The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology 9780802052810, 0802052819


235 13 9MB

English Pages 197 Year 1973

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE

Table of contents :
Introduction --
Register of orators --
Prosopographical commentary --
Chronological structure --
Cicero's knowledge of orators' birth-dates --
Conclusion.
Recommend Papers

The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology
 9780802052810, 0802052819

  • 0 0 0
  • Like this paper and download? You can publish your own PDF file online for free in a few minutes! Sign Up
File loading please wait...
Citation preview

The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology

G.V. S U M N E R

U N I V E R S I T Y O F T O R O N T O PRESS

PHOENIX JOURNAL

OF T H E CLASSICAL OF

REVUE

CANADA

D E LA SOCIETE

DES ETUDES

CANADIENNE

CLASSIQUES

SUPPLEMENTARY TOME

ASSOCIATION

VOLUME

SUPPLEMENTAIRE

XI XI

IN T.

HONOREM

POMPONI EQVITIS

ATTICI

ROMANI

Contents

Preface

ix

Introduction

3

ι Register o f Orators π Prosopographical C o m m e n t a r y m T h e C h r o n o l o g i c a l Structure

11 28 153

I V Cicero's K n o w l e d g e o f Orators' Birth-Dates 155 ν Conclusions

159

A p p e n d i x : Cicero at W o r k

161

Select B i b l i o g r a p h y

177

Index Prosopographicus

185

Preface

T h i s study is concerned w i t h certain special topics and problems arising o u t o f Cicero's dialogue Brutus w h i c h are o f particular interest t o prosopographers and historians o f the R o m a n Republic. I n its major part i t presents a prosopographical analysis o f Cicero's survey o f R o m a n orators. O n that basis i t endeavours t o characterize the chronological structure o f Cicero's w o r k . I n the process i t necessarily becomes i n v o l v e d i n the c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f Cicero's modus operandi i n the rôle o f chronologist and prosopographer. Investigations o f this sort have been greatly facilitated over the last t w e n t y years b y the existence o f a superlative prosopographical i n s t r u m e n t , T . R . S . B r o u g h t o n ' s The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. T h e present study is n o exception. I have a particular imperative t o m a k e this a c k n o w l e d g m e n t , n o t o n l y f o r reasons ofpietas, b u t because o f the frequency w i t h w h i c h , i n the f o l l o w i n g pages, I have taken issue w i t h B r o u g h t o n ' s views and c o n clusions. T h e longer one labours i n these fields, the deeper g r o w s one's appreciation o f B r o u g h t o n ' s efforts, o f the shrewdness a n d g o o d sense w i t h w h i c h he negotiated a path t h r o u g h swamps o f prosopographical fantasy and conjecture. I a m personally indebted t o Professor Ernst Badian w h o expended considerable effort t o help m e i m p r o v e the q u a l i t y o f this study. T h e ack n o w l e d g m e n t should n o t be regarded as i m p a r t i n g t o Professor

Badian

any responsibility f o r the deficiencies o f the w o r k . I n a m o r e general sense I a m glad t o acknowledge benefits o f associat i o n w i t h the notable g r o u p o f classical scholars and ancient historians g a t h ered together i n the U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o and particularly i n U n i v e r s i t y College. T h i s b o o k has been published w i t h the help o f a grant from the H u manities Research C o u n c i l o f Canada, using funds p r o v i d e d b y the Canada

XPRBPACB

C o u n c i l , and from the Publications F u n d o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o Press. T o a l l these institutions an expression o f gratitude is certainly due and is d u l y offered. G.v.s. T o r o n t o , 1972

THE

ORATORS

I N CICERO'S

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

BRUTUS:

CHRONOLOGY

Introduction

T h e orators i n Cicero's Brutus represent t o a large degree the most active figures i n R o m a n politics from the t i m e o f the Punic W a r s d o w n t o the C i v i l W a r , w h i c h ended that style o f politics f o r ever. T h e dialogue is an i m p o r t a n t source f o r the h i s t o r y o f parts o f the second and early first centuries at R o m e . T h e material has been w o r k e d over a g o o d deal, from b o t h t h e historical and the prosopographical p o i n t o f v i e w , and especially b y the present generation o f scholars. Y e t there appears t o be r o o m , and possibly even need, f o r a m e t h o d i c a l study o f the p o l i t i c a l personages o f the Brutus, and this w i l l m o s t naturally take the f o r m o f w h a t m i g h t be called a prosopographical c o m m e n t a r y . T h a t m a y seem a rather grandiose description f o r w h a t is offered here. Cicero mentions w e l l over t w o h u n d r e d orators i n the course o f the dialogue. A complete prosopographical c o m m e n t a r y o n these w o u l d n o d o u b t r u n i n t o several volumes; one m a y compare the example o f the prosopographical tomes c o m p i l e d b y the Belgian savant, J . v a n O o t e g h e m . H e r e w e are t o c o n centrate o n bare essentials. T h e m e t h o d adopted is t o present i n tabulated f o r m a s u m m a r y o f the careers o f the politicians i n the Brutus, and i n the c o m m e n t a r y t o concentrate o n controversial issues and o n points w h e r e i t appears that there are i m p r o v e m e n t s t o be made i n o u r k n o w l e d g e o r i n the q u a l i t y o f our analyses. Because the Brutus is m u c h concerned w i t h chronological m a t ters, a n d because the R o m a n career structure was d o m i n a t e d b y chronological considerations i n the f o r m o f age requirements, c h r o n o l o g y w i l l necessarily play a major part i n the investigation, as i t has done i n other recent discussions. I n his article " T h e Legislation o f Spurius T h o r i u s , " published i n t h e American Journal of Philology 77 (1956) 376-95, A . E . Douglas attempted t o solve a notorious historical c r u x b y reference t o the chronological structure o f Cicero's dialogue. " A s is w e l l k n o w n , " he w r o t e (ibid. 376), " i t was p r i m a r i l y the publication o f A t t i c u s ' Liber Annalis w h i c h b o t h inspired and made pos-

4 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

AND

CHRONOLOGY

sible the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the Brutus, one o f the purposes o f w h i c h is oratorum genera distinguere aetatibus ( 7 4 ) . " A n d again (ibid. 377 £ ) : " T h a t Cicero was v e r y m u c h concerned w i t h f o l l o w i n g the chronological order except where special considerations supervened, has already been stated and h a r d l y calls f o r further demonstration. T h e r e are m a n y explicit allusions t o points o f c h r o n ­ o l o g y ; the w o r d aetas i n the sense o f an (sic) historical p e r i o d occurs fifty times i n the dialogue. I should thus m a i n t a i n that w h i l e Cicero had o f course a w i d e k n o w l e d g e o f the p e r i o d , f o r exact c h r o n o l o g y he relied o n Atticus, and his interest i n the subject was such that w e are entitled t o l o o k f o r chronological patterns i n a l l parts o f the Brutus, and even where our k n o w l e d g e o f a p e r i o d is less f u l l t h a n w e c o u l d w i s h , t o expect t o be able t o make m i n o r adjustments where Cicero h i m s e l f makes n o c o m m e n t . " Douglas's v i e w encountered f o r t h r i g h t rejection from E. Badian, w h o observed (Historia 1962,211 n.58): " D o u g l a s . . . tries t o c l i n g t o the belief that Cicero treats the p e r i o d chronologically and that some m o r e or less precise i n f o r m a t i o n o f this sort can be extracted. B u t his i n v o l v e d manoeuvres make i t quite clear that the a t t e m p t is n o t w o r t h m a k i n g : whatever Cicero's i n t e n ­ t i o n , i t was a n y t h i n g b u t a straightforward c h r o n o l o g y , a n d w e should first have t o be sure o f the c h r o n o l o g y , i n order t o disengage his g u i d i n g p r i n ­ ciples." Badian expanded o n this i n a paper i n Studi in onore di Biondo Biondi ι (1963) 189 ff. ( = Studies 235 ff): " D ' A r m s " [that is, E.F. D ' A r m s , i n AJP 1935» 232 ff] " t r i e d t o reduce the sequence o f orators i n Cicero's Brutus t o a strict chronological sequence ... Douglas ... recognised that D ' A r m s ' s strict chronological order is quite untenable: Cicero t o o o b v i o u s l y j u m p s about and, e.g., treats m a n y an i m p o r t a n t m a n m o r e than once. B u t Douglas t r i e d t o save an adapted f o r m o f the t h e o r y a n d c o u l d d o so o n l y b y i n t r o d u c i n g exceptions and ad hoc assumptions at every p o i n t , u n t i l one has the impression o f reading a defence o f pre-Copernican a s t r o n o m y " (Studies 241 n . n ) . Douglas returned t o the j o u s t i n publications o f 1966. I n the i n t r o d u c ­ t i o n t o his useful e d i t i o n o f the Brutus ( l i i - l i v ) he offered a f o r m u l a f o r solving the chronological problems presented b y Cicero's treatise. H e maintained that "certainly from A n t o n i u s and Crassus (137 ff.) and p r o b a b l y from the g r o u p i n c l u d i n g C. Gracchus, M . Scaurus and P. Rutilius ( n o ff.)" ... " a n e w and v e r y precise m e t h o d comes i n t o use, w h i c h was l o n g unrecognized be­ cause o f the concentration o f commentators o n the dates o f magistracies where k n o w n . Cicero used n o t magistracies b u t dates o f b i r t h as his c h r o n o ­ logical f o u n d a t i o n . " I n a contemporaneous article, " O r a t o r u m Aetates" (AJP 1966, 290-306), he presented his detailed case for this t h e o r y . H e claimed t o

INTRODUCTION

show that after the passage 127-37 "

w

e

5

< ^ b y s i m p l y a p p l y i n g the t w o η

principles o f birth-dates and g r o u p i n g b y status detect i n Cicero's arrange­ m e n t a taut chronological sequence, indeed a pattern o f w h i c h the outlines are so clear and firm that w e can fill i n confidently some blanks as t o date and identities" (ibid. 293). I t seems evident that these claims are i m p o r t a n t enough, particularly from the v i e w p o i n t o f the prosopographer and historian, t o m e r i t further and deeper investigation. T h e tendency o f the present study is t o suggest that Douglas's t h e o r y is overstated rather t h a n fundamentally mistaken, t h o u g h i t certainly requires m o d i f i c a t i o n and sophistication. Dates o f b i r t h are i n v o l v e d i n Cicero's c h r o n o l o g y , b u t so, inevitably, are magistracies and careers. A careful proso­ pographical analysis o f the orators i n the Brutus is indispensable. A n d i t is necessary t o have the evidence presented i n a somewhat clearer and m o r e precise fashion t h a n is the case i n any o f Douglas's w r i t i n g s , especially as the standard w o r k s o f reference o n w h i c h he a v o w e d l y relied (see his Preface t o Brutus, v ) are n o t infrequently i n need o f correction or supplementation. T h e first section o f this study consists i n a register o f the orators i n the Brutus, set d o w n i n Cicero's ordo and w i t h w h a t is k n o w n or can reasonably be inferred about their careers o f office entered against each name, w h i l e i n the end c o l u m n is offered t h e nearest a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o the orator's b i r t h date. T h e second section, w h i c h is the m a i n b o d y o f the w o r k b o t h i n b u l k and i n importance, is a detailed prosopographical c o m m e n t a r y , i n w h i c h the problems about careers and identities and dates are thrashed o u t , and c o n t r o ­ versial decisions i n the Register are accounted f o r . A f t e r that the t h i r d section attempts t o define accurately the chronological structure o f the Brutus, so far as that can be done. A f o u r t h section examines the rather i m p o r t a n t question o f h o w and where Cicero g o t h o l d o f his k n o w l e d g e o f orators' dates. T h e b r i e f section o f conclusions addresses itself w h o l l y t o the g i v i n g o f a f i n a l v e r ­ dict o n t h e dispute about Cicero's Chronographie aims and methods i n the dialogue. I n the A p p e n d i x an attempt is made t o develop further the e m e r g ­ i n g picture o f Cicero as prosopographer and chronographer, b y a close e x a m i ­ nation o f passages i n the A t t i c u s correspondence w h i c h e x h i b i t h i m i n this l i g h t . T h e Index, i t should be n o t e d , is meant t o be a f u n c t i o n i n g part o f the prosopographical apparatus o f the v o l u m e . I n the lists o f the Register and i n the C o m m e n t a r y , birth-date termini (that is, the latest possible dates f o r year o f b i r t h ) are calculated from careers i n ac­ cordance w i t h the f o l l o w i n g set o f assumptions about m i n i m u m ages f o r

6 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

AND

CHRONOLOGY

office. M o s t o f the points seem n o w w e l l established and relatively u n c o n t r o versial. O n this t o p i c one must consult above a l l A s t i n , Lex Annalis.

See

further t h e discussions o f particular points i n the C o m m e n t a r y t o 82 (R 3 5 ) , Ser. Sulpicius Galba, 222 (R 155,157), L . Licinius Lucullus and M . Terentius V a r r ò Lucullus, 235 ( R 175), P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura, 246 (R 196), M . Valerius Messalla, 248 ( R 201), C . Iulius Caesar, 263 ( R 205), L . M a n l i u s Torquatos, 267 (R 209), L . D o m i t i u s Ahenobarbus, 273 (R 217), M . Caelius Rufus; also b e l o w , section i v , p p . 156 £ (and the I n d e x under " L e x A n n a l i s " ) . O n e m a y also refer t o m y bipartite article, " T h e L e x Annalis under Caesar," Phoenix 1971,246 ff. and 357 ff. A A f t e r 180 B . C . ( L e x V i l l i a Annalis) d o w n t o Sulla's legislation, the statutory m i n i m u m age o f candidature f o r the consulship was 42, f o r the praetorship 39, f o r the curule aedileship 36 (cf. A s t i n , Lex Annalis 31 f., 37 f., 4 1 ) . — T h i r t y - s i x was also the customary m i n i m u m age o f candidature f o r the plebeian aedileship (ibid. 32 n . 2 , 4 6 n . i ) . — A candidate for t h e quaestorship w o u l d n o r m a l l y be at least 27, h a v i n g fulfilled the decern stipendia starting at the age o f 17 (except that d u r i n g the p e r i o d before 123 B . C . an age as l o w as 25 seems t o have been possible, perhaps because a man's m i l i t a r y service had been begun prematurely) (ibid. 45).A senatorial legatus (necessarily a senator and so almost certainly o f postquaestorian age) w o u l d be at least 28 (possibly 26 d u r i n g the p e r i o d before 123

B.C.).—

A candidate f o r t h e tribunate o f the plebs w o u l d n o r m a l l y be at least 27 (ibid. 46 n . i ) . Theoretically, the possible exception n o t e d f o r the quaestorship m i g h t apply t o the tribunate also, b u t n o examples can be f o u n d t o s h o w this w o r k i n g i n practice, and o n general grounds i t seems u n l i k e l y that i t d i d . E v e n Tiberius Gracchus (R 57) was at least 28, a n d p r o b a b l y 29, w h e n he entered o n the office i n December 134 (after an i n t e r v a l o f three years

from

his quaestorship).— A j u n i o r m i l i t a r y officer (e.g. m i l i t a r y t r i b u n e ) w o u l d be at least 18, and i f an elected m i l i t a r y t r i b u n e , at least 22 (possibly, i n exceptional cases, 20 d u r i n g the p e r i o d before 123 B . C . , t h o u g h this does n o t seem v e r y probable): cf. A s t i n , 35 n.3, referring t o Polybius 6.19.1, w h i c h concerns elected m i l i t a r y tribunes and indicates a m i n i m u m qualification o f five years m i l i t a r y service. I n dealing w i t h non-elected j u n i o r officers one can o n l y conjecture, and t h o u g h i t appears u n l i k e l y that any w o u l d have been as y o u n g as 18, I

INTRODUCTION

7

give this figure conservatively i n order t o a v o i d the risk o f setting the m i n i ­ m u m age t o o h i g h , since this w o u l d defeat the purpose o f establishing a terminus (the latest possible year) f o r the b i r t h - d a t e . — Seventeen was t h e m i n i m u m age for b e g i n n i n g m i l i t a r y service, except d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d before 123 B . C . w h e n an age as l o w as 15 m a y have been possible i n exceptional cases (cf. A s t i n , 43). Β A f t e r 81 B . C . (Sulla's legislation) the o n l y changes from ( A ) w e r e : a candi­ 1

date f o r the quaestorship must be at least 30 (cf. A s t i n , 39 f., 4 1 ) ; — a senatorial legatus (necessarily an ex-quaestor) must be at least 31;—a candidate f o r the plebeian tribunate w o u l d n o r m a l l y be at least 32. (For the orators o f the Brutus w h o matter, w e can ignore the p e r i o d 80-75 B . C . , w h e n the higher career was barred t o tribunes so that unambitious nonentities, possibly i n some cases even non-senators, tended t o h o l d the tribunate. A p a r t from that w e can assume that a l l n o r m a l politicians held the quaestorship, w h i c h was a prerequisite f o r the praetorship [ A p p i a n BC 1.100]. I t is clear that, t h o u g h the tribunate was n o t f o r m a l l y part o f the cursus, i t was held - w h e n i t was held after the quaestorship i n the post-Sullan p e r i o d . Theoretically i t w o u l d per­ haps be possible f o r a m a n t o h o l d the tribunate i n the year after the quaestor­ ship, i.e. at 3 1 , b u t n o examples are k n o w n a n d i t seems i m p r o b a b l e that i t was the done t h i n g . Hence 32 is the probable n o r m a l m i n i m u m age). T h e assumption that there was n o change w i t h regard t o a m i n i m u m age f o r the curule aedileship requires a particular discussion. A s t i n had argued that b o t h i n the pre-Sullan p e r i o d and the post-Sullan p e r i o d (a) there was a m i n i m u m age o f 36 f o r the office, and (b) t h e lex prescribed a c o m p u l s o r y interval o f t w o years (biennium) between curule aedileship a n d praetorship. Badian, h o w e v e r , w h i l e n o t disputing Astin's results f o r the pre-Sullan p e r i o d , showed (Studies 144 f f . ) that i n the period after Sulla the evidence disproves the existence o f a compulsory biennium between curule aedileship and praetor­ ship: the biennium was o n l y customary (Cic. Fam. 10.25.2) a n d there are several examples o f a shorter i n t e r v a l . Badian further suggested that "Sulla's lex annalis had n o t h i n g t o say about the aedileship" (ibid. 155 n.51), j u s t as o u r o n l y direct source o n that l a w , A p p i a n BC 1.100, has n o t h i n g t o say about i t (ibid. 144 n.30). F r o m this he infers that after Sulla there was n o t even a m i n i ­ m u m age f o r the aedileship (ibid. 155 n.51). Against the v i e w that there was n o m i n i m u m age f o r the curule aedileX T h e possibility o f a special Patrician cursus is sub iudice (see in particular the C o m m e n t a r y o n 248 [R 201]» C . Iulius Caesar).

8 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

AND CHRONOLOGY

ship after Sulla there are several points t o be made, ( i ) Appian's account of Sulla's lex annalis states o n l y that i t made the quaestorship a compulsory p r e ­ requisite f o r the praetorship, and the praetorship f o r the consulship. T h i s is obviously an incomplete account. I t does n o t , f o r instance, m e n t i o n m i n i ­ m u m ages f o r any office, n o t even f o r the quaestorship, where the indirect evidence shows that Sulla made a change. Therefore Appian's failure t o m e n ­ t i o n the existence o f a m i n i m u m age f o r the aedileship has n o significance. (2) Plutarch {Lucullus

1.6 f . ) makes the f o l l o w i n g observation about the fact

that L . Lucullus and his brother Marcus h e l d the curule aedileship i n the same year, 79 (cf. MRR 2.83): πρεσβύτβρος yàp ών αύτου λαβείν τήν αρχήν μόνος ουκ ήθ^λησεν, άλλα τον αύτου καιρόν avaßeivas ούτως kmjyàyeTO τον δήμον, ώστ€ σον ίκάνω μή παρών ayopävoßos aiptBrjvai. T h i s clearly implies that there was a definite t i m e at w h i c h M . Lucullus became eligible f o r the office; τον αύτου καιρόν seems t o correspond t o the L a t i n t e r m suus annus o r some expression o f similar effect. (See also the C o m m e n t a r y o n 222 ( R 155, 157), L . Licinius Lucullus, M . Terentius V a r r ò Lucullus). (3) Cicero, w h o was patently obsessed w i t h the desirability o f h o l d i n g the magistracies suo anno? gained the 2 E v i d e n c e can easily be accumulated that m a n y politicians, f r o m nobiles to n e w m e n , w e r e not particularly preoccupied w i t h this consideration. O f those i n the Register, observe, for example, C . Laelius (R 3 3 ) , unsuccessful consular candidate for 141 (at least one year 'late'), Ser. Sulpicius G a l b a (R 3 5 ) , cos. 144 (at least 4 years), L . M u m m i u s (R 3 7 ) , cos. 146 (at least 4 years), M ' . Manilius (R 6 6 ) , cos. 149 (at least 2 years), M . A e m i l i u s Scaurus (R 7 6 ) , unsuccessful consular candidate for 116 (at least 3 years), C . M e m m i u s (R 9 7 ) , assassinated consular candidate for 9 9 (at least 1 year, probably m o r e ) , M . A n t o n i u s (R 1 0 3 ) , pr. 102, cos. 9 9 (1 year), L . L i c i n i u s Crassus (R 104) a n d Q . M u c i u s Scaevola (R 1 0 5 ) , coss. 9 5 * ( 2 years), C . C l a u d i u s P u l c h e r (R H I ) , pr. 9 5 , cos. 9 2 *(atleast 1 year, probably m o r e ) , C . Aurelius C o t t a (R 1 4 3 ) , cos. 75 * ( 6 years), C . Scribonius C u r i o (R 147), cos. 7 6 *(at least 1 year, probably 4 o r 5 ) , L . Licinius L u c u l l u s (R 155), cos. 7 4 *(at least ι year), Q . Hortensius Hortalus (R 171), pr. 7 2 , cos. 6 9 * ( 2 years), M . Licinius Crassus (R 172), cos. 7 0 (at least 1 year), M . Pupius Piso (R 176), cos. 61 (at least 7 years), Q . A r r i u s (R 1 9 3 ) , potential consular candidate for 58 (at least 3 years, possibly 1 2 ) , P . Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (R 2 1 0 ) , pr. 6 0 , cos. 5 7 *(at least 1 year), C n . Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (R 199), cos. 5 6 (at least 1 year, probably m o r e ) , C . M e m m i u s (R 2 0 0 ) , unsuccessful consular candidate for 53 (at least 2 years), M . Claudius Marcellus (R 2 0 2 ) , cos. 51 (at least 1 year), L . Cornelius Lentulus C r u s (R 2 1 1 ) , cos. 4 9 (at least 6 years). T h i s list does not include cases w h e r e the interval after the aedileship i n itself suggests "lateness" i n reaching the higher offices. (* denotes m e n w h o , according to C i c e r o [De off. 2 . 5 7 - 9 ] , gave splendid games as aediles, yet d i d not reach the highest offices suo anno.) It w o u l d take a remarkable and improbable plethora oirepulsae to account for all these delayed careers, especially those o f the eminent nobiles and outstanding non-nobiles in the list (e.g. Laelius, Antonius, the Crassi, Scaevola, Hortensius), i f every candidate always tried to gain election suo anno.

INTRODUCTION Ο

plebeian aedileship at 36 (MRR 2.132,136 n . 5 ) ; this w i l l n o t p r o v e that there was a legal m i n i m u m age f o r either aedileship, b u t i t is an i m p o r t a n t clue as i t indicates w h a t was the " p r o p e r " age f o r the aedileship (cf. A s t i n , Lex 32 n . 2 ) . (4) Cicero (Imp.Pomp.

Annalis

62) comments o n the singular fact that P o m -

peius, thanks t o a dispensation b y the Senate, consul antefieret quam ullum alium magistratumper leges capere licuisset. W h e n he entered o n his first consulship o n ι January 70, Pompeius was 35 years (and 3 months) o l d . I f , as Badian h e l d , the o n l y offices f o r w h i c h a legal m i n i m u m age was established after Sulla were the consulship, the praetorship and the quaestorship, Cicero's r e m a r k w o u l d be singularly m a l a d r o i t . Since Pompeius was definitely past the quaestorian age and therefore the quaestorship is being i g n o r e d b y Cicero,

4

any

other magistracy" reduces t o one magistracy, the praetorship. I t is m u c h m o r e l i k e l y that Cicero alludes t o the existence o f legal m i n i m u m ages f o r m o r e t h a n one magistracy, and since he clearly leaves the quaestorship o u t o f account, these can o n l y be the praetorship, the curule aedileship, and (pos­ sibly) the plebeian aedileship. (Cf. A s t i n , ibid. 32 f. n.4, 40. T h e alternative interpretation w h i c h he mentions - " a l t h o u g h from the context i t is most probable that b y 'before he was legally entitled' Cicero meant that he was t o o y o u n g , i t m i g h t also refer t o the fact that P o m p e y h a d n o t yet held the quaestorship" - is, as he indicates, m u c h less probable, a n d w o u l d i n any case lead t o the same conclusion. For i f Cicero were m e r e l y a l l u d i n g t o the fact that t h e quaestorship was a compulsory prerequisite f o r the praetorship and the praetorship was a c o m p u l s o r y prerequisite f o r the consulship, his

ullum

€i

alium magistratum" w o u l d again be i g n o r i n g the quaestorship itself [since there was n o legal i m p e d i m e n t t o Pompeius' h o l d i n g the quaestorship] and once again w o u l d be reduced t o one magistracy, the praetorship. I t is therefore m u c h m o r e l i k e l y that Cicero is a l l u d i n g t o the existence o f legal qualifica­ tions f o r the aedileship as w e l l as the praetorship). N o w i t is u n l i k e l y t o be an unrelated coincidence t h a t Pompeius was precisely one year b e l o w the age o f 36, w h i c h the careers o f Scipio Aemilianus (cf. A s t i n , Lex Annalis 37) and Cicero, as w e l l as the factor o f the biennium preceding the praetorship, i n d i ­ cate t o have been the m i n i m u m age f o r t h e aedileship b o t h before and after Sulla. T h e cumulative force o f these considerations, w h i c h is n o t opposed b y any countervailing fact, makes i t as nearly certain as such things can be that after Sulla, as before, there was a legal m i n i m u m age o f 36 f o r candidacy f o r the curule aedileship. Sulla made n o change here. I t appears that he m a y have r e m o v e d ( i f i t had existed) the c o m p u l s o r y biennium between curule aedile-

i o Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

AND

CHRONOLOGY

ship and praetorship (so that a m a n w h o held the aedileship one year " l a t e " c o u l d still h o l d the praetorship suo anno), b u t whether he d i d so o r n o t makes n o difference f o r o u r present purpose.

3

3 It seems possible that so long as the alternation between patrician and plebeian years for the curule aedileship w a s maintained, candidature was permissible i n the thirty-sixth year. A plebeian born i n 198 could not stand for the curule aedileship o f 161, a patrician year, and a patrician born i n 197 could not r u n for 160, a plebeian year. Instead o f being forced to w a i t a year for the curule aedileship, candidates w e r e perhaps allowed to anticipate b y one year. T h i s w o u l d account for the number o f careers i n the period 1 8 0 - 1 5 3 w h i c h s h o w the pattern o f a triennium followed b y a biennium (aed.cur. 169, pr. 165, cos. 162). T h e alternation between patricians and plebeians is last attested in 161-160. It had probably been abandoned b y the Gracchan period. It had certainly been discontinued b y 91, w h e n M . Claudius Marcellus was curule aedile (MRR 2 . 2 1 , 2 4 n . 7 ) i n what w o u l d have been a patrician year. ( T h e possibility affects the dates o f four o f our orators - [n 2 2 ] Scipio Nasica, [R 2 3 ] L . Lcntulus, [R 2 4 ] Q . Fulvius Nobilior, [R 6 3 ] P . Lcntulus.)

I Register o f Orators

I n the f o l l o w i n g lists the names are given i n accordance w i t h Cicero's order in the Brutus,

so that cases o f repetition are registered; the Brutus

section

number (italicized) is g i v e n i n the left-hand c o l u m n , preceded b y a Register serial n u m b e r ( R - ) . F u l l nomenclature is used, w i t h b o t h gentilicium and cognomen, rather t h a n the incomplete nomenclature w h i c h was generally sufficient f o r Cicero's purpose. Cicero's rubrics o f transition and notes relating t o groups o f orators or individuals are included w h e r e they seem relevant. I n the careers the offices are g i v e n i n t h e usual abbreviated f o r m , generally as i n the Index o f Careers i n B r o u g h t o n , MRR. Divergencies from the MRR data are explained i n the subsequent C o m m e n t a r y . I n the r i g h t - h a n d c o l u m n is set clown the nearest a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o the orator's birth-date. T h i s is usually deduced from the m i n i m u m age rules (discussed i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n ) and merely represents the latest possible date f o r the orator's b i r t h . W h e r e there is e vidence o n a birth-date i n a d d i t i o n t o the cursus, the date appears i n b o l d face. W h e n this is a relatively firm birth-date, as opposed t o a terminus, i t is p r e m l e d b y the s y m b o l " B . " T h e solidus s y m b o l , / , represents " o r " (e.g., M

1 7 8 / 7 " = "178 or 177", whereas " 1 4 7 - 6 " means " 1 4 7 1 0 1 4 6 " ) ; " b y 144"

iiuMiis " n o t later t h a n 144; i n or before 144." A l l dates are B . C . («1)53

L. Iunius Brutus

(11 .».) 54

[ M . ] M \ Valerius Maximus

Cos. 509

540?

Diet. 494, Leg.env. 493,

525?

Augur -4Ó3,Princeps Senatus493?

(κ \ )

L. Valerius Potitus

(tt'\)55

Ap. Claudius Caecus

Cos. 449, Q.? 446 Q.by 316?, Aed.cur.by 313?, Cens. 312, Cos. 307, Aed.cur.n by 305?, Intcrrcx 298, Pr.by

480? 343?

12 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

AND

CHRONOLOGY

297, Cos. π 296, Pr.n 295, Dict.betw. 292 & 285, Interrex π 291? (R 5)

C. Fabricius Luscinus

Leg.amb. 283, Cos. 282,

313?

Leg.amb. 280,279, Leg.lt. 279, Cos.n 278, Cens. 275

(R 6)

T i . Coruncanius

Cos. 280, Diet. 246, Pont.bef.

311?

254, Pont.Max. 254-243 (R 7)

M \ Curius Dentatus

T r . p l . 298??/29i?, Cos. 290,

321?

[Pr.suff.??? 283], Cos.n 275, m 274, Cens. 272, nvir.aq. perdue. 270^ (R 8) 56

M . Popillius Laenas

Aed.cur. 364, Cos. 359, Aed.?

390?

357, Cos.n 356, m[354??]350, IV 348, Flamen Carmentalis (*9)S7

C. Flaminius

T r . p l . 232, Pr. 227, Cos. 223,

260?

Mag.eq. 221?, Cens. 220, Cos.n 217t (R I O )

Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus

Tr.mil.6fc, Q.by237 &23Ó,

265

Aed.cur. 235?, Cos. 233, Cens. 230, Cos.n 228, Interrex 222?, Diet. 221?, Leg.amb.? 218, Diet. 217, Cos.m suff. 215, nvir.aed. loc. 215, COS.IV214, Leg.lt. 213, Cos.v 209, Interrex 208?, Augur -203, Pont. 216-203, Princeps Senatus 209,204

(RII)

Q.Caecilius

Aed.pl. 209, Aed.cur. 208,

Metellus

Mag.eq. 207, Leg.env. 207,

237?

Cos. 206, Diet. 205, Leg.env. 204, xvir.a.d.a. 201-200, Leg.amb. 185-4, Spec.Comm. 183, Pont. 216 - after 179 (R 12)

M . Cornelius Cethegus

Aed.cur. 213, Pr. 211, Cens. 209,

241?

Cos. 204, Procos. 203, Flamen -ca. 223, Pont. 213-196

(R 13) 61

M.Porcius Cato

ist Stipendium 217/6, T r . m i l . 214, Q. 204, Acd.pl. 199,

B.234

REGISTER OF ORATORS

I3

Pr. 198, Cos. 195, Procos. 194, Leg.lt.? 194, Tr.mil./Leg.lt.? 191, Leg.env. 191,189, Cens. 184, Spec.Comm. 171, Leg.amb. 153, Augur -149 (cum hoc Catonegrandioresnatu) C. Flaminius

(see 57)

260?

C. Terentius

Q.by 222, Aed.pl. by 221?,

250?

Vano

Aed.cur. by 220?, Pr. 218, Cos. 216, Procos. 215-13, Propr. 208-7, Leg.amb. 203,200, ravir.col.deduc. 200

Q. Fabius Maximus

(see 57)

265

(see 57)

237?

Aed.cur. 205?, Pr. 203,Propr.

235?

Verrucosus Q. Caecilius Metellus P. Cornelius Lentulus P. Licinius

202, Leg.amb. 196,189-8 Aed.cur. 212, Mag.eq. 210,

Crassus

Cens. 210, Pr. 208, Cos. 205,

Dives

Procos. 204, Pont.bef. 218-183,

240?

Pont.Max. 212-183 P. Cornelius

ist Stipendium 218, T r . m i l . 216,

Scipio

Aed.cur. 213, Procos. 210-6,

Africanus

Cos. 205, Procos. 204-1, Cens.

B.236/5

199, Cos.n 194, Leg.amb. 193, Leg.lt. i9o(Leg.?i84?), Salius be£ 211-184/ 3, Princeps Senatus 199,194,189 P. Cornelius

Augur 180-bef. 162

216/5??

Africani £ (numeroqueeodem) Sex. Aelius Paetus Catus

Aed.cur. 200, ravir.col.scrib.

235?

199, Cos. 198, Cens. 194

(de minoribus atitem) C. Sulpicius Galus

Officer?? 191, Tr.mil.? 182-1, Leg.env. 181, Spec.Comm. 171, Pr. 169, Tr.mil./Leg.lt. 168,167,

209

14 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

AND

CHRONOLOGY

Cos. 166, Leg.amb. 164 ( * 2 i ) 79

T i . Sempronius Gracchus P.f.

Leg.env. 190, Leg.amb.? 185?,

220

T r . p l . 187/184, ravir.col.ded. 183, Aed.cur. 182, Pr. 180, Procos. 179-8, Cos. 177, Procos. 176-5, Cens. 169, Leg.amb. 165, Cos.n 163, Procos. 162, Leg.amb. 162-1, Augur 204?-

(R22)

P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum

Aed.cur. 169, T r . m i l . 168,167,

206(/ ?) 5

Pr. 165, Cos. 162, Cens. 159, Cos.n i55,Leg.amb. 152, T r . m i l . i50,Pont.bef. 150, Pont.Max. 150-141, Princeps Senatus 147,142

(R23)

L. Cornelius

Aed.cur. 163, Leg.amb. 162-1,

Lentulus

Pr.by 159, Cos. 156, Cens. 147,

Lupus

20o(/i99?)

xvir.s.f.? by 140, Princeps Senatus 130

(R24)

Q. Fulvius Nobilior M . f .

[mvir.col.ded.?? 184??],

i97(/6?)

Aed.cur. 160, Cos. 153, Cens. 136, ravir epulo? 180-

(R2 ) 5

T . Annius Luscus

(R26) 80

L. Aemilius Paullus

(Leg.amb. 172,

(201) 196

mvir.col.ded. 169), Cos. 153 Tr.mil.tertfo, Q. 195?»

B.229/8(?)

mvir.col.ded. 194, Aed.cur. 193, Pr. 191, Procos. 190-189, Leg.amb. 189-8, Cos. 182, Procos. 181, SpecComm. 171, Cos.n 168, Procos. 167, Cens. 164, Interrex 175/162, Augur ca. 192-160

(etiam turn Catone vivo...minores natu) (R27) 81

A . Postumius Albinus

Leg.env.? 168, T r . m i l . 167,

195

Pr. 155, Leg.amb. 154, Cos. 151, Leg.amb. 146-5, xvir.s.f.? 173-

(R28)

Ser. Fulvius

(R29)

N . Fabius Pictor

(Flaccus?)

Miìes 172 (??), C0S.135 (?)

190??

REGISTER OF ORATORS (R O)

Q. Fabius Labeo

(*3i)

Q. Caecilius

3

Leg.env. 168, T r . p l ? 154?,

Metellus

Pr. 148, Procos. ?I47~6, Cos. 143,

Macedonicus

Procos. 142, Leg.lt. 136, Cens. 131,

I5

188

Augur bef. 140-115 (R

32)^2

L. Aurelius

Tr.pl.c0.154, Cos. 144

187

Leg.lt. 147-6, Pr. 145, Procos.

185

Cotta (133)

C. Laelius (Sapiens)

144, Cos. 140, Augur bef. 140-az. 128

(»34)

P. Cornelius Scipio

T r . m i l . i5i,Leg.env. 150,

B.185

T r . m i l . 149-8, Cos. 147,

Africanus

Procos. 146, Cens. 142,

Aemilianus

Leg.amb. 140-139, Cos.n 134, Procos. 133-2, Augur bef. 140-129

(»35)

Ser. Sulpicius Galba

T r . m i l . 168-7, Pr. 151,

191

Procos. 150, Cos. 144, Leg.amb.by 141

(R36)*p/.

L. Scribonius

T r . p l . 149

177

Pr. 153, Procos. 152, Cos. 146,

193

Libo (» 37) 94

L. Mummius (Achaicus)

Procos. 145, Cens. 142

(»38)

Sp. Mummius

Leg.lt. 146, Leg.amb. 140-139

181?

(»39)

Sp. Postumius

Cos. 148

191

Leg.amb. 163-2, Cos. 157,

200

Albinus Magnus (R40)

L. Aurelius Orestes

Leg.amb. 147,146-5?, Leg.lt. 146

(R41)

C. Aurelius

(R42) 95

P. Popillius

Orestes Laenas (»43)

C. Popillius

Leg.env. ?i46,Pr.by 135,

175

Cos. 132 Leg.lt. 107 (?)

P.f. Laenas (»44)

C. Sempronius Tuditanus

(»45)

M . Octavius

Q. 145, Aed.cur.?? 135?,

172

Pr. 132, Cos. 129 T r . p l . 133

163/2

ι ό Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY AND CHRONOLOGY

M . Aemilius

(R 6) 4

Lepidus Porcina 96

Cos. 137, Procos. 136, Augur

180

bef. 125

C. Papirius Carbo

(see 103)

T i . Sempronius

(see 103)

Gracchus (de quibus iam dicendi locus erit cum de senioribuspauca dixero) Q. Pompeius

(«47)

Pr.by 144, [Promag.? 143-2?],

184

Cos. 141, Procos. 140-139, Leg.lt. 136, Cens. 131 (R48) 97

L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla

(R49)

Cn. Servilius

(«5o)

Q. Servilius

T r . p l . 137, Cos. 127, Cens. 125,

170

Spec.Comm. 113 Cos. 141, Cens.125

184

Cos. 140, Procos. 139

183

Caepio Caepio (»5i) (R52)p«

[Sex. Pompeius] P. Licinius

[Pr. 120?, Promag. 119] Q. 152/1?, Aed.cur. 142??,

Crassus Dives

mvir. a.i.a. 133-130, Cos. 131,

Mucianus

Procos. 130, Pont. -130,

[160?] 178/7? (179??)

Pont.Max. 132-130 99 («53)

(horum aetatibusadiuncti) C. Fannius C.f.

Leg.env. 146, Tr.pl.? 142/1?, Pr.bef. 118, Leg.amb. 113

("54)

C. Fannius M . f .

Miles/officer 147-6, T r . m i l . 141,

165/4 (170?) 166

Tr.pl.betw. 139 & 134?, Pr. 127/6?, Cos. 122, Augur bef. 129(R

55) 102

Q. Mucius Scaevola

(R56)

Pr.by 120, Propr.? 119, Cos. 117, Augur bef. 129-89/8

L. Coelius

160 (betw. 165 &163?) ca. 165/4

Antipater (R

si) 103

T i . Sempronius

Contubemalis 147-6, Q. 137,

Gracchus

T r . p l . 133, ravir, a.i.a. 133,

C. Papirius

T r . p l . 131/130, mvir.a.i.a.

Carbo

ΐ30-(ιΐ9?), Spec.Comm.

B.163 o r early 162

Augur -133 (RJ8)

(ravir.a.d.a.i.?)?? 121-119?, Cos. I 2 0 , f 119

163

REGISTER OF ORATORS

(R59)i0*

L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi

(R6O)

107

D . Iunius Brutus M.f. (Callaicus) Q. Fabius Maximus

(R61)

Allobrogicus

Tr.pl. 149, Pr.by 136, Cos. 133,

Y]

1177

Cens. 120 Cos. 138, Procos. 137-136/3?,

1181

Leg.lt. ?i29, Augur bef. 129Q. 134, Pr.by 124, Procos. 123,

1164

Cos. 121, Procos. 120-117?, Leg.amb.?? 113

(R62)

P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio

(R63) 108

Tr.mil.? 149, Cos. 138,

B.18J2/1

Leg.amb. 132, Pont.Max. 141-132

P. Cornelius

Leg.amb. 172, T r . m i l . 171,

Lentulus

Aed.cur. 169, Leg.env. 168,

206((/5?:

Pr. 165, Cos.suff. 162, Leg.amb. 156, Princeps Senatus 125,120? (R64)

L. Furius Philus

Cos. 136

H79

(R65)

P. Mucius

Tr.pl. 141, Pr. 136, Cos. 133,

H76

Scaevola

Pont.bef. 130, Pont.Max. 130ca. 115

(R66)

M \ Manilius

Pr. 155/4, Cos. 149, Procos. 148

(R67)

Ap. Claudius

Cos. 143, Cens. 136, ravir.a.i.a.

Pulcher

i9JS/4 ii86

133-130, Augur-130, Salius bef. 167, Princeps Senatus 136

M . Fulvius

(R68)

Flaccus

mvir.a.i.a. i 3 0 - i 2 i , C o s . 125,

U68

Procos. 124-3, Tr.pl. 122, mvir.col. ded. 122-if

C. Porcius Cato

(R69)

Monetal.ca. 123, Cos. 114,

H57

Leg.lt.? by n o (R70) (R

71) 10p

P. Decius (Subolo?)

Tr.pl. 120, Pr. 115

355

M . Livius Drusus C.f.

Tr.pl. 122, Pr.by 115, Cos. 112,

355

Procos. 111-110, Cens. i 0 9 f (R 2)

C. Livius Drusus C.f.

(R73)

M . Iunius Pennus M.f.

7

Tr.pl. 126, A e d . -

bef.Ji54

(paullum C. Gracchum aetate antecedens) T . Quinctius

(a 74)

Monetal. ca. 127, Cos. 123

Flamininus 110 (*75) (R76)

(his adiuncti sunt) C. Scribonius Curio

Pr.?-

M . Aemilius Scaurus

Aed.cur. 122?, Pr. 119?,

J166

i 8 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

AND CHRONOLOGY

Cos.cand.foni6,Cos.

115,

Leg.amb. 112, Leg.lt. i n , Cens. 109, Spec.Comm. 109, Cur.annon. 104, Leg.amb.bef. 93 (97-6?), Augur? 123-89/8, Princeps Senatus 115,108,102, 97.92,89? P.RutüiusRufus

(R77)

T r . m i l . 134-2, Cos.cand.for

158

115, Leg.amb. 113, Leg.lt. 109-7, Cos. 105, Leg.lt. 94-3 [97??] C. Sempronius

(R78)

Gracchus

Tr.mil.? 134-133/2, mvir. a.d.a.i. 133-121, Q. 126,

Β.1540Γ early 153

Proq. 125-4, T r . p l . 123,122, mvir.col.deduc. 122-ij(R

79) 112j. L. Fufidius

( R 8 O ) 117

Q.Aelius Tubero

Pr.ravir.rer.cap. - , Tr.pl.? 132?,

168 (later?)

Pr.cand. for 128 (or later?) 122

(nuncreliquorum oratorum aetates, si placet, etgraduspersequamur) C. Scribonius Curio

(see 110)

12s

C. Sempronius

(see 110)

127

(Jiuic successitaetati)

Β.1540Γ early 153

Gracchus (» 81)

C. Sulpicius Galba Ser.f.

Spec.Comm. (ravir.a.d.a.i.??)??

bef. 149

121?-?, Pr. ?ιΐ3/2?, Leg.lt. ? I I I ? , Priest (-109)

(R82) 128

P. Cornelius Scipio

Cos. 11 i f

154

Spec.Comm.(ni vir.a.d.a.i.?)

154

Nasica Serapio (ft 83)

L. Calpurnius Bestia

Ι2ΐ-[ιι8]??, T r . p l . 121/0, Cos. I l l (R

84) 129

(ft 85) (R

86) 130

(ft 87)

C.LiciniusNerva

Tr.pl.Cii. 12 i/o

C. Flavius Fimbria

Cos. 104 (Jongius aetate provectus)

C. Sextius Calvinus

Q.in(?),Pr.by 2(?)

139?

M . Iunius Brutus

(magistratus nonpetivit)

C0.15O-145

ca. 149/8

9

(R88) 131

L. Caesulenus

(R89)

T . Albucius

Pr.ca. 107/105, Propr. 106/4

(R 9 0 ) 1 3 2

Q. Lutatius Catulus

Cos.cand.for 106, Cos. 102, Leg.lt. 90, Leg.env. 87,f 87

bef. 147

W.147/5 149

REGISTER O F ORATORS I 9

(R9I) 135

Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus

Monetai.? ca. 116, Pr.by 112,

152

Promag. by i n , Cos. 109, Procos.108-6, Cens. 102, Augur? 115?-

(R92)

M . Iunius Silanus

(»93)

M . Aurelius Scaurus

Tr.pl.bef. 122?, Pr.by 112,

152

Cos. 109, Procos.? 108 Monetai. ii8?,Cos.sufF. 108,

151/0

Leg.lt. 106-5 (a 94)

A . Postumius Albinus

(»95)

(L.?) Postumius Albinus

Leg.lt. 110-9 (?), Cos. 99 (?),

(bef. ? ) 142

Leg.lt. 8 ( ? ) t (Monetai, ca. 132), Flamen 9

(Martialis? ca. 129/ 8?-bef. ca. 109?)

(R 6) 9

Q. Servilius Caepio

T r . m i l . 129-6?, Pr. 109, Procos.

149

108-7, Cos. 106, Procos. 105 (R97) 136

C. Memmius

[Tr.mil. 134-2 (?)],Tr.pl. i n ,

143

Pr.betw. 107 and 103, Procos. betw. 106 and 102, Cos.cand. for 99(f) (R 8)

L. Memmius

Monetai, CÖ. 110

0*99)

Sp.Thorius

Tr.pl. 114/113/112/111?

142/141/

(RIOO)

M . Claudius Marcellus

Leg.lt. 102?, 90, Pr.bef. 90 (bef.

140/139? bef.130

9

Aesernini pater (R

101)

P. Cornelius Lentulus

102?)

(«.150?)

Monetai, ca. 101

Marcelli f. (R 102) 137 L. Aurelius Cotta

M o n e t a l a . 107, T r . p l . 103,

ca.135

Pr.ca. 95 (R103) 13S

M . Antonius

Q. 113, Q.pro pr. 112, Pr. 102,

B.143

Procos. 101-100, Cos. 99, Cens. 97, Leg.env. 87, Augur -87 (R

104) 143 L. Licinius Crassus

nvir.coLdeduc. 118, Q.by 109,

B.140

Tr.pl. 107, Aed.cur. by 100, Pr. 98?, Cos. 95, Procos. 94, Cens. 92, Augur - 9 1 (R

105)

Q. Mucius Scaevola

Q.by 109, Tr.pl. 106, Aed.cur. by 100, Pr. 98?, Cos. 95, Procos. 94 [97??], Ponto*. 115-82, Pont.Max.w. 89-2

B.ca.140

2 0 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

(R 106) I$O ( M . Tullius Cicero)

AND CHRONOLOGY

(B.ic

(Q. 75, Aed.pl. 69, Pr. 66, Cos. 63, Leg.lt. 57, Procos. 51-50, 49-47, Leg.lt. 44, Leg.env. 43. Augur 53-43)

(R 107)

(Ser. Sulpicius Rufus)

(B.106/

(Q. 74, Pr. 65, Cos.cand. for 62, Interrex 52, Cos. 51, Leg.lt. or Procos. 46-5, Leg.env. 43f )

(R

108) 163

C n . Domitius Ahenobarbus

nvfr.col.deduc. 118, T r . p l .

13

104/3, Cos. 96, Cens. 92, Pont. &Pont.Max. 1 0 3 - « . 89

(R 109)

C. Coelius Caldus

T r . p l . 107, M o n e t a l a . 106,

B.tt.14

Pr. 100/99, Procos.? 99/98?, Cos. 94 (RIIO)

166

(RIII)

M . Herennius

Monetai.^. 109, Cos. 93

C. Claudius Pulcher

Q.W. ιI3?[i05??], Monetale».

13 136(14

112, Aed.cur. 99, Iudex quaest. 98, Pr. 95, Cur.viis stern. ca. 93, Cos. 92 (R112) 167

C. Titius

(R 1 1 3 ) 1 ^ Q. Rubrius Varrò

(pronounced hostis 88 w i t h Marius)

M . Gratidius

(R114) (R

115) 169

Prefect I 0 2 f

Q. Vettius Vettianus

(RIIO)

Q. Valerius (Soranus)

(RII7)

D . Valerius (Soranus)

(RII8)

C. Rusticelius

(RII9)

T . Betucius Barrus

( R I 2 0 ) 170

L. Papirius (Fregellanus)

(RI2I)

T . Tinga (Placentinus)

[Tr.pl. ???82]

floruit 9

(Bononiensis) (Asculanus)

(R

172

122) 173

L. Marcius Philippus

f l o r u i t 17 Monetai, ca. 112,

13'

Tr.pl.ca. 104?, Cos.cand. for 93, Cos. 91, Cens. 86, Leg.lt. 82, Augur bef. 93(R 123 ) 174

(horum aetatiprope coniunctus) L. Gellius Poplicola

Contubernalis 120, Pr. 94,

13

Procos. 93, Lcg.lt.? 89, Cos. 72, Cens. 70, Lcg.lt. 67-63 (κ 124) 175

Ι>· ïunhM Hrtitus

Cos. 77

bef. 12

REGISTER (R

L. Cornelius Scipio

125)

Asiaticus (Asiagenus)

OF ORATORS

Monetala*. 108, Leg.lt. ?ço,

21

126(130?)

Pr. 86?, Promag. 85-4, Cos. 83, Augur 88-

126)

Cn. Pompeius Strabo

(RI27)

Sex. Pompeius Sex.f.

(R

Sex.f.

Q.ca. 104?, Leg.lt. 90, Cos. 89,

132

Procos. 88,87!

(frater Strabonis) M . Iunius Brutus (R

C. Billienus

128)

(see 130) Q. - , Leg. - , Pr.by 103,

143

Procos.by 102, Cos.cand.by 101 (RI29) 176 Cn. Octavius (RI30)

177

C. Iulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus

Cos. 87! xvir.a.d.a.i. 103/100, T r . m i l .

130 127 (131?)

bis. ca. 100, Q.ca. 96, Aed.cur. 90, Cos.cand.for 88, Pont.bef. 99-87

178

(eiusaequalis)

(RI31)

P. Cornelius Cethegus

Monetal.?«. 104?, Senator 74

(RI32)

Q. Lucretius Vespillo

(proscribed 82/1)

(RI33)

Q. Lucretius Afella

Prefect 82, Cos.cand. for 81(f)

(RI34)

T . Annius (Velina)

T . Iuventius ( I35) 136) 179 (P. Orbius

ca. 131/127 124?

R

(R

(Pr.ca. 65.Propr.64)

(B.ca. 106)

meus fere aequalis) T . Aufidius

0*137)

(qui vixitad sumtnam

Pr. 67?, Propr./Procos. 66?,

bef. 107

Cos.cand. for 63

senectutem) M . Vergilius

(R138)

Tr.pl. 87

115

(Verginius?) P. Magius

(R139)

(R 140) 180 Q. Sertorius

Tr.pl. 87, Pr.? bef. 80 ist Stipendium 105?,

"5 (bef. 120?) 123

T r . m i l . 97-3, Q. 91/90, Tr.pl.cand. for 87, Leg.lt. 87, Pr. 83, Promag. 82-73! (R141)

C. Gargonius

(R 142)

T . Iunius L.f. 182

Tr.pl. -

(isdemfere temporibus aetate inferiorespaullo quam Iulius, sed aequales propemodumfuerunt)

(R 143)

C. Aurclius Cotta

Tr.pl.cand. for 90, Propr. ?8o, Cos. 75, Procos. 74, Pont. -73

B.124

22 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

(RI44)

P. Sulpicius Rufus

Leg.lt. 90?, 89, T r . p l . 88f

(RI45)

Q. Varius Severas

Tr.pl. 90

Hibrida

B.124/3 118 (B.w. 124/3)

(RI46)

Cn. Pomponius

Tr.pl. ?90?,f 82

(» 147)

C. Scribonius Curio

Tr.pl. 90, Leg.lt. ?86-5,

118? (B.w. 124/3)

Cos.cand.for 77, Cos. 76,

120 (B.w. 124/3)

Procos. 75-2, Pont.w. 60-53 L.Fufius

(RI48)

M . Livius Drusus

(RI49)

T r . p l . ?9i/90 T r . m i l . - , xvir.stlit.iudic. - ,

ι19/8? (B.w. 124/3) B.124-2

Q.?-,[Aed.??-], T r . p l . 91, xvir.a.d.a. 91, vvir.a.d.a. 9 i f (R

150)

P. Antistius 183 210

C. Aurelius Cotta

Tr.pl. 88,Aed. 86?,f82 (see 182)

P. Sulpicius Rufus

(see 182)

C. Scribonius Curio

(set 182)

123? (B.w. 124/3) B.124 B.124/3 120 (B.w. 124/3)

(RI51) 212

(L. Licinius Crassus Scipio)

(R

(Q. Caecilius Metellus

152)

Pius Scipio Nasica)

(Q.?6o [Tr.pl.??? 59???], Aed.cur. 57?, Pr. 55, Interrex

(95/early94)

53, Cos. 52, Procos. 49-8, 48-6, Pont.«. 63-46) (R

153) 216 (Cn. Sicinius) 221

C. Papirius Carbo

(RI54)

(Tr.pl. 76)

(109?)

(in eodem igitur numero eiusdem aetatis) ArvinaCf. Q. Varius Sevcrus

Leg. ??94, T r . p l . 90, Leg.lt. ??89, Pr.by 83,f82 (see 182)

Hibrida

123 (B.w. 124/3) 118 (B.w. 124/3)

Cn. Pomponius

(see 182)

L.Fufius

(see 182)

118? (B.w. 124/3)

222

ι19/8? (B.w. 124/3)

M . Livius Drusus (»155)

L. Licinius Lucullus

(see 182) Officer 89, Q. 88, Proq. 87-80, Aed.cur. 79, Pr. 78, Promag.

B.124-2 118

REGISTER

OF ORATORS

2

3

77-6, Cos. 74, Procos. 73-63, Augur-56 (RI56) (R

157)

M . Iunius Brutus

T r . p l . 83, Leg.lt. ?77f

M . Terentius Varrò

Q.orLeg.lt. 83,Propr. 82, 81?,

Lucullus

i n (117?) B.116

Aed.cur. 79 (suo anno), Pr. 76, Cos. 73, Procos. 72-1, Leg.amb. ca. 70-66, Pont.bef. 73-after 57

M . Octavius Cn.f.

(RI58)

Tr.pl.?-

159) 160)

Cn. Octavius M . f .

Cos. 76

119

(R

M . Porcius Cato

T r . p l . 99, Pr.cand. by 91(f)

130

(R

161)

Q. Lutatius Catulus

Leg.env. 87, Aed.ca. 84, Pr. 81?,

121

(R

pater alius

Cos. 78, Procos. 77, Cens. 65, Pont.bef. 73-ca. 60

(R

162) 223

Q. Servilius Caepio

Q. 100 (Pr. ??9i), Leg.lt. 90,

128(131??)

Procos. 9of Cn. Papirius Carbo

(R163)

W.129?

T r . p l . 92/1, Pr.?ca. 89, Leg.lt.? 87, Cos. 85,1184, Procos. 83, Cos.m 82f

M . Marius Gratidianus

(R164)

125?

T r . p l . ?87, Leg.lt. 87, Pr. 85?, n82?f

(quo ingenere, ut in hisperturbent aetatum ordinem, nuper ...fuit) L. Quinctius

(R165)

117?

T r . p l . 74, Leg.lt./Praef.eq. 71, Pr.68

(R

M . Lollius Palicanus

166)

109

T r . p l . 71, Pr. 69?, Cos.cand. for 66

224 (R

167)

(etquoniam huiusgenerisfacta mentio est) L. Appuleius

Q. 105/104, T r . p l . 103, i o o f

133/2

Saturninus (RI68)

C. Servilius Glaucia

Q.?by 109?, T r . p l . i o i ? , P r . 100,

140(142?)

Cos.cand.for 99(f) (R

169) 225

Sex. Titius

T r . p l . 99

127

(sed adpaullo superiorem aetatem revecti sumus; nunc ad earn de qua aliquantum. sumus locuti revertamur) 226

(coniunctus igitur Sulpici aetaû) P. Antistius

(see 182)

123? (B.w. 124/3)

24 Brutus:

P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

(hie temporibusfloruiteis quibus interprofectionem reditumque Sullae...) 228

(inférions autem aetatis eratproximus)

(R170)

L. Cornelius Sisenna

(R 171)

Q. Hortensius Hortalus

Pr. 78, Promag. ?77, Leg Jt. 67t

118

(interiectus... inter duos aetates Hortensi et Sulpici) T r . m i l . 89, Q.ca. 80?, Aed. 75,

B.114

Pr. 72, Cos. 69, Augur bef. 67-50 22g

(hoc de oratorepattilopostplura dicemus; hoc autem loco voluimus\aetatem\ in disparem oratorum aetatem includere)

(R 172) 233 M . Licinius Crassus

Leg.lt./Pref. 83,82, Aed.? 76,

(aequalis Hortensi)

B.115/4

Pr.by 73, Procos. 72-1, Cos. 70, Cens. 65, w i r . or xxvir.a.d.a.i. 5 9 - , Cos.n 55, Procos. 54-3, Pont.? αι. 60-53

(R173)

C. Flavius Fimbria

Leg.env. 87, Praefeq. 87, Q.?

(aequalis o f Crassus)

B.115/4

86, Leg.lt. 85f

(R 174) 234 Cn. Cornelius Lentulus

Cos. 72, Cens. 70, Leg.lt. 67-

B.115

Clodianus (aequalis o f Hortensius) (R 175) 233 P. Cornelius Lentulus

Q. 81, Pr. 74, Cos. 71, Pr.n 63t

B.ca. 114

Q. 83, Pr. 72/1, Procos. 71/70-

Bxa. 114

Sura (aequalis o f Hortensius) (R 176) 236 M . Pupius Piso Frugi (aequalis o f

69, Leg.lt. 67-2, Cos. 61,

Hortensius)

Leg.lt. 49

(R 177) 237

P. Licinius Murena

(R 178)

C. Marcius Censorinus

-j-82 Monetai. 88, Tr.mil./Praef.eq.

(R179)

L.Turius

Pr.(?)75,Cos.cand.for64

115?

(RI8O)238

C.LiciniusMacer

Monetalo*.84,Tr.pl.73,Pr.by

108

in?

87, Leg.lt.? 82f

68,Promag. ?67?,f66 (R 181) 23g C. Calpurnius Piso

Vtxa. 71/70, Cos. 67, Procos.

no

66-5 (R182)

M \ Acilius Glabrio (aequalis o f Piso)

(R 183 )

L. Manlius Torquatus

Pr. 70, Cos. 67, Procos. 66,

no

Pont.bef. 73 Proq. 82, Pr. 69/8, Leg.lt. 67, Procos. 67?, Cos. 65, Procos. 64-3

109/8 ( n o ? )

REGISTER

(RI84)

Cn. Pompeius Magnus (meusaequalis)

OF ORATORS

Propr. 83-79,77, Procos. 77-1,

25

B.106

Cos. 70, Procos. 67-1, x x v i r . ( & w i r . ? ) a.d.a.i. 59-, Cur. annon. 57-2, Cos.n 55, Procos. 54-49, Cos.ra 52, Procos. 49-8, Augur bef. 61-48

(RI85) 240

D . Iunius Silanus (nosteraequalis)

Aed. 70/69, Pr. 67, Cos.cand.

B.107

for 64, Cos. 62, Pont.betw. 76 & 74 to ca. 60

(RI86)

Q. Pompeius Bithynicus Leg.lt./Q./Proq.75,t48

B.cii.108

A.f. (biennio quam nosfortassemaior) (RI87) 241

P. Autronius Paetus (aequalis o f

Q. 75, Leg.lt. 73-2, Cos.desig.

Bxa. 108

for 65

Bithynicus) (RI88)

L. Octavius (Reatinus)

(RI89)

C. Staienus

(R

(RI9I) (R

192)

Q.bef.70

L. Caepasius

Q.bef. 70

bef. 101

C. Cosconius

Pr. 63, Procos. 62, w i r . and/or

Calidianus (RI93) (R

108

Q.77

bef.101

190) 242 C. Caepasius

Q. Arrius

194) 24s T . ManliusTorquatus

103

xxvir.a.d.a.i. 59f Pr.bef.6 (Pr. 3?), (Propr. 72?), Cos.cand. for 58 3

7

bef. 103

Proq.? betw. 84 & 78, Pr.? -

(»3?) ι10/109?

Tr.mili/5,Q.-,Pr.64,

Β.ιο /4(?;

(R 195)246 M . Pontidius (R

196)

M . Valerius Messalla Niger (minor natu quam nos)

5

Cos. 61, vvir.a.d.a.i. 59, Interrex 55,53,52, Cens. 55, Pont.bef. 73-

(R

197) 247

Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer

Officer 78, T r . p l . ?68,

103

Leg.lt. 67,66, Pr. 63, Procos. 62, Cos. 60, Augur bef. 63-59

(R

198)

Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos

(R

199)

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus

Leg.lt. 67-3, T r . p l . 62,

100

Pr. 60, Cos. 57, Procos. 56-5 Q. 74?, Tr.pl.? 68, Leg.lt. 67-,

105?

Pr. 60, Promag. 59-8, Cos. 56, vnvir.epulo bef. 56-

(R

200)

C. Memmius L.f.

Tr.pl. 66/65, Pr. 58, Promag. 57» Cos.cand.for 53

99/8

26 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

(R 201) 248 C. Iulius Caesar

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

Leg.env. 81, Leg.lt.?? 73-2, T r . m i l . 72?, Q. 69?, Proq. 68?

B.100?? f

(102?)

Cur.viae App. 67/6?, Aed.cur. 65, Iud.quaest. 64, nvir.perduell. 63, Pr. 62, Procos. 61-60, Cos. 59, Procos. 58-49, Diet. 49, Cos.n 48, Dict.n 48-7, Cos. m 46, Dict.ra 46-5, C0s.1v 45, Dict.iv 45-4, Cos.v 44, Dict.perpet. 44, Pont. 73-44, Pont.Max. 63-44, Augur ca. 47-4, Flamen Dialis(

n

o

w

dated ca. 101

T a b l e x i ) , whose birth-date c o u l d be n o later t h a n 120,

and is m o r e l i k e l y t o have been considerably before that year. I f that is c o r rect, Lentulus M a r c e l l i filius cannot be identical w i t h P. Lentulus Marcellinus (Badian, Studies 54), the quaestor p r o praetore o f 75-4 (MRR JRS

2.103; Badian,

1965, 119 f . ) , w h o w i l l n o t have been b o r n m u c h , i f at a l l , before 106.

M ü n z e r (RE, Cornelius 230, cf. 4.1359 f., stemma) makes the identification o f LENT MAR. F and P. Lentulus M a r c e l l i filius and has this person as father o f P. Lentulus Marcellinus, quaestor 75-4 (Cornelius 231), a n d also o f C n . C o r nelius P.f. Lentulus Marcellinus, p r . 60, cos. 56 (Cornelius 228). (See also b e l o w , p . 143, stemma o f C o r n e l i i L e n t u l i . ) I n that case P. Lentulus M a r c e l l i f. was a father b y 106, and his birth-date must be m o v e d back t o w a r d 130, w h i l e Marcellus* recedes t o ca. 150 ( n o t m u c h y o u n g e r t h a n M a r i u s , his c o m m a n d e r ) . T h i s c o m b i n a t i o n evidently imposes rather a strain i n that i t makes one o f Marcellus' sons 20 years older than the other, b u t that is n o t impossible, and i t is h a r d t o see any alternative (cf. also D r u m a n n - G r o e b e , G R 2 . 3 2 ó stemma, 339 f . ) ; i n such cases the discrepancy is attributable t o a 2

late second marriage - M . Cato the Censor provides an extreme (Gell. NA 13.20.6 f f . ) .

example

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY

93

I t should be noted that the senior praetorius M . Claudius M . f . A r n . Marcellus i n the consilium o f 73 (SIG

3

Districts

204; Sherk, RDGE

747; MRR

2.114; T a y l o r ,

Voting

n o . 23) m u s t be the curule aedile o f 9 1 (RE 3,

Claudius 227; MRjR 2.21,24 n.7), and is n o t the father o f P. Lentulus a n d Aeserninus (RE 3, Claudius 226).

P. Cornelius Lentulus 'adopted

j _

M . Claudius Marcellus, Β . ca. 150?, pr. b y 103, leg.lt. 102,90

P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcelli £ Β . ca. 128?, m o n . ω. ι ο ί Ι

M . Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus Β . ca. 107-5» contubernalis? 90 ("adulescens" 70)

I

1

P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus B . b y 106, q.propr.75-4

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus P.f. B . b y 105, cos. 56 (R 199) L

I M . Claudius Marcellus Aeserninus B . ca. 79, q . 48, cos. 22

(P.)Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus Β . ca. 79, q . 48

(R 102) 137

L . Aurelius Gotta H i s praetorship is dated ca. 95 " b y conjecture about eight years after his t r i b u n a t e " (MRR 2.12 n . i ) . T h i s w i l l n o t be far o u t . I f Badian's stemma is r i g h t (Studies 6 4 ) , C o t t a was son o f the consul o f 119, w h o is quite l i k e l y t o have h e l d office close t o suo anno since his father (see above, 82 [R 3 2 ] , L . Aurelius C o t t a ) h e l d the consulship o n l y 25 years earlier. T h u s C o t t a was the son o f a m a n b o r n ca. 162, and a birth-date b y 135 w o u l d be quite acceptable f o r h i m . I t w o u l d consort w e l l , t o o , w i t h C r a w f o r d ' s date for his office o f monetalis, ca. 107 ( J R £ C H T a b l e x i ) . (R 103)13^ M. Antonius

Cicero once t h o u g h t that A n t o n i u s was f o u r years older t h a n

L . Crassus (De Or. 2.364). I n Brutus (§ 161) he k n o w s that Crassus was o n l y three years the j u n i o r (triennio ipso minor quam Antonius).

T h e o r i g i n a l error

m a y have come about t h r o u g h a t o o superficial and hasty inference from their magistracies. A n t o n i u s h e l d the consulship four years before Crassus (99 :: 95), and i t is l i k e l y enough that the same was true for the praetorship ( A n t o ­ nius 102, Crassus n o t attested b u t certainly b y 98, and v e r y probably in 98,

94 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

a biennium before the consulship). T h e detail is interesting i n that i t illustrates the i m p r o v e m e n t i n Cicero's Chronographie research and suggests that i n some cases his results are based o n a survey o f complete careers, p r o b a b l y i n c l u d i n g m i l i t a r y service (cf. Brut. 304 o n Hortensius). (R 104) 143

L . Licinius

Crassus T h e birth-date, 140, is firmly fixed i n § 161 ( Q . Caepione

consule natus et C.

Laelio).

T h e date o f the colonial commission f o r N a r b o M a r t i u s ( " t r i u m v i r , " MRR

1.52S; 2.579; b u t his colleague C n . D o m i t i u s Ahenobarbus is c o r r e c t l y

given as n v i r . , ibid. 2.560) is disputed. Vellerns (1.15.5 and 2.7) dates the foundation o f the c o l o n y t o the consulship o f 118. T h e same date is f o u n d i n Eutropius 4.23 ( " f o l l o w i n g " Velleius, according t o G r u e n , RPCC

137 n . 4 ;

but i t is n o t k n o w n that Velleius was a source o f E u t r o p i u s ) . O n the other hand, Cicero i n § 160 seems t o date b o t h Crassus' speech o n the question and his deductio o f the c o l o n y after his appearance i n the t r i a l o f the Vestal, L i c i n i a , i n 113; and the coins w h i c h apparently refer t o Crassus and D o m i t i u s as colonial commissioners have been dated about 112-109 (Sydenham, CRR 65 ; cf. H . B . M a t t i n g l y , Hommages Grenier [1962] 3.1159 i f . a r g u i n g f o r n o B.C.) Hence M a t t i n g l y set the colonial commission i n n o ; Badian, Mélanges niol 2.903 f., and Roman Imperialism 24,98 7,

n.32, puts i t ca. 115; Gruen,

137 n.4, dates i t between 113 and 107; M a t t i n g l y , i n reprise

PigaRPCC

(Num.Chron.

1969, 95 ff.)> proposes 114. B u t M . H . C r a w f o r d a n d R. T h o m s e n i n M . T h o m p s o n , The Agrinion Hoard 121-3, retain the date 118 f o r b o t h the c o l o n y and the coins (cf. C r a w f o r d , RRCH

p . 5 ) . Barbara L e v i c k ( C Q 1971,170 f f . )

keeps 118 f o r the c o l o n y , b u t is inclined t o p u t the coins i n 114/3. I t is n o t easy t o discard the evidence o f Velleius and Eutropius. ( L e v i c k has j u s t l y emphasized the solidity o f Velleius' c h r o n o l o g i c a l reference here: C Q 1971,170,175.) A possible solution m a y begin (as B a d i a n saw) b y p a y i n g attention t o w h a t C i c e r o says i n Pro Cluentio 140: namely, that Crassus' speech ( w h i c h was a published speech) was a dissuasio rogationis a n d the rogatio was a proposal against the N a r b o c o l o n y : c u m B r u t u s duobus recitatoribus constitutis ex duabus eius orationibus capita alterna inter se contraria recitanda curasset, q u o d i n dissuasione rogationis eius quae contra c o l o n i a m Narbonensem ferebatur q u a n t u m potest de auctoritate senatus detrahit, i n suasione legis Serviliae summis ornat senatum laudibus...

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY 95

T h e same incident is referred t o m o r e briefly i n De Oratore 2.223 : c u m e n i m Brutus d u o lectores excitasset et alteri de colonia Narbonensi Crassi orationem legendam dedisset, alteri de lege Servilia... I n Brutus 160 Cicero writes o f Crassus: v o l u i t adulescens i n colonia Narbonensi causae popularis a l i q u i d a d t i n gere eamque c o l o n i a m , u t fecit, ipse deducere; exstat i n earn legem senior, u t ita d i c a m , q u a m aetas illa ferebat oratio. L e v i c k has suggested recently ( C Q 1971,178) that this oratio in earn legem is a different speech from the dissuasio rogationis and, presumably, from the oratio de colonia Narbonensi (she o m i t s t o m e n t i o n this reference). T h a t w o u l d mean t w o published speeches about the N a r b o c o l o n y . I t is an implausible and u n necessary expedient. Clearly a rogatio against the N a r b o c o l o n y implies that the colony had already in some sense been b r o u g h t i n t o being. T h e milestone from Pont-deTreilles seems t o indicate that the plan t o colonize N a r b o goes back t o the proconsulship o f the elder D o m i t i u s Ahenobarbus, cos. 122 (ILLRP Cn. Domitius Cn.f Ahenobarbus imperator XX).

460a:

I t is open t o us therefore t o

accept that the initial proposal t o f o u n d N a r b o was made before the consulship o f 118: that its i m p l e m e n t a t i o n was n o t immediate b u t was delayed: that the same forces w h i c h had caused the delay subsequently decided that the t i m e was ripe t o abolish the colony, and a rogatio was proposed t o that effect (the parallel w i t h the L e x R u b r i a o f 123/122 and the L e x M i n u c i a o f 121 o n the Carthage c o l o n y is n o t e w o r t h y : Badian, Roman Imperialism

2

98

n.32). I t was here and n o w that Crassus intervened w i t h his dissuasio, w i s h i n g t o be elected a commissioner under the o r i g i n a l proposal (or else h a v i n g already been elected): voluit... earn... coloniam, utfecit, ipse deducere. I t is crucial t o observe that the deducilo o f the c o l o n y had n o t yet taken place at the t i m e o f Crassus' speech. T h e date o f the rogatio and the dissuasio cannot be established precisely. A l t h o u g h Cicero (Brut. 160) refers t o the affair after the speech for L i c i n i a , he does n o t say e x p l i c i t l y that the speech against the N a r b o b i l l was o f later date than the defence o f Licinia, whereas he does note e x p l i c i t l y that the defence o f Licinia was later (postea) than the prosecution o f C. C a r b o . T h e sequence is as f o l l o w s :

96 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y A N D C H R O N O L O G Y Ι accusavit C. C a r b o n e m . . . a d m o d u m adulescens: (119 B.C.) 2 défendit postea L i c i n i a m v i r g i n e m , c u m annos x x v n natus esset: (113 B.C.) 3 v o l u i t adulescens i n colonia N a r b o n e n s i . . . q u a m aetas ilia ferebat o r a t i o . H e r e adulescens, p i c k i n g u p the previous admodum adulescens, should be taken as i n d i c a t i n g that (3) came i n t i m e between (1) a n d ( 2 ) . O n e should also ask why

Cicero w o u l d have stressed the precocity o f the orator i n g i v i n g a

popularis-type

p o l i t i c a l speech i f the age he had i n m i n d was the age he h a d

j u s t m e n t i o n e d i n connection w i t h the Vestal t r i a l , viz. 27: b y that age C . Gracchus had h a d t w o major speeches at least t o his credit (suasio legis Papiriae, 131; dissuasio legis Iuniae, 126; ORF 178 3

f.)

T h e f o l l o w i n g construction seems t o d o n o violence t o the evidence. T h e conquest o f Transalpine G a u l was accomplished b y the end o f summer 121 (cf. P l i n . NH7.166).

C n . D o m i t i u s Ahenobarbus, cos. 122, w h o h a d been

the commander i n the western sector against the A r v e r n i ( w h i l e Fabius M a x i m u s , cos. 121, dealt w i t h the A l l o b r o g e s ) , fixed o n the strategic site o f N a r b o f o r his headquarters, and constructed the V i a D o m i t i a along the ancient r o u t e from the Rhône t o Spain, w i t h N a r b o treated as the radial centre. H e m a y have encouraged the idea that a R o m a n c o l o n y should be founded there. A t a l l events a b i l l t o set u p such a c o l o n y was carried i n the popular assembly, possibly i n 119. W h e n i t came t o i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , h o w ever, opposition was mustered i n the Senate - o n w h a t grounds w e d o n o t k n o w - and a b i l l was p u t f o r w a r d w h i c h w o u l d have h a d the effect o f a n n u l l i n g the c o l o n y , i f passed b y the popular assembly. Y o u n g L . Crassus w h o , w i t h the younger C n . D o m i t i u s , w a n t e d the j o b o f f o u n d i n g the c o l o n y , came f o r w a r d w i t h a p o w e r f u l o r a t i o n against this b i l l , and the b i l l was n o t passed. T h u s i n 118 Crassus and D o m i t i u s w e r e able t o lead o u t the colonists t o N a r b o . T h e proconsul, D o m i t i u s senior, m a y have remained i n the p r o vince d u r i n g a l l this t i m e . T h e date o f his t r i u m p h is n o t k n o w n ; i t c o u l d have been any year between 120 and 117 (MRR

1.583).

I n previous discussions the i d e n t i t y o f the monetalis M . A u r e l i u s Scaurus, one o f the five w h o issued coinage c a r r y i n g the names o f L . Licinius and C n . D o m i t i u s i n exergue, has been a p o i n t at dispute. B u t since w e have eliminated the supposed quaestor o f ca. 103 (above, 135 [R 9 3 ] , M . Aurelius Scaurus), w e can be sure that the moneyer o f ca. 118 is the m a n w h o became consul suffect 108. L i k e M . A n t o n i u s , L . Crassus was quaestor i n Asia (De Or. 3.75:

MRR

1.546 o m i t s t o m e n t i o n the p r o v i n c e ) . H e m a y even have succeeded A n t o nius, i n i n . H i s governor is n o t k n o w n . M . Aurelius Scaurus m a y have been praetor i n i n (MJRjR 1.540, based s i m p l y o n the n o r m a l interval between

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY

97

praetorship and consulship). H i s son w e n t t o Asia as quaestor i n the second h a l f o f the 90s (above, 135 [R 9 3 ] ) . Perhaps the father had already established the Asian connection as g o v e r n o r i n i n . T h e previous association o f Scaurus a n d Crassus o n the former's coinage encourages the idea that Crassus m i g h t have been Scaurus' quaestor. B u t i t is the merest conjecture. T h e dates i n o r n o w o u l d be completely acceptable f o r Crassus' quaestorship; latest probable date," MRR

109

("the

1. 546) is still possible, p r o v i d e d that Crassus

c o u l d get back i n t i m e f o r the t r i b u n i c i a n elections i n 108. B u t that is perhaps a l i t t l e d o u b t f u l , f o r the i m p l i c a t i o n o f De Or. 2.365 m a y be that the quaestor­ ship extended i n t o a second year, w h i l e any h i n t that Crassus was h u r r y i n g h o m e f o r the t r i b u n i c i a n elections is absent from De Or. 3.75 (Athenis, ubi ego diutius esserti moratus nisi Atheniensibus

quod mysteria non referrent ad quae biduo

serius veneram succensuissem).

(R 105) 145

Q . Mucius

Scaevola H e was aequalis o f L . Crassus, as stated here (patronis

aequalibus), also De Or. 1.180 (aequalis et conlega meus). Brut. 150, aetatesque vestrae ut illorum nihil aut non fere multum differunt, should probably be under­ stood i n the sense that the ages o f Crassus and Scaevola w e r e identical (nihil differunt), whereas the ages o f Cicero and Sulpicius w e r e nearly identical (non fere multum differunt). F r o m § 161 i t emerges that Scaevola held a l l magistra­ cies except the tribunate (i.e. the quaestorship, aedileship, praetorship, and consulship) i n the same years as Crassus. I t is probable that the t w o w e r e exact contemporaries, and practically certain that Cicero t h o u g h t so. For 94 as the date o f Scaevola's noted proconsulship

o f Asia see

Badian, Studies 8 6 , 9 7 , 1 0 1 n.94; cf. above, 110 (R 77), P. Rutilius Rufus.

(R 106,107) 150 M. Tullius Cicero, Ser. Sulpicius Rufus T h e m e n t i o n o f this pair is, o f course, an i n t e r r u p t i o n . Cicero's year o f b i r t h , 106, is given i n § 161 (cf. Gell.

ΝΑ

15.28.3). Sulpicius, a l t h o u g h described as Cicero's aequalis, m a y nevertheless have been b o r n i n 105 (see b e l o w , i v , p p . 155 f . ) .

(R 108) 165

Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus For the colonial commission see above, 143 (R 104), L . Licinius Crassus. His tribunate is dated t o 104 b y Asconius: (80 C ) , M . Silanus had been consul (109 D.c.) quinquennio ante ... quam Domitius tr.pl. esset; (81 C ) , D o m i -

98 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y tius had been t r i b u n e ante Ilde

AND CHRONOLOGY

[MSS et] XL annos C. Mario I I C. Fimbria coss.

Velleius, however, dates his tribunate and his l a w o n priestly election t o M a r i u s ' third consulship, 103 (2.12.5). T h e conflict is generally resolved i n Asconius' favour. There is n o d o u b t a p r e s u m p t i o n that Asconius is l i k e l y t o be m o r e accurate t h a n Velleius; the confusion i n 81 C (104 B.C. is neither 38 nor 42 years before 65 B.C.) m a y n o t be Asconius' fault. B u t the s u p p o r t i n g arguments adduced b y N i c c o l i n i (FTP

191, f o l l o w e d i n MRR

1.562 n.5) are

not strong. T h e assumption that D o m i t i u s must have passed his l a w as t r i bune i n 104 since i t was already i n force i n 103 has n o v a l i d i t y at a l l . I t is predicated o n the further assumption t h a t D o m i t i u s was elected Pontifex M a x i m u s under the system established b y his l a w o n election o f priests. B u t this v i e w was t h o r o u g h l y discredited b y L i l y Ross T a y l o r (CP 1942, 421-4, f o l l o w i n g Strasburger, Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte 102), w h o p o i n t e d o u t that the Pontifex M a x i m u s was an elective position l o n g before D o m i t i u s ' l a w ( t h o u g h she still cited N i c c o l i n i f o r the date o f the l a w , art.cit. 421 n . 2 ) . M o r e o v e r , i f i t is assumed that D o m i t i u s ' election as P o n t i f e x M a x i m u s i n 103, t h o u g h independent o f the L e x D o m i t i a , nevertheless was later t h a n the l a w , o n the g r o u n d that he had t o be elected a p o n t i f e x before he c o u l d be elected Pontifex M a x i m u s , i t is obvious that the l a w need n o t have been passed i n 104, b u t c o u l d have been passed early i n 103. Indeed, the order i n L i v y per. 67 slightly favours dating D o m i t i u s ' election as Pontifex M a x i m u s t o a later date i n 103, since this election is reported after M a r i u s ' election t o the consulship f o r 102. T h u s there is ample t i m e f o r D o m i t i u s t o have passed his l a w i n the first h a l f o f 103, t o have been elected p o n t i f e x under i t , a n d t o have been elected Pontifex M a x i m u s i n the second h a l f o f the year. F u r t h e r m o r e , since D o m i t i u s ' l a w caused the election o f priests t o be conducted i n the same t y p e o f special assembly as that used for the election o f the Pontifex M a x i m u s (Cic. Leg.Agr. Cn.

2.18 f., especially 18, hoc idem de ceteris sacerdotiis

Domitius ... tulit, etc.) and since he seems t o have succeeded the deceased

L. Metellus Delmaticus b o t h as p o n t i f e x and as Pontifex M a x i m u s

(MRR

1.565), i t appears altogether probable that he was elected p o n t i f e x and P o n t i fex M a x i m u s i n quite r a p i d succession. I n that case, his election as p o n t i f e x can also be placed i n the second h a l f o f 103. T h i s gives even m o r e t i m e f o r the L e x D o m i t i a t o have been passed i n 103, a l t h o u g h i t does n o t preclude the possibility that the l a w was passed i n 104 b u t an o p p o r t u n i t y for its application d i d n o t arise u n t i l 103. I n an attempt t o s i m p l i f y a complicated discussion, I n o w set d o w n w h a t seems a probable c h r o n o l o g y (/"Velleius' date is taken t o be correct for D o m i t i u s ' tribunate (sources i n MRR 1.559, cf. 561,565):

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL COMMENTARY 99 104

D o m i t i u s * father dies. Pontifices fail t o co-opt D o m i t i u s as father's successor. A u g u r s f a i l t o co-opt D o m i t i u s t o a vacancy i n their college. (10 Dec.) D o m i t i u s takes office as t r i b u n e . (10-29 Dec.) D o m i t i u s ' unsuccessful prosecution o f M . Iunius Silanus.

103

D o m i t i u s passes t r i b u n i c i a n l a w for election o f priests. D o m i t i u s prosecutes M . A e m i l i u s Scaurus f o r dereliction o f priestly duty. Scaurus acquitted. L . Metellus Delmaticus dies. M a r i u s elected consul i v . D o m i t i u s elected p o n t i f e x under terms o f L e x D o m i t i a i n succession t o Delmaticus. D o m i t i u s elected Pontifex M a x i m u s i n succession t o Delmaticus.

Here D o m i t i u s ' prosecution o f Silanus is assigned t o the last weeks o f 104 o n the g r o u n d that this w o u l d help t o account for Asconius' dating. T h e prosecution o f Scaurus is n o t precisely dated anywhere. I n the excerpts o f D i o 27 this prosecution is m e n t i o n e d (fr. 92) before an extract about P. Licinius N e r v a as governor (στρατηγών) o f Sicily w h e n the slave r e v o l t b r o k e o u t (fir. 93). B u t N e r v a m a y w e l l have continued i n Sicily i n t o the b e g i n n i n g o f 103, j u s t as his successor L . Lucullus p r o b a b l y continued i n t o 102 before being succeeded against his wishes b y C. Servilius ( D i o d . Sic. 36.9.2), and C. Servilius almost certainly continued i n t o 101 before being succeeded b y the consul M ' . A q u i l l i u s (ibid. 36.10.1). Thus, even i f there were chronological significance i n the relative order o f D i o firs. 92 and 93 ( w h i c h is far f r o m certain), that order w o u l d n o t serve t o fix D o m i t i u s ' prosecution o f Scaurus i n 104 rather t h a n 103. N o r is there any g r o u n d f o r dating this prosecution before, rather t h a n after, the passage o f the L e x D o m i t i a (as N i c c o l i n i claims, f o l l o w e d b y MRR 1.559). T h e t w o events c o u l d have been closely interrelated. T h a t is, D o m i t i u s ' u l t e r i o r purpose i n prosecuting Scau­ rus quod eius opera sacra populi Romani deminuta esse diceret (Ascon. 21 C ) m a y w e l l have been t o d r i v e Scaurus o u t o f his priesthood a n d so create a place t o w h i c h D o m i t i u s himself c o u l d be elected under the n e w l a w . Asconius i n d i ­ cates that Scaurus' priesthood was the augurate (iratus Scauro, quod eum in augurum collegium non cooptaverat), and this is p r o b a b l y correct (Badian, Arethusa 1968, 29 f f ; ibid. 37, o n the question whether an augur could be deprived o f his office). Scaurus was inaugurated i n 123 (ILS 9338), and i n accordance w i t h the c o m m o n practice whereby a deceased priest was r e ­ placed b y a kinsman, he m a y have succeeded the augur M . A e m i l i u s Lepidus

i o o Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y A N D C H R O N O L O G Y Porcina, his gentilis, w h o is last attested i n the censorship o f 125-4

(MRR

1.510 f . ) . A f t e r the failure o f the attack o n Scaurus, the death o f the Pontifex M a x i m u s opened f o r D o m i t i u s the prospect o f an even m o r e splendid coup, an o p p o r t u n i t y he seized w i t h alacrity. I t should be noted t h a t this discussion presupposes that Ascon. 21 C and Sueton. Nero 2.1 are n o t c o n t r a d i c t o r y , as assumed, e.g., b y Frier, Arethusa 1969,190 f. Since Suetonius makes n o m e n t i o n o f Scaurus, there is, i n fact, n o f o r m a l contradiction between Suetonius' indication that D o m i t i u s was angry at the pontifices f o r f a i l i n g t o co-opt h i m t o his father's place as pontifex,

and Asconius' i n d i c a t i o n t h a t D o m i t i u s was

angry at Scaurus f o r f a i l i n g t o co-opt h i m t o a vacant augurship. W e know o f t w o priests whose deaths created vacancies i n 104-3, the elder D o m i t i u s and Delmaticus. There seems t o be n o palpable reason w h y w e should deny the occurrence o f a t h i r d vacancy i n the same p e r i o d , especially w h e n , i n order t o d o so, w e have t o i n v e n t a contradiction i n our sources. T h e above discussion cannot prove that D o m i t i u s was t r i b u n e i n 103. T h a t date does seem, h o w e v e r , t o p r o v i d e a m o r e i n t e l l i g i b l e sequence o f events t h a n the alternative. Since D o m i t i u s was clearly a m a n o f b u r n i n g a m b i t i o n and c o n spicuous a b i l i t y t o get his w a y , i t is p r o b a b l y safe t o assume he stood f o r and held the consulship suo anno and was b o r n in 139 (so Douglas, AJP 1966, 295 n . i o , b u t f o r the w r o n g reason). (R109) 165 C. Coelius Caldus Described as aequalis o f L . Crassus (Cic. De Or. 1.117). T h e date o f his praetorship depends o n his governorship i n Spain, and m a y be either 100 o r 99 (MRR 2.3 n . 2 ) . Either o f the resultant termini, 140 or 139, w i l l suit the aequalitas w i t h Crassus (q.v., 143 [R 104]), b o r n 140. (RIII)

166

C. Claudius Pulcher T h e date o f his quaestorship, ca. 105, was based o n the feet that his e l o g i u m (ILS 45) places i t before his office o f monetalis and the latter office had been dated ca. 104 (MRR (RRCH

1.558 n . 5 ) . H o w e v e r ,

Crawford

Table x i ) appears t o place this ca. 112 at the latest. I f that is correct,

the argument from the e l o g i u m w o u l d require the quaestorship t o be dated by ca. 113. T h i s is v e r y early, b u t perhaps n o t impossibly so, f o r a consul o f 92 (cf. o n 98 [R 52] P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus). A birth-date b y 141 w o u l d be quite acceptable f o r a son o f A p p i u s Claudius, the consul o f 143 ( b o r n b y 186 [R 6 7 ] ) . C i c e r o indicates that C. Claudius was one o f those w h o d i d n o t h o l d the h i g h offices suo anno (De Off. 2.59, cf. 57).

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY

ΙΟΙ

167-I72 T h i s g r o u p o f orators is a collection o f outsiders, apparently either n o n senators o r non-Romans. Dates o f b i r t h appear t o range t h r o u g h the second century. (RI12)

C. Titius

167

H e is clearly o f an older generation t h a n the consular orators w h o

have j u s t been dealt w i t h . I f the poet L . Afranius w h o i m i t a t e d h i m was c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h Scipio Aemilianus ( V e i l . 2.9.3), he h i m s e l f must be at least c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h Scipio (185-129).

Macrobius (3.16.14) cites his

oratio qua suasit legem Fanniam (cf. 3.13.13, in suasione legis Fanniae),

the

consular lex sumptuaria o f 161. Macrobius here describes T i t i u s as vir

Luci-

lianae aetatis, w h i c h p r o b a b l y implies that Lucilius made actual reference t o h i m . F r o n t o (1.7.P.20 N ) associates h i m w i t h C . Gracchus. T h u s his l i f e t i m e seems t o f a l l i n the range 190-120 (cf. Douglas, Brut

ad loc. - "floruit

not

later thane. 130"). (RI14)

168

M. Gratidius

Since he was the father o f M . M a r i u s Gratidianus (below, 223

[R 164]), w h o was apparently b o r n ca. 126/5, bis birth-date was p r o b a b l y before 150. H e is associated w i t h Cicero's grandfather, w h o was his b r o t h e r i n - l a w ( C i c . De Leg. 3.36), as was C . M a r i u s , b o r n ca. 157 (cf. Carney, Biography of C. Marius 8, nn.38, 41). T h u s he was p r o b a b l y a rather elderly prefect under M . A n t o n i u s i n 102 (MRR equestrian praefectus fabrum. 106?]) see G r u e n , RPCC

1.569), perhaps o f the t y p e o f

O n his prosecution o f C. F i m b r i a (103? [or b y

175 nn.85 f. (also above, 136 [R 9 7 ] , C. M e m m i u s ) .

( R I I 6 , 117) 169 Q . D . Valerii

(Sorani)

Cicero's t w o gentle references t o Q . Valerius o f Sora

(here, vicini et familiäres mei; and De Or. 3.43, litteratissimum togatorum omnium), h a r d l y support the idea that he is the same as the Valerius Soranus w h o , as t r i b u n e o f the plebs (so Servius Ad Verg.Aen.

1.277), revealed the secret

name o f R o m e and later paid the penalty, a n d w h o m i g h t be the learned Q . Valerius alleged b y the Caesarian O p p i u s t o have been cruelly p u t t o death b y C n . Pompeius i n 82 i n Sicily (MRR

2.68, w i t h references, n o t i n -

c l u d i n g Brut. 169; cf. H e l m , RE 8A.225 f., Valerius 345). Sora m a y w e l l have produced m o r e than one Q . Valerius, and there may be an ancient confusion o f identities i n v o l v e d i n this puzzle. Cicero's friend and neighbour can be given afloruit o f 91 f r o m the De Oratore (3.43 ) .

102 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

( R I 1 9 ) 169 T. Betucius Barrus (Asculanus)

H i s prosecution o f Q . Caepio is n o t dated ( i t

m a y be the famous prosecution o f 95, according t o G r u e n , RPCC

130,195 £,

308; b u t cf. Badian, Studies 66 n.85). H e is perhaps related t o , b u t p r o b a b l y should n o t be identified w i t h , the eques Romanus w h o was i n v o l v e d i n the Vestal scandal o f 114-13, a n d whose name is variously g i v e n as Betutius Barrus, Barrus, and L . Veturius (Greenidge-Clay-Gray,

Sources 58) - p r o b -

ably L . Betucius (or Betutius) Barrus. ( I n default o f d o c u m e n t a r y evidence neither spelling, Betucius o r Betutius, can be preferred t o the other. T h u s here " T . Betutius B a r r u s " is equally possible). ( R I 2 0 ) I70 L . Papirius (Fregellanus)

Cicero takes a leap b a c k w a r d t o the t i m e

oi"maiores

nostros." T h e date o f the speech referred t o is 177, i n the consulship o f T i . Gracchus (Douglas, Brutus ad loc., r i g h t l y f o l l o w i n g Badian a n d M a l c o v a t i , and n o t , e.g., M ü n z e r , RE 1 8 . i o n , Papirius 19, w h o associates i t w i t h the r e v o l t o f Fregellae i n 125). ( R I 2 I ) 172 T . Tinga (Placentinus) Cicero returns t o a later epoch. For T i n g a (the reading o f the name suggested b y Badian, JRS

1967, 227) was c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h

Q . Hortensius (114-50 B.C.) ( Q u i n t i l i a n 1.5.12), as w e l l as w i t h Q . Granius the praeco ( w h o is m e n t i o n e d under the date 107 B.C. i n § 160, under i n and 91 B.C. i n C i c . Plane. 33, and under 119B.C. i n De Or. 2.281). (R122)

173

L . Marcius Philippus

H i s repulsa f o r the consulship o f 93 (§ 166; Cic. MMr.36)

was clearly his first candidature (Badian, Studies 94), so that 136 m a y be close t o his actual birth-date, i n spite o f the fact t h a t he is described as iam sene i n 86 B.c. (§ 230). T h e date o f his tribunate is quite unattested, and m i g h t be anywhere between ca. 107 and 101. T h e year 104, preceding the agrarian legislation o f Saturninus, is a reasonable conjecture (MRR N i c c o l i n i , FTP

1.560, f o l l o w i n g

418), since Philippus proposed an unsuccessful agrarian b i l l

(Cic. De off. 2.73); b u t a less precise d a t i n g , such as " b e t w e e n ca. 107 and 104," w o u l d be safer. ( O n the descent o f the M a r c i i P h i l i p p i see Sumner, Pfcoemxi97i,252f.) (R 123)174 L . Gellius Poplicola Cicero mentioned i n § 105 that Gcllius was contubernalis

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y IO3

t o C. C a r b o i n his consulship, 120. H e must have been at least 14 t h e n (cf. Münzer, RE 7.1001, Gellius 17, "nach A n l e g u n g der M ä n n e r t o g a ) ,,

>

indicat-

i n g 135 as the latest possible date for his b i r t h and 137/6 as the probable date ( " e t w a 136," M ü n z e r ; Douglas's " b o r n c. 140," Brutus ad loc., is a l i t t l e t o o h i g h ) . T h i s suits w e l l enough the praetorship attested f o r 94 (SIG

Z

732).

Gellius' appearance at this p o i n t i n the Brutus, i n spite o f his v e r y late consulship, is obviously a strong support f o r the v i e w that the arrangement is b r o a d l y b y birth-dates. Gellius was "almost j o i n e d " t o t h e aetas o f A n t o n i u s , Crassus, a n d Philippus (§ 173), t h o u g h he " l i v e d so l o n g that he was c o n nected w i t h orators o f m a n y aetates" (R 124) 175

D . Iunius Brutus H e was the son o f D . B r u t u s Callaicus (R 6 0 ) , cos. 138 (being D . f . M . n . ) H i s consulship i n 77 shows that he was b o r n b y 120, at w h i c h t i m e his father w o u l d have been at least 60. E v i d e n t l y an earlier b i r t h - d a t e t h a n 120 is quite l i k e l y . I n the years f o l l o w i n g the Sullan restoration a n u m b e r o f m e n whose careers had been retarded d u r i n g the previous decade attained the consulship: thus Q . Metellus Pius, p r . 89 or 88, cos. 80, P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus, b o r n ca. 134, p r . ca. 93, cos. 79 (cf. Badian, Studies 83 f . ) , Α ρ . Claudius Pulcher, p r . 89 or 88, cos. 79. D . B r u t u s p r o b a b l y belongs t o this category; hence his appearance at this p o i n t . Placed between Gellius w h o was praetor i n 94 and Pompeius Strabo w h o was praetor i n or before 92, B r u t u s p r o b a b l y h e l d the praetorship between 94 and 90 (at the latest) and was b o r n b y 130. M ü n z e r , RE 10.968, Iunius 46, had h i m b o r n ca. 120, saying that he was a y o u n g m a n i n 100, o n the basis o f Cic. Rab.perd. 2 1 . B u t n o t h i n g i n that passage shows that B r u t u s was a m a n o f 20 rather t h a n 30 years o f age, and indeed P. Servilius, w h o , as j u s t noted, was b o r n ca. 134, is m e n t i o n e d i m mediately after h i m : cum D. Brutus, cum hie ipse P. Servilius

... ( I n RA

275

and 407, h o w e v e r , M ü n z e r gives stemmata s h o w i n g B r u t u s b o r n ca. 128 o r ca. 127.) B r u t u s was n o t i n R o m e i n 63, w h e n his w i f e Sempronia was using his house as a base f o r the Catilinarians (according t o Sallust, Cat. 4 0 . 5 ) : w e m a y note also the i m p l i c a t i o n o f Rab.perd. 21 (above) that whereas P. Servilius was present at the t r i a l o f Rabirius i n 63, D . B r u t u s was n o t . I t seems quite l i k e l y that he d i e d o f illness or o l d age i n or shortly after 63 ; he cannot have been m u c h under 70. Münzer (RE 10.968) notes that his m o t h e r , C l o d i a , is r e ported t o have o u t l i v e d h i m (Cic. Att. 12.22.2); actually the " r e p o r t " is o n l y a request f o r i n f o r m a t i o n , t o w h i c h w e d o n o t have the answer. E v e n i f she d i d o u t l i v e h i m , this w o u l d n o t compel a l o w e r i n g o f B r u t u s ' birth-date; i t

104 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

w o u l d merely require that C l o d i a l i v e d b e y o n d the age o f about 85. (Münzer, h o w e v e r , RA 273 i f . , t h i n k s that C l o d i a was b o r n ca. 170, a n d concludes, at 408, that she d i d n o t o u t l i v e her son - n o t surprisingly! H i s i m p r o b a b l e c o m b i n a t i o n has Cicero conceiving the possibility that a w o m a n b o r n ca. 170 m i g h t have l i v e d b e y o n d 63 B.C.) B r u t u s ' son, Decimus B r u t u s the Caesaricide, was i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y b o r n b y 81 (Münzer, RE Suppl. 5.369 ff., Iunius 55 a; Sumner, Phoenix 1971, 358 £ ) . (R 125)

173

L . Cornelius

Scipio Asiaticus

(Asiagenus)

Aesernia i n 90 is n o t revealed (MRR

H i s status w h e n i n c o m m a n d

at

2.29). M o s t o f the commanders i n the

Italian W a r w e r e indeed o f at least praetorian r a n k . Scipio's praetorship, h o w e v e r , seems t o come later than 90, b u t i t is possible that he was o f about praetorian age at this t i m e and suffered a delayed career. H i s a c t i v i t y as monetalis is n o w dated ca. 108 ( C r a w f o r d , RRCH

T a b l e x i ) . T h i s makes i t

v e r y l i k e l y that he was b o r n n o later t h a n 130. H e appears i n the passage o f Cicero (Rab.perd. 21) m e n t i o n e d above ( o n D . Iunius B r u t u s ) : cum L . Philippus,

L . Scipio, cum M. (sc. Mam.i)

Lepidus, cum D. Brutus ... B u t clearly this

does n o t enable us t o constate whether i n 100 he was about 25 or rather about 30. T h a t he was praetor ca. 86 should f o l l o w from his governorship i n M a c e donia, attested f o r 85-4 (Badian, Studies 80 f., 97, 224 f f . ) I t should be clear from

ILS

9338 that his priesthood was the augurate, n o t the pontificate (cf.

Badian, Arethusa 1968,29-31). (R 126) 175

Cn. Pompeius Strabo Sex.f.

T h e date o f his quaestorship is l i n k e d t o the date o f

T . A l b u c i u s ' promagistracy i n Sardinia (cf. 131 [R 89] a b o v e ) ; according t o Gruen, RPCC

171 f., that w o u l d be ca. 106 ( w h i c h , as w e saw, is about the

earliest possible date), according t o MRR

1.560 i t w o u l d be ca. 104 (so also

M i l t n e r , RE 21.2254, Pompeius 45). A quaestorship i n 106 w o u l d entail a birth-date n o t later t h a n 134, and w o u l d give a seventeen-year interval t o the consulship; this is quite acceptable, a l t h o u g h a

fifteen-year

interval w o u l d

meet the standard n o r m (cf. o n 98 [R 52] P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus, and 133 [R 9 3 ] , M . Aurelius Scaurus). I t has been conjectured that he m a y have governed Macedonia before C. Sentius (RE loc. c i t . ) . As Sentius was praetor urbanus 94, and w e n t o u t i n 93, that w o u l d m a k e Strabo's praetorship n o t later than 95, his birth-date n o t after 135. B u t the hypothesis has o n l y a weak basis (MRR 2.48). T o sum u p , i t is certain that Strabo was b o r n b y 132

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y IO5

(consul 89), and there is some possibility that he was b o r n a f e w years earlier. (His father was b o r n b y 160, cf. p7 [R 51] above.) (R127), (R 87), (R 128) 175 T h e r e f o l l o w s a b r i e f digression o n three jurists, Sex. Pompeius Sex. f., M . Iunius Brutus, and C. Billienus. T h e m e n t i o n o f Sex. Pompeius, w h o seems t o be the youngest o f the three, is occasioned b y the preceding reference t o his b r o t h e r . Cicero notes that Brutus was ante hos, and he is i n fact the accusator already introduced i n § 130 (R 87), b o r n ca. 150-140. Billienus was paullo post eum. H e was shut o u t from the consulship d u r i n g the p e r i o d o f Marianos con­ sulates: i.e., he was a candidate d u r i n g the p e r i o d 105-101, perhaps m o r e t h a n once, l i k e the indefatigable Q . Catulus. A possible further i m p l i c a t i o n is that he was o f consular age at or near the b e g i n n i n g o f this p e r i o d , so that his birth-date c o u l d be placed ca. 147/6. A t any rate he must have been o f c o n ­ sular age b y 101 and b o r n n o t later t h a n 143. B r u t u s ' birth-date should there­ fore be n a r r o w e d d o w n t o ca. 150-145. (R 129)

176

Cn. Octavius

See Badian, Studies 104 n.168, f o r doubts about i d e n t i f y i n g h i m

w i t h the στρατηΎΟς o f Inscr.Dêlos 1782 ( M R R 2.26). H e was the son o f the consul o f 128 (RE 17.1814, Octavius 20). H e suffered a repulsa for the aedileship (Cic. Plane. 51), so m a y n o t have held the consulship o f 87 suo anno (i.e., he m a y have been b o r n before 130). Cf. b e l o w , 222 (R158,159). (R 130)

177

C. lulius Caesar Strabo Vopiscus H i s e l o g i u m (Inserita!. q., tr. mil. [bis. xvir.agr.

13.3 n o . 6 ) : [aed.cur.\

dand.] adtr. iu [d. pontif.] : indicates that his career w o u l d

best be reconstructed as f o l l o w s : 103

x v i r . a . d . a . i . (cf. M R R Suppl. 32)

102

Tr. mil.

101

Tr. mil. π

between 100 and 96

Quaestor

90

A e d . cur.

T h e date o f the curule aedileship (§ 305; M R R 2.26) establishes a birth-date n o t later than 127. H e was, h o w e v e r , a candidate for the consulship o f 88 (§§ 226 f.; Har. Resp. 43: Ascon. 25 C: Q u i n t i l . 6.3.75): f o r the date cf. Badian, Historia 1969, 482, and Luce, Historia 1970,190 ff. (this has n o w been

i o 6 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

disputed b y L i n t o t t , C Q 1971,446 ff., a r g u i n g for 87 again). I t was an " e x t r a o r d i n a r y " candidature whose legitimacy was contested. T h e question is whether the illegality consisted o n l y i n the omission o f the praetorship, o r whether Strabo was also under age. W e cannot be absolutely sure that he was o l d enough f o r the consulship o f 88, t h o u g h i t seems m o r e probable t h a t he was t h a n that he was n o t . I f he was, the terminus for his b i r t h - d a t e w o u l d be set back t o 131; and, f o l l o w i n g this line, w e w o u l d be j u s t i f i e d i n t a k i n g 131 as his probable date o f b i r t h , since i t o u g h t t o be presumable that i n these circumstances he was a candidate suo anno. (R 131)178 P. Cornelius Cethegus H i s birth-date depends o n that o f his aequalis, Caesar Strabo: hence a terminus either ca. 131 or ca. 127. T h e sources stress his great influence i n the Senate i n the 70s (cf. MRR

Suppl. 18), b u t d o n o t m e n t i o n

any magistracies. I t can be o n l y the merest conjecture that he is identifiable w i t h the monetalis CBTEGVS, b r o a d l y dated t o the p e r i o d 124-92 b y C r a w f o r d (RRCH

p . 40, note t o T a b l e x i ) . I t appears h i g h l y probable that he reached

praetorian r a n k . T h i s w o u l d accord w i t h Cicero's r e m a r k here that "in senatu consularium auctoritatem adsequebatur." H e fled from R o m e i n 88 at the same t i m e as M a r i u s (Plut. Mar. 40.3 ; A p p i a n BC 1.60,62). I t c o u l d be conjectured that he returned w i t h the M a r i a n v i c t o r y i n 87, and held the praetorship - f o r w h i c h he was actually qualified b y age - i n one o f the i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g years. ( H e switched t o s u p p o r t i n g Sulla i n 83: Sallust Hist. 1.77.20 M ; V a l . M a x . 9.2.1; A p p i a n BC 1.80.) (R 132) 178

Q . Lucretius

Vespillo

H e was almost certainly the son o f Lucretius Vespillo,

aed.pl. 133 (RE 13.1691, Lucretius 34). T h i s suits a b i r t h - d a t e i n the general v i c i n i t y o f 130-127 (suggested b y his p r o x i m i t y here t o Caesar Strabo and Cethegus). H i s p r o s c r i p t i o n i n 82/1 is m e n t i o n e d b y A p p i a n BC 4.44 ( i n connection w i t h the p r o s c r i p t i o n o f his son i n 43 ) . ( * 1 3 3 ) *7* Q . Lucretius Afella

(For the spelling o f the cognomen see Badian, JRS

227 f . ) H e is u n l i k e l y t o have been " t h e brother o f the p r e c e d i n g "

1967,

(Douglas,

Brutus ad l o c . ) , h a v i n g the same praenomen; he c o u l d be a cousin (Cicero's m o d e o f reference does suggest some relationship). H e had been a M a r i a n officer - Marianarum partium praetor - according t o Vclleius (2.27.6). Cicero here marks h i m as a politician (contionibus

aptior).

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY I07

A p p i a n states e x p l i c i t l y (BC ι . ι ο ι ) that he was a candidate f o r the consulship w h i l e still an eques and w i t h o u t h a v i n g held the quaestorship or the praetorship. T h i s is usually accepted, b u t perhaps o u g h t t o be regarded w i t h some d u b i e t y . I f b o r n ca. 130-124, as his position i n the Brutus suggests, Afella was i n his forties i n 82 (and, indeed, o f consular age). I t w o u l d be rather peculiar i f such an ambitious " M a r i a n " p o l i t i c i a n had never h e l d any magistracy i n the p e r i o d o f " M a r i a n " c o n t r o l from 86. I f (as Velleius possibly indicates) he had actually been praetor, the illegality t o w h i c h Sulla objected so decisively m i g h t have been failure t o c o m p l y w i t h the biennium between praetorship and consulship (a r e g u l a t i o n o f the L e x Annalis u n k n o w n t o A p p i a n - BC 1.100); i f so, he was praetor i n 83 or 82. (R 136)179 P. Orbius A n i n t e r r u p t i o n , clearly signalled b y "meusfere

aequalis."

(R 137)179 T. Aufidius

Since he l i v e d t o extreme o l d age b u t was dead b y 46, he was n o

d o u b t b o r n i n the 120s, and therefore is i n his proper place at this p o i n t o f the catalogue. T h a t he came late t o the magistracies is indicated also b y Valerius M a x i m u s (6.9.7; A u f i d i u s was at first a partner i n a societas o f p u b l i c a n i before he entered o n the senatorial career: Badian, Publicans 97, 102). H e is, n o d o u b t , the possible b u t hopeless r i v a l candidate f o r the consul­ ship o f 63 (Cic. Att. 1.1.1). (R 138) 179 M.

Vergilius - or " V e r g i n i u s "

W e i n r i b , Phoenix

(Plut. Sulla

10; Badian, Studies

100 n.87;

1968, 41 n.40). N o d o u b t he comes i n here because o f the

m e n t i o n o f his frater A u f i d i u s . H e m a y w e l l have been somewhat y o u n g e r (e.g. a uterine brother o f A u f i d i u s t h r o u g h a later marriage o f the m o t h e r ) , b o r n a * . 120-15 ( t r . p l . 87). (R 139) 179

P. Magius

See Sumner, HSCP

74 (1970) 260, f o r the conjecture that the

t r i b u n e o f 87 is one o f those t w o sons o f M i n a t u s Magius w h o held the praetorship before Sulla increased the n u m b e r o f places from six t o eight, i n 81 f o r 80 ( V e i l . 2.16.3 ; MRR 2.67, where f o r " 8 1 " read " 8 0 " ) . (R 140) 180

Q . Sertorius Plutarch [Sert. 3) states that his first m i l i t a r y service was under

i o 8 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

Q . Servilius Caepio i n the disastrous campaign o f 105. I t seems l i k e l y t h a t this was his first Stipendium, at the age o f 17 (so Schulten, RE 2A.1746 f., Sertorius 3 ) , especially as the resultant birth-date, 123, w o u l d make h i m praetor i n 83 suo anno. His quaestorship, usually dated t o 90 (cf. MRR 2.27), m i g h t be i n 9 1 . Plutarch (Sert. 4 ) says he was elected as soon as he r e t u r n e d from Spain. T h i s w o u l d be less inexact i f , r e t u r n i n g i n 93 w i t h the t r i u m p h a n t D i d i u s (10 June: Inscr.Ital.

13.1.85, 562), he was elected i n 92 t o take office o n 5 December 92.

T h e quaestorship i n 91 is also compatible w i t h Plutarch's statement that the Marsic W a r was t h e n breaking o u t (συνιστάμενου).

I n t h a t case Sertorius

w i l l have been proquaestor or legate i n 90 (Plutarch, ibid., has h i m engaged i n the

fighting

as a commander - ήγεμών). Plutarch's vague account does n o t

enable us t o determine w h e t h e r he c o n t i n u e d serving i n 89 (he m i g h t p r e ­ sumably have d r o p p e d o u t o f the action l i k e M a r i u s ) , b u t i t seems probable that he d i d . H i s unsuccessful candidacy f o r the tribunate ( P l u t . Sert. 4 ) is almost certainly t o be dated t o 88, since Sulla, w h o b l o c k e d i t , was busy fighting

i n 89, b u t as consul i n 88 had excellent opportunities f o r exercising

influence over the elections. T h u s the w h o l e career fits nicely w i t h 123, w h i c h is the latest possible birth-date, and less w e l l w i t h an earlier one. H e is m i l i t a r y t r i b u n e at age 25-9, is elected quaestor at age 30/1 ( i n 92), attempts election as t r i b u n e at age 34/5, and is elected praetor at age 39. (R141) 180 C. Gargonius T . P . W i s e m a n (Num.Chron.

1964,157; cf. New Men 233) c o n ­

j e c t u r e d that he is identical w i t h ("must surely b e " ) the monetalis GAR (dated t o 86 b y M . H . C r a w f o r d , ibid. 143 f . ) . I t is possible, b u t there are n o grounds for o v e r w h e l m i n g confidence i n the identification. (R142) 180 T. Iunius L.f. G r u e n (RPCC

300), n o t i n g that the o n l y other k n o w n T .

Iunius is a B r u t u s (aed.pl. 491), conjectures that this m a n was a T . Iunius B r u t u s ; and o n the basis o f his filiation, that he was the b r o t h e r o f L . Iunius Brutus Damasippus, praetor 82. W e c o u l d note also another son o f a L . Iunius i n this p e r i o d , n a m e l y D . Iunius L.f. Silanus monetalis ( 9 1 , according t o C r a w f o r d , Num.Chron.

1964, 142). B u t , m o r e significant, w e should note

that Cicero never bothers t o m e n t i o n the nomen Iunius i n the case o f the several B r u t i , the t w o Silani, and the Pennus w h o are referred t o i n the Brutus. T h u s i t is m o r e l i k e l y that T . Iunius belonged t o none o f these families.

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

100

M ü n z e r (RE 10.965, Iunius 32) dated his tribunate t o 90, w i t h the successful prosecution o f P. Sextius f o l l o w i n g , o n the g r o u n d that Cicero was present at the t r i a l . B u t Cicero says n o t h i n g t o indicate his o w n presence. G r u e n (loc.cit.) suggests 90 f o r the date o f the t r i a l w i t h the tribunate precedi n g . B u t this is based o n a tenuous line o f argument i n v o l v i n g the identificat i o n o f the praetor designate P. Sextius w i t h Sextius, the quaestor o f H I (for a different identification o f the latter see above, 130 [ R 8 6 ] , C.

Sextius

Calvinus). F u r t h e r m o r e i t is n o t certain that Cicero, w h e n he writes " Γ . Iunius Lf. ambitus"

tribunicius, quo accusante P. Sextius praetor designatus damnatus est necessarily implies that Iunius* tribunate preceded the t r i a l .

MRR

2.470 dates the tribunate "before the period o f Sulla," b u t ibid. 576 "before 9 0 . " I n t r u t h , there is o n l y the Brutus context t o p r o v i d e a d a t i n g , and that context o n l y tells us that Iunius m a y have been b o r n i n the 120s, and so is l i k e l y t o have been t r i b u n e between ca. 95 and ca. 85. 182 T h e eight orators listed here - C o t t a , Sulpicius Rufus, Varius, Pomponius, C u r i o , Fufius, Drusus, Antistius - are represented as a little younger t h a n Caesar Strabo b u t "almost aequales." This clearly means they were v i r t u a l l y contemporary w i t h one another (rather than w i t h Caesar Strabo, as Douglas, Brutus ad l o c . ) . Cicero, i n fact, names C o t t a and Sulpicius as prope aequales" iC

i n De Or. 3.31. T h e other six are therefore t h o u g h t o f as b o r n i n or near 124 (see b e l o w ) . Subsequently Cicero adds (§ 221) another m e m b e r o f the g r o u p , Carbo A r v i n a - " w eodem numero eiusdem aetatis." I n § § 222-5 he t o some extent kicks free o f chronological order, and e x p l i c i t l y notes that he is d o i n g so. T h e n , § 226, he returns w i t h the final m e m b e r o f the o r i g i n a l list, P. Antistius. ( R 143,144)1*2 C. Aurelius Cotta, P. Sulpicius Rufus I n De Or. 3.31 they were described as "prope aequales." Here, w i t h the other six, they are "aequales propemodum." B u t i n Brut. 301 they are b o t h annis decern maiores than Hortensius, w h o was b o r n i n t h e second h a l f o f 114 (see 228 [R 171], Q . Hortensius). These details can be c o m b i n e d i n t w o different ways. (1) C o t t a and Sulpicius were b o r n i n successive years (hence almost aequales). C o t t a was senior (cf. De Or. 1.25, C o t t a was a candidate for the tribunate i n 9 1 , and Sulpicius was expected t o stand the f o l l o w i n g year), b o r n 124, ten years before Hortensius. Sulpicius was b o r n i n the early part o f 123, and so was slightly under ten years older than Hortensius. A l t e r n a -

n o Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

t i v e l y , (2) C o t t a and Sulpicius w e r e exact aequales, b o r n 124, t e n years before Hortensius. Cicero was n o t sure o f this i n the De Oratore (hence aequales").

"prope

I n Brut. 182 "aequales" is qualified b y "propemodum" because the

expression has t o cover a l l eight orators, n o t a l l o f w h o m w e r e b o r n i n 124. T o s u m u p , C o t t a was certainly b o r n i n 124; Sulpicius i n either 124 or 123. C o t t a returned from exile w i t h the v i c t o r y o f Sulla (§ 311). H e m a y have been i m m e d i a t e l y elected t o the praetorship f o r 8 1 , serving t h e n as propraetor i n Spain i n 80 (MRR

2.80). H i s lack o f success i n that c o m m a n d

(Plut. Sert. 12.3) w o u l d help t o explain the delay before he reached the consulship. (R147) 182 C. Scribonius Curio H i s father (R 75) died leaving h i m pupillus

(§ 213), i.e.

under 16, and perhaps under 14. T h i s must have been after 113, the year t o w h i c h the elder Curio's defence o f Ser. Fulvius de incestu (§ 122) is reasonably assigned (cf. G r u e n , RPCC

129 f.; Greenidge-Clay-Gray,

Sources 6 0 ) . T h u s

the y o u n g e r C u r i o ' s b i r t h - d a t e was p r o b a b l y n o t before 125, and his candidacy f o r the consulship i n 78 (Sail. Hist. 1.86 M ) establishes i t as n o t later t h a n 120. M ü n z e r (RE 2A.862, Scribonius 10) has h i m actually b o r n ca. 125, but this seems t o be based o n the tacit assumption that as consul 76 he must have been older t h a n C o t t a , consul 75, w h i c h does n o t necessarily f o l l o w . "Aequales

propemodum" combines w i t h the other evidence t o indicate that

C u r i o was p r o b a b l y b o r n between 125 and 123. ( R 1 4 8 ) 182

L . Fufius See Sumner, AJP1963,

350 n.57, f o r argument i n f a v o u r o f m a k i n g

h i m a t r i b u n e o f 91 or 90. (R149) 182 M.

Livius

Drusus

M ü n z e r (RE 13.861, L i v i u s 18) asserted t h a t there is n o

reason t o d o u b t the statements o f De Vir.III.

66 (aedilis munus magnificentis-

simum dedit; quaestor in Asia . . . ) . H e perhaps made t o o l i g h t o f the fact that the Augustan e l o g i u m (ILS 49; Inscr.Ital.

13.3 n o . 74) w h i c h details all his

offices (pontifex, tr.mil., xvir. suit, iudic, tr.pl., xvir.a.d.a. vvir.a.d.a. t o n (MRR

lege sua et eodem anno

lege Saufeia) mentions neither quaestorship n o r aedileship. B r o u g h 1.570 n.4, 2.14 n . i ) makes a n u m b e r o f u n f o u n d e d observations:

(a) that Cicero includes Drusus " i n the list o f senators w h o f o u g h t Saturninus (Rab.Perd. 2 1 ) " and therefore a quaestorship i n o r before the censorship o f 102

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY I I I

is t o be a t t r i b u t e d t o h i m ; ( b ) that Drusus " c o u l d h a r d l y have o m i t t e d " the quaestorship. I n fact, Drusus is n o t identified as a senator i n Rab.Perd. 2 1 , and the quaestorship v e r y p r o b a b l y was n o t an o b l i g a t o r y part o f the cursus before Sulla ( A s t i n , Lex Annalis 28 ff.). F u r t h e r m o r e , Drusus was pupillus w h e n his father d i e d i n 109 (Seneca, Brev.Vit.

6.1), w h i c h shows that he was b o r n n o t

earlier t h a n 124, and possibly n o t earlier than 122. Consequently he can h a r d l y have been quaestor before 96, and he died before reaching the aedilician age. O n e m a y conjecture t h a t Drusus gave his magnificent games i n h o n o u r o f his father, and not as aedile ( i t is noticeable that De Vir. III. mentions the alleged aedileship before the quaestorship, an impossible o r d e r ) . T h e quaestorship i n Asia can perhaps be retained. ( A n eastern voyage b y Drusus is attested b y P l i n y NH 35.52). I t w o u l d n o t be t o o difficult f o r " # . " t o have been o m i t t e d from the e l o g i u m between "iudic." s c r i b e s error (whereas the omission o f "aedxur."

and "tr.pl." or "aed.pl"

b y the i n w o u l d be

i m p r o b a b l e ) . A transcriber's error is also a possibility - the t e x t o f the lost inscription p r o b a b l y goes back t o Cyriacus o f A n c o n a (Inscr.Ital.

13.3 p . x i v ) .

I t seems an attractive hypothesis that Drusus m i g h t have been quaestor i n Asia under Q . M u c i u s Scaevola i n 94 w h e n his uncle P. R u t i l i u s Rufus was legate (for the date cf. Badian, Studies 101 n.94; for the relationship, ibid. 4 0 ) . M a m . A e m i l i u s Lepidus Livianus, Drusus' brother was consul 77 and had p r o b a b l y been a consular candidate i n 79 (Sumner, JRS1964,45;

Badian,

Studies 234 n.17; C r i n i t i , Lepidus 367 n . 13 6, w i t h confused discussion missing the essential piece o f evidence, his repulsa p r i o r t o his election f o r 77). H e was thus b o r n n o t later t h a n 121. W e d o n o t k n o w f o r sure w h i c h was the elder o f the t w o brothers. Sallust (Hist. 1.86 M ) indicates that Mamercus was older than C. C u r i o . I f C u r i o was b o r n between 125 and 123 (see 182 (R 147), C . Scribonius C u r i o ) , M a m . Lepidus was b o r n b y 124 at the latest, and so was p r o b a b l y Drusus' elder brother. ( I missed this p o i n t i n JRS

1964, 44 n.35).

See also o n 109 (R 71), M . L i v i u s Drusus C.f. ( R 1 5 0 ) 182

P. Antistius

Antistius was an ex-aedile w h e n k i l l e d i n 82 ( V e i l . 2.26.2). H e

was president o f the c o u r t that t r i e d C n . Pompeius f o r peculation after his father's death (Gruen, RPCC

244 f . ) . T h e d a t i n g is uncertain. I f he was iudex

quaestionis as an ex-aedile, the aedileship w o u l d best be dated t o 86 (87 is less l i k e l y , i n v i e w o f the tribunate i n 88), and the t r i a l o f Pompeius t o 85 ( i n spite o f the impression given b y Plutarch [Pomp. 4 ] that i t occurred i m m e d i a t e l y after the death o f Pompeius Strabo).

112 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

(R 152)212 Q . Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica H e and his b r o t h e r , Crassus Scipio, represent another i n t e r r u p t i o n o f the sequence. A l t h o u g h there is n o sign o f d o u b t i n MRR 2.189 that Metellus Scipio was t r i b u n e i n 59, there should be. As Shackleton Bailey points o u t

(CLA

1.350 f., cf. 343), the letter i n w h i c h Cicero reports t o A t t i c u s (Att. 2.1.9) o n an electoral contest between Favonius and "Nasica," f o l l o w e d b y a j u d i c i a l battle, is t o be dated t o early June o f 60, w h i c h is m u c h t o o soon f o r the t r i b u n i c i a n elections (for 59), especially w i t h a t r i a l i n t e r v e n i n g . T h e election i n w h i c h Favonius and Nasica were i n v o l v e d can h a r d l y have been m u c h later t h a n m i d - M a y . ( T h e previous letter t o Atticus [1.20] is dated soon after 12 M a y . I t has n o m e n t i o n o f these matters). Metellus Scipio was elected t o some position i n M a y 60, b u t he was surely n o t elected t r i b u n e for 59. Shackleton Bailey recalls M . A l f o r d ' s suggestion that the election was f o r a suffect t r i b u n e o f 60 (CR

1927, 216 f . ) . T h i s is sensible e n o u g h , as a c o n -

jecture. B u t one should n o w ask, w h y have w e t o t h i n k o f an election t o the tribunate at all? There is a notorious i n c o n g r u i t y about Scipio's h o l d i n g the plebeian office o f t r i b u n e (qua Metellus) and then the patrician office o f i n t e r r e x i n 53 (ILLRP

1046). T h e r e is also the difficulty that a suffect t r i b u n e

o u g h t t o have entered o n office i m m e d i a t e l y , w h e n he w o u l d n o r m a l l y be exempt from prosecution ( W e i n r i b , Phoenix 1968, 33 n . 8 ) . T h e r e are actually n o grounds at a l l for supposing that Favonius and Scipio w e r e c o m p e t i n g f o r the tribunate, except that i t has n o t been easy t o see w h a t else t h e y c o u l d have been c o m p e t i n g f o r (cf. C . M e i e r , Historia 10 [1961], 9 6 - 8 ) . N o t the aedileship ( L . R . T a y l o r , Classical Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies in Honor oj B.L.

Oilman,

1.79-85) - w h i c h Favonius was n o t t o h o l d u n t i l 52

(MRR

2.235, 240 n . 2 ) , Scipio p r o b a b l y i n 57 (ibid. 201). A priesthood appears t o be r u l e d o u t , f o r , according t o the list i n Cic. Har.Resp.

12, Scipio must have

entered the p o n t i f i c a l college some years before 60 (cf. L . R . T a y l o r ,

AJP

1942,398,412). T h i s seems t o leave o n l y the quaestorship. Favonius was a candidate f o r the praetorship i n 51 f o r 50 (Caelius i n Cic. Pam. 8.9.5), so that he was b o r n b y 90. T h i s fits a candidature f o r the quaestorship i n 60. A f t e r his defeat i n 60 he again became a candidate - nunc tarnen petit iterum reipublicae causa (Cic. Att. 2.1.9). Presumably he was successf u l i n gaining a quaestorship f o r 59, since he was then r e q u i r e d t o take the oath o f obedience t o Caesar's agrarian legislation (Plut. Cat.min.

32; D i o

38.7.1). Favonius was p r o b a b l y b o r n b y 9 1 , i f he had r u n f o r the quaestorship of 60.

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY I I 3

Scipio, however, o n the evidence o f his praetorship, 55, and consulship, 52, was b o r n i n 95 - or perhaps i n 94 (for the elections w e r e delayed i n t o the year o f office i n b o t h cases). H e w o u l d have been at least three years late for the quaestorship. I f w e nevertheless assume that this was the office he gained, i t remains unclear whether i t was a suffect quaestorship or whether the quaestorian elections were so late as t o be h e l d 5 or 6 m o n t h s i n t o the year o f office i n 60. I n either event w e seem t o have an example o f n o n - i m m u n i t y from

prosecution i n the case o f a m i n o r magistrate (cf. W e i n r i b , Phoenix

1968, 34). (R 154) 221

C. Papirius Carbo Arvina C.f.

As son o f the consul o f 120 (R 58), w h o died i n

119 (§ 103 ; Greenidge-Clay-Gray, Sources 52 f . ) , he must o b v i o u s l y have been b o r n n o t later t h a n 119/ 8. H e was praetorius i n 82 ( V e i l . 2.26.2). I f his praetorship was h e l d i n accordance w i t h the L e x Annalis, 123 w o u l d be the latest possible date for his b i r t h . T h i s agrees w e l l w i t h his being a c o n t e m p o r a r y o f the g r o u p o f orators b o r n ca. 124/3. (R 155) 222

L . Licinius

Lucullus L . Lucullus pater was prosecuted and w e n t i n t o exile i n

102 (cf. J.van O o t e g h e m , L . Licinius Lucullus 14 f.; G r u e n , RPCC

177). T h e

same year " t h e L u c u l l i " received Archias i n t o their house (Cic. Arch. 5 ) . I f this means L . Lucullus and his brother (Gelzer, RE 13.376, Licinius 104; cf. Schol.Bob. 177 St.) they c o u l d still have been v e r y y o u n g , acting i n the enforced absence o f their father ( i n fact M . Lucullus o n l y celebrated his fourteenth b i r t h d a y i n 102, see b e l o w [R 157]). Lucullus* quaestorship should p r o b a b l y be dated t o 88 rather than 87 (MRR

2.52 n.5; Badian, Studies 153 n . i o , 220). H e remained i n the East as

proquaestor t h r o u g h 82 (SIG

3

745), apparently t o 80 (MRR

2.81). Plutarch

(Luc. 1.6 f . ) says that he delayed standing f o r the aedileship u n t i l he c o u l d h o l d i t w i t h his brother, w h i c h was i n 79. Cicero, h o w e v e r (Acad. 2.1), states (as does Plutarch) that he was elected aedile i n his absence. A t first sight these t w o points seem n o t easily reconciled, since, i f Lucullus was absent o n state affairs i n the East, i t appears t o make n o sense for Plutarch t o say he deliberately avoided standing i n an earlier year. Y e t w e have n o reason f o r d o u b t i n g either statement and should n o t abandon l i g h t l y the task o f reconciling t h e m . Such reconciliation can be achieved b y the assumption that early i n Sulla's dictatorship Lucullus was granted permission t o stand f o r the aedile-

114 Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

ship i n absence. As a result he could have been a candidate i n 81 f o r 80, b u t , as Plutarch indicates, he decided t o w a i t f o r his brother t o become eligible, and so remained i n the East f o r another year, being elected i n absence i n 80 f o r 79. I n the year o f his aedileship he was elected praetor f o r 78, according t o Cicero, Acad. 2. ι : absensfactus aedilis, continuo praetor - licebat enim celerius legis praemio. I t is n o t necessary t o assume that he was a l l o w e d t o h o l d the praetorship before the aetas légitima (cf. Badian, Studies 153 n . i o ) . T h e

"acceleration"

consisted i n his h o l d i n g the office w i t h o u t an interval after the

aedileship.

Badian, Studies 141, argues that this was n o t a personal dispensation

for

Lucullus, b u t belonged t o a class o f exceptions f o r Sultani whose careers had been inevitably delayed i n the 80s. H o w e v e r , Lucullus is the o n l y

known

m e m b e r o f this class. I t is conceivable that t h e lex b y w h i c h he benefited was o f general application, b u t the idea o f a special arrangement f o r Lucullus - t h e most consistently l o y a l o f the Sullani - should n o t be r u l e d o u t ; i t c o u l d even be compatible w i t h a general l a w . T h e result o f a l l these considerations is that Lucullus was

probably

praetor v e r y close t o anno suo, and perhaps b o r n n o t m e r e l y b y , b u t in 118. Circumstances m a y have p u t h i m i n the o d d situation o f r e q u i r i n g legis praemium i n order t o h o l d the praetorship legitimo anno. N o t e that, even so, his consulship o f 74 was one year b e y o n d suo anno. (R 156) 222

M.

Iunius Brutus H e separates i n Cicero's list the t w o L u c u l l i . I t is h a r d t o

imagine any other reason f o r this t h a n that his birth-date was intermediate, i.e. ca. 117, w h i c h accords w e l l w i t h his tribunate o f 83. C i c e r o can be assumed t o have exact k n o w l e d g e o f the details o f his career, seeing that he was the father o f the Brutus o f the dialogue. (R 157) 222

M.

Terentius Varrò Lucullus

W e are fortunate t o have evidence that 79 was

"his year" f o r the aedileship (Plut. Luc. 1.6 f . ) . I n accord are the intervals t o praetorship (76) and consulship (73), w h i c h were b o t h h e l d suo anno i f the aedileship was. Hence 116 is a v i r t u a l l y certain birth-date; C i c . De Off.

2.59

applies t o his brother, b u t p r o b a b l y n o t t o h i m . (R 158,159) 222 M.

Octavius Cnf.,

Cn. Octavius M.f. M ü n z e r (RE 17.1822 f., Octavius 32)

w e n t badly astray i n m a k i n g M . Octavius and C n . Octavius father and son. T h e y are obviously cousins, sons o f the brothers C n . Octavius, cos. 128, and

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY

II5

M . Octavius, t r . p l . 133, respectively (cf. 95 [R 45], above). Douglas ad loc.; AJP

(Brutus

1966, 297 f . ) is clearly r i g h t t o refuse t o date M . Octavius*

abrogation o f the L e x Sempronia (frumentaria)

and his presumed tribunate

before 100. ( H . B . M a t t i n g l y , CR 1969,268, proposes 99 f o r t h e date, b u t that is j u s t a shot i n t h e d a r k . ) Douglas's idea that M . Octavius m i g h t be a t r i b u n e o f the p e r i o d o f Sulla's dictatorship and " t h e front m a n w h o carried t h e a b o l i t i o n " oifrumentationes does n o t pay sufficient a t t e n t i o n t o t h e nature o f Octavius' a c t i v i t y . I t is t r u e t h a t the reference i n the Brutus gives the impres­ sion that a l l Octavius d i d was a n n u l t h e L e x Sempronia. B u t Cicero provides further enlightenment i n De Off. 2.72: " C . Gracchi frumentaria magna largitio; exhauriebat igitur aerarium; modica M. Odavi

et rei publicae tolerabilis et plebi

necessaria; ergo et civibus et rei publicae salutaris." T h u s Octavius d i d n o t abolish frumentationes,

b u t m e r e l y reduced t h e m t o m o r e economic p r o p o r t i o n s .

(Sallust Hist.

1.62 M provides n o enlightenment, and i t remains d o u b t f u l

whether the fragment refers t o o u r Octavius at all.) M o r e o v e r , a tribunate about 81 o r 80 w o u l d be rather late f o r a son o f the consul o f 128. C n . Octavius C n . f . C n . n . , cos. 87 (R 129), was evidently Marcus' elder brother ( i n this case the evidence from the praenomen is buttressed b y the relative positions o f the t w o m e n i n the Brutus).

H e was b o r n b y 130, and

Marcus' b i r t h - d a t e should clearly be p u t i n t h e range 130-120. T h i s means that a date between 99 and 87 is possible f o r his t r i b u n a t e (after 87 M . Octavius' prospects f o r passing a l a w restricting the c o r n distributions w o u l d be negligible, u n t i l Sulla's dictatorship, especially as he was presumably i n i m i ­ cal t o the Mariant because o f his ill-feted b r o t h e r ) . T h e stemma o f these O c t a v i i should read as f o l l o w s :

Cn. Octavius, pr.205 Cn. Octavius, cos.165

1

ι Cn. Octavius, cos.128

Cn. Octavius, cos.87 f

M . Octavius tr.pl. (99-87)

M . Octavius, tr.pl.13 3

L . Octavius COS.75

Cn. Octavius, cos.76

L. Octavius, presumably like Marcus b o r n i n the 120s, w i l l be another example o f a m a n i n the post-Sullan decade attaining the consulship some

n o Brutus: P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

AND CHRONOLOGY

years beyond the m i n i m u m age (cf. o n 175

[R 124], D . Iunius B r u t u s ) .

( A d d e n d u m : see also James G. Schovânek, Historia 21 [1972] 235 ff.) (R 160) 222

M. Porcius Catopater

A c c o r d i n g t o A u l u s Gellius (13.20.14), he was a candi-

date f o r the praetorship w h e n he died. H i s son, Cato Uticensis ( b o r n 95), was, after the death o f b o t h parents, l i v i n g under the care o f M . L i v i u s Drusus i n 91 (Plut. Cat.min. 2; cf. RE 22.168 f., Porcius 20). Drusus h i m s e l f died late i n that same year (cf. C i c . De Or. 3.1.1). Hence 91 is the latest possible date f o r the father's candidature and death (rather than "before 9 1 , " RE 22, Porcius 12, w h i c h w o u l d be the latest probable date). H i s b r o t h e r , L . C a t o (cf. G e l l . 13.20.13), was consul 89, and p r o b a b l y praetor 92 (MRR 2.18). Gellius names L . C a t o first, perhaps because he was consular, or else because he was the elder. I n the latter case, the praetorship M . Cato was seeking was p r o b a b l y that o f 91 or 90 and the terminus f o r his birth-date w o u l d be either 131 or 130. If, h o w e v e r , M . C a t o was the elder, the praetorship w o u l d probably have been that o f 93, and he w o u l d have d i e d the year after Uticensis was b o r n : thus his birth-date w o u l d be n o t later t h a n 133. (R 161) 222

Q . Lutatius

Catulus filius H i s legatio i n 87 (MRJR 2.49 f . ) establishes h i m as

already a senator (presumably an ex-quaestor). H i s aedileship is attested o n l y b y A m m i a n u s (14.6.25), b u t can be c o n f i r m e d b y a c o m p l e x inference f r o m Cic. De Off. 2.58 (see Sumner, JRS

1964, 45 n.48). T h e date "ca. 8 4 " is based

m e r e l y o n the assumption o f t w o biennia (aedile-praetor, praetor-consul). H e was v e r y y o u n g (admodum adulescens: C i c . Rab.Perd. 21) i n 100, and a b i r t h date i n or shortly before 121, the year indicated b y his cursus, is h i g h l y p r o b able (compare his father, above 132 [R 90], p r o b a b l y b o r n close t o 149). (R 162) 223

Q . Servilius

Caepio H . B . M a t t i n g l y (CR

1969, 267 ff) has suggested 99 as

an alternative t o 100 f o r Caepio's quaestorship. H i s reasons are h a r d t o discern. T h e praetorship w i t h w h i c h Caepio is credited (cf. RE 2A.1786 f., Servilius 50; MRR 2.20,24 n.5) is rather d o u b t f u l . H i s father, p r . 109, cos. 106, was b o r n b y 149, possibly as early as 152 i n v i e w o f his m i l i t a r y tribunate from

129, b u t surely n o earlier (above, 133 [R 96]). A praetorship i n 91 w o u l d

establish the younger Caepio's b i r t h i n 131 at the latest. T h i s w o u l d be a

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY I I 7

rather short generation gap. As B r o u g h t o n concedes, Caepio's praetorship is n o w h e r e attested ( M R R 2.24 n . 5 ) . T h e arguments i n support o f i t are n o t impressive (ibid.; cf. M ü n z e r , RA 300). ( ι ) T h e legates i n the consular armies o f 90, as listed i n A p p i a n BC

1.40, were ex-consuls o r ex-praetors. T h i s o f

course is circular w h e n applied t o confer praetorships o n those legates f o r w h o m a praetorship is n o t k n o w n (another example is C . Perperna, M R R 2.24 n . 3 ) ; contrast L . Scipio (above, 175 [R 125]). (2) I n 91 Caepio was nine years b e y o n d the quaestorship. T h i s is o f little account i n the pre-Sullan p e r i o d w h e n the quaestorship c o u l d be h e l d at 27, t w e l v e years before t h e m i n i m u m age f o r the praetorship. (3) Caepio's attack o n Scaurus i n 92 d r e w a counter-accusation, "perhaps o f ambitus i n his candidacy." T h i s seems t o miss the p o i n t o f Scaurus' manoeuvre. T h e Princeps Senatus, pecuniarum captarum reus repetundarum lege, t u r n e d the tables o n Caepio b y accusing h i m o n the same charge, and was able t o arrange i t so that Caepio's case came u p first (Asconius 21 C. T h i s should dispose o f Florus [2.5.5], w h o has Scaurus accused o f ambitusi I t w o u l d surely be absurd t o use this as evidence that Caepio was accused o f ambitus. See G r u e n , Historia 1966, 55 ff.; RPCC

206).

(4) As Drusus d i d n o t prosecute Caepio i n 9 1 , Caepio m a y have had magistrat o r i a l i m m u n i t y . A g a i n , Drusus threatened t o h u r l Caepio from the T a r p e i a n R o c k , " t h e threat w h i c h Tribunes usually reserved f o r magistrates i n office." T h i s is p l a i n l y tenuous. I t is possible that Caepio was b o r n i n 131 t o a t w e n t y o r t w e n t y - o n e year o l d father and so was o f age t o be praetor i n 9 1 . (This w o u l d v i r t u a l l y force us t o p u t his father's b i r t h i n 152.) B u t i t is equally possible that Caepio was b o r n 129/8, was quaestor at twenty-seven or t w e n t y - e i g h t , and died i n 90 (RE 2A.1787; M R R 2.28) at the p o i n t w h e n he was about t o be eligible for the praetorship. I f he d i d h o l d a magistracy i n 9 1 , i t m i g h t have been the aedileship. (R 163) 223

Cn. Papirius Carbo C r a w f o r d (Num.Chron.

1964,

142) proposed t o date

Carbo's tribunate t o 91 instead o f 92. Cicero De Leg. 3.42, the o n l y evidence for Carbo's tribunate, puts i t i n the consulship o f C. Claudius, 92. C a r b o h a d been m a k i n g seditio, and Claudius as presiding consul referred the question t o the Senate. Theoretically, perhaps, this w o u l d leave i t open f o r C a r b o t o have been t r i b u n e i n 91 (10 December 92-9 December 91), because the i n c i ­ dent c o u l d have taken place d u r i n g the last t w e n t y days o f December 92. H o w e v e r , the odds clearly favour the earlier date. As a s u p p o r t i n g i n d i c a t i o n ,

i i 8 Brutus: N i c c o l i n i (FTP

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

216, f o l l o w e d b y B r o u g h t o n , MRR

2.19 n.5) p o i n t e d o u t

that Cicero fails t o m e n t i o n that Crassus was censor; so that the incident should have occurred before the censorial elections, i.e. early i n 92. T h i s is, o f course, n o t conclusive, there being n o special reason w h y Cicero should have referred t o Crassus' censorship i n the context o f D e Legibus 3.42. T h e r e is, h o w e v e r , another slight factor w h i c h m a y t i l t the balance i n favour o f 92. C . Claudius was p r i o r consul (Inscr.Ital.

13.1.480 f . ) . H e is less likely t h a n his

colleague t o have presided over the Senate i n December. C r a w f o r d ' s a r g u m e n t f o r 91 is somewhat confused. H e says that the monetalis D . Silanus, whose coins cite the L e x Papiria (briefly described b y P l i n y NH 33.46, mox lege Papiria semunciarii assesfacti),

is t o be dated t o 9 1 at

at the latest, and his citation o f the L e x Papiria, " w h i c h was clearly p r o m p t e d b y the Social W a r , " t h e n ties h i m t o that year. H e regards the L e x Papiria as h a v i n g been passed at the end o f 91 (i.e. shortly before 10 December). T h u s Silanus as a monetalis o f 91 had scarcely a m o n t h t o b r i n g o u t his coinage Β L(ege) p(apiria); and according t o C r a w f o r d (art.cit. 142 n.5), his was n o t the first, being preceded b y the coinage m a r k e d L(ege) p(apiria) D ( e )

A(SSÌS)

p(ondere). T h e argument w o u l d h o l d together better i f this l a w were dated earlier i n 9 1 , before the outbreak o f the rebellion, b u t the dating t o 92 seems at least equally probable. I n either case the coinage r e f o r m o f the L e x Papiria, r e v i v i n g the sestertius and reducing the bronze standard from uncial t o semuncial, should n o t be regarded as a last-minute act i n the midst o f a nat i o n a l emergency. I f the argument f o r d a t i n g D . Silanus t o 91 is v a l i d , the L e x Papiria can o n l y belong t o C n . Papirius. C r a w f o r d flirts w i t h the idea o f assigning i t t o C. C a r b o , t r . p l . 90 - passed at the end o f December 9 1 . H e mentions the difficulty about the promulgatio tritium nundinum, b u t n o t the glaring absurdity that Silanus w o u l d have coined e lege Papiria before the l a w was even passed. O n Carbo's praetorship, for w h i c h the evidence is tenuous, see

MRR

2.33. (R

164) 223

M. Marius Gratidianus ferences (MRR

H i s tribunate i n 87 is based o n reasonably secure i n -

2.52 n . 2 ) . Asconius (84 C ) records t h a t he was bis praetor.

Cicero (De Off. 3.81), explaining his behaviour i n the first praetorship, says he h a d set his sights o n the consulship. Valerius M a x i m u s (9.2.1) says he was praetor w h e n m u r d e r e d i n 82. (Firmicus Maternus 1.3 calls h i m praetorius vir, but this does n o t contradict Valerius, since he had that status b y v i r t u e o f his

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I I 9

first praetorship.) These details can be combined as f o l l o w s : M a r i u s G r a t i dianus was praetor 1 i n 85 (slightly preferable t o 86 i n v i e w o f the tribunate i n 87). H e had hoped f o r the consulship o f 82, b u t this was pre-empted b y the illegal election o f the y o u n g e r M a r i u s . So Gratidianus received his second praetorship (82) as a consolation prize. (MRR

2.60 dates the second praetor-

ship 84?, o n the assumption [ibid. 59 n . i ] that he was s i m p l y an ex-praetor at his death i n 82; however, 83 w o u l d be equally compatible w i t h that assumption.) (R

165) 223

L . Quinctius

A v o w e d l y an i n t e r r u p t i o n o f the sequence o£aetates. Cicero i n

Cluent. n o says that Quinctius was annos ad quinquaginta natus i n his tribunate i n 74. T h i s w o u l d set his birth-date back towards 125. H o w e v e r , Cicero's aside here, "ut in his perturbent aetatum ordinem"

then looks rather o d d , since

Quinctius b y birth-date w o u l d be n o t at a l l o u t o f place i n the aetas o f C o t t a and Sulpicius. Presumably the Pro Cluentio passage should be added t o the list o f cases i n w h i c h Cicero allows h i m s e l f considerable rhetorical latitude i n the use o f numbers. A close parallel is Verr. 1.38, "annos prope continuos"

quinquaginta

for the period o f equestrian j u r o r s , actually about 42 years. ( C f .

also Sumner, AJP 1963, 348 n.42, o n Pis. 4 and 10 i n relation t o the date o f the A e l i a n and Fufian laws.) O n this basis w e m a y tentatively assume that Quinctius was n o t less t h a n 42 i n 74 B . C . and b o r n n o t later t h a n 117. possible alternative w o u l d be t o read X L f o r quinquaginta i n Cluent. (R

(A

no.)

166) 223

M. Lollius Palicanus H i s consular candidature i n 67 ( V a l . M a x . 3.8.3) v i r t u a l l y fixes his praetorship i n 69; 70 is theoretically possible, b u t is u n l i k e l y i n v i e w o f the tribunate i n 7 1 . (R

167) 224

L . Appuleius

Saturninus As G r u e n points o u t (RPCC

163 n.35), the date o f

Saturninus' quaestorship is n o t firm. I t shortly preceded his tribunate o f 103 (MRR

1.560), b u t that leaves 105 open as a possible alternative t o 104, the

usually accepted date. Preference m i g h t be given t o 105 because i t avoids the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f quaestorship and tribunate i n successive years, and thus e n tails n o breach o f the rule that magistrates could n o t present themselves as candidates before the e x p i r y o f their t e r m o f office ( M o m m s e n , Staatsr. i . 5 3 3

ff.; cf. J . Linderski, Studi Volterra 2.286). H o w e v e r , w e must remember that

120 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

Saturninus showed considerable skill i n finding his w a y r o u n d the obstaclecourse o f the R o m a n c o n s t i t u t i o n ; he is the o n l y k n o w n person after the Licinio-Sextian legislation t o have been elected three times t o the plebeian tribunate. O n e w a y o f c i r c u m v e n t i n g the regulation is readily apparent: a quaestor's t e r m expired o n 4 December; i f the t r i b u n i c i a n elections c o u l d be delayed t i l l 5-9 December, a quaestor o f 104 could be elected t r i b u n e so as t o enter office o n 10 December 104 ( p r o v i d e d he could overcome the p r o b l e m oiprofessio).

I t w o u l d surely be unsafe t o assume that constitutional difficulties

w o u l d have deterred Saturninus. F r o m a historical v i e w p o i n t there is something rather remarkable i n the fact that a mere quaestor was replaced i n the superintendence o f the c o r n supply at Ostia b y the Princeps Senatus ( M . A e m i l i u s Scaurus). T h i s clearly bespeaks an exceptional situation. T h e year 105 is indeed m a r k e d as one o f extreme crisis (cf. G r a n . L i c i n . 14 F ) , b u t the crisis and panic really came late i n the year, w h e n the news o f Arausio (fought o n 6 October, ibid. 11 F ) reached R o m e . M o r e o v e r , the slave r e v o l t i n Sicily, w h i c h is evidently l i k e l y t o be connected w i t h a crisis o f the annona, came t o a head i n 104, i n the governorship o f P. L i c i n i u s N e r v a . T h u s 104 is, historically, the r i g h t year

L . Appuleius Saturninus Pr. 166 ( B o m by 206)

C. Appuleius Saturninus, vvir.f.c.s. 168 ( B o m by ca. 197)

1

I? (C. Appuleius)

(Appuleius Saturninus)

L . Appuleius Saturninus, Q. 104, T r . p l . 103 etc., f 100 (Born by 132)

Appuleia m. M . Aemilius Lepidus cos. 78

L . Appuleius Pr. 59 (Born by [before?] 99)

I*"

L . Appuleius L.f. Serg. Senator 44 (or = pr. 59?)

P. Decius Pr. 115 ( B o m by 155)

C. Appuleius Decianus, T r . p l . 98 (Born by 126)

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

121

for Saturninus t o have been quaestor at Ostia. W i t h the quaestorship dated t o 104, Saturninus' birth-date w o u l d be n o t later t h a n 132. H e was p r o b a b l y the grandson o f L . Appuleius Saturninus, p r . 166 - less probably, o f C. Appuleius Saturninus, w i r . fin. cogn. stat. 168 ( L i v . 45.13.10 f.: the last-named and presumably the most j u n i o r m e m b e r , n o t m u c h b e y o n d quaestorian age). (R

168) 224

C. Servilius

Glaucia T h e evidence o n Glaucia's career is singularly deficient

f o r a politician o f such importance. T h e o n l y other k n o w n Servilius Glaucia, presumably his father, was the t h i r d m e m b e r o f an embassy i n 162 (RE 2 A. 1796, Servilius 64; MRR

1.443), j u n i o r t o L . Cornelius Lentulus Lupus

(above, 7p [ R 2 3 ] ) w h o was then aedilicius. Glaucia senior was p r o b a b l y quaestorius i n 162, b o r n before 190. O u r Glaucia's quaestorship is n o t attested, b u t since he was a senator at the t i m e o f the censorship o f 102 ( A p p i a n BC 1.28), i t is p r o p e r l y argued that he must have been enrolled i n the Senate b y the previous censors, those o f 108 ( Q . Fabius M a x i m u s a n d C . Licinius Getha), and have h e l d t h e quaestorship b y 109 (MRR

1.546, Suppl. 59). This w o u l d y i e l d a birth-date n o t later t h a n

137, w h i l e the praetorship o f 100 points t o 140 as the terminus. H i s candidature f o r the consulship o f 99 was challenged and possibly disallowed (Brut. 224), presumably because o f the absence o f any i n t e r v a l between praetorship and consulship. As i n the case o f Caesar Strabo (above, 177 [R 130]), the question remains whether this was the o n l y illegality or whether the candidate was also under age. I f Glaucia was o f consular age at that t i m e , he was b o r n n o t later (and probably n o t earlier) t h a n 142. Cicero, o f course, admits (§ 225) that i n this section he has digressed from chronological order t o an earlier age-group. T h e evidence o n Glaucia's tribunate is particularly perplexing. Strictl y speaking, there is n o direct evidence. T h e r e is, however, the L e x Servilia (repetundarum), referred t o here ("beneficio legis") and elsewhere as Glaucia's (Verr. 1.26; Asconius in Scaur. 21 C ) . I t w o u l d be usual f o r a l a w o f this t y p e t o be t r i b u n i c i a n , and there w o u l d n o r m a l l y be n o disposition t o question the assumption that its author was a tribune. W e must assume that before 100 Glaucia was tribune o f the plebs. A p p i a n (BC 1.28) says that Saturninus, t o revenge h i m s e l f o n Metellus (for his action as censor, 102), became a candidate for a second tribunate " h a v i n g watched for Glaucia being praetor and presiding over this election

122 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

o f tribunes." A p p i a n has n o t expressed himself at a l l w e l l , b u t i t w o u l d be pointless t o interpret this as meaning that Glaucia presided over the t r i b u n i ­ cian elections as praetor (or praetor designate). A p p i a n does n o t say that. φνΧάξας στρατηγουντα means merely that Saturninus h a d w a n t e d t o be t r i b u n e i n the same year as Glaucia was praetor (and M a r i u s consul: cf. L i v . per. 69 f o r M a r i u s ' support o f Saturninus' election), τησδβ των δημάρχων rrjs χβιρOTovias προεστωτα states that Glaucia presided over the election o f tribunes f o r 100. I f true, that must mean Glaucia was h i m s e l f t r i b u n e i n 101. I t is i m ­ probable that he was t r i b u n e t w i c e , l i k e Saturninus. T h e relative a m p l i t u d e o f c o m m e n t i n our scrappy sources o n Saturninus' second tribunate ( L i v . per. 69; De Vir. III. 73; Florus 2.4; V a l . M a x . 9.7.1-3) contrasts sharply w i t h the absence o f such c o m m e n t for Glaucia. T h e evidence, t h e n , such as i t is, indicates 101 as the date o f Glaucia's tribunate. (So B r o u g h t o n , MRR

1.573

n.2, still the most sensible discussion o f the p r o b l e m ; f o r other views, cf. ibid. Suppl. 59; G r u e n , RPCC

166 f.; M a t t i n g l y , J R S 1970,154ff.)

( R 171)228 Q. Hortensius Hortalus

Cicero provides m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n o n Hortensius'

age at various points. H e was 19 years o l d w h e n he made his first speech i n the F o r u m i n 95 (§ 229). H e was eight years older t h a n Cicero (§ 230), w h o was b o r n 3 January 106. H e was i n his s i x t y - f o u r t h year w h e n he defended A p p i u s Claudius Pulcher, perpaucis ante mortem diebus, i n 50 (§§ 324, 229). Cicero reckons the p e r i o d between his first appearance as a patronus ( i n 95) and his last ( i n 50) at 44 instead o f 45 years (§ 229). N o w w e have a letter o f Cicero's (Fam. 3.11) responding t o t w o from A p . Claudius, the first o f w h i c h was dated 5 A p r i l 50, the second being undated (Farn. 3.11.1). I n the first A p p i u s had w r i t t e n o f his acquittal o n the charge oimaiestas, b u t Cicero avers that he had heard about i t before (ibid.) - A p p i u s ' letter had evidently been a slow traveller. T h u s w e can date A p p i u s ' acquittal close t o 5 A p r i l (cf. M a l c o v a t i , ORF

3

329, " i n . m . A p r . a. 5 0 " ) . A p p i u s ' letter had expressed

appreciation o f the fides and benevolentia o f Pompeius and Brutus, w i t h o u t apparently m e n t i o n i n g Hortensius (Fam. 3.11.3). T h i s m i g h t seem t o suggest that Hortensius t o o k part, n o t i n the t r i a l o f A p p i u s de maiestate, b u t i n the subsequent t r i a l de ambitu (Fam. 3.12.1) w h i c h was already facing A p p i u s w h e n he w r o t e about the maiestas t r i a l (Fam. 3.11.2). Cicero indicates i n a letter t o A p p i u s w r i t t e n from Side o n o r shortly after 3 A u g u s t (Fam. 3.12.1, cf. 4) that he has j u s t heard the result o f the ambitus t r i a l . B u t Caelius i n a letter usually dated t o (early) June (Fam. 8.13.2; cf. Constans, Ciceroni

Correspon­

dance 4.195, 213) had reported that Hortensius was close t o death (animam

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I23

agebat). Clearly Hortensius' appearance at A p p i u s ' t r i a l preceded this "perpaucis diebus." Hence the end o f the ambitus t r i a l should be dated t o late M a y . A c c o r d i n g t o the usual v i e w (cf. Schmidt, Briefwechsel 88, 9 1 , 399; Constans, op.cit. 4.203, 238), i t is o n l y i n a letter o f 10 August from Rhodes that Cicero reveals he has received news o f Hortensius' death (Att. 6.6.2), and this w o u l d correspond t o the sequence given i n Brutus 1 ("cum e Cilicia decedens Rhodum venissem et eo mihi de Q . Hortensi morte esset adlatum"). H o w e v e r , Bailey (CLA

Shackleton

3.268 f . ) argues that Att. 6.6 was w r i t t e n about the same t i m e as

Fam. 3.12 (to Appius) and Fam. 2.15 (to Caelius), i.e. ca. 3 August from Side, and that i n i t Cicero indicates " p a i n f u l suspense rather than certainty" about Hortensius' death. T h e t e x t reads: "de Hortensio te certo scio dolere, equidem excrucior; decreram enim valde cum eo familiariter

vivere"

Here the sense o f

excrucior w o u l d best be gathered from the context, i n particular from the ewm-clause w h i c h f o l l o w s , and w h i c h certainly suggests that Cicero was i n n o suspense b u t had abandoned hope o f seeing Hortensius alive. H o w e v e r , Shackleton Bailey's general chronological p o i n t m a y still be v a l i d , i n that Caelius' animam agebat i n a letter t w o m o n t h s o l d had announced Hortensius' i m m i n e n t demise as certain. Hence, even at Side ca. 3 August, Cicero c o u l d take i t for granted that Hortensius was dead, w h i l e at Rhodes ca. 10 August he received the c o n f i r m a t i o n o f this. T h e c h r o n o l o g y indicated seems, t h e n , t o be: late M a y , Hortensius defends Appius de ambitu; a f e w days later, Caelius k n o w s that he is at death's d o o r ; a l i t t l e later i n June Hortensius dies. Cicero h i m s e l f seems t o have heard about the result o f the t r i a l one week before he received c o n f i r m a t i o n o f the death. I n any case i t does n o t seem possible that the maiestas t r i a l at the beginning o f April

can be the t r i a l w h i c h preceded

Hortensius' death i n June " b y a v e r y few days." Since Hortensius was i n his s i x t y - f o u r t h year i n 50 at the t i m e o f the second t r i a l and probably at the t i m e o f his death (§ 324), his b i r t h d a y e v i ­ d e n t l y fell later than early June, and his birth-year was 114. T h i s m a y be w h y Cicero attributes t o h i m 44 instead o f 45 years as zpatronus:

that is, his first

appearance was i n the second h a l f o f 95 w h e n he had passed his nineteenth b i r t h d a y , and at his last appearance i n 50 he had n o t reached his s i x t y - f o u r t h b i r t h d a y . Here Cicero's basis o f reckoning w o u l d be the years o f Hortensius' age, n o t consular years (whereas the difference between Hortensius' and Cicero's ages is stated [§ 230] i n terms o f consular years: 114 — 1 0 6 = 8). (R

172) 233

M. Licinius

Crassus A c c o r d i n g t o Plutarch (Crass.

17.3), he was passing 60

i n 54 B . c . (έξήκοντα μίν ϊτη παραλλάττω^). T h i s w o u l d indicate 115 or 114 as

124 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

the year o f his b i r t h . A c c o r d i n g t o Cicero (Att. 4.13.2) his age w h e n he set o u t f o r the east i n N o v e m b e r 55 was the same as A e m i l i u s Paullus* w h e n he set o u t f o r Macedonia i n 168. Paullus was j u s t about 60 at the t i m e , b o r n 229 or 228 (cf. 80 [R 26], above). E v i d e n t l y this coincidence tends t o c o n f i r m 115 or 114 as Crassus' birth-date. H i s description as aequalis o f Hortensius w i l l n o t serve t o establish 114 and eliminate 115 (see i v , p . 156 b e l o w ) .

(R

173) 233

C. Flavius

Fimbria T h e L i v i a n t r a d i t i o n makes h i m legatus t o the consul L .

Valerius Flaccus i n 86 ( L i v . per. 82; Oros. 6.2.9; Vir Ml. 7 0 . 1 ; D i o f r . 104.1). B u t Strabo, w h o makes h i m quaestor (ταμία*, 13.1.27), is deserving o f respect (cf. W e i n r i b , Phoenix 1968, 43 n.45; L i n t o t t , Historia

1971, 696 f f . ) .

(Velleius, 2.24.1, w h o calls h i m praefectus equitum, p r o b a b l y gives h i m the rank he had held i n 87, cf. MRR 2.566.) As aequalis o f Crassus and therefore b o r n ca. 115/4, F i m b r i a was, i n fact, j u s t o l d enough t o be quaestor i n 87 or 86. T h e data can be reasonably c o m b i n e d b y placing F i m b r i a as quaestor i n 86 and legatus i n 85. Flaccus was n o t eliminated u n t i l early 85, and should have appeared i n MRR 2.59 as proconsul i n 85 (cf. RE 8 A . 30, Valerius 178; Badian, Studies 102 n.117). After Flaccus' death F i m b r i a m a y have become propraetore (cf. L i n t o t t , Historia 1971,701). (R

174) 234

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus A n aequalis o f Hortensius (§ 230). Since his consulship o f 72 shows h i m b o r n n o t later than 115, this year is evidently fixed as his actual birth-date. H i s son o f the same name (Cic. Vat. 27; cf. Att. 1.19.2) presents a p r o b l e m . H e was president o f a quaestio i n 59, p r e ­ sumably as praetor (MRR 2.188). T h i s requires h i m t o have been b o r n b y 99. Even i f he was an aedilician iudex quaestionis i n 59, his birth-date w o u l d be n o later t h a n 97. Hence Clodianus pater seems t o be a teen-age father (15 or 17). A n escape f r o m this unattractive conclusion w o u l d be afforded b y assuming Clodianus filius t o be an adoptive son (like Clodianus pater himself, p r e ­ sumably adopted b y C n . Lentulus, cos. 97. T h e C n . Cornelius Cn.f.Pal. o f Pompeius Strabo's consilium o f 89 B . C . [ILLRP

515] is surely Clodianus pater,

whose connections w i t h the P o m p e i i are obvious; cf. MRR

Suppl. 18, " a n

otherwise u n k n o w n son o f C n . Cornelius C n . f . C n . n . Lentulus (178) Cos. 97." Despite C r i n i t i , Pompeo Strabone 109, there is n o v a l i d objection t o Clodianus.) T h e latest attestations f o r Clodianus pater are his legateship i n Pompeius* pirate campaign o f 67 (MRR

1.148) and a reference t o his acting

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I25

as p a t r o n o f Temnus w h e n P. Varinius was governor o f Asia, 65 B.C.? (Cic. Flau. 45; cf. MRR 2.142 n.9; M a g i e , RRAM2.1128

n.47). T h e latter m e n t i o n

implies that he was n o longer alive at the t i m e o f Flaccus' t r i a l i n 59 Lentulus,

qui censor fuit).

(Cn.

Clodianus filius first appears o n the scene i n 60 as

ambassador t o Gaul (MRR

1.186). I t appears altogether l i k e l y that w e have

here a case o f testamentary a d o p t i o n , occurring some t i m e between 65 and 60

B.C.

T h e elder Clodianus has sometimes been identified w i t h the

Cn.

Lentulus mentioned b y Cicero (Imp. Pomp. 58) as h a v i n g been t r i b u n e o f the plebs one year and legate the next (RE 4.1380, Cornelius 216; N i c c o l i n i , FTP

4 3 1 ; queried i n MRR

(sc. Coelius)

Latiniensis,

2.469): an C. Falcidius, Q . Metellus,

Cn. Lentulus,

Q.

Caelius

quos omnis honoris causa nomino, cum

tribuni plebi fuissent, anno proximo legati esse potuerunt; in uno Gabinio sunt tarn diligentes, qui in hoc bello quod lege Gabiniageritur,

in hoc imperatore atque exercitu

quem per vos ipse constituit, etiam praecipuo iure esse debebatì H e r e the phrase quos ... nomino establishes that the four persons named were alive at the t i m e o f the speech, 66; the phrase in uno Gabinio sunt tarn diligentes implies that the opponents o f Gabinius had n o t been "so meticulous" i n the other cases, and can fairly be taken t o indicate that these cases were recent. (Cicero was, o f course, equivocating:

the objection was clearly n o t t o the h o l d i n g o f a

legateship i n the year f o l l o w i n g a tribunate, b u t t o Gabinius' obtaining the position o f legatus created b y his o w n t r i b u n i c i a n l a w . ) N o w

Clodianus,

h a v i n g been consul 72, must have been praetor i n or before 75, so his supposed tribunate could h a r d l y be later than 77. D u r i n g the p e r i o d 80-75, w h e n Sulla's regulation disbarring tribunes from any further magistracy was i n force (Ascon. 66 C, 78 C ) , i t is unbelievable that Clodianus w o u l d have h e l d the tribunate. B u t from 86 u n t i l Sulla's r e t u r n he was absent from R o m e (Brut. 308, 311). Consequently, the o n l y years i n w h i c h he c o u l d have been t r i b u n e are 87 (barely possible, and i n fact most improbable, since he was o n l y 27) and 8 1 . This means that, unless Cicero is n a m i n g the f o u r tribunes i n reverse chronological order or at any rate concluding the series w i t h the least recent m e m b e r , some or a l l o f the other three were tribunes i n or before 81. N o n e o f this seems at all probable. T h e t r i b u n e o f Imp. Pomp.

58 should

be sought elsewhere than i n the person o f C n . Lentulus Clodianus (especially as there is n o g o o d reason t o t h i n k he was plebeian). I t w o u l d be i m p r u d e n t t o ignore the evidence o f t w o inscriptions (ILS

38 and 5800; cf. ILLRP

465a), w h i c h present us w i t h the names o f the

t r i b u n i c i a n college o f a year between 72 and 68 ( N i c c o l i n i , FTP

248 ff.,

126 Brutus: MRR

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

2.138 f . ) T h e list includes a C n . Cornelius. There is an extremely h i g h

p r o b a b i l i t y that C n . Cornelius is identical w i t h Cicero's C n . Lentulus (Syme, JRS

1963, 58, r e c t i f y i n g Rom.Rev. 44 n . i ) : C n . Lentulus, t r . p l . , is a m e m b e r

o f a patrician stirps, b u t must i n fact be a plebeian; C n . Cornelius, t r . p l . , has a praenomen n o r m a l l y used o n l y b y the patrician C o r n e l i i , so that he t o o is p r o b a b l y a member o f a patrician stirps, b u t must i n fact be a plebeian; further, the t i m i n g fits - C n . Cornelius was t r i b u n e between 72 and 68, C n . Lentulus was a t r i b u n e n o t l o n g before 66. T h u s w e have a C n . Cornelius Lentulus, t r i b u n e between 72 and 68, and legate i n the year after his tribunate. There is o n l y one visible candidate: C n . Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, legatus 67 (MRR

2.148; cf. Sherk, RDGE

no.50, p p . 267 f . ) , w h o has the

additional credentials o f certain plebeian ancestry - he m u s t be descended from the C l a u d i i M a r c e l l i , and is probably the grandson o f M . Claudius M a r cellus (see above, 136 [ R 100, 101], and b e l o w , 247 [ R 199]). T h u s the t r i bunician college o f the L e x A n t o n i a (ILS 38) and o f ILS

5800 is probably t o

be dated t o 68 B . C . T h i s conclusion can be reinforced

from

should be n o question that ILS 5800 ( = ILLRP the w h o l e college o f tribunes ( L . viar(um)

another d i r e c t i o n . T h e r e 465a) gives the names o f

FO[/?]CÎÎ[CIM5?]

is n o t m e r e l y

cur(ator)

b u t a m e m b e r o f the college; cf. the expression de conl(egï) sen-

(tentia), f o l l o w e d b y the names o f the other nine tribunes). Hence the college cannot be assigned t o 71 since the list does n o t include M . L o l l i u s Palicanus, a k n o w n t r i b u n e o f 71 ( N i c c o l i n i , FTP

245-7; MRR

2.122), n o r t o 69, f o r

w h i c h at least t w o tribunes n o t o n the list are attested (MRR 2.132). T h e L e x A n t o n i a (ILS

38), w h i c h u n d o u b t e d l y lists the same college (three names

are extant and coincide w i t h those given i n ILS 5800, viz. C . A n t o n i u s M . f . , C n . C o r n e [ l i u s ] , C. Fundanius C f . ) , mentions the date 1 A p r i l 72, i n the f o l l o w i n g terms: K. April, quaefuerunt L . Gellio Cn. Lentulo cos. T h i s f o r m o f expression seems m o r e appropriate i f the d o c u m e n t is o f later date t h a n the consulship o f 72 (cf. N i c c o l i n i , FTP

249). T h a t leaves the years 70 and 68.

I t is possible t o exclude 70 i f i t is t r u e that the author o f the rogatio Plautia (or Plotia) o n the restitution o f the followers o f Lepidus was t r i b u n e i n that year ( M R R 2.128, 130 n . 4 ; Syme, CP 1955, 129). T h e r e is also a slight d i f f i c u l t y i n h a v i n g C. A n t o n i u s b o t h t r . p l . i n 70 and expelled from the Senate i n 70 ( M R R 2.126 f . ) . A further t i l t o f the balance is g i v e n b y a constitutional factor. L i v y per.

89 states categorically that Sulla r e m o v e d from the tribunes omne ius

legum ferendarum. T h i s agrees completely w i t h the m o r e general statements i n other sources that Sulla rendered the tribunate powerless (cf. Grcenidgc-

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I27

C l a y - G r a y , Sources 212 f . ) , and there is n o reason t o d o u b t i t . Consequently, the L e x A n t o n i a cannot have been p r i o r t o 70, the date o f the restoration o f the t r i b u n i c i a n p o w e r (ibid. 271 f . ) ( R 175)235 P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura A n aequalis o f Hortensius (§ 230). H i s praetorship o f 74 and consulship o f 71 c o m b i n e w i t h this aequalitas t o indicate 114 as his birth-year. T h u s he should be excluded from Badian's examples o f the supposed " P a t r i c i a n " cursus (Studies 150). T h e short interval from his quaestorship (81) t o his consulship was due s i m p l y t o delay i n b e g i n n i n g the cursus, and this delay was inevitable. Sura, like Clodianus, was a w a y from R o m e from 86 u n t i l Sulla's r e t u r n (§§ 308, 311). (R

176) 236

M. Pupius Piso Frugi A n aequalis o f Hortensius (§ 230). A c c o r d i n g t o Cicero, his successful defence o f the Vestal V i r g i n s i n 73 ( M R R 2.114) revived a flagging

oratorical career. H e t r i u m p h e d as proconsul de Hispania i n 69

(Ascon. 15 C ) , h a v i n g p r o b a b l y succeeded his friend Pompeius i n 7 1 . T h u s his praetorship is dated w i t h fair certainty t o 72 (MRR

2.117). T h i s was

evidently n o t suo anno. B u t Piso, as Hortensius' aequalis, cannot have been b o r n before 115.

Syme has suggested that he m a y have been a younger

brother o f L . Piso F r u g i , p r . 74 (JRS i 9 6 0 , 15). T h e latter must have been b o r n i n or before 114. I f Syme's hypothesis is correct (as i t probably is), 114/3 emerges as the likeliest birth-date for M . Piso. (R

178) 237

C. Marcius

Censorinus H i s office o f monetalis, 88 ( C r a w f o r d ,

1964, 143; RRCH

Num.Chron.

Table x n ) , clearly points t o a birth-date before n o . W e

m a y compare C. Licinius Macer (below, 238 [ R 180]), monetalis about f o u r years after h i m , and b o r n b y 108 at the latest. Censorinus held c o m m a n d , p r o b a b l y as a legate under C n . Papirius C a r b o , i n 82 ( M R R 2.71), b y w h i c h t i m e he had n o d o u b t h e l d a magistracy. T h i s t o o gives i n as the terminus f o r his birth-date ( w h i c h m a y , o f course, have been some years earlier). (R

179) 237

L . Turius

For L . T u r i u s as the praetor o f the quaestio de repetundis i n 75, see

M R R 2.97. For the same m a n as the consular candidate o f 65 see M R R Suppl. 267 f.

22; Shackleton Bailey, CLA

1.292 f.; W i s e m a n , New Men 167 n . i ,

128 Brutus: (R

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

180) 238

C. Licinius

Macer H e was the father o f C. Licinius Macer Calvus ( V a l M a x .

9.12.7), w h o was possibly b o r n ca. 82 (cf. 280 [R 220] b e l o w ) . A birth-date for Macer before 108 ( w h i c h is based o n the terminus f o r his praetorship: MRR

2.138, 146, 150 n . i o ) seems probable, and his p o s i t i o n here i n the

Brutus indicates the same (between ca. 115 and n o ) . H e issued coinage ca. 84 ( C r a w f o r d , Num.Chron.

1964, 143 f.; RRCH

Table x n ) . H i s career was

evidently delayed u n t i l the Sullan ban o n the advancement o f tribunes t o higher office should be r e m o v e d (hence the late tribunate, 73 ) . (R

181)

23g

C. Calpurnius Piso H e was urban praetor ( V a l M a x . 7.7.5, n o indication o f date). R. Seager (CR 1970, 11) argues that the office must be dated n o t later than 7 1 , as the u r b a n praetorship o f 70 is assigned t o M . M u m m i u s

(MRR

2.127). H e cites B r o u g h t o n as suggesting i n a letter that perhaps M u m m i u s was peregrine rather t h a n u r b a n praetor. T h e sole basis o f o u r i n f o r m a t i o n o n this is Cic. Verr. 2.3.123 ff.: the governor o f Sicily writes t o the consuls, t o M . M u m m i u s praetor, and t o the u r b a n quaestors, r e p o r t i n g (1) the sale o f the tithes, (2) the economic c o n d i t i o n o f the Sicilian aratores, (3) his concern for the vectigalia. I n this g r o u p i n g i t is natural t o regard M u m m i u s as the urban praetor, b u t i t is perhaps conceivable that the second o f the three items was a matter o f concern t o the praetor peregrinus. I f Piso is excluded from the urban praetorship o f 70, there must be a strong p r o b a b i l i t y that he held the office i n 7 1 , one year before his aequalis and consular colleague, M \ G l a b r i o . T h i s w o u l d raise the terminus f o r his birth-date t o 111. (R 182)23g M\ Acilius Glabrio Since he and his aequalis Piso held the consulship together, i t is probable that each d i d so n o t v e r y far from suo anno (cf. Münzer,

RA

276; note the aequales L . Crassus and Q . Scaevola, w h o h e l d the consulship o f 95 together, t w o years after the m i n i m u m age). I f t h e y were strictly aequales, the terminus f o r Glabrio's b i r t h - d a t e w o u l d have t o be raised t o i n i f Piso's should be (see above). B u t , as n o t e d elsewhere ( i v , p p . 155 f . ) , a difference o f one year can be a l l o w e d f o r aequalitas. W e can probably p u t Glabrio's birth-date safely i n the bracket 112-110. (R 183)23g L . Manlius Torquatus As he was a school-friend o f A t t i c u s (Nepos Att.

1.4),

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

129

a birth-date ca. n o is indicated (Atticus was b o r n towards the end o f that year: cf. ibid. 21 f . ) . H i s son Lucius was praetor 50/49, therefore b o r n b y 90/89 ( o r possibly 88/87; see 263 [R 205] b e l o w ) , w h i c h suggests that t h e father was b o r n no later than n o . I n the l i g h t o f this i t is legitimate t o infer from his a c t i v i t y as a Sullan proquaestor i n 82 ( C r a w f o r d , RRCH

Table x n ;

cf. MRR 2.61, 586) that he was then o f about quaestorian age (at least 2 7 ) , and, again, t o p u t his birth-date n o t later than n o . H i s praetorship is t o be dated either 69 or 68 (the latest possible year) o n the basis o f his g o v e r n o r ship o f Asia, w h i c h must be either 68 or 67; cf. MRR 2.142 n . 9 , 1 4 9 , 1 5 0 n . n , 151 n.16, where B r o u g h t o n suggests that he m a y have assumed the p r o v i n c i a l c o m m a n d i n the course o f the summer o f 67 after serving as legate o f P o m peius i n the w a r w i t h the pirates. (R

184) 239

Cn. Pompeius Magnus Various sources give diverse reckonings o f his age at various points i n his career (and i t is instructive f o r t h e chronographer

or

prosopographer t o observe t h e r i c h v a r i e t y ) , b u t his aequalitas w i t h Cicero combines w i t h Velleius 2.53.4 (duodesexagesimum annum agentispridie ipsius vitaefuit

natalem

exitus; cf. P l i n . NH 37.13, f o r his natalis) and Appian's state-

m e n t (BC 1.121) that he was 34 at the t i m e o f the consular elections i n 7 1 , t o p i n p o i n t his birth-date as 29 September 106 (Drumann-Groebe, GR 4 ·332; 2

y. v a n O o t e g h e m , Pompée le Grand, 31 f . ) . ( R 185)240 D. Iunius Silanus H e is m a r k e d b y Cicero (Att. 1.1.2) as a definite candidate f o r t h e consulship o f 64 ( n o t " a possible candidate" as MRR 2.143). Hence his birth-date cannot be later than 107, a n d is fixed i n that year b y "noster aequalis" (cf. rv, p . 155 b e l o w ) . As a result, his praetorship can be neither later n o r earlier than 67 (suo anno). H i s aedileship is placed between that o f H o r t e n sius (75) and P. Lentulus (63) i n C i c . De Off. 2.57. W i t h his birth-date

fixed

i n 107 and his praetorship t i e d t o 67, his aedileship cannot be earlier than 70 or later than 69. ( R I 8 6 ) 240

Q. Pompeius Bithynicus A.f. "FQuaestor o r Legate 7 5 " at MRR 2.100, " L e g . Lieut.? (or Proq.?) 7 5 " at MRR 2.603. A n y o f the three ranks is possible. T h e r e is perhaps a very faint preference f o r " Q u a e s t o r " since Bithynicus' aequalis A u t r o n i u s ( R 187) (§ 241) held t h e office i n that year ( t h o u g h n o t

130 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

suo anno, cf. Badian, Studies 149); b u t Bithynicus, being some t w o years older than Cicero, could have been quaestor i n 77 or 76. (R

193) 242

Q . Arrius

As Douglas notes (Brutus ad l o c . ) , the chronological sequence

w o u l d be better preserved i f this were n o t the praetor o f 73 (MRR

2.109)

w h o must have been b o r n n o t later t h a n 113. M o r e o v e r , according t o the Scholia Gronoviana (324 St), that Q . A r r i u s died i n 72 o r 7 1 . Nevertheless, i t is n o t easy t o have t w o praetorian ( ! ) Q . A r r i i i n the space o f nine years (cf. R. Syme, CP 1955,132; MRR Suppl. 7; W i s e m a n , New Men 214, n o . 37); the " o t h e r " Q . A r r i u s was o f praetorian r a n k before 63 (Plut. Cic. 15). T h e evidence o f the Scholiast is n o t inexpugnable; i t is offering variant and clearly conjectural explanations o f Verres* c o n t i n u a t i o n i n Sicily. W e k n o w

from

L i v y per. 96 that Q . A r r i u s shared the defeat o f L . Gellius, cos. 72, b u t neither there n o r i n Cic. Verr. 2.2.37 and 4.42 is there the least h i n t that he was k i l l e d . T h e chronological sequence even i n this part o f Brutus is n o t as strict as Douglas imagines (cf. the appearance o f L . M a n l i u s Torquatus i n § 265: Douglas's m e t h o d o f h a n d l i n g this is t o say that " T o r q u a t u s does n o t belong i n Brutus at a l l , " b y w h i c h he means that Torquatus was added i n revision; b u t he does n o t explain w h y Torquatus was n o t inserted i n t h e chronologicall y appropriate section, viz. 271 £). N o r is i t impossible t o find a reason for Q . A r r i u s ' slightly belated appearance. H e is used t o r o u n d o f f the g r o u p o f unpleasantly bad orators beginning w i t h A u t r o n i u s , and is offered as an example o f h o w fer i t was possible t o g o sine doctrina, sine ingenio (§ 243). (R194) 245 T. Manlius Torquatus T.f. Introduced b y "ad sermonem institutum revertamur" and so a near contemporary o f Cicero (cf. § 244, "in memoriam notam et aequalem necessario incurro").

H e is n o d o u b t the T . M a n l i u s T . f . h o n o u r e d at

Delos between 84 and 78 ( B C H 3 . 1 5 6 f., 36.107). T h i s i n s c r i p t i o n is a t w i n o f that h o n o u r i n g the proquaestor 1.1659; MRR

Manius Lepidus, cos. 66 (Inscr.Dêlos

4.

2.86; the parallel is noted b y Münzer, RE 14.1210 f., M a n l i u s

85). There is even a lacuna after Torquatus' name w h i c h can, and should, be filled

b y άνηταμίαν,

exactly as i n the Lepidus inscription. Torquatus was

therefore either quaestor b y 79 or possibly, like his k i n s m a n L . Torquatus (239 [ R 183]), a proquaestor under Sulla from 84 t o 81 w i t h o u t necessarily having held the office o f quaestor. I n the f o r m e r case a birth-date b y n o is indicated, i n the latter a birth-date b y 109 w o u l d be probable. His father

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I 3 I

T i t u s m a y w e l l have been the r i c h and aged senator o f 76 B . C . , referred t o i n Cic. Rosc.Com.

43-6, w h e r e the M S S v a r y between " M a n l i u s " and " M a n i -

l i u s . " T h e praenomen " T . " should favour " M a n l i u s , " t h o u g h MRR

2.493 f o l -

l o w s editors i n accepting the other version. T h i s identification o f the father seems preferable t o that o f Jane F. M i t c h e l l , Historia

1966, 23 ff. ( =

the

adopter o f Lentulus Spinther i n 57, and the T . Torquatus present at C n . Plancius' t r i a l i n 54 - aged h a r d l y less than 80 i f he was the father o f our m a n ) . Cicero's statement "si vita suppeditavisset,

sublato atnbitu consul factus

esset" m a y have been misinterpreted (e.g. M ü n z e r , RE 14.1211, M a n l i u s 85; Douglas, Brutus ad loc.). T h e expression "sublato atnbitu" m a y n o t mean "after electoral c o r r u p t i o n had been abolished" (sc. b y Cicero's o w n l a w o f 63) - Cicero was surely n o t so naive. I t p r o b a b l y supplies a further c o n d i t i o n a l qualification: " i f he had l i v e d , he w o u l d , ambitus apart, have become consul." T h e patrician Torquatus was a fainéant, w i t h m o r e talent t h a n i n c l i n a t i o n ("plus facultatis

habuit ad dicendum quam voluntatis").

H e presumably reached

the praetorship, b u t died before the consular elections at w h i c h he was e n t i t l e d t o stand. I f he was b o r n n o or 109, these w o u l d be at the earliest the elections o f 68 or 67. T h e latter were those at w h i c h M a n i u s Lepidus

(see

above) was successful as a patrician candidate. T h i s helps t o c o n f i r m t h a t T o r q u a t u s ' birth-date is appropriately placed ca. 110/109. (R

196) 246

M. Valerius Messalla T h a t this is Messalla N i g e r isindicated b y his appearance as patronus for Scaurus i n 54 (Ascon. 20 C ) . H i s career is preserved i n an e l o g i u m (Inscr.Ital.

13.3.77). T h e quaestorship is dated ca. 73 i n MRR 2.110, b u t this is

based solely o n an assumed i n t e r v a l o f 12 years t o the consulship. H i s praetorship, h o w e v e r , can be confidently dated t o 64, the latest possible year before the consulship. T h e year 65 is excluded since he was urban praetor and that post was held b y L . M u r e n a i n 65 (MRR

2.158); 66 and earlier years are

excluded because o f the fact that he was minor natu than Cicero (and the urban praetorship o f 66 is i n any case assigned t o C. A n t o n i u s : MRR 2.151 £ ) H i s birth-date cannot be earlier than 105 or later than 104, unless he enjoyed the " P a t r i c i a n " cursus hypothesized b y Badian (Studies 151 f . ) , i n w h i c h case the terminus w o u l d be l o w e r e d t o 102; the fact that he precedes Metellus Celer, certainly b o r n n o later than 103, slightly favours the dating b y the n o r m a l cursus (but as noted b e l o w , 247 [ R 199], o n C n . Lentulus Marcellinus, the arrangement o f these near-contemporaries may simply be b y order o f consulship).

132 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

(R197) 247 Q . Caecilius Metellus Celer A c c o r d i n g t o Münzer (RE 3.1209, f o l l o w i n g D r u m a n n - G r o e b e , GR

2 .2$ f . ) he was adopted b y his namesake ( R E 3, 2

Caecilius 85), w h o was p r o b a b l y t r i b u n e 90 and perhaps aedile 88 2.26, 41). T h e

filiation

(MRR

o f the younger Celer is given i n m o d e r n w o r k s as

" Q . f . Q . n . " ( D r u m a n n - G r o e b e , GR 2 .2o; MRR 2.182). B u t " Q . n . " cannot 2

be r i g h t i f he was adopted b y Q . Celer, since there is n o available Q u i n t u s f o r the latter t o have had as father (the praenomen Q . was pre-empted f o r a son o f Q . Baliaricus b y Q . Nepos, cos. 98, and f o r a son o f Q . N u m i d i c u s b y Q . Pius, cos. 80). Q . Celer, b o r n b y ca. 125 ( i f aedile 88), must have been the son o f one o f the younger offspring o f Q . Macedonicus, p r o b a b l y L . Diadematus, cos. 117 (so, inconsistently, D r u m a n n - G r o e b e , GR 2 . i 4 , stemma; RE 3.1228, 2

stemma; J . v a n O o t e g h e m , Les Caecilii Metelli de la République 22, stemma). W e should therefore emend the second Celer's filiation t o Q.f.L.?n. (This still seems simpler t h a n the schema devised b y W i s e m a n , C Q 1971, 180-2, w h i c h he claims is simpler! H e does n o t take i n t o account the relative ages o f these M e t e l l i . ) Celer's status i n 78 is indeterminate. H e was a m i l i t a r y officer g i v i n g an order t o cornicines (Sail. Hist.

1.135 M ) . T h a t he was quaestor or p r o -

quaestor (Maurenbrecher) can be r u l e d o u t since i t w o u l d give h i m a v e r y slow career (18 or 19 years from quaestor t o consul). " M i l i t a r y t r i b u n e " (Mtinzer, RE 3.1208, Caecilius 86: MRR (MRR

2.87) is preferable t o

"Legate"

2.539), i n v i e w o f his probable age. M R R 2.138 assigns the tribunate o f 68 t o either Celer o r Nepos. Nepos

must be eliminated as he was t r i b u n e i n 62 (ibid. 174). I t is n o t certain that the Q . Caecilius o f the L e x A n t o n i a ( I L S 3 8 ; cf. also I L S 5 800) is a Metellus at a l l . H e might be Q . Caecilius N i g e r , the quaestor o f 72, Cicero's adversary i n the Divinatio in Caecilium. B u t i f Celer was t r i b u n e 68, he c o u l d be identified w i t h the Q . Metellus w h o was t r i b u n e one year and legate the n e x t (Cic. Imp. Pomp. 58; cf. above, 234 [ R 174], C n . Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus). H e is attested as legate o f Pompeius i n 66, and i t is quite possible that, l i k e his brother, he held that position the previous year (Syme, JRS

1963, 58; cf.

M R R 2.148, 156). T h e terminus 103, s h o w n b y the praetorship and the consulship, is l i k e l y t o be close t o Celer's actual birth-date (cf. the preceding M . Messalla, b o r n n o earlier t h a n 105). A n aedileship i n 67 is attributed t o Celer, w i t h v a r y i n g degrees o f d o u b t , i n M R R 2.144 and 539, cf. 45 n.5. There is n o direct evidence f o r i t : V a l . M a x . 6.1.8, the sole source, does n o t reveal t o w h i c h Metellus Celer he

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I33

is r e f e r r i n g , and does n o t state e x p l i c i t l y w h a t magistracy the m a n held (the same t e x t is used as the sole evidence for the earlier Metellus Celer's aedile­ ship, ca. 88). I f correct, the a t t r i b u t i o n w o u l d v i r t u a l l y fix his b i r t h i n 104, B u t i t is preferable t o have h i m as Pompeius' legate i n 67, thus solving the p r o b l e m o f Cic. Imp. Pomp. 58. (R198) 247 Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos H i s praetorship and consulship show a birth-date n o t later t h a n 100. O f course, they need n o t have been held suo anno. H i s tribunate o f 62 was clearly unusually late, after over f o u r years as a legate o f Pompeius. O n the other hand, he d i d proceed v e r y r a p i d l y from tribunate t o praetorship (60). H e was certainly younger t h a n his brother Celer; possibly, but n o t necessarily, as m u c h as three years younger. (R199) 247 Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus W i t h the dating o f the moneyer Ρ ca. ι ο ί ( C r a w f o r d , RRCH

LENT MAR.

Table x i ) , i t becomes possible f o r C n . Lentulus

Marcellinus ( w h o was P . f : D i o 39 I n d e x ) t o be his son (see above, 136 [ R 100, 101], M . Claudius Marcellus and P. Cornelius Lentulus M a r c e l l i f . ) . M a r c e l ­ linus' quaestorship is dated o n numismatic evidence t o ca. 74 (MRR

2.103),

and this date appears t o accord w i t h C r a w f o r d ' s tabulation (RRCH

Table

x m , C N . L E N Q.). I f precise, i t w o u l d establish a birth-date n o t later than 105, w h i c h fits w e l l the birth-date " b y 106" f o r his presumed elder brother, P. Lentulus Marcellinus (see stemmata at 136above,

and 268 b e l o w ) .

I t was noted o n 234 ( R 174) C n . Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, that C n . Lentulus Marcellinus is p r o b a b l y the C n . Cornelius i n the t r i b u n i c i a n college o f 68 (MRR

2.138). T h i s w o u l d perhaps have i n v o l v e d a transitio ad

plebem. N o difficulty w o u l d be presented b y that; cf. P. Clodius Pulcher i n 59, P. Cornelius Dolabella i n 48 (MRR 2.195, Suppl, 19); P. Sulpicius Rufus, t r . p l . 88, must surely be another example from a patrician f a m i l y . A l t e r n a ­ t i v e l y , C n . Marcellinus' father, P. Lentulus M a r c e l l i f., m a y have retained, after a d o p t i o n , his o r i g i n a l plebeian status. A t a l l events, the fact that M a r c e l linus was one o f the septemviri epulones (Cic. Har.Resp.

21) almost certainly

assures that he was plebeian (cf. W i l l e m s , Sénat 1.444). I f b o r n b y 105, Marcellinus came fairly late t o the tribunate o f 68, the praetorship o f 60, and the consulship o f 56. H i s late tribunate can be accounted f o r b y the fact that the office became respectable after the restoration o f its powers b y C n . Pompeius i n 70. Marcellinus w o u l d be h o l d i n g i t i n lieu

134 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

o f the aedileship (for w h i c h he w o u l d be o f age), and his d o i n g so m i g h t w e l l have political connotations (support f o r Pompeius, and the adoption o f a " p o p u l a r " stance). H i s subsequent cursus was slowed b y the service as a legatus pro praetore o f Pompeius (cf. MRR

2.156 o n the probable d u r a t i o n o f

these commands, w h i c h w e r e n o d o u b t w o r t h hanging o n t o f o r the sake o f p r o f i t as w e l l as status and the public interest). Since Pompeius* forces were n o t discharged t i l l late 62, Marcellinus evidently missed the praetorian elections o f that year, b u t was successful immediately i n 6 1 . A f t e r the praetorship he was retained f o r t w o years (59-8) as governor o f Syria (MRR

2.197),

a

n

d

consequently had t o w a i t u n t i l the consular elections o f 57. P. Lentulus Marcellinus, w h o was either his son or his nephew, was quaestor i n 48 (Caesar BC 3.62.4; MRR b y 79 (cf. Stunner, Phoenix

2.274), w h i c h indicates a birth-date

1971, 257 f . ) I f C n . Marcellinus was the father,

this t o o w o u l d favour a birth-date as early as 105 f o r h i m . H e appears t o be a few years older than the preceding Metellus Nepos and c o u l d even be a year o r t w o older than Metellus Celer. T h e order here seems t o be governed b y the order o f consulships. (R

200) 247

C. Memmius L.f. See above, 136 ( R 9 7 , 9 8 ) , C . L . M e m m i i . H i s tribunate is n o t dated precisely, b u t is connected w i t h L . Lucullus' r e t u r n t o R o m e i n 66 (Plut. Luc. 37.1 f . ) . Plutarch is rather vague o n the c h r o n o l o g y , and although i t is probable that M e m m i u s ' tribunate should be p u t i n 66 (MRR

2,153),

&e

possibility o f 65 has t o be left open (RE 15.610). (R20I)

248

C. Iulius Caesar T h e b u l k o f the t r a d i t i o n is i n favour o f setting Caesar's birth-date i n J u l y 100, a l t h o u g h there is the usual degree o f variation. Suetonius DJ 88 and A p p i a n BC 2.149 agree that he died i n his

fifty-sixth

year. Vellerns (2.41.2) is less definite, saying that he was about eighteen eo tempore quo Sulla rerum potitus est, i.e. at the end o f 82, presumably. Plutarch Caes. 69.1 says that Caesar died at the age o f " 5 6 years i n a l l , " b u t there seems n o genuine discrepancy between this and Suetonius-Appian

since Plutarch

is f o u n d elsewhere substituting "n years" f o r " t h e nth year" i n stating ages (see Sumner, Latomus 1967, 415, 418 f . ) . Eutropius' statement (6.24) that Caesar was 56 at M u n d a ( M a r c h 45: in quo (proelio) adeo Caesar paene victus est, ut fugientibus

suis se voluerit occidere, ne post tantam rei militaris gloriam in

potestatem adulescentium natus annos sex et quinquaginta veniret) w o u l d p o i n t t o

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I35

a birth-date o f 102, b u t could be b r o u g h t i n t o line w i t h the other testimony b y assuming a slight error (e.g., confusion between Caesar's v i c t o r y i n M a r c h and his t r i u m p h f o r i t i n O c t o b e r , w i t h " t h e

fifty-sixth

year" counted as

" f i f t y - s i x years o f age"; or, m o r e simply, careless transference o f Caesar's age at death t o represent his age i n the previous year, j u s t as Galba's age at death is g i v e n for his age at accession, E u t r o p . 7.16). O n the other side, h o w e v e r , is the w e l l - k n o w n p r o b l e m o f Caesar's cursus, w h i c h indicates that, according t o the n o r m s , he should have been at least 36 i n 66 B . C . (aedile i n 65), 39 i n 63 (praetor i n 62) and 42 i n 60 (consul i n 59), and so b o r n i n J u l y 102. T h e same date can be derived n o t o n l y

from

Eutropius b u t also from a c o m b i n a t i o n o f Suetonius DJ. 1.1 and Velleius 2.43.1: viz. (Suetonius): Caesar was i n his sixteenth year w h e n his father died, and i n the f o l l o w i n g consular year (sequentibus consulibus) he was m a r k e d f o r a p p o i n t m e n t (destinatus) as Flamen Dialis, dismissed the plebeian Cossutia and m a r r i e d the patrician Cornelia (evidently necessary i n order t o procure a p r o p e r l y qualified Flaminica); (Velleius): Caesar was " a p p o i n t e d " (creatus) Flamen Dialis b y M a r i u s and C h i n a w h e n he was paene puer. M a r i u s was c o n sul w i t h C i n n a i n 86, and died o n 13 January o f t h a t year ( L i v . per. 80, cf. A p p i a n BC 1.75). Therefore Caesar was destinatus as Flamen i n 86, his father having died i n the previous consulship, 87, w h i c h was the year w h e n Caesar celebrated his fifteenth b i r t h d a y and entered o n his sixteenth year. N o w , i n fact, 86 is the appropriate year for the destinatio o f Caesar as Flamen Dialis since the previous incumbent, L . Cornelius M e r u l a , had died late i n 87 (cf. MRR

2.52, also 47). W e i n s t o c k realized this b u t silently " c o r r e c t e d " Suetonius

i n order t o produce a different c o m b i n a t i o n : "Caesar was designated Dialis i n 87 or i n January 86 at the age o f t h i r t e e n " (Divus Julius

flamen

30). T h i s is

really unacceptable. I t is clear from Suetonius that at this t i m e Caesar was n o longer praetextatus; his assumption o f the toga virilis had already

occurred:

annum agens sextum decimumpatrem amisit; sequentibusque consulibus flamen Dialis destinatus, dimissa Cossutia, quae familia equestri sed admodum dives praetextato desponsatafuerat...

Velleius t o o w i t h his paene puer confirms that Caesar was at

least fourteen before the death o f Marius, n o longer actually puer praetextatus. T h e r e seems t o be a genuine d i l e m m a . T h e t r a d i t i o n about Caesar's age at death points t o 100 for the date o f his b i r t h . T h e t r a d i t i o n about his early y o u t h points t o 102. So d o the rules o f the L e x Annalis w h e n applied t o his cursus. I f w e consider w h a t can be said against the r i v a l dates, i t is clear that the balance o f the ancient testimony is against 102. I n a d d i t i o n i t has been

136 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

suggested that, i f Caesar was quaestor i n 69 (MRR

2. 132, 136 n.7), he is

u n l i k e l y t o have reached the office " t w o years after his proper year" (Badian, Studies 149). I t is n o t absolutely certain that Caesar's quaestorship should be dated t o 69 (rather t h a n 70). T h e r i g h t year is 69 i f the L e x Plotia supported b y Caesar before his quaestorship (Sueton. DJ 5 f . ) was a tribunician l a w o f 70. B u t i n the special circumstances o f the late 70s, before the restoration o f ius legum ferendarum t o the tribunes, w e m a y have t o a l l o w f o r the r e m o t e possibility that the L e x Plotia was a praetorian l a w o f 7 1 , o r even 72. I t is, again, t r u e that Caesar can h a r d l y have been quaestor i n 70 i f he was tr.mil.a populo (Sueton. DJ 5) i n 7 1 , assuming that the r u l e against standing f o r one office w h i l e h o l d i n g another applied t o the elective m i l i t a r y tribunate. B u t the case f o r d a t i n g this t o 71 is n o t v e r y solid ( N i c c o l i n i , FTP

251;

MRR

2.115 n . 6 ) . Indeed, since C. Popillius, w h o was elected t o the m i l i t a r y t r i b u nate at the same t i m e as Caesar (Plut. Caes. 5.1), is surely t o be identified w i t h the t r . p l . C. Popilius o f the college o f 68 (MRR Suppl. 4 8 ) , Caesar's m i l i t a r y tribunate should p r o b a b l y be dated i n 72 (the date adopted i n RE 22, P o p i l lius 5 ) , i n order t o give Popillius t i m e t o h o l d the quaestorship (presumably i n 70). M o r e o v e r , i t is surely an unnecessary and arbitrary assumption that the ambitious noble must have been i n haste t o h o l d the quaestorship at the earliest possible t i m e . T h e office was n o t i n itself v e r y i m p o r t a n t . T h e age restrictions f o r the higher magistracies meant that i t made n o difference t o a career whether the quaestorship was h e l d o n t i m e or a year or t w o later. T h e office gave e n t r y t o the Senate, o f course. B u t w h i l e i t was n o d o u b t i m portant f o r an ambitious novus homo like Cicero t o get i n t o the Senate as soon as possible (and t o h o l d the magistracies suo anno), the same need n o t be t r u e for m e n o f noble lineage. P. Clodius Pulcher, w h o gives the impression o f being a y o u n g m a n i n a h u r r y , actually h e l d the quaestorship i n 6 1 , one year late, the curule aedileship i n 56, suo anno, and was a candidate f o r the praetorship o f 52 one year late; 53 was "his year" f o r the praetorship (Cic. Mil. 2 4 ) . T h e aedileship i n 56 proves that this is n o t mere Ciceronian t r i c k e r y . Badian's ingenious attempt (Studies 150) t o c i r c u m v e n t Cicero's p l a i n statement that Clodius was eligible f o r the praetorship o f 53, suo anno, is redundant, once the existence o f a m i n i m u m age f o r the aedileship is recognized. M c D e r m o t t (Phoenix 1970,40 f . ) discussed the ages o f Clodius and his siblings and g o t the r i g h t result f o r Clodius b u t failed t o note or answer Badian's objection. (See also b e l o w , 267 [ R 209], L . D o m i t i u s Ahenobarbus.) T h e case against 102, then, should rest entirely o n the reliability o f the sources' statements about Caesar's age at death. Against 100 the solid objec-

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I 3 7

t i o n is the difficulty o f a p p l y i n g t o Caesar's career w h a t is k n o w n about the L e x Annalis, i f his age at the t i m e o f each office has t o be reckoned from that date. T h e question has been t h o r o u g h l y examined by Badian (Studies 140 f f . ) . H e makes a p o w e r f u l case against any hypothesis o f a special e x e m p t i o n from the l a w f o r Caesar (see also Rice Holmes, RRFE

1.440, against Deutsch,

TAPA

1914, 17 f f . ) . Badian then conjectures that after Sulla's legislation "Patricians had an advantage o f t w o years over Plebeians i n the m i n i m u m ages required f o r the senior magistracies" (151 f . ) . This ingenious hypothesis is t h o u g h t t o explain as w e l l the careers o f the patricians L . A e m i l i u s Paullus, quaestor 60 (or 59), praetor 53, consul 50; P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura, quaestor 81, p r . 74, cos. 7 1 ; and L . Valerius Flaccus, quaestor 71 (or 70), p r . 63; careers w h i c h , like Caesar's, show an i n t e r v a l shorter t h a n the nine/twelve years between the m i n i m u m age for the quaestorship (30) and the m i n i m a f o r the praetorship/consulship (39/42). H o w e v e r , w e have already seen that Lentulus Sura must be counted o u t (above, 235 [R 175]); he was aequalis o f Hortensius, b o r n 114, and s i m p l y reached the quaestorship t w o years late. I t is impossible t o be sure that the other cases cannot be explained i n the same w a y (cf. above o n P. C l o d i u s ) . O n the other h a n d , i f Caesar really was b o r n i n 100, an explanat i o n o f his career w o u l d obviously be needed, and Badian's hypothesis w o u l d seem t o offer the best explanation available. I m y s e l f w o u l d be inclined t o p u t m o r e faith i n the rules o f the L e x Annalis t h a n i n the conflicting statements o f our sources, as the criterion f o r deciding Caesar's date o f b i r t h . O n e can h a r d l y use as evidence f o r this question the coins w i t h obverse, female head and L I I , and reverse,

CAESAR

h a m , CRR

167 f . ) . F r o m the evidence o f hoards they appear n o t t o be earlier

and Gallic t r o p h y , sometimes w i t h captive figure (Syden-

t h a n 48, the year t o w h i c h C r a w f o r d (RRCH

Table x i v ) assigns t h e m . I t is

often supposed that the n u m b e r m refers t o Caesar's age, t h o u g h i t is n o t explained w h y this was so w o r t h y o f note. I t seems m o r e probable that i f L I I means 52 years, i t alludes t o the i n t e r v a l between M a r i u s ' great victories i n Gaul 102-101 and Caesar's conquest concluded i n 50. T w o notes o n Caesar's early career can r o u n d o f f this discussion. (1) T h e argument used t o refute the n o t i o n that Caesar actually h e l d the

flami-

nate o f Juppiter is n o t completely impregnable. I t relies o n the evidence o f D i o 54.36.1 and Tacitus Ann. 3.58.2 that n o one was appointed i n place o f L . Cornelius M e r u l a ( T a y l o r , CP 1941, 115 f . ) Y e t Velleius 2.43.1 speaks o f Caesar " l o s i n g " the priesthood and Suetonius DJ 1.2 o f his being " m u l c t e d " o f i t . Velleius' explanation seems t o be that the annulment o f the acta o f the C i n n a n régime b y Sulla obliterated Caesar's b r i e f tenure, as an i n v a l i d ap-

138 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

p o i n t a i e n t . Caesar's obstinate refusal t o obey Sulla's c o m m a n d that he d i ­ vorce Cornelia (Sueton. DJ 1.1 ) has extra significance i f he was Flamen Dialis. T h a t priest was n o t p e r m i t t e d t o divorce his w i f e (Gell. 10.15.23). (2) I t appears adventurous t o identify as Caesar the Gaius Iulius w h o was "legate, p r o b a b l y under A n t o n i u s Creticus, i n Greece, and p r o b a b l y i n the latter part o f 73 (SIG

3

7 4 8 ) " - s o MRR

2.113, 115 n.6 (cf. B r o u g h t o n , TAPA

1948,

63 ff.). T h i s person m a y have been a relative o f A n t o n i u s ' w i f e Iulia, w h o was Caesar's second cousin. W e cannot hope t o k n o w the obscurer I u l i i o f the Sullan and early Ciceronian period. W e should expect the legate t o be a j u n i o r senator at least, w h i c h Caesar, o f course, was n o t , i n 73. Since I u l i a secondly m a r r i e d P. Lentulus Sura, the obscure Catilinarian C. Iulius (Sallust Cat. 2 1 . ι . ) m a y be a connection, and m a y even be the legate o f 73. T h e censors o f 70 expelled sixty-four from the Senate, w e are t o l d ( L i v . per. 98). Iulia's n e w husband Sura and her f o r m e r husband's brother C. A n t o n i u s were i n ­ cluded (Asconius 84 C ; D i o 37.30). Should the obscure C. Iulius perhaps be added? ( O n Iulia see RE 10, Iulius 543.) (R

202) 248

M. Claudius Marcellus A Marcellus was colleague o f M . C a t o i n the quaestor­ ship (Plut. Cat.min. 18.3 f . ) , the date o f w h i c h can o n l y be 64 since Cato was b o r n i n 95 and was t r . p l . designate i n 63 (MRR 2.165 n . 5 , 1 7 4 f., Suppl. 49 f. N o t e also that Cato's candidacy for the praetorship o f 55, ibid. 2.216, is a d d i ­ t i o n a l evidence f o r 95 as his year o f b i r t h ) . O f the three M a r c e l l i o f the p e r i o d (consuls 51, 50, 49) Marcus, the senior, seems the obvious candidate. I n Plutarch's anecdote he is described as a b o y h o o d

friend

o f Cato, w h i c h

accords w i t h their apparent aequalitas. O n the curule aedileship o f 56 see Sumner, Phoenix 1971, 251 n.19. ( R 2 0 3 ) 263

C. Sicinius H e is said t o have been close i n age t o C. Visellius Varrò (below, 264 [ R 2 0 4 ] ) . Therefore, i t is logical t o give h i m the same terminus as Visellius, namely 105, and t o date his quaestorship about the same t i m e as Visellius', ca. 74 (rather than ca. 70, as MRR

2.128).

( R 2 0 4 ) 264

C. Visellius

Vano N o t m u c h is certain about the career o f this cousin o f

Cicero (cf. W i s e m a n , New Men 27$). H e was m i l i t a r y t r i b u n e under C. Claudius N e r o , governor o f Asia 80-79 (MRR 2.80 £, 84; cf. M a g i e , 2.1579). I n a senatus consultum o f 73 (SIG

3

747; Sherk, RDGE

RRAM

23) he is n o t

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

I 3 9

listed i n the consilium b u t as the last o f three witnesses t o the senatorial decree (lines 62 £ ) : the other t w o are T . Maenius T . f X e m . , w h o was the next t o last m e m b e r o f the consilium (line 15), and Q . Rancius Q . f C l a u d . , w h o is n o t listed i n the consilium. F r o m this i t appears that V a r r ò was a v e r y j u n i o r quaestorius, perhaps quaestor 74. His tribunate o f the plebs is postulated o n t h e basis o f a reference t o a lex Visellia i n an inscription o f 68 (ILS 5 800), b u t there is n o p r o o f o f Varro's authorship o f the l a w . H i s curule aedileship is dated ca. 59 i n MRR 2.189; 193 n.4 ( f o l l o w i n g Seidel, Fasti Aedilicii 64). Cicero's statem e n t here i n the Brutus implies that he died the year after the aedileship w h i l e serving as iudex quaestionis, therefore (ex hypothesi) ca. 58. V a r r ò is referred t o i n De Prov.Cons.

40 (56 B . C . ) w i t h o u t any indication that he was recently

deceased: acprimum illud tempus familiaritatis [sc. Caesare]

9

quae fratri

et consuetudinis quae mihi cum ilio

meo, quae C. Varroni,

consobrino nostro, ab omnium

nostrum adulescentiafuit, praetermitto. This, o f course, w i l l n o t p r o v e that he was still alive. O n the basis o f the date for his quaestorship, V a r r ò cannot have been b o r n later t h a n 105, so that i n 59 he w o u l d have been 45, considerably over-age for the aedileship. I t seems u n l i k e l y that he was still alive i n 56 since that w o u l d place his aedileship n o earlier t h a n 57, at the age o f at least 47. M o r e l i k e l y he held that office before the year 65, i n 67 or perhaps i n 66, w h e n Cicero was praetor, and he h i m s e l f was at least 38. T h e r e m a r k i n MRR

2.193

n.4, " i f M u r e n a (Varro's colleague) was a younger brother o f the consul o f 62 Seidel's conjecture is probable," is mysterious. A younger brother o f a consul o f 62 c o u l d clearly be o f consular age i n 61 and therefore o f aedilician age as early as 67. (The T.? Visellius o f Cic. Att. 3.23.4 is clearly someone else, perhaps the real author o f the L e x Visellia.) (R

205)265

L . Manlius

Torquatus (Cf. 239 [ R 183] o n his father.) H e was active as early as

66, i n the prosecution o f P. Sulla de ambitu (Cic. De Fin. 2.62; Sull. 49 £, 9 0 ) . H e appears i n MRR 2.587 (cf. 135) as " x w i r . s . f . before 6 9 , " b u t this is based o n Grueber's date for his a c t i v i t y as monetalis, even t h o u g h Sydenham's date o£ca. 65 is cited i n the same entry. ( C r a w f o r d ' s Table x n i n RRCH

agrees

w i t h Sydenham rather t h a n Grueber.) A l l this seems t o be congruent w i t h the birth-date o f 90 or 89 indicated b y his praetorship i n 50 or 49 (see Shacklet o n Bailey CL^4 4.342 £ o n t h e date, raising objection against 4 9 ) ; w e should note, however, that he is a possible candidate f o r Badian's " P a t r i c i a n " cursus, w h i c h w o u l d l o w e r the birth-date t o 88 or 87. F r o m Cic. Sull. 24 i t appears that i n 62 he was g o i n g t o be a candidate for some office w i t h a large n u m b e r

140 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

oî competitor es i n the near future (qui iam ex tota Italia delecti tecum de honore ac de omni dignitate contendent). Since the quaestorship should have been still at least three years o f f i n the future for Torquatus, the reference is probably t o elections for the m i l i t a r y tribunate or the vigintisexvirate; i n the latter case the date o f his monetai office should be m o v e d d o w n t o 6 1 . (R

209) 267

L . Domitius

Ahenobarbus

T h e r e is n o direct evidence f o r his

quaestorship.

T h e date 66 depends o n an emendation i n Asconius 45 C , "constantiam L . Domiti, quam in quaestura (MSS praetura) praestitit, significai." b y Badian (Studies

T h i s is rejected

143), w h o thinks, f o l l o w i n g M ü n z e r (RE

D o m i t i u s 27), that sense can be made o u t o f "in praetura"

5.1334 f.,

as a reference

" ( p r o b a b l y somewhat garbled i n transmission)" t o Cicero's o w n praetorship. F r o m a linguistic v i e w p o i n t this w o u l d n o t be v e r y satisfactory.

Further,

Cicero was n o t yet praetor at the t i m e o f the incident referred t o : D o m i t i u s b r o k e u p a meeting o f Maniliani w h e n C. M a n i l i u s was proposing his lex de libertinorum suffragiis; this was at the end o f December 67 (Ascon. 65

C;

D i o 36.42.1-3). T h e t i m i n g does w o r k for a quaestor o f 66, w h o w o u l d have taken office o n 5 December 67. T h e emendation quaestura f o r praetura does n o t seem unacceptable i n itself (and hence, n o doubt, has been f o u n d acceptable b y the generations o f editors since M a n u t i u s ) ; cf. i v , p . 157 n.4 b e l o w , f o r a reverse, b u t perhaps similar, emendation from quaestor t o praetor. I n the present case i t m i g h t be held that the f o l l o w i n g praest- o f praestitit

influenced

the change from an o r i g i n a l quaestura t o praetura. Finally, a quaestorship f o r D o m i t i u s i n 66 fits his career n o t at all badly. His aedileship and praetorship show h i m b o r n b y 98, so that he could have been quaestor i n 67. B u t as noted before (248 [ R 201], C. Iulius Caesar), there was n o t h i n g peculiar i n a noble's c o m i n g t o the quaestorship later than the m i n i m u m age. (R2I0,

211)268

P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, L . Cornelius Lentulus Cms t h e m i n the f o r m u l a "duo Lentuli."

C i c e r o introduces

This clearly means that t h e y were closely

connected, and possibly brothers or cousins. C o m p a r e § 247, "duo § 97 "duo Caepiones,"

Metelli"

brothers i n b o t h cases. "Lentuli duo" i n § 308, h o w e v e r ,

is a somewhat different type o f example. Clodianus and Sura w e r e connected as aequales zndgentiles

o f the same branch o f the C o r n e l i i ; they were probably

t h i r d cousins (great-grandsons o f brothers). W h e n w e note that the filiation P.f. is attested for b o t h Lentulus Spinther and Lentulus Crus ( D i o 39 I n d e x ,

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

141

41 I n d e x ) , there appears t o be a distinct possibility that they w e r e brothers. T h e identification w o u l d be clinched i f Spinther was the quaestor w h o issued coins w i t h the signature C r a w f o r d , RRCH

P.LENT

P.F L . N Q

ca. 72 (Sydenham, CRR

130;

Table x m ) . H o w e v e r , Degrassi cut short such speculation

b y c l a i m i n g t o observe traces o f the letter c after P . P . i n Spinther's filiation as g i v e n i n fragment x x x i x o f the Fast C a p i t o l i n i Consulares (Inscr.Ital.

13.1.131

f., a l t h o u g h i n Degrassi's p h o t o g r a p h , ibid. T a b . x x x v n , the trace looks m o r e l i k e the t i p o f the hasta o f L . ) T h i s meant that the correct restoration must be C N . N . O b v i o u s l y , P. Lentulus Spinther P . f . C n . n . c o u l d n o t be the same person as P. Lentulus P.f.L.n. ( I n MRR 2.199 Spinther's filiation is g i v e n as P.f.Cn.n., b u t i n the Index, 554, and Suppl. 19, as P.f.L.n.!) A t any rate P. Cornelius P.f.L.n. Lentulus shows us w h a t was i n all p r o b a b i l i t y the complete filiation o f Lentulus Crus whose elder brother he must have been: L. Lentulus (cos. 130) P. Lentulus (leg.lt. 90)

P. Lentulus P.f.L.n. q. ca. 72 (B. by 103)

L . Lentulus Crus P.f. pr. 58, cos. 49 (B. by 98)

T h i s identification o f the legate o f 90 (MRR

2.28; Badian, Studies 52 f . ) is

neater and m o r e satisfactory t h a n Münzer's (RE 4, Cornelius 203) - the father o f P. Lentulus Sura. Sura's father has t o be the son o f P. Lentulus, cos. 162 (MRR

2.125 n . i ) , and is p r o b a b l y the P. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus attested

ca. 128 (MRR 1.507 n . i ) . M ü n z e r (RE 4.1382), w r i t i n g , o f course, w i t h o u t k n o w l e d g e o f D e grassi's reading f o r the praenomen o f Spinther's grandfather, argued that Crus c o u l d n o t be Spinther's brother anyway, i n v i e w o f Cic. Earn. 12.14.3. T h i s is a letter t o Cicero from Spinther's son i n 43, w h e n b o t h Spinther and Crus had been dead f o r several years. Münzer apparently assumed that since Spinther's son referred t o L . Lentulus (Crus) w i t h o u t calling h i m patruus, therefore L . Lentulus c o u l d n o t have been his uncle. T h i s i n itself c o u l d h a r d l y carry m u c h w e i g h t . W e need n o t spend m u c h t i m e o n the speculation o f W i l l e m s (Sénat 1.444 ff-) that P. Lentulus Spinther = P. Lentulus Marcellinus; and hence that Spinther, cos. 57, was the brother o f C n . Lentulus Marcellinus, cos. 56. This ( w h i c h w o u l d mean that Cicero o d d l y connected Spinther w i t h the

142 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

w r o n g Lentulus, Crus instead o f Marcellinus) was already rejected w i t h g o o d reason b y Münzer ( R E 4.1392, Cornelius 238), and i t is a p i t y that Badian has kept the fancy from e x p i r i n g quietly (Studies 155 n.6o; JRS

1965, 121). P.

Lentulus Marcellinus is the son o f P. Lentulus M a r c e l l i f. (above, 136

[R I O I ] ) ,

w h o , being an adopted son, must show i n his n e w name the praenomen o f his adoptive father. Therefore the father was P. Lentulus, and P. Marcellinus was P.f.P.n., n o t P.f.Cn.n. (or P . f X . n . ) . Spinther's quaestorship is dated t o 74? i n MRR 2.103, f o r some reason f o l l o w i n g Grueber, CRRBM

1.406, w h i l e n o t i n g that Sydenham, CRR

dates i t ca. 72. Sydenham's date (for

P. L E N T P.FL.N)

fits C r a w f o r d ' s

lxiii, RRCH

Table x m , and the same table does n o t agree w i t h H . B . M a t t i n g l y ' s proposed dating t o 70 (Num.Chron.

1956, 199 f . ) . A l l this, however, is based o n the

identification o f Spinther w i t h P. Lentulus P.f.L.n. I f w e t o o k 72 f o r S p i n ther's quaestorship, w e w o u l d arrive at a birth-date n o t later t h a n 103. T h i s w o u l d make Spinther a trifle older w h e n reaching the consulship o f 57 (elected at about 45 years o l d ) than w e should expect i n v i e w o f his g o o d l o o k i n g progress from curule aedile t o praetor t o consul i n seven years a l l t o l d (63-57). H o w e v e r , w e k n o w from Cic. De Off. 2.57-9 that he d i d n o t h o l d these offices suo anno. H e was therefore b o r n b y 101. T h e stemma o f the C o r n e l i i L e n t u l i is n o t impossible o f reconstitution, and i n v i e w o f the rather inadequate and confusing presentation b y M ü n z e r i n RE 4.1359-60 i t m i g h t be as w e l l t o set o u t the m a i n lines here. I t is necessary t o decipher the sequence o f praenomina from generation t o generation, and the k e y seems t o be that the unusual and unrepczted praenomen T i . w h i c h is given i n the Fasti C a p i t o l i n i t o the father o f L. Lentulus Caudinus, cos. 275, is i n subsequent generations treated as i f i t had been P. T h u s the sequence f o r sons o f L . Caudinus, cos. 275, becomes L . (cos. 237), P. (cos. 236), and ( i f there had been m o r e sons) Ser. and C n . I n the next generation the sequence is the same f o r sons o f L . Caudinus, cos. 237, i.e. L . (aed.cur. 209, cos. 199), P. (died as infant?), Ser. (aed.cur. 207), C n . (aed.cur. 205, cos. 201), P. (aed. cur.

205?, p r . 203). For sons o f P. Caudinus, cos. 236, t h e sequence is P.

(pr. 214), L . (pr. 211). T h e m a i n lines i n the f o l l o w i n g generations stem

from

L . Lentulus L . f L . n . , cos. 199, and C n . Lentulus ( L . ) f . L . n . , cos. 201 ( w h o is a younger brother i n spite o f his earlier consulship; the explanation is t o be f o u n d i n L . Lentulus' six years absence i n Spain asprivatuspro consule: Sumner, Arethusa 1970, 89). T h e Une o f L . Lentulus has the sequence L . and P./ P. and L., and never needs t o go o n beyond that pair o f praenomina, apparently (the

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY

143

next w o u l d be Ser.). For sons o f C n . Lentulus, cos. 201, the sequence is C n . (died as infant?), L . (cos. 156), C n . (cos. 146), P. (died before reaching h i g h office? possibly older t h a n C n . ) . T h i s explains w h y C n . Marcellinus, cos. 56, comes t o be descended from a Une o f P u b l i i L e n t u l i (as he m u s t be because o f his father's a d o p t i o n b y a P. Lentulus). I n the next generation the same p r i n ­ ciple w o r k s for the sons o f C n . Lentulus, cos. 146, viz., C n . (cos. 97), L . (died w i t h o u t issue, i n infancy?), P.? (father o f P. Spinther?). I t is h a r d t o say whether C n . Lentulus A u g u r , cos. 14, was still observing t h e p r i n c i p l e w h e n he n a m e d his sons P. and Ser. since they appear festooned w i t h the glamorous names Scipio and Maluginensis (cf. Sumner, Phoenix 1965, 135); they m a y or m a y n o t have been preceded b y an e a r l y - d y i n g Gnaeus and Lucius. CN. LENTULUS

ι

T I . LENTULUS

SER. LENTULUS C N X C N J». COS. 303

L LENTULUS COS. 337

SER. LENTULUS

CN. LENTULUS

L . LENTULUS CAUDINUS COS. 275

ι P. LENTULUS CAUDINUS COS. 236

L . LENTULUS CAUDINUS COS. 237, PONTMAX. 221-213

.LENT. SER.] AED.CUR.207

L LENT.LF.LJI. COS. 199

P. LENT.L.F.L.N.

SER. LENT.

COS. SUFF.162

PM69

( B . BY 206 [205?])

( B . BY 209)

L.LENT.

P.LENT.

SER. LENT,

COS. 130

PI".

PROCOS.

( B . BY 177?)

{fior, ca. 128)

L . LENT,

P.LENT,

PR.BY

LEG. 90

LLENT LUPUS CN£LN. COS. 156 (B.BY20OIIP9?J)

P. LENR.SURA (P.?) fJPji. COS. 71 ( Β .

X14)

Γ

P.LENT. L.LENT PIX.N. CRUS.P.F. Q.72? COS. 49 ( B . BY 103?) (B.BY 8) ( = SPINTHER???) |

COS. 146

P,

PR. 203

PR.LENT. 214.



LENT, PR. L L 2X1

LLENT

P. LENT

ENVOY 168 ( B . ca. 190?)

(B.BYX89) P. LENTULUS

P.LENT(?)

COS. 9 7

P. LENTMARCELLI £

( B . BY 140)

LLENT.

MON.

ca. 101

ADOPTED CN. LENT

LLENT NIGER PR.BY 6"I, FTUOÂÛRT ( Β . BY ΙΟΊ)

CLODIANUS CN£ COS. 72 (B.N ) 5

P.LENT SPINTHER P£CN.N. COS. 57 ( B . BY XOI)

P.LENT

CN.LENT

MARCELLINUS

MARCELLTNUS P£

Q.75 ( Β . BY 106)

COS.

$6

I?

(B.BYXO3)

ADOPTED C N . LENT

P.LENT

LLENT. PR.44

CLODIANUS

SPINTHER P U

PR. ?59

Q.44

LLENTLX

C N . LENT AUGUR

P. LENTMARCELLINUI P X

COS. 3

COS. 1 4

C0S.X8

CRUSCELLIO

(B.bjT99?) CN. LENT.L.C COS. 1 8

fc—•

P.LENT.

ADOPTED

9

L.LENT.

C N . LENT,

CN. LENT

(ASIA?) LLENT SERX Q. ca. X02

83

CN. LENT.(L.)F.LN. COS. 201

P.LENT

MARCELLMNS Q. 48 ( B . BY 7 9 )

Ci.ca.7i)

FLAM.MART. (OR HIS FATHER) P. LENTSDPIO CN.F.CNJL

SER. LENT MALUGINENSIS CN.FCHJI.

C0S4u£F.AJ>. 2

C O S 4 U £ A J ) . XO, FLAMJTIAL

144 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

As far as P. Spinther here i n the Brutus is concerned, i t is at any rate v i r t u a l l y certain that Cicero goes back from A p . Claudius ( R 208), b o r n b y 97, and L . D o m i t i u s ( R 209), b o r n b y , and p r o b a b l y i n , 98, t o a slightly older m a n ( b o r n b y 101). T h e reason is patent. Cicero wanted t o p u t together the t w o L e n t u l i ( w h o , i f they were n o t brothers, were t h i r d cousins once r e m o v e d , apparently), and he w a n t e d t o close this small g r o u p o f consulares w i t h Crus, whose t e r m inaugurated the C i v i l W a r . ( R 212)269 T.(C.i)

Postumius N o T . P o s t u m i i occur i n the w h o l e era o f the Republic,

let alone its last century. E m e n d a t i o n o f the praenomen is o b l i g a t o r y . L . Postumius is named as an anti-Caesarian w i t h M . Favonius i n the second Sallustian Epistula ad Caesarem senem (2.9.4). T h a t seems t o fit the description here i n the Brutus: de re publica vero non minus vehemens orator quam bellator fuit, effrenatus et acer nimis, sed bene iuris publia leges atque instituta cognoverat. (Cf. E. M e y e r , Caesars Monarchie 572 f.; Syme, Sallust 338 f.; Shackleton Bailey, CLA

4.310 f . ) Münzer's proposal t o read the praenomen as L . instead

o f T . was reasonable (RE 22.898, Postumius 15, and 9 0 1 , Postumius 26). There is, however, a better solution, namely t o read C. Postumius i n the Brutus (and C. Postumii i n Pseudo-Sallust), and t o attach the other appropriate mentions o f a Postumius t o this person. C. Postumius first appears as a monetalis ca. 74, and the t y p o l o g y o f his coins associates h i m w i t h previous moneyers from the P o s t u m i i A l b i n i (Sydenham, CRR

129, cf. 88, 120). H e

is next seen as a candidate f o r the praetorship i n 63, t h o u g h he abandoned his campaign (Cic. Mur. 57. For this, and w h a t f o l l o w s , see Sumner, Phoenix 1971, 254 n.26). H e then j o i n e d Ser. Sulpicius Rufus (father and son) and M . Cato (!) i n the prosecution o f L . Licinius M u r e n a de ambitu. (Ser. Sulpicius Rufus* w i f e Postumia was presumably his sister or close relative.) A t the outbreak o f the C i v i l W a r i n January 49 Postumius again appears i n close conjunction w i t h Cato. H e was named t o succeed T . Furfan(i)us Postumus i n Sicily b u t said he w o u l d n o t go w i t h o u t Cato ( w h o as a praetor o f 54 had been appointed governor i n c o m m a n d o f Sicily; MRR

2.263).

Since the Senate w a n t e d someone t o go at once t o take over from Furfan(i)us ( w h o was p r o b a b l y distrusted: Shackleton Bailey, CLA

4.311; ibid. 7.96 f.

o n the spelling o f the name), C. Fannius was sent ahead w i t h imperium (Cic. Att. 7.15. 2 ) . F r o m a l l this B r o u g h t o n inferred that Postumius was an expraetor (MRR

2.222, 263, 269, cf. 607). Y e t since Cato was the appointed

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

COMMENTARY I45

g o v e r n o r o f Sicily, Postumius m i g h t be expected t o be o f subordinate r a n k . M ü n z e r was o f a similar o p i n i o n , suggesting that Postumius was quaestorius (RE

22.898). B r o u g h t o n countered that " t h e importance i m p l i e d i n the

reference i n Sail. Ad Caes. 2.9.4, however ephemeral, suggests a higher r a n k " (MRR

Suppl. 50); cf. MRR 2.263, where the p o i n t was made that the order

i n Sail, loc.cit. "indicates that he was senior t o Favonius, a Praetor i n this year." I n general, however, the type o f importance enjoyed b y Cato, Postumius, and Favonius was n o t related t o rank. F u r t h e r m o r e , Favonius* praetorship is n o t assured. I t depends o n Velleius' accuracy i n describing h i m as praetorius i n 48 (2.53.1). Otherwise i t is n o t attested, and a l l w e k n o w is that Favonius was defeated for the praetorship o f 50 (Cael. i n Cic. Earn. 8.9.5), h a v i n g h e l d the aedileship ca. 52 (MRR 2.235, 240 n . 2 ) . Favonius m a y have been o n l y propraetore 4 9 - 8 . W e k n o w that Postumius had ducked o u t o f the praetorian election i n 63. W e d o n o t k n o w whether he t r i e d again, and even less whether he succeeded. I n the case o f Fannius, w h o was sent w h e n Postumius w o u l d n o t go, B r o u g h t o n also infers a past praetorship, and has the additional argument that i n 56 Cicero expresses confidence i n Fannius' prospects o f o b t a i n i n g the office (Sest. 113). H o w e v e r , Cicero is n o t quite so specific; he says that t w o o f the three " o p t i m a t e " tribunes o f 59 had already w o n praetorships, and as t o the other, Fannius, "quod iudicium populi Romani in honoribus eius futurum sit, nemini dubium esse debet." S i m i l a r l y vague, and perhaps cagey, is Vat. 16, w h i c h metaphorically attributes t o Fannius as a result o f his splendid t r i b u nate "consularis auctoritas." Hence all w e really k n o w o f C. Fannius is that he was tribunicius, t h o u g h , h a v i n g been t r . p l . i n 59, he must clearly have been b e y o n d praetorian age i n 49. Even i f Fannius was an ex-praetor, this w i l l n o t show m u c h about Postumius, since their situations were different. Fannius was a mere stop-gap i n Sicily and was shortly transferred from there t o an independent c o m m a n d , Asia (MRR

2.262), w h i c h had usually been prae-

t o r i a n . Postumius was subordinate t o a praetorius i n Cato. Hence i t is n o t l i k e l y that he was h i m s e l f an ex-praetor. H o w e v e r , B r o u g h t o n ' s instinct that he was i n some w a y senior is sound. Postumius must have been at least

fifty-

t w o years o l d at the outbreak o f the w a r (because o f his praetorian candidature i n 63). W e should bear i n m i n d that, b y the nature o f the system, m a n y senators w h o reached praetorian age failed t o reach praetorian r a n k . I n a d d i t i o n , the strict Catonians tended n o t t o d o w e l l at the polls. C. Postumius can surely be added t o the small d o u r band o f Stoic politicians o f the late Republic.

146 Brutus: (R

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

213) 26g

M. Servilius

H e was prosecuted under the lex lulia de repetundis as the recipient

o f monies extorted b y C. Claudius Pulcher, proconsul o f Asia 55-3 (Cic. Fam. 8.8.2 f.; Att. 6.3.10). I t can o n l y be a guess that he was a senator (MRR 2.496). I t seems possible that he had been o n C. Claudius' staff i n Asia. I f C. C u r i o was Claudius' quaestor from 54 (MRR 2.224) and L . Sestius Pansa was the previous quaestor (ibid.), t h e n Servilius c o u l d n o t have been quaestor i n Asia and w o u l d have t o be a legate. T h u s the latest probable date f o r his supposed entry i n t o the Senate w o u l d be 55, for his quaestorship 56, and his birth-date w o u l d be n o t later than 87. H e was surely n o t M . Servilius, t r . p l . 43

(RE

2A.1766, Servilius 2 1 , cf. 20). T o be included i n Brutus he should have died b y 46 (cf. § 262). (R

214) 271

P. Cominius H e prosecuted Staienus i n 74 (Cic. Cluent. 100 f f . ) , w h e n he can scarcely have been under 17. Hence 92 is the absolutely latest conceivable date f o r his b i r t h . (R

216) 272

C. Calpurnius ture

Piso Frugi

C.PISO L.F.

Cicero's son-in-law issued coinage w i t h the signa­

FRVGi ( w i t h variations, see Sydenham, CRR

64 b y Sydenham, b u t ca. 68 b y C r a w f o r d (RRCH

138 ff.): dated ca.

Table x m ) , between P.

Galba, aed.cur. 69, and M . Plaetorius M . f . Cestianus, aed.cur. 68 or 67 2.150 n . 3 ) . H i s father coined i n 90 as

L.PISO L.F.N FRVGI

(MRR

( C r a w f o r d , Num.

Chron. 1964,141) and was praetor i n 74 (MRR 2.102). T h e descent is straight­ f o r w a r d (cf. Syme, JRS

i 9 6 0 , 1 4 ff, and see also 236 ( R 176), M . Pupius Piso

Frugi). L . Calpurnius L.f.C.n.Piso Frugi (R 59) tr.pl.149, cos. 133 (B. by 177) L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi pr. ca. 113 (B. by ca. 153) L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi mon. 90, pr. 74 (B. b y 114) C. Calpurnius Piso Frugi mon. ca. 68, q. 58 (Β. by 89) (R

217) 273

M. Caelius Rufus

His curule aedileship i n 50, a m p l y attested (MRR 2.248),

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL

C O M M E N T A R Y

establishes a birth-date n o t later than 87 ( A u s t i n , Pro Caelio , z

I47

A p p e n d i x 1,

was unfortunately unaware o f this feet). I t proves, pace A u s t i n , that P l i n y is v e r y far o u t i n h a v i n g Caelius b o r n C. Mario Cn. Carbone coss. a.d. V. Kalend. Iunias (NH7.165),

i.e. 28 M a y 82 (cf. 280 [ R 220], C. Licinius Macer Calvus).

H e gained his praetorship o f 48 at the elections conducted b y Caesar i n late 49 (MRR 2.257). There m a y be a slight chance that the L e x Annalis was n o t strictly observed here, b u t there is n o strong reason t o believe this, and i t w o u l d make little difference. I f the l a w was observed, Caelius was b o r n b y 88 instead o f 87 (cf. RE Suppl.

1.268, 25). O n a l l this, and o n his probable

quaestorship 58/7, see further Sumner, Phoenix 1971,247 f., 259. (R

218) 274

M. Calidius

Douglas's challenge t o the standard v i e w , that Calidius (along

w i t h C . Septimius, Q . Valerius, P. Crassus, Sex. Q u i n c t i l i u s , C. C o r n u t u s , a l l named i n Cic. Red. in Sen. 23) was praetor i n 57, is a consequence o f his t h e o r y about the c h r o n o l o g y o f the Brutus (AJP 1966, 301 £; cf. his e d i t i o n , ad loc.). H e argues (1) that Calidius' placing here (between Caelius, b o r n b y 88, and C u r i o , b o r n b y 85) indicates a birth-date about 87, rather than 97, w h i c h w o u l d be required b y a praetorship i n 57; (2) that Cic. Red. in Sen. 22 does n o t say that Calidius was praetor; (3) that statim designatus i n that passage m i g h t refer t o Calidius' election i n summer 57 t o an office t o be h e l d i n 5 6; (4) that i f Calidius was b o r n i n 87, his gaining office i n 57, seeking i t i n 51, and h o l d i n g a p p o i n t m e n t as governor o f Cisalpine G a u l i n 47, produces a pattern corresponding t o the m i n i m u m ages for quaestorship (87-57

=

30),

aedileship (87-51 = 36) and praetorship (87-48 = 39). H e suggests that this coincidence is m o r e decisive than the coincidence that Red. Sen. 22 £ i n a passage w h i c h begins "tarn vero praetores quo animo in me fuerint vos existimare potuistis"

names precisely seven m e n (the first, L . Caecilius Rufus, being w e l l

attested as praetor urbanus, MRR 2.200), whereas seven o f the eight praetors o f 57 are k n o w n t o have supported Cicero's recall. Douglas's argument collapses rather q u i c k l y o n a careful analysis. I n the passage o f Red. in Sen. from the end o f § 18 t o the b e g i n n i n g o f § 23 Cicero praises the tribunes and praetors o f 57 f o r the assistance they gave the consuls i n his cause. H e announces this at the b e g i n n i n g : horum cc

ruinas vos consules vestra virtute fulsistis,

consulum

summa tribunorum plebis praetorumque

fide et diligentia sublevati." H e then proceeds t o praise nominatim the tribunes T . A n n i u s M i l o (19), P. Sestius (20), and C. Cestilius, M . Cispius, T . Fadius, M ' . C u r t i u s , C. Mcssius (21), Q . Fabricius (22), i.e. all eight o f his supporters

148 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

i n the t r i b u n i c i a n college; he does n o t , o f course, name his t w o opponents (Sex. A t i l i u s Serranus and Q . N u m e r i u s Rufus). H a v i n g dealt at length w i t h the tribunes, he proceeds t o the praetors, i n accordance w i t h the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the passage, and he shows he is d o i n g so: "iam vero praetores ..." H e then names L . Caecilius, about whose praetorship there can be n o d o u b t , i t being independently attested, t h e n M . Calidius, t h e n the other five: "omnia officia C. Septimi, Q . Valeri, P. Crassi, Sex. Quinctili, C. Cornuti summa et in me et in rem publicam constiterunt." T h e one praetor w h o d i d n o t support Cicero's recall, Appius Claudius, is o f course n o t m e n t i o n e d . Douglas's interpretation requires us t o suppose that Cicero, after listing the eight friendly tribunes o f 57 b y name i n each case, names o n l y one o f the seven friendly praetors, and t h e n goes o n t o name six persons at large, one o f w h o m , M . Calidius, is supposedly o n l y quaestor designate, and therefore is n o t even a m e m b e r o f the Senate Cicero is addressing. T h e final b l o w t o Douglas's t h e o r y is that, i n fact, the quaestorian elections had n o t taken place at the t i m e o f the speech; t h e y had t o w a i t f o r the c o m p l e t i o n o f the aedilician elections ( D i o 39.74)» and that was n o t achieved u n t i l January 56

(MRR

2.208). I n v i e w o f a l l this, i t is perhaps superfluous t o criticize at l e n g t h Douglas's countervailing coincidence. Calidius was certainly n o t quaestor i n 56, and consequently Douglas's pattern breaks d o w n at the b e g i n n i n g . I t is also r i c k e t y at the end, since Calidius' c o m m a n d i n Cisalpine G a u l is n o t attested as a praetorship, and is tentatively dated 48-47 (MRR

2.280,541).

W e must conclude that Cic. Red. in Sen. 18-23 shows b e y o n d reasonable d o u b t that M . Calidius was praetor i n 57, and consequently that he was b o r n b y 97. T h u s Jerome s floruit f o r h i m (Chron. ad ann. 57, p . 154 H e l m ) happens t o be perfectly correct; i t m a y , o f course, be based o n the praetorship.

(R

219) 280

C. Scribonius Curio As B r o u g h t o n observes (MRR

2.224, 227 n . 4 ) , C u r i o

happens never t o be called quaestor i n relation t o his service i n Asia, 54-3. H e c o u l d , theoretically, have been a legate. B u t there seems n o particular reason t o challenge the inveterate assumption that he was quaestor. M a l c o v a t i (ORF*

510) accepts the quaestorship i n Asia, 54, yet dates his b i r t h "ca.z. 8 4 " ;

better w o u l d be "ante a. 8 4 . " ( A c c o r d i n g t o a Caunian inscription,

JHS1954,

89 f., no.24, he or his son m a r r i e d a daughter o f a Gaius M e m m i u s , perhaps the t r . p l . o f 54. T h a t is curious; he himself was the son o f M e m m i a L.f. See above, p. 87, stemma o f M e m m i i . )

PROSOPOGRAPHICAL (R

C O M M E N T A R Y

I49

220) 280

C. Licinius

Macer Calvus P l i n y NH 7.165 states that Calvus was b o r n o n the

same date as M . Caelius Rufus. As w e saw (273 [ R 217]), P l i n y errs about the year o f Caelius' b i r t h . I t is possible that the t w o orators had the same b i r t h d a y , and that the year P l i n y gives, 82, was that o f Calvus', b u t n o t Caelius', b i r t h . Tacitus i n the Dialogus

(34) makes Vipstanus Messalla say that L .

Crassus i n his nineteenth year prosecuted C. C a r b o , Caesar i n his t w e n t y - f i r s t year prosecuted Dolabella, Asinius P o l l i o i n his twenty-second year prosecuted C . Cato, and Calvus w h e n n o t m u c h older (non multum aetate antecedens) prosecuted Vatinius. T h i s passage is n o t remarkable f o r accuracy. Crassus i n 119 was actually i n his t w e n t y - f i r s t t o twenty-second year; Caesar i n 77 was i n his t w e n t y - t h i r d t o t w e n t y - f o u r t h year ( i f b o r n i n 100) or i n his t w e n t y - f i f t h t o t w e n t y - s i x t h ( i f b o r n i n 102). H o w e v e r , Calvus i n 58, w h e n he first prosecuted Vatinius (ORF

3

t i o n e d b y Gruen, HSCP fifth

494 f., t h o u g h this prosecution is ques-

1967, 217 f . ) , was i n his t w e n t y - f o u r t h t o t w e n t y -

year i f b o r n i n 82. Tacitus' vague statement, therefore, seems t o be

r o u g h l y i n agreement w i t h Pliny's date, and w o u l d certainly be inappropriate i f Calvus was b o r n m u c h before 82. T h e same goes f o r Q u i n t i l i a n ' s r e m a r k (12.6.1) that Calvus (like Caesar and P o l l i o ) appeared i n his first case w h e n w e l l under quaestorian age (he probably means 30, the age i n the Republic, n o t 24-5, the age i n the Principate). (R

221) 281

P. Licinius

Crassus M.f. Publius Crassus' brother Marcus was quaestor i n 54

(Caesar BG 5.24.3, etc.; MRR

2.223). If> as is c o m m o n l y assumed, Marcus

was the elder brother (e.g. D r u m a n n - G r o e b e , GR 3 .697; Syme, 2

Rom.Rev.

22 n . i , 36 n . 3 ) , Publius c o u l d n o t have been quaestor i n 55 as conjectured b y B r o u g h t o n (MRR 2.217; Suppl. 34) and M a t t i n g l y (Num.Chron.

1956, 20 f . ) .

H o w e v e r , the c o m m o n assumption seems t o depend entirely o n the fact that Marcus had the same praenomen as his father; this is n o t decisive (cf. above, 10g [ R 7 2 ] , C. L i v i u s Drusus). Further, as quaestor i n 54, Marcus was b o r n b y 85. T h a t was the year his father w e n t i n t o h i d i n g i n Spain (Plut. Crass. 4 ; D r u m a n n - G r o e b e , GR 4 . 8 5 ) , and i t is conceivable that u n t i l the Sullan 2

v i c t o r y at the end o f 82 he had n o further o p p o r t u n i t y f o r paternity. W e could assume, i n that case, that Publius was b o r n either after 82 or before 85. B u t i f b o r n after 82, i t seems u n l i k e l y that he w o u l d have served as a legate i n c o m m a n d o f a legion under Caesar as early as 57 (Caes. BG 2.34; 3.7.2; D i o 39.31.2; D r u m a n n - G r o e b e , GR 3 .699; RE 13.291, Licinius 63; 2

MRR

2.204). I t w o u l d be preferable ( w i t h M d n z e r , RE loc.cit.) t o p u t his date o f

150 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

b i r t h ca. 86, w h i c h permits the hypothesis that he held the quaestorship i n 55. Publius Crassus, i n that case, was the elder brother. I t should be noted, h o w e v e r , that this line o f argument involves a rather fine calculation: t o j u s t i f y the praenomen o f P. Crassus i n this h y p o t h e sis, there must have been a first-born son named Marcus w h o was alive w h e n Publius was b o r n (ca. 86), b u t dead b y the t i m e the k n o w n Marcus Crassus was b o r n (not later t h a n 85). This w o u l d be v i r t u a l l y impossible i f the brother whose w i d o w , T e r t u l l a , Crassus m a r r i e d and had his sons b y (Plut. Crass. 1.3) was the one w h o died i n the c i v i l w a r o f 87 (ibid. 4.1,6.3 ; L i v . per. 80; A p p i a n BC

1.72). B u t i t is possible t o read Plutarch i n the sense that the other o f

Crassus* brothers had died before 87, so that w h e n his father and brother died i n that year, Crassus was left as the sole male survivor. M ü n z e r (RE 13.250 f., Licinius 50; 290 f., Licinius 6 1 , 62) arranges things so that P. Licinius Crassus (no. 62) was the eldest son and the husband o f T e r t u l l a and died before 87, w h i l e Licinius Crassus (no.50) was the m i d d l e brother and died at the same t i m e as his Either i n 87. B u t i t seems equally possible t o make the m i d d l e brother Tertulla's husband, d y i n g before 87, w h i l e P. Crassus (no.62) was k i l l e d shortly before his father c o m m i t t e d suicide (cf. b e l o w ,

Appendix,

p . 164). C r a w f o r d (RRCH

Table x m ) puts P. Crassus M . f . as moneyer i n 56.

T h i s seems impossible, as Crassus was serving w i t h Caesar i n the campaign o f 56 (MRR

2.212). T h e p r o b l e m is caused f o r C r a w f o r d b y his accepting the

revised date f o r the aedileship o f C n . Plancius and A . Plautius, 55 instead o f 54. T h e case o f Crassus is an additional argument for r e t u r n i n g t o the o l d date (see Sumner, Phoenix 1971,249 n.12).

III T h e Chronological Structure

T h e chronological structure o f the Brutus is, f o r the most part, b u i l t r o u n d k e y figures d o m i n a t i n g a p e r i o d . I n some cases these give their names t o an aetas. T h u s w e have the aetas Sulpici (§§ 226, 228, 230) or aetas Cottae et Sulpici (§ 301), and the aetas Hortensi (§ 228). T h e n there is mea aetas, the oratorical generation o f Cicero h i m s e l f (§ 230), and tua aetas, the age-group o f Brutus (ibid.).

A slightly less specific reference is represented b y horutn aetas (§ 174,

cf. in qua aetate, § 161); this is the aetas o f Crassus and A n t o n i u s (or Crassus, A n t o n i u s , and Philippus) w h o are referred t o i n the preceding section (§ 173). T h e m e t h o d is presented i n a neat f o r m u l a t i o n at the end o f the w o r k ( § 3 3 3 ) , where Cicero states the v i e w that each aetas n o r m a l l y had o n l y one or at most t w o outstanding orators: "nonne cernimus vix singulis aetatibus binos oratores laudabilis constitissei" Here the key figures appear as: Cato Galba Lepidus C a r b o (and the Gracchi) A n t o n i u s , Crassus C o t t a , Sulpicius Hortensius I n a d d i t i o n , there are m o r e general references t o age-groups: e.g. § 99, horum aetatibus, where the reference i n horutn seems vague (apparently the group

from

Q . Pompeius t o P. Crassus Mucianus); 122, eiusdem aetatis

(vaguely, the age o f the Gracchi); § 127, huic aetati (the age o f C. Gracchus); § § 207, 221, eiusdem aetatis, 210, illius aetatis, 227, eius aetatis (the age o f S u l p i cius and C o t t a ) ; § 258, illius aetatis (the age t o w h i c h Laelius and Scipio

152 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

Aemilianus belonged); § 295, alius aetatis (the age o f w h i c h Galba princeps);

was

§ 307, trium aetatum (the age-groups o f Q . Catulus, M . A n t o n i u s ,

and Caesar Strabo, respectively). T h e contemporaries o f Cato are distinguished b y Cicero i n t o three m a i n groups (not f o u r , as Douglas says, AJP 1966,291): (1)

the grandiores natu, w h i c h includes Douglas's second g r o u p , Cato's near

(2)

the minores, consuls between 182 and 153 B . C . ( § § 7 9 - 8 0 ) ;

(3)

the vivo Catone minores natu, w h i c h includes consuls from 151 B . C . and

contemporaries (§§ 77-78);

some non-consuls (§§ 81 ff.). H o w e v e r , the t h i r d g r o u p subdivides i n t o a g r o u p (3a) c u l m i n a t i n g i n Ser. Sulpicius Galba (§§ 81-2), one o f the k e y figures, and a second g r o u p (3b) c u l m i n a t i n g i n M . A e m i l i u s Lepidus Porcina (§§ 9 4 - 5 ) , another key

figure.

T h e latter, 3b, includes m e n senior t o some members o f the f o r m e r , 3a ( L . M u m m i u s Achaicus, cos. 146, Sp. Postumius A l b i n u s , cos. 148), b u t i t extends t o j u n i o r m e n w h o can have had n o importance vivo Catone (consuls o f 132, 129, and M . Octavius, t r i b u n e 133). L . Scribonius L i b o , t r i b u n e i n 149, the year o f Cato's death, seems intended t o bridge the transition from g r o u p 3a t o 3b (§§ 89-90). T h e vivo Catone idea evidently fades a w a y d u r i n g the presentation o f the second g r o u p . T h i s corresponds w i t h the analysis i n § 333 : Galba f u i t inter t o t aequalis unus excellens, c u i . . . et C a t o cedebat senior et q u i temporibus illis aetate inferiores fuerunt, Lepidus postea ... T h e next m a i n g r o u p (4) therefore begins n o t at § 94 (as Douglas), b u t at § 96. T h i s is clearly indicated w h e n C. C a r b o and T i . Gracchus are m e n t i o n e d as auditors o f Lepidus Porcina: de quibus iam dicendi locus cum de senioribus pauca dixero (§ 96). Correspondingly, i n § 333 C a r b o is the next key

figure

after Lepidus (overarching the Gracchi). T h i s C a r b o g r o u p (§§ 96-126) subdivides i n t o (4a), a T i . Gracchus g r o u p (§§ 96-103), and ( 4 b ) , a C. Gracchus g r o u p (§§ 107-26). T i . Gracchus and C a r b o r o u n d o f f the f o r m e r g r o u p , 4a (§§ 103-6), w h i l e C. Gracchus rounds o f f 4b (§§ 125 f . ) and is a hinge t o the f o l l o w i n g g r o u p . T h e next pair o f k e y figures is M . A n t o n i u s and L . Licinius Crassus. T h e corresponding m a i n g r o u p (5) runs from § 127 t o § 166 (not 165, as

C H R O N O L O G I C A L

STRUCTURE

I53

Douglas). T h e sequence from here o n , as Douglas indicates, begins t o keep closer t o an arrangement corresponding t o date o f b i r t h . Sections 127-137 show a m i x t u r e o f consuls and others b o r n m o s t l y between ca. 154 and 1

ca. 144 B . C . Sections 138-166 cover consuls b o r n between 143 and ca. 136 B . C . T h e r e f o l l o w s an interlude o f r a n d o m non-senators and non-Romans w i t h birth-dates apparently ranging all over the second century (§§ 167-172). T h i s is f o l l o w e d b y a g r o u p (6) o f consulars (§§ 173-6) and others (§§ 177-180) b o r n m o s t l y between ca. 136 and ca. 124 B . C . , i n w h i c h the k e y figure,

t h o u g h n o t m e n t i o n e d i n § 333, is clearly C. Iulius Caesar Strabo

(§ 77)> h ° I

w

l

s

a

p o i n t o f reference for the next g r o u p .

2

T h i s g r o u p (7) belongs t o the aetas o f Sulpicius and C o t t a . I t runs

from

§ 182 t o § 228, and covers a m i x t u r e o f non-consuls and consuls b o r n m o s t l y 3

between ca. 124 and ca. 114, b u t §§ 223-5 have somewhat older, demagogic orators. N e x t (8) comes the aetas o f Hortensius (§ 228), r u n n i n g from § 228 t o § 239, and covering m i x e d

3

consuls and non-consuls b o r n m o s t l y between

ca. 114 and ca. 106. I t merges imperceptibly i n t o w h a t Cicero is t o o modest t o announce clearly as the aetas o f Cicero (9), r u n n i n g from § 239 t o § 269 and having m i x e d ca. 90

3

consuls and non-consuls b o r n mostly between ca. 106 and

B.C.

A f t e r an interlude (§ 271, t w o Italian orators), there comes a final small g r o u p (10) o f orators b o r n i n the 80s B . C . ( § § 272-280). T h i s , o f course, is the aetas o f Brutus (cf. § 230). T o sum u p , then, the aetates stated or i m p l i e d b y Cicero are as f o l l o w s : aetas o f Cato (birth-date 234) aetas o f Galba (birth-date ca. 191) aetas o f Lepidus (birth-date ca. 180) aetas or aetates o f C a r b o and the Gracchi (birth-dates ca. 163 and 154) aetas t o w h i c h Q . Catulus belonged (birth-date ca. 149) aetas o f A n t o n i u s and Crassus (birth-dates 143 and 140) aetas o f Caesar Strabo (birth-date ca. 131 or 127) aetas o f C o t t a and Sulpicius (birth-dates 124 and 124/3) ι Douglas's " g r o u p i n g by status" does not w o r k completely here. 2 D o u g l a s (Brutus p. 127) differs in having a group from §165 to § 1 8 0 consisting o f orators born in the 130S and early 120S. 3 Douglas's "grouping by status" docs not w o r k completely here.

ι$4 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

aetas o f Hortensius (birth-date 114) aetas o f Cicero (birth-date 106)

4

aetas o f Brutus (birth-date ca. 8 5 )

5

This adequately reveals the variability o f the concept aetas. I n some cases there is something l i k e a generation gap (Cato-Galba, Lepidus-Carbo, C i c e r o Brutus (?)), i n others i t is scarcely a half-generation, and i n yet others the intervals are so shrunken that they almost p u t one i n m i n d o f academic generations (dons o n l y a f e w years older than the undergraduates i n their tutelage.)

6

4 It is left unclear whether o r not Caesar a n d M . Marcellus, w h o are singled out for special mention i n §§ 2 4 8 ff., are regarded as the k e y figures o f a distinct aetas or aetates (birth-dates 1 0 2 / 1 0 0 a n d ω. 9 5 ) . 5 C f . Badian, JRS

1 9 6 7 , 2 2 9 , endorsing Malcovati's retention o f the M S S decent in § 3 2 4 :

i.e. B r u t u s was b o r n ten years after Hortensius' first appearance as a speaker in the F o r u m , 9 5 B . C . ( § 2 2 9 ) : cf. Sumner, Phoenix 6 C f . Badian, Athenaeum 1 9 6 4 , 4 2 5 .

1 9 7 1 , 3 6 5 f.

IV Cicero's Knowledge o f Orators' Birth-Dates

A critical question arises o u t o f Douglas's t h e o r y that birth-dates are the chronological f o u n d a t i o n o f the Brutus. Is i t conceivable that Cicero knew so m a n y birth-dates? - over 100 even for the orators from § 138. H e clearly indicates k n o w l e d g e o f the exact dates o f Q . Scaevola, L . Crassus, and M . A n t o n i u s (§§ 145, 161; De Or. 1.180, 2.364) Q . Hortensius (§ 236 etc.), C . C o t t a , and P. Sulpicius Rufus (§ 301). B u t this is h a r d l y surprising, since these are leading figures and dear t o Cicero's heart. M o r e surprising w o u l d be i f he k n e w the exact dates o f a l l the less distinguished and m i n o r orators w h o appear i n his catalogue. I n this connection w e also have t o consider the explicit statements that the f o l l o w i n g were aequales: P. Cethegus and Caesar Strabo (§ 177), M . Crassus and Hortensius (§ 233), C. F i m b r i a and M . Crassus (ibid.),

C. Piso

and M ' . G l a b r i o (§ 239), Pompeius and Cicero himself (ibid.), D . Silanus and Cicero (§ 240), Q . Pompeius Bithynicus and P. A u t r o n i u s (§ 241), Sulpicius Rufus and Cicero (§ 156, cf. 150). Douglas assumes (AJP

Ser. 1966,

295) that aequalis must mean " b o r n i n the same year." H o w e v e r , the evidence indicates that Cicero's aequalis D . Silanus was actually b o r n a year before Cicero. H e was a candidate for the consulship o f 64 (Cic. Att. 1.1.2), and so b y the L e x Annalis his birth-date was n o t later than 107, whereas Cicero was b o r n i n 106.

1

A g a i n , Ser. Sulpicius Rufus and Cicero are compared

as

aequales w h o had pares honorum gradus (§ 156). B u t i n § 150 Brutus had c o m m e n t e d : "aetatesque vestrae, ut illorum (sc. Crassi et Scaevolae), nihil aut non fere multum dijferunt"

T h a t Crassus and Scaevola were exact aequales, b o r n i n

140, is h i g h l y probable. T h u s i t appears that non fere multum dijferunt applies 2

ι Douglas, AJP1966,299,

neglects the aequalitas and overlooks Silanus* candidature

for 6 4 , hence dates his birth " ? I 0 5 " from his consulship o f 62. 2 Sec C o m m e n t a r y o n 143 [R 105], Q . M u c i u s Scaevola.

156 Brutus: t o the "aequalitas

1

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

o f Sulpicius and Cicero. I n fact, the relative careers o f the

t w o m e n make i t probable that Sulpicius was a year younger than Cicero, since his cursus trailed Cicero's b y one year. Cicero:

Q . 75, Pr. 66, Cos. 63.

Sulpicius:

Q . 74, Pr. 65, Cos. cand. for 62.

(Sulpicius clearly does n o t add support t o the idea o f a patrician cursus.) A g a i n , C n . Lentulus Clodianus is counted as one o f f o u r aequales o f H o r t e n sius (§ 230). Since he was consul i n 72, his birth-date according t o the L e x Annalis should be n o t later than 115, so that he was b o r n the year before Hortensius, w h o was b o r n i n 114. Hence, w h e n M . Crassus is said t o be aequalis o f Hortensius (§§ 230, 233), i t is possible that he was b o r n either i n 114 or 115. I n sum, a m a r g i n o f one year either w a y p r o b a b l y has t o be a l l o w e d f o r aequalitas, unless there are other indicators p r o v i n g exact aequalitas. T h e fact remains that Cicero had reasonably precise k n o w l e d g e o f the birth-dates o f the pairs m e n t i o n e d above. B u t this clearly is t o be expected i n the case o f p r o m i n e n t politicians contemporary or nearly contemporary w i t h Cicero himself, some o f t h e m close friends. After a l l , the L e x Annalis made i t necessary t o keep an eye o n the ages o f one's contemporaries. I t remains interesting, however, that Cicero k n e w the contemporaneity o f P. Cethegus w i t h Caesar Strabo, and o f C. F i m b r i a w i t h M . Crassus. P. Cethegus a d m i t tedly was a potent figure i n the 70s w h e n Cicero was b e g i n n i n g his p o l i t i c a l career (cf. MRR

Suppl.

18). B u t Cicero's k n o w l e d g e

about the age

of

F i m b r i a , w h o died near the outset o f his career i n 85, w h e n Cicero was o n l y 21, is certainly w o r t h y o f note. Evidence exists w h i c h enables us t o see Cicero at w o r k o n prosopographical research, and i t is relevant t o the question o f Cicero's k n o w l e d g e o f orators' ages. I refer t o the letters t o Atticus i n w h i c h Cicero concerns h i m s e l f w i t h the Sempronius Tuditanus w h o was one o f the ten legati sent t o assist L . M u m m i u s i n Achaea i n 146 (Att. 13.30.2; 32.3; 33.3; 4 . 1 ; 5.1; 6.4 [ = 6a]).' I n 13.30.2 Cicero states briefly his p r o b l e m . H e k n o w s from Hortensius that Tuditanus was a m e m b e r o f the legatio. B u t he k n o w s

from

Libo's

Annalis that Tuditanus was praetor ( i n 132) 14 years after M u m m i u s ' consulship (146), w h i c h does n o t seem t o fit. Atticus having failed t o understand the 3 F o r discussions o f the order o f these letters and other questions arising see Badian, Hommages Renard 1.54 ff., and the A p p e n d i x below, " C i c e r o at W o r k , " pp. 166 ff.

CICERO

A N D

BIRTH-DATES

I57

p r o b l e m , Cicero explains further i n 13.32.3: I f , as Hortensius had said, C . Tuditanus was one o f the legati, and if, as Libo's b o o k said, Tuditanus was praetor i n the consulship o f 132, h o w c o u l d he have been a legatus 14 years before he was praetor? - unless his praetorship was v e r y late. B u t i t is u n 4

l i k e l y that his praetorship was late, because Cicero has noted that he gained the curule magistracies w i t h o u t any difficulty legitimis

annis.

5

A significant fact emerging from the exposition is that Cicero d i d n o t know the age or birth-date o f C. Sempronius Tuditanus, praetor 132, consul 129 (one o f his orators i n the Brutus, 96 [R 4 4 ] ) . I f he had k n o w n the exact age, he w o u l d have known whether or n o t Tuditanus held the praetorship at a late age; he w o u l d n o t have had t o r e l y o n inference from his cursus. Shackleton Bailey's b r i e f note o n legitimis (annis), that i t means suis, is w r o n g for the context. T h e expression legitimis annis here cannot denote Tuditanus* h o l d i n g the curule magistracies at the earliest year permissible under the L e x Annalis (i.e. suo anno), b u t must denote that he h e l d t h e m w i t h the m i n i m u m legal i n t e r v a l between offices - the

biennium.

6

A further significant fact emerging is that Cicero is seen using the L e x Annalis t o establish an inference about Tuditanus* age. H e argues apparently (almost as i f he were a M ü n z e r ) : Tuditanus w e n t from the praetorship t o the consulship w i t h the m i n i m u m possible i n t e r v a l (and from the aedileship t o the praetorship w i t h the m i n i m u m interval?); this is taken t o j u s t i f y the 7

assumption that he was n o t delayed i n advancing t o the t o p o f the cursus. I t therefore seems reasonable t o conclude that Cicero d i d n o t necessarily have direct i n f o r m a t i o n o n the birth-dates o f m a n y o f the orators i n the Brutus. I n order t o arrange t h e m i n an approximate chronological order i t 4 T h e M S S quaestor has to be emended to praetor: cf. Shackleton B a i l e y , CLA c o m m e n t a r y ad loc.; A s t i n , Lex Annalis

7 - 9 ; B a d i a n , Hommages

5,

Renard 5 6 η.ι.

5 A s the interchange between C i c e r o and Atticus proceeds, w e find Atticus at first speculating (13.33.3) that Tuditanus w a s in A c h a e a i n 146 not as legatus, but as quaestor o r military tribune. C i c e r o comments that this is reasonable, though he is m o r e inclined to accept the suggestion that Tuditanus was military tribune than that he w a s quaestor. A few days later C i c e r o receives the fruits o f Atticus' research o n the ten legati ( 1 3 . 4 ) . Atticus had discovered that Tuditanus w a s quaestor i n 145 (it is w o r t h noting that this information w a s available) ; therefore he c o u l d not have been one o f the ten senatorial legati in 146. T h e legatus was, it seems, T u d i t a n u s ' h o m o n y m o u s father (13.6.4 [ = 6A]); but see B a d i a n , Hommages 6 Astin, Lex Annalis

Renarddi.

8 - 9 . C f . Badian, Hommages

See further the A p p e n d i x , pp. 166 fF.

Renard 5 6 n . i .

7 W e do not k n o w that T u d i t a n u s was curule aedile, and for the argument it is not necessary to assume that he w a s : cf. Astin, Lex Annalis

g n n . i , 3. B a d i a n , Studies 145 f., has

made the existence o f a statutory biennium between curule aedileship and praetorship extremely doubtful for the post-Sullan period, but Astin's argument still seems to hold for the period before Sulla (cf. pp. 6FT". above).

158 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

c o u l d be sufficient t o inspect their careers. Thus L . M u m m i u s (Achaicus) was consul i n 146 t w o years later than Sp. Postumius A l b i n u s (cos. 148). B u t he was praetor as early as 153, whereas A l b i n u s (we m a y i n f e r ) h e l d the praetorship legitimo anno ( i n the sense noted above) or nearly so (i.e. 151 or 152). Consequently, i t was chronologically appropriate t o place M u m m i u s ahead o f A l b i n u s (§ 94), and i t was n o t necessary t o k n o w their ages directly i n order t o d o so. S i m i l a r l y , P. Decius was t r i b u n e i n 120, t w o years later t h a n M . L i v i u s Drusus ( t r . p l . 122), b u t he was praetor i n 115 and so (we can i n f e r ) was Drusus (he was consul 112). Consequently, i t was appropriate that the t w o colleagues should be placed together (§§ 108-9): Drusus' consulship is n o t , f o r Cicero, a reason t o place Drusus first. As Douglas h i m s e l f observes (AJP

1966, 293) the case o f M . A e m i l i u s Scaurus and P. Rutilius Rufiis is

exemplary. T h e f o r m e r was consul i n 115 and the latter i n 105, b u t since Rutilius was an unsuccessful competitor w i t h Scaurus f o r the consulship o f 115, his praetorship fell ( w e m a y infer) i n 118 (or 119), w h i l e Scaurus held the office (probably) i n 119. Hence they are correctly juxtaposed (§ n o ) . Thus w e m a y emend Douglas's statement that " C i c e r o used n o t magistracies b u t dates o f b i r t h as his chronological f o u n d a t i o n " t o " C i c e r o used as his chronological f o u n d a t i o n (a) dates o f b i r t h where k n o w n and (b) the evidence o n dates o f b i r t h afforded b y his orators' public careers."

ν Conclusions

As far as the pre-Gracchan p e r i o d is concerned, Cicero arranges the orators b r o a d l y i n sequence o f approximate birth-dates, b u t w i t h considerable

fluc­

t u a t i o n . W e find stretches o f names i n descending chronological order, b u t these t e n d t o be interrupted (a) b y intrusions o f one or m o r e m e n o f earlier or later date, or (b) b y a n e w sequence w i t h an earlier starting p o i n t . E x a m ­ ples o f (a) are numerous, as can readily be seen from the Register; ( b ) is exemplified at 96 ff., Q . Pompeius (R 47) etc., 106 ff., L . Calpurnius Piso F r u g i ( R 59), etc., 109 f., T . Quinctius Flamininus (R74), etc. A c c o r d i n g t o Douglas, the " n e w and v e r y precise m e t h o d " probably begins at § n o , b u t the Register shows that some fluctuation continues (cf. i l 7 , 130-137)

t h o u g h generally w i t h less steep ups and d o w n s than before.

F r o m § 138 Douglas claims t o detect a " t a u t chronological sequence." T h i s seems t o h o l d quite w e l l ( t h o u g h n o t " t a u t l y " ) u n t i l § 222, M . Porcius C a t o ( R 160); about here Cicero e x p l i c i t l y introduces some p e r t u r b a t i o n o f the order. I n § 225 he announces his r e t u r n t o sequence, b u t even from here (where w e begin t o be fairly w e l l i n f o r m e d about birth-dates) there is n o t an absolutely rigorous application o f c h r o n o l o g y . Orators are sometimes treated before m e n slightly their senior, and vice versa (cf. § § 239 f., Pompeius be­ fore Silanus, § 247, the M e t e l l i before Marcellinus, § 267, Lentulus Spinther, § 274, M . Calidius, n o t t o m e n t i o n § 265, L . Manlius T o r q u a t u s ) . T h e reasons for these

fluctuations

can sometimes be conjectured f a i r l y readily

(cf. e.g. o n 242, Q . A r r i u s , and 267, Lentulus Spinther and Lentulus C r u s ) , b u t t o elicit the motives for t h e m a l l w o u l d require m u c h d i v i n a t i o n and w o u l d take us beyond the objects o f this e n q u i r y . T h e upshot o f i t a l l , from the historian's p o i n t o f v i e w , is that the Brutus occasionally lends additional support t o inferences about the b i o g r a p h i ­ cal dates o f R o m a n public figures, but i t is never sufficient warrant for precise

i 6 o Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

reckoning, i n the absence o f other evidence. See, for example, the C o m m e n tary o n 13 6 ( R 99), Sp. T h o r i u s . I n the end, Douglas h i m s e l f is forced t o a d m i t that the Brutus cannot y i e l d a precise date for T h o r i u s (AJP 1966, 304). T h e r e is evidently force i n the declaration o f Badian (Studies 241 n . n ) : " t h a t there is a vague chronological pattern i n the Brutus is obvious: o n the w h o l e , i t moves from the beginnings t o Cicero's o w n day. B u t there are so m a n y cross-currents ( g r o u p i n g b y subject-matter and b y association other t h a n chronological) that the order i n the Brutus w i l l n o t help i n fixing the c h r o n o l o g y o f a m a n or an event n o t otherwise chronologically anchored." T h i s f o r m u l a t i o n is, however, u n d u l y severe and u n c o m p r o m i s i n g , i n that i t does n o t acknowledge the c o n t r i b u t i o n made b y the order i n the Brutus t o w a r d chronological reckoning i n greater and lesser degrees o f a p p r o x i m a t i o n .

Appendix: Cicero at W o r k

N o correspondence w i t h A t t i c u s survives from the p e r i o d w h e n Cicero was composing the Brutus (ca. F e b r u a r y - M a r c h 46, perhaps w i t h some revision i n A p r i l : Douglas, Brutus i x - x ) , w i t h the possible exception o f Att. (dated late M a r c h or early A p r i l 46 b y Shackleton Bailey, CLA

12.2

5.298).

H o w e v e r , d u r i n g a slightly later period o f prolific c o m p o s i t i o n b y Cicero, there are several letters t o Atticus i n w h i c h , as Badian has remarked

(Hom­

mages Renard 1.65) " w e can w a t c h b o t h Cicero and ( i n d i r e c t l y ) A t t i c u s at w o r k o n problems such as the m o d e r n scholar often has t o solve." W e have already glanced at a f e w o f the relevant texts i n connection w i t h Cicero's research i n t o the career o f C. Sempronius Tuditanus (above, i v , p p . 156 f . ) , and Badian h i m s e l f has discussed the same g r o u p o f letters from this p o i n t o f v i e w (opxit. 1.54 f f . ) . I t m a y be useful t o assemble a l l the relevant passages i n the correspondence, and t o see w h a t as a w h o l e they reveal about Cicero's methods o f research and the sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n at his disposal. A

1

12.3.ι (239) Tusculum, May/June

46 (??): or 30 May 43 (?)

ego m e interea c u m libellis; ac moleste fero V e n n o n i h i s t o r i a m m e n o n habere. Shackleton Bailey has d r a w n attention t o h i t h e r t o unsuspected difficulties i n dating this letter (CLA

5.300 f., 399). T h e date he h i m s e l f suggests, 30 M a y

45, w o u l d p u t i t i n the g r o u p o f letters dealing w i t h the C o m m i s s i o n o f 146 B . C . ( b e l o w , extracts F t o κ). Vennonius was evidently a historian b e l o n g i n g t o the late second century. H e is m e n t i o n e d b y Cicero, De Leg. 1.6, i n the ι References to the letters arc given in the standard form, followed i n parenthesis b y the numbering o f Shackleton Bailey in his Cicero's Letters to Atticus.

ι ό 2 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

sequence Cato-Piso-Fannius-Vennonius

C H R O N O L O G Y

(cf. Peter, HRR

i . C C , 142); his 2

relationship t o Coelius Antipater, w h o is mentioned n e x t , is left unclear, as Cicero associates Coelius w i t h Fannius, j u m p i n g over Vennonius. I f Shackleton Bailey's dating o f the letter is r i g h t , Cicero m a y have t h o u g h t he c o u l d find i n f o r m a t i o n o n the C o m m i s s i o n o f 146 i n Vennonius, w h o clearly w r o t e after that date. O u r o n l y fragments o f Vennonius t h r o w little l i g h t o n the use that m i g h t be made o f his w o r k . H e is cited b y D i o n y ­ sius (4.15.1) f o r the Servian o r i g i n o f the t h i r t y - f i v e tribes, and b y the Origo Gentis Romanae 20.1 as, apparently, g i v i n g the same version as Fabius Pictor gave concerning the conception and b i r t h o f Romulus and Remus. Β

12.20.2 (258) Astura, 13 March 43 v e l i m m e facias certiorem p r o x i m i s litteris C n . Caepio,

Serviliae

C l a u d i pater, v i v o n e patre suo naufragio perierit an m o r t u o , i t e m R u t i l i a v i v o n e C . C o t t a filio suo m o r t u a sit an m o r t u o . pertinent ad e u m l i b r u m q u e m de l u c t u m i n u e n d o scripsimus. C

12.22.2 (261) Astura, 18 March 43 de Rutilia q u o n i a m videris dubitare, scribes ad m e c u m scies, sed q u a m p r i m u m , et n u m C l o d i a D . B r u t o consulari, filio suo, m o r t u o v i x e r i t . i d de M a r c e l l o aut certe de Postumia sciri potest, i l l u d autem de M . C o t t a aut de Syro aut de Satyro.

W e see i n Β that Cicero has already i n some sense w r i t t e n (scripsimus)

the

liber i n question, w h i c h is the Consolation t o h i m s e l f o n the death o f T u l l i a . H e is n o w getting A t t i c u s t o check o n certain details w h i c h he w o u l d like t o include i n the w o r k . T h e questions evidently concern persons w h o m i g h t be likened t o Cicero as h a v i n g suffered the loss o f a son or daughter. W e can infer from c that A t t i c u s must have been able t o give Cicero the i n f o r m a t i o n about C n . Caepio i m m e d i a t e l y , since his d u b i t a t i o n was o n l y about R u t i l i a . T h e answer p r o b a b l y was that C n . Caepio d i d n o t predecease his father (Münzer, I M 253, 398). Shackleton Bailey (CLA

5.315) expresses a j u s t i f i e d d o u b t whether

Münzer is r i g h t t o identify Caepio's son-in-law Claudius as A p p i u s Claudius Pulcher, cos. 54. N o r is i t sure that C n . Caepio was the son o f C n . Caepio, cos. 141, censor 125, and therefore the C n . Caepio C n . f . attested as quaestor i n Macedonia (Münzer, RA 254 f., d a t i n g this quaestorship v e r y insecurely ca. 105; cf. MRR 1.556, 558 n.6). C n . Caepio senior, b o r n n o t later than 184, w o u l d have been at least 78-79 i n 105 B . C . w h e n his son is supposed t o have

APPENDIX:

CICERO

AT

W O R K

163

been quaestor, and he w o u l d have been g e t t i n g o n for fifty w h e n his son was b o r n . N o n e o f this is impossible b u t the c o m b i n a t i o n does impose a strain. O n e w a y o f relieving the pressure w o u l d be t o date C n . Caepio Cn.f/s quaestorship m u c h earlier, ca. 125-120. O r Cicero's C n . Caepio m i g h t be a son o f Q . Caepio, cos. 140 ( w h o was Cn.f. and brother o f the consul o f 141): he w o u l d then be brother t o Q . Caepio, cos. 106 ( b o r n n o t later than 149). T h e supposed C n . Caepio Q.f. could have had a daughter and died b y 120. I n either case the daughter Servilia c o u l d , f o r example, be the w i f e o f C . Claudius Pulcher, cos. 9 2 .

2

W h o e v e r C n . Caepio was, he belonged t o the f a m i l y t o w h i c h M . B r u t u s h i m s e l f was attached t h r o u g h his m o t h e r Servilia and b y a d o p t i o n (cf. M ü n z e r , RA 333 f f . ) T h i s suggests one w a y i n w h i c h the required i n f o r m a t i o n about h i m c o u l d have been readily available t o Atticus. Brutus h i m self was n o t then i n R o m e ; he was due t o r e t u r n from Cisalpine G a u l i n about a fortnight's t i m e (Att. 12.27.3). B u t Atticus must already have c o m pleted m u c h o f the w o r k o n his genealogy o f Brutus' f a m i l y (see b e l o w o n extract E ) . Passage c shows h o w Cicero expects Atticus t o g o about getting i n f o r m a t i o n q u i c k l y . I n the case o f C l o d i a he c o u l d consult relatives - ( C . ) M a r cellus, cos. 50, her grandson (Münzer, I M 406 f . ) , or Postumia, Ser. Sulpicius Rufus' w i f e , w h o was p r o b a b l y the aunt ( t h r o u g h a d o p t i o n ) o f Clodia's grandson Decimus Brutus (ibid. 405). S i m i l a r l y , i n the case o f R u t i l i a , he c o u l d consult her grandson M . C o t t a (ibid. 322), or else Syrus or Satyrus w h o m M ü n z e r conjectures t o have been f o r m e r slaves o f the f a m i l y , n o w b e l o n g i n g t o Atticus (ibid. 323 ) . (See further o n extract Β b e l o w . ) D

12.23 -2 (262) Astura, 1 g March 45 et u t scias m e ita dolere u t n o n iaceam: quibus consulibus Carneades et ea legatio R o m a m venerit scriptum est i n t u o annali, haec nunc quaero, quae causa fuerit - de O r o p o , o p i n o r , sed certuni nescio; et, si ita est, quae controversiae. praeterea, q u i eo tempore nobilis Epicureus fuerit Athenisque

praefuerit hortis, q u i etiam Athenis

πολιτικοί fuerint

illustres, quae te etiam ex A p o l l o d o r i p u t o posse invenire. Cicero apparently wanted this i n f o r m a t i o n for his Academica Bailey, CLA (Att.

(Shackleton

5.320), the first version o f w h i c h was completed b y 13 M a y

12.44.4; Shackleton Bailey, CLA

5.330, 335). A t Astura he obviously

2 l a m grateful to Dr. T . P . W i s e m a n for s h o w i n g m c an unpublished paper in w h i c h he independently made the tame identification.

i 6 4 Brutus:

P R O S O P O G R A P H Y

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

had n o t m a n y books w i t h h i m , t h o u g h apparently he had A t t i c u s '

Liber

Annalis. T h i s , as w e see and should expect, p r o v i d e d o n l y a simple statement o f the event w i t h its date. A p o l l o d o r u s ' Chronica seems t o be mentioned b y Cicero as a handy reference; this is b r o u g h t o u t b y Shackleton Bailey's trans­ l a t i o n o f etiam - " f r o m A p o l l o d o r u s ' b o o k a m o n g others." (Cf. Jacoby, FGH Β

2.244, fr. 47 ff. f o r this k i n d o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n the Chronica.)

12.24.2 (263) Astura, 20 March 45 et u t ad meas ineptias redeam, v e l i m m e certiorem facias P. Crassus, Venuleiae filius, v i v o n e P. Crasso consulari, patre suo, m o r t u u s sit, u t ego meminisse videor, an postea. i t e m quaero de Regillo, L e p i d i filio, rectene m e m i n e r i m patre v i v o m o r t u u m .

T h i s , o f course, continues the series o f enquiries relevant t o the

Consolatio

(extracts Β and c ) . W e observe that, as w i t h C n . Caepio, Cicero does n o t suggest (as he does f o r the w o m e n , R u t i l i a and C l o d i a ) w h e r e Atticus m i g h t go t o get the i n f o r m a t i o n . H e seems t o assume that A t t i c u s has easy access t o i t . M o r e o v e r , Cicero's m e m o r y m a y have been at fault i n b o t h the present cases. N e i t h e r P. Crassus n o r Lepidus figures i n Jerome's list o f bereaved fathers m e n t i o n e d i n Cicero's Consolatio (Ep. 60.5 ad H e l i o d . ) , and so M t i n z e r infers (RA 393 ) that Cicero had received another negative r e p l y from A t t i c u s . Miinzer's identification (ibid.) o f " L e p i d u s " as M a m . Lepidus Livianus, cos. 77, is n o t v e r y attractive - the omission o f his v e r y distinctive praenomen w o u l d be a b n o r m a l ; M . Lepidus, cos. 78, is also u n l i k e l y , as Münzer points o u t (ibid. 313 f.; cf. C r i n i t i , Lepidus 332 n.31). W h y n o t Lepidus Porcina, cos. 137? H e is k n o w n t o have been alive and active i n 125 (MRR

1.510)

w h e n he was p r o b a b l y about 55 or so (see the Register and C o m m e n t a r y , 95 [ R 4 6 ] , M . A e m i l i u s Lepidus Porcina). O n e notes that i n Brutus 295 and 333, also 106, he is called j u s t " L e p i d u s , " as here. As for the P. Crassi, the son m a y , i n fact, have predeceased his father, b u t the t w o deaths m a y have been so close together i n t i m e ( i n the c i v i l w a r o f 87) that the consular father had little scope f o r m o u r n i n g his son (cf. L i v . per. 80; A p p i a n BC 1.72; MRR 2.50, 52 n.7; above, C o m m e n t a r y o n 281 [ R 221], P. Licinius Crassus M . f ) ; hence i t was n o t a useful similitude from Cicero's p o i n t o f v i e w . N o w presumably Cicero was n o t r e l y i n g s i m p l y o n Atticus' m e m o r y as superior t o his o w n . H e seems t o assume that Atticus either had the i n f o r m a t i o n ready t o hand or could get h o l d o f i t q u i c k l y (note the haste i m p l i e d i n quamprimum i n passage c ) . Perhaps (let us t r y t o take every possibility i n t o account) Atticus, w h o , as w e k n o w , l i k e d chronological tables, had c o m p i l e d

APPENDIX:

CICERO

AT

W O R K

165

a year-by-year record o f the deaths o f R o m a n nobles reaching back over several generations. T h i s w o u l d have t o be something apart from the Liber Annalis;

Cicero had that w o r k w i t h h i m (passage D ) and i t d i d n o t t e l l h i m

w h a t he w a n t e d t o k n o w . I n any case Atticus* supposed annual register o f deaths does n o t seem a probable u n d e r t a k i n g . Perhaps, rather, Atticus had d r a w n u p prosopographies,

or stemmata, o f the noble families s h o w i n g

careers and dates o f death (cf. Nepos, Att. 18.1-4: M ü n z e r , Hermes 1905, 93 ff.). Some i n f o r m a t i o n o n death-dates w i l l have been available i n p u b l i c records, as i n the case o f m e n w h o died w h i l e h o l d i n g priesthoods or magistracies. B u t this w o u l d account f o r o n l y a fraction o f the membership o f the n o b i l i t y . For the rest, and particularly for those w h o died y o u n g , research i n the archives o f the noble families w o u l d p r o b a b l y be essential. W e k n o w that Atticus had c o m p i l e d such a f a m i l y history f o r Marcus B r u t u s : fecit hoc idem separatim in aliis libris, ut M. Bruti rogatu Iuniam familiam a stirpe ad hanc aetatem ordine enumeraverit, notons quis a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus cepisset (Nepos Att. 18.3): pedigree, career, and dates o f magistracies,

we

observe. T h e b o o k was n o t merely a genealogy b u t a prosopography o f the f a m i l y . H i s decorative genealogy o f the I u n i i was seen b y Cicero i n Marcus B r u t u s ' " P a r t h e n o n " this same year (Cic. Att. 13.40.1, T u s c u l u m , ca. 17 A u g u s t 45). Nepos (Att. 18.4) tells us o f other libri o n the C l a u d i i M a r c e l l i , done at the request o f C. Marcellus (cos. 50, Octavia's husband), and o n the Fabii and A e m i l i i , at the request o f Fabius M a x i m u s and Cornelius Scipio. Fabius must be the consul o f 45, w h o died o n 31 December o f t h a t year (Cic. Fam. 7.30.1), h a v i n g r e t u r n e d from Spain o n l y three m o n t h s earlier (cf. Sumner, Phoenix 1971, 357 n . 4 6 ) ; i t seems probable that his request t o A t t i c u s was made n o later t h a n 46. Cornelius Scipio is obviously n o t Metellus Scipio (died after Thapsus, A p r i l 46: Gelzer, Caesar* 249 [269, E n g l . e d . ] ;

MRR

2.297), and is p r o b a b l y P. Cornelius (Scipio), cos. suff. 35 ( M R R 2.406; Inscr.Ital.

13.1.283, 8 8 ) ; his h o m o n y m o u s son was consul i n 16 B . C . , there2

fore b o r n b y 49 (cf. PIR 2, 2

C 1437-8). Because o f the interlacing o f the noble

families b y marriage and a d o p t i o n , A t t i c u s ' research i n t o the f o u r families named must have i n v o l v e d a w i d e coverage o f the n o b i l i t y i n general. I t is s y m p t o m a t i c that the request for the prosopography o f the A e m i l i i does n o t come from an A e m i l i u s . M o r e o v e r , for his Liber Annalis A t t i c u s had gathered i n f o r m a t i o n o n the descent o f consular families, evidently i n order t o note the f i l i a t i o n o f the magistrates: et, quod dijficillimum fuit, sic familiarum

originem

subtexuit, ut ex eo [sc. volumine] clarorum virorum propagines possimus cognoscere (Nepos Att. 18.2). T h u s i t seems probable that even b y the t i m e o f the composition o f the

i66 Brutus:

PROSOPOGRAPHY

A N D

C H R O N O L O G Y

Brutus, and t o a m u c h greater extent a year later, A t t i c u s had accumulated a great store o f i n f o r m a t i o n o n the families o f the R o m a n n o b i l i t y . W e can see that Cicero expects t o be able t o tap this source o n demand. H e does n o t m a k e any suggestions t o Atticus o n h o w t o go about acquiring i n f o r m a t i o n o n the P. Crassi, the L e p i d i , the Caepiones. I n the case o f the Crassi their deaths were matters o f historical record. I t was n o t a question o f consulting the Êimily. Indeed, this m i g h t have been difficult, as there d o n o t seem t o have been m a n y o f t h e m left; the o n l y k n o w n survivor is the future consul o f 30, w h o was probably a y o u t h under t w e n t y at this t i m e - he was M . Crassus' grandson. I n the case o f Lepidus and his sonRegillus, A t t i c u s m a y already have collected materials f o r the genealogical prosopography o f the A e m i l i i w h i c h w e k n o w he c o m p i l e d . As for the Caepiones, w e can be confident that A t t i c u s had the i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e m at his finger-tips, because o f his w o r k o n the pedigree o f the I u n i i B r u t i f o r Marcus B r u t u s ; B r u t u s ' m o t h e r was a Servilia o f the Caepiones (RE 15, Servilius 101). F

13.30.2 (303) Tusculum, 28May 45 m i , sicunde potes, erues, q u i decern legati M u m m i o fuerint. Polybius n o n n o m i n a i , ego m e m i n i A l b i n u m consularem et Sp. M u m m i u m ; videor audisse ex Hortensio T u d i t a n u m . sed i n Libonis annali χ π π annis post praetor est fàctus Tuditanus q u a m consul M u m m i u s . n o n sane quadrat, v o l o aliquem O l y m p i a e aut ubivis πόλιτικον

avWoyov

m o r e Dicaearchi, familiaris t u i . G

13.32.2,3 (305) Tusculum, 29 May 45 Dicaearchi irepl ψυχη* utrosque v e l i m mittas et Καταβάσεω*; LTLKÒV

Τριπολ-

n o n inverno et epistulam eius q u e m ad A r i s t o x e n u m misit. tris

eos libros m a x i m e nunc v e l l e m ; a p t i essent ad i d q u o d cogito. ... et q u o d ad te (de) decern legatis scripsi p a r u m intellexi(sti), credo quia δια σημείων scripseram. de C. T u d i t a n o e n i m quaerebam, q u e m ex Hortensio audieram fuisse i n decern, e u m v i d e o i n Libonis praet o r e m P. P o p i l i o P. R u p i l i o (consulibus ) * . annis χ π π ante q u a m praetor factus est legatus esse ( q u i ) potuisset? - nisi a d m o d u m sero praetor est factus, q u o d n o n arbitror. video e n i m curules magistrates e u m l e g i t i ­ mis annis perfacile cepisse. P o s t u m i u m autem, cuius statuam i n I s t h m o meminisse te dicis, A u l u m nesciebam fuisse, is a u t e m est q u i (consul ) * cum

( L . ) * L u c u l l o f u i t ; q u e m t u m i h i addidisti sane ad i l i u m personam

* I n m y opinion these supplements m a y be superfluous. C o m p a r e extract M b e l o w for similar shorthand expressions.

APPBNDIX:

CICBRO

AT

W O R K

167

idoneam. videbis i g i t u r , si poteris, ceteros, u t possimus πομπβυσαι

καί

r o i s προσώποι*.

Η

13.33-3 (309) Tusculum, 2?June 45 (... lacuna . . . ) n e g o t i u m dederis, reperiet ex eo l i b r o i n q u o sunt senatus consulta C n . C o r n e l i o L . ( M u m m i o ) consulibus. de T u d i t a n o autem, q u o d putas euXoyov est, t u r n i l i u m , q u o n i a m f u i t ad C o r i n t h u m ( n o n e n i m temere d i x i t Hortensius), aut quaestorem (aut) t r i b u n u m m i l . fuisse, idque potius credo; sed t u de A n t i o c h o scire poteris, v i d e etiam quo anno quaestor aut tribunus m i l . flier i t ; si n e u t r u m f cadetf, i n praefectis an i n contubernalibus fuerit, m o d o fuerit i n eo bello.

ι

13.4.ι (311) Tusculum, 4?June43 habeo munus a te elaboratimi decern legator u m :

et q u i d e m

(de

T u d i t a n o (?) i d e m ) p u t o . n a m filius anno post quaestor f u i t q u a m consul M u m m i u s . j

13.5.ι (312) Tusculum, 5?June 43 Sp. M u m m i u m p u t a r a m i n decern legatis fuisse, sed videlicet (etenim cöXoyoj/) fratri fuisse, f u i t e n i m ad C o r i n t h u m .

κ

13.6.4 = I3.6a (310) Tusculum,3??

(6i)June45

T u d i t a n u m i s t u m , p r o a v u m H o r t e n s i , plane n o n n o r a m et filium, q u i t u r n n o n potuerat esse legatus, fuisse p u t a r a m . M u m m i u m fuisse ad C o r i n t h u m p r o certo habeo. saepe e n i m hie Spurius, q u i nuper est (mortuus), epistulas m i h i pronuntiabat versiculis factas ad familiaris missas a C o r i n t h o . sed n o n d u b i t o q u i n fratri fuerit legatus, n o n i n decern, atque hoc etiam accepi, n o n solitos maiores nostros eos legare i n decern q u i essent i m p e r a t o r u m necessarii, u t nos i g n a r i p u l c h e r r i m o r u m i n s t i t u t o r u m aut neglegentes potius M . L u c u l l u m et L . M u r e nam

et ceteros coniunctissimos ad L . L u c u l l u m misimus. i l l u d q u e

eùXoyœraTov

i l i u m fratri i n primis eius legatis fuisse, (ο) operam t u a m

m u l t a m , q u i et haec cures et mea expédias et sis i n tuis n o n m u l t o minus diligens q u a m i n meis ! T h e accepted order o f the letters from w h i c h these extracts are taken was revised b y Shackleton Bailey (see his discussion, CLA

5.355) so that, whereas

Schmidt had put t h e m i n the sequence F , G , I , J , H , K , they n o w appeared i n the order 1·,