consideredthat P. Vatinius, tr.pl. 59, married Pompeia,the divorcedwife of Caesar. (4) Two youngerbrothers,Aulus and Sextus,of Cicero'sfriend Q. PompeiusBithynicus may be the young Pompeii who servedas legatesof Pompeyin the war againstthe pirates(in the Egyptian sector).

22

G.V. SUMNER

(5) The A. PompeiusA.f. Clu. of an inscriptionfrom Terni is probably not the brother of Q. Bithynicus, but his nephew, the inscriptionbeing of Triumviral date. (6) Cn. PompeiusCn.f. Clu. (RE 6) canonly be fitted into the chronological context of the 130s-120s, and is therefore a significant confirmation

of the date 129 B.C. for the senatus consulturn de

agroPergameno. (Thenamesto berestored in line9 of'thedocument are, however,thoseof the consulsof 133.) (7) Sex. Pompeius,brother of Cn. PompeiusStrabo, was probably a senatorand a holder of magistracies.It is his son who appears as a tiro in Strabo's consilium

of November

89.

(8) Plutarch's allusion to a nephew of 'Pompeius'named Sextus refersto a sonof a sisterof Pompey(not of Strabo).He couldbe a Sex. Nonius Sufenas, who in turn might well be Catullus' Nonius 'struma', praetor in 55 and brother of M. Nonius Sufenas,tr.pl. 56. (9) The consulshipin 35 of Sex. Pompeius(presumablygrandson of Strabo'sbrother) appearsto have political significance,probably as an attempt to win over Pompeiansupportersto the causeof Octavian'sgovernmentat Rome. Similar considerations apply to the consulshipin 31 of Cn. PompeiusQ.f., his cousin. The generalconclusions of the aboveinvestigationare summedup in the form of a stemma(pp. 10-11). G.V.

University of Toronto

Sumner

APPENDIX

Other Pompeii

Cn. Pompeius(RE 8) in Cicero,Fam. 13.56.3 (to Q. Minucius Thermus,governorof Asia,50) seemsin fact to be Pompeyhimself:'his de rebuseo magislaboro,quod agiturresCn. Pompeietiam,nostrinecessarii,et quodis magisetiam mihi laborarevideturquamipseCluvius;cui satis facturn esse a nobis valde volo. his de rebus te vehementer etiam

atque etiam rogo.'

M. Pompeius(RE 11), legateof L. Lucullusin 72, is attestedonlyby Memnon45.1 (FGrH 3B.360). The praenomenis unexampled.It is obviousthat the manis not a Pompeius, but is theM. Pomponius namedby

Plutarch(Luc.15.1)andAppian(Mirhr.79;cf.MRR 2.120). Q. PompeiusQ.f. (RE 13), stephanephoros at Herakleiaon Latmos,

perhapsabout11-9 B.C. (OGIS459: four yearsbeforeCaesar[Augustus] III; ten yearsbeforeGaiusCaesarI), is virtuallyunplaceable. He is presumably not a Pompeius Rufus(as GR 4.329 n.9) or Bithynicus (as RE), sincethecognomqn isabsent. If hebelonged to thenoblePompeii atall

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

23

(which cannot be consideredcertain), he would mostlikely be a descendant of Q. PompeiusSex.f.

T. PompeiusT.f. Cor. (RE 22; ILLRP 515), a military tribune on PompeiusStrabo'sconsilium(Criniti, PompeoStrabone115), cannotbe fitted into the main Pompeian families. The rare praenomenmakesit probable (in spite of the doubts of Taylor, VDRR 246) that he is to be identified with T. Pompeiusthe Transalpine estate-ownerof Varro, RR 3.12.2 f. Fie in turn need not be dissociatedfrom the brother of Pompeius

Reginusor Beginus(?), vff Transalpinae regionis(Val. Max. 7.8.4). This unnamed brother waswealthy enoughto leavean inheritanceof over 15 million sesterces.In any event T. PompeiusT.f. Cor. must surely be the father (adoptive?)of T. PompeiusT.f. Cor. Longinus(RE 29) who wasa junior officer on the consiliumof L. LentulusCrusin Asia,49 (Joseph.A] 14.228,238). Finally, the equites Q. PompeiusNiger and PompeiusTrogus, another Transalpine(Nicolet, OE 2.987), are clearly outside the framework of the main familiesof the Pompeii. NOTES

1. Guide to abbreviations

AFA CEG CLA

CRR Cinna

FITA GR ILLRP KS LGRR MRR NMRS

OE OHPPI Orators

PRCL

of modern

works:

E. Pasoli,Acta Fratrum Arvalium (Bologna,1950) H. Strasburger,CaesarsEintn'tt in die Geschichte(Miinchen, 1938) D.R. ShackletonBailey, Cicero'sletters to Atticus (7 vols.,Cambridge, 1965-70) E.A. Sydenham,The coinageof the Roman Republic (London, 1950) T.P. Wiseman,Cinna the poet and other Roman essays(Leicester, 1974) M. Grant, From iraperJureto auctoritas(Cambridge,1946) W. Drumann, GeschichteRoms, ed. 2, revised P. Groebe (6 vols., Leipzig, 1899-1929) A. Degrassi,InscriptionesLatinae liberae rei publicae (2 vols., I in ed. 2, Firenze, 1965, 1963) M. Gelzer, Kleine Schriften (3 vols., Wiesbaden,1963) E.S. Gruen, The last generationof the Roman Republic (Berkeley, 1974) T.R.S. Broughton, The magistratesof the Roman Republic (2 vols. and Supplement,New York, 1951-2, 1960) T.P. Wiseman,New men in the Roman Senate139 B.C.-A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971) C. Nicolet, L'ordre bquestrea l'bpoque r•publicaine (2 vols., Paris, 1966-74) W.F. Jashemski, The origins and history of the proconsularand the propraetorianimperiumto 2 7 B.C. (Chicago,1950) G.V. Sumner, The orators in Cicero's Brutus: prosopogrraphyand chronology(Toronto, 1973) J.L. Strachan-Davidson,Problems of the Roman criminal law (2 vols., Oxford, 1912)

24

G.V. SUMNER

PompeoStrabone N. Criniti, L 'epigrafedi Asculumdi Gn. PompeoStrabone (Milano, 1970) RAEM

Th. Ch. Sarikakis, 'P•o•a•o• &oXOV•e• •i•

•rapx•a•

Mage-

6ov/a•(vol. 1, Thessaloniki, 1971) RDGE RR

R.K. Sherk,Roman documentsfrom the Greek east(Baltimore, 1960) R. Syme, The Romanrevolution(Oxford, 193g•

RRAM

D. Magic,RomanruleinAsiaMinor (2 vols.,Princeton,1950)

RRC

M.H. Crawford, Roman Republicancoinage (2 vols., Cambridge, 1975) RS C. Cichorius,ROmischeStudien(Leipzig-Berlin,1922) SA A.E. Astin,ScipioAemilianus(Oxford, 1967) SRS SJ. De Laet, De samenstellingvan den romeinschensensat gedurendede eersteeeuw van bet PHncipaat(Antwerpen, 1941) Sdnat P. Willems,Le s•nat de la R•publique romaine (3 vols.in 2, Louvain-Paris,1878-83) Strafrecht T, Mommsen,Dasr•mischeStrafrecht(Leipzig,1899) TST R. Syme, Ten studiesin Tacitus(Oxford, 1970) VDRR L.R. Taylor, Votingdist•'ctsof theRomanRepublic(Rome, 1960) 2. For the principle involved, see my 'Note on Julius Caesar's great-grandfather', CP 71 (1960) 341-4.

3. 'Fostlus'on the coinageof Sex. Pompeiusneednot be takenasa cognomen: Crawford, RRC 235.

4. It may be noted (it i•. overlookedin RE 39) that Q. PompeiusRufus was prosecutedbefore the Varian inquisition and successfullydefended himself with the help of L. Aelius Sillo's talent• as a speech-writer(Cic. Brut. 206, 304). This prosecution clearly ties him to the group of politicians working with M. Livius Drususin 91 (when he was urban praetor), includinghis then friend P. SulpiciusRufus (Cic. Amic. 2). 5. Strachan-Davidson (PRCL 2.35 if.), noting that he seems'to have stayed on in Italy -nmolested... after hi• condemnation de vi', explains that 'he must

havebeenin hiding.... Caelius,thoughhe had actedashisaccuser, now protected Q. Pompeiusand compelled fraudulent trusteesto do their duty by him. Under suchcircumstances we may imaginethat the trespasser on forbidden ground, and those who .•uccouredhim, perhapsran no risk.' Strachan-David.•on assumesthat Pompeiu.• wassubjectto interdictioaquaeet ignis,whichafter the SocialWar normallymeantin effect banishmentfrom Italy; he doesnot have a plausibleexplanationwhy the man wasable to stay in Italy. It wouldbe better to assumethat the penalty wu interdictio with a territorial limit, probably of 100 miles from Rome. 'Relativ air ist such wohl

die allerdingserst in der EpochedesPrincipatserw'•hnteAusweisung bis zum 100. Meilenstein'(Mommsen,Strafrecht1970). 6. It reads,in part, as follows:Kd&vro• Ilo•m•to•AiJkov v[l•k]/•ro•e&•al &v•0•l•e/ Al•bv •'k.

7. Sydenham,CRR 54 n., see.•Pompeiu.• as claimingdescentfrom Faustulu.% which doesnot appearvery likely.

THE

POMPEII

IN THEIR

FAMILIES

25

8. For the order of their names cf. the Lex Agraria of 111, passim;Inscr. It. 13.1.52 f., 126,470,

f.;MRR

1.492.

9. Mattingly, AJP 1972, 422 n.42, makes the usual inference from praenomina that he is the younger brother. 10. Their common grandfather could be the first known M. Cosconius,tr.mil. 203 (MRR 1.313,315 n.3). 11. Broughton, MRR 2.25 f., lists eight possibilities for the six praetorships of 90, but all except one have a query attached. Even this one, L. Postumius(Liv. per. 73), should not be consideredcertain, since the epitomator of Livy sometimesuses praetor to signifypro praetore (as in Liv. per. 74, L. Porciuspraetor). It is freely admitted that there is no real evidencethat Sex. Pompeiuswaspraetor in 90. 12. Mattingly, Athenaeum 53 (1975) 262 ff., seemsto hold that the Sex. Pompeius of the consilium is the philosopher himself, but his argument is far from clear. 13. o•ro0 $' •V •rep14•qroct.•or' •reL$• •-bhhac r•v •taLSLK•V ga• [epd• [•t•toSpopiav,

•v •takofioL Tpolav, e•nl 0•

IIo/l•r•lov,

Z•[rov,

&$do•toav•tal ovvaTaTobvrofic e/•eve•c' naZNxc

o6• el'coyo65• •oOhovro •eker&v o•5• •reoOaz, rtvvOavolidvov

/• ToO Z6kka riva •o6?,otvro, •rdvre½ •6•oav 14.

On M. No•us

Sufen•

and his fa•er

"Kdrwva",

•at • •/e E•[ro½ a6r•k

see Mfinzer, RE 17.900 f., No•us

52, 53.

D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Two studies in Roman nomenclature (American Classical Studies 3: American Philological Association, 1976), 109-111, 123, has independently conjectured the existence of Sex. Nonius Sufenasfilius as the uncle Sufenas•ho adoptedM. Anneius of Carseoli(Val. Max. 7.7.2). I must admit that though I find this hypothesis perfectly acceptable,I do not follow his reason for discounting the alternative, that the adopter was M. Nonius Sufenas. 15. He might have comparedL. ScriboniusLibo, cos. 34 B.C., agedabout 55

accbrdmgto M'finzer(RE 2A.882, Scribonius20) who baseshis argumenton the supposedbirth-dateof Libo's daughter,Sex. Pompeius'wife. 16. On Sex. Pompeius' date of birth and related n•atters see J. Roug6, REL

46 (1968) 180 ff.

CAESAR

AND

THE

PIRATES

II

THE ELUSIVE M. IUNIUS IUNCUS AND THE YEAR 75/4

In a recent note I attempted to date Caesar'sfamousepisodewitqathe pi-

ratesto 81 insteadof 75/4, asis commonlyaccepted. l Part of my argument restedupon the identificationof the governorof Asiaand organizer of Bithyniainto a Romanprovincein 75/4 as M. IuniusIuncusand possible confusionof him in the sourceswith M. Iunius Silanus,who seemsto

havebeen an importantlegateservingwith M. MinuciusThermusin Asia during81. That raisesagainthe wholequestionof the identity of M. Iunius Iuncus, which in turn raisesfurther questionsabout the date of the episodeconcerned. Although othershave identifiedthe governorof Asia in 75/4 as M.

IuniusIuncus, 2 the evidence is not clear.Muchof thedifficultylieswith severaltexts. Emendationsby earlier scholarshave only confusedthe

issue. 3 Therefore, in orderto placeourunderstanding of thequestions involvedon as firm a foundationaspossible,it will be necessary to review the importantearliercontributionsand attemptto achievegreateraccuracy.

Nipperdeyfirst tried to sortout theliterarytextsandmadetwo key emendations.With the supportof Plutarch,he emendedthe nonsensical

M. uinceof Gelliusto M. Iunceandthen,on the strengthof that, emended the Iunium curn of Velleiussimplyto Iuncumto eliminatethe awkwardsequence curnidemenim... obtinebatand createa simpleparen-

theticalstatement?Superficially, thisprocedure wouldseemto beattractive andidentifythe governor of AsiaandBithyniain 75/4 asM. Iuncus. Nipperdey'sapproachposesdifficulties,however.He doesnot con-

frontthe chronological problems presented by thepassages involved. PlutarchplacesCaesar's captureby the piratesin 80, uponhisreturnfroma visitwithKingNicomedes of Bithynia(Caes.1.4,cf. Suet.Iul. 2); while Velleius, in the passage cited,implicitlyassociates it with75/4,whenthe governor of Asiaorganized Bithyniaasa Romanprovince. • Therefore,the possibility thattwo differentpeopleareinvolved in thesetwopassages cannotbe ruledout at this point. Finally,althoughthe emerrdation of Gellius'M. uinceto M. Iunceis sosoundontextualgrounds thatthereis no reasonto rejectit, the identification of thismanwiththegovernor of Asiain theunemended passage of Velleius isnotreadilyapparent. Unless it can be convincinglyshownthat PlutarchandVelleiusrefer to the same

man,thereis not enough evidence to warrantthe assumption that a Iuncusaddressed by Caesar in a speech forsomeBithynians isthesameasthe 26

CAESAR

AND THE PIRATES

27

Iunius whom the unemended text of Velleius identifies as the man that

Caesarvisitedin Bithyniato requestthe executionof capturedpirates. Nevertheless,Mfinzer accepted Nipperdey'sargumentsand then, usingthe inscriptionscited, conjecturedthat Nipperdey'sM. Iuncuswas namedM. Iunius Iuncus.6 Sincehe follciwedthe texts asemendedby Nip-

perdey,however,the evidencewasnot strongenoughto allowMi•nzerto include Iuncus firmly among the Iunii. Therefore,many have reserved judgementon the questionof Iuncus'nomen. E.G.. Sihler, as did some earlier editions of Plutarch, attacked the

problemdifferently.He arguedthat insteadof emending Velleius'Iuniurn cure to Iuncum we should emend Plutarch in deference to Velleius, so

that the namein Plutarchwouldbe the Greekequivalent of Iunium.7 B. Perrinseemsto haveagreed,and he acceptedthe emendedreading. 8 Broughtonfollowedsuit,for he acceptedthisreadingassupportfor identifying the governor of Asiaand Bithyniain 75/4 asa IuniusIuncus. 9 This approachis evenlesssatisfying thanthe former.First,it alsoignoresthe chronologicalquestion.Second,the manuscriptsupportfor Plu-

tarch'soriginalreadingis overwhelming. lø Third,by eliminating thesupport for the name Iuncus in Plutarchthroughan emendationbasedon Velleius,one furtherweakensthe casefor usingGellius'M. Iunceto identify Velleius' Iunius as M. Iunius Iuncus. Therefore, with only the name

Iunius as a point of reference,the M. IuniusIuncusof CIL 6.3837 (-31751)'cannotbe usedto identifythe governor of Asiain 75/4 asa M. Iunius

Iuncus.

By takinga differentapproachfrom thoseof eitherNipperdeyor the emendersof Plutarch and their followers,a sounderand more fruitful line

of argumentcanbe constructed. First,attentionmustbe givento the discrepancybetweenPlutarch'sdate of 80 for Caesar's adventurewith the piratesand Velleius'date of 75/4. It seemsto supportthe conclusion that Plutarch and Velleius were referringto different people and thereby makesany emendation of one authoron the basisof the othersubjectto question.After closescrutiny,however,this obstaclecan be removed. Both Velleius

and Plutarch have taken their basic accounts of Caesar's

early careerfrom the samesourcetradition,if not the samesource. TM With only minor differences,their accountsof early eventsin Caesar's careerare the same:(1) conflictwith Sulla;(2) escapefromSulla;(3) pirate episode(Veil. Pat. 2.41.2-42.3,Plut. Caes.1.1-3.2). That musthave beenthe sequence in the basicsourcebehindtheir accounts. The reasonfor the discrepancybetween the absolutedatesin their accountsis now easyto explain•Plutarch,observingthe closejuxtaposition of events(2) and (3), simplyassumedthat onequicklyfollowedthe other. If Velleiushad not preservedthe detail thet the man who refusedto executethe pirateswhom Caesarhad capturedwasin chargeof both Asia

ß28

A.M. WARD

andBithynia,hischronology wouldhardly,if at all, be distinguishable from Plutarch's,to judge from his own words:

'... habuissetque(Caesar)fere XVIII annoseo tempore,quo Sulla rerum potitus est, magis ministris Sullae adiutoribusquepartium

quamipsoconquirentibus eumadnecemmutatavestediss]milemque fortunae suae indutus habitum nocte urbe elapsusest. idem postea admodumiuvenis,cuma piratiscaptusesset,.... ' (2.41.2-3). If it is objectedthat Plutarchdoesnot place his Iuncus in Bithynia, whereasVelleius does place his Iuncus there, it must be replied that Plutarchindicatesthat the governorwas not at Pergamum,the capitalof Asia, where Caesarimprisonedthe pirates. Caesarhad to return to Pergamum after dealingwith the governorin order to execute the pirates (Caes.2.3-4). Plutarch apparentlyomitted to say that Caesardealt with him in Bithynia, while Velleius transmitsthat detail more precisely.PerhapsPlutarch'sconfusionstemsfrom his havingCaesarflee from Sullato the court of King Nicomedesjust prior to the pirate episode.Realizing that Bithynia wasnot yet a Roman province,Plutarchwould haveseenno reasonfor Caesarto consulta Roman governorthere and decidedto omit any mention of Bithynia in the interest of accuracy.12Of course,if he

had realizedthe true chronologyinvolved,.hewould haveseenno problem. As for Caesar'svisit to Nicomedes'court in flight from Sulla, either Velleius omitted it for brevity's sake, or Plutarch added it to his account from a source other than the one common

to him and Velleius.

Once the chronologicalproblemhasbeen eliminated,it is possibleto deal effectively with the textual questionsand establishmore firmly the name of the governorinvolved. On the basisof Plutarch, Velleius' Iunium cure should be emended

to Iunium

Iuncum.lS

That makes sense histor-

ically: Velleiusand Plutarch,dependentupon the sameultimate source for their information and only apparentlycontradictoryin their dating, were both referring to the sameman asthe governorwho refusedto execute Caesar'scaptives;CIL 6.3837 (=31751) atteststhe existenceof the name Iunius Iuncus.Moreover,this emendationmakesgoodtextual sense. It is lessradicalthan thosefavoredby either Nipperdeyor the emenders of Plutarch:it involvesno changein the unanimouslyattestedtext of Plutarch and requires only a minor addition to the similarly well attested

text of Velleius. 14 Therefore,we canmorefirmlyidentifythe governor of Asiain 75/4 not only asa Iuncus,but a IunfusIuncusat that. At this point, it becomesreasonableto identify this governorwith

Gellius' M. Iuncus. Since the Iunius who governedAsia and organized Bithynia in 75/4 hasbeen identified as a Iunius Iuncus,it is highly likely that he is the sameman whom GelliusquotesCaesaras addressing in his

speechon behalfof certainBithynia. ns. Furthermore,the useof the pra½-

CAESAR

AND

THE

PIRATES

29

nomen Marcusby the Iunii Iunci is supportedby the first part of CIL 6.3837 (• 31751). In all probability, therefore,the governorof Asia in 75/4 was named M. Iunius Iuncus.

Miinzer further suggestedthat he could be the same man as the Iunius, son of Marcus,honoredin the Pergameneinscriptionand the M.

IuniusIuncusMajor of the CIL inscriptions. 15 The first of thesetwo identificationsseemsvery reasonable.It is doubtful whether the Pergamene inscriptionrefers to Iuncus' predecessorin Asia, M. Iunius Silanus, because the latter is identified as the son of a Decimus. 16 On the other

hand, it is difficult to acceptthe otheridentification.It is generallyagreed that the CIL inscriptions,despitetheir archaicspelling,are at leastAugus-

tan if not Tiberianin date.l? If correct,thatdatingwouldmakethe equation of the governor of Asia in 75]4 with M. Iunius Iuncus Maior

impossible. 18 While it may not be possibleto resolvetheseminor pointscompletely, it is now necessary to rejectthe new datingthat I previouslyproposed for Caesar'sadventurewith the pirates.I arguedthat the manwho refused to execute the captured pirates in Plutarch's account was a different

Iuniusfromthe onein Velleiusandthattillsepisode shouldbe datedto 81.19Obviouslythat argument mustbe abandoned since,asdemonstrated above, Plutarch and Velleius were both referring to Iunius Iuncus. Plutarch, having mistakenlyplaced the episodeshortly after Caesar'sflight from Sulla when he found no other major eventsrecordedbetweenthem, providesno real supp9rt for a date earlierthan 75/4.

Of the sourcesthat giveany cluesfor datingCaesar's pirateadventure, only Polyaenus is left to supportthe year 81 (Strat.8.23.1). The other sourcesuseful for dating purposessupportVelleius' date.of 75/4

(Suet.Iul. 4.1-2,Auct.de vir.ill. 78.3)? In viewof thevirtualunanimity now seenamongVelleius,Plutarch,Suetoniu•s, and the de virisillustribus, it is impossibleto arguefor the date of 81 on the basisof Polyaenusalone, a late and inferior source.Perhaps,if he dependedon the samesourcetradition as Velleius and Plutarch,Polyaenusalsomade the mistakeof linking this event with an earlierone in the absenceof interveningmaterial. Or, if he used Plutarch directly, he could have garbledthe account and saidthat Caesarwascapturedon hisway to, insteadof uponhisdeparture

from,Nicomedes. 21In any event,Caesar's famousadventure with thepiratesshouldnow be firmly dated to the year 75/4. Finally, a word must be saidabout the context of Caesar'sremarksin the passagequoted by Gellius.Identification of the man addressed in this passagewith the governorof Asia in 75/4 can now be acceptedwith greatercertainty, as demonstratedabove.Controversystill arises,however, over the occasionon which Caesarspoke.Miinzer believedthat Caesarad-

dressedIuncuswhile he was engaged in organizingBithynia.2• H. Dahlmann, on the other hand, arguedthat at sometime after 74 the Bithy-

30

A.M. WARD

niansaccused Iuncusof extortionandthat Caesarspokeon the sideof the

prosecution and,therefore, addressed Iuncusastheaccused. 2s Gelzerhasaccepted Dahlmann's thesis? 4 but therearethreemajor reasons for rejectingit. First,Dahlmanninfersthat Iuncusis the defendant in an extortioncaseprimarilybecauseCaesarhad earlierprosecuted two other governorsfor provincialextortion,Cn. Dolabellaand•. Antonius, and becauseIuncusapparentlywasgreedy,asevidenced by hisdesire to sell the piratescapturedby Caesarratherthan executethem. That is no proof, however,that Iuncushad engagedin extorti0narypracticesagainst any Bithyniansor that they broughtsuit againsthim. Dahlmann'sargumentsconcerning the secondof the two known fragmentsfrom Caesar'sspeechare alsonot conv. incing.Caesaris reportedto have s•d: quid ergo? svn_erat•haenon sunt, sed res aliena est '(Iul. Ruff-

nianus,RhL, p. 40, 23 = ORFS,p. 396, fr. 45). Contraryto Dahlmann's suggestion, there seemsto be no questionof inanessyngraphae, worthless (forged?)bondsfor debt, suchas Verreshad usedat Cibyra,whenhe was an official in Asia, and which probably would be relevantto an extortion

charge(Cic. Verr. 2.4.30).25Rather,thereareno bondsat all: syngraphae non sunt. Therefore, it is unlikely that we are dealingwith an extortion case.

Instead, it is highly probable that Caesarwas representingthe claim-

ants in a private suit to recovermoney or property that had beenloaned to or was owed by the other party. That is clear from the sentencesyngraphae... est, in which Caesaranswershis own previousquestion.He appearsto refute an argumentthat the lack of syngraphaewas a defense againsta claim that somethinghad been loaned or was owed. This interpretationis supportedby the clausesedresalienaest,whichmay be translated in two ways: either, 'but that point is irrelevant'; or if the words res aliena are taken in a more concretesense,'but it is another'sproperty'. Syng•aphaewere not the only meansof provingthe existenceof a loan or other debt (proper witnessescould suffice), so that whichever translationis preferred,Caesarwould be denyingthat the acknowledged lack of syngraphae posedany difficulty for the claimants. More importantly,Gelliustells us that the first fragmentis from the beginningof Caesar'sspeech(N..4. 5.13.6). It is quite unlikely that Caesar would haveaddressed Iuncusat this point if that man were the accused. Not only wasit Cicero'scustomalwaysto addressthe court at the beginning of his speeches,as Dahlmannhimself admits,26 but that was the standardpracticeamongancientoratorsin general.It was followed by Demosthenes,Lysias,Isaeus,Hyperides,Isocrates,and other Attic orators and by the elder ScipioAfricanusin the one fragmentknown to be the beginningof a speechdeliveredin a judicialproceeding by a RomanRepublican orator other than Cicero(ORF•, pp. 7-8, fr. 3). There is no reasonto believethat Caesarsawfit to act differently.

CAESAR

AND

THE

PIRATES

31

Therefore, it is better with Miinzcr to seeGellius' quotation as one taken from a speechby Caesaron behalf of someBithyniansduring an official hearingheld before Iuncusin 74, .whenthe latter was organizing

Bithyniaasa Romanprovinceafter the deathof Nicomedes. 27Caesar,as he himself said, had close relations with the Bithynians becauseof the

guest-friendship established betweenhim andNicomedes. 28 He had gone to Rhodes in 75/4 to study rhetoric with Apollonius Molon (Suet. lul.

4.1, Plut. Caes.3.1).•9 He wouldhavehada perfectopportunityto exercise his newly honed skillsshouldhis clientsin Bithynia wish to plead a

casebeforeIuncus,whohadbecomethehighest legalauthorityin theland. Althoughthis reconstructionrequiresanothervisit by Caesarto Iuncus after the pirate episode,that presentsno problem.Sucha visit will easilyfit within the existingchronologicalframework: November or December, 75--Caesar sails for Rhodes after close of

normalsailingseason(Suet.Iul. 4.1). December75 or January74-capturedby piratesandheld for about 40 days(ibid.). In the meantime--Nicomedes dies,and Iuncusgoesto Bithynia. Early or mid-February,74-Caesarcapturespiratesand goesto Iuno custo obtain their punishment. By mid-March, 74-Caesar arrivesat Rhodes to study with Apollonius Molon.

After someweeks--Caesar returnsto Asiaor Bithyniato pleada case for his Bithynian clientsbefore Iuncus.

Late springor early summer,74--war breaksout in the provinceof Asia, and Caesargoesto help stiffenthe oppositionto Mithridates (Suet.Iul. 4.2). Shortly thereafter--Caesar receivesword of his cooptationinto the collegeof pontiffsandreturnsto Rome(Veil. Pat. 2.43.1-2).50

Thereis, of course, oneotherpossible occasion for Caesar's speech pro Bithynis.Alth.ough,as Dahlmannpointsout, the fact that Gellius

refersto Caesar aspontifexmaximus is no basisfor datingthespeech, sl the passage quotedcouldbe from a speechwhich Caesarmadein the

RomanSenate onbehalfof theBithynian princess Nysa(Suet.Iul. 49.3). $uetonius, whodid not referto Caesar's speech asproNysabut saidthat Caesar wasdefending Nysa'scase(defendenti eiNysaecausam), mayhave

beenreferring informally to hispro Bithynis. Iuncus, asanex-govern•or and 'experts'on Bithynianaffairs,couldhavespokenon onesideand Caesar thenaddressed himinrebuttal.Thatpossibility mustremain, butit is

rather unlikely?It ismuch moreprobable thatCaesar wassupporting his Bithynianclientsin someproceeding beforeIuncus,organizer of thenew

32

A.M. WARD

province in 74,and,according tocustom, addressed himattheopening of hi• remarks.

To summarize,a dose study of Plutarch and Velleius Patercu!us showsthat Gae•xr'sfamousadventurewi• the pirate•shouldbe datedto

75/4,not81,.forwhichI argued elsewhere.' Byfollowing a sounde• lineof

argumentationthan previousscholarshave u•ed, it also removesany doubtsthat the governorof Asia and Bithyniain 75/4 wasa mannamed

luniusluncu•.In all probability, he shouldbe identified with the man whom,according to a quotationpreserved hy .Gelflus, Caesar addressed in a speechon behalfof someBithyniam,sothat hisfull namewouldbe M. Iunlus Iuncus,a name well attestedby CIL 6.3837 (-- 317õ1). Itis highly

likely that Caesarmadethisspeech onbehalfof someBithynianclientsin the presenceof Iuncusduringthe latter's organizationof Bithyniaas a Roman provincein 74, and while it seemsimpossibleto identify this governorwith the M. Iunius Iuncusof CIL 6.3837 (-- 31751), he may be

theIuniushonoredat Pergamum in IGRP4.408? Allen M. Ward

Universityof Connecticut APPENDIX

Thisdatingof the Romanorganizationof Bithyniainto a provincedepends upon the acceptanceof a date early in 74 (or very late 75) for the death of NicomedesPhilopator, the last Bithynian king: cf. Miinzer (below, Note 3) 954; D. Magic,Roman rule in Asia Minor 2 (Princeton,1952) 1200-1201, note 49; Broughton,MRR 2, 106-108). This chronologyhas been challengedby W.H. Bennett, 'The death of Sertoriusand the coin', Historia 10 (1961) 4õ9-472. He claimsthat a tetradrachmbearingthe name Nicomedesand dated in the year 224 of the Bithynian Era proves that NicomedesPhilopatormust have died after October, 74, becausethe Bithynian Era beganin October, 297 (ibid. 460-463). Althoughhe may rightly dismissargumentsusedto date thiscoin to 75 and not 74, Bennett too easilyrejectsMaurenbrecher's thesisthat Nicomedes'son(or onealleged

to be his son)mintedthe coin, whichwasof a type unchanged for 75 years,after the king'sdeath(ibid. 462-463). SallustpresentsMithridatespointingto his son (real or spurious)to challengeRome'stakeoverof Bithynia(Hist. 4.69.9 M). One of the best waysin which Mithridatescouldhavefueledresistance to Romein Bithynia when he wascontestingRomanannexationwouldhavebeento hosta claimant to the Bithynian throne and have him continue to mint the traditional Bithynian coinage.That sucha claimantdisappears from the historical record after Mithridates' invasion of Bithynia and eventual

CAESAR

AND

THE

PIRATES

33

defeat is easyto understand.Accordinglythe numismaticevidenceis not sufficientfor rejectingBroughton'schronology. On the other hand, one pertinent piece of evidencewhich supports Broughtonhas been overlookedin previousdiscussions of the chronological framework.

That

is the investment.

of M. Antonius

Creticus

with

a

specialcommission to combatpiracyin the Mediterranean while he was still praetorin 74 (cf. Broughton,MRR 2,101-102 and 108 note 2). According to Bennett's chronology, the Third Mithridatic War could not havebegununtil 73. Antonius'commission,however,clearlypointsto 74 as the year in which the war began. It was no mere coincidencethat the Roman Senate decided to combat piracy in 74 after the pro-magistrates had already been assignedthe commandswhich had been anticipatedin 75. Mithridateshad previouslymadegooduseof the piratesagainstRome (App. Mith. 9.63). Once the new war had broken out, the Senatewould have found it imperative to combat piracy in the Mediterraneanwith a major commandthat doesnot seemto havebeen foreseenin 75.

To acceptthattheThirdMithridatic Warbrokeoutin thefirsthalf of 74 does not conflict with Appian'sassertionthat Sertoriuswas dead when Magiusdefectedto Lucullusandhelpedhim to defeatMithridatesat Cyzicus(Mith. 11.72). If Sertoriuswas killed in late 74, the newscould havereachedMagiusin early 73. In this way the battle of Cyzicusremains a winter operation,as the sourcesclaim (App. Mith. 11.76; Plut. Luc. 33.3). Moreover,Bennett'sotherarguments in supportof datingSertorius' death before the summer of 73 can equally apply to a date in late 74. Therefore, there is no great difficulty in reconciling either Bithynian coinageor Appian'sreferenceto Sertorius'death with a chronologythat placesthe death of Nicomedesearly in 74, with the initial organizationof Bithynia into a Roman provincefollowing soon after and, not long after that, the outbreak of the Third Mithridatic War. NOTES

1. A.M. Ward, 'Caesarand the Pirates',CP 70 (1975) 267-268. 2. E.G. Sihler, Annals of Caesar (New York, 1911) 41; cf. T.R.S. Broughton, MRR 2, 100 note 6. 3. For convenience,

the texts concerned, without

the crucial emendations,

are

as foIlows:

Plutarch, Caesar 2.3 (Perrin):Ka/ r& •v XO•J•ara Xelav •noL6oarorob• 8• '•80ac •v Hep7• •a•aO•evo• el½ •d •eo•r•p•ov afirb½•nope•Oq np6½ r•v •ov•a ß•v 'Ao[av '•ov7•ov &½•elv• •poo•ov •v• o•pa•q7 • xoh•a•o•½ •ahwxd•a½. Aulus Gcllius, Noctes Atticae 5.13,6: ucl pro hospitio Nicomc&s ucl pro ho• necessitate, quo•m res a•t•, rcfugcrc hoc munus, M. u•cc, non potui. n• ncquc horninuremortc mcmofia dclcri dcbct, quin a pro.is rc•catur, ncquc

34

A.M. WARD

clientessine summainfarniadeseftpossunt,qnibusetiam a propinquisnostris opera ferre instituimus.

VelleiusPaterculus2.42.3: . . . man_datisque custodiaequosceperatin Bithyniam perrexit ad proconsuleraIunium cure idem enim Asiam iam quam obtinebat peten• ut auctor fieret sumendide captiuissupplicii.

CIL 6.3837(--31751,ontwoseparate stones): (a) PAVLLA. RVTILIA.Q.F.M.IVNI IVNCI.MAIORIS

(b) Q TR PL PR SATRIA.L.F.IVNCI.EADEM.R

IGRP 4.408: [D 8]•: •ri•noeu / .... [o]v'loOt,tot,, Ma,4,ogou olbt,,/ [•it&r•tt,,&•oer•tu ga• r•v gg roi• vloi• / [aOro•] el½rgvb•ou e•votav.

Thislastinscriptio•canalsobe foundin Fr•inkel, Inschriften yonPe-rgamon 2.408; cf. F. Miinzer, RE 10.1 (1918) 955, s.v. 'Iuncus'(4). 4. C. Nipperdey,Philologus6 (1851) 377 = Opuscula(Berlin, 1877) 448-449. Paleographically,the emendation of Gellius is very sound, and the reading Iunce seems to have support in the Codex Vaticanus Latinus 3452; cf. P.K. Marshall, A. Gellii NoctesAtticae 1 (Oxford, 1968) 206. This MS apparentlywasunknown to Nipperdey, who does not mention

it.

5. See Appendix.

6. Miinzer (above,Note 3) 955. 7. Hence, he emended Plutarch's '1ov•Kov to IoC•ov: Sihler (above, Note 2) 41. For the earliereditorsof Plutarch,seeNipperdey(above,Note 4) 377 = 448. 8. He printed 'Io•ov in his text of Plutarch without any comment in his apparatus other than a citation of Sinteni•' printing of '1ov7Ko•:Plutarch'sLives 7 (Cambridge, Mass.and London, 1919) 446. 9. He writes as follows: 'Iuniurn curn, Veil.; lunce, Gell.; 'Io0vw•,, Plut. The

Iunii Iunci are a known senatorial family of the early Empire (CIL 6. 3837 = 31751)? See above, Note 2.

10. For the manuscript readings in Plutarch, see C. Lindskog and K. Ziegler, Plutarchi Vitae Parallelae 2.2 (Leipzig, 1935) 291. It is difficult to believethat the familiar '1ot;v•ov could be corrupted to the unfamiliar, but existing"1ou'rgo•,, although the conversewould not be surprising:cf. Nipperdey(above,Note 4) 377 = 448. 11. H. Strasburger,CaesarsEintritt in die Geschichte(Munich, 1938)- 73-74 and 78.

12. Conversely, Drumann,whofollowedtheemended text of Plutarch• suggested that the mention of Bithynia in connection with the episodecausedPlutarch to err

in dating:W.Drumann, Geschichte Roms 2 3, ed.P.Groebe (Leipzig, 1906)131,note 3. That explanationseemslesslikely than the view that the juxtapositionof eventsin the source tradition

caused Plutarch

to err.

13. Nipperdey later suggestedlunium funcure as a possibility, but he did so

only in a passing remarkwithoutany detaileddevelopment: RhM 19 (1864) 378 = Opuscula326. Therefore it has attracted little or no notice among later

CAESAR

AND

THE

PIRATES

35

havetakenplacein 74: cf. Broughton,MRR 2, 113-114and G.J. Szemler,Thet•riests editors: cf. the edition by C. Stegman de Pritzwald, reissuedwith additions by H.-D. Blume (Stuttgart, 1968) 57. 14. For the manuscript reading of Velleius, see Stegman de Pritzwald, ibid. Again, the sourceof difficulty is easy to see. A scribe copying the text of Velleius easily could have omitted the Iun in Iuncum after just having written Iunium. Or he may have thought the Iun in Iuncum to be an error of dittography by a previous scribe, since luncus is a rare cognomen, and changed the passageto read Iunium cum without paying attention to the subsequentconjunction enim. 15. Above, Note 3,955.

16. Above, Note 3, 1095.21, s.v. 'Iunius' (170). 17. Cf. L. Petersen,Prosol•ogral•hiaIml•erii Romani 4 (Berlin, 1966) 337, nos. 763 and 764.

18. Here the opportunity can be taken to correct what seemsto be unquestioned error. Miinzer (above, Note 3, 955 and 1041, s.v. 'Iunius' 85) identified M. Iunius Iuncus Major as the father of the Iuncus on the other stone of CIL 6.3837 (531751). He based the identification on the word major, and Petersen(above, Note 17) apparently has accepted it. No support for this use of maior can be found in TLL, and ProfessorBadian has assuredme that although the word major is used to distinguish homonymous men related in various ways, the distinction between father and son

is without exception indicated by l•ater and filius or their respectiveabbreviations. 19. O$•.cit. (above,Note 1).

20. Suetonius andtheauthordeuirisillustribus, whoplacethepirateepisod• right after Caesar'sprosecution of Dolabella, should be seen as agreeingwith the date 75/4 establishedby Velleius: Strasburger(above,Note 11) 9-10, 72-89. 21. At first sight, it would appear that Polyaenus' account ought to be connected with Caesar's trip to Nicomedes' court on the mission to raise a fleet for his commander, M. Minucius Thermus, in 81 (Suet. Iul. 2). That is probably not the case, however, since Polyaenus places Caesar's capture near Cape Malea, which is better connected with the flight from Italy to Nicomedesmentioned by Plutarch for the year 81 (Caes. 1.3). That flight, however, is apocryphal,sinceit is clear that in 81/80 Caesar was servingM. Minucius Thermus and visited Nicomedesin his service, not in flight from Sulla: cf. Strasburger(above,Note 11) 77-83. 22. Above, Note 3,954.

23. H. Dahlmann, 'CaesarsRede fOr die Bithynier', Hermes 73 (1938) 341346.

24. M. Gelzer,Caesar,trans.P. Needham(Cambridge,Mass.,1968) 29. 25. Above, Note 23,345.

26. Ibid. 346. Cicero's addressto Caesarin the openingsentenceof the pro Ligario is an apt parallel here. 27. For the date of Nicomedes' death, seeAppendix. 28. That would have been established in 81/80, when he visited Nicomedes on behalf of Minucius

Thermus.

29. That date is made clear by Velleius, since Suetonius clearly records that Caesar'scapture by pirates occurred•luring his trip to Rhodes. 30. Although Caesar's cooptation is usually placed in 73, it could. just as well

36

A.M.

WARD

of the Roman Republic (Coll. Latomus, Brussels,1972) 131.

31. Above,Note23, 346. Cf. Malcovati's comments on thepro Bithynis: ORF3 395.

32. Cf. Malcovati, who separatesthe speechfor Nysa from the pro Bithynis:

ORF3 397, ft. 47.

33. I should like to expressmy gratitude to Ms. Ellen E. Whiting, Professors

•Fhomas A. Suitsof the University of Connecticut, WilliamC. McDermott of the University of Pennsylvania, E. Badian, editor of this Journal, and the Journal• two anonymous readers, whose perceptive and helpful commentshave contributed greatly to the development of this paper. Whatever faults remain are my own responsibility.

ATHENISCHES EHRENDEKRET VOM JAHRE DES

KOROIBOS (306/5)F•IR EINENKONIGLICHEN OFFIZIER

In dem bescheidenen FragmenteinesDekretsausAthen, IG 112773, hat man alsNamendesArchonssowohlOlbios(275/4) wie Gorgias(280/79) zu erkennengeglaubt.In Wirklichkeittrllgt der Stein,wie SterlingDow nachemeuterVergleichung gezeigthat,1 denNamendesKoroibosundist daher seinemJahr, 306/5, und vermutlichder sechstenPrytaniezuzuweisen. Obwohl vom eigentlichenText des Dekrets nichts erhalten ist, zeigt die auf dem Horizontalstreifen desGiebelsin gr6sseren Buchstaben

stehende f2'berschrift [A]lkim[os],2 dassessichum ein Dekretzu Ehren einesAlkimoshandelnmuss.Niemandscheintsichbishergefragtzu haben, ob dieser identifiziert

werden kann.

EhrendekreteAthens ausdenJahren 307/6 bis 302/1 habenimmer eine gute Chance,Funktion'fixen der K6nige Antigonosund Demetrioszu gelten.Nicht wenigerals 17 solcherDekretelassensicheinemodermehre-

ren M•innemim DienstedieserKbnigemit Sicherheit zuschreiben? und es steht ausser Zweifel, dass weitere sich unter der hohen Zahl von De•

kretfrag. mentendieserJahreverbergen. Wennes dahergelingen sollte• einenAlkimosim Di4nstedesAntigonosoderdesDemetrioszu finden,so diirfte es •iusserstwahrscheinlich, ja nahezusichersein,dasser derjenige ist, dem die erw'•hnteEhrung gilt. Nun nennen sowohl Diodor wie auch Plutarch einen Alkimos, der• in

hohemOffiziersrang bei Demetriosstehend,w•ihrendder Belagerung von

Rhodos imJahre 304gelallen ist.In seinem' ausfiihrlichen andgenauer• Berichtfiberdie langwierige Belagemng 4 sprichtDiodorvomvergeblichen Vermittlungsversuch griechischerGesandtschaften,unter denen sich auch Abgesandte aus Ather• befanden, und vom Wiederausbmch der feindseligkeitennachdem Ablauf desdurchdieseVerhandlungen bedingtenWaf-

fenstillstandsfiK;3nigDemetriosversuchte jetzt, die Stadtin einemn•icht•

lichenf.)berfall. zu ersti•rmen. Einer Abteilungvon 1500 ausgesuchten Soldaten gelang es auch, durch eine Mauerbreschebis zum Theater vorzudringen, doch wurden sie am anderenMorgen, wShrendDemetrios die Stadtmauern von allen Seiten bestiirmen liess, nach einem erbitterten

Kampf von den Rhodierniiberw•iltigtund bis aufwenige,denendie Flucht

zuriick zum K;Sniggelang,entwederniedergemachtoder gefangengenommen. Unter den Gefallenen waren, von zahlreichen Wunden bedeckt,

auch die beiden Befehlshaber des eingedrungenen Stosstrupps, Alkimos und Mantias. 6 37

38

C. HABICHT

Weitere Einzelheiten zur Person des Alkimos gibt Plutarch in der

Biographiede.•K6nigsDemetrios.Sie lassenseineherausgehobene Stell(mg unter den k6niglichenTruppen'ftihrem erkennenund verratenzugleich,classer ausEpirusstammte.Plutarchberichtet,dassdemK•Snig den Kampf um Rhodos aus Zypem zwei eiseme Brustpanzer•gesandt wurden,jeder vierzigMinen schwer.Der k/Snigliche IngenieurZoilostestete ihre Festigkeitund Widerstandsf'ihigkeit in der Weise,dasser aus20 Schrit-

ten Entfemungein Katapultauf einendieserPanzerabschiessen liess. "Ohne diesenzu durchschlagen, fiel dasGeschoss zu Bodenund hinterliess nur einen stumpfenKratzerwie yon einemGriffel. DiesenPanzertrug Demetrios selbst,den anderender Epirote Alkimos,ein besonderskriegstfichtigerund •usserstkSrperstarker Offizier ausseinerUmgebung,der als

einzigereine Riistungim GewichtyonzweiTalententrug,? w'Jhr_end die anderenRilstungen yon einemTalentverwandten. s Under fiel in Rhodos im Kampfum dasTheater."9 Es kann nicht wirklich zweifelhaft sejn, dassdieset herausragende Offizier derjenigeist, den die Athenerin der Mitte desJahres306/5, d.h. zu BeginndesWinters,dutch den Beschluss ehrten,von dem IG II 2 773 als kfimmerlicherRest erhalten ist. Dow's Datierungdes Fragmentsfindet eine schSneBest•itigung. Alkimos musssich mithin um Athen verdient gemacht haben. Das k/3nnte im Zusammenhangmit den K•impfen des Jahres 307 um den•

Pir•ius •ø und die Munychia n gewesen sein,die zur Befreiungder Stadt fiihrten. Abet die Zeitdifferenz zwischenden Ereignissen desFriihsommers und dem Beschlussvon Ende 306 wkd dann recht gross.Daher liegt es vielleicht n'fiher,Verdienste des Alkimos im Jahre 306 anzunehmen.Sie kiSnntenin Verbindung mit Demetrios' Zug nach Zypera stehen, an dem

auch30 athenische Tetrerenteilnahmen, 12undmit demgrossen Siegedes K•Snigs bei Salamis. Als Antragstellerdes Beschlusses ffir Alkimoskommt Stratokles,der

massgebende PolitikefdieserJahre,am ehestenin Betracht,der auchfiir die meisten der fiir die belden K•Snigebeschlossenen Ehren verantwortlich

war,is und der im Jahre306/5 wenigstens dreiandereDekretebeantragt hat? Mit dem neuenFragmentwareer alsAntragsteller for wenigstens 25 athenischeBeschliisse bezeugt. 15 Aber anderePolitikerki3nnennicht ausgeschlossen werden. •6 Institute for AdvancedStudy

Chr. Habicht

Princeton

ANMERKUNGEN

1. S. Dow, AJA 37 (1933) 415416 mit PhotographiedesSteinsS. 414 und mit

ATHENISCHES EHRENDEKRET VOM JAHRE DES KOROIBOS 39 einer ZeichnungdesrekonstruiertenTextes Tafel XLVII-' 2. [A]AKIM[O•].

3. Siehe die Zusammenstellung yon L. Robert, Hellenica 2 (1946) 30 Anm. 1,

erg'•nzt yonCh.Habicht,Gottmenschentum undgriechische $tiidte 2 (1970)57 Anm. 9. FernerIG II 2 459,wassogutwiesicher demMilesier Aristodemos gilt(Plutarch, Demetrios9, 17; Diodor 18, 47; 19, 57'-66;OGI 5, 47 und Anm. 8), au$demJahre 307/6,

bevor Aristodemo$ im folgenden Jahr eponymer Stephanephor $einer

Heimatatadt Miletwar(MiletI 3 hr. 123,11),undIG II2 469 ($y/L $ 328)flit... 6r•o½ im Diehate der K6nige. F•firden diplomatischenVerkehr der Athener reit KiSnig

Antigono$ im Jahre306/5vgl.auchIG II 2 525 + 675 (datiertyonW.K.Pritchett, AJPh-58 (I937) 329-333)undlGII 2 1492,B 97-102. 4. Diodor 20, 81, 1-88, 9 (30514) und 91, 1-100, 5 (30413). 5. Diodor 20, 98, 2-3. 6. Diodor 20, 98, 9.

7. • trahd•r• •avonh{•, wohl $o zu verstehenund so verstandenyon B. Perfin,

Plutarchk Lives9 (Loeb) 51, wennauchvielleichtdie Obersetzung "im Wertevon zwei Talenten"

nicht ohne weiteres auszuschliessen ist.

8. •;•av•talq,

vgl. die vorigeAnmerkung.

9. Plutarch, Demetn'os 21, 4-6, besonders 21, 6. 10. Diodor 20, 45, 2-3.

11. Diodor20,45, 5-7;Plutarch, Demetn'os 10,1,Vgl._auch IG II 2 497,480und dazu Ad. Wilhelm, AA WW 1942, 65-72 (Akademieschriftenzur griechischen Inschriftenkunde 3 (1974) 98-105). 12. Diodor 20, 50, 3; Wilhelm a.O. 67.

ß 13. Plutarch, Demetn'os11, 1-4; 12, 6; Diodor 20, 46, 2. Vgl. Gh. Habicht (oben Anm. 3) 44 if.

14.IG 'II2 469(Syll. 8 328);471(SEG16,60);474(S.Dow, AJA37(1933) 412). 15. Die Liste yon W.B. Dinsmoor, The Archons of Athens (1931) 13-14, ist vollstandigeralsdie jlingstyon W.K. Pritchett, CSCA 5 (1972) 171 Anm. 62, gegebene,

kannaberauchum folgende Dekrete erweite•t werden.: IG II2 474 (s.dievorige Anmerkung); 739'(Pritchett a.O.);Hesperia 1 (1932)44 hr.4; 7 (1938)297hr. 22; 11 (1942) 241 nr. 46. 16. Zu denken ist besondera an die 306/5 als Antragsteller auftretenden

Kln•&oo•pou 'Axappe[6•l (Hesperia 3 (1934) 5 hr. 6), a&brt•o• ato•rei0ou[Eb-

wpu•e6½! (IG 112467 = Syll.S 327),Demochares (?IG II 2 468,woDemochares ais Antragestellerschon liingst yon U. Kochlet vermutet worden war) und K--, der am gleichenTag, an dem Stratoklesdie Ehrungvon Funktion'•render K6nige

beantr_agte (IG IIz 471),denAntrag flirdenMilesischen Olymp•oniken desJahres

308 im Pankration, Antenor, Sohn des Xenares,gestellthat (IG II • 472 und Addenda p. 661 = SEG 21, 335). DassAnterior das athenischeB•rgerrecht erhaltenhabe, bezweifelt mir gutenG 'ninden M.J. Osborne,BSA 67 (1972)145-6 Anm. 66.

AMICITIA IN TACITUS AND JUVENAL

Tacitus proclaims withbitterrelish themoral degeneration anddecay that ravagedthe Rome of the Caesars.New vicessproutand burgeoni•theold

virtues,blightedor cut back,witheror growstuntedandmisshapen. 1 Prominent amongthe casualties of despotismis amicitia,that kaleidoscope of sentiments,rangingfrom simpleand sincereaffection to urbaneand opportunistic hypocrisy, which played so vital a part in the social and

politicallife of the Republic. 2 Thispaperstudiesfirstthe historian's view of the debasement of amicitiaunderthe Empire, s then,by way of contrastandcomplement, variousremarks of Juvenaluponthe sametheme. 4 The most significantand obviouschangewas the inordinate importance

that henceforthattachedto the friendship of the Princeps himself.PoppaeusSabinus,a man who knew his place, attained the consulship,tri-

umphalhonours,and a 'longerprovincialcommandthan he mighthave wished,throughthe friendship of the Caesars. s Tiberius'friendshipserved to protectthe execrable CottaMessallinus. s P. Suilliusbenefitedfromthe friendshipof Claudius,thoughneverto any goodpurpose. ? However,the fruits of imperialfriendshipmightgiveriseto envyand attack,aswhen Suillius railed againstthe wealth amassedby Senecathrough his 'regia

amicitia'. s Far worse,though,mightensueif the Princeps himselfwas hostile. Tiberius might appeal to ancestralcustomwhen justifying a renunciationof friendship,but under the Republicthe recipientof sucha

message wouldnothavefelt it necessary to commitsuicide. 9 That incident comesfrom the dark and panic-riddenyears at the end of Tiberius'reign. But even under Augustus,D. Silanushad understoodthat a renunciation of friendshipfrom the. Princepswas tantamount to a sentenceof exile: 'quamquam non ultra foret saeuitum quam ut amicitia Caesarisprohiberetur, exilium sibi demonstrail intellexit.' Tiberius allowed him to

return to Rome, but made it dear that he had not forgiven Silanus' offenceto Augustus,and that wasenoughto put an end to Silanus'career:

'fuit posthac in urbenequehonores adeptus est.'•ø Relativesand friendsof the Princepstoo mightbe well worth courting. The friendshipof Livia was thought to put her intimate Urgulania

abovethe law.• FabiusRusticusflourishedthroughthe friendshipof Seneca,to the detrimentof his impartialityas a scholar? Terentiusand otherssoughtthe friendshipof Seianusbecausethey hopedtherebyto win

Tiberius'favour? So too the ambitious Poppaea Sabinasethersights on Othobecause he wasreckoned to be Nero'sclosest friend.•4 The example of Seianusand Tigellinuson the one hand, of Senecaand Burrus on the 40

R. SEAGER

41

other, is more than enoughto justify the view put forward in the senateat the accessionof Vespasian: 'nullurn maius boni imperii instrumentum

quam bonosamicosesse. '15 Yet thoughthe Princeps'friendshipmight bring power, it could alsobe a source.of anxiety and fear, asEpriusMarcellus remarked

on the same occasion: 'nec minus sibi anxiam talem ami-

citiamquamallisexilium. '16Buttheversatile Epriussurvived, 17unlikeT. Vinius; it had been,Tacitusobserves,the friendshipof Galba that induced Vinius to take the first stepson the path which had led him to power and wealth, then to destruction.18 The betrayal of men by their friendsis a commontheme.It formsa climax to the catalogueof perilsthat are characteristicof life in time of civil war-even thosewho haveavoidedmakingenemiesare broughtdown

by their friends:'et quibusdeeratinimicusper amicosoppressi. '19Thus, after the occupationof Romeby the Flaviantroops,the rich were betrayed

by paupers andslaves, 'alii ab amicismonstrabantur'. 2ø Specific examplesare frequent. Tiberius chose PomponiusFlaccus as governorof Moesiabecausehis closefriendshipwith Rhescuporismade

him well qualifiedto trick the king.21 At Rome the earliestinstanceis that born victim Libo Drusus;he was encouragedin his folly and then in-

formed againstby FirmiusCatus,'ex intima Libonisamicitia'. 22 When Lucan's father AnnaeusMela made an attempt to recoverhis son'sproperty after his death, he incurred a prosecutionby Fabius Romanus,'ex

intimi• Lucaniamicis'. 2s On hearingof the deathof Otho,Cornelius Dolabella returned to Rome from exile. This causeda complaintagainsthim to Flavius Sabinus,brought by PlanciusVarus, 'ex intimis Dolabellae

amicis'fi 4 The shameless madeno secretof the turningof their coats:in his speechagainstValerius AsiaticusL. Vitellius recalledtheir old friend-

shipin the daysof Tiberius,whenboth had sharedthe patronageof An-

tonia.•5 EgnatiusCeler,the faithless philosopher, took moneyto testify againstBareaSotanus,'tunc emptusad opprimendum amicum'. •s Tacitus issuesa caveat againstmen 'speciebonarum artium falsoset amicitiae fallacis'? Amid the uncertaintiesof civilwar, neitherwealthnor honours would alwaysserveto retain a man'sfriendship.It wasurgedin the senate that CaecinaAlienus had betrayed the state and Vitellius both as a com-

manderandasa friendfis SmallwonderthatTituswarnedVespasian that ßfriends might falter, changetheir allegianceor vanishin responseto the pressures of passingtime, fortune, greedand error: 'nam amicostempore

fortunacupidinibus aliquandoaut erroribusimminuitransferridesinere?9 Evenwhen friendsdid not activelybetray, they might abandona man in time of trouble. Libo, his life endangered by one falsefriend, could find nobodyamonghisotherfriendsto defendhim at histrial.soCn. Piso,too, found severaldistinguished friendsunwi. lling to speakon hisbehalf;Tacitus contraststheir attitude with the aggressive loyalty of the friendsof Germanicus. sl

42

R. SEAGER

In all thesecasesbetrayersanddeserters hadapparentlyat leastonce beenin somesensegenuineamiciof theirvictims.But friendshipmightbe feignedfor some sinisterpurpose.So Octavianusdeceivedhis partner

Lepidus'specieamicitiae'. s2 Seianus,'per speciemamicitiae',p•rsuaded the gullibleAgrippinato offendTiberiusin the notoriousincidentof the apples? The fidelityof TitiusSabinus to thehouseof Germanicus is contrastedwith the hypocrisyof LucaniusLatiaris,whoseconversations with Sabinuscreateda falseimageof closefriendship,'speciemartaeamicitiae'.s4 Neroclaimedto be a friendto Seneca,gentlywarninghim that it did not becomea wise man to pursuea coursethat would discredithis friend for the sake of his own glory; but Tacitus commentsthat these blandishmentswere merely a cover for Nero's deep hatred of his former master? The speciesof friendshipwasa sourceof dangerto another closeassociate of Nero,theeventualconspirator ClaudiusSenecio:'speciem

amicitiaeeLiamtum retinenseopluribus periculis confiictabatur. '36When the conspiracy wasuncovered,Seneciowashimselfto follow the familiar pattern, betrayinghis closefriend AnniusPollio,as AfraniusQuintianus did Glitius Gallus.s?

Simulatedfriendshipwasthe excuseto removeVefginiusRufusfrom his command,a move that was one of the causesof unrestat the beginning

of 69? The rebelleaderCiviliscloakedhis defectionunderthe guiseof

friendship for Vespasian andenthusiasm for hiscause? Evenin hisfragmentary defence,when it couldhardly any longerbe convincing,Civilis still asserted thisclaim.4ø Vespasian himselfwascapableof maintaining a falseappearance of friendshiptowardsthe manhe couldnot affordopenly to discard, Antonius Primus•who was still outwardly treated as a friend even as his influencewas waning: 'paulatimleuior uiliorque haberi, ma-

nentetamenin speciem amicitia. '41Eventhatparagon of all virtues,Agricola, could act in similar fashionfrom political motives,thoughat least nothingdreadfulhappenedto the victim, who wasonly an Irishmanany-

way? LessfortunatehadbeenArtavasdes of Armenia,whomAntonius first ensnaredwith a pretenceof friendship,then imprisoned,and finally

put to death? Against these examplesof treachery and deception may be set a number of instancesin which friends remainedloyal. The friends of Ger-

manicus, devotedto hismemory,wereenergetic in theirefforts•o avenge hissupposed murder. 44 But theirJffdes is contrasted with the conductof Piso'sfriends.In the savageatmosphereof civil war Otho wasnot greatly upsetby his former friendshipwith Vinius,whichis cited only to highlight his undisguised rejoicingat the death of Piso? Yet it was Otho who respectedthe loyalty to Galbaof MariusCelsusand acceptedhim asoneof his own closestfriends,to be rewardedby Celsuswith the sameloyalty he

had shownto Otho'spredecessor?In a time whentreacherywasthe orderof the day, the loyalty of friendsmightplaya part in determiningthe

AMICITIA INTACITUS ANDJUVENAL

43

outcome.Vespasian'smessengers mostly escapedcapture,thanksto their

own cunningand the reliabilityof their friends? 7 One faithful friend was the procurator ValeriusPaulinus,whosetie with Vespasianwent back to the daysbeforethe Flavian'sbid for power: 'Vespasiano ante fortunam

amicus.'•'8 Anotherwho survived for a longtimethanksto the constancy of his friendswasthe GallicrebelJuliusSabinus?It is perhapsan apt comment on the decadenceof societyat Rome that suchan exampleof constantiahad to be soughtnot among Romansbut among Rome's enemies.

In the corruptRomeof the Principate,loyalty to friendsmightbring a man to destruction:the dangersof friendshipconstitutea recurring

theme. 5ø the friendship of the greatmightleadto influenceandwealth, but the greatwereliable to fall and bring their friendsdown with them. Fidelity might earn death insteadof reward. Tiberius himself had been a

dangerous friend to acknowledge in the daysof the brief ascendancy of

GaiusCaesar. 51 TitiusSabinus wasa plausible victim'ob amicitiamGermanici'.He wasensnared by enemieswhopraisedhisconstancy whenthe houseof Germanicushad fallenon evildays:'quodnon, ut ceteri,florentis

domusamicusadfiictumdeseruisset. '•2 For manythe fall of Seian•screated a dilemma,succinctlyput by an unknownspeaker:'miseriussit ob amicitiam accusari an amicum accusare haud discreuerim. '•

Few were as

fortunateas Terentiusin findingan appealto reasonsuccessful; among thosewhom the friendshipof SeianusdestroyedwasT. Ollius? That of AeliusGalluswasurgedagainstPomponiusSecundus, but he survived? The enemiesof FaeniusRufusassertedagainsthim that he hadbeen

a friendof Agrippina?Friendship for FlaviusScaevinus wascitedagainst Petronius by Tigellinus. 57TheStoicBareaSoranus wasaccused on account of hisfriendshipwith RubelliusPlautus,alreadyliquidated? His friendshipwith Galbaand loyalty to the Princeps madethe tribunePompeius Longinus suspect to the rebellious praetorians. s9 After Caecina's betrayal of Vitelliusthe praetorianprefectPubliliusSabinusfoundhimselfin chains

because of hisfriendship with thedisloyalgeneral?Constancy in friendshipis one of the manymeritscited in the eulogyof HelvidiusPriscus. 61 It will come•isno surprisethat suchan exemplarof the old virtuesshould havebeenrepeatedlythe targetof persecution. Evenwhereloyalty wasnot disasXrous, it mightbe deprivedof the rewardsto whichit couldlegitimatelyhaveaspiredin happiertimes.Imperial greedleft Senecafreeto bestowon hisfriendsonly the mostintangibleof

legacies: 'conuersus ad amicos,quandomeritiseorumreferregratiamprohiberetur,quodunumiam et tamenpulcherrimum habeat,imaginemuitae suaerelinqueretestatur'-a sorry.repayment for their constantia. 6• The canonsof friendshipare frequentlydebasedandperverted.Political pressuresenforcedthe most unnaturalbehaviour.In the witch-hunt

44

R. SEAGER

that followed the fall of Seianus,friends and strangersalike rushedto

bringaccusations againstall and sundry? After the suppression of the Pisonianconspiracymen were constrainedfor the sakeof their own security to rejoiceandofferthanksto thegodsandto Nerofor the deathof their kinsmenand friends:'aliusfilio, fratre aliusaut propinquoaut amico

interfectisageregratesdeis,ornarelauru domurn,genuaipsiusaduoluiet dextramosculisfatigarc. '• Piso'sown recordleft muchto be desired.He

was generous, but the tone of the allusionis hardlyflattering. eftMore important, he had detachedhis undesirablewife Satria Galla from her marriageto a friend, Domitius Silus.As Tacitus is happy to remark, the name of friendshipwas sulliednot only by Pisobut equallyby the exces-

sivelycomplaisant Silus? Friendship,insteadof creatinga bond, might becomethe sourceof hostility between men aware of each other's vices. Close association taught Nero to hateJulius Vestinus,for he fearedthe violent nature of his

friend,whileVestinusdespised Nero.67 If mendid not learnto hateone' anotherof their own accord,their friendswere quick to set them at each other's throats. The friends of Germanicusshowedgreat skill in turning

their'commander againstPisoand Plancina? The atmosphere of Rome made the task all the simpler. So the enmity of Caecinaand Valens was exacerbatedby their friendsafter the Vitellian occupationof Rome: 'odiis quae bello et castrismale dissimulataprauitasamicorumet fecundagignendis inimicitiis ciuitas auxerat. 's9

The universalcanker of the Principate,adulation, played its part in underminingthe traditional conceptionof friendship. Germanicuswent out in disguiseto test the feelingsof his troops, becausehe feared that

adulatiowoulddeterhisfriendsfromtellinghim the truth.?øIn hisspeech to Piso, Galba affirms his confidence in the constantia of his chosen suc-

cessor,but seesthe obsequiousness of othersas a threat to friendshipas well asto fidesand freedom.SoPisomustbe on the alert againstadulation, flattery and self-interest:'fidem libertatem amicitiara,praecipuahumani animi bona,tu quidemeademconstantiaretinebis,sedalii per obsequium imminuent; inrumpet adulatio, blanditiae et pessimumueri adfectus

uenenum,sua cuiqueutilitas.'?l The practicaldangers of adulationare highlightedlater. Whennewsof the defectionof the third legionreached Vitellius,flatteringfriendswereon handto minimisethe significance of the blow?

Such friends continued to conceal from Vitellius the truth about

hismilitary position,thoughthe mostexperienced of hiscenturionswould havetold him the factsif they had beengiventhe chance.But the flatterers had conditionedthe Emperorto listenonly to agreeable,not to good advice,fillinghis earswith reportsasdamaging asthey wereoptimistic. 7•

The Emperorwasindeedunfortunatein hischoiceof companions, taking

pleasure in the societyof actors,mountebanks andcharioteers: 'quibus ille amicitiarum dehonestamentis miregaudebat. '74 Yet thoseof greater

AMICITIA IN TACITUS AND JUVENAL

45

socialstandingwere still lessfaithful: 'nam amicorumeius quantoquis

clarior,minusfidus.'75Moreover, he triedto buyloyalty,andsuchfriends were unlikely to remaintrue for long evenif their expectationswere rewarded. 76

Whenpurveyors of badadvice r•nked asfriends, it ishardly surprisingthat where a suspiciousand enviousemperor regardedability and achievementwith distasteand disquiet,praiseceasedto be the office of a

friendand becameinsteada weaponin the handsof an enemy.SoTacitus explains the eclipseof Agricola: 'causapericuli... infensusuirtutibus princeps et gloriauiri acpessimum inimicorumgenus,landantes. '77 Juvenal,like Tacitus, testifiesto the fear that the emperor'sfriendship might bring. The complaintof EpriusMarcellusabout life closeto Nero is paralleledin the famousdescriptionof Domitian'scouncil: 'proceres,quosoderat i11½,

in quorumfaciemiseraemagnacque sedebat palloramicitiae.'78 He too knows the man who betrays his friendsin the hope of material gain,unlessthey are prudent enoughto buy him off in cashor kind: 'magnidelator amici

'et citorapturias denobilitate comesa quod superest,quemMassatimet, quemmunerepalpat Caruseta trepidoThymelesummissa Latino.79

One of the most strikinginstancesin Tacitus,the testimonyof Egnatius CeleragainstBareaSoranus,recursin Juvenal! 'Stoicus occidit Baream delator amicum. 'm

Even whereJuvenalis concernedwith betrayaloutsidethe political sphere,a link with Tacitus may springto mind. The satirist'slecherous

Greek,whoseduces hisfriend'sgrandmother fautede'mieux,might have foundit possible to cometo somearrangement with DomitiusSilus.81 But in Juvenal'sRome one must no longerexpect a friend to prove reliable; indeed, for a friend to keep faith is nothing lessthan a portent to be greetedwith expiatory sacrifices: 'nuncsi depositumnon infitietur amicus... prodigiosafideset Tuscisdignalibellis

quaeque coronata lustraridebeatagna. '82 The reluctanceof men to help a friend in trouble,whichTacitusassociates

46

R. SEAGER

particularlywith chargesof maiestas,recursin Juvenalat a lessexalted level, when he warns the man in the street that his friends will desert him

if he getsinvolvedin a caseagainsta soldier: 'et se

excusaturos non sollicitemus amicos. '8s

He is aware,too, of the dangersto friendshipthat arisefrom adulation and hypocrisy.We need not supposethat it was only Greekswho

wept withoutfeelingtrue sorrowwhenthey sawa friendin tears? or who lavishedpraiseon even the most ingloriousachievements?But Juvenalcan seethe other sideof the question,extendingironicsympathy to the enthusiasticflatterer who knocksover the lamp and treadsin the chamberpotin his hasteto call on his mighty friends: 'tu calcas luce reuersa

coniugisurinammagnosuisurusamicos. 'ss He might havehad more understanding than Tacitusfor the friendswho hid the truth from Vitellius, for, againwith Domitian in mind, he is inclined to shift the blame from the flatterersto emperorswho had no desireto hearthe truth and mightreactviolentlyto it: 'sedquid uiolentiusaure tyranni, cum quo de pluuiisaut aestibusaut nimboso

ueralocuturifatumpendebatamici? '87 Who would dare to bring bad news about military matterswhen it was not even safe to tell the truth about the weather?

Largest of all bulk greed and selfishness. Nowadaysgood advice from fathersto their sonsincludesthe precept'stultumqui donetamico',

thoughit may well reboundon theirownheads? To be accepted asa friendby Virro, a man mustbe blessed with suddenriches;thenno questions will be asked:

'quadringentatibi si quisdeusaut similisdis et melior fatis donarethomuncio,quantus, ex nihiloquantusfieresVirronisamicus. '89

Wealthand a barrenwife will at leastguarantee a man'friends'duringhis lifetime? With a wry sympathy Juvenallooksat the problemfrom the viewpointof the lowly parasite.The functionof highandmightyfriendsis to provideonewith a squaremeal:'fructusamicitiaemagnaecibus.'91 But nowadaysmost fail in their duty, reservingthe good food and wine for

47

AMICITIA IN TACITUS AND JUVENAL

themselves?But if a parasiteallowshimselfto be treatedin this way, he deserveswhat he gets:

'hisepuliset tali dignusamico.'93 Thingshad been different only a generationbefore,in the daysof Seneca and Pisothe conspirator,whenrich menstill took pride in their generosity: 'nemo petit, modicisquae mittebantur amicis a Seneca,quaePisobonus,quae Cotta soleb.at largiri;namqueet titulis et fascibusolim

maiorhabebatur donandigloria.'94 The lines supply a usefulbackgroundto Tacitus' commenton Piso: it is clear from Juvenal'sattitude what kind of loyalty couldbe expectedfrom

friendsacquiredin thisfashion? So the decline of amicitia exemplifies and illuminates that erosion of moral values,that underminingof society'straditional foundationswhich Tacitus saw as the bane of the principate. In his more hardheadedand

realisticfashion, Juvenalconfirmsthehistorian's visionof aneraof moral distortionand paradox,in which the qualitiesthat for Tacitushad made Rome great were doomed to bring those who cherishedthem to destructi0n.Underthe new order,the old values,if they did not perish,could surviveonly as hollow shamsor warpedand degenerate mutations.Thus amicitia, succumbingto the strainsand pressures of the age:cowardice and treachery,ambitionand greed,hypocrisyandadulation. Universityof Liverpool

Robin Seager NOTES

1. Cf. in generalR. Seager,Tiberius(London, 1972) 256 if. 2. For amicitin in general, cf. J. He!legouarc'h,Le vocabulairelatin desrelations

et desparrispolitiquessousla r•publique (Paris,1963) 42 fl., 142 ff.; for the importance of the concept in Republican society, cf. in particular P.A. Brunt, PCPS n.s. 11 (196S) 1 fl. 3. The lament for the degradation of amicitia as part of a generalmoral decline is not, of course, novel in Tacitus: cf. Sail. BC 10.5. 4. To give some idea of the place occupied in the works of Tacitus and Juvenal by the examples discussedhere, a catalogue of neutral or irrelevant usesof amicus and amicitin may be of use.

In Tacitus (excludingreferencesto the relationsof foreignpowerswith Rome and one another): Dial. 3.4, 5.2, 6.2, 9.3f., 10.6; Agr. 31.1, 40.$f., 43.1, 44.4; H/st.

48

R. SEAGER

1.10, 12, 13, 14, 30, 33, 49, 77, 81; 2.1, 5, 49, 76, 82, 87, 89, 91; 3.38, 43. 4.39, 43;Ann. 1.6, 27, 35, 37, 40, 43,61;2.24,48, 70, 71, 73;3.12. 13, 16;4.3, 15, 34, 39, 40, 59, 62, 74; 5.2; 6.7, 14, 26, 48, 50; 11.21, 31; 13.6.12, 13,, 18, 21, 42, 49; 14.7, 10, 62; 15.50, 51, 60; 16.14, 19.

In Juvenal: 1.146; 2.134; 3.1, 121, 279; 6.214, 510; 7.74; 8.152; 9.62, 130; 10.234; 12.16; 14.65; 15.134. 5. Ann.

6.39.

6. Ann.

6.5.

7. Ann. 4.31: 'Claudii principisamicitia diu prospete,numquambene usum.' 8. Ann. 13.42. Senecahimself was well aware of the danger,asis shownby the words Tacitus puts into his mouth at Ann. 14.54. 9. Ann. 6.29: the case of Pomponius Labeo 10. Ann.

3.42.

11. Ann.2.34. For another, baleful consequenceof that friendship,cf. Ann. 4.22.

12. Ann. 13.20.

13. Ann. 6.8.

14. Ann.

15.45.

15. Hist. 4.7.

16. Hist.

4.8.

17. Cf. Dial. 8.3 on Eprius and Vibius Crispusunder Vespasian. 18. Hist. 1.48. 20. Hist.

19. Hist. 1.2.

4.1.

21. Ann. 2.66: 'arta cum rege amicitie eoque accommodatioremad fallendum.' 22. Ann. 2.27. For neutral examplesof this formula and othersusing 'intimus', cf. Ann. 2.77, 3.1, 4.29, 6.21, 15.68, 16.34;Hist. 1.71. 23. Ann. 16.17.

24. Hist. 2.63.

25. Ann. 11.3.

26. Ann. 16.32, cf. Hist. 4.10.

27. Cf. Ann. 4.33, where 'fallaces amicities' are a feature of Tacitus' lament

on the tedious and depressingnature of hi• subject matter. For 'species'in such contexts, cf. Ann. 1.10, 2.3, 4.54, 4.68, 15.50; Hist. 4.80; Agv. 24.3, all discussed below; also Ann. 3.30 on the decline of SallustiusCribpus,6.32 on Artabanusand Abdus, 14.24. 28. Hist. 3.37.

29. Hist. 4.52.

30. Ann. 2.29. For the proper attitude of friend• with a talent for oratory, cf. Drill. 5.3 f., 10.8. 31. Ann. 3.11. 33. Ann. 4.54.

32. Ann. 1.10. 34. Ann. 4.68.

35. Ann. 14.56. For 'blanditiae', cf. Hist. 1.15. 36. Ann.

15.50.

38. Hist. 1.8. 40. Hist. 5.26.

37. Ann.

15.56.

39. Hist. 4.13. 41. Hist. 4.80.

42. Agr. 24.5. 43. Ann. 2.3. 44. Ann. 3.11. This was no more than Germanicushad expected; cf. Ann. 2.71. 45. Hist.

1.44.

46. Hist. 1.71; cf. 1.45 for Celsus and Galba. For 'constantia', cf. Ann. 4.68, 15.62, Hist. 1.15, 5.86, 4.5, 4.67. 47. Hist. 2.98.

48. Hist. 3.43.

49. Hist. 4.67.

50. Cf. Ann. 6.9: 'nam quotus quisqueadfinitatis aut amicitiae tot inlustrium

AMICITIA IN TACITUS AND JUVENAL

49

uirorum expers erat?' 51. Ann.

2.42.

52. Ann. 4.68, cf. 4.18 on Sabinus and C. Silius: 'amicitia Germanici perniciosa

utrique.' For the formula 'ob amicitiam',of. Ann. 4.22, 5.6; H/st. •.36; 'per amicitiam': Ann.

15.71.

53. Ann. 5.6. Cf. the prophetic words of Ann. 4.74: 'quibus infaustaeamicitiae grauisexitus imminebat.' 54. Ann. 13.45, of. 6.8; contrast 6.29 on Mam. Scaurus. 55. Ann.

5.8.

56. Ann.

14.57.

57. Ann. 16.18.

58. Ann. 16.23, cf. 16.30.

59. H/st.

1.31.

60. Hist. 3.36.

61.

4.5.

H/st.

62. Ann. 15.62. Of the faithful, two are cited by name: Seneca'sdoctor Statius

Annaeus(Ann. 15.64) and Nonius Priscus,who sufferedexile 'per amicitiaraSenecae' (Ann. 15.71). 63. Ann.

6.7.

64. Ann. 15.71. This marks a decline from the 'immensa strages'of Tiberius: 'neque propinquis aut amicisadsistere,inlacrimare, ne viserequidera diutius dabatur' (Ann. 6.19). 65. Ann. 15.48: 'largitionemaduersumamicos.' 66. Ann.

15.59.

67. Ann.

68. Ann.

2.57.

69. Hist. 2.92.

15.68.

70. Ann.

2.12.

71. H/st. 1.15. Cf. Cic. Lael. 91: 'nullam in amicitiispestem essemaiorem quam adulationera blanditiam aclsentationem;'also 95 and, for obsequium, 89. The rejection of utilitas as a basis for friendship occupies,of course,much of Cicero's work. 72. H/st. 2.96.

73. H/st. 3.56. Cf. Sen. œp. 45.7: 'adulatio quam similisest amicitiae!... apertis ac propitiis auribus recipitur et in praecordia ima descendit,eo ipso gratiosaquod I-,edit.' Also Cic. Lael. 97 on ,,d•e, tat,'o: 'nocere tamen nemini potest nisi ei qui earn recipit atque ea delectatur.' 74. Hi•t.

2.87.

75. H/st. 3.58.

76. H/st. 3.86.

77. A•'. 41.1. Cf. Sen. œp. 45.7: 'uenit ad me pro amico blandus inimicus.' 78. Juv. 4.74 ff.;cL H/st. 4.8.

79. Juv. 1.33 fl.; likewise 3.53 ff: 'caruserit Vend qui Verrem tempore quo uult / accusarepotest. tanti tibi non sit opaci / omnis harenaTagi quodquein mare uoluitur aurum. / ut somno careasponenchsque praemia sumas/ tristis eta magno sempertime•ris amico.' The caseof the soothsayerPtolemaeus(Tac. H/st. 1.22) or Seleucus(Suet. Otho 4), 'cuius amicitia conducendaquetabella / magnuscivis obit et formidatus Othoni' (Juv. 6.558 f.), may be relevanthere, if he in fact transferred his allegiancefrom Galba to Otho for a price. But the significanceof the lines is doubtful, as indeed is their authenticity. 80. Juv. 3.116 f.;cf.A,n. 16.32. 81. Juv. 3.112: 'horum' (husbaffd,wife, son,daughter)'sinihil est,auiamresupinat amici.'

Cf. Ann.

15.59.

82. Juv. 13.60 fl.

50

R. SEAGER

83. Juv. 16.27 f.;cf. Ann. 2.29, 3.67.

84. Juv. 3.101 f.: 'fiet, si lacrimasconspexitamici, ! necdolet.' 85. Juv. 3.106 f.: 'laudareparatus,! si beneructauit,si rectumminxit amicus.' Cf. 3.86 86. 87. 88.

fl. for other examples. Juv. 6.312 f. Juv. 4.86 if.; cf. Hist. 2.96, 3.56. Juv. 14.235 fl.

89. Juv. 5.132 if. 90. Juv. 5.140: 'iucundumet carurnsterilisfacit uxor amicum.'Cf. the indignant repudiation of suchmotivesat 12.93 fl. For the valueof suchfriendship,cf. Sen.Ep. 123.11, Mart. 11.44. I f.

91. Juv. 5.14.

92. Juv. 5.32 ff., 146 f.: 'uilibus ancipites fungi ponentur amicis, / boletus domino.'

93. Juv. 5.173. 94. Juv. 5.108 if.; cf. Ann. 15.48, and for Senecaand Pisoin this context also Mart.

12.56.8

ff.

95. Cf. Juv. 10.46: 'clefossa in loculosquossportulafecit amicos.'

TECHNIKAI THE

EDUCATION AND

KAI MOUSIKAI

OF WOMEN IN THE

IN THE

HELLENISTIC

FOURTH

CENTURY

PERIOD*

The Hellenisticperiodwasone which witnessedmany socialand economic changesfor women.The role of respectable womenreceiveda new definition. The transformationwasso profoundthat, to cite the mostdramatic

evidence,for the first time in historywomenevenappearas magistrates in Greekcitiesand are grantedcivichonorsol

Among the manifold and complexchangeswas a new attitude favoringthe educationof women;educationin its turn becamean effective agentof change.From a time,actuallyasearlyasthe fourthcentury, respectablewomen beganto be given the advantages of an education whichallowedsomeof themto enterthe liberalprofessions and specialized

occupations. 2 The seriouspursuit of intellectual,artistic, or scientific goals,asan addition,or asa prelude,or evenasan alternativeto marriage, wasa new phenomenonfor Greek women. In the fifth century, a period for which most of our documentation

on women's' workderives fromAthens,respectable women-withthenotable exceptionof priestesses-worked outsidethe homeonly if they were forcedto becausethey neededmoney.Moreover,their lack of education preordainedthat their work couldbe no morethanan extensionof household skills.Thus,in Athens,respectable womenearnedmoneyby cooking

andsellingfood,by weaving, andby workinga• nurses, midwives, and laundresses: s mostof thesepursuitsdid not endowa womanwith esteem, but neither, on the other hand, did they impair her respectability.Contrastingwith thesewomen were hctairai,someof whom appearto have beenaslearnedas their upper-class educatedclients,but who participated in the intellectuallife of the period at a disadvantage, becausethey were beyondthe paleof respectability. In classical Athens,accordingto a few representations on red-figure vases,at least some women were able to read. Some were able to write as

well. The touchesof domesticityin thesescenes,includingklismoi,chests, and the presenceof childrenindicatethat the womenrepresentedwere re-

spectable andnot hetairai. 4 Euripides'portrayalof an upper-class woman like Phaedraasleavinga suicidenote5 wouldnot haveseemed preposterous to an Athenian audience.Similarly,the daughterof Diogeitonis literate, and arguesfrom recordsof bottomry loanswhichher childrenhad

broughtto her.6 Moreover,in the Oeconornicus, Xenophonassumes that 51

52

S.B. POMEROY

the youngwife of Ischomachus is ignorantof practicalmatters,but sheis literate and, togetherwith her husband,can write a list of all the itemsin

the householdof which they took.inventory. 7 However,no schooling outside

the home

is known

to have been available

for women

at this

time. $ It seems likelythatsuch women, asyoung girls, hadbeeI•taught to read and write along with their brothers in householdsthat could afford private tutors. Nevertheless,in the fifth century, women were excluded from advancededucation by customsof marriageand childbirth at an early ageand by socialmores. More girlsbeganto obtain a formal educationin the fourth century. Terracotta figurines from the last quarter of the fourth and from the

third century, from widespreadlocations,includingTanagra,Olympia, Argos,Tarsus,Alexandria,Cyrene, Attica, Cyprus, and Myrina showgirls reading and writing; the type from Myrina showsthe girl dressedin a cloak,presumably carryingher writing-tabletto school?In Romantradition the fiction about Verginiawho caughtthe eye of AppiusClaudiusas she was going to school in the Forum refers to schoolingoutside the home,and onewondersat whatpointthe storywasinvented,andat wh,at point-between the days of Decemvirsand the first century B.C.--going to schoolwouldhavebecomecommonplace for Romangirls.lø Otherwise historiansmight haveemployeda different dramaticdevice;for example, Verginia might have been accostedon her way to a women's festival, adaptinga pattern of New Comedy. Sincethe earliestschoolat Rome was founded by a freedmanof the consulSpuriusCarviliusRuga, in the last

thirdof thethirdcentury, ll andsince wearenotcertain'that girlsattended his school,it seems,to judge from the terracottas,that the Greekswere earlier than the Romansin sendingtheir daughtersto schooloutsidethe home, and that the Hellenisticschoolprovided the inspiration.for the Roman school. Accordingly, there is no reasonto believethat the story of Verginia was invented earlier than the writing of the first Roman history(at the endof the thirdcenturyB.C.). It is impossibleto judge whether schoolingwas available to the

majorityof girlsin mostof the Hellenizedcities.Nilsson l• statesthat girls wentto schoolonlyin Teos is andPergamum, •4 because onlyin thesecities are girls specificallymentioned in inscriptionsconcerningschools.Since Nilssondoes not restrict the educationof boys to those few citieswhere there is specificepigraphicalcorroboration,his limitation of the education of girlsto the two citieswherethereisspecificinscriptionalevidenceseems unreasonable,in view of the haphazardnature of the ancient sources.The secondline of a second-centuryepigraphicalcharter of a schoolin Teos

statesthat the studentswill includeparthenousandpaidas,•5 but in the remainderof this lengthy inscriptionthe childrenof both sexesare subsumedunderpaides.Therefore,it may be suggested that whereverschoolchildrenare calledpaides,somegirlsmay havebeenincluded.The papyri

TECHNIKAI

KAI

MOUSIKAI

53

certainly are consistentwith the evidenceof the terracottasand the settingof the storyof Verginiaby showingthat a numberof womenare literate.16 It is doubtful that this widespreadliteracy amongwomenwas the result of private tutoring everywherebut in Teos and Pergamum. Accordingto the Teos inscription,the curriculumof girlsand boys was the same;this is likely to be one of the major reasonsfor the ability of adult womento enter professions that had previouslybeen open only to men. The inscriptionalevidenceis consistentwith Aristotle'sstatement that there were four subjectswhich childrenwere ususllytaught:reading

andwriting,gymnastics, the musicalarts,and(someadd)painting. l? The fact that art wassometimes part of the schoolcurriculumdoesshowthat, amongthe Greeks,paintingwasnot regardedas a demeaning or banausic occupation.Therefore,it is no surpriseto discoverthat there were some womenartistsof the respectable classes in the Hellenisticworld. Most of the women artistswere the daughtersof famousmale artists.Evidently, for them, apprenticeship to a father wasmore influentialthan the studyof art at schoolin leadingthem to follow careersasartists.Timarete,daughterof the youngerMicon, paintedan Artemis at Ephesusin an archaicstyle.If Timarete was the grandaughter of the elder Micon, who belongedto the group of artistsconnectedby Pliny with the 90th Olympiad (420-16),

thenherfloruitwouldbein thesecond halfof thefourthcentury. 15At the end of the fourth century,Helena,daughterof Timon of Egypt, painteda sceneof thebattle of Issusthat wasdisplayedin the Forum of Peacein the

daysof Vespasian. 19Threewomenartistswhosefathersweregrouped with the paintersof the 104th Olympiad (364-360) were Alexandra (perhaps,

rather,Anaxandra) daughterof Nealces; •ø Irene,daughterof Cratinus,21 and Aristarere,daughterof Nearchus. 22 Olympiaswasa painterwhohad a malepupil,a certainAutobulus. 2sThe fatherof Olympiasis not named, and there is no way of determiningher date. The most important artist was Laia, or Lala, of Cyzicus,who worked

at Romein the earlyfirst centuryB.C.•4 Shepaintedportraits,mostlyof women, including a self-portraitproducedwith the aid of a mirror. Although Laia is mentionedin the samecontext as other women artistsand their artist-fathers,she is not said to have been the daughterof an artist. What her statuswas is unclear.On the one hand, the fact that Pliny does not giveher father'snameis indicativeof servileorigin;on the other hand, that he refersto Laia by her city of origin suggests that shewas a freeborn

peregrina. •5 It is alsopossible that it washerstatusasa freebornthatcaused him to mention that she was a perpetuavirgo (i.e., nevermarried). Laia was a resoundingsuccess,and we know more about her than about the other women artists because she worked at Rome, and becauseour sources,

Varro andPliny,wereRoman.Plinyreportsthat shecommanded higher fees than the two most popular portrait paintersof the day, who were male. In his list of painters' names, Pliny lists all the above with the

54

S.B. POMEROY

exception of Helena and perhapsAlexandra(if she is not the sameas

Anaxandra). 26'Althoughonewouldnot wishto overstress anargumenturn ex silentio,Pliny'somissionof Helena,eventhoughhe musthaveknown her work, allows us to speculatethat there were other women artists whom he may haveoverlooked. Before the Roman period, there are no tracesof womenfollowing

careersas professional athletes? but therewere someseriousmusicians. Whether they learned as childrenin school,or were taughtby private tutors at home, somewomen had learnedto play the harp and kithara, and this knowledgeprovidedthem with the possibilityof a profession. There were monetarycompensations for the womanharpist.In 186 B.C., for example, Polygnota,daughterof Socrates,a Theban, was givenmany rewards,includingthe su•nof 500 drachmas,for recitationsat Delphi.•s She must havebeena respectable artist,not a harp-girlof the sortmentioned by Plato in the Protagoras •9 and foundoften in New Comedy,sinceher patronymic and city of origin are given, and since her performance at Delphi was commemorated.Polygnota,moreover,waschaperonedby her first cousinonceremoved,Lycinus,who is alsohonoredin the inscription.

An inscriptionfrom Iasosin whichtwo choreg•engagea choropsaltHa? and another from the middle of the secondcentury mentioning the

daughterof Aristocrates of Cymewhogavea concertat Delphi?l suggest that professionalwomen musicianscould make an honorable career of performing in theatresand at festivals.The gravesteleof Nico from Alexandria, from the middle of the third century B.C., offers a dramaticindication of the radical changein the image of a respectablewoman that

the survivors of sucha womanthoughtfit to placeon her tombstone? Nico is representeddressedin hirnation and chiton, seatedin a mournful pose.A smallgirl offersher a lyre. Comparablestelaifrom classical Athens show mournful women and their maids, but the maids usually presenta jewel box or mirror. In addition to musicalrecitals there were also recitations of poetry. Fragmentaryvictor lists from HellenisticPergamumshowthat girlswere

awardedprizesfor recitingepic,elegy,andlyric? Thisemphasis on literary educationproduceda renascenceof women poets. Some travelled great distancesand reapedcivic honorsand financialrewardsfor their poetry. A_ristodama, daughterof Amyntas of Smyrna, madea careerof writingand recitingpoetry at the end of the third century.Like Polygnota, who did not travel unaccompanied,Aristodamatravelledaround on the mainland of Greece with her brother as her companion.She must have

beenquitea celebrity,for shewashonored by two cities.Lamia •' and Chalaion s5grantedherawardsof proxeny,andthe lattercity alsogaveher 100 drachmas.Aristodama'spoemscelebratedlegendsabout the Aetolian founders of Lamia and about the Locrian founders of Chalaion. Alcino•,

an Aetolian poet from Thronion,is similarlyhonoredin a decreeof Tenos

TECHNIKAI

KAI

55

MOUSIKAI

for her hymns to Zeus, Poseidon,and Amphitrite, protective deitiesof

the city? Not onlydidwomenharpists performat pan-Hellenic festivals, but at least one travellingwoman poet entered a competition for poets.

Aristomache of Erythraewontwovictorie•in epicat theIsthmia.Thegolden book that she had dedicated in the treasuryof the Sicyoniansat Delphi was seenby the antiquarianPolemoin the first quarterof the second

centuryB.C.•7 Though none of their poetry survives,the travelling women poets can be dated with confidence.Inscriptionalevidenceprovidesthe dates for Aristodamaand Alcino•, while the testimonyof Polemooffers the terminus ante quern for Aristomache.It is more difficult to establishdates for the women poets who do not seem to have travelled and who are known through a purely literary tradition. There is a long list of women poets who may have worked in the Hellenistic period, including better known oneswhoseworks survivein part, like Corinna, Erinna, Nossis,and Anyte; others who are representedby sparse-fragments;and still others who are mere names.For someof the women poetsthere arebiographical anecdotes,but mostof thesetraditionshaverightly beenrejectedby scholars. Considerationsof style, meter, and dialect are equally inconclusive. The poetry of the archaicperiod was read and recited as part of the Hellenisticcurriculum,and the later poetry inevitablyechoesthe earlier. Indeed, in •ntiquity someliterary criticsconsideredErinna to have been a companionof Sapphoherself,and any date after Sapphomust therefore

be admittedas a possibility? The dialectof a poet canapparently be usedby scholarsto supportan early or a late date. Thusit hasbeenargued that Corinna's dialect indicates that she wrote in the fifth century, but that

our

text

was recorded

in the modernized

Boeotian

dialect

of the

third; and, converselythat she was a Hellenisticpoet writing in an 'archa-

izing'style? Moreover,the subjectmatterof the poetryof Greekwomen does not help us to fix dates.The personalconcerns,includinggirlhood, friendship, marriageand death are timeless,as are the undatablemyths which normally comprise the impersonal topics. The contemporaries named in the poetry of these women-such figures as Erinna's friend Baucis or the ephemeralnames in Anyte's epigrams-were not famous. Womenwere generallymore removedthan men from political events,and, unlike somemale poetsof the Hellenisticperiod, they did not enjoy royal patronage, which might be reflected in their poetry and give a firm indication of the dates of the authors.

Beginningwith Sapphoin the sixth century, womenpoetsappearin the Greek world in every century. Sappho mentions another poet, At-

this;• the fifth centuryproduceda few womenpoetsin Boeotia,and red-figure vasesfromAthensshowwomenreading-though not writingpoetry? Yet the largestnumberof womenpoetsshouldbe datedto the fourth centuryand to the Hellenisticperiod.Althoughthe reasonsfor any

56

S.B. POMEROY

intellectualor artistic developmentare alwayscomplex,severalfactors may be suggested ascontributingto this phenomenon. Most importantwas the expansionof opportunitiesfor education. Womin

were introduced

to literature

in school. Because travel and the

circulation of written material were facilitated at this tim•, a woman

would be able to read, or evenlistento, the work of contemporarypoets. Somewomen may haveheard a travellingpoet recitehis worksin person.

That none of them-with the poss•le exceptionof Melinno--couldhave hearda travellingwomanpoet, for chronologicalreasons,is not relevant. There is no indicationat all that there was a 'feminist school'of poetry, nor that women poetswere more influencedby the work of other women poetsthan they were by the work of men. A second

factor

that

affected

Hellenistic

women

was the ideal of

self-fulfillmentcharacteristicof the period.The ideal encourageda woman to try her own hand at creativewriting. Finally, the literary taste of the period happenedto favorshortintrospective pieces.Women'spoetry,in general, is characterizedby these features: women did not enjoy long periodsof time andprivateroomswherelongerworksmightbe composed without interruption, and, of course,introspection.isthe result of a life orientedtowardhearthand family. The fourth and third centuriesseemthe most likely period for the women poets, with the possibleexceptionof Melinno. But within these limits, despitescholarlyefforts,the precisedatesof eachpoet remaincontroversial.For poetswhoseworks are, at leastin part, extant, arguments are basedon style, meter, and subjectmatter; for those who are mere names,biographicaltradition must suffice.Some epigramsof Nossisof

Locri? of Anyteof T•gea, 4sandof Moer0of Byzantium • areextant. Georg Luck would date Anyte and Moero to the last quarterof the fourth

century,andNossisto the earlythird? GowandPage,on theotherhand, suggestthat all three were more or lesscontemporaries in the first half of

the third century? GowandPagedivergemostwidelyfromLuckin the datingof the mosttalentedof the womenpoets,Erinna.Luck acceptsthe testimony of Eusebiuswhich would establishher floruit in the middle of

the fourthcentury. 47 Gow andPageplaceErinnain the first half of the third century, as a contemporaryof Anyte, of Theocritus,and of the Asdepiadeswho wrote the epigramthat seemsto havebeen prefixedto

the publicationof herpoems? Two otherwomenpoetswhombiographical tradition placesin this period, but whoseworks do not survive,are Philaenisin the fourth century? and Hedyle who wrote lambsin the

third.•ø Corinna,too, hasbeensuggested asa possibility for the Hellenis-

tic period. 51 Herdialecthasalready beendiscussed asoffering ambiguous evidencefor dating. Her subjectmatter supportsa Hellenisticdate. Her eruditereferences to local myth and her praiseof her Boeotianancestors are consistentwith the little that is known of the subjectmatter of Alcino•,

TECHNIKAI

KAI

MOUSIIC•tI

57

and indeed challengemale poets like Callimachusin obscurity. Corinna's affinitieswith Pindarwouldthen be the resultof Boeotianpoetictradition. Yet none of the evidenceconcerningthe date of Corinna is conclusive enoughfor us to discardthe biographical. testimony,accordingto which shewasa contemporaryof Pindarand Myrtis. In the caseof Corinna,scholarlyopinionrangesoverlessthan two hundredyearsof possibledates;for the datingof Melinno'sHymn to Rome conjecturesrangeoverapproximatelyfour hundredyears.Thus, at the one extreme, Maurice Bowra dates the poem to the first half of the second century B.C. becauseit expressesan awe of Rome current in the Greek world in the Hellenisticperiod and becatlseit doesnot mention a Prin-

ceps? RonaldMelloracceptsBowra'sdateandaddsa convincing argument by pointing out analogousmotifs in praise of Rome in the paean

honoringT. Quinctius Flamininus thatthegiftsof Chalcis sangin 191B.C? Hermann Usener found that the hymn had metrical affinities with the

poetryof Statius? Finally,at thelowerextreme,HughLloyd-Jones prefersa Hadrianicdateon thebasisof the turgid;banalstylecharacteristic of the Greekrevivalof the imperialageandfoundin the worksof Mesomedes and Julia Balbilla. Lloyd-Jonesalsoassertsthat the tone of the hymn suggeststhat it waswritten in the period when the Pax Romanahad prevailed

for a longtime? The .women poets,werenot the only studiousand introspectivewomenof the Hellenisticperiod.We alsofind somewomenphilosophers who are creditedwith composingoriginaltractsor with teaching,and still more who are known asdisciplesof malephilosophers. The largestgroupof womenphilosophers of whom there is any record are the Neopythagoreans. There had been s,omany femalePythagoreans that Philochorusis reportedto havewritten a volumeon them.se Iamblichusincluded seventeenwomen among the 255 disciplesof Py-

thagoraswhosenameshe lists,•7tothe namesof four of theseseventeen women are attributed someof the Neopythagoreanpseudepigrapha. These pseudepigrapha were written in the Hellenisticperiod, though they purported to be the work of Pythagorasand his dicsiples.Someof the writings include ethical preceptsdirected toward women. Holger Thesleff suggeststhat the pseudepigraphacan be divided into two groups:one originatingin southernItaly, in the middle of the third century, and the

otherin Alexandria,in the first centuryB.C? The writingsattributedto Theano and Myia belong to the first group, and those of Melissaand Perictione .to the second. Consideringthe improvement of women's educationand the relativefreedomof movementof upper-class womenin the Hellenisticperiod,thereis nothinginherentlyimpossiblein the notion that the authorsactually were women. They may have been usingthe names of earlier female disciplesand relativesof Pythagorashimself as pseudonyms.'•_ is also possiblethat some of the women'snameswere

58

S.B. POMEROY

genuine.As a statementof principle,Neopythagoreans wouldbe likely to give their daughtersnamesthat 'they found in earlierPythagorean tradition.

DiogenesLaertiusis the encyclopedic sourcefor therestof the female philosophers. Diogenesmadea specialeffort to mentionwomenbecause part of his work is, in fact, dedicatedto a womanPlatonist•9 The women

philosophers are few, startingwith two examplesof Plato:Lastheneiaof Mantineaand Axiotheaof Phlius.Axiotheathenstudiedwith Speusippus. Sheworemen'sclothing,a stylewhichlaterfemalescholars wereto adopt? Arete of Cyrene,daughterof Socrates'companionAristippus,washerself a philosopherand teacherof her son Aristippus,founderof the Cyre-

naicschool. 61Therewereno womenPeripatetics, forAristotle hadmade it dear that women'smindslackedthe full developmentof the rational element.Nor werethereanyfemalestoics.Tam isincorrectin statingthat

Stoicism !mproved women's status.S2Women werenotregarded asequals, even in the utopia of Zeno, and later Stoics endorsedmotherhood and

housewiferyratherthan intellectualpursuitsfor women.cs In contrast, Epicurusadmittedwomento his gardenon equaltermswith men. Some of the Epicureanwomenwere saidto be hetairai.SinceEpicurushimself did not enjoygoodfamein antiquity,the ill fameof his followerscomes as no surprise,andshouldperhapsbe discounted. A reputationfor immoral conductwould naturally adhereto.womenwho spentlong periodsin the companyof men.That the Academicand Neopythagorean wome•ndid not havetheir good fame impugnedmay be attributedto the homosexual tendenciesprevalentin the former school,and the asceticismof the latter. Anecdotes

about male teachers and their female students have been

commonplacein many historicalperiods,and not all of them are true. Nicareteof Megara,a womanof goodfamily who studiedwith Stilpo-a philosopherwho was married and whom Cicero usesas a model of tem-

perance c'4-isnevertheless calleda betairaby both Athenaeus ss andDiogenesLaertius. ss DiogenesLaertiusaddsthat shewas the mistress of Stilpo. Yet Athenaeusstatesthat Nicaretewasof goodfamily, that she wasstudyingwith Stilpoin a city nativeto themboth, andthat Stilpowas famous for his reputation for temperance,and this must incline us to reject this story asbaseless, maliciousgossip.A relationshipbetweenmentor and student that did lead to marriagewas that of Crates and the

high-bornHipparchia. 67 With her brotherMetrocles, Hipparchia became a discipleof Crates.She ended by marryinghim againsther parents' wishesand shelived the life of a Cynic. To judge from their program,therewasnot muchfinancialprofit for Cynics,but somewomendid manageto entera morelucrativeprofession: that of medicine.Midwives,of course,had existedbefore? The careerof

obstetrician isto be distinguished fromthat of a midwifeasrequiringmore formal education.The story of the first womanobstetricianin Athensde-

TECHNIKAI

KAI

MOUSIKAI

59

serves consideration, althoughit istoldby Hyginus? Despitethefactthat some details of the stoW are open to scholarlydebate, the generalidea behind it-that women began to follow the professionof obstetricianin the secondhalf of the fourth century-is supportedby epigraphicalevidence. For our purposesthe first part ot•the stoW is relevant.A young woman named Hagnodicewanted to become an obstetrician,movedby compassionfor the women who were dyingin childbirth.Shedressedasa man, cut her hair, and attended the classesof a physician,Herophilus. When Hagnodicewent to the assistance of a woman in labor, she would raise her tunic and reveal that she too was a woman.

Then the childbirth

could proceedwithout falsemodesty.One may be skepticalabout the rest of the stoW relatingthe trial of Hagnodicebeforethe Areopagus. But that doesnot mean that there was not a real Hagnodice,traditionallythe first womanobstetrician,and there is no reasonto deny the possibilitythat she did attend classesof a physician.Whetherthe physicianwas the great Herophilus,who may have taughtin Athensbeforehis sojournin Alexandria, is not crucial to the argument,although(surely) Herophiluswould havebeen the ideal teacherfor the would-be•bstetrician,sincehe investigatedthe femalepelvicanatomy,andnot only wascreditedwith the discovery of the ovariesand perhapsof the uterine tubes,but alsowrote a

treatiseOn Midwifery.7o The historicity of the story of Hagnodicehas been rejectedby P.M. Fraser and by Campbell Bonner. Accordingto Fraser,Herophiluswas not in Athens,and the stoW is 'withoutvalue'.?l Frasermistakenlyrefers to Hagnodiceas 'the first midwife', though Hyginususesthe right term

'obstetrices',and certainlymidwiveshad existedearlier. 72 Similarly CampbellBonnerconfuses midwives with obstetricians. He criticizesthe stoW of Hagnodiceon the groundsthat the wearingof a man'sclothing and the revelation of a woman's true sex under stress must be considered a

themeof a novellaratherthan a historicalfact.73 Bonnergoeson to argue: 'The statementthat the ancientshad no midwivesis absurd,of course,and there is no doubt that "wise women" treated minor ailments

with impunity,especially amongwomenandchildren;nordo we hearthat the need of female physicianswas acutely felt amongGreek women.' It is obvisusthat the wearingof men'sclothingby womenis a wellknown folk motif, and indeeda deviceadoptedby womenin Aristophanes' EccIesiazusae.Nevertheless,it can be true in particular cases.In mas-

querading asa man,Hagnodice wasdressing up in thesamestyleasoneof Plato's students, Axiothea, whom I have already mentioned. Moreover,

Bonner'sargumentregardingthe need of femalephysicians is pointless, sincewe know next to nothing about the needsfelt by Greek women. Nevertheless, generalconsiderations of the hazardsof childbirthin premodern societies and of the avoidance of communications between Greek

womenand menwhowerenot closerelativesencourages a beliefthat female

60

S.B. POMEROY

physicianswould havebeen sorelyneeded.In supportof the tradition about Hagnodice,firm epigraphical evidenceindicatesthat womenbegan to practiceobstetricsin the fourth century.The funerarystelefor Phanostrate found at Acharnae shows a seated woman with the name 'Pha-

nostrate'inscribedaboveher head.Shereachesher right handk.oa veiled standingwoman;both are surrounded by childrenof both sexes.The inscriptionat the top hasbeendatedto the first half of the fourth century. •ANO[•TRATH] [- -] ME[AITE• rTNH] If the restoration is correct, then Phanostrate was the wife of a

citizenof Melite. The anaglyph,datedto the secondhalf of the fourthcen-

tury,statesthatPhanostrate wasmaia(midwife)andiatros(physician). 74 L. Robert has collectedother examplesof femalephysicianswho special-

izedin obstetrics andgynecology. 75 Some learned women wrote gynecologicaltreatises. Pliny names several? and, in addition to these mere names, the works of Metrodora and Cleopatra are extant. None of these authors or treatiseshas been securelydated. The problemsare similar to thosein the caseof poetslike Melinno. Nothing is known of the biography of these authors, and the

styleof the surviving worksgivesno cluet6 theirdates. 77This,of course, is true of manyotherGreekmedicaltreatises. All that canbe saidisthat', to judge from the sepulchralinscriptionsof femalephysiciansandwomen's improvedaccess to educationin the period,there is nothinginherentlyimpossiblein a Hellenisticrather than a Roman date. There were two other female scholars,each of whom is reported to have written a single work that was subsequentlyconsulted by a more prolific male author. Hestiaeaof Alexandriawas a grammarianwho wrote a treatise on a question which became an issue of scholarly debate: whether the Trojan War had been fought around the city which was

namedIlium in her own day.78 Her monograph 79wasusedby Demetrius of Scepsis,a polymath, in his lengthy work on the geographyand history

of the Troad,writtenin themiddleof the secondcenturyB.C.8øA woman named Diophila may have written a poem on astronomy. According to Rudolf Pfeiffer'sinterpretationof the scholia,the poem of Diophila was

consulted by Callimachus for hiswritingof the Aetia.81 Diophila'spoem is mentioned in the scholiaon Callimachus,fragment 110. Since serious Greek writing on astronomy did not precedeEudoxus (ca. 390-ca. 340 B.C.), Diophila's poem must be dated at the earliestto the late fourth or to the early third century. Callimachusprofited not only by the work of the learnedDiophila, but by the favor of the educatedQueenBereniceII. Similarly,his contemporary, Aratus, wrote poetry for Phila, wife of Antigonus, and in an

TECHNIKAI

KAI MOUSIKAI

61

earliergeneration, Theocritus had enjoyedthe patronage of ArsinoeII. The royalwomenof the Macedonian courtshada longtraditionof devotionto learning,andservedasmodelsfor the scholarlyandambitious womenwhom I havebeen discussing. EvenEurydice,mother of Philip II, is said to have learned how to read and write at an age when her childrenwere alreadymature, 82 and sheis a suitablebeginning to a parade of queensthat terminatedwith CleopatraVII, who knew so many

languages that sheseldom neededan interpreter. 83 Thereiscertainlyevidencethat the Romanbluestocking whoissatirized byJuvenal s4hadher predecessors amongthe Greeks,and that the high-bornRomanmatrons who were patronesses of literary circleslikewisewere followinga pattern establishedby Hellenisticladies.Juvenal'sfeelingsabout such women wereanticipatedby the poet of New Comedywho wrote: 7vva•x'5 $tSdoKcov7pdi•i•ar' (off) •a)•c3½

do•ri$c$• qboflep• •rpoo•ropi •et qbtil•i•aKo,. 84 A more detailed

examination

of the Athenian

material is illuminat-

ing. The only materialidentifiablyAtheniancomesfrom the fourth century. Included here are the terracottasfrom Attica; the philosopherArete and the two who cameto study at Athens,Axiotheaand Lastheneia;and the physiciansHagnodiceand Phanostrate. Thesewomencannotbe dated more preciselythan the first half or middle of the fourth century. Apparently, the Peloponnesian War wroughta profoundchangein the expectationsandeducationof Athenianwomen.Thesechangesare foreshadowed in the works of Euripides,Aristophanes,and Plato-written during and just after the war--inwhichthe traditionaldomesticityof the fifth-century Athenian citizen-wifeis submittedto critical scrutiny.It may be suggested

•hat th.einstitutionof the officeof gynaeconomos s•sandsumptuary regulations for women by Demetrius of Phalerumwere directed not only againstwealthy and aristocraticwomen who displayedtheir wealth to a degree.that was consideredinappropriate,but also againstprofessional women who had steppedoutsidethe traditionalboundariesof their sex. It is likely that the two groupsof women-wealthy and upper-class,and professional-wouldhave overlapped.Even after Demetriuswas depo.•ed, there is no further indicationof respectableAthenianwomen in the learned professionsother than medical. For the period immediately following Demetrius, the fictions of Athenian New Comedy depict only two possiblerolesfor women: wife or concubine-prostitute.The typical plot showsa young woman who has suffered a peripeteia in her past, and, being dowerlessand fatherless,has no alternative to concubinageor prostitution. Theseunfortunate heroines are but a darker indication of the instability of the socialorder and of the variety of roles that women were to play in the Hellenisticworld, a world

62

S.B. POMEROY

in which marriagewas not guaranteedfor everyfemaleinfant of respectable citizen origin. In fact, few husbandsare known for the learned professionalwomen discussed in the presentarticle.Wherethe lineageand family connectionare indicated,it is usuallyby patronymicandplaceof birth. Although it must be admitted that this style of namingdoesnot necessarilyexclude a husband, it is clear that the influence of fathers on their daughterswas far more substantialthan that of husbandson wives. Hipparchiais the only woman whosechoiceof a professiondependeddi-

rectly upon a husband.Arete, thoughshedid marry, cameto her philosophicalactivity in virtue of her father'sinterests.As a group,the women artists were most indebted to their fathers. None of them were married, as

far as we know, and it may be that suchfathersprovidedtheir daughters with the professionalskillsthroughwhich they might be self-supporting in lieu of a dowry.

Women in the learned professionsand specializedoccupationsare exceptionalin mostages.It is, however,crucialto observethat theevidence presented in this article derivesfrom a variety of historical sourcesarchaeological,epigraphical,papyrological,and literary-from far-flung geographicalareas,and from the fourth centuryand the three centuriesof what may be called the Hellenisticworld. This spreadof sourcematerial is importantinasmuchasthe activitiesof women-unlessthey werenotorious-were far lesslikely to be recordedthan the activitiesof men. Moreover, the documentationfor the learnedprofessionsis biased;the amount of evidencefor eachtype of professiondoesnot necessarily reflectthe number of women-or the numberof men--who pursuedthat profession.That more female philosophersor poets than physicianshave found their way into historicalrecordsdoesnot indicate that there were more of the former than of the latter. The literary testimony is skewed, owing to the interestsof later writers such as DiogenesLaertius and Philochorusin philosophers,and the interest of scholiastsin poets.The questionof how widespread,numerous,and how important these women actually were, and how extensive their influence upon the Romans, remains. Nevertheless,althoughthe evidencefor women'scareersis sparse,it is sufficient to demonstratethat evenbefore the Romanperiod women'swork wasnot confinedto traditional domesticoccupationsand menialjobs. Hunter College City University of New York/ Institute for Researchin History

Sarah B. Pomeroy

TECHNIKAI

KAI

MOUSIKAI

63

NOTES

* A shorter version of this paper was read at the annual meeting of the Association of Ancient Historians, Stanford, California, on May 6, 1976. I wish to thank

the Faculty ResearchAward Programof the C.ity Universityof New York for grants which supportedthe researchon which this article is based. Journal titles are abbreviated according to the form in L 'Annie philologique. Accepted abbreviationswill be used for standard works. In addition, the following abbreviation should be noted: EAA -- Enciclopedia dell'arte antica classicae orientale (Rome, 1958-73). 1. The expansion of women's participation in the external, non-domestic economy in the Hellenistic period that can be traced in Egypt is discussedby Claire

Pr•aux, 'Lc statut de la femme • l'6poquehcll•nistique,principalementen Egypte', Recueilsde la Soci•t• lean Bodin XI: La femme I (1959) 139-47, 164-69. D. Schaps, Women and property control in Classicaland Hellenistic Greece (unpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1972), Chapter 7, points out that, because the sourcesoutside Egypt are haphazard as to date and provenanco,it is difficult to detect changing patterns in women's economic activities except, perhaps, in Delphi. For a survey of the activities of non-royal women in the.public domain see Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses,whores, wives, and slaves: Women in Classicalantiquity (1975) 125-31, citing in note 14 a female archon in Histria in the secondcentury B.C. (includcd in the collection of H.W. Picket, Epig'raphicaII: Texts on the social history of the Greek world (1969), no. 2) and in note 15 one from Pricnc in the first century B.C. (ibid. no. 5). 2. Some names of learned women pursuing specific occupations in antiquity havebeen gatheredearlier,for example,by G. M•nage, Vie desplus illustresphilosophes de l'antlquit• (1796), with a discussionof women philosophersII 379-469; but such collections, though to a limited extent useful, are for the most part not scholarly in the modern sense.M.I. Rostovtzeff(SEHHW) doeshaveoneillustration (I 212, pl. 30) of a terracottafigurine of a schoolgirl,but he did not notice at all (II 1084-95, 1117) that women were engagedin the liberal professions • and in artistic and intellectual pursuits. C. Vatin, Recherchessur le mariage et la condition de la femme marine • lYpoque hell•nistique (Biblioth6que des Ecolesfranqalsesd'Ath•nes et de Rome 216 (1970) 261-70), as the tide of the book indicates,examinesthe work of someof the women of the period who were known to be married, but includes several whose marital

status cannot

be determined.

3. Pomeroy (cit. n. 1) 72-73. The work of Athenian women, job by job, has been dealt with by P. Herfst, Le travail de la femme dans la Grbceancienne (1922).

For the sakeof completeness, the womanvasepainteron Beazley, A• V2 571, no. 73, shouldbe mentioned;thisvaseis the soleindication that any woman was employed in this craft, and it is impossibleto ascertainher social classfrom this portrayal. 4. See Henry R. Immerwahr, 'Book rolls on Attic vases',in Classical,Mediaeval

and Renaissancestudiesin honor of Berthold Louis Ullman, I (ed. by CharlesHenderson,Jr., 1964) 24-28. (But the gemcited on 27 n. 4 (-28) as Furtw'•ngler, Antike Gemmen,pl. 32, 12 [read 31,12] doesnot showa mortal woman;sheis seatedon a

64

S.B. POMEROY

rock--a prop whichiconoffraphically connotesthat sheis a muse.)Seefurtherid., 'More book rollson Attic vases',AK XVI (1973) 14347. 5. Eur. Hipp. 857-59.

6..LysiasXXXII 14-15. 7. 9.10.

8. The onlyindication of schooling outside thehomemaybe fouh•i, in therepresentationof two adolescentgirls walking hand in hand, one of whom is carrying tablets by a strap in exactly the same manner as schoolboyscarry theirs (Beazley,

ARV 597, 4, = ARV2 908, 13 = NY 06.1021.167, red-figure cupby Painterof Bologna, 417). It is impossibleto ascertainwhether thesegirls are respectable,although it may be significantthat the cup is a kylix, a shapethat--sinceit wasusedfor drinking wine--would seem not to have the sameconnotation of respectabilityas do the pyxides, hydriae and lekythoi which are employedfor most of the other representations of literate

women.

9. Terracottas showing girls and women with diptychs are not rare. See, e.g.,

n. 4 above,and cf. R.A. Higgins,Greek terracottas(1967), p1.64c; G.D. Belov,Tanagran terracottas (1968), pl. 11; S. Mollard-Besques,Catalogueraisonn• desfigurines et reliefs en terre-½uitegrecqueset romaines,II: Myrina (1963, pl. 34, c,d,f; and more recently, Philippe Bruneau, 'Tombes d'Argos', BCH XCIV (1970) 470, fig. 92, and 471-72.

10.Verginia in Livy3.44-49, Dion.' I-Ial. Ant.Rom. 11.28.3. 0gilvie, Comm. Livy 1-5, 480-81 does not discussthe possibility of a Hellenistic model for a schoolpredatingthat of Sp. CarviliusRuga'sfreedman(seenext note). 11. Plut. Quaest. Rom. 278E. For the date of SpuriusCarviliusRug'a,seeAlan Watson,øl'hedivorceof CarviliusRuga',RHD XXXIII (1965) 40. 12. Martin P. Nilsson,Die HellenistischeSchule (1955) 40, 42, 46-47. 13. SIG 3 578 for education at Teos.

14. MDAI (A) XXXV (1910) 436, no. 20, XXXVII (1912) 277-78, no. 1;IvPerg II, p. 315, no. 463B for educationat Pergamum. 15. SIG3 578.

16. H.C. Youtie, 'fi•ro7pafpeL'•: the social impact of illiteracy in Greco-Roman Egypt', ZPE VII (1975) 213, and''AI•I•AMMATOr.: an aspectof Greek society in Egypt', HSPh LXXV (1971), especially165-70 on the detection of women'sability to write, or at least sign a document, in Greek. The women in papyri are literate--or at least able to sign their names--in a much smallerproportion of their total number than the men. The evidencefrom the papyri is, of course, valid only for Egypt. It should, however, be stressedthat the Egyptianevidencederivesfor the most part from villages and semi-rural areas; as a general rule in modern times the literacy rates are higher in cities than in lesspopulated areas,and there is good reason to suspectthat the literacy rate in a city like Alexandria was higher than that which appearsin the papyri.

17. Pol. 8.2.133763. The term mousik5refers to poetry and the playing of musical instruments;in addition, accordingto the evidenceof vasepaintings,girls were taught dancing. 18. Pliny, HN 35.147; EAA VII 858. For the elder Micon, sec Pliny, HN 35.59. There is no way of establishingthat the younger Micon was the son of the famous

TECHNIKAI

KAI

MOUSIKAI

65

painter Micon: Pliny names both Micons in the sameparagraph,but doesnot mention any i•,•hip. 19. W. Peremansand E. van't Dack, Studia Hellenistica XVII: Prosopographia

PtolemaicaVI (1968) 17084. 20. Pro$opographiaPtolemaica 17062; EAA I 551, s.v. 'Anaxandra', notes that thia painter i, cited only in Clem. AI. Strom. 4.124, but suggest•that 'Anaxander' in Pliny HN 55.146 refers to the sameperaon.Perhapsher name shouldbe Alexandra; the name Anaxandra ia unusual and not cited in F. Bechtel, Die Attischen Frauen-

namen(1902). For NealcesseePliny,HN 55.141-42, 145. 21. Pliny, HN 55.147; EAA III 285. For Cratinus seePliny, HN 55.140. 22. Pliny, HN 55.147;EAA I 659. For NearchusseePliny, HN 55.141. 25. Pliny, HN 55.148. 24. Pliny, HN 55.147-48; EAA IV 65; G. Boccaccio,De claris mulieribus,chapter 64, mistakenly calls Lala Marcia, daughterof Varro.

25. Susan Treggiari, Roman freedmen during the late Republic (1969) 155, suggests that she was a peregrina. 26. According to F. Miinzer, 'Zur Kunstgeschichtedes Plinius', Hermes III (1895) 555, the influence of Duris of Samos--whowrote about women--can be detectedin Pliny's listing of the womenpainters(obviouslyexcludingLala on chronological grounds).K. Jex-Blake and E. Sellera,The Elder Pliny's chapterson the history

of art (1896) lxv, acceptthe attributionto Duris. 27. The earliest evidence is an inscription honoring three female athletes from Trailes, ca. A.D. 45, published in L. Moretti, Iscrizioni agonistichegreche, no. 65. The inscriptionis also publishedin Pleket (cit. n. 1) no. 9. The subjectof women in athleticsis discussedby Pomeroy (cit. n.1) 157. 28. L. Robert, 'D6cretsde Delphes',BCH LIII (1929) 54-41 [= Operaminora selectaI (1969) 247-254], Etudes•pigraphiqueset philologiques(1958) 56-58. The decreefor Polygnotais alsopublishedin Picket, op. cit., no. 6. 29. 547D. The harp-girlsmentioned in the samecontext as flute-girlsby Arist.

dth. pol. 50.2,andMen.519.4arealsonotrespectable ,women. 50. Michel 910; L. Robert, Etudes (cit. n. 28) 57.

51. SIG$ 689;L. Robert,Etudes57-58. 52. Thia stele ia now in the Cairo Museum, inventory no. 9259. It is inscribed NIKfi

TIMfiNOg

AI•TH.

For

illustration

and brief

discussion

see Giinter

Grimm

and DieterJohannes,Kunst der Ptolemiier-und Rbmerzeitim .•gyptischenMuseum Kairo (1975) plate 6, and I. Noshy,The arts in PtolemaicEgypt (1957) 106-07, plate 12.2.

55. IvPerg. lI 515, no. 465B, not dated. Education at Teos is discussed at length

byH.I.Marrou, Hi•toiredelYducation dans l•nt:'quitd 6 (1965)75,183,529-50. 54. $1G$ 552=IG IX 2.62(218/17B.C.). 55. SEG lI 265 (Delphi, 5rd century B.C.) = Fouilles de Delphes III 3.145. 56. IG XII 5.812 (Srd century B.C.). 57. Plut. Quaest. cony. 657B. For the date of Polemo's study of the treasuries seeRudolph Pfeiffer, A hi•tory of Classicalscholarship:from the beginningsto the end of the Hellenistic age (1968) 247. Aristomache is dated to the third century by M. Guarducci,'Poeti raganti e conferenzieridell'et• ellenistica',MAL VI 2 (1929) 639.

66

S.B. POMEROY 38. See note 48 below for testimony on Erinna. 39. See note 51 below for testimony on Corinna.

40. Denys Page,Sapphoand Alcaeus(Oxford, 1955) 111 n. 2 suggests that the 'students' of Sappho mentioned in the biographical tradition studied the art of poetry. In antiquity Lesbosacquired a reputation for its production of female poets. Thus when Catullus endowed a woman with the name 'Lesbia' he was, in part, flattering her literaw aspirations.Whether Lesboswas in fact the homeland of many women

poetscannotbe proven;theonlywomanpoetfromtheislandwhose •,orksareextant was Sapphoherself. Ancient sourcesof varying credibility name the island as the birthplace of Erinna, Anyte, Nossis,and Melinno. For the first three poets, other birthplaces appear more likely; nothing is known of the life of Melinno, although shedid employ the Sapphicstanza.(For references,seefootnotesbelow.) 41. lmmerwahr, 'Book rolls' (cit. n. 4) 18 and 'More book rolls' (cit. n. 4) 143 concludes that the writing on the book rolls representspoetry rather than musical notation.

42. M. Gigante,'Nosside',PP XXIX (1974) 26. Gow and PageI 151-54, l1434-43. 43. Gow and PageI 35-41, II 89-104. 44. Gow and Page I 145, II 413-15. 45. Georg Luck, 'Die Dichterinnender GriechischenAnthologie', MH XI (1954) 170-87.

46. lI 89,414,

435.

47. Luck (cit. n. 45) 170. 48. Asclepiades,Epigram XXVII (Gow and PageI 51, lI 136), accordingto Gow and Page (II 282) was prefixed to the work of Erinna after her death. D.N. Leven, 'QuaestionesErinneanae',HSPh LXVI (1962) 194, would date Eritrea to the end of the fifth or the first half of the fourth century. Most recently, M.L. West (ZPE 25 (1977) 95-119) would reject the attribution of the epigramsto the samepoet who wrote the Distaff and dates the latter to around 300 B.C. His argument that Erinna herself is prominent in the epigramswhile the male relativesof Baucisremain unnamed is unconvincing.Evenlessconvincingis his further thesisthat the author of the Distaff was a male, for it restson his notion that a girl of nineteen,living on Teos, could not have had the culture necessaryto create a sophisticatedpoem of this kind. (That her householdwas dominated by spinningand weavingmerely meant that it was the same as other Greek households,not that it would have been thoroughly impossiblefor a girl in sucha householdto find sometime for the appreciationand creationof poetry.) Interestingly enough, Teos is one of the few Hellenistic sites where education for

girlshappensto be attested,slightlylater. (Seep. 52 above.) 49. Gow and PageII 3, 4, 141,259,554;P. Oxy. 39.2891. Cf., on an attribution to Philaenis,K. Tsantsanoglou, 'The memoirsof a lady from Samos',ZPE XII (1973) 183-95. D.W. Thomson Vessey,'Philaenis',RBPh LIV (1976) 78-83, assertsthat Philaeniswas not an historicalperson,but the nameof a protoWpicalharlot to whom a manual

on erotic

arts was attributed.

50. Gow and PageII 289.

51. The most importantworkson the datingof Cotirmaare U. v. Wilamowitz-

Moellendorff, Die Textgeschichte der gviechischen Lyriker.Abh. der K6niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G6ttingen,Philologisch-Historische Klasse,N.F. IV no. 3 (1900) 21-23, who could find no evidencefor a dateearlierthan the middle

TECHNIKAI

KAI

MOUSIKAI

67

of the third century B.C.; D.L. Page, Corinna, Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, Suppl. Paper VI (1953) 65-86. Most recently, the earlier argumentsare reviewed by Ch. Segal, 'Pebblesin Golden Urns', Eranos LXXIII (1975) 1-8, who suggeststhat sincethe secretballot by which the singingmatch between Cithaeron and Helicon in PMG 645.1 is decided resemblesa judicial procedure not employed in Athens until the middle of the fifth century, Cotirma must be post-Pindaric,and consideringthe other evidence, concludesthat she was most likely an archaizingpoet of the late third century.

52. C.M. Bowra,]RS XLVII (1957) 21-28. PierreL•v•que, 'Les pontesalexandrins et Rome', IH XXII (1960) 52, with somehesitation,also placedMelinno early in the Hellenisticperiod. 53. R. Melior, •9EA P•MH: The worship of the goddessRoma in the Greek world (Hypomnemata. Untersuchungenzur Arttike und zu ihrem Nachleben, Heft 42, 1975) 124. 54. H. Usenet,RhM LV (1900) 290. 55. I am grateful to Hugh Lloyd-Jones for sendingme his remarks on Melinno, in advanceof their publication. 56. FGrH III B 328, 3,260-61. 57.

VP 267.

58. HolgerThesleff, An introduction to theP•thagorean writings of theHellenistic period (1961), 99, 113. SeealsoM. Meunier,Femmespythagoriennes: Fragments et lettres de Thdano, Perictiond,Phintys, Mdlissaet Myia (1932), for discussionand translation of the fragments. 59. D.L. 3.47. P. Von der Miihll, 'Was DiogenesLaertios der Dame, der er sein Buch widmen will, ankiindlgt', PhilologusCIX ( 1965) 313-15. 60. D.L. 3.46, 4.2. 61.

D.L.

2.86.

62. W.W.TarnandG.T. Griffith,Hellenistic Civilisation 3 (1952) 99. 63. See C.E. Manning, 'Seneca and the Stoics on the equality of •he sexes', Mnemosyne XXVI (1973) 170-77. 64. Fat. 5.581.

65. 13.596e. Athenaeus also refers to a hetaira called Nicarete at 593f. He must

havemisunderstood or had a faulty recollectionof [Dem.] 59 wherea Nicareteof Megaramanagedthe brothel in which Neaerawas employed.That the studentof Stflpobore the samename and camefrom the sameciW as the brothel-keeper may be responsiblefor the tradition that shewas a hetaira herself. 66. 2.114 (quotingOnetot). 67.

D.L.

6.96-98.

68. See, e.g., P1. Tht. 149A, and the discussion of femalephysiciansand midwivesin Herfst(cit. n. 3 above)52-57. 69. Hyg. Fab. 274.

70. The treatiseon midwifery is cited by Soranus,c. 57, c. 66 (-- III.3, IV.1

in the Englishtranslation by Ternkin).The gynecological discoveries of Herophilus arediscussed in PaulPotter,'Herophilus of Chalcedon: An assessment of hisplace in the historyof anatomy',Bulletinof the Historyof MedicineL (1976) 54-56. 71. P.M. Fraser,Ptolemaic Alexandria(1972) II 503-04,n. 57. 72. See note 68 above.

68

S.B. POMEROY

73. Campbell Bonner, 'The trial of Saint Eugenia',AJPh XLI (1920) 257-58.

74. I•-H/III 32 6873= PeekGVI 1,342 =Pleket(citn. 1) 1. 75. N. Firatli and L. Robert, Les st•les fundraires de B•zance grdco-romaine

(1964) 175-77. 76. Pliny, HN 28.87.

77. Forthedateof Metrodora, Deichgr•ber, RE XV 1474,writes•_•_'Zeit nach-

hellenistjsch?' I am grateful to Heinrich yon Staden for drawing my a•ttention to Metrodora and Cleopatra. 78. Str. 13.599; Susemihl,Gesch.d. gr. Lit. Alex. II 148-49, and n. 2. Eustathius, on B 538,280, 19, notes that the name is spelled HistJaJaor Hestjaja. 79. That Heitiaea's work was a monograph is pointed out by Rudolf Pfeiffer

(cit. n. 37) 250 n.4. 80. For the date, Pfeiffer 249 showsthat Demetrius follows Gratesbut precedes Apollodorus. 81. R. Pfeiffer, Call. I 118-19, II 115-16. 82. 83. 84. 85.

Plut. de Educ. Puer. 14B. Plut. Ant. 27.3. Sat. V1434-56. Men. 702 K.

86. On this office see C. Wehrli, 'Les Gyn•conomes',MH XIX (1962) 33-38; and mostrecently,C. Vatin (cit. n. 2) 25,210, 254-61.

SOME

Vindex's

revolt

CAUSES

of A.D.

OF DISORDER

68 has sometimes

IN A.D.

68-69

been seen as a national

move-

ment for Gallicindependence. HoweverP.A. Brunt1 hasarguedforcefully that Vindex remainedloyal to Rome, yet rose to end the oppressionsuffered by all the empire'sinhabitantsunder the rule of the emperorat that time, Nero. Vindex aimed 'to end oppression,not by escapingfrom Ro-

man rule, but by replacingthe ruler'.2 Brunt then proceeds to showhow bad Nero's provincial administration had become by 68, and he finally drawsthe generalconclusion(p. 558): 'We are well informed of the miseriesthat Britain, Judaea and Egypt

sufferedunder Nero; it would be strangeindeedif all waswell in the provinceswe know lessof. On the contrary, they all suffered from similar wrongs, as our sourcesunanimouslystate. Revolt broke out becauseredresscould be had no other way; the armies,short of pay and contemptuousof an unworthy prince, were ready to obey commanders hostile to Nero becausethey were drawn from the senate which Nero had terrorized, and Nero perished,friendless(except amongthe urban plebs) and alone. Court intrigueshad broughthim into absolute power, and his personallicenceand extravagancehad then deprivedhim of all effectivesupport.'

While it may be arguedthat Brunt has identified correctly the aims of ¾index himself, there remainsdoubt over his generalconclusionthat commanders,armies'and provinceswere ready to replace Nero forcibly by an emperorwho might be expectedto providebetter government.In some senseTacitus may be more accuratewhen he says:'Nero was driven to abdicationby messages and rumorsrather than force of arms' (Hist. 1.89). Few provincial governorswere preparedto rebel, and even fewer were enthusiasticabout taking suchaction. Indeed when ¾index, governor of Lugdunensis,wrote letters to his fellow governorsbefore rebelling openly, somesimply forwardedthesetreacherousmessages to Nero, 'and thusdid all they couldto ruin the enterpriseof Vindex' (Plut. Galba4). Galba in Tarraconensisis not said to havereactedso firmly, but we are told that he put no trust in the letters. It was only after ¾index had rebelied openlythat Galbaat last acceptedthe invitation 'to take the lead in rescuinghumanity from Nero' (Suet. Galba9). There is little signin our 69

70

R.J.A. TALBERT

sourcesthat he looked forward to the challenge:he had only a singlele-

gionunderhiscommandat the time,s whileVindexhadnone.Otho,governor of the neighboring provinceof Lusitania,wasthe first to declarefor Galba? followedby Caecina,quaestorin Baetica(Tac.Hist. 1.53). Yet there were no legionsin either of thesetwo Spanishprovinces.In Africa the legionarylegateClodiusMacershowedhimselfa rebel,but .whetherhe

sought to furtherhisowncause or thatof Galbaremained uncYear (Plut. Galba 6). There was only a singlelegionin thisprovince,too, although Macermight alsoseekto influencethe situationin the city of Romeby withholdingcornshipments. 5 In Egyptthe PrefectTiberius JuliusAlexander indicatedsupportfor Galbain an edict issuedon 6th July 68, sucha comparatively shorttime after the latter'sofficialproclamation andNero's deathon 9th Junethat somepriorcommunication betweenGalbaandthe Prefectcouldbe credited. 6 There were two legionsin Egypt,andthe Prefect, like Macer, might alsohold up corn shipmentsto Rome.

VerginiusRufus,commanderof threelegionsin UpperGermany, loyallymovedhisarmyagainst Vindex.However,at Vesontiohe seemsto haveenteredinto somekind of negotiation with the rebel-a treasonable act in itself-but

his men soon took the issue out of their commander's

handsby massacring the rebelforce. 7 Vindexcommitted suicideandhis rebellioncollapsed. ThenewsfilledGalbawithsuchdespairthathe returned to the obscuretown of Clunia, and there contemplatedsuicide,without

takingfurtherstepsto advance hiscause. 8'Whilea fragment of Dio says that 'Petronius'-presumablyP. PetroniusTurpilianus-whom Nero sent

aheadagainst'the rebels'with a largerportionof the army,took up the causeof Galba (63.27.1a), Plutarchon the otherhandtellsus that Petroniuswas executedby Galba,being'hatedmerelybecause he would

not betraynorshowhatredto Neroin spiteof all thatemperor's crimes'? Petronius cannot therefore be counted with certainty as one of the

allegedly'hostile'commanders who gaveopensupportto the rebellion againstNero. Altogetherfew highofficialsdid so.The numberof legions whichthey couldpersuadeto join their rebellionwastiny; and the chief rebel, Galba, himself lacked all confidence. II

Even if the commanderswere uninterestedin dethroningNero, was there

more enthusiasm amongtheir men?We may note first how on at leasttwo occasionsearlier in the Julio-Claudianperiod rank-and-filesoldiershad alreadyshownno burningdesireto act disloyallytowardsthe regime.In A.D. 19, after the death of Germanicus,Piso'sschemeto regainthe gover-

notshipof Syria by force wasendorsedby centurionswho declaredthat the legionstherewould supporthim; andsomesubsequent desertions did

givea certaincreditto thisclaim.Butassoonasanattackwasmountedin

SOME

CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN A.D.

68-69

71

Cilicia, the soldiers'unwaveringloyalty to Tiberiusprovedthat Piso'sson Marcushadbeenright whenhe had counselledhis father: 'You canexpect no lasting support from centurions and soldiers. They still vividly remembertheir commandingofficer, and their dominant emotion is a profoundattachmentto the Caesars'(Tac.Ann. 2.76). Later Scribonianus' revolt in Dalmatia in 42 collapsedwithin five days. Among the scrappyrecordsof this risingagainstClaudius,a passage in Suetonius(Otho1) shows it most decisivelyas an officers''political' plot, which the rank and file werejust not interestedto sustain. lø Our evidencefor 68 showssoldiersdisplayinga similarlack of interest in dethroningNero. As Chilverstresses, 11 there is no signthat it was Galba'smen who pushedhim into any form of rebellion,or evenencourag-

ed him to it. 12 Later,in fact, Suetonius reportsan incidentin whichthe men of one of Galba'scavalrytroops'felt a little ashamedof their defection and tried to go back on it': it was only by a greateffort that Galbakept them at their posts,and savedhisrebellionfrom collapse(Galba10). Similarly there is no signof ClodiusMacer or TiberiusJuliusAlexanderbeing forced or encouragedto rebel by the soldiersunder their command.In theseinstanceswe know only that CalviaCrispinilia,Nero's 'tutor in vice', was one of thosewho eggedon Macer (Tac. Hist. 1.73). In the Eastthere

was'unbrokenpeace,followedby allegiance to Galba',1• whilein Britain and alongthe Danubetherewasevidentlyno movemade.14 In Romeitself Tacitus saysthat 'the city garrison,for its part, had a long tradition of sworn allegianceto the Caesars,and had been induced to desert Nero

moreby cunningand suggestion than from any inclinationof its own'.1• Galba disbandedthe emperor'scohort of Germanguardsmen,mainly (it would seem)becauseit had proved constantlyloyal to Nero and his pre-

decessors. 16 Finally Tacitusspeaksof the 'protracteddevotion'to Nero shown by the Fourteenth Legion, stationed i'n Britain for most of the reign, and moved to Italy at the end: it had previouslyquelledBoudicca's revolt, and had been hailedby Nero as hisbestforce (Tac.Hist. 2.11 and 66). In two sectorsthere may have been disloyalty to Nero, but neither caseis entirely clear.First we are told that the le•ionswhich he hadmoved from the Danubeto Italy sent deputationsto soundout Verginius(Tac. Hist. 1.9), but when this initiative cameto nothing,they apparentlymade no further move. Unfortunately we do not know how this offer emerged, nor whetherit wasmadebefore Nero'sdeathor afterit. 17If the latter, then plainly theselegions.were provingdisloyalto the senateand to Galba,not to Nero at all. The sameappliesto the secondcase.We are told that after massacring Vindex's rebel army, the legionsunderVerginiusoffered the imperial power to their commander(Tac. Hist. 1.8). ?lutarch'sversion

(Galba6) impliesthat Nero wasstill alive:he portraystheselegionsasso confusedin their loyaltiesthat, havingfailedto persuadeVerginiusto lead

72

R.J.A.TALBERT

their rebellion,they finally threatenedto return their allegiance to Nero! On the otherhand,somescholarsiS havesuspected that theofferwasmade to Vcrginiusonly after Nero's death was known. In that case,again,the legionswere not beingdisloyalto Nero. Eitherthey wereactinghastilyto find themselves a successor to an emperorwho had died withoutonedesignated;or, oncenewsarrivedof Galba'selevation,they were d•dibcratcly beingdisloyalto him and to the senate. Again, it is unfortunate that we do not know how the offer to Verginiusemerged.Presumablyit could have come from the rank and f'de. But it is equallypossiblethat the offer wasplannedby seniorofficerswith political ambitions,who won supportby holdingout the prospectof more loot and booty (cf. Tac. Hist. 1.51) to men who had alreadyshowntheir greed and envy in massacring Vindcx's men. The latter pattern of events canreadilybe paralleledelsewhere in 68-69. Finally,Tacitus'remarkin his

obituaryfor Valcns-'asthe commander of a legion,he boih supported Verginiusand blackenedhis name' (Hist. 3.62)-could imply that these legions'offer to supportVcrginiusin a bid for the principatewas not simplya spontaneous gestureby the rank and file. Were Nero'sarmies'shortof pay' by 68, as Brunt believes?Suetonius alone seemsto provide support for this notion, when he writes: 'Nero's financial difficulties were such that he could not lay hands on enough money even for the soldiers'pay or the veteran'sbenefits;and therefore resortedto robberyandblackmail'(Nero 32). Yet this passagereads suspiciously like a stock accusationto be levelledagainstany 'bad' emperor.By definitionthe latter must,amongother faults, mismanagehis financesand indulgein sexualperversion.Not surprisingly allegationsof the same type are made againstCaligula and Domitian(Suet.Calig.38; Dom. 12; cf. alsoClaud.28). Thereis little evidence on which we may check Suctonius'claim againstNero. But (for what it is worth) we may note the negativepoint that in none of our accounts of 68-69 is it ever suggestedthat soldiersshould desert Nero, or have already desertedhim, becausethey have not been paid. On the contrary, Tacitus' accountof the forcesin Germanyin late 68 suggests a well maintainedarmy. He mentionshow 'recruits,equipmentand mountswere

in amplesupply,whetherfor useor for show'(Hist. 1.51), andhe later explains how, when contributionswere being made to Vitellius' causein January 69:

'This spirit of sacrificewasnot confinedto the leadersin the citiesand army camps,who had the meansto giveready money and couldlook forward to handsome dividends when victory was theirs. Even ordinary privatesin the companieshandedover their savings,or, in lieu of cash,their sword-belts,medalsand silverparadeequipment,

SOME CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN 68-69

73

under the stimulusof encouragement,or elseof their own initiative and greed.'(Hist. 1.57)

Early in 69 the legateof the TwentiethLegionin Britaincouldpointto 'the despoiledand impoverished stateof the legions':but thiswasin a quarrel with the governorof the province,whowashatedfor his'greedandmiserliness'(Tacitus,Hist. 1.60). We certainlydo hearof payandrationsbeing short in Germanyin late 69 (Tac. Hist. 4.26 and 37); yet, of course,by then muchhad happenedsinceNero'sdeathin June 68. It hassometimes beensuggested that in 68-69 'the armiesassuch'(to useChilver'swords)'wereclaiminga greatersharein the economicadvantagesof society'.Chilvergoeson to outlinethe arguments in favourof this view as follows:

'For well they might. The pay of a legionary,900 sestercesa year, seemstrivial whencomparedwith the tensof millionsownedby even averagelywealthysenators;and there waswideroom for jealousyof other groupswithin the army itself--of the Praetorianswho were paid almost three times as much, or of centurionswho received

nearlyfifteentimesthe ranker'spay.'19 Thesecausesfor discontenton the part of the rank and file soundplausible enoughin themselves, but--as Chilverrecognizes(p. 35)-they simply do not.feature in thesurvivingaccounts.Most strikingconfirmation of the likelihood that their absenceis indeedno accidentmay be seenin ¾espa-

sian'sfailureto remedyanysuchgrievances afterthe civilwar.•ø Asfar as we know, he did not raisepay or bounties;he did not alter conditionsof service;nor did he changethe systemof promotion.In effect, the kind of

professional discontents voiced bytherankandfile•in themutinies of1421 just do not re-appearin 68-69. There is no sign in the sourcesof legionariesnursingparticularjealousy againstother groupswithin the army before civil war broke out. It is true that somegroupswere muchbetter paid, but the averagelegionary probably appreciated,too, how relativelyhighhe rankedon an incredibly

steepsocialpyramid? WhileofficersandPraetorian Guardsmen werefar betterpaid,auxiliaries andthe hugemassof peasants werefar worseoff.•3 Conceivably,therefore, the legionary might considerthat he would do better not to stir up trouble, whichcouldbringdisasterand a loweringof his status.In particular,in an army and indeeda whole societywherewide differentialsin pay and statuswere normal, it seemsarguablewhetherthe averagelegionary was fiercely jealous of the PraetorianGuard. Naturally enough,the legionariesof the successful usurpersin 69 werehappyto accept the reward of servicein the Guard once they reachedRome as vic-

74

R.J.A. I•ALBERr

tors; and dismissed Guardsmen were keen to be re-instated when the wheel

of fortuneturned.24 But is thereany ancientex-idence to supporttheclaim that the better pay and conditionsof the Guard formeda special.standing grievanceof legionariesstationed in the provincesin the Julio-Claudian period? Equally, can we be sure that before the death of Nero in 68 legionaries felt great concernat the undue potential power of the Praetorian

Guard to make or break emperors? Z5 We shouldrememberthat before 68 the Guard had only onceusedsuchpower. and then in a mannerwhich might be interpreted as loyal rather than rebellious-to ensurethat after one member of the Julio-Claudianhouse had been assassinated as the result of an upper-classplot, another member should take his place. Similarly, in 68 Guardsmendid not behave as rebels.Ihey evidently did not plan on their own accountto dethroneNero: rather, the schemewasput to them by an ambitious commander, and the Guard responded,in Tacitus' words quoted above, 'induced... more by cunningand suggestion than from any inclination of its own'. Accordingto a speechput into the mouth of a Praetorian tribune by Plutarch (Galba 14), it was only after Nymphidius had persuadedthe men that Nero had abandoned them and

fledto Egypt,that the Guardagreedto defect.•6 Furthermore, havingperhapsunwittingly promptedNero's fall on the strengthof a falsereport, the Guard did not then dispute the senate'schoice of a successor, as it could easilyhavedone.Rather,it wascontentfor a detachmentto be shippedout to Spain to escortGalba overlandto Rome (cf. Tac. Hist. 1.23). At this stagethe Guardsmenthemselves apparentlyjust did not appreciatetheir

potentialpowerto makeor breakemperorsfi 7 Werelegionaries likely to havebeenspeciallyawareof it, let alonefearful or jealous? Brunt maintainsthat in 68 the armieswere 'contemptuous of an unworthy prince'.It is clearthat suchcontemptwasindeedfelt amongthe tiny, narrowcircleof the Romanupperclasses, the only groupof people in the empirewith whomthe emperorcameinto constantpersonalcontact. This kind of opinionof Nerois expressed, for example,by SubriusFlavus, tribune in the PraetorianGuard.Askedby Nero why he had brokenhis military oath to take part in the Pisonianconspiracy of 65, thisofficerreplied: 'BecauseI detestedyou! I wasasloyal as any of your soldiersas

longasyou deserved affection.I begandetesting you whenyou.murdered your motherandwife andbecamecharioteer, actorandincendiary!'(Tac. Ann. 15.67,quotingwhathe statesto havebeenSubflus'exactwords). While thereis no clearevidenceto indicatethe opinionwhichordinary soldiersheldof Neroby 68, it mightstill be a mistaketo assumethat they sharedthe feelingsof their socialsuperiors. NeitherPraetorians nor legionaries werevictimsof Nero'scrueltyin thewaythat theupperclasses hadsuffered(in varyingdegrees) at thehandsof everyemperor.Moreover, far frombeingdisgusted by hispursuits, it is conceivable that theyshared

SOME

CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN A.D.

68-69

75

some of that admiration for their emperor'sshowmanshipwhich he had manifestlywon from the peopleof Rome.2SIt is only reasonable to think that soldierswould sharemany populartastes.Later, accordingto Tacitus (Hist. 1.78), troopsjoined the populaceof Rome in salutingthe emperor Otho as 'Nero Otho'. In Nero's reign it might be natural to expect some

differencein attitude betweemthe PraetorianGuard,which actually witnessedhis antics, and the legionariesstationedfar away on the fron-

tiers,29but thereis no signof it. No specialenthusiasmfor Nero is perhapsdiscernible:yet equally the lack of concernwhich soldiersshowedfor dethroninghim hardly suggests that they were 'contemptuous'of their emperor as an 'unworthy prince'. Plutarch writes as follows about the argumentsused by the Praetorian tribune Antonius Honoratus in seekingto persuadehis men against support of any scheme to make their prefect Nymphidius Sabinus emperorin placeof Galba: 'He reviled himself and he reviledthem for changingabout so often in so short a time, not accordingto .any plan or choice of better things, but becausesomeevil spirit drove them from one treachery to another. In the first instance, he said, they had an excuse in the crimes of Nero; but now, if they were to betray Galba, what charge of murderinghis mother or slayinghis wife could they bring against him, or what feelingsof shamethat their emperor shouldappear in

publicasa musicianor tragicactor?"Nay, not evenwith theseprovocations would we consent to abandon a Nero, but we had to be per-

suadedby Nymphidius that Nero had first abandonedus and fled to Egypt" ' (Galba 14; my italics). As a member of the upper classesAntoniusregardsNero's murders of his mother and wife, his music and his actingas all 'provocations'.It is true that ordinary soldiersmay have been more disturbed by these murdersthan by many of his other pursuits.But it is still hard to believethat they would have fervently desiredNero's removalon the groundsof immoral behaviour.By 68 the outrageousmurdershad occurredas many as six and nine yearspreviously.In other waysNero certainly had continued to offend againststrict, old-fashionedRoman standardsthereafter. Yet at the sametime we mustrecognizehow the behaviourof manyRomansof all classes,occupationsand positionswas far laxer than a largesectionof

public opinion would tolerate in many countriestoday; furthermore, behaviourmorally lax by certain modern standardsdid not usually exclude a man from publiclife at Rome. Of coursenot all the maliciousgossip about prominent figuresretailedby hostile and unscrupulousancient writers shouldbe believed,but equally not all of it can be discounted. Cerealis,for example, was undoubtedly a womanizer, whose sexual es-

76

R.J.A.TALBERT

capadesonce servedto put him in a tighter cornerthan everin the Germans' surpriseattack on Trier (Tac. Hist. 4.77), but later savedhim when

the Germanstowedawayhis flagshipin anothersurprise attackby night on the Rhine (Tac.Hist. 5.22). Galbawasallegedto be a homosexual? ø while after his wife'sdeathat an earlyageVespasian livedopenlywith his ex-mistress, a freedwoman, 31andenjoyedcracking dirtyjokes? Othoand Vitellius were a sorrypair, as Plutarchsumsup neatly:'As regardswastefulness,effeminacy,inexperience in war,andmultiplicityof debtsincurred in a previousstateof poverty, it were hard to saywhichof them had the advantage'(Otho 4). Both Suetonius(Vitell. 7)and Dio (65.5.3)describe vividlyVitellius'difficultiesin shakingoff creditorsbeforehisdeparture to Germanyin 68. All in all, if ordinarysoldiersfelt a deepconcernfogthe moralstandingof the holderof thePrincipate, wemightsurelyexpectthem

to havebeenfirst far morekeento dethroneNero(andmuchearlierthan 68 if it was the deathsof Agrippinaand Octaviawhichhad especiallyoutragedthem); and later far lesskeen to elevate,in particular,an Otho or a Vitellius. The most whichmight fairly be claimedis that agitatorscould profitably condemnthe cruelty, immorality and degradingpursuitsof Nero-or any other emperoraS-afterit had becomeclearthat soldiers were preparedto considera rebellionon other groundsin the firstplace. Suchcharges wereplainlynot levelledin vain:they couldinflamefeelings, andadda degreeof righteousness to the cause? It mightbe arguedthat ordinarysoldiers sawmuchto approveabout Nero. In the militaryspherewhichnaturallyconcerned them,he hadappointeda highly esteemed general,Corbulo,to regainRomanoverlordship of Armenia from the Parthians.Whenthis end couldnot be achieved by peacefulmeans,Corbulosuccessfully imposedit by force.After the wholepolicyhadbeenplacedin jeopardyby a foolish,unprovoked attack ßon Adiabeneby TigranesV, the new nomineeto the Armenianthrone, Nero had authorizedthe appointmentof a secondcommanderto the Eastern front, L. CaesenniusPaetus; and an offensive was mounted to

annexArmeniapermanently. WhenPaetuswasunhappilysurrounded by the Parthianking, Nero allowedCorbuloto take revengefor thiscatastrophe;and by beginning a furtherArmeniancampaign, the latter was

finallyableto forcethe Parthians into accepting Romanoverlordship of Armenia,an arrangementsealedin Romeitselfin 66, whenNero crowned

Tiridatesas king of Armenia.Elsewhere, expansion of the Romanprovinceof Britainhad proceeded duringthe reign,and Boudicca's revolt

hadbeenfirmlyput down.Likewise in Judaea a nativerevoltwasbeing suppressed with suitableruthlessness. Finally,at theendof thereign,further Easternexpeditionswerebeingplanned.

We cannotknowto what extentsoldiers in (say)the Westshowed interestin militarydevelopments in theEast,andviceversa. Butthepoint remainsthat Nerocouldbe seenasan emperorwhotook commendably

SOME

CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN A.D.

68-69

77

resolutestepsto maintain Romanpower,and evenbetter, to expandit. It is true that with 12 salutations asimperator(the lastin 67) he did not take quite so much trouble to maintainpersonalmilitary prestigeby this means as his immediatepredecessor had done. But perhapsClaudius'27 salutations (the last in 52) beganto look ridicu. lous.Nero certainlydid not visit his armiesnor head his campaignsin person,but theseomissions possibly

displease modernscholars s• morethan they may havedoneordinarysoldiersin the 60s A.D. After all, exceptfor singleforaysby Caligulaand Claudius(the latter very much a formality), no reigningemperor,as opposedto a memberof his family, had headeda campaignin personsince Augustusreturned from Spain as long ago as 25 B.C.! Otherwise, since

13 B.C. all the reigningemperorshad hardlyeverleft Italy, let alonevisited legions:apart from the two campaigning foraysjust mentioned,Augustus visited Gaul once, in 8 B.C.; Caligulamade a brief dash to Sicily in A.D. 38; and Nero went to Greecein 67. In short,there isno strongjustification for thinkingthat soldierswould have expectedNero (or any otherJulio-

Claudianemperor)to visitthecamps?Thisomission onhispart--likehis immorality or his failure to head campaignsin person-wasa chargelikely to stir the rank and file only after they had been moved to turn against their emperorfor someother reason. III

Brunt implies that the provincesrose againstNero in a final, desperate effort to obtain redressfor governmentof an exceptionallylow standard.Those Gauls and Spaniardswhom Vindex and Galba respectively persuadedto follow them did perhapssee their risingsas a welcome

meansof retaliatingagainstRomanoppression. s?But otherwise therewas no generalmovement of provincesagainstNero. In 70 the Roman commander Dillius Vocula was in some measureright when, in Tacitus' narra-

tion (Hist. 4.õ7), he claimsto Classicus andTutor, the Gallicrebelleaders, that Vindex and h/s Gallic followershad been crushedin a singlebattle, amongother reasonsbecauseother provincesstayedloyal to Rome. Likewise from Brunt'shypothesisit mightbe expectedthat whenTacitusoutlinesthe argumentsusedby Civilisto stir the Gaulsto rebellionin late 69, he might be able to includethe strongplea, 'why shouldyou not join in

rebellingagainstRome now,just as the provincesin generalroseagainst Nero only lastyear?'.But no suchpleaappearsin Histories4.17. Really, even for the majority of provincialaristocrats,let aloneordinary people,any emperorwasa remotefigure,a distant,hazy figurehead,

not a rulerwith whomthey felt themselves to be in directcontact? As mentionedabove,at this period he mostly remainedin Italy, and provincialswould rarely feel his influencedirectly. Far moresignificantin their eyes were his principal representatives, in particular governorsand pro-

78

R.J.A.TALBERT

curators.Of coursetheir appointmentand dismissalwere alwaysin the

handsof the Emperor.But duringhis pleasurethey exercisedsupreme powersin their own areas.In practiceit wasthey who governedthe provincesand decidedcasesor disputesthere,underno morethan general guidance fromthe emperorfar awayin Rome.Specially difficu• questions could certainly be referred to Rome; but whether to do so was for the governoror procuratorto decide,not the provincial.Most provincialsin

most areaswould rate the quality of Romanadministration(insofarasit affected them) accordingto the behaviourof the seniorRoman officials thereat the particulartime,not according to the behaviourof theemperor in Rome. The latter is in many respectsa misleadingyardstick,which modernscholarshave too often adoptedbecauseinfluentialRomanspre-

ferredit. The qualityof government wouldvary from provinceto provincein eachgovernorship, not somuchin eachemperor's reign? Brunt compilesan impressive 'dossletto showhow bad Nero'sprovincialgovernmentwas by 68. It may be agreedthat he proveshis case. Yet, for all that, it seemsdoubtfulwhetherprovincialgovernment in his lastyearsreallywasmuchworsethanat any othertime in thefirstcentury A.D.

Our assessment should be a cautious one in view of Brunt's own

citationof manyparallelcasesfrom otherreignsin the firstcenturyto illustrate bad practices which flourished under Nero. ElsewhereBrunt gatherssome evidenceto refute the claim that Tiberius deservescredit for his specialcare in provincial administration. •ø He could also have mentioned how Tacitus seeks to convince his readers of the excellence of Ti-

berius'administration between14 and 23 by makingthe followingnegative points:'He ensuredalsothat the provinces werenot harassed by new impositions andthat old impositions werenot aggravated throughofficial acquisitiveness or brutality;beatings andconfiscations didnotexist'(Ann. 4.6).

Whena Romanpraiseda goodperiodof government in suchterms, whatdidhe expectof a normalperiod,notto mentionabadone?It maybe addedthat evenwithinthe spanof thisperiodof allegedlygoodgovern-

mentwehearfromTacitus himself of SyriaandJudaea in 17exhausted by financialburdensand beggingfor a reductionin tribute (Ann. 2.42); of Achaeaand Asia in the sameyear exhaustedfrom internaldisputesand misgovernment (Ann. 2.54); of a revolt in A.D. 21 mountedby Gallic communitieswhich were heavilyin debt and complainedabout endless taxation, crushingrates of interestand the brutality and arrogance of governors; 41 finally of the trials of about six seniorRomanofficialsaccusedof havingmisgoverned between14 and 23. The mostshocking of thesecaseswasperhapsone in 23, whichinvolvedLuciliusCapito,exprocurator of Asia. Though his powershad been limited to control of

imperialslavesand revenues, he had illegallyusurpedthe governor's authority andemployedmilitaryforce.The Asians whohaddaredto prose-

SOME

CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN A.D.

68-69

79

cute both him and a proconsulin a previousyear were so amazedby the condemnation of the two men that they erecteda temple to Tiberius, his

motherand the senatein gratitude(Tac.Ann. 4.1õ)! Brunt does rightly suggestthat Nero's extravagance,combined with the programmeto rebuild Rome after 64, led to revenuebeing squeezed from provincialswith unusual force. In this connectionwe hear of special agents being sent out by the emperor to raise money by almost any

means? Yet all emperors, and theirhenchmen, wantedmoneyfor public or privatepurse,for goodpurposes or bad? Galbaprovedjust askeento raiserevenueas Nero had been, but he then would not spendit in a fashion which people approved. Both Vespasianand Domitian undertook expensivecommitments,and were variouslycriticized for the strict and un-

scrupulous methodsthey employedto financethem? Finally,Titusislikely to have neededmore money after his lavishrelief of the disasters(volcanic eruption, fire, plague) which struck in his short reign. Taxpayers would perhapsnot have been pleasedto hear of his firm refusalof all voluntary contributionstowards relief (Dio 66.24.4). As for imperialhenchmen seekingto line their own pockets,it may suffice to quote Tiberius' opinion: in his view 'it was a law of nature that governorsare prone to engagein extortion' (Josephus, A] 18.172; my italics). IV

It would hardly be accurate to describeNero's fall in the terms usedby

Galbaon hisadoptionof Piso,in Tacitus' version'(H/st. 1.16):'It wasnot Vindex with his undefendedprovince,nor I with my one legion,who dislodged this incubus [Nero] from the shouldersof Rome. His own monstrousexcessesand life of pleasuredid so, thoughthere wasno precedent at that time for the condemnationof an emperor.' Likewisein the same speech,whenGalbacanbe madeto saythat he won the Principate'by the sword'and that his own accessionwas 'far from tranquil', in somemeasure he exaggerates on both points.Pisois more accuratewhen on the day of Galba's death Tacitus makes him say to the Praetorian cohort at the palace (Hist. 1.29): 'In the last crisiswe found comfort in the circumstancethat there wasno bloodshedin the capital and that the transference of power wasundisputed.'Tacitushimselfstatesthat the fightingat the time of Nero's downfall 'had been restricted to the provinces,and was tantamountto a foreignwar [from the point of viewof thecity of Rome],

asit onlyinvolvedthelegions andGaul.,45 In short, Nero did not fall becausethere was a generalrising of

armiesand provinces,disgusted at his way of life and dissatisfied by the

qualityof hisrule.In 68,asthroughout theJulio-Glaudian period, almost all ordinarysoldierslackedthe desireto rebelagainstthe regime.There are no signsof dissatisfaction with pay or conditions,nor of jealousyto-

80

R.J.A. TALBERT

wards the PraetorianGuard. Such outrageas soldiersmay have felt at Nero's immorality was not in itself sufficiently strongto spur them to action: and indeedit could havebeen temperedby approvalof hisstaunch maintenanceof Roman power. The great majority of provinces,too, did not rise againsthim, despitecruel and extortionate governmenton the part of his officials.Rather, strongfeelingagainsthim wasconfinedto the upper classes,and they had already plotted mor6 than ondo•to remove him, in the sameway that at one time or anotherthey had plotted against everyJulio-Claudianemperor. In the event,however,he wasnot dethroned by an upper-class'palaceplot', suchas the PisonianConspiracyof 65. But it was upper-classobjectionsto his rule and behaviourwhich began the movement leading to his downfall. Its promoter, ¾index, sought merelyto replacehim by a better emperor,while remainingloyal to Rome. Nero did not appreciate the relative unimportance of this rising in Gaul and the one in Spain which followed. More significantly,the successful suppressionof the former showedhim that neither Verginiusnor perhaps his legionswere unwaveringlyloyal. Furthermore,his generalpanicand irresolutionopened the way for the PraetorianPrefect,NymphidiusSabinus, to underminethe loyalty of the Guard. Nero eventuallygaveway to despairwhen the Guard were induced to desert him, and the senate declaredhim a public enemy.

It shouldbe stressed that evenafterNero'sdeaththerewasno radical changein the quality of soldiers'behaviour.Havingmadeno moveagainst him, the majority of legionson his death acceptedthe senate'schoiceof Galba as successor without demur-presumablyfor the samereasonsthat Tacitusgivesfor distantprovincesand forcesoverseas remainingtrue to Otho in the face of the threat from Vitellius, namely 'the considerable prestigeexercisedby the mere name of Romeand the imposingfaqadeof

senatorialsupport'(Hist. 1.76).46 Thoughit may seemsurprising, the point needs to be recognizedthat in the circumstancesof mid-68 Galba could hardly have had a smootheraccession.If he had been more tactful,

there might have been no civil war. But the prospectof serioustrouble arosebecausehe failed to rewardand conciliateadequatelythe German legionsand the troops in Rome. Although these soldiersdid not feel boundby any tie of loyalty to him, it is strikingthat they did not seekto changethe established orderof things.As alreadymentioned,they did not voice long-standinggrievancesabout pay and conditions.Furthermore, they did not seekto leavethe armyaltogether, 47 or to overturnthe Prin½ipate, or societyin general.Exceptjust conceivably in the casesof Vergi-

niusin 68? andlaterof Otho'sangry,desperate menin 69,immediately after that emperor's suicide, 49 rank-and-file soldiers did not put forward

SOME

CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN A.D.

68-69

81

any candidatefor the Principateon their own initiative, certainly not one outside the narrow class from which all previous emperors had been

drawn-noeques,for example,let alonea centurion. 50 Chilver 51perhaps fails to appreciate that Vitellius' men in particular were eagerto take the lead only after the whole enterprisehad been givenits initial impetusand organisationby officerswho had 'political' reasonsfor seekinga changeof

emperor. •2 The men'sinterestshadalwaysbeen'military',not 'political', and this did not change.On 1st January 69 eventhe mostenterprisingof the legionariesin Germany had no brighter idea than to swearallegiance

to 'the senateand peopleof Rome?$ They were quicklydelightedto follow a legate'slead in putting forward Vitellius. Later Tacitus can say (Hist. 1.64) that when newsof Galba'smurder and Otho's accessionreached Valensa• the capital of the Leuci, 'his troopswere neitherpleasednor frightened:what they were interestedin waswar'.54 The provinces,too, did not rise on their own initiative either to replaceNero or his immediatesuccessors by a 'better' emperor,or to throw off the Roman yoke for ever.There were someexceptions,but for all their potential dangerthey amount to little. The first had naturally been the ris-

ing of Vindex.•5 More damagingto Romewasthe formationof a 'Gallic empire',chieflyat the instigation of the TreviriandLingones; •6 they in turn had been spurredon by the rebellion of Civilisand the Batavians,a people on the edge of the empire, who had a specialrelationshipwith Rome in that they were requiredto supplymen and arms,but not to pay taxes.57 Beyondthat, someminorrevoltswerestaged,not leastbecause of Rome'sstate of disarray.Venutius in Britain seemsto havetaken advantage of it to further a tribal feud (Tac. Hist. 3.45). Anicetusraiseda rebellion in recently annexedPontus(Tac. Hist. 3.47). And Mariccusraiseda small revolt in Gaul, thoughhis aim remainsunclear(Tac. Hist. 2.61). It waspotentially much more seriousthat the Dacianstook advantageof Roman disarray to make attacks acrossthe Danube, but of coursethey were a peopleoutsidethe empirerather than within it (Tac. Hist. 3.46). For the most part suchprovincesas took up armsin 68-69 did soin supportof a particulargroupof legionswith which they had closelinks. At best other provincesdo not seemto havebeenstrainingto throw off the Roman yoke: in 68 Lugdunum,the capital of Vindex'sown province,remained persistentlyloyal to Nero, not leastbecauseof its closelinks with the Romanarmy.•8 In 69 Civilishad to persuadeGaulsaway from their

loyaltyto Rome.•9 At worstItaly andthe ungarrisoned provinces appreciatedtheir weakness in the faceof the legions. coIn manyquartersthere was a natural reluctanceto take sidesin the strugglesfor the Principate. Corsicanspreferred to stand aloof from the conflict between Otho and Vitellius and were preparedto murder the governorwho tried to draw them

into it (Tac.Hist. 2.16). Tacit•scansayof Italy (Hist.2.17): 'A longperiod of peacehadmadetheItaliansreadyto submittamelyto any master.They

82

R.J.A.TALBERT

were fair gamefor the first-comer,and had no interestin the relativemerit of the rivals.'

Outrageousthough the claim may sound,there is a real sensein which the behaviourof soldiersand provincesduringtheseturbulentyears displaysthe strengthof Rome'sempire.For thisreasonwhat did not hap-

penin 68-69deserves attentionjustasmuchaswhatdid.61 Queen'sUniversity

R.J.A. Talbert

Belfast NOTES

1. P.A. Brunt, 'The revolt of Vindex and the fall of Nero', Latomus 18 (1959) 531-559. For recent accountsof the period under discussionin this article, seeP.A.L. Greenhalgh, The year of the four emperors (London 1975), and K. Wellesley, The long year A.D. 69 (London 1975). Note alsoM. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE (secondedition, revisedby P.M. Fraser, Oxford 1957) 85-89 and G.E.F. Chilver, 'The army in politics, A.D. 68-70', ]RS 47 (1957) 29-35. Excellent bibliographiesfor the period axeprovided by K. Wellesley in his tran-4ationof Tacitus, The Histories (Penguin,last revised 1975), and more briefly in his edition and commentary on book III of Tacitus' work (Sydney 1972). 2. Brunt, op. cit. 553. 3. Suetonitu, Galba 9-10; Plut. Galba 4; cf. Dio 63.29.6. 4. Plut. Galba 20; Tac. Hist. 1.13.

5. Of. Plut. Ga/ba 13; Tac. Hist. 1.73.

6. See Brunt, L•tomus 18 (1959) 536 note 4, •md the exhaustivediscussion by G. (•alon, L '•dit de TiberiusJuliusAlexander:Etude historiqueet ex•gitique (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana 5, Rome 1964) 45-52. 7. While the intentions of Verginius at Vesontio, and the nature of his contacts with Vindex, have understandably been the subject of much discussion,it does not seem appropriate to become embroiled in this topic here. For a useful review of a number of different treatments, note J. van Ooteghem, 'Verginius et Vindex', LœC

36 (1968) 18-27, to which may be addedD.C.A. Shorter,'Tacitusand Verginius Rufus', CQ 17 (1967) 370-381. 8. Plut. Galba 6; Suet. Galba 11.

9. Galba 17. Cf. Tac. H/st. 1.6 and 37; Plut. Galba 15. 10. Cf. also Suet. Claud. 13; Dio 60.15.3-4.

11. G.E.F. Chfiver,]R$ 47 (1957) 32. 12. The vague words of encouragementwhich Tacitus puts into Cerealis' motith before battle at Vetera in 70 amount to little: 'principem Galbam sextae legionis auctoritate facturn' (Hist. 5.16). 13. Tac. Hist. 2.6; cf. 1.10. 14. Tac. Hist.

1.9.

15. Tac. Hist. 1.5; cf. Plut. Galba 14 and above, p. 74. It is notable that even

when Nero was in flight, a veteranof the Guardduly salutedhim (Suet.Nero 48). 16. Suet. Galba 12; cf. Josephu%A] 19.149; Tac. Ann. 15.58.

SOME

CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN A.D.

68-69

83

17. After Nero's death, in the opinion of Chilver, 32; before it, according to Brunt, 541.

ß18. Cf. Chilver,]RS 47 (1957) 32. 19. ]RS 47 (1957) 31. 20. Of coursethe samepoint appliesto Galba in late 68. 21. Cf. especiallyTac. Ann. 1.17. 22. On the steepnessof the socialpyramid in general,seeR. MacMullen, Roman socialrelations50 B.C. to A.D. 284 (Yale 1974), especiallych. 4. 23. The peasants'reaction to the surrenderof the Sixteenth Legion at Vetera showsthe gulf between themselvesand Roman legionaries(Tac. Hist. 4.62). 24. Similarly men in the fleet were keen to transfer to legionary service,where pay and conditionswere better (Tac. Hist. 3.50).

25. Cf.M. Rostovtzeff, $EHRE2 85. 26. Cf. Tac. Hist. 1.30: 'even Nero himself deserted you; you did not desert him.'

27. According to Dio, it was Otho who 'convincedthe soldiersof the fact that they couldboth kill and createa Caesar'(64.9.2). 28. We do not know what kind of reports filtered through to distant armies. Certainbare factswere conveyedby the diurna'populiRomani (cf. Tac. Ann. 16.22), but these were hardly records likely to appeal to ordinary soldiers, and as government documents they would not seek to show up the emperor in a bad light. We shall surely not err seriously if we believe that legionarieswere able to form only the haziestimpressionof an emperor and his behaviour. 29. How far popular approval of Nero's antics expressed a conscious lowerclassrejection of upper-classvaluesis an intriguing question which cannot be pursued here. On relations in general between Nero and the plebs urbana, see Z. Yavetz, Plebs and princeps(Oxford 1969) 120-129. 30.

Suet. Galba

21.

31. Suet. Vesp. 3. His wife, too, was said to have been the mistressof an eques before her marriageto Vespasian. 32. Suet. Vesp. 20, 22, 23. 33. Note the exaggeratedclap-trap attributed to Vespasian'smen by Josephus, B] 4.596. 34. Cf. the remarks of Antonius Honoratus at Plut. Galba 14 (quoted above, p. 75).

35. Forexample, M. Rostovtzeff, $EHRE2 86. 36. This is not to deny that soldierswould be likely to appreciatethe visit of an emperor if they happened to receive one. The point is that soldiersin the JulioClaudianperiod will hardly haveexpected suchvisitsas normal practiceon the part of emperors.

37. Cf. Brunt, Latomus 18 (1959) 549. 38. Brunt, Latomus 18 (1959) 549, recognizesthe point. 39. In 70 Cerealis is too sweeping on both counts when Tacitus puts into his mouth the following rhetorical claim, in seekingto persuadeGaulsof the benefitsof Roman imperialism(Hist. 4.74): 'Those emperorswho are well spokenof benefit you as much as they do us, though you live far.away, whereas tyrants wreak their will upon such as are nearest to them.' Likewise the contemporaryJew, Philo, is too

sweepingwhen he exclaimsof the EmperorGaius (Embassyto Gaius101): 'Why,

84

R.J.A. TALBERT

even by staying where he was he showereduntold evils on top of evilson all parts of the world, as if from inexhaustiblesprings.'The story of Gains'proposalto set up his statue in Jerusalemis an excellent illustration of how any emperorwas both

mightyand weak: SeeJ.P.V.D. Balsdon, TheEmperorGaius(Caligula)(Oxford1934) 135-140.

40. Historia 10 (1961) 210-211.

41. Tac.Ann.3.40;cf. 1.71and2.5 for theburdens whichhad!•n imposed on Gaul.

42. M. Rostovtzeff($EHRE 2 572 n. 6) findssupportfor the special oppression of the provincesin the fact that Galbaat onceabolishedthe Quadragesima Galliarum. But this argument is not watertight. In the ancient world it was common to reward individuals or communities by reducing their tax burden: Nero freed the whole province of Achaea from direct Roman taxation and towards the end of 69 Vitellius, in a desperatebid for supportas his rule collapsed,grantedthe samekind of privileges indiscriminately (Tac. Hist. 3.55). The Gallic customs district was so large that abolition

of the modest dues levied at its borders was a concession which would make

a real impact upon only an extremely limited number of Gauls--chiefly those in border areas,who would no doubt have had the samekind of grievancesas those expressedby Germansliving either side of the Rhine (cf. Tac. HisL 4.64-65). Galba's reduction of

tributum by a quarterwasmuchmore significant(Tac.Hist. 1.51). 43. As Brunt recognizesclearly in the caseof emperors(Latomus 18 (1959) 554 n. 2). 44. On the former, note especiallyTac. Hist. 2.84.

45. Cf. Plutarch'sjudgement: 'it was by h.is high reputation rather than by his military power that Galba overthrew Nero' (Galba 29), and Galba's constant remark that 'he had not seizedpower, but it had been givento him' (Dio 64.2.1). 46.

Tacitus

reflects

the shock of Nero's fall and Galba's elevation

when he writes:

'A well-hidden secret of the principate had been revealed: it was possible,it seemed, for an emperor to be created outside Rome' (Hist. 1.5, a statement which doesnot reflect with completeaccuracythe way in which Galbabecameemperor). 47. Vitellian legionariesin Germany in 70, under the onslaughtof Civflis' revolt, did turn traitor to Rome rather than acknowledge Vespasian, but in exceptional circumstancesand under exceptional pressures(cf. Tac. Hist. 4.54 fl.). The officers stayed loyal to Rome (4.59). If there had been massdesertionsfrom the army in 69, it is indeed hard to envisagehow such thousandsof men might have supported themselves. But this practical obstacle does not make the possibility of mass desertions an unthinkable one. Mutineers or desertersdo not alwaysponder coolly in advancethe full consequencesof their actions: in A.D. 14, once the nerve of the mutineers in Pannonia had been rattled, officers took the opportunity to remind the men of the simple point that Percenniusand Vibulenns were unlikely to be able to furnish serving soldierswith pay or veteranswith land (Tac. Ant, 1.28).

48. But, as mentionedabove(p. 72), we arenot certainhow supportemerged for Verginius. 49.

Tac. Hist.

2.51.

50. Though the remark is not concerned with the choice of a candidate for the principate, it is notable that when Dillins Vocula is desperatelyseekingto persuade his troops against desertion to the Gallic rebels in 70, Tacitus has him plead that

SOME

CAUSES

OF DISORDER

IN A.D.

68-69

85

if they will not follow him, the men could chooseinstead another legatus,or tribune, or 'in the last resort' a centurion or private (Hist. 4.58). 51. JRS 47 (1957) 33-34. 52.

Cf. Tac. Hist.

1.62.

53. On thischoiceof words,noteTac.Hi}t. 1.56: 'it wasfelt that thisoathmeant nothing'. According to the messagefrom PompeiusPropinquus,procurator in Belgica, the legionsin Upper Germany 'had broken their oath of loyalty and were calling for a change of emperor, though they resigned the choice of the new ruler to the senate

andpeopleof Romein orderto mitigatethe offence'(Tac.Hist. 1.12; my italics). 54. For Gallic auxilliaries' lack of attachment to either Vitellius or Vespasian and their respectivecauses,cf. Tac. Hist. 4.31. 55. Cf. p. 77 above. 56. Tac. Hist. 4.55 fl. 57. Cf. Ti•c. Hist. 4.12; 5.25. 58.

Tac. Hist.

1.51 and 65.

59. Tac. Hist. 4.17; cf. 4.25-26. 60. Tac. Hist. 1.11; 2.81. 61.

I should

like to thank

Professor

A.E. Astin and Professor C.M. Wells for their

most helpful comments on earlier versionsof this article.

SCORPUS

THE

CHARIOTEER

Brevity commendsa short title for a modest enquiry. What startswith horse racingleadsto onomasticsasthe goal.Not merely the namesof men or horses'but revelationsof general consequence,with some surprises before

the end.

The Circus was a vital and dominant element in Roman fife, among high and low alike. It can be esteemeda religion,with pomp and ritual, with riot and schism.Devoteesbecamefanatics.The applaudedfavourites of the mob and of Caesar,himself the great showmanandpatronus,won riches as well as renown. Also influence at court and even positionsof power and authority. The artful and infamous Tigellinus,to beginwith a

breederof race-horses, appealed to congenial tastesin youngNero.1 Types and habits persist.Elagabalusappointedthe charioteerCordiusto be chief

of the metropolitan police.2 Epigraphic testimony tells quite a lot about charioteers,their vic-

tories, their winnings. s The longestdocument,and it is very long,recounts the prowessof Diocles: by his full style, .'C. AppuleiusDiocles,

nationeHispanus Lusitanus'.4 The fellowbeganhiscareerunderHadrianin the year 122, at the ageof eighteen,and went into retirementat forty-two. The inscriptionextols Diodes as 'omnium agitatorumeminentissimus'. He achieved 1462 victories. Nowhere near the totals of Flavius Scorpusand PompeiusMusclosus,which the documentregisters(viz. 2048 and 3559).

But he hadrakedin nearly36 millionsesterces. 5 More instructiveis FlaviusScorpus,a generationearlier,throughthe variety of attestation. The name of Scorpusstands in six poems of

Martial.s Two of them bewailhis deathat the ageof twenty-seven. The languageis ornate, the metaphorsneatly chosen.Blackwasnow the team that Scorpusyoked, and, everprompt to reachthe winning-post,he found

the meta of his life all too close(X 50.5). Lachesis, the goddess of fate, took his victories into computation, not the total of his years: 'dum numeratpalmas,crediditessesenem'(53.3). The death of Scorpusfell in 95-or perhapsin 98. The tenth book of Martial had a secondedition, severalpoemsreflectingthe changein the political atmosphere.Nerva advertisedeconomyby cutting down horse

races and other public spectacles. 7 No lastingconsequences will be surmised. 86

SCORPUS

THE

CHARIOTEER

87

After the generouseffusionsof grief anotherpoemin the samebook utters a complaint about the earningsof Scorpus--fifteenbagsof gold in a singlehour (74.5 f.). The poet had previouslyreferredto gilt statues of this charioteer(V 25.10). Further, to sum up, Scorpusis li•iked to two characters.First, in the year 89, Thallus (IV 67.5). Thallusalso occurredon the inscriptionof Diocles(ILS 5287, line 14); and he set up a dedicationin 90, describing himselfas a slaveof L. AvilliusPlanta (ILS 3532). That personowned

anothersuccessful charioteer, namelyAvilliusTeres.8 Second,Incitatus (XI 1.16). He had previouslybeen referredto in tones of no amenity, 'cocco mulio fulget Incitatus' (X 76.9). Incitatus

missed ent.r),in PIR (botheditions). Editorsmayhaveassumed himequine, not human, under the influence of an anecdote related by Suetonius:all too widely known and pervertedinto the myth of a horseappointedcon-

sulby a capricious emperor. 9

Named on the monument of Diocles, and named along with Thallus and

Incitatus,Scorpushas a pair of inscriptionsto his credit. The first runs: vicit Scorpusequishis: ! Pegasus, Elates,Andraemo,Cotynus(ILS 5289). As Dessaudid not fail to point out, one of the horsesis known from Martial who, after extolling his own fame as a poet, exclaims, 'non sum Andraemonenotior caballo'(X 9.5). The secondis the gravestone of an imperialfreedman:

diismanibus / T. FlaviAug.lib. ! Abascanti a c'ognitionibus / Flavia Hesperis/ coniugisuo/ benemerenti/ fecit / cuiusdolorenihil / habui nisi mortis. / ScorpusIngenuoAdmeto Passerino Atmeto (ILS 1679). The stone has, inscribed,a charioteeron a quadriga,holdinga crown and a palm leaf. At first sight,there is no reasonfor the presence of a charioteerwith his four winninghorseson the gravestoneof somebody else. 'Sane mirum', as the editor observes.On the most prosaicaccount,

Abascantus was a patron of Scorpus.Scorpusperhapsperpetuateswhat Abascantusadored while still on earth; and the victoriouscharioteermight

serveas a goodomen or psychopomp on the lastjourney. It will be permissible to evoke the fantasies of those who are infatuated

with the heroes

of sport or speed,or who identify themselves with popularidolsin the performingarts, in any age. One of the four horsesis called Passerinus.He happens to occur on

anotherinscription(ILS 5290); and Martial hashim in two places,along with a companion,Tigris(VII 7.10; XII 36.12).

88

R. SYME

The name of Scorpusoccurson the inscriptionof anotherimperial freedman(ILS 9027): d.m. ! Ti. ClaudioAug. 1. Scapulaeta/bul. castr.,Claudii! Victor Ianuaria ! ScorpusIncitat. ! lib. patrono b.m.f.

Dessaurefersto Scorpuson the inscriptionof T. FlaviusAb•scantus (ILS 1679). The comfortableexistenceof theseofficialsbroughtlengthof days. The parent of ClaudiusEtruscusdied in 92, when agedcloseon ninety (Martial VII 40); and Ti. ClaudiusAug. lib. Fortunatuswasstill among the livingin the year 107 (ILS 3541). This Scorpus,however,is patentlya ClaudiusScorpus.The documentnamesan Incitatusbesidehim-as happensalsoin a poem of Martial (XI 1.16). The coincidence is noteworthy. A readyexplanationavails.The earlierpair, the freedmenof Ti. Claudius Scapula,are likewisecharioteers. It was the habit amongactorsand dancersto annex the namesof illustriouspredecessors. The thing had an early beginning.As Senecaproclaims in due disapprobation,'at quanta cura laboratur ne cuiuspantomimi nomenintercidat!stat per successores Pyladeset Bathylli domus,harum artiummulti discipulisuntmultiquedoctores'(NQ VII 32.3). In the sequelclear instancesare on show, notably the pantornirni

called'Apolaustus'. lø The samepracticeobtainedwith doctorsand gladiators. It is far from certain that the Veianiolus on a clay lamp (ILS 5136) is the same personas Veianius, known from Horace (Epp. I 1.4). The fame accruingto 'Scorpus'also produceda charioteercalled 'Scorpianus'.One of the four epigraphicinstancesof the cognomen(see below). III

Rare and strikingnamesappealto poets and to proseromancers.It is not always easyto determinewhether they are taken from life or from letters, whether or no they standfor genuinepersons.Martial and Juvenalfurnish attractive lines of enquiry-and a number of problems,not merely identities but principlesof classification.The latter poet derivessomeitems from the former. Best of all, perhaps,is 'Tongilius'.Martial so muchliked it that he went on to use 'Tongilianus'twice (III 52.1; XII 88.1). Martial associates Tongiliuswith taking a bath (II 40.7), and so doesJuvenal(VII

130).II WhenJuvenalneededa wealthycharioteer,it is strangethat he was impelled to steerclear of Scorpus.JuvenalchoseLacerta (VII 114), whom the scene on a lamp acclaims v;.ctorious,under the name of C.

AnniusLacerta(ILS 5293). The word 'lacerta' meansa lizard. Cognominataken from the animal

world are a divertingtheme.•2 Somespecimens, suchas 'Lacerta',are unique,or very uncommon? 'Scorpio'cannotfail to take the eye. It

89

SCORPUS THE CHARIOTEER

comes in Apuleius asthenickname appliedto thedecurioBarbarus, 'quem

Scorpionem praemorum acritudine vulgus appellat' (Met.IX 17).It occurs onthreeinscriptions, oneof themfromDalmatia. 1'• IV

Whetheror no 'Scorpus'and 'Scorpio'are cognate-or were felt to be such-there is no means of knowing. However, 'Scorpus' ought to have

excitedeagercuriosityamongadeptsof nomenclature. The repertoryof

PapeoBenseler citedonespecimen on a Greekinscription at Nicaea. 15A recentstudy dealingwith personalnamesin the Romanprovinceof Dalmatiacarriesa referenceto Pape-Benseler andadducesa solitaryspecimen, a slavefrom the interior, on the river Drina.l•i In an index the nameis registeredon a list of Greek cognomina. Few other specimens canbe discovered. Only four, viz.: 1) P. AeliusAug. lib. Scorpus(CIL VI 15413); 2) M. OctaviusScorpus,in a collectionof gravememorialsof five persons,threeof the othersbeingOctavii(X 8171.' Capua); 3) Scorpus, libertusof an imperialfreedman(V 42: Pola); 4) L. MemmiusScorpus,sonof a freedman(III 11732: FlaviaSolva). The harvestis meagre,six inscriptionsin all, mainly servileor libertine. In their distribution nothing countenancesa Greek origin for the name. Rather, Balkan.One might deriveencouragement from the numerous Illyrian namesof personsand placesbeginningwith the samedouble consonant. For example, Scenus, Scerdis, Scirtus; Scardona, Scardus, Scodra.

Slaves and aliens sometimes

bear a name identical

with

that of their

tribe,or closeto it. BeforeWilhelmSchulzehadgotveryfar withhisinvestigations,he was struck by the name 'Scirtus',attestedfor the first time in Terence(Hecuba78). He avowedhimselfreluctantto dissociate 'Scirtus', and 'Scirtius'(of which he suppliedtwo examples),from the nameof a tribe in Dalmatia, viz. the Scirtones.I? He wasright. Krahein his repertoriumof Illyrian namesduly regis-

teredsix epigraphic instances. is Neither$chulzenor Krahenoticedthe palmary specimen,which comesin the Historiaeof Sallust.Denouncing $ulla and his satellitesin every order of society, the consul Aemilius Lepidusadvertsupon great richesacquiredby 'pessimiservorum',and he

namesTarulaand Scirtus.The first is flagrantlya Thracian. 19The second permits inferencesof so•ne value concerningboth Rome and Dalmatia. When Marius at the end of 87 entered Rome, he brought with him a mass of armed slaves.A number of them had to be destroyedby Cinna and

Sertorius. Onesourcestylesthesebarbarians 'Bardyaei'. • TheVardaei(or Ardiaei)are a largepeoplein the south-east of Dalmatia.Fromthe two names in Sallust it follows that Sulla had a force of Thracian and Dalmat-

ian thugs.

90

R. SY.XlE

As with 'Scorpus',the connotationof 'Scirtus'is nativeand servile. The earliestinstancesin inscriptionsare instructive: (1) Scirtus,aL•tatorfaction. albae(ILS 5283). (2) Scirtus/ symphoniacus / Cornelianus (5256: from the monument of the Statilii). (3) Ti. ClaudiusAug.lib. Scirtusproc.bybl. (1587).

'Scirtones' in Ptolemy,thetribeiscalled'Scirtari'bx,' Pliny.=• Though not comparableto the great Bosnianagglomerations (Maezii, Ditiones, Daesitiates),they were fairly numerous,comprising72 decuriae.Their territory lay somewherein the mountainoussouth-easternzone of the

province. • A soldier'sname on a diploma standsas 'C. Valerius Annaei f. DasiusScirt. ex Dalmat.' (CIL XVI 100). Becauseof Pliny'sScirtari,the item is generally understoodas 'Scirt(arius)'. A neglectednotice in Stephanusof Byzantium,citing Phlegon,gives'Scirtii' as the nameof a 'Paeonian tribe'. • V

The samecompilationoffers a valuablenotice about anothertribe. With appeal to the grammarianHerodian, StephanusregistersI3Kola#tav6½ as

an adjective derivingfroma people,'fromtheSkorpoi'. 24 Let it be taken that the Scorpi are 'alsoIllyrian. If so, from which

area?Five sources furnishdetailsaboutpeoplesin Dalmatia:Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, Appian in his lilytike, CassiusDio. Not wholly concordant, and the confrontationis instructiveon variouscounts.• The course of history had produceda number of changes.Thus Pliny in his account of the conventusof Naronareportsthe declineof a historicpeople:'populatoresquequondamItaliae Vardaei non ampliusquam XX decuriis'(NH III 143). Pliny, it may be noted, omits the Pirustae.His Scirtaribelongto this zone, and may representa branchof either Vardaeior Pirustae.Likewiseperhapsthe mysteriousScorpi. Very different is the evidenceabout tribesin the coterminousareaof

Dardaniain the southof Moesia.The comprehensive term 'Dardanian'is employed:only one sourcerevealsa pair of subordinatetribes, and they remaintotallyenigmatic. •i If not Dalmatian, the Scorpimight be assigned to Dardania,perhaps not far eastwardsfrom the Scirtari. There is no temptation to seekprecision. The region yields few inscriptions.All that could be hoped for would be a diploma from somewhereelse,disclosinga soldierwith a suitable Illyrian nameand the designation'nationeScorp.' Dardaniaretainsmany problems,amongthem the nameof a notable city, Scupi (Skopje).Nor hasanyoneso far tried to elucidatethe ethnic originof a fme cavalryregiment,the ala Scubulorum.

SCORPUS

THE

CHARIOTEER

91

VI

To proceed.Four instancesof 'Scorpianus'now comein. 1)'Scorpianus[agita]tor factionis [...] ! natione Afer ! vicit ! (sep-

tigenties).' A graffitoon a redpotteryvessel (CIL II1120139:Carnuntum). 2)'d.m. / Scor/piani.' A stela with a palm branch after the name (CIL XIII 1199: Avaricum).Presumablya gladiator,as the editor states. 3) 'Scorpianuslaus / V.' A medallionwith a gladiatorialscene(AE

1973, 330: Grenoble)? 4)CIL VIII 12589 (near Carthage). The name 'Scorpianus'on a mosaicin a villa. Presumablythe owner.

It is welcometo havea charioteerwith the historicname.And a pair of gladiatorsfrom the Illyrian landsis no surprise.But a villa nearCarthagemarksthe socialascension of nomenclaturealien and servileby origin. To adduce one more parallel with the other tribe. A certain Scirtius

emerges in the lastdaysasa virperfectissimus in thepages of Symmachus. • VII

But stay,wastherenot the consulAeliusScorpianus a centuryearlier?His name stoodon the decreeof the senatepassedon February3 of the year 276, whena dispatchwasreceivedfrom Probus,the new emperor,sothe Hbtoria Augusta asseverates (Prob. 11.5). Here and there a classical scholar may still be found reluctant to discard documentation of this

kind,suchis the dominance of habit,of obstinacy, or of torpor.•9 How poets or novelistsinventnamesis an engagingthemein any age. The sourcesof inspiration in the HA can often be divined, the author's

procedureseven classified? A numberof items baffle enquiry.The fellow wascrafty, perverseand elusive. One of his devicesis to employ unobtrusivenomenclature,often deriving from the imperial dynasties.Thus 'Aelius Sabinus'or 'Annius Severus.'But a rare name also appeals,and it may likewise,thoughby contrast, convey an aura of authenticity. To combine both types is sheerfelicity. Ten of the Aelii in the HA are spurious,from 'Bassianus'to 'Xiphi-

dius'. Into the countcomealsotwo of the four biographers paradedin the early seriesbeforethe impostordecidedto becomesix persons. They are

'AeliusSpartianus'and 'AeliusLampridius? 1 The formercarriesa cognomen that lookslike pure invention.It lacksattestationanywhere,and nobodyhasexplainedit, or eventried. 'AeliusLampridius',however,is remunerativein doublemeasure.First, the author, so it can be argued, thought up the first four name-labelsabout the time when he invented

'Lampridia',the motherof Pescennius Niger(Pesc.1. 3). Second,'Lampridius'is a Romannameof the late epoch?

92

R. SYME

What then is to be made of the consul 'Aelius Scorpianus'?Two

pathsoffer. First, the author'sreading.He knew Martial aswell asJuvenal, which is more than can be said for the contemporaryscholiaon Juvenal. He invokesMartial to illustratea pieceof fiction, viz. SeverusAlexander addictedto eating the fleshof hares(Alex. 38); he evenquotesMartial's quatrain about the woman Gellia, deridedfor wantingtherebyto improve her looks (V 29). Other tracesof this poethavenot so far beendetected in the HA. There is only Hadrian'sheir who adoptedMartial ashis Virgil and knew him by heart.

However, in closevicinity to that quatrain occursone of Martial's referencesto Scorpusthe charioteer(V 25.10). Like high or low in that age, the author displaysa lively interest in gamesand spectacles.Thus censureis visited on a consulfor bestowinglavishbounty on charioteers, not praemia but patrimonia (Aur. 15.4). Memory, consciousor latent, might have recalledthe connotationof 'Scorpus',exhibitedin six poems of Martial.

Second,the author'suse of contemporarynames,from the ageof Theodosius.As befitted a scholarwhose exacting taste was sharpenedby working on the ProsopographiaIrnpen'i Romani, Hermann Dessauwas

alert to the message, ashe showedin hispioneerpaperon theHA.33Let it suffice to adduceone name amongmany: the consular'MaeciusFaRonius Nicomachus'

who delivers an oration

when Tacitus is installed as

emperor(Tac. 5.3). No contraryargumentavails,and nonehasbeenput

upin therecenttime,onlyrandom pronouncements of denial? Therefore the author might have derivedinspirationfrom some Scorpianusin his own day. Not beyondbelief, and one recallsScirtiusin Symmachus.Better,perhaps,the attractionof the name,and Scorpusin Martial.

It need not matter.

The presentenquiryhasbroughtup Scorpianus, an Africancharioteer, alsoScorpianuswho owned an estatenear Carthage.Sundryphenomena in the HA convergeto support the notion that the author was himselfa scholarfrom Africa? Cautionis prescribed. The race is run, thoughthe coursewasdevious.Enoughto declareat the goal that this excursionwas devotedto elucidatingthe rare names

'Scorpus'and 'Scorpianus'. Illyrian, so it appears, andevokingoneof the lost tribes of Dalmatia

Oxford

or Dardania.

Ronald Syme

SCORPUS THE CHARIOTEER

93

NOTES

1. Schol. on Juv. I 155. 2. Dio LXXIX 15.1;HA, Elag. 12.1.

3. L. Friedl•inder, Sittengeschichte Roms1110 (1922)21 if.; IV 10(1921)179if. (App. XIII, by F. Drexel.) 4. ILS

5287.

5. Figures for modem jockeys are noted by A. Cameron, Porphyrius the charioteer (1973) 279.

6. MartialIV 67; V 25; X 50; 74;XI 1. Notin RE,butseePIR 1, S 203;PIR2 F 359 and A. Cameron, op. cit. 47 f.; 86; 244 f. 7. Dio LXVII

2.3.

8. For further details about Avillius Planta and Teres see F. Drexel in Friedl'•nder,

op. cit. IV 192. Teres was active before the end of Domitian's reign, cf. AE 1903, 161 = CIL VI 10048; and he was defeated in Diocles' first recorded victory, ILS 5287, line 13.

9. Suetonius, Cal. 55.4: 'consulatum quoque traditur destinasse.'

10.PIR2, A 148,improved by T.D. Barnes, JRSLVII (1967)72: L. Verushad two favourites

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

of that name.

Not in PIR 1 or in RE. I. Kajanto, The Latin cognomina(1965) 84 ff.; 325 ff. For 'Lacerta' Kajanto cited only a Christian specimen,a woman, ICVR 5954. CIL lII 2992 (Lovinac, in the Lika); 13379 (Aquincum); V 3552 (Verona). CIG II 3758 (set up by Stratonice to her husbandScorpus).

16. CIL III 1421913,cf. G. Alf•51dy, Die Personennamen in derri3m.Provinz Dalmatia (1969) 290. For the site (Skelani,north of Vigegrad),J.J. Wilkes,Dalmatia (1969) 280 fl. 17. Schulze, LE 32. He also noted Scirtiana, a post on the road between Monastir and Ohrid.

18. M. Krahe, Lexikon altillyrischerPersonennamen(1929) 102. Add ILS 5283 (a charioteer);5256 (a musician,from the monumentof the Statilii);CIL VI 2218 (M. Livius Scirtus); 'Scirtus the Dacian' (IGR I 646), a gladiagorwho died at Tomis, as explainedby R. Vulpe, Apulum V (1964) 151 ff. 19. About 40 instancesin D. Detschew, Die thrakischen Sprachreste(1957) 491

f.

20. Plutarch, Marius 44. Cf. H. Bennett, Cinna and his times (Diss. Chicago (1923)) 23; 30; Bardyaei: F. Sartori, 'Cinna e gli schiavi',Actes du Coll. 1971 sur l'esclavage(Paris1973) 151 ff. 21. Ptolemy II 16; P!iny, NH lII 143.

22. J.J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (1969) 172; 174. He locatesthem east of the lake of Scodra, as does I.I. Russu,lllirii (Bucharest, 1969): on his map facing p. 130. The article in RE 11A 825 f. is defective.

23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Stephanus(ed. Meincke) p. 577. Stephanus,p. 577; cf. p. 17. See the table in Wilkes, op. cit. 155. Strabo Vll, p. 316 (Galabrii and Thunates). SeeA. Audin, RAE XXIV (1973) 145, cited inAE 1973, 330.

94

R. SYME

28. Symmachus,Rei. 28 (of 384). Not in Schulzeor in Krahe. 29. For a plea in favour, H. Bardon,Le cr•pusculedes C•sars.Scbneset visagesde

i'Histoire Auguste (1964) 26. As he says,it was easy to verify documentsin the archives.

30. R. Syme,HAG 1964/5 (1966) 257 fl. -- Emperorsand biography(1971) I fl.; AtomJanusand the Historia Augusta (1968) 165 fl. 31. Their characteristicsare defined by Bardon, op. cit. 17 f. Thus 'Spartianus' was sober and intelligent. 'Spartianus',along with three others of the six, is omitted

fromtheProsopography of theLaterRoman Empire (1971).'Laml•u$', however, getsa handsometreatment,and his religousviewsare notedasdifferinl•from thoseof 'the other biographers'.Seefurther]RS LXXII (1972) 133.

32. CIL III 142398(Salona): notlaterthantheyear428. 33. H. Dessau,HermesXXIV (1889) 349 fl. 34. Thus A. Momigliano, $econdo contributo alia storia degli studi classici (1960) 122: 'it is hardly necessaryto add that the appearencein the H.A. of names like Toxotius, RagoniusGelsusand FaltoniusProbus,which are known to us from the hiatory of the secondpart of the 4th century, cannot be exploited asa chronological argument.' 35. AtomJanusand the Historia Augusta (1968) 198 if.; E. Birley, HAC 196811969 (1970) 79 fl.

AMERICAN

JOURNAL

OF ANCIENT

HISTORY

Editor: E. Badian. Harvard University

Editorial AdvisoryBoard: T.B. Barnes,Universityof Toronto W.R. Connor, PrincetonUniversity Frank J. Frost, Universityof California, SantaBarbara Erich S. Gruen, University of California, Berkeley ChristianHabicht, Institutefor AdvancedStudy, Princeton,NJ RamsayMacMuilen, Yale University

The officeof theJournalis at RobinsonHall, HarvardUniversity,Cambridge, MA 02138.Typescripts for publicationandeditorialcorrespondence shouldbe addressedto the Editor, ordersand correspondence on subscriptions to the Secretary.Commentsand suggestions from readerswill be welcomed. Typescriptsintendedfor publicationmustbe at leastdouble-spaced Itext andnotes),with the notesnumberedconsecutively andfollowingthe text. All pagesmustbe numbered.The pedanticuse of Greek and Latin shouldbe avoided,but the languagesmay be usedwhereneeded.Journalsshouldbe abbreviated as in L'Ann•ephilologique;modifications customaryin English will be accepted.Otheracceptedandrecognizable abbreviations for standard works may be usedwithoutexplanation. No indicationof theauthor'sidentityshouldappearon thetypescript:the nameandaddressshouldbeon a separatepage.References to theauthor'sown work shouldbe in the samestyleasreferences to the work of others.Personal acknowledgments shouldnot be included:theymay be addedafterthe article hasbeenacceptedfor publication.Typescripts not complyingwith theseinstructionswill normallybe returnedto the author.Authorswho wantrejected articlesreturnedshouldenclosepostage.Contributors will receive20 copiesof their articlesfree and may order moreagainstpayment. The Editor is not responsiblefor the safetyof materialsubmitted. VolumeI (1976) waspublishedin threeissuesof 64 pages;subsequent volumes comprisetwo issuesof 96 pages.Subscription ratesareasfollows:U.S.A. and Canada,$12.50 direct from the publisher,$14.50 throughbooksellersand agents;all othercountries,$15.00 (U.S.) direct from the publisher,$17.50 (U.S.) throughbooksellersand agents.Full membersof the Association of Ancient Historiansmay order one subscription THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF THE ASSOCIATION at $10.00 per volume. Some individual numbers of volumes I and 2 are available from the Jourttal Office.