Imperium sine fine: T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic 9783515069489, 3515069488

Citation preview

Hist.-E. 105 T. Robert S. Broughton

Jerzy Linderski (ed)

Imperium Fine: T. iobert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic

JERZY LINDERSKI (ed.) IMPERIUM SINE FINE: T. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON AND THE ROMAN REPUBLIC

HISTORIA ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR AFTE GESCHICHTE REVUE D ’HISTOIRE ANCIENNE JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY RIVISTA DI STORIA ANTICA

EINZELSCHRIFTEN

HERAUSGEGEBEN VON HEINZ HEINEN/TRIER FRANÇOIS PASCHOUD/GENEVE KURT RAAFLAUBAVASHINGTON D.C. HILDEGARD TEMPORINI/TÜBINGEN GEROLD WALSER/BASEL

HEFT 105

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART 1996

JERZY LINDERSKI (ed.)

IMPERIUM SINE FINE: T. RO BERT S. BROUGHTON AND TH E ROMAN R EP U B LIC

FRANZ STEINER VERLAG STUTTGART 1996

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme [Historia / Einzelschriften] Historia : Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte. Einzelschriften. Stuttgart: Steiner Früher Schriftenreihe Reihe Einzelschriften zu: Historia NE: Historia-Einzelschriften H. 105. Imperium sine fine. - 1996 Imperium sine fine : T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman republic / Jerzy Linderski (ed .). - Stuttgart: Steiner, 1996 (Historia : Einzelschriften ; H. 105) ISBN 3-515-06948-8 NE: Linderski, Jerzy [Hrsg.]

ISO 9706

Jede Verwertung des Werkes außerhalb der Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Übersetzung, Nachdruck, Mikrover­ filmung oder vergleichbare Verfahren sowie für die Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungs­ anlagen. © 1996 by Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart. Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Druckerei Peter Proff, Eurasburg. Printed in Germany

T. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON 17 February 1900 — 17 September 1993 Animo Grato

CONTENTS J. Linderski, P reface...................................................................................................... ix George W. Houston, Fasti Broughtoniani: The Professional Activities and Published Works of Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton....................... 1 Working on the Magistrates: An Excerpt from T. R. S. Broughton’s Autobiography................................................................................................... 31 George W. Houston, Broughton Remembered.......................................................... 35 Ronald T. Ridley, T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich M iinzer.................................43 T. P. Wiseman, The Minucii and Their M onument..................................................57 Robert E. A. Palmer, The Deconstruction of Mommsen on Festus 462/464 L, or the Hazards of Interpretation.....................................................75 C. F. Konrad, Notes on Roman Also-Rans............................................................. 103 J. Linderski, Q. Scipio Im perator............................................................................ 145 Ernst Badian, Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica ....................................................... 187 Erich S. Gruen, The Roman Oligarchy: Image and Perception

215

PREFACE An epoch in the history of Roman studies had come to an end when T. R. S. Broughton succumbed to the “embrace of years,” amplexus annorum, on 17 Septem­ ber 1993. In the sixth book of the Aeneid Vergil leads Aeneas to the underworld where he beholds a procession of future Roman heroes, consuls, generals, triumphators (6.756892), all his progeny to whom imperium sine fine (1.279) was prophesied. It was observed that if Aeneas today went to the underworld he would not have to learn all those names by heart: he would have found them all in T. R. S. Broughton’s The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. It is to Broughton’s book that the imperium sine fine now belongs. As the title for the present volume the Vergilian phrase was proposed by Will­ iam W. West III of the University of North Carolina, which is here gratefully acknowl­ edged. In November 1994 the Department of Classics of the University of North Caro­ lina at Chapel Hill celebrated the memory and achievement of its most eminent member with a Colloquium “The Roman Republic: Politics and Prosopography.” It is from this Colloquium that the present volume takes its origin. It contains nine papers, four of which were delivered on that occasion (the papers by Ernst Badian, Erich S. Gruen, George W. Houston [“Broughton Remembered”], and Ronald T. Ridley). The first three papers here printed deal directly with Broughton and his work. In “The Fasti Broughtoniani,” George W. Houston presents (in imitation of the yearly scheme of the Annales and the MRR itself) the events of Broughton’s life (in­ cluding a full list of his publications, offices, honors and functions) from year one to year ninety four. To George Houston we are also indebted for a moving invocation of TRSB (“Broughton Remembered”). As a supplement to the Fasti the reader will find an austere excerpt from Broughton’s Autobiography describing the origin and the composition of The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic. Broughton’s opus maximum was made possible by the industry of generations of scholars, but above all by the effort of one man, Friedrich Münzer. We owe to Ronald T. Ridley (“T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich Münzer”) a revealing insight into the internal alchemy of the MRR, the use Broughton made of Münzer’s work. Four papers address questions of republican prosopography. They are arranged chronologically and thematically. T. P. Wiseman, “The Minucii and Their Monument”' combines topography and" prosopography; starting with a curious notice of Festus concerning the ara or sacellum Minucii, he recreates the history of the gens Minucia. Robert E. A. Palmer in his paper “The Deconstruction of Mommsen on Festus 462/464 L., or the Hazards of Interpretation” combines textual criticism, religio, and

X

Preface

prosopographical hunt; in polemic with Mommsen he restores Festus and unmasks a spurious augur. In 1991, in his ninety second year, Broughton published a vigorous short mono­ graph, wittily entitled Candidates Defeated in Roman Elections: Some Ancient Ro­ man “Also-Rans. ” Now C. F. Konrad, “Notes on Roman Also-Rans,” provides a supplement o f missing defeated or discouraged candidates. The paper by J. Linderski (“Q. Scipio Imperator”) owes its inspiration to an in­ scription on a gem, and proceeds to give a detailed history of Q. Caecilius Metellus Scipio, consul in 52, the father-in-law of Pompeius, and Caesar’s rival in the Bellum

Africum. Two remaining papers deal with constitution and ideology. Ernst B adian, “Tribuni Plebis and Res Publica,” in a blend of law and prosopography, of Staatsrecht and MRR, refurbishes the Mommsenian edifice of that troublesome institution. But in a society it is not solely people and institutions that matter: ideas and delusions are potent too, and it is this realm that Erich S. Gruen illuminates in his paper “The Roman Oligarchy: Image and Perception.” It is a pleasant duty to thank Mrs. Diane Smith for the exemplary preparation of the copy of this volume, and the Franz Steiner Verlag for their friendly cooperation. Thanks are also due to the Department of Classics of the University of North Caro­ lina at Chapel Hill and its Paddison Fund for a generous contribution toward the costs of the preparation and the printing of the volume. The Editors of the series Historia Einzelschriften were very kind to admit this collection of papers to their distinguished row of books. I should wish particularly to thank Professor Kurt Raaflaub for his help and sage advice. It is thus only appropriate that the collection of papers honoring the memory of T. R. S. Broughton appears as a Historia Einzelschrift: Broughton was among the founders of Historia, and a Member of its Editorial Board until his death. It is sad that he will not be able to read this volume, with a twinkle in his eyes, and his goodhumored disbelief.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

J. Linderski

FASTI BROUGHTONIANI: The Professional Activities And Published Works of Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton Compiled by

George W. Houston Preface Most of the information I give in this account of the life and works of T. Robert S. Broughton comes from an unpublished typescript entitled simply “Autobiogra­ phy,” which Broughton wrote over a period of two or three years very late in his life. Where I put phrases or sentences in quotation marks, it is because I have taken them directly from this Autobiography. I am very grateful to Mrs. Annie Leigh Broughton for making a photocopy of the document available to me; it will be immediately evident that without it I could not have provided anywhere near so much detail. In choosing what to include here (the Autobiography runs to 233 pages), I have been guided primarily by a desire to illustrate the range of Broughton’s interests and his sheer energy, and where possible to clarify the connections between his scholarly interests, his professional career (including his travels), and his personal life. I make no attempt here to explore motivations or character. In listing Broughton’s publications, I have relied heavily, for items published before 1970, on “A Bibliography of T. Robert S. Broughton” compiled by Philip A. Stadter, on the occasion of the Symposium held in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in April of 1970. I added a few items omitted from that bibliography, and I have tried to collect all the material published since 1970, but I am sure I have missed some reviews and will be grateful if readers would call them to my attention. I wish to acknowledge the help of Leo M. Dolenski, Manuscripts Librarian at Bryn Mawr College, who helped me track down some items pertaining to Bryn Mawr, and of Julia Haig Gaisser, Chair of the Department of Latin at Bryn Mawr, who pro­ vided the list of Ph.D. dissertations directed by Broughton at Bryn Mawr. I also prof­ ited much from the Proceedings of the American Philological Association, which allowed me to fill in a few gaps and add precision to a few dates. To save space, I use standard abbreviations for journals, I give only summary information (and often brief versions of titles) of books Broughton reviewed, and I usually abbreviate the names of a few publications and professional organizations: APA = American Philological Association. ES AR = An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, ed. Tenney Frank. Five vol­ umes plus an Index volume. Baltimore, 1933-1940. FIEC = Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d’Études Classiques. J Lmderskt, ed Impenum Sine Fine T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic Histona Einzelschnft, n 105 ©1996 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

2

George W. Houston

MRR = The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic, by T. Robert S. Broughton. Three volumes, published by the American Philological Association: 1951,1952, and 1986. — George W. Houston Chapel Hill, June 22, 1995 The Early Years Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton was bom on February 17,1900, in a farm­ house in Corbetton (Township of Melanchthon), in the Province of Ontario, Canada. The eldest child of Thomas Broughton and Margaret Jane Shannon Broughton, B. grew up on the farm with his brother and sister (another sister having died in infancy), went to elementary school from 1905 to 1911 at No. 13 Melanchthon, and from 1911 to 1914 to Lower School and Middle School at Prince Edward High School. During the year 1914-1915 he stayed out of school and worked on the family farm, after which he continued his education at Owen Sound Collegiate Institute, where he spent the years 1915 to 1917. Following his secondary schooling, he entered Victoria College of the Univer­ sity of Toronto, graduating in May of 1921 with several honors: B. was First in First Class in Classics, and he won the Governor-General’s Gold Medal and the Wilson Gold Medal in Classics from Victoria College. In July of 1921 B. was awarded a renewable Teaching Fellowship by Victoria College, so he continued there for the next two years, teaching and taking graduatelevel courses. In his first year, he taught two freshman-level Latin courses (Cicero’s First Catilinarian·, Vergil’s Eclogues and Theocritus) and. took three. Those three— the Vergilian Appendix with DeWitt, Ancient Philosophy with Brett, and Numismat­ ics with Harcum— satisfied the requirements for the M.A. From April to mid-June of 1922, B. registered for the Spring Quarter at the University of Chicago, taking Plato with Shorey and Martial with Prescott. In his second year as Teaching Fellow in Victoria College (1922-1923), B. again taught two courses and took three. This year his three graduate courses were Epig­ raphy and Elementary Sanskrit, both taught by DeWitt, and Apollonius’Argonautica, taught by Woodhead. That spring he applied for and won the Rogers Fellowship at Johns Hopkins, which would provide him with tuition plus $450. Again he spent the Spring Quarter at Chicago, this time taking Plautus (taught by Prescott), Greek Phi­ losophy after Aristotle (Shorey), and Antiphon and Andocides (Bonner). He had intended to continue at Chicago for the Summer Quarter, but on June 24, 1923, his father died, and B. was needed on the farm. Thus, for a time, his studies ceased. During the year 1923-1924, his brother Arthur was in school, working for his B.S. in Agriculture, and their sister Lillian was in college too. The running of the farm, and the maintenance of five miles of the future Highway 10, a source of income for the family, fell to B. He continued to work on the farm the following year too, but early in 1925, in anticipation of Arthur’s re­ turn from college, B. renewed his application for the Rogers Fellowship, and again won it. In the summer of 1925 he was able to resume his studies in Chicago, taking

Fasti Broughtoniani

3

four courses during the Summer Quarter: the Aeneid (Prescott), Apuleius’ Metamor­ phoses (Prescott), Petronius’ Cena and the Peregrinatio of St. Aetheria (Beeson), and Roman Religion (Laing). In the fall of 192*5, B. entered the program at Johns Hopkins. He took three courses: Latin Literature of the Late Republic with Tenney Frank, Pastoral Poetry with Mustard, and M iller’s course on the Greek Orators. He also audited Greek In­ scriptions (Robinson), Roman History of the Republic (Frank), and Greek History (Robinson). The three courses for which he registered, combined with the graduate courses he had done at Victoria College and the University of Chicago, were suffi­ cient to meet the course requirements for the PhD. Also, in B.’s first term at Hopkins, Tenney Frank suggested to him the possibility of Africa as a dissertation topic. At the end of the year (spring of 1926), B. took and passed his exams in his minor, which was Greek: seven-hour-long written exams on Greek history and literature, on suc­ cessive days. Following those exams, B. began, during the summer of 1926, inten­ sive work on the inscriptions of Africa Proconsularis, the area he had chosen to study for his dissertation.

1926-1927 B. spent this year as a visiting instructor in Greek at Amherst College. He taught year-long courses in Homer and in beginning Greek (for freshmen), and one-term courses on Aristophanes’ Clouds and Sophocles’ Antigone. In the third quarter, in response to an emergency, he took over a course on Greek architecture and sculp­ ture, and he also was reader of all the essays in the Greek civilization course. In December of 1926 he attended the Annual Meeting of the American Philological Association for the first time.

1927-1928 Declining an invitation to remain at Amherst for a second year, B. had decided to return to Baltimore and work on his dissertation. But Tenney Frank urged him to use his second year as Rogers Fellow to go to Europe, Rome, and north Africa. Thus in the middle of June, 1927, B. boarded the Cunard Lines’ Caledonia in Boston and sailed to Glasgow. He took the bus to Edinburgh, and there purchased a second-hand bicycle for three pounds. He hiked south, through Broughton family territory (north­ ern Lincolnshire), to Cambridge, Oxford, London, and Dover. He took the ferry to Calais and hiked on, past battlefields of the First World War, to Paris. After a stay in Paris, he moved south, to Chartres, through Provence, along the coast into Italy, and to Siena and finally Rome, pedalling into the city on September 20. He was wel­ comed at the American Academy, although as a Canadian citizen he could not stay there, and he went on A. W. Van Buren’s trips in Rome and the environs. In mid-November, B. went, with Professor and Mrs. Robinson and Herbert Couch, to Africa. They visited Carthage and travelled along the coast to Algiers, then in­ land. B. continued by himself to central and southern Tunisia, took a boat to Sicily and made his way around the coast, then returned to Rome by Christmas. In Janu-

4

George W. Houston

ary, he journeyed back northward (by train), and returned to the U.S. on board the

Ausonia. During the spring o f 1928, he pushed ahead with his work on his disserta­ tion. Late in the winter, he was interviewed for a position at Bryn Mawr, was offered the job, and took it. He completed writing his dissertation in May, took his final writtens in Latin and his oral exam also in May, and then, having completed the work for the PhD, went home to Corbetton. But by July he was back in Baltimore, revis­ ing the dissertation for publication.

1928-1929 Teaching, Service As Associate in Latin at Bryn Mawr, B. offered a graduate seminar in Cicero’s let­ ters plus undergraduate courses.

Research, Publications B. finished revising his dissertation and submitted it to the Johns Hopkins Press in the middle of November (just about one year after he had left Rome to visit Africa). Proofs were ready at New Year’s and the book appeared in the spring. The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis. Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science, Extra Series, 5 (1929). [Reprinted Greenwood Press, New York 1968.] Kirsopp Lake and Joel Cadbury invited B. to write a chapter on the Roman army in Syria for their edition of the Acts of the Apostles. B. worked on this during the summer of 1929. Review of St. Gsell, Histoire ancienne de I’Afrique du Nord, Vand VI: AJPh 49 (1928) 396.

Alia B. served as a grader of College Board Examinations, in part to earn money to help maintain the family farm.

1929-1930 Teaching, Service In his second year at Bryn Mawr, B. offered a graduate seminar in Livy, plus under­ graduate courses in beginning Latin, Plautus and Terence, Latin prose composition, and Vergil’s Aeneid, the last an Honors course. He was promoted to Associate Pro­ fessor for three years, effective in the summer of 1930.

Research, Publications In the spring of 1930, Tenney Frank asked B. to write the section on Asia Minor for the projected Economic Survey of the Roman Empire. B. spent much of the follow-

Fasti Broughtoniani

5

ing sum m er in B altim ore, gathering evidence on A sia Minor, especially the epigraphical material, which was then available only in widely scattered sources. “The Inscription of Phileros,” AJPh 50 (1929) 279-285.

Alia B. again served as a grader of College Board Examinations, in the early part of the summer.

1930

-

1931

Research, Publications In 1930, B. began to collect titles of new articles on ancient history and publish these as a bibliography in American Historical Review. These lists were variously referred to as “Ancient History Notes,” “Ancient History Bibliography,” or “Recently Pub­ lished Articles in Ancient History,” and B. continued to collect them until the end of 1971. In the summer of 1931, B. returned to Baltimore to work on the Asia Minor sec­ tion of ESAR. Before classes resumed, he was able to complete an outline of it. Review of A. Piganiol, Esquisse d ’histoire romaine: AHR (1930-1931) 672.

1931

-

1932

Research, Publications Review of W. E. Heitland, Repetita: AHR 37 (1931-1932) 190-191. Review of W. E. Gwatkin, Cappadocia as a Roman Procuratorial Province: AHR 37(1931-1932) 191. Review of G. Showerman, Rome and the Romans: AHR 37 (1931-1932) 396. Review of H. Schneider, A History of World Civilization from Prehistoric Times to the Middle Ages: AHR 37 (1931-1932) 622. Review of M. van der Mijnsbrugge, The Cretan Koinon: AHR 37 (1931-1932) 833.

Alia In September of 1931, B. married Annie Leigh Camm Hobson, and the two took a vacation on the family farm in Ontario, to help with the harvest.

1932

-

1933

Research, Publications About this time (in the “early 1930’s,”), B. first began to think about the need for some sort of prosopography of the Roman Republic, on the general model of PIR. He postponed serious work on it, however, while he worked on the volume on Asia Minor. In the spring of 1933, Tenney Frank offered B. $500 for a summer trip to Turkey, and B. immediately began studying Turkish.

6

George W. Houston

Review of J. Keil and A. Wilhelm, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, III: AJA 36 (1932)581-582. Review of E. R. Hardy, Jr., The Large Estates of Byzantine Egypt: AHR 38 (19321933)396-397. Review of R. M. Haywood, Studies on Scipio Africanus: AHR 38 (1932-1933) 626. Review of W. HUttl, Antoninus Pius, II: AHR 38 (1932-1933) 819-820.

Travels In June of 1933, B. took ship in New York and sailed to Patras and thence to Athens and Istanbul. From Istanbul, he travelled to Ankara and then, in more or less clock­ wise fashion, around Turkey, visiting Pontus, Cappadocia, Cilicia, Pisidia, western Phrygia, and the west coast, including Sardis, Smyrna, Ephesus, Priene, Miletus, Didyma, Aphrodisias, Antalya, Perge, Aspendus, Pergamum, and Prusa.

Alia On New Year’s Day, 1933, B.’s mother died. On February 14,1933, Margaret Shan­ non Broughton, the first child of Annie Leigh and B., was bom. Also in that spring, B. took out First Papers toward becoming a U.S. citizen.

1933-1934 Research, Publications In the summer of 1934, B. began work on a detailed study of Roman landholding in Asia Minor. “The Roman Army,” in F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings o f Christianity, Part I, The Acts o f the Apostles, V, Additional Notes (London 1933) Note XXXIII, 427^145. Notes on “Philippi,” “first city,” “the district of Macedonia,” “colony,” “praetors,” “politarchs,” Ibid., IV (1933) on pp. 187-190, 194-195, 205. “Some Notes on the War with the Homonadeis,” AJPh 54 (1933) 134-144. Review of W. H. Buckler and D. M. Robinson, Sardis, VII, Part I: Greek and Latin Inscriptions: AHR 39 (1933-1934) 395. Review of M. Gude, A History o f Olynthus: AHR 39 (1933-1934) 395. Review of M. Reinhold, Marcus Agrippa: A Biography: AHR 39 (1933-1934) 395-396. Review of R. S. Conway, Ancient Italy and Modem Religion: AHR 39 (1933— 1934) 603-604. Review of F. W. Walbank, Aratus ofSicyon: AHR 39 (1933-1934) 810-811. Review of H. Bomecque, Tite-Live: AHR 39 (1933-1934) 811.

Fasti Broughtoniani

7

Alia Faith Prindle B aldwin completed her dissertation under B .’s direction: Gaius Asinius

Pollio. 1934-1935 Teaching, Service While Lily Ross Taylor was away on sabbatical, B. served as Acting Chairman of the Department of Latin.

Research, Publications “Stratoniceia and Aristonicus,” CPh 29 (1934) 252-254. “Roman Landholding in Asia Minor,” given as a paper at the Annual Meeting of the APA and then published in TAPhA 65 (1934) 207-239. Review of W. H. Buckler, W. M. Calder, and W. K. C. Guthrie, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, IV: AJA 38 (1934) 321-322. Review of S. Tracy, Philo Judaeus and the Roman Principate: AHR 40 (1934— 1935) 192. Review of G. Colin, Le discours d ’Hyperide contre Demosthene sur Vargent d ‘Harpale: AHR 40 (1934-1935) 193. R eview of A. Heuss, Die völkerrechtlichen Grundlagen der römischen Aussenpolitik in republikanischer Zeit: AHR 40 (1934—1935) 397. Review of E. Komemann, Staaten, Völker, Männer: AHR 40 (1934—1935) 598. Review of A. B. Hawes, Citizens of Long Ago: AHR 40 (1934-1935) 598-599. Review of Studi romani nel mondo, I: AHR 40 (1934—1935) 599. Review of C. W. Westrup, Introduction to Early Roman Law. The Patriarchal Joint Family, II: AHR 40 (1934-1935) 814-815.

Alia Charlotte Elizabeth Goodfellow completed her dissertation under B .’s direction:

Roman Citizenship, A Study o f Its Territorial and Numerical Expansion from the Earliest Times to the Death o f Augustus. 1935-1936 Research, Publications “Some Non-colonial Coloni of Augustus,” given as a paper at the Annual Meet­ ing of the APA and then published in TAPhA 66 (1935) 18-24. “Colonia Caesareia Antiocheia,” C7 31 (1935-1936) 43-44.

8

George W. Houston

Review of C. B. Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: CJ 31 (1935-1936) 260-262. Review ofT. R. Glover, The Ancient World: AHR 41 (1935-1936) 410. Review of G. D. Hadzsits, Lucretius and His Influence: AHR 41 ( 1935-1936) 616. Review of C. Préaux, Les ostraca grecs de la collection Ch.E. Wilbour au Musée de Brooklyn: AHR 41 (1935-1936)616. Review of H. L. Levy, The Invective in Rufïnum of Claudius Claudianus: AHR 41 (1935-1936) 834-835. Review of I. J. Manly, Effects of the Germanic Invasions on Gaul, 234-284 A.D. : AHR 41 (1935-1936) 835.

Alia About this time, Duke and Berkeley made approaches to B. In the winter of 1935-1936, B. took out Second Papers toward becoming a U.S. citizen, and in May 1936 he gave up his Canadian citizenship and became a citizen of the United States of America. In June of 1935, Annie Leigh received her M.A. in Archaeology from Bryn Mawr, and some days later, on June 9, gave birth to Thomas Alan Broughton.

1936-1937 Teaching, Service B. was promoted to Full Professor at Bryn Mawr College, effective in 1937. He continued as Professor of Latin at Bryn Mawr until his move to Chapel Hill in 1965.

Research, Publications In the summer of 1937, B. sent the first major part of his work on Asia Minor (the section on Asia Minor under the Republic) to Tenney Frank, and Frank accepted it. “On Two Passages of Cicero Referring to Local Taxes in Asia,” AJPh 57 (1936) 173-176. “Was Sallust Fair to Cicero?” given as a paper at the Annual Meeting of the APA and then published in TAPhA 61 (1936) 34-46. Review of N. P. Vlachos, Hellas and Hellenism: AHR 42 (1936-1937) 165-166. Review of E. Komemann, Die Alexandergeschichte des Königs Ptolemaios I von Aegypten: AHR 42 (1936-1937) 166.

1937-1938 Research, Publications In the fall of 1937, B. sent the second part of the Asia Minor volume (the material on “The Land”) to Tenney Frank, and it was accepted. Late that fall, B. sent in the last part, on the cities and other matters. Frank asked him to cut it by a third. He did so, with help from his Department at Bryn Mawr and graduate students, and returned it in January. The complete text of Volume IV of the Economic Survey (that is, the

Fasti Broughtoniani

9

sections on Africa, Greece, Syria, and Asia Minor) was ready by April, and the vol­ ume appeared in June. Roman Asia Minor, pages 499-918 in Tenney Frank, An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, Volume IV (Baltimore 1938). “Three Notes on Saint Paul’s Journeys in Asia Minor,” Quantulacumque (Stud­ ies Presented to Kirsopp Lake) (London 1937) 131-138. “A Significant Break in the Cistophoric Coinage of Asia,” AJA 41 (1937) 248249. Review of F. G. Moore, The Roman’s World: AJPh 58 (1937) 380.

1938-1939 Teaching, Service Tenney Frank was teaching in Oxford this year, so B. taught a seminar in Latin in Frank’s stead at Johns Hopkins, and the same seminar each week at Bryn Mawr. The subject was early Latin, especially Ennius, Plautus, and Terence. B. also worked with J. E. A. Crake, who was writing a dissertation on archival material in Livy’s history.

Research, Publications As work on the Asia Minor volume drew to a close, B . returned to his thoughts about a Prosopography of the Senate in Republican times. Sometime in 1939, he suggested to Marcia L. Patterson that she might undertake a dissertation in which she presented annual lists of the magistrates, officers, and priests during the Second Punic War, as a way of testing the utility of such a study. She agreed and began work. “A Greek Inscription from Tarsus,” AJA 42 (1938) 55-57. Review of M. Schede and H. St. Schultz, Ankara und Augustus: AJA 42 (1938) 320-321. Review of C. J. Cadoux, Ancient Smyrna: CW 32 (1938-1939) 82.

Alia On April 3, 1939, Tenney Frank died.

1939-1940 Teaching, Service At Bryn Mawr, B. was made a member, and later the chairman, of the Faculty Com­ mittee to choose a successor to President Marion Edwards Park. The committee selected Katharine Elizabeth McBride and announced her name in the fall of 1941.

Research, Publications At Mrs. Frank’s urging, a small group was organized under the direction of Lily Ross Taylor to compile an Index to the whole of ESAR. B. was a member of the group, and responsible for a number of the more complex entries (among them “taxes” and “trade”).

10

George W. Houston

B. was nominated to succeed Frank at Johns Hopkins. The president of the University, Frank Bowman, interviewed B., but then eliminated him from the list of candidates. Although “naturally hurt and disappointed” by Bowman’s decision, B. once again offered a Latin seminar at Johns Hopkins, this time on Cicero’s letters. B. began work with Elsa Rose Graser on both her dissertation and a text and trans­ lation of Diocletian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, the latter for inclusion in Volume V of ESAR. An Economic Survey o f Ancient Rome. General Index to Volumes I-V (Balti­ more 1940). (With Lily Ross Taylor, Aline Abaecherli Boyce, Elizabeth Ash, and others.) Review of C. W. M. Cox and A. Cameron, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, V: AJPh 60 (1939) 265-267. Review of P. Lambrechts, La composition du Sénat romain de Septime Sévère à Dioclétien: AJ A 43 (1939) 176.

1940-1941 Research, Publications Review of W. B. Dinsmoor, The Athenian Archon List in the Light of Recent Discoveries: AHR 46 (1940-1941) 872-873. Review of C. H. Brecht, Perduellio: CW 34 (1940-1941) 224-225.

Alia Marcia Lewis Patterson completed her dissertation under B .’s direction: Roman

Magistrates during the Second Punic War. 1941-1942 Teaching, Service Editor, for the APA, of both Transactions and Monographs {1941-1944). Commit­ tee on Investments, APA (1941-1943).

Research, Publications Now free of other responsibilities, B. began to work steadily on the Prosopography of the Republic. Review of A. H. M. Jones, The Cities o f the Eastern Roman Provinces: AJPh 62 (1941) 104-107. Review of Cambridge Ancient History, volumes XI and XII: AJA 45 (1941) 140142. Review of L. Jalabert and R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, II: AJA 45 (1941) 308. Review of W. M. Calder and J. Keil, Anatolian Studies Presented to W. H. Buck­ ler: CPh 36 (1941)285-288.

Fasti Broughtoniani

11

Review of R Wuilleumier, Tarente, des origines à la conquête romaine: AHR 47 (1941-1942) 94-95.

Alia Hester Jane Gruber completed her dissertation under B.’s direction: Civitates Liberae

under the Roman Republic. 1942

-

1943

Research, Publications “Cleopatra and the ‘Treasure of the Ptolemies’,” AJPh 63 (1942) 328-332. Review of A. Dobo, Publicum Portorium Illyrici: AJA 46 (1942) 460-461. Review of W. M. Ramsay, The Social Basis o f Roman Power in Asia Minor: AJA 46(1942) 461. Review of W. H. Buckler and W. M. Calder, Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, VI: AJPh 63 (1942) 493-494. Review of C. E. Smith, Tiberius and the Roman Empire: AHR 48 (1942-1943) 769.

Alia At Bryn Mawr, after Joseph Sloane left to serve in the Pacific, B. was put in charge of blackout protection and exercises.

1943

-

1944

Research, Publications Review of L. C. West, Gold and Silver Coin Standards in the Roman Empire:

CPh 38 (1943) 275. Review of K. Barwick, Caesars Commentarii und das Corpus Caesarianum:

AJPh 64 (1943) 218. Review of H. Bloch, Ibolli laterizi e la storia edilizia romana: AJPh 64 (1943) 219-220.

1944-1945 Teaching, Service Committee on Publication of Monographs, APA (1944—1949).

Research, Publications Having made considerable progress on Volume I of The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, B. applied for a Guggenheim grant and in this winter learned his applica­ tion had been successful.

12

George W. Houston

Review of J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia: AJPh 65 (1944) 108-109. Review of A. T. Olmstead, Jesus in the Light of History: CPh 39 (1944) 129— 131. Review of N. Jasny, Wheat Prices and Milling Costs in Classical Rome: CW 38 (1944-1945)39-40. Review of R. S. Rogers, Studies in the Reign o f Tiberius: AHR 50 (1944—1945) 514-516.

Alia In the summer of 1945, the Broughton family vacationed in the Adirondacks for the first time. This became a family tradition, especially after the purchase of a house in Keene Valley. B. vacationed there last in 1993.

1945-1946 Teaching, Service Board of Directors, APA (1945-1948).

Research, Publications By the summer of 1945, much of Volume I of The Magistrates of the Roman Repub­ lic was complete, and B. spent his Guggenheim year “in isolation with my books and papers,” managing to complete Volume II as far as the death of Julius Caesar. In the summer of 1946, he worked for a month in Widener Library, Harvard, while the family vacationed in Keene Valley.

1946-1947 Research, Publications “Notes on Roman Magistrates. I. The Command of M. Antonius in Cilicia. II. Lucullus’ Commission and Pompey’s Acta,” given as a paper at the Annual Meeting of the APA and then published in TAPhA 77 (1946) 35-43.

1947-1948 Teaching, Service Committee on Investments, APA (1947-1950).

Research, Publications Review of E. Gren, Kleinasien und der Ostbalkan in der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung der römischen Kaiserzeit: AHR 53 (1947-1948) 312-314.

Alia In the spring of 1948, B. considered an offer of a Full Professorship from the Uni-

Fasti Broughtoniani

13

versity of California (Berkeley), to replace Professor Alexander. He declined the offer, in large part because he thought it would very likely delay completion of MRR.

1948-1949 Research, Publications “The Elogia of Julius Caesar’s Father,” AJA 52 (1948) 323-330. “More Notes on Roman Magistrates: 1. A Legateship of Julius Caesar. 2. The Governors of Asia from 74-58 B.C. 3. Metellus Celer’s Gallic Province. 4. Cassius Dio on Sallust’s Praetorship,” given as a paper at the Annual Meeting of the APA and then published in TAPhA 79 (1948) 63-78. Review of L. C. West and A. C. Johnson, Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt: CPh 43 (1948) 61-63. Review of L. Châtelain, Le Maroc des Romains. Étude sur les centres antiques de la Maurétanie occidentale: AJPh 69 (1948) 462-463.

1949-1950 Teaching, Service Second Vice-President, American Philological Association.

Research, Publications “The Order of the Two Consuls’ Names in the Yearly Lists,” MAAR 19 (1949) 1-14 (with Lily Ross Taylor). Articles: Amaseia, Amisus, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Chalybes, Cyzicus, Heraclea Pontica, M ithridates I-V I, Nicomedes I-IV, Nicomedia, Nicopolis of Pontus, Paphlagonia, Pharnaces I—II, Polemon I, Pontus, Sinope, Trapezus, Zela, in Oxford Classical Dictionary, 1st edition (Oxford 1949). Review of K. Hanell, Das altromische eponyme Amt: CW 43 (1949-1950) 25-27.

1950-1951 Teaching, Service First Vice-President, American Philological Association. B. served on the Editorial Board of Historia from 1950 until the time of his death in 1993.

Research, Publications In the fall of 1950, B. submitted the typescript of Volume I of Magistrates of the Roman Republic. He planned to finish Volume II early in 1951. Review o f M. Cary, The Geographic Background o f Greek and Roman-History: CW 44 (1950-1951) 24-25.

14

George W. Houston

Alia Martha Wilson Hoffman completed her dissertation under B.’s direction: The Mem­

bership of the Four Major Colleges o f Priests from 44 B.C. to 37 A.D. B. attended the Triennial Classical Meeting in Cambridge (England).

1951-1952 Teaching, Service As a Fulbright Fellow in Italy, B. did not think he should succeed to the presidency of the American Philological Association, as he would normally have done follow­ ing his year as First Vice-President. The Nominating Committee asked him to serve a second year as First Vice-President, and he did.

Research, Publications During his Fulbright year in Italy (1951-1952), B. finished the text of Volume II of

MRR, and the Index of Careers. Late in the winter, he sent the typescript to Harold Chemiss. In the summer of 1952, parcels of proofs began arriving, and B. corrected them while travelling north with his family, on some mornings (in Venice, for ex­ ample) arising at 5 to work on proofs before going out to see the sights with the fam­ ily. He completed reading the proofs in September of 1952. The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic. Volume I, 509 B.C.-100 B.C. Philo­ logical Monographs published by the American Philological Association, Number XV (Cleveland 1951). (With the collaboration of Marcia L. Patterson.) “New Evidence on Temple-Estates in Asia Minor,” in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson (Princeton 1951) 236-250. Review of A. Nordh, Libellas de Regionibus Urbis Romae: AJA 55 (1951) 441442. Review of H. Goldman, Excavations at Gozlu Kiile, Tarsus, I. The Hellenistic and Roman Periods: AHR 57 (1951-1952) 409-411. Review of D. Magie, Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End o f the Third Century after Christ: AHR 57 (1951-1952) 417-420. Review of R. Thomsen, The Italic Regions from Augustus to the Lombard Inva­ sions: AHR 57 (1951-1952) 657-659.

Travels During his Fulbright year, B. visited the northern Italian cities, went on the Ameri­ can Academy trips (led mostly by Frank Brown), and travelled to southern Italy and Sicily (in February), on the Academy spring trip to Greece and Crete, and to central Italy with his son Alan. During the summer, the entire family travelled northward, visiting Venice, the Italian Alps, Switzerland, France, and England, and then taking the boat home.

Fasti Broughtoniani

15

1952-1953 Teaching, Service First Vice-President, American Philological Association (for a third year). Repre­ sentative of the APA to the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (with Lloyd Daly).

Research, Publications Review ofH .H . Scullard, Roman Politics, 220-150B.C.: Phoenix 6 (1952) 113— 115.

1953-1954 Teaching, Service President, American Philological Association, “precisely twenty-five years after Tenney Frank had addressed the meeting as President in Boston in 1929.” Editorial Board, American Historical Review (1953-1958). Honorary Vice-President, American Institute of Archaeology (1953-1958).

Research, Publications At the APA meeting B. gave a paper on Hadrian’s political and administrative poli­ cies. The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic. Volume II, 99 B.C.-31 B.C. Philologi­ cal Monographs published by the American Philological Association, Number XV (Cleveland 1952). “Notes on Roman Magistrates: 1. The Augurates of Two Marci Antonii. 2. Marius and the Mater Magna. 3. C. Cosconius C.f., Proconsul of Macedonia,” Historia 2 (1953) 209-213. Review of H. Schmitz, Stadt und Imperium. Köln in römischer Zeit, I: AJA 57 (1953) 152-153. Review of E. V. Hansen, The Attalids o f Pergamon: AJPh 74 (1953) 210-212. Review of L. C. Stecchini, Athenaion Politeia: The Constitution o f the Athenians: AHR 59 (1953-1954) 415-416. Review of H. D. Westlake, Timoleon and his Relations with Tyrants: AHR 59 (1953-1954)416.

Alia Alice Davies Stanley completed her dissertation under B.’s direction: Lucius

Aemilius Paullus. In December of 1953, B. was awarded the Award of Merit by the APA for The

Magistrates o f the Roman Republic.

16

George W. Houston

1954-1955 Teaching, Service As President of the APA, B. organized two symposia for the Annual Meeting in 1954. In the fall of 1954 B. was elected Secretary of the Faculty at Bryn Mawr; as such, he was charged with collecting, revising, and presenting to a committee and then to the whole Faculty the Rules of the Faculty. He continued as Secretary of the Faculty until 1964.

Research, Publications Presidential address, Annual Meeting of the APA, December 1954: “Rome and the Romans— As Others Saw Them.” Review of G. de Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, IV, La Fondazione dell’Impero, part II. Vita epensiero nell’etä delle grandi conquiste, sections 1 and 2, resp.: AHR 60 (1954-1955) 867-869; AHR 64 (1958-1959) 615-616. Review of K. Büchner, Der Aufbau von Sallusts Bellum Jugurthinum: CW 48 (1954-1955) 82-83.

1955

-

1956

Teaching, Service Nominating Committee, APA (1955-1960).

Research, Publications Review of H. Hill, The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period: CPh 50 (1955) 275-276. Review of A. H. McDonald, “The Roman Historians,” in Platnauer, Fifty Years of Scholarship: CW 49 (1955-1956) 157-159.

Alia In 1955 B. was elected to membership in the American Philosophical Society.

1956

-

1957

Teaching, Service President, Oriental Club of Philadelphia (1956-1957).

Research, Publications Review of A. E. Gordon, Potitus Valerius Messalla: Phoenix 10 (1956) 88-89. Review of A. Aymard and J. Auboyer, Rome etson empire: AHR 62 (1956-1957) 105-107.

Fasti Broughtoniani

17

Travels With the help of a grant from the American Philosophical Society, B. explored Spain during the summer of 1957. In June he journeyed to Paris, where Juliette Ernst had him to tea, together with El.-G. Pflaum, Marcel Durry, and Professor and Madame Robert. From Paris, B. drove south through western France, then down the east coast of Spain, and up to Granada, Sevilla, and Madrid. There he met Annie Leigh and with her explored northern and western Spain, before returning to Paris and the U.S.

1957-1958 Teaching, Service In September of 1957, B. went, as the American Representative to the Central Com­ mittee of AIEGL, to the Second International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigra­ phy, in Rome.

Research, Publications Review of F. E. Adcock, A. Alföldi, F. Altheim, et al., Römisches Weltreich und Christentum: AHR 63 (1957-1958) 380-382. “Gaetano de Sanctis” (obituary notice), AHR 63 (1957-1958) 857-858.

1958

-

1959

Teaching, Service Chairman, Nominating Committee, APA (1958-1959). Late in August, 1959, at the FTEC meeting in London, B. chaired a session on ancient history and was elected to a five-year term as Vice-President of FIEC.

Research, Publications Articles: Tenney Frank; Frank Burr Marsh, in Dictionary o f American Biogra­

phy, Supplement II (1958). Travels In the summer of 1959, B. drove from Wolfsburg to London, passing through the Rhine valley, Provence, and western France.

1959

-

1960

Teaching, Service On Sabbatical from Bryn Mawr, B. was Professor in Charge of the Classical School of the American Academy in Rome. As Professor in Charge, he became editor of Academy publications, including both the Memoirs and Papers and Monographs.

18

George W. Houston

He saw through its final stages Lily Ross Taylor’s Voting Districts of the Roman Re­ public and did extensive work with Louise Adams Holland’s Janus at the Bridge, as well as one volume of the Memoirs. B. also gave the principal address on the occa­ sion of the retirement of Mr. Roberts, Director of the Academy. North American Member, Bureau of the International Federation of the Societ­ ies of Classical Studies (FIEC) (1959-1964, with E. T. Salmon).

Research, Publications “The Romanization of Spain: the Problem and the Evidence,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103 (1959) 645-651. Review of L. Leschi, Etudes d ’épigraphie, d ’archéologie et d ’histoire africaines: AJA 63 (1959) 317-318. Review of J. Suolahti, The Junior Officers of the Roman Army in the Republican Period: Gnomon 31 (1959) 305-309. Review of E. Gabba, Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus: AHR 65 (1959— 1960) 653. Review of E. J. Oliver, Gibbon and Rome: AHR 65 (1959-1960) 654.

Travels With the help of funds from the Guggenheim Foundation, B. travelled in the sum­ mer of 1960 to Yugoslavia (Split, Dubrovnik, Beograd, and on toward Hungary), Austria, and Germany. In August, he chaired a session at the International Congress of Historical Sciences in Stockholm, and following that he and Annie Leigh went on a post-Congress torn· of Russia, visiting Leningrad, Novgorod, Moscow, and Vladimir. They then drove from Stockholm back to Rome.

1960-1961 Teaching, Service Professor in Charge of the Classical School, American Academy in Rome (second year). On May 22, 1961, the APA made B. Chairman of the Committee for Person­ nel and Programming for the Fourth International Congress of Classical Studies.

Research, Publications In July 1961, B. gave a paper on Tacitus and the Provinces at the Annual Meeting of the Roman Society in London, and in August he chaired a session of the Seventh Triennial Meeting of the Greek and Roman Societies in Oxford. B. was section editor for “Section I: Rome, Republic and Empire” in The Ameri­ can Historical Association’s Guide to Historical Literature (New York 1961) 140168. Review of P. Lévêque, Pyrrhos: AJPh 81 (1960) 211-212. Review of R. Syme, Colonial Elites: Phoenix 14 (1960) 154-155.

Fasti Broughtoniani

19

Travels In December of 1960 and January of 1961, B. and Annie Leigh toured Libya, Cyrenaica, and Egypt, then stopped in Beirut before continuing to Cyprus. In Libya, they met Mr. Barringer, then second in command of the Embassy. On his return to Bryn Mawr, B. recommended Mr. Barringer to the College; Barringer taught archae­ ology for one year there, then moved on, eventually to Oxford. In the Spring of 1961, B. and Annie Leigh drove to southern Italy and Sicily, and in July, between the meet­ ings in London and Oxford, they and a second cousin, Margaret Ericson, explored Ireland.

1961-1962 Teaching, Service After his two years at the American Academy, B. returned to Bryn Mawr as both Department Chairman and Secretary of the Faculty. As Vice-President of FIEC, and Chairman of the Program Committee for the 1964 International Congress, B. attended the midterm conference of FIEC in Warsaw, where the General Assembly approved of the APA’s plan to have no single stated theme for the Congress. Following this conference, he stayed on in Warsaw for the Tenth In­ ternational Congress of Papyrology, in September of 1961. Returning to Bryn Mawr, B. began work in earnest on the program of the International Congress. His princi­ pal goals were: to include a variety of fields; to invite leading scholars in each field; but also to give adequate representation on the program to representatives of each national society.

Research, Publications Late in the summer of 1962, B. served as commentator on a paper by Peter Brunt at the International Congress of Economic History in Aix-en-Provence. Review of P. Romanelli, Storia delleprovince romane dell’Africa: Erasmus 14 (1961) 171-174. Review of K. Büchner, Sallust: CW 55 (1961-1962) 90. Review of D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust: CW 55 (1961-1962) 294.

Travels Following the meeting in Aix, B. took ten days to explore, by bus and train, the area between Aix and Vienna. In Vienna he attended the International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy.

1962-1963 Teaching, Service As Chairman of the Program Committee for the International Congress, B. had, by

20

George W. Houston

early in 1963, almost completed the list of invited speakers from abroad. Late in the summer of 1963 he attended the International Congress of Classical Archaeology in Paris, where he presented the plans for the Philadelphia meeting to the International Congress of FTEC. (See further B.’s report on this planning process in CW 57 [1963] 91-92.) Also in Paris, he attended an organizational meeting of the International Society for Latin Epigraphy, which was intended in part as a mechanism to oversee the preparation and publication of l ’Année Epigraphique.

Research, Publications “Lily Ross Taylor,” Studi Romani 10 (1962) 369-371. (In Italian, on the occa­ sion of Miss Taylor’s winning the Premio “Cultori di Roma.”) Review of M. Leglay, Les Gaulois en Afrique: CW 56 (1962-1963) 23.

Alia On May 9, 1962, B. was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

1963-1964 Teaching, Service Very early in this academic year, B. and Togo Salmon went, as representatives of FIEC, to a meeting of the International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Stud­ ies, which provides the link between UNESCO and the various societies in the dif­ ferent humanistic disciplines. APA Committee on the Award of Merit (1963-1966). As Chairman of the Program Committee for the International Congress (August 24-29,1964), B. had several responsibilities, especially as the time for the meeting drew near. Among them: he organized a special session of young foreign and Ameri­ can scholars; he arranged for visas for visiting scholars from abroad (this was par­ ticularly important for those from Communist countries); he wrote a brochure on travel arrangements and the weather for distribution to those coming to the meeting; he arranged for substitutes for those scholars who had to cancel at the last minute; he presided at the General Assembly of FIEC, which met the day before the Congress began; and he handled a series of small emergencies during the meeting. He was elected (according to custom) to a second five-year term as Vice-President of FIEC.

Research, Publications Articles: Aediles; Bithynia; Cappadocia; Centurion; Coriolanus; Gnaeus Marcius; Curia; Decemviri; Decurion; Magistracy, Roman; Rome, Ancient, in Collier’s Encyclopedia (New York 1963). Articles: Aedile; Aeraria; Asia, Roman Province of; Censor; Centumviri; Comitia; Curia; Curule; Decurio; Duumviri; Equites; Fasces; Latin Rights; Lictors; Municipium; Patricians; Praetor; Quaestor; Quirites; Tresviri; Tribune, in Encyclo­ pedia Britannica (Chicago 1963-1967).

Fasti Broughtoniani

21

Review of H. Simon, Roms Kriege in Spanien, 154-133 v. Chr: AHR 69 (19631964) 497.

Alia At the Annual Meeting of the APA in December 1963, Albert Suskin of the Univer­ sity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill approached B. about accepting a position as Paddison Professor of Classics. B. visited North Carolina in the spring and agreed to come, but in 1965 rather than in 1964. He turned down a position as Visiting Pro­ fessor in Roman History at the University of Toronto, as accepting it would have meant giving up his last year of teaching at Bryn Mawr. At Commencement in 1964, Bryn Mawr College gave him the Lindback Award for excellence in teaching. 1 9 6 4 -1 9 6 5

Teaching, Service In 1964 B.’s term as Secretary of the Faculty at Bryn Mawr came to an end. He began a second five-year term as Vice-President of FIEC. In the spring of 1965, he joined Professors Marti, Ullman, and Suskin of the University of North Carolina in plan­ ning for an American Office of l ’Année Philologique.

Research, Publications Beginning in April, B. worked with Time, Inc., to check and correct a book on the history and civilization of Rome by Moses Hadas, and to prepare a Preface for it.

Alia In the spring of 1965, B. and Annie Leigh visited Chapel Hill and bought a house; they spent much of July and part of August packing and moving, then were at last able to get away to Keene Valley for a few weeks before the term began. 1 9 6 5 -1 9 6 6

Teaching, Service Paddison Professor of Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1965— 1970). As Vice-President of FIEC, B. attended the mid-term meeting of the Assembly and Bureau of FIEC at the Hardt Foundation in Vandoeuvres, Switzerland, where he took part in planning the next International Congress, to be held in Bonn in 1969. The deaths, in 1965, of Professor Ullman and Suskin left B. in charge of the new American Office of l ’Année Philologique. B. accordingly became Co-Editor, with Juliette Ernst, of l ’Année Philologique for a three-year term (1965-1968). He worked with a graduate student, W. W. de Grummond, to get the work of the office under way and begin the reading and excerpting of articles.

22

George W. Houston

Research, Publications B. began work on selecting and editing passages from Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire and wrote a Preface on the work and contribution of Mommsen. “Municipal Institutions in Roman Spain,” Journal of World History 9 (1965) 126— 142. “Comment” on P. A. Brunt, “The Equités in the Late Republic,” in Deuxième Conférence Internationale d ’Histoire Economique, Aix-en-Provence, 1962: I. Com­ merce et politique dans l ’antiquité, 150-162. (Reprinted in R. Seager, ed., The Cri­ sis of the Roman Republic, Cambridge 1969, 118-130.) Review of G. de Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, Volume IV, La Fondazione dell’Impero, part3, DallabattagliadiPidnaallacadutadiNumanzia: A H R ll (1965— 1966)524-525. Review of W. Bonser, A Romano-British Bibliography (55 B. C.-A.D. 449): CW 59 (1965-1966) 285. 1 9 6 6 - 1967

Research, Publications Review of J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr: A H R ll (1966-1967) 138— 139. Review of A. J. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy: AHR 72 (1966-1967) 537-539. 1 9 6 7 - 1968

Teaching, Service Committee on Library Resources, American Council of Learned Societies, 1967— 1968. During the late 1960’s, B. served on ad hoc committees at Harvard for per­ sonnel matters. He also served one term of five years on the Visiting Committee for the Department of Classics at Harvard. In the fall of 1967 B. attended the Interna­ tional Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy in Cambridge.

Research, Publications Article: Augustus, in American People’s Encyclopedia (New York 1967) 303304. Review of A. Lippold, Consules. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des römischen Konsulates von 264 bis 201 v. Chr.: AJPh 88 (1967) 249-251. Loeb Lecture at Harvard, on Carthage before and during Roman times. Paper on trade and industry in Roman Spain, for a symposium at the University of Penn­ sylvania (later published in a volume in honor of E. T. Salmon).

Alia Theodora Stillwell MacKay completed her dissertation at Bryn Mawr College un­ der B.’s direction: Olba in Rough Cilicia.

Fasti Broughtoniani

23

1 9 6 8 -1 9 6 9

Research, Publications Editor, Theodor Mommsen, The Provinces o f the Roman Empire: The European Provinces (Chicago 1968), with an introductory essay on Theodor Mommsen. “The Order of the Consuls’ Names in Official Republican Lists,” Historia 17 (1968) 166-172. (With Lily Ross Taylor.) Review of C. M. Bowra, Memories, 1898-1939: AHR 74 (1968-1969) 618-619. Review of C. E. Brand, Roman Military Law: AHR 74 (1968-1969) 1591-1592.

Alia Jane Phillips Packard completed her dissertation at the University of North Carolina under B .’s direction: Official Notices in Livy’s Fourth Decade: Style and Treatment. Donald W. Wade completed his dissertation at the University of North Carolina under B.’s direction: The Roman Auxiliary Units and Camps in Dacia. In 1968 B. was made an Honorary Member of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies. In June of 1969 he was given an Honorary Degree, Doctor of Laws, by Johns Hopkins University. 1 9 6 9 -1 9 7 0

Teaching, Service This was B .’s last year of full-time teaching.

Research, Publications In September of 1969, B. gave a paper on prosopographical methods in studies of the Roman Senate of the Republic at the Fifth International Congress of Classical Studies, in Bonn. (This was later published, at Hildegard Temporini’s request, in Volume I of ANRW.) B. was awarded an ACLS Travel Grant to attend the Congress. In August of 1970, B. attended the International Congress of Historical Sciences in Moscow and gave a paper on continuity and conflict in the ancient Near East. Review of B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor: Gnomon 41 (1969) 210-212. Review of J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome: AHR 75 (19691970)1707-1708.

Travels Following the Congress in Moscow, B. and Annie Leigh joined one of the post-Congress excursions, to Uzbekistan, Samarcand, Bokhara, and Tashkent.

Alia In 1969 B. was elected a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy. In March of 1970 he gave a memorial lecture in honor of Lily Ross Taylor. Delivered in

24

George W. Houston

Goodhart Hall on the Bryn Mawr campus, the lecture dealt with the development of classical studies in Lily Ross Taylor’s time, and her part in that development. See also B.’s obituary notice, “Lily Ross Taylor (1886-1969),” Yearbook of the Ameri­ can Philosophical Society (1970) 172-179. In April, the University of North Caro­ lina at Chapel Hill held a Symposium in B.’s honor. 1 9 7 0 - 1971

Teaching, Service B. taught on a part-time basis at UNC-CH. For his last graduate seminar, he offered two works he had never previously taught in extenso: Julius Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile.

Research, Publications “The Territory of Carthage,” Melanges Marcel Diary = REL 47 bis (1970) 265275. “Continuity and Conflict in the Ancient Near East,” XIII International Congress o f Historical Sciences, Moscow 1970 (separately printed), 24 pp. Articles: Ariaramnes, Ariarathes I-X , Ariobarzanes I—III, Polemon II, Prusias I—II, Pylaemenes, in Oxford Classical Dictionary, 2nd edition (Oxford 1970); in ad­ dition, B. revised the articles he had written for the first edition. See under 19491950. Review of H. H. Scullard, The Etruscan Cities and Rome: Archaeology 23 (1970) 358-360. Review of G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire: Phoenix 24 (1970) 358-360. Review ofR . Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta: CJ 66 (1970-1971) 187-188. Review of E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites: Univ. of Toronto Quar­ terly 40 (1970) 105-107.

Alia George W. Houston completed his dissertation under B.’s direction: Roman Impe­

rial Administrative Personnel during the Principates of Vespasian and Titus (A.D. 69-81). In 1970 B. was elected a C orresponding M em ber o f the D eutsches Archäologisches Institut. In the spring of 1971 the University of Toronto awarded him an Honorary Degree, the Doctor of Laws, and he addressed the graduating classes of Trinity and St. Michael’s Colleges. 1 9 7 1 - 1972

B. spent this year at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, working on the history of Roman Spain.

Fasti Broughtoniani

25

1 9 7 2 - 1973

Teaching, Service Councillor, American Philosophical Society, 1972-1975.

Research, Publications B. attended the International Congress on Roman Frontier Studies, at Mamaia in Romania in early fall 1972. Moving from there to Munich, for the Epigraphical Con­ gress, B. chaired one session and gave a paper on oil-producing estates in southern Roman Spain. (This was later published in a volume of papers in honor of Garcia y Bellido.) “Senate and Senators of the Roman Republic: The Prosopographical Approach,” ANRW 1.1 (1972)250-265.

Travels Following the Congress in Romania, B. and Annie Leigh joined one of the postCongress sessions to forts and city sites in Roman Dacia. After the Epigraphical Con­ gress, they flew to Rome, and then to Lisbon, where they toured the city and envi­ rons.

Alia Mary A. Goldsberry completed her dissertation under B.’s direction: Sicily and its

Cities in Hellenistic and Roman Times. 1 9 7 3 - 1974

Research, Publications “Oil-Producing Estates in Southern Spain,” Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik (Munich 1973) 475-476.

Travels In September of 1973, B. and Annie Leigh attended the International Archaeologi­ cal Congress in Ankara and Izmir. They went on an excursion to Pergamum and joined a post-Congress trip to Hierapolis and sites in Pamphylia, and then they toured Lycia. A projected visit to Israel was cancelled when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel. Late in the summer of 1974, B. and Annie Leigh attended the International Con­ gress of Classical Studies in Madrid, and B. chaired a session of papers mainly on Sardinia. They joined an excursion to Merida, Sevilla, and Cordova, and following the Congress they explored Aragon, the country about Zaragoza, and Lerida.

Alia James G. Harrison, Jr. completed his dissertation under B.’s direction: The Official

Priests of Rome in the Reigns o f Trajan and Hadrian.

26

George W. Houston

In May of 1974, B. was given an Honorary Degree, Doctor of Laws, by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1974-

1975

Teaching, Service Following the death of Douglas Young, B. took over an undergraduate course in Vergil, thus completing his teaching career by returning to an author he had taught in his very first term. Committee on Nomination of Officers, American Philosophical Society.

Research, Publications “Some Notes on Trade and Traders in Roman Spain,” in J. A. S. Evans, ed., Polls and Imperium. Studies in Honour ofE.T. Salmon (Toronto 1974) 11-30. Review of P. A. Brant, Italian Manpower, 225 B.C.—A.D. 14: AJPh 95 (1974) 194-199.

Travels B. and Annie Leigh flew to Calgary, then drove to Banff and over the mountains to Vancouver. They flew from there to San Francisco for the International Congress of Historical Sciences, and on the return flight stopped for two days in Salt Lake City. 1975-

1976

Research, Publications Review of G. J. Szemler, The Priests of the Roman Republic: Gnomon 47 (1975) 383-387. Review of A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship: JRS 65 (1975) 189— 191. 1 9 7 6 -1 9 7 7

Research, Publications Review of K. Raaflaub, Dignitatis Contentio: Studien zur Motivation und politischen Taktik im Bürgerkrieg zwischen Caesar und Pompeius: AJPh 97 (1976) 194-197. Review of G. V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero’s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology: Phoenix 30 (1976) 87-91. 1 9 7 8 -1 9 7 9

Research, Publications Review of F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World(31 B.C.—A.D. 337): AJPh 99 (1978)530-534.

Fasti Broughtoniani

27

Review of H. Temporini, ed., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Volume 2.9.1: Journal of the American Oriental Society 98 (1978) 153-154. 1 9 7 9 -1 9 8 0

Research, Publications “Oil-Producing Estates in Roman Baetica,” Homenaje Garcia y Beilido 4 = Revista de la Universidad Complutense 28 (1979) 153-160. “Remarks on the Roman Empire and Mediterranean Trade,” Archaeological News 8 (1979) 95-96.

Alia In October of 1979 B. had surgery to remove a non-malignant tumor on his pituitary gland, which was pressing on the optic nerves. The crisis this had precipitated cost him most of the sight in his right eye. In May of 1980 he went with Annie Leigh to her Fiftieth Class Reunion at Bryn Mawr College. 1 9 8 0 -1 9 8 1

Research, Publications Review of A. and P. Wiseman, Julius Caesar: The Battlefor Gaul: CO 58 (1981) 119-120. Review of E.Wistrand, Caesar and Contemporary Society: CO 58 (1981) 120-

121. 1 9 8 2 -1 9 8 3

Teaching, Service Councillor, American Philosophical Society, 1983-1986.

Research, Publications Review of J. Franklin, Jr., Pompeii: The Electoral Programmata, Campaigns and Politics A.D. 71-79: AJA 86 (1982) 308-309. 1 9 8 4 -1 9 8 5

Research, Publications Review of Z. Yavetz, Julius Caesar and His Public Image: CO 62 (1984-1985) 70-71. Review of G. W. Bowersock, Roman Arabia: Phoenix 38 (1984) 286-289.

28

George W. Houston

1 9 8 5 -1 9 8 6

Teaching, Service Committee on Nomination of Officers, American Philosophical Society, 1985-1986.

Research, Publications “Cleopatraand the Treasure of the Ptolemies; A Note,” AJPh 106 (1985) 115— 116. 1 9 8 6 -1 9 8 7

Research, Publications The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic. Volume III, Supplement. Philological Monographs published by the American Philological Association, Number XV (At­ lanta 1986). 1 9 8 7 -1 9 8 8

Research, Publications “Mistreatment of Foreign Legates and the Fetial Priests: Three Roman Cases,”

Phoenix 61 (1987) 50-62. In the late 1980’s B. began to re-read and study Cicero’s Philippics. For a time, he considered undertaking a commentary, perhaps on the Third Philippic, but he ultimately decided against it. 1 9 8 9 -1 9 9 0

Research, Publications “M. Aemilius Lepidus: His Youthful Career,” in R. I. Curtis, ed., Studia Pompeiana and Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski 2 (New Rochelle, NY, 1989) 13-23. 1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 1

Research, Publications “L. Manlius Torquatus and the Governors of Asia,” AJPh 111 (1990) 12-1A. Articles: Tenney Frank; Lily Ross Taylor, in W. W. Briggs and W. M. Calder III, edd., Classical Scholarship. A Biographical Encyclopedia (New York and London 1990). Review of C. M. Birch, ed., Concordantia et Index Caesaris: AJPh 111 (1990) 117-118. Review of P. Herrmann, ed., Tituli Asiae Minoris, Vol. V, Tituli Lydiae, fasc. 2: AJPh 111 (1990)279-281.

Fasti Broughtoniani

29

1 9 9 1 -1 9 9 2

Research, Publications “Candidates Defeated in Roman Elections: Some Ancient Roman ‘Also-Rans,’”

Transactions o f the American Philosophical Society 81.4 (Philadelphia 1991). v + 64 pp. 1 9 9 2 -1 9 9 3

Research, Publications Review of E. Gabba, Dionysius and the History o f Archaic Rome, in CJ 88 (1993) 305-308. Article: Classical Sources, in The Archaeology o f Anatolia: An Encyclopedia, ed. G. K. Sams (in preparation, under contract with Garland Publishing Inc.). Index of Career Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton

Education: B.A., Victoria College, University of Toronto, 1921; M.A., Univer­ sity of Toronto, 1922; graduate courses at the University of Chicago, Spring 1922, Spring 1923, Summer 1925; Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, 1928. Teaching Positions: Instructor in Greek, Amherst College, 1926-1927; Associ­ ate in Latin, Bryn Mawr College, 1928-1930; Associate Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College, 1930-1937; Visiting Professor of Latin, Johns Hopkins University, 1938-1940; Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College, 1937-1965; Paddison Profes­ sor of Classics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1965-1970. Principal Professional Service: Editor, Transactions and Monographs, APA, 1941-1943; Member, Board of Directors, APA, 1945-1948; President, APA, 1954; Secretary of the Faculty, Bryn Mawr College, 1954-1964; Chairman, Nominating Committee, APA, 1958-1959; Professor in Charge of the Classical School, Ameri­ can Academy in Rome, 1959-1961; Vice-president, FIEC, 1959-1968; Chairman, Program Committee, Fourth International Congress of Classical Studies, 1964; Di­ rector, American office of L ’Année Philologique, 1965-1968; member of the edito­ rial boards of Historia (1950-1993) and the American Historical Review. Grants and Honors: Guggenheim Fellow, 1945-1946 and 1959-1960; Fulbright Fellow in Italy, 1951-1952; Award of Merit of the American Philological Associa­ tion, 1953; Honorary Vice-President, American Institute of Archaeology, 1953-1958; Lindback Award for Excellence in Teaching, Bryn Mawr College, 1964; Honorary Degree, Doctor of Laws, Johns Hopkins University, 1969; Honorary Degree, Doc­ tor of Laws, University of Toronto, 1971; Honorary Degree, Doctor of Laws, Uni­ versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1974. Books: The Romanization o f Africa Proconsularis (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1929); Roman Asia Minor (The Johns Hopkins Press, 1938); The Magistrates o f the

30

George W. Houston

Roman Republic, in three volumes (The American Philological Association, 1951, 1952, and 1986); editor, Theodor Mommsen, The Provinces o f the Roman Empire: The European Provinces (University of Chicago, 1968) Principal Memberships: American Philological Association; American Historical Association; American Institute of Archaeology; Society for the Promotion of Hel­ lenic Studies; Linguistic Society of America; American Philosophical Society (from 1955); Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (elected 1962); Soci­ ety for the Promotion of Roman Studies (elected an Honorary Member in 1968); Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy (elected 1969); Corresponding mem­ ber of the German Archaeological Institute (elected 1970).

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

WORKING ON THE M AG ISTRATES: An Excerpt from T. R. S. Broughton’s Autobiography* Some years earlier, in the early 1930’s, it had occurred to me that while we had at our disposal an excellent prosopography, conveniently arranged, of the governing and administrative classes of Rome during the Empire, beginning with Octavian’s victory at Actium in 31 B.C., there existed no such aid to historical research in the Roman Republic. I mentioned it once to Tenney Frank, and his answer with a side­ long glance from his chair at his desk, was: “If you get ideas like that in your head, you had better find a rich and established State University Press.” In those busy days I let the matter rest, but as work on the Economic Survey drew to a close, and threats of war made provincial studies a more uncertain gamble [...], I took up the matter again. A complete prosopography of the Roman Republic, even with the splendid and necessary help of Miinzer’s articles in Pauly-Wissowa, seemed a task for a com­ mission rather than a single person. Conversations with Lily Ross Taylor confirmed that a work on the magistrates and the holders of closely related positions such as the priesthoods would deal with the most useful aspects. What was wanted next was a test of the usefulness of such a collection in the analysis of historical problems. After some study I suggested to one of our graduate students [at Bryn Mawr College], Marcia L. Patterson, that she might make an annual list of magistrates, officers and priests who served during the period of the Hannibalic War, and use her work in a discussion of the validity of the views held by Münzer, Schur, Scullard and others regarding the influence of family relationships and political cliques on elections and appointments in that time of special danger. She began working on this in 1939 and her dissertation in which she cited evidence and gave reasons for modifying previ­ ous views was accepted in 1941. I had in the meantime begun to collect the materi­ als on the period of eastern expansion, and had by then become fully convinced of the value of the work. Miss Patterson’s collection was made a part of it and her analy­ sis became a substantial article in the Transactions of the A[merican] Philological] Association] [73 (1942) 319-340]. The year 1941 saw me at last free enough from other demands to work steadily on the project. It was desirable early in my work to secure approval of the project, and to get advice on the scope and form of presentation. Professor [W. A.] Oldfather of the University of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on Aids to Research, approved of it heartily, and took a lively interest in its progress. Many details in the form of the *

Pages and passages not pertaining directly to M R R have been excised; this is indicated by square brackets [...]; additions and explanations are also placed in square brackets. For information on Broughton’s A u to b io g r a p h y , see George W. Houston, “Fasti Broughtoniani,” elsewhere in this volume. J. Linderski, ed.. Imperium Sine Fine T. Robert S. Broughton and the Roman Republic Historia Einzelschrift, n, 105 ©1996 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

32

Working on the M a g is tr a te s

annual lists, and the details of the ancient references, are due to his advice. Further­ more, when I hesitated a little at first about including the magistrates of the Early Republic, mainly because details about them seemed too unreliable and contributions to problems seemed so difficult to make, he confirmed the desirability and useful­ ness of giving as complete a record as possible from the expulsion of the Kings to Octavian’s victory at Actium. Sample pages were made up in printed form and sub­ jected to close examination. A printer’s suggestion that headings should be set in bold face at the center of the line proved to be a great aid to clear presentation. I could not realize then that it would take eleven years and two stout volumes to com­ plete the task. [...]. From 1941 on I had been pushing ahead with the text of my MRR as best I could. By the summer of 1945 a large part of Volume I had been written, and the sabbatical year with a Guggenheim Fellowship, which I spent in isolation with my books and papers, enabled me to carry the text of Volume II from 99 B.C. to the death of Julius Caesar in 44. There was still a great deal to do on both volumes when I returned to teaching in the fall of 1946, and in addition the publication in 1947 of Attilio Degrassi’s great edition of the Consular and Triumphal Fasti meant that I had to review the whole text of both volumes giving the references to his work and making any necessary changes. I decided not to risk submitting the first volume for publication until I could be sure that the second was near enough to completion, both the main text and the Index of Careers, to be finished quickly. I submitted it in the autumn of 1950, hop­ ing to finish Volume II early in 1951, and so be able to use the time of my Fulbright Research Grant in Italy in 1951-1952 on another subject, but classes and work on dissertations at Bryn Mawr delayed me, and I had to finish the section from 44 to 31 B.C. and the Index of Careers at the American Academy in Rome. The delay was not without compensation, for at the Triennial Classical meeting in Cambridge in 1951,1 met Professor H. H. Scullard, and he was able to see that I could use much of the proof of [E. A.] Sydenham’s forthcoming volume on The Coinage o f the Roman Republic in the, Appendix in which I attempted to list all the known moneyers during the Republic with the dates various authorities from Mommsen on had suggested. Late in the winter of 19521 sent the complete typescript of Volume II by Parcel Post to Professor Harold Chemiss, Chairman of the APA Monograph Committee, but U.S. customs held it and sent it to Perth Amboy, N.J., whence heTmaUy rescued it at considerable expenditure of tim e and effort. Once the typescript was in the editorial hands of Professor [P.] De Lacy things happened with embarrassing speed. Our whole family were on the point of leaving the American Academy for the Palio at Siena and travel northward in France, England and home, when a parcel of printer’s proof was carried out to the loaded automobile. There was nothing to do but accept it, and proceed with the proofreading as best I could, some in Siena and some in Venice, where I arose for several morning at five o’clock to read proofs before sightseeing with the family. I rescued another batch from the General Post Office in Paris, and so it went on until I could read the final sections at home in September. The work was done in time to keep the date of publication in 1952. I was surprised and glad­ dened by the warm reception the work received from all quarters, a confirmation of

Working on the M a g is tr a te s

33

the usefulness I had hoped and thought it would have. Two reviews that I cherish are those by [Hermann] Strasburger in Gnomon [28 (1956) 52-57] and by Sir Ronald Syme in CP [50 (1955) 127-138], the latter admirable in its command of additional material, and its balance of praise and criticism. The work received the Goodwin Award from the APA in 1953.

BROUGHTON REMEMBERED by

George W. Houston When we remember Bob Broughton, one of the first things we recall is his own astonishing memory. Anyone who knew him will have an anecdote or two about Bob’s ability to recall people, places, and events. As an example of the genre, useful per­ haps for those who did not know him, I will relate the best one I know from personal experience. Seven or eight years ago, Bob and I were walking across campus to­ ward Franklin Street to catch the bus. It was early May, and our conversation was about graduation ceremonies we had been to. Bob recalled that when he was an undergraduate at Toronto it was the custom for one of the graduating seniors each year to give an address to all the undergraduates of the University. As we walked along, Bob proceeded then to recall the names of three of the four seniors who had spoken during his years at Toronto, as well as the subjects of all four of the talks he had heard. Then he remembered that during his junior year the talk had been in verse, and so, having heard this address once, some sixty-five years earlier, he then quoted several lines, including one section of three or four verses. I, of course, cannot re­ member the details that Bob told me, but perhaps I can claim that I was too aston­ ished to take it all in. There is, though, another example of his memory that classical scholars will want to know about. In the late 1980’s, Bob decided to leave an account of his profes­ sional life, and so he typed out, largely from memory and taking a year or so to do it, an Autobiography of 233 pages. Annie Leigh Broughton has very generously allowed Jerzy Linderski and me to have copies of this, and it is the source of much of the information that I will pass along in this paper. Bob starts at the beginning, as you would expect him to. The Autobiography begins with the year, day, and hour he was bom: Saturday, February 17,1900, at about six o’clock in the evening. He provides details on his family, ancestors, and place of birth, but does not claim to remember the event itself. There follow fascinating pages about growing up as a farmboy, the son of a man* whose formal education stopped at the age of seven and of arem arkable woman who raised a family in what were very severe, almost pioneer, condi­ tions. Bob gives the names of his elementary school teachers and assesses their teach­ ing abilities. His third-grade teacher, for example, was “...Alexander Ferguson. He was excellent, clear, ready, friendly, yet insistent on a full measure of accurate work, firmly memorized.” But Bob’s account of his childhood is brief, and most of the Autobiography deals with his professional life and career. It is that career that I will discuss here.

J Linderski, ed. Impenum Sine Fine T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic Histona Emzelschnft, n 105 ©1996 Franz Steiner Verlag. Stuttgart, Germany

36

George W. Houston

Bob Broughton as Scholar Broughton’s career can be outlined in a deceptively brief manner. He was an undergraduate at Toronto from 1917 to 1921, took graduate courses at both Toronto and Chicago, and received an MA from Toronto in 1922. After working on the fam­ ily farm for two years and almost becoming a high school teacher, he entered the PhD program at Johns Hopkins in 1925, finishing his dissertation in 1928. That same year, in the fall of 1928, he began teaching at Bryn Mawr, and he was promoted to Asso­ ciate Professor two years later and to Professor in 1937. Despite inquiries from Duke, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, and other schools, Broughton remained at Bryn Mawr until the summer of 1965, when he and Annie Leigh moved here to Chapel Hill, where he was Paddison Professor of Classics until 1971. Such an outline, of course, scarcely does justice to his distinguished career, nor does it convey the energy, the breadth of interests, or the talents of the man. This is not the place to look at his entire career in detail,1 and instead we will visit three specific years in Broughton’s life and look at each of them, as representatives of his whole career. I will begin with 1928. Calvin Coolidge was president, and the crashof the stock market was still a year away. Broughton had begun serious work on his dissertation, The Romanization o f Africa Proconsularis, in the summer of 1926. During the aca­ demic year 1926-27 he had taught full-time as an instructor at Amherst College and so had not been able to make much progress on his dissertation. But in the fall and early winter of 1927, with help and encouragement from Tenney Frank, Broughton went abroad for the first time, to see Britain, France, Italy, and north Africa. We will return to this remarkable trip later. Here I want to point out that on New Year’s Day of 1928, Broughton was in Rome, having just returned from six weeks in Algeria and Tunisia. He had completed the basic research for his dissertation and begun writing. He sailed back to the States in January of 1928 and began work on writing the text in earnest. With the completion of his degree in sight, he interviewed for a job at Bryn Mawr in February, was offered the position, and accepted it. He completed the dis­ sertation in time to submit it in May, took his Latin translation exams, defended the dissertation before the whole Humanities faculty, got his degree, and then went back to Ontario to help his brother on the farm, all between January and June of 1928. In those days, however, Johns Hopkins required that you publish your dissertation within one year, so in July Broughton headed back to Baltimore to revise his text, and de­ spite teaching three undergraduate courses and a graduate seminar during his first semester at Bryn Mawr, he was able to submit a completely revised version of his dissertation by November. Proofs came back in January of 1929, and the book ap­ peared that very spring, some fifteen months after Broughton had sailed back from Rome and settled down to writing the first draft. The pace is breathtaking. We move down ten years, to 1939. The Great Depression was over, but war was threatening. Tenney Frank, Broughton’s dissertation advisor, mentor, and friend, died 1

For such details, see the F a s ti

B ro u g h to n ia n i,

elsewhere in this volume.

Broughton Remembered

37

in April of this year, and to help Hopkins out Broughton did both all of his teaching at Bryn Mawr and a once-a-week graduate seminar at Hopkins. Frank’s death also left a good deal of work on the Economic Survey of Ancient Rome incomplete, in particular Frank’s own volume on Rome and Italy of the Empire. A team organized by Lily Ross Taylor completed that volume and then put together an Index volume for the whole work in a little over six months. The Index came to 140 pages, and the team included Broughton, who did several of the more complex entries, including “Taxes” and “Trade.” During those months of indexing and proofreading, he was also working closely with Elsa Rose Graser as she translated Domitian’s Edict on Maximum Prices, and he helped see both Volumes Five and Six of the Economic Survey through the printing process before the end of 1940. But there is more. President Park of Bryn Mawr had announced her retirement, and Broughton was asked first to serve on and later to chair the committee to select her successor, also in 1940. Moreover, he had since the early 193Q’s been thinking how useful it would be to have a prosopography of the Roman Republic, a work which might in some sense parallel the existing Prosopography o f the Roman Empire. In 1939, as he began to see work on the Economic Survey coming to an end, he set a student, Marcia Patterson, to work on the magistrates of the time of the Second Punic War, as a test case to see how useful such a study might be. Thus, in 1940, he was directing this dissertation, and in the meantime talking to Lily Ross Taylor and William A. Oldfather about what to include or exclude. By 1941, he had begun work full time on what would become, in 1950 and 1952, the two volumes of The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. So 1940 was not a restful year. We move forward quickly again, this time a quarter of a century, to 1964-65. At the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, Robert Getty had died suddenly in the fall of 1963, and at the APA meetings in December of that year the chairman of the Department of Classics, Albert Suskin, talked to Broughton and asked him to consider leaving Bryn Mawr and joining the Classics faculty in Chapel Hill. Berthe Marti and Joe Sloane, who had already moved to North Carolina from Bryn Mawr, urged Broughton to take the offer seriously, and after a visit to the Chapel Hill cam­ pus he agreed to come in the fall of 1965. In the meantime, however, he was Chair­ man of the Program Committee for the International Congress of Classical Studies, which met in Philadelphia in early September of 1964, and thus he had to deal with all the problems that running a major congress entails, from cancellations to lastminute requests to difficult personalities. But the Congress was a great success, and with those responsibilities behind him, Broughton moved to Chapel Hill the next year, in 1965, and that is when I first met him. Bob Broughton as Teacher The first class I remember from that fall was the inaugural class in a year-long seminar on Cicero’s letters. We met in the new epigraphy room, which had been organized at Bob’s request. Bob appeared and spread out his maps, texts, and books, the texts all filled with book-marks at the passages he wanted to refer to. He had, as

38

George W. Houston

always, a few small slips of paper which served as his notes. He consulted the notes, looked around at us happily, and asked us what we might expect to find on Cicero’s sepulchral inscription. I, for one, had no idea, since I did not know much about Cicero’s career and had only a vague idea of what the Romans put on sepulchral inscriptions. Nor were my classmates much help. But by the end of that first class, with careful and characteristically patient questioning and prompting from Bob, we had worked out the basics and were beginning to see the outlines of the work that lay ahead of us. Bob did not use a syllabus, at least not in the courses I had with him. Each week he would write out in longhand the assignment for the next week, and from time to time a sheet of paper with report topics or term paper topics would appear. On rare occasions these were typed; more often, they were written out in black ink, with a fine-point pen. Bob, of course, had his whole syllabus, the shape of the course, in his head, and we followed a clear and direct line toward certain goals, but those goals, and our path to them, were revealed only gradually. I still remember figuring out, along about Thanksgiving in one of the courses I had with him, “Oh, so that’s where we’re headed,” and it was a great delight to figure this out for myself and come to realize, rather suddenly, how the year was shaped in Bob’s mind. In my courses now, I tend to use a syllabus as a convenience, but Bob’s method allowed a flexibility, a chance to take into account the evolving interests of each group of students, that no syllabus can accommodate. As a teacher, Bob was infinitely patient. It sometimes seemed that no amount of mere ignorance could provoke him, but on the other hand he did expect you to treat your evidence with care, respect, and even love. The unpardonable sin was to mis­ use evidence, either by citing it incorrectly or, worst of all, by trying to wrench the evidence around to support a preconceived notion or some position in which you did not really believe. The one time I saw him really annoyed by a published piece of work, it had to do with an article in which the author, as Bob pointed out, did not really believe the case he was arguing. This, to Bob, was betrayal of one’s evidence and, I gathered, of the Romans themselves. Although he was always responsible, at both Bryn Mawr and in Chapel Hill, for the historians and Cicero, Bob knew and loved other authors, and he was always ready to experiment. In his very last graduate course, in 1970, he offered Caesar’s Gallic and Civil Wars, which he had, surprisingly, never done before as a seminar topic; but it is characteristic of him that, at the age of 70, he was delighted to develop a new course. And in 1974, when the Department needed to have him teach an undergraduate course after Douglas Young’s death, Bob taught Vergil. He was delighted to finish his teaching career with an author he had taught as one of his very first courses half a century earlier, in 1920, when he was a teaching fellow at Victoria College, Toronto. Broughton and the Provinces I need, though, to leave Broughton’s teaching and return to his research and schol­ arly interests. Other speakers and papers have shown, and will for decades continue to show, the profound influence that MRR— The Magistrates of the Roman Repub-

Broughton Remembered

39

lie— has had on the study of Roman history. There is no need to expand on that. Instead, I want to talk about the other abiding interest of Broughton’s, namely the Roman provinces. Throughout his life, Broughton always wanted to know what the various parts of the Roman Empire looked like, where things were, and what impact the coming of the Romans had. This lifelong interest manifested itself in both his travels and his publications, and it is to those that I now turn. Travels first. If you had lunch with Bob Broughton more than two or three times, you were sure to hear some of his memories of his first trip abroad, in 1927. Former colleagues and students at both Bryn Mawr and Chapel Hill, and many of his close friends, will have heard about his progress southward that year, but many classicists will never have heard the story. It is worth recalling. Broughton sailed to Glasgow, and there bought a bicycle for the trip to Rome. He cycled south through Scotland and England, with stops to see Roman ruins, ca­ thedrals, the village his Broughton grandparents had come from, and places impor­ tant in English literature. He used his memory of Tennyson to try to figure out the odd accents of the local farmers. In Oxford, looking at the Greek vases in the Ashmolean, he posed a question to two men who were studying there, and found out later he had consulted Bernard Ashmole and John Beazley. And so he made his way to London, and from there, after some six weeks in Britain, to France. Having arrived on the continent, he visited the grave of a cousin who had been killed in World War I, and lingered for some time in Paris, where he haunted the museums and took in the opera. Then it was time to move on, and Bob cycled on south, to Chartres, through Lyon, to Provence and Marseilles and from there along the coast road to Italy. An accident near Fréjus left his bicycle dented and slightly askew but still usable, and he ended his stay in France after thirty days, during which he spent all of sixty-five dollars. Then it was on down the west coast of Italy, along the spectacular twisting coast road east of Genoa and past Rapallo, a road Bob described to me so vividly in 1965 that my wife and I, two years later, went far out of our way to drive along it during our own first trip into Italy. On September 20 he entered Rome, pedalling past Saint Peter’s and up the Gianicolo to the American Academy. For the next eight weeks, he stayed in Rome, following the series of trips, then led by A. W. Van Buren, to sites in and around the city. Then it was off again with three others to north Africa, where Broughton explored the sites he intended to treat in his dissertation, recalling Sallust and Apuleius, and taking in cities, olive groves, quarries, phosphate mines, and museums. On one oc­ casion he narrowly averted disaster when a pack of dogs surrounded him. From Africa, Broughton went on to Sicily, landing in Palermo and then travelling around the island counter-clockwise. He returned to Rome by the beginning of the year, made his way back to France, and sailed home from Cherbourg. When he reached Balti­ more, he had less than five dollars left. Many other trips followed. It is instructive to see how much of the Roman Empire Broughton visited at some point in his life. Please refer to the map at the end of this paper. As you will see, Broughton eventually got to very nearly every province of the Roman Empire, except for the Mauretanias, some of the Danube provinces, and

40

George W. Houston

Arabia. There are many provinces which he visited two or more times. In the sum­ mer of 1933, another trip that Broughton loved to recall took him to Asia Minor, a sturdy volume of Strabo in hand, to look at the regions that he was to treat in Frank’s Economic Survey. He travelled, as is indicated on the map, through much of central and western Turkey, by train, truck, bus, horse-drawn carnage, mule cart, and his own two feet. He lost thirty pounds. Many other trips followed, in the 1950’s to Crete, and then to Spain, and in 1960 to what was then Yugoslavia, and back to Africa, Syria, and Cyprus. He even got to Dacia, in 1972. All of these travels were inspired in large measure by Broughton’s deep interest in the physical nature of the Romans’ world, and that same interest shows up in a series of publications spanning more than fifty years. His dissertation, in 1928, was on Africa Proconsularis and the impact of the Roman occupation there. His second book, in 1938, dealt with Asia Minor. In 1965 he began work on a selection from and introduction to Theodor Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire. In the course of this work, Bob checked all of the topographical references in earlier trans­ lations of Mommsen’s work, and found that many of them needed correcting. There were, besides, a whole series of papers and articles on aspects of the provinces, es------peeially late in his career. As examples, I may cite a paper on -Tac-itus and the prov­ inces” which he gave to the Roman Society in London in 1961 ; a study of municipal development in Roman Spain, given in Mexico City in 1963; a paper at the 1970 International Congress of Historical Sciences in Moscow, on “Continuity and Con­ flict in the Ancient Near East;” and finally a study of the production of olive oil in Baetica, which appeared in 1979. I might also add that, out of all the dissertations Broughton directed, one of his favorites was Donald Wade’s on Dacia, and he was particularly fond of the appendix, in which Wade gave the modem Romanian place names of ancient Roman sites. Broughton would have loved to organize and edit a new topographical dictionary of the ancient world, and even talked about that possi­ bility, but by the time he was free enough of other responsibilities he felt that he should not undertake any such major project. From the very start, back in 1927, Broughton’s perception had always been that, despite the cultural overlay of Roman civilization and its very real importance, there were fundamental aspects of the local cultures that were not changed in any signifi­ cant way by the arrival of the Romans. He was ahead of his time in perceiving this, and had he not published MRR, and had there been as much interest in the provinces during those decades as there is now, this might well be reckoned as Broughton’s great contribution to our understanding of the Roman world, and a contribution of fundamental importance. Quite apart from Bob Broughton’s scholarship, it is good to remember the man and his love for his subject. He is the only man I know who read all— all— of Silius Italicus as summertime reading. Two or three years before his death, at the age of 90, he was working back through Cicero’s Philippics with great interest, and consid­ ering a commentary on one or more of them. He loved Roman poetry. In his eight­ ies, he could still sing the song of the Menaechmi, delighting in the humor and var­ ied rhythms of Plautus. He was willing, for the sake of classical studies, to don one of Emeline Richardson’s costumes for a Roman fashion show. He loved it when

Broughton Remembered

41

students came to his office to talk with him about problems they were working on, or just anything about the ancient world. The very last time I talked with him, he tried to teach me something new about a Republican magistrate, and I expect the same is true of many who knew him. It is splendid to have this opportunity to remember this great and gentle man.

University o f North Carolina at Chapel Hill

to

-P^

George W. Houston

T. R. S. BROUGHTON AND FRIEDRICH MUNZER* by

Ronald T. Ridley Students of the history of the Roman Republic must now make a very special effort to understand what the world was like before 1952, before the Magistrates of the Roman Republic, more than forty years ago. If that world is difficult to imagine, it would be even more difficult to attempt to imagine the task which faced Broughton as he set about compiling that massive work. This essay investigates his relation­ ship with the greatest authority on the prosopography of the Republic, who had died just ten years before the appearance of the Magistrates. Broughton, it must be remembered, had little to guide him. Mommsen’s Berlin school concentrated on imperial prosopography, the PIR edited by Elimar Klebs and Hermann Dessau (three volumes), 1897-1898. Who, then, was the father of Repub­ lican prosopography? The monumental work of Wilhelm Drumann, Geschichte Roms (six volumes), 1834—1844, must always hold an honourable place. It was path-find­ ing, the result of enormous erudition and labour, but it was selective. It concentrated on the last century of the Republic, with much of each volume devoted to one of the leading figures, such as Pompey, Cicero, Caesar, Antony. It was Pauly-Wissowa’s encyclopaedia, which began appearing in 1894, which was finally to provide bio­ graphical articles on all Republican figures. Those for names beginning with A or B were written by Klebs (1852-1918), already mentioned, a student of Mommsen, of course, and professor at Marburg from 1905. His contributions gathered the basic material, but “tend to be incomplete”, as Broughton himself described them (l.vii). The articles from C onwards were entrusted to Friedrich Mtinzer (1868-1942). He continued to work on them until his confinement in Theresienstadt in the year of his death. His articles were still being published long after his death: the last major set is the Publicii in Volume 23,1959. These are regarded rightly, as they will surely be for a long time to come, as the standard prosopographical references. For an almost complete picture of the Republic, however, one must turn to Miinzer’s masterwork, the Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien, 1920. The book is central to Miinzer’s oeuvre in more ways than one. It comes almost in the middle of his RE work. More importantly, it is the work of synthesis, which both looks back on all that had already appeared there, embodying many corrections, and prefigures much that was to come. *

This paper was delivered at a remarkable conference in memory and in honour of T. R. S. Broughton at Chapel Hill in November 1994. It was an unforgettable privilege to be asked to participate. I was the only one of the five speakers on that occasion who had not known Broughton personally, a loss which I feel very deeply. My contribution is therefore offered, as it were, on behalf of the tens of thousands of students all over the world who have had the M R R as a v a d e m ecurn from the moment they began their serious study of the Roman Republic. J Lxnderski, ed Impenum Sine Fine T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic Histona Emzelschnft, n 105 ©1996 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

44

Ronald T. Ridley

Did Broughton know of this work? The question is, of course, rhetorical. A fundamental rule for the historian, however, is: assume nothing. In this case we do not have to assume anything. The APF (to use Broughton’s abbreviation) was singled out by him in his introduction, along with Syme’s Roman Revolution, as a “work of the greatest importance”. What use did Broughton make of it? There is no doubt that he was intimately acquainted with it, and found it indispensable. A striking instance is the way in which every time he came up against the Postumii Albini in the early second century he referred to the APF. That makes in all sixteen references. Well might Broughton do so: the appearances of the three brothers and a cousin, contemporaries of course, is enough to make any head spin. One senses here Broughton’s own fear of getting them muddled, and his gratitude for Miinzer’s guidance; the RE volume on the Postumii was not to appear until two years later. There are a number of other such references to APF for individuals: they number fourteen in all.1 There are, as well, a multitude of points of detail for which Broughton cited the book. The following investigation is designed to confront a problem rather unusual for classical historians, but which modem counterparts face continuously. For the clas­ sical historian, the “primary sources” end with late antiquity, at least a millennium ago. The idea that the chance had narrowly been missed to interview one of them would be an absurdity, yet that is what happens in modern history every day. An outstanding example is offered by one of the great historical works of our century, George Macaulay Trevelyn’s Garibaldi trilogy, (Garibaldi ’s Defense o f the Repub­ lic, 1907; Garibaldi and the Thousand, 1909; and Garibaldi and the Making o f Italy, 1911), where he was just in time to interview the survivors of the Garibaldini, the men who had fought with the hero for the unification of Italy. We are reminded of one of the most basic truths in history: that when certain witnesses or participants have gone, the enquiry is entirely different. Relentless detective work on the docu­ ments and remaining clues is the only resort. This investigation attempts to enter into Broughton’s mind as he tried to solve endless puzzles, to see the alternatives with which he was faced, and what he did with them. The matters to be discussed here are hardly pedantic details. They relate to the leading members of the Roman oligarchy, the highest magistrates of the state, and the most fundamental rules of political life in Rome. The cases are drawn from a work which Broughton himself singled out as fundamental. Its author was the same as the author of the biographical dictionary, the RE, which formed the backbone of the MRR.

1

Broughton made general references to APF for the following figures: Poetelius cos. 360 (M R R 1.120), Plautius Venox cos. 330 (1.144— but needed more for Plautius Decianus, cos. 329!), Papirius Maso cos. 231 (1.226), Quinctius Crispinus cos. 208 (1.290), Quinctius Crispinus pr. 186 (1.371,380), Sp. Postumius cos. 186 (1.361,371,377,390), A. Postumius cos. 180 (1.372, 403, 404, 418), Sp. Postumius cos. 174 (1.379, 403, 413), L. Postumius cos. 173 (1.388, 392, 395,408,429), M. Popillius Laenas cos. 173 (1.400,405,412), L. Postumius cos. 154 (1.432), Sp. Postumius cos. 148 (1.461), L. Aurelius Cotta cos. 144 (1.470), L. Cassius Longinus cos. 127 (1.537).

T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich Münzer

45

Case Studies 1. Who was the tribune Genucius whose maltreatment by the Faliscans led to war? For Münzer, he was consular tribune 399 and 396 (APF 12, correcting RE 7 [1912] 1207). MRR 1.219: Broughton identifies him as tribune of the plebs, 241, still follow­ ing RE. 2. Who were the two Licinii who were among the first plebeians admitted to the consulship after 366? In the Fasti Capitolini the consul of 364 is sumamed Calvus, the consul of 361 is Stolo; Livy, following Macer, has them the other way around. Stolo is the tribune who led the plebeian struggle in the decade 375-367; the Calvi are known among the consular tribunes from 400, and one was the first plebeian magister equitum in 368. Münzer shows that the first plebeian consuls were allied to moderate patricians like the Aemilii and Servilii, but that the compromise began to break down in 361. The Fasti were therefore correct: the first Licinius to be con­ sul was Calvus, from a family already admitted to high office; Stolo, the more radi­ cal, was admitted only in 361 (APF 15f). In all of this it is to be noted that Münzer began by trying to see if the tradition makes sense; he found in one of his most bril­ liant pieces of detective work that it does. MRR 1.116, 118: Broughton simply labels each cos. “Stolo or Calvus”. 3. Was Manlius Imperiosus consul in 359 and 357 the same man? The two are not expressly identified in any source: Livy gives no surname in either year; Diodoros and the Fasti give it only under 359; no source indicates iteration (APF 25, and so RE 14 [1930] 1175). This is an important example of Münzer’s rule that one should not without good reason dispute the genealogical identifications of the sources. MRR 1.121: cos. 359, cos. 357? Cf. 122: without question mark, and with the note that although iteration is not indicated, the two men are most likely identical; the index (2.586), is also without question mark. 4 . Was C. Poetelius consul in 360 also tribune of the plebs in 358? Münzer thought so: he was the first consul in the Fulvian-Manlian period (360-356), then as tribune carried a law against bribery (APF 27, but also RE 21 [1951] 1166). MRR 1.122: Broughton accepts Münzer, citing APF. Münzer also proposes Poetelius as one of the first plebeian curule aediles in 364, restoring a damaged text in Festus (APF 28f, and so RE). MRR 1.116: Broughton names only the colleague Popilius. 5. Could Popillius Laenas, four times consul (359-348), also be plebeian aedile 357? Mommsen thought that it was his son. Following Seidel, Münzer points out that there was nothing unusual in early times in holding lower offices after higher ones (APF 29). MRR 1.122: Broughton accepts the identification, citing Seidel. 6. Could two Scipio brothers have been censors together as Velleius suggested (2.8.2)? This must have been in 340. In RE (4 [1901] 1428), Münzer rejected the story as a family fable, but in APF, to the contrary, he defends it as one of many cases of brothers in office together, and certainly not a confusion with another instance in the same family. The item is of the greatest interest; for if correct it is the earliest mention of the bearers of this famous name (APF 38).

46

Ronald T. Ridley

MRR 1.137: According to Broughton the “censorship is doubtful”, following RE. 7. C laudius Caeeus’ colleague as censor in 312 was a Plautius, butwhieh one? Most sources agree on Gaius, consul in 347,341, but for Münzer he was too old. Diodoros gave Lucius Claudius, and is generally disregarded. Münzer suggests that he was in error only on the nomen, and that the censor was therefore L. Plautius, which fits with the consul of 318, who was young and independent (APF 41 f; also RE 21 [ 1951 ] 23). MRR 1.160: Broughton prefers C. Plautius Venox, otherwise unknown. 8. Fabius Cunctator was elected augur in 265. Whom did he succeed? His admis­ sion to the college in his late teens coincided precisely with the death of his grandfa­ ther Gurges (APF 54, and so RE 6 [1909] 1814). MRR 1.202: no suggestion on predecessor by Broughton. 9. Fulvius is recorded as “consul” at Tusculum, the same year as he became con­ sul at Rome (322, Pliny 7.136). Münzer had earlier (RE 7 [1912] 236) been highly dubious about this tradition. Now he calls it “especially valuable and reliable”, il­ lustrating the interchange of Latin and Roman authority (APF 64f). MRR 1.150: Broughton follow Münzer’s earlier view. 10. Who was the Mamilius who was the first plebeian curio maximusl He is accorded no cognomen in his secular offices (aed. 208, pr. 207), but under 209 and 174 as curio he is called Atellus by Livy. He should, Münzer suggests, be the elder son of Mamilius Turrinus, consul 239 (APF 69; so RE 14 [1928] 956). MRR 1.289, 291, 295, 406: no filiation is suggested by Broughton. 11. When were the temples of Venus Erycina and Mens dedicated? InR iJ(6 [1909] 1823) Münzer dated them 216, but in APF (79) corrects this to 215. M RR 1.258; B rou gh ton corrects M ü n zer’s e a r lie r v ie w . -·

—

12. How can one disentangle Livy’s very confused account of the priests in 210? a) Livy suggests that T. Otacilius Crassus was both pontifex and augur. Münzer agrees (APF 79f, arguing at length, in contrast to the blunt statement already in RE 18 [1942] 1865). MRR 1.284: APF is noted, but Broughton prefers Mommsen and Bardt, that Otacilius was only pontifex, because Livy records him only as such at his death (26.23.8). In this case, the text has to be subjected to radical surgery to make Atilius Serranus the augur, which he was in 216 (22.35.2), but his death is not recorded. This argument is, however, fatally flawed, because Bardt admitted that Serranus may have been succeeded between 216 and 210 by Pomponius Matho. Of fundamental im­ portance is the fact that there are other cases of the holding of both these major priest­ hoods by the same man: the plebeian Marcius and the patrician Fabius. b) Livy suggests that Ti. Sempronius Longus was elected both augur and Xvir, but gives contradictory filiation: son of Tiberius in one case, son of Gaius in the other. Münzer makes him son of Tiberius, successor of his father in the college of decemvirs (and so RE 2A.1433). MRR 1.283: Broughton accepted this, but it is made clear only by his citing of RE numbers: the filiation is missing under the augurs, where Livy is right, but given under the decemvirs, correcting Livy, but without note. c) Marcius was rex sacrorum, but he was a plebeian. Münzer is at his most elo­ quent and provocative as he demonstrates the possibility that certain plebeian fami-

T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich Münzer

47

lies were so elevated that they were granted equal status by the patrician establishment. The March claimed descent from the kings, they held a leading place in th t fasti, one of them alone twice held the censorship, and, most important of all, the surname Rex was derived precisely from this priesthood. The parallel is not the often quoted Augurinus with the Genucii and Minucii, but Curio, again taken by the incumbent of a priesthood formerly reserved for the patricians (and so RE 14 [1930] 1545). MRR 1.283-284: Broughton cites the debate (Mommsen and Münzer) but la­ bels Marcius “Pat.”. 13. Q. Ogulnius, tribune of the plebs in 300, consul in 269, opened the pontificate and augurship to the plebeians by his law of 300, and was himself a leading expert in re­ ligious matters. Münzer was able for the first time to construct a portrait of this man. Most significant is the fact that Ogulnius was leader of the embassy to Epidauros in 292 to bring the cult of Asklepios to Rome, following consultation of the Sibylline Books. He must have held a priesthood himself, and the most obvious choice is one of the Xviri; he was probably even head of the college (APF 87, and so RE 17 [1937] 2064). MRR 1.172: Broughton lists no priesthood for Ogulnius. 14. Who was the Sex. Digitius military tribune in 170: a young man at the begin­ ning of his career, and a relative of the pr. 194? For Münzer, they are one and the same. Digitius was a very important man from Paestum, enfranchised and given political support by the Scipios, and sent now, despite the appearance of his rank, as the representative of a very powerful group in the senate to report on the highest matters of foreign policy (APF 93, correcting RE 5 [1905] 544). MRR 1.421 and 2.559-560: Broughton retains the division, following RE. 15. Who were the three commissioners for land distribution in northern Italy in 218? Livy gives three different lists! If we accept that there was only one commission, Lutatius is certain, as is Servilius, who was most famous for his return from captiv­ ity. For the third member, Münzer favors C. Papirius Maso (pr. c. 220), who died in captivity (APF 112). MRR 1.241: Broughton refers only to the much more summary discussion in RE (4 [ 1900] 1487) and accepts P. Papirius Maso, a praenomen, as Münzer had pointed out, not otherwise used by the Papirii, and therefore a completely unknown man. 16. When was Papirius Maso, founder of his line, aedile? Münzer suggests c. 280 (APF 114). MRR 1.184 dates the office before 290, claiming to follow Münzer in RE (18 [1949] 1064) but here no date was in fact given. 17. Who was the Quinctius Flamininus who was the fust flamen and bequeathed the cognomen to his descendants? It was already held by the most famous members of the family, the victor at Kynoskephalai and his brother; it therefore went back at least to their father. Münzer suggests that it was their grandfather and therefore lists him as flamen c. 270, thus adding another vital name to the lacunose lists of priests and in fact the earliest known flamen Dialis (APF 115f, and so Gundel, RE 24 [1963] 4039, who thtts gave the grandfather a-whole entry). ----MRR: Broughton has no trace of this Flamininus. 18. Could T. Quinctius Crispinus, legate to Marcellus in Sicily in 212, in the same

48

Ronald T. Ridley

year have fought a famous duel in Campania? Münzer thinks it possible (APF 16). MRR 1.272: Broughton considers that this would have necessitated his being in two places at once. 1 9 . Who was the C. Flamininus augur by 213? Münzer rejects Bardt’s attempts to find another of the same name apart from the brother of the famous Titus. It was perfectly possible for very young men to be elected priests (APF 118f). MRR 1.267: Broughton quotes and accepts Münzer (and Gundel RE 24 [1963] 1040 cites MRR). 2 0 . Who was the aedile L. Veturius in 210? He was a patrician, but the aediles should have been plebeian this year, as Mommsen pointed out. Münzer simply moves him back to 211, as Willems had already done, leaving a gap in 210. Only three of the six aediles 212-210 are known, and other errors caifbecletected, such äs the notorious misdating of Africanus’ office from 213 to 212 (APF 126f and so Gundel RE 8A [1958] 1896). MRR 1.284: Broughton cites Münzer but retains Livy’s pair for 210 and follows Seidel, taking this Veturius to be a plebeian. 2 1 . Was the Veturius Gracchus Sempronianus elected augur in 174 patrician or ple­ beian? He was, if the name is correct, adopted by the patrician Veturii, yet replaced a plebeian Gracchus in the same college. There is also a parallel: Roman history may have been rather different had not the patrician Caesar replaced the plebeian Cotta in the college of pontiffs in 74, and as in the case of 174, the priest who died and his successor were related. Münzer takes Veturius to be patrician (APF 130; Münzer is “ausführlich”, states Gundel RE 8A [1958] 1898). MRR 1.407: Veturius was plebeian for Broughton because Geer proved in 1939 that all patrician places were already occupied. This is an astute observation which solves one problem, only to leave another: how could anyone adopted by a patrician be a plebeian? Geer’s solution was to change the name: Gracchus Veturianus! Could even Livy have confused matters so completely? 2 2 . Which Servilius at the end of the third century transferred to the plebs? This was once a famous problem. According to Mommsen, it was certainly not the father captured by the Boii. Münzer shows with devastating logic that his sons (coss. 203, 202) were, to the contrary, both very early in their careers plebeians. It was indeed the father who had made the change (APF 137f). MRR 1.240: Broughton lists the father, Illvir in 218, as plebeian, but without any note! 2 3 . Who was the Servilius tribune of the plebs in 212? He bears no surname in the Fasti Capitolini, but Livy identifies him as a Casca. He was intended to protect the corrupt publican Postumius, but lost courage. Such a plebeian branch of the Servilii is suspicious at this time and is not known until Caesar’s time. Münzer suggests that this was Servilius Geminus, consul 203, known to have been tribune shortly before 209 and called Casca to disguise his appalling behaviour. To complete the plot, Geminus is even taken out of Rome as legate, but the lie is revealed by his going to Tarentum when he was sent to Etruria (APF 140f; also RE 2A [1921] 1787, 1792). M ünzer’s solution is beautifully economical and perfectly fits the unscrupulous Servilii.

T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich Münzer

49

MRR 1.27 If quotes Münzer but Broughton is unwilling to commit himself; he lists Casca as tribune 212 and Geminus in 211. 24. Why was the dictator Sulpicius appointed in 203? According to the Fasti Capitolini it was to hold the elections, but Livy has also another version, that he was appointed to control the insubordinate consul Caepio and that the other consul Servilius Geminus held the elections. Münzer declares roundly that only the former version was authentic, following Bändel {APF 143f, and so RE 4A. [1931] 805). MRR 1.315: Broughton agreed, citing Münzer (both RE and APF). 25. Could the dictator Servilius Geminus in 202 stay in office beyond the term of the consul who had appointed him? He held the Cerealia, on 19 April, but the ap­ pointing consul had laid down power on the Ides of March. Münzer discusses Mommsen’s claim that Livy was confused here. “On the contrary, the account seems to me to be perfectly in order and trustworthy”. The point was that the unscrupulous Servilius retained power beyond the legal limit (APF 145, and so RE 2A [1923] 1793). MRR 1.318: Broughton quotes RE, but prefers with Mommsen to emend Livy. The APF discussion is much more important. 26. When did M. Pinarius Rusca propose an unsuccessful lex annalisl It was be­ fore Villius’ bill of 180; he was pr. 181 and must have been a tribune of the plebs therefore in the 180s (APF 149; also in RE 20 [1950] 1404). MRR 2.601: pr. 161 (a misprint), no sign of tribunate; 2.472: not under magis­ trates of uncertain date. 27. How can one sort out the late third century Pomponii, all called M. of M ’? cos. 233 (M’), 231 (M) pontifex d. 211 (M) Xvir and augur, d. 204 (M). Münzer suggests that the pontifex was the consul of 231, but gives no reason, although he is “unhesitating” (APF 16If). MRR 1.277 under 211: Broughton quotes only Bardt: it is impossible to iden­ tify the pontifex; cf. 1.309 under 204: perhaps the augur and decemvir was cos. 231, but with a question mark; cf. 2.604 (index): the augur and decemvir are split between the consul of 231 and the praetor of 217-216; cf. 1.246, the main discussion of the Pomponii: no mention of priesthoods. Gundel (RE 21.2330) states that no proof is possible. 28. When did Aemilius Lepidus cos. 232 hold his second consulship (Livy .23.30.15)? He was thought to be suffect in the gap in Livy and the Fasti Capitolini 221-219 but Münzer objects that all patrician consuls of these years survived. He therefore thought that Livy was mistaken (APF 168). MRR 1.225: Broughton describes him as “suffect 222-218?”, following Klebs RE 1.552. The main discussion will be found, in fact, some ten pages later where Broughton acknowledges the crucial argument. (We may note that Weissenborn omitted the bis in his classic edition of Livy, but it was retained by Conway and Walters). 29. What was the date of the famous episode of the vindication of the chief Vestal Aemilia after the exinction of the sacred fire? There are only two dated cases of the extinction: 206 and 178. The case of Aemilia was much celebrated in her family. In

50

Ronald T. Ridley

a bravura performance, Münzer suggests that if the Vestal who had let the fire go out in 206 was replaced, and if she were replaced by Aemilia, there was no house of the class with an eligible daughter at the time save the Lepidi, and she would then have been the chief Vestal in 178. In that case the pontifex maximus was her own father, who turned the whole affair to his family’s advantage (APF 174f; not in RE). MRR 2.486: Broughton leaves the identity of the Vestal and date of the incident uncertain, with reference only to coins. 30. Was Lentulus Caudmus, pontifex maximus 221-213, also prineeps senatus l Münzer no fewer than four times simply states that he was (APF 183,186,360,414). The major piece of evidence is given on p. 186, that he spoke first in the debate on the outbreak of the Hannibalic War, but on p. 187 Münzer admits that until 209 it was customary to appoint the oldest living patrician ex-censor. MRR 2.553: in the index Broughton notes only his office as chief priest, but under 214(1.259) states that the censors “probably” named Fabius Buteo as prineeps senatus because he was the oldest living ex-censor, and that he was so “possibly” also in 220. The example is of the greatest significance, because if Münzer is right, the number of men who combined these two positions of enormous importance jumps from two to three (the others are Aemilius Lepidus and Nasica Corculum). 31. Who was the Crassus who as aedile gave away gold and silver at his games (Pliny 21.6)? Drumann-Groebe had already suggested that this was Crassus Dives, aedile in 212, cos. 205 and pontifex maximus. Münzer agrees, finding it a most instructive example of the bribery employed by the most outstanding figures in politics, long before the excesses of the last century BC (APF 187f, and so RE 13 [1927] 331). MRR 1.271: Broughton rejects the identification as inappropriate to the age of the lex Oppia; he prefers Crassus Mucianus cos.131, or the cos. of 97. 32. Who was the praetor L. Licinius who tried to stop Flaccus, flamen Dialis, from entering the senate in 209 (Livy 27.8.70? Münzer states that there was no such per­ son and no praetor from that family in 209. There were, however, two Lieinii in 208: Varus the praetor urbanus, and Crassus, praetor peregrinus but also pontifex maxi­ mus. In the last capacity Crassus had appointed Flaccus; now he resorted to his other office to continue the feud between the two (APF 189; and so RE 13 [1927] 331). MRR 1.291, under 208: Broughton has Flaccus blocked by Varus, without dis­ cussion. 33. How many times was Memmius praetor? In Münzer’s view, only once, in 172, contra Maxis, who distorted Livy’s text and introduced the error of the iteration (APF 218, and so RE 15 [1931] 604). MRR 1.406: Broughton accepts Münzer and cites APF. 34. Who was the praetor peregrinus in 178? Following Maxis, Münzer states with­ out argument that it was Cluvius Saxula (APF 218, and so RE 4 [1901] 125). MRR 1.395: Broughton proposes Claudius Nero, because he was sent to Liguria. 35. Who were the praetors of 175? They are lost in the great damage to Livy’s text (41.18-19). In a masterly page, Münzer uses the need to provide praetorships for the consuls of 172, later references to prorogation, the Acta triumphalia, and even the seniority of ambassadors in 173 to reconstruct the list of six names. He was not the first to do this, and paid a rare tribute to the French scholar Willems (APF 218f). Broughton pays him an equal one:

T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich Münzer

51

MRR 1.403: “On the praetors of 175 see especially Münzer APF 218f 36. Who is the missing urban praetor in 174? It was Cassius Longinus, cos. 171 (APF 219, and so RE 3 [1897] 1726). MRR 1.406: Broughton agrees, citing APF. 37. Who can fill the three gaps in the praetors of 170? Münzer suggests two names: Aelius Paetus, cos. 167, and Manlius Torquatus, cos. 165 (APF 219). MRR 1.420: Broughton has both names in a list of seven; 1.423 acknowledges Münzer for Torquatus. 38. How many C. Livii Salinatores were there in the later third and early second centuries? Bardt thought one, Mommsen two. Münzer agreed with the former that only one was needed, bom c. 235, consul 188, d. 170, and son of the consul 219,207 (APF 232f, and so RE 13 [1927] 888f). MRR 2.582: Broughton agrees, but does not cite Münzer. 39. Who was the Aemilius adopted by the Livii? This was one of Münzer’s most brilliant pieces of detective work. Aemilius Paullus was cos. with Livius Salinator in 219. Their sons were praetors together in 191. The adopted Aemilius was Paullus, brother of the most famous holder of the name. The family links could not possibly have been closer. The result in the next generation was the amazing revelation that Scipio Aemilianus and Livius, consuls in 147, were therefore cousins (APF 235f, and so RE 13 [1927] 855). MRR 1.463: Broughton has no note on this fact, although the filiation of Livius (Aemiliani f.) would surely arouse curiosity. 40. Who was the M. Lepidus who intervened in the Aqua Marcia debate in 143 and what office did he hold? Pigghe and Schone had emended Frontinus (collega to collegio) to make him a decemvir speaking on behalf of the college. Bardt suggested that he was the consul of 158. Münzer takes him rather to be consul in 137 and praetor in 144 and augur supporting his colleague Marcius— and thus also accepting the text (APF 238f). MRR 1.472-473: Broughton has the rather remarkable device of listing both Lepidus Porcina consul in 137 as praetor in 143, aiding his colleague Marcius and the Lepidus consul 158 as decemvir. At the same time, quoting Münzer, Broughton states that he also accepts the reading in Frontinus. 41. Who was the Lepidus consul in 126? Münzer suggests Porcina II, perfectly fit­ ting the ten years’ interval since 137. Otherwise we have a consul of whom abso­ lutely nothing is known (APF 242). MRR 1.508: a completely unknown consul, following Klebs RE 1.554; no note on other identification. 42. Who was the Cn. Caepio, father-in-law of Claudius, who perished in a ship­ wreck? Münzer suggests that he was the son of the consul of 141 and censor 125, and the man recorded in an inscription from Thessalonika in the late second cen­ tury BC as quaestor in Macedonia (APF 253f, and so RE 2A [1921] 1782). MRR 1.558: Broughton quotes Münzer, but is not sure if he is right. 43. Was it possible for Nasica Serapio to be elected pontifex and then also to suc­ ceed his father as pontifex maximusl Velleius 2.3.1 stated that the son was the first to be elected pontifex maximus during his absence from Rome, so that the election was usually dated shortly before his death in 132. Rather, suggests

52

Ronald T. Ridley

Münzer, his father died in 142 or 141, and was succeeded in the college by his son, who was probably praetor and absent as a provincial governor. He was then immediately elected chief priest as well. This was a “hat trick”, but was also brought off by Domitius Ahenobarbus in 103 (.APF 260, correcting RE 4 [1901] 1503). MRR 1.479: Broughton accepts Münzer, as is shown by 2.556 (index). 44. Cfässus Mucianus was quaestor 152, consul 131. W hen was he aedile and praetor? He was bom c. 180 if he was quaestor by 152. He was aedile when he be­ trothed his daughter to the consular Galba (cos. 144), after 144; Münzer therefore suggests that the earliest possible date was 142. In that case he was not consul until aged fifty: his career was blocked, perhaps by Scipio, censor 142. They were still feuding in 132 (APF 265f, and so RE 13 [1927] 334f). MRR 1.476: Broughton dates the aedileship 142? and cites APF. 45. Where did Lutatius Catulus praetor serve in 109? In Sicily, suggests Münzer, relying on Cic. Verr. 2.3.209 (APF 287, and so RE 13 [1927] 2074). MRR 1.547: Broughton rejects the evidence, but finds the solution still attractive. 46. When was Servilius Caepio, father of Servilia, praetor? He was certainly quaestor 100 and legate 90 (with proconsular power?) when killed in the Social War. Münzer dates the office to 91, in accordance with the interval from the quaestorship, and be­ cause he was threatened by the tribune Drusus (APF 300, and so RE 2A [1921] 1786). MRR 2.24: Broughton accepts Münzer and cites APF. 47. What was the fate of Servilia’s brother and Cato’s step-brother, Servilius Caepio, military tribune in 72? He died in Thrace in 67 and the honours accorded him there suggest that he was a lieutenant perhaps of Pompey in the Slave War (APF 333, and so RE 2A [1921] 1775). MRR 2.121 under 72: Broughton notes Münzer’s identifications; cf. 2.617 (in­ dex) which implies that he may have been lieutenant to Pompey as late as 65; cf. 3.194 (the supplement) which returns to the view found under 2.121. The question is of the highest importance, because the Caepio who was Servilia’s brother is generally taken to be the adoptive father of M. Brutus, as well as being the heir and hope of the Caepiones, who died out with him. 48. When was the triumvir Lepidus aedile? Seidel dated the office before 52 because he was interrex in that year and all interreges had to have held curule office. Asconius, however, indicated the year 52 itself, and, indeed, that Lepidus alone of curule mag­ istrates was elected in that year of anarchy (APF 353). MRR 2.228: B roughton follows Seidel (cf. Klebs, RE 1.556, who om its the office). Conclusion The outlines of a startling discovery should already be clear. In the list of al­ most fifty interesting prosopographical insights by Miinzer in APF Broughton fol­ lowed him in only some fifteen cases. They concern linking of offices to form more complete careers (4,5,38), dating of offices (44,46), reasons for the appointment of

T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich Münzer

53

a dictator (24), praetorships (33, 35, 36, 37), priesthoods (19, 43), filiation (12 b), transfer to the plebs (22) and circumstances of death (47). Another six cases can easily be classified. Broughton strangely overlooked some important corrections to RE incorporated in the later APF: Genucius the tribune (1), the Scipios’ censorship (6), Fulvius in Tusculum and Rome (9), dating of temples (11), the career of Digitius (14) and Papirius Maso’s aedileship (16). Two of these cases, significantly, were where Münzer later accepted the tradition of which he had earlier been skeptical. There are a scatter of divergences over secular positions: Broughton prefers to emend Livy to avoid an unconstitutional dictatorship (25); perhaps he thought Pinarius Rusca proposed his lex annalis as praetor, although he makes no express statement (26); there is a clash of evidence over the identification of a princeps senatus (30); and Broughton is in two minds about Catulus’ province (45). With reference to priesthoods, Broughton hesitated to follow Münzer’s boldness in proposing a decemvirate for Ogulnius (13) and in devising an ancestor for the Quinctii Flaminini (17); he preferred to emend Livy to avoid having Crassus as both pontiff and augur (12a); and was apparently unconvinced on the date proposed for the episode of Aemilia and the sacred fire (29). No fewer than three cases concern social status. Most important is Marcius, rex sacrorum (12c). It is a clash between what we understand as the rules, appropriately upheld by Mommsen, and the Romans’ frequent resort to pragmatism and the increas­ ing blurring of social distinctions, especially with the highest plebeians, brilliantly expounded by Münzer. The case of the augur Veturius Gracchus is equally interest­ ing (21): Münzer’s preference for his patrician status is fully argued; the alternative required, amongst other things, tampering with Livy. The case of the aedile Veturius (20) is, by comparison, a curiosity, where sides had already been taken before Münzer. The largest category may be described as Broughton’s hesitations in adopting Münzer’s identifications. Sometimes it was only a praenomen which made all the difference: the Plautius who was Claudius’ colleague as censor (7), the Papirius who was commissioner in 218 (15); at other times a cognomen: the Licinii of the 360s (2), the Servilius tribune in 212 (23); filiation: Mamilius the curio maximus (10); or adoption: the fascinating case of the Livius Aemilianus (39). Some instances were secular office: the aedile Crassus (31), the praetor Licinius (32), the praetor peregrinus in 178 (34), the office of Lepidus (40), the consulship of another Lepidus in 126 (41). Several instances concern priesthoods: the predeces­ sor of Cunctator as augur (8), where the evidence is as convincing as we are likely to find for that time, and the complications of the Pomponii (27), where probably no proof exists. In quite the contrary category, on the other hand, is Broughton’s willingness to identify two people of similar name where Münzer had cautioned against such a step which no ancient source had taken (3). What is noteworthy is that Münzer’s identifications often have the great merit of economy. In rejecting them, Broughton has to resort to surmising the existence of otherwise unknown individuals (7, 15, 41). Münzer’s identifications may be bold,

54

Ronald T. Ridley

but they also so often enrich our understanding of families: the unscrupulous and ruthless Licinii Crassi, the contrasts between the Licinii Calvi and Stolones, the young censor Hautms, the unscrupulous Servilü, and the links between the Aenulii, Livii, and Scipios. M ünzer incidentally pushes back the beginning of corruption in Roman politics into the later third century. Our attention has been restricted to examining the views of M ünzer and Broughton, without a clutter of footnotes listing the views of other scholars. On so many of these matters, it is almost impossible to find anything outside such prosopographical references as their two works.2 We are still left with the interesting question why so many matters raised by Münzer have not found their place in MRR, given the way in which the APF was singled out by Broughton as “of great importance” and given that most of the cases cited could have been included in his notes with a line or less. It has also been pointed out that to reject APF also commonly meant rejecting RE as well. The possible answers will do much to illustrate Broughton’s fundamental assump­ tions, and they are vital to any use of the MRR. There is one example which is not discussed in APF but which may guide us. Livy states firmly that the first plebeian consul was in 366, but most modern scholars since at least the beginning of the 19th century, from Niebuhr on, have not believed him, and have suggested a scattering of possible plebeian consuls in the first 150 years of the Rep ublic, especially before 482. Some may think that it would have sufficed to refer to the tradition under the year 509, or in a special introductory note, and then to leave the two names each year without further annotation. Broughton religiously puts “Pat.” after every name. There are only two possible explanations: a) Broughton considered that Livy knew more about patricians and consuls than any modem scholar. 'This is an attitude which has often been expressed by more conservative scholars, but which many would contest. One might even add that the acceptance of the early plebeian names has become virtually orthodoxy after the brilliant discussion by Aurelio Bemardi in 1945.3 Broughton in 1951, of course, was hardly in a position to know that. b) Perhaps Broughton thought that in a work of reference, it was better to be cautious, until something was conclusively proven. It is obvious that both of these reasons weighed with Broughton, and for the first we have his own words: “It is probable that Livy preserves the best record of the magistrates of the Roman Repub2

3

We might find, for example, that on the Licinii Calvi and Stolones (2), Beloch R G 631 agrees with Münzer and that although the earlier edition of the C A H 7 (1928) 527 (Stuart Jones) knew of the problem but gave no answer, the new edition (7.2 [1989] 639) just copies M RR·, or that on the earliest Scipios (6), the matter is not considered in works on the family (by Scullard, Astin), standard histories (de Sanctis, Beloch, C A H ) or even specialist works on the censorship (Leuze); that the important figure Ogulnius is completely neglected in references to the intro­ duction of the cult of Asklepios (Pais, S to r ia 4.278; de Sanctis, S tR 2.528; САЯ7.2.418, 516, 518); or that on Lepidus’ second consulship (28), Scullard, R o m a n p o litic s 273, follows Münzer while Degrassi, I n s c r ip tio n e s I ta lia e 13.1.117 leaves the question totally unresolved; and on Lentulus Caudinus as p r in c e p s s e n a tu s , Scullard R P 39 thought that it was a possibility, but de Sanctis S tR 3.2.197 mentioned the debate but drew no conclusions. “Patrizi e plebei nella costituzione della primitiva repubblica romana”, R e n d ic o n ti I s titu to L o m b a r d o 1945, 3-26.

T. R. S. Broughton and Friedrich Münzer

55

lie” (MRR l.xii). It is interesting therefore, to see that Broughton is at least doubtful over Livy’s identification of the Licinii Calvi and Stolones, and his reasons for the appointment of a dictator, and the term of a dictator’s office (24-25). As for the second reason, a variety of Miinzer’s hypotheses must have been con­ sidered by Broughton to be too bold to include in the MRR, where they might be found and mistaken as fact. There were, however, devices used by Broughton himself to signal such uncertainties, such as the question mark— and even the double question mark! In some cases we must in the last analysis assume that Broughton simply con­ sidered Münzer to be wrong. He said so (12 a, c, 18, 20,21, 25, 31). In others (the corrections to RE) Münzer simply slipped Broughton’s net. The investigation of the relationship between two such great scholars needs no justification. I should even like to think that Broughton himself would have been interested in such an exercise. We are left with a list of prosopographical details touching the most important offices, secular and religious, and the most important families and individuals in Rome. One of the most obvious qualities of the MRR as conceived by its author was that it was not to be a static but a vital undertaking, a work of reference which was not to grow old but to be constantly expanded and re­ vised, as proven by the addenda and corrigenda which he began almost instantly producing, and which have culminated in the splendid third volume of 1986. I should hope that some of the points raised here he might have thought worthy of note in a future supplement, and that some of those who rely so heavily on the work might find something to add to the many pencilled notes which all of us make on our copies. I have never heard anyone speak of Robert Broughton with anything but affec­ tion and respect. That is a remarkable distinction. In the more than forty years that have elapsed since the appearance of the first volume of the MRR, the work is more indispensable than ever. That is a second remarkable distinction, and surely accords it a rare place in scholarship. Our gratitude for the labours of Robert Broughton, rather than diminishing, ever increases.

University o f Melbourne

THE MINUCII AND THEIR MONUMENT by

T. P. Wiseman I The Minucii were a family of some importance in republican Rome. Public

monumenta of various sorts perpetuated their name. The Via Minucia, for instance, provided the most direct route to Brundisium, across the uplands of Apulia1. The Pons Minucius was one of the main bridges on the Via Flaminia12. A celebrated Porticus Minucia in the Campus Martius was built by M. Minucius Rufus (cos. 110 B.C.) from the spoils of his long campaign against the Thracian Scordisci.3 The earlyimperial Porticus Minucia frumentaria extended the family’s name to the third cen­ tury A.D., with the curatores aquarum et Minuciae4. (One or other of these porti­ coes was the great colonnade to the north of Via delle Botteghe Oscure, marked con­ spicuously as ‘MINI[CIA]’ on the Severan marble plan5.) Roads, bridges and porticoes are one thing; a city gate at Rome is quite another. The Porta Minucia is unique as an example of a gate with the name of a Roman fam­ ily6. It was twice annotated in Festus’ etymological dictionary; Festus’ full text is lost, but in Paulus’ epitome the items are as follows:7 Minucia porta Romae dicta est ab ara Minuci, quem deum putabant. Minucia porta appellata est eo, quod proxima esset sacello Minucii. The Porta Minucia at Rome was called after the altar of Minucius, who they thought was a god. 1 2

3 4 5

6

7

Cic. A tt. IX 6.1, Hor. E p is t. 1 18.20, Strabo 3.7 (C282); for conjectures about its date, seeT. P. Wiseman, P B S R 38 (1970) 131 = R o m a n S tu d ie s (Liverpool 1987) 135. Augustus R e s g e s t a e 20.5: ‘consul septimum viam Flaminiam ab urbe Ariminum refeci pontesque omnes praeter Mulvium et Minucium’. Cf. Cic. A tt. I 1.2 for a Minucius Thermus as c u r a to r v ia e F la m in ia e in 65 B.C. Veli. Pat. II 8.3; cf. Cic. P h il. II 84, F a s ti P r a e n e s tin i 22 Dec. (la se r . Ita l. XIII 2.138f), Hist. Aug. C o m m o d u s 16.5. Regionary Catalogue under re g io IX: ‘Minucias duas veterem et frumentariam’. IL S 6071 (Claudian), Apul. d e m u n d o 35; IL S 1128,1186, 1191, 1223 for the c u ra to r e s. Identified as the p .M . f r u m e n ta r ia by F. Coarelli in L 'a r e a s a c r a d i L a r g o A r g e n tin a I (Rome 1981) 34—36, as the p .M . v e tu s by L. Richardson jr, A N e w T o p o g r a p h ic a l D ic tio n a r y o f A n ­ c ie n t R o m e (Baltimore 1992) 315-316, andF. Zevi, M E F R A 105 (1993) 661-708, who identi­ fies the p .M . f r u m e n ta r ia as the building in the Via dei Calderari (E. Nash, P ic to r ia l D ic tio n a r y o f A n c ie n t R o m e [London 1961] I 297-300). The Porta Naevia on the Aventine was named not after the Naevii (best known for a praetor and a tribune in 184 B.C.), but after the notorious n e m o r a N a e v ia nearby: Varro L L V 163, Festus 170L. Festus (Paulus) 109L, 131L. J Linderski, ed Imperium Sine Fine T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic Histona Einzelschrift, n. 105 ©1996 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

58

T. P. Wiseman

The Porta Minucia was so called for this reason, that it was next to the shrine of Minucius. What exactly was the altar or shrine of Minucius? Since ‘quem deum putabant’ is evidently a comment by Paulus, it is not abso­ lutely certain that Minucius was the object of worship at the shrine: the analogy of phrases like aedes Catuli or delubrum Cn. Domitii makes it formally possible that the genitive proper name referred to the man who built it8. However, I know of no example with either ara or sacellum9, and it is surely preferable to suppose that Festus did indeed refer to a deus Minucius and a shrine that was sacred to him. Stefan Weinstock accepted that, and was prepared to believe in a ‘god of the Gens Minucia’ even though all the known Roman ‘family divinities’ are female101. II At this point, it may be helpful to look at two denarius issues of about 135-134 B.C., that of ‘C. Aug.’— i.e., C. Minucius Augurinus— and that of Ti. Minucius C.f. Augurinus, no doubt his brother (figs. 1 and 2). I reproduce the descriptions in Michael Crawford’s catalogue": Spiral column with Aeolic capital, decorated with two bells at the top and two lions’ foreparts at the base; standing on column, togate statue hold­ ing staff in r. hand; behind each of the lions, corn-ear; on 1., togate fig­ ure holding loaves (?) in both hands and placing 1. foot on modius; on r., togate figure holding lituus in r. hand; above, C.AVG. Border of dots. Spiral column; standing on column, statue holding staff in r. hand; at base of column, two corn-ears; on 1., togate figure holding loaves (?) in both hands and placing 1. foot on modius; on r., togate figure holding lituus in r. hand; above, ROMA; on 1., TI.MINVCI.C.F. upwards; on r., AVGVRINI downwards. Border of dots. What makes it tempting to associate this scene with the ‘altar of Minucius’ in Festus is the possibly analogous juxtaposition of altar and column-statue in the lapis niger complex, probably of the fourth century B.C. (fig. 3)12. Filippo Coarelli

8

Varro R R III 5.12 ( a e d e s C atuli)·, Pliny N H XXXVI26 (d e lu b ru m Cn. D o m itii), cf. XXXIV 57 (ia e d e s P o m p e i M a g n i), XXXVI40 ( a e d e s M e te lli), 163 ( a e d e s ...S e ia n i) . 9 For examples of the normal usage, cf. Livy XXVIII 11.4 (a r a N e p tu n i), Val. Max. II 4.5 (a ra D itis p a tr is ) , Aug. R e s g e s ta e 12.2 (a ra P a d s A u g u stae)·, Varro L L V 164 (V o lu p ia e sa c e llu m ), Festus 302-303L (sa c e llu m Q u irin i), Tac. A n n . XII 24 (sa c e llu m L a ru n d a e ). 10 S. Weinstock, D iv u s J u liu s (Oxford 1971) 366, cf. 293. 11 M. H. Crawford, R o m a n R e p u b lic a n C o in a g e (Cambridge 1974)273 (no. 242.1), 275 (no. 243.1). According to Mario Torelli in E. M. Steinby (ed.), L ex ico n T o p o g ra p h icu m U rb is R o m a e I (Rome 1993) 306, the hanging objects in C. Augurinus’ design are not bells but v itta e , and the beasts at the base not lions but griffins. 12 F. Coarelli, I l f o r o ro m a n o : p e r io d o a r c a ic o (Rome 1983) 172-175. The altar belongs to the

The Minucii and Their Monument

59

argues convincingly that that complex was a shrine (the Volcanal); but some ancient sources identified it as a tomb (of Romulus, Faustulus, or Hostus Hostilius)13, and others, though recognising it as the Volcanal or area Volcani, evidently thought that the column carried an honorific statue to Horatius C odes14. We have to allow for the fact that archaic monuments were interpreted, or mis­ interpreted, in various ways by later generations. It seems to me likely that the same variety of interpretation— shrine, tomb, honorific statue— applied to the Minucian monument as it evidently did to the Volcanal complex. According to Pliny, the custom of setting up honorific statues on columns was a comparatively ancient one. The examples he gives are the statue of C. Maenius (338 B.C.), that of C. Duillius (260 B.C.)— and ‘that of Lucius Minucius the praefectus annonae outside the Porta Trigemina, paid for by a collection of penny contributions (probably the first time this honour was conferred by the people, as previously by the Senate)’ 15. The story of L. Minucius the praefectus annonae is told by Livy and Dionysius under 440-^139 B.C., though they report the honorific statue as granted by the Senate, not the people16. Now, the statue on the column in the scene depicted on the coins can hardly be that of the praefectus annonae. He should be the togate figure to the left, if Crawford is right to see that figure as carrying loaves, with his foot on a rnodius11. The figure to the right, with the lituus, must be M. Minucius Faesus, a member of the first col­ lege of plebeian augurs18. That is, the two most prominent ‘historical’ Minucii, present at a family monument portraying—whom? As Tonio Hölscher has well observed, outside the city gate one would expect a tomb, not an honorific statue; and what the coins show may well have been a fifthcentury grave monument19. The moneyers evidently thought so too, since they give the statue on the column a staff, not a sceptre20. If that makes him a man, not a god, then the scene shows a family tomb, no doubt that of the founder of the gens21.

13 14 15 16

17

18 19 20

21

fourth level of the Comitium, the column to the fifth: at JR S 76 (1986) 307,1 argue that the former may be late fifth or early fourth century, and the latter perhaps c. 338 B.C. Festus 184L, cf. Dion. Hal. I 87.2, III 1.2; Coarelli, op. cit. 166-168. Gell. N A IV 5.1-4, Plut. P u b l. 16.7, vir. ill. 11.2; Coarelli, op. cit. 161f, 168f. Pliny N H XXXIV 21; cf. XVIII15 (‘L. Minucius Augurinus’, statue mentioned but no column). Livy IV 12.8,13.7, 16.2; Dion. Hal. XII 1.5-6, 1.11-12,4.6. The text at Livy IV 16.2 should read ‘L. Minucius bove aurato extra portam Trigeminam est donatus’; Crevier’s addition, or something like it, is essential, since the b o s a u ra tu s was not a monument but a beast to be sacrificed (T L L II 1521.47-65). Note, however, the interpretation of Torelli (loc. cit., n. 11 above): ‘un togato in posa eroica di a d l o c u t i o ( l ) , piede su roccia e mano sinistra recante un corto oggetto non facilmente determinabile’. Livy X 9.2 (300 B.C.); cf. T. Mommsen, R ö m is c h e F o rsc h u n g e n I (Berlin 1864) 65-68—the origin of the c o g n o m e n Augurinus? T. Hölscher, ‘Die Anfänge römische Repräsentationskunst’, R om . M itt. 85 (1978) 315-357, at 336f; so too E. Welin, S tu d ie n z u r T o p o g ra p h ie d e s F o r u m R o m a n u m (Lund 1953) 162-170. For the difference, cf. Crawford, op. cit. (n. 11) 196. Sceptres are shown at Crawford’s plates 36.6 and 14, 39.3, etc; staffs (s c ip io n e s ) at 20.1, 21.7-8, 23.12-13, with B C H 28 (1904) plate 12. As suggested by Torelli, loc. cit. (n. 11): ‘the consul of 497 and 491’.

60

T. P. Wiseman

My suggestion, then, is that we have one archaic monument interpreted three different ways: as a tomb, by the Minucii Augurini moneyers; as an honorific monu­ ment, by Pliny’s source; and as the altar and shrine of a god Minucius, by the source of Festus. It might seem natural to privilege the first interpretation, on the principle that the Minucii themselves should have known the facts. But if there was an altar there, as at the lapis niger, then the third interpretation should not be dismissed out of hand.

Ill Before we try to analyse the various traditions about the Minucii, there is a topo­ graphical question to attend to. If the monument was outside the Porta Trigemina, how could it give its name to the Porta Minucia? What, and where, was the ‘Minucian Gate’? Mario Torelli avoids the problem by identifying the Porta Minucia with the Porta Trigemina, the latter replacing the former in a hypothetical rebuilding programme after the sack of the city by the Gauls22. But in that case, why would the name ‘Porta Minucia’ be remembered at all, and need explanation? And if it was remembered, would Festus not have mentioned that it was the old name for the Porta Trigemina? True, we only have Paulus’ excerpts; but Paulus on the Porta Scelerata includes in his précis the identification with the Porta Carmentalis, as he does on the other name for the Porta Collina (Agonensis), on which the original Festus text is lost23. It is asking too much to suppose that on two separate occasions he chose to omit this sort of information from the items on the Porta Minucia. It is easier to suppose that there were two gates, so close together that the same monument could be described in relation to either. The approximate site of the Porta Trigemina is established in the vicinity of S. Maria in Cosmedin24. According to Coarelli, it was a gate in the wall running north to south parallel to the river, and through it passed a road running east to west, from the valley of the Circus Maximus to the Pons Sublicius25. I have argued elsewhere that this view is unlikely to be right, and that the Porta Trigemina was more probably the gate made necessary by the construction of a cross wall perpendicular to the river26. It is enough for our purpose here to point out that the Porticus Aemîlîa, south-west of the Aventine, is twice de­ scribed by Livy as extra portam Trigeminam, which shows that the Trigemina was

22 Torelli, loc. cit. (n. 11). 23 Scelerata: Festus 450L, Festus (Paulus) 451L. Agonensis: Festus (Paulus) 9L. 24 For the evidence, see F. Coarelli, I l f o r o b o a r io (Rome 1988) 25-34, 42-50. 25 F. Coarelli, G u id a a r c h e o lo g ic a d i R o m a (Milan 1974) 281 = R o m a (Guide archeologiche Laterza, Bari 1980) 314; cf. op. cit. (n. 24) 241. 26 G n o m o n 62 (1990) 730-732. The flight of C. Gracchus—from the Aventine through the Porta Trigemina to the Pons Sublicius (Val. Max. IV 7.2, Vir. ill. 65.5)—seems at first sight to be an argument in favour of Coarelli’s position. In fact it is the opposite, since on his reconstruction the Porta Trigemina would surely have been guarded by D. Brutus’ soldiers (cf. Oros. V 12.7). The Gracchans had to scramble down from the temple of Luna: the drop that was necessary (‘desilit’, Vir. ill. 65.5) evidently took them outside the Servian precinct, from where they doubled back in to the city through the Porta Trigemina, to get to the bridge.

The Minucii and Their Monument

61

the gate by which one left to go down the road between the river and the Aventine slope27. The Porticus Aemilia was a good 700 m. away from the site of the gate; but extra portam references cover a wide range of distances from the gate concerned, from 1200 m. or more (the Scipionic tombs extra portam Capenam) to a close proximity which could equally well be described as ad portam2*. Lanciani reports Roman paving, presumably imperial, on the line of the modem Clivo di Rocca Savella, which leads from S. Sabina directly down the Aventine hill­ side to a point about 150 m. south of S. Maria in Cosmedin (fig. 4)29. This descent, steeper but shorter than the Clivus Publicius, was evidently found useful under the empire, as it has been in medieval and modem times; there is no reason to suppose it was not in use under the Republic as well. Steps down the side of the hill would have saved a long walk round. It is worth remembering the long flight of steps down from the Capitol at the equivalent position outside the Porta Carmentalis30; even without the attested paving, it would be reasonable to infer a similar stair or ramp down from the Aventine. If so, there must have been a gate through the ‘Servian’ wall—but not an important gate, since the exit it commanded was a secondary one31. The Porta Minucia would fit very well. At the bottom of this route— in modem terms, roughly where the Clivo di Rocca Savella joins the Via di S. Maria in Cosmedin— is the one place where the Minucian monument could have been, outside one gate and giving its name to another. IV In investigating a senatorial family, the historian’s first recourse is to the index of T. R. S. Broughton’s Magistrates o f the Roman Republic. Rearranged and num­ bered in chronological order down to the m iddle of the second century B.C., Broughton’s list of Minucii is as follows: 1. 2. 3. 458, 4. 5. 6. 7.

M. Minucius Augurinus: q. 509, cos. 497, cos. I I 491, leg. envoy 488. P. Minucius Augurinus: cos. 492. L. Minucius P.f.M.n. Esquilinus Augurinus: cos. (Livy) or cos. suff. (Fasti Cap.) Xvir cos. imp. leg. scrib. 450-49, praef. annonae 440-39; tr. pi.?? 439. Q. Minucius P.f.M.n. Esquilinus: cos. 4571 Sp. Minucius: pont. max.? 420. M. Minucius: tr.pl. 401. Minucia: Vest. virg. 1-331.

27 Livy XXXV 10.12, XLI 27.8; cf. G. Gatti, B u ll. C om . 62 (1934) 123-149. 28 Livy XXXVIII 56.4 (Scipio tombs); XXX 38.10, XL 34.4, cf. Strabo VI 2.6 (C272), la se r. Ital. XIII 2.134—135 (Venus Erycina, a d le x tr a p o r ta m C o llin a m ). 29 R. Lanciani, F o r m a u rb is R o m a e (1893-1901, repr. 1990), sheet 34. 30 F U R i n . 31a-c; Steinby, op. cit. (n. 11)450,figs. 150-151. Wrongly, I think, identified as the ce n tu m g r a d u s (Tac. H ist. Ill 71.3), which were at the Tarpeian Rock on the arx: see F. Coarelli, I l f o r o ro m a n o : p e r io d o r e p u b b lic a n o e a u g u s te o (Rome 1985) 81 n.70. 31 The name of the gate at the Capitoline steps is not known: perhaps Porta Catularia, mentioned at Festus (Paulus) 39L?

62

Т. Р. Wiseman

8. Ti. Minucius Augurinus: cos. 305. 9. M. Minucius Faesus: augur 300- . 10. M. Minucius C.f.C.n. Rufus: cos. 221, mag. eq. 217, diet. 217. 11. M. Minucius: tr. pl. 216. 12. Q. Minucius C.f.C.n. Rufus: leg. lieut. 211, aed. pl. 201, pr. 200, propr. 199, cos. 197, leg. amb. 189-188, 183, 174? 13. Q. Minucius Q.f.L.n. Thermus: tr. mil. 202, tr. pl. 201, aed. cur. 198, Illvircol. deduc. 197-194, pr. 196, promag. 195, cos. 193, procos. 192-190, leg. amb. 189— 188. 14. P. Minucius: tr. mil. 193. 15. Q. Minucius: tr. mil. 193, leg. amb. 174, pr. 164? 16. C. Minucius Augurinus: tr. pl. 184? (or 187?) 17. Ti. Minucius Molliculus: pr. peregr. 180. 18. L. Minucius Thermus: leg. lieut. 182-181,180,178, leg. envoy 177, leg. amb. 154, 145-14A_ ___ 19. T. Minucius Rufus: leg. lieut.? (or prefect) 171. One anomaly is immediately apparent. Nos. 1,2,3 and 8 appear in the Augustan

fasti with the cognomen ‘Augurinus’, which surely derived from the Minucius who was among the first plebeian augurs; as Mommsen pointed out long ago, that fact casts doubt on the authenticity of the ‘patrician’ Minucii and their fifth-century con­ sulships32. In the preface to his great work, Broughton gave a brief statement of his position on the question of the early fasti33: I am inclined to accept almost the entire list of eponymous magistrates, excepting only a few possible interpolations and the ‘Dictator’ years ... [T]he tendency of Roman families to glorify their beginnings led to some falsification of the tradition, as Cicero says (Brut. 62; cf. Livy VIII 40.4), but that same emphasis upon ancestral achievements may have assisted in preserving a fuller record of official careers among the great noble families. I should like to focus on what is conceded here, rather than what is asserted. In the

Brutus passage to which Broughton refers, Cicero complained about the funerary eulogies preserved by noble families: Multa enim scripta sunt in eis quae facta non sunt, falsi triumphi, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones, cum homines in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur genus. 32

See n. 18 above. For the problem of ‘plebeian names’ in the early f a s ti, see Andrew Drummond in C A H 1 VII.2 (1989) 173-176. 33 T. R. S. Broughton, T h e M a g is tr a te s o f th e R o m a n R e p u b lic I (New York 1951) xi. I argue the opposite case in L C M 8.2 (Feb. 1983) 20f = R o m a n S tu d ie s (Liverpool 1987) 294.

The Minucii and Their Monument

63

Many things are written in them which did not happen— spurious tri­ umphs, multiplied consulships, even false genealogies and transitions to the plebs, with people being smuggled into a different family of the same name. The Minucii offer some fine examples. Falsi triumphi: the triumph of Ti. Minucius Augurinus (no. 8), though reported in Livy, was not accepted by the compilers of the fasti triumphales34. Plures consulatus: the uncertainty in our sources about the consulships of L. Minucius Augurinus and his supposed brother Q. Minucius Augurinus (nos. 3 and 4) may re­ flect conflicting traditions in which the Minucii were successful in ejecting rival claim­ ants35. Adplebem transitiones: as we have seen, the use of the cognomen Augurinus for fifth- and fourth-century consuls implies a claim to patrician descent comparable to that of the March3637. Livy too objected to the fictions of the funerary laudationes, and added another tainted source, the tituli on the imagines that noble families kept in their atria?1. Here too the Minucii were guilty: they had on display an imago of L. Minucius (no. 3) with an inscription to the effect that he had ‘crossed over’ to the plebs and been co­ opted as an eleventh tribune. Livy found this in one of his sources and rightly re­ jected it; Pliny accepted it at one point (possibly from Piso, whom he used in book XVIII), but elsewhere followed the rival version that Minucius was praefectus annonae38. I think it is clear that the Minucii of the early Republic are less a historical than a historiographical phenomenon. Let us therefore look more closely at the various versions of the story of L. Minucius (no. 3)39.

34 Livy IX 44.14f; A. Degrassi in Inscr. Ita l. XIII 1.542f. 35 Namely ‘...Carvetus’ (Fasti Cap.) and L. Postumius (Diod. Sic. XI 91.1) respectively. 36 T r a n s itio n e s : e.g. Dio V 22.2 (on 461-455 B.C.); see in general R. E. A. Palmer, T h e A r c h a ic C o m m u n ity o f th e R o m a n s (Cambridge 1970) 293-296, esp. 293 on the Minucii (‘the entire story is a late fabrication’). Marcii: T. Mommsen, R ö m is c h e F o rsc h u n g e n II (Berlin 1879) 149f; F. Münzer, R ö m is c h e A d e ls p a r te ie n u n d A d e ls fa m ilie n (Stuttgart 1920) 81. 37 Livy VIII 40.4: ‘vitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reorf a ls is q u e im a g in u m titu lis , dum familiae ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorumque fallente mendacio trahunt’. For the arrangements in the a triu m , see H. I. Flower, A n c e s tr a l M a s k s a n d A r is to c r a tic P o w e r in R o m a n C u ltu re (Oxford, forthcoming). 38 Livy IV 16.3-4 (‘falsum imaginis titulum’); Pliny Vif XVIII 15, cf. XXXIV 21 (n. 15 above). 39 Broughton assumes that this L. Minucius was identical with the consul and d e c e m v ir L. Minucius P.f.M.n. Esquilinus Augurinus (so named in the Fasti Capitolini for 458; only the c o g n o m in a survive in the entry for 450). Pliny (N H X V III15) and Zonaras (VII20) call him L. Minucius Augurinus, which may imply the identification; however, if Livy had known Minucius to be an e x - d e c e m v ir , he would hardly have made Cincinnatus refer, in this very episode, to the recent condemnation and exile of the d e c e m v ir i (Livy IV 15.4). See Mommsen, op. cit. (n. 36) 21 If., rightly doubting the identification.

64

T. P. Wiseman

V The earliest identifiable version of the story is that given by L. Cincius Alimentus about 200 B.C.40 The Senate received information from Minucius that a certain Sp. Maelius was aiming at kingship; a senior senator proposed that Maelius should be put to death without trial; this was agreed, and the Senate instructed a young patri­ cian called Servilius to carry out the execution. Maelius was just coming out of the Forum when Servilius, a short sword concealed under his arm, approached him and asked to speak to him in private41. Maelius told his bodyguards to move away; Servilius drew the sword and stabbed him in the throat. A furious crowd pursued Servilius as he ran back to the Senate-house with his bloodstained weapon, but when he shouted at them that he had killed a tyrant at the Senate’s command, they let him go. Thereafter, Servilius was called Ahala, from ala, an armpit (where he had kept his sword). The Senate voted that Maelius’ house be razed to the ground (hence the open space called ‘Aequimaelium’), and that the informant Minucius be honoured with a statue. Cincius wrote in Greek, and it is clear from Dionysius’ report of his narrative that he played on the name M t|vvki.o. Cic. C a t. I 3, M il. 72, R e p . I I 49, D e a m . 36 (all invoking the parallel of Scipio Nasica and Ti. Gracchus); P h il. I I 114 (the lib e r a to r e s and Caesar). Cic. M il. 72: ‘annona levanda iacturisque rei familiaris.’ Crawford, loc. cit (n. 11 above). Piso, writing after 120 B.C., may have made Minucius an eleventh tribune, honoured by the people for subsidising the price of grain (Pliny N H XVIII 15, see above). H is to r ia n L. C a lp u r n iu s P is o F ru g i a n d th e R o m a n A n n a lis tic T ra d itio n

41 42 43 44 45 46

The Minucii and Their Monument

65

VI The version that made Minucius an anachronistic praefectus annonae was very probably that of Licinius Macer in the 70s B.C. Livy cites, as the source for the title, the ‘linen books’ which Macer discovered in the temple of Moneta47. But a great deal of creative historiography had been written between Cincius and Macer, and among the political issues that inspired it were the polarised ideologies of the Gracchan period, which prominently included both grain for the people and alleged aspirations to regnum48. It is inconceivable that the story was not exploited for political effect— especially as the tribune who in 121 B.C. took the lead in attacking C. Gracchus’ legislation was himself a Minucius49. The main shift in the story, however, is probably the result of Sulla’s dictator­ ship. In Livy and in Dionysius’ main narrative, Cincinnatus as dictator orders Maelius’ arrest, and Servilius as magister equitum carries it out: when Maelius re­ sists he is killed50. And even in this developed version, two separate ideological treat­ ments are detectable. The famine at the start of it all is attributed either to natural causes or to the pleasure of political meetings which kept the citizens away from agriculture. ‘Both versions are attested,’ Livy observes, and in his own characteris­ tic way combines them as complaints by the patres of plebeian idleness and com­ plaints by the tribunes of negligence and fraud on the part of the consuls. As Ogilvie rightly points out, ‘the alternative explanations reflect the pro- and anti-plebeian stand­ points of L.’s two chief authorities’ 51. So too in the story of Maelius’ arrest. Servilius appears with an escort of young patricians, all carrying concealed weapons, and demands that Maelius appear before the dictator. Maelius appeals to the plebs for protection, dashes to the tabernae plebeiae and seizes a butcher’s knife to defend himself, but is overwhelmed by sheer numbers and cut to pieces ‘like an animal’52. Dionysius reports in particular that his arm was cut off—evidently an alternative explanation for the name Servilius Ahala53. One wonders whether, in this scenario, Maelius’ head was then exposed at the Lacus Servilius on the other side of the Forum: that was what happened to the victims of Sulla’s executioners54. 47 Livy IV 13.7, cf. 7.12, 20.8, 23.2. 48 See most recently Andrew Lintott in C A H IX2 (1994) 62-86, esp. 68-73 (Ti. Gracchus as ‘ty­ rant’), 78-79 (C. Gracchus’ corn-law). For Gracchan aspects of the Maelius story, especially in Piso, see Forsythe, op. cit. (n. 40 above) 302f. 49 Broughton, M R R I (n.33 above) 521: M. Minucius Rufus c o s . 110? 50 Livy IV 13-14, Dion. Hal. XII 2. Full references in Broughton, M R R I 56. 51 Livy IV 12.7 (‘nam utrumque traditur’); R. M. Ogilvie, C o m m e n ta r y on L iv y B o o k s 1 - 5 (Ox­ ford 1965) 552. 52 Dion. Hal. XII 2.3, 2.7-8; cf. Livy IV 14.4-6. Butchers’ shops (later a r g e n ta r ia e and n o v a e ) as ta b e r n a e p l e b e i a e : Festus 258L, cf. Varro ap. Non. 853L, Livy XXVI 27.2; Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 30 above) 140-149. 53 Dion. Hal. XII 2.8; Ogilvie, op. cit. (n. 51 above) 555. 54 Cic. R o s e . A m . 89, Sen. D e p r o v . 7, Firm. Mat. 17.34; for its position, by the Vicus Iugarius and the later Basilica Iulia, see Festus 370-72L. The relevance of the Lacus Servilius to the Ahala story was first suggested by E. Pais, A n c ie n t L e g e n d s o f R o m a n H is to r y (London 1906) 210212 .

66

T. P. Wiseman

It is natural to think of Licinius Macer, the anti-Sullan tribune of 73 B.C., as the author of this version. As Emilio Gabba has convincingly argued, Macer was inter­ ested in the early dictatorship precisely because of Sulla55. But Cincinnatus, even as dictator, was easier to portray as a man of prisca virtus than as a bloodthirsty tyrant. Cicero in 44 B.C. refers to a version which must have been wholly favourable56: In agris erant tum senatores, id est senes, siquidem aranti Lucio Quinctio iussu magister equitum Gaius Servilius Ahala Spurium Maelium regnum occupantem interemit. In those days senators (i.e., ‘elders’) lived on their farms—if it is true that L. Quinctius Cincinnatus was ploughing when it was announced to him that he had been made dictator. It was at his order as dictator that C. Servilius Ahala, the Master of Horse, killed Sp. Maelius as he was es­ tablishing a tyranny. Cicero’s phraseology {siquidem), and the way he spells out the details, implies that this was not a well-known story to be casually alluded to (as he alludes elsewhere to the earlier version of Ahala’s act); and the exemplary scene of ‘Cincinnatus at the plough’ was usually associated with a dictatorship nineteen years earlier57. I suspect that this passage reveals the recent appearance of an anti-Licinian version of the story, which accepted the dictatorship and gave Ahala an official position, but interpreted the events in a manner favourable to the law-and-order party58. Not surprisingly, Livy’s attempt to achieve a coherent narrative from this com­ plex and contradictory tradition is not a complete success. The speech of Cincinnatus, for example, ‘who with a fine mixture of rhetoric and blunt speaking provides the deed with its historical significance and moral justification’59, seems to be based on a version of the events not wholly consistent with the narrative60. Livy’s touch is equally unsure when he deals with L. Minucius. Was he an hon­ est and efficient provider of grain, or a useless bosses’ stooge? He was appointed by the people, but haud adversante senatu, and he was honoured by the Senate, but ne plebe quidem invita·, that is, Livy does not want to contradict any of his ‘authori-

55 E. Gabba, A th e n a e u m 3 8 (1 9 6 0 ) 2 \ i n . 121 on Dion. Hal. V 74.4 (Macer fr. 10P), 77.4f. (Sulla); also Gabba in T ria C o r d a : s c r itti in o n o r e d iA r n a ld o M o m ig lia n o (Como 1983) 220f. 56 Cic. D e se n . 56, with J. G. F. Powell, C ic e ro , C a to m a io r d e s e n e c tu te (Cambridge 1988) 219. 57 Cf. n. 43 above (Cicero on Ahala as a p riv a tu s )·, Broughton, M R R I 39 (Cincinnatus in 458). For a similar spelling out of details, cf. Cic. N D I I 7 (also 44 B.C.), with T. P. Wiseman, C lio 's C o s m e tic s (Leicester 1979) 111. 58 I.e. Valerius Antias, if the argument at C l i o ’s C o s m e tic s 113-121 is accepted. 59 Ogilvie, op. cit (n. 51 above) 551: a generous judgement. 60 Livy IV 15.2 (‘vim parantem’), contrast 14.4-6; and at 15.1 Cincinnatus allows the possibility that Maelius was innocent of regnu m .

The Minucii and Their Monument

67

ties’61. As for the question of Minucius’ reappointment, Livy throws up his hands: ‘there is no agreement’ 62. VII These late-republican readings are of interest in their own right, particularly as Dagmar Gutberlet did not include the Sp. Maelius episode in her discussion of Gracchan and Sullan material in Livy’s first decade63. For the story of the Minucii, however, whose monument was evidently of the fifth or fourth century B.C.64, the early strata are more significant. Broughton states the essential point with admirable clarity: ‘Dion. Hal. found Minucius in the early tradition of Cincius and Piso simply as an informer’ 65. The Mr|vÛKtoç-privuTfiç etymology, which survives in the later versions6667,evidently went back, through Cincius, to at least the third century B.C. It raises an interesting question about ‘speaking names’ in the Roman republican élite. L. Cincius the historian had been praetor in 210. One of his near-contemporaries was C. Atilius Serranus (pr. 218), whose cognomen derived from an Atilius who had been called to the consulship while sowing his fields: Serranus a serendo61. (It would be good to know whether ‘Cincinnatus from the plough’ was a patrician counterblast to Atilius, or vice versa.) Serranus the exemplary plebeian was prob­ ably C. Atilius ‘Bubulcus’, as the Livian tradition calls him, consul in 245 and 235 and censor in 23468. Even more famous in the annals of ancient virtue— indeed an essential feature of every moralising list on the subject—was C. Fabricius Luscinus, consul in 282 and 278 and censor in 2756970. He was normally known by his gentilicium, not his cognomen. What mattered was not his one eye, but the fact that he worked with his hands: Fabricius afabre10. A faber uses a hammer, malleolus·, the third-century Publicii took that as a cognomen, and their first-century descendants allude to it with 61 62 63 64 65 66 67

68

69 70

Livy IV 12.8-11, 16.2; cf. Dion. Hal. XII 1.5-6 (appointed by Senate), Pliny N H XVIII 15 (honoured by people). Livy IV 13.7: ‘nihil enim constat’. D. Gutberlet, D ie e r s te D e k a d e d e s L iv iu s a ls Q u e lle z u r g r a c c h is c h e n u n d s u lla n is c h e n Z e it (Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 4, Hildesheim 1985). Above, n. 19 (cf. n. 12). Broughton, M R R I 57 n. 2; cf. n. 40 above. Dion.H al.XII 1.14(μεμήνυται),2.1 (έμηνΰθη.,.τόνμηνυτήν); ZonarasVII2 0 (τόμήνυμα); cf. n. 42 above. Cic. R o se . A m . 50, S e st. 72 (‘ille Serranus ab aratro’), Virg. A e n . V I844, Val. Max. IV 4.5, Pliny N H XVIII 20; Schol. Gron. 308St (C. Atilius Serranus), Serv. A e n . VI 844 (‘Atilius quidam senator’), Schol. Pers. 1.74 (Cincinnatus!). Often identified as C. Atilius Regulus c o s . 257, but wrongly: Val. Max. distinguishes the two. Oros. IV 12.2, cf. Eutrop. Ill 3 ‘bulco’. The Fasti Capitolini call him C. Atilius A.f.A.n. Bulbus, and deny him the triumph in 235 which Val. Max. IV 4.5 seems to imply. Cf. Val. Max. IV 4.4 on b u b u lc i called from the plough to the consulship. Cic. L eg . a g r . II 64, S e st. 143, C a e l. 39, P is . 58, P la n e . 60; Sen. C o n tr. II 1.8, Val. Max. IV 4.11, Quintilian VII 2.38, XII 2.30, Pliny P a n e g . 13, Juv. II 154, XI 91, Apul. A p o l. 10. Prise. G ra m m . II 135.23 ‘faber fabri Fabricius’. In only one of the thirteen passages in n. 69 (the first) is he called Luscinus; cf. Pliny N H XI 150 for the meaning of the c o g n o m e n .

68

Τ. Ρ. Wiseman

pride71. But here too the gentilicium is more important. In the third century it was spelt ‘Populicius’72, and the bearers of it evidently thought of themselves as ‘the people’s men’: Populicius apopulo 73. These are all self-consciously plebeian etymologies. But there are patrician examples too. One of them may lurk behind the story of the cow’s horns on the temple of Diana. A Sabine farmer has a wonderful cow, about which a prophecy is made: sacrifice it at the Diana temple on the Aventine at Rome, and your city will become the ruler of all Italy. He goes there, but is tricked by Cornelius the priest, who tells him to bathe in the Tiber first, and sacrifices the cow himself74. The context is evi­ dently the late fourth or early third century B.C. (Rome as the caput Italiae), and we now know there was a pontifex maximus called P. Cornelius Scapula at about that time75. Cornelius a comibusl More directly relevant to the Minucii is a cluster of Greek etymologies that seem to have originated in this same period. As Munro pointed out in 1864, the fact that the Scipiones are constantly described asfulmina probably implies an etymology from σκηπτός, a thunderbolt;76 the first to use the cognomen was evidently the dictator of 306 B.C.77 The Pinarii were responsible for the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima; their name derived (Pinarius από του πείναν) from the story that they arrived late at the hero’s dedication sacrifice and had to go hungry. The context of the aetiology was probably 312 B.C.,when the cult was transferred to state control and the Pinarii deprived of their privileges78. That was also a time when the Romans were inter­ ested in Pythagoras79, after whose graceful son (Aemilius δι ’ αίμυλίαν) the patri­ cian Aemilii were named80; since lepidus is a caique on αίμυλος, the first Aemilius Lepidus (cos. 285) provides the terminus ante quern. The notion that Latin was a dialect of Greek is probably to be associated with the tradition of Evander introducing the alphabet to Rome81. Evander in Rome was

71 Crawford, op. cit. (n. 11 above) 333-335, no. 335.3. 72 IL L R P 35 = C IL I2 28; R. Wächter, A ltla te in is c h e r In sc h rifte n (Bern 1987) 346f., 349-359. 73 Varro L L V 158 ( p u b lic e ), Ovid F a s ti V 285-294 (p u b lic a c u r a ) on the builders of the Clivus Publicius (L. M. Publicii Malleoli, according to Festus 276L); IL L R P 357 = C IL I2 834 for C. Poplicius Bibulus, honoured p o p u li iu ssu . See Wiseman, op. cit. (n. 57 above) 92f. 74 Plut. Q R 4 (M o r. 264c-d) = Juba F G r H 275 F91; cf. Livy I 45.3-7, Val. Max. VII 3.1, Vir. ill. 7.10-14. 75 Broughton, M R R III (1986) 70. 76 Lucr. Ill 1034, Cic. B a lb . 34, Virg. A e n . V I842, Val. Max. Ill 5.1, Sil. It. V II106; H. A. J. Munro, 71 L u c re ti C a r i d e reru m n a tu ra lib r i se x II (Cambridge 1864) 273f. = ed. 4 (London 1920) 226f. 77 Livy IX 44.1, Fasti Capitolini. 78 Livy 17.12-14, IX 29.9, Dion. Hal. 140.4-5, Festus 270L; Plut. Q R 60 (M o r. 278f), Macr. S a t. III 6.12-14, Serv. auct. A e n . VIII 269, O r ig o g e n tis R. 8.3. 79 E.g. Cic. T use. IV 4 (Ap. Caecus’ c a r m e n P y th a g o r e u m ), Pliny N H XXXIV 26 (Pythagoras’ statue in the Comitium., time of the Samnite wars), ps.-Epicharmus fr. 295 Kaibel (Pythagoras a Roman citizen). 80 Plut. A e m . P a u l. 2.2, N u m a 8.10, Festus (Paulus) 22L. 81 S u d a s.v. ‘Philoxenos’, cf. G R F 443-46 Funaioli; Dion. Hal. I 33.4, Tac. A n n . XI 14. See E. Gabba in M is c e lla n e a d i s tu d i a le s s a n d r in i in m e m o ria d i A. R o s ta g n i (Turin 1963) 188-194.

The Minucii and Their Monument

69

a story known already to Eratosthenes, whose contemporary Callimachus included Rome in the concept of pan-Hellas82. And why not, when consuls from the new ple­ beian élite were calling themselves Philo and Sophus?83 With a little ingenuity, even the most intractable items could be made sense of in Greek. Flamines, for instance, evidently became pilamenes, from the felt cap (πίλος) which was part of their insignia, and the native fertility god Inuus (from inire) was transliterated as Ένυοΰς, son of Enyo the war-goddess84. The Roman Enyo was Bellona, whose temple was vowed by Ap. Claudius Caecus in 296 and dedicated a few years later85. As for the/Z amines etymology, that occurs in the context of the Flamen Quirinalis, supposedly introduced by the ‘Pythagorean’ Numa: the temple of Quirinus was dedicated in 29386. In the light of these indications, obscure and hard to interpret as they are, I think it is reasonable to put the origin of the Μ ηνύκιος-μηνυτής etymology at some time not too far from 300 B.C. VIII Precisely in 300 B.C., the lex Ogulnia opened the colleges of augurs and pontifices to plebeian membership. The first plebeian augurs are named by Livy as C. Genucius, P. Aelius Paetus, M. M inucius Faesus, C. M arcius, and a ‘T. Publius’ whose gentilicium must have been either Publilius or Publicius87. The March—to judge by their later coins—claimed descent from Marsyas, whose envoys taught Italy the science of augury88. Augury was part of prophecy, and Cn. Marcius, a famous (and no doubt legendary) prophet, was a member of the noble house89. Cicero, who tells us this, also mentions a prophet called Publicius90. It looks as if two of the first plebeian augurs, C. Marcius and T. ‘Publius’, laid claim to in82 Eratosthenes ap. Schol. Plat. P h a e d r . 244b (Ruhnk p. 61), cf. Clem. Alex. S tro m . 1 108.3; Callim. I a m b i fr. 106-107 Pfeiffer. 83 Q. Publilius Philo c o s . 339, 327, 320, 315, c e n s . 332; P. Sempronius Sophus c o s . 304, cen s. 300. 84 Plut. N u m a 7.5 = Juba F G r H 275 F88 (πιλαμένας τινάς όντας); Diomedes G ra m m . L a t. 1475476 Keil (‘Bellonae, id est Ένυοΰς, filio’). Inire: Serv. A e n . V I775, cf. Ovid F a s ti I I 441. 85 Livy X 19.17, Ovid F a s ti VI 201-204, C IL XI 1827 = IL S 54; cf. Pliny N H XXXV 12 (mis­ dated to 495 B.C.). Bellona as Enyo: Plut. S u lla 30.2, C ic . 13.4, Dio L 4.5, etc. A possible context for the ‘warlike’ Inuus is suggested in J R S 85 (1995) 10-12. 86 Livy X 46.7, Pliny N H V II213. It had two myrtle-trees in front of it, one for the patricians and the other for the plebeians (Pliny N H X V 120). 87 Livy X 9.2. This part of the argument is repeated from L C M 16.8 (Oct. 1991) 118f. 88 Cn. Gellius fr. 7P (Solinus 1.7), Serv. A e n . Ill 359; Crawford, op. cit. (n. 11 above) 377, no. 363 (coins of L. Marcius Censorinus, 82 B.C.). See M. Torelli, T y p o lo g y a n d S tru c tu re o f R o m a n H is to r ic a l R e lie fs (Ann Arbor 1982) 103-105, and Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 30 above) 91-111, sug­ gesting that the statue of Marsyas in the Forum was set up by Cn. Marcius Censorinus in 295. 89 Cic. D iv . I 89, cf. I 115, II 113; Livy XXV 12.3 (v a te s in lu stris , prophecies consulted in 212 B.C.), Festus 162L, Festus (Paulus) 185L, Isid. O rig . VI 8.12. 90 Cic. D iv . I 115, II 113; see nn. 71-73 above for the Publicii.

70

T. P. Wiseman

herited skill in the art of divination. Two of the others, C. Genucius and M. Minucius Faesus, belonged to families which attributed to their supposedly patrician forebears the cognomen Augurinus91, implying distant prophetic ancestors of the same sort. I suggest that the bilingual pun on the name Minucius originally referred to ji.fiv'uciç in the sense of ‘revelation’, disclosure of the gods’ will, and of future events, by divination or inspired prophecy. In that case, we must infer a proto-Minucius, like the prophets Marcius and Publicius, on whom M. Minucius Faesus based his claim to a place in the first mixed college of augurs. And that, in turn, provides at last an explanation of the Minucian monument illustrated by the Minucian moneyers in the 130s B.C. The two men on ground level can be L. Minucius the grain-provider and M. Minucius Faesus the augur; the staff-bearing figure on the column must be the ancestral Minucius, whether thought of as a mortal or a god. IX Now let us draw together the threads, and attempt a chronological view of the Minucii. The starting point must be the monument—evidently situated at the most direct descent from the Aventine to the river harbour, and so firmly associated with the Minucii that when the city wall was built, about 380 B.C., the gate was called the Porta Minucia. We cannot tell what sort of people the fifth-century Minucii were, but the monument itself implies they were prominent. Perhaps L. Minucius was a merchant? One ship-load of imported grain, brought to a starving community in a famine year, might be enough to account for the consistent association of his name with the com supply. After the power-sharing compromise of 367 B.C. (or whenever it was), the ple­ beian Minucii could hope for high office; they achieved it with the consulship of 305. The late fourth century was a period of great creative energy, not least (I think) in the elaboration of distinguished ancestries for members of the new plebeian élite92. If the Minucii were indeed presenting themselves as hereditary experts in the arts of revelation, their reward was a place on the first joint augural college, in 300 B.C. The next consular Minucius was M. Minucius Rufus (221), whose reputation has suffered through the Fabian tradition on the events of 217, when he was the unsuc­ cessful magister equitum of Q. Fabius ‘Cunctator’93. Fabius represented senatorial authority, a theme emphasised in his contemporary L. C incius’ account of the Sp. Maelius affair, in which Minucian ‘revelation’ was reduced to mere crime­ reporting. Minucii Thermi and Rufi were consuls in 197, 193 and 110; all three won tri­ umphs, and the last of them built the Porticus Minucia from his Thracian spoils. By then the historiographical tradition was developing the Sp. Maelius story, and L.

91

Fasti Capitolini: T. Genucius L.f.L.n. Augurinus c o s. and X v ir 451, M. Genucius Augurinus c o s . 445, Cn. Genucius M.f.M.n. Augurinus tr. m il. co s. p o t. 399. Minucii: section IV above. 92 T .P. Wiseman, R e m u s: a R o m a n M y th (Cambridge 1995) 109f. 93 Broughton, M R R 1243 for the sources; cf. J. Nichol, T he H is to r ic a l a n d G e o g r a p h ic a l S o u rc e s u s e d b y S iliu s lta lic u s (Oxford 1936) 73-76, on ‘the tendency to exalt Fabius’.

71

The Minucii and Their Monument

Minucius with it, in terms appropriate to the politics of the post-Gracchan age. Sulla added a further dimension, duly exploited by Licinius Macer, who claimed to have found a reference in the libri lintei to L. Minucius as praefectus annonae. Livy and Dionysius wove the various tendentious versions into their own narratives, from which modem scholars do their best to disentangle them. The Minucius Thermus who was thought a certainty for the consulship of 64 failed to get it (or if he did get it, it was under a different name)94. There were no more Minucian consuls. By the Augustan age, the family was a spent force. But the name still carried its double significance: corn, symbolised try the Porticus Minucia frumentaria (and the imperial curatores Minutiae), and revelation, as reflected in Dionysius’ continued play on the μηνυτής etymology. Precisely those two elements were alluded to on the Minucian coin-scene, of two representative Minucii at their family monument, with loaves and an augur’s staff respectively. I hope this investigation of the history and pseudo-history of one family may serve to illustrate the complex processes that created the historical tradition on republican Rome. And if, in consequence, we come to doubt whether the early names in Broughton’s great catalogue are as authentic as he thought they were, we must also remember with gratitude that without The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic such enquiries could never be undertaken at all.

The University o f Exeter

Captions to Illustrations Figures 1 and 2:

D e n a r ii o f C. (M in u c iu s ) A u g u r in u s a n d Ti. M in u c iu s C . f A u g u r in u s ; b y c o u r te s y o f th e B r itish M u seu m .

Figure 3:

R e c o n s tr u c tio n o f th e c o lu m n -s ta tu e a n d a lta r c o m p le x a t th e V olca n a l; r e p r o ­ d u c e d b y p e r m is s io n f r o m F. C o a r e lli, I l f o r o ro m a n o : p e r io d o a r c a ic o (R o m e 1 9 8 3 ) 1 7 5 f ig . 4 7 .

Figure 4:

P r o b a b le c o u r s e o f th e w e s te r n p a r t o f th e re p u b lic a n c ity w a ll; th e d o tte d lin e re p r e s e n ts th e s e c tio n m a d e o b s o le te b y th e tw o ‘c r o s s - w a lls ’ to th e river. G a te s : 1. P o r ta M in u c ia ? 2. P o r ta T rigem in a. 3. P o r ta F lu m en ta n a . 4. P o r ta C a r m e n ta lis

5. P o r ta C a tu la r ia ?

94 Cic. A tt. I 1.2, with D. R. Shackleton Bailey, 292.

C ic e r o ’s L e tte r s to A ttic u s

I (Cambridge 1965)

72

T. P. Wiseman

Figure 2

The Minucii and Their Monument

Figure 3

73

74

T. P. Wiseman

I____________I____________I

Figure 4

THE DECONSTRUCTION OF MOMMSEN ON FESTUS 462/464 L., OR THE HAZARDS OF RESTORATION by

Robert E. A. Palmer In The Magistrates o f the Roman Republic T. R. S. Broughton included the names of priests who served state cult. When they can be dated he listed them after the magistrates of a given year. Unlike the magistrates, the priests and the Vestal priest­ esses normally fdled their offices for life. Although the men who constituted the several collegia of public priests were normally drawn from actual or traditional ruling families, the several priests could be expected to act in accord with the rules of their priestly functions. And so it sometimes happened that an augur found himself at odds with other elements of Roman society. Such a clash is perceived when we accept one of the many defective entries in Festus’ “Lexicon of Word Meanings”, as restored by Theodor Mommsen. The entry as it survives yields the personal names of three men thought to have been prominent in Roman state religion: a pontiff Metellus, a Sulpicius son of Servius and an appellant Claudius. All should have claimed consideration for inclusion in Broughton’s lists of Republican priests. Also the clash between a chief pontiff (Metellus) and an augur (Claudius) that Mommsen enucleated from this sciap of Festus and his own restoration of it should have been accorded notice in Broughton’s work at least for a year undertermined. But Sulpicius son of Servius and Claudius did not gain notice; Caecillii Metelli were pontiffs and chief pontiffs on several oc­ casions, none related by Broughton to the clash Mommsen imagined. Mommsen believed that Claudius had been an augur who was ordered by a chief pontiff Metellus to inaugurate Sulpicius son of Servius as a priest, that Claudius declined on grounds of a religious technicality, that Claudius was subsequently fined by the chief pontiff, and that Claudius appealed the fine. The religious technicality adduced by Claudius was a requirement of his family cult that he conduct religious business bareheaded. The foregoing were the components of the clash Mommsen perceived. An improbability, however, has always inhered in Mommsen’s reconstruc­ tion: the augurs normally functioned with head covered. Further, the religious tech­ nicality Claudius is thought to have adduced belonged to the practice of his clan’s worship of Saturn. At first blush the clan worship and the state worship of the god seem consonant. Nevertheless neither Mommsen himself nor those who have ac­ cepted his restoration of the lexical entry and pursued the subject have ever exam­ ined the content of Claudius’ refusal to inaugurate Sulpicius son of Servius. From the remains of the single ancient source it is clear that Claudius made a case for refusing the pontiff’s request, whatever it was. In this paper we pursue the content of Claudius’ refusal and find its validity in reinterpretation of the ritual niceJ Lmderski, cd.. Impenum Sine Fine T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic Historia Einzelschnft, n. 105 ©1996 Franz Sterner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

76

R. E. A. Palmer

ties observed in the state cult of Saturn. Since the disagreement between the pontiff Metellus and Claudius must have taken place when worship of Saturn in the clan Claudia and worship of Saturn in state religion were at variance, we can date the incident before 217 B.C. Since we have knowledge o f a flamen named Quintus Sulpicius who quit his flaminate in 223 B.C., we can date the incident to that year. Also now we are in the position of naming not one but two Claudii who could have been the Claudius in Festus’ entry. In reconstructing the situation in 223 and at the same time reconstructing the lexical entry without the inherent improbability of an augur operating with head bared we can conclude that none of the men, not pontiff Metellus, not Sulpicius son of Servius, and particularly not Claudius, was or had been an augur. It is newly won knowledge of the state cult of Saturn that must end discus­ sion of a pontiff and an augur in “collision” as if the Romans’ two most powerful priesthoods had reached some constitutional impasse. The better to understand what occurred in 223 we should bring into sharper fo­ cus the character of cult and worship practiced in Roman clans. The religion observed by clansmen is not much appreciated simply because the classical texts are for the most part silent on the subject. For immediate demonstration of how different was the situation Mommsen cre­ ated from what can be recovered from the contest of the year 223 I offer a plain ren­ dition of Festus’ entry on pp. 462/464 L. as it is healed in the following article: “Sacrifice is made to Saturn with the head uncovered. L. Caecilius Metellus, the chief pontiff, ordered Claudius to appear so that he might inaugurate him Dial flamen in the place of Q. Sulpicius Ser. f. When Claudius persisted in claiming exemption on the grounds that he had family rites of Saturn for which he had to pray with head uncovered and so if he were to heed (the pontiff’s) bidding, it would happen that he must sacrifice with head unco vered, the pontiff fined him; Claudius appealed. The people ... that the pontiff had no right to pick Claudius as flamen. To Saturn he sacrificed ...” The badly mutilated entry in Festus’ de verborum significant has made the oc­ casion for learned discussion on a conflict between a chief pontiff Metellus and an augur Claudius.1 The prevalent restoration of the text was made by Th. Mommsen which by act of restoration created the sole case of the chief pontiff trying to fine an augur for refusal to inaugurate.12 In his 1913 edition of Festus Lindsay admitted to the text next to nothing of Mommsen’s restoration which he consigned to his appa1

2

See J. Bleicken, “Kollisionen zwischen Sacrum und Publicum”, H e r m e s 85 (1957) 455-456; B. Gladigow, “Condictio und Inauguratio: ein Beitrag zur römischen Sakralverfassung”, H e rm e s 98 (1970) 372-374; J. Linderski, “The Augural Law”, in H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), A N R W 2 .1 6 .3 (1986) 2218-2222. Bleicken who follows Mommsen’s restoration of the text that is the source of this “collision” dates the incident to 63 B.C. Gladigow writes much more cir­ cumspectly speaking of a pontiff and a Claudius who, he allows in passing, might have been a flamen or rex sacrorum; basically, however, he treats the case as one where the chief pontiff tried to fine an augur. Linderski’s discussion focuses on the augurs’ function of inauguration of persons as priests. Th. Mommsen in R o m . S ta a ts r e c h t 22, 35 n. 1.

The Deconstruction of Mommsen on Festus 462/464 L.

77

ratus.3 Yet in his 1930 edition of the same text Lindsay incorporated most of Mommsen’s restoration.4 Finally W. Strzelecki offers two texts in his edition of frag­ ments of Ateius Capito to which he would assign the entire entry.5 One of his texts is what is left of Festus and the other Mommsen’s restored text.6 First, the nearly bare text which Lindsay printed in 1913 will be given here.7 Secondly, another text will be given with substantive differences from that restored by Mommsen. This text will remove the ground for earlier study of the problem of pontiff and augur in opposition. A commentary follows the newly restored text. Thirdly, the circumstance of the cult of Saturn prevailing at the time of the event (223 B.C.) will be described. Fourthly, the question o f cult practice Graeco ritu or capite aperto will be revisited. Fifthly, since the Claudius apparently claimed ineligibility to sacrifice with head covered on account of his observance of a gentilicial cult of Saturn, the person of Claudius who would not b eflamen Dialis is recreated. (In this regard, other patrician clansmen who did serve as Flamines Diales will be passed in review.) Sixthly, the gentilicial cult of the patrician Claudii and of some other clans is re-examined, and two cases of dispensation from public service on grounds of (fam­ ily) religion briefly noted. Finally there are proposed the appropriate notices for each man who ought to have been entered in T. R. S. Broughton’s list of careers of Roman priests or notices that enlarge our knowledge of priests already entered. Festus pp. 462/464 L. Satumo> sacrificium fit cap set adesse[t], ut e u m ............................................... pici Ser. f. in au g cu ratk » .................................................... ret se sacra sibi fam ciliaria.......................................sup-> plicandum esset capite......................................................... esset, futurum, ut cum ap............................. facienda esset, pontif.................................................. Claudius provocavit............................................................ tifici esset Claudius, f l ........................................................ Saturno sacra fecit re m ....................................................... 3

4

5 6 7

W. M. Lindsay, F e s tu s d e v e r b o r u m sig n ific a tu c u m P a u li e p ito m e (Leipzig 1913) 462/4. He also silently corrected some MS ‘readings’ Mommsen had seen. They are noted in my com­ mentary. G lo s s a r ia L a tin a 4 (Paris 1930, repr. Hildesheim 1965) 432-433. This later edition lacks the fine app. crit. found in the edition of 1913. The first edition gave < ‘S a tu r n o ’> as the lemma, the second < S a tu r n o > s a c r ific iu m f i t c a p < ite a p e r to > . I infer the reason for the change lay in an earlier entry S a tu rn o (p. 4321) which Lindsay retained as such (p. 4162). Also in the second edition, Lindsay supplies the number of the missing letters where he omits the restorations. W. Strzelecki, C. A te i C a p ito n is f r a g m e n ta (Leipzig 1967) suppi, fr. 75 on p. 53. The first text has an error of cu m for eu m . The second he attributes to the d o c ti Scaliger and Mommsen but Scaliger had been Scaliger and so circumspect. Unless otherwise noted, all further references to Festus will be made to page number in Lind­ say 1913, a proper critical text.

78

R. E. A. Palmer

Palmer’s Text 1.

2. sacrificium fit capeite aperto. L. Caecilius> 3. Metellus pontifex cmaximus ... Claudium iussis>4. set adesse[t] ut eum 5. pici Ser. f. inaugcuraret, cum Claudius excusa>6. ret se, sacra sibi famciliaria esse Saturni ob quae sibi sup>7. plicandum esset capite 8. esset, futurum ut cum ap 9. facienda esset, pontif; 10. Claudius provocavit 11. tifici esse t Claudius fl. 12. Saturno sacra fecit rem ... Com ment 1. This word was restored by Scaliger because its appearance in line 12 and the entry falls in S, following subditus and preceding saxum Tarpeium. Earlier in S also occur Saturnia, Saturnii and another Saturno that includes Saturnii (versus), and Sateumus that is usually emended to Saetumus. These entries are clustered after sargus and before sas; see Festus 430/432 L. 2. cap. The gentilicial name is an indisputable restoration. In as much the filiation of Sulpicius is found in line 5 his praenomen is restored in line 4 and then a praenomen ought to be restored to Metellus. The praenomen of the pont. max. Metellus Delmaticus was also Lucius, that of the pont. max. Metellus Pius, Quintus. 3. set also dubbed him augurem, as Lindsay represents him in his text (above). Here it is ar­ gued that Claudius could not have been an augur. Probably Festus gave Claudius’ praenomen; see below on line 9. 4. adesse[t] was corrected as dependent on iussis>set. 4. In addition to Sul- Lindsay notes space for 17 letters. My restoration has 19 let­ ters. flaminem is restored after line 11; also see below. Dialem may have been omitted though its presence must be assumed in the original account to make sense of

The Deconstruction of Mommsen on Festus 462/464 L.

79

Claudius’ objection. Although in locum is normally found in the authors (eg. Livy 23.23.8,25.2.2,27.36.5,29.38.6,30.26.10,40.10.6,40.42.7-11,43.11.3 and 44.18.7), loco (ILS 5024: loco ...flaminis and loco ... exaugurati) is chosen because of consid­ eration of space (cf. ILS 9339). 4. The praenomen of Sul>pici, an old and certain restoration, is necessary since his father’s praenomen is given. On Q. Sulpicius, a flamen who resigned in 223 when L. Caec. Metellus was chief pontiff, see below. 5. inaugesset after Livy 37.51.5: ut dicto audiens flamen pontifici iussus, an idiom also found in other circumstances; and understand ‘if he were to be present according to command’ which is the same as ad iussum save that the latter seems unidiomatic. 8. ap '. There is no need for those transpositions and emen­ dations, and no reason to accept Purser’s contention that it is unlikely that 'c e n s o r ' would stand alone. Cicero’s train of thought is this: as the statue a d H e r c u le m has only the inscription C O S , Scipio Metellus could legitimately take it to be a statue of Nasica Serapio who had been a con­ sul. But he should have noticed that this is a statue of the same man who in another statue is identified as C E N S . As Serapio had never been a censor this cannot have been his statue, and consequently the statue with C O S was not his statue either, and thus Scipio Metellus was not entitled to appropiate its im a g o for his equestrian statue of Nasica. This refutes the argument by R. Y. Tyrrell and L. C. Purser, T h e C o r r e s p o n d e n c e o f M . T u lliu s C ic e ro 3 (Dublin-London 1890) 306-307. The manuscript reading is also defended by F. Coarelli, “Le ty r a n n o c to n e du Capitole et la mort de Tiberius Gracchus”, M E F R 81 (1969) 137-160 at 145-146, n. 1. But I am afraid Coarelli misreads the words of Cicero when he claims (146) that “on avait placé deux têtes de Scipion Emilien sur deux statues équestres dédiées â Scipion Nasica”. Cicero clearly speaks of two statues of Africanus but of only one of Nasica Serapio. Furthermore Coarelli takes the statues a b O p is p a r te and a d H e rc u le m to be the statues of Nasica set up by Metellus Scipio whereas (Cicero could not be clearer) they are in reality the statues of Scipio Aemilianus. In which part of the Capitoline Hill Scipio Metellus planted his “equestrian cavalcade” Cicero does not tell us. Coarelli’s main and brilliant contribution is in the area of topography, but everything he says about the placement of the statues by Metellus Scipio has to be referred to the statues of Aemilianus. But above all he plausibly suggests (136-137, 159-160) that it was Metellus Scipio who erected on the Capitol also a statue of Aristogeiton, thus linking in a pow­ erful political program the two tyrant slayers.

Q. Scipio Imperator

159

erected the statues not of all Cornelii Scipiones but only of the members of his own branch of the Scipiones Nasicae. Otherwise (we have charitably to grant this to Metellus Scipio) he would have discovered his mistake. So far, only part of the puzzle. How did Atticus become involved in this com­ edy? Shackleton Bailey has produced an explanation, ingenious and convincing. Also generous to Metellus Scipio. It rests on his literary interests. In a modified form, the explanation runs as follows. Cicero had completed his De re publica before he departed in 51 for Cilicia. It was an immediate success. Tui libri politici omnibus vigent, reports Caelius in May 5 153. The rolls fell also into the hands of Metellus Scipio. In book VI centered around the somnium Scipionis, he stumbled upon a disturbing passage (p. 124 in K. Ziegler’s Teubner edition), today extant only in the paraphrase of Macrobius (Somn. Scip. 1.4.2): cum enim Laelius

quaereretur nullas Nasicae statuas in publico in interfecti tyranni remunerationem locatas. When Metellus Scipio took in this information he ran to Atticus, the supreme authority in such matters, to inquire whether this was really so54. And he told the unbelieving Atticus his own story of mistaken identification, which Atticus duly re­ ported to Cicero for his friend’s amusement in partibus barbarorum. What better opportunity than this juncture for Scipio Metellus to ask Atticus to compose a liber de gente Comelioruml If he had Atticus’ book in his hands already in 57, it strains the imagination to picture him engaged in 52 in a futile investigation of the Capitoline statuary; to avoid his error it would have been sufficient for him to consult Atticus’ script. Münzer actually assumed that Scipio committed his error “absichtlich55 oder unabsichtlich” in spite of his possession of Atticus’ genealogy of the Scipiones. But if this were so it is not likely that Atticus would not have men­ tioned in his letter that additional delightful morsel of information indicating Scipio’s density, and that Cicero would not have elaborated even more effusively than he does on Scipio’s ignorance. Münzer concluded his analysis of the text of Nepos with a rather plaintive ob­ servation that “die Angaben des Nepos doch nicht ganz vollständig sind. Atticus muss mehr ... gegeben haben, als die Familiengeschichte der Fabier und der Aemilier; er 53

8.1.4. On the composition and publication of the D e re p u b lic a , see Drumann-Groebe, (above, n. 40) 6 (1929) 71-74. 54 Shackleton Bailey, L e tte r s to A ttic u s 3 (above, n. 44) 115, argues that the passage that aroused Scipio’s discomfort could not have been Laelius’ complaint, but some other passage, now lost, that must have identified the statue a b O p is p a r te as the statue of Africanus and not as that of Nasica Serapio. This is unduly complicated. There was no reason for Cicero to mention a statue of Africanus in a dialogue in which Africanus himself was one of the interlocutors. The inter­ jection, d e A fr ic a n i s ta tu a , it is much better to take not as a reference to a presumed mention of the statue in Cicero’s treatise, but rather as a comment on Atticus’ report of Scipio’s misidentification of the actual s ta tu a . The singular should not distress us. Atticus apparently men­ tioned one statue only, the one with the inscription c e n s o r (hence Cicero’s exclamation: S c ip io h ic M e te llu s p r o a v u m su u m n e s c it c e n s o re m n o n fu isse ? )', in response, Cicero, as was his wont, flaunted before Atticus his knowledge of the Capitoline topography, and out of his memory produced two statues of Africanus, together with their inscriptions. 55 Münzer, “Atticus” (above, n. 48) 90. This characterization is surprising and errant. In the let­ ter of Cicero there is not even the slightest intimation that Metellus Scipio erred a b s ic h tlic h , that is that he consciously falsified the record. It was just sheer ignorance. F am .

G e s c h ic h te R o m s

160

J. Linderski

muss die Scipionen, sogar die Meteller hineingezogen haben”565789. The Scipiones cer­ tainly; the Metelli very likely. But which Metelli, that is the question. At Brutus 212, a dialogue in which in addition to Cicero and Brutus also Atticus participated, Cicero expatiates on Scipio’s family tree: etenim istius genus est ex ipsius sapientiae stirpe generatum. The passage is so important, and genealogically so complicated, that it must be quoted in full, to be followed by a commentary: Nam et

de duobus avis iam diximus, Scipione et Crasso, et de tribus proavis, Q. Metello, cuius quattuor 51filii, P. Scipione, qui ex dominatu Ti. Gracchi privatus in libertatem rem publicam vindicavit, Q. Scaevola augure, quiperitissimus iuris idemque percomis est habitus. Iam duorum abavorum quam illustre est nomen, P. Scipionis, qui bis consul fuit, qui est Corculum dictus, alterius omnium sapientissimi, C. Laeli. From Cicero’s letter to Atticus we have learnt both of Scipio Metellus’ genea­ logical interests and ignorance. When he asked Atticus to compose a history of his ancestors it would have indeed been odd if he had limited Atticus’ commission solely to his gens naturalis and disregarded his adopted family. But a glance at the stemma in the Brutus will show that it is built solely around the agnatic descent and cognatic connections of the Scipiones Nasicae; the prolific Metelli appear prominently, but they are not the branch of Scipio’s adoptive father Metellus Pius. On the side of the Scipiones we have the abavus P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (cos. 162, 155; PE 355; he was married to the elder daughter of Scipio Africanus, a sister of Cornelia, mater Gracchorum), the proavus P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, cos. 138, and the slayer of Ti. Gracchus (Metellus Scipio’s shameful ignorance of his offices now passed over), and finally the avus P. Scipio Nasica, cos. I l l (Cicero omits the pater, he was a mere praetor). The cognatic side is even more enveloped in sapientia. First, in the farthest reaches of the stemma, the abavus C. Laelius, cos. 140 (RE 3). His daughter Laelia married the proavus Q. Mucius Scaevola the Augur, cos. 117 (/?£21), and his daughter Mucia married L. Licinius Crassus the orator, cos. 95 (RE 55). The issue of this union was Licinia, the wife of P. Scipio Nasica, and mother of our Metellus Scipio. The Metelli remain. The paternal grand­ father, Scipio Nasica, the consul of 111, acquired for wife a Metella, a daughter of the illustrious proavus Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, cos. 143, and a sister to four consuls. Miinzer suggests, very plausibly, that Cicero had before his eyes the very script Atticus composed for Metellus Scipio. It was apparently not a history of the family ab ovo (as in the Liber annalis), but rather it started with Metellus Scipio, and traced back the various links in the stemma5i. Thus no place for Metellus Pius and his line? It would be too rash to jump to this conclusion. Metellus Scipio was now the keeper of the imagines and of the colored stemmata59 of Metellus Pius; and later, as the Pompeian commander in Af-

56 Münzer, “Atticus” (above, n. 48) 99. 57 Cf. A. E. Douglas, M . T u lli C ic e r o n is B r u tu s (Oxford 1966) in a p p . a d loc. 58 Münzer, “Atticus” (above, n. 48) 98-99. For the ste m m a ta of Metellus Scipio and of the Caecilii, see R E 3(1899) 1226,1230. 59 Plin., N .H . 35.7 Cf. E. Courtney, A C o m m e n ta r y on th e S a tir e s o f J u v e n a l (London 1980) 384— 387.

Q. Scipio Imperator

161

rica, he not only drew on his Scipionic ancestry but also showed a remarkable knowl­ edge of the emblems of the Metelli (see below, section VI). The book of Atticus will have been composed in two parts: one delineating the ancestry of the Nasicae, and the other of Metellus Pius. The link between the two was Metella, the paternal grand­ mother of Metellus Scipio. But the history of the Scipiones and the Metelli cannot be accomodated if we continue clinging to the transmitted text. To make sense of Nepos, and of Atticus’ commissions, we have to separate Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus, and admit a lacuna, even more extensive than that envisaged by Cichorius and Shackleton Bailey. We can venture to read.: pari modo Marcelli Claudii Marcellorum, Scipionis

Comeli et , Fabii Maximi Fabiorum et Aemiliorum. The unique name-form Scipio Cornelius pleasingly disappears; and the notice of Nepos is firmly assigned to the familiar Scipio Metellus. The separation of Metellus Scipio and Fabius Maximus in the text of Nepos has its repercussions in history. One pillar that united them in the aedileship of 57, the script of Atticus allegedly commissioned in unison by both of them, has crumbled60; this is welcome for their future fate was dissimilar. Metellus Scipio died in glory fighting Caesar (see below, section XI); Fabius Maximus died in ridicule as Caesar’s stooge on the last day of his suffect consulship. To his sons he gave the fatuous names of Paullus Fabius Maximus and Africanus Fabius Maximus61. They were like a walking/om ix Fabianus, and as consuls in 11 and 10, vain but glittering ornaments of the new dispensation. [10] P. Cornelius Scipio Eutropius 6.23 in the description of the war in Africa: Duces autem Romani erant P. Cornelius Scipio ex genere antiquissimo Scipionis Africani. This rather unusual 60 The other pillar is a mention in the fifteenth century French writer Antoine de la Sale, who ex­ cerpted Cicero’s lost D e v ir tu tib u s, to the effect that M e te l e t F a b ien , g r a n s s e n a te u r s d e R o m m e e t b ie n a m ez, c o m m e n t ilz p e r d ir e n t l 'a m o u r d u p e u p le e tfu r e n t d e s tr u is p a r la c h ie r e te su rv e n u e .

This seems indeed to indicate that Metellus and Fabius were the aediles in charge of grain pro­ curement, but not necessarily in the same year. In any case if Metellus Scipio was aedile in 57 he did not suffer any consequences, and smoothly advanced to the praetorship. For the text of Antoine de la Sale, see F. Gustafsson, “Cicero’s D e v ir tu tib u s l i b e r V , B P h W 40 (1904) 12771278; and above all H. Knoellinger, M . T u lli C ic e r o n is d e v ir tu tib u s lib r i f r a g m e n ta (Lipsiae 1908) 28-29,49-50 (with a Latin translation and a commentary); and forMiinzer’s interpreta­ tion, R E 6 (1909) 1791; S u p p l. 3 (1918) 223. The idea that Metellus Scipio was aedile in 57 was recently taken up by F. Canali De Rossi, “P. Clodio, Q. Cecilio Metello e il grano tessalo”, M is c e lla n e a G r e c a e R o m a n a 19 (1995) 147-159; he also argues that Metellus Scipio is the aedile Q. Caecilius Q. f. Metellus mentioned in the famous inscription from Larissa (S£G 34 [1984] n. 558) concerning the transportation of the Thessalian grain to Rome. This is impos­ sible; as generally accepted, the inscription belongs to the second century. See Konrad, “AlsoRans” (above, n. 17) nn. 146-153. Cf. also A(nn) Marshall, “Atticus and the Genealogies,” L a to m u s 52 (1993) 305-315, a rambling piece. She seems inclined to separate in the text of Nepos the Comelii from the Fabii and Aemilii, and to adopt Cichorius’ conjecture, but she iden­ tifies the Cornelius as Cornelius (Scipio) Salvitto (cf. below, n. 95), and claims (315) that Atticus composed (in 46-44) the genealogy “for Fabius and Scipio [to give] Caesar a weapon in his war of propaganda as he set up his dictatorship”. 61 Cf. P IR HI (1943) 103-105, F 47 and 48; R Syme, R o m a n R e v o lu tio n (Oxford 1939) 377,487.

162

J. Linderski

name-form finds its explanation in Scipio’s “Cornelian” propaganda in Africa (see below, section V). So also, referring to 49, the Adnotationes super Lucanum (ed. I. Endt) 2.473. [11] P 62 Scipio Cic., Dom. 123: Atqui C. Atinius ... bona Q. Metelli... avi tui, Q. Metelle, et tui, P. Servili, et proavi tui, P. Scipio, consecravit. To distinguish Metellus Scipio from Q. Metellus (Creticus) Cicero had to use the cognomen Scipio (cf. above, [3]); and as the three pontifices appear equipped with praenomina and cognomina, the inher­ ited cognomen Scipio suggested the inherited praenomen P. (and not the assumed

praenomen Q.)6364. At Phil. 13.19 Cicero was faced with a similar delicate choice: recounting a long list of consulars who perished with great damage to the commonwealth he places the exclamation: si P. Scipionem, clarissimum virum maiorumque suorum simillimum, res publica tenere potuisset. All men appear equipped with the praenomen and ei­ ther nomen or cognomen·, this precluded the form Metellus Scipio, the combination of two cognomina. Once Cicero decided on Scipio (and not Metellus), the praenomen P. suggested itself; and it was reinforced by the mention of Scipio’s maiores·, after all when he himself placed on the Capitoline the statues of his ancestors they were his Cornelian ancestors; cf. Cic., Att. 6.1.17, and above, [7]. (Incidentally this again argues against Seipkr’s formal transitio into the gens Caeciliaf On the other hand Livy, Per. 113: Confirmatis in Africa Pompeianis partibus imperium earum P. Scipioni delatum est, is to be explained in the same way as Eutropius’ P. Cornelius Scipio; see above, [9]. P. Scipio also at Per. 114 and at Sen­ eca R het, Suas. 7.8, in the description of Scipio’s death, the Periocha stressing Scipio’s position of imperator. Valerius Maximus 9.5.3 (P. Scipio as the socer of Pompeius) and Suetonius, Tib. 4 (Pater Tiberi, Nero... pontifex in locum P. Scipionis substitutus) follow the same tradition. [12] Q. Scipio Cass. Dio 40.51.2: Pompeius selected as his colleague (in 52) Κύιντον Σκιπίωνα. Shackleton Bailey blasts Dio for this “blunder”: what Dio is doing is “like referring to M. Brutus (Q. Caepio Brutus) as ‘Q. Brutus’ ’,64. But Dio was trying to explain how Scipio got his new name and the praenomen Q.\ οΰτος γάρ γόνφ μέν υιός Νασικοΰ ών, έκ δή κλήρου διαδοχής ές το του Μετέλλου του Εύσεβοΰς γένος ποιηθείς και διά τούτο την έπίκλησιν αύτοΰ φέρων. He reduced Scipio’s adop­ tive name to its first and last component. This is the form that now appears also on our gem. 62 Appian’s Λεΰκιος Σκιπίων (2.24, 87, 95, 100,101) is a mistake, odd but simple. 63 On the genealogy here indicated, see R. G. Nisbet, M . T ulli C ic e ro n is D e D o m o S u a A d P o n tific e s O r a tio (Oxford 1939) 172. In particular it is well to keep in mind that both Metellus Scipio and P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (cor. 79) were descendants of Q. Metellus Macedonicus, c o s . 143 (whose b o n a were consecrated by C. Atinius Labeo, tr. p i. in 132), in the female line: the mother of Vatia and the grandmother of Metellus Scipio were daughters of Macedonicus (cf. F. Miinzer, “Caecilius 130,131”, R E 3 [1899] 1234; cf. above, [9]). No comfort here for the defenders of Scipio’s formal adoption. 64 Shackleton Bailey, N o m e n c la tu re (above, n. 13) 69.

Q. Scipio Imperator

163

[13] Scipio So the Livian tradition and an assorted variety of other authors: Livy, Per. 107 and 114 (where Scipionem praetorem is probably a mistake for proconsulem·, cf. ad loc. P. Jal in the Bude edition of the Periochae [Paris 1984] 87-88); Veil. Pat. 2.54.2; Florus 2.13.65-68; Val. Max. 3.8.7,8.14.5; Seneca Rhet., Suas. 6.2; Seneca, Ep. Mor. 24.10, 71.10; Lucanus 2.473, 6.311, 788, 7.223; Adnot. super Lucanum 6.62, 310, 788,7.223; Lucani Commenta Bemensia (ed. H. Usener) 2.473,6.788; Quint. 5.11.10; Ps.-Quint., Deci. Minores 377.9; Tac., Ann. 4.34.3; Suet., Iul. 35.2, 37.1, 59; Oros. 6.16.3-4; Auct. Vir. III. 78.8,80.3; Ampel. 24,38; Asconius (often Scipio, but cf. above [3]); Sch. Bob. 169, line 16 Stangl; Sch. Gronov. 291, line 25; 322.27 Stangl; Appian (he has both Scipio and the odd L. Scipio; cf. n. 62); Josephus, AJ 14.125, 140; BJ 1.185, 195; Plutarch (normally Scipio: Caes. 30.2, 3, 39.7, 42.1, 44.2, 53.1, 55.1; Cat. Min. 47.1, 56-58, 60.3, 62, 1; Pomp. 55.4, 62.2, 66.5, 67.5; Comp. Pomp, et Ages. 4.7; for other forms, see above, [8]); Cass. Dio (regularly Scipio, but cf. the forms listed under [12], and in n. 15). Caesar in his Bellum Civile and the Author of the Bellum Africum address him invariably simply as Scipio. He is normally so called also by Cicero and Caelius. In Cicero the prime exhibit is Brut. 212, where we read (Cicero speaking): Quid,

Crassum, inquam, ilium censes, istius Liciniae filium, Crassi testamento qui fuit adoptatus? Brutus answers: Summo iste quidem dicitur ingeniofuisse, and he continues: et vero hic Scipio, conlega meus (i.e., in the pontificate), mihi sane bene et loqui videtur et dicere, he knew Latin well, and was a good public speaker65. As the cognoscenti will know, Crassus, the son of Licinia, was the younger brother of Scipio. At the dramatic date of the dialogue he was already dead {dicitur fuisse), and he apparently died young. To us of interest is not his stellar promise, but rather the way in which Cicero identifies him. Both brothers were “adopted” testamento ; the younger brother apparently by his grandfather, L. Licinius Crassus, the orator. It is under his assumed cognomen of Crassus that he appears; on the other hand his elder brother, “adopted” by Metellus Pius, is steadfastly Scipio. Upon Brutus’ remark Cicero embarks on a delineation of Scipio’s family tree (see above [9]), particularly stressing that P. Scipio qui ex dominatu Ti. Gracchi privatus rem publicam in libertatem vindivavit. In the context of the times—the Brutus was composed early in 46 when Metellus Scipio and Cato were still resisting Caesar in Africa66—this statement acquires a contemporary urgency. Cicero was lingering in Rome tom between his loathing for Caesar and his fear that the victorious Pompeians may re­ gard him as traitor (Att. 11.15.1). In the Brutus he looks anxiously to the outcome in Africa (266): et praeteritorum recordatio est acerba et acerbior expectatio reliquorum. When Cicero finished describing Scipio’s multibranched ancestry he has Brutus exclaim (213): O generosam ... stirpem et tamquam in unam arborem plura genera, sic in istam domum multorum insitam atque 67 sapientiam! Sapientia may have flown into the house of Metellus Scipio, but it could 65

Cf. Douglas, B r u tu s (above, n. 57) 154. In matters prosopographical his commentary is defi­ cient. He did not even remark on the important fact that Crassus and Scipio were brothers, and has no comment on Scipio’s genealogy. 66 P. Groebe in Drumann-Groebe, G e s c h ic h te R o m s (above, n. 40) 6 (1929) 683. 67 So Stangl. See Douglas, B r u tu s (above, n. 57) in a p p . a d lo c ., and in his commentary (155).

164

J. Linderski

not overcome Caesar’s legions and the luck of the Julii. Even Brutus soon to be­ come the liberator was not able to bend the verdict of history, and lead the state to freedom. The sonorous and stirring sounds of rem publicam in libertatem vindicare were annexed at Philippi and at Actium by Caesar’s heir to serve in his newspeak as a formula for dominatio.

IV. Provinciae Privatis Decernuntur In his Bellum Civile (1.6.5-7) Caesar denies constitutional legitim acy to Pompeian commanders, and in particular he brands nominatim two senior generals, the consulars (Metellus) Scipio6869701and L. Domitius (cos. 54): Provinciae privatis

decernuntur*9, duae consulares, reliquae praetoriae. Scipioni obvenit Syria, L. Domitio Gallia (MRR 2.261-262). Philippus et Cotta privato consilio praetereuntur, neque eorum sortes deiciuntur. in reliquas provincias praetores10 mittunt. Neque expectant, quod superioribus annis acciderat, ut de eorum imperio ad populumferatur paludatique votis nuncupatis exeunt (exeant)11. Caesar’s writ of accusation contains three points, of unequal value: 1) Provinciae privatis decernuntur. The phrase encapsulates an emotional ap­ peal to the mos maiorum: one intuitively feels it is improper to give provinces to privati. Traditionally provinces had indeed been assigned to magistrates who would then proceed to administer them with a prorogued imperium. But since the lex Pompeia de provinciis of 52 the constitutional landscape has changed: this law in­ troduced the requirement of a five-year interval between a city magistracy and a provincial command72. Consequently after that date the provinces had to be assigned to former magistrates, and hence perforce privati. Forthwith Caesar’s constitutional argument falls to the ground: observe that he does not directly impugn the validity 68

See also 1.4.3: S c ip io n e m e a d e m s p e s p r o v in c ia e a tq u e ex e rc itu u m im p e llit (i. e. as of Lentulus, cf. below, n. 96), q u o s s e p r o n e c e s situ d in e p a r titu r u m cu m P o m p e io a rb itra tu r, sim u l iu d ic io ru m m e tu s a tq u e o s te n ta tio a tq u e a d u la tio p o te n tiu m , q u i in re p u b lic a iu d ic iis q u e tu m p lu rim u m

R. Syme, R o m a n R e v o lu tio n (Oxford 1939) 40, improved on Caesar’s strictures: “Q. Metellus Scipio, vaunting an unmatched pedigree, yet ignorant as well as unworthy of his an­ cestors, corrupt and debauched in the way of his life”. ‘Ignorant’ refers to his venial sin of not knowing that his great-grandfather was not a censor (see above, section III, [9]); ‘corrupt’ hints at his electoral bribery (a thing of which most Roman politicians were guilty), and ‘debauched’ refers to Valerius Maximus’ (9.8.1) anecdote of Scipio’s participation in a party in a private lu p a n a r which evoked the indignation of assorted ancient and modem moralists (not that Syme should be counted among them). But the best in the abuse of Scipio is served by J. H. Collins in his marvellous “Caesar and the Corruption of Power”, H is to r ia 4 (1955) 457, n. 64. This refers to the meeting of the senate p r o x im is d ie b u s e x tr a u rb e m , i.e., on Jan. 8 and 9 of 49. The s e n a tu s c o n su ltu m u ltim u m had already been adopted. P r a e to r is here used in the sense of p r a e to r iu s . E x e u n t most codices and editors; e x e a n t U (codex Vaticanus ex bibliotheca Fulvii Ursini) fol­ lowed by A. Klotz in his Teubner edition (1950). The next sentence is corrupt, and this is not the place to attempt to heal it. On the whole passage, see the commentary by Kraner, Hofmann and Meusel (above, n. 5) 20-22, useful but gullible. On the Pompeian law, see the excellent study by A. J. Marshall, “The Lex Pompeia de Provinciis (52 B.C.) and Cicero’s Imperium in 51-50 B.C.: Constitutional Aspects”, A N R W l . l (1972) 887-921, esp. 890-898 (with ample literature).

p o lle b a n t.

69 70 71

72

Q. Scipio Imperator

165

of the lex Pompeia. It is only at 1.85.9 that he explicitly attacks the law: in se iura magistratuum commutari, ne ex praetura et consulatu, ut semper, sed per paucos probati et electi in provincias mittantur. The law is not invalid, but it is against all precedent; moreover it was conceived ad personam (which it probably was), a heinous privilegium that unleashed the arbitrary rule of the pauci 73. A master propagandist at work: mixing verafalsis, misleading and underhanded, but carry­ ing the day74. 2) The selection of consular governors. Caesar’s complaint appears to be this: of the four available consulars only two, Scipio and Domitius, were admitted to the sortition for the two consular provinces; the two others, L. Marcius Philippus (cos. 56) and L. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 65), were passed over privato consilio. O f course we do remember that the Republic was destined to be saved privato consilio, but here the phrase has a sinister ring. Its precise meaning, if any, is not easy to gauge. We do not know enough of the procedure envisaged by the lex Pompeia. Did the law prescribe that the names of all available consulars be thrown into the um (as Caesar intimates) or perhaps the precise arrangements were left to the decision of the senate? In the latter case privatum consilium will not be a private compact, but a senatorial decree, sponsored and carried out contra Caesarem, it is true, but not nec­ essarily contra legem. Solution accrues from a comer not unexpected but unexpectedly neglected. It is rather disconcerting that despite Cicero’s numerous asides (mostly complaints), and an extensive correspondence from Cilicia, we do not have a clear idea in which way his provincial appointment under the lex Pompeia came about. Ad Familiäres 3.2.1 (dated to February or March 51), a passage not well served by interpreters, offers a clue: cum et contra voluntatem meam et praeter opinionem accidisset ut mihi cum imperio in provinciam proficisci necesse esset. Now if the law had prescibed that the two consular governors were to be selected by lot from all available former con­ suls (i.e., from those fomier consuls who had not yet held a provincial command) Cicero may well have asserted that his appointment happened contra voluntatem, perhaps contra spem, but hardly praeter opinionem (“quite unexpectedly”) for he certainly could not exclude the possibility of the sors with his name coming out. Hence, clearly, a procedure in two stages. In the first stage there was no allotment but the senate by its vote would select nominatim provincial governors. Cicero was selected: against his will and contrary to his expectations75. In the second stage the 73

Cf. on this passage, K. Raaflaub, D ig n ita tis c o n te n tio (= V e stig ia 20 [München 1974]) 128, n. 91. 74 On Caesar’s art of propaganda, see the inspiring piece by 1. H. Collins, “Caesar as a Political Propagandist”, A N R W l. 1 (1972) 922-966, esp. on the B e llu m C iv ile 942-963. 75 Tyrrell-Purser 3 (above, n. 52) 5, a d lo c ., assert that “the oldest consulars who had not yet held a province were to draw lots. The oldest consulars were Cicero and Bibulus”. But if this were the rule, and if Cicero and Bibulus were the oldest consulars, Cicero’s appointment could not have come p r a e t e r o p in io n e m . It would be a normal thing to expect. As we learn from Caesar, there was an even older consular who had not yet held a provincial command, L. Aurelius Cotta, c o s . 65. Now Cotta may not have been available in 51 for a governorship, perhaps because of an illness; but as there were two consular provinces, and Cicero was the second in seniority, he should (on Tyrrell-Purser’s theory) still have expected to go to a province. We have to discard seniority as the guiding principle for the selection of consular governors under the le x P o m p e ia .

166

J. Linderski

governors (consular and praetorian) and the provinces were matched by lot. This is precisely the procedure of selection at which Caesar is hinting: openly partisan but perhaps not strictly illegal76. 3) The imperium of the Pompeian governors. As the prospective governors were privati, they could not receive the imperium simply by a decree of the senate; it had to be bestowed upon them by a legislative act: first, it would appear, by a law in the centuriate or tribal assembly to be followed by the lex curiata de imperio11. This requirement was complied with superioribus annis, apparently in 51 and 50, but not in 49: in their unseemly haste, the Pompeian commanders did not wait ut de eorum imperio ad populumferatur. This strains the imagination. We should not blithely ascribe this amazing legal and ritual negligence to the senate, to Pompey, and to his generals. Caesar must again be dealing in half-truths. Two, and only two, possibilities obtrude. The Pompeians forwent either the comitial law or the curiate law; in either case their imperium was tainted, and Cae­ sar was not wholly unjustified in describing them as privati. Every comitial law, whether in the centuriate or tribal assembly, had to be pro­ mulgated at least three Roman weeks (tritium nundinum) in advance before the sched­ uled date of the assembly. The Pompeians could not afford to wait that long. The senate could exempt the proposer of the law from this requirement, but perhaps we should read Caesar’s text literally, and conclude that no law was put before the people. We can suspect that the comitial laws de imperio were duly promulgated, but they were never passed: the Pompeians were forced to abandon the city already on 18 January. In that situation they decided to satisfy themselves solely with the lex curiata; There must have been a different rule at play, or no rule at all, the senate having a completely free rein. Mommsen, S ta a ts r e c h t (above, n. 14) 23. 249, n. 3, and Marshall, “Lex Pompeia” (above, n. 72) 888, n. 4, also disregard the import of p r a e t e r o p in io n e m . It is perhaps worth pointing out that Shackleton Bailey has no comment on this crucial passage. The s e n a tu s a u c to r ita s of 29 Sep. 51 (transcribed by Caelius, F a m . 8.8.8) regulated the distribution of the praetorian provinces; they were to be assigned to those praetors who had not yet administered a province beginning with the c o lle g iu m (it appears) of 55, and then moving backwards until all gubernatorial posts were filled (cf. Mommsen, S ta a ts r e c h t 23. 249, nn. 1-2). If this rule of “reverse seniority” applied also to consular provinces, Cicero’s perplexity is easily explained: before the line of the would-be appointees would reach 63 there were other consulars eligible for the provincial command, e.g. L. Marcius Philippus, c o s . 56. But, for some reason, they were apparently excused, and so Cicero went to Cilicia p r a e t e r o p in io n e m . See now also the solid study by K. M. Girardet, “Die lex Iulia de provinciis. Vorgeschichte—Inhalt—Wirkungen”, R h M 130 (1987) 291-329 at 293-307, esp. 298-299: he argues that the le x P o m p e ia concerned only the praetors; Cicero and Bibulus received their provincial commands on the basis of a s e n a tu s co n su ltu m , and the im p e riu m c o n su la r e was bestowed upon them e x tr a o rd in e m “durch eine le x (tr ib u ta / c e n tu ria ta ) d e im p e r io ” . 76 A curious fact stands out: Metellus Scipio was consul in 52, and thus a q u in q u e n n iu m between his office and his provincial command had not elapsed, and yet Caesar remarkably does not comment on that apparent violation of the le x P o m p e ia . Various explanations have been of­ fered; for a summary, see Marshall, “Lex Pompeia” (above, n. 72) 892, n. 20; 894, n. 27. We are apparently dealing with interim arrangements; the q u in q u e n n iu m could have been imple­ mented in an orderly way only beginning with the fifth year after the le x P o m p e ia . If so, the arrangement postulated for Cicero’s appointment (see above, n. 75) was not operative in 49. 77 Cf. Marshall, “Lex Pompeia” (above, n. 72) 892-895.

Q. Scipio Imperator

167

the thirty lictors who represented the curiae were easy to assemble. If this was the case, the constitutional fault of the Pompeians receives illumination from an old stric­ ture of Cicero. Combatting early in 63 the proposal of Rullus, Cicero the consul was particularly indignant because the tribune lege curiata XVviros ornat. lam hoc

inauditum etplane novum, uti curiata lege magistrate deturqui nullis comitiis ante est datus (Leg. agr. 2.26). Rullus had in fact intended that the lex curiata grant imperium and auspicium to those agrarian commissioners (XVviri) quos plebs designaverit, but he forgot to include in an earlier chapter of his law a clause stipu­ lating the election of the commissioners by the plebs. Cicero is thus partially disin­ genuous, as is also Caesar, and the Pompeians. Everything depended upon constitu­ tional and augural interpretation. The Pompeians could well have argued that the curiate law did not create any new magistracy but solely bestowed abstract imperium and auspicium on the men whose provinciae had been defined by the senate on the basis of the Pompeian law. We may trust that the augurs would have come up with a suitable theory, depending on whether they were on the side of Pompey or of Caesar78. But in history it is not the constitutional cogency of propaganda but its political efficacy that is of importance. The Bellum Civile was probably written in instalments during the course of events, but it was not published until after Caesar’s death79. Thus it was not per se immediately a tool of propaganda. But it was a blueprint. The stric­ tures and accusations it contained would be spouted out at innumerable condones apud milites, disseminated in countless pamphlets, and in colloquia with the Pompeian soldiers. Caesar’s claims will be engraved on his coins. It is in the context of the struggle for legitimacy that we have to read the Bellum Africum, a tale of Cato and the two imperatores. Scipio did not remain mute: he still harangues through the images on the coins he struck in 47 and 46 as the Pompeian commander in Africa. V. Felix et Invictum Scipionum Nomen The inscription on the gem gives testimony that Scipio was the cognomen the general himself preferred and stressed. After 49 it regularly appears in close con­ nection with the title of imperator. This was true particularly for the period of Scipio’s command in Africa in 47 and 46. The Author of the Bellum Africum (4) tells a poignant story of Scipio’s legate C. Considius Longus (MRR 2.267, 281, 290): when a messenger sent to him from the Caesarian camp referred to Caesar as imperator, Considius haughtily replied: unus e s t... Scipio imperator hoc tempore populi Romani, and had the messenger forth­ with executed in conspectu suo for his importunate temerity.

78

On the politically charged augural interpretations during the civil war, see J. Linderski, “The Augural Law”, A N R W U . 16 (1986) 2181-2184. In any case in March 49 the augur Cicero had no doubts as to the validity of Scipio’s im p e riu m (A tt. 8.15.3). 79 Cf. the classic study by K. Barwick, C a e s a r s B e llu m C iv ile . T en den z, A b f a s s u n g s z e it, S til (.B e ric h te Verb. S a c h s. A k a d ., Phil.-hist. Kl. 99.1 [Leipzig 1951]) passim; J. H. Collins, “On the Date and Interpretation of the B e llu m C iv ile ” , A J P 80 (1959) 113-132.

168

J. Linderski

The Caesarians were equally obstinate. At B. Af. 44 Scipio addresses captive veterani and tirones, urges them to abandon their sceleratus imperator, join the optimus quisque, and defend the republic. He promises them pardon, and awards. One of the captives, a centurion, responds (45): Pro tuo... summo beneficio, Scipio, tibi gratias ago—non enim te imperatorem appello, and refuses to fight contra Caesarem imperatorem meum. Enraged Scipio ordered the veterans nefario scelere contaminatos et caede civium saginatos to be led away and executed80; the tirones he incorporated into his army. A powerful motif in the Caesarian propaganda in Africa was the alleged subser­ vience of Caesar’s opponents, and of Scipio himself, to King Iuba of Numidia81. At B. Af. 57 this motif is combined with ridicule of Scipio’s imperatorial pretentious­ ness. Before the arrival of the King it was Scipio’s custom to wear a purple cloak, but Iuba remonstrated with him that he ought not to wear the same dress as the king; Scipio meekly submitted to the arrogant and inert barbarian, and changed to white dress: Namque cum Scipio sagulo purpureo ante regis adventum uti solitus esset,

dicitur Iuba cum eo egisse non oportere illum eodem vestitu atque ipse uteretur. Itaque factum est ut Scipio ad album sese vestitum transferret et lubae homini superbissimo inertissimoque obtemperaret. The sagulum purpureum is the paludamentum, the hallowed purple cloak of the Roman commander, who donned it upon the crossing of the pomerium when he departed from Rome for a campaign, wore it in battle and at all official functions; the vestitum album is the toga pura, the dress of Roman civilians8283. The Author of the Bellum Africum thus imputes to Scipio a virtual abdi­ cation of his command in favor of the King. The verb obtemperare highlights Scipio’s shameful conduct: this solemn locution was pronounced at the secular games in the archaizing prayer for the success of the Roman People: vos (or te) quaeso precorque uti (tu) imperium maiestatemque populi Romani Quiritium duelli domique auxitis

(auxis) utique semper Latinus obtemperassif3. But the story in Valerius Maximus 8.14.5 presents Scipio as a paragon of old Roman virtue. After a brave exploit Scipio was distributing dona militaria to caval­ rymen. T. Labienus (MRR 2.301) suggested that he should give to an eques fords, who also happened to be a freedman, the golden armillae. Scipio refused: he con­ tended the award would be compromised if given to a person who had been a slave (ne castrensis honos in eo, qui paulo ante servisset, violaretur). Labienus, undaunted, ipse ex praeda Gallica aurum equiti largitus est. Whereupon Scipio remarked to the eques: habebis... donum viri divitis. The cavalryman, ashamed, prolecto ante pedes Labieni auro, vultum demisit. But when he heard Scipio say imperator te argenteis 80 For Scipio’s execution lust, see also B. A f. 28: the execution of d u o T it i i ... a d u le s c e n te s , trib u n i le g io n is V, q u o ru m p a tr e m C a e s a r in se n a tu m le g e r a t. Cf. Val. Max. 3.8.7. 81 See B . A f. 57: M. Aquin(i)us (M R R 2.300) disregards instructions from Scipio, but obeys Iuba’s order; Plut., C a to M in . 57: Iuba takes his seat in the middle between Cato and Scipio, thus indicating his superiority; Scipio remains impassive, but Cato saves the day and Scipio’s face; Cass. Dio 43.4.5-6: Scipio promises Iuba all Roman Africa. 82 Mommsen, S ta a ts r e c h t (above, n. 14) l 3. 408-409 (to g a ), 431-433 (p a lu d a m e n tu m ). 83 LB. Pighi, D e lu d is s a e c u la r ib u s p o p u li R o m a n i Q u iritiu m lib r i s e x (Milano 1941) 114, 116, 163, 164. Cf. Caes., B . G . 4.21.6: q u i p o llic e a n tu r ... im p e r io p o p u li R o m a n i o b te m p e r a r e .

Q. Scipio Imperator

169

armillis donat, he went away alacer gaudio. Münzer cites the passage of Valerius only in order to show that Scipio, who was very “untüchtig”, was not always “mit dem tüchtigen Labienus ... einig”84. Even this great scholar could not free himself from the pull of the victor’s propaganda; for the moral of the story in Valerius is that it was Labienus who was to be blamed, not Scipio. Labienus was contaminated by the Gallic gold he had plundered serving under Caesar. He behaved like an oriental potentate. The award of golden armlets was reserved for officers; it was not given to simple cavalrymen, and it was certainly extravagant and socially disruptive to give it to a former slave, however brave. The regular award for equestrian bravery con­ sisted of armillae argenteae. Scipio was thus a commander of old, observing the mos maiorum, distributing the dona according to valor, and preserving the distinc­ tion of rank and status85. A true imperator enjoyed divine favor, felicitas, and the proof was victory on the battlefield86. At the decisive and final battle at Thapsus (6 April 46) Caesar cau­ tiously hesitates, but his troops take a trepidatio among the enemy as a propitious sign portending victory. They spontaneously begin to attack; when Caesar realized that it was impossible to hold his ranks back, he selected Felicitas as his watchword, and proceeded against the enemy line: signo Felicitatis dato... contra principes ire contendit (B. Af. 82-83)87. The result: ten thousand of enemy soldiers killed; Cae­ sar lost only fifty (B. Af. 86). Scipio’s title of imperator proved fraudulent; Caesar’s was genuine. It was manifestly through Caesai’sfelicitas that victory was achieved, and not because of his skill as a commander. Here also belongs the story in B. Af. 61: secundo equestri proelio facto Scipio

laetus in castra nocte copias reduxit. Quod proprium gaudium bellantibus fortuna tribuere non decrevit (for the next day Caesar’s cavalrymen) equites Numidas Gaetulosque ex improviso adorti circiter C partim occiderunt, partim vivorum potiti sunt. Two words stand out: laetus and fortuna. The former is the verbum proprium to describe the joy, the gaudium of an imperator after he had received a propitious sign promising victory88; in the case of Scipio it was false joy: it did not flow from his felicitas but was given to him by the fickle and treacherous fortune. A. Alföldi

84 Münzer, “Caecilius 99” (above, n. 4) 1227-1228. 85 On the d o n a m ilita r ia , and esp. on the award of the a r m illa e , see V. Maxfield, T he M ilita r y D e c o r a tio n s o f th e R o m a n A r m y (Berkeley 1981) 89-90, 128. 86 Cf. E. Wistrand, F e lic ita s Im p e r a to r ia (= S tu d ia G r a e c a e t L a tin a G o th o b u rg e n s ia 48 [Göteborg 1987]) 1-43, 79-90. He does not discuss the contest m f e t ic ti a s between Scxpio and Caesar. See also the good study by P. R. Murphy, “Caesar’s Continuators and Caesar’s F e lic ita s " , C W 79.5 (1986) 307-317, esp. 314—315 on the B e llu m A fric u m . 87 On military watchwords, see Veget., E p it. r e i m ilit. 3.5: v o c a lia (sig n a ) d ic u n tu r q u a e v o c e h u m a n a p ro n u n tia n tu r, s ic u t in v ig iliis v e l in p r o e lio p r o s ig n o d icitu r, u t p u ta , v ic to r ia p a lm a v ir tu s , D e u s n o b isc u m , triu m p h u s im p e r a to r is e t a lia .

88 On the augural significance of la e tu s, see J. Linderski, “Roman Religion in Livy”, in W. Schuller (ed.), L iv iu s . A s p e k te s e in e s W e rk e s (= X e n ia . K o n s t a n z e r A lt h i s t o r i s c h e V o r tr ä g e u n d F o r sc h u n g e n 31 [Konstanz 1993]) 60-61, 67 (n. 24) = R o m a n Q u e s tio n s (above, n. 19) 615— 616, 623; cf. 679.

170

J. Linderski

put it well: “felicitas ... is the permanent individual property of the imperator, in­ compatible with the capricious, illusive lyche of the Greeks”89. Lucan (6.788) describes Metellus Scipio as infausta suboles of Scipio Africanus; and Scipio’s daughter, the gentle Cornelia, the widow of P. Crassus, fallen at Carrhae, and the wife of Pompeius, infelix coniunx et nulli laeta marito (Lucan 8.89), was to contaminate through her misfortune the felicitas of Magnus himself (on Pompeius’ felicitas see the locus classicus, Cicero’s account in De imp. Cn. Pomp. 47-48). In a fragment of Livy (preserved by the Lucani Commenta Bernensia 8.91) Cornelia so addresses her husband after the debacle of Pharsalos: Vicit, Magne, felicitatem tuam

mea fortuna, quid enim ex funesta Crassorum domo recipiebas nisi ut minueretur magnitudo tua? But how was it possible that the cause that was not just proved victorious, the cause (to paraphrase Scipio’s words at B. Af. 45) nefario scelere contaminata et caede civium saginatal Cicero, speaking of Antonius, echoes this sentiment (Phil. 2.59):

saturavit se sanguine dissimillimorum sui civium; felix fuit, si potest ulla in scelere esse felicitas. On several occasions he denies the felicitas to Caesar, most explicitly in a letter to Cornelius Nepos (Ep.fr. 2.5, p. 153 Watt): in perditis impiisque consiliis, quibus Caesar usus est, nulla potuit esse felicitas. Cicero shifts the understanding of felicitas from that of a celestial force and favor to a personal moral judgment; but even on this new ground the Caesarians had their answer. Their caw.ranot only deis placuit (in Lucan’s bitter words, 1.128)90; it was victrix because it was iustior (Lucan himself leaves this in aporia: quis iustius induit arma scire nefas, 1.126-127). And it was a causa clemens. After Cato’s suicide the proquaestor L. Caesar (MRR 2.297) professing his faith in Caesar’s dementia persuaded the people of Utica to surrender, and portis patefactis Utica egressus Caesari imperatori obviam proficiscitur (B. Af. 88). Caesar of course pardoned him91, and many others, facile et pro natura sua (89). In contrast to the inept, harsh and cruel Scipio he was not only inbued with felicitas·, he was also imperator clemens92. If the title of imperator advertized Scipio’s felicitas, his cognomen Scipio advertized his invincibility. There circulated a prophecy that a Scipio cannot suffer 89 A. Alfôldi in his review of S. Weinstock’s D iv u s J u liu s, G n o m o n 47 (1975), 162 = A. Alfôldi, C a e s a r ia n a (Bonn 1984) 335 (but he is quite wrong in denying a special relationship of Caesar with f e lic ita s ) . 90 Cf. on all of this the fine pages by P. Jal, “Les dieux et les guerres civiles dans la Rome de la fin de la république”, R E L 40 (1962) 170-200, esp. 183-188; and by Wistrand, F e lic ita s (above, n. 86) 41-43. 91 Unfortunately things are not always as they seem or as the propagandists present them. L. Caesar was later killed, without Caesar’s knowledge, so Suetonius (lu i. 75.3) avers; secretly, on Caesar’s orders, according to Dio (43.12.3). On Cic., F am . 9.7.1-2, see Shackleton Bailey, F a m ilia re s (above, n. 39) 2.178. 92 On the contrast between the c r u d e lita s of the P o m p e ia n i and Caesar’s d e m e n tia , see the eru­ dite and discerning treatment by K. Raaflaub, D ig n ita tis c o n te n tio (above, n. 73) 293-307, and esp. on the war in Africa 257-258, 300. An utterance of Cicero (in March 49) gives a good idea what one could expect from a (bankrupt) but victorious Metellus Scipio: q u id e n im tu illic S c ip io n e m , q u id F a u stu m , q u id L ib o n e m p r a e < te r > m is s u r u m s c e le r is p u ta s q u o ru m c r e d ito r e s c o n v e n ir e d ic u n tu r? q u id e o s a u tem , cu m v ic e r in t, in c iv is e ffe c tu r o s? (A t t .

9.11.4).

Q. Scipio Imperator

171

discomfiture in Africa: felix et invictum in ea provincia fataliter Scipionum nomen ferebaturS3. This belief spread even to Caesar’s soldiers (Dio 42.58.1). Caesar, person­ ally a sceptic, paid keen attention to the superstitions of the vulgus9*. He knew well that to use reason against belief was to no avail. Irrational opinions had to be fought on their own ground. Thus he procured an antidote: he kept in his camp a Scipio, as Suetonius (lui. 59) puts it, despectissimum quendam ex Comeliorum genere, cui ad opprobrium Salvitoni95 cognomen erat. Plutarch (Caes. 52.2-3) adds that Caesar paraded in battles this Scipio in the forefront as if commander of the army. Plutarch, who had curiosity but no discernment, wonders (χαλεπόν είπείν) whether Caesar kept this negligible nobody to mock Scipio, the commander of the enemy, or in or­ der to ap p p ro p riate the om en for h im self (ε ϊτ ε κ α ί σ πουδή τον οιω νόν οίκειούμενος)96. The latter is of course the right answer, but it requires clarifi­ cation. Two omina of equal potency would annul each other, but in divinatory reality the omen of Salvitto was stronger. Metellus Scipio could claim descent from the Africani only in the cognatic line97 (his abavus married a daughter of Africanus); on 93

Suet., lu l. 59. Also Plut., C a e s . 52.2-3; Dio 42.57.5. This oracle was invented for Scipio Aemilianus: Flor. 1.31.12: Q u a m v is p r o f lig a to u r b is e x c id io ta m e n f a t a l e A f r ic a e n o m e n S c ip io n u m v id e b a tu r. I g itu r in a lte r u m S c ip io n e m c o n v e r s a r e s p u b lic a fin e m b e lli r e p o s c e b a t.

S. Weinstock, D iv u s J u liu s (Oxford 1971) 98, maintains that “The oracle was probably created for Scipio Maior during the Second Punic War and was used again in 147 B.C. for Scipio Aemilianus”. Hardly so. Until Zama no Roman had ever conquered Africa; and until the arrival on the scene of the future Africanus the n o m en S c ip io n u m was calamitous to the Ro­ mans: P. Scipio, the father of Africanus, was routed at Trebia, and he found death in 211 in the company of his brother Gnaeus in their debacle in Spain. It was Africanus who through his victory became a d u x f a ta lis , and bequeathed this fame to his line. 94 This is well illustrated by a well known incident: on disembarking in Africa he slipped (a bad sign!), but v e r s o in m e liu s o m in e: “T en eo t e ”, in q u it, “A f r ic a ” (Suet., Iu i. 59.1; cf. Dio 42.58.3). Other sources in Drumann-Groebe, G e s c h ic h te R o m s (above, n. 40) 3 (1906) 522, n. 3. 95 S a llu s tio (Plut., C a e s . 52.3); S a lu tio (Dio 42.58.1); S a lv itto (Plin., 7/7/35.8; for variant read­ ings, see C. Mayhoff in his Teubner edition [1897] a d lo c ., and esp. Billows [see below] 6364). At 7.54 Pliny explains the origin of this nickname; oddly enough both an ancestor of Metellus Scipio and this Cornelius Scipio received their nicknames from their similarity to persons of lowly status, Scipio Nasica (cos. 138) the name of S e r a p io from a slave, a s u a r ii n e g o tia to r is v ile m a n c ip iu m , and Cornelius Scipio, the mascot of Caesar, from a S a lv itto m im u s. On this shadowy Scipio, see F. Miinzer, “Cornelius 357”, R E 4 (1900) 1505-1506; and, recently, and better (though his belief that the testamentary adoption was a full adoption is quite mis­ placed), a detailed investigation by R. A. Billows, “The Last of the Scipios”, A J A H 7 (1982 [1985]) 53-68. The o p p r o b r iu m will reside not in the name itself (no o p p r o b r iu m was attached to the name of Serapio), but rather in the manner of life that in some way united the m im u s and the aristocrat. But the characterization of Salvitto as d e s p e c tis s im u s may derive from a hostile source; there was at least an equal amount of o p p ro b r iu m that could be hurled at his rival omenbearer Metellus Scipio (see above, n. 68). 96 Not much better Weinstock, D iv u s J u liu s (above, n. 93) 98: “one may not be so sure whether Caesar really had the other Scipio in his camp”. It is amazing that a scholar who devoted a book to the various aspects of Caesarian symbolism refuses to take seriously the symbolism of the names. At B. C . 4.2 Caesar records another unfulfilled prophecy: L e n tu lu s (i.e., L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus, c o s . 49; M R R 2.256)... s e q u e a lte ru m f o r e S u lla m in te r s u o s g lo ria tu r, a d q u em su m m a im p e r ii re d e a t.

97 We may suspect that Scipio glossed over this fact; cf. Lucan 6.788-789:

d e p lo r a t L ib y c is

172

J. Linderski

the other hand, as Plutarch reports, Salvitto was of the House of the Africani. He descended, it has been suggested, from the line of the elder Africanus himself, more precisely from Africanus’ younger son L. Scipio {pr. 174). This branch will have been submerged for more than a century to re-appear from obscurity to the light of history at an opportune moment in the camp of Caesar in Africa98. The literary sources tell only part of the story, and they tell it mostly from the vantage point of the victor. The other part is told by Scipio himself through the medium of coins he struck in Africa. They not only display the proud denomination of imperator, his coinage, as Michael Crawford (RRC 2.738) aptly put it, “is patheti­ cally true to its author’s belief in the felix et invictum Scipionis nomen, overcome at Thapsus by the felicitas of Caesar”99. V I. T h e L a n g u a g e o f C o in s

The idiom of symbols is opaque and allusive, but it has its own grammar. The images on Scipio’s coins evoke the past of his family, stress the constitutional legiti­ macy of the imperator, and look forward to a prosperous peace after victory. First, the elephant. Next the sella curulis and lituus. Then tropaeum, Victoria, caduceus and comucopiae. [1] The Elephant Scipio issued coins either alone or jointly with his legates, M. Eppius (MRR 2.301) and P. Licinius Crassus Iunianus (MRR 2.301; 3.119). On the coins he minted alone (.RRC 1.471, no 459) perhaps the most important item is not the laureate head of Jupiter / in fa u sta m s u b o le m ; not inaccurate but misleading. The Scholiasts are quite positive (and wrong): A d n o t. s u p e r L u c a n u m 6.310: S c ip io en im A fr ic a n u s fu it, q u i v ic it H a n n ib a le m , e x c u iu s g e n e r e h ic S c ip io in A fr ic a e s t in terem ptu s', 6.788: S c ip io e n im in A fric a p e r iit, q u i f u i t e f a m ilia S c ip io n is A fricani', L u c a n i C o m m e n ta B e rn e n sia 6.788: S c ip io n e p o s p e r itu r a m S c ip io te r r is

A fric a n i.

98

Billows (above, n.95) 61-62. There may be a sequel to this bizarre tale. Billows (59-60) pro­ posed that the father of Propertius’ mournful Cornelia, and the (adoptive) father of P. Scipio, the consul in 16, was none other than Salvitto! He also assigns to Cornelius Scipio Salvitto the suffect consulship in 35, but this idea must now be discarded for we have recently learned that the su ffe c tu s of 35 was a C o r n e liu s D o la b e lla (see above, n. 23). In view of this new find Bil­ lows’ ste m m a of the last Comelii will have to be substantially revised. 99 A. Alföldi, ‘Tuba I. und die Pompeianer in Africa”, S c h w e iz e r M ü n z b lä tte r 8/9 (1958/1959) 9 = C a e s a r ia n a (Bonn 1984) 223, claims that in Scipio’s coinage “ist nur der Name des Feldherm und seiner Legaten römisch. Alles andere ist afrikanisch—ein Stück der Beschwich­ tigungspolitik der dorthin geflüchteten Senatspartei”. This is a gross exaggeration. Of course references to Africa (the lion-headed G en iu s T errae A fric a e , the head of Africa wearing elephant’s skin [cf. n. 100], also the corn-ear, and a goddess with a mural-crown [cf. below, n. 149]) ap­ pear on joint issues of Scipio and his legates, but they hardly predominate; see Crawford, R R C 2.738, esp. n. 5. The recent paper by M. Paz Garcia-Bellido, “Punic Iconography on the Ro­ man Denarii of M. Plaetorius Cestianus”, A J N 1 (1989) 37-49, esp. 37-41, also overestimates the African elements on the coins of Scipio while entirely disregarding Scipio’s Roman and antiCaesarian message. Scipio was not an African chieftain. On the representations of Africa, see now the excellent c o r p u s by J. A. Ostrowski, L e s p e r s o n i f i c a ti o n s d e s p r o v in c e s d a n s T a r t ro m a in (Varsovie 1990) 81-99.

Q. Scipio Imperator

173

on the obverse (with the inscription M etel P ius) but rather an elephant on the reverse, with the inscription S cipio above, and I mp below100. The elephant was an emblem of the Metelli101; and we note that among the Caesarian mints there was also an issue displaying an elephant about to trample on a rising snake, with Caesar inscribed in the exergue (RRC 1.461, no 443). Our curiosity should not turn into fantasy102. However enticing the idea of Caesar countering with his elephant issue the elephant issue of Scipio, the evidence of hoards suggests an earlier date for Caesar’s coins; almost certainly it was his first issue of the civil war, minted in 49-48. The obverse with its pontifical emblems advertized Caesar’s dignity of pontifex maximus, and his constitutional legitimacy, of great importance for his early steps in Italy and Rome; and the elephant on the reverse, a symbol of victory and strength, promised destruc­ tion of his treacherous enemies103. Thus if there was any duel of symbols on coins104, 100 On the d e n a r ii he issued together with his legate (M.) Eppius there appears on the obverse “head of Africa r., laureate and wearing elephant’s skin”, with the inscription Q M etell S cipio Imp (Crawford, R R C 1.472, no 461). A similar motif on a coin of Iuba, adduced by Η. H. Scullard, T h e E le p h a n t in th e G r e e k a n d R o m a n W o rld (Ithaca = London 1974) 279 (n. 137). 101 The elephant or elephant’s head figured on a number of issues by the moneyers from the family of Metelli who thus commemorated the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus ( c o s . 251; R E 72) over Hasdrubal at Panormus in 250, and the capture of Carthaginian elephants; see Crawford, R R C 1.287-288, nos 262-263; 292-293, no 269; 387-388, no 369; 390, no 374; Scullard, T h e E l­ e p h a n t (above, n. 100) 151-152, and pi. XXIV a-c. 102 A. Alföldi, “Die Erklärung des Namens ‘Caesar’ in den spätrömischen Kompendien (zu v. Ael, 2,3-5)”, B o n n e r H isto r ia -A u g u s ta C o llo q u iu m 1 9 6 6 /1 9 6 7 = A n tiq u ita s , Rh. 4, Bd. 4 (Bonn 1968) 9-18 (reprinted in C a e s a r ia n a , Bonn 1984, 175-188) dated this issue to 47/46, and produced an elaborate pageant of Caesar the Elephant trampling the Dragon of Africa. The proof; ac­ cording to late Roman sources Caesar was a word for elephant lin g u a M a u r o ru m or P o e n o ru m , and it also appears in a Punic inscription as a personal name. Next (p. 14) the story in Pliny (N .H . 8.32-33): E le p h a n to s f e r t A fr ic a ... b e lla n te s q u e cu m h is p e r p e tu a d is c o r d ia d r a c o n e s ta n ta e m a g n itu d in is , ... id e m ( d r a c o n e s ) o b v ii d e p r e h e n s i in a d v e r s o s ( e le p h a n to s ) e r ig u n t s e

This is the text as reproduced by Alföldi: it is the worst sort of quotation, a truncated quote. It Should read: E le p h a n to s f e r t A f r ic a ... s e d m a x im o s In d ia b e lla n te s q u e cu m i i s ... d r a c o n e s . To conclude his account Pliny reports at 8.35: g e n e r a t e o s (sc. d r a c o n e s ) A e th io p ia I n d ic is p a r e s . Aelian, H ist. A n im . 2.21, notes that in Ethiopia snakes are so big that they can kill elephants; so also Diod. 3.37.9, misinterpreted by Alföldi: Ethio­ pia does not equal Africa. But as the peculiar place of the eternal struggle of elephants and giant snakes Pliny specifically names India. So also does Aelian, H is t. A n im . 6.21: Έν Ίνδονς ... έλέφας και δράκων εχθιστα (at 5.48 he speaks in general of the bitterest enmity between the elephant and the d r a c o ). Alföldi’s references (p. 14, n. 12) to Manilius 4.664 (who mentions h o r r e n d o s a n g u e s and [666] v a s to s e le p h a n to s as inhabiting Libya), and to Horace, C a r m . 3.10.18 (who refers to M a u r is a n g u ib u s ) are beside the point for in none of these texts (cf. also Sail., lu g . 89.5; Plin., N H 5.26) do we hear of a struggle between elephants and snakes (cf. also Plin., N H 8.36: n o ta e s t in P u n ic is b e llis a d flu m e n B a g r a d a m a R e g u lo im p e r a to r e b a llis tis to r m e n tis q u e u t o p p id u m a liq u o d e x p u g n a ta s e r p e n s C X X p e d u m lo n g itu d in is , but hardly any­ one bent upon the conquest of Africa would recall Regulus). Caesar the elephantine dragon slayer of Africa is a figment. The story is instructive for it shows a great and perspicacious scholar so charmed by his theory that he saw in Pliny’s text only Africa, erased India, and re­ fused to look further. 103 See Crawford, R R C 1.89; 2.735, with a vigorous critique of Alföldi’s dating and interpretation. On Caesar’s association with elephants, cf. also Weinstock, D iv u s J u liu s (above, n. 93) 77-78. 104 I very much doubt that the dragon head on R R C no 461/1-2 (reverse) “picks up and implicitly o c u lo s q u e m a x im e p e tu n t.

174

J. Linderski

it was Scipio’s elephant that was a response to Caesar’s. But much more likely Scipio’s coinage simply continued the tradition of the Metelli that currently acquired a poignant topicality: the elephants of Iuba were an important ingredient of Scipio’s army, much feared by the Caesarians. The story of the elephants, real and symbolic, ended at Thapsus: Caesar captured sixty four of the beasts, and paraded them, turreted, before the walls of the city (B. Af. 86); and for conspicuous bravery in fighting them he bestowed on the famed Fifth Legion, th&Alaudae, the elephant as its badge105. For over two hundred years, from Panormus to Thapsus the Metelli had claimed a special relationship with the animal; now it was all Caesar’s, and the future Emper­ ors were to regard the elephant as their exclusive privilege and prerogative106. [2] The Sella Curulis The sella curulis was a seat proper to the magistratus curules, but it was also used by the magistrates who functioned pro consule or pro praetoreI07. By putting the sella on his aurei and denarii (RCC 1.472, no 460/1-2, reverse108) Scipio alluded to his legitimate imperlumm ; but there is more to this image. As Mommsen has shown, the sella curulis was not only a symbol of imperium, but also of jurisdiction. And indeed on our coin we have above the chair scales balanced on cornucopiae. Thus imperium iustum coupled with iustitia and abundantiam . On the left side of the sella there appears a corn-ear, and on the right a dragon’s head. The corn-ear refers to the grain-rich Africa, and the dragon’s head was perhaps an emblem of Numidia111.

105 106 107

108

109

110

111

rejects the hostile reference of the dragon’s head on no 443/1”, i.e., on Caesar’s elephant coin, as Crawford tentatively suggests. Cf. below in the text, VI, [2], and n. 110. Appian, B C C 2.96 (cf. B . A f. 84). On the legion in question, see [E.] Ritterling, “Legio”, R E 12 (1925) 1564-1566. Cf. Scullard, T he E le p h a n t (above, n. 100) 195-201, 279-280. He notes (197) that at Thapsus the Romans “had fought their last battle with elephants for some 300 years”. Mommsen, S ta a ts r e c h t (above, n. 14) I2. 399-402; T. Schäfer, I m p e r ii in sig n ia : s e lla c u r u lis a n d f a s c e s (Mainz 1989) 50-52, 63-69. When used by promagistrates in camp the chair was technically called s e lla c a s tr e n s is (Mommsen P. 399-400, n. 3). With the inscription Crass. I un Leg. Pro Pr; Scipio’s inscription, M etel. Pius S cip. Imp, is on the obverse, together with a bust of Jupiter, eagle’s head and scepter. The im p e r a to r , the owner of the s e lla c u ru lis, is thus under the direct protection of Jupiter (cf. Schäfer, I m p e rii in sig n ia [above, n. 107] 99). Garcia-Bellido, “Punic Iconography” (above, n. 99) 38, thinks that this is the Pu­ nic Ba’al Hammon, often identified with Jupiter. Unlikely. Below the c o r n u c o p ia e and imme­ diately above the s e lla , Schäfer discovers the tr is k e le s , a symbol of Sicily, the island with which the Metelli had been long connected. The idea of Alföldi, “Iuba” (above, n. 99) 9 = 223, that the s e lla on this coin “zugleich ein Abzeichen der von Rom verliehenen Königswürde gewesen ist”, i.e., of Iuba’s title, is hardly persuasive. For a s e lla c u ru lis on a coin of Iuba II, see Schäfer, I m p e r ii in sig n ia (above, n. 107) 57-58. On iu s titia , see the solid book by B. Lichocka, J u s titia s u r le s m o n n a ie s im p e r ia le s ro m a in e s (Varsovie 1974). She points out that “La liaison de la chaise curule avec les comes d’abondance est la liaison des symboles du droit et de la richesse” (47, with further literature in n. 84). Schäfer, I m p e r ii in sig n ia (above, n. 107)98-99: d e r D r a c h e n k o p f as a W a p p e n tie r of Numidia. Alföldi, “Iuba” (above, n. 99) 9 = 223, instead of a dragon saw rather a “Silphiumblüte”, silphium being another famous product of the continent. Sydenham, C R R 175, no 1047, interprets the image as a “head of camyx”.

Q. Scipio Imperator

175

The African com suggested to some a different interpretation. A. Wallace-Hadrill, in an article that offers much more than its title might suggest112, points out that there is only scant evidence from Roman antiquity for the imagery of libra as a symbol of justice; when coupled with Aequitas it is rather a symbol of honest measure. With respect to the issue of Metellus Scipio he observes (28-29) that “the linking of scales and cornucopiae looks forward to the normal attributes of Aequitas,” and perhaps “the scales suggest fairness in dispensing com”. And further (31): “while Justice could conceivably be indicated, there is nothing to compel this interpretation; and much to be said for seeing a simple symbol o f the act of weighing” . This interpreta­ tion is probably on the mark as far as various imperial coin types are concerned, but as to the coin of Metellus Scipio it curiously neglects to give full weight to the sym­ bolism of the sella. Wallace-Hadrill erroneously terms Metellus Scipio as “legate of Pompey in Africa” (28), and thus overlooks the link between the imperator and the sella as the seat of authority and justice. Cicero identifies iustitia and aequitas in the following definition, Top. 90: Atque etiam aequitas tripertita dicitur esse; una ad

superos deos, altera ad manes, tertia ad homines pertinere. Prima pietas, secunda sanctitas, tertia iustitia aut (in a narrower sense) aequitas nominatur113. The scales on Scipio’s coin may have, conceivably, alluded to the dispensing of the African com, but in conjunction with the sella curulis the libra is better taken as an expression of the imperator’s aequitas = iustitia, and as an answer to Caesarian accusations of

crudelitas. [3] The Jug and the Lituus Pride of place in ideology and propaganda goes to the reverse of a denarius (RRC 1.472, no 460/3) displaying a tropaeum flanked by a lituus and a jug (with a handle). The inscription reads M e t e l . P i u s S c i p . I m p . The lituus was an augural instrument par excellence11415;the jug causes problems. Its association with the augurs is not self-evident. No literary source attributes it to the augurs or connects it with any known augural function. Two widely used numis­ matic compendia ascribe to the jug the name of capis'15. Now capis is attested as a pontifical vessel. In Livy (10.7.10) P. Decius Mus so argues for the admittance of the plebeians to the pontificate and augurate: cui deorum hominumve indignum videri

potest... eos viros, quos vos sellis curulibus, toga praetexta, tunica palmata, et toga

112 A. Wallace-Hadrill, “Galba’s Aequitas”, N C 141 (1981) 20-39. -------113 On the juridical eenceptof a e q u ita s , see P. Pinna Parpaglia, A e q u ita s in lib e r a r e p u b lic a (Milano 1973) passim. 114 It is important to note that litu u s was used solely by the augurs, never by magistrates. For ref­ erences, see Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2252, n. 412; 2271, n. 488. 115 Gruber, C R R 2.357-358, n. 1, no 47, where he takes c a p is = jug as a pontifical attribute (cf. also 1.537, n. 2; 3.97 in the Index s.v. “capis")·, he does not explain what was its function and symbolic value as compared to that of s im p u v iu m and s im p u lu m (cf. 3.127-128, Index s.vv.; and see below, n. 118). So also Sydenham, C R R 175, no 1049. In this interpretation of the jug Gruber was unfortunately followed by Roberta Stewart in her otherwise interesting and spir­ ited article “The Jug and Lituus on Roman Republican Coin Types: Ritual Symbols and Politi­ cal Power” (forthcoming). This unfortunate terminology also in R. Newman, “A Dialogue of Power in the Coinage of Antony and Octavian (44-30 B.C.)”, A J N 2 (1990) 37-63, esp. 55.

176

J. Linderski

picta et corona triumphali laureaque honoratis ... pontificalia atque auguralia in­ signia adicere? Qui Iovis optimi mcudmi ornatu decoratus, curru aurato per urbem vectus in Capitolium ascenderit, is conspiciatur cum capide et lituo, capite velato victimam caedet auguriumve ex arce capiet?116. Two pairs of priestly emblems and of priestly functions stand out: capis goes with victimam caedere, lituus goes with augurium ex arce capere, and caput velatum pertains to both functions; indeed it is amply attested that the pontiffs sacrificed and the augurs took auguries with the back of their head veiled117. But capis is thus not only firmly established as a distinctive pontifical implement; literary descriptions virtually identify capis with simpuvium. This is welcome for in other texts it is simpuvium that is a characteristic feature of the pontiffs. Capis = simpuvium was a bowl or beaker with a handle, rather short and stout; it was used for sacrificial libations118. It was very different in shape from the much larger, lean and tall jug that appears in the company of the lituus. In her famed article L. R. Taylor was adamant: we ought to keep the jug, what­ ever its name and its function, apart from the pontifical and sacrificial capis, and firmly in the sphere of the augurs; in any case the augurs “had nothing to do with sacri­ fice”119. This statement, a rarity in Taylor’s opus, is inaccurate120; but her main point, the augural character of the jug, is bom out overwhelmingly by numismatic evi­ dence121. To Taylor the jug looked “more like the ordinary Roman water pitcher, urceus”; in her later, even more famous work, she devised an ingenious explication of its use, and of its association with the augurs. She starts with the procedure of sortitio. It took place in an inaugurated spot, the templum. The templa and the activities conducted in them stood under the religious supervision of the augurs. The augurs were also called in to decide the validity of the lot. And she concludes: “Such 116 I quote this text according to the edition of C. F. Walters and R. S. Conway (Oxonii 1919); it contains an abundant a p p a r a tu s . 117 See the collection of evidence in the little known dissertation by H. Freier, C a p u t V elare (Diss. Tübingen 1963) 39-83. 118 See R. von Schaewen, R ö m is c h e O p fe rg e r ä te , ih re V e rw e n d u n g im K u ltu s u n d in d e r K u n s t (Berlin 1940) 35-38. This thorough study, with ample references to literary and iconographical sources, has unfortunately remained unknown to all recent scholars who discussed pontifi­ cal and augural implements on coins. The entry on c a p is in W. Hilgers, L a te in is c h e G e fä ssn a m e n (= B e ih e fte d e r B o n n e r J a h r b ü c h e r 31 [Düsseldorf 1969]) 138-139, is disappointing (he disre­ gards the connection between c a p is and sim p u v iu m ). Cf. also Taylor, “Symbols” (below, n. 119) 353, n. 8: “The c a p is ... was probably used interchangeably with the ladle (s im p u lu m or sim p u v iu m )" . So also Crawford, R R C 2. 860 (Index): “C a p is = S im pu lu m " (but he incorrectly identifies s im p u v iu m and c u lu llu s ). See now on priestly emblems the erudite paper by E. Zwierlein-Diehl, “Simpuvium Numae”, in: H. A. Cahn and E. Simon (eds.), T ain ia R o la n d H a m p e d a r g e b r a c h t (Mainz 1978) 405-422. 119 L. R. Taylor, “Symbols of the Augurate on Coins of the Caecilii Metelli”, A J A 48 (1944) 352356 at 353. 120 On the sacrifices performed by the augurs, see the references in Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2254, n. 421; cf. 2222-2223. 121 The prime exhibits are the coins on which the pontifical and augural emblems are juxtaposed: RRC no 456 (obverse: axe and simpuvium; reverse: jug and lituus)\ no 467, reverse (simpuvium, aspergillum·, jug and lituus; above: A ugur; below: pont. m a x ) ; no 489/1-3 (obverse: lituus, jug, raven; reverse: simpulum, aspergillum, axe, apex); no 500/6 (obverse: axe, simpuvium, knife; reverse: jug, lituus).

Q. Scipio Imperator

177

a function of the augur may explain the symbol of the augurate frequently found on coins, the pitcher, combined with the lituus.... In every example the pitcher has a small opening usually with a spout, which may mean that it represents not the uma versatilis of the comitia but a pitcher that could be used to decide, with a smaller number of lots, the division of command for consuls and praetors” 122. No better solution has since been offered, but a debate has raged about the very significance of augural symbols. Traditionally the sacerdotal emblems on coins had been taken to refer either to a priesthood of the moneyer himself or to a priesthood of a moneyer’s ancestor. The latter solution imposes itself for most of the issues minted by the triumviri monetales, all young men, few of whom could have been priests themselves123. If no ancestor with a suitable priesthood was on record, such a priesthood had to be postulated for a suitable ancestor. However, in the later years of the republic some monetales started putting on coins priestly emblems that did not refer to their family members but rather to the great party leaders, Caesar and Pompeius, Antonius and Octavian. If an issue with sacerdotal symbols was minted under the authority of a magistrate cum imperio the reference, again especially in the later years of the republic, could often well be to the magistrate himself. A group of spirited scholars blazed past those traditional positions, still upheld by Taylor, and developed a theory of augural symbols that placed them squarely in the center of ideology and the struggle for power in the later republic124. The essence of this “theology of victory” has been admirably summarized by J. R. Fears: “Down to Sulla ... the lituus did signify the augurate, but with Sulla it underwent an impor­ tant change: it came to symbolize the auspicium, which along with imperium, was the essential prerogative of the Roman magistrate. The lituus refers to the supreme military authority of the charismatic leader” 125. A fierce controversy first swirled around the lituus and jug on Sulla’s coinage: do these symbols refer to Sulla’s actual possession of the augurate or to the augurate

122 L. R. Taylor, R o m a n V otin g A s s e m b lie s f r o m th e H a n n ib a lic W ar to th e D ic ta to r s h ip o f C a e s a r (Ann Arbor 1966) 73-74 and 144 (n. 32). On the augurs, te m p lu m and sortition, see also Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2173-2175, and (with corrections to Taylor’s presen­ tation) 2193-2194, n. 173. 123 The litu u s on coins of Faustus Sulla (q u a e s to r 54, M R R 1.223) perhaps alludes to his own and not to his father’s augurate (so Crawford, R R C 1.449-450, no 426/1-3). He was augur by 57 (M R R 1.207), and Crawford argues for placing his issues in 56 (R R C 1.88); Broughton opted for dating his office of m o n e ta lis to ca 62 (M R R 1.437; cf. 3.76). 124 J. Gagé, “Romulus-Augustus”, M E F R 47 (1930) 138-181, esp. 160-161, on the connection between litu u s and im p eriu m : “Plus la notion d’imperator se charge d’éléments mystiques, et plus l’exercise de l’auspication regagne sa valuer originelle. L’imperator est le général heureux, ayant pour lui les auspices”; A. Alfôldi, “The Main Aspects of Political Propaganda on the Coinage of the Roman Republic”, in R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland (eds.), E s s a y s in R o m a n C o in a g e P r e s e n te d to H a r o ld M a ttin g ly (Oxford 1956) 63-95, esp. 81-89 (litu u s as an attribute of imperatorial might). 125 J. R. Fears, “The Coinage of Q. Cornificius and Augural Symbolism on Late Republican Denarii”, H is to r ia 24 (1975) 592-602 at 597. Fears (598) unfortunately continues to use the denomination c a p is for the jug that appears together with litu u s.

178

J. Linderski

he had only claimed for himself? Or perhaps, more in general, are they intimations of Sulla’s constitutional position, the legitimacy of his imperium? Into this fray I do not propose here to enter126, but a technical augural point de­ mands clarification. Scholars who treated of these matters were all keen numisma­ tists and perceptive historians, but alas often ignorant of the baffling augural minu­ tiae, and of the abstruse modem literature dealing with them. Their disquisitions abound in statements loose, misleading, inaccurate. J. R. Fears adduces the coinage of Q. Comificius (RRC 1.518-19, no 509/1—4): on the reverses of his aurei and denarii Comificius is represented as augur, capite velato and holding lituus in his right hand; the inscription proclaims Q. C ornificius A ugur I m p . Fears employs this coin, with its image and inscription re-enforcing each other, as a key to unlock the true significance, of augural emblems on other late re­ publican issues: “On all of these coins of known augurs the lituus does not symbol­ ize merely the auspices of the imperator or even his military authority. The theme is rather ... augur et imperator. The magistrate who was also an augur stood in a spe­ cial position. He could interpret the auspices as well as take them”127. The idea that only augurs could interpret the auspices is patently and manifestly wrong. The impetrative auspices, regularly taken by magistrates, were all well de­ fined, and did not require any particular interpretation. Most oblative auspices, the signs that occurred unasked, were also easy to interpret; they could be accepted or rejected by the observer128. The magistrates and the augurs acted in separate but intersecting spheres. Only the points of intersection are germane to our discussion (see below). After this long but necessary detour, back to Metellus Scipio. He was a pontiff (MRR 2.171,172, n. 4), and not an augur, hence lituus and jug cannot denote his own priesthood. L. R. Taylor produced an elaborate explanation, in two stages129. Scipio’s coin (like his elephant issue) is an imitation of the denarii struck by his adoptive father Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 80). On these issues the obverse featuring the head of Pietas (an allusion to his surname Pius which he acquired for his incessant efforts to secure the restoration from exile of his father Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus, cos. 109) is combined with two reverses, one showing an elephant, and the other a jug and a lituus, with I mper in the exergue (RRC 1.390, no 374/1-2). The trouble with the obverse is that Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius was, like Scipio, a pontiff (even pontifex maximus, MRR 2.113-114) but not an augur. Taylor suggests that the augural symbols refer to the (unattested) augurate of his father Q. Caecilius Metellus 126 See the summary of the discussion in T. R. Martin, “Sulla I m p e r a to r Ite ru m , the Samnites and Roman republican coin propaganda”, S c h w e iz e ris c h e N u m ism a tisc h e R u n d sc h a u 68 (1989) 1944 at 20-24, 43-44. 127 Fears, “The Coinage” (above, n. 125) 598. Cf. also 600: “the lituus ... must represent the idea that through the auspices ... the patron deity aids his favorite, showing sanction or disapproval of his planned actions. The charismatic leader who was also an augur had received divine sanc­ tion to interpret these auspices”. Cf. already in a similar sense Gagé, “Romulus” (above, n. 124) 161. 128 On all of this, see Linderski, “Augural Law" (above, n. 78) 2195-2196; 2215-2218; 2228-2229; 2266, n. 472. 129 Taylor, “Symbols” (above, n. 119) 354-356, endorsed by E. Badian, “Sulla’s Augurate”, A re th u sa 1 (1968) 26-46 at 27-28, and by Crawford, R R C 2.738, n. 7.

Q. Scipio Imperator

179

Numidicus. This is not impossible; Metellus Numidicus was known for his opposi­ tion to the agrarian law of Appuleius Satuminus which, he said, was not iure rogata, and if he “was an augur, his insistence on the unconstitutionality of the law becomes more intelligible” 130. The coin of Metellus Scipio would thus be merely an imitation of the coinage of Metellus Pius, and would commemorate the augurate of his adop­ tive grandfather. This is a tepid association; in view of the onslaught of the Caesarian propaganda, we need an allusion possessed of contemporary urgency. Such an allusion was produced by B. Frier. He pointed out that Metellus Pius issued his coins when he was a Sullan commander operating in Cisalpine Gaul; and he further observed that his augural reverse clearly imitates the reverse of Sulla’s aurei and denarii struck one or two years earlier. The conclusion: the reverse of Scipio’s denarius “specifically recalled the reverse of his adoptive father Metellus Pius, but even more the earlier reverse of Sulla”. And further: “Whatever familial precedent Pius could claim, Metellus Scipio could also; but the meaning of the revived reverse should be much broader. The coalition of Sulla, which Scipio might be said to sym­ bolize, was gathering anew against Caesar”131. Frier invoked the potent name of Syme132; in vain: he was curtly dismissed by Badian and Crawford133. Frier was per­ haps off the mark, but he was on the right track: we should not only consider the past history of the emblem, but also investigate whether it is possible to tie it with the present. Now about the jug and lituus on the issues of Sulla Crawford himself wrote thus (RRC 1.374): “it seems more satisfactory to hold that they were regarded by Sulla as symbolizing a claim to imperium”; and he added perceptively: “it was apparently necessary ... for Augurs to be present to attest the passing of the Lex Curiata confer­ ring a magistrate’s powers on him”. The lex curiata was only one item in the chain of acts transmitting and bestowing the magisterial power; still Crawford’s proposi­ tion offers a clear legal and religious perspective in which to view the lituus on coins. The validity of a magistrate’s or pro-magistrate’s imperium and auspicium de­ pended on a series of constitutional acts. All these acts involved divine approval signified by the auspices134: a) The election in the comitia centuriata. If there was any fault in the impetrative auspices under which the assembly was convoked; if during the assembly any adverse signs occurred, and were disregarded, and if finally any error was committed in the ritual that caused the auspices to be vitiated, the magistrates were elected vitio, were 130 Taylor, “Symbols” (above, n. 119) 354. Broughton was moderately convinced (or moderately unconvinced); in his “Index of Careers” (M R R 2.539) he recorded the augurate of Metellus Numidicus but with a query. Cf. Crawford, R R C 1.390, no 374. 131 B. Frier, “Sulla’s Priesthood”, A r e th u sa 2 (1969) 189 and 195, n. 27. 132 Syme, R o m a n R e v o lu tio n (above, n. 68) 45. Describing the array of the camp of Pompeius in 49 (in 47-46 in Africa the ranks were thinner but the essence the same) he opined: “It was the oligarchy of Sulla, manifest and menacing in its last bid for power, serried but insecure”. 133 See above, n. 128. Badian’s article there adduced was a rejoinder to an earlier piece by B. Frier, “Augural Symbolism in Sulla’s Invasion of 83”, A N S M u s e u m N o te s 13(1967) 111-118. 134 This was well seen by A. Keaveney, “Sulla Augur”, A J A H 7. 2 (1982 [1985]) 150-171. The augural symbols on Sulla’s coinage denoted that his im p e riu m was iu stu m . The following dis­ quisition owes much to his perceptive argument (see esp. 158-160). Cf. also brief but correct remarks by Stewart, “Jug and Lituus” (above, n. 115).

180

J. Lindersld

magistratus vitiosi, and were expected to resign (though technically could not be forced to do so)135. Interregnum would follow, and then with the new election the renovatio auspiciorum (not to be confused with the repetitio auspiciorum\ see below). b) The first auspication (“the auspices of investiture”) coinciding with the entry upon the office. It could be vitiated by an adverse sign. This was a bad omen for the whole year, the gods indicating that the auspicia of the magistrate were not in order. The magistrate was expected to abdicate1361378940. c) The passage of the lex curiata that granted the imperium militiae131. Again, the auspices under which the curiate assembly was convoked had to be ritually with­ out any fault. d) The taking of the auspices on the Capitol by the magistrate (or pro-magis­ trate) before his departure for a campaign. These auspices of departure (or of mili­ tary investiture) corresponded structurally to the first auspication, but in one signifi­ cant way they were different from it. If a fault was discovered the magistrate (or pro­ magistrate) was not expected to resign, but he was obliged to return to Rome ad

auspicia repetendam . All these acts endowed the magistrate with imperium and auspicium·, they formed the legal and religious foundation that allowed the magistrate (or pro-magistrate) to take the auspices and offer sacrifices on behalf of the Roman people. The military concept of imperio auspicio (and ductu, denoting the actual com­ mand; the commanders without imperium fought ductu suo but imperio and auspicio alieno) was of course an old one, but its symbolism on coins was new. There was no agreed way in which the auspices or the right to the auspices could be visually rep­ resented. The magistrates entering upon office, and censors before the lustrum, impetrated auspicium de caelo in the shape of lightning, fulmen'39. And indeed on a stone from Africa, referring to a local magistrate, we find a representation of light­ ning accompanied by the inscription deo loci ubi auspicium dignitatis tale ( CIL VIII.774). But this monument remains an isolated example. The commanders in the field employed before battles the auspicia pullaria, divination from the eating behavior of sacred chickens, the pulli. The pullarius, the keeper of pulli, was a con­ stant and ubiquitous attendant of the magistrate; and on imperial reliefs there ap­ pear occasionally representations of the pulli, pecking on the ground, or kept in the cage, the cavea'w. There were four canonical birds the flight or voice of which was

135 On the augural concept of vitiu m , and m a g istr a tu s v itio su s, see Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2159-2177. 136 See the discussion in Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2168-2172. 137 On the thorny question of the character of the le x c u ria ta , see the sensible remarks by Keaveney, “Sulla Augur” (above, n. 134) 161-164, 168-171. 138 On the r e n o v a tio and r e p e titio a u s p ic io r u m , cf. Linderski, “Roman Religion in Livy” (above, n. 88) 69, n. 31. 139 Dion. Hal., A n t. R o m . 2.5.1-2; 2.6. 1-2; Varro, L in g . L a t. 6.86. Cf. Mommsen, S ta a ts r e c h t (above, n. 14) I2. 79-81. 140 On the p u lli and p u lla r ii, see esp. Cic., D e d iv . 2.71-74 (and the commentary a d lo c . by A. S. Pease, M . T ulli C ic e ro n is D e D iv in a tio n e L ib r i D u o [Urbana 1920-23, reprint Darmstadt 1963]); Livy 10.40; 41.18.14; Dion. Hal., A n t. R o m . 2.6.2. Two p u lli, feeding, are represented on a third century bronze ingot, R R C 1.133, no 12, but they are perhaps connected with the Dioscuri

Q. Scipio Imperator

181

observed at the auspicia impetrativa: picus, comix, corvus, parraw , and it would appear that they could very well be employed as indications of auspicium. And in­ deed on a denarius of Antonius we encounter a raven (corvus), next to jug and lituus (RRC 1.489, no 489/1-3). But this emblem too remains an isolated example. The answer why this was so is to be sought in the augural doctrine. Fulmen, pulli, and corvus allude each to a particular type of auspicium·, they were not well suited to indicate in abstracto the legitimacy of a general’s twin pillars of command, imperium and auspicium. For legitimacy of command depended on the absence of vitium at any and all stages of magisterial investiture from the auspices of the election to the auspices of departure. And vitium, resulting in faulty auspices, the inability to com­ municate with the gods, could be brought about not only by an adverse oblative sign, which was unobserved or unheeded, but also by an error in the ritual. The augurs assisted at all public meetings, at elections, at the passage of the curiate law, at the entry upon office, the sortitio for the provinces, and at the ceremonies of departure for war. Individual augurs had the right to announce (nuntiare) with binding force adverse signs that appeared after the beginning of the proceedings; and the college of augurs could pass decrees concerning errors in procedure. The final decision rested with the senate; but the presence of a vitium was always established by the board of experts, the college of augurs, on whose recommendation the senate would base its decree142. And the symbols of the augurate were the lituus, the instrum ent of auspicium and augurium, and in the second place the jug, associated with the proce­ dure of sortitio. The jug and lituus on the coins of commanders were like the stamps of approval; they did not guarantee felicitas or victory, but proclaimed nihil obstat: the path was open to proceed dis iuvantibus. Metellus Scipio had every reason to insist that his path to final success was open. The Caesarians, from the sceleratus imperator himself down to a simple veteran, were loudly denying legitimacy to Scipio’s position: he obtained his command in a rigged sortitio, and his auspices, and hence his imperium, were contaminated with all sorts of irredeemable vitia. The answer to these slanders was the lituus and the jug. His imperium was iustum. [4] The Trophy On the coin of Scipio between lituus and jug there is a trophy. According to Gruber ( CRR 2.572) “it is composed of Spanish arms, consisting of cuirass with sword attached to the waist, helmet, bow and quiver, and round shield”. Crawford ventures no description, but Alfoldi apparently had doubts about Spanish arms for in his de(Crawford, R R C 2.718, n. 2). On the altar from the v ic u s S a n d a la r iu s , the new augur Lucius Caesar holds litu u s, and a p u llu s at his feet is pecking at something, thus denoting the tr ip u d iu m (I. Scott Ryberg, R ite s o f th e S ta te R e lig io n in R o m a n A r t [= M e m o ir s o f th e A m e r ic a n A c a d ­ e m y in R o m e 2 2 , Rome 1955] 60-61, and pi. XVI, fig. 31). For further references, see ZwierleinDiehl, “Simpuvium” (above, n. 118) 409-413 (and pi. 79, 3—4). For a military p u lla r iu s , and the image of the p u lli in a cage, see A. von Domaszewski, D ie F a h n e n im rö m is c h e n H e e r e ( - A b h a n d lu n g e n d e s A r c h ä o lo g is c h -E p ig r a p h is c h e n S e m in a rs d e r U n iv e r s itä t W ie n , Heft V, 1885) 31-32. 141 Plaut., A sin . 259-261; Cic., D e d iv . 1.12,85. Cf. Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 22852286. 142 Full references, and discussion, in Linderski, “Augural Law” (above, n. 78) 2151-2225.

182

J. Linderski

scription of the trophy he conspicuously attaches a mark of interrogation: “Tropaum mit spanischen (?) Waffen”143. This mark ought to be very large indeed for Gruber’s description was not based on an analysis of the arms themselves. It derives from his conviction that as the lituus and jug (‘capis’ in his erroneous terminology) imitate the emblems on the denarii of Metellus Pius, so also the tropaeum may be a memo­ rial of Pius’ victory over Sertorius (cf. CRR 2.357), “and may not have been intended to relate to the campaign for which these coins were struck” (CRR 2.572, n. 1), i.e. to Scipio’s current campaign in Africa. But we have to remember that there is no tropaeum on the denarii of Metellus Pius, and that according to Crawford (RRC 1.390, no 374) Pius did not strike his coins in 79-77 in Spain in the war against Sertorius but rather when he was commanding in 81 in Cisalpine Gaul. Gruber’s “Spanish trophy” was erected on a shaky ground; it was always ready for a re-interpretation, and L. R. Taylor once again offered a theory elegant and in­ genious. If jug and lituus refer to Caecilius Numidicus (they hardly do, we have seen), why not assign to him also the trophy? The trophy “would seem to commemorate the victories over Jugurtha that gave Numidicus his triumph and his honorary cog­ nomen”144. This “Numidian” trophy Taylor placed in a broader context of propaganda and counter-propaganda of the war in Africa. Caesar made use of his adfinis Marius to win over the Numidians and the Gaetulians145; Scipio countered invoking on his coins the memory of Metellus Numidicus. Elegant and ingenious certainly, and cer­ tainly not persuasive. Not persuasive because too involved; and one wonders whether it would have been prudent for Metellus Scipio to advertize on his coins Roman victories over the Numidians in a situation when a King of Numidia was his main and indispensable ally. But above all, like Gruber, Taylor shows no interest in the particular arms of which the trophy, on Scipio’s denarius is composed. Now among those arms two pieces stand out: bow and quiver. Neither the Spaniards nor the Numidians were known for their prowess in archery; on the other hand Parthian and Syrian bowmen were famous146. This brings to mind Scipio’s victory in the Amanus mountains; the

143 Alfoldi, “Iuba” (above, n. 99) 9 = 223. A. J. Janssen, H e t a n tie k e tr o p a io n (= V e rh a n d elin g en V la a m se A k a d . KlassederLetteren 27, Brussel 1957) 176, repeats the assertion of Gruber about the Spanish arms, but judiciously remarks: “waaronder—een zeer zeldzame verschijning—ecn boog en een pijlkoker”. Rare and curious indeed; see below n. 146. 144 Taylor, “Symbols” (above, n. 119) 355. 145 B . A fr. 32: In te rim N u m id a e G a e tu liq u e d iffu g ere c o tid ie e x c a s tr is S c ip io n is e tp a r tim in regnum s e co n fe rre , p a r tim , q u o d i p s i m a io r e s q u e e o ru m b e n e fic io C. M a r ii u si f u is s e n t C a e sa re m q u e e iu s a d fin e m e s s e a u d ie b a n t, in e iu s c a s tr a p e r fu g e r e c a te r v a tim n o n in term ittu n t', s p e c u la to r e s G a e tu li

speaking):

35 (the

S a e p e n u m e r o ... im p e ra to r , c o m p lu r e s G a e tu li, q u i su m u s

c lie n te s C. M a r i ... a d te v o lu im u s in tu a q u e p r a e s id ia con fugere·, see also 56. 146 [O.] Fiebiger,“Sagittarius”, R E 1 A (1920) 1743-1746. At the siege of Numantia Iugurtha brought to Scipio twelve elephants and a body of archers and slingers who were attached to them ( t o u v ir o s n o m in a t.

Q. Scipio Imperator

185

Carthaginem vincere, sed amplius mortem153. Words only: the Metelli lost their elephant, and the Scipiones lost their Africa154. But it is well to remember that Imperator Caesar had only two years left for his felicitas to endure. University o f North Carolina at Chapel Hill

153 Cf. Seneca Rhet.,

S u a s.

7.8:

P. S c ip io n e m a m a io r ib u s s u is d e s c is c e n te m g e n e r o s a m o r s in

n u m e ru m S c ip io n u m re p o su it.

154 As Seneca was well aware, E p . M o r . 71.10: O m n ia l i c e t f i a n t ... e t S c ip io n e m in A fr ic a n o m in is s u i f o r tu n a d e s titu a t. In Ampelius’ L ib e r m e m o r ia lis 24 the history of the illu s tr e s S c ip io n e s is so summarized: S c ip io m a g n u s A fric a n u s q u i v ic it H a n n ib a le m . S c ip io m in o r N u m a n tin u s q u i N u m a n tia m e t C a r th a g in e m d iru it. S c ip io A s ia tic u s q u i d e A n tio c h o triu m p h a v it. S c ip io N a s ic a q u i a s e n a tu v i r o p tim u s e s t iu d ic a tu s. S c ip io q u i o c c is o P o m p e io p a r te s r e s titu it e t v ic tu s s e in te rfe c it. But Scipio was not a worthy opponent of Caesar, in life or death. It was Cato’s sui­ cide, glowingly acknowledged even by the author of the B e llu m A fric u m (88), and the legend of Cato, that demanded the victor’s response. The response came in Caesar’s A n tic a to , lost and notorious (cf. H.-J. Tschiedel, C a e s a r s ‘A n tic a to ’. E in e U n te rsu c h u n g d e r T e stim o n ie n u n d F r a g m e n te [Darmstadt 1981]). We remember that Scipio and Cato had once been enemies, rivals in love (see above, n. 22), and that Scipio (apparently as late as 56 or 55) composed an invec­ tive against Cato (Plut., C a to M in . 57). The victor Caesar used Scipio’s strictures as if spoils of victory in his own denigration of Cato. With Scipio an ally no wonder this was the battle he lost. On Caesar as a literary imitator of Scipio, see E. Meyer, C a e s a r s M o n a r c h ie u n d d a s P r i n c i p a t d e s P o m p e iu s 3 (Stuttgart u. Berlin 1922) 436, n. 2; R. Fehrle, C a to U tic e n s is (Darmstadt 1983) 294, both scholars endorsing the incisive investigation by L. Piotrowicz, “De Q. Caecilii Metelli Pii Scipionis in M. Porcium Uticensem invectiva”, E o s 18 (1912) 129-136. The author of this Latin gem was my First Master and Teacher: it is only appropriate that his should be the last name quoted in a paper honoring the memory of a scholar whom I regard as my Second Master and Teacher.

T R IB U N IP L E B IS AND R E S PU BLIC A by

Ernst Badian A great deal has obviously been written on this topic (so much that there is no point in compiling a bibliography1), though Mommsen’s long discussion in Rom. Staatsrecht II3 remains basic. Yet a discussion of some points in that complex rela­ tionship may still be a subject of some interest to offer in memory of T. R. S. Broughton: I cannot help wishing that he had been able to hear and read it himself, as he read (and helpfully criticized) much of my work on the Roman Republic.2 The main difficulty, as so often in ancient history, is that we have little reliable information. Not that there is a dearth of actual statements: Livy’s first decade is full of relevant material on the origin and first two centuries of the tribunate, and his later surviving decades give us some names of tribunes and some tribunician activ­ ity. But the early evidence (and some not so early) is known to be unreliable, while the later evidence is patchy and haphazard. As is his habit, he concentrates on wars and on hotly debated issues. He found plenty of both in the history of the early ex­ pansion of the Republic and of the Struggle of the Orders in the annalists he followed, and retailed them, probably much as he found them, perhaps adding occasional con­ fusion to the already confused and partly fictitious accounts. There was nothing quite so exciting in tribunician history in the Middle Republic. His account of it, where he clearly must have had much better sources to follow, shows his lack of interest in what had become an accepted institution, both when events proceeded normally and (surprisingly) at times when there must have been conflicts recorded in his sources. Let us briefly look at the second century.

I Early in that century a plebiscitum of a Terentius Culleo (who will be the pr. 187 Q. Terentius Culleo, as tr. pi. by 189) is said by Plutarch to have compelled the cen1

2

I do not know of any recent bibliography on the tribunate. Much can be sifted from M R R III, and Thommen’s book (cited n. 33) has a bibliography (pp. 265ff.) containing many relevant items. Something can also be gathered from the volumes on the Roman Republic (VII 2-IX) of the new C a m b r id g e A n c ie n t H is to r y , though their bibliographies are poorly organized and at times seem arbitrarily selected. This paper aims to proceed mainly from the sources. Modem works used will be cited as they occur. This paper is a considerably expanded version of some views that I first expounded at the Kommission für Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik, in one of a series of lectures that I was asked to give there in May 1989 on the “constitution” of the Roman Republic. But for that invitation, and the generous hospitality that I received there, these views would never have come together, nor (probably) would the article on the consuls published in C h iro n 20 (1990). I am greatly obliged to Professor Michael Wörrle and his colleagues for the kindness shown to me, and for fruitful discussion on a variety of subjects. J Lmderski, ed Imperium Sine Fine T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic Histona Emzelschrift, n. 105 ©1996 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

188

Emst Badian

sors to accept all men bom ingenui (i.e., including the sons of freedmen bom after their emancipation) as Roman citizens optima iure (so it seems: Plut. Flam. 18.2, the only source, writes non-technically). The biographer calls it an act of “insolence” against the aristocracy, and it must have been a contentious issue, for Plutarch to have picked up that judgment. Yet Livy ignores both the law and the tribune, even though he extensively treats (probably) the same man in his praetorship. In 182, as we hap­ pen to know from Macrobius (Sat. 3.17.2L), a tribune named C. Orchius passed the first sumptuary law in Roman annals, ex senatus consulto. Livy ought to have picked up this law intimately connected with moral issues that he thought very important. Yet he ignores both the tribune and the law—perhaps because there was obviously no serious conflict of opinion about it. About the same time (so it seems) a M. Pinarius Rusca (that must be his name—he is no doubt the praetor of 181 when tribune) pro­ posed a lex annalis and met vociferous opposition from a distinguished consular, M. Servilius Pulex Geminus. Although Cicero (De or. 2.261) must have found the story in an annalist accessible to Livy, Livy is silent. Where we do have a mention in Livy (e.g. on land distributions and colonial foundations, which he seems always to copy from his sources), we cannot rely on his account for constitutional details. This will not surprise students of Livy, but must here be set out. Thus, for a major land distribution in 200, Livy, in an account full of official-sounding phraseology (31.4.If.), mentions only a senatus consultum as au­ thorizing it and no law. Similarly, decemuiri for uiritim distribution are set up solely by the Senate (42.4.3f.). This is in fact his most common form of reporting such matters (e.g. 37.47.2, 57.7; 39.23.4 among many passages). The Senate even alone decides that Aquileia should be a Latin and not a Roman colony (39.55.5)— a matter concerning Roman citizenship where one would certainly expect People or Plebs to be asked. On several other occasions (e.g. 34.45; 39.44.10; 40.29.1-2 etal.) there is no specification as to the authority: Livy apparently was entirely uninterested. In one case, where the tradition was obviously confused in other respects, we hear only of a plebiscite (32.29.3; cf. 34.45, from a different tradition). In only two cases (34.53.1; 35.40.5) a tribune proposes a measure to the Plebs ex senatus consulto (this by itself is Livy’s usual phrase for the actual appointment of a commission or the actual foundation of colonies) and the appointment of a commission follows. Yet that was presumably the legal mechanism on all occasions, and that full procedure is implied on one early occasion, where Livy seems to have abbreviated a source that gave it (4.11,3f.). Had it not been for two full descriptions, the very reasonable con­ jecture would have remained a pure guess. In 172 a tribune passed a law compelling the censors to have the rent for public land in Campania, much the most valuable of ager publicus in Italy, farmed out for collection (42.19.1 f.)—which we are told had never been done since the land became Roman by expropriation. It looks like a popularis act, combining interest in effi­ cient running of the res publica with an attack on the upper class, who had presum­ ably for some decades possessed public land without paying. That might seem the obvious conclusion, did we not observe that in 173 the consul L. Postumius Albinus (so Livy explicitly tells us, 42.1.6) had been sent by the Senate to mark the bound­ aries of public land in Campania, some of which had been incorporated in private estates. We can take it as certain that the tribune in 172, passing his consequential

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

189

measure, was acting ex SC. Perhaps the whole affair had come about because the prospect of the Third Macedonian War (already envisaged in 173: see 42.5f.) had made the Senate anxious about sufficient financing. In any case, the initiative had been the Senate’s, even though Livy manages to give the contrary impression. Livy’s lack of interest in tribunes and the tribunate is shown by his very haphaz­ ard references, not only to their actions, but to their names. For the years 200-167 (the point at which we lose his text), more than one third (13) do not give us the name of a single tribune. For the rest we have 49 or 50 names (not all from Livy!), out of 210. But this is not as good as it looks. Eight of the names come from the Trials of the Scipios, overlaid with later fiction and with even the actual names not always securely reported; four, in one year, from the debate on the lex Oppia (see MRR I 340); and fourteen references are only to a veto, threatened or delivered. There are obviously few of whom significant actions are reliably recorded. What is even more irritating is that Livy, who in the first decade has references to tribunes all the time, practically never bothers to give us names where more than two tribunes take joint action. He will say “four tribunes” or “nine tribunes” (e.g. 3.32.4; 4.1.2, 53.7): to give all those names would presumably have spoiled the harmonious flow of his prose. “Tribuni plebis” for the whole college (five or ten, as the case may be) are mentioned dozens of times, especially in the struggles preceding 449. (But cf. also, e.g., 42.22.3; 43.4.6.) The less than fully attentive scholar can be led into a trap: finding no men­ tion of tribunes in MRR under a given year, perhaps for several years on end, he may conclude that there was no tribunician action; hence further support for the popular view that tribunes must have been the lapdogs of the aristocracy. If there is one ad­ ditional rubric needed, in a revision of MRR (which no one is now likely to under­ take, alas), it is a mention, where appropriate, of anonymous groups, especially tri­ bunes and envoys. To the prosopographer, trying to build up a skeleton of true history, Livy’s si­ lences are almost fatal—however much they may be to the liking of those who dis­ approve of so arduous a discipline. We cannot really pretend that such names as we find are a true random sample, and we certainly cannot put them to the same kind of use as we can put the lists of consuls and praetors and censors, which, for that pe­ riod, are complete or nearly so. But it is worth looking at what we have, however unsatisfactory it may be for scientific akribeia. For only three years during this period (196,195,187) does Livy provide as many as four names of tribunes. (The last date is not quite secure, but let us take it as es­ tablished, since in principle its precision will make no difference.) Adding other sources, we have as many as five fori 84; seventeen names in all for those four years. Of these, five are of consular family, one or perhaps two brothers of a praetor.3 Three 3

C o n s u la r . The Iunii Bruti (M. and P.), M. Fundanius, C. Minucius Augurinus, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus. Q. Marcius Ralla must be the brother of M. Marcius Ralla, p r . 204, in view of the rarity of the c o g n o m e n . M. Naevius is probably also the brother of a praetor (R E s.v. 4 = 16). Münzer, in an unfortunate remark in R E s.v. Marcius 87, not only connects Q. Marcius Ralla, tr .p l . 196, with the noble Philippi, but inadvertently implies that Livy himself did so. The careless reader is very likely to be misled, for Livy certainly says nothing of the sort. A close connec­ tion in fact seems unlikely, since the p r a e n o m e n Marcus, borne by the elder Ralla, is unknown among the Philippi. Münzer makes a similar comment, although less confidently and without

190

Emst Badian

later become consuls and no fewer than six praetors: i.e., more than half rise to the two highest magistracies. Of that number, five bear names new to us: though it would be rash to call them noui homines, they are certainly not members of families of any prominence before. We can be sure they are not of consular and fairly confident they are not of praetorian stock.4 This is what emerges from a study of the inadequate data on tribunes for four years attested better than the rest.5 As we have had to admit, they are not a random sample, since they are men who, in their tribunate, took some action that (for what­ ever reason) aroused Livy’s (or, in two cases, another source’s) interest. But in view of the case of Q. Terentius Culleo, recorded as a praetor but, despite a highly memo­ rable law, not as a tribune, we can be confident that at least some (we cannot tell how many) of the other praetors whom we meet in Livy’s record reached the office after a tribunate that he did not choose to record. The tribunate, in the first third of the ■second century, must be taken seriously as a stage in am an ’s. career: j t interests some men of good family, and it seems frequently to lead to the praetorship— with luck, even on to the consulship. It is a pity that Livy was not interested in these men or, on the whole, in their actions— even, as we have seen, some really important ones. I must now add, in fairness to Livy, that with all his faults he is still a useful source on holders of the office. After we lose him, we have only a single certain and cer­ tainly datable name of a tribune (149) for a full twenty years. There is no hope of writing anything approaching a social history of the tribunate for the second century, or in fact for the first, where most of the time we are little better off.

II To try to understand the tribunate as such, we ought to look at its development, and that of the assembly over which it presided. As we know it and see it reliably attested, it is a monster. No other constitution I know of has had anything like it; not

4

5

the misleading implication, on the two Marcii, Scylla and Sermo (R E s.v. 100 and 102), who are almost certainly related (probably brothers or cousins: cf. Münzer on the two Bruti, R E s.v. Iunius 48 and 54— the stemma in coll. 961-962 firmly and optimistically makes them broth­ ers!). With the p r a e n o m in a Marcus and Quintus, they are likely to be related to the Rallae, but unlikely to be related (at least, at all closely) to the Philippi. It is striking that, among the tri­ bunes sparsely attested in this period, we have two pairs of brothers or cousins. Among the much better attested closing years of the lib e r a re s p u b lic a I know of only one similar case: the Cassii Longini, C. and Q., in 49, who s u e fr a tr e s (probably cousins: see Cic. A tt. 5.21.2). One can only wonder how many such cases have disappeared with our almost total loss of the tribunician/asii. In the lists that follow, N denotes a name new to us, i.e. not of consular and probably not of praetorian family, hence quite probably not of senatorial descent, though this is less certain. C o n su ls: M. Iunius Brutus, Q. Petillius Spurinus (N), Ti. Sempronius Gracchus. P r a e to r s : M. Aburius (N), C. Afranius (N), C. Atinius, P. Iunius Brutus, L. Mummius (N), L. Valerius Tappo (N). If, as is quite likely, Petillius was a n o u u s h o m o , he would be one of only two or three consuls not related to an earlier senator during the period 190-133. The years where we have three tribunes, from Livy or elsewhere (189,177, 172), are unfortu­ nately beset by difficulties over identifications, so that no attempt at social or career analysis can profitably be made. I have not thought it worth while to burden the reader with names in Livy’s haphazard selection of single tribunes or pairs of tribunes.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

191

even the Italian cities of later centuries which tried to imitate the Roman Republic. Yet the Romans lived with it. After a period of initial difficulties (lovingly elabo­ rated by the annalistic sources of Livy, Dionysius and Dio), they came to take it for granted, and in the end it was exploited by the war lords who usurped the res publica. Academically speaking, those who study the Roman Republic have also tended to take it for granted. Mommsen, naturally, was aware of the basic problem of its ex­ istence and its integration. To him it provided one of the most difficult challenges in his attempt to depict Roman public law as based on rational principles. Mommsen had an exceptionally tidy and logical mind: I suspect he thought that no problem in human history and institutions is not amenable to human logic. Yet he may have met his match in the tribunate. At one point in his treatment of it, in Römisches Staatsrecht II3, a particularly puzzling aspect forces him to write (292 n. 4): “Eine principiell genügende Erklärung ist nicht gefunden.” It is not often that he thus admitted defeat. As already indicated above, the trouble here is not, as often in ancient history, lack of information: we have a great deal, and it ought to suffice to explain the-nature and developmentxrf the office— were it not for the fact that much of what we have is overlaid with fiction and it is impossible by any method to disengage any substratum of fact with real certainty or at least probability. Thus Mommsen fully realized that, from quite early in his history, Livy at times depicts tribunes as participating in Senate meetings; he also knew that this is patently false. What he may not have noticed is that not all of Livy’s sources made this error. We find tribunes in the Senate as early as 462 BC (3.9.6-11), presumably from an annalist who thought so. Not all annalists did, and this can produce odd incongru­ ities. Compare, e.g., 4.48.5-11 (a plot against tribunes hatched in the Senate: tribunes cannot have been present) with ibid. 15ff. (tribunes present in the Senate on the next day). Livy did nothing to reconcile these conflicts. Mommsen comforts himself for Livy’s error with the fact that he at least does not report that tribunes could actually convoke the Senate in the fifth century (p. 315), unlike Dionysius, who reports (10.31: 456 BC) that Icilius, “head of the (tribunician) college” (sic), at least tried to do so. (In ch. 32 he then addresses the Senate which he did not actually convoke.) Livy’s error is explained by the hypothesis that Livy, when reporting tribunes as participat­ ing at Senate meetings, must be reporting occasions when they were specially sum­ moned to attend. Livy never once mentions such a summons: when tribunes appear in the Senate, their presence seems to need no explanation. I have explained my own view of how Livy at times came to think so. I would dismiss all such accounts as simple fiction. Before we come to what we may call the “mainstream” antiquarian theory on the relations of the early tribunate to the Senate, I must stress that Mommsen was never naive: he never believed everything reported about early tribunes; not (e.g.) the egregious story in Valerius Maximus (6.3.2) that, when nine tribunes conspired with Sp. Cassius against the res publica, the tenth, a virtuous R Mucius, burned them all alive. (Mommsen does however call this “correct erfunden”— a memorable phrase for anyone who has studied the early Republic.) But he was given to accepting what fitted, or could be made to fit, into the vision he had constructed for himself. In 2.2.7 Valerius Maximus informs us that the early tribunes used to sit outside

192

Emst Badian

the door of the Senate, ante ualuas positis subselliis, and examine the decrees of the patres with attentive care, so as to be able to veto them at once if necessary. Dio (ap. Zon. 7.15) apparently picked up the same tale, which seems to show that it was the accepted view of the late antiquarian tradition. (It must therefore have got into at least one o r two o f the later annalists. B ut the fact that Livy is unaware of it shows that it was not in the— first-century(?)—annalists that he chiefly used.) Valerius proceeds to tell us (and this gives away the origin of the story) that this is why old senatus consulta have the letter C at the end, meaning tribunos quoque censuisse. This is blatant antiquarian myth, of the worst sort. That anyone not a member of the Senate can at any time have had the power of censere in it did not seem to worry those who invented it. There is not even any pretence to claim that early decrees con-tained any reference to tribunes to accompany that letter. The C can only have stood for the fi­ nal censuere, showing the acceptance of the decree by the Senate as a whole. So we still find it used in 78 (ILLRP 513,fin.). One wonders how the antiquarians envisaged the actual working of the system they constructed. How could the tribunes sitting outside the door and merely hearing what was said inside (if indeed they heard all of it and heard it clearly) examine those decrees with attentive care before deciding whether to veto them? Or did the Senate produce an immediate transcript for their benefit? That was not its practice in historical times: when Cicero in 63 wanted a precise record of what was said, he had to employ four eminent senators to do the work for him (Sull. 4 Iff.). And did the patres then wait patiently for the outcome of the tribunes’ attentive scrutiny and (no doubt) discussion among them selves? Yet Mommsen uneasily believed the story (294: “allem Anschein nach glaubwürdig”). He similarly believes Dionysius’ story (8.90.2:483 BC!) of early tribunician intercession against votes in the comitia, although even Livy has nothing of the sort.6 He believes it because he can advance a “legal” explanation for it: it is an instance of the transfer of collegial intercession from the consuls to the tribunes (293)! He is not worried by the presupposition that as early as 483 the consuls recognized the tribunes as their equals, nor by the fact that we know of no such “transfers” going the other way.7 The story is surely about as likely as Livy’s belief that tribunes could sit in the curia.

6

7

He refers to 3.24.7, where the tribunes prevent the quaestors (who must be q u a e s to r e s p a r r ic id ii: to be corrected M R R 138) from summoning the Assembly for the trial of M. Volscius for per­ jury (q u i c o m itia q u a e s to r e s h a b e r e d e r e o ... p a s s u r o s n e g a b a n t). This is not depicted as a veto on a vote in an Assembly, but there is in any case some confusion. It is not clear how the q u a e s to r e s were competent to try for perjury; and above all, Livy has just reported the election of Volscius to a tribunate in that very year (3.21.3). There was a tradition denying that election: see M R R , cit. But Livy does not know it. Livy does have tribunes intercede at Senate meetings (e.g. 4.6.6,43.6, 50.6ff.)—not inconsis­ tently, since he saw them as participating in Senate meetings. (As we have noted, he never confines them to benches outside the c u ria —a tradition unknown to him.) In 4.43.7f. the tri­ bunes veto a meeting of p a tr ic ii (we do not know how Livy envisaged it) to appoint an in te rre x — as unlikely a scene, for the early Republic, as might be imagined. We might also note that in 400 (5.12.9ff.) an elderly Plebeian senator, who has never held any office, is available to be­ come the first Plebeian tr ib . m il. c o s . p o t . The question of how he had got into the Senate, at a time when (as Livy constantly stresses) the Patricians were doing all they could to exclude Plebeians from positions of power, does not occur to Livy. As for the idea that consuls and tribunes were ever colleagues, it is simply unworthy of Mommsen.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

193

Mommsen’s basic error seems to have been that, as a good jurist trying to build up a logical system of public law for the Roman Republic, he believed that Rome was a Rechtsstaat. The modem scholar hardly needs to be told that, at any time for which we have real evidence, it never was. Holding this view, he was also prepared to believe wihout reservation the report (Livy 3.55.7) that the leges Valeriae Horatiae converted the original ritual basis for the tribunes’ sacrosanctity into positive legal protection, extended also to aediles of the Plebs and perhaps others. This, in Mommsen’s view, was necessary because of the disruption caused by the Decemvirate; indeed, this is the explanation that Livy himself picked up. Mommsen himself occasionally, though not consistently, later refers to such a basis. We learn from Livy that this supposed legal basis was known to the later jurists, who were as puzzled as they had a right to be by the facts that no one at any later time ever based the tribunes’ extraordinary status on anything but the original “sacred law” and that aediles were never accorded any special protection against their superiors. Their attempt to explain these recalcitrant facts are an illumi­ nating comment on the extent to which fiction had come to be accepted as fact, regard­ ing the history of the early Republic, and on the difficulties caused by that acceptance where the known facts were clearly contrary to the accepted fiction. Broughton, in a delightful understatement, observed (MRR 149 n. 1) that the whole Valerio-Horatian legislation “rests on a tradition of some insecurity.” When we find the tradition that in 471 the number of tribunes was increased from two to five (Livy 2.58.1, citing Piso and giving the five names), Mommsen rejects this (p. 275); and this in itself would not be unreasonable. However, he goes on to call Diodorus’ report (11.68.8) giving only four names “allein zuverlässig”. He does not tell us how Diodorus had gained access to information superior to that of the honest censorian,8 whether or not we believe the latter. I do not want my comments to be regarded as a general polemic against Mommsen in the Staatsrecht. There have been too many of those, usually on the wrong grounds. I am merely making the limited point that, owing to the essential irrationality of the tribunate, the highly rational scholar is here at his worst: a great deal of what to the unprejudiced observer must appear to be unacceptable “evidence” clearly has to be believed by anyone who wants to arrive at a rational history of the tribunate. There is in fact more such stuff about, some of it readily believed, perhaps pre­ cisely because it is not in Livy or Dionysius, hence not made up by the annalists they followed. C. Gracchus, in one of his speeches dealing with his brother’s death, is said to have told the Plebs that their ancestors were much better at defending their rights than they: a C. Veturius was sentenced to death because he did not make way for a tribune in the Forum (Plut. C. Gr. 3.5). This is accepted by Mommsen, and not only by him. Münzer followed Mommsen in dating the incident between 320 and 220

8

That Diodorus explicitly states that the Romans decided to appoint four tribunes may be no more than his own deduction from the fact that he found four names. The additional name, Maecilius in Piso, could easily have dropped out in any manuscript, Latin or Greek, after the “Acilius” preceding it. (In Piso, as it would be in fact, Icilius; but Acilius is what Diodorus transmitted and had probably found.)

194

Emst Badian

(essentially, in a period where we do not have Livy) and Gundel, in RE, followed Münzer.9 We are indeed entitled to ask: if this occurred in the period covered by Livy’s first decade, why do we not hear of it? We have seen that Livy’s selection of what to re­ port can be erratic. But a deliberately symbolic act, proclaiming that tribunes had no authority over Patricians and did not have .to be recognized by them, and the condem­ nation of that act by the Comitia Centuriata (as it would have to be), is not only too important an event to have been overlooked; it is precisely the sort of matter that is central to his account of the Straggle of the Orders, and indeed, the claim as such is reported to have been made, with consequences dramatic enough, but not nearly so startling. (See 2.56.11: an Ap. Claudius.) It is inconceivable that, had Livy found the incident referred to by C. Gracchus in one of his sources, he would have omitted it. The only C. Veturius it could refer to in his first decade is, of course, the cos. 455, an extremist Patrician, as the annalists have it. That man was indeed prosecuted and convicted (3.31.5f.), but on very different grounds; and he did not suffer capital punishment. It is possible that the story as C. Gracchus found it somewhere (for he is surely not the one who made it up) was a fictitious rewriting of that trial and con­ viction. For if we look at the period of Livy’s second decade (about 290-220— it is not legitimate to include the preceding generation), a little prosopography will soon show us that there is no man who could have committed that crime. The only C. Veturii on record are two with (at least probably) the cognomen Cicurinus: one the consul, the other a military tribune (RE 10 and 11). No C. Veturius is mentioned after 369. During the period of the second decade no C. Veturii appear in the fasti: the only Veturius is a Philo in 220, whom we soon pick up in the Second Punic War. That must have been the only stirps known at that time, and quite likely in the whole of the third century. It is surely in any case obvious that the period after the lex Hortensia is far too late for such a claim to have been made: it can only fit into the Straggle of the Orders as reported for the fifth and fourth centuries, where (as we have seen) we do indeed find it. It was annalistic fiction, in an annalist not used by Livy.10

9 Münzer, R ö m . A d e ls p . 124; Gundel, R E s.v. Veturius 1. 10 If we try to conjecture a name for him, I would suggest Cn. Gellius. (On him, see my brief treat­ ment in T. A. Dorey, ed., T h e L a tin H is to r ia n s (1966) Ilf. and 22.) As I pointed out, it is clearly he who first filled out the “hour-glass” shape in which the earlier annalists left Roman history. The enormous scale on which he was the first to write clearly suggests that it was he who laid the foundation of the annalistic account of the Struggle of the Orders as we find it in later histo­ rians. His own bias, obviously not taken over by all of them, still shows through in parts of Livy’s account, where anti-Patrician interpretations and descriptions of the patriotism shown by the Plebs under provocation are at least as common as execration of Plebeian demagogues and praise for moderate and virtuous Patricians. Gellius’ inventions seem to have been taken over by his successors and adapted according to their own prejudices. As to Gellius’, his point of view is pretty clear from the fact that C. Licinius Macer was the only historian in the Roman Republic who used him. If (as seems likely) he is the m o n e ta lis of about 138 (see R R C 232), he must have been bom not after 160: Sex. Pompeius, whom Crawford assigns to 137 and who was praetor c. 120, gives us a standard for conjecture. Since he wrote at least 97 books (H R R I2 p. 156), he must have written quite a number of them by the time of C. Gracchus’ tribunates. I think it quite likely that the tale of the wicked C. Veturius and his just punishment, which C. Gracchus used, had appeared fairly recently, and that the Veturius was indeed the c o s . 455.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

195

There is, in fact, far more plain invention readily accepted by both ancients and modems than is usually suspected. Like Mommsen, scholars are tempted to accept a coherent tale, not through credulity (though that has recently come into fashion as well), but from a laudable desire to arrive at a rational interpretation. Let us look at another example, which should never have been taken as seriously as it has been. There are precisely two instances of tribunes being sent out of Rome as com­ panions of other legati sent to bring back an obstreperous magistrate or promagistrate. Not surprisingly, they puzzled Mommsen; it is in this context that he makes the ad­ mission quoted p. 191 above. Yet he seems to believe them without scruple or quali­ fication. Let us set them out. In 310 the consul Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus crossed the dreaded Ciminian Forest and won major victories in Etruria. On his return south, he found an embassy of five legati and two tribunes, sent by the Senate to forbid him to enter the Forest. Naturally, they were now delighted that they had arrived too late, and they returned to Rome as messengers of his victories. Thus Livy (9.36). That there were different traditions is shown by the fact that in the Fasti Triumphales Fabius triumphed, not as consul (as in Livy), but in 309 pro console. That version, based on a longer timescale, must surely have done without the tardy embassy. In any case, there would be no need to waste any time on the tale, were it not for the second, and at first sight more respectable, story of a similar mission. That is the story of R Scipio Africanus and the legate Q. Pleminius (for whom see RE s.v. 2). That it is pervaded by fiction will hardly be denied. Livy himself found two very different versions. But the details that concern us seem to be concordantly reported. Briefly, an embassy was sent to report on R Scipio’s actions and, if it was thought appropriate, to force him to return to Rome. The legati were accom­ panied by two tribunes and an aedile of the Plebs (Livy 29.20ff.). What were these three doing on a mission so far away from home? The puzzle seems to have worried Livy. He explains (29.20.11) that the two tribunes were there so that they could or­ der the aedile to arrest Scipio and drag him back iure sacrosanctae potestatis if he refused to come willingly. But this merely deepens the puzzle. As is well known, the sacrosanctity of tribunes and the potestas based on it extended only to the first milestone outside the city. The Senate clearly had no power to lift the restriction on the potestas. That could be done (presumably) only by the concilium plebis,11 since the tribunes were not magistrates of the Roman People. As we shall see, the Senate preserved strict forms in treating them as (practically) independent heads of state. Of course, we can always posit an unrecorded concilium in which this was in fact done: we have seen that Livy might well not bother to report it. But that is not the end of the puzzle. It must surely be doubted whether even the concilium plebis had the power of varying the lex sacra that had conferred the tribunes’ sacrosanctity on1 11 We are not told how C. Gracchus got his dispensation when, as concurrently a I l lu ir c o lo n ia e d e d u c e n d a e , he was allowed to visit the colony of Iunonia while a tribune (Plut. C . G r . 11,2f.; App. B C 124.102). This appears to be the only authentic case of such a dispensation. We are not told whether Gaius took his tr ib u n ic ia p o te s ta s and s a c r o s a n c tita s with him. However, I think it very likely that the two stories of tribunes being sent on missions have their distant origin in the dispensation granted to him, whatever precisely its nature. Livy’s immediate sources certainly wrote in the first century, and C. Gracchus’ mission would be remembered.

196

Emst Badian

them. Another sacrum— a major ceremony—would surely be needed for this, just as inauguration required exauguration to reverse it. But as this shows, it would be an uncomfortable precedent, for what can be varied can in the same way be totally abolished. The whole point of the tribunes’ sacrosanctity was that it could not be tampered with. When Ti. Gracchus proposed the dismissal of Octavius from the tri­ bunate, he did not try to arrange such a ceremony: he seems to have argued (rather as Cicero was later to argue in the case of a hostis declaration) that Octavius had him­ self violated the terms of the lex sacra and thereby stripped himself of its protection.12 Even this is not quite the end of the puzzle. For why was the aedile needed? He, after all, did not have any sacrosancta potestas and there was no way in which the tribunes could confer it on him, any more than they could confer it on a private citi­ zen. Sacrosanctity did not (as this tale seems to assume) function like imperium. While examples of the transfer of imperium by a consul are frequent, there is not a single recorded case of a transfer of sacrosanctitas by its holder. We must suspect that whoever made up this story was misled by the model of imperium. If the order implied in our story had been given, Scipio (holder of imperium as he was) could simply have knocked the aedile down and walked away. We have already seen that the jurists, while accepting the protection conferred on aediles by the leges Valeriae Horatiae, did not seem to know how that protection was actually meant to work, but were sure it did not work against higher magistrates. Needless to say, the tribunes and the aediles are not mentioned again after their initial appointment—not until the return of the mission to Rome, where the tribunes join in the mission’s enthusiastic report about Scipio to the Senate.13 A generation later, when we have an authentic report of a mission sent to a recalcitrant magistrate (P. Crassus, cos. 171), there are only three legati (Livy 43.1.12). We can take it that the story of the mission to Scipio, with its outcome the glorification of the hero, is part of the Scipionic legend. It is certainly impossible to regard it as authentic as we have it. How it is related to the story of the mission to Q. Fabius Maximus cannot be disengaged. But since in that story the tribunes have no purpose at all, nor any use for their sacrosancta potestas, it seems a plausible suggestion that this story is the later, and that it was fashioned after the Scipionic story, by one of the first-century annalists.14 12 This seems at one point to be the import of a speech reported by Plutarch (Ti. G r . 15.2), although it later proceeds to other, in part confused, arguments. The speech is generally accepted as essentially genuine, but some of it is likely to be Plutarch’s own rhetoric, especially the commonplaces about popular sovereignty. The argument here noted is perhaps the most likely to be genuine: it is confirmed by the parallels in Cicero and I know of nothing like it in the Greek rhetorical tradition. That there was no sacred ceremony in the recall of Octavius may be re­ garded as certain. 13 Livy 29.22.11. (The aedile is by now forgotten.) We may as well note that the extract from Diodorus dealing with this incident (Diod. 27.4) mentions only the two tribunes and the aedile as constituting the mission. Since the report is lengthy and consistent, this is not due to abbre­ viation by the excerptor. It seems impossible to tell with any assurance how this is related to Livy’s version of an embassy including those three. 14 There is indeed a similar story told about the year 48. Dio (42.24) tells us that the consul P. Servilius Isauricus (the only consul in Rome in Caesar’s absence), when the praetor M. Caelius claimed that he wanted to go to Caesar (but in fact probably wanted to co-operate with T. Annius

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

197

III This discussion has attempted to show how little reliable knowledge we have about tribunes, even as late as c. 200 BC. As Mommsen noted (p. 282), we do not know even the basic facts about how and when they got the attendants (scribae, uiatores, accensi) that, in their gradual assimilation to magistrates, they had acquired when we meet them in detail in the late Republic. But we must now look at the more complicated question of their auspicia}5 The claim that they did not have any pub­ lic auspicia, though widely accepted, seems at least oversimplified. Unfortunately, as on other aspects of the office, we have no secure evidence before the first century BC. We cannot with any assurance trace the development of tribunician auspicia to where we find them at that time. But a few basic points should be made. Livy’s annalistic and (in part) antiquarian tradition depicts the Patricians as con­ sistently denying that Plebeians have any auspicia. Two loci classici may be noted. First, the struggles over intermarriage between Patricians and Plebeians. The lack of auspicia by Plebeians is a major issue, and Livy seems inclined to accept the ar­ gument: see 4.6.2, where a comment on it by a Patrician is described as fortasse uere (though impolitic). He dutifully continues by recounting the Plebeians’ indignant rejection of the charge that they had no auspicia, implying that they were hated by the gods. We must suspect that he did not really know what it was all about. His own hesitant endorsement of the Patrician claim is not worth much. All we can reg­ ister for the moment is that, according to the annalists, there were two opposing points of view on this. It is with this in mind that we must approach the other locus classicus, Livy 6.41.4ff., a speech by Appius Claudius, as usual in the case of this family (in the tra­ dition) in extreme opposition to Plebeian claims. He argues that whereas Patricians have auspicia even priuatim, Plebeians do not have them even as magistrates, hence must not be allowed into the consulship. This has caused a great deal of argument. Linderski, most recently, argued (pp. 35f.) that Appius is referring to public auspicia, which Patricians retain (or regain?)

Milo in his rebellion), sent him out accompanied by an unnamed tribune (δήμαρχόν τινα) who was to prevent him from engaging in rebellion. (We are not told how.) In fact, when the tri­ bune later wanted to “lead Caelius back” to Rome, he proved quite ineffectual and Caelius es­ caped. We are not told that the tribune was to use his sa c r o s a n c ta p o te s ta s , or indeed why a tribune was chosen. The obvious conjecture is that, since Caelius claimed to be the champion of the poor and the oppressed, the tribune was simply there, as their professional protector, to deny this and give the other (the official) view of Caelius’ conduct. Indeed, this appears to be the only measure the tribune could have taken to prevent rebellion. As for Servilius’ sending a tribune out some distance from Rome (even if apparently not on a strictly official mission), that may have been done under the powers conferred on him by the Senate’s emergency decree: the tribunes were by now practically in the position of magistrates (see n. 30 and text below)—and in any case, 48 was not a year characterized by strict adherence to m o s and iu s. 15 The basic discussion on the place of the a u s p ic ia in the annalistic version of the Struggle of the Orders is by J. Linderski, in S ta a t u n d S ta a tlic h k e it in d e r fr ü h e n rö m . R e p u b lik , ed. W. Eder (1990) 34-48. (Followed by discussion by Mario Torelli and others present. Unfortunately massive misprints have made parts of the discussion almost unintelligible.)

198

Emst Badian

because they have been consuls or similar magistrates and have thus held them; and they use these auspicia to choose the interrex. (This is certainly the context of the particular remark.) That makes good sense of the remark. But I cannot help won­ dering whether we ought to try to make sense of it. We must certainly not pretend that this is an Ap. Claudius speaking: no, the words are by that great expert on augural and constitutional law, T. Livius of Patavium. He is not normally regarded as a trust­ worthy source on such matters (certainly not by Linderski), and we have seen that he had no clear idea of what was involved in this question of the Plebeian auspices. I think it can be shown that he did not know in the particular instance. For Appius claims that he and his fellow Patrician senators auspicato appoint the interrex. And this appears to be false. Indeed, Linderski (p. 38) admits that he cannot see any tech­ nical way in which the first interrex could have been appointed auspicato. (He sug­ gests that perhaps sortition took the place of auspication. But this is unlikely; in­ deed, it is not certain that sortition was involved). I would add that I do not believe Magdelain’s suggestion that most of the Senate, in the middle of the fifth century, consisted of ex-magistrates. I do not see where they could all have come from, with only two consuls a year and an occasional dictator (usually an ex-consul) to draw on. And I do not see how, in any case, ex-magistrates could have either retained or regained their auspicia after they had duly passed them on to their successors. I am afraid I am led to believe that, here as elsewhere, Livy did not really know what he was talking about. All he knew was that Patricians denied that Plebeians had any auspices and claimed them only for themselves, and that this was an impor­ tant issue in the Plebeians’ struggle to attain higher offices. He also seems to have thought that Plebeians did not accept this claim, but as we have seen, he was not really sure what to believe on this. And I do not think that he had any clear idea how the interrex was appointed at this time: as we have seen, he thought that tribunes could veto a meeting of the Patricians to make the appointment (4.43.7f.), which is prob­ ably no more than a confused recollection of the procedure in the late Republic (see Asc. 31C).16 The only firm and legitimate conclusion is Linderski’s insistence on the fact that public auspicia (and not private) are involved. Whether Plebeians at 16 It is quite possible (though again, nothing is certain for this period) that the appointment of the in te rr e x was made, not by Patrician senators, but by all Patricians (at least in principle). The phrase used is always something like p a tr ic ii (not p a tr e s ) c o eu n t: it does not look as if this went back to a vote in an all-Patrician Senate, in the fifth century BC. It could be suggested that the story of the election by the Roman People of the early kings is in fact modelled on the proce­ dure of the appointment of the in te rr e x —or that the latter was derived from the former. Elec­ tion by the People (conceived of as being all Patrician) seems a reasonable reconstruction. But since there was no one who could formally summon such a “town meeting” or preside at it, there can indeed have been no auspication: hence (as Linderski agrees) the first in te r r e x was not fully authorized by the gods and could only re n o u a re a u s p ic ia (however that was done) in order to pass them on to a fully legitimate successor. By the time of the late Republic, of course, everything had changed. It seems indeed to have been the Patrician senators who appointed the in te r r e x , and a Senate resolution (which could be vetoed) was required for this—hence one might have three weeks without any head of state (see, e.g., Asc. 31 Cf.). This should suffice to show that we cannot deduce anything about the fifth century BC from the first.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

199

this time had private auspicia (which in Livy they seem to claim, e.g. Livy 4.6) we do not know and it is in any case irrelevant. (They certainly had them, and were taking them for granted, by about 200 BC, as Linderski showed.) I am inclined to accept Torelli’s model (pp. 82f.) of the Plebeians’ slow and painless appropriation of Patri­ cian augural techniques. Whether tribunes of the Plebs had auspicia— and if so, of what nature and from what time—is a more complicated question. Mommsen (282ff.) was very cautious on this, recognizing the difficulties. He rejected (as one should) the statement of Dio (Zon. 7.19) that the Valerio-Horatian laws gave the tribunes auspicium, and he ad­ mitted that the Plebs may well (“mag wohl”) have had auspicia analogous to the full public ones. He rejected (with a saving “wahrscheinlich” !) the possibility that tri­ bunes ever had the full public auspicia. Livy makes “Ap. Claudius” (see above) assert that Plebeian magistrates are not elected auspicato. The other locus classicus, to the same effect, is the complaint that the plebiscites of Licinius and Sextius were inauspicatae leges and that the gods showed their anger by permitting a major Roman defeat of the first Plebeian consul ever to lead-an army (7.6.1 l)r-As always when Livy raises such issues, a warning is in place. We have seen that his Patricians deny that the Plebeians have any auspicia (implying that they are “hated by the gods”) and that his Plebeians deny this; also that he himself was not too sure of the relevant facts. We must certainly take it that at that time (the middle of the fourth century) tribunes did not have the auspicia publica, whether or not they had developed some form of auspication for themselves. (See further below.) But the statement attributed to the Patricians regarding this leg­ islation is in any case a rhetorical exaggeration—we might call it a partisan lie— like so many that Livy attributed to his speakers. For the leges Liciniae Sextiae, what­ ever the auspical status of the actual legislators, were accepted by the patres, i.e. they must have received the patrum auctoritas, which for a long time supplied the miss­ ing divine sanction. Livy tells us little in detail about how the leges Liciniae Sextiae were actually passed: having spent a good part of a book telling us about the years of conflict over them, he was obviously tired of the subject when the conflict ended. Nor does he seem to have known what the conflict had, in technical terms, been about: clearly the refusal of the patres to authorize the passing of such a law in the concilium plebis— a step needed to make it binding on the Roman People. In the end, when the Senate “accepted” the law, this auctoritas must have been given— as it was, after some further resistance, for the comitia electing the first Plebeian consul (6.42.1 Off.). That Livy’s attribution of the term inauspicatus to a speaker cannot be taken literally is easily proved. In 217 he has the consul C. Flaminius described as consulem inauspicato factum (21.63.7) on the notorious occasion of his first consulship, even though there was never, either before or after this, any suggestion that auspication had been omitted at the time of his election. He was uitio factus (or so his enemies said), but no one other than Livy in this passage ever claimed he was inauspicato

factus. The warning should surely be heeded for all pseudo-technical expressions found in a speaker’s attack on his enemies, as in 6.41 and in 7.6. Livy scatters them about

200

Emst Badian

with heedless abandon, as rhetorical devices. He cares (and often knows) little about their precise meaning.17 As for the tribunes’ auspicium, we again have no certain evidence until the late Republic. Livy has the Plebs meet in a templum at all times (e.g. 2.56.10:471; 3.17.1: 460). This obviously tells us nothing about the fifth century: another warning about Livy’s usage is hardly needed by now. But it is good evidence for the first century, as the basis for his anachronism. When the beaks of the captured Antiate ships are put up on the tribunes’ platform in 338, that too is a templum (8.14.12), with no more or less plausibility; but it again shows that Livy was familiar with the Rostra as a templum. And all this is fully confirmed by Cicero, on many occasions. The oro­ tund phrase auguratum templum ac locus is used to describe the Rostra desecrated by his tribunician enemies (Vatin. 24); and there are frequent references to meetings of the concilium plebis in a templum. (E.g. Sest. 62,75 (perhaps of the Rostra), 85; cf. also Plut. Cato Min. 27-29.) It seems difficult to believe that meetings would take place in a templum with­ out any auspication; and the tradition of holding legislative meetings of the Plebs in a templum went back a long way, whether or not to the fifth or fourth century. Lily Ross Taylor has shown that such meetings, between the time of the Hannibalic War and the time of C. Gracchus, frequently, indeed perhaps normally, were held in the area Capitolina. I myself have argued that Satuminus tried to hold such a meeting as late as 100.18 If so, the tradition probably stopped only with Sulla’s restrictions on tribunes and their legislation. If Sulla reimposed the need for the patrum auctoritas on tribunician legislation (it would take us much too far to discuss this question here), he would presumably abolish whatever auspication had developed in the meetingplaces. In any case, he no doubt objected to lending the auctoritas of Iuppiter Optimus Maximus to tribunician laws. When that legislation was fully freed again, other templa were chosen for the meetings, presumably because the area Capitolina could not cope with the potential number of voters after the enfranchisement of the Italians. Meet­ ings for the election of Plebeian magistrates cannot be shown to have been held in a templum. That may possibly correspond to a distinction in fact. (But see further p. 202 below.) There is plentiful evidence that both Plebeian elections and Plebeian legislation could produce results that were later found to have been uitiosa. Plebeian magis17 The story of Flaminius’ election is fully told (clearly from his enemies’ point of view) in Plut. M a r c . 4. It is quite clear, not only that he was elected a u s p ic a to , but that, when a u itiu m was later discovered and the Senate asked him to resign, he did not make himself guilty of any of­ fence. Knowing what to expect, he refused to open the despatch from the Senate and went on to win a brilliant victory, for which he duly celebrated a triumph. (The whole story of the u itiu m is unlikely to be true, since, as Broughton noted (M R R 1232), the F a s ti make no mention of his ever resigning, as is alleged in Plutarch.) On Appius Claudius’ speech, Kurt v. Fritz long ago briefly said all that needs to be said, in S c h rifte n z u r g r ie c h . u n d ro m . V e rfa ssu n g sg e sc h ic h te u n d V e rfa ssu n g sth e o rie (1976)—a reprint of the first article to appear in the journal H is to r ia (1,1950,3ff.)—p. 339: “Though the speech of Appius Claudius is long and rhetorically brilliant it is perhaps not necessary to analyse it in detail since the speeches in ancient historiography belong to a different category and cannot be considered on the same level with historical narrative.” 18 Taylor, R o m a n V otin g A s s e m b lie s (1966) 132 with n. 8; Badian, C h iro n 14 (1984) 111 ff.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

201

trates, like consuls, would be expected to resign if found to have been uitio creati (e.g. Livy 30.39.8), and tribunician laws would be annulled if carried contra auspicia (e.g. Asc. 69C: the leges Liuiae). Unfortunately that does not help, for the language of auspical error does not distinguish between oblative and impetrative auspicia. Sometimes the former can be shown to be meant, e.g. when the tribune C. Ateius was charged with having ementitus auspicia: it is agreed that this must refer to his dirarum obnuntiatio against M. Crassus (Cic. div. 1.29). The latter can never be demonstrated.19 However, if the templum already suggests auspication, this is reinforced by the presence of an augur. Cicero, discussing the awesome powers of augurs, notes that comitiatus et concilia may be dismissed or declared invalid by an augur and that he can cum plebe agendi ius aut dare aut non dare. I suppose it could be argued that the augur was there only as a spoiler, in fact to say alio die when the occasion arose. If so, he could be seen as a measure of control over assemblies of the Plebs: to see that nothing displeasing to the gods was passed — and, as real belief waned, to keep the concilium in line with the wishes of the Optimates. However, this seems to me very unlikely. For many plebiscita were in fact passed that were most unwelcome to the “best men,” starting with those of C. Flaminius and Q. Claudius (MRR 1225,238), if we ignore the uncertainties of the Struggle of the Orders. I think it would show stubborn incredulity to deny that, at least by Cicero’s time, the augur was in auspicio to the presiding tribune.20 I do not see how tribunes could have been forced to ac­ cept an augur in a purely obstructive function at their assemblies. Moreover, Cicero clearly specifies cum populo, cum plebe agendi ius aut dare aut non dare. The templum and the augur surely compel the hypothesis that by Cicero’s day legislative concilia plebis were initiated by the full ceremonial of magisterial auspicatio·, and the fact that we can trace the templum back to the late third century suggests that that stage may even have been achieved by then.21 A further suggestion is worth making, though (like everything else in this mys­ terious area) it will never be possible to prove it. When (as we shall see further) it became advisable to use tribunician legislation for binding the Populus Romanus, divine sanction could not be altogether withdrawn. As we have mentioned, it was maintained by means of the patrum auctoritas, which we must suppose was given auspicato under the presidency of a Patrician consul or praetor. But early in the third century (traditionally in 287) a major constitutional struggle, more or less acciden­ tally developed out of a debt crisis, ended by legislation making plebiscita binding

19 It is unfortunate that Gellius, citing the Augur Messalla’s treatment of a u s p ic ia , does not tell us what Messalla had to say about the Plebeian ones. As Mommsen recognized (282 n. 1), the word order, as quoted by Gellius, makes it probable that the passage he quotes {p a tr ic io r u m a u s p ic ia in d u a s su n t d iu is a p o te s ta te s ) was preceded by a statement about Plebeian a u s p ic ia — but as he came to see, we have no way of telling whether Messalla had a full discussion of them or simply a denial that there were any. 20 On this function, as regards magistrates of the p o p u lu s , see the full discussion by Linderski, A N R W J 1 16.3 (1986) 2190ff. For the augur see Cic. L e g . 2.31. 21 Note also that by the time of Cicero a praetor could officially o b n u n tia r e at a tribune’s assem­ bly (Cic. S e st. 78, with a certain emendation), i.e. his announcement had to be obeyed and might not be ignored, just as a tribune could at a consul’s (or, no doubt, praetor’s).

202

Emst Badian

on the Populus Romanus without any participation by the patres. I have never seen this discussed, but I think it very unlikely that, as early as c. 287 BC, the Romans would allow the legislative process to be entirely secularized, with divine interven­ tion only permitted (as it were) negatively, through oblative auspices. The concilium and its tribunes had by then presumably acquired some sort of auspical process of their own: I would extend Torelli’s model (for which see above) to embrace public as well as private auspicia: i.e., the tribunes would want to upgrade themselves, and their legislative process, by imitating Patrician procedure and demonstrating (not least to their own constituency) divine approval for their actions. I would suggest that, when the patrum auctoritas ceased to provide the traditional sanction, the patres in some way compensated by recognizing the tribunician auspicia— either by “lend­ ing” theirs to the tribunes for the occasion, as they were lent to Plebeian consuls,22 or by recognizing the tribunes’ own as public and equivalent (we simply cannot tell which); and, in any case, insisting that the concilium meet in a templum (if it had not already started doing so) and—perhaps even then—that an augur of the Roman People be in auspicio. It seems a suitable point for at least the beginning of the final transi­ tion, although it may not have been complete until the tribunes became members of the Senate (see below). It follows that it is possible (though by no means necessary) that this was con­ fined to the legislative process and that elections of tribunes and aediles of the Plebs continued to be limited to whatever process, probably including some auspication, they themselves can confidently be assumed to have developed. As we have seen, we do not know that tribunes were elected in a templum (though we do not know that they were not— only that until c. 100 the locations for the two kinds of meeting were different and that the legislative one met in a templum). It should however be noted that in a late tradition known to Cicero (ap. Asc. 76C) the first tribunes were elected auspicato by the Curtate Assembly. It is quite possible that the story was developed to explain contemporary practice of election auspicato, whether with an augur present we simply do not know. IV

Next, a puzzle to which there is again no clear answer, though in this case the actual outcome, at least, is certain. We all know that in the late Republic tribunes were full members of the Senate. We also know that originally, and for quite a long time, they were not: they only received this privilege by a plebiscitumAtinium (Gell. 14.8.2). But we know nothing else about this plebiscite—not when it was passed, nor (I now think) what precisely its provisions were. Gellius brings it up only incidentally. He cites a jurist as justifying the right of the praefectus urbi to summon the Senate, of which he was not a member, by tri­ bunes’ having that right, quamquam senatores non essent ante Atinium plebiscitum. It is uncertain how this statement should be interpreted. On the most limited inter­ pretation, the plebiscitum need only have provided that tribunes were members of 22

This is discussed, and fully established as the correct interpretation, in Linderski’s article (n. 15 above): Plebeians could “possess” but could not own consular a u s p ic ia .

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

203

the Senate while actually in office. (Some later law, not attested—but that would surprise no one—would have to be posited that made them permanent members.) But this is perhaps more complicated than it need be (though we cannot entirely reject it). At the other extreme, it might be held that the plebiscite provided that tribunes were to be permanent senators from the day they entered into office. This is unlikely, in the second century BC (to which the plebiscite should belong). For it was the censors who compiled the album senatus and we do not hear of that process being by-passed until Sulla. Of course, the People or Plebs could instruct the censors whom to put on the album, just as it could instruct them to have the tax on ager publicus in Campania collected (see pp. 188-189 above). It think this is the most that we may legitimately assume the plebiscitumAtinium to have done. What we must in any case bear in mind is that in the lex repetundarum, which I think is the lexAcilia of 123/2, we find that tribunes, whether in office or after holding office, are not senators. The phraseology (lines 16 and 22) is explicit: quei tr. pi. q. Ill uir cap. (etc.) siet fueritue queiue in senatu siet fueritue·. the two classes are mutually exclusive. There is no compelling reason why the law could not have been passed between (say) 121 and 81: we cannot check whether most tribunes we happen to know of during that period were members of the Senate. But at a time when even quaestors apparently expected the next censors to put them on tire list23*it is unlikely that tribunes were not. Most of them, like C. Gracchus and the younger M. Livius Brusus, of whom we happen to know it, will have been quaestors before they were tribunes and so probably sena­ tors by the time they reached that office. We should probably look for an earlier period. If we assume (what we have seen is the most likely formulation at this time) that the plebiscitum ordered the censors to put tribunes or ex-tribunes on the album un­ less there was good cause not to (i.e., unless they appended a nota), there is no prob­ lem over the formula in the lex Acilia: except when censors were in office and had compiled their list, there would always be tribunes and ex-tribunes who would not yet be on the list of senators. Can we find a terminus post queml I think we can. A tribune of 169 unsuccess­ fully prosecuted the censors of that year; they thereupon took away his horse and put him inter aerarios (Livy 44.16.8; cf. 43.16). They did not expel him from the Sen­ ate or refuse to list him. There is no mention of his expecting any more than to re­ main an eques. Next, a tribune of 168 vetoed the prorogation of the same censors’ terms quia lectus non erat in senatum (Livy 45.15.9). He obviously had no prescrip­ tive right to be enrolled, else he would have taken stronger measures. He had merely hoped he would be, and was peeved that he had not been. We can by now see an 23 A censor of 102 tried to expel Saturninus and Glaucia from the Senate (see M R R I 567). Satuminus had been q u a e s to r O s tie n s is some time before 104 and Glaucia, for whom no office is attested before his tribunate of 101, must have been a quaestorian (see M R R 1546). We can­ not tell whether either was already a senator by 102 or had a right to expect enrolment, for the usual vocabulary does not distinguish expulsion from failure to enrol one entitled to it; but it must have been one or the other. C. Gracchus certainly expected to be enrolled after his quaestorship, and after some difficulties was (see A J P 104 (1983) 160ff.). M. Drusus the younger was quaestor in Asia before his tribunate (vir. ill. 66.3); whether a senator, we do not know. W. V. Harris, C Q n.s. 26 (1976) 105, believes that quaestors were by this time normally enrolled, but he cites (and apparently discovered) no evidence.

204

Emst Badian

expectation that tribunes would be enrolled in the Senate, but not yet a right. The

plebiscitum giving them that right cannot be before 168. Scholars have looked for Atinii in the tribunician/asii who might be the authors of the law. There is one in 196 and another in 131/30.24 As we have seen, 196 must be rejected as much too early. What about 131/30? This C. Atinius Labeo had been “thrown out” of the Senate (thus Cic. dom. 123). But if he was “thrown out” he was already a member, or (since the term can be loosely used) had a legal right to be enrolled. The plebiscitum would not have helped him, whatever the reason for his ejection. Investigation of our two Atinii leads to a dead end. The trouble is that it once more demonstrates the methodological error in using Occam’s Razor in the prosopography of the Roman Republic.25 Since, as we saw, very few names of tri­ bunes are recorded in the second century, and none between 168 and 149, it is only too likely that a particular tribune, author of a particular law, may have held office during that period. Moreover, since we find two Atinii (presumably grandfather and grandson) in that office in 196 and 131, the possibility that the link between these two may have held it about half-way between these dates is considerably increased. It must be regarded as quite possible that the plebiscitum was passed by an unrecorded tribune C. Atinius around 166-160, a period for which we have no names of tribunes. We may be able to find him and even date him more closely.26 Help may come from an unexpected source. The preserved fragments of Rome’s diplomatic correspondence with the Hellenistic East were carefully collected by Sherk. Few introductory phrases of actual correspondence survive, but three early examples we have (RDGE 34, 38, 39— all of the 190s and 180s; the first and third from a praetor, the second from a consul) show a formula that can be retranslated (I quote the first, no. 34): M. Valerius M .f praetor et tribuni plebis et senatus [send

24

See M R R 1336,459,500f., and M R R III 27. A. E. Astin has quite plausibly suggested another C. Atinius Labeo in 197 (M é l. R e n a r d (1969) II 38ff.). That would make no difference here. 25 See my protest against this practice in P B S R 52 (1984) 49. That whole article (pp. 49-71) develops and illustrates the protest. 26 In R D G E 1 Doc. C, a s e n a tu s c o n su ltu m initiated by tut Octavius Cn.f., we find a C. Atinius C.f. as the third of four witnesses to the drafting. As Sherk observes (p. 24), but perhaps not firmly enough, the Octavius can hardly be anyone but the c o s . 165, Cn. Octavius Cn.f., in the year of his consulship. This C. Atinius is most unlikely to be a tribune of 31 years earlier; how­ ever, he is indeed likely to be of tribunician status, low in rank, but not quite the lowest—either a recent tribune or, even then, a quaestorian. This would put his tribunate around 165—possi­ bly even in a year for which we have Livy: we have sufficiently seen that Livy does not give us many names of tribunes and does not always report even tribunician laws of some significance. The suggestion that Livy mentioned the p le b is c itu m in book 50 depends on a very adventurous restoration by Rossbach of a few almost illegible letters in the Oxyrhynchus E p ito m e : see p. 133, on lines 107-108, of his edition of the P e r io c h a e , the E p ito m e and Obsequens. This was given publicity (perhaps more than it deserved) in M R R 1458f. It rests on a reading printed by Rossbach himself as la t...l..a t. The Atinius firmly attested in what must be 165 clearly deserves preference. Unfortunately he failed to gain admission to M R R , even to volume III. Had Broughton noticed him, he might well have considered him as a possible author of the law. It is worth noting that Marianne Bonnefond-Coudiy, in her book of 793 pages of text, en­ titled L e S é n a t d e la R é p u b liq u e ro m a in e d e la G u e r re d 'H a n n ib a l à A u g u s te (1989), never discusses this problem.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

205

greetings to the Boule and Demos of Teos].27 We have no further letters until the 140s. But in these (M. Aemilius Lepidus Porcina, as he must be,28 of 140; P. Cornelius Blasio, of about the same time; P. Sextilius) the praetor writes only in his own name. The early formula never reappears. Something seems to have changed. The praetor or consul henceforth speaks for the Senate as well as the tribunes. The Roman People now presents a unified diplomatic face. But things are never as simple as this in Rome. There is a characteristically Roman footnote. In official letters sent to Rome by promagistrates serving abroad (and before the first century no doubt by magistrates as well) the tribunes continue to be mentioned. The official formula runs: “To the consuls, praetors, tribunes and Senate.” Cicero is punctilious about this (Fam. 15.1 and 2, init.). It seems that not all commanders were, by his day, but it was the correct thing to do. When Cicero, in July 44, happened to see a letter from Sex. Pompeius who had addressed it merely to the consuls, he and some others wrote in the correct formula before officially deliv­ ering the letter (Att. 16.4.1). He explains to Atticus, no doubt as a sarcastic joke, that otherwise the consuls might not have shown it to anyone.29 It is likely that the joke contains a genuine explanation. Consuls, praetors and tribunes were presumably entitled to see such despatches before they were read to the Senate as a whole: con­ suls and praetors by virtue of their imperium, and the tribunes precisely because they had at one time not been in the Senate and were treated, one might say, as heads of a friendly foreign power (see below). Once they became senators, it would not be politically feasible to strike them from the formula: there would have been outraged

27

A strange exception (so it seems at first sight) to this must be noted. In the very first of these documents that survives (R D G E IB, cf. A), a praetor writes to the Amphictyons, and probably also to Delphi (though this, Document A, rests entirely on restoration in this part), without ever mentioning tribunes or Senate. He writes merely in his own name. There is no time, and no obvious reason, for the formula that we find in the other early documents to be adopted between these letters and R D G E 34. The answer is that these letters were not formal communications from the re s p u b lic a . After briefly summarizing the contents of a s e n a tu s c o n su ltu m , the letter ends: “In order that you should know it, I decided to write to you about this” (εκρινον ύμΐν γρά[ψαι περί τούτων]). It is a communication from the praetor, issued on his own responsibil­ ity. There is no place for the Senate or the tribunes, who did not commission it. (For the first part of this phrase, cf. the similar phrase in the document called the S C d e B a c c h a n a lib u s ( C IL I2 581), where it turns from quotation to summary (lines 23f.): s e n a tu o s q u e se n te n tia m u te i s c ie n te s e s e tis , e o ru tn s e n te n tia ita f u it. Only three years separate the two documents, and this phrase must have been in common use for informal communication of the contents of docu­ ments, whether by magistrates or by h o s p ite s .) 28 The document, like one or two others, is wrongly dated in R D G E , following Holleaux, who did not notice the development of the official use of the tribe as part of a Roman name in the wit­ nesses to the drafting of decrees. This was pointed out (and further decisive details added) by Η. B. Mattingly, N C 7 9 (1969) 103f. The identity and date of this Lepidus may be regarded as certain. 29 Cicero obviously has no confidence in the consuls M. Antonius and P. Dolabella: his letter in­ dicates (again jocularly) doubts as to whether they are really consuls. The letter was shown to him and others by L. Scribonius Libo, the later c o s . 34, who was Sextus’ father-in-law and had received it from him. Sextus had no doubt asked him to make sure that it was both stylistically and politically presentable and had given him authority to make changes. Cicero and those present found it acceptable except for the omission of the formula.

206

Emst Badian

protests. But their inclusion guarantees its antiquity. We must also note that the formula differs significantly from the one earlier used by magistrates writing to for­ eign communities. In those letters, the writer (either consul or praetor) lists only the tribunes and the Senate: a consul writing makes no reference to the praetors, whose specific agreement to the terms is obviously not needed (see RDGE 38), although they retain their right to be shown incoming despatches. The disappearance of the traditional formula from letters sent on behalf of the Senate is obviously significant. Unfortunately the change cannot be dated with any precision; all we know is that it falls between the 180s and c. 140. But an Atinius passing his plebiscitum in the 160s would fit in well enough, whereas Atinii in 196 or 131/0 would not. We have briefly referred to the special treatment tribunes receive from the Sen­ ate. It is noticeable that, when tribunes are asked to take action (in particular, to ini­ tiate legislation), the Senate, at least in Livy’s third to fifth decades, cannot instruct them as it instructs magistrates. See, e.g., the stylized courtesy of Livy 30.41.4: uti consules cum tribunis agerent ut, si iis uideretur, plebem rogarent.... This is obvi­ ously not a fully authentic text, and there are variants on other occasions. But the style as a whole is the same; and since we are by now at the end of the third century, after the beginning of contemporary historical writing by senators, it must be essen­ tially authentic. In other words: the Senate gives instructions to the consuls, as in­ deed it can (si iis uideretur is sometimes added), to negotiate with the tribunes, as with the heads of a friendly foreign power. Tribunician action can only be secured by high-level diplomatic negotiations. It is clear that the tribunes, and the commu­ nity they represent, are still in some sense outside the Senate and the populus Romonus, and act independently of them. They have to be courteously persuaded. By 100 the situation has dramatically changed. When the Senate musters the magistrates against Satuminus and Glaucia, the tribunes appear at the Senate’s orders along with the rest (Cic. Rab. perd. 20). Cicero’s report must be entirely authentic. The plebiscitum of Atinius had exchanged the tribunes’ independence for ability to influence policy from within the Senate. Fifty years later, tribunes, like consuls and praetors, can simply be instructed to take action.30 It remains to explain the singular legal anomaly noted by Gellius: that tribunes could summon the Senate and preside over it before they were members of it. Mommsen thought they had this right from remote antiquity, although he is well aware of the slow development of the tribunes’ rights and powers: “Schwerlich wurde dies Recht so, wie wir es finden, mit einem Schlage den Tribunen erworben” (II3 230). This refers to intercession as we know it in the classical period and later; he did not always apply it to other powers, like the one that interests us here. But I think it is possible to hazard a conjecture as to how this right arose and when. 30 The only relevant passage I have found is Caelius’ copy of a Senate decree (Cic. F a m . 8.8.5): s iq u id d .e .r . a d p o p u l u m p l.u e l a t o o p u s e s s e t , u t i . . . c o s .p r . tr .q (u e )p l., q u ib u s e o r u m u id e r e tu r ,

Consuls, praetors and tribunes are apparently left to discuss which of them should introduce the necessary legislation in which assembly. a d p o p u lu m p le b e m u e fe r r e n t.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

207

During the Second Punic War the tribunes had a difficult task: to watch over the interests of the Plebs and prevent needless sacrifice of lives (see, e.g., an attack on the nobility for dragging out the war: Livy 27.21), yet to support, in the general in­ terest, all actions necessary to defeat Hannibal. This, unfortunately, cannot be fol­ lowed here. But we must examine a particular incident (Livy 27.5.14ff.) when (to summarize it briefly) a consul asked to name a dictator wanted to name a friend of his in Sicily. Senators thought it improper that a dictator should be named outside Italy— and indeed, it would have set a dangerous precedent, encouraging abuse of powers that had to be reined in— and asked the consul to bring the matter up for dis­ cussion. The consul, however, regarded this as improper interference with one of his customary rights. Livy, as so often, did not really know what the issue was and has muddled the procedure. But we can disengage what followed. The consul not only refused to initiate discussion of this issue in the Senate, but forbade the praetor to do so (as he had a right to do). Ho then departed for Sicily, leaving the Senate procedurally paralyzed. It was at this point that we find a tribune convening the Senate and presiding at the passing of an appropriate resolution, involving action by the Plebs. Since the consul could not negotiate with the tribunes and the praetor was not free to do so, they seem to have volunteered to call a concilium and pass a decree ordering the other consul to name the dictator of the Senate’s choice.31 Here was an emergency situation, in the middle of a desperate war, and “consti­ tutional” action was impossible. Roman common sense rose to the occasion with what Daube has called a “dodge”, as always when the law had to be bent. We cannot reconstruct the precise nature of the dodge, or fiction, by which this was done. But with all parties willing to co-operate, it would not be too difficult. E.g. (to provide a possible model), the tribune may have called a concilium which (being entitled to pass binding legislation) ordered him to summon the Senate and bring up the point at issue. What might in times of conflict have caused a constitutional crisis here led to the solution of an aporia. In any case, this is the first fully attested use of the tribune’s right to summon the Senate and preside at its session.32 What is more, the instances (all in the late Republic) when we hear of tribunes convening and presid­ ing over the Senate are all cases where a consul is either unable or (more usually) unwilling to introduce the relatio wanted by the tribune. (Occasionally the tribune seems to take over a session in progress from the consul who had convened it in order "to present his own relatio: this is not attested before the fifties BC and may not have been thought of in better days.) It was apparently not a right that was exercised as a matter of course for routine business, but it passed into the books and was available

31

Mommsen, incidentally, speaks of the “election” of a dictator (II3 311; but correct ibid. 150)— an unusual piece of terminological inaccuracy. The whole incident is fully discussed by T. Corey Brennan in his forthcoming book (cited n. 41 below) at 5.4.2. 32 A few years earlier, Livy had reported a s e n a tu s c o n su ltu m passed on the r e la tio of a tribune (22.61.7). But that is in the context of a briefly told alternative version of an anecdote, presum­ ably taken from a source he thought inferior, even though he found it difficult q u id u e r i s it d is c e m e r e . It may safely be dismissed as late fiction.

208

Emst Badian

as a precedent, especially (no doubt) when tribunician activity and initiative greatly increased in the late Republic. It is noteworthy that, certainly in nearly all the cases I know of, it is the tribune and not the consul who represents the view of the Senate as a whole: the precedent may have been interpreted and observed very strictly.33 Y The importance of this documented instance is that it enables us to set up a general hypothesis, into which (as we shall see) some other evidence can be fitted, even though there is not enough for full validation. Originally, as Mommsen suggested, the tribunes are the magistrates of a separate organization, as is still clearly shown, centuries later, by the terms in which the Senate of Rome negotiates with them. They are gradually bound into the res publica by a series of historical accidents due, in each case, to inescapable necessity, and producing, in each case, only the minimum of response required by the occasion—yet all this without ever entirely shedding their original function as magistrates of a separate Plebs. This is what produced what I have called a constitutional monstrosity. In typically Roman fashion, no one ever considered a constitutionally satisfying reorganization. There was no Roman

Staatsrecht. The tribunate began, it has often been said, as a defensive weapon of the Plebs in the Struggle of the Orders. Shorn of the late Republican rhetoric of our sources, the facts as they emerge from Livy and Dionysius make it clear that the Patricians could not survive as a state without the Plebs: they had to concede tribunician sacrosanctity (subject themselves to lynching if they harmed a tribune, as it has been put), from which all tribunician rights and functions developed, in order to survive. The Senate of the early fifth century, which we may safely stipulate was entirely Patri-

33 For a list of tribunician r e la tio n e s and “Stellungnahmen” (apparently = s e n te n tia e ) in the late Republic, see L. Thommen, D a s V o lk strib u n a t d e r s p ä te n rö m is c h e n R e p u b lik (1989) 202ff. and n. 63. He has a very useful chapter (193ff.) on the iu s a g e n d i c u m se n a tu . However, it is noteworthy that he writes, and thinks, entirely in terms of political legislation—which must have been a small part of the large amount of legislation on which Cicero comments. He divides it into “senatstreu” and “popular” and analyzes it accordingly. This is useful as far as it goes, but fails to allow for the extensive amount of routine legislation (e.g. on matters of private law) on which our sources are silent. (See V below, and n. 40) There are puzzling references (which can be disengaged fromThommen’s discussion and list) to tribunes putting a re la tio to the Senate after a consul has done so and had his discussed. A well-known case is that of C. Curio’s re la tio regarding Pompey and Caesar: the Senate overwhelmingly voted that both should disarm, but the consul refused to accept the S C (App. B C 2.30.119). The procedure is never clear, but presumably in such cases the consul dismissed the Senate and the tribune at once reconvened it. (Cf., e.g., Cic. S e st. 26, cf. 68.) Thommen seems to misunderstand the case of P. Rutilius’ demand that his r e la tio be debated in preference to the consuls’ on January 14,56 (see p. 194): what was in iq u a e t n o u a (Cic. F a m . 1.1.2) and aroused indignation and long debate was not that he had ignored a convention that gave consular r e la tio n e s preference over tribunician, but that he demanded that a r e la tio of his that had in fact been debated at an earlier session be re­ vived for debate at that meeting, and (what is more) debated between two sections of the con­ sular re la tio , discussion of which had already begun. That must indeed have been unprecedented. But there was no way of forcing a tribune to give up.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

209

cian (indeed, the original Patres conscriptt'34), resisted the admission of Plebeians into the governing oligarchy as long as it could. The obvious reason was, of course, the usual unwillingness to share power, which we later find in the Roman People. But I should add that I fully share the once unpopular view of the importance of a genuine religious element. Our (ultimately) late Republican sources, from the point of view of an age that no longer took the state religion seriously, constantly convey the impression that argument about the auspicia was used as a mere pretext for cling­ ing to power. Scholars caught up in the prejudices of an essentially similar outlook have on the whole taken this for granted. It is worth noting that Mommsen never seriously discusses the place of the auspicia in the Struggle of the Orders. More recently, Kurt von Fritz, in his long and extremely detailed analysis of all the circum­ stances surrounding the leges Liciniae Sextiae, also has nothing to say about them.35 It is due to the long labours of Jerzy Linderski that this element is now beginning to receive its proper valuation. If we make the effort of putting ourselves in the frame of mind of a primitive god-fearing community (as the historian of early Rome surely must do), we must surely join him in appreciating the vital importance of retaining divine favour. Indeed, distinct traces of it survive even in the last generation of the Republic: we need only recall the fate of M. Crassus. Those who thought the defeat of L. Genucius, the first Plebeian consul to lead a Roman army, a divine warning and mark of displeasure appear in Livy as plain hypocrites, using a rhetorical lie to make political capital on a sad public occasion. We can be sure that many of them were very serious about it, and that the scarcity of Plebeian consuls in the first years of the new res publica was not entirely due to manipulation. The consular tribunate is worth considering from this point of view. Its intro­ duction was due to military and administrative necessity. Yet it provided an oppor­ tunity, after a generation, of allowing some Plebeians to have diminished auspicia.36 We cannot know the details of how it was done, and it eertainly did not lead to en­ couraging results. But enough Patricians must have been persuaded for the next step to become possible: the return to the consulate, with the introduction of the praetorship, and the compromise by which Plebeians could now receive full public auspicia. 34 That P a tr e s c o n s c r ip ti must mean “p a tr e s who are enrolled” should not need to be argued, had not scholars unanimously (it seems) decided to follow a late antiquarian story found in Festus (p. 304L; cf. 6 “Adlecti”) and frequently repeated (e.g. Plut. M o r . 278D). Typically, A. Momigliano, in S o c ia l S tr u g g le s in A r c h a ic R o m e , ed. K. A. Raaflaub (1986) 182: “ T h e re is n o d o u b t [my emphasis] that, in the formula p a tr e s c o n s c r ip ti, c o n s c r ip ti is not an adjective quali­ fying p a tr e s , but rather a term antithetical [sic] to p a tr e s ." Many years earlier I had pointed out to Momigliano that this cannot be so and had drawn his attention to the potentially relevant scene in Numbers 11.16f. (cf. 26). This cannot be pursued here, but had to be mentioned. 35 Cit. n. 17 above (pp. 329ff.). 36 On their a u s p ic ia , see Linderski (cit. n. 15) 44f. (though I cannot accept his suggestion that c o n s u la r ip o te s ta te might mean “with advisory powers”: c o n s u l clearly never meant “adviser”; and the term, for the magistrates with full regal im p e riu m , must have been in use before the idea of giving military tribunes “consular power” surfaced; cf. my additional comments op. cit. p. 469. The military reasons for the introduction of the consular tribunate were first (it seems) stressed by F. Cornelius, whose view was firmly defended by K. v. Fritz (cit. n. 17). It seems to me obviously true, despite the (unsuccessful) annalistic attempt to connect the office with the Struggle of the Orders. And see further p. 212 below.

210

Emst Badian

There was obviously stiff resistance, even if we duly discount the absurdities of late Republican fiction.37 But the fact that it became conceivable, and ultimately fact, shows that there must have been strong Patrician support. The Plebs, unlike the Patricians, could indeed have avoided these struggles and formed an independent state— a perfectly possible outcome of the various secessions. We need only compare the secession of the Children of Israel, which ultimately led to that result, in far more difficult conditions. It is clear that it was the Plebeian lead­ ers who did not want this. The great Plebeian families of the later fifth and espe­ cially of the fourth century—both Roman families that had become wealthy and nu­ merous immigrants, their presence attested by nomenclature, many of them no doubt of a class later called domi nobiles—were in many ways the equals of the Patricians, with their own clients and their own sodales. What they wanted was what (we are told) only the Claudii were strong enough to achieve: acceptance into the Patriciate, however the process was handled. The point is constantly stressed b y Livy, as has often been pointed out. Yes, there were grave social problems, of poverty and debt. Yet the Patricians did much to alleviate them, to the advan tage of their state, by settle­ ment in newly conquered lands, in new tribes and in colonies. On the other hand, it must be pointed out that the social problems did not diminish with the acceptance of leading Plebeian families into the ranks of the Patres. We need only look at the long crisis that seems to have lasted from about 300 to past 290 to see how little differ­ ence that had made. The great tribunician families used the tribunate, and used the wretchedness of a great part of the Plebs, to achieve power and acceptance. Having achieved it, they clearly lost interest in those grievances, and came to share the basic interests of those whose ranks they had joined and who were not all that different from them.38 We may look at the behaviour of later noui homines (men like Marius and Cicero) as—not, of course, strictly parallel, but—furnishing some guidelines for picturing the process. The effect of the reorganization of the res publica was to make some Plebeians, as it were, honorary Patricians. Not full Patricians, for neither that order nor the gods would have tolerated that; but we may perhaps adapt a phrase from much later Ro­ man law and call them Patricians quod ad auspicia. 3 9 That they retained their hon­ orary rank after their year of office is made clear by the fact that the Senate which they joined was ever after quite legitimately called the Patres— so much so that modem scholars, relying on late ancient tradition which was already confused, can­ not always confidently answer the question of whether that term refers, in a given situation, to the whole Senate or to its Patrician members.

37 There is still no better analysis of the annalistic fictions surrounding those laws than that of K. v. Fritz. 38 That aspect of the formation of the n o b ilita s appears very clearly in K.-J. Hölkeskamp’s per­ ceptive book D ie E n ts te h u n g d e r N o b ilitä t (1987). 39 Compare the invention of c o n fa r r e a tio q u o d a d s a c r a (Gaius 1.136: 11 BC)—another typical Roman “dodge”, to preserve the qualifications of the f la m e n D ia lis when Patricians could no longer be persuaded to enter into m a n u s marriages. On the status of the Plebeian consular a u s p ic ia , see Linderski (n. 22 above). My own formulation is concerned with the status of the persons holding them.

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

211

And this brings us back, circuitously, to the tribunes. We can now see why— quite apart from unwillingness to share power and status— they could not be admit­ ted to the Senate. To become an honorary Patrician it was necessary, as a prerequi­ site, to have gone through the process of having held the public auspicia, i.e. to have been consul or (in due course) praetor. And just as the Patricii inherited the rights to auspicia, the sons of these honorary Patricians would inherit a birthright of being themselves coopted into their rank. In fact, we see the beginning of the nobilitas, in simple and truly Roman concepts. The tribunes as such therefore had to stay outside that circle; though the tribu­ nate could of course be used (but only by a few) as a basis for curule office and entry into it. But there soon turned out to be one need that began to tie the tribunes into the state of the Patres, old and new, and lift them out of their defensive function: the need for legislation. It was the first (I think) of the series of historical accidents posited above. Modem scholars, depending on sources that never mention routine legislation and, as we have seen, not always even important and controversial laws, have not usually realized how much of it there was, and how few magistrates to look after it. As I have pointed out before,40 the prize attestation comes as early as the Twelve Tables: the provision, universally accepted as authentic and almost universally mis­ understood, that quodcumque postremum populus iusserit ius ratumque esto (see Livy 7.17.12). This has too often been taken, contrary to the plain sense of the Latin, as an assertion of popular sovereignty. Nobody who knows Latin can ignore the key word postremum, in the text as we have it actually in an emphatic position. As I have had to point out before, it is plainly a provision for resolving conflict of laws, a prob­ lem that the Athenians grappled with throughout the Classical period and never managed to solve. Moreover, it explains the practice attested later, of transferring whole sections of earlier laws totidem uerbis (Cic. Rab. Post. 9), in the striking case cited from the law of Glaucia to that of Sulla to that of Caesar— a practice that has caused difficulties for scholars in assessing surviving epigraphic laws and fragments, but that naturally developed out of the desire to make each law on a given subject self-contained so that earlier laws, which it superseded, would not have to be con­ sulted. We have hardly any record of laws passed in the Roman Republic. Only a few controversial ones (by no means all of those) are attested in the literary tradition (after all, how many laws passed by the US Congress make it into general history books?) and only those that survived for centuries appear in the legal sources. Cicero took frequent legislative activity for granted: leges uidemus saepeferri multas (Sest. 107): if we omit one or two years (especially 81, 59,46-44), we would be hard put to it to name more than a handful for the whole of his lifespan. Scholars have tended to conclude from the deficiency of our knowledge to the absence of legislation— just as they have concluded from the lack of specific record of tribunician activity to its absence. About the time of the Twelve Tables—when, as we saw, conflict of laws was already posing a problem important enough to be attended to— there were only very few magistrates competent to initiate legislation: normally only two consuls and an 40

See S ta a t,

u. S ta a tlic h k e it

(cit. n. 15 above) 397.

212

Emst Badian

occasional dictator, all of them usually occupied in war for a large part of the year. A little later, military and administrative necessity led to the creation of military tri­ bunes with consular power in many years: we must now add— less often noted— legislative necessity. That solution, for various reasons, was given up, and after 366 the res publica was in the charge of two consuls and a praetor,41 with an occasional dictator appointed for a specific war or for a sacral purpose. Military duties abroad and sacral and judicial obligations at home would occupy most of their time. Yet, as we have seen, a stream of legislation—presumably greatly increased since 450— had to be passed. The pressure is illustrated by an extraordinary incident: in 357 (Livy 7.16.7) a law had to be passed by a consul in camp at Sutrium. This was forbidden for the future, since it opened the door to political manipulation, as suspected even in that case. But it shows how urgently relief was needed. It is likely that, straight after the Decemvirate, the Valerio-Horatian legislation had coopted the tribunes into the legislative process, avoiding the problem of divine acquiescence by the provi­ sion for the patrum auctoritas (see section III above). After the settlement of 367/6, the need for tapping the reservoir of ten tribunes to provide the needed legislation must have become obvious and uncontested. By c. 290, the granting of the patrum auctoritas for tribunician legislation had become so much a matter of course that its withholding caused the major constitutional crisis that led to the lex Hortensia. The state could no longer function without tribunician legislation, which henceforth be­ comes the principal method of passing laws. Its long history of increasing impor­ tance before that point can be glimpsed, though obviously not fully traced. It need hardly be said that this does not mark the end of the Struggle of the Orders. It happened because the Struggle of the Orders had already ended. Isolated pockets of what one might call Patrician resistance remain: the first pair of Plebeian consuls holds office only in 172,42 noted in the Fasti but not important enough to be picked up by Livy; the first pair of Plebeian censors follows a generation later (131). There is unlikely to have been any “struggle” in either case. At some time between those dates, as we saw, the tribunes were fully recognized as magistrates by admis­ sion to the Senate. But as early as 290 the nobilitas was already established, and about that time we get striking confirmation of the end of the old conflict: 294 sees the first securely attested appeal by a Patrician (L. Postumius Megellus) to tribuni plebis , 4 3 a social and political landmark whose importance can hardly be exaggerated. The tribunate’s primary power and duty, the ius auxilii, is now seen to be “nationalized”— 41

The importance of that change, and of the epoch-making “dodge” of the invention of im p e riu m is fully discussed by T. Corey Brennan in a forthcoming book, T h e P r a e to r s h ip in th e R o m a n R e p u b lic , vol. I ch. 3. I owe much to discussion with him. I also want to thank him for helping to improve a draft of this paper, though, as usual, the author is solely respon­ sible for the views expressed and for the remaining errors. 42 On this see Linderski (cit. n. 15 above) 42f. There seems to have been no struggle over this or opposition to it: Livy does not report it and Cicero never mentions it. I suspect that the sacral solution was the “discovery” by the augurs that Plebeian consuls could after all quite legiti­ mately “own” the a u s p ic ia . It would not be the only convenient discovery by that College. (See, e.g., Linderski 45f.) 43 See my brief comment on this largely overlooked event (overlooked perhaps because Livy mentions such appeals on various earlier occasions that are difficult to believe) in S ta a t u. S ta a tlic h k e it (cit. n. 15 above) 458. m a iu s/m in u s,

T ribu n i P le b is

and R e s P u b lic a

213

precisely on the eve of the completion of that process for tribunician legislation, a process that, from inescapable necessity, had begun the tying of the tribunes into the res publica. 130 years later, they were senators and de facto magistrates, while yet retaining an element of foreignness. There is much more to be said about the relations of tribunate and res publica : in a sense they begin— they clearly do not end— at this point. The function of the tri­ bunate in the Classical and late Republic is a complex matter, perhaps better under­ stood by Mommsen than by his successors who have tended to trivialize it.44 But that must be another story.

Harvard University

44

Jochen Bleicken, in his well-known study of the tribunate in the Middle Republic (D a s V o lk strib u n a t d e r k la s s is c h e n R e p u b lik (1955, 21968), thought that between 287 and 133 tri­ bunes were largely instruments of senatorial policy; that even their p o p u la r is activities were basically welcome to the Establishment as a safety valve; and that the fact that their vetoes and initiatives were often abandoned in the face of opposition shows that they used them chiefly with a view to furthering their careers. (He briefly summarized his views in C h iro n 11 [1981] 87ff.) Mommsen’s view that they came to regard themselves as guardians of m o s m a io ru m (and Polybius’, that they continued to represent the interests of the “People”) seems more in accord with the evidence. Whether the le x C la u d ia of 218 gave vent to pent-up popular indignation at the size of ships owned by senators is a question that should at least be considered. And that tribunes, on the whole and for a long time, practised the tradition of c o n c o r d ia —of not press­ ing one’s rights and one’s views to extreme confrontation—which was itself one of the princi­ pal ingredients of m o s m a io ru m does nothing to impugn Mommsen’s interpretation. Nor does the fact that during this period they necessarily continued to be the main instruments of legis­ lation for the Roman People.

THE ROMAN OLIGARCHY: IMAGE AND PERCEPTION by

Erich S. Gruen T. R. S. Broughton’s Magistrates o f the Roman Republic is a work unparal­ leled in our field. No one who grew up with MRR at his or her fingertips could imagine how Roman Republican history, particularly political and institutional history, was ever written without it. If anything on these subjects can qualify as indispensable, MRR would surely be the top candidate.1 The three volumes that constitute that remarkable achievement serve, of course, primarily as a research tool and an endless source for consultation and refer­ ence. One will not find therein general reflections or broad considerations, although there were few scholars better equipped to deliver them. Fortunately, however, Broughton did supply an illuminating article to the first volume of Aufstieg und. Niedergang der römischen Welt which appeared more than twenty years ago and rem ains one of the clearest statem ents on the virtues and draw backs of the “prosopographical method.”2 The essay presented a reasoned, balanced, and eloquent defense of the approach associated with prosopographers, i.e. the approach that con­ centrates upon the interplay of aristocratic groups, the feuds and rivalries among noble clans, linked by kinship and reinforced by marriage and amicitia, and that views this interplay as the lifeblood of Republican politics. Broughton acknowledged and ac­ cepted much of the criticism of the approach, especially in its more extreme and rigid form. But he reaffirmed its value and importance for understanding the workings of the Roman ruling class—not least by pointing out that the corrective supplied by critics came through use of prosopographic evidence itself. The caution, moderation, and sheer common sense of that article are characteristic of the man and his scholarship. Prosopography continues to draw heavy fire, even mounting fire in recent years. It is branded as too mechanical, an arbitrary pushing of pieces around the board, a schematic and simplistic formulation that lacks evidence or plausibility.3 Worse 1

2 3

This paper derives from a lecture delivered at the symposium to honor Professor Broughton at Chapel Hill. It retains largely the form of that lecture, buttressed by essential documentation and selective references to secondary literature. And it represents a humble but heartfelt return for the incalculable value brought by Professor Broughton and his work to at least two genera­ tions of scholars and students. T. R. S. Broughton, “Senate and Senators of the Roman Republic: The Prosopographical Ap­ proach,” A N R W , 1.1 (1972), 250-265. The principal targets of this criticism have been F. Münzer, R ö m is c h e A d e ls p a r te ie n a n d A d e ls fa m ilie n (Stuttgart, 1920), R. Syme, T h e R o m a n R e v o lu tio n (Oxford, 1939), and H. H. Scullard, R o m a n P o litic s , 2 2 0 - 1 5 0 B .C . (Oxford, 1951). Among the critics, see, e.g., C. Meier, R e s P u b lic a A m is s a , 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden, 1980), xxxii-xliii; T. P. Wiseman, R o m a n P o litic a l L ife, 9 0 B .C .-A .D . 6 9 (Exeter, 1985), 3-19; P. A. Brunt, T h e F a ll o f th e R o m a n R e p u b lic (Ox­ ford, 1988), 443-502. A valuable summary of the controversy, with additional bibliography, J Lmderski, ed Imperium Sine Fine T Robert S Broughton and the Roman Republic Histona Einzelschnft, n 10S ©1996 Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany

216

Erich S. Gruen

still, it drains Roman politics of all ideology, a charge levelled long ago by Momigliano against Sir Ronald Syme’s Roman Revolution,4 More recent researchers stress is­ sues of ideology that transcend factional groupings and familial loyalties, thereby resurrecting a struggle between populist and conservative sentiments, with contests growing ever fiercer in the late Republic.5 The scale and intensity of competition, aggravated by passions that stirred the urban plebs and the soldiery, propelled indi­ vidual leaders to the front, shattered consensus, and brought the upheavals that doomed the Republic. That is a prevailing current view— a reaction to the line pur­ sued by the so-called prosopographers who stressed the play, as Syme put it, of “family and faction, those elements link the competition for honor and power.”6 This contribution, seeks to shift the emphasis. The debate between prosopo­ graphers and their critics has operated on too narrow a front. Scholarly attention has focused largely, and perhaps to excess, upon the divisions in Roman upper class society as contributing elements in the decline and fall of the Republic. Whether those divisions depended upon familial and factional allegiance or upon differences of principle may be unanswerable, a question best left aside. Either way and on either theory, competition and conflict eventually led to calamity. On the one theory, ri­ valry among noble houses spiralled into fierce strife between individuals, the pow­ erful dynasts with ever-widening resources of revenue and power. On the other, dif­ ferences of policy and program swelled the support of those ambitious leaders, thereby intensifying the struggles, transcending any collective interest and fatally disabling the institutions of the Republic. What should demand more attention, however, is not what splintered the system at the end of the Republic, but what held it together for so long, what enabled the nobiles to surmount faction and feud and maintain a nearly unbroken dominance for four centuries. Too much energy has been spent on collapse and failure— always appealing subjects, to be sure— instead of on the re­ markable longevity of aristocratic dominion that held through the absorption of eth­ nic groups in Italy and the conquest of empire. This is a subject on which, as Profes­ sor Broughton reminded us in his article, prosopographical evidence can shed im­ portant light. But we need to go beyond that evidence. It is time to turn to evidence that did not much engage the attention of Professor Broughton or most other Repub­ lican historians for that matter. The ascendancy of the Roman ruling class rested in part on self-image, dis­

play, and a sense of common values. Which is not to say that all was harmony and solidarity among them. Indeed rivalry for honors and jockeying for position within the hierarchy constituted central ingredients of aristocratic life. But shared goals also existed, and a commitment to the order as it stood. The Roman elite strove repeat-

4 5

appears in J.A. North, “Democratic Politics in Republican Rome,” P a s t a n d P r e s e n t , 126 (1990), 1-16. A. Momigliano, “Review of R. Syme, T he R o m a n R e v o lu tio n ," JR S, 30 (1940), 75-80. See, especially, Brunt, S o c ia l C o n flic ts in th e R o m a n R e p u b lic (London, 1971); H. Schneider, D ie E n ts te h u n g d e r rö m is c h e n M ilitä r d ik ta tu r : K r is e u n d N ie d e r g a n g e in e r a n tik e n R e p u b lik

6

(Köln, 1977; L. Perelli, II m o v im e n to p o p u lä r e n e l l ’ u ltim o s e c o lo d e lla r e p u b b lic a (Torino, 1982); Brunt, F a ll o f th e R o m a n R e p u b lic , 32-81. R. Syme, “Oligarchy at Rome; A Paradigm for Political Science,” D io g e n e s , 141 (1988), 62.

217

Roman Oligarchy

edly to strike a balance between exhibiting individual achievement and affirming communal interest, a delicate but necessary balance that would both preserve the exhilaration of personal glory and entrench the dominance of the collective. The is­ sue transcends factionalism and it transcends ideology. It is a matter of imagery and presentation. That does not mean sham, fraud, or facade. Nor does it signify lack of conviction, belief, and principle. Aristocratic display did indeed derive from con­ viction, from a genuine sense of both responsibility and superiority. Projection of a public image played a vital part in reinforcing the ascendancy of the elite. The pre­ sentation carried meaning not only to the viewer but, at least as importantly, to the conveyer. It gave shape to the self-image that defined and justified the ruling class’s place in the social order. Some telling particulars can illustrate the point. Among forms of display, visual imagery deserves pride of place. Self-promotion by Roman leaders did not await the. late Republic. Nor should it be characterized as a feature o f the new indi­ vidualism or as representing a decline in communal loyalty. One can go back, for instance, to the Samnite wars of the early 3rd century B.C. Sp. Carvilius, victor over the Samnites, not only carted home impressive spoils. From some of the captured arms, breastplates, greaves, and helmets, he directed the construction of a huge bronze statue of Jupiter to be erected on the Capitol. And it happened that enough leftover scraps of metal remained to allow Carvilius to have a statue of himself made, a smaller one, to be set at the foot of Jupiter.7 Was that hybris on Carvilius’ part? The Romans evidently did not so consider it. No one pointed to the event as the beginnings of degeneracy in the Roman character. Carvilius, to be sure, called attention to his personal achievement. But the context was that of na­ tional success and the favor of the divine. Two generations later, in the midst of the Hannibalic war, Q. Fabius Maxi­ mus, the famed Cunctator, left a similar memorial. His capture of Tarentum proved to be a turning point in the war. And sale of the Tarentine booty enabled Fabius to finance the casting of a bronze statue of himself, to be placed on the Capitol adjacent to the colossal figure of Heracles, transferred from Tarentum to Rome.8 Once more, personal glory, national victory, and religious homage converged. Fabius was in part playing a game of one-upmanship with C. Marcellus, the conqueror of Syracuse.9 But he also advertised his contribution to the welfare of the community. We can discover comparable advertisements later in the 2nd century. Ti. Gracchus the Elder commissioned the painting of a vast canvas to commemorate his victory in Sardinia in 174, including a full scale map of the island that highlighted the sites of his successful battles, and had it set up in the temple of Mater Matuta.10 Rather more pointed was the case of L. Hostilius Mancinus, legate in the 3rd Punic War. He claimed to have been the first to breach the walls of Carthage. As support­ ing evidence, he displayed a painting in the Forum which depicted assaults on the city— with himself in a position of prominence. Lest anyone miss the point, Mancinus

7 8 9 10

Pliny, N H , 34.43. Plut. F a b . 22.6; cf. Pliny, N H , 34.40; Strabo, 6.3.1; Plut. F a b . 22.6; M a r c . 21.3. ____ Livy, 41.28.8-10.

Vir. III.

43.6.

218

Erich S. Gruen

stood next to his tabula and delivered a lecture to all passersby who inquired about the scene. Scipio Aemilianus, the conqueror of Carthage, expressed annoyance, so we are told, at Mancinus’ blatant self-promotion.1112 But the Roman people evidently had no objection to it: the publicity helped Mancinus win the consulship. The most bizarre instance of this sort involved another Mancinus, C. Hostilius the consul of 137. His defeat at the hands of Spaniards and his conclusion of an ig­ nominious treaty caused the senate to have Mancinus turned over, naked and in chains, to the Spaniards in order to appease the gods. The Spaniards, to their credit, returned the disgraced Mancinus to Rome. Mancinus then, quite stunningly, far from sup­ pressing the humiliation, authorized the erection of a statue that would portray him in the very dress— or undress—in which he had been delivered to the Spaniards. Mancinus, it appears, took pride in the event. The statue represented it as a personal decision for self-sacrifice to rescue the fides of his nation and to restore the pax deorum.n ----As these examples and others demonstrate, the exhibit of civic virtues by members of the elite did more than advance their personal aims. It linked those vir­ tues to the advantage of the state. The paintings and statuary gave public display to the claims of nobiles as champions of the collective interest. A few preserved examples provide concrete illustration. One particular genre, that of heroic statuary, bears notice.13 An over life size statue from the so-called “House of the Diadoumenos” in Delos, probably late 2nd or early 1st century B.C., belongs in this category. It presents a heroic body, impressively muscular and pow­ erful, akin to the gods. But the head is rather ordinary and undistinguished (Fig. 1). Is this some Roman dynast, a military war lord trumpeting his superiority over fel­ low nobiles or even over Republican institutions, symptomatic of a late Republican breakdown of oligarchic solidarity? Hardly. The figure, unidentified, almost certainly depicts a Roman or Italian merchant dwelling in Delos and adopting the posture of a Hellenistic heroic portrait.14 A more overtly military pose is taken by a statue from Foruli in the Abruzzi (Fig. 2). It offers a similarly impressive body, with military cloak and a sword belt—but with an elderly, balding head. Here again, this is not one of the celebrated personages known to us from the literary sources; rather a lo­ cal individual of prominence, decked out in imitation of Roman leaders. The statue of a general from Formiae strikes a comparable pose.15 He too sports a military cloak

and doubtless once held a sword. And he too has the body of an athlete and the head of a senior statesman. As further illustration, we possess a figure whose identity is known: C. Cartilius Poplicola, a man of eminence and prestige in Ostia, eight times

11 Pliny, N H , 35.23. 12 Pliny, N H , 34.18. See the acute discussion of N. Rosenstein, “I m p e r a to r e s V icti: The Case of C. Hostilius Mancinus,” G4, 5 (1986), 230-252. 13 Material in the following discussion owes much to the important dissertation of C. H. Hallett, T he R o m a n H e r o ic P o r tr a it (Berkeley, 1993). 14 See M. Kreeb, U n te rsu c h u n g e n z u r fig ü r lic h e n A u s sta tu n g e n d e lis c h e r P r iv a th ä u s e r (Chicago, 1988), 156-158. 15 Cf. on this and the previous figure N. Himmelmann, H e r r s c h e r u n d A th le t. D ie B ro n ze n von Q u irin a l (Bonn, 1989), 116-123, plates 47 and 48.

Roman Oligarchy

219

a duumvir in the triumviral and early Augustan period.16 The head is missing but doubtless, like the others, showed the signs of age and experience. The body, how­ ever, is enviable. Here is still another municipal aristocrat, exhibiting status and prominence in a conspicuous place, in front of the Ostian temple of Hercules. One last example of this sort, a familiar and famous one, merits notice. The so-called “Tivoli general” was found in the substructures of the sanctuary of Hercules atTibur, probably dating to the late 2nd or early 1st century (Fig. 3).17 The military cloak and accompanying cuirass deliver the message of success in war, a message punctuated by the powerful physique. But the head gives a different impression. The gravitas of the middle-aged or older face conveys the image of experienced leadership. Once more, a municipal man of rank underscored his stature in the community. Numerous other instances of this type exist. But none from Rome itself, at least not before the end of the Republic. Is that significant? An eminent art historian re­ cently wrote that such statuary would be jarring, even shocking to Roman sensibili­ ties, a disturbing contradiction between body and head. Among other things, so it is argued, the Romans found public nudity offensive and distasteful.18 True enough. Passages in the sources can be found to that effect.19 But they refer to real nudity— not to statues. The ubiquity of this form of statuary, even on funerary reliefs, belies the notion that it could have been offensive. Nor is it likely that the imagery was confined to muinicipal aristocrats. They surely took their cue from the representa­ tions of Roman nobiles who set the fashion. We know from the literary sources of countless statues of Roman magistrates and imperatores.20 There is no reason to believe that Romans would have found the conjunction of an idealized body and a realistic head particularly jarring. The statuary served a purpose, it can be suggested, that a Roman and Italian citizenry readily understood. It combined symbolically the peak years of physical prowess, in the depiction of the body, with the maturity of age and experience as exhibited in the head. Few individuals, if any, could boast that combination in real life, but the repeated representation of personages in that mode has the effect of a collective vision. These were magistrates, generals, and benefactors of their com­ munities. The leaders conquered an empire in the vigor of their youth and governed the res publica through the wisdom of their experience. Such was the statement of those powerful images. The point can be reinforced by a closer look at Republican portraiture. Nu­ merous busts depict the somber, weathered, even ravaged faces of Romans (Fig. 4). They suggest, in many cases, a lifetime of toilsome service to the state, dedication to duty, and hard-won successes. They summon up the mos maiorum, the endurance 16 On Cartilius, see F. Zevi, in P. Zänker, H e lle n ism u s in M itte lita lie n , I (Mainz, 1976), 56-60; Himmelmann, H e r r s c h e r u n d A th le t, 119, plate 50. 17 See N. Himmelman, H e r r s c h e r u n d A th le t, 219-224. 18 P. Zänker, T h e P o w e r o f I m a g e s in th e A g e o f A u g u s tu s (Ann Arbor, 1988), 5-8. 19 See, e.g., Cic. T usc. 4.70; D e R e p . 4.4; D e O ff. 1.129; C a t. 2.10; P h il. 2.85-86; Veil. Pat. 2.83; Plut. C a to , 20.5; Dio, 45.30-31. 20 See the collections of te s tim o n ia in O. Vessberg, S tu d ie n z u r K u n s tg e s c h ic h te d e r rö m is c h e n R e p u b lik (Lund, 1941), and G. Lahusen, U n te rsu c h u n g e n z u r E h r e n sta tu e in R o m e (Rome, 1983). Note especially Livy, 40.51.3; Pliny, N H , 34.30.

220

Erich S. Gruen

of tradition through the labors and experience of its champions. Those values are appropriately displayed through the tough and uncompromising visages that glare at the viewer of Republican busts. The style, now conventionally termed “veristic” had as objective more than the accurate rendering of physiognomic detail. Wrinkled, creased, often haggard countenances, blemishes and disfigurement, protruding ears and toothless gazes feature many of the statue busts.21 One can find this form of portrait on the coinage of the late Republic. Moneyers occasionally took the opportunity to depict their ancestors, many of them showing quite individualistic, indeed rather homely, appearances. These include the portraits of C. Coelius Caldus by one of his descendants (Fig. 5).22 The great hero M. Claudius Marcellus too appears as a gaunt figure with a receding hairline (Fig. 6).23 And the issues of C. Antius Restio portrayed his father in uncompromising ugliness (Fig. 7).24 Even the depictions of ancient and semi-legendary Roman kings like Ancius Marcius now took on veristic features.25 Verism possesses a character rather different from straightforward realism or naturalism. The style, in fact, brings a heightened and exaggerated realism, one that directs attention sharply to wrinkles, lines, and folds, solemn expressions, and unat­ tractive features (Fig. 8). The initial impression is one of unadorned candor, a com­ mitment to honest representation with no flattery or disguise, a pointed personal portrait (Fig. 9). But the pattern recurs too often and too uniformly (Fig. 10). The consistency and frequency with which middle-aged or elderly men receive homely countenances leave a different impression. Ostensibly individualized portraits be­ come part of a collectivity. The objective of veristic portraiture was not to produce accurately a particular face but to convey a stylized image: the stem and severe vis­ age in which every crease proclaimed hardships endured for the state and reinforced principles that the Roman aristocracy displayed to the public. The res publica was in the hands of men of grim resolve and unflagging patriotism who, through portrayal of the individual, could also characterize the collective purpose. Verism dwells on particulars but signals a commitment to the general. Roman aristocrats adopted this genre to express resolute devotion to the mos maiorum, the rigors of public service, and the solidarity of the ruling class. A different realm now claims attention: that of spectacles. In this category, the triumph takes central place. On the face of it, triumphs represent the celebration of

individual accomplishment par excellence. The triumpliator appeared in resplen­ dent glory, clad in purple, adorned by gold, crowned by laurel, holding a scepter topped by an eagle, standing in his triumphal chariot, moving in solemn procession through 21

22 23 24 25

A vast literature exists on “verism” and it is unnecessary to register it here. Many of the impor­ tant works are cited in E. S. Gruen, C u ltu re a n d N a tio n a l I d e n tity in R e p u b lic a n R o m e (Ithaca, 1992), 152-170. Note, in particular, the acute remarks of S. Nodelman, “How to Read a Ro­ man Portrait,” Art in A m e r ic a , 63 (1975), 27-33, and L. Giuliani, B ild n is u n d B o ts c h a ft: H e r m e n e u tis c h e U n te rsu c h u n g e n z u r B ild n isk u n s t d e r rö m is c h e n R e p u b lik (Frankfurt, 1986), 225-233. M. H. Crawford, R o m a n R e p u b lic a n C o in a g e (Cambridge, 1974), no. 437.1-4. Crawford, R o m a n R e p u b lic a n C o in a g e , no. 439.1. Crawford, R o m a n R e p u b lic a n C o in a g e , no. 455.1. Crawford, R o m a n R e p u b lic a n C o in a g e , no. 425.1.

Roman Oligarchy

221

the city on the prescribed route to the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus where he depos­ ited crown, scepter, and purple garments. The whole process, which included lictors, magistrates, senators, soldiers, the spoils of war, and the captives themselves, even captured kings where relevant, with throngs of onlookers cheering and tossing flow­ ers, elevated the triumphator almost to the level of the divine. It is hardly surprising that a slave was assigned to every triumphal procession, merely to whisper in the ear of the triumphator: respice post te, hominem te esse memento— and that soldiers were expected to hurl insults in order to ward off divine envy. Some have speculated even that the dress and insignias symbolized a temporary divinization of the triumphator. There was no headier experience for a Roman than to gain the honor of a triumph.26 The magnificent triumph of Pompey the Great is regularly cited as exempli­ fying the singular burst to preeminence by the military dynast of the late Republic, emblematic of the breakdown of aristocratic rule.27 The celebration occupied two full days, recording vast territorial acquisitions, parading massive wealth, precious objects, captured art, pictorial representations of victories, and numerous royal hos­ tages.28 The display was dazzling, but not unprecedented or unique. Only two years earlier L. Lucullus, rival and inimicus of Pompey, celebrated a triumph that could hold its own in pomp and splendor. Nearly two hundred pack animals were required just to carry the precious metal, furnishings, bullion, and coined moneys extracted from the kingdom and allies of Mithridates. And they were accompanied by cap­ tured weaponry of every sort, as well as by sixty of the king’s friends and generals.29 Nor were such events by any means confined to the late Republic. Pompey boasted of a two day triumph. But Flamininus as early as 194 took three days to conduct his triumphal procession and display his wares: one day for captured weap­ ons and statues of bronze and marble, one day for gold and silver and objects fash­ ioned therefrom, and one day for the march of eastern princes and nobles collected as hostages, followed finally by Flamininus in triumphal chariot.30 And in 167, L. Aemilius Paullus held a similar three day ceremony to commemorate his victory in the Third Macedonian War. His exhibit of spoils—weapons, treasures, and men — took that long to traverse the prescribed path, culminated by Paullus himself in an ivory chariot.31 Spectacular triumphs therefore did not themselves shake conven­ tion or doom the Republic. One can hardly speak of the rise of the individual to eclipse the collective elite as early as the beginning of the 2nd century. None would argue that a breakdown was imminent at that time. In fact, the spectacle of the triumph offered a means whereby to honor indi­ vidual achievement, while at the same time affirming collective leadership, commu­ nal interest, and divine favor. The civic ritual did not confine itself to exalting the 26 The sources on triumphs are collected by W. Ehlers, “Triumphus,” R E , VIIA.l (1939), 493511. On the procession, see H. Versnel, T riu m ph us (Leiden, 1970), 94—131. On the triu m p h a to r and his relation to the divine, see Versnel, T riu m p h u s, 56-93,356-397; E. Kiinzl, D e r rô m is c h e T riu m p h (München, 1988), 85-108. 27 See, e.g., P. Greenhalgh, P o m p e y : T he R o m a n A le x a n d e r (London, 1980), 168-176. 28 Appian, M ith r . 116-117; Plut. P o m p . 45. Other sources in Broughton, M R R , II, 181. 29 Plut. L uc. 37. 30 Livy, 34.52.3-12. 31 Diod. 31.8.9-10; Plut. A e m . P a u l., 32-33.

222

Erich S. Gruen

triumphator. The participation of elected officials and senators acknowledged the broader leadership to which the current imperator belonged. Many of them were former or future triumphatores as well. The public was thereby reminded that the present hero was part of a group that supplied leaders in some quantity. It is signifi­ cant that Scipio Africanus, after arrival on the Capitol to complete his triumphal pro­ cession in 201, held a banquet for his philoi—in accord, as Appian says, with cus­ tom.32 It was a feast for the senate, so Livy calls it.33 In speaking of the triumph of Aemilius Pauillus, Livy puts it in a still larger context. The honor is due not just to men but to gods. “The sacrificial victims reveal that the returning imperator renders thanks to the gods for his success on behalf of the res publica .”34 The triumph el­ evates the individual but undergirds the national interest. A spectacle of another form deserves notice here: the funeral. The detailed description of aristocratic funerals by Polybius is justly famous. They were much more than private obsequies. The ceremony took place in the Forum with a son or relative delivering the eulogy at the rostra. The funeral train exhibited a lifelike image of the deceased, with comparable ones of all his ancestors who had held office and gained distinction, their deeds recalled by a parade of persons decked out to resemble them and carrying their badges of honor. The funeral oration itself recounted not only the accomplishments of the deceased but of all his illustrious predecessors in the family, represented by persons dressed up in their likenesses and occupying the first row at the rostra in ivory chairs. This was more than a ceremony; it was a perfor­ mance. The Romans not only recalled the feats of their ancestors, they recreated those ancestors themselves, with live impersonators at the event.35 As is obvious, the fu­ nerals of the elite served as vehicles to proclaim the distinctions and services of a noble house through the decades and centuries. They were a source of familial pride and internal self-satisfaction. But they also carried a much broader meaning. One cannot emphasize enough the public character of these events. They were not gath­ erings confined to relatives, friends, and mourners. The entire populace collected in the Forum, says Polybius, clearly an exaggeration but nevertheless a pointed allu­ sion to the significance of the funeral. The feeling of loss, therefore, he adds, reaches all the populus Romanus,36 This was an authentic spectacle, a pompafunebris. The procession was announced by a herald. It included hired musicians, professional female mourners, and mimic dancers. The event was designed to draw the whole

citizenry into a family commemoration. Julius Caesar, as is well known, delivered a funeral laudatio for his deceased aunt, the widow of Marius.37 The procession in the Forum included images and tro­ phies of Marius brought out in public for the first time since the government of Sulla. 32 Appian, P un. 66. 33 Livy, 45.39.13. 34 Livy, 45.39.10-12. 35 Polyb. 6.53-54; cf. Diod. 31.25.2; Dion. Hal. 7.72. Examples of known aristocratic funerals are collected by G. Wesch-Klein, F u n u sp u b lic u m (Stuttgart, 1993), 41-52. On the funeral ora­ tion, see W. Kierdorf, L a u d a tio F u n e b r is (Meisenheim am Gian, 1980). In general: J. M. C. Toynbee, D e a th a n d B u r ia l in th e R o m a n W o rld (London, 1971). 36 Polyb. 6.53.2-3. 37 Plut. C a e s. 5.1-2; Suet. Iu l. 6.

Roman Oligarchy

223

This, of course, represented a political statement by Caesar, an appeal to the popu­ lace that cherished the memory of Marius. But it went beyond that. Caesar conducted the ceremony from the rostra in customary fashion, e more, according to Suetonius. That meant a celebration of his own gens, that of his aunt, who could boast descent from kings and a blood tie to the goddess Venus. So, quite apart from narrow politics, the funeral associated popular enthusiasm with the hereditary claims of a noble clan. This too was by no means a peculiar phenomenon of the late Republic, a fea­ ture of the ambitions of late Republican dynasts like Caesar. When Fabius Maxi­ mus died in 203, the Roman citizenry involved itself directly in his burial rites. As Plutarch notes, every citizen, no matter how humble, contributed some cash for the funeral arrangements— not because Fabius’ estate was too meager but because all Romans sought a share in giving him homage.38 A comparable outpouring of public sentiment came at the funeral of Aemilius Paullus in 160. Not only did citizens throng to pay their respects but even representatives of peoples whom he had defeated in war but had treated with humaneness and generosity made an appearance.39 The fu­ nerals of the nobility, therefore, transformed family celebrations into civic occasions— yet another opportunity to parade the virtues of the leadership and their dedication to the state. Space permits just one other example of aristocratic display: the theater. Ludi scaenici date back to the 4th century B.C. They emerge in conjunction with annual religious festivals sponsored by the state and presided over by public officials. They subsequently occur, though less frequently, in a variety of contexts: as an element in funeral games given by members of the nobility, in the context of votive games or as accompaniment to the dedication of temples, the fulfillment of pledges made by Rom an leaders, or as adjunct to the celebrations held in honor o f returning triumphatores.40 Theatrical shows have too often been analyzed on a narrow politi­ cal front, as a means whereby aspiring politicians, usually as aediles, could win the favor of the populace and earn election to higher magistracies.41 That aspect has been overplayed and overvalued. Not much correlation exists, in fact, between sponsor­ ing shows as aedile and reaching the consulship.42 A broader significance needs to be stressed.

38 39 40

Plut. F a b . 27. Plut. A e m . P a u li. 39. See L. R. Taylor, “The Opportunities for Dramatic Performances in the Time of Plautus and Terence,” TA PA , 68 (1937), 284-304; G. E, Duckworth, T h e N a tu r e o f R e m a n C o m e d y (Princeton, 1952), 76-79. Texts and other bibliography are registered in Gruen, C u ltu re a n d N a tio n a l I d e n tity , 185-188, 195-197. 41 See, e.g., A. S. Gratwick, “The Origins of Roman Drama,” in E. J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen, T he C a m b r id g e H is to r y o f C la s s ic a l L ite r a tu re , II: L a tin L ite r a tu r e (Cambridge, 1982), 82; G. Williams, “Phases in Political Patronage of Literature in Rome,” in B. Gold, L ite r a r y a n d A r ­ tis tic P a tr o n a g e in A n c ie n t R o m e (Austin, 1982), 6; B. Gold, L ite r a r y P a tr o n a g e in G r e e c e a n d R o m e (Chapel Hill, 1987), 41; P. Veyne, B r e a d a n d C ir c u se s : H is to r ic a l S o c io lo g y a n d P o liti­ c a l P lu r a lis m (London, 1990), 212-213; R. C. Beacham, T h e R o m a n T h e a tr e a n d its A u d ie n c e (Cambridge, MA, 1992), 25, 158-159. 42 Gruen, C u ltu re a n d N a tio n a l I d e n tity , 188-193.

224

Erich S. Gruen

No stone theater stood in Rome until Pompey had one built in 55, a fact of some note. Prior to that time performances took place in makeshift structures erected for the purpose and dismantled thereafter. Producers could leave no permanent me­ morial to enhance their political prospects. Politics was not the point. And even Pompey justified his theater as mere adjunct to a shrine, an offshoot to the temple of Venus Victrix.43 The long standing resistance to a stone theater meant annual review of productions by magistrates and senate, a reinforcement of aristocratic control over the performance of Latin drama.44 At the same time, however, the sponsorship of shows allowed the producer to exhibit his magnanimity and to advertise his bounty. Some did this with a flair. C. Claudius Pulcher in 99 created a scaena with so accu­ rate an architectural simulation that crows kept trying to land in what they took to be real roof tiles.45 C. Antonius and L. Murena had stages built in silver.46 Petreius took it a step further and employed gold, and Q. Catulus used ivory.47 But the most elabo­ rate stage, one that set a standard that few could ever hope to duplicate, was erected on the orders of the aedile M. Scaurus in 58. Pliny the Elder can barely find words to describe the construct: “The grandest stucture ever wrought by man, and merely for a few days’ temporary use. The structure had three storeys, supported by three hundred sixty columns. The lowest level was made of marble, the middle of glass, and the top of gilded boards. In between the columns were placed three thousand bronze statues. The rest of the equipment, including gold cloth, painted panels, and various theatrical props, was later removed to Scaurus’ villa, all of which burned down— and his estimated loss was thirty million HS.”48 That could not easily be topped. Here too, however, the penchant for spectacular display did not emerge de novo in the last generation of the Roman Republic, a sign of emerging dominance by individuals. A century earlier, L. Anicius Gallus—like Scaurus, not a figure of great renown—put on a memorable show. He gathered the most celebrated dramatic art­ ists from Greece, built a gargantuan structure in the Circus Maximus, and orches­ trated a hodge-podge performance that combined actors, dancers, singers, musicians, and boxers, inviting audience participation, and turning the event into pandemo­ nium.49 What Anicius may have had in mind we need not investigate here. But it was certainly a vivid spectacle.50 P roduction and p ro m o tio n of theatrical events car­ ried a meaning beyond mere solicitation of votes. They provided a means whereby Roman aristocrats exhibited wealth, creativity, cultural patronage, and ingenuity. They

43

On the absence of a permanent theater, see Tac. A n n . 14.20-21. For Pompey’s theater, see Pliny, 8.20. Important discussions, with additional references, by J. A. Hanson, R o m a n T h e a te r T em p le s (Princeton, 1959), 43-55, and E. Frézouls, “La construction du th e a tru m la p id e u m et son contexte politique,” in T h é â tr e e t s p e c t a c l e s d a n s l ’a n tiq u ité (Actes du colloque de Strasbourg, 1981), 193-214. Most recent treatment by Beacham, R o m a n T h e a tre , 157-162. The theory is developed in Gruen, C u ltu re a n d N a tio n a l Id e n tity , 205-210. Pliny, N H , 35.23. Pliny, N H , 33.53; Val. Max. 2.4.6. Val. Max. 2.4.6. Pliny, N H , 36.114-115. Polyb. 30.22. Apossible hypothesis appears in Gruen, C u ltu re a n d N a tio n a l Id e n tity , 215-218. NH,

44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Roman Oligarchy

225

demonstrated both that the upper classes molded and controlled the media of enter­ tainment, and that they did so for the edification of the community. As such the in­ stitution helped to shape the self-image of the nobilitas. The subjects touched on here demand much more inquiry and development. The framing and projection of an image could be critical in generating confidence, thus to ensure the maintenance of power. But another aspect, hinted at earlier, de­ serves perhaps greater attention: not so much how the elite were perceived by oth­ ers, but how they perceived themselves — and how that self-perception, that deli­ cate balance between individual ambition and common values, served for four cen­ turies to sustain aristocratic ascendancy.

University o f California, Berkeley

C a p tio n s to Illu str a tio n s

Figure 1:

“P s e u d o - A th le te ” f r o m H o u s e o f D ia d o u m e n o s , D e lo s . N a tio n a l M u se u m , A th e n s

Figure 2:

“F o r u li G e n e r a l" . N a tio n a l M u seu m , C h ie ti

Figure 3:

“T iv o li G e n e r a l" . N a tio n a l M u seu m , R o m e

Figure 4:

V e iled b u st. M u s e o C h ia rm o n ti, V atican M u se u m s, R o m e

Figure 5:

C o in o f C . C o e liu s C a ld u s, B r itish M u seu m

Figure 6:

C o in o f M a r c e llin u s. B r itish M u se u m

Figure 7:

C o in o f A n tiu s R e stio . B r itis h M u se u m

Figure 8:

P o r tr a it b u st. M u s e o T orlon ia, R o m e

Figure 9:

P o r tr a it b u st. M e tr o p o lita n M u seu m , N Y

Figure 10:

P o r tr a it b u st. N y C a r ls b e r g G ly p th o te k , C o p e n h a g e n

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart