A Commentary on Livy: Books I-V

on

LIV

BOOKS

R. M. OGI

he retold the traditional the early history of Rom 390 B.C. It aims, by the e of Livy's sources and by recent archaeological disc of modern advances in t Roman religion, law, and to uncover the historical from which the tradition evolved. At the same ti trates Livy's linguistic a usage and discusses the d his text. It is both a ru mentary on the text of source-book for the sto Rome.

Oxford University Press, Amen House, House, London E.C.4 E.C.4 Oxford MELBOURNE GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELIIOURNE

WELLINGTON

BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA :BOMIIAY IB AD AN ACCRA ACCRA CAPE TOWN SALISBURY NAIROBI IBADAN KUALA LUMPUR

HONG KONG KONO HoNG

COMMENTARY ON A COMMENTARY

LIVY L IVY BOOKS 1-5 1-5 BY B Y

M. OGIL OGILVIE R. M. VIE Fellow of Fellow of Balliol College College Oxford Oxford

OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 19 i9 6655

© Oxford Universiry Pre

PRINTED IN GREAT BR

FRA TRIS DILECTIS

I.

w. o.

Q.VI .INTER ALTA MONTIVM

PACEM Q.VAESIVIT DEVM

THIS commentary owes its beginning to Last, Esq., who incited me to ask some sets out to answer, and it owes its comple D. H. Cameron of Lochiel who gave me then at Errachd, a home among the

mountain backs, misty ridged multitudinous to the n

where it was possible to read and write a The study ofLivy has always travelled a and Ratherius, Petrarch and Macchiave are but a few of the illustrious who have and been moved by it. And ifhe has been the editions of Gronovius and Madvig m monuments of classical scholarship. It is t a new Commentary, even on the first five b been done: so much still remains to do. T versial matters of history, law, and religio inscrutable about his narrative techniqu understanding particularly of early Rom with the research that has been carried years into numerous details of style and lan that the time was opportune to try to co ferent investigations together. The aim of be to make it easier for a reader to appreci after all, was writing nearly two thousand events which were four hundred years and day, so that many things which were obv are obscure to us and many things were this gulf which a Commentary should Inevitably no two readers will ask the sam quence I have had to be content with dis interested me as a reader. I have not, there for the needs of the schoolboy or the und but rather for the use of anyone who wa a systematic history of early Rome: stil Livy himself. It would be impossible in a work of every debt to written sources or personal vii

or giving repeated references throughout appended a selective bibliography to eac The abbreviations used throughout conf used by L'Annee philologique and should be list of works commonly referred to is given publications shows no sign of abating an profit from certain important works such der rom. Republik or A. Momigliano's pape 53 (1963), which reached me after the au

R

CONTENTS LIST OF MAPS ABBREVIATIONS

x xiii

INTRODUCTION Life Sources Style and composition Select Bibliography

i 5 17 22

COMMENTARY Book 1 Book Book Book Book

2 3 4 5

INDEXES Persons Places and Peoples General Syntax and Style Latin Authors and Passages

23 233 390 526 626

753 760 763 769 770 773

(at end)

1. THE CAMPAG

2. ROME

I SHOULD like to thank my colleague Russell Meiggs, for his sustained enco criticisms; Professor E. D. M. Fraenkel graduate to the love of Latin; the four s much in recent years to promote the Britain-Dr. A. H. McDonald, for introd history and improving a draft of the typ scrutinizing part of the Introduction, Dr. typescript and flooding me with stimula P. G. Walsh for laboriously correcting th saving me from countless errors; Mr. W advice on Roman law; Dr. S. Weinstoc Roman religion; Dr. T. J. Luce for li Licinius Macer; the late Professor D. S. Porson's annotated copy of Livy; the lib Cambridge, for allowing me to consult annotated copies of Livy; the librarian Verona, for permitting me to collate th (Codex Veronensis); the librarian of Florence, for permitting me to collate Director and Staff of the British School the Trustees of the Craven Fund for gen travelling expenses; the Governing Bo Oxford, and Clare College, Cambridge unworried research; Professor Sir Ronal Williams, Professor W. D. M. Paton, Pro Mr. W. S. Barrett, Mr. M. I. Finley, Mr A. N. Bryan-Brown, Mr. C. G. Hardie Jasper Griffin, Mr. G. W. Bowersock fo my pupils, among whom should be men Dr. G. C. Duncan, Mr. Henry Brooke, Macleod, Mr. C. P. Jones, Mr. P. F. D. Barber, for many provocative discussio Oxford University Press for willingly und far outgrown its original limits, and the readers; and Jennifer who typed the w selfishly allowed me to be preoccupied fo xi

ABBREVIATIONS ABBREVIATIONS E. Burck, Die Die Erzählungskunst Erziihlungskunst des des T. Livius Livius (Berlin,

Burck Burck

=

Klotz

Livius u.s. u.s. Vorganger = A. Klotz, Livius Vorgänger (Neue Wege z. Antike, Antike, I94I). 1941). = W. Schulze,
I934)·

Schulze

(Berlin, (Berlin, I904). 1904). E. u.s. Vorganger = E. Skard, Skard, Sallust Sallust u.s. Vorgänger (Oslo, (Oslo, I957). 1957). W. Soltau, Livius Geschichtswerk, seine Komposition = W. Soltau, Livius Geschichtswerk, seine Komposition und und sei7le Quellen seine Quellen (Leipzig, (Leipzig, I897). 1897). Sydenham The Coinage Sydenham — E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of of the Roman Republic (London, I952). 1952). Skard Skard Soltau Soltau

T. LlvIUs-no cognomen is recorded-was b That much is clear from many sources (Qu In Corn. 68; Martial I. 61. 3) and account Livy accords to Patavium over Rome in his cf. also 10.2.4-15,41. 27. I ff.). The date of Jerome (ad Euseb. Chron. ad Ann. Abr. 1958 him with Messalla Corvinus. Jerome also in A.D. 13, Livy in A.D. 17. The dates for M years. Messalla can hardly have been co eight (31 B.C.) and he was dead by A.D. 8 ( ThatJerome's date for Livy's death is righ of a superscription in the Periocha of Book Augusti dicitur. Since Livy wrote 142 books he composed at least 2 I in the last thre paralleled productivity if the average len same. Moreover, the superscriptionreadsed not 'written'. There is, then, no certain e Augustus and it is tempting to believe th years out for Livy as well as for Messalla confusion between the consuls· of 64 (Cae 59 (Caesare et Bibulo). His life-span woul A.D.12 •.

Of Livy's family background we know Livii figure in various inscriptions from .P and one bare epitaph of unproved aut T. Livius C.J. with two sons and a wife, Cass has been presuIIJ.ed to be the historian's g us nothing of his private life or of his pare a daughter who married L. Magius, a pr Contr. 10 praef. 2), and a son whom he enc of Demosthenes and Cicero and for whom style (Quintilian 10. l. 39). It may be assumed that Livy came from that he received his early education loca fluency in Greek (5. 33-35 n.) and his v matters may be taken as proof that he did he had not enjoyed the normal universi 814482

Livy is next heard of in Rome as the his of approach enable us to date the change. first five books indicates that they were com 25 B.C. (I. 19. 3 n., 4. 20. 5-11 n.; cf. I. 56.2 n., 57. 9 n., 59. 12 n., 2. 34. 12 n., 43. 58.4. n., 68. 7 n., 70. 1 n., 4· 3· 7 n., 4· 4 n there is nothing in them to suggest that Li tory before 29 B.C. Secondly Syme has conv 134-42, dealing with 20 years of the Prin death ofDrusus in 9 B.C., were a later add the work. Livy's first objective had been Wars and the restoration of domestic peace of Octavian. Both lines point to the same begun to return to normal and academic s in the capital. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Strabo in 29 B.C. Livy himself seems to optimism that is evident in Virgil's Georgi flourish once again. Livy's concern for peace and concord realistic, permeates his writing. Personal fa this outlook. Padua had been the scene of Civil Wars (Cicero, Phil. 12. 10; Macrobiu young and, if his interests are any guide, the pursuits of peace. Besides, Padua had a morality and commercial prosperity (Str Epist. I. 14.,6; Martial 11 ~. 16; Pomponiu trade and trade requires the settled con nationality and upbringing Livy was p minded and somewhat bourgeois detachmen of his time. All he asked was quiet and pe his literary career. Livy's retiring disposition explains his capital. We know that he enjoyed the (Tacitus, Annals 4. 34). He even encourage write history (Suetonius, Claudius 41. I) a be traced in the debt which thirty years l speeches still owed to Livy's style. Yet Li

I For Livy's political ignorance see r. 32. 12 n., 44· 12 n., 52. 10 n., 56. 4 n., 5. 9. 3 n.; cf. also 4·

2

Cossus (4. 20. 5-11 n.), Livy recorded it b version. If publication of the last twenty was postponed, it will have been, as was t Pliny the Elder, until their author's death ing, and perhaps incriminating, contents. T of Livy and Augustus actually led the CO more important. Livy recognized the gre had rendered Rome and Italy by his succe himself too closely with the regime that r He is never mentioned as one of Maecen never linked with any other ofthe literary may assume that Livy began to compos Knowledge of it came to Augustus' ears wh promising a star and doubtless hoped that t be glad in return to promote the New Re come involved. He left his mark only on imperial household, the invalid Claudiu highest degree improbable, as has someti sonal familiarity through court circles enab material for the Aeneid from Livy or, conv from Virgil. He was as distant to the Opposition. issues would keep him apart. One of the from 29 B.C. onwards was C. Asinius Pollio of Antony (Vell. Pat. 2. 86. 3) whom he Pollio had been governor of Cisalpine Ga harsh measures against Padua. Here was Pollio had taken up Sallust's role as an hist literary adviser Ateius Philologus (Sueton proceeded to compose a continuation of finished at the latter's death in 35 B.C. Po political attitude to history and cultivated style-durus et siccus (Tacitus, Dialogus 21. 7 Ars P. 31 I). Livy recoiled from both. H approach to history is evident from the P technique of composition. His distaste fo stated (Seneca, Contr. 9. 1 (24).14,9.2 (25) the manner ofSallust and Pollio was little be intellect, and integrity. His attitude to T 3

Timagenes quarrelled with Augustus-th can hardly have been before 25 B.c.-an monograph as a defiant gesture, took refu Ira 3.23.4 ff.; Suidas s.v. IIw>.lwv). When not to use him as a source but to brand (9. 18. 6). Irresponsibility did not appeal Only Cicero commanded Livy's admir tested and ridiculed by Sallust, who was. d Suas. 6. 15, 6. 24, 6. 27). Cicero had consi and apart from party, if only because he w He had advocated peace and unity in t radical or revolutionary policies (cf., e.g., d congenial to Livy's temperament. His obit virmagnus ac memorabilisI foit et in cuius laudatore opus foerit (Seneca, Suas. 6. 22). Cicero and to measure other writers by 10. I. 39). He himself shows at all points a of the great orator. Yet even here Livy ca righteous criticism. Cicero, he judges, had deservedly, but with the sole exception of h of the misfortunes that had come his way There is something cold and withdrawn of humour are to be found in the history (3 Livy fails to appreciate the one witticism w sources (45. 39. 15)· And something comp to offer moral judgements on every perso who told the story that a citizen of Cadi Rome to see the great author· (Pliny, E Dialogus 10): Livy or the man himself? T d7Tpayp.oavvTj will have won him few frien that the recitations of his history were spar beingattrat:ted only by Livy's KaA>'OS I/Jvxfjs KopvoiiTos; see G Cichorius, Rom. Studien, 2 spent most of his life in Rome. His pres for c. 2 B.C. (a calculation of the average len that the books dealing with Pompey whic were written then), and c. A.D. 8 when C

I The Manuscript has magnus acer memorabilis b effective (cf. 39. 51. 10); for ac before memorabilis c

4

I. 5. 56; cf. 8. I. 3; see on Style below). T deeper to the provincial and middle-class o at Padua, not Rome. For full summaries of Livy's life see. K Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. 64 (1959), critically reviewed by G. V. Sumner, Aum Mette, Gymnasium, 68 (1961), 269 ff.: see 92 (1961),440 ff. For later mythology abo Studies in the Italian Renaissance, 60 ff.; G. P. Sambiri, Ital. Med. e Uman. 1 (1958), 2 The personal details about Livy are all know more it would not help us to appreci of his history. For Livy was preoccupied affairs of the day or even with antiquaria

SOURCES Livy claimed to have read all Greek and L even be true, although it smacks of the de Lawrence of Arabia to claim that he had Oxford Union Library. But, true or false his method of work. Did he consult the particular section of the history? Did he co Or did he follow in the main one authority another when doubt or interest prompted questions is of cardinal importance for literary art and it is afforded by an analysis one of his principal sources, Polybius, is ex with Livy page by page and section by sect a comparison leaves no doubt that for long transcribed Polybius and that the modifica makes are for purely literary reasons. A u vestigations is given by Walsh, Livy, 110-7 that although his methods may be more mental in the early books, the basic techn wrong to conceive ofLivy combing throug sitting down to write a composite account and adapted a single version for the main n name variants or cite alternatives, but this is pedantry expected of an historian. It mea 5

evidence, it is always at second hand. M absence of any knowledge of Varro's pro engage in original research himself is un Varro had done that for him and conde accessible volumes. Yet there is no sign short digression on the origins of Roman co nothing distinctively Varronian anywhere trary, his account of the sacrifice to Dia sophistication introduced by Varro (I. 45 tribal organization instituted by Servius T searches into the rural tribes (1. 43. 13 n.) Cremera Cn. Fabius and not, as was first pr Fabius (4.43. 1 n.). He is content with Li planation of the ovatio (2. 16.9 n.). He ha whom Varro canvassed as the elder Tarqu example of all is the total given for the G The list could be extended (see notes on 5. that Livy was not concerned to further h anxious to write history and, for that p supply of material was the chief requisite collatio, as Pliny remarked in a similar con As it is probable that at any moment Liv and one only, so it is unlikely that the t generally consulted by him will be very

I Since I do not believe that Livy directly con dealbatae as exposed by the pontijices (Cicero, de Dra Macrobius 3.2. I7) or the edition of them, the An Scaevola, the pontifex maximus (c. I23 B.C.), I hav any account of these documents in the Introducti in the Commentary and to list in the Index those my opinion derive ultimately from the Annales. Fr contrary to prevailing opinion, I believe that a n complete set, survived from the period 509-390 (es much more variegated material than is usually assu and that their editi
6

Valerius Antias' history (see below). Th mentions are three recent historians, Va Macer, and Q. Aelius Tubero. Livy's na treated too seriously. The identity and ch be unravelled by a detailed examination and inconsistencies of the narrative itsel£ a wide area the picture which emerges f employed only two main sources for the hi them alternately. For digressions on lega graphical matters (5. 33-35 nn.) he might hind the main narrative stand two writer cast on the early history of Rome. In order t of historical writing before Livy and to ap became at once a classic that relegated it it is necessary to examine the life and wo Licinius Macer. C. LICINIUS MACER

We know most about C. Licinius Mac day a prominent politician and was the fa Calvus. His immediate ancestry is unknow father was called Lucius and that he mu closing years of the second century B.C. if (or possibly 88: Pliny, N.H. 7. 165). A co 116 may be conjectured. His oratorical p patronus propemodum diligentissimus in his sum secured him an early entry into politics. tribune in 73, praetor c. 68. After governin he was accused before Cicero as presiding and died suddenly the same year (Val. Cicero 9. 2). The bare outline of his career does not sympathies. He must have been quaesto It is true that his tribunate comes later in but Sulla's law which excluded tribunes f repealed in 75. To his tribunate two sig instituted an abortive prosecution of C. R sponsible for the murder of Marius' po 100, and he delivered a speech pro Tuscis

7

712, 736, 739, 760, 763)~ The political no less striking is another series issued figuring, as it is generally interpreted, Ve 723, 724, 726, 732). These six issues of the latest are unique in Republican coina employed as a type-motif. The challenge is genetrix, her charge the divinely guided ru the Marians invoke that other protector o that patron ofthe old Italian nation (Varro, (Virgil, Georgics 3. 35 ff.; Sil. Ital. 1I. 17 significance, the Veiovis-type must be th propaganda and Licinius is one of those m Licinius is a Marian, committed to bitter to Sulla .. It is harder to define what the p personal creed of-a Marian popularis was. Marius and his friends, or to vilify Sulla, argument and reason. By good fortune a mentation is preserved by Sallust, who i speech delivered by Licinius as tribune (3. sation and rewriting Sallust himself indulge of capital importance for Licinius' atti ominously by reminding the people of th maioribus relictum vobis et hoc a Sulla para slogans and jargon of party politics his placency has allowed the people to surren fare; and their destinies into the hands of am engendered by promises (delenimenta) and fr The people must learn to think about politi themselves in the issues and not merely cast above all, to organize themselves as a unit can be heard. The tribunate must have its as an effective mouthpiece of the people. _ Such is the express philosophy and atti are asked to believe professed no more th doxy-an ideal supremacy of the people authority of a benevolent Senate' (M. I. H 85) but whom Cicero with less inhibition ad summam impudentiam. The extent to whi judices and politics into the writing of hist 8

in J.R.S. 48 (1958),40-46. There are bo places where wrong attributions have bee the process produces a coherent body of L Licinius was fashioned after the regular Fabius Pictor and Postumius Albinus and primarily, and an historian only as a side as to the date when he was writing but it w that he directed his energies to history duri the political wilderness. The extant fragm with the regal period. The latest cited boo allusion to Pyrrhus (fr. 20 P.). He is not first decade. Hence there is a strong presu incomplete, or at least had not extended at his death. The task of an historian writing after the was to be original. Just as Livy improved o it is evident that Licinius took the history about 130 B.a., as his groundwork and in (frr.8, 10, II). These additions seem to co In surnaming his son Calvus, Macer r of his forefathers, P. Licinius Calvus. Livy allows Macer's bias to shine through. Ag against all probability, P. Licinius is asse plebeian consular tribune, to have won his campaign, to have resigned a second con him by popular demand, in favour of his and to have been given precedence in th 1-2 nn., 18. 5 n., 20. 4-10 n.). Nor was thi in that' way. The list of the original trib Macer alone puts C. Licinius at the head did not hold the place long, for the next g placed him in favour ofL. Iunius Brutus eventually opened his eyes to Licinius' pa ea propriae familiae laus leviorem auctorem L Macer did not confine his activities to the L had both a special interest in and a privileg (cf. fr. 19 P.). His date for the Battle of Crem that battle and the fate of its survivors a 3. 2. 2 n.) and the more revealing in tha 9

tribune in 76 agitated for the restoration tribunate ([AsconiusJ, in Div. p. 189 St.; Sicinii amply graced the pages of Mace Curiatii and Horatii suddenly appear as Alban Sicinius (1. 24. In.). Sicinii are num call of avant-garde tribunes (2. 32. 2 n., 5. 2 plebeian Sicinius is substituted for a patri One of the most interesting of these persona (n.). Macer alone of historians records the c One of the last prominent Marians, Q. terms with Sulla in 82 (Vell. Pat. 2. 27. 6) to death on Sulla's orders in 81 (Plutarch, the reward of a consulship although he w B.G. 1. 101 {nraT€V€W ETt t7T'Tr€a 8VTa ••• dgtO with a posthumous honour. A second method by which fancy cou throw episodes or incidents from contemp past. Livy himself was not above doing thi to have done so liberally. What is of espe certain Licinian throwbacks are justific associates or detractions of Sulla. The most trivial. Rome learned of the defeat of that was washed down the Tiber: so Ma Rutilius' defeat in 90 B.O. (1. 37. In.). Ma turn of speech. Two of his most famous re (Plutarch, Marius 28) and ex virtute nobilitas ( reproduced in Livy (4. 1. 5 n., 1. 34. 6 n.). was A. Postumius Albinus, consul in 99 B. This luckless noble, whose military career was immortalized by having the details of in the career of an ancestor (4.49.7 n.; the Senate on its own initiative had abroga successor, the consul Cinna. This was an u Licinius challenged in his narrative ab (2. 2. 2-1 In.). Sulla had revived the dic 120 years. The move was portentous and among his opponents. Licinius insistently b that dictators could only be appointed by with constitutional procedure (5.46. 7-1 I 10

is they who are affected for good or ill by a history Licinius was at pains to emphasi of the people (3.4. 9 n.). It is the people w It is the people, not the Senate, who sho determine their terms of reference (4. 51. settle the conditions of election and powers It is the people who should decide the iss this to be possible or effective the people h and led. There had to be a powerful and r telum acerrimum libertati paratum as Macer ca Livy 3. 55. 3 n.). Macer, as it is to be exp cerned about the history of that institutio feature of his account is that he believed to be derived from a foedus between th (4. 6. 7 n.). An historian of the 70's would inevitably struggle of the populus against the opportun nobiles the struggle of the plebs against the Time and time again we find Licinius giv interpretation of an institution. The classi the Lex Canuleia de conubio and the origin Equally biased but less obtrusive is his (4. 12. 2 n.). It was as much for their pol the desire to employ new material for its ow the libri lintei as the source for his list of ep libri had reposed in the temple ofJuno Mo vowed in 345 B.C., the centenary of the c bunate (7. 28.4-6), and whose cult was p fact they possessed no independent value them like the consular tribunate itself as e these specific facts, there is much gene political hue. In his speech he protested t dangers should receive the rewards (18 a nulla pars fructus est). In his history he inser (4. 49· ID n.), complaints about the ineq land whereby the plebs were deprived o 2. 42. I n.). He hammers his message hom force by the wholesale use of slogans and rimum; 2. 12. 3 n. honos et virtus; 4. 5 I. 5 n II

under his scrutiny. Coupled with this was which found political or rational explana We may recognize the LiCinian slant in th line Temple (2. 8. 6. n.), in the death of legendofTatius (1.14. I-3n.), in the rationa 4. 10. I I (n.) which so resemble his acco or the Lavinian festival (fr. 5). Licinius w with all the prejudices and faults of his cl outlook that made his history fresh and ex The analysis of the Licinian passages o interest. It has been remarked that Lici the Italian cities and their oppression un history he shows an interested curiosity i places near Rome which is reminiscent of fragments contain informative comments nium (fr. 5). From Livy we can tell that he of Ardea (4.7. 12 n.), and much of the Ard due to him. Licinius had evidently researc partiCipated in theferiae Latinae (c£ D.H. 4 he gave a political origin. Many of these occur in passing in Licinian sections of th For instance eight of them are worked in Priscus (I. 38. 1-4 nn.). The three notices betray the ·same bent (4. 29. 8 n.). Such, then, were the sympathies of the h of the history that Livy chose to adopt a authorities. For bibliography and discussion (112)'; Ogilvie, J.R.S. 48 (1958),40-46; W VALERIUS ANTIAS

Livy's second principal authority, Valer not given), was of a different stamp. As fa barked on a political career although a L other Valerius with that cognomen, is (spurio been in charge of captive envoys in 215 assume that the family was an undistingui who assumed their cognomen from residenc there is virtually no evidence. VeI1eius Pate as a contemporary of Sisenna (ob. 67) an 12

was advanced by Zahlen who claimed that results of Varro's research and who also Catilinarian conspiracy and the career of C of early Republican history. Neither arg The relevant passages of Pliny make it cl using Valerius and not vice versa; the hun temporary references is peculiarly hazardo every Caesarian allusion turns out on inspe or Sullan. Cicero's apparent neglect of him Valerius' obscurity. He was not a senator. men like Macer or Sisenna would naturally the work of a literary recluse would be ov The problem might be resolved if the could be established. The last quoted vol 75 (fr. 62 P.), but unfortunately the conten committal and cannot be placed. The la ment (fr. 57 P. from Aul. Gell. 6. 9. 12) is and refers to the activities ofTiberius Grac If the figure 22 is correct, Valerius must ha two generations before his own at much gr history. I On balance therefore Velleius' date is a later date can hardly be sustained if 4. Tubero ... edunt is taken seriously, for i Tubero had consulted Valerius' history ju Macer's (10. 9.10; see Klotz, Rh. Mus. 8 Tubero was active in the 40's and 30's (s late date of 40-30 B.C. for Valerius propose is thus ruled out. I would conjecture that th or thereabouts. Much has been written about the cha His exaggeration of numbers and his melo been duly observed and pilloried. The fir ever, afford an opportunity of studying hi

I It is not certain that fr. 60 P., said to come fr need refer to Licinius' prosecution of C. Rabirus 100, except for the case against Catulus in 87 un is unknown in this period, and Licinius need not before 100 or during the domination of Cinna, i be M. Mariu! (Gratidianus).

and censor in 120, about whose historical cently published a useful summary (Sitzung zu Berlin, 1960, no. 7). The value of Piso's although they were branded by Cicero a 106), they contained some selection from t Valerius' indebtedness to him is witness I. 31. 8 n., 46. 4 n., 2. 13. 11 n., 32. In., this foundation Valerius set out to constru The most striking single feature is the a which outdoes anything which Macer co though the place of P. Valerius Poplicola as before Antias wrote, the Valerii claim a d 'firsts'. The first fetial is M. Valerius (I. M'. Valerius (2. 18.6 n.); the first recipi games was M'. Valerius Volusi f. (2. 3 I. 3 popular demand was awarded to L. Vale public subscription for a funeral was awa IQ-I I n.; cf. 3. 18. I I). It can be shown tha naming L. Valerius as the prosecutor of and M. Valerius as the prosecutor ofM. V Valerii were the saviours of the state. M Menenius as the conciliator at the First Valerius rescued a Rome surprised by Sab L. Valerius restored order and confidence 3· 70 . 15)· With Valerii filling so many of the history, there would seem to be little room gentes, but where Antias found an anonym or some similar action he delighted to su Genucii at 2.52.3,3. 33· 3, 7.42. 1-2: the m only contemporary Genucius of whom we of Cybele (Val. Max. 7. 7. 6). Others are no claim to antiquity but prominent in the compliments-a Q.ConsidilJ.s at 2.52.3 (n a Racilia at 3.26.9 (n.), a iL. Alienus at sponsible for the fantastic cognomen Cicer suggestive Cornicen (3. 35. 11 n.). The Macer's, but the difference is that where M of political allies of respectable Roman d 14

themselves by staying in Rome during the mediator with Sulla was required it was L 86) who was sent to Asia and the other L. V of 100, who proposed a reconciliation with introduced enabling legislation in Sulla's between the Valerii and Sulla was natural shared by Valerius Antias can hardly be que Antium was most cruelly treated by Mariu Sulla is examined below. Here we may no gens Cornelia receive preferential treatmen but it is Antias who alone is responsibl proud patricians the Claudii. Earlier ann apart from the Decemvir. Antias gave th (2.23. 15; 2.56.5 n.; 2. 58. 6-59 n.). Agai of Sulla's staunchest allies was Ap. Claudi Sulla as consul in 79. At least one episode his army by Cinna in 89, is made the basis 6 ff.). Conversely the prosecutor of the no none other than L. Appuleius (Saturninu The main centre of Valerius' admiratio pressly stated but the evidence leaves no ro Sulla Valerius need not be specifically The relative dates are not settled althoug Valerius is slightly the younger. Even if V Macer as a politician (see above), there is n recapitulation of his history. It is by no m should have written his own version indep Sulla had aimed so to strengthen the se it would be capable of ruling on its own w or subject to individual commanders back therefore to cast Sulla in the role of Servius echoes throughout Valerius' account of organization, the extension of the pomerium poly by the Senate of decisions affecting wa resignation (I. 48. 9 n.). Valerius provided Sullan enactments such as that concerni games (2. 3 I. 3 n.), the reaffirmation of th the calling of speakers in the Senate (2. 29 dictators (2. 31. 10 n.), Pompey's triump 15

with abhorrence as departures from the ve stitution (3. 9· I n.). Counterparts from ea factured for all that was good in Sulla's co emphasized not merely by actual throwb which had preceded Sulla (we may no Asellio's murder (2. 27. 8 n.), of Cinna's 8 n., 40.7 n.), ofValeriusFlaccus' aborti (see n. on 3. 39) but by much atmospheri the apprehensive and deserted Rome of the (I. 53. 6 n., 2. 23. 12 n., 3. 38. 8-13 n.). No lurid tone in which he wrote of ergastula ( silia (2. 27. 13 n.; cf. 5. 32. 8 n.; notic 3.66.4 n.). We cannot tell what led Valerius to take to believe that Marius~ sack of Antium in to do with it. For Valerius was very proud petit (4. 59. 2 n.). Of course not every allus to him any more than every mention of a reasonably be assumed to be the source b to be lavish and inquisitive in the detail w 63.6 n., 3. 5. 15 n., 10.8 n., n. on 3.22.2 drags in the history of the insignificant A ment the exiguous facts about Antium. Q. AELIUS TUBERO

In 4. 23. I (n.) Livy mentions a thiI'd s The identity of this Tubero is a matter for s had as one of his legates in 60 B.G. a L. Tu an historian (ad QF. I. I. 10; cf. pro Plane. disqualified by his praenomen. Nor is it likely as the Q.Aelius Tubemwho was consul i that the historian referred to by Livy wa debarred from a notable political career have written history under the Triumvira jurist (Aul. Gel!. I. 22. 7). Dionysius of Halicarnassus addressed hi a Q. Aelius Tubero, generally taken to b expresses criticism of some contemporary dides and makes it clear that Tubero was h 16

hundred years ago Sigonius observed tha panian delegation in 7. 30-31, which is bas is modelled on the Corcyrean debate in expressly censured one of Sallust's adap (Seneca, Gontr. 9. I. 14) so that it is unlike Livy himself. It was a fashion more appro than to that of Livy. The echoes are often of memorable epigrams, e.g. 4. 57. 4 cum humana consilia",Thuc. I. 142. 1 TOV aE 7ToM they give a thoroughly Thucydidean flavo 23. 7· n., 25· 2 n., 49. 2 n., 58. 5 n., 3. 2 1 n., 71. 5 n., 5. 27. 12 n., 28. 8 n.). There is thus a possibility that D.H.'s pat the same Q. Aelius Tubero who remodelled Thucydidean veneer. I In that event Livy's at second hand through the intermediary cannot be demonstrated and since in poin tinctive imprint seems to have been that ofV assume that Valerius was the main source extensively used, although the alternativ attractions.

STYLE AND COMP

Much has been written about Livy's style a paid to the technique of his composition exhaustive lists of classsical and non-classic pages. Others have examined his direct dividual episodes have been subject to mi my intention to add to these studies bu the problems which Livy faced and som devised to overcome them. In this way I h to see the purpose of the stylistic and lingu illustrated in the notes and to understand The history of remote ages presents two if the material at the historian's disposal worthy, it is hard to make it of interest or re It is one thing to 'produce a research thesis

I See Peter, H;R.R. ccclxvi fr.; W. R. Robert Imperii Romaniz D 102; P. Perrochat, Les Modeles g

814432

17

year by year and not related to larger trend scrappiness of the material. The second difficulty Livy tackled not b data as he found them in his sources in o account of early times, but by casting the as illustrations of moral truths-omnis exem monumento. Time and again episodes are g by being turned into moral parables. The s exemplifies the principles of pietas and fi Lucretia (I. 57-59) and Verginia (3. 44-4 citia. The conduct of Sex. Tampanius is a quam moderationis (4. 41.7). The affair of M tion to prove the rule of Roman clementia ( of Brutus' sons derives its cohesion from th necessary virtue (2. 3-5). Honos and virtu the exploit of C. Mucius Scaevola (2. facilitated by the ancient theory offixed ch Thus, to cut across the vertical lines of Livy constructs a series of episodes round secure the unity of these episodes he has r They are often marked off from the conti introductions-erat tum inter equites tribunus (4· 19· 1,2.33.5,2.3. 2,3. 11. 6, 5. 27. prefaced by a moralizing sententia (2.2.2, reader that he should expect an anecdote. B struction of the episodes that Livy takes the to achieve the effect of unity. Applying th struction as defined by Aristotle and alread history by Hellenistic historians (D.H. de T Polybius 1.3.4,3. I. 4-5, 5. 32; Diodorus material which he took over from his sour principles of the Unities of Time and Place of Coriolanus he omits altogether two pai two separate campaigns into one (2. 34-4 nonsense but tense reading. His accounts bo and of the conspiracy of Brutus' sons are s nique of simplification: the scene-change cidental characters omitted. A comparison of D.H. reveals that Livy constantly inv 18

may be instructive. Sir WaIter Scott, who and disorganized character of general hist novels which by their very nature, like Liv purpose, engaged the reader's attention b the modern. His descriptions of scenes and and substance of the novel, were given in c was indistinguishable from that in which some current event. The reader is made to time he suggested the atmosphere of the pa dialect for his characters to speak which, it was branded as 'a dark dialect of Angl In this way Scott captured two worlds, th Livy's technique is similar. Steeped from oratory of Cicero, acquainted with the p and familiar with every weapon in the rhe politics, Livy could with ease represent anc and vocabulary of his day. He often did so for the throne ofRome reads more like an ac conspiracy than a prehistoric usurpation ( is the conspiracy of the sons of Brutus repo cepted letters to match those of the Allob which attended the condemnation of Co disturbances of the age after Sulla (2. 35). has all the air of a political trial of the 50'S a on the trial of Milo in 52 (3. 11-13). The which is perceptible even in some of the marked in the speeches. Whether they be sh or formal orations, the imagery and p commonplaces of the rhetorical schools, a the dying Republic ring through them. We made by T. Quinctius (3. 67-68), C. Canul (5. 3-6), and Camillus (5. 51-54) to soun not disappointed. Anyone of them coul Cicero's audiences. But the same method is also. Cincinnatus' vehement appeal (3. 1 defence (4. 44. 7), C. Terentilius' advocac tinctively and richly 'Ciceronian'. Each is a rhetorical art. No wonder that the senator ried round with him a collections of speec .19

supply by the use of dialect. One of the w achieve this is to make his episodes build up or interchange of dialogue. We may detec technique which Livy must have evolve sophical dialogues. And these fragments indirect speech are flavoured by the judic language. A colloquialism or an archaism, term woven into the dialogue serves to ch to make him sound as a figure from the p rtescio quo pacto antiquusfit animus (43. 13. 2). Hercules and Cacus is Evander's greetin religious and poetical phrases are mingled. to action by dramatic language (I. 41. 3) Tarquinius Superbus is conveyed by a (I. 47. 3-5). The coarse impetuosity of T in a single vulgar exclamation (I. 50. g) highlighted by the menaces of Sex. Tarq poignant interchange between Lucretia an At the height of his exploit Horatius Cocle found also in Ennius (2.10.11). The final a comprises the moving dialogue between C in which language. and rhythm combine to c (2. 40. 4-9). C. Laetorius is crude and examples, selected from many which wil the notes, suffice to show that Livy does n guage indiscriminately. It IS wrong to s archaic and poetical colouring' in the ea Livy's style moves in the later Decades towa Livy confines his unclassical usages to t heroes who thereby acquire character and There were good precedents for this. speeches should be appropriate to characte as in history. D.H. criticizes Thucydidesfor yopla,s (ad Pomp. 3. 20), Philistus as ov8~ avv€~,awv TOUS ;\6yovs (ibid. 5. 6), and X 7TPE7TOVTOS TOrS 7TpoaW7TO'S 7To;\;\aK" JaTOx

8,a),6yo,s 7TP€7T01Jcrn p.a.>J..ov ~ aTpaTtWTtKOrS K

Lucian similarly advocates that speech 7TpoaW7TCfl (Quomodo Historia 58). 20

prose falls into clear four-stress sections li are reminiscences of the phraseology of ba Macaulay wrote of Lake Regillus: 'it is a p confident the author had heard of the fight Be that as it may, .there can be no gainsay which it is studded. Precisely the same trea heroic battles, in the fight over the Sabine single combat of the Curiatii and the Ho against the Etruscans (2.45-46), in the co (4. 2B. 4 ff.), in the exploit of Tampan again there were precedents. Battle-desc literary exercise or €Kcppaats (Cicero, Orat Lucian, Quomodo Historia 19-20, 57; cr. which the boundary between poetry and be very thin. Wherever a linguistic abnormality is obs to ask what purpose it was meant to serve found true that most such phenomena fa categories outlined above. It is this richne lactea ubertas of Quintilian, to which the among Latin historians. Where Livy's in writing is often plain, sometimes inelega 14.4 n., 2. 16. 4n., 17,5 n., lB. 2 n., 21. 6 n 53. In., 3. 26. 2 n., 4. 47. 4n.)-the Patavi On other occasions he will deliberately em Annales (3. 5. 14 n., 10.6 n., 4.30. 7 n.). B resources of his artistry he carries on the s a pageant. 1 It is only in this sense that Livy should

I His use of clausulae is important in this con 65· 7 n·,3· 9·' 12 n., 5· 35· 2 n., 37· 4 n.). In partic is disavowed by Cicero (Orator 217) and Quintil statistical analysis of the narrative sections of the 10·3 per cent., the double spondaic of 29 per cen figures given by Zielinski are 0·6 per cent. and a dactylic rhythm, seen also in his opening senten of words (e.g. the frequentative imperito for impero o for explicavi), reflects his sense of the epic charact oratorical speeches the clausulae more closely a See also the partial analysis by Ullman, Symb. Os

21

in the highest degree, they made copious a subjection, by filling all the interstices o images.... Epitomes have been called the eat out the poetry of it' (A Defence of Poetr

SELECT BIBLIOGR

E. BllRCK, Die Erziihlungskunst des T. Livius (B H. V. Canter A.J.P. 38 (1917), 125-51; 39 ( K. Gries, Constancy in Livy's Latinity (New Yor --A.J.P. 70 (1949), 118ff. R. jUMEAU, R.E.A. 38 (1936),63-68; Rev. Phi W. KROLL, Studien zum Verstiindnis der romisch 351 ff. L. Kuhnast, Die Hauptpunkte der liv. Syntaxe ( M. L. W. LAISTNER, The Greater Roman Histori A. LAMBERT, Die indirekte Rede als kiinstlerische 1946). A. H. McDoNALD, J.R.S. 47 (1957), 155-72. R. M. OGILVIE, The Listener, 3 November 196 O. RIEMANN, Etudes sur la langue et la grammair A. ROSTAGNl, Da Livio a Virgilio (Padova, 194 W. P. SCHELLER, De Hellenistica Historiae Consc S. G. STACEY, Archivf Lat. Lex. 10 (1898), 17 B. L. ULLMAN, T.A.P.A. 73 (1942),25-33. R. ULLMANN, La Technique des discours dans Sall 19 2 7). --Etude sur le style des discours de Tite-Live (O P. G. WALSH, Rh. Mus. 97 (1954), 97-114. - - Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods (Cam K. WITTE, Rh. Mus. 65 (1910),270-305,359-

A general bibliography of recent works cove has been compiled by K. Gries, Class. World 5

For the stemma of the primary manuscrip employed in this edition see: R. M. OGILVIE, C.Q. 7 (1957),68-81. G. BILLANOVICH, Ital. Med. e Uman. 2 (1959),

22

T H E PREFACE T H E historian was expected to preface his volume with a prooemium in which he set out the scope and purpose of his work and advanced his own attitude to history (Cicero, ad Att, 16. 6. 4 ; Lucian, Quomodo Historia 52-55). The custom had been begun by Hecataeus, Herodotus, and Thucydides and had been canonized by the historians of the Hellenistic period under the influence of Isocrates and others. As the writing of history was increasingly governed by rhetorical prin­ ciples, so the themes deployed in such prefaces degenerated into rhetorical commonplaces. Their aim was the rhetorical aim of winning the reader's goodwill by presenting the history as something worthy of his attention, as something useful and profitable. Into the basis of that utility they did not closely inquire. It was taken for granted that the statesman would learn to regulate his policy or the individual his conduct by historical example. The Romans inherited the custom from the Greeks with little change. The impersonal 'Hpo&orov AXiKapv^uoeos or &OVKV818T)S AOrjvatos might give way to the more intimate ego but the content and character of the preface remained the same. The rules for its com­ position were formulated in handbooks (cf. Rhet, Lat. Min., p. 588. 28 Halm). L. was no exception to the fashion. In form his Praefatio cor­ responds to the traditional mode. Most of the arguments can be paralleled from the prefaces of his predecessors and are illustrated in the notes below. Yet it would be wrong to assume that because L. employs commonplaces he does not necessarily subscribe to them himself. A cliche need not be a lie. In such a formal context it would have been difficult, if not improper, to make radical innovations, None the less it is the novelties which tell us most about his intentions, and it is possible to form some impression of where L. disagreed with earlier historians. The closeness of Praef. 9-11 (nn.) to the language used by Sallust is proof that in writing his preface L. had his formidable predecessor in mind. In the Catiline and the Jugurtha Sallust had adopted and in the Historiae only tangentially modified the thesis that 146 B.C. was the turning-point of Roman history. Before that date the Romans had uniformly displayed virtus, that is, they had aspired to accomplish on behalf of the state egregia facinora through bonae artes and so to win gloria; after that date, when the destruction of Carthage had removed the last externally cohesive influence on Roman morals (1. 19. 4 n.) the society was invaded by avaritia and ambitio (cupido honorum) which 23

PREFACE led remorselessly to depravity (luxuria). It was not a profound thesis. Sallust was not a profound thinker. Such ideas enjoyed wide circula­ tion in contemporary R o m e . But Sallust believed in it enough to dis­ tort the facts of history to fit the strait-jacket of his philosophical scheme. L. rejects it. In assessing the decline of public morality u p to his own day L. admits the emergence of avaritia but is silent about ambitio (Praef. 10) because he recognizes that whereas the opportunites for affluent living only became available in the second century, forces such as ambitio had always been at work from the very founda­ tion of the city. By omitting ambitio L. tacitly rebukes Sallust for his over-simplified and schematic philosophy. L. had the truer historical judgement. Where Sallust tailored his material to fit his view of the historical process, L. presupposed no such determinism. For him the course of history was not a straight progression from black to white but a chequered patchwork in which good a n d evil had always been interwoven. Each event had its moral, but the moral was the eye round which the story could be constructed not a farther stage along a pre­ determined path. L.'s rejection of Sallust's thesis that ambitio was a late and decisive phenomenon, explained as it may be by the fact that Sallust's earliest efforts as a n historian were confined to the events of the recent past, is interesting in another way. In it we may discern the prejudices of the man. So far as we know, L. held no public office and his ignorance of public business is disclosed by almost every page of the history. T h e political ambitions of the normal R o m a n appear never to have attracted him. ambitio or cupido honorum did not have the same sigficance for him that it did for Sallust, the tribune and pro-consul. The second singularity of the Preface is L.'s escapism. H e confesses that early history appealed to him because it distracted the mind for a time from the present [Praef. 5). O n e m a y search the prefaces of other historians in vain for a similar confession, but it is very typical of L. who elsewhere states 'mini vetustas res scribenti nescioquo pacto antiquus fit animus' (43. 13. 2). The third distinctive feature is L.'s emphasis on the magnitude of his task [Praef 4 immensi operis; Praef. 13 tantum operis). From the very beginning L. gives the sense of being oppressed by what he has under­ taken and this feeling, which must often assail his commentators as well, is coiToborated by the anecdote that he contemplated abandon­ ing the work when it was already well advanced (Pliny, N.H. praef 16). It is a new note, not heard in the confident proclamations of his predecessors. Thus beneath the conventional themes a n d figures the Praefatio tells us much. It is the preface of a small m a n , detached from affairs, who writes less to preach political or moral lessons than to enshrine 24

PREFACE

Praef. i

in literature persons and events that have given him a thrill of excite­ ment as he studied them. See also the Introduction, p . 3. For the preface see H . Dessau, Festschrift 0. Hirschfeld, 461 fF.; G. Curcio, R.I.G.L 1 (1917), 7 7 - 8 5 ; E. Dutoit, R.E.L. 20 (1942), 9 8 - 1 0 5 ; L. Amundsen, Symb. OsL 25 (1947), 3 1 - 3 5 ; L- Ferrero, Riv. FiL 27 (i949)> x ~47; O . Leggewie, Gymnasium, 60 (1953), 343~55; K Vretska, Gymnasium, 61 (1954), 191-203; P. G. Walsh, A.J.P. 76 (x955)> 3 ^ 9 - 8 3 ; H . Oppermann, D. Altsprach. Unterricht (1955), 8 7 - 9 8 ; I. Kajanto, Arctos, 2 (1958), 5 5 - 6 3 ; A. D . Leeman, Helikon I. 28 fF. For similar prefaces cf, e.g., Hecataeus, F. Gr. Hist. 1 F 1; Herodotus 1.1; Thucydides 1. 1; Ephorus, F. Gr. Hist. 70 F 7 - 9 ; Polybius 1. 1-5; Tacitus, Hist. 1. 1. The Reasons for Undertaking a Subject already treated by Many and Dis­ tinguished Authors 1. facturusne operae pretium sim: confirmed by Quintilian 9. 4. 74 who says that the corrupt order facturusne sim operae pretium, found in N , had already gained currency by his own day. T h e true order gives a dactylic opening (7". Livius hexametri exordio coepit) which seems to have been a fashionable affectation; cf. Tacitus, Annals 1. 1 urbem Romam a principio reges habuere. It lends no support to Lundstrom's belief that L.'s opening words are a quotation from Ennius (Eranos, 15 (1915), 1-24). T h e reflection on the worth-while nature of the task is a conventional way of beginning (3. 26. 7 n . ; see Fraenkel, Horace, 81). See also M . Muller's n. a primerdio urbis: cf. Saliust, Hist. fr. 8 M. nam a principio urbis ad bellum Persi Macedonicum. res populi Romani: cf. Sallust, Hist. fr. 1 M. res populi Romani. . . militiae et domi gestas composui: Catiline 4. 2. 2. cum veterem turn volgatam: cf. Xenophon, H.G. 4. 8. 1. For the allitera­ tion cf. Plautus, Epid. 350. novi semper scriptores: for this and (3) in tanta scriptorum turba cf. Sallust, Hist. fr. 3 M. nos in tanta doctissumorum hominum copia. aliquid allaturos: cf. Cicero, de Off. 1. 155. 3. principis terrarumpopuli'. cf. Herodotus 1. 1. et ipsum: for the use of et ipse cf. 7. 4, 12. 3, 46. 2. T h e marginal me added by the correctors of M and O results from the misplacing of me in the following sentence. nobilitate: of L.'s predecessors among historians, Q,. Fabius Pictor was a senator (Polybius 3. 9. 4), L. Cincius Alimentus a praetor (26. 23. 1), A. Postumius Albinus consul (Polybius 35. 3. 7), M . Porcius Cato consul and censor, L. Calpurnius Piso consul and censor, L. Coelius Antipater a nobilis (Cicero, Brutus 102), C. Licinius Macer 25

Praef. 3

PREFACE

tribune and praetor. Only of L. Cassius Hemina is nothing known. Even Valerius Antias came from a service family (see above, p . 12) and Q . Aelius Tubero belonged to a family distinguished in the public service (Cicero, Brutus 117; Pomponius, Enchiridii 40). L. might, therefore, well feel abashed at venturing into such company. For the general sentiments cf. Martial, Praef, 1. It was more usual to denigrate the incompetence and dishonesty of foregoing authors (5 n.). eorum me . . . meo: the reading of N is sure. The Magnitude of the Undertaking 4 . praeterea: a second reason for bridling at the prospect of writing Roman history. Not merely have so many important men turned their hands to it before but the task is daunting in itself. This view seems unique to L. The Unpalatability of Early History voluptatis: cf. Thucydides 1. 22. 4 ; Tacitus, Annals 2. 88. L.'s allusion to the current fashion for contemporary history (haec nova) may be an oblique reference to Sallust or to his relations with Pollio and Timagenes (see above, p. 4). 5. nostra . . . aetas: notice the hyperbaton which is not poetic (H. J . Miiller) but emphatic. L.'s distaste for his own times could not be more strongly stated. tantisper: 1. 3. 1, 22. 5 but avoided thereafter: 'a wee while'. T h e colloquial character of the word is seen in the fact that Cicero uses it in racy letters (ad Att. 12. 14. 3 ; ad Fam. 9. 2. 4) and in a quotation from Terence (de Fin. 5. 2 8 ; Tusc. Disp. 3. 65) whereas Caesar, Sallust, Virgil, Tacitus, and Lucretius eschew it altogether. It is common in Plautus and Terence. [total ilia mente: there are no good grounds for deleting tota which was read by N : cf. Cicero, pro Cluent. 190; Phil. 10. 23. T h e only matter for doubt is its position. N's order, prisca tota ilia mente, involves a harsh interlacing which cannot be satisfactorily paralleled. Perhaps 7r's emended order (ilia tota), accepted by Weissenborn, H . J . Miiller, Bayet, and Ernout, should be followed. avertam: the novelty of L.'s escapist attitude is disclosed by the care which Curtius, living a generation later, took to rebut it (10. 9, 7 ) : ut ad ordinem a quo me contemplatio publicae felicitatis averterat redeam. curae . . . a vero: the regular claim of historians for which cf. Hecataeus 1 F 1; Thucydides 1. 22. 2 ; Sallust, Hist. fr. 6 M . neque me diversa pars in civilibus armis movit a vero; Catiline 4. 2 ; Tacitus, Annals 1. 1. posset: for the tense cf. 1. 26. 10, 35. 3, 9. 29. 10. The Indifference to Prehistoric History 6. decora: for the thought cf. Thucydides 1. 1. 3. L. does not imply 26

PREFACE

Praef. 6

that his sources for the earliest R o m a n history were directly the poets but rather that the material which was transmitted about it was more suited for poetical than historical treatment. 7. miscendo humana divinis: as recommended by Cicero, de Inv. i. 23 for securing the favourable attention of readers. Interest in the Moral Aspects of History L's interest in human conduct is not, like Sallust's, didactic or philosophical but psychological. T h e behaviour and reactions of men fascinate him as such, while the work of the gods he is ready to ration­ alize, abbreviate, or by-pass (cf, e.g., his treatment of N u m a (1.18-21); the omission of the Dioscuri (2. 19-20)). 9. mores . . . viros: the collocation recalls Ennius, Ann. 500 V. moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque but the terms had long passed into the political vocabulary (see Earl, Political Thought of Sallust, 4 ff.). artibus domi militiaeque: cf. Plautus' humorous definition of bonae artes (virtutes) as quae domi duellique male fecisti which shows that there was a familiar equation of bonae artes and domi duellique bene facta (Asin.

558 ff.)labente . . . desidentes; cf. Sallust, Hist. fr. 16 M . 'ex quo tempore maiorum mores non paulatim ut antea sed torrentis modo praecipitati: adeo iuventus luxu atque avaritia conrupta ut merito dicatur genitos esse qui neque ipsi habere possent res familiares neque alios pati . T h e similarity extends not only to the thought but to the phrasing as the italicized words display. There is doubt about the exact text. N read labente . . . diss (discyi)identis. labente can be defended by comparison with Cicero, Phil. 2. 51 labentem et prope cadentem rem publicam. The metaphor will be of a large object beginning to slip downhill and gathering momentum for the final plunge. So in Sallust. Even if it were not at variance with the metaphor implied by labente, dissidentis would call for comment since dissido is only found in the perfect (Fraenkel, Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v.) and discido is always transitive (cf. Lucretius 3. 659). dissidentis would, therefore, have to come from dissideo Tall apart, disagree'. T h e accepted emendation is desidentes 'subsiding', already proposed by the early humanists; cf. Cicero, de Div. 1.97: other writers only use the word literally. Elsewhere, however, L. writes labante egregia discipline (36. 6. 2) and Cicero tota ut labet disciplina {de Fin. 4. 53), whereas disciplina labitur would be unique here. I think that Gronovius's labante must be read. If so, the metaphor is not of a slipping body but of a house tottering, breaking up, and collapsing and dissidentes, describing the disunity and disintegration of the mores, seems an appropriate word (cf. Seneca, Benef. 1. 10. 3 ; Epist. 18. 2, 56. 5 ; Dial. 7. 8. 6). Ratherius so understood it, glossing discordantes. 27

Praef. 9

PREFACE

nee vitia nostra nee remedia: cf. 34. 49. 3 ; Plutarch, Cato min. 20; Josephus, B.J. 4. 9. 11. T h e conventional character of the expression might lead us to see in it a general reference to opposition to Augustus 5 solution of Rome's disorders by personal government; cf. Tacitus, Annals 1. 9. 4. But the connexion between moral, especially sexual, laxity and political disaster was made in very similar terms by Horace in Odes 3. 24 intactis opulentior and Odes 3. 6 delicta maiorum at much this date (soon after 28 B.C.). In 28 B.C. Augustus had attempted to intro­ duce moral legislation enforcing marriage by law and invoking penalties on immorality (Propertius 2. 7), but had been driven by opposition to withdraw it and was only able to renew the attempt in 18 B.C. and A.D. 9. It is hard, therefore, to doubt that Livy, like Horace, is referring to the failure of that legislation. See Syme, Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. 64 (1959), 4 2 - 3 ; G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 52 (1962), 28 ff. The Usefulness of History In parenthesis L. pays formal tribute to the moral value of history, a regular TOTTOS deriving from Thucydides 1. 22. 4 and given an ex­ clusively moral application by Hellenistic historians (cf. Polybius I. 1. 2, 2. 61. 3 ; Diodorus 1. 1. 4 ; Sallust, Jugurtha 4. 5 ; Tacitus, Annals 3. 65. 1 ; Agr. 46. 3). For L. the moral content is less important than the literary opportunity thereby provided. See Introduction, p. 18. 10. hoc illudesse: 5. 2. 3 n. in inlustri posita monumento: the general sense is clear—'history offers examples of every sort of conduct'—but the precise force of these words is disputed (Foster, T.A.P.A. 42 (1911), lxvi). They have been taken to mean ' (examples) enshrined in conspicuous historical characters' (Haupt, Greenhough) but this does not suit the context which is con­ cerned more with history in general rather than historical personages/ (cf. in cognitione rerum). I would take monumento to refer to history as such, the history of a nation—'examples set in the clear record of a nation'. The Remarkable Character of Rome I I . amor: cf. Polybius 1. 14. 2: Philinus and Fabius SoKovm . . . /xot TTeiTOvSevai rt TrapairXriaiov rots* epiocri.

nulla . . . rnaior: cf. Thucydides 1. 1. 3. civitatem: there is no need to delete the word as an interpolation after res publica (Novak); for such repetition of ideas cf. 2. 28. 3, 5. 2. 8, 10. 1. 4. avaritia luxuriaque: Sallust dated the moral crisis at Rome to the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C. {Catiline 7 - 9 ; Jugurtha 41. 2). His 28

PREFACE

Praef. u

date is lower than that given by most authors who tended to select a turning-point in the first half of the century, Piso fixing on 154 (Pliny, N.H. 17. 244), Polybius on 168 (31. 25. 3, 6. 57. 5), and Livy's annalistic source on 187 (39. 6. 7). They were agreed that the causal factors were the contact with Greek material prosperity, the elimination of an external menace, and the opportunities for individual Romans to acquire wealth, avaritia brings luxuria in its train. Apart from the omis­ sion of ambitio L. does not dispute the traditional diagnosis fully set out by Sallust {Catiline 10-12). For avaritia and luxuria contrasted with paupertas and parsimonia cf. 34. 4. 2-13 (Cato's speech). T h e terms are conventional rhetoric. The Invocation of the Gods Such invocations, although regular at the commencement of great affairs (22. 9. 7, 38. 48. 14, 45. 39. 10) and at the start of poems (e.g. Homer, Theognis, Ennius, Virgil: for the formulaic opening
29

BOOK I T H E first five books were planned and published as a unity, and Book i states the overall theme—the greatness of Rome. Rome was a great city both as a physical entity and as a world-power. From the very outset L. stresses the strength of the city (9. 1 iam res Romana adeo erat valida; cf. 11. 4, 21. 6) and reiterates its increasing size (8. 4 crescebat interim urbs; cf. 9. 10, 30. 1, 33. 9, 35. 7, 37. r, 44. 5). R o m e early became and remained a great city. And corresponding to her physical greatness was an imperial greatness. R o m e was to be, as L. is at pains to repeat, caput rerum (16. 7, 45. 3, 55. 6). Book r also adumbrates the other themes which form the dominant threads in the later four books. Book 2 is preoccupied with the nature and problems of libertas. Already in 17. 3 we are given a foreboding of this (libertatis dulcedine nondum experta; cf. 46. 3, 48. 9, 56. 8)« T h e consequence oflibertas, as of free enterprise, is discordia as is illustrated by the events of the latter half of Book 2 and as is already hinted in r. 17. 1 or 1. 42. 2. A free society requires for its preservation the exercise by individual citizens of the social virtues. T o give way to avaritia and to scorn modestia must entail the disruption of society (Praef. 11 n.). This is clearly seen in the course of Book 3 ; and the way is prepared in Book 1 where Ancus Marcius' pillaging (35. 7) is in contrast with Romulus' forbearance (15. 4). It is in modestia and the corresponding virtue of moderation the theme of Book 4, that the last Tarquin is egregiously deficient. Book 5 is shot through with pietas: Rome's success depends both on divine will and on her own observance of divine ordinance. In many ways this was a daring and novel theme. Divine causality had been banished from history since Herodotus / (Cicero, de Orat. 2. 63) but in reintroducing it L. caught the mood of his generation. Once again he foreshadows it in Book 1. Aeneas, like Gamillus, is afatalis dux (1.4) and R o m e is founded under the guidance of the fates (7. 15). M u c h attention is given to the desirability of performing due rites and ceremonies (18. 10, 19. 7, 36. 6) for only so can divine co-operation be secured. L.'s own attitude to the gods and the alleged stories of their intervention on earth is often sceptical and rationalistic (4. 2 n.). H e will offer a naturalistic interpretation sideby-side with a miracle. T h e structure of the book is dictated by the length and character of the reigns of the kings. Tradition had already given each king a distinctive personality before the philosophies of constitutional his­ tory began to press them into the moulds of fxovapxia^ /WiAeia, or 30

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E Tvpawis. L. accepts the general philosophy of deterioration. Tullus and Ancus are decadent counterparts of Romulus and Numa. Each is singled out for some one particular quality: Romulus for military expertise, Numa for the creation of the religious observances of peace­ time, Tullus for ferocity, Ancus for the ceremonies of war; and the comparison between them is expressly drawn (22. 2 (Tullus) ferocior . . . quam Romulus; 32. 5 Numa in pace religiones, a(b Anco) bellkae caerimoniae). As N u m a founded divine law, so Servius Tullus founds the social order (42. 4). superbia characterizes the last Tarquin. Thus each section within the book has its own place within a general framework and the corresponsion between the two halves of the book gives the whole a symmetrical shape. The Foundation of Rome / The Facts There are a few traces of Ghalcolithic and Bronze Age settlement at Rome, chiefly from the Esquiline, which may correspond to the legends about Sicels and Aborigines but the first extensive evidence comes from the middle of the eighth century. A series of post-holes have been found on the two ridges of the Palatine, the Palatium and the Germalus, which can be dated stratigraphically and by the pottery associated with them, which is characteristic of the Early Iron Age, to c. 750. Contemporary with this earliest community at Rome was a cemetery in the Forum. Excavations have shown that both cremation and inhumation were practised. T h e ashes were regularly placed in a small urn in the shape of a hut which was stored with other utensils in a large funerary jar. The hut urns correspond precisely with the plan as it can be reconstructed of the Palatine huts whose memory was also preserved in the casa Romuli. The primitive culture of the Palatine community is found at the same period elsewhere in Latium, particularly at Alba Longa. It is a regional variant of the Villanovan culture which was widespread throughout Italy in the eighth century. Little can be hazarded about the ethnic origins of these earliest inhabitants. T h e linguistic character of the Latin lan­ guage has suggested to some that they were a wave of Indo-European immigrants who came from Central Europe c. 1000 B.C. and who found their abode in Latium about 800 B.C. The community was a resident nucleus of shepherds and swineherds. Very shortly after the first huts had been built on the Palatine and the first graves sunk in the Forum, other groi )S settled on other hills of Rome. Cemeteries have been found in e Esquiline and the Quirinal, which imply the existence of vl"agc ' ommunities on those hills as well. T h e excavations on the Quirinal were significant in that 3i

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E they disclosed only inhumation-graves, a fact which lends colour to the traditional belief that the inhabitants of the Quirinal were of different racial origin from the inhabitants of the Palatine and that the mixture of inhumation and cremation to be found in the Forum results from the gradual fusion and intermingling of the Latins and an off­ shoot of the Osco-Umbrians, the Sabines. M a n y of the oldest names at Rome appear to be Sabine, and Latin demonstrably contains many Sabine words. T h e duality is to be seen in the formal title populus Romanus Quirites. In summary it can be said that a settlement had existed on the Palatine from pre-historic times, that it expanded in the middle of the eighth century, that soon afterwards the Quirinal was settled by a dif­ ferent, possibly Sabine, community, that the two communities together with others on other hills gradually coalesced, and that the process of synoecism was completed by the draining of the Forum and the build­ ing of a market-place c. 625-575. T h e salient points of Roman tradition are thus vindicated."All the attendant details and legends tell nothing about the actual history of Rome but much about how that history was written and how it came to be regarded. T h e archaeological evidence is most conveniently to be found in the three volumes of E. Gjerstad's Early Rome. T h e best general intro­ duction in English is R. Bloch, The Origins of Rome, in the series Ancient Peoples and Places, published by Thames and Hudson. See also E. Gjerstad, Legends and Facts of Early Roman History, 6 ff. The Legends T w o mutually exclusive legends, of Romulus and of Aeneas, attend the foundation of Rome. Of these Romulus was the older and the more deep-rooted; it is assumed in an official R o m a n dedication at Chios of c. 225 B.C. T h e legend of Aeneas became current\in the sixth century and represents the view which the Greeks of that time took of Rome. It was left to later historians to effect a synthesis of the two. Romulus is the eponymous founder of Rome. T h e suffix -ulus is Etruscan a n d denotes a /cricmfc: Gaeculus is the mythical founder of Praeneste. In the earliest legends he is variously associated with Latinus, the eponymous hero of the Latins, who had penetrated Greek consciousness as early as Hesiod (Theog. 1011). I n one version Latinus was the father of R h o m e and R h o m y l o s . J n another Latinus had a sister R h o m e and was himself the founder of Rome. In yet another Latinus had a daughter who married Italus from whom Rhomos was born. All these accounts say n o more than that Rome was founded by the Latins. Equally the two dominant facts about the personality of Romulus as they materialized in later telling, the antagonistic 32

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E rivalry with his brother and the aggressive militarism which contrasts so abruptly with the piety of his successor, correspond to no historical actuality. They represent a peculiarly R o m a n form of myth much older than Rome which belong to the very core of Indo-European thought. Romulus and Remus are Cain and Abel or J a c o b and Esau. Romulus and N u m a are Varuna and Mitra or Uranus and Zeus. T h e detailed biography with which the name of Romulus was clothed was m a d e up from a series of myths most of which are aetiological in nature explaining objects and monuments and ceremonies. Many have been supplemented from the resources of Greek mythology. They are studied individually in their place. T h e legend of Aeneas can be more closely determined. Scattered groups of migrants from Greece or Asia Minor may well have touched the coast of Latium in the seventh and sixth centuries but the first connexion of Aeneas with central Italy is revealed by statuettes from Veii, Greek vases from Etruria and Spina, and on Etruscan scarabs all portraying Aeneas carrying his father on his shoulders and all dating from the end of the sixth century. T h e first literary allusion to Aeneas in Italy occurs a century later (D.H. 1.47-48. 1 = Hellanicus, F.Gr. Hist 4 F 31 Jacoby) but it is possible that the tradition was already known to Stesichorus if the Tabula Iliaca, which depicts Aeneas departing with his father and the sacra eV rqv 'EmrepLav is based on Stesichorus. T h e route by which the legend reached Italy is not certain. Weinstock conjectured that it was mediated through Sicily. More recently Bomer has argued that it came with the Phocaeans when they fled to the west c. 540. T h e important point is that it was a Greek view imposed on Italy. T h e Greeks attributed to heroes of the Greek world the discovery and settlement of the communities of the west with which they had dealings. Diomede, Evander, and, above all, Ulysses provided pedigrees in their wanderings. Aeneas found a home in the Etruscan world and in particular at Rome. Initially the Aeneas story was widely spread in Etruria. It became localized at Rome partly because the Greeks already recognized in the Romans of the early fifth century those same qualities of pietas which distinguished Aeneas and partly because of the accidental occurrence of a pre-Indo-European place name Troia on the coast near R o m e (1.311.). T h e legend represented the changing image of Rome, first as seen through Greek eyes, then in relation to her position in Latium and Italy, finally as the adversary of Carthage. Simultaneously a more mechanical process was at work synthesizing the conflicting stories of Romulus and Aeneas and devising relationships which would co­ ordinate the two incompatibles. These early stages are not germane, for it was only when Eratosthenes fixed a date for the Fall of Troy 814432

33

D

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E that the chronological gap between Aeneas and Romulus the founder of Rome became manifest and required bridging. It is probably that both Fabius Pictor and Ennius were aware that a prolonged sojourn at Alba was required if Aeneas and Romulus were to be retained in the tradition but Cato, who calculated the interval between the Fall of Troy and the foundation of Rome as 432 years (fr. 17), was the first to fill the gap with circumstantial events drawn from local traditions. His version may be briefly summarized. Latium was inhabited by Aborigines under King Latinus. Aeneas, landing with his father Anchises (fr. 9), founded Troia (fr. 4). Latinus granted him an area of 2,700 iugera and the hand of his daughter Lavinia (frr. 8, 11) and the united peoples adopted the name of Latins. T h e Trojans, however, dishonoured the treaty by embarking on a foray (fr. 10). I n disgust, the Latins (Aborigines) turned to Turnus the king of Rutulians who nursed a grievance against Aeneas for marrying Lavinia (fr. 12). In the resulting war both Latinus and Turnus were killed, while Aeneas disappeared from human sight. Aeneas' son Ascanius, now called from his beard lulus, killed Mezentius who had come to Turnus' aid and ruled over the city of Laurolavinium (frr. 9, 10, 11). During the disturbances Lavinia had fled to the woods, where she bore a son Silvius. Thirty years after the Trojan arrival in Italy Ascanius handed Laurolavinium over to Lavinia and Silvius his halfbrother, and himself founded Alba Longa (fr. 13). Finally he trans­ ferred Alba Longa also to Silvius who thus became the father of the dynasty of Alban kings, the last of whom, Numitor, was father of a daughter variously known as Ilia, Rhea, or Silvia. It was she who was the mother of Romulus and Remus. The Alban king-list did violence to history in order to preserve a literary chronology. Rome was not the late-born offspring of Alba Longa. T h e two villages shared a contemporary culture. Nonetheless Cato's account of early Roman history became the standard vulgate from which later writers only diverged to assert their individuality. It finds typical expression in the elogium of Aeneas from Pompeii (Inscr. Ital. 13 no. 85 : there were elogia of Aeneas and the Alban kings also at Rome), or in the numerous versions assembled by D . H . T h e surviving fragments of Cassius Hemina (fr. 2), Sisenna (fr. 2), and Sempronius Tuditanus (fr. 1) show no disagreement of substance. W e know of several minor modifications. T h e Aemilii substituted an Aemilia for Rhea Silvia (Plutarch, Romulus 2). Others doubted the paternity of Romulus (D.H. 1. 77). Varro added religious and antiquarian refinements. It is to this late stage in the synthesis of the legends that the two authorities which L. consulted belong (1. 6 n., 3. 2 n.). Unlike Virgil, who appears to have relied on the epic tradition created by Naevius and 34

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

i. i. 1-3

Ennius rather than the Catonian, L. followed recent historians (3. 8 n.). There is no trace of Ennius in his account. Since nothing survives of Valerius Antias 5 or Licinius Macer's treatment of the Trojan pre­ history of Latium, L.'s sources cannot be certainly identified. T h e only significant idiosyncrasy is that in L. Ascanius is the son of Aeneas and his second wife, Lavinia, and Silvius is the grandson not the son of Aeneas. T h e principal modern works on the subject are J . Perret, Les Origines de la Legende Trqyenne de Rome, reviewed by Momigliano, J.R.S. 35 ( r 945) 9 9 _ I O 4 J F- Bomer, Rom und Troia, 1955; A. Alfoldi, Die Troian. Urahnen d. Romer, 1957; see also P. Ducati, Tito Livio e le origini di Roma. T h e thesis that L. is dependent upon Ennius is main­ tained among others by W. Aly, Livius und Ennius; M . Ghio, Riv. FiL Class. 29 (1951), 1 ff. 1. 1-3. The Legend of Antenor Nothing is known historically or archaeologically about the Euganei who were supposed to inhabit in classical times the sub-alpine regions above the Po valley. A number of inscriptions from the Val Camonica dating from later than c. 500 B.G. have been adduced as evidence of the Euganean language, for Cato ap. Pliny, N.H. 3. 134 listed the Camunia as part of the Euganean people. T h e language is Italic, having a closer relationship with the Latin-Faliscan group than with the Osco-Umbrian. This does not, however, tell anything about the ethnic or cultural character of the people since the language may well have been acquired at a late stage in their history. Indeed place-names from the region have been used to support the traditional account that the Euganei were very old inhabitants of the area who pre­ dated any Indo-European contamination. Much more is known about the Veneti (5. 33. 10). Their chief centres were Padua and Este (Ateste), where a settled culture, distinct from the Villanovan, can be traced from the tenth to the second century. T h e Veneti were distinguished for their metal-work and for their horse-breeding and had commercial contacts with the Greeks from before the sixth century. Their language also is now generally agreed to have had its closest affinity with the Latin-Faliscan group although its alphabet was borrowed from the Etruscans and some words have been claimed as Illyrian. T h e phenomena can be explained by the cultural pressures to which the Veneti were by their very situa­ tion subjected. T h e ethnic origin of the Veneti remains in doubt. Herodotus (1.196) speaks of 'IWvpt&v 'Everol but the long-fashionable theory that the Veneti were a wave of migrating Illyrians is no longer accepted and cannot be supported by the widespread distribution of the name (e.g. the Venetulani in Latin, the Veneti of Armorica, the 35

i . i. 1-3

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

Slavonic Venidi, & c ) . T h e traditional account that the Euganei were displaced by Venetic infiltration may be true. It is at least as likely that the two groups were originally akin culturally as well as linguistically but that the Euganei in their isolated region were gradually out­ stripped by the more adaptable and progressive Veneti. T h e connexion of Antenor and his Eneti with the Veneti belongs, however, not to history but to Greek romancing about the Adriatic. It is natural that it should be as old as the commercial penetration of the area by the Greeks and hence there is no difficulty in believing that it formed the basis of Sophocles' Antenoridae (Strabo 13. 608; see Pearson, The Fragments of Sophocles, 1. 86-90; it was perhaps adapted by Accius; see Polybius 2. 17. 6 with Walbank's note). It is at least cer­ tain that the Antenoridae, although not necessarily Antenor, had a cult as far west as Gyrene by the fifth century (Pindar, Pyth. 5. 80-88). Initially, then, the Antenor legend represented the Greek attitude to the Veneti. It was inspired by no more than a casual play on names (cf. Pliny, N.H. 3. 130, 6. 5 ; Suidas s.v. 'EVCTOI: see Page on Alcman, Partheneion 51). Gato was perhaps the first Roman to interest himself in it and so to link the destinies of the Veneti and the Romans (fr. 42). As propaganda his work was well timed, for the Veneti were peacefully absorbed by the Romans in 184 B.C. T h e identification was reiterated by the geographer Polemo c. 180 B.C. (E Euripides, Hipp. 231) and thenceforth had a firm place in Roman history (Tacitus, Annals 16. 21 ; Servius, ad Aen. 1. 243). T h e linking of the two Trojan foundations in Italy through the parallel legends of Aeneas and Antenor was thus a late action. It was chiefly motivated by political considerations but folk-memory or academic research may have recalled the curious fact that however separated they might be geographically and culturally the Veneti and Latins were linguistically near kin. But for L. the legend had a special meaning. He was a Paduan and the story of his home city was thereby joined to the history of the capital city. Hence he begins his history with Antenor not Aeneas (but see 1. 1 n.) and takes for granted as common knowledge that Antenor founded Padua. For the history of the Veneti see Storia di Venezia 1 (1957); R. Battaglia, Bull, di Paletn. Italiana, 1959, with bibliography; G. Capovilla, Miscellanea Galbiati, 1. 238 ff.; for the Venetic language see M. S. Beeler, The Venetic Language; Palmer, The Latin Language, 41 ff.; for the Antenor legend seeThallon A. J.A. 28 (1924), 47 fT.; Beaumont, J.HS. 56 (1936), 159 ff-; Ferret i57~ 2 5 6 1 . 1 . iam primum: the opening of the history is unusual. T h e conven­ tional practice was to state at the outset the name of the historian (cf. the openings of Herodotus and Thucydides: see Gow on Theocritus 36

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

i. i. i

i. 65) or the name of the subject (cf. Polybius 1.5. 1; Tacitus, Annals 1. 1 urbemRomam; Agricola 4. 1 Cn. Iulius Agricola \ D.H. 1. 8. 9). This peculiarity led Wex to doubt whether the opening survives in its original form {Neue Jahrb.f. PhiloL 71 (1855), 123-5). He n o t e d that Servius (ad Aen. 1. 242) appeared to credit L. with having told of Aeneas' betrayal of Troy (hi enim duo (Antenor et Aeneas) Troiam prodidisse dicuntur secundum Livium; cf. Origo Gentis Romanae 9. 1-2) and he observed that L. never uses iam primum to begin a paragraph (cf. 5. 51. 6, 28. 39. 5, 39. 52. 8, 40. 3. 3). From this he concluded that a sentence or sentences had been lost. But L.'s reason for not naming Rome at the very beginning is that he gives pride of place to his native district of Padua and iam primum is not strictly the opening for it follows on from the general introduction contained in the Praefatio. satis constat: implying that L. has consulted more than one authority (48. 5. 5- 33- 5, 37- 34- 7)vetusti: Antenor had entertained Menelaus and Odysseus when they came to Troy (Iliad 3. 207 with 2J) and had recommended the sur­ render of Helen (Iliad 7. 347 ff.; Horace, Epist. 1. 2. 9). T h e earliest versions do not associate Aeneas in these negotiations but cf., e.g., Quint us Smyrn. 13. 291 ff. 1 . 2 . et sedes: the sense is that they had lost their homes because they had been driven out of Paphlagonia and their leader because Pylaemenes had been killed. Pylaemene: cf. Iliad 2. 851, 5. 576. 1. 3 . Troia: so also Steph. Byz. s.v. Tpola. T h e same place-name is better attested on the coast of Latium ( 1 . 4 ; Gato fr. 4 ; Paulus Festus 504 L . ; D.H. 1. 53. 3 ; Servius, ad Aen. 1.5, 7. 158, 9. 47). An Etruscan oinochoe from Caere depicting a labyrinth has the inscription Truia and the very primitive military rite at R o m e was known as the lusus Troiae. Stephanus glosses the name by x^paZ- This evidence, whether it be coupled with the name of old Troy itself or not, has been taken to indicate that Troia was a pre-Indo-European term, used as a placename, meaning a fortified place (Rehm, Philologus, Supp. Band, 24 (1932), 46 ff.). When once the Greeks began to spread the Trojan legend to Italy they naturally attached it to similar names. T h e Latian Troia is to be sited at or near Zingarini. 1. 4 - 3 . Aeneas and the Alban Kings 1. 4. maiora: by enallage with rerum. fatis: 4. 1 n. Macedoniam: the old town of Rakelos in Macedonia-Thrace changed its name to Aineia (Herodotus 7. 123. 2 ; Lycophron 1236 with U) and issued coins of Aeneas carrying Anchises, on his shoulders (Head, 37

i. i. 4

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

Historia Numorum, 214). T h e change is perhaps to be associated with Pisistratid control of the area (Aristotle, Ad. -TTOX. 15. 2 ; see Ath. Tribute Lists 1. 465). T h e connexion of name was, however, long­ standing in the district (cf. Ainos) and taken with Iliad 20, 303 ff., suggests that the Aeneadae had come to Troy from the Balkans in the thirteenth or fourteenth century leaving traces of their passage in the place-names en route. See Malten, Archiv f. Relig.-Wissen. 29 (1931),

33 ff. Siciliam: Thucydides (6.2. 3 drawing on Antiochus) called theElymi whose chief towns were Segesta and Eryx Trojan refugees, and Hellanicus (F. Gr. Hist. 4 F 31) named Elymus as a companion-in-arms of Aegestus and Aeneas, though in another context saying that the Elymi came from Italy (4 F 79 b with Jacoby's note). Their culture was characterized by elements which were more Phoenician than Greek, lending colour to the belief that they reached Sicily from the East before the Greeks (details in Dunbabin, The Western Greeks, 336-7). T h e specifically Trojan origin may have been devised, or at least published, by Stesichorus of Himera and inspired by the cult of Aphrodite Aeneias at Eryx (D.H. 1. 53). T h e Aeneas story was rooted in Sicily at the end of the sixth century and Sicily was a possible channel by which it could have reached Rome. Laurentem: 1. 10 n. tenuisse: sc. cur sum 'he had held course with his fleet to the land of the Laurentes', cf. 31. 45. 14; for classe cf 36. 7. 15. L.'s use oftenere is, however, awkward here so close to two places where it is used in the meaning 'inhabit5 (1. 3 eas tenuisse terras', 1. 5 ea tenebant loca). Frigell proposed deletion. 1. 5. Aborigines', the inhabitants of Latium were known to Hesiod as Latini. T h e Aborigines (ab origine) figure first in Gallias (F. Gr. Hist. 564 F 5 a and b) apparently because the introduction of the Aeneas legend entailed that the Latins could not have been an autochthonous race but must have been the result of the fusion of Trojan and native (aboriginal) stock (Cato frr. 9-11 P.). Thereafter they remained a constant element in the story (for Lycophron's Bopelyovoi cf. Zielinski, Deutsch. Philol. 1891, 4 1 ; de Sanctis, Storia, 1. 173; Kretschmer, Glotta 20 (1932), 198), 1 . 6 . duplex: the second version, which spares the Latins the humilia­ tion of defeat and the Romans the infamy of aggression, doubtless gained currency from the late fourth century when the foundation legend was invoked to improve relations with the Latins. It is in sub­ stance the version of Cato, Virgil (7. 170 ff.), and Varro (cf. D.H. 1. 57-60, 64). T h e first version, which makes Aeneas the aggressor is, like the dismissal of Julian pretensions in 3. 2 (n.), anti-dynastic. 38

FOUNDATION OF ROME

i. 1.6

Laurentinum: at i. 4 N read Laurentem, which has the authority here against 7r5s Laurentinum. L. uses neither form elsewhere. 1. 9. penates: 1. 10 n. 1. 10. Lavinium'. identified by inscriptions (C.I.L. 14. 2067-8) with the modern Pratica di Mare. T h e relation of the ager Laurens and the people known as Laurentes to the city of Lavinium was obscure even in classical times. No town of Laurentum is attested in inscriptions, itineraries, or historical sources (but cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. ^vreia), but the adjective Laurens denotes a people as early as the first Cartha­ ginian treaty (Polybius 3. 22. 11 with Walbank's note: apevrlvajv as emended) and the Arician League (Gato fr. 58 P.) In classical in­ scriptions it is almost invariably linked with Lavinas (C.I.L. 14. 2070-8) and always from the site of Lavinium. It is thus scarcely to be believed that there existed in classical antiquity a town of Laurentum distinct from Lavinium. T h e proles biformis Laurolavinium cited only by Servius (adAen. 1. 5, 4. 620, 6. 760, &c.) is an antiquarian invention. Further Lavinium lay in the ager Laurens (Obsequens 7 3 ; Val. M a x . 1. 6. 7), a coastal strip some 14 miles long adjoining the land of Ardea. Thus either Laurens was the name of the people, Lavinium of the city (cf. the populus Ardeatis Rutulus in the Aricia inscription) or Lavinium absorbed at a very early date a short-lived community on a different site called Laurentum (to be sought between Ostia and A r d e a ; cf. C.I.L. 14. 2045 vicus Augustanus Laurentium, 7 miles from Lavinium). Both Laurentes and Lavinates figure in the list of thirty peoples given by D . H . (2. 18. 3 n.) which might be used to support the former alternative. See H . Boas, Aeneas' Arrival in Latium, 96-126, especially for the etymology of Laurentes; Philipp, R.E., 'Lavinium 5 . T h e part played by Lavinium in the development of the Trojan legend at Rome is one of the most obscure problems in Roman tradition. T h e Aeneas story was widely dispersed through Etruria by the end of the sixth century: it subsequently became monopolized by Rome. Alba Longa was incorporated into the story partly for mere chronological convenience to supply the gap between 1184 and 750 and partly because of the intimate cultural affinity of the two communities. In this scheme Lavinium would seem to have no place. Yet the connexion was long established. Tradition spoke of Lavinium as being Aeneas 5 first foundation in Italy (Timaeus 566 F 59 Jacoby ; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 144) and substance for the claim is provided by the annual ceremony which Roman magistrates performed at Lavi­ nium soon after vacating office (14. 2, 5. 52. 8). It was further claimed that the Trojan penates came to Rome from Lavinium and this has been largely confirmed by the discovery of a fifth-century dedica­ tion to Castor and Pollux at Pratica (2. 20. 12 n.). T h e cult of Aeneas Indiges, i.e. Aeneas as divine ancestor, which was attested at the river 39

I- I . 10

FOUNDATION OF ROME

Numicius near Lavinium (Fabius Pic tor fr. 4 P . ; Naevius ap. Macrobius 6. 2. 31) has recently been confirmed by a fourth-century cippus found at Tor Tignosa 5 miles inland from Lavinium and inscribed LARE AiNEiA D(ONOM) to be of comparable antiquity with the Lavinian Penates (Guarducci, Bull. Commun. 76 (1956-8) 3 ff.; Weinstock, J.R.S. 50 (1 g6o), 114-18). Now the cult of Aeneas never reached Rome, although the legend did, and the explanation of the role played by Lavinium in the Trojan origins of Rome may lie in the significance of that fact coupled with the peculiar nature of the R o m a n Penates. In one form the Penates certainly reached Rome from Lavinium but the word penates must originally have designated the gods of the perms rather than either di patrii or national protectors like the Dioscuri. T h e basic meaning is in accord with their association with Vesta (D.H. 8. 4 1 . 3 ; Cicero, Har. Resp. 12). They were the gods of the store-house and are to be recognized in the primitive statuettes found buried with hut urns in the earliest graves at Rome and Alba. At some point therefore a synthesis must have taken place which converted the primitive penates into the complex and manifold deities with their Trojan links which are familiar in classical times, and that synthesis must have been made in the period 520-480 B.C. T h a t is precisely the period when Rome became mistress of the neighbouring towns of Latium including Lavinium. T h e hegemony implicit in the first Carthaginian treaty is finally regularized by the treaty of Sp. Cassius. Rome developed the Aeneas myth so that it became centred on her while leaving a transient, if memorable, part for Lavinium; whereas in fact it was Lavinium with the nearby Troia which had been the first place in Latium to take u p the myth seriously and to claim Aeneas and the Trojans as ancestors. Lavinium retained the honour as the foundation of Aeneas and as the first home of the Penates and throughout historical times was accorded appropriate respect by the Romans, but it had become a mere res ting-point on the Trojan path to Rome. T h e bibliography is very extensive but is usefully assembled by Weinstock, R.E. Tenates' and J.R.S., loc. cit., and Bomer, Rom und Troia. 1. 11. Ascanium: 3. 2 n. 2. 1. Turnus rex Rutulorum: for the name Turnus see 50. 3 n., for the Rutuli see 57. 1 n. T h e addition of Turnus and, above all, of Mezentius to the Aeneas saga is later than and dependent on the synthesis of the Lavinian and R o m a n tradition analysed above (1. 10 n.), although it was firmly settled by the time of Cato (cf. Servius, ad Aen. 1. 267) and admitted only of minor adjustments such as the insertion of the dream-oracle found in D.H. 1. 57 and Virgil, Aeneid 7. 81 ff. 40

F O U N D A T I O N OF ROME 5

I. 2. 1

which was designed to mitigate Latinus discourtesy in rejecting Turnus in favour of Aeneas as suitor for his daughter's hand. The Etruscan name of Turnus and his Etruscan sympathies have no place in an eighth-century context and in particular the detailed history of Mezentius' fate was evidently modelled on the Fall of Veii, where the king like Mezentius was impious and detested and met his match at the hands ofafatalis dux (Aeneas, Gamillus). T h e name Mezentius, not elsewhere attested, represents a modernized spelling of an Etr. Medior Mess- with a Latin termination. 2. 3. Caere: 6o. 2, 4. 61. 11, 5. 40. 10, the modern Cervetri, situated on a tongue of tufa rock, 30 miles north of Rome and 3 \ miles from the coast on which it had a port, Agylla. Its position with access to the sea secured it prosperity from the earliest times: the oldest tombs are dated to c. 700. Caere would, then, have been in existence in this legendary period but that is all that can be said. For the remains see R. Mengarelli, Mon. Ant. Ace. Lincei/\.2 (1955), 4 ff.; Maule and Smith, Votive Religion at Caere; for the history, Sordi, / Rapporti Romano-Ceriti. nimio plus: 2. 37. 4 n. 2. 5. implesset: 5. 33. 7 n. 2. 6. iusfasque est: the phrase (cf. 3. 55. 5, 7. 6. 11, 31. 2, 8. 10. 1, 23. 12. 15, 45. 33. 2 ; 23. 42. 4 si fas est dici) reflects the well-known liturgical formula by which the many names and appellations of a god are summarized (see Fraenkel on Aeschylus, Agamemnon 160). Thus although there was no actual cult of Aeneas at Rome there is no cause to doubt the text with SchadeL Aeneas was worshipped as a -fjpws in the Greek world, in Macedonia, Zacynthus, Ambracia, and Segesta, and the literary evidence for his worship by the river Numicius (Naevius ap. Macrobius, 6. 2. 3 1 ; Fabius Pictor fr. 4 P.) is ^con­ firmed by the dedication to Lar Aineas recently found at the near­ by Tor Tignosa and by the elogium set up in his honour at Pompeii in which he is styled Indiges Pater. L. implies that Aeneas was wor­ shipped there under a variety of names and we have explicit evidence for two other titles in addition to Juppiter Indiges mentioned by L. in this passage and by Servius, ad Aen. 1. 259: Indiges Pater (see above ; Origo Gentis Romanae 14. 4) and Aeneas Indiges (Varro, Ant. 15ft. 12; Virgil, Aeneid 12. 794; Martianus Gapella 6. 637: see Weinstock, J.R.S. 50 (i960), 117). Numkum: Numicus and Numicius are found indiscriminately (Schulze 481). T h e identification of the Numicius with the Rio Torto which runs from the Alban hills to the coast between Lavinium and Ardea is certain (B. Tilly, J.R.S. 26 (1936), 1-12). T h e manuscripts offer a straight choice between fluvium (M) and flumen (nX). While certain principles seem to dictate his use of amnis, none can be dis­ cerned for the choice betweenjluvius andJlumen (Gries, Constancy, 21 fF.) 4i

I. 2. 6

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

except that Jiuvius is very much the rarer word (33: 182). This phenomenon alone would incline one to prefer Jlaviiim here were it not for the proven unreliability of M in these early chapters. Jiuvius is not used by Caesar, Hirtius, Sallust, Nepos, Velleius, Valerius Maximus, or the authors of the Wars in Africa, Alexandria, and Spain. indigetem: an obscure term which must mean 'divine ancestor'. T h e di indigetes invoked in prayers include Sol Indiges who according to one tradition was grandfather of Latinus (Hesiod, Theogony 1011 ff.) and the Latin word is reproduced by the Greek yevdpxqs (Diodorus 37. 11). See further Kretschmer, Glotta 31 (1951), 157 ff.; Weinstock, loc. cit. 3 . 2 . haud ambigam: L. betrays clearly that he has consulted two sources, one of which maintained the identification of Ascanius and lulus the ancestor of the gens Iulia and another which denied or ignored it. T h e history of the question can be traced. Ascanius, who is an un­ obtrusive figure in Homer, acquired importance with his brothers in the post-Homeric tradition as the surviving inheritors of the Trojan kingdom. H e rules over the Daskylites (Hellanicus) or Ida (Demetrius of Scepsis; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. aoKavia\ Mela 1. 92) or Troy itself (D.H. 1. 53. 4). Originally his mother was called Eurydice but Creusa—the name familiar from Virgil {Aeneid 2. 666; see Austin on Virgil, Aeneid 2. 795)—was at a later but unascertainable date substituted. His brothers are equally fluid. The Verona scholiast on Aeneid 2. 717 mentions Eurybates and Servius, ad Aen. 4. 159 Dardanus and Leontodamas but there is no firm tradition about any of them. When Aeneas moved west Ascanius accompanied him (cf. Sophocles, Antenoridae). So it was natural to believe that Ascanius was the ancestor of the founder of Rome. Chronological considera­ tions which inserted Alba as a link in the history of Rome between the Trojan landing and the foundation of the city enabled Ascanius to have an honourable role as founder of Alba. It was doubtless aided by the family pride of the gens Iulia, an Alban family (30. 2 n.) who connected their name with Troy by the equivalence lulus = Ilos and accordingly claimed that lulus was another name for Ascanius. This was an old claim, already found in Cato (fr. 9 P.)- But the gens Iulia in the second century was of little influence and it was only in the closing years that it revived and began to exploit its claims for political ends. Sextus Julius Caesar, about 125 B.C., minted coins displaying Venus Genetrix referring to their Trojan ancestry (Sydenham no. 476) and the theme recurs in the coins of L. Julius Caesar in 94 B.C. (Sydenham no. 593). T h e consul of 90 B.C. made capital out of the link and took pains to publicize his patronage of the people of Ilium 42

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

i. 3. 2

(Dessau, I.L.S. 8770). This Julius was a staunch opponent of Marius and was killed by Ginna in 87 B.C. A political motive for the two diver­ gent accounts in Livy follows. T h e one which asserted that Ascanius was the offspring of Aeneas and Lavinia, a relationship not elsewhere attested, denied by implication the high-flying claims of the gens lulia. It is Marian propaganda and, as such, to be attributed to Licinius Macer. T h e alternative version is the conventional one, differing little from that given by Cato. 3 . 3 . Longa Alba: Alba as used in the name of the mountains, the town, and the river has no connexion with the Latin albus 'white' but is a pre-Indo-European word meaning 'mountain 5 (cf. Alps; see Bertola, Zeitschr. Roman. PhiloL 56 (1936), 179-88). Hence the substitution of Tiber for Albula represents the victory of the Etruscan language (Thebris) over the indigenous. Alba Longa, on the site of the modern Gastel Gandolfo, was a parallel foundation to Rome, being peopled by a race of the same ethnic stock and the same culture, but the cemeteries found in the neighbourhood show that it was a somewhat older settle­ ment than Rome, although only by decades not centuries. A recent attempt to site Alba on the slopes of Mte. Cavo has no archaeological support. See Ashby, Journ. Phil. 27 (1899), 3 7 - 5 0 ; I. G. Scott, Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome, 7 (1929), 21 ff.; F. Dionisi, La Scoperta Topographica. 3 . 4. Lavinium: sc. conditum which H a r a n t would supply but cf. for the zeugma 21. 34. 1, 28. 42. 8. triginta: L. omits the famous prodigy of the sow with 30 piglets, which was said to have appeared to Aeneas, presumably because he regarded it as a piece of superstitious gullibility. T h e legend began as an aetiological explanation of the league of 30 cities (Lycophron 1253 ff.; Pliny, JV.H. 3. 69). It has been conjectured that it sprang from a misinterpretation of the pre-Indo-European place-name Troia ( 1 . 3 . n.) as 'sow', a meaning which the word troia possesses in late vulgar Latin. In any case the prodigy is old. It reflects a primitive economic situation when Rome was no more than a community of swineherds. Rome, anxious to reduce the standing and prestige of the 30 cities, succeeded in proposing a new interpretation by which the 30 piglets represented, as here, the thirty-year interval between the founding of Lavinium and Alba Longa (cf. Alcimus, F. Gr. Hist. 560 F 4 ; Fabius Pictor fr. 4 P . ; Varro, de Re Rust. 2 . 4 . 18; de Ling. Lat. 6. 141 ff.; see Ehlers, Mus. Helv. 6 (1949), 166 ff.; Sordi 168-9). 3 . 5. Albula: cf. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 29 ff. The Alban King-list T h e dynasty of the Silvii was invented to span the 400 years which separated the Fall of Troy from the foundation of Rome. It occurs in many authors with minor variations (D.H. 1. 7 1 ; Ovid, Met. 14. 610 ff.; 43

i. 3. 6

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

Fasti 4. 35 ff.; Virgil, Aeneid 6. 767 ff.; Diodorus 7 . 5 ; Dio fr. 4) and will be as old as the realization of the approximate dates of Troy and Rome. T h e inclusion of Capys points to a third-century date when the relations between Rome and Capua were fraught. Certainly it was to be found in some form in Fabius Pictor (fr. 5 P.) and Cato (fr. 11 P.) but the exact names are not quoted before the first century. In their invention little ingenuity was displayed. They provide patron heroes for local places and a symbolic pageant of R o m a n history—Latinus is succeeded by Alba whose descendant is a Romulus (3. 9 n.), signify­ ing the stages of Lavinium, Alba, and Rome. Tiberinus, Aventinus, and Capetus ( = Capitolium) personify the prominent features of the city. O n the other side names were selected to emphasize the Trojan origins of the people. Atys (for whom Ovid, in the Fasti, Diodorus, and Eusebius substitute Epytus; cf. Iliad 2. 604) is the name of several members of the Lydian royal house (Herodotus 1. 7, 34, 9 4 ; 7. 27, 74: cf. 'ATTLS). Capys was also the name of Anchises' father (cf. 4. 37. 1 n.). Capetus (elsewhere given as Calpetus to provide a pedigree for the Calpurnii) was a suitor of Hippodameia (Pausanias 6. 21. 10). For the more controversial names see in detail below. Numitor and Amulius cannot be accounted for on these lines because they belonged to an early stage of the Romulus story and so were originally independent of the Alban king-list. They were incorporated in it when the Romulus legend was united with that of Aeneas. Servius (ad Am. 8. 72, 330) says that L. followed Alexander (Polyhistor) in stating that the Tiber got its name from an Alban king Tiberinus who perished in it. This has been generally taken to mean that L. consulted Alexander as a source but the conclusion is neither necessary nor attractive. Alexander, a slave or freedman given the citizenship by Sulla (c. 80 B.C.), wrote an encyclopaedia of Eastern and R o m a n antiquities in Greek (Jacoby, F. Gr. Hist. 273). T h e obscurity of the author, the unsuitable lay-out of his work, the unfamiliarity of his language, the unoriginality of his technique, all make him a most improbable authority for L. to have used. It is now generally admitted that L. can only have consulted him, if at all, for the specific detail about Tiberinus (3.8) and not for the Alban king-list as a whole. Yet even so such a procedure is at variance with all that we know of L.'s method of work. If Servius is correct in attributing this version of the name of the Tiber to Alexander, I prefer to believe that L. learnt it not at first hand from Alexander but through an intermediary. Since it was argued above that the main source of the chapters was not Licinius Macer who is quoted only in criticism, it is natural to think of another admirer of Sulla's who wrote after Alexander and would have had both occasion and inclination to consult his work— Valerius Antias. 44

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

i. 3. 6

For the king-list see Trieber, Hermes 29 (1894), 124 ff.; Schwartz, A.G.G.W. 40 (1894), 3 ff.; Bomer on Ovid, Fasti 4. 39 ff. 3 . 6. Silvius: was probably inspired by the character of the land­ scape of early Latium, traces of which survive in the names silva Arsia, silva Malitiosa, &c. It is not plausible, with Sundwall (Klio 11 (1913), 250), to connect it with the Asiatic name ZY'A/fos. casu quodam in silvis natus is the product of later romanticism. 3 . 7. Prisci Latini'. the casci Latini of Ennius. T h e name is not ancient but stems from the Latin settlement of 338, when the need arose to distinguish between the title 'Latin 5 with its juridical implications which then came into force and the earlier ethnic term 'Latin'. T h e colonies here referred to, which comprised the area between the Anio and the Tiber, are equally anachronistic. See Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 9 ff. 3 . 8. Atys: Epytus in Ovid (Fasti), Diodorus, and Eusebius, emphasiz­ ing the Trojan lineage (Iliad 2. 604). Tiberimts: the eponymous hero of the Tiber had been cast in other roles besides that of an Alban king. He had been an aboriginal, killed by Glaucus, an Etruscan, a Latin, or a son ofJuppiter who fell in battle near the river (Servius, ad Aen. 8. 72, 330). 3 . 9. Agrippa: the original name is likely to have been Acrota (Ovid, Met. 14. 617; from at<po—alluding to the arx as Capetus alludes to the Capitol) which was then rationalized to Agrippa. Agrippa as a name was originally a praenomen descriptive of the manner of birth (Pliny, N.H. 7. 45) and as a cognomen was later in vogue among the Furii and Menenii. But the only Agrippa of note between the early Republic and the Empire was M . Vipsanius Agrippa and it is generally assumed that the substitution of Agrippa for Acrota was out of compliment to Augustus' general (Trieber; see Reinhold, M. Agrippa, 10 n. 38). The suggestion is not compelling. T h e formation of the Alban king-list belongs to the same era that gave such wide publicity to the parable of Menenius Agrippa (2. 32. 8 n.). Romulus: the name is given as Aremulus by Diodorus (7. 5. 10), Cassiodorus, Hieronyrnus (1. 46. 7), and the author of the Origo Gentis Romanae (18. 2). P. Burman, on Ovid, Met. 14. 616, wished to read Remulus here, which is more probable than Aremulus in that it pro­ vides an attractive aetiology for the ager Remurinus (Paulus Festus 345 L.) and the Remoria (Ovid, Fasti 5. 479). Nonetheless Romulus is not only better attested; it is a necessary anticipation of the great Romulus and makes a piquant successor to Agrippa. fulmine: there was a meteorite held in great veneration on the Aventine which goes far to explaining this detail. Proca: etymologically the name is connected with proceres and Proculus and the meaning will be, 'elder, leader, prince' (Walde-Hofmann 45

i- 3- 9

FOUNDATION OF R O M E

s.v.). It may have been chosen also for the reminiscence of Prochyte, Aeneas' kinswoman, who died en route for Sicily and gave her name to a Gampanian headland (Servius, ad Aen. 9. 712). ' 3 . 10-4. The Birth of Romulus and Remus I give only a cursory account of the birth of the founder of Rome in so far as it is directly relevant to the understanding of L.'s narrative. The subject is treated extensively in Rosenberg's articles in R.E. ('Rhea Silvia' and 'Romulus'). T h e primary discussion is by Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 1 ff. An acute analysis, with a full bibliography of the problem, is given by G . J . Classen, Historia 12 (1963), 447 ff. Before the insertion of the Alban king-list the founder of Rome, variously named as Rhomos or Rhomylos, was held to be either the son of Aeneas (Alcimus ap. Festus 326 L.) or his grandson by a Trojan daughter (Callias ap. D.H. 1. 72 ; so also Ennius and Naevius accord­ ing to Servius, ad Aen. 1. 273, 6. 777), who is consequentially named Ilia. Originally he was an only son but by the third century at the latest the tradition of the twins was recognized (Lycophron 1232). Originally Romulus and Remus may have been no more than the Etruscan (cf. rumlna and the gens Romilia) and Greek forms of the same name, misunderstood to give two personalities. T h e genealogy, therefore, is Greek and two Greek legends were grafted on to it. O n 4 J a n u a r y 1837 Macaulay in Calcutta com­ mented in his copy of Livy that the story of the exposure of the twins was Very like Herodotus' account of the early history of Gyrus'. A closer parallel is the fortunes of Neleus and Pelias, sons of Tyro by Poseidon, set adrift on the Enipeus and suckled by a bitch and a mare respectively. It is an age-old explanation, like siring by the firegod (39. 1 n.), to account for the emergence of a new force without background or pedigree. The specifically Roman turn which it took was to make the foster-mother a wolf. This may be attested as early as the fourth century when an Etruscan stele from the Gertosa di Bologna (Ducati, Monum. Antichi, 20. 531) depicts a she-wo If suckling a human. It is certainly established by the early third century when the Ogulnii set up a statue of the wolf and twins (10. 23. 11-12) and the motif is figured on Romano-Campanian didrachms (Sydenham no. 6). It was evidently the theme of Naevius' play Lupus. We cannot be certain when or why the she-wolf was selected. T h e most probable explanation sees it as an aetiological explanation of the luperci (see note on ch. 5.). T h e recognition of the identity of the twins is a typically Greek dvayvwptcjts. Once the exposure story was accepted it became necessary to devise reasons why the royal heirs should have been so humiliated. Recourse 46

FOUNDATION OF ROME

i. 3. 10

was again had to Greek mythology. The names of Numitor and Amulius, unlike the other Alban kings, are not in themselves signifi­ cant and so must belong to an old stratum of oral tradition. It is not fanciful to see in Numitor an echo or duplication of Numa (3. 10 n.) and Amulius may also have been the original name of a king or chief­ tain later pushed into obscurity by the more etymologically satisfying Romulus (3. 10 n.). At all events, if the names survived from the earliest times (Amulius already occurs in Naevius before the Alban king-list was fabricated), the careers and characters of the two brothers are directly modelled upon the legends of Polyneices and Eteocles, so much so that some later authorities even credited Numitor and Amulius with a division of inheritance or alternation of rule (Plutarch, Romulus 3; Origo Gentis Romanae 19; cf. Hellanicus 4 F 98 Jacoby). Thus motivation and circumstantial detail were acquired for the story of the birth of Romulus and Remus. It was left to later historians to elaborate. At an early date the aetiological connexion with the ficus Ruminalis was made (4. 5 n.). Subsequent historians either em­ bellished by intensifying the scandalous (vi compressa) or rationalized by reinterpreting the supernatural elements in the story. One sophis­ ticated development was the result of the schematization of Roman history to fit the Greek pattern of a developing constitution. Romulus was the ideal or typical fxovapxos. Hence he is portrayed as a man of mental and physical accomplishment (4. 9 n.), a trait that is as old as Polybius and could be as old as Fabius Pictor. Sensationalism was catered for by the ingenious identification first made, as we are expressly told, by Valerius Antias (fr. 1 P.; from Aul. Gell. 7. 7. 1) of the wolf (lupd) which suckled the twins with a renowned mistress from mythology—Acca Larentia (4. 7 n.)—on the basis of the collo­ quial use of lupa as a synonym for meretrix (Plautus, Epid. 403; True. 657). According to the usual version she was inspired by templedreams to marry the first person that she met who would leave her his fortune. This turned out to be Tarutius, who bequeathed to her the site of Rome which she in her turn left to the new settlers. It was easy to manipulate this story. Acca Larentia was the lupa, the harlot who conceived Romulus and Remus and bequeathed to them the land on which Rome was to be built. Scepticism was served by Licinius Macer (fr. 1 P.; from Macrobius 1. 10. 17; so also Masurius Sabinus ap. Aul. Gell. 7. 7. 8) who refined the story, explaining Acca Larentia's name (4. 7 n.) by her marriage to Faustulus and making the relationship to Romulus and Remus not that of an unmarried mother but of a nurse. Both versions are represented in L. (4. 6-7) and it would be in accord with his usual practice if he had directly used these two writers 47

i. 3. 10

F O U N D A T I O N OF ROME

as his sole first-hand sources. T h e story is told simpJy, without dramatic effects or literary touches. 3 . 10. Numitorem: cf. the Etr. numQral (CLE. 15; see Schulze 200). Amulium: a diminutive of Ammius, commonly found in the early Empire as a nomen at Puteoli. It corresponds to the Etr. amni (Schulze 121).

3 . 11. Vestalem: 20. 2 n. 4. 1. debebatur: 1. 4. Here as elsewhere L. subscribes to the view that the growth of Rome was inevitable and predetermined. T h e Fall of Veii like the sack of Rome or the disaster of Cannae are all spoken of as happening in accordance with the pattern laid down by fatum (rj €LfjiapfX€vr)). L. does use the word fatum in weaker senses, denoting, for example, divine oracles (cf. 5. 16. 10), but, particularly in the first decade, he commits himself to the Stoic conception of history as pro­ pagated by Posidonius. This might be mere literary convention— Gasaubon drew attention to the reminiscence here of the common­ place Greek dAA' e'Set dpa TOVTO ytveordai—were it not for the express evidence of Seneca (Epist. 100. 9) that L. also wrote philosophical and historico-philosophical works. But L.'s Stoicism was polite and unrigorous. See further Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy\ Walsh, Livy, 46 ff. 4. 2. vi compressa: comprimo, of reluctant intercourse, is not elsewhere found in prose before Tacitus (Annals 5. 9) but is frequent in comedy (cf, e.g., Plautus, Aul. 28, 29, 30, 33, 689; Terence, Phormio 1018). It is unexpected here but was perhaps chosen to give point to auctor culpae honestior where culpa combines the notion of sacrilege and sexual sin (cf. Propertius 4. 4. 70; 1. 5. 2 5 ; Tacitus, Annals 3. 24). T h e Ves­ tal's rape was common and sordid: it is ennobled when a god is credited with having been responsible. seu . . ♦ sew. 6. 12. 1, representing different opinions more fully summarized by D . H . 1. 77. According to one Rhea was on her way etV Upov aXoros 'Aptos (perhaps the Incus Martis between the first and second milestones on the Appian way (E Juvenal 1.7)) when she was ravished. T h e juxtaposition of a natural and supernatural explanation is common in L. (4. 4 n., 4. 7, 12. 7, 16. 4, 19. 4, 34. 8, 51. 3 : see above p. 12). 4. A. forte quadam divinitus: the concepts of chance and providence have struck editors as alternatives (cf. Caesar, B.G. 1. 12. 6), hence Gruter's forte quadam an divinitus found favour with scholars as widely distinct as Merula and Bentley, Bauer and Madvig. But there is nothing unusual in the use offors relating to an event which is godinspired but, from the human point of view, unexpected or unfore­ seen. Cf. 22. 42. 10 di. . . distulere: nam forte ita evenit; Plutarch, 48

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

1.4.4

Theseus 3 5 ; Suetonius, Claudius 13; Euripides, LA. 3 5 1 ; Medea 671. forte quadam occurs at 3. 64. 4, 5. 49. 1. 4. 5. alluvie: not elsewhere found in L., but cf. [Cicero, Q.F. 3. 7. 1] ; Columella 3. 11. 8 ; Frontinus, Strat. 2. 3. 22. Gronovius's eluvies would describe stagnant, motionless water (Tacitus, Annals 13. 57) which is incompatible with prqfluentem aquam. ficus Ruminalis: the Romans derived Ruminalis from the goddess Rumina, a primeval goddess of nursing, whose name is to be connected with ruma 'a breast' (Varro, de Re Rust. 2. 11. 5 ; Festus 332 L . ; Pliny, N.H. 15. 77). Figs are often symbolical of the human breast. T h e figtree has a milky juice and both in Greece (the Thargelia) and in Rome (the Nonae Caprotinae) there were festivals in which the fig-tree was central but which were primarily concerned with human pro­ creation (W. R. Paton, Rev. Arch. 9 (1907), 51 ff.; Frazer, Golden Bough, 9. 257-8; Jacobsohn, Charites f. Leo, 425 ff.; van L.Johnson, T.A.P.A. 91 (i960), i n ff.; Weinstock, R.E., 'Nonae Caprotinae'). Modern critics, however, discounting the ancient view as a mere play on words, link Ruminalis with the Etruscan gentile name Rumina from which the name of R o m e and the Romilii ultimately stem (Schulze 368). With the former interpretation the association of Romulus and the ficus Ruminalis will be a late and contrived aetiology based on the similarity of sound. According to the latter the associa­ tion may be necessary rather than accidental and the fig-tree have been from the very beginning intimately bound up with the legend of Romulus. T h e former is clearly to be preferred. T h e sources record two distinct trees called by the name ficus Ruminalis. O n e lay at the south-western corner of the Palatine near the Lupercal (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 5 4 ; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 90; Festus 332 L . ; Pliny, N.H. 15. 77) and was said by Ovid to survive only vestigiously in his day {Fasti 2. 411). T h e other was situated in the comitium (Tacitus, Annals 13. 58). Tradition claimed that the augur Navius had miraculously transplanted the tree from the corner of the Palatine to the comitium (Festus 168 L . ; D . H . 3. 7 1 ; see note on 1. 36). Only the latter will have been the true ficus Ruminalis, but it was im­ possible topographically for that one to have sheltered the royal twins. Hence two trees were postulated and the proximity of the real tree to the statue of Navius made it easy to dream up a magical transplantation. See Nordh, Eranos 31 (1933), 85 ff.; Hadsits, Class. Phil. 31 (1936), 305 ff. 4 . 7. Faustulo: the shepherd of Amulius' herds who found the twins is mentioned by Varro (de Re Rust. 2. 1. 9 ; cf. D.H. 1. 79. 9 ; Plutarch, Romulus 6), but already on a coin of the Gracchan age, minted by Sex. Pompeius Fostlus (Sydenham no. 461) he is depicted standing beside the wolf suckling the twins in front of a fig-tree (the ficus Ruminalis). 814432

49

E

i. 4. 7

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

So his place in the story is old, although his name is unaccountable. The innovation that was made after the Gracchan age was to give him as wife Acca Larentia. T h e character and history of Acca Larentia have never been satisfactorily explained, and any theory is bound to be disputable. Varro {de Ling. Lat. 6. 23) writes 'Larentalia . . . ab Acca Larentia nominatus cui sacerdotes nostri publice parentant', thus linking her with the rites paid at the Lar(ent)alia on 23 December to the Lares or the deified ancestors. This has been rejected because the quantity of the a in Lares is short but of Larentia long (Ovid, Fasti 3. 55, 57), but alternating root-vowels present no obstacle (Palatium is later scanned Palatium; cf. lustrum from lu) and the coin of P. Accoleius Lariscolus (Sydenham no. 1148), figuring Acca Larentia, presupposes the connexion. Varro's identification gains support from the unusual name Acca which should be compared with Greek OLKKU) and Sanskrit akka 'mother'. For Acca Larentia would be none other than the mother of the Lares, Mater Larum (I.L.S. 5047-8). Certainly A.L. must be a divinity, for sacrifice in honour of a mortal would be unprecedented. The development thereafter is more easily guessed. Romulus and Remus were the ancestors of the R o m a n people and so, on death, became Lares par excellence. It was natural, therefore, that their (foster-) mother should be Acca Larentia, the Mater Larum, and that she came to assume a share in the functions of the wolf. This pairing of Acca Larentia and the wolf abetted by the equation lupa = meretrix led to a new tradition of Acca Larentia as the notorious whore, which is at least as old as Gato (fr. 16 P.). She is given the nickname 0a£oAa (Plutarch) or Faula (Lactantius), a common «hrcupa-name, is transferred to the reign of Ancus Marcius, or becomes the mistress of Hercules (Plutarch, Romulus 5 ; Q.R. 3 5 ; Macrobius 1. 10. 11)—a fitting couple, for Hercules' amatory exploits were a match for her own. A somewhat different tale is told by Aul. Gell. 7. 7. 8 (cf. Pliny, N.H. 18. 6). It was left to Valerius Antias to take the obvious step and to substitute Acca Larentia for the wolf herself making her (Faula) the wife of Faustulus. See further Pais, Ancient Legends, 60-95 5 Wissowa, R.E., 'Faustulus'; Bayet, Hercule Romain, 3 4 8 - 9 ; Otto, Wien. Stud. 35 (1913), 62 ff.; Tabeling, Mater Larum, 46 ff.; Koch, Gnomon 18 (1942), 241-4; Krappe, A.J.A. 46 (1942), 490 ff.; Bomer on Ovid, Fasti 3. 5 5 ; Latte, Rom. Religionsgeschichte, 92-93. datos: 9. 15. 7. 4 . 9. corporibus animisque: the beau ideal, cf. Polybius 6. 5. 7 with Walbank's note; Cicero, de Rep. 2. 4. seria ac iocos celebrare: the rare use ofcelebrare cto enjoy together' has led editors to read ferias for seria (Doujat, Ruperti) but the com­ panionship of Romulus and the shepherds was not confined to public 50

FOUNDATION O F R O M E

1.4. 9

holidays. For celebrare cf. Cicero, de Orat. 3. 197; for seria ac iocos cf. Ps.-Aur. Vict. Epit. 9. 17; Claudian 22. 165. 5. 1-2. Evander and the Luperci T h e Lupercalia, held on 15 February, was among the most primitive of R o m a n rituals. Naked patrician youths ran, not, as was once thought, round the Palatine, but up a n d down the Sacra Via in the Forum, armed with strips of goatskin with v/hich they hit bystanders. Three main explanations of the ceremony have been supported and judgement might be given in favour of one of them if only there could be any certainty about the etymology of the word Luperci. A. K. Michels (T.A.P.A. 84 (1953), 35-59 with references to the principal ancient and modern authorities a m o n g whom notice especially Deubner, Archivf. Relig.-Wiss. 13 (1910), 481 ff.), points out that the Lupercalia fell in the middle of three days of propitiation of the dead (dies parentales; cf. Ovid, Fasti 2. 533-70; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 13) and that the area where the Luperci ran marked the boundary of the primitive sepulcretum in the Forum. She sees the festival as intended to protect the community against the power of the dead manifesting themselves at this season in the form of wolves (cf, e.g., Petronius 62; Augustine, Civ. Dei 18. 17; Pliny, N.H. 8. 81) and the Luperci as priests who are endowed with the gift of controlling wolves or the spirits of the dead manifested as wolves (lupercus formed from lupus like noverca; so also Ernout-Meillet). A second theory, maintained by the ancients themselves (Ovid, Fasti 2.425-52; [Servius], adAen. 8.343; Livy fr. 63) and championed, for example, by K. Kerenyi (Mobe, 136-47), held that it was a fertility ceremony and that flagellation was designed to promote fertility in women. Such a theory cannot account either for the name Luperci or for the flagellation of men as well as women. T h e simplest hypothesis is that reaffirmed by Nilsson (Latomus 15(1956), 133). Taking the Luperci to be derived from lupus and arceo (cf. XvKovpyos), he regarded the ceremony as the natural concern of a shepherding com­ munity to avert depredations on its herds by wolves. T h e superstitious horror of wolves in early Rome, occasioned by economic necessity, is plain from the prodigy of 3. 29. 9. Although it seems agreed that this etymology of Luperci is inadmissible (see Walde-Hofmann; E r n o u t Meillet; also Latte, Rom. Religionsgeschichte, 84-86; J . Gruber, Glotta 39 (1961), 273-6), none the less the recognition of the Lupercalia as a purification of the flocks is most in accord with the character of early R o m a n religion (cf. the Parilia) and with the ancient evidence. T h e Luperci may be not wolf-averters but wolf-men, who impersonate and so control wolves. With the transition from a pastoral to an urban society, the original character of the ceremony will also have undergone change, until it came to be thought of as a fertility-rite. 51

I. 5. 1-2

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

Whatever its exact nature, the Lupercalia afforded the grounds for a link between Greece and Rome. T h e similarity of the Luperci to the cult of Ztvs AVKOLIOS in Arcadia facilitated the construction, prob­ ably in the fourth century, of the myth that the Arcadian Evander had inhabited the Palatine before the arrival of the descendants of Aeneas. Evander also supplied an etymology of the name Palatium (5. 1 n.). It is a purely literary invention, dating from an age which wished to see Greek precedents for all things R o m a n and, in particular, saw the influence of Arcadia strong in Rome (Bayet, Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 38 (1920), 63 ff.; he argues for Magna Graecia as the intermediary of the legends). For a different view see Gjerstad, Legends and Facts, 10 ff., who agrees that the rite is of the greatest antiquity. 5 1. monte: wrongly excised by Madvig, is in apposition to Palatio (cf. Tacitus, Annals 12. 2 4 ; see Andresen, Woch. Klass. Phil. 1916, 976 ff.). Elsewhere mons Palatinus is found but it was necessary to have the substantive form Palatium here in order to clarify the etymology. Pallanteo: this etymology is as old as Fabius Pictor (cf. D . H . 1.31.4, 79. 4 ; Pliny, N.H. 4. 20; Pausanias 8. 43. 2 ; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 313) but it had many rivals, e.g. from a putative son of Hercules and Evander's daughter Launa (Lavinia) (Polybius 6. 11a 1 with Walbank's note; D . H . 1. 34. 1; Origo Gentis Romanae 5. 3 ; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 5 1 ; the addition of Hercules helped to justify his encounter with Cacus); from balare (Naevius ap. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 5 3 ; Paulus Festus 245 L.), polare (Paulus Festus, loc. cit.) or the god Pales (Veil. Pat. 1. 8. 4 ; Solinus 1. 15; cf. Palatua: this etymology is de­ fended by Vanicek and Altheim). There are, however, a number of other place-names beginning Pal- or Fal- (cf. Falerii). This points rather to a pre-Indo-European root meaning'rock, hill' (cf., e.g., Etr. falad 'sky': see Walde-Hofmann s.v. 'Palatium'). 5. 2. Evandrum: in Greek mythology a minor 8cu/xa>v associated with Pan and worshipped principally in Arcadia. His ties with the Trojans were partly those of family, for he was related to Dardanus through his great-grandfather Atlas, and partly political since he had entertained Anchises on a visit to Arcadia (Virgil, Aeneid 8. 155) and had been driven from his homeland by the hostility of the Argives. It is possible that in him is preserved the dim memory of scattered Greek migrations to Italy in the tenth century (H. Miiller-Karpe, Vom Anfang Roms). There was a Bronze Age settlement at Rome. Lycaeum Pana: Pan {TJdiov—The Feeder) began as a local, pastoral deity of Arcadia. In company with Zeus he made his residence on M t . Lykaeus near Megalopolis from where his power continued to spread. In time of famine it was customary for Arcadian boys to whip his statue with squills (Theocritus 7. 106-8 with Gow's notes; cf. 1. 123 ff.), and this fertility-rite, together with the name Lykaeus, is 52

F O U N D A T I O N OF ROME

1.5-

2

sufficiently reminiscent of the Lupercalia to encourage identification. References and discussion in Farnell, Greek Cults, 5. 431-5 with nn. 149-88). Inuum: identified with Pan also by Macrobius (1. 22. 2) but with Faunus by others (Servius, ad Aen. 6. 775). Virgil mentions a Castrum Inui (near Ardea) but nothing else is known either of the place or the god. T h e name is perhaps pre-Italic. T h e identification with Pan is a clear case of interpretatio graeca. 5. 3 - 6 . 2 The Recognition of the Twins T h e recognition scene was a staple ingredient of Hellenistic theorizing about drama (cf. Aristotle, Poetics 1452*29 ff.) and hence became an element in Hellenistic historical technique as well. Fabius Pictor who was the first R o m a n to give an extended account of the twins may even have been directly influenced here by Sophocles' Tyro. L.'s telling matches the dramatic possibilities of the material. The charges are laid in two short sentences in or. obi. and Remus is handed over for instant punishment. His death is immediately expected but the suspense is maintained by two long, balancing sentences (iam .. . noluerat; forte . . . agnosceret) in which both Romulus and Numitor are apprised of the facts and undertake the rescue of Remus. T h e result is as final as it is unexpected—ita regem obtruncat—and the ends of the story are tied up in a model periodic sentence (6. 1 pres. part., cum, postquam, abl. abs.). For the first time in the History L. allows himself a more coloured vocabulary to suit the dramatic excitement of the narrative (5. 6 nn.). 5. 4. impetum: the plural, proposed by Gronovius, is needed (cf. 4. 9, 10. 3, 7. 42. 4). More than one foray was the subject of the accusation. 5. 5. aperiri: the active, read by Frigell, Weissenborn, and Bayet, has no authority, being found only in TT. 5. 6. fratres: Quintilian (9. 4. 24) formulates the rule thatfrater should always precede geminus when both words are used, otherwise it is superfluous. It should not, however, be deleted as a gloss here because the emphasis on geminos ('he knew they were brothers: the startling news was that they were twins') requires the word-order geminos esse fratres. tetigerat: 3. 17. 3 n. eodem: 'he came to the same conclusion as Faustulus'. This is the only meaning possible from N's text but it makes poor sense because it is refuted by the succeeding words which show that Numitor's suspicions did not in fact lead him as far as recognizing Remus. T h e best correction is eo demum (Perizonius). Frigell preferred Crevier's eo denique which is certainly better than eo dein (Gebhard, Lipsius) where dein is insupportable. dolus nectitur: 27. 28. 4, elsewhere only in Seneca's tragedies (Phoen. 53

1-5.6

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

119; Tro. 927) and Sil. Ital. 3. 234. It is no doubt meant to suggest the Greek SdAous" valveiv (cf., e.g., Iliad 6. 187). 6. 3 - 7 . 3 . The Foundation of Rome Only Ovid (Fasti. 4. 809 fif. with Bomer's note) makes any striking departures from the familiar account of the death of Remus and the foundation of the city. Yet the story, in common with so much of the Romulus legend, is a later invention based on Greek mythology. At bottom is the primitive belief in the sanctity of walls (Festus 358 L.). But the evil consequences which attend contempt of walls is Greek in origin, recalling the tale of Poimandros and Leukippos (Plutarch, Q.R. 37) or Oeneus and Toxeus (Apollodorus 1.8. 1 ; Ox. Pap. 2463). Its localization at Rome, natural as it was in any case, was eased by a suggestive technical term from augury (Paulus Festus 345 L. 'remores aves in auspicio dicuntur, quae acturum aliquid remorari conpellunt'). L. gives two versions both of which are of demonstrably late date (6. 4 n.). A rationalistic account is placed side by side/wittLthe volgatior fama. T h e former, which on a priori grounds can credibly be attributed to Licinius Macer, substituted a political motive (6. 4 n., regni cupido) for a religious one. L., by temperament in sympathy with such scepticism, accepts from the vulgate only the curse (7. 2 n.) which he makes the core of the incident. It is the first of many such episodes which are m a d e into a unity round a short piece of dramatic and characterizing speech (7. 4-15, 2. 10. 1-13 n.). It was a story which evidently had a contemporary message. For although the rivalry between two brothers in which the superiority of the one entailed the eclipse of the other represents an age-old theme prominent in many societies (cf. Cain and Abel), Romulus' victory was only secured by a crime and that crime of fratricide continued to reassert itself through­ out Roman history. T h e evils of the Civil Wars were seen as a legacy of Romulus' acts (Horace, Epod. 7. 17-20). Thus there was a con­ tradiction between Romulus the fratricide and Romulus the conditor urbis, the bad man and the good. In L. the conflict is still unresolved for he depended on pre-Augustan sources, but Ovid and Virgil (Aeneid 1. 292), reacting in different ways to Augustus' assertion of the Romulus motif (7. 9 n.), were at pains to minimize the crime of Romulus by emphasizing the sacrilege of Remus, by substituting Celer for Romulus as the actual murderer, and by depicting Romulus as shocked and saddened by what occurred. See Schilling, R.£.L. 38 (i960), 182-99. 6. 4. regni cupido: 17. 1 n., 23. 7, 34. 1, 2. 7. 9, 4. 46. 2. tutelae: the dative has archetypal authority and may be supported by 24. 22. 15, 42. 19. 15. Nagelsbach, following Doujat, would read quorum in tutela, Holscher quorum in tutelam. 54

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

1.6.4

Palatium Romulus, Remus Aventinum: the uniform tradition of authorities after Ennius (Aul. Gell. 13. 14. 5 ; Propertius 4. 1. 5 0 ; Ovid, Fasti 4. 815 ff.; Seneca, de Brev. Vitae 13. 8 ; Val. M a x . 1. 4 ; Aelian, Hist. Anim. 10. 22 et al.). Ennius, as also Servius, ad Aen. 3. 46, appears to preserve an earlier version which sited Romulus on the Aventine and Remus, probably, on the mons Murcus (Cicero, de Div. 1. 107; see O . Skutsch, C.Q. 11 (1961), 252-9). T h e change was no doubt influenced by the fact that the Aventine was not within the original pomerium and by the contrasted prosperity of the Palatine. It is further rebuttal of the view that L. is dependent on Ennius. templa capiunt: 18. 6 n. 7. 1. duplex-, the vulture belonged to the small category of augural birds, including the eagle, the immusulus, and the sangualis (Festus 214 L.; Paulus Festus 3 L . ; [Servius], ad Aen. 1. 394), who afforded omens by their flight. T h e augur considered the height, speed, and direction of the flight but nowhere else is the number of birds held to be significant, which might suggest that the whole episode is of later creation when Etruscan divination had predicted a life-cycle of 12 saecula for R o m e (Censorinus, de Die Natali 17; cf. the 12 sons of Acca Larentia). When Octavian claimed to have seen 12 vultures on 19 August 43 B.C., he was asserting his connexion with Romulus. For vultures in augury see Plutarch, Q.R. 9 3 ; Pliny, N.H. 29, 112, 30. 130. 7. 2. sic deinde: 26. 4 n. T h e turn of phrase is reminiscent of the equivalent passage of Ennius, Annales 99-100 V. It is deliberately presented as an archaic-sounding formula. interfectum: notice its dramatic position. 7. 3-15. Hercules and Cacus T h e legend of Hercules and Cacus represents the fusion of an Italian and a Greek version of the same basic myth, the attempted purloining of a god's cattle, which is elaborately investigated and documented by Fontenrose {Python, 339 ff. with earlier bibliography). In the Italian version, Cacus, a deity of the Palatine, entertained Geranes or R e coranus (Origo GentisRomanae 6: [Servius], ad Aen. 8.203), who affronted his hospitality by stealing his cattle. Cacus, it would seem, was a deity of the underworld and the theft of his cattle symbolized an attempt to break the power of death and release the dead. T h e nub of the Greek legend was the attempt made by a brigand to steal Geryon's cattle as H . brought them back from Erytheia. A characteristic form of it is found in Herodotus 4. 8 or in the Scholiast on Lycophron 46. It must therefore belong to one of the oldest layers of Indo-European myth, but I am disinclined to believe that the coincidence between the cele­ bration of the Kpovta at Athens on 12 Hekatombaion and the festival 55

i. 7- 3

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

of Hercules Invictus (the name of whose opponent, Recoranus, bears a superficial resemblance to Cronos) on 12 August at the Circus Maximus is substantial evidence for a pre-Hellenic common origin of the actual cults (A. Piganiol, Hommages Grenier, 3. 1261-4). The fusion of the Greek and Italian myths was accomplished to provide an aetiology for the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima (5. 13. 6 n.). This was a private cult, in the hands of two gentes, the Pinarii and Potitii (7. 12 n.) and is to be distinguished from the earliest state cult of Hercules attested in the lectisternium of 399. In the former Hercules was a god of commerce, in the latter his function was that of a protector of crops. Being a Greek rite (7. 3 n,), the cult of the Ara Maxima cannot be very old. Although the claims of different places such as Tibur (Hallam, J.R.S. 21 (1931), 276 ff.) or Croton (Bayet) to have been the direct link through which Hercules came to Rome have been stoutly championed, the evidence only per­ mits the conclusion that the cult cannot have been older than the fifth century. Given the underlying similarity, it was not difficult to graft it on to the Roman myth. Cacus' original functions were almost forgotten, so that the false equivalence Cacus = KCLKOS could easily be made and Cacus turned from the hero to the villain. Greek literature provided the substance of the story (7. 4 n., 7. 5 n., 7. 7 n., 7. i o n . ) . When an historical occasion was sought to localize the myth Evander 'the Benefactor' (Evavbpos) was an obvious counterpart to Cacus 'the Bad-man'. This, then, became the traditional story retailed with only minor modifications by poets from the time of Ennius and by the historians (Virgil, Aeneid 8. 185-275; Propertius 4. 9. 1-20; Ovid, Fasti 1. 543-86, 5. 643-52; D.H. 1. 39-42; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 190). Some accounts substituted Faunus for Evander (Derkyllos ap. [Plu­ tarch], Moralia 315 c = F. Gr. Hist, 288. 2) and there was some dif­ ference over the sex of the cattle (7. 7 n.) and over the precise identity of the founder of the cult (7. i o n . ) but the differences are too minor to enable us to determine what immediate source L. was following. It is in the telling of the story that the interest lies. L. continues the technique which he employed for the first time in the preceding chapter of relating an episode so that it builds up to dramatic utterance in archaic and forceful language (7. 10 n.) intended to suggest remote antiquity. In that way the episode is shaped and rounded. T h e close resemblance, extending even to verbal details, between L. and Virgil has led many scholars to follow Stacey in believing that both authors are directly dependent on Ennius. T h e agreements between L. and Virgil are on matters of description which could hardly be expressed otherwise, e.g. 7. 5 caudis in speluncam traxit = 8. 210 cauda in speluncam tractos (cf. Propertius 4. 9. 12 aversos cauda traxit in antra boves). Where L. has used highly coloured language it is 56

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

i- 7-3

a creative method of giving character to the narrative and not de­ rivative copying (7. 4 n., 7. 6 n., 7. 10 n.). T h e literary skill is harnessed to a moral purpose. L. is no religious enthusiast, but the proper maintenance of cult he, like most Romans, regarded as essential for the well-being of the state. He omits the fire and smoke which in Virgil (Aeneid 8. 199) and other authors de­ fended Cacus' cave as being too obviously fabulous for history. At the same time he stresses the piety which led to the foundation of the Ara Maxima and the devotion of the Pinarii and Potitii who maintained it. T h e message is conveyed in the words sacra . . .facit (7.3) and for L.'s audience it was bound to have a contemporary meaning. Augustus, too, was concerned to ensure the perpetuation of cult. In this, as in other ways, he was a second Romulus (7. 9 n.). In addition to the bibliography cited by Fontenrose see F. Miinzer, Cacus der Rinderdieb (Basel, 1911); Santoro, Liviofonte di Vergilio, 1938; L. Alfonsi, Aevum 19 (1945), 357-7 1 7. 3 . Graeco: it is symptomatic of the Graecus ritus that the offering was made capite aperto (Varro ap. Macrobius 3. 6. 17), that the celebrant's head was crowned with laurel (Varro, Menip. fr. 413 B. = Macrobius 3. 12. 2; [Servius], ad Aen. 8. 276), and that women were excluded (Macrobius 1. 12. 2 8 ; Plutarch, Q.R. 90), as they were also from the Herakles cult in Greece (cf., e.g., S.E.G. 2. 505 (Thasos)). ab Evandro: so also D.H. 1. 40. 6; Macrobius 3. 11. 7; Tacitus, Annals 15. 41 ; Strabo 5. 230. A second tradition, which is the express opinion of L. or his source at 9. 34. 18, attributed the actual dedication of the altar to Hercules himself (Ovid, Fasti 1. 5 8 1 ; Propertius 4. 9. 67; Virgil, Aeneid 8. 271 ; Solinus 1. 10). 7. 4. loco herbido: the picture of the weary Hercules recalls Herodotus 4. 8 and may be derived from it. herbidus for herbosus is rare and colour­ ful (cf. 9. 2. 7, 23. 19. 14, 29. 31. 9) but not confined to specifically poetic authors. It is avoided by Cicero and Caesar but used by Pliny (JV.H. 18. 164) and Varro (de Re Rust. 2. 1. 16). 7. 5. gravatum: used of food and drink, gravare (cf. 25. 24. 6) is bold and uncommon, being found elsewhere only in Seneca, Thyest. 910; Curtius 6. 11. 2 8 ; Apuleius, Met. 1. 26. Cacus: his name is preserved in the scalae Caci which led from the south side of the Palatine to the Circus Maximus (cf. Plutarch, Romulus 20) and the atrium Caci mentioned in the Regionary Catalogue (Reg. V I I I ) , but of a Caca, who in the later synthetic myth was said to have been a sister of Cacus and to have aided Hercules, it is said 'sacellum meruit in quo ei pervigili igne sicut Vestae sacrificabatur , (Servius, ad Aen. 8. 190; cf. Lactantius 1. 20. 36). Such perpetual fires are found also in the cult of Demeter, Apollo, and Pan (Pausanias 8. 37. 11) and prove that Cacus-Caca was originally a bisexual deity 57

i- 7-5

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

like Faunus-Fauna, Porno-Pomona, J a n u s - J a n a , Liber-Libera (cf. the ritual formula sive deus sive dea), whose location in a cave on the Palatine might be taken as evidence of chthonic powers. Cacus may be an Etruscan word: Cacu is found as a name on an Etruscan mirror. aversos: borrowed from the trick by which Hermes deceived Apollo when he stole his cattle, as told in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo (413). The archetype read aversos . . . eximium quemque . . . relictarum . . . inclusarum. If Cacus removed bulls and only bulls, relictarum and inclusarum are impossible; if he removed some bulls and some cows, Livian usage would still demand the masculine (Kiihnast, Liv. Syntax, 81). Stroth, followed by Kleine and Madvig, saw the difficulty. Following the account in D.H. 1. 39 where the animals are cows throughout he altered the text to aversas boves eximiam quamque, keeping relictarum . . . inclusarum. It is not, however, obvious that D.H. and L. are dependent on the same tradition. In Virgil, for ritual reasons, the stolen cattle were 4 bulls and 4 cows but in Propertius an unspecified number of bulls. In fact, L.'s source is unlikely to have been either Ennius or the source used by D.H. Nonetheless it is certain that he must have intended Cacus to have stolen only bulls from a mixed herd. For Ovid (Fasti 1. 547 ff.), who is closely modelled on L., speaks exclusively of bulls (traxerat aversos Cacus in antra feros) and desiderium is conventionally used of the longing of the female for the male (ef. e.g. Lucretius 2. 359-60 crebra revisit ad stabulum desiderio perfixa iuvenci; Ovid, Met, 7. 731). Cacus, no doubt, wished to improve the strain of his own cattle. It is therefore necessary to read relictorum . . . inclusorum, 7 . 6 . primam auroram: only here in L. Elsewhere in Ovid, Met. 3. 600; Pliny, N.H, 11. 30; [Amm. Marc. 19. 1.2]. It enhances the fairyland character of the narrative as do excitus somno (cf. Catullus 63. 42, 64. 5 6 : elsewhere L. uses ex somno excitus; cf. 4. 27. 6, 8. 37. 6) and incertum animi which occurs this once in L. and is otherwise used by Terence (Hecyra 121), Val. Flaccus (1. 79), and Statius (Theb. 3. 444). 7. 7. vadentem: Weissenborn compares Homer, Odyssey 9. 399. vado, as a colourful synonym for eo (2. 10. 5, 12. 8, 3. 49. 2, 63. 1, 4. 38. 4, 5. 47. 4), was first used in literary prose by Sallust (Jugurtha 94. 6). Cicero uses it only in verse (Arat. 326) and letters (ad Att. 4. 10. 2, 14. 11. 2). The word which is naturally at home in the vocabulary of the poets (Ennius 273, 479 V . ; Catullus 63. 31, 86; Virgil, Aeneid 2. 359 et al, saep.) is employed by L. to give point to striking episodes. 7. 8. ea: with loca. The hyperbaton is not intended to provide special emphasis so much as to set off the harmonious balance of prqfugus ex Peloponneso, auctoritate magis quam imperio. prqfugus, are (frvyas a>v, ex­ plains the point of what follows, for which cf. Augustus' claim in Res Gestae 34. 3. 58

F O U N D A T I O N OF R O M E

1.7.8

litterarum: Evander is expressly credited not with the invention, which traditionally was due to Cadmus, but only with the use of writing, but R o m a n belief evidently made him responsible for the introduction of the Latin alphabet (Tacitus, Annals 11. 14). T h e earliest Latin inscription (from Praeneste c. 600 B.C.) shows that the alphabet was derived not directly from the Greeks of Cumae, as had been thought, but from Etruria. T h e same conclusion is reached by observ­ ing that the order of the voiced and unvoiced gutturals C and G in the Latin alphabet differs from that in Greek and is explained by the modification of the Greek alphabet made by the Etruscans whose language lacked voiced consonants. Writing being regarded as the greatest of benefactions was naturally attributed to Evander, the Benefactor, although the Latin alphabet in fact only dates from the seventh century. See M . Lejeune, R.E.L. 35 (1957), 88 ff.; L. H . Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, 4. Carmentae: in Greek always Kapficvrrj, Latin varies between Carmentis (Varro, Virgil, AulusGellius, Servius) and Carmenta (Hyginus, Fab. 277; Solinus 1. 13 ; Origo Gentis Romanae 5. 1.2), both of which signify the same meaning 'she who is full of carmen' (cf. pollenta: sementis; Skrit. Kakati). T h e other ancient etymologies (Ovid, Fasti 1. 620: Plutarch, Q.R. 56) do not bear examination. T h e goddess was one of the oldest R o m a n deities, with her ownjlamen (Cicero, Brutus 56) and festival on 11 and 15 January, but her exact function was in doubt. The ancients regarded her as either a goddess of child-birth (Aul. GelL 16. 16. 4 ; Ovid, Fasti 617 ff.) or of prophecy (Servius, adAen. 8 . 5 1 ; D.H. 1. 31. 1) or of both {Fasti Praenest.; Augustine, Civ. Dei 4. 11), while modern scholars have identified her as a moon-goddess (Pettazzoni), a springnymph (Wissowa, Bayet), or a goddess of beginnings (von Domazewski). The truth is probably that she was a goddess closely connected with the Cermalus region of the Palatine (Clement, Strom. 1. 21) whcse magical powers (carmen) were invoked in child-birth. Hence the embargo ne quod scorteum adhibeatur (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 8 4 ; Fasti Praenest.; Ovid, Fasti 1. 629 ff.) and the prohibition on leather objects which were an omen morticinum. Later generations interpreted the carmina as prophetic rather than magical until she became a goddess of prophecy. Augustine pertinently quotes from Varro the detail fata (?= carmina) nascentibus canunt . . . Carmentes. H e r status as Evander's mother was a late manipulation. In Greek myth that position was held by Nicostrate or, more popularly, Themis (Pausanias 8. 43. 2 ; Strabo 5. 230), a nymph with prophetic powers who had controlled Delphi before the arrival of Apollo. When Evander was transferred to Rome, Carmenta was the natural equivalent of Themis (Servius, ad Aen. 8. 336). See Pagliaro, Studi e Materiali, 21 (1947), 121 ff.; L. L. Tels de Jong, Sur quelques divinites romaines, 21 ff. 59

i.7.8

F O U N D A T I O N OF ROME

fatiloquam: a variant of the technical fatidicus (cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deorum i. 18), used otherwise only by Apuleius, Flor. 15; Ausonius 196. 5°7 . 9 . augustioremque: commonly used in opposition to humanus ( 5 . 4 1 . 8 , 8. 6. 9, 8. 9. 10; Praef. 7) and not applied to persons except Hercules, Romulus ( 1 . 8 . 3), and Decius (8. 9. 10), although applied to sacred places and things (29. 5, 3. 17. 5, 5. 41. 2, 38. 13. 1, 42. 3. 6, 45. 5. 3). This selectivity may be deliberate. Octavius assumed the surname Augustus in 27 B.G. having already been linked with Hercules by Horace {Odes 3. 3. 9-12) and having considered but rejected the name Romulus as possessing unfortunate associations (Suetonius, Augustus 7; Florus 4. 66; Dio 53. 16). In using the adjective augustus of Hercules and Romulus twice in such close proximity, L. may be intending to call Augustus to mind. See L. R. Taylor, C.R. 32 (1918), 158-61; G. M . Hirst, A.J.P. 47 (1926), 347-57. See also 7. 10 n. (aucturum); H. Erkell, Augustus Felicitas Fortuna, 19 ff. 7. 10. nomen patremque ac patriam: recalling the Homeric formula TIV rrodev €t? av8pa)v; irodi roi TTOXIS r)Se rotcrjes; (Odyssey i. 170 et al.). love nate: Evander's greeting is intended to convey a solemnity appropriate to the occasion. Notice the ritual repetition tibi . . . tuo (3. 17. 6 n.) and the impressive future pass. inf. dicatum iri (3. 67. 1 n.). veridicus seems to be a religious technical term (cf. Lucretius 6. 24; Cicero, de Divin. 1. 101). Equally formal is the vocative Hercules (cf. C.LL. 6. 313, 319, 329) instead of the colloquial Hercule. For augere caelestium numerum cf. Virgil, Aeneid 7. 2 1 1 ; Ovid, Amores 3. 9. 6 6 ; Pliny, N.H. 31. 4. interpres deum is sacral (Cicero, de Leg. 2. 20; de Nat. Deorum 2. 12; cf. Virgil, Aeneid 3. 359, 4. 378, 10. 175; Horace, Ars Poetica 3 9 1 ; C.L.E. 1528). aucturum : implying the etymology augustus from augeo (cf. 7. 8 auctoritate). In the same way L. underwrites his interpretation of Feretrius by the repetition of few (10. 6-7) or of Stator by the repetition of sisto (12. 5-8). augustus and augeo are in fact connected, augustus being derived from *augus (cf. Ind. djah; see Walde-Hofmann; E r n o u t Meillet). tibi: at 9. 34. 18 Hercules is expressly stated to have founded the altar, whereas other authorities attribute the foundation to Evander (Tacitus, Annals 15. 41). T h e language here is ambiguous, tibi could be either dat. of agent or dat. commodi. 7. 1 1 . accipere: 5. 55. 2 n. 7. 12. Potitiis ac Pinariis: traditionally the cult of Hercules at the Ara Maxima was in the hands of these two gentes until 312 when corrupt dealings (9. 29. 9 ff.) resulted in their being deprived of their office and visited with divine destruction. It is more likely that on the natural extinction of the two families the gentile cult was taken over 60

ROMULUS

i. 7. 12

by the state (Varro, de Ling, Lat. 6. 5 4 ; [Servius], ad Aen. 8. 270; Macrobius 3. 12. 2). T h e traditional story savours of political mis­ representation. Potitii are not met elsewhere. A Tiburtine provenance cannot be proved and the a t t e m p t to associate them with the Valerii, one branch of w h o m had the cognomen Potitus, is also speculative. V a n Berchem has recently argued that the name is a title, 'the possessed', analogous to the KOLTOXOI of Zeus Ouranios at Baetocaece (Rend. Accad. Pontif. 32 (1959/60), 61-68), b u t s u c h a view is not in line with gentile character of so m u c h early R o m a n religion. T h e Pinarii, on the other hand, survive into classical times but it is significant that neither of the later branches, the Nattae and Scarpi, who provide moneyers, makes any allusions on its coins to the cult of Hercules (Sydenham nos. 382, 390, 1279 ff.) a n d m a t a r i y a l pedigree claimed them as descendants of N u m a (Plutarch, JVuma 21. 3 ; D . H . 2. 76. 5). It follows that the Potitii and the oldest branch of the Pinarii must have died out by the end of the fourth century, and, although we do not know where the gentes originated from, there is nothing to prevent them, like the Fabii, importing their own gentile cult. T h e purported distinctions of role implied in 7. 13 (Potitius as auctor, Pinarius as custos of the cult; cf. Virgil, Aen. 8. 269; Festus 270 L..; Cicero, de Domo 134; C.LL. 6. 313), based on popular etymologies (Servius, ad Aen. 8. 270 Potitios dici quod eorum auctor epulis sacris potitus sit; Pinarius from neivav), deserve no credit. Sources and bibliography in Miinzer, R.E. 'Pinarius'; Ehlers, R.E. 'Potitii'. 7. 13. eorum: has no authority, extis eo sollemnium being read in A only, the result of the dittography eo so-, extis sollemnium in M , and extis sollemnibus in IT. 8. Constitutional Measures As an interlude between Cacus and the R a p e of the Sabine women, L. inserts a short note dealing with three constitutional measures allegedly introduced by Romulus. The Introduction of Magisterial Emblems T h e unanimous tradition in other authors (cf. 8. 3 eorum sententiae; Sallust, Catil. 51. 3 8 ; Diodorus 5. 40. 1; Strabo 5. 220; D . H . 3. 6 1 - 6 2 ; Pliny, N.H. 8. 195; Appian, Lib. 66) recognized an Etruscan origin of the several insignia and historically that tradition must be right (see most recently Lambrechts, Essai sur les magistratures, 26 ff.; against, de Francisci, Studi Etr. 24 (1955), 25 ff.). L. is not likely to have in­ vented such an unconventional doctrine for himself and we should rather attribute it to a source, such as Licinius Macer, who can be shown to have concerned himself with such questions. 61

I. 8. 2

ROMULUS

8. 2. insignibus imperii: 17. 6, 20. 2, 2. 1. 8, 7. 7, 3. 51. 12; cf. 5. 4 1 . 2. lictoribus: a double axe with rods, such as were carried by the lictors, was discovered in Vetulonia, the very city from which Silius Italicus (8. 483-5) asserted that the Romans had derived their fasces (Falchi, Not. Scavi, 1898, 147 ff.). See further 2. 1. 7-2. 2 n. 8. 3 . hoc genus: the manuscripts had et hoc genus, emended by the younger Gronovius, but there is nothing amiss with the text, et hoc genus means 'and all this kind of thing', i.e. the accensi and other officials in attendance on the magistrates as well as the lictors. T h e use, only here in L., is colloquial: cf. Tertullian, Idol. 12 per spectacula et hoc genus; Gaelius, ad Fam. 8. 4. 2 ; Suetonius, Claudius 34. 2. Such stylistic lapses are found where L. is speaking propria persona. It is equally unnecessary to insert et before numerum. sella curulis: originally a seat placed in the royal chariot from which justice was administered. One actual example survives from Caere and others are depicted in Etruscan paintings. See Helbig, Melanges Perrot, 167 ff.; Pellegrini, Studi e Materiali, 1 (1924), 87-118. Under the Republic it became the magisterial throne (cf. also 2. 30. 5 n.). toga praetexta: with purple border, worn by children and magis­ trates. Antiquity was divided between Etruscan ([Servius], ad Aen. 2. 7 8 1 ; Tertullian, de Pali; Photius) and Peloponnesian (Suidas s.v. rrjpevvos; Pollux 7. 61) claims for inventing it but Etruscan monu­ ments which clearly depict it support the former. See Goethert, R.E., 'toga (2)'; Alfoldi, Der Fruhromische Reiteradel, 63 ff. duodecim: 5. 33. 9 n. The Asylum In the Greek world the right of asylum is commonly associated with the right of settlement. At Cos (Herzog, Heilige Gesetze aus Kos, 36) and Cyrene (Latte, Archiv f. Relig.-Wiss. 26 (1928), 4 1 ; cf. Aeschylus, SuppL 609, 963 ff.) provision was expressly made in accor­ dance with the terms of a Delphic oracle for an asylum under the protection of Apollo. Those who sought asylum were subsequently allowed to become citizens. T h e Greek model has obviously in­ fluenced the Roman asylum inter duos lucos (8. 5 n . ) ; Plutarch even speaks of a fiavretov nvdoxprjerrov (Romulus 9). It would seem that there was a very ancient asylum in the dip between the two peaks of the Capitoline hill, dating from a time before the inclusion of the hill within the boundaries of the city. No particular deity presided over it (D.H. 2. 15. 4). T h e attempts to associate it with Veiovis (Ovid, Fasti 3. 430; cf. Vitruvius 4. 8. 4 ; C.I.L. i 2 . 233) or deus Lucoris (Piso ap. Servius, ad Aen. 2. 761) are antiquarian schematizations. I n common with other topographical features it was utilized to provide aetiological material for R o m a n historians and by assimilation to Greek 62

ROMULUS

i. 8. 4

institutions was taken to be an act of policy for increasing the popula­ tion arid ascribed to Romulus (cf. Veil. Pat. i. 8. 5 ; Cicero, de Divin. 2. 40). See Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, 4. 2 2 ; Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 258 ff.; W. S. Watt, C.Q. 43 (1949), 9 - 1 1 ; van Berchem, Mus. Helv. 17 (i960), 29-33. 8. 5. adiciendae: 'in order to add a large number (to the existing population)'. For adicere cf. 1. 36. 7, 10. 8. 3, 38. 1. 6. alliciendae (Ascensius, Kreyssig, Madvig) would wrongly imply a policy of de­ liberate advertisement, of which there is no hint. obscurant atque humilem: alluding to the proverbial expression 7 ? / ^ terrae (cf. Cicero, ad Att. 1. 13. 4 ; ad Fam. 7. 9. 3 ; Persius 6. 59; Petronius 43. 5 ; Minuc. Felix 21. 7; Fronto 98. 4 H o u t ; U J u v . 4. 98). It is to be distinguished from the universal myth that m a n originally rose from the ground and from the Greek yrjyevrjs which denotes stupidity (see Starkie on Aristophanes, Nub. 854). saeptus . . , est: the exact sense of the passage is obscure. Ifsaeptus est be taken together the meaning would be 'which has now been en­ closed at the place where you descend from the capitol inter duos lucos'. Since Cicero {de Divin. 2. 40) implies that the area was open in his day, it is reasonable to believe that it was enclosed as part of the improve­ ments carried out on the Capitoline after 31 B.C.; but descendentibus remains pointless. T h e area was enclosed, irrespective of whether people descended from or ascended to the Capitol. Furthermore, the long separation is against taking saeptus with est. If, on the other hand, saeptus is a participle, est by itself cannot be construed: whether inter duos lucos be taken with est ('the area which has now been enclosed lies inter duos lucos when you descend from the Capitol') or with de­ scendentibus ('the area . . . lies if you descend inter duos lucos'). Of both it may be asked 'Why only for those descending? W h a t happens to the area if you ascend to the Capitol?' L. is clearly locating the asylum and this requires a closer geographical specification, as one would expect from the use of the dative absolute descendentibus: cf. 42. 15. 5 ascendentibus . . . maceria erat ab laeva\ Thucydides 1. 24. 1 ; Mela 2. 1 ; H. Stiirenberg, Relative Ortsbezeichnung, 37-38. T h e asylum would, in fact, lie on one's left as one descended from the Capitol and either sinistra (Jordan, Hermes 9 (1875), 347 n 0 o r a^ ^aeva (H. JMiiller) should be supplied before est. 8. 6. an: the indirect question is introduced by discrimine, so that the comma is best placed not after discrimine but after omnis (cf. 28. 3. 10).

'The Creation of the Senate A Council of Elders (senatus, yepovola) is as old as society and its origins at Rome cannot profitably be investigated. W h a t does bear 63

1.8.7

ROMULUS

examination is the question when the tradition that Romulus founded a Senate of ioo took root (cf. 17. 5, 35. 6 n.). Conventionally the Senate of the early Republic numbered 300 (2. 1. 10 n.) and in deference to Greek models in which the total number of members of the council was directly related to the number of tribes (i.e. the Solonian fiovXrj had 400 members, 100 for each of 4 tribes; wider details in A. H. M . Jones, The Greek City, 176 with n, 40) that figure was regarded as corresponding to 100 members of each of the 3 preServian tribes, the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres (13. 8 n.). T h e senatorial total is, therefore, analogous to the 300 equites (36. 7 n.) and does not rest on any original evidence. In Romulus 5 time only the first of the tribes existed, so that by a matter of simple logic his Senate can only have consisted of 100 (D.H. 2 . 1 2 ; Festus 454 L . ; Ovid, Fasti 3. 127; Propertius 4 . 1 . 1 4 ; Veil. Pat. 1.8.6; Plutarch, Romulus 13; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 105). This a priori reconstruction could be supported by appeals to the normal size of municipal councils or to the councils of Veii and Cures which also were 100 strong. T h e number 300 does not, however, rest on any documentary evidence, and its artificiality is betrayed by the discrepant accounts of how an original total of 100 was expanded to 300. O n e account presumed a Romulean Senate of 100 augmented by 50 under Titus Tatius and doubled by Tarquinius Priscus (D.H. 2. 47). Other versions agreed that Tarquinius added the final 100 but differed on the question whether the earlier 100 was the result of the Sabine influx (D.H. 2. 57) or the absorp­ tion of Alba. Zonaras (7. 8) knew yet another version. Indeed, if the original Senate consisted of the heads of the principal families, it is incredible that it should have totalled any precise number, let alone the round number 100. D.H.'s principle of selection (90 chosen by the 30 curiae, 9 by the 3 tribes, and 1 by Romulus), which is implied but not stated by L., is strongly democratic in sympathy and may with reason be ascribed to Licinius Macer. See O'Brien Moore, R.E. Suppl. 6, 'Senatus'; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 884 fF. 8. 7. consilium: not concretely 'a council' but abstractly 'guidance 5 . For the pairing with vires cf. 2. 56. 16, 3. 62. 7. Romulus tempered force with discretion. So also Cicero, de Rep. 2. 4. 9-13. The Sabine Synoecism L. now embarks on the most ambitious essay in narrative so far. There was a nexus of stories treating of Rome's relations with her Sabine neighbours, of which the centrepiece was the Rape of the Sabine women. Each of these incidents could be and in origin was self-con­ tained—the Consualia, Thalassio, Tarpeia, the dedication to J u p piter Feretrius, Mettius Curtius—and each of them is discussed in detail in its place below. Historians long before Livy had welded them 64

ROMULUS

i- 9-^3 together into a connected account but L. goes further and turns them into satisfying romance. His method is to use the Sabine women like a Greek chorus as a constant background to each episode and to allow their emotions gradually to change with circumstances. Thus there is a formal structure which can be analysed as follows: 9. 1—16 Internal: Rape of the Sabine Women. 10. 1—11. 4 External: (a) War with Gaeninenses. (b) War with Antemnates. (c) War with Grustumini. 11. 5-9 Internal: Tarpeia. 12 External: Mettius Gurtius and the Defeat of the Sabines. 13 Internal: Reconciliation. There is also an emotional structure, ranging from defiance and indignation (9. 14), through resignation (11. 2), to reconciliation (13. 8 non modo commune sed concors etiam). The whole is knit together; and a comparison with the parallel versions of Cicero (de Rep. 2. 12), D.H. (2. 30. 1), and Plutarch in his life of Romulus leaves no doubt that the artistry is directly due to L. T h e institution of the Gonsualia for the particular purpose of attracting the Sabines is psychologically more satisfying than Cicero's casual mention that there happened to be an annual festival. So too the omission of the numerous circum­ stantial details which clutter the pages of D.H. makes for clarity and movement. Cicero is embarrassed and ashamed by the whole affair. H e calls Romulus 5 plan subagreste and hastens to point out that the Sabine women really were well born (honesto ortas loco). There is no apologetic tone in L. For him it is a noble and inspiring story in keeping with the importance and size of Romz (9. 1, 9. 8). Where the scale is noble, the events cannot be unworthy. Historically the only question is whether primitive Roman society was the result of a fusion of Sabine and Latin elements. Arch geolo­ gically there is ample evidence that in the eighth and early seventh centuries there were separate village communities on the Palatine, the Oppian (Esquiline), and the Quirinal, and that the culture of the Palatine, as revealed by its arts and crafts, was different from that of the other two hills. T h e same dichotomy may be disclosed by the existence of two different burial-rites, cremation predominating in the earliest graves of the Forum and inhumation on the Esquiline and Quirinal. T h e same phenomenon is to b^ seen in the fields of religion and language. Certain special ceremonies belong to the Quirinal alone and have characteristically Sabine affinities. T h e bsst summaries (with references) of the archaeological evidence for the Sabine element in early Rome may b * found in R. Bloch, 814432

65

F

ROMULUS

i- 9-13

The Orgins of I. ne> Lege?? a: Frc 1 dr. ;> < Lt n^ • Ant.

-8\ and E, Gjerstad, Opuscida Romana, 3. 79 ff.; ' ,? t J so A. Piganiol, Essai sur les origines ' ee, e.g., L. R. Palmer, The Latin :nt of the material see O . Seel,

{< K

the Sabine Women

T h e c o n . i t ^ o n betv ualia and the R a p e has not yet been satisfactorily explaii. 1 tain that in origin Gonsus (from condere: see Schulze 474, Philologica 2 (1957), 175; J.R.S. 51 (1961), 32) was a god anary or storehouse. Apart from the etymology, his two festi 1 August; 15 December) are paired with the Opiconsivia (25 ^ st) and the Opalia (19 December) and correspond in time respectively to the garnering of the harvest and the onset of winter when anxiety arises whether the supplies will last till the following harvest. This much is plain. T h e horse- or muleraces which in historical times accompanied the Gonsualia were no original feature but will have been added under Etruscan influence (D. H . 2. 3 1 ; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 636), for such contests are figured frequently on Etruscan paintings and are Etruscan in character. T h e motive for the addition may have been a change in the conception of Consus' functions. As a god of the granary his altar was underground, but to the Etruscans such shrines (puteal) were associated with the spirits of the dead. T h e horse was the funerary animal (cf. Aul. Gell. 10. 15. 3 : also the tantalizing entry in Praenestine Fasti for 15 Decem­ ber) and equine ceremonies are regular at funerals (cf, e.g., Herodotus 4. 71-72). T h e elaboration of the Gonsualia by the addition of horse­ races which turned it into one of the most spectacular of the early festivals led in its turn to a misrepresentation of the deity in whose honour it was held. T o the Greeks Poseidon was the god of horses. H e enjoyed the cult-title "Iimuos and was thought of as a horse-god (Pausanias 7. 2 1 . 7). Thus Greek concepts suggested the wholly false and un-Roman notion that the Gonsualia were held in honour of Neptunus equestris (9. 6; cf. Tertullian, de Sped. 5. 5). The early Nep­ tune shared only the aquatic functions of Poseidon (5. 13. 6 n.) his Greek counterpart. Three stages, Latin, Etruscan, and Greek, can be postulated for the evolution of Gonsus but none illuminate his connexion with the Sabine women. Yet this connexion is old, at least as old as Ennius (Servius, ad Aen. 8. 636) and perhaps much older (2. 18. 2 n.). It is true that both in the forms of marriage and in the election of Vestals (veluti bello captae) a token display of force was used and it may be significant that at the Nonae Gaprotinae on 7 July sacerdotes publici make sacrifice to Consus. Equally it could be held that it was a dramatic historization 66

ROMULUS

i. 9. 1

of a Greek myth—the rape of Demeter's daughter, Kore, by Hades, the fruits of the earth buried underground. Yet in default of other evidence these are no more than guesses. Once the first idea had taken root it could be extended by adding wars which served to account for Rome's absorption of the nearby villages of Antemna, Caeninum, and Grustumerium, and by incorporating one explanation of the archaic wedding-cry Thalassio (9. 12 n.). So with minor idiosyncrasies and much embellishment on Hellenistic principles the story maintained a consistent shape at the hands of historians from Ennius to D.H. It was only the antiquarians who questioned the conventional accounts and advanced heterodox explanations. Varro derived Consus from consilium (Paulus Festus 36 L . ; Augustine, Civ. Dei4. 11) and proposed a wholly different explanation of Thalassio (9. 12 n.). L. follows the historical tradition and shows no awareness of Varronian researches. His concern is to make it psychologically effective (e.g. there is no mention of Roman lust) and stylistically elegant as the first act of the Sabine drama. To this end he shapes it so that the narrative begins and ends with an oration in indirect speech (9. 2 - 4 ; 9. 14-15). Both express reasonable, if sententious, arguments, the first in rhetorical, the second in tragic language. See P. Lambrechts, Ant. Class. 15 (1946), 61-82; P. H. N. G. Stehouwer, £tude sur Ops et Consus (Diss. Utrecht, 1956); J . Gage, Ant. Class. 28 (1959), 255 ff. 9. 1. hominis: 'was likely to last only a single generation as a result of the dearth of women'. conubia: 4. 1. 1 n. 9. 2. legatos: the arguments, not found in D.H., will be original to L. They are Greek in conception, although phrased in oratorical Latin. For the double guarantee of Rome's prosperity (sua virtus ac di) cf. Thucydides 3. 58. 1; 4. 92. 7. The underlying philosophy is developed by Plato (Laws 829 A) and Aristotle (Politics 1323 s 14 ff.). T h e passage was admired by Quintilian who quotes it as an example of 777000x077077-0 «a (9. 2. 37 with deinde for dein, rightly since in L. dein is normally used with a preceding primo (2. 12. 4, 50. 7, 54. 8, 3. 32. 2, 47. 6, 4. 13. 13, 5. 22. 5) and is not found before qu-). For ex infimo nasci (3) cf. Seneca de Bene/. 3. 38. 1; for opes . . . nomen cf. Cicero, pro Murena 33. By contrast the Sabine reply is abrupt and discourteous (9. 5 n.). 9. 3 . virtus ac di: 4. 37. 7 n. 9. 5. rogitantibus: probably dative; cf. 23. 10 quaerentibus. compar: the adjective is of very rare occurrence being used previously by Varro, Menip. fr. 47 and Lucretius 4. 1255. L. has it here and at 28. 42. 20 compar consilium (speech of Q . Fabius), which suggests that in both places its alliterative sound and unliterary associations are meant to characterize the speakers. Here there may be overtones of 67

*• 9- 5

ROMULUS

the inscriptional use of compar as a substantive = 'consort, i.e. hus­ band, wife' (cf., e.g., C.I.L. 3. 1895, 4183 et aL). 9. 6. vocat: omitted by M. Frigell thought that vocat in TTA (vacat in R, D, L) was the corruption of a scribe's note that a word or words was missing at this point, thus corroborating M's omission. He would read Consualia (appellate?) ; Gronoviushad already proposed the punctuation parat . . . sollemnes, Consualia. indict. . . . But M.'s omissions in the earlier chapters of Book 1 are peculiar to itself (cf. the omission ofsibi in 9. 3) and TTA read vocat not vacat. Cf. 29. 14. 14, 36. 36. 4. 9. 8. mortales: 37. 2, 3. 30. 8, 4. 61. 7, 5. 7. 3, 16. 6. T h e force of this variation for multi homines is discussed by Fronto ap. Aul. Gell. 13. 29 (see Gries, Constancy\ 104-7). Not specifically 'poetic', it was favoured by historians for its impressiveness (Claudius Quadrigarius; Sallust, Jugurtha 20. 3 ; Naevius, Bell. Pun. 5 Mo.). Caeninenses: the ancient Caenina, listed by Pliny as one of the vanished cities (N.H. 3. 68), must have been very near Rome since Romulus sacrified there (D.H. 2. 33) and because the survival of sacerdotes Caeninenses among the R o m a n priesthoods implies early absorption by Rome (CI.L. 5. 4059, 9. 4885-6). T h e only other in­ dication of its site is D.H. 1. 16 if the emendation be accepted: Avrefivdras /cat Kaiviviras /cat &LKO\V€OVS. The fact that Fidenae is not mentioned among these primitive neighbours of Rome might suggest that Caenina was situated on the naturally strong site of Castel Giubbileo, and that after Caenina was absorbed by Rome its site was subsequently used by the Veientes for the founding of Fidenae. See also Ashby, P.B.S.R. 3 (1906), 22, 65-66. Crustumini: 38. 4 n., 2. 19. 1 n. There are two clues to its site: the Allia rose Crustuminis montibus (5. 37. 7); the Romans retreating down the Via Salaria from Eretum camped on a hill between Fidenae and C. (3. 42. 3). A study of the Etruscan road system shows that an important road led from Veii by way of the tunnel at Pietra Pertusa to a Tiber crossing about 1 mile north of the Casale Marcigliana. After the crossing the cuttings of the road are clearly visible and show that it continued across country in the direction of Gabii and by­ passed Rome. T h e ascent of the road from the Tiber is made up a valley on the south of a commanding tongue of land which is a typical early site. It is easily defensible, having steep cliffs on three sides and only a narrow neck to the east, and it is strategically placed, dominat­ ing both the Via Salaria and the Tiber crossing. All these indications point to the identification of the site with Crustumerium. T h a t there was an early settlement here is confirmed by the discovery on 21 M a y 1962 of what seemed to be a seventh-century cemetery by the side of the road close to the neck. Detailed investigation of it has unfor­ tunately so far been frustrated. T w o Etruscan bronze statuettes are 68

ROMULUS

1.9.8

housed at Marcigliana itself {Stud. Etr. 23 (1954), 411-15), but their provenance is not specifically recorded. For earlier identification see Ashby, P.B.S.R. 3 (1906), 50-51. It was one of the few settlements near R o m e to merit a legendary origin, being ascribed to Sicilian (Cassius Hemina ap. Servius, ad Aen. 7. 631), Trojan, or Athenian ( D . H . 2. 65) foundation. T h e n a m e is variously spelled. Antemnates: of the three communities, Antemnae, situated at the mouth of the Anio (cf. the false etymology ante amnem in Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 28) alone survived into classical times. It is mentioned as the site of a battle in 82 B.C. and is recorded even by Strabo (5. 230). T h e remains which have been found on the site contain local and Etruscan pottery of the seventh century as well as rough-squared masonry (Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 104-5; Ashby, op. cit., 14-15). T h e evidence indicates that the settlement, as presumably Caenina and Crustumerium, was absorbed by Rome but at a date at least a century later than that traditionally given. 9, 9» iam: for this use, introducing a further stage of a narrative, cf. 35. 1, 23. 5. 15. Scheibe would read etiam. 9. 12* Thalassi: the anecdote is one of many aetiologies of the marriage-cry Talassio (Martial 1. 36. 6, 3. 93. 2 5 ; Sidon. Apoll. Epist. 1. 5 ; cf. Catullus 6 1 . 134; Plutarch, Q.R. 3 1 ; Romulus 15), alternatively written as Thallasio probably by a false etymological connexion with the Greek ddXafios (cf. Servius, ad Aen. 1. 6 5 1 ; [Virgil], Catal. 12. 9). T h e account given of its origin by L. (so also Servius; Isidore 15. 3. 6) was evidently the ordinary annalistic view but deserves no credence: Thalass(i)us is a name first borne by the notable general of Constantius (Zosimus 2. 4 8 ; cf. also Libanius, Ep. 843). It was perhaps suggested by a similar explanation given of the Greek fYfi4vatos. By contrast with the annalists the antiquarians were prolific in proposals, deriving it from rdXapov 'wool' (Festus 478 L . ; cf. Plutarch, Romulus 15) or talla (Festus 492 L. on the analogy of vnrjv and vfievaios). Sextius Sulla, quoted by Plutarch, made one valuable contribution when he claimed that the word was Sabine, but whether it is an exclamation or the name of a deity is indetermin­ able. For full evidence see R. Schmidt, De Hymenaeo et Talassio (Diss. Kiel, 1886); Richter, Roscher's Mythologie s.v. 9, 13, violati hospitii foedus: Perizonius's conjecture violatum is neces­ sary to avoid the intolerable enallage. T h e parents complained that the laws of hospitality had been outraged. For violate foedus cf. 8. 7. 5, 30. 42. 8; Cicero, pro Sest. 15; pro Balbo 13, 31, 5 5 ; Scaur. 4 2 ; Phil. 13. 4 ; de Rep. 1. 31. For similar corruptions due to assimilation of endings cf. 28. 33. 16, 43. 1, 30. 32. 2. per fas acfidem: the parents are made to take refuge in legal formulae to express their indignation at the treatment of their daughters, per 69

*-9- r 3

ROMULUS

fas ac fidem is an old expression from the law in which per, like the Greek napd, means 'contrary to' (cf. perfidus). It is preserved in Plautus, Most. 500 with Sonnenschein's note; Cicero, pro S. Roscio n o , 116; de Inv. 1. 71 perfidemfefellerunt. 9. 14. docebat; the arguments which Romulus uses to placate the Sabine women are drawn, at least indirectly, from Greek sources. L. has deliberately chosen them in order to convey the atmosphere of a Greek tragedy, in the same way that he had earlier presented Romulus as a political negotiator (9. 3-4 n.). T h e general argument that women should make the best of their position recalls Euripides, Medea 475 ff. Of the three particular arguments used, the plea quibus fors corpora dedisset, darent animos is not unlike Sophocles, Ajax 490-1, (note also 514-19), the consolation that in marriage at least ex iniuria . . . gratiam ortam resembles the thought of Andromache when faced with being a slave of Neoptolemus (Euripides, Troades 665-6), and the assurance that their husbands will endeavour to fill the place of parents and country is a clear recollection of Andromache's touching words to Hector av /zoi eocri irarrip /cat irorvia p-riTqp (Homer, Iliad 6. 429). 10. War with the Caeninenses: Juppiter Feretrius T h e ancients derived the title Feretrius either from ferre (Paulus Festus 81 L.), connecting it with the bringing of weapons for dedica­ tion, or from ferire (Propertius 4. 10. 46), observing that the shrine contained the sacred silex used in the conclusion of treaties (24. 9 n.), but only the former can be sustained philologically. T h e title cannot be derived fromferetrum which is a loan-word from Greek (fyeperpov (see Ernout-Meillet; Walde-Hofmann). If the true root is ferre, it will imply that the function of the god was from the beginning military, which is in accord with the fact that the diminutive temple had no cult-statue other than the silex and a sceptre: the silex was used in the ceremonies of the ius fetiale which prescribed the proper declaration and conclusion of wars and the sceptre was symbolic of military success. Yet the cult itself must be a later systematization of a more primitive worship and certainly cannot be as old as the eighth century B.C. T h e silex was evidently a meteorite, and superstitious awe of the object was by slow and rational degrees transformed into reverence for a thunderbolt sent by Juppiter. Moreover, the worship of Juppiter as a god of war is unique to Rome, being unknown in any other Italic community, and must have sprung from the pre-eminent position en­ joyed by Juppiter at Rome. In other words, the worship of Juppiter Feretrius is only comprehensible at a period when Juppiter has already become the presiding deity of Rome. Besides, the temple of Feretrius lay on the Capitol, outside the boundaries of the earliest city. O n the 70

ROMULUS

I . IO

other hand, it can hardly be later than the great temple of Gapitoline Juppiter, for it is unlikely that a new foundation would have been made inside the area Capitolina. A date in the period 650-550 is in­ dicated by the evidence, and some trace of the truth may survive in the tradition that Ancus Marcius enlarged the temple (33. 9). T h e custom of setting u p a trophy of captured arms on a wooden stem can be paralleled from many parts of the Mediterranean world. Although the Romans did not adopt the Greek habit of setting up a trophy on the battlefield until 121 B.C. (Florus 1. 37. 6 mos inusitatus), spolia are clearly analogous to rpo-naia which were dedicated to Zcvs Tpo7Taios (Gorgias, Epitaphios fr. 6 Diels) and were set up on a wooden stump so that they should not endure for ever (Diodorus 13. 24. 5). Thus the local Italic custom was assimilated to the Greek, presumably in the first age of penetration by Greek religious ideas (650-550 B.C.). At R o m e it was early confined to the armour taken from the corpse of the opposing commander. Such an event was sufficiently rare for there to be some latitude as to who was entitled to claim the honour (Varro ap. Festus 204 L.) but under the influence of pontifical codification distinctions were introduced between types of spolia. spolia prima or opima, offered to Juppiter Feretrius, had to be won by a general enjoying full command of a Roman army (3. 1. 4 n . ; see the S.C. of 44 B.C. in Dio 44. 4). Lesser spoils, spolia secunda, and tertia, were offered to Mars and J a n u s Quirinus (1. 32. 9 n . ; but see L. A. Holland, Janus, 110 n. 8) respectively. At the same time as this systematization was being undertaken, the attribution of the temple to Romulus will have been made. Later still an actual inscription was set up recording the dedication of the spolia by 'Romulus' (cf. Dessau, LL.S. 64), like the mythical dedications attested for Hercules {I.L.S. 3401). M u c h has been made of L.'s treatment, scholars finding in it evidence both for the date of composition of Book 1 and for L.'s relations with Augustus (10. 7 n.). This is to overlook L.'s purpose. For him, interested in the literary rather than the political possibilities of this material, it is an entr'acte in the story of the Sabine women. H e makes it a unit with its own form and climax, leading through the briskly military communique of the battle (notice the crisp unsub­ ordinated sentences in 10. 4) to the proudly worded statement of the dedication (10. 6 n.). T h e construction of the episode may be com­ pared with 7. 4-15 or 2. 10. 1—13. For the temple see Platner-Ashby s.v.; Andren, Hommages Herrmann, 9 0 ; for its restoration under Augustus see 4. 20. 6 n . ; for Juppiter Feretrius and the spolia opima see W . A. B. Hartzberg, Pkilologus, 1 (1846), 331-9; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, 2. 580; Cook, C.R. 18 (1904), 3 6 4 - 5 ; Lammert, R.E. 'rpoiraiov ; L. A. Springer, Class. 7i

I. 10. I

ROMULUS

Journ. 50 (1954), 27 ff.; Latte, Rom. Religionsgeschichte, 126, 204-5. 10, 1, raptarum parentes: the whole section is rounded off at n . 4 by the repetition a parentibus . . . raptarum, when the scene switches back again to Rome. 10. 1. T. Tatium: a mysterious and colourless figure, traditionally king of the Sabine town of Cures, undistinguished by word or action. T h e lack of firm legend about him suggests that he is a personification of the Sabine element in Rome created to explain the existence of the tribe Tities (13. 8 n.) and the priesthood of sodales Titii (Tacitus, Annals 1. 5 4 ; Hist. 2. 95). Romulus required a rival to overcome and Tatius filled that need. His subsequent career, in which he is sup­ posed to have shared the kingship with Romulus (13.8), was a political invention to supply a regal precedent for the dual consulship and to emphasize the continuity of the constitution. T h e date at which his biography was formed can be approximately placed in the early part of the third century. It is certainly earlier than Ennius (Ann. 109 V.) but betrays by its clumsy construction that it must be later than the canon of seven kings. See Glaser, R.E., 'Tatius (1)'. T h e name Tatius was held by Schulze (97, 425) to be Etruscan, and by Glaser to be formed from the baby-word tate 'father'. Both used the derivation as evidence for the king's unhistoricity. In fact, how­ ever, Tatius is the latinized form of a Sabine name. T h e Sabine con­ nexion was stressed by the coins of the moneyer L. Titurius L.f. Sabinus (88 B.G. ; Sydenham nos. 698-701). T h e fusion of Latins and Sabines acquired a special topicality in the 80's when it was used as propaganda in the Social W a r for the integration of Romans and Italians. L.'s source reflects these conditions. 1 0 . 5 . ducis: his name is given as Acro(n) (I.L.S. 6 4 ; Propertius 4.10. 7). T a n . Faber wished to inset Acronis in the text but it is in L.'s manner to omit superfluous details which might divert attention from the main plot. 10. 6. Iuppiter Feretri: Romulus' dedication is made in solemn and formal terms. The placing of inquit isolates the cult-title whose sig­ nificance is emphasized by the repeated fero . . . ferent (cf. 10. 7 laturos). Notice the alliterative juxtaposition of (Romulus) rex regia and the separation oihaec... arma to enclose the subsidiary words (41. 3 n. ; Praef. 5). T h e language is sacral, being intended to recall the augural formula. For regionibus cf. 18. 7 n . ; for the rare metatus—a word re­ stored by Weinstock at Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 8—see Norden, Altrom. Priest. 88, n. 1. For templum see note on 18. 6 ff. 10. 7. bina: L. refers to A. Cornelius Cossus (4. 20. 6 n.) and M . Claudius Marcellus who defeated the Gauls in 222 B.C. (Act. Triumph.; Plutarch, Marcellus 7 - 8 ; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 4. 4 9 ; Livy, Per. 2 0 ; Virgil, Aeneid 6. 855-9 with Servius 5 commentary). In 29 B.C. M . 72

ROMULUS

i. i o , 7

Licinius Crassus, having defeated the Basternae and killed their chief Deldo, claimed the spolia opima (Dio 51. 24). His claim was rejected by Octavian on the score that as proconsul of Macedonia he did not enjoy full imperium and was therefore not entitled to the honour. T h e decision was political. Octavian was disturbed at the challenge to his position as Romulus' successor (see Dessau, Hermes, 41 (1906), 142 ff.; Syme, Harvard Studies, 64 (1959), 44~47)» L. is here silent alike about Crassus' claim and Octavian's rebuilding of the temple, and his silence is interpreted by Bayet (tome 1. xvi ff.) as indicating that Book 1 was written before 29 B.C. and Book 4 after 28 B.C. Bayet's argument is not compelling. There are good grounds for believing that L. began to write his history in 29 (see Introduction). L.'s connexion with Octavian arose from the success of his history and not from prior acquaintance, and it would be easy for a literary historian, not in the confidence of the inner political circle, to have written of Romulus and the spolia opima in ignorance of the technical machinations being devised by Octavian and his advisers. 11. 1-4. Hersilia A widow with daughters of her own when she came to Rome (Macrobius 1.6. 16; D . H . 2. 4 5 ; Plutarch, Romulus 14), Hersilia was remembered as the person who mediated between the Romans and Sabines. In addition to the version given by L. which made her the wife of Romulus (Ovid, Met. 14. 830; Sil. Ital. 13. 812; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 638) and the mother of two inexplicably named children, Prima and Avillius (Zenodotus ap. Plutarch), she was alternatively paired with Hostus Hostilius to become the grandmother of Tullus Hostilius (Macrobius; D . H . ; Plutarch). At death she was legendarily apotheosized as Hora, remaining Romulus' wife in his new guise Quirinus. H o r a Quirini figures in inscriptions (Guarducci, Bull. Com. Arch. 64 (1936), 3 1 ; C.I.L. i 2 , p. 326) but it is evident that au fond Hora Quirini was not the name of the wife of Quirinus but specified one of Quirinus' special properties. This much can be inferred from Aulus. Gellius (13.23) who gives a list of such attributes: Luam Saturni, Salaciam Neptuni, H o r a m Quirini, Maiam Volcani, Nerienem Martis. Hora should be connected with horior and hortor and taken to mean 'the power of Quirinus'. It would seem that the story of Hersilia is an aetiological rationalization of Hora Quirini. T h e first stage was to make Hora the name of the goddess-wife of Quirinus. Then, since the divine Quirinus had been the mortal Romulus, a mortal name and a human role were found for Hora. T h e old gens Hersilia {C.I.L. 6. 21100; cf. Etr. hersu: see Schulze 174) supplied the lack. Hora Quirini 'the power of Quirinus' was personified in Hersilia who reconciled enemies to Romulus. T h a t this is an approximately 73

I. I I . 1-4

ROMULUS

correct interpretation is confirmed by the appearance in the Hersilia story of another from the list of attributes given by Cicero and Servius. In the moment of crisis Hersilia prayed to Nerio Martis (Cn. Gellius ap. Aul. Gell. 13. 23. 13). Nerio Martis probably denoted the strength of M a r s ; cf. the gloss neriosus fortis (cf. Suetonius, Tiberius 1.2). See Otto, R.E. 'Hersilia'; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 55 and n. 3 ; Gage, Ant. Class. 28 (1959), 255 ff; Ernout, Hommages Grenier, 2. 569. 11. 5 - 9 . Tarpeia T h e second act of the internal drama, the story of Tarpeia, is by con­ trast told undramatically and briefly. L. presents it with scholarly pedantry, adding variants (11. 7 seu . ♦ . seu; 11. 9) and exercising criticism (11. 8). The simplicity of the telling is notable: Sp. Tarpeius . . . praeerat. huius fdiam . . . corrumpit Tatius: aquam forte ea turn . . . petitum ierat. The myth of Tarpeia explained the name of the Tarpeian rock. In fact the name is Etruscan and is to be connected with Tarquinius &c. (Schulze 561) but the associations of that rock with the lamentable ends of traitors such as M . Manlius made it fertile ground for a story about an eponymous traitor; for rival aetiologies see Festus 464 L . ; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5 . 4 1 . Two versions were current. In the one given by L. the motive for Tarpeia's treachery was her love of the golden armillae. In the second, given in sundry forms with variations of detail by Simylus {ap. Plutarch, Romulus 18), Antigonus of Carystus, and Propertius (4. 4), the motive was love for the opposing general—a Hel­ lenistic plot recurrent in the treacheries of Komeitho (Apollodorus 2. 4. 7), Skylla (Apollodorus 3. 15. 8), Leukophrye (Parthenius 5), Peisidike (Parthenius 21), Nanis (Parthenius), and Tharbis (Josephus, A.J. 2. 10. 2), all Hellenistic tales. T h e gold-motive is also Hellenistic. In particular it was for gold that Arne betrayed her native Liphnum (Ovid, Met. 7. 465 ff.). Of the two motives gold is perhaps the original. Rumpf, who investigated the nature of the armillae, concluded that they were the golden bracelets carrying a talisman (bullae) often seen on the arms of men in Etruscan paintings and statuary. T h e vogue for these ornaments was the fifth century B.C.: they are not to be seen after the third. The gold-motive became the accepted historical version and, as such, was used by Fabius Pictor and Cincius Alimentus (D.H. 2. 3 8 ; cf. Ovid, Fasti 1. 2 6 1 ; Festus 496 L.). In course of time ana­ chronistic improvements were added (11. 6 nn.). Her infamy was intensified by making her a Vestal Virgin (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 4 1 ; Propertius; Val. Max. 9.6. 1; notice virginem in 11. 6) and the charac­ ter of her father is worked up. T h e quest for novelty provoked a reaction. T h e historian Piso (D.H. 2. 38), influenced by the survival 74

ROMULUS

i. 1 1 . 5

of a libation ceremony at Tarpeia's tomb, argued that she cannot have been guilty of treachery and therefore that her action was a ruse to disarm the Sabines which miscarried (cf. also Chron. 354). This is the substance of the variant in 11. 9 {sunt qui) and it may be attributed to Valerius Antias. See Pais, Ancient Legends, 96 ff.; S. Reinach, Rev. Arch. 10 (1908), 43 ff.; Mielantz, R.E., ' T a r p e i a ' ; R . Krappe, Rh. Mus. 78 (1929), 249 ff.; Z. Gansiniec, Act. Soc. Arch. Pol. 1 (1949), 37 ff.; A. Rumpf, J.H.S. 71 (1951), 168 ff.; La Penna, Studi Class, e. Orient. 6 (1956), 112-33; Devoto, Stud. Etrusc. 26 (1958), 17-27. 11. 6. arci: implying that the Capitol was already a part of the city (but cf. Tacitus, Annals 12. 24), whereas, in fact, it was not incor­ porated until the seventh century. virginem: although not expressly stated it is implied that she was a Vestal, for it was a daily duty of the Vestals to draw water for cultpurposes (Plutarch, JSfuma 13; see Wissowa, Religion, 160). Her status is anachronistic, if dramatically apt. See 21. 3 n. 1 1 . 8 . additur fabula: 5. 21. 8 n. armillas: the surviving representations of such armlets are Etruscan (see the photograph in Rumpf, op. cit.) but D.H. says that the Sabines learnt appoSlaira from the Etruscans. 12-13. 5. Mettius Curtius L. reverts to the external danger. T h e fourth act of the Sabine drama is taken up with the great battle in the Forum. As the legend of Tarpeia was to account for the name of the Tarpeian rock, so the prominent features of the Forum, the temple of Juppiter Stator and the Lacus Curtius, supplied the material for the present episode. In 296 B.C., during a critical phase of a battle against the Samnites, M . Atilius Regulus vowed a temple to Juppiter Stator (10. 36. 11) which was erected soon after (10. 37. 15). Historically this was the earliest temple to that god; for although L. states that it replaced an earlier Romulean fanum, the dedication-date, 27 J u n e (Ovid, Fasti 6. 793; the notice in Fast. Ant. refers to the second temple of J . S. in the porticus Metelli) cannot be that of a primitive shrine of Juppiter whose temples were always dedicated on the Ides of the month. Thus the whole story of Romulus' vow is pure legend. Whether the legend is older than the early third century or whether the known relationship between Sabines and Samnites suggested its invention as encouraging propaganda for the Romans is uncertain. T h e Lacus Curtius, on the other hand, was a long-standing monu­ ment. A cavity in the ground, caused by lightning or by natural subsidence, it was revered as mundus and regarded as one of the ports of communication with the underworld. Hence coins were thrown into 75

x. 12-13- 5

ROMULUS

it by every Roman annually, a practice later secularized as a vow for the emperor's safety (Suetonius, Augustus 57). Like the stone of Attus Navius (36. 5) and other such features, it was consecrated. The true explanation of the name escapes us but three views were canvassed in antiquity (Varro, de Ling. LaL 5. 148-50). T h e first, the product of late Republican antiquarianism, proposed that it derived its name from the consul of 445, C. Curtius (4. 1. 1 n.), who consecrated the place ex S. C. after it had been struck by lightning. Although this view is specious, it presupposes that a pontifical notice survived in the Annales. If such a notice had survived, it is hard to see why it did not occur in the annalistic narrative but there is no trace of it in L. or D . H . T h e two other views are variations on the same theme. T h e story given by L. (cf. D.H. 2. 4 2 - 5 0 ; Plutarch, Romulus 50), attributing it to the mythical Mettius Curtius, goes back at least to Piso (fr. 6 P.). An alternative (7. 6. 3-5, a Licinian passage) made the eponymous hero a certain M . Curtius who in 362 B.C. performed a devotio of him­ self and disappeared into the cavity (cf. Paulus Festus 42 L . ; Val. Max. 5. 6. 2 ; Augustine, Civ. Dei 5. 18). Piso's story is clearly old. Myths which explain caverns by telling of heroes being swallowed up in the ground are of great antiquity. T h e disappearance of Amphiaraus (Pindar, Nem. 9) is typical. So it is likely that this was the original aetiology, Greek in character, which dated from the fourth century at the latest (12. 2 n.). L. follows the conventional version, as depicted also on a relief now in the Museo Nuovo which decorated a balustrade round the lacus. He may have taken it from Valerius Antias, to whom he will have switched after consulting him for the variant in 11. g. If his telling of the fate of Tarpeia was bald and brief, L. lavishes his art on Mettius Curtius. Macaulay himself exclaimed that it was 'evidently from some poem' but a comparison with the narrative in D.H. shows that the epic and dramatic character is due not to L.'s source but to his technique. Apart from the similarity of situation to Agenor at the gate of Troy (Iliad 21. 537 ff.) and the echoes of epic language frequent in such battle-pieces (12. 2 n., 12. 4 n., 12. 8 n., 12. 10 n., 13. 1 n.) two features are distinctive. T h e intervention of the matrons, just as the battle is being renewed with fresh ferocity (12. 10-13. O J ls a p i e c e of calculated timing absent from D.H. who lamely leaves it until the fighting is over. T h e same concern for dramatic effect is shown when L. omits the consultation of the Senate and people (D.H. 2. 46) and reduces the R o m a n discomfiture from two routs to one. T h e psychology of the parties is strongly brought out (12. 1, 2, 9, 10). Secondly, L. brings the whole episode alive by devising charac­ terizing speeches for three principal participants. In 12. 4-6 (n.) the piety of Romulus, in 12. 8 (n.) the truculence of Mettius Curtius, and 76

ROMULUS

i. 12-13. 5

in 13. 2 - 3 (n.) the nobility of the chorus of Sabine women are finely suggested. T h e whole is rounded off with a topographical note (13. 5). Ovid Fasti 1. 255 ff. is directly modelled on L. See G. Tomassetti, Bull. Com. Arch. 24 (1904), 181 ff.; E. CaetaniLovatelli, Aurea Roma, 1915, 23 ff.; Platner-Ashby s.v. Lacus Curtius and Juppiter Stator; A. Akerstrom, Svenska Inst, i Rom, 2 (1932), 72 ff.; Lugli, Roma Antica, 156-7; A. Andren, Hommages Herrmann, 99; E. Welin, Studien zur Topographie des Forum Romanum, 75 ff. 12. 1. tamen: resumptive 'however that may be' marking a return to the main plot after a digression: cf. 3. 42. 5, 4. 58. 5, 22. 39. 6, 35-15-6. 12. 2 . pugnam ciebant: 2. 47. 1, 3. 18. 8, 9. 22. 7. Otherwise found in Virgil (Aeneid 1. 541, 5. 585, 9. 766, 12. 158) and Silius Italicus (5. 335. 7- 605). Mettius Curtius: for the name Mettius cf. 23. 4 n. Hostus Hostilius is a fiction invented to supply a respectable pedigree for his grandson Tullus Hostilius who would otherwise have seemed an upstart king (cf. Ancus Marcius). L. preserves the annalistic version, in which Hostilius was a companion-in-arms of Romulus a n d died bravely fighting the Sabines. I t will be seen that the conflict of Hostilius and Mettius is a straight doublet of the conflict between Tullus Hostilius and Mettius Fufetius two generations later and is in no sense historical. This naive biography was much expanded by the antiquarians, who gave Hersilia as wife to him instead of to Romulus (11. 1-4 n.), and, in consequence of his being the first Roman parent, credited him with the invention of the bulla aurea a n d the toga praetexta (Macrobius 1.6. 16; cf. C.I.L. 15.7066). Some of this embroidery may stem from the private pretensions of the gens Hostilia. T h e claim that he was the first m a n to breach the walls of Fidenae (Pliny, N.H. 16. 11) is certainly in­ spired by the exploits of L. Hostilius Mancinus who was the first person to break into Carthage in 148 B.C. (Pliny, N.H. 35. 23). See Miinzer, R.E., 'Hostilius (4)'. 12. 3 . Palati: the traditional punctuation, taking the words ad veterem . . . Palati With fusaque est a n d putting a strong stop after Palati, is to be preferred on linguistic grounds (cf. 2. 49. 12 fusi retro ad saxa rubra); and it is implied by ipse that Romulus shared the general retreat. T h e words hie in Palatio are not to be pressed too exactly. Conway's assertion that the punctuation proposed by Madvig a n d adopted in the O.C.T. is supported by resulting Ciceronian clausulae is irrele­ vant, since in narrative L.'s preference is, if anything, for a dactylic clausula. D . H . 2. 42 writes, in agreement, TOVS evyovras . . . \L*XP1 T&V

rfvKGiv avTovs ^'Aaaev. T h e Porta Mugionia, one of the three gates of the early Palatine city, lay on the north side of the hill where the ridge of the Velia joins 77

I. 12. 3

ROMULUS

the Palatine. T h e name is variously spelled (D.H. 2. 50; Nonius 852 L . ; Festus 131 L . ; Solin. 1. 24; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 164) and was anciently derived either a Mugio quodam (Festus) or from the lowing {mugitus) of the cattle which passed daily through it to pas­ ture. See Platner-Ashby s.v. 12. 4. Iuppiter: notice the markedly priestly style of the prayer with the repeated hie . . . hue . . . hinc . . . hie. arceo is used, here as elsewhere, as a technical term of keeping profani at a distance (cf Horace, Odes 3. 1. 1; Ovid, Fasti 6. 482; Virgil, Aeneid 1. 3 1 ; Tacitus, Hist. 5. 8 ; Lucan 5. 139). For praesens of immediate and effective divine aid cf. Virgil, Aeneid 9. 404; Horace, Odes 3. 5. 2 ; Ovid, Met. 7. 178; Cicero, Verr. 4. 107; C.I.L. 6. 545. For deme terrorem cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2. 775. 12. 5. at: to be taken with saltern (cf. Plautus, Merc. 637; Propertius 3. 7. 63 ; Virgil, Aeneid 1. 557) rather than tu. at tu {ego &c.) occurs only in the apodosis of a conditional sentence (cf, e.g., 41. 3 n.). 12. 6. Statori: cf. C.I.L. 3. 895 depulsor. In later times a political inter­ pretation was given of the cult-title, representing Juppiter as the stabilizing providence of the state (Seneca de Bene/. 4. 7. 1; Cicero, in Catil. 1. 3 3 ; C.I.L. 6. 434), but the specific, military function is in general likely to be the earlier. It is rendered by the Greek Urrjcnos or ' OpSwoLos. T h e temple is depicted on the relief from the tomb of the Haterii as Corinthian hexastyle. 12. 7. veluti: N read veluti si, which is to preferred (cf. 1. 56. 12). 12. 8. ab Sabinis princeps: regarded by Walker as mistakenly inserted from 12. 2 but perhaps to be taken as an instance of an 'unconscious repetition 5 (14. 4 n.). vieimus: Mettius' language is coarse and abusive. For hospites . . . hostes cf. 58. 8 n., 4. 32. 12. T h e alliteration is continued with virgines . . . viris. T h e sentiments are doubtless intended to recall Hector's out­ burst against Paris. 12. 10. convalle: a synonym for vallis avoided by Cicero and the other classical prose-writers but affected, for example, by Virgil {Aeneid 6. 139. 6 79)13. 1. turn: the TTepnrereia, taking the form of intervention by the Sabine women, is described in graphic terms: crinibuspassis (7. 40. 12, 26. 9. 7) is the normal state of hysterical women in epic (Virgil, Aeneid 1. 480, 2. 404; notice also two mock-serious passages of Petronius (54, i n ) ) and is not found elsewhere, inter tela volantia from its rhythm sounds like an epic phrase and may be E n n i a n : it is cited from Cato {Inc. Libr. Ret., p. 86 Jordan) and Fronto {de Bello Parth., p . 210 van den Hout). Their appeal for peace is equally emotional. Notice the frequent a n a p h o r a : dirimere . . . dirimere (for the second Gronovius read delenire 78

ROMULUS

i . 13. 1

which is less forceful); hinc . . . hinc (for hinc . . . Mine; cf. 2. 46. 2, 3. 23. 7 : elsewhere not before Virgil, Aeneid 1. 162); si. . . si; nos . . . nos . . . fl0.y. Equally marked is the chiasmus nepotum Mi, hi liberum. In switching from indirect to direct speech without introducing a verb of speaking L. accelerates the climax (cf. 47. 6; see Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 38), an effect heightened by the contrast with the clipped sentences which conclude the narrative. In content, too, their appeal seems to owe something to the traditional pleas of poetry. For parricidio . . . progeniem cf. Ovid, Met. 14. 801-2. 1 3 . 2 . sanguine se: se sanguine, the order of nX, preferred by H . J . Muller and Bayet, is certainly right. Apart from the eccentric wordorder exhibited by M , elsewhere in the first chapters of Book 1 (1. 1, 1. 10, 2. 6, 3. 5, 5. 4, 5. 7 et al.), the natural position o£se is as near the second place in the sentence or clause as possible; cf. 3. 28. 10 sanguinis se . . . non egere; Cicero, Brutus 12 populus se Romanus erexit: see KtihnerStegmann 2. 593. 13. 4 . silentium: 3. 47. 6 n. 13. 5. Quirites: Cures was a Sabine town on the left bank of the Tiber close to the Via Salaria. It was built on a hill with two summits at the foot of which flows the Fosso Corese. T h e existing ruins, excavated by Lanciani (Commentationes Philologicae in honorem T. Mommseni, 1877, 411 ff.; see Hulsen, R.E., 'Cures') date from the late Republic when Cures survived as a municipium, and the antiquity of the settlement cannot be established archaeologically. It was, however, intimately connected with the legends of early Rome, being traditionally the birth-place of Numa (18. 1). T h e theory which derived the official name Quirites from Cures was maintained without serious dissent by the ancients (Columella, Praef. 19; Festus 304 L . ; Ovid, Fasti 2. 4 7 5 ; Servius, ad Aen. 7. 710), despite the fact that the ethnic of Cures was Curenses (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 68) which cannot morphologically be transmuted to Quirites. T h e etymology of Quirites (the singular is found once in the old formula ollus quiris leto datus est) remains unsolved. Plutarch [Romulus 29) urged a derivation from the Sabine word for a spear, curis. T h e only other attractive conjecture is Kretschmer's: *couiriom 'an assembly of people' (cf. curia). See Kretschmer, Glotta 10 (1919), 147 ff.; Otto, Rh. Mus. 54 (1905), 197 ff.; Koch, Religio, 23 ff.; Walde-Hofmann s.v. monumentum: the Lacus Curtius, mentioned incidentally by Plautus (Curculio 477), Pliny (N.H. 15. 78), and Suetonius (Augustus 5 7 ; Galba 20), was close to the later Column of Phocas. In Sullan times the depression was paved over with two layers of grey capellaccio and brown tufa stone. 79

i. 13. 6-8

ROMULUS 13. 6-8. The Creation of 30 Curiae and 3 Centuries

T h e organization of the people into 3 tribes—which L. does not specifically mention (10. 6. 7)—and 30 curiae, based on family, was the oldest political system known at Rome. In an attenuated form the comitia curiata survived down to the last days of the Republic (5. 46. 10 n.). Before the creation of the comitia centuriata and comitia tributa, the curiae and their assembly will have formed the governing body. A memory of that position survived in the magisterial honours accorded to the curio maximus (3. 7. 6 n.). But it is inconceivable that the curiate organization was as old as Romulus, or the eighth century. It should belong to the Etruscan period, the period of transition from a purely pastoral to an urban community thriving on agriculture and trade. Moreover, 30 curiae must either be contemporary with or later than the institution of the 3 tribes, for curiae are a decimal subdivision of the tribes. T h e names of the tribes, which are the same as the names of the 3 'Romulean 5 centuries, Ramn(ens)es, Titi(ens)es, and Luceres, are indubitably Etruscan, as Volnius ap. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 55 argued. They are formed from Etruscan gentile names, lu\re, tide, *ramne (Schulze 218). Thus, although the 3-tribe system is one of the oldest and commonest features of other Indo-European groups, at R o m e it was a conscious creation of the late sixth or early fifth century con­ sequent upon the urbanization of the state. So too the surviving names of the curiae, which are either local (Foriensis, Veliensis) or gentile (Acculeia), imply a late d a t e : the Forum was not inhabited before the Etruscans. In throwing back the origin of these institutions to Romulus the Romans were partly influenced by the normal desire to attribute everything to 'the founder' (cf. the Spartan institutions and 'Lycurgus') and partly by false etymology. Ramnes suggested Romulus, Tities Tatius: only Luceres was a stumbling-block (13. 8 n.). If two of the tribes were called after Romulus and Tatius respectively, the tribal organization must be the result of the fusion of the Romans and Sabines. Ergo, the curiae must also be. One of the curiae was called R a p t a (but cf. Etr. rapine). L. would seem not to be following Valerius Antias here who num­ bered the raped as 527 (fr. 3 P . : J u b a put it as high as 683). T h e usual figure was 30 (Plutarch, Romulus 14). For the centuriae see also 15. 8 n . ; 43. 9 n. See Pelham, Journal of Philology 9 (1880), 266-79; Botsford, Roman Assemblies, 9 fF.; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 87 ff.; Berne, R.E., 'Luceres'; Devoto, Athenaeum 31 (1953), 335 ff. 13. 7. virorumve: -ve is used to convey a subordinate alternative within alternatives; cf. 29. 2, 21. 35. 2, 25. 1. 12, 34. 35. 4. 80

ROMULUS

i. 1 3 . 8

1 3 . 8 . Lucerum: cf. Servius, ad Aen. 5. 560 Lucerum quorum secundum Livium et nomen et causa in occulta sunt. Various conjectures were pre­ valent in antiquity: (1) from a king Lucumo, Lucius, or Lucomedius from Etruria who helped Romulus against Tatius (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 14; Junius ap. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 5 5 ; see also D.H. 2. 37. 2 ) ; (2) from a king Lucerus of Ardea (Paulus Festus 106 L . ) ; (3) from tucus (Plutarch, Romulus 20; de Viris Illustr. 2. 11). L.'s reticence is in part due to his conviction that the third element in the tripartite com­ munity was not Etruscan, as would be entailed by the first conjecture, but Alban (30. 3, 33. 2). Yet if the three tribes are Romulean and Alba was only absorbed by Tullus, the Luceres could not be Alban. 14. 1-3. The Death of Tatius T h e connexion between Lavinium and the death of Tatius is not plausible. It is designed to account for the close religious ties between the two cities (1. 10 n.). L. gives a double motive for Romulus' actions (14. 3 seu . . . seu). T h e first is the older and was known to Ennius (Annales 107 V.). T h e dangers inherent in joint kingship were proverbial (Columella 9. 9. 1; Phaedrus 1. 5. 1). T h e second is rationalistic. This citation of variant motives may betray that L. has here switched from one source to another; the reason for Tatius' mission to Lavinium (ad sollemne sacrificium) was not the reason given by Licinius Macer who with typical anti-clericalism supposed that Tatius set out merely to appease an angry mob (fr. 5 P.). 14. 2. sacrificium: 1. 10 n. Not specified, but presumably taken to be a forerunner of the annual sacrifice to Vesta and the Penates performed by dictators, consuls, and praetors on relinquishing office ([Servius], ad Aen. 2. 296; Macrobius 3. 4. 1 1 ; Latte, Rom. Religionsgeschichte, 295 n - 5). 14. 4 - 1 5 . War with Fidenae and Veii T h e career of Romulus traditionally closed with two wars against Rome's nearest rivals, Fidenae and Veii. Neither is historical. Veii did not become a serious power until the fifth century and Fidenae was her bridgehead against Rome. Both cities were to tax the in­ genuity of R o m a n commanders and in particular of that second Romulus, Camillus, in the closing years of the fifth century. Rome's ultimate success in that generation called for an earlier precedent which only Romulus could supply. T h e significant details of the battle are conventional tricks derived from textbooks (14. 7 n., 15. 311.), T h e whole is narrated in a flat style with little invention or em­ bellishment (14. 4 n.). 14. 4. propius: notice ipsis prope portis, prope se, and below (14. 7) the &14432

81

G

1.14.4

ROMULUS

repeated ipsis prope portis. Such unconscious repetitions are a feature of L.'s style, particularly when the subject-matter does not call for elaborate writing. Gf. 20. 7 n., 35. 6 n., 49. 9 n., 59. 13 n., 2. 3. 4 n., 42. 11 n., 45. 3 n., 58. 6 n., 3. 9. 6 n., 11. 8 n., 26. 1 n., 38. 11 n., 40. 3 n., 44. 8 n., 47. 4 n., 51. 2 n., 51. 13 n., 4. 58. 9 n., 5. 24. 2 n. See K. Gries, Class. Phil. 46 (1951), 36-37. J a c . Gronovius wished to delete prope se. 14. 6. enim: this reflection, which is not to be found in the correspond­ ing sections of D.H. or Plutarch, is characteristic of L.'s rhetori­ cal moralizing (4. 37. 7 n.). 14. 7. locis circa densa obsita virgulta obscuris: so N, but to this, the most celebrated of all Livian cruces, there are objections, circa cannot be a preposition here and the conjunction of densa and obsita without a connecting particle is not adequately paralleled by 3. 43. 6 where armatum is pregnant or 40. 56. 9. Livian usage establishes that virgulta is only found in the plural (21. 54. 1, 28. 2. 1, 29. 32. 9, 42. 63. 9) and that obsitus should be qualified by an abl. (21. 54. 1 rivus . . . circa obsitus . . . virgultis vepribusque). It follows, with Hertz, that the only commendable emendation of the passage is locis circa densis obsitis vir­ gultis, taking obscuris with insidiis (Amm. Marc. 16. 12. 2 3 ; cf. Cicero, in Catil. 3 . 3 ) : 'he ordered a detachment to lurk in a concealed ambush, the area being overgrown all round with thick bushes'. Against the emendation is the unparalleled array of -is sounds. T h e reading of N is retained by Turnebus, Bekker, Gonway, and Bayet, among others, but cannot be defended. fugae: Frontinus 2. 5 gives a score of examples of the use of this stratagem. 14. 9. quique: N read, with misgiving, the double quique cum ^ . . . Such dittographies are not infrequently found in N, but eo visi erant neither is by itself adequate, visi erant cannot stand without a qualifying adverb in the sense 'were seen' (Madvig, M . Miiller; but cf. 4. 40. 2, 7. 23. 6). cum equis ierant, on the other hand, does not supply the necessary clarification that the cavalry had joined Romulus in the pre­ tended flight, although it has met with wide acceptance (Gronovius, Nannius, Drakenborch, Crevier, Ruperti, Twiss, Kreyssig, Hertz, Frigell). Most of the emendations do violence to the sense: e.g.fusi (Bayet), pulsi (Grunauer), or abire visi (Weissenborn), avehi visi (Walters) erant. T h e Romans had not seemed to ride away: they had ridden away. They had not been routed but had only pretended to be routed, equites erant is possible (Alschefski, H . J . Miiller; cf. 4. 33. 12, 24. 1. 9) but palaeographically more attractive is viri erant (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 7. 682 ; see C.Q. 9 (1959), 277). 15. 1. Fidenates: for later history see 2. 19. 2 n. 82

ROMULUS

i. 15- i

Veientium: the first mention in L. of Veii, for which see the introduc­ tion to Book 5. T h e site was first occupied, like the Palatine, by scattered settlements in the Early Iron Age, and Villanovan pottery (800-700 B.C.) has been found over a wide area. Contact with Rome at this very early date is indicated by the discovery at Veii of some dis­ tinctively 'Latian' sherds of the same period, but these lend no support to the historicity of Romulus' war. For a detailed report of the early finds from Veii see J . B. Ward-Perkins, P.B.S.R. 39 (1961), 22 ff. 15. 3 . dimicarent: the decision to fight an open battle rather than en­ dure a siege is exemplified and commended by Frontinus (2. 6). 15. 5. oratores: 38. 2 n. centum: 30. 7 n. 15. 7. ab Mo: sc. Romulus, a bello Ruperti. quadraginta: Numa's reign. 15. 8. Celeres: two explanations of the Celeres were current, one identifying them with the 300 equites of Romulus' army (13. 3 ; cf. Festus 48 L . ; Pliny, N.H. 33. 3 5 ; Servius, ad Am. 9. 368, 11. 6 0 3 ; Pomponius, Dig. 1.2. 2. 15, 2. 15. 9 : the name derived from ogvrrjs), the other, as here, seeing them as a bodyguard (D.H. 2. 13, 29, 64, 4. 71 ; Plutarch, Romulus 26; Numa 7; Diodorus 8. 6. 3 ; Origo Gentis Romanae 23. 6 : the name derived either from their leader, Celer, who in some accounts had been Romulus' assassin, or from o^vr^s). T h e two versions correspond to the antiquarian and annalistic traditions respectively. Speculation seems to have started from the office of the tribunus celerum mentioned in connexion with the Salian ritual of 19 March (Fasti Praen. [salii] faciunt in comitio saltu [adstantibus po]ntijicibus et trib. celer.). Evidently in early times the tribunus celerum was a military officer of importance: he survived only in religious cult. Thus the Celeres were remembered but their function and nature were lost in the past. Now by the second century there was a cleavage between the social or political status of an eques Romanus and the mili­ tary eques, the cavalryman who actually fought. T h e one word eques covered both the soldier and the civilian. At the same time the uniform and armour of the contemporary cavalryman were quite different from the ceremonial dress of the eques Romanus or of the young com­ batants in the Ludus Troiae as it is depicted on monuments (Rostowzew, Klio, Beiheft 3) and described by Polybius (6. 25. 3). With the increasing importance of the equites as a political body in consequence of the activities of the Gracchi, it was desirable to invent a pedigree for them, distinct from the pedigree of the cavalry as such. T h e mysterious Celeres offered scope. Thus it is no accident that the earliest speculation about the Celeres goes back to M . Junius Congus Gracchanus (fl. c. 100 B.C.).

T h e antiquarian account is, therefore, the older and dates from the 83

1.15.8

ROMULUS

second century. T h e annalistic, making the Celeres into a bodyguard, with its sinister overtones, is in keeping with the tendency of the Sullan annalists to invent precedents for contemporary events. In 88 Sulpicius formed a bodyguard of 600 knights (Plutarch, Marius 35). L.'s source can thus be shown to be no earlier than Sulla. Its identity cannot be ascertained for sure. Only Valerius Antias' account is known (fr. 2 ) : the Celeres were a bodyguard who took their name from their leader Celer. See also Hill, Class. Phil. 33 (1938), 283. 16. The Apotheosis of Romulus T h e earliest legend of Romulus' end allowed him merely to vanish into thin air. This was the orthodox scheme for the death of heroes, particularly Greek heroes. T h e circumstances in which the dis­ appearance occurred were gradually evolved. A review of the army in the Campus Martius was an appropriate occasion, the Caprae Palus an appropriate place. T h e latter in turn suggested by its name a date—Nonae Caprotinae = 7 J u l y ; see also Plutarch, Romulus 27; Solinus 1. 20). T h e thunder and lightning were the expected accompaniment. T h e apotheosis of Romulus under the enigmatic name of Quirinus was fabricated earlier than Ennius (65, 115, 117 V.), and recent attempts to attribute it to the manipulations of Julius Caesar, who was Pontifex Maximus from 63 B.C., and his cousin, Sex. Julius Caesar, who was Flamen Quirinalis in 57 B.C., must fail. Caesar exploited an existing tradition. Quirinus is found not merely by himself (20. 2 n.) but also in J a n u s Quirinus (32. 9 n.), Mars Quirinus (Servius, ad Aen. 1. 292), Juppiter Quirinus (I.L.S. 3036), and Hercules Quirinus. T h e mean­ ing and grammatical status of the name are alike uncertain but current etymology derives it from *co-uiri-no 'the god of the assembly of men' and links it with Quirites and the Quirinal. T h e data indicate a Sabine origin ultimately, but in Roman rite Quirinus is connected with the peaceful activities of the Roman host. Mars Quirinus pre­ sides over the storing of the ancilia while Mars Gradivus is concerned with their stirring. Janus Quirinus governs the conclusion of wars, the return of the army to peace-time conditions, as Servius says (ad Aen. 6. 859): 'Quirinus est Mars qui praeest paci et intra civitatem colitur'. But Quirinus is no mere equivalent in Sabine demonology of the Roman Mars. His function was more extensive, to watch over the whole ordered community, the exercitus, at peace. In this sense the apotheosis of Romulus, the parens urbis, as Quirinus, quite apart from helping to fuse Roman and Sabine cults, was eminently suitable, but it betrays Hellenic influence, above all in the descensio (16. 6 n.). To it was added the separate story ofProculus Julius. It was certainly 84

ROMULUS

i. 16

older than the heyday of the gens Julia in the first century, for it is found in Cicero (de Rep. 2. 20; cf. de Legibus 1.3), but seems to have been a Julian tale invented to square the Alban origin of the Julii (30. 2 n.) with a proper feeling that a member of the family must have played a prominent part in the birth of Rome. Proculus is a farmer living at Alba who comes to Rome for the day (Cicero; Ovid, Fasti 2. 499: 16. 5 n.). Throughout R o m a n history Romulus remained a controversial figure. At the back of his career lurked the fratricide and other violent deeds, to be turned to his discredit if political needs required. T h e tide against him had certainly set in by the second century. Even Cicero, drawing ultimately on Fabius Pictor, reports that Proculus' announce­ ment of Romulus' apotheosis was a put-up job—impulsu patrum. Such rationalization could be carried farther. Romulus was not translated, he was torn into little pieces by enraged enemies, by his new citizens, according to Licinius Macer, wishfully thinking of Sulla, or by the senators as in the variant cited in 16. 4. With the revival in the for­ tunes of the Julii the apotheosis, and by implication the select role of Proculus, was strengthened. T h e assassination was referred to in the discussions of 67 B.C. Quirinus is figured for the only time on a coin of C. Memmius (Sydenham no. 921 ; c. 56 B.C.). After 44 B.C. the accounts of the death of Romulus are modelled on the murder of Caesar (D.H. 2. 56. 5 ; Plutarch, Romulus 2 7 ; Val. Max. 5. 3. 1). L. follows a p re-Caesarian source which favours Romulus (16. 4 nobilitavit) and is, therefore, likely to be none other than Valerius Antias. But he makes the story into a set piece, whose climax is, as so often, a passage of moving speech (16. 6-7). T h e preliminaries are carefully staged. L. stresses the psychological reactions of the spectators (pavor, desiderio, desiderium) and employs his favourite device— the dramatic pause at the moment of tension (16. 2 n.). Well constructed and written in memorable language (16. 3 n., 16. 6-7 n.) it is designed incidentally to illustrate the power of simple faith (fides, fidei, fide). See J . B. Carter, A, J. A. 13 (1909), 29 ft.; Klotz 207; Miinzer, R.E., 'Julius (33)'; R. Klein, Kbnigtum u. Konigzeit bet Cicero; Classen, Philologus 106 (1962), 174 ff.; Kajanto, God and Fate in Livv, 31 ; Hubaux 98 ff.; Weinstock, J.R.S. 50 (i960), 118; Burkert, Historia 11 (1962), 356 ff. 16. 1. immortalibus: 'worthy of immortality'; cf. Seneca, Suas. 6. 5 ; Pliny, N.H. 35. 50. But, with Crcvier and Ruperti, I would prefer mortalibus, 'there were the works done in his lifetime'; cf. 2. 6 Aeneae ultimum operum mortaliumfuit. Caprae: a depression or swamp in the lowest part of the Campus Martius near the Pantheon (cf. the Vicus Caprarius), formed by the silting of a small stream. 85

I. l 6 . 2

ROMULUS

16. 2. suhlimem raptum: the expression otherwise confined to poetry (34. 8 ; cf. Virgil, Aeneid 5. 255, 1. 4 1 5 ; Plautus, Asin. 868; Terence, Andria 861) paves the way for the high-flown language which follows. silentium: 3. 47. 6 n. 16. 3 . deum: the crowds recognize the deity and acclaim him in fittingly religious terms. For deum deo natus see 40. 3 n . ; for pacem exposcunt cf. 3. 7. 7-8 n. parentem solvere iubent represents the ancient formula used for invok­ ing dead ancestors at the Parentalia—salve, parens (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 5. 8 0 ; Silius Ital. 17. 651 ; C.I.L. 6. 6457; Pliny, N.H. 37. 205 salve, parens rerum). Thus Romulus is regarded as physically the father of Rome and as such he is invoked as one of the di genitales (cf. Dio 44. 37. 3). T h e identification with Quirinus exalted that status. For parens urbis cf. Propertius, 4. 10. 17; Val. Max. 5 . 3 . 1. After the saluta­ tion the Romans turn in the proper manner of prayers to entreat salvation (Appel, De Romanorum Precationibus, 122), as in the saecular prayer of 17 B.C. (I.L.S. 5050 quaeso precorque uti . . . semper Latinum nomen tueamini; cf. Plautus, Capt. 976; Men. 1114). T h e terms also are sacral: for volenspropitius cf. Gato, de Re Rust. 134; C.I.L. 6. 32329, 12. 4333; Plautus, Cure. 89 (a parody of a prayer); Livy 7. 26. 4, 24. 21. 10, 24. 38. 8. sospitare 'to keep safe' is an archaic word found in the prayer in Catullus 34. 24 (see Fordyce's n.). 16. A,fuisse: echoed by Tacitus, Annals 3. 29. 2 (see Syme, Tacitus, 734)16. 5. et consilio: all that need be said in defence of et, deleted by the Aldine editors and Bekker, has been said by Ruhnken on Veil. Pat. lm I 7 ' Proculus Julius: with his usual desire not to complicate a story by distracting details L. omits the fact that traditionally Proculus was a farmer (Cicero calls him agrestis) from Alba Longa. An Alban origin may be implied in the praenomen which designates someone born when his father was away (procul; cf. 2. 4 1 . 1, 4. 21. 6 n.). magnae: 'strange, supernatural'; see Shackle ton Bailey, Propertiana, 55. 16. 6-7. inquit: Proculus' speech is highly poetic in tone as befits the recital of such a miraculous event. Notice the dactyllic clausula {resistere posse) with which Romulus' message concludes. Parallels for many of the phrases are only to be found among the poets. For hodierna luce cf Lucretius 3. 1092; Propertius 3. 10. 7; Ovid, Heroid. 9. 167; for caelo, instead of de caelo (Cicero, Har. Resp. 62), delapsus cf. Virgil, Aeneid 7. 620; Ovid, Met. 1. 212; for caelestes, as a pure sub­ stantive = di, cf. Ennius, fr. var. 23 V . ; Catullus 64. 191, 204, 68. 76; for sublimis abiit cf. Virgil, Aeneid 1. 415. ita velle id is found only here in L. and does not seem to be sacral. 86

INTERREGNUM

i. 16. 6-7

T h e epiphany, or technically, KarcufSaoLa, is a wholly Greek con­ cept. A commonplace in Homer (e.g. Odyssey 1. 102; Iliad 24. 121; cf. Aeneid 8. 423) it remained a constant feature of Greek religion (see the details given by P. Burman, Zevs KaTaipdrrjs (1734), passim) but found only a half-hearted acceptance in Roman rite (5. 13. 6 n.). Romulus' descensio is, therefore, a piece of Hellenistic romanticizing. It has, however, been pointed out by Wagenvoort (Studies, 184) that it is presented in R o m a n guise. T h e superstition that one should not look upon the deity is not Greek but R o m a n (contra intueri fas; cf. Seneca, Epist. 115, 4 ; Virgil, Aeneid 1. 327 ff.; Ovid, Fasti 6. 7 AT.) and the message which Romulus gives—rem militarem colant—the standard R o m a n self-justification (Virgil, Aeneid 6. 847-53 with Norden's note). 16. 6. adstitissem: Burman (op. cit. 232) proposed restitissem which is perhaps to be preferred. Proculus, despite his terror, held his ground. 16. 7. sciant: governing nullas . . . posse. 16. 8. mirum quantum: 2. 1. 11 n. fides, the reading of N, should be re­ tained (Frigell, Epilegomena, 32-33). For fides est cf. 3. 10. 6, 43. 6. 17. The Interregnum It was a. fable convenue of R o m a n constitutional history that the power of the kings had been transferred in some form to the consuls. This theory, which does violence both to the facts of the historical process and to every probability about the nature of regnum and imperium re­ spectively, was the outcome of conservative thinking which looked to see a continuous tradition in Roman institutions (3. 33. 1). It had two consequences. Since by the second century the Senate had claimed and to some extent asserted an over-all supervision over the consuls' actions (2. 56. 12 n., 4. 26. 7 n., 4. 43. 7 n.), it followed that the Senate must have had some say in regal times over the choice of the kings. Hence patres auctores fiunt (17. 8 - 9 ) : the Senate are supposed to have been responsible for the selection of a suitable candidate. Equally, however, the basis of the consular imperium in fact rested upon popular election. Therefore the choice of the king must have been ratified by popular vote (46. 1 n., 47. 10). I n this way grew up the accepted version that the kings were elected and power vested in them auctoribus patribus, iussupopuli and it is this version which is exemplified in the present chapter. It has no historical foundation but recalls the political issues of the 8o's (Appian, B.C. 1. 59). Equally anachronistic is the putative origin of the interregnum (3. 8. 2 n.). Although all the authorities agree that the first interregnum occurred after Romulus (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 2 3 ; D.H. 2. 57), this is mere invention to supply a precedent coeval with the state for an 87

i . 17

NUMA

institution which was doubtless first created on the expulsion of the kings and which is first attested for 482 and 462. T h e belief that the original interregnum followed the death of Romulus may be as old as the fourth or third century but it took concrete shape with the anti­ quarian speculations particularly of Sulla's supporters when the interregnum was revived in the 80's after more than a century's gap. Thus on both matters L.'s source is late Republican. L. himself makes no attempt to dress up the material apart from rounding the section off with an authentic-sounding prayer (17. i o n , ) . For recent discussions see U . Coli,Regnum; M . I. Henderson, J.R.S. 47 ( X 9 5 7 ) J 82 ff.; Friezer, Mnemosyne 12 (1959), 301-29. 17. 1. a singulis: Graevius's correction adsingulos is certain. Political issues were fought out at the group level: they had not yet descended to personalities. For the corruption of ad to a{b) cf. 4. 8. 4, 5. 27. 7, 7. 12. 1, 8. 7. 10, 10. 31. 6, and see Fugner, Lexicon, 324. 22-36. For certamen pervenire ad cf. 8. 3. 6. For factionibus certabatur cf. 7. 21. 2 ; note also 4. 9. 2. 17. 5. centum patres: 8. 7 n., 2. 1. 10 n. 17. 10. bonum faustum felixque: the ritual formula of prayer at the beginning of most public and private undertakings (Cicero, de Divin. 1. 102 omnibus rebus agendis 'quod bonum faustum felix fortunatumque esse? praefabantur; L. 1. 28. 7, 54. 8, 8. 25. 10, 24. 16. 10; Dessau, I.L.S. 112, 4060, 4434). It was, for instance, the formula used by the presiding magistrate before an assembly (39. 15. 1), as is intended here. 18-21. The Reign of Numa T h e only historical fact about the second king of Rome, N u m a Pompilius, is his name. Romulus was an eponymous hero, N u m a was remembered. T h e Sabine origin may also be true although Numa is an Etruscan praenomen (CLE. 3335; cf. Numasius and see Schulze 197) and Pompilius is claimed by Schulze as Etruscan (183; cf. E t r , pumple). T h e names may have been etruscanized and then latinized in the course of history. Nothing else about him has any foundation, and it is possible to study the stages by which his legendary bio­ graphy was constructed. At the very heart of Indo-European thought, as Dumezil has fre­ quently illustrated, lies the paired contrast of the warrior-king and the priest-king representing the two poles of human activity. It was, therefore, inevitable that from the start N u m a should have been thought of as the priestly counterpart to Romulus and should have been credited as a second founder (19. 1) with the religious as Romulus had been with the military institutions of the community. But if Numa was a real king who lived c. 700 B.C., he cannot have been responsible for most of the actual institutions with which he is asso88

NUMA

i . 18-21

ciated unless the Etruscan phase of the city is older than either tradi­ tion or archaeology admits: for the auguration (18.6-9 n 0> t n e inter­ calation (19. 6-7 n.), the pontificate (20. 5 n.), and the cult of Egeria (21. 3 n.) are all Etruscan. It would look as if the Etruscan religious reformers at R o m e in the late seventh and sixth centuries fathered many of their innovations on a king who was already recognized in the popular imagination as the founder of Roman religion. Substantially, therefore, the picture of N u m a as a great religious founder with many specific institutions to his name will already have taken shape by 400 B.G. and resemblances detected between the 'theology' of that religious system and the contemporary Pythagoreanism prevalent in southern Italy, in particular at Tarentum, will have been one of the factors which prompted Greeks to claim N u m a as a disciple of Pythagoras. In the following century this tendency will have been boosted both by the general acceptance with which the concept of the Philosopher King was greeted and by the particular movement led by Aristoxenus to claim Pythagorean origin for the laws and constitutions of the cities of Magna Graecia. T h e Pythagoreanism of N u m a was a Greek fiction and Greek historians were the first to write of him, but the legend quickly took root in R o m e . A statue of Pythagoras was set up in the comitium, probably in the third century, Ap. Claudius Caecus subscribed to Pythagorean doc­ trines and the Aemilii claimed their ancestor Mamercus as a son of Numa. T h e idea of divine sanction as a social instrument, which may well be Pythagorean (see Walbank on Polybius 6. 56. 6-12), was con­ genial to the Romans and helped to cement the link between N u m a and Pythagoras. Thus by the time that the Romans first came to write their own history the detailed reign of Numa together with his alleged discipleship under Pythagoras was common currency. T h e surviving fragments of Ennius (11 g ff. V.) mention Egeria, intercalation (reading menses for mensas), the ancilia, the Argei, and probably the Pythagorean con­ nexion. But reaction was quick to set in. The simplest chronological calculations, such as necessitated the invention of the Alban king-list to co-ordinate the Fall of Troy and the Foundation of Rome, showed that N u m a must have reigned c. 700 whereas Pythagoras was active in Croton in 509. T h e first explicit awareness of this fact is found in Cicero's source in de Rep, 2. 29 (cf. Tusc. Disp. 4. 2) but it is likely to have been appreciated by the elder Cato and to have been a decisive consideration in 181 B.C. In that year a chest was found on the Janiculum by a certain Terentius (or, better, Tarentino quodam; cf. de Viris lllustr. 3. 2) which was alleged to contain twelve books written by N u m a including writings on Pythagorean philosophy (40. 29. 8; Pliny, N,H. 13, 87). They were brought before the praetor, 89

I. I 8-2 I

NUMA

Q,. Petilius, judged spurious, and ordered to be burnt. One hopes that chronological considerations affected the decision. T h e sceptical attitude to the traditional, Ennian data about N u m a was perpetuated by Gn. Gellius (frr. 16, 17 P.) and Gassius Hemina (frr. 12, 13 P.)- With the rejection of the Pythagorean motive for his institutions, a new purpose was found. N u m a wished to use religion as a political tool to secure a disciplined and harmonious community. He wished to replace the metus hostilis by the metus deorurn as the unify­ ing force in the state. It cannot be discovered who first viewed Numa's career in this light. T h e idea is an old one familiar from Greece (cf. the Sisyphus of Gritias) and it may already be implied by Polybius 6. 56. 6. It is certainly to the fore in L. with the piafraus of Numa's consultation of Egeria (21. 3-4) and there are strong arguments for believing that L.'s source for N u m a was Valerius Antias. It cannot have been Licinius Macer, as he attributed intercalation not to N u m a but to Romulus (fr. 4 P.) whereas Valerius gave the same account as L. (fr. 5 P.). And a specific example of moral decadence being averted by metus deorum is afforded by the history of G. Valerius Flaccus (27. 8. 5 ; from Valerius Antias). If L. did use Valerius for this section it tells us much about his methods. Valerius gave a lengthy and dramatic accout of the institu­ tion of the cult of Juppiter Elicius (fr. 6 P . ) : L. records the mere facts (20. 7 n.). Valerius related the full story of Numa's books (frr. 8, 9 P.) : L. ignores them and rhetorically dismisses the Pythagorean connexion (18. 2 n.). L. gives the barest outline of Numa's innovations and subordinates them throughout to the theme of how peace can be held without moral degeneration (19. 4 n.). It is peace rather than religion which is near to his heart. Hence the prominence which he gives to J a n u s (19. 1-3). The religious institutions are treated sum­ marily. For L. an incident which might be developed into a literary episode was one which exemplified the virtus of a man. He is therefore content to stress the moral purpose behind Numa's reforms and to hint at the effect which the example of such a man can have (21. 2). Even without the allusion in 19. 3 such a treatment would be bound to strike a contemporary note for L.'s readers. Peace and the example of the princeps. Did not Augustus reappoint a Flamen Dialis after the lapse of seventy-five years and reform the Vestal Virgins (Suetonius, Au

g- 3 1 - 3) ? S e e also 19- * n-> 3- 5- x 4 n See G. Buckmann, De Numae regis Romanorumfabula (Leipzig, 1912); G. Dumezil, Juppiter, Mars, Quirinus; Glaser, R.E., ' N u m a Pompilius (1)'; F. Ribezzo, Rend. Accad. Lincei, 1950, 553-73; L. Ferrero, Storia del Pitagorismo nel Mondo Romano, 142-52 ; Koch, Religio, 181 ff. For L.'s sources and his treatment of them see Burck 146-8; Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy, 43-44. For the problem of Numa's books see 90

NUMA

i . 18-21

E. von Lasaux, Abh. Munch. Akad. Wiss. 5 (1847), 83 ff.; Delatte, Bull. Acad. Roy. Belg. 1936; Herrmann, Latomus 5 (1946), 87. Further references are offered on individual topics below. 18. 2. Samium Pythagoram: according to Timaeus (ap. Strabo 638) the philosopher left Samos at the age of 18 (c. 570 B.C.). After thirtythree years' travel in Egypt and Babylonia and after a short return visit to Samos, he migrated to the West settling at Groton c. 530. In that year the Grotoniates had been disastrously defeated on the Sagra and their recovery in the course of the next twenty years is unani­ mously attributed to Pythagoras' 'moral re-armament' (Justin, 20. 4. 1: from Timaeus). In 510 Groton in her turn defeated and annexed Sybaris. T h e victory produced a popular reaction against the Pythagorean system and it was probably in 509 that Pythagoras was forced to leave Groton for Metapontum where he died. During his period of influence at Groton he seems to have effected the revival of Grotoniate morale by instituting a brotherhood or aw&piov of 300 young men, a more philosophical variant of the dvSpcva to be found in Dorian societies (Iamblichus, V.P. 254-60). Timaeus says that he left Samos originally because of the tyranny of Polycrates. T h a t tyranny is currently dated c. 533-522 B.C. which would make Timaeus' chronology impossible, but there is archaeological and literary evidence (Ibycus) soon to be published by Mr. J . P. Barron to show that there were two tyrants of that name, the first reigning from c. 571 to 540, the second from 533 to 522. L. may preserve a hint of the same truth preserved by Timaeus: for he places the activities of Pythagoras at Groton in the reign of Servius Tullius rather than that of Tarquin to which on established chronology they belong. See also J . S. Morrison, C.Q.6 (1956), 135-56. 1 8 . 3 . quaefama in Sabinos: sc. pervenisset but the ellipse is harsher than 40. 57. 3 which Frigell cites in defence. The easiest correction is quafama (with the deletion of the question-mark after Sabinos) as was proposed by Sigonius and accepted by Gronovius, Madvig, and Walch {Emend. Livianae, 45). It is confirmed by L.'s use of out.. . ve\ cf 1. 1. 7 unde out quo casu profecti domo quidve quaerentes . . . exissent, where the main dis­ junction is expressed by -ve and a secondary disjunction within the first half of the main one by out. Thus unde out quo casu would be parallel to quae fama aut quo linguae commercio, and unde-aut-quo-casu profecti quidve quaerentes to qua-fama-aut-quo-commercio excivisset quove-praesidio pervenisset. For fama excivisset cf. 2. 26. 5, 29. 4. 7. 18. 4 . tetrica: for the conventional picture of the ancient Sabines cf. Virgil, Georgics 2. 167, 532. T h e word is only here in L. and is not found in prose earlier (Varro, Men. 554). It is chosen for its rhetorical force and its alliteration with tristi. 18. 6. augure: Varro enlightens the procedure involved in the in91

1.18.6

NUMA

auguration of N u m a when he quotes the ritual for constituting a templum in terris {de Ling. Lat. 7. 8 ) : 'in terris dictum templum locus augurii aut auspicii causa quibusdam conceptis verbis finitus. concipitur verbis non isdem usque q u a q u e ; in arce sic: "tem<(pla> tescaque metata (me ita codd.) sunto quoad ego caste lingua nuncupavero. ullaber arbos quirquir est quam me sentio dixisse templum tescumque jfesto in sinistrum. ollaner arbos quirquir est q u a m me sentio dixisse templum tescumque jfesto dextrum. inter ea conregione conspicione cortumione utique ea erectissime sensPV As in other cases (24. 4 ff.) L. has made a narrative out of a formula. The augur pro­ ceeds to the arx and sets up for his observations a timber-framed hut (the original meaning of templum; cf. Festus 505 L . ; Vitruvius 4. 2. 5, 7. 5 ; see Weinstock, Mitt. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. 47 (1932), 95-121 who couples Lat. temno, Gr. refivoj). H e then defines his field of observation by reference to certain visible objects such as trees on its edges {fines animo metari,finire; cf. 18, 7, 18. 9,10. 6) and determines the favourable and unfavourable quarters of the field. These are not pre-determined by compass directions as they are in the celestial templum {templum in caelo; cf. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 7) but are relative to the direction which the augur is facing (18. 7 n.). Thus the regiones of 18. 7 correspond to Varro's inter ea conregione conspicione. Thereupon the augur waits for the specified auguries and pronounces accordingly. The whole ritual has the closest analogies with Greek and especially Oriental procedure (18. 7 n., 18. 8 n.) and it must be assumed that it was adopted by the Romans from the Etruscans who in their turn had inherited it from the East. It cannot therefore have been practised at Rome before the Etruscan dynasty. T h e same anachronism is tacitly confessed at 4. 4. 2. See also H . J . Rose, J.R.S. 13 (1923), 82 ff. 18. 6. in lapide: there is no parallel for N's in lapidem: contrast Virgil, Ed. 3. 5 5 ; Gurtius 8. 4. 15; Nepos, Pausanias 4. 4. 18. 7. lituum: the augur's carved staff seems to have been Hittite in origin and to have been taken over by the Etruscans together with other Oriental features of the augural art. litui figure frequently in Hittite monuments and the remains of three have actually been un­ covered at Alaca dating from the period 2300-2000 B.C. (Wainwright, Anat. Studies 9 (1959), 210). regiones: 10. 6 n. L. paraphrases the technical language for which cf. I.L.S. 4907 ollis legib. ollisque regionibus dabo dedicaboque qtias hie hodie palam dixero; Varro, loc. sup. cit. dextras . . . dixit: the sentence was deleted by Regell {jVeue Jahrb. f. Phil. 123 (1881), 618 ff), in which he was followed by H . J . Miiller and Frothingham, on the grounds that the directions here specified are incompatible with those usually specified for the templum in caelo (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 7; Servius, ad Aen. 1. 92, 6. 191, 7. 187). But, 92

NUMA

i. 18. 7

as Varro himself is at pains to make clear, the templum in terra is distinct and not a mere mirror-image of the templum in caelo, so that there is no reason why the same conditions should hold good for both. 18. 8. quo: N read quod which was accepted by the earliest editors. T h e relative quod 'what' does not, however, construe with the super­ lative. Norden recognizing a usage long known in Lucretius (see Lachmann on 5. 1033; cf. 2. 248 quod cernere possis) understood quod as quoad and supposed that it was designed to suggest the sacral atmos­ phere. Otherwise we must emend to quoad (Heerwagen; cf. 2. 25. 4 ) : quo is no more than a trivialization. translato: for a similar action in oriental ceremony cf. Pap. Graec. Mag. I ( 1 9 2 8 ) , lQ rrjv ifievlirqv pafihov rjv €X€CS x€CPL €*r Tfj ^ a t £ ficreveyKov els rrjv ht^iav.

18. 9. Iuppiter: the prayer is solemnly phrased, uti introduces the actual wish as in ut te di deaeque perduint. Notice the archaizing form of the perfect subjunctive (3. 64. 10 n . ) : adclarare itself does not appear to occur elsewhere in Latin but its meaning 'to reveal, to make clear* is self-evident. 19. 1-4. The Temple of Janus T h e shrine of Janus Geminus, a small rectangular structure with double doors at each end, lay in the forum near the Curia where the Argiletum entered (Ovid, Fasti 1. 258; Seneca, Apoc. 9. 2 ; Dio 83. 13; Servius, ad Aen. 7. 607; for the latest discussion of its site see A. von Gerkan, Gesam. Aufsdtze, 330-2). There were several legends about its origin. Apart from the version given by L. here (Pliny, JV.H. 34. 3 3 ; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 165), Macrobius ( 1 . 9 . 17-18) says that it was already in existence when the Sabines under Titus attacked Rome, while others (Ovid, loc. cit.; Servius, ad Aen. 1. 291) held that it was erected to commemorate the intervention of the god on that occasion. Its peculiar structure has been held to be a survival from a primitive religious crossing of the Argiletum brook which marked the frontier of the earliest Palatine community (L. A. Holland, Janus, 108 ff.), but the ancient testimony which never links Janus with water crossings cannot be disregarded. It is an elaboration of the trilithon or sacral gateway so widely found (cf. the tigillum sororium; a similar pylon figures on a seal from Mycenae). There was no doubt in antiquity as to the function of the god (32. 10 n.). In the popular imagination of the Empire the doors symbolized the passing from war to peace, the beginning or end of hostilities. The tradition that they were closed in 235 (or 2 4 1 : see 19. 3 n.) after the First Punic W a r derives at least from the historian Piso (ap. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 165) and there may well have been an authentic notice of it. It is, however, 93

i. 19. 1-4

NUMA

surprising that there should be no other recorded instance of the doors being shut, for even in the centuries after 241 there were numerous periods of total peace. This may suggest that the practice of closing the doors as a symbol of peace was not in fact generally recognized but was resuscitated either by antiquarians in the closing years of the Republic or by Octavian himself as a propaganda gesture. Some such period of desuetude would also account for the diversity of legends about the founder of the shrine. N u m a attracted cults to him. Octavian closed the temple of Janus in 29 B.C. but L. here refers to him as Caesar Augustus, the appellation which he only received on 16 J a n u a r y 27 B.C. T h e temple of Janus was closed again in 25 B.C. after the Spanish campaigns of the preceding two years (Res Gestae 3). It follows that this section was written between 27 and 25 B.C. or possibly between 29 and 25 B.C. if it be allowed that the title Caesar Augustus could be a subsequent modification: it is quite out of the question to make the whole passage a later insertion or after­ thought, since it gives the theme—pax—for the treatment of Numa's reign. See also Soltau, Hermes 29 (1894), 611 ff.; Deubner, Mitt. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. 36 (1921), 14 ff.; J . Bridge, Class. Journ. 23 (1928), 610 ff.; Syme, Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. 64 (1959), 4 2 - 4 3 ; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 132-3. 19. 1. legibus . . . conderc: N u m a as a second founder of Rome is an old idea; cf. Virgil, Aeneid 6. 810-11 (with Norden's note; from Enni us). Augustus also claimed legibus urbemfundavi (Seneca, Apoc. 10. 2). 19. 2. efferari: 19. 4 n. 19. 3 . T. Manlio: so also Varro, and secondary sources. T . Manlius Torquatus was consul in 235. T h e war was actually concluded in 241, in which year A. Manlius Torquatus was consul. There may have been corruption or omission of praenomina in the original source of the notice. pace terra marique parta: the earliest example of a common slogan. Teace over Land and Sea' was a development of a common Hellenistic title 'Ruler over Land and Sea' which itself had its roots far back in Greek terminology. Pompey is named by Cicero as ruler terra marique (pro Balbo 16). T h e association of universal rule and peace came to be made by the end of the Republic (Appian, B.C. 5. 542 ; I.L.S. 8776) but the new formula prudently exalted Peace at the expense of the individual conqueror. It is, therefore, likely to be an Augustan crea­ tion (cf. Res Gestae 13; Suetonius, Augustus 22). See more fully Momigliano J.R.S. 32 (1942), 62-63. 19. 4. luxuriarent: 22. 2. It was an old Greek view canonized in the Hellenistic period that peace was liable to involve luxury (rpv(f>rj) and hence to precipitate moral decline (Xenophon, Cyr. 3. 1. 26; Plato, 94

NUMA

i. 1 9 . 4

Laws 698 B ff.; Polybius 6. 57. 5, 31. 25. 3). In R o m a n thought it was particularly associated with the destruction of Carthage in 146 B.C. which removed Rome's last antagonist (Plutarch, Cato maior 27). It became commonplace both in literature (e.g. Catullus 51) and in history, being employed both by Polybius and by Sallust [Catiline 10.1 ; Jugurtha 4 1 . 1 ; Hist. fr. 11 M . ) . There is nothing surprising in L.'s use of the theory but he makes one typical and significant addition of his own. Whereas other Romans accepted war a n d military service as fields in which a man's virtus could be seen to best advantage, L. rejects that assumption. For him war itself is degrading—efferari militia animos. This is a heterodox notion, found only among Romans of his time (e.g. Horace, Epode 7; cf. Tacitus, Hist. 3. 25, 31, 33). His chief care is peace, and it is no accident that his accounts of battles are invariably schematic and amateurish. Therefore the replacement of the metus hostilis by the metus deorum which was a political pis aller to Sallust and others was for L. a consummation devoutly to be wished. See further Klingner, Hermes 63 (1928), 182 ff.; Passerini, Stud, ltd. n (1934), 52 ff.; Fraenkel, Horace, 212-13; D. C. Earl, The Political Thought of Sallust, 47-48. 19. 5. sine aliquo commento: for Egeria see below on 21. 3-4. T h e deception of an ignorant people for their own good was a traditional feature of Numa's work (Polybius 6. 56. 9). Such piafraus was per­ missible for the Philosopher King whom Plato made yevvatov n ev ifjevhcodai [Republic 414 B) in order that the people could be properly amenable to education, and it is from Plato that the idea is ultimately derived. 19. 6-7. The Reform of the Calendar Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that Numa's calendar supplanted a previous one, presumably the 10-month calendar as­ cribed to Romulus (Ovid, Fasti 1. 27 ff., 3. 99 ff.; Censorinus 20. 2, drawing on Republican antiquarians). It was generally held that those ten months contained only 304 days and that the winter months, being valueless to a farmer, were not included. This is almost cer­ tainly false. T h e earliest community was pastoral, not agricultural, and herds have to be tended for 365 days a year. Such speculations are a throw-back from a time when months had a fixed number of days. There are primitive communities spread over a large area which have had months of widely differing duration. T h e change to a 12-month calendar was inspired not merely by the desire to correlate the lunar and solar year but by a more exact computation of both undertaken principally by the Babylonians and mediated through the Etruscans. T h e terminus ante quern is given by the fact that it did not originally contain any reference to the dedication of 95

1.19. 6-7

NUMA

the temple of Juppiter Gapitolinus in 509 (Fasti Ant.). T h e terminus post quern should be supplied by the names of the months of which one at least is exclusively Etruscan (Aprilis; from Etr. apru, possibly akin to A<jypoi, A<j>pohirri). It is unlikely that the reform can have been carried out by any king ruling at Rome c. 700 B.C. It belongs to the Etruscanizing period a century later. The reason for attributing it to Numa, apart from his popularity for attracting religious reforms, will be that the name of one of the two new months (Januarius) provides a bridge to the cult of Janus. According to a third tradition (Censorinus 20. 6 ; Macrobius 1. 13. 12), the Decemvirs invented the intercalary system based on the insertion of extra months of 22 and 23 days every alternate year to produce a 4-year cycle of 1,465 days against an actual solar cycle of 1,460. This tradition is not necessarily incompatible with that given by L. here. T h e Decemviral system may, historically, have been designed to improve on an earlier more inaccurate one. Equally irrelevant is the evidence of Macrobius (1. 13. 13) who speaks of a system of intercalation designed to rectify the calendar every 24 years; which led Robortelli to read vicesimo (quoque quarto^ (better quinto) anno in this passage. T h e 24-year cycle was only invented by M e ton in the last half of the fifth century and Macrobius himself admits that it was only adopted after the failure of an earlier system (hoc quoque errore cognito). In fact, there seems to have been no scientific principle of intercalation applied to the calendar in the later Republic before Julius Caesar: it was left to the responsibility or whim of the pontifex maximus. See A. Mommsen, Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 71 (1855), 249; Bomer's edition of Ovid, Fasti, vol. 1, Einl. 39-44 with bibliography of recent literature; Gjerstad, Legends and Facts, 24 ff. 19. 6. discribit: a necessary correction of describit. T h e corruption is excessively common (Vetter, Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. discribo); cf. 42. 5 n . ; 30. 37. 5; Curtius 3. 3. 10 Persis in totidem dies discriptus est annus. desuntque sex dies: there was no numeral in N, but that must be a mistake, for desunt dies is hardly possible Latin for desunt aliquot dies. If a numeral is to be restored it should be undecim. T h e lunar year has 354 days, the solar 365. undecim could easily be lost between -untquedies. solido: 'the full year'. intercalariis: N read intercalares but intercalarius is the form of the adjective in L. (37. 59. 2, 43. n . 13, 45. 44. 3). Moreover, intercalares would require Conway's change to interponendo. It is better, therefore, to accept Heerwagen's intercalariis than Gronovius's intercalaribus. For the construction cf. 33. 1. vicesimo anno: 'so that after twenty years the lunar and solar calen­ dars should again coincide'. L. is speaking historically. There is no need 96

NUMA

i. 1 9 - 6

to understand vicesimo anno 'every twenty years' (cf. Pliny, N.H. 2. 32 ; Gensorinus 17. 9). 19, 7. nefastos . . .fastosque: cf. Varro, de Ling. Lot. 6. 29, 'dies fasti per quos praetoribus omnia verba sine piaculo licet fari . . .; contrarii horum vocantur dies nefasti, per quos dies nefas fari praetorem: do, dico, addico'. T h e pre-Julian Calendar from Antium shows that the marking of days N and F was as old as the oldest calendar. A similar system is known from Knossos: see the tablet K N V 280. The Flamines T h e institution of regular cults entailed the appointment of regular priests to maintain them. L. implies that such sacerdotal functions had originally been the prerogative of the king but that increasing commitments obliged him to create a deputy or substitute to whom the greater part of these duties could be delegated. Historically this may have been so: the Flamen Dialis wore the dress and enjoyed the perquisites reserved for the king (20. 2 ; cf. 8. 3). Since on the expul­ sion of the kings their remaining sacral duties passed to a specially created rex sacrorum (2. 2. 1 n.), the flaminate must have been an earlier, regal institution. There were in all fifteenflamines each occupied with the cult of a particular deity, but of these only the Dialis, Quirinalis, and Martialis were flamines maiores, subject to a large number of restrictions, particularly severe for the Dialis (details in Aulus Gellius 10. 15; Plutarch, Q.R. 40, 44, 50, 109-13), and re­ sponsible for the performance of the most important sacrifices. No precise date for the institution of the flaminate can be attempted. (Gjerstad, Legends and Facts, 30, argues for a pre-575 date.) For details of their duties and functions see Wissowa, Religion, 5046°.; Rose, Introduction to Plutarch, Q.R. 109-12; Dumezil, La Regalitd Sacra, 416. 20. I. flaminem: modern etymologists compare Anglo-Saxon blotan 'sacrificare' or Ind. brahma and suggest a meaning 'sacrificer'. T h e ancients favoured an aetiological derivation afilo (details in W a l d e Hofmann s.v.) One of the chief duties of the priest was to supervise the sacrificial fire so that, as censor is probably derived from the root -cendere and connected with the fire-ceremony lustrum condere (44. 2 n.), flamen may point to flare from which comes also flamen (neut.) 'a blast'. 20. 2. Quirino: see note on 16 above; 32. 9 n. The Vestal Virgins T h e cult of Vesta was in origin the cult of the hearth of the in­ dividual house. When it became a state-cult it was localized on the king's hearth (2. 2. 1 n.) but with the increasingly secular role per­ formed by the king a separate hearth, the Atrium Vestae, shared also 814432

97

H

1. 20. 2

NUMA

by the Penates, became the centre and the maintenance of the sacred fire was entrusted to an order of six (originally perhaps four; cf. Plutarch, Numa i o ; D . H . 2. 67. 1; Festus 468 L.) virgins recruited by a fictitious captio from among the ranks of patrician girls between the ages of six and ten (Aul. Gell. 1. 12. 1). They acted as serving-women under the supervision originally of the rex and later of the pontifex maximus. T h e tradition that they were instituted by N u m a is given also by Aul. Gell. 1. 12. 10 and Ovid, Fasti 6. 259 but may be no more than a reconstruction from the connexion between N u m a and Egeria: the Vestals drew water from the well of the Camenae (Plutarch, Numa 13). An older, Romulean or Alban, origin is also asserted by Plu­ tarch {Romulus 22; cf. D . H . 2. 63). T h e cult of Vesta was also estab­ lished at Lavinium, so that it is possible that her worship with colleges of virgins in attendance was at one time more widespread throughout Latium. T h e Alban ancestry may be no more than Julian preten­ tiousness. See Wissowa, Religion, 504 ff.; Rose, Mnemosyne 54 (1926), 440 ff.; 56 (1928), 79ff.; Giannelli, 11 Sacerdozio delle Vestali; T.Worsford, The History of the Vestal Virgins; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 108-10; Weinstock, R.E., 'Vesta', cols. 1732-52. 20, 3 . stipendium: cf. Tacitus, Annals 4. 16. 6. virginitate: any infringement was regarded as incestum and treated accordingly (4. 44. 11 n., 2. 42. 11 n.). caerimoniis: e.g. the ritual attending their induction as Vestals. The Salii There were two colleges of dancing priests, Salii (from satire), the Palatini and the Collini (5. 52. 7). Tradition accounted for them by supposing that in a time of plague a sacred shield (ancile) fell from heaven into Numa's hands. H e commanded a smith, Mamurius Veturius, to manufacture twelve replicas which were entrusted to a specially created brotherhood of Salii. T h e second brotherhood was vowed by Tullus Hostilius in the straits of battle (27. 8). ([ServiusJ, ad Aen. 8. 285 is heterodox.) Their true origin is a matter of conjecture. T h e participation of Mamurius Veturius can safely be disregarded, for Mamurius is cer­ tainly an Etruscan name (Schulze 228, 360) and he is no more than a reconstruction from certain words which occurred in the immemorial song of Salii (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 49), a song which was quite un­ intelligible even in antiquity (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 3 ; Horace, Epist. 2. 1. 8 6 ; Quintilian 1. 6. 40). T h e double college recalls the double college of Luperci (see note on ch. 5 above) and points to an amalga­ mation of two separate bodies of Salii belonging to two separate com­ munities, that of the Palatine and of the Quirinal. Now the great 98

NUMA

I. 20. 3

antiquity of the Salian brotherhood is evidenced both by their wide­ spread distribution throughout Latium (at Lavinium, Alba, Aricia, Anagnia, Tusculum, and T i b u r : evidence in Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 115 n. 3) and by the antiquated character of their armour (20. 4 n.) which is of Bronze Age date and has its closest affinities with Mycenaean armour. In other words, unlike many institutions credited to Numa, it pre-dates rather than post-dates the period of his reign and can legitimately be ascribed to the generation before the unifica­ tion of Rome. T h e great antiquity of the ritual may account for a certain con­ tradiction in its interpretation. In historical times the dance which the Salii performed was certainly a war-dance held in connexion with other military ceremonies before the opening of the campaigning season (1, 9, 23 March) and after it in October. O n the other hand, such armed dances among primitive societies appear invariably to be apotropaic in character (cf., e.g., Ap. Rhod. 1. 1134 ff.) and an eighthcentury bronze urn from Bisenzio on Lake Bolsena depicts a closely analogous dance which is unmistakably magical in character. We may infer that the original Salian ritual was apotropaic and of very great antiquity but that it was converted to a military purpose, presumably under Etruscan systematization. In neither stage is there any ground for linking it with the n a m e of Numa. See further Helbig, Mem. Acad. d. Inscr. 37 (1905), 205 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 114-16; Bloch, Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 70 (1958), 7-3 7; Origins of Rome, 134-41. 20. 4. Marti Gradivo: 5. 52. 7. In historical times M . Gradivus pre­ sided over the inception {ancilia movere) and M . Quirinus over the termination (ancilia condere) of war but the precise way in which this distinction became fixed cannot be recovered, if only because the point of the name Gradivus defies elucidation. T h e ancients invoked gradi, representing the dance-steps of the Salii (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 85 ; Diomedes 476 K . ; but the -a- in Gradivus is long; but cf. Ovid, Met. 6. 427), KpaSalucj, gravis, and gramen. Modern etymologists resign themselves to supposing a foreign, possibly Illyrian or Thracian, origin of the name but it is hard to doubt that it is related to Grabovius which occurs in the Iguvine Tables (1 A 1 1 ; V I B 1) as a cognomen of Mars as well as of Juppiter. Orthodox opinion regards Grabovius as connected with Illyrian rpaflos from a root meaning 'oak, horn-beam 5 (Poultney, The Bronze Tables of Iguvium, 240 with references). Grabto Lat. Grad- is not a possible morphological change but may be the result of false assimilation from the character of the Salian dance (gradus). See also Walde-Hofmann s.v.; Boehm, R.E., 'Gradivus'. tunicaeque pictae: so also D.H. 2. 70; Plutarch, Numa 13. 'He granted them the distinction of an embroidered tunic. 5 99

I. 20. 4

NUMA

aeneum pectori tegumen: apparently not a complete or half-cuirass but a rectangular piece of bronze worn in front to protect the chest (Polybius 6. 23. 14 KapSto(f)vXai). A number of examples have been found in late-eighth-century Etruscan tombs. ancilia: from *am(bi)-caid-sli (Varro, deLing. Lat. 7. 43 fl£ utraqueparte ♦ . . incisa; Festus 117 L.). T h e distinctive figure-of-eight shape implied by their n a m e and recognizable in coins and gems (Furtwangler, Die Antiken Gemmen, pi. xxii, no. 62) recalls the identically shaped bodyshields known from Homer and depicted on Cretan and Mycenaean monuments (see H . L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, 132 ff.). It is likely that the Mycenaean culture, mediated perhaps through Illyria, is the ultimate source of the ancilia; for other pieces of armour worn by the Salii but not described by L. (the apex and xaA/oJ /Lttrpa 7rAarefa) also have counterparts in that culture (see the full survey of material in Helbig, op. cit.; Lorimer 211 ff., 245 ff.). T h e armour is intended for the conditions of 'heroic' fighting and not for hoplite warfare which with the small shield and thrusting sword was introduced by the Etruscans under Greek influence in the seventh century. It follows that the Salians must have reached Rome by the end of the Bronze Age before the Etruscan infiltration of Latium. cum tripudiis sollemnique saltatu: 'with ritual dancing in ternary rhythm'. The Pontificate T h e low place enjoyed by the pontifices in the official order of precedence (Festus 198 L . ; Aul. Gell. 10. 15. 21) and the religious pre-eminence possessed originally by the Flamen Dialis and later shared by the rex sacrorum would be sufficient by themselves to show that the sphere of responsibility allotted to the pontifex (maximus) by N u m a is anachronistic and exaggerated. Their name (pons, facere) points to an activity which was originally important but restricted (33. 6 n . ; 4. 12. 11 n . ; see on the Argei below). They were responsible for roads as well as bridges; for in early times roads are no more than stretches of country between bridges. Since their duties combined religious and practical matters, the pontifices were better placed to keep abreast of the times. New cults were entrusted to them rather than to the famines who were reserved for particular deities. T h e stages by which the pontificate came to assume control of the Roman religious system as the guardian de sacris, de votis, deferiis et de sepulcris et si quid eiusmodi est (Cicero, de Legibus 2. 47) cannot be traced in any detail but the process was effected by the third century (2. 2. 1 n.). Now it is in the late fourth and early third centuries that the plebeian gens Marcia was at its height (see note on 32-34). Their claim to have supplied the first pontifex will have gone hand-in-hand with the back100

NUMA

i. 2 0 . 4

dating of the power of the pontificate to Numa. Contemporary thirdcentury politics may also be reflected in 20. 6 quo consultum plebs veniret. Cn. Flavius had opened the pontifical arcana in 304 for public inspection (9. 46. 1 ff.). L. suits his language to his theme, using a number of rare but im­ posing technicalities (20. 5 n., 20. 7 n.). See Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 195-7. 20. 5. Numam Marcium: for the praenomen see note on 18-21 above. H e is named by Tacitus [Annals 6. n ) as praefectus urbi under Tullus Hostilius. His father M . Marcius, the progenitor of the gens Marcia, claimed kinship with N u m a Pompilius (Plutarch, Numa 3) which accounts for his praenomen. T h e son himself married Numa's daughter Pompilia, and was the father of Ancus Marcius (32. 1). T h e snobbish inter­ relationship is entirely fictitious. See Miinzer, R.E., 'Marcius (24)'. exscripta exsignataque: exsignare occurs elsewhere in Latin only in Plautus, Trin. 655. It is an archaic word chosen here partly to balance exscripta in the carmen-style and partly for its air of antiquity. Gf. quibus hostiis, quibus diebus. 20. 7. iusta . . .funebria: cf. Caesar, E.G. 6. 19. 5 for the technical term. curarentur: Gronovius followed by Crevier, Wimmercranz, Harant, and other editors, proposed procurarentur, the usual term, but curare is similarly used by Orosius 5. 4. 19 and sacra curare is frequent (31. 8). O n the other hand procuranda follows in 21. 1 and L.'s habit of un­ conscious repetition (14. 4 n . ; cf. susciperentur . . . suscipienda essent here) favours the restoration of the proper technical term. Juppiter Elicius A stone, the manalis lapis, brought into the city at a very early date was connected with a magical ceremony for the procuration of rain (Festus 115 L . ; Varro ap. Non. 547; [Servius], ad Aen. 3. 175). T h e ceremony was known as the Aquelicium (Paulus 2 L.). Such rainstones are a commonplace of early superstition among communities which depend on a reliable supply of water. At Rome as a concomi­ tant or even, when the concept of the sky-god Juppiter began to grow and crystallize, as a development of the ritual of the rain-stone, worship was directed to Juppiter Elicius for the purpose of procuring rain. T h e cult is obviously ancient. Indeed its situation on the Aventine might be used as evidence for a date before the Etruscanization of Rome had confined the city as a religious entity within thepomerium. T h e specific attribution to Numa is groundless, being inspired by his religious activity and his connexion with fountains (Egeria). Valerius Antias (fr. 6 P.) told of the institution of the cult at great length on the model of the Proteus story in Homer. Because it had no human or dramatic possibilities L. abbreviated it to a mere notice. 101

i. 20. 7

NUMA

See Samter, Archiv f. Relig.-Wissen. 21 (1922), 317; Usener, Rh. Mus. 60 (1921), i f f ; M . A. Rubins, Mem. Amer. Ac. Rome 10 (1932), frj-jBomer, Archivf. Relig.-Wissen. 33 (1936), 270ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 78-79. 2 1 . 1. proximo: the vulgate reading retained by Wex (cf. Horace, Odes 1. 12. 52) could only be defended as an abl. of circumstance but the parallel passage of Ovid (Fasti 1. 251 proque metu populum sine vipudor ipse regebai) demands the presence of pro while the lack of adjec­ tives qualifying fides ac iusiurandum may be invoked to confirm that no adjective is to be expected qualifying legum ac poenarum metu (for a similar balance cf. 4. 23. 1 n.). T h e most satisfactory emendation is, therefore, Novak's pro: the corruption may be explained by the similarity of the contractions for pro and proximus (Gappelli 257, 299). The Shrine of Egeria T h e importance of water for any community is illustrated by the devotion accorded from the earliest times to springs and wells. In the pre-Julian calendar which dates back to the beginnings of organized religion at Rome an offering was made to the Gamenae on 13 August (Fasti Ant.). A spring which continued to flow in the height of summer when most water-supplies had dried up was properly treated with special veneration. T h e etymology of Gamenae is wholly uncertain (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 2 8 ; Macrobius 2. 3. 4) but in origin, at least, they were no more than spring-deities. At a much later date the site of their source was named the vallis Egeriae a n d the area connected with an alien goddess Egeria. Egeria was a spring-goddess of Aricia (Virgil, Aeneid 7. 763; Ovid, Fasti 3. 2 6 1 ; Strabo 5. 240; E Juvenal 3. 17), whose name was evidently derived from the gens Egeria which supplied at least two prominent figures in early Latium (34. 2 n . ; Festus 128 L . ; Gato fr. 58 P.). Now the connexion between Rome and Aricia and in particular the importation of Aricine cults to Rome is certainly no earlier than the reign of Servius Tullus (see note on 45, below) and, therefore, the association of Egeria with the Gamenae must also belong to that period. Once the association had been made it was easy to invent circum­ stances that would co-ordinate them with the historically earlier activities of Numa. There is no warrant for believing with Pais that N u m a is no more than the personification of a water-god (cf. Numicius) and that his connexion with water-cults (Fontus, J u t u r n a , Egeria, Gamenae) is only explicable on that assumption. T h e Vestals drew water from the streams of the Gamenae (Plutarch, Numa 13) and the Vestals were a creation of Numa. O n e etymology of Gamenae linked them with prophecy (carmina) so that it was natural to suppose that N u m a had consulted them in devising his religious system. A Greek 102

NUMA

i. 21. 3

equivalent was forthcoming in the spring Hippocrene frequented by the Muses which invited the identification of the Gamenae and the Muses (Livius Andron. Odyss. fr. i). T h e final touch was to explain the aura of Pythagoreanism which came to surround.Numa's name and to depict the shrine in terms which were more commonly used to describe the Orphico-Pythagorean concept of paradise—grove, cool water, shadow, quiet, pleasant scent, flower-filled meadow, altar: [ P l a t o ] , ^ . * ^ ^ ^ 371 c ; Lucian, VeraHist. 2.5ff.; see A. Turyn, T.A.P.A. 78 (1942), 308). It lay at the southern extremity of the Caelian Hill. See Platner-Ashby s.v. 'Gamenae 5 ; Waszink, Class, et Med. 17 (1956), 139 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 77. 2 1 . 3 . lucus erat. . . quo . . . eum lucum: L. employs a formal pattern of descriptive technique commonly used in epic to begin a story (Virgil, Aeneid 1. 159 ff.; 441 ff.; 4. 480 ff. with Austin's n o t e ; 5. 124 ff.; 7. 563 f.; Propertius 4. 4. 3 ff.; see Fraenkel, de Med. et Nov. Com. QuaesL Sel. (Diss. Gottingen, 1912), 46 ff.; G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 47 (1957), 246). T h e pattern goes back to Homer. L.'s use of it serves to isolate the Egeria episode and highlight its importance. The Shrines of Fides T h e most important of the anachronisms foisted on Numa is the cult of Fides (D.H. 2. 75. 3 ; Plutarch, Numa 16. 1; Florus 1. 2. 3 : Agathocles (F. Gr. Hist. 472 F 5 Jacoby) even wished to put it as far back as Aeneas). T h e conceptual character of her name, unlike Ops or Salus, rules out any early date and indeed it is recorded that A. Atilius Galatinus (consul in 258 and 254) was responsible for build­ ing her temple (Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 2. 61). There were, however, earlier gods who had surveillance over oaths. T h e complex Semo Sancus Dius Fidius may represent the fusion of a Sabine earth-god (cf. semen; see Propertius 4. 9. 74; Ovid, Fasti 6. 217-18) with a Latin sky-god, each of whom had separately guaranteed oaths: to swear by earth and/or sky is one of the commonest sanctions. See 54. 10 n., 2. 12-13. 5 n. Thus the historians who ascribed a cult of Fides to Numa may have recognized that Dius Fidius was one of the old cults. Their motive for naming the cult that of Fides was to stress the importance of that concept in the domestic society and international relations of their own times (250-150 B.C.): fides is the guarantee of iusiurandum (Ennius, trag. 403 V.). See Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 126-7, 237, 273; P. Boyance, Hornmages Grenier, 1. 329 ff. 21. 4 . soli: the space in M E shows that N was uncertain where soli could or should go and betrays it as being a marginal stray (ex sollemne). It is therefore superfluous to attempt emendation (solus Seeley; Sollae Hayley; populi Muretus; simul Sigonius, Brakman; in 103

I. 21. 4

NUMA

Capitolio Harder), soli is retained by Rossbach and Bayet among others, but no suggestion is advanced for its meaning. ad id sacrarium: there is a slight ellipse, id sacrarium meaning 'the chapel reserved for that ritual'; cf. 20. 5, 30. 4. Peerlkamp (note on Virgil, Aeneid 1. 292), feeling the difficulty, wished to insert et sacrarium after instituit. flamines: a double inaccuracy. L. uses jlamines loosely according to the practice of his time as a synonym for sacerdotes: there was no flamen attached to the cult either of Fides or of Dius Fidius. H e also appears to imply that the privilege of riding in a carriage was confined to the priests of Fides but it was a universal prerogative of priests (Tacitus, Annals 12. 4 2 ; [Servius], ad Aen. 8. 552). involuta: cf. Servius, ad Aen. 1. 292, 8. 636. See the story of G. Mucius in 2. 12. 1-16. The Argei O n e of the most perplexing of Roman religious ceremonies con­ cerns the Argei (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 4 5 - 5 4 ; 7. 4 4 ; Plutarch, Q.R. 32, 86; Paulus Festus 14 L . ; D.H. 1. 38. 3 ; Ovid, Fasti 5. 6 2 1 ; Macrobius 1. 11. 47). They are named on two dates. O n 16-17 March there is a notice itur ad Argeos, presumably a procession to the 27 Argeorum sacella which Varro lists in order throughout the 4 regions of the city. O n 14 May 27 rush puppets called Argei were dropped from the Pons Sublicius into the Tiber by the Vestal Virgins. T h e significance of the ritual depends at least partly on its antiquity. It has been argued that the number 27 is a favourite of Sibylline rites and hence that the ceremony cannot be ancient. This would seem to be supported by the fact that the ceremonies do not figure in the old Republican religious calendar. From this stand-point Wissowa argued that the ceremony was parallel to the live-burial of representatives of Rome's mortal enemies, Greek and Gaul, practised in the third century (22. 57.)—and that it dated from the same epoch. Argei stood for ApyetoL, the name under which the Greeks were known. T h e negative arguments for a late date are not, however, foolproof and there are grave morphological objections to equating Argei and Argives. Nor does the theory account for the M a r c h ritual. In the present state of knowledge it is more satisfactory to accept Latte's explanation. H e holds that the rush puppets are taken in procession and placed in the sacella at the beginning of the year in order to attract uncleanness throughout the city. They were then disposed of by the purest of priests, the Vestals, in the extinguishing waters of the Tiber. T h e ceremony would in that event be a primitive one, dating back at the least to the period when the New Year began on 1 March. In neither case are there any grounds for connecting the Argei with Numa. 104

NUMA

I. 21. 5

See Wissowa, Ges. Abhand., 211 ff.; War de-Fowler, Roman Festivals, 112; Rose, Plutarch, Roman Questions, 98 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 412-14. For a rationalistic account see L. A. Holland, Janus, 314 ff. 2 1 . 6 . regnavit: the regnal figures of 37 for Romulus and 43 for N u m a confirm the relative lateness of L.'s source. Cicero (de Rep. 2. 17), and hence Polybius (6. 11 a. 2 with Walbank's note) and Fabius Pictor gave 37 and 39 respectively. 2 2 - 3 1 . The Reign of Tullus Hostilius T h e third king of Rome reigned traditionally for thirty-two years. H e was distinguished for his ferocitas—ferocior Romulo quam JVumae similis (Servius, ad Aen. 6. 813)—a characteristic which was suggested as much by his name Hostilius as by the contrast with his predecessors. T h e oldest legends which surround him are more primitive than Rome herself. T h e battle of the champions and the death of Mettius Fufetius belong to a stock of legends which is common to many branches of the Indo-European tradition (24. 1 n., 28. 1 n.). Next came those events which may reasonably have been remembered from the seventh century—the name of the king Tullus Hostilius (22. 1 n.), the name of Fufetius (23. 6 n.), and the capture of Alba. These are historical— the only authentic elements in the whole story. They were supple­ mented by a third source of material—topographical researches. Rome possessed numerous monuments, named and unnamed, explained and inexplicable. These were brought into connexion with the legends of Roman history and served to add substance and verisimilitude to the bare legend. Such were the fossa Cluilia (23. 3 n.), the Sepulcra Horatiorum et Guriatiorum (25. 14 n.), the Sepulcrum Horatiae (26. 14 n.), the Pila Horatia (26. i o n . ) , and the Silva Malitiosa (30. 9 n.). It is more likely that in high antiquity they were given names to identify them with legends than that they preserved names from actual happenings. T h e amalgation of these different levels was effected probably as early as the late third century. T h e reign of Tullus Hostilius was told by Ennius (126-40 V . : see Norden on Virgil, Aeneid 6. 813) with a richness of detail which presupposes an extended account. But L.'s treatment owes nothing directly to Ennius (29. 6 n.). L.'s version, like the parallel narrative in D.H. 3. 136°., has been supplemented by legal additions (26. 4 n.), in particular by the fetial formula (24. 4 n.) and the Perduellio proceedings (26. 6 n.) of which the former can be proved to be a formulation of the second century at the earliest. T h e historians of that generation in their quest for new material turned to the law to provide them with mock-archaic precedents which could be incorporated into the body of their histories. These were dis­ tributed among the kings—one fetial formula to Tullus, the other to 105

I. 22-31

TULLUS HOST1LIUS

Ancus Marcius, the deditio formula to Tarquinius Priscus. Religious instititutions were similarly pillaged to provide historical matter. Interested research was able to supply the Salii (27. 7 n.), the sororium tigillum (26. 13 n.), and the shrines of Pallor and Pavor. L., therefore, inherited a fully developed story from an author who was writing some time after 100 B.C. (30. 2 n., 31. 8 n.). It is significant that the fetial in 24. 6 is named M . Valerius. Valerius Antias suggests himself as a possible source and we know from Cicero (de Invent. 2. 78 ff.) that the predicament of Horatia was a favourite topic in the schools c. 86 B.C. It is doubtful whether the source can be more precisely determined. It has been noted that 24. 4 nee ullius vetustior foederis memoria est contradicts 23. 7, and that 30. 7 pacta cum Romulo fides ignores the agreement concluded between Tullus and the Veientes. From this it might be argued that the Valerian section is confined to 24-31 as would be supported by the citation of variants at 24. 1 and 3 1 . 4 . If L. took over the material ready assembled, he did much to it. It can be seen from comparison with D . H . that his literary and psychological interests led him to adapt and reshape extensively. Where D.H.'s version is homogeneous and continuous, L. divides the reign into four acts (22-23, 24-26. 1, 26. 2-14, 27-29). He eschews the empty rhetoric in which D.H. indulges, making one speech (23. 7-9) do the work of seven. In his battle-descriptions he concentrates on the attitudes of the combatants (25. 1-2) and gives dramatically effective if schematic narratives (notice, e.g., the Trepnrcrcia in 23. 6), stressing the human at the expense of the divine agencies so pro­ minent in D.H. Above all he imparts realism to the history through the words which he gives the characters to speak. T h e Fetial formula, which is paraphrased by D.H., is the clearest instance of this but there is much icharacterizing' language in 23. 7-9 (nn.), and 28. 4-6 (nn.). It helps to unify the story and to bring out the theme of the ferocitas of Tullus. See Burck 149 ff.; Soltau, Woch. Klass. Phil. 25 (1908), 1269 ff; Aly, Livius u. Ennius, 36; Glaser, R.E. 'Tullus Hostilius'; H . Peytrand, Rev. Univers., 1939, 32-33 ; M . van den Bruwaene, Latomus 11 (1952), 154 ff.; also articles cited on individual passages below. 22. 1. interregnum: 3. 8. 2 n. For the Hostilii see 12. 2 n. Tullum Hostilium: for Tull(i)us see 39. 1 n . ; Tullus is Latin or Volscian and was used originally as nomen or praenomen (cf. Tul(lus) Tullius from Tibur) and later as a cognomen (cf. the Volcacii Tulli). The name, being that of a later plebeian gens, will hardly have been invented. populus . . . iussit: see note on ch. 17. 22. 2. ferocior: the key-word of the section cf. 23. 4, 10, 25. 1, 7, 11, 27. 10, 31. 6. 106

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

I. 22. 2

senescere: 19. 4 n. 22. 4 . (7. Cluilius: 23. 3 n. r&y repetendas: 32. 6 n. L. presupposes that the fetial procedure for declaring war has been instituted. 22. 5. comiter: the variants comiter and comifroute go back to the Nicomachean edition, but comiter 'jovially' (57. 10, 25. 12. 9 ; Cicero, pro Deiot. 19) is to be preferred to the periphrasis typical of late writing (Fronto, p. 226 van den Hout). tricesimum: 32. 9 n. 22. 7. expetant: courteous protestations of the Albans given in or. obi. (cf. 3. 68. 911. for the conventional invitos) are answered directly and bluntly, clades is generally taken as the object of expetant with di as subject understood (cf. 23. 4) — ' t h a t they may inflict the calamities of this war' (Baker)—but the tone is better suited by the intransitive use ofexpetere 'to fall upon' found in archaic, colloquial contexts (e.g. Plautus, Amphitr. 495, 589; see Hiltbrunner, Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v.). deos facere testes alludes to the formula of 32. 9-10. Notice the em­ phatically juxtaposed eum omnes, clades belli. 2 3 . 2. dirutis: 29. 1. 2 3 . 3 . Albani: D.H. has an extended account of a night attack (3. 4- 3-5)fossa Cluilia: 2. 39. 5. Nothing else is known of it and its locality can only be conjectured (Sette Bassi according to Bormann: see Hlilsen, R.E., 'Cluiliae fossae'). The supposition that it marked the boundary between R o m e and Alba introduces political demarcation quite alien to the period. It is far more probable that it is a prehistoric ditch (Strabo 5. 230; Pliny, N.H. 15. 119 cluere = purgare) dug to drain the swampy land and that the person of C. Cluilius is an aetiology to account for the obsolete term cluilia 'cleaning'. Such antiquarian specu­ lation is typical of the early-second-century historians, in particular Cato, and L. implies that the detail was not the result of recent research. 23. 4. Mettium Fufetium: Mettius is the Latin form of the Oscan title meddix; for the dictatorship see 2. 18. 4 n. Fufetius as a name is not found elsewhere, although the Vestal Gaia Tarracia was also known as Fufetia (Pliny, N.H. 34. 25). It is perhaps to be recognized in the name of the gens Fufidia. It reflects a known fact that in its last days Alba was ruled by an elected magistracy not a monarchy. 23. 6. tamen: the manuscripts agree on the reading tametsi vana adferebantur, preserving a unique instance in L. of tametsi common in Cicero (e.g. Verr. 2. 7 6 ; de Orat. 2. 120). Before repudiating it, we must ask what is the force of in aciem educit. If it means that Tullus while not clos­ ing the door on negotiations took all necessary military steps in case the talks should prove abortive, then tametsi must be wrong because it 107

i. 2 3 . 6

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

assumes as a fact that the projected parley is an empty ruse rather than states it as a possible contingency. We would have to emend to tamen si vana adferantur (Vossius), or tametsi vana afferri rebatur (Tan. Faber) or tamen si vana afferebantur (Wachendorf). But in aciem educit need not describe Tullus' precautions in the event of the negotiations breaking down. Like the following exeunt contra et Albania it merely describes the arrival of the armies at the scene of the negotiations. Parleys are traditionally conducted between the lines. In that case tametsi may be retained. Tullus knew that Fufetius' message in which he said that he had a proposition of interest to the Romans was vain {vana); for Tullus held the upper hand. The Alban king, Cluilius, was d e a d : Tullus had advanced with a superior force into Alban territory. Nevertheless he did not reject Fufetius' overtures. With Mikkola {Konzessivitat, 99) I would retain the text of the M S S . instructi: structi (N) is retained by Alschefski, Weissenborn, and Bayet but never found as a synonym for instructi (Sabellicus: see Gitlbauer, Zeitschr.f. d. Oesterr. Gymn. 29 (1878), 919 AT.). 23. 7. infix: 28. 4, 3. 71. 6. infit, used only by the poets before Apuleius (Ennius, Ann. 394 V . ; Plautus, Asin. 343, et at.; Lucretius; Virgil), save in three passages of L., introduces what must be intended to be characterizing speeches. Such overtones are not hard to detect. Fufetius advances two arguments: the real cause of the war is cupido imperii but both sides should avoid exhausting their resources and so falling a prey to the Etruscans (cf. Sallust, Jugurtha 79. 4 : an adapta­ tion of the arguments used by Nicias inThucydides 6. 10 against the Sicilian expedition). For 23. 8 monitum velim, an idiom rare in Cicero and in classical prose, cf. Plautus, Capt. 53, 309; for 23. 9 si nos di amant cf. Plautus, Epid. 515; Miles 293, 5 7 1 ; Poen. 659; for the bold in aleam ire cf. Seneca, de Clement. 1. 1. 7. et ego: the remarkable position of ego, interrupting the three causes of war, is accounted for by the double emphasis in the sentence, the stress laid on the alleged grievances {iniurias . . .) and the contrast between the two leaders {ego . . . te). audisse videor: see Shackleton Bailey, Cicero, cAd Atticum\ 66. 23. 8. quo propior: A has propior es Volscis. T h e Volsci have not yet appeared in history and do not do so for another 130 years (1. 53), nor is there any rival tradition which dates their emergence early, but no conjecture based on es is conceivable since es was not read by the archetype. Volscis is probably an anticipation of the succeeding scis, corrupted from vel or v.l. scis (cf. 1. 45. 2 iam turn vel tantum) We are left with quo propior, hoc magis scis which may be compared with Tacitus, Ann. 1. 34. 1 sed Germanicus quanto summae spei propior, tanto impensius pro Tiberio niti. {Volscis seel. Voss, Conway; Tuscis Strothius; Veiis J a c . Gronovius; propiores vos estis Bayet.) 108

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

i . 2 3 . 10

2 3 . 10. fortuna: 37. 52. 12. 24-25. The Battle of the Champions T o decide the issues of war by a contest of champions is a widespread custom found among peoples of many climates and cultures (cf. Homer, Iliad 3. 66 ff.; Herodotus 1. 82, 5. 1. 2 ; Pausanias 5. 4. 1; Tacitus, Germania 10; Plutarch, Alexander 3 1 ; 1 Samuel 17) and in particular the fight of the one against the three can be paralleled from numerous sagas. Robert the Bruce killed the three treacherous travellers in single combat (Scott, Tales of a Grandfather, 1. 77). But the closest parallel is the Irish legend of Cuchulain who not merely killed his three opponents but, like Horatius, had to be reintegrated with civil society by a special ceremony. Horatius passed through the sororium tigillum in order to be cleansed of his impurities; Cuchulain is plunged into three successive vats in order to cool his violence. We may recognize here the R o m a n form of a very ancient legend, a legend perhaps as old as the earliest roots of the stock from which the Irish and Romans sprang. But there is no need to subscribe to Macaulay's judgement that 'no doubt it came from some old national ballad 3 . T h e legend was certainly prized by the family of the Curiatii (3. 32. 1 n . : notice the cognomen Trigeminus) and is likely to have enjoyed a wide currency. In the telling of the story L. follows the preliminary setting, which is full of legal-sounding phrases (24. 3 n., 24. 7-9 nn.), with a vivid description of the battle as seen by the spectators rather than by the combatants. T h e contrast between the two chapters is deliberate and the whole is rounded off by a topographical notice. See Mlinzer, R.E., 'Curiatius' and 'Horatius'; E . J . Urch, Class. Journal 25 (1930), 4 4 5 ; G. Dumezil, Horace et les Curiaces. 24. 1. forte . . . turn . . . erant: for this method of beginning a new episode see 2. 33. 5 n. error: none of the extant sources (D.H. 3. 13. 4 ; Zonaras 7. 6; Columella 3. 8. 1; U Bob. Cicero, Mil., p. 277 Or.) made the Curiatii Roman though traces of that tradition can be detected (3. 32. 1 n.). L. ignores the additional refinement that the Horatii and Curiatii were cousins, their mothers being twin-daughters of an Alban Sicinius (D.H., loc. cit.). Licinius Macer, whose interest in the Sicinii can be documented, may be responsible. trahunt: historical jargon, cf Sallust, Jugurtha 9 3 . 1 ; Tacitus, Annals 14. 14. 24. 2. ibi imperium: 45. 3 n. 24. 3 . his legibus: the terms of the treaty are mock-archaic. L. is pretending to paraphrase an original decree, cuiusque, as given by the manuscripts, is found in early Latin in legal and religious contexts 109

i. 24. 3

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

in an indefinite sense, the equivalent of quisquis or quicumque (cf., e.g., Plautus, Capt. 797-8: see G. W. Williams's discussion of Horace, Odes 1. 32. 15-16, in C.R. 8 (1958), 208-9). Similarly the use of imperitare for imperare is solemn and high-sound­ ing (1. 2. 3, 17. 6, 22. 4, 3. 39. 8, 4. 5. 5). Even in Plautus it had a 'lofty ring' (Fraenkel, Horace, 191 n. 5), occurring only twice, in paratragic passages {Pseud. 703; Capt. 244), and its use in Lucretius 3. 1028 and Horace, Sat. 1. 6. 4 echoes Ennius (cf. also Accius, fr. 586). The Fetial Formula The history of the fetiales is outlined in 32. 5 n. below, but whereas the procedure for declaring war lapsed when Rome became involved in transmarine hostilities, the fetiales seem to have long maintained their role as treaty-makers. They are attested as having concluded the peace with Carthage in 201 (30. 43. 9) and the ceremony is often depicted on coins of the late second century B.G. (Sydenham nos. 69, 527, 619). But Polybius in his account of the third Carthaginian treaty (3. 25. 6 with Walbank's n o t e : 279 B.G.) seems to have had only a confused understanding of the detailed institution because he was misled into identifying the fetial sacrifice of the pig by a flint (silex) with an entirely separate oath lovem lapidem (Paulus Festus 102 L.). It may, therefore, be that in the middle of the century the exact formulae were not common knowledge and that they had to be resuscitated by a later generation. The texts given by L. are an archaizing reconstruc­ tion. Such formulae will first have been published in manuals of constitutional procedure and then been incorporated by annalists into their histories (notice accepimus in 24. 4, and 38. 1) with names and circumstances supplied to fit. It is a quite extraneous addition to the story of the Horatii. See Samter, R.E., 'Fetiales'; Bayet, Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 52 (1935), 29 ff.; J . van Ooteghem, L.E.C 23 (1955), 3^-1^ 24. A.fetialis: the etymology of the word is unresolved. Ancient grammarians connected it with foedus (Servius, ad Aen. 1. 62), fides (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 86), or ferire (Paulus Festus 81 L.). Modern scholars favour a derivation from a root *dhe (cLfas,fari, OefjucrTrjs) or associate it with Juppiter Feretrius (10. 6 n.) where the fetiales kept their ritual instruments. T h e college consisted of twenty members, two of whom would serve on a particular mission (9. 5. 4), one as the verbenarius (Pliny, N.H. 22. 5 ; Varro ap. Nonius, p. 848 L.), carrying the sacred grasses from the citadel, the other as the pater patratus in priestly dress, carrying the sceptre per quod iurarent and the flint. T h e latter was the principal emissary. 110

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

i. 2 4 . 4

iubesne: notice how the formula falls into balanced phrases iubesne me rex / cum patre patrato / populi Albani / foedus ferire which, with the marked alliteration, is suggestive of the rhythm of ancient carmina. See Norden, Altrom. Priest. 99, 285. patre patrato: within the family the paterfamilias alone was able to contract. Universalizing this principle beyond the domain of the family the Romans created an artificial 'pater* who was to act for and in the name of the state as a whole. T h e paterpatratus should mean 'one who is made a father' (Latte, Nachr. Gbtting. Gesell. Wiss., 1934, 66 ff.; but see Plutarch, Q.R. 62). Other explanations, e.g. 'father of the fatherhood' (patratus, gen. like senatus: F. Muller, Mnemosyne 55 (1927), 386 ff.) or 'the father accomplished (patratus, a nom. agentis in -tus, a variant ofcpatrator: H . Krahe, Archivf. Relig.-Wiss. 34 (1937), 112 ff.), do not account for the declension of patratus, -ti. Equally mistaken is L.'s own derivation given in 24. 6. T h e title is proof of the high antiquity of the office. sagmina: cf. Dig. 1. 8. 8. 1 'sunt autem sagmina quaedam herbae quas legati populi Romani ferre solent ne quis eos violaret sicut legati Graecorum ferunt ea quae vocantur cerycia'. T h e explanation, a dangerous assimilation of R o m a n to Greek ritual, is false because the grasses had to be torn out of the ground with their earth (Pliny, N.H. 22. 5 ; cf. Festus 424-6 L . ; Servius, ad Aen. 12. 120), and were employed in the ritual act of creating the pater patratus. These acts can only be accounted for on quasi-magical grounds. T h e earth from the arx of Rome protected the fetial from foreign influences when he was outside his native land. He was carrying a piece of his own country with him wherever he went. pura: read puram sc. herbam with N (Norden, Alt. Priest. 6 n. 2). The elipse of the noun may be paralleled by merum, dextra, Scc.pura sc. sagmina is pointless, sagmina, being ritual plants, are by definition pure. 24. 5. vasa: the utensils, in which the plant and the silex travelled. 24. 6. Sp. Fusium: 3. 4. 1 n. 24. 7. audi: for the triple invocation see 32. 6 n. T h e terms of the declaration are pseudo-archaic. 'An assembly of the R o m a n people could not be addressed by popule Romane . . . and the vocative popule does not occur until the artificial prose of the Empire' (Fraenkel, Horace, 289 n. 1, citing Wackernagel, Kl. Schriften, 980 ff.: against Lofstedt, Syntactica, 1. 99). T h e use of the nominative populus Albanus here instead of the vocative as a form of address is doubtless formed after the model of Greek tragedy which ventured such modes of address la>, TT&S Aews. It is, therefore, certainly artificial. T w o other instances may be noticed. T h e phrase ex tabulis cerave is taken over from the legal language in which a will and its codicil are drawn up (Gaius 2. 104) and is evidently anachronistic in an age when even in

1.24-7

TULLUS

HOSTILIUS

writing is hard to credit. T h e form defexit (cf. 18. 9, 6. 35. 9, 29. 27. 3) is a putatively ancient form of the future perfect (Kuhnast, Livian. Syntax, 15). The alliterative pairs of words usually in asyndeton are characteristic of the carmen-style, e.g. prima, postrema, hie hodie (cf. Plautus, Miles 1412; C.I.L. 3. 1933, 12. 4333), potespollesque (8. 7. 5, 33. 8; Trag. Incert. 175 R . ; Plautus, Asin. 636: see Fraenkel, Plautinisches, 360). 24. 8. turn tu Me Diespiter: the manuscripts have turn Me dies luppiter. ferito must be second person (cf.potespollesque) and therefore the name of the god -piter must be in the vocative. A passage of Paulus Festus (102 L. si sciens /alio turn me Diespiter . . . eiciat: cf. Horace, Odes 3. 2. 29) has led editors to see in the words dies luppiter the reading Diespiter glossed with hip- and to print turn Me Diespiter or the like (Turnebus, Duker, Alschefski,Hertz, Skutsch, Conway). As Frigell saw (Epilegomena, 80) this use of Me Diespiter as a vocative is out of the question (Me is only so used with the third person: Plautus, Most. 398; Amph. 461 ; Cure. 2 7 ; Cicero, Catil. 3. 22, 2 9 ; Apuleius, Met. 3. 29) and ferito cannot be a third person. turn Mo die luppiter is palaeographically unexceptionable and the Mo die balances hie hodie. The use of turn is regular in such official language (cf. Paulus, loc. cit.; 32. 7; 22. 53. 11 si sciens/alio, turn me luppiter . . . leto adjicias. 24. 9. saxo silice: the flint, kept in the temple of Juppiter Feretrius, was probably an old neolithic celt venerated for its antiquity and sacred function, which came to be regarded as a thunderbolt, a symbol of the god (Pliny, N.H. 37. 135: see A. B. Cook, C.R. 18 (1904), 365; Rose, J.R.S. 3 (1913), 238). The pig symbolized the perjurer. See note on ch. 10. T h e description of the battle owes much in its conception to the Homeric duel between Paris and Hector (Iliad 3) and much of the detail and language recalls such epic episodes (25. 1 n., 25. 4 n., 25. 12 n.). Unlike a Homeric battle it is told from the spectators' point of view (25. 2, 25. 4, 25. 5, 25. 9 ) ; the climax is the triumphant outburst by Horatius (25. 12). 25. 1. in medium . . . procedunt: cf. the Homeric eV \iiooov Tpwcov /ecu HXCLLCUV €GTixo<*>vTO ( 3 . 3 4 1 ) *

25. 2. consederant: as in Iliad 3. 326. For the anxious concern as to the outcome among both spectators and contestants cf. Thuc. 7. 71. 1-6.

animo incenduntur: Seeley and Conway accept the manuscripts but the metaphor of men under tension (erecti suspensique) being kindled in mind is unendurable. Gebhard's change to intenduntur is minimal and restores the mot juste for keen attention to a spectacle (cf. 2. 37. 5, 112

i. 25. 2 TULLUS HOSTILIUS 5 33. 9. 4). animo 'with their minds, their whole attention is then appro­ priate. L. elsewhere writes intendere animos (23. 33. 1: hence animos intendunt H. J. Muller) or animi intenti sunt (33. 32. 10: hence animi intenduntur Tucking) but the further change is unnecessary. The in­ strumental ablative delimits. 25. 4. increpuere: the language is highly coloured; increpuere, for concrepuere^ arma is found only here, elsewhere of bugles, &c.; forfalsere gladii cf. Virgil, Aeneid 6. 217, 490: the phrase is not elsewhere in prose except, significantly, Apuleius, Met. 8. 13; for horror perstringit cf. Valerius Flaccus 7. 81. 25. 5. anceps: taken by Conway as 'two-fold activity of weapon and shield' (each man was plying weapon and shield at once), but it must mean 'indecisive5 ('nichts entscheidende5 M. Muller; 'sans r6sultat5 Baillet) in contrast to the positive vulnera et sanguis. One moment there was a confused mel£e in which limbs and weapons were all that could be distinguished: in the next moment blood could be seen. For this sense of anceps cf. 7. 25. 4. 25. 6. vice: there is no example of vice -f- gen. = 'on account of* whereas solliciti suam vicem or the like is standard; cf. 8. 35. i, 23. 9. 10, 26. 21. 2, 28. 19. 17, 43. 9 etc. Read vicem here. 25. 9. qualis . . . solet: 'like the cry raised by supporters as a result of an unexpected event5, faventium as in Virgil, Aeneid 5. 148; cf. Horace, Odes 3. 24. 46. R. C, Flickinger (Class. Journ. 16 (1921), 369) points out that the force of ex insperato is not that their support was un­ expected but that it had found vocal expression as a result of the un­ looked-for turn of events. 25. 10. nee: TT\ inserted the relative qui but nee procul for non> haud procul is not attested and cannot be supported by formations such as necopinans. The insertion of relatives is a common corruption (cf. 1. 48. 7) and a single nee frequently introduces a parenthesis (cf. 5- 44- 3)25. 11. aequato: 2. 40. 14 n. 25. 12. manibus: 4. 19. 3. For the concept of Roman suzerainty cf. 45. 3. iugulo: defigo with the plain abl. is only found in poetry, e.g. Ovid, Fasti 3. 754; Silius 4. 454. 25. 13. quo prope: for quo propius (Gruter) cf. Tacitus, Annals 1. 57, 1.68,3.5. dicionis: 38. 1 n. 25. 14. sepulcra: the site of these monuments cannot be established. Martial 3. 47. 3 tells of Horaliorum qua viret sacer campus and would seem to locate it near the Porta Gapena (cf. the sepulcrum Horatiae 26. 14; cf. 26. 2: there may have been a family burial-ground of the Horatii in the vicinity). 814492

**3

1

I. 26

TULLUS HOSTILIUS 26. Perduellio

The hero victorious over men but brought low by a woman is a perennial theme of myth. The specifically Roman variation on the story is its use as a vehicle for illustrating an archaic legal procedure— the trial for perduellio. We do not know how old the connexion of Horatius and perduellio is nor can we safely erect ambitious frameworks of legal systems on so uncertain a precedent from regal times, but it is possible to give a brief summary, perduellio was high treason, a crime committed by a Roman when in any way he acted in a manner hostile to his country. The sources give no precise definition of per­ duellio any more than they do of the attendant crime of maiestas. It was left to the court to determine whether the accusation was properly laid or not. Such imprecision is usual in all cases of this kind. The officer can be dismissed for 'conduct unbefitting a gentleman', perduellio was, therefore, from the start the concern of the state. Whereas in other matters the prosecution and punishment were in the hands of the agnati (2. 35. 5 n.), trials for perduellio were set in motion and managed by the state. The iiviri perduellionis thus differed in a funda­ mental respect from the quaestores parricidii. The quaestores resembled an arbitration tribunal whose duty was simply to pronounce on culpability. The iiviri were state-prosecutors appointed by and in the name of the king (or, for the institution is more probably Republican, the people), who conducted the case and gave sentence. It is to be presumed therefore that since the powers of the iiviri emanated from the populus, the final decision always, at least in theory, rested with the people. In other words provocation or the right to have one's own case heard and decided by the people, was an integral part of the procedure for perduellio but not for quaestorial offences. Perduellio is old. As a system it was obsolete by the first century. When it was revived for the trial of C. Rabirius in 63, many of the details of procedure and terminology were already obscure to Cicero and his colleagues. In that respect Cicero's speech pro C. Rabirio is the best commentary on this chapter. The lex horrendi carminis> un­ impeachable as it is in point of drafting, is not in language an archaic document (see also 26. 6 n.). It is a second-century 'restoration'. But was Horatius properly charged with perduellio at all ? Jolowicz and others have taken exception to the whole passage because they argue that Horatius' crime was parricidium, not perduellio: he killed his sister. Other scholars, like Pagliaro, proceed from the same premise to identify the iiviri and quaestores. All this is to overlook the fact that Horatia was herself a criminal. She was guilty of proditio, she had mourned for an enemy (26. 4 n.). It follows that she was accusanda and damnanda, so that when Horatius killed her he was guilty not so 114

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

i. 26

much of parricidium as of forestalling the due processes of the law by executing a criminal who had not yet been sentenced to death. His offence was not parricidium but caedes civis indemnati which was a matter that concerned the state as a whole and so came into the category of perduellio. It was not a straightforward instance nor does L. help to clarify the issues, but its very complexity was perhaps the reason why it was m a d e the paradigm case of perduellio. While extracting the full legal and antiquarian flavour from the episode L. tells it dramatically. T h e stages of the procedure became the stages of the story and the characterization is vividly maintained. Horatius' coarse rejoinder to his sister (26. 4 n.) is balanced by his father's pathetic appeal on his behalf (26. 9 n.). T h e literature on perduellio is extensive and the case is discussed in most legal handbooks: for reference see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 616 ff; W. Oldfather, T.A.P.A. 39 (1908), 49 ff; Jolowicz, His­ torical Introduction, 49, 323 ff.; C. Brecht, Perduellio, especially 125 ff; D. Daube, J.R.S. 31 (1941), 182-4; M . Kaser, Altrom. Ius, 54 ff; U. von Liibtow, Das Rbmische Volk, 262-3; J . Bleicken, £eit. Sav.-Stift. 76 (1959), 324 ff.; A. Pagliaro, Studi L. Castiglioni, 2. 714 ff. 26. 4 . abi hinc cum: 6. 40. 12. Elsewhere only in Terence, Andria 317. sic hostem recalls 7. 2 sic deinde quicumque alius transiliet moenia mea and is common as an expression of defiance in early Latin (cf. Plautus, Asin. 841). It is perhaps influenced by the Homeric a*£ airoXoiro. Beneath the archaically colloquial language is the vestige of a very ancient law which forbade the mourning of an enemy (Ulpian, Dig. 3. 2. n . 3 non solent lugeri . . . hostes vel perduellionis damnati; M a r c , Dig. 11. 7. 3 5 ; Suetonius, Tiberius 6 1 : see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 1189 n. 3). 26. 6. lex horrendi carminis: in early Latin a carmen was a pattern of words generally formulaic but not necessarily in metre given a special solemnity by its delivery or its character (Norden, Kunstprosa, 160). T h e form of the law preserves an interesting feature. The first clause is couched in the subjunctive (iudicent), the other clauses in the im­ perative (certato, obnubito, suspendito, verberato). The distinction is be­ tween the language of a decree (by Senate, magistrates, or others) and the language of a statute. T h e iiviri are appointed by decree but their instructions are the subject of statute (see Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation, 4 0 - 4 1 ; cf, e.g., 38. 9. 10). The clause si... certato is regarded by Pagliaro as a later addition on inadequate grounds (see above). For the archaic ceremony caput obnubito see 4. 12. 11 n. arbores infelices are trees quae neque seruntur unquam neque fructum ferunt (Pliny, N.H. 16. 108) and were regarded as being in tutela inferum deorum (Macrobius 3. 20. 3 ; Livy 36. 37. 1). They were appropriate instruments for the death of malefactors but since no execution had been performed for 115

i. 26. 6

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

centuries the exact method was in doubt in the first century (cf. Cicero,pro C. Rabirio 13; D.H. 3. 22). It has been supposed that death was by hanging (Niebuhr, Rom. Geschichte, 1. 365) or by crucifixion (Turnebus, Advers. 4. 3 ; Mommsen, Strqfrecht, 918) but the former was unknown at R o m e as a means of judicial execution and the latter was reserved for slaves and is not older than 217 (22. 33. 2). Only death by scourging remains, the penalty also prescribed by the Twelve Tables (8. 9 suspensum Cereri necari). T h e provision vel intra pomerium vel extra pomerium corresponds to the distinction between imperium domi and imperium militiae. The iiviri are empowered to hold the execution wherever is convenient. 26. 7. hoc lege-, to be taken with creati (Daube), not condemnassent (Brecht). In the succeeding relative clause non belongs with posse (cf. 4. 3. 16, 5. 53. 5 : see Wackernagel, Vorlesungen, 2. 262) and the negative is reinforced by ne . . . quidem. 'Such were the terms of their appointment and they felt that under these terms they were not em­ powered to acquit even an innocent man.' T h e iiviri were instructed simply perduellionem iudicare. There was no stated provision for ac­ quittal. T h e defendant had recourse to provocatio instead. Publi Horati: in Zonaras 7. 6 TIovTrXiopaTioi. Other traditions gave him the praenomen M . (Cicero, de Inv. 2. 78-79; D.H. 3. 27, 1, 30. 4). T h e earliest legend presumably spoke of a Horatius unadorned. 26. 8. provocatione: the sense requires that the people had to decide not about the principle of provocatio (certare dep.; 4. 37. 5) but about the guilt or innocence of the Horatius who had appealed to them, i.e. provocatione certatum est 'it was argued on appeal', itaque is a neater correction of the manuscripts than either ita (Frigell) or ita demum (Proudeville, Lipsius). Horatia was iure caesa because she was guilty ofproditio. orabat: the father's appeal, begun in or. obi. and breaking out into direct speech, is choicely pathetic, egregia stirpe occurs elsewhere only in Virgil, Aeneid 5. 297 and may be Ennian. 26. 10 inter verbera et cruciatus is a rhetorical commonplace (cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5. 24; Seneca, Contr. 2. 7. 4). 2 6 . 1 0 . pila Horatia: the name is interpreted variously as 'the Horatian spears' (plur. ofpilum: 26. 11; Propertius 3. 3. 7) or 'the Horatian column' (sing, of pila: D.H. 3. 22. 9 ; 27 Bob. Cicero, pro Milone, p . 277). T h e name was given in Augustan times 'to the corner column of one of the two basilicas at the entrance of the forum on which the spoils of the Curiatii had once been hung' (Plainer-Ashby s.v.) but the former interpretation is likely to be the older. A trophy of spears or some similar object may have long hung in the Forum but disappeared after the building operations of the mid-second century, leaving only a name. 116

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

i. 26. 13

26. 13. tigillo: the tigillum sororium was a wooden crossbar supported by two vertical posts beneath which Horatius had to pass. It stood ad Compitum Acili (C.I.L. i 2 . 214), that is, near the south-east end of the modern Via dei Fori Imperiali close to the Colosseum. Nearby were the twin altars ofJ a n u s Curiatius and J u n o Sororia (see PlatnerAshby s.w.). At first sight the names seem to confirm the traditional story but in reality two false etymologies have conspired to mislead, for the tigillum is in any case nowhere near the route of the Horatii and Guriatii. T h e epithet sororius has nothing to do with soror but is connected with the verb sororiare (Festus 380 L. sororiare mammae dicuntur puellarum cum primum tumescunt). Juno Sororia was invoked as the goddess who presided over the passage of girls to puberty. Now Janus and J u n o (Govella) are also coupled in invocations at the beginning of each month (Macrobius 1.9. 16, 1. 15. 18), where their functions as deities of passage speak for themselves. It follows that the cult of J a n u s Curiatius is a male cult parallel to that ofJ u n o Sororia. It con­ sisted presumably in the initiation of boys from all the curiae (hence Curiatius: cf. Aul. Gell. 15. 27. 2) as warriors. Between them the two cults represented the most important moments in the life of a primitive community. T h e ceremony at the tigillum sororium (Festus 380 L.) was performed on 1 October, when other rites such as the Armilustrium connected with the end of the campaigning season were per­ formed. Its shape, analogous to the arcus triumphalis and the iugum, betrays its purpose. Those who passed through it were purified from harmful forces whether of blood-guilt or of effective hostility (iugum). Thus the young boys were initiated at the altar ofJ a n u s Curiatius and passed out to battle. O n their return the pollutions of blood and battlefever had to be cleansed by passing under the tigillum before they could take their place in the peaceful community. These primitive rites, long obsolescent, were subjected to reinterpretation and by the accident of the title Curiatius brought into connexion with the legend of Horatius. See Warde-Fowler, Roman Essays, 70 ff.; M . Cary and A. D. Nock, C.Q. 21 (1927), 122-7; H . J . Rose, Mnemosyne 53 (1925), 407 ff.; Haw. Theol. Rev. 44 (1951), 1696°.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 133; R. Schilling, Mel. dWrch. et d'Hist. 72 (i960), 102-13; Gage, Hommages W. Deonna 255; Renard, Rev. Belg. Phil. 31 (1953), 14 ff.; L. A. Holland, Janus, 78 ff. iugum: 3. 28. n . n. 26. 14. Horatiae: nothing else is known of the monument. 27-29. Mettius Fufetius and the Fall of Alba L. relates the history in three distinct episodes, the battle (27), the punishment of Fufetius (28), and the Fall of Alba (29), and each episode has its own distinctive character. T h e battle, which is 117

I. 27-29

TULLUS H O S T I L I U S

historically baseless and is founded on two well-known military strata­ gems (27.8nn.), is told in L.'s best battle-style. T h e preliminary setback, caused not by Roman shortcomings but allied treachery, is reversed in a 7T€pi7T€T€ia (27. 9). It affords the opportunity for the introduction of an old R o m a n institution, the Salii (27. 7). T h e scene between Tullus and Fufetius ending in the latter's death is based on a very old legend (28. 10 n.) and is presented morally as the exception which proves the rule of Roman clemency (28. 11 in aliis gloriari licet nulli gentium mitiores placuisse poenas) and artistically as an indictment evoca­ tive of former times and behaviour (28. 4 n.) T h e final scene, the Albae nepcris, is narrated in language recalling the great epic set-pieces on which it is modelled. All this is peculiar to L. D.H.'s treatment is Hellenistic (cf. 3. 29. 1 olfjuoyal). H e dilates on the detailed punish­ ment of Fufetius—a trivial and unseemly occurrence—but misses the psychological and literary potentialities inherent in the fall of Alba which is summarily disposed of in a few sentences (3. 31. 1-2). 27. 1. invidia . . . coepit: the new section is opened with a generaliza­ tion; cf. 2. 2. 2 n. 27. 2. ex edicto: 'to declare war' is indicere not edicere bellum but ex indicto which Duker and Bauer would read here is never found (cf. 33. 28. 4), whereas ex edicto is used in a quite general sense 'by pro­ clamation' (Hey, Thes. Ling. Lat., 'edico', 72. 79 ff.). 27. 3 . Fidenates: 14. 4 n. 27. 4. conftuentes'. 4. 17. 12. T h e general dispositions recall these of the later battle and may be a throw-back therefrom. Notice especially the jettisoning of arms and men into the Tiber. 27. 5. hi et in acie: the force of et is that the Veientes lacked the confidence to commit themselves irretrievably to the contest* They kept their position on the river bank where lay their escape-route both before and after the line of battle was formed. It should not be deleted (Weissenborn, Madvig). 27. 7. Salios: 20. 4 n. Shrines of Pallor and Pavor are nowhere else directly attested and in the corresponding section of D.H. (3. 32. 4) Tullus VOWS Kpovov

T€ /cat 'Pea? KaraaTrjaecrOai SrjfjLOTeXeis ioprds.

Pallor and Pavor are the Homeric Jef^o? and
TULLUS

HOSTILIUS

1,27.8

it is hard to see how it could be effective. L. must have misinterpreted some military technicality in his source. idem: the reading of N idem imperat ut hastas equites erigere (om. TT) erigerent (om. A) iubeat is perplexed by no more than the Nicomachean erinerefit variant . . Tullus tells the cavalry officer (equitem) to take back 7 erigere \ 1 / instructions that the cavalry are to raise their spears, imperat for the generalissimo, iubeat for the subordinate commander, idem is suspect, since idem is not elsewhere used to resume after indirect speech 'and he also ordered'. 27. 9. ut quibus: for the legend of the early colonization of Fidenae by Romulus see 14. 4 n. N read ut qui coloni additi Romanis essent which would imply that the Fidenates were associated with Rome in the status of a colony (cf. 38. 34. 6), whereas the sense might be expected to be that a body of R o m a n colonists was sent to Fidenae to supple­ ment the native population, i.e. ut quibus coloni additi Romani essent (Tan. Faber, Walters). T h e former is to be preferred notwithstanding, for there is no suggestion in the sources that Romulus actually sent colonists to Fidenae. T h e fiction which was invented to justify Rome's subsequent aggression against the city and to provide a prehistoric precedent was rather that the Fidenates enjoyed the privileges and responsi­ bilities of a Latin colony. See Bayet, Rev. Phil 12 (1938), 97-119. 27. \\. fuga: pugna Cornelissen but cf. 25. 21. 4, 37. 43. 10, 38. 27. 2.

28. 1. sacrificium lustrale: the lustratio exercitus performed before, or after, a battle or a campaign by the procession and sacrifice of a suovetaurilia. For details and discussion of the ceremony see J.R.S. 51 (1961), 32 ff. T h e religious atmosphere, in which Fufetius' death is made to seem almost an act ofpietas, is heightened by the use of sacral expressions: for ut adsolet see 5. 16. 9-11 n . ; for the steoreotyped quod bene vertat cf. 3. 62. 5. 28. 4. infit: 23. 7 n. Tullus begins by addressing the Romans with an echo of the formal language in which a general reported his victory— deorum benignitate, virtute militum (5. 20. 3 n.). The same formal tone is maintained in the denunciation which follows. As has been noticed by Murley (Class. Journal 30 (1935), 428) iniussu meo . . . meum is very close to Terence, Phormio 231-3, but the resemblance arises not, as Morley opined, from quotation of Terence by L.—the passage is quoted by Cicero (ad Att. 2. 19. 1)—but because both authors are imitating the edict-style. T h e first section of the speech reaches its climax in the threefold anaphora Mettius ductor, Mettius machinatory Mettius ruptor. When Tullus resumes, he addresses the Albans and so commences with an official prayer (quod bonum . . . sit: see 17. i o n . ) as "9

i. 28. 4

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

a blessing on his proposed merger of the two states. He stresses the unity of the peoples by the repeated unam . . . unam . . . ex uno . . . . . . in unum. Finally after a typically Livian silence (28. 8; cf 3.47.6 n.) he pronounces sentence on Fufetius in terms which may well owe something to Ennius. Ennius certainly treated of Fufetius, and the pointed resemblance between L. and Virgil, Aeneid 8. 642-4, has been taken by many scholars to hint at a common source. Throughout, the alliteration seconds the heavy reduplication (e.g. unquam ante alias ullo where Gobel unfeelingly wished to delete ante; at tu tuo . . . a te). The total effect is one of great power. 28. 6. inde: 'mendosum' Madvig, but it probably means 'from the positions we were occupying at the time'. 28. 10. in diversum: the manner of Fufetius' death is unparalleled in R o m a n criminal history (Mommsen, Strafrecht, 960 n. 1), not so much for its brutality as for its singularity. Yet it long survived as a form of execution among the German races; cf. the death of the Nightingale {The Owl and the Nightingale, 1062; Neckam, 20 de Natura Rerum 1, ch. 51). A similar punishment was inflicted by Theodoric. It could be inferred from this that the legend is older than the settled constitution of the Roman people and survived their migrations. Its specifically un-Roman character led Robortello to emend humanarum to Romanarum but this comment on the incident seems conventional for Varro (ap. Non. 443 L.) writes Mettum Fufetium . . . interemit . . . imperiosius quam humanius. The Fall of Alba T h e destruction of cities and the fate of their inhabitants were a favourite theme for poets (2. 33. 8 n.). Ultimately they derived their inspiration from the Epic Cycle, from the Ilioupersis, but their vision was wider and more personal than the objective descriptions of for­ mulaic poetry. Rome, too, delighted in those fleeting visions of triumph and ruin. There is nothing finer than the excidium Troiae in the second book of the Aeneid, much of which Virgil owed to Ennius (Servius, ad Aen. 2. 486 de Albano excidio translatus est locus). Ennius, that is to say, had told of the fall of Alba and there is so much akin between Virgil's excidium Troiae and L.'s excidium Albae that one is tempted to believe that L. had recourse to Ennius for much of the language and circumstance with which he invests Alba's last hours. This need not occasion surprise. Pathetic descriptions of this kind were as much in vogue with Hellenistic historians as they were with poets. Polybius expressly censured Phylarchus for indulging in such extravagances (2. 56. 7). But this is not to say that L. used Ennius as a source for history (29. 6 n.). Despite the obvious exaggerations, the city with its distant suburbs and augusta templa reminiscent of a Hellenistic city, the 120

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

1.29

total effect is psychologically convincing. T h e whole scene is described in two long and involved sentences which convey its complexity. See A. Gaheis, Wien. Stud. 48 (1930), 206; Aly, Livius u. Ennius, 3 6 ; Austin, J.R.S. 49 (1959), 2 4 ; Walsh, Livy, 171, 257. For archaeological evidence confirming the decline of Alba at this time see Lugli, Bull. Com. Arch. 45 (1917), 39 ff). 29. 2. clamor hostilis et cursus: 41. 1 n. miscet: 42. 13. 9 ; Sallust, Catil. 2. 3. 29. 3 . prae metu [obliti] : obliti is deleted as redundant by Madvig who took the indirect questions quid . . . ferrent with deficiente consilio rogitantesque, and argued that it was not that the Albans forgot what they should take but they did not know, obliti, however, means that their wits deserted them in the crisis. It should be retained, cf. 4. 40. 3 oblitaeprae gaudio decoris. For prae metu cf. 5. 13. 13, 22. 3. 13, 38. 33. 3 ; Plautus, Amph. 1066; Cas. 4 1 3 ; Cicero, Phil. 13. 20. pervagarentur: cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2. 488-9. 29. 4. fragor: 5. 42. 4. pulvis: cf. Aeneid 3. 3 ; Euripides, Hec. 1215; Aeschylus, Agam. 818. larem: the Lar was the deified ancestor of the family worshipped at the hearth (Paulus Festus 108 L.). See also 2. 6 n. 29. 5. mulierum: I would punctuate mulierum, praecipue cum . . . . The lamentation was continuous. It did not begin only when they passed a temple, but it reached a climax then. T h e punctuation would also satisfy the normal position of praecipue. 29. 6. egressis: 3. 57. 10 n. quadringentorum: so also Justin 43. 1. 13 and the same total is implied by Virgil {Aeneid 1. 272) who allows three hundred years for the duration of Alba before Rome was founded. Alba was traditionally captured by Tullus, that is some hundred years after the foundation of Rome, c. 650, although archaeological evidence indicates no radical break in the habitation of the site. D.H., on the other hand, gives 432 years for the period before the foundation of Rome (1. 74. 2, following Cato) i.e. 532 years for the duration of Alba. His figure seems to have been arrived at by accepting Eratosthenes' date for the sack of Troy (1184/3 B - G 0 a n d the conventional duration of the king­ ship (243 or 244 years) which would leave a period of 432 years be­ tween the arrival of the Trojans in Italy and the foundation of Rome. The discrepancy between the 300 of L. and Virgil and the 432 of Cato and D.H. is to be accounted for by the belief that the former figure was arrived at by mystical approximation rather than mathematical calculations. One is the historians', the other the poets' figure. As soon as it was realized that since Troy fell long before 750 Romulus could not have been the grandson of Aeneas (3. 4 n.), an Alban king121

i. 29. 6

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

list of indeterminate length had to be invented to fill the gap and the figure of 300 years with its mystical properties was an adequate span. Later research, based on Hellenistic chronology, introduced more exact dating. Thus it is very probable that L. has taken over the figure of 400, which disagrees with his own chronology, as given in the course of the book, from a much older version, for it is a piece of rhetorical colouring rather than chronological reckoning. If so, it will be from Ennius a n d will confirm the view that L. is here in­ debted to that poet's Albae excidium. excidio . . . dedit: cf. Aeneid 12. 655 deiecturum arces Italum excidioque daturum. temperatum: for the superstition against violating temples see Fraenkel, Aeschylus, Agamemnon 525 flf.; cf. Euripides, Troades 15 ff. 30-31. The Death of Tullus Hostilius The capture of Alba was the high-water mark of Tullus' reign. T h e remaining events associated with him are grouped loosely together. 30. 1. Caelius: excavations have not proved yet whether the Caelian was inhabited from the eighth century but it is a probable assumption. At some time after 650, and probably between 625-575, the surround­ ing valleys were abandoned as burial-grounds and the settlement crept down the slopes of the Caelian until eventually a synoecism with other communities on the Esquiline and Palatine was effected. The literary tradition was far from unanimous, ascribing the addition of the Caelian to the city to Romulus (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 46), Ancus Marcius (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 33), Tarquinius Priscus (Tacitus, Annals 4. 65), or Servius Tullius (Oratio Claudii) as well as Tullus. Thus all that can be said is that the memory that the Caelian was once separate and was integrated with the other communities at a n historical date sur­ vived as part of the Roman national memory. Each king was associated with different territorial acquisitions (cf. 33.5-6). See Platner-Ashby s.v. regiae: the kings were allotted residences by tradition in different quarters of the city, N u m a on the Quirinal (Solinus 1. 21), Ancus on the Palatine (Varro ap. Non. 852 L.), Tarquinius Priscus ad Statoris (41. 4 n.), Servius on the Esquiline (Solinus 1. 25). The seven kings might have been expected to occupy the seven hills but this is not so, and the principles of allocation are unclear. ibique: \JL adds deinde rightly. 30. 2. principes Albanorum: D.H. 3. 29. 7 gives them as 'IovXlovsyZepOVLXLOVS, Koparlovs,

KOLVTLXLOVS, KXOIXLOVS, reyavlovs,

MCTLXLOVS. The

addition of the Metilii was a n idle compliment to his friend Metilius Rufus (de comp. verb. 3) justified by the name of the Alban dictator Mettius (Fufetius). D.H. condones the emendation Iulios for Tullios (Sabellicus; see Fabia, La Table Claudienne, 1929, 83 n. 3 ; for the Tullii 122

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

i . 30. 2

see 22.1 n.) and suggests Quinct(il)ios for Quinctiosy but the list as a whole is curious. All the families were genuinely Latin in name and patrician (for the Cloelii see Bk. 20, fr. 12) but clear evidence could be brought about each to show that it was not one of the original, autochthonous gentes. None supplied the name of a tribe. The Guriatii were known to legend as Albans (24. 1 n.), and the fossa Cluilia demanded an Alban origin for the Cloelii (23. 3 n.). The Julii had their gentile cult, de­ rived from Alba, not in Rome but at Bovillae (C.I.L. 14. 2387; see Dobo§i, Ephem. Dacoromana 6 (1935), 240 ff.) and the ties which the Servilii had with Fidenae and the honour which they paid to a triens (Pliny, JV.H. 34. 137) are evidence of late arrival. A variety of stories connected a Geganius, the earliest attested member of the Geganii, with Servius Tullius (Valerius Antias fr. 12 P.) or Tarquinius Superbus (Plutarch, Comp. Lye. et Numae 3. n ) which shows an awareness of their foreign origin. At some date the patrician status of these families had to be reconciled with their late arrival and the compilation of the list of Alban families was a step to that end. T h e Fasti also connected the families. I n 453 a Curiatius and a Quinctilius were consuls (3. 32. 1 n.) and in 447 a Geganius and a Julius. If we ask when the definitive list of Alban families was composed, the early second cen­ tury is the obvious date. The eclipse of the Geganii is still recent, the last patrician Cloelius was rex sacrorum in 180, a new strain of Quinctilii comes into the fore in the person of P. Q . Varus, praetor in 203. T h e date coincides with activities of Gato whose Origines would naturally have dealt with the social history of Alba as it did of the Euganei (fr. 41 P.) and is suited by the apparent disregard of the legend of Proculus Julius (16. 5 n.). Yet L. cannot, any more than D.H., have taken it directly from Gato, for it is inconceivable that on whatever principles the list was composed the Julii, obscure and un­ distinguished, should have been put before the Servilii who boasted of consuls in 203 and 202. T h e precedence of the Julii must be an anachronism of the first century. It need not post-date the dictator: it must be later than the consuls of 91 and 90. See Miinzer, Rom. Adelsparteien, 133 n. 1. templum: for meeting-places of the Senate see 4. 21. 9. n. The Curia Hostilia, universally attributed to Tullus (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 31 ; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 155) because of its name, is in reality likely to have been constructed in the sixth or fifth century on the initiative of a member or members of the gens Hostilia. It was restored and en­ larged in 80 B.C. by Sulla (Pliny, N.H. 34. 26), burnt in 52 B.C., and rebuilt by Faustus Sulla (Cicero, pro Milone 90). In 44 B.C. it was pulled down to make way for a larger Senate-house on a new site (Dio 44. 5), the Curia Julia. The comment ad patrum nostrorum aetatem is, then, L.'s own. 123

^o- 5

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

War against the Sabines 30. 5. ad Feroniae fanum: Schulze regarded Feronia as an Etruscan name (165). This is not necessarily so and the other places where cult is attested (Pisaurum, Amiternum, Terracina) tend to confirm the ancient tradition that she was a Sabine goddess (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 74). The cult-centre mentioned here and known also as the lucus Capenatis (Cato fr. 30 P . ; Aeneid 7. 697) was the largest and most celebrated. It has recently been identified as Bambocci, near Scorano, where dedications of the type Fero(niae) don(o)m mereto have been found. It was a natural meeting-place for the inhabitants of the region of Capena and for traders from farther afield. See the evidence as­ sembled by G. D . B . J o n e s , P.B.S.R. 30 (1962), i89ff. suos: Madvig would add servos before suos, to provide the balanced contrast negotiatores Romanos . . . servos suos; cf. D.H. 3. 32. lucum: 8. 5 n. 30. 7. cum Romulo: the 1 oo-year indutiae mentioned in 15. 5. Editors have objected that the peace was broken by the Veientes in 27. 3 and have wished to read cum Tullo (Perizonius) or cum Romano (Duker) but either L. has now switched to a new source which did not recognize an earlier war between Tullus and Veii or, as Glareanus held, L. has simply overlooked the inconsistency. L. means that it is not sur­ prising that the other Etruscans did not assist the Sabines because they had no quarrel with Rome. Veii, the only city which was hostile, was deterred by her treaty. 30. 9. Malitiosam: the site is unknown. The Death of Tullus T h e events leading up to the death of Tullus are archival in charac­ ter. T h e portents of stone rain (7. 28. 7, 30. 38. 9) and the speaking grove figure commonly in prodigy lists (3. 5. 14 n.; 2. 6-7. 4 n.) and pestilences were also recorded (3. 2. 1 n.). The notices of the Feriae Latinae (31. 3 n.), the novemdiale sacrum (31. 4 n.), and the rites of Juppiter Elicius ( 3 1 . 8 n.) are equally pontifical. The chapter in fact contains an elaboration of what must have been the typical contents of one part of the Annales. This may be no more than antiquarian reconstruction, but there were certainly some fragments of the Annales attributed to the regal period (frr. 2, 3 P.) and it may be that some of the oldest surviving tabulae which had lost their eponymous headings were assigned to the kings. See also 31. 8 n. 3 1 . 2. grandinem . . . glomeratam . . . crebri cecidere caelo: the alliteration is in keeping with the carmen character of the notice. 3 1 . 3 . sacra: the story provides the explanation and justification of 124

TULLUS HOSTILIUS

1.31- 3

the Feriae Latinae. This festival, for which see also 5. 17. 2 n., was celebrated with a sacrifice to Juppiter on the Alban mount by a group of Latin communities and during it an armistice prevailed in Latium. It is doubtful whether R o m e was even a founder-member of it or whether Alba enjoyed any special responsibility, but with the decline and extinction of the Latin states, who had in some cases to be arti­ ficially represented at the sacrifice by Romans designated as sacerdotes Cabenses, Rome gradually assumed a monopoly of it. T h e festival was usually attended by the consuls and magistrates (25. 12. 2, 44. 2 1 . 3 ; Dio 47. 40. 6) and was held annually on a date appointed by the consuls directly after their entry into office (Cicero, ad Fam. 8. 6. 3). See Samter, R.E., Teriae Latinae'. 3 1 . 4. novemdiale sacrum: a rite of purification analogous in public cult to the private ritual performed nine days after a funeral (Porph. ad Horace, Epod. 17. 48). haruspicum: 56. 5 n. The variant is anachronistic, for the haruspices were an Etruscan importation. 3 1 . 8. commentarios: 20. 5 n. sacrificia: Duker proposed its deletion as a gloss on sollemnia but cf. 5- 52- 2. Iovi Elicio: 20. 7 n. operatum: 4. 60. 2, 21. 62. 6, 10. 39. 2, the t.t. for conducting a sacrifice; cf. Horace, Odes 3. 14. 6; Virgil, Aeneid 3. 136; Lucilius fr. 992 M . Bentley proposed operaturum but the perfect participle of deponents is often used with a present force (cf. Virgil, Georgics 1. 339). It is stated by Pliny {JSf.H. 28. 14) that the historian Piso was the first to relate the circumstances of Tullus 5 death as told by L.; and since Piso was the first to make extensive use of the Annales, it is reasonable to believe that he had some documentary evidence for it, although such evidence need not and indeed is unlikely to have been authentic. This fact tends to confirm the impression that some archival or pseudo-archival material underlies the chapter, but the manner of his death, contrasting so signally with Romulus', who was apotheosized, and Nutrias', who died a natural death, is schematic. 32-34. The Reign of Ancus Marcius The praenomen is Sabine (de Praen. 4), the name Latin and plebeian, but did a king called Ancus Marcius ever reign at R o m e ? Later Marcii certainly believed that he did, for the moneyer C. Marcius Censorinus issued coins c. 86 B.C. with the heads of N u m a and Ancus (Sydenham nos. 713, 715; cf. Suetonius, Julius 6; Plutarch, Numa 21. 1) and the Marcii Reges regarded their cognomen as proof. Their testimony, however, amounts to nothing. T h e cognomen Rex was adopted 125

i- 32-34

ANGUS MARCUS

by the descendants of M . Marcius, the first plebeian rex sacrorum (27. 6. 16). T h e plausibility of the tradition depends ultimately not on the events with which L. credits Ancus but on the bare name. T h e Marcii do not figure in the Fasti before C. Marcius Rutilus, consul in 357, by which date the lineaments of early Roman history were already established. It is inconceivable that a king, let alone one with a plebeian name, could have been interpolated into the list as late as the second half of the fourth century when the Marcii were a power in the land. If the eclipse of the gens in the early Republic requires ex­ planation, it is perhaps to be found in the legend of Cn. Marcius Goriolanus (2. 33. 5 n.) whose family seems to have been resident at Corioli. T h e Marcii may have been victims of the Etruscan domina­ tion of Rome and have sought refuge at Corioli. O f the events associated with Ancus Marcius only two have any substance, the foundation of Ostia (33. 9 n.) and the construction of the Pons Sublicius (33. 6 n.). Of the other details given by L., the capture of Politorium, Tellenae, Ficana, and Medullia (33. 1 n., 33. 2 n., 33. 4 n.) was demanded by the geography of the foundation of Ostia and is an antiquarian rationa­ lization ; the addition of the Aventine and the settlement ad Murciae (33. 5 n.) with the accompanyingybj\ra Quiritium is etymological specu­ lation. T h e incorporation of the Janiculum followed the building of the Pons Sublicius. In other words historians seized upon the founda­ tion of Ostia as a peg on which to hang a miscellaneous collection of random facts. This meagre record was supplemented by fathering the fetial for­ mula for declaring war on Ancus. This was an innovation in the tradition no older than 120 B.C. (32. 5 n.), when the kings had acquired settled characteristics and Ancus, through a false etymology which identified Marcius and Martius, was characterized as a warrior. T h e other major episode, the early history of the Tarquins (34), belongs properly to the reign of Tarquinius Priscus, where it is told by D.H., not to that of Ancus, but the need to provide material for Ancus as well as the model of epic technique which told events in their proper sequence (Heinze, Virgils Epische Technik, 382 fF.) led L. to build it into the narrative of the reign. We cannot be sure how far L.'s source, who was probably Licinius Macer, had succeeded in unifying these scattered pieces. Where D.H. makes a mechanical distribution of TroXeyaKai and 7roAtrt/cat Trpd^ets L. sees each event as the reflection of the personality of the king, a man of war concerned for the well-being of his people. 32. 1. comitia . . . auctores: 17. 9 n. Numae: the descent from N u m a through the female line is a late invention to satisfy the principles of hereditary succession. Cf. Cicero, de Rep. 2. 3 3 ; Plutarch, Numa 2 1 ; Seneca, Epist. 108. 30. 126

ANCUS MARCUS

i. 32. 2

32. 2. longe: longeque (N), retained by Wimmer, is an instance of the common interpolation of -que (2. 32. 10 n.). commentariis \ 20. 5 n. M read regzj, not regiis with 7rA, and since N u m a is specifically meant the singular is appropriate. elata: cf. Cicero, de Orat. 2. 52; also Pliny, N.H. 2. 5 3 ; Tacitus, Annals 12. 21. It differs from referre in having the force of publication. 32. 3 . desidem: the jibe is inspired by Atossa's remarks to Darius (Herodotus 3. 134. 2). 32. 4 . sine iniuria: the placing of id, which should open its colon, and the use of the neutral verb contigisset, which cries out for qualification, favour taking sine iniuria with contigisset (Madvig) rather than habiturum (Seeley). 'He realized that he would not easily have that peace which had been a feature but not a weakness ofNuma's reign.' The Fetial Formula The fetial procedure for declaring war, which like many other legal and quasi-legal institutions survived long after it was obsolete, was a ritual procedure common to all the primitive communities of Latium. T h e original procedure had contained three stages. When some in­ cident had occurred such as the theft of cattle or property, first the pater patratus was sent with three other delegates called fetiales or oratores (Varro ap. Nonius, p . 850 L.) to demand restitution [ad res repetundas) and to give notice that if satisfaction was not given within 30 days action would be taken. This was the denuntiatio, or rerum re­ petition If satisfaction was not obtained thefetiales returned to the enemy after the 30 days to deliver a solemn testatio deorum, calling the gods to witness that wrong had been done them, and that their cause was legitimate. T h e Senate then met and decided on war, and their decision was confirmed by the people. On the 33rd day (32. 9 n.) a messenger was sent to cast a magical spear into the enemy's land in order to nullify his power. This third stage was the indictio belli. T h e whole ritual is designed to establish before the gods that the war is 'just'. T h e antiquity of the procedure can be seen from its resemblance to the civil procedure legis actio per condictionem, whereby a plaintiff gave 30 days' notice before going to a magistrate ad iudicem capiendum. T h e two procedures are strictly parallel and they have common roots far back in Roman legal history. But as soon as Rome extended her sphere of activity outside the narrow circle of kindred Latin communities, the ceremony became increasingly difficult to apply. It often took longer than 30 days for messengers to come and go between Rome and the enemy, and it was often difficult to find a place to throw the spear. Accordingly two main innovations occurred. In the 270's a token piece of land near the temple of Bellona was bought by a prisoner of war captured from Pyrrhus and was marked off as a 127

»• 32. 5

ANGUS MARCUS

ritual stretch of 'hostile soil' into which the spear was cast ([Servius], ad Aen. 9. 5 2 ; Ovid, Fasti 6. 205 ff.; Suet. Claud. 25). Furthermore, since her new enemies did not share iusfetiale with Rome, the fetiales were replaced by senatorial legati and the whole ceremony secularized. T h e old ceremony had involved three journeys, the denuntiatio, the testatio, and the indictio. This was no longer a practical possibility. In its place the legati were empowered by the Senate and people in advance to carry out all three stages on their own authority without reference back to Rome if the enemy refused to give the required satisfaction. This was the procedure used at the start of the Second Punic War. By the beginning of the second century the old iusfetiale was, there­ fore, obsolete. Polybius (13. 3. 7) says that only a bare trace of the original procedure survived in his day (fipaxy n i^vo?) a n d he makes no mention of the fetiales9 part in declaring war. T h e fetiales suddenly re-emerged in 136. Although it is certain that the Numantine war was not commenced by fetial procedure, when the consul Mancinus was handed over to the Numantines on the repudiation of the peacetreaty which he had contracted, fetiales are recorded as playing a lead­ ing part in the formalities of the ceremony. T h e event, which was little more than a piece of political play-acting, had a profound influence on the writing of history. T h e annalistic account of the aftermath of the Gaudine Forks was composed under the immediate impression of the Mancinus case and Sallust's account of the pre­ liminaries of the Jugurthine W a r betrays the lineaments of the fetial procedure. It may well be that the traditions, which were kept alive in patrician families from which the fetiales were hereditarily chosen or through archaic ceremonies like the annual renewal at Rome of the Lavinian treaty, were now revived and popularized in literature. It is at this period that the significantly named Annius Fetialis was writing antiquarian history. Such a revival would be in keeping with the interest aroused by the publication of pontifical records and similar documents. But if the old formulae of the fourth century did survive they would have been, like the chants of the Salii, utterly incompre­ hensible. Thus there is every a priori ground for supposing that what in Livy purport to be the original formulae are in fact either an invention by second-century antiquarians, anxious to supply the exact details of a ritual in which they are beginning to become interested or, at the very least, a 'translation' into appropriate language of archaic pro­ nouncements. T h e antiquarian rediscovery of the procedure at the end of the second century preserved it among the more scholarly writers of the late Republic (mentioned, e.g., by Cicero, Verr. 5. 4 9 ; and discussed in detail by Varro and by L. Gincius), but such interest was purely 128

ANCUS MARGIUS

1-32-5

theoretical until Octavian gave it a new significance by resuscitating it in 32 B.C. when he declared war against Cleopatra (Dio 50. 4. 4-5). Thereafter it was continued as a piece of antique ceremonial and kept its place among the hallowed traditions of the Empire (Inscr. Ital. 13, no. 66). For Livy's readers this section would have a con­ temporary as well as an historical interest. Ultimately, therefore, the precise forms of the formulae in Livy derive from a second-century antiquarian tradition, as do the fetial procedure for making treaties (24. 4 n.) and the ceremony of deditio (38. 1 n.) but they were mediated through different sources. The treaty procedure was closely woven into the narrative of Tullus Hostilius' reign and was taken over by Livy together with that nar­ rative from Valerius Antias. Here the ritual is entirely on its own. We are presented with the outline, with the bare formula (cf., e.g., quicumque est, nominai), and no attempt is made to relate it to the narrative of Ancus Marcius' reign. The Prisci Latini who are mentioned are chosen purely as an example. There is no reference to an actual war. This indicates a more antiquarian source than Valerius and it is likely that L. here continues to follow Licinius Macer (32. 13 n.). See further: Lange, Romische Altertiimer, i 3 . 322 ff.; Munzer, Beitrdge, 167; G. Wissowa, Religion, 4 7 5 - 9 ; Samter, R.E., Tetiales'; J . Bayet, Mil d'Arch. et a" Hist. 52 (1935), 29 ff.; A. H . McDonald and F. W. Walbank J.R.S. 27 (1937), 192~7 5 F. Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 424; S. I. Oost, A.J.P. 75 (1954), 147-59; H , Drexler, Rh. Mus. 102 (1959), 97-140. O n possible Indo-European parallels for the procedure, G. Dumezil, R.£.L. 34 (1956), 93 fT.; G. Donatuti, > r a 6 (1955), 31-46. 32. 5. G ^ : sc. ab Anco Marcio; cf. 42. 4. N u m a is the founder of re­ ligious practices, Servius Tullius of constitutional institutions, Tullus Hostilius of international relations. So Ancus Marcius is characterized by bellicae caerimoniae. This was a late development facilitated by the great mass of new material released at the end of the second century which could be anchored to specific personalities and attached to definite events. There was originally no firm tradition as to who did found the fetial procedure but it suited the character of Ancus Marcius as Roman historians wanted to portray him. Hence the earliest writers gave discrepant accounts: Cicero (de Rep. 2.31) attributes it to Tullus Hostilius (in which he is following perhaps the earliest versions of Fabius Pictor and Polybius before the rediscovery of the actual ceremonies), while another early historian (? Gn. Gellius.: cf. D.H. 2. 72; Plutarch, Numa 11) referred it to N u m a . Aequicolis: or Aequi; both forms of the name are met, although Aequicoli outlived Aequi after the nation itself had disappeared (Pliny, N.H. 3. 106; Liber Coloniarum, p . 225; cf. mod. il Cicolano). Perhaps 814432

129

K

*-32. 5

ANCUS MARGIUS

a branch of the Oscans, they are unlikely to have been the source of such a widespread Latin rite as the iusfetiale, which other authorities derive from Ardea (D.H. 2. 72) or the Falisci (Servius, adAen. 7. 695). T h e attribution of it to them is no more than a late aetiological in­ vention inspired by the false etymology aequum colere, but it quickly superseded the older traditions (cf. the Ferter Resius inscription; de Viris Illustr. 5. 4 ; Servius, ad Aen. 7. 695). See Hiilsen, R.E., 'Aequi'. quo res repetuntur: demanding the restitution of objects or property stolen by the other city. In early times the chief source of complaint would have been cattle-rustling (Servius, ad Aen. 9. 52). T h e phrase is old and technical, occurring first in Ennius, Ann. 273 V. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 1047 n. 2. 32. 6. legatus: L. appears to indicate that only one person, a legatus, went on the mission. According to Varro (ap. Non. Marcell. 850 l^.)fetiales legatos res repetitum mittebant quattuor, quos oratores vocabant, including the pater patratus and the verbenarius (24. 5 n.). Varro is less anachronistic, since L.'s account is influenced by the subsequent developments dur­ ing the third and second centuries in the procedure for declaring war whereby the ultimatum was delivered not by a fetialis but by a senatorial legatus. See also 32. 9 nn. Jilo—lanae velamen est: on the ritual significance of the covered head cf. 4. 12. 11 n. Thefetiales were likewise forbidden to wear linen tunics. Wool had potent magical properties, partly because it was a token from the sacrificial victim, and partly because it was the clothing of primitive man. Its magical use was widespread in antiquity, lending itself particularly to knots and spells. At Rome the galerus of the flamen Dialis was made ex pelle hostiae caesae. For other examples of wool-magic see Pley, De lanae in antiquorum ritibus usu, 1911; Kroll, R.E., € lana\ The Rerum Repetitio or Denuntiatio audiat fas: threefold invocation is a ritual solemnity and is met with in many cults (e.g. the Hylas-cult, for which see Gow on Theo­ critus 13. 58, or the chant of the Fratres Arvales) but the presence of Fas as an object to be addressed betrays that the actual language is a product of second-century antiquarianism. K. Latte (%eit. Sav.-Stift. 67 (1950), 56) has demonstrated that in early Latin fas, with its negative connotation ('there is no religious obstacle to prevent o n e ' ; cf. dies fasti), is only used in the phrase fas est, and the like. T h e first use of Fas as a substantive is in Accius (trag. 585) and it is not used as an appellative ( = @e/zi?; cf. PaulusFestus 505 L.), outside this passage of L. and the very similar 8 . 5 . 8 , before Seneca (H.F. 658) and Lucan (10. 410). audiat fas is therefore a late formulation, influenced by Greek concepts. 130

ANCUS MARCIUS

i. 32. 6

iuste pie que: 32. 12 n. 32. 7. si. . . fam: 24. 8 n., the syntactical framework ottestationes. T h e rest of the language is in an appropriately pseudo-legalistic vein, e.g. dedier, the archaic form of the inf. passive, exposco, illos (cf. E. Norden, Altrdm. Priesterbiich., 59 ff.), compotem patriae ('a full member of my country', a phrase confined to execrations, so in Plautus, Captivi 622 at ita me rex deorum atque hominum faxit patriae compotem, where at ita me sets the t o n e ; cf. Cicero, ad Att. 3. 15. 4), siris (if the formula was primitive, the form would have been sirs or sers; cf. Carmen Fratr. ArvaL 4-7 and numquam would have been ne . . . unquam: cf. Plautus, Trin. 520 ff. and Norden, op. cit. 131 n. 3). After dedier wX add/?.r. in various forms. Bayet follows earlier editions in reading dedier populi Romani mihi which will not construe even as a pseudo-legalism, for populi Romani could only be a genitive after homines and res, but the objects and people under dispute do not belong to the Roman people. The homines are Romans who have escaped R o m a n jurisdiction: the res are the property of individual Romans. T h e letters p.r. are doubtless a corruption of the note which stands in M dedier f dari. 32. 8. suprascandit: only here in Latin, and so perhaps borrowed direct from the fetial procedure. carminis: 26. 6 n. 32. 9. tribus et triginta: D . H . 2. 72 says 30 days (cf. 22. 5) and this is the interval prescribed in the legis actio per condictionem. Moreover, [Servius] {ad Aen. 9. 52) states that the casting of the spear, not the testatio, took place on the 33rd day. L. (or rather Licinius Macer and so ultimately the second-century antiquarian authority who grafted the newly phrased formulae on to the remnants of the procedure as it remained in his own day) has again been confused by later develop­ ments by which the pause between the testatio and the indictio belli (for consulting the Senate) was omitted because of the difficulties of travel between Rome and overseas enemies such as Carthage. This also accounts for L. writing bellum ita indicit. T h e indictio belli was properly the spear-throwing not the testatio, but by historical times the spearthrowing had ceased to be a significant part of the ceremony and there was no longer a gap between the testatio and the announcement of war. T h e legati were empowered to carry out both on the same occasion without further consultation. See McDonald and Walbank, art. cit., 194 n. 41. The Testatio et tu, lane Quirine: Iuno Quirine is read by the manuscripts but et tu shows that only one other divinity was mentioned by name. Juppiter, J u n o , and Quirinus would be impossible bedfellows. J a n u s Quirinus, as a deity, is indeed attested (Res Gestae 13; 131

i. 32. 9

ANGUS MARGIUS

Horace, Odes 4. 15. 9; Suetonius, Aug. 22; Macrobius 1. g. 16) and is at least not an Augustan invention, for he is cited in a law of ' N u m a ' (Festus 204 L.). By analogy with other Quirinus combinations Janus Quirinus should be the god who presided over the passage from war to peace or over the beginning of peace. We cannot be sure of the exact antiquity of the cult b a t the invocation of him here can hardly be authentic. T h e fetials are beginning a war, not concluding it. Now in many early prayers Janus and Quirinus occur as separate deities, Quirinus in his own right as the god of the host at peace and Janus as the god of beginnings. Hence Janus regularly takes precedence (cf. the archaic prayer in 8. 9. 6 lane, Iuppiter, Mars pater, Quirine, Bellona . . . ; see Wissowa, Religion, 19; Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 106-14). In the original fetial formula the deities invoked must have bsen another triad, namely lane, Iuppiter, Quirine, which became dis­ composed when the function of Janus was obscured and the colloca­ tion Janus Quirinus had come into favour in military contexts. Here is one more indication of the relatively late date of these formulae. See also L. A. MacKay, Univ. of Calif Studies in Class. Phil. 15 (1956), 157-82; Koch, Religio, 17-39; Latte, Rom. Religionsgeschichte, 132 n. 3 ; Schilling, Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 72 (i960), 89 ff.; Weinstock, J.R.S. 51 (1961), 212; L. A. Holland, Janus, 60 and n. 33. 32. 10. in patria maiores natu consulemus: 8. 7 n. cum . . is: so M, cum his nX. Such a use of cum his (dictis, nuntiis, &c.) in the sense 'with these words (he returned to Rome) 5 is confined to everyday speech (e.g. Bell. Afr. 12. 1) and is nowhere found in elevated style. M's uncertainty suggests that there is an underlying corruption. Walters advanced the view that his stood for h. s. or hie supple, by which the scribe of the archetype indicated a lacuna. Such symbols are certainly found but they are only found in late stages of the tradition and never in the archetype. T h e corresponding passage of D.H. (2. 72.9 KCLL fJL€TGL TOVTO

a7T€(j)aLVeV

€LS T7]V

fiovArjV

afJLCL TOLS dXXoiS

€Lp7]Vo8iKaLS

7Tapayev6fi€vos) excludes the possibility of a large gap and suggests the restoration cum legatis. Although L. has not recorded the presence of any delegates other than the pater patratus and almost implies that the pater patratus was on his own, the omission is to be attributed to the pre-eminent position enjoyed by that functionary. He was certainly accompanied by %fetiales. 32. 11. quarumrerum: 'having regard to those things, objects, suits of which the p . p . p. R. Q . gave due notice to the p. p . P. L. and to the men of the P. L., having regard to those things which they have neither given nor done nor paid, having regard to those things which they ought to have given, done, paid, speak: what think you?' T h e preamble to the interrogatio (framed in the senatorial formula: quid 132

ANGUS MARGIUS

i. 32. n

censes?) consists of a triad of complaints quarum rerum, quas res, quas res. T h e three clauses are parallel to one another, not subordinate. In the first clause condixit cannot be taken, in default of a single parallel, as it is in the Thes. Ling. Lat., = repetivit, nor can it be understood in the sense of 'concluded an agreement' (Ernout-Meillet) since there have been no negotiations with the Prisci Latini and, a fortiori, no agreements. Gaius (Instit. 4. 18) explains condicere autem denuntiare est prisca lingua ('to give notice', used by a plaintiff) and this meaning suits the parallelism of the fetial procedure with the civil legis actio per condictionem (see above). T h e genitive remains difficult. T h e legal incerti condicere assumes a simple ellipse, as does the frequent genitive of crime with agere, e.g. furti, adulterii agere (sc. aliquem; cf. Cic. ad Fam. 7. 22 ; Quintilian 4. 4. 8 ; and especially Ulpian, Dig. 19. 5. 17. 2 : furti agere possum vel condicere vel ad exhibendum agere), and it is probably on some such example that the author of the formulae has modelled this phrase. T h e fact that rerum litium causarum are not properly genitives of the crime but of the objects involved in the crime reveals the sup­ posititious nature of the whole phrase rather than casts doubt on the authenticity of its transmission. T h e three nouns (res are the stolen property, lites the disputed property, not the lawsuits (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 93), causae the subjects of dispute generally) form another solemn tricolon typical of quasi-legal language (Fraenkel, Plaut. im Plaut. 359 n. 2 ; cf. also 38. 39. 2 ; Cicero, ad Att. 16. 16. n ) which should not be disturbed by substituting diem (Schmidt), causa (Madvig) or causam for causarum; see Lofstedt, Syntactica, 1. 166. quas res nee dederunt nee fecerunt nee solverunt . . . . dari, fieri, solvi: an­ other tricolon. T h e vagaries of the TT family are of no consequence. T h e difficulty lies in the meaning of solvere. T h e pair dari, fieri are regular in legal contexts (e.g. Gaius, Instit. 4. 5, 4 1 , 47, 60) and it looks as if solvi has been imported from the preceding neque ius persolvere (32. 1 o) to make up the tricolon without regard for the particular sense of the passage. T h e manuscripts read the first phrase in the order dederunt . . . solverunt . . . fecerunt but since solverunt is the odd one out, the order unanimously given by the manuscripts for the second phrase is probably right and solverunt should be the last member of the tricolon. See E. Norden, Altrom. Priest. 98. quid censes ?: cf. 9. 8. 2 ; from Cicero, ad Ait. 7. 1.4 (DIG, M . T U L L I ) , it may be inferred that the senators were also called on by name to speak to the formal question. 3 2 . 1 2 . puropioque duello quaerendascenseo, itaque consentio consciscoque: this reply is suspicious in several details. After a motion had bsen put for­ ward, the question 'quid censes?' would often elicit a reply couched in the form censeo . . ., as can bz seen from the laboured parody in Plautus, Rudens 1269-80 (especially the exchange: Plesidippus: quid 133

I. 32. 12

ANCUS MARCIUS

ergo censes? Trachalio: quod rogas censeo). But if a senator wished to signify his agreement with the proposal without elaborating his reasons, he used the formal iadsentior\ T h e passages are collected by Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 979 n. 3 but the most revealing is the speech of Claudius {B.G.U. 611. 51-54 'consulem designatum descriptam ex relatione consilium ad verbum dicere sententiam, ceteros unum verbum dicere: i(adsentiory\ deinde cum exierint: "diximus" '). Consentio is never so used, nor is conscisco used to mean 'concur in resolving upon' {con-\-scisco) except also at 10. 18.2. (In Cicero, de Leg. 3. 10, quoted by the dictionaries consciscentur is a false reading for sciscentur.) T h e substitution of unique uses of com­ pound verbs in con- for familiar terms was doubtless motivated by a desire to reproduce the archaic solemnity often found in laws, e.g. Lex ap. Cicero, pro Cluentio 157, or S.C. de Bacchanalibus 14, to which Fraenkel has drawn attention {Agamemnon, p. 384). It is notable that it is just the phrase containing the tricolon censuit, consensit, conscivit which L. Cincius omits from his copy of the indictio belli (32. 13 n.). In early Latin purus is used of the magical object (pura hasta, pura herba) not of the process to be carried out by the use of such magic; it is most inappropriate therefore as an epithet of duello (an archaism revived by the Augustans; cf. Horace, Odes 3. 5. 38, 3. 14. 18, and especially 4. 15. 8) and has evidently been chosen to accompany pio instead of the invariable iusto (9. 8. 6, 33. 29. 8, 39. 36. 12, 42. 47. 8; Augustine, Quest. Lept. 6. 10; conversely, impium et iniustum in Cicero, de Rep. 2. 31 et al.) purely for its alliterative effect and its vague moral overtones. ordine: by rank, patricians taking precedence over plebeians in each category. pars maior eorum qui aderant in eandem sententiam ibat: as Mommsen saw {Staatsrecht, 3. 980 n. 5), L. has confused the procedure. H e seems to imply that when more than half of those present had spoken on one side or the other, the motion was decided. In fact, after everybody had given their opinion, the house was divided {discessio) by the pre­ siding magistrate calling divide or numera (cf. Pliny, Ep. 8. 14. 20). It was the physical act of the division which was termed pedibus in sententiam ire (5. 9. 2 ; Aul. Gell. 3. 18. 2 ; Sallust, CatiL 50. 4). But the same phrase was also used loosely to describe the action of anyone who went across and stood by a speaker to signify his support (27. 34. 7; Festus 232 L . ; Aul. Gell., loc. cit.). T h e double use has confused L. T h e result of a division was declared in the expression haec pars maior esse videtur (Seneca, Vit. Beat. 2. 1) which is echoed here. There is, of course, every reason for assuming that L. was not then or at any time a member of the Senate; he could hardly be expected to be accurate. He also fails to mention the consultation of the people which was an essential step and which is presupposed in 32. 13 below. 134

ANCUS MARCIUS

i. 32. 12

The Indictio Belli hastam ferratam aut sanguineam praeustam: the spear was magical, not symbolical (McDonald and Walbank, op. cit.). Iron, because of its magnetic properties, was from the earliest times regarded as a potent source of magic. At Rome, for example, it was taboo for the Fratres Arvales, while the Vestals used it for cutting up salt (Varro ap. Non., p. 330 L.). It is often mentioned or prescribed in the Greek magical papyri. Its use in this ceremony is to attract all the hostile potency of the enemy and so immobilize it. sanguineam is recondite. As early as Dio Cass. 71. 33. 3 it was being glossed as alfiaTtofes and though the correct solution was propounded by Turnebus, Adversaria, 8. 23, in 1599, Dio's interpretation was generally accepted, sanguineus is the adjective derived from the name of a species of cornel, familiar in Romance languages (fr. cornouiller sanguiri). sanguinem is listed by Macrobius (Sat 3. 20. 3) among arbores infelices (infertile), and Pliny (JV.H. 16. 74, 176) speaks of sanguineifrutices and virgae sanguineae. Cornel is frequently used as a wood for spears (Virgil, Aen. 3. 23 et saep.) but for a magical spear the infertile species was employed because its effect was to render infertile and barren the enemy's schemes. For a similar magical use of arbores infelices cf. 26. 6 n . ; and see H . E. Butler, C.R. 35 (1921), 157-8; M . Cary, J.R.S. n (1921), 285; De Waele, The Magic Staff. . . in Antiquity (Gent, 1927); M . Cary and A. D . Nock, C.Q. 21 (1927), 122-7; J- Bayet, Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 52 (1935), 29-76. puberibus: persons who have not reached the age of puberty are not good workers of magic. 3 (or 5) witnesses is a normal safeguard (cf. mancipatio). 32. 13. quod populi: the formula is also given by L. Cincius in libro tertio de re militari ap. Aul. Gell. 16. 4. 1: 'quod populus Hermundulus hominesque populi Hermunduli adversus populum R o m a n u m bellum fecere deliqueruntque, quodque populus Romanus cum populo Hermundulo hominibusque Hermundulis bellum iussit, ob earn rem ego populusque Romanus populo Hermundulo hominibusque Her­ mundulis bellum dico facioque'. T h e antiquarian Cincius, who was a younger contemporary of Varro and Cicero, seems to give the for­ mula in a slightly more modern form, as can be seen from the omission of Quiritium which would be invariable in an older pronouncement, from the use of fecere instead offecerunt, and from the addition of -que to the formal asyndeton fecerunt> deliquerunt. T h e Hermunduli, whom he uses as an example, are not elsewhere mentioned but it seems plausible to suppose that we have here an early but garbled refer­ ence to the formidable German tribe of Hermunduri who migrated from Suebia to the Elbe in the last decades of the century and who 135

I- 32. 13

ANCUS MARCIUS

are prominent in the German wars thereafter (see Haug, R.E.y 'Hermunduri'). If this is so, Gincius must deliberately have omitted the clause found in L., senatusque . . .fieret, either on political grounds (the legality of the Senate declaring war without consulting the people and vice versa had been a source of dispute since the Jugurthine wars) or because he suspected its latinity. T h e manuscripts read senatusve, which has been defended on the ground that in his stage-by-stage narrative of events L. in fact does not mention any consultation of the people, but this is merely another inadvertance on his p a r t ; for it is unthinkable that in such a document the ultimate authority for the declaration of war should b~ presented as optional. Read senatusque (and hominesque). 33. 1. Politorium: Cato produced a Trojan pedigree for the town with a son of Priam, Polites, as founder (fr. 54 P . ) ; but only its name, preserved doubtless in the list of participants in the Feriae Latinae, survived into historical times. T h e combination of its known participa­ tion as a Latin community in the rites and its total disappearance led to the double version of its fate, that it was destroyed by Ancus but then inhabited by the Prisci Latini and reconquered. So also Pliny (N.H. 3. 68-69) n s t s i* both among the towns that had perished sine vestigiis and among the members of the Alban league (Poletaurini). Its site is to be looked for in the region between Rome and Ostia, Nibby proposed Gasale di Decimo, Gell La Giostra. See Hofmann, R.E., 'Politorium'. 3 3 . 2 . Aventinum: 6. 4 n. It is unlikely that Ancus with the fervour of a Syracusan tyrant deported whole populations, especially since Tellenae (see below) was in fact not depopulated, but the curious status of the Aventine, outside the pomerium and inhabited by ple­ beians, newcomers both human and divine (3. 31. 1 n.), can only be explained by assuming that it was favoured as the residence of nonR o m a n traders and others who came to Rome to make their living. Whether any of these gentes, among whom the Naevii are conspicuous (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 163; Festus 170 L.), actually came from the cities whose capture is ascribed to Ancus is quite uncertain, but they may have believed that they did. Tellenis Ficanaque: Ficana is to be sited not at Dragoncello but a mile to the east, near Malafede, at the eleventh milestone (Festus 298 L.) where an altar to Mars Ficanus has been found. See Meiggs, Ostia, 474 n. G. There was a ferry across the Tiber there (L.A. Holland, Janus, 149). Tellenae, the city of the Tellii (Schulze 568), is implied by Strabo to lie near Lanuvium, Aricia, and Antium (5. 231), that is, in the vicinity of Ardea. Since Coriolanus captured it before Ficana on his march northwards (D.H. 3. 3 8 ; 1. 16 is corrupt), it must lie 136

ANCUS

MARCIUS

i- 33- 2

on one of the spurs of the Alban hills. T h e same locality is suggested by the present passage. D.H. speaks of it as surviving down to his own day and it was a signatory of the Latin treaty (5. 6 i ) . A suitable site would be Zalforata but archaeological evidence is as yet lacking. 33. 4 . Medulliam: 38. 2 n. Marie incerto: 2. 40. 14 n. L. gives the tally of achievements in a formal, matter-of-fact style. 33. 5. vincit: many editors (Crevier, Lallemand, Madvig, Rossbach) have assumed that some words have dropped out from the text here such as deinde urbem vi cepit. Medullia had, however, to be captured as distinct from defeated in a later campaign by Tarquinius Priscus. In truth all these early wars will have been fought not to win territory but to secure pasturage. praeda potens: 'his power enhanced by the quantity of spoil'. T h e phrase is not technical. ad Murciae: or rather Admurciae; the shrine lay in the valley between the Palatine and the Aventine and was incorporated in the Circus Maximus when that was enlarged (Apuleius, Met. 6. 8 metae Murciae: [Servius], ad Aen. 8. 636, calls the whole valley vallis Murcia). T h e meaning of the name remains obscure (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 154; Pliny, N.H. 15. 2 1 ; Tertullian, de Sped. 8. 6) but it is to be connected with the ancient name of the south-eastern Aventine—mons Murcus (Festus 135 L.). Murcus is also found as a cognomen (cf. murcidus 'idle'), and Murcius as a nomen (Schulze 196). Murcia would thus bear the same relation to the mons Murcus and the name Murcius as the goddess Tarpeia to the mons Tarpeius and the name Tarpeius. See O . Skutsch, C.Q. 11 (1961), 257. Ancus' claim to have incorporated the Aventine rests on the simple resemblance of his name Marcius to Murcus. 33. 6. Ianiculum: L.'s reasoning is unsound. T h e bridge was not built to communicate with the Janiculum, but the Janiculum was fortified to guard the far end of the bridge. This is clear from the custom main­ tained from the most primitive times of posting a guard on the J a n i ­ culum whenever the comitia centuriata was meeting in the Campus Martius (39. 15. 1 1 ; Dio 37. 28), to prevent the bridge being surprised. If there is anything in the tradition about the Pons Sublicius, it may be assumed that Ancus did also provide for a fortification on the Janiculum, but to speak of the incorporation of the hill as a whole is an exaggeration. muro: with coniungi, by a zeugma, for which cf. 1. 3. 4. T h e strained construction has led to much emendation: muniri instead of muro Scheller; muro solum muniri J. S. Reid; muro solum circumdari Ruperti; muro solum saepiri Wesenberg. But the long separation of muro from coniungi facilitates the switch of meaning. ponte Sublicio: from sublica 'a pile' (Festus 374 L. T h e bridge was 137

i- 33- 6

ANCUS MARCIUS

constructed entirely of wood (Plutarch, Numa 9; Pliny, N.H. 36. 100) and was constantly repaired when damaged so that it survived down to the fifth century A.D. Site: the natural line for a bridge across the Tiber from the Porta Trigemina, the gate leading on to the Tiber bank, would be across the Insula Tiberina but the two are never linked together in any classical authority and the tradition indeed dated the formation of the island after the construction of the bridge (2. 5. 4 n.). T h e bridge must, then, have been below the island, close to the line of the Pons Aemilius begun in 179 B.C. D a t e : there is reason to believe the bridge was very old. T h e existence of a college of pontifices implies a bridge to be built and looked after, for every damage to the bridge was regarded as a prodigium and the pontifices must date back at least to the beginning of the Republic (20. 4 n.). Its wooden construction is also relevant, implying a familiarity with the technique of pile-construction used in lake-dwellings of the eighth and seventh centuries (cf. also D.H. 1. 14. 4) and pointing to an age before the general use of iron. O n balance, therefore, the traditional date can be accepted. Purpose: investigations have shown that except for minor ferries the earliest crossing of the lower Tiber was at Fidenae, which accounts for the importance of that city in Rome's prehistory. There was, however, little need of a crossing at Rome for the main lines of communication and trade from Etruria to Latium and Cam­ pania lay well to the east and upstream of the city. It was only with the growth of the salt trade, and the settlement at Ostia which was de­ signed to promote that trade, that traffic along the bank of the river became at all considerable. Now the Ostian salt-beds were not as large or rich as the salt-beds on the opposite, right bank of the river. These, however, were evidently not exploited by R o m e until the fourth century when they at once superseded the Ostian beds (7. 19. 8 salinae Romanae). T h e reason for this neglect was not that they had been over­ looked but that they were controlled and worked by Veii and were not at the disposal of Rome until Veii was crushed. There is an ancient track bypassing Rome and leading direct from Veii to the Fosso Galeria and the salinae. T h e same hostility accounts for the building of the Pons Sublicius. Veii controlled the Fidenae crossing and so it was necessary for Rome to have a crossing of her own to make full use of the openings for trade offered by the salt-trade. Thus, although it cannot be proved that Ancus was responsible for the bridge, it is a logical corollary of the foundation of Ostia and the promotion of the salt-trade. See M . E. Hirst, P.B.S.R. 1 (1938), 137 ff; L. A. Holland, T.A.P.A. 80 (1949), 312 ff; A. Alfoldi, Hermes 90 (1962), 187 ff. 3 3 . 7. Quiritium: D.H. does not name it directly but says that Ancus surrounded the Aventine with a wall and ditch, while L. might at 138

ANGUS MARGIUS

i- 33- 7

first sight appear to place the ditch around the Janiculum. The impression is probably mistaken. L. adds the detail without any topographical specification and in such matters is frequently unreflective (2. 39. 3 n.). We might expect such a ditch to have stretched round the south-western end of the Aventine but the author of the de Viris Illustribus (8. 3) notes that the cloaca maxima, constructed by Tarquinius Superb us, was called the fossae Quiritium. Meiggs {Ostia, 480-1) argues that the name was handed down 'but that there was no continuing association of the name with any definite place 5 . O n the contrary, we may hold that the cloaca, which originally flowed in a ditch, and not underground, through the Velabrum to the Tiber, was called fossa Quiritium and was variously explained as a defensive work built by Ancus to safeguard the approaches to the Aventine if the bridge was rushed and as Tarquin's drain. Festus' reference to the Quiritium fossa at Ostia (304 L.) does not exclude the existence of a similar ditch at R o m e and would account for its attribution to Ancus. T h e point of the name is lost. 33. 8. career: between the temple of Concord and the Curia at the foot of the Capitol. T h e subterranean part was called the Tullianum, which was anciently supposed to have been named after its builder, Servius Tullius (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 151; Festus 490 L.). The Tul­ lianum was regarded as an addition and therefore an earlier king had to be nominated as architect for the earliest part. In fact the lowest chamber is also the oldest and may be of regal date although the existing masonry is assigned to the third century B.C. See PlatnerAshby s.v. 3 3 . 9. silva . . . adempta: abl. abs., as always in the style of such formal notices. It is commonly assumed that the forest lay on the right bank of the river and was part of or close to the Ciminian Forest, but it is hard to see how the possession of a forest on the right bank of the Tiber could affect the colonization of Ostia. T h e only other passage where it is mentioned is Pliny, N.H. 8. 225 in M. silva Italiae non nisi in parte reperiuntur hi glires. Now the younger Pliny had a villa south of Ostia (Epist. 2. 17. 26-8) and the whole of that coastal strip from the Tiber to Antium was well wooded in antiquity (references in Meiggs 269; to which should be added 27. 11. 2 where lacus cannot be read). Pliny's peculiar observation reads like local knowledge and it makes better geographical sense to identify the Silva Maesia with this coastal belt of trees. The coastal forests were exploited by the Etruscans for ship-building from an early time (Theophrastus, H.P. 5. 8. 3). Ostia: the tradition that Ancus Marcius founded Ostia is unanimous and was cherished by the inhabitants themselves (C.LL. 14, Suppl. 4338). It has been assailed on the score (i) that the earliest remains at Ostia date from the fourth-century castrum, (ii) that there is no 139

i- 33- 9

ANCUS MARGIUS

evidence for an early road down the left bank of the Tiber from Rome, (iii) that the only salinae to be worked in the sixth century were on the right bank, (iv) that the name Ostia implies that it was founded as a port at the mouth of the river and not as a settlement to work the salt, and (v) that R o m e cannot have had any maritime ambitions at that date, (ii) and (iii) are, however, mere assertion and the anti­ quity of Ficana argues for a road. T h e crux of the matter is the salttrade. Rome was at first a pastoral community raising pigs, sheep, goats, cattle. She switched to an agrarian economy in the sixth cen­ tury, probably under the Etruscan influence of the Tarquins. This switch implies contact and dealings with other people. No longer a self-contained and self-supporting community, Rome began to enter upon commercium with others. For her progress she must have had other things to offer than a crossing where Veientes transported their own salt from the right bank to the left so that it could continue its journey up the Via Salaria to the Sabine hinterland. Rome must have had salt of her own to exchange (Clerici, Economia e Finanza, 168 ff). Thus the emergence of Rome presupposes the working of the Ostian salt-beds long before the fourth century when she gained con­ trol of Veii's. T h e archaeological silence is of little account. T h e oldest settlement will have been not at the castrum but at the salinae. See the full discussion in Meiggs, Ostia, 16 ff., 479 ff; also A. Alfoldi, Hermes 90 (1962), 187-94; L. A. Holland, Janus, 145 ff. The Arrival of the Tarquins in Rome T h e magnitude of the Etruscan influence on Rome is not and cannot be doubted. T h e visible remains are mute testimony—the terracotta and pottery fragments, the R o m a n alphabet, the fasces, the templedesigns—and the historical institutions of Rome, her religious dis­ cipline and lore, and the names of her leading families confirm it. A date for the duration of this influence is also given archaeologically. Recent stratigraphy places the earliest signs of Etruscan contact c. 625 B.C. Attic Black Figure ware, imported via Etruria, is found in some of the earliest excavated shrines dating from 580-560 B.C. T h e contact with Etruria coincides with a remarkable change in the physical appearance of Rome. T h e separate hill-communities had gradually been approaching one another and the valleys between them ceased to be used as distinct burial grounds and were built over with huts. This tendency was accelerated by the creation of a central market-place between the hills, superseding the scattering of huts which covered the area. With its forum Rome ceased to be a conglomera­ tion of swineherds and became a 7r6\ts. A precise date for it cannot be fixed but the earliest level of the Sacra Via seems to be about or a little before 575 B.C. T h e idea of such a noXts must have been inspired 140

ANCUS MARCIUS

i- 34 by Etruscan examples. (For the archaeological evidence see especially E. Gjerstad, Opuscula Romana, 3. 81 ff.) Given an Etruscan period at Rome, it is not unreasonable to accept the tradition of an Etruscan domination of Rome, especially since the traditional dates for the dynasty of the Tarquins, 616-578 and 5 3 4 510 B.C., correspond uncommonly well with the independent evidence from archaeology. Moreover, the Tarquins have excellent credentials quite apart from the disputable Cn. Tar^unies R u m a ^ of the Francois T o m b . Tarquinius is a latinized form of the common Etruscan n a m e taryna and recalls the Etruscan hero Tarchon and the Asiatic god Tarku. No ethnic could betray a family's origins as clearly as the name Tarquinius. See also 60. 2 n. But there the difficulties begin. How much else of the traditional story can be trusted ? T h e settled version, which is as old as Fabius Pictor (Polybius 6. 11 a. 7 with Walbank's note; Cicero, de Rep. 2. 34-36), made Tarquinius the son of the Corinthian Demaratus and an emigrant from Tarquinii to Rome. Epigraphical evidence points to Caere rather than Tarquinii as the home town of the Tarquins, for the family is most abundantly attested there (cf. 60. 2 n.) and Tar­ quinii may have been substituted merely for its name. The point is less important than the parentage of Tarquin. According to the developed source Demaratus was a Bacchiad who fled to Etruria with his family and craftsmen on the overthrow of the Bacchiad aristocracy by Cypselus in c. 655 (Pliny, N.H. 35. 16, 152; Strabo 5. 219). Blakeway, in a fundamental paper (J.R.S. 25 (1935), 129-48), displayed that Corinthian pottery monopolized the Etruscan market from c. 700 to c. 625 and that there were unmistakable indications of Greek craftsmen producing vases at Falerii and perhaps other centres in Etruria in the second half of the seventh century. In addition the Corinthian style exercised a striking influence over Etruscan art in general. Thus the story of the migration of Corinthian craftsmen to Etruria is confirmed by the evidence of Etruscan art. T h e flight of Demaratus is to be believed. Less likely is the story that makes him the father of a Roman king: it fails to account for the name Tarquinius. If we ask how Demaratus was remembered, the answer must be through early Greek sources, historians of the fourth century drawing on Corinthian memories. A Roman source is out of the question and an Etruscan one only theoretically possible. It follows that the fusion of the Demaratus story with the Tarquin legend must be the work of the earliest generation of R o m a n historians. Demaratus migrates to Etruria, Tarquin to Rome. The pattern is symmetrical. T h e rest of the story is more easily disentangled. Tarquin is called by the praenomen Lucumo, which gave colour to his royal pretensions and also provided motivation for his migration to Rome. O n e of the 141

J

-34

ANCUS MARCIUS

oldest Etruscan myths was the rivalry between priest and king, Arruns and Lucumo (see Gage, Rev. Hist. ReL 143 (1953), 170-208). It recurs in a very similar story in 5. 33. 2 (n.) and in both places it is a rationalistic explanation of a social distinction. Lucumo for Lucius is etymological conjecture and, although Polybius merely speaks of ACVKIOS 6 JrjjuapaTou, it is likely to be another addition to the outline of the Tarquin legend made by Fabius Pictor or his contem­ poraries. Once the two brothers had become part of history it was natural to pursue the fortunes of Arruns as well. Here researches into the history of Collatia and into the traditions of the Egerii (cf. 20. 5 n.) are indicated, suggesting the work of Cato. Tanaquil is Etruscan in name (34. 4 n.) and the renown of her doings is likely to have kept her name alive, but wherever we can test the truth of the circumstantial detail in which her life is clothed we find it to be unreliable. T h e events of her life are un-Roman and literary (34. 8 n., 34. 9 n.). R o m a n pride was always aware that the Tarquins were interlopers and that Rome had fallen into the hands of a foreign power but it was equally reluctant to explain this humiliation by an Etruscan con­ quest of Rome. In this dilemma the historians, while accepting the appearance of the Tarquins in the king-list of tradition, were anxious to dispute their legitimacy. Hence two legal niceties are inserted to discredit the claims of the Tarquins to the R o m a n throne. Lucumo was not legally the sole heir (34. 3 n.) and he was guilty of fraudulent behaviour in his capacity as tutor (34. 12 n.). These legal points are of a piece with the other legal insertions of the second century. Thus the whole superstructure about Tarquin is precarious. It is largely the erection of Fabius Pictor, and later historians added little or nothing to it. L. has no trace of the story originated by Varro that Tarquin's wife was Gaia Caecilia. But scepticism about the super­ structure should not encourage scepticism about the foundations. T h e Etruscans led by Tarquins came to R o m e towards the end of the seventh century. Salt and the passage of the Tiber led them on. They created the city and, by whatever means, controlled it. T h e excellent discussion by Schachermeyr in R.E., 'Tarquinius', has not yet been superseded. For the latest treatment of the Corin­ thian aspects see Will, Korinthiaka, 306 ff. 34. 1. Lucumo: according to Servius, adAen. 2. 278, 8. 65, 475, 10. 202, lucumo was the Etruscan for rex: but cf. Censorinus, de Die Natal. 4. 13. T h e word also occurs on Etruscan inscriptions in various forms sug­ gesting that, as here, it was used as a name (e.g. CLE. 3932, 3567, 3872, 3877: see Schulze 179). Mlinzer (R.E., 'Lucumo') argues that Servius' meaning was the original one but with the decline or dis­ appearance of the kingship the title passed into a proper name used by 142

ANGUS MARGIUS

i- 34- i

the leading family of the city (cf. Ionian jSaoxAt&zt). Here it is no more than a false aetiology for the praenomen Lucius (cf. Auct. de Praen. 4). maxime: M . T . T a t h a m would read maximi, an artificial sentiment. cupidine ac spe form a single concept. 34. 2 . Demaratus'. a common Greek name, it was borne by another Corinthian, the friend of Alexander the Great (Plutarch, Alex. 9, 56). 34. 3 . ventremferre: evidently a technical or legal phrase, for it is found before the Jurists only in Varro, de Re Rust. 2. 1. 19. testando: Cicero (de Orat. 1. 241) classes among self-evident cases which are never disputed in court the nullity of wills made by a father antequam filius natus esset. 34. 4 . Tanaquil: the n a m e is Etruscan (cf. Qanyvil) and the person real, but her character as a femme fatale is largely modelled on Greek prototypes. See Momigliano cited in 4 1 . 2 n . ; bibliography on 39. 1. ea quo innupsisset: cf. 4. 4. 10. innubo takes the dat. (Ovid, Met. 7. 856 ne thalamis patiare innubere nostris; Lucan 3. 23; Cod. Theod. 3. 18. 1: contrast Lucilius 260 M.). In the present passage the sense is clear. Tanaquil refused to give up by marriage the station to which she had been born. T h e contrast is between Us in quibus nata erat and ea \cum innupsisset (N). The simplest correction is ea quibus innupsisset but Weissenborn's quo is palaeographically more satisfactory and as an alternative to quibus for the sake of variety is to be preferred. Cf. Plautus, Aul. 489-90 quo illae nubent divites dotatae? 34. 6. potissima: the manuscript reading potissimum is impossible to construe and the necessary meaning 'most suitable' cannot be ex­ tracted from Gronovius's potissima. potissimum is used to qualify an adj. e.g. apta potissimum (Freudenberg) or potissimum apta (Buttner, Meyer) 'particularly suitable', opportuna potissimum (Frigell). But the easiest correction is Heumann's aptissima, metathesis with subsequent change. For aptus ad cf. 32. 17. 12, 35. 26. 2, 44. 3. 6. Tanaquil's persuasion is forthright and thoroughly modern in tone. For ex virtute nobilitas cf. Sallust, Jugurtha 85. 17 (Marius); for nobilem . . . imagine cf. ibid. 25. 34. 7. ut cupido: 'seeing that he was eager for office5. 34. 8. aquila: the eagle was the bird of Zeus, king of the gods, in Greek myth (e.g. Aeschylus, Agam. 113) and therefore its appearance to a m a n betokened royal power, blessed by Zeus. T h e infant Gilgamos was saved by an eagle and became king of Babylon (Aelian, N.A. 12. 21). Similar Greek and Oriental legends have been overlooked in favour of the prodigy which befell Augustus (Suetonius, Aug. 94. 7 'aquila panem ei e manu rapuit et cum altissime evolasset rursus ex improviso leniter delapsa reddidit'). Suetonius gives no indication of date and we cannot tell (nor should we expect to know) the relationship between L. and that event. W h a t is important is that H3

i. 34. 8

ANGUS MARCIUS

Tarquin's eagle prodigy is no Augustan interpolation. It is an old element of the tradition (D.H. 3. 47. 3 ff.; Cicero, de Leg. 1. 4) and was taken over from Gyrus (cf. 4. 6 n.). Of its telling Glericus observed 'poetae magis decet' and cast the passage into three hexameters. This was over-enthusiastic; but for repono with dat., not found in prose authors, cf. Virgil, Aeneid 7. 134; for sublimis abiit see 16. 7 n. Casaubon noted that clangore (cf. 5. 47. 4 ; Virgil, Aeneid 3. 226) was an echo of the Homeric KXayyfj (cf., e.g., Iliad 3. 5). Notice the visual details, the carriage and the cap. leviter: the true reading is certainly leniter; cf. Suetonius, loc. cit.; Tacitus, Hist. 1. 62. 3 ; Gurtius 4. 15. 26. It is the gentleness of the royal bird which commands notice. See Wallden, Philologus 95 (1943), 142 ff. pilleum: the pilleus, a cone-shaped hat (Festus 484 L.) of Etruscan origin and depicted on Etruscan wall-paintings, was the head-gear ofthe pontifices and the famines ([Servius], adAen. 10. 270) and of the rex sacrorum. It was also in consequence of its use in the ceremony of manumission the symbol of freedom, the pilleus libertatis. Here it is meant as a symbol of kingship, which survived in an attentuated form before R o m a n eyes as the head-gear of the rex sacrorum. 34. 9. mulier: emphatically at the end of the sentence, for Tanaquil, like Dido, was acting in a quite un-Roman way. Women, both in Etruria and at Rome, did not divine nor did amateurs make prophecies without the assistance of a professional seer (R. Enking, Mitt. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. 66 (1959), 78). Tanaquil is modelled after the prophetic women of Greek myth, in particular Medea. humano: the cap had been placed first on his head by his own, human h a n d s : it was now placed there by divine hands. He was con­ secrated king. It is superfluous to say that it was placed on a human head. Therefore we should accept Stroth's humana mana superposition. 34. 10. Priscum: the cognomen is doubly spurious. It could only have been added after Superbus had reigned in order to differentiate the two Tarquins, and unlike the names of other kings it is descriptive. 34. 12. hello \ cf. 9. 26. 21. tutor: Ancus' sons being sui iuris but under age at his death were subject to tutela. It is not clear whether in primitive law the tutela of free-born persons invariably went to the nearest male agnate or whether, as is implied here, a m a n could appoint a tutor by his will. T h e most probable reconstruction of Table 5. 7 of the Twelve Tables suggests that testamentary guardianship was valid at least by then. T h e present case will, therefore, be a n historical precedent invented and in­ voked as an illustration of the working of the Twelve Tables (4.9.6 n.). It also raises the question of the relationship between the tutor and the heres in early law. T h e tutor at this stage of legal development 144

ANCUS MARCIUS

i . 34. 12

was seemingly regarded as having and exercising the rights of a heres who was under age, a position later modified. T h e action of Tarquinius Priscus was a test-case for this too. See Aranjio-Ruiz, Rariora> 151-67 ; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction, 120-2. 35-38. The Reign of Tarquinius Priscus If there were two Tarquins the Romans knew nothing that could be pinned to one or the other in such a way as to give their reigns separate characters. Their very names, Priscus and Superbus, are the work of subsequent differentiation and a comparison of the deeds attributed to them displays an unhealthy duplication. Both are credited with the building of the cloacae, the circus, and the beginning of the Gapitoline Temple. Both engaged in successful operations against the Latins (Apiolae and Pometia). Both were driven on by ambitious women. Yet Priscus and Superbus cannot be identified. T h e Etruscan domina­ tion of R o m e begins in the period 625-600 and at the other end 510 is a firm date for the expulsion of a king who can only be a Tarquin. We should rather believe that tradition accurately preserved the memory of an Etruscan era at Rome lasting for a century with possible interruptions (Servius Tullius) during which the Tarquin family main­ tained a dynastic rule, but that the few specific events which were remembered, such as the opposition of Attus Navius or the tragedy of Lucretia, were remembered as occurring in the times of the Tarquins rather than as attached to one particular person. It was left to the historians to arrange this inchoate material into a pattern, to distinguish one Tarquin from another, and to allocate events to each. T h e history of Tarquinius Priscus can be easily analysed into its component parts. T h e groundwork of his reign is laid with two very old stories, Attus Navius (36. 2 n.) and the river battle (37. 1 n.), both undated tales handed down as belonging to the Tarquin age of regal Rome. R o m a n institutions afforded further material, for every curiosity and every anomaly required explanation and an historical aiTLOv. Two such, the minores gentes and the centuriae posteriores, were ascribed to Tarquinius Priscus for no good reason so far as can be seen except that a study of prosopography reveals that the Tarquins did in fact encourage a number of Etruscan families to settle at Rome. So too it was a matter of observation that the ludi were Etruscan in origin and character. They must, therefore, have been instituted by a Tarquin. I n the field of topography the same desire to find an auctor and an origo for every place and every feature led historians, among whom Gato was prominent, to plot a m a p of Tarquin's con­ quests across Latium (38. 4 n.) and to credit him with buildings throughout the city itself (35. 10 n., 38. 6 n.). Finally, the study and collection of legal formulae was turned to account and the deditio 814432

145

L

TARQUINIUS PRISCUS

*• 35-38

formula was inserted into the narrative of Tarquin's wars (38. 1 n.). Motivation and narrative could be supplied by the adaptation of Greek stories (35. 2 n.). All these details were the product of inference, not of memory or documentation. In many matters we may believe that historians did hit on the truth. In all probability the conquest of the nearby cities of Latium was accomplished under the Tarquins, for the history of the fifth century presupposes that it was already effected by then and it can hardly have been begun before Rome became a city. In all probability, too, the minores gentes do represent Etruscan immigrants. Nevertheless a true memory of all these things was not handed down from regal to classical times. It can be shown that L. took his version from a later rather than an earlier historian (35. 6 n., 35. 8 n.). Since L.'s account of the spoil from Apiolae contradicts that given by Valerius Antias (35. 7 n . ; cf. 38. 1 n.), Licinius Macer is a candidate. L.'s art can be seen in his treatment of the reign. T h e contents of 35-38 may be tabulated: 35. 35. 35. 36. 36.

1-6 Internal: institutions A. 7-8 External: Latin war. 8-36. 1 Internal: buildings A. 1-2 External: Sabine war. 2-8 Internal: institutions B. Attus Navius. 37~3^- 4 External: Sabine war. 38. 5-6 Internal: buildings B.

T h e interweaving of TTOXITIKCLI and 77-oAe/zi/ccu 77-pa^t? which D.H. keeps in two separate compartments (3. 4 9 - 6 6 ; 67-71) is as charac­ teristic as his handling of the Navius episode. D.H. adds it as an appendix to his history of the reign and is at pains to exaggerate the miraculous aspects of the story. L. makes it the centre-piece, playing down the miraculous (36. 4 ut ferunt. . . ferunt, 36. 5 memorant) but presenting it in lively and dramatic dialogue. See Schachermeyr, R.E., 'Tarquinius'; de Sanctis, Storia, 1. 371 ff.; Burck 157-60; Heurgon, Inform. Litt. 1955, 56-64. 35. 1. Ancus: reigned twenty-three years according to the older chronology used by Cicero (de Rep. 2. 33). puberem: 2. 50. 11 n. 35. 2. venatum: so Atys, the son of Croesus, was deprived of his royal inheritance by being sent out to hunt the Mysian boar (Herodotus i.37ff.). 35. 3 . [cum]: will not construe, and emendations (turn Kreyssig) or transpositions (accitum: (turn) se) are less plausible than deletion (cf. 41. 7 n.). For the contents of the speech cf. Canuleius' oration in 146

T A R Q U I N I U S PRISCUS

*• 35- 3

4. 3. 2 ff. Notice the rhetorical flourish with which he concludes—the chiastic in regent. . . cum rege and the alliterative obsequio et observantia. 35. 6. cetera egregium: 32. 2, an unconscious repetition (cf. 14. 4 n.). centum', cf. 2. 1. 10, 5. 14. 4. R o m e knew a distinction within the body of patricians between gentes minores and gentes maiores and, with the exception of Tacitus who ascribed it to the first consul Brutus (Annab 11. 25), the tradition attributed that distinction to the elder Tarquin (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 3 6 ; D.H. 3. 41). T h e point of the distinc­ tion is not at all clear. Ancient scholars by confusing membership of the Senate with membership of the patrician order concluded that it was no more than an increase in the size of the Senate. So L. writes here centum in patres legit. But it is hard to believe that if there were plebeian kings and plebeians among the earliest consuls there were not also plebeian senators. T h e limitation of the senate to patricians is the product of over-schematic theorizing influenced by the much later Struggle of the Orders. Originally no doubt the council of state did consist simply of the heads (patres) of the gentes and in primitive times before the influx of foreigners and immigrants the only gentes were those later recognized as patrician. For the dichotomy between patrician and plebeian was based on origin, that is on inherited sacra. T h e first move, therefore, must be to separate the issues of increasing the Senate and of increasing the patrician order. Now the patrician order, as distinct from the senatorial order, was of importance chiefly for its religious functions. Only a patrician could be an interrex. T h e major priesthoods, the flamines, were confined to patricians. Several cults, as well as the auspicial rights, were in the hands of patricians. T h u s it is probably no accident that the increase in the number of patrician families is attended by an increase in the number of Vestals, augurs, and pontifices. T h e expanding city required an enlarged religious establishment. This, and no more, is to be seen as the purpose of the creation of the minores gentes and it is notable that the only gens which we know for certain to have been one of the minoresj the Papiria (Cicero, ad Fam. 9. 21. 2), was celebrated for its religious affiliations in the early Republic, being credited with a pontifex maximus in 509 and with the author of the Ius Papirianum. Since we are ignorant of the names of the maiores and minores we cannot hope to date the creation of the latter class, but it must belong to the regal period. T h e Papirii gave their name to one of the 16 old rural tribes. It would seem, moreover, that the Alban families also belonged to the minores and I should be inclined to believe that the need to distinguish between patrician and plebeian and hence to classify minores and maiores, old and new, among the patricians only arose with the advent of the Etruscans who brought new religious practices and new families. 147

*• 3 5 - 6

T A R Q U I N I U S PRISCUS

Thereafter the distinction between maiores and minores was, at most, an heraldic one. At least four of the maiores were enrolled in the premier urban tribe, the Palatina, perhaps by Ap. Claudius Caecus in 312 (L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 284-5), and Mommsen conjec­ tured that the distribution was perpetuated in the aristocratic Ludus Troiae (Staatsrecht, 3. 31 n. 3 : cf. Suetonius, Julius 39). Certain it is that Cicero is wrong in pretending that the maiores were always called before the minores in the Senate to give their opinion [de Rep. 2. 35). See Mommsen, loc. cit.; Kiibler, R.E., 'gens'; Siber, R.E., 'plebs', who argues that the minores were Etruscan. Turning to the enlargement of the Senate we are faced with two questions, (i) Was the ancient tradition unanimous that the full Senate at the end of the regal period numbered 300 ? In 17. 5 the number is fixed at 100, in 30. 2 it is increased by an unspecified amount, in 35. 6 it is increased by 100, and in 2. 1. 10 it is assumed to be 300. All these passages, allowing that the increase under Tullus was 100, are con­ sistent and with them D.H. agrees (3. 67). Cicero, on the other hand, writes duplicavit patrum numerum but this does not imply that he in­ tended either a final total of only 200 if he excluded the Alban increase, or of 400 if he included it, for there was a variant tradition that the Senate after Romulus' death numbered 150 (100+50 Sabines: Plutarch, Numa 2 ; Zonaras 7. 5 : cf. D.H. 2. 47). Conversely Dio makes Tarquin augment an original 100 by 200 new members. In short it is probable that the figure of 300 was constant but that there were rival accounts of how the figure was arrived at. L. follows a late version. (ii) Did Tarquin in fact supplement the Senate and is the figure of 300 credible? T h e figure of 300 looks schematic. With no enunciated principles of election or qualification for membership we are forced to conclude that it is a conjecture derived from the later system of decuriones which prevailed in R o m a n colonies and municipia and de­ rived from the three R o m a n tribes, Ramnes, Tities, Luceres. In historical times there was no fixed limit for the Senate. This does not, however, mean that there was no increase under the Tarquin dynasty. T h e names of the oldest rural tribes contain several Etruscan names— e.g. Lemonia, Menenia, Papiria, Voltinia. T h e non-Etruscan names— e.g. Aemilia, Cornelia, Fabia, Horatia—belong to senatorial families (and include three of the presumed maiores gentes) and it is, therefore, a fair assumption that the Etruscan names are also senatorial. Now the rural tribes were certainly instituted before the end of the kingdom os that it follows that there were Etruscan senators under the Tarquins and they are hardly likely to have displaced non-Etruscans. It would be straining the evidence to pin the increase definitely on Tarquinius Priscus or to insist that the enlarged total was precisely 300. 35. 7. Apiolas: a town in Latium, placed by Strabo (5. 231) in Vol148

TARQUINIUS PRISCUS

i- 35- 7 scian country near Pometia. Its site is quite unknown. Valerius Antias fr. i i P. writes: 'oppidum Latinorum Apiolas captum a L. Tarquinio rege ex cuius praeda Capitolium is incohaverit.' 3 5 . 8. turn: 2. 36. 1 n. There were different traditions about the origin of the games. D.H. distinguishes the annual games, which he claims were first founded by the dictator Postumius in 499 (6. 10), from the votive games which were first vowed by Tarquinius Superbus after the capture of Pometia (6. 29). Piganiol (Reckerckes, 75 ff.), accepting the historicity of the distinction, believed that the annual games were originally plebeian and that they were recognized as the state games only at the end of the fourth century as a gesture of good will on the conclusion of the Struggle of the Orders. Conversely the votive games, celebrated sporadically up till 358 (4. 12. 2, 27. 1, 35. 3, 5. 19. 6, 7. 11. 4), lapsed after that date until revived in 217 as one of the many panic measures inspired by the Carthaginian menace. It was for that celebration that the bogus protocol described by Fabius Pictor (D.H. 7. 70 ff.) was resuscitated. But the ludi magni were, in R o m a n eyes, quite distinct from the ludiplebeii and there is in any case no certain evidence that the latter were ever held before 214. It is, therefore, better to follow Mommsen and believe that the annual ludi magni evolved out of the sporadic celebration of votive games, akin to but distinct from the triumphal ludi Capitolini. T h e antiquity of the games can be approached by reviewing the nature of the games them­ selves and the archaeological evidence for the construction of the Circus Maximus. Wall-paintings belonging to the last quarter of the sixth century from Corneto ('Grotta delle bighe') and Chiusi ('Tombe della scimmia') illustrate scenes of Etruscan funeral games which re­ semble the traditional R o m a n games in many points of detail—horses, boxers, spectators, even a puteal which Piganiol with some plausibility compares with the Ara Consi in the Circus (Recherches, 1-14). There can be no doubt that the games were Etruscan in origin and date from the Tarquin period, although later rather than earlier in it (56. 2 n.). T h e archaeological evidence is inconclusive. T h e earliest datable con­ struction belongs to the late fourth century, agreeing with L.'s notice that the first permanent structure was made in 329 B.C. (8. 20. 1). In short, common sense and tradition pointed to an Etruscan origin for the games but there was no firm evidence from antiquity which involved one or other Tarquin. Hence duplications (35. 8, 56. 2) and uncertainty. tumprimum: tunc primum M . See 5. 7. 13 n . ; Housman, Manilius 2 , 5. p. 116. T h e theory that horse-races at the Consualia were as old as the festival and so older than the Tarquins is to be rejected (9. 6 n.). patribus equitibusque: the allocation of special seats for the equites, as an inferior class to the patres, is a post-Sullan anachronism. It reflects the H9

i. 35« 8

T A R Q U I N I U S PRISGUS

normal seating of the late Republic. Special seats were first reserved for senators in 194 B.C. (34. 44. 5) and for equites by the Lex Roscia of 67 B.C. Since Valerius Antias is specifically named as one of the authorities who recorded the precedent of 194 (fr. 37 P.) it may be inferred that he is not L.'s source here. 35. 9. ludicrum -.5. 1.5. Tacitus, Annals 14. 21, appeals to the authority of maiores for his contention that only histriones came from Etruria while horse-races first came from Thurii, but he is confuted by the evidence from the Etruscan tombs. sollemnes: 'held at regular intervals', more closely defined by annul, cf. 3. 15. 4 sollemne in singulos annos, 1. 9. 6. Mommsen, wishing to vindicate the truth of his theory about the games, punctuated sol­ lemnes, deinde annul mansere ludl 'first at intervals and then annually', but deinde is conclusive against this, deinde must be used here as at 27. 23, 7 is dies deinde sollemnls servatus. 35. 10. divisa . . . loca: cf. 35. 8, an unconscious repetition. porticus tabernaeque: a recollection of the construction of the Forum under the Tarquins. For the tabernae see 3. 48. 5 n . ; the porticus is anachronistic since the first were those constructed in 193 B.C. by M . Aemilius Lepidus (35. 10. 12). It is another historical throw-back. 36. 1. muro: 44. 3 n.. There are no signs of a Tarquinian wall. 36. 2. Ramnes, Tltlenses, Luceres: 13. 8 n. Attus Navlus Attus Navius was a famous augur under the Tarquins. This is what we are told and we can confidently affirm it, for his name is Etruscan and, if he had not lived under the Tarquins, he would have been placed in the reign of Romulus or Numa. There was also a stone,, probably a meteorite, venerated in the comltlum and surrounded by pious hands with a puteal (Cicero, de Dlv. 1. 33 with Pease's notes; D . H . 3. 71. 5). T h e connexion between the two was first made by those who, whether priests or guides, were concerned to offer an ex­ planation of the stone. It is an aetiology of a common type. Once the connexion had been made it was developed. T h e augur had performed a miracle with the stone. Such miracles are attested else­ where and a close parallel is afforded by the legend of young Arthur and Excalibur. T h e circumstances of the miracle now called for ex­ planation and were provided by the curiosity of the Sex Suffragia. It was known or might be presumed that Tarquin increased the cavalry just as he had enlarged the Senate and the patricians, but the signs of that increase could only be discerned in the duplication of centuries with the same name. T h e historical oddity of prlmores and posteriores excited comment and recalled the doings of Cleisthenes of 150

TARQUINIUS PRISCUS

i- 36. 3

Sicyon who renamed the three Dorian tribes in his city and added one of his own (Herodotus 5. 6 8 ; cf. Cicero, de Rep, 2. 36). Thus Greek models once again provide motive a n d continuity. Later embellishments to the story include the naming of a fig-tree in the vicinity of the putealficus Navia (Festus 168 L . ; Pliny, N.H. 15. 77) and the erection of the statue (36. 5 n.). T h e activities of Q . Navius described in 26. 4. 4-10 are purely coincidental and are unlikely to have influenced the decision to connect Navius with a reform of the equites. L. treats the story as an illustration of the power of religious sentiment, although he is himself sceptical of the miraculous aspects of it. H e admires and is anxious that others should admire the moral nihil nisi auspicato and achieves his purpose as is his wont (2. 10. 1 n.) by crystallizing the episode into a dialogue. See Kroll, R.E., 'Navius ( i ) ' ; Petrikovits, Mitt. d. Ver. Klass. PhiloL 9 (1932), 36 ff. 36. 3 . inaugurato: it is not stated in 13. 8 that Romulus did so create them but it is a reasonable assumption. Attus Navius: for the praenomen see 2. 16. 4 n. Navius, the true form of the name (Naevius in de Viris Must. 6. 7 is a trivialization), is Etruscan; cf. navesi, navlis and Navinius, Navonius (Schulze 197). 36. 4 . utferunt: ct.ferunt below and 36. 5 memorant. T h e non-committal attitude to the miraculous part of the story may be taken as some evidence of L.'s religious scepticism (Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy, 32). 36. 5. statua: according to Pliny (N.H. 34. 21) the base was destroyed in the conflagration of 52 B.C. but D.H. 3. 71. 5 states that the statue was still standing and describes it as smaller than life-size. It is probable that it did not survive to the Augustan age (notice l^.hfuit) and that D . H . is merely retailing his sources (but see A. Andren, Hommages Herrmann, 98). in gradibus ipsis: the ancient comitium was a semi-circular space in the shape of a theatre (caved). It lay between the two streets Argiletum and Clivus Argentarius. T h e place of a stage was taken by the rostra, the seating was arranged in tiers (the gradus mentioned here and in 48. 3), and the old Curia stood at the top at the back. It was capable of holding some 6,000 people. T h e gradus are not the steps leading into the Curia (see details in Sjoqvist, Studies Presented to D. M. Robinson, 1. 4 0 0 - 1 1 ) .

36. 6. auspicato: 5. 38. 1, 6. 4 1 . 4 ; cf. Cicero, de Div. 1. 28 nihil fere quondam maioris rei nisi auspicato ne privatim quidem gerebatur. For the persons entitled to take the auspices, the mode of taking them, and the occasions when they were taken see 18.6 n. andWissowa, Religion, 523 ff. summa rerum: summa must be a neut. plural 'the weightiest affairs' (cf. 9. 43. 4 subita rerum) but the zeugma involved in understanding dirimerentur both of adjourning the assemblies met to discuss business 151

i. 36. 6

T A R Q U I N I U S PRISGUS

and of adjourning the business is harsh. Moreover L. frequently else­ where employs the phrase summa (fem. sing.) rerum 'the supreme situation', cf., e.g., 3. 51. 10 qui summae rerum praeessent.With Gronovius I think we should read vocati de summa rerum. exercitus is used not in its exclusively military sense but as the technical term for the people assembled in the comitia centuriata. 36. 7. alterum tantum: sc. numerum 'a second draft of the same size'. N.'s order tantum alterum, retained, e.g., by Pettersson, could only be under­ stood as 'he only [tantum = modo, solum) added a second draft'. mille et octingenti: the overall strength of the cavalry is unclear. T h e reorganization allegedly introduced by Servius Tullius provided for an establishment of 18 centuries of cavalry, that is 1,800 men (43. 8-9 n.). In addition to Romulus' creation of the 300 equites (13. 8 n.), identical with the 300 Geleres (15. 8 n.), Tullus enrolled a further 300 in 10 squadrons from Alba (30. 3). Unless L. is counting the 300 Geleres as a separate body from the 3 Romulean centuries the total cavalry establishment at this date can, according to the tradition, be only 600. This total doubled would yield 1,200. Neither here nor in Cicero, de Rep. 2. 36 where they read MACCC, are the m a n u ­ scripts unequivocal in giving the Tarquinian total as 1,800; it will be seen from the O.G.T. Apparatus that 77-A have M et CCC. T h e strongest argument in favour of reading 1,800 in both places is the belief that Servius Tullius merely reorganized the army and did not enlarge it. This, however, is mistaken. Festus 452 L. says: 'sex suffragia appellantur in equitum centuriis quae sunt adiectae ei numero centuriarum quas Priscus Tarquinius rex constituit', that is, Festus accepts that there were only 12 centuries or 1,200 cavalry under Tarquin and that Servius enlarged the establishment to 18. O n every ground, therefore, mille et cc should be read here (Hill, Roman Middle Class, 4 ; against Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 107 n. 3). The Defeat of the Sabines The battle is a repetition of a story which recurs on several occasions in R o m a n history (cf. 27. 10, 4. 33. 10 n.) and is thought to be inspired by a primitive ceremony, the descensio Tiberina> although here there are echoes of the disaster of 90 B.C. when Marius learnt of the defeat of his colleague Rutilius by the arms and bodies washed down the river Tolenus to him (Appian, B.C. 1. 4 3 ; Orosius 5. 18. 1 1 : see Echols, Class. World 44 (1951), 134). T h e present passage is in part also an ainov for the ceremonies of the Volcanalia (37. 5 n.). 37. 1. sublicis: the bridge is a Sabine bridge over the Anio, not the Pons Sublicius at Rome. T h e exact sense of the passage is in doubt. 152

TARQUINIUS

PRISCUS

1-37- i

Conway assumed that the bridge was a pontoon bridge consisting of stakes (sublicis) to which were moored rafts (ratibus), and that the burning logs j a m m e d against the stakes and the rafts and so set the bridge alight. But there is nothing to suggest that it was a pontoon bridge. T h e mention of sublicae points rather to a wooden pile-bridge like the Pons Sublicius. If so, there was a danger that the burning logs might float through the arches of the bridge without harm. T o obviate this the Romans had to be sure that the timbers were in units too big to pass under the bridge. In addition common sense would show that burning logs thrown into the water by themselves are not likely to stay alight for long. Both problems could be solved either by tying the logs together or by putting them on rafts. And the latter is precisely what D.H. 3. 56 says: axeStas fuAajy a i W KOI pvydva>v yefiovaag

. . . 7rapaaKevacrdfievog . . . irvp iveivat rats uAais1 eVeAeucre Kal

fiedeivai. . . €peadai Kara povv. pleraque in ratibus must go together, pleraque being understood in the sense 'most of the raft-borne logs stuck against the bridge and set it alight' rather than 'most of the logs were put on rafts', pleraque in ratibus for pleraque in ratibus imposita, though accepted by Frigell, Pettersson, and Bayet as well as by earlier editors such as Doujat and Kreyssig, is intolerable, nor can impacta be taken with the phrase (punctuating^, i. r. impacta, sublicis cum haererent) since impego is never used with in and the abl. and is too violent a word for loading logs on rafts. I have considered reading imposita either instead of impacta or before it. 37. 2. mortalibus: 9. 8 n. 37. 5. Volcano: on 23 August the Volcanalia were celebrated in the Area Volcani at which live fish from the Tiber were sacrificed to Vulcan pro animis humanis (Festus 276 L . ; Varro, deLing. Lat. 6. 20: see le Gall, Recherches sur le culte du Tibre, 49; Eitrem, C.R. 36 (1922), 72). The true origin of the ceremony is unclear but the burning of the spoils of the Sabines, who, like fish, had taken to the water, in honour of Vulcan is an attempt at an aetiology. For somewhat different offerings to Vulcan, connected with the offering to Vulcan at the Tubilustrium on 23 May (C.I.L. i 2 . 318), cf. 8. 10. 13, 30. 8, 30. 6.> , 45. 33. 1. The Deditio Formula Deditio was unconditional surrender. T h e defeated voluntarily re­ signed himself in dicionem or infidem (both phrases are used without dis­ tinction : cf. Polybius 20. 9. 10 ff.) p. R. His subsequent treatment was determined not by any treaty-obligations undertaken by the Romans but by their fides. T h e procedure is undoubtedly antique and, unlike the iusfetiale, it continued in operation throughout the historical epoch. Examples are listed by Premerstein, R.E., 'clientela'; see also Schulten, R.E., 'Dediticii'; Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 4-7. T h e formula as given 153

1.38.1

T A R Q U I N I U S PRISGUS

by L. is also of some age since it is admirably parodied in a passage of the Amphitryo of Plautus (258-9): deduntque se, divina humanaque omnia, urbem et liberos in ditionem atque in arbitratum cuncti Thebano populo. where the valuable detail that they prayed velatis manibus corroborates the belief that surrender in dicionem was surrender infidem (see note on 2. 12. 1 ff.; Riess, C.Q. 35 (1941), 155). Its form, by question and answer, also speaks for its authenticity being characteristic of other procedures in private law such as Stipulatio. We may, therefore, believe that L. gives the ancient formula modified only in ortho­ graphical details. It presumably was contained in a collection of similar formulae and was extracted and employed in its present con­ text by one of the later annalists. 38. 1. Collatia: said by Virgil (Aeneid 6. 774; cf. Pliny, N.H. 3. 69) to have been an Alban colony, Collatia was, as its name despite the artificial etymologies of antiquity (Servius, ad Aen. 6. 773 ex collata pecuniae Paulus Festus 33 L.) implies, a Latin town. It was on the site of the modern Lunghezza (cf. Frontinus, de Aqu. 1. 5. 10; see Ashby, P.B.S.R. 1 (1902), 146 fF.), commanding the Anio crossing and the transverse road from Veii to Gabii. A small community sur­ vived until the Empire (Strabo 5. 230). citra: better circa (Lallemand). Egerius: 34. 3. T h e story of his vice-royalty at Collatia is perhaps based on the known fact that the Egerii were a powerful family in Latium in early times. Cf., e.g., the dic(t)ator Latinus Egerius Laevius (Cato fr. 58 P.) and the Egerii at Aricia mentioned by Festus (128 L. a quo multi et clari viri orti sunt etper multos annos fuerunt). See also 21. 3 n. 38. 2. oratores: 15. 5, 2. 30. 8, 32. 8, 39. 11, 5. 15. 3, 16. 1; the orator differed from a legatus in that he was not a plenipotentiary but merely a spokesman. H e had no powers to negotiate. in sua potestate: 2. 14. 4 n. at ego: 28. 9 n. 38. 4. omne nomen: the list of cities comprises all those on either bank of the Anio as far as the barrier of the hills. Their capture, although not necessarily to be ascribed to the elder Tarquin, was a logical con­ sequence of the final repulse of the Sabines and the quest for wider pasturage. T h e list itself was probably compiled by selecting those names which figured in the list of the feriae Latinae and which lay in that quarter of Latium within a certain radius of Rome. Corniculum: the home of Servius Tullius' mother (39. 1 n.), its name survived in Pliny's list of vanished cities (N.H. 3. 68) and in the montes Corniculaniy which lay along a line from Antemna through Ficulea to 154

TARQUINIUS PRISGUS

i. 38. 4

Tibur (D.H. 1. 16). Corniculum was captured immediately after Collatia (D.H. 3. 50. 4) which rules out any of the distant hills such as Mte. S. Angelo. It should be sought in the area of Mte. dell'Incastro where Villanovan sherds have been found. T h e site is a typical pro­ montory without the great natural strength of Veii to make it longlived ; it is on the highest ground overlooking Collatia; it is the centre of a considerable road-system from both R o m e and Crustumerium. See also Ashby, P.B.S.R. 3 (1906), 183. Ficulea vetus: 3. 52. 3 ; so called because it was an Aboriginal settle­ ment (D.H. 1. 16) before being latinized, lay near Fondo Capobianco at the fifth milestone on the Via Nomentana. T h e site is naturally habitable and it survived Tarquin's capture to conspire against Rome in 390 (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 18) and to provide an estate for Cicero [ad Alt. 12.34. 1). T h e site is identified by inscriptions [C.I.L. 14.400155)Cameria: or Camerium (Tacitus, Annals 11. 24), an Alban colony (Diodorus 7 . 5 ; Pliny, N.H. 3. 68) which enjoyed estimable land (Festus 268 L.), its site can only be guessed in relation to Ficulea and Nomentum. It lay a night's march from Rome (D.H. 5. 49), i.e. not more than 15 miles, and is placed both by L. and by D.H. (3. 51) after Ficulea. T h e most inviting site is Casale Mte. Gentile, 10 miles from Rome, where ancient material has been unearthed (Ashby, P.B.S.R* 3 (1906), 65). T h e Coruncanii and one branch of the Sulpicii came from there but the fact that Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, consul in 51, be­ longed to the tribe Lemonia does not help. It was sacked in 502 (D.H. 5-2i,49)Crustumerium : 9. 8 n. Ameriola: mentioned only here and, as a vanished city, by Pliny. It must have lain in the area between Crustumerium and Nomentum. Possible sites would be S. Colomba on the Via Salaria or the spur at the east end of the Mte. Massa where an ancient road passes to Nomentum. Medullia: 33. 4 tuta munitionibus; the Romans had to camp in the open to attack it. It was a more considerable place than Ameriola, although listed by Pliny as vanished and evidently situated in the same locality, for the cognomen Medullinus was held by the early Furii. Despite the connexion of that family with Tusculum (C.I.L. i 2 . 4 8 57), Medullia must have been near Nomentum. T h e obvious site is Monte Rotundo. See also Ashby, P.B.S.R. 3 (1906), 186. Older con­ jectures are too far afield. Nomentum: lay 13 miles north of Rome at the end of the Via Nomen­ tana and guarded the crossing of the Allia. Claimed as an Alban colony (D.H. 2. 53), it was a Latin community which bordered so closely on Sabine territory that it often changed sides. It is the only 155

I. 38.4

TARQUINIUS PRISGUS

one of the cities to have survived in sufficient strength to be a member of the Latin League (D.H. 5. 61). It continued as a municipium into the Republic. See Philipp, R.E. 'Nomentum'. 38. 6. aquas, cloacis: the confusion in the manuscripts is caused by the interpolation of e which is transposed by R x Ox in an attempt to produce syntax. T h e notice about the cloacae and the Capitol antici­ pates the works of the younger Tarquin (56. 1-2 nn.). There was an intimate connexion between the two operations, for the Capitol could only be accessible for building after the Forum had been drained. The draining of the Forum may have been accomplished in two or more stages, minor cloacae followed by a full-scale ditch, but it is more likely that the whole operation was done at one time and that it has been reduplicated in the sources because it was known only that it had been undertaken by an unspecified Tarquin. T h e Forum-area had ceased to be used as a burial-ground by the end of the sixth century. 39-48. Servius Tullius: Origins, Accession, and Reign T h e historical character of Servius Tullius, the sixth king of Rome, is beyond dispute. H e is invariably associated with the creation of the centuriate organization, with the construction of the walls of Rome, and with the institution of the cult of Diana on the Aventine. T h e tradition is unanimous and there is no reason to reject it. His name (mentioned already in Timaeus ap. Pliny, N.H. 33. 43) has no special significance other than its uncompromising latinity and that Etruscan historians should have troubled to dispute it by identifying Servius with an Etruscan Mastarna (Or. Claudii = I.L.S. 212) only confirms that his reign marked a Latin interruption in the Etruscan domination of Rome as represented by the Tarquins. Set the basic facts on one side and the rest of the biography of Servius appears to be deliberate embellishment conceived to add dignity to a king whose role in the development of the R o m a n con­ stitution was known to be important, whose name at all times inspired the noblest sentiments of patriotic pride but whose story suffered from a paucity of circumstantial evidence. T h e miraculous circum­ stances of his infancy have many parallels in legend (39. 1 n.), the murder of Priscus is modelled on an episode from the history of fourthcentury Magna Graecia (40. 5 n.), the concealment of Priscus' death has Ptolemaic precursors (41. 4 n.), and many of the particular details of the centuriate organization can be demonstrated to be anachronisms from the second century. It is reasonable to suppose that Fabius Pictor was the first to give the reign most of its present features, since Polybius and Cicero (de Rep. 2. 38-41) do not differ strikingly from L., but later historians, inspired by political or philosophical theories 156

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 39-48

of history, will have added touches of tendency or, inspired by local legends and antiquarian oddities, will have inserted particular points. For L. Servius' importance lay in the part he played in promoting the growth of R o m a n institutions (42. 4). Each of the kings is cha­ racterized by a special interest, N u m a by religiones, Ancus by bellicae caerimoniae, Tullus by his ferocitas, Super bus by his superbia. So Servius' organization of the state overshadowed everything else. H e is indeed a second founder (conditor) of Rome and accordingly occupies the same position and the same amount of space in the second half of the book (39-48) that Romulus does in the first (7-16), as Superbus (49-60) balances Tullus (22-31). L. is always careful to give his books such a formal symmetry. T h e matter of L.'s account will have come without alteration from his sources and the harshness of eo tempore raises a suspicion that at that point he switches to a new source. Note also the citation of variants at 39- 5 o v e r the parentage of Servius and the contradiction between 42. 2 and the narrative of 38. L.'s description of the fire-prodigy dis­ agrees radically with that given by Valerius (39. 1 n.) so we must assume that L. changed from Licinius to Valerius at 39. 5 (n. eorum) but that he had had a preliminary glance at Valerius for details of Servius' early years. In any event the immediate source for 43 cannot be earlier than c. 130 nor later than 80 for 45. 1-8. Corro­ boration is provided by D.H. who combines Valerius with other authorities. Hence there are surprising similarities as well as sur­ prising divergences between D.H. and L. It is far-fetched to assume an analogy between the circumstances of Tullia's marriage and the abrupt wedding of Livia and Augustus in 38 B.C.

Bibliography: J. J . Bachofen, Tanaquil; L. Euing, Die Sage von Tana­ quil (Frankfurt. Stud. 8 ) ; W. Soltau, Phil Woch. 25 (1905), 220 ff.; E. Pais, Storia Critica, 1. 495 and Ancient Legends, 128-51; H. Last, C.A.H., 7. 387 ff.; E. Gocchia, Atti R. Accad. Napoli 8 (1925), 2 1 1 ; Groh, Historia, 2 (1928), 353; Burck 160-3; G. Dumezil, Servius et la Fortune (1943); W. Hoffmann, R.E., 'Servius Tullius'; Schachermeyer, R.E., ' T a n a q u i l ' ; U . Goli, S.D.H.L 21 (1955), 186 ff.; P. de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis, 668-705. 39. 1. eo tempore: 2. 33. 10 n. Servius Tullius: a Latin name, for the history of which see H . Jordan, Die Konige im alten Italien (1887), 15 ff. Subsequently Tullius was used only by plebeians, which is a guarantee of its authenticity since no fifth- or fourth-century historian would have invented a plebeian king. caput arsisse: early Roman legend offers several examples of the miraculous King's Fire. It was commonly supposed that the old Latin 157

*■ 3 9 - i

SERVIUS TULLIUS

kings were the offspring of the fire-god by mortal mothers and such manifestations testified to their royal and divine nature, Romulus and Remus were the children of a slave woman and a flame of fire according to Promathion (Plutarch, Romulus 2; cf. 1.3.11 n.); Caeculus, the founder of Praeneste, was conceived through a spark which struck his mother from the fire, while both Lavinia (Virgil, Aen. 7. 71-77) and Ascanius (Virgil, Aen. 2. 680-6) were attended by haloes of fire which played about their heads. (Such supernatural illumination has parallels in other communities, to be found in Sir James Frazer, Golden Bough, 2. 194-206; A. B. Cook, £eus, 2. 114; and Gow on Theocritus 24. 22.) In the case of Servius it would appear therefore that the crude story according to which his mother conceived by a flame in the shape of the genitals (Plutarch, defort. Rom. 10; D . H . 4. 2 ; Ovid, Fasti 6. 631) was the primitive version—which was subsequently rationalized into the more respectable tale adopted by L. in which divine fire merely played about the child's head (Cicero, de Div. 1. 121; Pliny, N.H. 2. 2 4 1 ; Servius, ad Aen. 2. 6 8 3 ; de Viris illustr. 7. i ) . According to Plutarch, Valerius Antias (fr. 12 P.) was the first to improve on that story by making Servius not an infant but a grown m a n who had just lost his wife Getania when the divine manifestation occurred. L.'s version should, therefore, come from Licinius Macer. 39. 2. miraculum: 4. 7 n. sedatoque earn tumultu: iam, read by the manuscripts, would underline the clear break between what had happened and present circum­ stances. Such a break is unwanted here since the tumult presumably subsided at a word from the queen ('the queen asked for quiet and forbade . . . ' ) . Gronovius proposed earn to provide, as well, a subject for vetuisse. T h e setting of a subject noun or pronoun inside an abl. abs. often has the effect of a present or past participle in agreement with the noun, earn is certain here but cf. 40. 37. 6 (Meyer). 39. 3 . videsne: so n. MA have the corrupt vidine which Gronovius emended to the syncopated viden. Elsewhere L. uses videsne tu (6. 29. 1) and this alone should lead us to follow TT quite apart from the fact that viden tu would be lively conversation (Terence, Heaut. 252) and in­ appropriate to the formal phrasing of Tanaquil. viden ut-\-indie, is the accepted poetical usage (Virgil, Aen. 6. 779 with Norden's note). videsne also occurs in Cicero, Acad, prior. 2. 57 (Frigell, Epilegomena, 37). scire licet: only here in L. T h e periphrasis lends weight to the point which is going to be made and is used frequently by Lucretius and Celsus in their most didactic moments. lumen . . . praesidiumque: Tanaquil's prophecy with its figurative use of lumen is an interpretation of the fire-prodigy, an effect destroyed by Rhenanus's ingenious (co^lumen. Columen would be an appropriately 158

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

*• 39- 3 solemn word (Fraenkel, Horace, 217 n. 2) a n d is used in metaphorical contexts of this kind (6. 37. 10; cf. Horace, Odes 2. 17. 3-4), but the conjunction 0$lumen andpraesidium can be supported. Cf. Virgil, Aeneid, 2. 281 (from Ennius). nostra: not superfluous since it adds a measured dignity to her words — a n effect also achieved by the repeated n. 39. 4 . evenit facile quoddis cordi esset: if the consensus of the manuscripts is right, quod must be a causal relative = quippe quod (cf 45. 7) and the subject of evenit (aorist) be TanaquiPs prophecy as a whole. T h e alternative [evenit present; quod . . . est (with Gruter and some recc.) relative) makes the sentiment general: ' w h a t the gods wish is accom­ plished easily' (cf. Petronius 76 citofit quod di volunt or, with Lendrum, Pindar, Pyth. 9. 6 9 ; notice also Homer, Od. 3. 2 3 1 ; Euripides, Ion 1244; Pindar, Pyth. 2. 49). Gruter's interpretation ( c ut istud substruat quasi dogma') seems, however, abrupt in the context. This moralizing generalization reflects a commonplace, often colloquial, practice of adding a touch of mock-seriousness to a story by inserting quomodo di volunt and the like: cf. Plautus, Miles 117; Virgil, Aen. 5. 50; Petronius 61 fabulam exorsus est ' . . . ibi, quomodo dii volunt, amare coepi . . .'. For dis cordi cf. 6. 9. 3, 9. 1. 4, 10. 42. 7, 22. 1. 10, 28. 18. 5, 28. 20. 7. 3 9 . 5 . serva natum: Servius' origins are veiled in darkness but the pattern of the growing legend can be disentangled. His own name is attested as early as Timaeus, and his mother's n a m e is equally well grounded as Ocrisia (for the orthography and etymology see E. Morbach, R.E., s.v.). T h e early tradition is unanimous that she was a slave, by captivity rather than birth, and this could be more than mere etymo­ logical conjecture from the praenomen of her son Servius. Plutarch (Q^-R. 100) discusses the question whether the feriae servorum on the Ides of August are connected with Servius' birth from a slave woman and it is noteworthy that the foundation date of the Servian temple of Diana on the Aventine was the same day (H. J . Rose, ad l o c ) . It may be that a piece of genuine history has been preserved. Ocrisia was a prisoner of war from Gorniculum. But his paternity is contro­ versial. T h e most likely reconstruction is that his father was either unknown or soon forgotten. T o enhance Servius' royal claims he was called the son of the fire-god. This was the oldest tradition (D. H. 4. 2 iv TOLLS imx^pioLs avaypaats; Plutarch, de fort. Rom. 10). A more sceptical age, as we have shown above, recoiled from the idea of the physical paternity of the fire-god and substituted one of Tarquin's clients as Servius' actual father and turned the fire-prodigy into a mei e halo. T h a t we presume to have been the version of Fabius Pictor (cf. Cicero, de Rep. 2. 3 7 ; Plutarch, de fort. Rom. 10 TreAar^s) which was utilized by Licinius Macer here; cf. also 4. 3. 12 and Claudius, I.L.S. 212. But such a birth was too humble for the greatest of Rome's kings. 159

]

-39-5

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

His father must have been a king not a mere client. A royal father was fabricated for him—Servius Tullius of Corniculum or, according to a tradition known to Festus 182 L. and inspired by local patriotism, Sp. Tullius of Tibur. I take this version, which is that preferred by L. [eorum magis sententiae sum) and D.H. (4.1), to be the creation of Valerius Antias. Among other authorities de Viris illustr. 7, Servius, ad Aen. 2. 683 (where vericulanum should be changed by a simple metathesis to Corniculanum), and Zonaras 7. 9 derive ultimately from L., while Justin 18. 6, Val. Max. 1. 6. 1, and Plutarch, Q.R. 100 content themselves with referring solely to his mother as a slave woman without further elaboration. eorum: probably only Valerius Antias. Corniculo : 38. 4 n. (in) Prisci Tarquini domo: the word-order first suggested by Curio is preferable to Curio's second thoughts (1549) when he proposed Prisci Tarquinii (in) domo. As Meyer demonstrated, the genitive must come either after in domo (43. 13. 6 ; 39. 13. 3) or between in and domo (6. 34. 6). T h e in is required. T h e plain ablative domo without in is inadequately supported by a reference to Porph. ad Horace, Sat. 1.5-38. 39. 6. et inter mulieres: with et puerum, 'both . . . and'. Not merely did the familiarity between Ocrisia and the women of the royal household increase but the boy was liked too. 40. 2. tutoris: 34. 12 n. Italicae: T a r q u i n was half Greek, half Etruscan. 40. 3 . centesimum fere annum: a round number, actually 138 years. quam: Virtually 100 years after Romulus held the throne'. T h e sentence is a combination of two distinct thoughts: (1) the throne which a god once possessed is now held by a slave (quod regnum . . . id) and (2) a 100 years after a god ruled, a slave now rules at Rome, b u t there is no need to alter quam to quod as Drakenborch first pro­ posed but rejected. T h e greatness of Rome's downfall is emphasized by the careful choice of language attributed to Ancus' sons. T h e dignity of Romulus is conveyed by calling him deo prognatus; for prognatusy as can be seen from the remarks of E. Schwyzer, Kuhn's £eitschrift 56 (1928), 10 fF. and Fraenkel, Horace, 82 n. 4, was an archaic and obsolete word as early as Plautus (cf. Amph. 365) which later authors such as Horace, SaL 1. 2. 70 only employed to evoke a solemn and august atmosphere. It does not occur elsewhere in L. With this is contrasted the servile obscurity of Servius Tullius. N had Servius serva natus, which is read by Cocchia and other editors or emended to servus serva natus by some of the later manuscripts and followed by most of the early editors and 160

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 40. 3

the O.G.T. It was the worst that the ancients could say of a man that he was not merely a slave or a rogue but t h a t his parents were too (cf. Aristophanes, Eq. 336-7; Ran. 7 3 1 ; Lysias 13. 18), and in comparing Servius with Romulus to the detriment of the former L. can hardly have failed to omit this double insult. Weissenborn's Servius (servus) serva natus is more than attractive because of its formal antithesis to Romulus deo prognatus deus ipse. 4 0 . 5 . ex pastoribus: the circumstances of Tarquinius' assassination are a literary embellishment added in the third century on the basis of two well-known stories, the murder of Jason of Phera in 370 (Xenophon, Hell. 6. 4. 31), and the assassination of Glearchus, tyrant of Heraclea, by two noble youths (Justin 16. 5. 15). D . H . preserves the original form of the story, which L. has abbreviated, that two nobles, Marcii, dressed u p as shepherds. quibus consueti . . . ferramentis: the construction is very odd; ferramentis has to be regarded as an abl. of accompaniment, 'with the tools they were used to' but no parallel is forthcoming. Perhaps a word has dropped out, e.g. ferramentis (armati) (G. W . Williams) or (instructi). 4 1 . 1. clamor inde concursusque: 48. 2 n., military colouring. populiy mirantium: the plural after a singular collective noun is illus­ trated by Lofstedt, Syntactica, 2. 136. There is no need to delete miran­ tium with Novak. quid rei esset: 48. 1 n., 4. 44. 4 n. Gf. 5. 21. 7 mirantes quidnam id esset. 41. 2. paene exsanguem: 48. 4 n. Tanaquil now delivers two short speeches of widely different and sharply defined character. T o Servius she speaks, like a general before battle, in rousing terms calculated to excite his courage and his enthusiasm; to the crowd she is precise and matter-of-fact, inspiring confidence by her assured command of medical platitudes (E. Dutoit, Mus. Helv. 5 (1948), 120). This easy change of style aids L.'s picture of a clever and unscrupulous woman. See the assessment by A. Momigliano, Misc. Fac. Lett. Filos. Torino, 1938, 4 ff. 4 1 . 3 . si vir es: a taunt, frequent in Latin and in Greek from the Homeric dvepes care to Gleon's jibe against the generals at Pylos el avSpcs €L€vy but in Latin it is too strong for refined literature and is favoured by the more excited style of letters (e.g. Cicero, ad Fam. 5. 18. 1 te colligas virumquepraebeas; ad Att. 10. 7. 2 et al.). pessimum facinus fecere: notice the solemn 'figura etymologica'. See K r o l l o n Catullus 81. 6. erige te: cf. Cicero, Q.F. 1. 3. 5 erige te et confirma si qua subeunda dimicatio erit; Seneca, Epist. 71. 6. At Cicero, Q.F. 1. 1. 4 Wesenberg's supplement erigas is mentioned but not accepted by Watt. 814432

l6l

M

I. 4 1 . 3

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

hoc . . . caput: 'this head of yours', a striking circumlocution for which Shackleton Bailey on Prop. 2. 9. 26 cites also Lucan 5. 686; Silius Italicus 10. 52; Seneca, Phoen. 204; Statius, Silvae 4. 1. 21. It goes back to Plautus but it is more than a mere circumlocution here since Tanaquil is re-interpreting the omen which concerned only the head of Servius. expergiscere vere: Sanctius's expergiscere. Quid verere? and similar emendations obscure the force of the expression. Servius woke up literally once (39. 3 ) : now he is really to wake up and bestir him­ self. qui sis, non unde: 2. 7. 10. Cf. Cicero, de Rep, 2. 6 quis et unde sit scire. It was a fundamentally R o m a n idea to call to mind one's family and ancestors (cf, e.g., Seneca, adPolyb. 14. 3). Here it is given a dif­ ferent twist. There is no basic difference between the indefinite-inter­ rogative pronouns quis and qui; quis was the original form (cf. Gk. rts) while the use of qui was a later development evolved to avoid sigmatism (instances of quis s- are rare. Lofetedt, Syntactica, 2. 84 lists the principal instances) and became the predominant form in vulgar Latin writers. tua . . . consilia: the word-order is remarkable and emphatic. It should be compared with Praef. 5 quae nostra tot per annos vidit aetas on which H . J . Miiller collects a useful assemblage of parallels, but his explanation that it is 'mehr dichterisch 5 is misleading. It serves to emphasize the adjective, here tua—an effect also secured by the re­ peated consilia (wrongly deleted by Gruter). See Fraenkel, Iktus und Akzent, 162 ff.; Horace, 152 n. 1, 265 n. 3 ; Denniston, Greek Prose Style, 41-584 1 . 4 . ex superiore parte aedium: a strange anachronism. Primitive R o m a n houses and their Italic counterparts were of a simple atriumdesign without upper stories or street windows and the type of window and balcony facing the street which is demanded by Tanaquil's appearance, although common in Alexandrian palaces, was an in­ novation of the censor C. Maenius who was consul in 338 B.C. (Festus 120 L.; see A. Boethius, Eranos 43 (1945), 89 ff., and D . S. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture (2nd ed., 1943), 303). It is also surprising that Tarquinius should be residing near the Temple of Juppiter Stator (12. 6 n.) which lies in the angle between the Sacra Via, Via Nova, and Clivus Palatii (see plan) rather than at the official Regia, traditionally built by N u m a near the Temple of Vesta. Both details suggest that the story has been tampered with and the Hellenistic nature of the scene and the situation call to mind the similar ruse by which the death of Ptolemy Philopator was concealed for a year (204-203) by Agathocles and Sosibius (F. W. Walbank, J.E.A. 22 (1936), 22 ff.) or the death of Berenice by Euergetes in 246. T h e 162

SERVIUS TULLIUS

1.41. 4

Sultana Shajar concealed the death of Sultan Ayub and succeeded in nominating Fakhr ad-Din as viceroy. T h e anachronism is, there­ fore, due to a motif from Hellenistic history being grafted on to a R o m a n legend which would otherwise have been bare and uncircumstantial. T h e device was popular. Tacitus (Annals 1. 5) imitates L.'s account of the concealment of Priscus' d e a t h (cf. M . P. Charlesworth, CR. 41 (1927), 5 5 ; R - H - Martin, C.Q,. 49 (IC;55)> 127). T h e location of Tarquinius' residence near the temple of Juppiter Stator may have been inspired by a story attached to a striking architectural feature in the area. T h e decisive meetings of the Senate during the Gatilinarian conspiracy were held there (Cicero, in CatiL 1. 1 1 ; 2. 12; Plutarch, Cicero 16. 3). Iovis Statoris: 12. 6 n. 4 1 . 5. iubet bono animo esse: the technical vocabulary and the short staccato sentences all suggest the official medical Bulletin such as might be posted up outside a Royal Palace, bono animos es (and the indirect iubet bono animo esse) is a bare, colourless formula of reassurance. They are the opening words with which Juppiter comforts Amphitryo in Plautus (1131 bono animo es: adsum ego auxilio. Cf. 671) and are used somewhat patronizingly by Cicero in letters to Lepta (adFam. 6. 18. 1) and by Appius Claudius (10. 29. 1). Their conventional character is indicated by the coincidental resemblance of 39. 13. 7 bono animo esse iubere (Sulpiciam) consul et sibi curae fore dicere ut . . . to Tacitus, Histories 4. 52 Vespasianus... bono esse animo iubet... sibi pacem domumque curae fore. sopitum fuisse: c stunned, rendered unconscious'; a medical term. Cf. 42. 16. 3 ; Celsus, 4. 27a sopor tantum est. alte in corpus descendisse: cf. Celsus 5. 26. 35b altius descendit. iam ad se redisse: 'he had now recovered consciousness', the tech­ nical phrase to judge from Horace, Epist. 2.2. 137-8; Lucretius 4. 1023 (cf. 997). It reflects the way that Greeks and Romans always looked on loss of consciouness. inspectum vulnus: the procedure was professionally recommended by Celsus 7. 1. 1. omnia salubria esse: not 'all is well', because Priscus is still far from well, but 'all the symptoms are hopeful', another specialized use (quite different from 31.5) for which Drak. well compared Terence, Andria 481-2. dicto audientem esse: 5. 3. 8 n., 29. 20. n . T h e phrase is directly re­ lated to the concept of imperium as a study of the Plautine uses shows (G. W . Williams, Hermes 86 (1958), 97 n. 1: cf. Amph. 9 9 1 ; Miles 611), and it is suggested that it was used formally in the actual terms of the military sacramentum (Caesar, B.C. 1. 39. 7, 1. 40. 12). By it T a n a quil hints, while deliberately leaving the precise constitutional status 163

i. 4i. 5

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

vague, that Tarquin's imperium is delegated to Servius as praefectus urbi (59. 12 n . : cf. iura redditurum). No mention is made of his position in the event of Tarquin's death since Tanaquil rules that possibility out of account. See, however, Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 662 n. 2. 4 1 . 6. trabea: a short purple cloak of Etruscan origin. I n primitive times it was standard military uniform, designed perhaps to conceal wounds (trossula; cf. Servius, ad Aen. 7. 612; Val. Max. 2. 6. 2 ; Isidore 19. 22. 10). There are parallels for such a uniform in Persia and Sparta. It became in consequence the ritual dress of Etruscan kings (see the mural from Caere in Ducati, Die Etruskische Malerei, fig. 4) and it is perfectly credible that Priscus introduced it into Rome as part of his regalia. Certainly after the expulsion of the kings it survived as ritual wear for magistrates who inherited regal preroga­ tives. It was worn by consuls declaring wars (Servius, loc. cit.; Bell. Afr. 57. 4-6), by the Salii (D.H. 2. 70. 2), by the augurs, and by the flamines of Juppiter and Mars (Servius, ad Aen. 7. 190). But it also survived as a dress uniform for the equites, even though its use had long been superseded by armour. It was worn not only at the ceremony of Transvectio in July (D.H. 2. 70. 2-3) but on other state occasions such as the funeral of Germanicus in 19 A.D. (Tabula H e b a n a = Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents2, no. 94a. 59). Fully discussed and illustrated by A. Alfoldi, Der Friihrbmische Reiteradel, 1952, 36-53, with biblio­ graphy. sede regia: 20. 2 n. praesidio: 'bodyguard'. 4 1 . 7. the manuscripts have iam turn cum comprensis sceleris ministris ut vivere regem . . . nuntiatum est where cum or ut is redundant. Either could be accounted for by dittography but Livian usage seems con­ stant: ubi (2. 13. 7, 2. 40. 3, 3. 2. 7, 4. 9. 13, 5. 7. 4.),postquam($. 17. 1, 4. 50. 6, 5. 39. 5) or ut (5. 23. 1) nuntiatum est but cum nuntiatum esset (e.g. 4. 39. 7). Delete cum. Heerwagen's cum comprensi sceleris ministri sunt, ut is clumsy and the cum-clause is still wrong. Suessam Pometiam: originally called Pometia (the addition of Suessa seems to be an Annalist error), a Latin city which may have given its name to the Pontine marshes (cf. A. Rosenberg, Hermes 54 (1919), 154 ff.; Beloch, Rom. Gesch. 357. 1; Philipp, R.E., 'Suessa Pometia'; Hofmann, R.E., Suppl. 8, T o m p t i n a e paludes') but which lay to the north of the marshes on the borders of the Latin and Volscian spheres. Strabo (5. 232) said that it lay between the Via Appia and Via Latina which rules out the usual identification with Cisterna. Its absence from the early Alban league, its membership of the Arician league (Gato fr. 58 P.), and its proximity to the Volsci point to a site south of the Alban hills overlooking the marshes. Important early cemeteries have been found at Caracupo which suit the requirements (Notiz* 164

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 41. 7

Scavi, 1903, 289 ff.). For its late history see 53. 2, 55. 7 n., 2. 16. 8 n., 2. 22. 2. It lived and died like any other border town and had vanished by Pliny's time. exsulatum: 2. 35. 5 n. T h e term is used loosely here. There is no hint of criminal proceedings against them. 42. 1. duos filias: see note on ch. 46. 42. 2. rupitfati necessitatem: the resemblance with Virgil, Aeneid 6. 882-3 si qua fata aspera rumpas, tu Marcellus eris has often been noticed by commentators both of L. and of Virgil (cf. Norden's note), and Stacey adducing also Lucr. 2. 254 fati foedera rumpat maintained that all three authors derived the sentiment and the expression from Ennius. Elsewhere reminiscences of Ennius in L. have a dramatic purpose, generally to characterize a speaker by giving him poetic and archaic diction. Here the words serve no such purpose and it is perhaps pre­ ferable to take them as a commonplace of Stoicism (cf. 8. 7. 8) of the conventional kind which coloured the whole of R o m a n historiography (Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy, 56-58; cf. Walsh, A. J.P. 79 (1958), 362). L.'s words are casual and designed merely to foreshadow the tragedy of Servius Tullius. quin: as if non potuit fieri had pre­ ceded. indutiae exierant: no truce has been mentioned before (but see 30. 7) nor does L. mention any war with Veii under Tarquinius Priscus. T h e last war was in 33. 9 (n.). D . H . 3. 57 does, however, relate such a war and it is possible that L. knew of it and suppressed it, for artistic reasons, in 37. 2, but it is more likely that his source (Licinius Macer) for the reign of Tarquinius Priscus did not contain it and that L. has now changed to a new source, Valerius Antias. 42. 3 . et virtus etfortuna: 5. 34. 2 n., 1. 7. 15. 42. 4 . Numa\ 32. 5 n. famaferrent: an Augustan usage, cf. 23. 31. 13, 34. 36. 4; Virgil, Georg. 3. 47, Aeneid 7. 765; Tacitus, Ann. 16. 2. 42. 5. hunc ordinem: 'this arrangement which follows'. Contrast the meaning of 43. 12 n. descripsit: so the manuscripts, but describo and discribo are so con­ stantly confused (19. 6 n.) that it seems safest to accept discribo when the notion of distribution or division predominates, but in other places to read describo as here and in Cicero, de Rep. 4. 2 ordines descripti, aetates, classes. vel pact decorum vel bello: it is hard to be happy about this phrase. Peerlkamp in his note on Horace Odes 1. 1. 2 and A. E. Housman in the margin of his copy of Livy both drew attention to the Latin cliche, 'an ornament for peace and defence for war' (paci decus, bello praesidium). Thus Maecenas is addressed 0 et praesidium et dulce decus 165

SERVIUS T U L L I U S i. 42. 5 meum. Peerlkamp compared Sallust, Jug. 19. 1 pars . . . praesidio, aliae decorifuere; Tacitus, Germania 13. 4 ; Lucretius 2. 6 4 3 ; Pliny, Paneg. 14. 3. In view of this word-pattern it is not easy to accept Boot's suggestion (Mnemosyne 17 (1889), 1 ff.) that decorum = aptum here, but, rather than conjecture that some word has fallen out after bello> we may perhaps notice that there is no adjective corresponding to praesidium as decorum corresponds to decus and so believe that while L. was indeed evoking the cliche he could not reproduce it exactly. The Servian Constitution O n all general matters see Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, 1. 683-7 with bibliography; the latest treatment is by E. Friezer, de Ordening van Servius Tullius (Amsterdam 1957); see also the summary by P. A. Brunt, J.R.S. 51 (1961), 81. A radical reinterpretation of the crucial passage of Cicero's de Republica advanced by Sumner (A.J.P. 81 (i960), 136-56) is confuted by L. R. Taylor (A.J.P. 82 (1961), 337 and Staveley (Historia 11 (1962), 299-314). It is intended here only to deal with points which specifically concern the narrative in L. L. purports to give the actual details of Servius' innovations. While the broad outline of it makes historical sense, the minutiae are evidently spurious. It has been demonstrated by H . Last (J.R.S. 35 (1945), 30-48) that a change in the basis of citizenship from qualifications of birth to qualifications of wealth and domicile was in line with the social conditions of Rome in the sixth century and was demanded by her increasing military commitments. T h e Servian reforms are, in effect, the counterpart of the Gleisthenic reforms at Athens. Their purpose was military rather than political but, as also at Athens, the political opportunities were soon exploited, at all events before 450. T h e main tradition of the Servian Constitution may well be accepted. But it would require great faith to believe that the document which is reproduced by L. (43. 1-9) gives the authentic terms of the reforms or that L. is really drawing on regal evidence (E. S. Staveley, A.J.P. 72 (1953), 1-33; F. C. Bourne, Class. Weekly, 1952, 134). T h e Con­ stitution organizes the community for military service into divisions (classes), based on wealth (not merely land), and sub-divisions (cen­ turies) . There is also a cross-division by tribes based on domicile. T h e fact that wealth is estimated in terms of money is significant. T h e assessment of the first class is 100,000 aeris. Now it may well be that the qualification of the first class in the early part of the second century was 100,000 sextantal asses (10,000 dr. in Polybius 6. 23. 15) and that the same limit was defined in the Lex Voconia of 169 B.C. (pace Aul. Gell. 6. 13). At a later date it was raised to the equivalent 01*250,000 sextantal asses = 100,000 H.S., the figure applying in the last years of 166

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

i-43 the Republic (Mommsen, Rom. Munz. 302, 303 n. 4 0 ; Walbank on Polybius loc. cit.), perhaps by the simple expedient of keeping the original qualification of 100,000 aeris b u t reinterpreting aeris as sesterces instead of sextantal asses (c. 89 B.C.; see H . Mattingly, J.R.S. 27 (1937), 105-6). Since the introduction of the sextantal as cannot itself be placed much earlier than the end of the Second Punic War, the qualification of 100,000 sextantal asses cannot go back much beyond the Lex Voconia and the period when Polybius is writing, certainly not to the regal times if the first R o m a n coinage is no earlier than 269 B.C. (H. Mattingly, J.R.S. 35 (1945), 65-77). Any regal assessments would be in terms of cattle (id., Num. Chron. 3 (1943), 2I ~ 3 9 > 4- 3°* 3 n 0 ' I n o t n e r words L / s figure for the first class (and it agrees with D.H. 4. 16: 100 minae = 10,000 dr. = 100,000 sextantal asses) is the same as that given by Polybius 6. 23. 15 for the first class in his own day, which prevailed from c. 200 to c. 89 B.C. This element at least in the Constitution must be an anachronistic reconstruction. But we can detect a second pious fraud. T h e armour which is allotted to the different classes is neither the official second-century R o m a n issue nor can it have been the equipment of regal times. T h e classical R o m a n army, based on manipular formation, was developed from an earlier hoplite force, familiar also in Etruria and Greece, which had itself replaced an older 'heroic' organization. T h e charac­ teristic weapons of the most ancient warfare were the long body-shield and the throwing spear. T h e change to hoplite tactics which involved the adoption of the round shield {clipeus) fastened to the forearm and the sword were made in Greece c. 675 B.C. at the latest and had spread to Etruria and R o m e by the end of the century. A tomb from the Esquiline dated c. 600 B.C. contains remains of a bronze clipeus. T h e subsequent modification of the hoplite method which replaced the clipeus by the scutum and introduced the pilum is less certainly dated, but may have been the work of Gamillus in the decade of the siege of Veii (c. 400 B.C. ; but see 8. 8. 6 - 7 ; Maule and Smith, Votive Religion at Caere, 20-28). It looks as if an antiquarian reconstruction has been made by a scholar who knew that the Servian army cannot have been manipular. During the second century such an antiquarian would have turned for clues either to archaic monuments such as the statue in the temple of Fortuna burnt in 213 B.C. (D.H. 4. 30) but restored until a final destruction in October A.D. 31 (Pliny, JV.H. 8. 197) or the statue of Aeneas described by Varro ap. Lydus, de Mag. 1. 13, or to ritual survivals like the parade of the equites and the Salii. This primitive military priesthood was a suggestive model because, like the centuriate organization, it was divided into seniores and iuniores (Servius, ad Aen. 8. 285 turn Salii. . . adsunt. . . hie iuvenum chorus, ille senum; Diomed., p . 476 K . ; Wissowa, Religion, 555 n. 4) which 167

i-43

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

could be used as evidence that the Salii were the relics of the Servian system. T h e details of the equipment of the Salii have been assembled by Helbig {Mem. de VInstiU 27 (1904), 205 ff.) and they correspond exactly to the armour of the first class as listed by L. T h e armour, like the census figures, is an intelligent reconstruction by a secondcentury writer who with some knowledge of the past (43. 1 n. octoginta) did not have access to primitive material. H e incorporated his knowledge and his conjectures into the form of a document which then passed into the hands of the historians. D . H . and L. give so similar a version that ultimately they must be derived from the same source. Where they differ, L. is usually at fault either through care­ lessness or misapprehension. 4 3 . 1. octoginta: so also D . H . With this size for the first class it would be possible to secure a majority of the whole assembly without re­ course to the second: ( 8 0 + 1 8 + 2 ) X 2 = 200. Cicero (de Rep. 2. 39) describes a system of 193 centuries in which the first class had only 70 centuries and 1 offabri, and says that a majority could be obtained without the whole of the second class being called. Cicero must be describing a reformed assembly (after 241 when the last of the tribes was added) in which the 35 tribes were co-ordinated with the cen­ turies in some way (43. 13 n.) unless he is merely reproducing a variant reconstruction of the Constitution made by a rival antiquarian in the second century. In support of the authenticity of L.'s figure of 80 centuries for the first class in the earlier unreformed assembly it might also be urged that on his reckoning the number of centuries ofiuniores in the first three classes amounts to 60 ( 4 0 + 1 0 + 1 0 ) which was the number of centuries in the earliest R o m a n legion, the light-armed troops being provided by the fourth and fifth class (P. Fraccaro, Atti del 20 Congresso Nat. di Studi Romani, 3 (1931), 91 ff.; Riv. FiL 11 (1933), 289 ff.; H . Last, J.R.S. 35 (1945)» 42~44)iuniorum ac seniorum: the dividing-line was 46 according to Tubero ap. Aul. Gell. 10. 28. Cf. Polybius 6. 19. 2 ; Cicero, de Senect. 60. 4 3 . 2. galea: a crestless helmet of wolf's skin. Cf. Walbank on Poly­ bius 6. 22. 3. clipeum: a round bronze shield, replaced in historical times by the scutum but the name remained in general parlance. Cf. 8. 8. 3 ; Walbank on Polybius 6. 23. 2. ocreae: greaves were obsolete by the end of the second century. Cf. Lammert, R.E., c ocreae'; Walbank on Polybius 6. 23. 8. lorica: a chain breast-plate. Cf. P. Couissin, Les armes Romaines, 1926, 157 fT.; Walbank on Polybius 6. 23. 15. hastaque et gladius: in apposition to tela, -que et is not found in Cicero, Caesar, Nepos, or Horace. It is rare in early Latin and may have 168

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 43. 2

been archaic even then, b u t it was consciously revived by the historians (Bell. Afr. and Sallust) who use it chiefly to join a pronoun and a noun (Jug. 26. 1 segue et oppidum; cf. Tacitus, Agr. 42 seque et delatores). T h e usage widened as it was increasingly accepted as an ingredient of historical style (2. 59. 7, 4. 53. 12, 5. 49. 1, 5 1 . 3 ; Veil. Pat.; Curtius; in elevated passages of Virgil and Tibullus). Here it gives a touch of historical verisimilitude to the document. Stolz-Schmalz, Lat. Gramm. 3434 3 . 3 . duae fabrum: attributed by D.H., probably correctly, to the second class, not to the first. Cicero cites one century offabri which he attaches to the first class, but by calling them tignarii he implies the existence offabri aerarii, presumably included in the second class. machinas in bello ferrent: £to carry the siege-equipment in war 5 . T h e phrase seems to be guaranteed against correction by 27. 15. 6 machinas scalasque ad muros ferrent but the task seems too menial for members of the first (or even the second) class. D.H. 4. 1 7 . 3 has KaraaK€vat,6vrcov TCL els TOV TToXefiov cvxprjcrra which lends support to Ruperti's pararent, the best of the conjectures if it b s agreed that hipsius's facerent (cf. Xenophon, Cyrop, 6. 1. 21 /x^avqv . . . TroLrjadfievos) would give rise to an unexampled and intolerable repetition. We should perhaps understand that the actual porterage would be done by common people while the fabri supervised. Alternatively ferrent might stand for suppeditarent ('supply'): so W . M . Gunn, but there are no paral­ lels. 43. 5. tertia classis in quinquaginta milium censum: so the manuscripts. L. should give the minimum qualification (cf. D . H . ov fieiova 8e JJLVWV TTevTrjKovTa) but in would provide an upper not a lower limit and is thus unacceptable. T h e vulgate correction, which stems from Sobius, is tertiae classis [in] but the double genitive after census is harsh and not really supported by passages like 10. 36. 14, 37. 23. 5. Besides. L. does not say the census of a class since the census is itself what determines the class, in tertia classe (Rhenanus, Frigell), a correction which involves one small change of letter and word-order, would provide the required sense (cf. below in quarta classe). et hae: 'these centuries as well (as the centuries of the second class)'. 43. 6. arma mutata: the third and fourth classes supply light-armed troops and skirmishers; cf. D.H. 4. 18. 1 TO TTC&KOV eWA^pouo-a rtov re aXayyiTcov KCLI TCOV ifukwv orrpdrcvfia. Doubtless this was true even before the legion was reorganized for manipular warfare, despite the statement in 26. 4. 10 that velites in 211 for the first time were drafted in the legions. There survived down to the end of the second century (Lucilius 290, 393 M.) a tradition of an older body of light-armed troops called rorarii and the introduction of the velites is perhaps only a 169

i. 43.6

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

development of the rorarii under a new n a m e (Walbank on Polybius 6. 21. 7; F . Lammert, R.E., 'veles'). verutum: a short throwing spear, somewhat smaller than the hasta (velitaris). D.H. 4. 17. 1 speaks only of Sopara but adds that the fourth class had swords (#$17) and shields (dvpeovs) as well. D.H. is likely to have recorded the tradition more faithfully since Polybius gives the same equipment for the velites of historical times (6. 22. 1 fidxcupav KCLI ypo<jovs Kal Trdpfxrjv: cf. L. 38. 21. 13, 26. 4. 4). L. may merely have overlooked the other items but nihil praeter suggests that he is drawing attention to their surprising lack of arms, in which case the shortage will be the fault of his source. At all events the text is sound (hastam et scutum Lallemand; gladium, scutum, hastam et verutum anon.). 43. 7. fundas lapidesque: D.H. 4. 17. 2 aavvta /cat <jcv86vas. in his accensi cornicines tubicinesque in tres centurias distributi: so the manuscripts. T h e account which follows owes much to the interpreta­ tions of P. Fraccaro (Opuscula, 2. 315) and Sumner. D.H. 4. 17. 3-4 has two centuries of oaXTTioraL re Kal fivKaviaTat, allocated to the fourth class, a more probable arrangement since their function would primarily have been to keep contact between the scattered detach­ ments of light-armed troops. L. also appears to mention a third century which has no counterpart in D.H. Grammatically accensi could either be a participle to be taken with cornicines tubicinesque ('buglers and trumpeters, added to the members of the fifth class, were spread over three centuries') or as a noun. T h e participial construction requires the deletion of in (Perizonius; cf. Lactantius, Inst. 2. 9. 5 oriens deo adcensetur; carm. anon. poet. min. 5. 109. 5 B. but the ambiguity of accensi (cf. 2. 54. 7) would be intolerable) and the irrationality that two groups of musicians should fill three centuries has led editors since Sigonius to emend tres to duas or in tres to inter. As a noun accensi could grammatically have cornicines tubicinesque in apposition ('accensi, that is buglers and trumpeters') but there is evidence for a body of men, distinct from the musicians, who were called accensi and who per­ formed odd jobs in the army, taking the place of dead men (Paulus Festus 17 L . ; Vegetius, Mil. 2. 19; Varro ap. Non. 837 L.) or in associ­ ation with light-armed troops carrying out general duties (evidence in Marquardt, Manuel (1891), 11. 15-16; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 282) or acting as attendants on officers. Hence they are also known as accensi velati (C.I.L. 6. 1969 et al.). Cicero's account of the reformed system (de Rep. 2. 40) after an analysis of the disproportionate power enjoyed by the first class breaks off with the words quin etiam accensis velatis corni

liticinib. proletariis . . . which, whether they be restored as liticinibus cornicinibus (Mai) or simply cornicinibus (Ziegler), would definitely seem to presuppose a special century of accensi velati as well as centuries of 170

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

'•43- 7

musicians. T h e only objection to such an interpretation, other than a mistaken desire to bring the texts of L. and D . H . into line, is a lingering heresy, first propounded by Madvig (Emendationes, 82) that L. never closes an enumeration of more than two members with et or -que (A, B, et C). T h a t heresy can no longer be maintained (3. 1. 5 n.). L. therefore gives three centuries of accensi, cornicines, and tubicines. It is not immediately clear from the language (in his . . . could mean 'in these thirty centuries' or 'in the members of this class') whether the three are part of the thirty centuries of the fourth class or additional to them. Probably additional, in view of the supernumerary character of the fabri. In either case the total number of centuries, 191 (so Friezer) or 194 (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 282 n. 1), will be different from that given by D.H. for the same constitution and by Cicero for the reformed system, both of whom postulate a total of 193 voting units. This is a fact which deserves to be emphasized in the light of

43- I 2 -

undecim: D.H. 4. 17. 2 ivros CLKOGL KCLL rrivre JJLVWV a-XP1 ScuSe/oi KCLL

rjfjLLcrovs fjLvwv =25,000—12,500, but the division by half looks overschematic and L.'s figure may be right. By the middle of the second century the minimum qualification had been reduced to 4,000 (Polybius 6. 19. 2) and towards the end of the Republic (perhaps between 130 and 125 from the evidence of the large j u m p in census figures which occurred within that period) to 1,500 (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 4 0 ; Aul. Gell. 16. 10. 10), presumably to facilitate recruitment. 11,000 sextantal asses might have been the minimum for the fifth class at the end of the Second Punic War. See, with reservations on chronology, E. Gabba, Athenaeum 27 (1949), 173 ff. The Cavalry 4 3 . 8. exprimoribus civitatis: 5. 7. 5 n. There is no hint that they had a higher qualification. 4 3 . 9. sex . . . alias centurias: 36. 8 n., the Sex Suffragia or six preServian centuries of cavalry. T h e distinction between them and the twelve Servian centuries may originally have been one of birth, the Sex Suffragia being exclusively patrician (Hill, Roman Middle Classes, 211). If so, it was soon obliterated and by the end of the Republic there remained only a distinction of title. ab Romulo: 13. 8 n. nominibus: i.e. Ramnenses, Titienses, Luceres. dena milia: the aes equestre for the purchase of the horse (s). Varro, de Ling. Lat. 8. 71 equum publicum . . . mille assariorum agrees with L.'s figure since the assarius, despite its etymology which suggests the Greek auadptov or as, is said by a late gloss to be equivalent in value to and may be an easy name for a denarius of 10 asses. Since the 10-as 171

1.43-9

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

denarius was not introduced till c. 187 (H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson, P.B.A. 18 (1933), 2 I 1 ff"0> L.'s figure for the aes equestre, like his census qualifications, may mirror the figures in force at the end of the Punic War. 1,000 den. is a large sum and it has been argued that the knight had to pay for the horses and a groom out of it. Since, however, prices for horses are otherwise unknown except for a Hyperion-class stallion which cost 400,000 H.S. = 100,000 den. (Varro, de Re Rust. 2. 8. 3 ; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 257 n. 6), the issue cannot be resolved. See further Hill, Roman Middle Class, 11-12 with bibliography; T. Frank, Econ. Survey, 1. 195; W. Helbig, Sur Vaes pararium in Melanges Boissier (Paris, 1903). ex publico: it was one of Camillus' first acts as censor to make orphans and not the state responsible for the purchase of horses (Plutarch, Camillus 2 ; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 257). bina milia: known as the aes hordearium. Cicero (de Rep. 2. 36) associates its introduction with Tarquinius Priscus but this is a later rationalization based on Priscus' connexion with Corinth where a corresponding practice prevailed (cf. also for Athens Xenophon, Hipparch. 9. 5). T h e practice survived for a long time, for Gaius (Instit. 4. 27) says that the cavalry had the right of distraint (pignoris capio) if the money was not forthcoming (Hill, A. J.P. 67 (1946), 60 ff.). T h e figure of 2,000 is not otherwise corroborated but it may be connected with the figure for the pay of the cavalry in the mid second century which Polybius (6. 39.12) gives as 1 dr. = 1 den. a day, out of which they had to find fodder and equipment, an annual pay of 360 den. if, as was the case in A.D. 14, the military year was reckoned as 360 days. Shortly after Polybius' lifetime the sextantal as was retariffed at 16 instead of 10 to the denarius, but a curious note in Pliny, N.H. 33. 45 (in militari tamen stipendio semper denarius pro X assibus datus est) points to a hidebound military conservatism which preserved the old rate of exchange (cf. P. A. Brunt, P.B.S.R. 18 (1950), 51). 3,600 = 2,250 x 16/10 asses. In other words the old cavalry pay is likely to have bsen 2,250 asses a year, reassessed at the equivalent of 360 den. and it is this figure of 2,250 which is the inspiration for the amount of the aes hordearium. The Political Development of the Comitia A political function was not integral to the Servian constitution but, perhaps at the fall of the Monarchy (60. 4 n.), the system devised in the first place for the registration of citizens for recruitment was found suitable to express the will of the new democracy. It was undoubtedly in operation by the Decemvirate and the political aspect soon com­ pletely ousted the military even if 'in fully historical times it still bore many marks of being essentially an army. It met outside the Pomerium 172

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

i. 43. 10

(Laelius Felix ap. Aul. Gell. 15. 27. 5 ) ; to summon it was called "imp e r a r e " or "convocare exercitum" (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 8 8 ; 9 3 ) ; the assembly itself was described as "exercitus u r b a n u s " (ib. 93)' (Last, J.tf.S. 35(1945), 35). 4 3 . 1 0 . neque exclusus: there was special provision in a separate century which voted last and was called ni quis scivit for anyone who had missed voting in his proper century {Pap. Ox. 2088 (Fenestella); Festus 184 L.). L. is not referring specifically to this. His meaning is simply that everyone had a vote. 4 3 . 1 1 . primi: 5. 18. 1 n. In later times the voting was initiated by one special century (praerogativa) chosen by lot from the first class. Here it is implied that the privilege of voting first belonged to the equites, and elsewhere in L. (5. 18. 1; 10. 22. 1) the first voters are called praerogativae (in the plural), apparently comprising the centuries of equites (so also D . H . ) . The procedural change may belong to the third century of the Assembly. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 290 n. 3 ; Hill, Roman Middle Class, 14, 4 0 ; and, for a n increase of the praeroga­ tiva under the early Empire as implied by the Tabula Hebana, G. Tibiletti, Principe e Magistrati Repubblicani (1953), 51. primae classis centuriae primum peditum vocabantur: so the archetype. Objection has been taken to the last three words, in the first instance by Sigonius, Gruter, and J . F. Gronovius, on the grounds that the repetition of vocabantur is intolerable (but see the examples of repeated verbs in Frigell, Epilegomena, 64), that primum is unintelligible, and that peditum is out of place since the centuries, other than the 18 centuries of equites, did not retain their military character in their political functions. Of these arguments only the second has any strength. T h e comitia centuriata was felt to be a military organization even down to the end of the Republic (see above) and Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6.86 preserves the cry of the herald summoning the people to the censor 'omnes Quirites, pedites armatos privatosque, curatores omnium tribuum which, what­ ever misgivings may hz entertained about the reading armatos, agrees in general with 44. 1 and shows that peditum is apposite here too. primum, however, cannot be defended and should be deleted as a dittography from peditum (so early editors and Frigell). ibi si variaret: the manuscripts agree in reading ibi si variaret, quod raw incidebat, ut secundae classis vocarentur nee fere unquam infra ita de­ scenderent ut ad injimos pervenirent. A main verb is lacking to govern the first «/-clause vocarentur . . . descenderent {quod raw incidebat is always a self-contained parenthesis; cf. quod raw fit). T w o lines of approach present themselves. (1) Delete ut and vocarentur, putting a strong stop after secundae classis and reading descenderunt. This is the remedy first pre­ scribed by the Ed. Princeps and adopted by most editors including the O.C.T. and, with a minor variation, Cocchia. It is open to objection i73

1.43- i i

SERVIUS TULLIUS

that with two imperfects (vocabantur) an aorist (descenderunt) is out of keeping and that the subjunctives offered by the manuscripts support one another. (2) Supply a main verb. Novak proposed (institutum) ut. This is palaeographically implausible and involves the logical absurdity that descenderent is a subjunctive of purpose whereas it is evidently the consequence of the system. Bayet, substituting ita for primum peditum vocabantur above, produces an artificial word-order and an unparal­ leled repetition of ita . . .ut. Sense and tradition would be appeased by inserting (fiebaf) ut. 'If the first class were divided, which happened rarely, it was the practice that the centuries of the second class were called but virtually never any of the classes below the second.' 43.12. For the controversial interpretation of this sentence see, before all, Walbank on Polybius 6. 14. 7; E. S. Staveley, A.J.P. 74 (1953), 1-33; Historia 5 (1956), 112 ff. 'It should not be surprising that the present system, after the full quota of 35 tribes was reached and their number was doubled in centuries of iuniores and seniores, does not agree with the total (of centuries) instituted by Servius Tullius.' It can be established at once (against J. J. Nicholls, A.J.P. 77 (1956), 243) that hunc ordinem qui nunc est means the system prevailing in L.'s (or his source's) own day and not the system which L. has just described. hie . . . qui nunc est is the regular idiom for 'present, prevailing, con­ temporary'; Cicero, ad Att. 2. 19. 2 hunc statum qui nunc est; Pap. Ox. 2088. 5-6 (on the same subject) hae et ceterae cent[uriae . . . quae] nunc sunt. Cf. qui nunc sunt = 'the present age' (Cicero ad Q.F. 1. 1. 43; Pliny, N.H. 22. 147 et al. saep.) A second fact seems equally secure: ad summam convenire must mean 'agree or square with the total5 (i.e. 'be the same numerically as') and not, as has recently been argued by both Tibilleti (Athenaeum 27 (1949), 228-9) and Staveley (A.J.P., cit.) 'was not suited by the number of centuries initiated by S. T.' The latter would require summam ad hunc ordinem convenisse and uses of convenire ad, as listed in the Thes. Ling. Lat. (e.g. Seneca, Contr. Exc. 6. 6 ad vocem tuam facta conveniunt), give no support to it. If that is so, summam must be the number of all the centuries in all classes and not (as Rosenberg and Fraccaro) the number of centuries in the first class only or, as Cavaignac, in the first and second classes. A reform of the comitia centuriata in the late third century is known to have been made. The nature of the reform is uncertain, but L. appears to be stating that it involved 'some degree of co-ordination between centuries and tribes', which in its turn would entail a reduction of the first class to 70. Given 35 tribes (the last was added in 241), if the members of the first class in each tribe were distributed into two centuries of seniores and iuniores, a total of 70 first-class centuries would result. The real question at issue, then, is whether this arrangement was confined to the first class or was extended to all the classes. If it was extended 174

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 43- 12

generally, the comitia would consist of some 373 centuries in all (Pantagathus; de Sanctis, Storia, 3. 1. 363 ff.), 70 centuries in each of the five classes plus equites and supernumeraries. But for actual voting purposes it is evident that there were only 193 group-votes cast (the same number as that given by D.H. for the Servian system). Mommsen (Staatsrecht, 3. 270 ff.), followed by modern authorities (Walbank, Staveley), accounts for this discrepancy by supposing that the 280 centuries of iuniores and seniores in the other four classes were, for voting purposes, amalgamated into groups of two or three on a principle analogous to that found in the Tabula Hebana. This ex­ planation would undoubtedly give meaning to L.'s phrase hunc ordinem ad summam non convenire; 373 is not the number given by L. for the total of Servian centuries, but it is important to note that 193 is not either. The total number of centuries according to L.'s account is 191, or, more probably, 194 (43. 7 n.) and much paper and ink might have been saved by realizing that L. is saying no more than this: * there are now 193 centuries. Servius instituted 194. The discrepancy must be due to the fact that when the centuries and tribes were co­ ordinated, the first class was reduced to 70 centuries and the others to corresponding figures with attendant readjustments so that the total became 193.' From this it follows that L. does not provide support for Pantagathus's theory of 373 centuries under the reformed system unless duplicato earum numero is taken to apply throughout all five classes and not merely (as the reduction in number from 80 to 70 would favour) to the first class alone. 43. 13. quadrifariam: 2. 21. 7 n. The tradition that Servius created four urban tribes to take the place of the three Romulean tribes based on race goes back at least to Fabius Pictor (fr. 9 P.). Since the names of these urban tribss (Sucusana, Esquilina, Collina, Palatina, cf. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 56; Festus 506 L . ; Pliny N.H. 18.13; D.H. 4. 14) are the names of hills, we may believe that Servius intended to replace birth by residence (not the ownership of property) as a qualification for citizenship, as Cleisthenes did at Athens, in order to include within the citizen-body the large number of aliens who had come to live in Rome as merchants and traders, and that the tradition is historical. Fact and tradition, however, also agree that more than four hills were inhabited at this time (44. 3 n.) and it would therefore have been untrue to say that the city was divided into four parts on the basis of the hills that were inhabited. It would be correct to say that the city was divided into four regions which took their identity from the principal hills in each. The manuscripts read regionibusque collibus qui habitabantur (MTT), where the common misplacing of -que is rightly emended by A to regionibus collibusque. . • . Both nouns are required to convey the full sense and the deletion of regionibus as a gloss (first 175

*• 43- 13

SERVIUS TULLIUS

proposed by Hertz and accepted by Mommsen (Staatsrecht, 3. 163 n. 1), Winkler, and the O.G.T.) is indefensible on every front. L. omits any reference to the institution of the rural, as opposed to the urban, tribes, which is fully treated by D . H . drawing on Varro. For the latest discussion of all matters concerning the tribes see L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 2 ff. tribus . . . ab tributo: Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 181, with greater plau­ sibility gives a diametrically opposite etymology: dictum a tribubus quod ea pecunia quae populo imperata erat tributim a singulis pro portione census exigebatur. Both etymologies result from an antiquarian fashion cur­ rent in the last years of the Republic. In default of literary evidence, the study of obscure ceremonies and terms was the only method by which scholars could reconstruct early history. L. subscribes to the fashion (see below lustrum condere, pomerium). tribus is cognate with the Umbrian trifu. Both are derived from a root tri- ('a third'). Three was the number of divisions in several communities (Ramnes, Tities, Luceres; the three Dorian tribes). Gradually tribus lost its numerical quality and came to mean simply a 'division', whether based on regional or racial criteria. Hence tribuo = 'I divide', tributum = 'that which is divided' (E. Taubler, Sitz. Heidel. Akad. 1929-30; S. Schloss­ mann, Arch. Lat. Lex. 14 (1905), 25-40; Ernout-Meillet, W a l d e Hofmann s.v.). neque eae: amplifies what has already been implied, that co-ordina­ tion between tribes and centuries was not part of the original organiza­ tion but was a subsequent reform. 44. 1. cum vinculorum minis mortisque: other authorities (D.H. 4. 15. 6 ; Cicero, pro Caec. 9 9 ; Zonaras 7. 19; Gaius, Instit. 1. 160) are un­ animous that the penalty in historical times if a m a n did not register was to be sold into slavery and have his goods confiscated. It has been argued that L.'s sanctions might have been true of the Regal period ( = diis sacrum esse; Pfaff, R.E., 'incensus') and a parallel has been sought in the Oscan Law of Bantia which contains a sanction for failing to register. Unfortunately the Oscan word lamatir is quite un­ certain in meaning ('sold5 Bucheler, 'killed' Bach, 'tortured' Pisani, 'accursed' E. Fraenkel: see Philologus 97 (1948), 174). L. may have been carried away in his enthusiasm, in vincula duci is a favourite picture of his (2. 4. 7, 3. 13. 4, 6, 3. 56-59 passim, 4. 26. 9, 5. 9. 4). H e had no technical details in front of him but, knowing the penalty to be severe, he invented one ad hoc. campo Martio: 2. 5. 2 n. An anachronism since at this period the Campus was not so called but such a natural anticipation is not likely to betray a difference of source or conceal a corruption (Tan, Faber deleted Martio), For the connexion with Mars see next note. 176

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

i. 44. 2 44. 2. suovetaurilibus: 28. 1 n., an adult (J. maiora) or suckling ^ . minora) pig, sheep, and bull (Festus 372 L.). T h e ceremony is found in several connexions but, whether to purify a body of people, a city, or an estate, the ritual was basically the same. T h e victims were led in procession round the object to be purified a n d then sacrificed to Mars, the guardian against plague and pollution. Gato, de Re Rust. 141, describes the Ambarvalia: agrum lustrare sic oportet . . . impera suovitaurilia circumagi: 'Mars pater, eiusdem rei ergo made hisce suovitaurilibus lactantibus esto\ T h e Acta of the Fratres Arvales preserve a similar in­ vocation of Mars and similar suovetaurilia offered as a purification (Henzen 143). The ceremony at the end of the census is, therefore, very old. Mars is invoked not in his subsequent capacity as God of W a r but as a tutelary deity to ward off pollution from the newly assembled citizen-body. conditum lustrum: the census lustratio was in general similar to the lustratio exercitus performed for particular armies on particular occasions (cf., e.g., 23. 35. 5, 38. 12. 2, 37. 8) but was distinguished from it by the use of the term lustrum condere which denoted a n act peculiar to the census lustratio. Graphic representations of the ceremony and analogies from the Iguvine Tables (I B 11-13 ; V I B 49-51) suggest that lustrum condere may refer to the ritual preparation of fire—the most potent of all purifying agents—rather than, as it is commonly understood, to the disposal by burial of part of the sacrifice, lustrum is derived from *Jlu and means 'that which looses' (cf.flustrum fromjluo) and condere should mean 'to assemble or put together'. T h e importance attached to the proper acquisition of fire is evidenced also in the annual re­ kindling of the flame of Vesta (Festus 94 L.) or in the Catholic rite of the Easter Vigil and it is natural to derive censor from *cendere ('the kindler'). lustrum then came to mean generally 'purification'; hence the less technical expressions 'lustrum mittere' and 'lustrum facere' and the verb 'lustro' with the noun 'lustratio'. For a detailed dis­ cussion of the evidence with illustrations see J.R.S. 51 (1961), 31-39. L.'s explanation, that the purifying procession with the suovetaurilia was called 'lustrum conditum' because it marked the end of the census, appears to understand conditum as 'closed' or 'finished'. milia octoginta: D.H. 4. 22. 2 says 84,700; Eutropius 1. 7, 83,000. Unless the text is corrupt, L. gives a round figure to the nearest 10,000. All three must ultimately derive from the same total which Fabius Pictor took from the official lists (/caraypa^at) although L. is unlikely to have consulted Fabius direct. A number of census figures are pre­ served for the third century (Livy, Ep. 16, 18, 19, 20; 27. 36. 7, 29. 37. 5-6) which agree well with figures supplied by Polybius (2. 24 with Walbank's note) for 225. In all cases the figures appear to come from authentic documents and to include all adult male citizens other than 814432

177

N

1.44-2

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

the capite censi rather than all men actually under arms or in the seven­ teen to forty-six age-group (Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 2. 401). Since Fabius had access to the official lists, the figures for the early period (3. 3. 9 : 104,714 (465); 3. 24. 10: 117, 319 (459)) will be documentary too, for there is no reason why the records should have been destroyed. T h e census lists were kept in old censorial families (D.H. 1. 74. 5), later in the Atrium Libertatis (43. 16. 13), and ultimately in the Aedes Nympharum (Cicero, pro Milone 73). But although the fifth-century totals when compared with those of the third century (292,234 in 265) and considered in the light of the size of the ager Romanus at that time (Bernardi, Athenaeum 30 (1952), 19 ff.; Clerici's computations [Economia e Finanza, 385 ff.), that the fifth-century figures give a density of 50-90 per square km. instead of a viable 10-30, are too rigorous) are just credible, 84,000 seems inconceivably large for the male population of Rome before the expulsion of the kings. Perhaps it was the number which Fabius found at the top of the list and which he inevitably assumed to be Servian whereas in fact it probably belongs to c. 470. See the discussion by Walbank on Polybius 2. 24 with biblio­ graphy; add F. C. Bourne, Class. Weekly, 1952, 134; T. Frank, A. J.P. 51 (1930), 313 ff. Fabius: the first mention in L. of the historian Q . Fabius Pictor. A senator and an ambassador to Delphi in 216 B.C., he was the earliest R o m a n to compose a history of Rome, although he wrote in Greek and was dependent on Greek sources. It is most unlikely that L. consulted him at first hand. For an evaluation and bibliography see A. Momigliano, Atti della Accad. Naz. dei Lincei 15 (1961), 310-20. 44. 3 . addit duos colles, Quirinalem Viminalemque: the two colles are not to be identified with two of the collibus in 43. 13. L. means that Servius incorporated the physical districts into the city. Both lay outside the original settlement and were not included in the Septimontium (Festus 458, 476 L. (Antistius L a b e o ) ; Lydus, deMens. 4. 155). T h e ancient tradition is amply substantiated by the fact that the Sabine gods of the Quirinal (Quirinus) were not included in the earliest religious calendar of Rome (Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 129) and that the inhabitants were an inhuming and not (as the Palatine settlement) a cremating people (evidence in E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, 1955, 2. 267-79). T h e synoecism must have occurred before the in­ clusion of the Capitol (38. 6 n . ; 56. 1 n.) and, if Servius' reign marks a break in the Etruscan domination of Rome, it would be a fitting occasion for the separate communities to draw together for mutual protection. D.H. 2. 50. 1 follows a variant belief (found also in Servius, ad Aen. 6. 783) that the Quirinal was added by Romulus, but this is a later rationalization based on the identification of RomulusQuirinus. See G. Radke, R.E. 'Viminalis'. 178

SERVIUS TULLIUS

1.44. 3

auget Esquilias: the Esquiline comprises the O p p i a n and Cispian hills both of which belonged to the first stage of synoecism, the Septimontium, and are mentioned in the very ancient sacra Argeorum (Varro, de Ling, Lat. 5. 50). But the name Esquilinus (from ex-colo 'outdweller'. Cf. inquilinus) coupled with the tradition of Sabine occupation and the marked resemblance of tombs to those found on the Quirinal (Gjerstad, op. cit. 149-265) make it likely that the settlement was originally distinct from the Palatine community. W h a t had begun as a loose association between the separate communities of the Esquiline and Palatine before Servius was evidently formalized by him and combined with the inclusion of the Quirinal and ViminaL L. writes auget Esquilias (the O.C.T. reading has no manuscript authority). By itself this cannot mean c he increased the city by adding the Esq.', which would be auget (urbem) Esquiliis (Gronovius, Madvig, Frigell), but it is clear that such was in effect the result he was regarded as having achieved (D.H. 4. 13. 2-3) and so Eutropius and the author of the de Viris Illustr. understood L. to say. L.'s phrase must mean that the Esquiline was already part of the city a n d that Servius merely added to its extent, but it may well abbreviate a fuller account in his source which dealt with the fusion of the Oppian, Cispian, and other local communities into a single more embracing unit—Esquiliae—in the enlarged synoecism of Rome. aggere etfossis et muro; the existing 'Servian' wall is of the fourth century (evidence in Saflund, Le mura di Roma, 1932) but the existence of an earlier wall is presupposed by Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 4 8 : 'Subura quod sub muro terreo C a r i n a r u m . . . cui testimonium potest esse, quod subest ei loco qui terreus murus vocatur'. Traces of an earlier agger were found by Boni on the Quirinal behind the Republican wall and it is a reasonable inference that there was a continuous agger running across the Quirinal, Viminal, and Esquiline and perhaps forming a complete enceinte round the city. T h e agger had three phases in its history and the second phase can be dated by an Attic R e d Figure sherd to between 520 and 470 B.C. This would allow the first agger to have been built, on the traditional chronology, by Servius Tullius. See E. Gjerstad, Studies presented to D. M. Robinson, 1. 412 ff.; Opuscula Romana, 3. 6 9 - 7 8 ; P. Grimal, Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 71 (1959), 43~^4Tlie Pomerium T h e digression was more relevant to the age of Sulla than of Augustus. pomerium prqfert: the line made by a plough drawn by a yoked bull and cow demarcating an augurally constituted city. T h e area so defined marked the limit of the auspicia urbana. Within all was hallowed and under divine surveillance, outside was profane. T h e army as such could never cross the pomerium. The custom of demarcating a city in 179

SERVIUS T U L L I U S i. 44- 3 this manner is universally affirmed to be Etruscan in origin (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 143; Plutarch, Romulus 1 1 : perhaps from the East if the Sumerians had a similar ritual) agreeing well with the Etruscan ritual for inaugurating a temple (18. 6 n.) and it has recently been suggested the word pomerium itself is Etruscan (v. Blumenthal, R.E., s.v.) since the etymology given by L. and accepted by modern authorities (pos(t)m. (or alternatively prom, as in U Lucan 1. 594) > pom. and *moir- > -mer- = 'the space behind or in front of the wall'; see Walde-Hofmann) is linguistically invalid. Moreover, it gives a meaning which was only a later development. T h e idea of a sacred no-man's-land on which houses could not be built is certainly sub­ sequent to the original concept of a line dividing the hallowed from the profane. T h e pomerium was a matter of great antiquarian interest under the early Empire (cf. Tacitus, Annals 12. 24) but there was no proposal to extend it in the 20's which could account for the dis­ proportionate space which L. devotes to it here. Caesar may have enlarged it in 45 B.G. (Cicero, ad Att. 13. 20; Dio 43. 50. 1; Aul. Gell. 13. 14. 4) and Augustus may also have done so in 8 B.C. (Tacitus; Dio 55. 6. 6), although doubt has been cast on the latter enlargement. I t is, therefore, more likely that L. has taken over a substantial dis­ cussion by Valerius Antias who was writing at the very time that the first extension of the pomerium since the Regal period was undertaken by Sulla (Seneca, deBrev. Vit.13. 8 ; Tacitus; Aul. Gell.). T h e primary discussion is by Mommsen, Rom. Forsch., 2. 23-41 ; see also v. Blumenthal, R.E., 'Pomerium'; M . T. Griffin, J.R.S. 52 (1962), 109-10. 44. 5. nunc: the evidence for houses built right up to the 'Servian' walls encroaching on the Pomerium is collected and examined by J . H . Oliver, Mem. Am. Acad. Rome 10 (1932), 145-82 : see also Horace, Satires 1. 8. post id: everything turns on whether the standpoint of the spectator is from within or outside the city—a fundamental flaw in the tradi­ tional etymology. termini hi consecrati: the line of the pomerium was marked by inscribed stones or cippi (e.g. C.I.L. 6. 31537-9). 45. 1. aucta civitate magnitudine urbis: in theory either civitate or magnitudine could be the subject: (1) 'the state having been enhanced by the size of the city', stressing the extension of the pomerium and the physical limits of the city, or (2) 'the size of the city having been increased by the citizen-body (or citizenship)', stressing the effect of the census in raising the numbers of R o m a n citizens (2. 1. 2, 38. 16. 3). Scholars have consistently preferred the former which gains some support from 2 1 . 6 civitatem auxerunt and follows naturally after the digression on the pomerium, but the two ablatives are awk180

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 45. 1

ward as they stand. Ruperti's insertion of et to link them as a pair, although he was followed in this independently by Madvig, is frigid; and Scheller (aucta sic late . . .) may have had the right instinct in seeing that civitate is the otiose word. It might be expunged utterly: civitas is found contracted as etas (examples in Gapelli). aucta ctate provokes misgivings. Otherwise aucta (js€) civitate (jsf) magnitudine urbis: if the latter et was lost, the former would follow, ex is also possible. iam turn: the first regular temple of Artemis was constructed on marshy ground to the north of the city by Theodorus of Samos, an architect who is thought to have been active in the first half of the sixth century, if Rhoecus, the architect of the Samian Heraeum was his father. T h e date of the foundation implied by the participation of Theodorus is in accord with archaeological evidence from the earliest discovered structure. Coins, ivories, &c. from the foundation deposit cannot be dated earlier than c. 600-590 (P. Jacobsthal, J.H.S. 71 (1951), 8 4 - 9 5 ; E. S. G. Robinson, ibid. 156-67). After successive modifications (D. G. Hogarth, Brit. Museum: Excavations at Ephesus, 1908) it was rebuilt to the design of Ghersiphron c. 550 in a completely new style as the first Ionic temple in Asia (Vitruvius). According to Herodotus (1. 92) most of the columns for it were the gift of Croesus and several authorities state that it was erected by the common con­ tributions of the great cities of Asia (Pliny, JV.H. 16. 213, 36. 95). By 540 or so the elegance of the building and the liberality of the sub­ scribers would have reached even R o m a n ears through travellers' tales. T h e archaeological evidence is reviewed by J . Boardman, Antiquaries Journal 39 (1959), 204-5. The Temple of Diana on the Aventine The record of the foundation of the temple, like that of other temples in this period (Capitoline Juppiter, Castor, Mercury), can be accepted as being derived from authentic pontifical memorials. T h e religious significance of the new foundations lies in the fact that they are all temples of old Greek deities, which served the more advanced society of Greece (F. Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 250-4). T h e cult will not have come, as L. suggests, as a result of direct communication with Ephesus because, for one thing, in its Roman form it was intended to be the centre of a political league, whereas the Artemision, although financed by Ionian subscription, was never the centre of the PanIonian movement. Ephesus never usurped the place of Mycale and the temple of Poseidon Heliconius as the centre of the great con­ federation which drew all the Ionian cities, Ephesus included (/.G. 12.5. 444), together in self-defence. T h e Aventine cult of Diana seems to have been inspired by two separate but contemporary features in Ionia, the Pan-Ionian league and the Artemision of Ephesus, and the 181

i-45

SERVIUS TULLIUS

conflation could not have escaped notice and comment unless it had been mediated through several sources. T h e most important of such sources was Aricia where the cult of Diana (Gato fr. 58 P.) was served by a religious league of nine Latin communities to which Rome, as an Etruscan dominated town, did not belong. The Arician cult was earlier than the Aventine (A. N . Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 12-13; A. E. Gordon, The Cults of Aricia, 1934) and had a political as well as a religious aspect to it, since the Concilium Latinorum which met at the Lucus Ferentinae in the territory of Aricia (50. i n . ; Beloch, Bom. Gesch. 183) was the same organization under a different name. Political and religious competition with Aricia is further indicated by the transplantation of the Virbius legend from Aricia to Rome (48. 6 n.) at much the same date. Seeing that the reign of Servius marks a Latin restoration at Rome, we may well understand the motives which led him to attempt to consolidate his position by secur­ ing a league of Latin cities to whom he could turn if threatened by Etruria. T h e cult of Diana on the Aventine marks his attempt to oust Aricia from the political hegemony of Latium (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 43). The new institution served two needs: it mollified religious dissatisfaction and promoted political expediency. But what justifica­ tion could Servius offer for the innovation? The new cult by the special place allotted in it to slaves (F. Altheim, Griech. Gotter im alten Rom, 143 ff.) evidently appealed to foreigners, me tics, strangers, and the newly enrolled R o m a n citizens generally. Furthermore Strabo (4. 180-1) records that the statue of Diana was set u p in the same way as the statue at Massilia and adds that the Massiliot was similar to the Ephesian. The second settlement of Massilia occurred c. 540 (5. 34. 8 n.) after a period in which the Phocaeans and presumably other Ionian emigrants h a d tried to colonize Corsica and are sure to have been brought into contact with Etruria and even Rome. These wan­ dering exiles would have furnished Servius with the privileged infor­ mation about the Ephesian shrine that enabled him to promote the superior claims of Diana of the Aventine over Diana of Aricia. Above all, he devised an almost Callimachean Aetion around a sacred relic, a gigantic pair of horns, to convince the superstitious and to teach the moral that the sovereignty of Latium had passed to Rome. Despite some anachronisms, the story of the Sabine cow must be very ancient— as old as the cult of Diana on the Aventine. T h e exact date of the founda­ tion is not disclosed but c. 540 suits both the traditional chronology of Servius' reign (577-33) and the second settlement of Massilia. A. Alfoldi {A.J.A. 64 (i960), 137-44; Gymnasium 67 (i960), 193-6) has recently produced new evidence about the cult of Aricia. H e has demonstrated that the old cult-image is represented on a denarius of the monetal P. Accoleius Lariscolus, whose family came from Aricia 182

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

i-45 (43 B.C.; Sydenham no. 1148). T h e shape of the image, a three-figure goddess Hecate-Artemis-Selene, and the style, particularly of the hair, both suggest a genuine picture of a primitive statue dating from c. 500 which survived down to the end of the Republic. H e does, however, produce no evidence for the assertion that the image and the league belong to the period of Porsenna's activities rather than fifty years earlier nor, a fortiori, for the contention that the institution of Diana on the Aventine should be dated not to c. 540 but to the after­ m a t h of Lake Regillus; For a possible fragment of a replica of the cult statue see Paribeni, A. J.A. 65 (1961), 55. 45. 3 . caput rerum Romam esse: a phrase redolent of Augustan ethos (cf. 5. 54. 7 ) ; thus in Ovid, Met, 15. 736 iamque caput rerum Romanam intraverat urbem and later in Tacitus, Hist. 2. 32; M a n . 4. 689. The bold­ ness and presumption of the phrase are compared by Fraenkel (Horace, 452) with the sweeping simplicity of Horace's custode rerum Caesare (Odes 4. 15. 17). T h e first traces of awareness of Rome's destiny are no earlier than the third century. Until that time R o m e was struggling for her standing in Italy but her successes against Pyrrhus lifted the veil on a wider scene. Gf. Lycophron 1226—33 (if genuine) and Ennius* translation of Pyrrhus' dedication at T a r e n t u m (199-200 V.). T h e most that Romans of Servius' day would have aspired to was to sup­ plant Aricia as the 'capital' of Latium. uni se ex Sabinis: Plutarch (QjR> 4 with Rose's note) gives an account of the same tale which differs in some particulars. H e specifically cites as his authorities the antiquarians J u b a and Varro. According to them the Sabine was called Antron Goratius (or Gur(i)atius). O n e of his slaves escaped to Rome and told Servius about the oracle. He, in his turn, communicated it to the pontifex Cornelius who duped Goratius into washing in the Tiber thereby giving Servius the chance to sacri­ fice the cow and to dedicate the horns in the temple. I t is generally thought (Dumezil; J . Hubaux, Rome et Veies, 232-5) that Plutarch gives the traditional version which L. has adapted in order to minimize the unscrupulous part played by Servius as not being in keeping with maiestas Romana. If the story, as an Aetion, is old, L.'s version will be prior to Varro's which is too full of etymological cleverness (cornu > Cornelius; servus > Servius) and improbable coincidence. The priority of L. can be shown in another way. A coin, struck c. 79 B.G. by A. Postumius Albinus, showing on the obverse a bust of Diana and on the reverse 'togate figure stg. 1., raising 1. hand over head of ox stand­ ing r.; in centre, lighted altar 5 with the legend A. POST, A.F.S.N. ALBIN. (Sydenham no. 745; cf. Borghesi, Fasti, 2. 4 3 ; Mommsen, Rom. Mtinz. 617) illustrates the same story but would indicate that before Varro's investigations established the claim of the Gornelii, the Postumii, proud of their part in the early fortunes of Rome (Lake 183

1-45-3

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

Regillus), claimed the honour of having provided the priest on that occasion. H a d not a Postumius Albinus written Annales? 45. 4. bos . . . nata: on the coin it appears to be a bull. fuere: i.e. they had disappeared by the late Republic. 45. 5. ut erat: 'it was regarded as a prodigy, as indeed it was 5 . T h e recording of omens and prodigies was 'a traditional feature in the annals of the R o m a n s ' (R. Syme, Tacitus, 522) if only because they were one of the regular items in the pontifical tables which constituted the source material for early history. But whereas Tacitus is consistently sceptical about such manifestations, L. had a real belief in them and lamented that in his own day faith had evaporated and that prodigies were no longer recorded (43. 13. 1-2). 4 5 . 6. carmen: 26. 6 n. antistitem: cf. 20. 3. T h e term is very loose and untechnical, usually applied to the priests of foreign cults who had no place in the official nomenclature (Wissowa, Religion, 483). Although for us there is some doubt what the status of the priest of Diana was (perhaps a sacerdos since he was not a.flamen or apontifex), L.'s choice ofantistes is not to be attributed to that uncertainty because L. would have known, but to the fact that the sacrifice was a votive offering (cf. apta dies) and so did not require the presence of any other person than the templecaretaker {aedituus) and the intending sacrificer. L. uses the vague term antistes to inflate to apparent importance the menial-sounding aedituus. Here again L. is more accurate than Varro. celebrata: nominative with magnitudo. quin: 5J.J n. vivo flumine: 'running water 5 . An authentic touch. Only running water, not water drawn from wells or cisterns, could purify. Cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2 . 7 1 9 donee meflumine vivo \ abluero; Tacitus Hist. 4. 53 : and see Wissowa, Religion, 219 n. 3 ; Ninck, Die Bedeutung des Wassers im Cult. Vivus is perhaps sacral. For comparable Greek beliefs see Denniston on Euripides, Eleclra 791. infima valle: infimus is the dignified and classical form of the super­ lative, imus the colloquial; but metrical considerations as well led to the spread of imus which in later Latin becomes almost universal (Lofstedt. Syntactica, 2. 345; B. Axelson, Unpoet. Worter, 33-34). Thus infima valle here and in 7. 34. 3 as well as Hirtius, Bell. Gall. 8. 40. 2 and Columella 1. 5. 2 but ima valle in Virgil, Georg. 1. 374; Aen. 3. n o , Ovid, Met. 2. 761, 6. 343. At 33. 8. 6 the manuscripts' reading adsuos in ima valle stantes should be corrected to ad suos infima valle stantes. 46-48. The Death ofServius Tullius T h e circumstances in which Servius Tullius is said to have met his death had become part of the R o m a n historical tradition long before 184

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

i. 46-48

Roman history was actually written. As far as can be seen there is no change in the main outline of the story between the third century and Livy. Although no relevant fragment of Ennius survives, Fabius Pictor (fr. 11 P.) narrated it in substantially the form which we know today and presumably other second-century historians, including Polybius (cf. Cicero, De Rep. 2. 43), followed the same tradition. Piso (fr. 15 P.) accepted it with a small chronological modification, Diodorus (10. 1 ff.) gives a crisp summary of it, and V a r r o (de Ling. LaL 5. 159) quotes the incident of Tullia driving over her murdered father. T h e legend will have been passed on in two ways, as a part of the main stream of R o m a n folk-lore and as an explanation associated with the names of certain quarters of Rome, e.g. the vicus sceleratus, but it will not be a primitive legend. T h e careers of the two Tarquins are too alike to be other than two faces of the same coin. A dim memory of an Etruscan domination of Rome from Tarquinii (34. 1 n.) which was interrupted by a Latin restoration (Servius Tullius ) was expanded into a chronological sequence with definite and distinct personalities. Once the story had been fixed there were no major variations, and there could be none because there was no possible evidence to modify it. T h e only variations that were possible were variations for political or artistic effect. Politically the regal period exhibited for philoso­ phically minded historians like Polybius a perfect example of a con­ stitution developing from monarchy (Romulus), through kingship (Tarquinius Priscus and Servius Tullius), to tyranny (Tarquinius Superbus) with the early Republic as aristocracy and the Decemvirate as oligarchy. T o secure the even course of the decline Servius Tullius must have some tyrannical tendencies which can appear in their full maturity in the person of Tarquinius Superbus. But as at Athens Solon and Gleisthenes became controversial political slogans at the end of the fifth century when rival groups claimed authority for their own versions of the irdrpios iroXireia, so in Rome Servius Tullius was invoked by the supporters of the Sullan constitution as their precedent. T h e changes of 88 B.C. were carried out with explicit reference to Servius Tullius (Appian, B.C. 1. 59. 4). Traces of this rehabilitation of Servius Tullius crop u p throughout L.'s narrative, cheek by jowl with the older pejorative view. His reputed wish to re­ sign the throne quia unius esset (48. 9) does not belong to the original legend and reflects the self-righteousness with which Sulla's retirement was invested. L. owes his version to an historian writing under the influence of such Sullan propaganda. There are no signs of contradic­ tion with the preceding section (39-45) and certain positive affiliations (46. 1 = 4 2 . 3 ; 46. 5 = 4 2 . 1) which invite the conclusion that L. is con­ tinuing to draw his material from the same source—Valerius Antias. Artistically, however, the story afforded ample scope for development. 185

I. 46-48

SERVIUS

TULLIUS

I t is impossible to know at what period the similarity of the legend to the tragedies of the Houses of Atreus and Laius was appreciated. T h e cults of Orestes and of Hippolytus were transplanted to Italy, in particular to Aricia, at a very early date (48. 6 n.) so that the myths will have been widely disseminated. Praetextae were written on the Tarquin theme from the time of Accius, and historians of the second century, under the influence of Hellenistic theory, are unlikely to have missed the possibilities latent in such a comparison. Certainly Varro was aware of them when he commented inter duos Jilias regum quid mutet inter Antigonam et Tulliam (Aul. Gell. 18. 12.9). But a comparison with D.H. 4. 28 ff., while suggesting that the two authors are following, even if not immediately, the same source, shows that most of the tragic features of the story in L. are due to L. himself. D.H. is more diffuse, more uneven, and less critical of the unrealistic and the grotesque, as when he allows Tullia to slap her mule-driver with her shoe. D.H. feels no compunction about introducing rhetorical exercises in which the king and the usurper expound their respective claims seria­ tim. H e is blind to the actualities of motive and psychology (48. 2 n . ) ; he has no eye for a scene or for a situation. L., on the other hand, has tailored the same material to a much more graphic pattern which achieves its effect by bold and compelling lines. H e has not, of course, utilized an actual play as a model. H e has written his own tragedy. L. Tarquinius is a less scrupulous Orestes, Tullia a less noble Electra, and so Servius Tullius has to be the Aegisthus, the intruder. T h e Sullan leanings of Valerius Antias, which tended to whitewash Servius Tullius, are more than counterbalanced by the demands of a plot in which he must appear as a villain. T o have cast the tragedy of the Tarquins wholly in a Euripidean setting would have made it a mere period piece without any contem­ porary message. Such a d r a m a would have been pretty to read but not edifying, decora fabulis not salubre ac frugiferum. To achieve the latter effect as well L. makes L. Tarquinius a Catiline-figure by introducing from Sallust and Cicero several reminiscences (46. 5 n . ; 46. 9 n . ; 47. 2 n . ; 47. 7 n., 48. 1 n.) which have no equivalent in D . H . and which therefore had no place in Valerius Antias. As Catiline was a latter-day Tarquin to Cicero, so, for L., Tarquinius Superbus was a prototype Catiline. The total result, as so often in L., is a fusion of tragedy and Republican politics with echoes of each. L.'s treatment supplied Ovid with much of the material for his account of the same events in Fasti 6. 587-610, even down to particular turns of phrase. Dio Cassius [ap. Zonaras 7. gd) also followed the sequence and detail of L., diverging from him only so far as to add a few imperial touches to parts which L. had left indeterminate (e.g. ap[MdKois 8i€9eLpe = prope continuatis funeribus in 4 6 . 9 ) , 186

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 46-48

See further Pais, Storia Criticay 1. 2. 5 0 5 - 9 ; Last, C.A.H. 7. 3 9 3 - 6 ; F. Schachermeyr, R.E., CL. Tarquinius (Superbus)': and, for L.'s narrative, H. B. Wright, The Recovery of a Lost Roman Tragedy (New Haven, 1910); Burck 163-5; Aly, Livius undEnnius, 3 7 ; A. K . Michels, Latomus, 10 (1951), 13-24; Skard, Sallust u. s. Vorganger, 5 6 - 6 1 ; J. Gage, Huit recherches, 185 ff. 46. 1. iactari voces: it was whispered that Aegisthus held the throne illegally (Aeschylus, Agam. 1646-8) and that Creon's power though legitimate was not founded on popular consent (Sophocles, Ant. 734-7). agro . . . diviso: the deliberate conciliation of the plebs by landdistribution is a Gracchan touch (cf. Plutarch, T. Gracchus 8 ; Cicero, de Leg. Agr. 2. 81) although the use of ager publicus was disputed from time immemorial, vellent iuberentne: an archaic formula by which a lex rogata was submitted to the people by a magistrate. T h e direct form was velitis iubeatis 'would you wish and order'. T h e words form an asyndetic dicolon of a pattern very common in formal Latin (32. 13 n.) and were so spoken by the magistrate. Hence L. puts a single -ne after the second w o r d : 'vellent iuberenV-ne. T h e two words are regarded as synonymous although one might distinguish that velle represented the wishes of the people and inhere the transference of these wishes into law. L.'s use of the formula adds a touch of con­ stitutional verisimilitude to the picture which he tones down by substituting for ut with the subjunctive, which was the statutory con­ struction (38. 54. 3 ; Cicero, de Domo 44 with Nisbet's n o t e ; in Pisonem 72; Aul. Gell. 5. 19. 9), the more literary ace. and inf. (21. 17. 4 ; 31. 6. 1; 36. 1. 5 ; 45. 21. 4 ; all declarations of war). See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 1. 312 n. 2 ; D. Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation, 54 n. 1. 46. 2. domi uxore . . .stimulante: so Electra spurred on her brother Orestes. Cf. Euripides, Or. 616-17. 46. 3. tulit enim et Romana regia sceleris tragici exemplum: et 'as well' (as the palace of Mycenae), tulit. . . exemplum would seem to be a com­ ment by L. himself since the phrase, as can be seen from its use (Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 2. 165; Seneca, Ep. 24. 3 ; see Shackleton Bailey on Prop. 1. 4. 7), is offhand, ut is purposive. 46. 4. filius neposnefuerit parum liquet: L. Piso was, according to D.H. 4. 7, the first and only historian to realize that, if Servius Tullius reigned for 44 years, Tarquinius Superbus could not be a youth of eighteen or so and still be the son of Tullius' predecessor L. Tarquinius Priscus. It does not, however, follow that L. has consulted Piso at first hand. Piso's arguments will have been taken over and quoted by annalists such as Valerius Antias who used Piso in the same way that Plutarch (Poplicola 14) and the Emperor Claudius (I.L.S. 212) adopted them directly from L. without inquiring personally into the divergent authorities. 187

i. 46. 5

SERVIUS TULLIUS

46. 5. forte ita inciderat ne . . . for tuna . . . populi Romani: 5. 34. 2 n. inciderat is impersonal as at 6. 34. 6 ; 26. 23. 2 ; 28. 17. 13 so that for tuna would seem to be abl., resuming and qualifying forte (cf. 3. 40. 8). A final ne after verbs of happening conveys the deliberate, almost benevolent, nature of Fortune's intervention (voluntas fati), as at Cicero, deDivin. 2. 2 1 ; Seneca, Ep. 76. 19 (R. G. Nisbet, A. J.P. 44 (1923), 27 ff.). credo does not sound a note of scepticism but introduces an after-thought: 'by chance or rather, I suppose, by the Fortune of the Roman people'. But forte fortuna is a stereotyped phrase in archaic Latin and its appearance here is awkward. As an alternative, fortuna . . . Romani might be taken as a nominative in apposition to the sentence and treated as a parenthesis. T h e afterthought is directly inspired by the similar situation in Cicero, in Cat. 1. 15 sceleri acfurori tuo . . .fortunam populi Romani obstitisse. In D . H . the marriages are deliberately arranged by Servius Tullius. constitui civitatis mores: cf. Sallust, Cat. 5 . 8 . 46. 6. ferox Tullia: 'the Tullia who was spirited', i.e. the younger Tullia. virum nacta muliebri cessaret audacia: 'having gained a real man she lacked the daring spirit of a woman', cesso with the abl. is found at 42. 6. 8 = 'lack, fail', so that there is no need for Crevier's nacta . Bayet, following Cornelissen, objected that audacia was not a feminine quality and adopted the prosaic muliebriter cessaret But masculine audacia is a feminine quality in tragedy (e.g. Aeschylus, Agam. 1 1 ; Sophocles, fr. 943 P. dv8p6(f>pwv ywrj) and is appropriate here. 46. 7. ut fere fit: malum malo aptissimum: so punctuated since Madvig. ut fere fit is, as always, parenthetic ( 5 . 2 7 . 1 ; Cicero, delnv. 2 . 1 4 ; Rut. Lup. 1. 17) and underlines the validity of the moralizing general statement. It would be logically and linguistically unsuited to qualify a statement like malum malo apt. T h e proverb is introduced in asyndeton at the end of the argument to clinch the point, as, e.g., Theocr. 15. 28-29 alpc TO vrjfjia Kal £K JJLCOW, alvoSpimrc,

| Oes ird\w

at yaAeat fiaXaKojs xPTIa^OVTl

KaOcvSeiv. For the proverb cf. Headlam on Herodas 7. 115. 46. 8. domi: 'she would soon have seen in her own house the royal power that now she saw in her father's' (B. O . Foster). T h e wish to have a husband worthy of oneself is often uttered by tragic heroines, as by Electra in Euripides, Electa 948-9. 46. 9. Arruns Tarquinius et Tullia minor . . . cum . . . vacuas . . .fecissent: this, the reading of the manuscripts, could only mean that A. T . and the younger Tullia had caused the deaths of the older Tullia and L. Tarquinius and thereby cleared the way for their own marriage. funeribus domos vacuas matrimonio facere must mean to make room in the house for a new marriage by murders, for the phrase is a quotation from Cicero (in Cat. 1. 14 cum morte superioris uxoris novis nuptiis domum 188

SERVIUS TULLIUS

1.46. 9

vacuefecisses) which Sallust also borrowed (Catil. 15. 2 necato filio vacuam domum scelestis nuptiis fecisse). It gives a Catilinarian rather than a tragic flavour to proceedings (pace Skard, Sallust u.s. Vorganger, 57-60) and it only occurs in these three Catilinarian contexts. T h e manuscripts, therefore, make Arruns and the younger Tullia the sur­ vivors not the victims. D.H. 4. 30 agrees that it was the younger Tullia who survived and this is demanded by the tragic convention which always made the younger sister the daring a n d high-spirited one (Antigone, Electra, Medea) while the elder was cautious and weakwilled (Ismene, Ghrysothemis, Ghalciope). But Arruns cannot be right. It was Lucius who survived and reigned. Besides, Arruns was by tradition in Etruscan families the name of the younger and so he will originally have married the younger Tullia. These considerations show that the text, unless it is a remarkably over-intelligent gloss, must be emended, not by substituting, with Sabellicus, maior for minor which would allow the wrong pair to survive, b u t by altering Arruns. ita L. (Perizonius) is no real improvement on Fulvio Orsini's L. which could easily have been corrupted dittographically into Arruns before Tarquinius. In the corresponding passage D . H . writes rots OLVTOZS 7rd6c
rwv

TvXXiov Ovyarcpwv

/cat d

vcwTcpos rwv TapKwCwv. See also Frigell, Epilegomena, 66. magis non prohibente Servio quam adprobante: D . H . 4. 30 gives a slightly different antithesis: ovre TOV irarpos avrrjs fitfiaiovvros TOV ydjiov OVT€ TT\S jjirjTpos aw€v8oKovo7]s. They look as if they have both been inspired by the same original which L. has either misunderstood or adapted. 47. 1. ab scelere ad aliud spectare mulier scelus: a Greek turn of phrase; cf. Euripides, H.F. 1075, 1213. Notice the word-order which shows the maximum emphasis on scelere and scelus. T h e whole of Tullia's speech which follows is in a high tragic vein characterized by occa­ sional archaisms. There is nothing in D . H . which corresponds to it. In its place he has a long but ineffective debate in the Senate between Tarquin and Tullius (4. 31-37)- L. has substituted for it a dramatic scene between Tullia and Tarquin largely of his own composition but drawing on some ideas which were in his source's version of Tullia's earlier speech (46. 7-8) but which he has kept over for this occasion. For example, the family history touching Corinth and Tarquinii (47. 4) is included by D.H. 4. 29 on the earlier occasion as an incentive to spur Tarquin to the murder of his wife. L. trans­ poses it and makes it an incentive for murdering Tullius. 47. 2. meminisset: cf. Lentulus' letter to Catiline (Sallust, Catil. 44. 5 = Cicero, in Catil. 3. 12) :fac . . . memineris te virum esse. 47. 3. eo nunc: 'my affairs have altered for the worse in so far that in 189

J

-47- 3

SERVIUS T U L L I U S

you (istic) there is not merely cowardice (as there was in my previous husband: 46. 7) but also crime'. 47. 4. quin accingeris: 57. 7 n. Corintho: 34. 2 n. di te penates: the objects invoked to rouse Tarquin's ambitions are all distinctively R o m a n in character but the idea recalls Sophocles, Electra 267-70. imago: 34. 6 n. 47. 5. facesse hinc: 'away from here', only here in L. (cf. 48. 6), a dramatic idiom found, e.g., in Pacuvius, frag, 326 K.facessite omnes hinc; Seneca, Ag. 300; Afranius 203 ; cf. the paratragic play on words in Plautus, Rudens 1061. devolvere retro: pass, imperative. H . J . Miiller was alive to the obscurity of the phrase, noting that there was no other instance of it. It is difficult to know precisely what the metaphorical force is. In later Latin devolvere is frequently used of demotion from high place (Seneca, Suas. 1. 9 regum exfastigio suo devolutorum; Seneca, Ep. 92. 23 ; Tert. de Castit. 9 ; Hier. Ep. 41. 3. 2), but in earlier Latin the best illustration is Cicero, Phil. 7. 14 postridie ad spem estis inanem pacis devolutiy where it is deliberately rough and contemptuous as here. fratri similior quam patri: Tullia ends her speech in an iambic rhythm (2. 40. 9 n.) and with a tragic sentiment (cf. Aeschylus, Choeph. 240 ff.). 47. 7. muliebribus instinctusfuriis: 'inspired by a woman's frenzy'; cf. Virgil, Aen. 10. 68 Cassandrae impulsus furiis. furiae are the frenzied emotions rather than the actual Furies, but the image, which is wholly absent from D.H., is introduced by L. to remind his readers of Orestes hounded by the Furies (as in Aeschylus, Eum. 46 ff.). But the Orestes touch is immediately succeeded by a picture of a late Republican demagogue in action which, again, since there is no trace of it in D.H., is an addition by L. minorum . . . gentium: 35. 6 n. circumire et prensare: electioneering terms (2. 54. 3 ; 3. 47. 2 ) ; cf. Pliny, Ep. 2. 9. 5 itaque prenso amicos, supplico, ambio, domos stationesque circumeo, quantumque vel auctoritate vel gratia valeam, precibus experior. allicere donis iuvenes: Catiline iuventutem . . . inlexerat (Sallust, Catil. 16. 1; Cicero, in Cat. 3. 8) by the same inducements and bribes. Catiline's plot in 65 failed, according to Sallust, because of a mistake in timing. H e had planned to burst into the Forum stipatus agmine armatorum but, when they did not arrive on time, instead of making a victory speech pro curia, he only gave an ill-judged signal to his henchmen {pro curia signum sociis dare) and, instead of enlarging in public on the grievances of the state, he had to be content with a secret agitation in abdita parte aedium (Sallust, Catil. 20. 2-17). T h e arguments, however, which he used against the regime bear an 190

SERVIUS TULLIUS

1.47. 7

arresting likeness to those which Tarquin is m a d e to use in the similar position. Cf. in particular Sallust, CatiL 20. 7. 47. 9. fraudi esset: the technical sense is 'render liable to prosecution', (3°- x 9- 95 Cicero, pro Cluentio 9 1 ; Phil. 5. 34 et al.) but, since atten­ dance at the Senate was not statutory and absent senators would incur displeasure rather than legal proceedings, the meaning here is wider and more suggestive: 'be dangerous for' (as the expression is used in police-states). attoniti: cannot refer both to the praeparati and to the senators who assembled metu (alii... alii), since those who had been briefed could not have been surprised at the turn of events. Nor can it apply merely to those who came out of fear, because curiosity and fear of the consequences of non-attendance are not the same thing. Doering's supplement ((alii) novitate) is required to distinguish a third category of senators who attended out of curiosity. 47. 10-11. Tarquin's speech, with the exception of the etymological jibe servum servaque natum (D. H. 4. 38 SovAos £K SovAys, in the same context), is largely composed of material which in D.H. is found in the earlier debate in the Senate between Tarquin and Tullius. T h e arguments resemble those used by the son of Ancus in 40. 1 ff. 4 8 . 1 . quid hoc . . . reiest: 41. 1 n., the language of indignant expostula­ tion. Servius'words may recall the opening of Cicero's first Catilinarian speech: notice especially audacia . . . elusisset. 48. 2. per licentiam eludentem: 'had made sport (of them) with complete impunity'. Cf. 2. 45. 6. clamor . . . oritur et concursus . . .fiebat: *a typical element of descrip­ tions of battle scenes' (Fraenkel, Horace, 118). T h e words conjure u p a picture of a battle on a heroic or larger-than-life scale which is appropriate to such a tense moment of history; cf. 41. 1; Plautus, Amph. 228; Virgil, Georg. 4. 75-78; Cicero, adAtt. 1. 16. 1; and, in particular, Sallust, CatiL 45. 3 and Horace, Sat. 1. 9. 77-78 clamor utrimque:/ undique concursus. sic me servavit Apollo ( = Homer, Iliad 20. 443). 4 8 . 3 . necessitate . . . cogente ultima audere: the motivation in D.H. 4. 38 is completely different. Tullius attempts to jostle Tarquin from the throne and Tarquin seizes on this physical provocation as a pretext for using violence himself. This picture, which will have been the early version, is so maladroit that L., as often, substituted a psycho­ logical motivation. iam etiam ipsa: so N . etiam would have to be taken with iam rather than ipsa which would need Weissenborn's et (1. 12. 3, 46. 5, 27. 27. 7) but the meaning 'then also' seems inapposite since the only previous occasion on which Tarquin's hand had been forced was over the murder of his wife. A dittography is easy to suppose and etiam is best deleted. 191

1.48. 3

SERVIUS TULLIUS

gradus: 36. 5 n. 48. 4 . ipse prope exsanguis cum semianimis regio comitatu domum se reciperet [pervenissetque ad summum cos. primum vicum] ab iis qui missi ab Tarquinio fugientem cotisecuti erant interjicitur . ♦ . cum se domum reciperet (Tullia) pervenissetque ad summum Cyprium vicum: the bracketed words, which are found in all the manuscripts, are certainly interpolated from the corresponding passage below, domum se reciperet, on the other hand, may be authentic since the fact is recorded also in de Viris Illustribus 7. 18-19 (from Livy): Servius . . . gradibus deiectus et domum refugiens interfectus est. . . Tullia . . . cum domum rediret. . ., unless it was inter­ polated before the composition of the de V.I. regio comitatu recipere 'to retire with his royal retinue' is unobjectionable and has good parallels in L. (e.g. 44. 43. 1 frequenti agmine equitum et regio comitatu fugit) and the fact that the attendants are earlier reported to have fled (fitfuga) is immaterial since L. has switched from the scene in the Senate to the description of Servius' return without carefully co-ordinating them. There is no doubt that the version given by the annalists portrayed Servius not as a solitary figure, but accompanied by some of his retinue when he was overtaken and killed (cf. D.H. 4. 38 παραπεμπόντων αὐτὸν ὀλίγων) so that all attempts to improve the text by depriving Servius of his companions (sine regio comitatu Alschefski, se amisso r. c. Frigell) are quite misguided. T h e only objection to semianimis is that it has been thought an otiose repetition of exsanguis: but the two words do not mean the same thing: semianimis is 'half-alive' (i.e. half-dead) and exsanguis 'having lost blood'. T h e victims of poisoning are semiani­ mis (40. 4. 15) but not exsanguis, while a severe wound can leave a m a n exsanguis (41. 2) but not necessarily semianimis. In this case Servius has been badly hurt and, for an old m a n , such a wound might well have been fatal. Both words have point in the context in the same way that L. Bantius in 22. 15. 8 ff. was left on the field of Cannae seminecis . . . (et) prope exsanguis. They correspond to αἵματι πολλῷ περιρρεόμενος καὶ κακῶς ὅλον ἑαυτὸν . . . ἔχων ( D . H . 4 . 3 8 ) .

48. 6. domum: L. is over-compressed. It is clear from Varro that she was not going to her own home but was going to take possession of her father's house, thereby establishing Tarquin's claim to the throne. Otherwise the topography becomes tangled. T h e alternative is to suppose cum se domum reciperet here to be interpolated from 48. 4 (forgetting that it was not Tullia's home) in order to explain their encounter. summum Cyprium vicum: mod. Via del Gerdello and Via del Golosseo. (Platner-Ashby s.v.; Pais, Ancient Legends, 272-4 locates it near the Velia, but he fails to take account of the right turn which Tullia makes; see plan of Rome). Varro (de Ling. Lat. 5. 159) says that it was in origin a Sabine word: vicus Ciprius a cipro . . .: nam ciprum sabine 192

SERVIUS TULLIUS

i. 48. 6

bonum. Sabine elements in R o m e and in R o m a n vocabulary are well attested (cf, e.g., Quirites) and Varro's etymology is supported by the existence of two towns called Gupra in Picenum and the name of the goddess Gupra found in Picenum and U m b r i a (cf. Conway, Italic Dialects, no. 354 Cubrar matrer). Although the vicus and its name are not mentioned elsewhere, it is likely to be a genuine survival (Lugli, Fontes ad Topographiam Veteris Urbis Romae> 3. 256). The orthography of the name is quite uncertain. ubi Dianium nuperfuit: for the cult see below. T h e only other reference to the shrine is found in Cicero, de Har. Resp. 32 L. Pisonem quis nescit his temporibus ipsis . . . sanctissimum Dianae sacellum in Caeliculo sustulisse ? which shows that it was removed at least by 56 B.C. Livy's nuper might seem to suggest a date for its destruction nearer his own time but his language should not be pressed so closely. Indeed it may be Cicero, if anyone, who is exaggerating, in which case the shrine could have disappeared earlier, at the period when Livy's sources were writing. If so, like 2. 33. 9, the note will be a comment by Valerius Antias which L. has taken over verbatim. Its exact site is untraceable. in Urbium clivum: Urbium, not Orbium ("Op^os or "OAfiios in D.H. 4- 39- 5) o r Virbium, is the reading of the manuscripts here and in Solinus 1. 25 (Servius Tullius Esquilinus supra clivum Urbium (habitavit)), the only two places in Latin literature where it is cited. There is no objection to the form of the name which is probably of Etruscan origin (cf. Urbinus; the gentile name Urbius in C.I.L. 6. 1058; Etr. Urbenius, Urfedius & c . ; see Schulze 561). Its subsequent history can only be recovered conjecturally. At an early date contact with Aricia brought about a religious cross-fertilization between the two towns (45. 2 n.). Now at Aricia the predominant cult, that of Diana Nemorensis, was associated with a native Latin god Virbius, regarded by Vibius Sequester as a river-god, but by an authority known to [Servius] as solar {ad Aen. 7. 776), who under the influence of Greek mythology quickly came to be identified with Hippolytus (Servius, ad Aen. 7. 761 sed Diana Hippolytum revocatum ab inferis in Aritia nymphae commendavit Egeriae: et eum Virbium quasi bis virum iussit vocari) and in­ herited many details of Hippolytus' biography (cf. Pausanias 2. 27. 4, 32. 1). T h e street leading up to the temple of Diana Nemorensis was called the clivus Virbi (Persius 6. 55-56). T h e similarity in sound between the R o m a n clivus Urbius and clivus Virbi facilitated the trans­ ference of the cult to Rome and its establishment in that region of the Esquiline. T h e old etymology of Urbius was thus superseded by the imported myth of Hippolytus-Virbius; so that it was only natural that the horrific story of a king trampled underfoot by the mules of his daughter's chariot should now be localized at a place which was steeped in the traditions of another prince trampled to death by his 814432

193

O

I. 4 8 . 6

SERVIUS

TULLIUS

horses. For it is more likely that the scene of Tullia's outrage was m a d e the clivus Urbius because of its connexion with Hippolytus than that the story had always been situated there and so gave rise to the equa­ tion of Urbius and Virbius-Hippolytus. T h e name and the legends surrounding it will have been stabilized at least by the fourth century B.C., although the first mention is only in Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 159 and Festus 450 L. See further Merkel, Ovid, Fasti, cxlvi; Frazer on Ovid, Fasti 6. 6 0 1 ; Pais, Ancient Legends, 142-4; A. B. Cook, C.R. 16 (1902), 380 n. 3 (who reads Virbium h e r e ) ; F . Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 509 n. 9 ; F. Bomer, Gymnasium 64 (1957), 122 (sceptical). 4 8 . 7. sceleratum victim: mod. Via di S. Pietro in Vincoli (Platner-Ashby s.v.). A foil for the Cyprius vicus or Good Street. furiis: 46. 7 n. Cf. Sophocles, Electra 1080. contaminata ipsa respersaque: like a tragic murderess. 48. 9. imperium . . . deponere: the mooted abdication was no part of the original biography of Servius Tullius and, since it never happened, it could safely be asserted. Sulla's resignation called for precedents in the same way that his constitutional reforms required the sanction of mythical propriety. In inventing the rumour about Servius the Sullan annalists were doubtless inspired by Greek precedents—Pittacus and Maeandrius. T h e phrase itself belongs to republican terminology (cf. Caesar, B.G. 7. 33. 3 ; Tacitus Hist. 3. 70). It is the technical expression for laying down the imperium vested in a m a n by a lex curiata. Only by an historical fiction could it be used of a king. Besides, for L. such a rumour of contemplated resignation must have recalled the similar rumour about Augustus who after 31 B.C. de reddenda re p. . . . cogitavit (Suet. Aug. 28. 1; Syme, Roman Revolution, 324). quidam auctores: perhaps only Valerius Antias and the authors quoted by him, if any. Cf. F. Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen, 13. 49-60. Tarquinius Super bus If Servius' reign marks a Latin restoration the evidence from archaeclogy and constitutional history leaves little doubt that the story of Tarquinius Superbus, in so far as it presumes a renewed domination of Rome by the Etruscans culminating in their violent expulsion, is substantially historical. T h a t the Rome of the late sixth century was Etruscan in character is proved both by the deposits on the Palatine and by the survival of Etruscan institutions, while the violent break between kingdom and republic is the only reasonable inference that can be made from the nature of imperium and interregnum. Certain other facts, traditionally associated with the last king of Rome, are indepen­ dently supported. Tarquinius' name is connected with the building of the temple of Capitoline Juppiter (55. 1 n.) and of the cloaca maxima 194

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 49-60

(56. 2 n.), the capture of Gabii (53. 4 n.) and Suessa Pometia (53. 2 n.), the colonization of Signia and Circeii (56. 3 n.), and the siege of Ardea (57. 1 n.). For all these events there is enough external testi­ mony to command belief. Such is the hard core of Tarquin's reign. Various factors conspired to expand the hard core. At a very early stage in the writing of R o m a n history, the synchronism of the expul­ sion of the Tarquins and the expulsion of the Pisistratids was per­ ceived (Aul. Gell. 17. 21. 4). T h e inevitable result of this was that Tarquin's reign and his expulsion were assimilated to the familiar versions of Herodotus and Thucydides. It is possible that there is a sub-structure of historical truth in the story of Lucretia but its sig­ nificance for the fate of Tarquinius Superbus owes m u c h to the affair of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, and in marrying his daughter to Octavius Mamilius Tarquin merely followed the precepts of Hippias (49. 8 n.). Tarquin had to be painted in the true Greek colours of a tyrant. This hellenization of the character of Tarquin facilitated the inser­ tion of whole incidents from Herodotus and other Greek sources to supplement the meagre notices of R o m a n tradition. T h e capture of Gabii combines the stories of Zopyrus (3. 154) and of Periander and Thrasyboulos (5. 92). The embassies to Delphi may be original but all the details—the hollow staff, Mother earth, the kiss, the serpent portent—can be paralleled from the Greek (see nn.) and it is therefore at least an open question whether they too do not go back merely to the labours of third-century historians. Certainly the Best Wife competition and the scene of Lucretia at her home are pure Greek in only the poorest of R o m a n disguises. Such must have been the development of the legend of Tarquin down to the middle of the second century. T h e accident of time which had turned Tarquin into a tyrant on a Greek model was fortunate for the philosophical historians who in their concern to fit R o m a n history to a cyclic mould welcomed a tyranny already m a d e for the purpose. They did little more than supply further tints suitable to a real tyrant (49. 1-7 nn.). There was little room for an historian to exercise invention once the main outline was established, and Cassius Hemina (fr. 15 P.) clearly had the same material in much the same form as L. retails it. Even the duration of the kingdom and the length of Tarquin's reign were common ground from the time of Cato (60. 4 n . : see Walbank, Polybius, I, p . 666). T h e version in L. is certainly later than Piso (55. 9 n.) but there is nothing that points to a date later than Sulla. By a curiously un­ resolved contradiction Brutus, although affecting to be of sub­ normal intelligence, holds the office of Tribunus Celerum. This accretion must be later than the revival of interest in that institution 195

I. 49-60

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

which can be securely dated to the antiquarianism of the early first century (59. 7 n.; 15. 8 n.). There are few other indications either of date or of affiliation. The description of Suessa Pometia (53. 2) flagrantly contradicts 2. 16. 8 (Licinian) but is in harmony with 2.25.5 (Valerian). This, coupled with the resemblance of 38. 24. 3 (Valerian) to the tale of Lucretia and Collatinus (58. 6 ff.) and the prominence of the Vaierii throughout the section, might suggest that Valerius Antias was L.'s authority. The whole section is self-consistent, without variants or contradic­ tions. A comparison with the parallel narrative in D.H. shows what L. has tried to make of his material. He covers the reign in five main acts, Turnus Herdonius and the Latins (50-52), Gabii (53-54), City affairs (55), the Delphic oracle (56), Lucretia (57-59), and he sup­ presses any events which are incidental to the main plot. For him the history of the Tarquins is a tragedy with a moral, the triumph of pudicitia over superhia. Tarquin is distinguished by his superhia in all his actions just as Tullus Hostilius was by his ferocitas and it is noteworthy that L. allocates the same space to the former at the end of the book that he does to the latter in the centre (22-31 : 49-60). His presenta­ tion is dramatic. Seeking to create almost Aristotelian unities he com­ presses the events at the lucus Ferentinae from three days (D.H. 4. 45 ff.) to one and a half and eliminates all the shifts of scene which are in­ volved in D.H.'s account of Lucretia. He intensifies the effect by the use of language, giving his characters almost tragic diction to speak where D.H. allows them to indulge in lengthy oratorical debate (esp. 4. 77-83) and by subtle touches evokes the tension of the Greek stage (49. 1 n.; 59. 10 n.). Hence he omits much that is extraneous, the negotiations of Octavius Mamilius at the Latin congress, the fact that Herdonius is Tarquin's nephew, the settlement of Gabii after its capture, or the Sibylline books, but the two writers are so close in general that it is a reasonable assumption that D.H. stems from a slightly later source which combines Valerius Antias with other authorities. It is certain that L. does not depend upon Ennius or an unknown Roman tragedian. With a profound interest in psychology he is writing tragedy not copying it. For his audience the story of Tarquin had a contemporary message. Superhia had characterized too many of the actions of the dynasts of their generation.1 The old virtues represented by that typically Roman matron, Lucretia, and centred upon the restored temple of Juppiter Capitolinus, had not lost their appeal. The origins of the Republic and of Libertas were live issues. See further Soltau 196; E. Pais, Ancient Legends, 185-203; Storia Critica> 1. 475 ff.; H. Last, C.A.H. 7. 397 ff.; I. G. Scott, Mem. Amer. 1

For the Roman concept of superhia see H. Haffter, S.F.I.C. 27 (1956), 135-41. 196

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 49-60

Acad. Rome 7 (1929), 1 ff.; Schachermeyr, R.E. 'Tarquinius (7)', with full bibliography; Burck 163-76; Klotz 205; G. Pasquali, Terze Pagine stravaganti (1942), 1 ff.; U . Coli, Regnum (1951); A. K. Michels, Latomus 10 (1951), 13-24; M. Ghio, Riv. Fil. Class. 29 (1951), 1 ff; J. Heurgon, I.L. 7 (1955), 56-64. See also individual references cited under the main sections below. For the Greek conception of a tyrant cf. Plato, Gorgias 510 D9-C5 with Dodds's notes. 49. 1. occepit: 7. 6; the word is not found in Cicero or Caesar. Superbo: 50. 3 n. socerum gener sepultura prohibuit: L. has improved on his original. The old tradition was not that Tarquin prevented the burial of Servius but that he prevented a public, royal burial (D.H. 4. 40 δείσας εἰ διὰ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ὁ νεκρὸς φέροιτο) and allowed his widow to bury him privately and by night. There is no mention of the precedent of Romulus. In classical Rome nocturnal burials were confined to funera acerba, that is, to those who died without leaving any heirs to inherit their race (Tacitus, Annals 13. 17. 1 ; [Servius], ad Aen. 11. 143). Normally this category would comprise those who died prematurely before reaching the age of puberty or before marriage, but it is evident that it also included slaves who by their status could have no heirs. The story of Servius' furtive burial, therefore, harks back to his servile origin and serves as an aetiology for the practice of nocturnal burial (see Rose, C.Q. 17 (1923), 191 ff). Alternatively we may see here a hazy recollection of the decision to abandon the Forum as a burial place. The decision, with its natural corollary of draining the Forum by the Cloaca Maxima (56. 2 n.), suits the outlook of Tarquin who wished to make the city of Rome both magnificent and powerful. But in saying that Tarquin altogether prevented Servius5 burial, L. has introduced a quite un-Roman practice. In Rome as opposed to Greece even criminals were permitted the decency of burial (cf. Digest, 48. 24) and Tiberius' wilful disregard of this (Tacitus, Annals 6. 29. 2) was as wanton as Tarquin's. There can be little doubt that L. has deliberately altered the version which he inherited in order to remind the reader of the fate of Polyneices. This is further underlined by em­ phasizing their relationship (socerum gener). Creon was Polyneices' uncle. Romulum: 16. 1-4. 49. 2. armatis corpus circumsaepsit: the liquidation of political rivals and the requisition of a bodyguard were the notorious symptoms of Greek tyrants. Cf. Plato, Rep. 567 e with Adam's note; Xenophon, Hiero 5 . 3 . The Pisistratid parallel is again instructive. Hippias acquired a body­ guard and, after the murder of Hipparchus, τῶν πολιτῶν πολλοὺς ἔκτεινε (Thucydides 6. 59. 2 ; [Aristotle], Ath. Pol. 19). 49. 3 . neque populi iussu neque auctoribus patribus: note on ch. 17. 197

1.49-4

TARQUINIUS

SUPERBUS

4 9 . 4. caritate . . . metu: a commonplace of tyrannies for which cf. Aristotle, Politics I3i4 b 2i alhoios . . . 6fiepos with Newman's note. Cf 34. 27. 3. For a picture of the perfect tyrant see L.'s delineation of Hieronymus (24. 5 ff.). quern... incuteret: sc. metum, a strong phrase : cf. Caelius, adFam. 8.4. 2. cognitiones: part of the traditional make-up of tyrants. Cf. Otanes' denunciation of tyranny in Herodotus 3. 80. 5. 46. 6. numero imminuto: 2. 1. 10 n. 49. 7. traditum . . . morem: ut traditur . . . morem N, but a prioribus is then left in the air. L., moreover, habitually uses ut traditur & c , to in­ troduce a variant or discrepant version (Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen, 13) of which there is no suggestion here. Grynaeus's correction is assured. T h e theory that the Senate was consulted by the kings on issues of war, peace, and treaties is another constitutional fiction of the second century. It is worth noting that one of the principal issues in the civil disturbances of the last years of that century was the right of the populace to decide such issues without following the Senate's recommendation. As with so many other disputes precedents were sought in mythical prehistory. T h e question was still topical. Augustus was offered and, it would seem, he refused the power of making war, peace, and treaties on his own initiative. T h e question was clearly one that was exercising R o m a n minds from 30 to 23. Augustus' successors had no hesitation in availing themselves of the power; cf. Lex de imperio Vespasiani ( = I.L.S. 244) . . .foedusve cum quibus volet facere liceat ita uti licuit divo Aug. See Syme, Roman Revolution, 412. 4 9 . 8. Latinorum: 50. 1 n. adfinitates . . . iungebat: cf. Thucydides 6. 59. 3. 4 9 . 9 . Octavio Mamilio: 3. 18. 2 n., Mamilius is a Latin name (Schulze 442), Octavius perhaps Etruscan (ibid. 201). T h e connexion between Tarquin and Mamilius has some confirmation from the presence of an Etruscan tomb and other Etruscan elements in early Tusculum (Conway, Italian Dialects, p. 3 1 1 ; Zoller, Latium und Rom, 251 ff.) and the turris Mamilia shows that the Mamilii were connected with Rome by regal times. It is, therefore, to be believed that the marriage together with their pedigree from Odysseus and Circe was imparted by the gens, which reached the highest honours and influence in the third century (Q,. Mamilius Vitulus, cos. 262; C. Mamilius Turrinus, cos. 239), to the earliest Roman historians and that it formed a stable part of the history of the Tarquins thereafter. See F. Munzer, Romische Adelsparteien, 65. Tusculano : the site of Tusculum has been identified on the rim of the Alban hills near Frascati. Close by is an Iron Age necropolis. Despite its name, its proximity to Etruria, and the influence of Etruscan civilization upon it Tusculum was a Latin city, but not one of the 198

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 49. 9 old Latin cities of the Alban League. It was a prominent, if not for a time the leading, member of the Latin League of Diana at Aricia (Cato fr. 58 P.). In marrying his daughter to Mamilius Tarquin pre­ sumably hoped to secure control of that league through Mamilius, which Servius had tried to achieve by setting up a rival and superior cult of Diana. In the struggle for power in Latium after the expulsion of the kings, Tusculum identified its interests with the Latin cities that resisted Rome's ambitious pretensions but, reconciled to Rome in the foedus Cassianum (D.H. 6. 95), became a dependable ally. See G. McCracken, T.A.P.A. 64 (1933), xlvi; R.E., T u s c u l u m ' , with bibliography; A. E. Gordon, T.A.P.A. 63 (1932), 177-92; SherwinWhite, Roman Citizenship, 12. Ulixe . . . Circa: a pedigree of which the Mamilii were proud. Ulysses figures on the coin of a Mamilius monetal c. 150-133 and on another of Sullan time (Sydenham no. 369). Consequent on this was the belief that Tusculum was founded by Telegonus, the son of Odysseus and Circe (Festus 1 1 6 L . ; Horace, Epod. 1. 29 ff.; Odes 3. 29. 8; Propertius 2. 32. 4). There was a statue of Telegonus in the theatre at Tusculum (C.I.L. 14. 2649). A rival account which made Tusculum the foundation of Latinus Silvius, king of Alba Longa (Diodorus 7 fr. 4 ; Origo Gentis Romanae 12), is to be seen as a secondcentury attempt both to discredit the Mamilii and to provide an irrefutable explanation of the latinity of the city. Such genealogizing was a marked feature of the second century. W e find the Julii stressing their descent from Venus (Sydenham no. 593), the Fabii from Her­ cules, and the Hostilii from Romulus. See also 2. 19. 2 n. perque eas nuptias: cf. 49. 5 perque earn causam. The repeated use of the loose and inelegant Ac£i? dpofiev-q is another instance of L.'s habit of unconscious repetition (14. 4 n.). It disposes of Frigell's per quern. Turnus Herdonius and the Latins T h e ensuing ruse by which Tarquin secured control of the Latin League is of doubtful historicity. While it is true that Tarquin's other actions betray an aggressive policy in Latium and t h a t his marriageconnexion with Tusculum would place him in a favourable position to dominate the affairs of the Latins, the details of the story are a curious mixture of the plausible and the impossible. O n the one hand, the mention of Tusculum, Aricia, and the lucus Ferentinae fit the pattern of the late sixth century and Herdonius is an authentic Sabine name. O n the other hand, the story is evidently an Aetion connected with the site of the Ferentine spring (51. 9 deiectus ad caput aquae Ferentinae crate superne iniecta) and belongs to a familiar class of stories which recurs in the fate of Antistius Petro of Gabii. It is myth not history. Furthermore Turnus Herdonius himself is suspect. Turnus 199

I. 50. I

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

is an impossible name for a m a n from Aricia (50. 3 n.) and in charac­ ter and action he seems merely to be the double of his descendant Appius Herdonius. It would be rash, therefore, to believe more than that there was a sound tradition that Tarquin managed to extend his authority over Latium by hook or by crook—over Tusculum by marriage, over Suessa Pometia by war, and over Aricia by intrigue. See A. E. Gordon, Cults of Aricia, 1-2; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizen­ ship, 12-13; J . Gag6, Huit recherches, 211 ff. See 3. 15. 5. 50. 1. ad lucum Ferentinae: in full lucus ad caput aquae Ferentinae; long identified with a spring near Marino (H. J . Muller's note) but it is clear from 2. 38. 1 that it lay close to the line of the later Via Appia. Remains of an archaic shrine have been found south of mod. Ariccia in the Valle Ariccia where Lake Nemi has an outflow and these have been plausibly identified as the site. It is not, of course, to be confused with the main grove and shrine of Diana at Aricia which lay some 500 yards north-east of Lake Nemi, but it is likely that it was an alternative meeting-place for the league and was selected for its greater con­ venience. It is inconceivable that the Latin League of Diana and the assembly at the lucus Ferentinae were not the same. See Hulsen, R.E. 'Ferentina a q u a ' ; Paribeni, Not. Scavi, 1930, 370-80; A. E. Gordon, Cults of Aricia, 16-17. 50. 2. sol occideret: the words are reminiscent of the protocol of the Senate (Aul. Gell. 14. 7. 8 Varro dicit s.c. ante exortum aut post occasum solem factum ratum non fuisse), as conveniunt frequentes is the technical expression for a crowded meeting of the Senate (Plautus, Miles 594; Cicero, Verr. 4. 87, 5. 41). 50. 3 . Turnus: the name, derived from the Etruscan turan, has been interpreted to mean 'tyrant's son' or 'leader' (evidence and references in Stoltenberg, Etrusk. Gottnamen, 1957, 36-37). Although possible in a people so affected by Etruscan influence as the Rutuli (57. 1 n.), it rings false as the name of the leader of Latin resistance, and could hardly be a praenomen. Herdonius: a Sabine n a m e ; cf. Herdonia in Apulia (Pliny, N.H. 3. 105) which may have been a Sabine outpost. Variant forms, such as Hordianius, Hordeonius, and Hordonius, are attested from southern Italy (Schulze 256, 306). Aricia: mod. Ariccia, on a spur of the Alban hills \\ miles from Lake Nemi and sixteen from Rome. A colony of Alba Longa (Solinus 2. 16) or, according to another, hellenizing, account, founded by a Sicilian Archilochus (Gassius Hemina), its floruit was glorious but short-lived. Not a member of the old Alban League, it appears to have built up its own federal league which flourished for a while towards the end of the sixth century before the city passed into the orbit of R o m e and 200

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

*• 5 0 - 3

into obscurity. See G. Florescu, Ephem. Dacoromana, 3 (1925), 1-57; A. E. Gordon, Cults ofAricia, 1-4. D.H. 4. 45. 4 writes eV iroXei OLKCOV KoplXXrj generally corrected to KopCoX-rj, but D.H. elsewhere trans­ literates Coriolani as XupUXavoi, and Apu
i. 50. 8

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

50. 8. silentio facto: a favourite device of L.'s (3. 47. 6 n.). disceptatorem: there is no trace of this in D.H., where Tarquin merely ascribes Herdonius' behaviour to jealousy and pique at failing to win the hand of Tarquin's daughter. 50. 9. ab Turno tulisse taciturn: taken to mean 'they say that neither was this remark of Tarquin passed without comment by Turnus', i.e. Tarquinium tulisse id taciturn ab Turno and 3. 45. 6 ut taciturn/eras quod celari vis is quoted in support. The word-order, taciturn separated from ab Turno, and the abrupt change of subject between tulisse (Tarquinius) and dixisse (Turnus), without any warning or indication, argue against the reading and 3. 45. 6 is hardly an exact parallel, since taciturn has no prepositional phrase dependent on it and /eras is used of carrying out proposals or plans whereas here tulisse cannot refer to a proposal to adjourn the meeting till the following day and has to be regarded as an equivalent of dixisse. We expect taciturn ferre = taciturn pati, with Turnus as the subject (5. 28. 1, 35. 19. 1) and the correction of ab Turno to Turnum, already made in the Renaissance, seems inevitable. It also eliminates the harsh change of subject. ni pareat patri, habiturum infortunium esse: characterizing language to suit the speakers, infortunium is common in Plautus (Merc. 165) and Terence (Adelphi 178) of the scrapes that slaves become involved in. It then disappears from Latin except for the present passage and Horace, Ars Poetka 103 (apart from later archaizers like Apuleius). tunc tua me infortunia laedent, Telephe vel Peleu, where the poet is stressing the importance of tragic character speaking tragic language: he continues male si mandata loqueris out dormitabo aut ridebo. So here L. by his choice of words put in the mouth of Herdonius contrives to reproduce the colloquial language of archaic times. 51. 2. The stratagem by which Herdonius was caught and falsely accused owes much to a stirring episode in the Catilinarian con­ spiracy when the house of C. Cethegus was broken into and a large quantity of arms discovered. Cf. Cicero, in CatiL 3. 8. deversorium: cf. 51. 8 deverticuli (in the literal sense of an inn, only there and Tacitus, Ann. 13. 25, in classical Latin). It is implied that there were a number of semi-permanent refuges or inns built near the lucus Ferentinae to house the delegates from other Latin states, not unlike the national treasuries at Delphi, but the grove is so close to Aricia that it is hard to see why the delegates did not obtain accom­ modation and food in the town itself. It is even harder to believe that 202

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 5 1 . 2

if Herdonius was a citizen of Aricia he would not have spent the night under his own roof. The inconsistency points to the story having been inserted at a later date into the legend. 51. 3. una node: 25. 35. 7; Caesar, B.G., 5. 58. 1 : the quantity of arms was so enormous that it was an achievement to have smuggled them all in during the course of a single night. D.H. 4. 47 merely says VTTO VVKTCL £tr) 7ToAA<X . . . €l(J€V€yK€LV

6 t ? T7JV KCLTaXvCFLV f r o m

which

Hachtmann proposed prima node but the need for silence and stealth should be taken into account. moram . . . saluti. . .fuisse: not in D.H. So Cicero claimed that his vacillation and delay in taking action against Catiline was in reality a divinely inspired device to reveal the full extent of the conspiracy and so ensure the safety of Rome (in Catil. 3. 16-22). 51. 4. populorum: sc. Latinorum. Note the positions of the main verbs in the oratio obliqua standing at the head of their sentences (ab Turno dici . . . adgressurum fuisse . . . non dubitare . . . did . . . rogare eos), emphasizing the abrupt and harsh tone of Tarquin's remarks, an effect strengthened by the alliteration primoribus populorum parari. See A. Lambert, Die indirekte Rede, 25. 51. 7. indinatis . . . animis: cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2. 1. 2 (Fletcher). 51. 9. novo genere . . . crate superne inieda: 4. 50. 4, the punishment was evidently peculiar to the Carthaginians to judge by Plautus, Poenulus 1025-6 (Milphio to Hanno) 'sub cratim ut jubeas se supponi, atque eo ] lapides impone multos, ut sese neces'. Cf. also Tacitus, Germania 12. 1. Vegetius 3. 4. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the manner of Herdonius' death was only precisely defined when Carthaginian habits were familiar to the Romans, that is, after the First Punic War. It will be an invention by the first generation of Roman historians. 52. 1. parricidio: see n. on ch. 26. verba fedt: the formula for proposing a resolution in the Senate, generally abbreviated in documents to v./. 52. 2. [in] eo foedere teneantur: 24. 29. 11 teneri alienis foederibus; cf. Cicero, pro Caec. 41. in may be regarded as a dittography. There is something in favour of Scheller's iam. quod ab Tullo: this, the reading of the manuscripts, is accepted most recently by Bayet where it is translated 'puisque depuis Tullus l'fitat albain . . . etait annexe'. a(b) with the name of a person in the sense of 'from the time or reign of so-and-so' is, however, confined in Latin to a few precise idioms: (1) where it is associated with ad, as, e.g., Cicero, Brutus 328 Me a Crasso . . . ad Paullum floruit; Quint. 1. 10. 30 et aL; (2) where there is a defining adjective as, e.g., 1. 17. 10 qui secundus ab Romulo numeretur; Val. Max. 5.10 ext. 2 et aL The nearest approximation 203

I. 52. 2

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

to the present passage is Pliny, N.H. 12. i n a Pompeio Magno in triumphis arbores quoque duximus but, after duco, a there has also some derivative force. In view of this, and the further fact that eo requires a correlative and that a single treaty was made in 24. 4 which pre­ supposed not a gradual secession but a once-for-all transference, there should be no hesitation in accepting Drakenborch's quo sub. 52. 3 . id. . .censere ut: the accepted phraseology was ita censere ut, and so it is transcribed in all extant senatus consulta (cf., e.g., ad Fam. 8. 8. 5). id censere ut is not found. It is, therefore, advisable in the light of the parallel being drawn between the procedure of the Latin assembly and the form of debate in the Senate to amend id to ita or else delete it altogether (Ussing, Madvig). Take utilitatis omnium causa together. Anco: 33. 1 fF. patre: 35. 7 fT. 52. 4. in eofoedere: ea by a misprint in the O.C.T. et Turnus . . . erat documentum: cf. C.Q. 9 (1959), 212. 52. 5. frequentes: 50. 2 n. 52. 6. secretum: 'individual'. miscuit manipulos: the military organization is, of course, anachronis­ tic but this would not be remarkable were it not that nowhere else is there found a tradition of mixed companies. On every other occa­ sion (2. 64. 10, 3. 22. 4-5, et aL; cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 618 n. 4), the allies form separate contingents. The very oddity suggests the survival of an old, if garbled, detail of fact, a memory of a deter­ mined attempt by Tarquin to impose an artificial unity on his Latin empire; or it may be, as Mommsen suggests, an echo of the emer­ gency measures necessitated by the Social War or of a proposed military reform. ex binis singulos: the manipulus of later times consisted of two centuriae. Tarquin took a Latin half-manipulus (i.e. a centuria) and combined it with a Roman half-manipulus to form a single new manipulus. Military Activities of Tarquinius Superbus 53. 1. rex . . .dux: for the Augustan overtones of these words cf. Syme, Roman Revolution, 311-12. The antithesis is traditional; cf. [Sallust], Epist. 1. 1. 8; Philo, Leg. Alleg. 3. 8 1 ; Veil. Pat. 2. n . 1 quantum bello optimus, tantum pace pessimus (Skard 9). degeneratum in aliis: 'his degeneracy in other respects'. The use of the neuter passive part, as a substantive is a development of Augustan language in its search for greater flexibility. Cf. 4. 16. 4, 7. 8. 5. See R. D. Williams on Virgil, Aeneid 5. 6. 53. 2. Volscis: 23. 8 n. The Volsci were a northern people with Umbrian and possibly Illyrian affinities who towards the end of the sixth century descended from the Apennines on to the coastal plain of 204

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

1-53-2

Latium and Campania. There is no reason to doubt the traditional chronology of their invasion, which is confirmed by the archaeo­ logical evidence from Velitrae. See Conway, Italic Dialects, p. 267; J. Whatmough, Foundations of Roman Italy, 300; E. T. Salmon,

O.CD.

s.v.

Suessam Pometiam: 41. 7 n. It is listed as a member of the league of Diana at Aricia in Cato fr. 58 P. populus . . . Pometinus. If that dedica­ tion is prior to Tarquin's usurpation of the control of the league, there is enough time for Pometia to have fallen into the hands of the Volsci. The plea that a member-community must be liberated from the grasp of a foreign power would have made a good talking-point for Tarquin to secure the goodwill of the other associated communities. The tradition, therefore, that the first act of the new alliance was to recapture Pometia makes historical sense. After the expulsion of the Tarquins and the disintegration of that alliance it lapsed into Volscian hands again. 53. 3. dividenda praeda: the reading of the archetype has been unduly neglected by editors in favour of divendita or divendenda (Gronovius). When the proceeds are realized from the distribution of booty, divido frequently comes to mean the same as divendo. Gf. 4. 16. 2, 31. 4. 6, 31. 50. 1; Suetonius, Julius 54. 2. quadraginta talenta: 55. 8-9 nn. 40 talents was the figure given by Fabius Pictor. refecisset: N evidently had the dittography re^

.

but -cepisset is

a mere anticipation of concepit. lovis templi: the archaeological evidence 56. 1 n.; for the dedication 2. 8. 6 n. quae digna . . . Romano imperio . ♦ . esset: preoccupation with the external pomp and magnificence of new cults is a familiar feature of tyrannies (see Andrewes, The Greek Tyrants, 113-4) but sentiments such as these savour much more of the prophecies of a later age. See note on 55. 5. captivam pecuniam . . . seposuit: 55. 7 n, Gabii 3eyond the mere occurrence the details of the fall of Gabii are entirely imaginary. They are a conflation of two episodes from Herodotus, Zopyrus and the Capture of Babylon (3, 154) and the communication between Thrasyboulus and Periander (5. 92. 6). The insertion of two •uch episodes from Greek history into Roman annals to provide flesh tnd blood to an otherwise emaciated fact must belong to the earliest (third-century) generation of historians. It will have undergone little alteration at the hands of later writers, but L.'s treatment of it, in 205

i. 53- 4

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

comparison with D.H., is indicative of his literary methods. 'L. first outlines the initial attempts of Tarquinius Superbus to seize the city by storm and blockade; Dionysius' lengthy version indicates the scope of L.'s compression. L.'s central description depicts the simulated desertion of Tarquinius' son Sextus, his energetic activity within the town of Gabii, and his appointment there as army commander. . . . T h e action centres on Sextus. Dionysius recounts a long story of a messenger sent by Sextus to his father regarding instructions which Superbus gave by the cryptic decapitation of poppies; L. adverts to this in a single sentence and instantly refocuses the attention on Sextus. Finally, L.'s brief conclusion records only the betrayal of the town to the R o m a n king without the details of the treatment of the captive town which Dionysius outlines' (Walsh). L.'s version was used by Ovid as the basis for Fasti 2. 685-852, though for metrical reasons he substitutes lilies for poppies. See E. Zarncke 286; Pais, Ancient Legends, 177; Burck 183; P. G. Walsh, Livy, 179; and the criticisms of R. J u m e a u , R.E.A. 38 (1936), 64-655 3 . 4 . excepit deinde eum: eum, omitted by M , seems required. Cf. 6. 42. 9; Veil. Pat. 2. 55. 2 Caesar em gravius excepit {helium). Gabios: near the mod. Torre di Castiglione, a commanding site with an acropolis, 12 miles from Rome (Itin. Anton.; Strabo 5. 238; Appian, B.C. 5. 23), Although the extant masonry is hardly earlier than the third or fourth century the antiquity of the foundation is confirmed by the discovery of pottery going back to the seventh, which has close affinities with contemporary Alban pottery, thereby supporting the tradition that Gabii, although not a member of the Alban League, was a colony of Alba (D.H. 1. 8 4 ; Virgil, Aeneid6. 773: Sicel, according to Solinus 2. 10—its name, like Pompeii, may be formed from a family name). It certainly lay in the R o m a n orbit during the early years of the Republic (3. 8. 7, 6. 21. 6) but after making a desperate bid for independence in the fourth century (Macrobius 3.9. 13), it fell rapidly into decay, except for an ephemeral veteran colony planted there by Sulla. Its name was only remembered as a proverbial example of desolation (Lucan 7. 391-3). For further evidence of Augustan interest in it see 54. 10 n. See also T . Ashby, P.B.S.R. 1 (1902), 148 ff.; G. Pinza, Bull. Comm. Rom. 31 (1903), 321 fT.; Weiss, R.E. 'Gabii'; M . E. Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 108-11. minime arte Romana: notice L.'s prim patriotism of which there is no trace in D.H. fraude ac dolo: a regular conjunction from R o m a n law: cf., e.g., 22. 23. 4 ; Plautus, Pseud. 705; Cicero,pro Flacco 74: see Lenel, Edictum, 114, n. 12. 206

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

i. 53. 5

5 3 . 5. fundamentis . . .faciendis: iaciendis Vascosanus. It is difficult to differentiate / . facere and / . iacere, but the former seems to be almost technical in sense—the manual construction of the foundations (Cato, de Re Rust. 18. 3 et al.\ C.I.L. 1. 1522, Tacitus, Hist. 3. 72; Vitruvius 1. 5. 1 fundamenta sic suntfacienda utifodiantur ad solidum)—whereas the latter is the neutral term for describing such construction (cf. 12. 4 fundamenta ieci; Seneca,Dial. 12. 7. 5; Epist. 89. 21). iaciendis is certainly the more appropriate in meaning here. minimus ex tribus: the other two were Titus and Arruns (56. 7). D.H. four times distinctly makes Sextus the oldest (4. 55, 63, 64, 65) and Cicero (de Rep. 2. 46 calls him maior) but Ovid, Fasti 2. 691 namque trium minimus, shows that the text of L. is sound (maximus C. Appleton). If there is any historical truth in the tradition that Sextus reigned at Gabii, it is to be presumed that he was the eldest son but his being the youngest is dramatically more exciting. transfugit . . . conquerens: Herodotus loc. cit. (Zopyrus speaking) avToiLoXrjau) . . . KCLL (frrjcrco 777309 avrovs

cos VITO aev rdbe 7T€7rov6a.

53. 6. in curia solitudinem fecerit: reminiscent of Cicero, Brutus 227 erat ab oratoribus quaedam inforo solitudo. The description of Tarquin's reign of terror has much in common with the unsettled times of the Marian civil war. 53. 7. inter tela et gladiospatris elapsum: in Sextus' mouth the words are suitably characterized by a poetical ring. Cf. 13. 1 and Virgil, Aeneid 2.318. 5 3 . 8. Hernicos'. a branch of the Sabines, their name being derived from herna, Sabine or Marsian for a rock (saxum Festus Paulus 89 L . ; Servius, ad Aen. 7. 684). It is likely that their migration to Latium coincided with the movements of the Aequi and Volsci and that they had occupied an enclave of high ground near the mod. Sacco (Trerus) by the middle of the sixth century. Subsequently they were centred on Anagnia cf., e.g., 9. 42. n ) . Their early dealings with Rome are largely mythical, but a plausible pattern of events can be detected if after a generation of intermittent hostility (2.22.3) they were persuaded by Sp. Cassius (2. 41. 1 n.) to throw in their lot with Rome. See Weiss, R.E., 'Hernici'. 53. 9. superbissimum regem ac ferocissimum populum: Tan. Faber com­ mented 'Qui tandem? tunc ferocissimus populus? sub tyrannide? Nugae 5 and proposed f patrem (parentem Ruperti) but L. has been Carried away as elsewhere (3. 18. 4 n.) by his own eloquence. There is nothing corresponding to it in D.H. T h a t populum is what L. wrote is guaranteed by the epithetferox which is a frequent affectation (19. 2 ; cf. Vergil, Aeneid 1. 263, 7. 384). 63.10. si nihil morarentur: 'if they took no notice'. T h e phrase, although In or. obi, belongs to the language of everyday speech. (It is to be 207

i. 53- io

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

distinguished from the formula in 4. 42. 8 n.) It is common in Plautus (see Duckworth on Epidicus 305) but avoided by Cicero and Caesar. Significantly it is used in an outspoken remark of M . Antony, quoted by Cicero, Phil. 13. 35. incensus ira: infensus ira is given by the manuscripts only here and 2.12. 12 (cf. 7. 27. 6). It does not occur in any other Latin author, and else­ where in L. when an abl. is associated with infensus it is always an abl. abs. (5. 36. 11, 33. 47. 3). It might be defended as underlining the dangers latent in Sextus' wrath rather than its heat; but it appears advisable to adopt Madvig's incensus. incensus ira is frequent in all periods (Plautus, Asin. 420; Cicero, pro Milone 5 6 ; Bell. Afr. 85. 6 ; other examples in Thes. Ling. Lat. 869. 18 ff.). 54. 1. adsentire: the active for dep. is found only here in L. and a unique form of this kind might be expected to have a special signifi­ cance. Since none can be detected or invented (Sext. Tarquinius is talking in the ordinary style appropriate to a public or senatorial meeting: cf. 32. 12 n.), it is easier to believe that the mood is due to an assimilation of endings—adsentire se for adsentiri se. At 4 1 . 24. 19 adsentierant is rightly emended to adsensi erant (Freinsheim). adsumere: 'claimed'. 54. 3 . proelia parva: Zopyrus had arranged sham battles at 10, 7, and 20 days' interval. dono deum . . . missum: the language is suggestive of a public thanks­ giving (Cicero, pro Archia 18; Suet. Vitellius 7. 3). 54. 4 . obeundo pericula ac labores: the hallmark of the model Greek general. Notice, for example, the advice of his father to the young Cyrus (Xenophon, Cyr. 1. 6. 25). (in) tanta caritate (Doering; cf. 39. 6) is not required. 54. 5. Cf. Herodotus 5. 92$. 1 : Periander sent a herald to Thrasyb o u l u s t o i n q u i r e OVTIVCL av rpoirov CLCHJHLXZCJTCLTOV Kara<JT7]<japL^vos TWV TrpayjJLOLTWV /caAAtcrra TT)V TTOXLV iTrLrpoircvot.

ut omnia unusp. Gabiisposset: 'that in his sole person the whole power of Gabii should be visited'. M a n y conjectures have been suggested for the enigmatic p. of the manuscripts (ipsis R h e n a n u s ; ipse edd. vett.; prae [Gabinis) Veith; prae aliis {Gabiis) Hertz; prope or praetor Otto; paene Reuss; praeter ceteros Cornellissen; praecipue Binsfeld ; pro Edwards; publice Heerwagen) but there can be little doubt that Rossbach has diagnosed the cause of the interpolation (Berl. Ph. Woch., 1920, 627) by illustrating the prevalence of the symbol p or p in the manuscripts of Livy and other Latin authors as an abbreviation forproprium nomen— a note introduced by a scribe to warn the reader that a name is coming. It had already been deleted by Bekker and Frigell. See the other examples listed at 2. 15. 1 n. 208

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

i. 54. 6

54. 6. credo: an explanation by L. himself (46. 5 n.) which has no place in the narrative of Herodotus. 54. 7. ut re imperfecta: some doubt attaches to these words which should mean 'thinking his job half-done', whereas the sense demands 'thinking his mission abortive', re imperfecta does not seem to occur elsewhere in classical Latin and the suspicion arises that it is a mere mistake for the common re infecta (5. 4. 1 ; Caesar, B.G. 6. 12. 5, 7. 17. 5 et at.). vocem emisisse: Tarquin's whole performance was oracular, and is described accordingly. Gf. 5. 51. 7; Veil. Pat. 1. 10. 5 vox veluti oraculo emissa. 54. 8. tacitis ambagibus: cf. 55. 6, 56. 9, 5. 15. 5 ; cf. Virgil, Aeneid6. 99. sua ipsos invidia opportunos: 'who were vulnerable by the odium which they had themselves incurred'. 54. 9 . patuit.. .fuga, out. . . acti sunt: the change of subject is remark­ able but not unparalleled (35. 9). It seems to underline the variety of methods by which Sextus Tarquinius rid himself of potential rivals. Novak deleted out. . . acti sunt; Strothius proposed alii for aut. 54. 10. consilio auxilioque: a favourite jingle of Cicero's (A. Bloch, Mus. Helv. 15 (1958), 136-8). Gabina res.,, in manum traditur: the ancient tradition (cf. D.H. 4- 57- 3) 1S unanimous that Gabii was absorbed by R o m e not as a result of direct conquest but by negotiation, and D . H . adds that the details of the treaty were preserved on a leather shield in the temple of Semo Sancus Dius Fidius (Horace, Ep. 2. 1. 2 4 ; Festus 48 L.). T h e tradition is corroborated by the curious position enjoyed by Gabine institutions in the history of Rome (e.g. 8. 9. 9, 10. 7. 3 ; Cato ap. Servius, ad Aen. 5. 755 Gabino ritu: Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 33 ager Gabinus) which suggests that in the fusion Gabii was negotiating from a position of greater strength than the R o m a n historians care to allow (Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 18). Historically such a fusion could not be later than the end of the sixth century so that the main facts of the tradition are beyond dispute. T h e leather shield treaty, alleged to have been seen by D.H., is more suspect since the temple of Semo Sancus also contained what purported to be the distaff and spindle of Tanaquil (Pliny, N.H. 8. 194). T h e name and the prove­ nance of the deity are still as yet unexplained but an archaic feature of the ritual was the dedication of wheel-shaped disks as an offering from a conquered city, urfeta (wheel-shaped discs) are assDciated with Fiosovius Sancius in the Iguvine tablets. So orbes aenei were placed in the temple of Semo Sancus in 329 B.C. after the destruction of Privernum (8. 20). T h e alleged spindle of Tanaquil would have been circular and lo was the shield from Gabii. Since it is scarcely credible that an inicription of the fifth century would have been understood by a R o m a n 814432

209

P

i. 54. 10

TARQUINIUS

SUPERBUS

of Cicero's day, it seems safest to assume that the 'shield' from Gabii is in fact comparable with orbes aenei from Privernum, as a trophy from the capture of Gabii in the Latin War of the fourth century. See further Wissowa, Religion, 130; Norden, Altrom. Priest., 204 ff.; E. G. Evans, The Cults of Sabine Territory, 237-40; Weinstock, J.R.S. 36 (1946), 105 n. 19.1 have also considered the custom by which Olympic chariot victors dedicated a wheel inscribed with their own and their city's names (Pindar, Olymp. 5. 15, 11. 8, 13. 35). 5 5 . 1 . pacem cum Aequorum gente: hostilities are implied but not stated in 53- 8. foedus cum Tuscis: 42. 2 n., presumably a renewal of the truce which had then expired. monte Tarpeio: 11. 5-9 n., denoting either the whole Gapitoline hill (Varro, de Ling. LaL 5. 41 ; Propertius 4. 4. 93) or, as here, merely the Gapitolium (Suetonius, Julius 44; ad Herennium 4. 43). Tarquinios . . . perfecisse: dependent on monumentum. The style is epigraphic. Gf. Dessau, LL.S. 129 (Pantheon) M. AgrippaL.F. Cos. Tertium Fecit and, for the use of patrem . . .filium, 4318 Antonii Mariani pater et filius. But no real inscription is intended since the temple was not dedicated till the Republic and any such inscription could not have survived till the first century (A. A. Howard, Harvard Studies 3 (1892), 185-6). vovisse: 38. 7. 55. 2. exaugurare fana sacellaque: Gato fr. 24 P.:fana in eo loco compluria fuere: ea exauguravit, praeterquam quod Termino fanum fuit: id nequitum exaugurari; Servius, adAen.q. 446; Augustine, Civ. Dei 5.21. The building of the temple probably did involve the destruction of a number of other buildings but there is no record of any shrines or temples other than Terminus (see below) of greater antiquity on the Capitol. It is possible that there were private cults which had to be moved but it is more likely that the tradition concerning Terminus demanded that some shrines were uprooted. Certainly no such temples are attributed to Tatius and it is fanciful to see here discrimination against Sabine or patrician cults. 55. 3. movisse numen: not 'exerted their power' but literally 'moved a nod' i.e. 'signified their will', numen is used in its literal sense—the will of the deity displayed by a nod (cf., e.g., 7. 30. 20; Lucretius 3. 144; Catullus 64. 204 with Fordyce's note; cf. the Homeric Karavevco and dvav€va>). The literal meaning survived only in sacral contexts (monuisse numen Ruperti; movisse omen Ruhnken). aves: 'to divine whether the deities were willing to leave their native shrines'. For the procedure of evocatio see 5. 21. 1 n. in Termini fano: a shrine consisting of a rude stone (Servius loc. cit.; 210

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i- 55- 3

LactantiuSj Inst, i. 20.37). The origin of the legend is obscure but, as in Greece, there was a primitive law, ascribed to Numa, forbidding the removal of boundary-stones (Festus 505 L. qui terminum exarasset, et ipsum et boves sacros esse). Such a law is a necessary protection of private property and its antiquity at Rome seems established by the ancient cippus of c. 500 B.C. ( = C.I.L. i 2 . 1) found near the Lapis Niger in the Forum whose opening clause quoi hoi. . . sakros essed is restored to give the sense of Numa's law. (F. Ribezzo, Riv. Ind.-GrecoHal. 17(1933), 73; Goidanich, Mem. Ace. dUtal. 3 (1943), 317 fF.; C. J. S. Marstrander, Symb. Osl. 37 (1961), 146 fT.). It was natural that a divine sanction should be invoked for such a regulation and the role played by Zevs "Opios in Greek religion was fulfilled at Rome by the associa­ tion of Terminus with Juppiter Gapitolinus (hence in later inscriptions Juppiter Terminus or Terminalis). From this beginning the legend of the god who would not be moved was evolved. See further Wissowa, Religion, 136; Frazer on Ovid, Fasti 2. 639 fT.; Platner-Ashby s.v.; Marbach, R.E., 'Terminus'. For the subsequent interpolation of Juventus (also in D.H. 3. 69) as another deity who would not be moved see 5. 54. 7 n. The Periocha la gives Termonis (Pithoeus) et Iuventae arae moveri non potuerunt but there is no question of our text of L. being defective. 55. 5. caput humanum: a fuller account was given by Valerius Antias, which L. has utilized but abbreviated (Pliny, N.H. 28.15 ; cf. [Servius], adAen. 8.345; Arnobius 6. 7). 'Cum in Tarpeio fodientes delubro fundamenta caput humanum invenissent, missis ob id ad se legatis Etruriae celeberrimus vates Olenus Calenus praeclarum id fortunatumque cernens interrogatione in suam gen tern transferre temptavit scipione determinata prius templi imagine in solo ante se: "hoc ergo dicitis, Romani ? hie templum Iovis optimi maximi futurum est, hie caput invenimus?" constantissima annalium adfirmatione transiturum fuisse fatum in Etruriam, ni praemoniti a filio vatis legati respondissent: "non plane hie sed Romae inventum caput dicimus".' The detailed development of the myth, which has much in common with 45. 2-7, is analysed by Weinstock, R.E., 'Olenus'. Starting as an aetiological explanation of the name Capitolium ( = Caput Oli or Olis—a latinized form of an Etruscan name; see Schulze 73) it may have come to be regarded as symbolizing the hold of Rome over an enemy, for the head is the dominant part of a person and to control the head is to neutralize that person (10.26. 11, 2 4 . 1 5 . 4 ; cf. St. John's on a charger, or Gorgo's). But heads could also be oracular—notably the head of Orpheus (Dodds, Greeks and the Irrational, 168 n. 78). In the third century, when the wars with Pyrrhus and Carthage taxed the resources of Rome and challenged her morale, the myth of the Capitolium took on a new prophetic guise, assuring Rome of ultimate mastery—caput rerumfore 211

!• 55- 5

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

portendebat. T h a t this explanation of Capitolium belongs to the third century and little earlier seems established by its association with a comparable myth about Carthage that at the foundation of that city the heads of an ox and of a horse were found (Servius, ad A en. i. 4 4 3 ; Justin 18. 5. 15) from which it was inferred that et bellicosa est Carthago per equi omen et fertilis (or serva) per bovis. Moreover, the scene of the discovery of the head on the Capitolium appears in profusion and for the first time as a motif on Italian gems which can hardly be dated before the third century (Furtwangler, Die antiken Gemrren, 3. 245 ff.; Beazley, The Lewes House Collection of Ancient Gems, no. 87). It was treated at length by Fabius Pictor (fr. 12 P.), doubtless for propaganda reasons, but received its final form at the hands of Valerius Antias who may also be responsible for transferring the prodigy from Tarquinius Priscus to Tarquinius Superbus. For L. it is not important. His treat­ ment is cursory and anonymous. 55. 6. caput rerum: 45. 3 n. 55. 7. Pometinae: Pomptinae, the reading of the archetype, is preferred by M . Ghio (Riv. Fil. Class. 29 (1951), 7) on the implausible ground that Ennius is L.'s source here and Pometinus is impossible metrically in hexameters, but it is more likely either that Pomptinae is a scribal error for the rare Pometinae (Cato fr. 58 P . ; D.H. 4. 50: cf. A. Rosen­ berg, Hermes 54 (1919), 154) or that the forms were in fact used interchangeably by Romans (cf. C.I.L. 6. 3884 Poment. for Pompt.; see Philipp, R.E., 'Suessa Pometia'). Pometinae manubiae: this is not at variance with Valerius Antias fr. 11 P . : oppidum Latinorum Apiolas captum a L. Tarquinio rege, ex cuius praeda Capitolium is incohaverit, nor is there any justification for assuming with Pais that the two versions are doublets (aiuov = pomum). Tar­ quinius Priscus used the spoils of Apiolae for his enterprise. T h e work was interrupted. Superbus continued it with the spoils from Pometia. 5 5 . 8 . Fabio . . . quadraginta . . . talenta: D.H. 4. 50 and Plutarch, Publicola 15, follow Piso in giving the larger figure (100 lb. = 1 talent; but cf. 38. 38. 13) but it is legitimate to inquire how the two historians could arrive at any figure, let alone discrepant figures. In the absence both of coinage and of contemporary documents any estimate must have been founded on a comparison with the cost of some famous building. The temple of Juppiter Capitolinus enjoyed at Rome the status that the cult of Athena Parthenos had in Athens. It is, therefore, perhaps no accident that Thucydides records the weight of gold on Pheidias' chryselephantine statue as 40 talents (2. 13. 5 : for the variant figures given by Philochorus and Diodorus see Gomme's note). Thucydides is giving a round figure (cf., e.g., Aristophanes, Plutus 196) but it would have been the figure familiar to anyone interested in Athenian antiquities like Fabius Pictor, concerned, as he was, to 212

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

i. 55- 8

depict Rome as a second Athens. Piso may have been led to correct the figure of 40 talents to 400 either because it seemed too small for such an undertaking or in the light of the cost of the restorations of 179 B.C. (40. 52. 3) or 142 B.C. (Pliny, N.H. 33. 5 7 ; cf. 36. 185). 55. 9. Pisoni: the historian L. Calpurnius L.f.C.n. Piso Frugi (Censorius), cos. 133 B.C. and censor 120 B.C., for whose historical work see Introduction. Since he wrote in Latin whereas Fabius wrote in Greek, he gives the figures in their Latin denomination. summam: read, with Hay ley, nullius ne horum quidem magnificentiam operum [fundamenta] non exsuperaturam. The run of the sentence neces­ sitates that nullius be taken with ne horum quidem . . . operum^ 'none even of contemporary constructions'. It is equally plain that the contrast is between the magnificence of modern buildings and the mere founda­ tions of an ancient temple. L.'s remark loses all its point if he is m a d e to compare the foundations of the Gapitoline Temple simply with Augustan foundations (Frigell). H e is stressing that Piso's figure is colossal, amply large enough even in present conditions of inflation to provide for a fine building, let alone a foundation in primitive times. T h e manuscripts read magnificentiae but magnificentiam is what should be expected (with operum; cf. 57. 1, 45. 28. 4 ; Vitruvius 6. 5. 2 ; Pliny, N.H. 7. 94). In that case fundamenta must be a gloss from 55. 7 above. Translate 'a sum of money which could not be expected from the booty of a single city of those days and which would be more than sufficient even for the magnificence of any modern buildings', quia is found in the manuscripts before summam. quia is not used as quippe (read here by Bekker, Frigell, Bayet; cf. 3. 53. 2) without a verb to introduce a clause in apposition. Scribal interpolations of this kind designed to make the connexion of thought clearer can be detected at 2. 58. 5 and 4. 44. 3. See further C.Q. 9 (i959)> 2 I 4 56. 1. fabris undique ex Etruria accitis: tradition names Vulca of Veii as the artist responsible for the cult-image (Pliny, N.H. 35. 157) and other Veian artists as the craftsmen of the terracotta quadriga on the apex (Pliny, N.H. 35. 157) and, although only the foundations and two small terracotta fragments survive from the original temple, they are sufficient to confirm the traditional descriptions of the temple (D.H. 4. 61. 3 ff.; Vitruvius 3. 3. 5) as a work of Etruscan style—Doric hexastyle, 55 metres by 60 metres, with lower courses ofcapellacio and superstructure largely of wood faced with terracotta decorations. After the fire of 6 July 83 B.C., the temple was restored by Q,. Lutatius Catulus on the same plan but with a higher elevation (Tacitus, Hist. 3. 72; Val. Max. 4. 4. 11) and, as such, it is depicted on several Republican coins. It was restored at great expense by Augustus in 213

I. 56. I

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

26 B.G. (Res Gestae 20) and the absence of any allusion to that restora­ tion indicates that the present passage was written before 26 B.G. (56. 3 n.). For fuller details see Platner-Ashby s.v.; Scott, Mem. Am. Acad. Rome 7 (1929), 95-116; A. Andren, Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples, 335-6; G. Lugli, J.R.S. 36 (1946), 3 ; P. J. Riis, Etruscan Art, 120; E. H. Richardson, Mem. Am. Acad. Rome 21 (1953), 8 3 ; A. Andren, Hommages a L. Herrmann, 91 ; A. Boethius, The Golden House of Nero, 14-19. operis: the conscription of labour is credible enough. Lacking slaves (cf. 2. 4. 5), Rome had no other means of undertaking such works (Clerici, Economia e Finanza, 525 ff.). militiae: dat. 'when this work, far from light in itself, was added to military service5. 56. 2. foros: 35. 8 n. The stands are also attributed to Superbus by D.H. 4. 44. 1 ; de Viris Illustr. 8. 3. cloacam . . . maximam: 38. 6 n., ascribed unanimously by ancient authors to Superbus (Pliny, N.H. 36. 104), the main sewer of Rome started in the Argiletum and carried the waters from the Esquiline, Viminal, and Quirinal through the forum to the Tiber. Originally an open ditch (Plautus, Curculio 476), it was first enclosed in the third century. The chief effect of its construction was the final drainage of the forum which now for the first time became available for largescale building. Preliminary draining had been begun several decades earlier after which the forum ceased to be used as a graveyard. These two stages, corresponding to the works of Priscus and Superbus, can be dated archaeologically to c. 620 and c. 570, although the earliest extant capellacio work seems to belong to the post-390 period (see T. Ashby, C.R. 15 (1901), 137-8; Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 122-3).

nova haec magnificentia: to what does 'our modern magnificence' refer ? It is generally taken to be an allusion to the splendour of the imperial city of Rome as a whole contrasted with the achievement of Tarquin in constructing the Cloaca and embellishing the Circus: but such an allusion is at once too sweeping and too vague. The con­ text points clearly to a contrast between the initial achievement of constructing the two great works and the lesser achievement of bring­ ing them to their present state of magnificence. If so, it presupposes recent work both on the Cloaca and on the Circus. We know that Agrippa in his aedileship (33 B.G.) cleaned out and navigated the sewers (Dio 49. 43, TOVS inrovofjLovs ef eKadrjpe; Pliny, N.H. 36. 104). There is dispute whether Agrippa also repaired and improved them but since Strabo (5. 235 cvv (i.e. sewers, aqueducts) TrXeiurrjv iirifieXeiav eVoirjo-aro M. AypiTTTTas) suggests that he did and since a large section of the extant Cloaca is Augustan in date, it seems reasonable to suppose 214

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 56. 2

that in 33 B.C. he did carry out an extensive inspection and restoration. As for the Circus, we know that it was damaged by fire in 31 B.G. (Dio 50. 10) and that this damage was confined to fori since Augustus records only the restoration ofthe pulvinar adcircum maximum (Res Gestae 19; cf. Cassiodorus, Var. 3. 51. 4). L. is comparing the glory of the new pulvinar with the achievement of the first fori. The reference of nova haec magnificentia is, therefore, clear: it is limited to the fori and the cloaca, and the words provide another indication that Book 1 was written in the period 29-28 B.G. See Platner-Ashby s . w . ; F. W. Shipley, Agrippa's Building Activities in Rome, 17-18; A. Andren, Hommages d L. Herrmann, 94-95. 56. 3 . exercita plebe: an old part of the tradition, already related by Cassius Hemina fr. 15 P. usus non esset: usui non esset Cornelissen; cf. 42. 27. 1. Signiam: 2. 21. 7, mod. Segni, a town lying on the edge of Latium between the Via Appia and Via Latina and occupying a commanding height in the Latin salient between the Aequi and the Volsci. The earliest remains discovered on the site may perhaps be as old as 500 although the polygonal stonework should probably be dated to the fourth century. The foundation of a colony by Tarquinius is, therefore, to be regarded as apocryphal while that in 495 can be accepted. The later date also suits the political climate of the early fifth century when the need for such an outpost became acute. On the other hand, the notice of Tarquin's operations may be a confusion with hostilities undertaken by him against an indigenous population of Latins in Signia. Throughout its history, in the Punic Wars (27. 10. 7) and in the Civil Wars (Plutarch, Sulla 28), Signia was a strategic point. See further Delbriick, Das Capitolium von Signia; Philipp, R.E., Signia'; Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 96. Circeios: mod. Mte. Circello. The early history of the town is obscure. Diodorus (14. 102 ; cf. [Scylax], Periplus 8; 5. 24. 4 n.) dates the first Roman colony at Circeii to 393 B.G. and that date agrees with the archaeological remains so far discovered (T. Ashby, Mel. d*Arch. et d'Hist. 25 (1905), 157-209; Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 94). Against that, the KipKaurcov (Polybius 3. 22. 11 with Walbank's note) are mentioned in the Carthaginian treaty of 508 B.G. and Circeii appears as a colony in the account of Coriolanus' campaigns (2. 39. 2), when they passed under Volscian control (Plutarch, Coriolanus 28). They were still liable to side with the Volscians in the fourth century (6. 12. 6, 13. 8, 17. 7; cf. D.H. 5. 61). It is possible that, as in the case of Signia, there was a Latin community at Circeii which was sub­ jected to Tarquin and under Etruscan influence concluded the treaty with Carthage. Its Etrusco-Latin career was too short-lived to leave any mark archaeologically and it was only when the site was finally 215

i. 56. 3

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

recovered from the Volscians in 393 that a colony could be established there. For its later history see Hulsen, R.E., 'Circeii'. The Snake Portent and the Consultation of Delphi T h a t there was contact in the sixth century between the leading Etruscan cities and Delphi is proved both by the story that after the Battle of Alalia the inhabitants of Caere (AyvXXatoi) sent a penitential embassy to Delphi (Herodotus 1. 167) and by the clear evidence that Caere had a treasury at Delphi from the earliest times. Moreover, the Tarquins are closely associated with Caere (60. 2 n.) and indeed may be derived from Caere rather than from Tarquinii (34. 1 n.), so that the remark of Cicero (de Rep. 2. 44 institutis eorum a quibus ortus erat dona magnifica . . . Delphos ad Apollinem misii) may well be historically true although not confirmed from the Greek end, and that from the known connexion of the Tarquins with Delphi the story which we find developed in L. was evolved (cf. Cicero, Brutus 5 3 ; Ovid, Fasti 2. 711 fT.; Val. Max. 7. 3. 2 ) ; for that story is certainly no more than an assemblage of folk-tales (56. 4 n . ; 56. 9 n . ; 56. 12 n.) around the central aetiological myth of the cognomen of L. Junius Brutus. There can be few doubts that such a man existed and was the first 'consul' but his character and exploits were elaborated by the later Junii Bruti, especially perhaps Decimus, the consul of 325, and Gaius, the censor of 307, who, as plebeians, regarded him as their 'auctor nobilitatis\ See further Schur, R.E., SuppL 5, 'L. Junius Brutus'; Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 264; Parke-Wormell, Delphic Oracle, 1. 266. 56. 4. anguis: snake portents feature widely in legend—generally fore­ telling the death of persons since departed souls are believed to be reincarnated in snakes (Frazer, Golden Bough, 8. 2 9 3 - 4 ; R . D . Williams on Virgil, Aeneid 5. 9 5 ; cf. 5. 86-88). Cadmus turned at death into a snake (Apollcd. 3. 5. 4). When Cleomenes was crucified in Egypt, his body was guarded by a snake (Plutarch, Cleomenes 39) and when Plotinus was dying a snake emerged from under his bed and dis­ appeared into a hole in the wall, and at the same time Plotinus expired (Porphyry, de Vita Plot. 2). T h e same fate befell Erechtheus (Herodotus 8. 41). T h e snake portent which appeared to Tarquin is therefore doubtless designed to prefigure his violent end, as in the story of Laocoon. As such it must be a post-eventum embellishment of the legend of the Tarquins. in regiam: if the wooden column from which the snake appeared was in the palace, it would be necessary to follow Bauer and read in regia 'panic broke out in the palace', but against this it should be said that the plan of the early regia leaves no room for wooden columns, while it was well known that the primitive structure of the Capitoline Temple was upheld by them. It would be singularly appropriate 216

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

1.56. 4

that the portent should issue from that ill-starred building whose construction was alienating the sympathies of the Romans and whose completion Tarquin did not survive to see. In that case the frightened crowd would run in regiam and apprise the king of what was happening. See also next note. 56. 5. publico,. . . domestico: prodigies were public when the attention of the Senate was called to them and when the Senate decided to take appropriate measures for their procuratio (Varro, de Ling, Lat. 5. 148; 2. 42. 10, 5. 15. 1,7. 6. 3). But certain classes of prodigies were not publicly accepted, such as dreams or prodigies which occurred in privato loco or in loco peregrino (43. 13. 6), although in such cases the haruspices could be privately consulted and usually were. Tarquin's prodigy, however, cannot be classed as necessarily private even if it did appear in the regia (see above) since for religious purposes the regia was not a private dwelling (Aul. Gell. 4. 6. 2). These considera­ tions are in keeping with the tendentious character of the language [tantum adhiberentur) so that it may be supposed that an annalist (i.e. Piso or later) wished to devise a connexion between two traditional elements of the Tarquin legend—the snake portent and the embassy to Delphi—and turned to advantage the fact that the prodigy was not to be found in the Annales as it ought to have been if it had been a publicum prodigium. See L. Wulker, Die geschicht. Entwicklung des Prodigienwesens, 2 ff., 35-36; C. O. Thulin, Die Etrusk. Discipline 131-2. 56. 6. responsa sortium: 21. 62. 5. T h e reply of the oracle frequently took the form of writing on leaves. See Norden's note on Virgil, Aeneid 6. 74. 56. 7. L. Iunius Brutus: the cognomen like the nornen are of Latin or Italic roots and this fact may support the tradition that the Etruscan dynasty was evicted by him. Junius from J u n o (Schulze 470); for Brutus 'Stupid 5 cf. the Oscan praenomen Brutulus in 8. 39. 12 and Walde-Hofmann s.v. 56. 7. alius ingenio: Very different in intelligence from the mask which he had assumed'. So the manuscripts rightly. Hofmann in Thes. Ling. Lat.) 'ingenium', col. 1535, collects other instances of similar phrases (e.g. 45. 10. 8, 34. 5. 6, 23. 7. 12, 35. 47. 7). Cf. Seneca, Contr. 10 praef. 4 alius animo (Meyer). in quibus: 27. 25. 7, 37. 23. 5. See Kroll on Catullus 10. 6. timendum . . . concupiscendum: echoed by Tacitus, Hist. 4. 42 nihil quod ex te concupiscent Nero, nihil quod timeret. 56. 8* ex industrial Claudius, when young, adopted the same policy (Suetonius 38. 3 ; see D. M . Last, Latomus 17 (1958), 486). 56. 9. aureum baculum: an element of folk legend. Konon, an Augustan contemporary of L. who drew, by his own admission, on earlier sources, 217

i- 56- 9

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

including Timaeus, tells the story of a Milesian who when Miletus was threatened by the Persian general Harpagus, entrusted his money to a banker in the Sicilian city of Taormina. After the fall of Miletus, when he attempted to recover the money, the banker tried to cheat him by enclosing the gold in a vdpdrjg (F. Gr. Hist. 26 F 1 (38)). A similar story is also found in Stobaeus 3. 28. 21. Thus, although it remains inherently possible that an embassy did go from Rome to Delphi, it is likely that this detail is an invention of later historians, in which Timaeus may have played his part. 56. 10. postquam ventum est: for the use of impersonal passives such as ventum est, itur, &c. see Fraenkel, Horace, 115 n. 1, although he appears to regard v. e. here as applying to only one person, Brutus, whereas all three are clearly referred to (note iuvenum). perfectis patris mandatis: no answer is recorded to Tarquin's query, which in itself casts doubt on the authenticity of the story, a doubt that is intensified by observing that according to D.H. 4. 69. 2 Apollo was consulted how to alleviate a plague (virkp TOV Xoifiov) while Zonaras 7. 11 (cf. Pliny, N.H. 8.153) records an utterly different oracle (Parke-Wormell 266). 56. 11. Tarquinii: 3. 1. 1 n. 56. 12. terram osculo contigit: to the ubiquitous folk-myth of earth as mother, a specifically Roman idea is added which may be due to a Sibylline prophecy circulating in the early part of the first century B.C. At all events the same story is told of the young Julius Caesar in 67 B.C. (Suetonius 7) : '(nam visus erat per quietem stuprum matri intulisse) coniectores . . . incitaverunt arbitrium terrarum orbis portendi interpretantes "quando mater quam subiectam sibi vidisset non alia esset quam terra quae omnium parens haberetur".5 The two stories can hardly be unconnected. It should by added that, although L. suggests that Brutus slipped (prolapsus), it was the regular practice of the homecoming traveller to kiss the ground on his return. The custom is illustrated by Fraenkel on Agamemnon 503 with which the present passage may be compared. Note above all Odyssey 13. 354. 56. 13. Rutulos: 2. 1 n. 5 7 - 5 9 . Lucretia and the Fall of the Tarquins The legend that the rape of Lucretia precipitated the fall of the House of Tarquin is as old as our records allow us to discover. It was treated by Fabius Pictor (D.H. 4. 64) and may have been the subject of a praetexta of L. Accius, perhaps the Brutus (Cicero, pro Sest. 123; but the text of Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 7 in Bruto Cassii. . . dicit Lucretia is supported by another reference to Cassius in 7. 72 est apud Cassium l nocte intempesta nostram devenit domum? and should not be emended to in Bruto L. Accii). In any case the tradition is too well established 218

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

*• 57-59

to be doubted seriously and speculations which endeavour to make the stories of Lucretia and Virginia mere late elaborations of legends related to the cults of Ardea, transplanted to Rome at the end of the fourth century, or aetiological myths associated with the shrine of Venus Gloacina, can be discounted. Whatever the exact historical facts, whether Lucretia committed suicide to forestall an unfavourable verdict before a domestic court of her family or whether her suicide was a deliberate act to ensure the birth of a vendetta against the Tarquins, the story has been considerably improved both by the addition of unhistorical personalities (59. 12 n., Sp. Lucretius) and by its assimilation to the violent ends of many Greek tyrannies, in par­ ticular the Pisistratids (for the moral cf. Aristotle, Politics I3i5 b 27; Plutarch, de Mul. Virt. 26; Pausanias 2. 20. 2, 8. 47. 6). It was against such a background that the final form of the legend took shape. L. saw Lucretia's death not, like Shakespeare, as a recognition that loss of chastity was a mortal sin involving the loss of all hope of salvation, but merely as a noble example of the high moral worth of chastity (58. 10 nee ulla deinde impudica Lucretiae exemplo vivet). It is the exemplary aspect of her fate which he is at pains to portray, and to achieve this he presents the sequence of events as the plot of a tragedy, but a tragedy which has sufficient contemporary application to en­ gage the reader's own sympathy. A comparison with D.H. reveals the extent to which he has manipulated his material to secure the impression of a play, an impression which has deceived many into believing that he was copying or reproducing an actual play. In L. the whole action takes place in Collatia and the scene where the revellers come upon Lucretia is pure New Comedy (57. 9 n.). In D.H. there are several changes of scene: after her outrage, Lucretia returns from Collatia to Rome where the final incidents are enacted. In D.H. speech succeeds speech (4. 70-76. 1; 77-83; 84): in L. the characters speak in a style and diction which is quite alien to the conventional oratory of the late Republic but which belongs to the realm of tragedy (57. 7 n., 58. 7. n., 59. i n.). While D.H. describes at length the scenes of emotion (66. 2-67. 3), L. represents the characters experiencing and reacting to their emotions. But to a Roman the name of Brutus could only mean the regicide and L.'s audience was bound to com­ pare the heroism of the first consul with that of Caesar's assassins. It was an obvious point. Statues of L. Junius Brutus stood in the houses of M. and D. Junius Brutus (Cicero, Phil 2. 26). L. works a little reminiscence of those stirring times into his narrative (59. 1 n.) and he paints Lucretia not as a flat and lifeless figure (D.H. 4. 64. 4 KoXXloTTjv . . . teal (raxfypovecTTdTTjv) but as a Roman matron such as Romans loved to idealize (57. 9 n.). In 38. 24. 3 ff. L. narrates a comparable story, after Valerias 219

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS '• 57-59 Antias, about the wife of Ortiagon and a licentious centurion. T h e general similarity of treatment argues for the authority of Valerius here too. The subject exercised a fascination on later writers (Ovid, Fasti 2. 721-852 ; Val. Max. 6. 1. 1; de VirisIllustr. 9. 1-5; Diofr. n . 13-19; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 646 (quoting inaccurately by memory from L . ) ; Octavia 294 ff.; Sil. Ital. 13. 821 f.) but it was as a topic of moral dis­ pute that it endured. Was it right, Augustine asked, that Lucretia added the wrong of suicide to an offence for which she could not be blamed {Civ. Dei 1. 19); Alternatively, if it was right to commit suicide afterwards, surely it would have been better to do so before the outrage. So Casanova, and so the charming epigram Casta Suzanna placet: Lucretia cede Suzannae. Tu post, ilia mori maluit ante scelus. See Klenze in Schwegler, Rom. Gesch. 1. 804; H. Taine, Essai sur T.-L. 2 7 4 - 8 ; G. Voigt, Bericht. Kon. Sachs. Gesell. der Wiss. Leipzig, 35 (1883), 1-36; W. Soltau, Anfang Rom. Gesch. 73 ff., 9 3 - 9 9 ; Pais, Ancient Legends, 185-203; de Sanctis, Storia, 1. 398; C. Appleton, Rev. Hist. Droit 3 (1924), 2 3 9 - 7 1 ; Miinzer, R.E., 'Lucretia'; Burck 173-5; B. Croce, Critica 35 (1937), 146-52. 57. 1. Ardeam: for its subsequent history see 3. 71-72 nn., 4. 9-11 nn., 5. 43. 6. T h e town lay some 25 miles south of Rome at a distance of 7 miles from the sea (Strabo 5. 232; Pliny, N.H. 3. 56) and served as the capital of the Rutuli, a people of Latin stock later strongly influenced by Etruscan culture (Virgil, Aeneid 7. 409-11). It is men­ tioned as one of the members of the Latin League of Aricia (49. 9 n.) so that the traditional patterns of its history can be trusted, especially since the earliest archaeological layers point to an advanced native population without any trace of Greek or Oriental culture. Reluctant to accept Tarquin's high-handed usurpation of the league it stood out against him and had to be reduced by force. Presumably it succumbed. At all events it is mentioned as being in the R o m a n sphere of influence when the first treaty was signed with Carthage in 509 (Polybius 3. 22. 11 with Walbank's note). Archaeological confirmation is forthcoming that there was an important harbour-town c. 500 B.C. with agger and fossa, and traces of temple decorations in terracotta of Etruscan style (Strabo, loc. cit.) which preceded the Roman colony. See Hiilsen, R.E., c Ardea (2)'; Rosenberg, Hermes 54 (1919), 113 ff.; A. W. van Buren, A.J.A. 36 (1932), 3 6 3 - 5 ; 37 (1933), 503-4; E. Holmberg, Boll. Studi Med. 3 (1932-3), 6 ff.; A. Boethius, Boll. Studi Med. 5 (1934), 4 - 6 ; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 9 - 1 1 ; Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 106; Stefani, Notiz. Scavi, 79 (1954), 6-30. 57. 2. 'besides his general arrogance they had a further ground of dislike of the tyranny in that they complained that the king had kept 220

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

i- 57- 2

them so long at the work of carpenters and at menial tasks', fabrorum only with ministeriis. 57. 3 . parum processit: 2. 44. 1 n. 57. 4 . commeatus: 3. 24. 5, the technical term for leave of absence. 57. 5. otium . . . terebant: Fraenkel, on the apocryphal GXOXTJP rpifitiv in Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1055 f, quotes also Virgil, Aeneid 4. 2 7 1 ; Statius, Silv. 3. 5. 61, 4. 6. 2 ; Tacitus, Hist. 2. 34. The use is thus not exclusively poetic, but it is striking and sets the stage for the diction which the characters are going to employ. conviviis comisationibusque: 40. 13. 3, 40. 15. 11 ; cf. Cicero, pro Caelio 3 5 ; in Catil. 2. 10—a contemporary phrase. 57. 6. forte ... incidit mentio: it is clear from Catullus 10.5-6 incidere nobis sermones varii (with Kroll's note) and Pliny, Ep. 4. 22. 5 that this ex­ pression belongs not to the sphere of deliberate narrative but to the spontaneous language of direct presentation. Egerifilius: 38. 1 n. miris modis: the phrase is arresting, since the use of modis with an adj. in the place of an adv. is very rare after Plautus and Terence and is wholly absent from such authors as Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius. Plautus uses it frequently (Merc. 2 2 5 ; Most. 5 4 ; cf. Terence, Hecyra 179; Eunuchus 955) and the alternative form which he employs (mlrimodis) is shown by its scansion to have been regarded as a collo­ quialism. After the early dramatists it falls out of use except as a stylized archaism in Lucretius (1. 123) and Virgil (Georg. 1. 477, 4. 309; Aeneid 1. 354, 6. 738, 7. 89, 10. 822). It is, therefore, at first sight odd that Horace should use servilibus . . . modis in his Satires ( 1 . 8 . 32-33) but there the context shows that it is consciously grotesque. Significantly the type of phrase is employed by Seneca in Phoen. 132 and Oedipus 92. For an Augustan reader miris modis would convey an archaic ring appropriate for such legendary champions of female quality. T h e idea of a contest of wives is hellenistic in feeling, owing much to the popular treatment of the Judgement of Paris in art and litera­ ture ; cf. also the beauty-contests in Lesbos (Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 168). 57. 7. quin . . . conscendimus?: 'why don't we mount our horses?' quin = qui (abl.) and ne with the indicative is common in old Latin (Plautus, Miles 426; Terence, Heaut. 832). Thereafter it is confined to passages of heightened emotion, e.g. Sallust, Catiline 20. 14; Cicero, ad Fam. 7. 8. 2 ; Catullus 76. 11. iuventae: i.e. iuvenilis aetatis; iuventus is applied concretely to a group of young people. T h e distinction is maintained throughout the extant books of Livy. But cf. Sallust, Catiline 5. 2 and Horace, Odes 3. 2. 15 (Gries, Constancy, 46). 221

1-57- 7

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

id. . . oculis: language and sentiment recall Terence, Heaut. 2 8 1 4. The situation of a wife surprised at home by her husband was one frequently handled by New Comedy, and Collatinus' words evoke such scenes. necopinato: 3. 26. 5 n. 57. 8. incaluerant vino: 39. 42. 10; Tacitus, Annals 11. 37. 2, 14. 2. 1; Hist. 4. 29. 1. Notice the short sentences and vivid phraseology matching the rapidity of the action. 'age sane': 'away then', a scarce phrase found only in a characteriz­ ing utterance in Cicero, de Finibus 2. 119, outside Plautus (Menaechmi 153; Pseud. 1326). avolant: 3. 61. 7 n. 57. 9. Collatiam: 38. 1 n. convivio lusuque: the received reading luxuque is defended by Kohler on account of the paraphrase in de Viris Illustr. 9.2 regias nurus in convivio et luxu deprehendunt and by other editors by the parallel of luxuria in, e.g., Seneca, Epist. 59. 15 (cf. 114. 11). But luxus is a state, not, like convivium, an activity and L. elsewhere links lusus and convivium (cf. 40. 13. 3 lusus, convivii, comissationis; 40. 14. 2) so that Gronovius's lusu may be preferred to an early corruption. lucubrantes ancillas: the scene is pure New Comedy again, already familiar from Terence and so perhaps actually staged by Menander. The most graphic representation of it is Tibullus' plea that Delia may remain till he comes ( 1 . 4 . 83-90; W. T. Avery, C.J. 49 (1953), 165). But the connexion of female virtue and wool-making owes nothing to any play or poem. In Greece, and particularly in Rome, the ideal of the maman au foyer, however optimistic, was deeply rooted. All women should evSov pevew (cf. Euripides, Troades 649; Plutarch, Moral. 139 c; Herodas 1. 37 with Headlam's note; Theocritus, Idyll 28; Menander fr. 592 K.). At Rome this ideal was intimately connected with the ritual symbol of wool-making which had originally been an economic necessity for the household and so symbolized all that a good household stood for, even when the practice was obsolete. The sym­ bolism took concrete shape in the spindle and wool carried by a Roman bride, but it was also evoked throughout the Augustan age both in commonplace epitaphs (e.g. Carm. Epigr. 52. 8; Laud. Tur. 1. 30; see G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 48 (1958), 21 n. 20) and in literature (e.g. Vitruvius 6. 7. 2 ; Ovid, Medic. Fac. Femin. 11 ff.). Such was the intellectual background, where the concept of pudicitia was typified by lanificium, which Augustus tried to animate by making his family spin (Suetonius 64. 2) and which L. took advantage of for the presentation of Lucretia. Certainly L. is not making deliberate propa­ ganda for Augustus' moral reforms which were in any case later than this book. Both are reacting to the same ethos. 222

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

1-57-9

57. 11. turn quidem; the use of quidem, anticipating an adversative to follow, builds up the sense of impending disaster. iuuenali ludo: 5. 22. 5. For iuvenalis in L. see Gries, Constancy 46. 58. 2 - 3 . Notice the elaborate variation of the sentences. Tarquinius' arrival on the scene is described with a complex series of clauses: part. (exceptus), temporal clause (cum . . . deductus essei), part, (ardens), tem­ poral clause (postquam . . . videbantur), abl. abs. (stricto gladio), main verb. His own words are terse and hissed. His attempt to seduce her is conveyed in a flurry of historic infinitives in asyndeton (fateri, orare, miscere, versare), well suited to the passionate nature of the occasion. satis tuta circa: 'that all around was adequately secure3, circa must be taken as standing for a substantive 'the vicinity', as intra in 22. 45. 7, but early editors read satis (omnia) tuta which appears also to be Ratherius's corrected reading in M. In the order satis tuta omnia re­ stores a Livian phrase (cf. 2. 49. 9, 3. 8. 7 tuta omnia fecit 4. 24. 4 et al.; see Fordyce on Catullus 30. 8), while the plain satis tutum or satis tuta appears only to be employed in phrases such as satis tutum est with inf. ( 1 . 2 . 3 , 3 . 16.3). 'tace, Lucretia?: a dramatic use, cf, e.g., Plautus, Pseud. 40, 889; Rudens 117, 123. 58. 3. miscereprecibus minas: Tarquinius speaks with the fervent direct­ ness of an Ovid or a Propertius to his mistress; cf. Amores 1. 6. 61 ; Met. 2. 397. 58. 5. velut victrix: a vexed phrase which need never have been tam­ pered with. It means no more than 'as if it had really won 3 with the foreboding that appearances were deceptive and in the end libido would not be found to have triumphed. So 3. 14. 2 cum velut victores tribuni perlatam esse crederent legem but in fact the law had not been passed. So in the corresponding passage of the Fasti (2. 811) Ovid writes quid, victor, gaudes? haec te victoria perdet. Conway prints velut vi victrix, after M. Muller (velut vi trux Vitali; vi victrix Frey; velut vi atrox Harant), but, as Bonnet observed (Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 99 (1869), 180), vi is wrong because it had been tried earlier and had failed and, one might add, because the story is influenced by the course of action which Hipparchus adopted in Thuc. 6. 54. 4 who fiiaiov [lev ovSev efiovAeTo Spav, iv Tponw 8e TLVL 6.avel . . . irap€CTK€va^€TO

TTpoTTTjXaKLcov CLVTOV. Bonnet's own suggestion velut vindex is no happier than others that have been proposed (soluta vinclis Cornelissen; velut ultrix Markland; utut victrix Schadel; velut sic victrix Seyffert). Other critics, objecting to the paronomasia vicisset . . . victrix have proposed alternatives for the former (fregisset Bessler; cf. Prop. 4. 5. 28; elusisset Freudenberg). expugnato decore: glossed as pudicitia by the Periocha (cf. 34. 6. 8, 223

I-58-5

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

26. 49. 15 and, for the idea, Ovid, Met. 13. 480). expugno, as a technical term of Love's warfare, is common in such contexts e.g. Plautus, True. 171; Cicero, pro Caelio 4 9 ; Seneca, Contr. 2. 3. 1. ita facto maturatoque opus esse: Lucretia's message is poignant with its short sentences and archaically colloquial language. Cf., e.g., Plautus, Amph. 169, 505, 776; Terence, Heaut. 8 0 ; Lucretius 5. 1053. 58. 6. P. Valerio Volesifilio: 2. 2. 11 n. His addition to the story is due to family history among the Valerii but may be earlier than its crystal­ lization in the work of Valerius Antias. forte: L. has to make a coincidence, since he has altered for dramatic reasons the original plot where their meeting was deliberate. 58. 7. lacrimae obortae: claimed by Stacey as evidence for poetic ten­ dencies of language in the first decade. It is true that lacrimae obortae only occurs elsewhere in Virgil, Aeneid 3. 492, outside 40. 8. 2 0 : but it is not true to say that the word oborior is confined to poetry since it is used, e.g., by Cicero, pro Ligario 6 lux . . . oboriatur and Terence, Heaut. 680. As the context of 40. 8. 20 also shows, the phrase is highly coloured and so appropriate to the present situation but such colouring is distinct from poeticism. 'satin salve?': 'does it fare with thee well enough?', an old-fashioned salutation to which F . Leo drew attention in his commentary on Plautus, Stick. 10. Outside Plautus (Trin. 1177; Menaechmi 776) and Terence (Eun. 978) it is only found in deliberately archaic and emotional passages of L. (3. 26. 9, 6. 34. 8, 10. 18. 11 and, in close proximity to the second use of lacrimae obortae, 40. 8. 20). So Fronto writing to Verus (113. 3 van den Hout), exclaims in his high-flown and archaizing language: 'satin salve' utpercontarer? an ut complecterer? an ut exoscularer? an ut confabularer? In the phrase salve is adverbial as the Plautine passage shows: sc. agis? vestigia . . . lecto: Lucre tia employs the plain language of the Elegists; cf, e.g., Propertius 2. 9. 45 nee domina ulla meoponet vestigia lecto and the parallels collected on that passage by Shackleton Bailey, especially Tibullus 1.9.57; Ovid, Amores 1. 8. 97. See also Fraenkel on Aeschylus, Agamemnon 411. vestigia is, of course, literal, 'visible marks'. viri alieni: 46. 7. vir here may bear some of the force which it com­ monly bears in love elegy—'the lover in possession': cf. Catullus 68. 135 ff.; Tibullus 1. 2. 2 1 ; Ovid, Amores 3. 4. 1 : G. Luck, Latin Love Elegy, 150 n. 1. corpus . . . animus: 58. 9 n. mors testis erit: for the form of the expression cf. [Ovid], Heroides 20. 101, 103; Ovid, Tristia 4. 9. 22. sed date dexteras fidemque: note the d sounds. T h e phrase itself is vivid and lively, and, as such, well suited to Lucretia's last moments. Cf., e.g., Plautus, Curculio 307; Merc. 149; Cicero, post Red. in Sen. 24; and, 224

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 58. 7

before all, Virgil, Aeneid 4. 597 where another woman, also about to face death at her own hands as a result of the misfortunes of love, exclaims bitterly 'en dextra fidesque\ The correspondence should not, however, suggest a common source (cf. Carm. de hello Aeg. 6). 58. 8. hostis pro hospite: 1. 12. 8, 21. 24. 4, 23. 33. 7, 36. 29. 6. The play on words is almost hysterical (cf. Cicero, Phil. 12. 27) and is employed by Ovid to very much the same purpose in an estimation of Paris (Her. 17. 10; cf. 13. 44) hospes an hostis eras? vi armatus: the words recall, as they were doubtless intended by L. to recall in order to give a contemporary touch to the scene, the crime of vis armata, violence committed with the use of arms. The charge is first mentioned in our sources by Cicero, pro Caecina 55 ff. and the definition recurs in substantially the same form in Julian's redaction (Ulpian, Dig. 43. 16. 3. 2-12). See further Berger, R.E., 'Interdictum', cols. 1680-1; Lenel, Edictum, 467. si vos viri estis: 41, 3 n. Observe the clipped phrases hostis pro hospite, priore node, vi armatus, mihi sibique, si vos viri estis. pestiferum governs mihi sibique. 58. 9. mentempeccare, non corpus: the principles of Roman law are once more invoked, which recognized a distinction between peccata com­ mitted dolo malo and those sine dolo. To prove dolo malo it was necessary to establish intention (consilium): cf. Cicero, Parad. 20; Seneca, Dial, 4. 26. 5-6. But this passage does not reveal anything about the state of Roman law under the kings. The ideas expressed in it are merely the expression of contemporary legal opinion in terms beloved by the sophistic writers of later Greek tragedy. So far from reproducing a point of law from regal times, mentem peccare, non corpus is a Latin ver­ sion of such subtleties as 17 yAaiaa' 6fiu>nox\ r) 8e (f>p7jv ava){ioTos. In the same spirit Publilius Syrus (640) voluntas impudicam non corpus facit or Seneca, Phaedra 735 mens impudicam facere non casus solet echo Greek tragic antitheses. See further E. Wilhelm-Hooijberg, Peccatum, 33-34 with H. J. Rose's review in Class. Rev. 70 (1956), 76; G. Luck, Latin Love Elegy, 165-6. It is interesting to compare Lucretia's argument with the casuistry of Ovid in Amores 3. 14 who says that it is not Corinna's act of infidelity which constitutes a peccatum and destroys her pudicitia but the defiant openness with which she commits it. supplicio non libero: it was widely held that adultery so defiled the woman that any subsequent progeny would be themselves con­ taminated. Hence the woman had to die. 58. 10. vos . . . ego me: notice the emphatic word-order. 58. 11. in corde defigit: a forcefully rhetorical periphrasis for 'stabbed' (ad Herennium. 4. 65; cf. Cicero, in Catil. 1. 16 (sicam) in corpore defigere). 58. 12. prolapsa in volnus: 2. 46. 4 n. A comparison with Ovid, Fasti 811432

225

Q

I. 58. 12

T A R Q U I N I U S SUPERBUS

2. 833-4 (with Bomer's note), shows that L. has faithfully reproduced the version of an historian writing before the assassination of Caesar. The dignity of Caesar's death was famous and was an inspiration to later writers who used it as a model for similar scenes. Suetonius describes it in detail (82. 2 ) : sinistra manu sinum ad ima crura deduxit quo honestius caderet etiam inferiore corporis parte velata. Unlike Ovid, who may also be influenced by Euripides, Hecuba 568-70 (cf. Pliny, EpisU 4. 11. 9), L. gives no hint of such modest susceptibilities in Lucretia. conclamat: 4. 40. 3 n. 59, 1. manante cruore: see C.Q. 9 (1959), 217. Though ignoring the dignity of Caesar's end, L. cannot help remembering the picture graphically described by Cicero {Phil. 2. 28 ff.) when a later Brutus, a later restorer of liberty, held aloft the dripping dagger and invoked the name of Cicero. per hunc . . . sanguinem iuro: the germ of the oath lies in the annual oath taken by the consuls in leges (2. 1.911.) which was supposed to go back to this specific occasion. In fact, however, the form in which L. presents it is gravely suspect and gives ground for believing that it is no more than an imaginative reconstruction. D . H . 4. 70 uses quite other terms which, in itself, suggests that the precise terms of the oath have no respectable ancestry. T h e consular oath, coupled with the conventional hellenistic belief that such an oath was the guarantee of democracy (cf., e.g., Lycurgus, in Leocr. 79), was an adequate aetiology. More important is it that the language of L. betrays spurious archaisms. T o swear per sanguinem appears to be unparalleled in Latin (Lasaulx, DerEid bet den Romern, 8-9 but cf. Sallust, Cat. 22), for although it was usual to invoke di inferi as well as di superi (Virgil, Aeneid 12. 176 ff.) or to pledge what one held in highest honour (e.g. ossa patris: cf. Horace, Odes 2. 8. 10; Propertius 2. 20. 15; Ovid, Heroides 3. 103), this has no counterpart. Moreover, although cum conjuge et omni liberorum stirpe conforms to the standard formula used for vyrj in Hellenistic times (e.g. Dittenberger, SylL 194 (Amphipolis) eoy€iv . . . /cat avros /cat TOS natSas; earlier examples are quoted in Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 165; J . P. Barron, J.H.S. 82 (1962), 2 : the offence is always treason), other phrases are maladroit, exsequi is found only here with a personal object in the sense of expellere, cf. persequL Frigell [Epilegomena^ 75) quotes instances where it is used to translate the Greek €/c77€/z77€ti/, particularly in funeral contexts. But more to the point is the frequency of the word in legal contexts as a synonym for vindicare or ulcisci with iniurias or the like as object (e.g. Ulpian, Dig. 29. 5. 3. 3, 47. 10. 35). L. has misapplied the word intentionally to give quaintness and antiquity to the formula. T h e same reasons guarantee the reading dehinc (only here in L.), which is 226

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 59. 1 avoided by classical writers (Cicero, Caesar, Catullus) and which, although occurring often in Plautus and Terence, is only employed by self-conscious stylists such as Sallust and Apuleius. It must be intended to carry the same meaning as denique. Finally the whole phrase ferro, igni, quacumque vi possim (2. 10. 4) is semi-proverbial (cf. Cicero, Phil. 11. 37 ; Suetonius, Claud. 2 1 : cf. re/xvo». . . /catco in Greek; see Fraenkel on Aeschylus, Agam. 849). 59. 2. novum . . . ingenium: because he had appeared a dullard until that moment. utpraeceptum erat: cas they were instructed5 but it may as well convey a suggestion of the concepta verba or regular formula which every party to an oath or a prayer repeated after it had been rehearsed by the principal (praeire). versi: 2. 40. 5. A tragic -nepnreTeia. 59. 5. The archetype must have read pari praesidio relicto Collatiae ad portas which is reproduced with various further corruptions in the manuscripts. The account of D.H. 4. 71 provides guidance, where Brutus advises Sta v\aKrj$ ra? 77JAa? €xcofJL€V ^va fA7)&*v GUCT^TCU TapKv-

vios. Admittedly the scene in D.H. is Rome, whereas L. has trans­ posed it to Collatia, but there is no doubt that the incident is funda­ mentally the same. In that case ad portas deleted by Walters and Bayet is secure and there can be no suggestion of leaving a guard for Lucretia's father (patri praesidio relicto Bayet, Verdiere). Livian usage favours the simple abl. abs. praesidio relicto C. a. p. (1. 14. 7, 3. 23. 3, 5. 41. 5) and it is hard to conjecture anything with pars which har­ monizes satisfactorily with that usage (pars praesidio relicti J. F. Gronovius, Burmann on Suet. Julius 27, Rossbach; parte praesidio relicta s Heerwagen). It is more likely thatpar-% is a dittography of the opening letters of praesidio influenced by unconscious anticipation of the suc­ ceeding ceteri. Read inde praesidio relicto Collatiae ad portas custodibusque datis . . . ceteri. . . profecti. 59. 6. quacumque incedit: 59. 13, 4. 13. 3, 4. 38. 4, 4. 59. 3 ; cf. Plautus, Miles 92 quaqua incedit. 59» 7. in forum curritur: cf. the scenes of confusion which followed the assassination of Julius Caesar (cf. especially Plutarch, Caesar 67). There is no record of what M. Brutus did savin his two speeches to the crowd. The similarity of contents between 59.8-10 and D.H. 4. 77-83 suggests that there was already in the sources a familiar oration by Brutus the Liberator. If so, it is more likely that M. Brutus would have made play with that, rather than that L. should here be echoing anything actually said in 44 B.C. although his language {de vi ac libidine, de stupro infando, de miserabili caede) is the political vocabulary of the late Republic. 227

i. 59- 7

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

praeco: cf. Aul. Gell. 15. 27. 2. ad tribunum celerum: 15. 8 n. In Cicero, de Rep. 2. 47 Brutus is a privatus. Both by its source and by the fact that a man who had been regarded as half-witted would not have been entrusted with any responsible command, that must be the original version. Later con­ stitutionalists, however, anxious to prove even by legal fiction the legitimate development of the Roman constitution, accepted the equation of Celeres with equites and proposed a Tribunus Celerum as the precursor of the Magister Equitum. It would have been improper for a non-magistrate to hold a contio. Notice the mixed or. recta and or. obi. which follows. The most telling points (addita . . . memorata) are picked out by being stated directly (cf. 3. 58. 7-9). 59. 8. nequaquam . . .Juerat: 'not at all in keeping with the spirit and intelligence which he had pretended until that moment'. Tricipitini: i.e. Sp. Lucretius. The family line ceases in the fourth century (3. 8. 2, 4. 30. 4) but the cognomen cannot be much older than that period, although it commemorates the family cult of a threeheaded deity of which there are several examples in Italic and kindred worship (H. Usener, Rh. Mus. 58 (1903), 176). 59. 9. fossas cloacasque: 56. 2. opijices ac lapicidas: stronger than 'mechanics and masons', since the words imply slavery (Sallust, Catil. 50. 1 opijices atque servitia; cf. Plautus, Capt. 736, 944 for quarries as places of punishment for slaves). Evidently slogans from the politics of the late Republic. 59. 10. caedes: 48. 4. Jilia: 48. 6. ultores parentum di\ elsewhere L. writes invocantibus parentum furias (59. 13) and penates irati (48. 7). The identification of di parentes or parentum with the Penates is common (Servius, adAen. 2. 514), although properly the spirits of departed ancestors form only a part of the household cult. Roman devotion held the family dead in honour and sacrifice was paid to them at the annual festival of the Parentalia. L. emphatically reiterates the vengeance of the di parentes both for dramatic and moral reasons as an illustration of the disastrous con­ sequences of dishonouring one's parents. So a law of Servius Tullius (Festus 260): siparentem puer verberit, ast olle plorassit [parens], puer divis parentum sacer esto. See Fordyce on Catullus 64. 404; H.Jordan, Hermes 15 (1880), 530-6; Wissowa, Religion, 232-9; Weinstock, R.E., 'Penates', cols. 425-6; R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, 94. 59. 11. 'which immediate anger at events suggested to him but which historians find it embarrassing to recount'. For indignitas cf. 3. 38. 11, 5. 45. 6. L. probably wrote subiecit (Walsh). imperium regi abrogaret: the technical phrase for abrogating the imperium of a magistrate (5. 11. 13; Cicero, ad Q. F. 2. 3. 1 (Lentulus); Veil. Pat. 2. 18. 6 (Sulla); see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 629). The 228

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

1-59- "

power of the king was by nature distinct in kind from that of a magistrate but this polite fiction is in keeping with the tendency to see the transition from the king to the consuls as part of a continuous development and to suppose that the power of the kings rested on the same ultimate grounds as that of the consuls (46. 1 n.: U. Coli, Regnum). For the contemporary issue see 2. 2. 2 - n n. cum coniuge ac liberis: 59. 1 n. 59. 12. inde: there, i.e. the army encamped at Ardea. praefecto urbis: Lydus, de Mens, 1. 21 W.; Tacitus, Annals 6.11: 'namque antea profectis domo regibus ac mox magistratibus, ne urbs sine imperio foret in tempus deligebatur qui ius redderet ac subitis mederetur; feruntque ab Romulo Dentrem Romulium, post ab Tullo Hostilio Numam Marcium et ab Tarquinio Superbo Spurium Lucretium impositos'. The topic had no little contemporary interest since the office— it was not a popularly elected magistracy—revived by Julius Caesar became semi-permanent under Augustus and Republican precedents were doubtless unearthed and quoted by the lawyers (Syme, Tacitus, 432). The present passage by its neutral tone would seem to have been written before 25 when Messalla Corvinus resigned the office after five days on the grounds that it was an incivilis potestas (Jerome, in Euseb.). It may, however, be doubted whether the regal precedents are authentic. The title implies a distinction between urbs and ager Romanus which is unrealistic at this date. Besides, Sp. Lucretius himself is of dubious historicity and it is perhaps no accident that the first certainly recorded holder of the office is Sp. Larcius (cos. 506, 490) in 487 (D.H. 8. 64. 3). Another tradition, known to D.H. 4. 76. 1 and 84. 5, assigned Lucretius the role not of praefectus urbi but of interrex> so that there can have been no documentary evidence. On balance, it is probable that Sp. Lucretius isfictitious,that his role was originally purely that of father, but that he gradually assumed a constitutional position as well—consul, and then, from the similarity of the name to Sp. Larcius, praef wrb. For later instances of the office see 3. 3. 6, 8. .7, 9. 6, 24. 2 (Lucretius), 29. 4, 4. 31. 2 (n.), 36. 5: Vigneaux, Praefectura Urbis, 17-24; Mommsen, Staatsrecht> 1. 633; Siber, Rom. Verfass. 17; Sachers, R.E., Suppl. 5, 'praefectus urbi'; de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis, 597-600; T. J. Cadoux, J.R.S. 49 (1959), 152-6. 59.13. quacumque incedebat: 59. 6 n., a typical 'unconscious repetition'. See 14. 4 n. invocantibus . . .furiosi 59. 10. 60. 2. Caere: 2. 3 n. A remarkable tomb, found in 1850, contains a series of fifth- to third-century inscriptions of the Tarcna family (C.I.L. 11. 3626-34). Although the latinized form at Caere is Tarquitius, there is no doubt that it is the same name as the Roman 229

I. 60. 2

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

Tarquinius (Schulze 95-96) and hence a reasonable probability exists that the family both originated from Caere and did in fact take refuge there (34. 1 n.). The attempt, however, to find confirmation of the traditional story of a violent expulsion of the Tarquins in the ancient religious ceremony of the regifugium on 24 February (Ovid, Fasti 2. 685) is adequately disproved by E. T. Merrill, Class. Phil. 19 (1924), 20-40. For the later history of Caere see 5. 40. 10, 50. 3. Sex. Tarquinius . . . interfectus: confirmation of this detail may also be forthcoming from Etruscan sources. In the Francois tomb at Vulci, as a counterpart to the fratricide of Polyneices and Eteocles, a Cne/re Tar^unies Ruma^ is done to death by a Marce Camitlnas. The exact interpretation remains obscure, for the praenomen Cnaeus is unaccount­ able, and the likeness to M. Camillus deceptive. Yet the parallel with Polyneices-Eteocles suits the identification of this Roman Tarquinius, supposing him to be a member of the royal house, better as Sextus than as either his father or his brothers. Sextus at least, we know, was killed, and killed ab ultoribus veterum simultatium. See H. Last, C.A.H., 7. 394; F. Messerschmidt, Necropolen von Vulci, 133 ff.; A. Momigliano, Claudius, 13, 85 n. 30. caedibus: 3. 57. 3 n. 60. 3 . annos quinque et viginti: for a discussion of the problems of regnal chronology see Walbank, Commentary on Polybius, pp. 665-9. L. gives the settled version of the late annalists. 60. 4. duo consules: it is generally agreed that the magistrate sub­ sequently known as the consul was originally called praetor (3. 55.12 n., 7. 3. 5 - 8 ; Festus 249 L.) and that the change was one instituted by the Decemvirate as part of the systematization of the constitution, which resulted in the need for an increased magistrature to deal with the increasing scope of government. It is, however, a matter of dispute what was the nature of the original magistracy. Gjerstad and those who down-date the end of the kingdom to 450 on archaeological grounds believe that the praetors were, like the Ephors at Sparta, elected assistants to the kings who only assumed full, independent powers sixty years later when the kings were expelled. This view, which is archaeologically unnecessary (see Introduction to Book 2), conflicts with all that can be known about the nature oiimperium and the scope of the Decemvirate. Others have held that there was a single eponymous magistrate (a dictator or magister populi) annually elected with a subordinate assistant on the analogy of Etruscan and Latin con­ stitutions but such an hypothesis runs counter to the deeply rooted belief that the dictatorship at Rome was always an extraordinary office (2. 18. 4 n.; cf. V. Groh, Athenaeum 6 (1928), 289 ff.). Furthermore, although there are peculiarities and interpolations in the early Fasti, the most remarkable feature about them is the record of families who 230

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

i. 60. 4

subsequently decline into complete oblivion (e.g. the Larch). These must be genuine. If so, they presuppose the survival of a tolerably complete list of magistrates, and the raison d'etre of such a list is afforded by the annual ceremony of marking the New Year by driving a nail into the temple of Juppiter Gapitolinus (7. 3. 8 sollemne clavi figendi) which was performed by the praetor maximus, The most satisfactory account still seems to be the traditional, that from the beginning of the Republic the supreme magistracy was collegiate and the magis­ trates were initially praetores, and later consuls. Whether the two praetores enjoyed equal status, or, as the term praetor maximus (but cf. the pontifex maximus) and the analogy of the Etruscan zilad or Oscan meddix might suggest, there was a senior and a junior colleague, is also uncertain. Again, however, in default of decisive evidence to the contrary it is more economic to accept the Annalistic version; for the collegiate principle of equal imperium was a feature of the Roman constitution which most impressed foreigners and which the Romans themselves regarded as primeval (cf. Polybius 6. 12. 11-12). The literature on the subject is extensive: good summaries in Leifer, Klio, Beiheft 23 and G. Wesenberg, R.E., 'Praetor5. See especially Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 230 ff.; de Sanctis, Storia, 1. 404 ff.; Last, C.A.H., 7 436-41; Mazzarino, Delia Monarchia alio stato repubblicano, 86 ff.; Hanell, Das altromische eponyme Amt; Siber, Rom. Verfassung., 32-36; A. Heuss, ZeiU Sav.~ Stift. 64 (1944), 93 ff. comitiis centuriatis: see notes on 43. praefecto urbis: 59. 12 n. ex commentariis Ser. Tulli: 20. 5 n., 4. 3. 9 n. Much speculation has been devoted to the nature of these commentaries, chiefly in an attempt to show that they were an antiquarian forgery of the second century designed to uphold the consulate as a legitimate not a revolutionary office. It is known, however, that the commentarii pontificum were no more than manuals giving the procedure for the proper performance of sacrifices and ceremonies. Such commentarii seem to have been common to all the priestly colleges, e.g. the xvviri or Fratres Arvales. They were not records of what had been performed, nor recommenda­ tions as to what should be instituted, but handbooks of method and protocol. Religious observances of great antiquity were inevitably attributed to the kings, above all to Numa and Servius Tullius. As such, they were supposed to be enjoined by leges regiae and were incorporated in the Ius Papirianum. A manual, or commentary, would be needed to maintain the proper fulfilment of these observances and would be associated with the name of the legislator. It would pass from genera­ tion to generation with only minor alterations. The explanation that the commentarii were a priestly handbook suits the evidence better than the view of Mommsen (Staatsrecht, 3. 245 n. 1) that they constituted an 231

r 60. 4

TARQUINIUS SUPERBUS

assessment schedule of Roman citizens drawn up in the Punic Wars by the censors to bring the census up to date and bearing the name of Servius Tullius as the putative institutor of the census (cf., e.g., the censoriae tabulae of Cicero, Orator 156; Festus 290 L.). It does, however, entail that in the present passage the words ex c. S. T. be taken with creati sunt not with consules. L. is not saying that Servius left a posthumous testa­ ment, like the commentarii of Caesar used by Antony to such advantage (Cicero, Phil. 1. 2), in which he recommended the establishment of the consulate. He is rather stressing that the election was carried out properly with all the due procedure which governed the holding of valid comitia. See M. Voigt, Leges Regiae; G. Rohde, Die Kultsatzungen der Rom. Pontifices, 62 ff. L. Iunius Brutus et L. Tarquinius Collatinus: our earliest source, Polybius, gives the college as Brutus and M. Horatius (M. f. Pulvillus). He mentions them in connexion with the first treaty with Carthage (3. 22. 1 with Walbank's note). Even if that treaty is genuine—and it suits the historical setting (56. 3 n.)—it need not have carried the names of the consuls (or praetors) at its head. On the other hand, M. Horatius cannot be shaken from his position as dedicator of the Capitoline Temple (2. 8. 4 n.) and Brutus is also an historical figure.1 Since only two names at the most can have stood in the Fasti originally, Polybius is to be followed. Lucretius is open to suspicion (59. 12 n., 2. 8. 4 n.) and Valerius betrays the pretensions of his gens in claiming all the most honourable episodes of Roman history. The presence of Collatinus is harder to understand. Historians may have felt the need to include all the prominent actors in the expulsion of Tarquinius in the first college of consuls. Since Collatinus could then easily be removed like Hipparchus, son of Charmus, before the year was much advanced, he was substituted for Horatius. See Schur, R.E., 'L. Junius Brutus (46a)'. The claim of L. Junius Brutus to have been the first consul was assiduously cultivated for propaganda purposes at the time of Caesar's murder; M. Junius Brutus, or as he was then called Q . Caepio Brutus, issued coins with the legends LEIBERTAS ; and L. BRUTUS. PRIM. cos. (Sydenham nos. 1287, 1295; S. L. Cesano, Stud.

Mm.

1 (1942), 137-9)-

1

Gjerstad (Legends and Facts, 45 ff.) rests his case for the unhistoricity of Brutus on the familiar ground that the gens Junta in historical times was plebeian, but the authentic Fasti of the early Republic are so full of plebeian names that his argument is quite void.

232

BOOK 2 Liberi iam hinc populi Romani. Liberty is the theme of the second book. The ancient legends of Rome are retold in the light of Rome's new­ found liberty as they illustrate the nature of it or reveal the dangers entailed by it. For liberty is a complex possession. It can only be en­ joyed under the rule of law (cf. Cicero, pro Cluent. 146: see Wirzubski, Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome), So L. devotes much space to the organization of the constitution whose balanced system with its principles of collegiality and provocatio did much in Roman eyes to safeguard liberty (1. 7—11, 8. 1-8, 18. 4-11). But other threats could arise. A number of such threats to liberty occur from within and from without (Collatinus, the conspiracy of the Vitellii and Aquilii, Valerius Poplicola; the Tarquinienses, Porsenna, the Latins) and L. relates each one as a separate, dramatic episode exemplifying the moral that ceaseless vigilance is required to maintain liberty. In the second half of the book the threat to liberty remains no longer in the shape of individual assaults but in the more insidious form of internal discord (cf. 1.6), springing in the first instance from the debt-problem (nexum). The threat materializes in different ways— as a demand for the tribunate (22-33. 3)> as an attempt on the city from outside (34-40 Coriolanus), as a projected coup (41 Sp. Cassius) —until finally the life-and-death struggle against Veii brings the Romans together under the leadership of the Fabii. The book, then, has a continuous refrain, just as Book 4 is characterized by the refrain of moderatio and Book 5 by pietas, and it is given an overall symmetry by the two big 'Homeric' battles (19-20 Lake Regillus; 45-47 the battle with the Etruscans). In this way L. endeavours to overcome the disjointedness from which annalistic or episodic history is apt to suffer and he introduces the underlying concepts in the short secondary preface (1. 1-6) with which he opens his account of the Republic. Within the different sections the material is so arranged as to provide variety by the alternation of internal and external affairs. The material at L.'s disposal for the early years was largely but not exclusively legendary—Horatius Codes, Cloelia, Scaevola, the Battle of Lake Regillus itself. But not everything in the received history is suspect. The conventional chronology acquires strong independent support from external sources (21. 5 n., 54. 1 n.). The archaeological evidence which suggests that the cultural break with Etruria did not occur until c. 450 and which has led Bloch and others to down-date 233

INTRODUCTION the expulsion of the Tarquins by half a century, is susceptible of a quite different explanation. At the end of the sixth century Etruria was divided into two distinct areas—the hellenized coastal cities, such as Tarquinii, Veii, and Caere, and the great inland cities like Glusium. T h e former had friendly relations with the leading Greek cities such as G u m a e ; the latter pushing down from the interior were involved in an aggressive expansion that led them into Campania and Latium and brought them into conflict with Gumae and Rome. Rome's ties were solely with the coastal cities as her pottery shows. U n d e r the Tarquins her relations with these neighbouring Etruscan cities were friendly and prosperous, and Superbus in particular by his seizure of Gabii and control of the Via Latina seems to have been anxious to safe­ guard the coastal strip from infiltration whether by hill-people like the Aequi or by imperialist Etruscans from the interior. T h e expulsion of the Tarquins was a purely domestic matter which need not have upset commercial alinements. Rome, by her commanding position on the river and land routes, continued to trade with the coastal cities of Etruria, and, as the names of her leading families and the tokens of her political institutions demonstrate, did not turn her back on her Etruscan past. T h e break with Etruria when it came was caused not by the expulsion of any particular family but by the jealous emergence of Veii, as an enemy rather than a rival. It was Veii, not Etruria as a whole, which cut Rome off from her commercial links and threatened to strangle her. T h e break was also a matter of politics. After Porsenna's assault Rome seems to have been governed by a succession of plebeian consuls most of whose roots were in Etruria. It suggests a policy of subservience to Etruria and expansion at the expense of Latium. T h e policy was only reversed by a concatenation of events. A crushing defeat by the Volscians (concealed by annalistic sources but preserved in an archaeological notice embedded in Festus), the conspiracy of Sp. Gassius which discredited the plebeian, pro-Etruscan forces at Rome, and the decline of central Etruria all played their part. T h e main lines are credible enough. We may believe that the Tarquins attempted to secure their own restoration. We may believe that Rome was attacked by Porsenna although not for the reasons stated (9. 1 n.). We may believe that the Tarquins eventually found refuge with Aristodemus at Gumae. A good summary of the historical issues, with bibliography, is given by B. Gombet Farnoux, Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 69 (1957), 7-44. See also Bloch, R.£.L. 37 (1959), 118-32. 1-6. Preface Liberty was secured at the right moment; if it had been won earlier, the state would not have been ripe for it. 234

509 B.C.

2. I. I

1 . 1 . potentiora: typical of a Roman's understanding of the concept of liberty; cf. [Sallust], EpisU ad Caesarem 2. 5. 3 nullius potentia super leges erat; Sallust, Or. Lepidi 4. See Wirzubski, Libertas, 7-9. 1. 2. conditores: 1. 11. 4, 30. 1, 33. 5, 44. 3. 1. 4. pastorum: the language is echoed by Gamillus in his great speech, cf. 5. 53. 9, 54. 2. The reminiscence is deliberate. The first section of the history of the Republic is closed by the repetition of words from its beginning. inviolati: 1. 8. 5 n., the asylum. 1. 6. libertatis: for the text see C.Q. 7 (1957), 77. For posse(n)t see 3. 23. 4 n. 1. 7-2. 2. Constitutional Arrangements The Fasces It was the unanimous tradition of antiquity that the Roman kings had twelvefasces (1. 8. 2 n.; D.H. 2.29,3.61-62 ; Cicero, de Rep. 2.31). Archaeological evidence shows the fasces to have been an Etruscan symbol of office and as such likely to have been introduced into Rome during the Regal period. L. is therefore to be believed when he says that the fasces were inherited from the kings. According to Roman theory there was only one real set of twelve fasces which alternated month by month between the two consuls. For the month in which he did not hold the real fasces the consul was followed, instead of preceded, by twelve lictors with 'dummy' fasces. See Samter, R.E., 'Fasces'; Staveley, Historia 5 (1956), 103 ff.; cf. 55. 3 n.; 3. 36. 3 n. But L. is wrong in stating that omnia iura, omnia insignia of the kings passed to the consuls. The consuls did not inherit the regia ornamenta, which were sometimes granted to foreign kings and were only worn by triumphators as servants of Juppiter. It is equally certain that they did not inherit their imperium from the kings. The consuls governed Rome not by the absolute authority which the kings had enjoyed but by power vested in them by the will of the people. Regnum and Respublica are irreconcilable concepts. Coli indeed argues that the later kings had on occasions possessed this limited, delegated power (imperium) when they commanded allied armies over which by the nature of the case they did not possess the same absolute authority as they did over their own peoples. His theory would explain the sources of Republican imperium and the fact that the consuls retained the insignia imperii but not the regia ornamenta. But the whole doctrine that regal potestas was of the same quality of consular imperium was an invention of Roman legalists (4. 2. 8, 3. 9 ; D.H. 6. 35, 7. 35, 9. 41, 10. 33). See Coli, Regnum = S.D.H.L 17 (1951), 1 ff.; Staveley, loc. cit. The alternation of the fasces is credited by Cicero (de Rep. 2. 55) 235

2. I. 7 - 2 . 2

5 0 9 B.C.

not to Brutus but to Valerius. This may be suggestive for his source (see below). The Oath The fact and terms of the oath are also reported by Plutarch, Poplicola 2; Appian, B.C. 2. 119. It generalizes the private oath sworn between the conspirators in 1. 59. 1 (n.). The popular oath here, like the whole story of L. Junius Brutus, shows signs of being influenced by the murder of Caesar (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 16 n. 2). The Senate The origin of the term patres conscripti, used to denote members of the Senate collectively, provoked widespread speculation even in antiquity. The prevailing opinion was that patres were the original patricians, the leading members of the maiores gentes (1. 35. 6 n.), who comprised the Senate, conscriptiwerc plebeians, i.e. non-patricians, intro­ duced into the Senate by Romulus (Lydus, de Mag. 1. 16), Tarquinius Priscus (E Cicero, pro Scauro, p. 374), Servius Tullius (Zonaras 7. 9; [Servius], ad Aen. 1. 426), or, as here (cf. Festus 304 L.; Plutarch, Q.R. 58), by the first consuls. It is clearly stated by Paulus Festus 'allecti dicebantur apud Romanos qui propter inopiam ex equestri ordine in senatorum sunt numero adsumpti; nam patres dicuntur qui sunt patricii gentis, conscripti qui in senatu sunt scriptis adnotati'. Despite this virtual unanimity the explanation can hardly be correct since the proper term for senators drafted in from outside would be adscripti and not conscripti. The very diversity of occasions when such drafting is supposed to have taken place in itself shows that there was no settled tradition about it. The Senate which was originally the council of the heads of the maiores gentes became in turn the council of the king and of the Republic. The changing situation which re­ quired that important persons who were not heads of the gentes or even members of gentes should have a voice in affairs involved a change from automatic membership to some form of selection. The Senate was to comprise those patres (or their equivalent) who were selected and enrolled as senators (conscripti; cf. D.H. 2. 47; Isidore, Orig. 9. 4. 11 : Cicero, Phil. 13. 28, uses the singular pater conscrip tus). See also 1. 8. 711.

The replenishment of the Senate is over-schematic and savours of Sulla's drastic action in recruiting 300 equites into the Senate in 81 B.C. (Livy, Epit. 89; D.H. 5. 77; Sallust, Catiline 37. 6). In this connexion it is notable that D.H. dissents from the account given by L. According to him it was not the Senate but the body of patricians which needed replenishing from the equites and the recruitment is attributed not to Brutus and Collatinus but to P. Valerius Poplicola. 236

5 09 B.C.

2. I. 10

As was suggested with regard to the fasces above, L.'s silence as to the part played by Valerius may be taken as proof that he is following a source other than Valerius Antias at this point. The political slant and the anachronistic allusion to an equester gradus (5. 7. 5 n.) point to Licinius Macer. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 838 ff.; O'Brien Moore, R.E., Supp. 6, 'senatus' cols. 663-76; U. von Liibtow, Das Rom. Volk, 144-6. 1. 11. videlicet: introduces in L. an explanation or expansion of a fore­ going assertion (cf., e.g., 9. 4. 13 quis ea tuebitur? imbellis videlicet atque inermis multitudo; 9. 17. 12 ; 23. 12. 14) and, except when leading up to a conjunction, stands second in the clause (cf. 22. 13. 11). It follows that it must qualify the whole sentence—'for you see, they called the elected members conscript?—and cannot be taken with novum senatum (Madvig)—'they called the elected members conscripti, that is to say the new Senate', novum senatum is thus without construction. The Renaissance editors favoured <m> novum senatum, varied by Drenckhahn, but the word-order, which requires lectos in novum senatum, is against it. The simplest and most plausible solution is, with Novak, to delete the words as a gloss on conscriptos. prqfuit: mirum quantum, like the Greek Oavfidaiov oaov, is virtually adverbial (but cf. 1. 16. 8) and is not regarded as introducing an ind. question. Hence the indicative; cf. Cicero, ad Att. 13. 40. 2 ; Pliny, N.H. 19. 112, 28. 63. plebis: the presence of plebeian names in the earliest consular Fasti is one of many reasons for supposing that discrimination was not practised against the plebeians at least until the middle of the fifth century. The comment, whether made by L. or his source, is anachro­ nistic and misdirected. The Rex Sacrorum As in many Greek cities, the king had possessed by virtue of his position certain religious functions which after the abolition of the monarchy had to be passed on to a specially created priesthood—at Rome to the rex sacrorum, as its holder was properly known (2. 1 n.). The exact extent of these functions is hard to discover since the rex was at some date, perhaps in the third century, largely overshadowed and superseded by the Pontifex Maximus. As evidence of the original position of the rex may be cited the Regia, later the home of the Pontifex Maximus, the custom whereby the Vestals, later under the supervision of the Pontifex Maximus, came on certain days to wake the rex (Servius, adAen. 10. 228), and the leading position which the rex held in the religious order of precedence (Festus 198 L.). As late an> c. 275 the religious calendar is dated by the rex (Pliny, jV.//. 11. 186). The chief duty of the rex concerned the two festivals on 24 March and 237

2. 2. I

5 09 B.C.

24 May—QJuando) R(ex) C(omitiavit) F(as)—explained by Festus 310 L. and Varro de Ling. Lat. 6. 31 as days on which, after sacrifice, the rex came down into the comitium. T h e key to the ceremony lies in the fact that the preceding two days were the two festivals of Tubilustrium or Purifying of the Horns, festivals which marked and hallowed the opening and the closing of the traditional campaigning season. T h e rex performed the sacrifices and then came down to inspect the army before and after the campaign. Devoid of any practical relation to Rome's wars the vestigial ceremony survived throughout the religious life of the city. T h e rex lost his pre-eminence partly because his func­ tions were limited and did not expand, as could the Pontifex's, to em­ brace new religious trends such as arose in the hysteria of the Punic Wars, partly because the obligations of the office made it difficult to fill (27. 6. 16, 36. 5), and partly, no doubt, as a result of the activities of some dominating Pontifex. There may be a certain tendentious topicality in the false assertion that the rex was subordinate to the Pontifex from the beginning. T h e power of the pontificate, as wit­ nessed by the Lex Domitia of 103, was highly controversial at the end of the second century. See Wissowa, Religion, 504 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 117-19, J

95-7-

2 . 1 . necubi 1 2 2 . 2 . 3 , 16. 5, 28. 8 ^ 0/. T h e word is also corrupted in the texts of Caesar B.C. 2. 33. 2. regem sacrificolum: in inscriptions always rex sacrorum. L. has rex sacrificiorum at 9. 34. 12 and rege sacrifico, which should be emended to rege sacrificulo, at 40. 42. 8. Read sacrificulum here (6. 4 1 . 9). D.H. adds that the first rex was M ' . Papirius. T h e Papirii claimed a monopoly of the earliest religious offices. After the preliminary introduction L. turns to the successive threats against libertas which occupy chapters 2-14. Each is a self-contained episode. T h e plan may be briefly tabulated: Internal External 1. Collatinus (2). 2. T h e Conspiracy (3-5). 1. Veii and Tarquinii (6-7. 4). 3. Poplicola (7. 5-12). 2. Porsenna (9-14). 2. 2-11. The Abdication of Collatinus Macaulay noted in the margin of his Livy 'ostracism exactly' and the increase in our knowledge since the discovery of Aristotle's Ad. 77oA. adds support to Macaulay's divination. O n e of the first acts of the Athenian democracy after 510 was to proscribe the tyrant's immediate family. As a further safeguard Cleisthenes devised ostracism 238

5 09 B.C.

2. 2. 2-11

which was aimed primarily against the tyrants and which was first exercised against a collateral member of the Pisistratid family—Hipparchus, son of Charmus. So L. Tarquinius Collatinus is m a d e to give up the consulship—which in historical reality he never held ( i . 6o. 4 n.)—because, like Hipparchus, his name had unfortunate associations and because the state could not with comfort contain so prominent a figure. There is, therefore, a Greek model behind the story. It will have taken shape with the other hellenized legends in the late third century. In the earliest recoverable version (cf. Cicero, de Rep. 2. 5 3 - 5 4 ; Brutus 5 3 ; de Off. 3. 40) Collatinus' offence was simply his name but, instead of abdicating, his imperium was forcibly abrogated by Brutus. In L., on the other hand (cf. Pisofr. 19 P.), he resigns voluntarily. Here is a constitutional issue. T h e people had both in theory and in practice enjoyed the right to abrogate pro-consular imperia (cf. 27. 20. 11 (209 B.C.); 29. 19. 6 (204 B.C.); Asconius 78 C. (107 B.G.) : notice also the Lex Cassia of 104 quern populus damnasset cuive imperium abrogasset: see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 628-30). T h e story of Collatinus was i m ­ proved' to provide a classic precedent. In making Collatinus resign L. tacitly rejects the doctrine that a magistrate's imperium could be abrogated once it had been granted by the people. This is too radical an innovation for L. himself and the agreement of D . H . shows that it goes back to a Sullan annalist. T h e motive will be that in 87 the Senate had abrogated the consulship of Cinna (Veil. Pat. 2.20. 3 ; Livy Epit. 79). This was the first occasion on which consular, as opposed to pro-consular, imperium was abrogated. T h e annalist challenged this right by denying the precedent on which it was based. Collatinus was not deposed: he resigned. In the struggles of the 8o's we know that Licinius Macer sympathized with Cinna. Other authors implicate Collatinus in the subsequent conspiracy (D.H. 5. 9 ; Plutarch, Poplkola 7; Zonaras 7. 12) but L. keeps the episode self-contained. It is carefully constructed and poignandy nar­ rated. T h e story is introduced by a sententia which serves to generalize it as an instance of the problems posed by libertas (nescio an . . . modum excesserint). T h e public gossip (3-4) is balanced by Brutus' speech (5-7). Both are phrased in terse, compelling terms. Brutus moving from indirect to direct speech with increasing rhetorical power (cf. regium . . . regium; id qfficere, id obstare) breaks out into a fine direct appeal to Collatinus himself (7 nn.). Collatinus' deliberations are appropriately involved (9-11 postquam . . . cessit) and the whole in­ cident is rounded off by two simple, matter-of-fact statements. See Klotz 2 2 0 - 1 ; Schachermeyr, R.E., 'Tarquinius (8)'. 2 . 2 . an nimium: N seems to have read an nimis which is to be preferred. nimis qualifies muniendo, minimisque rebus being linked with undique. 239

2. 2. 2

5 09 B.C.

'I can not help wondering whether they did not go too far in their excessive protection of liberty in every quarter and in the smallest matters.' 2 . 3 . enim: for this use of enim introducing a particular example of a general thesis cf. namque (Fraenkel, Horace, 185) and the Greek /ecu yap. offenderit: the perf. subj., meaning 'although there had been no single offence at any time', may be kept. Cf. Caesar, B.G. 1. 26. 2. tamquam alieni: the meaning of these words is obscure. T h e general sense is 'not even the passage of time had enabled Superbus to forget the throne but he had forcibly reclaimed it as a family heirloom'. If tamquam alieniis right, it must mean 'as being in the hands of a foreigner' (i.e. Servius Tullius). tamquam is normally used when a supposition contradicts the facts—'he used my books as if they were his own' (tamquam sua)—but occasionally it is used merely to provide a true reason—'they were looked up to as being good citizens' (4. 60. 8 tamquam bonos cives). Time could not obliterate Tarquin's memory of the crown and how it had passed to other hands. I am not wholly happy about the text even so. Tit tier's alienati for alieni (Weidner, Weinkauff) does not affect the main difficulty. Boot's (solium) quamquam alieni regni makes good Latin but is absurd with the succeeding hereditatem. tamquam alieni might be a gloss on velut hereditatem. For the latter cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 3. 84. 2. 4. datus: sermonem dare is only found here. Editors compare 3. 34. 6 rumores editas, but edere is not parallel for dare. Cornelissen suggested dilatus (cf. 34. 49. 6 ; Tacitus, Annals 1. 4 ; Nepos, Dion 10). Ruperti diditus. In such contexts, however, the mot juste is sermonem serere (3. 17. 10; Plautus, Miles 700; cf. 3. 43. 2, 7. 39. 6) and satus is the easiest correction. 2 . 7 . 'hunc tu9: the mounting passion erupts into a direct and personal appeal to Collatinus, heightened by the emphatic juxtaposition and placing of personal pronouns (tu . . . tua; tuas tibi. . . tui auctore me). For similar transitions to direct speech attended by a specific address to a person cf. 3. 9. n , 6. 6. 12, 15. 9, 8. 34. 11, 24. 22. 17 (Lam­ bert). For exonera metu cf. Terence, Phormio 843; Seneca, Epist. 86. 3. A speech was evidently one of the traditional elements in the story (Cicero, Brutus 53) but these touches are distinctively Livian. 2. 8. incluserat: claimed as a poetic expression but cf. Cicero, pro Rab. Post. 48, where editors read intercludit. Silences at moments of climax are characteristic of L.'s narrative technique (3. 47. 6 n.). 2. 10. Lavinium: why to Lavinium? T h e Tarquins are known to have had contacts with Tarquinii, Caere, and Gabii but Lavinium is not otherwise connected with them. T h e traditions of a branch of the Tarquinii or Tarquitii might be suspected but there is no evidence of any of that name being settled at Lavinium (L. R. Taylor, Voting 240

5 09 B.C.

2. 2. 10

Districts, 257). The explanation may be provided by his cognomen. Lavinium was by tradition the foundation of Latinus and the religious links between the two cities were enduring enough to call for a variety of aetiological explanations. 2. 11. P. Valerium: 1. 60. 4 n. The consulship is false. 3-5 Vindicius and the Conspiracy at Rome Two entirely separate strains are blended in the episode of the sons of Brutus. The first is the simple tale of treachery punished by the father—with the familiar theme of public duty triumphing over private relationship. Rome, as Polybius observed (6. 54. 5), had several examples to show. The tale is self-contained but with it has been amalgamated a second, legal anecdote—the aetiological myth of manumission vindicta which provided a paradigm case of the process and an explanation of its origin. The actual mode of manumission is still disputed (5. 10 n.). According to Levy-Bruhl and others, the master made a declaration before the praetor, as the public authority, that he wished his slave to be free and the praetor, as the public authority, ratified it. According to the accepted view, which is sup­ ported by the etymology of the name, it was 'a piece of collusive litigation: the master got somebody to claim that his slave was free and made no defence, and the praetor, cooperating in the scheme, pronounced in favour of the claimant'. The Vindicii were never a gens, as far as we know, in classical Rome. A proconsul of Africa (C.I.L. 8. 970, cf. 11771, 16524, 27715) is met with and a relation of Sidonius Apollinaris (EpisL 5. 1.2). The name Vindicius is, therefore, added as a circumstantial detail to account for the name of the process rather than vice versa. It follows that the story was always told to illustrate manumission vindicta and not, as Daube holds, that the detailed mode of manumission was added in view of his name. The name is fictitious, the date and circumstances are apocry­ phal, belonging to the fantasy world of legal precedents, but the case must have been meant to be the first instance of manumission vindicta. There is some difficulty in the concluding sentence of the story (5. 1 opost ilium . . . viderentur) which in its context is taken to mean 'this was the first case of manumission vindicta which was the first process to give citizenship as well as freedom' (cf. Plutarch, Poplicola 7). In the Republic manumission vindicta certainly did make a slave into a citizen but there was another mode of manumission, censu, whereby the censor with or without the co-operation of the master entered a slave's name on the census and by this very act established him as a free citizen. It would seem to antedate manumission vindicta* D.H. (4. 22) attri­ butes manumission censu to Servius Tullius and, even if the attribution is mistaken, the principle seems implicit in the whole institution of the 814432

241

R

2. 3-5

50 9 B.C.

census. Alternatively, if the belief that manumission censu was in fact a later creation than other modes of manumission {vindicta, testamento, &c.) rightly finds favour with R o m a n lawyers, we should be forced to believe either that manumission vindicta had existed long before Vindicius' case but only now for the first time conveyed citizenship as well as freedom (so Daube) or, as seems to me to be the clear con­ struction of the story as we have it, that the authors of the Vindicius episode ignored the existence of manumission censu and overlooked its implications. For them Vindicius was the first case of manumission vindicta. For them manumission vindicta was the first process to convey both freedom and citizenship. They may have been wrong but that is what they affirmed. T h e real puzzle is the presence of the Aquilii and Vitellii. Gage would have us believe that the names represent a distorted folkmemory of an Etruscan ephebic institution at Rome modelled on the intimacy of Achilles ( = Aquillius) and Patroclus. T h e Aquilii were indeed an old family. T h e consulate of G. Aquilius in 487 (2. 40. 14) is corroborated by L. Aquilius Gornus, cos. trib. in 388 (6. 4. 7). It is true that later consular Aquilii belonged to the tribe Pomptina which was only created in 358 but old citizens were regularly assigned land in the new tribes (L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 66). It is quite other­ wise with the Vitellii. T h e accident that brought one of them to the throne encouraged Suetonius to preserve a store of random specula­ tions about their origin (VitelL 1). Goddesses, old Latin kings, Sabine aristocracy—all are adduced as ancestors, but the hard fact remains that there are no Vitellii in Republican history (but cf. Schulze 153). T w o are known as iiviri at Ostia 47-45 B.C. Nor is it possible to detect any family relationships between Aquilii and Vitellii and later Junii Bruti which would account for their introduction. If a guess is-to be hazarded, I would note that D.H. reads JVAA101 for Vitellii and that G. Aquillius Gallus (Pomponius, Dig. 1. 2. 2. 42) and G. Visellius Aculeo (Cicero, Brutus 264) were both pupils of Q . Mucius Scaevola, cos. 117, and among the most distinguished legal experts of their day. If L. or his source named Aquilii and Visellii, the interpolation be­ comes a pleasing heraldic compliment to two legal families and the corruption to Vitellii intelligible. In any event the addition of the two names to the story cannot be earlier than c. 80 B.C. T h e lateness of the anecdote is perhaps betrayed by the assumption that slaves were common in domestic service (5. 22. 1 n.). A further pointer to L.'s source is provided by the fact that in D.H. and Plutarch Vindicius makes his confessions not to the consuls in their official capacity but personally to P. Valerius Poplicola who was still at the time a private individual. Valerius can only have been invested with such personal standing by Valerius Antias so that 242

509 B.C.

2-3-5

Licinius Macer is likely to be L.'s source here. The consecration of the Campus Martius in 5. 2 contradicts 1. 44. 1 which is Valerian. L. him­ self has worked over the material and created what has been likened to the work of 'un dramaturge moderne'. Time and scene are unified. The events are telescoped to a few days (4. 5. pridie: in D.H. they are spread over a long period) and the action is confined to Rome whereas in D.H. the scene shifts from Rome to Etruria and back again. Above all, L. isolates it from the Collatinus episode. The chronology which put Collatinus' resignation before the conspiracy may already have been in his source, but L. makes Vindicius a slave of the Vitellii not of the Aquilii who were nephews of Collatinus (D.H., Plutarch), and likewise situates the action in the house of the Vitellii. This connects the whole plot closely with the person of Brutus: for Brutus had married a sister of the Vitellii (4. 1). In his telling of the story L., as so often, gives it a contemporary air by recapturing the atmosphere of more recent events. The interception of the letters may be an old element in the story for such things are stock occurrences in Greek history (e.g. in the Ionian revolt) but it has been coloured by the famous incident of the Allobroges in the Catilinarian conspiracy (Cicero, in CatiL 3. 10; Sallust, Catil. 44-45). The same contemporary flavour may be noticed in the language which is redolent of late Republican oratorical technique and makes the whole episode, an exemplum nobile sceleribus arcendis, contrast effectively with the archaicstyle stories which precede and follow it. For 3. 2 tenui loco orti cf. Cicero, pro S. Rose. 50; Verr. 3. 86; for 3. 3 licentiam . . . libertatem see 3. 9. 2-13 n.; for 3. 4 laxamenti. . . veniae cf. pro Cluentio 89; for 4. 4 manifestum . . .fecerunt cf. pro Cluentio 54; for 4. 5 remotis arbitris cf. Sallust, Catil. 20. 1; Cicero, de Off. 3. 112; for 4. 6 rem coarguere cf. pro S. Roscio 83. See 3.311. One further point is noteworthy. Whereas the other sources record that Brutus looked on unmoved at the death of his children, L. with a more perceptive grasp of psychology allows him a true conflict of emotions (5. 8 n.). See Burck 5 3 ; Klotz 221; Rh. Mus. 87 (1938), 4 4 ; Gage, Huit Recherches, 119 ff.; Klebs, R.E., 'Aquilius' (2); Gundel, R.E., 'Vitellius'; for the legal issues the chief discussion is by Daube, J.R.S. 36 (1946), 57-76; see also De Visscher, Nouvelles etudes (1949), 122; E. Volterra, Studi Paoli, 706 n. 1. 3 . 2 . erant: 33. 5 n., the formal beginning of a narrative. 3. 3 . legem: the contrast between the impersonal character of the law and the more accomodating nature of a monarch was a conventional TQTTOS (cf. Plato, Politicus 294 a ff.). Cf. also the proverbial ferrea tura. 3. 4. modum excesseris: 2. 2, an unconscious repetition (1. 14. 4 n.). 2

43

2. 3- 6

509 B.C.

3 . 6 . [alii] alia moliri: the first alii is superfluous: the ambassadors had only one scheme in view. It is more likely to be a dittography than a corruption (cum aliis Aldus; callidiBekker; alibi Duker; alias Bayet). consilia struere: 'lay plans'. Only here in Latin but Terence, Phormio 321, has consilia instruere. 4 . 1. liberi: too much should not be m a d e of the fact that if the sons of Brutus were executed the later Junii Bruti could not be lineally descended from the first consul. Surprisingly D.H. 7. 26. 3 mentions a T . Junius Brutus as aedile in 491. 4 . 2. aliquot: N adds et, retained by Bayet ('plusieurs jeunes gens appartenant egalement a la noblesse') but his translation requires alii. For the interpolation of et cf. 4. 5 below. 4 . 3 . bona: 5. 1. n. 4 . 5. cenatum: et cenatum of N cannot be construed, for et. . . que are not found = 'both . . . and', et was inserted in the false belief that both cenatum esset and proficiscerentur depended on cum. 5. 1-4. Digression on the 'Bona Regia* T h e digression which interrupts the narrative of the conspiracy and by its suspense prepares the reader for the main climax (for this technique cf. 5. 33. 4 n.) is concerned with three separate items— the bona regia (household possessions, & c ) , the Campus Martius, and the Insula Tiberina. 'Bona Regia' T h e origin of the tradition is obscure. Gage's conjecture that it is based on Latin etymology of an Etruscan *bonorek = TratBepajg may be remarked. It looks like a doublet of the Bona Porsennae (14. 1 n.). 5. 1. ibi: 'in the Senate', victi ira (N) would mean 'overcome by anger' (1. 17. 11, 2. 15. 5, 5. 44. 5, 7. 18. 9, 23. 8. 4, 24. 1. 6). T h e active vicit ira, conjectured by Frey, implies a conflict of emotions in which anger eventually prevailed (5. 29. 7 vicit gratiam ira; 8. 35. 4, 26. 16. 7, 37. 51. 5, 42. 62. 11). T h e former is the true assessment of the situation. in publicum: 42. 1 n. Campus Martius T h e Campus Martius was undoubtedly so called because of the cult of Mars there. According to Festus (204 L.) an Ara Martis was mentioned in a law of Numa and the cult will be at least as old as the earliest lustratio exercitus or similar cult (e.g. the Amburbium). T h e army was debarred on religious grounds from assembling inside the city and therefore the cult of Mars had to be established outside. T h e 244

5 09 B.C.

2. 5. 2

cult and the name will go back to the earliest times of R o m e , and the alleged consecration mentioned here (27 Juvenal 1. 132; Plutarch, Poplicola 8; cf. D.H. 5. 13) is fictitious. T h e association with the Tarquins appears to have been invented for some etymological reason. Only so can the existence of two other explanations be accounted for. Plutarch gives a variant that an adjoining strip of land, the Campus Tiberinus, was gifted to the state by a Vestal, Tarquinia. A modified version of this is given by Pliny (JV.H. 34. 25) and Aulus Gellius (7. 7) who calls the Vestal Gaia Tarratia or Taracia. Gellius adds that she gifted the whole Campus Martius and not merely the Campus Tiberinus. Gaia we know. She is a goddess linked in cult with Tiberinus (8 December). Tarquinius, Tarquinia, Tarratia, Taracia—all look attempts to explain a name. The most westerly point of the Campus Martius, where it is enclosed by the great bend in the Tiber opposite the island and where there was a subterranean cult of Dis (Val. Max. 2. 4. 5), was called Tarentum. Ancient scholars were prolific in their etymologies (Festus 478 L . ; Servius, adAen. 8. 63) but neither ancient nor modern scholarship has succeeded in solving it. T h e different accounts of the acquisition of the Campus Martius by the R o m a n people are to be viewed in connexion with the enigmatic T a r e n t u m . See Platner-Ashby s.v. 'Campus M a r t i u s ' ; ' T a r e n t u m ' ; F. Castagnoli, Mem. Accad. Lincei, 1948, 93-111; J. le Gall, Le Culte du Tibre, 96-104. 5. 2. fuit: can hardly mean 'became', 'was known as from then on'. H . Richards proposed//. Insula Tiberina It is probable that the island was formed as a result of silting, as the Romans believed, and there is no geological evidence for the fashionable view that the heart of the island is an outcrop of tufa rock. Sand silting was common before the Tiber was scientifically regulated. The explanation of the legend that crops were thrown into the river is harder to seek. The change from a pastoral to an arable economy must have taken place under the Tarquins (Clerici, Economia e Finanza, 5 8 ; cf. confarreatio) and conservative opposition might have been manifested in some such gesture. T h a t is more satisfactory than to suppose with Castagnoli that the epithet Trvpo6po$ applied to Tarentum because of its sulphurous springs was misconstrued as irvpo6po$. There was little, if any, building on the island before it was taken over as the centre of the cult of Aesculapius in 291 B.C. See Besnier, Ulle Tiberine, 11 ff.; L. A. Holland, Janus, 180 fT. 5. 3 . tenui: 1. 4. 6. mediis caloribus: 5. 31. 5 n. 5. 4. credo: an observation of L.'s own. T h e major construction was to 245

2- 5 - 4

509 B.C.

transform the island into the shape of a ship, complete with stern, mast, &c. T h e surviving walls belong to the period 60-40 B.C., after the date when Licinius Macer was writing. Less imposing repairs must, of course, have been carried out in 291. The temples which L. alludes to were, in addition to those of Aesculapius and Tiberinus, those of Juppiter Jurarius, Semo Sancus, Faunus, and Veiovis. No porticus is identified on the island. tarn . . .firmaque: the text can only be translated as 'so that the region should be as high as it is now and strong enough to bear temples and porticoes as well as homes', which does grave violence to tarn. \Uam is right, the point must be that the R o m a n engineers were anxious to secure that the island should have strength as well as height: 'that so high a region should be strong enough for heavy buildings'. Either -que must be deleted (Novak) or read firma quoque templis ac: for the misplacing and corruption of quoque cf. 3. 65. 6, 4. 56. 13 n. quoque is awkwardly placed in the manuscripts as it is. There is no self-evident reason why the ground would need to be more solid to support temples than houses. With -que, iam (Duker, Gronovius, Ruperti) would be an unavoidable correction for tarn. For firmus with dat. cf. Tacitus, Agricola 35. 5. 5. direptis: the narrative is resumed by picking u p the words with which the digression opened (5. 1-2). patri de liberis: the juxtaposition serves to underline the tragedy of the situation. T h e same device is used by Virgil (Aeneid 6. 819 ff.) to describe the same scene. dedit: 'allotted'. 5. 8. supplicium: it were superfluous to seek constitutional propriety in tales of this nature, although a process of law is implied in 5. 5 [damnatx). voltusque et os: define pater more closely. Cf. 5. 42. 4. eminente: 21. 35. 7. According to D.H., Plutarch, Polybius (6. 54), and Valerius Maximus Brutus displayed no emotion. Editors have tried to square the text of L. by emendation (emineretne animus patrius Stroth; non eminente Sartorius; minime eminente Koch) but emineo is used only where an emotion or the like is conspicuous and the pendant ablative absolute characteristically conveys a detail of substance (cf. 1. 46. 9). L. has altered his original to give a more poignant ending. Cf. the similar scene in the story of Coriolanus. 5. 9. pecunia: financial rewards for the information leading to the detection of conspiracies against the state were standard in historical times (32. 26. 14, 39. 19. 3). 5. 10. vindicta: for the process see above. T h e history of the term remains in doubt. In the parallel legal process vindicatio, legis actio per sacramentum in rem, if the object claimed was movable, the plaintiff 246

509 B.C.

2.5.10

began by grasping it and saying (e.g. if it were a slave) 'hunc ego hominem ex iure Quiritium meum esse aio; secundum quam causam, sicut dixi ecce tibi vindictam imposuV (Gaius 4. 16-17; t n e punctuation is contro­ versial). It is commonly assumed that in this phrase vindicta denotes a rod (virga orfestuca) with which the plaintiff touched the object thereby asserting his claim, but the evidence for this meaning is dubious and late. In all such proceedings the normal action which accompanied a claim was a token display of force (manus iniectio; cf. 3. 44. 1 ff. with notes). Etymologically vindex = vin-dex (cf. index), from which vindicate and other forms are derived. But the root vin defies explanar lion, fine ('family'; cf. Fingal) and vina ('debt'; cf. Lett, vaina) have been proposed but the most satisfactory accounts connect it with vis, vim. See the discussions in Walde-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet. I would postulate a verb *vindicere parallel to vindicate and a noun vindicta formed by the omission of some substantive such as lis, which often meant the subject of a lawsuit. Hence agereper vindictam would be £ to proceed by way of a formal assertion of claim*, vindicta seems to have come to mean 'a rod' by a confusion between the phrases agere per festucam and agereper vindictam. The parallel of name between manumission vindicta and legis actio per vindictam must imply that the former was a form of trial, if only collusive. See further Noailles, Fas et Ius, 45-90; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to Roman Law, 183. ita: the language is properly legal. Daube compares the Lex Salpensana 5: qui ita manumissus erit liber esto. Karsten, following the hint of the Renaissance editors, called attention to the difficulty of observaturn in the sense 'the rule was maintained'. It occurs only here in L. and elsewhere in Suetonius, Aug. 57.1 accept his correction hocservatum; cf. 3. 36. 3 decemviri servassent ut. . .. 6-7, 4. The War against Veii and Tarquinii The first threat to libertas from outside came with an attempt by Veii and Tarquinii to restore Tarquin to his throne. It culminated in the mystical voice from the Silva Arsia. Whatever historical truth there be in the war will depend ultimately upon stories told about the grove. It is not in itself unreasonable to suppose that the Tarquins would have found a willing response from neighbouring governments to restore them to the throne, just as Hippias had no lack of backers after 510. Nor are the cities named, Veii and Tarquinii, improbable. The tyrants had family connexions with Tarquinii and an aggressive Rome could threaten Veii's salt-trade. It is true, as Fell pointed out, that in 5. 16. 2 (397 B.C.) the Tarquinienses are described as novi hostes exorti but such a judgement is understandable after the lapse of 247

2. 6-7- 4

509 B.C.

120 years. Nor is Cicero's silence as to the part played by Tarquinii significant. It is not by such minutiae that the credibility of the story should be determined. It stands or falls by the Silva Arsia (7. 2 n.). The grove is not otherwise mentioned and its site cannot be fixed. But such talking trees, common in all religion (e.g. Dodona; cf. also Plato, Phaedrus 275 b ; Shakespeare, Macbeth 3. 4. 122), were especially frequent at Rome (Lucretius 4. 580 H . ; Virgil, Aeneid 7. 81 ff.; Cicero, de Divin. 1. 1 o 1). Cicero goes so far as to say £ saepe Faunorum voces exauditae' and reports of such utterances (Fatuus; cf. Servius, ad Aen. 6- 775> 7- 47? 8. 3*4) were officially entered in the lists of prodigies which formed part of the Annales. T h e prodigy is cited, for instance, among those preceding Pharsalia (Virgil, Georgics 1. 476: see 1. 31. 2 n.). Somewhat similar is the prophetic voice of Aius Locutius. It is equally true that groves of Silvanus were hallowed in Rome (Plautus, AuluL 674, 766, translating Ilavos dvrpov; Virgil, Aeneid 8. 597 ff.; C.I.L. 6. 610; 12. 103 : but see 7. 2 n.). We can, therefore, say no more than that the story is inherently probable and of considerable antiquity. L. continues to follow a different source from D.H. (7. 2 n.). For him the story serves two purposes: it is one of a series of threats to R o m a n libertas and it is a parable to illustrate the much-debated philosophical problem 'is bravery compatible with anger?' (Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 4. 4 8 - 5 0 ; Seneca, de Ira 1. 11. 1-8). L. follows Cicero in allowing that Brutus was brave, although this was rejected by strict Stoicism. These two purposes dictate his composition. He introduces the description of Tarquin's appeal to the Etruscan cities (6. 1-3), which has no counterpart in D.H., to match the similar appeal to Porsenna in 9. 1-3. He builds u p the scale of the battle and the magnitude of the danger to Rome, and, instead of naively highlighting Brutus' qualities by a funeral oration ( D . H . ; Plutarch, Poplicola 9), he allows them to be revealed in the action. T h e battle itself is decided for L. by human factors: the divine element, which convention could hardly oust, scepticism relegates to an appendix (7. 2 - 3 ; cf. the similar technique in 5. 21. 8). See Fell, Etruria, 8 3 ; Schachermeyr, R.E., 'Tarquinius (4)'; Burck 53-54; Lucot, R.£.L. 33 (1955), 129-32. 6. 2. ne se ortum: so N. In the parallel passage L. writes (9. 1): ne se (the Tarquins) oriundos ex Etruscis eiusdem sanguinis nominisque . . . exulare pateretur (Porsenna). Here too se must refer to the subject of the main sentence (Tarquin), despite suos later in the sentence which refers to the inhabitants of Veii and Tarquinii; cf. 1. 26. 9, 4. 4 1 . 12, 43. 2. 2. All interpretations based on taking se as Veientes Tarquiniensesque must fail (e.g. se (abl.) ortum Weissenborn, Bayet = *un homme sorti d ' e u x ' ; ex se ortum Drakenborch, Conway). But ortum cannot be 248

5 09 B.C.

2. 6. 2

£

left without further definition ( do not a b a n d o n me descended as I a m ' ) . Some word or words have fallen out. Madvig's se ab se ortum is too severe, M . Muller's indidem too clever. Neither Sigonius's ab Us, Wesenberg's ab ipsis, or Zingerle's ex ipsis convinces. T h e similarity of 9. 1 calls for a clear-cut reference—ex Etruscis (Weinkauff) or e Tuscis (M. Muller). For a similar corruption cf. 3. 13. 8 n. Etruscis could be omitted before Eiusdem. ne se ortum e(x) . . . is unassailable. extorrem, egentem: the language is pleading and pathetic, extorris (5. 30. 6, 7. 4. 4, 9. 34. 3 et al.) is founl sparingly It is never applied objectively to describe an exile, only in contexts where the reader's sympathies are to be enlisted (Titinius fr. 76; Turpilius fr. 9 6 ; Accius, fr. 333 per terras vagus, extorris, regno exturbatus; Lucretius 3. 48 with Bailey's note). It is unique in Cicero (Verr. 3. 120) while Sallust puts it into the mouth of the abject Adherbal (Jugurtha 14. 11); cf. Tacitus, Annals 1. 53. egentem is ambiguous (see the note by Landgraf, Archiv f. Lat. Lex. 7 (1890), 275 ff., being derived either from egeo ('being in need') or e(x)gens ('being separated from one's family'). Apart from 9. 1, the context indicates elsewhere the meaning 'needy'; cf. 2. 25. 6, 8. 19. 14, 8. 26. 5, 10. 18. 8, 22. 9. 3, 26. 33. 8, 34. 31. 14. It must surely be so here and at 9. 1 also. T h e plight of the refugee is a rhetorical commonplace; cf. Sallust, loc. cit. For extorrem, egentem cf. Virgil, Aeneid 1. 384 ipse ignotus, egens; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 3. 3 9 ; de Fin. 2. 105, 5. 84. For cadentis spei cf. Afranius, fr. 350; Ovid, Her. 9. 4 2 ; it is significantly not found elsewhere in prose; for scelerata coniuratione cf. Lentulus, ad Fam. 12. 14. 6. ante oculos suos: coming after Brutus' self-control the irony must be intentional. 6. 3 . nemo unus: 'no one at all'. 6. 7. infiammatus: cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 1. 42. Arruns' language is as melodramatic as his behaviour. For ipse en Me cf. Seneca, Medea 995; for magnifice incedit cf. Sallust, Jug. 31. 10. ultores: 1. 59. 10, 2. 24. 2, 3. 2. 4. 6. 10. aequo Marte: 40. 14 n. 6. 1 1 . Tarquiniensis: the collective substantive is unexpected but may be paralleled by 9. 4 1 . 5 where Volsiniensium castella is immediately preceded by Tarquiniensem. Alan's Tarquinienses involves a change of number to the singular stetit, inadequately supported by Sallust, Jugurtha 82. 1. 7. 2. silva Arsia: so also Val. Max. 1. 8. 5 confirming the reading of N. Plutarch has Ovpaov dXaos; D.H. Spvfxog Upog yjptoos 'Opdrov. T h e locality is unknown. D.H.'s account savours of a rationalization that attempted to connect the name with the Horatii, so that he cannot be used as evidence for the devotion of that gens to wood (Gage, Hommages 249

2. 7- 2

5 09 B.C.

Deonna> 226 ff.). There might be a connexion with the cognomen Harsa (3. 2. 2 n.). Silvani: so also Val. Max.; D.H. and Plutarch name him Faunus. The two deities, though later identified (Origo Gentis Rom. 4. 6) and having much in common, were distinct. Silvanus, god of woods, had no official place in the religious calendar, no priests, no festivals: his was a personal cult, one of long standing (Cato, de Re Rust. 83), one of wide appeal, as the quantities of dedications even from Rome alone attest, and one which spread as his functions were extended or his worship, as in Illyria, identified with other local gods. By contrast, Faunus, whatever his origin, enjoyed official recognition through his connexion with the Lupercalia and by a temple on the Insula Tiberina. The complementary characters of the two deities were apt to lead to assimilation. Here D.H. has probably translated Silvanus into Faunus as being more familiar to a Greek audience and Plutarch followed. See Klotz, R.E., 'Silvanus (1)'; Wissowa, Religion, 213 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 83-84. haec dicta: as Doring and Ruperti saw, those words are an inter­ polation from 7. 7 below. uno . . . Romanum: exactly as the Argives claimed after the Battle of the Champions (Herodotus 1. 82). 7 . 4 . annus: an aetiological myth to explain Roman mourning customs. Paulus, Sent. 1. 21. l^parentes etfilii maiores sex annis anno lugeripossunt. Such customs had to be dated back to the very beginning of the Republic and the death of Brutus was not merely the first recorded under the Republic: he was a. pater patriae (5. 49. 7 n.; for the develop­ ment of the symbolism see Alfoldi, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 238). 7. 5-12. P. Valerius Poplicola L. passes to the third internal threat to libertas—the alleged ambitions of the consul Poplicola himself. The grounds for suspicion were afforded by the age-old association of the Valerii with the Velia. The dwellings and burial-grounds of the gentes were in early times local. The Claudii continued to be buried sub Capitolio well down into the Republic (Suetonius, Tiberius 1), and the Valerii were buried vrf OueAiW (D.H. 5. 48; Cicero, de Legibus 2. 58; Plutarch, Q.R. 79; cf. the elogia of Messala Niger and Messalla Corvinus which came from the same area). Equally strong is the tradition that the Valerii resided there. In addi­ tion to the present story Cicero (deHar. Resp. 16) says that Poplicola was given a house in Velia by public subscription; Valerius Antias (fr. 17 P. from Asconius) tells the same story of (M.') Valerius (Volesus) Maximus, dictator in 494, presumably a Valerian variant to mitigate the suggestion that Valerii could even be suspected oiregnum. The theme of the dominating palace may be hellenistic; cf. Seneca, Thyestes 642 ff. 250

5 09 B.C.

2. 7- 5

Such a strong tradition cannot be disregarded. It served to in­ corporate an explanation of the dipping of the fasces to the people (7. 7 n.). L., who is clearly not following Valerius Antias, nor Atticus 5 history of the gens Junta, makes a brief d r a m a of it. T h e theme is non obstabunt P. Valerii aedes libertati vestrae. The central act is a speech— a traditional feature (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 53)—but rephrased by L. to suit the nature of his theme and the oratorical temper of the speaker (7. 8 n.). 7. 5» ut sunt: 8. 24. 6, 24. 25. 8, L. introduces the narrative, as often (2. 2 n.) 3 with a generalization for which cf. Caesar, B.G. 3. 8. 3 ; Tacitus, Annals 1. 28. It is as old as Thucydides 2. 65. 4. 7. 6. Velia: the north-eastern spur of the Palatine, reckoned as one of the seven hills of the Septimontium (Festus 458, 476 L.). Its name, like that of the city Velia, is perhaps to be derived from a root akin to Gr. lAos 'marsh'. T h e Forum was once a marsh. For the ancient de­ rivations see Varro, de Ling. Lai. 5. 54. See also Radke, R.E., 'Velia ( 3 ) ' ; Platner-Ashby s.v. fieri: N has fieri fore. Hertz overlooked a typical Nicomachean gloss and conjectured fieri foro (cf. D.H. 5. 19). Earlier editors preferred fore but fieri is confirmed by 1. 33. 6. 7. 7. submissis foscibus: the dipping of the fasces before the sovereign people is not attested in historical times although Plutarch (Poplicola 10) writes rovro \Lt\pi vvv hta^vXdrrovaLv ol apxovres. It may be presumed, for the complimentary dipping of the fasces before a mains imperium is acknowledged (Cicero, Brutus 2 2 ; Pliny, N.H. 7.112 (metaphorical)). An historical origin is invented for a constitutional practice. escendit: ascendit N. At 28. 6 M has in tribunal esc, TTX asc, and the same disagreement occurs at 3. 47. 4. T h e corruption is common, but where the manuscripts can be trusted they show that esc. not asc. is the proper form (cf. Cicero, post Red. in Senatu 12; ad Att. 4. 2. 3 ; Q.F. 1. 2. 15). gratum: gratum id, the text of MA, must be read (Rossbach, B. Ph. W., 1920, p . 700; Ernout, Rev. Phil. 16 (1942), 183). 7. 8. audire iussis: the proceedings were opened by a call to attention like the Greek O,KOV€T€ Aea>. gloria . . . invidia: a rhetorical commonplace for which cf. Sallust, Jugurtha 55. 3 ; Nepos, Chabr. 3. 3. Similarly for 7. 9 spectata virtus cf. Catil. 20. 2 ; for 7. 10 levi momento cf. Caesar, B.G. 7. 39. 3 ; for fundata fides cf. Lucretius 1. 4 2 3 ; for ubi sim quam qui sim cf. 1. 4 1 . 3 ; Seneca, Epist. 28. 4. T h e alliteration is striking. 7. 12. Vicae Potae: an old R o m a n goddess, of victory, whose festival was on 5 January. T h e ancients derived her name from vincere and potiri (Cicero, de Leg. 2. 28 ; for an alternative etymology cf Arnobius 3. 25) and identified her as Victoria (Asconius, p. 13 C ) , T h e 251

2. 7- 12

509 B.C.

meaning may well be correct (cf. the plant vica pervica described by Pliny, N.H. 21. 6 8 ; [Apuleius], Herb. 58); if so, the name should be compared for its formation (verbal stem with suffix) with, e.g., Panda Cela and for its double character with, e.g., Aius Locutius. See Weinstock, R.E., 'Vica P o t a \ L. does not imply that the shrine replaced the house of the Valerii; it survived although the house had disappeared. aedes: the addition is required. T h e only parallels for the ellipse of aedes are from Vitruvius (3. 3. 2, 5). 8. Constitutional Arrangements It has been noted that this chapter which is a unit by itself is awkwardly fitted into context. T h e assembly in which the laws were passed (latae deinde leges) is not that mentioned in 7. 7 and the summary in 8. 9 haec . . . gesta is unexpected. T h e reason is not that L. here turns to a new source but rather that in his distribution of material he is concerned to append the incidental events at Rome to one of the primary internal threats. T h e second of the two laws, that against attempts to subvert the Republic, is not intrinsically suspect. Such consecrationes capitis occur as penalties for heinous offences (3. 55. 7 n.). If it is authentic, it will have been recorded subsequently in the Twelve Tables. T h e first law, on provocation must be rejected. L. does not specify its terms but Cicero (de Rep. 2. 53) and Pomponius (Dig. 1.2.2. 16) speak of a limitation of the magistrates' power to execute or scourge without appeal to the people, while D.H. (5. 19) and Plutarch (Poplicola 11) extend its scope wider. Such democratic privileges are the endproduct of long evolution and we can trace the beginning of it in the creation of the tribunate and the provisions of the Twelve Tables and of the Valerio-Horatian laws of 449 (3. 55. 3 n.) where the magistrate was empowered but not compelled to allow appeals and refer matters from his own coercitio to the people. T h e law of 509 is fictitious and the presence of an identical law in the proper historical sequence under the year 300 (10. 9. 3-6), ascribed to the consul M . Valerius, leaves no doubt that it is a doublet. There will, however, have been a procedure under the earliest Republic which, although not akin to provocation may have abetted the foisting of the Valerian law on to 509. T h e first quaestores were not themselves a court: they were merely an ad hoc jury appointed by the consuls to investigate crimes, especially parricidium, when charges were brought by agnati. T h e quaestores deter­ mined culpability. They convicted, but it was left to the magistrates to sentence. This division of powers may be the basis behind which the Valerian law took refuge. See the summary, with bibliography, by Staveley, Historia 3 (1955), 4 I 3 ~ I 5 252

509 B.C.

2. 8. i

8. 1. Publicolae: 3. 18. 6 populi colendi. The popular etymology can hardly be correct, since the cognomen would be unique. Various modern etymologies have been proposed (e.g. a dim. of populus (Skutsch) or of Publius ( I h n e ) ; 'people's farmer' (Cornelius)) but none carries immediate conviction. Whatever its origin—and the n a m e was con­ fined to the Valerii and their relations (Meiggs, Ostia, 477)—it was used as evidence of the liberal leanings of the family. There were Greek precedents like AT^IO^IKOS to encourage the interpretation. See Volkmann, R.E., 'Valerius (302)'. 8. 4 . Sp. Lucretius', his opportune death discredits his original place in the Fasti. M. Horatius Pulvillus: the antiquity of the gens Horatia is proven (1. 24. 1 n.) and the place of M . Horatius at the head of the Fasti is guaranteed (1. 60. 4 n.). Of the man himself we can say nothing: the cognomen Pulvillus, 'a little cushion', first given by Cicero, de Domo 139, is enigmatic. Concerning his activities two difficulties arise: (1) D.H. 5. 35. 3 records that there was an inscription on the temple which named Horatius, but since there were rival traditions that Horatius dedicated it as consul (so L. here) or pontifex (Cicero, de Domo 139; Val. Max. 5. 10. 1; Seneca,Cons. adMarc. 13.1), the inscrip­ tion did not give Horatius' office. Precedent suggests that he must have been consul. (2) Nor can the inscription have given a d a t e : for Tacitus (Hist. 3. 72) and D . H . 5. 35. 3 date it to Horatius' second consulship (507), which is the same absolute date as that given by Polybius 3. 22. 1 (where see Walbank), although by Polybius' chronology that was the first year of the Republic. T h e keeping of dates in fact started with the dedication of the temple. In 303 B.C. the temple of Concord was constructed cciiii (ccciiii codd.) annis post Capitolinam dedicatam. In such chronological confusion no reconstruction can be trusted. I would point out that L. is here using Licinius Macer and that his chronology is suspect. H e dates the Porsenna war in the second year of the Republic, (P. Valerius, T. Lucretius) while D.H. puts it in the third (Valerius, M . Horatius). His lists for 507 and 506 are confused (15. 1 n.), his date for Regillus unique (21. 3 n.). I would accept 507 as the orthodox and the approximately correct date for the dedica­ tion of the Capitoline Temple. T h e denarii minted by Cn. Cornelius Blasio, which are unique in portraying the Capitoline Triad (Syden­ ham no. 561) and are to be regarded as commemorative of the 400th anniversary of the dedication of the temple, were struck in or shortly after 107 B.C. T h a t does not, however, entail rejecting Horatius' two consulships. It would be a strange coincidence that a temple so long in the making should have been ready just in time to celebrate independence. 253

2.8.5

5 09 B.C.

8. 5. apud quosdam veteres: the most recently interpolated consul was Lucretius. He is not named by Polybius or by (drawing from Republi­ can sources) Augustine (de Civ. Dei 3. 16); i.e. he was inserted towards the end of the second century. Gollatinus and Poplicola are older (cf. Cicero, de Rep. 2. 53), probably third-century, additions, memoria must be the subject oiintercido (cf. Val. Max. 5 . 2 . 1 0 ; Seneca, deBenef. 3.1.4) so that memoriam should be read. 8. 6. dedicata: technically the act of dedication was the surrender by man of 'all claim to the possession or use of something in favour of the divinity'. In the case of temples and the like the act could only be performed by consuls or magistrates with imperium (9. 46. 6) except where the people conferred special authorization on iiviri aedi dedicandae (42. 5 n.; Cicero, de Domo 130, 136). The presence of a pontifex was, as in the case of the dedication of Cicero's house, customary in order to ensure the proper performance of the ritual acts but was not strictly necessary. The pontifex did not himself dedicate the temple (despite Paulus Festus 78 L.) : he prompted the magistrate throughout. It is regularly expressed as praeeunte pontifice (C-I.L. 3. 1933; Varro de Ling. Lat. 6. 6 1 ; cf. 2. 27. 5, 9. 46. 6; Tacitus, Hist 4. 53). The act itself consisted of holding the door-post (Servius, ad Georg. 3. 16) and pronouncing the formula, a complete example of which is found in the law from Salona (C.I.L. cit.). Horatius' dedication presents points of interest. It shows that he must have been consul (or the equivalent) and not pontifex since the latter did not perform the ceremony. It is tendentious in that Horatius is selected by lot, whereas the choice was normally made by popular vote (2. 27. 5, 42. 5; cf. 4. 29. 7: Cicero, ad Att. 4. 2. 3). D.H. indeed gives a different account, that the dedicator was to be popularly selected but that in the voting Horatius cheated. L.'s source undermines this Valerian complacency by the novel doctrine that the choice was made by lot. The impassive self-control with which he greeted the news of his son's death is a literary embellishment inspired by the manner in which Xenophon heard the news about his son Gryllus (Aelian, V.H. 3. 3 with Perizonius's note). Finally, what is the significance of Horatius' perseverance? His action was treated as a precedent (Cicero, de Domo 139) and the story originated as such. In normal circumstances a death would render the whole family junesta and so unable, until purified> to perform religious acts (47. 10; Varro, de Ling. Lat 5. 23 ; Cicero, de Leg. 2. 55 ; Aul. Gell. 4. 6. 8). But Horatius was excepted—presumably on the score that he had begun the ceremony before the news was brought and he, since it was a continuous act, was for the purposes of the cere­ mony purus. 254

508 B.C. See Wissowa, R.E., pp. 209-10.

a.8.6

'Dedicatio'; Cicero, de Domo, ed. Nisbet, 9-15. War with Porsenna

For Romans the interest in the war against Porsenna centred on the three feats of Codes, Cloelia, and Scaevola—ilia tria Romani nominis prodigia atque miracuta. T h e war with Porsenna is genuine enough. Clusium (5. 33. 1-3 n.) and the inland cities of Etruria pursued a different policy and enjoyed a different civilization from coastal cities like Caere and Rome. They were aggressive and thrusting. Their expansion into Campania at this period can be documented in detail. With the collapse of a strong central government at Rome, the plain of Latium was left unguarded. Porsenna took his opportunity, broke down from the hills, and captured Rome. Such, in brief, are the facts and a dim memory of them survived (Tacitus, Hist. 3. 72. 1; Pliny, N.H. 34. 139: see Syme, Tacitus, 398). Falsification played havoc with them. Patriotic sentiment could not allow Rome to be captured. Rome is made to hold out gallantly and Porsenna from being a ruthless foe is turned into a sentimental king with an admiration for R o m a n virtues which passes into friend­ ship. Porsenna is regarded as king of all Etruria and his attack on Rome supposed to be motivated by a desire to restore the Tarquins to their throne. Such an alliance makes nonsense of the facts. Caere, Tarquinii, Rome, Cumae were all at the mercy of Porsenna. If Por­ senna had acted to aid the Tarquins, it is inconceivable that they should eventually have found refuge with Aristodemus at Cumae. With the exception of the intrusive chapter 11 L. welds the material together into a unit opened and closed by summaries of the military situation (9. 1-8; 14-15) and containing in the middle the three chief acts. These acts are in themselves similarly constructed. T h e climax of each is a topographical detail (10. 12, 13. 5, 13. 11), the nub of each is a moral {fides, audacia, constantia: notice the repeated virtus (10. 12, 12. 14, 12. 15, 13. 6, 9, 11)), and each emphasizes that such qualities are inspired by the love of liberty (10. 8). T h e three stories form a tricolon crescendo leading up to Cloelia—supra Coclites Muciosque (Cloeliae) /acinus esse. T h e phase is concluded by Porsenna's recognition of Roman liberty (15). This arrangement is L.'s work­ manship. See the judicious essay by Ehlers, R.E., 'Porsenna'; Bayet, Recherches philosophiques, 1931, 264 ff.; Burck 54; Hofmann, Livius-Interpretationen 63-64. 9 . 1. Lartem Porsennam: for the name, which occurs elsewhere only as a Roman nomen (C.I.L. 6. 32919 Porsina) but is pure Etruscan in morphology, see Ehleis, loc. cit. 255

5 08 B.C.

2. g. 1-3

9. 1-3. orabant: 7. 2 n. T h e Tarquins continue their plea with some oratorical commonplaces. For 'the dreary mediocrity of levelling down' cf. Veil. Pat. 2. 2. 2 ; Tacitus, Hist. 4. 4 7 ; see Otto, Sprichworter, 60. Stobaeus devotes a whole section (47) to the theme on KOXXLGTOV r) jjLovapxLCL and his illustrations range as far back as Hesiod and Homer. For aequari summa infimis cf. Ovid, Trist. 3. 10. 18; Pliny, N.H. 2. 203. 9. 4. (tuturn) : Porsenna is not concerned with the security of his own position. H e is motivated by the dignity of kingship and the pride of Etruria. By adding tuturn Conway makes an unworthy and unnecessary modification of Porsenna's attitude. 9 . 6 . annonae: the political motive is palpably an anachronistic falsifica­ tion (cf. 4. 51. 5). W h a t is more controversial is the authenticity of all these early corn-notices. T h e central discussion of the problem is by Momigliano, S.D.H.I. 2 (1936), 374-89: more recently H. leBonniec, Le Culte de Ceres a Rome, 244 ff. In addition to the present passage there are the following early allusions to the corn shortage: 496 492

D.H. 6. 17. 2-4 2.34.2-5

Famine Famine

486 477 476 456 453 440 433

2. 41. 8 2. 51.2,52. 1 D.H. 9. 25 3-31- 1 3- 32. 2 4. 12-16 4- 25. 2

Famine Famine Famine Famine Famine Famine Famine

411

4. 52. 5-8

Famine

Temple of Geres Imports from Etruscan coast, Cumae, Sicily Imports from Sicily Imports from Campania

Imports from Etruria Imports from Etruscan coast, Cumae, Sicily Imports from Etruria, [Cumae], Sicily

T h e three last frumentationes are no longer seriously questioned. O n the one hand, the tradition that linked the Minucii with the corn trade is very old: on the other (and independently of it), there is explicit testimony that annona was one of the regular items in the Annales (Cato fr. 77 P.). T h e case for the earlier stands or falls by 492. Doubt has been cast on it because the consuls in 492 B.C. were T . Geganius and P. Minucius. It is observed that the Minucii were at pains to publicize their services to Rome's corn supply (cf the porticus Minucia) and that a Geganius was consul in 440 when L. Minucius was praefectus annonae. Such scruples are misplaced. T h e tradition is con­ firmed by the dedication of the temple of Ceres in 496 under direct influence from Cumae, which is constantly cited in the notices as a source of grain (21. 5 n.) and by divergent chronologies in D . H . 6. 17. 2-4 as to the R o m a n embassy to Sicily which indicate that it 256

5 08 B.C.

2.9.6

was recorded independently in Greek sources. T h e only documented famine at Athens during the period is probably to be dated to 445/4 (27 Aristophanes, Vesp. 718: I.G. i 2 . 31) but there is no reason why Greek and R o m a n famines should coincide. In short, even if the motive for fabrication is there, the means are not available. With Meiggs (Ostia, 481) I see no good reason to question them. T h e present importation is perhaps a special case like the other events purporting to date from the very first years of the Republic, but the provisions about salt (see below) which accompany it look authentic. Like the census figures in 1. 44. 2 (n.), they may come from some very early tabula but not actually be dated to 508. Volscos: being hill-people, they are a surprising (and, therefore, plausible) quarter to seek grain from. A forger could not have chosen t h e m : for they were in Roman tradition the lifelong foes of Rome. satis: the control of the salt trade in the Republic is a mystery which the sparseness of the evidence only serves to deepen. It is stated by L. (29. 37. 3) that the price of salt in 204 was regulated by the censors— an archival fact which will have been preserved in the Annales. T h e supervision of its sale and distribution was in the hands of state officials, called salinatores aerarii (Cato ap. [Servius], ad Aen. 4. 244), while the actual supply and production were undertaken by conductores salinarum or salarii, usually freedmen. T h e state monopoly continued un­ changed through the Empire (Cod. lust 4. 61.11), but how far back into the Republic it extended we have no information. T h e present notice might be no more than a throw-back to provide a precedent for later control but Porsenna's invasion and the Latin W a r will have jeopar­ dized Rome's salt supplies which depended solely on the small colony at Ostia (1. 33. 6 n.). W h a t were to be Rome's main salt-beds in later times were not available to her. Since salt matters did figure in the Annales, I would believe this note to be documentary and to come from some early tabula, if not from 508. See Bliimner, R.E., 'Salz'; Clerici, Economia e Finanza, 459 ff. omne sumptum: omni sumptu N . T h e sense is clear: the control of the price of salt was entrusted to public authorities (the consuls or, later, the censors) and taken out of the hands of private speculators. T h e chiastic antithesis between in publicum and privatis limits the scope of correction by ensuring that quia . ♦ . venibat 'because it was being sold at exorbitant prices' is a self-contained clause. Two lines of approach are open: (1) accepting omni sumptu we are forced to assume that it is part of an abl. abs. with the verb missing (recepto Clericus; translato or redacto Doering; suscepto M . Muller). But the meaning remains laboured: 'all the expense being transferred to the state'. It can hardly be seriously suggested that the state was going to 814432

257

s

2. 9- 6

5 0 8 B.C.

pay for the salt and issue free returns to the people. (2) reading omne sumptum sc. arbitrium, parallel to ademptum. So Gronovius (cf. P. Burman, De Vectigalibus, 1734, 92), on which Leggewie's omnino sumptum is not an appreciable improvement. T h e second alternative is pre­ ferable. portoriis: so also D.H. 5. 22. 2 : Plutarch, Poplicola 11. T h e exemption from customs and tribute is demonstrably anachronistic. Such duties were only established throughout Italy at the end of the third century (32. 7. 1-3). T h e political tendentiousness of the notice indicates that it is a throw-back from the propaganda which culminated in the abolition by Q,. Metellus of portoria in 60 B.C. (Dio 37. 51 ; Cicero, ad Att. 2. 16. 1). Notice the strong resemblance between 9. 7-8 and Sallust, Or. Maori 19-21. liberos: a specious derivation of proletarii. 9. 8. malis artibus: 3. 19. 5 ; Praef. 9 n. unus . . . universus: for the typically Livian cast of expression cf. 4. 6. 12. 10. Horatius Codes T h e little which may be added to Walbank's lucid note on Polybius 6. 55. 1-4 is chiefly inspired by the article in Hommages a W. Deonna by M . Delcourt. T h e legend is of primeval antiquity. Its ancestry may go back to Indo-European roots, for the legend of Odin has much in common with it, but in R o m a n mythology the story of a deformed hero (Codes = 'one-eyed'; he was supposed either to have lost an eye in battle (D.H. 5. 23. 2) or, according to Plutarch {Poplicola 16. 7), to have had a congenital deformity) being precipitated from a bridge recalls and parallels such ceremonies as the Argei (1. 21. 5 n.). Horatius, in fact, performed a devotio to bless the Pons Sublicius. In time this simple ritual was enveloped with historical circumstances and from being a religious act became an historical fact. T h e main elements of the primi­ tive story are, however, still preserved in Polybius: Codes drowned and received no honours. At some date after Polybius an unidentified statue was moved from the comitium to the Area Vulcani and identi­ fied with Codes (Ver. Flaccus ap. Aul. Gell. 4. 5. 1). It must have represented or been thought to represent a lame man. This dis­ covery entailed modifications to the story. Codes must have survived but been wounded (D.H. 5. 23-35) and the statue set u p to do him honour. It is this version of the story which L. recounts. Two features are indicative of his treatment of it. All the other versions of the story leave Codes either wounded or d e a d : in L. he returns incolumis. T h e motive for this alteration is psychological. Just as Brutus is m a d e to show 258

5 08 B.C.

2. 10

emotion at the execution of his children, so Codes deserves that the rewards of his heroism should be unalloyed. Secondly, where D.H. relates it in a pedestrian style with fussy details about his relations and qualifications, L. gives a vivid drama, stressing Codes 5 courage and culminating in his appeal to the god which has no counterpart in D.H. ( I O - I I ) . As befits an old-time hero Codes speaks in power­ fully coloured tones (io. 3-4 nn., 10. 11 n.). 10, 1. alia . . . alia: neuter plural, 'some (sections) seemed adequately protected by walls, others by the barrier formed by the Tiber' or, perhaps better, abl. sing., 'in one direction (everything) seemed adequately protected by walls, in the other by the Tiber 5 . So Linsmayer. 10, 2. sublicius: 1. 33. 6 n. 10. 3 . qui: after giving the general situation in short, simple sentences L. begins his account with a complex series of subordinate clauses leading up to H. 5 s appeal to his fellow soldiers (testabatur). The first action is signalized by the forceful vadit (10. 5 n.) emphatically placed at the head of its sentence. 10. 4. transitumpontem: 'if they left the bridge in their rear (unbroken) after they had crossed it5. The use of the participle seems, as Gronovius says, legitimate: cf. 21. 43. 4, 23. 28. 9. The deletion of either transitum (Vielhaber) or pontem (Clericus) is uncalled for and neither Nannius 5 transitui nor Postgate5s ponte can easily be paralleled. ferro,igni: 1. 59. 1 n. 10. 5. vadit: 1. 7. 7 n. cedentiumpugna:pugnaeN, corrected by Gronovius; but L. rarely uses cedo with the plain abl. 'to leave5 (cf. 2. 10; but contrast 47. 2 ex acie cessit). cedo with dat. 'to give way before5 is common (cf. 4. 33. 3) and should be retained here. 10. 6. Sp. Larcium: the name is Etruscan (C.I.L. i 2 . 1087, 1570, 1958) and the Larcii are but one of many Roman gentes of undoubted Etrus­ can origin. For his later history see 11. 7-10, 15. 1. In reporting him and his brother T. Larcius, the manuscripts vary between -cius, -tius, and -gius (see Conway's note in the O.C.T.). In all places -cius should be restored. See Miinzer, R.E.y 'Larcius (4) 5 . The gens is lost to view until the late Republic. T. Herminium: another Etruscan family (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 11. 642; Sil. Ital. 5. 580: see Schulze 173). For his doings cf. 11. 7-10, 20. 8; D.H. 5. 26. 4 ascribes to him a corn embassy. The consul of 448 (3. 65. 2 n.) may be son or grandson but otherwise the family dies out. In the presence of two Etruscans in the Fasti it would be quite wrong to divine that Porsenna imposed a government of his own choice on Rome. See Miinzer, R.E., 'Herminius5. claros genere factisque: 8. 7. 2, 9. 7. 2. 259

2. 10. 7

508 B.C.

10. 7. coegit: Codes. 10. 8. circumferens: as the climax approaches the language becomes more poetical. T h e whole scene has, as editors have noted, much in common with the description of Hector breaking through the Greek wall {Iliad 12. 440-71). Cf. especially 10. 4 pontem . . ♦ interrumpant with 4 4 0 - 1 ; 10. 8 circumferens . . . oculos with 4 6 6 ; 10. 10 ingenti gradu with 458 ev Sta^a?. It was probably mediated to L. through Ennius for the language contains much that is characteristic of Latin poetical usage. For circumferens oculos cf. Virgil, Aeneid 12. 5 5 8 ; Ovid, Met. 6. 169, 15. 674; for truces minaciter oculos cf. Lucan 7. 2 9 1 ; Silius 3. 76; for proceres see 2. 46. 7 n . ; for detrudere cf. Plautus, Merc. 116; Virgil, Aeneid 9. 510; cf. also 28. 3. 7. T h e whole passage is imitated by Amm. Marcellinus 31. 13. 4. 10. 9. cunctati: notice the typically Livian pause to provide an almost mechanical TrepwrcVeta (9. 32. 5, 37. 43. 4). 10. 1 1 . ' Tiberine pater': cf. Virgil, Aeneid 8. 72-73 : * Tuque, 0 Thybri tuo genitor cumfiumine sancto, Accipite Aenean.' Macrobius 6. 1. 12 expressly says that Virgil is here modelling himself on Ennius ( = Ann. 54 V.), who may be assumed to have been treating of Codes. Servius remarks that at times of drought prayer was offered to the Tiber with the formula 'adesto Tiberine cum tuis u n d i s \ I t is likely, therefore, that Ennius, as often, has adapted an old prayer formula. T h e story of Codes was in origin the myth of a religious ceremony (see above). T h e poetic character of Codes' prayer is further seen in the re­ markable use of hum militem = me, for which see Nisbet on de Domo 5. It is found both in light (Terence, Heaut. 356) and solemn contexts (Ennius, Ann. 216 V.) but never in ordinary prose and cannot be paralleled from L. Here it is eased by haec arma. sic armatus: 'in full armour as he w a s ' ; cf. Cicero, pro Roscio Amer. 71 sic nudos. T h e juxtaposition of ita sic led Novak to delete sic, Heerwagen to write ita sicut. 10. 12. statua: Pliny (JV./f. 34. 29) says that the first honorary statue erected in Rome was of Horatius Codes and that it was still standing in his own day. It represented a bronze warrior in full armour. This is probably the same statue as that moved from the comitium to the Area Vulcani (see above). T h e statue may date from the sixth century, for such figures both in sculpture and in architecture were fashionable then (Richter, Etruscan Terracotta Warriors, 7 ff.; E. H . Richardson, Mem. Am. Acad. Rome 21 (1953), 99-100). But it cannot have been a statue of Codes. In Greece the earliest statue in honour of a dead m a n was only erected in 509 (Pliny, N.H. 34. 17 Harmodius and 260

50 8 B.C.

2.10.12

Aristogeiton) and of a living not till after 400. It must have been a cult-image or an ex voto. uno die: no explanation of this record is forthcoming. It may have been invented to balance the Prata Mucia (13. 5 n.). T h e gift of as much land as you could plough in a day is mentioned as a common reward for heroism by Pliny (N.H. 18. 9). 10. 13. fraudans: 5. 47. 8. 11. The Ambush Douglas surprised the English garrison of Castle Douglas under Thirlwall by an identical stratagem (Scott, Tales of a Grandfather, 1. 81-82). It is one of those classic ruses which belongs to the world of heroic tales. It has no firm place here either (51. 2-4 nn.), D . H . (5. 22. 5 ; cf. Plutarch, Poplicola 16. 3) places it not after Codes but after Mucius which shows it to have been a fluid incident. Even in L. it is rather roughly inserted. At the beginning we read ex agris pecus in urbem compelleretur (11. 3) which picks up in urbem ex agris demigrant (10. 1); at the end obsidio erat (12. 1) harks back to consiliis ad obsidendam (urbem) versis (11. 1 ; for this technique cf. 5. 5 n.). L.'s reason for including it at this point is to build up the suspense for Mucius and Cloelia. Further evidence of its isolation may be seen in the lack of clarity in the narrative. Valerius who was stationed on the Caelian may be presumed, although it is not stated, to have led his troops out of the Porta Caelimontana. He was the first to engage the enemy but they are said to be versi in Lucretium (who was still in concealment at the Porta Naevia) when they were attacked by the second detach­ ment under Herminius from the rear. As the plan of Rome shows it is indeed true that the Etruscans when engaged with Valerius would have been facing Lucretius—for both men were to the south of the Etruscan position near the Porta Esquilina—but it is not what we would expect L. to say (Glareanus followed by many editors would substitute Valerium for Lucretium) and we are left with a very hazy picture of the battle. T h e names of the commanders are, of course, merely supplied at random from the Fasti and all the military details (cohortes, manipuli) anachronistic. 1 1 . 4 . ultor . . . vindicem : the distinction is between private and official vengeance; cf. Veil. Pat. 2. 7. 6. 1 1 . 9 . concurrit: not elsewhere used with ex insidiis. T h e stock phrase is consurgere ex insidiis (50. 6 ; Caesar, B.C. 3. 37. 5), which Aritzenius, followed by Cornelissen and R. Schneider, proposed to read here. Normally the scene of the ambuscade and of the ensuing battle are the same, but on this occasion Herminius who lay concealed had to cover some ground before joining the assault, concurrere, therefore, rather than consurgere fits the context. 261

2. II. 9

5 08 B.C.

Naevia: cf. Varro, de Ling, Lai. 5. 163; Festus 170 L. According to the ancients it got its name from Naevius quidam but there is no further elucidation. It was situated on the Aventine. 11. 10. effuse evagandi: the sense is 'wandering at random'—evagor is only used of issuing from a place (22. 47. 2, 23. 47. 5). L. has effusi vagari at 38. 48. 5, 42. 55. 5 and vagandi should be read here (see Wolfftin, Bursians Jahresbericht 3 (1874), 737). 12-13. 5. C. Mucius Scaevola Compared with Codes the history of Scaevola's feat is a more complex affair. As Festus shows (104 L.), the etymology will only work in Greek, and the story is older than either cognomina or the familiar usage of Greek. The first historical Mucius Scaevola was praetor in 215 so that there is a gap of 250 years between his family and his reputed ancestor. There may have been a direct descent. The usual praenomen among the later Much* Scaevolae was Q,. or P. but a C. Mucius Scaevola is mentioned as xvvir s.f. at the ludi saeculares of 17 B.C., and there is no significance in the fact that the gens Mucia was plebeian while L. implies that Scaevola was a patrician. That is but a part of the normal falsification which excluded all plebeians from early government. None the less it is hard to believe that the story could have been passed on for so long within the gens. We should look for the origin of it elsewhere. The heart of the story is the plunging of the right arm into the flame on the altar (cf. the legate Pompeius and King Genthius in c. 168: Val. Max. 3. 3. 2). The burning of the right arm can have only one significance. It is the punishment for the breaking of an oath or pledge. From the earliest times the famines sacrificed to Fides manu ad digitos usque involuta (1. 21. 4 n.; cf. Servius, ad Aen. 1. 292: see also Wissowa, Religion, 134). Nor are parallels for such penalties scarce. Munzer adduces the story of Rudolph of Swabia. More familiar is the gesture of Cranmer. It follows that the original story of C. Mucius was a story about his punishment for perjury and, we may be sure, his heroism in enduring it. Whether it had any connexion with Porsenna is uncertain but not impossible (13. 5 n.). The present form of the story, the attempted assassination of Porsenna, is an early-third-century fabrication con­ trived, like so many others, under the influence of Greek legend. The entry in disguise into the enemy's camp is reminiscent of the legend of Codrus, king of Athens (see also 12. 2 n.). The presence and dignity of the secretary in attendance on Porsenna is purely hellenistic, as Bayet observes (cf. Nepos, Eumenes 1.5). The famous history of Cynegeirus in Herodotus 6. 114 may also have contributed, and antiquarian curiosity appended the Mucia prata (13. 5 n.). 262

508 B.C.

2. 12-13. 5

In substantially the present form it circulated from 200 onwards, and was retailed by Cassius Hemina (fr. 16 P . ; cf. Cicero, Sest. 4 8 ; Parad. 12). For L. the climax is the dialogue between Mucius and the king and he leads up to it with the minimum of delay. D.H., keeping closer to his original, narrates how the whole plot was debated and approved in the Senate. This is repetitious and destroys the element of surprise. Prosaically he explains that Mucius spoke Etruscan and he allows Mucius to exploit that gift in several rambling discourses. By contrast, L. paints a vivid picture of a proud and enterprising Roman, motivated by indignatio at Rome's shame rather t h a n driven to desperate measures by her plight. H e is not afraid to assert him­ self and, when he speaks, he speaks with the grandeur of an ancient hero (12. 5 n., 12. g n.). See Burck 56-57; W. F. Otto, Wien. Stud. 34 (1912), 320 ff.; Munzer, R.E., 'Mucius (10)'. 12. 1. obsidio: the preliminary situation is summarized in a long subordinate sentence (1-4), which clears the ground for the actual action. So also the complex sentences in 7-8 prepare the way for the dramatic g ff. For this technique cf. 10. 3. 1 2 . 2 . C. Mucius: D.H. 5. 25. 4 gives him the cognomen Cordus (Kohpos according to the manuscripts). So a l s o Z B o b . Cicero,pro Sestio, 131 St. Cf. Plutarch, Poplicola 17. 8 AdyvoSajpos 6 Udv8a>vos iv TO) irpos 'O/craoviav . . . /ecu 'Oijilyovov ( = Cordus; cf. Quintilian 1. 4. 25) (hvo^daOai
2. 12. 5

5 08 B.C.

turned to Ennius. T h e language is equally dignified. For si di iuvant cf. Plautus, Capt. 587. 12. 7. eum(que) : a connexion is needed but Schaffer's et eum is as neat. 12. 8. concursu: 1. 48. 2 n. fam quoque: 7. 27. 4, 36. 5. 7 'even so', to be taken closely with inter minas. inter minas'. L. calls on a store of ready-made phrases to describe Mucius' plight. For inter . . . minas cf. Lucan 9. 570; for metuendus magis quammetuens cf. Sallust's description of Adherbal (Jugurtha 20. 2 ) : placido ingenio, opportunus iniuriae (13. 9 n.), metuens magis quam metuendus. 12. 9. 'Romanus sum' inquit 'civis': Cobet objected that Mucius' citizen-status was irrelevant. Unlike St. Paul he was not declaring it in order to invoke the protection of R o m a n law. He r e a d : cRomanus sum' inquit; 'cives C. Murium vocant\ But L. is making Mucius answer in tones of defiant pride and the word civis, postponed to the end of the sentence after inquit carries full emphatic force. Pride in Roman citizen­ ship would indeed have been anachronistic for the sixth century but in the second and first centuries, above all for Greek audiences, citizenship was something to be honoured. T h e remainder of Mucius' challenge equally catches the ear. Notice the juxtaposed hostis hostem and the chiastic mortem . . . caedem. For etfacere et pati cf. 24. 38. 2 ; Cicero, in Pisonem 1 1 ; for the use of the perf. subj. in prohibitions (nullam . . . timueris) cf. 1. 32. 7 n . ; animos gessi cf. 1. 25. 3, 28. 9 ; Virgil, Aeneid 9. 309; for petentium decus cf. 26. 48. 11 ; Horace, EpisL 1. 17. 4 2 ; Lucan 1. 174; for accingere in (only here in L.) cf. Statius, Silv. 4. 4. 48. Confirmation of the tragic character of Mucius' remarks is to be found by examining the clausulae. In normal narrative passages the dactylic clausula is favoured: here there is an unprecedented pro­ portion of cretic-iambic and similar rhythms. I select the most ob­ vious : Murium vocant . . . occidere volui . . . mortem minus dnimi est. . . petentium decus . . . dimices tuo . . . indicimus helium . . . proeUum timueris .. . singulis res erit. 12. 10. capite dimices: if the text is right, it must be explained as an example of deliberately unusual language, for elsewhere only dimicare de capite is found (cf. Cicero, pro Sestio 1) or de vita (24. 26. 7 ; Sisenna fr. 28 P.; Cicero,pro Archia 29). capite decernere (ad Att. 10. 9. 2) is no true parallel, for the prefix de- implies the abl. nor are examples of dimico with the plain abl. periculo (Cicero, de Domo 66; Balb. 25), con­ tention (Hirtius, E.G. 8. 29. 1), victoria (9. 40. 18). Read perhaps (de} capite. 12. 11. et cum singulis'. Boot, comparing Cicero, pro S. Rose. Amer. 84 tecum enim mihi res est, deleted et but L. is making a different point. Where Cicero is emphasizing 'my business is with you and you alone', 264

5 08 B.C.

2. 12. II

L. is saying not merely that their business is with the king alone but that they are going to attempt it singly. T h e two separate points demand et. 12. 12. infensus: i. 53. 10 n. per ambages: 1. 54. 8 n. 12. 13. 'en tibV: cf. Catullus 6 1 . 156 with KrolFs note. 12. 14. hostilia ausus: 1. 59. 4 ; Sallust, Jug. 3. 2, 88. 5 ; Tacitus, Hist. 4. 15. 2, 20. 4. made: 4. 14. 7, 7. 10. 4, 7. 36. 5, 10. 40. 11, 22. 49. 9, 23. 15. 14. T h e meaning and origin of this much disputed phrase seems to have been satisfactorily settled. See Wiinsch, Rh. Mus. 69 (1914), 127 ff.; Palmer, C.Q. 32 (1938), 57-62 ; Skutsch and Rose, ibid. 220-2 ; Gonda, Mnem. 12 (1959), 137-8; Walde-Hofmann s.v. Derived from *magere (cf. magnus), whose root meaning combined two ideas 'to make great', with the accessory notion of superiority to h u m a n conditions, and 'to gladden 5 ; cf. Vedic mdhati. macte is the vocative of the past participle, used originally in invocations: cf. Cato, de Re Rust. 132 macte vino inferio esto; Cicero, de Div. 1. 17-22. From it the verb macto was formed which, like dono, is followed (i) by the accusative of the god and the abl. of the offering to be m a d e ; (ii) by the accusative of the offering and the person to whom it is offered. Hence macte virtute esse used of men can be seen both from its syntax and from its sense to be no archaic phrase. It is an antiquarian idiom concocted to convey something of the spirit of 'Bravo'. Cf. Seneca, Epist. 66. 50 macte virtute esto sanguinulentis ex acie redeuntibus dicitur. Of much the same character are the other expressions employed by Porsenna. 12. 15. ut: consecutive; 'to prove that you have won from me by kindness what you could not have done by threats (I will tell you that) via grassaremur: cf. Sallust, Jug. 64. 5. 12. 16. cuiusque: the manuscripts here read utcumque ceciderit primi but primi cannot be construed either as a gen. singular or nom. plural. T h e sense intended might be 'as each man's lot turns u p ' or 'however it will happen' or 'whenever it will happen'. In either of the last two cases it would be necessary to delete primi (Crevier, Lallemand)— neither primo (Weissenborn) nor primis (Bayet) is intelligible—but both seem doubly repetitious when followed by quoad . . . dederit and suo tempore. T h e mention of sors requires that Mucius should be talking about the would-be assassins. Hence Madvig's ut cuiusque ceciderit (sc. sors) primi. T h e only remaining difficulty is the use of cado for excido (21.42. 3, 22.1.11,23. 3. 7). We must either explain it as an instance of dramatic speech or, with Queck, read exciderit. cadit sors is found in Cicero, de Div. 1. 3 4 : elsewhere only in the Vulgate and Carm. Epigr. 1158. 3265

2. 13- I

5 08 B.C.

13. 1. Scaevolae: cognomina derived from physical peculiarities are ex­ tremely common and the Mucii may have been a left-handed family although we have no other evidence. Since, however, the aetiology is false, I incline to believe that the name should originally be asso­ ciated with a superstitious side of the word, scaevulae are small phallic ornaments supposed to have magical properties. Cf. also Scaeva in Caesar, B.C. 3. 53. 4. 13. 2, condiciones: the proferred peace is no more than a piece of stagemachinery to create the situation in which Cloelia should be handed over as a hostage (14. 6 n.). 13. 3. nequiverat Tarquiiis: Tarquiniensibus (D. S. Colman) makes the expected contrast with Romanis \ cf. 6. 4. 13. 4 . expressa: as Walker has been alone in observing, the text is gravely obscure and may well be corrupt, necessitas is usually used in the abl. with the passive of exprimere: cf. 6. 3. 4 orationem necessitate ultima expressam; 8. 2. 6; Suetonius, Aug. 57. 1. In those passages a result is extracted through necessity. T h e active form of the same idea whereby necessity extracts a result is also found, e.g. 3. 30. 6. Here, however, necessitas appears to be not the agency but the object of the extraction. Yet it is clearly hostages not necessitas which are extracted. Walker proposed expressitque necessitas obsides [dandi]. Alternatively dandi could remain if we read expressique necessitate obsides dandi Romanis 4 the surrender of hostages by the Romans was extracted perforce 5 . If the text is to be kept expressa must be given not its normal sense 'extract 5 b u t 'state'. 'The treaty stated that the Romans had to give hostages if they wanted the Janiculum evacuated. 5 T h e issue is not faced by translators: 'he compelled the Romans to submit to give hostages' (Baker); 'forcing the Romans to give hostages 5 (de Selincourt); 'il imposa aux Romains Pobligation de donner des otages' (Baillet). composita pace: cf. Plautus, Merc. 9 5 3 ; Propertius 2. 2. 2 ; Virgil, Aeneid 7. 339, 12. 822. 13. 5. Mucia prata: cf. Paulus Festus 131 L. T h e site of the fields is unknown but Pais drew attention to the Muciae Arae, mentioned by Pliny (JV.H. 2. 211) as being in Veiente . . . in quibus in terram depacta non extrahuntur. T h e name suggests that the Mucii originally owned land on the confines of Rome and Veii as did the Fabii, and support for the hypothesis is to be found in 13. 4 de agro Veientibus restituendoy which closely links the Mucii with a border dispute. It would be confirmed for certain if we knew the tribe to which the Mucii belonged but that detail has not survived. We would expect it to be the Fabia (L. R . Taylor, Voting Districts, 279). For another example of an aetiology being invented to explain a family's ancestral property cf. 3. 13. 10 (prata Quinctia). 266

5 08 B.C.

2. 13. 6-11

13. 6-11. Cloelia N o two authors tell the story alike and it is told by many (Florus 1. 10. 7 ; Orosius 2. 5. 3 ; Val. M a x . 3. 2. 2 ; de Viris Illustr. 13 ; Virgil, Aeneid 8. 6 5 1 ; Seneca, Cons, ad Marc. 16. 2 ; Juvenal 8. 265 with 2; D . H . 5. 32. 3-35. 2 ; Plutarch, Poplicola 19. 2 ; de MuL Virt. 14; Polyaenus 8. 3 1 ; Servius, ad Aen. 8. 646). T h e principal strands can be isolated. T h e first is the simple tale of a girl who rescued her fellowhostages. T h e second is the wonder of a girl who crossed the Tiber on a horse. T h e first I take to have a firm foundation in t h a t twilight history which is all that can survive from an unlettered age. T h e exploit is feasible and the Cloelii cannot be dislodged from the early Fasti (2. 21. 1 n . ; 4 . 7. 1, 11. 5 n n . ; 4 . 17. 2 n . ; cf. 1. 23. 3 n . ; 3 . 25. 5 n . ; 4. 9. 12 n.). The second is an amplification of the story inspired by a rough equestrian statue that stood in summa Sacra via until de­ stroyed by fire sometime in the first century (D.H.). W h o m the statue actually depicted is uncertain but it was probably a divinity (13. 11 n.).

T h e story had certainly assumed its full dimensions in L.'s source. T h a t that source was not Valerius Antias can be seen from a com­ parison with D.H. In D . H . (as in Plutarch; cf. Pliny, JV.H. 34. 28) the leading role is shared by a Valerius of whom there is no trace here. See Burck 5 4 - 5 5 ; Munzer, R.E., 'Cloelius (13)'. 13. 6. frustrata custodes: much elaborated by D . H . who makes Cloelia u n m a n the guards by an appeal to their respectability. tranavit: no mention of the horse. L. like others was evidently puzzled how she could have got hold of one. 1 3 . 7 . habiturum: for the use of the ace. and inf. in a subordinate clause in or. obi. cf. 4. 51. 4, 6. 27. 6, 26. 27. 12; Tacitus, Hist. 1. 17; Annals 2 . 3 3 ; Bell. Hisp. 22. T h e parallels show that the use is rare but authentic (Ruperti wished to delete quemadmodum). It serves to make Porsenna's ultimatum, as presented in indirect speech, memorable. intactam: if -que is rightly preserved after inviolatam some such adjec­ tive must have dropped out. 13. 9. quos vellet: the hostages were of mixed sex as was the usual custom. The girls had run away so that only the boys were left. Cloelia was allowed to select some of them and she chose the impubes because they were most in danger of being outraged (muliebria pati: see Shaedel, Philologus 22 (1865), 183). This agrees with the vulgate but Servius (loc. cit.), perhaps misunderstanding L., says elegit virgines quae iniuriae poterant esse obnoxiae. Her choice is said to be virginitati decorum because her delicacy of feeling prevented her from choosing people whose age might lead to misconstruction of her motives. 267

508 B.C.

2. 13- 10

13. 10. impubes: the short form, for impuberes, is also found at 9. 14. 11, 42. 63. 10, and e.g. Tacitus, Hist. 4. 14. quod: not 'because 5 (Pike) but 'her choice' ( = quae res). 13. 1 1 . Romani: L heightens the importance of the reward by making it the gift of the Romans as a whole. Piso makes the other girls re­ sponsible, D . H . the fathers, Servius Porsenna himself. virgo insidens equo: the statue had been destroyed by fire before 30 B.C. but was subsequently replaced (Seneca, Plutarch). Equestrian statues, as a type, were borrowed from the Greeks (Pliny, N.H. 34. 19) and cannot be earlier than the fourth century at Rome. Gamillus is credited with one (8. 13. 9) as also is Q . Marcius Tremulus (Pliny, N.H. 34. 23). T h e 'Cloelia' group must be older than Gato a n d so cannot have represented Cloelia. T h e most likely theory is that it is of a deity. Pais wished to connect Cloelia with Venus Gloacina (3. 48. 5 n.) but there are no grounds for the connexion and no evidence that Venus Cloacina was represented on horseback. Nor should the coincidence of horse and water be pressed into service as evidence that the group represented Neptune (or Poseidon). A more probable identification, made by Schwegler, is with a statue of Venus Equestris mentioned by Suidas (s.v. ApoSlr7j) and [Servius], ad Aen. 1. 720. [Servius] says that her worship was introduced by Aeneas, and the Gloelii claimed a descent from a companion of Aeneas (Paulus Festus 48 L.). See also E. H . Richardson, Mem. Am. Acad. Rome 21 (1953), 106-7; A. Andren, Hommages Herrmann, 98-99. 14. Bona Porsennae and Tuscus Vicus The Bona Porsennae Plutarch (Poplicola 19. 10) gives more details. When there is to be a public auction of booty or proscribed property the heralds open proceedings by announcing 'the belongings of Porsenna*—TI\JA]V TO> avhpl TTJs xdpLTos atSiou iv rrj fJivrjfXT] Sia^vXdrrovrcs» The explanation must be tendentious for the ceremony implies enmity not friendship and the tradition that turned Porsenna into an unequivocal admirer of R o m e was a late fiction. T h e custom should be compared with the audio Veientium. It will have been a semi-religious commemoration of a R o m a n success. See Ehlers, R.E., 'Porsenna'. 14. 4. inpotestate: N had in potestatem, which many scholars, including Gronovius, Brakman, and J . S. Reid, retain, esse in potestatem is occasionally found (Lex Salpens. = C.I.L. 2. 1963; Modest. Dig. 38. 15. 1. 2 ; Gaius, Inst. 1. 55) and is offered as a reading by the manuscripts in a few passages of Cicero (pro Lege Manilia 3 3 : cf. Aul. Gell. 1. 7. 16; Cicero, Verr. 2. 67. 5. 98). This distribution prompts Bulhert's judgement (Thes. Ling. Lat., 'in', 795. 15 ff.): 'usus vulgaris 268

5 0 8 B.C.

2. 14. 4

et stili curialis'. T h e present passage betrays signs of neither ten­ dency. The Battle of Aricia For the early history of Gumae see Dunbabin, The Western Greeks; J. Heurgon, Recherches . . . de Capoue pre-romaine. It had for long been a position of importance as the chief outlet for Etruria to Greek com­ merce. Distinctive Gumaean pottery from the mid-sixth century has been found at Tarquinii and Caere. With the development of other ports such as Spina and Atria her commercial importance declined but the rich volcanic soil enabled her to build up a considerable corntrade. It was on corn rather than commerce that her prosperity de­ pended c. 500, but on either score she was an envied prize for the Etruscans who expanded into Campania in the latter half of the century. Under the leadership of Aristodemus (21. 5 n.) Cumae re­ sisted that expansion while preserving friendly relations with the mari­ time states of Tarquinii and Caere. In 524 she defeated an assault by Etruscans, aided by Umbrians and Daunians (D.H. 7.3-4). Her victory at Aricia (c. 506) was confirmed thirty years later by the decisive Battle of Cumae (474). Her policy is consistent throughout the period. T h e only ambiguous feature is her relations with Rome. W e would expect her to have been uniformly friendly with Rome—a city of the same culture and sympathies as Caere—but in 491 (34. 4) she im­ pounds some ships that had come from Rome to seek corn. This gesture may have been inspired by a purely tyrant-tyrant friendship. Aristodemus was Tarquin's heir. But it is to be remembered that Rome had been conquered by Porsenna and forced to make humiliating terms with him (Pliny, JV.H. 34. 139). How long that treaty subsisted effectually is not certain; the first signs of Roman independence can be detected under Sp. Cassius. For ten years or so Rome collaborated with Porsenna and that fact is not likely to have endeared the Romans to Aristodemus. 14. 6. perculerat: the Livian ircpiiTCTcia. Latinis: presumably the members of the Latin League of Aricia. 14. 9. Tuscum vicum: the street leading from the Forum to the Circus Maximus along the west end of the Palatine and forming the eastern boundary of the Velabrum (see plan). Its Etruscan associations are confirmed by the statue of the Etruscan god Vortumnus which stood there (Varro, de Ling, Lat. 5. 4 6 ; C.I.L. 6. 9393). T w o explanations of the name were current in antiquity, that given by L. (D.H. 5. 36; Festus 486 L.) and Varro's that it was the residence of Etruscans who had come to crush Titus Tatius (cf. Propertius 4. 2. 49-50; Servius, ad Aen. 5. 560). Modern speculation has added a third, that the settle­ ment was composed of workmen who came to build the Capitoline 269

2. I4- 9

5 08 B.C.

temple (cf. Tacitus, Annals 4. 65). In truth, there had always been a sizeable Etruscan population at Rome from early times and it was inevitable that they should have congregated together. There was also a vicus Tuscus in Pisidian Antioch (C.I.L. 3. 6837). See PlatnerAshby s.v.; Welin, R.E., 'Tuscus vicus'. 15. Peace with Porsenna The tailpiece to the history of Rome's war with Porsenna is provided by the embassy which persuades him to recognize R o m a n libertas. Critics have attempted to dissociate this chapter from the preceding narrative. Soltau and Seemuller, arguing that there can only have been a single peace with Porsenna, saw a doublet in the condiciones of 13. 3 and the pax fida of 15. 7. Soltau further claimed that Porsenna's embassy in 15. 1 was so unmotivated that it must have belonged in reality to the events related by L. under the preceding year. T h e whole course of the negotiations between Rome and Porsenna was a creation of latter-day historians and could be extended to taste. Moreover, 15.6 patently picks up and continues 13. 4. See also 15. 1 n. The chapter, therefore, belongs closely with the preceding narrative and forms a fitting conclusion to it. Paxfida cum Porsenna. T h e Tarquins had their contact with the Mamilii and Tusculum (1. 49. 9 n.) and the tradition that both the Tarquins and Octavius Mamilius fought on the same side in the Battle of Lake Regillus is unlikely to be an invention. It makes good sense. O n the other hand, the reason of Porsenna for abandoning the Tarquins is far too highminded. As has been shown above, it was most unlikely that he ever helped them. If the Tarquins did go to Tusculum, they will have gone from Caere. T h e whole point of the episode is to underline the great truth that libertas and Rome are synonymous—a truth so magni­ ficent that it impresses even a barbarian king. It is stated with all the rhetorical power at L.'s command (15. 3 n.) and is accepted with equal dignity (15. 5 n.). 15. 1. For a full discussion of the textual difficulties of this passage see C.Q. 9 (1959), 270-1. All attempts to secure from the manuscripts two pairs of consuls are misconceived. T h e separated praenomen in \i (Purius P.) is not a trace of a telescoped name. I n several manuscripts p. or / . = proprium (sc. nomen) is inserted before a name to indicate to the reader, in de­ fault of capital letters, that he is coming to a proper name (O. Rossbach, B. Ph. W.y 1920, p . 697, n. 1; E. Harrison, Cambridge University Reporter, 27 May 1930). T h e phenomenon is frequent in N ; cf. 2. 43- 3> 5 1 - 4» 61. 1, 64. 2, 3. 12. 5. Thus L.'s list of consuls for 506 was P. Lucretius and P. Valerius Publicola. It disagrees with the conventional list given by D . H . (from 270

5 0 6 B.C.

2. 15. I

Valerius Antias according to Peter, Hist. Rom. Rel. cccxxvii). L. omits one complete year and in P. Lucretius records a completely mythical personage. But his account is consistent. The divergent chronologies of the dedication of the Capitoline temple and the wars with Porsenna were caused by the fact that L. (and his source) did not know of Horatius' second consulship. Such vagaries are characteristic of the Fasti used and given by Licinius Macer. It is commonly held that the libri linteiwere only lists of consular tribunes and covered no more than the period of that office. But the peculiarities of Licinius' Fasti are not confined to 443-366 and I should be inclined to believe that the libri lintei were a complete list of eponyms from the beginning of the Republic. This must cast grave suspicion on all chronology (such as the revolts of Cora and Pometia, and the battle of Lake Regillus) which depends to any extent on Licinius. P. Lucretius: nothing else is known of him and he is probably an error for either M. Horatius or Sp. Larcius. P. Valerius Poplicola: the entry is unusual. At 9. 1 he is P. Valerius iterum and at 16. 2 P. Valerius quartum, but nothing can be inferred from this when the whole list is so awry. See also 16. 7 n. 15. 2. non quin: 'it would have been easy enough, they declared, to give a curt refusal, on the spot, to Porsenna's overtures. That was not the reason why Rome had sent representatives of such distinction rather than anwer the Etruscan envoys directly' (de Selincourt). 15. 3 . hostibus: N read hostibus potius quam portas regibus where the hyperbaton emphasizes regibus effectively. The reading should be kept. ea esse vota: for the text see C.Q. 7 (1957), 76. The sentiments are typical of the Republican attitude to monarchy cf. Sallust, Catil. 33. 4. For portas patefacere cf. Cicero, Phil. 5. 49, 10. 7. 15. 5. obtundam: Porsenna's language is diplomatic; cf. Cicero, Verr. 4. 109; ad Herenn. 3. 17, 4. 52. pacem distineat: 37. 12. 2; Caesar, B.G. 7. 37. 3 ; Cicero, ad Att. 3. 23. 5 ; P M . 12. 28. 15. 7. [ita]: the position is awkward and not properly defended by 8. 6. 2. The simplest remedy is deletion but L. frequently closes an episode with a summarizing sentence opened by ita: cf. 1. 5. 7, 7. 3, 10. 7 , 1 3 . 5 , 2 6 . 1 , 2 . 14.7^25- i,3l- ^33.^,49.12,^0. 11,51.getal. I prefer Weinkauff's transposition: ita Romanis pax fida cum P. fuit (Rh. Mus. 22 (1867), 156). 16-18. 505-501 B.C. It is as difficult for the modern reader, as it clearly was for L., to see any coherent pattern in the events of the years leading up to the Battle of Lake Regillus. The Fasti were available and a few events may have been documented (the triumphs, the first dictatorship, and the wars 271

2. I 6 - I 8

5 05 B.C.

with the Sabines; cf. 18. 2 n.) but even here there was wide scope for doubt and distortion. Other events, such as the migration of the Claudii or the activities of Octavius Mamilius, were handed down not in records but in traditions of varying reliability. T h e credentials of each are considered in turn below. D.H. follows a separate tradition from L. In addition to giving a different chronology for Lake Regillus (19. 2 n . ; D.H. expressly says that the chronology adopted by L. was that given by Licinius Macer), he knows nothing of the revolt of Cora and Pometia and the two wars against the Aurunci. Instead he has four wars against the Sabines and places Cora and Pometia in 495. Now it has long been realized that L. duplicates the history of Cora and Pometia, for under 495 (22. 2) he again speaks of their revolt and suppression, and this later section is unquestionably derived from Valerius Antias. It follows that the first account of their revolt (16. 8) cannot be from Valerius Antias. When it is noticed that L. cites a variant tradition that makes M \ Valerius the first dictator and tacitly agrees with Licinius Macer concerning the first ovatio (16. 9 n.) it can hardly be denied that he must be using Licinius Macer as his main authority. T h e paucity of facts afforded little scope for embellishment. T h e facts are presented soberly and annalistically. They pave the way for the great account of Lake Regillus. 16. 1. M. Valerius: a brother of Publicola. See also 30. 4 n. P. Postumius: 16. 7, his filiation is given as Q.f. by D.H. 6. 69. 3 and the cognomen Tubertus by D.H., Cicero, de Leg. 2. 58, and Pliny, N.H. 15. 125. For his ovatio see 16. 9 n. and for a possible grandson 4. 23. 6 n. T h e origin of the family is undisclosed. They were a patrician family but not one of the gentes maiores; they may have come to Rome with the Tarquins from Etruria. Diodorus (16. 82. 3) mentions nocTTOfiiov TOV Tvpprjvov a pirate in 339, and a M . Postumius from Pyrgi is prominent a century later (25. 3. 8-5. 1). Different branches of the family played a leading role throughout the course of R o m a n history. See Miinzer, R.E., 'Postumius (64)'. cum Sabinis: the Sabine menace had been dormant for many years but Porsenna's incursions coupled with the collapse of the central government at Rome may have activated them again. T h e record is inherently probable. T h e triumph figured in the Fasti Triumphales: M. Valer[ius Volusif.-n. Volusus] cos. [de Sabineis P. Postu[mius Qsf*-n. Tubertus] cos. [de Sabineis. It is the first of the Republican triumphs recorded by L. although the Triumphal Fasti have regal entries and also allot a triumph in 509 to P. Valerius Poplicola over the Veientanes and Tarquinienses. The authenticity of the records depends in part upon the history of the ceremony. T h e ancients were unanimous in believing that the triumph 272

505 B.C.

2. 16. i

was Etruscan in origin (Strabo 5. 220; Florus 1 . 5 . 6 ; Appian, Lib. 6 6 ; but cf. [Servius], ad Aen. 4. 37): the triumphal garb was Etruscan (Macrobius 1.6. 7) and the crown was termed the corona Etrusca. T h e very n a m e triumphus, formed from the cry io triumphe, was the Greek dplafi^os mediated through Etruscan sources (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 6 8 ; Servius, ad Aen. 10. 775). An Etruscan origin would suggest an early date, and since the central act of the ceremony was a procession to the Capitol and an offering in the temple of Juppiter O.M., it was reasonable to connect the institution of the ceremony with the founda­ tion of the temple (Ehlers, R.E., 'Triumphus' with earlier literature). Wallisch, however, has challenged the conventional account (Philologus 99 (1955), 245-58), pointing out that morphologically triumphus must be mediated from the Greek through S. Italy and that the dis­ tinctive feature of a triumph, the appearance of the triumphator in the guise of Juppiter, is based on the late Hellenic idea of the conqueror as Dionysus, the son of Zeus, the God-Liberator (cf. Clearchus in Justin 16. 5. iff.; Alexander in Plutarch, Alex. 6 7 ; Arrian 6. 2 8 ; Curtius 9. 10. 24 ff). T h e Etruscan pictures usually claimed to represent triumphs lack the characteristic laurel-branch and sceptre carried in the hand and should rather be associated with pompaefunebres. Besides, the corona Etrusca is not old (Pliny, N.H. 21. 6, 33. 11). Wallisch does not, however, do justice to the central idea. T h e victorious general had to perform a thanksgiving and discharge his votum. This is a very ancient rite and I would believe that the original triumph was no more than the general's procession to the Capitoline temple. All the paraphernalia may well be subsequent embellishment introduced after 300 B.C. from Greek models, but the central act is as old as the temple and was recorded either in the Annales or in separate records on the Capitol. For later triumphs see 16. 6, 16. 9, 17. 7, 20. I3 3I ' ' 3\ 16. 4 . Attius Clausus: it was an old family tradition that the Claudii came to Rome from Sabine country and it was true. T h e singular praenomen Appius, the distinctive funeral practices, and the longcontinued clientela among the Sabines attested by inscriptions all speak to the truth of the tradition. But they can scarcely have migrated to Rome in 504. They were a patrician gens and, as such, their roots in R o m e must go back to the monarchy. They were one of many nomadic shepherding clans who settled at Rome with the rise of agricultural prosperity. Suetonius (Tiberius 1) dates their migration to the time of Romulus, Appian (Reg, 12) to that of the Tarquins. T h e version which dated it to 504 (so also D . H . 5. 4 0 ; Plutarch, Poplicola 2 1 ; Servius, ad Aen. 7. 706) was in part influenced by the certain fact that the tribus Claudia was organized in 495 (21. 7 n.) and in part by a tendentious desire to make the Claudii great Republicans, lovers of

814432

273

T

2. i6. 4

504 B.C.

libertas, who are only induced to move to Rome when the oppressive tyranny of the Tarquins has been cast off. Appius Claudius may once have borne the praenomen Attus. It is a Sabine name (cf. C.I.L. 11. 6706. 2 At. Fertrio(s)) carried also by Attus Navius (1. 36. 4 n.). L., who writes Attius, may have misunderstood it as a nomen, for there was a gens Attia. But Appius' nomen cannot have been Clausus. T h e original Sabine form is Claudius from which Clausus is derived by the regular assimilation of dentals before con­ sonant i in almost all the non-Latin dialects of Italy (Conway ad l o c ) . Antiquarians, noticing the form Clausus in Sabine territory at a much later date, assumed that it was the primitive form. For his subsequent history see 21. 5, 29. 9, 30. 2. An Elogium set up in the late Republic in his honour (Inscr. Ital. 13. 65) also adds that he was quaestor. See Munzer, R.E., 'Claudius (321)'; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 16 n. 1, 175 n. 3 ; L. R . Taylor, Voting Districts, 35-37. turbatoribus belli: this difficult expression is explained by Ernesti (Opuscule 322-3) who calls attention to the use of the verb turbare in the sense of comitate (cf, e.g., Tacitus, Annals 4. 6 7 : cf. the Greek 7rdAe/xos> erapdxOr] in Dem. de Cor. 151). belli is needed to balance pacis which rules out the conjectures of T a n . Faber (reipublicae), Clericus (plebis), or H. J. Muller (vulgi). If turbatoribus is wrong, Novak's concitoribus (23. 4 1 . 2, 29. 3. 3) is better that Gronovius's auctoribus or Crevier's hortatoribus. There are other signs of careless writing (18. 2 n.), which may excuse the text. Inregillo: N had cnregillo or the like. T h e Claudii originated from Regillum (Suetonius, D.H., Appian) but a wrong identification of cognomina by a scholar, perhaps due to the confusion of Crassin. RegilL with Crass. Inregill. (see the Fasti for 450) led to a town Inregillum and a cognomen Inregillensis (8. 15. 5 ; Fasti Cap.) being postulated. T h e corruption in N favours Inregillo here too and shows the late date of L.'s source. magna: D.H. says 5,000. clientium: 3. 44. 5 n. 1 6 . 5 . vetus . . . appellati: appellata N . T h e problem here is to determine the meaning of the clause qui ex eo venirent agro. If it means 'those who come from this district across the Anio—for there were other members in quite different areas of Italy who were added subsequently to the tribe—were called 'Old Claudians', it will be necessary with Madvig to read appellati (cf. 1. 43. 2). But the subjunctive is unexplained (Virtually oblique': Conway), venirent is a misleading term (censerentur Seyffert) and the whole clause qui. . . venirent in the natural run of the sentence is expected to follow after the plural tribulibus. I prefer an alternative explanation, putting commas after tribus and agro and taking qui . . . venirent with tribulibus. 'The tribe was called 274

504 B.C. 5

2. 16. 5

'Old Claudian and there were later added to it new members who came from that area.' I take eo loco to refer to the land given to the Glaudii rather than their Sabine homeland. T h e original members of the tribe were all Claudii, subsequently other residents in the area where the Claudii settled were given citizenship and enrolled in the same tribe. A particular example is the case of Fidenae which after its incorporation was enrolled in the Claudian tribe (C.I.L. i 2 . 1709). Vetus is to distinguish them from the other pockets of the tribe created throughout Italy after 241. L. seems to date the creation of the tribe to the current year but D.H. in his parallel account says it was created avv XP°VC9 after the migration of the Claudii. Geographical considerations suggests that it must have been after the fall of Crustumeria, so that both the Claudia and the Crustumina will belong to 495 (21. 7 n.). inter patres: 4. 4. 7. L. means that he was m a d e a patrician rather than a senator. 16. 6. timeriposset: timerepossent N, defended by Drakenborch, is at least as good. triumphantes: the Triumphal Fasti differ slightly: P. Valeriu[s Volusi f.-n.] Poblicol[a II cos I IIIde Sa]bine[is] el Veient[ibus . . . non]as Mai, 16. 7. P . Valerius: the formal vote of a public funeral was recorded in the Annales and was used by historians as the basis of a brief obituary (cf. Seneca, Suas. 6. 2 1 : see Syme, Tacitus, 312). T h e earliest notices are not above suspicion (33. i o n . ) and may be no more than anti­ quarian reconstruction. Agrippa Menenio: one of the oldest R o m a n families, giving its n a m e to the tribe. They perhaps came from or at least owned land in the region of Pedum and Praeneste (L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 4 3 - 4 8 : the name is Etruscan). They were in historical times plebeian (4. 53. 2, 6. 19. 5, 7. 16. 1) and there is no reason to suppose that they were not always plebeian (32. 8). T h e presence of plebeian gentes in the early Fasti is well attested. Agrippa is remembered for the part which he played in the First Secession (32. 8-12). P. Postumio: 16. 1. T h e absence of iteration is not remarkable, for the practice of noting the number of consulships is the exception rather than the rule until the institution of the consular tribunate. I have noticed it only at 2. 8. 9, 16. 2, 3. 22. 1, 66. 1, and 4. 8. 1, whereas there are twenty-three occasions when possible iterations are omitted. The incidence of cognomina is equally random. de publico'. 33. 10 n. luxere: Eutropius (1. n ) and the author of the de Viris Illustr. (15. 6) specify a year's mourning. Hence Kohler wished to add annum after Brutum: it would be better after matronae. 16. 8. coloniae: when last heard of, Pometia had been recaptured from 275

2. i6. 8

503 B.C.

the Volscians by Tarquin ( i . 4 1 . 7 n., 53. 2). Since it was ethnically a Latin town, it might loosely be described as a colonia Latina but in the doublet of this passage (22. 2), it is once again in Volscian hands. This is a much more likely account on three grounds: the Volscians, like the Sabines, took advantage of the confusion caused by Porsenna's invasion and the Fall of the Tarquins to encroach on the Latin plain; the Aurunci are nowhere in the neighbourhood (see below) and D . H . (5. 44-47) knows only a Sabine war which he describes at length. Cora: mod. Cori, on the north-western edge of the Volscian moun­ tains. It was a Latin community (Virgil, Aeneid 6. 775: Origo Gentis Romanae 17. 6) which claimed Trojan ancestry (Pliny, JV.H. 3. 63). It was a member of the Latin League of Aricia (Catofr. 58 P.) and con­ sequently was for a while in the sphere of R o m a n influence, but, like Pometia, lying as it did on the outskirts ofLatium, it was peculiarly exposed to attack. It is therefore no surprise to find it falling to the Volsci in 495 and, after its recovery, subscribing to the Latin treaty of Sp. Cassius (D.H. 5. 61). Apart from an assault by the Privernates in 330 (8. 19. 5), it continued a peaceful and undistinguished existence down to the Empire. Its antiquity is confirmed archaeologically, for the cyclopean wall is earlier than the mid-fourth century (Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 94) and there are 'Villanovan' burials. See Hulsen, R.E., 'Cora'. Auruncos: the Aurunci, in Greek Avaoves, hence Ausones, were an Oscan tribe, who inhabited a region south of the Volsci, between the Liris and the Volturnus. At an early date their contact with the cities of Magna Graecia spread their name in the Greek world so that it was accepted as the name of the inhabitants of the whole of middle Italy. T h e capital of the people was Suessa (mod. Sezza). T h e Aurunci could not possibly have interfered in the affairs of Cora and Pometia at this juncture. T h e whole story arises from a mistaken attempt to connect the name Suessa with the false name for Pometia, Suessa Pometia (1. 4 1 . 7 n.). See Hulsen, R.E., 'Aurunci'. 1 6 . 9 , trecenti: 300 is the traditional number in legend for hostages: cf. the 300 Corcyrean boys in Herodotus 3. 48. triumphatum: by saying 'a triumph was held' rather than 'the consuls triumphed' (16. 1), L. implies that only one consul triumphed. This is the view of Licinius Macer (fr. 9 P . ; D . H . 5. 47. 3) who says that Menenius was accorded a triumph, Postumius an ovatio—TOTC -n-pwrov, J)9 AIKIVVIOS loTopet, TOVTOV i^evpovarqs TOV Qpiaixfiov TTJs /3ov\rjs.

The

Fasti Triumphales record: P. Postumiu[s Q.f.-n. Tubert]us ann. CCL cos. II o\vans de Sabinei]s III non. Apr. Agrippa M\enenius C.f.-n. Lanjatus ann. CCL cos. de[Sabineisprid]ie non. Apr. 276

503 B.C.

2. iG. 9

Licinius' motives in investigating the origins of the ovatio were not unmixed. His kinsman M . Licinius Crassus h a d concluded the Slave W a r in 71, for which an ovatio was the conventional reward. Macer is at pains to dignify it, claiming it to be as longstanding and honourable as a triumph (Plutarch, Crassus 11-13). Licinius was approximately correct in dating the first ovatio to the early years of the Republic, for an ovatio differed from a triumph principally in the fact that the general did not wear the triumphal toga of Juppiter and the kings but the praetexta, that he did not carry a sceptre, that he walked on foot instead of riding in a quadriga, that he was crowned with myrtle not laurel, and that he led rather than followed the procession. In other respects the ceremony resembled a triumph but these differences minimized its regal character, as would have been fitting in the early days of the Republic. Such an account of its origin is more plausible than the ancient theory, to be attributed to Varro, that the ovation was quasi Venerius quidam triumphus (AuL GelL 5. 6. 22; Pliny, JV.H. r 5 - I2 5)> a triumph accorded for a bloodless victory, myrtle being sacred to Venus, since bloodless victories were only one of several pretexts for which ovations were decreed. Successful generals invari­ ably applied for a triumph but the decision whether to award a triumph or an ovation rested with the Senate who were guided partly by precedents—triumphs were not awarded when hostium nomen humile et non idoneum est, ut servorum piratarumque—but chiefly by political jealousies and partly by strife. See Rohde, R.E., 'Ovatio'. L. records ovations in 462 (3. 10. 4), 421 (4. 43. 2), 410 (4. 53. 11), and 390 (5. 31. 4 ) ; others are mentioned in 487 (D.H. 8. 67. 10) and 474 (Fast. Triumph.; D.H. 9. 36. 3). T h e entries look authentic. 1 7 . 1 . Opiter Verginius: the first of that important gens to be mentioned. Of Etruscan origin (Schulze 100), they probably came to Rome with the Tarquins. They are usually listed as patricians (e.g. by Broughton) but as with the Menenii this is an a priori assumption and later members of the gens are certainly plebeian. For the praenomen cf. Paulus Festus 201 L. cuius pater avo vivo mortuus est. In the divergent account of this year which D.H. (5. 49) gives, Verginius was responsible for the cap­ ture of Cameria. He is one of nine persons whose cremation, appa­ rently after being surprised and killed in a battle against the Volsci in 486, is said by Festus (180 L.) to have been commemorated on a stele near the Circus. No certain genealogy of his relationship with the other Verginii can be established. See Gundel, R.E., 'Verginius (17)'. Sp. Cassius: the first and only Cassius in the early history of the Republic. T h e authorities variously report his cognomen as Vicellinus, Vecellinus, or Viscellinus. Vecellinus is the best form, and is probably formed from a place-name (cf. MedulJinus). Weissenborn connected 277

5 02 B.C. it with the Vecilius mons mentioned in 3. 50. 1 (n.). Neither nomen nor cognomen suggests Etruscan forebears, which may account in some measure for his part in the negotiations with the Latins. Later Cassii, who came to prominence in the second century, were plebeian and employed the cognomen Longinus but there is nothing to prevent their belonging to the same gens, for Sp. Cassius may well have been a plebeian himself and a moneyer (L. Cassius Caeicianus c. 93 B.C.: Sydenham no. 594) certainly claims him as an ancestor. For his treaty with the Latins see 33. 4 n.; for the dedication of the temple of Ceres 3. 55. 7 n.; for his conspiracy and death 2. 41. 1 n. D.H. credits him with a victory over the Sabines and a triumph. 17. 2. igni: cf. 4. 33. 2 n.—a conventional stratagem without any basis in fact. Equally hackneyed is the language in which it is described. For caede . . . complent cf. 8. 39. 1; Sallust, CatiL 51. 9 (Skard); for inexpiabili odio cf. 39. 51. 4. 17. 3. sed utrum: sedverum nomen N, which would imply that either L.'s source gave a corrupt name (i.e. Caelius instead of Cassius) or that L. thought that he had superior evidence which refuted the statement which he found in his source ('the sources gave a name but not the right one'). The only critic to defend the manuscript reading is Bitschofsky who sees a contrast between nomen and titulus (cf. Ael. Lamp. Diad. 6. 4 = Script. Hist. Aug.). This is far-fetched. The de­ cisive passage is 10. 37. 14: Fabius ambo consules . . . res gessisse scribit traductumque in Etruriam exercitum—sed ab utro consule non adiecit. Lipsius was the first to conjecture utrum for verum, which must be right. The change is minimal. But, like Drakenborch after him, he retained nomen. nomen makes poor sense. It was not so much the name as the identity of the consul which was in doubt. I would delete nomen with Hertz and Freudenberg. Nothing is gained by F. Walter's repunctuation—sed utrum? auctores non adiciunt (cf. 7. 33. 2, 44. 13. 4). Most editors have neglected the evidence of 10. 37. 14 and emended the passage along different lines {sed viri nomen Heerwagen; verum nomen Alschefski; sed nomen Madvig; ceterum nomen Gundel). 17. 4. relatus: Duker's certain correction of N's relictus (cf. 20. 9). maiore: N adds bellum, which is retained by Weissenborn and Pettersson as a kind of zeugma, gestum being understood from inlata (cf. 25. 6. 19, 39. 25. 16, 42. 49. 10), but it breaks the close connexion between ira and viribus. 17. 5. mole belli: cf. Virgil, Aeneid 5. 439; a Livian cliche: cf. pcoXos 2. 17. I

'ApT]OS.

in eo esset: 'the situation had reached the point that . . .'. In this idiom res is usually expressed (8. 27. 3, 28. 22. 8 sing.; 30. 19. 3, 33. 41. 9 plur.). Sigonius could find no parallel in L. or elsewhere for the ellipse of res and inserted res before esset. Unless the ellipse be 278

502 B.C.

2- 17- 5

explained as a negligence, I think Sigonius should be followed. Pettersson's citation of i o . 15. 11 is irrelevant. 17. 7. triumpharunt: in the Fasti only Sp. Cassiu[s -f—n Vicellinu]s ann. CCLI cos. d[e Sabineis?]. 18. 1. Postumum Cominium: his name is rightly given by Cicero, pro Balbo 5 3 ; de Rep. 2. 5 7 ; Festus 180 L. N both here and at 33. 3 reads Postumius Cominius but it is unlikely that L . could have understood Postumius to be a praenomen and -ins for -us is a common corruption. T h e Cominii were a plebeian family who occur at rare but regular intervals (cf. 5. 46. 8 n. (Pontius Cominius); 8. 30. 6 ; Cicero, Brutus 2 7 1 ; pro Cluentio 100-2). They are Etruscan (cf. cumni; Schulze 108) and Cominii are found at Praeneste (C.LL. 14. 3101). T. Larcium: a brother of Sp. 18. 2. scorta: Conway comments that 'wild behaviour at the games often gave rise to disturbances' and quotes Cicero, pro Plancio 30 and Tacitus, Annals 14. 17. But the story bears too close a resemblance to the R a p e of the Sabine Women. T h a t event was commemorated or re-enacted at the games of the Consualia (1. 9. 10 n.) and the cry 'SabinaeP was part of it. I hazard the view that this anecdote derives from what was taken to be a documentary notice in the Annales about the Consualia. It is quite unknown to D . H . (5. 50. 1). spectare res videbatur: the text as given by N is sound but inelegant. For the repetition re . . . res cf. 2. 47. 12. It is not an instance of de­ liberate avTt,fjL€Tdd€(Tis (traductio) as is generally claimed. Bayet reads spectari videbatur but see Ernout, Rev. Phil. 16 (1942), 183-4: spectari is never found impersonally. 18. 3 . supra belli Latini metum: in this much disputed passage two things stand o u t : (1) supra cannot be used for super 'on top of, in addition to' (cf. 27. 10 et al.); (2) the Latin W a r which is feared is the conspiracy of the Thirty Peoples led by Octavius Mamilius re­ ferred to in the following sentence (as printed in the O.C.T.). It is, then, nonsense to take supra . . . metum with the succeeding sentence, 'surpassing their fear of a Latin war was the additional news that the Thirty People were conspiring 5 , since the fear in question is precisely the fear engendered by the news. At the very least it would be neces­ sary to read Sabini for Latini, with the Editio Princeps. T h e same objection applies to Duker's proposed super for supra (Lallamand, Crevier, Madvig, H . J . Muller). T h e conspiracy under Octavius was not in addition to the fear of a Latin w a r : it was what occasioned that fear. O n the other hand, common sense is against those who like Wex and Weissenborn attach supra . . . metum to the preceding sen­ tence. T h e disturbances at Rome were, we may be sure, disquieting but they could not be regarded as more serious than a concerted 279

2. i8. 3

5 01 B.C.

attack by the Latins ('quae terrore superaret helium LatinurrC Wex). The solution lies elsewhere. If quod. . . constabat defines the fear and the fear is additional to the disturbances at Rome, then that fear must be the subject of accesserat and we are forced to read supra (adv.) belli Latini metus [id] quoque accesserat quod . . .; cf. 27. 10 super haec timor incessit Sabini belli, id is interpolated from id quoque in 18. 4. triginta: the history of the political league of the Latin states can be traced in outline. It is to be distinguished from the religious community of Latins who met annually at the cult of Juppiter Latiaris on Mte. Cavo, whose names are preserved by Pliny (jV.i/. 3. 68). T h e moving spirits of the political league were Aricia (1. 50. 3 n.) and Tusculum (1. 49. 9 n.) and the fragment of Cato (58 P.) gives a list of the league at a very early d a t e : Cora (16. 8 n.), Pometia (1. 4 1 . 7 n.), Ardea (1. 57. 1 n.), Lanuvium, Tibur, and the Rutulus populus. T h a t was before Rome under Tarquin had secured association with the com­ munity. At the other end of its existence, in 338 13 members survived —Norba (34. 6 n.), Pedum (39. 4. n.), Cora, Aricia, Ardea, Circeii (1. 56. 3 n.), Nomentum (1. 38. 4 n.), Praeneste (2. 19. 2 n.), Setia, Signia (1. 56. 3 n.), Tibur, Lanuvium, and Lavinium. At some point between these two dates the league totalled 30 and the number gave its name to the community, surviving long after the arithmetical reality had passed. D . H . 5. 61 ascribes the increase to 30 to the current period leading up to the treaty of Sp. Cassius. His list is ApSearcbV) ApiKTjvcov, BoiaXavwv (BotXXavwv S c h w e g l e r ) , BovfievTavcov, Kopvibv, KapvcvTCLVtoV, KipKairjTtov, KopioXavcov, KopPivTa>v> Kafiavcov (Kopavtov N i e b u h r ) , Qoprivcicov, Ta^iajv, Aavpevrivcov, Aavovivltav, Aa^iviaTwVy Aa^iKavwv, Najficvravtov, Mcopeavtov (Nwpfiavtov Gelenius), npaiveGTlvtov, 77e8ava>v, KopKorovXavwvy EarpiKavwv^ ZJfanTTrjviajv, UrjTtvwVy Tifiovprivcov, TVOKXCLVWV, ToXrjpivwv, TeXXrjvlajv, OvcXiTpavwv,

which only contains 29. Stephanus proposed TappaKivwv as the missing name, but Signia or Pometia are other candidates. T h e date is not in itself unreasonable. T h e menace of the Hernici and the Volsci and the leadership of Tarquinius Superbus were factors that would have tended to expand and unify the league. But the list as it stands contains anachronisms. Ardea for one did not rejoin till later (4. 7. 10 n.) and Norba as well as Setia are also possible late­ comers. It may be that as further Latin towns, whether new founda­ tions or old, in course of time subscribed to the treaty, their names were simply added to the existing signatories so that the presence of 30 names did not necessarily mean that they all signed at the same time. It would be wrong to believe that the entire league and the list of its members is a fiction of the third century because Timaeus and Lycophron gave it as an explanation of the prodigy of the 30 piglets. T h e topographical explanation of that prodigy is perceptibly older than 280

501 B.C.

2. 18. 3

the chronological (Ehlers, Mus. Helv. 6 (1949), 166 ff.; Sordi, / Rapporti Romano-Ceriti, 168-9). Of the workings of the league we know little. It met annually at the Lucus Ferentinae (Festus 276 L.) and conducted joint campaigns in time of war, Rome apparently supplying the commander. T h e posi­ tion in 501 would seem to have been that with the expulsion of the Tarquins Rome's domination and perhaps even membership of the league ceased and Tusculum regained her former hegemony. U n d e r such circumstances it is in no way odd that the league should have decided to commence hostilities against R o m e . The Dictatorship T h e tradition is right in making the dictatorship an entirely R e ­ publican creation. It was no evolution of some regal office. T h e dictator had twenty-four fasces: the king only twelve. Besides, the requirement that the dictator should on his appointment nominate a magister equitum displays a wholly Republican concern for the principle without the disadvantages of collegiality (1. 60. 4 n.). T h e problem is rather to investigate when and why the first dic­ tator was appointed. Festus (216 L.) reads: 'optima lex . . . in magistro populi faciundo, qui vulgo dictator appellatur, q u a m plenissimum posset ius eius esse significabatur ut fuit M a n i Valerii M . f. Volusi nepotis qui primus magister populi creatus est', magister populi (cf. Cicero, de Fin. 3. 7 5 ; deLeg. 3 . 9 ; deRep. 1.63) was evidently the original title, dictator will have been borrowed from the Latins, where it was in common use primarily designating a religious official, at some date in the fifth century when Rome and the Latins were intimate partners in the struggle against the Aequans and Volscians. Licinius Macer indeed thought that the office was taken over from the Albans and invented a prehistoric precedent for it (fr. 10 P.). In itself the title is not exclusively military, but the title of his lieutenant, the magister equitum, and certain of the curious customs surrounding his appoint­ ment imply that the office was designed chiefly to supply a single leadership in war of more authority than could be given by the consuls. T h e crises which faced Rome in her early days were military, not political, and a projected attack by the Latin League was as serious a threat as could arise. If the general context as given by L. is appro­ priate enough for the creation of the dictatorship and if the claims of T. Larcius to be the first dictator are sound (18. 6 n.), the dates can be narrowed down. Licinius Macer was wrong in dating the Battle of Lake Regillus to 499. T h e true date is presupposed by the treaty of Cassius and the dedication of the temple of Castor (see n. on 19 below), so that A. Postumius was dictator in 496 not 499. Now Licinius appears to have believed that only consuls could be appointed 281

2. i8. 4

501 B.C.

dictators (18. 5 n.), but if Larcius were the first dictator and Postumius were dictator in 499, Larcius could only have been dictator in 501, his first consulship, not 498, his second. T h e truth is given by Varro (ap. Macrobius 1.8. 1) who states that Larcius as dictator dedicated the temple of Saturn in 497 (21. 1 n . ; cf. D.H. 6. 1.4). This statement must have had documentary backing behind it. T h e Latin threat was gathering strength in the early years of the century. Anticipating an emergency Rome appointed her first dictator in 497 but the threat did not actually materialize until the following year. T h e confusion was caused, at least in part, by the misdating of the Battle of Lake Regillus and the assumption that dictators held office in the same years that they were consuls. See the full discussion and bibliography given by Staveley, Historia 5 (1956), 101-7; add von Liibtow, Das Romische Volk, 205 fF. 18. 4. sed: N reads sed nee quo anno nee quibus facti consulibus. facti is untranslatable and may be deleted as an anticipation of factione below or, less well, transposed after essent (Welz). Exception has also been taken to nee quo anno on the score that it involves a zeugma, 'it is not known either in what year (it happened) or which consuls were mistrusted'. T h e zeugma, or rather the ellipse of the verb in the first member of a two-member interrogative clause, can be justified (cf. 21. 4, 6. 18. 16, 23. 34. 5, 27. 13. 3, 30. 38. 3, 34. 2. 5) and the convention of specifying dates both anno and consulibus (cf. 2 1 . 4 ; Ovid, Ars Amat. 2. 663-4) is too characteristic to be sacrificed. So also H . J . Miiller, Pettersson, and Bayet. 18. 5. consulates legere: as the text stands consulates must be the object and not the subject (S. P. Thomas, Symb. Arct. 1 (1922), 53) of legere, since L. goes on to argue about the consular status of the rival claimants. T h e subject will be Romani or the Senate understood. T h e fact that the actual nomination rested solely with the consuls is irrelevant. One difficulty is that of the early dictators known to us several had not in fact held the consulship or its equivalent. Such are M \ Valerius in 494 (18. 6 n.), Q . Servilius in 435 and 418, A. Postumius in 431, and P. Cornelius in 408. T h e law de dictatore creando, if it existed, must have been specifically concerned with the particular appointment of Larcius and not have been a general law laying down the terms and conditions of the dictatorship in general, but it cannot be genuine. I suspect that Licinius invented the law to accord with later practice. T h e sense of the passage would be greatly improved if, with Karsten, we read consulares legere (inf.) lex iubebat. 18. 6. M\ Valerium: the son of M . Valerius consul of 505 (16. 1) to be distinguished from his uncle the dictator of 494 (30. 5 n., 3. 7. 6 n.). Festus (216 L.), following the same source, also credits him with the first dictatorship but it is a clear case of the gens Valeria claiming pre282

5 0 1 B.C.

2. 18. 6

cedence under the inspired hand of Valerius Antias. It is inconceivable that the nephew should be dictator before the uncle. No consulship is in fact recorded for him but it is possible he is one of those who met their death in 486 (Festus 180 L.). magistrum: alluding to the title magister populi. 18. 7. quin si: qui si of N can be kept, the subject being supplied from appositum; cf. 5. 52. 3 (Pettersson). 18.8. provocatio: the statement that the dictator was from the begin­ ning uniquely free from provocatio is untrue of the early period and reflects the distaste and alarm with which Licinius Macer and others viewed the revival of the dictatorship by Sulla. It would appear that consuls as well enjoyed the power of coercitio, unrestricted except by convention or at their option, down to at least 300 B.C. See Siber, Zeit. Sav.-Stift. 62 (1942), 3796°.; Staveley, op. cit. 107. 18. 10. orantibus: the interchange between the Romans and the Sabines is summed up in a neat sententiay which was not perhaps excogitated by L. himself (cf. Quintilian, Decl. 290); for bella ex bellis severe cf. 21. 10. 4; 31. 6. 4; Sallust, Epist. Mithr. 20; cf. Propertius 3. 5. 12; Lucretius 5. 1202; Euripides, Ion 1279. 19-20. The Battle of Lake Regillus 19.1. Ser. Sulpicius: N has thepraenomen Servilius, so also D.H. 5. 42. 1, but 'Servius? was hereditary in the family. The same mistake is made in the notice of his death (3. 7.6n.). Since both passages are Licinian, Servilius may have been what L. wrote. He is the first recorded mem­ ber of his family which, in the branch of the Camerini, was prominent throughout the first two hundred years of the Republic. The gens may have originated from Lanuvium (but cf. Tacitus, Annals. 3. 48; see Sydenham no. 572) and was patrician. Under this year D.H. records a lengthy conspiracy by the Tarquins which is closely modelled on the Catilinarian conspiracy. Schwartz pointed out the damaging fact that in both years a Tullius was consul and C. Sulpicius was a praetor in 63, an energetic assistant of Cicero's (in CatiL 3. 8). M\ Tullius: on the name see 1. 39. 1 n. Cicero, commenting on the falsifications of history, writes (Brutus 62): 'ut si ego me a M \ Tullio esse dicerem qui patricius cum Servio Sulpicio consul anno x post exactos reges fuit\ But, like Cassius and Brutus, he may really have been a plebeian. The only other Tullius recorded in the Fasti before Cicero is the consul of 81 B.C. The Capitoline Fasti gave him the cognomen Longus but a Tullius Tolerinus, listed by Festus 180 L. as one of those cremated in 486, is likely to be the same person, suggesting that he came from Tolerium (39. 4 n.). See Munzer, R.E., 'Tullius (41)'. nihil: thus showing that Licinius' dating of the dictatorship of T. Larcius must be wrong. 283

2. ig. i

499 B.C.

T. Aebutius: the name is Etruscan (Schulze 279), as also is the cognomen Helva so common in the gens, and Helvae are found at Glusium (CLE. 2270). C Vetusius: 3. 4. 1 n., 8. 2 n. T h e Veturii were one of the oldest R o m a n gentes in that they gave their name to the old tribe Voturia, which included Ostia and the coastal strip at the mouth of the Tiber. A family shrine corroborates that the Veturii had ancestral lands in that area (Cato, Or. fr. 74 Malcovati; see L. R. Taylor, Voting Dis­ tricts, 42). Whether the Veturii were in origin a Latin folk of the plains is less sure. Schulze (380) regarded the name as Etruscan and an Etruscan craftsman Mamurius Veturius is told of in the time of Numa, but a Sabine origin is on other grounds more acceptable. M read C Vetusius Veturius Vetusius, incorporating evidently an extra-Nicomachean gloss. It is not impossible that the form of the name with the intravocal s was primary and passed out of use after 312. If Vetusius is the right reading here it will be an antiquarian revival such as may be attri­ buted to Licinius Macer and the libri lintei. D.H. gives the praenomen IIoTrXtos, Cassiodorus L. 19. 2. Fidenae: for the early history of the town see 1. 14. 4-15 n. T h e events of this period leave no doubt that Rome was determined to secure firm control of the left bank of the Tiber north of Rome. T h e capture of Grustumeria was followed by the creation of two new tribes (the Glaudian and the Clust.) which extended R o m a n territory as far as Nomentum. An attack on Fidenae, which remained for a century a menacing enclave in R o m a n territory, was a natural con­ comitant of the same expansion. L. might seem to imply by the word obsessae that Rome was unsuccessful in her attack. D.H., however, who has no word about Crustumeria, dates under 504 a capture of Fidenae, adding that the people were allowed to retain the city but had to give up some of their land. At 4. 17. 1, when Fidenae is next mentioned by L., it is described as a colonia Romana. We must, therefore, infer that the R o m a n annalists believed that Fidenae had been colonized by R o m e at a very early date. This, however, looks like special pleading. It would be galling to Roman pride to accept that a town so small and so near should have retained its independence so long. Rome's sub­ sequent atrocities against her could be sen ten tiously justified if Fidenae were pictured as a disloyal colony. In short the siege of Fidenae may be authentic, its capture scarcely so. T h e whole notice may come from the Annales: it is at least true. Crustumeria-. 1. 9. 8 n. D.H. 3. 49. 6 has an alternative version that Grustumeria was incorporated by Tarquinius Priscus, and he is accepted by Sherwin-White (Roman Citizenship, 18-19) on the grounds that the ager Crustuminus enjoyed a special religious position (41. 13. 1-3). T h e argument is nullified by the fact that the ager Veientanus had 284

499 B.C.

2. 19. 2

the same standing. T h e strongest reason for believing that L. pre­ serves a genuine detail is the creation of the two extra tribes in 495 (21.711.).

Praeneste: mod. Palestrina, occupying a commanding outcrop of the Apennines 23 miles from Rome. T h e name suggests an Illyrian foundation which may be mirrored in the tradition that m a d e Telegonus, Odysseus' son, its founder (Propertius 2. 32. 4 ; Aristocles ap. [Plutarch], parall. 41), but any Illyrian traces were soon overlaid by a cosmopolitan mixture of Etruscan and Sabine influences. Her cults (e.g. Hercules) and her family-names (e.g. Saufeius) are strongly Sabine, while her architecture and writing are marked by Etruscan features. For Praeneste lay on the borders of the two civilizations. T h e earliest inscription written in Latin comes from Praeneste and was engraved in this period c. 500. She was one of the Thirty Peoples who signed the Latin treaty (D.H. 5. 61) but we do not know when, except that it was before her revolt in 381 (6. 21. 9). I would hazard that her Latin contacts only seriously began with the expansion of Rome to the east, the decline of the Sabines, and the rebuffs to Etruscan expansion which started with Aricia and culminated in Cumae. In 499 Praeneste is unlikely to have been a member of the Latin League but it is reasonable to suppose that she entered into some relations with Rome and that those were recorded in the Annales. T h e Terentilii may .have come to Rome from Praeneste (3. 9. 2 n.). See Radke, R.E., 'Praeneste'. 'A purely Homeric battle', Macaulay exclaimed. Of all the engage­ ments which L. describes in the early books none is told with more verve or more brilliance. This very artistry has led many scholars to question whether it was ever fought. Some would see an inextricable confusion of times and persons throughout these years, from which only the hazy outline of a battle and a treaty can be discerned. Aricia and Regillus, Larcius and Horatius, Valerius and Herminius, dictator­ ships and revolts are duplicated to provide some spurious pattern. Such radical scepticism is misplaced. Details and dates may be corrupt or fictitious but if the underlying pattern makes historical sense, the onus of proof rests with the doubter who can produce no more per­ suasive argument than that his reconstructions are more satisfying. And the underlying pattern does make sense. Something must have happened to necessitate the dictatorship. Something must have hap­ pened to explain the Latin treaty of Sp. Cassius. T h e efforts which Rome was making to secure her defences by expanding to the east would not have passed unnoticed by the Latins. Even if family tradi­ tions are suspect—and the Battle of Regillus was certainly a heredi­ tary legend among the Postumii—and even if the memories of military 285

2. 19-20

499 B.C.

practice are liable to distortion—and a curiosity of some importance is preserved in the dismounted fighting of 20. 10—no criticism can impair the date of the dedication of the temple of Castor (2. 42. 5 n.) which was vowed as a thanksgiving for the appearance of the Dioscuri in the battle. T h e addition of two new tribes in 495 is an incontrovertible symptom of a new spirit at Rome. Recovered from the humiliation and disasters of Porsenna's war, Rome under the leadership of forceful and imaginative plebeian consuls was anxious to secure a position of strength that would enable her to resist such attacks in the future. Lake Regillus is in Tusculan land. Rome was the aggressor. It is of a piece with the capture of Crustumeria and the alliance with Praeneste. As for the date of the battle, orthodox opinion held that it was fought in 496. This was Valerius Antias' date (21. 3, 22. 4 ; D . H . 6. 2. 3-22. 3) and it is the date generally recognized for centenary purposes. In 46 B.C. the moneyer M \ Cordius Rufus produced a series of coins figuring the Dioscuri (M. Grant, Roman Anniversary Issues, 15; Syden­ h a m no. 976) and the coins of A. (Postumius) Albinus, which picture the Dioscuri watering their horses at the Fons J u t u r n a e (Sydenham no. 612) are confidently dated to c. 96. In so far that 496 is closer to the signing of the treaty (495 or 493) and the dedication of the temple, 496 is to be preferred to 499. T h e later date was the conjecture of Licinius Macer. D.H., who gives an appreciably different account of the battle, in which Sex. Tarquinius plays a principal role (but cf. 1. 60. 2) since his father, the king, is absent, and two further Valerii, P. and M., nephews of M . Valerius (20. 1) are introduced, expressly states (6. 11. 2 ) : ALKIVVIOS /xev yap /ecu ol nepl JYAAiov ovSev ££r}TaKOTes OVT€ TWV ZIKOTCJV OVT€ TOiv SvvaTojv CLVTOV eladyovat, rov /JaoxAea TapKvviov ay(x)vt,£6fj,€vov d' ITTTTOV /ecu TirpcjaKoyLtvov. T h i s is 19. 6 Tarquinius Superbus equum admisit ictusque ab latere receptus in tutum est. I w o u l d

accept, therefore, the battle as genuine and 496 as the most probable date. For the site see 19. 3 n. For L. himself the chief attraction lies in the telling of the story. Several of the actual incidents of it are modelled directly on Homer. Thus the encounter between Valerius and Tarquinius (20. 1-3) is exactly modelled on the episode of Paris and Menelaus in the Iliad (3. 15 ff). Like Tarquinius, Paris begins by daring the Greeks to fight: like Tarquinius, ai/j 8' irdpatv etV tOvos ix^€T0 KVP7 dX^vojv when Menelaus appeared. No sooner has Valerius conquered than he is struck by an arrow: so Menelaus is wounded, albeit not mortally, by the archer Pandarus after his victory over Paris (4. 104-54). T h e wounding of Aebutius may be compared with the wounding of Agamemnon (11. 251-74) while Mamilius who is struck on his chest but recovers to inspire the Latins to new efforts finds his model in the 286

499 B.C.

2. I9~20

exploits of Hector (14. 402-15. 280). Finally, the desperate courage of the aged king (19. 6) has its counterpart in the gallant but ill-con­ sidered heroics of Nestor. Some colour, too, may be added from Greek battles in which the Dioscuri appeared (20. 12 n.). T h e Homeric character of the battle will stem from the oldest historians. L. makes his own improvements. Any reader familiar with Homer would expect the gods to participate in the fighting. So in the tra­ ditional version they did. T h e highlight of the battle was the epiphany of the Dioscuri. Even Licinius told it but there is not a word of it in L. In place of divine intervention h u m a n qualities are stressed—the ira of the contestants (19. 4, 8, 10, 20. 8, 13). O n the linguistic plane the same balance between the mythical and the real is maintained. Admittedly the general picture is of a battle between mounted 7rp6fjLaxoi but many of the terms used are contemporary, antesignani (20. 10), subsidiarii (20. 7), delecta manus (20. 5), and cohorts come from the military organization of classical times. T o match, L. uses a number of idioms of a military flavour (sermo castrensis) whose closest parallels are to be found in the author of the Bellum Hispaniense ( i g . 7 m , 2 0 . i o n . ) . At the same time as he makes the reader feel at home in such an un­ familiar type of warfare, he is careful not to lessen the sense of re­ moteness and antiquity. M a n y turns of phrase serve to convey the Homeric atmosphere (ig. 5 n., 20. 3 n., 20. 8 n., 20. i o n . ) . See Hiller, Commentationes Mommsenianae, 1877, 747; Halbfas, Theorie u. Praxis . . . hex Dionys von Halikarnass (Munster, 1910), 24; Plathner, Schlachtschilderungen, 26, 32-34; Burck 60-61 ; Klotz 227-30. 19. 3 . Regillum: D.H. shows that it was fought in hilly country and that the Latin base of operations was Corbio. T h e only site which satifies these conditions in agro Tusculano, an important requirement confirmed by the cult of Castor and Pollux (20. 12 n.), is Pontano Secco, two miles north of Frascati, where a platform of rough poly­ gonal stonework has been taken to be a commemorative altar. See T . Ashby, C.R. 12 (1898), 470; L. Pareti, Studi Romani 7 (1959), 1-30. 19. 5. miscuere: the phrase is never found in prose: cf. Lucretius 4. 1013, 5. 442 ; Virgil, Aeneid 10. 23, 12. 628. It corresponds to the Greek aWaiTTZlV

VCFfALVTjV.

procerum: 2. 46. 7 n. 19. 6. aetate . . . gravior: 3. 33. 6, 5. 12. n , 7. 39. 1, 10. 34. 12; Virgil, Aeneid 9. 246; Ovid, Her. 8. 31. 19. 7. impetum dederat: 51. 4, 3. 5. 10, 4. 28. 1, 5. 38. 3, 9. 43. 15, 10. 4 1 . 9; 37. 24. 2. T h e use of dare for facet'e in such periphrases is common enough, but impetum dare is only found before L. in Bell. Hisp. 25. 8 and after him in Tacitus, Annals 2. 20 (cf. Seneca, JV.Q,6. 7. 4), which suggests that like impressionem dare it is military slang. contraque: there is no need to alter the received contra quern. For the 287

2. ig. 7

499 B.C.

use of the relative cf. 5. 47. 8, 9. 40. 10, 10. 18. 9, 27. 16. 8 (Pettersson). 19. 8. venientium: the repetition after veniens is harsh and unlooked for in such a carefully written narrative. Gronovius's invehentium, although it cannot claim any manuscript authority, is attractive (cf. 1. 30. 10, 2. 49. 11, 10. 5. 7, 26. 4. 8, 29. 2. 12 et al.). 19. 10. films: presumably Titus Tarquinius, since Sextus (1. 60. 2) and Arruns (2. 6. 9) are both dead. 20. 3 . labentibus . . . defluxit: an imitation of the Homeric 6 8' VTTTIOS ovhti €p€laOr} (Iliad 7. 145, 11. 144, 12. 192). T h e use oidefluo is confined to verse (Bibac.^/r. 8 M. habenas misit equi lapsusque in humum defluxit; Ovid, Met. 6. 229; Virgil, Aeneid 11. 501). retardo is found only here in L. 20. 5. delectam: such corps d9 elites were first organized by Scipio Africanus Maior (29. 1. 1). 20. 8. insignem veste armisque: cf. Virgil, Aeneid 6. 403. 20. 9. veruto: 1. 43. 6. 20. 10. descendant: 24. 44. 10, 39. 31. 11. Elsewhere descendere ex equis is only found in BelL Hisp. 4. 2, 15. 2 and the Scrip tores Historiae Augustae which is decisive for its military tone; cf. Cicero, Cato 34. T h e curiosity of cavalry dismounting and fighting on foot may be instructive. There is good evidence to show that the original equites were not cavalry in the proper sense but mounted hoplites who used their horses, as Homeric heroes their chariots, to get to and from the scene of battle. If so, it looks as if a genuine detail has been remem­ bered about the conditions of primitive fighting. See W. Helbig, Die Equites als berittene Hopliten; H. Hill, Roman Middle Class, 2. dicto paruere: 18. 8, 9. 32. 4, 4 1 . 13. This synonym for the more technical dicto oboediens esse (5. 3. 8) is not found in classical prose, only in Plautus, Pers. 812; Terence, Hec. 564; Virgil, Aeneid 1. 695, 3. 189, 7. 4 3 3 ; cf. Ennius, Ann. 299 V. 20. 12. Castori: it was commonly believed that the worship of the Dioscuri reached R o m e in two distinct ways. T h e oldest cult was the cult of the Penates who were, and were identified with, the Dioscuri ([Servius], ad Aen. 3.12; other references in Weinstock J.R.S. 50 (1960), 112-13). Tradition avers that they came to R o m e from Lavinium and there is nothing to confute and much to support tradition on the point. T h e Penates must antedate the temple of Castor (and Pollux) by long enough for the essential identity of the two cults to be obfus­ cated. Castor and Pollux were venerated at many places, at Larinum, Ardea, Cora, and Ostia, but their principal shrine was at Tusculum (Cicero, de Div. 1. 9 8 ; C.I.L. 14. 2620). Lake Regillus lay in agro Tusculano so that it was natural to think that the Romans vowed a temple to the Brothers for having changed their allegiance and aided 288

499 B.C.

2. 20. 12

the Romans in battle. Not strictly an evocatio, but analogous, and the cult must have come from a Latin rather than a Greek source for the decemviri s.f. had no say over it. Such seems to have been the belief of the ancients too. A coin of L. Servius (Sulpicius) Rufus c. 43 B.C. (Sydenham no. 1081) depicts on the obverse the Dioscuri and on the reverse a view of Tusculum with a gateway inscribed TUSGUL. A com­ plicating factor is the recent discovery at Lavinium of a bronze tablet dated to the fifth century and inscribed GASTOREI PODLOVQVEIQVE QVROIS (see Castagnoli, Studi e Materiali 30 (1959), 109 ff.). It indicates that the cult of the brothers as Castor and Pollux as well as Penates was prevalent at Lavinium at much the same time as the dedication of the temple at Rome. T h e importance of the dis­ covery should not, however, override the much greater weight of evidence in favour of a Tusculan origin. For the title and date of the temple see 42. 5 n. L. blandly omitted the theophany which was the motive for the vow and the climax of the engagement. T h e participation of the Dioscuri in battle is a common Greek tale (cf. their presence at Aegospotamoi; the Battle of the Sagra: see Frazer, The Magic Art, 2. 50), but after Lake Regillus their next activity on R o m a n behalf is not till Pydna in 168 (Cicero, deJVat. Deorum 2. 6 ; Val. Max. 1.8. 1) and then against the Cimbri (Pliny, N.H. 7. 86) and at Pharsalus (Dio 41. 61). This should not, however, lead us to believe that the story of their presence at Lake Regillus was a late invention based on Greek history. Theophanies in the heat of combat are more widely current than that. T h e Romans believed that the Dioscuri sided with them. For other examples see Mayor on Cicero, loc. cit. See Wissowa, Religion, 268 ff.; Wilamowitz, Sappho u. Simon. 234; Mattingly and Robinson, P.B.A. 18 (1932), 245 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 173 ff. For the temple see Platner-Ashby s.v. See also R . Bloch, Rev. de Phil. 34 (i960), 182-93. 20. 13. triumphantes: a loose use. Only the dictator triumphed : A. Postu[mius P.f.-n. Albus] Regil[lensis diet, de Latineis]. 2 I . 4 9 8 - 4 9 5 B.C. 2 1 . 1. Q.Cloelius: 13. 6 n. A. Sempronius: consul again with M . Minucius in 34. 7. Both con­ sulship shave been disputed as late interpolations (a Minucius was consul in 305, a Sempronius in 304) but the Minucii were an oldestablished family (3. 33. 3 n.) and the Sempronii supply consular tribunes in 444, 425, 420, 416, and consuls in 444 (but see 4. 7. i o n . ) and 423. In historical times they were a plebeian family, which has been held against their early magistracies. Even if a transitio adplebem is excluded there is nothing to prevent plebeians having held the 814432

289

u

2. 21. I

497 B.C.

consulship in the early years (cf. Cassius, Brutus, Menenius) and their prominence in the lists of consular tribunes is in favour of plebeian status. A. Sempronius, at least, must be genuine, for he is among those listed by Festus (180 L.) as having been cremated in the Circus. 2 1 . 2. Saturno: the construction of the temple is attributed variously to Tullus Hostilius, Tarquinius Superb us (Varro ap. Macrobius i. 8. i ) , T . Larcius (D.H. 6. 1.4), Postumus Cominius, or L. Furius, trib. mil. (Gellius ap. Macrobius: see 4. 25. 5 ; he was perhaps re­ sponsible for the restoration after the Gallic sack), in addition to Sempronius and Minucius. There was clearly no substantive evidence, but the cult itself must be of high antiquity. T h e name Saturn is Etruscan (cf. Volturnus, J u t u r n a ) and there was an archaic altar on the site of the later temple (Festus 430 L.). T h e Saturnalia also must, in origin at least, be an old winter festival. Although there is no connexion between Saturnus and sata (crops), yet the festival was held on 17 December, at the end of the year, and the sigillaria and other magic spells are proper to festivals celebrating the end of one agricultural year and seeking success for the next. A temple is likely to have been con­ structed in the opening decades of the Republic to supersede the primi­ tive altar but the notice that dated the institution of the Saturnalia to the same date is simply a confusion based on the coincidence of the natalis of the temple with the festival (C.I.L. i 2 , pp. 245, 337). U n d e r the year 217 L. writes (22. 1. 20): 'Saturnalia diem ac noctem clamata populusque eum diem festum habere ac servare in perpetuum iussus'. W h a t L., forgetful of the present passage, mistakenly regards as the institution of the Saturnalia, was a radical reorganization of it under Greek influence which introduced a lectisternium and other ceremonies derived from the worship of Kronos. See Wissowa, Religion, 204 ff.; Platner-Ashby s.v.; Herbig, Philologies 74 (1917), 446 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 254-5; ^. Gjerstad, Hommages Grenier, 2. 757 ff. 2 1 . 3 . dubiae: D.H. gives an extended account of the affair. T h e suspicion looks like a precedent for domestic malice between the Verginii and the Postumii but no historical issue comes to mind. T h e Postumii seem to have broken with the Glaudian-Fulvian party in 180 B.C. and a L. Verginius served under Q . Claudius in 207 (see Scullard, Roman Politics, igo ff.). 2 1 . 4 . tanti errores implicant temporum: is taken to mean 'such mistakes of date perplex (the historian)' but the absolute use of implico is un­ paralleled and cannot be justified on the pretext that L. is here speak­ ing propria persona or that there are other inelegancies in this scrappy chapter (21. 6 n.), as Brakman would defend it. An object for implicant must be provided. Duker read tempora, but it is not so much the years that are confused as the reckoning of years, i.e. temporum (jationem) (Wolfflin, H . J . and M . Muller). errores, however, is 290

496 B.C.

2. 21. 4

naturally qualified by the gen. temporum as at i. 24. 1 nominum error manet, so that it is better to look elsewhere for the object. Nettleship's errores res is the neatest and most satisfactory conjecture. quos: Pettersson would retain quosdam which is senseless in this context. Perizonius proposed to delete secundum quosdam altogether b u t -dam is an easy dittography after -dum and for two questions combined in an ind. question cf. 10. 14. 2, 26. 13. 6, 30. 42. 18, 36. 2. 1. 2 1 . 5. Ap. Claudius: the Elogium (Inscr. Ital. 13. 67), perhaps first set up by Ap. Claudius Caecus to accompany a statue in the temple of Bellona (10. 19. 17), reads Ap. Claudius Q. Urb. Cos. Cum P. Servilio Pr[isco. P. Servilius: the first consul from that patrician family (1. 30. 2 n.). Aristodemum: the historians (D.H. 7. 2 ; Plutarch, de Mul. Virt. 21) tell us that he was the son of Aristocrates and surnamed 6 ILCLXOCLKOS. His military prowess gained him the tyranny of Cumae (c. 504) which he consolidated with the tyrant's traditional arts of proscription and bodyguards. His end was swift and violent: a conspiracy of exiles in the 480's and murder at the hands of his concubine, Xenocrite, who chose as her reward the priesthood of Demeter. T h e story has been treated with reserve by historians b u t is borne out by circumstantial events. It was the age of tyrants in M a g n a Graecia and tyrants always endeavoured to conceal their naked power by economic prosperity. T h e coinage of Cumae begins c. 500 (Sambon, Les Monnaies antiques, 1, no. 244). It is a rich coinage, reminiscent of the coinage of Samos in its motif of a lion's head between two boars' heads. T h e link between Cumae and Samos was provided by the colony of Dicaearchia founded by fugitives from the tyranny of Polycrates II of Samos. Such a coinage is the creation of a tyrant. Cumae's position on the edge of the Greek and Etruscan worlds was a delicate one. Aristodemus seems to have observed that her true interests lay with the maritime states of Etruria rather than with the Greek cities or with inland Etruria. It is significant that he is said to have abolished that most Greek of all institutions, the Gymnasium (D.H. 7. 9. 3), and that during the period of his reign Cumae switched from a commercial to an agri­ cultural economy. She became one of the main grain suppliers in Italy, indispensable for the support of Rome as of Tarquinii or Caere. No wonder that the priesthood of Demeter was so prized, that R o m e copied her cult in the cult of Ceres, and that Aristodemus was anxious that R o m e should not pass into the hands of the inland powers. H e harboured Tarquin because he thought that Tarquin represented the best hope of keeping Rome in the coastal trade association. See Niese, R.E., 'Aristodemus'; B. Combet Farnoux, Mel. a"Arch, et a"Hist. 69 (i957)> 7-442 1 . 6. iniuriae: the slant is Licinian. 291

2. 2 1 . 6

4 9 5 B.C.

coepere: the use of the active of coepisse with passive infinitives not used medially is avoided by Cicero and Caesar. With fieri L. else­ where uses coeptum esse (3. 65. 7, 8. 2. 6, 9. 42. 7, 43. 16, 21. 58. io, 24- i9- 9>47- 4, 48. i3> 25. 1 1 . 6 , 3 4 . i 3 J 2 7 . 4 2 . 5 5 3 I - 2 3 - 7, 37- J 8 . 9> 38. 4 1 . 7, 44. 13. 4) but the solitary exception is to be claimed not as a poeticism but as an oversight. In this passage L. is briefly and some­ what casually listing a number of events which have no interest for him since they have no historical possibilities. For similar off-hand uses of language see Introduction p . 21. See Wolfflin, Livian. 21 ; Stacey, Archiv f. Lat. Lex. 10 (1898), 6 6 ; Gries, Constancy, 6 6 - 6 7 ; Lofstedt, Syntactica, 2. 123; Riemann 208-13. 2 1 . 7. Signia: 1. 56. 3 n. It might seem an impossibly bold move at this date to colonize Signia, an outpost as far from Tusculum as Tusculum was from Rome, but Volscian hostilities were a real threat and the decisive Battle of Lake Regillus, by uniting a major part of the Latin world behind Rome, had enabled the allies to face the Volscians on the frontiers of Latium. Signia is not to be thought of as a colonia in the later sense but as a blockhouse dividing the Hernici from the Volscians and keeping watch over the Trerus valley. una et viginti: N read una et triginta (or the equivalent numerically). una et viginti is the reading solely of FB which do not constitute 'excellent ms. authority' (L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 6 n. 11) but twenty-one is undoubtedly the correct total. There is a record of four new tribes in 387 and of two each in 358, 332, 318, 299, and 241 which, since the final number of tribes was never more than thirty-five, means that there were twenty-one before 387 (cf. 4. 46. 1). Excluding the four urban tribes, and the Claudia and Clustumina, the remaining fifteen all are named after gentes, some of whom were prominent in the early Republic while others had evidently passed from the scene even before the Republic dawned. There is thus a clear-cut break between the old and the later rural tribes. T h e Claudia and the Clustumina would make the total up to twenty-one. T h e Clustumina can only have been created after the fall of that city (19. 1), but need not have waited for the fall of Fidenae in 426 which was only an enclave guarding a river crossing. Rome required extra agricultural land. Geographical considerations would require that the Claudia was incorporated simultaneously. It was called after the gens more perhaps in honour of the consul of the year than because the Claudii monopolized the land. (See, however, the views of Badian, J.R.S. 52 (1962), 201.) una et viginti, therefore, is what truth requires. It is the total given by D.H. (7. 64) and by the Epitome of L. (numerus tribuum ampliatus ut essent xxi). T h e mistake X X X I for X X I is easy, but I suspect that it is rather a 'correction 5 by the Nicomachean editors. Vennonius, quoted 292

4 9 5 B.C.

2. 2 1 . 7

by D.H., said that Servius divided the ager into thirty-one parts and thirty-one was the number of rural tribes throughout classical times. This may have influenced the text. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 166 n. 3 ; Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 2643*.; von Lubtow, Das Romische Volky 41 ff.; Bernardi, Athenaeum 30 (1952), 3 ff.; A. Alfoldi, Fest­ schrift E. Salin, 117 ff.; Hermes 90 (1962), 206-7. aedes Mercuri: 27. 5 n. 22-33. 4. The Struggle for the Tribunate The Romans claimed that the years 495-3 were years of turmoil during which theplebs > oppressed by debt and military service, agitated for a magistracy of their own to protect them from the outrages per­ petrated by the patricians and eventually were rewarded with the tribunate. The claim deserves examination before it is dismissed as a fiction. The two foundations on which it is built are economic de­ pression and the debasement of the plebs. The first is clear enough. Tyrants habitually stimulate expansion and Tarquin was no excep­ tion. The public works at Rome alone are pointers to his prosperity. But with the expulsion of the Tarquins and the capture of Rome by Porsenna, the country fell on hard times. We do not know whether Porsenna imposed any restrictive terms on Roman trade. We do know that twice in twenty years Rome was affected by severe shortages of grain. More important still she founded a temple of Mercury (27. 5 n.). A community only propitiates its gods with such foundations when things are going wrong. Ceres is vowed a temple in time of famine, Apollo in time of plague, Mercury in time of commercial failure. Some support for this depression can be seen archaeologically. There is a steady decline in the imports of Attic Red Figure vases after 500. Moreover, the creation of new tribes shows that the population was rising faster than the acreage. The position of the plebs has been so overlaid with prejudice and dogmatism that it is difficult to discern the truth. Three details may be significant. The Fasti for 509-486 reveal a high proportion of plebeian gentes, among them the Larcii, the Junii, the Cominii, the Cassii, the Menenii, the Tullii, and the Sempronii, the great majority of whom are of proven Etruscan extraction. After 485 such plebeian gentes do not figure in the Fasti; indeed the Larcii, Junii, Cominii, Cassii, and Tullii disappear for good together with other gentes who gave their names to some of the old tribes, while the Sempronii and Menenii have to wait fifty years before obtaining office again. Secondly, the new cults of Ceres and Mercury were predominantly plebeian cults. Thirdly, the leading statesman of these years, Sp. Cassius, who aimed to meet Volscian agression by a policy of Latin alliances and Etruscan friendship, was himself a plebeian. 293

2. 22-33- 4

4 9 5 B.C.

It is, therefore, hard to see what grievances the plebeians as such could have had. They were not excluded from office, they were not deprived of the consolations of religion. T h e economic stagnation was the same for all, plebeians and patricians. T h e struggle for the tri­ bunate cannot have arisen because the plebs were down-trodden or were righting for a voice of their own. Yet there is a connexion be­ tween the slump and the tribunate. T h e plebeian community consisted primarily not of farm-labourers but of petty craftsmen, traders and workers, in the city. Even at the worst times, unless there be severe overpopulation, m a n can grub a living from the soil and preserve his 'sturdy independence'. T h e industrial worker has no such recourse. At Rome he would have become bankrupt and there was only one answer to debt—nexum, a Tree' slavery (23. 1 n.). Now the distinguish­ ing power of the tribune was his power of auxilium, and it is precisely that power which could prevent a debtor who invoked it being claimed by his creditor. In other words, the tribunate was created, not because the plebeians were politically weak but because they were politically strong, strong enough to institute a revolutionary and extra-consti­ tutional office designed to frustrate the due processes of law. As events turned out, the tribunate altered with the changed political situation. Whatever Sp. Cassius' exact crime, his execution and the failure of his policy against the Volscians (Festus 180 L.) were attended by the discrediting of the plebeians. Whole gentes disappear from sight. Many no doubt returned to Etruria; for the new patrician regimen under the Fabii prosecuted a vigorous war against Veii, and Etruscan imports fall off sharply. There are certainly some events which are imaginative throwbacks from later times (27. 5 nn.) but there are details in the section which cannot be thought away—Cora and Pometia, the corona aurea (22. 6 n.), the temple of Mercury (27. 5 n.), Velitrae ( 3 1 . 4 n.), apart from the Fasti themselves. T h e tribunate belongs to the same hard core of facts, however much it has been dressed up. If we did not know that it was created in 493 the subsequent history of that and of the other political institutions at Rome would have obliged us to conjecture that it was created then. T h e traditional connexion between debt-problems and the tribunate is the only one that will explain the facts. T h e connexion has been confused by the Roman assumption of a political origin for the tri­ bunate. It is further confused by the fact that L., who is our primary source, did not care for such things. For him the whole episode dis­ closes the dangers that must face libertas if the state is divided (23. 2). Consequently—and a comparison with D.H. shows that this is L.'s own contribution—the whole struggle is planned and designed to lead up to the climax, Menenius' plea for concordia and the establish294

4 9 5 B.C.

2. 2 2 - 3 3 . 4

ment of the tribunate. L. is not interested in the constitutional details which D . H . laboriously rehearsed. With graphic portraits and drama­ tic incidents he constructs an action which will convey the reader inexorably to the final scene. T h e technique of his construction is clear-cut and can be set out diagrammatically: A. (1) External affairs: hostilities with Volscians (22. 1-4). (2) Internal affairs: negotiations with Latins (22. 5-7). B. T h e Political Struggle (1) Internal: the first act—entry of the nexi (23-24). (2) External: war against the Volscians (25), Sabines (26. 1-3), and Aurunci (26. 4-6). (3) Internal: the second act—plots and counter-plots, election of a dictator (27-30. 8). (4) External: war against the Aequi (30. 8-9), the Volscians (30. 10-15), a n d Sabines (31. 1-6). (5) Internal: the third act—secessio, concluded by a irepiTrireia (Menenius Agrippa): the tribunate (31. 7-33. 3). It will be seen how L. separates the different stages of the central action by the insertion of passages dealing with external affairs. H e employs this same device both at the beginning of Book 2 and in his treatment of the long negotiations of C. Terentilius Harsa. T h e acts of the drama itself are also distinguished. In the first L. puts on the stage before the reader a vivid picture of the nexi and the aged veteran. T h e second is a lurid story of cabals and secret intrigues, full of Catilinarian echoes. T h e third centres round a moving sermon on concordia. How much of this L. owed to his source cannot be proved. Probably very little, for his technique remains constant despite changes of source. Here at any rate he abandons Licinius. No other conclusion can be drawn from the doublets of 16. 8 and 22. 2 (Cora and Pometia) and 2 1 . 7 and 27. 5 (the temple of M e r c u r y ) ; hoc ira (22. 2) and recens (22. 4) presuppose the chronology which put Lake Regillus in 496 not 499. T h a t his new source is Valerius Antias seems evident from the eulogy in 30. 5 (cf. 31. 3 n.). It suits, too, the hostile attitude to the Glaudii evident from later books. For the source of 32. 3-33. 3 see below. O n the section as a whole see the dissertation by W. Kriiger, Ein Beitrag zur Darstellungskunst des T. Livius (Leipzig, 1938), who refers to earlier discussions. See also on individual items below. 22. Rome and Latium 22. 2 . trecentos: 16. 9 n. 22. 3 . suum rediit ingenium: for the psychology see 3. 36. 1 n. 295

2. 22. 4

49 5 B.C.

22. 4 . quoque: not 'they sent legates as well (as troops) to rouse Latium' but, taking quoque with the sentence as a whole, 'a further action was to send legates to rouse Latium 5 . 22. 5. sex milia: 5,500 in D . H . 6. 17. 2. D.H. gave the Latin army as 40,000 foot and 3,000 horse, the R o m a n as 23,700 and 1,000. It is fanciful to see in the numbers, as Klotz does, an echo of the forces engaged at Pharsalus. Such figures are typical of Valerius. In his account of the battle L. did not specify any totals. foedere: this may be a hidden allusion to the fact that the Latin treaty of Sp. Gassius was signed in this year rather than in 493. It is reasonable to expect it to come close on the heels of the battle and it is easy to see how if it were negotiated by Sp. Cassius and signed by him as fetial, not consul, it would subsequently be transferred to one of the years in which his name stood in the Fasti. 22. 6. in ingenti gloria: Gronovius and Porson (Adversaria 308) would delete in. in gloria esse is well attested in L. (cf. 1. 3 1 . ; 1) cf. also Cicero, adAtt. 14. 11. 1; de Off. 3. 85. coronam: 3. 57. 7 n. 23-24. The Nexi T h e problems arising from archaic R o m a n debt-procedure are com­ plicated by the disappearance of the system, known as nexum, in 326 (or 313 B.C.), long before the age of legal commentaries or textbooks. T h e procedure by which people became bondsmen (next) in con­ sequence of their debts was obscure even to the earliest classical jurists and more so to L. In addition to L. who refers to it on several occasions without describing it in detail (6. 14. 3, 7. 19. 5), it is men­ tioned once in the Twelve Tables (6. 1 cum nexum faciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto), by Festus (160 L. 'nexum est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, quodcumque per aes et libram geritur, id quod necti dicitur; quo in genere sunt h a e c : testamenti factio, nexi datio, nexi liberatio. nexum aes apud antiquos dicebatur pecunia quae per nexum obligatur'. See also Cicero, de Orat. 3. 159) and in a long note of Varro, de Ling, Lat. 7. 105: 'nexum Manilius scribit omne quod per libram et aes geritur in quo sint mancipia. Mucius quae per aes et libram fiant, ut obligetur, praeterquam mancipio dentur. hoc verissimum esse ipsum verbum ostendit de quo quaerit: n a m id quod obligatur per libram neque suum fit, inde nexum dictum, liber qui suas operas in servitutem pro pecunia quam <debet d a t ) , d u m solverit, nexus vocatur ut ab aere obaeratus', a passage which proves how little the ancients themselves knew about nexum. T h e analogy of nexum and mancipatio stated by the sources implies that in the former the creditor in the presence of the required five witnesses and scale-holder weighed out the copper which the other 296

49 5 B.C.

2. 23-24

party wished to borrow. In mancipatio, at least primitively, the res mancipiwas transferred in exchange for the copper weighed out and the propriety of the transaction was duly witnessed. In nexum the crucial question is what did the lender receive in exchange for the copper which he has transferred. The debtor is certainly not transferring himself. A nexus retained his civic rights (24. 6, 8. 28. 4 ; Val. Max. 6. 1.9) and could make contracts. Besides, Roman law acknowledged no such principle as self-mancipation. The only thing that he can have transferred is his services, his body (suae operae in Varro), and this is recognized by the lender chaining him as his side of the bargain. The formula which the lender would use as the transaction took place would be, e.g., *tu mihi nexus esto his c assibus aeneaque libra'. The transaction was then complete. The enslavement was immediate and automatic. It was an integral part of the transaction and the bondage was permanent. The form of the transaction might suggest that once it had been performed there was no legal obligation on the creditor to release the debtor, even if the debtor were subsequently able and willing to repay his debt. But in any case it is hard to see how the debtor, now giving his services as a bondsman, could ever hope to earn enough money (or its equivalent in kind) to offer the repayment and it is unlikely that his family would be able to come to the rescue. However, analogies from the debt-procedures at Athens and in other civilizations do strongly suggest that the bondsman could work off his debt by giving his services for a specified number of years. Furthermore the sources preserve record of two separate modes of release—a nexi liberatio (Festus), which will have needed the intervention of a third party, like a vindex, to transfer the services of the nexus from the creditor to his own person, since the nexus could clearly not perform his own release, and a solutio per aes et libram (Gaius 3. 174), in which the debtor himself repaid the money by a reverse process to that by which he had borrowed it. nexi liberatio implies that the nexus was really chained, whereas solutio per aes et libram suggests that the chaining was by then only symbolical, nexi liberatio, which must be the original form of release, also implies that the bondsman was not freed in con­ sideration of his repayment of his debt. Unless we are to assume that the creditor was motivated by purely philanthropic sentiments, we must believe that the debtor was able to discharge his debt by labour. By the time of the Twelve Tables, however, nexum was not the only method of contracting debt, stipulatio or verbal contract was also recognized in the Tables (Gaius 4. 17a). If a debtor was sued on a stipulation and was found against by a index or arbiter, he would as a iudicatus be immediately liable to manus iniectio with the eventual prospect of being killed or sold abroad (Aul. Gell. 20. 1. 47). The fact 297

2. 23-24

4 9 5 B.C.

that there were at least two methods of contracting debt at this period goes far to resolving much of the traditional dispute about nexum. L. speaks of a son entering into nexum on account of a debt which he had inherited from his father (8. 28) and of an insolvent debtor enter­ ing into nexum as a final recourse. This is intelligible if the previous debts had been incurred not under nexum but on a stipulation or similar contract. T h e debtor now contracted with his creditor: he was given a sum under nexum to pay his outstanding debts in exchange for his services. T h e solution had much to commend it to both parties. T h e creditor gained because he now had a bondsman whom he could maltreat at pleasure and exploit with impunity (23. 6 n.) instead of a iudicatus whom he had to keep for sixty days and treat with due attention the while (Twelve Tab. 3. 1-6), with only the doubtful satis­ faction at the end of killing him or selling him trans Tiberim. T h e debtor, on the other hand, whatever his plight, was at least better off nexus than servus or dead. T h e system was abolished because it gave too much power for the creditor to abuse. Self-help had too much scope and it was better for the obligations and the penalties to be more closely regulated by the state. It was not a pretty sight to see a Roman citizen in chains. nexum is obscure and controversial. The above account is no more than an attempt to state the issues and reconcile the facts. There is, however, no doubt that it was operative in the period of which L. is writing and that it would have been mitigated by tribunician auxilium (23. 8 n.). But the story in L. cannot itself go back to contemporary sources. T h e unkempt and impoverished centurion is one of the classic * stage 5 types of which Achaemenides in Virgil, Aeneid 3. 590 affords a good example (cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 3. 26), and his prolonged service is a theme which is often repeated (3. 58. 8, 4. 58. 13). These are the dramatic trappings. Underneath them lies a plot which bears every mark of being one of those case-histories invented by early lawyers to illustrate the workings of the Twelve Tables. There are several later instances, K. Quinctius and vadimonium, P. Sestius and cadavera, Verginia and vindiciae ad libertatem, the maid of Ardea and conubium. T h e present story besides showing nexum in action is concerned to establish the point that the nexus does not lose his citizen-rights (24. 6). T h a t is the point and the moral of the whole episode. L. adapts it, making it part of a continuous narrative instead of a selfcontained case and setting it in a contemporary atmosphere (23. 4 n., 6 n., 7 n.). T h e primary works on nexum are Huschke, Vber das recht das nexum (1846); Milleis, ZdU Sav.-Stift. 22 (1901), 96 ff; P. Noailles, Fas el Ius, 91-146; M . Kaser, Altromische Ius, 232-50 with full bibliography. See also de Zulueta, L.Q.R. 29 (1913), 137-53; von Lubtow, £«'/. 298

4 9 5 B.C.

2. 23-24

Sav.-Stift. 67 (1950), 112-61; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to Roman Law, 166-70. I find myself in general agreement with J. Imbert, Studi Arangio-Ruiz, 1. 339 fT.; Melanges H. Levy-Bruhl, 407 fT. 23. 4. ordines: Bayet, following the traces of ir\, reads the singular ordinem, but see 55. 4 n. ostentabat: it was a popular forensic flourish to display one's scars adverso pectore, as evidence of patriotism and merit. Notoriously M. Antonius had secured acquittal for M \ Aquilius in 99 by such a pathetic revelation (Cicero, de Orat. 2. 124, 195). Cf. also Sallust, Jugurtha 85. 29 (Marius). There was no denned limit of military service: the soldier served Tor the duration'. 23. 5. iniquo: 'at a time that was ruinous for him'; cf. 31. 31. 12. 23. 6. ergastulum: the detail is authentic, for the nexus could be made to work for his creditor although he was not technically a servus, but the term itself is anachronistic, ergastula were the prisons, usually underground, in which chained slave-gangs were kept. The name implies that they worked there, although in historical times ergastula were only the quarters in which the slave lived who worked on the fields, especially on latifundia. Condemning free men as a punishment to the ergastula was an innovation of the times of Marius and Sulla (cf. Suetonius, Aug. 32 : ergastilus first Lucilius 503 M.). Thus although the centurion was legally accurate in claiming that he was not being enslaved but being made to work, ergastulum is Sullan colour­ ing. In the late Republic ordinary household slavery was regarded as preferable to service in an ergastulum, whereas in 494 any debtor would have chosen to work rather than to be a slave. The extent of the anachronism is shown by Vogt, L.E.C. 9 (1941), 31-3423. 7. clamor ingens oritur: cf. Sallust, Jugurtha 57. 3. tenet: accounts better for the impossible sustinet of N (dittography after tumultus) but continet is a choicer word; cf. 39. 17.4. 23. 8. nexi, vincti solutique: vincti solutique must be in apposition to nexi —'the nexi, both those in fetters and those who were released5—but the sense is not clear. It could mean that all nexum-debtors turned up, both those who were actually in fetters and those who were, as it were, on parole, being allowed by their creditors as an act of grace to go about their work without being fettered (so, I think, de Selincourt takes it: 'debtors of all conditions, some actually in chains'). This, however, does violence to the natural meaning of soluti which should refer to those who had been released from the debt and their /lexzzm-status altogether. Alternatively it could mean that all who were or had at any time been nexi, both those now in fetters and those who had been freed. This suits soluti better but one might ask why the soluti, who were presumably free men no longer under any obligation to their erstwhile creditors, should have been reduced to an appeal to 299

2. 2 3 - 8

49 5 B.C.

the Quiritium fidem. On balance, therefore, the former meaning is pre­ ferable (see Salmasius, De Modo Usur. 837). I do not see how Nettleship's removal oivincti as a gloss or Bauer's deletion o f - ^ c o n t r i b u t e s to the solution of the difficulty. implorant Quiritium fidem: 3. 41. 4, 44. 7; cf. Seneca, EpisL 15. 7; Petronius 2 1 . 1 . The only defence open to a man who was threatened either with magisterial coercitio or legal manus iniectio was an appeal for active help from the multitude. Varro cites the archaic term for this practice which is well exemplified in Plautus, Rudens 615, as 'quiritare'. Out of this de facto appeal for help grew, on the one hand, the for­ malized provocatio which recognized the people as a possible court of appeal and, on the other, tribunician auxilium which regularized the process by which the appellant could be protected. See Greenidge, Roman Legal Procedure, 311; Staveley, Historia 3 (1955), 418; G. Broggini, Iudex Arbiterve (1957), 40 n. 44. Cf. the parallel procedure oiflagitatio (H. Usener, Kl. Schriften, 4. 356 ff.). 23. 12. infrequentiam: 4. 47. 6 n. For the picture of senators reluctant to walk abroad or perform their legislative duties cf. 3. 38. 8 ff. with notes. It is modelled on the sparse attendances during the 8o's. L. definitely implies that the meeting was abortive because a quorum was not present. This is anachronistic. A quorum was only required in the late Republic and then only for certain matters of business (Balsdon, J.R.S. 47 (1957), I9" 2 0 )23. 14. prope erat ut: see Austin on Quintilian 12. 7. 1, but the use is not colloquial. tandem curia: the repetition of tandem is awkward but not unparal­ leled (cf. 18. 2 n., 25. 6 n.). If any change is needed, read tamen (Wesenberg) rather than iam (Gronovius). 23. 15. Appius: the policies of the opposing consuls would have done credit to a slogan-writer of the 6o's or 50's, and, indeed, the characterstudy of Appius is likely to have been artificially constructed by Valerius Antias himself (56. 5 n.). flecti . . . frangi cf. Cicero, pro Sulla 18; for tutius . . . facilius cf. Seneca, de Bene/. 3. 30. 3, 4. 23. 3 ; Suetonius, Aug. 4.7. 24. 1. duos ex una: 3. 67. 10, 9, 5. 5 nn. For the Latin intelligence see 3. 4. 10 n. 24. 2. exultare gaudio: cf. Cicero, in Catil. 1. 26; Phil. 2. 65. ultores: predicative. 'The gods were at hand to avenge patrician arrogance.' The plebeian arguments betray little originality. A later Ap. Claudius uses the same hackneyed argument about pericula and praemia (5. 4. 4 n.), while the determination to bring everything down in one's own ruin is a commonplace threat, for which cf. Cicero, pro Sestio 99 and in Catil. 4. 14. 300

49 5 B.C.

2. 24- 4

24. 4. maxima quidem ilia: Alan wished to rephrase the sentence maxima ilia quidem parte civitatis sed tamen parte, but for the position of quidem cf. 28. 42. 5, 42. 8. 1 : see Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: 'ad Atticum\ 76-77. 24. 5. nee posse: Servilius seconds his pious sentiments with extreme syntactical obscurity. T w o preliminary points can be cleared up. N read hostes between cum and prope which was omitted perhaps by error in the O.G.T. (it is printed in Conway's Pitt Press edition) and which greatly clarifies the situation. Secondly N's praevertisse would be not merely an unexampled intransitive use of praevertere but an equally unparalleled instance of the aorist sense of the perf. inf. after posse. L. must have written praeverti (3. 22. 2). 'When the enemy are at the gates, nothing can take priority over w a r / a se which is added by Bayet, following Pohlig, although Ruperti seems to have prece­ dence for the conjecture, would refer to the Senate, which unduly limits the area of concern and is superfluous since praevertisse for prae­ verti is adequately accounted for by the perfect infinitives before and after. T h e overall structure of the whole sentence is 'nee (1) cum hostes . . . essent, praeverti quicquam nee (2) si sit laxamenti aliquid (a) plebi honestum . . . non cepisse (b) patribus decorum . . . consuluisse'. Two main propositions are stated, the second of which is subdivided into two. T h e trouble arises when in the subdivision L. writes nee (2) . . . aut plebi . . . neque patribus, where either out patribus or neque plebi (the secondary neque . . . neque resuming the negation after the introductory nee (2)) would be logically anticipated. T h e inconsis­ tency can be emended {outpatribus H . J . Miiller; velpatribus Ruperti), although neither Novak's deletion of aut nor Wienkauff's proposed sat plebi honestum (cf. 36. 40. 9) is acceptable because both destroy the balanced colon in which plebi and patribus match one another im­ mediately after the disjunctive particles. Alternatively it can and should be recognized as an inconcinnity, in a logical anacoluthon, caused by L.'s instinctive reluctance to employ a secondary nee . . . nee. A similar phenomenon is found in Fronto 165. 1 ff. van den Hout (see P. R. Murphy, A.J.P. 79 (1958), 50). Cf. also 10. 8. 3 and see Madvig's Cicero, de Finibus Excursus I, p . 794. 24. 6. edicto: 'by an edict', cf. 34. 8. 5, 35. 24. 3. T h e underlying principle of the edict is that the nexus retains his civic rights and obligations. These extended beyond military service (8. 28. 1 ff.). Notice the edictal language ne quis . . . neu quis (cf. S. C. de Bacch. 3 neiquis . . . velet; Gracchus ap. Aul. Gell. 10. 3. 3). 24. 7 sacramento: cf. 4. 53. 2. 301

2. 25-26

495 B.C. 25-26. Wars with the Volscians, Sabines, and Aurunci

T h e capture of Suessa Pometia looks like a piece of history. In effective contrast to the political passages L. employs a curt, military style of writing (25. 1 n., 25. 4 n., 25. 5 n., 26. 1 n., 26. 6 n.). T h e sentences are short and uncomplicated, the events related with economy. Much use is made of asyndeton. 25. 1. si qua . . .posset: 27. 14. 6, 30. 12. 1, 42. 67. 6 ; a characteris­ tically military turn of phrase for expressing the intention of an opera­ tion. Cf. Caesar, B.G. 6. 29. 4, 37. 4. M . Muller compares Thucydides 2. 77. 2. 25. 4. pavidos egit: cf. Caesar, B.G. 4. 12.2 withMeusel'snote 55. 1 7 . 3 . 25. 5. captum praedae datum: p. here is the act of plundering, rarely found without a qualifying n o u n ; cf. 7. 16. 4, 27. 44. 4. T h e phrase sounds like military slang (E. J . Kenney, C.Q. 9 (1959), 242, discus­ sing Ovid, Ars Amat. 1. 114). 25. 6. Ecetranorum: 3. 4. 2, 10. 8, 4. 61. 5, a capital of the Volsci often mentioned in the early wars (D.H. 4. 49, 6. 32, 8. 4, 10. 21) and listed by Pliny among the lost cites of Latium (JV.H. 3. 69). It lay on the edge of the Volscian domains nearest the Aequi and must have been close to Algidus. Ashby and Pfeiffer (Suppl. Papers, Am. School at Rome, 1 ( I 9°5)> 87-107) identify the site as Piano della Civita in the M t e . Lepini, some 26 miles from Rome. T h e remains, which they fully describe, are suitable in point of date for a city that was destroyed in 378. T h e walls are built of rectangular, undressed blocks of stone that must belong to the late fifth century. See also Hulsen, R.E., 'Ecetra*; Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 92-93. Crevier and Lallemand wished to delete Romam which precedes Ecetranorum in the text, and which indeed, as Madvig comments, 'ignave subicitur', but such repetitions (18. 2, 23. 14) are cumulatively self-supporting. 26. 1. praedabundum: here only in L. but cf. Sallust, Jug. 90. 2 ; Tacitus, Annals 3. 39. 1. 26. 3 . repleti: for the humiliation cf. the defeat of the Aetolians by Philip in 200 B.C. (31. 4 1 . 10 ff.; cf. 5. 44. 6). 26. 4 . partae: 5. 1. 1 n. 26. 6. itur . . . conlata . . . debellatum est: the use of the passive and in particular of the impersonal passive is a feature of military com­ muniques (cf. Caesar, B.G. 5. 40. 3 - 6 : see Fraenkel, Eranos 54 (1956), 189-94). 27-30. 8. The Second Act of the Political Struggle at Rome 27. 1. ius: the two categories of cases which L. quotes are the return of those who had been previously nexi to their creditors and the binding 302

49 5 B.C.

2. 27. I

of new next. T h e latter at least could have nothing to do with Appius' judicial activities. T h e contracting of a debt by nexum was a matter simply for lender and borrower. It is possible that by the category of ante nexi L. means those who had exercised their civic rights, although nexiy to join up, and who after the end of the campaign had attempted to avoid resuming bondage. But L. seems to be applying the procedures of later actions for debt to nexum with attendant confusion. 27. 2. inciderat: incideret Alan, cf. 3. 19. 4, 45. 8. ut [aut] . . . [aut] ut: to be retained, as Weissenborn, Bayet, Meyer, c f- 7- 39- IO> 4 2 - 53- 4- Pettersson, defending the text, cites 23. 7. 6 but admits that there is no exact parallel in L. T h e phenomenon, however, is not uncommon. Cf. Cicero, ad Fam. 11. 28. 8 (Matius); Varro, de Re Rust. 2. 7. 10. auxilio : 4 1 . 7 n. A loose use, since the consuls did not have auxilium. 27. 4. aequasse: more likely to be a corruption of adaequasse ( M ; cf. 1. 56. 2, 4. 43. 5) than vice versa. The Dedication of the Temple of Mercury T w o Homeric battles (19-20; 46-47), two duels between a Claudius and a Laetorius (27 : 56) serve to give a close-knit unity to the second book. T h e second Laetorius is modelled directly on the first and has no independent existence (56. 7 n.), so that the claims of the first need investigation. T h e Laetorii were Etruscan (Schulze 187) and plebeian, and in historical times were, like the Ogulnii, much concerned with religion. One member of the gens was magister equitum at the Latin festival (257 B.C.) and another a xvir s.f (27. 8. 4). Yet the family itself is not reliably attested at R o m e much before 300 (Val. Max. 6. 1. 11 ; D.H. 16.4. 2). It left its mark on R o m a n history by a notorious quarrel with the Servilii in the Punic Wars (30. 39. 8) and by produc­ ing a series of tough, blunt soldiers (56. 7 n.). These data explain the story of the dedication of the temple of Mercury. There can have been no documentary evidence for the date of its foundation, else there would not be the divergence between 2 1 . 6 and 27. 5. Nor can a Laetorius have dedicated it at so early a period. W e may assume that the original temple was restored c. 300 B.C. and re-dedicated by Laetorius whose name would have stood on the inscription. Such a dedication would be properly entrusted to a gens much occupied in religious affairs. Historians a century later, knowing that the temple itself went back to the 490's, invented an earlier M . Laetorius when they invented the characteristics of his family—a dislike for the Ser­ vilii and a military record. T h e story is given by Val. M a x . 9. 3. 6 but overlooked by D.H. See Wissowa, Religion, 304 ff.; Munzer, Romische Adelsparteien, 89-90; Altheim, Griech. Goiter im alien Rom, 79, 89 ff.; 303

2. 27« 4

495 B.C.

P . J . Riis, J.R.S. 36 (1946), 47; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 162-3; and for the temple itself see Platner-Ashby s.v. 27. 5. iussupopuli: 8. 6 n., as also for the role of the pontifex in dedica­ tions. praeesse annonae: 4. 12. 8 n. mercatorum collegium: the organization of guilds was quite separate from the maintenance of any particular cult. The guilds were formed as trade associations for the mutual benefit of the members. The diverse range of guilds which existed at Ostia has been recently illuminated by Meiggs (Ostia, 311 ff.) and Rome was even more prolific. It was, however, natural that the guilds should regard themselves as under the protection of a particular deity and that the mercatores should choose Mercury. They kept 15 May, the natalis of the temple of Mercury, as a special festival (Paulus Festus 135 L.; Macrobius 1. 12. 19). But the guild was essentially a secular body and its connexions with Mercury were secondary. It is true that there was a body of men, Mercuriales (Cicero, ad Q.F. 2. 5. 2; C.I.L. 14. 2105), dedicated to the service and maintenance of the cult of Mercury, but although these may have been members of a collegium mercatorum, the two bodies were not coextensive. Similarly, numerous collegia worshipped Minerva but they were not all responsible for the control of different temples. Valerius Antias has used the dedication of the temple as a peg on which to hang the institution of the collegium mercatorum. 27. 8. prae strepitu et clamore: cf. Sallust, Jugurtha 99. 3. Cf. the tumult of 89 B.C. when the praetor A. Sempronius Asellio was lynched for favouring not as here the creditors but the debtors (cf. Livy, Epit. 74; Appian, B.C. 1. 54; Val. Max. 9. 7. 4). 2 7 . 9 . periculum: rrX add liber tatis, neither an obvious gloss nor evidently misplaced, but the sense would be at variance with all L.'s preaching about libertas which is to be the common property of all. Gronovius and Madvig rightly exclude it. 27. 12. cotidiana: 'the crowd which assembled daily'. quia . . . iudicium: * because the judgement of the people was not in doubt', iudicium populi is used not technically to denote the assembly of that name but loosely of popular decision; so populi for plebis. 27. 13. occultisque colloquiis: 28. 1, 32. 1, 3. 48. 1, 4. 13. 10, 39. 14. 4. Such nocturna consilia, as Sallust calls them (Catiline 42. 2), were one of the more alarming features of the age of Sulla and the generation that followed, but they had been proscribed as early as the Twelve Tables. See C. Seignobos, de Indole Plebis Romanae apud T. Livium, 1882, 43 f. 28. 2. delatam: sc. rem. consulere with an ace. of the thing discussed is found only here in L. consulere de with the abl. at 3. 41. 3, 4. 17. 4, 304

494 B.C.

2. 2 8 . 2

22. 55. 6. T h e text, which has been much emended {delata Perizonius; de delata Walters; senatum H . J . Muller), is to be retained because de is used when the object of the motion under discussion is stated (e.g. de caede), the plain ace. when only the motion itself is referred to (e.g. rem; cf. Plautus, Menaechmi 700; Virgil, Aeneid 11. 344: cf. also the common ea res quae consulitur). Radical alteration such as Muller's is further excluded by L.'s habit of picking u p a verb by a participle of that verb (1. 5. 3 Remus cepisse, captum tradidisse; 10. 4, 12. 9, 23. 7. 6, 2 4 . 3 0 . 14, 29. 37. 13). 28. 3 . curias contionesque: 4. 13. 9. T h e clause cum . . . concilia is a palp­ able gloss on the foregoing words. This is betrayed by in Esquiliis, for L. never uses a preposition with that name (cf. 28. 1, 26. 10. 1, 5). T h a t the words should merit a gloss suggests that they are sound, mille curiae must mean 'a thousand senate-houses', each secret conclave through­ out the city being disparagingly contrasted with the Curia Hostilia. T h e words could hardly mean 'a thousand sessions of the Senate'. J . S. Reid who felt the difficulty proposed circulos for curias but that does not account for the gloss. dispersam et dissipatam: cf. Cicero, de Orat, 1. 187; Caesar, B.G. 2. 2 4 . 4 , 5 - 5 8 - 3 28. 5. otio lascivire: 1. 19. 5 n. 28. 7. arma danda: the contemporary tone of the whole altercation is revealed not only by the language (see the preceding notes; for the contrast between patria and domini cf. Pliny, Paneg. 88. 1) but by the contents of the pronouncements, arma danda presupposes that the state furnishes the armour (3. 15. 7) which is at variance with the martial organization of primitive times. 28. 9. abdicare: with the ace. for the common se abdicare consulate, as at 5. 49. 9, 6. 18. 4, 39. 1, 28. 10. 4 (see Catterall, T.A.P.A. 69 (1938), 299). Here the choice is in part dictated by a desire to make a regular balance with deponere imperium, 29. 5. quaestionem: the appointment of special commissions of investi­ gation only became a regular practice after the quaestio of 132 (Sallust, Jugurtha 31. 7; Veil. Pat. 2. 7. 3). 29. 7. P. Verginius: read T. Verginius', for the corruption see 15. 1 n. T h e proceedings in the Senate were being conducted ordiney that is starting with the consulars if there were no consuls designate (Aul. Gell. 14. 7. 9, 4. 10. 2 : Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 969 ff.). There was, as yet, no consular P. Verginius. Strictly the consuls of 495, Ap. Claudius and P. Servilius, should have been asked their sententia first but A. Verginius, by a precedent which is first attested in 61 B.C. (Cicero, ad Att. 1. 13. 2), invites his brother first. Verginius was anxious to restrict to special cases any concessions 814432

305

X

2. 29- 7

4 9 4 B.C.

about outstanding debts. His motion, legalistic in outlook, is legalistic in language, fidem secuti 'in accordance with the pledge made to them by P. Servilius' is a technical term in law: cf. S. C. de mense Augusto (Macrobius i. 12. 35); Gaius 4. 70: see R. Feenstra, Studi Paoli, 273-87. 29. 8. demersam: by contrast Larcius is warm-hearted and emotional. For the strong metaphor (6. 27. 6) cf. Petronius 88. 6. For discordiam accendi cf. Sallust, Or. Phil, 14; for discordiam sedari cf. Cicero, Phil. 1. 1. 29. 1 1 . agedum: with a plural, instead of agitedum: cf, 38. 47. 1 1 ; Cicero, pro Sulla 72. For the false doctrine about provocatio see 18. 8 n , 30. 1. utique Largi putabant sententiam: apart from the repetition of thought (putabant sententiam after videbatur sententia) which can be justified (cf. 5. 33. 7, 26. 8. 10), there is a serious difficulty in the passage. T h e chiastic order shows that rursus . . . salubres belongs to the opening sentence and that the semicolon printed after sententia in the O.C.T. should be removed and a strong stop placed after salubres. 'Many thought Appius' motion barbarous, as indeed it was, but, conversely, Verginius' and Larcius' motions to be dangerous pre­ cedents.' T h e special point that is made about Larcius' motion is a separate o n e ; not only was it dangerous, it would utterly destroy public confidence. T h e repunctuation demanded by sense and style leaves putabant sententiam incomplete. A predicate is missing. It could be supplied by esse earn (for sententiam M . Muller) or earn (sc. esse Heraeus, Reuss): cf. 9. 3. 12 ista quidem sententia ea est quae . . . 'They thought Larcius' motion in particular was the one that would destroy credit.' T h e mistake would be a simple one. I prefer a solution along these lines to the unsatisfactory emendation of putabant (refutabant Rossbach; repudiabant Wex). 30. 2. semper: the conflict between private interest and public welfare was a stock theme for moralists. 30. 4 . sua vi: this palmary correction, first made by Wex in 1832, is confirmed by the reading of M . Cf. 3. 26. 12. 30. 5. M\ Valerium: 3. 7. 6 n. T h e Elogium (Inscr. Ital. 13. 7 8 ; cf. 60) states: ' M \ Valerius Volusi f. Maximus dictator, augur, prius quam ullum magistratum gereret dictator dictus est. triumphavit de Sabinis et Medullinis, plebem de sacro monte deduxit, gratiam cum patribus reconciliavit. faenore gravi populum senatus hoc eius rei auctore liberavit. sellae curulis locus ipsi posterisque ad Murciae spectandi causa datus est. princeps in senatum semel lectus est.' T h e praenomen M\ is also given by the Triumphal Fasti (31. 3 n.), the Capitoline Fasti (456 B.C.), and D . H . (6. 23, 39, 57, 69, 71, 77). M . is found in the manuscripts here and in Cicero, Brutus 54, Orosius 2. 5, and Zonaras 7. 14. Valerius Antias (fr. 17 P.) did not specify the praenomen. Since 306

4 9 4 B.C.

2.30.5

the corruption of M \ to M . is of the easiest and since M . Valerius was killed at the Battle of Lake Regillus according to the received tradi­ tion it is best to emend L. and Cicero, Brutus 54 (Orosius and Zonaras may be faithfully reproducing an already corrupt text: see Volkmann R.E., Valerius (243)'). 30. 7. decern: the size of the army, assuming as it does a total force under arms of 50,000 men, is exaggerated. T h e first time an army of this size is credibly reported (7. 25. 8 ; 349 B.C.) was the very year in which M . Valerius, later to be surnamed Corvus, fought his celebrated single combat with the Gaul. 30. 8-31. 6. War with the Aequi, Volscians, and Sabines 30. 8. oratores: 1. 38. 2 n. For their request see 3. 4. 10 n. 30. 8-9. T h e details of the campaign are omitted by D.H., who also arranges the order of the wars differently. T h e order in L. is planned to keep the principal campaign (31. 1 longe plurimum), conducted by the dictator Valerius, until the last. T h e language is military: cf. 30. 12 nn., 30. 13 n., 31. 1 n., 31. 2 n. 30. 12. ad manum: cf. Suetonius, Nero 26. 2 ; Aul. Gell. 1. 11. 9 ; Marcian. Dig. 48. 19. 11. 2. gladiis rem gerere: the expression, once mistakenly claimed by Stacey as a 'poeticism' in the light of Ennius, Ann. 268 V. vigeritur res, is army slang; cf. 28. 2. 6, 31. 35. 5 ; Sallust, Catiline 60. 2 ; Caesar, B.G. 5. 44. 11, 7. 88. 2. See Gries, Constancy, 40. 30. 13. impressionem: cf. Bell. Afr. 78. 3 ; Hirtius, B.G. 8. 6. 2 ; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 149. 3 1 . 1. fundit fugatque: N's reading should be kept and punctuated funditfugatque; exuit castris. fundo fugoque, the two words forming a single concept, is a regular term in military contexts; cf. Tab. Triumph. AciL Glabr. 1. 4. 3 ; Bell. Hisp. 31. 8 ; Sallust, Jugurtha 21. 2, 52. 4, 58. 3, 79- 4> 99- 3- Cf. 1. 10. 4, 2. 6. 11. 31. 2. quam: N had qua dum se cornua latius pandunt parum apte introrsum ordinibus aciem firmaverunt. Light is thrown on this perplexing passage by 32. 17. 8 where the Macedonians strengthen their line by deepening it—conferti, pluribits introrsus ordinibus acie firmata. Weinkauff took the sense to be that the Volsci had weakened their centre by extending the wings of their army—a mistake often inevitable and always calamitous (28. 14. 17, 5. 38. 2, 31. 21. 14, 25. 21. 6) and he proposed the radical but sensible text quam .. . parum aptis introrsum ordinibus [aciem] infirmaverant (cf. 9. 17. 15, 28. 46. 3). So also Wittmann. But the Macedonian case suggests a different interpretation and apte is confirmed by 4. 37. 8. While the wings of the Volscian army moved outwards in the hope, it may be assumed, of effecting an encircling movement, the brigade307

494 B.C.

2. 3 i . 2

commanders of the centre had committed the unpardonable error of withdrawing troops from the line in order to make deeper, and so stronger, but broken sections. T h e original line of battle might be diagrammatically represented thus:

after the redeployment it w a s :

*c^

=

=

W

c

=^

T h e effect of strengthening their sections in depth (introrsum) was to create gaps through which (qua) the R o m a n cavalry could ride and wreak havoc. If any change is needed in the text, and I do not think that it is, qui or Salmasius's quia for qua might be considered. Salmasius in his posthumous De Re Militari has an enlightening discussion of the passage. For the repeated aciem . . . aciem cf. 18. 8, 23. 14, 25. 6 et al, L. uses the form introrsum only of motion (3. 28. 7, 10. 33. 3). Elsewhere introrsus (25. 2 1 . 7 , 26. 42. 7, 33. 8. 14, 37. 40. 2) which should be read here. 31. 3. triumphans: M\ Valerius Volusif.-n, Maximus'] dic\t. de Sabineis et Medullineis]. sella . . . curulis: cf. the Elogium quoted above; Festus 464 L. Weinstock (J.R.S. 47 (1957), 148 fF.) produces evidence for the hypothesis that originally only the Flamen Dialis was allowed to sit on a sella curulis in the theatre, but that in view of the prolonged vacancy in the office of Flamen Dialis from 87 B.G. onwards Sulla created a precedent by allowing certain privileged persons to enjoy that right. Whether Sulla had any other basis for his precedent in Republican practice is unknown. W h a t can be safely asserted is that the legendary example of M \ Valerius Maximus was 'brought to light' for him by Valerius Antias (Asconius, p . 13 C ) . L. adds that the right was enjoyed by his descendants but there is no trace of this. A coin of M . Valerius Messalla (c. 53 B.C. ; Sydenham no. 934) may allude to the tradition. 3 1 . 4. Velitras: mod. Velletri. T h e name is Etruscan (cf. VelaflriVolaterra: Schulze 377). Like Rome, it was a community of funda­ mentally Latin stock which was urbanized and developed c. 600 B.G. under Etruscan influence. There is a large 'Villanovan' cemetery. Its position laid it open to Volscian pressure and during the next centuries it continually changed hands. T h e first capture by the Volscians is dated to the age of Ancus Marcius (D.H. 3. 41) and it was certainly Volscian by 500 B.G. (cf. Dio 45. 1). T h e sources report three separate colonizations by R o m e in 494 (cf. 34. 6 : Velitrae is also listed as a member of the Latin League in D.H. 5. 61), 401 (Diodorus 308

494 B.C.

2.31.4

14. 34: it revolted in 390), and 338. The dates are not incompatible or mutually exclusive. The first colonization was a natural safeguard against the Volscian encroachments on the plain of Latium. The colony was lost either in Coriolanus' campaigns or as a result of the spread of malaria. A refounding in 401 is in keeping with other indica­ tions of Roman activity in the area at that time (cf. 4. 61. 6). Its loss after the Gallic War was an inevitable consequence of that disaster which retarded Roman expansion by almost a century (cf. 6.12. iff. 13. 8, 17. 7, 22. 3 et aL). Velitrae was predominantly a Volscian city as is shown by the Tabula Veliterna, a bronze inscription in Volscian dating from c. 350 B.C. For its later history see Radke, R.E.y 'Velitrae'. 3 1 . 5. in adversos montes: Alan, comparing 51. 7 and Saliust, Jugurtha 52.3, proposed adverso monte'up the mountain' but 30.9 shows that more than one mountain was involved. 'To the mountains facing them/ 31. 7-33. 3. The Final Act: The First Secession of the 'Plebs' 31. 9. reiecta: 'removed from the agenda'. 31. 10. discordiae: Valerius alludes to the classic definition of the emergencies that justify the creation of a dictator (cf. Cicero, de Leg. 3. 9; Claudius, I.L.S. 212 (Lyons)) which was doubtless aired to legitimize the innovations of Sulla. 31. 11. suam: i.e. of the plebeians. 32. 1. in consulum: the dispute sounds like an echo of a later con­ stitutional controversy. Fimbria murdered the consular L. Valerius Flaccus in 84 B.C. and took command of his army. He was, however, unable to secure its loyalty, for it deserted on the approach of Sulla (docti nullum scelere religionem exsolvi). per causam: 'on the pretext o f : see Nisbet on Cicero, de Domo 10. The first secession and the creation of the tribunate are indissolubly linked. They stand or fall together. They have been subjected to severe assault and it is apparently the received opinion today that the Secessions are fictitious and that the tribunate was created in 471 at the earliest. On investigation, however, the arguments levelled at the traditional account are not damaging, whereas on the other side there are some arguments of weighty support. The sceptics, starting from the presupposition that the creation of the tribunate, being an extra-constitutional office, would not have been recorded in the Annales, point to the inconsistencies and contradictions within the sources and, before all, to the silence of Diodorus, who says nothing of the tribunate under 494 but under 471 writes rore 7rp
494 B.C.

2. 32. I 5

were elected . As for the inconsistencies between the other sources, these are to be seen as the growth of the myth. Every author has his own contribution to make to the story, political, personal, literary. W h a t we must ask is 'Was there a secession in 494 ? Was the tribunate instituted then ?' rather than worry about the names of tribunes or conflicting locations. To both questions the answer must be affirmative. If prosopography can teach anything, then it is clear that a number of plebeian, Etruscan families quitted Rome before 450 B.C. This is a matter of observation. W h a t happened to the Galerii, the Pupinii, the Voltinii? to the Larcii, the Gominii, the Gassii? Emigration was the course adopted by many families who found that their social status, their family connexions, or their commercial interests made life in the new Rome of the growing Republic uncongenial. T h e First Secession is, it would seem, a more dramatic and more concerted symptom of the same unease. T w o grievances stand out. T h e brunt of Rome's economic misfor­ tunes fell on them because they made up the commercial and business community, so that the harsh debt laws operated greatly to their dis­ advantage. T h e patrician debtor was better off to the extent that he at least was likely to enjoy the protection of a powerful patronus (3. 44. 5 n.) who would proffer support and mitigate ruin. T h e immigre would be fortunate indeed if he had managed to win such a relationship for himself. Secondly, and for the same reason, the lack of a. patronus, he was peculiarly liable to the severities which might fall on him as a result of consular or, now, dictatorial coercitio. H e had no refuge while his patrician counterpart could invoke the potent and indefinable forces which clientela created. So today connexion will do much to ameliorate the naked indiscrimination of professional or judicial processes. If this is a correct diagnosis of the plebeian dilemma in the first quarter of the fifth century, intensified as it was by the respon­ sibilities of military service demanded of plebeians, the tribunate with its powers of auxilium guaranteed by the sacrosanctity of the tribune supplied a mutually satisfactory remedy. It was not a magistracy; it was a watch committee. As will be seen below, the oldest tradition gave the original number of tribunes in 494 as two. This is plausible, for the two tribunes were to match the two consuls. T h e number was only raised to four when the assembly of the tribes, which would mean primarily the four urban tribes at that date, came into being (56. 2 n., 58. 1 n.: 471 B.C.) and officially elected the tribunes. Since the term tribunus is cognate with tribus, the title was probably only introduced in 471 when the four tribuni plebis were appointed as officers of the four urban tribes. 310

494 B.C.

2. 32. 1

T o the final objection that since the tribunes were not yet magis­ trates of the state their institution cannot have been recorded in the Annales, it may be replied that the Secession will have figured there— it had obvious religious repercussions—but that the tribunate was one of those landmarks of plebeian history which would have been recorded in the temple records of Geres (33. 3 n.). In any case they were events which could be remembered without documentation. T h e detailed narratives of these events show a gradual development. Cicero (deRep. 2. 58 ;pro Cornel, fr. 48) speaks of a Secession to the Mons Sacer, the demand for leges sacratae (33. 3 n.), and the appointment of two tribunes comitiis curiatis (32. 2 n.). So also Festus 422 L. Even this version, which will go back to Polybius at the least, may not be the original. Piso placed the Secession on the Aventine (32. 3). It is a more probable site in that it was the plebeian hill (3. 31. 1 n.) and that the substitution of the Sacred Mount could easily be caused by a false etymology for the leges sacratae (see on 3. 50-54). The original number of tribunes was two. Five was a supplement of the postGracchan age who desired to bring the number of tribunes into rela­ tion with the number of classes (58. 1 n . ; cf. Asconius, in Cornel. p. 77. 2 Clark singulos ex singulis classibus). T h e names are equally fluid: neither Cicero nor Festus names them. Asconius quotes Tuditanus (fr. 4 P.) for L. Sicinius L.f. Velutus and L. Albinius C.f. Paterculus. Livy gives C. Licinius and L. Albin(i)us adding that three more were co-opted including Sicinius quidam. D.H. (6. 89. 1) lists the first two as L. Junius Brutus and C. Sicinius Vellutus, and, in addition, C. and P. Licinius and C. Viscellius (?) Ruga (cf. also Suidas s.v. S^/xa/^ot). From this it emerges that D.H. at any rate is following a tradition much influenced by the late democratic prestige of the Junii Bruti, a prestige due in part to Atticus' researches into the family and in part to the activities of the tyrannicides. L., on the other hand, seems to have displaced Sicinius for Licinius, a significant alteration when taken in connexion with other features of 32. 2-33. 3. For D.H.'s account of the secession is not merely more diplomatic (there is a ten-man delegation to conduct negotiations with the plebs): it is pungently Valerian. T h e auctor concordiae is not Menenius, but Valerius (D.H. 6.43. 4 ; so also Cicero, Brutus 5 4 a n d the Elogium cited on p. 306 above). Seignobos drew attention to Livy, Epit. 83 (85 B.C.): effectum est per L. Valerium Flaccum, principem senatus, et per eos qui concordiae studebant ut legati ad Sullam depace mitterentur. Valerius Antias must have been responsible for supplanting Menenius. O n the other hand Licinius for Sicinius points to Licinius Macer and it may well be that L. turned to the latter for the account of the actual secession itself (note the citation of variants at 32. 2 and 33. 3). See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 272-330; E. Meyer, Kl. Schriften, 311

2. 32. I

494 B.C.

i. 353-73; K. J. Neumann, Grundherrsch. d. Rom. Republik, 14 ff.; Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 239 ff.; Momigliano, Bull. Comm. 59 (1931), 157—77; Langle, R.E., 'Tribunus (13)'; Stuart Jones, C.A.H. 7. 438 ff.; Siber, Pleb. Magistraturen; R.E., Tlebs (Tribunat) 5 ; C. Gioffredi, S.D.H.L 11 (1945), 37-6432. 2. Sicinio: Γάιος according to D.H., L. in Asconius. Despite the existence of a homonym who was a friend and fellow tribune of C. Licinius Macer, the tradition which associated the Sicinii with the tribunate is very strong (58. 1, 6 1 . 2, 3. 54. 12) and will represent an underlying fact. D.H. (7. 33 ff.) gives a long account of his later career which L. wisely ignores. See Münzer, R.E., 'Sicinius (4)'. 32. 4 . sumendo: 2. 9, the equivalent of a present participle, often used for variatio by Tacitus (Annals 15. 69). It is not commonly found in elevated prose earlier than the Augustan age. See Klotz on Bell. Hisp. 12. 4 ; Marouzeau, Mem. Soc. Ling. 16 (1911), 133 ff. 3 2 . 5. pavor: L. frequently conveys thoughts, hopes, fears, mis­ givings in the form of a speech reported indirectly to build up a realistic atmosphere. Cf. 49. 1-2, 3. 56. 7-8, 4. 50. 1, 5. 24. 5-6. 32. 7. earn: presumably = plebem, although they have not expressly been named for several sentences. Alternatively understand concordiam: for concordiam reconciliare cf. 7. 42. 6, 4 1 . 25. 2 ; Cicero, in Catil. 3. 2 5 ; Petronius 109. 5 ; Aul. Gell. 2. 12. 4. 32. 8. placuit igitur: \L prefaces with sic, which is favoured by L. for resuming the main thread of a narrative (cf., e.g., 1. 5. 4, 2. 46. 7) and should be read here too. For igitur in third place see R e h m , Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. 'igitur', col. 254. 38-46. oratores: 1. 38. 2 n. The Parable of Menenius Agrippa T h e parable of the body and the limbs is an old one of Greek extraction, as was demonstrated by W. Nestle. There are variations of it in Xenophon, Memorab. 2 . 3 . 18, and in Polyaenus 3. 9. 22 where it is attributed to the fourth-century general Iphicrates. The closest parallels are Aesop 197 and St. Paul, 1 Cor. 12. 12-27, and there are echoes of it in Cicero, de Off. 3. 22. Even in its present form it is de­ monstrably Greek, tempore quo represents exactly the beginning of a Greek αἶνος—ἦν ποτε χρόνος ὅτε. Nestle himself believed that the story was introduced into Roman historiography early in the first century. Momigliano, agreeing in general with Mommsen and E. Meyer, would date it to the fourth century, and in particular would connect it with the problematic construction of a temple of Concord by Camillus in 367, and with the political settlement of that year, since the Menenii figure for the last time in the Fasti of 366 B.C. T h e date is attractive but, to my mind, too early. I would prefer to believe that the 312

4 9 4 B.C.

2. 32. 9

parable was introduced in the formative period of R o m a n historio­ graphy that is the generation of Fabius Pictor and his successors. In retailing it L. was faced with a difficulty. T h e parable was elegant and sophisticated, but Menenius is a plebeian and is supposed to speak prisco illo et horrido modo. T o represent such archaic uncouthness directly would offend against the canons of writing history and would do violence to what is a pre-eminently couth tale. L. side-stepped the problem by reporting the speech indirectly (cf. 4. 41. 1 n.). See Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 128 n. 34; E. Meyer, KL Schriften, 1. 358; Brodribb, Class. Rev. 24 (1910), 13-15; W. Nestle Klio 21 (1927), 350; Skard, Euergetes—Concordia, 90 ff.; W . J a e g e r , Scripta minora, 2.112; A. Momigliano, C. Q. 36 (1942), 117-18; Lambert, Die indirekte Rede, 16. 32. 10. dentes: for the approved text of the passage which should read nee dentes conficerent see C.Q,. 9 (1959), 279. 32. 1 1 . sanguinem: the vital element in the body, which only the stomach can supply, is postponed dramatically to the end of the sentence. 3 3 . 1. sacrosancti: 3. 55. 7-12 nn. 3 3 . 2. C. Licinius: rudely interpolated by his namesake and de­ scendant. L. Albinos \ Albinius is the true form of the nomen (cf. 5. 40. 9 n., 6. 30. 2 ) ; the corruption is due to the frequency of the cognomen Albinus, particularly in the fourth century A.D. The Albinii were an Etruscan family (Schulze n 8 f . ) who continued in the honourable obscurity of minor senatorial rank (cf. Cicero, pro Sestio 6) for long years of the Republic. It is unlikely that they would have had the opportunity or the motive to invent so famous an ancestor if he had not existed. fuisse: sc. constat which Novak would supply as an alternative to deleting Juisse and removing the full stop after creaverunt. It can, I think, be understood by anticipation from minus convenit. 33. 3 . sacratam legem: the creation through a lex sacrata of a sworn confederacy who are dedicated to a particular objective and elect their own leaders is a phenomenon to be observed in the social and military history of the Osco-Sabellian races (4. 26. 3 n., 10. 38. 1 ff.). The most determined body of iurati whom Rome had to face were the Samnites in Campania. T h e First Secession exactly reproduced the character of such a confederacy. T h e lex sacrata which later historians rationalized into a law passed by the comitia curiata recognizing the sacrosanctity of the tribunes was in reality the oath by which plebeians banded themselves as an individual body and dedicated themselves to the goals of self-help and hostility to the patricians. T h e oath was taken in the name of Ceres (D.H. 6. 89. 3), Juppiter only being added in later 313

2- 33- 3

494 B.C.

forms. This reveals both the Italian character of the secession, for Ceres had come from Campania to be the tutelary deity of the plebeians, and also its partisan aims. Juppiter was the god of the community as a whole. They elected their own officers, the tribunes, and although the patricians must have recognized the tribunes and the principle of auxilium before the plebeians would have ended the Secession, the first move to incorporate the tribunes into the con­ stitutional framework was not taken till 471. Such seems the best account of the lexsacrata, of which many inter­ pretations were current even in antiquity. If it is basically correct, it supports the traditional outlines. See Latte, Gott. Gel. Nachricht., 1934/6, 69 fF.; F. Altheim, Lex Sacrata. 33. 3-40. Coriolanus No sooner has Rome emerged from the throes of the First Secession than she is once again plunged into danger by political disunion. Just as before the quarrel arose on the question of debt, so now it breaks out over the distribution of corn imported during a shortage. O n this occasion it is not the impartial mediation of a Menenius but the presence of a remorseless aggressor which persuades the Romans to close their ranks and L. uses the legend of Coriolanus not, like Shake­ speare, as a study in the limitations of the man of action but as a parable on the text externus timor maximum concordiae vinculum (39. 7). T h e theme is not a new o n e : it has been hinted at several times before but for the first time L. uses it as a moral around which to build his narrative. H e subordinates the whole of his material to it. T h e tragedy leads on to the supreme interview between Coriolanus and his mother in which Coriolanus acts out the secondary moral that in the last resort a true Roman's love for his country outweighs every other consideration. T h e method by which L. constructs this unified episode is evident from a comparison with the parallel narra­ tive of D.H. Only here does L. abandon the regular annalistic practice of introducing each year formally with its list of magistrates, and since the lists are to be found in D.H. (7. 68. 1,8. 1. 1 Q,. Sulpicius, Sp. Larcius; C.Julius, P. Pinarius) and are presumed in the computation of dates which L. himself makes later (4. 7. 1), we are entitled to assume that he deliberately omitted them in order to preserve an Aristotelian unity of time rather than that his source was defective. A logical inspection of the timing of Latinius 5 dream points to a similar conclusion. In D.H. 6. 68-69 Latinius has his dream before Coriolanus is expelled from Rome (68. 1-3) so that Coriolanus knows that the games are to be repeated and therefore that they would present a suitable opportunity for provoking the Romans to slight the Volscians. In L. the dream occurs after Coriolanus has left and it 3J4

493 B.C.

2. 33- 3-40

is nowhere explained how Coriolanus knew that the games were to be repeated (36. 1 n.) Yet to have inserted the d r e a m at its proper place would both have interrupted the account of Coriolanus* expulsion and have separated it from its natural context, the chain of events leading u p to the Volscian march on R o m e . A third instance of the liberties which L. took with his material is to be seen in the telescoping of Coriolanus' two campaigns into one (39. 3 n.). T h e original myth, stemming partly from old R o m a n legend and partly from the special propaganda of the gens Marcia during its rise in the fourth century, made Coriolanus a R o m a n from the Latin city of Corioli (hence his name) who at some indeterminate date as consul (De Viris Illustr. 19) offended the people. In this he resembled Camillus, and, like Camillus, he was driven from the city into the arms of the Volsci and after being deterred from the destruction of Rome by the pleas of his mother retired to spend an old age in exile (Fabius Pictor fr. 17 P.). T h e scrutiny of the Fasti by historians towards the end of the third century disclosed no consular Coriolanus: but there was a record preserved of the capture of Corioli by the Romans in 491 and it was to this event that the story of Coriolanus was attached to provide an aetiological explanation of his name (33. 5 n.). A study of the comparative history of Greece and Rome showed that the stories of Coriolanus and Themistocles enjoyed a similarity not merely in date (Aul. GelL 17. 21. 12) but also in substance which encouraged the transference to Coriolanus of several details concerning Themis­ tocles, in particular his attitude to his country and his suicide. Cf. Cicero, Brutus 41-43, who concludes Coriolanus (est) plane alter Themi­ stocles. Other embellishments may well include the addition of Latinius' dream to the story. It is not essential. Macrobius (1. 11. 3) specifically assigns it to 279 nor is it connected with Coriolanus in the version, taken directly from Coelius Antipater, which is given by Cicero (de Div. 1. 55). T h e influence of dreams became fashionable after Hanni­ bal. Certainly the flash-point of the quarrel between Coriolanus and the plebs, the distribution of corn, is a post-Gracchan improvement. T h a t there was a corn shortage is doubtless historical and would have left its mark in the Annales. There were, too, from earlier times, recorded sales of corn below the market prices (Pliny N.H. 18. 17: 251 B.C.). But the political manipulation of the prices begins with C. Gracchus (Appian, B.C. 1. 2 1 ; Plutarch, C. Gracchus 5 ; Cicero, pro Sestio 103). A further touch that corn was sent from Dionysius of Syracuse (Gellius fr. 20 P . ; Licinius Macer fr. 12 P.), corrected on chronological grounds to Gelon by D.H. himself (7. i ) , 1 is a confusion with similar deals a century later (4. 25. 4 n., 4. 52. 6 n.). T h e 1

A. Klotz, Rh. Mus. 87 (1938), 35 f. 315

493 B.C.

2. 33- 3-40

confusion was engendered by the dominating position which Dionysius occupied in Sicilian history. T h e hand of Valerius Antias can be seen both in the lurid details of Coriolanus' death and in the appearance of Valeria in the embassy of matrons. T h e dry bones, on the other hand, come from two documentary sources, the restored foedus Cassianum and the Annales. T h e Annales would have contained under the different years notes on seven topics: the names of the consuls, a list of cities captured in the course of each year (2. 19. 1 n.), the public funeral of Agrippa Menenius, the annona and the places from which corn was imported, the dispatch of settlers to Velitrae and Norba, the instauratio ludorum, the foundation of the temple of Fortuna Muliebris. Such were the eight dry bones from which successive generations brought Coriolanus to life. T h e version in D.H., on which Plutarch and so Shakespeare are dependent, is at the least an amalgamation of Licinius Macer and Valerius Antias. Traces of two strands can be seen in the duplication of plunder raids against Tolerium and Gorioli and in the curious muddle where the number of tribes is given as twenty-one (7. 64) but it is later said that, if eleven tribes had acquitted Coriolanus, a tie would have resulted. H e alters Licinius Macer expressly (see above), but has many striking Valerian allusions (7. 54 M \ Valerius; 8. 49 Valeria). H e may also have taken over some colour from an Augustan archaizing poem about Coriolanus (8. 62). l L.'s account, simpler and more homogeneous than D.H.'s, bears no such marks of contamination. It is in general so close to D.H. that it may represent one of the traditions which D . H . has combined. There is no doubt that it belongs to the Sullan stage of the development of the m y t h : it has all the post-Gracchan tendency but the terms in which the bronze pillar of the foedus Cassianum is mentioned indicate that it was written well before 56 B.G. (33. 9 n.). T h e special knowledge about Antium (33. 4 n.), the use of Greek models, the absence of Dionysius of Syracuse, and the affiliations with other Valerian passages cumulatively support the claims of Valerius Antias. See further Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 2. 113-52; K. W. Nitzsch, Rh. Mus. 24 (1869), 150; J. Bachofen, Vber die Geschichtlichkeit der Coriolansage; E. Zarncke, Commentationes Phil. 0. Ribbeck; Soltau 162; W. Schur, Hermes 59 (1924), 4 5 1 - 4 ; A. Reichenberger, Studien zu Erzahlungkunst der T. Livius, (1931),25; E. T . Salmon, C.Q,. 24 (1930), 9 6 - 1 0 1 ; Burck 70; Schur, /?.£"., Suppl. 5. 653-60; Klotz 241. For the unattractive theory that L. used Ennius directly see W. Aly, Livius, und Ennius, 37 (Coriolanus = Achilles); O . Schonberger, Hermes 88 (1955), 245 ff. (Coriolanus = Meleager). 3 3 . 3 . per secessionemplebis . . . inierunt: L., still experimenting to com1

A. Momigliano, J.R.S. 47 (1957), i n . 316

493 B.C.

2. 33- 3

bine episodic treatment with an annalistic narrative, delays mention of the accession of the consuls until he has disposed of the Secession. The pluperfect, first read by Reiz, is not required. Sp. Cassius: 17. i. Second consulate but no mark of iteration; 16. 7 n. 33. 4. cum Latinis populis ictum foedus: for the Latini populi see 18. 3 n. D.H. (6. 95) gives the text of the treaty as follows: Ῥωμαίοις καὶ ταῖς Λατίνων πόλεσιν ἁπάσαις εἰρήνη πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔστω, μέχρις ἂν ο·ρανός τε καὶ γῆ τὴν α·τὴν στάσιν ἔχωσι· καὶ μήτ' α·τοὶ πολεμείτωσαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους μήτ' ἄλλοθεν πολέμους ἐπαγέτωσαν, μήτε τοῖς ἐπιφέρουσι πόλεμον ὁδοὺς παρεχέτωσαν ἀσφαλεῖς· βοηθείτωσάν τε τοῖς πολεμουμένοις ἁπάσῃ δυνάμει, λαφύρων τε καὶ λείας τῆς ἐκ πολέμων κοινῶν τὸ ἴσον λαγχανέτωσαν μέρος ἑκάτεροι· τῶν τ' ἰδιωτικῶν συμβολαίων αἱ κρίσεις ἐν ἡμέραις γιγνέσθωσαν δέκα, παρ' οἷς ἂν γένηται, τὸ συμβόλαιον. ταῖς δὲ συνθήκαις ταύταις μηδὲν ἐξέστω προσθεῖναι μηδ' ἀφελεῖν ἀπ' α·τῶν, ὅτι ἂν μὴ Ῥωμαίοις τε καὶ Λατίνοις ἅπασι δοκῇ. Festus 166 L. quotes two fragments: item in foedere Latino: 'pecuniam quis nancitor habeto' et 'si quid pignoris nanciscitur sibi habeto\ There certainly was a bronze inscription in the Forum at the beginning of the first century B.C. which was regarded as the original treaty and from which D.H.'s source could have transcribed the text (33. 9 n.). The provisions correspond with those regularly found in later foedera such as the treaties with Methymne (I.G.R.R. 4. 2: c. 129 B.C.), Astypalaea (I.G.R.R. 4. 1028: 105 B.C.), and Mytilene (I.G.R.R. 4. 33: 25 B.C.; note the commercial clauses after the usual terms about forbidding transit to enemies). As far as the contents go, therefore, the version given by D.H. is plausible enough and, despite L.'s attempt to make a foedus aequum appear more favourable to Rome than it really was, we may detect its operation in his account of the division of spoils (4. 29. 4, 5. 19. 8 n.). Moreover, it is exactly analogous with the Hernican treaty (41. 1 n.) in that it fits the political condition of Latium and the wider Italian scene. Under pressure from the Volscians in the south-east and after the loss of several cities (Antium, Corioli, Velitrae), the Latins would naturally turn to Rome for alliance and protection and they received immediate relief by way of Cominius5 counter-offensive. Only in this period were the triginta populi an organized and articulate body. But neither the translation given by D.H. nor the quotation in Festus suggests archaic Latin. Indeed in one important particular there can be little doubt that D.H.'s text is anachronistic. The dura­ tion of the treaty is prescribedμέχριςἂνο·ρανόςτεκαὶγῆτὴνα·τὴν στάσιν ἔχωσι which is the same as the duration of the bizarre treaty which Alexander made with Celts in 335 B.C. (Ptolemaeus 138 F 2 Jacoby; Arrian 1. 4. 8; see H. d'Arbois de Jubainville, Les Premiers Habitants, 2. 316; W. W. Tarn, Alexander the Great, 1.6). This was an 317

2. 3 3 - 4

493 B.C.

oath peculiar to the Celts and one which was still in use among the Irish in the eighth century. As such it would be inconceivable for primitive Romans and Latins. It is likely enough that the inscription was altered and re-carved to keep pace with subsequent developments, as other cities subscribed to the treaty, and that the copy from which D.H.'s text was taken had not been standing in the Forum for much more than a century before it became finally obsolete in 89 and disappeared. Nor can it be demonstrated for certain that the treaty is correctly dated to 493, Cassius' second consulship. His name stood in the treaty, but perhaps in his capacity as fetial rather than consul. In any case the treaty would not have differentiated between his consulships. 493 could well have been chosen as the date simply because of the erroneous belief that Cassius had to be consul in order to make a treaty. Although the condition of the Latin world in 493 is equally compatible with the terms of the treaty it is natural to expect that it would have been made in the aftermath of the Battle of Lake Regillus and a trace of such a treaty may even survive in 22. 3-4 n. See R. von Scala, Die Staatsvertrdge des Altertums, 3 1 - 3 3 ; E. Taubler, Imperium Romanum, 1. 262-317; H. M . Last, C.A.H. 7. 488-92; A. N . Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, n - 3 0 ; Steinwenter, R.E., 'ius Latii'; E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 291 n. C. The Latin Counter-Offensive against the Volscians Antiates Volscos: Antium, mod. Anzio, originally a Latin city which with other coastal towns formed part of an Etruscan hegemony centred on Rome. It figures as an ally or dependant of Rome in the first treaty of 508 B.C. with Carthage (Polybius 3. 22. n : ApSearcov, AVTLGLTCUV, Apevrlvcov, KipKaurcov, TappOiK.ivITcov: see Walbank, ad loc.) but in the unsettled conditions following the expulsion of the kings it had passed under Volscian control. T h e annalist Valerius Antias came from here (Introduction p. 16). For the archaeological remains see Lugli, Tecnica edilizia, 270-1. Longulam: identified by Nibby with Buon Riposo, a settlement on the road from Antium to Ardea 26 miles from Rome and 10 miles from Antium. In Pliny's list of the Alban League of Juppiter Latiaris (JV.H. 3. 69) the received text Longani is better corrected to Longulani than understood with O . Seeck (Rh. Mus. 37 (1882), iff.) as an ignorant duplication of Albani to denote the inhabitants of Alba Longa. If so, Longula was one of the earliest Latin communities. See Philipp, R.E., 'Longula (2)'. 3 3 . 5. protinus Poluscam, item Volscorum : a certain correction by Cluver in the light of the parallel account in D.H. 6. 91. 3 and the campaign of Coriolanus (39. 3). T h e site is put by Nibby at Osteria di Civita 318

493 B.C.

2. 33- 5

where the roads to Antium and Satricum divide, 20 miles from Rome and 15 miles from Antium. Like Longula it may be recognized in Pliny's list (Pollustini) as an Alban community which had subsequently fallen into Volscian hands. Both cities disappear from history after their recapture by the Volscians under Coriolanus and may well have been destroyed. They are absent from the list given by D . H . (5. 61) which purports to preserve the composition of the triginta populi in 500 B.C., but more probably reflects a state of affairs prevailing around 400 B.C. (18. 3 n.). In that case they will have ceased to exist by the end of the century. Hofmann, R.E.y Tollusca'. Coriolos: placed by Gell and Nibby on M t e . Giove. Unlike Longula and Polusca it is listed as a Latin city by both Pliny and D . H . from which it may be inferred that after being captured twice by the Vol­ scians it ultimately regained its independence and survived as a Latin community at least until after 400 (3. 71. 6 n.). erat turn in castris: cf, 4. 19. 1 erat turn inter equites. L. is fond of intro­ ducing his central characters by this Hellenistic formula which, to take but one example, is the regular way of beginning a novel; cf., e.g., Xenophon Ephes. 1. 1 T}V iv yE4.aco dvrjp TWV rd nptoTa e/cef Swa/zeVcov, AvKOfxrj8rjg ovo/xa; Chariton Aphrodis. 1. 3. It makes the reader aware that a special story is coming. Cf. Horace, Sat. 2. 3. 281. Cn. Marcius: the manuscripts at 35. 1, 39. 1, 39. 9 are unanimous for the praenomen Cn. which should be read here as well, in preference to the C. of 7rA. Cn. is traditional (Val. Max. 4. 3. 4 ; Aul. Gell. 17. 21. 11) but D.H. (hence Plutarch and Shakespeare's, 'Ay Marcius, Caius Marcius') follows a separate tradition attributable to Licinius Macer. et consilio et manu promptus: 3. 11. 6 n., and for the combination of consilium and manus cf. Sallust, Jug. 96. 3 ; Tacitus, Hist. 2. 5, 3. 17, an historical commonplace taken over from Hellenistic writers and possessing epic and tragic overtones. Cf. Homer, Iliad 13. 727-8; Euripides, Chrysippos fr. 842 N . : see H . D. Kemper, Rat und Tat (Diss. Bonn, 1957). cui cognomen postea Coriolano fuit: it is implied that he received the cognomen, which is not found elsewhere, for his exploits against Corioli. This must be a fabrication. T h e earliest cognomen derived from a cap­ tured city is perhaps Privernas (329 B.C.) or Messalla (263 B.C.), while the first one formally bestowed is said to have been Africanus (30. 45. 7: 201 B . C ) . H e must have been so called because Corioli was the Marcian home town (cf. Praenestinus, Veliternus, Auruncus), but a new explanation was required when the legend was tied down to a period in which Corioli, being in Volscian hands, could not have produced a Roman citizen. Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 2. 295; B. Doer, Die Rom. Namengebung, 1937, 48-50. 33. 7. per patentem portam ferox inrupit: caedeque in proxima urbis facta 319

2. 33- 7

493 B.C.

ignem . . . iniecit'. the text presents several small difficulties none of them cumulatively sufficient to justify radical surgery. T h e use of proxima with a gen. = 'the nearest parts of5 is paralleled by 31. 46. 12 traicit in proxima continentis and the rhythm -eque, generally disliked by classical authors, by 8. 9. 7, 21. 39. 2 ( H . J . Miiller). Objection has chiefly been taken to caede facta with in and ace. instead of in and abl. (as Cicero, Brutus 8 5 ; Paradoxa 30) but the battle is moving, not stationary, and the same usage occurs in 3. 10. 7 ne qui in loca summa urbis impetus caedesque inde jierent. Madvig's transposition [inrupit in proxima urbis caedequefacta) is shown to be wrong by the parallel account in D.H. 6. 92 Kara iroXXa fJ>€prj rrjs iroXetos 6vos lyivtTo. 33. 8. clamor . . . mixtus muliebri puerilique ploratu ad terror em, ut solet, primum ortus: primo ortu N . ortus (Gronovius) gives a more compact subject, all the components being included between the noun and the participle, than orto (sc. ploratu Madvig). T h e men began to shout, the women and children to scream as soon as Coriolanus broke into the city, clamor oriri ad aliquid is favoured by L . : cf. 1. 39. 2, 2. 23. 7, 3. 48. 6. turbavit Volscos, utpote capta urbe, cut . . . venerant: for the separation of the relative and correlative by an abl. abs. cf. 64. 8 (Pettersson). T h e description of the capture of Corioli, however much it may owe to L.'s own experience of war, owes more to literary conventions inspired by epic and tragedy (e.g. the Troades). Almost all L.'s accounts of captured cities are variations on the Ilioupersis theme: the enemy break in, begin a massacre, set fire to the town; the population resorts to lamentation and despair (see note on 1. 29. 1 ff.). 33. 9. foedus . . . (in) columna aenea insculptum: cf. Cicero, pro Balbo 53 cum Latinis omnibus foedus . . . ictum Sp. Cassio Postumo Cominio consulibus . . . quod quidem nuper in columna aenea meminimus post rostra incisum et perscriptumfuisse. Cicero cannot be quoting directly from the inscrip­ tion since it is clear from L. that only the name of Sp. Cassius appeared on it as a party to the treaty. T h e implication of nuper is that the in­ scription had in fact been removed by the time when he is speaking (56. B.C.) and the obvious date for this would be shortly after 89 when the treaty finally became obsolete. Since L. gives no hint that the inscription has disappeared, he must have taken over this whole passage from his Sullan source without troubling to verify it. in is required ; cf. 39. 37. 16 monumentis litter arum in lapide insculptis. 3 3 . 10. Agrippa Menenius moritur: 32. 8 n. A notice from the Annales developed into an obituary (16. 7 n.). T h e actual coins sextantes (so too Pliny, JV.ff. 33. 138; Val.Max. 4. 4. 2 : cf. L. 3. 18. 11 (L. Valerius) quadrantes) are anachronistic since cattle were still the medium of currency down to c. 450 B.C. Like quadrantes, they became the proverbial small coin ('coppers': cf. Laberius ap. Aul. Gell. 320

493 B.C.

2. 33- J o

16. 9. 4) and for this reason would naturally occur to the pen of an historian with a desire to give circumstantial verisimilitude to a public funeral. It is significant that the only other cases of this custom concern Valerii, L. Valerius in 3. 18. 11, and P. Valerius Publicola in Plutarch, PopL 16: ? Valerius Antias. The Corn Shortage 34. 2. caritas primum annonae: 9. 6 n., from the Annales. T h e mention of Ostia may be accepted (Meiggs, Ostia, 18-19, 479)* If c o r n w a s not available from the surrounding plains of Caere, Vulci, and the Pomptine flats but had to be imported from farther afield, it will have come up the Tiber to Rome. Ostia would have figured in the record. T h e other regions are credible. T h e Sicilian corn will have come not from Syracuse or the eastern end of the island but from places like Segesta in the west where Carthaginian interest was strong enough for the Romans to exploit their treaty with Carthage. T h e authenticity of these notices is enhanced by the simultaneous foundation of a cult of Ceres at R o m e (D.H. 6. 7. 12-14, 94. 3 ; omitted by Livy but see 3. 55. 7 n.). T h e main centres of the cult were Cumae and Sicily. It was Demeter who guided the Chalcidians to C u m a e and Xenocrite, the mistress of the tyrant Aristodemus, prided herself on being the priestess of the cult. In Sicily there was a long-established tradition of Demeter worship at Henna (Val. Max. 1. 1. 1). T h e connexion between the cult of Ceres and the annona is well attested in later times (cf. Lucilius fr. 200 Marx). See H . le Bonniec, Le Culte de Ceres, 242 ff. ex incultis per secessionem plebis agris: cf. 34. n utantur annona quam furore suo fecere. Contrast 32. 4 where the plebs secede per aliquot dies only and do no damage to the countryside (neque lacessiti neque lacessentes). 34. 3 . sed quaesitum in Siciliam quoque: quaesitum (supine) should be retained, taking in Siciliam with dimissis. T h e merchants were to buy corn in Italy and beg for it in Sicily. 34. 4. Aristodemo: 21. 5 n. periculum . . . frumentatoribus fuit: a second-century note. T h e un­ popularity usually arose when the corn merchants sold their corn (4. 12. 10 n.), not when they bought it, but the development of Roman trade made such perils household tales. Cf. Cato, de Re Rust, praef 3 ; Cicero, Verr. 5. 157. 3 4 . 5 . Tiberi venit: cf. 4. 12-13, 52. 6. le Gall (Le Culte du Tibre, 56) believes river traffic on the Tiber at this date to be an invention based on the regular trade of classical times (Juvenal 7. 121), A guess it may be, but a good guess, for the corn could not have come by any other means. pestilentia ingens: malaria ? T h e spread of malaria to the Pomptine 814432

321

Y

2. 34- 5

492 B.C.

marshes is commonly associated with the decay of the drainage system during the Punic Wars (the first references are in Plautus, Curculio 17; Terence, Hecyra 357) but it could have been rife earlier. For disease at Rome during the century see 3. 2. 1 n. 34. 6. Velitris auxere numerum colonorum: 31. 4 n. Norbam: mod. Norma, not listed in the Alban section of Pliny's register of the League of Juppiter Latiaris, a confirmation of the authenticity both of that list and of this notice. It is named in the separate non-alphabetical table of twenty-one associated cities which precedes the main list (N.H. 3. 68), a table which seems to have been compiled by Pliny or Varro from a variety of historical traditions, not from a single early document. The colony at Norba, which was a Latin colony (27. 10. 7) and not, as it is here represented, a citizen colony, would have had its place in the Annales and it also figures in the Latin League of D.H. 5. 61 (reading Nwpflavwv for Mwpcavwv). After playing a long and stormy role in local history, it was de­ stroyed by arson during the Civil War (Appian, B.C. 1. 94). Some resettlement may have occurred later but Norba never regained its old position, securing only scant immortality in a passing mention by Pliny (N.H. 3. 64) and an entry in Suidas. The traditional date for the settlement of the colony is confirmed by the archaeological evidence. Philipp, R.E.9 'Norba ( i ) ' ; Rosati, Arch. Class. 11 (1959), 102-7. 34. 8. extorta secessione ac vi: the language of late Republican politics; cf. Sallust, Jug. 31.6 (Memmius). The whole of Coriolanus' speech which follows is characterized by a violent rhetoric typical of the first century. In particular L. seems to have had in mind Cicero's dramatic appeal to Catiline to quit Rome (in Catil. 1. 10). 34. 10. Tarquinium regent: the ronos recurs at 3. 39. 5. Sacrum montem: 32. 2 n. tertio anno: for tertio anno ante (46. 4; Vitruvius 9. 1. 10; Cicero, de Fato 13). The usage could only be justified on the analogy of proximo anno (Cicero, pro Sestio 131: see Lundstrom, Abhinc und Ante, 39-40), ante must be inserted. 34. 12. arbitror: one of the few places where L. gives a personal opinion on a moral issue. The effects of manipulating the annona for political ends had been pernicious. It is noteworthy that the first of Octavian's frumentationes occurred in 28 B.C. (Res Gestae 18; Dio Cass. 53. 2. 1) when he was readjusting his own constitutional position and when L. was engaged on this book. 35. 1. nisi de tergo . . . satisfiat: the colloquialism was in fact de corio alicuius satisfied, as in Seneca, Suas. 7. 13; Contr. 10 praef. 10. L.'s taste recoiled from such strong language. He was happy to tone down 322

4 9 1 B.C.

2- 35- 1

the violent phrase linguam exertare which he found in Claudius Quadrigarius (Aul. Gell. 9, 13) to a mild linguam exserere (7. 10.5: McDonald, J.R.S. 47 (1957), 167). So here he substitutes tergo for corio while retaining the essentially popular flavour of the phrase to charac­ terize plebeian complaints. The same demagogic tone is continued in the following sentence (56. 8 n.). carnifex is Cicero's word for Verres and his henchmen, while aut mori aut servire iubeat echoes the indignant outburst of in Pisonem 15. Riots against corn shortages were frequent in Rome after the Gracchi. 35. 3. auxilii. . . esse: cf. 56. 11. 35. 4. qua . . . qua: 2. 45. 3, 4, 16, 3. 11. 6 (J. Wackernagel, Archiv f. Lat. Lex. 15 (1908), 213), a use confined to the first decade which it is hard to classify. It is met with in Plautus (e.g. Miles 1113, Asin. 96) but despite its comparative rarity in the intervening period and its popularity with the archaizers (e.g. Claudius, I.L.S. 212. 25 qua ipsius qua Jiliorum eius—perhaps from L.: see D.M. Last, Latomus 17 (1958), 484—Valerius Maximus, Pliny the younger, and Fronto) it is difficult to agree with Hofmann {Lat. Umgangsprache, 62) that it is an archaism in view of its frequency in the letters of Cicero (e.g. ad Att. 2. 19. 3, 9. 12. 1, 15. 18. 2 ) .

35. 5. pro nocente donarent: a number of legal proceedings recorded from the early Republic can conveniently be considered to­ gether : Dater 2. 35- 5 491 2. 41. 11 485

2. 52. 3

476

Accused

Prosecutor

Coriolanus Sp. Cassius

tribunes quaestors (K. Fabius L. Valerius) tribunes (Q. Considius T. Genucius) tribunes (L. Gaedicius T. Statius) tribune (Cn. Genucius) tribunes (M. Duilius Cn. Siccius) tribune (A. Verginius) quaestors (A. Cornelius Q. Servilius)

T. Menenius

2. 52. 6

475

Sp. Servilius

2. 54. 2

473

2. 61. 2

470

L. Furius A. Manlius Ap. Claudius

3. 11. 9

461

K. Quinctius

3- 24. 3

459

M. Volscius

323

Charge perduellio

"

falsus test

491 B.C.

2. 35- 5 Date

Accused

3. 25. 2

458

M. Volscius

3-31-5

454

c

3-3'-5

454

T. Romilius

3. 56. 1

449

Ap. Claudius

4. 21. 4

436

L. Minucius

- Veturius

A. Servilius 4. 40. 4 4. 42. 3

M. Postumius T. Quinctius 422 C. Sempronius

4. 44. 6

420

C. Sempronius

5. 11. 4

401

L. Verginius M. Sergius

5- 2 9- 7

393

5- 32. 8

423

Q/ Pomponius A. Verginius 391 Camillus

Prosecutor quaestors (T. Quinctius M. Valerius) aedile (L. Alienus) tribune (C. Galvius) tribune (L. Verginius) tribune (Sp. Maelius) tribune (Sp. Maelius) tribune (G. Junius) tribune (L. Hortensius) tribunes (A. Antistius M. Canuleius Sex. Pullius) tribunes (P. Curiatius M. Minucius M. Metilius) plebs

Charge falsus testis

falsus testis caedes civis indemnati

.,

,.

tribune (L. Apuleius)

T h e individual peculiarities of each case are treated in due place but an account needs to be given of the processes of law as a whole. T h e only crime about which the state took the initiative on its own account wasperduellio (n. on 1.26.5). In all other cases, except for minor offences which would be dealt with summarily by the praetor (consul) or his officers, the initiative lay with the agnati. It was the agnati who brought the prosecution and the agnati who were responsible for exacting the penalty or vengeance. This is the procedure recognized and codified in the Twelve Tables and which will have survived down to 390. T h e state was concerned simply to provide a machinery for determining the guilt or otherwise of the accused but the prosecution rested not with the state but with the agnati. T h e machinery consisted of the appointment ad hoc by the consul of quaestores whose function was to investigate the charges and determine the culpability of the accused. T h e quaestoreswere not judges, they did not sentence, they did not possess any powers ofcoercitio. They were no more and no less than 324

491 B.C.

2- 35- 5

their name implied. They were most commonly appointed in cases of parricidium (so in the Twelve Tables) but doubtless also in other matters when the need arose. The significant change introduced by the Twelve Tables lay in its famous clause de capite civis nisi per comitiatum maximum . . . neferunto which effectively removed the adminis­ tration of the death penalty from the hands of the agnati to the state. This process whereby the state gradually assumes control of private blood-feuds is familiar from the historical development of most legal systems. But in cases of parricidium as opposed to perduellio the initial prosecution still lay with the agnati and the determination of culpability with the quaestores. It was only the fate of the guilty which concerned the comitia centuriata. The innovations made by the Twelve Tables did tend to draw the procedures for perduellio and parricidium closer to­ gether but the underlying differences remained fundamental. Thence evolved the historical iudicia populi before the comitia centuriata, illus­ trated by the cases of 212 (25. 4), 211 (26. 3), and 169 (43. 16) and described by Cicero (de Domo 45; cf. Varro, De Ling. Lat. 6. 90). At these, three sessions were held, the last of which was a day fixed (die dicta) for the pronouncement of sentence. It became customary for the accused if his guilt had been established at the preliminary sessions to forestall the sentence by going into voluntary exile, unless he were restrained under arrest (Polybius 6. 14. 7). Except for a decree of aquae et ignis interdictio to prevent his return, proceedings lapsed if the accused was no longer in Rome. It will be seen that all mention oftribunician prosecutions at this date is rigidly excluded. The tribunate was a revolutionary and unconstitu­ tional cadre which had no place in the regular framework of government. The tribunes were officers of the plebs and not of the people as a whole. They could, therefore, have no possible jurisdiction over non-members of the plebs any more than a Trade Union can discipline a member of the public. It was only when the tribunate was absorbed in the constitu­ tion after the Decemvirate, and especially after the Licinian-Sextian laws and the legislation of 287, that the tribunes had a recognized place in Roman legal procedure. It is more than doubtful whether they had any jurisdiction even over plebeians in the early period. It can, therefore, be categorically stated that all notices of tribunician prosecution for the early period are false. This does not, however, entail that there were no trials, merely that they were not conducted by tribunes before the tribes. On the other hand, cases before quaestores and duoviri concerned both the state and, on occasion, the religious well-being of the state. They have as much claim as the corn supply to be entered in the Annales. If we examine the individual trials cited an interesting fact emerges. Excluding the trials of 461 and 449 which cannot be trusted, and of 473 and 470 where no indication is given 325

2. 35- 5

491 B.C.

of the offence, the accusations fall into two main groups: (i) military incompetence (476, 475, 423, 422, 420, 401, and 393 on which see 5. 29. 6 n.); (2) false testimony (459, 458, 436) and peculatus (454, 454, 391). These two classes correspond to two general categories of crime: perduellio, tried by the duoviri, and the parricidium-type crimes, investigated by quaestores. The significant point is that in two of the parricidium-type trials quaestores are actually mentioned (and perhaps in a third as well; see 5. 32. 8-9 n.), and in two at least of perduellio there was a record of two judges although the names cited are patently fictitious. I infer from this that the cases were entered in the Annales under a bare note which alluded either to quaestores or to duoviri, and that the trials were modernized by later historians who substituted the legal procedure with which they were familiar, tribunician prosecu­ tion before the tribes, and added appropriate names. Sp. Cassius and Coriolanus are special cases because their stories were more elaborately worked over and distorted. Both should have been accused of perduellio. I think it likely that Cassius was and that the process of falsification can be traced (41. 11 n.). Coriolanus is more shadowy. As told by L. the trial reads like a misunderstood iudicium populi, a iudicium populi in that there were preliminary hearings and a final session (die dicta) at which the sentence was to be passed but which Coriolanus forestalled by going into exile, but misunder­ stood in that the deprecatio would have been made on the preliminary hearings (Quintilian 7. 4. 18; Cicero, de Inv. 2. 104-8), that tribunes could have had no part in it and that Coriolanus is alleged to have been sentenced to exile, a fate which only prevailed from Sullan times. In short, it looks as if the trial of Coriolanus was fabricated in the late third century and brought up to date by Sullan Annalists. See Strachan-Davidson, Problems, 1. 152-69; E. G. Hardy, J.R.S. 3 (1913), 25-32 ; C. H. Brecht,Perduellio, 282-3 \Z
491 B.C.

2. 36

The Dream of Latinius Originally the dream was a separate episode. Macrobius' source (Sat. 1. 11. 3), which has every circumstantial sign of authenticity, dated the event in 279. He also called the main character not T. Latinius but T. Annius, a more likely name since the Annii were a plebeian family prominent from the middle of the fourth while the Latinii only emerge during the second century in the praetorian Pandusae and later the Latiares. When the episode was transferred back into early history, the hero was at first anonymous (Cicero, de Div. 1. 55; Min. Felix 7. 3) but soon Latinius was substituted for the old Annius for the aetiological reason that a Latin should be, however indirectly, responsible for the recovery of the Latin city of Corioli. Greek writers have Aarlvos. (For a different view see A. Klotz, Phil. Woch. 49 (1929), I33 1 -) 36. 1. ludi: 1. 35. 8 n. The appearance ofjuppiter indicates that these were the ludi Romani magni, which in classical times occupied the middle fortnight of September (Cicero, Phil. 2. n o ; C.I.L. i 2 , pp. 328 f.). At this date they can hardly have been annual (6. 42. 12, 8. 40. 2) and should still be votive games to celebrate particular triumphs, in this case Postumius Cominius' victories of the preceding year (so Cicero, de Div. 1. 55 bello Latino ludi votivi maximi). A record of such a celebration might conceivably have survived in the Fasti. See Habel, R.E., Suppl. 5, 'Ludi publici'; Wissowa, Religion, 449 ff.; A. Piganiol, Recherches sur les Jeux Romains, passim; and for the origin and procedure of instauratio, Ritschl, Parerga, 306 ff.; S. Monti, Rend. Accad. Napoli, 1949/50, 153-79. Whenever a religious ceremony was interrupted, was spoiled by a mistake or a slip in procedure, or was found to have been performed under some pollution, it was held to be invalid and had to be repeated from the beginning, either accord­ ing to precisely the same ritual or with added observances so as to appease the gods and render the ceremony effective (cf. incident at the funeral commemoration of Anchises in Aeneid 5. 94 ff). forte: the vulgate historical tradition placed the dream before Coriolanus' departure from Rome. L. has altered this arrangement for dramatic reasons and thereby leaves the motivation in the air. He conceals the change by forte as he does in a similar situation where once again he has rearranged the material (37. 20. 1 per eosdem forte dies; K. Witte, Rh. Mus. 65 (1910), 300). sub furca caesum medio egerat circo: caesum 'having been beaten' is taken by Weissenborn and Nisbet on Cicero, de Domo 67, as the equiva­ lent of a present pass, participle, but the slave will already have been beaten before he was brought into the Circus. What is awkward is 327

2. 36. i

491 B.C.

the bare caesum, for elsewhere the instrument of flogging (virgis) is added (e.g. 55. 5, 5. 8, 59. 11, 3. 37. 8 ; Epit. 5 5 ; Plautus, Menaechmi 943). I think virgis should be inserted here before caesum. 36. 2. irety ea consulibus nuntiaret: in direct speech z, haec consulibus nuntia. ea is arresting but solemn and should on no account be deleted (M. Miiller) or altered to et or ac (Weissenborn, Madvig, Novak; 36. 4 nieatpropere ac nuntiet consulibus is quite different). T h e imperative i(te) et is found only once in L. and that for a special effect (38. 51. 10) and elsewhere is studiously avoided until the Vulgate by all authors except Petronius (115) and Valerius Flaccus (E. B. Lease, A.J.P. 19 ( i 8 9 8 ) , 59). 36. 3. verecundia tamen maiestatis magistratuum timorem vicit: verecundia is 'shyness' (Conway) and certainly governs the /^-clause (cf. D . H . 7. 68 hi aloxvvTjs %Xeiv T ° TTpayiux Aa/fctV, dvrjp airrovpyos /cat yipcov 6v€Lpara TTpos TTJV fiovArjv €K€p€iv . . . [xrj /cat ycXorra o(f>Xrj). Objection

has been taken to timorem (sc. Iovis: he was haud sane liber religione) since from its position it seems to go with the following ne. Editors have printed timorque (H. J . Miiller), timorve (Bayet), et timor (Madvig) or deleted it altogether. But the verbal interweaving secures a forceful effect which any emendation is bound to destroy just as it also destroys the fine idiom verecundia timorem vincit (27. 12. 15, 28. 15. 9 (Gronovius); cf. 3 7 - 4 3 - 4 . 3 8 - 5 ° - 3)36. 4. ne causa dubia esset . . . tunc enimvero deorum ira admonuit: there is no manuscript authority for the text printed by Bayet (causa ei dubia . . . deorum eum ira; after Conway). T o limit the application of J u p piter's lesson to Latinius alone destroys its universal effect. T h e Romans as well as Latinius have much to learn about Juppiter's dis­ pleasure (ira). See C.Q. 9 (i959)> 274. in somnis: Stacey (see Lofstedt, Syntactical 1. 55 ff.; Gries, Constancy\ 59-60) was the first to regard the phrase as evidence for the poetic character of the language of the first decade which L. subsequently modified (8. 6-11) or abandoned. T h e phrase does occur in poetry (Ennius, Annales 219 V . ; Accius ap. Cicero, de Div. 1. 4 4 ; Virgil, Aeneid 2. 270 (cf. Servius, ad loc.: out per somnos: out si insomniis legeris erit synizesis), 3. 151) but it is equally common in prose, e.g. Cicero, de Div. 1. 49, 54, 121, 2. 144; de Nat. Deorum 1. 82. 36. 6. consilio: it is hard to find actual examples of the family council; those usually quoted (Val. Max. 5. 8. 2, 5. 8. 3, 5. 9. 1) are not very good. T h e last passage gives an account of a serious historical case where in addition to relatives nearly all the Senate are summoned to join the consilium. It is doubtful whether there were any occasions on which custom would require a consilium restricted to the family; the paterfamilias could always act on his own authority (J. A. Crook, Consilium Principis, 5). 328

491 B.C.

2-37

The Speech ofAttius Tullius to the Consuls and the Expulsion of the Volscians from Rome, The Coriolanus story began in an atmosphere of late Republican politics. As it develops the atmosphere gradually changes to a spirit of high tragedy and the conspiratorial speech of Tullius marks one stage in the transition. T h e S. C. ut urbe excederent Volsci is reminiscent with its consequences of the alien act of M . Junius Pennus (126 B.C.) and may owe something to it but the language used by Tullius himself so far from being coloured with political jargon is sharply etched with archaic and poetic touches deliberately introduced by L. to lead up to the final scene between Coriolanus and his mother. 37. 3 . arbitris remotis: Late Republican colouring, cf. 2. 4. 5. quod sequius sit: 'I a m reluctant to say anything discreditable about my countrymen'. In this sense secus is more common than the com­ parative sequius (e.g. Cicero, ad Att. 1. 19. 1 1 ; ad Fam. 3. 6. 6 ; pro Cluentio 124; Tacitus, Annales 2. 50). T h e only close parallel for the comparative is Seneca, de Bene/. 6. 42. 2 'at vereor ne homines de me sequius loquantuf (Drak.) where it conveys, as here, an air of selfimportance. While it is not a colloquialism, it is confined to the spoken rather than the written word. 37. 4. nimio plus: 1. 2. 3, 28. 25. 14, 29. 33. 4, 39. 40. 9, an oldfashioned variant on multoplus, found often in Plautus (e.g. Bacch. 149) and, as we might expect, in Lucretius (5. 564, 988). T w o other occur­ rences are worth noting. Horace uses it when describing the reaction of a resuscitated Democritus to modern theatre taste (Epist. 2. 1. 197-8) and Antony affects it in a letter quoted by Cicero (ad Att. 10. 8 a. 1). 37. 6. memini . . . horret animus: cf. 28. 29. 4 (Scipio); Tacitus, Hist. 4. 58 (Dillius), a conventionally dramatic formula (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2. 12; see Syme, Tacitus, 685 and n. 1). Sabinorum iuventute: 18. 2. 37. 8. urbe excederent: urbem N but see 3. 57. 10 n. The Speech of Attius Tullius to the Volscians In this speech Tullius reverts to the political vein—in contionis modum. 38. 1. caput Ferentinum: 1. 50. 1 n., the centre of the Latin League; but no meeting of the League is intended nor has L. or his source confounded the Volscians with the Latins. It was as convenient a rendezvous for the one as for the other. veniret: eveniret N, preferred by Rossbach (cf. Plautus, Rudens 631) but in Plautus there is a clear sense of reaching a destination even­ tually after alarms and excursions which is quite inappropriate here. Cf. also Horace, Odes 4. 4. 65 and FraenkePs note in his edition of Aeschylus, Agamemnon, p. 90, n. 1. 329

2. 38. 2

491 B.C.

38. 2. A troublesome passage. The position of inquit demands that the direct speech begins 'ut omnia? inquit . . . a n d not earlier so as to include veteres . . . Volscorum in the actual spoken remarks. This leaves veteres . . . Volscorum without any verb to govern it, since exorsus must go with orationem (21. 39. 10, 32. 37. 5, 36. 6. 4). To transpose the words en bloc and insert them after alia (Walters) produces an intolerable apposition and destroys the trenchant juxtaposition omnia . . . alia, hodiernam hanc. There are two courses open, either to delete them as a gloss on alia (and it must be conceded that it would have been bad tactics for Tullius to have prefaced his remarks by gloomy reminis­ cences of the clades Volscorum) or supply a verb, (exsecutus^) veteres . . . (F. Walter in Phil. Woch. 57 (1937), 335; cf. 29. 17. 17) is paelaeographically and linguistically admirable: it might be improved to exsecutusque. contumeliam quo tandem animo fertis ? an echo of Cicero, in Catil. 1. 16. The arguments used by Tullius may be imagined as the arguments by which Catiline incited his supporters to open aggression (cf. his speech in Sallust, Cat. especially 20. 9). 38. 4. quid eos qui audivere . . . quid (eos} qui . . . videre . . . quid eos qui . . .fuere obvii: in such a highly rhetorical passage, the colon trimembrum should be preserved and I would insert an extra eos to secure it rather than (with Karsten) omit the first one. nos ab sede piorum, coetu concilioque abigi: 'that we are driven from the place of the holy, from their throng and assembly5, difficult on the score both of grammar and of sense. The sedes piorum should be the evatfiiojv x&pos, the abode of the holy in the underworld, as in Horace, Odes 2. 13. 23 sedesque discretaspiorum (see Heinze, ad loc.) or Cw/^295. Tullius might mean that the Volscians are being deprived of their chance of appeasing the gods and of securing favourable treatment after death, but the natural interpretation in the context is that the pii are (ironically) the crowd gathered at the games; in which case Karsten was probably right to delete sede, thereby also easing the grammatical awkwardness involved in taking coetu concilioque as epexegetic of sede. 38. 5. si hoc profectio ac nonfuga est: a turn of phrase familiar from Caesar (B.G. 2. 11. 1, 6. 7. 8, 7. 43. 5). hanc urbem vos non hostium ducitis: an old commonplace for which cf. Cato, Or. fr. 195 Male.; Cicero, in Catil. 2. 17-26. morati . . . moriendum: the jingle is deliberately rhetorical. The in­ dicative with gerund (or gerundive) indicating obligation or necessity, where a subjunctive might be expected, is characteristic of Cicero's forensic style. Cf, e.g., de Domo 57. si viri estis: 1. 41. 3 n. 330

491 B.C.

2. 39- 2

Coriolanus' March on Rome 39. 2. Circeios: i. 56. 3 n. 39. 3 . inde: in D.H. (and abbreviated in Plutarch, Coriolanus 28) the campaign is in two distinct phases (8. 14-36): (i) Coriolanus begins from Circeii and advances via Tolerium, BwXavwv crcpav TTOXLV—this must be Bola: Sylburg emended Ba>Xas ACLTLVOJV ircpav TTOXLV—Labici, Pedum, Corbio, rj Ko7rioXava>v (AB KoptaXavcbv R) 77-0At?—not Corioli which D.H. spells XcopicXavcov: Niebuhr proposed Kapvevravajv but KaniToXavajv (Capitulum, mod. Piglio, near Praeneste: cf. Strabo 5. 238; Pliny, N.H. 3. 63; C.I.L. 14. 2960) is better—Bovillae (/taAa? A /foAa? B) to the fossae Cluiliae. After negotiations he withdraws from Rome and embarks on a second campaign along a branch of the Via Ardeatina, attacking Longula (AoyydSt codd.), Satricum, Ecetra, Setia (rtavcodd.), Pollusca, AXfiirjTas, Mugilla, and annexing Corioli. Thereupon he advances to Rome once again with a bigger army than before, to be greeted by the embassy of matrons. The two campaigns are in distinct areas, the first in the Praenestine Gap, north-east of the Via Latina, the second on the coastal plain west of the Alban hills and of the later Via Appia. In L. these two separate areas with their individual campaigns are still marked. Satricum, Longula, Polusca, Corioli, all belong to the second or western area so that the corrupt novellam should also. Bovillas (Gronovius; for the corruption cf. Fraenkel, Horace, 108 n. 1) belongs to the first area and is therefore inappropriate. Mugillam (Jac. Gronovius) agrees with D.H. and is exactly what is needed. (As an adjective novella is out of the question : the diminutive is never used in L.) It is clear that for dramatic reasons L. has telescoped the two campaigns into one. He is concerned with the scene between Coriolanus and his mother and to duplicate the warlike preliminaries would be an artistic mistake. The two campaigns become one. But Coriolanus started from Circeii and so, to make geographical sense, L. has had to reverse their order. Coriolanus rolls up the map of Latium from the south and captures the cities as he comes to them. It would have been strategically grotesque for him to leap from Circeii to Corbio and then turn back to mop up Satricum and Corioli if they were all part of the same campaign. Having dealt with the second area first, L. proceeds to describe the successes among the Latin towns round Rome (Corbio, Vetelia, (?)Trebium, Labici, Pedum), culminating with a single descent on the capital, in Latinam viam transgressus is on the face of it absurd. Coriolanus does not cross to the Latin Way after Circeii according to L . ; he works his way up the coastal plain to Lavinium before crossing. The answer is that the account which L. had before him gave the traditional double campaign which started 331

2. 39- 3

4 9 1 B.C.

with the Latin cities (as in D.H. and Plutarch). L. follows this account initially. Coriolanus is made to start from Circeii and would have gone in Latinam viam if L. had not decided to conflate the two campaigns and been led by geographical considerations to narrate the second campaign before the first. Too late, for L. had already written the tell-tale in Latinam viam transgressus. All emendations by transposition do violence to this lay-out and toL.'s use ofinde. T h e right appreciation lurks in Conway's appendix I to his edition (Pitt Press, 1902); A. Reichenberger, Studien, 2 8 ; Meyer's note ad loc. See Ashby, Roman Campagna, 208. Satricum: identified with the mod. Borgo Montello on the R. Astura by the discovery there of a temple with an inscribed cippus {Not. Scavi, 1896, 23 ff.). Not a member of the Alban League but included both in the synthetic list which precedes that league (Pliny, N.H. 3. 68-69 5 s e e above) and in D.H.'s Latin League of c. 400 B.C. (5. 61). Sacked and destroyed by the Romans in the fourth century (7. 27. 5 - 9 : 347 B.C.) it disappears from memory (Philipp, R.E., 'Satricum'). Some recent epigraphic fragments are published by N. Bonacasa, Stud. Etrusc. 26 (1958), 37-45. Longulam, Poluscam, Coriolos: 33. 4-5 nn. Mugillam: the modern site is as shadowy as its ancient history. It is placed by Abeken (Mittelitalien, 69) south-west of Bovillae and is known only as the source of a branch of the gens Papiria, which implies that it was not very far from Tusculum. haec Romanis oppida ademit: a resumptive use of hie, gathering up a long list, for which Meyer compares 1. 38. 4 Corniculum, Ficulea vetus, Cameria, Crustumerium, Ameriola, Medullia, Nomentum haec de priscis Latinis . . . capta oppida and Macrobius, Sat. 3. 9. 13. Lavinium: 1. 1. i o n . 39. 4 . Corbionem: probably the modern Rocca Priora, on the east end of the Alban hills (f. Ashby, P.B.S.R. 5 (1910), 408). Not a member of the Alban League and therefore not one of the earliest communities, but its strategic situation near the pass of Algidus (3- 3°- 3) brought it to prominence in the Latin Wars, throughout which it is frequently mentioned. It was partially destroyed by the consul Horatius in 457 (3. 30. 8 Corbionem diruit) but only partially, for it emerges again in 446 (3. 66, 69) and figures in the Latin League ofc. 400 B.C. (D.H. 5. 61). This was its last effort: it leaves no other trace (Hulsen, R.E., 'Corbio'). Veteliam: 5. 29. 3, an old community (Pliny, N.H. 3. 69). Its name, like Bovillae, may be connected with bull-worship (Conway, Italic Dialects, 4 8 ; Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 66). Being in agro Aequo it should lie near the modern Labico (Lugnano), although its disappearance after the fifth century indicates that it cannot have been 332

491 B.C.

2.39.4

on a strong site and the order of cities given by L. would be wrong if Tolerium is Valmontone. See Ashby, P.B.S.R. 1 (1902), 273 n. 2. Trebium: N—otherwise unknown. D.H. names the first victims of Coriolanus after Circeii ol ToXeptvoi (8. 17. 4), who are members both of the Alban League (Tolerienses; cf. Steph. Byz. ToXipiov) and of the Latin League (5. 61 ToXrjpLvcov). Write Tolerium in L.—a common metathesis. It is placed by Nibby and Nissen at Valmontone (Ashby, P.B.S.R. 1 (1902), 273; Rosenberg, Hermes 55 (1919), 137; Philipp, R.E., 'Tolerium'). Labicos: said by Strabo (5. 237) to lie on a hill to the right of the Via Labicana, 120 stades from the Esquiline gate. An imperial in­ scription (C.LL. 14. 2770: c. 200 A.D.), mentioning a resp. Lavicanorum Quintanensium, shows that by that date the Labicani and the Quintanenses had amalgamated: if so, ad Quintanas, a station on the Via Labicana 15 miles from Rome (Tab. Peut.), must be the clue to the ancient Labici. The only commanding hill which answers to the de­ scription is Mte. Compatri and this site would also suit the union of Labici with Bovillae and Gabii in a second league (Cicero, pro Plancio 23). Not a member of the Alban League, it emerged as a community in the fifth century (4. 45. 6 alliance with Aequi (418 B.C.); 47. 7 colonized; D.H. 5. 61 a member of the Latin League) but soon passed into an oblivion redeemed only by Caesar's construction of a villa the site (Suetonius, Julius 8 3 ; see Ashby, P.B.S.R. 1 (1902), 256 ff.; Philipp, R.E., 'Labici'; Barbieri, Diz. Epigr. 1946, s.v. Labici). Pedum: the regio Pedana was said by E Horace, Epist. 1. 4. 2 to lie between Tibur and Praeneste and the town is identified as the mod. Gallicano 18 miles from Rome on the Via Praenestina. Like Tolerium, a member of the Alban League (Pliny, N.H. 3. 69 Pedani) and of the Latin League (D.H. 5. 61 IJeSavajv), its commanding position was exploited by the Gauls as a camp in 358 (7. 12. 8) and by the Latins as a last stronghold in 339 (8. 12-14), after which it disappears sine vestigiis. 39. 5.fossas Cluilias: 1. 23. 3 n. 39, 7. externus timor, maximum concordiae vinculum: a commonplace going back at least to Thucydides 6. 33. 5 but more than a commonplace. It had for L. contemporary significance in that the motive for Augustus' projected Parthian campaign was at least in part to distract attention from internal politics (cf. also Tacitus, Hist. 5. 12); and L.'s statement was destined to have a profound influence on political thought. Machiavelli, combining with it the complementary doctrine otio luxuriat populus (1. 19. 4 n.) rephrased it in starker terms (Discourses, ii, ch. 35; N. H. Thomson's translation): 'the causes of division in a commonwealth are, for the most part, ease and tranquillity, while the causes of union are war and fear'. 333

2. 39-

I0

488 B.C.

39. 10. oratores: i. 38. 2 n. 40. 1. matronae: according to D.H. 8. 39 the idea came from Valeria, the sister of Publicola. In L. too the inspiration comes from a source other than Veturia herself so that he presumably had the same version before him but suppressed the individual name in order not to diffuse the attention. parum invenio: awkward. The nearest parallel is 30. 45. 6 parum conpertum habeo. Emendation {parum convenit H. J. Miiller) does not improve it. The alternative motives are reflections by L. himself, not differing traditions (cf. D.H. i\TaTT) Tp<x{>a> may be compared with hanc terram quae te genuit atque aluit.) Euripides, Hecuba 550-3, although different in meaning, has the ring of libera in libera patria mortua essem, while Polyxena's speech (342-78) amplifies the sentiment nee ut sum miserrima diu futura sum. Perhaps the closest extant parallel (Aly, Livius und Ennius, 37) is the declamation in [Seneca], Phoenissae 446 ff. The tragic character of the speech accounts for a few linguistic oddities. See also Brodribb, C.R. 24 (1910), 14-15. 40. 5. sine . . . sciam: sino with the subj. (not to be confused with sino ut and the subj.) is found in L. only in direct speech and only in the form sine (8. 38. 13, 22. 39. 20). In all three passages it is solemnly evocative of an obsolete idiom, familiar to Plautus and Terence, which died soon after and was resurrected by the Augustans (K. Gries, Constancy, 59). in hoc me . . . traxit ut: a final, not consecutive, clause emphasizing 334

488 B.C.

2. 40' 5

the deliberate nature of the tricks which fortune plays; cf. Horace, Sat. 2. 8. 25; Val. Max. 6. 9. 1; Tacitus, Hist. 1. 4 8 : R. G. Nisbet, A.J.P. 44 (1923), 27 ff. The complaint 'was it for this that I was allowed to live to this great age?' is a tragic commonplace (H. Lloyd-Jones, C.R. 72 (1958), 21 on Pap. Ox. 2377, to whom the greater part of these references is due). senecta: the poetic alternative to senectus, used six times by L., always for effect as here. 40. 7. quamvis infesto animo et minaci perveneras: quamvis is not used as a concessive particle with the indicative in L.—except here, where it goes closely in sense with infesto et minaci, 'no matter how hostile your mood en route'. Editors, missing the point of its unique force, delete perveneras (Novak, Meyer). See Riemann, Etudes, 224 n. 5; E. Mikkola, Die Konzessivitat, 20-21. ira cecidit: not a prose expression. As one might expect in such a display of emotion L, uses appropriate language. Elsewhere in Ovid, Amores 2. 13. 4 ; Seneca, Medea 989; Lucan 4. 284; Persius 5-9140. 8. ergo ego: introduces a histrionic cri-de-c&w, as in Suetonius, Nero 47 ergo ego . . . nee amicum habeo nee inimicum? Seneca, Contr. 1. 5. 3 (Weissenborn); Prop. 3 . 2 1 . 1 7 ; Ovid, Am. 1.12. 27; Shackleton Bailey on Prop. 2. 8. 13. sed ego nihil iampati nee tibi turpius quam mihi miserius possum nee . . . diu futura sum: rightly understood by Pettersson, Commentationes Livianae, 26 ff.: 'but I can have nothing now to suffer either which could be as wretched for me as it would be shameful for you—nor, wretched as I am, shall I be so for long', nee . . . nee do not correspond strictly. Instead of following up the alliteration and dramatic double compara­ tive with which she began, Veturia breaks off and states her approach­ ing end simply and directly. Had she continued in the same vein, a corresponding clause would have been something like nee mihi ipsi tarn diuturnum quam miserum (Meyer). See also P. R. Murphy, A.J.P. 79 (1958). 5 0 - 5 1 ; cf. 24. 5 n . 40. 9. -matura mors out longa servitus manet: she ends with a perfect iambic line. virum: note its position. He was a man but a woman won. 40. 10. complexus . . . movit: after the passionate appeal of Veturia couched in high-flown language L. rounds off the whole episode in two short sentences of the utmost simplicity. 40. 11. apud Fabium: 1. 44. 2 n. Although Fabius Pictor wrote before the contamination of Coriolanus and Themistocles, he had already given the story a Greek veneer. The saying multo miserius seni exsilium esse\% an old Greek reflection, repeated often in tragedy (e.g. Sophocles, O.C.) and in [Demosthenes], Epist. 2. 13, 3. 4. 335

2. 40-

1

1

488 B.C.

non inviderunt: an Augustan usage for which see Williams on Virgil, Aeneid 5. 541. 4 0 . 12. monumento quoque quod esset: the memorial is in addition to the praise as in D.H. 8. 55 rats Se yvvai£;\v eiraivov T' airoh^oaBai . . . /cat yepas. There is no need to follow Gronovius {monumentoque; cf. 1.48. 7). T h e temple of Fortuna Muliebris was 4 miles outside Rome on the Via Latina (Festus 282 L . ; De Viris Illustr. 19; Val. Max. 1. 8. 4) and was identified by Ashby with the remains of a small Ionic temple found in the locality (P.B.S.R. 4 (1907), 79: see Lanciani, Not, Scavi, 1890, 116 ff.). T h e date of its foundation would be preserved in the Fasti but its connexion with the legend of Coriolanus may be later, inspired by the fact that it lay on his route. T h e name of the cult taken with the apocryphal rite me matronae dedistis which the statue uttered show that it was originally a dedication to Fortune made by and not in honour of univiriae, widows and others being excluded because their status showed them to be unlucky (D.H. 8. 56. 4 ; Tertullian, de Monog. 17). Since in early times such a dedication would have been contentious in that married women could own no property and per­ form no legal action, it was easy for the original character of the cult to become distorted. A further uncertainty surrounds the actual day of dedication. 1 December and 6 July are both recorded and it is too schematic to see in these dates the original vowing and the actual consecration of the temple respectively. 1 December may be a sub­ sequent invention, when the temple was associated with Veturia and the detailed chronology of Coriolanus' movements worked out. T h e ludi Romani were in September: Coriolanus took probably a month over his first campaign and definitely thirty days over his second (8. 36. 1). This places his advance on Rome at the end of November; so that by no stretch of the imagination could 6 July be relevant. See Wissowa, Religion, 2 5 8 ; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 181. 40. 12-14. Annalistic Notices A compressed bridge-passage leading to the story of Sp. Cassius. It is written in the stiff jargon of official notices. Various indications show that at this point L. gives u p Valerius Antias in favour of Licinius Macer whom he follows as his main source down to 51. rediere: a joint invasion by the Volscians and Aequi may have been recorded in the Annales but historically it can hardly have been after and in addition to the exploits of Coriolanus. It can, however, be accepted as an authentic record if we recall that the Coriolanus story did not originally belong to this year but was only located here at a relatively late date. Aequi. . . haud ultra tulere ducem: a puzzling reaction since L. gives no reason for their discontent and only here for the first time mentions 336

488 B.C.

2.40. 12

their alliance with the Volscians: in 39. 1 Attius is leader of the Volscians. T h e awkwardness may be due at least as much to the transition from one source to another as to abbreviation and suppression by L. himself 40. 13. fortuna: 1. 46. 5 n. 40. 14. 7*. Sicinius: 32. 2 n. All other authorities, with the possible exception of Festus 180 L., call him Siccius; see Broughton, M.R.R. 1.2011. 1. A partiality for Sicinii is characteristic of Licinius Macer. See Klotz, Klio 33 (1940), 176. C. Aquillius: 3-5 n. Hernici—nam ii quoque in armis erant: L.'s somewhat apologetic ex­ planation hints at a longer account which has been concealed by the change of source. D . H . (8. 64. 1) supplies details and divergences. T h e difference in L. must be in part due to a difference of source, but a keen desire to keep the following year clear for Cassius' lex agraria and at the same time to minimize Cassius' good qualities may also be responsible for his confining the war to a single year and making it so indecisive. aequo Matte: claimed, e.g. by Stacey, as a poetic phrase in view of its use in Virgil, Aen. 7. 540 aequo dum Marte geruntur; Lucan 3. 5 8 5 ; Sil. Ital. 5. 233, &c. A poeticism in this context would be utterly in­ appropriate and the words, here as elsewhere (6. 10; 51. 2 ; 9. 44. 8 : cf. 1. 33. 4), belong to the semi-official language of the W a r Office. So Caesar writes (B.G. 7. 19. 3 ) : paratos prope aequo Marte ad dimicandum. Note also Fl. Vopiscus, Aurelianus (= S.H.A. 26) 21. 2 cum congredi aperto Marte non possent. 41. Sp, Cassius T h e indisputable facts about the life of Sp. Cassius (the cognomen Vecellinus is a later creation) are few. If, as one must, one accepts the evidence of the Fasti, he was consul three times in 502 (17. 1), 493 (33- 3)> a n d 4^6- T h a t all subsequent Cassii were plebeians is not so much an obstacle as a corroboration of the truth of the tradition: for he is in good company and the praenomen Spurius is not adopted by the later Cassii. During his second consulship he was responsible for the treaty with the Latins. H e was condemned to death in the year after his last consulship, 485. His second consulship coincided with the Secession of the Plebs which was ended by the foundation of the Tribunate. It also coincides with the traditional date for the dedica­ tion of the temple of Ceres (41. 10 n.) and the institution of the largely plebeian cult of that goddess. His third consulship coincides with the treaty with the Hernici and a strong tradition records, despite in­ dividual variations, that on his condemnation he and his were declared sacri to Ceres. From these facts emerges a clear, if conjectural, picture 814432

337

z

2. 41

486 B.C.

of a man who was aware that the great danger to Rome was from the powerful enemies (Voisci, Aequi) around her, that the duty of a states­ man to rebuff this danger was to consolidate as strong an alliance of neighbouring communities as possible and to encourage the Roman people, who formed the backbone of Rome's fighting power, by championing their aspirations. Hence the alliances with the Latins and the Hernici. Hence the temple of Ceres and the leges sacratae. His fall, like that of Themistocles, may have been due to the fact that the plebs were not yet confident enough or vocal enough to come to his rescue when the aristocracy counter-attacked. What is certain is that his ascendancy coincided with a major disaster to Roman arms in which many of the leading citizens fell at the hands of the Volscians and that after his death the plebeians were discredited, even disbarred, power passing to a narrow patrician oligarchy, led by the Fabii. For a while the democratic process was baulked. It bided its time with mounting momentum till the Decemvirate. For L., faced with the difficulties ahead of constructing a coherent narrative out of a scrappy series of isolated incidents, Sp. Gassius pro­ vided an admirable focus. On the one hand he could be made the archetype of subversive proposers of agrarian laws (dulcedo agrariae legis ipsa per se . . . subibat animos) which would hold together the events of subsequent years. On the other, following after Coriolanus, he demonstrated how the Roman people, however great their strife, would unite in the face of a threat to their liberty, whether from within or without. L. was content to accept the form of the story that was current in his sources without inquiring into its reliability. The development of that form can be traced to a certain extent. The oldest version, though even that is unhistorical (41. n n.), is given by Cicero (de Rep, 2. 60) and will derive ultimately from Fabius Pictor: de occupando regno molientem . . . quaestor (? K. Fabius) accusavit: . . . cum pater in ea culpa esse comperisse se dixisset, cedente populo morte mactavit.

Antiquarian research in the second century complicated it. A record, perhaps in the censorial archives, mentioned a statue in some way connected with Cassius. Any actual statue would in any case have disappeared in the Gallic fire (41. 10 n.), and only a confused and barely intelligible entry in the archives survived. Piso, the first his­ torian to employ pontifical records to supplement the literary tradition, and therefore the first to mention it, explains it thus: earn quam apud aedem Telluris statuisset sibi Sp. Cassius, qui regnum qffectaverat, etiam con-

flatam a censoribus (ap. Pliny, N.H. 34. 30). He understood the statue to have been erected by Cassius in his own lifetime; the people interpreted it as a sign of his tyrannical leanings, and it was de­ stroyed. It was probably as a correction of Piso's view, which can hardly be right, that the statue was explained as an offering to Ceres 338

486 B.C.

2.41

from the proceeds of Cassius' consecrated goods. This new explana­ tion was peculiarly apt, since, apart from being the proper recipient of consecratio bonorum (3. 55. 7 n.), the offended goddess was the cham­ pion of the plebs (3. 55. 13 n.), and also the guardian of the cornsupplies. A further irony would result if Sp. Cassius himself had dedicated the temple of Ceres. Research, however, also revealed a legal contradiction—a prosecution by a quaestor being terminated by the father acting on his own authority. The two elements in the old tradition are separated. One school of thought preserved the quaestorial prosecution but added a second quaestor since early cases of perduellio were examined by two persons (iiviri). The extra quaestor is called L. Valerius. Did Valerius Antias combine imagination and family gossip ? A second school of thought preferred the more dramatic idea of a iudicium domesticum in which the initiative lay throughout with Cassius' father. (Antiquarian research may also be responsible for a further oddity. The inscription, a later restoration, since it gives cognomina, listing nine persons (? tribuni militum) killed in battle against the Volsci and cremated at public expense (Festus 180 L.), includes P. Mu]cius Scaevola. Val. Max. (6. 3. 2) relates that a P. Mucius, as tribune, burned his nine colleagues for conspiring with Sp. Cassius (cf. also Dio fr. 22). It looks as if some historian, forgetful that there were at the most only five tribunes at the time, has employed the inscription to produce a melodramatic reconstruction of the end of Sp. Cassius in keeping with the passionate behaviour of tribunes in his own day. It is no more than a slip of the pen that at 5. 8. 2 Val. Max. makes Sp. Cassius himself a tribune.) But how had Sp. Cassius set about winning popular support for his intended coup? To supply the answer the annalists borrowed freely from the history of their own times. The agrarian law, the proposals to give land to the socii et nomen Latinum, the competition between Verginius and Cassius for popular support are all inspired by the doings of C. Gracchus, C. Fannius, and M. Drusus, and have no foundation in fact or legend. The proposal to repay the price of corn is modelled on C. Gracchus' Lex Frumentaria. See Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 153-79; Munzer, R.E., 'Cassius (91)'; Munzer, De Gente Valeria, 66; Soltau, Phil. Woch. 1908, 586 ff.; E. Pais, Storia di Roma, 3. 143-56; H. Last, C.A.H. 7. 471-3, 492-3; A, Oltramare, Bull. Soc. d'Hist. et d'Arch. de Geneve, 5 (1932), 1 ff.; Burck 76-79; A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 24-25; Klotz 243; P. Fraccaro, La Storia Romana Arcaica, (1952), 25; H. le Bonniec, Le Culte de Cere's, 213-35. 41. 1. cum Hernicis foedus ictum: the tradition is sound. The geogra­ phical situation of the Hernici in the Trerus valley made them a 339

2. 41. I

486 B.C.

valuable corridor separating and isolating the two major powers, the Aequi and Volsci. The Hernici could, therefore, be potentially allies of great importance to Rome. The terms of the treaty are said (D.H. 8. 69. 2) to have been the same as those of thefoedus Cassianum (33.4 n.), i.e. it was afoedus aequum of primarily defensive character. It is un­ certain whether it was concluded with Rome alone or with the Latin people as a whole. The war had been a federal war involving Latin contingents (D.H. 8. 65. 1) and the proposed allotment of land equally to Romans and Latins might indicate 'the working of the clause of the Cassian treaty which provided for the division of booty' (SherwinWhite). Elsewhere, however (e.g. 6. 10. 6, 9. 42. 11), the Hernici appear to be independent of the Latins in their relation to Rome and grave doubt has been cast on the annexation of Hernican land since at a time of crisis Rome would hardly have risked alienating the sympathies of such strategic allies. Moreover, it dovetails suspiciously with Cassius' unhistorical rogatio agraria. If the treaty was concluded between Rome alone and the Hernici, it marks the enhanced position of Rome in Latium and the personal ascendancy of Sp. Cassius. partes duae: 'two-thirds'. The error may have been caused by a misunderstood memory that the Hernici, in alliance with Rome and the Latins, received an equal share of the spoil, viz. one-third: cf. D.H. 6. 95 Aavpajv re KGLI Acta? taov fiepos. See 5. 4. 10 n. 4 1 . 3 . lex agraria\ throughout the century there is mention of such agitation to distribute agerpublicus (in 482, 481, 476, 474, 467, 441, 424, 421,420, 416, 414, 412, 410: see 43. 3,44. 1,48. 2, 52. 2,54. 2 , 6 1 . 1, 63. 2, 3. 1. 2 , 4 . 4 3 . 6,47. 8,49. 11, 51. 5, 52. 2, 53. 2, 5.12. 3). Although a shortage of land for pasture and cultivation was a factor in Roman economy at the time, the record of these proposals is to be rejected. The great majority of them are abortive threats which would never have been documented. Moreover, it is only with the large acquisition of ager publicus from the fourth century onwards that the need for such measures arose. Whether they were intended to displace monopolistic landlords holding large areas under uncertain title, or to settle new land, they reflect the abuses and conditions of the century of the Gracchi and many of them can be disproved in particular detail (see notes). See L. Zancan, Ager Publicus; Clerici, Economia e Finanza, 290-301. hanc: Praef. 4. Not merely a conventional reference to the distur­ bances attendant on the proposals of Licinius Stolo, G. Gracchus, and M. Drusus but a comment on the evils of more recent leges agrariae, like Caesar's in 59 or Octavian's in 30 B.C., which were con­ cerned with resettling veterans after campaigns. 4 1 . 4. fastidire munus volgatum a civibus isse in socios: isse An egisse M. The Symmachian edition may have had, as Winkler believed, the 340

486 B.C.

2.41. 4

alternatives esse (which was the reading of Vorm.) and isse which are combined in the conflation egisse found in M . If so, the true reading was already in doubt in the fourth century since neither alternative is right. (1) T o consider esse first: volgatum . . . esse must be taken together as a dependent clause after fastidire. 'The plebs had begun to resent that the gift was being disseminated from citizens to allies.5 So Rhenanus, Freudenberg, and others. T h e Thes. Ling. Lat. gives no adequate parallel for such a dependent clause: the nearest is 6. 4 1 . 2 se inspici, aestimari fastidiat which is reflexive. In any case the past tense is wrong. It was only in process of being disseminated. (2) Most editors read isse (Aldus, Gruter, Heinsius, Bekker, Kreyssig, and recently Bayet). 'The plebs had begun to resent that the gift had been cheapened and had gone from the citizens to the allies.' Here again, fastidire with ace. and inf. is uneasy and the naked isse cheap. Madvig circumvented the first objection by putting a semicolon after volgatum and taking a civibus isse in socios as a self-contained parenthesis stating the reason for the resentment of the plebs. H . J . Muller improved it by reading abisse, but the exisse of Luterbacher, Weissenborn, and Meyer gives better sense with its connotation of dispersal and is palaeographically attractive (cf. the similar mistake in the manuscripts of Columella 11. 2. 101). Against this it must be said that a relative clause quaeprimo coeperat. . . deinde . . . audiebat could not be broken by such an abrupt insertion. Above all, the tense is wrong. Cassius' pro­ posal is still only a rogatio. It is not yet on the statute book: the deed is not yet done. A present, not a perfect, infinitive is required. A passage of Seneca (de Benef. 2. 18. 6 munus suum fastidire te iniuriam iudicaturus est) suggests that munus volgatum is the direct object of fastidire here too. volgatum a civibus . . .in socios, despite the fact that elsewhere volgari in is apparently confined to diseases (4. 30. 8, 5. 48. 3 ; Curtius 9. 10. 1 ; cf. 4. 1. 3), must be right in view of the resumption in 41. 8 and the inability to express the precise notion of the possession of the gift passing from one body to another in any other way. T h e corruption is therefore localized to egisse. None of the possible present infinitives convinces (e.g. abigi or exigi). egisse should be seen as a corruption of ipsis, where ipsis is used to underline the notion that it was citizens who were being cheated in this way (Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 257). T h e line of argument was devised by G. Fannius in 126 B.G. quid ita enim: 'for what (else) does this partnership with the Latins mean ?' T h e force of quid ita is to pick out a particular happening and hint a misgiving about it. So also 3. 40. 10, 6. 15. 11 : cf. the abso­ lute use of quid ita? in Cicero, pro Mil. 17, et al. It corresponds to the phrase quid attinet (6. 23. 7, 37. 15. 2) 'what is the point of?', so that quid ita adsumi must be parallel to quid attinuisse . . . reddi. Most editors, however, have adopted the manuscripts attinuisset and taken adsumi 341

2.41-4

486 B.C.

no less than reddi to be dependent upon it, the two being connected by the repetition of quid. socios et nomen Latinum: an anachronism, since, disregarding the Latins and the Hernici, the Romans have as yet no other allies. But note Cicero, Brutus gg (Domitius) unam orationem de sociis et nomine Latino contra Gracchum reliquit and Appian, B.C. i. 23. A Gracchan touch. 4 1 . 7. intercessor: a loose use of the word since one consul could not veto the actions of his colleague (see McFayden, Studies . . . F. W. Shipley, 1—17). plebi indulgere: the bidding for popular support is drawn from the competition between C. Gracchus and M . Livius of whom Plutarch (C. Gracchus g) says that he aimed imepPaXeaOai rov Taiov ya.pvri rtov TToWtOV.

Since Cassius and Verginius really were competing, it is hard to see what is the point of ut in ut certatim. certatim is nowhere else qualified in L. and ut could well be a dittography after cons-ul (J. F. Gronovius). 41. 8. Siculo frumento: g. 6 n. pecuniam . . . retribui: suggested, perhaps, either by Ti. Gracchus' proposals for disposing of the legacy of Attalus of Pergamum (Weissenborn) or, more probably, by C. Gracchus' alleged corn subsidy (Livy, Epit. 6 0 ; Veil. Pat. 2. 6). 4 1 . 9. praesentem: 5. 12. 3, 30. 33. g. 'Palpable'. propter suspicionem in animis hominum insitam: the manuscripts place the words in animis hominum between eius and respuebantur, where they will not construe. T h e rearrangement, due to Kock and Alan, is superior to Cornelissen's insitam in animis hominum which produces an intolerable juxtaposition of genitives (hominum regni) requiring the further deletion of regni. Insitam in animis is interchangeable with insitus animis ( D a t . ) ; cf. 4g. 12; Cicero, de Fin. 1. 3 1 ; ad Herennium 3. 28. 4 1 . 10. patrem auctorem: 1. 26. g. T h e propriety of the father's action is emphasized by the use of peculium which technically denotes the money or property that a paterfamilias allowed his slaves and children to hold. domi: 36. 6 n. See R. Dull, £eit. Sav.-Stift. 63 (ig43), 57-58. verberasse ac necasse . . . Cereri consecravisse: L. does not mention the dedication of the temple of Ceres, or rather, in full, Ceres, Liber, and Libera (3. 55. 7) traditionally ascribed to Sp. Cassius in his second consulship of 4g3 (D.H. 6. g4- 3 ; Tacitus, Annals 2. 4g). T h e omission, however, is not grave. At the time (33. 3 n.) L. was pre­ occupied with creating a unified account of the Secession of the Plebs and had also changed his sources so that it could easily have slipped his notice. There is no question that the traditional date is right. Foundation-dates are among the most secure landmarks in ancient history, and the cult of Ceres, with its Hellenic associations, harmonizes 342

486 B.C.

2. 41. io

well with the mood of a Rome which witnessed in the same epoch the establishment of temples of Mercury (21.7 n.) and Castor (42. 5 n.). The expansion of Rome brought her into increasing contact with the religious concepts of the Greeks. Moreover, the cult of Geres was pre­ dominantly plebeian, serving the needs of a section of the community which was now for the first time beginning to assert itself. There may well have been a family legend that Gassius and his belongings were consecrated to Geres, since interest in Sp. Gassius was lively among the gens Cassia; two separate moneyers, L. Gassius Gaeicianus c. 93 B.C» and L. Gassius Q . f. in 78 B.C., strike denarii with historical representa­ tions of their ancestor (S. Gesano, Stud. Num. 1 (1942), 145-7). But the irony of the servant of Geres being offered to Ceres is too rich. One suspects that because consecratio bonorum was generally made to Geres as the goddess who nourishes human life (3. 55. 7 n.; Cicero, de Domo 125, with Nisbet's note cf. Greenidge, Roman Public Life, 55; le Bonniec, Le Culte de Ceres, 83-87, 233-5) anc ^ because, further, the penalty for the most serious capital offences as early as under the Twelve Tables was suspensum Cereri necari (Pliny, N.H. 18. 12), it re­ quired little ingenuity on the part of family historians to frame the legend of Sp. Gassius' end. There is no historical truth in it. On the temple of Ceres see also H. Siber, R.E., 'Plebs', col. 116; Beloch, Rom. Gesch. 329; G. de Sanctis, Riv. Fil. 10 (1932), 443; W. Hoffmann, Philologus, Suppl. 27 (1934), 100; Platner-Ashby s.v. Geres and, on its connexion with the plebs, the remarks of E. S. Staveley, J.R.S. 45 (1955), 183-4. Cereri consecravisse: 8. 2. The procedure of consecratio bonorum is fully outlined by Cicero, de Domo 123-5. Consecration was performed capite velato, contione advocata, foculo posito . . . adhibito tibicine. In early days it was the corollary of consecratio capitis: the offender and his belongings were declared sacer—presumably, since the presence of pontifices was not needed, by the supreme magistrate. In later times consecratio bonorum was distinct from consecratio capitis and restricted to offences against plebeian magistrates, in particular against the tribunes (3. 55. 7). If a tribune was attacked he retaliated by con­ secrating the goods of his assailant, which amounted to selling them publicly and giving the proceeds to the temple of Ceres. By Cicero's date the practice was obsolete. But in either case the validity of con­ secratio seems to depend upon the position of the person who performs the ceremony (consul or tribune) and the fact that Cassius' father acts as a private individual confirms the suspicion that the story is an invention. See further Wissowa, R.E., 'Consecratio'; StrachanDavidson, Problems, 1. 187; Nisbet's edition of Cicero, de Domo, Appendix 6. Ex Cassia familia datum: not 'given by the family of the Cassii' 343

2 . . 4 1 - 10

486 B.C.

(Steele), 'the gift of the Cassian family' (Foster), 'don de la famille Cassia5 (Baillet) but 'given from the proceeds of Cassius' belongings'. T h a t familia is used in its ancient, legal sense of property (cf. Twelve Tables 5. 4 ; Lex ap. ad Herenn. 1. 2 3 : note the phrases familia pecuniaque and paterfamilias) is clear from the corresponding passage in 3. 55. 7 familia . . . venum iret. T h e putative inscription raises serious difficulties. In the first place it is more than doubtful whether any such statue was extant in the late Republic. T h e temple of Ceres, being on the Aventine near the west end of the Circus Maximus, was in the zone subject to the devastation of the Gallic sack. No ancient author speaks of its being burnt by the Gauls, but Varro, who died in 27 B.C. before the damage caused by a conflagration in 31 B.C. had been made good by Augustus (Dio 50. 10. 3 ; Tacitus, Annals 2. 4 9 : le Bonniec 256-66), speaks of a restoration (ap. Pliny, N.H. 35. 154) which must, therefore, be earlier than Augustus' and could be a fourth-century restoration after the fire in 390. Piso, quoted above ( = fr. 37 P.), tells a quite different story of a statue associated with Sp. Cassius which was melted down, and thereby tends to confirm the suspicion that the only evidence for a statue and an inscription was second-hand and that the vague memory of it was refurbished by historians. Moreover, if the inscription were genuine, it would disprove the authenticity of one of the oldest pieces of the legend—the participation, in whatever capacity, of Sp. Cassius' father. Sp. Cassius himself had no familia but only dipeculium. He was not sui iuris since his father was still alive and at such an early period emancipation is hardly to be thought of. A writer, wishing to compose a plausible narrative of Sp. Cassius' end, would know that the belongings of a man convicted of perduellio were consecrated to Ceres. Legend told of a statue set up by Sp. Cassius which was melted down : the cult-statue of Ceres (Pliny, N.H. 34. 15) had been melted down in the fire of 390. W h a t easier than to assume that the statue associated with Sp. Cassius was really a cult-statue of Ceres cast out of the proceeds, which would consist of heavy bronze in any case, from the consecration of his belongings? 4 1 . 1 1 . quosdam: i.e. Valerius Antias. a quaestoribus: 35. 5. n., 3. 24. 2 n. T h e evidence that quaestores are old is dependable but their function was to pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of an accused. Sp. Cassius was clearly charged with perduellio which was not investigated by quaestores unless we are to believe that they held a preliminary examination at the instance of an aggrieved party before passing the case to the duoviri. This is as improbable as assuming that at this date the duoviri had not yet been invented. Admittedly the case of Horatius is fictitious (1. 26. 5 n.) but it illustrates what the Romans regarded as a very ancient procedure. T h e fact that the Twelve Tables concerned themselves with perduellio specifically as well as 344

486 B.C.

2. 4 1 . II

with parricidium (Marcian, Dig. 48. 4. 3) indicates that before the laws were codified and written down a separate system of dealing with perduellio already existed and hence that the duoviri were not an in­ vention of the Decemvirs. T h e outstanding feature of their legislation was not innovation but publication of what till then had been aypaoi vofjLoi. If quaestores existed before the Twelve Tables, it is at least as likely that duoviri did. Secondly, the reference to the trial before the populus is universally admitted to be anachronistic, which casts doubt on the rest of the details of tradition. Thirdly, the earliest version, in Cicero's de Republica, speaks not of two but only of a single quaestor. A more credible sequence, if there is any truth at all in Sp. Cassius' trial, would be that he was tried by duoviri perduellionis a n d the evidence of his father played some part in the trial, that when the duoviri came to be forgotten only the memory of a trial and the part played in it by Cassius5 father remained, that Fabius Pictor, gathering the material for the first serious, annalistic history of Rome, found a family tradition that a Fabius had been concerned in the trial and designated him a quaestor or quaesitor because of the etymology and obscurity of the office and the uncertainty as to how early R o m a n trials were conducted, that the implausibility of his account led some to substitute the family trial and others to improve on it by introducing another quaestor and thereby preserving the important R o m a n prac­ tice of collegiality, while at the same time speciously bringing them into relation with quaestores parricidii. T h e source used by D.H. imparted a more outrageous anachronism in the person of a tr. pi. C. Rabuleius (8. 72. 1-4). See 3. 35. n n. In general see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 537 ff.; Munzer, R.E., 'Sp. Cassius'; K. Latte, T.A.P.A. 67 (1936), 2 4 - 3 3 ; C. H . Brecht, Perduellio, 267-79; H . Siber, Magistraturen, 56 ff.; Zeit. Sav.-Stift. 62 (1942), 381 and 385; A. Heuss, £«7. Sav.-Stift. 64 (1944), 93 ff- 5 E - s - Staveley, Historia 3 (1955), 4 2 6 - 7 ; Jolowicz 323. L. Valerius: cos. 483 and 470, and praef. urb. 464. His presence may owe something to the Lex Valeria de sacrando cum bonis capite eius qui regni occupandi consilia inisset (8. 2 n.). dirutas publice aedes: the demolition of the houses of persons found guilty of perduellio or the like is well attested. Cicero {de Domo 101) classes together the cases of Cassius, Sp. Maelius (4. 12-16), M . Manlius (6. 20. 13, 7. 28. 5 ; Ovid, Fasti6. 185), and Vitruvius Vaccus (8. 19. 4, 20. 8), and in each case the tradition is ancient and reliable. Notice also the story of the Velia (7. 5-12). T h e temple of Tellus was not built until 268 (Florus 1. 14) but it replaced an earlier shrine that went back to the original demolition (C. Hulsen, Topograph. 1. 323: Weinstock, R.E., 'Terra mater', col. 804; le Bonniec 5 2 - 5 5 ; Platner-Ashby s.v. Tellus). T h e house was situated on the Esquiline, in Carinis (D.H. 8. 79). 345

2- 4 2 - 5 " . 3

485 B.C. 42-51. 3. The Fabii and Dulcedo Agrariae Legis

For this section Roman historians were faced with a disjointed series of notices about battles and a long sequence of Fabii in the consulate. Their problem was to form a connected narrative out of such material and they did it by emphasizing the dominant position of the Fabium nomen and by introducing as a recurring refrain the theme of agrarian laws. T h e plebs agitate for the law: the patres resist: the Fabii attempt unavailingly to reconcile the two sides and restore Concordia (47. 12): a sudden invasion saves the day. T h e pattern is simple and in origin goes back to Licinius Macer at least. L. adapts it to the scheme of the book. In character and length the story of the Fabii (41-50) plays the same part in the second half of the book as the episodes culminating in Lake Regillus (14-21) play in the first. T h e symmetry is underlined by the presence in each of a strongly marked 'Homeric' battle (45 n.). L. also strengthens the pattern by an experiment of his own. Instead of prefacing the opening of each year by a list of consuls, he weaves their election into the course of the narrative (42. 2 termerepatres ut. . . ; cf. 42. 7, 43. n , 48. 1,51. 1) and binds the whole section into a unity. L. also abbreviates in order not to disperse the climax towards Cremera, as a comparison with the parallel version of D.H. shows (e.g. 8. 87 C. Maenius tr. pi.; 8. 90. 4-5 the interregnum of 482 5 9 . 2 Furius' operation against Veii; 9. 12 the exploits of T . Siccius; 9. 16 wars with Volsci and Aequi). At bottom the factual content of the two writers corresponds with the historical situation when the mountain peoples as well as the Etruscans were pressing down on Rome. But already in their sources it has been supplemented by invention (the agrarian laws) and political distortion (the ideal of Concordia, the oppression of the plebs), D.H. utilizes at least two authorities (cf. 9. 18. 5 djLt^orepot Xoyoi): L. shows knowledge of only one, and per­ sonal details (43. 3 n.), political bias (42. 1, 48. 2), and material connexions (42. 5 n., 46. 4 n., 51. 1 n.) indicate that he is continuing to trust Licinius Macer whose special interest in the gens Fabia is evidenced by fr. 19 P. It is to be remembered that the Fabii and Licinii were hand in glove between 384 and 354 B.C. See Soltau 159; Burck 76-77; Klotz 244-6; Hellmann 6 7 - 6 8 ; see also below on Cremera. 42. 1. dulcedo . . . subibat: cf. Tacitus, Agricola 3. 1. fraudavere: 4. 51. 5 n., the political attitude is characteristic of Licinius Macer. In fact the legal position about praeda was always quite clear. All immovables, land, houses, & c , belonged to the state (Pomponius, Dig. 49. 15. 20. 1). T h e soldier had a right of plunder over whatever movables came his way (Gaius, Dig. 4 1 . 1. 5. 7; cf. Aristotle, Politics 346

485 B.C.

2. 42. I

i. 5), a principle which was often regularized by allowing half a vic­ torious army to foray for plunder and then selling what was obtained and distributing the proceeds throughout the whole force (cf. 4. 59. 1 o). Larger chattels and the human population accrued to the general, not as his private property, but in trust for the state. The proceeds he was obliged to pay to the aerarium but a moiety of it he could dis­ burse as a special reward to the troops for good conduct (4. 53. 10, 5. 26. 8, 6. 2. 12). This extra bounty came to be regarded by the troops as a right and if their expectations were disappointed, they were liable to instigate a prosecution for peculatus against the general for absconding privately with part of the proceeds due to the state. Historical instances are the cases of M \ Acilius Glabrio and Q . Servilius Caepio. A record may have been preserved in the Annales that Fabius had paid over a sum from the proceeds of the large plunder (such records were kept in the first century B.G.) and have formed the basis for inventing the fictitious unpopularity of Fabius. See further Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 2. 448; Siber, Abh. Sachs, Akad. 48 (1936), 19; Vogel, R.E., Traeda\ 42. 3 . seditione . . . bellum: the alternation of war and riot continues throughout the later books. 42. 5. Castoris aedes: Suetonius, Julius 10 ut enim geminis fratribus aedes in for0 constituta tantum Castoris vocaretur; Dio 37. 8. The temple is regularly called simply aedes Castoris in official inscriptions (e.g. C.I.L. 6.363,9177, &c.) but the legend of Lake Regillus (20.12 n.) presupposes that it was dedicated both to Castor and to Pollux (cf. Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 3. 13). Since the two Dioscuri are named in certain formal documents, for example in the Fasti Praenest., iaedes Castoris et Pollucis\ we must reject a theory of Wilamowitz that the temple was dedicated to Castor alone because Pollux was mortal and that popular usage subsequently misnamed it, in favour of the view advanced by Lofstedt {Syntactical 1. 74 n. 1) that the temple was dedicated to both but was popularly referred to by the name of the more important. If so, it is proof that L. is not reproducing temple records at first hand in his history. idibus Quintilibus: the Fasti (without exception) give the dedicationdate as 27 January (Fasti Praenest.; Fasti Verol.; Ovid 1. 705-6), which is corroborated by the celebration of the ludi Castoris at Ostia on the same day (C.I.L. 14. 1 ; third century A.D.) It has been argued that 27 January is the dies natalis of the rebuilt temple dedicated in 6 A.D. by Tiberius in his own name and that of his brother Drusus (Suet. Tib. 20). 15 July was also the date of the Transvectio Equorum which commemorated the Battle of Lake Regillus and the participa­ tion of the Dioscuri, but it may be that the Transvectio, which underwent drastic reformation by Augustus, merely took the place 347

2. 42. 5

484 B.C.

of the dies natalis of the temple of Castor in the calendar when the latter was moved from July to J a n u a r y in order that the associa­ tion of 15 July with Lake Regillus should be be maintained. See Wissowa, Religion, 268 ff.; S. Weinstock, Studi e Materiali 13 (1937), 10 ff.; F. Bomer, Gymnasium 64 (1957), 113; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, vota erat: 20. 12. duumvir: aprivatus could not dedicate a temple. He, with a colleague, in this case probably his brother, had to be elected by the people to the post of iivir aedi dedicandae for the purpose. Cf. 6. 5. 8, 23. 21. 7, 3°- J 3 5 3 1 - 9> 34- 53- 5 et al- T h e tradition that the son dedicated the temple begun by his father looks over-schematic. T h e Postumii were jealous of such honours and a member of the family had written history. Note C.I.L. 6. 3732, and see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 618-21 ; Munzer, R.E., 'Postumius (52a) 5 . 42. 6. dulcedine: 42. 1 n. fur oris . . . largitiones: the language of late Republican politics. Cf. Cicero, pro Murena 24. 42. 7. L. Valerius: 4 1 . 11. 42. 8. 'Three successive consulates, all without a break, as it were, tried and proved by tribunician struggles.' -que joins expertos and continuos. An ungainly phrase. T h e successive consulates of the Fabii have witnessed bitter campaigns by the tribunes. T h e Fabii have successfully weathered them and are tried and tested consuls {ex­ pertos). uno . . . tenore is colloquial and quasi-proverbial (cf. Cicero, Orator 21 uno tenore, ut aiunt,Jluit {stilus); 5. 5. 7, 22. 37. 10, 47. 6, 2 3 - 49- 3i Seneca, de Otio 1. 1; Otto, Sprichworter, s.v.) but the metaphor from motion is awkward with expertos. velut apologizes for the awkwardness. For other signs of unpolished writing see next note and 43. 5 n. bene locatus: 'as being well invested', not 'as being well situated 5 . Editors quote 7. 20. 5 (speech of Caeritan ambassadors) which is a deliberate echo of a similar play on words in Ennius {Trag. 409 V.). I t has no relevance to the present passage, which is more reminiscent of Plautine expressions (e.g. Most. 242, 302; Trin. 844) and is out of keeping with L.'s normally elevated style. 42. 9. bellum inde Veiens: 43. 5 n. D.H. 8. 87-91 knows nothing of a war with Veii in this year (483). According to him both consuls are engaged with the Volsci. Klotz {Mnemosyne 6 (1938), 83 ff.) maintains that L. is at fault, having combined two chronologically different sources which related the same event in 483 and 482 respectively (cf. 43. 1). If it is not another oversight, it is rather a sign that L. and D.H. are following separate sources. 42. 10. moti. . . numinis: 1. 55. 3 n. 348

483 B.C.

2. 4 2 . IO

vates: a loose term for the haruspices who were consulted whenever prodigies occurred. T h e interpretation of prodigies was made in the main either by Auguration, the study of the flight of birds (technically auguria ex avibus), or by extispicium, the inspection of the entrails, i.e. nunc extis nunc per aves. In both departments, particularly the latter, Etruscans excelled (cf. 1. 55. 3). publice privatimque: 1. 56. 5 n. extis . . . per aves: the variety of construction emphasizes the dif­ ferent nature of the two procedures, as well as being a favourite trick of L.'s (6. 3. 10, 7. 30. 17, 9. 5. 2). L. substitutes/w aves for the tech­ nical ex avibus to avoid the repeated ex- sound. haud rite: cf. 1. 31. 8. 42. 11. qui terrores\ 43. 3, a repetition suggestive of careless writing. See 1. 14. 4 n. tamen: the contrast is between the vague widespread alarm and its localization in the discovery of the individual sinner, tandem (Madvig) is unnecessary, although the corruption is common (cf., e.g., 5. 11. 2, 52. 13)Oppia: it is clear from 22. 57. 2 (the case of Opimia and Floronia in 216 B.C.) that the misconduct of Vestals was reckoned as aprodigium and so would have been entered in the Annales (Wissowa, Archiv. f. Relig.-Wiss. 22 (1923/4), 201 ff.). T h e present case, therefore, is also sound, although there is some doubt about her name. T h e manuscripts of L. agree on Oppia, although sources deriving from L. (illia Per. 2 ; Popilia Oros. 2. 8. 13; Pompilia Euseb. 2. 102) suggest either Pompilia (the family name of N u m a who founded the Vestals) or Popillia (a first-century B.C. Vestal). D.H. 8. 89. 4 calls her rwv -naptiivuiv /Lu'a . . . 'Om/zia. But although Opimius is attested for the early period (10. 32. 9), it is more likely that 'Om/u'a is an error for 'OTT(TT) la arising from a repetition of /xta. Oppia thus is the best form and is supported by the presence of an Oppius in the Decemvirate (3. 35. 11). Like the Cassii the Oppii of historical times were a plebeian gens. See Miinzer, Philologus 92 (1937), 211-16, who holds the notice to be genuine but the name fictitious, inserted by the opponents of the nobility (P. Popillius Laenas and L. Opimius) in Gracchan times, since damnatio memoriae would have been ordered. incesti: any offence which defiled the sanctity of religious laws and involved the loss ofcastitas was incestum. In the case of Vestals vowed to virginity any sexual relations were incestum. poenas: 4. 44. n , 8. 15. 8, 22. 57. 2. They were buried alive. Cf. Festus 277 L. 4 3 . 1. C. Iulius: 1. 30. 2 n., see Broughton, M.R.R. s.v., but it is possible that Licinius Macer, using the corrupt libri lintei, did write 349

482 B.C. C. Tullius and that L. followed him (4. 52. 4 n.). The notices for this year are ultimately from the Annales. 43. 2. Ortonam: 3. 30. 8. A Latin community of uncertain locality mentioned also in the same connexions by D.H. 8. 91. 1 'Opwva {con. Sylburg), 10. 26. 2 prwva. It is otherwise unknown but it has been plausibly identified with the Hort(on)enses in the list of the Alban League given by Pliny, JV.H. 3. 69. If so, it will be a primitive com­ munity of Latium which disappeared from history after being cap­ tured by the Aequi in 457. van Buren (R.E., 'Ortona (2)') places it between Tusculum and Praeneste but since it was captured after Gorbio it should lie between Tusculum and Corbio. Mte. Salomone, which certainly had a medieval fort, is a better site than Mte. Montagnola. D.H. 8. 91. 1 dates it to the previous year 482 B.C.; cf. 42. 9 n. 43. 3. redibat: cf. 24. 2. detractandi militiam: Refusing military service', the technical ex­ pression for the offence: cf. Cicero, Or. fr. a 1; Caesar, B.G. 7. 14. 9; L-4-53- 7,5- J 9- 5> 7- " : %etal. Sp. Licinius: Licinian bias; D.H. 9. 1. 3-2. 2, following a different source, names him Sp. Sicilius, emended to Sp. Icilius by Sylburg. 43. 4. auxilio: 44. 6, 4. 53. 7. Taken by editors specifically of the tribunician ius auxilii whereby the tribunes could rescue the consuls if the latter were arrested by Sp. Licinius on a charge ofviolating his sacrosanctity, but the word here is more general than that and means no more than 'by their assistance', whether their assistance took that particular form or was manifested in speeches, vetoes, or persuasion. 2. 43- i

4 3 . 5. ducendus Fabio in Veientes, in Aequos Furio datur; . . . et in Aequis quidem nihil dignum memoria gestum est: Fabio aliquanto plus . . .: so the

manuscripts. A discussion of the passage by Conway and Walters may be found in C.Q.4. (1910), 276. D.H. 9. 2, in his parallel narrative, reads: /ecu 5td raxpvs ol rmarot, StaKXrjpcoad^voL TO, aTpaT€Vfxaray itjrjeaav* Eiropios fxcv &ovpios eVt ra$ AIKCLVOJV TTOXGIS, Katacov 5c (Paj3to? €7rl Tvpprjvovs* Eiroplw fxev ovv a7ravra Kara vovv l-^oipi)o^vy ov\ v7TOfA€ivdvrojv els x€fyaS ^Xdelv rcov iroXcfxlcov . . . . (3) Kaiaojv 8e
then the narrative as in Livy with several references to ol TvpprjvoL In 44. 11 traditam ultro victoriam victis Aequis, signa deserta indicates

that the abortive war was fought against the Aequi, and 46. 1 supports the same inference. The inconsistency, first seriously pointed out by Sabellicus, has been variously tackled. Sigonius, followed by Fayus, Klockius, Drakenborch of the older editors, wished to read Fabio in Aequos, in Veientes Furio datur et in Veientibus quidem nihil dignum . . . . A simpler variation

of this is that proposed by R. K. Otto who would read Furio in Veientes, in Aequos Fabio . . . . Both these suggestions are beset by two obstacles. They reverse the allocation of provinces prescribed also in 350

481 B.C.

2. 43- 5

the parallel treatment of D.H. This fact must stand. T h e sources were agreed that Fabius' battle was against the Etruscans. This is doubly sure if the source was a Fabian source—i.e. Licinius Macer. In addition Otto's emendation requires one to suppose that Livy could say that Fabius' war with the Aequi was not worth describing (nihil memoria dignum) and then describe it for 20 lines. 43. 6-11 must relate the doings of Fabius (43. 6 n.) and doings against the Veientes, not the Aequi. Glareanus seeing the difficulty of departing from the agreed dis­ tribution of provinces, read victis Veientibus in 44. 11 and cum Veientibus in 46. 1. This also, though logical, is palaeographically unacceptable. T h e only other radical emendation is that of Conway and Walters who read: ducendus Fabio in Aequos, Furio datur in Veientes. (in Veientes} nihil memoria dignum gestum [est]; et in Aequis quidem Fabio aliquanto plus . . . . This solution, commended by Bayet and Meyer, is equally in­ admissible. It sacrifices the one certain correlation with D.H., and produces un-Latin at the e n d ; in Veientes for in Veientibus would be un­ paralleled in Livy and the chiasmus d. F. in V. in A. F. d. should be preserved. T h e text, therefore, must stand here and also at 44. 11 and 46. 1. It is to be explained not as a change of source but, as Sabellicus saw, as a mistake by Livy, partly perhaps through negligent forgetfulness but influenced also by the fact that the Aequi, unlike the Etruscans, were always being defeated. Note, in particular, 42. 1 above devictis eo anno Volscis Aequisque, 3. 8. 11, 7. 30. 7; cf. C.LL. 6. 1308 devictis Aequis et Volscis subactis. Whereas the Aequi to a R o m a n historian were so much cannon-fodder, Veii was a serious proposition. Psycho­ logically it was natural to write victis Aequis at 44. 11 and once it was written cum Aequis in 46. 1 followed as a matter of course. Gf. also, for L.'s fondness for recurring phrases, 3. 3. 10 in Aequis nihil deinde memorabile actum. 4 3 . 6. unus . . .sustinuit: i.e. K. Fabius. T h e words are reminiscent of the praise of another great Fabius, quoted in 30. 26. 9 sic nihil certius est quam unum hominem nobis cunctando rem restituisse, sicut Ennius ait. 43. 8. etsi non . . . saltern: L. uses si non . . . saltern (5. 38. 1, 28. 40. 9, 31. 49. 11, 38. 53. 4) or etsi non . . . certe (22. 54. 6, 25. 6. 2) except here where Muretus deleted et and Conway, unless the reading of the O.G.T. is a misprint, divided et si. T h e construction, even if unparal­ leled, can hardly be objected to, particularly in a section which shows other traces of haste. See Bitschofsky, Berl. Phil. Woch., 1915, 882. 4 3 . 10. remedia: Praef. 9 n. As Hellmann (68 n. 2) observes, the whole sentence is a comment by L. on the events of his own century. Unlike Marius or Pompey the soldiers, and unlike Sulla and Caesar the politicians, Augustus showed every sign of possessing both qualities. 351

2. 43' J o

481 B.C.

He was an Imperator. None the less he was applying remedia to the social and political ills of Rome. 4 4 . 1 . velut processisset: i. 57. 3. The impersonal procedit with a dative is extremely rare. Only two certain cases can be quoted. Caelius (Cicero, ad Fam. 8. 12. 3) writes quibus cum parum procederet ut. . ., where the «/-clause may be assumed to serve in lieu of a subject. The other case is Horace, Sat. 1. 2. 37 audire est operae pretium, procedere recte qui moechis non vultis on which Fraenkel (Horace, 82) comments that 'the syntactical con­ struction removes it from the careful language of educated persons1. A colloquialism is to be expected from Caelius too. Fraenkel, however, by a strange contradiction, classifies the present passage as 'probably an archaic or archaizing construction'. A colloquialism, on the other hand, suits the lack of finish displayed in the whole section. The Speech ofAp. Claudius The sentiments and language are derived from Republican politics. The suborning of one of the college of tribunes to thwart his colleague's proposal only became a serious factor in politics when M. Octavius opposed Ti. Gracchus and later when M. Livius Drusus outbid C. Gracchus. The principle unum vel adversus omnes satis esse (that a single veto outweighed the unanimity of the rest) was always implicit in the constitution of the tribunate but seems first consciously to have been formulated in the Gracchan era (Dig. 10. 3. 28, in re pari potiorem causam esse prohibentis; Plutarch, Ti. Gracchus 10; Cato min. 20; Seneca, Contr. 1. 5. 3). For the loaded term melioris partis cf. Cicero, pro Caelio 13; ad Brutum 2. 5. 3 : H. Strasburger, R.E., 'Optimates 5 ; for the con­ junction of gratia and auctoritas as terms of political influence cf. Cicero, Verr. 2. 106; Sallust, Catil. 20. 7 (H. Drexler, Rh. Mus. 102 (1959), 58); for salubres reipublicae cf. Cicero, de Domo 16. 44. 5. aliquid iuris: for the form of the expression cf. 39. 16. 7. The difficulty of meaning does not seem to have been met. The consulares are exerting the full force of any influence they possess over individual tribunes to persuade them to oppose Ti. Pontificius. gratia is influence as a result of past favours and services, auctoritas influence as a result of age, standing, or character, aliquid iuris should therefore bear the general meaning of 'some (moral) hold over'. But no other example of such a general meaning can be quoted. In all passages, even those usually adduced such as 3. 33. 8, 5. 35. 4, a code or convention which makes the obligation binding is implicit—natural law, international convention, and the like. None, however, can be conceived of here. On the other hand aliquid iuris cannot be taken more closely in the 352

480 B.C.

2. 44- 5

sense of claim 'such as a creditor may exert on his debtor' (Conway) with the sanction of the law ever hovering in the background, because in that case the influence would not be gratia and auctoritas but veiled threat and moral blackmail. The former meaning must be what L. intends, although the expression is hardly felicitous. The closest parallel would seem to be Ovid, Met. 2. 47-48 but even that is meta­ phorical. 44. 6. novemque: M wrote noque which was corrected by Ratherius to novemque, the reading of the archetype. The plural eorum (43. 4) pre­ supposes a tribunate of at least three colleagues and removes any possibility that L. is drawing on any of the authors who limited the early tribunate to two (33. 3 n.) But no author made the first figure as high as ten, and L. himself later calls attention to the increase to that number (3. 30. 7). It would therefore be simple to accept the correction made by Sigonius and read quattuorque, were it not that throughout this part of the book L. has been guilty of several lin­ guistic and factual slips, novem (cf. 4. 1.2) would be the natural figure for any writer to give unless he thought about it, particularly after evoking the atmosphere of late Republican party politics. 44. 7. auxilia convenerant: i.e. clients, slaves, and dependants. For D.H.'s elaboration of this (TOVS eavrojv irevloTas eVayo/uevoi) see J. Heurgon, Latomus 18 (1959), 7 I 3~23The Etruscan Debate The arguments assumed consist of the familiar rhetorical common­ places used by optimistic enemies of Rome. 44. 8. conciliis: the plural denotes not separate conclaves of separate groups of Etruscans but a series of meetings of the Pan-Etruscan Council at the fanum Voltumnae (5. 33. 9 n.). aeternas: 4. 4. 4 n. venerium: 3. 67. 6 n. 44. 9. opulentis: 50. 2 n. duos civitates ex unafactas: 3. 67. 10 n. 44. 11. Aequis: 43. 6 n. Battle with the Etruscans The description of the battle has much in common with the account of Lake Regillus (19-20) which was also from Licinius. The dis­ tinguishing feature of both is that they combine a strong tincture of Epic colouring with an admixture of realistic details from contem­ porary warfare. This technique is most clearly seen in the celebrated description of Valerius' combat with the Gaul. (Aul. Gell. 9. 11; see 814432

353

2. 45

480 B.C.

Marouzeau, Rev. Phil, 45 (1921), 164-5; A. H . McDonald, J.R.S. 47 (I957)> I5&)< I* *s a ' s o evident in the present two battles. Both were essentially combats between champions, the Fabii and Manlius reenacting the parts of Valerius and Postumius. Both have deliberate reminiscences of Homeric situations (45. 13 n . ; 46. 7 n . ; 4 7 . 4 n . ) and echoes of Homeric language (46. 3 n., 46. 4 n., 46. 7 n., 47. 6 n.). Both, however, are reported in a vocabulary whose similarity to the language of Caesar shows that it is the official military terminology (46. 3 n., 46. 7 n., 47. 4 n., 47. 6 n.). Both have certain glaring anachronisms (46. 3 n.). For detailed discussion see T . Stade, Die Schlachtschilderungen im Livius erster Dekade (1879); H.-G. Plathner, £>*
480 B.C. r 2

2

2 . 4 5 . 12

an

( 9 3)> 7~43) d is not confined by L. to direct speech (24. 9. 10, 5. 19. 4, 32. 4). 45. 13. centurio . . .M. Flavoleius: D.H. 9. 10. 2 grades him as a irpifiomAos". L.'s rank is simpler and more dignified. A subtle change. T h e name Flavoleius, though rare, is real, occurring on at least two in­ scriptions from the region of Rome (C.I.L. 14. 2783; 6. 6893 C. Flauleius Schulze 436) and also from Mutina. T h e family was not pre­ tentious, and it is hard to visualize how the story could have been kept alive for over two hundred years until the first historians enshrined it in writing. Other indications also suggest that the story is retrojected from a later period. T h e point of the story lies in the oath 'victor revertar\ T h e wording of the oath shows that it was not, as has been thought (Kromayer-Veith 305), the regular sacramentum which was taken on enlisting and comprised simply a promise conventuros se iussu consults nee iniussu abituros (3. 20. 3 n.). It is a special oath taken to steady morale in a crisis, such as may often be found in the annals of history as when at the Battle of the Standard Walter l'Espec, grasping the hand of the Earl of Albemarle, ^aid, ' " I swear t h a t on this day I will overcome the Scots or perish." "So swear we all," cried the barons assembled around him' (Hailes). In his account of the ex­ pedition to Cannae (22. 38. 2 - 4 ; Frontinus 4. 1.4) L. specifically states that a battle-oath of the victor revertar type was instituted for the first time then and so M . Flavoleius is consigned to the realms of the fabulous. But a precedent would have been required to justify the in­ novation. In the affairs of 216 a descendant of the Fabii, Q , Fabius Maximus, was prominent. His son was one of the tribuni militum (22. 53. 1) who administered the oath. It is safe to hazard that the legend of M . Flavoleius was concocted by the Fabii and that a Flavoleius (a client or dependant) was then a leading member of the other ranks in the army. L.'s description of the resolve to conquer or die is strongly reminiscent of similar resolutions in Homer, e.g. Iliad 6. 3 0 7 - 8 ; 22. 1 0 8 - 1 0 .

deos fallet: cf. Kiessling-Heinze on Horace, Odes 2. 8. 10. 45. 14. sifallat: the technical phraseology was si sciens /alio (Paulus Festus 102 L . ; 22. 53. 11 ; Iusiur. A r i t . = C.I.L. 2. 172). T h e object of jalio is to be understood as deos not fidem (30. 42. 21 ; Ovid, Am. 3. 11. 4 6 ; Propertius 2. 20. 16; cf. L. 5. 51. 10) but is never expressed in the formula. Gradivum: 1. 20. 4 n. iratos invocat deos 1 5 . n . 16. iratos is predicative, almost 'he calls on the gods to be angry'. in se quisque iurat: the administering of the oath follows the same procedure as the administering of the sacramentum. Cf. Polybius 6 . 2 1 . 3 ; Paulus Festus 250 L, 'praeiurationes facere dicuntur hi qui ante alios 355

2. 45- »4

480 B.C.

conceptis verbis iurant: post quos in eadem verba iurantes tantummodo dicunt: idem in me'. 4 5 . 15. armati: sc. iubent; 'now when they were armed let the lip-bold enemy face them' (Foster). 4 5 . 16. Fabium nomen Fabia gens: so the manuscripts. Shafer, earlier than Madvig, had realized that Fabia gens was a Nicomachean variant on Fabium nomen: cf. Sulp. Sev. Mart 7. 7 beati viri nomen enituiL enite(sc)o is scarcely found of people. 46. 1. detractant: 43. 3 n. non magis secum pugnaturos quam pugnaverint cum Aequis: pugnaverint is omitted by H, but the pleonasm is in L.'s manner. Pettersson com­ pares Praef. 7, 4. 32. 2, 6. 14. 11. cum Aequis: 43. 5 n. 46. 3 . vix explicandi ordinis spatium: Gronovius rightly took ordinis as ace. plur., followed by Lallemand and Madvig, among others, on the ground that the singular would imply spreading out the individual soldiers who comprised the rank or ordo, whereas L. would seem to mean spreading out the separate ordines in line of battle (1. 27. 6, 3. 60. 10). The singular is used by Frontinus (1. 4. 2; cf. the second hand in Fronto 121. 9 van den Hout) but probably in the former sense. pilis: anachronistic since the pilum belongs to the armoury of manipular tactis. pugna iam in manus, iam ad gladios . . . venerat: in manus venire 'to come to close quarters', with an army or a person as the subject, is usual in the historians (Sallust, Jug. 101. 4 ; Tacitus, Annals 2. 80) but the quasi-impersonal construction with the battle as the subject belongs to the realm of military communiques. Cf. Bell. Hisp. 5 . 5 . Mars est atrocissimus: unparalleled and not to be confused with aequo Marte and similar phrases (40. 14 n.). It may be inspired by the memory of the Homeric fiporoXoiyw !A.prjt [Iliad 11. 295, 12. 130). 46. 4 . tertio . . . anno: 43. 1. praeceps . . . in volnus abiit: no wholly satisfactory explanation has yet been offered for the phrase, praeceps (ab)ire is not infrequent for 'to fall headlong' (Sallust Cat. 25. 4, 37. 4 praeceps
480 B.C.

2. 46. 4

Conjectures do not convince (obiit Sigonius; labitur Cornelissen; cadit H . J . Muller). 46. 6. consuli. . . consul: note the word-order emphasizing their rank. verbisne: the reader is reminded above all of the reaction of the Greek leaders to Agamemnon's ciriiTwX^ai^ (4. 220-421) and of Ajax' heroism (cf. 12. 3640°. for the opposition pugnando: adhortando). Cf. Sallust, CatiL 58. 1. 46. 7. proceres: the word was felt to be high-flown from earliest Latin literature. The sole occurrence in Plautus (Bacch. 1053) is para tragic. Caesar avoids it entirely and Cicero allows it only once, and that in a letter (ad. Fam. 13. 15. 1) where, as here, it may be intended as a translation of the Homeric Trpofiaxoi, since he continues with a quotation from Homer. See Lofstedt, Syntactical 2. 298. infensis: = infestis; of weapons elsewhere only in Virgil (Aen. 9. 793, 10. 521 infensam contenderat hastam). infestis (Sobius) misses the nuance. moverunt: both tense and verb are unexpected. A second historic present would be natural after provolant and a compound verb (promoverunt Fiigner; provehunt Cornelissen) would clarify the picture. But movere aciem is technical (4. 33. 6, 30. 34. 4) of an advance and the aorist marks the end of that stage of the battle. 47. 4. vanior . . . acies: rara (opp. to densa) acies is technical (Frontinus 3. 10. 4 ; Tacitus, Hist. 3. 25; Curtius 4. 15. 20; Virgil, Aen. 9. 508) and the Thes. Ling. Lat. quotes no parallel to vanior. rarior (Perizonius) should, therefore, be read. See Drakenborch's note. se ipse coram qffert: like Agamemnon, with Diomede and Odysseus in Iliad 14. 128-132. 47. 5. dum . . . tererent: for dum cf. 1. 40. 7. praedae magis quam pugnae: cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1. 79. tererent tempus: 1. 57. 9 n. triarii: an anachronism from manipular organization. They formed the third or back rank of the line. ipsi: implies a contrast with Manlius consul and promotes the punc­ tuation redeunL et sua sponte ipsi proelium renovant et Manlius consul.... 47. 6. incursantes . . .issent: to be taken together. Weissenborn well compares Iliad 15. 1-2 e^-qaav favyovres. The construction is a Graecism. globus iuvenum: 'a squad of young men', globus applied to people is in origin a military term (Cato, Mil. fr. 11) and still retained that con­ notation in classical Latin. Hence it is avoided by Cicero but liked by Sallust (Hist. 3. 84 M.; Jug. 85. 10) and historians dealing with military matters (Veil. Pat. 2. 58. 2 ; Amm. Marc. 24. 4. 9 et saep.). It is, significantly, common in L. ( 1 . 5 . 7, 9. 12, 12. 9, 3. 47. 8, 4. 29. i, 4.61.6). 357

2- 47- 7-9

4 8 0 B.C.

47. 7-9. Note the staccato sentences. 47. 9. passim: its position at the end of the sentence marks the con­ clusion of the battle in which the Romans had been successful on every front. 47. 9-12. A record of a triumph declined would not be kept in the Fasti Triumphales. If there is anything trustworthy in the story it will be derived from a traditional laudatio or elogium of K . Fabius pre­ served in the family, but see 6 i . 9 n. 4 7 . 11. gloria . . . redit: rediit manuscripts but cf. 1. 39. 4 n. It is a proverbial saying (4. 57. 6, 22. 39. 2 0 ; Sallust, Cat. 54. 6 ; Seneca, de Bene/. 5. 1.4). 47. 12. saucios milites curandos: cf. Tacitus, Annals 4. 63. ulla re nisi salubri reipublicae arte: 'through nothing but arts that were for the common good'. Gruter deleted re as being repetitious with reipublicae arte but the resulting praise is faint and dubious in that it implies that the Fabii did use some arts to secure their popularity, although they were, as it turned out, consistent with the Public Good. L.'s praise is unconfined. Cf. 1.8. 1. 4 8 . 1. bella: so the manuscripts. According to Pettersson, bella and dilectus (ace. pi.) should be understood by a zeugma as the objects of curam agere = curare (48. 8, 7. 26. 10). Cf. 17. 4. n. Hearne's conjec­ ture belli was anticipated by Duker. 48. 2. priusquam quisquam . . . auctor tribunus exsisteret: 'before anyone— any tribune—should emerge as an agitator for the agrarian legisla­ tion'. T h e word-order shows that tribunus is added as an afterthought and that it should be taken almost in apposition with quisquam which retains its full substantive force, rather than closely with it ( = prius­ quam quis[quam] (Wex)). For the juxtaposition priusquam quisquam cf. 32. 20. 6. sanguine ac sudorepartus sit: Cicero (de Officiis 1. 61), discussing the language appropriate for denunciations and panegyrics, quotes a line of Ennius as suitable for an outburst of righteous indignation: Salmacida spolia sine sanguine et sudore (also in Festus 439 L.). sanguine et sudore parere was the stock phrase for lauding a great achievement (7. 38. 6 ; Cicero, de leg. agr. 2 . 1 6 and 6 9 ; Val. Max. 7 . 6 . 1: Otto, Sprichworter, 334) and its employment by Fabius here gives a realistic note of political oratory to the debate. Cf. also in Greek, Plutarch, Moralia 340 e (praise of Alexander) ri dviSpajrl, rl di/ai/xam . . .; for English see Lord Elibank in the Sunday Times of 20 December 1959. 4 8 . 5. temeritate. . . consulis: L. has a series of standard psychological explanations to account for Roman defeats which will not impugn the character of the Roman people. O n e of his favourite reasons is the temeritas of the general. Cf., e.g., 3. 4. 7-9, 5. 18. 7-12, 6. 30. 3-8. 358

479 B.C.

2. 48

Cremera Each of the preceding four years (483-480) contained considerable military activity undertaken by Veii. T h e record is trustworthy. Recent events had forced Veii to take the initiative. T h e creation of the new tribes of Claudia and Clustumina had deprived her satellite Fidenae of most of her land and afforded Rome a stranglehold over Veii's salt trade with the interior. T h e formation of the Latin alliance had made Rome rather than Veii the centre of commerce in the area. Veii's survival depended on her ability to regain control of the left bank of Tiber upstream from Rome and so to reopen free communi­ cation with Praeneste and the cities of the south. T h e campaigns undertaken by Veii will have figured in the Annales. T o counter this threat it was a natural experiment to plant a block-house near the Cremera (mod. Fosso Valchetta) which would command the river and enable the Romans both to harass traffic on the roads to Capena, Fidenae, and Rome, and to have advance warning of impending campaigns. Such a reconstruction differs only slightly from the reconstruction made by Roman historians and antiquarians from the bare facts in the Annales. T h e Roman version, however, suffered distortion. T h a t Fabi were responsible for the idea is possible (the old rural tribe Fabia may have bordered on Veii and included Fabian estates; but see Badian, J.R.S. 52 (1962), 201); that a large number of them were involved and perished is likely enough; but that 306 Fabii should be the sole casualties and leave only one survivor, is, in D.H.'s words, irXda^iaaiv eot/ce OearpiKots (9. 22). T w o separate factors are responsible for the embellishment. T h e gens Fabia were a lively re­ pository of private traditions. Ovid can be shown to have learnt some curious oddities about the family from Paullus Fabius Maximus. Equally partisan was the family tradition which recorded the massacre by the Etruscans of 307 R o m a n prisoners from the army of C. Fabius Ambustus in 353 B.C. (7. 15. 10) or the death of 300 Romans under Fabius Maximus in the Second Punic W a r (Plutarch, Vit. Par. Min. 4). It seems, then, that the Fabii were themselves to blame for making out of a notice of the destruction of a Roman praesidium at Cremera a castrophe limited to their own family. W h a t started as a legion (306 + 4,000) including a number of Fabii (Diodorus 11. 53) ends as a corps d'elite of Fabii with dependants and retainers (Festus 450 L., Aul. Gell. 17. 21. 13; Servius, ad Aen. 6. 845). W h a t guided the course of the story and may even have determined the numbers involved was unquestionably the synchronism with the Battle of Thermopylae (cf. Coriolanus and Themistocles, 33. 4 n.). Gellius mentions that Cremera and the invasion of Xerxes coincided 359

2. 48

479 B.C.

although he does not point out the resemblance in detail between Thermopylae and Gremera. At Thermopylae there were 300 Spartans and 3,900 allies (Herodotus 7. 202); at Gremera 300 Fabii (Diodorus loc. cit.) and 4,000 others (D.H. 9. 15; cf. Festus 450 L.). The position is betrayed by a secret path over the hills; the 300 perish; an only son survives (son of Megistias: Herodotus 7. 221). The pressure of the Greek story may also account for the Fabian explanation that the disaster occurred when they were recalled to Rome for a family sacrifice (D.H. 9. 19. 1; cf. L. 22. 18. 8). A non-committal narrative was reproduced by L. D . H. knew of at least two accounts (9. 19. 1 Tu>eV, 9. 20. 1 erepos \6yos\ cf. 9. 26. 1) which were probably combined in the source before him. L. agrees in general with the second. The differences can be attributed to his desire to concentrate attention on the tragedy of the Fabii. He telescopes the time-sequence from three days to one to secure an Aristotelian unity of action (cf. his chronology of Goriolanus). He loses sight of M. Fabius; he omits all mention of the exploits of T. Siccius (9. 14. 3 ) ; he discreetly forgets the presence of the turba . . . cognatorum sodaliumque (49. 5). On one point, however, he may betray the identity of his source. It is well known that Ovid {Fasti, 2. 195-242) dated Gremera not to the traditional dies Alliensis, 18 July (6. 1. n ) but to 13 February. It is held that in choosing this date he is deferring to the private chronology of the Fabii who associated it with their festival of the Lupercalia (15 Feb.) and, in particular, that he is acquiescing in the views of Paullus Fabius Maximus. L. also must have had before him an unconventional date (Mommsen, Rom. Chron. 26 n. 238). There are cer­ tain marked inconsistencies between the narrative before and after 51.4 (see below), which indicate that L. changed his source at that point. At 51. 1 Menenius is dispatched hurriedly to meet the crisis that followed Gremera, whereas in 52. 3 it is implied that he was already in camp nearby when the disaster occurred. The second (Valerian) account squares with the accepted chronology. Menenius was consul: it was summer (stativa) : he failed to relieve Gremera on 18 July: he fought some unsuccessful engagements against the advancing Etrus­ cans and was succeeded as consul on 1 August (3. 6. 1 n.). The first account is much less amenable. There too Menenius is regarded as being consul (51. 1 iam erant). There is no mention of stativa but a scratch force is hinted at. Etruscan infiltration into Latium after Gremera precipitates a corn shortage (51.2) because, one assumes, the Romans were prevented from harvesting their crops. Since on the accepted chronology the crops would certainly have been harvested well before 18 July, these facts can only be harmonized with a chrono­ logy which made the entry of consuls upon office 1 August, but dated Gremera to 13 February. If it was winter, it is not surprising that the 360

479 B.C.

2. 48

fall of Cremera caught the Romans off their guard and that Menenius was not in the field or in camp. Licinius Macer also rejected the syn­ chronism of Cremera and the Allia, since he devises a different omen to take the place of the Unlucky Day as a common link of misfortune between the disasters (17 P.). It may be hazarded that L. has drawn on Licinius and only suppressed niceties (48. 10 n.) which com­ plicated the picture he was creating. Licinius Macer (and in this he was following the lead of second-century scholars who were always attempting to bring traditional legend into line with legal and con­ stitutional realities) mentions a meeting of the comitia curiata and implies the passing of a lex de imperio. He must, therefore, have nar­ rated both a policy-making session of the Senate and a ratification by the curiae. L., unconcerned with legal niceties, abbreviates and sim­ plifies. It is more effective that the consul, K. Fabius, should command, and that the sweep of the story should not be interrupted by dusty antiquarianism. A trace of the curiae may, however, accidentally survive in e curia egressus. That Ovid presumably supplemented L. with personal knowledge of his own is immaterial. Attention has often been called to the linguistic resemblances between the two authors. What is also interesting psychologically is that Ovid's ear was more fixed upon the sound and appearance of words than their meaning. Note 49. 12 fusi retro ad Saxa Rubra = 212 Tusco sanguine terra rubet; 50. 5 rara hostium apparebant arma = 217 armentaque rara relinquunt; 50. n maximum futurum auxilium = 241 posses olim tu, Maxime, nasci. See also 49. 4 n., 49. 8 n. See further Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 2. 246-8; O. Richter, Hermes 17 (1882), 425-40; Soltau, Phil. Woch., 1908, 9896°.; Pais, Ancient Legends, 168-84; A. Elter, Porta Carmentalis u. Cremera, (1910) ;H.Last, C.A.H., 7. 504-6; Burck 8 3 ; Klotz 249; F. Bomer, Gymnasium 64 (1957), 113 ff.; J. B. Ward-Perkins, P.B.S.R. 29 (1961), 3 ff For Livy and Ovid see E. Sofer, Livius als Quelle von Ovidius Fasten; Bomer's introduction to his edition of the Fasti. For Silius Italicus' use of Ovid see R. T. Bruere, Ovidiana (1958), 490-1. 48. 5. res proxime in formam latrocinii venerat: so the manuscripts. L. uses proxime 'closest to' as a preposition, never as an adverb. Cf. 30. 10. 12 proxime speciem . . . navium, 24. 48. n . Rhenanus rightly deleted in, a false echo from 46. 3. 48. 6. bellum quiete . . . eludentes: cf. Tacitus, Annals 2. 52. 3. moturos se: the sense is clear—'other wars are either actually im­ minent or shortly to be expected'—and the position of alia bella outside out • . . aut leads the reader to suppose that alia bella will be the subject of instabant and the object of moturos. The intrusive se defeats that ex­ pectation. Secondly, whereas bellum movere is common (21. 39. 1, 33. 45. 5, 43. 1. 11; Sallust, Cat. 30. 2 and a dozen more references in 361

2. 48. 6

479 B.C.

Thes. Ling. Lat.), examples of se movere 'to stir oneself to hostile activity' are lacking in L. Seyffert's esse is preferable to Madvig's excision of se. 48. 7. quod . . . sinebat: (deleted by Wecklein (Jahrb.f. Class. Phil. 113 (1876), 632)) contains the substance of what troubled the Romans. 48. 8. tutam . . . maiestatem Romani nominis: recalling the rider to the later R o m a n treaties in which the socius is bidden maiestatem populi Romani comiter conservare (33. 3 1 . 8 ; Cicero,pro Balbo 35-36). T h e Fabii can be depended on like a loyal ally. For the news of the incursion see 3.4. i o n . 48. 10. senatus consultum: so Festus 358 L. T h e Fabian expeditionary force was regarded by Roman legal opinion not as militia legitima but as a coniuratio (Servius, ad Aen. 2. 157, 6. 845, 7. 614, 8. 1), a force not constituted according to the official dilectus but raised in an emergency as and how volunteers could be found. T h e formation of such a coniuratio could be the subject of discussion and approval in the Senate but L. oversimplifies the issues when he states that a s. c. ratified the whole expedition. T h e Senate could not by itself initiate war nor could it regularize a coniuratio which by its very nature lay outside the constitutional framework and did not even have to be commanded by a magistrate. D.H. (9. 15) states unequivocally that in the original form of the story the leader of the Fabii was not a magistrate, not, as in L., the consul paludatus K. Fabius, but his brother M . Fabius. T h e only body which could invest the commander with imperium and the army with official standing was (in theory, at any rate) the comitia curiata (5. 46. 11 n.). 49. 2. postero die: the manuscripts give postera die which, as Fraenkel (Glotta 8 (1917), 58) observes, besides being the only feminine occur­ rence of the expression in L., would violate the distinction between dies fem., a space of time or the closing day of such a space, and dies m a s c , a day or date. T h e feminine is unconvincingly claimed as a variatio by Gatterall (T.A.P.A. 69 (1938), 314). quo iussi erant conveniunt: echoing the sacramentum (3. 20. 3 conventuros iussu consulis). L. unconsciously makes the expedition a militia legitima to enhance the tragedy of it; cf. also consul paludatus (1. 26. 2). Con­ trasted with the bleak formality of D.H.'s igrjevav avv euxaf? /ecu Ovaiats the scene of departure in L. is solemn and full of pathos. It has been inspired largely by the account in Thucydides of the departure of the Athenian expedition to Sicily (6. 30, 31) adapted to a R o m a n setting by the judicious insertion of peculiarly R o m a n prayers. 49. 3 . in vestibulo: i.e. of his house on the Quirinal (5. 46. 1-3 n.). nunquam: cf. Thuc. 6. 30. 1, 31. 6. 4 9 . 4 . quorum neminem ducem sperneret egregius quibuslibet temporibus senatus: so the manuscripts. Ovid, Fasti 2. 200, writes e quis dux fieri quilibet 362

479 B.C. 2. 49. 4 aptus erat which is less suggestive than Eutropius 1. 16, also dependent o n L , qui singuli magnorum exercituum duces esse deberent. L. is saying that any one of the Fabii was good enough to command the finest army of any time and it displays an over-sensitive tenderness for constitutional propriety that he should say so by laying the emphasis on the Senate selecting the duces for its armies. Madvig, therefore, proposed sperneres, egregius . . . senatus 'you would not reject any one of them as a leader, and as a whole body they would have been a magnificent Senate at any period of history'. T h e artificiality of the universal-second person singular sperneres is matched by the absurdity of recommending an efficient army for the sedentary duties of a Senate. T a n . Faber long ago suggested exercitus for senatus and the same conjecture may be found in Bentley's copy of Livy in the Wren library at Cambridge. Two additional factors commend it. Eutropius is here an exact and not a loose precis of L. Secondly, whereas egregius . . . exercitus is a common collocation (7. 35. 4, 8. 13. 15; Tacitus, Agr. 17 magni duces, egregii exercitus; Hist. 2. 47), egregius senatus is only found elsewhere once, in the Theodosian Code (6. 4. 2 1 ; 372 A.D.) when egregius, as the title vir egregius witnesses, had acquired a technical connotation. T h e ready slip of a late-imperial editor should not be allowed to supplant the true reading. For examples of this type of corruption in Greek see Page on Euripides, Medea 1064. 49. 5. sequebatur: the 4,000 attendants, but under the influence of Thucydides (6. 30. 2) L. has transformed them into a crowd of spectators, propria alia . . . alia publica not two separate crowds, but one crowd containing partly friends who had come for personal reasons and partly the general public. T h e same make-up of the crowd is given by Thucydides. spem . . . curam: = /zer' eXirihos re dfia /cat SAofivpfitov in Thucydides. 49. 6. ire fortes, irefelices iubent: 5. 30. 5. T h e heading of a letter in the Biography of Aurelian (Vopiscus4i. 1) felices et fortes exercitus s.p.q.R. recalls the frequent incidence of a similar turn of phrase on property inscriptions (cf., e.g., C.I.L. 6. 29778). It was a solemn formula to pro­ claim the successful accomplishment of an undertaking, giving due weight to the respective claims of god and man. There is harsh irony in the allusion to the formula here which casts a very Roman shadow over the departing army. T h e trochaic r h y t h m may be deliberate. 49. 7. faustum atquefelix: 1. 17. 10 n., the ritual language of prayer. sospites . . . restituant: 2. 13. 6, ritual phraseology. 4 9 . 8 . dextro ianoportae Carmentalis: 'through the right-hand postern of the Carmental gate' (Baker) and the same sense should be given to Ovid's Carmentis portae dextro est via proxima iano (201 ; for text and interpreta­ tion see Bomer's note). This is the natural interpretation of the Latin, but there are difficulties. T h e Fabii are making for the Pons Sublicius. 363

2. 49- 8

479 B.C.

Even if it be conceded that the Porta Carmentalis, at the south-west corner of the Capitol, could be thought of as existing in 478 B.C., that such a gate could have had double entries, which is elsewhere vir­ tually unattested, and that ianus could mean one opening of a double gate, the route is absurd. To reach the Pons Sublicius if the troops were coming through the city they would go directly by the Vicus Tuscus and if they were starting from the Quirinal they would drop down on to the Campus Martius and back into the city by the P. Car­ mentalis. The alternative is to translate the phrase 'by way of the Janus to the right of the Porta Carmentalis' (for the use oidextro cf. Ovid, Met, 11. 197 ff.), understanding Janus in an obsolete sense as an augurated river-crossing, and identifying it not with the Pons Sublicius but with a primitive bridge over the Insula Tiberina (see Holland, Janus, 242 ff.: cf. D.H. 10. 14. 2). This makes geographical sense but there is no warrant that Livy or Ovid could have understood ianus so. I would believe that the ill-luck connected with Porta Carmentalis had originally no connexion with the Fabii or their route, and was only pressed into this service by later antiquarians. Names are often older than their explanations (1. 48. 7 n.): Festus speaks not of an unlucky gate or path but of an ill-starred meeting of the Senate in aede Iani. There are many instances of superstitions connected with passing through doorways. See also Platner-Ashby s.v.; E. H. Alton, C.R. 32 (1918), 14-16; FelKAshby, J.RS. 11 (1921), 125 ff.; M. E. Hirst, P.B.S.R. 14 (1938), 137-51; Saflund, Le Mura, 188 ff; Bomer, Gymnasium, loc. cit. 49. 12. Saxa Rubra: mod. Prima Porta, 5 miles from Rome on the Via Flaminia. Deriving its name from the red tufa rocks of the locality (Vitruv. 2. 7), it was even in archaic times a strategic place command­ ing the ferry to Fidenae, which lies on the south bank of the Tiber just opposite Saxa Rubra, and being the meeting-place of several roads from Veii and the neighbourhood. The fact that the Veientes had their camp there is a strong indication that they were operating from Fidenae, and not from Veii itself (see above). See also Nibby, Dintorni, 3. 31-32; Fell-Ashby, op. cit. 145-7; Philipp, R.E., 'saxa Rubra'. insita: 41. 9 n. 50. 1. impetus incursantium: nX; incursantes ium P; incursantes lupi M. The variants incur santes \ ium stood in the archetype and are at least as old as the Nicomachean recension. The choice is open. With incursantes it is necessary to supply in and in favour of this reading it could be argued that incursantium would be the obvious correction when in was lost by haplography. 'The Etruscans made incursions: the Fabii made sudden sallies against them.5 With incursantium the sense is that the Etruscans ravaged the fields and sometimes, as they were so doing, attacked 364

478 B.C.

2. 50. 1

the Fabii. The latter is commended by 25. 36. 3. impetus incursantium Numidarum arcebant; the former is palaeographically more satisfactory. aequo campo conlatis[que] campis: the manuscript -que, linking two ablatives of different logical status, was held to be an intrusion by Karsten. Cf. 64. 5, 38. 41. 6, and see, for intrusive -que in L., 32. 10 n. 50. 2. opulentissima, ut turn res erant: opulentus conveys more than 'rich, wealthy', containing also the notion of 'strength and power' implicit in the substantive opes (1. 30. 4). Cf. 2. 63. 6; H. Drexler, Rh. Mus. J o2 (i959)> 58. 50. 6. insidias . . . locatas: cf. Ovid, Fasti 2. 223-4 Sic Fabii vallem latis discursibus implent Quodque vident sternunt. The stratagem of the Veientes was to lure the Fabii by easy successes into an ambuscade. The flocks were allowed to graze at liberty guarded by a few inadequate detachments (jara hostium apparebant arma) but the real forces lay carefully concealed. Nothing, however, could have been more calculated to put the Fabii on their guard than to unferret some ambushes close to the road {circa ipsum iter). L. ought to be saying that the Fabii overwhelmed some troops which were visible and foolishly thought that they had thus removed the whole opposition. As Ovid says, quodque vident sternunt. insidias, therefore, is infelicitous. It must be assumed that L. wrote custodias or praesidia . . . locata(s) (cf. 11. 1 praesidio in Ianiculo locato). 50. 7. orbem colligere: 'contract their circle' not, as in the usual mili­ tary image, 'form a circle'. 50. 10. duxit. . . collem: Herodotus 7. 225. 2. iugo circummissus: the path of Anopaea at Thermopylae. 50. 11. satis convenit: 38. 57. 2. The implication is that L. consulted a second source which differed as to the total number killed. As often the citation of a variant is the prelude to a change of source (see below). unum prope puberem aetate: the reading of the archetype causes dis­ quiet. It is taken to mean 'one almost adult in age was left behind 5 . The linguistic arguments against this are matched by common-sense considerations. L. does not elsewhere write pubes aetate like natu minor. What he does do is to qualify aetas by pubes ( 1 . 3 . 1 ad puberem aetatem, 1. 35. 1 prope puberem aetatem erant) as the lawyers in the Digest com­ monly do (Ulpian 43. 30. 3. 6; Papin. 28. 6. 41. 7). puberem aetatem is required by Livian usage (so Gronovius rightly) but here another snag is encountered, unum p. p. a. could not stand for unum qui p. p. a. erat: yet it is impossible to take p. p. a. with relictum. Such considera­ tions led Kreyssig, although not in his edition, to suggest propter puberem aetatem 'because of his (recent) coming of age', which was approved by H. Kohler and M. Hertz. On this Wolfflin, in an 365

2. 50. U

478 B.C.

apparently forgotten note (Philologus 8 (1853), 384), remarked that in any case the motivation of Fabius' being left behind is wrong, if he is said to be nearly of age, since 'teen-agers' frequently accompanied expeditionary forces. T h e author of the de Viris Illustribus (14. 6), precising L., wrote unus . . . propter impuberem aetatem domi relictus, and propter impuberem aetatem (also conjectured by Kreyssig and com­ mended by Madvig, ed. tert. 1886) alone brings light into a dark corner of the text. It is neither here nor there that ten years later (3. 1. 1) the boy was consul. 51-65. Discordia: Laetorius and Ap. Claudius T h e inconsequential events of the years 477-468 left only an exiguous trace in the Annales. There was no single factor like Cremera or the prominence of the Fabii which an historian could seize on to act as a focus for his narrative. L.'s predecessors had obviously endeavoured to build something on the material. They gave a character and a position to the wraith-like Ap. Claudius (56. 5 n.) and provided him with a foil in the person of C. Laetorius (56. 6 n.). They developed the personality of Volero Publilius (55. 4 n.). Above all, they were aware that historically these years were crucial for the Struggle of the Orders and the emergence of the tribunes from purely revolu­ tionary officers of the plebs to recognized magistrates of the populus. Accepting this, they filled in the background with suitable episodes. Ancestors of tribunes famous in later history are 'unearthed'. Tribunician prosecutions are invented (52. 3 n . ; 52. 6 n . ; 61. 2). T h e right ofprovocatio is conveyed in a parable (55. 4-11). T h e election of tribunes is made respectable. T h e constant theme of a lex agraria is stressed (41. 3 n.). L. imposes a schematic arrangement which makes the first generation of the Republic in chapters 22-33 (nexum'- Laetorius —Ap. Claudius: the tribunate: reconciliation) exactly parallel to the second (51-65: Lex agraria: Laetorius—Ap. Claudius: the tribunate: no reconciliation). It does, however, appear that he reverts to Valerius Antias for the remainder of the book. T h e break is indicated at 51.4. In 51.1 Menenius is hurriedly sent, one presumes from Rome, to face the Etruscans exultant in the victory at Cremera (cf. 6. 1. n ) . T h e difference may also involve a different date for the dies Cremerensis (cf. p. 360, above), particularly since the two battles fought by Horatius and Menenius are suspiciously like the two battles fought by Verginius and Servilius (51. 4-9) both in topography and in outcome and D.H. (9. 24) knows nothing at all about any fighting in the latter year. A writer who dated Cremera to 18 July and the terminal date for the office of consul as 1 August would have to allocate the bulk of the fighting against the victorious Etruscans to the consuls of the next year. But if Cremera 366

477 B.C.

2. 5!- 6 5

was on 13 February and the consuls had only been in office for seven months, they had the rest of the year to face the Etruscans. Combine the two chronologies and the same events will be recorded twice under two pairs of consuls. T h e explanation will also account for the awk­ wardness of in futura proelia (51. 3 n.) and cladem (51. 4 n.). The passage, as a whole, has the closest affinities with 22 fF. (52. 2 n . ; the description of Ap. Claudius; 59. 7 and 25. 1 night attack by the Volsci; provocatio) which may be due to a common source. It also has express links with the story of Coriolanus as told in 34 fF. (52. 4 ; 54. 6). Conspicuous is the pride shown in the town of Antium (63. 6). Soltau 156-60; Seemuller, Die Doubletten in der Ersten Decade (1904); Burck 8 3 - 8 5 ; H. Bruckmann, Die romischen JViederlagen, 4 7 - 4 9 ; Klotz 25°"35 1 . 1. cum . . . est, iam: Crevier's correction is certain. T h e indicative is used when only the point of time is meant. Cf. 21. 39. 4, 23. 49. 5, 45. 39. 1. Horatius'praenomen is C. here (Licinius) but M . in 3. 30. 1 n. (Valerius). He was son of the consul of 507 (2. 8. 4-5). 5 1 . 2. annona: 9. 6 n., from the Annales. T h e Etruscans, by investing the city on both sides of the river, prevented access to the cornland in Latium. ad Spei: not, as commentators take it, the temple of Spes in the forum Holitorium which was only built in the First Punic War (Cicero, de Leg. 2. 28) but an ancient shrine on the Esquiline just inside the later Porta Praenestina (see plan of Rome) which disappeared soon after the foundation of the second temple but not before it had given its name to the region (Frontinus, de Aqu. 1. 5 ad Spem veterem). Being the highest point on the east side of the city, it was a strategic area and had been the scene of a similar battle in 2. 11. 5 fF. See PlatnerAshby s.v. aequo Marte: 40. 14 n., military jargon. 5 1 . 3 . in futura proelia: a curious expectation which suggests a com­ promise with the sources. 5 1 . 4. Sp. Servilius: N has/?, servilius here but Sp. Servilius in 52. 6. D.H. 9. 25. 1 gives the praenomen Servius, Diod. 11. 54. 1 Gaius. T h e Fasti under 463 gives his son's filiation as P . Servilius Sp.f. P. n. which corroborates Sp. here. For the symbol/?, see 15. 1 n. proxima pugna: a certain correction by Gronovius. Since the battle referred to is that ad portam Collinam in which the Romans were only just superior and gained a psychological rather than an actual success, it is very odd to call it a clades. velut ab arce laniculo: cf. 10. 1. 7. For the manuscripts' Ianiculi see Madvig, Emendationes, 63-64. impetus dabant: 19. 7 n. 367

2. 51- 5

476 B.C.

5 1 . 5. ad inlecebras: the ruse and the result correspond exactly to the battle described in 11. 5 ff. {ut eliceret praedatores). The scene is not de­ finitely stated, traiecto .. . Tiberi (51.6) might be taken as evidence that up till then the Etruscans had restricted their operations to the north bank of the river, but it is unreasonable to press the point since the Romans, virtually besieged in Rome, could only drive out flocks and conceal ambushes on their own (south) side of the river. If that is right, the scene of the ambush was the same as that in 11. 5 ff., in other words in the vicinity of ad Spei, so that the case for identifying the two battles is strengthened. 51. 6, traiecto: note the short, telegraphic sentences. 51. 7. hestema felicitate: hestemae Gronovius, but the enallage is common when the noun and the dependent genitive form a single concept ('victory') and the adjective is to be stressed: 'still somewhat intoxicated by success which was only a day old'. See Lofstedt, Syntac­ tical 2. 110 n. 2. inopia: a duplication of the Annona of 51. 2. quod . . . consilia: 'but chiefly because the scarcity of corn drove him to adopt measures however impetuous provided they were ex­ peditious', quamvis with praecipitia = in consilia quamvis praecipitia (22. 50. 9). Inopia (nom.) is the subject of agebat with consulem under­ stood as the object (9. 14. 15, 24. 27. 5). This reading involves only the slight change from the nonsensical agebant to agebat (Rhenanus). Although inelegant (Glareanus' urgebat would be an improvement), it is preferable to inopia . . . [in] praecipitia . . . (sc. consul) agebat con­ silia (Sigonius; so also Gudeman, Thes. Ling. Lat. 447. 20) where consilium agere = c. inire, capere, a usage of which the only other instances are very late. For praeceps consilium cf. Gurtius 7. 7. 20, Suetonius, lul. 20; for the commonplace, almost proverbial, thought cf. 9. 32. 3, 22.38. 13. 51. 9. occidione occisi: 3. 10. 11, 4. 58. 9, 9. 38. 3 et al. 'utterly slain'. The expression has an odd history. Although such a. Jig. etym. might be expected in early Latin, the first surviving instance appears in fact to be in a formal letter from Cicero, when governor of Gilicia, to Gato recounting the progress of his military undertakings (ad Fam. 15. 4. 7; cf. also Phil. 14.36). In both passages the context is formal and solemn, suggesting that the phrase belongs to official language. The per­ functory character of the present passage, moreover, is close to official reporting. The phrase passed into historical jargon (Tacitus). 52. 1. ex Campania: 9. 6 n., a detail preserved in the Annales. 52. 2. otio . . . lascivire: 1. 19. 4 n. 52. 3. Qj. Considius et T. Genucius: although not expressly stated, it is assumed that they were tribunes. This in itself causes mistrust, for 368

476 B.C.

2. 52- 3

tribunician prosecutions at this date are inconceivable (35. 5 n.). The mistrust is intensified by the identity of the prosecutors. Q,. Gonsidius is otherwise unknown (Munzer, R.E., 'Gonsidius (6)'). The Gonsidii are not heard of again until the first century when they emerge in the persons of the rich capitalist Q . Considius, who had been juror at the trial of Oppianicus in 74 (Cicero, pro Cluentio 107) and Caesar's expert officer P. Gonsidius. The name indicates an Italian origin. All the evidence combines to make this tribune a purely mythical figure, in­ serted to do honour to a great family. The Genucii, on the other hand, are old (3. 33. 3, 4. 1. 1, 5. 18. 2) so that there is no justification for doubting their historicity (Sigwart, Klio 6 (1906), 285 ff.) but that does not establish the tribunate of T. Genucius as real. Since the prosecu­ tion is itself spurious, the names of the prosecutors cannot command belief. It is likely that there was a record of an investigation by duoviri perduellionis (Brecht, Perduellio, 284-7) a n c * that the anonymous duoviri were given names by later historians. Under the influence of contemporary affairs they gave them prominent plebeian or tribunician names and thereby converted the trial into a tribunician prosecution. Valerius Antias was certainly guilty of inserting a tribune Genucius at 7. 42. 1-2. He may be responsible here too (Stein, R.E., 'Genucius'). Gf. Plutarch, C. Gracchus 3.3 vTrcp rewKiov TWOS hrnjbdpxov XoiSoprjdcvTos. 52. 4, ea oppressit: sc. invidia. earn of the manuscripts is senseless. The ellipse of the object is surprising but none of the remedies (reum oppressit Freudenberg; ea oppressit (eum)> Cornelissen) convince. For invidia oppressit cf. 40. 10; 1. 5. 2. pro Coriolano: 35. 5. Agrippae: 32. 8-12. 52. 5. in multa temperarunt: 'in assigning a fine the tribunes were lenient 1 . A very difficult sentence. The figures of fines in the early years of the Republic are all fictitious and their very size displays their arbitrary calculation (3. 31. 6: 10,000 and 15,000; 4. 41. 10: 10,000; 4 . 4 4 . 10: 15,000; 5. 12. 1: 10,000; 5. 29. 7: 10,000; 5. 3 2 . 9 : 15,000). These were regarded as heavy fines so that a sum of 2,000 might seem to be lenient. The sense, then, will be that the tribunes were moderate in the fine, although they had aimed at the caput; i.e. after they dropped the capital process they might naturally have been expected to impose a very large fine. The Latin remains awkward. No better parallel for tempero used absolutely can be quoted than Sallust, Jug. 85. 9 in potestatibus temperate. Moreover, the parallel passage of D.H, 9. 27. 3 estimates the fine as very severe for those times (vTrcpfocs). The awk­ wardness of L.'s language may betray a misunderstanding of a common judgement. The switch from a capital charge to a fine has been regarded as owing something to the case of Gn. Fulvius in 211 B.C. (26. 3. 6-8).

2. 52. 5

476 B.C.

anquisissent: 6. 20. 12, 26. 3. 7. duorum milium: Reid's correction is necessary. To delete multam and keep duo milia (Bayet) is inexplicable, edixissent, the reading of the manuscripts, would mean not 'pronounce sentence 5 but 'to announce beforehand that the sentence will be a fine, should an offence be com­ mitted'. It may have arisen from a combination of the variants multam and multae. ea in caput vertit: 27. 23. 4, 45. 10. 11. inde morbo absumptum esse: esse should be kept. L. simplifies the manner of Menenius' e n d ; in D.H. melancholy induces voluntary starvation but such a detail would only be distracting to L.'s terse account. 5 2 . 6 . tribunis: 35. 5 n., 52. 3 n. with references. Statius is an old Italian name, found often in Campania and the south of the peninsula as a praenomen (9. 44. 13, 10. 20. 13). It was introduced into Rome as a result of Rome's expansion in Italy and it is significant that it was an early name for slaves (Aul. Gell. 4. 20.11). As a nomen it is not apparently found before 106 (C.I.L. I 2 . 677 (Capua) P. Statius P.M.L.). The most distinguished man of the name was the Samnite leader in the Social W a r who later became a member of the Senate. Like Considius above, it is inconceivable as a Roman name in 475. L. Caedicius is somewhat more plausible in that the family of Caedicii is old (5. 32. 6 n . ; V. Basanoff, Latomus 9 (1950), 263-4) but, as in the previous case, it looks as if an anonymous duumviral prosecution has been embellished with names and personalities. Munzer (R.E., 'Statius (4)') held that the whole prosecution was inspired by the trial of Q . Servilius Caepio in 104, Despite certain resemblances of name and cir­ cumstance which may have contributed something to the legend, the actual fact of the prosecution will have had independent and docu­ mentary existence. 52. 7. et huic: 'Servilius, as well as Menenius, was charged with mis­ handling a battle against the Etruscans; in his case at the Janiculum', audacia: ablative. 52. 8. mutaverant animi: animum N. Cf. 9. 12. 3 adeo . . . animi mutaverant. If animum were the object, the plural animos would be required (6. 33. 10, 24. 21. 1, et at.: contra, 43. 22. 5) but in that case the subject is always the person or thing which caused the change of mind. 53. 1. Veiens bellum . . . quibus: quibus picks up Veientes understood from Veiens, a common transition with ethnic adjectives but principally found in loose writing (cf. Klotz on Bellum Hisp. 2. 1 ," Caesar, E.G. 1. 40. 5 : Wackernagel, Vorlesungen, 2. 88). T h e inelegancy is on a p a r with the rough certamina Jinita, bellum exortum (without any auxiliary verbs) which Gronovius wanted to refine by writing certamine . . .Jinito. 370

475 B.C.

2. 53- i

Sabini: 48. 6 n. fl/ia: adverbial, sc. via, 'in different directions'. Cf. 30. 4. 2, 44. 43. 3. 5 3 . 3 . superatae sunt: L. omits that P. Valerius was awarded a triumph for his services, a fact recorded in D.H. 9. 35 and the Fasti Triumphales. 5 3 . 4. sine Romano out duce aut auxilio: 3. 6. 5, 4. 45. 4 : see 3. 4. i o n . This curious detail cannot have been invented but must have h a d a place in the Annales, since it betrays a truth, which the Romans were later anxious to conceal, that the earliest treaty with Latium and with the Hernici was afoedus aequum which left the Latins and Hernici free to act on their own initiative when they wished. It follows that if the treaty with the Hernici was afoedus aequum the alleged partition of their land by the Romans (41. 1) must be a confusion. See SherwinWhite, Roman Citizenship, 22. 54. 1. C. Manlius: the praenomen may be corrupt. T h e Decemvirs were all consulars and advanced in years. One of their number was A, Manlius (3. 33. 3 ; D . H . 10. 56. 2) and he is to be identified with the cpnsul of 474, whose praenomen is given by D . H . 9. 36. 1 as AvXos also (MdpKos in Diod. 11. 63. 1). Since L. drew his material for the Decemvirate and the present passage from the same source, it would not be quixotic to read A. Manlius here. See Broughton, M.R.R., s.v. indutiae: the peace lasted till 437 (4. 17. 8), a period of 37 years but no mention is made of the treaty being violated then, which may indicate that it was of shorter duration than 40 years and was no longer in force by 437. T h e treaty is to be connected with the crush­ ing defeat which the Etruscans received at the hands of Hiero and the Syracusans in 474 at Cumae. T h e coincidence is a valuable proof of the soundness of the Roman archival tradition. Cn. Genucius: 52. 3 n. For the prosecution see 35. 5 n. arripuit: 3. 58. 7, Pliny, Ep. 4. 11. 1 1 ; short for arripi iussit. 54. 3. Vopiscum Iulium pro Verginio: D.H. 9. 37. 1, Diodorus 11. 65. 1 &nd the Fasti Cap. ( ] lulus) all agree on the rival tradition that Vopiscus Iulius was consul. The source of the mistake can be seen from a fragmentary entry in the Fasti Cap. for 478: E]squilinus. T h e space on the stone leaves no doubt that this was the name of a suffect consul and it has been plausibly restored as Opet. Verginius -f. -n. Esquilinus (Degrassi 24, 356 ff.). In 478 the ordinary consuls were L, Aemilius II and C. Servilius. In some authority the suffect consulate was wrongly transferred from Aemilius' second to his third consulate an,d was then mistaken for the second ordinary consulate of that year. T h e singularity of the mistake is in keeping with what we know of the libri lintei. For the praenomen Opiter cf. 17. 1 n. Vopiscus is a very ancient Latin word meaning, according to Pliny, N.H. 7. 47, the sur­ viving twin when the other has died after premature birth (? connected 371

2. 54- 3

473 B.C.

with ovicide: see Walde-Hofmann s.v.). Its use as apraenomen is archaic. See Klotz, Rh. Mus. 86 (1937), 220; Miinzer, R.E., 'Iulius (301) 5 ; H . Gundel, R.E., 'Verginius (18) 5 . The Murder ofCn. Genucius T h e whole conspiracy (54. 4-10), which ends with the murder of Genucius and the triumph of the patres, is portrayed in the colours of the late Republic. 54. 4. praetextam: sc. togam. praetexta is often used absolutely for the purple-bordered toga worn by the higher magistrates, but the careful rhythm of the sentence [consulares fasces, curulem sellam) is improved by the presence of togam which could easily have dropped out by haplography after praetextam. pompom funeris: the technical expression for funeral decorations, cf. Nepos, Atticus 22. 4. claris . . . destinari: the metaphor is changed from a funeral to a sacrifice. T h e picture of a victim standing by the altar decked for sacrifice is striking and for L. unusual, clara is the stock epithet for insignia (Pliny, N.H. 16. 7) but infulis velatos (cf. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 24 infulatas hostias quod velamenta his e lana quae adduntur infulae) is evidently not the sacral phrase for the dressing of a victim, since it appears to occur first here, but it is solemn and elevated, as is ad mortem destinari (5. 40. 1 ; Seneca, Dial. 12. 11. 3 ; Virgil, Aen. 2. 129). T h e character of the metaphor and the way it is introduced in indirect speech, conflicting with the previous image, suggest that it may be an adaptation from poetry, perhaps Ennius. It is copied by Florus 4- 2. 92. 54. 5. ad nutum imperiumque: imperium is used widely of behest. T h e tribunes did not enjoy imperium in the narrow sense. T h e phrase is strongly reminiscent of Ciceronian expostulations: cf., e.g., Verr. 1. 78, 2. 67. 54. 6. sibi proponant ante oculos: the received text is the equivalent of vobis proponite in or. recta. T h e sense would b e : 'recall the fate of his predecessors and imagine what will happen if a consul decides to take positive action against the plebs\ Since the ex-consuls are trying to enlist the support of the people, especially the patres, it is more appro­ priate that they should end their efforts with such a direct appeal to their audience than that they should tamely conclude: 'let any consul who is thinking about taking steps against the plebs reflect on the precedents [proponat)\ A further consideration is that only the plural seems to be used in this oratorical commonplace: cf. 9. 5. 8 ; ad Herenn. 4. 48 vobis ante oculos proponite; Cicero, de Leg. Agr. 2. 53, et aL 54. 7. consilia: 4. 6. 6 n. 54. 8. erecta exspectatione: erecta nom, cf. 26. 22. 5. 372

473 B.C.

2. 54« 8

desertam ac proditam: 27. 11, 4. 43. 9. A hackneyed lament: cf. Cicero, Verr, 1. 84, et al, 54, 9. nuntiant. . . inventum: Genucius doubtless did die in office, and a note of the fact may have survived, but the sinister discovery of the tribune dead in bed has no older pedigree than Scipio Aemilianus (129 B.C.; Livy, Ep. 59). Note also the death of M. Drusus in 91. D.H. 9. 38 has no hint of the murder-plot of the patres, 54, 10. fecisse videri: 8. 15. 6, 23. 14. L. maintains the atmosphere of contemporary politics by employing the phrase by which in Re­ publican times a judge pronounced judgement. The use of videri in the verdict, besides being an admission of the fallibility of any such judgement (Cicero, Acad, 2. 146) may be supposed to convey both the thoroughness of the investigation and the impartiality of the judge (D. Daube, Forms of Roman Legislation, 73-77). Since fecisse videri is the official formula (cf. Pliny, N,H, 14. 90; Cicero, Verr, 2. 9 3 : other examples in Mommsen, Strafrecht, 448; Brissonius, De Formulis (1731), 457) it is wrong to translate 'desired to be thought its authors' (Foster). Perhaps 'wanted to be found guilty' would be a modern equivalent. Volero Publilius The story of Volero Publilius is singularly tantalizing. At first sight all seems credible. The Publilii were an old family in Rome as their presence in the Fasti of the consular tribunes testifies (5. 12. 10, 13. 3). It is likely enough that the name of Volero Publilius figured as tribune in some documentary record (e.g. in the temple of Ceres) for 472 and 471. Unquestionably the year 471 was a turning-point in the history of the tribunate and, whatever its exact content, a so-called Lex Publilia in that year can hardly be denied, even if many of the details are inspired by the activity of the great fourth-century reformer Q,. Publilius Philo, the first plebeian dictator. But the story of the appeal itself (provoco) could not possibly have been recorded. It is conspicuously a doublet of the similar story in 27. 12, also involving an Ap. Claudius. It contains patent anachronisms (55. 4 n., 56. 2 n.). Above all, the whole point of it is to illustrate the right of a Roman citizen not to be scourged. Like the case of Horatius, it gives a pedigree to a controversial procedure. The issue at stake was whether a magis­ trate by virtue of his imperium could scourge a Roman citizen. It was only settled at the beginning of the second century by one or more of three Leges Porciae (perhaps, especially, that passed by P. Porcius Laeca, tr. pi, in 199; Cicero, de Rep, 2. 54; Broughton, M.R,R, Ap­ pendix) . It is admittedly impossible to determine precisely the contents of the law but the ancient references are unmistakable. L. says (1 o. 9. 4) pro tergo civium lata videtur and Cicero corroborates that by saying (pro Rab, Pd, 12; cf. also Sallust, Catil. 51. 21): Porcia lex virgas ab 373

2. 55-

l

4 7 3

B G

- -

omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit. T h e argument is clinched by a coin of the moneyer P. Porcius Laeca (c. 104): 'soldier cuirassed with sword stg. 1. and placing his hand on the head of a togate figure behind him, lictor holding fasces; in ex., PROVOCO' ( = Sydenham no. 571). T h e anecdote, therefore, was 'developed' as the justification for these laws. (Bleicken's view that the Leges Porciae were concerned not with the question of scourging but with the extension of the privilege of provocatio in the provinces takes no account of the ancient evidence.) T h e personality of Volero Publilius may, then, be real enough; but this incident in his life must be fiction based on important con­ stitutional issues. See J . S. Reid, J.R.S. 1 (1911), 6 8 - 9 9 ; Mommsen, Strafrecht, 4 4 ; A. H . McDonald, J.R.S. 34 (1944), 19-20; J . Bleicken, R.E., 'provocatio 5 ; W . Hoffmann, R.E., 'Publilius (10)'; E. S. Staveley, Historia 3 (1955), 416-18; J . Bleicken, J?eit. Sav.-Stift. 76 (1959), 332-7755. 1. sub hoc . . . victoria: T h e uncertainty of reading in most passages makes it almost impossible to determine the difference in meaning between sub with abl. and sub with ace. Here the implication is that the patres took advantage of their victory to announce the levy, i.e. that there was a causal connexion between the two events and this may also be the force of sub with abl. at 27. 15. 8 sub adventu Hannibalis concessere. sub with a c e , however, generally denotes one event following immediately after another, where sub with abl. would allow a timelag. In any case there is no need to change the case here. dilectus edicitur: 28. 5. 55. 2. ad antiqua: 3. 9^14 n. 55. 3 . nihil auxilii: 54. 9. quattuor et viginti lictores: 1. 7 n., 3. 36. 3 n. This does not conflict with the fact that there were only 12 fasces, since the fasces were held by the consuls in alternate months. During the month when one consul did not have the fasces 9 he was still attended by lictors. eos ipsos plebis homines: 'and plebeians at that'. Lictors had to be citizens, because of the important role they played in certain cere­ monials such as Manumission and the sessions of the Gomitia Guriata (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 333 n. 1 ; cf. edict ap. Dio 48. 43 fjLrjre SovXov pafihovxeiv).

nihil. . . : 'no force could be more contemptible or less capable of resistance, if people had but the spirit to despise t h e m ; it was every one's imagination which made them terrible and awe-inspiring', ea (neuter) refers loosely to the lictors considered as a force. 55. 4. Voleronem: the history of the praenomen is doubtful. Like Volusus (cf. Volusius) it may be connected with valere and be a very ancient 374

473 B.C.

2. 55- 4

Latin name (Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. i. 45). For the Publilii cf. 5. 12. 10 n. quod ordines duxisset: 23. 4, 7. 41. 4; cf. also ordinem ducere 3. 44. 4. T h e use of ordines = centuriae seems to belong to army slang (LL.S. 206 (Claudius); Tacitus, Annals 2. 80: see E. Bickel, Rh. Mus. 95 (1952), 109-111). But to make Publilius a centurion is in any case an anachronism. It is not known whether a m a n who had held rank as a centurion had a right to refuse to serve in a lower grade unless he had been demoted for some disciplinary reason. It had, however, been a burning issue in 171 B.C. when twenty-three centurions on. being called up appealed to the tribunes of the plebs. T h e case was discussed in a contio during which one of the centurions, Sp. Ligustinus, made so moving a speech that the memory of it was recorded (42. 32-34). T h e case of Publilius is founded on it. 5 5 . 5 . spoliari... et virgas expediri: 8. 32.10,29.9.4. spoliari = 'stripped*, L. employs the official police language. Cf., e.g., Cicero, Verr. 5. 161 ; Val. M a x . 2. 7. 8, ( provoco' inquit lad populunC Volero: the word-order with the separa­ tion oiinquit from Volero (25. 18. 6, 33. 13. 11) is effective. It stresses both provoco and populum, marking the importance and significance of the appeal. virgis caedi: 36. 1 n. circumscindere: only here in Latin, perhaps coined by L. because it sounded pseudo-technical. 55. 6. clamitans: L. has carefully built up the dramatic excitement of the scene. T h e crescendo is marked by emphatic word-order and the urgent use of the historic infinitives (circumscindere, spoliare). T h e storm breaks with Publilius' appeal to the mob which is couched in lively, colloquial terms. Yor Jidem imploro cf. 23. 8 n.; adeste . . . adeste, the very ancient form of invoking the help of gods (2. 6. 7 ; Horace, Epod. 5. 53 ; Catullus 62. 5) or men (Sallust, Or. Lep. 2 7 ; Catullus 42. 1 adeste, hemdecasyllabi: cf. Prinz in Thes. Ling. Lat. 923. 80-925. 49), is streng­ thened by the repetition (cf. Val. Max. 4. 1. 12 concurrite, concurrite). Particularly pathetic is the use of commilitones. It is only used by L. in speeches (3. 50. 5 n., 6. 14. 4, 22. 59. 10, 28. 19. 8, 25. 38. 6, 25. 7. 3, 24. 30. 8) which shows that he employs it for special effect. T h a t it was a sentimental term is obvious from its meaning; cf. Suetonius, Julius 67 nee 'milites' sed blandiore nomine 'commilitones* appellabat. Like the English 'comrade 5 , L. felt it to be a form of address em­ ployed by one member of the lower classes to another. Note the chiastic shape of his last sentence (nihil est . . i opus est) ending in a monosyllable (5. 54. 7 n.). 55. 10. audaciam.: 4. 2. 11, the Senate apply to Volero the stan­ dard term of political disparagement used in the late Republic by 375

2. 55- io

473 B.C.

the boni against populates whom they suspected to be plotting the over­ throw of the existing order. See Wirszubski, J.R.S. 51 (1961), 12 ff. 55. 11. ira: abl. 56. 2. post. , . habito: 'postponing his own resentment to the public interest' (Baker). T h e tmesis does not occur elsewhere in L. (cf. 7, 36. 10, 8. 34. 2) but is frequent in the writing of other historians (Tacitus, Hist. 3. 6 4 ; Sallust, Jug. 73. 6) and may be a feature of the historical style. ut . . . fierent'. 58. 1 n. L. fails to distinguish between plebs and populus. At this date a tribune had no standing to introduce measures ad populum. sub titulo: 3. 67. 9. Gf. also the judgement on the censorship in 4. 8. 2 ff. 56. 4. actioni: the proposal made by the tribunes. cum: the train of thought is: the patres resisted with all their might and, although they could not secure the co-operation of a tribune to use his veto, the proposal was so momentous that the struggle was spun out for a whole year. T h e real reason for the delay is given by D.H. 9. 48 who preserves the valuable fact that there was a severe epidemic that year. nee quae (neque N) una vis ad resistendum erat: 4. 26. 3, 5. 9. 7, 30. 16. 3, 44. 20. 3. T h e order is nee posset adduci ut. molimine: only here in L., elsewhere molimentum (5. 22. 6), but found also in Lucretius, Ovid, and Horace. It would, however, be misleading to label the word 'poetic'. T h e -men termination is of more ancient origin that -mentum and it is therefore natural that such words, being more striking and more emphatic, should be at home in a passage where L. is underlining the epoch-making character of Volero's pro­ posal and in the artificial language of poetry where metrical considera­ tions also play a part. See Lofstedt, Syntactical 2. 297; Schmidt, Beitrage Liv. Lex. (1888), 4 ; J . Marouzeau, Mem. Soc. Ling. 18 (1912), 148. 56. 5. ad ultimum dimicationis: 1. 15. 2. Ap. Claudium Appifilium: 3. 33. 7 n. He is probably to be identified with the Decemvir but historians preferred to separate the two per­ sonalities, a respectable consul in 471 and the monstrous Decemvir. His character and behaviour duplicate throughout that of his father (23-27). His reactionary attitude is in keeping with the legendary vetus atque insita Claudiae familiae superbia (Tacitus, Annals 1. 4). It is likely that this picture owes much to the work of Valerius Antias. Cicero knows nothing of the early Glaudii; indeed, even in his attack on Glodius, he disregards their very existence—which at least is guaranteed by the Fasti. Valerius, on the other hand, took a lively 376

471 B.C.

2. 56. 5

interest in them because the Glaudii and the Valerii were natural counterparts in the politics of the age of Sulla. See especially 16. 4 n., 2 3 - 15 n-> a n d references there cited. invisum infestwnque: 5. 8. 9, 26. 39. 15. 56. 6. sic Laetorius: the praenomen is given by D.H. 9. 46. 1 and is required here by the convention which L. follows of introducing each new historical character formally. It would easily have been lost by haplography after sic (Munzer, /?.£"., 'Laetorius (1)'). Like his ances­ tor M . Laetorius (27. 6 n.), G. Laetorius can be no more than a fiction created to provide a foil for Ap. Claudius. Only one name in each annual list of tribunes before 471 can be genuine and there is every reason for supposing that in 471 the genuine name was Volero Publilius. G. Laetorius has all the marks of a doublet. He is a tough, blunt soldier (56. 7 = 27. 6 ; a family trait inspired by the Horatian heroism of P. Laetorius who single-handed held the bridge to allow G. Gracchus to escape in 121 (Val. Max. 4. 7. 2)). He is a hereditary foe of the Glaudii, an enmity that may go no farther back than the galling embassy of G. Laetorius to Ap. Claudius after the defeat of the latter in 212 (25. 22. 2). 56. 7. ipse incusationem . . . exorsus: in accusationem N. exorsus is followed by an ace. without any preposition. Of the proposed corrections, incusationem was first put forward by Doring, adopted by Grevier, and later conjectured independently by J . W. Mackail. It is a more appropriate word for the irresponsible attacks which Laetorius was unleashing than the formal [in] accusationem (proposed by Grevier), but apart from a single occurrence in Cicero (de Orat. 3. 106) it is not found until late and church Latin. T h e remarks of Laetorius which follow are designed to be in charac­ ter. His language is rough and crude whereas D.H. 9. 47 allows him a polished and fluent speech. 56. 8. carnificem: 35. 1 n. 56. 9. quandoquidem: cf. 12. 15 for a similarly pompous use of the word, introducing a concluding sentence. It has the overtones of the English 'be that as it may'. See Kroll on Catullus 101. 5. non facile . . . quam = non tarn f . . . . quam. The ellipse of tarn in negative comparisons of this kind is adequately attested in L. It is, however, notable that almost all the examples are in direct speech (35. 49. 7, 26. 31. 2 : cf. 25. 15. 9) which indicates that the usage may be colloquial. praesto: 'I make good what I have said'. In this sense, the word is not used before Cicero and, significantly, he reserves it for familiar correspondence (ad Fam. 5. 11. 3 ; ad M. Brutum 1. 18. 3). T h e touch of the colloquial suits the speaker. crastino die: the periphrasis for eras is first employed by L. and, like 377

2. 56. 9

471 B.C.

the ellipse of tarn above, is only employed in conveyed direct speech (3. 2. 9, 10. 25. 2, et al.). T h e purpose of it is to give heavy emphasis which the monosyllable eras might evade. It belongs to spoken not to written language (cf. Petronius 15. 5 ; Aul. Gell. 10. 24. 8 ; Klotz on Bell. Hisp. 2. 2). ego hie out. . . : note the ponderous word-order. T h e oath belongs to the original story; cf. D . H . 9. 48. 1. T h e following sentence is punctuated in the editions occupant tribuni templum postero die; consules.... Besides an unnecessarily emphatic word-order with postero die at the end of the colon, this precludes what was the obvious course of action for the tribunes to adopt. In order to secure a hearing they had to secure the rostra before the arrival of the people. They would do so overnight. O n the next day the contio gathers: occupant tribuni templum; postero die consules . . . . Compare the action of Clodius and Milo in 57 (Cicero, ad Att. 4. 3. 4). 56. 10. templum -.3. 17. 1, 8. 14. 12. templum denotes properly any space marked off by the regular augural ceremonies. Here it is applied to the platform from which auspicated assemblies were addressed, later to be known as the Rostra when rebuilt and decorated with the beaks of ships which C. Maenius, consul in 338, captured at Antium. L.'s terminology, therefore, carefully avoids any anachronism (cf. Cicero, de Inv. 2.52 ; in Vatin. 24), unlike 4.17.6 (n.). T h e site has been identified with a rectangle of red tufa found in the lowest level of the Forum. See Chr. Hiilsen, Rom. Mitt. 20 (1905), 29 ff.; K. Schneider, R.E., 'Rednerbuhne'. See also 1. 18. 6 n . submoveri. . .: Laetorius orders all who were not entitled to vote to remove themselves from the comitia. praeterquam qui . . . ineant: Laetorius might be objecting to the presence of persons not entitled to vote because of their age (adolescentes) or because they were patricians {nobiles). Although the latter suits the tone of the passage better, either objection would be ana­ chronistic since the situation presupposes a recognized assembly in which patricians had no vote and such a purely plebeian assembly was the result of the Lex Publilia passed later in this very year (see below). adolescentes nobiles: late Republican colouring. T h e semi-organized groups of upper-class 'teenagers' were, like students in Middle Eastern politics, a potent force in the city. Q . Cicero advises his brother adolescentes nobiles ut habeas vel ut teneas {de Petit. Consul. 6). They figure prominently in Sallust's portrait of Catilinarian Rome (Catil. 17. 5-6). See the good remarks of C. Seignobos, de Indole Plebis Romanae apud T.L., (1882), 41-45. viatori: the attendant of the lictor. 56. 1 1 . non . . . popidi sed plebis: 35. 3. 56. 12. ilium ipsum: sc. magistratum, the consulate. Appius' argument 378

471 B.C.

2. 56. 12

is that not even consuls could by virtue of their office order people discedere. H e could only request them. H o w much less right, then, had tribunes to issue such orders. T h e argument is based on a linguistic quibble. si vobis videtur, discedite, Quirites: it is generally assumed that discedite is used technically of the division or vote in the comitia centuriata (or, later, tributa), as described in Asconius' commentary on the pro Cornelio (p. 71. 12 Clark): 'cum id solum superest ut populus sententiam ferat, iubet eum is qui fert legem discedere: quod verbum non hoc significat, quod in communi consuetudine, eant de eo loco ubi lex feratur, sed in suam quisque tribum discedat in qua est suffragium laturus'. If that is the meaning the formula is very curious. A magis­ trate in fact gave a simple order to vote (cf. Asconius cit. sup.; Cicero, de Leg. 3. 11) and his order will have been conveyed in the unvarnished imperative discedite. si vobis videtur has no place with it. O n the other hand the senatorial address to the magistrate would have been couched in the polite placet ut. . . si eis videatur (cf. Donatus on Terence, Adelph. 511 ubi enim aliquid senatus consulibus iniungit addit 'si eis videatur'; 22. 33. 9, 25. 41. 9, 26. 16. 4 ; often abbreviated in inscriptions to s. e. v.: Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 1027 n. 2). Mrs. Henderson (J.R.S. 47 (1957), 85) suggests that the instruction in L. 'is an ignorant confusion of the magisterial imperative with the senatorial address' and that the whole anecdote with its linguistic quibbles was designed 'to prove a limitation of the consul's imperium\ T h e legalistic wrangle has no place in D.H.'s narrative but since it forms the kernel of the whole incident it is more likely that D.H. has omitted it because the tech­ nicalities were too obscure to be appreciated in Greek than that L. has invented it. If, then, it goes back to L.'s sources, men who, unlike L., were in touch with live politics and knew the workings of the assemblies, it becomes incredible that they could have made such a confusion or, at any rate, could have based such an argument upon it. In fact, if discedite is to be taken as meaning 'vote', one must assume that L., unfamiliar with Republican procedure, has misunderstood and confused something in his source. He made comparable blunders over senatorial procedure (1. 32. 12 n.). In that case nothing follows about antiquarian quibbles to prove the limitations of imperium. In this unsatisfactory position, a second solution might be entertained. Appius is arguing that the tribunes have no right to order the dis­ persal of people. His argument is a fortiori. He, a consul, has no right pro imperio. How much less entitled are the tribunes. Discedite, there­ fore, ought to be used not in the technical sense of 'to vote' but in its literal sense 'to disperse'. T h a t discedere was used officially in the literal sense is indicated by the solecism cited by Qiiintilian 1. 5. 36 siplures a se dimittens ita loquatur cabi' aut 'discede'; cf. also L. 3. n . 4, 379

471 B.C.

2. 56. 12

49. 5. T h e words should then be a prefatory formula at the opening of an assembly requesting those who had no right to attend to depart and those who were entitled to be present to distribute themselves in a convenient manner for listening. See also Mommsen, Staatsreckt, 3. 390 n. 1. facile [et] contemptim: contemptim must be taken with disserendo, facile with poterat. Unless we are to suppose with Cornelissen that another adverb has fallen out (facile, (superbe^) et contemptim . . . disserendo . . . poterat'. cf. 37. 10. 2), we must delete et (so first Duker, not Drakenborch), an easy haplography. 56. 14. hominum: concitatae multitudinis is to be taken in apposition with hominum. T h e accumulation marks the growing excitement of the situation, an effect which is lost by deleting either hominum (Forchhammer) or c. m. (Ernesti). Note the double Trepnrlreia (violatus esset ni. . . and certatum foret ni) and the terse word-order coorta pro tribuno X

in consulem esset. X

56. 15. Quinctius' attempts to assuage the tempers of the plebs and of the tribunes have much in common with the arguments urged by Seneca in the de Ira. Both depend ultimately on a common stock of rhetorical commonplaces which L. draws on to fill out an idea. Hence L. repeats them at 8. 32. 14. darent irae spatium = Seneca, Dial. 5- 2 5 - 2. 57. 2. advocabantur: contrast 3. 63. 7. 57. 3 . There is nothing in D.H. 9. 49 corresponding to the pleas of the Senate and the protestations of Appius and L. has put into their mouths, as so often, rhetorical cliches suited to the mood and the occasion. dum . . . rem publicam: inspired by Sallust, Jug. 4 1 . 5, unless both authors derive it from the resources of the many orators' handbooks which were circulating in Rome and were popular in the schools. T h e thought goes back ultimately to Thucydides' analysis of Stasis (3. 82); cf. also Seneca, Epist. 104. consules tribunique: see C.Q. 9 (1959)? 212. 57. 4. prodi. . . deseri: 54. 8 n. non . . . deesse: since L. elsewhere shows a detailed memory of the first Catilinarian speech (1. 46. 5 n.), it is likely that he was here inspired by Cicero's famous disclaimer non deest reipublicae consilium neque auctoritas huius ordinis: nos, nos, dico aperte, consules desumus (3). Sacro monte: 33. 2 n. 58. 1. tributis comitiis creati tribuni sunt: how had they been elected pre­ viously (33. 2 n.)? L. gives no hint except that the new system hin­ dered the patricians from influencing the elections per clientium sujfragia. 380

471 B.C.

2. 58. 1

an allusive reference to what D.H. 9. 41 calls specifically £K rfjs paTptaK7Js i/j7]ooptas, fjv ot 'Pco/zafot Kvpianv KOLAOVOIV. T h e annalist

tradition, then, was that the tribunes were elected by the comitia curiata (so also Cicero). It is true that in such an assembly organized by family and birth it was possible for the great houses to control the votes, but the revolutionary character of the tribunate rules out the idea that such an assembly could ever have been employed for the elections. The tribunes were officers of the plebs, not the populus: they had secured such recognition as they had by force, not negotiation. It is, therefore, necessary to reject the notion that the comitia curiata was ever used for the election of tribunes, as an attempt by some second-century constitutionalist, aware that the comitia centuriata could never have been the electoral body, to find a respectable origin for the institution and election of tribunes. The tribunes must have been chosen at some unofficial assembly of the plebs—a concilium plebis, prob­ ably based on a tribal organization (21. 7 n.). The first step to secure official recognition was to form the tribal assembly into a legitimate comitia. It was this which was achieved by the Lex Publilia, wrongly so called since the law must have been the result of a decision by the comitia centuriata to which the Senate had given its auctoritas. The comitia tributa is not attested before 471: it features increasingly in the sources thereafter for the election of minor magistrates (Tacitus, Annals 11. 22), less certainly for the election of the consular tribunes (5. 18. 1-2 n.), for certain acts of legislation (3. 71-72) so that the Lex Valeria Horatia of 449 recognizing the decisions of the comitia tributa (3. 55. 3 n.) may be partly grounded in fact. The patricians would not have been slow to see the advantages of a tribal assembly over the cumbrous machinery of the centuriata and were prepared to accept a compromise proposal which, although it gave a certain measure of de iure recognition to the tribunes, promised also to be of great benefit to themselves. In other words the Lex Publilia brought into being a legitimate comitia tributa, side by side with and sprung from the unofficial concilium plebis. It would, of course, have been recorded in the Annales. See further Ihne, Rh. Mus. 28 (1873), 353 ^ ? Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 1. 177 ff.; Staatsrecht, 3. 148; U. Kahrstedt, Rh. Mus. 72 (1917), 258ff.; G. W. Botsford, Roman Assemblies, 271-3; H. StuartJones, C.A.H. 7. 450-6; H. Siber, R.E., 'Plebs'; A. G. Roos, Med. Kon. Nederland. Akad. Weten. 3 (1940); E. S. Staveley, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 3 - 3 1 ; R. Sealey, Latomus 18 (1959), 526. numero . . . additos tres: it was advanced above (33» 3 n.) that Piso was right in saying that the tribunes were originally only two in number and that L. had derived this information not from first-hand consulta­ tion of Piso but through Valerius Antias. Here again there is no reason to suppose that L. has himself studied Piso. Piso's views would have 381

2. 58- i

471 B.C.

been cited by Valerius. It is, however, less certain whether Piso was right in saying that the number was now raised to five. Diodorus 11. 6 8 . 8 w r i t e s : TOTE Trpwrojs KareoTaSrjuav hrjiiapxpi rirrap^ -Tato? EiKivios /cat AevKios iVe/iercupto?, npos 8e TOVTOIS MdpKog AovLXAios /cat

Ziropios '//a'Ato? (AKIALOS codd.). Diodorus' account of 494 is missing, but the word-order proves that he is not saying that tribunes were first instituted in 471 but that four were. In other words he agrees with Piso and other authorities on an original number of two. Diodorus' names agree with those given in L. by Piso except for the last name of all, L. Maecilius. T h e name itself is unobjectionable, being of Etruscan derivation (Schulze 185, 204; cf. C.I.L. 10. 4155) and being the name of another tribune in 4. 48. 1 and of a legate in 23. 31. 6 (215), but the similarity of Maecilius to Icilius favours the belief that, if the tradi­ tional number of tribunes was raised from four to five for political motives, M . could easily be a duplication. T h e main reform of 471 was the creation of the comitia tributa and the election of tribunes by that assembly. At this date the only tribes which were politically significant were the four urban tribes since the drift from the land had not yet begun. So the number four is certainly to be connected with the four urban tribes. At a later date, when the Servian constitution was the subject of tendentious interpretation, antiquarians were at pains to conceal the radical nature of the tribunate and tried to explain the historical number often tribunes by correlating it with the five Servian classes (3. 30. 7 n.). T h e next step was to suppose that the original number was five, or at least that it was increased to five in 471 B.C. See further Niese, De Annal. Romanis, (1886), 13; E. Meyer, Hermes 30 (1895), 1-24; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 2 7 4 - 6 ; Beloch, Rom. Gesch. 270 ff.; E. Taubler, Hist. Stud. (1921); Lengle, R.E., 'tribunus plebis'. 58. 2. Cn. Siccium: the form of the name is unanimously agreed on by the manuscripts here and in 61. 2, whereas Diodorus calls him Jato? ZIKLVIOS. T h e difference may be significant. Siccius was the patrician form, Sicinius the plebeian and, since Licinius Macer seems anxious to introduce Sicinii wherever possible (40. 14 n.), the presence of a Siccius points to a different source (Schulze 231). L. Numitorium: a very old R o m a n family-name, connected with the legendary king of Alba Longa, Numitor. T h e family never achieved great prominence in Rome. Other than this tribune (and perhaps his son, P. Numitorius in 3. 45. 4, but see below) they can only produce a moneyer, C. Numitorius (c. 115) who came to a violent end in the disturbances of 87, and his son, of equestrian status, mentioned by Cicero (Verr. 5. 165). There are, therefore, no grounds for doubting the historicity of this m a n (Munzer, R.E., 'Numitorius' (3) and (4)). M. Duilium: the orthography of the name is doubtful. Originally Duilius, it is found contracted to Bilius as early as Polybius (1. 22. 1, 382

471 B.C.

2. 58. 2

23. 1) and the false etymology from duellum led to a pseudo-archaic form Duellius becoming fashionable in the late Republic (Cicero, Orat. J 53 with Kroll's note; Quintilian 1.4. 15). T h e manuscript evidence from L. is conflicting (see Conway's apparatus here) but on balance it favours the spelling Duilius which is inherently likely since L. tends to reach back beyond the antiquarianism of the late Republic to the traditions of the late second century. T h e family produced one great figure, C. Duilius cos. 268, and the whole of their history is influenced by his shadow. Sp. Icilium: a Latin name (Schulze 44-1) which, beyond a few epigraphic occurences (C.I.L. 3. 15017; 8. 16954), disappears completely from history after the author of the Lex de Aventino publicando (3. 31. 1 n.). It must, therefore, be genuine. All four names appear again in the list of ten tribunes elected after the Decemvirate (3. 54. 12 n.). T h a t list is so suspicious that one may believe that a record of the election of ten tribunes was preserved but without names which were supplied from prominent plebians mentioned in the period, in particular from the college of 471. T h e absence of a Maecilius in 449 is further evidence that he was only inserted at a late date in 471. 58. 3 . Volscum Aequicumque: from the Annales. 58. 5. odio [quod] : see C.Q. 9 (1959), 214. 58. 6-59. The Army of Appius Claudius T h e picture of the demoralization of Appius* army owes much to the misfortunes of a later Ap. Claudius, praetor in 89, pro-praetor there­ after, who had the allegiance of his army filched from him in 87 by Cinna (Livy, Epit. 79). Ap. Claudius had also been impeached by a tribune (Cicero, de Domo 8 3 ; cf. Appian B.C. 1. 6 5 ; E Gronov. ad Cicero, in Catil. 3. 24), so that the circumstances are sufficiently alike for his career to have furnished some materials for the shadowy figure of his ancestor. There is nothing in D . H . 9. 50. 3-7 corre­ sponding to the detailed account of Appius' behaviour as described in 58. 7-9. Cf. also Val. Max. 9. 3. 5 ; Appian, ItaL 7; Frontinus 4- 1. 3458. 6. certamen animis imbiberant'. i.e. animum certandi imbiberant. imbibo is found elsewhere in L. at 47. 12, a case of 'unconscious repetition' (1. 14. 4 n.). segniter, otiose, neglegenter, contumaciter \ apparently ordinary adverbs but they may stand for familiar military offences if any reliance can be placed on a passage in the Digest (49. 16. 6) where it is said that the type of act punished under military discipline is omne quod aliter quam disciplina communis exigit committitur, veluti segnitiae crimen vel contumaciae vel desidiae. 383

2. 58. 7

471 B.C.

58. 7. pudor . . . metus: 36. 3 n. tardius . . . incedere: 33. 1. 5, technical for 'slow march'; cf. Vegetius, Mil. 3. 6. adhortator: 7. 32. 11, 9. 13. 2, 22. 5. 7, apparently coined by L. and only adopted by Apuleius. For the scene cf. 45. 37. 9. motam remittere industriam: a difficult phrase. It is taken to mean 'all relaxed the effort which they had been making on their own initiative'. It is more natural to take sua sponte with omnes . . . remittere than with motam but the sense is less apt. The troops were prepared to work on their own but resented Appius' encouragement. But movere industriam is ill paralleled by movere bellum, indignationem, &c. and notam 'which he noticed' (Clericus, Art. Critic. 3. 1. 4 : cf. Cicero, ad Att. 8. l i b . 1; Amm. Marc. 27. 10. 10) is attractive. 58. 8. tacite: with exsecrari, echoing 43. 9. 58. 9. 'twitting the centurions from time to time and calling them tribunes and Voleros'. Volerones: 13. 8 n. 59. 2. Fabianus exercitus: 43. 7 ff. 59. 3 . expressa vis: 13. 4 n. 'this compelled them to exert themselves and fight', a very strained phrase, vis should be the force which com­ pels the troops to fight (cf. Gurtius 4. 11. 2 nulla vis subegit sed iustitia expressit ut. . .), not the force which they display in fighting, and what is extorted should be the resolve to fight, not vis. The passage appears hopeless: Cornelissen's experrecta vis (cf. Cicero, pro S. Roscio 141; in Pisonem 27) loses the Livian expressa. alioqui: a certain correction by Ruperti: for tantum . . . alioqui cf. 37. 46. 6. 59. 4. nihil infractus . . . animus: the standard phrase—a cliche of the Stoics to judge by Seneca, Epist. 28. 8. Cf. also Tacitus, Annals 4. 28. 5, *5- 63. 3 (of Seneca); Hist. 5. 26. 1. ne utique. . . : 'on no account to put his authority to the test'. imperium . . . oboedientium: 5. 3. 8 n. (an Ap. Claudius again) an echo of the sacramentum. 59. 7. signaque et ordines: an anachronism from later formations. The juxtaposition is common but always in the form ordines signaque (27. 1. 10), signa ordinesque (27. 14. 7), or signa et ordines (9. 27. 10, 30. 34. 10, 33. 9. 1), and in view of the force of-queet (1. 43. 2 n.) there seems no adequate explanation of the double copula here, -que should be deleted. 59. 8. per stragem . . . : 9. 40. 14, Livian battle colouring. 59. 9. proditorem . . . desertorem: the conventional terms of opprobrium for soldiers. Cf. Caesar, B.G. 6. 23. 8; Tacitus, Annals 2. 10. 59. 11. duplicariosque: soldiers who were allotted double rations (7. 37. 2) or double pay (23. 20. 2) as a reward for acts of heroism 384

471 B.C.

2. 59-

lx

(Varro, de Ling, Lat. 5. 90). For the rank see Fiebiger, R.E., 'Duplarii 5 ; for the form of the word Lambertz, Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. decimus quisque: the earliest recorded decimation, but it will hardly have been preserved in any documentary source. As with many Roman institutions an archetypal example was created to provide a precedent for subsequent practice. It is notable that the first his­ torically reliable instance occurred during the operations of Ap. Claudius Gaecus and Q . Fabius Maximus Rullianus in Samnium in 296 (Frontinus 4. 1. 35) and the coincidence of names is striking. That the origin of the punishment was mythical is made plain by Cicero, pro Cluentio 128. For later examples see Polybius 6. 38. 2 with Walbank's note and J. Sulser, Disciplina (Diss. 1920), 56. 60. 2. actae praedae: ea omnis: see C.Q. 9 (1959), 212. The plural is used of the variety of spoil gathered: cf. 1. 5. 4, 5. 12. 5, 24. 2 et al. For the allotment of spoil see 42, 1 n. 60. 3 . sibi parentem, alter'i exercitui dominum: 4. 42. 8, a piece of senti­ mentality displayed by the armies of the late Republic which gradually merged with other similar concepts into the symbolic ideal of the Princeps as Father of his people. In the Republic, however, the general as father to his army is to be sharply distinguished from compliments in other spheres like patriae parens. Thus Gn. Calpurnius Piso became so popular with his troops ut sermone vulgiparens legionum haberetur (Tacitus, Annals 2. 55. 4 ; 3. 13. 2) and Caligula was called castrorum Jilius et pater exercituum (Suet. 22. 1). See A. von Premerstein, Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats (1937), 102; A. Alfoldi, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 208. For dominus see Syme, Roman Revolution, 155. 60. 5. patribus ex concilio submovendo: it is argued that the manuscript reading may be defended and explained if patribus and submovendo are separately ablatives of instrument (Lofstedt, Syntactica, 2. 163 n.; Schmalz-Hofmann 597; Pettersson). The only passage adduced to support this interpretation is Cicero, de Domo 1 ut. . . cives remp. bene gerendo religionibus sapienter interpretando remp. conservarent but the diffi­ culties of that text are considerable (see Klotz, Glotta 6 (1915), 215) and the arguments which Nisbet puts forward for supposing it to be corrupt and to have read something like remp. bene gerendo religiones, religiones sapienter interpretando remp. are compelling. Similar considera­ tions apply here. An inspection of the Mediceus shows that the ter­ mination ib. was a correction made by Ratherius himself and that the original reading was patres. It is possible that both go back as variants to the Nicomachean recension but in any case patres is clearly to be preferred here. patres: it was only a theoretical truth that patricians were excluded 814432

385

cc

2. 6o. 5

471 B.C.

from the comitia tribute (cf. Laelius Felix ap. Aul. Gell. 15. 27. 4) since from 200 at least no attempts were made to debar them from attend­ ing. Their very numbers would have made their influence negligible. This comment reflects the typical antiquarian rationalization of the second century. See E. S. Staveley, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 4-7. virium . . . additum . . . demptum: for the choice of words cf. 56. 16. 61. 1. 77. Aemilio: T. Aemilio codd. Titus Aemilius codd. at 3. 1. 1. Diodorus n . 69. 1 Titus, 11. 74. 1 Tiberius. D.H. 9. 51. 1, 59. 1 Tiberius. It is likely that the consul of 470 is the same as that of 467 and that the authorities thought so too. In which case the praenomen Ti. should be read in both places of L. 61. 2. causamque possessorum publici agri: 41. 3 n. diem dixere: 35. 5 n. The Trial of Ap. Claudius An incidental interest of the section lies in the fact that it evidently inspired the Emperor Claudius who, perhaps in A.D. 47, delivered an attack on contemporary legal practice and especially against reliance on adventitious aids to arouse pity {Bed. Griech. Ur. 611; see J. Stroux, Sitz. Bay. Akad. (1929); F. von Woess, Zeit. Sav.-Stift. 51 (1931), 336 ff.; D. M. Last, Latomus 17 (1958), 481-2). 61. 3 . iudicium . . .populi: 35. 5 n. 61. 4. modum . . . egressum: cf. Tacitus, Annals 11. 7, 13. 2 ; Quintilian 9. 4. 146. 61. 5. vestem mutaret: the habit of accused persons putting on mourn­ ing dress and allowing their beards to grow was indeed a feature of criminal trials of the late Republic (cf. Cicero, pro Plancio 29) but since shaving was not known in Rome before 300 B.C. (Pliny, N.H. 7. 211; cf. Aul. Gell. 3. 4), all accounts of such squalor reorum must be rejected as apocryphal. It is remarkable that early mentions of it seem con­ nected with the Claudii (3. 58. 1, 6. 20. 2). They may have originated the custom in the fourth or third century. See Marquardt, Manuel, 18. 2. 63-64. 61. 6. spiritus: 'arrogance' not 'gusto' (cf. Pindarico spiritus ore in Prop. 3. 17. 40 with which Shackleton Bailey compares Quintilian 10. 1. 61) or 'spirit' (35. 8). 61. 7. diem ,. . prodicerent: a misinterpretation of the usual procedure before a iudicium populi which required three separate meetings at stated intervals. Appius has already spoken at one ( = causam semel dixit) but before the next is due he dies. The confusion is probably a mistake by L. himself. See 35. 5 n. The nature of the trial is unknown. 61. 8. morbo moritur: 3. 33. 3 n. Historically the consul of 471 was identical with the Decemvir, but family loyalties, wishing to divorce 386

470 B.C.

2. 6 1 . 8

the respectable reactionary from the monstrous tyrant, created two separate individuals. This was a very late creation, probably no earlier than Valerius Antias. D.H. 9. 54 has two accounts of his death: officially he committed suicide but ol irpoariKovTes avrw alleged that he was struck down by disease. L. may have abbreviated for the sake of simplicity or D.H. may have found in Aelius Tubero the cynical gloss of Licinius Macer on the decent obituary of Valerius Antias. The Decemvir did commit suicide (3. 58. 6). 61. 9. laudationem . . . impedire: 47. 11 n. Since Ap. Claudius did not in fact die now but survived to compass his own death, detested and abhorred by plebs and patres alike, and since laudations in public were a late development of what was originally a private ceremony in the family or gens (Tacitus, Annals 13. 17) this detail must be an invention springing from some imaginatively written laudationes such as family historians evidently delighted to compose (Cicero, Brutus 61, 62; 8. 40. 4). The pattern may be surmised from the Elogia of the Scipios and other leading personages. See Walbank on Polybius 6. 52; F. Vollmer, Jahr.f. PhiL, Suppl. Band 18 (1892), 446-525. tribuni plebis . . . conarentur: see Conway's apparatus, but the plural is demanded both by D.H. 9. 54. 6 and because an unadorned tribunus for tribunus quidam would be intolerable. How the tribunes tried to prevent the laudatio is not clear since the speaker did not have to be a magistrate or to have obtained a ius contionandi, but the legal point should not be pressed. 62. 1. tempestas: clearly a prodigy and recorded as such. Cf. 21. 58. 8. 62. 5. id: the retreat of the Sabines to a fast place seemed to be an admission of defeat. Valerius accepted it as such and retired to Rome, although leaving the war in fact far from completed. The last four words present difficulties. If inde is local; (9.43.1; Cicero, de Orat. 3. 75) and governed by decedens, integro . . . hello must be an abl. abs.: 'while the war was still incomplete 5 . Such an abl. abs. is not found and integro hello could naturally be an abl. after decedens (34. 47. 5 decedere pugna; Justin 18. 1.6 cedere proelio; Dictys 2. 38, 4. 6), in which case inde must either be temporal 'thereupon', which would unique in that position in L., or ano KOLVOV with decedens which would be harsh. It is a super­ fluity which could well have arisen from 'zwtegro [inde] decedens'. 63. 2 . agrariae legis: introduced to maintain the continuity of atmo­ sphere; see 41. 3 n. 63. 3. coacti . . . ah senatu: the language is loose and imprecise. The Senate did not give orders to the magistrates: it gave recommenda­ tions (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 1022 ff.). L., however, frequently 387

2. 63. 3

469

B

-G.

speaks as if the Senate did order the consuls to take certain actions (8. 13. 1) so that Niebuhr was being over-sensitive in reading coacto extemplo senatu here. 63, 5. Antium: 33. 4 n. virtus militum . . . neglegentia consulis: a psychological explanation typical of L.'s battle-descriptions. Cf. 48. 5, 6. 22. 6. 63. 6. Antium . . . opulentissimam: 50. 2 n. The exaggeration betrays the partiality of the authority, as also may the mention of the port of Caeno, unless it was recorded in the Annales. Gaeno does not occur in any other place. It has left no trace in Strabo, Pliny, or the geo­ graphers and although it has been plausibly identified by le Bas with Nettuno (see also Nissen, ltd. Land. 2. 627; K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Klioy Beiheft 14 (1923), 190 and n. 3), it must have been a place familiar only to a man intimately connected with the area. 64. 1. pacis . . . sollicitaepacis: for such repetitions cf. 2. 9. 3, 4. 44. 13, 27. 12. 5, 5. 54. 4 (Pettersson). 64. 2 . interesse . . . noluit: D.H. 9. 57. 1 knows nothing of such passive resistance. It was devised by L. to perpetuate the theme of Stasis. A quorum was not required at meetings of the assemblies. similem annum priori consules habent: seditiosa initia, bello deinde externa tranquilla: tranquilla to be taken gramatically with initia but the sense is rather 'the opening of the year was full of agitation but, when the threat of war arose, the rest of the year was trouble-free'. 64. 3 . Crustuminos: 1. 9. 8 n. 64. 6. salubri mendacio: such timely lies play a decisive role in many heroic battles. The Battle of the Standard was won by a precisely similar cry (Scott, Tales of a Grandfather, 1. 27 ff.). The tone is thus set for the character of the fighting which follows. It is in L.'s best manner, with touches of epic and of contemporary jargon mixed together to create the effect almost of a ballad. But a comparison with D.H. shows that this is all L.'s workmanship and owes nothing to actual poems on the subject. dum se putant vincere vicere: Gonway compares Aeneid 5. 231. Both doubtless go back to a common source in older epic. 6 4 . 8 . tacitis indutiis: 18. 11. 64. 9 . tertiafere vigilia: 25. 1. 64. 10. Hernicorum: in compliance with the treaty of 41. 1 n. canere . . . iubet: D.H. has no hint of the stratagem. It seems, therefore, likely that L.'s source has introduced it to improve the account of the battle. He will have taken it from one of the many anthologies of strata­ gems. Frontinus distinguishes a special category of ruses designed to secure the most favourable moment for battle by exhausting the enemy and obtaining a good night's sleep for the troops; cf. the ruse by which 388

468 B.C.

2. 64. IO

Epaminondas exhausted the guard of Onium throughout the night and attacked them at dawn (Polyaenus 2. 3. 4). Some of the details recur in other stratagems. Agis (1. 46) terrified the Peloponnesians by making his pack-animals neigh and whinny in the night, while Antipater, Agesilaus, and Eumenes are all recorded to have deceived their enemies by mounting camp-followers on asses and pack-animals (4. 4. 3). 64. 11. fremitus', often of horses as well as of men; cf. Lucretius 5. 1076; Caesar, B.C. 3. 38. 3 ; Virgil, Aeneid 11. 607; Tacitus, Germania 10. The scene is undoubtedly picturesque but the Scholiast on Statius, Theb. 9. 207 (frementem) exaggerates when he says poetis licet equis humanos sensus dare. aures agitante: 'teasing their ears'. A strong expression, for which one should compare Seneca, EpisL 56. 7 aures ne quis agitet sonus. It does not appear to occur before L. 65. 2. post principia: 3. 22. 6, a technical term of Roman Republican army formation transferred to the Volsci. It denotes the position immediately behind the first line. Cf. Sallust, Jug. 50. 2. 65. 3 . virtute militumfretus, loco parumfidens\ 7. 12. 4, 32. 10; loco dat. cf. 3. 18. 8. The language is typical of the easy generalizations of soldiers (cf. Bell. Hisp. 16. 3 or Amphitryo's military exploits in Plautus 212 ff.) and, besides gratifying L*'s interest in the psychology of battles, gives something of a flavour of a communique to the narrative. 65. 4. saxa . . . ingerit: 9. 35. 4, 27. 18. 12 ; Sallust, Jug. 60. 6; Curtius 4. 4. 13; Tacitus, Annals 2 . 8 1 . 2 . The absence of the word from Cicero and Caesar in this sense suggests that it is peculiar to the historical genre. 65. 5. restitere . . .; deinde ut obtinentes locum vires ferebant, audent ultro gradum inferre: N. The sense is clear. When the troops had secured a good footing they gradually recovered strength and began to counter­ attack, vires ferebant is meaningless and the conjectures do not satisfy (vires refecerant Weissenborn; vires terebant Harant; vires reficiebant Madvig; vim pro vi referebant Conway; vires tenebant Brakman; vires recipiebant M. Muller (9. 3. 10); vires exserebant F. Walter (Phil. Woch. 57 ( I 937)s 334 J w m wpellebant Bayet). The interchange of the letters and alteration o f / to c produces the right word—revirescebant 'they began to revive'. Parallels are abundant but cf. Cicero, de Prov, Cons. 34; Phil. 7. 1. 65. 7. ceciderant animi: only at 1.11.3 (n.) in L. The phrase, exclusively confined to poetry (Virgil, Aeneid 3. 260; Ovid, Fasti 3. 225; Met. 7- 347) 11 * 537)? a n d the dactylic close to the book conspire to recall the epic character of the struggle. 389

BOOK III Introduction

The third book is the central book of the first Pentad and within its framework the story of the Decemvirate and the fate of Verginia occupy the central position (33-54). That such an arrangement is not for­ tuitous is suggested by two considerations. Books 2-4 deal with the hundred years from 510 to 404. The chronological middle of that period is the years 451-450, the years of the Decemvirate. The rest of the material is so compressed or elaborated that the Decemvirate is structurally as well as chronologically at the very heart of the work. Secondly, for L., who throughout the first five books is preoccupied with the problem of acquiring and safeguarding liber tas, the whole episode is the clearest illustration of the three outstanding dangers which beset a newly independent people—the ambition of individuals, the jealousy of classes or factions, and the hostility of outsiders. Book 3 is concerned with the need for restraint on the part of the government (moderatio), iflibertas is to be upheld, but it closes with an illustration that a corresponding restraint on the part of the governed (modestia) is also required—the theme of Book 4. Such at least would seem to be the implication of his comment (65. n ) : 'adeo moderatio tuendae libertatis, dum aequari velle simulando ita se quisque extollit ut deprimat alium, in difficili est cavendoque ne metuant homines metuendos ultro se efficiunt, et iniuriam ab nobis repulsam tamquam aut facere aut pati necesse sit iniungimus aliis.' The book falls into three main sections: (1) 1-32. The proposal of C. Terentilius Harsa and the events leading up to the embassy to Athens. (2) 33-54. The Decemvirate. (3) 55~72- The aftermath culminating in the speech of T. Quinctius. 1-8. Wars with the Aequi and the Volsci

The first eight chapters form a continuous section dealing primarily with foreign affairs. They follow abruptly the end of the preceding book. In particular the casual mention of Antium as an opportune et maritima urbs (1. 5) is remarkable after the elaborate account of that city in 2. 63. 6 and the refugee movement from Antium to the Aequi implied in 4. 3 is utterly at variance with the narrative of 2. 65. 6-7. A similar discrepancy can be detected in the reference to Aemilius' 390

467 B.C.

3- i-8

earlier activities (i. 2 n.). On the other hand, the section has much in common with the previous Licinian passage which ended at 2. 51. 4. The Fabii return to power (1. 1 n.). Political catchwords such as largiendo (1. 3 n.) reappear. The impression that L. has abandoned Valerius Antias in favour of Licinius Macer again as his principal authority from the beginning of the book is confirmed by the citation of Valerius as a variant source at 5. 12 and the implied citation of the same variant at 8. 10 (n.). Other possible additions from the same source are found at 3. 10 (n.), and 4. 1 (n.). L. has made little attempt to create an artistic unity out of his material but the increased wealth of details which the Annales now supplied (1. 6 n., 5. 14 n.) would have made it difficult for him to have done so without taking considerable liberties with the facts. As it is, a comparison with D.H. reveals that L. and D.H. have fol­ lowed different but related traditions (2. 1 n., 3. 10 n.), and that L. has streamlined the data which he took over (4. 4 n., 5. 8 n.) and confined himself to the essentials. See Soltau 160-3: Burck 9-14; Klotz 253-8. 1. 1. Antio capto: 2. 65. 7. For the form of connexion between books by the repetition of words cf. 5. 1. 1, 23. 1. 1, 24. 1. 1 (I. Nye, Sentence Connection (1912), 136). 77. Aemilius: 2. 61. 1 n. hie erat Fabius -fQuinctus qui unus: Quinctius is nonsense and is generally assumed by editors to be a dittography of qui unus (Madvig, Conway). It might be a corruption of Quintus caused by the rarity of a postponed praenomen. The phenomenon of a praenomen following the nomen is, however, found in Livy as well as of the nomen following the cognomen (4. 23. 1 n.). It certainly occurs in verse (e.g. Ennius, Annales 304 V.) and in some half-illiterate inscriptions (C.I.L. i 2 . 831) but, outside L., there are no prose examples other than Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 83 Scaevola Quintus, which is corrupt. There is one un­ disputed instance of the mutation in L. (2. 32. 8 Menenium Agrippam) but there the praenomen was sufficiently obsolete to make the change easy (cf. 4. 17. 2 n.). At 30. 1.9 the Puteanus reads sub Lucretio Spurio and at 29. 2. 11 the Puteanus and Spirensis traditions preserve Cornelium Servium but in both passages, as at 7. 22. 10, the manuscripts are probably at fault. Besides the present passage, the archetype also read Fabius Quinctius at 3. 29. 7 and Fabius Quintum at 10. 22. 1, where Quintum can scarcely be right. Palaeographical arguments encourage emendation throughout but some caution is advised by the case of Menenius Agrippa and the disputed text of 1. 56. 11. In the latter passage the archetype read Tarquinius Sextus . . . ut ignarus . . . esset rem taceri iubent but the humanist correction Tarquinii, ut Sextus . . . [ut] ignarus . . . esset, rem taceri iubent appears in most texts. There is, in any 391

3.

i. i

467 B.C.

case, no justification for Bayet's hie erat qui. The problem is discussed by Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. i. 41) and G. Lahmeyer (Philologus 22 (1865), 468-75). qui unus: 2. 50. 11. That Fabius would have been impossibly young for a consulship if he was only a boy at the time of Cremera is a reflec­ tion not on the reliability of the Fasti but of the traditional account of that battle. 1. 2. iam priore consulate: there is no whisper of Aemilius' activity in 2. 61-62 although it is treated extensively by D.H. 9. 51. L. may have suppressed it for artistic reasons but the inconsistency could be ex­ plained by the change of source. agrarii: those who hoped to gain from the agrarian law. in spem . . . erexerant: 29. 14. 1, 33. 3. 12. It is favoured by Cicero (de Domo 25; Phil. 3. 32). Notice the variation of tenses (erexerant. . . suscipiunt. . . manebat). utique: 'could be accomplished in any event with the assistance of the consul'. 1 . 3 . principem civitatis: the language of first-century politics. For most Romans of the late Republic the term principes (civitatis) described the collective body of ex-consuls. Cicero himself uses principes as a synonym for omnes consulares (Phil. 8. 22, 14. 17). princeps (civitatis), on the other hand, was a value term applied to the man judged to be the most prominent or influential of the principes (de Orat. 1. 225 (L. Licinius Crassus); Deiot. 31 (M. Aemilius Scaurus); de Domo 66 (Pompey); Brutus 80; ad Fam. 3. 11. 3). L. conforms to this Republican usage. For principes as omnes consulares cf. 2. 2. 8, 16. 5, 46. 7, 3. 12. 1, 4. 6. 6, 5. 25. 11, 5. 30. 4 n.; {orprinceps, besides the present passage, cf. 2.16. 7 (P. Valerius) and 6. 1. 4 (Camillus). There is no hint of the Augustan conception of Princeps, the ruler in all but name, which owed some­ thing at least to Cicero's de Republica. See Syme, Roman Revolution, 10, 311, 519; L. Wickert, R.E., 'Princeps' with bibliography; H. Drexler, Maia 10 (1958), 243-80. largiendo: 2. 42. 6 n. The whole phrase is a proverbial commonplace (Otto, Sprichworter; cf. Seneca, de Clem. 1. 20. 3 ; Epist. 16. 7 de alieno liberalis sum). 1. 4. ductu et auspicio: technical, echoing the formal announcement of the campaign. The phrase implies that the army was personally commanded by the holder of imperium. When the general was only a legate of a magistrate with imperium, he would be said to lead the army (ductu) but the auspices would be those of his superior. As a result he was not qualified to celebrate a triumph. So in an inscription from Lepcis (Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, no. 43): Marti Augusto sacrum auspiciis imp. Caesaris Aug. pontificis maxumi patris patriae ductu Cossi Lentuli cos . . . liberata civitas Lepcitana. 392

467 B.C.

3- i-4

See also 3. 17. 2, 42. 2, 5. 46. 6, 6. 12. 6, 40. 52. 5; Plautus, Amphitryo 196, 657; Bell. Alex. 43. 1. agri captum ... aliquantum a Volscis esse: the reading capti transmitted from archetype destroys the meaning of the sentence. The emphatic position of the opening words shows that Fabius is recalling an historical fact ('the previous year Quinctius captured some land from the Volsci'), and not merely treating of an existing situation ('there is some land captured the previous year from the Volsci'; cf. 42. 4. 3). Gobet's captum is certain. Assimilation of endings is responsible for other corruptions in L. (3. 15. 8 n., 19. 6 n., 4. 47. 3 n.). 1 . 5 . [propinquam] opportunam et maritimam urbem: Madvig objected to the three adjectives on the ground that L. never writes a tricolon with a copula only between the second and third members (i.e. A, B, and G). His formulation of the rule is too rigid (Emendationes 82). Emendation cannot eliminate passages like 44. 43. 6; cf. 5. 13. 6 n . A more valid objection is that propinquam is both untrue and otiose. Antium was over 40 miles from Rome so that it could only be said to be near in so far that it was readily accessible {opportunam). propinquam is probably a Nicomachean gloss on opportunam. For the conjunction of opp. and mar. cf. 27. 30. 3, 45. 30. 4 ; Cicero, de Rep. 2. 5 ; but note also 41. 24. 8 opportuni propinquitate . . . sumus. civitatem in concordia fore: Fabius sounds one of the themes of the book (16. 3, 24. n , 33. 8, 52. 2, 54. 7, 57. 7, 58. 4, 65. 7) which is resumed and elaborated in the great speech of Quinctius at the end (67-68). But the connexion of the Fabii and Concordia is older than L. and goes back at least to Licinius (2. 47. 12). 1. 6. triumviros agro dando creat: 4. 11. 5, 5. 24. 4, 8. 16. 14, 9. 28. 8, 10. 21. 9, 32. 2. 6. L.'s terminology is technically incorrect. Their title historically was iiiviri agris dandis assignandis (Lex Lat. Bant. 15 ; Lex Agr. 15) and they were not 'created5 by the consul (hence Gronovius' conjecture creant) but were elected in elections held by the praetor after the passing of a special lex or plebiscitum (10. 21. 9, 34. 53. 2: so also the inscriptions cited above). Such inexactitude is, however, typical of L. It is clear from the wealth of circumstantial detail of magistrates, plagues, and prodigies which now begins to fill the pages of L. that for this period the contents of the Annales survived in a fuller form. The iiiviri would have figured by name there. For Verginius see 2. 63, for Furius 2. 56. The names have the added chance of being authentic in that 'the iiiviri who had founded a colony became the hereditary patrons' (Badian, Foreign Clientela, 162). Squared-stone tufa masonry at Anzio may belong to the colony or to the later settle­ ment of 338 (Giovenale-Marchetti, Not. Scav., 1897, 240-1). 1. 7. fecit. . .fastidium copia: proverbial, cf., e.g., Plautus, Trin. 671. Volsci: according to D.H. the other participants in the colony 393

3- i . 7

467 B.C.

were Latins and Hernici, not Volsci. That view is inherently more probable and the mention of the Volsci by L. may be explained as a misunderstanding of the fact reported by D.H. (7. 13) that the Volsci were allowed to retain part of their possessions in the city after its capture by the Romans. 1. 5. is venerat: abrupt and unexplained. D.H, 9. 59 devotes much more space to Fabius' activities which suggests that L. has abbreviated his material. The detail came from the Annales. 2. 1. Sp. Postumio: 2. 42. 5 n. stativa habuit castra: see C.Q.g (1959), 217. morbo: the nature of this and other plagues mentioned in L. cannot be established with certainty. They were certainly recorded in the Annales since the measures taken to avert them (3. 7. 8 n.) were of importance pontifically, but no detail of symptoms is given. L. notices the following cases: 490 pestilentia ingens (2. 34. 5; cf. 2. 35. 8). 466 463 annus pestilens urbi agrisque (3. 6. 2 ; cf. 6. 5, 7. 7-8, 8. 1, 9. 7, 13-2). 453 pestilentia foeda homini, foeda pecori (3. 32. 2). 437 pestilentia, inopia Jrugum (4. 20. 9). 436 pestilentia (4. 21. 2). 435 pestilentior inde annus (4. 21. 6). 433 morbo implicitis cultoribus agrorum (4. 25. 4). 432 vis morbi levata (4. 25. 6). 431 morbo (4. 26. 5). 428 stragem pecorum, volgati in homines morbi (4. 30. 8). 412 pestilentia minacior quam perniciosior (4. 52, 2). 411 pestilentem annum inopia frugum (4. 52. 4). 399 pestilens omnibus animalibus aestas (5. 13. 4). 392 pestilentia in agro Romano (5. 31. 5). 390 Gallos pestilentia urgebat (5. 48. 2). Little help is provided by contemporary Greek records. There is evidence of plague or malaria in Ionia in 494 (Herodotus 6. 12), in Sicily about 475 (Pindar, Pyth. 3. 66), in Athens between 460 and 450 (27 Aristoph. Equites 84; cf. I.G. i 2 . 3 1 ; Plutarch, Pericles 37. 4), of typhus in Athens from 430 to 427 ('The Great Plague'), of malaria in Athens in 422 (Aristoph. Vespae 277, 281, 813) and, presumably, in Sicily in 413, and of typhus in Sicily in 396 (Diod. S i c ) . These dates, except for 428, scarcely correspond with the Roman epidemics. The worst decade at Rome was 440-430, at Athens 430-420, but the Great 394

3. 2. 1 466 B.C. Plague came from the east, not the west. It is, however, certain that malaria first became seriously endemic in the northern Mediterranean during the fifth century (W. H. S. Jones, Malaria and Greek History, 23-40; A. Gelli, Die Malaria; Glerici, Economia e Finanza, 26 n. 4) and round Rome malaria was encouraged by the draining of the salt-lakes at Ostia, since the Anopheles does not breed in salt water, and by the extent of the Pomptine marshes. That fact taken in conjunction with the total disappearance of several communities occupying strategic positions in Latium during the century (e.g. Ardea, Laurentum, Gabii, Longula, Polusca) is a strong indication that at least some of the reports are to be identified as malaria. In particular, the epidemics among the Volsci in 490 when they were operating in the Pomptine area and among the Gauls in 390 who were encamped in the lowlying and swampy parts of Rome, together with the singling out of the cultores agrorum as victims in 433, look like malaria. But malaria does not attack animals (453, 428, 399) and it must be assumed that in addition to a regular malaria curve several 'famine-plagues', perhaps of the typhus species with murrain, also attacked the population. In particular anthrax, the only disease known to attack cattle and men, which certainly existed in Italy in Nero's time and being a persistent disease might have been active for centuries previously, is a serious candidate. See also Kind, R.E., 'Malaria'; Hofmann, R.E., Suppl., 8, Tomptinae Paludes'; H. Zinsser, Rats, Mice and History, 104-49; E. Kornemann, Intern. Monatsch. 14 (1919), 491 ff. D.H. 9. 60. 8 adds a further fact from the Annales that Postumius dedicated the temple of Dius Fidius (Ovid, Fasti 6. 213-18).

The First Aequan War 2. 2. extra ordinem: 8. 16. 5. Until the Lex Sempronia of 123 B.C. it was the responsibility of the Senate to designate the provinces to be held each year. It was then for the consuls to draw lots (sortiri; 2. 58. 4) or to reach a mutual arrangement (comparare inter se) for the allocation of the provinces. In times of crisis it was open to the Senate to re­ commend the direct appointment of the consuls to particular pro­ vinces (6. 22. 6, 6. 30. 3, 7. 23. 2, 10. 24. TO, 37. 1. 7, 38. 58. 8; sine sorte, sine comparatione, extra ordinem provincia data) in order to secure the fittest man for the task. In still later times the will of the people was liable to override the formal procedure and to dictate the appoint­ ments. Although the machinery dates from an early period, the notice about Fabius is questionable. 2. 3-5. For the chronological problems of the section cf. 3. 10 n. Fabius' message is a finished product of rhetorical technique which contrasts with the crudity of the direct speech attributed to the Aequan 395

3- 2. 3-5

465 B.C.

in 8-9. T h e two speeches, the suave Roman against the uncouth foreigner, are deliberate counterparts and, being placed at the very opening of the book in a dull and disconnected series of engagements, raise the reader's expectation. Notice the careful antitheses: pacem . . . bellum, armata quam pacatam, nunc testes, mox . . . ultores, paenitere . . . quam pati hostilia, si paeniteat . . . sin periurio gaudeant, dis magis iratis quam hostibus. The chiastic ex Aequis Romam, ab Roma Aequis and the alliterative perfidia et periurio are also striking, quorum . . .fiat is an infi. question dependent on testes, se tamen etiam nunc malle governs the rest of its sentence, sua sponte referring to the Aequi not to Fabius (se). Characteristic of the formality of Fabius' style is the use of dextera which L. only employs 9 times instead of the contracted dextra which occurs 40 times. For receptum ad clementiam cf. Cicero, pro Lig. 30. 2. 6. in Algidum: the first mention of the dramatic and commanding pass by which the Via Latina passes through and out of the Alban crater (see m a p ) . This was the earliest and for long the only route to the south because it ran up the natural slopes of the lava-flow, whereas any road from Rome circumnavigating the crater and going through the Praeneste Gap had to run across the grain of the country in a series of switchbacks. T h e pass was the scene of numerous en­ gagements with the Aequi and Volsci, because it was a prize which gave the possessor control of the communications (23. 5, 25. 6, 27. 8, 30. 3, 4. 26. 3, 45. 6). It ceased to be of importance to Rome, and so to be mentioned in history, after Camillus' decisive victory over the Aequi in 389. L. only uses the phrase in Algido (-urn), but the term came subsequently to cover the range of hills stretching from T u sculum eastwards above the pass. There was, however, never a city of the name, despite D . H . 10. 21, 11. 3. SeeHulsen, R.E., 'Algidus m o n s ' ; T. Ashby, P.B.S.R.4 (1907), 3 ff.; 5 (1910), 409 ff. 2. 8. ostentare: the jibe is commonplace but elsewhere ostendere is used (1. 11. 5, 2. 44. 12; Tacitus, Hist. 3. 48, 3. 78; Pliny, Epist. 2. 7. 2). T h e frequentative underlines the vulgarity of the speaker. 2. 9. crastino die: 2. 56. 9 n. erit copia pugnandi: the use of the future in first place without et after a preceding imperative is typical of the spoken word; cf. 5. 51. 5 (Camillus). ne timete: 'be not a-feared'. T h e harshness of the plain ne with the imperative for ne with the subj. or nolite with the infinitive is remark­ able. Outside Terence (Andria 868), legal documents which often pre­ serve archaic forms (22. 10. 5), and Virgil (e.g. Aeneid 6. 544, where Servius comments antique dictum, nam nunc lne saevias* dicimus; cf. Norden's note), the construction is only found in two other places of classical literature (Seneca, Contr. 1. 2. 5 ; Dial. 2. 19» 4 : both charac­ terizing) . See Wackernagel, Vorlesungen, 1. 214. 39 6

465 B.C.

3. 2. 10

2. 10. longam: predicative. corpora . . . curant: 9. 37. 7, 34. 16. 5. Stacey regarded the phrase as poetical since it is used by Ennius, Ann. 368. But Servius comment­ ing on Georgics 4. 187, shows that euro is the mot juste in such contexts without any special flavour, when he writes ''curare corpus' si de hominibus dicamus, et cibo et lavacro intellegimus vel alterutro. Hence it is natural that Petronius should use it in an informal passage of narrative (115). Cf. also Gaius, Dig. 50. 16. 44. ultima audere: 1. 48. 3 n., 22. 60. 23. 2. 11. contracti. . .periculi: 2. 23. 14. 2. 13. Cf. 2. 43. 5. 3 . 1. castris: 'having left a guard on their camp', egressi is to be taken absolutely as at 5. 21. 1. Cornelissen transposed praesidio and castris, taking castris with egressi but the change is superfluous and a pre­ position would be required with castris. 3 . 4 . audita incerta: has a proverbial ring; see the commentators on Lucretius 5. 1134-5. cursus clamorque: 1. 48. 2 n. Notice the short, staccato sentences mirroring the panic of the situation. captae urbis: 1. 29. 2 n. 3 . 6. iustitio indicto: 5. 4, 27. 2, 4. 31. 9, 6. 7. 1, 7. 6. 12, 9. 6, 28. 3, 10. 4. i, 21. 3, the temporary suspension of all jurisdiction and legal proceedings in an emergency (Aul. Gell. 20. 1 ; Cicero, Phil. 5. 31). A iustitium could be declared either by the Senate (10. 21. 3) or by a dictator (3. 27. 2) and since the duration was not defined, it lasted as long as the emergency. While a iustitium was in force, all the courts were closed and public business came to a standstill. T h e record of iustitia, being of religious concern, was preserved in the Annales. indicere or edicere is used indiscriminately for the proclamation, remittere or exuere for the termination. See Nissen, Das Iustitium (1877); Kleinfeller, R.E., 'Iustitium'. praefecto urbis: 1. 59. 12 n. 3# 9. census: 1. 44. 2 n. conditum lustrum: 1. 44. 2 n. 3 . 10. nihil memorabile actum: a surprising comment in view of the elaborate campaign outlined in 2. 3-3. 8. It is not easy to believe that the census divided the campaigning season and that a full-scale opera­ tion was mounted against the Aequi before the census and another one after it. T h e explanation may be traced to L.'s desire to create unified actions and episodes. In D.H. 9. 60 Fabius' embassy to the Aequi is dated to 466. For L., however, that embassy was a perfect counterpart to the Aequan defiance and it was necessary to juxtapose them. To achieve this he transfers it from 466, which is now left with­ out content (2. 1), and places it in 465, grouping together other notices 397

3- 3- io

465 B.C.

and building up a consecutive episode. The distortion (2. 39. 2 n.) is betrayed by his accurate recording of the fact that the Annales had nothing of military importance for the year. See Weissenborn-Muller ad loc.; Burck 11; Klotz, Rh. Mus. 87 (1938), 46. 4. 1. A. Postumius Albus: 2. 42. 5 n. Furios Fusios scripsere quidam: it is impossible to determine who quidam were. The spelling Fusius is archaic (1. 24, 6) and together with Valesius is likely to have gone out of fashion in 312 when Ap. Claudius was censor (Quintilian 1.4. 13; Macrobius 3. 2. 8). But the antiquarian revival of the first century popularized the spelling again. Valesius occurs significantly as the form of the name in the Elogium of P. Valerius Poplicola (C.I.L. i 2 . 202). Fusios, therefore, like Vetusius (8. 2 n.) might be either a genuine survival from pre-fourth-century documents or be an example of second- or first-century pedantry. Against the former it must be urged that the addition of the cognomina Albus and Fusus is scarcely credible in official records of the fifth century. I am inclined to believe that the eccentricity is of a kind to be expected from the libri lintei and that L.'s comment substantially reproduces Licinius' gloss on the passage. See H. Jordan, Hermes 6 (1871), 201-4; F. Miinzer, R.E., 'Furius'. 4. 3 . Ecetranum: 2. 25. 6 n. The Hernici make their report in accor­ dance with the Cassian treaty. confugisset ad Aequos: at variance with the account given at the end of the previous book of the Fall of Antium and therefore from a different source. is miles: the soldiery who had escaped from Antium to the Aequi. 4. 4. sua sponte: with infidos, 'the colonists who were already on their own account disaffected'. The Second Aequan War As in the case of the first war L. has compressed and shaped his material. D.H. reports that Furius after his defeat (4. 8) sent messen­ gers to Rome and during the night changed his camp so that the scene of his defeat and of his beleaguering were different; L. omits the whole night incident and imposes an Aristotelian unity of time and place on the drama. Notice also that it is the Hernici who bring the news (4. 9), not Furius5 messengers and that L. has excluded a series of irrelevant details to be found in D.H. (e.g. a volunteer brigade of 5,000 under Postumius). The effect is to focus the attention on the psychological rather than on the external aspect of the defeat. 4. 7. temere: 2. 48. 5, 5. 18. 7-12. The Romans ex hypothesi cannot possess such un-Roman qualities as faint-heartedness, so that a psycho­ logical scapegoat has to be found to account for their defeat. 398

464 B.C.

3-4- 9

4. 9. quae forma s.c. ultimae semper necessitatis habita est: 6. 19. 3 ; semper is tendentious. There is no evidence that there was any precedent for such a S.C. before 121 when on the instigation of the consul Opimius the Senate passed a resolution de republica defendenda notifying the consuls that a situation had arisen which required emergency action to be taken but not conferring upon them any legal powers which they did not already enjoy by virtue of their imperium (Plutarch, C. Gracchus 14; Cicero, in CatiL 1.4). The formula of the S.C. was as given by L. here and more fully by Cicero (Phil. 8. 14; ad Fam. 16. 11. 2 ; in CatiL 1. 4) uti consules rempublicam defendant operamque dent ne quid resp. d. c. The title Senatus Consultum Ultimum is not found before Caesar (B.C. 1. 5). It might be expected that such a resolution would have its origins in a military emergency before it was adapted to political circumstances, but if there were any earlier precedents Cicero must have invoked them. The present passage is therefore an invention by the post-Gracchan annalists to supply a pedigree for the actions of 121 (Plaumann, Klio 13 (1913), 360; O'Brien Moore, R.E., 'senatus', cols. 755-8). The S.C. ultimum was used subsequently against Saturninus and Glaucia in 100 B.C., against Lepidus in 77, against Catiline in 63, and against Caesar in 49. The invention may be older than Licinius. It may even be due to Piso who was involved in the Gracchan disturbances. But it is interesting that Licinius, L.'s source here, included it, since it is a remarkable instance of his political interpretation of history. negotium daretur (uty videret: cf. 4. 45. 4. 4. 10. pro consule: cf. 5. 2. 9; a curious anachronism to be compared with the S.C. ultimum above. Since the chief magistrate at Rome was almost certainly known as praetor until 450 (1. 60. 4 n.) and the office of pro-consul was not regularized (8. 26. 7) until the Punic Wars, there can be no doubt that the notice, as it stands, is not original. The tradition, however, that a Quinctius had once acted as general of a Latin army, which did not include Romans, is so strong (cf. 7. 38. 5 42. 7) that it cannot be set aside. It is to be seen against the back­ ground of information provided by the antiquarian Cincius (ap. Festus 276 L.; see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 35, 662; A. Piganiol, Mel. a"Arch, et a"Hist. 38 (1920), 285-313; U. Coli, Regnum, 145-68; J. Pinsent, Class. Journ. 55 (1959), 81-85), from which it can be inferred that from an early date Rome's special position in the Latin League entitled her from time to time to appoint one of the two prae­ tors of the league (8. 3. 9; D.H. 3. 34. 3) without contributing a contingent to the army and that the ritual of such an appointment survived and was transformed into the normal procedure for dis­ patching pro-consuls and pro-praetors to the provinces. L. (or rather his source, Licinius, since D.H. 9. 63. 2 also writes dpxfj KoafirjddvTa 399

3. 4- io

464 B.C.

avOvTrdru)) has blended antiquarian procedure with a known fact about the Quinctii to create the S. C. dispatching T. Quinctius pro consule to lead a Latin army. Note that the whole adventure of Furius' rescue by T. Quinctius is strongly reminiscent of Cincinnatus' rescue of Minucius (26-28), suggesting the reduplication of a legendary Quinctius. The machinery of the Latin League can only be recovered in the broadest outline. Since it was a league not between Rome on the one hand and a bloc consisting of a Latin confederacy on the other, but was a relationship entered into by Rome and each of the Latin states individually, it effectively gave Rome a measure of hegemony which her geographical position and resources warranted. The troops en­ gaged in operations might or might not include a Roman contingent, depending partly on Rome's other commitments and partly on the size and the locality of the danger, but the actions were essentially federal. A small raid by Volscians on the outskirts of Latium was a matter for federal consultation but would be most efficiently tackled by a force raised from the states in the immediate vicinity. This dis­ tribution of force under the alliance is obscured by L. who tends to regard the armies that fight federal battles as exclusively Roman (cf., e.g., 4. 37. 4 ff.) or else, in desperate situations when Rome is too pre­ occupied, exclusively Latin and/or Hernican. The true federal nature of the operations does, however, break through occasionally when Latins, Hernicans, and Romans are reported as fighting in partnership (2. 53. 4 m : 475 B.C.; 3. 22. 2-.459 B.C.; 4. 26. 12:431 B.C.; 5. 1 9 . 5 : 396 B.C.) or when there is a record of the confederates enjoying their share of the spoil (2. 41. 1 n.: 486 B.C. ; 4. 29. 4 : 431 B.C.; 51. 7: 413 B.C. ,-56. 1,6: 408 B.C.). The interesting occasions are those when the confederates are reported as fighting without Roman contingents and with or without a Roman commander. Gincius shows that the commander of the confederate army, known as the Latin praetor, was appointed by some form of rotation from the member-states. How the system worked in detail is not known or whether Rome enjoyed a special position, appointing the commander, for instance, every other year or at times of special crisis. There are three certain cases of con­ federate action without any Roman participation (2. 53. 4: 475 B.C.; 3. 6. 4 : 463 B.C. ; 4. 45. 3-41419 B.C.) and one curious occasion where the confederates ask to be allowed to take such action (2. 30. 8: 494 B.C.; cf. 3. 19. 8), which, distorted though it is by tendentious propaganda, evidently reflects the fact that the Gassian treaty made allowance for such defensive operations by one of the contracting parties when the situation was not sufficiently serious to merit con­ joint action by both or when the other party was prevented for any reason from providing assistance. But the league would appoint a commander annually, irrespective of whether an attack was ex400

464 B.C.

3 . 4 . 10

pected or whether the city which supplied the commander was likely to be called on for troops. So, in the present passage, it has come to Rome's turn to provide the Latin praetor but she does not provide troops as well. This is all that can be discovered about the workings of the league. For the rest we have a series of notices dealing with the Latin reports of enemy activity (e.g. legati ab Latinis atque Hernicis nuntiabant. . .). They occur in 495 (2. 24. 1), 479 (2. 48. 6), 465 (3. 4. 9), 462 (3. 8. 4), 461 (3. 10. 8), 459 (3. 22. 2), 457 (3. 30. 2), 456 (3. 31. 3), 449 (3. 57. 7), 431 (4. 26. 1), 424 (4. 36. 4), 423 (4. 37. 4), 419 (4. 45. 3), 410 (4. 53. 2), 409 (4. 55. 1), and 408 (4. 56. 4). T h e historian is faced with the choice of supposing that worthless notices have been foisted on to the Annalistic record by antiquarians anxious to reconstruct the early history of Rome from rituals still surviving in their own day or believing that the Annales did record the appointment of the Latin praetor when it was Rome's turn to provide one and so did have a solid kernel. W e shall not attempt to sway his judgement. It will depend entirely on his character. 4 . 11. subitarios milites: not mentioned outside L. and in L. only at 40. 26. 6, 28. 10, 4 1 . 17. 9 (cf. 41. 10. 3). Probably a Punic W a r definition retrojected by the Annalist tradition to early times, repentina auxilia, 'irregular supporting troops', is not a technical expres­ sion. 5. 1. superante multitudine: cf. Tacitus, Agr. 25. 4 superante numero, 'with their superiority in numbers' (Vahlen, Opuscula, 1. 150). multifariam, 'in many places' (50. 3, 21. 8. 4, 33. 18. 7, 37. 5. 1). 5. 2. si qua for tuna daret: 'wherever fortune allowed'. T h e absolute use of dare = 'permit' is rare (5. 27. 2 ; Cicero, de Inv. 1. 25) and only secure, because of metre, in Galpurnius {Eel. 4. 118). Elsewhere L. prefers the reflexive fors se dare = 'fortune offered itself (1. 45. 3). 5. 3 . L. Valerius: presumably the consul of 470 (2. 61. 1) for whom see 2. 41. n n., since the consul of 449 would be too young. Perhaps an Annalistic notice (1, 60. 4 n.). 5. 4 . tumultu: technical; 'a state of emergency'. iustitium: 3. 6 n, 5. 5. decumana: one of the principal gates of the Roman camp, so called because the tenth cohort of each legion was situated there. It lay farthest from the enemy (Polybius 6. 27 with Walbank's note). Furium legatum: the consul of 472 (2. 56. 1) and iiivir of 467 (3. 1.6). 5. 6. studio persequendi: to be taken with vidit. multis saepe: 11. 11 n. 5. 8. nulla deinde vi sustineri potuere cum compulsi. . . obsiderentur . . . venissetque . . . ni T. Quinctius peregrinis copiis cum Latino Hernicoque 814432

401

Dd

3-5.8

464 B.C.

exercitu subvenisset: the text as it stands cannot be accepted (Pettersson, Baehrens). If the first cum is rightly reported it must govern obsiderentur, but the clause cum . . . obsiderentur with a strong stop after pares cannot be taken with the preceding main sentence since either a causal 'since' or a temporal 'when' is an absurd non sequitur. If, however, a strong stop is put after potuere, and cum is taken to govern obsiderentur and venisset, a main verb has either to be understood or a lacuna presumed. Neither is satisfactory. These difficulties have led editors to emend cum (quin Gronovius, following an earlier conjecture; ut Conway-Walters). An objection to such an emendation is that non sustineri posse, unlike non sisti posse, is never followed by a dependent clause in L. ( i . 41. 4, 2.47. 5, 7 sustineri deinde vis nequit, 2. 50. 5, 3. 63. 4, 5. 7.4). The deletion of cum is the only remedy, and it is prescribed by the corruption at the end of the sentence where cum must be transposed and put before peregrinis (Seyffert); cf. 5. 19. $peregrina etiam iuventus, Latini Hernicique. At some stage in the transmission cum was dropped from the text and restored in the margin. Subsequent copyists tried to replace it with the result that it was inserted both before compulsi and before Latino, The 7T€pi7r€T€ia m . . . subvenisset is also embellished by D.H. 9. 64. 3. It is as much a commonplace of Hellenistic battle-descriptions as the picture of the second consul attacking the booty-laden Aequi on their victorious return (repeated in 8. 7-10; 10. 36. 16: see H.-G. Plathner, Schlachtschilderungen, 14). 5. 9. ferociter ostentantes: the sight of the general's head impaled has always exercised a dispiriting effect on morale, as it did at the Battle of the Standard (Scott, Tales of a Grandfather, 1. 28). Such details were part of the stock-in-trade of the military historian. It was a notoriously barbarian habit: examples may be found in Denniston's note on Euripides, Electra 898; cf. also Bacchae 1141 ; Herodotus 9. 78 f. 5 . 1 2 . audet... Antias Valerius concipere summas: for Valerius Antias see the Introduction; for the inversion of the nomen and the cognomen see 4. 23. 1 n. L. came increasingly to distrust him, describing him at one moment (33. 10. 8) as immodicus in numero augendo and at another exclaiming that adeo nullus mentiendi modus est (26. 49. 3). A casual glance at the figures which he gives shows that they are purely con­ jectural, hazarded on the estimated strength of the forces engaged. The figures 12,000 (frr. 30, 31, 35 P.) and 40,000 (32, 34, 36, 39) recur like a refrain. He even computed the number of Sabines raped (fr. 3 P.). But his reputation has been unduly tarnished; for he was far from being the worst offender among Roman historians in the matter of exaggeration. On at least two occasions Claudius Quadrigarius gave substantially higher figures (25. 39. 12 : see Volkmann, R.E., 'Valerius (Antias)'; Walsh, Livy, 120). 402

464 B.C.

3 - 5 - 12

5. 12 should be considered in conjunction with 8. 10 (also Valerian). In both places the scale of the fighting described by L. leaves no doubt that V.A. is being cited as a variant and is not the authority for the whole narrative. Here L. has to recapitulate the events which he has already related (5. 13 populabundi. . . vagabantur . . .: multitudinem praedam agentem). 5. 14. ut Romam reditum est, iustitium remissum est; caelum visum est ardere: for the text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 219. The style is deliberately pontifical and unadorned (Pettersson 126 n. 3). caelum ardere: 10. 6. The prodigy is of a recognized and commonly reported type (22. 1. 12,31. 1 2 . 5 , 3 2 . 9 . 3 , 4 3 . 13. 3 ; Jul. Obs. 14, 15, 20, 5 1 ; Cicero, in Catil. 3. 18; Seneca, N.Q_. 1. 15. 5). The technical language shows that the notice comes from the Annales. Apart from the obscure allusion of 2. 42. 10 to prodigia caelestia and the legendary portents in the first book, this is the first certainly recorded prodigy in L. and confirms the impression that the Annales for this period were fuller and better preserved. Before 390 the following prodigies are also mentioned (the references in brackets are to later manifestations of the same prodigy culled from Luterbacher, Der Prodigienglaube, 1880, 26 fT.): 461 ( 3 . 1 0 . 6 )

458 436 411 399 398

(3. (4. (4. (5(5.

29. 21. 49. 1415.

9) 5) 1) 3) 2)

caelum ardere. terra concussa motu (4. 21. 5, 35. 40. 7, 40. 59. 7; Suetonius, Claudius 22; Aul. Gell. 2. 28. 2). bovem locutam (24. 10. 10, 27. 11. 4, 28. 11. 4, 35. 2 1 . 4 , 41. 13. 2, 21. 13, 43. 13. 3 ; Jul. Obs. 15. 2 7 ? 43> 53; Tacitus, Hist. 1. 86). carne pluit (24. 10. 7; 39. 46. 5, 56. 6, 42. 20. 5, 43- 13.5; Cicero, deDiv. 2. 58; Jul. Obs. 4, 6, 27, 43> 44)lupos a canibus fugatos (see 21. 46. 2). crebris motibus terrae (see above). Tiberis super ripas effusus (see note; cf. 5. 13. 1 n.). prodigia. locus in Albano nemore in altitudinem insolitam crevit (see note).

For further details see Luterbacher op. cit.; Schonberger, Bayr. Blatter fur Gymn. 55 (1919), 101 ff.; St.-Denis, Rev. Phil. 16 (1942), 126 ff.; P. Handel, R.E., Trodigium'. aut obversata oculis aut vanas... ostentavere species: the syntax is awkward ifobversata sc. sunt balances ostentavere, and led Nettleship to conjecture audita after aut, 'the delusionary phenomena of visible or audible por­ tents' (cf. 24. 44. 8 alia ludibria oculorum auriumque creditapro veris). The reading would imply that for L. all prodigies were sham sensations 403

464 B.C. 3- 5- *4 (cf. 24. 10. 6) and, although it is true that L., influenced doubtless by Cicero's de Divinatione, is often prepared to advance rational explana­ tions for observed phenomena (8. 1,5. 13. 4 ; cf. 5. 14. 2) and although, too, his reporting of prodigies is conditioned by the time-honoured place which they held in Roman historiography (Syme, Tacitus, 522-3), yet there are too many passages which demonstrate that the neglect of prodigies was associated by L. with resultant disaster to individuals and to the state (27. 23. 4 ; on this point see Stubler, Die Religiositat des T. Livius, 100 ff.; M . W. L. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians, 68 ff.; I. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy, 46-52). It is therefore preferable to suppose that in the present passage, as in 21. 62. 1, L. is being delicately non-committal. For obversata, a technical word, cf. 2. 36. 4; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 2. 52; Suetonius, Claudius 37. 5. 15. Antiates mille: their nationality and numbers suggest the hand of Valerius Antias, and the whole sentence has the air of an after­ thought inserted from a variant source, since nothing is said of Antium in the course of the narrative (4. 11). A mention of the colony in the Annales may have inspired V.A., recalling perhaps the Spartans at Marathon, to work up an incident of local interest. 'First at a feast, last at a fray.' Cf. 27. 20. 3 ; Euripides, H.F. 1173; Plato, Gorgias 447 a 2 with Dodds's note; Plautus, Menaechmi 989; Capt. 870 (Vahlen, Opuscula, 2. 297),* Tacitus, Hist. 3. 79 (Andresen). 6. 1. L. Aebutius: T.f. T.n, a son of the cos. of 499 (2. 19. 1 n.) and uncle of Post. Aebutius (4. 11. 1 n.) and M . Aebutius (4. 11. 5). P. Servilius: Sp.f. P.n., probably therefore a son of the cos. of 476 (2. 51. 4 n.) and father of the dictator of 435 and 418 (4. 21. 10 n.). KaL Sext.: the evidence for the date of entry into office of the magis­ trates up to 390 may be briefly summarized (Mommsen, Rom. Chron. 80 ff.; Leuze, Die Rom. Jahrzahlung, 350-62). T h e traditional date for the first consulate of 509 was 1 March (D.H. 5. 1) but that date is apocryphal: it was historically pleasing that the new regime should commence with the opening of the Religious Year. An erroneous inter­ pretation of the regifugium (24 Feb.) may also have contributed (1. 60. 2 n.). Somewhat more secure is the evidence that from 509-479 the entry-date was 1 September (D.H. 6. 49. 2 ; Lydus, de Mag. 1. 38). In the matter of Cremera it was shown that the divergent dates of Licinius Macer (13 Feb.) and Valerius Antias (18 July) were both compatible with an entry into office of the consuls during either August or September, but that 1 August (Kal. Sext.) is preferable (2. 51-65 n.)—the date specifically given here for 463 and implied for 462 by 3. 8. 3 (n.); cf. D.H. 9. 13, 14, 25. T h a t date will have persisted until the suspension of the regular constitution by the Decemviri on 404

463 B.C.

3- 6. i

15 M a y 451 (3. 36. 3, 38. 1). Consular government was restored after more than two years. T h e exact date is uncertain. Leuze argues that it was 1 September 449, on the grounds that the consular tribunes who preceded Papirius and Sempronius, consuls in 444 (4. 7. 10-12), had held office for less than three months (D.H. 11. 62 ; cf. L. 4. 7. 3) and that P. and S. began a new era on 13 December (D.H. 16. 63). 13 December is itself a more attractive date (but it is not, in fact, certain that P. and S. held office for a complete year, or even that they held office at all. In any event 13 December became and remained the official date down to 402 (4. 37. 3, 43. 8, 50. 8) when the col­ lege of military tribunes was compelled to resign and a new system was inaugurated on 1 October (5. 9. 8). T h e sickness of 392 entailed a further change. T h e consuls resigned (5. 31. 7) before the end of their tenure and a new year was begun on 1 July with a college of military tribunes (5. 32. 1). It is likely that 1 July remained the opening of the magisterial year at least down to 329 (8. 20. 3). It follows from this evidence, which was probably entered in the Annales, that there was no fixed date for entry into office during the early Republic, but that so long as magistrates held office throughout the year their suc­ cessors succeeded on the same day as they had done. When, however, both consuls died, resigned, or were superseded, the new government dated the opening of its year from the point where it had taken over. Thus the Decemviri instituted a new year on 15 May, Valerius and Horatius probably on 13 December, the military tribunes of 402-1 on 1 October, those of 392 on 1 July. It follows that there can have been no machinery for electing two suffect consuls to complete a year in the course of which both consuls or the whole college of military tribunes had ceased to act through death or other cause and thereby lost the auspices, so that when Licinius inserts consules suffecti in 444 (4. 7. 10-12) his restoration is anachronistic and false. T h e reason for the flexibility of date was religious. No makeshift could carry the auspices over, except temporarily in the person of the interrex. A newly solem­ nized year had to be commenced. T h e fixed date was first instituted as 15 March in 222, and 1 J a n u a r y in 153. 6. 2 - 3 . grave tempus: perhaps a reminiscence of Thucydides' plague description. Notice especially Thuc. 2. 52. 1. Hellenistic historians regarded it as a challenge to imitate and better that account (see the humorous comments of Lucian, Quomodo Historia 15). morbi: 2. 1 n. 6. 4. Hernici: 4. i o n . 6. 5. ut anno ante: not with veniat, but like ut semper alias with laturos. veniat ut anno are the first surviving words of the fourth-century codex Veronensis for which see Mommsen, Ges. Schriften, 7.96-148; W. Jung, de fide codicis Veronensis (Hanover, 1881); C. Knight, C.Q.8 (1914), 166-80. 405

3-6.6

463 B.C.

6. 6. referentes: sc. nuntium. Ver. read reportantes which editors have accepted as a poeticism, comparing Virgil, Aeneid 2. 115 (see Gries, Constancy, 56-57). Such a poeticism would seem to have no function in the minor events with which L. is dealing, nor is reportare necessarily a poetical usage. In late Latin portare usurps the place offerre as the normal word for 'to carry, bear' (Lofstedt, Peregrinatio, 270; cf. Fr. porter) and it is characteristic of Ver. that it substitutes the devalued language of the fourth century for the classical. Cf. 6. 4. 5 where Ver. reads contemnentium imperium against aspernantium imperium of N ; aspernor is guaranteed by 25. 14. 3; Curtius 4. 1.5, 5. 7. 2, 10. 2. 5, 10. 5. 12; contemno is the trivial word. Cf. also 3. 44. 5 n., 3. 61. 13 n., 3. 64. 5 n., 4. 54. 8 n. 6. 7. agros Romanos: 5. 31. 5 n. Gabina via: 2. 11. 7 n. 6. 8. principum, patrum: 5. 30. 4 n. 6. 9. circumitio ac cura aedilium plebi erat: 'the inspection and charge (of the sentries) was in the hands of the plebeian aediles'. Plebeian aediles have not been mentioned before. In origin they were not magistrates at all, but keepers of the aedes Cereris (55. 13 n.). The importance of that temple as the headquarters of the plebs and the wide functions which its keepers performed allowed the gradual tran­ sition of aediles from priests to magistrates but the transition did not begin in 463 but only after the Decemvirate at the earliest. The present passage must therefore be an anachronism designed to provide an his­ torical justification for the duties of the later aediles which Cicero (de Legibus 3. 7) summarizes as cura urbis, cura annonae, and cura ludorum sollemnium. In particular the use of cura is designed to underline the connexion with cura urbis. Whereas circumitio is a technical term (Jul. Capitolinus 3. 3), cura (with vigiliarum) in the sense of 'overseeing the watch' is not (32. 26. 17, 39. 16. 10) and the conjunction of the two words led Ruperti to propose circumitionis cura or to delete ac cura as a gloss. But as often (see Dodds on Plato, Gorgias 447 a 2) a technical or metaphorical word is linked with a plain word which modifies or explains it. So here cura interprets circumitio and recalls the cura urbis. 7. 1. deserta omnia: 9. 45. 16. di praesides ac fortuna urbis: 1. 46. 5 n. The di praesides (26. 41. 18, 28. 39. 15) are those gods, particularly Juppiter O.M., who have a special concern for the welfare of Rome. L. uses fortuna urbis for fortuna populi Romani here, because attention is directed to the city which the enemy did not dare enter rather than on the people (Kajanto). Note the indicative {quae . . . dedit) suggesting that L. him­ self believed in the irrational agency of Rome's salvation. 406

463 B.C.

3- 7- 2

7. 2. eorum . . . eorum: for the repetition see examples cited by Shackleton Bailey, Cicero : lad Atticum\ 28. tecta . . . tumuli: Novak objected that it was the plague, not the im­ posing appearance of Rome, which diverted the Volsci a n d Aequi and, further, that tumuli was a slighting term for the hills of Rome. He, therefore, proposed reading bustaque, taking tumuli of funeral mounds. But the TOTTos of a barbarian being deterred by the mere sight of the city was borrowed from the story of Hannibal (26. 10. 3). Even as late as the fifth century A.D. the emotions of Alaric and Genseric were deeply stirred by the prospect of those hills and houses. T h e hills of Rome are also described as tumuli in 5. 48. 2. Cf. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: cad Atticum', 58. 7. 3 . quid: with tererent, 'why were they wasting time?'. transversisque itineribus: 2. 39. 3 n. Labicanos: 2. 39. 4 n. tempestas belli: a striking phrase, used again at 31. 10. 6 (cf. Statius, Theb. 3. 228). Perhaps taken over from Hellenistic historians since it is a peculiarly Greek metaphor (cf., e.g., Sophocles, Antigone 670). 7. 4 . Romanam urbem: for the usual urbem Romanam, underlining the duty of the Hernici and Latins to their confederates. 7. 5. Tusculano: valle would need to be understood with Tusculana, the agreed reading of all manuscripts, including Ver., but the result makes geographical nonsense. T h e Volsci have marched south-east from Rome, through the Labicani agri to Tusculum. Continuing in the same direction they would descend to the pass through which the Via Latina ran and which was guarded at the east end by the narrows of Algidus (see m a p ) . This pass must be what L. calls the Alban valley. If so, the Tusculan valley would have to be a valley leading down from Tusculum to the pass. There is indeed such a route but it merely descends the side of the hill and could not be designated a valley. Tusculano (sc. praedio or agro) must be read. Luterbacher, who retains Tusculana, makes the Tusculan the valley of the Via Latina and the Alban a valley running into it from the south-west near Algidus but the Volsci could not then be said to be descending. 7. 6. M. Valerius: commonly assumed to be a corruption for M\ Valerius (Volusi f. Maximus) the brother of P. Valerius Poplicola, the dictator of 494, since in the Elogium, quoted on 2. 30. 5, Manius is named dictator, augur. I t is likely enough that the death of a Valerius, an augur, was recorded in the Annales under this year but the identifica­ tion of the augur with the dictator need be no more than a guess by the author of the Elogium who in an endeavour to fill out a biography gathered and combined material from every source. It is, in fact, im­ possible that M \ Valerius Maximus who was already an old man in 494 (D.H. 6. 39. 2) could have survived another thirty years, so that the testimony of the Elogium can be discounted as an antiquarian 407

3- 7- 6

463 B.C.

reconstruction. T h e only other M . Valerius known in this period, also a brother of Poplicola, was cos. in 505 and was killed at the Battle of Regillus (2. 20. 3). T h e augur, although not a consular, might be his son. Bibliography and evidence are given by Volkmann, R.E., 'Valerius (243)'. T. Verginius Rutilus: Cos. 479 (2. 48. 1). T h e cognomen, which was not recorded in the earlier passage, is given by all the manuscripts includ­ ing Ver., as Rutilius. T h e Gapitoline Fasti preserve ]et. n. Tricost. Rutil. T h e cognomen, as in the case of the Nautii, was certainly Rutilus and, despite the Etruscan origin of the Verginii, is to be connected with the colour of their hair (cf. Rufus) and not with the Etruscan Rutili (1. 57. 1 n.). Rutilius, however, was the nomen of several persons dis­ tinguished in the later Republic, in particular of P. Rutilius Lupus, and it is possible that L.'s sources under that influence actually gave Rutilius as the cognomen, where the Capitoline Fasti were more exact. It would be remarkable that in no single example of the cognomen in L. (see the O.G.T. apparatus) was it correctly given by the manuscripts. augures: 1. 18. 6 n., 10. 6. 3-8. At this period there were three or possibly six augurs, although the number was gradually raised to 16 (Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 397). T h e evidence for the early augur ate is collected by G. Bardt, Priester d. vier grossen Collegien (Progr. Berlin, 1871)T h e Annales supplied material both for the historian and for the compiler of lists such as the Fasti. It is, therefore, an interesting corroboration that the fragmentary list of augurs published by Dessau (I.L.S. 9338) contains the entry: Postu]mius A.f. P. nepos Albus [cooptatus L. L\ucretio T.f. Tricipitino T. V[eturio T.f. Gemino cos. post R. c. an. CCLXX[XXI This shows that the Annales recorded the co-option of Postumius in 462 to fill a vacancy, caused presumably by the death of Valerius or Verginius the previous year. Sulpicius: cos. 500 (2. 19. 1 11.). Servilius is alleged as the praenomen here by Ver., and at 2. 19. 1 by N and D.H. 5. 52. 1. In both places it may be an accurate report of the libri lintei by Licinius Macer and should be read. curio maximus: cuius auctoritate curiae omnesque curiones reguntur (Paulus Festus 113 L.). In the old curiate constitution each curia was headed by a curio, one of whose number was appointed president. T h e office was originally magisterial and the religious duties were incidental. O n the expulsion of the kings the curiae may even have been the supreme assembly and the curio the leading magistrate. With the supersession of the curiate by the centuriate organization, only the religious func­ tions remained except for a few ceremonial responsibilities such as the 408

463 B.C.

3- 7 - 6

passage of a lex de imperio. Hence the curio maximus came increasingly to be regarded as a priest. Although at first confined to patricians, the office was opened to plebeians in 210 (27. 8. 1-3) and was controlled by the vote of seventeen tribes. As a leading dignitary of the oldest constitution his death would have been recorded. Similar institutions existed in provincial cities until the late Empire. See Kiibler, R.E., 'curio maximus'; Wissowa, Religion, 402 n. 2,482 n. 2 ; Botsford, Roman Assemblies, 9-11, 341; Momigliano, J.R.S. 53 (1963), n o . 7. 7. inops . . . auxilii humani: cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2. 16. 3 (Fletcher). 7. 7 - 8 . iussi: the two past participles in asyndeton (iussi. . . evocati) are harsh and not, I think, exactly paralleled elsewhere in L. iussos (Ver.), on the other hand, with a plural understood from populum, is impossible with deos so near at hand. T h e reverse corruption is found at 4. 7. 3 (usos N, usi sunt Ver.). It is probably best to punctuate, with Madvig and Luterbacher, . .. vertit: iussi. . . deum. ad id. . .. supplicatum ire: a rhetorical elaboration of a bare fact. L. indulges his fancy, painting a graphic scene of public prayer. For stratae matres cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1. 63 ; for crinibus verrere, a symbol of the meekest sup­ plication, cf. especially Apuleius, Metam. 6. 2. pacem or veniam exposcere belongs to religious phraseology (1. 16. 3, 3. 5. 14, 4. 30. 10, 7. 2. 2, 44. 44. 4 ; cf. Catullus 64. 2 0 3 ; Virgil, Aeneid 3. 2 6 1 ; Val. M a x . 1. 1. 1 ; and a plant prayer in Prec. Herb. 6). 8. 1. seu . . . sew. so also D.H. 9. 60. 7. 8 . 2 . interregna : i . i 7 . i - n n . During the Republic, on the simultaneous death or resignation of both consuls, the whole system of magisterial government came to an end and the patres, who were the source of consular as they were said to have been of regal authority, regained control. In such circumstances the patres nominated one of their number, who had to have been a curule magistrate (Asconius, in Mil. 29) and, of course, a patrician, to serve for five days as interrex to reinstitute the magisterial system. T h e interrex was not himself a magis­ trate, but a representative of the patres. His office was not listed among the magistracies (Aul. Gell. 13. 15. 4). By virtue of his special pre­ rogatives he selected two candidates whose names he presented to the comitia for ratification. T h e comitia could either approve or reject the names but no more. If the names were rejected the interrex or his successors continued to submit names until agreement was reached. T h e nomination by a patrician of only two candidates for approval by the populus was greatly to the advantage of the patriciate, since the populus would tend to accept the nominees rather than face a protrac­ tion of a situation in which there was no regular administration (4. 51. 1, 7. 22. 2, 28. 10, 8. 23. 14-17). Note that L. invariably, as here, uses the phrase interrex . . . consules creat (4. 7. 10, 5. 31. 9, 6. 1.8, 409

3-8.2

462 B.C.

8. 3. 5, 23. 17, 9. 7. 15, 10. 11. 10), indicating that the populus had 'no claim to be responsible for any part of the creatio at such an election' (Staveley, Historia 3 (1954), 199), whereas in elections conducted by consuls or dictators he is liable to employ, in addition to the technically correct consul creavit, dictator creavit (8. 37. 1, 10. 47. 5 ; cf. 4. 11. 1 n.), the inexact populus creavit (4. 2. 7, 16. 7, 5. 14. 5, 6. 22. 5), which mirrors the democratic nature of elections under the late Re­ public. In addition to Staveley's article cited above see also Schwegler, Rom. Gesch. 2. 150 ff.; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 649 ff.; Herzog, Philologus 34 (1876), 503 ; U. Goli, Regnum, 77 ff.; U . von Liibtow, Das Rom. Volk, 188 ff.; E. Friezer, Mnemosyne 12 (1959), 308. Other interreges are recorded for 444 (4. 7. io), 420 (4. 43. 9), 413 (4. 51. 1), 390 (5. 17. 4), and 391 (5. 31. 8). Their names would have figured on the Annales. Lucretium: for the cognomen see 1. 59. 8 n . ; for his triumph over Aequi and Volsci see 10. 1-4. His filiation is T.f. T.n., so that he must be the son of the consul of 508 and 504 (2.9. 1, 16. 2). H e was praefectus urbis in 461 (24. 2). D.H. adds less credible details which seem to be mere invention, such as that he defended K. Quinctius (9. 7. 5) and opposed the Decemvirate (11. 15. 5). See Munzer, R.E., 'Lucretius (28)'. Veturium: a son of the consul of 494 (2. 28. 1)? For the variant spelling of his name see 2. 19. 1 n., and, for its evidence as to L.'s source, 4. 1 n. He celebrated an ovatio (10. 4 n.). See Gundel, R.E., 'Veturius ( i 8 ) \ 8 . 3 . ante diem tertium idus Sextiles: 6. 1 n. P. Servilius must have survived until near the end of his year of office, but the confusion caused by the plague delayed the institution of the new year until after 1 August. 8. 4. Hernicis: 4. i o n . 8. 5. procedit: rather that prodit (Ver.) is the regular word to describe the advance of armies (2. 5. 8, 4. 6. 1; Caesar, B.G. 6. 2 5 ; B.C. 1. 80, 3. 34; Gurtius 7. 3. 19). Such telescoping is a feature of Ver. (cf. 3- 57- 7, 5- 2 3 - r o ) 8. 6. praedonum agmen: incompatible with the large numbers given by the variant source (Valerius Antias) in 8. 10. The strategy of the Volsci, amplified with certain confusion by D.H. (68-69; s e e Klotz 256), resembles that of the campaign of the previous year. Tusculum and the Alban pass were the key to Latium and so long as the Romans or their allies retained control of it no prolonged threat to Rome could be maintained. 8. 7. [in] re subita: a causal abl. is required, as at 1. 4 1 . 3 si tua re subita consilia torpent and 1. 60. 1, not the circumstantial in re kept by Luterbacher and Conway comparing 2. 34. 5, 3. 51. 4, 4. 29. 6. Ver., which reads res, wrongly adds -s at the end of a word before a succeeding s- at 3. 30. 5, 35. 7, 38. 4, 4. n . 6, 13. 3, 34. 4, 54. 7, 5. 31. 8; cf. 3-31- i410

462 B.C.

3.8.7

Q. Fabius: cos. 467 (3. 1. 1 n.). D.H. 9. 69. 2 calls him Q,. Furius but the text is to be regarded as corrupt. Ver. reads praefectus erat urbis: armata against praeerat urbi: is armata of N. N. is right. When L. is giving the title of a man he always employs praefectus, as at 9. 6 a praefecto urbis Q. Fabio (1. 59. 12, 60. 4, 3. 3. 36, 24. 2, 29. 4, 4. 36. 5) but when he describes the appointment, he uses the verb as at 4. 31. 2 Cossus praefuit urbi and 4. 45. 8. So is also is needed. The syntax is exactly parallel to 1. 24. 6fetialis erat M. Valerius; is . . .fecit. tuta omnia ac tranquilla fecit: cf. Sallust, CatiL 16. 4. 8 . 8 . exploratis itineribus suis instructum: suis has been taken with itineribus referring to the subject of the main sentence (hostes)—'having ascer­ tained the enemy's route in advance 5 —or with instructum—'having his men ready in position5 (Doering). The latter is impossible and is not saved even by Madvig's (cum) suis i. Against the former it must be urged that the position of suis is disproportionately emphatic and that the sense is already manifest without it. To delete suis, as was first done by Duker, leaves instructum unevenly balanced with ad certamen intentum and the same objection holds against Alan's conjecture brevissimis. satis (Sorgel, commended by Wolfflin) makes good sense 'well drawn up* but is palaeographically less attractive than subsidiis, for which cf. Tacitus, Annals 2. 80. 6 subsidiis instructi. For instructus et intentus cf. 1. 15. 2. 8 . 1 0 . The exaggerated figures hardly suit the description of the enemy band as apraedonum agmen. The detail is evidently, as in 5. 12, supplied from Valerius Antias, particularly since there is mention of signa militaria. It is clear from references in the later books that Valerius took pride in enumerating the number of military standards captured (cf. 29. 4, 10. 14. 21, 30. 2 et al. and see Walsh, Livy, 127 n. 2). 8. 11. tertia: 8. 6, 8. 9. For the triumph see 10. 1-4. 9-14. The Lex Terentilia and the Trial of K. Quinctius After having dispensed with the disjointed preliminaries of the book, L. is now free to turn his attention to the first major episode which leads up to the Decemvirate. It is symptomatic of his technique that whereas in Book 2 he underlined the part played by agrarian agitation in the Struggle of the Orders, now he develops a second issue, the power of the supreme magistracy, and actually suppresses the mention of a tribune, Sex. Titius, to whom his sources attributed agrarian legislation (D.H. 9. 69. 1). The Decemvirate is to occupy the centre of the stage in Book 3 and the rest of the material must be subordinated accordingly. There are no strong grounds for doubting the historicity of Terentilius' motion. His name and proposal would have figured in the records. It was presumably passed as a plebiscitum by the assembly of the plebs but, since at this date tribal legislation was not binding on 411

3-9-14

462 B.C.

the whole populus unless it were confirmed by a lex in the comitia centuriata (55. 3 n.), the proposal could not be put into force. It was subsequently adopted in substantially the same form by the patres in 31. 8 (Staveley, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 23). T h e content has under­ gone a subtle metamorphosis. T h e aim of the radical pressure-group which culminated in the Decemvirate was the codification and publi­ cation of the laws, while the strength of the patrician oligarchy lay in their ability to govern by dypaoi vofioi. This, and nothing else, was the struggle of the mid-fifth century as it had been a century earlier in Athens. Terentilius' proposal must, therefore, have been, as M o m m sen saw (Staatsrecht, 2. 702 n. 2), to appoint quinque viri consulari imperio de legibus scribendis (9. 5) and not, as L. retails it, quinque viri legibus de imperio consulari scribendis. T h e power and prerogatives of the consuls could not have been subject to such investigation, whereas the De­ cemvirate ultimately was just such a commission legibus scribendis. T h e text of L. cannot be corrupt or even fortuitous since L. insists on the nature of the commission elsewhere (9. 2, 24. 9, 31. 7; see Taubler, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Decemvirats, 54 n. 86) and it must be supposed that a deliberate distortion has been carried out either by L. or by his source. D.H. has no trace of it. The opening sentence sic res Romana in antiquum statum rediit is obscure and ambiguous. Was the 'old condition 5 that which prevailed before the invasions of the Aequi or before the pestilence ? Such a rough re­ sumption, coupled with the apparent inconsistency between Lucre­ tius' return (10. 1-2) and his actual exploits which involved the defeat of a mere praedonum agmen (8. 6), suggests a change of source and, as elsewhere (cf. 2. 32. 2), the change coincides with the citation of a variant (8. 10). T h e new source is unquestionably Valerius Antias since Lucretius' triumph is in keeping with the grandiose casualty figures that Valerius estimated and a renewed interest in Antium emerges (10. 8). L. follows him without any sign of intermission through chapter 21. Valerius subscribed to the political reforms of Sulla which were directed in particular to prevent the possibility of a single man with a large army being in a position to blackmail the Senate. The danger re-emerged when in 74 B.G. M . Antonius Greticus was given the command against the pirates. H e enjoyed imperium which was equal to that of pro-consular governors in other provinces but was undefined in area, because his operations involved land as well as sea campaigns. Cicero calls it imperium infinitum (Verr. 2. 8, 3. 213 with U; see V. Ehrenberg, A.J.P. 74 (1953), 117) but he was employing the political jargon of the day rather than the official terminology (Beranger, Melanges Marouzeau, 19-27), and it is the same catchword, the same fear of the military giant who would become the military dictator, that is mirrored in L.'s immoderata, infinita potestate 412

3- 9~x4 (g. 4). In other words, Valerius Antias is to be seen as the person responsible for distorting the proposed Quinquevirate from a legal committee to a constitutional commission for reasons of contemporary political propaganda. See also Soltau 100; Burck 14-17; Klotz 25 7 - 9 ; J . Bleicken, Volkstribunat, 15-16. Instead of relating the fate of Terentilius' proposals in one continuous account, L. divides his material into a series of episodes, separated by extraneous events. In that way the interest is maintained and the story carried forward. For the same technique see 2. 22-33. 9. 2. C. Terentilius Harsa: the nomen, given as Tepdvnos by D.H. 10. 1. 5, is found on two late inscriptions from Rome (C.I.L. 6. 27151, 36411), but the family may well have emigrated from Praeneste (C.I.L. i 2 . 2480). T h e cognomen is not found elsewhere; Harsa, rather than Arsa, a Hebraic name (1 Kings 16. g), would be indicated by the name Harsidius (C.I.L. 11. 4734) and was the reading of the arche­ type. Schulze (357) argues for an Etruscan derivation but the cognomen will in any case be a third-century addition. 9. 2 - 1 3 . L. presents the case for and against Terentilius' bill in two short speeches, reported mainly in indirect speech but breaking out at the end into an effective display of direct rhetoric. T h e speeches, like the pair in 2. 4-9, appear to be of his own composition since D . H . knows nothing of any opposition led by Q . Fabius and the arguments which he attributes to the tribunes and the aristocratic opposition bear no resemblance to L.'s speeches. As might be expected they consist exclusively of the rhetorical commonplaces characteristic of the late Republic. For the contrast between liberae civitati and dominos cf. Augustus, Res Gestae 1; Tacitus, Hist. 4. 73; for soluti atque effrenati cf. Cicero, de Rep. 1. 5 3 ; for libidinem ac licentiam cf. Cicero, Verr. 3 . 7 7 ; for the antithesis between lex and libido see Nisbet on in Pis. 9 4 ; for minarum atque terroris cf. Cicero, pro Fonteio 34; de Domo 131 ; pro Flacco 19; for insidiatum (to be taken airo KOIVOV with rempublicam) cf. Cicero, pro Sulla 14; Tacitus, Annals 6. 8. 6; for tempore capto adortum cf. ad Herenn. 2. 7 occasio . . . idonea . . . ad rem adoriendam. Fabius breaks into direct speech with a personal appeal to the tribunes. Similar transitions from or. obi to or. recta, when the speaker turns to address one person particularly, occur also at 6. 6. 12, 15. 9, 8. 34. 11, 24. 22. 17 (Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 40 n. 1) and mark the peroration. Fabius' plea is highly antithetical (ad singulorum auxilium, non adperniciem universorum; tribunos plebi.. . non hostes patribus; nobis miserum, invidiosum vobis; non ius sed invidiam). Together the two speeches form a fine setting for the political conflict, 9. 4 . immoderata . . .potestate: '(possessed) of unfettered and unlimited power'. metus legum: 1. 21. 1. 462 B.C.

413

3- 9-6

462 B.C.

9. 6. iugum acciperent: the emendation of the manuscript i. acciperet is preferable to acciperetur (Drakenborch, Bayet); for, although L. does occasionally use the passive form of the phrase (4. 37. 5, 37. 36. 5), the active is guaranteed by the repetition in 10. 13 caveant ne i. accipiant. For L.'s habit of repetition cf. 1. 14. 4 n. praefecto urbis Q,. Fabio: 8. 7. infesti circum[in\starent tribunwn: there are no certain instances in L. of verbs compounded with two prepositions (Wolfflin, Livian. Kritiky 11) and circuminsto is not found elsewhere, circum instarent (cf. Virgil, Aen. 10. 118; Statius, Theb. 11. 243) would require the dative tribuno, even if L. ever used circum adverbially (cf. 28. 5. 10). 9. 8. conluvione: 6. 3. 9 . 1 0 . non ilium: sc. Terentilium. nonillud, the reading of the manuscripts, would need to be translated 'that, i.e. the prosecution of the consuls, would be to make the tribunes not the consuls unpopular' which is absurd. For the corruption of ilium and illud see Bulhart. Thes. Ling. Lat. 340. 59-61. 9. 11. singulorum auxilium: the traditional attitude to the tribunate. In R o m a n eyes it was set up for the purpose of protecting the individual (Cicero, de Leg. 3. 9 ; Wirszubski, Libertas, 26). 9 . 1 2 . Notice the Ciceronian clausulae, consulum differat (-^ — w - ) and bello institere ( w — )3 which L. employs in speeches in preference to the dactylic clausulae of the narrative. 9. 13. dilata in speciem actione: 'for show, for mere display', a favourite expression of L. (3. 40. 7, 4. 42. 4, 6. 11. 9 ; Plautus, Most. 123; Caesar, B.G. 5. 51. 3, 7. 23. 5 ; cf. Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 125). 10. 1. exposita . . .praeda: 5. 16. 7, 10. 20. 16, 35. 1. 12. Confirmed by the lawyers who add that slaves were returned to their former owners (Pomponius, Dig. 49. 15. 20. 1). T h e spoil was exhibited in the Campus Martius which was technically outside the pomerium, because holders of imperium could not enter the city with their armies except for a triumph (6. 16. 5). T h e principle is illustrated by Cicero's predicament at the end of 50 B.C. [ad Atticum 7. 7. 4). For the disposal of praeda see 2. 42. 1 n. 10. 4. triumphavit de Volscis Aequisque: the record of the triumph is preserved independently by the Fasti Triumphales (Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. 13. 537) where the relevant entry is restored a s : [L. Lucretius T.f. T.n. Tricipitinus ann. CCXCT] [cos. de Aequeis et Vo]ls[ceis] [T. Veturius T.f -n.] Gemin[us Cicurinus an. CCXCI] [cos. ovans de Aequjeis et [Volsceis]. T h e story of tribunician opposition to it is, however, based on the common experience of the late Republic (cf. Cicero, loc. cit.). 414

461 B.C.

3- *o. 4

For the difference between a triumph and an ovatio see 2. 16. i n. 10. 5. P. Volumnius: the Volumnii were plebeian of Etruscan extrac­ tion (Schulze 258: cf. velimna: there was a sepulchre of the Volumnii at Perugia), although the cognomen Amintinus given by the Gapitoline Fasti suggests an origin from the vanished Latin city of Amintinum. T h e next Volumnius to be mentioned in the Fasti is the consul of 307 (but cf. Volumnia in 2. 40. 1), which has been used to discredit the present consul—needlessly, for a plebian consul is still not impossible in 461. T h e later Volumnii, forgetting their Etruscan background, may have owned land near Amintinum which served to supply a cognomen in due course for their ancestor. See Munzer, R.E., 'Volumnius (13) 5 . Ser. Sulpicius: [Ser. f. S]er. n. (Fasti), the son of the consul of 500 (2. 19. 1). It is likely that in fact the delegate sent to Athens in 454 was the same m a n so named in D.H. 10. 52. 4), and that, since the first college of Decemvirs was consular, he was also the Decemvir of that name (D.H. 10. 56. 2), but L. on both occasions gives him the praenomen P. (3. 31. 8, 33. 3). Since there was certainly another Sulpicius, probably a brother, called Publius, who negotiated with the plebs in 449 (3. 50. 15; cf. Asconius, in Cornel. 77. 25 Clark) and served on an embassy in 446 (3. 70. 2-7), it is likely that Valerius Antias has confused the two Sulpicii and wrongly attributed most of the activities of Servius to Publius. If that be so the manuscript reading can be retained at 31. 8 and 3 3 . 3 , since the error becomes an historical not a palaeographical one. See Munzer, R.E., 'Sulpicius (36)'; Broughton M.R.R., 454 B.C., n. 2. 10. 6. caelum ardere: 5. 14 n. terra . . . concussa motu: the earthquake of 461 is to be connected with the seismic disturbances reported from Greece during the same decade. Diodorus (11. 63. 1-2) records that at Sparta in 469 they were aeta/iot /leyaAot and that they continued for several years is indicated by the Scholiast on Aristophanes (Lysistr. 1142CTCICT/IOIyap av\^ol iydvovro). T h e climax of the cycle was the famous earthquake of 464 which pre­ cipitated the Helot revolt (Thucydides 1. 128. 1, 2. 27. 2 with Gomme's notes; N. G. L. Hammond, Historia 4 (1955), 379~8i). T h e accuracy of the pontifical Annals is confirmed. bovem locutam: the portent is said by Pliny (JV.fi. 8. 183) to befrequens in prodigiis priscorum. came pluit: the abl., which was the archetype reading, is proper to the style of prodigies; cf. 1. 31. 1 lapidibus pluvisse, 7. 28. 7, 40. 19. 2 ; Pliny, N.H. 2. 147, reporting the same event but directly from the records. nihil odor mutaret: mutaret intransitive as at 5. 13. 2. In both places the usage may be intended to suggest the bald and unliterary style of the Annales (Wolfflin, Archiv Lat. Lex. 10 (1898), 1 ff.; Kroll on 4*5

3. io. 6

461 B.C.

Catullus 22. i i ) . Here at least it is certain t h a t L . has abbreviated the original notice: for it is preserved more fully by Val. Max. ( i . 6. 5 neque odore taetro neque deformi aspectu mutatum) and D.H. (10. 2. 4 OVTC ypoav fierafidWovTa

. . . ovre cnjTTe&ovi Sia\v6fi€va;

K l o t z 258 n. 2) a n d

evidently alluded to the appearance as well as the smell of the flesh. L. compensates for the omission by enhancing the style. 10. 7. libri: 4. 25. 3, 5. 13. 5, sc. Sibyllini. A collection of oracles in hexameter form (Tibullus 2. 5. 16) introduced to Rome according to legend by Tarquinius Superbus. Until their destruction by fire in 83 B.C., they were consulted by order of the Senate on occasions of public emergency (22. 9. 8). duumviros: 5. 13. 5 n. fierent. . . abstineretur: notice the passives and the impersonal abstineretur, typical of the laconic style of the Sibylline books which were couched in ambiguous language to avoid too specific interpretation. 'Strangers' are always an object of warning in horoscopes. In the same way the Carmina Marciana bade the Romans beware of alienigenae (25. 12. 5). For this oracular use of alienigenae cf. also Tacitus, Annals 11. 23. 4 and see D. M . Last, Latomus 17 (1958), 481. 10. 8. Ecetrae: 2. 25. 6 n., 'at E. Antian colonists were holding public meetings'. id caput, eas vires: 7. 1. Notice the repetition. There is nothing in D.H. corresponding to the threat of the Volsci and Aequi in this year or the obstruction of the tribunes. Although tribunician opposition to the levy is a well-established element in the historical tradition of the period (25. 9, 30. 5, 69. 5, 4. 1. 6, 30. 15, 53. 2, 55. 4 ; see Staveley, Historia, 3 (1955), 417 and n. 3), yet the silence of D.H. coupled with the linguistic repetitions and conventional phrases such as occidione occisos (cf. 2. 51. 9 n.) and agmine acturi (cf. 2. 58. 7, 6. 28. 2 ; see Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 28) indicates that L. has invented the entire episode as a background for the story of K. Quinctius and as a curtain-raiser to the daring exploits of Ap. Herdonius (Klotz 238), 11. 5. multum et consules se abstinebant: J. F. Gronovius cited ad Fam. 4. 7. 2 neque tu multum interfuisti rebus gerendis, for the use of multum. Here, however, any reference to the degree of the consul's aloofness is inapposite and Puteanus's emendation tumultu deserves more considera­ tion than it has received. For the expression cf. 3. 10. 7, 4. 5. 3 et al. The Trial of K. Quinctius T h e case of K. Quinctius was evidently regarded in later times as being the paradigm for vadimonium. None the less in almost every detail grave suspicion attaches to the authenticity of the account. At 416

461 B.C.

3- H-14

first sight the charge is one of impeding the tribunes in the exercise of their auxilium or, in fact, of violating their sacrosanctity. It cannot be certainly known under what head such an offence would be classed but it would appear to be a case of perduellio. Later, however, the charge is one of parricidium (13. 3). When K. Quinctius absconds and forfeits his bail, his father L. Quinctius Cincinnatus pays up and is forced to live veluti relegatus, yet a few months later he is elected cos. suff. (19. 2). Vadimonium was certainly defined for civil procedure in the Twelve Tables (Aul. Gell. 16. 10. 8) but in criminal cases it can hardly have existed at such an early date since it is the outcome of the stale­ mate caused when tribunes used their auxilium to prevent the arrest and detention in prison of criminal offenders. It was developed from the civil vadimonium. Moreover, since the case was never concluded as K. Quinctius left Rome before the trial, it cannot have been recorded in the Annales. T h e prosecution of a patrician by a tribune is incon­ ceivable before the Decemvirate (2. 35. 5 n.), and the figure of 3,000 asses (13. 8) is in itself proof of anachronism. But if we are forced to reject uncompromisingly the whole story, it is still possible to see how it came into being. T h e legend that Cin­ cinnatus was called to high office from a humble retreat is too well established to be fiction but the authorities differed on the precise occasion. D.H. (10. 17. 4, 24. 1) reduplicates the story. C. is found ploughing before his consulship (460) and before his dictatorship (439; cf. 4 . 1 3 . 14). The anecdote was, therefore, not exactly dated and Annalists felt themselves free to fit it into history where an opportunity afforded. But to find an opportunity required devising an explanation why a m a n of such distinction should have been encountered in such circumstances. There was a satisfying artistry about a father im­ poverishing himself for his son, which was heightened if the son should have betrayed the country which his father was then called upon to save. T h e story was then embellished. Concrete examples were re­ quired to illustrate and justify the provisions codified in the Twelve Tables. Both the issues involved in the case of K. Quinctius were dealt with by the Twelve Tables—the killing of indemnatus quisque homo (Salvian, de Gubern. Dei 8. 5. 24) and vadimonium (Aul. Gell., loc. cit.). It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that the details of K. Quinctius' trial were invented by jurists as a case-history to give historical sub­ stance to the bald provision of the Twelve Tables. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that these same issues were talking points in the second century. Vadimonium was radically overhauled by the Lex Aebutia at some date after 150 (Aul. Gell., loc. cit.) and caedes civis indemnati (3. 56. 13, 4. 21. 4) was the subject of Cato the Elder's speech de Decern Hominibus (Aul. Gell. 13. 25. 12) and became a flash-point in the Gracchan troubles (Livy, Epit. 61). 814432

417

Ee

3- " - M r

461 B.C.

All, then, that is historically acceptable is the timeless legend that Cincinnatus was called from the plough. T h e story was, however, firmly established by the first century, for it is cited by Cicero (de Domo 86), and such doubts did not trouble L. who worked his material into a dramatic narrative that leads up to Cincinnatus and the invasion of Ap. Herdonius. Whereas for D.H. (io. 7. 2) the climax of the trial is the testimony of Volscius, for L. it lies rather in the impetuous de­ parture of Caeso from Rome with all that that foreshadows. As usual, he telescopes events. Caeso leaves the same night: in D.H. he resides in the city for several days. And, where D.H. is content to present the trial as an dyd>v with two opposing speeches, L. captures the flavour of a real trial by allocating the same material to four separate and contrasted speakers (12. 2-9). There had been in recent memory one case where the accusation concerned a brawl on the outskirts of Rome which had led to the death of a leading citizen. Asconius describes the incident as follows (in Milon. 31-32 Clark): Occurrit ei (Miloni) . . . Clodius paulo ultra Bovillas . . . (servi) cum servis P. Clodi rixam commiserunt. Ad quern tumultum cum respexisset Clodius minitabundus, umerum eius Birria rumpia traiecit. . . Clodius vulneratus in tabernam proximan
461 B.C.

3- i i . 6

(6. 20. 7), and therefore oddly assorted with facundiam. A further awkwardness is that inforo . . . can hardly be taken with addiderat and must be understood as dependent on facundiam as belli is on decora, but Ver. evidently read an extra word which is not preserved in the Nicomachean recension (see O.C.T. apparatus; this part of the palimpsest is now illegible). Weissenborn proposed inforo (et curia) or ut nemo (eo tempore). A verb, however, would solve both difficulties: perhaps exhibuit. facundiam is used only here by L. non lingua, non manupromptior: 2. 33. 5 n. T h e conventional summary of the all-round m a n ; cf. Sallust, Jug. 44. 1 (see Gomme on Thucydides 2. 40. 2). 1 1 . 7 . velut. . . suis: so Milo is depicted as standing alone [pro Mil. 67). procellas sustinebat: cf. pro Mil. 5 tempestates et procellas. . . semper putavi Miloni esse subeundas. 11. 8. mulcatus: a rare verb, used only twice by Cicero, once in the pro Milone (37). L. uses it again below (12. 9). T h e scene of anarchy is strongly reminiscent of the gang warfare of the 50's. 1 1 . 9 . A. Verginius: the gens Verginia, Etruscan in origin and patrician in sympathy, might seem unlikely to produce a plebeian tr. pi. but the tradition is sound. Another is recorded in the annals of the early fourth century (5. 29. 6) and although falsification has played its part in the history of Verginia, a plebeian Verginius is possible. It is therefore likely that his name is authentically reported, if one tr. pi. was recorded each year. It is alleged that he was re-elected for five successive years (19. 5, 21. 3, 22. 2, 24. 1, 9, 25. 4, 29. 8, 30. 6). See Gundel, R.E., 'Verginius (3)'. atrox ingenium accenderat: cf. Tacitus, Annals 4. 60. 3 (Fletcher). iusto . . . bello: 1. 32. 5 n. 11. 10. pati reum mere: a Ciceronian phrase; cf. pro Rab. Post. 4 3 ; de Off. 3. 55. See Nisbet on de Domo 141. invidiaequeflammam. . . suggerere: cf. pro Mil. 98 cum a meis inimicis faces invidiae meae subiciantur. 11. 11. ibi multa saepe: multa ibi saepe Ver. In the collocation multus is generally placed next to saepe, either in the order m. s. (Plautus, Capt. 328; Miles 8 8 5 ; Ovid, Fasti 6. 108) or s. m. (Cicero, Verr. 5. 147; de Officiis 2. 20) but that juxtaposition is not invariable (cf. Plautus, Poen. 129; Lucretius 5. 1158; Cicero, de Rep. 3. 4 2 ; pro Sestio 109; Horace, Ep. 2. 1. 219; Propertius 1. 15. 1 with Shackleton Bailey's note). T h e determining factor in the present passage is that multa rather than ibi carries the most emphasis and should therefore be placed first. It was the number of rash words and deeds which damaged Caeso's reputation, not the occasion on which they occurred. inconsulte dicta factaque: cf. 2. 37. 6. 11. 13. exspectate dum consul: for a similar fear cf. Cicero's imaginary 419

3- "■ 13

461 B.C.

prognosis of what would have happened if Glodius had lived to become praetor or even consul {pro Mil. 89-90). 12. 1. For Milo's heroic refusal to solicit sympathy cf. pro Mil. 92. 12. 2. T. Quinctius Capitolinus: 2. 56. 15 n. 12. 3. indolent tarn maturae virtutis: Ciceronian; cf. pro Caelio 39, 76. primum militem: 'leading soldier'. L.'s source knew of only one speaker, Gincinnatus. L. has dressed up the pleas which in the original were used by Gincinnatus and distributed them over four elder statesmen. Gf. D . H . 10. 5. 5. 1 2 . 4 . Sp. Furius 14. 1 n. After the name N inserts ipsum before missum but the separation of ipsum from eum is intolerable (Jac. Gronovius; cf. 9. 17. 7, 35. 42. 9). For similar dittographies in N cf. 5. 40. 9. unum . . . rem restitutam: Furius refers to the rescue described in 5. 5-10 and hints that it was comparable with the greatest heroic de­ liverances in Roman history. For the verbal allusion to Q . Fabius Maximus Gunctator cf. 2. 43. 6 n. 12. 5. L. Lucretius'. 8. 2 n. 12. 6. suum quam alienum: there is nothing corresponding in D.H. but cf. pro Mil. 104 ex hac urbe expellet quern omnes urbes expulsum a vobis ad se vocabunt. 12. 7'. fervorem et audaciam; the usual pathetic TOKOS; cf. Cicero, de Senect. 45 erat quidam fervor aetatis; qua progrediente omnia fiunt in dies mitiora; CaeL 43. cottidie magis: magis om. N. For cottidie = in dies see Clark on pro Mil. 34 but here the comparative magis is required to balance the intensive force of crescere; cf. Cicero, ad Att. 5. 7. 1, 7. 5. 4, 11. 12. 3, 14. 18. 4, 16. 2. 4, and Tyrrell on ad Att. 1. 20. 7. Other examples in Thes. Ling, Lat. consilium: the opposition between audacia and consilium is another rhetorical commonplace; cf. 21. 4. 5, 57. 3 ; Sallust, Catil. 51. 37 (Skard). Cf. yvwfn) . . . pcLfxr) in Gorgias, avSpeta . . . ovveois in Polybius, and see H. Fuchs, Mus. Helv. 4 (1947), 168; H . D. Kemper, Rat und Tat (Diss. Bonn, i960). 12. 8. Cincinnato: 'curly-head' (Suetonius, CaL 35). T h e cognomen is found in other families as well (C.I.L. 10. 8059. 420; 6. 4845). Cf. Rutilus. veniam error i atque adulescentiae petendo : a typically Ciceronian plea; cf. pro Sulla 64; pro Caelio 30 erat enim meum deprecari vacatiomm adule­ scentiae veniamque petere. error is the advocate's apologetic term for be­ littling the offence; cf. Cicero, adFam. 11. 28. 5 ; Seneca, Dial. 10. 7. 1; see W. Hooijbergh, Peccatum, 14. Cf. Tacitus, Annals 1. 58. non dido, non facto: 11. 11 n. 12. 9. verecundia aut metu: 2. 36. 3 n. 420

461 B.C.

3- 13.

l

13. 1. M. Volscius Fictor: the name is gravely suspicious. Volscius, which Schulze would connect with the Etruscan velscu (523), is no more than an ethnic, while Fictor, a cognomen not elsewhere in use, is derived a crimine in K. Quinctiumficto. Caeso's opponent, who originally was anonymous, is m a d e to bear this name for dramatic effect. T h e Quinctii were responsible for some of the most decisive victories over the Volsci. It was fitting that one with the name Volscius should have endeavoured to frustrate their endeavours at the s t a r t See Gundel, R.E., 'Volscius (a) 9 . ante aliquot annos: D . H . 10, 7. 1 says that he was a tribune of this year (461) and therefore that he was re-elected for the next four years. If, however, there is any historical truth about the man, L.'s version is more likely to be correct. Only one tribune for each year seems to have been recorded, and the subsequent fortunes of M . Volscius hardly fit his position as a tribune (24. 3 - 7 ; 29. 6 n.). 13. 2. in Subura: see m a p . 13. 3 . exsequi rem: this, the order of Ver., is rightly preferred by Wodrig and J u n g . T h e emphasis is on exsequi: Volscius was prevented from doing anything about the outrage. So in Suetonius, Domit. 7. 2 nee exsequi rem perseveravit; Ulpian, Dig. 47. 10. 35. 13. 4. vi contra vim: cf. pro Mil. 1 vi vis inlata. 13. 6. sisti. . . pronuntiant: 'they notify their pleasure that the accused should appear and that a sum of money should be pledged to the people in case of his defaulting'. T h e terminology is legal. For sisti = 'to appear in court on demand' cf. Gaius 4. 184 vadimonium ei faciendum est, id est ut promittat se certo die sisti; Dig. 45. 1. 81. But placere is loose. The Senate rather than the tribunes framed their recommendation with placet. Cases of bail in lieu of arrest in criminal proceedings, where there was a danger of the accused absconding before trial, must have been more frequent than the few examples preserved in the sources (25. 4. 8 ff.; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 74; Sallust, Jug. 35. 4 ; cf. Gicero, de Rep. 2. 6 1 ; Paulus Festus5ig L . ; Hitzig,R.E., 'career 5 ; Steinwenter, R.E., 'Vadimonium'). In civil cases the defendant advanced his own bail, in criminal proceedings others went surety for him. 13. 8. vades dari placuit: for placuit see above. T h e passive dari is re­ quired. T h e Senate were not offering to advance the bail themselves. tribus milibus: the figure is anachronistic at so early a date. It is perhaps inspired by the suprema multa, 3,020 asses, under the Lex Julia Papiria of 430 (4. 30. 3 n.). It was the oldest and largest sum which antiquarians of the second century would know of, if they were seeking a standard for assessing early figures. decern finierunt: 'they defined the number as 10'. publico: i.e. the aerarium. But the received text publicos is unobjec­ tionable. 421

3- 13.8

461 B.C.

abiit: Milo also retired precipitately before the verdict, to Marseilles. In D.H. Caeso stays in Rome for several days. T h e choice of in Tuscos is peculiar (de Viris Illustr. 17 ad Volscos et Sabinos) because Etruria did not enjoy a ius exilii with Rome. In Cicero, de Domo 86, Caeso was condemned comitiis centuriatis. 13. 9. solum vertisse: 'shifted his ground', i.e. 'gone into exile'; the legal expression, for which see Nisbet on Cicero, de Domo 78. 13. 10. trans Tiberim: 26. 8 n. 14. 1. iudicium et... lex: Ver. omits et wrongly. For similar loss of et in that manuscript cf. 4. 7. 12, 5. 32. 4, 4. 35. 2, 4. 33. 10, 6. 4. 6, 4. 7. 8, 13. 9, 13. 12, 3. 61. 13, 6. 1. 8. 14. 3 . id maxime quod . . .fuit: 'that part especially which consisted of Caeso's club-mates'; cf. 5. 34. 5 n. A partitive genitive is essential (sodalium) and excludes Ver.'s sodalicium, read by H . J . Miiller and Luterbacher, from consideration. Ver. inserts c in the middle of words at 3. 24. 3 dicens, 3. 62. 1 redicturum, 4. 25. 9, 5. 24. 1, 5. 27. 15. sodalicium does not occur elsewhere in L . ; for sodalium, a tint from late Republican politics, cf. 2. 3. 2. iras . . . animos: 'anger . . . courage'. 14. 4 . nemo unus: repeating 12. 4. mille pro uno : 9. 4. 14. 5. benigne salutare: carrying out the precise recommendations made by Q . Cicero to his brother for courting popular support; cf. Comm. Petit. 35-45. 14. 6. refecti. . . in insequentem annum, ne voce quidem incommoda, nedum ut ulla vis Jieret. paulatim . . . mansuefecerant plebem. his per totum annum artibus lex elusa est: Bayet's punctuation gives excellent sense. T h e tribunician election passed off peacefully, unlike the heated affairs of other years, because the tribunes managed to civilize theplebs. By such methods the issue of the Lex Terentilia was shelved till the following year. permulcere et tractare could only describe the management by the tribunes of their own supporters, not the young nobles' display of benevolence and courtesy to the tribunes (14. 5 above). But no one would ever conceive of civilizing people by violence or harsh words so that ne voce . . .Jieret cannot logically belong to mansuefecerant. Harsh words and violence are, however, to be encountered in elections and the attachment of the phrase to the previous sentence is confirmed by the fact that nedum ut, where ut supports nedum, is only found at the end of a sentence: e.g. Tacitus, Dial. 10.2 ; Seneca, Dial. 2. 8. 3, 10. 7. 4 ; see Nettleship, Journ. Phil. 20 (1892), 179 (for Quintilian 12. 1. 39 see A. F. Wells, J.R.S. 39 (1949), 204). A further objection to the order of Conway and Walters, defended by them in C.Q. 5 (1911), 1-2, is 422

461 B.C.

3. 14. 6

that the sentence his artibus . . . elusa est is the natural clausula to a section,- cf. 29. 9,155. 13, 4. 27. 1, et aL For incommoda voce cf. Plautus, Casin. 152; for mansuefacio cf. 38. 17. 7 and mansuetum (o£ the plebs) in 16. 4. 15. 1. C. Claudius Appi films \ a son of the original founder of the gens (2. 16. 4 n.) and historically a brother of the Decemvir (^or. 471), but when annalistic invention distinguished two Ap. Claudii to secure a good consul and a bad Decemvir, the exact relationship of C. Claudius became obscured. D.H. follows two sources in naming him the uncle and the brother of the Decemvir (10. 20) on different occasions. Like other Claudii he is a true patrician. After his activity against Herdonius (18. 5) and the death of Valerius, he opposed plebeian pressure to permit consideration of the proposal legibus scribendis (19. 1), resisted the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando, and stood out against the re-election of Cincinnatus (21. 7). His patrician pride was matched by his fairness. He could register sufficient disgust at Appius' tyrannical behaviour to withdraw from Rome to Regillum (35. 9, 40. 2-5, 58. 1) and yet be the first to come forward in Appius' defence (58. 1-5) and to attack the radical consuls Valerius and Horatius (63. 8 ff.). See Miinzer, R.E., 'Claudius (322)'. P. Valerius: cf. 2. 52. 6. 15-18. Appius Herdonius P. Valerius in magistratu mortuus est: Tusculanis gratiae actae: Capitolium purgatum atque histratum. Three facts contain the germ of the whole of the episode. It is easy to see how the rest of the story evolved. A legend that a Herdonius once threatened Rome and was thwarted by the loyalty of the men of Tusculum was evidently a part of the family legend of the Mamilii (1. 49. 9 n.) which they blended into the history of Rome in their great days during the third century. No other ex­ planation accounts for the duplication of the event under the Tarquins. It was inevitable, too, that if the Capitol required purifying because of some pollution, the death of the consul P. Valerius must be connected with it. The association in the consulate of a Valerius, the democrat, with a Claudius, the patrician, must be a significant stage in the Struggle of the Orders. So the whole historical setting is built u p : Herdonius takes advantage of political dissension to seize the Capitol; the Roman people, immobilized by their internal bicker­ ings, are only saved by the intervention of their loyal allies; the de­ secration of the Capitol requires special measures. Such was the development of the story by the beginning of the first century. L. inherited it but, as a comparison with D.H. reveals, besides streamlining the narrative, made two notable alterations. In recent memory the lower classes had been stirred into insurrection by 423

3- ^ 1 ®

460 B.C.

Catiline. L., therefore, introduced Catilinarian overtones to remind the reader of the historical possibility of such insurrections (15. 9 n.). O n the other hand the desecration of the Capitol afforded him the opportunity of illustrating the baleful consequences of neglecting religion. This he does through the revivalist appeal of P. Valerius (17. 2-8), of which there is no trace in D.H. T h e whole speech, as Reichenberger puts it, 'gives the characteristic religio-political touch which distinguishes L.'s narrative of Herdonius from just another episode of danger in Rome's history'. See also R. Bonghi, Nuova Antologia, 19 (1880), 339-442; Pais, Storia, 1. 5 2 9 - 3 1 ; de Sanctis, Storia, 2. 32. 2 ; Munzer, R.E., 'Herdonius (1)'; A. Reichenberger, Studien zum Erzahlungsstil des T.L. (1931); Burck 17-21; Klotz 259; Reichenberger, CW. 37 (i943),28-29. 15. 3. ante Sacrum montem: 2. 33. 3 n. 15. 4. et a Volscis: et 'furthermore', not linked with the following et. 15. 5. exsules servique: Catiline's army was largely composed of such riff-raff but he dispensed with the service of slaves at the very end (56. 5). For the anachronism of slaves at this time cf. 5. 22. 1 n. ad duo milia . . . et quingenti: D.H. 10. 14. 1 gives the number as 4,000 clients and slaves. Rather than suppose that L. has subtracted 1,500 clients from the total, we should restore the text of L. to quattuor milia, as the archetype read. It is not clear whether the discrepancy between 4,000 (D.H.) and 4,500 (L.) was caused by D.H. giving only a partial total or a round number. The quotation of exact figures where none could have been preserved is characteristic of V.A. (5. 12 n.).

Appio: 2. 16. 4 n., a Sabine praenomen. Herdonio: 1. 50. 3 n. node: D.H. extends the operations over three or four days. 15. 6. Capitolium atque arcem: cf. 1. 33. 2. It was a traditional centre of Sabine settlement at Rome. confestim: notice the agitated sentences which follow, with repeated antithesis (e.g. sedabant tumultus, sedando interdum movebani). The effect is sharpened by the absence of subordinate clauses. Short, staccato propositions follow each other paratactically. W arma': the traditional call to arms (3. 50. 11, 6. 28. 3, 9. 24. 9 ; Caesar, B.G. 7. 70. 6, often repeated ad arma, ad arma (Horace, Odes 1. 32. 5 ; see Fraenkel, Horace, 252 n. 3). Akin to the Greek OTTXOJV onXwv Set. See W. Schulze, Kl. Schriften, 163 ff. 15. 7. incerti: for similar hesitation in an emergency cf. the behaviour of Romans in Sallust, Catil. 3 1 . 2 . D.H. knows nothing of such waver­ ing. 15. 8. praesidium satisJidum \Jidum 'trustworthy' is adequate sense since the question at issue concerns the reliability of the R o m a n forces 424

4 6 0 B.C.

3- 15.8

(Seneca, Agam. 917) hat firtnum is the natural epithet (45. 2, 23. 34. 12, 34. 25. 10; Cicero, Verr. 1. 153; de Leg. Agr. 2. 103; ad Att. 1. 19. 6; ad Fam. 15. 4. 14) and the correction, proposed by Luterbacher, is attractive, fidum by assimilation of ending after praesidium. 15. 9. se. . . causam: cf. Sallust, CatiL 35. 3 publicam miserorum causam pro mea consuetudine suscepi (Skard). T h e whole of Herdonius' policy echoes that propounded by Catiline. omnia extrema: take concitaturum with Volscos et Aequos, t. with 0. e. There is no trace of the speech in D . H . Cf. Sallust, CatiL 26. 5. 16. 1. dilucere: 8. 27. 11, 25. 29. 10; first in Varro. Here perhaps suggested by Cicero, in CatiL 3. 6 cum iam dilucesceret. 16. 2 - 4 . The threat from the Aequi does not feature in the account of D . H . and may be at least partly inspired by Catiline's negotiations with the Allobroges. 16. 4. mergentibus malis: 6. 14. 7, 17. 2, 9. 18. 1, 41. 3. 10; Virgil, Aeneid 6. 429, 615, 11. 28. T h e use oi mergere is not due to poetic influence (Stacey, Rettore) but to the prevailing diction of the Augus­ tan age (Gries, Constancy, 49). malum . . . quiesse: only here, but Scheller's emendation of the manu­ script -que esse, also proposed by Freudenberg, is palmary. Pettersson, following Ruperti, unsuccessfully defends the received text by suppos­ ing an ellipse: malum exoriens (sc. erat) tumque . . . sopitum videbatur. 16. 5. at id: 'but in fact it bore down almost more heavily than any­ thing else upon their sinking fortunes' (Foster). 16. 6. concilium . . . legi perferendae: see CQ. 9 (1959), 279. 17. 1. discedere: cf. Sallust, CatiL 36. 2. se ex curia proripit: cf. Sallust, CatiL 32. 1 deinde (Catilina) se ex curia domum proripuit.

The Speech of P. Valerius

17. 2 - 8 . O n e of L.'s early essays in free oratorical composition, it shows signs of immaturity both in the formality of its structure and in the lack of cohesion between content and context (17. 2 n., 17. 3 n., 17. 5 n., 17. 7 n.). T h e germ of it may have lain in some such expression in Valerius Antias as D.H. (10. 16. 2) transcribes— OvaXeplco 8c ra povpia TToXiopKelv 6 Salfjuov €rJK€v. See R. Ullmann La Technique, 52 ; A. Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 41-42. Exordium 17. 2 . quid hoc rei est: 1. 48. 1 n., a defiant opening. 425

3- '7- 2

460 B.C.

ductu et auspicio: i. 4 n. rem publicam eversuri: Cicero, pro Mil. 24; Phil. 10. 12 et al. non commovit: oratorically it is effective to point out the grotesqueness that free citizens should be duped by a man who could not even incite slaves to insurrection but factually it is nonsense, since the slaves have risen (15. 5). The factual inexactitude is overlooked in the search for effect, so that Schott's nunc for non is unnecessary. supra caput: proverbial; cf. Cicero, ad Q.F. 1. 2. 6; Sallust, Catil. 52. 24; Virgil, Aen. 4. 702. Tractatio: (1) pium 17. 3. Notice the repeated v sounds. cura tangit: a strongly religious association; cf. Virgil Aen. 12. 933; Ovid, Heroid. 8. 15. at vos: 1. 41. 3. Iuno regina: [regina] Ruperti. L. makes Valerius draw attention to the plight of the Capitoline Triad, apparently oblivious that the cult of Iuno regina was only introduced after her evocatio from Veii (5. 22. 3-7) some two generations later. L. has again been carried away by his oratorical enthusiasm. 17. 4. tantum hostium: 'such a force of enemy*. Note the elaborate arrangement of words forum curiaque . . . in for 0, in curia with the clauses deliberately balancing each other in shape and length («rd/couAa; cf. ad Herenn. 4. 27) e.g. velut cum otium superat, -|- senator sententiam dicit, -|- [alii] Quirites suffragium ineunt. velut cum: apparently only here in L., and therefore intended for special effect (Ennius, Annals 84, 443 V.). [alii] : if alii is read, it will carry the common meaning: 'others, that is the ordinary citizens' (5. 35. 1 n.). Here, however, the word is superfluous and spoils the close parallelism. In view of the common corruption to which Quirites gives rise (5. 6. 15 n.), it seems wise to delete it. (2) dignum 17. 5. deos hominesque: J. F. Gronovius proposed a famous emendation, cives for deos, arguing that £dii male sunt hie advocati cum TO armatos et currere . . . inepte refer an tur ad deos'. deos hominesque is a formal cliche (2. 9. 3) which comes facilely to L.'s lips despite its utter in­ congruity to the situation. 17. 6. mentem . . . da: cf. Cicero, in Catil. 1. 22. qua quondam: L. employs a very ancient formula of prayer in which the worshipper invokes some past action of the god as a precedent for the present hoped-for action (Fraenkel, Horace, 173, with examples; Page, Sappho and Alcaeus, 16-17). The reference is to 1. 12. 10. tu . . • tuam . . . tuae: the religious character is maintained by the sevenfold repetition of tu/tuus, which is not matched elsewhere in L. 426

4 6 0 B.C.

3. 17.6

The repetition is inherent in the formulae of Graeco-Roman prayers (Norden, Agnostos TTieos, 143-66) and is well exemplified by Lucretius 1. iff.; Virgil, Aen. 8. 2936°.; Horace, Odes 1. 35. i f f ; Apuleius, Met.

11. 25.

Conclusio 17. 7-8. The dramatic climax of the speech lay in the invocation of Romulus. For the practical instructions L. switches to or. obi. and details them in short, succinct sentences with all the precision of a military command. iam: conscium Bayet. Valerius appears to forget that he is consul and that any measures he might adopt would depend on the sanction of his consular imperium but Bayet's logic is too Gallic. Valerius' inten­ tion is to stress that he would go to any lengths without any respect for persons to ensure the deliverance of Rome; and if he overstates his case it is only in keeping with the exaggerations already observed. 17. 9. vim ultimam: 2. 63. 2. nee . . . tamen: tamen belongs in sense to the second half of the dis­ junction : 'the law could not be passed and at the same time the consul could not proceed to the CapitoP. See Fraenkel, Horace, 332 n. 2. cessere: 60. 7 n. 17. 10. sermones . . . serere: 2. 2. 4 n., 28. 25. 5, political slang from the late Republic ('club gossip 5 ); cf. Cicero, ad Att. 2. 18. 2 sermo in circulis . . . est liberior quamfuit. 17. 11. penates publicos privatosque: 22. 1. 6, 25. 18. 10, 45. 24. 12. The penates publici were the penates of Troy, who had been taken to Rome from Lavinium where they were first enshrined. They were none other than Castor and Pollux, enjoying on coins the legend Di Penates Publici or Di Penates. The official oath of the Republic was in the name of Juppiter and the di penates. The penates privati, on the other hand, were the individual penates of private households throughout Rome. Together they formed a venerated circle to which Roman orators, especially Cicero, directed emotional appeals. See de Domo 144 with Nisbet's note; Weinstock, J.R.S. 50 (i960), 112-3. 17.12. discesserant: 'had made separate rounds of the gates and walls'. 18. 1. et Tusculum: 'to Tusculum also' or 'even to Tusculum'. 18. 2. L. Mamilius: 1. 49. 9 n. The grant of citizenship as a token of thanks in 29. 6 is sufficiently historical to confirm the truth of the whole tradition (see Munzer, R.E., 'Mamilius (i)'). The dictatorship at Tusculum, also mentioned at 6. 26. 4, is paralleled by dictatorships in other Latin cities such as Aricia and Nomentum. It was probably replaced in 381 by a college of three aediles when Tusculum passed finally and completely under Roman sovereignty (de Sanctis, Riv. Fil. 10 (1932), 437; cf. Rosenberg, Der Stoat der Alien Italiker, 72 ff.). 427

3. i8. 2

4 6 0 B.C.

magnopere censet: a strong recommendation (cf. Cicero, de Fin. 4. 79); censet suggests senatorial procedure. 18. 3 . Jidemfoederum: Tusculum had subscribed to the Latin treaty. demerendi: 'to lay under an obligation 5 . 18. 4. placet: 13. 8 senatorial. prima luce: Tusculum is at least 15 miles from Rome so that such a night journey is inconceivable. L. has compressed the time sequence. H e also omits the concession m a d e to the plebs in D . H . that the Lex Terentilia will be debated after Herdonius has been crushed. L. treats each episode as a self-contained unit. 18. 6. si se doceri sensissent: Rhenanus's emendation (si edoceri se sissent) is generally read (except by Bayet who proposes a se si doceri se sissent). O n the other hand, se would be more naturally situated in second place (1. 13. 2 n.) and the corruption could more easily have arisen from a variation of word-order resulting in the duplication se doceri se. If so, si se doceri sissent would be preferable. populi colendi: i.e. Poplicola (2. 8. 1). 18. 8. P. Volumnius: 10. 5 n. 1 8 . 1 0 . templum: Ver. has the plural templa and it is true that more than one temple (e.g. Terminus) was situated on the Capitol and therefore involved, but L. has concentrated attention on the temple of Capitoline Juppiter ( 1 8 . 8 vestibulum . . . templi) in a properly dramatic way. For similar omissions of final m before a succeeding vowel in Ver. cf. 3- 3 8 - 3> 3- 61. 8, 3. 65. 2, 3. 66. 4, 4. 13. 2, 4. 14. 6, 4. 24. 4, 4. 59. 5. suae . . . est: 'each man suffered the penalty appropriate to his station', i.e. slaves were crucified, free men beheaded (1. 26. 6 n.). T h e repetition quisque . . . quoque is unpleasing. purgatum atque lustratum: with water, fire, or sulphur. For details see G. P. C. T r o m p , de Romanorum piaculis, 135-6. 18. 1 1 . quadrantes: 2. 33. 10 n., Valerian embroidery. ferretur is read by both Ver. and N.fero, for effero 'carry the dead to burial', is occa­ sionally found (e.g. Ovid, Met. 13. 696; Trist. 1. 3. 8 9 ; ArsAmat. 3. 20) but effero is the regular term in inscriptions (C.I.L. 14. 3 2 1 ; 11. 1946) and in literary texts (28. 28. 12, 30. 45. 4, 4 1 . 16. 4 ; Cicero, ad Alt. 14. 10. 1, 14. 14. 3) and should be read here. 19-21. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus, 'cos. suff.' T h e aftermath of the liberation of the Capitol is portrayed as a period of intense political agitation in which Cincinnatus carried on the antiplebeian policies of his son and emerged as the leading statesman of the day. L.'s treatment of his material differs in several particulars from D . H . Instead of building up the character of Cincinnatus by direct narrative, L, allows it to be disclosed in a pair of speeches 428

460 B.C.

3- J 9 - 2 1

(19. 4-12 ; 21. 4-7) which are evidently original compositions designed for this very purpose. Apart from minor details both authors retail the same basic facts, but little credence can be placed upon them. T h e record that Cincinnatus was cos. suff. in 460 could be genuine but the flesh and blood of the narrative consists of highly tendentious explanations of R o m a n institutions. In particular, the prominence given to provocatio (20. 7), to the sacramentum (20. 3-6), to the military origin of the comitia centuriata (20. 6), and to the illegality of a m a n holding successive consulates, all reflect the quarrels and speculations of the second century. Such arguments did not interest L. T h e secondcentury annalists had provided him with the materials for a picture or exemplum of an homo vere Romanus and that was enough for L. (Burck 22; Klotz 259-60). T h e moral of the whole story of Cincinnatus lies in 20. 5. 1 9 . 1 . paceparta: for the phrase and order cf. 1. 1 9 . 3 , 5 . r - I >3°-45- J 5 Tacitus, Hist. 5. 10 pace per Italiam parta; Suetonius, Aug. 22. Ver.'s order is to be preferred to N's. deos manes fraude liber aret\ Valerius had promised that a condition of plebeian co-operation in the defeat of Herdonius should be that the Lex Terentilia would be discussed. To go back on that promise was to implicate the soul of the dead Valerius in afraus. For deos manes as the equivalent of the soul of one particular person cf. 3. 58. n , 21, 10. 3 ; Dessau, I.L.S. 880 dis manibus L. Caecilii Rufi\ Aul. Gell. 10. 18. 5. It is a loose and late extension of the original collective meaning 'powers of the underworld'. See W. F. Otto, Die Manen; Weinstock, J.R.S. 39 (1949), 166. See 58. n n. 19. 2. Decembri: 6. 1 n. 19. 3 . consilium fet modum]: adhibere modum is common in other authors, e.g. Cicero, de Officiis 2. 5 5 ; Nepos, Epam. 4. 6 ; Tacitus, Annals 13. 4 4 ; Suetonius, Nero 37, but does not occur elsewhere in L. It is not a particularly happy bed-fellow with consilium which has been specifically mentioned earlier (12. 7) as the quality in which Caeso was most defective. It is therefore to be regarded as a Nicomachean gloss (cf. 26. 9, 44. 4, 35. 7, 62. 2, 56. 12, 6 1 . 12, 4. 21. 7, 24. 7, 17. 1, 5 . 4 1 . 4 , 4 4 . 3, 55. 1). 19. 4 - 1 2 . Cincinnatus 5 oration, with its characteristic switch from indirect to direct speech (1. 57. 7, 2. 7. 9, 3. 9. 11, 48. 3, 5. 21. 2), is planned according to the formal arrangement of the schools but is distinguished by a few linguistic highlights which serve to convey the vehemence of the speaker and the urgency of the occasion. Exordium: principium ab adversariis 19. 4. perdita domo: a curious expression, meaning not a house of illfame but a home where the rules and conventions of family life have 429

3- 19- 4

460 B.C.

broken down. T h e TOKOS is thoroughly Greek and stems perhaps from Euripides, e.g. HeracL 476 ff.; cf. also Herondas, Mime 3. 19. 5. semina discordiarum: semen, applied to people, is a rhetorical com­ monplace going back at least to Demosthenes, de Cor. 159: cf. Cicero, Phil. 2. 55. For the metaphor cf. 3. 40. 10 d. serere, 4. 2. 12, 8. 27. 5, 25. 35. 7; Suetonius, Calig. 26. 4. T h e expression appealed to Tacitus who repeats it (Hist. 1. 53, 4. 18). 19. 6. hercule: 2. 28. 4, 5. 3. 6, et al. qui: equivalent to si quis, is found only in colloquial passages of old Comedy (e.g. Terence, Hec. 608) and is air. Aey. here in L. Karsten (Mnemosyne 24 (1896), 10) wished to read si quis (cf. 6. 11. 4) but qui must be intended to jolt the reader's attention and focus it on Cincinnatus' words. bellum: bella N (by assimilation to armd) but there was only one war (16.5). servis . . . exsulibus: the refrain of the speech; cf. 19. 7, 19. 10. Tractatio: (1) honestum 19. 7. pace loquar: the old ritual formula pace (deum) dixerim, by which a speaker sought to forestall any divine objection to his words (10. 7. 12, 38. 46. 12; Plautus, Miles 679; Juvenal 11. 196 et al.) evolved by popular usage into a more general and secular disclaimer. In Cin­ cinnatus' mouth it is arresting. Cf. praefiscini and see Hofmann, Latein. Umgangssprache, 131. pudet deorum hominumque: 17. 5 n., 22. 14. 4, 'it is an outrage in the sight of gods and men'. For this, also Ciceronian, use of pudet where the gen. signifies the person before whom one is ashamed, cf. Cicero, Phil. 12. 8 pudet huius legionis . . . . There is thus no call for Ruperti's pudeat. Here the words have a ring of old-fashioned outrage; cf. Plautus, Trin. 912 deum hercle me atque hominum pudet. 19. 8. attingere arma: not literally 'to put one's hand to' (Bickel in Thes. Ling. Lat.) but, on the analogy of a. bellum (Sallust, Jug. 44. 3), a. militiam (Suetonius, Cal. 43), 'to undertake a military operation'. Only here in L. For the facts see 4. 10 n, (2) dignum 19. 9. scilicet: a touch of oratorical irony; cf. 4. 5. 3, 5. 4. 12, 31. 29. 8, 32. 21. 27, 34. 7. 11, 40. 12. 13, 42. 42. 2 (Ullmann, £tude, 49). de vestra plebe: 5. 40. 9 n. 19. 10. nulla ope humana: Ver.'s word-order conforms to an established pattern (2. 20. 12 is different) by which, where the phrase humana ope occurs positively, the words are in that order (e.g. 5. 22. 3 ; Virgil, Aen. 12. 427; Veil. Pat. 2. 79. 3 sed virum humana ope; Pliny, N.H. 37. 1; Tacitus, Annals 6. 12. 6), but where the phrase is in a negative 430

460 B.C.

3. 19. 10

clause the order is reversed as at Columella 3. 1. 2 non ope humana; Seneca, N.Q. 5. 18. 6 ; Tacitus, Annals 15. 44. 7; Hist. 4. 81. 14. 19. 11. at enim: introducing not an objection but a threat. Mo die quo: cum Ver., but the correlative is always quo and cum is a clever but superficial attempt to supply a correlative to turn typical of Ver. (cf5- 2. 11, 3. 5, 3. 7,40. 7). si tuleritis: doubt has been cast on these words which are found both in N. and in Ver., on the ground that the clause is inept and tuleritis is the wrong word (Ruperti, Madvig). So far from being inept, the clause gives the surprise that the argument demands. 'You say that you will pass the law. Then indeed my election was a major catastrophe—always supposing, of course, that you do manage to pass it.' T h e use of the simple verb picking up the compound which has immediately preceded it is an idiom more commonly illustrated from Greek than Latin writers, but see the examples collected by W. Clausen, A.J.P. 76 (1955), 49-5 1 Conclusio: amplificatio. 19. 12. iam primum omnium: 1. 1. 1 n. depraeterito qaam re ipsa: a locus communis serves as the peroration. 20. 1. patres restitutam credebant rem publicam: was this intended to have a contemporary echo for Augustan readers (Syme, Roman Revolution, 3 2 3)? peragendis: sc. actionibus. Cf. 24. 1 rem susceptam peracturos. 20. 3 . in verba iuraverint: 2. 45. 13 n. T h e dispute over the validity of the sacramentum mirrors the demoralized state of the Roman army in the Punic Wars (cf. 22. 38. 2-4) and suggests that the whole passage was a retrojection of a contemporary issue into the past by annalists of the late third century. 20. 4. sacramento adacti sint: 4. 5. 2. sacramento is abl. 'to bind by an oath'. Cf. Caesar, B.G. 6. 1. 2 quos . . . consulis sacramento rogavisset ad signa convenire et ad se prqficisci iuberet with Kramer-Dittenberger's and Meusel's notes. 20. 5. neglegentia deum: Praef. 9 n., 56. 7 n., 6. 4 1 . 8, 8. 11. i, 10. 40. 10. L.'s attitude is throughout sympathetic to the traditional belief that the proper maintenance of the pax deorum was the only security for human happiness. See Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen, 30; P. G. Walsh, A.J.P. 79 (1958), 358. For other signs of pessimism cf. 4. 13. 4. 20. 6. de prqferendo exercitu: prqferendo 'delaying' is clearly sound (proterrendo Gronovius; perturbando or perterrendo Ruperti). T h e tribunes re­ sorted to delaying tactics when they found that they could not prevent the levy. But prqferre is only so used with nouns signifying an event or process (e.g. auctionem in Cicero, ad Att. 13. 12. 4) or with nouns of time like dies (Cicero, ad Att. 13. 13. 44). exercitu must therefore be 43*

3. 20. 6

460 B.C.

wrong. In fact Ver. can clearly be deciphered as reading exercitus exitu proferendo as one line, thus confirming Bayet's adaptation of Perizonius's admirable conjecture. auspicato: i. 36. 6 n. T h e fear of an assembly held outside Rome owes much, no doubt, to the disturbances of the Hannibalic W a r when religious factors played their part in the political wire-pulling (Scullard, Roman Politics, 26-28; note in particular the events of 217) but much too to the crucial assembly of the Athenians at Golonus (Thucydides, 8. 66-67). 20. 7. mille passuum: the extension of the ius provocationis outside Rome itself became controversial towards the end of the third century. 'As Roman citizens began to move more freely outside Rome they would claim their full privilege of appeal against the magistrate, re­ gardless of the old territorial restrictions' (A. H. McDonald, J.R.S. 34 (1944), 19 and n. 68). T h e extension of the right to Romans throughout Italy was effected by one of the Leges Porciae, perhaps in 199. 20. 8. non ita . . . ut: 'the state was too ill to be cured by conventional remedies'. sine provocatione: another antiquarian fiction. T h e powers of the tribunes were in 460 quite extra-constitutional. They could obstruct magistrates not by any legal right but by mob violence so that the consul and the dictator were on the same footing in that both were technically free from provocatio and tribunician veto. T h e myth of the superior position of the dictatorship grew u p after 300 when the Lex Valeria restricted the jurisdictional competence of his office and tales were spun about its former range (Festus 216 L. optima lex; see Staveley, Historic 3 (1955), 427" 8 )2 1 . 2. s. c. faint ut: the plural is to be preferred. There were two s. c, the first dealing with the immediate situation, the second with future policy. For similar haplographies in N cf. 13. 2, 21. 4. magistratus continuari: from at least the fourth century a plebiscite had enforced a ban on holding the consulship twice within ten years. T h e restriction had to be lifted temporarily in the Hannibalic W a r when the shortage of competent men became acute (M. L. Patterson, T.A.P.A. 73 (1942), 321) so that Marcellus, Fabius, and Fulvius Flaccus all held repeated consulships within a short space. Cincinnatus' reaction was invoked or invented by historians to provide authority against iteratio within ten years. See Scullard, Roman Politics, 48 n. 2, 85, 234; A. E. Astin, Lex Villia Annalis before Sulla. L.'s lan­ guage is impeccably constitutional. For contra rem publicam esse cf. Cicero, de Har. Resp. 15; ad Att. 1. 16. 12. 21. 3. inpatrumpotestate (cf. 2. 56. 16, 3. 52. 10, 9. 10. 1 ; also 4. 26. 7 in auctoritate esse, 56. 10, 5. 9. 4, 6. 19. 4) : the technical expression for the 432

460 B.C.

3-2i. 3

consul's acquiescence in the Senate's recommendation (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 1034 n. 2). 21. 4 - 7 . The speech, of which there is no word in D.H., is composed by L. to illustrate through Cincinnatus' own mouth another side to his character. Its contents are, as usual, stock. 21. 4. in continuandis magistratibus solvit: in, found in both traditions, but deleted by Conway and Bayet, exemplifies an Augustan idiom by which the plain instrumental gerund is amplified by in: cf., e.g., 4.44.9 in parcendo uni malum publicam fiat. Linsmayer would remove the whole phrase. levitatis ac licentiae: notice the alliteration. 21. 6. imitamini... et. . . peccate: attempts have been made to salvage the unanimous manuscript lection peccatis, most recently by Bayet who improves on an emendation of Gruter's and proposes imitamini. . . inconsultam. at qui. . . debetis . . . peccetis. Such attempts, however, over­ look the fixed idiom by which the action which is to be imitated is linked by et or atque with the verb imitor, in the same tense and person. So 7. 26. 7 hunc imitare et sterne catervas; Plautus, Casina 954. peccatis was caused by assimilation to debetis. The thought is a commonplace, for which cf. Seneca, EpisL 7. 8. dum ego ne imiter: dum . . . ne 'provided that. . . not' does not occur in classical Latin outside the present passage except in official docu­ ments and the like, although dummodo ne is occasionally found in epistolary style. It is an archaic use (cf. Plautus, Cure. 36) which be­ came fossilized in the vocabulary of the lawyers. The solitary instance of it here is, therefore, particularly effective, suggesting, as it does, Cincinnatus' determination to stand by the mos maiorum. See Lex. Anton, de Termess. 34 ( = C.I.L. i 2 . 589) and other examples in Thes. Ling. Lat. 2225. 21-39. 21. 7. gloriam spreti honoris: 2. 47. 11 n., a commonplace. invidiam quae . . . impenderet: the verb impendeo, for immineo, occurs only here in L., and the surrounding phrases demonstrate that L. has in mind Cicero, in Catil. 1. 29. 21. 8. id suffragium non observaturos: the consuls could technically refuse to accept the names of candidates for election. 2 2 . 1 . d. Fabius: 3. 1. 1 n. The cognomen Vibulanus is said by Mommsen (Rom. Forsch. 2. 292) to be derived from a long-extinct village where the Fabii originated, but no trace of such a village can be found. The nomen Vibulenus is of Etruscan origin. L. Cornelius Maluginensis: Ser. f. P. n., son of the consul of 485 (2. 41. 12). He was in fact the father of the Decemvir (35. 11 n.), although the annalists, in particular Valerius Antias who wrote before the careful researches on the Fasti undertaken by Varro and Atticus, 814432

433

Ff

3- 22. I

459 B.C.

regarded him as the brother (40. 8, 41. 4). For the problem of his military operations see 23. 7 n. See also Miinzer, /?.£., 'Cornelius (256)'. The cognomen Maluginensis is also said to be derived from a lost home-town of the Gornelii. census actus: 1. 44. 2 n. lustrum . . . condi: 1. 44. 2 n. religiosum: 5. 40. 10. The notice, coming ultimately from the Annales, is probably derived from a different source (see below). 22. 2 - 2 3 . Military Operations during 459 L., abruptly changing his source, narrates in a bald style a series of military operations without making any attempt to weld them into a coherent story. The switch is indicated by the unique repetition of the consul's names (22. 1, 22. 2 ; for 9. 29. 1 see apparatus of O.C.T.), and the omission of cognomina on the second occasion argues for a different tradition, which was possibly older but at least kept closer to the spirit of the original Fasti. It would appear that L. reverts to Valerius Antias at the beginning of 24 since in 24. 8 the consuls return triumphantes. There is nothing in L.'s account in 22-23 to justify a triumph, but it is known from D.H. that one branch of the annalist tradition mentioned that Antium revolted and was recaptured by the efforts of the two consuls and the same tale, recorded in the Fasti Triumphales, is alluded to as a variant in 23. 7. Valerius Antias must have dealt with that stirring episode of Antian history and it follows that L. has temporarily abandoned him. The same conclusion ensues from the duplication of Roman gratitude for the recens Tusculanorum meritum (23. 1 = 31. 3 (Valerian)) and from the contradiction between 22. 1 census actus and 24. 10, suggesting as it does the duplica­ tion of the same event as a result of its being reported under separate years in two different authors. See Lachmann, De Fontibus, 59; Soltau 162; Burck 22-23; Klotz 261. 22. 2. principio anni: 4. 1. 1 n. bellum ingens: sc. imminere or the like. Allen, worried by the ellipse, proposed ingruens for ingens, which is not, however, attested (cf. 10. 21. n ) . For bellum ingens cf. 9. 32. 1 and for nuntiare bellum 'to announce a threat of war', cf. 31. 8. 3, 35. 50. 2. Latini: 4. 10 n. ut bellum praeverti sinerent: 'allow the war priority'. 22. 3 . Fabio ut. . . duceret datum: a variation on exercitus ducendus datur (2. 43. 5). There is thus no necessity for (negotium) datum (Allen). 22. 4. exfoedere: 4. 10 n. 22. 6. observari: observare N with socios as subject understood, which Pettersson rightly would retain, since the phrase is a technical military command and as such would be given directly in the active: so, e.g., Sallust, Jugurtha 51. 1. 434

459 B.C.

3. 22. 6

pariter et socii: understanding cives but we should perhaps read pariter (civ.es} et socii since in L. both terms are always expressed in such equivalences e.g. publicis pariter ac privatis (1. 34. 12, 54. 4, 2. 33. 10, 4- 59« 6, 5. 3. 8), pariterpatribusplebique (3. 64. 11, 34. 1, 4. 22. 4, 42. 9, 5-39-4)? cooptati pariter et qui cooptaverunt (5. 11. 4). 22. 8. adeptus: sc. hostes. 22. 9. silva texisset: N has the plural silvae texissent. Certainty is im­ possible but the wrong division in M (silva etexissent) engenders the suspicion that Ver. preserves the true reading. For a similarly vague use of the singular cf. Virgil, Aeneid 6. 443-4. But cf. T a c , Agr. 26. 4. 23. 2. recens: 18. 1-10. datum: Ruperti judiciously observed that dare auxilium is a preroga­ tive of gods (6. 29. 1; Virgil, Aeneid 2. 691) whereas mortals are said ferre auxilium as in the resolution of the Tusculan Senate (18. 4) placet ferri auxilium. latum, which he proposed, is inescapable. 23. 3 . cocti. . . cibi: Val. Max. 2. 7. 2. The normal provision for the Roman army was seventeen days' rations (Kromayer-Veith 423-5) although Josephus records an emergency manoeuvre when the troops took supplies for only three days (B.J. 3. 95). 23. 4. subire potuit: editors, misled in the first instance by Gronovius, have tended to emend into oblivion a peculiar idiom of L.'s who used potest with an act. infinitive as the equivalent of an impersonal, 'it is possible to, one can'. Cf. 3. 27. 7. ut nocte ad hostem pervenire (-iri Gronovius) posset; 6. 37. 8 numqui. . . segnius rem publicam administrare potest post p. Licini Calvi tribunatum (administrari [potest] Rhenanus); 7. 6. 2 neque earn voraginem . . . explere (-eri ed. princeps) potuisse; 2. 1. 6 ut bonam frugem . . .ferre posset (possent Aldus); 22. 34. 7, 35. 30. 4, 42. 65. 2. The idiom was first recognized by Welz and first illustrated by Pettersson. 23. 5. quo postquam ventum ad extremum est: ad extremum in L. must be temporal and cannot mean 'extremes of hunger' (see Fiigner, Lexicon s.v. ad). The sense must therefore be 'when they finally reached that condition (of starvation)' i.e. quo not qua ventum est (1. 59. 7). 23. 6. Columen: mod. la Colonna, a prominent outcrop near Tusculum (Nissen, Ital. Land. 2. 601). Although the modern name is not attested before the eleventh century, the site is old, deserves the name, and is topographically in position. 23. 7. eodem anno: the revolt of Antium, threatened in 22. 2, is de­ scribed at length by D.H. 10. 21, who seems to follow the tradition ascribed to.plerique by L. He details an extensive account of a massed attack by 6,000 Aequi on Tusculum, of the treachery of Herdonius, of the flight of the Aequi to Algidus where they are defeated by Fabius while Cornelius surprises and recaptures Antium. The focus on 435

3- 23- 7

459 B.C.

Antium and the precision of figures both point to Valerius Antias as being D.H.'s source and therefore included by L. among the plerique. It follows that L.'s main source for 22-23 1S n o t Valerius but should be Licinius. Licinius is not necessarily older than Valerius since vetustiores scriptores may refer to the authorities cited by the Sullan annalists. Thus L. applies vetustior to Calpurnius Piso (10. 9. 12). 24-29. The Dictatorship of Cincinnatus After a brief digression on external events L. returns to his main theme, the political situation at Rome and the contrasting characters of the politicians. He concentrates the attention on the personality of Cincinnatus. Whereas D.H. merely suggests that the popular clamour was for a dictatorship, L. narrows it to a cry for Cincinnatus. D.H. is interested in all the superficial details—the ploughing scene, the military operations, the circumstantial background; L. is interested in Cincinnatus because Cincinnatus is a homo vere Romanus, the perfect foil to Appius Claudius the Decemvir. Cincinnatus is reluctant to assume office, discharges it with exemplary devotion, and resigns it with speed. Claudius intrigues for power, misuses it, and has to be forced to abandon it. The two men are counterparts, representing the Roman ideal and its reverse, and for a reading public familiar with the evils of prolonged and usurped power L.'s message was clear. That the contrast between Cincinnatus and Claudius is deliberate and not fortuitous is demonstrated by the fact that the climax of their careers occupies the central section of the first Pentad (26-48) and that the curtain is raised on that section by the unique formula operae pretium est audire (26. 7 n.). It is not impossible that the Annales contained mention of the successive trials of M. Volscius (24. 3, 25. 3), of the triumphs (24. 8), of the peace with the Aequi (24. 10), of the census (24. 10), of the mission to the Aequi (25. 6), of the grant of citizenship to L. Mamilius (29. 6), of the military operations of Nautius and Fabius (29.7-8), and of the religious events (29. 9). But Cincinnatus' dictatorship itself, like the exploits of Coriolanus, is fluid in date, and cannot have been firmly embodied in the documentary tradition (26. 6 n.). Likewise the defeat of Gracchus Cloelius by Cincinnatus is only one manifesta­ tion of an apparently timeless legend of the gens Quinctia in which a Cloelius is defeated by a Quinctius. The story reappears in substan­ tially the same form in 4. 9. 12-10. 9 (cf. the similar duplication of the Mamilius-Herdonius conflict). See A. Solari, Studi Liviani, 67-80. 24. 1. hoc bello perfecto: abrupt, since the only war that could be meant is'the recapture of Antium, which L. has denied ever revolted. The reference must be to the account in Valerius (plerique) which L. was 436

459 B.C.

3- 24. 1

not at the time following. For similar unexplained references con­ cealing a change of source cf. 4. 1. 1 n. hos secuti; 4. 37. 3 n. his rebus actis. frustrationem . . ♦ legis tollendae: 'a deception consisting in, or aimed at, doing away with the bill5. The genitive, describing the object or purpose of the trick, is a favourite idiom of historians, cf, e.g., Sallust, Catil. 6. 7 and see Lofstedt, Syntactical 1. 171 n. 1. 24. 2. L. Lucretius: 8. 2 n. praefectus urbis: 1. 59. 12 n. 24. 3. A. Cornelius: can hardly be the consul of 428 (4. 30. 4) since the standing of his colleague Servilius suggests that he must have been a man of maturity. Nor is he likely to be the pontijex maximus of 431 (4. 27. 1 n.). If the praenomen A. is correct (and it is only reported by L.) he must be a brother of the consul of the year, L. Cornelius, but since quaestores parricidii appear to be persons of consular rank, A. may be regarded as a mistake or corruption for Ser. and Cornelius be identified as the consul of 485 (2. 41. 12), whose death is reported in 453 (3 2 - 3 n 0 - See Miinzer, R.E., 'Cornelius (12)'. Q,. Servilius: to be identified with Q . Servilius Priscus, consul in 468 and 466 (2. 64. 2). quaestores: 2. 35. 5 n. M. Volscius was accused of false testimony, a crime which could not be classed asperduellio (2. 41. 11 n.), but which could legitimately count as parricidium if the result of the evidence had resulted in a capital penalty or its equivalent. Since quaestores parricidi did exist before the Twelve Tables, the whole notice may be regarded as historical (Mommsen, Strqfrecht, 635 n. 2 ; Brecht, Perduellio^ 264 n. 1). 24. 4 in publico visum: the order of words given by Ver. is clearly superior to N's visum in publico since it secures an effective chiasmus in p. visum j adsurrexisse ex morbo and throws the emphasis on in publico as is required by the implied contrast with the possibility of his having been seen about the house. 24. 5. Jrequentem :jrequente Ver.; "que which is supplied by N produces an impossible combination 'at that time and assiduously5. N also adds -que wrongly at 3. 43. 6, 4. 21. 10, Ver. at 5. 44. 7 frequentesque. See also 52. 7 n., 2. 32. 10 n. 24. 7. comitia: after their investigation, the quaestores brought their findings to the comitia centuriata. 24. 8. triumphantes: in the Fasti Triumph.: L. Corne]lius Ser.f. P.n. M[aluginensis] an. CCXCIV Uriti]nus cos. de Volsceis [A]ntiatib. IV id, Mai. 24. 9. extremum . .. anni: 6. 1 n. The assumption must be that consuls and tribunes were elected at the same time, presumably in July, and entered office at the beginning of August. 437

3- 24. io

459 B.C.

24. 10. Aequis: but they renew hostilities in 25. 5. If sufficient trust could be placed in the evidence for the revolt of Antrum, it would be tempting to associate the peace not with the Aequi but with the Volsci Antiates. census: 22. 1. T h e event must have been reported by different authors under separate years. For the figures cf. 1. 44. 2 n. decimum: the twentieth is noticed in 293 (10. 47. 2). T h e fact is doubtless genuine. As, however, there was as yet no fixed interval for the ceremony lustrum condere it is impossible to base any conjectures on it as to the antiquity either of the pontifical records or of the city of Rome itself. 25. 1. L. Minucius: P.f. M.n., a son of the consul of 492 (2. 34. 1). H e was a prominent figure in the history of the next twenty years: for even if his inclusion in the second college of Decemvirs is false (35. 11 n.) and as a consequence the activities alleged to have been undertaken by him against the Aequi (41. 10, 42. 5-7) no more than imaginary, he is indissolubly associated with the fate of Sp. Maelius and his name perpetuated both by the entry cpraefectusy in the libri lintei for 440 and 439 (4. 12. 8 n., 13. 7-8) and by the statue decreed him by the Senate for his services in informing against Maelius (4. 16. 2 n.). A prosecution levelled against him for false testimony in 436 is mythical (4. 21. 3 n.). L. lists him as the ordinary consul with Nautius but the Capitoline Fasti for the year record that he -was cos, suff. and that he succeeded Carven[ who died in office. A garbled version of the same tradition survives in Diodorus (11. 88. 1) who ascribes to Minucius as cos. ord. the impossible cognomen Kapovrlavos. T h e late chronographers who de­ rive from imperial Fasti also supply the cognomen Atratinus. T h e entry in the Capitoline Fasti should be restored as [M. Papirius - f. -]n. Carven[tanus] and be regarded as a doublet of 4. 52. 4 n., where the libri lintei gave M . Papirius Atratinus as the colleague of C. Nautius in the consulship. See further Hermes 89 (1961), 379 ff C. Nautius: cos. 475 (2. 52. 6). 25. 2. M. Valerio Manif.: Valeri f. manuscripts. Valeri could be a corruption for Volusi but there is no evidence of a father and son Valerius at this date both called Volusus (4. 49. i n . ) . It is a ducto­ graphy of Valerio. In restoring the filiation M\f. rather than M.f., thereby making him the son of the dictator of 494 (2. 30. 5), it is assumed that he is to be identified as the consul of 456 (31. 1 n.) whose name is given in its entirety by the Capitoline Fasti as M\f. Volusi n. (Volkmann, R.E., 'Valerius (246)'). D.H. (10. 8) in his version of the trial does not name the quaestors: M . Valerius here may owe some­ thing to the interpolations of Valerius Antias. For the trial see 24. 3 n., 2. 35- 5 n. 438

458 B.C.

3- 25. 2

T. Quinctio: cos. 471 (2. 56. 5). 25. 3. iusto acpio helium'. 1. 32. 7 n. 25. 5. primo anno: 24. 10 n. Gracchum Cloelium: for the name Cloelius cf. 1. 23. 3 n. Gracchus is surprising. It is not held by anyone before the Sempronii and of that family first by Ti. S. G., consul in 236. T h e name is Etruscan in origin (Schulze 172). O n all counts, its etymology and its anachronism and its employment as a praenomen, it should be viewed with misgiving. T h e doubts harden when it is realized that the whole narrative is a duplication of the exploits of Aequus Cluilius (4. 9. 12 n . : see Pais, Ancient Legends, 191 ; Miinzer, R.E., 'Cloelius (1) and (7)'). T h e later story has some historical foundation. A peril was invented worthy of Cincinnatus' mettle. See also next note. 25. 6. in Lanuvinum agrum, inde in Tusculanum: D.H. 10. 22. 4 has only iAdaas /xe'x/0*- TVUKXOV 7roAeojj. Editors from Cluver and Gruter have emended Lanuvinum to Labicanum, arguing by analogy from 7. 3 that the Aequi, who were situated to the east and south of Rome could not have been operating on the coastal plain, the area liable to inroads of Volsci. In 4. 9. 12, however, Gracchus Cloelius' exemplar, Aequus Cluilius, is a Volscian and is operating in agro Lanuvino round the town of Ardea and it is credible enough that details of geography should have been transferred as well as those of identity. legati: may be a duplication of the embassy in 466 (2. 3 n . ; cf. D.H. 9. 60. 3-6), when Q,. Fabius also demanded retribution from the Aequi. For Q . Fabius see 1. i n . , for Volumnius 10. 5 n., for Postumius 2. 42. 5 n. et ex \eo~\foedere: cf. 1. 23. 7 exfoedere . . . repetitae sint (Sigonius). The mention of the specific treaty is too far back (25. 5) for the demon­ strative to refer to it. 25. 7. ad quercum iubet dicere: an archaic detail of folk-lore is incor­ porated, which is to be connected with the religious origin of the iugum (first mentioned in 28. 11). Like the tigillum sororium (1.26. 13 n.), the trixylon or arch made of three staves (D.H. 3. 22) or spears had the magical property of divesting the enemy of their power to do harm. By passing under the yoke the enemy were immunized (Warde Fowler, Essays, 70 ff.). T h e belief in divine power latent in wood should be associated with the Latin conception of Juppiter as an oakgod (A. B. Cook, C.R. 18 (1904), 362-79), as at Tibur (Pliny, N.H. 16. 237), Laurentum (Virgil, Aeneid 11. 851), and Querquetulani; cf. the cult of Juppiter Feretrius at Rome (1. 10. 1 ff. n.). It was a pre­ dominantly Latin cult and the retribution brought upon the Aequi by their contempt of it can be seen as a vindication of the Latin gods against the less effective gods of their enemy. T h e motif of telling an inquirer to voice his complaints to an inanimate object is primitive; 439

3- as. 7

458 B.C.

see the examples in Stith-Thompson, Motif Index of Folk Literature, D 1311. 4. The oaks of Algidus were still famous in L.'s day (cf. Horace, Odes 4. 4. 58). cuius umbra opaca: opaca must be nominative agreeing with sedes and umbra be a dependent ablative on opaca, as at Tacitus, Hist. 5. 3 rupem nemore opacam. 'whose shadow made a shady seat'. The parting remark of the legate which follows is strongly sacral in style. It is implied that they are Fetiales officially declaring war (D.H. 10. 23. 1). 25. 8. quercus: i.e. Juppiter. Cf. the formula in 1. 32. 9 n., echoed here. quidquid deorum est: 17. 5, 2. 5. 7, 23. 9. 3. Compare the prayer which opens Horace's fifth Epode. adsint: 2. 55. 6 n. 26. 1. foedati: often means little more than 'covered with blood' (Plautus, Amph. 246; Virgil, Aeneid 3. 241), but usually with the primary notion of defilement where the locality is sacred (18. ro). The word is unexpected here but was evidently in L.'s mind at the time for it occurs again at 32. 4 and elsewhere only once, 7. 34. 1. A case of subconscious repetition (1. 14. 4 n.). nudati agri was suggested by Cornelissen (44. 27. 4). 26. 2. Eretum: 29. 7, 38. 3 and thereafter only mentioned as a poststage on the Via Salaria (Strabo 5. 228; Jtin. Anton. 306). It lay 17 miles from Rome and the site is identified by Ashby (P.B.S.R. 3 (1906), 27-30, following earlier antiquarians) near Casa Cotta. Its insignificance in later history, due in part to the spread of malaria, indicates that the importance ascribed to it in the present campaigns is historically authentic. A road from Capena and Lucus Feroniae leads to a Tiber crossing there. comparati ad earn: 'compared with', ad + ace. in this idiom, instead of the dat., does not appear to be found before L. except in Terence, Eunuch. 681. Its frequency in late Latin (Lofstedt, Syntactica, 1. 188) might favour the view that it was a colloquialism (Introduction p. 21). reddidit: 60. 5, Nautius returned the Sabine plunderings with in­ terest. 26. 4. crevit . . . audacia: 2. 47. 8. 26. 5. tarn nee \iri\opinatum\ 1. 57. 7 nee [injopinato viri adventu; 6. 40. 3 neque novum neque inopinatum. The manuscripts present inopinatus once and necinopinatus, a monstrous word, twice, necopinatus occurs twelve times in L., inopinatus also at 34. 28. 10; moreover, necopinatus, a Ciceronian word, dies under the early Empire (last occurrence is in Florus) and was entirely replaced in general usage by inopinatus. At 6. 40. 3 the form inopinatum is guaranteed because the jingle resulting from neque nee- would be intolerable and because the combination of novus with inopinatus is a rhetorical cliche. In the two other places the 440

458 B.C.

3- 26. 5

intrusive in must represent the redaction made in the fourth century when the obsolete necop. was glossed as inop. 26. 6. L. Quinctius . . . dicitur: it is doubtful whether the dictatorship of Cincinnatus was securely dated in the Annales, since it is duplicated twenty years later in 439 (4. 13. 12) and his method of treating Minucius in 29. 2-3 betrays the embarrassed attempts of antiquarians to square the dictatorship with the absence of any record in the Annales that the consuls resigned. The two main incidents of his life, the call from the plough and the rescue of the trapped army, are purely legendary. The ploughing incident is not tied to any one phase in his career; D.H. attributes it both to his sufFect consulship (10. 17. 3) and to his dictatorship while Cicero (de Senect. 56) places it at the time of his second dictatorship. It sits very uneasily even in L.'s narrative since it is hard to see how Cincinnatus could still be quasi relegatus after paying his son's vadimonium, if he had been consul in the meanwhile. It is also worth recalling that the mutineers of 342 (7. 38. 5-42. 7) elected as general a T. Quinctius, living on a farm at Tusculum. The call from the plough was, therefore, a timeless episode involving a Quinctius. The rescue also occurs more than once in the pages of history: T. Quinctius relieves the consul Furius in 464 (4. i o n . ) . The reason for anchoring it to 458, the consulship of Minu­ cius and Nautius, seems to be none other than that a descendant of Minucius, M. Minucius C.f. Rufus, dictator in 217, was involved in a precisely similar predicament and had to be rescued by Q . Fabius Maximus (Polybius 3. 103-5). See Pais, Ancient Legends, 191; Hirschfeld, Kl. Schriften, 247; Piganiol, Mel. a" Arch, et d'Hist. 38 (1920), 288-91; J. Pinsent, C.J. 55 (1959), 83. 26. 7. operae pretium est audire: a magnificent exordium ushering on to the stage the one man who exemplifies the highest Roman qualities of character. The phrase, 'an old introductory formula which in all probability originally belonged to forensic oratory' (Fraenkel, Horace, 81), can be illustrated from Greek (Aristophanes, Equites 624; Andocides 1. 124; Isaeus 6. 35) and Latin (Ennius, Annals 465 V . ; Horace, Sat. 1. 2. 37; Plautus, Cos. 879; Terence, Andria 217: the references are FraenkePs) but is employed only here by L. (Praef. 1 n.). This uniqueness stresses the emphasis which L. wishes to place on the moral character of Cincinnatus. It is a new opening. We are now to witness the contrast between contemporary decadence and ancient simplicity, between Cincinnatus and Appius Claudius. ubi effuse qffluant opes: qfluo, read by M, was a technical term devised by Cicero to translate the Epicurean airoppelv: it had no wider vogue (B. Dombart, Neuejahrb.f. Class. Phil. 115 (1877), 341-7; Stocklein, Prog. Dillingen, 1894, 31 ff.; Sinko, Tkes. Ling. Lat. s.v. 'affluo'). For opes qffluere 'abound' cf. Sallust, Cat. 36. 4. The word-order shows that 441

3- 26. 7

458 B.C.

effuse must be adverbial and be taken with affluant (e.g. i. io. 4 against 40.44.12).^ 26. 8. navalia: the docks on the left bank of the Tiber in the Campus Martius (see plan). First mentioned in connexion with the victory over the Antiates in 338 (8. 14. 12) and perhaps referred to in a line of Ennius (477 V.), they figure prominently thereafter (references in Luglij Fontes, 5. 58. 46-58). For the site see Platner-Ashby s.v.; Weiss, R.E., 'Navalia'; A. Elter, Rh. Mus. 46 (1891), 128. prata Quinctia: four iugera of land in the ager Vaticanus on the right bank of the Tiber (Pliny, N.H. 18. 20; Festus 306 L.). It is probable that the name was old and that the site of Cincinnati^' farm was sub­ sequently localized there for etymological reasons to explain the name. T h e aetion was elaborated, for there is later mention of a Vicus Raciliani (C.I.L. 6. 975) and a collegium iuvenum Racillanensium (see Platner-Ashby s.v.). salute data: 10. 18. 11. 26. 9. quod bene verteret: 1. 28. 1, 3. 35. 8, 62. 5, 7. 39. 13, 10. 18. 14, 35. 14, 29. 22. 5. Elsewhere the pious aside is confined to Plautus (e.g. Aul. 175, 257, 272; Trin. 502) and Terence (Eun. 390; Phormio 552). Nero used the formula in his prayers at the opening of the work on the Corinth canal (Suetonius 37). satin salve: 1. 58. 7 n., the archaic greeting. Raciliam: a Latin name (Schulze 443). T h e only other known holder of it was L. Racilius, tr. pi. in 56. 26. 1 1 . navis: a detail inspired by the two ferries which the ports in the Aurelian Walls prove to have plied there in later times. amici, turn: Ver. reads amid tui et turn, which may represent an old variant in its exemplar but the wrong insertion of et (5. 32. 8, 50. 5) in that manuscript is an argument against reading amid turn et here. turn et is not found in the first Pentad. 26. 12. et virum in ipso imperio vehementiorem: I accept Walters' imperium for imperii but there is no need to follow Doujat in deleting in; see Gronovius's note. 27. 1. L. Tarquinium: so also D.H. 10. 24. 3. Tarquitium in the Capitoline Fasti (Sigonius) is a pedantic emendation by the compilers (Degrassi 24 f., 362 f.) under the influence of the fact that, whereas Tarquinii are virtually unheard of in the late Republic, Tarquitii are well known, e.g. C. Tarquitius, quaestor in 8 1 ; L. Tarquitius (Cicero, ad Att. 6. 8. 4). sed qui cum . . . fecisset: to be retained. A double opposition is implied. Tarquinius is a patrician but too poor to be a knight, Tarquinius fought in the ranks but his prowess made him the leading figure in the army (Mikkola, Konzessivitdt, 45). 44^

458 B.C.

3. 27. 2

27. 2. iustitium: 3. 6 n. 27. 3. duodenis: hardly credible, since in Per. 57 ad septenos vallos is a severe fatigue, while the usual complement was three or four (Polybius 18. 18. 8). D.H. 10. 24 does not specify the number but Ver. by its reading: val[lisque ante solis[ suggests that with 19 letters as the average for the line duodenis is too short. I would propose quaternis. [Martio] in campo : the order of words would be unprecedented. For the rare in Martio campo cf. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 13; Val. Max. 9. 2. 1. T h e choice lies between deleting Martio as a gloss (Niebuhr) or re­ arranging, as in M. c. (H. J . Muller) or in c. M. (Luterbacher). 2 7 . 6 . itineri. . . proelio: technical; cf. Tacitus, Annals 13.40. 2 ; Curtius 3- 8 - 2 3 quas tempus ipsum poscebat adhortationes: the encouragement is framed in short, passive sentences that distinguish Latin military style (pbsideri, clausos esse, incertum esse, verti;cL E. Fraenkel, Eranos 54 (1956), 189-94) and is couched in archaically colloquial language suitable to the age (maturato 1. 58. 5 n . ; for adderent gradum 'put on the pace' cf. 10. 20. 10, 26. 9. 5, Plautus, Trin. 1010 adde gradum, adpropera). T h e thoughts are cliches (Thucydides 7. 69. 2 ) : for puncto . . . verti, a Greek senti­ ment, cf Cicero, Phil. 5. 26; Tacitus, Annals 5. 4. 27. 7. pervenire posset: 23. 4 n. 27. 8. iAdcelera>: without the destination expressed is a military command; cf. Caesar, B.G. 7. 87. 3 accelerat Caesar. 28. 1-10. Notice the careful variation of the structure. T h e initial reconnoitre is described in long, periodic sentences. As soon as the time for action comes the operations are related in short sentences without any connecting particles. L. manages to adapt the rhythm of his language to the rhythm of the battle. 28. 7. prohibenda: for the infinitive cf. 4. 2. 12, 5. 49. 8, 22. 60. 3. T h e marvellous circumvallation of the Aequi does not figure in D.H. 10. 24. 28. 8. prior: added to expand and explain ilia (nom. = pugna). 28. 9. ut: where two clauses, the first negative, the second positive, are introduced by ne, it is usual, as at 46. 9, for the second to be linked to the first by an adversative et or atque (cf. Curtius 8. 14. 35 ; see Walch, Emendationes, 227). Allen proposed etfov ut here, but the passage is so carefully balanced (a proelio / adpreces; hinc . . . hinc) that two indepen­ dent clauses (ne . . . ponefent, ut sinerent) suit the rhythm better. infensus: M a d v i g ; cf. 29. 31. 12, 1. 53. 10 n. T h e incensus of the 443

3- 28. g

458 B.C.

manuscripts would require odio, ira, or the like expressed. See Wolfflin, Livian. Kritik> 14. 28. 10. iugum: 1. 26. 13 n. L.'s explanation is a rationalization of a primitive apotropaic rite, examined by S. Eitrem, Symb. Osl. 25 (1947), 39-40 with bibliography. 28. 11. sub hoc iugum: the ace. is invariable with sub after mitto in the phrase. 29. 2 - 3 . The resignation of Minucius is entirely duplicated from the case of M. Minucius in 217, described by L. 22. 29. 7—11. It is intro­ duced to account for the fact that there was no primitive record of Cincinnatus , dictatorship in this year and hence no mention of any abdication by Minucius. In constitutional theory the dictatorship would put all the other magistracies into suspension (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 249). See Walsh, Livy> 9 0 ; T. A. Dorey, J.R.S. 47 (1957), 92-96 (unreliable). 29.3. coronam auream: the difficulty of the phrase has not been felt, since at 26. 48. 14, which is usually cited as a parallel, the right reading is corona <J)aurea. Golden crowns were of three categories: (1) a large golden crown held by a slave over the triumphator's head (Pliny, N.H. 33. 11; Juvenal 10. 39); these were of very late institution; (2) golden crowns contributed by allied states as tokens of gratitude and carried in the triumph (Paulus Festus 504 L.; Aul. Gell. 5. 6. 5-7); (3) golden crowns dedicated in the temple of Juppiter Gapitolinus out of the spoil (2. 22. 6, 3. 57. 7, 4. 20. 4, 7. 38. 2, 32. 27. 1, 36. 35. 12, 43. 6. 6, 44. 14. 3). A presentation of a golden crown to the dictator by the army is unprecedented. It is possible that there was preserved in the Capitoline Temple a crown of the third category with some inscription as Quinctius dictator vovit which was misinterpreted by Valerius Antias as being a gift to Cincinnatus in recognition of his success whereas it could have been a dedication by the genuine T. Quinctius Cincinnatus Gapitolinus, dictator of 380, who is known to have set up at least one inscription on the Capitol (6. 29. 9 tabula . . . his ferme incisa litteris fuit: 'Iuppiter atque divi omnes hoc dederunt ut T. Quinctius dictator oppida novem capered). praefecto: 1. 59. 12 n. 29. 4. triumphantem: in the Fasti Triumph.: L. Quinjctius L.f. L.n. Cincin[n]atus an. CCXCV dict(ator)] de Aequeis idibus Septembr. militaria signa: 3. 10 n. 29. 5. carmine triumphali: L. describes a Roman triumph one of whose most prominent features was the ribald and impromptu singing in versus quadratus that accompanied the procession. There are numerous 444

458 B.C.

3- 29- 5

references to the custom (4. 20. 2, 53. n , 5. 49. 7, 10. 30. 9; D.H. 2. 34, 7. 72 ; Plutarch, Marcellus 8; Aem. Paullus 34; Appian, Libyc. 66; Pliny, N.H. 19. 144). 29. 6. Mamilio: not in D.H., but not necessarily a doublet of 18. i o n . Citizen-rights were a talking-point in the second century (Appian, B.C. 1. 23) and the precedent of L. Mamilius was cited (cf. Gato fr. 25 P.). It was part of the oldest historical tradition. comitia: 2. 41. 11 n. in exsilium abiit: 13. 8; the preposition is only omitted when it can be understood airo KOLVOV (Catullus 33. 5; Val. Max. 3. 8. 4). D.H. follows another tradition which keeps Volscius continuously in the tribunate with Verginius for five years ending with 457. 29. 7. sexto decimo: the figure was probably inspired by the reflection that a trinundinum had to elapse between the report of the investigating magistrates (25. 3) and the vote in the comitia. Gincinnatus5 tenure of office represents two-thirds of that interval. Gf. 4. 34. 5; 47. 6. Fabius [QJ ".3. 1. 1 n. 29. 8. crearet: Ver.; for the singular cf. 4. 16. 7. 29. 9. lupos: 5. 14 n. lustratum: 18. 10. 30-32. Annalistic Notices: the Preliminaries to the Decemvirate The character and career of Gincinnatus have been depicted. It is now time to pass on to his opposite, Appius Claudius. In L.'s sources, however, a considerable quantity of material interposed which L. is eager to hasten over. His record for this year is both terse and defec­ tive. The concision can be judged by D.H.'s treatment of the Lex Icilia (31. 1) for he devotes several paragraphs to what L. dismisses in six words. The omissions include the Siccius episode (43. 2 n.) which figures largely in D.H. (10. 37), and the Lex Aternia Tarpeia (31. 5 n.). It follows that L. felt obliged to deal with the details in his sources but had no wish to linger over them. His style is equally impatient. There are no indications that L. has abandoned Valerius Antias. Such evidence as there is points to the opposite conclusion. The allusion to the Tusculani (31. 3) is a doublet of the similar note in the Licinian 23. 3. L.'s source was late Republican, evidently active after 80 B.G. (31. 5 n.), and followed the tradition of Piso (30. 7 n.). How far his facts were reliable is difficult to judge but if, apart from the embassy to Athens (31. 8 n.), the figures for the fines (31. 6 n.) and the casualties at Algidus (31. 4)—typically Valerian sums both -are bogus, the remaining core looks impressively authentic. See Soltau 160; Burck 289; Klotz 263-5. 30. 1. Q. Minucius: P.f. M.n., a brother of the consul of the preceding year. 445

3. 30. i

457 B.C.

M. Horatius Pulvillus: for the praenomen see Broughton, p. 27, n. 1 ; for the cognomen see 2. 8. 4 n. He was consul in 477 (2. 51. 1 n.). 30. 2. exarserant animis: as at Tacitus, Annals 1. 51. 8; cf. Sallust, Hist. 2. 44 animi exarsere. 30. 3. subitarium: 4. 11 n. (Valerius). 30. 4. additus terror: Ver.'s reading (. . ditur terros) suggests that a switch of final consonants occurred in an early stage of the trans­ mission, which was emended to additur terror in the Nicomachean recension. The past tense is required: cf. 25. 9, 38. 4, 9. 40. 13. agros Romanos: read agrum Romanorum (cf. 2. 43. 1) with Ver. Where agri is used in the plural it denotes individual fields. Here Roman territory in general is meant. 30. 5. perculit: 38. 6. parvum: parum is enticing. 30. 7. tricensimo sexto anno: allowing for the two pairs of consuls whom L. omits in the story of Coriolanus, and assuming that 492 (2. 34. 1) was the first year a primis, the figure agrees with the number of eponyms contained in L.'s narrative. See 33. 1 n., 4. 7. 1 n. decern: it was argued above (2. 58. 1 n.) that in 471 the tribunes were increased from two to four, not five, in number, and that they were associated with the four urban tribes. The subsequent number ten, which prevailed in historical times, was the result of the assimila­ tion of the tribunate into the Roman constitution, whereby tribunes became magistrates and not extra-constitutional commissars. Such a change cannot be dated before the Decemvirate. An explanation may be found in the fact that the consul of 449, who initiated several democratic reforms, was also a M. Horatius (Barbatus). Hence the increase in the tribunate was associated with the wrong M. Horatius and transferred from 449 to 457. See references at 2. 58. 1 n. For L.'s omission of the Siccius episode see 48. 2 n. 30. 8. Ortonam: 2. 43. 2 n. multos mortales occidit: 1. 9. 8 n. 31. 1. M. Valerius: 25. 3 n. Sp. Verginius: A.f. A.n., son of the consul of 494 (2. 28. 1). annona: from the Annales. de Aventino: archaeological and literary evidence agree that the Aventine, lying outside the city walls and the pomerium, was only sparsely populated before the middle of the fifth century (A. Merlin, UAventin; Bayet, tome 3, 126-9; F. Castagnoli, Topogrqfia . . .di Roma, 18; G. Lugli, IMonumenti Antichi, 3. 548-59). But the establishment by Servius Tullius of the Latin cult of Diana on the Aventine points to the fact that already it was beginning to be felt as the focus not so much of the plebeian element in the state as of all the emigrants from 446

456 B.C.

3-3 1 - *

Latium and abroad. T h e land in R o m e itself was monopolized by indigenous Romans. T h e outsiders had to look elsewhere. As their numbers increased they could bring growing pressure on the Senate until they succeeded in extorting the necessary permission to settle on the Aventine. T h a t the right to build on the Aventine was gained at this date (456) is also suggested by the fact that whereas the First Secession was to the Mons Sacer, the Second in 449 was to the Aven­ tine. But whether the bill was proposed by the tr. pi. Icilius as is implied by 32. 7 and described in detail by D.H. is more doubtful. T h e name of the mover would not be associated officially with the terms of the bill and, in any case, a tribune could not be responsible for legislation. See E. S. Staveley, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 12-23. 3 1 . 2. refecti. insequente: the conjecture found in U is certain. Ver. by its corrupt refectis his sequente shows that the text was already disturbed before the fourth century and Nicomachus' refecti. hi sequenti is a mere emendation of it, a bad emendation because sequente for insequente would be unique here (Stacey, Archiv Lat. Lex. 10 (1898), 61 ; Fiigner) and since there is no preceding insequor to make the prefix carried over (19. n n.) and nothing in the context to call for an unusually striking word, the normal insequente is needed. T h e ellipse of the demonstrative can be paralleled by many passages in L. (1. 50. 8, 5. 44. 3, 7. 40. 2, 8- 3- 55 9- 41. 2 ; Pettersson). T h e corruption arose from isequente. T. Romilio: the antiquity of the family is proved both by the legend of Denter Romulius (Tacitus, Annals 6. 11) and by the existence of the tribus Romulia. He is, however, the only member of the family to reach the Fasti. Cf. 33. 3 : see Alfbldi, Hermes 90 (1962), 206. C. Veturio: son or grandson of the consul of 499 (2. 19. 1). See 32. 3 ; Gundel, R.E., 'Veturius (10)'. iaceret: 'lie dormant'. T h e use is colloquial. Other than 4. 51. 4, another plebeian outburst, the only times it appears to occur in this sense are in racy letters; e.g. Cicero, ad Att. 7. 23. 3 ; Caelius, adFam. 8. 6. 4. 31. 3. recens . . . auxilii: = 23. 2. in Algido: D.H.'s Avriov is no more than a textual corruption for AXytiov (Klotz264). 3 1 . 4. praeda: 2. 42. 1 n. 3 1 . 5. Sp. Tarpeio, A. Aternio: 65. 1 n. Mystery enshrouds both men (Krebs, R.E., 'Aternius'; Miinzer, R.E., 'Tarpeius (4)'). Neither name is found again in the Fasti, or indeed in any prominent con­ nexion in R o m a n history. Aternius is perhaps Etruscan in form (Schulze 269) althoughBorghesi (QEuvres, 9. 55) derived it from the river Aternus in southern Italy. It is found on late inscriptions (C.I.L. 6. 16628; 10. 5162: I.G. 2 2 . 4245, 3992). Tarpeius (1. 11. 6 n.) likewise may be Etruscan. In that case it must be supposed that they were 447

3-3i. 5

454 B.C.

representatives of two old Roman families which died out after the fifth century. Romilius affords an obvious parallel. On the other hand they are always associated as a pair, and always in connexion with the Lex Aternia Tarpeia, a law regulating the payment of fines in money instead of cattle (Aul. Gell. 11. i. 2 ; Festus 270 L.; Cicero, de Rep. 2. 60). The fact that there was another tradition, doubtless inspired by political motives, which made them extraordinary tribunes (65. 1) because the law to which they gave their names ought to have been a popular, i.e. tribunician, measure and not a consular one, gives rise to the possibility that originally they had no fixed place in the Fasti or in the orthodox chronology. Like Papirius and Sempronius of the Ardeatine treaty (4. 7. 10 n.) they were inserted into it later. Money fines before 430 are difficult to credit. L. himself makes no allusion to the law. C. Calvio [Claudio] Cicerone: a surprising name. D.H. (10. 48. 2 52. 5) attributes the prosecution to the plebeian hero, L. Siccius Dentatus, and has not a breath about Cicero. The legend about Siccius is ancient (Munzer, R.E., 'Siccius (3)'; Klotz 264; Klio 33 (1940), 173-9). He has all the characteristics of a timeless Roman hero. Cicero, on the other hand, is an upstart. The earliest recorded Calvius is M. Calvius A.f., a merchant at Delos in 74 B.C. (B.C.H. 8 (1884), 146 ff.). The cognomen Cicero was unheard of before a novus homo from Arpinum gave it a certain notoriety in the 8o's. In short, it would seem that Valerius Antias has substituted, out of compliment to M. Tullius Cicero, a putative ancestor in the person of C. Calvius Cicero. The substitution gave a spurious air of antiquity to the name. Claudio is a less choice dittography for Calvio. A similar objection may be brought against L. Alienus. Quite apart from the impossibility of an aedile prosecuting at so early a date (6. 9 n.; it is an anachronism: for the subsequent jurisdiction of the aediles in historical times see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 492), the name Alienus is not to be found before C. Alienus, subscriptor of Q . Caecilius in the preliminaries of the Verrine case conducted in 70 B.C. (Div. in Caec. 48). 31. 6. decern milibus: 2. 52. 5 n. 31. 7. consenuerat: 'lapsed', cf. Cicero, de Orat. 1. 247. aequandae libertatis: 39. 8 n., 56. 9, 67. 9, 4. 5. 1, 38. 50. 8. aequa libertas was a political slogan of the late Republic (cf. Cicero, de Rep. l - 43> 53> 69), with a peculiarly Roman meaning. Unlike the Greek cXevdepia which was equivalent to equality of political rights (laovofita and larjyopia), aequa libertas was not so radically democratic, meaning no more than equality before the law (Cicero, pro Cluentio 146). libertas was not incompatible with government by a few who possessed dignitas or auctoritas. It was incompatible with laws of personal excep­ tion, privilegia. aequa libertas significantly is used with regard to cor448

454 B.C.

3- 3"- 7

porate bodies, not individuals. The interpretation of the Decemvirate as an attempt by the plebs to secure relief from adverse discrimination under unwritten laws was, therefore, devised by Sullan annalists. Valerius Antias is cited at 38. 54 ff. as advancing such an inter­ pretation of the trial of Scipio in 187 B.C. See further C. Wirszubski, LibertaSy 9-15. 31. 8. daturum: the distinction between a lex data (e.g. 9. 20. 5) and a lex rogata is clear and unambiguous. Mommsen argued that since the Decemvirs possessed extraordinary powers they did not have to submit their laws to the comitia. In fact, they did submit them for approval and the consulare imperium with which they were invested could not have dispensed them from the obligation in any case. Read laturum with Klockius: cf. Cicero, Or. fr. A. 7. 8 legem . . . dedit. quid est hoc ^dedif? an tulit> an rogavit, an hortatus est? The Embassy to Athens On the contested question of the historicity of the embassy to Athens two preliminary points may be stated. L. presents the purpose of the embassy as being to secure a new code of laws. As a matter of historical fact the issue was not the supersession of an old system by a new system. It was the codification and publication of existing laws. Till the Decemvirate, Roman laws were unwritten and by their very nature, therefore, arbitrary and tyrannical. The plebs was pressing for open justice. Secondly, the existence of certain Greek elements and concepts in the Twelve Tables cannot seriously be denied (Wenger, Die Quellen des Rbmischen Rechts, 1953, 364-72; see the review, by A. Momigliano, J.R.S. 33 (1943), 102-3, who inclines to ^scepticism; B. Friedmann, Die ionischen und attischen Worter im Altlatein). . The earliest version merely states that Decemvirs were appointed qui et summum imperium haberent et leges scriberent (Diod. 12.26; Cicero, de Rep. 2. 61). There is no whisper of Athens. Subsequently, in part no doubt as a result of Sex. Aelius Paetus' commentary on the Twelve Tables which will have drawn attention to the Greek elements in them, the notion of an embassy to explore Greek models was adumbrated (Pomponius, Dig. 1. 2. 2; cf. Dio = Zonaras 7. 18). Once the idea of a Greek origin had taken root it was natural that it should grow and that it should be invested with circumstantial details, names of people and places. Two main lines were followed. Varro claimed to have seen a statue Hermodori Ephesii in comitio legum quas decemviri scribebant interpretis, pub lice dicata (Pliny, jV.//. 34. 21). Hermodorus was then alleged to have been a contemporary of Heraclitus and, being banished from Ephesus, to have fled to the West with the secrets of Ionian justice (Strabo 14. 642 ; Diog. Laert. 9. 2: Diels-Kranz, Frag, der Vorsokr. 22 B 121 ; for a possible work by Hermodorus see Wilamowitz, Abhand. Akad. 814432

449

eg

3-3i.8

454 B.C.

Berlin, 1909, 17). Munzer, however, has advanced the attractive view that the statue which Varro saw was none other than the dedication by Heraclitus and Hermocrates who were sent as delegates from Ephesus to Rome towards the close of the Mithradatic War in 80 B.C. (C.I.L. 6. 373 = Dessau, I.L.S. 34). It was tempting for antiquarians familiar with the traditional connexion between Rome and Ephesus as symbolized in the cult of Diana (1. 45. 2 n.) to antedate such contacts. To most Romans, however, law meant Solon's laws and it was in­ evitable that sooner or later the Twelve Tables should be associated with Athens. The first suggestion of it may have been made by L. Aelius Stilo Praeconinus (Suetonius, Gram. 3; E. Ruschenbusch (Historia 12 (1963), 250 ff.) would attribute it to Servius Sulpicius Rufus in 55-52 B.C. but the evidence is inconclusive). It is difficult to believe there is any substratum of truth at all. True, Rome was emer­ gent and ambitious, but there were sources of Greek law much nearer to hand than Athens. One might have expected, if there were relations between the two cities, that Rome would have played some part in the events leading up to the colonization of Thurii in 443. But neither over that matter nor on any other does Rome leave a mark in the Greek sources (for Thucydides 2. 37. 1 see Gomme's note). There is no necessary connexion between the Twelve Tables and the reforms of Ephialtes. The whole episode is a fiction of the early first century. See further Helbig, Atti Acad. Lincei, 6 (1889), 79 ff.; F. Bosch, de XII Tabularum lege, Diss. Gottingen, 1893; Berger, R.E., 'tabulae duodecim'; Volterra, Diritto Romano, 84; Taubler, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Decemvirats, 14-63; G. Ciulei, £#7. Sav.-Stift. 64 (1944), 350-4. i L. Ferrero, Storia del Pitagorismo, 129 f., who detects Tarentine influence. Sp. Postumius: 2. 42. 5 n. A. Manlius: 2. 54. 1 n. P. Sulpicius: 10. 5 n. All three names were selected because they were known to have been Decemvirs (33. 3 n.). 32. 1. P. Curiatio: -f. -n. Fistus Trigeminus according to the Fasti. He is also listed as a Decemvir in 451 (33. 3). The Curiatii were legendary (1. 24. 1 n.) but, beyond a tribune of the plebs in 401 (5. 11. 4 n.), no other Curiatii achieve mention until two second-century moneyers C. Cur{iatius) Trigeminus) and his son C. Cur(iatius) Trig(eminus) f(ilius). The other authorities, however, all conspire on the same nomen and praenomen (references in Broughton; Munzer, R.E., 'Curiatius (6)'), except for D.H. who in both places calls him P. Horatius. Since the list of Decemvirs is to be trusted, we may trust Curiatius too and regard D.H.'s Horatius as a mere conjecture based on the rarity of the name Curiatius or a recollection of the feud be­ tween the Horatii and Curiatii. See 1. 30. 2 n. 450

453 B.C.

3* 32. 2

32. 2. pestilential 2. 1 n., from the Annales. 32. 3. flamen Quirinalis: 1. 20. 1 n. Ser. Cornelius: cos. 485 (2. 41. 12). augur: 7. 6 n. Horatius, the consul of 477 and 457, is not recorded in the extant fragments of the augural Fasti. 32. 4. mortuus: according to D.H. 10. 53. 3 he was succeeded by Sp. Furius (cos. 464) as suffect consul but Furius did not long outlive his predecessor. There is no indication of the death of either consul in the Fasti (Degrassi 93-94). 32. 5. C. Menenius: Agrippae f. Agrippae n., a grandson presumably of the famous consul of 503 (2. 16. 7 n.). See Festus 270 L.; Munzer, R.E., 'Menenius (18)'. P. Sestius Capitolinus: Q,. f. Vibi n. Capito, according to the Fasti unless Capito (cf. Priscian 4. 7) is a cutter's error for Capitolinus. A member of the first college of Decemvirs (33. 3, 33. 10 n.). No other consular Sestius of the period is known but that should not encourage belief that he has been interpolated from his famous name­ sake, the first plebeian consul of 366. The manuscripts read Sextius here as at 33. 3 and 33. 10 against Sestius in 33. 4 (also in all other authorities). The choice is difficult and unimportant. See Munzer, R.E., 'Sestius (9)'; Sigwart, Klio 6 (1906), 279, 283. 32. 6. sine provocatione: 54. 14 n. 32. 7. lex Icilia: 31. 1 n. sacratae leges: 2. 33. 3 n. 33^42. The Decemvirate Historically the first half of the fifth century, after the expulsion of the kings, was a period in which the gradual emergence of a patrician oligarchy led to the hardening of political divisions within the state of Rome. The prestige enjoyed for a long succession of years by families like the Fabii was based primarily on their military success in with­ standing Etruria and extending their influence over Latium. Rome lay between two fires, between the Etruscan empire to the north and the joint infiltration of the Volsci and Aequi to the south-east. Only a strong and sizeable alliance could guarantee her independence and it was to the credit of the ruling oligarchy that they had built up that alliance along the lines which Servius Tullius had already indicated and Sp. Cassius prepared. It is in the nature of oligarchies to be exclusive. Whereas under the kings patricians and plebeians enjoyed if not parity of esteem at least equality of opportunity, in the fifth century the leading patrician families tended to concentrate power and prospects into their own hands. If one consequence of this was to promote efficient government, another was to arouse in the hearts of the suppressed elements in the 451

3- 33-42

451 B.C.

state a desire to assert their 'rights', particularly when Rome began to recover from the economic doldrums of the 490's. The growing tension can be seen in the First Secession, in the creation of the tribunate, in the limitation of the consular magistracies to patricians, magistracies which had been held by plebeians like Sp. Cassius in the early days of the Republic. One of the principal weapons which oligarchies have always employed to maintain themselves is the control of the processes of justice. Conversely, as can be seen in Athens after the reforms of Pericles and Ephialtes, the hall-mark of democracy is the openness with which it conducts its business. All laws and transactions are publicly recorded and displayed. It is, therefore, to be believed that at Rome the patricians resisted the pressure from the rest of the com­ munity to have the laws published, because it was easier to manipulate justice to their advantage if the laws were aypaoi vofAoi. The Decemvirate marks a retreat from the oligarchic stronghold, a concession to democratic demands. Rome did not need a charter or a constitution— she had that—but she did need a legal codification to which all citizens of every degree could have access. The popular outcry of the fifth century should be compared with that at the end of the third century when it was felt that the priestly colleges, as an eminence grise, were able to wield undue power. The outline account of the Decemvirate and the Twelve Tables as presented by the sources is, therefore, to be accepted in substance. It is proof against the most radical scepticism, for the parochial charac­ ter of some of the surviving provisions of the Tables (e.g. trans Tiberim; occentassit; conubium) is only compatible with a fifth-century date. The precise details are more blurred. It is uncertain whether Ap. Claudius and his colleague actually entered office as consuls and then co-opted eight legati to act collectively as Xviri legibus scribendis (so Cicero, de Rep. 2. 6 1 ; Fast. Capit.; cf. 56. 9) or whether the constitution was entirely suspended and a special college of decemviri appointed with plenary powers. The former is perhaps more in accordance with with Roman practice but, wherever the truth lies, that body of ten, with the possible exception of T. Genucius (33. 3 n.), is trustworthy. Taubler has shown that their names would have stood at the head of the original Tables or at least been recorded in the Fasti. Equally, the second college is fictitious from start to finish (35. 11 n.). It is not difficult to trace how and why the fiction came about. Tradition knew that the Decemvirate was by intention a board designed to conciliate the disaffected plebs. Equally, tradition knew that it failed to do so and that it was replaced by a consular pair (Valerius and Horatius) who inaugurated more sweeping democratic measures. The plebs had demanded the safeguard of a codified legal system. When they had won it, they were profoundly dissatisfied with it because it revealed 452

451 B.C.

3- 33-42

and enshrined the full extent of the disabilities under which they lay. Discriminations like conubium, which previously had enjoyed merely the sanction of social convention, now acquired the force of law. No wonder that they reacted against the Decemvirate and secured by a second secession substantial improvements under the Valerio-Horatian laws. It is no accident that archaeologists are agreed that the decisive break with Etruscan contact came not at the end of the sixth century but around 450 when Greek imports suddenly cease.1 The process which was started by setting up the Decemvirate ended with a total victory for the Roman plebf who established their rights and asserted the independence not merely of their community but of Rome. Roman historical tradition dealt somewhat differently with the facts. It was known that the Decemvirate lasted for more than a year, so it was natural on Roman principles to think of two Decemvirates. There may also have been an archaeological indication that pointed the same way. Although the Twelve Tables are always regarded by jurists as a single document, the sources consistently speak of the Ten and the Two (37. 4 ; Cicero, de Rep, 2. 6 3 ; Diodorus 12. 26; Zonaras 7. 18; one of the Two dealt with conubium) which were said to have been added subsequently either by the second college or by Valerius and Horatius. The most reasonable explanation of the pecu­ liarity is that the Ten and the Two were preserved on separate in­ scriptions. It may even be that the Two were restored after the Gallic sack, and hence gave the appearance of being more recent. However that may be, two colleges of Decemvirs were postulated, a Good and a Bad, and names invented to fill the second. The excesses of the second college provided a dramatic transition to Valerius and Horatius. Since the law on conubium was passed by the second college, the drama was heightened by the introduction and elaboration of the myth of Verginia (see below on 44 ff.). It provided a fine touch of tragic irony. The story reached its fully developed shape during the third century and, like many other Roman legends formulated in that period, owes something to Greek models. The duration of the whole Decemvirate, a little over two years, may be influenced by the activities of the archon Damasias, and the general behaviour of the second college is reminiscent of the behaviour of the Thirty Tyrants. The daily rotation of the Decemvirs may be drawn from the same period (33. 8 n.). The effect of the process was to crowd out of the picture all the other reforms for which the Decemvirate is commonly held to be responsible. Attention was focused exclusively on the tyrannical character of the Decemvirate and, in particular, on Appius and 1 The evidence is reviewed by A. van Gerkan, Rh. Mus. 100 (1957), 82-97, R. Bloch, R.£.L. 37 (1959), u8ff.

453

anc

*

3- 33-42

451 B.C.

Verginia. The reform of the calendar, the creation of consuls as well as praetors, the establishment of a permanent magistracy of quaestors, the reorganization of the census and the judicial procedure were banished from the main stream of Roman history and were left to be inferred from a few scattered allusions as being part of the work of the Decemvirs. The Decemvirate was of interest to Romans only politically and morally. In consequence it is clothed in the full dress of contem­ porary politics. In L.'s account there are many touches which are clearly late Republican—the crowds outside the Curia (39. 6, 41. 4), the altercatio in the Senate (39. 2 n.), the division into populates and optimates (39. 9), the bonorum donatio (37. 8 n.). Klotz and Volkmar have even endeavoured to prove that the whole narrative in L. is closely modelled on the career and conduct of Caesar in 59 and 49-44, from which it would follow that either L. was drawing on a source later than 44 (perhaps Aelius Tubero) or that he was himself re­ sponsible for all these additions. The hunt for anachronisms of this kind is, however, treacherous (see Syme, J.R.S. 35 (1545), 107) and it can be shown that all the Caesarian parallels have impressive Sullan counterparts (35. 8 n.; 36. 3 n.; 36. 9 n.; 38. 8-13 n.; 38. 9 n.; 39. 1 n . ; 4 0 . 711.). In outline and in detail the account which L. adopts had been fixed by 70 B.C. It contains some startling discrepancies with D.H., who, for example, omits entirely the episode ofJulius and Sestius (33. 9-10), and there is nothing to refute the suggestion that it is in the main the work of Valerius Antias which L. continues to follow. His own improvements on it are artistic. He is concerned with the psychology of the principal actors, above all of Appius. His treatment of the events in 38-41 does not so much inform the reader what actually happened as show him what effect the events had on the various parties. The narrative of the Decemvirate is for him a curtain-raiser to the myth of Verginia. She occupies the central part of the book; the happenings that lead up to the myth are subordinated to it. They are of signifi­ cance to L. only in so far that the Twelve Tables were among the noblest of Roman institutions (34. 6), that the Decemvirate could be interpreted to mark a stage in the development of the Roman con­ stitution, and that its whole course was an illustration of the moral: 'adeo moderatio tuendae libertatis, dum aequari velle simulando ita se quisque extollit ut deprimat alium, in difficili est . . . et iniuriam ab nobis repulsam tamquam aut facere aut pati necesse sit iniungimus aliis.' The most important modern contribution to the subject is the study by E. Taubler, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Decemvirats und der Zwolftafeln. For other detailed discussions see Lambert, N.R.H. 26 (1902), 149-200; Rev. Gen. Droit 26 (1902), 385-421; 27 (1903), 454

451 B.C.

3- 33-42

13-22; Pais, Storiay 1. 550-605; W. Soltau, £eit. Sav.-Stift. 38 (1917), 1-20; J. Elmore, Class. Phil. 17 (1922), 128-40; V. Ragusa, Le XII Tavole (1924); G. de Sanctis, Riv. Fil. 52 (1924), 266; Baviera, Studi Perozzi, 1925, 1 ff.; Beloch, Rom. Gesch. 236-43; H. S. Jones, C.A.H. 7. 458-62 ; A. Berger, R.E., Tabulae Duodecim'; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction to Roman Law, u - 1 3 , 106-11; J. M. Nap, Die Romische Republik, 400-29; V. Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del Diritto Romano, 53-82; L. Wenger, Die Quellen de&Rom. Rechts, 357-72; J. Bleicken, Das Volkstribunat, 14, 112 ff.; for the Greek elements see Zarncke, Commentationes Philologicae 0. Rib beck; Goossens, Latomus 5 (1946), 278-9; for anachronisms see A. Volkmar, de Annalibus Quaestiones; A. Klotz, Rh. Mas. 87 (1938), 46; for L.'s treatment of the material see Burck 31 ff. 33. 1. anno trecentensimo altero: = A.U.C. 302. For the meaning of alter0 cf. Cicero, pro Mil. 98; Manilius 4. 466 with Housman's note; Sigonius and others have wished to understand it as 301. If the text is sound, L. gave a date one year behind that of the Varronian chrono­ logy which dated the first Decemvirate to 303. The few absolute dates which are to be found in L. are probably not taken over from his sources but are the result of his own computation. If you add to the figure given for the duration of the kingdom (1. 60. 3 n.) the actual number of consular lists, omitting the extra college found in the manuscripts of 2. 15. 1 (where see note) and adding two consular pairs deliberately suppressed by L. in the account of Coriolanus (2. 34 n.) the total of 302 is reached, which agrees also with tricensimo sexto in 30. 7 (n.). The next absolute date is 4. 7. 1 where the consular tribunes are instituted anno trecentensimo decimo = A.U.C. 310 which again is in harmony with the actual eponymous lists since it is clear that although the second Decemvirate in L.'s view extended into a second year (38. 1, 40. 10; 39. 9, 55. 1), it did not last for more than an extra six months at the most (from May to December). It would there­ fore be mistaken to suppose that L. attributed three years in all to the whole Decemvirate. He made the duration of the Decemvirate some­ what over two years and allowed the rest of the third year to the con­ sulship of Valerius and Horatius. (The date in 5. 54. 5 is not relevant to the argument because it occurs in a speech, not in the narrative: see note; for the later dates see Bayet, tome 1, cxii-cxxvi.) It can be demonstrated that similar calculations based on the magistrate lists given by Licinius or Valerius would be substantially different. Valerius, for instance, must have included the consulship of P. Valerius III and M. Horatius II (507 B.C.) which Licinius omitted 2. 15. 1 (n.). Valerius' absolute date for the Decemvirate would as a result have been the Varronian, not the Livian. See further Mommsen, Rom. 455

3- 33- '

451 B.C.

Chronol. 121 ff.; L. Holzapfel, Rom. Chronol. 18, 28, 63 ff.; G. Costa, / Fasti Consolari Romani; Bayet, loc. cit.; A. Momigliano, J.R.S. 35 (1945), 144; Ogilvie, J.R.S, 48 (1958), 43 (the views there expressed are substantially modified in the present note); G. Perl, Krit. Untersuchungen zu Diodors Rom. Jahrzdhlung, 35 ff. L. gives absolute dates only for events of the first magnitude. mutatorforma civitatis: a distortion of the facts, since the Decemvirate was a'-legal commission, not a formal constitution, but it is in keeping with the distortion of the terms of the Terentilius proposal (9. 5 n.). Echoed by the Emperor Claudius (LL.S. 212): quid a consulibus ad decemviros translatum imperium (commemorem) ? 33. 3. decemviri creati: D.H. 10. 56. 1 gives substantially the same list except that he gives Veturius the praenomen TITOS, Postumius TIOTTXIOS, and Sulpicius ZcpovlXios. He also lists P. Horatius for P. Curatius. Of these differences the last is probably a textual corruption (32. 1 n.). The case of P. Sulpicius is a confusion due to Valerius Antias (10. 5 n.) so that the disagreement over this praenomen should not be disturbed by emendation. TIOTTXIOS looks like a trivialization of ZWptos, which should be restored in the text of D.H. (cf. 9. 60. 1). In the name of Veturius the fault lies rather with Livy. The presumption, explicitly stated by D.H. 10. 56. 2, being that the Decemvirs were all consulars, since there is no consular L. Veturius, either T., the consul of 462 (8. 2), or C , the consul of 455 (31. 2), is possible. T. is preferable and the necessary change should be incorporated in the text. While the lists of D.H. and L. can be made to square and are in general agree­ ment with the fragments of the Fasti, Diodorus 12. 23. 1 contains several minor divergences (P. Claudius, C. Sulpicius, Sp. Veturius) and one major innovation, Tiros MLVOVKLOS for T. Genucius. The variations ofpraenomina may result from the fact that in the original documentary sources only nomina were transcribed. Historians were at liberty to identify the Decemvirs with any members of the gens and consequently the sources of Diodorus and of Livy and D.H. could enjoy considerable latitude, but Perl has shown that both Diodorus and his copyists have been reckless in their treatment of the material. It was only by the middle of the first century that a conventional list had been settled. The case of Minucius for Genucius is more debat­ able. The nine other Decemvirs belong to patrician Roman families and they had all held the consulate (for detailed evidence see 2. 42. 5 n.,; 43. 1 n.; 54. 1 n.; 61. 7 n.; 3. 31. 2 n.; 32. 5 n.) but no Genucius appears in the Fasti before M. Genucius, who is credited with a consulship in 445 (the evidence is not above suspicion 54. 1. i n . ) , and Cn. Genucius, consular tribune in 399 and 396. The Genucii were otherwise a plebeian family who may have migrated from Etruria to Rome towards the end of the fifth century under the pressure of the 456

451 B.C.

3- 33- 3

Celtic invasion. They only rose to prominence in the fourth century. The Minucii, on the other hand, are well attested in the early Fasti (consuls in 497, 492, 491, 458, 457). Diodorus preserves the authentic name which has been supplanted by Genucius for the usual reason of family pride. The Genucii were a talking-point in Gracchan times (Plutarch, C. Gracchus 3. 3). See further Taubler 80-84; Beloch, Rom. Gesch. 239; Munzer, Rom. Adelsparteien, 10. 33. 4. The motive for Sestius5 election may be retrojected from 366 where, according to L. 7. 1. 2, plebs consulatum L. Sextio, cuius lege partus erat, dedit. In D.H. Sestius' colleague was ill: but L.'s inuito may only be a simplification rather than a variant tradition. 33. 5. condenda . . . iura: 34. 1, 34. 6. 8; the phrase has a somewhat pejorative flavour (cf. Gaius, Inst. 1. 7, 4. 30). The Decemvirs were 'laying down the law'. 33. 7. aurae popularis captator: political cliches of the late Republic. For aura pop. cf. 22. 26. 4, 29. 37. 17, 30. 45. 6, 42. 30. 4 ; Cicero, Har. Resp. 43; Horace, Odes 3. 2. 20; for captator cf. Horace, Epist. 2 . 2 . 103. The picture of Appius is identical with that of his father (cf. 2. 5 6 - 5)33. 8. decimo die . . . singuli reddebant: 'each administered justice one day in ten', not 'each administered justice for ten days at a time', must be the meaning of the Latin (cf. Zonaras 7. 18, drawing from Dio and so indirectly from L., fjpijav . . . c^' r/fjuepav CKCLCTTOS). The system would have been unworkable so that it is hardly surprising that D.H. improves on it by making each Decemvir take the chair els crvyK€ifjL€v6v nva rjfjLcpwv apidfjiov. In default of actual facts about the workings of the Decemvirate, later writers, clinging to the tradition that the Twelve Tables were modelled on Attic and, in particular, Solonian law, borrowed one of the typical features of the (pace Hignett) Solonian constitution of Athens in its later development whereby the presidency of the Boule rotated day by day. D.H. modified it because of the difficulties it involved. praefectum iuris: an unexampled expression. D.H. speaks of him simply as rjyefjLwv, a word which he uses elsewhere for the praefectus urbi. Niebuhr conjectured urbis for iuris here, an easy change, but the p. u. was always a deputy or substitute for the king or the supreme magistrate, whereas the powers of the praefectus are here absolute. qui consensus . . . interdum inutilis esset: D.H. does not throw light on this obscure sentence. He says that the Decemvirs dealt with ra ISiwTiKCL avfju^oXaia /cat ra SrjfjLOcria fjuera iraorjs . . . cVt€tK€ta? re /cat

SiKaiocrvvrjs (10. 57. 2). The general sense is that the unanimity of the ten ensured that the citizens had a fair deal. As the text stands two interpretations of the relative clause seems possible: (1) esset hypothetical—'which unanimity might sometimes have been 457

3- 33- 8

451 B.C.

dangerous for the common citizens but in fact resulted in fair dealing' (Bayet). inutilis here carries a very pregnant meaning. (2) M. Breal (Rev. Phil, 7 (1883), 8 0 tookprivatis in the archaic technical sense = reis—'which unanimity proved on occasions no blessing to criminals'. While the relative and subjunctive without a causal force can be paralleled, the meaning claimed for privatis has no authority in L. Both translations neglect the force of inutilis. There appears to have been a proverb to the effect that unanimity is often useless: it does not necessarily produce results. So in the Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (1. 5, p. 370. 38) ut mutua eorum conspiratio non habeatur inutilis which is rendered in Greek by aKapTros . . . cru^pa^i?. The force here will be that while you might have expected that the unanimity of the Decem­ virs would not produce results, in fact it resulted in fair dealing all round; alternatively, that the unanimity of the government, which had not always produced results in the past, now did have the desired effect of promoting fair dealing. The former interpretation requires est for esset (Doring): keeping esset, we must accept the latter. 33. 10. L. Sestium: P. Sextium nX, Sextium fi. The praenomen in nX is shown to be worthless by its omission in ft. It is a simple case of the insertion of p or p = p(roprium nomen) in the manuscripts of L. before a proper name (2. 15. 1 n.). Since the Sestius concerned is patently not the Decemvir, we should replace the praenomen L., which had been supplanted by the note p.; it is preserved in Cicero, de Rep. 2. 61. As the Verginia myth illustrates the clause on conubium, so the tale of Sestius is designed as a case to exemplify at least two other of the provisions of the Twelve Tables, the law quae de capite civis Romani nisi comitiis centuriatis statui vetaret ( = Tab. 9. 1-2) and the law hominem mortuum in urbe ne sepelito neve urito (= Tab. 10. 1). decessitque [ex] iure suo: 46. 3 ; cf. d. officio 27. 10. 1, 36. 22. 2. In such contexts decedo is only used with ex when the thing relinquished is a province (cf, e.g., Cicero, Div. in Caec. 2 ; Verr. 1. 52). Harant's ei is intolerable: ex is a palpable dittography influenced by iudex above. demptum . . . adiceret: 'that he might add to the liberty of the people what he subtracted from the power of the magistracy'. 34. 1. cum promptum: 'while men of high and low estate alike were receiving from them this prompt justice as pure as though it proceeded from an oracle'. The reference is to the Delphic oracle which was supposed to have fathered several constitutions, notably the 'Lycurgan' at Sparta and the Sacred Law of Cyrene, and also to have adjudicated in various disputes. Details in Parke and Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, i.85ff. contionem: L. contrives to give an air of authenticity to the remarks which follow. The speech opens, as was the formal custom, with a 458

451 B.C.

3- 34- i prayer (39. 15. 1 ; Pliny, Paneg. 6 3 ; Servius, adAen. 11. 301). Note the solemn legere leges, the rhetorical commonplace plus pollers multorum ingenia (as old as Homer, Iliad 10. 224-6), and the colloquial agitarent sermonibus (5. 15. 5). The implied procedure, which is also narrated by D.H., whereby bills were displayed and amended by popular correction before their formal promulgatio at the comitia, is unpre­ cedented. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 393 n. 4. 34. 6. edito: a very old corruption, since it is common to Ver. and N. edo is a technical term for the promulgation of laws and other publica­ tions (see Thes Ling. Lat. s.v. 91. 71 ff.), so that edito legum capite could be defended as meaning propositis decern tabulis but in that case the plural correctae viderentur is superfluous. We would require unumquicque legum caput editum satis correctum videretur. Duker's editos with rumores is certain. Cf. Caesar, B.C. 3. 29. 3 quae opinio erat edita in vulgus. in hoc. . . cumulo: the solemnity of the assertion is emphasized by the hyperbaton between hoc and cumulo which is the longest I have observed in L. Similar effects are achieved at Praef. 5 and 1. 41. 3(n.)-. . publici: cf. the definition of publicum ius, quoted by Weissenborn, from Ulpian, Dig. 1. 1. 1. 2 in sacris, in sacerdotibus, in magistratibus consistit. omne corpus is used by jurists to denote the complete collection of laws (F. Wieacker, Textstufen Klassischer Juristen, i960, 124). 34. 7. desiderium: a simplification of the more elaborate proceedings in D.H. whereby the Decemvirate was continued by a formal S.C. and popular vote. 34. 8. cedentibus. . .decemviris: the general sense must be that the plebs did not even demand the restoration of the tribunician auxilium since the Decemvirs' administration of justice was an effective sub­ stitute. The tribunes by their auxilium had safeguarded the right of appeal: the safeguard was rendered superfluous because the Decemvirs allowed appeals as a matter of course. Since each Decemvir held the supreme authority for one day, an appeal from his jurisdiction would be made to his successor—in turn (in vicem). The dative appellationi (Drakenborch) is needed after cedentibus as at 2. 27. 12 nee cessisset provocationi consul. The ablative, found in Ver. and N, has been defended but without adequate support. It can hardly be taken with cedentibus 'departing from an appeal, i.e. disallowing an appeal' nor is an abl. after invicem attested ('in turn as appeals were made': see Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v.). Bayet translates appellatione 'en cas d'appel' but does not give authority for his rendering. 35. 1. in trinum nundinum: 'the elections were announced for the third market-day'. A minimum period of three nundinae or eight-day periods had to elapse between the promulgation of a bill or an election and 459

451 B.C. 3- 35- i the assembly that voted for it (Mommsen, Staatsrecht^ 3. 375). John, analysing the history of the phrase in Rh. Mus. 31 (1876), 410 ff., points out that this is the first use of trinum nundinum as a neuter noun = the third market-day, TPLTTJ dyopd (D.H. 9. 41 ; Plutarch, Coriolanus 18) or trinundinus dies (Macrobius 1. 16). In early Latin it occurs as a gen. plural = trinorum nundinorum 'of three eight-day weeks', as in the S.C. de Bacchanalibus 22 (=I.L.S. 18) and in Cicero, de Domo 41 and 45 (where see Nisbet). T h e hypostasized neuter, formed on the analogy of sestertium, occurs after Livy in Quintilian 2. 4. 35. T h e change of form was accompanied by the change of meaning from a period of time to a particular terminal day. W. Kroll, R.E., 'Nundinae 5 is worth consulting for further details. There is no authority for trinum nundinium read by N under the influence of the late imperial nundinia (cf, e.g., C.I.L. 8. 4508 (202 A.D.)). 35. 2. contenderant: contenderent (N, Ver.) is wrong in both point of tense and time. 35. 3 . dimissa : demissa Gronovius. T h e two words are constantly con­ fused but neither is used elsewhere with in discrimen. T h e closest parallel I have found is Plancus' letter in Cicero, ad Fam. 10. 8. 2 cum in eum casum me fortuna demississet. Since at 8. 32. 4 L. prefers committo, I am inclined to think that the variation of prefix is for alliterative effect and that in consequence dimissa should be re­ tained. 35. 3 - 7 . Goossens argued that the account of Appius 5 canvass owes something to Greek tragedy, and in particular to the picture of Agamemnon's devices to secure command and his volte-face after he had done so in Euripides, LA. 334-400. Tragic effects and re­ miniscences are, as would be expected, frequent in L. but here the parallel is far-fetched. There were enough instances nearer at hand from Republican history of unscrupulous men who sang one tune to purchase votes and another in office. T h e language of the whole passage shows that L. is thinking of the recent not the remote past. All the phrases belong to the jargon of politics and are found frequently in Cicero. T h e parallels may be found in speeches with which there are good grounds for supposing that L. was familiar. For in foro volitare cf. in Cat. 2. 5; for se plebi venditare cf. Har. Resp. 48; for in ordinem cogere cf. 51. 13 n. adversaries criminando benevolentiam captare is the recommendation of the author of the treatise ad Herennium 1. 46 (cf. Sallust, Catil. 38. 1). 35. 4. Duillios Iciliosque: 2. 58. 2 n. 35. 6. fore: A. Hudson Williams (C.Q.o, (1959), 66 ff.) draws attention to the idiom, found also in Statius, Theb. 1. 494-7 and Val. Flacc. 3. £2, where 'the oblique form of the future indicative is used in a potential sense to express an assumption'. 'A man of such arrogance 460

451 B.C.

3- 35- 6 5

must have some ulterior motive for his geniality. The idiom is collo­ quial (Plautus, Persa 645) and so appropriate to express the halfvoiced misgivings of the other Decemvirs. 35. 8. nemo unquamfeci/sset: claimed by Volkmar as evidence that L.'s source for the Decemvirate was published after 44 B.C. since he be­ lieved that Appius' behaviour mirrored Caesar's high-handed treatmeant of the consular elections after 49 (Suetonius 76. 2-3). But already in 87 B.C. (Marius et Cinna) . . . se ipsos renuntiaverunt (Livy, EpiL 80) and in 85 L. Cinna et Cn. Papirius Car bo ab se ipsis consules per biennium creati (Livy, Eput. 8 3 ; cf. also de Viris Illustr. 69). Cinna, not Caesar, was a second Appius and it was natural for a Sullan annalist to reflect it in his account. 35. 9. per coitionem: contio (codd.) and coitio are constantly confused in manuscripts. It is hard to see how the Quinctii could lose the election by a contio. A coitio, however, was the normal method of rigging elections: see the advice in Cicero, ad Q.F. 3. 1. 16. 35. 11. The second college of Decemvirs is a fabrication elaborated doubtless at the end of the third century. The fact that Diodorus (12. 24. 1) preserves only seven names, omitting Fabius, Antonius, and Duilius, adding Sp. Veturius, and reading IJOTTXLOS for Poetelius, is not material evidence if Perl is right in arguing that Diodorus, and his copyists, were frequently negligent in their transmission of names. Nor is the fact that whereas the first college can be shown to be con­ sular and patrician the second contains five plebeians (Oppius, Duilius, Poetelius, specified by D.H. 10. 58. 4 ; Antonius, Rabuleius) and five patricians, and only three consulars (Claudius, Minucius, Fabius), a wholly damaging criticism (4. 3. 17 n.). More to the point is the character of the names themselves. The provenance of the Poetelii is unknown, although the name is Etruscan (cf. Paetelius; Schulze 205), but apart from the tr. pi. of 441 (4. 12. 3-5 n.), they do not emerge until the fourth century when C. Poetelius Libo Visolus is consul in 360. The tr. pi. of 441 may be genuine; if so, he supplied the fabricator of the list with a name. N o historical conditions can be visualized which could have permitted such a nonentity in fact to have been elected to a board of legislators. The Oppii are also old, as the Mons Oppius with the eponymous Opiter Oppius shows (Varro ap. Festus 476 L.), and may have come to Rome in the regal period from Praeneste, where the name is frequent in inscriptions, or even immigrated with the Sabines. Yet the first historical Oppius was tr. pi. in 215. It is suspicious that no less than three Oppii are concerned in the events of 450-449, C. Oppius, a member of the spurious college of the ten tribunes (54. 13), M. Oppius the tribune of the soldiers (51. 2-10), and Sp. Oppius. When we note that K. Duilius is alleged to be a Decemvir, and M. Duilius one of the college of the ten tribunes, 461

3-35-

"

450 B.C.

we are forced to the conclusion that it was a family tale among the Duilii and Oppii of the third century that their ancestors had been involved in the 'troubles* of the fifth century and it may be con­ jectured that historians inserted the names of Duilii and Oppii into the story accordingly. The Sergii were patrician, closely linked with the Servilii. They claimed descent from the Trojan Sergestus (Virgil, Aeneid^. 121: both Hyginus and Varro wrote works de Familiis Troianis) but, in fact, the hereditary cognomen Fidenas (4. 17. 7 n.) points to the more mundane view that they originated from that city (Schulze 230). They were established at Rome before the end of the sixth century (Tribus Sergia; see L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 40). They do not reach the consulate till after 440. Of Rabuleius and Antonius ( Q . Antonius Merenda was consular tribune in 422; see F. Cornelius, Untersuchungen, 59 ff.) nothing can be asserted, except that they form odd company for the respected Q,. Fabius, the consul of 467. The cognomen Merenda ('luncheon'; probably not to be identified with the Etruscan Merenna) was used by a branch of the Cornelii for the space of a hundred years from the consul of 274 to the praetor of 194 and is not attested elsewhere. This also suggests 250-200 as the period of the fabrication. The name Rabuleius is found in a few scattered inscriptions of late date (Schulze 91) and is Etruscan, but the false etymology from rabula 'a pettifogger' made him an appropriate candidate for any anarchical or demagogic body. M. Cornelius is equally unknown; he may be intended to be the son or the brother of L. Cornelius, the consul of 459 (see Broughton, 450 B.C., n. 2). The names, then, are implausible. The principles by which all were chosen cannot be discerned. Beloch pointed out that three of the patrician names (Cornelius, Sergius, Fabius) were also the names of tribes, which would afford a possible explanation for their choice but more fanciful conjecture is futile. What can be established is that since only one list can ever have stood in documentary sources connected with the Twelve Tables, the second college is an invention, and an invention not earlier than 250 B.C. Once such a list became established, it was open to later historians to improve on it by making further suggestive additions. For instance, Oppius' cognomen may be inspired by Cn. Oppius Cornicinus, the only other person known to have a comparable cognomen, who was on Cn. Pompeius Strabo's staff at Asculum in 89 (I.L.S. 8888) and who played a notable role in the politics of the next thirty years (details in Munzer, R.E., 'Oppius (28)'). (Diodorus gives Sergius' praenomen as C , but D.H. agrees with Livy who has M. here but L. at 41. 10. Duilius is called C. both by Ver. and by N here, but Caeso at 41. 10 and in D.H. 10. 58. 4, while Rabuleius is M. here, M \ at 4 1 . 9 , Mavios in D.H. 10. 58. 4, 11. 23. 1. 462

450 B.C.

3-35- " Sigonius was clearly right to restore K. Duilius and M \ Rabuleius in the present list.) 36. 1. suo . . . vivere ingenio coepit: cf. i. 56. 7. L.'s treatment of Appius' character is a good example of the Roman—Stoic—preconception that a man's character cannot change and that he is at twenty what he will be at fifty and that what he is at fifty he must have been at twenty. K. Buchner (Der Aufbau von Sallusts B.J,, Hermes Einzelschr. 9, 1953) has shown how this attitude to character has conditioned Sallust's arrangement of his material for the life of Jugurtha. It also explains 'the uniformly dark portrayal of Tiberius by Tacitus' (G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 44 (1954), 158; cf. Annals 6. 51. 6 and see E. Dutoit, Mus. Helv. 2 (1945), 39). So for L., because he believed with Sallust and with Cicero (pro Sulla 77) that 'a man is at any one point in his life what he always was and always will be', Appius had always to be crudelissimus et superbissimus, and any apparent contradiction of be­ haviour had to be attributed to deception and pretence (35. 6 apparere nihil sinceri esse). 36. 2. impotentibus . . . consiliis: 'despotic plans'. coquebant: 40. 11. 2 clandestina coda sunt consilia. The metaphor is Augustan; cf. our 'he's cooking something up'. It is common in later Latin (e.g. Statius, Theb. 2. 300). Plautus, Miles 208, is an elaborate joke. rari aditus: Weissenborn takes aditus as genitive of quality. At 24. 5. 5 Gronovius rightly restored contumeliosa dicta, rari aditus for the reading of P contumeliosa dictari aditus. rams is not elsewhere predicated of aditus but facilis, difficilis, and the like are frequent in Cicero. In view of 24. 5. 5, it is scarcely possible to accept Weissenborn's interpretation or the rari aditu conjectured in the Delphin edition. It must, however, be confessed that the resulting change of subject is exceedingly harsh. Perhaps we should regard rari. . . difficiles as a parenthesis explaining hand dissimulando superbiam. Weissenborn's interpretation is unsuccess­ fully defended by Catterall (T.A.P.A. 69 (1938), 304). 3 6 . 3 . ad Idus Maias: 6. 1 n. The Decemvirs retained power for a further six months until December. initio . . . magistratus: see C.Q. 9 (1959), 282. unusfasces: 1. 50. 3 n. The fasces were to a Roman the normal symbol of law and order, but they also had more sinister overtones for the apprehensive imagination. They were the symbol of the Tarquins (Fraenkel, Horace, 295 n. 2). Tittler, comparing 24. 4. 9, Horace, Odes 3. 14. 10, and Martial 4. 58 for the corruption, would insert vices between decemviri and servassent, 'maintained a rota' on the ground that servo ut = T make sure that' was not found; but cf. 39. 14. 10; Pliny, JV./f. 17. 124. subito . . . prodiere: Volkmar compares the entrance of Julius Caesar 4^3

3- 36. 3

450 B.C.

with 72 lictors (Dio 43. 19), but Valerius Antias is more likely to have had some precedent of Sulla in view. The Epitome of Livy says of him (89; cf. Appian, B.C. 1.100): dictator/actus, quod nemo unquamfecerat, cum fascibus viginti quattuor processit. As it stands the statement is unin­ telligible, since from earliest times the dictators were preceded by 24. fasces (Polybius 3. 87. 8; D.H. 10. 24; Plutarch, Fabius 4), but the comment suggests an innovation. The figure given by the Epitomator may be corrupt. In the present situation the Decemvirs all appeared preceded by lictors and fasces, whereas in the previous year each Decemvir had held the real fasces in turn, as was constitutionally proper, while the others had been followed by their twelve lictors in attendance. This suspension of the principle of alternating the fasces is—significantly—only otherwise attested under the second Trium­ virate: it was restored by Octavian in 29 B.C. See 2. i . 8 n . 36. 4. sine provocation: 55. 14 n. 36. 5. caedis causam: a political catch-phrase for which Shackleton Bailey (Cicero: ad Atticum, 11) cites Cicero, ad Fam. 12. 25. 4 ; de Domo 115; Phil. 3. 30. out in senatu out in populo: N has in populum, but where L. varies the construction he prefers apudpopulum (30. 1.5). etiam: with ceterorum, 'to intimidate the rest of the population as well'. 36. 6. cum . . . tulissent: 'whereas the first Decemvirs had been con­ tent that judgements passed by themselves should be corrected by appeal to one of their colleagues'. Cf. 34. 8. 36. 7. hominum . . . haberet: 'the Decemvirs were all for personalities, not circumstances, as was natural since for them influence had the force of right'. 36. 8. iudicia conflabant: political slang; cf. Cicero, Part. Orat. 121;pro Sex. Roscio 5. 36. 9. foedus clandestinum: regarded by Klotz and Volkmar as a clear imitation of the so-called First Triumvirate in 59 B.C. Suetonius alleged that Caesar societatem iniit (9. 2). Such conspiracies or collusions were not a novel feature of Roman politics. A better example would be the pact which Sulla made with Cinnain 88 (Plutarch, Sulla 10). 37. 2. The analysis of the patrician attitude to the Decemvirs and to the plebs has no counterpart in the narrative of D.H., although a few of the sentiments occur in different contexts (e.g. D.H. 11. 2. 1 they expelled the patricians ols ov /card yvcofirjv r<x TrpaTTo/xeva U7r' avTtbv ?Jv = nee probare quaefierent). The whole of the next passage down to 41 is unusually characterized by rhetorical cliches of the late Republic inserted to suggest the anarchy and troubles of that period (37. 5 n., 37. 8 n., 39. 7 n., 40. 10 n.).

464

450 B.C.

3- 37- 2-3

37. 2 - 3 . avide ruendo . ^ . elapsos iuvare: nolle cumulate quoque iniurias: 'they were content that the plebeians in their greedy rush for liberty had slipped into subjection; they were reluctant to pile on maltreat­ ment as well, in order that the plebeians should come to long for con­ sular government again'. I retain the reading of the manuscripts but restore the punctuation employed in the early editions. The patricians maintain their middle course. They hate Decemvirs and plebs alike. They are glad at the fate of the plebs but they will not join the Decem­ virs in oppressing the plebs further for fear that they should have to identify their interests with them and so lose the chance of returning to power themselves. Only by this punctuation does nolle have its right place in the sentence and quoque have any meaning, non . . . quoque ' n o t . . . as well' is a sound, but sometimes overlooked idiom; cf. 4 - 3 - 7 sipopulo R. liberum suffragium datur et non praeciditur spesplebeio quoque; Cicero, de Orat. 2. 227; pro Roscio Am. 91. iuvare is impersonal as often (iuvat in direct speech) followed by ace. and inf. elapsos (esse). Recent editors have punctuated after nolle, taking iuvare as personal 'to assist*. It must be objected that whether we read cumulare 'they were even multiplying the plebeians' wrongs' or cumulari (Madvig) 'they preferred that the plebeians' wrongs should even be multiplied', quoque is forced to bear the sense of immo or quin etiam, which it cannot do. A further objection to cumulare would be, as Madvig argued, that the patricians could not be held responsible for the wrongs done to the plebeians. I do not see how Bayet's cumularent meets these diffi­ culties. elapsos: cf. Aul. Gell. 10. 12.4 adperniciem elabuntur ingenia where the force of the prepositional prefix e- is equally weak, lapsos (Gronovius), delapsos (Ascensius), relapsos (Guilelmus) are not needed. 37. 5. plebs agitabat: see C.Q,. 9 (1959), 274. The construction id agitat aliquis followed by an indirect question is found at 29. 10. 8, 35- 34- 2> 39- 55- 5- *d dgitat (sc. exercet) aliquem is not written. munimentum libertati: cf. 3. 45. 8, 53. 4. The view that the tribunate was the bulwark of freedom was common currency in the first century and doubtless enjoyed its widest circulation in the 8o's and 70's when the office was first suppressed and then restored. See, with Wirszubski, Libertas, 26 n. 5, Cicero, de Leg. Agr. 2. 15. By contrast the Decemvirs have to protect themselves with a bodyguard—saepserant latera. The expression is equally contemporary: cf. Sallust, Or. Lepid. 15; Cicero, pro Sest. 9 5 ; Phil. 2. 112. 37. 7. L. paints the Decemvirs in colours which remind, as they were intended to do, his readers of the traditional portrait of a tyrant, so beloved by all romantic historians in antiquity. The Decemvirs have a bodyguard ofpatricii iuvenes, they administer justice in secret, they corrupt, seduce, bribe, and bully. They are just like Tarquinius 814432

465

Hh

3- 37- 7

4 5 0 B.C.

Superbus ( i . 49 nn.). O n e of the conventional traits in that portrait was the ruthless philosophy of property based on the doctrine of 'Might is Right'. It is Callicles who first makes the philosophy memor­ able (Plato, Gorgias 484 c 1-3), and it is reiterated often thereafter. An appreciation of the fact may help to elucidate the text of this cor­ rupt passage which is presented in the manuscripts as hiferre agereplebem plebisque res cumfortuna qua quidquid cupitum foret potentioris esset. Conway (followed by Bayet) is the only editor to defend the transmitted read­ ing (C.Q.5 ( i 9 n ) , 3 ) . It is not clear what sense he gives to qua (P'where anything was coveted') but he takes quidquid as an indefinite, equiva­ lent of quicque or aliquid, citing Lucretius 1. 289 where O ' Q h a v e ruit qua quidquid fluctibus obstat. T h e usage he regards as colloquial or, at least, as a quotation of 'some old saw'. T h e Lucretius passage [pace Munro) can hardly stand (see Bailey's note) and is not in fact now printed by modern editors. With it goes the argument for the manu­ script text here. Since quidquid cupitum foret is good grammar, qua must be corrupt. So also must cumfortuna be, which is now left without any construction. T h e sense should be that the Decemvirs pillaged the plebs, claiming as their justification Callicles' doctrine that what­ ever is coveted is the property of the stronger, that is ferre agere plebis res (not quia (Perizonius), cum (Gronovius), or et (Harant) but) quasi . . . potentioris esset. There remain the words cumfortuna. O n e of the com­ monest collocations in Cicero to describe the totality of a man's possessions is res etfortunae (Verr. 1. 54, 2. 16, 3. 11 ; ad Fam. 6. 5. 1, 13. 4. 3, 13. 19. 0 - So also in L. (e.g. 3. 68. 4 n.). Gronovius had already proposed res et fortunas which meets the demands of sense admirably. Palaeographical considerations might be reconciled better by ferre agere plebem plebisque (cwn) res turn fortunas, quasi. . .potentioris esset. Madvig reads aequa for qua, Buttner iniqua. 37. 8. tergo . . . abstinebatur: the atrocities are listed in the current vocabulary, to bring them home to a Roman audience. Cf. Sallust, Or, Macri 26; for gratuita crudelitas cf. Sallust, Cat. 16. 3 ; for licentiam . . . libertatem see 9. 2-13 n; for bonorum donatio cf. Cicero, Phil. 4. 9 quos non bonorum donatio, non agrorum adsignatio, non ilia infinita hasta satiavit. We should insert after caedi with the editors of 1480. A single alii for alii. . . alii is not found, nor can it be maintained that the whole population was whipped but only part beheaded. T h e two punish­ ments are invariably linked as parallels (cf., e.g., 36. 5, 2. 5. 8 et al.). The Threat of War and the Summoning of the Senate 38* 2 . imperiumque . . . indignabantur: the subject must be the neighbour­ ing people whereas the subject oicoepti erant is the Romans. T h e change is harsh and the parallels unconvincing: Weissenborn cities 1. 50. 9 but see note; 1 . 4 . 3 , where the change is between act. and pass.; and 466

450 B.C.

3- 3«. 2

2. 28. 5, where the change is between the subject of a dependent clause and the main clause. I have found no exact parallel in L., but accept the text in preference to Perizonius's and Wesenberg's imperium qui (an impossible word-order) or Gronovius's imperium[que] . . . indignantibus. 38. 3 . Eretum: 26. 2 n. 38. 5. alia ex parte: ex alia parte Ver. N's word-order is standard (Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 2. 6 3 ; ad Att. 10. 4. 2 ; Caesar, B.G. 3. 22. 1, 4. 26. 1; Columella 2. 10. 10; Seneca, EpisL 29. 1; Frontinus, de Aq. 7; Pliny, N.H. 8. 209), whereas Ver.'s is not found. At 4. 9. 14 where the manuscripts give et alia parte, Gronovius proposed ex a. p. but cf. 4. 29. 2. parte ex alia is confined to poetry (e.g. Virgil, Aen. 10. 362). excursionibus: Ver.'s excursationibus is a late, rare word, perhaps found only at Val. Max. 2. 3. 3 and E Cicero Gronov. D . 303. 14. Such erroneously added syllables are a feature of Ver. (cf. 4. 21. 10, 57. 12, 5. 24. 6, 4 1 . 4 , 4 3 - 6 ) 38. 8-13. T h e picture of a deserted Rome, abandoned by its leading citizens who had taken refuge in agris, must have suggested to many Romans, as it did to Volkmer, the desolation of 49 B.C. in very similar circumstances. Caesar was reluctant to call the Senate to secure authority for the prosecution of the war against Pompey (cf. Cicero, ad Att 9. 6 a; 10. 4. 8-9), because of the large number of senators who had left the city and were either with Pompey or in agris. But the events of the 80's provide a much better model. In 84 Carbo prevented the acceptance of Sulla's terms (Livy, Epit. 84). It was only when, like Charles I, he and Cinna required authority to conduct and finance the war, that they had consented to the session of the Senate, (Livy, Epit. 83). As to the condition of Rome during those years Cicero graphically sketches its emptiness and desertion (Brutus 308): triennium fere fait urbssine armis sed oratorum out interitu autdiscessu autfaga . . . . Velleius Paterculus (2. 23) refers to the flight of the nobles in 86 either to Sulla in the East or to their country estates. 38. 9. quod solitum: 'in that anything was happening which was familiar in a democracy'. solitudinem: so Cicero of the Cinnan times: erat ab oratoribus quaedam in for0 solitudo (Brutus 227). 38. 10. Bayet rightly restores the archetype reading ipsi consensu invisum imperium. T h e double clause (et. . . et) is somewhat unbalanced. In both halves interpretations or reasons should be being given for the non-attendance of the senators but whereas in the second half this is stated regularly (quia .. . non esset, non convenire), in the first the reason which the Decemvirs saw, namely that their own power was universally detested, is given not as a causal clause parallel to quia . . . non esset but as a main clause—invisum sc. esse. 467

3- 38. io

450 B.C.

caput fieri: cf. 8. 19. 13 capita coniurationis, 9. 26. 7, 10. 1.3, 39. 17. 6. haec fremunt [plebes]: deleted by Fugner. T h e plural is intolerable after the singular plebs abnuat and L. relishes the vaguer phrase with the subject left unexpressed when he speaks of popular murmurings: cf, e.g., 26. 35. 7, 34. 37. 1. 38. 11. suarum: 'they devoted themselves to their own affairs and neglected the affairs of state'. For the genitive cf. 36. 7, a case of 'unconscious repetition' (1. 14. 4 n.). 38. 12. pignera capienda: 'to exact fines'. Senators who absented them­ selves from meetings of the House without due cause or, subsequently, leave of absence were liable to a fine. See Aul. Gell 14. 7. 10 ; Cicero, Phil 1. 12. The Debate in the Senate T h e debate was a feature of the Sullan narrative, for it is reproduced in D.H. 11. 4 ff. in substantially the same form. It was a show-piece, a carefully contrived agon between opposed speakers. In D.H. Appius proposed the motion for a levy, Valerius who then sprang to his feet was prevented from speaking, but Horatius secured a hearing. He was followed by C. Claudius, M . Cornelius, and L. Cornelius. Finally Valerius was allowed his say (19-20). L. has simplified the proceedings by omitting M. Cornelius and by limiting the participation of Valerius to his first protest. T h e result is a neater and dramatically more effective scene. It is more than probable that the contents of the debate owe much to the proceedings of the Senate in 84 B.C. when Cinna and Carbo summoned a meeting to vote supplies for war but were foiled by L. Valerius Flaccus, the princeps senatus, qui orationem in senatu habuit . . . ut legati ad Sullam de pace witterentur (Livy, Epit. 8 3 ; see also above). 39. 2. L. Valerium Potitum : P.f. P.n., son of the consul of 475 (2. 52. 6) who died in 460 during the course of his second consulship (18. 8). T h e cognomen, held by several descendants in the fourth century, is anachronistic because its meaning (potitus rerum or 'statesman'; see Cornelius, Untersuchungen, 37 ff.) shows that it was ascribed by tradi­ tion to him as the result of the prudent measures of his consulship in the following year (449; 3. 55 nn.). See Volkmann, R.E., 'Valerius (304);ordine: 1. 32. 12 n. de republica: it was open to any senator at a meeting of the Senate to propose as a matter of priority an emergency motion on the state of the nation (de republica). Such a motion if accepted took priority over other business. Historical examples are afforded by 21. 6. 3 (the embassy of Saguntum), 22. 11. 2, 26. 10. 2 (Hannibal at the Gates); 468

4 5 0 B.C.

3- 39- 2

Cicero Phil. 8. 14 (Gracchus); in Catil. 3. 13 (Catiline); Caesar, B.C. 1. 1. Valerius' procedure was, therefore, technically correct. It is modelled on the later instances. The Speech of Horatius 39. 3 . M. Horatium: M.f. L. (or P.) n. His filiation indicates that he was not regarded as directly descended from the consul of 509 or from C. Horatius, the consul of 477 and 457. D . H . calls him an dnoyovos of the first consul, perhaps a great-nephew. Neither on the score of his name nor on that of his career are there valid grounds for doubting his existence. For a son cf. 4. 35. 1 n. decern Tarquinios: cf. Cicero, pro Sulla 21 ; Phil. 2. 114; et al. Valeriis et Horatiis: the contents of Horatius' speech were traditional. They are closely reproduced in D.H. 11. 5. 1-5, e.g. Tarquinios ~ rov TapKVviov €K€ivov €v8v6fi€voL; pulsos reges r**' asnoyovoi TOJV e^eXaadvrwv

T7jv rvpavviha; vetando libere loqui ~ Xoyov a*\eioQe; privato ~ OVK ISiwrat, rep vofjicp yeyovare. T h e difference between the two writers is one of emphasis. L. has expanded (or, less likely, D.H., with a Greek audience in mind, has suppressed) those features which were calculated to make the strongest impression on a Roman reader, e.g. the meaning and connotations of rex and the nature of Roman constitutional government (39. 8 n.). But the whole speech reflects the sentiments and the propaganda of the novi homines of the post-Gracchan period. T h e inconsistency, therefore, between Horatiis ducibus and the narra­ tive in 1. 57ft0., where Horatius is not mentioned in any capacity, is only apparent and should not be used as evidence for a difference of source. 39. 4. Iovem: Iuppiter Rex was not a cult-title (Aust in Roscher, s.v. Iuppiter, cols. 751-2) but he is often so called by popular and poetical imagination (Carter, Epitheta Deorum). reges [appellors']: Madvig's deletion is required if reges is to be parallel with Iovem and Romulum. sacris: 2. 2. 1 n. 39. 5. quae si in rege turn \eodem : the text, as it stands, is meaningless; eodem could only refer to Romulus whereas Tarquin and his son Sextus are palpably intended. In rhetorical arguments of this kind L. favours the strictest formal symmetry (4. 2. 2 n.). Here in the second half of the sentence {quern laturum in tot privatis), privatis answers rege, but there is nothing to answer turn (we might expect nunc) and, conversely, there is nothing corresponding to tot in the first half (e.g. uno). T h e corruption, therefore, is too deep-seated to be cured by the mere deletion of eodem or even turn eodem (Bekker). Nor does Walters's transposition of eodem convince, since the object of laturum has already been expressed once in quae, carefully placed outside the n-clause to 469

450 B.C. 3 39- 5 indicate that it is the subject of one clause and the object of the other. The sense and the form both demand that turn eodem should conceal the counterpart to tot, one king as opposed to ten privati, so that we may leave out of consideration all conjectures which do not take account of that (tumido eodem Brakman; turn eodemque etiam Bayet). Editors who, having seen that some part of unus is needed, retain turn or another temporal adverb (in rege tunc uno Konighoff; in rege et uno quondam Zingerle) must face the objection that a corresponding adverb is anticipated in the main clause. Others, who argue that turn conceals uno but retain eodem as well, produce an over-elaborate phrase to balance in tot privatis, e.g. in uno et rege eodem Novak; in rege uno et eodem Karsten; in rege et uno eodem Madvig. Sense and palaeo­ graphy would be satisfied by in rege unico, 'in the case of one, single king', a suggestion made to me by Mr. N. C. F. Barber, but the use of unicus is hard to parallel. I favour in rege uno tandem. 39. 7. libertate . . . dominatione: for the political language cf. 2. 28. 7, 6. 18. 6; Sallust, Jug. 31. 16; Cat. 58. 11. (The text is usually read in libertate . . . in iniusta, but only the second in has any manuscript authority at all, being read in TTX but not in /x. Since there is a straight choice between the two halves of the tradition (cf. C.Q. 9 (1959), 'i 74 ff.), it seems wisest to follow the reading o f / 1 ; in is not required (see Gronovius's note), it is an easy dittography, and if it were to be accepted it would be necessary to insert the second in before libertate against the whole consensus of the manuscripts. So also Luterbacher.) 39. 8. vicissitudinem imperitandi: 4. 5. 1 ff.; a rallying cry borrowed from the Greek. Cf. Aristotle, Politics 1317b2 eAevOeptas 8e iv [JLCV TO ev fiepei apxecrOai /cat ap^etv (Wirszubski II n. 1, who comments that 'a smattering of Greek ideas in the post-Gracchan period is not surprising'). 39. 9. populares . . . optimates: 35. 4, g; 4. 9. 5, 8, 11 ; 5. 24. 9. T h e distinction is one familiar from Cicero who defines the two groups: 'those who have wished their deeds and words to be pleasing to the multitude have been held to be populares and those who have conducted themselves in such a manner that their counsels have met the approval of all the best men have been held to be optimates' (pro Sestio 96; see the discussion in L. R. Taylor, Party Politics, 11-14). T h e terms were constantly bandied about at Rome but denoted little more than the people who at any one moment happen to be on my side and those on the other side. tunc ita habeant: tunc before i is allowable (4. 25. 13) but the tem­ poral sequence is wrong. Although the tenses vary between past and dramatic present in the course of the speech, habeant shows that nunc (Ruperti) is needed here. 470

450 B.C.

3. 4 0 . 1

The Speech of C. Claudius In D . H . 11. 7 Claudius is given a long and turgid speech. L. casts him in a different mould, as the sententious appeaser, anxious to avoid trouble and violence. 40. 1. nee irae nee ignoscendi: a conventional pair; cf. 2. 3. 3 ; Seneca, Dial, 3. 3. 5 ; Contr. 10. 3. 1. 40. 2. oratio fuit precibus quam iurgio similior, orantis: similis perorantis is read by N but perorantis will hardly suit the abject tone used by C. Claudius (cf. 40. 3 orare) and the comparative is secure (Wolfflin, Livian. Kritik, 14). The error in the archetype arose from the following per. See C.Q. 9 (1959), 280. per manes: a typical form of oath, for which cf. Virgil, Aen. 10. 524. 40. 5 . nullum placere s.c. fieri: the normal formula for opposing a motion in the Senate was to propose nils. c. faciendum (Cicero, adFam. 8. 8. 5 ; ad Alt. 1. 14. 5 ; ad QF. 2. 10. 3 ; Tacitus, Annals 1. 79. 5 nil mutandum censuerat). Mommsen (Staatsrecht, 3. 979 n. 2) held that L. had misunderstood senatorial procedure in imputing that the effect of such a proposal would be to establish that the session of the Senate was technically invalid (40. 7 privatos). L. does betray ignorance and misunderstanding elsewhere (1. 32. 12 n.). H e was not himself a senator—but the sophistry may be older and go back to the deliberate legal quibbles of earlier annalists (2. 56. 12 n.). 40. 7. patricios coire: 8. 2 n . ; for the text see C.Q. 7 (1957), 78. For Caesar in 49 B.C. permagni interest rem ad interregnum non venire (ad Att. 9. 9. 3). But a generation earlier Carbo, as sole consul, had con­ trolled the elections and, by preventing the Senate from appointing an interrex (Appian, B.C. 1. 7 8 ; Plutarch, Pompey 5), had maintained his position. censendo quoscumque: the ellipse (ut essent magistratus quicumque essent or the like) is impossible. L. means that, whatever motion they passed, by the very act of passing it they were recognizing the validity of the Decemvirs, i.e. quodcumque (Madvig) sc. censuisset; cf. 33. 24. 6. L. Cornelius: cf. 22. 1 n. The Speech of L. Cornelius The material of Cornelius' speech is also traditional. Notice especially qui. . .petissent. . . oppugnarent ~ D.H. 11. 16. 4 OVTOL ydp dyavaKrovvres OTL . . . ivLKrjaav . . . del 7ToAef±ov(iiv CLVTOLS ; nunc demum . .. serant r^j II. 16. 5 6p
omit the long and sarcastic apostrophe in D . H . with which the 471

3- 40- 8

450 B.C.

Romans address their enemies and request them to postpone the war until the Roman people have had a chance to vote on the legiti­ macy of the Decemvirate. 40. 9. out soli out ii maxime: socii read by the manuscripts is impossible, as is demonstrated by the corresponding passage of D . H . n . 16. 4 fJL€TLOVTaS CLVTOVS T7JV TWV &€KCL dpX^V,

fjS CLVTol VVV KaTTjyOpOVdLV^

€VLK7}(jaV

iv apxoLipecrtaLs eVtrTySetorfpot (fxxvevres. T h e present opponents of the Decemvirate had not been associates or colleagues in seeking that office; they had been rivals. Crevier's soli is inevitable. Cornelius is arguing that the sole or at least the chief agitators are disappointed rivals. There is no need for further alteration: cf. 26. 41. 11. 40. 10. quid ita: 2. 4 1 . 6 n. Cornelius uses to effect a familiar Greek commonplace that a city which adopts a defensive strategy in the face of invasion is liable to be rent and ultimately betrayed by internal factions. It was Miltiades' greatest service to Athens that, having observed the fate of Eretria, he did not allow the same fate to over­ take Athens (Hdt. 6. 109. 5). 4 0 . 1 1 . ceterum neminem \maiore cura occupatis animis verum esse praeiudicium rei tantae fieri: auferri N. It must be remembered that ceterum should mean 'and further', adding a new reason for taking no action until the crisis is past in addition to the reason given in the preceding sentence that the agitation was motivated by disloyalty, and not 'therefore', introducing sibi placere, the substantive part of his motion. This is clear from the passages adduced in the Thes. Ling, Lat. Secondly the parenthesis proposed by Walters ceterum—nonne enim . . . auferri— sibi placere leaves ceterum hanging in a way for which I can find no parallel in L. It follows that ceterum must introduce the clause which ends (in the manuscripts) with auferri and that a strong stop should be put at that point. Cornelius has given his reasons: he now gives his proposals which begin—sibi placere (cf. mihi placet: for the stereotyped order cf. ad Herennium 2. 1. 1). His last reason, the ceterum sentence, evidently states that it is wrong {verum esse must = 'to be fair') for a preliminary decision of any kind to be taken when men's minds are preoccupied with other things. Quintilian's definition (5. 2. 1) and statements of the jurists say that a praeiudicium was an action in which 'the plaintiff demanded the ascertainment of a fact or a legal relation. Such an action is sometimes preparatory to another lawsuit. T h e plaintiff may, for example, assert that the defendant is his freedman. If this is proved, the plaintiff may go on to sue the defendant by another action based on the previous decision'. Here the term is being used more loosely. It is contended that a s.c. of any kind would serve to determine the assertion of the legal validity of the Decemvirate and so form the basis of further actions. Previous speakers had urged that they should either pass no s.c. which would have the effect of making a 472

450 B.C.

3-40.

"

praeiudicium that the Decemvirs were not valid and did not possess the authority to convene a meeting of the Senate, or that they should pass a s.c. ad prodendum interregem which, as was pointed out, would be the equivalent of a praeiudicium that the Decemvirs were valid, since if the s.c. was valid then a fortiori the magistrates who had convened the session were valid ('magistratus esse qui senatum haberent iudicabant'). Cornelius' argument could be either positive (it was right that there should be no praeiudicium) or negative (it was not right that there should be a/?.). Since neminem must be wrong, as it has nothing to govern or agree with, editors have mainly adopted the former approach: ceterum nemini non . . . auferri (Rhenanus); nonne enim . . . auferri (Walters, Bayet). But auferri cannot be used to mean 'be forestalled, prevented, postponed'. It means 'be removed, stolen'. Hence etenim . . . haud fieri (Madvig); omnino . , . haud fieri (Seyffert); differri (Sigonius). But it is far easier to accept the correction fieri for auferri and adopt negative argument, praeiudiciumfieriis the t.L (5. n . 10; 25 examples in Vocabularium Iurisprudentiae Romanae, s.v. facio, col. 753). It is crucial to note that M read nemini se not neminem. In deciding what the archetype read there is a free choice between the two variants. Accepting M's text I postulate a lacuna for which, exempli gratia, I would propose nemini (videri pos)se. 'Further, no one could think it right that when men's minds were preoccupied with greater anxieties a matter of such importance should be prejudged.' For praeiudicia in Roman law see Pissard, Les Questions prejudicielles au droit romain (1907); Beseler, Rev. d'Hist. du Droit 10 (1930), 170; Siber, Festschrift Wenger, 1 (1944), 46. 40. 12. et iam nunc: continues Cornelius' motion, se = Ap. Claudius. 'That Ap. Claudius should at once prepare himself to explain in reference to the election which he had held for the appointment of Decemvirs—being one himself—whether they were chosen for one year or until the missing laws be enacted.' Conway accepts decemvirum (M) as a genitive plural with unus understood: but decemvir (XTT) has equal authority and should be read here and at 9. 34. 1, since there is no parallel for the ellipse in Gudeman's article in the Thes. Ling. Lat. 40. 14. praeverti: 'the levy should take priority over everything else'. 4 1 . 1 . coorti: M adds 'Valerius Horatiusque contra sententiam Maluginensis' which is shown to be a marginal gloss by contra where L. would use in (2. 17. 2, 43. 4, 56. 14, 4. 3. 3). It was intended as a chapter heading. It formed part of the commentary written, in late antiquity, on L., for which see L. Voit, Philologus 91 (1936), 308 ff.; G. Billanovich, Italia Med. e Uman. 2 (1959), 110-11. de re publica: 39. 2 n. imaginariis: the sole occurrence of the word in L. is also its first 473

450 B.C. 3- 4*. i appearance in Latin. It is generally taken to mean 'fictitious' or 4 putative' in the general sense, found later e.g. in Seneca, Dial. 2. 3. 3, that the fasces were not real. T h e origin of such a striking word does, however, call for investigation. As a study of Berger's article 'imaginarius' in R.E. shows, it was employed commonly in the late jurists as a t.t. for the crime of 'false pretences'—imaginaria venditio, emptio, &c. (Gaius, Inst. 1. 119; Ulpian, Dig. 40. 1. 4. 2, 7). Rather than believe that L. coined the word, we may suppose that the legal use was the primitive use which was subsequently extended to bear a general meaning, and that Valerius is deliberately calling attention to the illegality of the Decemvirs' conduct. They are privati. To appear with lictors is to be guilty of false pretences. Cf. the legal arguments about praeiudicia earlier. (P.J. Pearse (P.C.P.S. 85 (1910), 6) had already seen the difficulty in the conventional interpretation of imag. but the connexion which he proposes with imagines seems far­ fetched (cf. Juvenal 8. 227; Polybius 6. 53).) 4 1 . 3 . non erit melius: melius erit with the infinitive belongs to the language of official orders. So also at 48. 3, 5. 30. 6. T h e force of the expression can be seen, for example, in Ulpian, Dig. 42. 1. 15. 7. For the Greek aptivov see Bond's commentary on Euripides, Hypsipyle, P . 85. lictorem accedere: 2. 55. 4-7 nn. 4 1 . 4. Quiritium: 2. 23. 8 n. a curiae limine: Volkmer compares the incident of 59 B.C. when Cato was imprisoned for obstructionism (Suetonius, Julius 20) but the comparison is misleading. Valerius was not in fact arrested. complexus: literally as a suppliant (2. 40. 10; Caesar, B.G. 1. 20. 1). non cui: N read the dittography non quid cui but cui is certain. Cornelius pretended to be supporting Valerius while he was really forwarding the interests of Claudius by preventing the wrangle ending with a public trial of strength. diremit: 7. 14. 5, 33. 39. 1, 39. 22. 9. dimittit, a variant in M, is not so used. 4 1 . 7. praeesse exercitibus: it is natural to expect that the two clauses describe two alternatives. T h e Decemvirs had to decide which of their number were to stay and which to go. Yet, as they stand, the clauses supplement one another, since, a fortiori, those who were to command the armies were to go to the war. (The anaphora excludes the other possibility that the first quos = 'which of the legions', and the second = 'which of the Decemvirs'.) Strothius, who first drew attention to the difficulty, conjectured rebus civilibus which Bayet improved to urbanis rebus. A simpler correction would be urbi, if the corruption sprang from the contracted ex'citib. But it is conceivable that exercitibus is right. L. is hurrying ahead to the story of Verginia and often at the 474

450 B.C.

3- 41- 7

tail-end of a duller passage he admits quite irrational carelessnesses (2. 43. 5 n., 44. 6 n.). (oporteret shows Cobet's comparant to be mistaken.) 4 1 . 8. minus . . . ingenium esse: Fabius was regarded as unsuitable to manage the ticklish situation at Rome which called for Appius' ruthlessness, because his education in tyranny had not yet converted him into an old lag (navum in malitia). So far it had simply induced him to depart occasionally from the straight and narrow (minus in bono constans). Cf. 2. 40. 8 n. 4 1 . 9. suisimilis: 36. 1 n. M\ Rabuleio: for the names see 35. u nn. 42. 2. ductu atque auspicio: 1. 4 n. 42. 3. Fidenas Cms turner iamque: 1. 14. 4-15 n., 9. 9 n. 42. 4. certamini: certamine N, defended by Conway who quotes 5. 18. 8 nee . . . aequo loco hosti commisit where, however, a dative is supplied to specify what Titinius did not commit himself to. T h e dative is, there­ fore, demanded here (cf. 4. 59. 2, 31. 22. 7), as in Val. Max. 1. 1. 2 Martio certamini commissurus; Amm. Marc. 29. 5. 29. natura . . . armis: L. employs the usual military cliches (cf., e.g., Caesar, E.G. 7. 50. 1) but, unlike Caesar, is interested in the psychology (dedecus, flagitium) not the details of battles. 42. 6. arma ferre: ferre arma Ver. A standard expression always in the order a. f. posse (1. 44. 2, 3. 4. 10, 5. 39. 13; Caesar, B.G. 1. 29, 2. 28, 4. 19, 7. 71, 7. 75, 8. 7; Bell. Afr. 36). Notice the string of infinitives suggesting the atmosphere of haste in which the measures were adopted. T h e responsibility of the Senate for conducting wars, implied in the present passage, may owe something to the historical disputes of the late second century when its competence was called into ques­ tion by the Quaestio Mamilia and by Memmius. 42. 7. arma Tusculum ac supplementum: ad nX. L. writes in not ad supplementum = 'as a reinforcement'; cf. 28. 37. 4, 29. 13. 8 and decerno ad 'to vote something for' only with helium (65. 6, 7. 17. 7) or ludos (36. 36. 1, 40. 52. 1). T h e sense therefore must be that the Senate voted that arms and reinforcements be sent to Tusculum, arms because they had lost everything at Algidus and reinforcements because there had been considerable casualties. Cf. 25. 5. 5 novae urbanae legiones et supplementum veteribus; 42. 10. 12. L. Siccius Dentatus T h e story of L. Siccius, the R o m a n Achilles, like the legend of Coriolanus, is one of those timeless episodes which have no proper place in the annals. There is no trace of Siccius in the Fasti and, therefore, no firm date from which to anchor his exploits. H e was remembered 475

3-43

450 B.C.

as a warrior of incredible prowess and endurance. His first appearance in the pages of history belongs only to the time of the Punic Wars. M . Sergius Silus, the ancestor of Catiline, was a hero of no less super­ human proportions. T h e two were evidently bracketed as a pair (Pliny, N.H. 7. 104; hence the confusion L. Sergio Dentato in Festus 208 L.), the legendary and the contemporary champions. T h e his­ torians who first inserted Siccius into the narrative of Roman history can have had little to go on. T h e primitive legend may have con­ nected Romulius Denter and Siccius Dentatus and late historians have rationalized that connexion by associating Siccius with T . Romilius who was consul in 453 and was also one of the Decemvirs. L. minimizes his importance. H e excludes the events of 455 (30-32 n.) although mentiones ad volgus militum serentem suggests that he was aware of them. T o turn the spotlight on him would be to destroy the propor­ tion of his account of the Decemvirate. So he confines himself to the bare essentials which he could not in decency omit, but in passing he cannot forbear to bring out the modern parallel. Siccius and Sergius were so familiar a pair to R o m a n minds that the manner in which Sergius' descendant, Catiline, met his end was appropriately recalled by verbal associations in the death of Siccius. T h e story enjoyed great popularity in later R o m a n writing. It was taken up by Varro, from whom the authors of the Exempla derived it (cf., e.g., Aul. Cell. 2. n . 1 ; Val. Max. 3. 2. 24). For further details see Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen> 1. log n. 88; Pais, Ancient Legends, 183; Munzer, R.E., 'Siccius (3)'; A. Klotz, Klio 33 (1940), 173-9, whose views on the ultimate source of Livy and Varro should be treated with caution. There is no external or internal evidence for believing that L. has abandoned Valerius Antias. D.H. 11. 25-27 is prolix and exaggerated. 4 3 . 6. in medio iacentem: cf. Sallust, Cat, 60. 7. T h e description of Catiline's end has also influenced L.'s treatment of Decius Mus the elder (8. 10. 10) and the younger (10. 29. 19). See Skard 32-33. 43. 7. erant castra: this, the word-order of Ver., seems preferable to castra erant because the contrast between the camp and the city is more effectively brought out by the chiasmus. 44-49. Verginia 'Ah, woe for young Verginia, the sweetest maid in Rome.' Over characters as diverse as J o h n Webster and Macaulay, Alfieri and Lessing, the story of Verginia has exercised a curious fascination. T h a t fascination is in large measure due to the skill and poignancy with which L. has constructed what is one of the noblest episodes in his narrative. Verginia was for him a supreme example of the virtue 476

450 B.C.

3- 44-49

ofpudicitia, a supreme condemnation of libido. T h e moral lesson might be conventional but the telling of it was enhanced by all the art which L. could bring to bear. Yet for all its beauty the story of Verginia is entirely devoid of historical foundation. It reaches its fullest maturity in the pages of L. but we can trace the stages of its growth back to the nakedness of its beginning. T h e legal issues which dominate L.'s narrative were only introduced into the story after the Gracchan period. They are present for the first time in Pomponius (Dig. i. 2. 2. 24) and betray the same desire as was seen in the case of P. Sextius (33. 9-10), to illustrate the Twelve Tables by paradigms and thereby provide circumstantial de­ tails for the narrative. In the same period Verginia becomes a plebeian (eV TOV 7T\rj0ov$)9 whereas in the earlier strata she was a patrician. The change discloses the hand of historians anxious to squeeze political interest out of the episode. Before the Gracchan age the story was simple (Cicero, Rep. 2. 6 3 ; Diodorus 12. 24). A father kills his daughter rather than allow her to be the object of a tyrant's lust. And it was anonymous; the participants are unnamed (napOevos, Koprjy ol xa/tueWaToi). T h a t fact allows us to hazard that the very name Verginia was simply a hypostatization of virgo and that the identity of her father as Verginius and the names of the remaining characters were all gradual embellishments. In its primitive form, then, the story is of a familiar, recurring kind. It is the story of Lucretia, the story of the Maid of Ardea (4. 9. 4). It begins as a legend associated with a shrine, in the case of Verginia the shrine of Venus Cloacina (48. 5 n.). If any of them have an historical basis, it is Lucretia and it is easy to see how her example could be duplicated. It was known that the Decemvirate, although a concession to popular pressure, had not sufficiently satisfied that pressure. By codifying the law they had brought out into the open and canonized some of the most unpopular disabilities, such as conubium, from which the plebs suffered. In face of continued agitation the Decemvirs gave place to more radical legislators in the persons of Valerius and Horatius. But that sequence of events, which seems easily compre­ hensible to modern judgement, was improved on by the ancients who inserted the tyrannous second Decemvirate to supply a sharper motive for the change. If Appius was a tyrant, then Valerius and Horatius 'restored' liberty. As the first tyranny had fallen on account of a woman, so must the tyranny of Appius fall. Beyond that there is no need to go. Certainly there are no good grounds for supposing that the fall of the Second Decemvirate was really a garbled recollec­ tion of the expulsion of the Etruscan kings, since contact with Etruria seems to break offarchaeologically e. 450, and hence that the story of Verginia was the original from which Lucretia was fabricated when 477

3- 44-49

450 B.C.

the early history of the Republic was 'invented 5 . T h e archaeological break is, rather, to be explained both by the recession of Etruria after the Battle of Gumae and by the self-sufficient austerity of the Romans who were beginning to become alive to their own national independence. T h e same phenomenon can be seen in the mounting agitation of the plebs. L.'s sources presented the story as a paradigm of the causa liberalis as defined in the Twelve Tables. L. preserved the legal fustian but betrays his ignorance of the procedure of the law, which matches his ignorance of senatorial procedure, by confusions (44. 5 n., 44. 12 n., 46. 7 n., 47. 5 n.). For him it is not the law that matters but the drama. A comparison with D.H. shows how L. has constructed his account as two distinct scenes, the scene at Appius' tribunal (44-46) and the scene on the following day in the Forum (47-49)- H e has eliminated all the subsidiary details which appear in D.H. such as the detailed account of how Icilius and Numitorius accomplished their journey from Rome to the camp, and the events which trans­ pired in the intervening night between the two scenes. In this way L. preserves the unity of action. In the treatment of the actual scenes L. has his eye on the dramatic. Where D.H. transcribes an exact account of the trial with the speeches, L. deliberately eschews such rhetorical fantasies (47. 5 n.) and concentrates instead on the suspense and excite­ ment. Primo stupor omnes . . . defixit; silentium inde aliquamdiu tenuit. It is significant, too, that in the speech which he gives to Icilius the theme is the evils of libido and not, as in D.H. 11. 31-34 and presumably in their sources, of tyranny. T h e whole plot builds up to the climax of Verginius' words in 48. 5, stark and effective. There is as well, perhaps, a further interest in L.'s account. Verginia is an exemplum pudicitiae, but the words which sound the refrain are in libertatem vindicare. L. repeats them constantly even at the expense of legal exactitude (44. 12, 45. 11, 46. 7, 46. 8, 48. 5). T h e emphasis on liberty is conscious because the hazards and dangers attending liberty, which formed the framework of Book 2, remain as a persistent thread through the later books. No sooner has regnum given way to libertas than libertas is menaced by personal ambition, party faction, foreign invasion. Liberty must always be safeguarded. Did not Augustus stamp the challenging title LIBERTATIS P . R. VINDEX (cf. 56. 6) on a coin of 28 B.C. {B.M.C. I m p . Aug. 691, from Bithynia) ? T h e story of Verginia had a message for L.'s generation. O n the historical issues see Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 1. 299; Ed. Meyer, Rh. Mus. 37 (1882), 618; E. Kornemann, Rom. Geschichte, 1. 9 5 ; Pais, Ancient Legends, 185-203; Taubler, Untersuchungen, 14 ff; Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 246; H . S.Jones, C.A.H., 7. 471 ; A. Kurfess, Mnemosyne 6 (1938), 272; H. Gundel, R.E., 'Verginia'; on the legal 478

450 B.C.

3- 44-49

issues see M . G. Nicolau, Causa Liberalise 99 If.; P. Noailles, Fas et Ius, 187-221 (the earlier works by Schmidt, Puntschart, Maschke, Ubbelohde, and Taubenschlag are no longer of value); J . C. van Oven, Rev. d'Hist. du Droit 18 (1950), 159-90. For L.'s treatment of the story see Soltau 110; Appleton, Rev. Hist. Droit 3 (1924), 592 fT.; Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen^ 4 8 ; Burck 36 ff.; Klotz 2 6 7 - 8 ; Bayet, tome 3, 133-45. 44. 2. plebeiae: according to Diodorus 12. 24. 2 evyevovs irapdivov irevixpas. T h e Verginii were predominantly patrician (but see 11. 9 n.) and therefore Diodorus is likely to have preserved the earliest tradition. L. Verginius: the father is not named in Diodorus. In Cicero, de Rep. 2. 63, he is called D. Verginius, possibly a textual error or perhaps an older version before the legend became fixed, since Pomponius (Dig. 1. 2. 2. 24) merely calls him Verginius quidam, implying that the praenomen was not common knowledge. Nothing is to be argued, how­ ever, from Cicero's omission of the name in the pro Cornelio of 65 B.C., for Asconius (77. 15 Clark) explicitly comments: scilicet quodnotissimum est . . . patrem virginis L. Verginium. 44. 3. liberique: Verginia was an only child. T h e use of the plural liberi is said by Aulus Gellius to be archaic (2. 13. 1), citing a quotation of Sempronius Asellio in support. Wackernagel (Vorlesungen, 1. 95) claims that it is a mere accident of language that Latin did not have a word for a child as opposed to a son or a daughter (see also Lofstedt, Syn­ tactical 1. 39) but the fact remains that the use is designed to play upon the emotions and evoke sympathy. T h e charge that she was supposititious may be based on the memory of a custom whereby children were smuggled in to maintain the continuity of a family (cf. I.L.S. 7998). desponderat: technically only the father betrothed, although courtesy and convention would lead him to take his wife's opinion (38. 57. 6). T h e plural desponderant (Ver.) cannot be defended, even in the light of Donatus' note on Terence, Andria 102 despondi proprie non desponsa dicitur quia spondet puellae pater, despondet adulescentis. For similar intru­ sive rt's cf. 3. 11. 13, 12. 7, 12. 8, 35. 2, 38, 4, 44. 12 (postumlant), 62. 4, 67. 6, 68. 7, 68. 8. L. Icilio: 31. 1 n., 32. 7. rdens 44. 4. amore amens: 47. 4 n. N had the dittography amens. animadverterat: for postquam with pluperfect cf. 26. 4, 23. 27. 3, 25. 23. 8, 33. 7. 9. Ver.'s animadvertit, accepted by J u n g , is the result of assimilation to convertit. Cf. 5. 39. 12. 44. 5. clienti: M . Claudius, presumably a freedman or the descendant of one. L. gives no account of the origin or character of clientela, an old Italic institution, but accepts it throughout his history as a familiar phenomenon of R o m a n society. The client has been well described as 479

3-44-5

450 B.C.

4

an inferior entrusted, by custom or by himself, to the protection of a stranger more powerful than he and rendering certain services and observances in return for this protection' (Badian, Foreign Clientele i). He was in fide alicuius. The degree of the relationship varied with the different methods by which the inferior passed infidem. The two that are relevant to the early books of L. are manumission, where the patron retained a high degree of coercive power over his former slave, and application in which a free citizen applied to a prospective patron for protection (cf. Terence, Andr. 924 ff.; Eun. 1039 ff.) but which conferred no legal potestas on the patron. The status of client and patron was inherited from generation to generation, so that M. Claudius could be the descendant of one of the Claudian clientes mentioned in 2. 16. 4. In general the responsibilities of the patron were to protect his client's interests at law (Horace, EpisU 2. 1. 104) and to safeguard his livelihood. They were real responsibilities (Aul. Gell. 5. 13; Virgil, Aeneid 6. 609) and the Twelve Tables stipulated the ultimate penalty for dereliction (8. 21 patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit saceresto). The client's duties, listed by D.H. 2. 9, were various. He was expected to follow his patron to war (2. 49. 5 n.; cf. Scipio Aemilianus in 134 (Appian, Hisp. 84): in the late Republic Q . Metellus, M. Crassus, and, above all, Pompey raised armies from their clients outside Rome), to come to his aid in financial straits (5. 32. 8; 38. 60. 9), and to support him in political campaigns (2. 56. 3, 64. 2 : both passages with their implicit and false assumption that plebeians could not have clients are highly tendentious and reflect the ideo­ logical struggles of a quite different age when a radical democrat would resent the powerful blocs based on clientela by the great dynastic politicians). L. preserves nothing of value about the primitive clientela. Instead he gives a picture of it at work as it must have been in the first century B.C. See Premerstein, R.E., 'clientes'. libertatempostulantibus: Ver.'spetentibus is an instance of its trivializing tendency. Cf. also 3. 6. 6 n., 61. 13 n. For the legal questions see below. ratus: Mommsen, following Ver.'s omission of ratus, would punctuate vindicias: quod . . . esse. In that case quod . . . esse is part of what Appius told his client M. Claudius, expressed in or. ob., rather that what Appius thought, ratus would seem to be wrongly interpolated at 5. 39. 7 (n.) but that is no argument for the present passage where it is more in keeping with L.'s methods that Appius' psychology rather than his instruction should be analysed: ad crudelem superbamque vim animum convertit. Ver. may have been misled by the apparent finality of locum iniuriae esse into omitting ratus. 44. 6. ludi: for tabernaculis see 48. 5 n. The ludi are anachronistic, perhaps inserted into the story to account for the association of Verginia with that quarter of Rome. The first school at Rome was opened 480

450 B.C.

3- 44- 6

by a freedman of Sp. Garvilius, consul in 234 (Plutarch, QjR. 5 9 ; cf. Aul. Gell. 4. 3. 2 ; 17. 2 1 . 44). Before that all Roman children, a fortiori girls, were educated at home (Pliny, Epist. 8. 14. 6 ; Plutarch, Cato maior 20). Ludi are frequendy mentioned in Plautus (e.g. Batch. 420 ff.) so that they must have become fashionable quickly. See Gwynn, Roman Education, 28-30. There may be some connexion (? contemporary propaganda) between this detail of the story and the Edict of the Censors of 92 B.C. against the Latin rhetoricians (text in Suetonius, de Rhet. 2 5 ; discussion by Bloch, Klio 3 (190*3), 68-73). See also Marrou, History of Education, 250 ff. The 'in ius vocatio' T h e first move in a legal proceeding was for the plaintiff to invite the defendant to come with him to the praetor. If the defendant de­ clined, the plaintiff appealed for witnesses. T h e procedure is laid down by the first clause of the Twelve Tables (si IN IUS VOCAT, NI IT, ANTESTAMINO) a n d illustrated by Plautus (e.g. Pers. 745 ff.). Here it is implied by the words se sequi iubebat, although, stricdy speaking, L. reverses the order of events. The 'manus iniectio' If the defendant continued to decline to accompany the plaintiff, the latter laid his hand on him as a symbolic gesture before witnesses that he summoned the defendant before the judge. This step is also laid down by the Twelve Tables (si CALVITUR PEDEMVE STRUIT MANUM

ENDO IACITO) and illustrated by Plautus (e.g. True. 762). T h e manus iniectio was a stage in a legal action, not an act of violence. L. has either misunderstood or distorted the legal meaning of manum . . . iniecit by glossing it by vis (vi abstracturum, iam a vi tuta erai). Hence the double entendre oise iure grassari non vi. serva . . . appellans: 1. 40. 3 n. (se) sequi iubebat: sequi Ver. esse sequique se N. N's text will construe if esse is taken with appellans, but the simple sequi in Ver. suggests that N has reproduced a dittography of a familiar type £"?". se is required (cf. 42. 43. 6 se sequi iusserunt) and it is easy to see how if it was lost before sequi by haplography the divergent texts of Ver. and N would have resulted. Place a semicolon after appellans. 44. 7. Quiritium: 2. 23. 8 n. celebrabatur: the imperfect, offered by N , is preferable to the (historic) present (celebratur) or the perfect (celebratum sc. est: Ver.) since the action is continuous a n d maintained. For other telescoped "words in Ver. cf. 8. 5 n. a n d 44. 8 n. below. ' r K 44. 8. multitudine concitata: echoed in 46. 1 and 49. 1; Ver. h a d : concita. 814432

48 [

II

3- 44- 9

450 B.C.

44. 9. vocat puellam in ius, auctoribus qui aderant ut sequeretur: I accept the punctuation and interpretation given by P. Noailles, which is also that of editions before Doujat. The whole sentence reiterates the procedure of in ius vocatio and manus iniectio. Claudius invites the girl to come with him to the praetor. When she declines he invokes the crowd as witnesses to the invitation conveyed by the manus iniectio and to testify that she should follow him to the tribunal. (Recent editors take auctoribus. . . sequerentur (plural, as read by N ; i.e. the girl and her nurse) with perventum: 'they were advised by their sup­ porters to follow him and they went before the tribunal'. The punctua­ tion obscures the legal point. The plural makes nonsense of 44. 6 where it is only the girl who is invited to follow.) tribunal: a movable wooden platform from which the praetor administered justice. Originally it stood in the comitium (27. 50. 9) but was moved, probably in the second century, farther east near the Puteal Libonis (Horace, Epist. 1. 19. 8 and Porphyrio's note) and the Basilica Aemilia. L.'s topographical information is too scanty to allow us to conjecture which site he had in mind or whether Augustus' large reconstruction had yet occurred. See Platner-Ashby s.v.; H. D. Johnson, The Roman Tribunal (Johns Hopkins University Diss., 1927); C. Gioffredi, Studia et Documenta Hist, et Juris 9 (1943), 227 ff.; J. Paoli, Melanges de Visscher, 4 (1950), 302 n. 54. The 'vindicatio in servitutem' When the two contestants come before the praetor the formal pro­ cedure is enacted {legis actio per sacramentum in rem). The procedure is basically the same whatever the nature of the case, whether it be a question of status as here {causa liberalis) or of ownership. The plaintiff makes his assertion, and the defendant makes a counter-assertion. This first hearing or confrontation between the parties is held before the praetor as magistrate who decides on the legal propriety of the case (in iure). The whole procedure is then re-enacted before a index, who may be the same person as the praetor or may be a body of jurors, to decide on the facts of the matter (in iudicio). On the first hearing (in iure) of a causa liberalis, the praetor was guided by rule to pronounce vindiciae sunt secundum libertatem: that is to say, he held for the man who was claiming to be free, since if he pronounced for the other side, they could, in the interval between the hearing in iure and in iudicio, gain possession of the man and make away with him. The bias is analogous to the English presumption of innocence. The procedure is not detailed in the surviving fragments of the Twelve Tables but can be recovered from the later jurists. Gf. Ulpian, Dig. 6. 1. 1 . 2 ; Gaius, Inst. 1. 134. The adsertor servitutis affirms 'meum esse aio\ 482

450 B.C.

3- 44- * «

:

The ' vindicatio in libertaterrf With one vital exception it was open to any qualified citizen to make the counter-claim that the defendant was a free m a n . T h e Twelve Tables stated ADSIDUO VINDEX ADSIDUUS ESTO : PROLETARIO QUIS VOLET VINDEX ESTO. T h e sole exception is in the case of defendants

who are not sui iuris, where only the paterfamilias was competent to make the counter-claim ""filium meum esse aio\ Since Verginia was a minor and not sui iuris, her supporters could not make a claim on her behalf and so her case went by default. Legally there was no vindicatio in libertatem because there was no one present competent to make it. 44. 12. rem integram . . . vindicias: L. has confused the issue. Since there could be no vindicatio in libertatem in the absence of the father, it is nonsense to request Appius to pronounce vindicias secundum liber­ tatem. All they could do was to appeal to his sense of fairness and hope that he would postpone making any pronouncement until the father arrived and made his contra vindicatio, whereon Appius would be com­ pelled to pronounce in Verginia's favour. vindicias det: cf. Pomponius, Dig. i. 2. 2. 24. The 'addictio' T h e defence has gone by default. It is now for the praetor to pronounce his judgment which can only be that the adsertor servitutis is free to remove his property and that in so doing he will be acting legally. This authorization would take the form of a decree, if we m a y believe the definition vocantur decreta cum fieri aliquid iubet {praetor). In making the decree the praetor concludes the proceedings. It is, there­ fore, fantastic that L. should suggest that the authorization was only provisional and temporary until the arrival of the father (45. 3 placere patrem arcessiri). T h e very idea, which is itself contradicted in 45. 5 (n.), betrays L.'s failure to grasp the legal position. W h a t did happen was that Appius was forced under pressure to withhold his judgement until the following day. 45. 2. personis: the t.t, qui: masc. as always in general legal statements which involve men and women. in iis . . . cedat: 'in the case of those who were claimed as free, since anyone was entitled to bring an action, their request was legal: in the case of one who was under the authority of her father, there was no one to whom the master should yield ownership'. T h e second sentence makes the exception to the general rule that anyone can bring an action in a causa liberalis. W e might expect this to be made clearer by in aliis (Karsten) for in iis but the language is legalistic. (Ver. reads adsignare under the influence ofadserantur at the beginning 483

3- 45- 2

450 B.C.

of the sentence, lege agere is the t.t.; adsignare is meaningless in the context. For other instances of a similar corruption cf. 5. 23. 12, 49- 9, 5 1 - 3-) 45. 3 . adsertorem: the noun is first found here but is presumably much older, adserere (commonly with manu) is the t.t. already in Plautus. 45. 4. P. Numitorius . . . avus: 54. 11 n. For the family see 2. 58. 2 n. Nothing else is known of him or his son (46. 5) other than his election to the fictitious college of tribunes in 449 (54. 11). His association with Icilius suggests that he is a duplication of the tribune of 471. See Miinzer, R.E., 'Numitorius (3)'. 45. 5. decresse: the lictor declares that the proceedings are over and that Appius has given his judgment. In fact Appius is forced to re­ tract so far as to withhold giving judgment that day. 45. 6. placidum . . . ingenium: so Adherbal in Sallust {Jug. 20. 2). The Speech of Icilius L. has elaborated material taken over from his source. According to D.H. ( n . 31. 4-5), Icilius exclaimed simply that Appius would re­ move Verginia over his dead body and incited him to take a sword to his neck to see whether ^eydXojv /ca/ctDv apfet 'Paj/xat'ot? 6 ddvaros ovfjids rj fjbtydAajv dyadu)v. In L. this has become an emotional defiance tricked out with all the colours of contemporary rhetoric and illus­ trated with commonplaces which can be paralleled from Cicero. taciturn/eras: 1. 50. 9 n. 45. 7. expediri: 2. 55. 5 n. 45. 8. arces: 37. 5 n. Cf. Cicero, pro Cluentio 156 in arce legis praesidia constituere. regnum: cf. pro Quinctio 94; for regnum in cf. Propertius 3. 10. 18; Horace, Odes 4. 4. 2. 45. 9. saevite: cf. D.H. 11. 31. 4. pudicitia: cf. Verr. 1. 68. implorabimus: cf. pro Quinctio 94; pro S. Roscio 29; Verr. 1. 25. There is a certain unbalance between the three appeals. T h e first two state both the appellant (ego, Verginius) and the object of appeal (pro sponsa, pro unicafilia), the third limb of the tricolon contains only the appel­ lant (omnes) and not the object. Hence Boot with some reason proposed inserting pro ingenua before implorabimus. 45. 10. consideres: cf. Cicero, Verr. 5. 174 moneo videos etiam atque etiam et consideres quid agas, quo progrediare. 45. 1 1 . sciat sibi: condicionem quaerere means 'to make a match' as in the Laudatio Turiac (= C.I.L. 6. 1527; cf. Suetonius Aug. 69; Marcian. Dig. 23. 2. 19). Since Verginia is betrothed to Icilius, it is right to say that Ver484

450 B.C.

3-45-

"

ginius has made a match for her with him. Icilius threatens that if Verginius on his return meekly accepts Appius' decision then he will have to find another husband for her since he (Icilius) will have nothing to do with her. (The point is purely rhetorical because, if Verginia is judged to be a slave, Verginius would no longer be in any position to make any match for her.) The question therefore is not that Verginius will have to make a match but that he will have to make another match. We must insert aliam with Doring, comparing Cicero, Phil. 2. ggfiliameius . . . aliacondicionequaesita. Palaeographically sciat (aliam) sibi is easier and linguistically more forceful than filiae (aliam) (Doring) or cesserit (aliam) (Boot). vindicantem: Icilius is neither competent nor prompt enough to enter a vindicatio (see above). The whole sentiment is mere rhetoric. The double cretic clausula [deseret quam fides) is noteworthy. 46. 2. spirantem: governing tribunatum, 'still making plans for the tri­ bunate'. Despite the evidence collected by Heraeus for a genitive dependent on a noun (Vindiciae Livianae 2, Progr. Offenbach, 1892, n ; cf. Lofstedt, Syntactica, 1. 215: cf. 6. 27. 9; 22. 25. 10), there re­ mains no parallel for quaerere locum and the gen. We should follow Gronovius and read seditioni; cf. 50. 14. 46. 3 . patrio: 'the name of "father"'. For this use of patrius cf. Propertius 2. 7. 20 and Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 282. ius . . . dicturum: in the praetor's formula do, dico, addico. 46. 7. sponsoresque daret: since Verginia was not technically a de­ fendant Appius cannot be demanding that she give surety to appear on the following day (Gaius, Inst. 4. 184). Instead, he must be exacting from Icilius and Numitorius a guarantee (stipulatio) that they will produce her on the following day. L. uses exceedingly loose, untechnical, and misleading language when he writes: ita vindicatur Verginia spondentibuspropinquis. There is no connexion with the Greek c'yytfyox?. 46. 8. crastina die: 2. 49. 2 n. Read crastino. The Speech of Verginius Delivered in the pathetic vein. 47. 2. circumire: 1. 47. 7 n. in acie stare: 23. 16. 10, 37. 53. 19, 44. 36. 13; cf. Bell. Hisp. 28. 1; Cicero, Phil. 11. 24. The standard phrase. strenue ac fortiter: even Bayet keeps the manuscripts' ferociter, but strenuus etfortis is the conventional Latin way of describing a soldier of exemplary record (4. 3. 16 n.), and to introduce ferocitas is to strike an entirely false note. It would not be calculated to arouse sympathy. The case for fortiter (Doujat) is demonstrated by Wolfflin, Livian. Kritik, 22. 485

450 B.C.

3- 47- 2

incolumi urbe: an old plea, used, for example, by Cicero, de Domo 98.

47. 4. amentiae. . . amoris: the play on words is old and proverbial; cf. Plautus, Merc. 82; Terence, Andria 218; Apuleius, Apol. 84. per ambitionem: ' that judgement had not been delivered in his favour the day before through partiality'. 47. 5. forson \ a comment by L. himself, speaking propria persona, as is betrayed by forsan. Common in the poets,1 the word is used in classical prose only by the author of the Bellum Africum (45), by L. here and in another aside at 10. 39. 14 (for the text of 23. 23. 3 see O.C.T. appara­ tus), and by Columella (3. 9. 1). Although Appius allegedly adjourned proceedings as an act of grace to allow Verginius the opportunity of appearing and making a contra vindicatio, he never expected him to arrive in time. When he did make his appearance, Appius was forced to change his plan, since he was obliged by the rule of proceedings in iure, if two vindications were duly made, to pronounce in favour of Verginia (i.e. secundum libertatem) pending the hearing in iudicio. To have done so would have been to lose his hold over the girl. Therefore without even allowing Verginius to make his claim, he substitutes a new judgement founded on a new ground, namely that Verginia had been stolen (44. gfurto translatam) and that Verginius was to be held as a thief caught in possession [fur manifestus). On this basis he frames his decree and elaborates argu­ ments in support of it which L. omits either because they were too complicated for him or because he regarded them as distracting to the reader but which are, however, reproduced in D.H. n . 36. Provisions against theft were laid down in the Twelve Tables (8. 14-18) and the new legal twist to Verginia's story was no doubt evolved to illustrate them. 47. 6. silentium: such silences are psychologically arresting and also serve to break the narrative in two sharply divided sections. Appius appears to be on top. Suddenly the situation changes. For other instances of this device cf. 32. 33. 1, 40. 8. 20, 12. 2 ; and see P. G. Walsh, Rh. Mus. 97 (1954), 103-4; Dutoit, Melanges Marouzeau, 141-51. See also 1. 13. 4 n., 16. 2 n., 28. 8, 50. 8 n., 2. 2. 8 n., 3- 5°- 4> 56. 6 n., 4. 18. 6, 4. 48. 15 n. 47. 7. Icilio, inquit, Appi: the juxtaposition of names is abrupt. ferarum ritu: the blind and impetuous intercourse of animals was proverbial (4. 2. 6) and Verginius' blunt words are meant to shock. Cf. Petronius, Eleg. 28 {Poet. LaU Min. XLIII. 101) non ergo ut pecudes libidinosae caeci protinus irruamus illuc. 1

Cf. Charisius, Gramm. 1. 185. 16. poetis relinquemus.

486

450 B.C.

3- 47- 7

isti: presumably the general crowd, as opposed to illos, that part of it which was armed. non spew: Verginius does not trouble even to conceal his threat. 48. 1. alienatus . . . animo: 25. 39. 4 for the abl. 48. 3 . erit melius: 41. 3 n. Appius is menacing and imperative. <7), inquit: 1. 26. 7 n. T h e official command, as is da viam (cf. Plautus, Cure. 280). mancipium: 'his property, his slave'. intonuisset: a very strong word, used only here by L. and only once before in Latin prose (Cicero, pro Murena 8 1 ; cf. Statius, Theb. 2. 668). It underlines the harsh arrogance with which Appius delivers his orders. For a similar use of a striking word cf. 1. 50. 3 n. mussitantes. The Death of Verginia T h e scene was justly famous in antiquity as can be judged from three echoes of it in Tacitus: 48. 4 = Hist. 3. 4. 1; 48. 7 = Annals 2 - 75- 15 49- 3 = Annals 2. 80. 4. 48. 5. prope Cloacinae: sc. templum, between the Basilica Aemilia and the comitium, in reality not a temple but an open shrine as the remains (Hiilsen, Mitt. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. 17 (1902), 4 4 ; 20 (1905), 62) and the representation on a coin of L. Mussidius Longus, monetal of 43-42 B.C. (Sydenham no. 1093), reveal. It is called a sacrum by Plautus (Cure. 471). T h e double name Venus Gloacina and the antiquity of the cult, attributed to Tatius (Pliny, N.H. 15. 119), suggest a fusion between Venus and a deity Gloacina. This is con­ firmed by the cult-image which comprised two draped figures, the left hand of which clasped a myrtle branch. T h e cult was associated with the twin ideas of purification (Pliny, loc. cit. cluere enim antiqui purgare dicebant; cf. 15. 120) and, perhaps, of concord ((myrtum) coniugulam, fortassis a coniugiis, ex illo Cluacinae genere), but it was Gloacina's capacity as a purifier, above all from the taint implicit in stuprum (for which see Noailles, Fas et Ius, 1-28), that made her shrine the natural setting for Verginia's death. Indeed it would be true to say that the myth of Verginia is the aetiological myth of the cult. A similar myth explained the cult of Pudicitia Plebeia (10. 23. 4—11) and the two may be related, or even duplicate. See Dressel, Wiener Studien 24 (1902), 418 ff.; Pais, Ancient Legends, 196-9; Basanoff, Rev. Hist. Relig. 126 (1942), 7 ff.; R. Schilling, La Religion romaine de Venus, 210-15; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 186 n. 3. ad tabernas: the original shops (9. 40. 16 argentariae) on the north side of the Forum were burnt in 210 (26. 27. 2). Rebuilt at some date before 192 (Festus 258 L.), they were called Novae and the area where they stood came to be known as sub novis (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 59). 487

3- 4^. 5

450 B.C.

The reconstruction of the Basilica Aemilia in 78 and 55 B.G. (dedicated in 34 by L. Aemilius Paulus, according to Dio Gassius 49. 42) must have involved the removal of the shops. In writing nunc Novis est nomen L. must either be reproducing a comment from his source or else be loosely commenting on the survival of the name to designate the area. Gf. 2. 33. 9, and see Platner-Ashby s.v., with references. consecro: the singularity of the formula has passed unnoticed. Verginius was neither priest nor magistrate with sanction of official ceremony to conduct a consecratio capitis (55. 7 n.). Yet L. means evidently to convey something more potent than a curse. By writing consecro he hints at magic, where a mere curse or exsecratio would be dramatically too mild. There is nothing resembling it in the narratives of D.H. We are forced to conclude that L. has invented a fine-sounding formula for dramatic effect, perhaps influenced by the vengeance scenes of Greek tragedy (e.g. Euripides, Electra 1142-6). This is borne out by the balanced structure te tuumque caput \ sanguine hoc consecro; cf. 1. 24. 4. 48. 8. cetera: typical of the triter side of L.'s moralizing; muliebris dolor was proverbial (Cicero, pro Cluentio 13; pro Scauro 9), particularly for its loquacity: cf. Euripides, Andr. 93-96. 49. 4. hinc atrox rixa oritur: the climax of the scene with its description of a mob riot is sketched in fast-moving, staccato sentences, culminat­ ing in the pithy videt imperium vi victum. 49. 5. pro imperio: cf. 48. 2. A negligence, since Valerius had no imperium with which to challenge the validity of Appius' position. He was not even a tribune. 49. 6. agitatus deinde consiliis atque: two difficulties arise from the received reading of the manuscripts. (1) atque can only link agitatus and assentiendo in which case a strong stop must be made after trepidaverat. So Luterbacher. (2) There exists no parallel in L. for agitatus = exercitus 'harried by' whereas the active agitare consilium 'to act, devise an opinion' or the passive consilium agitari are frequent (1. 48. 9, 4. 58. 12, 6. 2. 1, 18. 3, 28. 10. 5, 35. 15. 7; 4. 25. 7, 10. 21. 4. 22. 24. 2, 43. 7, 33. 31. 7). AsSigonius, followed by Gronovius, rightly says, L, must have written agitatis. Many people offered advice to Oppius, many views were aired. If agitatis is right, then atque links nothing. Either a second verb to balance agitatis has dropped out, e.g. iactatis, or else atque is corrupt and should be emended. Stroth's ad quae is usually accepted (Madvig, Gonway, Bayet) but it cannot go with adsentiendo which already governs auctoribus nor with trepidaverat, for trepidare ad in L. gains only modified support from 37. 30. 5. I would revive an old conjecture of Drakenborch's who pro­ posed postquam. The corruption is easy (cf. Fiigner, Lexicon, 325) and 488

450 B.C.

3- 49- 6

the sense excellent. 'Many suggestions were voiced and after Oppius had hesitated, as he agreed (in turn) with their numerous authors on every side, he eventually gave orders for the Senate to be convened.' 5 0 - 5 4 . 5 . The Second Secession The Second Secession is as credible as the First (2. 32-33). Whatever duplications may have been made subsequently, the actual event is secure. Its roots are too deep in the Roman tradition. Elaboration can be detected to some extent by considering the site of the secession. In the oldest accounts the plebs seceded to the plebeian hill, the Aventine, on the second as on the first occasion (2. 32. 3). So Diodorus 12. 24 and Sallust, Jug. 31. 17; cf. 54. 9 n. But the whole position of the tribunate was safeguarded by leges sacratae, whose origin it was natural to connect with the Mons Sacer (Appian, B.C. 1. 1.2). Hence second-century historians whom Polybius followed made both seces­ sions take place on the two hills (cf. Cicero, de Rep. 2. 63). This was a clumsy manoeuvre which later writers improved by allotting the First Secession to the Mons Sacer, the Second to the Aventine (7. 40. 11 (a Licinian passage); Pomponius, Dig. 1. 2. 2. 20, 24; Festus 422 L.). The improved account became the standard version. It is to be noted that whereas L. adopts it in the digression 54. 5-15 (54. 9 n.), in the main narrative he prefers the older and clumsier story that they moved from the Aventine to the Mons Sacer (52. 1). L.'s treatment is characterized by the frequency of debates, dis­ cussions, and harangues. Besides three more extended speeches (50. 4-9 Verginius; 52. 6-9 Valerius and Horatius; 53. 6-1 o the emissaries), there are numerous short remarks in direct and indirect speech (5°- r4> i5> l6 > 5 1 - 3~5> n> r 2 , 13* 5 2 - 4» 53- 3~5> 54- i, 7) whose overall effect is to convey the impression of bewilderment and con­ cern. Rome is divided and perplexed, subjected to a confusion of con­ tradictory advice. The issues are presented in the open—the conflict of liberty and order, libido and pudicitia, minority rights and concordia, justice and equity. They wait for Quinctius to gather up and resolve them in his great speech (65-66). See further Taubler 4 9 - 5 3 ; Burck 4 2 - 4 3 ; U. von Lubtow, Das Romische Volk, 96-99. 50. 1. Vecilio: not otherwise mentioned. If sound (Algido Doujat), it must be the name of one of the peaks or spurs of the Algidus range. As a proper name Vecilius is tolerably common. It may be Etruscan in origin, perhaps from Falerii (Schulze 561; Gundel, R.E., 'Vecilius'). If so, its application to Algidus looks like later elaboration. 50. 3. strictum . . . telum: two things, the knife and the bloodstained figure, attract the attention of the camp. But there is nothing remark­ able about a drawn knife as there would be about a drawn sword, 489

3- 50- 3

450 B.C.

because knives do not normally live in sheaths and Verginius had in any case snatched it from the butcher's counter. There is much to be said for Cobet's cruentum etiam telum, which makes a nice balance with respersus ipse cruore. The corruption is simple. L. may, however, have allowed the melodramatic to run away with him, as he conjures up the picture of the bloodstained father with the weapon still in his hand after a hard ride of at least 20 miles. 50. 4. silentium: 47. 6 n. The Speech of Verginius An emotional performance full of pathetic cliches, agreeing sub­ stantially with the speech in D.H. 11. 40 and so being traditional. Analogues to many of the commonplace phrases are forthcoming: e.g. for comwilitones cf. 2. 55. 6 n.; for vitam . . . cariorem cf. Cicero, ad Fam. 11. 20. 2; liberae . . . vivere cf. Cicero, Phil. 11. 24 liberine vivamus an mortem obeamus thus confirming Rhenanus's interpretation of the manuscript libere; for adstuprum rapi (26. 13. 15) cf. Sallust, Hist. 3. 98; for effrenatiorem cf. Cicero, pro Cluentio 15. 50. 5. parricidam . . . aversarentur: echoed by Tacitus, Hist. 3. 25. 50. 7. nee se superstitem: se is only omitted by IT. illis quoque enim: enimy also omitted by 77, is needed to make explicit why Verginius thought that his fellow-soldiers would sympathize (Gronovius). See C.Q.q (1959), 271. 50. 10. I would read et immixti. . . [cum] eadem . . . insecutique qui. . . dicerent. 'Civilians mingled with the crowd, and by making the same complaints and telling them how much more shameful the situation would have seemed if they had seen it rather than merely heard it at second hand, and at the same time by proclaiming that it was by now virtually all over at Rome (they began to stir the army) and, others following on who said that Appius had almost lost his life and had gone into exile, they induced the troops to raise the cry "to arms".' cum has nothing to govern unless it be dicerent which would require the deletion of insecutosque [sic N ] , nor can cum . . . simul = simul. . . simul. It seems easier to understand how cum could be inserted by dittography (militum togati cum) than how it could be a corruption of simul (Zingerle). (There is, moreover, a superficial resemblance to 39. 5 (n.).) It is also possible that insecutique was changed to insecutosque after cum had been interpolated in order to allow, however speciously, cum to govern dicerent and insecutos to be linked with prqfligatam, both being taken as dependent on nuntiando. The prominent position of immixti at the beginning of the sentence leads the reader to expect a further participle and makes insecutique a more probable correction than insecutis (Alschefski). videripotuerint for the potential visafuissent has caused difficulty but is 49«

450 B.C.

3. 50. 10

affected by L. (cf., e.g., 36. 6,5. 4.2). Here it also serves to obviate the ambiguous repetition of visa . . . visa fuisset, thus ensuring the first visa (visu Freudenberg; cf. 6. 37. 1, 21. 32. 7) as well as potuerint (debuerint Doring; oportuerit Madvig) against emendation. 50. 12. et leniter: et {-que) has an adversative force as also at 60. 3, 6.22.7,7.5.2. 50. 15. cepissent: 'occupied' not 'captured'; cf. Cicero, de Rep. 2. 26» 50. 16. invidiae se qfferre: cf. Cicero, in Catil. 3. 28. 5 1 . 2. summae rei: awkwardly repeated at 51. 10, 11. See 1. 14. 4 n. tribunos militum: 4. 7. 1 n. appellari: appellate N. T h e switch from passive to active after placet can be paralleled (cf., e.g., 28. 25. 9, 29. 4. 2, 44. 2. 2) but in all these passages the subject of the action verb can easily be supplied (the consul, the general, & c ) , whereas here it is difficult to see who is to call them tribuni militum. T h e Senate ? T h e whole people ? There is a clear case for the passive. Cf. 13. 8 n. 5 1 . 8. praerogativam: 5. 18. 1 n. 5 1 . 10. Before agmine there are preserved in Ver. the letters . . . enti. Novak's suggestion that they are no more than an anticipation of Aventi- which the scribe has failed to delete is impaired by the fact that at least four and possibly five letters were written before enti. Mommsen's ingenti agmine cannot be right, since the order is invariably a.i.; cf. 6. 15. 2, 34. 10. 1; Augustine, Civ. Dei 5. 2 3 ; for the bare agmine see Fugner, Lexicon, 779. See 5. 41. 5 n. T h e most probable restoration is frequenti; cf. 27. 15. 18, 32. 12. 9, 44. 43. 1. M. Oppium: 35. 11 n. Not otherwise known. Sex. Manilzum: MdXtov according to D.H. 11. 44. 2, i.e. Manlium: but the Manlii were patricians. No Manilius is known before the second century (M'. Manilius cos. 149) and the praenomen Sextus is not used either by the Manilii or the Manlii. H e is, therefore, imaginary. 5 1 . 1 1 . terunt: 1. 57. 5 n. 51. 12. quo anno iam ante: 55. 1 n. 5 1 . 13. in ordinem: 'to be reduced to the ranks, to be degraded'. Only here and at 35. 6 in L., an unconscious repetition (1. 14. 4 n.). T h e metaphor is taken from military language; cf. Pliny, Epist. 1. 23. 1. se aiebant: se, omitted by Ver., is not strictly needed but the omission is one to which that manuscript is peculiarly liable; cf. 44. 6, 62. 1, 5. 32. 4, 40. 10, 6. 6. 10. 52. 2. sciturosque . . . nequeant: as the text stands there is no conjunction to introduce and govern nequeant and a harsh change of subject has to be presumed between admoniturum and scituros. T h e first difficulty 491

3- 52. 2

450 B.C.

is insurmountable, making it certain that the text is corrupt. T h e easiest correction is to follow Rhenanus and read sciturosque (quam) or, as improved by Gronovius, who put a colon after plebis, scituros quam (Frigell). Cf. 28. 44. 1. This may be right and is certainly preferable to quod (Drakenborch, Perizonius) or qua (Bezzenberger, Madvig), to say nothing of the fantastic proposals of Gitlbauer and Harant. Doubt, however, also attaches to scituros. If the word is right one would expect it to be followed by an ace. and inf. Hence nequire (Alschefski). But is it the right word ? T h e patricians are going to learn, not to know, that tribunicia potestas is a necessary condition for resolving the present deadlock, scio seems inapposite for conveying that idea. O n both counts, therefore, I regard scituros as suspect, as the emendation of a nonsensical plebis scitum Ro(manae). (The ordinary contraction of plebis scitum was pi. sc.; see Capelli.) If so, the most likely restoration of the text would be plebis Romanoe cum . . . nequeant where the cwm-clause gives the reason for Duilius' faith in the efficacy of reminding the patricians of the Mons Sacer. For the whole sentence cf. 61. 5. 52. 3 . Ficulensi: 1. 38. 4 n. patrum: 2. 32. 4. 52. 5. solitudo: 38. 9 n. plures[que] : Pettersson would retain the -que, taking the whole clause as governed by the initial cum and comparing 29. 37. 8 for the switch from subj. to ind. (see also Steele, Temporal Clauses in Livy, 40 ff.). T h e resulting anacoluthon is ungainly and L. always introduces long speeches by a main verb of speaking, -que is so often erroneously added or omitted that its deletion here is easy (24. 5 n.). It certainly gives only nominal support to such writing as Rossbach's (indignabantur senatores} pluresque. See Zingerle, Kleine Phil. Abhandlungen (1882), 47 n. The Speech in the Senate T h e speech is properly not to be attributed to Valerius and Horatius but represents the combined feelings of several senators (plures). Although the narrative of D.H. breaks off at this point it is safe to assume that L. has condensed a full-scale debate in which Valerius and Horatius took part into a single speech containing the gist of their views. D . H . does report a speech of L. Cornelius (11. 44. 4) and the lacuna begins after ACVKLOS 8e OvaXepios, indicating that Valerius made a separate speech. L.'s abbreviation of the debate accounts for the ambiguous plures quam Horatius ac Valerius vociferabantur. T h e speech itself is passionate. T h e string of eight questions is a highly emotional device and the effect is enhanced by the language which surpasses L.'s ordinary rhetorical vocabulary in colour and liveliness. There are many stock phrases of oratory e.g. for quid exspectabitis? cf. Cicero, Verr. 2. 191; for ruere ac defiagrare cf. Farad. 28; for 492

4 5 0 B.C.

3. 52. 5

amplexi tenetis cf. pro Sulla 59; for ferant desiderium (only here in L.) cf. Phil. 2. 45, 10. 21. There are many familiar stylistic tricks such as the repeated quid si. . . quid si, the sharp chiasmus plebs . . . habenda aut habendiplebis and the antithesis nos . . . patriciis . . . illiplebeiis. There are many rhetorical commonplaces. The swamping of civilians by soldiers recalls the opening of the pro Milone. The exaggerated occasune urbis voltis finire imperium? is matched by similar cliches from Cicero (e.g. de Domo 96). Above all, tectis iura dicturi recalls dvSpes yap 7T6XL$ (52. 6 n.). 52. 6. tectis: a Greek TOKOS, as befits a people who could take to their ships when the enemy invaded, going back at least to Alcaeus E 1. 10 (Lobel and Page). Cf. also Herodotus 8. 6 1 ; Thucydides 7. 77. 7; Sophocles, O.T. 56; Euripides, fr. 828 Nauck. Although used by historians of Rome (e.g. Appian, B.C. 2. 50; Dio 56. 5. 3) it enjoyed little vogue in Latin since to a Latin the concepts of urbs and populus were indistinguishable. 52. 7. aliorumque: who else would there be besides togati to be out­ numbered by the lictors ? According to Alschefski and Harant, women, children, and slaves. But since the main contrast is between civilians and soldiers, the women and children would be classed as togati, as they are, for example, in Cicero, pro Rab. Post. 27, or in the tag cedant arma togae. T o limit togati exclusively to men who wore togas is to miss the point of the contrast between soldiers and others, viz. civilians = togatorum aliorum (ed. Frob. 1531). For the intrusion oi-que see 24. 5 n., and for the idiomatic aliorum 5. 35. 1 n. 52. 9. novam: 'it was a new and unproved power when they extorted it from our fathers: now that they have once been captivated by its charm they will endure still less to be deprived of it, especially since we for our part do not moderate our orders so that they stand in no need of help' (after B. O. Foster). Three points call for comment. dulcedine capti does not survive in prose before this passage (cf. 5. 6. 15 (speech of Ap. Claudius); 5. 33. 2), except in a letter written by Matius to Cicero (ad Fam. 11. 28. 2). It is used by Cicero in a poetical fragment (I b 1. 4) and by other poets (e.g. Ovid, Met. 1. 709; Lucan 9. 393), and it must, therefore, have seemed a vigorous phrase to a Roman, ne nunc for nedum nunc is equally striking (Kiihner-Stegmann 2. 68 Anm. 14). The use is only attested in a letter from Cicero to Paetus written in 46 B.C. ne iuvenem quidem movit umquam, ne nunc senem. See Cicero, de Domo 139 with Nisbet's note, nee nos = et(iam) nos non is affected by L. (6. 15. 7, 23. 18. 4, 38. 23. 3, 34. 32. 9, 37. 20. 8). See Riemann, Grammaire, 277 ff. 52. 10. videatur: L. misunderstands the impeccably constitutional lan­ guage in which his source couched the Decemvirs' reply, si eis videtur was the request made by the Senate to the magistrates (2. 56. 12 n.). 493

3- 52- i o

450 B.C.

in auctoritate patrum esse signified the compliance of the magistrates for which L. wantonly substitutes potestate (2. 56. 16, 3. 21. 3, 9. 10. 1) —a most inappropiate word for the Senate. Gf. Cicero, de Legibus 3.28 cum potestas inpopulo, auctoritas in senatu sit. 53. 5. vivos . . . concrematuros: it is possible that this threat to punish the Decemvirs by burning them alive was also fabricated to illustrate the provisions of the Twelve Tables. T h e penalty was certainly pre­ scribed in the Tables for certain offences (8. 10 = Gaius, Dig. 47. 9. 9) and is said by Diodorus (12. 25. 3) to have been the sanction of the Lex Trebonia (64-65 n.). Gf. also Val. Max. 6. 3. 2. The Speech of the Envoys T h e suave and conciliatory advice is put forward in a series of easy sentences. It is enough to call attention to the high degree of antithesis employed, e.g. libertati . . . licentiae, ignoscendum . . . indulgendum, liberi . . . dominari, patrum inplebem . . . piebis inpatres, scuto . . . gladio, inferendo . . . patiendo, tunc . . . nunc. 53. 9. satis superque humili est: 'an ordinary man who lives at liberty has enough and to spare', humilis N would destroy the point by imply­ ing that such a man was excessively ordinary. 53. 10. legibus: the leges sacrae which have been in abeyance. 54. 3-4. Appius' remarks are in keeping with his character and situation—brusque and contemptuous. Notice the bald sentences without inter-connexion. T h e language is equally arresting. For imminetfortuna cf. Seneca, Troades 275. It is natural to take sanguis invidiae (gen.) together (cf. Cicero, ad Att. 1. 16. 11): 'the blood demanded by unpopularity must be paid'. Alternatively take invidiae as dat. (cf Seneca, Dial. 6. 13. 3 ) : 'blood must be paid to satisfy unpopularity'. Gf. 4. 58. 13, 7. 24. 5. nihil moror quominus is perhaps an extension of the plain nihil moror (1. 53. 10 n.) and as such is an outspoken remark, but it appropriately recalls the technical formula for dismissing the Senate—nihil amplius vos moramur (Gapitolinus, M. Aur. 10. 8). 54. 5. Q.Furius: the consul of 441. Cicero, pro Cornelio 25 supplies the reason : decern tr. pi. per pontificem quod magistratus nullus erat creaverunt; and Asconius adds that the pontifex was M . Papirius, Furius' colleague in the consulship of 441. T w o inferences may be made from these details. Until the Decemvirate the tribunate was not a recognized part of the constitution. It only achieved recognition in the framework of magistracies by the Valerio-Horatian laws, whatever their exact content may have been (55. 3 n.). It is therefore inconceivable that the elections should have been presided over by the pontifex before these laws were passed; the pontifex may actually have performed some 494

450 B.C.

3- 54- 5

ceremony of auspication (2. 33. 1), or at least have been popu­ larly supposed to have done so, to mark the recognition of the tribunate after the passing of the laws. Secondly the Annales of the year 441 must have recorded some event which indicated that one of the consuls was pontifex maximus without specifying which. Such an event might well have been the games which L. significantly says were vowed ab decemviris per secessionem plebis a patribus ex s. c. (4. 12. 2 n.). For Furius' praenomen see 4. 12. 1 n. See further Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 36. n. 2 ; Botsford, Roman Assemblies, 285-6; Siber, Pleb. Mag. 18; de Martino, Storia delta Costituzione, 1. 313. 54. 6-15, The Election of the Tribunes. Various indications suggest that at some point L. abandons Valerius Antias in favour of another source. The whole passage from 54. 6-55 reads more like a series of tendentious discussions than a coherent historical narrative, which L. has felt obliged to include not so much because of their interest to him or to his age as because they formed part of the developed tradition of Roman historical writing which had employed facts and legends as the basis for contemporary argument. Moreover, whereas in both 45. 4 and 57. 4 P. Numitorius is said to be the avus of Verginia, in 54. 11 he is described as avunculus, avus normally means 'grandfather' and the meaning 'great-uncle', although attested (cf. Tacitus, Annals 2. 43), can be excluded on the ground that L. could not have used both words in the same sense. Also in 54. 11 Verginius has the praenomen A., in 44. 2 and 58. 5 L. Mere scribal error might be presumed but for the fact that Cicero (de Rep. 2. 63) calls him Decimus, which suggests that the praenomen was not a fixed element. The inference that the passage has a different origin from the main narrative is also confirmed by the repetitious M. Duilium qui tribunatum insignem gesserat (54. 12) after 52. 1 and the doublet resolu­ tions ne cui fraudi (54. 5; 54. 14). It was noted above that the com­ plicated manoeuvres of the plebs from the Aventine to the Mons Sacer and back again may be due to the combination of two separate accounts, one of which located the final scenes on the Mons Sacer, the other on the Aventine. If that is right the new source might be Licinius but the identification cannot be certain and is, in any case, immaterial. The list of tribunes is no more than a doublet of the list of 471 with such additions as family loyalties or personal ambition cared to make, even if it be an historical fact that ten tribunes were elected, perhaps for the first time (30. 7 n.). The suggestion that M. Duilius was responsible for the motion to elect consuls is equally anachronistic. 54. 8. quod bonum: 1. 17. 10 n. 54. 9. ubi: does L. mean where they began their secession a few days 495

450 B.C. 3- 54- 9 before or does he refer to the version known to Piso which sited the First Secession, the beginning of the plebeian fight for recognition and independence, on the Aventine (2. 32. 3) ? T h e pompous language might suggest the latter (for initia incohastis cf. 39. 23, 5) but the sen­ tence is probably to be regarded as an amplification of ita undeprofecti estis and the mention of the Mons Sacer as the site of the First Secession a few lines below (54. 12) shows that L. did mean to refer to that event here. 54. 1 1 . pontifice: 54. 5 n. L. Icilium: 31. 1 n. T h e college of 471 included Sp. Icilius (2. 58. 2 n.). P. Numitorium: cf. L. Numitorius in 471 (2. 58. 2 n.). 54. 12. C. Sicinium: according to the differing political attitude of historians 471 also included a C. Sicinius or a Cn. Siccius (2. 58. 2 n.). In saying primum tribunum plebis creatum L.'s source appears to conflict with 2. 33. 2 where Sicinius is only co-opted to the college and is not the founder-member (but for rival versions see note on 2. 32-33). This C. Sicinius is not mentioned elsewhere. in saero monte: 2. 33. 3 n. M. Duilium: for his tribunate and his name see 2. 58. 2 n. 54. 13. spe . . . mentis: the phrase awakens suspicions, since the hopes were not fulfilled. Nothing else is known of them but a great deal is heard of their descendants. M. Titinius: cf. Sext. Titinius tr. pi. in 439 (4. 16. 5 n.), P. Titinius consular tribune in 400 a n d L, Titinius in 396 (5. 18. 2 n.). T h e formation of the name from Titus suggests an Etruscan origin for the family (Schulze 242) and, despite the identification of P. Titinius as a patrician (5. 12. 10 n.), the family was doubtless plebeian. M . Titinius was tr. pi. in 193 and praetor in 178, whose career may have facilitated his ancestor's emergence. See Munzer, R.E., 'Titinius ( i o ) \ M. Pomponius: the Pomponii were an old plebeian family, claiming descent from N u m a Pompilius (Plutarch, Numa 21. 2 ; Nepos, Atticus 1. 1), but M . Pomponius owes his name more to the consular tribune of 399 (5. 13. 3 n.) than to history. See Gundel, R.E., 'Pomponius (7)'. C. Apronius: significantly the only other Apronius known before the late Republic is the notorious Cn. Apronius, who was aedile some time before 266 (Val. Max. 6. 6. 5). Ap. Villius: the Villii only become prominent in the third a n d second centuries and reach their peak with the author of the Lex Villia Annalis (180) and P. Villius Tappulus, consul of 199. T h e praenomen Appius so far from being suspect (P. Sigonius) may be significant. Appius is not, in any case, exclusively confined to the Claudii (Doer, Die Rom. Namengebung, 26) but Scullard's demonstra­ tion that Tappulus was closely connected with the Claudian faction in the Second Punic W a r {Roman Politics, 96) may be used to support 496

450 B.C.

3-54- *3

the conjecture that the name Appius Villius was intended to be a compliment or the surmise that Tappulus and Claudius were related by marriage. See Gundel, R.E., 'Villius ( i ) \ C. Oppius: 35. 11 n. 54. 14. ne cuifraudi: the plebiscitum is a doublet of the S.C. of 54. 5. rogationem: the language suggests that Duilius, a tr. pi, introduced the motion before the comitia centuriata, which is unthinkable. Even to introduce it before the comitia tributa would be quite ineffective before the Valerio-Horatian laws had been passed which accorded some measure or recognition of validity to plebiscita (55. 3 n.). Since cum provocatione is equally tendentious and false (55. 5 n.) the whole notice must be regarded as an invention by an annalist anxious to give a democratic cast to the restoration of the consulate. pratis Flaminiis: ^ 3 . 5 n., called the campus Flaminius by Varro [de Ling. Lat. 5. 154). They lay in the south part of the Campus Martius, where in 220 the censor C. Flaminius built the Circus Flaminius (see Platner-Ashby s . w . ; the exact site of the Circus Flaminius, for long uncertain, has been established by recent examination of the frag­ ments of the Marble Plan of R o m e : see plan, and Bloch, J.R.S. 51 (1961), 152; it stretched between the Theatre of Marcellus and the modern Piazza Cenci). It is doubtful whether the name like the Prata Quinctia (26. 8 n.) is older than the construction of the Circus and denoted land belonging to the gens Flaminia or whether the ground on which it was built acquired the name Flaminius simply from the builder. T h e choice of the fields as the location of these transactions is doubtless an Aetion connected with the ludi plebeii which were held in the Circus (Val. Max. 1. 7. 4). 55. The Valerio-Horatian Legislation T h e three main Valerio-Horatian laws, on plebiscita, provocation and sacrosanctitaSy have been the subject of acute controversy ranging from total rejection (Beloch) to total acceptance (Stuart-Jones). T h e case for each law is set out separately below but on the whole question of the legislation of 449 it is worth commenting that, although surprisingly we have no evidence for it earlier than the accounts in L. and D.H., who only mentions the first law but whose text is defective, and a garbled passage of Diodorus (12. 25) who attributes to the consuls the institution of ten tribunes, the division of the consulate between patres andplebs, and a measure to ensure thecontinuity of the tribunate (55. 14 n.), yet we can see that L.'s third law, on sacrosanctitas, was already a bone of dispute in the early second century (55. 8 n.). A fourth law, on the storing of archives in the temple of Ceres, gives the aediles their primitive functions (55. 13 n.). Historically 449 marks a break. T h e increasing pressure of the plebs, inspired as much by 814432

497

Kk

3- 55

449 B.C.

economic discontent (if the annalistic notices of plagues, famines, and wars may be connected with the archaeological evidence for an economic slump in the first half of the century) as by the desire for political recognition, was inadequately appeased by the Decemvirate. T h e Second Secession secured the triumph of the plebs. Their victory can be seen in the final cessation of cultural contact with Etruria. Such a break must have been marked by various constitutional en­ actments. There are, therefore, adequate grounds for believing that the programme as a whole was not the invention of a late annalist anxious, like Valerius Antias, to bring credit on his ancestors. T h e section, apart from the legal digression in 8-12, is homogeneous and of a piece with the tribunician activities in 54. 6-15. It is im­ possible to name L.'s source for certain. It is not Valerius Antias (55. n n.). See Burck 4 3 - 4 4 ; and for the general history Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 349; H . Stuart Jones, C.A.H., 7. 4 8 2 - 4 ; Siber, Pleb. Magistrat. 15, 32, 65 fT.; Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del Diritto Romano, 2 f.; Volkmann, R.E., *L. Valerius (304)'; Staveley, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 12-23. 55. 1. per interregem: 8. 2 n. extemplo: 6. 1 n. The Law 'quod tributim plebes iussisset populum teneret\ T h e comitia tributa had been brought into being for the election of tribunes in 471 (2. 58. 1 n.). T h e great advantages of efficiency which it enjoyed over the comitia centuriata must have been speedily recognized and it was inevitable that once such an assembly had been established it should devote itself to discussion and recommendation as well as the mere business of election. But when did its recommenda­ tions obtain the force of law ? Only in 287 did it acquire the un­ conditioned right to pass a measure which could automatically bind xhepopulus. T h a t was the result of the Lex Hortensia (Gaius 1 . 3 ; Aul. Gell. 15. 27. 4). But L. also includes a Lex Publilia of 339 utplebi scita omnes Quirites tenerent (8. 12. 14). W h a t is the relation of that law to the present law? They look identical in substance. Since there are no grounds for rejecting the Lex Publilia many scholars have followed Meyer and rejected the Valerio-Horatian law as an attempt to pro­ vide a precedent for later democracy. Not for nothing did the Valerii have the cognomen Publicola. But the sources preserve unmistakable traces of tribal legislation before 339, notably the plebiscita of 366 and 342. T h e facts can only be satisfied by a solution such as Staveley's which holds that from 449 all decisions of the comitia tributa were binding on the populus as a whole if they were approved by the Senate (patrum auctoritas), that in 339 consular legislation passed in the comitia tributa was freed from this restriction while strictly plebeian 498

449 B.C.

3- 55- i

legislation (i.e. plebiscita) still required senatorial sanction before becoming law and that in 287 this anomaly was removed. A recent suggestion by Friezer that the Valerio-Horatian law applied speci­ fically only to the two measures of L. Icilius and M . Duilius (54. 14, 15) and was not of general application is disproved by the existence of the other plebiscita before 339. A bibliography is given by Staveley, Athenaeum 33 (1955), 13 n. 4 ; see especially E. Meyer, Rh. Mus. 37 (1882), 622; H . Siber, Pleb. Magistrat. 39 ff; A. G. Roos, Mededelingen kon. Nederl. Akad. Wetenschappen, 3 (1940); E. Friezer, Mnemo­ syne 12 (1959), 325~ 6 55. 3 . telum acerrimum: cf. 69. 2, 5. 29. 9. Gf. Sallust, Oratio Macri 12 vis tribuniciay telum a maioribus libertati paratum. The Law {ne quis ullum magistratum sineprovocatione creareV. It has been argued above that the Lex Valeria de provocatione of 509 is fictitious (2. 8. 1 n.) and that the annalistic allusions to provocatio (2. 27. 12, 2. 55. 1 n.) in the early period are anachronistic em­ bellishments. It is, moreover, uncontroversial that magistrates were only compelled to allow appeals from their absolute power [coercitio) by the Lex Valeria of 300 (10. 9. 3-6). Can any room, therefore, be found for a third Lex Valeria on the same subject in 449? It is true that in this period the coercitio of the magistrates was challenged. T h e Lex Aternia Tarpeia, as modified by the Lex Menenia Sestia (452), laid down a scale of fines which, even if not mandatory, imposed a de facto restriction on the powers of the magistrates. The Twelve Tables are also asserted to have contained provisions for provocatio (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 54) which points to the same conclusions. But the form of this particular law is influenced by the conception of the Decemvirate as a magistracy sine provocatione (32. 6, 54. 15) as distinct from an ad hoc commission to frame laws. 'It is designed to ensure that a magistracy so autocratic as the Decemvirate should not be renewed.' To that extent the law must be unhistorical and it may be a complete fiction. Certain linguistic points corroborate that. It is, however, possible that in the Valerio-Horatian programme some­ thing was said about the duties of the magistrates not to overlook the optional procedure of provocatio laid down by the Twelve Tables but it is quite uncertain what the terms of such a law would in detail have been. It is clearly wrong to interpret the law as concerned with the protocol of elections (Karlowa, Rom. Rechtsgeschichtey 1. 117) or as designed to embrace the dictatorship as well as the consulship (Schwegler, Rom. Geschichte, 2. 121 n. 1). See in addition C. Brecht, Zeit. Sav.-Stifl. 59 (1939), 269 ff.; A. Heuss, Zeit- Sav.-Stifl. 64 (1944), 93 ff.; H . Siber, Pleb. Magistrat. 63 ff.; de Martino, Storia della Costituzione, 1. 257-62; Staveley, Historia 3 (1955), 427. 499

3- 55- 5

449 B.C.

55. 5. novam legem: Daube (Forms of Roman Legislation, 27) notes that, whatever the authenticity of the law, it follows the regular pattern of legal formulation. In new statutes the prohibition is put first and has the sanction as, for example, in the Lex Quinctia de aquaedudibus ( = Bruns 113) or Cato, de Re Rust. 144. 3. legulos praebeto. si non praebuerit, quanti conductum erit aut locatum erit, deducetur. In statutes which merely confirm existing statutes as in the following law on sacrosanctitas, the prohibition is taken for granted and so omitted: only the sanction is stated. iusfasque: the meaning is that it would not be an offence against men or gods for him to be killed. T h e language is suspicious. Although the Twelve Tables speak of a man being iure caesum, the combination of ius and fas looks like a late formulation. We should expect something like parricida ne sit (Festus 424 L.). capitalis noxa is also modern. The Law ''qui tribunis . . . nocuisset, eius caput Iovi sacrum esse? T h e law is a restatement of the oath taken at the time of the First Secession (2. 3 3 . I ; cf. D . H . 6. 8 9 . 3 e^ayicrros

earw KCLL ra

xPVlJLara

avrov ArjixrjTpos lepd). T h e principle behind it is very old. When a man committed an iniuria against another man his iniuria surrendered him into the power of the other man. So when a man committed an offence against a god either by violating a god's sanctuary or, as here, by breaking an oath made in a god's name, he became forfeit to that god—sacer. T h e only way in which a god could claim this man was by death which was not in any sense a sacrifice but the speedy delivery of the offender to his master. So Macrobius (3. 7. 5 ; cf. [Servius], ad Aen. 10. 419). Consequently any one who dispatched the offender was exempt from the ordinary penalties and taboos connected with causing death. From the primitive religious death-sentence sacer esto, attested both by archaeological evidence (1. 55. 3 n.) and by the Twelve Tables (8. 21 patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto), the Roman capital law evolved. In this respect therefore the third ValerioHoratian looks authentic. The consecratio bonorum in the Temple of Geres, Liber, and Libera is equally archaic (2. 41. i o n . ) . T h e cult had strongly plebeian associations. The only doubt which attends the genuineness of the law is the mention of the obscure iudicibus decemviris (see below). T h e law was certainly in general currency in the early second century (55. 8 n.) and seen against the background of the recognition of plebeian aspirations it seems likely that what from 494 to 449 had rested upon a mutual oath (religio) should now have been put upon a regular footing. See L. Lange, De Sacrosanctae Potestatis . . . Origine Commentatio (1883); Mommsen, Strafrecht, 56 ff.; Warde-Fowler, Roman Essays, 500

449 B.C.

3- 55- 7

15 ff.; Strachan-Davidson, Problems, 1. 1-27; A. Piganiol, Journ. des Savants, 1919, 245; Hagerstrom, Rom. Obligationsbegriff, 1. 467; Altheim, Lex Sacrata, 19-29; J . Bayet, tome 3, 145-53; Kaser, Altro'm. lus, 42-53 with fuller bibliography; H . le Bonniec, Le Culte de Ceres, 345-7. 55. 7. iudicibus decemviris: identified by Mommsen with the decemviri stlitibus iudicandis (Staatsrecht, 2. 605), a panel who were mainly concerned with causae liberates. In view of Verginia, the identification was appro­ priate enough. But, as Wlassak observed (Prozessgesetze, 1. 139 ff.), the decemviri were instituted after the praetor peregrinus, i.e. after 242 B.C. (Pomponius, Dig. 1. 2. 2. 2 9 ; first attested in 139 B.C.) and certainly comprised both patricians and plebeians. If the identification is right the law cannot be original. Nor is the text suspect, iudicibus being guaranteed by 55. 11 and decemviris being an improbable interpolation (Sigonius, Doring, Bayet). With Jolowicz {Historical Introduction, 204 n. 10), I incline to think that the identification is wrong and that by iudicibus decemviris are meant one or two plebeian officials of whom we know nothing. Did the plebs have a special court for taking pro­ ceedings against its own members? Is that reflected in the notices about tribunician prosecutions in the fifth century? D.H. 6. 90, dis­ cussing the First Secession, speaks of τοὺς ὑπηρετήσοντας τοῖς δημάρχοις ὅσων ἂν δέωνται καὶ δίκας ἃς ἂν ἐπιτρέψωνται ἐκεῖνοι κρινοῦντας . . .

δικαστάς. (E. Cocchia in the Rivista Indo-Greca-ltal. 5 (1921), 25-28, supposes on the analogy of praetores iiviri and similar titles that aedilibus iudicibus decemviris are all attributes of tribunis, there now being ten tribunes. His interpretation which incidentally makes excellent sense of Nonius 317 L. is ingenious but involves the impossible hypo­ thesis that the aediles were not a separate body by this period.) Iovi: it is claimed, e.g. by Warde-Fowler and Bayet, that the naming of a particular god rather than the unspecified sacer esto is a later rationalization and that the terms given by D.H. for the oath of the First Secession (ἐξάγιστος ἔστω) are therefore more correct. But the analogy of divine and human law which surrendered the offender into the power of the injured party suggests that a specific god was always named. T h e evidence corroborates this. Apart from the solitary law of the Twelve Tables (8. 21 ; see above), where the god may have been named elsewhere, the deity is always cited or implied, e.g. Lex Numae (Festus 505 L.) sacros esse sc. Termino; the Forum cippus s]akros esed Sor[anoi; Paulus Festus 5 L. si quisquam aliutafaxit ipsos Iovi sacer esto; Festus 422 L. qui quid adversiis eas fecerit sacer alicui deorum sit; Macrobius 3. 7. 5 sacros esse certis dis iubent. In 55. 8 below, the manuscripts read 'interpretes negant quemquam sacrosanctum esse sed eum qui deorum cuiquem nocuerit id sacrum sanciri'. eorum is a certain correction as 55. 9 shows. T h e harm 501

3- 55- 7

449 B.C.

is done directly to the individual who is protected by the sanction. N had cuiquem. T h a t A chose the simple quern and that PFB reversed the order —quecui or cuiquamcui—indicates that cui and quern were alter­ natives. Hence although cuiquam = cuipiam or alicui in a hypothetical relative clause would be possible ( i . 35. 3, 3. 38. 9 ; Publilius ap. Seneca, Dial. 9. 11. 8 cuivis potest accidere quod cuiquam potest; Nepos, Alt. 19. 3) and is affected by L., the simple cui may be right, id is super­ fluous, since eum is the subject otsanciri* Recent editors accept Muller's Iovi which brings the passage into line with the formula of the law. It is, I think, wrong. T h e contrast is between sacrosanctum and sacrum (so Rhenanus and Hertz). T h e two adjectives should be placed in stark opposition, without qualification, id is a dittography after nocuerit. For a similarly corrupt and senseless id cf. 4. 2. 3 n. familia: 2. 41. i o n . Ceteris Liberi Liberaeque: 33. 25. 3, 41. 28. 2 ; Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 2. 62; Tacitus, Annals 2. 4 9 ; Fasti Antiates. Despite the difficulties raised by le Bonniec (Le Culte de Ceres, 277-311) who points out that there is no precisely corresponding Greek triad attested, it is difficult not to believe that the cult was introduced in 493 either from Cam­ pania, where the cult of Demeter was certainly established at Cumae (Plutarch, Moralia 261 E ) , or from Sicily where it was localized particularly at Henna (Val. Max. 1. 1. 1 ; Cicero, Verr. 4. 108) and at Syracuse. Her need for corn brought Rome into contact with both areas at an early date. 55. 8. iuris interpretes: when the old notion of sacer became obsolete with the increasing secularization and ordering of the legal system, it underwent a subtle change. Instead of the person who violated a tribune being held sacer, the tribune himself was held to be inviolate or 'sacred' in our modern sense. He could not be subjected to legal or physical restraint. T h e issue then arose whether sacrosanctity in the new sense also applied to the aediles and, one presumes, the iudices (and) decemviri. T h e controversy raged in the early part of the second century. T h e older Cato delivered a speech aediles plebis sacrosanctos esse (Festus 422 L . ; for the date see H. H. Scullard, Roman Politics, Appendix 2, 256-7) and before 226 C. Scantinius Capitolinus attempted to take refuge in his position as aedile against M. Marcellus (Plutarch 2). It is evident that the debate formed part of the oldest R o m a n history and that the law itself must be of much greater antiquity (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 472 n. 2, 486 n. 1). No doubt it continued. Apart from the suppression and restoration of the tribunate in the first quarter of the century, Augustus had assumed the sacrosanctity of a tribune in 36 (Dio 49. 15. 5) and certain other tribunician powrers in 29 (Dio 52. 42. 3). Such innovations required justification. C. Trebatius Testa who wrote an essay on the concept 502

449 B.C.

3- 55- ^

sacer was Augustus' legal adviser (Justinian 2. 25). T h e question had a current topicality. Why else would L. have included it ? 55. 1 1 . fuere qui: the argument runs: the law covers a class of officials called indices; the consuls are called indices; therefore the consuls are covered by the law, but the praetors are created under the same auspices as the consuls; therefore the praetors are covered as well. Horatia lege: the absence of Valeria excludes Valerius Antias from being the source here. indicem: Cicero, de Leg. 3 . 8 ; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 88. 55. 12. praetorem: 1. 60. 4 n. 55. 13. in aedem Cereris: the storing of S. C. seems at first sight anachro­ nistic. Such a concern about documents should reflect first-century consciousness, which Caesar exploited by arranging for the publica­ tion of senatorial business in the Acta Diurna. Yet already by 307, as the career of Cn. Flavius illustrates, there were many people at Rome anxious to know the secrets of the Fasti and similar documents. T h e tradition about the S. C. is the more credible because of the mention of the aediles. As their name suggests (cf. aedituus) they were the over­ seers of the plebeian aedes Cereris, with which, as Latte observed (Nachrichten Gesell. Wissen. zu Gottingen, 1 (1934), 73-77)? a market must have been connected where, for instance, the goods of the consecrati were sold. T h e aediles would have possessed certain police powers over the running of the market from which gradually the full magistracy de­ veloped. Here they are still confined to their primitive functions (cf. 57. 10, 4. 30. 11) so that the notice must be old and authentic. See de Sanctis, Riv. FiL 10 (1932), 433-45 5 ^e Bonniec, Le Culte de Ceres, 355-7. 55. 14. sine tribunis: for this plebiscitum, also mentioned by Cicero, de Leg. 3. 9 and Diodorus 12. 25. 3, who names the penalty as death by burning, see 64. i o n . sine provocatione: repeats 54. 15, 55. 5. 56-59. The Trial ofAppius Claudius T h e emphatic deinde indicates that the digression on the legal con­ sequences of the Decemvirate and its aftermath is over. We revert once more to the main plot, to the fate of the leading personalities in the struggle. Except for the annalistic notices of 57. 7-10 and perhaps 58. 9-10, there is unlikely to be any historical foundation to what follows. Appius Claudius may have been tried and may have com­ mitted suicide. A tradition about him could have been kept alive in the family but it has been elaborately worked up. T h e choice of a tribune as prosecutor must be unhistorical even though the tribunate was now a recognized branch of the constitution (2. 35. 5 n.) and the choice of Verginius as the tribune is clearly motivated by a desire to make the trial of Appius the counterpart of the trial of Verginia. In 503

3- 56 59

449 B.C.

Appius' Provoco there is also a deliberate and ironical recollection of previous occasions when innocent citizens had appealed against the unbending decisions of Appii Glaudii (2. 27. 10-12, 55-56). There is a similar schematization in the actual details of the trial. Whereas D.H. disposes of the entire business in a couple of chapters, L. lays the scene carefully. T h e first act takes place in the Forum where a speech of Appius (56. 9-13) is matched by one from Verginius (57. 1-5). T h e second act, also in the Forum, witnesses Appius 5 supporters (58. 1-4) opposed by the necessarii Verginiae (58. 5). T h e effect is dramatic. In addition, L. makes the drama point a moral—dementia concordiam ordinum stabiliri posse (58. 4 n.). Indiscriminate reprisals would only lead to a worse reaction in time to come. Appius and other ring­ leaders must be punished but for the rest it is better to forgive. T h e different aspects of dementia are revealed in the proceedings and the whole exemplum serves to lead up to the great speech of Quinctius which gathers together the various elements on which concordia ordinum depends. These considerations suggest that L. has returned to Valerius Antias as his source. Certainly avum (57. 4) agrees with 45. 4 against 54. 11 (n.), and the atmosphere is in keeping with the other Glaudian passages which were held to be Valerian in origin. But it cannot be proved. Klotz would even hold that L.'s source was writing under the influence of Caesar's account of the death of Orgetorix (B.G. 1. 4 ff.) but on examination the resemblance is seen to be far-fetched. See Burck 4 3 - 4 5 ; Klotz 2 6 8 - 9 ; Klotz, Rh. Mus. 96 (1953), 66. 56. 1. fundata: so also 60. 1, introducing a new section. The Arrest of Ap. Claudius 56. 3 . oratio . . . inventa est: a commonplace; cf. the paradoxical denial of it by Catiline (Sallust 58. 1). vosmet ipsi: cf. Sallust, Catil. 20. 6. 56. 4. impie nefarieque: cf. Cicero, Verr. 1.6; Phil. 2. 50. gratiam. /ado: 'I remit, overlook' = ^at/oetv ew. So also 8. 34. 3. Otherwise the phrase is only found in Plautus (Cas. 373; Miles 576; Most. 1130, 1168) and Sallust (Catil. 52. 8; cf. Jug. 104. 5). It gives life and colour to Verginius' challenge. nisi iudicem dices: said to be the defendant's reply to the prosecutor's proposal iudicemferre (57. 5) and to mean 'to agree to go before a iudex\ Cf. the interesting discussions by Gronovius and Drakenborch. But whereas i. f. is commonly attested, neither i. dicere nor anything re­ motely analogous occurs. In 57. 5 L. writes ad iudicem non eat. M a n y conjectures have been made, none altogether satisfatory: iudicem vindices te Rhenanus; in iudicem dices, te Campanus; iudicem doces^ 504

449 B.C.

3- 56. 4

te Niebuhr. Hearne and Drakenborch repunctuated nisi iudicem dices te . . . dedisse, taking iudicem in apposition to te 'unless you will admit that in your capacity as judge you . . .', but Appius would have rightly claimed that it was unreasonable to expect him to make such an admission without even a trial. A future tense is required, and L.'s habit of repetition is so constant that I would propose nisi ad iudicem ibis and assume that the corruption followed the transposition of iudicem and ad. in vincla: Appius was asked to give surety that he would appear to answer the charge; if he refused, he was to be remanded (13. 6 n.). But L., as elsewhere, has misunderstood the procedure and regards the prison as punishment or sentence and not as merely detention before trial. Gf. D.H. 11. 46. 56. 5. auxilio: cf. Val. Max. 4. 1 . 8 ; Pliny, N.H. 21. 8 ff. A tribune was not obliged to give auxilium when appealed to. He could refuse if he thought fit (Wirszubski, Libertas, 27). \at\tamen\ attamen would be unique in L. and though suitable in sense is likely to have arisen through dittography after habebat. 56. 6. silentium fecit: notice L.'s use of dramatic silence (47. 6). 5 6 . 1 , deos tandem esse: the reactions of the crowd are sketched delight­ fully in lines of conventional triviality. For deos tandem esse cf. Homer, Od. 24. 351 Zev 7Ta,T€p, fj pa cr' icrre Oeol Kara fiaKpov "OXvfjLnov. For

seras, non leves tamenpoenas cf. Homer, Iliad 4. 160 ff.; Solon 13. 25 ff.; Aeschylus, Agam. 5 8 ; Choeph. 3 8 3 ; Euripides, Bacchae 883 with Dodds's note; Tibullus 1. 9. 4 ; Horace, Odes 3. 2. 31-32. 56. 8. fidem . . . implorantis: 2. 23. 8 n. Appius' Plea See Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 35. A good example of subtle casuistry, planned according to the best patterns, as recommended for example by ad Herennium 2. 25. Notice the careful antitheses; maiorum merita, suum studium, suas leges; turn . . . in praesentia; civitatis civem; invidiam . . . aequitate; dominatio an libertas; inanibus litteris an vere and the balanced experturum . . . experiri, quod si . . . quod si and quern enim . . . ? cui . . . non sit? T h e language is as exemplary. For maiorum merita in rem publicam cf. Cicero, Verr. 2. 122; for aequandarum legum see 31. 7 n . ; for invidiam pertimuisse cf. in Catil. 1 . 2 9 ; for aequitate et misericordia cf. pro Mar cello 12; for dominatio an libertas see 39. 7 n. 56. 9. abisset: in 33. 4 the consuls were only designati but the exaggera­ tion is legitimate. 56. 10. bona malaque: 'his case's good and bad points 5 . 56. 12. tollendae appellationis: N wrongly interpolates causa, as Duker had already seen. T h e genitive is governed by foedus as at Val. Max. 7. 4 ext. 3. In what follows, quod for quam and at for ait (cf. 9. 1.8) 505

3- 56- i2

449 B.C.

are necessary corrections. Where L. uses at in the apodosis of a con­ ditional, it is always accompanied by the personal pronoun. For conspiro in cf. 36. 9 ; Tacitus, Annals 15. 68. 56. 13. hoc indemnato indicta causa: 13. 4. Brecht was right to stress the sympathy which this plea would have gained in the aftermath of the Gracchan law ne quis de capite (Perduellio, 166 ff.). But Gracchus only reiterated what was already law by the time of Cato (Aul. Gell. 13. 25. 12) and what may indeed be assumed to have been a stipula­ tion in the Twelve Tables (Salvian, De Gubern. Dei 8. 5. 24; see D. Daube, J.R.S. 31 (1941), 183). Like so much else in the history of the Decemvirate, it seems to be intended as an illustration of the Twelve Tables. Appius Claudius makes skilful use of the ronos contrasting truth with empty words which was worked to death by the elegists (cf. Catullus 70. 3-4; Ovid, Am. 2. 16. 45, et al. = Sophocles fr. 749). Verginius9 Speech By contrast Verginius is brutal and inflammatory. He meets Appius' subtle pleadings with violent language. Among the more striking expressions, for legum expertem cf. Cicero, Phil. 2. 7 ; for castellum omnium scelerum cf. in Pisonem 1 1 ; for bonis . . . infestus cf. pro Sestio 39; for virgas . . . minitans cf. Verr. 3. 143; for carnificibus see 2. 35. 1 n . ; for ab rapinis . . . verso cf. 1. 60. 2, Sallust, Catil. 5. 2, 51. 9. 57. 4. illi carcerem aedificatum: 1. 33. 8 n. There is no other trace of a tradition that the Decemvir was responsible for building the prison. Verginius invents it for the occasion in order to bring in a familiar and savage jibe which had already been used by Cicero against Verres (5. 143). It was, of course, much older. Casaubon, commenting on Theophrastus, Characters 6. 6, refers to Plautus, Pseudolus 1172 and Demosthenes 22. 63. 57. 6. ut... sic: 'a step which though disapproved by none yet gave occasion to much serious consideration, the commons themselves con­ sidering their own privileges as carried rather too far in the punish­ ment inflicted on a person of such consequence' (Baker). External Affairs 57. 7. coronam auream: 29. 3 n., 2. 22. 6. T h e crown would in fact have been dedicated from the victory spoils to come (61. 10) and not have been presented de concordia. 57. 9. Horatio Sabini, Valerio Aequi evenere: Petrarch had already seen the apparent inconsistency, for in his copy of L. he corrected Sabini to Vulsci. But D.H. 11. 47-48 clarifies the problem. T h e Sabine War stood over from the threat mentioned in 51. 7, while the Aequi and Volsci have joined forces—avvrjXOe yap dfjL6r€pa rd eOvrj. L. has 506

449 B.C.

3- 57- 9

compressed to the point of obscurity. In choosing between evenerunt (Ver.) and evenere (N) we have to note that according to the statistics compiled by Lease [A,J.P. 24 (1903), 408 ff.) in Book 3 the ratio of -ere to -erunt terminations is 88:22 but that 'with venio and its com­ pounds the -erunt form was preferred'. At the same time Ver. is prone to devalue L.'s language (6. 6 n., 44. 5 n.) and Lofstedt (Peregrinatio, p. 37) demonstrated that -ere is the high-flown form of the termination. This fact tips the balance in favour of evenere here. Cf. also 4. 7. 8 n., 5. 5. 5 n. Note also 28. 42. 15, 5. 33. 5 (transcendere Ver.). pars magna: the volunteers came from those who were exempt on grounds of age and service (emeritis stipendiis) and formed a great part of the total army. T h e gen. voluntariorum is not partitive but a gen. of material. 57. 10. urbe egrederentur: the manuscripts here, including Ver., and at 1. 29. 6, 21. 12. 5, 22. 55. 8, 28. 26. n , 29. 6. 4, read egredior urbem with varying degrees of unanimity. But egredior with the ace. could only mean transgredior (2. 61. 4 ; see Frigell, Epilegomena, 43 fF.) which is absurd with urbem as the object, urbe must be read in all places, as at Val. Max. 9. 6 ext. 2 ; Frontinus, deAq. 101; Marcian, Dig. 1. 16. 2. in aes incisas . . . proposuerunt: in 34. 2 the first ten tables had been propositas and a further two were added in 37. 4. But this publication may be regarded as only provisional. A strong tradition associated the consuls with the final ratification of the laws, as was reasonable since Valerius and Horatius were the logical consequence of the de­ mocratic movement set in motion by the Decemvirate. T h e difficulty lies rather in the nature of the material used for inscribing the laws. T h e earliest surviving bronze laws are all of one piece (e.g. the Lex de Repetundis and the law of Bantia) and would have been referred to as tabula in the singular. T h e name Duodecim Tabulae implies then that they were written on wood (cf. the Solonian amoves) and that is the tradition known to Pomponius (Dig. 1. 2. 2. 4 quas in tabulas "\eboreas [roboreas Edd.) perscriptas pro rostris composuerunt; cf. Horace, A.P- 396-9 with Porphyrio's and [AcroJ's notes). T h e younger authorities knew only bronze (Diodorus 12. 26; Cyprian, Epist. ad Donatum 10). T h e discrepancy cannot be reconciled by supposing that the provisional promulgation of the laws was made on wood (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 371) and that they were finalized in bronze. T h e solution lies rather in believing that at the beginning of the first century they were restored and set up in bronze, perhaps when Sulla reconstructed the Curia. See Mommsen, Melanges Boissier, 1 ff.; Taubler, Untersuchungeny 69-77. sunt qui: a variant, to glorify the tribunes at the expense of Valerius. Licinius Macer ? It is a corollary of the archival functions of the aediles described in 55. 13. 507

3- 58. i

449 B.C.

58, 1. Regillum: 2. 16. 4 11. sordidatus: contrast 2. 61. 3 fF. The Appeal by C. Claudius C. Claudius speaks in studied terms, movingly stressing the dignity of his family without excusing the faults of his brother. His appeal strikes a note of moderation which is taken up by Quinctius. Cf. 6. 20. 3 ff. 58. 2. inustam maculam: cf. Fronto 158. 16 van den Hout. T h e meta­ phor is from the branding of a slave; cf. Propertius 3. 11. 40 with Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 171. honoratissimae imaginis: 36. 40. 9, Veil. Pat. 2. 116. 4. latrones: cf. Sallust, Catil. 59. 5. 58. 3. preces aspernarentur: cf. Cicero, pro Sestio 30. 58. 4 . generi ac nomini: cf Phil. 3. 29. dare: 'made that concession to'. virtute . . . posse: Claudius here sounds some of the keynotes of the political propaganda of the late Republic which, as so often, can be illustrated from coins. Libertas, dementia, concordia, all were the slogans of the political rivals before Actium and after Actium they assumed a new importance. Octavius had 'recovered liberty'. H e was in a position to wreak vengeance on his enemies. Only prudential motives prevented him from so doing. See H. Kloesel, Libertas (Diss. Breslau, 1935); Dahlmann, Neue Jahrb.f. Wiss. 10 (1934), 17; Syme, Roman Revolution, 155-61. 58. 6. conscivit: 2. 61. 8 n. Further Reprisals 58. 8. testisproductus: see p. 298. T h e lowest age at which a man could be called on to serve in classical times was seventeen (Aul. Gell. 1 o. 28). T h e upper limit is less clear. It was either forty-five or forty-six (1. 43. 1 n.) and this passage should perhaps be used as evidence for the lower figure. T h e veteran had spent all his active life in the ranks. Isidore (9. 3. 53) and Servius [ad Aen. 2. 157) reduce the maximum possible length of service to the round figure of twenty-five years. 58. 9. solum verterunt: 13. 9. 58. 10. ultimam poenam: i.e. the death penalty; cf. Pliny, Epist. 2. n . 8. 58. 11. manes Verginiae: 1. 20. 7, 3. 19. 1 n., 4. 19. 3. Originally the manes were the spirits collectively. T h e individuation of the manes of a particular person is relatively late (first in Cicero, in Pisonem 16) but the concept of their possessing powers of vengeance is old if their name is rightly derived from manus = 'good' and if they are euphemistically named, like the Eumenides, 'the kindly ones'. It is a common prayer 508

449 B.C.

3.58- "

on epitaphs that the Manes either collectively or individually may not disturb the peace; cf., e.g., C.E.L. 467. 8 et manesplacida tibi node quiescant; and see R. Lattimore, Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs, 90-95. Their introduction here is strongly reminiscent of the part played by the Furies (Eumenides) in the story of Tullia (1. 48. 7 n., 59. 13). Both serve to underline the tragic nature of the tales. feliciores (N) is corrected to felicioris (Gulielmus) because it is sense­ less to speak of the manes of a person still living. But forfelix used of the departed spirit cf. Virgil, Aeneid 6. 669 and for the whole phrase C.I.L. 8. 24787 condita nunc Libyca felix tellure quiesco. It is Virginia's epitaph. Conciliatory Moves by M. Duilius 59. 3 . placet [et] cum nova: et looks like a clumsy anticipation of the following et which picks up neque. It is senseless both in this position given it by M and before nova (Xrr) since the old sins have not been purged as well as the new ones. They have merely been forgotten. 59. 4. toti plebis: 36. 7. 60-63. Wars with Aequi, Volsci, and Sabini T h e extended accounts of the two campaigns undertaken by the consuls form a fitting pendant to the settlement of affairs at Rome. Rome was a military power first and foremost. T h e health of her society was revealed by her success in war. L. therefore devotes con­ siderable space to the narrative, elaborating it according to the fixed principles of Hellenistic battle-technique. In particular the exhorta­ tions or TrapcLKtXtvotis were a feature of such narratives. L. employs them liberally as a means of illustrating the morale of the armies. D.H., by contrast, is much briefer (11. 47-48) and concerns himself with the physical not the psychological aspects. There are a few factual discrepancies between the two writers (63. 5 n.) but sundry an­ achronisms datable to the early first century (62. 8 n., 63. 9 n.) coupled with the prominence of Valerius indicates that L. continues to follow Valerius Antias. See Soltau 161-2; Burck 45-47; Klotz 270; Plathner, Die Schlachtschilderungen, 11-12, 16, 4 6 ; F. E. Erbig, Topoi in den Schlachtberichten (Diss., 1931), 11. 60. l.fundato: 56. 1 n. 60. 2. staturum: 'the battle would have cost great loss'. 60. 3 . provocantibus: the same manoeuvres as in 2. 45. 3. 60. 5. terrorem: notice the emphasis on the psychology of war—terror, conscientia, animus, paventes, pleni spei, indignatio. 60. 7. nocti cessere\ cf. 17. 9. T h e phrase imitates the Epic WKTI -mdeadac Iliad 7. 282, 2 9 3 ; 9. 6 5 ; 8. 502). Cf. also Sil. Ital. 5. 677. corpora curabant: 2. 10 n. 509

3- 6o. 8

449 B.C.

60. 8. multa iam dies erat: 'much of the day was spent' cf. 5. 26. 6, 27. 2. 9; Caesar, B.G. 1. 22. 4. T h e expression is military. tegerent: the Aequan sense of shame is expressed in a rov-os often employed in such situations; cf. Sallust, Cat. 58. 10. 60. 10. qui erant: sc. educti. turbatis mentibus is dat. after addito. The long sentence with its involved participial clause, extended apposition, and abl. abs., culminating in the sharp invadit, conveys the impression of the sudden moment of attack against a disorganized enemy performing a complicated series of manoeuvres. 60. 11. victisne cessuri: it is not clear whether the leaders mean that the Romans have been defeated on previous occasions or that they are (virtually) defeated now. Perhaps the former which was a common TO7TOS for encouraging the troops (cf. Thucydides 2. 89. 2, 4. 92. 6, 7. 66. 2 ; Polybius, 3. 64. 4 ; Sallust, Jug. 49. 2). Exhortation by Valerius Valerius makes use of four main TOTTOL: ( I ) T h e Romans are fighting as free men for their freedom. This is the most frequent of all commonplaces in a 7Ta/3a/ceAeuo-t?.Cf., e.g., Herodotus 5. 2. 1; 6. 109.3 ; Thucydides 7. 69. 2 ; Xenophon, Anab. 1. 7. 3, 3. 2. 10; Cyrop. 3. 3. 35, 6. 4. 13; Lucan 7. 264-9. (2) Previous defeats have been due to the failure of the generals, not the soldiers. Cf. Polybius 3. 64, 3. 108. 9. (3) T h e Romans can be assured of divine goodwill. Cf. Thucydides 7. 69. 3 ; Xenophon, Cyrop. 3. 3. 34, 6. 4. 13; Polybius 10. 1 1 ; Lucan 7. 349 ff. (4) They are fighting for the safety of their children and homes. Cf. especially Thucydides 7. 69. 2 ; Polybius 3. 109. 7. He adds one argument (turpe esse contra cives) which had a special relevance to L.'s own day. T h e speech is reported indirectly, but Valerius breaks out at the end with a passionate appeal in direct speech addressed to a particular section. See Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 4 1 . 6 1 . 4. pudicitiae: note the alliterative />'s. inclino is intransitive only here in L. (cf. 6 1 . 14, 2. 47. 3, 6. 9. 8). T h e phrase looks like military jargon (Caesar, B.C. 1. 52. 2 ; Jtin. Alex. 16). 6 1 . 5. nolle: 'yet he would not utter an omen which neither Jupiter nor Mars their Father would suffer to come home to a City founded with such auspices' (Foster). T o suggest the possibility of defeat was a bad omen. 6 1 . 7. dicta dedit: so 22. 50. 10; Petronius 61 and Virgil (eight times); dicta dederat 7. 33. 11, 29. 2. 12. T h e constant word-order disproves Ver.'s dedit dicta. T h e phrase is epic in character, as Petronius shows, and is thus appropriate to the tense moment of a great battle (cf. 2. 45-47)advolat: 2. 20. 10. T h e focus is on his destination, not the scene he is leaving (avolat). 510

449

B.C.

3.61.8

6 1 . 8. exigite de: elsewhere in L. exigo is followed by e{x) (6. 37. 10, 39. 55. 4) but de given by both Ver. and M makes adequate sense, particularly if they were fighting on the high plateau above the pass. Note 62. 5 deducturum. cunctantur: for the TOTTOS cf. 21.40.6; Curtius4.14.2,* Tacitus, Agr. 34. 61. 10. vis belli: cf. Cicero,pro S. Roscio 91. 6 1 . 1 1 . laetitia [modo] : the retention oimodo with N would suggest that whereas the city only received the news with joy, the army were both delighted and jealous. It has been interpolated from in urbem modo. 6 1 . 12. [sufficiendo]: omitted by Ver. Many attempts have been made to retain and explain the word (see Doujat's note and Rossbach, B. Ph. W., 1920, p. 701) and many emendations have been proposed (adsuefaciendo Frigell; subinde Seyffert; subigendo Madvig; subiciendo Bayet)—all unnecessarily. profecerant: 'had encouraged the highest hopes of the general out­ come' (Foster). 6 1 . 13. priore anno: the definition of time is not exact but the victories of the Sabines were before Valerius and Horatius took office. recurrentes: recursantes (Ver.) must be wrong. T h e word is not found in L. although six other -curso compounds are (R. Jones, Progr. Posen, 1884) and it is also the more vulgar form. It is due to assimilation with the preceding procursantes\ 62. 1. ad id quod: 26. 45. 8. se> si: for Ver.'s omission of se cf. 5. 32. 4, 40. 10, 6. 6. 10. T h e commonplace is old; cf. Xenophon, Cyrop. 3. 3. 3 5 ; Caesar, B.G. 5- 44- 3Exhortation by Horatius consilio . . . virtute: consilio is certain {silio being preserved in Ver. at the beginning of a line). consulto, the result of a dittography in N , should not be adopted, as it was by Gronovius and Burman (on Suetonius, Augustus 2), for consilium and virtus are conventionally con­ trasted as the prerequisites of all the best battles (cf. Caesar, B.G. 7. 29. 2, 52. 4 ; Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. consilium 452. 83 ff.) and consulto is only used by L. with opus est and bene. Horatius' language resembles the phraseology of the official communique announcing the victory. T h e choice between prolonging a war and bringing it to a speedy issue is conventional. 62. 3 . mihi feceritis, milites: milites and feceritis were transposed by N, or an earlier copy, which led to subsequent corruption and correction {milites geritis /x,, mihi tegeritis A, mihi effeceritis IT). Ver.'s reading is pre­ ferable and the repeated milites suits the lively and excited style. Cf. 67. 4, 5. 44. 1-3 {Ardeates . . . Ardeates). 511

3- 62. 4

449 B.C.

62. 4. iam satis: a colloquialism for which cf., e.g., Terence, Phormio 436 and see Fraenkel, Horace, 242-3. agite dum: 68. 1, 5. 52. 9, 6. 35. 9, 7. 33. 10, 34. 14, 35. 12. Ver. also omits dum at 67. 6. Both are instances of haplography. voluntatis: observe the alliteration, as Horatius storms to his con­ clusion. 62. 5. gesturum morem: for the history of'moremgerere see G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 49 (1959), 28-29. It meant originally 'to regulate one's own individual behaviour in the interest of another' and was initially con­ fined to 'wifely and filial obedience'. It later became colloquial and popular but since it is used here by L. I think some of the original associations of the phrase are retained. Unlike Appius Claudius Horatius was a true father to his troops. As with other semi-archaic phrases L. puts them into the mouths of his characters and does not use them directly himself. 62. 6. gloriae: if right, the gen. is analogous to Cicero, pro Plancio 89. Such variations of construction [gloriae . . . elatum) are not uncommon in L. Ver. is reported to have victoriae, a negligent anticipation of victoria (51. i o n . ) , but, as far as its illegible state allows one to judge today, it seems to have read vi gloriae and that would be possible, perhaps better; Stroth and Ruperti had already proposed gloriae (memorial. Both victoria elatus (Caesar, E.G. 5. 47. 4 ; Bell. Alex. 76. 3 ; Nepos, Pans. 1. 3 ; cf. 2. 51. 1, 21. 48. 8) and gloria elatus (Caesar, B.C. 3. 79. 6; Bell. Hisp. 23. 8 ; Bell. Afr. 22. 2 ; cf. 31. 24. 12) appear to be military cliches. Ver. also has the more satisfactory transposition nova nuper which enables veteris and nova to balance one another. T h e inter­ laced nuper may have seemed too harsh to the editors of the Nicomachean recension. Notice again the preoccupation with psychology (gloriae, pudore, verecundiae). 62. 8. degravabant: 4. 33. 11, 7. 24. 9. sescenti; 1. 43. 9 n. T h e detail is anachronistic from the time when every legion had a detachment of 300 cavalry attached to it (8. 8. 14; 22. 36. 3). For the significance of their dismounting see 2. 20. 10 n. ex(s)iliunt (Ver.) is not used of jumping from horseback. 63. 2. et in: in is omitted by Ver. as at 63. 5, 4. 9. 14, but is required here as there. 63. 3. providere omnia: the mark of a good general (cf. Sallust, Catil. 60. 4), as it is his duty laudare et increpare merentes (Jug. 100. 3). 6 3 . 5. supplicationes: 5. 23. 3 n. A solemn thanksgiving decreed by the Senate during which the temples were opened and the cult-statues displayed on couches while the people offered up their prayers. There is no doubt that in origin supplicationes were decreed in time of pesti512

449 B.C.

3- 6 3 - 5

lence (7. 7-8) and that the thanksgiving for victories was a com­ paratively late development. The present case has several suspicious features: the vaga popularisque supplicatio ( a clumsy annalistic explana­ tion), the meeting of the Senate at the Apollinare where later a temple of Apollo was vowed pro valetudine populi (4. 25. 3-4 n.), and the coin­ cidence of the date of L. Valerius' triumph with that of his descendant M . Valerius in 312 (Id. Sext.). T h e truth may be as Gage conjectures (Apollon Romain, 2 fF. with bibliography). The Annales preserved a record of a supplicatio ad Apollinare but no mention of a triumph. T h e supplicatio was doubtless for health. Family and national patriotism demanded that the restorers of Roman democracy should be com­ memorated by a triumph and it was easy to convert a supplicatio pro valetudine into the thanksgiving for victory which usually preceded a triumph while the reference to the Apollinare could be explained as the site where the Senate met to consider the request for a triumph (34. 43. 2, 37. 58. 3, et al.). T h e absence of an official notification of the triumph meant that if one was held it must have been authorized in some unprecedented manner—a tribunician motion. M . Valerius supplied the date. See also L. Halkin, La Supplication, 16; P. Grenade, Origines du Principal 230. frequens iit: 7. 1; Plautus, Persa 447; Val. M a x . 3. 7. 1. T h e technical expression is omitted by Ver. influenced by the juxtaposition of diem supplicationes immediately above. After it the supine supplicatum is wanted, supplicatumque est is a very old mistake. 63. 9. numquam ante: the sententious invention of precedents recalls 35. 8 (n.)—also Valerian. D . H . on the other hand cites a regal precedent. Constitutionally the power to allow a triumph rested with the magistrates not the Senate (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 1233) but their power appears to have been modified by Sulla who gave the Senate discretionary control (Cicero, de Leg, Man. 62. O n e triumph of historical times violated all the rules—that of Pompey in 80 B.C. (E. Badian, Hermes 83 (1955), 107 ff.). L. significantly says of it quod nulli contigerat (Epit. 89). 63. 1 1 . triumphatum est: in the Fast. Triumph, the entry r u n s : L. Valerjius P.f. P.n. Poplicola Potit(us) an. ccciv consul] de Aequeis idibus Sextil. D.H. credits both Horatius and Valerius with triumphs (11. 49. 2, 50. 1) and knows nothing of the two-day supplicatio. L.'s version favours Valerius at the expense of Horatius. 64-65. Tribunician Agitation: The Lex Trebonia For L. the events of the next few years are of interest as exemplifying the difficulties of preserving concordia within the state notwithstanding 811432

513

L1

3- 64"65

449 B.C.

the wise provisions which Valerius and Horatius have made. Real concord requires the co-operation of all parties in the states, dementia from those who are in a position to be vengeful, moderatio from those who have opportunities of power, modestia from those who havegrievances to air. Above all, the two main divisions of the community, the patres and the plebs> are depicted as waiting for a chance to jump at each other's throats. The power of the plebs lay in the tribunate. If the patres could hamstring that office, they would render the plebs powerless. Conversely, the plebs realize that to re-elect year after year a strong college of tribunes would give them a hold over the other magistracies. Hence the 'Lex' Trebonia, designed to prevent the infiltration of the tribunate by co-option but calculated to perpetuate seditio and discordia. Such at least is L.'s version. It is clear from the sources that tra­ ditionally the issue whether co-option of a patrician to the tribunate was permissible had at one time been discussed. It recurs in the story of L. Minucius (4. 16. 4) and in 401 (5. 10. 11 n.). If there is any substance to that tradition it must be connected with the institution of the consular tribunate and not with such highly organized political manoeuvres as L, describes, since patrician membership of the plebeian tribunate is the obverse of plebeian membership of the patrician tribunate. The whole tradition may just be legalistic invention based on the known terms of the provisions regulating the election of plebeian tribunes (i.e. the Lex Trebonia; cf. Diodorus 12, 25)—cer­ tainly the stories of Tarpeius, Aternius, and Minucius are fictitious— but it may go back to a contemporary discussion on how Rome was to have a unified government when religious reasons debarred ple­ beians from holding the auspices. Any reconstruction is guesswork. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 219; E. Meyer, Kl. Schriften, 1. 337; Cornelius, Untersuchungen, 62; de Martino, Storia della Costituzione, 294-5The Lex Trebonia was invoked as an argument in the contested matter of re-election to the tribunate in the Gracchan age. Appian (B.C. 1. 21) refers to an old law (presumably the Lex Trebonia) that ten tribunes must be elected and it was argued that 'though as a general rule re-election was improper, if fewer than ten tribunes were duly returned, the plebs might fill the vacancies from all including former tribunes' (A. H. M. Jones, P.C.P.S. 186 (i960), 34-35). The topicality of the law in the Gracchan and Drusan disturbances accounts for its prominence, but L. could hardly have written this section in this form after 23 B.C. when Augustus took the full tribunicia potestas and from time to time co-opted colleagues (Suetonius, Augustus 27; Res Gestae 6). 64. 1. consulibus . . . continuarent magistratum: continuare m. can mean 'to 5i4

449 B.C.

3. 64. 1

renew one's own magistracy' (35. 6, 21. 2) or with dat., 'to renew another person's magistracy' (5. 29. 1). Here the latter is clearly in­ tended. 64. 2. iura [tribunorurri] plebis: Ver. adds tribunorum but the limitation of the complaint to the tribunes weakens the force of the argument. 64. 6. auctores populares sententiae haud popularis nactus: Stroth's emenda­ tion is necessary. Valerius and Horatius are popular, Duilius' pro­ posal is not. The gen. sententiae haud popularis as always with auctor (5. 22. 2, 8. 21. 2, 31. 7. 15, 33. 6. 15). Ver.'s dat. (s. k. populari) is inadequately supported by 2. 54. 7 where the dat. follows closely on deerat. For auctores nactus cf. 4. 6. 3. 64. 8. prae studiis: 'the other candidates not being able to make up the requisite number of tribes on account of the eagerness with which the nine tribunes openly pushed for the office'. T h e sense is that the other nine existing tribunes except Duilius tried to secure re-election but that the tribes which voted for them were disqualified by Duilius with the result that other candidates could not secure a majority. tribus explerent is technical; cf. Lex Malac. 3 . 7 : Cicero, pro Caecina 29. 64. 10. in quo: 'si...': the vulgate reading on which Ver. and N agree is adopted by most editors including Mommsen and Bayet but no convincing parallel has been adduced for the ellipse. If a verb has fallen out it is more likely to be scriptum est than sic erat (H. J . Miiller, Luterbacher). T h e text of the clause is fortunately preserved in a sound state by Ver. with the exception of uti> given also by N . ut ii gives the right sense and balances hi and Mi but Housman in a marginal note suggests that the contracted ut i ( = ii) suits the pseudoarchaic nature of the language better and accounts for the archetype. 'If I shall call for your votes for ten tribunes, if for any reason you shall elect today less than ten tribunes, then let those whom the elected tribunes co-opt as their colleagues be as validly tribunes as those whom you shall this day have chosen to that office.' Linguistic details betray the whole formula as a second-century fabrication. For si. ♦ . turn cf. 1. 24. 8 ; qui is abl. 'for any reason' (not a primitive form). 65. 1. Tarpeium: the alleged co-option of the consuls of 454 (31. 5 n.) is inspired by their responsibility for one of the first measures to give the plebs some legal protection (4. 30. 3 n.). 65. 2. Lars Herminius: I replace Herminius' praenomen which Gassiodorus' L. shows once stood in the text of Livy. {Aapivos Diodorus 12. 27. 1; Adpos D.H. 11. 51. 1; cf. Auct. de Praen. 4.) Lars is frequently corrupted in transmission. Herminius is presumably related to the consul of 506 (2. 15. 1 n.), perhaps a grandson. For the Herrrinii see 2. 10. 6 n. T. Verginius Caelimontanus: regarded by Munzer and others as a son 5T)

3. 65. 2

448 B.C.

of the consul of 456 (31. 1 n.) but the age-gap is too small. Perhaps the son of A. Verginius, consul in 469 (2. 63.1 ). T h e Verginii at some early period divided into two families, one residing on the Esquiline, the other on the Caelian. Hence his cognomen. 65. 3 . Trebonius: there is evidence to suggest that the Trebonii were an old family of Etruscan origin from Clusium (Munzer, R.E., 'Trebonius'). 65. 4. usque eo: 23. 19. 4 ; adeo is one of Ver.'s trivializations. 65. 5. M. Geganius Macerinus: 4. 8. 1, 17. 7, 27. 10-12. For the cognomen cf. Macer. N's Macrinus may be influenced by the emperor of that name. A son of the consul of 492 (2. 34. 1). 65. 6. otioforis quoque: N's word-order is ruled out by the absence of any Livian examples of prepositive quoque (Baehrens, Philologus, SuppL 12 (1912), 387 ff.; Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 175). 65. 7. cura pacis: for the sentiment cf. 2. 39. 7. 65. 8. inprimis: 'originally'. 65. 9. nominal 5. 18. 2 n. 6 5 . 1 1 . adeo moderatio: one of L.'s most articulate judgements in which he gives a coherent framework to the events of these years. Notice the subtle transition from the impersonal quisque / homines to the per­ sonal nobis I iniungimus. The balance between personal ambition (dignitas) and public order (libertas) was one which the late Republic un­ successfully struggled with (Wirszubski, Libertas, 16; cf. 4. 6. 11). T h e thought is older, going back at least to Thucydides 2. 65. 10; cf. Xenophon, Cyrop. 8. 2. 2 8 ; Lucian, de Calumnia 11-13. Ver. omits the preposition a(b) also at 42. 7, 4. 25. 11. 66. 1. Agrippa Furius: his filiation, in the absence of the Capitoline Fasti, is uncertain. Perhaps a son of the consul of 481 (2. 43. 1). C f . 5 . 3 2 . 1. 66. 3 . Aequi Volscique: the regular combination (cf. 2. 30. 3, 63. 7, 3. 6. 4, 57. 8, 60. 1, 4, 4. 1.4). T h e only case of A. ac V. (N) is 9. 12 ne Aequi quidem ac Volsci where ne . . . quidem makes all the difference. 66. 4. in ipsos verti: cf. Sallust, Or. Lepid. 19. occaecatos lupos: this refers to a slogan which enjoyed some currency between n o and 80. T h e Romans, jealous of their descent from Romulus and Remus, were proud to be known as lupi but the term could rebound. Cf. Justin 38. 6. 8 (Mithridates); Veil. Pat. 2. 27. 2 (Pontius). It will be a legacy of Sullan historiography. 67-68. The Speech of Quinctius Quinctius' speech is the first of L.'s full-scale rhetorical compositions and it is, in its way, a small masterpiece. After some experimentation in Books 1 and 2 in shaping his material L. hits on the idea of opening 516

446 B.C.

3. 67-68

and closing a book with a long speech. As often as not the first speech foreshadows what is to come, the last rounds off the narrative or what has happened. So Book 4 is opened by Canuleius (3-5), Book 5 opened by Appius Claudius (3-6), and closed by Camillus (51-54). Quinctius gathers together and reviews the issues which have been at stake in the turbulent years before and after the Decemvirate and points the moral that Rome's future depends upon Concordia and that concordia can only be achieved by every citizen subordinating his own desires and ambitions to the needs of Rome. It need hardly be said that such a message was more relevant to the times of Augustus than of Quin­ ctius, and Hellmann does well to draw attention to it (Livius-lnterpretationen, 50-52) but it is in no sense Augustan propaganda. A speech on similar lines was evidently in D.H. whose text is defective at this point (Klotz 271), which implies that one stood in the history written by Valerius Antias. T h e immaturity of the composition is revealed by its formal correct­ ness, by detailed discrepancies from the surrounding narrative which indicate that it was composed separately (67. 1 n.3 68. 1 n., 68. 7 n., 68. 10 n.) and have even led scholars to suppose that it is taken from a different source, and by the large number of passages which imitate Demosthenes and Cicero. As Dobree observed (Adversaria Critica, 1. 349) 'omnia e Demosthene adumbravit'. Such similarities might be put down to a common stock of rhetorical commonplaces if it were not for L.'s known and demonstrable admiration for the two great orators. For a general treatment of the speech see R. Ullmann, La Technique des Discours, 5 6 - 5 8 ; also Soltau 113, 169; Burck 48-50. For R o m a n knowledge of Demosthenes see P. Perrochat, Les Modeles grecs de Salluste. T h e Philippics and Olynthiacs were the most popular. Prooemium: principium a nostra persona et a re 67. 1. Quirites: 5. 6. 15 n. pudore: the argument resembles Demosthenes, Olynth. 1. 27. in conspectum vestrum: N has a variant in contionem vestram introduced from ad contionem in 66. 6, which is the standard phrase (4. 6. 1, 44. 22. 1, 44. 45. 8). For in conspectumprocedere cf. Plautus, Most. 1125. It is an archaic phrase which sets the tone for Quinctius, severissimus consul. traditum iri: 1. 7. 10 n. for the impressively weighty future pass. inf. vix Hernicis: no engagement between the Hernici and the Aequi and Volsci has been mentioned, but it may be a purely rhetorical comparison. 67. 2. ita vivitur: further examination of Ver. shows that it has pre­ cisely the same text as N , namely vivitu atus and not as reported in the O.C.T. is status rerum est might seem redundant with it but the 517

3- 67. 2

446 B.C.

phrase is unexceptionable linguistically (8. 13. 2)) and the two phrases do convey two distinct ideas, the atmosphere of Q / s life and the general situation. T h e text should be kept. For the thought Weissenborn well compares Cicero, in CatiL 1. 31. 67. 3 . viri arma: for the juxtaposition cf. 2. 40. 2 n. Roma me consule: me Roma consule Ver., but there is no parallel for the separation of me and consule. satis honorum, satis superque vitae: a conventional disclaimer for which cf. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1314 with Fraenkel's note but the im­ mediate source was no doubt Caesar's famous satis diu vel naturae vixi vel gloriae (ap. Cicero, pro Marcello 25). Tractatio: (a) dignum 67. 4 . nos consules an vos Quirites: the argument that if the fault rests with the generals they should be replaced but if it rests with the people they should reform owes much to Demosthenes, Olynth. 2. 28-31, the language something to Cicero, in CatiL 1.3. 67. 5. ignaviam . . . virtuti: a variation on Demosthenes, Phil. 1. 11. 67. 6. discordia ordinum et: 2. 44. 8, evidently a Republican common­ place but the thought can be traced back e.g. to Demosthenes, Phil. 3. 21. Madvig's emendation of est to et, confirmed subsequently by Ver., eliminates what would otherwise be an irrelevant generalization where we expect a specific reason for Aequan optimism. T h e resulting antithesis between Hits (Clericus) and urbis huius underlines the point and suggests that the emphatic order urbis huius is preferable to the normalized huius urbis. According to A. Fischer (De Usu Praenominum, 1908) the incidence of postponed hie is 12:451. (b) aequum 67. 7. pro deumjidem: An archaic exclamation (Ennius, Sat. 18 V . ; Terence, Andr. 237) used only here and 44. 38. 10 and avoided by Sallust and Cicero who prefers p. d. hominumque jidem (cf. Orator 155). It invariably accompanies a question and introduces a new point. Quinctius passes to consider whether R o m a n behaviour is reasonable. For the form of the subsequent argument cf. 4. 4. 2 ; Cicero, in Pisonem 15. 6 7 . 9 . videbamus iniquum: 'although we saw that it (i.e. the election of consuls with plebeian leanings) was unfair to the patricians'. There is as yet no suggestion in L. that plebeians were actually elected to the consulate, only that men with plebeian sympathies were. According to L. the first plebeian consul was in 367 (6. 42. 9) although in fact the presence of plebeian names in the early Fasti suggests that the rigid exclusion of plebeians only began after the Decemvirate when such distinctions were for the first time formally fixed. There is no need, 518

446 B.C.

3- 67. 9

therefore, to accept A's iniquos against the archetype. In the rest of the sentenceplebi must be dative (cf. 22. 1. 17, 27. 37. 10). It is hard to see whom Quinctius has in m i n d ; perhaps Tarpeius and Aternius. T h e repetition of vidimus after videbamus is harsh, particularly since they must bear different meanings ('saw' and 'witnessed'). Harant's sivimus, conjectured independently by Housman, is a great improvement. 67. 10. ecquando . . . licebit?: picks up 66. 4. T h e thought is again con­ ventional (cf. 4. 4. 10, 5. 5, 2. 44. 9, 24. 1), recurring in D.H. 6. 36. 1, 88. 1, and in [Sallust], Epist. 2. 10. 8. It goes back to Greek political thinking, in particular Thucydides 3. 82-83 and Demosthenes. 67. 11. Esquilias videmus: N has Esquilias quidem with submovit as main verb. T h e resulting zeugma is intolerable. O n e can repulse assaulting Volscians but not a captured suburb. Ver. actually reads Esquiliasqvid. . . . , that is Esquiliasque vid[emus]9 thus confirming Harant's emendation. For the idiom cf. 2. 59. 2. (c) utile 68. 1. ubi: Doering alone observed the awkwardness of ubi. It must mean 'when' not 'where', but the sense requires 'seeing that' which ubi cannot convey (Kuhner-Stegmann 2. 359 f.). iisdem presumes a correlative—'the same spirit as you showed in besieging the Senate' —and ubi should be altered by a slight change to quibus (the loss of q may be associated with corruption of videmus to quidem). As often, the same idiom occurs in close proximity (59. 1). T h e siege of the Senate, not elsewhere mentioned, is a legitimate exaggeration. 68. 2. incensa passim tecta: p. i. t. Ver. but logic insists that passim belongs to incensa not fumare. 68. 3 . in quo statu: the presence of in misplaced in U indicates that -n originally had it but that at an early stage it was eliminated. Taken with the joint authority of Ver. and TT the evidence is enough to establish it as the reading of the archetype. It can be accepted; cf. 37. 53. 6, 3 8 . 5 . 6 - 8 . 1. nuntiabantur: if the farms have been burnt the news will already have reached the unfortunate owners. W h a t lies in the future is the question how they are going to restore the damage. T h e imperfect is more appropriate that N's future. 68. 4. 'Words are no substitute for actions.' T h e argument is familiar from Demosthenes; cf, e.g., Phil. 2. 3-5. utcontionum in the O.C.T. is a misprint for et contionum. refortuna: for text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 282. 68. 6. Notice the combination of a complex, long sentence describing the fullness of past glories, and bare statement of their present plight. 519

3.

68.

446 B.C.

7

(d) necessarium 68. 7. haerete: 21. 35. 12; cf. Seneca, Contr. 7. 7 - 4 ; Val. Max. 2. 1. 9. sequitur vos necessitas: cf. Demosthenes, Olynth. 1. 15 πολλὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ ὧν ὀυκ ἐβουλόμεθ' ὕστερον ἐις ἀνάγκην ἔλθομεν ποιεᾳν καὶ κινδυνεύσωμεν περὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ χώρᾳ.

grave erat: 'it was irksome' (Fletcher, Latomus 20 (1961), 91 with parallels). Capitolium scandet: 4. 2. 14, 45. 39. 2; cf. Horace, Odes 3. 30. 8-9 dam Capitolium scandet cum tacita virgine pontifex. The similarity of the language may go back to a common religious source, perhaps the details of processions whether triumphal or pon­ tifical, or, since both passages have in the background a premonition of the Fall of Rome, a prophecy circulating under the late Republic that foreboded the end of Rome (Fraenkel, Horace, 303). 68. 8. domi mulierum: cf. Homer, Iliad 20. 251-5, especially 252. The sedentary quarrelsomeness of women quickly became proverbial (cf. the passages collected by Headlam on Herodas 1. 37) but the thought that enjoyment of present peace is shortsighted is always uppermost in Demosthenes' mind (cf. Olynth. 1. 15). 68.9. his ego gratiora dictu alia esse scio: a frequent apology by orators and a commonplace already for Aeschylus. Fraenkel gathers some early examples in his note on Agamemnon 620-2. Add, from Demosthenes, Olynth. 2. 2 1 ; Phil. 1. 5 1 ; 3. 63. Conclusio 68. 10. adsentatores: the distinction between the adsentator and the statesman was a favourite of the schools (cf. Cicero, Topica 83) and is treated at length by Cicero in the Laelius 95-98. The picture of un­ scrupulous individuals making capital out of the perils of the state was drawn by Demosthenes (cf. Chers. 66-67). 68. 11, malae rei se quam nullius: cf. the arguments of Alcibiades in Thucydides 6. 89. προτροπή

68. 12. antiquos mores: Quinctius recalls to the Romans the majestic claim of Ennius—moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque. 69-72. War with the Aequi and Volsci: the Scaptius Affair Moderatio is not enough. The governed as well as the governing classes have to exercise restraint (modestia). The final section of Book 3 strikes a new note which is to become the dominant theme of the following book. The Decemvirate had taught Rome that libertas could not be 520

446 B.C.

3. 69-72

maintained unless the governing class learnt to subordinate their per­ sonal ambitions to the general interest of the state, a lesson which Quinctius expressed in his speech. The people had now to be taught by experience the same lesson. The acceptance by the governing class of restraint was rewarded by victory over the Aequi and Volsci but the undisciplined character of the people was symptomatized in the Scaptius Affair. So the two incidents which round off Book 3 cohere together—victoriam honestam turpe indicium populi deformavit. Historically there is no substance to the events of the year. See Burck 50-51; Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen, 46-58; Klotz 271.

69. 2. telum acerrimum: 55. 3 n. 69. 3 - 5 . dignam . . . dignam . . . dignam: observe the fulsome rhetoric with which the Senate greets Quinctius' speech. Cf. Verr. 4. 65, 5. 184; for bellum propulsari cf. Cicero, CatiL 4. 22; Phil. 3. 3. 69. 4. per proditionem: Valerius and Horatius. acerbe tuendo: Ap. Claudius (2. 27. 1). 69. 5. communem patriam: 66. 4, 67. 10. 69. 6. cum consules in contione pronuntiassent: for the text see C.Q. 9 (i959)>27icausas cognoscendi: 4. 26. 12 n. 69. 8. ex aerario: 4. 22. 1, 7. 23. 3. This could be an archival notice. The aerarium was situated in the temple of Saturn (2. 21. 2) which already existed and the name aerarium implies the use of bronze as a currency medium which was assumed by the Twelve Tables and was perhaps a reform of Tarpeius and Aternius. The function of the quaestors as financial officers is also a likely consequence of the Decemvirate (2. 41. 11 n.). At a later date when armies were stationed largely abroad the storing of standards in the treasury would obviously have been impracticable. See Karlowa, Rom. Rechtsgeschichte, 1. 258. quarta: i.e. about 10 a.m. The hasty mobilization of Rome may be inspired by the resistance to Marius and Cinna in 87. 69. 9. hostem in conspectum dedit: 9. 27. 4, 30. 12. 8, a military phrase to build up the atmosphere of battle. Cf. Bell. Hisp. 4. 2, 39. 3 ; Cicero, Verr. 5. 86; also Ennius, Ann. 48 Vahlen and Terence, Phormio 261.

The Battle with the Aequi and Volsci The description of the battle is schematized. First the cavalry engagement is related and then the fortunes of three divisions of the infantry are followed through in turn. T o achieve the smooth transition from one scene to another L. twice employs a favourite technique, the dispatch of a messenger to the locality where the next operations are to be described; see Witte, Rh. Mus. 65 (1910), 270 ff.; 521

3- 70

446 B.C.

P. G. Walsh, Rh. Mus. 97 (1954), 112—14. T h e combats themselves are divided into stages, the initial repulse, the rally, the final victory, and the interest centres on psychological rather than technical issues. T h e whole is leavened with a smattering of military jargon to give it verisimilitude. See Plathner, Die Schlachtschilderungen, 11-13. 70. 1. quod. . . est: to be taken with summa imperii. . . erat. Unity of command is essential for the conduct of vital matters. T h e generaliza­ tion is traditional; cf. 4. 31. 2 ; Homer, Iliad 2. 204; Thucydides, 6. 72. 4. There may be an allusion to the status of M . Agrippa in 28 B.C.

communicando: 'by sharing his plans and his honours and treating him as an equal although in fact he was not'. consilia laudesque make an odd pair (no example quoted by Gudeman in Thes. Ling. Lat.) and I suspect with H . J . Mliller that another gerund has dropped out, e.g. participando; cf. 2. 52. 8. See Tacitus, Agr. 8. 70. 2. Sp. Postumio Albo: 4. 25. 5 n. P. Sulpicium: 10. 5 n. 70. 6. conficerent: 1. 25. 10, a strong word to match Sulpicius' resolu­ tion. Cf. Donatus on Terence, Eun. 926 proprie (confeere) convenit gladiatoribus qui gravissimis vulneribus occubuerunt. Used in this sense by the less sophisticated military writers, e.g. Hirtius, B.G. 8. 23. 5 ; Bell. Alex. 53-3resistere quibus sibi: editors follow the single testimony of A and print resistere sibi quibus, taking quibus to refer to sibi: 'the Romans who had forced the massed phalanx of the Aequan infantry to yield'. With N.'s word-order which allows sibi its natural position (1. 13. 2 n.) quibus = illos 'the Aequans could not resist whose infantry already had yielded to them (the Romans)'. 70. 7. haud surdis auribus: 24. 32. 6, 40. 8. 10. 'His words did not fall on deaf ears.' impressione una: 2. 30. 13, 4. 28. 6, 8. 9. 3, 25. 37. 13. A military term; cf. Bell. Afr. 78. 3 ; Hirtius, B.G. 8. 6. 2 ; Vegetius 3. 15. confodere: another word avoided by Cicero but patronized by military historians, e.g. Sallust, Catil. 60. 7 ; Nepos, Pel. 5. 4 ; Frontinus 2- 5-3370. 10. Agrippa's exploit is one of those nameless legends so readily incorporated into history. Frontinus preserves three other instances of it: Servius Tullius (2. 8. 1), T. Quinctius Capitolinus (2. 8. 2), and M . Furius Camillus (2. 8. 4). Of the present incident Frontinus writes: ' signum militare ereptum signifero in hostes Hernicos et Aequos misit', thus confirming Duker's arrepta. 70. 13. praeda . . . compotem: the abl. (other than animo) only here, except for Accius 36 R. and a few debased inscriptions which give voto compos for voti compos. T h e phrase is evidently mock military and as such 522

446 B.C.

3- 70. 13

the text may be sound but the analogy for it must have come from victoriae compos (9. 43. 14, 29. 10. 8; Veil. Pat. 1. 10. 3, 2. 96. 3 ; Val. Max. 1. 1. 1). praedaeque ingentis ? 70, 15. The panegyric of Valerius and Horatius sounds excessive and tendentious. The hand of Valerias Antias may lie behind it. The Scaptius Affair The arbitration between Ardea and Aricia cannot be credited either in general or in detail. A glance at the map shows that the land in dispute must have comprised part of the later Tribus Scaptia since the tribe was centred on Velitrae and the town of Scaptia which lay some 16 miles from Rome (Festus 464 L.). The tribe was not formed until 332 and no other Scaptius is known before the first century. It follows that the story that the land really belonged to Rome must have been propaganda in circulation between 338 when the confisca­ tions after the Latin War took place (8. 14. 9) and 332. That it is mere propaganda is confirmed by Cicero who tells an identical anec­ dote about Nola and Neapolis (de Officiis 1. 33). Nor is the treaty with Ardea in 444 any more secure (4. 7. 10 n.) The only certain detail is the colonization of Ardea (4. 11. 5 n.). Many reconstructions of how the history was built up have been advanced as, for example, that the treaty belongs to a much later date, but was placed in 444 to account for the troubles and subsequent colonization of Ardea and the Scap­ tius Affair inserted to account for the treaty (Sherwin-White). Such reconstructions do not, however, allow for the fact that the treaty was a discovery of Licinius Macer's while the Scaptius Affair must be a much earlier element in the story and is derived, here at least, from Valerius. The second-century version will have contained Scaptius, the capture of Ardea by the Volsci, recapture, and colonization. The only improvement on that was Licinius' addition of the treaty. That the Scaptius Affair itself is an invention of the late fourth century is confirmed by a secondary consideration: Scaptius claimed to have fought at Corioli. If that implies acceptance of the traditional date for Coriolanus, we know that the Coriolanus saga was taking shape at very much the same time, the end of the fourth century (2. 33. 4 nn.). In other words the two anecdotes hang together and have a roughly contemporary origin. L.'s treatment balances Scaptius against the consuls. Each side gives its reasons in answering speeches, presented in or. obi. and ex­ pressed in the language of late Republican politics. See also L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 53; Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, 25-26; Munzer, R.E., 'Scaptius'. 71. 2. Aricini: 1. 50. 3 n. Ardeates: 1. 57. 1 n. 523

3-71-3

446 B.C.

71. 3 . concilio populi: not a concilium plebis but an assembly of the whole people meeting by tribes, and presided over by the consul (2. 58. 1 n.). 7 1 . 5 . reguntur... regunt: a familiar epigram deriving from Thucydides 2. 65. 8 KCU OVK r\y€TO \1aXk0v VTT* avrov (sc. the people) rj avros fye', cf. Sallust, Jug. 1. 5. See the Introduction p. 17. 71. 6. infit: 1. 23. 7 n. annum: Corioli fell in 493 (2. 33. 5). It is now 448. If Scaptius had begun to serve at the minimum age of seventeen, he would have been thirty-seven, i.e. have served twenty years. 71. 8. exiguum vitae tempus superesse: for the pathetic touch cf. Fronto 83. 12 van den Hout. 72. 1. flagitium: with/acinus below, cf. Cicero, in CatiL 1. 13, 1. 18, and other examples in Tkes. Ling. Lat. s.v. /acinus, 82. 10 ff. 72. 2. tribus: it would not have been much use to address themselves solely to the tribunes (N) and Perizonius's correction restores a cliche (8. 37. 9 ; Suetonius, Augustus 56). 72. 3 . famae . . .fidei: cf. Sallust Jug. 16. 3 ; Cicero, adAtticum 11. 2. 1; ad Fam. 13. 10. 2. 72. 4. contionali seni: { an old babbler in the assemblies'. The insult is feeble and not strengthened by Dutoit's reference to Cicero, adAtticum 1. 16. 11 and ad Q.F. 2. 5. 1 (Hommages a L. Herrmann, 335). Should we not follow a clue disclosed by Sigonius and read comptionali? The senex co(e)mptionalis was an old slave who was used in sham sales and hence became proverbial for a worthless and venal slave. So Curius (ad Fam. 7. 29. 1) 'sum enim xPla€1, / ^ t u u s «^crci 8e Attici nostri: ergo fructus est tuus, mancipium illius; quod quidem si inter senes comptionales venale proscripserit, egerit non multum'; Plautus, Bacch. 976; Thes. Gloss. ( = Vat. Lat. 3321; from Festus) contemnalis senex: emptus, manumissus et tutor, auctor foetus. The sneer of venality is much more to the point. clarum hoc fore imagine Scaptium esse: the Roman people are going to have to wear the mask, i.e. have the character, of double-crossers (for quadruplator as a political term of abuse cf. Cicero, Verr. 2. 2 2 ; Plautus, Pers. 70) and profiteers (4. 50. 1). Scaptius' reward is badly corrupt. The contrast with persona leaves no choice but to take imagine to mean the death-mask, which noble Roman families pre­ served generation after generation (58. 2, 4. 16. 4). If so, all intertations which start from imagine as 'statue* or 'reflection' can be ruled out. Equally since Scaptius is still alive and the death-mask will be his, the future {fore) is required and Humanist conjectures founded on forte . . . esse can then be dismissed. Two alternatives appear to be open: (1) regarding hoc as an assimilation of hoc to the preceding 524

446 B.C.

3- 72. 4

hoc . . . hoc . . . hoc . . . hoc . . . hoc, delete esse (Gronovius, de Pec. Vet.y 4. 9) or emend to sed (Alschefski) 'Scaptius will be famous by this memorial'. For clarum . . . imagine cf. 1. 34. 6 nobilem una imagine Numae esse. (2) If hoc is right the corruption will be deeper. Bayet's lacuna {(et dignum)) gains nothing and explains nothing, but the text could be rewritten to give the sense 'this will be a fine death-mask for Scaptius', e.g. claram hoc fore imaginem Scaptio. I have little doubt that the truth lies with the former. T h e chiastic .Saz/rtzHm X populum should make both the subject of their sentences, and the antithesis is sharpened by the simple deletion of esse rather than by its emendation to sed. For the interpolation of esse cf. 3. 2. 3, 4. 27. 2. 72. 6. Scaptius: to be retained.

525

BOOK 4 BOOK 4 covers nearly fifty years and bridges the period between the Decemvirate and Rome's first great wars, against Veii and against the Gauls. Such a long period is unsatisfactory to handle, particularly since the material at L.'s disposal from the Annales is much fuller than hitherto. As was his practice, he constructed a series of episodes which would break across the vertical succession of scrappy and isolated facts. T h e story of Canuleius is followed by the fate of Sp. Maelius and the heroism of A. Cornelius Cossus but the latter half of the book is less coherent and might suggest that L. was overwhelmed by the wealth of disconnected detail and abandoned the attempt to unify and co-ordinate it. T h e impression given by chapters 21-61 that L. has been content simply to retail his sources is confirmed by the absence of a long speech at the end to round the whole book off, as Canuleius introduced it. As a substitute he is content to recall various phrases and passages from Canuleius' speech (56. 11 n.) to achieve the same purpose. So, too, the theme of modestia which is foreshadowed in the closing chapters of Book 3 and plays a prominent part in the first half of Book 4 wanes when the annalistic details begin to crowd thick and fast. T h e need to compress the history of fifty years into a single book in order to deal with Veii and the Gauls in the final book of the first Pentad forced L. to give up more ambitious schemes of literary presentation. As a result, the book, particularly the second half of it, although full of historical curiosities, is less exciting than its predecessor. T h e refrain is modestia—moderation the necessity for give and take. T h e agitation over conubium was inspired by the stand-offishness of the patres; the compromise by which the consular tribunate came into being but only patricians were elected is a signal example of modestia (6. 12); the settlement of Ardea was largely the work of Quinctius whose fairness iura infimis summisque moderando made him a byword (10. 8) and a splendid contrast to the opportunist and ambitious Sp. Maelius (13. 4). But moderatio applied in the military sphere as well. T h e jealousies of generals spell defeat (26. 7), the single-minded devotion of M a m . Aemilius to the call of his country brings victory (31. 5). But if generals must exercise self-control to be victorious, it is equally necessary that the soldiers should be loyal. T h e story of T a m panius is an (exemplum) non virtutis magis quam moderationis (41. 7) while the fate of C. Sempronius was a stern lesson (44. 9) and that of M . Postumius deserved and salutary. Co-operation is the only hope. 526

445 B.C.

4. 1-6

T h e plebs entrust the quaestio Postumiana to the consuls: the consuls in turn exercise moderatio in their handling of it (51. 3). Finally, in the political struggles that close the book, struggles over ager publicus fought out in the elections and the levies, the true example is preached by Servilius Ahala (57. 3, 'quern enim bonum civem secernere sua a publicis consilia') and practised when the patres voluntarily concede pay to the troops, thereby earning favorem unica moderatione par turn (57. 12). 1-6. Canuleius T w o issues dominate the first section of the book, the demand that plebeians should be eligible for election to the consulate and the proposal that there should be a recognized right of conubium between patricians and plebeians. Both are associated with the name of the tribune C. Canuleius. T h e first is demonstrably political invention by Licinius Macer to supply background for his interpretation of the institution of consular tribunes (7. 1 n.). T h e second is likely to be historical and together with the name of Canuleius to have been preserved in the Annales as the only authentic notice for 445. T h e right of conubium is not the possession by an individual of certain legal requirements necessary for contracting marriage. It is rather a common relationship which unites and constitutes a community. As such, conubium is parallel not subordinate to civitas. They are separate and distinct rights both of which determine homogeneous communities. T o be a R o m a n citizen does not entail the right of inter­ marriage with other Roman citizens and to enjoy the right of inter­ marriage does not entail citizenship. In practice the two became identified, but in law (Gaius 1. 56) and in origin they were widely distinct. T h e early history of Latium shows that there existed among the upper classes of Latin cities a tradition of intermarriage. Tarquinius Superbus married his daughter to Octavius Mamilius of Tusculum ( i . 49. 9), as in later times Rome attempted to secure the adherence of Capua by marriage ties with leading Capuans ( 3 1 . 3 1 . 11). Unlike citizenship intermarriage naturally did not extend to the lower classes. There was no legal bar as such but sentiment and religion—Roman gentes were as proud as Scottish septs—formed an adequate obstacle. At Rome the patrician community which recognized marriage among its own members and certain privileged Latin aristocrats became during the first fifty years of the Republic increasingly exclusive until it was possible for the Decemvirs in codifying the unwritten laws to regard intermarriage as a matter of right and not merely of con­ vention. So it was defined in the Twelve Tables: ut ne plebei cum patribus (conubia) essent, inhumanissima lege sanxerunt (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 63). As soon as the restriction was codified, the underprivileged, 527

4. i-6

445 B.C.

the plebeians, were bound to protest. T h e Lex Canuleia, a negative measure designed not to promote intermarriage but to prevent the prohibition of it, was inevitable. But at no time were the citizen-rights of the plebeians ever impugned. L.'s version of the struggle obscures the issue. Canuleius' speech tends to identify civitas and conubium and in blurring the two betrays the same radical tendency which fathered the proposal to make plebeians eligible for the consulship on Canuleius. T h e immediate source is Licinius Macer, for L. abandoned Valerius at the end of Book 3, as is clear from several inconsistencies. Hos secuti (4. 1. 1) refers to the consuls of 446 who have not been mentioned by name since 3. 66. 1 nor referred to since 3. 72. 1. In 4. 1. 4 the Ardeates are said to descisse. no treaty is referred to in 3. 71. 2. 4. 6. 7 talks of a foedus ictum between plebs and patres of which there is no mention in the previous book. And there are others (3. 12, 7. 1 n.). But L. has worked over the material. In particular the careful opposition be­ tween the arguments of the patricians and of Canuleius is charac­ teristically Livian (see Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen, 61-63). On the problems of conubium see Bayet, tome 4, 126-32 ; Volterra, Studi. . . Albertario, 2. 349 ff.; De Visscher, R.I.D A. 1 (1952), 401-22 ; Studi. . Paoli, 246-7; on the sources see F. Liibbert, De Fontibus Libri 4 Obser­ vations; Soltau 164-72; Klotz 271-2; J.R.S. 48 (1958), 4 0 - 4 1 ; on L.'s presentation Burck 89-92. T h e source used by D.H. is closely related but evidently later since he names the dissentient tribune, who is anonymous in L., as C. Furnius ( n . 53. 1), under the influence of the career and oratorical repute of the tribune of 50 B.C. Remarkably D.H. omits the proposals of Canuleius on conubium, perhaps because they were too technical to be made intelligible for a Greek audience, but his divergent treat­ ment of foreign affairs (54 ff.) and of the consular tribunate (60) indicates that the differences are not to be accounted for simply by the differing aims of the two historians. 1 . 1 . hos secuti: the pronoun hie is used on ten occasions to make the connexion between books (cf., e.g., 7. 1. 1,9. 1. 1) but nowhere except here does 'a form of hie referring to definite words reach back more than a few lines' (Nye, Sentence Construction, 135). hos = M . Geganius and C. Julius (3. 66. 1). M. Genucius: if the text and tradition are sound he will be a brother of the consul and Decemvir of 451 (3. 33. 3 n.). T h e Genucii were plebeian and there is little evidence of them before the end of the century, so that Mommsen {Rom. Forschungen, 1. i n ) doubted the authenticity of the entry in the Fasti—perhaps rightly. C. Curiatius: the praenomen is given as P. by L. here but C. at 7. 3, rdios by Zonaras (7. 19, from L.), and D.H. 11. 53. 1. P. is probably 528

445 B.C.

4. 1. 1

the usual corruption for p(roprium nomen; 2. 15. 1 n.). AyplinTas in Diodorus 12. 23. 1 is repeated from Agr. Furius of the previous year. The nomen is less secure. Curtius is transmitted by Diodorus, Varro {de Ling. LaL 5. 150), and Fast Hyd. (Koivrios in D.H.) but both here (Curatius) and at 7. 3 (Curiatius N Curatius Ver.) the longer form is found and that it comprised the vulgate reading of L. at an early date is corroborated by Cassiodorus' Curiacius. No help is afforded by the cognomen Philo (or Chilo), which is not adopted by another member either of the Curtii or the Curiatii (Guratii do not figure). Curiatius is probably right, in so far as being the name given by Licinius, and should be identified as a brother of the Decemvir P. Curiatius (3. 33. 3) as M. Genucius was of T. Genucius. Both may be falsifications, if the Curiatii are also plebeian (cf. 5. 11. 4; see above p. 76). nam anni principio : anni nam p. M. The order is invariably principio anni (Fiigner, Lexicon, 1154. 15) and nam p. a. should be read here (Schmidt). C. Canuleius: the name is Etruscan (Schulze 152 n. 4) and there were Canuleii at Volsinii (C.I.L. 11. 2748-50). Besides a M. Canuleius (? a son) mentioned in 44. 6, the family occur in minor offices through­ out most of the Republic. C. Canuleius is known only by his law. The Vestal Canuleia (Plutarch, Numa 10) is tendentious fabrication. 1. 2. promulgarent: cf. D.H. 11. 53. 1. The bill anticipates the LicinioSextian rogations. 1 , 4 . ob iniuriam: cf. Caesar, B.C. 3. 10. 2 with Meusel's note. descisse: 7. 10 n., 9. 1 n. A previous treaty, unrecorded in Valerius' narrative, is implied. fremere: only wars, not rumours of wars, had their place in the Annales and the menace from Rome's three traditional enemies is certainly inserted into the history to provide a suitable atmosphere for the debate. Veii had made a truce for forty years in 474 (2. 54. 1). Apart from the present ambiguous activity, no hostilities by the Veientes are reported until 438 (17. 1), when the treaty had nearly or, if the regular chronology is defective, actually expired. Any provoca­ tive raids in the intervening period are, therefore, exceedingly im­ probable. The fortification of Verrugo may have been recorded. The name (from verruca 'a wart'; cf. Cato ap. Aul. Gell. 3. 7. 6 locum editum asperumque) suggests a commanding citadel of rock. It lay on the edge of the land of the Volsci and the Aequi and was within a night's travel of Tusculum and in sight of cthe plain', presumably the plain bounded by Praeneste to the east and the Mte. Lepini (55. 8, 58. 3, 5. 28. 7). It must therefore have been one of the summits of the Alban Hills guarding the passage of the Via Latina through Algidus. Only one of the whole circuit of peaks resembles a wart (cf. the Scottish Bynac)—Maschia d'Ariano which is capped by a precipitous outcrop 814432

5^9

Mm

4- i . 4

445 B.C.

of rock. A little way down the eastern slope an important seventhsixth-century cemetery has been found (Nordini, Notiz. Scavi, 1934, 169-75). T h e remains on the Acropolis itself are medieval or later, but the small church of S. Silvestro is likely to have taken the place of the temple of Diana mentioned by Horace (Odes 1. 21. 6 ; 3. 23. 9 ; Livy 21. 62. 8) and some Republican sherds have been washed down the slopes. See also T. Ashby, P.B.S.R. 5 (1910), 424; Tomasetti, Campagna Romana, 564 ff.; Radke, R.E., ' V e r r u g o \ 1.5. conticescerent: recalling the remark first made by Marius (Plutarch 28) and immortalized by Cicero (pro Milone 11 ; cf. Lucan 1. 277) —silent leges inter arma. 1. 6. scivisset [et] : Pettersson retains et and takes vociferatus as an indica­ tive not as participle, comparing for the ellipse 3. 14. 6, 9. 10. 2, 10. 12. 9.

The Debate in the Senate T h e consuls' speech, analysed by Lambert (Die Indirekte Rede, 23-4), is an elaborate exercise in indirect speech which corresponds effec­ tively with the passionate and direct oration of Canuleius. Sophistry is balanced against emotion and the contrast is underlined by the variation between 0.0. and o.r. It has no counterpart in D.H. and may be presumed to be an original composition. Notice the repetitions (iam , . . iam; sic . . . sic; ne quid. . . ne quid; dimidius . . . dimidius; creet . . . creaturos; concessum . . . concessum; concitent. . . concitaverint; hostes . . . hostes), the antitheses (domi. . ./oris; plebis . . .patrum . . . tribunorum . . . consulum; pace . . . bello; primo . . . nunc; hunc ordinem aut ilium magistratum; non plebi R. sed Volscis) and the chiasmi (ut. . . temptasse . . . rogari ut; concedendo . . . postulando; proditurum . . . passurum; scelus civium . . . hostium arma). T h e language and contents are as sophisticated as the clausulae (cf., e.g., 2. 5 nee suos noverit). 2. 1. furores tribunicios: a favourite phrase of Cicero's; cf., e.g., deDomo 1 0 3 ; Phil. 1. 2 2 .

2 . 3 . ideff : the strict parallelism between cuius rei praemium . . . , earn . . . semper and Romaepraemium seditionum . . . semper shows that the sub­ ject of honori fuisse must be not the reward but the activity which produced the reward, id et (H. J . Muller) or id (Madvig) is therefore impossible while ideo (Weissenborn) breaks the symmetry and is without authority, being attested by F alone. The conjecture seditiones (Mr. D. M . Last) is palmary. 2. 4. reminiscerentur: the general sense of the passage is that political agitation brings the greatest rewards at Rome and will continue to thrive so long as it does so. The plebs have everything to gain by organizing strikes since the reward of sedition is enhanced prestige 530

445 B.C.

4. 2. 4

and position. W h a t then are senators being asked to remember? Not surely the twin bastions of the R o m a n spirit, the enduring greatness of the patricians, and the increasing splendour of the plebeians. That, as Conway says, would be 'imposing but irrelevant': it could not be resumed by ergo. It would also be untrue. The rise of the plebs was at the expense of the patricians. The Senate must be being reminded that their greatness was being eroded by the plebeians and that there would be no end to the process so long as the plebeians had something to show for their agitation. There are also grammatical difficulties. T h e subject of auctiorem . . . esse is not expressed. It cannot be maiestatem senatus since, by definition, the plebs would find nothing to be proud of in the growing greatness of the Senate and their whole behaviour is designed to reduce it. T h e subject must be se (the plebs) and since it cannot be understood, it must be replaced in the text (Sigonius). Further, as the text stands either ut or quemadmodum is redundant, ut is deleted by Porson and Madvig, as well as by earlier editors, or emended to et (Faber), turn (Rhenanus), an (Crevier), or vel (Bayet): quemadmodum is deleted by Lehner. But the corruption is probably deeper. The point is that the Senate should be ashamed at the diminished prestige which they are going to hand on to their children. This is an old commonplace (cf Thucydides 2. 62. 3 ; Sallust, Jug. 31. 17; Catil. 51. 42) but we expect it to be made ex­ plicitly; for ut quemadmodum we might read deminutam dum (cf. 8. 34. 5 ; 63. 10). T h e metathesis is almost exact. T h e more radical remedies of transposition (Klockius, Conway) depend on a mis­ understanding of the sense of the sentence. Tr. 'Let them recall the majesty of the Senate that they had received from their fathers and would pass on diminished to their children, while the common people could boast that they were becoming greater and more im­ portant'. finem ergo non fieri: 2. 11 n. 2. 5. perturbationem: 6. 4 1 . 4-12. Before the Lex Ogulnia of 300 only patricians could be augurs and even thereafter only patricians could hold the auspices. Hence when an interregnum occurred auspicia ad patres redeunt (Cicero, ad Brut. 1. 5. 4). Since in early Rome no trans­ action of any kind took place without consulting the auspices, the distinction between publica and privata is anachronistic and belongs to the period after the Lex Ogulnia when plebeians by their member­ ship of the religious colleges acquired a share in the control of those auspices which affected public transactions. But the patricians main­ tained an exclusive monopoly of the auspices for their own private affairs, in particular for the celebration of marriages (Plautus, Casina 8 6 ; Cicero, de Divin. 1. 28 with Pease's note). T h e consuls argue that since the auspices can only be held by patricians mixed marriages 531

4. 2.5

445 B.C.

whose offspring could not validly be called patrician would in the end deprive Rome of anyone to hold the auspices. The argument is fallacious, for in law origo sequitur patrem (4. 12 n.). incontaminati: the word is rare being found only in Varro, de Ling, Lat. 9. 21 before the Christian period. It is used here to pick up con­ taminate sanguinem in 1. 1. As often such striking words are only at home in speeches where they provide a touch of verisimilitude. The meaning is 'non depravati miscendo' (G. Jachmann, Plautin. u. Attisches, 152).

2. 6. ferarum prope ritu: cf. 3. 47. 7 n. quorum sacrorum: 5. 52. 4 ; the gentes had special cults of their own (cf. Varroap. Non. 820 L.; Festus 284 L.: see Wissowa, Religion, 398 ff.). sit: parallel to ignoret, after ut. 2. 7. parum . . . iam: for this device cf. Cicero, pro Sestio 32. accingi: 1. 47. 3, 28. 41. 8. In the sense 'to gird oneself against' the word is rare and impressive. Avoided by Cicero, Caesar, and Sallust, it is used by L. only in reported speech which suggests that it sounded too strong or too poetic for narrative (cf. Terence, Phormio 318; Eun. 1060).

erect \ et creaturos: the change of subject is remarkable—(populus) creet: (turbatores) creaturos—and unconstitutional since at all times it is the people who are responsible for creating consuls. The difficulty was seen and solved by Dobree—creet: [et] creaturus. 2. 8. ne . . . sineret: a pious prayer, cf. 28. 28. 11. regiae maiestatis imperium is the equivalent ofregia potestas (8. 32. 3)—the annalistic myth that the consulate was evolved from the authority of the kings. eo reddere: cf. Cicero, Phil. 7-^7miliens morituros: a favourite disclaimer of Cicero's; cf. ad Att. 7. 11. 1, 14. 9. 2, 14. 22. 2 ; Phil. 2. 112.

2. 9. alia ex aliis iniquiora: with a comparative L. often uses the plain alia aliis, where the abl. is one of comparison (4. 26. 7, 29. 15. 11, 35- 17- 3) > M. Muller deleted ex. But here ex aliis goes closely with the gerund postulando as at 7. 39. 3 alias ex aliis fingendo moras. The rOTTOS that a policy of concession does not endear one to an electorate had been enunciated already by Plato in the Republic and by Demosthenes. 2. 11. finem nonfieriposse si in: Conway's restoration is admirable and easy. The consuls have said earlier that there was no prospect of an end to the disturbances. They now conclude by denying the possibility of any end so long as the two opposed forces continue in the same state. audaciae temeritatique: see 2. 55. 10 n. 2 . 1 2 . illine ut: -ne ut (or utne) introduces a 'repudiating question' in the subjunctive. Fraenkel {Horace, 100) writes on Sat. 1. 1. 108: 'This mode of expression is in keeping with the climate of a somewhat heated conversation; consequently the bulk of our evidence comes 532

445 B.C.

4. 2. 12

from Plautus and Terence. But it is by no means alien to the language of Cicero and can even be found in speeches in Livy' (cf. 5. 24. 10). 'Horace, as is to be expected, uses it in the Epodes and Sermones . , . but not in the Odes.' 2 . 1 3 . proloqui: 'speak out'; 23.5. 12,39.15.4, both speeches. T h e word, which occurs sixteen times in Plautus and five in Terence (cf. Afranius fr. 213), is avoided by the classical prose-writers, being found only in Sisenna (fr. 108 P.) and the Bell, Afr. (35. 3,44.4) before L. and Tacitus. See Kroll on Cicero, Orator 147. Its character is clear from its use. 2. 14. scandere: 3. 68. 7 n., the first of several echoes of Quinctius' speech which suggests that there was no great interval between the composition of Book 3 and Book 4. si patribus . . . eripuerint: si has often been challenged (nisi Luterbacher; ni Madvig) or the punctuation been adjusted, because of the apparent absurdity of saying that consuls are ready to be leaders if the patres are demoralized. W h o m then, it is asked, are the consuls to lead ? But the emphatic position of patribus and consules shows that the text is sound. T h e patres ought to set an example of leadership, the consuls argue, but, if they are demoralized, the consuls at least will not fail in their duty, ni or nisi, with its implication that the consuls have not the courage to set an example unless they are backed up, weakens if anything the effect of the challenge. The Speech of Canuleius Canuleius' speech strikes a more emotional and impassioned note. Its frequent echoes of Quinctius' oration as well as its highly finished structure show that it is a free composition by L. himself. Licinius probably also gave Canuleius a speech, but, as in D.H., a short one before the Senate in answer to the consuls or to C. Claudius, and not, as here, before the people. There is indeed a considerable similarity to the speech attributed to Licinius Macer by Sallust, but much of the tone, the plea for moderatio (cf. Horace, Odes 3.4.65), the dream of empire, and the judgement on discordia are thoroughly Augustan (4. 4 n.). It belongs to the genus duplex (Quintilian; for which see Ullmann, La Technique, 58-60), because it is concerned with two separate issues which are treated separately and in parallel. T h e language is flecked with characterizing touches proper to a tribune of the fifth century. T h e fame of the speech in antiquity was deservedly great. In par­ ticular its Claudian content commended it to the emperor Claudius who was indebted to it both for argument and for style. T h e extent of this debt has been analysed, e.g. by A. Zingerle, AY. Phil. Abhandlungen, 1887, 51-52; F. Leo, Nachrichten von der K.G. der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1896, 193 n. 2 ; R. Syrne, Tacitus, app. 40, 4 1 ; D. M. Last, Latomus 17 (1958), 476-87. 533

4.

3- i

445 B.C.

3 - 1 . adversus consules: but not in their presence. Prooemium: (a) principium ab adversariis 3 . 3 . saepe . . . nunc: an old introductory formula commonly found in Attic speeches and illustrated by Fraenkel (Glotta 39 (1961), 1-5); cf., e.g., T h u c y d i d e s 3. 37. I (Cleon) πολλάκις μὲν ἤδη ἔγωγε καὶ ἄλλοτε ἔγνων . . . μάλιστα δ' ἐν τῇ vῦv . . . μεταμελείᾳ.

cives nos eorum: 'we are their fellow citizens'. (b) principium ab re 3 . 4. finitimis externisque: 1. 49. 9 n., but externis is anachronistic since there is no earlier example than the Campanians in 23. 4. 7. hostibus etiam victis: Claudius took the reference to be to the en­ franchisement of the Sabines by Romulus (Tacitus, Annals 11. 24. 6). Gf. 1. 13. 4. But it would also apply to the Albans enfranchised by Tullus (1. 30. 1) and the Latins by Ancus (1. 33. 5). Tractatio I: (a) dignum 3 . 6. caelum ac terras misceant: 'turn the world upside down', a collo­ quial proverb found also in Juvenal (2. 25, 6. 283) and Lucian (Prometheus 9). See Otto, Sprichworter, s.v. 3 . 7. dignus: under the late Republic the right of standing for office was not denied: candidature was a question of dignitas (Wirszubski, Libertas, 53). apiscendi: 44. 25. 2 (reflections of Eumenes). apiscor is a rare word found in early Latin at Sisenna fr. 94 and in Cicero's letters before being taken up by self-conscious writers like Pliny and Tacitus. It has an archaic flavour which suits Canuleius' style. See C.Q,- 9 (1959), 277 against Gries, Constancy, 82. libertinum: cf. Tacitus, Annals 11. 24. 7; Suetonius, Claud, 24 on the adlection by Ap. Claudius Gaecus of libertinorum Jilii to the Senate (9. 46. 10; see A. Garzetti, Athenaeum 25 (1947), 1906°.). T h e allu­ sion is again anachronistic. If its origin antedates L., it is probably a confused reference to Caecus' activities or a Licinian jibe at Sulla's supporters (cf. H. Hill, C.Q. 26 (1932), 170 fF.). But there may also be a contemporary sneer against freedmen whose power in 32 B.C. was feared and unpopular (Syme, Roman Revolution, 284; cf. Dio 50. 10.4). 3 . 8. lucis . . . indignantur: an old 1-077-09, used, for example, by Cicero, pro Sex. Rose. 72 (cf. Quintilian 12. 6. 4 ) ; DecL min. 299. (b) iustum 3 . 9. si dis placet: the exclamation is discussed most recently by Fraenkel, Studi Italiani di Fil. Class. 27 (1956), 123-4 w n o concludes 534

445 B.C.

4- 3-9 that it is 'nicht immer ein Ausruf propter indignitatem alicuius rei' sondern auch, wie P l a u t , Capt. 454, ein allgemeiner Ausdruck starken Erstaunens'. Here the note of indignation prevails. T h e exclamation is confined to Plautus and Terence and Cicero's early pro Sex. Roscio (102) and the sparing use of it by L. (6. 40. 7, 38. 47. 3, 41. 23. 7, 44. 22. 8) suggests that he keeps it for special effect. non adfastos, non ad commentarios: the allusion again anticipates the reform of Ap. Claudius Caecus whose secretary Cn. Flavius (9. 46) was responsible in 304 B.C. for the publication of the Fasti and of the formulae of legis actiones. (Detailed discussion of these controversial measures may be found in Schulze, Roman Legal Science, 9 ff; Jolowicz, Historical Introduction, 8 8 ; see also H. S.Jones, C.A.H. 7. 533-4.) Since commentarii were procedural handbooks (1. 60. 4 n.) and since the pontifices were intimately concerned with private law in so far that questions of legitimacy and inheritance affected the maintenance of sacra privata, the formulae of legis actiones would have been contained in the commentarii. For Licinius 5 interest in Flavius see fr. 18 P. 3 . 10. enunquam: 9. 10. 5, 10. 8. 10, 24. 14. 3, 30. 21. 8. An inter­ rogative ( = ecquando Paul. Fest. 66 L.), which should be printed as one word. Its usage (Plautus, e.g. Cist. 8 6 ; Rudens 987, 1117 ; Terence, Phormio 329; Virgil, Eel. 1. 67, 8. 7) suggests that it was a colloquialism (Hofmann, Lat. Umgangsprache, 35). Numam: 1. 18-21 n . ; cf. 1. 17 n. 3. 11. L. deinde Tarquinium: 1. 34. 1-2 n. TT has modo Romanae for R. m. which induced Conway to delete modo and L. Herrmann to read non modo (jion) R. (Latomus 6 (1947), 262) but the authority of MA shows 7r\ order to be eccentric and the examples of non modo for non modo non, collected by Drakenborch at 25. 26. 11, suffice. Cf. *■ 39- 53 . 12. Ser. Tullium: 1. 39. 5 n. patre nullo: 'whose father was a nobody'. de T. Tatio: 1. 13.6-8 n. quidenim .. . dicamp is a typically Ciceronian praeteritio (cf, e.g., pro Milone 75). 3 . 13. eniteret virtus: cf. Cicero, pro Mur. 32; Sallust, Catil. 54. 4. 3 . 14. Claudiam: 2. 16. 4-5 nn. 3 . 16. virfortis ac strenuus: 1. 34. 6, 3. 47. 2 n. the Roman equivalent of καλὸς κἀγαθός with a significant concentration on military qualities rather than gifts of person. Cf. Plancus ap. Cicero, ad Fam. 10. 8. 5, Sallust, Catil. 51. 16; Nepos, Bat. 7. 1. It is possible that in origin it was a more definite term of Roman public law—the Foretes and Sanates of Festus (426, 474 L.). 3 . 17. ad gubernacula . . . accedere: a Ciceronian metaphor (de Inv. 1.4; de Rep. 1. 11). The whole passage with its emphasis on the virtues of the novus homo might easily have been penned by Cicero. 535

4-4-

1

445 B.C.

(c) legitimum 4. 1. at enim: 5. 9. 3 n. nullane res nova institui debet: the argument that there must always be a first time for everything is a commonplace and is even employed by Critognatus in recommending cannibalism (Caesar, B.G. 7. 77. 13). 4. 2. pontijices: 1. 20. 5 n. augures: 1. 18. 6 n. Canuleius neglects the tradition that the augurate was as old as Romulus. census: 1. 43 n. 4. 3 , consules: 1. 60. 4 n. dictatoris: 2. 18. 4 n. tribuni plebi, aediles, quaestores: 2, 32. 1 n., 3. 55. 13 n., 2. 41. 11 n., 3. 69. 8 n. 4. 4. in aeternum urbe condita: cf. 28. 28. 11 (Scipio). Canuleius ends the first half of his speech with a glorious assertion of Rome's immor­ tality. The history of the idea is of interest: latent at the very end of the Republic (cf. Cicero, pro Marc. 22) it first appears in Tibullus (2. 5. 23) and Virgil (Aeneid 1. 276-9) and taken in conjunction with the present passage (cf. 6. 23. 7) must have formed part of Octavian's early propaganda after Actium. The early evidence is assembled by M. P. Charlesworth, Harv. TheoL Review 29 (1936), 122-31; see also Syme, Tacitus, 208 and n. 1; Koch, Religio, 168 and n. 48. The order is condita in aeternum, crescente in immensum. Does nova imperia allude to the startling innovations brought about by Augustus' constitutional settlement in 28-27 B.C. ? (Syme, Harvard Studies in Class, Phil. 64 (1959), 47; against, Walsh, Proc. Afr. Class. Ass., 1961, 26-35). Tractatio II: (a) dignum 4. 5. pessimo exemplo publico: 3. 72. 2, 4. 13. 1. pessimo exemplo n\. Klockius conjectured pessimo publico, a familiar phrase (Valde blanditur': Gronovius) but one which is repetitious with summa iniuria plebis and untrue since the harm was confined to the plebeians. It is as a precedent for a policy of segregation that it is dangerous to the state as a whole (cf. Cicero, de Leg. 3. 32 plus exemplo quampeccato nocent). insignitior: elsewhere contumelia insignis (e.g. Terence, Eun. 771 ; Cicero, de Leg. Agr. 2. 54; Suetonius, Julius 79). 4. 6. immisceamur: cf. Tacitus, Annals 4. 40. 11. Like intermiscere it conveys a suggestion of debasement. 4. 7. cooptationem implies that patricians could co-opt families at will into their body but that is certainly erroneous (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 30 n. 1). The decision would have rested with the comitia curiata. The choice of the term may, therefore, reflect legalistic controversies of the last centuries of the Republic. Or it may simply be mis­ understanding by L. himself, to which he is prone. If so, it was seized 536

445 B.C.

4-4- 7

on by the Emperor Claudius and retailed in his Gallic speech, from where it found its way to Suetonius (Tib. i gens Claudia in patricias cooptata). The two cases are given in i. 30. 2 and 2. 16. 5 where see notes. sinceram: picking up 2. 5. enubere: N had ecnubere; for the form see Burckhardt in Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. 4. 8. nemo: Canuleius alludes to the story of Ap. Claudius and Verginia. (b) iustum 4. 9. verum enim vero: 24. 5. 2, 29. 8. 7, 31. 30. 4, 36. 40. 4, 37. 52. 8. The very strong particle, used by Sallust (Catil. 2. 9, 20. 10), and Cicero (Verr. 3. 194), serves to introduce the new section. 4. 10. sub . . . vincula conicitis: only metaphorical here and only with sub here. The usual in v. c. (3. 13. 6) required variation to carry the metaphor. duas: 3. 67. 10 n. 4. 11, cur non sancitis: for the same appeal to absurdities cf. Cicero, de Leg. 1. 44. ne . . . nee: the structure is (i) ne . . ., (ii) nee eodem . . . idem . . . eodem, and therefore nee is correct, linking the second main clause, which is itself subdivided into three, to ne vicinus sit. For ne . . . nee = ne. . . neve cf. 3. 21. 6, 5. 3. 8, 26. 42. 2, 40. 46. 4 ; see E. B. Lease, Class. Phil. 3 (1908), 313. The examples which Canuleius gives are hackneyed, and seem to be as old as the Old Oligarch. immutatur: preferable to the plain mutator, because it is the legal terminology; cf, e.g., Ulpian, Dig. 45. 1. 52, 46. 5. 1. 10 et al. 4 , 12, nempe: the drift of Canuleius' argument is that to recognize conubium would not involve any consequential changes in the law since the children of such marriages would automatically take the status of their fathers. If the father was patrician, the son would be also and vice versa. Mr. W. A. J. Watson points out to me that this begs the whole question. It is only children born in iustae nuptiae (i.e. marriages sanctioned by conubium) that take the status of the father. The children of other marriages take the status of the mother (Gaius 1. 76-96). (c) legitimum 5. 2. velit, iubere: 1. 46. 1 n. vocare: in the c. tributa the tribes were called successively to vote (U. Hall, Historia 13 (1964), 276). 5. 3 . quid si non: the idiom has been overlooked; even Porson and Madvig emended it to quasi non (cf. Aul. Gell. 9. 9. 14). As Mr. G. W. Williams discussing Propertius 1. 9. 15-34 in J.R.S. 47 (1957), 242-3 537

4-5-3

445 B.C.

formulates it, 'quid si in such a context adds an argument by means of an appeal to a circumstance which either is the case (so with the indicative) or might easily have been (and perhaps yet can be) the case, though it was not (or is not) at the moment (so with the sub­ junctive)'. T h e sense is: 'Just think what it would be like if you had not learnt how ineffectual your threats against the plebs were. Then you might risk open conflict with us. As it is, you will only try to bluff us and I call your bluff. Give us conubium and we will fight.' nobis: a necessary correction for N's vobis. T h e two are constantly confused and Bayet's vos nobis is unnecessary as well as being overemphatic. Conclusio: amplificatio Canuleius ends his speech with an emotional peroration marked by the repeated anaphora of si and nemo. 5. 5, unam hanc civitatem: 3. 67. 10 n. si spes, si aditus: 'the hope and opportunity of office'. Cf. 25. 10. in vicem annuis magistratibus: the concept of proper democracy cf. 3. 39. 8 n. T h e similarity between the two passages led Porson to read aequandae for aequae here, rightly, for although aequa libertas is found (34. 54. 5,45. 32. 5) the gerundive is required with quod est (cf. 38. 50. 8 ; Florus 2. 1. 4). 5. 6. ferte sermonibus: cf. Caesar, B.C. 2. 17. 2. pro superbis dominis: 28. 44. 4, 42. 52. 16; Virgil, Aen. 12. 236; Pliny, Paneg. 63. 6. 6. 2. respondit: it is impossible to understand alter consul from consules in 6. 1 and with the exception of Bayet who retains the manuscript reading, editors agree that either respondit should be altered to an impersonal passive (respondetur R u p e r t i ; responsum Bitschofsky) or that the subject has dropped out. H a r a n t would supply alter but the palaeographical inducements {alter roganti for interroganti or utiliter alter (Conway)) do not outweigh the inanity of not specifying which consul spoke, quite apart from the incredible separation of utiliter from in praesens c. which Conway's text involves. Now the parallel account in D.H. shows that in Licinius' version the opposition to the proposal for electing plebeian consuls came not from the consuls themselves, that is not from Genucius who is pictured as a tactful negotiator (11. 58. 1) and not from Curiatius who is not mentioned throughout, but from C. Claudius (11. 60. 1). In his usual fashion L. has simplified the story by eliminating all superfluous characters and reducing the dispute to one between Canuleius and the consuls. In so doing he has deprived himself of anyone to answer Canuleius and so leaves the awkward and anonymous respondit. If any name was to be supplied 538

445 B.C.

4. 6. 2

I would follow Walters but write certamen (Curiatius) respondit. See also 6

-76. 6. intercedentibus: the first reputed instance of the tribunician veto (43. 6, 50. 6 ; see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 294 n. 1). It is doubtful whether the veto did exist at this date. T h e first certainly attested case is 310 (9. 36. 14) and, if it was not the result of a gradual evolution, it will have been instituted together with the other Licinio-Sextian measures. See Lengle, R.E., 'tribunus plebis'. consilia: so consiliis and consilia below, consilium habere and consilio interesse are both well attested (2. 54. 7, 9. 15. 1, 36. 11. 7; Sallust, Jug. 62. 4). Change is unnecessary but should at least be consis­ tent. apparebat: Livian simplification. In D.H. 11. 60 (and so in Licinius) the misgiving formed part of a speech by T. Genucius, the consul's brother. 6. 7. C. Claudi sententia: 6. 2 n. His proposal was firjSefilav airohihovai. rjj ftovAfj Sidyvajcriv vnkp TOV vofiov ( D . H . 11. 6 0 ) .

Quinctiorum: D.H. mentions only Capitolinus. T h e pairing recalls 3- 35- 9foedere icto : not mentioned in 3. 55. 10 but cf. Sallust, Oratio Macri 17. 6. 8. tribunos militum: 7-11 n. 6. 10. adipiscendi: for the text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 277. 6. 11. contentione libertatis dignitatisque: 3. 65. 11 n. secundum: 'after the contest is ended and when the judgment is unbiassed' (Baker). 7-11. Ardea: the Institution of the Consular Tribunate and the Censorship In 445 the Senate decided to suspend the election of consuls and to appoint in their stead three tribuni militum. Except for a few inter­ missions when consuls were elected, the appointment of tribuni militum lasted until 367 while the number grew more or less steadily from three to six. T h e annalistic tradition was unanimous on these points (D.H. 11. 5 3 - 6 1 ; Diodorus; L.) but differed in their explanation of them. One source saw the consular tribunate as a political compromise de­ signed to meet the demand that plebeians should be eligible for the consulship. Another, introduced by L. as a variant (sunt qui . . . dicant), explained it as a device for dealing with increased military commit­ ments which required more than two commanders. Modern specula­ tion has ranged widely over the significance and origin of the office without arriving at any agreed interpretation. It is well to notice that L. owes the political explanation directly to Licinius Macer and furthermore that the first plebeian alleged to have been elected to the office was P. Licinius (5. 12. 9). T h a t is in 539

4-7-"

444 B.C.

fact false. L. Atilius in 444 and Q . Antonius Merenda in 422 were also plebeians (7. 1 n.). T h e political explanation has therefore no respectable antecedents. It bears every sign of having been fabricated by Licinius himself to reflect glory on his family and to promote a favourable history of the plebs. If so, the military explanation is the older. T h a t does not mean that it need be the more reliable. Licinius may even have divined the truth with the worst of motives. But the objections against the poli­ tical interpretation are decisive. Unless a bar on plebeian access to the consulate had been instituted by the Decemvirate, the consulate was already open to plebeians and there are numerous genuinely plebeian names in the early Fasti. And even if the consulate was barred and the consular tribunate was intentionally created for plebeians, why did so remarkably few hold it ? T h e name tribuni militum indicates that their function was primarily military and the name must be the starting-point in any consideration of their significance. And the name survives. When the R o m a n govern­ ment was reorganized again in 367/6, the six consular tribunes dis­ appear from the Fasti but a difficult note in L. (7. 5. 9) shows that they remained as elective military commanders, although no longer as supreme commanders; cum eo anno (362) primum placuisset tribunos militum ad legiones suffragio fieri. . . secundum in sex locis tenuit. The succession is clear. By the mid-fifth century Rome was threatened on several fronts, from Etruria, from the Aequi and the Volsci, from the Sabines, and at the same time was trying to secure her position by extending her control over the strategic keys to Latium—the Tiber, Algidus, and the coast. Such a policy meant simultaneous operations on several fronts. In itself it would justify the reorganization and redisposal of her military resources and it is noteworthy that the first occurrence of six consular tribunes coincides with the attack on Veii. Corrobora­ tory evidence for a reform of the R o m a n army in this period may be afforded by the substitution of the scutum for the clipeus (see nn. on 1-43)There are only two serious objections to the military interpretation. If the consular tribunes were appointed for military reasons, why were dictators created in times of serious war (4. 23. 5, 31. 5, 46. 10, 57. 6, 5. 19. 2, 46. 10) ? Sudden emergencies will always call for the appointment of a strong man to co-ordinate the defences of the state. Secondly, it is urged that once the new system had been inaugurated the periodic reversion to consuls (443-439; 431-427; 413-409, & c ) , is inexplicable, especially when many of the years in which consular tribunes held office were years of peace. Short of believing the Fasti to be hopelessly unreliable or that there were always two consuls with one or more assistants if circumstances required, we may rather 540

444 B.C.

4. 7-11

believe that the election of consular tribunes was viewed originally as an occasional military necessity. They were the alternative govern­ ment when it looked as if the international situation would call for extended military effort. It would never be easy to predict with cer­ tainty what the year would hold in store and the military emergency which was foreseen when the consular tribunes were elected might have evaporated by the time they held office. The converse would be equally true and it was perhaps to avoid this element of uncertainty that consular tribunes were almost invariably elected for 405-367 (5. 31. 2 n.). But this monopoly of the government by military men involved the neglect of civil affairs which were becoming increasingly important and intricate. The reforms of 366 by instituting the praetorship by the side of the consulate enabled a proper balance to be struck in the conduct of Rome's affairs. There would be at any time sufficient men competent to run home affairs and military expeditions. Of the older discussions still worth consulting are Mommsen, Staatsrechty 2. 1766°.; Soltau, Philologus 73 (1916), 524-9; Ed. Meyer, AY. Schriften, 2. 280 ff.; H. S. Jones, CAM., 7. 519 ff. See also M. P. Nilsson, J.R.S. 19 (1929), 1-11; F. Cornelius, Untersuchungen, 59 ff; Lengle, R.E., 'tribunus'; Bayet, tome 4. 135-48; K. von Fritz, His­ toric 1 (1950), 37 ff; Bernardi, Athenaeum 30 (1952), 35 ff; E. S. Staveley, J.R.S. 43 (1953), 30-36; F - E. Adcock, J.R.S. 47 (1957), 9-14; R. Sealey, Latomus 18 (1959), 521-30; A. Boddington, Historic 8 (x959)3 356-64. For the censorship see Suolahti, Roman Censors, 20 ff 7. 1. anno trecentesimo decimo: 3. 33. 1 n. primum: Varro (de Ling. Lat. 5. 81) writes: 'tribuni militum quod terni tribus tribubus Ramnium, Lucerum, Titium olim ad exercitum mittebantur'; and continues by saying that the office was older than the plebeian tribunate. His total of nine tribunes is mistaken, but if the military establishment of 6,000 goes back to regal times (1. 43 n.), it is possible that each 1,000 had been commanded by a tribune since at least the beginning of the Republic and that there were, therefore, six tribunes already at this date, primum does not, therefore, necessarily imply that 444 marked the first creation of the office oftribuni militum. 444 was the year when for the first time the tribunes took the place of the consuls as supreme magistrates. pro consulibus: to be taken with ineunt and not as part of their title, which is variously given as t. m. consulari imperio or consulari potestate. They had imperium but evidently not the auspices, since no consular tribune celebrates a triumph (Zonaras 7. 19). The variation in their title might suggest that only the words tribuni militum were recorded in the Fasti and that the other words were added by historians anxious to create 'an impression of orderly and legal development'. ineunt: L. names only three tribunes. D.H. surprisingly says dvrl TWV 541

4- 7- i

444 B.C.

vTrdrajv ^tAtap^ot»? . . . rpecs (j,cv £K TWV rrarpiKLcov rpcts S' £K TCJV 8T)(J,O-

TiKtov (i i. 6o) and six was the later maximum (5. 1.2 n.). If it is true that there were already in existence six tribuni militum, the supreme authority would be delegated to three or four or all six of them as circumstances dictated. If, say, four were designated, the other two would continue as commanders of their detachments but subordinate to the supreme authority vested in the four. A. Sempronius Atratinus: A.f, the son of the consul of 497 (2. 21. 1). Gf. 4. 35. 1 n. For his 'brother' see 7. i o n . L. Atilius: the gens is plebeian (Klebs, R.E., 'Atilius'). His son was cons. trib. in 399 (5. 13. 3 n.). T. Cloelius: N read Caecilius here, but Cluilius is certain at 11. 5 where the cognomen Siculus is added and D.H. 11. 61. 3 calls the cons, trib. T. KXVXLOS EIKEXOS. T h e omission of the cognomen here leaves it doubtful whether L. (or Licinius Macer or the libri lintei) intended the cons. trib. and the iiivir to be identified. If they did, then Cluilius (not Cloelius) should be restored for Caecilius. T h e Gaecilii were plebeian, the Gluilii patrician. See Miinzer, R.E., 'Cloelius (12)'. T h e cognomen Siculus, almost confined to the gens (but cf. I.L.S. 4874 n.), may have been adopted by a branch of the family who traded with Sicily in the third century. It is first certainly attested for the Rex Sacrorum o f 180 B.C.

7. 2. sunt qui: meaning doubtless Valerius Antias. usi sunt: so Ver. M has usos as rr\. For the corruption cf. 3. 7. 7. A strong stop is required after plebe and the use of consular imperium and insignia is no longer an item in the variant tradition but is a fact accepted throughout the whole tradition. So also in D.H. 7. 3 . profirmato : a correction by Petrarch of the vulgate formato which, like Vcr.'sfamato, is nonsense and results from an old corruption. For the use offirmo cf. 3. 56. 13; Tacitus, Annals 3. 60. perinde ac: makes a comparison (2. 58. 1, 4. 7. 11 n., 5. 42. 2, 28. 38. 10) rather than states a reason, 'just as' or sometimes 'just as if. If it was uncontroversial that the election was invalid, perinde ac vitio creati is a singular way of expressing it, and may conceal a mani­ pulation of the facts. The notices C. Curiatius vitio tabernaculum cepit and T. Quinctius interrex (comitia habuit) look like genuine annalistic material. They have been used by Licinius to set the scene for the insertion of his pair of consuls (7. 10) whereas it is easier to imagine that the decision to appoint tribunes instead of consuls did indeed meet with opposition (7-9), particularly from diehard patricians who held con­ trol of the priestly colleges and thwarted the elections by declaring them vitiated. Their obstruction would lead to an interregnum during which T. Quinctius could manage to secure the election of Sempronius and his colleagues. 542

444 B.C.

4. 7. 3

tabernaculum cepisset: 1. 6. 4 n., 3. 20. 6 n. T h e expression is sacral. 7. 4. foedere: 1. 4 n., 7. 10 n. 7. 5. concordiae etiam ordinum: Sallust attributes similar arguments to Licinius Macer (Or. Macri 6-13). See Strasburger, Concordia Ordinum, 377. 8. vicere: 3. 57. 9 n. 7. 10. T. Quinctius Barbatus: i.e. Capitolinus. T h a t his name stood in the Annales may be supported by Diodorus listing Tiros Koivrios as one of the consular tribunes of the year (12. 32. 1). his consulibus: those who pin their faith on Licinius Macer's powers of historical research need read no farther. T h e omission of the names from the annales prisci is the one conclusive proof that Papirius and Sempronius were not consuls for 444, since ultimately there was only one common source of magistracy-holders—the annales—from which the libri magistratuum, the libri lintei, and other lists were derived. T h e suspicion is confirmed by the obvious 'adjustment' of the augurs' report and the interregnum (7. 3 n.), by the attempt to foist the same two men into history as censors (8. 7 n.), and by the observation that the treaty which Licinius saw was a renewal. Since there is neither evidence nor occasion for any treaty with Ardea before the coloniza­ tion in 443 (treaties and colonies are not incompatible), the inference is insistent that Licinius' treaty, if it is genuine, is later than 443. M a n y reconstructions are possible, all hazardous. T h e most satisfying are those made by Mommsen (Staatsrecht, 2. 335 n. 1), Beloch (Rom. Geschichte, 249-50), or Hanell (Das altromische eponyme Amt, 202 ; see also Ann Boddington, Historia 8 (1959), 359). T h e difficulties in the list of 4. 52. 4 (n.) might suggest that in 411 there were not as reported two consuls but three consular tribunes, M . Papirius, (Sempronius), and C. Nautius, but that the mutilation of the original tabulae led the compilers of magisterial lists to give two names only. In that case Licinius Macer, reading Papirius and Sempronius on his inscription, was unable to find them in the libri magistratuum and so inserted them as consuls in 444 because of the plethora of Ardeatine happenings in the period 445-3. In fact, the renewal of the treaty will belong to 411 (or 416). For a similar example of an inscription recording the names of two of a college of three consular tribunes, cf. Varro ap. Macrob. 1. 13. 21 antiquissimam legem . . . incisam in columna aerea a L. Pinario et Furio consulibus ( = 432; 4. 25. 5). See Hermes 89 (1961), 379 ff: libris magistratuum: compilations of magistrates made, e.g., by C. Tuditanus (Macrobius 1. 13. 21), Atticus, and Varro. 7. 11. T h e text of the passage stood in the archetype of Ver. and N as: 'credo quod tribuni militum initio anni fuerunt eo perinde ac [si N] totum annum in imperio fuerint suffectis iis consulibus praeter543

4.7.11"

444 B.C.

missa nomina consulum horum Licinius Macer auctor est et [iam Ver.] in foedere Ardeatino et in linteis libris ad Monetae [-tea Ver.] inventa [-tae N]. et [om. Ver.] foris . . .'. The problem is to divide the sentence in such a way that suffectis Us consulibus and consulum horum are separated and that inventa has a subject. L.'s use of the demon­ stratives is and hie guarantees that consulum horum will come near the beginning of a sentence and not, as, following Crevier, Walters punctuates, at the end. nomina consulum horum . . . auctor est. . . inventa. 'Licinius Macer is the authority that the names of these consuls were found both in the Ardeatine treaty and in the libri lintei at the temple of Moneta.' The sense is unimpeachable and the syntax clear but it leaves in the preceding sentence praetermissa unattached. The shape of that sentence recalls 2. 8. 5 'credo, quia nulla gesta res insignem fecerit consulatum, memoriam intercidisse.' In other words praeter­ missa should be part of an ace. and inf. after credo. Peter made the attractive supplement (nomina). 'I believe that, because there were military tribunes at the beginning of the year, therefore just as if they had held power for the whole of the year, when Sempronius and Papirius were elected suffect consuls, their (i.e. Sempronius' and Papirius') names were left out.' For similar haplographies cf. 4. 26. n , 5. 5. 7. The more radical restorations made by Mommsen, Madvig, and Bayet among recent editors do not meet the needs of sense and syntax. See before all Leuze, Romischen Censur, 107-33. 7. 12. Licinius Macer: see Introduction. libris linteis: 20. 8, 23. 2. The name signifies that they were books written on linen (cf. the linen corslet of A. Cornelius Cossus in 4. 20. 7) and they were evidently a list of magistrates. The date of the com­ pilation and its extent is not known. The temple of Moneta (see next note) was not founded until 344 while the libri lintei purport to go back earlier. Without believing with Klotz (Rh. Mus. 86 (1937), 217) that they are therefore a forgery by Licinius, we may either suppose that they had been stored in another temple and were trans­ ferred to Moneta in 344 or, since it is as unlikely that such a relic would have survived from the earliest times as that such scholarly compilations, as distinct from the regular tabulae dealbatae, would have been made before the second century (they appear to have in­ cluded cognomina), we may hold that they were not compiled before c. 150. As to their extent L. actually quotes them only for the period of the consular tribunate and the close proximity of the foundation of the temple of Moneta to the end of the consular tribunate (367/344) has suggested to some scholars that the libri lintei were a list exclusively of consular tribunes dedicated as a memorial of that office shortly after it had come to an end. But apart from the objections outlined above sundry vagaries in the list of eponymous magistrates used by 544

444 B.C.

4- 7- is

Licinius can be detected elsewhere (e.g. 2. 15. 1 n.). It was probably a complete compilation from 509 downwards. See J.R.S. 48 (1958), 40-46. ad Monetae: the temple ofJuno Moneta, vowed in 345 and dedicated the following year during a crucial war with the Aurunci (7. 28. 4-6). Plutarch speaks of an earlier temple in connexion with the sacred geese in 390 (Camillus 27) but that is merely to provide an aetiological myth for the title (Moneta from moneo (cf. obsoletus: soleo; Voleta, Peta) = the Remembrancer used as a translation of Mvrjfioavvri by Livius Andronicus). The title arises from the invocation of the goddess to remember her previous favours—hence her connexion with the re­ cords as the repository of the libri lintei and after 269 as the site of the mint. (For a different explanation which connects the title with Phoenician see Assmann, Klio 6 (1906), 477 ff.; the fact that the asso­ ciation of the temple with coinage must be eighty years later than its foundation militates against it.) The temple was on the arx, replacing the house of M. Manlius Capitolinus destroyed in 384 (6. 20. 13). See Platner-Ashby s.v.; Marbach, R.E., 'Moneta'; R. Thomsen, Early Roman Coinage, 3. 85 ff. 8 . 2 . censurae initium: when military tribunes were elected who were both preoccupied with military operations and, if plebeian, dis­ qualified from performing the religious ceremonies of the census (lustrum condere; see 1. 44. 1-2 n.), it was necessary to elect ad hoc two politicians to kindle the ritual fire (censor from *cendere) and hold the census. It was from this makeshift that the censorate began. The fact, but not the names, would have been mentioned in the Annales. See Leuze, Romischen Censur, 94-144; Suolahti, The Roman Censors, with full bibliography. This passage is not inconsistent with 4. 22. 7 (n.). sub dicione eius magistratus publicorum ius privatorumque locorum, vectigalia populi Romani sub nutu atque arbitrio essent: for the text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 275. Notice the balanced regimen . . discrimen, followed by the chiastic sub dicione . ♦ . sub nutu atque arbitrio. The ius locorum was the right to adjudicate in boundary disputes between private and public property (40. 5. 7; C.I.L. 6. 919). 8. 4. mentio inlata ad senatum: ab senatu TTX. N O exact parallel for m. i. ad senatum is found but it is modelled on the common res delata ad j . (14. 3) and the alternative ab senatu is ruled out by the fact that mentionem inferre is only used of individual speakers in the Senate ( 1 . 2 , 47. 6). custodiaeque [et] tabularum cura: the censors are in charge of the scribes and of the keepers of the tablets (custodiae for custodum). Without Crevier's deletion of et, custodiae must be nom. plural linked to mini' sterium (the scribae both as scribes and as keepers are under the control 814432

545

N

n

4-8.4

443 B.C.

of the censors). But in that case tabularum cura would be redundant. T h e tabulae censoriae which listed and valued all property (Cicero, de Har. Resp. 30; Aul. Gell. 2. 10; Pliny, N.H. 18. n ) , in addition to registering persons, were available to public inspection in the atrium Hbertatis (43. 16. 13, 45. 15. 5) and (perhaps a later change of site) in the aedes Nympharum (Cicero, pro Milone 73). formulae censendi: the censors had a procedural code, like the prae­ tors 1 edict, which was handed down with additions and accretions from college to college, known as the formula census {Lex Iulia Municip. 147; 29. 15. 9) or the lex censui censendo dicta (43. 14. 5) in which they outlined the principles which they would follow in the administration of the census and which would determine any consequent litigation (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 372). 8. 5. ius maiestatemque: Cornelissen substituted decus for ius but cf. Bell. Alex, 34. 2. T h e whole picture of the patrician reaction derives from Licinius' political interpretation of the censorate. 8 . 7 . dubitabatur: there is no need to change to the present tense, 'about which doubt was expressed a few pages back'. Cicero (adFam. 9 . 2 1 . 2 : 46 B.C.) accepts the account: 'fuerant enim patricii minorum gentium quorum princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit cum ante consul cum eodem fuisset, annis post R o m a m conditam c c c x n \ Unger conjectured that Cicero derived the information from L. Scribonius Libo whose 'Annals' were published in 46 {Jahrb.f Class, Phil. 143 (1891), 646) and to whom Cicero else­ where refers. In any case Cicero does not provide independent testi­ mony since directly or indirectly his information will only go back to Licinius' researches. If their consulate is false, a fortiori their censor­ ship is too. An anonymous notice has been rilled out by Licinius to anchor Papirius and Sempronius to the years 444/3. See also Klotz, Rh. Mus. 88 (1939), 47 ff.; Suolahti, Roman Censors, 168 ff. T h e story of Ardea grew out of three basic facts, the capture by the Volsci, the defeat of the Volsci by the Romans, and the colonization, all of which would have figured in the records, being coupled with the familiar legend of T h e Maid (virgo plebeii generis), the twin, if not the parent, of the legend of Verginia (Pais, Ancient Legends, 187-90). L. does not develop the potentialities of the material but is content with a straightforward narrative which illustrates the fides of the Romans and exemplifies the evils of the disease (9. 3, 9. 10) of certamina factionum. 9. 1. renovatoque: 7. 10. 9. 3 . fuerunt eruntque: the theme and the language recalls Thucydides' j u d g e m e n t on oTao-i? (3. 8 2 - 8 3 ; especially 82. 3). magis: for the pleonasm with pluribus cf. Kuhnast, Liv. Syntax, 273. 546

443 B.C.

4- 9 - 4

9. 4. petiere iuvenes; alter. . . alter: for the omission of the numeral with iuvenes cf. 32. 5. 11 inter montes quorum alterum Meropum, alterum Asnaum incolae vocant; 6. 35. 4, 32. 38. 9 (Pettersson). Kiehl's (duo} was anticipated by Doring. 9. 5. nohilis superior iudicio matris: the conflict between considerations of true love and of material advantages, when the marriage of a daughter is contemplated, was appreciated and moralized upon by the Greeks; cf. Herondas 2. 1-2 with Headlam's note. 9. 6. ventum in ius est: the case illustrates an important principle of Roman law, the assumption being that Ardeate law can for all prac­ tical purposes be regarded as Roman law. The question at issue was what control her tutor has over the marriage arrangement of a girl sui iuris. We are not told whether the tutor was legitimus or testamentarius but that detail is not relevant. Had the girl been a filiafamilias (i.e. if her father had still been alive) she could only have contracted a valid marriage if, in addition to satisfying certain formal requirements (e.g. being of age, conubium), she herself had the necessary will (con­ sensus facit nuptias) and had obtained the consent of her paterfamilias (Ulpian 5. 2 ; Paul. Dig. 23. 2. 2; Paul. Sent. 2. 19. 2 ; Justinian, Inst. 1. 10 pr.). The consent ofthe paterfamilias (which could be tacit, and could later even be extorted on appeal to the magistrates; C. 5. 4. 16) was necessary whether or not the marriage was accompanied by con-* ventio in manum, that is, whether or not the girl passed out of the manus of her father into the manus of her husband. In early times it was customary for marriage to be attended by this change in the legal status of the woman, but juridically the two processes were quite distinct. Thus in a case where a. filiafamilias married and, as well, passed into the manus of her husband, the consent of the paterfamilias was twofold; in a case where, as in classical times, the filiafamilias married but did not pass out of the manus of her father, the paterfamilias gave a single consent to the marriage. The Ardeate girl was sui iuris and the duty of the tutor was primarily to safeguard the interests of the agnati by ensuring that none of the heritable property passed out of the family. Thus while it is clear that a tutor's auctoritas would be necessary if a girl sui iuris contemplated marriage accompanied by conventio in manum (XII Tab. 5. 2 = Gaius, Inst. 2. 47; Cicero, pro Flacco 84)—for such a marriage would affect inheritance—there is no a priori reason why the marriage of a girl sui iuris which did not change her legal status should require the tutor's consent and this is the opinion of the Jurists also (Paul. Dig. 23. 2. 20; C. 5. 4. 8; cf. Gaius, Inst. 1. 192 : C. 5. 4. 1 is concerned with a wholly different problem, the selection of a husband for a fatherless girl when she herself had expressed no preference). The case, therefore, seems to have been thought up, like so many 547

4.

g. 6

443 B.C.

other incidents of early Roman history (cf. 3. 33. 10 n., 44-49 n . ; 2. 23-24 n.) to illustrate the workings of the Twelve Tables, and in particular the provisions (1) that marriage need not necessarily be attended by manus (Tab. 6. 5 ; cf. Ennius ap. adHerenn. 2. 3 8 ; Cato ap. Aul. Gell. 17. 6. 1); (2) that women sui iuris could not be debarred from entering on marriage without manus by the obstruction of their tutor (Tab. 5 ) ; (3) that plebeians were legally eligible to marry patricians. See Latomus 21 (1962), 477-83. 9. 8. ex urbe profecta: cf. the Second Secession. 9 . 9 . urbem quoque omnis etiam expertem ante certaminis: the city, qua bricks and mortar, has not been jeopardized up till now, although the out­ skirts have been pillaged. Now opifices are being massed to attack the city itself expers . . . certaminis is guaranteed by 40. 8. 4 (Walker) and conjectures based on Morstadt's omm, because the city has been sub­ ject to riots and disorder if not physical attack, destroy the neat abl. abs. multitudine . . . evocata and produce the un-Livian omnis . . . multitudo in exchange for the idiomatic expers omnis (gen.) = 'utterly unaffected by' (Praef. 5, 23. 5. 11.) 9. 12. Aequo Cluilio: the name Gluilius is credible. It is by no means exclusively Roman, but thepraenomen Aequus is unique. Since in 3. 25. 5 (n.), which duplicates this campaign, the Aequi are led by a Cluilius, Aequo either indicates his nationality, or, if it be thought unfeasible for an Aequan to command the Volsci, conceals a deeper confusion of a notice which told of a joint force of Aequi and Volsci led by Gluilius. 9. 13. curare corpora: 3. 2. 10 n. 9. 14. alia parte: 3. 38. 5 n. iniunxerat: 5. 7. 2, 10. 34. 2, 27. 41. 3. iunxerat (Ver.) by haplography

(rf. 3- 6 3- 5)10. 3 . fatentes: as ifiubet eosponere had preceded, but the passive form is preferred to convey the impression of crisp military orders. T h e closest analogy is 3. 42. 7—also in official language. Walter's esse (jiecesse} or Walters's parerent both introduce other than purely military tones. For fatentes victos se esse cf. 30. 35. 1 1 ; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 3. 14, 5-77hostem infensum: infestum Ver. infestum is much the commoner word (188 133) and is likely to have replaced infensum by assimilation of ending after hostem. For h. infensum Virgil, Aeneid 11. 899; Tacitus, Annals 2. 15. 1. 10. 4 - 5 . Notice the elaborate subordination. 10. 7. consul triumphans: cf. the Fasti Triumph.: [M. Gegajnius M . [f.-n.] Macerinus ann. cccx [cos. II] de V[olsceis n]onis Sep. dearmatum: only here and Apuleius, Met. 5. 30. 548

443 B.C.

4. 10. 8

10. 8. togatus: cf. Cicero, in Catil. 2. 28, 3. 2 3 ; pro Sulla 85. It was Cicero's preferred way of referring to his consulship (Nicolet, R.fi.L. 38(1960), 236 ff.). domesticae: Gronovius's correction of domesticam seems inevitable in view of 6. 30. 9 domestica quies. 10. 9. faciebat: cf. 30. 33. n , 33. 18. 12, 37. 9. 3, 40. n . 1 (Jung). 1 1 . 1 . consules creantur M. Fabius Vibulanus, Postumus Aebutius Cornicen: Ver. T h e passive is greatly to be preferred to N's consules creant with accusatives for nominatives, since the subject of creant would have to be the consuls of the previous year, Quinctius and Geganius. In re­ ferring to the election of consuls L. uses the form consul creavit where one specified consul was the presiding officer (10. 47. 5, 32. 27. 5, 40. 35. 1, 42. 9. 8). T h e plural only occurs in the problematical 45. 44. 1. See Staveley, Historia 3 (1954), 199. Fabius, Q.f. M.n., the son of the consul of 467 (3. 1. 1); cf. 4. 17. 10, 19. 8, 25. 2, 27. 9, 28. 1. Aebutius' filiation was probably L.f. T . n., the son of the consul of 463 (3, 6. 1; see Klebs, R.E., 'Aebutius (14)'; for his cognomen see 21. io, 3. 35. n n.). 11. 4. Rutulorum: i.e. inhabitants of the country surrounding Ardea. 11. 5. triumviri: we are not compelled to disbelieve either the notice or the names. Such special commissions were recorded (the doubts about the commission of 218 raise a separate problem) and the archival origin of this commission is established by relatum in tabulas. Moreover, apart from conventionally consisting of three members (3. 1.6 n., 5. 24. 4, 8. 16. 13), it was the custom in early times except when major colonial enterprises were being planned for the board to contain one consular and two non-consulars. Such was the case in 218 (21. 25. 3 - 5 ; Asconius 3 C , in 200 (31. 49. 6), and in 197 (32. 29. 3-4). Here T . Cluilius Siculus had been consular tribune (7. 1 n.), M . Aebutius, otherwise unknown, was an elder brother of the current consul, perhaps, as his name suggests, with Ardeatine connexions, and Agrippa Menenius was to become consul (13. 6 n.). 11. 6. praeter: confirmed by Ver. where . . . ,/ter survives and by the idiom (cf. 3. 70. 15); they were unpopular not only with the plebs (which might have been expected) but with the patres as well, cum plebem offendissent is almost parenthetical, explaining and repeating minime populare ministerium. 11. 7. [coloni adscripti]: would imply that they became members of the colony rather than waited for the storm to die down, but Menenius is consul in 13. 6. Ver.'s omission of the words proves them to be a marginal summary (cf. 3. 49. 5 Appiusfugit), although the language is technically exact (6. 30. 9 et al). If they had joined the colony they would have avoided a summons (vocationes Cornelissen; cf. Aul. Gell. 549

4- " . 7

442 B.C.

13. 13), not the fuss and bother (vexationes). T h e threat of prosecu­ tion is unhistorical. 12-16. Sp. Maelius T h e story of Sp. Maelius, like the story of Cincinnatus, is an instance of a timeless legend which grew up at first independently of the Annales and was then fitted into the framework of dates and facts at a time when it had already acquired a wealth of circumstantial detail of its own. T h e core of the story is the killing of a homo sacer Sp. Maelius by G. Servilius Ahala. It was the reason for the name Ahala (13. 14 n.) and the memory of it was kept alive by the Servilii. Equally, as an aetiological myth for the waste land Aequimaelium, it stayed in the memory of the Roman people. Nor need we doubt the association of Sp. Maelius' offence with a corn shortage. Such shortages are part of fifth-century history (2. 9. 6 n.) and were easy to remember. Whether G, Minucius was always an integral part of the tale is less certain. T h e name Minucius was associated with a portions in the south-east corner of the city, which served as a grain market. Outside the porta Trigemina there was a column in honour of L. Minucius. If it were not established that the portions Minucia cannot be older than the third century, the association of Minucii and Rome's corn supply might be thought to extend right back to the days of Sp. Maelius. As it is, there are some grounds for believing that he is the earliest addition to the story, supplying the information that led Ahala to execute summary justice. It is significant that in the earliest versions none of the principals has any official standing (Gincius fr. 6 ; Piso fr. 24). Minucius merely lays evidence (fnjvvrrjs) that Sp. Maelius seeks to become king. T h e date of the story remained essentially fluid but it had to be tied down when consecutive history was written, and respectable positions had to be discovered (or invented) for the chief characters. T h e date was determined by the life-history of Servilius Ahala, as given in the Fasti; precision was supplied by annalistic reference to annona. L. Minucius had provided one site for Cincinnatus' dictator­ ship. He could provide another (Cicero, Cato 56 even places the ploughing scene here) and at the same time give Ahala an official capacity as mag. equitum. Gincinnatus cannot have been dictator in this year: the duration and terms of his appointment conflict with everything that is known about the early dictatorship. Only Maelius and Minucius were unplaced. For Maelius the obvious position was tribune and traces of a tradition that made him tribune survive both in 15. 6 (tribunatus plebis magis optandus quam sperandus) and in 21. 3 where his double, Sp. Maelius, holds that office for the year 436. Since the latter passage is not Licinian a rival chronology and inter550

441 B.C.

4. 12—16

pretation may lie behind this curious duplication. Unlike the Maelii, the Minucii were not always plebeian (3. 33. 3 n.). If in later times they were plebeian, a transitio adplebem must have taken place. As the family history of the Octavii illustrates (Suetonius, Aug. 2 ; cf. Cicero, Brutus 62) it was not difficult to invent such an explanation. Minucius is co-opted as a tr. pi. The sheer incredibility of that invention led to alternative solutions. The compilers of the libri lintei list him as a plain praefectus. Whether they meant praefectus urbi or not, Licinius Macer firmly interprets his office in terms of the contemporary cura annonae, and with this pleasing fiction he can afford to leave Sp. Maelius as a privatus. While the fabrication of details of status and chronology went on, on the other side the narrative was embellished. The resemblance to the fate of Sp. Gassius could be exploited to advantage (13. 4 de regno agitare = 2. 41. 5; 12. 7 neglegentiam consulum = 2. 41. 2). But above all, recent events at Rome, the programmes and the fortunes of the Gracchi, offered a model which the annalists were quick to perceive and utilize (cf., e.g., Ampelius 27. 2). Gracchan touches may be detected especially in Gincinnatus' speech (15. 1 n.). One remark has no equivalent in the attentuated account of D.H. or in any of the sources (Cicero, pro Mil. 72; Lael. 36; in Catil. 1 . 3 ; de Rep. 2. 4 9 ; Phil. 2. 114; Val. Max. 5. 3. 2 ; Quintilian 5. 9. 13, 13. 24; de Viris Illustr. 17. 5; Plutarch, Brutus 1 . 2 ) : macte virtute. . . esto liberata re publica (14. 7). The highest realization of the individual is the preservation of the state. That was L.'s message. He tells the story dramatically to illustrate that message, contrasting the evil emotions in Maelius' breast (13. 3-4) with the nobility of the dictator and his Master of Horse. It leads up to the speech of Gincinnatus who with a fine mixture of rhetoric and blunt speaking provides the deed with its historical significance and moral justification. See Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 199-222; Soltau, Phil. Woch.9 1908, 586 f.; Pais, Ancient Legends, 194-223; Munzer, R.E., 'Sp. Maelius'; ibid. *L. Minucius Esquilinus Augurinus'; Burck 9 3 - 9 5 ; Momigliano (16. 2 n.); Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 481. 12. 1. C. Furio: 22. 7, 31. 1. In fact he should be called Q. (Koivros in Diod. 12. 35. 1) since he was the same as the pontifex maximus of 3. 54. 5 (where see note). The cognomen Pacilus is read by the Capitoline Fasti for the consul of 251 (cf. C.I.L. 9. 3823 Paciledius) and should probably be read here too (22. 7, 52. 1) as a by-form of Pacullus (39. 13. 9 ; I.G.S. 1. 894) formed from an Oscan god-name; cf. Pacuvius (Schulze 477). M. Papirio Crasso: Mavios in Diod. 12. 35. 1 (cf. D.H. 5. 14.) but certainty is unobtainable. The leading member of the Grassus branch of the Papirii was L.P.G., dictator in 340. 551

4. 12. 2

441 B.C.

J 2 . 2. /tt^z: the vowing of these games was not mentioned in the Valerian narrative of the Decemvirate. T h e turbulent conclusion of that institution was centred on the prata Flaminia (3. 54. 15 n.) where the ludi plebeii were later celebrated. But the ludi plebeii were not established before 214. T h e most economic solution is to suppose that the entry ludifacti occurred in the Annales but the further detail of their vowing was added to provide a venerable pedigree for the ludi plebeii. If they had been vowed in 450, why did nearly ten years elapse before their celebration ? See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 519-20; Habel, R.E., Suppl. 5, 'ludi publici'; Piganiol, Recherches, 78, who accepts the antiquity of ludi plebeii. 12. 3 . Poetilio: 3. 35. 11 n. T h e tradition of a single tr. pi. being re­ corded each year appears to subsist, although his activities are fic­ tional. 12. 6. Proculo Geganio Macerino: evidently a brother of M . G . M . (3- 65. 5) as his praenomen might suggest; cf. Paulus Festus 251 L. Proculus must be nearly ten years younger than his brother. L. Menenio Lanato : T. according to Diodorus 12. 36. 1 and the Fasti (cf. Ghr. 354 Lanato / / ) , i.e. the consul of 452 (3. 32. 5). But Cassiodorus confirms L. It must be another of the vagaries attributable to the libri lintei, which regarded him as the son of the consul of 452— an impossibly short gap. For Lanatus cf. 13. 6 n, fame mala: recorded in the Annales. T h e alternative explanations reflect the pro- and anti-plebeian standpoints of L.'s two chief authorities. 12. 8. praefectus annonae: L. explicitly states that the libri lintei only gave the bare title praefectus, i.e. praefectus urbi. In Republican times the corn supply was regularly under the supervision of the aediles or the Ostian quaestor but in emergencies special appointments were made. M . Aemilius Scaurus, who was appointed in 104 to replace Saturninus, then quaestor, is the first case known (Cicero, de Har. Resp. 43) before Pompey's famous cura annonae. See Mommsen, Staatsrechty 2. 670-2. 12. 9. ex Etruria: 2. 34. 2 n. 12. 10. et vendere: Mommsen emended Ver.'s ut venderet to ut venderent but the order of words shows that prqfiteri and vendere make a closely parallel pair. 12. 1 1 . capitibus obvolutis: an unexpected glimpse, probably a literary adaptation of an old ceremony, employed in time of famine, of throw­ ing pensioners into the Tiber as a sacrifice (Festus 450 L. sexagenarios de ponte; cf. the procession of the Argei). T h e employment of such a ceremony would certainly have figured in the Annales. See Klotz, R.E., 'Sexagenarii 5 ; J . Gage, Huit Recherches, 41. T h e habit of com­ pletely enveloping the head before death, particularly before suicide, 552

440 B.C.

4. 12. 11

is often mentioned in antiquity (1. 26. 6 n . ; Euripides, I.T. 1207 with Platnauer's note.; Festus 174 L . ; Plutarch, Demosth. 2 9 ; Horace, Sat. 2. 3. 37 ; Seneca, N.Q. 4 praef. 17;see R. Waltz, R.£.L. 17 (1939), 292-308). 13. 1. praedives: according to D.H. 12. 1 he earned the cognomen EvSalfxwv €7T1 rrjs iroXXrjs €V7T0pLas, that is, Felix (or perhaps Faustus), but no allusion to Sulla should be seen here since the Greek version of his name was 'Ena^pohiTos (Balsdon, J.R.S. 41 (1951), 5). praedives is not found before L. 13. 3 . elatusque: inflatusque Ver. T h e two words are constantly con­ fused (cf. 37. 12. 4 ; Suetonius, Nero 37. 3) and Ver. has a weakness for inflate (54. 8 n.) which was a favourite if devalued word in late antiquity. In keeping with its tendency to replace the more vulgar variant (3. 6. 6 n., 44. 5 n., 61. 13 n.) Ver. has wrongly substituted it here for elatus which is the mot juste in the phrase (cf. Seneca, de Bene/. 6. 3. 2 ; Tacitus, Annals 2. 34; Quintilian 12. 10. 39). fplebeiofavoreacsipedespondente} : Ver.; (ei T>hA)favore acspedespondentem N (DLA's ei is of no account since it did not stand in the arche­ type) ♦ The intrusion of plebeio is inexplicable and the word must form part of any restoration of the passage, plebeius favor is not cited in the Thes. Ling. Lat. but the equivalent popularis favor is used at 22. 26. 4 ; despondere in the sense 'to guarantee in advance' only at 26. 37. 5 velut despondente fortuna . . . imperium (abl. abs.). If the abl. is preferred here also, it is necessary to put a strong stop after trahere and a comma after despondente; ipse will then resume the main subject after an abl. abs. as in 2. 11. 1 praesidio . . . locato ipse . . . posuit (1. 10. 5). But can plebeio favore ac spe be the subject of despondente ? The pair of nouns governing a singular verb raises no difficulty but the meaning is not self-evident, plebeius favor will be the popular manifestations of support which welcomed Maelius. This could be said to guarantee a sure consulate, spe might be his own hopes which gave him un­ questioning confidence in his chances of nomination, or the hopes which the plebs entertained in expectation of the benefits of Maelius 5 administration and whose public expression encouraged him. Pre­ sumably the latter. I would, therefore, accept Ver.'s text. T h e cor­ ruption sipe might be due to haplography of spe sibe (i.e. sibi in L.'s spelling; see Introduction, p. 5 ) : if so, sibi should be restored. Mommsen's text is not eased by the switch from ei to ipse. 13. 4. ut est humanus: a familiar commonplace going back to Hero­ dotus 7. 49. 4 (cf. Apostolius, Cent. 8. 61). exsudandum: in a metaphorical sense with an object 'to sweat over', exsudare is colloquial, used, outside L. here and in Claudius' speech (5- 5- 6), only by Horace in the Satires (1. 10. 28). 553

4- 13- 5

4 4 0 B.C.

13, 5. necdum compositis eum: unless a special emphasis is intended, L. prefers to tuck the demonstrative pronoun is away from the pro­ minent positions in the sentence. Here N's quae res eum . . . throws a quite irrelevant weight on eum. For the position of eum inside an abl. abs. cf. i. 34. 2, 25. 3. 18 (Jung). The disarrangement of word-order may cover a deeper error. In Ver. all that is preserved is sula dum compositis eum If the first line is supplemented con-\sula[ria instabant; quae res nec\ a total of 26 letters against the normal 18 results, suggesting that either instabant or quae res (cf. the frequent omission of Quirites) was missing. 13. 6. Agr. Menenius: his name is given both by Diodorus (12. 37. 1) and by the augural inscription (I.L.S. 9338. 2). The old variant Manilius (Ver. M ; see C.Q,. 7 (1957), 76) will be a correction of the haplography Menius. The cognomen Lanatus, like Cincinnatus, will describe the characteristic hair of the family, 'downy'. 13. 8. rem compertam: a few easy strokes, the crisp announcements of gun-running and secret confabulations which were the two regular symptoms of conspiracies under the late Republic, enable L. to paint a scene of tension and panic, where D.H. (12. 1. 4-12) requires a previous meeting of the Senate, several illegal assemblies, and the gradual enlightenment of the consuls. For tela in domum conferri cf. 1. 51. 2 n.; for contiones domi habere cf. Catiline's address to his followers (Sallust 20); for partita . . . ministeria cf. Sallust, Catil. 43. 2. Quinctius' protestation about the responsibilities and limitations of the consulship seems designed as a copy and a defence of Cicero's predicament in 63. 13. 9. [et] tribunos: the breathless haste of Minucius' news is much strengthened if, with Ver., we omit et. For tribunos . . . emptos cf. Cicero, in Pis. 35; pro Sestio 87. 13. 10. cum undique: et undique N, Ver. If increparent is right, it must be governed by a conjunction other than postquam which is followed by the ind. et undique looks like the emended remains ofcundique, a haplo­ graphy of cum undique. 13. 11. provocatione: 2. 18. 8 n. exsoluto: 22. 22. 6. A highly rhetorical metaphor, elsewhere only in Seneca, Suas. 6. 6; [Quintilian], decl. min. 377; cf. Lucretius 1. 932. 13. 12. ibi: traces of the word survive in Ver. also. For the meaning 'in him' cf. 3. 15. 9, 27. 48. 6; Tacitus, Annals 13. 46. Quinctius primo: Ver.'s order, putting Cincinnatus at the head of the sentence, is more effective than the normal primo Q. . . . dein of N. 13. 14. damno dedecorive: as the alliteration might suggest, the colloca­ tion is old. Cf. Plautus, Bacch. 67 pro disco damnum capiam, pro cur sura dedecus; Horace, Sat. 1.2. 52-53. dictator: the casual method of appointment, coupled with its im554

439 B.C.

4. 13. 14

probable timing (e.g. fortuitous consular elections), renders the whole episode suspect. C. Servilium Ahalam: the cognomen is interesting. The old form of the word was Axilla (Cicero, Orator 153) 'an armpit5 ( = aid) and as a cognomen it belongs to that class of names like Sura and Vatia which denote parts of the body. One would assume that it was originally given as a nickname to one member of the family, just as Cincinnatus is obviously a nickname given to a man of crinkly hair. In fact, how­ ever, Sura and Vatia have Etruscan progenitors and there is apraenomen Ahal in Umbrian (Schulze 420). Whatever the origin of the name, its meaning was exploited to provide an aetiological myth. Servilius carries the dagger under his armpit (see Dodds on Plato, Gorgias 469 d 1) or, according to another version, cut off Maelius' arm at the shoulder, thereby acquiring the cognomen. L. has the good taste to omit it. 14. 2. rectorem: Cicero's word for the benevolent statesman whose auctoritas should guide the destinies of Rome (cf. especially de Rep. 2. 51» 5-5)14. 3 . vocat te . . . dictator: to answer the charge laid by Minucius L. employs the language of normal legal procedure (15. 2) but the dictator's powers were summary and untrammelled. Cf. 3. 29. 6. crimen . . . diluendum: the legal t.t. for refuting a charge (ad Herenn. 4- 47)14. 6. obtruncati: to be retained; cf. 2. 25. 6 and see Drakenborch on 1. 3. 9; Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 182. Ver. is guilty of similar omissions (cf. 5. 24. 5) where words stood above each other in the original. stipatus: 1. 47. 7 n. L. has kept back any mention of Ahala's escort to heighten the contrast between the solitary hero and the massed bodyguard of the villainous Maelius. In D.H., who is strongly in­ fluenced in his description by the events of the Ides of March, the escort was there from the very beginning and takes an active part in the assassination. 14. 7. macte virtute: 2. 12. 14 n. The Speech of Cincinnatus 15. 1. iure caesum: it was before a rowdy contio in 131 that Scipio Aemilianus in reply to a question from a tribune, C. Papirius Carbo, about his views on the death of Ti. Gracchus said si is occupandae rei publicae animum habuisset iure caesum (videri) (Veil. Pat. 2 . 4 . 4 ; see for the content and context of the saying A. E. Astin, C.Q. 10 (i960), 135-7). Sp. Maelius had won support by his policy of cheap corn. The de­ tractors of the Gracchi were quick to allege the same (Plutarch, 555

4- i5-

l

439 B.C.

C. Gracchus 5 ; Cicero, pro Sestio 103). There can therefore be little doubt that Cincinnatus' speech has overtones of Scipio's. T h e clause etiamsi . . .fuerit gives strong support to Astin's view that the si. . . habuisset clause preserved by Velleius is part of the original saying. 1 5 . 2 . similem causaefortunam: 'he would have fared as his case merited'. 15. 3 . sororis filios: 1. 56. 7. liberos consulis: 2. 3-6. 15. 4. Collatinum: 2. 2. 10. Sp. Cassio: 2. 41. 15. 6. bilibris farris \ \x had the double bilibre libris, TTX bilibre. T h e abl. is required after emo and the noun bilibra, found also in late Latin (Chiron 447), is properly formed. T h e sentiment recurs in Licinius Macer's speech, given by Sallust (19): quinis modiis libertatem omnium aestumavere. In what follows there may be an adaptation of another saying of Scipio Aemilianus made on the same occasion in 131 : hostium armatorum to Hens clamore non territus, qui possum vestro moveri quorum noverca est Italia (Veil. Pat. 2. 4. 4). 15. 7. concoquere: metaphorically only here. Cf. 3. 36. 2 n. coquebant; cf. Plautus, Miles 208. Possibly from contemporary political slang (E. Dutoit, Hommages a L. Herrmann, 334). 15. 8. bona: cf. Sp. Cassius (2. 41. 10). 16. 1. Aequimaelium: or Aequimelium, an open space in the Vicus Jugarius at the south-east corner of the Capitoline, near the porticus Minucia. Cicero (de Domo 101; where see Nisbet's note) connected the name with aequum 'just' and not, as Varro (de Ling. Lat. 5. 157), with aequare 'to level 5 . 16. 2. bove aurato: this is what L. wrote (cf. Perioch. 4 L. Minucius index bove aurata donatus est) but what he understood by it is more than questionable. All other authorities referred to a statue-column: D.H. 12. 4. 6 arduiv avhpiavros

eip7](j>Laaro 77 povXij; Pliny, N.H.

18. 15 (from

Piso) 'L. Minucius Augurinus qui Sp. Maelium coarguerat, farris pretium in trinis nundinis ad assem redegit undecimus plebei tribunus qua de causa statua ei extra Portam Trigeminam a populo stipe conlata statuta est' (cf. 34. 21). Such a column with a statue is de­ picted on the coins of two moneyers C. Minucius Augurinus (150-125) and Ti. Minucius Augurinus (124-103) (see Sydenham nos. 492, 4 6 3 ; L. Cesano, Stud. Num. 1 (1942), 147). Momigliano has demonstrated that such a column and statue cannot be earlier than the third century (S.D.H.L 2 (1936), 374; G. Beccati (La Colonna Coclida 34-36) is too credulous) and was set up to commemorate the legendary great among the Minucii near the Porta Trigemina (or Minucia) since that was the site of their ancestral rites. 1 It follows that the statue-column is 1 H. Lyngby (Eranos 59 (1961), 148 ff.) has argued from the emblems associated with the statue on coins that it represented Triptolemos, the family deity of the Minucii. His argument is elaborated in Eranos 61 (1963), 55-62.

556

439 B.C.

4. 16. 2

not an authentic historical testimony. "What of the bos auratus? We know of no gilt statues before 181 (40. 34. 5) but there is no need to assume that it was a statue. In 343 the consul, A. Cornelius, praeter militaria alia dona aurea corona (Decium) et centum bubus eximioque uno albo opimo auratis cornibus donat. Animals with gilded horns (boves aurati) are commonly mentioned as sacrificial victims (25. 12. 13; Act. Frat. Aw. (A.D. 86) 1, 12, 16, 17, 47 et passim) and Minucius was presumably expected to sacrifice his gift. A mention of the bos auratus, not neces­ sarily in connexion with Minucius (it might even have been a further precaution against the famine; 12. 11 n.), would have stood in the Annales. 16. 3 . undecimum . . . tribunum: so also Pliny, loc. cit. It will have been the view of Valerius Antias. 16. 4. falsum imaginis titulum: 3. 72. 4 n. Was there an imago said to be of L. Minucius with an honorific inscription in the vaults of the Minucii? T h e subject of refellit is cautum 'the proviso disproves the inscription'. 16. 5. Q. Caecilius Q,- Junius Sex. Titinius: nothing else is known of them (3. 54. 13 n.) and one can neither affirm nor deny their existence. A M. Titinius was mag. equitum to C. Junius in 302 and the families were among the most prominent plebeian names. T h e mention of sex locis (16. 6 n.) suggests that they may have figured in the libri lintei as tribuni militum and been wrongly identified as plebeian tribunes. T h e parts assigned to them are pure invention. Servilium: 21. 4 n. 16. 6. sex locis: 7. 1 n. There were always six tribuni militum but they were not all necessarily invested with supreme authority. 16. 8. Mam. Aemilius: M.f., according to the filiation of his son M \ Aemilius (4. 53. 1) but the father is not otherwise heard of; vir summae dignitatis indicates that he was the nephew of L. Aemilius, consul in 484 (2. 42. 2). Mamercus is an old praenomen in the Aemilii (Festus 1 1 6 L . ; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 73), from the Oscan; cognate with Mavors. I t is also in common use as a cognomen in the Aemilian gens. See Klebs, R.E., 'Aemilius (97)'. L. Julium : rdtos in Diodorus 12.38. 1. L. is right, he was later consul in 430 (4. 30. 1). His filiation would be Vop.f. C.n. (2. 54. 3). 17-20. 4. A. Cornelius Cossus and the 'Spolia Opimd* T h e story of A. Cornelius Cossus forms a separate episode which L. skilfully constructs to throw into relief the unprincipled wickedness of the Etruscans and the iustitia of the Romans. T h e story opens with the crimes of the enemy and the Roman preparations for war. T h e Etrus­ can state of mind, the distrust and foolhardiness which come from an evil conscience, is then sketched (18. 1-3), while the Romans rest 557

43 8 B.C. in the confidence of religious assurance (18. 6). In this spirit the forces meet and it is not till then that L. introduces with his favourite formula (erat turn . . .) the hero, A. Cornelius Cossus (19. 1). His ex­ ploits, inspired by loathing for a ruptorfoederis humani violatorque gentium iuris (19. 3), are narrated to their conclusion, while simultaneous events on other parts of the field of battle are postponed to an appendix (19-7-8)Of the truth of it there can be no doubt. The spolia opima and, doubtless, the corona aurea had existed for generations to see. The statues of the murdered ambassadors still stood and the Annales re­ corded a triumph over the Fidenates (20. 1 n.). The Tolumnii are a real family at Veii (17. 1 n.); the Cornelii would not lightly have allowed the memory of such a deed to lapse. Whether Cossus killed Tolumnius in 437 or in 426 or even as consul in 428 is more dis­ putable (see on 20. 5-11). L. took his material from the same source that provided the second war with Fidenae in 32 ff. and, since 32. 3 where Mam. Aemilius is said to have led the fighting at Nomentum is inconsistent with 22. 2 where that honour is given to Q,. Servilius, that source is likely to be Valerius Antias (see also 20. 8 n . ) . A change of source at this point is indicated by the formal introduction in horum magistratu and by the citation of a variant (i.e. Valerius Antias) at 16. 3. See Delaruelle, Rev. Phil. 37 (1913), 145-61; Burck 96-97; J.R.S. 48 (1958), 41. For references to discussions of the date and authenticity of the episode see 20. 5 n. 17. 1. Fidenae, colonia Romana: 2. 19. 2 n. Lartem Tolumnium: a sixth-century dedication at Veii is inscribed VeWur Tulumne Tresnu ^M^6 Mene Mul[. . . (Nogara, Not. Scavi, 1930, 327 f.) and an Etruscan Tolumnius is met in Virgil, Aeneid 11. 429 (L. A. Holland, A.J.P. 56 (1935), 211). (The claim made by Santangelo (Latomus 8 (1949), 37) and Ernout (Rev. Phil. 75 (1949), 157) that the third-century dedication also from Veii, L. Tolonio Bed Menerva, was set up by the same family, is shown by Weinstock to be untenable in default of other parallels for the change of Etr. -wmw- to Lat. -on- (Glotta 33 (1954), 306-8).) See also 5. 1.311. \ac Veientes]: Ver. omits the words, rightly. Although not too much weight should be put on the fact that Priscian does not quote them (p. 149 K. Livius in IIII a.u.c. Larte Tolumnio rege Veientium), it is reason­ able to ask whom else the Fidenates could have joined if they threw in their lot with Tolumnius. It is a typical gloss. 17. 2. legatos: 17. 6. A famous statue-group was said to have been set up to commemorate them, which still survived in Cicero's day (Phil. 9. 4-5 statuae steterunt usque ad meant memoriam in rostris . . . atqui et huic (Cn. Octavio) et Tullo Cluvio et L. Roscio et Sp. Antio et C. Fulcinio 4- 17-20. 4

558

438 B.C.

4- i7- 2

qui a Veientium rege caesi sunt . . . mors honorifuit; cf. Pliny, N.H. 34. 23). It may be inferred that the statues were removed in the rebuilding of the rostra undertaken by Sulla. The earliest statues of particular men as opposed to gods seem to have been commemorative, one of the first being the group of Messenian boys by Callon of Elis (c. 450). A com­ memorative group of the murdered ambassadors thus accords both with the date and with the purpose of such sculpture (E. H . Richardson, Mem. Am. Acad. Rome 21 (1953), 108) and the names of the ambassa­ dors are credible. Four oratores were sent res repetitum before the fetiales. This fits our four legati. Fulcinius is a widely and early attested Etruscan name (Schulze 169). It is of no consequence that the Fulcinii seem to be plebeian. Cloelius Tullus, or better, as Cicero and Pliny write, Tullus Cloelius (Cluilius), could belong to the family of Cluilii prominent in this period (7. 1 ; he might even be the same as T. Cloelius (Siculus); for the praenomen Tullus cf. 2. 35. 7). T h e third person is in doubt; Pliny calls him Sp. Nautius but the texts of Cicero print Sp* Antio. Nautius is certainly right. T h e Nautii are active and distinguished in the fifth century, whereas the Antii do not emerge until the first (cf. C. Antius, tr. pL 68 B.C.). Ver. had Spuantium against N.'s Sp. Antium. Mommsen assumed a progressive error resulting from a simple metathesis (cf. 4. 54. 3 C. Appius for P. Papius). T h e real puzzle is L. Roscius. T h e Roscii are unknown before the first century but they stemmed from Lanuvium and Ameria, both very ancient cities, so that, although surprising, the solitary manifestation of a Roscius in the fifth century is not impossible. 17. 3. levant quidam: cf. 2. 41. n invenio apud quosdam idquepropius est fidem (Hellmann, Livius-Inierpretationen, 18). propius est fidem (17. 5) shows that a variant explanation has been cited and therefore that the subject of levant cannot be the Fidenates trying to explain away their guilt (so Mommsen who followed Ver. in omitting quidam) but must be the rival historians, quidam and similar words are frequently dropped (cf. 4. 24. 6). tesserarum: cf. Val. Max. 9. 9. 3 'cum in tesserarum prospero iactu per iocum conlusori dixisset "occide'' et forte Romanorum legati intervenissent, satellites eius errore vocis impulsi interficiendo legatos lusum ad imperium transtulerunt.' W h a t game was Tolumnius play­ ing? Not ordinary dice (Becq de Fouquieres), because there is no trace of any such cry as occide ('amort') in all the ancient references to dicing (Lamer, R.E., 'lusoria tabula'). But the principle of the Roman game ludus latrunculi was, like chess, to corner your opponent's piece and eliminate it. T h e elimination was called 'death', where in English we would speak of 'capturing' a piece. Cf. Ovid, Ars Amat. 3. 358. The cry occide would be appropriate for 'capturing' the opponent's piece. Unfortunately the Roman ludus latrunculi does not seem to have been 559

4- ! 7 . 3

438 B.C.

played with dice. As in chess, each player moved alternately. T h e Greek equivalent (TTOXIS), however, involved dice. R. G. Austin (Antiquity 14 (1940), 257) maintains a rigid distinction between 'games of the battle-type played without dice' (ireTrela), among which he classes the Indus latrunculi, and 'games of dice' (fcujfcwx). Since -TTOXLS was a battle-type game he argues that it too was played without dice and virtually identifies it with ludus latrunculi. T h e distinction is not a priori sound. Battle-types are found played both with and without dice. 'Campaign' and 'L'Attaque' are both fought out by contending armies but in the former the moves are governed by the throw of the dice, in the latter moves are made strictly alternately. Moreover, games which involved a combination of dice and moves were well known in antiquity (see Fraenkel on Aeschylus, Agamemnon 33) and such games could be classed indiscriminately under the general category of-rreTTela or Kv^eta (see L.S.J, s.w.). TTOALS is, in fact, explicitly classed with the dice-games, Pollux links it with TTZVT€ ypdfjLfxai which used dice, and Eustathius (Iliad 1397. 45) calls it CL86S TL Kvfizlas. In other words TTOXIS and ludus latrunculi are not identical but differ on the fundamental question of whether the moves are dictated by the throw of a die or not. Lars Tolumnius, an Etruscan, was, as might be expected, playing a Greek not a Roman game. A large quantity of dice have survived at Veii. J . Gage (R.E.L. 35 (1957), 224 ff.) attempts to 'rationalize' the story as having grown up from a misinterpretation of tesserae, militarysigns (7. 35. 1, 9. 32. 4), or tesserae hospitales, the tokens from a proR o m a n party in Fidenae (Plautus, Poen. 1047 ff.; Cist. 503). But the game is Greek and the story is likely to have been taken over from an episode of Greek history, like Tarquin's poppies. 1 7 . 4 . in errorem versumfacinus: 'or that, if it had happened in this way, the deed would not have been regarded as a mistake'. For deinde standing for a suppressed protasis cf, e.g., 33. 32. 3. 17. 7. tribunisque eius: L. normally writes either plebs tribunique or p. tribuniqueplebis (4. 7. 8, \\. \et al.; see Drakenborch on 2. 56. 1). Freudenberg's eius (anni), nihil is attractive. L. Sergius Fidenas: 3. 35. 11 n . ; C.f. C.n., according to the Fasti for 418. Perhaps the first member of the family to reach consular rank since the suffect in 478 is more likely to be a Verginius (see Broughton) and the Decemvir of 450 to be fictitious. T h e cognomen must indicate his home of origin and not his victory, since the first such honorific title was Aemilius Privernas in 329. T h e old rural tribe Sergia lay between the Via Salaria and the Via Nomentana and reached as far as Fidenae. It is significant that the commission sent to investigate Fidenae contained a Sergius and a Servilius who also had the cogno­ men Fidenas. See 30. 5 ; Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 294; L. R. Taylor, Voting Districts, 40. 560

437 B.C.

4. 17. 8

17. 8. fusis hostibus: understand ex. See Burman's note on Suetonius, Caligula 46. 17. 1 1 . Faliscorum auxilio: Ver.'s word-order is certainly right; for the slip auxiliorum cf. 56. 3. For Falerii see 5. 26-27 n 17. 12. qua sequi: Aemilius had crossed the Anio and taken up a position with his flanks resting on the Tiber and the Anio and his rear guarded by the confluence of the rivers. It was only necessary to place a r a m p a r t to protect his front. T h e text as it stands is mean­ ingless. It can certainly not be translated 'throwing up a r a m p a r t between himself and the enemy wherever he found it possible to go on with the work' (Stephenson): the enemy were not likely to molest h i m ; nor, on the other hand 'son retranchement longeait les rives entre les deux cours d'eau la ou elles pouvaient etre fortifiees5 (Baillet) —a futile proceeding since the rivers were ample fortification. Novak was surely right to recall 39. 2. 3 per rupes fugerunt qua sequi hostis non posset; the vallum would be dug in front of Aemilius 5 lines, where the Fidenates could carry through an assault, munimento looks like a gloss on vallo (cf. 1. 55. 9 n.). In consequence the conjectures of Drechsler, Madvig, and Karsten, as reported in the O.C.T., are unsatisfactory. Nor does Novak's own munimento (nisi) qua sequi (hostis} poterat nullo interposito convince against the agreement of Ver. and TTX on vallo. I would simply restore hostis for munimento. 18. 2. Notice the emphasis on the psychological reactions of the enemy. 18. 6. silentium: as always to signalize a key moment (3. 47. 6 n.). arcem: it is not possible to see the Capitol from the plain of Fidenae. ex\ auguribus: ex is wrong. T h e plain ab is required with tolli (4. 37.9). T h e question remains whether ex is a simple mistake for ab by antici­ pation of ex composito or whether there is a lacuna such as ex (ea ab) postulated by Alschefski. ex would be the right preposition for de­ scribing where the signal was raised (cf. 4. 34. 1 signum ex muro tollunt) and the superfluous -sae in N's admissae essent, where admisissent is con­ firmed as the right reading by passages such as 1. 55. 3 or Plautus, Asin. 259, could well be the consequence of a transposition. On the whole Alschefski's reading best meets the demands of palaeography and of meaning, admitto in this sense is sacral. 1 8 . 7 . simul ubi: the expression may be compared with simul ut (Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 4. 5) and should be retained (Rossbach). 19. 1. erat turn: 2. 33. 5 n. amplissimum: 2. 4 n. 19. 2. videret: a necessary correction of videt. For the combination of imperfect and pluperfect tenses cf. 1. 5. 6, 3. 5. 8 n. 814432

561

0 0

4- 19- 3

437 B.C.

1 9 - 3 . Hicine: Brakman (Mnemosyne 56 (1928), 63) drew attention to the similarity of 22. 6. 3 - 4 : the Insubrian Ducarius sees the consul Flaminius rallying the most closely contested part of the field and exclaims s en hie est qui legiones nostras cecidit manibus peremptorum foede civium dabo'. T h e vow, which underlines the high purpose of Cossus' bravery, is the reverse of a Devotio where the general vowed himself and his own troops to the manes (cf. 10. 28. 13 f ) . As such it is a traditional feature of stirring battle-accounts. Should en hie est be read here? mactatam: 'I will sacrifice and offer this victim to the manes\ Cf. 3 . 5 8 . 11 (n.). 19. 4 - 6 . T h e actual encounter is described in simple, short sentences which graphically bring out the excitement; notice, e.g., terrore caesi regis hostes fundit with its plain, almost monotonous, dissyllables. T h e language, as in other heroic battles, is 'epic' to match. For resupino (not in Cicero, Caesar, or Tacitus) cf. Statius, Theb. 9. 312; Virgil, Aeneid 1. 476; 3. 624. cuspis as a whole spear (not in Sallust, Cicero, or Nepos) is frequent in Ovid, Virgil, and Propertius. 19. 6. locorum notitia: military, cf. Caesar, B.C. 1. 3 1 . 2. 19. 7. ut ante dictum est: 18. 4. All news of their operations is held back so that the main incident can be presented as a unity. 20. 1. triumphans: so also Lydus, de Mag. 1. 38. T h e fragmentary Fasti Triumph, preserve the entry mus an. CCCXVI us idib. Sexlt.] T h e early editors read the first letter as n and restored Mam. Aemilius M.f. -n. Mamercx\nus an CCCXVI diet, de Veientibus et Fidenatib]us idib. Sext. but Degrassi asserts that n is impossible and that m is the only serious candidate, which would certainly make the cognomen Maximus. O n e of the late chronographers gives the entry for this year as Fidenato et Maximo, whence Degrassi restores a suffect consul P. Valerius Lactuca Maximus and attributes the triumph to him. T h e reasoning is con­ sistent but not compelling. Aemilius' defeat of the Fidenates was a celebrated event, quite apart from its connexion with Cossus' exploits, and it is hard to see where Lydus would have got his informa­ tion if the triumphal Fasti attributed the triumph of this year to an otherwise utterly unknown figure. Further the Chronographer's Maximo is a simple corruption of Macerino. T h e two are constantly confused. If the -mus is correct, then the restoration: Mam. Aemilius M.f. -n. Mamercus Maxi]mus at least raises fewer objections. 562

437 B.C.

4. 20. 2

20. 2. spolia opima: 1. 10. 1 ff n. carmina incondita: 3. 29. 5 n. 20. 3. celebritatis . . ./rueturn: 27. 45. 5. coronam auream: 3. 29. 3 n. 20. 5-11. Digression on A. Cornelius Cossus The three problems posed by this notorious digression can be kept distinct and treated separately. In writing that omnes ante me auctores agreed that Cossus won the spolia opima as military tribune (in 437) L. exaggerates. At least two other traditions are known. One refers the exploit to 426 when he was magister equitum (VaL Max. 3. 2. 4 ; cf. Servius ad Aen. 6. 842; 32. 4), the other also places it in 426 but designates him consular tribune (Diodorus 12. 80). The date was evidently fluid because there was nothing in the Annales to tie it down. Legend associated Cossus with Mam. Aemilius and Aemilius was listed twice in the records, as dictator in 437 and 426, and was credited with wars against Fidenae on both occasions, wars which need not necessarily be doublets. If the date was fluid so also was Cossus' rank. Perhaps the consular tribunate in Diodorus represents the oldest stage in the tradition, but we cannot be sure. Augustus' claim that he had inscriptional evidence that Cossus was consul when he won the spolia did not, therefore, contradict a uniform tradition. Nevertheless, his evidence is worthless and must be rejected. A linen corslet, even apart from the deleterious effects of sweat and blood, could not have survived intact for four hundred years in a temple which in its latter years was roof­ less and exposed to the elements. Even if it could have, its authenticity is betrayed by the addition of 'Cos.' (in whatever form or with what­ ever meaning). On an original document of so early date the title praetor rather than consul would have been used and equally the suggestion made by Rutgers and Hirschfeld, that Cos or Coso was the cognomen Cossus misinterpreted by Augustus as consul, is invalidated by the absence oicognomina from early inscriptions. The inscription on the corslet is not original and cannot be used as evidence for early history. The most plausible hypothesis is that it was 'restored', perhaps at the time when M. Marcellus dedicated his spolia opima, and the inscription was brought into line with Marcellus' (but cf. Plutarch, Q..R. 37). Secondly, it may be asked what Augustus' motive was in bringing a highly dubious piece of evidence to L.'s notice. An attractive sugges­ tion of Dessau's connected it with a claim for the spolia opima made in 29 B.C. by M. Licinius Crassus, proconsul of Macedonia, who had defeated the Bastarnae in battle and killed their chieftain, Deldo. The claim was disallowed by Octavian, on the grounds that Crassus 563

4. 20. 5-i i

437 B.C.

was not the holder of full imperium (Dio 51. 24. 4), but the reason was his fear of being overshadowed by Crassus. T h e spolia opima of Cossus would have provided Grassus with a clear precedent, unless it could be shown that Gossus was consul and not a mere military tribune. There were thus vital political motives to influence Augustus' reading of the inscription and when the temple was rebuilt no doubt the in­ scription was visible for all to see. Thirdly, the passage raises a question about the date and com­ position of Book 4. If the arguments given above are right, L. was given the information by Augustus not earlier than 29 B.C. and a somewhat later date is indicated by the use of the title Augustus Caesar which Octavian assumed on 16 J a n u a r y 27 B.C. A date of 27-26 B.C. might, therefore, be proposed for the composition of the digression, but the digression was inserted subsequently. This follows not simply from the fact that L. relates the story of Gossus without any initial qualms and only poses the difficulties afterwards: the habit of adding qualifications and doubts after a story is a fixed technique (cf. 10.5. 13, 17. 11, 26. 6 f.). But 32. 4 qui priore bello . . . intulerit is written without any knowledge of the digression and, similarly, 20. 9 imbelle triennium presupposes that the narrative of 30 has already been written. If, then, the digression was written in 27-26 and was inserted into a narrative that had already been composed, we might be tempted to believe, with Syme, that the Books 1-5, and Book 4 in particular, had been written several years earlier. T h e temptation should be resisted. There are certainly no traces of any other such insertions and no evidence for Bayet's hypothesis of two 'editions' of the Books 1-5. Finally, it casts some interesting light on L.'s relations with Augus­ tus. L. says that it would be sacrilege not to accept the evidence which Augustus produced and yet takes no steps to alter his own narrative. There is no rewriting, no deletion: the sensational discovery is put in a footnote. L.'s ties with the imperial house were close and personal (Introduction, p p . 2 ff.) but he remained politically uncommitted. He could afford to neglect the historical niceties which meant so much to Augustus and so little to himself. See Rutgers, Variarum Lectionum Libri Sex (1618), 346; Perizonius, Anim. Hist, ch. 7; Soltau, Hermes, 29 (1894), 611 ff.; Dessau, Hermes 41 (1906), 142 ff.; Hirschfeld, Kl. Schriften, 398 ff.; Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 298 ff; Last, C.A.H 7. 507; G. Hirst, A.J.P. 47 (1926), 347 ft".; Gichorius, Rom. Studien, 263 f.; Klotz, R.E., 'Livius', col. 836; J . D. Bishop, Latomus 7 (1948), 187 ff.; Syme, Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. 6

4 (1959) , 4 3 - 4 6 . 20. 6. dux: 3. 1. 4 n. Festus 204 L. quotes a reputed law of N u m a : l cuius auspicio classe procincta opima spolia capiuntur Iovi Feretrio darier oporteat'. 564

437 B.C.

4. 20. 6

Cossum: 'wormy'; the cognomen is descriptive of personal appearance; cf. Paulus Festus 36 L. It has nothing to do with the Cossii, Cossidii, or Gossuttii (but see Schulze 519). Rutgers argued that the inscription read A. CORNELIO M.F. COS. It is likely that the cognomen would have been inscribed if the inscription was 'restored' c. 200. 20. 7. conditorem cue (aut nX) restitutorem: Augustus founded some and restored others. So Ovid, Fasti 2. 63 templorum positor, templorum sancte repostor. ingressum: Augustus presumably visited the temple in company with Atticus at whose suggestion the work of restoration was undertaken (Nepos, Atticus 20. 3). Atticus died on 31 March 32 B.C., so that an interval of at least five years must have elapsed between the first visit and the communication of the evidence to L. It is not known when the restoration was carried out or completed. It may have been a lengthy operation. T h e temple was roofless, according to Nepos, and Augustus classes the work as new construction, not rebuilding (Res Gestae 19; cf. ipsius templi auctorem below). Cosso: Cossum N, by assimilation to sum. 20. 8. quis ea in re sit error: existimatio communis means 'it is up to every­ one to make up his own mind' and is invariably used with an ind. question (23. 47. 8; cf, 4. 41. 2, 34. 2. 5). T h e manuscripts' qui si. . . error cannot, therefore, be defended as Conway proposes (C.Q. 5 (1911), 8 : 'but if the cause of doubt about this should lie merely in the fact that the annals mention Gossus only as consul seven years later, that is a problem which I do not profess to explain but which everyone must settle according to his liking'). T h e sense must b e : 'the reader can decide for himself how the mistake came about that the authorities date Cossus' consulship seven years later', i.e. quis . . . error (Gronovius). libri quos linteos: editors, comparing 7. 10, have wished to include a reference to the other libri magistratuum besides the libri lintei (libri librique quos Mommsen) but such precision is misguided. T h e libri lintei were libri magistratuum. septimo\ post demum anno: the year is 437 B.C. (A.U.C. 317). Gossus' consulship is given by L. (30. 4) as falling in 428 (A.U.C. 326), that is decimo . . . anno, but the chronology of these years is inextricably con­ fused. Two other oddities need to be considered. Licinius Macer re­ peated the consuls of 435 in 434 (23. 1), where Valerius Antias listed "M. Manlius and Q . Sulpicius as consuls. T h e discrepancy could be explained by supposing that Licinius had fused the lists of two earlier years (e.g. the consular tribunes and consuls in 444, if they had really belonged to 444 and 443 respectively) and as a result was left with a spare year at 434 which he filled by repeating the college of 435. T h a t explanation, however, does not account for the difficulties of 444 565

437 B.C.

4- 20. 8

(7. 10 n.) and no reason is advanced why Licinius should not have felt the missing year until 435. It is, therefore, necessary to consider also the fact that 31. 1 (T. Quinctius Poenus ex consulate) implies that Quinctius was consul in the year immediately preceding his consular tri­ bunate, but, in L., Quinctius is consul with Cossus in 428 (30. 4) and another consulate, that of C. Servilius and L. Papirius (30. 12), intervenes before his consular tribunate. There are no grounds for disputing the text. Any explanation must rather start from the fact that L. is using different sources which gave different magistrate lists. If the source of 31. 1 (Licinius Macer) omitted the consular of C. Servilius and L. Papirius, Quinctius' consular tribunate would follow directly on his consulate but in consequence Licinius would have lost a complete year from his chronology unless he had reduplicated a year earlier which is precisely what we find. The list may be conjecturally set out as follows: Licinius Macer 435

c

L. 434 C. L.

ulius

Valerius Antias C. Julius II L. Verginius M. Manlius Q . Sulpicius

n

J Verginius Julius III Verginius II

429 L. Papirius Hostus Lucretius L. Julius L. Sergius II 428 Hostus Lucretius A. Cornelius Cossus L. Sergius II T. Quinctius Poenus II 427 A. Cornelius Cossus C. Servilius T. Quinctius Poenus II L. Papirius 426 T. Quinctius Poenus T. Quinctius Poenus C. Furius C. Furius M. Postumius M. Postumius A. Cornelius Cossus A. Cornelius Cossus The confusion must have arisen from disorder or disarray among the tabulae dealbatae, which could have been inferred from the uncer­ tainty whether there were consuls or consular tribunes in 434 (23. 2 n.) and from Diodorus' insertion of a college of consuls (L. Quinctius and A. Sempronius), probably misplaced from 425, between 428 and 427 (Diodorus 12. 77. 1). See also J.R.S. 48 (1958), 45-46. What light does that solution, if accepted, throw on the corrupt septimo? If the digression was inserted after the text of 20-30 had been composed, L. is unlikely to have looked farther afield than his own history to establish when Cossus' consulship was and since on L.'s own showing that consulship was in 428, we should read decimo here. Poeno: 26. 2 n. 20. 9. imbelle triennium: 29. 7-30. 16. 566

437 B.C.

4. 20. 10

20. 10. fortius: 31. 1 ft 20. 11. The O.C.T. punctuation and interpretation must be supposed to mean: 'you may conjecture what you like; but in my view whatever opinion you form is pointless (lit. you may revolve pointless things to all opinions) since Cossus would not have courted sacrilege by calling himself consul unless he was consul'. But vana versare licet cannot = vanum est versare etsi licet. The passage should be compared with 29. 6 nee libet credere et licet in variis opinionibus: the object of versare must be understood as the date of Cossus' exploit. Repunctuate: ea libera coniectura est sed, ut ego arbitror, vana 'that is legitimate speculation, but, in my view, pointless. You may subject the matter to every opinion (for versare in omnes cf. 1. 58. 3) although Cossus himself at the risk of sacrilege called himself consul5. The sense demands that cum = 'although5 not 'since'. My interpretation is founded on the excellent note by J. Walker, Supplementary Annotations. 21-30. Annalistic Narrative, 436-427 B.C. The First Battle of Fidenae The narrative continues on 20. 4 but in the succeeding chapters there is little unity of story and no attempt to combine the scattered notices in an over-all picture or by a common thread. The Annales were rich in details for the decade but in the absence of some great personality or some stirring legend the material could not easily be worked up into history. The contradiction between 22. 2 and 32. 3 indicates that he reverts to Licinius but variants are cited at 21. 10, 23- 2, 24. 9, 26. 6, 29. 5. See Burck 97. 21. 1. M. Cornelio: M.f. L.n., a brother of Cossus. His praenomen is given as AtiXos by Diodorus 12. 46. 1. L. Papirio: a brother of the consul of 441 (12. 1). 21. 3 . Sp. Maelio: probably a doublet of his famous namesake (13. 1 n.). The accusations are presented in characteristically Re­ publican terms. For falsis criminibus circumventum cf. Sallust, Catil. 34. 2 ; for caedem civis indemnati see 3. 11. 5 n. favore nominis: cf. Tacitus, Hist. 2. 72. 1; Justin 15. 2. 3 (Fletcher). de publicandis bonis: one tradition, given by Cicero, de Domo 86, and Val. Max. 5. 3. 2, held that Servilius Ahala was condemned by the comitia centuriata and went into exile (Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 212 n. 127). It was a Gracchan gloss on the law that no one should be put to death without a trial, however self-evident the merits of the case. 21. 5. vis morbi: 3. 2. 1 n. prodigia: 3. 5. 14 n. duumviris praeeuntibus: 5. 13. 5 n. Understand carmen with praeeuntibus. The priests led the way in the chanting or recitation of the 567

4- 2i. 5

435 B.C.

solemn prayer. T h e type of prayer is illustrated by Festus 230 L . ; Cato, de Re Rust. 141. 3 ; Plautus Merc. 679; and the style can be detected in the archaic collocation salvus and sanus (Plautus, Amph. 730; Merc. 889), characteristic of such prayers. 21. 6. C. Iulio iterum: 3. 65. 5. L. Verginio : Opet.f., a son of the consul of 473 (2. 54. 3), but Diodorus gives the rarerpraenomen Proculus (12. 49. 1) which would make him a son or grandson of the consul of 486 (2. 4 1 . 1). See Gundel, R.E., 'Verginius (14)'. tantum metum vastitatis: there is no need to alter the text. (t. metus et vastitatis Conway; tantum metum, vastatis urbe agrisque Seyffert). The gen. of the thing feared is common (cf., e.g., Cicero, Verr. 5. 160) and for metum facere cf. 9. 4 1 . 11. 2 1 . 9. in aede Quirini: the temple of Quirinus on the Quirinal hill to which it gave its name was not vowed till 325, by L. Papirius Cursor, and not dedicated till 293 (10. 46. 7; Pliny, N.H. 7. 213) but there may have been an older temple on the same site, for Pliny [N.H. 15. 120) regards the shrine as among the oldest in Rome and Festus 303 L. speaks of an archaic sacellum Quirini (see Platner-Ashby s.v.). Meetings of the Senate could be held in any augurated building and in later times the choice was sometimes dictated by superstition and consideration of the business to be transacted (e.g. the critical dis­ cussion on the riots of 103 was held in the temple of Fides Publica (Appian, B.C. 1. 16) : declarations of war were often proposed in the temple of Mars Ultor) and sometimes by proximity to the consul's house (e.g. in 63 at the temple of Juppiter Stator near Cicero's (in Catil. 1. 11) and in 44 at the temple of Tellus near Antony's house (Appian, B.C. 2. 126)). Either factor might have been operative here. Quirinus was a suitable deity to preside over the election of a dictator in a time of military crisis and his temple was the nearest to the Porta Collina. No other session is recorded in the temple. 2 1 . 10. Q. Servilium: he must be the same as Q . Servilius P.f. Sp.n. Priscus Fidenas, dictator also in 418, whose name and filiation are given in full by the Capitoline Fasti under that year and who was elected augur in 439 (I.L.S. 9338. 2 Q.Ser]viliusP.f. . .). He was a leading figure in his generation (26. 7,30. 5,45.5,46. 4-11,48. 10), but never reached the consulship although his father held that office in 463 (3. 6. 1 n.). T h e manuscripts, both Ver. and N, conspire on the praenomen A. but that can hardly be even what Licinius Macer or the libri lintei wrote. Aulus only figures once as a praenomen among the Servilii (C.I.L. 1. 1384 (first c. B.C.)) and Q . and A. are easily confused in uncials. T h e doubt about the cognomen is more instructive. Different branches of families were from early times distinguished by nicknames but the practice only became regular after the third century and was not 568

435 B.C.

4. 21. 10

systematized until the first. T h e cognomina of fifth-century persons were, therefore, largely whimsical. T h e Servilii were distinguished from one another by several names. T h e first Servilius Priscus, like Tarquinius Priscus, was so called because he was the oldest of the family, and other members of the family were named Ahala (13. 14 n.) or, as here, Structus (the exact meaning of the name is uncertain; ? from struo = 'well-built', 'large', a physical description). In editing the Fasti and listing each person with tria nomina, scholars had no sure evidence to work on and the attribution of names for the early period was in­ evitably arbitrary. P. Servilius, the consul of 495, is named in the Fasti Priscus Structus. His son, Sp. Servilius, the consul of 476, is plain Structus in the Fasti, but his grandsons P. and Q . , consuls in 463 and 468, are called Priscus in the Fasti and Structus in Diodorus (11. 79. 1, 71. 1). T h e present dictator is listed as Priscus Fidenas in the Fasti, but appears as Priscus in 26. 7 and 46. 10. We may note the variant traditions but can build nothing from them. permittente . . . node: dictators were always appointed at night (57- 5) 8. 23. 15, 9. 38. 14, 10. 40. 2 ; Dio fr. 36. 26), a survival from a time when the consuls could only leave the front after dark. Helvam: 11. 1 n. T h e name is formed from helvus 'light brown', re­ ferring to the colour of his hair (cf. Rufus). Helvium read by Ver. and 7rA is a nomen not a cognomen. T h e Nicomachean editors had already made the right correction {helvam helvium M ; cf. 11. 5). 22. 1. ex aerario: 3. 69. 8 n. 22. 2. subiit: Ver. rightly: an intrusive historic indicative would be out of place. Nomento: 1. 38. 4 n. Fidenas: the method by which Fidenae is alleged to have been captured is a doublet of the more celebrated surprise of Veii and the capture is remarkably ineffective since Fidenae, although deletae (25. 8), shortly afterwards is in a position to rebel (30. 5, 31. 7 ff). Such considerations have led many scholars to infer that the campaigns have been reduplicated (Secmiiller, Die Doubletten in der Ersten Decade; Last, C.A.H. 7. 507-9) and even that Servilius' dictatorship is unhistorical. Scepticism is unwarranted. It is only too likely that military details were used more than once to fill out a bare notice and that the taking of an Etruscan city by means of a cuniculus was a story remem­ bered more for the strategem than the locality. But in the long struggle with Veii which culminated at the end of the century the Etruscan enclave at Fidenae was always the strategical key (Richter, Hermes 17 (1882), 433 ff). T h e ground would have been contested several times and no one engagement proved decisive. T h e annals of these years, then, must have contained numerous references to battles with the 569

4- 2 2 . 2

435 B.C.

Fidenates, and it was good psychology to choose a Servilius whose family, like their cousins the Sergii, originated from Fidenae, to manage Rome's affairs at that juncture. 22. 4. ab aversa parte: adversa (codd.) pars is only used in L. of political parties. A general would select a spot where the enemy's concentration was not directed. Ver. reads per[9 that is, urbis permaxime: permaxime is a late and vulgar interpretation of maxime. cuniculum: 5. ig. 9—11. There are no visible traces oicuniculi as there are at Veii. 22. 6. a castris: deleted by Conway and Bayet on the strength of its omis­ sion by the manuscript L. The deletion makes nonsense of the principles of manuscript tradition and since the words, to be taken with e recta ...est (cf. 9. 24. 7), cannot be faulted on grounds of latinity, they should be retained. A similar interlacing occurs in the next sentence (a periculo with intentis), where the purpose is to contrast vanas and certo. 22. 7. Furius: 12. 1 n. M. Geganius: 3. 65. 5. villam publicam: since the census was no longer the responsibility of the consuls but was entrusted to a special magistracy, it was necessary to build headquarters for the censors when they were en­ gaged on their functions (Varro, de Re Rust. 3. 2; Apuleius, Apol. 17). The campus Martius was the obvious site and a building was erected near the Saepta (Cicero, ad Att. 4. 16. 8) and the Circus Flaminius (Plutarch, Sulla 30). Enlarged in 194 (34. 44. 5) and again in 34 by Fonteius Capito, the villa publica is depicted on a coin of Fonteius (Sydenham no. 901). See Platner-Ashby s.v.; Makin, J.R.S., 1921, 26. 2 3 . 1 . Macrum Licinium: Ver. inverts the order. The data are assembled and discussed by Lahmeyer, Philologus 22 (1865), 469-94 and J. Curschmann, %ur Inversion (Progr. Budingen, 1900), 55-61 ; cf. Axtell, Class. Phil. 10 (1915), 392 ff. It emerges that the use of nomen and cognomen (without praenomen) by themselves and, particularly, inverted is a form of reference confined by Cicero to intimate friends or de­ spised enemies. The observation holds good for L. also who used the plain nomen and cognomen inverted either to refer to his sources (so more nearly contemporary than the historical characters they deal with), e.g. Antias Valerius (3. 5. 12), Macer Licinius (20. 8, 7. 9. 4, 9. 38. 16, 46. 3, 10. 9. 10), or to throw a special emphasis on the cognomen in order, for example, to distinguish one member of a gens from another (46. 10-12 Q. Servilius Priscus . . . alii Ahalam Servilium scribunt; cf. 1. 39. 5, 46. 4, 47. 2, 57. 6, 2. 2. 3, 4. 18. 5, 41. 12, 6. 18. 4, 9. 15. i i , 38. 9). L. only uses the order Licinius Macer once (7. 12), where he introduces the name for the first time. On both scores, therefore, of familiarity and to produce the chiastic M.L. . . . Valerius Antias, N's order is to be preferred. See Weissenborn on 26. 22. 13. 570

434 B.C.

4. 23. 1

Valerius Antias et Q. Tubero: for Q,. Aelius Tubero, see Introduction, p. 16. (I see nothing to be said for the conjecture atque for et Q., intended to make Tubero apply to the father: so Soltau, Hermes29 (1894), 6 3 1 ; Klotz 209; Bayet; A. Piganiol, Scritti. . . B. Nogara, 1937, 378 n. 3 ; Gelzer, Gnomon 18 (1942), 229. L. does not use atque before t (Fugner, Lexicon, 180. 10) and a praenomen is demanded by the formal balance of the sentence. Ver. clearly read Antias et Q.) M. Manlium: his filiation cannot be determined; see the stemmata proposed by Miinzer, R.E., 'Manlius', cols. 1158, 1166. Q. Sulpicium: 27. 9; Ser.f., a son of the consul of 461 (3. 10. 5), if Ser. Sulpicius Q.f. Ser.n. Camerinus (cos. 393; 5. 29. 2) is rightly identified as his son. consules: Licinius is wrong. The confusion is to be connected with the entry of three consular tribunes (Manlius, Sulpicius, and Ser. Cornelius Cossus) in Diodorus (12. 53. 1) and, possibly, the Capitoline Fasti, which was also known to both Valerius and Licinius. The re­ cords were evidently damaged or obscure. 23. 3 . placet [et] : Muretus; placuit Ver. placuit would give L.'s own opinion ('Licinius was doubtless content to follow the libri lintei9; so Jung) but hand aubie must be taken with sequi, and consequently placet is required to express Licinius' resolve to follow the libri lintei without hesitation. The corruption in Ver. may be due to the pre­ ceding -uil-. N's dittography is characteristic. incertus veri: not, as Klotz supposes, doubtful of the authenticity of the libri lintei but doubtful which of the suggested colleges was his­ torically right. cooperta: Mommsen's correction of N's incomperta by the clue of Ver.'s conperta is not indisputable, incompertus 'uncertain' is common enough (9. 26. 15, 10. 40. 10, 28. 3. 12; Aetna 547-8) although the abl. is not found with it, whereas coopertus with vetustate would be unique here (but cf. Sallust, Catil. 23.1 ; Jugurtha 14.11). 23. 5. duodecim populos: 5. 33. 9 n. ad Voltumnae fanum: 25. 7, 61. 2, 5. 17. 6, 6. 2. 2. The location and the nature of the goddess are nowhere else discussed. Since the League of Twelve in imperial times met aput Vulsinios (C.I.L. 11. 5265), it has been generally held that the shrine of Voltumna was in the territory of Volsinii and the site has been looked for in the vicinity of Mte. Fiascono or Orvieto. The evidence is scarcely compulsive but may get some support if the local god of Volsinii, Vertumnus (cf. Propertius 4. 2. 2-4), be regarded as a male counterpart of Voltumna. Such dual deities are frequent. See L. R. Taylor, Local Cults in Etruria, 230-1; J. Heurgon, Historia 6 (1957}, 88; Eisenhut, R.E., 'Vertumnus'. 23. 6. A. Postumius Tubertus: Tubero N, wrongly from Tubero in 23. 3. 571

4- 23- 6

434 B.C.

Tubertus (?from tuber 'warty'; cf. Verrucosus) was a cognomen of the Postumii (Cicero, de Leg. 2. 58), in particular of P. Postumius, the consul of 503 (2. 16. 7), presumably grandfather of A. Aemilius'dicta­ torship and, in consequence, Postumius' office as mag. equitum have been called into question (17. 1) as duplication of a single event. It is argued that Postumius is listed so as to provide him with a pre­ liminary office before the dictatorship, after the manner of later pro­ motions. T h a t is possible but cannot be demonstrated. Since there are some authentic facts from these years and since his dictatorship (see below on 26.11-29) established that Postumius was an historical figure, I would accept the account as also emanating from archival sources. proximo'. 35. 21. 5. 24. 2. mercatoribus: trade with Etruria seems to have closed down in the late half of the fifth century. Imported Attic pottery and Etruscan terracotta cease after 450. There remains, it is true, the corn trade but that only flourished in time of crisis. T h e detail, therefore, sounds anachronistic, as is borne out by the tendentious account of Aemilius' dictatorship. T h e limitation of the censorship to eighteen months came about ipso facto. The censors had a definite j o b to do. When it was completed, their raison d'etre ended. negare: cf. 5. 1.6. communicati: despite Novak's attempt to justify a deponent use (cf. Veil. Pat. 2. 117. 4 ; Bell. Afr. 94. 1 ; Val. Max. 4. 1. 7), an active, transitive communico only is found (see Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v., NeueWagener 3. 32). Emendation is required. J a c . Gronovius's communicare non sirint is palaeographically neat, but Mtiller's communicare noluerint gives better sense. 24. 4. magna imperia diuturna: few Romans reading this could fail to be reminded of their recent history. T h e lengthy commands of Marius and Sulla, of Pompey and Caesar, and, more, lately, of the Triumvirs had brought Rome to the verge of collapse. 24. 5. quinquennalem: 'continuing for five years' not 'renewed every fifth year, i.e. continuing for four years'. T h e word is used with both meanings; see C. dall'Olio, Studi di Filologia Class. 6 (Bologna, 1959), 49-52. T h e original censors were probably elected on an ad hoc basis, the five-year period gradually becoming established by convention. grave esse: gra e Ver. confirms Gronovius's correction. magna parte: taken by Conway to mean 'in a large part, in many spheres, of their life', but the whole emphasis of the passage is on dura­ tion. Madvig's magnam partem is certain. Cf. Tacitus, Agr. 3 per quindecim annos, grande mortalis aevi spatium. 24. 6. consensu ingenti populi: consensu populi ingenti Ver. The divergent word-order results from the misplacing of ingenti. Read ingenti consensu 572

434 B.C.

4. 24. 6

populi as always in Latin (1. 35.6, 3.63. 8, 9. 40. 21, 10. g. 1 ; Suetonius, Domitian 13 et al.). Quirites, quam . . . placeant: [quam] . . . placere Ver., a reading known also to the Nicomachean editors, for M has placeant re. Nobody doubted Aemilius' distaste for long commands: what might be at issue was the degree to which he was prepared to carry that distaste i.e. quam . . . placeant. Ver.'s error arose from an attempt to construe the sentence after the omission by haplography of quam. 24. 7. tribu moverunt.. . aerarium fecerunt: the censors had two sanctions to impose on offenders. They could exclude a man from his tribe and enrol him in the tabulae Caeritum (27 Cicero, Verr. p . 103, Orelli) thereby depriving him of the right to vote, or after 304, in one of the four urban tribes, where his vote would be swamped and would count for nothing (45. 15. 3-4). A man so punished would still be liable for tributum and military service. Alternatively, the censors could allow him to retain his tribe but would list him as in a special category of aerarii, who were evidently compelled to pay extra high taxation, apart from or in addition to tributum. T h a t the two sanctions were distinct and not, as Mommsen argued (Staatsrecht, 2. 402-3) on the assumption that all who did not belong to tribes were aerarii, the same, is shown by their separate mention (aerarium facere in Varro ap. Non. Marc. 280. 35 L . ; Aul. Gell. 4. 12. 1 ; 4. 20. 11 ; tribu moveri Aul. Gell. 16. 13. 7; 27 Horace, Epist. 1. 6. 62). But most offences merited the double penalty. Most scholars reject Aemilius' punishment as ana­ chronistic, based perhaps on the buffoonery of the year 204 (2g. 37). But if the censors are genuine it is at least as likely that a record of their actions would have survived also. See the full discussion by P. Fraccaro, Athenaeum 11 (ig33), 150-72. 25. 1. contentionibus: N's telescoped contionibus would require the tribunes to have held continual meetings of the tribal assemblies in order to stymie the patricians and prevent, the holding of the comitia centuriata. For although there was no constitutional bar against both assemblies being held concurrently (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 28g n. 4), no one would attend the centuriata. Cf. 3. 52. 1, 65. 5, 4. 6. 3. 25. 2. nullum fuit: Bayet adopts nullius (Drakenborch) but Petrarch's nullum will have come from a /u-source and M itself had the same reading. M. Fabius: 11. 1. M. Folius: the pontifex maximus of 3go (5. 41. 3) whose grandson was consul in 318 and three times magister equitum. The family is other­ wise unknown. T h e name suggests a Sabine rather than an Etruscan origin (Foslius in the Fasti). L. Sergius: 17. 7. 573

4- 25- 3

433 B.C.

25. 3 . pestilential 3. 2. 1 n. aedis Apollini: dedicated in 431 (29. 7), damaged by the Gauls (cf. Dio fr. 49. 1) and rebuilt in 353 (7. 20. 9). It was situated between the Circus Flaminius and the Forum Holitorium, outside thepomerium, because the cult was foreign, and so often served as an extra-pomerial meeting-place of the Senate. The site has been excavated but no traces of the earliest construction can be recognized (Golini, Bull. Comn. Arch» 68 (1940), 9-40). The origin of the cult itself is obscure. There may have been an earlier shrine on the spot (3. 63. 5 n.), but the name, Apollo Medicus (40. 51. 6), indicates a direct connexion with the series of plagues which had devastated Latium and the Mediterranean during the late 430's. It was certainly prescribed by the libri Sibyllini (25. 3) and the Gumaean provenance of the Sibylline books taken in conjunction with the expedition to Cumae this year in search of corn, might suggest that the cult, like that of Demeter, came from Cumae. A Cumaean Apollo is mentioned several times (Jul. Obsequens 28: cf. Augustine, Civ. Dei 3. 11; Jul. Obsequens 54; Cicero, de Divin. 1.98) but seems to have been more prophetic than healing. Etruria and Sicily have also been canvassed as possible sources. See J. Gage, VApollon Romain, 19-113; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 221 ff. 25. 4. Etruriam . . . Siciliam: 2. 34. 2 n. 25. 5. L. Pinarius Mamercus: a son of the consul of 472 (2. 56. 1). The Fasti gave his cognomen as Mamercinus but, as with the Aemilii, both forms are found. Varro ap. Macrobius 1. 13. 21 cites an antiquissimam legem incisam in columna aerea a L. Pinario et Furio consulibus which may date from their office. L. Furius Medullinus: 44. 1 n., 51. 1 n, Sp. Postumius Albus: 27. 8, 28. 6, 8, a son of the consul of 466 (3. 2. 1). 25. 8. prolatae in annum: a transparent device to get round the awk­ wardness that nothing was in fact recorded in the annals for this year. The Etruscan assembly at the fanum Voltumnae was hardly an item to be entered in Roman archives. cautum: 5. 1. 3 n. The Lex de Ambitu The Fasti continue to be used as raw material for inventing political struggles. The paucity of actual facts forced annalists to build an elaborate superstructure on the apparent oscillation between consuls and consular tribunes and fit into it any other scraps they could assemble. The law against whitening clothes must be a misinterpreta­ tion of some notice in the annals. The wearing of white clothes by candidates (hence their name; see Casaubon's note on Theophrastus, Characters 10. 14) continued uninterrupted and L. himself—parva nunc res 574

432 B.C.

4- 25. n

—admits that the law does not sound very credible. Steps to combat the abuses of ambitus were only taken seriously in the second century (40. 19. 11; Epit. 47) and the first move is precisely dated to 358 (7. 15. 12). It is more likely that an entry—e.g. album proscriptum—which referred to the censors' compilation (cf. the later album iudicum, album senatorium) has been distorted to provide historical precedents for action against canvassing. If that is right it tends to confirm the historicity of the notice about Mam. Aemilius. For similar distortions cf. 12. 11 n. L. sets the scene for it by describing secret meetings of positively Catilinarian sinisterness. For coetus indicere cf. Cicero, in CatiL 1. 6; for secreta consilia Cicero, ad M. Brutum 2. 3. 5; for ad honorem aditus see 5. 5 n.; for purgare plebem cf., e.g., Cicero, pro Sulla 14, 36, 39; for culpam . . . vertere cf. Verr. 2. 4 9 ; for obsaeptum . . . iter cf. pro Murena 48; for respirare cf. pro Milone 47. 25. 11. sordere: { to be slighted'. It is a good touch for plebeians to use coarse and plebeian language. In this sense sordeo is only found here in L. and only sparingly in other authors. Thus Plautus (Poen. 1179) and Horace in an Epistle (1. n . 4). Virgil, significantly, employs it once in the Eclogues, to achieve a very similar effect (2. 44 sordent tibi munera nostra). 25. 13. petitionis causa liceret: p. liceret causa N. causa is only separated from the noun it governs by pronouns (cf. Plautus, Poen. 551). 25. 14. inritatis animis: for Ver.'s haplography cf. 54. 8 n. 26. 1. causa fuit: there was only one cause. 26. 2. T. Quinctius: 30. 4, 31. 1, 44. 1 n., son of the great dictator. His cognomen Poenus is bizarre. Both Ver. and N agree on it here (cf. 20. 8, 30. 4, 31. 1) so that it is hard to doubt that this was what L. wrote. Poenus could only be Carthaginian' which would be too anachronistic even to be ascribed to him retrospectively. Pennus, on the other hand, a cognomen also of the Julii, would be in line with other names—pennum antiqui acutum dicebant. L. or his source probably con­ verted Pennus into the more familiar and trivial Poenus. et C. Iulius Mento: praenomen is given as rdios by Diodorus 12. 65. 1. Cnaeus was not employed by the gens lulia. The source of the corrup­ tion in N (genus M gneus TTX) can be seen in Ver.'s interpolated genucius en. The cognomen Mento = 'long-chin' (Arnobius 3. 108). He may be a cousin of the mag. equitum L. Iulius (26. 11). 26. 3 . lege sacrata: 7. 41. 4, 9. 39. 5 (Etruscan), 10. 38. 3 (Samnite), 36. 38. 1 (Ligurian): cf. 22. 38. 2. L. alludes to what was manifestly an Italic practice whereby all able men who failed to report for military service were declared sacer. Fighting was a religious duty. See F. Altheim, Lex Sacrata, 11-29. eos: sc. Volsci and Aequi. 575

4. 26. 4

431 B.C.

26. 4. ante: antea Ver., rightly for qaam unqitam antea is invariable (5- 2 3 - 4> 3°- 33- 4> 36. 15. 4) except where alias follows (1. 28. 4, 32.5-8). 26. 6. pravitas: T h e divergence of opinion whether the dictator was elected for political or military reasons reflects the same dichotomy that was seen over the consular tribunate (7. 2). Valerius will again have contained the variant. 26. 7. nee in auctoritate senatus: the process by which Postumius was chosen reflects the constitutional wrangles of the second century. T h e dictator was nominated by a consul on assumption of a state of emergency. W h o decided whether a state of emergency existed was a matter of dispute. By the third century the Senate had arrogated to itself the right to determine this (O'Brien Moore, R.E., Suppl. 6. 755) but refractory consuls endeavoured to defy the Senate (8. 12. g fT.; Per. 19; Suetonius, Tib. 2) and historical 'precedents' such as the present case were no doubt invented and invoked (cf. 56. 8-57. 6). See also A. H. MacDonald, J.R.S. 34 (1944), 16. For the general question of the consuls' relations with the Senate see 1. 17. i - n n. T h e tribunes had, of course, at no time any right to imprison the consuls. The Dictatorship of A. Postumius: the Battle of Algidus Numerous objections have been marshalled against Postumius' famous dictatorship. His office of mag. equitum having come under fire (23. 6 n.), critics have pointed out that while L. and Aulus Gellius (17. 21. 17) date the dictatorship to 431, Diodorus (12. 64. 1) places it in the previous year, 432, which suggests that there was no firm tradition on the date. There is indeed something over-schematic about it. A run of consular tribunes (434-432) including a Postumius gives way to a run of consuls (431-27) including a Julius. W h a t more easy than to devise a bridge which would consist of a dictatorship of a Postumius with a Julius? Moreover, the key incident about Postumius is the killing of his son (29. 5-6) which is duplicated with better authority in the family of the Manlii. But the objections are not even cumulatively sufficient to disprove the tradition. T h e persistence of the legend among the Postumii, particularly since the Postumii Tuberti die out after the fifth century, gives it a strong claim on our beliefs. Moreover, Nilsson has made an attractive suggestion that the importance attached to a soldier's not leaving his rank (although L says praesidio not acie decedit) mirrors the conditions of hoplite warfare where steady discipline was essential (J.R.S. 18 (1928), 4 fT.; cf. Ed. Meyer, Kl. Schriften, 2. 272 n. 1). Such tactics, although adopted by Rome as early as 600 B,G. (see note on 1. 44), underwent revision and modi­ fication in the last half of the fifth century. If falsification and inter576

431 B.C.

4. 26. 11

polation have occurred, it must have happened at a very early date, for the documents from which the Triumphal Fasti were compiled contained a record of the triumph. Ovid describes it and even quotes the day (Fasti 6. 723 fF.; 13 Kal. Quinct). The whole sceptical view is based on a misconception of how the falsification of history was worked. There may be some chronological imprecision, although Diodorus' Fasti for these years are just as wayward as L.'s and are less reliably transmitted, but there are also hard-core facts (e.g. 26. 12 iustitium; 27. 1 ludi magni, and the plain allusion to A. Cornelius as pontifex) which it was in no one's interest to fabricate. Given the plain details of the dictatorship, the legendary encounter with Vettius Messius, and the killing of the son, the historian was not hard pressed to embroider them. The army is expanded into several divisions and the names culled from the neighbouring Fasti to com­ mand them (27. 8-9). The preliminary engagements are given to specific areas without undue regard to geographical probability (27. 3 n.). The whole campaign is then decked out with circumstantial details (e.g. 26. 12, 27. 12, 29. 3, 29. 4). There was little left for L. to add. What he did was to make the engagement one of his Homeric Battles, like Regillus or the Battle with the Etruscans (2. 45-47). The comparison with Regillus is illuminating, for in both battles the lead is taken by a Postumius. The technique is the same throughout— a blend of epic and military language, coupled with loans from Homeric situations (28. 4 n., 28. 5 n., 28. 7 n.). See Burck 99; H. Plathner, Die Schlachtschilderungen, 48. 26. 11. L. Iulius: 16. 8 n. dictus. dilectus: dilectus omitted through haplography by N ; cf. 5. 5. 7 n. For iustitium see 3. 3. 6 n. 26. 12. cognitio vacantium: 3. 69. 7. It is doubtful whether the suspen­ sion of leave figured in the Annales; if it did not, it will be a piece of later colouring (cf. Cicero, Phil. 5. 31) but, even if it did, L. has slightly muddled the facts. In normal times, when a levy was announced the magistrates considered cases for exemption. In a state of emergency (tumultus) no cases were considered and no exemptions granted (vacationibus sublatis; cf. 8. 20. 3). Any person who failed to present himself for service was liable to be arraigned after the emergency to answer for his absence (excusationes; Aul. Gell. 16. 4). In the present crisis the second system is meant. It was not that the cognitio was postponed but rather that the Senate decreed ne vacationes valerent: and those who did absent themselves would be charged subsequently. See Mommsen, Staatsrechty 3. 242 n. 1. 27. 1. A. Cornelio: can only be A. C. Cossus. ludos magnos: 2. 36. 1 n. 814432

577

pp

4- 27- 3

431 B.C.

27. 3 . viderant: Ver.'s videret is due to correction after the loss of n—a common failing (3. 12. 6, 30. 3, 4. 10. 10, 4. 14. 5, 4. 55. 4, 56. 5, 5. 33. 4« 45- 7>5°- 7,53- 0 Tusculo . . . Lanuvio: Lanuvium is separated by the Alban Hills from Tusculum and is nowhere near the site of the battle. Weissenborn conjectured Labico (3. 25. 6) but the names may simply have stood without amplification in the record. 27. 4. planitiem . . .patentem: the language of military reconnaissance, cf. Caesar, B.G. 7. 69. 3, 70. 1, 79. 2. In the description which follows notice the frequent passives characteristic of military communiques (cessatum est, animadvertitur, missum, praeficitur, exploratum fuerat). 27. 7. ope res egebant: the situation was complex, hence the plural. corona vallum cingunt: 19.8,47. 5 ; military jargon again (cf. Aul. Gell. 6. 4. 4) as in Caesar, B.G. 7. 72. 2 ; Bell. Afr. 17. 1, 70. 3 ; Bell. Hisp. I3

' 7' 27. 9. fnoderatu difficilem: moderor of troops 'to manage, control' is only used elsewhere by Caesar (B.G. 7. 75. 1). 27. 12. fumo: cf. Caesar, B.C. 3. 65. 3 'significatione per castella fumo facta ut erat superioris temporis consuetude'. 28. 1. lucescebat: 8. 38. 5, the word is revealing. Widely current in early Latin (Plautus, Amph. 533; Terence, Heaut. 410), it passes from ordinary use. Cicero has it in only one passage, a letter inscribed M. Cicero Imp. S.D. M. Catoni giving a formal and not altogether de­ preciatory account of his governorship in Cilicia and requesting Cato to arrange for a supplicatio. We read (ad Fam. 15. 4. 8 ) ; 'a.d. I I I I Id. Oct., cum advesperasceret, expedito exercitu ita noctu iter feci, ut a.d. I l l Id. Oct. cum lucesceret in A m a n u m ascenderem'. Weissen­ born observes, too, that sub oculis esse is favoured by Caesar, B.G. 5. 16. 1; B.C. 1. 57. 4. eruptionem . . .fecerat: 3. 5. 9; cf. Caesar, B.G. 2. 33. 2; Bell. Hisp. 28. 3 . Vettius Messius: into the blunt narrative of a military engage­ ment is suddenly hurled a heroic figure. His name is authentic enough. Messius is Oscan, a by-form of Mettius as in Mettius Fufetius ( 1 . 2 3 . 4 ) , and Mettius Curtius (1. 12. 2). Vettius is a name in origin native to Picenum but which is widely distributed over Etruria and the Sabine country (cf. the Vettii Sabini of the late Republic; see Gundel, R.E., 'Vettius'). From now on the narrative assumes epic dimensions. Every phrase which Vettius speaks can be paralleled from Homer. 28. 4. indefensi inulti: the striking parataxis, the repeated in-, the sense, all recall Homer's aWdAc/xov /cat dWA/aSa (Iliad 9. 35, 41 et al). in otio . . . segnes: cf. the famous taunt to the Greeks (Iliad 5. 787); atSc6?, ApyetoL, /ca/c'«€A6y^€a, ctSo? ayrjroL. 578

431 B.C.

4. 28. 4

quid hie stantibus: cf. Iliad 4. 243. an deum aliquem: Bayet properly calls attention to the allusion to Aphrodite's rescue of Aeneas in Iliad 5. 311 ff. Cf. 20. 319 ff. ferro via facienda est: a similar phrase is used by Catiline (Sallust 58. 7) ferro iter aperiundum est from which Skard inferred that it was a cliche employed by historians in writing such exhortatory speeches. Cf. also 7. 33. 10, 22. 5. 2, 50. 9, all similar contexts in direct or in­ direct speech. A comparison of Virgil, Aeneid 10. 372, 514, would rather point to a common origin in Epic. 28. 5. qua . . . agite: the usual Homeric request (e.g. Iliad 12. 412). domos . . . liberos: cf. Iliad 5. 688, 17. 27-28. non murus nee vallum: recalling the wall and trench guarding the Greek ships. The argument resembles Polydamas' advice to Hector (/tow/12. 61 ff.). virtute . . . necessitate: cf. the situation and prospects of the Trojans outlined in Iliad 8. 56-57. The cry that necessity is the ultimate incentive early became proverbial: cf. Simonides fr. 542 Page; Sophocles fr. 235 N . ; Plato, Laws 741 a. 28. 7. innititur: 6. 1.4, 9. 16. 19. multa . . . multa: cf. Iliad 15. 314-17. multa . . . caedes: 5. 21. 13, 8. 19. 8, a poetic expression (e.g. Lucan 4. 2, 6. 580; Seneca, Troades 446; Thy. 733). ne duces quidem: three wounded leaders who refused to quit the fight. So Agamemnon, like T. Quinctius wounded in the arm {Iliad 11. 252), Diomede shot like Fabius through the leg (11. 378), and Ulysses with a damaged side and shoulder (11. 437), when the threat to the ships was at its height, came from their tents and rallied the Greeks (14. 113 ff.). Only the Trojan Hector concussed by a boulder retired from the field (14. 409-32). The resemblance is too striking and close to be coincidental. It affords a good example of how details were supplied for legendary battles. 28. 8. unus Sp. Postumius: Harant's supplement Sp. is needed to avoid an intolerable ambiguity. So also Madvig. ictus saxo: 50. 2, 42. 15. 9; ictu saxi (Tan. Faber) is unattested in L. 2 9 . 3 . signum.. .ferunt: the same stratagem is told of Agrippa Menenius (3. 70. i o n . ) . Significantly his colleague was also a T. Quinctius (Capitolinus) so that the stories are no doubt doublets told about a T. Quinctius. variously identified. proruto: 9. 14. 9, 37. 9. 29. 5. tristem memoriam faciunt: related also by Diodorus 12. 64 and Aul. Gell. 17. 21. 17. XinoTagia was punished with almost comparable rigour in Greece; cf. Plato, Laws 943 d. Since Postumius is called severissimi imperii virum (26. 11) which anticipates the story, L. is not here 579

4.29.5

431 B.C.

quoting a variant but expressing reluctance to agree with what he finds in his sources. decesserit: decedo is technical for deserting one's post (Cicero, Cato 7 3 ; 5. 6. 14; 24. 37. 9). dec. and disc, are constantly confused in manuscripts (see Graeger, Thes. Ling. Lat. 'discedo', col. 1275. 56-64). 29. 6. libet. . . licet: 20. 11 n. Cf. also 5. 46. 11, 8. 18. 2. argumento est: namely that the episode told about Postumius is un­ true. Aul. Gell. 1. 13 does indeed cite Postumiana imperia et Manliana but by what may be no more than a garbled recollection of the present passage. T . Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus, cos. 347, executed his son for disobedience on the battlefield (8. 7. 8-22). For a judicious summary of the survival of the Manlian legend see R. G. M . Nisbet, C'QL- 9 (x959)> 73> w n o strengthens the argument for seeing an allusion to it in Horace, Epist. 1.5. 4-6. cum qui: Pettersson would retain quern qui, quern . . . insignem titulum referring to the idea implicit in quod imperia Manliana appellata sunt and the suby fuerit with quern being causal (cf. Kuhnast, Liv. Syntax, 237) 'seeing that the earlier would be bound to secure that notorious name'. Although defensible quern qui seems unreasonably harsh and obscure. 29. 8. Carthaginienses: the passage must be considered with the notes on the foundation of Capua (37. 1-2) and the capture of Cumae (44. 12). All three—the only notes of their kind in the first five books— come from Licinian parts and it is no coincidence that other frag­ ments of Licinius (e.g. fr. 12 P.) deal with south Italian and Sicilian affairs. Prima facie a Carthaginian expedition to Sicily in 431 is not incredible. T r u e there is no reference to it in Thucydides or Diodorus but the situation in Sicily was conducive to Carthaginian interference. T h e seditiones Siculorum in 431 would square well with the Spartan request for ships in the same year to ol raKeivwv iXofxevoi i£ 'TraAta? /cat ZiKeXlas (Thuc. 2. 7. 2 with Gomme's note). Equally a threat of Carthaginian intervention would provide a local background for the renewal of the Athenian alliances with Rhegium and Leontini in 433/2 (Tod 57, 58). If it is true, the expedition came to nothing; the Sicilians closed their ranks and opted for neutrality at the Conference of Gela. T h e passage does not stand alone. T h e two Campanian passages are paralleled in Diodorus: in 445 (12. 31. 1) TO eOvos TWV KafJLTTCLVCOV OVV€OT7) /CCU TaVTTjg

€TL>X€ TTJS TTpOOTjyoplaS

GLTTO T7j£ ap€TTJS

TOV

TrX-qvlov Keifjidvov 7re8iov. That in L. is placed in 423 (37. 1 a campestri agro). In 428 (12. 76. 4) Diodorus notes the capture of Cumae by the Campanians. Again, L. has the same note at a different date (44. 12; 420 B . C ) . It seems impossible to determine which of the two sets of dates is right. Capua was founded by the end of the sixth century. An Etruscan settlement is established archaeologically for that time and Cato (fr. 69 P.) put the foundation c. 480—a figure perhaps forty 580

431 B.C.

4. 29. 8

years too low. But Etruscan control of Campania was weakened by the defeat at Cumae and did not last more than a century (5. 33. 7 n.). There are no external sources to fix exactly when it fell to the Samnites. Nor is there any simple mechanical explanation of the divergence between L. and Diodorus. Diodorus' overall synchronism of Greek and R o m a n dates is admittedly eight years out and so his date of 428 could be reconciled with L.'s of 420 on the assumption that the event has been wrongly transferred from a Greek Olympiad source into a R o m a n eponymous framework but we can hardly eliminate the other discrepancy by supposing that the notices refer to separate events. It still remains true that the gaps are not uniform. T h e archons of 445 and 423 or 428 and 420 bear no resemblance to one another. O n the other hand T . Quinctius Cincinnatus was consul in 428 and consular tribune in 420 (44. i n . ) , where Licinius substituted T.'s brother L. Quinctius; a Sempronius was consular tribune in 444 and another consul in 4 2 3 ; finally, a L. Furius was consul in 432 and his son in 409. But the corresponsion is not quite neat enough to be convincing. T h e decisive factor may be Thucydides' silence. T h e first serious intervention in Sicily since 480 occurred in 409 and continued for twenty years. T h a t is the event which we would expect to be recorded by the words tumprimum auxilium traiecere. If so, however the divergences be explained, L. and Licinius will be found guilty on the first count and the same verdict must follow for the other two Campanian notices. Originally they will have come either from a work like Cato's Origines or from a Greek historian from the west. It was not easy for R o m a n authors writing annalistically to incorporate isolated details where they belonged. See Klotz 277-8; G. Perl, Krit. Untersuchungen, 125-6; J . Heurgon, Histoire . . . de Capoue preromaine, 86 ff. 30. Annalistic Notices T h e material is all derived ultimately from the Annales. For the immediate sources and the chronological perplexities see 23. 1 n. and J.R.S. 48 (1958), 46 where it is argued that 30. 1-11 are from Valerius Antias, 30. 12-16 from Licinius Macer. 30. 1. L. Papirius: 21. 1 n. L. Iulius: 16. 8 n. Cicero gives the consuls the praenomina F. and C. respectively. deditio ostentaretur: 1. 38. 1-2 n. T h e meaning of ostento here is un­ clear. Were the Romans offering, as a counter-claim, that they would receive the Aequi into deditio? Hence the only compromise could be a truce. Andresen's postularetur eases the difficulty. indutias: an eight-year truce should have expired in 422 (or 421, if the present passage, being Valerian, corresponds to 429 on the 581

4- 30.

I

430 B.C.

Licinian lists; cf. 20. 8 n.). But in 35. 2 another truce is made with the Aequi for three years which equally would have permitted hostilities in 421. T h e two truces must therefore be doublets, since there is no mention of the former having lapsed or having been broken in the interim. T h a t may account for the uncertainty in 42. 10 when war was renewed with the Aequi. 30. 3 . legem de multarum aestimatione: the earlier Lex Aternia Tarpeia of 454 B.C., establishing a conversion-rate for fines of 1 ox = 10 sheep = 100 pounds of bronze (asses), was completely overlooked by L. although attested by Cicero (de Rep. 2. 60), Aul. Gellius ( n . 1. 2), and Festus (268 L.,) and although L. himself estimated fines in bronze, not cattle (but see 2. 52. 5 n., 3. 31. 5 n.). Despite the mysterious names of the legislators the law is to be accepted. We know from the explicit testimony of Gaius (Inst. 3. 223) and from a direct quotation from the laws themselves that the Twelve Tables assessed fines in bronze (Aul. Gell. 20. 1. 12; Festus 508 L.). W h a t modification did the Lex Papiria Julia introduce ? Cicero says 'quod censores multis dicendis vim armentorum a privatis in publicum averterant, levis aestumatio pecudum . . . constituta est' which suggests that the rate of conversion was made more favourable for people who wished to pay fines in money. No specific rates are, however, quoted by any authorities and it may be preferable to suppose that the law put an end to the optional payment and laid down that all fines should be paid for the future in money. See Mommsen, Strafrecht, 51. n. 1; Hellebrand, R.E., Suppl. 6, 'multa'. 30. 4 . L. Sergius: 17. 7 n. Hostus Lucretius: the praenomen is given as 'OirLrepos in Diodorus 12. 73. 1, but Hostus (the proper form) is guaranteed by the author of the work de Praenom. 4. nihil dignum: Conway's transposition should not be accepted for the reasons given above on 20. 8. T. Quinctius: 26. 2. 30. 5. Veientes: the following notes seem to derive from an annalistic record and may be taken as evidence that the Annales were fuller and more detailed than many scholars would allow. L. has, of course, supplied motive and colour but the facts are not such as would be invented. In particular the passing reference to Ostia is of interest, since there is no connexion with the corn supply which might have led to its introduction at a later date (Meiggs, Ostia, 566). If they are authentic they refute the theory that the capture of Fidenae in 435 is a mere duplication of the war of 426. It was a tense decade during which Rome was trying to consolidate her grip on Fidenae, the strategic position controlling both the Tiber and the Anio and covering the main routes from Etruria. 582

428 B.C.

4- 30- 6

30. 6. qfuissent: they could not give an adequate reason why they had been absent from Fidenae at the time of the raid and it was presumed that they had gone to assist the Veientes. colonorum additus numerus: L. does not make it clear where the colony was; presumably at Fidenae. Rome put a body of men into the town in order to secure it. There had traditionally been a regal colonization which is now supplemented, ager Us bello interemptorum adsignatus would mean that the land belonging to Fidenates who had been killed when the city was captured in 435, seven years ago, was assigned to the new colonists. The interval of time is puzzling because new owners would have succeeded to the land meanwhile, but the general picture is clear and convincing. Were the iiiviri, Sergius, Servilius, and Aemilius, not investigators as L. believes but iiiviri coloniae deducendae ? They included one consular in L. Sergius (11. 5 n.). It would be a typical misinterpretation of the Annales. 3 0 . 7 . ingenito: only here in L. (ingenuo Tan. Faber (cf. Lucretius 1.230)), but it may be intended to suggest the language of pontifical records. 30. 8. volgatique contactu in: 3. 2. 1 n. 30. 11. datum inde negotium aedilibus: if the plebeian aediles are meant, it might seem at first surprising that they should be given a task of such widespread importance. The religious excesses and the remedies pre­ scribed to meet them are, moreover, closely similar to the famous out­ break of religio, £that feeling of anxiety which took practical shape in the performance of (foreign) rites' (Warde Fowler, Roman Essays, 9), which disturbed the year 213 (25. 1. 6-12). Pais assumed that the one was a throw-back of the other, but the terms of the instruction look authentic. The times were critical. Rome's resources were crippled by a succession of disastrous epidemics. Such conditions are ripe for re­ ligious hysteria and the new cult of Apollo provided the means. The aediles had been entrusted with similar duties of national importance (3- 55- r 3 n-)« If they were responsible for the publication of the Twelve Tables and for the preservation of senatorial records, they would be ideally equipped for overseeing the due observance of religious proprieties. They were, after all, primarily religious officers. Their mission was not to suppress the newly instituted ritus Graecus, the cult of Apollo, but to ensure that the worship did not lead to extravagance and abuse. See Bayet, Histoire . . . de la Religion Romaine, 144 ff.; J. Gage, VApollon Romain, 130-2. 30. 12. C. Servilium: 44. 13 n., 45. 5 n., 47. 7. Whereas the Gapitoline Fasti know of only one person G. Servilius Structus Ahala, Licinius Macer or the libri lintei appear to distinguish a G. Servilius Ahala from a G. Servilius Structus {Prisci Jilius), the son of the dictator who captured Fidenae. See Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 209 f.; Munzer, R.E., 'Servilius (37)'. 583

4. 30- !2

427 B.C.

L. Papirium: if the consulate of 444 is bogus (7. 10-12), Miinzer, Degrassi, and Broughton must be wrong in giving him the filiation C.f. and regarding him as the son of the consul. 30. 13. fetiales: a notice from the Annales; cf. 1. 32. 5 n. 30. 14. indutiae: the conclusion of the truce was not reported in 21-22. iurati: 1. 32. 8 n . 30. 15. populi iussu: the dispute is anachronistic, invented to give historical backing to the people's claims to decide a matter of war and peace which were impugned by the Senate at the end of the second century. Cf. 1. 49. 7 n. Quinctius consul: as at 31. 1 ex consulatu, L. appears to ignore the consulship of Servilius and Papirius. An explanation of this oddity is advanced in 20. 8 n. Diodorus (12. 77. 1) inserts a college (L. Quin­ ctius and A. Sempronius) between 428 and 427. 31. 1. C. Furius: 12. 1 n. M. Postumius: his family relationship is uncertain. It is implied that he did not long outlast his trial in 423 (40. 4 ff.) so that he is unlikely to be the same as the consular tribune of 403 (5. 1.2 n.). 31. 2. Cossus: his praefectura may be no more than a conjecture that since he was elected mag. equitum he cannot have been involved in the defeat at Veii. inutile: 3. 70. 1 n. aperuerant ad occasionem locum: 'ils donnerent a I'ennemi le moyen de trouver une bonne occasion' (Bailiet-Bayet); 'they gave the enemy room to take them at a disadvantage* (Foster). Such elegant renderings convey what must be the sense but can hardly be justified as translations. It would be necessary to supply capiendam or the like with ad occasionem and to understand aperire locum in a sense for which there appears to be no parallel (cf. 33. 5. 12). Despite the spirited defences by Novak and Brakman the text must be abandoned. What L. does say is aperire occasionem (53. 9, 9. 27. 2), and the mere trans­ position of occasionem and ad, proposed by Fiigner, would restore grammar, ad locum might seem too bald by itself 'to the site where they were camped'. If so, we should presume that something has dropped out (L. Herrmann); perhaps invadendum. 31. 4. religio: the consular tribunes cannot have had the auspices and hence lacked the power to name a dictator or to celebrate a triumph. 31. 5. censoria animadversio: 24. 7 n. 31. 6-34. The Second Battle of Fidenae The year 426 was decisive for the history of Rome's expansion north and east and of her mastery of the Tiber. After an unsuccessful 584

426 B.C.

4-31- 6-34

attempt to exercise control over Fidenae by a colony and an equally unsuccessful, if bold and original, attempt to strike at the heart of the enemy by a direct attack on Veii herself, Roman strategy turned now to a blunt offensive against Fidenae with the intention of de­ stroying it for ever. Half-measures were not enough. Its dominating position sealed its fate. Only Romans could be trusted to guard the gateway to central Italy. T h e picture is clear, and an actual quotation from the Annales recording the Battle of Fidenae may be excavated from the text of L. (34. 6 n.). But beyond the fact of the battle, nothing else could be known. L. or his source, Valerius Antias again (32. 3 n.), has incor­ porated three legendary strategems to provide body to their account of a battle which they realized full well to be important: the ignibus armata multitudo (33. 2), the effreni equi (33. 7 n.), and the herding of the Fidenates into the water (33. 10 n.). It is doubtful whether the con­ nexion of any of these episodes with this actual battle was kept alive by tradition or religious ritual. They are, rather, part of the inherited stock of folk-tales. L.'s treatment shows a fine disregard for topographical or military considerations but is fast-moving and full of interest. He has made it, like the first, a heroic combat and introduces a few epic reminiscences to create that impression (33. 4 n., 33. 7 n., 33. 8 n . ) ; he focuses atten­ tion on the psychology of the combatants. T h e scene opens with Aemilius boosting the morale of the Romans and attributing the previous defeat, as always, not to ignavia Romani exercitus but to discordia imperatorum. When battle is joined the R o m a n force is odio accensus and vents its indignation on the impious, treacherous, and unwarlike enemy (32. 12). But they are disconcerted by the apparition of the torch-bearing women. Their nerve fails (33. 2). By a timely exhortation from Aemilius they are shamed into resistance, only to waver again at an unexpected shout (33. 9). T h e Etruscans are, how­ ever, the more terrified so that the Romans duly win. Many minor points escape L. in his concentration on the psychology of the battle. How could the Etruscans, encircled by the Roman pincer-movement, flee over the plain to the river (33. 11)? What is Quinctius doing, pursuing a fleeing column to the city of Fidenae when he is himself situated near the citadel (32. 10, 33. 12 ; see Bayet, tome 4, 57 n. 1.) ? L. evidently cared for none of these things. See Burck 99-100; Bayet Rev. Phil. 12 (1938), 97-119. T h e episode impressed Tacitus who quotes at least twice from it (33. 6 n., 33. 9 n.). 3 1 . 7. ante, ita: 2. 52. 7, 7. 2. 7, 22. 44. 1, 58. 2, 31. 28. 3 ; antea (TT, Weissenborn) only at 39. 36. 10. 3 1 . 9. accito: M, Vorm., and P preserve in various positions the remains of a Nicomachean marginal note hostibus positis ad Fidenas, 585

426 B.C. 4- 3 1 - 9 shown to be a late addition by the use of hostes ponere for castra ponere. For these notes see G. Billanovich, Italia Med. e Uman. 2 (1959), 110-12.

iustitium: 3. 3. 6 n. Freudenberg was probably right to add indictum since the ellipse is unparalleled and the word could easily have dropped out by haplography. 32. 2. ignavia . . . discordia: cf. 46. 1-9; Bruckmann, Rom. Niederlagen, 45sexiens: 32. 5 septimam\ 5. 4. 13 septiens. T h e numeral must then be meant exactly and no notice should be taken of Petrarch's totiens or Klockius's sexcenties. Bayet suggests the defeat by Romulus (1. 15), Tullus Hostilius (1. 27), in 509 (2. 6-7), 477 (2. 51), 475 (2. 53), and 437 (4- r 7 _ I 9 ) D u t other defeats are mentioned in 1. 30. 9, 42. 3, 2. 4 5 - 3 32. 3 . ad Nomentum: in 22. 2. Q,. Servilius won the victory at Nomentum. Two different sources are responsible. 32. 4. priore bello: 19. 1 ff. 32. 11. equestri auxilio: vexillo Tan. Faber, but cf. Bell. Afr. 78. 6. 32. 12. odio accensus: the conventional abuse; cf. 1. 12. 8. 33. 1. cum repente: the TrepnreTeia. 33. 2. ignibus armata: the sudden emergence of a body of women armed with torches is told also about Anglesey (Tacitus, Annals 14. 30. 1) : in modumfuriarum vestuferali crinibus deiectis faces praeferebant. T h e weapon is effective but it may be right to suspect a primitive magical rite at the bottom of the story. So the Bacchanalian matrons cum ardentibusfacibus decurrere ad Tiberim (39. 13. 12). A similar sally is also attributed to the Veientes (5. 7. 2). As with the cuniculus (22. 2 n.) there seems to be a duplication of a story told both about Fidenae and about Veii. fanatico: with cursu. L.'s idiom prefers the plain cursu ruit (9. 13. 2, 33. 8. 7) which led Cornelissen to propose fanatico (furore}. But cf. 39. 13. 12 fanatica iactatione. 33. 3 . incendio similius quam proelio: the left flank was more like the scene of a conflagration than a battle-field. 3 3 . 4. examen apum: the comparison with bees is unexpected and arresting. A sudden swarm was regarded as a prodigy particularly before a battle (21. 46. 2, 24. 10. n , 27. 23. 2) and was indeed one of the famous prodigies that heralded Pompey's defeat at Pharsalia. More to the point is the simile in Virgil, Aeneid 12. 586-90. L., whether or not he is drawing on the same poetic source, uses the simile to capture the epic atmosphere. Cf. Ap. Rhod. 2. 130 ff. exstinguitis . . . inferetis: the sentences are not strictly parallel, the 586

426 B.C.

4- 33- 4

sense being: 'If you will not use swords, then at least use torches'. A future tense is demanded in the second half (Catterall, T.A.P.A. 69 (1938), 3io). 33. 6. mota ad imperium: echoed by Tacitus, Hist. 2. n . 1. 33. 7. frenos . . . detrahant: L.'s words et ipse novat imply that he took this strategem to be an innovation (cf. Florus 1. 5. 3), but Frontinus credits Tarquinius Priscus with a similar brain-wave (2. 8. 10) and it is also told of L. Cominius in 325 (8. 30. 6). As any cavalryman could testify, it would be a singularly futile move. A horse will charge with the greater verve if he has to pull against a firm rein.1 Another myth may be suspected, a myth that arose possibly to account for some very ancient equestrian ceremony such as the Equirria2 or for some training exercise as in the Ludus Troiae. The novice is regularly taught in equestrian schools to ride bareback without reins and to direct the horse by knee-pressure. The lesson imparts poise and control. Young Romans may have been encouraged to undergo the same ordeal on the assurance that it had won great battles in the past. Riding through fire is another recommended discipline. effreno: cf. Statius, Theb. 4. 657, 716. If the text is right the word must be intended to sound poetic, but L. also uses effrenatus (37. 41. 10, 40. 40. 5) and, in the absence of the independent testimony of Ver., effrenato should be considered here too. 33. 8. pulvis: truly Homer's dust (cf., e.g., Iliad n . 151). For lucem aufert cf. Ennius, Trag. 182 V. 33. 9. clamor. . . accidit: echoed by Tacitus, Hist. 4. 29. 2. 33. 10. liberi frenis: 'freed from their reins', but the abl. after liber is hard. In Petronius 124 abruptis ceu liber habenis the abl. is not dependent on liber but abruptis habenis is abl. abs. The received reading liberis frenis 'with slack rein' should be restored to the text, despite the apparent contradiction with 33, 7 where the reins are said to have been removed, liberis frenis is a cliche that would slip unthinkingly off the tongue. Cf., however, Tacitus, Hist. 5. 3 velut frenis exsoluti. Tiberim effusi petunt: Gage (Huit recherches sur les origines, 170-6) has called attention to the curious frequency with which the story of the conquered plunging into the Tiber near Fidenae and being swept down to Rome repeats itself in Roman history (1. 27. n ; 1. 37. 2 ; 5. 38. 8). His more elaborate instances are far-fetched and some of his inferences— e.g. the hypothesis of a ritual descensio Tiberina (cf. Ovid, Fasti 6. 771-84) intended to perpetuate the memory and prevent the recurrence of the Allia disaster—go beyond the evidence. It is, 1

But Mandarin won the 1962 French Grand Steeplechase without a bridle. But not the Transvectio Equorum, depictions of which always show the horse with rein and bit (P. Veyne, R.£.A. 62 (i960), 100-12; cf. R. Egger, Jahr. Oest. Arch. Inst. 18 (1915), 116). 2

587

426 B.C.

4. 33- io

however, permissible to see how one horrific catastrophe (the Allia) left so deep a mark on the Roman memory that it is reproduced more than once in the tradition of her history. petunt: 2. 40. i o n . ; notice the sequence of short sentences with which L. rounds off a stirring narrative. 33. 12. eadem: 'a brisk and unremitted pursuit instantly brought up the Romans by the same route, particularly Quinctius and those who had just now come down with him from the mountains, these being the freshest for action as having come up towards the end of the en­ gagement' (after Baker). 34. 4 . ab equite: collectively as at 1. 36. 2, 2. 20. 12, 10. 41. 11 ;centurio, however, is never so used and Ver.'s centurionis is a pointer that the text was already corrupt in the pre-Nicomachean archetype. Read centurionibus (Weissenborn); cf. 40. 43. 7. Prisoners of war were generally sold into slavery and the proceeds disbursed (6. 13. 6, 7. 27.8, 10. 31. 3) but a similar distribution is recorded by Caesar, E.G. 7. 89. Such fanciful details are characteristic of Valerius Antias. T h e ordinary soldier was presumed to have secured a fair share for himself by his own efforts so that no provision is made for him (cf. 34. 52. 11). See 5. 22. 1 n.

triumphans: the Fasti Triumphales are missing for this year and there is no independent testimony, unless the intriguing entry in the Praenestine Fasti can be invoked {C.I.L. i 2 p. 231). Verrius Flaccus' alter­ native explanation for the phenomenon of a second celebration of the Garmentalia on 15 J a n u a r y runs HIG DIES DIGITUR INSTITUTU[s AB SI FIDENAS EO DIE GEPISSET

T h e name is irrecoverable and there is no certainty that it was M a m . Aemilius. T h e ancients were wholly perplexed by the problems of the etymology and festivals of Garmenta and the explanation is no more than a guess based not on pontifical records but it would seem on the associations of the Porta Garmentalis (2. 49. 8 n.) through which the Fabii marched to the Gremera. T h e supplement remains elusive. See Warde Fowler, Roman Festivals, 290; Pettazzoni, Studi e Materially 17 (1941),

n.

34. 5. sexto decimo: so also Gincinnatus (3. 29. 7). An arbitrary figure, two-thirds of a trinundinum, chosen to suggest the expeditious discharge of his duties. Ver.'s abdicavit is better that abdicat; L. closes a description given in the historic pres. with a perfect (3. 48. 7-49. 8 ; 2. 45. 13-16; 7. 8. 1-4; 10. 33. 1-5). 34. 6. classi: a misunderstanding of the term used to denote those eligible by property qualifications to serve in the army and hence, 588

426 B.C.

4. 34. 6

by a transference, the army itself Gellius (6. 13. 1) and Paulus Festus (100 L.) refer to the distinction between the classici and the infra classem and Gellius also alludes to the classem procinctam . . . id est exercitum armatum (10. 15. 4). T h e entry classi pugnatum in the Annales would simply mean that the full citizen army fought at Fidenae. There is no necessity to infer further that at this date the five-class Ser­ vian Constitution was not yet instituted but only a division between two properties. T h e exact significance of the terms classici and infra classem was obscure to Cato (fi\ 160 M.) and classis and classici could equally well stand collectively for the five classes, while infra classem would be all those who did not have the minimum property qualifica­ tion. See Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 291; Momigliano, Stud. Doc. Hist. Iuris 4 (1938), 5 1 1 ; A. Bernardi, Athenaeum 30 (1952), 22; Staveley, Historia 5 (1956), 79. 34. 7. in maius, utfit, celebrantes: the historian's cynicism; cf. Thucydides 1. 10. 3 ; Sallust, Jug. 73. 5. 35-36. Annalistic Notices: Tribunician Agitation 35. 1. A. Sempronium: 44. 1, 47. 8. L. Quinctium: 16. 7. L. Furium: 44. 1 n. L. Horatium: MS. M.n., son of the great democrat (3. 39. 3 n.). 35. 2. Veientibus: the truce expires in 58. 1 (tempus exierat) after only eighteen years have elapsed. It is likely that the expiry-date was pushed back to allow the necessary preliminaries before the Siege of Veii which convention demanded should last ten years as the Roman Siege of Troy, whereas tradition knew of only eight at the most (Bayet, tome 4, 114 and n. 3 ; J.R.S. 48 (1958), 42). This section must have come from a different source from 58. 1. Equally the truce with the Aequi is a doublet of 30. 1 (n.). L. must therefore have reverted to Licinius Macer, as often, after consulting him for a second opinion (34. 6). 35. 3 . ludi: 2. 36. 1 n. 35. 4. Ap. Claudius: 36. 5, a son of the Decemvir. Sp. Naevius Rutulus: this was probably what L. wrote, although the Naevii are plebeian (35. 6), and the cognomen is never used by them. T h e passage is Licinian and must therefore be treated on the assumption that it derives ultimately from the corrupt libri lintei. Sp. Nautius is presumably intended, a grandson of the consul of 475 (2. 52. 6). T. Sergius: his realpraenomen was L. (17. 7) as in Diodorus 12. 82. 1. Sex. lulius: a younger brother of L. Iulius (16. 8). 35. 4. publice consenserant: it is clear from the context that the Romans have decided, as a matter of public policy, to put on an act of socia589

4. 35- 4

424 B.C.

bility, and therefore the subject of the relative clause must be the Romans and not the visitors to the Games. But to agree on a common policy is not, in Latin, venire ad but consentire ad (cf. Cicero, ad Att. 15. 18. 2) and on this point the archetype of the Nicomachean and non-Nicomachean manuscripts was already corrupt—a corruption which arose from the succeeding advenis and gave birth to the muddled advenis ad. . . of Ver. and advenis . . . adfuit of N. No reconstruction based on venerant will work. M . 's dittography must represent a conjectural gloss ofits own because it does not correspond to anything in Ver. (see C.Q. 7 (1957), 76) and so does not possess any independent validity as an external tradition. It made the correction rightly but this should not have led editors, from Rhenanus to Mommsen and Bayet, to woo its other contributions (consilio publico). 35. 5. contiones seditiosae: L. conjures up the atmosphere of a stormy contio of the 60's or 5o's. It is particularly notable for its blunt speak­ ing and some of the tone and phraseology may derive from Licinius Macer. For adspirare, unique here in L., cf., e.g., Cicero, ad Att. 2 . 2 4 . 3 ; Div. in Caec. 20: the solitary use of a characteristically Ciceronian word is significant; forpericulum . . . emolumentum cf. 5. 4. 4, 44. 20. 2 ; for bello inexpiabili cf. Cicero, de Har. Resp. 4 ; PhiL 13. 2, 14. 8; for expugnatum esse ut cf. Verr. 2. 130. T h e thoughts come equally from the main stream of the rhetorical schools. T h e idea that the prize must be commensurate with the effort was enunciated both by Pericles and by Alcibiades (Thucydides 2. 64, 6. 16), while Dobree {Adv. Critica, 354) observed that the whole passage from mat caecus . . . honoribus fieri is inspired by Demosthenes, Olynth. 3. 13. T h e speech ends on a brutally colloquial note (35. 10 n.). 35. 6. in partem: cf. 7. 22. g. in partem will mean here as elsewhere €v fiep€L Tor one's share' and the order of words demands that it should be taken with revocandam, but, since it is nonsense to claim a share of a hope, revocandi (Madvig) must be read. W h a t the tribunes wanted was the hope that they might share the consulate. T h e corrup­ tion was caused by assimilation with in partem. 35. 8. ut: after postulandum esse. 3 5 . 9. neminem: 'plebeians will no longer despise themselves when they are no longer despised by the world at large'. We expect rather the sense: 'when plebeians cease belittling themselves they will be taken seriously by others'; that is, with T a n . Faber, neminem [se] . . . contemptum iri ubi (se*) contemnere desissent, but the fut. pass. inf. would be intolerable. 35. 10. suggillatos: a vulgar word, lit. 'beat black and blue'. Only here in L. (cf. 43. 14. 5) but its tone can be heard in passages like Petronius 128. 2 or Seneca, Epist. 13. 2. 590

4 2 4 B.C.

4- 35- i °

praebere . . . os: another colloquialism 'to expose myself to5. Cf. Terence, Adelphi 215; Cicero, ad Att. 1. 18. 5. Tacitus creates much the same effect with it {Hist. 3. 31). 36. 2. The tribunes' proposals are no more than an imitation of Gracchan schemes, e.g. the agrarian law of Ti. Gracchus, the laws establishing Carthage and other colonies, and the laws for raising new vectigalia and portoria (C. Gracchus ap. Aul. Gell. n . 10; Veil. Pat. 2. 6. 3). Cicero says that the two Gracchi de plebis Romanae commodis plurimum cogitaverunt {de Leg. Agr. 2. 81). See 2. 41. 3 n. 36. 5. decemviri filium: the official order is given by Ver. and should be compared with 3. 40. 8, 4. 16. 7, 43. 1. It should be preferred to N.'s trivialized filium decemviri (cf. 40. 42. 13). 37. 1. C. Sempronius: a brother of A. (35. 1). Q. Fabius: 47. 8 n., 49. 7 n., Q.f. M.n., a son of the survivor of Cremcra, consul in 467 (3. 1. 1 n.). Volturnum: 29. 8 n. Volturnus with its congeners is a good Etruscan word, deriving from the root of the Etruscan god-name Vel (J. Heurgon, R.£.L. 14 (1936), 109 ff.; Histoire . . . de Capoue preromaine 153 n. 1). The name survived in the Capuan Porta Volturnensis and in the river Volturnus that flowed close at hand. There is no need to reject the tradition but see also next note. Capuam: the etymology provided a happy hunting-ground for ancient scholars: see the full discussion by J. Heurgon, op. cit. 136 ff. There were three main lines of approach. (1) a capite (Polybius ap. Strabo 5. 242) : because it was the head of an Etruscan confederacy. (2) a campo (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 10. 16; Pliny, N.H. 3. 63). Heurgon believes that the etymology originated with Varro but L. shows no other knowledge of Varro's researches so that it is older. It presents such morphological difficulties that the reverse derivation of Campani from Capua is, if anything, easier, although the two are clearly dis­ tinct. The campani are the plain-dwellers, and only by popular etymology became identified with the Capuani, the inhabitants of Capua. (3) a Capye. Of the various claimants, the Alban king (Diodorus 7. 5. 10; D.H. 1. 71; cf. 1. 3. 8) can be ruled out. A Trojan origin is not wholly inconceivable (Anchises' father according to Hegesianax ap. D.H. 1. 73. 3 or Aeneas' cousin according to Coelius Antipater ap. Serv. Dan. ad Aen. 10. 145) but Capys is also an Etruscan name and Heurgon made the enticing suggestion, based on late-sixth-century inscriptions found both at Vulci and at Capua naming a Capys Mucati f. (kape muka0e
4- 37- «

423 B.C.

that the city took its name from the Etruscan gens Capia who played a leading part in its foundation. If so, L. is wrong both in calling Capys the Samnite leader and in saying that Capua succeeded Volturnum as a name. Like many other Etruscan cities it will have enjoyed a double name from the beginning. 37. 2. incolas veteres: a parallel situation prevailed at Naples where the original inhabitants existed as a separate community under the name Palaeopolitani. For the similar fate which may have befallen Pompeii see A. Boethius, The Golden House oj'Nero, 44 n. 38. 37-^2. C. Sempronius and Sex. Tampanius T h e bare facts of C. Sempronius* defeat at Verrugo, of the prosecution of M. Postumius and T . Quinctius and, perhaps, of the prosecution of Sempronius could be grounded in fact and witnessed by the Annales, but the whole story of the battle and of the parts played in it by Sem­ pronius and Tampanius belongs, like the story of Cremera, to family legend. It need not be distrusted on that account. Incidental details are borrowed from that other clades Semproniana, the defeat of Ti. Sempronius at the Trebia in 218 B.C. T h e consul's negligence and foolhardiness, the fatal division of the forces into two groups, the providential escape of the surrounded detachment, all are fore­ shadowed in the later battle (21. 52-54). Furthermore, the dismount­ ing of the cavalry to fight on foot is taken from Cannae (22. 49. 3) and Tampanius' resistance on a small hill is also traditional. Tampanius and his colleagues in the Tribunate were honoured by a memorial independently of the annalistic tradition (42. 1). L. exploits the possibilities of the story. T h e action is confined to two days, the day of the battle and the day of the return, and the contrasts between Sempronius and Tampanius and between the de­ moralized and the confident Volsci are carefully worked out (37. 6, 37. 11). T h e moral is loyalty to one's superiors (41. 7). See Burck 101-2.

37. 3 . his rebus actis: reads awkwardly after Campanian affairs and betrays the change of source. It is a mannerism of L. to begin a new section with hie (1. 1 n.). idibus Decembribus: 3. 6. 1 n. 37. 7'. fortuna ut saepe alias: L. commonly begins a new episode with a moralization (2. 2. 2 n . ) : for the thought here cf. Euripides fr. 432 N . ; Electra 80-81 with Denniston's note, et al. 37. 8. incaute inconsulteque: 7. 15. 9, 25. 18. 2, 44. 41. 9, a Livian pleonasm built on a characteristically military understatement, in­ caute 'with gross negligence'; cf. Bell. Alex. 27. 5 ; Caesar, B.G. 7. 27- iapte locato: military phraseology, cf. Frontinus 2. 3. 21. 592

423 B.C.

4- 37- 9

37. 9. segnius saepe iteratus: (clamor) iteratus incerto clamore prodidit cannot be right (pace Pettersson who would compare 2. 40. 8) but it is less easy to localize the corruption, incerto clamore is Livian and apposite (cf. 10. 36. 3 segnis pugna clamore incerto coepit; 21. 31. 12, 37. 29. 4) so that emendations of clamore (clangore Lipsius; etiam orejac. Gronovius; clarore Seyffert; tenore Sigonius; languore J . F. Gronovius; pavore Gebhard) or deletion of both words (Gruter) start from the wrong premiss. Madvig and Housman felt the corruption to lie in segnius saepe iteratus and asked how a shout could be repeated often more sluggishly. Housman suggested semper or usque for saepe (for the corruption cf. Housman, Juvenal, li ff.; Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 216) but t h a t does not face the original problem of clamor clamore prodidit. clamor iteratus is equally sound (cf. 8. 38. 10). H a r a n t with his flair a n d Stroth with his innate good sense both saw that the damage could be repaired at one stroke by assuming that a word or words h a d fallen out. Neither ut nor quo maiorem quite meet the requirements. Perhaps ita exercitus, punctuating after iteratus. For the repetition clamor .. . clamore see Drakenborch on 1.3.9; Weissenborn on 4 . 6 1 . 8 ; Meyer on 2. 18. 2 ; Poutsma, Mnemosyne 41 (1913), 4 2 0 - 5 ; Pettersson. 37. 10. micare: only here of people, not weapons, by assimilation to urgere; cf. 44. 34. 8. micant gladii is Epic (cf. Lucan 1. 320). nutant. . . galeae: a reminiscence of the nodding plumes in the Iliad (cf, e.g., 3. 337, 11. 42, 15.481, 16. 138). Drakenborch refers to Silius Italicus' imitation of the same feature in 17. 392 ff. applicant: 30. 33. 3. In this sense the word is restricted to high-flown poetry (e.g. Ennius, Trag. 88 V. quo accedam? quo applicem?; Pacuvius, fr. 370 R . ) . L. uses it to evoke such poetry. videre: if the Volsci were not causing the slaughter, how could they be spectators of it? videre is most unexpected, edere was proposed by Jacobs. Cf. 5. 13. 1 1 , 2 1 . 13, 45. 8, 10. 45. 14 (Gries, Constancy, 30). 38. 2. Sex. Tampanius: all historians, dictionaries, and works of reference know him as Sex. Tempanius and yet the name is unique (Mtinzer, R.E., 'Tempanius'). In no literary or epigraphic source from any classical period or region does anyone else figure with an even analogous name. T h a t would be surprising in itself, if one did not stop to ask what authority the form Tempanius rests on. Val. Max., who twice cites his example (3. 2. 8, 6. 5. 2), does not refer to him by name and he is not mentioned by any other author. His name occurs eight times in L. (38. 2, 39. 4, 39. 8, 40. 6 (bis), 4 1 . 1, 9, 42. 1) but Ver. is nowhere extant. Of the Nicomachean manuscripts M has T a m p - three times, H four times, and O throughout. Tampanius should be the original reading of the archetype. As such, it commands belief. There is a large class of T a m p - names of Etruscan (cf. Ta<j>ane in 814432

593

Qq

4- 38. 2

423 B.C.

CLE. 2817) or possibly Volscian (cf. Tafanies; Conway, Italic Dialects, 252) origin. T h e Tampii are known chiefly from Praeneste (CLL. 14. 3264 ff.), which lay on the borders of the two worlds. Now L. does not tell us where the battle was fought (41. 8 n.) but we know from Val. M a x . that it was at Verrugo (1. 4 n.), not far from Praeneste. Cato collected such local legends. decurio: the commander of a squadron of ten troopers. labante: Praef. 9 n. salvam . . . esse: 22. 53. 7. 38. 3. ex equis desilirent: 2. 20. 10 n. cuspidem: 19. 4-6 n. T h e exhortation recalls 28. 5. 38. 4. vadit: 1. 7. 7 n. vi viam faciuni: 22. 5. 2, 50. 9 ; cf. 28. 4 n. T h e unfailing frequency with which readers from Petrarch to Macaulay have been led to remember Virgil's 7** via vi (Aeneid 2. 494; from Ennius) cannot be accidental. 39. 3 . equites nee . . . et consul: for the arrangement of words cf. Praef. 4. tegumen: 1. 20. 4 n. 40. 2. ab dubiis: 'on the part of those who were uncertain'. 40. 3 . conclamaverant: conclamare properly refers to the Roman custom of calling the dead person's name repeatedly to establish the fact of death. It is perhaps so used here, but it can also, as at 1. 58. 12, more freely denote lamentation in general. See Nisbet on Cicero, de Domo vix prae gaudio compotes: the Humanist correction of the manuscript compote must be right since it is the individual who is compos mentis and not the mind itself which is compos. T h e repeated prae gaudio is inelegant, but both seem necessary (1. 14. 4 n . ) : for oblitus prae cf. 1. 29. 3 n. The scene as a whole is one which earlier generations of Romans would have been familiar with (22. 7. 11—14) and which is parodied by Plautus (Epidicus 208-16). For Romans of L.'s day the pomp and spectacle of a returning army might have been greater but the personal concern was much less. 40. 4. occasio: the delay in the prosecution since 426 may have been engineered by the interest of the Quinctii. T . Quinctius' brother was consular tribune in 425. T h e Quinctii and the Postumii are closely related (26. n ; T . Q . had married a Postumius) and the series of setbacks suffered by the Postumii in these years (44. 11 n.) mirrors a real struggle for power among Rome's leading families. 40. 6. C. Iunius: the family being invariably patrician, a Julius can hardly have been a tribune at this date. Mommsen's Iunius can be accepted, although nothing else is known of him. 594

42 3 B.C.

4. 40.6-41. 7

40. 6-41. 7. The Speeches of C Junius and Sex. Tampanius Sex. Tampani: . . . quaero de te: Casaubon acutely observed that this was the technical formula by which an official investigation or quaestio was opened. Gf., e.g., Cicero, in Vatin. 10. A substantially similar investigation is framed at 8. 32. 3-8. T h e observation goes far towards explaining the remarkable character ofJunius' cross-examina­ tion with its succession of eight indirect questions. T h e whole is designed to give the impression of unremitting legal pressure. By con­ trast Tampanius' speech is reported as having been an oratio incompta. We might expect something in colloquial, popular language but that would be improper. L. circumvents this by putting Tampanius' remarks into reported speech. The reader is given the gist by way of a paraphrase which obviated the need for any direct quotation (cf. 2. 32. 8 n . ; Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 44). Some contrast of style is, however, achieved by the simplicity of Tampanius' sentences, short and blunt, with the minimum of subordination (cf, e.g., 4 1 . 5 postea . . . iamen instead of postquam) where Junius is involved and intricate. T h e word-order also is effective, e.g. 4 1 . 4 vidisse; 4 1 . 5 exercitus ubi esset se nescire; arbitrari. 4 1 . 2. comitiis: cf. 26. 2. 9. 4 1 . 3 . pensitanda quoque: only men of ability are capable of command­ ing armies and initiating operations and only men of ability also should be called to judge the results, pensitanda (sc. consilia) is in opposi­ tion to ineunda understood, quoque cannot be taken with magnis (56. 13 n.) and there is no need to transpose magnis quoque (Reiz, H a u p t ) . 4 1 . 7. dimissum: sc. esse but an ace. and inf. can hardly stand by itself after dicitur in 41. 1 when the speech has just been completed. T h e syntax would demand that precantem . . . dimissum should be on the same footing as implesse and be part of the reported speech. As Petrarch saw, who added accipio, some other main verb governing dimissum must have fallen out. There is nothing to choose between ferunt and tradunt both conjectured by Doujat. T h e active dimittunt (Harant) is too unceremonious. 4 1 . 8. fanum Quietis: the site has not been found. A deified abstract at so early a date is unlikely and Latte (Religionsgeschichte, 130, 239 n. 4) is perhaps right to identify the cult with Volcanus Quietus (C.I.L. 6. 8 0 1 ; cf. Mulciber)—the power of the god. Augustine {Civ. Dei 4. 16) refers to a temple of Quies extra portam Collinam but this is probably distinct. Neither is elsewhere mentioned. alia: 5. 35. 1 n. 4 1 . 10. decern milibus: 2. 52. 5 n. T h e figure is apocryphal, and trial before the tribal assembly may be as well (2. 35. 5 n., 52. 3 n.) but Postumius was convicted. 595

4. 41- "

42

3 B.C.

4 1 . 1 1 . totam culpam . . . temporis: 'the collective guilt'; cf. Cicero, in Catil. 2. 3 ; Cato 7 ; Pliny, Epist. 8. 11. 2. 4 1 . 12. Capitolinus: coupled with his brother Cincinnatus as at 3- 35- 9- Since he was consul for the first time in 471, a sporting esti­ mate would put his age at eighty. His intervention is mere Quinctian propaganda, as dicitur betrays. See also next note. tristem nuntium: the deceased as messengers from the living to the dead is an idea wholly repugnant to Roman eschatology. It is, how­ ever, at home in Greek thought and Weissenborn aptly compared Homer, Iliad 13. 414-16. T h e Hellenic nature of Capitolinus' plea shows that it goes no farther back than the third century at the most and is part and parcel of the Quinctian improvement of history. 42. 1. M. Asellium, Ti. Antistium, Ti. Spurillium: Mommsen's correc­ tion of the unbalanced Sex. Tampanium, Asellium et Antistium et Spuril­ lium is a start: the name, Ti. Antistium, is given by the inscription quoted below. In themselves the names do not occasion doubt. Asellius or Asilius, a diminutive of Asinius (Schulze 129), is frequent among the Marrucini but, being Oscan or Sabine in origin, is not confined to them. A branch of the family could easily have come to Rome with the Claudii or before, although otherwise they are not known before the first century B.C. Spurillius, a diminutive of the Etruscan Spurinna (Schulze 95) is well attested in Tarquinii and Ameria (C.I.L. 11. 3487, 4527 ff.) but is not known at R o m e before the Empire unless the moneyer A. SPVRI (c. 130 B.C.; Sydenham no. 448) held the name. If, however, he is the double of Sex."f Pollius in 44. 2 (n.), the correction et Sp. Pullium is easier than Mommsen's as printed in modern texts (for et closing an enumeration of more than two members see Kuhnast, Liv. Syntax, 286). Antistius, also Etruscan, cognate with Atinius (Schulze 124 n. 2), is better documented (cf. the Antistius Petron at Gabii in regal times). There is a L. Antistius, consular tribune in 379 (6. 30. 2), who could be a lineal descendant and another L. Antestius, with the cognomen Gragulus, a moneyer in the period 135-126 (Syden­ ham no. 451), was the first of several of his name. Yet, even if the names are genuine, how were they remembered? They did not do anything to effect an entry in the Annales nor is there any presump­ tion that the names of tribunes figured annually in the lists of magis­ trates. T h e lapidary character of the final judgement on them (42. 9 nee pietas . . .fuit) recalls the perpetuation of the four ambassadors to Fidenae (17. 2 n.). A commemorative statue-group which survived long enough to familiarize generations with their names might account for the oddity. T h e Fidenae parallel would suggest that pietas would not be sufficient to earn a statue but that the true reason was replaced by an aetiological myth when the statues themselves no longer sur596

422 B.C.

4. 42. 1

vived to witness to the truth. T h e queer tradition that the equites had m a d e them acting centurions (42. 1) must go back to some substantial fact. 42. 2. L. Manlius Capitolinus: cf. 5. 31. 2 M. Manlio cut Capitolino postea fait cognomen. H e was a brother of the consul of 434 (23. 1 n.). Q.Antonius: 3. 35. 11 n. L. Papirius: 30. 12 n, 42. 3 . L. Hortensius: no other Hortensii are known before the dictator of 287. Moreover, the name is Italian, not Etruscan, in origin (Schulze 177); cf. the town of Urvinum Hortense in Umbria or the cult of Juppiter Hortensis in Campania. A later, fourth century arrival of the Hortensii in Rome must be postulated and L. Hortensius be dismissed as a pleasing myth to give background to the union of the Sempronii and Hortensii, comsummated by the marriage of Sempronia, d. of the consul of 129, with L. Hortensius the father of Cicero's rival (Pais, Storia, 1. 614). This accounts for the highly rhetorical and contrived nature of the interchanges between him and his colleagues, which have the stamp of late Republican oratory (42. 5 n., 42. 6 n.). 42. 5. fidens innocentiae: cf. ad Herennium 2. 8; Cicero, pro Sex. Roscio 73delituisse: cf. Cicero,/?. Red. in Sen. 3. 42. 6. erepturi. . .eversuri: cf. Cicero, pro Quinctio 87; Verr. 1. 114: Sallust, Or. Lep. 23. 42. 7. parentis . . . loco: 2. 60. 3 n. 42. 8. C. Sempronium nihil motor: the technical formula for abandoning a prosecution (8. 35. 8, 10. 18. 13, 43. 16. 16). Cf. 3. 54. 3-4 n. 42. 10. Aequis: the Aequi did not engage at all in the war and the Volsci, so far from winning an ambiguous victory, had considerably the worse of the fight. T h e clumsiness betrays change to a source which had a different account of the events, including the participation of the Aequi (41. 8 n.), and which knew of a different expiry-time of the Aequan truce (30. 1 n., 35. 2 n.). L. now reverts to Licinius Macer whom he follows up to 57. 6. 43-47. Annalistic Notices: Military Operations 421-416 B.C. L. makes only a token attempt to unite a series of essentially disparate scraps into a coherent whole by repeating at intervals the theme that the interest of one is the interest of all (43. 11, 44. 5, 44. 9), a theme summed up by Servilius Ahala at the end of the book (57. 3 ) : quern enim bonum civem secernere sua a publicis consiliis? L. emphasizes through­ out the need for moderatio. See Burck 102-4; Hellmann, LiviusInterpretationen, 74-77. 4 3 . 1. Cn. Fabio Vibulano: the praenomen is given by the Capitoline Fasti as Num(erius), but N both here a n d at 49. 1, 57. 12, 58. 6, gives 597

421 B.C. 4- 43- i either en. or its corruption m. and in the last place, where alone it survives, Ver. also agrees. T h e weight of evidence, therefore, points to Cn. as having been the praenomen in L. and it should be restored. It is not accidental that it is also historically more credible. T h e antiquarians (Auct. de Praen. 6 ; Festus 174 L.) explained the name Numerius, which was employed by the Fabii Pictores and Buteones only, as having been accepted by the survivor of Cremera as a condi­ tion of marriage with the daughter of a Samnite, Num. Otacilius of Maleventum. Contact with the Samnites only began in the fourth century so that the whole explanation is a pious fraud, probably no older than the researches of Varro, while L. as so often reaches back to an older tradition. See Munzer, Rom. Adelsparteien, 7 1 ; Doer, Die JVamenbegung, 32. dignum memoratu: 25. 1. 5, a variation on the regular dignum memoria (cf., e.g., Cicero, pro Sestio 14; see Wolfflin, Archiv Lat. Lex. 13 (1904), 191). Strictly a solecism, it is formed by influence of the common dictu, factu facile, and the like. 4 3 . 2. ovans: 2. 16. 1 n. 4 3 . 3 . duplicando quaestorum numero: 2. 41. 11 n., 3. 24. 3 n., 69. 8 n. Tacitus (Annals 11. 22) writes that the dual quaestorship was first made a regular elective magistracy in 446, and continues: dein gliscentibus negotiis duo additi qui Romae curarent. His evidence does not conflict with L. T h e quaestor was in origin an ad hoc assistant to the king or consul, in particular for the investigation of parricidium. In the Twelve Tables the office was recognized and defined as quaestores parricidii, the addition of parricidii at once limiting their scope and showing that they were not permanent magistrates but special com­ missioners, appointed as need arose. T h e need for assistants to the consuls in other fields still remained, if anything the greater as Rome's commitments increased, and a logical consequence of the overhaul of the Roman constitution by Valerius and Horatius in 449 was the establishment in 446 of a parallel but separate pair of quaestores% regular magistrates charged above all with the control of military expenditure. Twenty-five years is ample time for the tasks of govern­ ment to have proliferated to such an extent that a further pair are required. T h e growth of the quaestorship should be compared with the gradual rise in the number of consular tribunes from three to six. Both mirror Rome's expanding horizon. In addition to bibliography cited on 2. 41. 11 see here de Martino, Storia della Costituzione, 1.231 ff.; U. Coli, Studi Paoli, 191. T h e agitation for plebeian entry to the quaestorship, on the other hand, is pure fabrication, in keeping with the 'political' explanation of the consular tribunate. 4 3 . 4. quaestores duo qui: it is clear that the archetype in this section was severely damaged or maltreated. An even more intractable corrup598

421 B.C.

4. 43. 4

tion disfigures the text below (43. 5 n.) and the mistaken repetition of a consulibus after adprobassent hints at deep trouble. T h e present passage, as it stands, could only be interpreted on the very strained assumption that qui is the equivalent of ut (so Pettersson), 'Now this proposal, namely two quaestors in addition to the two urban quaestors to be assistants to the consuls in war'. T h e apposition and the un­ paralleled word-order force the conclusion that some words have dropped out which expressly stated the nature of the proposal. W h a t the words were can only be conjectured but conjectures should be governed by two considerations, the length of line in the archetype of N (probably 16-18 letters; cf. 4. 25. 4, 5. 46. 4, 53. 1) and the probability that the words were consecutive. Such considerations would rule out the supplements of Weissenborn and Conway. Perhaps the easiest restoration would be praeter duos urbanos (ut alii crearentur) quaestores duo, ut crearentur is too short. 4 3 . 5. summa ope [ad]nisi sunt: political journalese; Sallust, CatiL 1. 1, 38. 2 ; Jug. 9. 2, 25. 2, 31. 17. For the text see next note. usi sunt adaeque: T h e sense is clear. T h e people are to be allowed the same freedom of choice in electing quaestors that they enjoy in electing consular tribunes. But the text is impossible, adaeque is only Plautine before L.; usi sunt sc. arbitrio, while linguistically suitable (cf., e.g., Pomponius, Dig. 43. 16. 12), is the wrong tense. Various remedies have been prescribed: [usi sunt] adaeque Gruter, Lallemand, Crevier, Bayet; sissent adaequari Seyffert; ius sissent adaequari H. J. Miiller; ius esset adaequatum ita Zingerle; ius adaequassent ita Novak; [usi sunt adaeque] Madvig (Emendationes, 104 'quamquam malis: ita'). It is not, however, noticed, I think, that in the preceding sentence adnisi sunt is unexpected for nisi sunt and the singularity is the more out of keeping when L. is trying to capture the atmosphere of the R e ­ public where summa ope niti was a cliche (see above). I would suggest that usi sunt ad is the remains of a marginal or interlinear correc­ tion of ad-nisi sunt and that the right reading in the sentence before is nisi sunt and here ut quemadmodum in tribunis . . . creandis, aeque in quaestoribus liberum esset arbitrium. 43. 6. agrariae legis: 2. 41. 3 n. 4 3 . 7. coire . . . prohibebant: 3. 8. 2 n. T h e tribunes did not have the right to prevent the patricians assembling to appoint an interrex. It is a tendentious anticipation of the tribunician vetoing of senatus consulta de patriciis convocandis. The memory of mere intimidation would not survive and the picture of a long succession of interregna is exaggerated (3. 6. 1 n.). We cannot recover the true reason for the interregnum. 4 3 . 9. Papirius: 30. 12 n. His indignant plea is couched in terms which any senator might have used during the crisis of 52 B.C. For deorum . . . 599

4- 43- 9

4 2 1 B.C.

curaque cf, e.g., Cicero, pro Milone 8 5 ; for increpet 'arise 5 cf. in Pis. 994 3 . 11. mediis copularent concordiam: 'dans un juste milieu conclure un accord' (Baillet) but there are misgivings. L. elsewhere employs only the neuter singular of medius as a substantive (26. 2 1 . 4 medium visum ut ovans urbem iniret; 31. 13. 6) and the phrase copulate concordiam is scarcely paralleled by Cicero's conglutinatam concordiam [ad Att. 1. 17. 10). Fronto says amicos amore copulare (54. 2 van den Hout) and Apuleius iugales ad concordiam copulat (Mund. 30), both, that is, making the object of copulare people and not the concord in which people are bound. But the sense is right, and, if the plural mediis can be justified by the preceding quisque, Fronto's amicitiae copulandae (170. 3) may justify the rest. Cf. also Cicero, ad Fam. 3. 4. 2. 44. 1. L. Quinctius Cincinnatus tertium: 16. 7 (438), 35. 1 (425). The Capitoline Fasti, for whatever motive, had a different version from the libri lintei. T h e entry ]Cincinnatus II points to his brother, T . Quinctius, who was consular tribune in 426 (31. 1). Sex. Furius Medullinus iterum: the Capitonine Fasti have [Me]dullinus III. L. Furius M. had been consular tribune in 432 (25. 5) and 425, but the combination of a different praenomen and a different number in L. suggests that the text is right and that the libri lintei knew of two Furii, Lucius and Sextus. M. Manlius: either a grandson of the consul of 474 (2. 54. 1 n.) or, if the latter be identical with the Decemvir, a son. T h e late chronographers give his cognomen as Vulso. See Munzer, R.E., 'Manlius (96)'. A. Sempronius: 35. 1. For the whole college see Broughton; Degrassi 96. 44. 2. Antisti: T h e conviction of C. Sempronius, if not the amount of the fine, may well be historical, for the prosecution of Postumia cer­ tainly is and the Postumii and the Sempronii, closely linked by marriage as they were, came under heavy fire during this decade. T h e attacks may have been motivated by personal jealousies and family rivalries or may reflect a deeper split in policy between the aggressive Postumii, who saw that Rome's security lay in the conquest of Fidenae and the expansion of the frontiers, and the more timorous Furii and Manlii. However that may be, it is remarkable that an Antistius should crop up as a prosecutor of C. Sempronius so soon after another Antistius had resolutely thwarted any prosecution. T h e two can hardly be unconnected. O n this occasion Antistius' ally is a brother of another tribune whose name is given in the manuscripts as Sex. Pollius (see below). He may be related to the equally corrupt Spurillius of 42. 1 (n.). His other ally, M. Canuleius, is a wraith of a more distinguished namesake. There is, therefore, some suspicion that 600

420 B.C.

4.44. 2

the three colleagues of Sex. Tampanius in 422 are a duplication of the three tribunes of 420. W h a t part the interpolation of L. Hortensius as prosecutor or a desire to bring the prosecution of Sempronius into closer connexion with his defeat played in the distortion of the facts is impossible to determine, but 420 has the balance of probability in its favour as the true date of Sempronius 5 conviction. And it gains support from a tantalizing inscription on a curved base (C./.L. i>, p . 5 5 ) : X I I I EST A T I . A N T I S T I O T I . F. C[ M e J N E N I O A G R I P P A L V C R E T I O T[ricipitino Nautio Rutilo Servilio Axilla trib.] M I L C O N S V L A R I P O T E S T A [ t e Anno post R o m a m conJDIT C C C X X X I I I I P O S T [reges exactos lxxxxi T h e lettering, the mistaken writing of Agrippa as a cognomen and the absence of praenomina all point to an early imperial date. T h e inscrip­ tion was found, according to Visconti, near the third milestone on the Via Appia but the provenance is not wholly certain. It must be the renewal of an inscription recording the construction or restoration of a monument. In any event it shows that other sources placed Antistius' activities in 420-19. T o sum up, it seems probable that A. (Luterbacher's addition: a praenomen is needed to balance Sex.) Antistius, Sex. Pollius, and M. Canuleius are Ti. Antistius, Spurius Pullius, and M. Asellius in disguise. T h e latter were commemorated, perhaps by a monument, with Sex. Tampanius and their prosecution of C. Sem­ pronius was recorded in the Annales. It became necessary to duplicate them when the edifying story of Tampanius' loyalty to Sempronius made it incredible that Tampanius' colleagues could have been re­ sponsible for the consul's conviction. Hence L. Hortensius; and hence the appearance of three new tribunes (Antistius, Pollius, Canuleius) to conduct the case when it actually occurred in 420. Sex."\ Polli: Pompili (TT) has no authority as a reading. T h e nearest, since Pollius is patrician, would be Pullius—the two are constantly confused in literary and epigraphic texts—a name which occurs fre­ quently at Praeneste (C.I.L. i 2 . 251-5) and was the name of a cele­ brated tr. pi. who prosecuted P. Claudius Pulcher for perduellio in 248. Spurillius, although not in itself impossible, would be an easy telescoping of Spurius Pullius (42. i n . ) . Pompilius which is univer­ sally and unreflectingly accepted by editors would be odd. No Pom­ pilius is known between N u m a and Catiline's friend ( Q . Cicero, Comm. Pet. 10); see 2. 42. 10 n. nobilitate praeferrent: anachronistic because it implies the later cursus honorum, the first stage of which was the quaestorship. 601

4- 44- 4

420 B.C.

44. 4. quidnam id rex esset\ quod: there are two difficulties: the subjunc­ tive esset and the intrusive quod, id. . . quod cannot mean 'the fact that (not even a single quaestor had been elected)', as at 5. 21. 7, since that would require a nominative (tribunus . . . quaestor) and a subjunc­ tive in or. obi. (foetus esset). T o delete it would be simple and parallels are forthcoming (2. 32. 10), but esset has still to be treated. As Gronovius observed, in or. obi. quidnam . . . esse is required, and furere only governs an ace. and inf. or a quod-c\a.use. We should either read quidnam . . . esse [quod] or, better, quidnam . . . esset quaerere; cf. 3. 4. 5 quaererent quid rei esset; 3. 50. 4. non: 'their own services, their father's wrongs, even the love of exercising a (new) right did not avail to secure the election of even a single plebeian', ius must be inserted before usurpandi (Karsten), which otherwise is left undefined. For the expression cf. 3. 5, 3. 71. 7, 5. 12. 9, 27. 8. 9 ; Tacitus, Hist. 4. 2 5 : see Nisbet on Cicero, de Domo 44. 7. de agris dividendis: 2. 41. 3 n. C. Sempronius: meets the situation with the fortitude and the phraseo­ logy of a Cicero defending his part in the Catiline crisis. For invidiae obici maluit cf, e.g., pro Murena 87; for subiturum . . . tempestatem cf. in Catil. 2. 15; for in parcendo . . .fiat cf. Verr. 3. 208. 44. 9. nee turn: nee nunc in direct speech, the equivalent of nee iam (Ruperti). Their latest agrarian proposal showed that they were not now interested in the welfare of the plebs but only in the downfall of Sempronius. 44. 10. quindecim: 2. 52. 5 n. 44. 1 1 . Postumia: 2. 42. 11 n. T h e record is pontifical and reliable. Postumia, the sister of that Postumia who married T. Quinctius (26. 11), was the victim of the same hostility which assailed C. Sem­ pronius and her brother M . Postumius. Plutarch, who also reports the case (ex Inim. Util. 6), adds that the pontifex maximus was Sp. Minucius. T h e detail is suspicious, suggesting, as it does, that the bare record has been worked up in the light of the case of 337 B.C. (8. 15. 7 flf.). T h e reference to ampliatio, the procedure whereby a case was automatically adjourned for a fresh hearing if more than a certain proportion of the jury voted Non Liquet, is anachronistic. It was peculiar to the jurisdiction of the quaestiones, which were only instituted in 147, and Balsdon has the weight of evidence on his side in claiming it as an innovation made during C. Gracchus' tribunate (P.B.S.R 1 (1938), 108-14; but see Tibilletti, Athenaeum 31 (1953), 20 flf.). For the working of the procedure see Greenidge, Legal Procedure, 499 flf. For the truth of the notice see Munzer, Philologus 92 (1937), 56-67; Koch, Religio, 2-5. 602

420 B.C.

4. 44. 11

crimine innoxia, ab suspicione . . . abhorrens: Gronovius' correction is uncontroversial (ob suspicionem N ; criminis obnoxia suspicioni L. Valla, Ruhnken). Postumia was innocent (Plutarch KaBapd rrjs curias). 44. 12. colt sancte: colere s. normally means 'to cherish devotedly' (Propertius 2. 26. 26; Cicero, adFam. 10. 1 . 3 ; Seneca, Epist. 94. 26). Here rather 'to dress soberly'. Cumae: 29. 8 n., 37. 1 n. 44. 13. Menenius: 13. 6. Lucretius: 47. 7, Hosti f, son of the consul of 429 (30. 4). Sp. Nautium: 47. 8, 52. 4 n., 61. 4 n., Sp.f. Sp.n., a son of the consular tribune of 424 (35. 4 but see note). As at 47. 8 (n.), one name is missing. T h e Capitoline Fasti add C. Servilius (Q,.f. C.n. Axilla). T h e omission might be due to inadvertence or corruption, but it is probable that L.'s source was defective, the more so since that source was ultimately the libri lintei (J.R.S. 48 (1958), 45). 45. 1. annus . . . insignis: as Fugner demonstrates, the apposition is intolerable. Insert fuit between annus and felicitate, putting a strong stop after Rutilum. coniurarunt: with ut (27. 3. 4, 39. 14. 8), a construction avoided by Cicero and Caesar, but used by Bell. Hisp. 26. 2, 36. 4. T h e allusion to Juppiter preventing the sacrilege is not a personal confession of belief in divine intervention by L. himself (Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy, 26) but represents an adaptation of an entry in the Annales referring to the preservation of the temple of Juppiter Capitolinus. For a similar notice concerning the Capitol cf. 3. 18. 10. T h e rewards seem over-schematic (2. 52. 5 n.) and would not at this date have been paid from the aerarium. 45. 4. anniversariis 13. 10. 8. T h e Aequi had only recently resumed the practice (42. 10). 45. 5. Sergium: 17. 7. Papirium: 47. 8, 52. 4, a son of the consul of 427 (30. 12 n.). C. Servilium Prisci filium: 30. 12 n. The libri lintei distinguished him from C. Servilius Ahala, giving him the cognomen Structus and allotting Ahala a consulate in 427, and Structus two consecutive consular tribunates (47. 7 C. Servilio Structo iterum). Since they omitted the Servilius of 419 (44. 13 n.), it is impossible to know whether they would have made him Structus or Ahala or what the real truth was. For the long-lived father, Q . Servilius Priscus, see 21. 10 n. 45. 6. Algido: 3. 2. 6 n. 45. 8. Q. Servilius: his interventions were legendary, multiplying from a single timeless anecdote. T h e situation in 418 is akin to that in 431 when he had also stepped in to solve the deadlock brought about by the disagreement of the consuls (26. 7; cf. 46. 4). Here the disagreement 603

4- 45- 8

418 B.C.

is a tendentious fabrication to provide an explanation for the system of rotating command alternis diebus (46. 3). 46. 1. decern tribus \ as there were twenty-one tribes (2. 21. 7 n.), the unit often tribes bears the same relationship to the whole tribal body as, under the later Republic, the assembly of seventeen tribes did to the comitia tributa of the thirty-five. In classical times enrolment was by tribes (Polybius 6. 19. 5 with Walbank's note) but if there is any truth in the Servian constitution it must originally have been based on centuries and the centuriate organization. When the change occurred is disputed. Gabba {Athenaeum 29 (1951), 251-5) has argued that it was introduced to meet the crisis of a tumultus and became normal under the pressure of the First Punic War. He would regard the present occasion as just such a tumultus, perhaps the first on which tribal enrolment was employed. One other early case is known—275 (Val. Max. 6. 3. 4)—but that differs significantly in that although it seems to have been a tumultus {subito edicere coactus), enrolment is not said to have been from a minority of the tribes. Now it is hard to believe that the crisis of 418 was so severe as to necessitate such drastic innovations. An explanation may be sought in the peculiarity of the quasi-comitia of ten tribes. Cicero leaves no doubt (de Lege Agr. 2. 16-22) that the minority assembly was only used for the election of the pontifex maximus. When it was instituted we are not told but it was already in operation in 212 (25. 5. 2 - 4 ; see L. R. Taylor, Class, Phil, 37 (1942), 421). I would believe this to be a garbled account of an earlier pontifical election which has been misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued to supply the stuff of history. T h e last pontifex maximus was A. Cornelius Cossus (27. 1), for Plutarch's Sp. Minucius (44.11 n.) is interpolated from 337. T h e next known was M . Folius Flaccinator, consular tribune in 433, who was put to death by the Gauls in 390 (5. 41. 3). Cossus' death is unknown but nothing is heard of him after 426 (33. 7-8, 34. 4-5). An election in 418 would be appropriate. 46. 2. contemnere . . . contemni: an unusual way of expressing re­ ciprocity, for alter alterum contemnere (cf. Catullus 45. 20 amant, amantur; see Wackernagel, Vorlesungen, 2. 97). T h e effect of it coming after the preceding pairs {nihil sentire, pro sententia pugnare; sua consilia, sua imperia) is to throw into sharp relief the gulf dividing the two men. 46. 5. simulato: cf. Romulus' ruse (1. 14. 9). 46. 9. minores magistratus: i.e. the aediles and quaestors. T h e aediles were similarly charged according to tradition in 463 (3. 6. 9 n.). T h e present measures are probably equally anachronistic. Q. Servilius Priscus: N had Sulpicius for Servilius, who would only be Q . Sulpicius Camerinus, cos. 434 (4. 23. 1), but the cognomen Priscus, and the mention of his foresight, and the allusion to his son 604

418 B.C.

4. 46. 9

who was evidently a Servilius to judge by the emphatic word-order Ahalam Servilium (23. 1 n.), show that the correction to Servilius is safe. 46. 1 1 . Jilio suo: 45. 5 n., i.e. G. Servilius Structus, who was consular tribune and praefectus urbi at the time. 47. 2. signiferum: a traditional strategem, praised by Frontinus 2. 8. 8 who attributes it also to Gamillus (2. 8. 4). Gf. 3. 70. i o n . 47. 3 . brevior tempore: 'shorter in point of time and less fiercely con­ tested', breviore tempore (N) cannot be construed and brevior et tempore (for et brevior tempore) produces a possible (cf. Praef. 4 ; 44. 26. 1) but unnecessarily affected 'inconcinnitas'. T h e mistake arose from assimila­ tion of endings (3. 1.4 n.). 47. 4. victos: it would be a futile message to report that all the Labicani were defeated (victos sc. esse) since the dictator knew that and the implication from the fact that all the defeated Labicani had fled to Labici must either be the trivial observation that some were dead or the startling counterfactual that some were still fighting. As earlier editors saw (Crevier, Doering, Morstadt), the word is a dittography after La-vicanos. If it is retained, it can only be defended as a careless­ ness such as L. is liable to when he is hurrying over uncongenial material (cf. the perfunctory repetition of captum ac direptum in 47. 4 and 5 ; see 1. 14. 4 n.). 47. 6. die octavo: 3. 29. 7 n., 4. 34. 5 n. censuit frequens: probably means 'voted in a well-attended meeting' (cf. Cicero, ad Fam. 8 . 5 . 3 ; Sallust, Catil. 50. 3 ) but since in the later Republic the term 'frequens senatus' was also used technically for a meeting of the senate at which a quorum was required and, since a 'frequens senatus 5 in this sense was summoned to consider the voting of supplicationes as well as provincial arrangements (details in Balsdon, J.R.S. 47 (1957), 19-20), the expression may be used strictly here. Servilius' victories at least deserved to be considered for a supplicatio. coloniam Labicos deducendam: 2. 39. 4 n. T h e capture of Labici and its colonization are the only genuine events of the whole year, with the possible exception of the obscure decern tribus (46. 1 n.). For the com­ position of the colony see 5. 24. 4 n. and its subsequent fate 6. 21. 9, 7. 11. 3 ; Cicero, pro Plane. 23. 47. 7. bina iugera: the usual figure; cf. 5. 24. 4, 30. 8, 6. 36. 11, 8. 11. 14, 21. 11. It is not sufficient to support afamilia (30 iugera is specified in the Lex Agraria of 111 B.C. and is the minimum viable unit today) and must represent the settler's heredium, the land he was given as his home where his penates could reside rather than the total amount of land which was his to work (Clerici, Economia e Finanza, 272-81). T h e iugera allocated from Veii may represent grants to groups otfamiliae. 605

4- 47- 7

417 B.C. 47. 7-49. 6. Annalistic Notices: Ap. Claudius

Into a h u m d r u m sequence of official records, magistrates, floods (49. 2), and wars (49. 3-6 Bolae) is inserted the story of Ap. Claudius defeating the proposals of Maecilius and Metilius by an ancestral device. Great doubt attaches to the story. Claudius, the consular tri­ bune of 403 (5. 1. 2 n.), is not otherwise prominent and Metilius (48. 1 n.) is spurious. See Burck 105. Menenio: 13. 6. Servilio: 45. 5 n. Lucretio: 44. 13 n. Sp. Rutilio Crasso : the cognomen Crassus was never used by the Rutilii, who do not emerge for another 250 years, and furthermore were plebeian. Diodorus (13. 7. 1) has Eirovpios Overovpios, that is a son of the Decemvir of 451 (3. 33. 3 n.), and Sigonius would replace Veturio in the text. But the libri lintei are capable of such mistakes (35. 4 n.) and the text, although historically misleading, should be retained as what L. wrote. 47. 8. Sempronio: 35. 1. Papirio: 45. 5. Nautio: 44. 13. L. omits Q . F a b i u s Q.f. M.n. Vibulanus, a brother of the consul of 421 (43. 1 n.), who is listed by the Capitoline Fasti, but in 414 (49. 7 n.) records him as Qj. Fabio Vibulano iterum, a proof that the libri lintei were defective but did, like the Fasti, indicate iterations. Cf. 44. 13 n. 48. 1. Sp. Maecilius quartum et . Metilius tertium: consideration must start from the nature of their proposals. T h e bill which they pro­ posed was framed to ensure viritim division of land captured from the enemy, i.e. agerpublicus. W h a t land was meant? Not that of Fidenae, which had long ago lost its land to the tribe Claudia and was no more than a fortress, nor that of Labici which had been allocated the previous year (47. 6). We know of no other available land. In other words Maecilius' proposals had been precisely forestalled by the en­ actment of the previous year. But who are the proposers? Sp. Mae­ cilius should be genuine since Piso's introduction of a Maecilius into the college of 471 (2. 58. 1 n.) must have been inspired by the fame of an early popular leader of that name. Metilius, on the other hand, looks a pale shadow (5. 11. 4 n.). T h e Metilii were not old inhabitants of Rome as D.H.'s transparent attempt to gratify his patron, Metilius Rufus, by unearthing an Alban origin for the family shows (3. 29. 7; 1. 3 0 . 2 n . ; see Munzer, Rom. Adelsparteien, 133 n. 1). T h e name is Etruscan, perhaps localized at Praeneste. <M.> Metilius and his name­ sake, tribune in 401, owe their existence to M . Metilius, who as tribune in 217 proposed the disputed law to make M . Minucius Rufus codictator with Fabius Maximus. It is significant that in 401 a Minucius is associated with Metilius. T h e final oddity is the unexpected revelation that they were holding office for the fourth and third times respectively. 606

4 1 6 B.C.

4. 48. 1

If L. knew of their earlier tenure, he omitted any reference to it. His motive may have been artistic but since Maecilius and Metilius are indistinguishable palaeographically, and since there are grounds for believing that the names of only one tribune were regularly recorded, the simplest Xvcns (foreshadowed by Mommsen, Rom. Geschichte, 15, 189, 351) of the problem would be to believe that Sp. Maecilius was tr. pi. II in 418, tr. pi. I l l in 417, tr. pi. IV in 416, that he was in some way connected with the proposal to send a colony to Labici (bina iugera viritim), that the colony and his proposals were separated to provide additional material for a barren couple of years, and that a Metilius was created to keep him company. 48. 2. ei cum: et cum (N) is to be retained; et is not out of place and ei is unnecessary; cf. 5. 28. 10. 48, 3 . nee enim: 'for there was hardly any spot of ground, as was natural in a city founded in another dominion, but what was got by force of arms, nor any ever assigned or sold but what the people had' (Steele). This is the only possible translation of the Latin as it stands but it makes nonsense. Maecilius is complaining that the plebs never receive any land, while the patricians amass vast estates. He says that since all Rome's land was captured from enemies, it was ager publicus and it is well known how all the ager publicus was cornered by the patricians. How can he or L. go on to say that whenever land did come on the market only the plebs (nee . . . praeterquam plebs) secured it ? Why did not the patricians attempt to corner that land as well ? They were rich enough. And why were the plebs not content with such a monopoly? He must be saying either that the only land the plebs managed to secure was land that for some reason came on to the open market (neepraeterquam quod. . . esset, plebs habebat Harant) or that even when land did come on the market the plebs never secured it (nee quod . . . esset unquam plebs habebat). venisset: anachronistic. The first attested sale of ager publicus is in 205 B.C. (28. 4 6 . 4 ) .

48. 5. nepos: cf. 48. 6 proavum; the filiation of the Capitoline Fasti (P.f. Ap.n.) proves that he was thought of as nephew not son of the consular tribune of 424 (35. 4 n.), while his great-grandfather will be the formidable consul of 471 (2. 56. 5 n.), but the allusion is to the activities of the great-great-grandfather (2. 44. 2-6 where see notes). The error arises from the separation of the Decemvir and the consul of 471 who historically were identical and not father and son (2. 61. 7 n.). L. here is dependent on a source which did not separate them and so had only three not four generations for the Claudii. 48. 7. temporum . . . maiestatis: advice which Cicero was always quick to tender. 607

4-48-

416 B.C.

48. 8. pro fortuna: wrongly taken by Hey (Thes. Ling. Lat. 6. 1176. 47) to mean 'their sympathies are dictated by chance'; it must mean that such people have an eye for the main chance, that their sympathies vary with their fortunes. 48. 11. misso senatu: 'after the adjournment 5 . 48. 13. in . . .Jidem . . . confugere: 'to flee for help', as in Cicero, Div. in Caec. 11. 48. 15. silentio facto: marking the turning-point of the scene (3. 47. 6n.). 4 8 . 16. proditores . . . consularium: familiar Republican abuse; cf, e.g., Cicero, pro Sest. 3 3 ; in Pisonem 24. T h e sentiments form the drift of Licinius Macer's speech in Sallust. 49. 1. at duo bella: aduo M , arduo v, duo A; at is required to point the contrast between the attainment of internal peace by the checkmating of tribunician agitation and the threat of external w a r ; cf. 5. 48. 1, 49. 1. P. Cornelius: A.f. P.n., a son of an unknown father and grandson of a P. Cornelius who must have been a brother of M . Cornelius Maluginensis, the Decemvir. But see 56. 2 n. C. Valerius: 53. 1, 57. 12, 61. 4 ; T h e filiation of the Capitoline Fasti is L.f. Volusi n., which would make him a cousin of the consul of 456 (3. 31. 1) and the son of an otherwise unknown L. Valerius. Miinzer rightly doubts the Fasti (de Gent. Vol. 36), identifying him as L.f. P.n., a son of the famous consul of 449. Q. Quinctius: 61. 1, a brother to Lucius and Titus. 49. 2. principum: the Etruscan chiefs, whose farms were flooded; but the flood that was recorded would have been at Rome since the upper reaches of the Tiber are not liable to flooding and the records that were kept later were always of inundations in the vicinity of Rome. T h e importance of the river in the life of the community turned floods into prodigies (cf. 7. 3. 2 (361 B.C.); 30. 38. 10-12 (202); 35. 9. 1-6 ( ! 93) 5 35- 21. 2-6 (192); Dio 39. 61 (54); 53. 20 (27): see le Gall, Le Culte du Tibre, 62-66) and, as such, they figured in the Annales. T h e historians have distorted the fact into a motive. 49. 3 . Bolanis: Bola (or Bolae as L. prefers to call it) was an ancient community of Latium, said to have been an Alban colony (Virgil, Aeneid6. 775) and a member of the Alban League (Pliny, N.H. 3. 69) and mentioned by D. H. in connexion with Coriolanus' campaign (2. 39. 3 n.). Its site cannot be determined. It must have lain in the upper Sacco Valley, near Labici and Tolerium (Hulsen, R.E., 'Bola'; T . Ashby, P.B.S.R. 5 (1910), 409). T h e best site is Zagorolo. It was destroyed by Camillus in 389 when the Aequi were crushed (6. 2.14) and disappears from history, although at the end of the Republic 608

415 B.C.

4-49-3

a branch of the Vettii proclaimed by the cognomen Bolanus their origin from the town. The earliest known Vettius, a contemporary of Lucilius (Quintilian i. 5. 56), came from Praeneste which is not far away (Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 170). 49. 6. L. Decio: his proposal, being abortive, can hardly have stood in the records, and the early Decii are unhistorical (a messenger to the seceded plebs in 494 (D.H. 6. 88. 4) and a prosecutor of Coriolanus in 491 (D.H. 7. 39. 1)), for the family was southern Italian in origin (cf. Sabell. Dekis) and would not have migrated to Rome before the fourth century. Their subsequent place in the gallery of Roman heroes called for a pedigree. (Z. Decio is the only plausible interpretation of N's /. dexio.) 49. 7-51. Af. Postumius Regillensis History has been hard on the Postumii. The severe dictator, A. Postumius, who earned an unenviable reputation by killing his son, the consular tribune, M. Postumius, who was fined for his incom­ petence at Veii, the Vestal Virgin who had a narrow escape from inhumation, and, finally, the ill-fated M. Postumius who was stoned by his own troops. Family prejudices have clearly been at work and have made the most of the unpopularity of the Postumii, but in every case there was enough truth at bottom to justify the elaborations. Rome was torn by internal struggles in the period from 440-410, whose exact causes escape us. The Fasti do not reveal any politically signi­ ficant swing of the pendulum. It is only possible to see that there was a family alliance of Quinctii, Sempronii, and Postumii, which suffered setbacks under continuous opposition. The fate of M. Postumius was remembered because of his Wellingtonian remark malum militibus meis nisi quieverint (49. 11) and his place in the Fasti is assured (49. 7 n.). The details of the story are, however, throughout borrowed from the disastrous history of A. Postumius Albinus {cos. 99) who was killed by his own sailors in 89 when besieging Pompeii during the Social War (Livy, Epit. 75; Orosius 5. 18. 22 ff.). Surprisingly L. does not make the episode, which at first sight is full of potentiality, into an isolated unity like the tale of Servilius Ahala or Cornelius Gossus. It forms a passing scene in the growing conflict between plebs and patres. The outlook is sharply democratic without even any lip-service paid to the claims of senatorial auctoriias betraying the hand of Licinius Macer, but L. must be responsible for the modifi­ cations which transfer much of the blame to psychological factors (see 49. 10 note)—Postumius' prava mens (cf. prope vecors, inhumanum) and the army's ira and indignatio. See Liibbert 16 ff.; Soltau 113; Burck 105-6; Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen, 41-46; Munzer, R.E., 'Po­ stumius (1)'. 014432

609

R

r

4- 49- 7

414 B.C.

49. 7. Cn. Cornelio: 56. 2 n., Diodorus gives him the praenomen JTCUO? (13- 3 8 - 0 L. Valerio: 58. 6, 5. 1. 2, 10. 1, 14. 5, 29. 2 n., 31. 2 ; L.f. P.n., a son of the consul of 449. Diodorus calls him also rduos but L. is guaranteed by the Capitoline Fasti. Q^. Fabio . . . iterum: Q,.f. M.n., a brother of Cn. (43. 1 n.). His earlier consular tribunate, given by the Fasti, is omitted at 47. 8. He is called Kalaajv by Diodorus. M. Postumio Regillensi: A.f. A.n., a son of the consul of 464 (3. 4 . ) ; for the cognomen see 2. 16. 4 n. There is wide disagreement over his praenomen. T h e Capitoline Fasti name him P. Diodorus has Tifiepios, perhaps a corruption from / 7 ( 0 ^ 0 9 ) to 7i. T h e archetype of L. read m. t. postumio, where ra. could be a dittography after iterum or t. a cor­ ruption of the common symbol indicating a proper name (2. 15. 1 n.). No reliance can be placed on the manuscripts therefore. L. perhaps wrote M. 49. 10. adducor: L. refers to an alternative version which attributed the unrest to a short-fall in booty. T h e version is stated more extensively by Zonaras (7. 20). A plain economic motive is given for the discontent resembling one view of Camillus' subsequent exile. L.'s version sub­ stitutes for it a sharply political account which allows the quaestor (P. Sextius) to escape with his life (50. 2) and assigns to Postumius the part of a brutal oppressor, a political bully. 49. 11. M. Sextio : Miinzer is certainly right in believing that he and the quaestor, P. Sextius, grew out of a single Sextius who was associated with Postumius in the traditional story (/?.£"., 'Sextius ( 7 ) ' ; 'Sestius (5)'). For Sestii and Sextii see 3. 32. 5 n., 33. 10 n. T h e fact that the quaestorship was not held by a plebeian until 409 (54. 3) should not tempt editors to abandon the archetype by reading Sestius for Sextius in 50. 2 and thereby to distinguish the men still further. T h e original role played by Sextius is not clear, but it is easy to see how the need for an adversary to counterbalance Postumius would lead historians to take a rib from the quaestor Sextius' side and create a tribune of the same name and to clothe him with proposals borrowed from Sp. Maecilius (the Bola scheme is identical with the Labici scheme out­ lined above) and with characteristics from the notorious L. Sextius ( f r . # . 376). dignum: T a n . Faber's correction is shown to be right by the parallel of 2. 48. 2 : verum esse habere eos quorum sanguine ac sudore partus sit. Both passages are Licinian. Cf. Sallust, Or. Macri 18 absit periculum et labos quibus nulla pars fructus est. 'malum': 'a pox on my soldiers, if they stir', malum as an exclamatory eurse (cf. Donatus on Terence, Eun. 780), short for malum habebis, is common enough in authors of all periods—in questions (Shackleton 610

414 B.C.

4. 49. 11

Bailey, Cicero: 'ad Atticum', 46). Here fiet or the like must be under­ stood, and the phrase would have sounded to R o m a n ears as an archaic colloquialism (Hofmann, Latein. Umgangssprache, 32). 49. 12. acer nee infacundus: cf. Cicero's description of L. Bestia, vir et acer et non indisertus. infacundus is an Augustan synonym for indisertus first used by L. (7. 4. 6, 10. 19. 6). 49. 13. inquit: Sextius' speech is Ciceronian in style and language, but it may not be wholly fanciful to detect an unusually high propor­ tion of 'loans' from Cicero's speech pro P. Sestio in particular. It would be in L.'s manner to choose a specific situation to adapt to the require­ ments of his narrative. sedem senectuti vestrae prospiciunt: cf. Sest. 139 aliis otium quaerere; for quid ut (only here in L . ; to be compared with ut quid = Iva ri, as Casaubon noted; see Kuhner-Stegmann 1. 786) cf. Sest. 8 4 ; for adversariis . . . propugnatoribus cf. Sest. 137; for ingemuistis cf. Sest. 146; for agros . . . stabilire cf. Sest. 143. 49. 14. senectuti: anachronistic. T h e colonies were not veteran colonies in the Marian or Caesarian sense. 50. 4. sub crate: 1. 51. 9 n. 50. 7. metu quaestionum: 51. 2 n. 5 1 . 1. interrege: the necessity for an interrex often went hand-in-hand with a switch from consular tribunes to consuls or vice versa (43. 7 n.). A. Cornelio: Diodorus 13. 43. 1 and Cassiodorus give him the praenomen M. With two branches of the Cornelii Cossi reaching the con­ sulate in the same period his filiation is doubtful. H e might be A.f. P.n., a brother of the consular tribune of 415 P. Cornelius Cossus (49. 1 n.) or A.f. M.n., a brother of the consul of 409 (54. 1) and of the consular tribune of 408 P. Cornelius Cossus (56. 2 where see note). L. Furius: 44. 1 n. It is uncertain whether this consulate marks the summit of the older (L. or Sext.) Furius' career or is a stage in the impressive advancement of his son (L.f. Sp.n. according to the Capitoline Fasti). See Broughton, 412 B.C., n. 1. 5 1 . 2 . quaestione Postumianae caedis: the first special or extraordinary commission recorded. T h e history and nature of these commissions is obscure. Strachan-Davidson {Problems, 1. 225 ff.) argued that they were of distinct kinds: (1) A commission given by a legislative act of the people to the consul or chief magistrate to resume the full rights of life and death inherent in his imperium but curtailed by custom. T h e consul could, in consequence, act entirely at his discretion without any appeal being admissible from his jurisdiction, as he did in the cases of L. Hostilius Tubulus (141 B.C.) and Q . Servilius Caepio (104 B . C ) . 611

4. 5 1 - 2

413 B.C.

(2) After the institution of the quaestiones perpetuae special ad hoc commissions on the same pattern, with narrowly restricted terms of reference and powers, were set up from time to time to deal with particular situations. Such were the Manilian ( n o ) and the Varian (go) quaestiones and their authority did not derive from the consular imperium but from the law which established them. T h e quaestio Postumiana would clearly belong to the first category and is, therefore, less anachronistic than if it had been of the second kind which only dates from the last quarter of the second century. Strachan-Davidson and de Martino (Storia della Costituzione, 1. 360 n. 51) are inclined to accept it. One thing, other than the fact that it antedates the next recorded case by nearly two hundred years, tends to discredit it. In the second century the Senate encroached on the quaestiones of the first type by empowering the consuls to hold investigations without the prior ap­ proval or consent of the people. This development put a powerful political weapon in their hands which they used in the Bacchanalian scandal of 186 and in the suppression of Ti. Gracchus' adherents in 132. Now the significant point in L.'s account of the quaestio Postumiana is the emphasis on the popular origin of the consul's power to conduct the investigation (51. 3). This bears every sign of being tendentious—propaganda against the Senate's intrusion and control of quaestiones. I a m inclined to agree with Mommsen (Staatsrecht, 2. n o ) that it is as much a fabrication as the quaestio alleged by Valerius Antias for the Scipio trials (Scullard, Roman Politics, 220-150 B.c.y 291-303; cf. Jolowicz, Historical Introduction, 327). a plebe consensu populi: populi was deleted by Crevier (Madvig, H. J . Miiller) but is an essential element in the tacit identification of plebeian and popular (as opposed to senatorial) interests. It is not true to say that populi here = plebis, as it may do in 5. 51. 11, 25. 2. 9, but rather that it marks a step in a highly casuistical argument typical of Licinius Macer. 51. 5. aptissimum tempus fuerat: erat nX; the pluperfect is right: 'it would have been a very suitable occasion to appease their a n g e r . . . ' . As it was, a sense of injury was aroused, aptissimum tempus followed by ace. and inf. has raised doubts since the only comparable phrase in L. is aptius est (without tempus) followed by ace. and inf. (28. 43. 14, 37. 28. 7). Hence aptissimum (ad} (Madvig) or (in) (SeyfTcrt) tempus, but aptum tempus is a standard phrase (1. 9. 6, 10. 20. 9, 35. 19. 2) and, if any change is needed, it will be obiciendu delenimentum: like many political catchwords, e.g. 'Tory', the word is vulgar in origin. While Cicero and Caesar avoid it, Laberius (fr. 134) and Afranius (378, 382) find it congenial. L. is the first elevated writer to employ it with the notable exception of Sallust in the speech which he puts in the mouth of Licinius Macer (21). 612

413 B.C.

4-51- 7

5 1 . 7. Ferentinum: from the Annates. Ferentinum, later to be a municipium of note, here makes its debut. Situated in Latium adiectum (mod. Ferentino) it lay outside the orbit of the primitive Latin and R o m a n world. For details see Hiilsen, R.E., 'Ferentinum'. 51. 8. ipsum agerque: Weissenborn's correction of the manuscript ipse agerque is admirable. T h e town was handed over to the Hernici (56. 6) doubtless because the Romans were not numerous enough to assume such a distant obligation themselves, but, at the same time, were anxious that it should be in dependable hands. 52-55. Annalistic Notices 412-409 B.C. No stirring episode, no common trend distinguished the years 412-409. L. makes the best that he can of them by emphasis, finding in every event some connexion with the ever-menacing political struggle at Rome and bringing out at every point the moral lesson that a united city depends on the give-and-take of each individual and class within it. See Burck 107; G. Niccolini, Studi Liviani, 83-109. 52. 1. L. Icilius: cf. 2. 58. 2, 3. 44. 3, 54. 11, 63. 8, 65. 9, a son pre­ sumably of the Decemvir Ap. Claudius' redoubtable opponent. Q.Fabio: perhaps the consul of 423, despite the absence of iteration marks (but see Degrassi 97). He could hardly be the son, and the possession of identical cognomina (Vivullano in Chr. 354) makes it difficult to make him a cousin. T h e Capitoline Fasti are unfortunately defective. T h e cognomen Ambustus is not explained, unless it describes his complexion ('scorched'). C. Furio Factio \ C.f., a son of the consul of 441 (12. 1 n.). 52. 2. pestilential 3. 2. 1 n., from the Annales. 52. 4. inopia frugum: 2. 9. 6 n. ut plerumquefit: 21. 4. 1, with inopia frugum, not neglecto cultu. Famine is the regular accompaniment of pestilence rather than of neglected agriculture. M. Papirio Atratino : the only instance of a Papirius being given the cognomen, peculiar to the Sempronii, Atratinus. T h e reading of the manuscripts is beyond dispute and at so early a date adoption must be discounted. T h e late chronographers, drawing ultimately on the Capitoline Fasti, gave Mugillanus = the consular tribune of 418 (45. 5). If 411 originally had a college of three consular tribunes, Papirius (Mugillanus), Sempronius (Atratinus), and Nautius, it is easy to see how as a result of damage or mistake the three could be compressed into a Papirius Atratinus and Nautius. Some support may be offered by the floating and misplaced 'consuls' of 444 (4. 7. 10 n.), L. Papirius Mugillanus and L. Sempronius Atratinus, whom Licinius Macer or the editors of the libri lintei knew from an inscription and inserted in 444 because they could not be found in the regular 613

4- 52. 4

411 B.C.

Fasti. In reality they are likely to be the first two members of the college of 411. T h e confusion here is the end-product from the libri lintei. For Papirius' connexion with Garventum see 53. 3 n. C. Nautio Rutilo: Unopiog in Diodorus 13. 68. i, and the Gapitoline Fasti for 419 and 404. But there is no certainty that the libri lintei identified him with the military tribune of 419 and 404 and C should be retained. Cf. also 3. 25. 1 n. 52. 5. Etruscum . . . Tiberim . . . Cumas: 2. 9. 6 n. 52. 6. Samnitibus: 37. 1 n. Siculorum tyrannis: there were no tyrants in Sicily in 411 but Dionysius I was to come to power two years later at Syracuse. T h e later history of Sicily m a d e it natural to think of the cities as ruled by tyrants. Apart from its intrinsic probability the notice that Sicily sup­ plied corn to Rome in 411 may be believed if seen against a wider background. Although Syracuse's victory over the Athenian expedi­ tion was complete and decisive, matters did not rest there. T h e threat from Carthage was imminent and Athens was soon to negotiate a treaty with Carthage. Carthage's other ally was Rome by a treaty a century old. It was much in Syracuse's interest to woo the alliance or at least the neutrality of Rome. Etruriae studio: the enthusiasm displayed by the Etruscans is historical. They were anxious not to lose the Roman market to Sicily and saw an opportunity of exploiting the hostility between Rome and the Samnites who had done so much to destroy the Etruscan position in Campania. 53. 1. M. Aemilio: actually M \ Aemilius Mam.f. M.n. Mamercinus (consular tribune in 405 (61. 1 M. Aemilius Mamercus), 403 (5. 1. 2, M . AemiliusMamercusiterum),and40i (5.10.1 M . AemilioMamerco tertium)). Thepraenomen is given as r&iosMavios by Diodorus (13. 76.1) and M \ by theCapitoline Fasti. T h e change is so slight and the corrup­ tion so common that M J . should be restored in the texts of L. through­ out (cf. 3. 7. 6 n . ; cf. the similar problem discussed by Syme, J.R.S. 45 (1955), 26-27). C. Valerio: 49. 1 n. 53. 2. M. Menenius: nothing else is known of him. Munzer (R.E., 'Menenius (8)') is reminded of the antagonism between another con­ sular Valerius and a Maenius in 483 (D.H. 8. 87. 4) and would dismiss both as fictitious. But the family is old and prominent in the plebeian interest (a M . Menenius was tr. pi. in 384). H e may well be genuine even if his abortive proposals are not. 53. 3 . arcem Carventanam: the exact site cannot be fixed. It is not to be identified with Rocca Massima (see Ashby, P.B.S.R. 5 (1910), 411, 424) but it lay near to Tusculum and the pass of Algidus. Casuetani figure among the early Alban people in Pliny (N.H. 3. 69). T h e name 614

4 1 0 B.C.

4-5 3. 3

affords no help. Gasuentum is found in Umbria and a river is so called in south Italy (Pliny, N.H. 3. 97) but the meaning is uncertain (Schulze 535). It should not be connected with Illyrian *karavant 'rocky'. T h e best site is Mte. Fiore. It disappears from history after 409 (55. 4), but one further detail about it may be preserved. If the consul of 458 in the Gapitoline Fasti is rightly restored as [Papirius] Carvenftanus (3. 25. 1 n., 4. 7. 10 n.), it is a fair inference that a branch of the Papirii came from the vicinity of Carventum. Topographical cognomina such as Mugillanus (also of the Papirii), Fidenas, MedulHnus refer to the provenance of the gens and Papirii certainly seem to have originated near Tusculum (Lucilius fr. 1259 M a r x ; S Bob. Cicero, pro Plancio p. 254 Orelli; 8. 37. 8-12; VaL Max. 9. 10. 1). The [Papirius] Garventanus, ascribed to 458 by the Gapitoline Fasti alone, properly belongs to this period when Carventum was important and is to be identified with M . Papirius (Atratinus) (52. 4 n.). W e do not know what share he had in the critical negotiations with what may have been his ancestral home. See further Hermes 89 (i960), 379 ff. 5 3 . 6. iniusti domini: the phrase is legal and technical denoting those who enjoy possession without legal title or right (Beseler, Beitr. z- Krit. 4 (1920), 73 ff). T h e case of iniusta dominatio is often dealt with by the Jurists (cf. Ulpian, Dig, 10. 3. 7. 4). Cf. 6. 39. 9. 5 3 . 7. damnum aliamque coercitionem: nominally the consul by virtue of his imperium had absolute power over life and limb but the exercise of that power was in practice limited (51.2 n.). Moreover, the tribunes were protected by their sacrosanctity but that protection was only operable if at least one other tribune was prepared to take action in defence of a colleague. T h e action of the nine tribunes was tantamount to connivance at the violation of sacrosanctity. T h e language of their resolution is quasi-legal, e.g. inhibere=inferre (cf. Plautus, Bacch. 448; 56. 10, 3. 38. 1, 7, 50. 12). T h e meaning of damnum is not immediately clear. In strict law damnum signifies any loss or damage which a person has sustained in his property but Menenius' person rather than his property was in jeopardy, coercitio, on the other hand, signifies any coercive punishment inflicted by magistrates but not exactly defined by the law. T h e tribunes recognize that whatever sanctions are applied to Menenius will not be prescribed by statute and so they are content with euphemistic words like 'harm'. 53. 8. collum torsisset: 'put in irons'; (ob)torquere c. was the usual method of securing and confining a prisoner (Plautus, Rudens 8 5 3 ; Poen. 790; Cicero, pro Cluentio 59). 53. 9. invisus infestusque: 2. 56. 5, 5. 8. 9. recipit: recepit has the authority of M and IT and should be preferred. 5 3 . 10. quaestores: 3-31-4, presumably the two military quaestors but L. may be guilty of a confusion. We would expect the urban quaestors 615

4- 53- io

410 B.C.

to be mentioned, who received the money at the aerarium (5. 19. 8; 26. 8), and not the military quaestors who to our knowledge were not ndrmally responsible for the sale of the booty. L.'s unfamiliarity with military and financial affairs may have led him into error. Or should <W> be inserted before quaestores (J. F. Gronovius) ? participem praedae: 5. 21. 2, 23. 8-11, 46. 4, the technical phrase. Cf. Plautus, Most. 312; Caesar, B.C. 3. 82. 1. 53. 11. alternis: sc. vicibus, 57. 2, 2. 2. 9. inconditi versus: 3. 29. 5 n. The Menenii were remembered by such anecdotes (2. 32. 8 n.). 54. 1. Cn. Cornelius-. 49. 7. L. Furius: 51. 1 n. 54. 3. K. Fabio: 61. 4 n. tres plebeii: the fact is possible and the names cannot be ruled out. The Silii were proud of the antiquity of their family and there were two tribunes, M. and P. Silius, towards the close of the Second Punic War. The Aelii reach eminence with a consul in 337 (8. 15. 1). The third name is variously reported: c. appius in Ver., p. pipius in N. Palaeographically C. Papius or P. Pupius is feasible but the former, from a simple metathesis to which Ver. is prone (17. 2 n.), is distinctly choicer. N's reading combines p. = p(roprium nomen) with a dittography. Historically, the Pupii have the edge, being attested at an early date in Praeneste (C.I.L. i 2 . 236) and producing a iivir aedi locandae in 217, while the Papii do not emerge before the second century. Yet the trio as a whole cannot be viewed with equanimity. It is suspicious that the Aelii could also claim the first plebeian augur (10. 9. 2) and that C. Papius, tr. pi. in 65, must have been known to Licinius Macer. 54. 4. Icilios: 52. 1 n. Did the notice really read something like Icilius III., recording the third tribunate of Icilius? ad ea: adeo (Ver., N) is a senseless assimilation to avidissimo populo. 54. 5. si ne: in is added by Ver.; either the plain abl. or the prepo­ sitional phrase is possible but quaestoriis comitiis in 54. 2 argues strongly for the former. For Ver.'s interpolation of in cf. 17. 12, 21. 10. vellent: vellet (Ver.), the singular indicating the unified will of the body as a whole as at 51. 2, 6. 39. 9, 32. 7. n , and 36. 39. 3, is more ap­ propriate. 54. 7. communicatis . . . amissis: 5. 14. 1. The passage recalls the open­ ing controversy of the patricians and Canuleius where the same argu­ ments are advanced. See 56. 11 n. negare \ om. Ver. fremere cannot be used with an implied negative ( = negare) 'complain that so-and-so is not or ought not to be the case'. negare, therefore, is required and the omission should be explained by homoeoteleuton. 616

409 B.C.

4- 54- 7

54. 8. inritatis: inflatis Ver. For inritatis animis cf. 1. 17. 4, 8. 32. 16, 23. 44. 5, et aL 55. 1. Hernicumque: 53. 2. 55. 2. tunc enixe: 1. 35. 8 n. 55. 3 . singuli: for the text see C.Q.q (1959), 278, 55. 4. recurrentes in arcem: since the Aequi were palpably in control of the citadel, the Romans could not have been killed as they forced their way back in. Ver. rightly reads ad arcem. Some were on their way back, some were still looting, when they were set upon and killed. 55. 5. adversa civitatis res: adversa res as in Cicero (pro Sulla 57; Tusc. Disp. 3. 21) is the equivalent of a noun (incommodum) and is followed by a genitive. A dative only follows when adversa is predicative, i.e. res est adversa mihi. 55. 8. Verruginem: 1,411. Its loss was not recorded. 56-57. The Dictatorship of P. Cornelius 56. 2. C. Iulius: 61. 1, Sp.f. Vopisci n., according to the Capitoline Fasti. His father is unknown but must have been a brother of the consul of 430 (30. 1 n.). P. Cornelius Cossus: A.f. M.n., to distinguish him from the consular tribune of 415 (49. i n . ) ; there is no iteration here. A brother of the consular tribune of 414 (49. 7 n.). His father was the celebrated winner of the spolia opima and his grandfather the Decemvir, M. Cornelius Maluginensis. The identity of the dictator P. Cornelius (M.f. L.n. Rutilus Cossus, according to the Fasti) is perplexing (57. 6, 58. 6). The filiation suggests that his grandfather was L. Cornelius Malu­ ginensis, consul in 459 (3. 22. 1) and brother of the Decemvir. He will, therefore, be a second cousin both of his namesake the consul of the present year (408) and of the consul of 415 (49. 1). Such proliferation is bewildering and only theoretically possible. The filiations given by the Fasti are largely the work of inspired antiquarianism and rest on no contemporary documentation. Historically it is likely that there were in this period three Cornelii Cossi, and three only: (1) P. Cor­ nelius Cossus (consular tribune in 415 = 49. 1, 408 = 56. 2, 406 = 58. 6, and 404 = 61. 4 ; dictator in 408 = 57. 6 ) ; (2) Cn. Cornelius Cossus (consular tribune in 414 = 49. 7, 406 = 58. 6, 404 = 61. 4, and 401 = 5 . 10. 1); (3) A. (or M.) Cornelius Cossus (consul in 413 = 51. 1). They will have been the three sons of the winner of the spolia opima. See also 61. 4 n. C. Servilius Ahala: 57. 12, 5. 8. 1, P.f. Q,.n., a nephew of the consul of 427 (30. 12) by an unknown father. 56. 3 . intermiscendo: 'contaminating the worthy by mixing in the un­ worthy'. For the depreciatory, possibly colloquial, force of the verb 617

4- 56. 3

408 B.C.

cf. Virgil, Eel. io. 4 - 5 ; Horace, Satires 1. 10. 29 f. with Fraenkel, Horace', 135. 56. 4. Verrugine: 'at Verrugo', locative as 58. 3. cum impulisset: 'when, whatever the cause was, whether retention of Carventum or the loss of Verrugo, had driven them to anger or hope'. T h e archetype reading is feasible, but compello is better than impello — 'drive one to an emotion' (see, however, Cicero, CatiL 2. 20; Horace, A.P. 109) and the construction so involved that Perizonius's simple compulisset (accepted by J a c . Gronovius and Bekker) is a great im­ provement. Cf. 5. 9. 1. 56. 5. caput rerum: 'the Antiates were the centre of the trouble'. There had been trouble at Antium in 459 (3. 23. 1-7) after which silence descends on the place, but R o m a n control was never secure. In 406 (59. 1 ff.) successive expeditions had to be sent to counter Volscian encroachment in the area and in the fourth century fresh disturbances led ultimately to a citizen colony being established there after a decisive victory in the Latin W a r (338). With evidence for Volscian pressure on southern Latium during the last ten years of the fifth century, the reported revolt of Antium in 408 might seem logical and timely. But the geography is much awry. T h e fate of Verrugo or Carventum could be of no interest to the Antiates. Nor is it easy to see how a victory at Antium could be followed by the storming of a fort by the Fucine lake (see m a p ) . T h e battle for Verrugo and Car­ ventum was a battle for control of the Via Latina and the approaches to Latium from the east. It was only when the Volscians were balked in that region that they tried in 406 to outflank Latium by forcing an entry into the coastal plain near Antium and rolling up the Latins and Romans from the south. Antium and the Antiates must be a mistake by L.'s source for Antinum (mod. Civita d'Antino), a small town in the upper Liris valley, five miles from the Fucine lake, mentioned by Pliny (N.H. 3. 106) whose Volscian associations are confirmed by a small inscription in Volscian (c. 150 B.C.) found there (Conway, Italic Dialects, no. 253; Hiilsen, R.E., 'Antinum'). L. abandons Licinius Macer hereabouts as is clear from the contradictions between 58. 1 and 35. 2 (n.), and between 48. 3 where the patricians' wealth is alleged to consist solely in land and 60. 6 where they produce aes grave on wagons. T h e exact place where the change occurs may be in­ dicated by L.'s consultation of different authors in 55. 8. If so, then the source for the revolt of 'Antinum' will be Valerius Antias. Local patriotism demanded that Antium should figure largely in his history but the material was scanty. It is hardly surprising that he should supplement it by usurping the history of Antium as well, particularly when the last victor of Antium was also a Cornelius (L. Cornelius Maluginensis, the consul of 459). T h e connexion of the Cornelii with 618

408 B.C.

4- 56. 5

Antium was long-lived. After the rape of the city by Marius in 87 (Livy, Epit. 80), the colony was nursed back to prosperity by L. Cornelius Sulla. 56. 6. divisa: divis Ver., who omits final a also at 3. 7. 8 (public), 4. 2. 9 (ali), 5. 31. 6 (qui), and so affords no support for divisui (Gronovius, Mommsen, Madvig). For divisa habere cf. the numerous pas­ sages collected in Thes. Ling, Lat. s.v. habere, col. 2426, 28-45. 56. 10. in auctoritate: 26. 7 n. 56. 11. nihil esse in ~\iis auxilii: so N and Ver. (hiis). After auxilii nihil esse, in with the abl. denotes the helper (26. 16. 53, 40. 40. 4, 31. 5. 6) while the simple dat. denotes the party who is helped (21. 34. 8 ) : for both together cf. 37. 1. 10. O n the other hand the dat. with numero essent must be the person in whose estimation someone is judged (cf. Cicero, Div. in Caec. 6 2 ; Phil. 2. 71,13.11). As the text stands, therefore, the tribunes, who have been asked for help by the leading senators, are made to state that no help can be forthcoming from those who judge them (the tribunes) to be beneath the level of men and citizens. But they must be retorting to the patricians that there can be no h e l p e r those who hold such a low opinion of the tribunes. It is neces­ sary therefore either to delete in (Welz), or to emend quibus to qui (Drakenborch, Alschefski, Bayet) or to insert se = esse in se iis (Orsini, Madvig, Weissenborn), in se esse iis (Dietsch). T h e first solution is the simplest, the third provides the better emphasis. For the corruption cf. 2. 6. 2 n. T h e sentiment non civium, non hominum numero intentionally echoes 4. 12 (Canuleius' speech), as 54. 7 harks back to 5. 14. L. adapts a technique of ring-composition, familiar from Greek Tragedy where an episode, section, or argument is closed by a recollection of the opening line (cf. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1-20, 184-205, 1184-96, 1580-1611 with Fraenkel's notes; Theocritus 7. 5 2 - 6 1 ; see Gow, C.R, 56 (1942), i n ) . T h e reader is thus led to expect that the end of the book is in sight. 56. 12. turn se: se is omitted by Ver., as often elsewhere (3. 51. 13). 56. 13. verecundia: Ver. reads . . i verecundia per se potestatemquae tribuniciam. T h e leading senators, in despair that the consular tribunes have brought about a state of affairs bordering upon anarchy, have asked the tribunes of the plebs to help restore order. T h e latter are only prepared to do so on conditions—unacceptable conditions, the opening of all magistracies and offices to every citizen without dis­ crimination of rank or class. In the meantime, until they consented to those conditions, the patricians would have to wield the tribunicia potestas by themselves, if they wanted to get any help from the tribunes. They displayed no respect for the laws; they might as well turn tri­ bunes as well. Such must be the gist of the tribunes' impertinence; the text, however, is very doubtful. Conway's reconstruction in the 619

4 0 8 B.C.

4- 56- i3

O.C.T. reflects his belief that H was the best manuscript and does not give a good sense. T h e immediate difficulty is the position of quoque. As it stands in N, it must be taken with per se, whereas it really quali­ fies tribunicia potestas. So far from offering help, the tribunes may be expected to do everything in their power to promote anarchy. If the patricians are to achieve anything they will have to take the tribunate as well. There is no certain case in L. of quoque preceding the word it qualifies (3. 65. 6 n.). However, Ver.'spotestatemquae tribuniciam hints at potestatem quoque tribuniciam. A fault in the common archetype of Ver. and N displaced potestatem in N and reduced quoque to -quae in Ver. A subsidiary problem is the vestigial word before verecundia in Ver. Re-examination of the palimpsest leaves no doubt that the visible letters are . . 1 Mommsen discerned via . . . . but the third not the second letter is i and his vi atque is ruled out by the non-occurrence of atque before v in L. T h e only word that fits the traces as they are now visible is pristina. viverent is out of the question. 57. 1. haec contentio: Rome's troubles are due to personal ambition. Only Servilius Ahala has the wisdom and the forebearance to sub­ ordinate his own interests to the interests of the state and thereby to illustrate the overriding importance of moderatio (57. 3, 57. 5, 57. 12). 57. 4. belli necessitates: from Thucydides 1. 142. 1 rov 8e noXefiov ol Kcupol ov fieveroL.

57. 5. senatus consulto: 26. 7 n., the S.C. was not legally required, but Servilius Ahala hoped to secure moral backing by it. 57. 6. P. Cornelio: 56. 2 n. 58-61. The Preliminaries of the War with Veii 58. 1. indutiarum: 35. 2 n. For the chronology of the war with Veii see 5. 1. 1 n. Historically the truce cannot have expired in this year (407). T h e date was pushed back by annalists to allow a full ten years for the siege (406-396) and an extra year for the preliminaries. T h e abortive delegation of fetials and the magnanimous gesture of allowing the Veientes to set their house in order before being presented with an ultimatum were no more recorded in the Annales than the expiry of the truce, as Dobree demonstrated by comparing 58. 2 ut ex incommodo alieno sua occasio peteretur with Demosthenes, Olynth. 1. 16. Licinius Macer, however, who maintained the twenty-year duration of the truce (35. 2) must have held out against the Trojanizing tendency of his fellow historians and dated the expiry of the truce to 405. fetiales: 1. 32. 6 n. 58. 2. discordia intestina: more political colouring, although the rigid caste-system of the Etruscan aristocracy did lead to internal unrest, for instance at Arretium (10. 3. 2, 5. 13), and may have contributed 620

4 0 7 B.C.

4. 58. 2

to the decline of the Etruscan hegemony (R. Lambrechts, Essai sur les Magistratures, 23-25). 58. 4. tribunis qui: it must be the tribunes who failed to consider that no valour can transcend the limits of human endurance, because it is the tribunes who are always eager to obstruct the enrolment of ex­ peditions, (non), therefore, is needed to put an equal share of the blame on to the tribunes. N's restate nuntiabantur would be acceptable (see the parallels quoted by Drakenborch) but is less idiomatic and less corruptible than Ver.'s restari nuntiaba[n]tur; cf. 34. 15. 6. nulla virtute: for the proverbial commonplace cf, e.g., Homer, Iliad 13- 78758. 6. P. et Cn. Corneliis Cossis: for P. see 56. 2 n. T h e Capitoline Fasti indicate that he was the dictator of 408 (57. 6). T h e filiation of Cn. is P.f. A.n., suggesting a son of the consular tribune of 415 (49. 1), although the interval between father and son is preternaturally small. See also 5. 10. 1 n. Cn. Fabio: 5. 36. n n.; for the praenomen see 43. 1 n. Ambusto distinguishes him from the noble Cn. Fabius Vibulanus whose final tenure of office was the preceding year (407 = 57. 12), and the filia­ tion of the Capitoline Fasti (M.f. Q.n.) indicates a son of the consul of 4 4 2 (11. 1 n.).

L. Valerio: 49. 7 n. 58. 7. Lars Tolumnius 117. 1-4. It would be a very arrogant and vulgar reply that omitted the preposition ex after facesso (6. 17. 8). T h e omis­ sion could be caused by haplography. 58. 9. occidione occisa: 2. 51. 9, 3. 10. 11. ei\ cum periculo retineri: unless Verrugo has been recovered L. can hardly say that the garrison were butchered and the forts only retained at peril, et must be corrupt, but in emending et account needs to be taken of what L. has said. The two garrisons which were liquidated will be Carventum and Verrugo. retineri, however, as in 56. 4, can only be used of something which the Romans with difficulty manage to keep, which disqualifies Harant's Aequum periculo retineri, and also, since we have heard nothing of any other praesidia, eliminates duo (SeyfTert), alia (Madvig), or cetera (Schenkl), sc. praesidia, cum periculo retineri. Neither sua et (Brakman) or arces (Luterbacher) could stand without further explanation. I would suggest castra; cf. 46. 6 castraque eo die aegre retenta. 5 8 . 1 2 . coloniarumque: libertatis corresponds to suffragii libere ferendi, coloniarum to agripublici. As the freedom of the colonies does not enter into the question, there is nothing to be said for deleting -que with Madvig and Conway. 58. 13. volnera ac cicatrices: 2. 23. 4 n. quod dari: qui (sc. sanguis) dari N. Either can be defended (cf. 5. 1.4, 621

4- 58. 13

406 B.C.

28. 25. 2, 32. 17. 9, 41. 16. 8) but the rhetorical symmetry quid loci ad. . . accipienda, quid sanguinis . . . favours Ver. rogitantes should be retained; cf. 3. 61. 13, 7. 8. 2, 24. 31. 3. 59. 2. Valerius Antium: the collocation is not accidental. T h e mention of Antium, Ecetrae (2. 25. 6 n.), and Anxur reveals that the focus of the war has switched. Algidus is at last sealed to the Volscians who can only force their way into the coastal plain by a long sweep from the south-east. 59. 3 . Anxur: situated on a small outcrop of rock between the Pomptine plain and the sea and commanding the (later) Via Appia, the town was of great strategic importance, as was shown in the late war. Anxur—the meaning of the name is uncertain ( = dv€v £vpov according to Servius, ad Aen. 7. 799) was the Volscian name which survived in the cult of Juppiter A(n)xoranus (C.I.L. 10. 6483; Sydenham no. 947) but Tarracina, whether Greek ( = rpaxtmrj, from the roughness of the place) or, more probably, Etruscan (cf. Tarchu, Tarquinius, & c ) , was the older name which Anxur only temporarily replaced for the duration of the Volscian occupation. For the site was inhabited before the Volscians. Its inhabitants were called TappaKtvnai in the Carthaginian treaty of 509 (Polybius 3. 22. 11 with Walbank's note). T h e Volscians cannot have reached it before the campaigns of the 490's associated with the name of Coriolanus. L. has the plural form Tarracinae here, the singular elsewhere, but the plural is also used by Athenaeus (6. 224 c) and should not be emended (Wesenberg). Cf. Bolae and Bola (49. 6). 59. 5. circummissae: a textbook stratagem advocated by Frontinus and employed by Pericles (3. 9. 5) and Antiochus at Ephesus (3. 9. 10). 59. 7. duo milia: cf. 57. 7. T h e taste for numbers is Valerian. 59. 1 1 . additum: so also Diodorus 14. 16. 5. If there is any truth in the annalistic account of a protracted siege of Veii, it is reasonable to be­ lieve that the troops would have had to be compensated for being prevented from cultivating their land and winning a livelihood. T h e pay may only have been ad hoc, dictated by the special circumstances of the Veii expedition—it was not regular in the fourth century—but it makes good sense (Watson, Historia 7 (1958) 113). It may have taken the form of supplies in kind or specific weight of aes rude. 60. 1. patres vere appellatos: a propagandist rationalization of the senatorial designation patres; cf. Cicero, de Rep. 2. 14 appellati propter caritatem patres and see Alfoldi, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 207. 60. 2. cam: 'while they were delighted with the advantage that their estate would be secure at least for the duration of their military service, their happiness was increased by the fact that the offer was 622

406 B.C.

4. 60. 2

spontaneous'. For quasi-concessive cum . . . turn cf. 57. 12, 5. 40. 2, 8. 21. 1, 42. 46. 4 ; Mikkola, Die Konzessivitat, 89. 60. 3 . laetum patribus universis neeprosperum: the manuscript reading is sound as it stands, universus is only used of the senatorial order except where it is opposed to singulus (2. 35. 5, 9. 8, 44. 5). patribus universis must, therefore, go together (patribus del. Madvig, Bayet: universis transp. Crevier, Conway). T h e point is that the patres think that they will steal the demagogues' thunder by getting in first with an offer to pay the troops. But, the tribunes predict, they will not all be so pleased when they start asking who is to foot the bill. Their own pockets or new taxes on the people ? specie . . . quam usu: cf. Sallust, Jug. 16. 5, a demagogue's antithesis. 60. 4 . ex alieno . . . largitos: Dobree would delete aliis, but it is re­ sumed by aliorum below. 60. 6. argentum signatum . . . aes grave: H. Mattingly and E. S. G. Robinson have shown that while Rome dealt only with her Latin and Etruscan neighbours and had few, if any, direct dealings with the Greek states of Magna Graecia, she was content with a currency which consisted at first of rough lumps of bronze without uniform weight or shape (aes rude). By a slow process, the old, rough lumps gave way to recognizable units—blocks, bricks, or bars—distinguish­ able by individual marks stamped on them (aes signatum). T h e date of the introduction of aes signatum cannot be determined but the emblems employed point to a date in the late fifth century. Rome suffered a severe jolt with the Gallic Sack which set her economy back by several decades and it was not until the end of the century that she was brought into contact with Magna Graecia. T h e first coins as such, both silver and bronze (aes grave), were minted in the last years of the century, 338 and 311 being championed as the date for the first issues. T h e so-called 'Romano-Campanian' coins were minted by Rome to Greek models and it was not until a hundred years later that the first denarius was coined. It follows that although Roman memory was gratifyingly retentive as to the fact that there was no silver coinage in 406, L. is wrong in calling the prevailing coinage aes grave, unless he uses the word non-technically to denote the heavy ingots of aes rude or signatum (cf. 4 1 . 10, 45. 2, 5. 12. 1, 29. 7, 32. 9). T h a t the senators were obliged to use wagons to transport their wealth would suit ingot-currency and may derive from a genuine tradition. See especially E. A. Sydenham, Aes Grave, 10-21; H . Mattingly, Num. Chron. 3 ( J 943) 3 4 - 8 ; J- G. Milne, J.R.S. 32 (1942), 27-32. 60. 9. legeperlata: the notice looks genuinely annalistic but see 5. 1. 1 n. 6 1 . 1. tribuni: for the significance of the election of six consular tribunes for the first time see 5. 1. 1 n. 623

4

.6i. i

405 B.C.

T. Quinctius: 43. 1. Q. Quinctius: 49. 1 n., omitted by Diodorus 14. 17. 1, who, however, states that the total was six. C. lulius: 56. 2 n. A. Manlius: A.f. Gn.n. Vulso Gapitolinus, according to the Capitoline Fasti, i.e. a grandson or a great-grandson of the consul of 480 (2. 43. n ) . His father is unknown. See 5. 8. 1, 16. 1. L. Furius: 5 1 . 1 n. M\ Aemilius: 53. 1 n. Both are omitted by Diodorus. 6 1 . 2 . fanum Voltumnae: 23. 5 n. For the failure of the Etruscan league to support Veii see 5. 1.311. 61. 4 . C. Valerium: 49. 1 n. M'. Sergium: 5. 8. 1, L.f. L.n., according to the Capitoline Fasti. His father ought to be the consul of 437 (17. 7) but his filiation is C.f. C.n. T h e editors or the cutters of the Fasti may be in error. P. Cornelium: 56. 2 n. Cn. Cornelium: 56. 2 n., 58. 6. K. Fabium: this branch of the Fabii is teasing. In 54. 2 N except for O E (Claudio F.) read C. Fabio; and exactly the same readings are given here, and at 5. 10. 1 where there is no mark of iteration; at 5. 24. 1 MA have K. (or Caesonem) Fabium and n Caesonem, all branches of the tradition agreeing on the iteration iterum. T h e Capitoline Fasti, on the other hand, had the style K. Fabius M.f. Q.n. Ambustus, consular tribune in 404, II in 401, III in 395. T h e corruption of the praenomen in L. is understandable and if A", is to be restored, it must be restored throughout. For the fact that L.'s sources appear to have overlooked one of his consular tribunates {iterum in 395 where the Fasti have III) is to be linked to the parallel phenomenon that in 401 (5. 10. 1) Cn. Cornelius Cossus is listed as iterum by L. but III by the Fasti. L.'s source for the lists of eponymous magistrates in 401 and, less certainly, m 395 w a s Licinius Macer, whereas here he is following Valerius Antias and one can only assume that Licinius Macer either omitted partially or wholly the college of 404, in which Cn. Cornelius was consular tribune II and K. Fabius obtained that office for the first time, or distinguished Cornelius and Fabius from their homonyms who were consular tribunes in 401. Only in this way can the double mistake be accounted for. Sp. Nautium: 44. 13 n. iterum is also mistaken for he had been con­ sular tribune in 419 and 416 (47. 8 iterum). It could be corrupt but where two separate sources are responsible for the lists of magistrates it is rash to assume corruption. 61. 7. multi mortales: 1. 9. 8 n. 6 1 . 8 . ni servus arcem . . . prodidisset: another textbook method of taking a city recommended by ancient strategists. 61. 10. Servius Romanus: the legend of his servile origin and the 624

404 B.C.

4. 61. 10

treacherous exploit which won his freedom, fortune, and a name should be compared with the legend of Servius Tullus' origins (1. 39. 5 n.). Both explain Servius by servus. Such tales do not come from the Annales but are the stuff of family histories. The family of Servii from Artena retailed the tradition of their origins, which found its way into the narrative history of Rome. The unauthenticity of it is revealed by the cognomen Romanus. sunt qui Artenam: no town of that name has been discovered in the vicinity of Ferentinum or Ecetra (2. 25. 6 n.) on the northern slopes of the Volscian hills. The old identification with the Civita of Mte. Fortino (Httlsen, R.E., 'Artena') must be abandoned, because L. implies that the town and the citadel are distinct which is not the case there (Ashby, SuppL Papers Am. School in Rome 1 (1905), 8 7 - 8 9 ; see 2. 43. 2 n.). Hence scholars have been led to suppose that L. has confused Artena and Ortona and Bayet argues that the correction sunt qui is evidence of a second edition of the book after it had been pointed out to L. that Artena was an Etruscan city (nothing at all is known of it, but the name is consonant with an Etruscan foundation), not a Volscian one (tome 4, 100 n. 1). Book 5, however, begins with a change of source and that is regularly preceded by the consultation of a variant. Rather than postulate a second edition we may believe that whereas Valerius Antias associated a notice in the Annales about the capture of Artena with the battle at Ferentinum, Licinius related it to the campaign against Veii—a view which L. rejects. The entry Artena in the Annales may have been an error for Ortona: we cannot know and conjecture is futile, but that the city which Servius betrayed was near Ecetra and not Caere is clear from the name Servius. As a nomen it is scarce. One of the few examples of Republican date is a Servius of Aquinum (CJ.L. i2. 1550) while the moneyer L. Servius Rufus (c. 43 B.C.) exhibits a view of his home-town Tusculum on his coins (Sydenham no. 1081). Aquinum is not more than a few miles from Ecetra, indicating that the Servii were indigenous to that area.

814432

625

ss

BOOK 5 B O O K 4 pointed political lessons—the necessity for all parties in the state, governed as well as government, exercising mutual consideration (moderatio). Book 5 moves on to a new plane. Rome had a destiny which had to be safeguarded by proper attention to religion. A political truce was insufficient without the co-operation of the gods, and Book 5 illustrates how the fortunes of the city veer as her rulers observe and neglect their religious duties. The book falls sharply into two sections—the capture of Veii and the capture of Rome (1-32, 35-55). Veii fell because of her own impiety (1. 4-5) and Roman piety (15. 2, 19. 1 ff., 21. 8). When the Romans, flushed with their success, allowed themselves to forget their religious obligations and even expelled Camillus (50. 1), they suffered for it by being defeated and captured by the Gauls. Their preservation of the sacra patria (40. 7-10 n.), their repentance, and their restoration of Camillus atoned for their offence. Rome had learnt her lesson. The two halves of the book are united by their theme. They are also linked by the per­ sonality of Camillus, the fatalis dux (19. 2 ; cf. 33. 1 ff.) whose name betokens a life spent in service of the gods (1. 2 n.) and whose career mirrors the relationship between worldly success and divine will. Two further features promote the symmetry of the book. As in Book 3 L. elaborates two long speeches, one at the beginning (3-6) and one at the end (51-54), which serve to weld the whole together. The middle is occupied by a digression on the history and geography of the Etrurian and the Gaul (33-35). L., as Sallust, uses digressions to prepare the reader for the importance of what follows. Here the disgression has the extra function of putting in opposite sides of the scale Rome's two enemies, Veii and Gaul, and contrasting them. The Siege of Veii—an Historical Introduction Rome had in early days been a predominantly Etruscan city. Her constitution and her religion, her culture and her society stemmed from Etruria. The expulsion of the Tarquins did not mean a break with her Etruscan inheritance: it was a matter of internal politics. For a while Rome did have Etruscan enemies to fear, not her neigh­ bours or the Tarquins, but the expansionistic cities of the interior under Porsenna. But it was only a momentary setback. Rome con­ solidated herself in Latium (the Latin treaty), and despite occasional 626

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION catastrophes (Cremera) the growing self-confidence and national con­ sciousness of the Roman people, which manifested itself in the demo­ cratic Revolution of the Decemvirate, inspired a surge of expansion. Rome embarked on military adventures that carried her far into the south and east of Latium. She might indeed have achieved a supre­ macy in Italy a hundred and fifty years before she eventually did had not a combination of obstacles set her progress back. T h e spread of malaria, aggravated by crippling famine-plagues, into Italy and Latium in the latter half of the century debilitated her manpower and compelled the abandonment of many strategic settlements. En­ couraged perhaps by this blow the infiltrating tribes of Aequi and Volsci, joined also by Sabines, renewed their attempts to burst into the plain of Latium and engaged Rome in a struggle for the control of the passes. T h e situation was a critical one for Rome. With the failure of her own crops and the mounting expense of her wars she had to develop her salt trade and to exploit to the full her advantageous position as a trading centre by road and river in order to be able to maintain her existence. It is no surprise to find imports from central Etruria occurring in larger numbers once again and to have records (e.g. in 412; see 4. 52. 5) of corn being supplied to Rome by inland Etruscan cities. Such trade was of course greatly to the Etruscan interest as well, for Rome was admirably placed as a point of distribu­ tion for the whole country. Rome and the inland cities of Etniria, Clusium, Cosa, Populonia, and Caere, stood to gain mutually by such an understanding. There was only one city whose independence and prosperity were threatened, and that city was Rome's near neigh­ bour—Veii. With her salient across the Tiber in the town of Fidenae, Veii was able to exercise a stranglehold on the river communications between Rome and the interior. T h e hostility led to war, first the capture of Fidenae and then, as a natural sequel, the siege of Veii herself. T h e course of events is consistent and intelligible. It is only confused by Livy's failure to distinguish between the inhabitants of Veii and the rest of Etruria. It was only Veii and her immediate allies (16. 4, 19. 7-8) who joined issue with Rome. T h e other Etrus­ cans, as the Caeretan lodging of the sacra publica demonstrates, were anxious to retain the goodwill and friendship of Rome. They had economic motives: they may also already have been alarmed at the advance of the Gauls. If the Gauls had stopped north of the Apen­ nines, Rome must have expanded by leaps and bounds in the fourth century. As it was, the Gallic invasion put the clock back. T h e Latin League was broken up and R o m e did not recover control of Latium till 338. In the face of a pact between the tyrants of Syracuse and the roving hordes of Gauls, Rome clung to the skirts of Etruria with a nervously phil-Etruscan government of Fabii and Licinii. T h e concept 627

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION of a Roman dominion combining the best of the Latin and the Etruscan was submerged and forgotten in the great slump of the 38o's and the 37o's. T h e whole narrative of Rome's war with Veii was already con­ solidated in Etruscan historical sources in the fourth century; for the mythical war between Aeneas and Mezentius seems to have been inspired by the historical events at Veii, unless the resemblances—the Etruscan king hated for his impiety, supported only by the Falisci and the Gapenates and finally abandoned by J u n o who is matched against Aeneas, the ' R o m a n ' duxfatalis (Aeneid 8. 511-12)—are wholly illusory. Since that tale, related at length by Virgil but evidently familiar in some form even to Lycophron three centuries earlier (Alexandra 1226 ff.), must have been common currency in the fourth century, it cannot be doubted that the substantial truth has been transmitted. Besides, the notices of prodigies and battles (Anxur, Gapenates) could be checked in pontifical records and the interven­ tion of Delphi was susceptible of proof from independent sources. T h e installation ofJ u n o Regina was as much a landmark in Roman history as the institution of winter campaigning and volunteer cavalry (7-4)Great victories have, however, a habit of becoming legends. There is a frightening similarity of details between the capture of Fidenae and that of Veii—the sally of incendiaries (7. 2 = 4. 33. 2 n.), the cuniculus, and the defiant gestures of Servilius Ahala (9. 5-7 = 4. 57. 4 ff.). All the same, Veii was more memorable than Fidenae and the likelihood that these events did not occur on two occasions should not be allowed to prejudice the possibility of their having occurred once. But fact and fiction have converted the cuniculus, an arresting feature of Veian landscape, into a religious myth, while Gamillus' triumph assumed heroic proportions and the war against a single Etruscan city became generalized during the second century as a war against the whole of Etruria. Roman heroism invited comparison with Greek and a prolonged siege of a redoubtable opponent could not but evoke the ten-year siege of Troy. T h e traces are clear in L. (4. 11 n . ; cf. also 2. 6 n., 7. 2 n., 8. 4, 8. 7). Although familiarity with Trojan history is presumed from the statuettes of Aeneas and Anchises to have been current in Veii, the assimilation of the siege of Veii with the siege of Troy is of a piece with other hellenizing adaptations in Roman history—Tarquinius Superbus or the Fabii at Gremera—and belongs to the first generation of Roman historians who were writing with an eye to a Greek audience. T h e historical truth was thus gradually overlaid with legendary distortion. T h e form of the story which L. retails belongs to the latest stage of its embellishment as the chronology will show. 628

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION L. dates the war from 406 (4. 58. 6, 60. 9) to 396 (5. 22. 8) and in consequence the capture of Rome by the Gauls to 390 (cf. 54. 5 n.). T h e absolute dates are wrong. Early Greek sources, which synchronize the capture of Rome with the peace of Antalcidas and the siege of Rhegium by Dionysius, demonstrate that the city of Rome actually fell in the summer of 387/6. But the six-year interval between Veii and Rome is not objectionable. An absolute date of 392-1 for the fall of Veii makes good sense and may even survive in the doublets pre­ served in L. who reduplicates victories over the Tarquinienses in 397 (16. 2 n.) and 388 (6. 4. 8) and campaigns in agro Nepesino in 396 (19. 7-8) and 389 (6. 2. 2 ff.). In either case the latter dates are his­ torically preferable. T h e campaigns should be mopping-up opera­ tions, like the capture of Falerii, after the main stronghold of Veii had fallen. T h e four-year discrepancy between the absolute date of 392 and the received date of 396 requires explanation. T h a t R o m a n chronology should be four years out at this point against the absolute dates is, of course, disquieting. T h e earlier synchronism with Greek events (the expulsion of the tyrants, Gremera, the Decemvirate) as far as they can be checked do seem to be approximately correct and to provide grounds for supposing that the traditional Roman dates (509, 471, 450) are right on an absolute reckoning. How did the Greek and Roman chronologies get out of step? There is ample evidence of severe dislocation in the Annales for the last half of the century (cf, e.g., 4. 20. 8 n.) and the loss of several tabulae or confusion over their arrangement would account for the phenomena. When Roman scholars came to construct a parallel chronology for Greek and Roman history, they were aware that the R o m a n chronology was short by four years. Failing to discern the true cause of the loss, they redressed it by the insertion of four dictator years, thereby bringing Roman and Greek dates into line again for the third century. Such chronological manipulations date from the second century at the earliest so that L.'s source must at least be as late. But did the siege really last ten years ? There is an alarming paucity of details. Only two proper battles are recorded (402, 399). Now the truce with Veii expired after 20 years in 405 (4. 58. 1 n.), that is in 401 on the true absolute chronology. Nothing happens in the first three years of the war in L.'s account (4. 60. 9, 61. 2-3, 9). T h e first memorable event of any kind takes place in 403, and it might reasonably be held that 403 (399 on the absolute chronology') marked the true beginning of the war. Its start and in turn the expiry of the twenty years' truce were pushed back to increase the parallelism between Veii and Troy. L. therefore took the story from a comparatively modern source which included all the legendary improvements and chronological 629

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION manipulations. T h a t source is distinguished by making Camillus a consular tribune ( i . 2 n.) whereas he was in fact censor. T h e mistake results in a flagrant contradiction between 10. i and 14. 5 where Camillus is designated trib. cons. I I on both occasions. It follows that L. follows one authority for the opening chapters and switches to a second source before chapter 14 (12. 10 n.). T h e tradition that there were eight consular tribunes in 403 is unique and appears to be due to Licinius Macer (1. 2 n.). We may conclude that at the conclusion of Book 4 L. reverted to Licinius Macer (cf. 4. 61. 10). For the development of the tradition see J. Gage, Huit recherches, 73-96; J. Bayet, tome 5, App. 3 ; J. Hubaux, Rome et Veies (cited as H u b a u x ) ; M. Sordi, / Rapporti Romano-Ceriti (cited as Sordi): for the Trojan elements see also Zarncke, Commentationes 0. Ribbeck, 277 and n. 2 ; G. Thouret, Fleck. Jahrb.f. cl. Phil, Suppl. Band, 1880, 136 ff.; for L.'s sources see Soltau 2 7 3 - 8 3 ; Klotz 279-80; J.R.S. 48 (1958), 40-46; for L.'s composition see also Burck 108 ff. See also R. Werner, Der Beginn der rom. Republik, 42 ff. Veii T h e city occupied an extensive plateau bounded on all sides except for a narrow neck of land at the north-west gate by the valleys of the Fosso della Valchetta (Gremera) and the Fosso dei Due Fossi. T h e plateau itself divides into two main ridges, the southern of which runs the whole length of the promontory down to a small outcrop, the Piazza d'Armi, surrounded on three sides by sheer cliffs and defended on the plateau side by a rock-cut ditch. There was the ancient citadel (21. 10 n.). The cemeteries lay outside the city. From Villanovan times Veii was the hub of a network of roads leading to Capena, Nepi, Tarquinii, Vulci, Rome, and the Tiber mouth (1. 33. 6 n.). Its strategic position and natural strength encouraged settlement: the ager Veientanus was large and with the help of extensive cuniculation rich. Pottery, terracotta, bronze show an unbroken rise in prosperity from the eighth (1. 15. 1 n.) to the fifth century. At the end of the fifth century the natural defences were supplemented. T h e tufa was, where possible, cut back: elsewhere an earthen rampart with a stone breast-work was constructed according to the varying conditions of the terrain. These walls must have been built to withstand Rome. Veii survived her capture, although the size of the surviving settle­ ment has not yet been established archaeologically. Except at the Piazza d'Armi the votive deposits were continuous and the principal artery of communication from Rome to the north, the Via Veientana, still ran through the site. For a full discussion of the archaeology and topography of Veii see W r ard-Perkins, P.B.S.R. 39 (1961), 25 ff. 630

403 B.C.

5- i-ft

1-2. 1. The Siege of Veii T h e opening chapters underline the gravity of the situation—ut victis finem adesse appareret. 1 . 1 . pace . . .parta: Pettersson, comparing 2. 26. 4 where 7rA read spe undiqueparatae pacis 'hoping that peace was everywhere in their grasp', would follow N and read pace alibi parata here too (see also Krebs, Antibarbarus s.v.). Peace has, however, been actually made and the phrase pace parta is a standard introduction to a new episode (3. 19. i)-

1. 2. octo: 2. 10, 6. 37. 6. T h e number is in itself improbable (4. 7.1 n.) and further doubt attaches to it since the Capitoline Fasti, Val. Max. (2. 9. 1), and Plutarch (Camillus 2. 3) all agree that Camillus was censor with M . Postumius Albinus and not consular tribune. His first consular tribunate was held two years later in 401. L.'s source for the section (10. 1) does indeed conspire with the present notice by making him consular tribune for the second time, but since he is also so listed under 398 (14. 5), Sigonius and Lachmann were right to comment that L. has used two sources with different lists of magistrates. T h e source of 14. 5 would have followed the vulgate tradition and made Camillus censor in 403 and consular tribune for the first time in 401. T h e eccentric character of the present notice is strongly reminiscent of the libri lintei (cf. also M . Postumius below) and, since 6. 37. 6 is also Licinian, L.'s source may be recognized to be Licinius Macer. T h e emperor Claudius alludes to it in his Lyons speech (I.L.S. 212). M\ Aemilius: 4. 53. 1 n. L. Valerius: 4, 49. 7 n. Ap. Claudius Crassus: 4. 48. 5 n. L. Iulius Iullus: presumably Sp.f. Vopisci n., a brother of the consular tribune of 408 (4. 56. 2 n.). M. Postumius: the Capitoline Fasti and other sources list instead M . Furius Fusus, to be identified as a son of the consul of 446 (3. 66. 1) or 441 (4. 12. 1). M . Postumius is unknown since he is evidently dis­ tinct from his namesake M . Postumius Albinus below. It is likely that his appearance is a mistake by the compilers of the libri lintei (Miinzer, R.E., 'Postumius (15)'). Af. Furius Camillus: here mentioned for the first time. An excellent summary of his life is given by Miinzer (R.E., 'Furius (44)'). We are told nothing about his parents although his filiation (L.f. Sp.n.) is the same as that of the consul of 413, L. Furius Medullinus (4.44.1 n.), which might suggest that they were brothers. T h e cognomen Camillus, which was the title of an aristocratic boy employed in religious duties (Macrobius 3. 8. 7; Paulus Festus 38 L.), may be taken as evidence that Camillus had been so employed in his youth. T h e name un­ doubtedly did much to determine the religious character of the Camillus story. 631

5- !• 2

403 B.C.

M. Postumius Albinus: his filiation in the Capitoline Fasti identifies him with the consular tribune of 426 (4. 31. 1 n.). 1 . 3 . regem creavere: it is only thirty-five years since Veii had a king and there has been no talk of a change in the constitution (4. 17. 1 n.). The omission may be a mere oversight. But the two reasons given for the neutrality of the rest of Etruria—monarchy and impiety—are too schematic and too Roman. Veii, as the arch-enemy of Rome, had to Jack those qualities which were most characteristic of Rome (libertas> pittas) if her extermination was to be recognized as a merited judge­ ment. The true reason was that the interests of Veii and the rest of Etruria were radically different. 1. 4. regis: his name is not disclosed. Besides Lars Tolumnius the only other king of Veii known to history is Morrius whose name is plausibly connected with Mamurius (1. 20. 4 n.). ludorum: 1. 35. 8 n. The games were held to be a religious ceremony. intermitti: 17. 2 n. 1.5. duodecim: 33. 9 n. The scene of the games may have been Volsinii. artifices: 'performers*, cf. Cicero, pro Arch. 10; pro Quinctio 78. Dancers and wrestlers would be intended primarily. The story is traditional and could be based on fact. 1. 9. ancipitia: The only point at which it was possible to approach the city along relatively level ground was on the opposite side to Rome (at the north-west gate) where the roads to Tarquinii and Nepi left the walls. It was here that the Roman army must have tried to blockade Veii although their lines of communication with Rome could be cut and their encampment was vulnerable to attack from the north. It was, therefore, necessary to construct a double line of defences facing opposite fronts like the Peloponnesian lines before Plataea (Thucydides 3. 21. 1 with Gomme's note). aliis: sc. munimentis. auxiliis is dat. after obstruebatur. 'A second line facing Etruria was to prevent by its fortifications any help coming from there.' 2. 1. hibernacula: 2. 7 n. 2. 2-14. Tribunician Protests The protests of the tribunes against the principle of campaigning throughout the year and of building winter-quarters to house the troops blockading Veii make a nice contrast to Appius Claudius' reply. They are formulated in indirect speech, whereas Appius speaks directly. The excitement and indignation of the tribunes is mirrored in short sentences, staccato expostulations, and hasty hyperboles. While the tribunes' language is violent and often coarse (2. 3 nn., 2 - 4 n . , 2 . 7 n . ) , Appius is dignified, availing himself of the full resources of rhetorical technique. See Lambert, Die Indirekte Rede, 36, 48, 71. 632

403 B.C.

5-2.-3

2. 3 . hoc illud esse: 'that was the point of instituting military pay'. A variant of the colloquial hoc illud est = r6Sy (TOUT') €/cetj/o, 'I told you so', 'just as I said'. See Page on Euripides, Medea 98 for examples in Greek and Latin. donum inimicorum: Casaubon acutely noted that the proverb re­ sembles Sophocles, Ajax 664.-5 aAA' e W aXrjdrjs rj fipor&v napoifJiia exOpajv dScopa ha>pa KOVK omjcnfia,

Cf. also Menander, Sent. 166; Virgil, Aeneid 7. 350, The use of the proverb is in keeping with the popular tone of the tribunician harangue. inlitum fore \ Peerlkamp (on Virgil, Aeneid 7. 350) wished to delete fore, arguing that the gift had been presented in the past and that there­ fore its harmful properties should be referred to in the past tense too (inlitum sc. esse). 2. 4. venisse: cf. Sallust, Or. Macri 19. A radical slogan. ac domus ac res: the first ac links cedere and invisere, the second domus and res (cf. 4. 6 n.). For the former Wex read auty Weissenborn nee but no change is necessary. Cf. 9. 38. 14. 2. 6. hiemem: the description of the discomforts of the besiegers recalls the plight of the Greeks before Troy as described, e.g., in Aeschylus, Agamemnon 559 ff. urbem tutantes: editors do not draw attention to the difficulty of these words but Jac. Gronovius, who proposed tutantey rightly remarked 'non cives tutantur sed ipse situs\ You cannot protect a city by its position. A city can, at a pinch, be said to be protected by its position (so Gron.) or you can protect yourself by the defences and position of a city. Cf. 32. 4 moenibus armati se tutabantur. Read situque naturali urbis (se} tutantes and for the loss of se cf. 3. 62. 1, 5. 32. 4, 40. 10, 6. 6. 10. 2.7. nivibus pruinisque obrutum: there may be a passing allusion in these words to Cicero's contemptuous reference to Catiline's supporters (in Catil. 2. 23): quo pacto illi pruinas ac nives perferent? Cf. 6. 4. n. sub pellibus durare: militarily there was a clear distinction between a semi-permanent bivouac under canvas, for which the technical term was sub pellibus habere (Caesar, B.G. 3. 29. 2 ; 23. 18. 15, 37. 39. 2) and a permanent winter-barracks (hiberna) made of wood and stone. The former was the regular way of quartering troops away from garri­ sons on a summer campaign, while the latter served as the quarters during the winter. Only in very exceptional circumstances were troops liable to be called upon to sleep under canvas during the winter. The normal arrangements are described by L. for 215 (23. 46. 9) and iqo (37. 39. 2) and the usual type of winter quarters (hiberna) is illustrated by the excavated camps at Numantia. The Romans at Veii 633

5» 2. 6

403 B.C.

proposed the construction of permanent quarters and there is no reason to doubt the tradition. A blockade of the main approach route to Veii would have been futile if not sustained throughout the year. T h e tribunes are made by L. to misrepresent the proposal and allege that the troops are to be forced to live in temporary bivouacs suitable only to the conditions of summer. No trace of the R o m a n encampment has been uncovered. T h e institution of a winter blockade is dated by Plutarch to the seventh not the fourth year of the siege. 2 . 8 . quod... exercerent: if the words are not interpolated as a gloss, they must be explicative of hoc servitutis 'this degree of slavery, the tyranny which the consular tribunes exercise over the Roman people', and the clause ut. . .facerent be dependent on hoc. Many editors have objected to the reduplication, Luterbacher wishing to delete ut. . . facerent and Conway, followed by Bayet, quod. . . exercerent. But the words occur not only in N but in Ver. and there is still no certain example of a gloss in the archetype of these two traditions. Madvig reads quod. . . exercerent as an independent interrogative sentence but we should rather, with Pettersson, compare 6. 40. 11 where a similar reduplica­ tion is found. If that is not favoured, I would follow Allen who took quod . . . faceret with the succeeding sentence inserting cum: quod (cum) . . . exercerent) quidnam . . .facturi essent. 2. 9. proconsularem: 3. 4. 10 n. 2 . 1 1 . ne in turba quidem haerere: 'there no longer remains any plebeian even in the mob . . .'. collegas: nisi, added by Ver. before c.9 does not construe and must be a confused repetition si ni-hil above. Cf. 3. 45. 2 n. 2. 14. ante: 4. 48. 6. 3-6. The Speech of Ap. Claudius Ap. Claudius meets the intemperate demands of the tribunes with reasoned arguments. Slight discrepancies between his speech and the surrounding narrative (4. 3 n., 6. 4 n., 6. 9 n., 6. 14 n.) show, as its position in the book also suggests, that it is a free composition by L. himself. Carefully constructed on the best oratorical principles, it contains, as do many of L.'s early speeches, a high percentage of oratorical commonplaces. T o be noted in particular are the four traditional similes—the bad doctor (3. 6 n.), the sick man (5. 12 n.), the birds of summer (6. 2 n.), and the naval battle (6. 4 n.)—all of which have a long pedigree of use. T h e speech is throughout in strict 'classical' style, recalling and perhaps influenced by Cicero at many points. T h e following list contains the more striking turns of phrase which find counterparts in the works of Cicero: For turbare concordiam (3. 5) cf. de Leg. Agr. 1 . 2 ; invitus moror (4. 8) cf. pro Cluentio 168; necessitate imposita (5. 3) cf. pro Sulla 35; quid. . . 634

403 B.C.

5- 3-6

loquar (5. 6) cf. de Har. Resp. 4 1 ; laxamentum dederis (5. 10) cf. pro Cluentio 8 9 ; sequantur viam consilii (5. 11) cf. in Catil. 4. 9 ; insanabilem morbum (5. 12; cf. 13. 5) cf. Tusc. Disp. 5. 3 ; si. . . certe (45. 23. 17) cf. pro Quinct. 6 5 ; mediusJidius cf. Phil. 2. 67 with Denniston's note; effeminate . . . molles (6. 4) cf. Tusc. Disp. 4. 6 4 ; erubescant (6. 5) cf. pro Caelio 8; patrocinium mollitiae (6. 5) cf.
5-3-8

4 0 3 B.C.

quite the same freedom of intercourse (contrast [Xenophon], Ath. Pol. i. 12; Demosthenes, Philip. 3. 3) but the nearest parallel to the prohibition adduced by Claudius would seem to be the rules laid down by P. Piso for the conduct of his slaves (Plutarch, de GarruL 18). See J . Vogt, Sklaverei und Humanitdt (Abhandl. Akad. Wissen. Mainz, 1953). Cf. also [Xenophon,] Resp. Laced. 6. 3. comitate . . . oboediens: Appius makes capital out of contemporary moral platitudes. T h e phrase dicto audiens atque oboediens, 'marked by pleonasm and assonance, seems clearly an allusion to some formal and solemn use' (G. W. Williams, Hermes 86 (1958), 97 n. 1). T h e connexion of dicto audiens or oboediens with imperium, evident also in Plautus (e.g. Miles 6 1 1 ; Amph. 9 9 1 ; Bacch. 439; Pers. 378), indicates that it was the technical expression defining the duty of obedience of a citizen to a magistrate with imperium, although L. also used it more loosely of subservience to the Senate (4. 26. 9 ; cf. Caelius, ad Fam. 8. 4. 4). In the present passage Mr. Williams detects an echo of the terms of the soldier's sacramentum (cf. Caesar, B.G. 1. 40. 12). But if it was the duty of the subject to obey, it was the duty of those in a position of power to display comitas towards those under them. Hence the virtues of comitas and obsequium are often as here (3. 9) linked together. Cf, e.g., Laudatio Turiae 1. 30. 3. 9. humani: Wolfflin (Liv. Kritik, 25) observed that whereas quid, aliquid, quicquam, &c. are often found with the gen. of 1st and 2nd decl. adjectives (e.g. nihil magni = nihil magnum) they are never so found with genitives of the 3rd declension. He, therefore, conjectured humani animi here (cf. 4. 13. 4, 45. 32. 5). non dico civilis, however, introduces an afterthought or correction, as if L. had si quicquam humani esset in mind when he began to write the sentence (cf. 7. 4. 6, 5. 23. 5) and only added civilis later. T h e anomaly can in this way be understood. Wolfflin's conjecture, which by confining the quality under discussion to the mind weakens the force of the appeal, is made improbable by the close analogy of 7. 4. 6. 3. 10. perpetua concordia: the argument that a unified state is capable of unhampered prosperity formed the staple of Plato's Republic (Bayet calls particular attention to 4. 420-3) and is often emphasized by Demosthenes (cf, e.g., Philip. 3. 28-29). Partitio 4. 1. atque ego: the new section calls for a mild resumptive particle, not a strong adversative, atque (ego) plays this role at 28. 28. 1, 34. 4. 12 whereas atqui ego (A; Conway) is not found in L. (Fiigner). Cf. Horace, Sat. 1. 10. 31 (with Fraenkel, Horace, 130 n. 3). quo: quod (Ver.) is to be preferred, the whole clause explaining hoc consilium (cf. 3. 49. 7). 636

403 B.C.

5- 4- 3

Tractatio I: Refutatio (a) aequum 4. 3 . numquam: the alleged reason for the tribunes' opposition to military pay, that it was unprecedented, disagrees with the narrative of 4. 60. 3-4 where they are afraid that it will result in new and oppressive taxes. L. is, however, fond of the Principle of the Dan­ gerous Precedent which he uses to effect in Canuleius' speech (4. 4. 1) and the discrepancy here may be seen as evidence that Claudius' speech is a freely elaborate composition by L. himself. 4. 4 . opera sine emolumento: an old proverb which in the form 'the labourer is worthy of his hire 5 is familiar from the New Testa­ ment (Luke 10. 7; 1 Tim. 5. 18), but which goes back to classical times. Mr. A. N . Bryan-Brown reminds me of Aeschines 3. 182-3 TTOXVV TTOVOV V7TO{JL€LVaVT€S . . . flTTjaCLV 8(tip€(LV.

labor voluptasque: the TOTTOS is borrowed (directly or indirectly) from Plato, Phaedo 60 b. 4. 6. ab domo ac re: 'let him therefore be resigned to remaining away a little longer from his home and his property, which is now under no heavy charges' (Foster), ac (Ver.) is confirmed by 2.4 which passage also disposes of any reasons for deleting ab domo as a gloss. 4 . 7 . ad calculos . . . vocat: the apostrophe by the state is analogous to the incident in the first speech against Catiline where the fatherland is represented as reproving Catiline (18). T h a t model ensures that it is the state which is calling the soldier to book and not vice versa. ad calculos vocare is used once by Cicero in this sense (Lael. 5 8 ; cf. Val. Max. 4. 8. 1). an tu: as at 32. 21. 15 great emphasis is laid by the word-order on tu— 'do you, a mere soldier, dare to hold this opinion? 5 , whereas we expect attention to be called to the outrageous nature of the soldier's belief that it was fair enough to get something for nothing. Ver. read anitu which J u n g divined to be the remains of an id tu. T h e emphasis is now placed where it is expected. Cf. 9. 34. 8, 21. 3. 5. solidum . . . stipendium: 'a whole year's pay5. (b) civile 4. 8. mercennario . . . civibus: the emotive distinction between citizens and mercenaries was much played on by Greek orators. Greek cities, unlike Rome, had to depend heavily upon the services of soldiers of fortune whose loyalty was too often available to the highest bidder. Cf. Nicias 5 arguments to the Athenian assembly (Thucydides6.20-22). 4. 1 1 . decern: the comparison with the Trojan W a r had a special relevance in the case of Veii but was no original point. It is made earlier by [Demosthenes] 60. 10. 4. 13. septiens: 4. 32. 2 n. Note the short, simple sentences in which 637

5- 4- 13

4 0 3 B.C.

the crimes of Veii are catalogued. Each is self-contained, hodieque, therefore, in 4. 14 must = etiam hodie, not et hodie (cf. 42. 34. 2 ; Veil. Pat. 1. 4. 2) and a semicolon not a comma should be put before it. (c) utile et necessarium 5 . 4 . nunc consultum: 'to come now to pure military considerations— to what personally touches our troops in the field—those troops whom the gallant tribunes after trying to rob of their pay now suddenly wish to protect from hardship'. 5 . 5 . ingentis utramque rem operis: so Ver. utrumque rem N. res is required as in Praef. 4 res est praeterea et immensi operis. duxerunt: duxere Ver. rightly. T h e proportion of -erunt to -ere for the 3rd pers. plural of the perfect in Book 5 is 45-58. duxere makes for variety with the folioWmgfecerunt. Cf. 3. 57. 9 11., 4. 7. 8. spectantes: 1. 9 n. 5. 6. exsudetur: 4. 13. 4 n. 5. 7. minus: the text here is uncertain and Conway's apparatus mis­ leading. The problems need to be resolved. (1) T h e sentence quanto . . . cura is certainly an exclamation, not, as in the O.C.T., a question. 'How much less trouble to carry on than to begin from scratch every time!' But can quanto est minus mean 'how much less trouble'? Weissenborn-Muller quote no parallels nor have I been able to trace any. T h e regular phrase is minus est operis (cf., e.g., Cicero, Verr. 1. 147 utrum existimatis minus operis esse) or minus est operae. Hence Hell changed opera to operae and Luterbacher proposed (operae) opera, operum tanto labore factorum (5. 11) shows that Hell's alteration cannot be right but some emendation is evidently required. Luterbacher's is linguistically less good than (operis^ opera but gains support from operae . . . iactura below. (2) How is cura to be understood ? As it stands it could either be an instrumental abl. with defungi ('to persevere and bring (the siege) to a conclusion by our persistence'; so J a c h m a n n in Thes. Ling. Lat.; cf. 8. 19. 14, 45. 4 1 . 9) or it could be the object of defungi 'to put an end to our anxiety' (Foster, Bayet). Neither pleases. T h e naked 'by our persistence', the equivalent of diligenter, cannot be paralleled and its place at the end of the sentence is awkward and surprising. T h e plain noun would certainly need to be qualified by some such epithet as assidua. Equally, however, cura as the object of defungi is misleadingly undefined. Elsewhere it is accompanied by a defining genitive such as bellorum (9. 30. 10, 34. 1. 1; cf. 1. 45. 3). Ver. here is illegible {cura cannot be read) but there is clear space for a word of nine not four letters before brevis. certamine is the immediate supplement (cf. 33. 6. 3 ; 10. 13. 4) and must be what L. wrote, certamine was lopped to certa and emended. 'To press on and persevere and put an end to the 638

403 B.C.

5-5- 7

struggle.' All four verbs are independent and of equal weight. For the polysyndeton cf. 21. 16. 4 ; see Kuhnast, Liv. Syntax, 287. 5. 8. quid: Ver. omits the following quod and reads with N nunc oblivisci. With that reading the text could only be punctuated quid periculi differendo bello adimus? nunc oblivisci nos concilia patiuntur and could only be understood as 'what risk is there, it may be objected, in prolonging the w a r ? As things are at present the frequent Etruscan meetings allow us to forget/ Which is nonsense, quite apart from the grammatical difficulty of quid periculi = quod periculum. Appius' point is that the frequent negotiations among the Etruscans indicate that only a slight change of attitude on the part of Veii would result in Etruria committing herself wholeheartedly to her support. Time is short. T h e required sense was seen and restored by Petrarch. 5. 12. non hercule dissimilia: L. employs another Ciceronian TOTTOS (in Catil. 1. 31). Tractatio II: Confirmatio (a) utile 6. 1. parta victoria frui: victoria frui means 'to enjoy the fruits of victory' not 'to win a victory', parta, which is read by all the manuscripts, including Ver., except for U, means that the victory has been won (3. 62. 2), whereas parata ( U ; seeBurman on Petronius 16; cf. Ovid, Heroid. 8.82) would mean that the victory was ready to be won but not yet actually won. parta is right. In any case it would be premature to enjoy the fruits of a victory which is still only parata. Claudius is re­ minding the troops that they must win victories as well as enjoy them afterwards. 6. 2. sicut aestivas aves: for the simile of migrant birds cf. Plato, Laws 952 d-e, where he classifies four types of travellers, including 'summer business visitors who are like birds of passage taking wing in pursuit of commerce and flying over the sea to other cities while the season lasts'. 6. 3 . venandi: the analogy from hunting is old. T h e ancients regularly advocated hunting as a good form of military training. Cf, e.g., Xenophon, Cyneg. 1. 18; Plato, Laws 823 f-824 a ; Aristotle, Politics i256 b 23~26; Xenophon, Cyrop. 1. 2. 10; Anth. Pal. 14. 17, 6. 188 (Leonidas); Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 2. 161; Columella 1 Praef. 17. In constrasting the fit huntsmen with the effete citizens Claudius may also be alluding to Cicero's denunciation of Catiline's supporters (2. 23), But the educative value of hunting was an element in Augustan propaganda and is defended by Horace as promoting Romana militia (Epist. 1. 18. 49 ff.; Sat. 2. 2. 10 ff.). Whether hunting was a pastime of Romans in the fifth century or not is immaterial. T h e curious will 639

5-6. 3

403 B.C.

find the evidence set out by J. Aymard (Les Chasses Romaines, 25-41) who shows that it was familiar and popular among the Etruscans from an early date. What is important is that L. here invokes a literary cliche, not an historical fact. 6. 4. navale helium: anachronistic, for at this date a Roman fleet was not even an idle dream (4. 34. 6-7 n.; 5. 28. 1-5 n.; 7. 25-26; 8. 22-23 > s e e Thiel, Roman Seapower before the Second Punic War, 6 ff.). It is therefore legitimate to suspect another oratorical commonplace, for which Hesiod (W. D. 684) and Demosthenes (Philip. 1. 31) afford suggestive, if distant, parallels. 6. 5. iuxta: cf. Tacitus, Agricola 22. (b) possibile 6. 9. fame sitique: Veii did not so succumb and the inaccuracy may be taken as a further proof that the whole speech is a free composition by L. himself, fame sitique is a glib phrase which trips off the tongue in such contexts (cf. Plautus, Most. 193; Rudens 312; Sallust, Jugurtha 89. 7; Cicero, de Finibus 1. 37, 5. 4 8 ; Tusc. Disp. 5. 98; 7. 35. 8, 28. 15. 4). Conclusio: amplificatio—insinuatio 6. 14. fustuarium: the comparison between the agitators and the offenders corresponds to the ninth locus communis of the ad Herennium (2« 49). The punishment was inflicted in the following manner. When the offender was condemned, the tribune or commanding officer touched him lightly with his baton (fastis) whereupon the rest of the soldiers set upon him with sticks and dispatched him. If by any chance he escaped or survived, he was prohibited from returning home. For details see Polybius 6. 37. 1 ff. with Walbank's note; Cicero, Phil. 3. 14; Porphyr. on Horace, Epist. 2. 1. 154; Veil. Pat. 2. 78. 3 ; Tacitus, Annals 3. 21. 1 ; Mommsen, Strafrecht, 983-4. The antiquity of the punishment and its etymology are both matters of dispute. Usener (Rh. Mus. 56 (1901), 16-17) claimed that together with so many other military institutions its origin was Etruscan but it is perhaps more likely that it was introduced with the third-century reforms of the army which laid particular emphasis on steady discipline in the ranks, fustis, originally the commander's baton, is variously derived but is perhaps to be connected with gr. dvpaos or Celtic b(h)ustis (see M. Leumann, Hermes 55 (1920), 107-11; E. Fraenkel, Ind. Forsch. 40 (1922), 97-100; Kurylowicz, Melanges Vendryes, 204; Ernout-Meillet; Walde-Hofmann). 6. 15. adsuestis, Quirites: Ver. read adsuestis audire, N adsuestis qui audire. The question is simply whether N's qui is an interpolation (cf. 10. 6 n.) or whether in the common archetype some other word 640

4 0 3 B.C.

5- 6. 15

lias been progressively corrupted. If the latter, Gulielmus's Quirites is far superior to any other conjecture (quieti Weissenborn, Wolffiin; utique Brakman ; aequi Gronovius; benigni Cornelissen); for the corrup­ tion cf. 3. 67. 1 and for the emotional adj. with audire cf. 4. 1.4, 25. 38. 23. 6. 16-17. reliquum: Claudius' conclusion corresponds to the tenth locus communis prescribed by the author of ad Herennium (2. 49). Claudius' ironical definition of libertas reveals, as Wirszubski (Libertas, 8 ff.) illustrates, that for a Roman liberty was conceived 'in terms of social relations, as a duty no less than a right'. L.'s specification of constitutional government and the duties of citizenship (senatus, magistrates, leges, instituta patrum, disciplina militiae) would have com­ mended itself to every Roman of his day. It should be compared with such passages as 2. 44. 9, 51. 7, 3. 39. 8, 53. 10, 4. 56. 13, and, above all, Tacitus, Annals 1. 2. 1 mania senatus magistratuum legum in se trahere (Augustus) as against Augustus, Res Gestae 6. For the concepts at issue see Syme, Roman Revolution, 152 ; Hofmann, Antike u. Abendland 4 (1954), i7off. Exception has been taken, e.g. by Bake and Cobet, to the plural mores: but cf. Plautus, Trin. 295; Cicero, pro Fonteio 4 6 ; Sallust, Hist. 1. 16 M . Here it is no doubt infected by the surrounding plurals (magistratus, leges, instituta). 7-11. 3. The Siege of Veii protracted (402-1) T h e main military events of the years, the defeat of M ' . Sergius by the Capenates and the Faliscans (8. 4) and the loss of Anxur (8. 2), are historical and the enlistment of a volunteer corps of cavalry is an equally authentic notice (7. 5 n.). T h e stuffing of the narrative, how­ ever, including the sally against the Roman siege-works (7. 2-3), the antagonism between Sergius and L. Verginius (8. 9), the intervention of C. Servilius Ahala (g. 5), and the co-option of C. Lacerius and M . Acutius (10. 11), can in large measure be condemned. L.'s source is betrayed by one glaring anachronism (7. 5 n.) to be a late one and the agreement in error of 10. 1 (M. Furio Camillo iterum) with 1. 2 indicates that the source is still Licinius Macer. T h e events of the years, viewed together, serve only to illustrate the demoralization of the R o m a n people and the failure of their attempts against Veii (cf. 8. 13). T h e reader is being prepared for divine intervention. See Burck n 1-13. 7. 2. patefacta: a repetition of the scene at Fidenae (4. 33. 2 n.). 7. 3 . mortales: 1. 9. 8 n. The Volunteer Cavalry 7. 5. census equester: there are two quite separate issues in the present passage. 814432

64I

Tt

403 B.C. 5- 7- 5 (i) It is implied that the equites had a different census qualification (the census equester) from the other members of the first class. This is inconsistent with the provisions of the Servian Constitution set out in i. 43. 1-2 where equites and pedites of the first class are assessed alike. A distinct census equester, higher than that of the first class, is first attested in 76 B.C. (Cicero, pro Q. Roscio 42) and may be presupposed by the Lex Acilia of C. Gracchus (C.LL. i 2 . 2. 583) but was not in existence when Polybius wrote 6. 20. 9 (where see Walbank's note). The mention of the census equester by L. here is therefore a major anachronism. On the other hand, the anachronism cannot have been perpetrated by L. himself since under Augustus members of the census equester were equites equo publico but none of them actually served as cavalry. T h e title had become purely honorific, while the dis­ tinction between equites equo publico and equites suis merentes had been obliterated by disuse. It may thus be inferred that L.'s source was writing between 130 and 40 B.C. (2) The Servian Constitution provided for a cavalry establishment of 1,800 but did not make any provision for the supplementation of that number if additional cavalry were required by the military situa­ tion. It is certain that in the Punic Wars R o m e depended heavily upon supernumerary cavalry, members of the first class who were not en­ rolled in the eighteen centuries of cavalry but who opted to provide their own mounts and serve as cavalry in preference to being con­ scripted as infantrymen. T h e need for such a voluntary supplementa­ tion of the established cavalry must have occurred before the third century (7. 25, 8; 9. 19. 1 ff.; 29. 1.3 ff.) and there seems no reason to doubt that it originated during the Siege of Veii. Communications with the isolated Roman garrisons at Veii would have required con­ stant protection by an efficient cavalry escort against the harrassing attacks of Etruscan skirmishers. T h e memory of such an innovation would naturally be preserved: it is of a piece with the other military reforms entailed by a prolonged siege-pay and winter service. The volunteers, since service was expensive even if paid (7. 12 n.), will have come from the ranks of the wealthiest members of the first class. See further Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 258, 499; Gerathewohl, Die Reiter, 8 ff.; J . B. Mispoulet, Rev. Phil. 8 (1884), 177-86; H . Hill, Class. PhiL 25 (1930), 244-9; A.J.P. 60 (1939), 357-62 ; Roman Middle Class, 16-19; E. Gabba, Athenaeum 29 (1951), 255-6; Walbank, loc. cit. 7 . 7 . se aiunt nunc esse operamque: Ver., N. Ruperti hit on the true inter­ pretation *h.e. sicut equites sese obtulerint ad militiam extraordinariam ut equestrem in bello aciem ordinemque augeant, ita plebeios nunc quum equitum alacritatem istam viderint, velle pedites esse pedestrique extra ordinem militia fungi q u u m a d h u c Quirites, vacui, otiosi, 642

403 B.C.

5-7-7

nulloque in acie ac bello fuerint loco'. The common populace, too poor to qualify for ordinary service, are inspired by the example set by their betters in forming an equester ordo, flock to the Senate-house clamouring that they have now formed a pedestris ordo and offer their services voluntarily. There was, of course, properly no pedestris ordo: the populace claim to have formed one and coin the phrase specially. Cuper's emendation of the passage (pedestris ordinis aiunt nunc esse operant: 'it was now the turn of the p. o. to offer their services . . .'), accepted by most editors including Weissenborn and Conway, misses the force of nunc and the humour of the phrase/», o. See H. Hill, C.R. 43 (i929)> I 2 7 ! 3 7. 9. ex superiore loco: the scene recalls one of the more tumultuous demonstrations of the late Republic. L. uses contemporary political jargon to promote the illusion; for reip. insultarent (7. 4) cf. Cicero, Verr. 5. 132; for fama . . . pervasisset (7. 6) cf. de Imp. Cn. Pomp. 4 4 ; for amplissimis verbis gratiae actae (a technical expression) cf. Phil. 1 . 3 ; for voce manibusque cf. pro Rab. Perd. 32. 7. 10. beatam . . . urbem: 4. 4. 4 n. 7. 11. donee: deinde Ver., rightly, because it would be grotesque to picture the assembled company weeping tears ofjoy up to the moment when the Senate was re-convened. Two separate phenomena are being described : the emotions of the public and the convening of the Senate. 7. 12. Ver.'s order (equitibuspeditibusque) is rare (1. 44. 1, 21. 4. 8, and eight other passages) compared with the great frequency of the other (cf, e.g., 4. 28. 2) and is on that account to be preferred (cf. also 29. 33. 6). N's order gains little support from the argument that since the pedites displayed the more unexpected altruism they should be named first. See Conway on 27. 13. 9. memorem pietatis: a lapidary phrase appropriate to the formal expression of the Senate's appreciation. I t is frequently found on inscriptions commemorating the devotion of children to their parents (e.g. C.I.L. 9. 5167): here, by extension, the devotion is to the state, the common parent of all Romans. aera procedere: 4. 59. 11 n. For the amounts of pay in later times see Walbank on Polybius 6. 39. 12-15 and Watson, Historia 7 (1958), 113 ff. In ratio the pay of the cavalry was always three times that of the infantry (7. 4 1 . 8). Whereas the equites equo publico now received pay in addition to the regular allowances of aes equestre and aes hordearium for the upkeep of their mounts (1. 43. 9 n.), the volunteers apparently only received pay but not the allowances. They were com­ pensated by having a shorter period of service. The additional revenue to meet the extra expense was found by two taxes which are recorded as having been imposed in this year (403) by the censors on bachelors 643

5- 7- 12

403 B.C.

and orphans (Val. Max. 2. 9. 1 ; Plutarch, Camillus 2. 2). T h e facts speak for themselves. 7. 13. turn primum equis suis: for the text see J. Walker, Supplementary Annotations on Livy (1882); C.Q. 9 (1959), 278. hie in the reading of M (turn hie primum equos si merere) merely symbolizes that the scribe knew that his version was defective ( = h.d.; cf. E. A. Lowe, Studi e Testi, 126 (1946), 36-79) and should not be used as a basis for conjec­ ture {tunc primum Weissenborn; hinc primum Walters, Bayet) since turn primum is almost invariable in L. (1. 7. 12, 2. 58. 1, 3. 63. 11,4. 29. 8). suis is needed to make it clear that the new cavalry were supplying their own horses (cf. 7. 5 ; so Ver.; the Periocha has equis suis mereri). 8. 1. C Servilium Ahalam: 4. 56. 2 n. Q. Servilium: Q,.f. P.n. Fidenas, according to the Capitoline Fasti; cf. 14. 5, 24. 1, 36. 11. H e came from a distinguished family, his father having been dictator in 435 (4. 21. 10 n.) who acquired fame and a cognomen by his defeat of Fidenae. Quintus himself held a long series of high offices and is mentioned as an interrex in 397 (17. 4) but his character is as elusive as his policv. See Munzer, R.E., 'Servilius (56)'. L. Verginium: L.f. Opetr. n. Tricost(us) Esqui[lin(us), son of the consul of 435 (4. 21. 6 n.). H e is not otherwise known (Gundel, R.E., 'Verginius (14)'). For the corrupt praenomen pi in the manuscripts see 2. 15. 1 n. Q. Sulpicium: Ser.f. Ser.n. Camerinus Cornutus; cf. 14. 5. His grandfather must be the consul of 461 (3. 10. 5 n.). A. Manlium: 4. 61. 1 n. M\ Sergium: 4. 61. 4 n. 8. 2. Anxuri: 4. 59. 3 n. 8. 4. Capenatium: Capena (from root kap with Etruscan suffix -ena cf. Capys 4. 37. 1 n.) has been recently identified with the modern Civitucola (see map) as the result of several inscriptions set up there by Capenates foederati. T h e town is situated on a steep hill some 1 \ miles in circumference to which the only access is through a rocky defile, easily blockaded. It was therefore a position of great natural strength. Indeed the Romans never attempted an assault on it but were content to ravage the surrounding country (12. 5, 13. 12, 14. 7). Of some antiquity (finds from the necropolis go back to the eighth century), its ties lay with neighbouring Falerii whose culture it shared and with Veii whence it was traditionally said to have been colonized (Servius ad Aen. 7. 697; the text is corrupt). T h e successive capture of Veii and Falerii by the Romans isolated Capena which was no longer able to hold out on her own. Her land was incorporated in the tribus Stellatina instituted in 367 and the city itself was given the status of a municipium which it continued to enjoy under the Empire. Together with Nepi, 644

402 B.C.

5.8.4

Sutri, and Falerii, Gapena had an interest in the success of Veii's resistance to Rome, since the defeat of Veii besides removing their principal centre of trade would open the whole of the Giminian plain to R o m a n advance. See Hulsen, R.E., * Gapena'; a full-scale study of Gapena and the Ager Gapenas has been published by G. B. D. Jones, P.B.S.R. 17 (1962), n 8 f f . Faliscorum: 26-27 n 8. 6. iam antea: 4. 17. 11. The Defeat of the Romans at Veii By a typical 7repi7rcTeia the Romans' hopes which had been raised to a high pitch by the spontaneous volunteering of infantry and cavalry are dashed by the personal jealousies of the commanders. T h e defeat is historical: the cause belongs to a familiar class of motiva­ tions which only historians supplied to bring the facts to life. For this motivation cf. also 4. 31. 2 (Plathner, Schlachtschilderungen, 12 ; Bruckmann, Rom. Niederlagen, 40). A different explanation of the facts is offered at 9. 1 n. 8. 1 1 . ne quam: for Ver.'s omission of quam cf. 4. 14. 6 n. 8. 13. pauci. . . Mi: a word must have fallen out after rei publicae signifying the great majority of the Senate who were concerned not with the interests of the state but with partisan support for one or other general. All the early editions restore multi but plerique (Kiehl, Andresen) is palaeographically superior and gives better sense. It cannot be supplied from the context (Bayet). huic atque Mi = vel huic vel Mi; cf. Propertius 2. 25. 46. 9. 1. Kalendis Octobribus: 3. 6. 1 n. L. offers two explanations for the supersession of the military tribunes, culpa and irfelicitas. T h e only cause which could lead to such a drastic step, involving, as it did, the institution of a new magisterial year and the return of the auspices to the patres, would be the discovery that they had been vitio creati (4. 7. 3 n.). Such a detail would have figured in the Annales. 9. 3 . at enimvero: apparently unique here, although P in isolation reads at enim vero for at enim at 4. 4. 1 ; it was evidently also the reading of Ver. It should not be tampered with (at enim [vero] Luterbacher). T h e plain at enim would regularly introduce an objection whereas a strong adversative is required here. L. has a liking for such pleonas­ tic forms: cf. verum enim vero (4. 4. 9). intercedere: a confusion by L. or his source since the tribuni militum do not, like the tr. pi., possess the power of veto. Gf. also the tenden­ tious in auctoritate senatus (9. 4 ; 4. 26. 7 n.). T h e whole passage has an air of constitutional quibbling. 9. 4 . hominum: surprising, since the struggle is traditionally between 645

5- 9- 4

4 0 2 B.C.

the orders and it is hard to see the point of hominum. Perhaps ordinum (Whibley). 9 . 5 . C. Servilius Ahala: his intervention is a duplication of the part which he plays in 4. 57. 3 and resembles an episode in the life of Q . Servilius Priscus (4. 26. 9). T h e train of his remarks is not altogether clear. ad vos is picked up by in vobis animi, minas by in Us iuris, and animi probably has its usual sense of courage or spirit. T should dearly like to prove that your threats are as illegal as your behaviour is cowardly (in that you only dare to speak up when the city is rent by dissensions).' T h e difficulty lies with the sentence beginning sed nefas est. If it is taken as rebutting the earlier sentence (i.e. 'but I will not take time now to prove it because it is wrong to impede senatorial business'), we are bound to assume that his revelation of the tribunes' malpractices would be contrary to the Senate's resolution—an assumption which has no warrant and little probability. It is better to put a strong stop after esset and take the sentence as a protest put into the mouths of the tribunes (sed = at enirn). ' "But it's wrong to thwart the Senate" you say, and imply that you were justified in threatening anyone who tried to stand in the way of the Senate's resolutions. All right. You stop trying to exploit the situation and either my colleagues will resign or I will appoint a dictator.' For the order collegae out. . . aut (ego) dicam cf Praef. 4. ne = nae 'to be sure', here as often with a personal pronoun (cf. Cicero, deFinibus 3. 11: see Kuhner-Stegmann 2. 1. 796). T h e subjunc­ tive experirer is conditional: T would gladly make trial of. . .'. 9. 7. terriculis: the word is used once else by L. also in a reported speech (34. 11. 7). It is a revival of an archaic word employed by Accius and Afranius, not found in any of the late Republican prose writers. 10. 1. L. Valerio : 4. 49. 7 n. M . Furio : 1. 2 n. M\ Aemilio : 4. 53. 1 n. Cn. Cornelio: 4. 58. 6 n., 56. 2 n. For the iteration of both Cornelius and Fabius see 4. 61. 4 n., where it is suggested that the discrepancy with the Capitoline Fasti, who list Cornelius I I I and Fabius II under this year, is to be explained by the supposition that L. is here following Licinius Macer. Such a supposition would be in line with the second tribunate ascribed to Camillus (1.2 n.). K. Fabio: 4. 61. 4 n. All five were men of an experience and service that contrasted sharply with the evident youth and incompetence of their predecessors. If the defeat at Veii is factual, it would be reasonable to suppose that Rome would call back to office her most distinguished generals. L. lulius Iullus: 16. 1, L.f. Vopisci n., a son of the consular tribune of 438 (4. 16. 7 f f . ) . 646

401 B.C.

5- ">. 3

10. 3 . cooptandis: io. u n. 10. 5. tribute: perhaps an allusion to the special taxes referred to in 7. 12 n. 10. 6. gravia: with the manuscript gravia indignioraque we must under­ stand, with Pettersson, an ellipse of erant after gravia since indigniora(que) is clearly governed by faciebant Pettersson does indeed adduce 21. 14. 3 'quod imperium crudele, ceterum prope necessarium cognitum ipso eventu est', where fait is to be understood after crudele. The passages are hardly analogous, for -que (like re) is a more intimate connexion than ceterum and in the latter passage the subject of both clauses remains imperium. Intrusive -que is so frequent in the manu­ scripts of L. (cf. 2. 32. i o n . ) that there should be no scruple in deleting it. For the combination of gravis and indignus cf. 23. 14. 7, 32. 35. 3, 34- 37- 3Note how the concord temporarily established by the volunteering of the cavalry is gradually broken down so that the need for Camillus becomes urgent and imperative. 10.7. tertium: i.e. from the start of the all-year siege of Veii. The war it­ self was now in its fifth year (quintum Glareanus), but it is a tacit proof that the start was pushed back two years to secure a ten-year length. 10. 9. labore^ vulneribus, postremo aetate: 'bodies worn out by toil, wounds and, finally, years'. The picture of the desolated country and the emasculated veterans is Gracchan colouring. In particular for inculta cf. Plutarch, T. Gracchus 8 (Gracchus on his way to Spain in i37B.c.).Itis unreasonable to suppose that agriculture was as depressed in the 39o's—even allowing for the incidence of malaria—as the tribunes protest. Gracchan, too, is the oppressive burden of taxes: cf. Ti. Gracchus' proposal to distribute the legacy of Attalus (Plutarch 14; Livy, Epit. 58). The Proposed Co-option of Patrician Tribunes 10. 11. legis [tribuniciae]: could only mean a law initiated by a tribune or tribunes, and not a law regulating the conditions of the elec­ tion of tribunes (cf. 3. 56. 12, 5. 29. 6), but the reference here is clearly to the Lex Trebonia (3. 64-65 n.) which was designed to prohibit the infiltration of the college of tribunes by the co-optation of patricians. It is true that the law was proposed by a tribune, Trebonius, but it could not have been referred to as the lex tribunicia after so long an interval without further definition. It is equally certain that L. did not write here legis Treboniae (Pighius, Bekker) since the context and word-order of 11. 1 (Treboniae legis; see Gatterall, TA.P.A. 69 (1938), 314; cf. 7. 21. 1, 3) show that the law had not been referred to by name earlier (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 2. 277 n. 2). The only acceptable solution is, with Madvig, to delete tribuniciae. 647

5.

4 0 1 B.C.

io. i i

C. Lacerius et M. Acutius: the names are not wholly imaginary. Lacerius occurs on an inscription from Rome (C.I.L. 6. 35645) and Acutius, common after A.D. IOO, is also recorded on inscriptions from Rome and Praeneste (C.I.L. 14. 3047 fF.; see Schulze 68). None the less there is much to be said for the view that the names were originally chosen for their meaning (acuere and lacerare)—'the Harriers'—and that the whole incident is a doublet of the equally implausible co-opta­ tion of Aternius and Tarpeius in 448. If there was doubt about the date of the Lex Trebonia, it might well figure twice in history, especially since a Verginius is a leading figure in the state on both occasions (T. Verginius, consul in 4 4 8 : L. Verginius). T h e two, pre­ sumably anonymous, patricians who attempted to secure co-optation are also duplicated together with the author of the law. In one case the patricians are given aetiological names, in the other they are iden­ tified, at the cost of historical credibility, with two consulars distin­ guished for the introduction of a law that eased the conditions of the plebs. See E. Meyer, KL Schriften, 1. 137 fF.; Munzer, R.E., 'Lacerius'. 1 1 . 2 . is . . . arguere: 'he complained bitterly that what the patricians after an initial setback h a d secured by the agency of the consular tribunes, namely, as he loudly protested, the mockery of the Trebonian law, the co-optation of tribunes not by popular vote but patrician dictation, the present deplorable position whereby tribunes must either be patricians or patrician toadies, the annulment of the sacred laws, the theft of the tribunician prerogatives—all was the result of the dishonesty of the patricians and the treachery of his colleagues'. A breathless and tortuous sentence, arguere, a historic in­ finitive (arguebat Sigonius), is the main verb, governing id. . .factum (esse), id picks up quodpetissent . . . expugnassent, while the rest of the sentence is a parenthesis dependent on vociferans containing an explana­ tory list of offences to substantiate the general charge of quod. . . expugnassent. T h e underlying structure, therefore, is: is, quod petissent, id fraude factum arguere. In the parenthesis the verbs are coupled et

(1) sublatam et cooptatos (esse) (2) eo revolvi ut. . . eripi. . . extorqueri. . .

i.e. two coupled past passive infinitives linked by et to three present passive infinitives in asyndeton. T h e meaning of the quod-c\ause is 'what the patres had wanted but only secured after an initial setback, viz . . .', the subject of expu­ gnassent being the same as repulsi and petissent', cf. 2. 11. 1 Por senna primo conatu repulsus . . . castra posuit. There is no need to alter tamen which 648

401 B.C.

5- " • 2

is the idiom after a quasi-concessive participle (cf., e.g., 2. 64. 3 pulsi ingentes tamen praedas . . . egere and other examples in E. Mikkola, Die Konzessivitdt bei Livius, 56, who rightly defends the text here) and is also required to join petissent and expugnassent. T h e force of quidam, which H a u p t had doubts about, is that not the whole Senate was concerned in the dirty business; the ringleaders were the patricians while a notable member of the opposition would be P. Licinius. There remains tribunos militum. Haupt, H. J. Miiller, and Bayet excise it. But it is needed to make the historical succession clear; since it cannot be the object of expugnassent, it should be the agency employed, i.e. (per) tribunos militum. For the text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 272-3. 11. 4-12. 7. The Trial ofSergius and Verginius At many points L.'s account of the trial ofSergius and Verginius is open to objection. Even if money fines are no longer at this date anachronistic (2. 52. 5 n.), prosecutions by tribunes cannot have been constitutional at least until the Licinio-Sextian laws (2. 35. 5 n.). Furthermore the names of the prosecutors are suspicious: P. Guriatius (the form Guratius is not found) should be a patrician (3. 32. 1 n.) as also, at this date, should M . Minucius be (3. 33. 3 n., 4. 12. 1 n.) and it is more than doubtful whether the Metilii were yet established in Rome (4. 48. 1 n.). Guriatius evokes G. Guriatius, the sordidissimus tribune of 138 B.G. T h e association of M. Metilius and M . Minucius is highly suggestive recalling, as it does, the activities of the tribunes of 217 in securing the nomination of M. Minucius Rufus as dictator and the parallel is heightened by the mutual recriminations on military matters between Q,. Fabius Gunctator and M . Minucius. T h e demolition of the circumstantial superstructure need not, however, invalidate the fact that Sergius and Verginius were tried and con­ demned, presumably on a charge of perduellio. T h e case resembles in its particulars the prosecution of 476 (2. 52. 3 n.). T h e speech (5-16) is a fine example of pathetic and indignant oratory: the whole disaster is blamed on the patricians as a deliberate attempt to weaken the resistance of the plebs, and full retribution must be exacted from the guilty. It is contemporary in tone, containing several rhetorical commonplaces (11. 6 n., 11. 16 n.) and conventional phrases (e.g. for liberis, fratribus, propinquis, adjinibus (11. 5) cf. Cicero, Part. Or. 35; for consenescat (11. 9) cf. ad Att. 2. 23. 2; for stare respublica his manentibus cf. Phil. 2. 92. Notice the carefully elaborated structure: quibus . . . quibus . . . quibus . . . qui... qui (11. 5 ) ; et ab senatii et ab populo R. et ab ipsorum collegis . . . et senatus consulto . . . et ab collegis . . . et populum R. . . . (11. 10-13). 1 1 . 6 . omnium . . . malorum . . . causas: the apx*) KOXCDV, a commonplace 649

5- it- 6

401 B.C.

going back at least to Herodotus (5. 97) and perhaps earlier (cf. Homer, Iliad 5. 6 3 ; Thucydides 2. 12. 3 with Gomme's n.). It became almost proverbial also in L a t i n : cf. Cicero,pro Caelio 18. accusatorem: as L. introduces it, the prosecution seems to be the work of all three tribunes. Hence accusatores (Giers) but, as elsewhere, L. has taken over an embryonic speech from his source without completely adjusting it to its new surroundings. In Licinius Macer it may safely be assumed that only one accusator spoke at a time. T h e singular should be kept. fugam . . . Vergini: note the elaborate triple chiasmus. 11. 7. compecto: 'by mutual agreement'. 11. 10. praeiudicium: 3. 40. 11 n. collegis: collegiis N ; parallelism with 11 demands collegis (Petrarch) not collegio (Walters). 11. 1 1 . remotos: 'removed from office' not 'exiled'. 11. 12. confossos: apparently legal slang 'worsted'. Only here in L., for effect. Cf. Val. Max. 8. 1 absol. 11 causa quamquam gravissimis criminibus erat confossa, septies ampliata . . . est. populi iudicium: anachronistic (2. 35. 5 n.). 11. 14. cum fuga ac pavore trepidum, plenum volnerum: Fugner's trans­ position of the manuscript text is certain, fuga and pavor are often linked together (e.g., 38. 2); volnera and pavor never, so that the correc­ tion plenum volnerum ac pavoris (Gronovius, Crevier, Ruperti, Drakenborch) can command little support. No other conjecture {a pavore Seyffert; cum pavore Madvig) so easily satisfies the linguistic and palaeographical requirements. 11. 15. caput. . . detestatusque: 30. 20. 17, 39. 51. 12. 11. 16. minime . . . arment: the TOTTOS is taken over in full from Demo­ sthenes, de Falsa Leg. 80. admovere: 'lay hands on'. Hence often in erotic contexts, e.g. Propertius 1. 3. 16; Ovid, Ars 3. 134. 12. 1. Martem: cf. Cicero,pro Sestio 12 ;pro Milone 5 6 ; 7. 8. 1, 8. 23. 8, 3 1 - 512. 3. legem agrariam: 2. 41. 3 n. 12. 4. ad exitum rei: ad exitum spei, which is read by the majority of editors, including Gronovius, Conway, and Bayet, would have to mean 'until all their hopes were finished' and, as a phrase, is unparalleled. In fact, however, it is only the reading of IT and the archetype had ad exitum rei which gives excellent sense. T h e tribunes sarcastically comment on the Roman military success which has been so pro­ nounced that no war has reached a definite solution. For the expression cf, 3. 53. 2 ; Quintilian 4. 2. 41, and for the repetition res... rei, a feature of L.'s earlier writing, cf. 1. 60. 1, 2. 31. 7, 35. 4, 2. 18. 2 (Pettersson). 650

401 B.C.

5- J 2. 4

militia: the plain abl., for militiae or in militia (2. 58. 4) is found only here in L . (cf. Varro, Men. 223) and is corrupt. Insert <(m). 12. 5. oppida . . .sunt', 'towns were attacked but not besieged'. For nee = nee tamen cf. 3. 55. 1. T h e Romans made sudden assaults in the hope of catching the towns off their guard but did not embark on pro­ tracted sieges, of which they had already had their fill at Veii. T h e natural positions of many of the cities made them in any case virtually impregnable. T h e sole exception was Anxur which was not only attacked but, when the initial assault failed, invested. Anxur was in a special category, being an isolated but key fortress which the Romans had recently lost to the Volscians. We should therefore put a semicolon, with Bayet, after situm, thereby making Anxur an exception not to a rule of neither attacking nor besieging towns (i.e. (jiecy oppugnata Valla, Ruperti, Madvig) but simply to a disinclination to engage in sieges. 12. 8-17. Religious Sanctions Taken against Veii (400-397) Purely political and military measures undertaken against Veii have failed. T h e Romans attribute their failure to divine displeasure and take such steps as are open to them to remedy the situation : the lecti­ stemium (13. 6 n.), the seer of Veii (15. 4 n.), and the Delphic oracle (16. 9-11 n.). T h e first and last of these are likely enough to be authentic facts, even if the circumstances have been doctored to the extent of relating them directly to the issue of the war with Veii whereas the character both of the lectistemium and of the consultation of Delphi suggests that they were motivated not by the protraction of the Veian War but by a series of wasting plagues. T h e story of the seer of Veii, on the other hand, belongs to the realm of folk-lore rather than historical fact. In addition the Annales evidently provided a few military and pontifical (13. 1, 13. 4, 17. 3) details, from which R o m a n historians developed a continuous narrative. T h e paucity of facts about the siege itself favours the belief that it was suspended in con­ sequence of the enfeebled state of Rome herself. L. could not allow this because for him the siege had to last ten whole years and because he was anxious to create a religious climate which needed only a fatalis dux in the person of Camillus for Rome to be led to victory. Accordingly he alternates passages of religious and military narrative (religious: 13. 4-8, 14. 2-5, 15. 1-12, 16. 8-17. 5; military: 13. 9-13, 14. 6-7, 16. 1-7, 17. 6-10). There are various pointers that L. now abandons Licinius Macer in favour of Valerius Antias once again as his source. There is a clear contradiction between 14. 5 and 10. 1 (Camillus iterum) and between 13. 3 (n.) (centuriae) and 18. 2 (tribubus). Also no amount of textual surgery will bring the magistrate lists of 12. 10 and 13. 3 into line 651

5. 1 2 . 8

400 B.C.

with 18. 2 or make aetate iam gravis (12. n ) the equivalent oi exactae aetatis (18. i ) . It might at first sight seem paradoxical to suggest that L.'s source for the consular tribunate of a plebeian, and a Licinius at that, should not be Licinius Macer but it is evident that ch. 18 is more partisanly in favour of P. Licinius than ch. 12 where the main source hints that Licinius was elected not through any merits of his own but through the popularity of his kinsman Cn. Cornelius. T h e exact point of transition cannot be recovered, perhaps at 12. 3, since 12. 3-4repeats the argument of 10. 5-6, or at 12. 8. See Burck 111-15. 12. 9. unus ex plebe: 18. 5 n. Notice that it is not necessarily implied here that Licinius was the first consular tribune elected from the plebeians. Licinius' family is uncertain. He is said to be afrater of Cn. Cornelius Cossus (10. 1 n.), a relationship confirmed by the garbled KOCKJOS AiKiwios of Plutarch (Camillus 4. 6; cf. 15. 3 n.) but whether that means that he was a son of P. Cornelius Cossus adopted by the Licinii (4. 52. 4 n.) or that he was a half-brother or even a cousin of Cn. Cornelius is obscure. At all events his relationship with the Cornelii shows him to be no revolutionary and the subsequent radicalism attributed to him and his family are supposititious, the product of the normal sympathies of the Licinii. He would have been a most accept­ able candidate to the patres. See Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 1. 9 5 ; Munzer, Rom. Adelsparteien, 10-13; R.E., 'Licinius (43)'. usurpandi iuris causa: 4. 44. 4 n. 12. 10. ceteri patricii creati: a deep confusion persists about the college of this and the following year. Licinius Macer (18. 2 n.) evidently listed only four in addition to Licinius—L. Titinius, P. Maenius, Cn. Genucius, L. Atilius. His source may be assumed to have been the libri lintei and cannot be relied on. T h e Capitoline Fasti give [P. Man]lius M.f. Cn.n. Vulso [L. Titinijus L.f. M ' . n, Pansa Saccus P. Maelius Sp.f. C n . Capitolinus Sp. Fu[r]ius L.f. Sp.n. Medullinus L. Poblilius L.f. Voler. n. Philo Vulscus. It might be expected that L.'s list would tally with the Fasti if L. is following Valerius: for Valerius is less idiosyncratic than Licinius. But, in the manuscripts at least, there are striking divergences. Manilius for Manlius and P. Titinius for L. T. (2. 15. 1 n . : note the surrounding P's) may be mere errors of transcription but Popilius for Publilius and L. Furius for Sp. Furius look like genuine variants. T h e numeration of the consular tribunates of the great L. Furius Medul­ linus given both by L. (Val. Ant.) and by the Fasti (4.44. 1 n.) rules out the possibility that it is he who is masquerading in disguise as a 652

400 B.C.

5. 12. 10

candidate for office this year and if L. Furius Medullinus is the right reading here he must be another otherwise unknown member of the family (Munzer, R.E., 'Furius (68)'). Historically it is more likely that he was Sp. rather than L. since the confusion of two identically named persons was usually avoided but there is nothing to prove that L. is not what Valerius Antias and/or Livy wrote. Sigonius emended Popilius to Publilius. At first sight the cognomen Vulscus would support the change. The Publilii, as the locality of the tribus Publilia shows, came from Volscian territory and it is likely that they were of Volscian origin and migrated to Rome, not, as Schur thought, in the fourth century but in the early fifth since they provided a notorious tribune in 472 (2. 55. 411.). T h e Popilii, on the other hand, are not represented in the Fasti before M. Popillius Laenas, consul in 359. O n that evidence, Publilius might seem to be the right reading here: the name was vulgarly written as Poplilius (C.I.L. i 2 . 1526; cf. Publicola and Popli-. cola). But the cognomina are misleading. Philo, added by the Fasti, is a transparent device to provide a link between the early Publilii and the Publilii Philones, while Vulscus instead of being an indica­ tion of origin is probably no more than a misunderstanding of Volusus. L. could have written Popilius. T h e real difficulty lies in the statement ceteri patricii. T h e Titinii are plebeian (3. 54. 13 n . ; a tr. pi. in 192), so also are the Maelii (4. 12. 1 n.) and the Popilii or Publilii. Only Manlius and Furius qualify as patricians. 12. 1 1 . nullis: the quaestorship had only been open to plebeians since 420 (4. 43. 12). 12. 12. triplex stipendium: 7. 12 n., but Cornelius had not been con­ sular tribune in the year when pay for the cavalry was instituted. The clear discrepancy is a further proof of change of source at this point. Valerius Antias must have dated the innovation to 404 (4. 61. 4) or 401 (10. 1), not 4 0 2 .

13. 1. insignis . . .fuerit: prodigies from the Annales (3. 5. 14 n.). For other prodigies concerning the Tiber see 4. 49. 2 n. annona: 2. 34. 2 n. 13. 3 . M. Veturius: for the form of the name see 3. 8. 2 n. Ti.f. Sp.N. Crassus Cicurinus according to the Fasti, which would make him a nephew of the consular tribune of 417 (4. 47. 7 n . ) . For the whole college of this year see Beloch, Rom. Geschichte, 252. plebeios: all five are plebeian, unlike the five patricians in the preced­ ing year. omnes . . . centuriae: 18. 2 n. M. Pomponium: 3. 54. 13 n., probably the first of the Pomponii to emerge to distinction. L.f. L.n. Rufus according to the Fasti, but the 653

5- 1 3 - 3

399 B.C.

cognomen, held by the famous friend of G. Gracchus who shared his last hours (Plutarch 17; Val. Max. 4. 7. 2), is no doubt anachronistic and suggests that the political activities of M . Pomponius and his brother (5. 29. 6) owe something to the later adventures of their namesake. See Gundel, R.E., 'Pomponius (7)'. Cn. Duilium: for the form of the name see 2. 58. 2 n. K.f. K.n. Longus, according to the Fasti, i.e. a son of the putative decemvir of 450 (3. 35. 11 n.) but the filiation is demonstrably false. See Miinzer, R.E., 'Duilius (8)'. T h e Fasti and Diodorus 14. 54. 1 call him G. but the correction ofCn. to C. in the text of Livy can hardly be justified. Voleronem Publilium: P.f. Voler. n. Philo, a grandson of the tribune of 472 and, supposedly, a cousin of the consular tribune of 400 (12. i o n . ) . T h e cognomen is a false attempt to connect the early Publilii with the Publilii Philones. For thepraenomen see 2. 55. 4 n. There is no reason to question his credentials. See Gundel, R.E., 'Publilius (12)'. Cn. Genucium: M.f. M.n. Augurinus, i.e. a son of the consul of 445 (4. 1. 1 n . ; see 3. 33. 3 n. for the early history of the family). Like Pomponius, he may historically be the first of his name to reach high office. See also 18. 7 n . ; Miinzer, R.E., 'Genucius ( i o ) \ L. Atilium: L.f. L.n. Priscus, a son of the first consular tribune in 444 (4- 7- i n . ) . 13. 4 . pestilens: 3. 2. 1 n. In the following clause causa must mean the real cause, divine displeasure, rather than the immediate agency, but cura ( O t t o ; cf. Veil. Pat. 2. 123; Silius Ital. 6. 551), already adum­ brated by Tan. Faber ('legendum nee curatio neefinis.Vel, nee remedium nee finis. Q u a e verba hinc sumpsisse videtur epitomistes in re alia: cuius remedium et finis per novas religiones quaereretur') is attractive. The phraseology looks ritual, cf. 10. 47. 6 quinam finis out quod remedium . . . ab diis daretur, 22. 57. 5. 13. 5. libri Sibyllini: 3. 10. 7, 4. 25. 3, 5. 50. 2, a collection of oracles, traditionally acquired by the last Tarquin off a Sibyl from the Euboean colony of Gumae which were consulted not for the purpose of discovering the future but of learning by what steps the gods were to be appeased. The name Sibylline is doubtless late (the oracles were not forecasts and the Sibyl, as opposed to the books, played no part in R o m a n religion) but the tradition is in essentials trustworthy (D.H. 4. 62 ; Zonaras 7. 11. 1). The fact that the books were kept in the temple of Capitoline Juppiter shows that they were connected with the institution of that triad. Such prophetic practices had been long established in Greece before the sixth century and it is significant that at Athens similar oracles were kept on the Acropolis (Herodotus 5. 9 0 ; cf. 7. 6). Moreover, the early notices of the consultation of the libri look genuine. In 496 during a famine they recommended the institution of the cult of Liber, Libera, and Geres (D.H. 6. 17; cf. 654

399 B.C.

5- 13. 5

2. 41. 10 n.). In 461 after a host of prodigies they recommended certain rituals (D.H. 10. 2) and warned of internal and external dis­ turbance (3. 10. 6-7 nn.). In 433, during a pestilence, they were interpreted by the duoviri as recommending the foundation of a temple of Apollo (4. 25. 3 n.). These recommendations have the hallmark of authenticity and, together with the present passage, strongly support a Greek origin. The duoviri sacris faciundis, expanded in 367 into decemviri and, per­ haps in 82 or 81, into quindecimviri, were originally the keepers of the books. T h e increasing introduction of Greek cults on the advice of the Greek-inspired books meant that their responsibilities gradually broadened into general supervision of all Greek rites (Varro, de Ling. Lat. 7. 88) both in Rome and outside. Here again the development is consistent and credible. Whether established under the kings or not, duoviri are a feature of the early Republic—consuls, tribunes, quaes­ tors, d. perduellionis—and the provision that the books should only be consulted by them on a decision from the Senate is in keeping with the position of that body in the constitution. For detailed discussion of the libri Sibyllini the reader is referred to H . Diels, Sibyllinische Blatter, 1890, 6-20, Wissowa, Religion, 536 ff.; W. Hoffmann, Wandel u. Herkunft d. sib. Biicher in Rom (1933); Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 240-2; R. Bloch, Melanges Ernout, 21 ff.; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 160-1 : of the duoviri to J . B. Garter, Mem. Am. Acad. Rome, 1 (1917), 9 - 1 7 ; A. A. Boyce, T.A.P.A.6g (1938), 161 ff.; Latte, op. cit. 397-8. 13. 6. lectisternio: the ceremony whereby certain gods are invited to par­ take of a sacrificial feast. Couches are brought out with images of the gods reclining on them and tables are laid before them with viands. Three questions present themselves in connexion with this passage. (1) Where was the ceremony introduced from? In origin it is un­ doubtedly Greek, corresponding to the dto&vla and the KXLVTJV oTpaxrcLL although the Greek rites were much more representational and vivid than the R o m a n (Athenaeus 6. 239 b ff.). There was an old cult of Juppiter Dapalis (Cato, de Re Rust. 132; cf. Juppiter Epulo; Cicero, de Orat. 3. 73) that dates back to the earliest levels of Greek influence in Roman religion (Latte 74), in which food-offerings were made to Juppiter with prayers for good crops. T h e lectisternium, how­ ever, is a more sophisticated institution. L. lists this as the first and places the third in 364 (7.2. 2), the fourth in 349 (7. 27. 1), and the fifth in 326 (8. 25. 1), and there is no reason to doubt the facts. T h e in­ fluence of the Sibylline oracles also points to a Greek source, as do the characters of the gods involved. Delphi has been suggested and the introduction of the lectisternium used to confirm the tradition of the subsequent consultation of Delphi (15. 3 n.). But Hermes and Herakles 6

55

5- 13-6

399 B.C.

have no place in Delphic theoxenies (Diodorus 8. 32. 2). Etruria is another candidate. Paintings in the 'Tomba del letto funebre* at Tarquinii have been interpreted as depicting a lectisternium (Messerschmidt, Studi Etrusc. 3 (1929), 519; BasanofT, Evocatio, 157-8) and the close relationship with Caere at this date makes the hypothesis look attractive, since Caere had long contacts also with Delphi. T h e six deities and the rites, however, are too specifically Greek and if there was any single home of the cult it should probably be sought in southern Italy. (2) W h a t common characteristics or attributes have the six deities to account for their selection? T h e circumstances of all the early lectisternia—severe pestilences—may be taken as proof that the deities are invoked for their powers of healing or protection. Apollo naturally heads the list, although in much later lectisternia he is replaced by Juppiter, and he is naturally accompanied by Latona (25. 12. 13; C.I.L. i 2 , p . 252 : the association of Le to and Apollo in Greek is common). At the other end Mercury and Neptune must be included in their capacities as protectors of trade and seafaring, to safeguard des­ perately needed food-supplies. There is no suggestion of the powers of the old Italian god Neptune. T h e puzzle revolves round Diana and Hercules. L. has one other equally tantalizing and uninformative reference to a lectisternium and a supplicatio ad aedem Herculis in 218 (21. 62. 9). The oldest cult of Hercules, at the Ara Maxima in the Forum Boarium, near the Circus Maximus, was a private cult in the hands of two families, the Pinarii and the Potitii (1. 7, 12 n.), and was no state cult. In this worship Hercules was evidently characterized as a god of commerce (Plautus, Rudens 150; see Latte 215). This role might, therefore, seem to fit him for an association with Mercury and Neptune but such a solution seems excluded by the fact that the Ara Maxima cult was still in the fourth century in private hands, and because it is expressly stated that apud aram maximum observatum ne lectisternium fiat (Macrobius 3. 6. 16), which may be taken as evidence that the Ara Maxima Hercules did not participate in lectisternia either. Other shrines of Hercules are indeed known. One of H. Invictus (or Victor) was situated adportam Trigeminam with a festival on 13 August (Fasti Allif.; Macrobius 3. 6. 9 ff.). Another, the temple of Hercules Magnus Custos in the Circus Flaminius (Ovid, Fasti 6. 209-12 ; Fasti Venus.), is of uncertain date. In both cults the attributes of Hercules remain veiled in mystery, but some evidence can be adduced for supposing that he was regarded as being in these other cults not a commercial god but (at least primitively) an agricultural god. Offer­ ing was m a d e to Hercules and Ceres on 21 December (Macrobius 3. 11. 10) and a sacrum Herculi is prescribed for the month of J u n e in the Menologia Rustica (Fasti Vallens.), perhaps to be identified 656

399 B.C.

5- 13- 6

with the festival of Hercules Magnus Custos on 4 J u n e given by other Fasti. In short it could be held that Hercules was included in the lectisternium either as a purifying god of agriculture or as a god of commerce. We cannot decide for certain, since Diana equally may have been included either as the guardian of woods (Nemorensis = nemorum incola; cf. C.I.L. 6. 124) or as the protector of women ( = ^.pre^itg ElXelBvia). (3) Is the text of L. here correct—Apollinem Latonamque et Dianam, Herculem, Mercurium atque Neptunuml D.H. 12. 9 writes fxlav fxev AITOXXCJVI teal ATJTOL, erepav Se c //pa/cAef /ecu AprefjuSi, rpinqv Se ^Epfifj

Tloaeihcbvu L. clearly implies that there were only three lecti with two gods apiece. In view of this, and since L. and D.H. must depend ultimately on the same source identified as Piso by D.H., editors have transposed the text and written Herculem et Dianam (Wolfflin, Luterbacher, Weissenborn-Muller; cf. 22. 10. 9). If the problem were a purely religious one, L. or his source might have been influenced by the fact that Apollo, Latona, and Diana do appear as a triad (Pliny, N.H. 36. 34; C.I.L. 6. 32) and rearranged the order of the gods as a result. But the problem is linguistic. This arrangement and linking of the nouns has no parallel in L. (Kuhnast, Liv. Syntax, 286 ff.). Wolfflin's transposition should therefore be accepted. T h e variation between -que, et, and atque is only significant stylistically (Catterall, T.A.P.A. 69 (1938), 301); cf. 6. 22. 5, 8. 37. 6, 9. 38. 8. For detailed discussion of these obscure points see Pascal, Riv. di FiloL 22 (1894), 2 7 2 ^ 5 Wissowa, Religion, 421 ff.; R.E., 'lectisternium'; Bayet, Les Origines de VHercule Romain, 260 ff.; W. Hoffman, Philologus, Suppl. 27 (1934), 68 ff.; H. Lyngby, Beitrage z. Topographie des Forum-Boarium-Gebietes, 5 3 - 5 6 ; J . Gage, UApollon Romain, 168 ff.; Latte 242-4. 13. 7. tota urbe: the Bank-Holiday atmosphere, evoked by this de­ scription of friendly hospitality throughout Rome, is specially said by D.H. 12. 9 to have been an addition by Piso (fr. 25 P.). It is false. O n other occasions lectisternia were not accompanied by such scenes of general rejoicing with the release of prisoners and the suspension of crime. Piso took it from Greek models. At the Dionysia and the Thesmophoria it was customary rovg Seoyxarra? acfrUadat, rov Seafiov (ZDemosthenes614. 2 3 ; Plutarch, Moralia 303; Athenaeus 14. 640 a; see Headlam on Herodas 5. 80). Since the lectisternium was a Greek ritual, it was reasonable to suppose that it would be attended by the normal Greek holiday. But if the concept was Greek, the picture is Roman and recalls in particular the scenes during the Saturnalia (Macrobius 1. 7 passim', Arrian, Epict. 4. 1. 5 8 ; Athenaeus, loc. cit.). It is worth noticing that L. intensifies the Roman and the religious character by introducing two extra phenomena of which there is no trace in Piso. iurgiis ac litibus temperatum is borrowed from the prohibition 814432

657

uu

5. 13- 7

399 B.C.

in force during sacrifices (Cicero, deDivin. i. 102 : cf. Notiz. Scavi, 1928, 392 ne quis litiget neve rixam faciat). vinctis dempta vincula (in Piso the holiday was for θεράποντες, i.e. slaves) is paralleled by the rules connected with the house of the Flamen Dialis (Aul. Gell. 10. 15. 8 vinctum si aedes eius (Jlaminis) introierit solvi necessum est et vincula per impluvium in tegulas subduci atque indeforas in viam demitti). 13. 9. antea: 8. 5 ff. 13. 12. Punctuate nee ita multo post iam palantes veluti forte oblati; populatores Capenatis agri reliquias pugnae absumpsere. oblati denotes the victims who are attacked, the Gapenates (cf. 15. 4, 9. 31. 7, 10. 19. 16, 40. 55. 4 ) : they are a wandering rabble (palantes; cf. 2. 26. 3, 4. 55. 4) who form a chance prey for the Roman foragers {veluti forte oblati; cf. 24. 48. 7). T h e numerous emendations of the sentence ranging from Grevier's quingenti (for veluti) to Madvig's velut tati forent are neither necessary nor beneficial. See C.Q. 9 (1959), 283. 14. 1. communicatum: 4. 54. 7. 14. 3 . priore . . . proximo: L. is thinking of consular rather than calendar years. We are still in the year 399 but L. regards it as closed {haec eo anno acta) and so can call the insanabilis pernicies (13. 5) an event of last year {proximo anno) and the exceptional winter (13. 1) the winter of the year before that {priore anno). 14. 4 . libris fatalibus: 15. 11. T h e term is wider than and inclusive of the Sibylline books. It would also include the books of Etruscan discipline. discrimina . . . confundi: the distinction between plebeian and patri­ cian gentes was being blurred by destroying all patrician privilege and allowing patricians and plebeians to be equally eligible for supreme office. For the question of plebeian gentes see 2. 1. 10 n. 14. 5. L. Valerium: 4. 49. 7 n. M. Valerium: 24. 1, M.f. M.n. Lactucinus Maximus according to the Fasti. His father is unknown unless he is to be credited with the triumph recorded by the Fasti for 437 (4. 20. 1 n.). For the cognomen Lactucinus cf. Pliny, JV".//. 19. 59. M. Furium: 1.211., 10. i n . L. Furium: 4. 51. 1 n. Q. Servilium: 8. 1 n. Q. Sulpicium: 8. 1 n. Both are given cognomina but not at 8. 1 which is suggestive of a different source. The Alban Lake T h e tunnelling of an outflow for the Alban Lake is a matter of history. T h e tunnel survives to this day and still functions. T h e entrance is below Gastel Gandolfo, the outlet at La Mola. T h e total length of the tunnel is some 8,125 ft., with a height of approximately 5ft. 3 in., and an average width of 3 ft. 11 in. From La Mola the stream flows above 658

398 B.C.

5- ! 5

ground for some 3 miles before joining the Tiber. Its date, its purpose, and its connexion with the Siege of Veii require, however, detailed discussion. The existing stone-work provides no answer to the question when the tunnel was constructed. The square arch at the outflow dates from the first quarter of the first century B.C. but there are extensive stretches of earlier, undatable masonry (Lugli, Tecnica Edilizia, 358). An attempt to establish the date of the construction was made (e.g. by de la Blanchere) by connecting it with the cuniculi built for drainage pur­ poses widely throughout Etruria and Latium from the eighth century onwards. In consequence many scholars hold that L.'s date for the emissarium is too late and that in reality it was constructed by the Etruscans in the sixth century. This view contradicts the unanimous testimony of the ancients (Cicero, de Divin. 1. 100; Diodorus 14. 9 3 ; D.H. 12. 11-17; Plutarch, Camillus 5 - 6 ; Val. Max. 1. 6. 3), and has not been established archaeologically. There was no question of drain­ ing the Alban Lake. The waters diverted off by the emissarium were not used for irrigation nor is it easy, despite L.'s abundasset (15. 11 n.), to believe that there was a need to regulate the level of the lake against a danger of overflowing. The lake is fed by no springs or streams and the lowest point in the perimeter is a good 300 ft. above the level of the inflow of the emissarium. On the other hand, there was a real danger of seepage through the porous strata into the country lying at the foot of the crater. Swampy ground meant malaria. It does not demand too much of the Romans (or the Greek experts at Delphi) to have realized this and to have undertaken works of public hygiene as well as of ritualistic piety (the lectisternia) to combat the severe pestilences with which they were currently afflicted. In short, the case for an earlier date for the construction of the emissarium is not proved. 398 (or, absolutely, 394) provides an ad­ mirable context. None the less the connexion with the Siege of Veii at first sight seems bewildering. The Alban Lake lies many miles to the south of Veii, in territory which had long been Latin and had never been under the control of Veii. It is, of course, true that the Romans, like the Athenians, could not have been expected to win a war when crippled with plague. But the psychological importance attached to the building of the emissarium suggests a profounder con­ nexion. If the Romans really did breach Veii by a cuniculus (19. i o n . ) and if at the same time a tunnel was being dug at Lake Albano, the successful outcome of two superficially similar operations would in­ evitably be linked in the minds of the superstitious. See Piranesi, Antichitd d9Albano; C. Merkel, Die Ingenieurtechnik, 150-3; de la Blanchere, Daremberg-Saglio, s.v. 'emissarium'; T. Ashby, P.B.S.R. 5 (1910), 277; A. Celli, Die Malaria, 52; J. Hubaux 121-49; 659

398 B.C.

5- 15

G. Baffioni, Stud. Etruschi 27 (1959), 303 ff.; also Gage, Mel. d'Arch. etd'Hist. 66 (1954), 39 fT. 15. 1. multa nuntiari: the historic infinitive appears to have been read by the archetype and, since multa certainly was, the text may be kept. Luterbacher, however, was attracted by U ' s reading multi nuntiavere which gives a phrase from the prodigy style (cf. 28. 11. 3, 31. 12. 6, 32. 9. 3 , 4 0 . 19. 2). altitudinem: the flooding of the Alban Lake was a n ancient myth. It was alleged to have occurred in the reign of Allodius (D.H. 1. 71. 3) or Amulius (Dio Cassius = Zonaras 7. 1). It is possible that there was a superstition that the flooding occurred in cycles, like the Nile (D.H. 12. I O - I I ) , a n d that such a superstition was exploited to ex­ pedite the construction of the emissarium. See Pease on Cicero, de Divin.

1. 100.

15.3.

oratores: Plutarch (Camillus 4.6) names them as Koaaos ALKLWIOS

Kal OvaXepios IJOTLTOS KCLI &dj3ios 'A^OVGTO^. Cossus Licinius must be

P. Licinius a n d the surprising Cossus, apparently a praenomen here, must in reality be a cognomen. It will either be a confusion of the fact that he was related to the Cornelii Cossi or even evidence that he was born a Cornelius Cossus a n d only became a Licinius by adoption. The omission of the names by L. conforms to his policy of keeping to the central story with the minimum of distractions. Delphicum: see 1. 56. 4 n. for a n earlier occasion. T h e tale that the Romans dedicated a tithe of victory to the Pythia in the shape of a golden bowl, which was stolen en route by the Liparians but sub­ sequently restored through the good offices of the pious Timasitheus, seems to be founded on fact (25. 7-10, 28. 1-5). It was evidently dedicated in the treasury of the Massiliots, for even after the golden bowl itself had been melted down by Onomarchus, the bronze stand on which it had stood survived for all to see in their treasury (Appian, ltd. 8 ; see Fouilles de Delphes, 2. 1. 48). The mention of Liparians and Massiliots looks authentic. When the Lipari islands were annexed 146 years later their special privileges (e.g. hospitium) were confirmed while the links between Rome a n d Marseilles h a d always been close (1.45. 2 n.) and still were so (Justin 43.5. 8). T h e dedication, however, need not entail the consultation. Many scholars accept the one but reject the other, principally on the ground that the emissarium is older than 398 and, hence, a fortiori the Romans could not have consulted Delphi about it. T h e first proposition is not incontrovertible (see above). It has, however, been argued in addition that the consultation of Delphi is a doublet of the seer and, since Cicero only alludes to the latter, is unlikely to be the original story. Furthermore Roman re­ ligious law officially forbade the consultation of foreign oracles, per660

398 B.C.

5- '5- 3

mitting reference only to the Haruspices or the libri Sibyllini. Possible contexts for its fabrication have been recognized in the appeal to Rome by Delphi in 125 B.C. or in the 'loan' of sacred treasures made to Sulla by Delphi in 86 (Plutarch, Sulla 12-19). Yet even if Delphi and the seer are doublets, the latter, a timeless and legendary anecdote, is more likely to be the child rather than the parent of the duplication, particularly if Parke is right to see in him the person of Helenus, the seer of Troy. Such Trojan importations have already been certified in the story ofVeii. In a national crisis when the ordinary rules were over­ thrown, as in the Second Punic War, recourse was had to Delphi. T h e situation in the 390's was not unlike the Punic Wars. Plague and war threatened Rome and the lectisternium is symptomatic of a religious emergency in which the traditional forms were found inadequate and were superseded. T h e plain fact remains that there is nothing implausible in fourth-century Rome being in touch with Delphi, or in Delphi, after the end of the Peloponnesian War, being interested in Rome. Rome's ties with Caere are very close and the Caeretans were regular in their attendance on the Pythia. See Daux, Delphes, 372 ff.; W. Hoffmann, Philologus, Suppl. 27 (J934)> 129 ff.; Parke-Wormell, The Delphic Oracle, 1. 267-9; C. Lanzani, Miscellanea Galbiati, 1. 129 ff; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 224 n. 1. 15. 4. senior quidam Veiens: the story is also told by D.H. (12. 11-14), who makes the R o m a n a centurion (hoxayos), Plutarch (Camillus 4), and Cicero [de Divin. 1. 100, 2. 69). There are no significant differences except that L. stresses the religious importance of the episode by con­ trasting the youth and age of the figures (15. 7 n.), by modifying what appears to have been the traditional form of the prophecy (see below) and by introducing appropriately religious phraseology (e.g. cecinit). As evidence of the lateness of the anecdote we may note that, as in the story of Servius Tullius and the sacrifice (1. 45. 3-7), it is in order for the Romans to cheat but not for the Veientes or the Sabines. T h e myth will have been attached to Veii rather to provide a counter­ part for the Trojan prophecies of Helenus than to prefigure the Evoca­ tion of J u n o (Hubaux) which did not require force. cecinit: the formulation of the prophecy must be due to L. himself. Cicero gives the text: 'nam ilia praedicta Veientium, si lacus Albanus redundasset isque in mare fluxisset, R o m a m perituram; si repressus esset, Veios'. A sidelight on L.'s instictive patriotism is that he passes over the possibility of Rome's destruction and gives only the second half of the prophecy (15. 11 n.). L.'s hand can be seen too in the startling postponement of Romanum and its juxtaposition to Veiis as well as in the very use ofRomanus (15. 11, 16. 9 ; cf. 2. 7. 2) which must be a collective singular denoting the Romans as a whole; a qualifying 661

5- 15-4

398 B.C.

noun like imperator cannot be understood in the context and it is grotesque to suppose that Romanus is a proper name (e.g. Servius Romanus mentioned in 4. 61. 10: so Hubaux—'Tite-Live ait utilise les archives de la gens Servilia'). T h e synekdoche is quoted by Cicero from Ennius (de Orat, 3. 168) and is confined to the more sonorous and prophetic passages of epic (e.g. Virgil, Aeneid 6. 851 with Norden's note; cf. Horace, Odes 3. 6. 2 with Heinze's note; see Lofstedt, Syntactical 1. 15-16). It is obviously appropriate that an oracle which is addressed nominally to a single person (the consulter) but effectually to his whole country should employ such a form of expression. T h a t Romane is characteristic of oracular language is confirmed by its occurrence in two set formulae, Romane, memento (Virgil, loc. cit.; cf. the oracle in Zosimus 2. 1. 6 ^eyivrjcjdai, 'Paj/xatc) and Romane, cave (to) (16. 9 ; cf. the parody in Horace, Satires 1. 4. 85 hunc tu, Romane, caveto). But in true oracles it would always be used as a voca­ tive and not, as here, as the subject of a sentence, emitto (15. 11, 16. 9, 19. 1, 51. 6) is the technical term for drawing off water (cf. C.LL, 14. 85 (A.D. 4 6 ) ; and see Housman on Lucan 7. 625). If the form of the oracle has been reshaped and rephrased by L., there may still be a germ of truth in it. T h e rivalry between the fate of Veii and the fate of Rome implied by the version given by Cicero does point to an old tradition that both would reach the end of their respective life-cycles at the same time and that only one of them would be renewed (renovatio temporum). T h e concept of the periodic saecula of a people was deep-rooted in Etruscan theology. T h e discussion by H u b a u x (Phoibos 5 (1950), 73 ff.) is visionary. 15. 5. per ambages . . . iaceret: 1. 54. 8, 55. 6, 56. 9. 15. 6. operae Hit esset: 4. 8. 3, 29. 17. 17, 'if he could spare the trouble'. T h e phrase is of interest for it occurs only in Plautus and Persius, besides L., and generally in the context of sparing time to listen to someone (Miles 252 ; Merc. 14; Pseudolus 377). It is clearly a colloquial cliche, and, as such, is used as a characterizing touch by L. to give life to the dialogue. T h e grammar of the phrase is discussed in C.R. 8 (1894), 345-7 where it is suggested that operae is dative (cf. voluptati esse), but a genitive is preferable (Enk on Truculentus 883). For such formulas of politeness see Fraenkel, Horace, 350, n. 4. 15. 7. iuvenis , . .senem: notice the chiasmus; other sources do not distinguish so dramatically the ages of the two characters. It may be right to see a symbolic contrast between the youth of Rome (54. 5 novae urbis) and the old age of Veii, which according to Censorinus (de Die Natali 17. 5-6) had lived for a thousand years. 15. 10. revocare: an old proverb; cf. Menander's picas' \6yov TLS OVK avaipeiTai TT6XW, Plutarch, de Garrulitate 10; Horace, Epist. 1. 18. 71 ; Ars P. 390. T h e religious offence incurred by publishing what should 662

398 B.C.

5- *5-

10

be kept secret is often emphasized, cf, e.g., Pliny, JVM. 3. 65. I cannot find any exact parallel for the opposite offence. Cf. 2. 36. 2» 1 5 . 1 1 . librisfatalibus: 14. 4 n. It does not require sensitive ears to hear in what follows the solemn ring of prophecy. The desertion by the gods of Veii has, as le Bas saw, overtones of the desertion of Troy (cf. Homer, Iliad 22. 213; Virgil, Aeneidi. 351-2) but it is in the language especially that the awe-inspiring notes are struck. The present passive victoriam dari, where a personal subject and an active future might be expected, is characteristic of the language of prophecy. The events of the future are envisaged as already taking place, victoria dari itself is rare, occurring outside L. (cf. 16. 10, 3. 8. 11) only in Ennius, Ann. 88 V. and Coelius Antipater fr. 26 P. In both passages can be heard the tone of Remembrance Day. Unless L. has misconstrued the purport of the oracle, abundasset must mean not 'had overflowed', for that eventuality would have presaged victory for Veii, but 'had flooded, i.e. risen to a great height' (cf. Frontinus, de Aquaed. 94; Varro, de Re Rust. 3. 5. 2). The deliberate sacral character of the prophecy may help to elucidate the baffling ut quando . . . abundasset, turn presented by the manuscripts. It would seem as if either ut (Duker, Crevier, Madvig, Conway) or quando (Walters, Bayet) was superfluous, but, as Wittmann (Jahrb. f. Class. Phil. 90 (1863), 250) divined, ponderous repetitiousness is of the essence in such pastiches (cf. 1. 24. 3 n.). quando should be taken as indefinite 'at any time' and ut quando = ut primum quando 'as soon as at any time'. Analogies may be found in utsemel (6. 32.8) or utsubito (Ovid, Heroides 12. 137), although KiihnerStegmann (2. 364-5) offer no exact parallel for ut quando. 16. 1. L. lulius: 10. 1 n. L. Furius: 4. 51. 1 n. For the corruption of the praenomen cf. 2. 15. 1 n. L. Sergius: M'.f. L.n. according to the Fasti, a son of the consular tribune of 404 (4. 61. 4 n.). For his embassy to Delphi see 28. 2. A. Postumius: probably to be identified with the consular tribune of 381 (6. 22. 5) and censor of 366 (7. 1. 8). His filiation is nowhere given by the Fasti which preserve here only . . . Regille]nsis. Together with his brothers, Sp. (26. 2) and L. (6. 1. 8), he is likely to be a son of the consular tribune of 426 (4. 31. 1 n.). The cognomen Regillensis borne by successive generations of Postumii was traditionally supposed to have been earned by the victor of the Battle of Lake Regillus (2. 19. 3 n.) but such honorific cognomina are anachronistic. The provenance and even the tribe of the Postumii are unknown except for the faqt that the name is not Etruscan (Schulze 215). The cognomen recalls the Inregillensis or Regillanus of the Claudii (2. 16. 4 n.); they may also have migrated to Rome from the Sabine town of Regillum. See Miinzer, R.E., 'Postumius (57)'. 663

5- *6. I

397 B.C.

P. Cornelius: 19. 2 n. A. Manlius: 4. 61. 1 11. 16. 2. Labicos: 4. 47. 4. T h e incidents of this year, the siege of Anxur, the attack on Labici, the predatory incursion of the Tarquinienses, may all be presumed to come from the Annales. Sordi (4) argues that chronological manipulations have resulted in the duplica­ tion of the war with Tarquinii in 388 but Rome had to recover lost ground after the Gallic Sack (6. 4. 8). T h e political colouring, however, is anachronistic, added to provide continuity and motivation. 16. 5. prope: if prope is right, the phrase must mean 'with a company consisting almost solely of volunteers whom they had induced to join by their exhortations' (Foster) and prope be the equivalent of prope omnium. H.J. Muller, comparing 9. 10. 6 dilectusprope omnium voluntariorumfuit, would even insert omnium, but whereas in 320 the levy was evidently hampered but not wholly prevented, the implication of impediebantur is that the consular tribunes were not able to raise any conscripts and had to have recourse to volunteers, prope omnium is in­ appropriate here nor is any parallel for prope voluntariorum = prope omnium v. forthcoming. It is much more satisfactory, with Kohler and Boot, to readpropere for prope 'a hastily raised body of volunteers'. 16. 6-7. multos . . . divisam: language and contents recall 3. 10. 1 (n.) a typically Valerian section. For mortales see 1. 9. 8 n. 16. 9^-11. T h e oracle has often been believed to be a prose version of an old oracular response, which, if not wholly authentic, went back at least to the third century. It was versified by Gottfr. Hermann (Elementa Doctrinae Metricae, 617), Niebuhr, and Walch and is printed in the Oxford Book of Latin Verse (no. 13) with the laconic date ' 2 5 0 200 B.C.( ?)'. In its present form it certainly is intended to look like an ancient prophecy. The collective Romane and the menacing cave (15. 11 n . ; cf. 35. 21. 4 Roma, cave tibi) belong to the oracular style arid many features recall the character of primitive Latin carmina, e.g. the alliterative in mare manare, turn iu (1. 24. 8 n.), the peiiphrastic instaurata . . .facito = instaurato. Closer examination, however, indicates that the whole prophecy is in fact a later translation from the Greek, so that the original prophecy will be one of the many spurious Delphic oracles which were circulating in the Late Republic, pandunturfata is not sacral. It occurs only here and in Lucan 6. 590 and Statius, Thebaid 10. 162. ut adsolet (1. 28. 2, 23. 31. 15, 24. 31. 7, 32. 1. 9, 37. 14. 4), on the other hand, is meant to look sacral but is a learned fabrication as its earliest use, a bogus provision in Cicero, de Legibus 2. 21 (cf. Phil. 2. 82), demonstrates. It does not turn up in any genuinely religious setting, portare donum for ferre donum is equally untechnical (21/62. 8), occurring elsewhere in Germanicus 419; Catullus, 64. 279. cura omissa is a purely Livian phrase (8. 16. 3, 9. 45. 12; cf. Colu­ mella 7. 8. 1) and bello perfecto is a sophisticated variant for the normal 664

397 B.C.

5- »6- 9 ' 1 1

hello confecto (cf. Caesar, B.C. 3. 18. 4 ; L. 4. 43. 3, 42. 14. 1). T h e Greek origin of the prophecy is betrayed not merely by cave (cf. Herodotus 7. 148. 3 K€(f>a\r)v 7T€(f)v\a£;o and other passages collected by Fraenkel, Horace, 117-18) but by the remarkable use of exsUngues. T h e metaphor of extinguishing water is not Latin. It is used here for the first time (and only here in L.; cf Aul. Gell. 12. 1.8). In Greek, by contrast, it is early established (cf. Aeschylus, Agamemnon 958 with Fraenkel's note). It is, after all, hardly surprising that a reputedly Delphic oracle should have begun its circulation in Greek and then been translated into Latin. See Parke-Wormell, Delphic Oracle, 2, no. 440; I. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy, 28. 17. 2. intermissum: cf. 1. 4 where the misfortunes of Veii are also attributed to a nefas caused by the interruption of the game (sollemnia quae intermitti nefas). T h e parallelism is deliberate. vitio creatos: improperly constituted magistrates could not properly conduct religious ceremonies. For interregnum see 3. 8. 2 n. T h e facts as a whole are archival. For ihtferiae Latinae see 1. 31. 3 n . ; Wissowa, Religion, 1246°.; Latte Religionsgeschichte, 144-6; Sordi 169-70. T h e cult of Juppiter Latiaris on the Alban mount was of great antiquity and the list of communities originally participating in it (Pliny, N.H. 3. 69) shows that it did not include the whole of Latium but only those communities grouped round the mountain. There were notable absentees among the Latins, such as Lavinium, Ardea, and Tusculum, who had cults and leagues of their own. Rome herself cannot have been a founder-member but the disappearance of so many Alban cities and her own expansion enabled her to exploit her ancestral connexion with Alba Longa and gradually to take over the cult, until the distinc­ tion between Alban and Latin was obscured and Rome supplied the priests and Varro could speak of the members of the league as Latini populi quibus ius fuit cum Romanis. T h e slow transformation accounts for the discrepant dates of its original foundation. £ Bob. Cicero, pro Plancio 9. 23 attributes the league to the Prisci Latini and D.H. 4. 49. 1 to Tarquinius Priscus while the actual Fasti (Inscr. Ital. 13, p. 143 ff.) ascribe the institution of the feriae Latinae to the Decemvirs. Each has a grain of truth. T h e festival will go back to the earliest inhabitants of Latium but its organization seems to owe something to Etruscan influence (Latte, loc. cit.). T h e name feriae Latinae, however, implying both the participation of all Latins and not Albans only and the predominance of Rome, must be later. See also 19. 1 n. 17. 6. Voltumnae: 4. 23. 5 n. 17. 7. antea: 1. 4 n. 17. 8. maxime iam in parte: for the historical basis of this assertion see 34. 8 n. T h e manuscripts here read maxime in ea parte Etruriae . . . novos 665

5.

17-8

397 B.C.

accolas Gallos esse to which it has been rightly objected that ea parte Etruriae must refer either to Veii or to the rest of Etruria. If it refers to Veii, it is both untrue since the Gauls had not yet penetrated so far south, and preposterous in that it makes the reason that deterred the rest of Etruria from helping not that they were themselves menaced by the Gauls but that they were afraid to advance into a land which was swarming with Gauls. If, on the other hand, it refers to the rest of Etruria, it conveys the impression that the Gauls were already dis­ seminated throughout the whole of Etruria, including Veii, although their chief concentration was still in the non-Veientane section. T h a t is historically false. Various conjectures (invasisse in earn partem . . . invisitatam. novos . . . esse Madvig; proxime enim earn partem . . . esse Anon. ap. Weissenborn-Miiller; maxima in parte Luterbacher, Conway) and repunctuations (negare maxime. in ea parte . . . esse Ruperti, Lallemand, Ross bach; negare; maxime in ea parte Etruriae (sc. negare). gentem . . . J a c . Gronovius, Weissenborn, Bayet) have been advocated. Of these Ruperti's is satisfactory. Although the hyper baton nunc . . . maxime might seem exaggerated, the idiom antea . . . nunc (tamen) maxime is familiar (4. 3. 3 n.) and appropriate to the context, ea parte will, then, refer to the rest of Etruria excluding Veii. Conway excises Gallos without due cause. In over a third of the instances where L. uses accola it is in conjunction with some part of Gallu 17. 10. coeptae: there is a tendency in Latin for a passive inf. governed by coepi to attract coepi into the same voice: e.g. whereas earlier authors would write urbs aedificari coepit, L. writes urbs aedificari coepta (est) (55. 2; see Lofstedt, Syntactical 2. 123). Here mitescere is logically the equivalent of a passive (e.g. pacari) and should deter any attempt to emend coeptae to coepere (Weissenborn, Wolfflin, Luterbacher). 18. The Election of P. Licinius There are manifest indications that L. owes the highly flattering account of the older Licinius' withdrawal in favour of his son to the chronicler of the family, Licinius Macer. One inconsistency in par­ ticular may be noted. It is implied by 18. 2 that the college of consular tribunes for 400 comprised in all five persons who were re-elected in the present year whereas the list for that year (12. i o n . ) from Valerius Antias has six names, of which possibly only one overlaps with the names given here. See also 19. 2 n. Little faith can be pinned on the story of the younger Licinius' office. T h e editors of the Capitoline Fasti firmly opted for the elder (. . . E]squilinus II) and agreed in that with Diodorus (14. 90. 1), while the names of his colleagues are plainly corrupt. T h e tradition may have been old, founded on such stories as the desire of Periander to resign in favour of his son, or it may have been invented to supply 666

396 B.C.

5-i8

a link in the family pedigree between the older Licinius and G. Licinius Stolo. T h e manner of his substitution for his father is unconstitutional and it is naive to believe that the latter should have aged so pre­ cipitately in the course of three years (Mlinzer, R.E., 'Licinius (43)'). T h e story is also designed to illustrate a point of law (18. 5 n.). Genucius' death (18. 8) is taken over from the fate of one of his descendants, the consul ambushed in 362 (7. 6. 9). T h e contents of the whole chapter are, therefore, to be treated with the greatest reserve. See Burck 115. 18. 1. praerogativa . . . creant: so the manuscripts; cf. 18. 2 iure vocatis tribubus; 10. 22. 1 et praerogativae et primo vocatae omnes centuriae consulem dicebant. U n d e r the late Republic in the comitia centuriata one of the centuries of the first class was selected by lot to record its vote first. It was called the centuria praerogativa and its vote was regarded as ominous (18. 3 n.). How old the custom was is uncertain but 10. 22. 1 (296 B.C.) is evidence that at that date the sex suffragia or six oldest centuries of equites voted first as of right and were called praerogativae (1. 43. n n.). T h e change to a single century chosen by lot presumably was effected by a reform of the comitia in the third century and was democratic in intention. T h e evidence for there having been six praerogativae in early times is admittedly slight but seems to have been part of the Roman constitutional tradition since the system was re­ newed when special praerogativae centuriae were allotted in honour of G. and L. Caesar and Germanicus, as is attested by the Tabula Hebana (Tibiletti, Principe e Magistrati, 58 n. 2). They may also have been discussed in a mutilated note of Festus (290 L. 'praerogativae'). 10. 22. 1 is also a Licinian passage and it follows that we should emend the impossible praerogativa ... creant to praerogativae . . . creant and understand by them the Sex Suffragia. Even if praerogativa . . . creat (an anachronistic allusion to the procedure after the reform) was the right reading, L. (or Licinius Macer) would still be describing the procedure of the comitia centuriata. Why then does he write iure vocatis tribubus apparently describing an election in the comitia tributa ? In the reformed comitia the centuries were correlated with tribes and referred to by the name of the tribe, iuniorum or seniorum; cf. 24. 7. 12, 26. 22. 2, 27. 6. 3. Other examples of the centuries of the reformed comitia centuriata being called tribes are collected and discussed by Walbank on Polybius 6. 14. 7 and it is these that must be meant by L.'s use of tribus here. See also Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 3. 290 n. 3 ; Staveley, AJ.P- 74 (1953), * * ; J-R.S. 43 (1953). 34; G.Meier, R.E., Suppl. 8, 'praerogativa centuria'; U . Hall, Historia 13 (1964), 279 n. 49. 18. 2. L. Titinium, P. Maenium, Cn. Genucium, L. Atilium: so the manu­ scripts but there are two difficulties. We expect the names to tally with the college of 400 (12. i o n . ) when Licinius was consular tribune 667

5- i8. 2

396 B.C.

and we expect five names giving a total of six. T h e Capitoline Fasti have [L. Titinius L.f. M'.n. Sjaccus II [P. Licinius P.f. P.n. Calvus EJsquilinus II [P. Maelius Sp.f. C.n.] Capitolinus II Q . Manlius A.f. [Cn.n. Vulso Capitolinus] Cn. Genuciufs M.f. M.n. Augurinus] L. Atilius L.[f. L.n. Priscus]. Since the whole point of Licinius' gesture is that the entire college of 400 was re-elected with him in his honour, it is futile to attempt to bring L. and the Fasti into agreement by emendation. Supplements such as Hill's L. Atilium (jet insequentis P. Manilium) (C.R. 43 (1929), 13 ff.) or Niebuhr's P. Maenium
396 B.C.

5. 18. 3

is commonly cited as a parallel for a d a t , is entirely different, utilis (Aldus, Ruddiman, Walker), therefore, not utili should be read. 18. 4 . sed: A read et si, TT si, M sit, which may be taken as evidence that the archetype had transposed et and si and that the reading was sub­ sequently doctored, etsi is preferable to Madvig's sed. 'Even though my colleagues may be (as they are) the same or even better, I am no longer the same: so take my son instead.' 18, 5. vicarium: in the Republic vicarius was used either of a slave kept by another slave (Horace, Sat. 2. 7. 79) or in the most general sense of a substitute, proxy, or 'locum tenens' (Cicero, Verr. 4. 8 1 ; 3. 86), but with the increasing complexity of provincial government it be­ came necessary for some system of delegation to be evolved. In order that the ultimate responsibility should rest with the governor it was legally desirable that the governor should be answerable for the con­ duct of any deputy and that could only be achieved if the deputy was his son and so subject to patria potestas. Hence under the empire the rule was formulated legati vicarios dare non alios possunt nisi filios suos (Papinian, Dig. 50. 7. 14; Marcian, Dig. 50. 7. 5. 4). Whether the procedure went back as far as the Republic is not stated but the present passage looks like a tendentious precedent. See Schneider, R.E., Vicarius'. do dicoque: cf. 22. 37. 12 sedem ei divae dare dicare. Licinius makes it sound like a religious dedication. For the formula cf. Cicero, Verr. 4. 6 7 ; Lex Arae Iovis Salm. ( = C.I.L. 3. 1933). honorem . . . mandetis: 4. 3. 5, 57. 2, the technical term; cf. Cicero, Verr. 4. 81 ; Tacitus, Annals 4. 6. 2. 18. 7-12. T h e campaign is borrowed from 362 (7. 6. 7-9) as the indecisive conclusion reveals: the panic at R o m e with the scenes of women on the walls and of public prayer are taken from the Iliad, as Hector goes out to battle. T h e whole passage is intended to heighten the psychological excitement before the final episode—the Fall of Veii. T h e prayer is of a familiar type—an d7T07rofi7rrj by which the supplicant prays that evil may be directed elsewhere; cf. Catullus 63. 92 with Kroll's note; Orph. Hymn. 3. 12, 11. 21. 19-23. The Capture of Veii T h e tapestry of the capture of Veii is woven from four threads which can be wholly trusted—the person of Camillus and the fall of the Etruscan city, the ritual of evocatio and the institution of the cult of J u n o R e g i n a (31.3 n.), the cuniculus (19. i o n . ) , and the dedication to Apollo at Delphi (23. 8, 28. 1-5 n.). Details of ritual ceremonies were turned into historical episodes ( 2 1 . 8 n., 22. 6 n.) and the cuniculus was spun into a fairy-story. It is only the colouring of the tapestry which is false. For later ages Camillus was the prototype of the great 669

5- 19-23

396 B.C.

statesman who despite the ingratitude of his fellow-citizens and the turmoils of the times remained loyal to Rome and to his principles and eventually brought salvation and concord. He was the prototype of the elder Scipio, of Sulla, of Augustus himself. It comes, therefore, as no surprise to find that there are many details which are embroidered from the later statesmen. Scipionic lines may be discerned in Camillus' sentiments over Veii (21. 14 n.) and in the name of his magister equitum (19. 2 n.) or, from later chapters, in his voluntary exile (32.8-9 n.) and his treatment of Falerii (27). Some at least of these may be due to Ennius in the first instance (19. 2 n., 49. 3 n.). Other touches are as certainly added later. Camillus' prosecutor in the earlier levels of the story was Sp. Carvilius (Pliny, N.H. 34. 13) from the example of 212 B.C. when M. Postumius Pyrgensis was accused by a Sp. Car­ vilius. In the later versions his name is L. Appuleius, bringing to mind the notorious demagogue L. A. Saturninus. Camillus' triumph, what­ ever its foundation in legend, is darkened with the shades of the late Republic (23. 4 n.). L. therefore took over a work of art, which was already highly elaborate, as it had been fashioned by a Sullan annalist. His own contributions to it were stylistic and psychological. The Fall of Veii after a ten-year siege demanded a stylistic presentation which should at least recall the epic story of the Fall of Troy. L.'s imagination was quickened by the comparison and expressed itself in many phrases and details which were meant to strike the reader as poetic (19. 1 n., 2 1 . 5 m ) . His arrangement of material, which at first sight might seem jerky, is similarly calculated to recall epic treatment. The serial narration of events is in the best epic manner whereby a continuous story is told in a succession of episodes. L. goes out of his way to insert distinct incidents (20. 4-10 n., 21. 8. n., 21. 14 n., 21. 16 n., 22. 6 n.) which break up the flow of the main account much as Virgil builds up the account of the Fall of Troy from isolated transactions. This way of organizing the material achieves the secondary purpose of highlighting the moral of the story. Earlier versions had stressed the naive moral that human success invites divine jealousy (66vo$). L. goes farther. Camillus courts both human and divine jealousy (20. 2, 20. 9, 21. 14 n.) and the retribution which comes, undeservedly, from both gods and men is thrown into relief by the sharp transitions. Within the overall epic pattern which L. may in part have inherited from a tradition that went back to Ennius, there is a nice delineation of characters, shown in the language of the principal characters. Camillus is always formal and proper (20. 2 n., 21. 14 n.). Contrasted with him is the outspoken demagoguery of Licinius and Ap. Claudius (20. 5 n., 20. 7 n.). The material for his insertions is culled from Licinius Macer. The 670

396 B.C.

5- 19-23

natural conclusion is that the rest of the story is taken from Valerius Antias: either 19. 1 or 19. 3 would be an easy place for the switch­ over to be made. It has been pointed out that the Scipionic elements would come easily from the pen of an annalist who wished to do honour to another Cornelius, Sulla. The ancients at least did not find the treatment unsatisfactory, for the passage was often imitated in antiquity. Cf, e.g., for 19. 3 Claudian, Bell. Get. 435 ff.; for 20. 4 Tacitus, Hist. 1. 13; for 21. 9 Tacitus, Germania 3 ; for 21. 15 Tacitus, Annals 4. 39. 1. The principal works to be consulted are: for the legends of Veii, J. Gage, Huit recherches, 73 ff., 143 ff.; Hubaux; J. Bayet, tome 5, App. 128 ff.; for Scipionic and later elements in the figure of Camillus, O. Hirschfeld, KL Schriften, 273 ff.; E. Taubler, Klio 12 (1912), 219 ff.; A. Momigliano, C.Q. 36 (1942), 111-20; for L.'s sources and treatment, Soltau 175-6; Burck 109. See also Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 297 ff.; P. Burger, Sechzig Jahre aus der alteren Geschichte Roms; Miinzer, R.E.y Turius (44)'. 19. 1. ludi Latinaeque: 17.211. ludi and feriae amount to the same thing —holiday—but by later convention ludi came to be reserved for the public games (scaenici, in circo) which became a regular feature of Roman holidays. In 396, however, such ludi were not a feature of Roman festivals, so that the distinction between the ludi and the feriae implied here is anachronistic. appetebant: only here in L. with ace. of motion towards. The use is rare elsewhere (Cicero, ad Brut. 1. 2. 1; Apuleius, Met. 4. 8) and sets a highflown tone for what is to follow; cf. 7. 26. 5. 19. 2 . fatalis dux: so also of Scipio (22. 53. 6, 30. 28. 11). Camillus stands in the same relationship tofatum as does Aeneas. The expression and the conception behind it may go back to Ennius. servandaeque patriae: servare patriam was originally a military citation (9. 4. 11-13, 21. 46. 10, 22. 14. io, 23. 11. 3 et al.) which gradually spread into ordinary parlance (Cicero, Phil. 13. 46; pro Sestio 4 1 ; pro Flacco 103). As a title (conservator patriae was assimilated to the reverential Greek Gwrrjp and, losing the defining patriae, became a standard element in the style and title of the emperor (Alfoldi, Mus. Helv. 9 (1952), 223). Novak's servandamquepatriam (cf. 2. 1. 11) is unnecessary. Scipionem: the first of the Scipiones but the Fasti prefer P. Cornelius Maluginensis (16. 1). Although the Scipiones were a branch of the Maluginenses, the Fasti are no doubt correct. The appearance of a Scipio here in such Scipionic surroundings is too tendentious (Miinzer, R.E., 'Cornelius (328)'). He reappears as consular tribune in 395 (24. 1) and interrex in 391 (31.8) and since Scipiones are attested in the next generation (consul in 350) we may accept the existence of the 671

5- *9- 2

396 B.C.

first P. Cornelius Scipio in this generation but believe that partial historians have transferred important happenings to a relatively un­ important man. 19. 4. pavore: in 18. io they had been deterred from flight. T h e dis­ crepancy is evidence of change of source. 19. 5. Latini Hernicique: 3. 4. i o n . 19. 6. ludos: 3 1 . 2 . Matutae: 23. 7 n. 19. 7. Nepesino: the town of Nepet, later Nepe (mod. Nepi), lay on the line of the later Via Amerina some 5 miles south of Falerii Novi. Like its western neighbour Sutri, its fate was bound up with the for­ tunes of Veii. For Veii provided access to the Ciminian plain in which they lay and once the power of Veii was circumscribed they were exposed to Roman advance. O n the Fall of Veii Nepi made an alliance with Rome (Diodorus 14. 98) but was recovered by the Etruscans in 389 when Rome's power was curtailed by the Gallic invasion. It was recaptured almost at once by Camillus and was colonized either in 383 (6. 21. 4) or 373 (Veil. Pat. 1. 14). For details of its history see Philipp, R.E., 'Nepet'; G. C. Duncan, P.B.S.R. 26 (1958), 68. T h e exact course of events is opaque. T h e present campaign has been seen as a doublet of the campaign of 389 (6. 2. 2 ff.; Sordi 4-5). 19. 8. fortuna: 4. 37. 7 n. quaestorem: 4. 53. 10 n. 19. 10. cuniculus: the recurrence of the story apropos of Fidenae (4. 22. 4 n.) indicates that there was a long-standing tradition that an Etruscan siege was once successfully ended by means of a cuniculus. T h e antiquity of the legend is further corroborated by its connexion with the draining of the Alban Lake (15. 1 n.). T h e construction of siege-mines was familiar to the Greeks and was employed, e.g., at the siege of Plataea by the Plataeans (Thucydides 2. 76; cf. Xenophon, Hellenica 3. 1. 7) and if the Roman engineering technique was suf­ ficiently advanced to build the Alban tunnel, there is nothing to have prevented them being able to mine the walls of Veii. T h e curiosity is that recent excavations on the neck of the Veii peninsula where the Romans must have encamped have uncovered substantial stretches of the fifth-century defences of the city and show that the rampart ran over a number of earlier cuniculi which had been filled in with tight-packed sherds, stones, and earth. These cuniculi, constructed originally for drainage, are a regular feature of the landscape. T h e discovery is summarized and illustrated by J . B. Ward-Perkins (P.B.S.R. 27 (1959), 43 ff.). It is a tempting conjecture to believe that the Romans succeeded in clearing one of the filled-in cuniculi and thereby penetrated the defences. T w o further points may be noted. There are no traces of cuniculi near the arx, the Piazza d'Armi, nor 672

396 B.C.

5. 19. 10

could any have been dug there. O n the other hand one of the biggest and most spectacular surviving cuniculi, carrying water from the Fosso di Formello to the Fosso Piordo, passes right under the site of the Roman camp. 19. 11. senae: one hour below ground and five above, or six hours below ground as a spell (Bayet, Gage, de Selincourt) ? 6. 4. 10 cum in sex partes divisus . . . senis horis in orbem succederet proelio is decisive for the former although singulae horae would be expected. T h e escapers in The Wooden Horse found that it was impossible to dig for more than an hour at a shift. 20. 2. litteras: Camillus is careful to frame his request in the punc­ tiliously correct language of official dispatches (8. 13. 11, 31. 31. 20, 45. 23. 1). An interesting parallel is afforded by Cato's reply to Cicero when the latter approached the Senate formally for a supplicatio and, as he hoped, a triumph (adFam. 15. 5. 2). 20. 4-10. The Motions of P. Licinius and Ap. Claudius. T h e section is an interruption which conflicts sufficiently with the thread of the narrative, even apart from the suggestive ferunt, to show that L. has adopted it from a separate account. Mommsen (Rom. Forschungen, 1. 265; cf. Aul. Gell. 4. 10. 3) drew attention to the oddity that Licinius was called on to speak first. As a plebeian and a relatively junior ex-consular tribune he had no entitlement to the position and his preferment should be ascribed to the family bias of Licinius Macer. T h e whole debate is intended to provide a motive for Camillus 5 prosecution (32. 8-9 n.). T h e theme of praeda Veientana is assiduously cultivated. 20. 5. Appius' speech is violent and declamatory, invoking the tricks and phrases of Republican mob-oratory, si semel (20. 5), used only here in L., is colloquial (four times in Plautus; cf. Terence, Hecut. 478). inaequalis also is found elsewhere in L. only at 41. 20. 3 but cf. [Sallust,] Epist. 1.8. 6. For avidas manus (20. 6) cf. Horace, Sat. 2. 3. 151. fortium bellatorum 'gallant warriors' is a hackneyed platitude (Plautus, Miles 11; Pseudolus 992; Tacitus, Annals. 1. 67 et aL). Notice also the assonances (inaequalem, inconsultam; doni. . . domos; praerepturas . . . praemia . . . praedator) and the remarkable alliteration periculiqae praecipuam petere partem. 20. 6. ut segnior: 'the quicker a man was to seek the lion's share of danger and hard work, the slower he would be to snatch what he could for his own enrichment'. 20. 7. Licinius' reply is moderate and conciliatory. 21. The Assault of Veii: Evocatio Camillus, like a second Ulysses, marshals the resources of war and 814432

673

XX

5-21

396 B.C.

religion against Veii. T h e ritual of evocatio was designed to persuade the tutelary deity of an enemy city to leave that city and accept a new home in Rome. It differed from exoratio (Servius, ad Aen. 12. 841), in which the deity was persuaded to change his allegiance but not his home, and from devotio. T h e ceremony was in the form of a contract between the assailants and the god, the assailants offering part of the sacrifice (exta) in exchange for the god's removal and promising him a new home (votum). It was not a magical rite. It was only effective in theory between communities properly constituted by the same or similar religious solemnities (urbes), for otherwise the god could not be led to expect his customary attention in his new home. T h e only certain examples of the use of the evocatio, with one notorious exception, are against Etruscan cities (Veii, Volsinii (Propertius 4. 2. 2-4) and Falerii Veteres (Ovid, Fasti 3. 8 4 3 ; cf. 5. 52. 8)) so that the rite, as would be expected, may be claimed as Etruscan. M a n y questions remain unanswered. Did the cult have Anatolian precedents ? Was the physical removal of the cult-statue to Rome always part of the ritual or was it added when anthropomorphic conceptions of the gods be­ came fashionable? T h e exception is the case of Carthage (Servius, loc. cit.; see Fraenkel, Horace, 237-8) where it seems that the old ritual was deliberately refurbished and given a new application in order to eliminate once and for all the power of Rome's great rival. If so, it was a piece of religious improvisation by the pontifices. It is a curious fact that in three of the four cases the tutelary deity was known at Rome as J u n o (Regina, Guritis, Caelestis). It has been suggested that each of the different deities was intentionally renamed (and even resexed) by the R o m a n pontifices as J u n o because J u n o was the goddess who was eventually persuaded to abandon a persistent vendetta against the founders of Rome. O r it may be that J u n o was in three cases the nearest equivalent in the R o m a n pantheon: S. Ferri conjectures that the deity who presided over Veii was U N I T U R A N (Studi Etruschi, 24 (1955), 107). There were, however, many other evocationes now unknown to us (Pliny, N.H. 28. 18) and the ratio of three Junos to one (Vertumnus) may be purely coincidental. There can be no question that the tradition in respect of Veii is true. T h e religious calendars preserved the date of the institution of the cult of J u n o Regina. But much of its prominence in the story of Veii will be due to the excitement aroused by the spectacular use of evocatio against Carthage. T h e terms of the carmen were preserved in cuiusdam Furii vetustissimo libro (? L. Furius Philus, consul 136 B.C., who was a friend of Scipio Aemilianus: cf. Serenus Sammonicus ap. Macrobius 3. 9. 6 ff.) and were specially brought up to date for that occasion: 'si deus, si dea est cui populus civitasque Carthaginiensis est in tutela teque maxime ille qui urbis huius populique tutelam recepisti, 674

396 B.C.

5-21

precor venerorque veniamque a vobis peto ut vos populum civitatemque Garthaginiensem deseratis, loca templa sacra urbemque eorum relinquatis absque his abeatis, eique populo civitatique metum formidinem oblivionem iniciatis, propitiique Romam ad me meosque veniatis nostraque vobis loca templa sacra urbs acceptior probatiorque sit, mihique populoque Romano militibusque meis propitii sitis. si ita feceritis ut sciamus intellegamusque voveo vobis templa ludosque facturum\ L. abbreviates the prayer, prefacing it with an extraneous invocation of Apollo but the italicized words show that the elements of the original prayer are still perceptible. Instead of detailing the ritual as a ritual, L. made it part of the narrative, incorporating the different acts as historical episodes (21. 8 n., 22. 3 n.) and recasting the prayer in literary language which conveys the atmosphere but not the uncouthness of actual devotion. Notice the anaphoric tuo . . . tuo . . . tibi. . . te . . . te, common to prayer-style (3. 17. 6 n.). T h e form sequare for sequaris is unique in L. (see 28. 44. 2) and must be used for effect. See the over-imaginative study of V. Basanoff, Evocatio, 42 ff.; H u b a u x 154 ff.; S. Ferri, Hommages Herrmann, 350 ff. 21. 5. ignari: the passage should be read along with the last moments of Troy as described by Virgil, Aeneid 2. 241 ff.: note especially 248-9. Both authors are likely to have had Ennius in mind (R. G. Austin, J.R.S. 49 ( T 9 5 9 ) J 24)> which would account for certain eccentricities of lan­ guage. For in partem praedae vocatos cf. Virgil, Aen. 3. 2 2 2 - 3 ; for icti furore cf. Catullus 63. 79. ingruo (21. 4, 32. 7, 37. 1, 4. 30. 8, 6. 3. 1, 6. 6, 7. 25. 9, 25. 26. 15, 26. 25. 10, 26. 41. 21, 28. 44. 15, 29. 10. 1, 37. 23. 2, 41. 21. 5) is not used by Cicero, Sallust, or Caesar. Indeed except for a solitary use in Plautus (Amph. 236) it is not found before Virgil {Aen. 2. 301, 8. 535 al.). T h e facts indicate that the word was regarded as poetic and L. uses it in poetic contexts (Stacey, Archivf. Lat. Lex. 10 (1898), 4 6 ; against, Gries, Constancy, 43-45). Notice the long and involved sentence from Veientes ignari describing the con­ flicting emotions and fortunes of the besieged, and the rhetorical plurals conveying an exaggerated sense of the danger (vatibus = the Veientane seer, oraculis = Delphi, deos = J u n o , alios = Apollo). 2 1 . 8 . fabula: called by Plutarch (Camillus 5) a μύθευμα. T h e insertion comes from another source since it conflicts with 21. 10 (edidit) and the dramatic character of it (fabula, scaenis) suggested to Ribbeck a fabula praetextata (Rh. Mus. 36 (1881), 321). This is unlikely. L. does not elsewhere consult plays as authorities and the dramatic element was as much a feature of Hellenistic history as of drama itself, fabula for L. means a story to which he attaches little belief (22. 6, 1.4. 7) and the present passage should be compared with Praef 6. T h e story springs from Etruscan ritual. A stage in the sacrifice was 675

5- 2 i . 8

396 B.C.

the removal of the exta for inspection by the haruspices (exta rapere, prosecare: see below) and if certain conditions or features were observed, a successful outcome to a war was predicted (31.5. 7, 3 6 . 1 . 3, 42. 3 0 . 9 : see Thulin, Etr. Discipline 2. 48-49 for further details). T h e annalist misinterpreted rapere^ taking it literally as 'to snatch' and not tech­ nically 'to cut out' and devised the anecdote to suit the meaning. Such a theft might also be thought to have magical efficacy, as in 41 the besieged Perugians attempted to kidnap Octavian in the middle of a sacrifice (Suetonius, Aug. 14. 3 ; see B. Nogara, Gli Etruschi e la loro civiltd, 198). T h e anecdote accounts for the ritual. prosecuisset: mistranslated by Plutarch, who cites Livy, as /cara/coXovdrjaavn (? a misreading = prosecutus esset), it is the t.t. for cutting out the sacrificial entrails; cf. Paulus Festus 69 L. exta rapere may be a loose equivalent for the same action or denote a preliminary ritual such as the rapid removal of the entrails from the body; cf. Suetonius, Aug. 1 semicrudaextaraptafocoprosecuit. In the annalistic version Camillus may have been responsible in person for seizing the exta (6. 23. 1 1 ; cf. Sulla in Augustine, de Civ. Dei 2. 24). adaperto: 25. 30. 10, 45. 39. 17. Elsewhere first in Ovid (Amores 1. 5. 3, 3. 12. 12).

2 1 . 9 . veri: both terms of a comparison with similis in L. must agree in number. Thus veri similis (3. 47. 5, 21. 38. 8, 47. 5, 26. 22. 15, 34. 50. 7, 41. 3. 10; cf. veri similius in 5. 11. 7) but similia veris (6. 20. 4, 10. 20. 5, 29. 20. 1; cf. 26. 49. 6, 37. 11. 4). Therefore veris (Madvig; see Wolfflin, Livian. Kritik, 14). 21. 10. eo tempore: the awkward resumption marks a return to the main narrative. in aede Iunonis: for the text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 283; cf. 29. 14. 3 in aede Iunonis Sospitaestrepitum editum. A large temple, i 5 ' 3 5 x 8 - o 7 m . , has been excavated on the Piazza d'Armi and sixth-century terracotta friezes and antefixes recovered. In style and decoration it was not so elaborate as the Portonaccio temple on a platform to the west of the city from which important statuary has corne, but it must be the temple referred to by L . ; for not merely is it the only one within the arx but it alone shows a distinct break in votive deposits, confirming the evocatio archaeologically. See Stefani, Mon. Ant. Line. 40 (1944), 228-90; Andren, Acta Inst. Rom. Sueciae 6 (1940), 8-9. For the identi­ fication with the Portonaccio temple see A. de Ridder, Rev. Etudes Grec. 33 (1920), 364; Pallottino, Arch. Class. 2 (1950), 122 ff.; Santangelo, Bolletino d'arte, 1952, 1476°.; Stefani, Notiz. Scavi, 7 (1953), 29 ff.; Ferri, Arch. Class. 6 (1954), 1156°.; Hubaux 2481?. saxa tegulaeque: cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2. 445 ff. 21. 14. rerum: 21. 60. 8 praeda parvi pretii rerumfuit. 'The loot consisted of objects of greater value than expected.' 676

396 B.C.

5. 21. 14

c

precatus: Camillus' sentiments are clearly analogous to, and pro­ bably imitated from, the sentiments of Scipio Aemilianus over Car­ thage' (Momigliano; see Duckett, Studies in Ennius, 44). Repeated by D.H. (12. 14, 16), Plutarch (Camillus 5), Zonaras (7. 21), and Val. Max. (1. 5. 2), they echo a familiar Greek cri-de-cceur—<j>Qovep6v TO deiov, cf. 45. 4 1 . 7 (Aemilius Paulus): Plutarch, Antony 44. 5). But L. adds one unusual feature which is absent from the other sources, even Val. Max. and Zonaras who are derived from him. Whereas the others concentrated exclusively on the envy of the gods, L. associates with it the envy of man. T h e resulting prayer is in appearance conventional (note the repeated ut. . . ut characteristic of a formal style (cf. 22. 11. 4, 37. 50. 4), the order sua populique Romani (cf. the Evocatio prayer in Macrobius 3. 9. 8 mihiquepopuloque Romano), the address si cui deorum (see Liegle, Hermes 77 (1942), 266) but in content is startling. T h e effect is to focus attention on the theme ofpraeda Veientana. L. eschews a divine in favour of a human explanation of Camillus' career. T h e passage is discussed by M . Treu, Wiirz. Jahrbiicher f. d. Altert. 2 (1947), 63-74: cf. H . H . Scullard, J.R.S. 50 (1960), 61. 2 1 . 15. publico: deleted by many editors e.g. Glareanus, Gronovius, Dobree (Adv. Critica, 2. 379), publico is attested by all the manuscripts and is required to balance privato. 2 1 . 16. convertentem: to turn to the right was an act of ritual per­ formed during the adoration of a god or cult-object. L. appears to con­ nect it with Camillus' prayer at the sight of the spoil and not directly with any cult of a particular god. In this he is certainly wrong. Although the Iguvines performed such a turn at the closing act of a prayer (Tab. Iguv. V I A 6 — 1 B 11), by the Romans it was always per­ formed in the presence of the sacred object (Plautus, Cure. 69-70; Pliny, N.H. 28. 25; Suetonius, VitelL 2 ; Lucretius 5. 1199; Plutarch, Q.R. 14; Marcellus 6). It is likely to be another act in the ceremony of evocatio which has been detached and made into a separate historical incident. See Koch, Gestirnverehrung im Alten Italien, 20-21. It will have been performed by the celebrant when he came face to face with the statue of the deity who was to be evoked. T h e whole episode, like the earlier case of exta rapere (21. 8-9), is betrayed by traditur memoriae to be an insertion from another source whose identity is revealed by the allusion to Licinia familia in 22. 2. L. reverts to Valerius at 22, 3. 22. 1. sub corona: 4. 34. 4 n. Early Rome was too poor to have slaves for show or for domestic service and too limited to require them for industry and agriculture. Thus references to slaves (2. 4. 5, 4. 29. 4, 34. 4) are part of the annalistic colouring, important only for showing how the Romans thought of their early history. T h e present sale of captives may be the first authentic case, for with the growth of 677

5- 22. I

396 B.C.

ager publicus slaves became worth while as labourers. T h e first slavemarket was in 259. See Clerici, Economia e Finanza, 125 ff.; H . Volkmann, Die Massenversklavungen . . . in der hellenistisch-romischer £eit3 36 ( = 150) ff. 22. 3. egestae: from egero. amoliri: L. tells of the removal of J u n o Regina to Rome in suitably elevated language, amoliri is used three times by Plautus in pompous tones (cf. Most. 371 = 391 ; Pseud. 856) and once by Sisenna (fr. 74 P.) but not otherwise in prose before L. T h e tone is continued by the choice of iuvenali (22. 5) for iuvenili (1. 57. n n.) and the epic fato urgente (22. 8; cf. Virgil, Aen. 2. 653). For molimentum cf. Sisenna fr. 72; Caesar, B.G. 1. 34. 3. Notice too that L. describes the approaches made by the young men to the goddess with phrases which in any other context would sound sacrilegious (for admovere manus cf. 11. 16 n . ; attractare cf. Cicero, pro Caelio 20). But cf. Virgil, Aen. 2. 719. 22. 4. iuvenes: cf. 22. 5 certae gentis sacerdos. A dim recollection of the fact that the Veientane cult was in the hands of a single gens (cf. the Potitii and Pinarii at Rome) for which a substitute had to be found when J u n o was removed to Rome. Basanoff and Hubaux explain the connexion of iuvenes and J u n o by a common etymological root. 22. 5. quidam: Plutarch (Camillus 6), specifically citing Livy (ALOVLOS Se (fyrjaiv), states that it was Camillus who addressed the goddess. It clearly ought to have been Camillus, since Camillus is the principal figure in the story and subsequently appears in the garb ofJuppiter as a triumphator, but, as Clericus in a good note on this passage ob­ served, Plutarch must be quoting from memory and made a natural confusion (21. 8 n.). This is a more likely explanation than that Plutarch had a variant text of L. (Basanoff) or that Plutarch was really quoting from another source but mistakenly calls it Livy (A. Klotz, Rh. Mus. 90 (1941), 282 ff.). 22. 6. fabulae: 21. 8 n. adminiculis: Etruscan cult-images were designed to be carried as is proved by the discovery at Veii of terracotta statue bases with slots 7 cm. in diameter through which wooden poles could be slipped (E. Stefani, Notiz. Scavi, 1946, 36 ff; M. Renard, Latomus 8 (1949), i 9 ff.). 22. 7. templum: 31. 3 n. The Return of Camillus T h e pageantry of Camillus' return to Rome is divided into five distinct scenes: (1) maximum imperatorum suggests the practice whereby a victorious general was hailed 'imperator' by his troops and retained the appella­ tion as a semi-official title till he laid down his imperium on his return 678

396 B.C.

5- 23

to Rome. The practice is first attested for Scipio Africanus, in 209 (27.19.4). (2) grates dis agentium: on the news of a victory the Senate might decide to order a supplicatio or public thanksgiving of so many days' duration. T h e first act was the giving of thanks in the temples of Rome (30. 40. 4 ; Cicero, ad Fam. 15. 4. 13, 13. 3), and in par­ ticular the temple of Capitoline Juppiter (38. 51. 8 ; AuL Gell. 4. 18). (3) supplicationes: see 3. 63. 5 n. Four-day supplicationes are attested for 203 (30. 17. 3) and 197 (32. 31. 6). It is doubtful whether supplica­ tiones after victory had yet been devised. (4) adventus: although not a formal part of the return, the arrival of the victorious general was always greeted with popular demon­ strations (22. 61. 14). (5) A triumph, as Cato rather tartly pointed out to Cicero, did not follow automatically from the voting of a supplicatio although in prac­ tice the two generally went together. See Halkin, La Supplication a"Action de Graces, 49 ff. T h e picture as a whole is of the return of a great national hero. Such undoubtedly Camillus was but many of the individual features must be copied from the return of a Scipio or even a Sulla. All that would have been known about Camillus would be the bare fact that he celebrated a triumph. T h e interesting thing is that this triumph should have been inflated until by the addition of the four white horses and the imitation of Juppiter it became a source of scandal and the alleged sacrilege was m a d e the reason for Camillus' exile. The process is easy to detect. The triumphator was traditionally dressed like Juppiter and on the roof of the temple of Capitoline Juppiter there was a statue-group of a quadriga, made by a Veientane artist, to which a prophetic myth about the destinies of Rome and Veii was attached (Festus 340 L . ; Plutarch, Publicola 13; Servius, ad Aen. 7. 188). T o associate the conqueror of Veii with the Veientane quadriga and to invent a triumph in the guise of Juppiter were natural developments. A second tradition, of less clear origin, credited Romulus also with a triumph with four horses (Propertius 4. 1. 3 2 ; Dio 52. 1 3 . 3 : cf. Virgil, Aen. 3. 537). Romulus and Camillus alone enjoyed that honour and the moral, which the historians meant their readers to draw, was obvious. Camillus was a second Romulus—Romulus ac parens patriae conditorque alter urbis (49, 7 n.). Which triumph was in­ vented as a pendant to the other we cannot say, although it is plausible that the Romulus triumph should have been invented as a defensive precedent when an anti-Camillus movement among historians assailed his reputation. It is in the light of these facts that Caesar's action in using four white 679

3. 23

396 B.C.

horses for his triumph should be judged (Dio 43. 14. 3 ; see Momigliano, C.Q_. 36 (1942), 113 with references). Caesar was staking a claim to be the heir of Romulus and Camillus. It makes no historical sense to believe that the whole of the Camillus episode was invented by some enemy of Caesar's to discredit him. The Camillus legend is old and Caesar tried to turn it to his account. Now L. is at pains to tone down the sacrilegious side, blaming Camillus' exile not on the impiety of the triumph but on the political issue of the spoil. We may see in this contemporary significance. Octavian too saw himself as a second Romulus (24. n n.; 1. 7. 9 n.; Suetonius, Aug. 7) and while he did not make Caesar's mistake of indulging in flashy exhibitionism, he was anxious to turn the past to his own account. In both 30 and 29 B.C. Octavian was acclaimed Imperator and was voted supplicationes and a triumph. This by itself would not have given rise to com­ parisons with Camillus were it not that the scenes which greeted his adventus both at Brindisi and at Rome were among the most demon­ strative ever witnessed (Dio 51. 4. 4-5, 19, 20-21 ; see P. Grenade, Origines du Principal 254 ff.). 23. 6. Solisque: the mention of the Sun as well as Juppiter as an object of comparison must post-date the introduction of the Hellenic mythology about the Sun, i.e. after the beginning of the third century B.C. (Weinstock, J.R.S. 50 (i960), 117). 23. 7. Iunoni: 31. 3 n. Matutae Matris: an ancient Italic goddess (cf. Oscan Maattiis), whose name shows her to be concerned with maturity and fertility (Maturus). Her festival, the Matralia, celebrated by free women on the traditional date of the dedication of the temple (11 June), is remarkable for the oddity that they prayed not for their own but for their sisters' children (pueri sororii; see Plutarch, Q.R. 16, 17; Ovid, Fasti 6. 559). It was Aunts' rather than Mothers' Day. This quaint custom may be based on a mistaken rationalization of the old prayer formula which used pueri of the female sex and sororii not as an adj. from soror but from sororiare (cf. Festus 380 L. sororiare mammae dicuntur puellarum cum primum tumescunt; cf. 1. 26. 13 n. sororium tigillum). The primitive cult was courotrophic: the goddess presided over child-birth and child care, as the highly anatomical statuettes of her plainly show. Tradition makes Servius Tullius the first founder of the temple (19. 6; Ovid, Fasti 6. 477 ff.) and Camillus the refounder but the connexion with Servius Tullius is legendary. The temple of Mater Matuta was always associated with that of Fortuna in foro Boario. Both temples were dedicated on the same day (11 June; Fasti Ant.), both lay in the Forum Boarium, both were burnt in 213 (24. 47. 15) and restored the following year (25. 7. 6). Their site has recently been identified. Near the church of S. Omobono, 680

396 B.C.

5- 23- 7

close to the Forum Holitorium, there were uncovered two adjacent rectangular cellae dating from the second century B.C. T h e two cellae lie side by side and their proximity would nicely account for their common fortunes. T h e deposits from the lowest level beneath the cellae included fragments of Attic pottery dating from c. 470. Their foundation is, therefore, later than Servius Tullius and he was credited with it merely because of his legendary interest in one of the pair, Fortuna. T h e second problem, where the cult originated and why Camillus refounded it at Rome, can be answered definitively. There is no connexion with the evocatio ofJ u n o . T h e reference to J u n o Matuta (34. 53. 3) is a mere mistake and there is no trace, as Basanoff alleged, of evocationes being accompanied by attendant dedications. The whole connexion of Mater Matuta with Veii is annalistic rationa­ lization. T h e goddess's name suggests Volscian and Oscan (Italic not Etruscan) origins and we know that a centre of the cult was at Satricum where a large quantity of votive stipi have been found. It is significant that the earliest finds cannot be put much before 420 and that a revolt of Satricum is recorded in 393 by Diodorus (14. 102. 4). T h e concentration of interest on Veii and Etruria tends to obscure the equally pressing danger from the Volscians in the south. T h e gravity with which the Romans viewed it is revealed by the campaigns of these years and by the dispatch of a colony to Circeii in Volscis (24. 4 n.). T h e foundation of the temple of Mater M a t u t a is to be seen against that background, not necessarily as a result of an evocatio, which could probably only be performed between related cultures, but as a matter of policy, as a step to promote friendly relations with the inhabitants of the key city of Satricum. See Platner-Ashby; H . J . Rose, Mnemosyne 53 (1925), 407 ff.; C.Q. 28 (1934), 156; Halberstadt, Mater Matuta; Link, R.E., ' M a t u t a ' ; H . Lyngby, Die Tempel d. Fortuna u.d. Mater Matuta, 22 ff.; Beitrage z. Topographie, 47-49; Dumezil, R.£.L. 33 (1955), 144; G. Lugli, Roma Antica, 544 ff.; Maule-Smith, Votive Religion at Caere, 75-87; Latte, Rom. Religionsgeschichte, 97. 2 3 . 8. agi. . . coeptum: 2. 33. 1. 2 3 . 1 1 . donum: 25. 4-10, 28. 1-5. 23. 12. Volscis et Aequis: from the Annales. T h e war was being pro­ secuted vigorously throughout the Siege of Veii and a successful out­ come is implied both by the dedication of the temple of Mater Matuta (see above) and by the colonization of Circeii (24. 4 n.). 24-30. Interlude T h e climax of Veii is over. T h e task before L. now was to carry the reader along to the second climax of the book—the capture of Rome. With the exception of the isolated episode of Falerii (27 n.) 5 the raw 681

5- 24-30

395 B.C.

materials did not offer much scope. There were scattered facts in the Annales, details about colonies (24. 4, 29. 3), military operations (24. 1-2, 28. 5 ff), and prosecutions (29. 6) but nothing coherent. In compensation L. or his precedessors elaborated a theme which would provide a connexion for the doings of these years. T h e safety of Rome depended on h u m a n and divine factors, on Camillus and on proper relations with the gods (pietas). T h e indispensability of Camillus is brought into the open by the episode of Falerii (26. 10, 28. 1), the value of pietas is illustrated by the tale of Lipari islanders and the gift to Apollo (28. 2-5). The black side of the picture is provided both by the dire opposition of the tribunes to Camillus, who with a short­ sighted disregard for the interest of Rome seize on the issue of the praeda Veientana and by constant attrition succeed in compassing Camillus' exile, and by the sacrilegious proposals to transfer the city of Rome to the site of Veii (24. 5-11, 30. 6). Good and evil are carefully balanced and the apparent triumph of evil induces a frame of mind in the reader which expects a disaster of the magnitude and sudden­ ness of the battle of the Allia (32. 7). 24. 1. insequens: 395 B.C. P. Cornelios: for Scipio see 19. 2 n. Cossus, P.f. A.n. (Mtinzer, R.E., 'Cornelius (i2o) 5 ), is shown by his filiation to be a son of the consular tribune of 408 (4. 56. 2 n.). M. Valerium: 14. 5 n. K. Fabium Ambustum iterum: in the Capitoline Fasti. . . stus III. See 4. 61. 4 n. L. Furium: 4. 51. 1 n. Q. Servilium: 8. 1 n, 24. 2. sorte: sorti Ver. A rule may be formulated from L.'s usage. Where the name of the person to whom a province or the like is assigned is named in the dative next to the ablative of sors the form sorte is used to avoid ambiguity, i.e. Valerio sorte provincia evenit; cf. 2. 8. 6, 3. 64. 4, 37. 50. 8. Where the person and sors are separated by the province the form sorti is used, i.e. Valerio provincia sorti evenit; cf. 4. 37. 6, 29, 20. 4, 31. 6. 1. Therefore sorti should be read here and sorte in 28. 45. r r . For the war see 8. 4. vi. . . operibus: 22. 8, an unconscious repetition. See 1. 14. 4 n. 24. 3 . pax: from the Annales, whose character is also conveyed by the language. Notice the perfect passive depopulatus, only used in com­ munique style (e.g. Caesar, B.G. 1. 11. 4, 7. 77. 14), and felix arbor, a technical expression (cf. Lex ap. Fronto 183.25 van den H o u t ; Cato ap. Paulus Festus 81 L . ; Aul. Gell. 10. 15. 15; Macrobius 3. 20. 2 ; see 1. 26. 6 n.). T h e felling of the arbores felices was both an economic and religious blow to the Capenates. For similar reprisals cf. 6. 31. 8 ; Dio fr. 40, 23 Melber. 24. 4. coloniam in Volscos: Circeii, dated by Diodorus to 393 (14. 102. 682

395 B.C.

5- 24. 4

4). It was intended as a stronghold to impede the Volscian advance from the south and should be viewed in conjunction with a strengthen­ ing of the relations with Satricum (23. 7 n.). For the early history of Circeiisee 1. 56. 3 n.; E. T. Salmon, C.Q. 31 (1937), 111-13. T h e size of the colony, 3,000 Roman citizens with 3 ^ iugera apiece (4. 47. 7 n.), calls for comment. There is enough available land in the area for a colony of such dimensions but it is inconceivable that it should be founded with 3,000 citizens from Rome. Citizen-colonies were always small (300 families was the prescribed number from 329-184) because situated in places where their development was restricted geogra­ phically or economically. Instead, therefore, of forming self-contained communities on their own the colonists remained citizens of Rome. Even if Rome could have spared 3,000 citizens at this date, the result­ ing colony would have been big enough to have its own constitution. Therefore, either the figure of 3,000 is fictitious or their designation as cives Romani is false (cf. also 4. 47. 7). In all likelihood a small citizen establishment was supplemented by the addition of Latins (34. 42. 6; see S her win-White, Roman Citizenship, 72-76). 24. 5. pulcherrima urbs Veii: for a discussion of the proposal to migrate to Veii see 51-54 n. 24. 7-8. Ver. reads partim plebs partim senatus habitando distinaba . . .; N has partem plebi partem senatus destinabant [a P) habitandos Veios. What­ ever the exact text the sense must be as determined by Mr. G. W. Williams (J.R.S. 45 (1955), 228). T h e proposal being canvassed was to transfer part of the plebs and part of the patres to refound a new Rome at Veii but not to abandon Rome entirely. This is demanded by the second half of the sentence duasque urbes communi republica incoli a populo Romano, where the populus Romanus must be inclusive of plebs and patres. Since the obdurate resistance of the Senate to the proposal is assumed throughout, senatus cannot be the subject of destinabant; the Senate would never have detailed any part of the citizen body as emigrants to Veii. And if senatus cannot be the subject of destinabant, it follows that plebs (Ver.), which is exactly parallel to senatus, cannot be either and that plebs is wrong. T h e only people with an interest in starting the new settlement were the disaffected colonists who had no wish to be relegated to the distant swamps of Circeii. They are the subject of the preceding verbs censebant and praeponebant and should be of destinabant as well. T w o possibilities are open: (1) reading partem plebis partem senatus, either insert ad before habitan­ dos Veios ('they detailed some plebeians and some patricians for in­ habiting Veii': so Heerwagen, Luterbacher, Weissenborn) or delete habitandos Veios (Bayet). T h e sense is adequate but the reading remote from the manuscripts. (2) Better, with Mr. Williams, to follow the lead given by Ver. and 683

5- 2 4 . 7-8

395 B.C.

read partiplebis parti senatus habitandos destinabant Veios. For the intrusive m in the manuscripts cf. 3. 44. 1, 64. 8, 67. 7, 4. 13. 3, 9, 17. 4, 58. 12, 5- 2 3 - 5> 3 1 - 5> 44- i> 5 1 - x> 5 2 - r3> 6 - 4- 9- F o r t h e word-order cf. 39-6. 24. 10. victam . . . victrici: the arguments used by the optimates call to mind the refusal of some Athenians to quit Athens at the time of Salamis (Herodotus 8. 41, 55 j and see now the decree of Themistocles: the parallel between the sack of Athens by the Persians and of R o m e by the Gauls is developed in later chapters) and the intensity of their feeling can be seen from their fiery language, in contrast to the measured terms used by Camillus (25. 4-6). T h e two speeches are nicely designed to balance one another. For the indignant use of -ne ut see 4. 2. 12 n . ; for the hysterical citius se morituros (9) cf. 24. 3. 12; subigere as a synonym for cogere is colloquial (before L. used only by Plautus, e.g. True. 783 and Sallust, Catil. 51. 18 (speech of Caesar)). 24. 1 1 . T. Sicinium: nothing else is known of him, but his proposal is in accord with the reputed sympathies of his family (cf. 2. 32. 2 n., 40. 14 n., 58. 2 n., 3. 54. 12 n.). Romulo, deifilio: 1. 40. 3 n., in the context of active propaganda about the removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome (50. 8), the phrase cannot but have held significant overtones for a R o m a n audience. Octavian, who toyed with the idea of taking the name Romulus, was styled divijilius. 2 5 . 4. damnata voti: 'bound, as they were, to discharge their v o w ' : damnare voti is sacral (7. 28. 4, 10. 37. 16, 27. 45. 8, 39. 9. 4 ; Nepos, Timol. 5. 3 ; Fronto 95. 20 van den H o u t ; Macrobius 3. 2. 6). Against the passionate outbursts of plebeians and patricians alike, Camillus preserves an impassive front, res moventes is the technical term in law for movables (Aul. Gell. 11. 18. 13; Dig. 33. 10. 2, 39. 5. 3 5 ; see Wolfflin, Archiv f. Lat. Lex. 10 (1896), 10); cf. the intransitive use of movere in, e.g., terra movit. As Crevier saw, a colon not a comma is required after decumae. 25. 7. T h e matter was referred to the pontifices, within whose com­ petence fell all matters concerning the performance of vows and dedications. Their judgement is naturally formulated in legalistic terms. For quod eius cf. 34. 2 ; for conceptum votum cf. 41. 21. 1 1 ; Macro­ bius 1. 10. 21; C.I.L. n . 3081 vootum . . . cuncaptum. 2 5 . 8. pollicitae: sc. sunt. T h e sentence should be punctuated pollicitae . . . aurum, et omnia ornamenta sua in aerarium detulerunt 'they promised gold and contributed all their jewels'. There is no need, with Morstadt, to delete et, taking pollicitae as a participle. T h e voluntary contribution by the matrons and their reward seem to be a doublet of the similar occasion a few years later. See 50. 7 n. 684

394 B.C.

5- 26-27

26-27. The Capture of Falerii T h e Fall of Veii and capitulation of Capena left Falerii as the next prey open to attack. Even if her former association with Veii (8. 4, 16. 1 ff., 17. 6) had not established an implacable hostility in Rome, her strategic position, commanding both the Tiber highway and the overland routes to Etruria, made her too important and too poten­ tially dangerous a neighbour to be overlooked. The tradition that Gamillus captured the city in 394 B.C. (or an equivalent date) squares therefore with the prevailing situation and the military details of the account are evidently founded on fact (26. 5 n.), despite the outbreak of hostilities again in 357 which continued down to the final revolt and reduction of the city in 241 when the inhabitants were transferred to a new site. T h e sack of Rome by the Gauls set R o m a n expansion back by at least twenty-five years and there is nothing to be wondered at in the slow reclaiming of lost ground from 380 onwards. Falerii (Veteres, to distinguish it from F. Novi founded in 241), the modern Givita Castellana, 'stands on a narrow neck of land, guarded by almost sheer precipices nearly 300 ft. high. T h e approach from the west alone is easy and direct; this was in antiquity defended by a wall'. T h e defensive properties of the site, like Veii, commended it for settlement. Gato speaks of an Argive settlement (Pliny, N.H. 3. 51), but this, together with other Greek connexions noted by D.H. (1. 21), were no doubt legends growing up round the influence which Greece exerted over southern Etruria especially in the sixth century and which is attested by the large number of Greek finds in the city and the vicinity. It was at all times an Etruscan city, not one of the Twelve Peoples but closely linked with the fortunes of Veii and Fidenae. T h e bare record of Gamillus' capture of Falerii had at some date drafted on to it the edifying tale of the Faliscan schoolmaster (cf. Florus 1. 6. 5 ; Eutropius 1. 20. 1 ; Orosius 3. 3. 4 ; Frontinus 4. 4. 1; de Viris Illustr, 23. 1; D . H . 13. 1. 1-2; Plutarch, Camillus 10. iff.; Dio 23. 4). If L.'s account of the debate in the Senate in 171 B.C. (42. 47. 6; cf. Diodorus 30. 7. 1) substantially represents the arguments used on that occasion, it was already a stock example for orators. There are features about it which are plainly anachronistic (27. 1 n.), but the spectacle of 'the hunter hunted' or the beater beaten (cf. Horace, Epist. 2. 1. 71) has a pleasing justice about it which is peren­ nial. An ingenious theory proposed by Gage would see it as an aeticlogical legend explaining a primitive ritual analogous to that of the Luperci—a binding and beating (fustigatio). If the story is not historical, its origin will lie in Hellenistic exempla (27. 1 n.) rather than in ritual. L.'s treatment of the story is characteristic. The military details 685

5- 26-27

394 B.C.

are recounted in professional language (26. 5 n., 26. 6 n., 26. 8 n.) but his tone changes abruptly when he deals with the schoolmaster episode. This, for L., is an exemplum, a specimen virtutis (26. 10), and it is told as a self-contained unity, mos erat. . . is cum . . . (27. 1-2) marks the new beginning and can be compared with L.'s method of starting an incident erat turn . , . is cum . . . (2. 33. 5 n,). T h e situation is then described in an involved sentence with subordinate clauses leading up to the confrontation with Camillus (ad Camillum perduxit). Camillus' reply is elevated in language and content (27. 5 n.) and the story ends with the gentlemanly behaviour of the Falisci who respect Camillus' fides sufficiently to be inspired into an equal act of fides themselves. T h e great stress laid on fides (27. 11, 27. 13 (bis), 27. 15, 28. 1) points the moral of the tale and the whole concludes on a quiet, almost formal note—pace data exercitus Romam reductus. See Bormann, Arch. Mitteilungen aus Oest.-Ungarn 11 (1887), 103 ff.; Gage, Huit recherches, 34 f.; H u b a u x 306 ff.; Frederiksen and WardPerkins, P.B.S.R. 25 (1957), 128 ff. 26. 2. L. Furius: 4. 51. 1 n. C. Aemilius: 32. 1, according to the Capitoline Fasti from 391 B.C., Ti.f. Ti.n. (Mamercinus), a grandson of the consul of 470 (2. 61. 1 n.). Nothing is known of his father. L. Valerius Publicola: L.f. L.n., a son of the consular tribune of 414 (4. 49. 7 n.). For his subsequent career see Volkman, R.E., 'Valerius (298)'. Sp. Postumius: to be identified with the censor of 380 (6. 27. 4). Munzer (R.E., 'Postumius (61)'), arguing from Diodorus* omission of his name, believes this consular tribunate to have been invented because constitutional theory required a censor to have held consular office. Postumius' record (28. 5-13) is, however, too deeply ingrained in the Annales. P. Cornelius iterum: no closer identification is provided by any of the sources. In theory he might be Maluginensis (19. 2 n.), Ccssus, or Scipio (24. 1 n . ) : see 19. 2 n. T h e collaboration with Camillus points to Maluginensis. T h e confused KdrXos Ovfjpos in Diodorus (14. 97. 1) is perhaps a conflation of Aemilius and Valerius. There is no need with Mommsen (Rom, Forsckungen, 2. 229) to regard the last three names given by L. and the Fasti as spurious, for Diodorus is waywardly inaccurate. 26. 3 . elanguit: 1. 46. 7. 2 6 . 5 . asperis confragosisque . . . artis . . . arduis: the adjectives are almost perfunctory, a familiar characteristic of the military assessment of a situation (cf. 'bushy-topped trees'); cf. Varro, de Re Rust. 1. 18. 4 confragosus atque arduis clivis; Cicero, pro Sest. 100; Sallust, Catil. 7. 5; Seneca, Dial. 4. 13. 1; Frontinus 2. 5. 24; Tacitus, Hist. 3. 17; Annals i5- 38. 686

394 B.C.

5. 26. 6

26. 6. indidem: a certain emendation by Kern of N's indicem, restoring a word (=■ ex eodem loco) only found in military or official contexts (Nepos, Epam. 5. 2 ; Frontinus 2. 4. 5 ; Itin. Alex. 23 ; cf. the inscription published in Notiz. Scavi, 1936, 333 no. 194 convenito indide; see also 27- J 2 . 5> 25. IJ > 28. J - 6> 39- J2« 1 : 2. 9. 2 n.). 26. 7. trifariam: the army is divided into four divisions, one standing guard and three engaged in constructing the c a m p ; cf. 4. 22. 5. 26. 8. multi caesi: notice the short, decisive sentences in the style of military communiques by which the victory is announced. 26. 10. ni fortuna . . dedisset: for the text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 283-4. Fortune gives Camillus an opportunity of displaying his virtus, already known in war, in another sphere and at the same time securing a speedy victory. So 27. 13 vos fidem in bello quam praesentem victoriam maluistis. For cognitae . . . rebus cf. 21. 53. 8; for specimen virtutis cf. 8. 7. 8. None of the proposed conjectures, e.g. (for et cognitae) simile cognatae Heusinger; incognitae Anon., Gronovius, Walker, improve on the manuscripts. 27. 1. magistro liberorum et comite: the educational system of paedagogi was, as its name implies, wholly Greek in origin. In primitive Rome children were educated by their parents, a practice historically exem­ plified by the upbringing of the Gracchi, or sent to common schools (3. 44. 6 n.). In the latter event they would have been attended to school by a slave, later known as a pedisequus (cf. ad Herennium 4. 65), whose duty was not to instruct but merely to escort his charges. Paedagogi, slaves who were both teachers and companions of the young, became known to the Romans first perhaps through New Comedy (Plautus, Bacch. 431 ff.; Pseud. 447) and were shortly after­ wards introduced into the Roman system as part of the hellenizing tendency in R o m a n education (cf. ad Herennium 4. 14; Cicero, de Amic. 74; ad Att. 12. 33. 2). T h e Faliscans with their close Greek contacts might in theory have adopted a Greek tutorial system of education 250 years before the Romans but the whole story is seen through Roman eyes (cf. 27. 2 hostium) which makes it more likely that the detail is anachronistic, contemporary perhaps with the vogue enjoyed by the episode in the second century, comite is technical; cf. Suetonius, Claud. 3 5 ; Martial 11. 39. 2 : see Schuppe, R.E., 'Paidagogos'. 27. 2. [dum] modo: dam or dummodo is clearly otiose as there is no subordinate clause, dum is interpolated by Ver. at 24. 2 (cf. also 3. 67. 6), and therefore should be deleted here altogether (Hertz) rather than emended [diu Weissenborn, Bayet; turn Gronovius; secum Zingerle). 27. 5. inquit: the arguments used by Camillus may be traditional, for they reflect a characteristically Roman opposition to a common 687

5.27.5

394 B.C.

Greek attitude to society and war which stems from or was at least formulated by Plato. In the Republic Plato accepts a Social Contract explanation of the origin of society (369 B-372 D ) , a belief in societas pacto humano. He furthermore argues that war is the business of the whole citizen-body and that women and children should take part in it as well (466 E) In the pursuit of war there are certain international conventions to be observed with regard to fellow Greeks but against barbarians war is total, knowing neither quarter nor mitigation (470-1). Much of Plato's thinking on these topics was inherited by Epicurus whose Kvpiai A6£at exhibit striking resemblances to Camillus' w o r d s (e.g. 33 OVK rjv TI /CGL0' iavro SiKaioavvq aAA' €V rats /xer' dXArjAcov GVdTpOaiS

KCL0' OITTJALKOVS

S77 7TOT€ GL€L T07TOVS (JVvd-qKTJ Tt? V7T€p TOV

fir) p\a.7TT€iv 77fiXa-TTTeadcu).The apologists of Roman imperialism in the second century would have had to counter such a philosophical stand and deployed arguments such as Camillus uses here—that there was a ius gentium, that children were exempt from war, that society was founded not on contract but on nature. It is, therefore, improbable that L. was solely responsible for inventing them and the agreement of L, and Plutarch (Camillus 10) points to a common, older source, perhaps a source at least as old as the debate of 171. Camillus speaks in philosophical terms. Notice ingeneravit, used only here by L. but by Cicero in the de Finibus (5. 33, 36) and the de Legibus (1. 27; ita generavit Ziegler). similem: it was an ancient commonplace that an unworthy victor brought dishonour both to himself and to the conquered. See Denniston on Euripides, Electra i8g with references there cited. 27. 6. belli... iura: 31. 30. 2-3 (based on Polybius). Cf. also Polybius 5. 11. 3-4 with Walbank's note. 27. 7. et ipsos: 'against those who are armed themselves'. 2 7 . 8 . opere: ' siege- works'. 27. 1 1 . et curia: in curia Ver. L. writes curia et forum at 7. 6. 12 which perhaps strengthens the claims of N here. 27. 12. invideat: contrast 21. 15 n. The reminder serves to keep Camillus' future plight in the reader's mind. dedimus: 1. 38. 1 n. T h e form of surrender may be purely R o m a n but the reasoning behind it is again based on Greek thought. It is interest­ ing to contrast with the two salutaria exempla the pragmatic doctrine of the Athenians in the Melian Dialogue (Thucydides 5. 87 ff.). Moral considerations were not relevant to the issue of the war (5. 101). The immediate concern of the Athenians was to bring the Melians by force into the Empire (5. 91). T h e Romans on the other hand display fides and the Faliscans regard membership of the Roman community of greater value than the enjoyment of their own auroi>ofua, a view which would have been anathema to the Melians or any other 688

394 B.C.

5. 27. 12

Greeks (5. 112), L. echoes a traditional Roman counterblast to Greek propaganda against apxq- For the ideas behind the Melian Dialogue see especially de Romilly, Thucydide et V imperialisme athe'nien, 232 ff.; A. Andrewes, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 186 (i960), 1-10. 27. 15. pecunia: a Faliscan indemnity could have been recorded in the Annales. 28. 1-5. The Embassy to Delphi and the Liparians From the Roman angle the project to dedicate an offering to Apollo is credible enough (15. 3 n.). Moreover, the intervention of the Lipa­ rians at this period suits the history of the archipelago as attested from other independent sources. Lipara, a natural base for naval opera­ tions, had been colonized in the sixth century by Cnidus and in the fifth century pursued her own policies. In 427 she resisted the attempts of the Athenians to subdue her by force (Thucydides 3. 88) but her seafaring freedom, vulgarly termed 'piracy' as were the activities of the Samian Aeaces, was chiefly threatened by the aggressions of the Etruscans before Cumae (474 B.C.) and the Carthaginians. Athens, Etruria, and Carthage were her natural enemies and it is to be remem­ bered that at different dates Etruria and Carthage (Aristotle, Politics i28o a 36 ff.; cf. also the first Roman treaty) and Athens and Carthage had made treaties of alliance (Thucydides 6. 88. 6; see B. D. Meritt, Haw. Stud. Class. Phil., Suppl. 1 (1940), 247-53). Lipara survived these combinations. Pausanias (10. 16. 7; see Frazer on 10. n . 3] recounts without dating a battle between 5 Liparian and 20 Etruscan ships in relays of 5 which resulted in the capture of all the Etruscan ships'. av€$€Gav ovv is AeXfovs

rat? aXovcrais vavalv apidfiov tcra ATTOX-

Xwvos dydXfxaTa. The date must be before Cumae, for the Etruscans never ventured so far afield again. Fragments of the dedication set up on that occasion survive (Bourguet, B.C.H. 35 (1911), 149 ff.) and the lettering is dated to c. 500. The respect for Delphi and the ruthless interception of vessels on the high sea are typical. In 396 the Cartha­ ginian Himilco had levied a payment of 30 talents on the island, without succeeding in cowing the inhabitants (Diodorus 14. 56. 2 ) ; the Liparians would be anxious both for revenge and for financial reparation. At first sight therefore a Roman ship was an ideal target. Rome was still, in the foreigners' eyes, a predominantly Etruscan city and her treaty relation with Carthage would be recalled. It does credit to Timasitheus that he discerned the difference. See further, Ziegler, R.E., 'Lipara'; L. Zagami, Le hole Eolie, 55-58. 28. 1. albi: 23. 5 n. 28. 2. crate?'am: 25. 10, the formal term which is used in good Latin only of dedicatory bowls (Cicero, Verr. 4. 131: otherwise vulgar) in 814432

689

vy

5.

a8. 2

394 B.C.

preference to the poetical crater or the Etruscan cretera. See Clausen, C.d.i3(i963)585. L. Valerius: 4. 49. 7 n. T h e elder is more likely, rather than the young Publicola (26. 2 n.). Diodorus dates the embassy to 396. L. Sergius: 16. 1 n. A. Manlius: 4. 61. 1 n. 28. 3 . Romanis vir similior: a typically Livian sentiment; cf. 4. 9. 8, 30. 7. 6 and contrast Plutarch, Camillus 8. T h e Roman people is in large measure the hero of the history. 28. 4. donumque et decus: for Lipara's connexion with Delphi see above. regenti: 3. 71. 5 n. hospitium: publicum hospitium was a formal relationship of great antiquity between a state and an individual citizen of another state (Aul. Gell. 5. 13). It created an obligation on the contracting state to provide for the needs of the hospes when travelling or visiting in their territory and, if necessary, to provide a patronus for him in a court of law. T h e obligations were reciprocal to the extent that the hospes was expected to provide the same facilities for official delegations from the contracting state when they visited his own. T h e relationship was symbolized by a tessera hospitalis. It is uncertain when hospitium was originated but the historicity of Timasitheus and the three Roman ambassadors is confirmed by the fact that when Lipara was annexed by the Romans in 252 the rights of the descendants of Timasitheus were scrupulously regarded (Diodorus 14. 93). hospitium is, therefore, likely to date from the first contacts of Rome with more distant neigh­ bours and the entry hospitium . . . data to come from the Annales. For further details see Mommsen Rom. Forschungen, 1. 326 ff.; Leonhard, R.E., 'hospitium'; Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 11 ff. 28. 5. senatus consulto: cf. Dessau, I.L.S. 6095 = Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents no. 355 ( cf. 354, 356), for the form of such documents. eodem anno: the details are annalistic. There is no contradiction with the reference to a peace in 23. 12, for the duration of it was not specified. 28. 6. Verruginem: 4. 55. 8 n. 28. 8. increparet: Postumius' tirades against his troops and their answering protestations belong to a common rhetorical category. Cf. 2. 59. 9 n . ; 3. 68. 13. L. cultivates a military style of writing for the narration of these incidents: e.g. for 28. 10 corpora curare cf. 3. 2. i o n . ; for 28. 8 ignavissimo ac fugacissimo cf. the Plautine parody in Persa 421 edax, furax, fugax: fugax is not found in good prose before L. (30. 28. 3 ) ; for 28. 10 pernox cf. 21. 49. 9, 32. 11. 9, not in prose before L . ; cf. Virgil, Georg. 3. 230 with H; Ovid, Met. 7. 268 et al. See also 28. 13 n. T h e description of the night battle owes much to the account of Epipolae in Thucydides 7. 4 3 - 4 4 ; in particular the effects of moon­ light visibility (7. 44. 1-2 = 28. 12) and the ambiguity of shouts in the darkness (7. 44. 3 = 28. 10). 690

394 B.C.

5. 28. 10

28. 10. et hand: connective et introducing a new sentence is wrongly disallowed by Madvig. Pettersson rightly compares 4. 48. 2 (n.). 28. 13. litterae . . . laureatae: 45. 1. 6-7; cf. Cicero, inPisonem^g; ad Att. 5. 21. 2: see Halkin, La Supplication, 80-83. The terse announcement is in the spirit of the real thing. 29. 1. continuare: 25. 13, 26. 3. They included T. Sicinius as well as Q . Pomponius and A. Verginius (29. 6 n.). 29. 2. annum post quintum decimum: the last pair of consuls held office in 409 (4. 54. 1) and L. brings out the significance of the return to the consulate by giving a date (3. 30. 7 n.) which squares with the eponyms given in the text. If it is possible at so long range to deter­ mine the true causes of events, the reason for the change should be found in connexion with the appointment of censors (5. 31. 6 n.) and in the tradition preserved in the Capitoline Fasti that the true consuls of 393 were L. Valerius Potitus and P. or Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis who [vitio facti abdicaru\nt and were replaced by Lucretius and Sulpicius as suffect consuls. The consular tribunate was created to deal with an aggravated military situation and it was attended by a parallel creation, the censorship. The aim, as has been shown (4. 7. i n . ) , was to make the fullest and best use of Rome's manpower resources. With the fall of Veii and the reduction of the ager Faliscus and the ager Capenas, the emergency was over. The threat from the Gauls was still no bigger than a man's hand. Only the southern danger subsisted. It was therefore a natural moment for normal conditions to be restored and for Rome to take stock of her position after the ravages of pestilence and prolonged warfare. Hence the censorship and hence the election of consuls, but in the disqualification of the first pair of consuls we may see a desire to make a break with the tainted years that had preceded. Valerius and Cornelius were vitio facti be­ cause the system which had elected them was itself of an irregular kind. The return to normal government had a special relevance both for the 8o's and for the 20's. L. Lucretius Flaws: to be identified with L. Lucretius Tricipitinus (32. 1). He was probably the son of P. Lucretius, consular tribune in 419 B.C. (4. 44. 13 n.), but the filiation is nowhere preserved. Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus: Q.f. Se[r. n.J, according to the Capitoline Fasti; cf. 32. 1. A son of the consular tribune of 402 (8. 1 n.). See Munzer, /?.£., 'Sulpicius (31)' and '(94)'; Fruin, Neue Jahrb.f. PhiloL 149 (1894), 115 ff. 29. 3 . legem: the proposal to remove to Veii mooted in 24. 7. Vitelliam: 2. 39. 4 n. 29. 6. A. Verginio et Q,. Pomponio: Pomponius might be a brother of M. Pomponius (13. 3 n.). Nothing else is known either of him or of 691

5- 29- 6

393 B.C.

Verginius, who appears to have abandoned the radical tradition of his family as witnessed in the tribune of 461 (3. 11. 9 n.). Mere obscurity would not in itself cast doubt on the story but two other oddities are suspicious. (1) This is the only recorded occasion on which plebeian tribunes were arraigned to answer for their conduct during their office. (2) T h e case bears a striking resemblance to two pre­ vious cases, in 423 and 401, when two pairs of consular tribunes were prosecuted before the comitia tributa and fined 10,000 asses each (4. 40. 4 n., 5. 11. 4 n.). T h e fines are certainly a later addition and the judicial functions of the comitia tributa (2. 35. 5 n.) irreconcilable with the status of the consular, although not of plebeian, tribunes. Cumulatively the peculiarities of the story indicate a deeper confusion. It may tentatively be supposed that Verginius and Pomponius were consular not plebeian tribunes from one of the years for which it is known that eponymous lists did not survive (cf. L. Verginius in 402; M . Pomponius in 399). A solution along these lines would bring them into harmony with the two earlier cases which were also based on fact. When the Annales were published and the bare detail of the prosecution of Verginius and Pomponius brought to light, it had to be incorporated into the overall pattern of history. Since no magistrates of that name were recorded for 395-3 it was alleged that they were plebeian tribunes and the case was used to provide legalistic ammuni­ tion, in particular perhaps to provide a precedent for the condemna­ tion of the tribunes in 84 B.C. In that connexion it may be recalled that one of the most distinguished lawyers of the late second century was an A. Verginius (Cicero, Laelius 101; Pomponius, Dig. 1. 2. 2. 40) and another Verginius was tr. pi. in 87. T h e tendentious nature of the story is seen in the political cliches which it contains (29. 8 n., 29. 9 n.). T h e two speeches of Camillus (29. 8-10, 30. 1-3) as well as the pro­ testations of the Senate (30. 4-6) are couched in unmistakably con­ temporary terms. See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 289 n. 2 ; Botsford, Roman Assemblies, 288-9; H . Gundel, R.E., 'Verginius (4)'; 'Pom­ ponius (13)'. 29. 8. evertisse: cf. Sallust, Oratio Lepidi 23. 29. 9. telum: 3. 55. 3 n. 30. 1. aris foris que \ 28. 42. n , often appealed to by Cicero in patriotic outbursts of emotion {Phil. 2. 72; in Catil. 4. 2 4 ; cf. Sallust, Catil. 5 2 - 3) 59- 5J s e e Otto, Sprichworter s.v.). Strictly both arae a n d / o n refer to domestic worship (Nisbet on de Domo 1)—'the altars on the hearth of the house'. There is no evidence of separate altars in private houses distinct from the hearths. Equally commonplace are, e.g., inter dimicationem patriae (cf. Phil. 14. 37), monumento gloriae (cf. Verr. 4. 88; in Catil. 3. 26), insistere vestigiis (cf.pro Sestio 7). The rhetorical character 692

393 B.C.

5- 30. 1

is further illustrated by the two tropes, the contrast between personal advantage and public disadvantage and the opposition of the con­ queror and the conquered. T h e former is a favourite antithesis of Greek orators; cf, e.g., Nicias in Thucydides 6 . 9 . 1. T h e latter, which is reinforced by repetition (24. io), touches an ancient superstition enunciated also by Lucan 1. 128 (victrix causa dels placuit sed victa Catoni) that the gods are on the side of the victors; see further S. Ferri, Hommages Herrmann, 350. 30. 2. urbem latam: referring to the models or pictures of defeated cities carried in the triumphal procession. 30. 4. punctuate his adhortationibus principes concitati; patres, senes iuvenesque, . . . venerunL T h e leading members of the Senate are roused to action and organize a demonstration of the whole body of patres, young and old. For the text see C.Q. 9 (1959), 273. Notice the alliterativefortissimefelicissimeque (43. 7, 28. 9. 7, 31. 20. 2 ; Seneca, Suas. 2. 4 ; Paneg. 12. 47. 2 ) ; dimicassent desererent; exsulem, extorrem (a legal t a g ; cf. 2. 6. 2 ; Aul. Gell. 2. 12. 1 is domo patria fortunis . . . careto, exsul extorrisque esto. For melius fuerit see 3. 41. 3 n. Their language matches their fears. 30. 7. una plures tribus antiquarunt: for the number of tribes see 2. 21. 7 n. It is difficult to see how the memory of a defeated bill would have been preserved. T h e story is part of the legendary tradition about Camillus (51-54 n.) whereas the distribution of ager Veientanus in lots of 7 iugera may be an annalistic detail. Veii continued to exist after its sack. T h e allotments are bigger than previously given (e.g. 2 iugera at Labici; 4. 47. 7 n.) but the added detail that land was allotted to other male plebeians than patres familiae, if genuine—and there are no grounds for doubting that patria potestas extended also to plebeians —points to a state of affairs in Rome where severe shortage of man­ power required the creation of exceptional family-units to take over the allotments. Diodorus' variant totals (14. 102 /car' av§pa SQVTCS irXidpa Tcaaapa, s &€ rives eiKooi QKTW) reflect a confused computation of the 7 iugera in L . : 7 x 4 = 28. irXidpa is the conventional equivalent of iugera. Some confirmation of L.'s figures is derived from the fact that the Roman had to create a new rural tribe, Tromentina, to contain the new inhabitants (6. 5. 8). See L. R. Taylor, Voting Dis­ tricts, 48 n. 3. 31-32. Annalistic Notices, jg2-i

B.C.

The years 392-1 contained at least one event, the prosecution of Camillus, which was capable of extended and dramatic treatment. L. gives it only cursory treatment and is content to present the other matters baldly and without elaboration. His motive in so doing was 693

5- 3^-32

392 B.C.

clearly to preserve the shape of the book with its two main themes, the capture of Veii and the capture of Rome. T o dilate upon incidental occurrences would spoil the symmetry (1-32 : 33-55). Hence the com­ pressed and annalistic style (cf. eodem anno 31. 3, 5, 32. 6). T h e ultimate source of the notices, with the same exception of the trial of Camillus (32. 8), must be the Annales although the person of M . Caedicius may be rather traditional than monumental (32. 6). T h e direct source used by L. cannot be determined with certainty. T h e only significant pointers are the allusion to Manlius' cognomen (31.2 n.) and the evident anachronism of the trial. T h e latter indicates a late Sullan date for the source. T h e tendentious slant of 32. 8-9 (n.) encourages the belief that L. continues to follow Valerius Antias. Notice the prominence of L. Valerius Potitus (triumph in 31. 4) and the confidence in numbers (32. 3). 3 1 . 2. L. Valerius: 4. 49. 7 n. T h e election of consuls rather than con­ sular tribunes continues the atmosphere of normality which was rudely shaken by the news of Gallic infiltration and the resignation of the consul in time to allow a new college of consular tribunes to under­ take military operations, if necessary, before the end of the cam­ paigning season (32. i n . ) . M. Manlius: T.f. A.n., according to the Capitoline Fasti, which makes him a cousin of the consul of 379 (6. 30. 2). T h e earlier history of the family is unrecorded. L. (and his source) agree with the Fasti in identifying him as the famous M . Manlius who saved the Capitol (n. on ch. 47) and was later impeached for tyranny, although Diodorus evidently distinguished the two (14. 103. 1 AvXos MdXXtos: 14. 116. 6 MdpKos TLS MaXXios €v&ot;os avrjp). Diodorus may have for once pre­ served a more authentic tradition, because the aetiological explana­ tion of the cognomen Capitolinus alluded to by L. is manifestly late. In reality the Manlii, like the Sestii and the Quinctii, assumed the cognomen to distinguish one branch of the family which lived on the Capitol. For fuller details see Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 179-99. Ver. has the order fuit postea cognomen, but in this expression postea always precedes/w^ (2. 16. 4, 33. 5, 36. 36. 3 ; Sallust, Jug. 5. 4 ; Hist. 2. 45 M . ) . O n the other hand postea normally occupies second place (cf., in addition to the above, 2. 13. 1 ; Nepos, Alcib. 3. 2 ; Paulus Festus 107 L.). T h e word-order of both N and Ver. will be wrong. Write cui postea Capitolino fuit cognomen. magnos ludos: 19. 6, 2. 36. 1 n. 3 1 . 3 . aedes Iunonis reginae: the temple was built near the modern church of S. Sabina but the exact site has not been found. In choosing the Aventine, outside the pomerium, the Romans were motivated not by the fact that J u n o was not a Roman goddess—she had her cult on the Capitol and her worship was widespread throughout Etrusco-Latin 694

392 B.C.

5- 3i-3

communities (cf. Iuno Regina at Ardea; Pliny, N.H. 35. 115)—but because she was originally the patroness of the enemy and, as such, was suspect (cf. Vortumnus). The temple is mentioned in the Punic Wars when it was evidently the centre of uninhibited female devotions (21. 62. 8, 22. 1. 17, 31. 12. 9: hence the retrojected matronarum studio here). The restoration under Augustus (Res Gestae 19) will have occurred later than the writing of this book. See Platner-Ashby s.v.; Merlin, VAventin, 196 ff. 31. 4. perseverantior caedendis infuga: the reading given in the O.G.T. is that of N : Ver. reads perseverantius instead of -ior. Editors who accept the text (Luterbacher, Bekker, Pettersson) interpret the abl. as the equivalent of in + abl. The absence of a (pro) noun defining caedendis is difficult (in iis caedendis H. J. Mliller; caedendis is Bayet) and it should be noted that L. only uses the adverbial form perseverantius (21. 10. 7, 41. 10. 3), never perseverantior. There must be a deep corruption and Ver.'s text is the starting-point for emendation. In its present state Ver. can be deciphered as caed. . eis infuga (Mommsen read (/for e) from which quod perseverantius caedem eis infuga fecit can be conjectured. For the change offuit to fecit see Hey, Thes. Ling. Lat.y Tacio', 85. 50 ff. in fuga is standard in these contexts and should not be changed (6. 24. 11, 25. 11. 6, 25. 34. 14). triumphus: listed by Malalas 7 p. 183 B. 31. 5. Volsiniensibus: the first mention of the powerful city (mod. Bolsena: Etr. Velsuna), a member of the twelve peoples of Etruria, which lay on the edge of the large Lago di Bolsena, some 50 miles north of Falerii. It can only be supposed that an expedition of such distance was in the nature of a probe to explore the upper waters of the Tiber rather than part of a constructive campaign by either side. The figures of casualties are undoubtedly exaggerated but the notice of hostilities is genuine enough. For the site and archaeological re­ mains of Volsinii see R. Bloch, Mel. a"Arch, et d'Hist. 59 (1947), 9 - 3 9 ; 62 (1950), 53-120; 65 (1953), 39~ 6 1 - F o r i t s l a t e r history see R.E., 'Volsinii'. novum: 'a new war, namely with the V.'. famem pestilentiamque: 3. 2. 1 n., from the Annales. Ver. reads caloribus nimiis which is accepted by Mommsen and Bayet as meaning 'at the time when the heat was excessive' (cf. 2. 5. 3 mediis caloribus). But nimio colore is always causal, never temporal (cf. Varro, de Re Rust. 1. 41. 2: Cicero, pro Sex. Roscio 131 ; Martial 9. 90. 9) and therefore caloribus nimiis must be so here too and be taken in conjunction with siccitate. N's caloribusque n. must be read: for the omission of -que cf. 40. 3, 40. 7, 6. 4. 4. Sappinatibus: 32. 2, 32. 4 (bis). The name, which does not figure in any other ancient text, is given variously. Ver. has Sapienatibus here 695

5- 3i. 5

392 B.C.

but is deficient in the two later passages. Salp- is given by N here and by the majority of manuscripts in all three places in 32 except that M has the dittography sal sappinates in 32. 2 and sappinates once in 32. 4. T h e variation between Sal- and Sap- may go back to the edition of Symmachus. Since there is no connexion with the Umbrian river Sapis (Pliny, N.H. 3. 115) or the tribus Sapinia (31. 2. 6, 33. 37. i ) , we have no external criterion for deciding between the forms. Etruscan names, however, while showing examples of Sappinius and Sapienus (Schulze 223) offer no root Salp and, unless L. is himself at fault, the choice should lie between Ver.'s Sapienates and M's Sappinates. T h e former is to be preferred since the correction of i to /, with sub­ sequent transposition, accounts for the corruption Sapien —> Saplen -> Salpen -> Sappen. T h e site of the city is equally controversial. T h e most favoured candidate is Orvieto (Kiepert, Atlas, 1901, pi. x x ; Hlilsen, R.E., 'Sappinates') but Orvieto is too large and prominent a site for a people who make only a single appearance in history. Recent excavaby the French school at La Civita, a hill some 4 kilometres south of Bolsena, have revealed a small but prolonged Etruscan community which came to an end c. 390 (Mel. d'Arch. et d'Hist. 67 (1955), 49-70). T h e facts thus make La Civita a possible candidate although without epigraphic confirmation the identification must remain provisional. superbia inflati: elati N, accepted by Bayet and Luterbacher; cf. 4. 13. 3 n., 54. 8 n. Despite Ver.'s weakness for iriflatus, the reading is decidedly superior here. Cf. 45. 31. 3 ; Seneca, JV.Q,. 4 j&ra*/l2 j Apuleius, Apol. 18; Lactantius, Inst. 6. 24. 24. For the confusion of the words cf. 37. 12. 4 ; Suetonius, Nero 37. 3. agros Romanos: ager was the land surrounding a city (e.g. ager Faliscus, ager Veientanus) while the plural agri refers to the individual fields of farmers. Hence while the phrase ager Romanus occurs thirtyeight times in L., the plural agri Romani is not elsewhere met (3. 6. 7 n . ; cf. 3. 30. 4 ager Romanorum, 2. 43. 1). Ver. omits Romanos here and it could easily be due to dittography after ag-ros (cf. 40. 9 n.). 31.6. C. Iulius: 4.56.2 n. The censors had been elected the previous year. His colleague was L. Papirius Cursor (9. 34. 20). T h e Capitoline Fasti confirm that Julius died in office, and the notice looks annalistic. A passage of Festus (500 L.) has been used, e.g. by Beloch, to descredit the notice but the interval of 15 years defined by Festus refers to the gap between 393 and 380 (6. 27. 4 ; see R. V. Cram, Haw. Stud. Class. Phil. 51 (1940), 75-77). M . Cornelius (P.f. M.n. according to the Fasti) must be a son of the consular tribune of 404 (4. 6 1 . 4 n.) of whom nothing else is recorded. The reason advanced for the fact that in historical times no replacements were made if one of the censors deceased (24. 43. 4, 27. 6. 18) cannot be true but was designed 696

392 B.C.

5- 3 i -

6

to represent in an irreproachable light a purely political safeguard ensuring the maintenance of the Roman principle of collegiality. See H . J . Rose on Plutarch, Q.R. 5 0 ; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 216 n. 2. 3 1 . 7. demortui: mortui Ver. but demortuus is the technical term for a magistrate who died in office (Lex. Urson. 67. 12; Acta Fratr. Arv. (A.D.

21) 2. 2 3 ; et a/.).

per interregnum: 3. 8. 2 n. 3 1 . 9. incommoda: a reason in line with 4. 7. 2. T h e true cause may have been either the disorganization caused by the plague or the news of the impending threat from the Gauls. 32. 1. Kalendis: 3. 6. 1 n. T h e Capitoline Fasti do not record their early abdication but L.'s version is to be preferred. L. Lucretius: 29. 2 n. Ser. Sulpicius: 29. 2 n. M. Aemilius: Ver. adds iterum which must be an anticipation of C. Aemilius iterum (26. 2 n.) since no other Aemilius is listed in the immediate past. His filiation is given by the Capitoline Fasti as M a m . f. M.n., which would make him a younger brother of the consul of 410 (4. 53. 1 n.) but there is some difference over his praenomen and hence over his identity. T h e Capitoline Fasti call him L. Aemilius, identifying him with the consular tribune of 389 (6. 1.8); L., on the other hand, calls him M . Aemilius and starts the series of consular tribunates held by L. Aemilius in 389. Clearly there were two separate lines of speculation about him. Nothing else is known of this M . Aemilius. L. Furius: 4. 51. 1 n. Agrippa Furius: Sex.f., according to the Capitoline Fasti and the same as the consul Furius Agrippa mentioned by Frontinus (2. 8. 2). The only Sex. Furius known in the previous generation is the consular tribune of 420 (4. 44. 1 n.) and the age-gap is right. Broughton gives Agr. Furius the cognomen Fusus but if his filiation is correctly con­ jectured he will rather be a Medullinus. C, Aemilius: 26. 2 n. 32. 2. Volsinienses . . . Sappinates: from the Annales, but the casualty figures are Valerian. 32. 3 . primo concursu: the word-order of Ver. is superior to c. p. pre­ served by N and printed in most editions; cf. 1. 25. 4, 3. 4. 8, 5. 49. 5, 6. 24. 1; Caesar, B.G. 6. 8. 6, 7. 62. 3, a military cliche which is most unlikely ever to be found in the reverse order. injugam versa: N, having lost versa by omission, corrected in jugam to injuga. In this case too Ver. preserves the military expression proper to the annalistic context; cf. 27. 14. 9 ; BelL Afr. 17. 1 ; Curtius 4. 15. 32; Tacitus, Agricola 3 7 ; Hist. 2. 26, 4. 3 7 ; Pliny, Epist. 6. 16. 18. 32. 5. indutiae: from the Annales. For stipendium cf. 27. 15, Volsinii is 697

5- 32. 5

391 B.C.

next mentioned as at war with Rome in 308 (9. 41. 6) but the setback to Rome's expansion caused by the Gallic invasion disengaged the two cities for several generations. 32. 6-7. M. Caedicius A solitary occasion on which a supernatural voice was heard, with the immediate consequence of a major defeat for Roman arms, readily induced the superstitious to venerate the site of the manifestation. Hence the cult of Aius (cf. aio; Locutius or Loquens is a secondary epithet to explain Aius). That the occasion was 391 need not be doubted, since the superstition will have been associated with the events, like the appearance of Pan before Marathon (Herodotus 6. 105). Aius was classed as a deus indiges (Varro ap. Aul. Gell. 16.17. 2 ; Cicero, de Div. 1. 101, 2. 69). M. Caedicius, the man who hears the forecast of disaster (caedes)> is a later addition (2. 52. 6 n., 5. 45. 7 n.). The site of the altar subsequently erected to Aius (cf. 50. 5, 52. 11) at the north corner of the Palatine in infima Nova via (1. 41. 4 n.) has not been recognized. See Platner-Ashby s.v.; W. F. Otto, Rh. Mus. 64 (1909), 459; Latte, R.E., 'Locutius'; Archiv f Relig.-Wissen. 24 (1926), 244; E. Schwyzer, Rh. Mus. 84 (1935), 116; F. Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 192 ; Klio 30 (1937), 44-46; Basanoff, Latomusq (1950), 13

ff

' 32. 6. Gallos: according to Cicero the voice was inarticulate and confused. 32. 8 - 9 . The Trial of Camillus The trial of Camillus has suffered from much tendentious distortion and the version given by L. represents one of the latest stages of that process. I do not doubt that Camillus was in (voluntary) exile at the time of the Gallic sack and it can be shown that in the earliest strata of history Camillus did not return in time to be the popular saviour of the city but the reasons for his absence can only be hazarded. (1) Pliny, JSf.H. 34. 13 'Camillo . . . obiecit Sp. Carvilius quaestor quod aerata ostia haberet in domo\ This suggests a trial for peculatus conducted before a quaestor or quaestors and brought upon appeal to the comitia centuriata (Cicero, de Domo 86). The procedure is not incredible. As financial officers the annual quaestors would naturally be involved at this date as they were later in the similar trial of T. Quinctius Trogus (Varro, de Ling. Lai. 6. 90-92 citing the commentarii quaestorum). They will have taken over in financial cases the functions previously exercised by the quaestores appointed ad hoc (2. 35. 5 n.). The name Sp. Carvilius, however, proves that tendentious addition had already been made. Sp. Carvilius is the twin of the tr. pL of 212. 698

391 B.C.

5- 32. 8-9

(2) If a quaestorial trial for peculatus is the earliest and perhaps authentic version, the next stage was to convert it to a tribunician prosecution before the people (D.H. 13. 5. 1). The change was made probably by the Sullan annalists for party political purposes. The choice of name for the tr. pi. (L. Apuleius) is transparent (32. 8 n.). In the tribunician case the charge may have been, as given by L., a fraudulent division of the praeda Veientana (Servius, ad Aen. 6. 825; Appian, Ital. 8). (3) Finally Diodorus mentions an alternative charge (14. 117. 6 tvioi Se acnv) that Camillus was condemned because of his triumph with white horses—an invention by some enemy of Caesar's if Diodorus' source can be dated so late. The size of the fine must be fictitious (2. 52. 5 n.) and in consequence it is variously reported (100,000 asses in D . H . ; 500,000 in Appian; 10,000 in Augustine, de Civ. Dei 2. 17). For other quaestorian prosecutions see 3. 24. 3 n. and, in general for the trial of Camillus, Miinzer, R.E., 'Furius (44)'; Botsford, Roman Assemblies, 244-5; Latte, T.A.P.A. 67 (1936), 27; Brecht, Perduellio, 266 n. 3. 32. 8. L. Apuleio: the name is Latin rather than Etruscan (Schulze 460 n. 1), the earliest form being Appuleius. The first historical member of the family is Q,. A. Pansa, consul in 300. The author of the de Viris Illustribus (23) adds the cognomen Saturninus, thus making explicit the resemblance with the notorious L. Apuleius, tr. pi. in 103 and 100, on whom the present figure is entirely modelled. 32. 9. precatus: Appian remarks on Camillus' 'Achillean5 prayer (-7-7)1; AxlhXeiov evx^jv). The allusion is to Iliad 1. 233-44. quindecim: 2. 52. 5 n. 33. 1-3. Clusium and the Invasion of the Gauls Casaubon noted in the margin of his copy at this section: 'cf. Helenam, Lucretiam, Verginiam—principium a libidine ortum'. In truth the story is a romantic explanation, typical of the Hellenistic age, de­ signed to account for the invasion of the Gauls. It is of some antiquity, being found at least in Cato (fr. 36 P.), but there can be little historical truth in it. Clusium was too remote for an isolated pocket of Gauls to have had any chance of survival nor is there any archaeological evidence for such relations between Clusium and the Gauls at this date as are presupposed by the story. Above all, Clusium is too far away from Rome to have been of any concern in 390. In the third century, on the other hand, there is ample evidence that Clusium was a storm-centre in Roman affairs and was also deeply involved with the Gauls (Polybius 2. 25 with Walbank's notes). It would therefore be in character for Roman historians to have invented the earlier precedent for hostility between Rome and Clusium in order to provide 699

391 B.C. 5- 33- i-3 both propaganda and justification for contemporary actions. T h e motive (dulcedine frugum maximeque vini) is conventional and is repeated apropos of a quite different migration by Justin 43. 3.4. T h e antagonism between Arruns and Lucumo recurs in the similar story of the sons of Demaratus (see note on 1. 34). Together with the embassy of the Fabii (35. 5 n.) all the incidents give rise to the gravest misgivings. See further Hlilsen, R.E., 'Clusium'; J . Gage, Rev. Hist. ReL 143 (r953)> i 7 ° - 2 o 8 ; J . Wolski, Historia 5 (1956), 35-39; H. Homeyer, Historia 9 (1960), 346. 3 3 . 3 . inliciendae: Gage, comparing a rival version of the story in Pliny {N.H. 12. 5 quod Helicoficumsiccam et uvam oleique ac vinipraemissa tulisset), and seeing in the person of Helico an aetiological explanation of the cult ofJuppiter Elicius (cf. Gr. eAif), would read eliciendae here— unnecessarily since the emphasis is on the country of arrival, not on the country of departure. isfuerat: ipsefuerat Ver., isfuerat ipse N. Ver.'s reading is right, is ipse is very strong (3. 5 1 . 3 ; see Mlitzell on Curtius 3. 20. 21) and is never found divided. poenae . . . nequirent: poena . . . nequiret Ver. There is nothing to choose between the singular and plural. Ver. is prone to omit n or m in the middle of words where it affects the number (4. 27. 3 n.) but here Lucumo is a single person guilty of a single offence. 33. 4-35. 3. The Gallic Migrations T h e second external challenge which the newly organized Rome had to meet was an invasion from Gaul. L.'s account fills the remainder of the book and counterbalances the narrative of the Fall of Veii which occupies the first half. T h e two threats, from Etruria and from Gaul, are the climax of the first five books, showing Rome for the first time as a stable political community (40. 1-2) and intimating the prospect of her future imperial greatness (54. 3-5). To underline the importance of the Gallic invasion from an artistic as well as from an historical point of view, L. borrows a device from Hellenistic historians who, rationalizing the practice of Herodotus and Thucydides, intro­ duced major campaigns in a foreign country with a 6description of that country, its chief peculiarities, and the origins and customs of its inhabitants' (Fraenkel, Horace, 429; Norden, Die germanische Urgeschichte, 1 ff.; K. Triidinger, Studien zur Gesch. der gr.-rom. Ethnographie, (Basel, 1918)). It would have been pointless to give an ethnographical digression on R o m e ; so L., instead of describing the invaded country, describes the invaders and, by touching on Etruria (33. 7-11) as well as Gaul, bridges the gap between the two halves of the book. It can be seen from the practice of other historians (e.g. the Africae situs in Sallust, Jugurtha 17-19 and the Britanniae situs in Tacitus, Agricola 700

DIGRESSION ON E T R U R I A AND GAUL

5.33.4-35.3

10 ff.) that such digressions were inserted to heighten suspense and to focus attention on the drama which is about to unfold. T h e materials for such an excursus would not be available in the bare chronological narratives of annalists. As a Paduan L. was doubt­ less interested in the history of Cisalpine Gaul but oral tradition is not enough. T h e question of L.'s sources has recently been re­ examined in great detail by Helene Homeyer (Historia 9 (i960), 345-61)3 who argues that for the Etruscan section (33. 7—11) L. used Varro who in turn based his researches on Cato's pioneering work (note 33. 9 capita originis, 33. 11 gentibus origo). In support of this view she argues from the general principle that for L. not to have availed himself of the scholarly investigations of Varro is 'nicht denkbar' to particular resemblances (33. 10 = Cato-Varro ap. Pliny, N.H. 3. 130; 33. n = Cato-Varro ap. Pliny, N.H. 3. 133). In the Gallic section, on the other hand, as in the chapters on the Gallograeci (38. 16. 1 ff.), she would detect strong rhetorical influences and would attribute them to the Schools and so indirectly through Posidonius to earlier natural philosophers. T h e answer may be more economic. L. nowhere else shows knowledge of Varro's writings. In many places this neglect is striking (see Introduction, p. 6). Nor are the resemblances which Homeyer quotes here at all compelling. As for the Gallic section I feel that more account needs to be taken of the Greek elements in it. It is as much a matter of outlook as of style: his summary7 is entirely from a Greek not a Roman point of view (34. 6 n., 34. 8 n . : so also 33. 8 Graeci vocant). And at many points it betrays evidence of translation from the Greek. Thus a Greek ethnographer is a serious claimant for the Gallic excursus at least. There are in effect only two claimants, Posidonius (who wrote a systematic account of Gaul [F. Gr. Hist. 87 F 116; see F. Beckmann, Geographie una1 Ethnographie in Caesar, 1930, especially 104 ff.) and, a generation later, Timagenes (F. Gr. Hist. 88 F 2, 7, 14, 15). T h e case for Posidonius is strong. In Book 103 L. gave a full-scale Gallic ethno­ graphy which is regarded, e.g. by Norden and Triidinger, as being derived from Posidonius. Particular points of contact between the present excursus and Posidonius tend to the same conclusion (e.g. for 34. 1 cf. Strabo 4. 176; Caesar, B.G. 6. 12 ; for 34. 4 quantum vellent cf. Caesar, B.G. 6. 23. 7 - 8 ; the double ager Insubrium; the synchroniza­ tion of the Celtic expansion and the foundation of Marseilles). Not­ withstanding the persuasive advocacy of M r . J . J . Tierney for Posidonius, whose claims are also maintained by Duncker, Jullian, and Grenier, I think that the case for Timagenes is as strong, pars Galliae tertia est reads like an echo of the opening of Caesar's Bellum Gallicum. Timagenes published his Gallic researches to exploit the curiosity aroused in the R o m a n world by Caesar's conquests. They 701

5- 33- 4-35- 3

DIGRESSION ON ETRURIA AND GAUL

were certainly available to Strabo when he started work in Rome in 29 B.C. (Introduction, pp. 2, 4). The case for Timagenes gains some support from two closely parallel passages in Justin (24. 4 ; 20. 5. 7-8). Justin epitomized Pompeius Trogus and Trogus relied on Timagenes. Momigliano (Athenaeum 12 (1934), 45-56) argues that Trogus has copied Livy direct but Trogus sites the migrations in Illyria and Pannonia and supplies extra details which cannot come from Livy. Whether Timagenes is included in the levissimi ex Graecis of 9. 18. 6 or not, he is not to be excluded here. I regard it as almost certain that the Etruscan and the Gallic digressions came from the same source. See further Mullenhof, Deutsche Alt. 2. 250 ff.; Hirschfeld, KL Schriften, 1-18; Soltau, Hermes 29 (1894), 611 ^ > Ogilvie, J.R.S. 48 (1958), 41 ff.; also C. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, 1. 243 ff.; A. Grenier, Les Gaulois, 6 3 ; H. Homeyer, op. cit. 33. 4. equidem haud abnuerim: 1. 3. 2 n. The refusal by an author to commit himself to the solution of a disputed problem is especially characteristic of the ethnographical style (Fraenkel, Horace, 429-30 quoting Sal lust, Jug. 17. 2; Tacitus, Agricola 11. 1; Germania, 46. 6). seu quo alio Clusino: not an alternative, otherwise unrecorded, version attributing the blame to some other Clusine (Bayet, tome 5, 55 n. 1) but a categorical suspension of a judgement. 3 3 . 5 . eos.. .fuisse qui: for this awkward construction see Klotz on Bell. Hisp. 3. 1. ducentis quippe annis: cf. 34. 1 Frisco Tarquinio Romae regnante; 34. 8 n. Massilienses erant ii navibus a Phocaea prqfecti. Massilia was founded c. 600. Tarquinius Priscus ruled for 38 years (1. 40. 1 ; Cicero, Rep. 2. 36) which on the conventional dating, used with only minor varia­ tion by L. and his sources, places his reign from 616-578. The Battle of Allia was fought in 390 (Varr.) so that the figure of 200 years and the other notices are all consistent. Both the connexion between the first Celtic emigration and the foundation of Massilia and the date of that migration are unhistorical. The Celts came into Italy from Switzerland and south Germany, not from Gaul direct (T. E. S. Powell, The Celts, 21 : see the critical examination of the archaeological evidence by R. Pittioni, OesL Akad. Wissenschqft, 233 (1959), 3. 4-22). The Celtic ethnos itself was not formed till the fifth century B.C. and the culture of Gaul in 600 (the Halstatt period) was not so advanced, nor the pressure of population and shortage of land so acute, as to permit such a movement (see J.-J. Hatt, Histoire de la Gaule Romaine, 1959, 19-31 with bibliography). The archaeological evidence from Italy confirms that Celtic penetration of Italy only began after c. 500. The first certain Celtic tombs in the Po valley belong to the La Tene epoch (Jacobsthal, Early Celtic Art; E. Baumgaertal, Journ. R. Anthrop. Inst. 67 (1937), 231-86; for an unsuccessful attempt to defend the 702

DIGRESSION ON ETRURIA

5- 33- 5

early date see L. Pareti, Studi minori, 1. 365 ff.). See also 35. 3 n. The Celtic penetration of north Italy has been the subject of much recent investigation; see G. A. Mansuelli, Hommages Grenier, 3. 1067 ff.; R. Chevallier, Latomus 21 (1962), 356 ff. The synchronization of the foundation of Massilia and the Celtic emigration with its double distortion of date may be due to Posidonius (Strabo 4. 179). It was inspired by the Gallic attack on Massilia shortly before the invasion which led to the capture of Rome (Justin 43. 5. 4-8: see Jullian 1. 253 n. 3). antequam . . . oppugnarent. . . caperent: the subjunctives emphasize the causal connexion between the arrival of the Gauls in Italy and their subsequent attack on Rome (Wackernagel, Vorlesungen, 1. 247). Etruscan Rule in Italy 33. 7. Tuscorum: Etruscorum Ver. Livy uses either form indiscrimi­ nately. Palaeographically Etruscorum is preferable after the preced­ ing pugnavere. See Catterall, T.A.P.A. 69 (1938), 300. ante Romanum imperium late terra marique opes patuere: Cato speaks in similar terms (fr. 62 P.); cf. [Servius], ad Aen. 10. 145. The memory of the Etruscan domination of Italy was well maintained. Its detailed accuracy indicates that it was kept alive by a succession of Etruscan writers (the Tuscae Historiae mentioned by Varro ap. Censorinus, de Die Nat. 17. 6) from whom it passed into the mainstream of Roman history. The expansion from the primitive limits of Etruria, bounded by the rivers Tiber and Arno, commenced at least in the seventh century and, in its first phase, was directed southward. The Etruscans established control over Campania with Capua as their capital and penetrated as far as Pompeii (J. Heurgon, Recherches . . . de Capoue preromaine; A. Boethius, Gli Etruschi in Pompeii; A. Maiuri, Atti R. Accad. d* Italia 4 (1944), 121 ff.). Such extensive penetration presupposes at least temporary control over Latium and Rome (notes on 1. 34, 2. 9-15). The southward expansion was checked by a series of re­ verses—the Battle of Aricia (2. 14. 6 n.), the naval defeat at Cumae in 474, and the destruction of the Campanian empire by the Samnites in 423 (4. 37. 1 n.). Increasing difficulties in the south may have been responsible for the switch of activity to the north. Archaeologically there appears to be no radical distinction between the Villanovan culture and the later Etruscan discoveries at Felsina (Bologna), which might suggest that the Etruscans had been in possession of the area and the whole Po valley from their first arrival in Italy. The literary tradition, however, including the mythical foundation of Felsina by the Perugian Aucno (Servius, ad Aen. 10. 198; cf. Silius Ital. 8. 599; S Veron. Aeneid 10. 200; the name Uqnus has been identified on a recent fragment of an Etruscan vase in Rome) speaks with one voice 703

5- 33- 7

DIGRESSION ON E T R U R I A

of a northward expansion. Etruscan-type tombs appear in the late sixth century. Progress was impeded by the geographical barrier of the Alps as well as by the resistance of the Veneti and the Umbrians in the east and the Ligurians in the west, and their control was ephemeral, for the Gauls appear on the scene by the end of the century. Etruscan sea-power is attested from an early period {Horn. Hymn. 7. 6 - 8 ; and cf. Palaephatus, Apist. 20; Diod. 5. 19 ff.). 1 T h e historical sources provide details of individual naval operations, e.g. at Lipari (Strabo 6. 275), the straits of Messina (Strabo 6. 257), Corsica (Herodotus 1. 166) which are confirmed by inscriptional evidence such as Hiero's dedication after the Battle of Cumae ( = T o d 22) or the Latin elogium at Tarquinii mentioning a naval expedition to Sicily (published by M . Pallottino, Stud. Etruschi, 21 (1950-1), 147 ff.). But the extent and duration of their power is exaggerated. It is doubtful if the Etruscans ever had a good outlet to the Adriatic or obtained control of it. Etruscan penetration to the north-east coast is confined to the fifth century and the last years of the sixth, during which period the Aeginetan colony of Spina controlled the northern Adriatic (Strabo 5. 214 a>s* QaXavvoKpar-qvavTOJv; see N . Alfieri-P. Arias, Spina; R. L. Beaumont, J.H.S. 56 (1936), 179). In the Tuscan sea their power declined rapidly after Cumae. Nautical motifs, figuring on Etruscan vases from the beginning of the sixth century (R. Vighi, Rend. Accad. dei Lincei 8 (1932), 367 ff.), bear out the tradition of Etruscan innovations in shipbuilding (D.tt. 1. 2 5 ; Pliny, N.H. 7. 209). 33. 8. Atriaticum mare ab Atria, Tuscorum colonia: Atria (mod. Atri), not to be confused with the Picene Hadria or Hatria, lay at the mouth of the Po. So also Pliny, N.H. 3. 120; Strabo 5. 214; Justin 20. 1. 9. T h e name is variously spelled by the manuscripts {Atria M, Adria nX) and by editors, but the etymological note of Varro (de Ling. Lat. 5. 161 atrium appellatum ab Atriatibus Tuscis; cf. Paulus Festus 12 L ; [Servius], ad Aen. 1. 726) guarantees the unaspirated form Atria. T h e testimony of other writers (e.g. Plutarch, Camillus 16 Abpiav KOXOVVIV euro TvppyviKrjs TTOXCWS ft&plas) is late and derivative. T h e Romans generally referred to the Adriatic as Hadria or Hadriaticus (Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v.). O n the use and derivation of the ancient names of the Adriatic see R. L. Beaumont, op. c i t , 203-4; Walbank on Polybius 2. 14. 4. Atria was not in fact an exclusively Etruscan foundation. Justin (20. 1. 9) calls it a Greek colony and the archaeological remains 1 Etruria does not figure in the Thalassocracy Lists (Myres, J.H.S. 26 (1906), 84 ff.), but neither does Persia, perhaps because the surviving lists are a conflation of two distinct lists, one a catalogue of Mediterranean sea-power down to Miletus, the other a catalogue exclusively of Old Greek sea-power beginning with Lesbos. Some such division is indicated by Caria being misplaced at the head of the wrong list.

704

DIGRESSION ON E T R U R I A

5- 33- 8

indicate a mixed Graeco-Etruscan community like Spina (G. B. Pellegrini-G. Fogolari, Stud. Etrusc. 26 (1958), 103 ff.). Graeci eadem Tyrrhenum atque Adriaticum vocant: the Greeks invariably employ the unaspirated A8p- (Ahpi-qv-q Eur. Hipp. 736; Ahpias Lys. 32. 25; Isocrates, PhiL 5. 2 1 ; Polybius 1. 2. 4 ; ionic ASpl-qs Hecataeus F 101-2 B Jacoby; Herodotus 1. 163; see Partsch, /?.£., 'Adria'). Adriaticum (N) is, therefore, to be preferred to Hadriaticum (Ver.). Note the Greek point of view. 3 3 . 9. incoluere urbibus duodenis terras: on the twelve cities of Etruria see Dennis, The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria (1883), xxxi; Bormann, Arch.epigr. Mitteilungen aus Osterreich-Ungarn, 11 (1887), 103 ff.; J. Heurgon, Historia 6 (1957), 85-89; F. Sartori, Cocalos 3 (1957), 38-60, who illustrates the prevalence of the number 12 in the organization of Greek cities. They may have been Arretium, Cortona, Perugia (9. 37. 12; Diod. 20. 3. 5 ; Steph. Byz. s.v. neppaicnov; see Shaw, Etruscan Perugia, 37), Volsinii (10. 37. 4 ; Val. M a x . 9. 1 ext. 2 ; Pliny, N.H. 2. 139), Caere, Tarquinii, Vetulonia, Vulci (C.I.L. 11. 1432; see Canina, Etruria Maritima, 1. 28-35 for a discussion of this relief which may have contained personifications of all twelve cities), Volaterrae, Clusium (2. 9. 1), Rusellae (28. 45. 18), and Veii, later replaced by Populonia (28.45. 15) which [Servius] (ad Aen. 10. 172) explicitly says was founded post XIIpopulos in Etruria constitutos. With a cult-centre at the fanum Voltumnae (4. 23. 5 n.), holding annual games on the Greek pattern (Tabula Hispelli = C.I.L. 11. 5265) presided over by an annual sacerdos (5. 1. 5) who was one of the twelve lucumones (Servius, ad Aen. 8. 475), the league seems to have been originally a religious federation which later came to acquire a political function as a forum where national decisions could be taken. In this respect it closely resembled the Ionian Confederacy, also twelve in number, but specifically Ionian influences are only detectable in Etruria after the migrations of the middle of the sixth century (R. Bloch, Historia 6 (1957), 53 ff-; Schachermeyr, Etr. Fruhgeschichte, 90 ff.; Blakeway, B.S.A. 33 (1933), 170 ff.). Thus it is likely that the Etruscan political leagues only date from that period. If so, the innovation will be short­ lived, and a tradition about the detailed constitution of the league will hardly have been established. Twelve did not remain a constant n u m b e r ; for in imperial times inscriptions record a praetor XV populorum (C.I.L. 11. 2115) and Plutarch, Camillus 16 speaks of the eighteen cities of Etruria Circumpadana. If it was primarily a religious organi­ zation, it would be natural for parallel federations to be set up in Etruscan provinces, such as in Cisalpine Gaul mentioned by L. here (under the hegemony of Mantua, according to Servius, ad Aen. 10. 202) and in Campania (Strabo 5. 242). See further 1. 8. 3 ; G. Camporeale, La Parola del Passato 13 (1958), 5-25. 814432

705

Z Z

5- 33- *o

DIGRESSION ON E T R U R I A

33. 10. excepto Venetorum angulo: i. i. 1-3 n. The Raetians 33. 11. Alpinis . . . ea gentibus haud dubie origo est, maxime Raetis: for the most judicious summary of views on the origin of the Raetians see E. Vetter, Glotta, 30 (1943), 67-81 ; M . Pallottino, The Etruscans, 93-94. L. is corroborated by Pliny, JV.H. 3. 133 Raetos Tuscontm prolem arbitrantur a Gallis pulsos duce Raeto and Justin (20. 5-8). The similarity of all three passages indicates a common source and deprives them of any independent value. Horace, on the other hand, associates the Celtic Vindelici with the Raeti (Odes 4. 14; cf. also Pliny, loc. cit.) but on such a topic the evidence of a poet is hardly to be taken seriously. They are linked simply because both had been defeated. More significant is Strabo (4. 206) who calls the Raetic tribes of Genauni and Brenni Illyrians. While the question is perhaps in­ soluble and it is unlikely that any ancient author had dependable evidence, it is worth remarking that archaeologically there are no traces of Etruscan civilization in the Adige (J. Whatmough, Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. 48 (1937), 184-8) although they have been discovered elsewhere north of the Alps (J. G. Szilagyi, Acta Antiqua Hungariae, 1 (1952), 419 fT.) and that the place-names cannot be shown to have specifically Etruscan affinities (von Planta, Prdhist. ^eitschrift 20 (1929), 2 8 5 - 7 ; G. Battisti, Dizionario toponomastico Atesino). T h e main support for L.'s statement has been found in the interpretation of the late (post-300) inscriptions in Raetian ( = Whatmough, Prae-Italic Dia­ lects, nos. 172-248). Some 70 in number, they have not been satis­ factorily deciphered. It is notable that the clearest affinities with Etruscan or Venetic have been claimed in inscriptions from places closest to Etruria and Venetia. Thus P.I.D. 237, found at Magre, contains the word valtikinua which is associated with ven. voltiyen, while G. Battisti has detected Etruscan terminations and forms in inscrip­ tions from Etruscan border-lands (Stud. Etruschi 18 (1944), 199 ff.; 19 (1946-7), 249 ff.). More general affinities with Illyrian (e.g. P.I.D. 188 maieye = Illyr. maz-, mas-; cf. H . Krahe, Geogr. Nameny 28) suggest that the Raetians were related to the Illyrians, that their language was Indo-European but was contaminated by local contact with more advanced neighbouring civilizations, and that the Etruscan veneer misled antiquarians into detecting in it a decadent form of Etruscan. Livy's Tradition of the Migration T h e detailed account of the migrating tribes which follows is founded not on historical fact but ultimately on the ethnographical rationalizations made, in particular by Greeks, during the second and first centuries at Rome. It is the heir of Hecataeus' method of descrip706

DIGRESSION ON GAUL

5- 34

tion /caret eOvrj. T h e tribes mentioned by L. are distributed over the areas which they occupied shortly before Caesar's conquest, indicating that ethnographers took the contemporary picture as the basis for their reconstruction of the migrations and grafted on to it plausibly Gallic names of tribes and persons derived from Cisalpine sources. So the motivation of the emigration is derived from Greek literary tradition rather than from memory. T h e wanderings of Bellovesus and Segovesus can be compared with the wanderings of the sons of the Lydian king Atys (Herodotus i. 9 4 ; D . H . 1. 27-28) or of the sons of the Arcadian Lykaon (D.H. 1. 11). 34. 1. haec accepimus: not necessarily by oral legend; cf. 1. 24. 4, 3. 39. 1, 3 . 6 9 . 8 , 4 . 3 4 . 6 , 5 . 2 2 . 6 . Prisco Tarquinio: 4. 23. 1 n. for the order. Celtarum quae pars Galliae iertia est: cf. Caesar, B.G. 1. 1. 1. The two passages can scarcely be independent. Apart from the linguistic resemblance, L. and Caesar are alone in confining the term Celtae to the central area of Gaul between the Garonne and the Marne. Elsewhere 'Gaul' and 'Celt' are used indifferently of the whole ethnic body (e.g. Pausanias 1. 4. 1; Strabo 4. 189; Schweighaliser, Index Polybianus, 'promiscue ol TaXdrai et ol KeXroC). Caesar's distinction is a new systematization, based perhaps on an ethnographical survey which, as in the pacification of any foreign country, accompanied his campaign. The influence of such a survey, designed to improve on the amateurish work of Posidonius, might be provocative enough to explain the tendentious opposition of Diodorus (5. 32. 1). T h e three­ fold division of Gaul is also reflected in Strabo 4. 176 who is generally agreed to be following either Timagenes or Caesar himself here. See further Jullian 1. 2 3 0 - 8 ; Holmes 244-320; Grenier 11-15; A. Klotz, Rh. Mus. 96 (1953), 62-67. penes Bituriges: T h e Bituriges Cubi who in Caesar's day occupied the diocese of Bourges. T h e tradition of their hegemony is supported by the presence of a branch of the tribe (Bituriges Vivisci) on the coast at Bordeaux, the natural outlet to the Atlantic (Pliny, N.H. 4. 108; C.I.L. 13. 566), but is not elsewhere mentioned. In the second century Gaul was dominated by the Arverni until their defeat in 121 at the hands of Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (27. 39. 6 (207 B.C.); Caesar, B.G, 7. 4. 1 ; see Jullian 2. 542-52). Thereafter no single power was paramount and by 60 the Bituriges, although still a con­ siderable force, were dependants of the Aedui (Caesar, B.G. 7. 5. 2). ii regem Celtico dabant: the form Celticum is unique here. Weissenborn and Hirschfeld compare Illyricum and Noricum but these are the official names just because they are the Latin equivalents of names commonly and originally encountered in Greek, kosticus, which has 707

DIGRESSION ON GAUL 5- 34- i also been adduced, belongs to a different category altogether, being a word of a special, academic solemnity (Fraenkel, Horace, 117 n. 2). Celticum must correspond to the Greek TO KCXTLKOV and betrays thereby the Greek original of the whole section. Another stylistic feature, the disproportionate frequency of the resumptive is in comparison with L.'s normal usage (e.g. it . . . dabant. Ambigatus is fuit; 34. 5 is . . . excivit; 34. 8 Massilienses erant ii. . . id Galli. . . rati; cf. 34. 3 hie . . . ostendit; 34. 8 ipsi. . . transcenderunt), in spite of the synoptic nature of the narrative which lends itself to staccato brevity, may reflect the typical 6 8e, OVTOS 8e, 17V yap OVTOS found in the loose writing of late Greek (Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, 1.126 ff.; cf. Timagenes F 5 Jacoby). 34. 2. Ambigatus: only here, but except for the Latin termination, the name is unimpeachable: prefix ambi- ( = 'around') as in Ambidavus, Ambilatri, Ambiliati, Ambirenus; stem as in Abugato (on a gold coin of the Bituriges). Others translate it 'King of the World' (Homeyer, op. cit. n. 34). See J . Rhys, Proc. Brit. Acad., 1905, 114; Schulze 542. virtute fortunaque cum sua turn publica: fortuna is not sheer luck, the Greek wilful or incalculable rvxq, but a providence presiding over the destinies of individuals (29. 26. 5 ; first in Ennius, Trag. 172 fortuna Hectoris) and states (1. 46. 5, 2. 40. 13, 3. 7. 1 di praesides ac fortuna urbis, 6. 30. 4 - 6 ; first in Cicero, in Catil. 1. 15; Sallust, Catil. 4 1 . 3). This was also a Greek idea (as early as Pindar, Olymp. 12) and its introduction into Roman thought was a consequence of the dis­ semination of Hellenistic ideas. In other contexts L. uses virtus in the passive sense of the good fortune bestowed by a protecting providence upon individuals and states, generally as a reward for pietas, in which connexion it is the virtual equivalent otfelicitas (22. 58. 3, 30. 12. 12, 28. 32. 11). But in the conventional juxtaposition ofvirtus and fortuna (actively as here or passively as 1. 25. 2, 6. 32. 7, 22. 12. 10, 23. 42. 4, 43. io, 42. 49. 2, &c.) fortuna is not to be thought of as a reward for virtus, virtus is not the same as pietas and R o m a n religion did not ascribe to the gods such complete responsibility for events as to disallow the independent effects of h u m a n excellence or shortcoming. See further Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy (1957), especially 63-91 ; H . Erkell, Augustus, Felicitas, Fortuna (Diss. Goteborg, 1952). adeo frugum hominumque fertilis: if Gaul was so fertile, why did some have to leave? According to L., because the nation became un­ manageably large—a unique and incredible reason, not included even in the exhaustive list compiled by Seneca, adHelviam 7. 4. All the other sources give the regular reason of land-hunger for the Gallic migrations (Plutarch, Camillus 15; Caesar, B.G. 6. 24. 1; Appian, Celtica 2. 2, cf. Livy 39. 54. 5). This, coupled with the sanctity of forests which would prevent land clearance, the glamour of the Po 708

DIGRESSION ON GAUL

5- 34- 2

valley, and the pressure from the north, is a satisfactory rationalization of the movement. T h e parallel passage of Justin (24. 4 abundante multitudine, cum eos non caperent terrae quae genuerani) allows us to conjec­ ture that so far from his having had access to a variant tradition, L. has merely misunderstood his authority, taking, for example, the adjective evKapnos literally of the fecundity of crops rather than human beings. 34. 3 . Bellovesum ac Segovesum: both authentic n a m e s : Bello- as in Bellognatus, Bellovaci; Sego- (Germ, sieg) as in Segobriga, Segovia, on a stem -vesus or -vassus ( = servant). See Homeyer, op. cit. n. 34. 34. 4. Hercynei saltus: the upland districts of south Germany, in historical fact the original cradle of the Celts from which they mi­ grated into Gaul (Caesar, B.G. 6. 24. 2 ; Tacitus, Germania 23. 1, on which see Norden, Urgeschichte, 358 ff.). Cf. Strabo 7. 293-4. 34. 5. is quodeius expopulis abundabat: eius sc. regni or turbae, a conflation of quod ex populis abundabat, 'the surplus population of the tribes 5 (cf. Cicero, ad Att. 15. 15. 3) and quod eius abundabat, 'so much (of the population) as was surplus' (a formula common in legal contexts e.g. C.I.L. i 2 .585 (Lex Agraria), 25 ager locus queisup]ra screiptus est, quod eius agrei locei post [h.] I. rog. publicum populei Romani erit, extra eum ag\rum locum . . . ; and, in L., cf. 5. 25. 7, 31. 4. 2, 38. 23. 10, 54. 3, 39. 7. 5, 45. 7, 42. 8. 7). quodeius, unexpected in a non-legal context, may have been used to correspond to a Greek idiom. Editors, since Rhenanus, have referred eius to Ambigatus, despite the impossibility of is and eius referring to different people, or emended (e.g. eis ex eruditissimus Gronovii amicus; e sex . . . [Senones] M a d v i g ; regis ex Zingerle). Bituriges . . .: 'some of the Bituriges..'.' not 'the Bituriges'. T h e seven named tribes are co-extensive with, not a mere part of, the populi: for the list comprises the principal tribes of Gaul. Bellovesus took a percentage from each, which accounts for the fact that the Senones can be called on twice to supply emigrants (35. 3 n.). Arvernos, Senones, Aeduos, Ambarros, Carnutes, Aulercos: their position in historical times can be roughly fixed by later references and by the boundaries of ancient dioceses. T h e Arverni (fr. Auvergne) were situated in the modern departments of Central and Puy-de-D6me. L. gives no hint of their subsequent importance (34. 1 n.). T h e Senones occupied the diocese of Sens (Caesar, B.G. 2 . 2 . 3 ; Pliny, N.H. 4. 107; Ptolemy 2. 8. 10-11). Their presence in the list of tribes raised by Bellovesus was doubted as early as Sigonius (who substituted Santones; cf. Caesar, B.G, 1. 10. 1) on the ground that in 35. 3 the Senones are said to be the last wave of migrants and cannot also be among the first (but see 35. 3 n.). T h e Aedui are located in the departments of Saone-et-Loire and Nievre: their eastern boundary 709

5- 3 4 - 5

DIGRESSION ON GAUL

with the Sequani in classical times is stated to have been the Saone (Strabo 4. 186; Ptolemy 2. 8. 12; cf. Caesar, B.G. 1. 12. 1). Their name is aspirated by editors; the manuscripts give Aeduos here, but in 34. 9 H{a)eduorum M7r, Aeduorum A. T h e unaspirated form is invariable in Greek (AlSovaiot, in Steph. Byz.; AiSovoi or AlSovoi in Strabo 186, 192; Ptolemy 2. 18. 19; Cass. Dio 38. 32 ; see Ihm, R.E., 'Aedui') and should therefore be accepted here. T h e territory of the Ambarri (? = Ambi-arari) comprised the area north of Lyons between the Rhone and the Saone. T h e Garnutes possessed the dioceses of Ghartres, Orleans, and Blois. At least six branches of the Aulerci are mentioned (for details see Ihm, R.E., 'Aulerci'; Diehl, Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v.) but there is general agreement that they occupied the region of Maine. It is implied that Bellovesus' tribes formed a compact group and the historical situation of the seven named tribes distributes them compactly over the central region of metropolitan Gaul. Such a distribution only became settled in the late third century and neither in 600 nor in 390 would the pattern have been the same. L.'s source has selected the names of the migrants from the ethnic m a p of contemporary Gaul. See further T . R. Holmes, Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, Geographical Index. in Tricastinos: exact site disputed and perhaps not determinable, since the population was liable to shift (Walbank, J.R.S. 46 (1956), 39). T h e evidence is conflicting, but the approximate vicinity is re­ presented by the area round Stf Paul-Trois-Chateaux (Desjardins). They were already settled, according to tradition, in the locality when Hannibal crossed the Alps. See Scherling, R.E., 'Tricastini'; Sir G. de Beer, Alps and Elephants, 36. 34. 6. de Hercule fabulis credere libet: cf. Timagenes F 2 Jacoby 'Amfitryonis filium Herculem ad Geryonis etTaurisci saevium tyrannorum perniciem festinasse quorum alter Hispanias, alter Gallias infestabat superatisque ambobus coisse cum generosis feminis et concepisse liberos plures et eas partes quibus imperitabant suis nominibus appellasse'. Hercules was a peerless globe-trotter (cf. Lucian, Vera Historia 1. 7) and as the boundaries of the human world were enlarged his exploits were extended with them and became identified with the deeds of local heroes. Greek contact, coincident with the foundation of Massilia, transferred the Geryon labour from Italy (1.7. 3-15 n.) to Gaul (Diod. 4. 19), and a dim memory of a prehistoric Gallic king­ dom, echoed in the story of Ambigatus and the Bituriges (34. 1 n.), nourished a legend that after founding Alesia Hercules was the pro­ genitor of the Gallic race, the dispenser of its laws, and the guardian of its commerce (Diod. 5. 24). Tacitus {Hist. 3. 42) pays mute testi­ mony to the same legend by preserving the name of the Portus Herculis Monoeci ( = Monaco). With the opening-up of Germany he moved north to take over the mantle of Donar or Thorr (cf. Tacitus, 710

DIGRESSION ON GAUL

5- 34- 6

Germania 3). There was a Herculis castra in the Low Countries. See Haug, R.E., 'Hercules'; Jullian 2. 120 n. 6, 145. 34. 7. ab Saluumgente: so N, except Salluviorum H (and, by contamina­ tion, O E * ) ; in 34. 8 the nonsensical patientibus silvis was corrected by Valesius to patientibus Saluis (cf. 35. 1 favente Belloveso); in 35. 2 (see note) N has Salluvii qui, where the corrupt qui (it has no verb to govern) casts doubt on the reliability of Salluvii. The Latin name for the tribe, who lived between the Rhone and the Maritime Alps, was Salluvii (C.LL. i 2 . p. 4 9 ; Amm. Marc. 15. 11. 15; Livy, Per. 60, 61, 73; Pliny, N.H. 3. 36; Florus 1. 19. 5, 1. 37. 3). The Greek form was UdXves (Strabo 4. 178, 180, 181, 184-6, 203; Ptolemy 2. 10. 8; Appian, Celtica 12; Steph. Byz. s.v.) or ZaAAue? according to some manuscripts in the above passages. An alternative shortened form Sal(l)ues (e.g. Veil. Pat. 1. 15. 4 ; Jul. Obsequens 90, 92) or Salui (cf. Santones and Santoni for the variant termination of Gallic names) was based on the Greek name. It should be replaced throughout in this homogeneous section (viz. Saluum, Saluis, Salui) but not necessarily at 21. 26. 3. See Hirschfeld, Kl. Schriften, 11; Homeyer, op. cit. 353-4. 34. 8. Massilienses erant ii navibus a Phocaeaprofecti: two expeditions are recorded: c. 600 (600/599 Timaeus ap. Ps.-Scymn. 211-14; Solinus 2. 5 2 ; 598 Eusebius, Chron.; 599 Jerome, Chron.; temporibus Tarquinii regis Justin 43. 3. 4 ; Aristotle ap. Athenaeus 13. 576a; Strabo 4. 179 : this agrees with the archaeological evidence on which see Blakeway, B.S.A. 33 (1932-3), 170-208; J.R.S. 25 (1935)5 129-49; P. BoschGimpera, C.Q. 38 (1944), 53-59), and c. 540 1 (after Harpagus' cap­ ture of Phocaea: Herodotus 1. 166; Thucydides 1. 13. 6 (see Gomme; I am convinced by Blakeway's interpretation of these two passages); Antiochus ap. Strabo 6. 252; Isocrates, Archidam. 97; Pausanias 10. 8. 6; Seneca, ad Helviam 7. 8; Isidore, Origines 15. 1. 6 3 ; Agathias, Hist. 1. 2). It is probable that Massilia was founded, partly for trading purposes, by Phocaea c. 600 and that the colony was reinforced by fugitives c. 540 after their Pyrrhic victory over the Carthaginians during an attempt to colonize Corsica. Timagenes dealt with the subject (F 2 Jacoby), but we have no idea what absolute date or synchronization Timagenes gave to the event. Some confusion is evident in L. All the interlocking indications of time (33. 5 n.) are consistent with the original colonization c. 600, whereas his language [navibus a Phocaea profecti) suggests that he has the more dramatic escape from Harpagus in mind. For a full examination of the evidence 1 The date is usually given as 546 but this is too early. It was the final stage of Harpagus* crushing of Pactyas' revolt. We know from Babylonian records that Gyrus captured Babylon in 539/8 and Herodotus says that Pactyas waited until Gyrus had departed for Babylon before revolting, which can hardly be earlier than 54*-

711

5. 34- 8

DIGRESSION ON GAUL

see J . Brunei, R.£.A. 50 (1948), 5 - 2 6 ; P.-M. Duval, Historia 5 (1956), 238-9ipsi per Taurinos saltusque Iuliae Alpis transcenderunt: saltus iuliae alte alpis 7T, saltusque iuriae alpes H (7r's reading is a valueless dittography). According to L.'s tradition the Gauls, coming from the Tricastini through the Taurini (Turin) to the Ticinus (Ticino), celebrated as the site of Hannibal's victory, and Milan, must be supposed to have come over the Cottian Alps (Mt. Genevre) and followed a route similar to Hannibal's (The Passage of H. over the Alps, by a member of the University of Oxford (1820), Introduction, p. 27). L. appears to bring them over the wrong pass. T h e Julian Alps are in the extreme north-east of Italy above Trieste, nowhere even remotely near Turin. It is possible that L. has made a mere mistake, such as led Thucydides to speak of the Tepwalos KOXITOS (6. 104. 2) when he meant the Scyllacian Gulf. O r it is possible, as J . Heurgon (R.£.L. 34 (1956), 85-87) has recently argued, that what were subsequently known as the Cottian Alps were in 25 B.C. known as the Julian Alps, but Vitruvius c. 25 B.G. can write that Alpibus in Cotti regno est aqua (8. 3. 17) which suggests that the appellation C o t t i a n ' was already established by then, while 'Julius' is associated with the area of the Julian Alps as early as the foundation of Forum Julii and Julium Carnicum in the 50's. It is, therefore, more probable that the mention of the Julian Alps in L. is ,a conflation of two separate traditions, one, historically accurate, which brought the Gauls into Italy from the north-east and a second, influenced by Hannibal's passage, which led them over M t . Genevre to Turin (D'Arbois de Jubainville). T h e conflation may have been due to the confusion of a Julian Alpine tribe called TavplaKoi oi NwpcKol (Polybius; cf. Strabo 5. 213) with the better-known inhabitants of Turin. Traces of such a north-eastern infiltration survive in Polybius and both traditions were certainly discussed by Timagenes. It is noteworthy that Timagenes in another fragment (2 Jacoby) speaks of a Tauriscus who devasted Gaul. See Homeyer, op. cit. 354-5« per Taurinos: for the use ofper with peoples cf. 10. 20. 1, 21. 38. 7; for the singular Alpis cf. Ovid, Ars Am. 3. 150; Florus 1. 22. 50. 34. 9. fusisque acie Tuscis: the Etruscans, according to Nepos ap. Pliny, N.H. 3. 125, had founded a city, Melpum, at the site of the later Milan, which was destroyed by the Gauls in 396 on the same day that Camillus captured Veii. No trace of it has been found and it cannot in fact have been built before c. 525, when the Etruscans reached the area. L.'s chronology is again at fault, for he dates the foundation of Mediolanium to c. 600 (33. 7 n.), thereby implying that Melpum was destroyed some seventy-five years before it could possibly have been built. T h e tradition of fighting between Etruscans 712

DIGRESSION ON GAUL 5- 34- 9 and Celts in the latter half of the fifth century is strikingly confirmed by the grave-stelai from Felsina (c. 500), depicting combats between cavalry or hoplites and ill-armed foreigners. There is an evident parallel with Hannibal's victory in 218 B.C. See Walbank on Polybius 2. 34. 10; Nissen, //. Land, 2. 180 ff.; Homeyer, op. cit. 3 5 3 ; Mansuelli, op. cit. 1072-3. agrum Insubrium appellari. . . cognominem Insubribus, pago Aeduorum: no such Gallic clients of the Aedui are known. T h e n a m e in Celtic means Very wild* (Holder, Alt-celt, Sprach. s.v.; Philipp, R.E., 'Insubres') from which Jullian (1. 291, n. 6) conjectured that it was a war-name chosen by the migrating tribes. The mention of the Insubres has been used (e.g. by Hirschfeld) as evidence that L. is following Nepos, him­ self an Insubrian (Pliny, Ep. 4. 28. 1). cognominem: Gk. €7TWW(JLOV, a geographical caique. See Norden on Virgil, Aen. 6. 378 ff.; Ogilvie, Eranos 55 (1957), 201 ; J.R.S. 48 (1958), 43 n. 49. 77-A read cognomine but a noun would have to be nomine (Nipperdey). Mediolanium: a Celtic name, recurring throughout Gaul and Britain (see R.E., s.v. ( i ) - ( 6 ) ; A. Longnon, Revue celtique 8 (1887), 375-8), of uncertain etymology: the prefix medio- is Eng. 'mid-'. A late popular etymology analysed it as lanigero de sue nomen (Sid. Apoll. Epist. 7. 17. 2. 20; Claudian, Nupt. Hon. Aug. 183; Isidore, Origines 15. 1. 57). T h e Greek form appears to have been McSioXdvtov (Strabo 5 . 2 1 3 ; Ptolemy 3. 1. 3 3 ; and to be restored with some manuscripts in Polybius 2. 34) but was contracted to MeSioXavov under Latin influence (cf. Plutarch, Marcellus 7), the Latin form being regularly Mediolanum (Pliny saep.; Tacitus, Hist. 1. 70; Suetonius, Augustus 20). L. here (and 34. 46. 1) follows the Greek model. See Mommsen, C.I.L. 5. pp. 6 3 3 - 4 ; Hirschfeld 12. 35. 1. alia subinde manus Cenomanorum: the four other successive waves of migrants are to be taken as occupying the intervening 200 years. In general the account agrees with Polybius 2. 17, except that Polybius adds Adoi and Hvapes while omitting the Salui and differs from L.'s order. T h e Adoi are generally identified with the Laevi (35. 2 n . ; see Walbank on Polybius 2. 17. 4), who elsewhere are firmly described as Ligurian, not Celtic; but it is more likely that Polybius either wrote or certainly meant the Salui. T h e variation of order is not significant, for the whole sequence of Gallic invasions is not based on contem­ porary traditions but, at best, on a late rationalization from the presence of separate racial groups in Cisalpine Gaul, and the sequence will be governed by the order in which antiquarians considered the groups and by a general principle such as that the farthest advance into Italy will have been made by the latest arrivals. Cenomanorum: 'another band consisting of C . \ Germanorum M S S . 7T3

5- 35- i

D I G R E S S I O N ON GAUL

but Glareanus's correction is accepted in view of Polybius (sup. cit. rovofidvoi) and Pliny, N.H. 3. 130 Brixia Cenomanorum agro. The same corruption is found at Cicero, Balb. 32. T h e Cenomani lived round Le Mans. Elitovio: Etitovio is printed by editors but, while -ovius is a common termination (cf. Britovius, Virovius), Etit- has no Celtic parallel. MTT have Elit- with which I h m compared C.I.L. 12. n 74 matribus Elitivis Capella. ubi nunc Brixia ac Verona urbes sunt: confirmed by Pliny, sup. cit. and Catullus 77. 34. T h e territory of the Cenomani was extensive, stretch­ ing from the Ollius (Oglio) to the Athesis (Adige) and including Cremona and M a n t u a (Strabo 5. 213; see Ptolemy 3. 1. 27). See Walbankon Polybius 2. i7.4;Hiilsen,/?.£"., 'Cenomanni ( 3 ) ' ; G. E. F. Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul, 80. 35. 2. Libui considunt post hos Saluique: on Saluique see 34. 7 n.; for the subsequent fate of the Libui cf. 21. 38. 7, 33. 37. 6 : elsewhere they are called Libicii, e.g. by Pliny {N.H. 3. 124 Vercellae Libiciorum ex Saluis ortae), Ptolemy (2. 6. 68, 3. 1. 32) and Polybius (/le/fc'/aoi) but a similar variation occurs in the case of the name of Libya (cf. Tacitus, Ann. 2. 6 0 ; Virgil, Aen. 1. 33g). Their Gallic provenance is unknown. Fuller details in Homeyer, op. cit. n. 60. Editors from Rhenanus to Madvig (Bayet marks a lacuna) punc­ tuated : alia subinde manus_. . . cum transcendisset Alpes, ubi nunc Brixia ac Verona urbes sunt, (locos tenuere Libui) considunt. post hos Salluvii.... The implication of this is that the Libui were an indigenous Ligurian population or, at least, a previous wave of invaders (as in Polybius). T h e parenthesis is intolerably awkward and destroys L.'s favourite dactylic clausula (- ^ ^ - ^) which he employs in descriptive or narrative passages, as below 35. 2 . . . sese tenuere; 35. 3 . . .fines habuere. T h e Libui and Salui are always associated (cf. Pliny, sup. cit.; 21. 38. 7 per Saluos (saltus codd. Salassos Lipsius) . . . ad Libuos Gallos deduxerint). See Philipp, R.E., 'Libicii'; Madvig, Emendationes Livianae, 145; F. Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 33. prope antiquam gentem Laevos Ligures: cf. Pliny N.H. 3. 124. The Ligurians, who linguistically were pre-Indo-European, occupied a wide tract along the French and Italian Riviera. They have left their traces in place-names, the Laevi, in particular, being commemorated by the R. Lavagna and the Commune di Leivi (U. Formentini, Riv. Stud. Ligur. 15 (ig4g), 218-19). They are hardly to be identified with the AdoL of Polybius (35. i n . ) since their Ligurian nationality is as old as Cato. In 33. 37. 6 Laevos Libuosque cum pervastassent (Romani) it is clear that the campaign is raging on the borders of the Ligurian (Laevi) and Gallic (Libui) lands: the Libui are not being classed as Ligurian, as Altheim and others have maintained. 714

D I G R E S S I O N ON GAUL

5- 35- 2

Poenino deinde Boii Lingonesque transgressi: cf. 21. 38. 6. The Pennine (Gr. St. Bernard) is regarded as a pass or route, not a mountain, hence the ablative. The provenance of the Boii and their capital Gorgobina (Caesar, B.G. 7. 9. 6) is disputed. They evidently abutted the territory of the Aedui in the vicinity of Avaricum since they supplied Caesar with corn during the siege of that city (B.G. 7. 9. 12-13). If they lived on the east bank of the river Allier, their associa­ tion with the Lingones who lived immediately to the north near the head-waters of the Marne and the Saone would be natural. See T. R. Holmes 426-30; Ruge, R.E., 'Boii ( i ) ' ; Walbank on Polybius 2. 17. 7. Umbros agro pellunt: an Italic people related to the Sabellians who had already been displaced by the Etruscan expansion of the sixth and fifth centuries and confined to the central Apennines. The Iguvine tablets remain the principal evidence for their language. See Walbank on Polybius 2. 16. 3 ; Nissen, It. Land. 1. 502-8. 35. 3 . recentissimi: implies that they were new-comers (cf. also Ps.Scylax 3. 82) but they are named in 34. 5 (n.) among the earliest migrants. On general grounds it is likely that the Senones, who were the van of the expansion, should have been among the early settlers and this is confirmed by Celtic tombs at Casola Valsenio in Picenum which contain Attic Black Figure ware, acquired presumably from Spina, datable not later than 490 B.C. (Arias, Notiz. Scavi, 1953, 218 ff.). It is possible that there were two waves of Senones but an easier explanation of the doublet lies to hand. Polybius (2. 17. 7) says that the Senones occupied the extremity of the Celtic expansion ra reXevrata npos OaXdrTrj. If this or a similar Greek phrase occurred in L.'s source, he may well have mistranslated it, giving rcXevraios a temporal rather than a topographical force. There is indeed no good evidence that the captors of Rome in 390 were called Senones. The earliest versions of the Gallic catastrophe (Theopompus ap. Pliny, N.H. 3 . 5 7 ; Heraclides ap. Plutarch, Camillas 22; Aristotle ap. Plutarch; cf. Polybius 2. 22. 4) do not specifically name the Celtic tribe. The later version, which identified them with the Senones (Diod. 14. 113. 3 ; Strabo 4. 194; Plutarch; Appian, Celtica n ) , may well be a throw­ back from the conquest of the Senones in 283 B.C. See Mommsen, Rom. Forsch. 2. 300; J. Wolski, Historia 5 (1956), 32-35; Mansuelli, op. cit. 1075-7. ab Utente Jlumine usque ad Aesim: mod. Montone and Esino, i.e. from Ravenna to Sinigaglia. idparum cerium est: 33. 4 n. 35. 4-55. The Fight Against the Gauls The second half of the book, treating of Rome's adventures with the Gauls, is presented as a continuous narrative (41. 3 n., 46. n n.). 715

5- 35- 4-55

391 B.C.

T h e events are told as a series of episodic units, each illustrating some quality in the Roman people. L.'s immediate source is unlikely to be Licinius Macer but could be either Valerius Antias or Q . Claudius Quadrigarius—certainly an author of their generation. See J.R.S. 48 (1958), 4 3 ; M . Zimmerer, Der Annalist QC.Q. (1937). 35. 4 - 3 6 . The Embassy of the Fabii T h e whole story is baseless. T h e Clusines would hardly have turned to Rome for help. It is a duplication of the single combat between Gaul and Roman immortalized in the legend of Gorvinus. Polybius does not allude to it. In its earliest form two (the usual number) un­ named ambassadors went to Glusium to spy on the Gauls and became involved in the fighting. T h e Gauls demanded reparation and were offered by the Senate first financial compensation and then the lives of the offending ambassadors. T h e assembly under the persuasion of the father of the culprit, who happened to be consular tribune, refused to ratify the solution (Diodorus 14. 113. 3 - 7 ; cf. D.H. 13. 12). Later, doubtless under the influence of Fabius Pictor, the ambassadors were identified as Fabii but, as no particular Fabius could be cited definitely, the problem of identification was resolved by increasing the size of embassy from two to three, to comprise all three Fabii who were jointly consular tribunes in 390. T h e ensuing complication that consular tribunes could not also have been legates during their year of office was got round by transposing the embassy from 390 to the previous year. Traces of unco-ordination can be seen in L. (35. 5, 36. 6 n.). L. makes the story a moral and psychological pretext for the im­ pending disaster at the Allia. Notice the emphasis on the failings of the Fabii—praeferoces legatos Gallisque magis quam Romanis similes; contra ius gentium. It became a favourite subject for debate in the Schools (Quintilian 3. 8. 19). See Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 3 0 3 - 7 ; Ed. Meyer, Apophoreton, 139-42; Bruckmann, Rom. Niederlagen, 41-42. 35. 4. genus armorum: rhetorical imagination, for the weapons used by the Gauls of the period (throwing-spears, iron thrusting swords, daggers, round shields) did not differ significantly from those em­ ployed by the Romans, unless L. is thinking of the gaesatae who created such an impression on Polybius (2. 22. 1 with Walbank's note). O n the other hand, unlike the Romans, they did fight in open rather than closed formation. For details see Powell, The Celts, 104 ff. cis Padum ultraque: cf. 9. 32. 9. 35. 5. M. Fabi Ambusti: no person of this name is known unless he is the same as M . F. Vibulanus, consul in 442 (4. n . 1 n . ; see Munzer, R.E., 'Fabius (39)'). 35, 6. cognosci: lit was better to make the acquaintance of the Gauls in peace rather than in war'. 716

391 B.C.

5- 36. 1

36. 1. responsum: the moderate request of the Gauls contrasted with the intemperate brutality of the Fabii is brought out by the different character of their language. For the 'parliamentary' viros fortes see R. G. M . Nisbet on Cicero, in Pisonem 54; for mortales see 1. 9. 8 n. In the R o m a n reply notice the brusque minari arma (Cassius, adFam. 11.3.3) and for quid rei esset see 1. 48. 1 n. 36. 3 . agro: 'the Gauls need land which the Glusines own in greater quantity than they farm', quern makes the transition from the general concept of land to the particular area which the Glusines own, but the construction would be sensibly eased by Morstadt's cum. 36. 5. in armis iusferre: for the thought see 3. 37. 7 n. 36. 6. urgentibus: 22. 8, 32. 7. T h e phrase is echoed by Tacitus, Germania 33. 2 ; Lucan 10. 30. Gf. Virgil, Aeneid 2. 653. iuventutis: at variance with their election to the consular tribunate next year and with the fact that two of them had already held that office and so must have been over thirty. It is a survival from the older version of the story in which the fathers of the legates rather than the legates themselves were leading citizens. 36. 9. decerneret: the reading of N has been unreasonably doubted. T h e subject is senatus; cf. 23. 3 and other examples in Thes. Ling Lat. s.v. 'decerno' 142. 31. 36. 10. cladis forte . . . acceptae: acceptae stands for a future passive participle (accipiendaeTa.11. F a b e r ) ; cf. 1.9. 1 1 ; Seneca, Dial. 10. 15. 3. 36. 1 1 . tribus Fabiis: the Gapitoline Fasti preserve only the entry Q. Fab]ius M.f. Q[n.] but the names are given by Diodorus 14. n o . 1. T h e three Fabii must be K. Fabius, consular tribune in 404 (4. 61. 411.), Gn. Fabius, consular tribune in 406 (4. 43. 1 n., 58. 6 n.), and an otherwise unknown Q . Fabius. Allegedly they will have taken office on 1 July (32. 1), a mere fortnight before the battle of the Allia. Q.Sulpicius Longus: presumably Q.f. Ser. n., son of the disputed consul of434 (4. 23. 1 n.). Historically he is likely to have been the leading figure at Rome during the disastrous months of the Gallic invasion because it was he who made the offering before the battle (Macrobius 1. 16.23) a n < ^ conducted the defence of the Capitol (48. 8), but his standing was over­ shadowed by the role invented by historians for the saviour Camillus. Q. Servilius quartum: 5. 8. 1 n. P. Cornelius Maluginensis: 5. 19. 2 n . ; Servilius according to the manuscripts, but Diodorus records his nomen as Cornelius a n d the cognomen Maluginensis is confined to that gens. T h e error arose from repetition of Q,- Servilius. 37-38. The Allia T h e Battle of the Allia was fought on 18 July. There is no surer date in Roman history. A dies ater, its memory was perpetuated in the 717

5- 37—38

390 B.C.

religious calendar (Aul. Gell. 5. 17. 2 ; Macrobius 1. 16. 23). We can be certain also that the R o m a n army was led by Q,. Sulpicius, that it was accompanied by some allied troops (Polybius 2. 18), that it made its stand on the left bank of the Tiber where the Allia (Fosso della Bettina) joins the main river, and that it was overwhelmingly defeated with many casualties by drowning (4. 33. 10 n.). These are facts. Historians did make minor changes. T h e allied contingent was for­ gotten in order to mitigate the disaster by stressing R o m a n isolation (Walbank on Polybius loc. c i t ) . Diodorus (14. 114), by what may be no more than a simple confusion, transferred the scene of the battle from the left to the right bank. The details of the engagement itself had to be imagined and the numbers conjectured (70,000 in Diodorus; 40,000 in Plutarch and D.H.). T h e time-lag between the battle and the occupation of Rome could be adjusted to taste (39. in.).

With so little room for manoeuvre it is not to be expected that L.'s version would present any striking peculiarities. A few details suggest that L. took it from a relatively late source (38. 3 n.) but he retells it starkly and with emotion. The syntax is periodic with the exception of occasional short sentences to mark the decisive stages (38. 6, 38. 7). T h e importance of the occasion is signalized by a certain elevation of language (37. 1 n., 37. 2 n.). As always L. singles out the psychological cause of the disaster—the temeritas of the tribunes (37. 3), the unnerving spectacle of the Gauls (37. 6), the demoraliza­ tion of the Romans (38. 5). For the battle itself see G. Thouret, Fleck. Jahrb. f. Phil, Supp. Band, 1880, 136 ff.; C. Hulsen, Die Allienschlacht (Rome, 1890); Ed. Meyer, Apophoreton, 137 ff.; Sigwart, Klio 6 (1906), 341 ff.; E. Kornemann, Klio 11 (1911), 335 ff.; J . Kromayer, AbhandL Sachs. Akad. (phil.-hist. KL), 34 (1921), 28 ff.; Schachermeyr, Klio 23 (1930), 277 ff.; J» Wolski, Historia 5 (1956), 38-41. For L.'s account see Burck 123 ff. ; Bruckmann, Rom. Niederlagen, 4 2 - 4 4 ; E. Gatin, En Lisant Tite-Live, II5_l8,

37. 1. moles mali: only here in L . ; cf. Lucretius 3. 1056; Cicero, carm.fr. 39. 4 ; Ovid, Met. 11. 494; Seneca, H.F. 1239. adeo: the new episode, as often (2. 2. 2), is introduced by a moralization—quern deus vult perdere dementat prius—which reaches back through the orator Lycurgus (inLeocr.§2) to the Greek tragedians (cf. Sophocles, Antig. 620) and even Homer (Iliad 9. 2 1 ; cf. Theognis 402 ff.). See Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, 38-39. ingruentem: 21. 5 n. ultima: 'as a final resource'. 37. 2. ab Oceano: not necessarily in conflict with the ethnology of ch. 34, since it was a rhetorical commonplace thus to exaggerate the 718

390 B.C.

5- 37- 2

outlandishness of strangers. Gf. Cicero, Verr. 5. 6, 5 0 ; de Prov. Cons. 29. 3 i , 34helium ciente: only here in classical prose; cf. Virgil, Aeneid 1. 541, 12. 158; Siliusltal. 5. 335. 37. 4 . ira: quick temper is an invariable ingredient in the conven­ tional picture of the Gauls (44. 4, 49. 5, 10. 28. 3, 38. 17. 7; Polybius 2. 35. 3). For impotens with the gen. cf. 29. 9. 9 ; Tacitus, Hist. 4. 44. T h e dactylic clausula (iter ingrediuntur) is striking. 37. 5. Notice the word-order: the clipped phrases (equis virisque, longe ac late, fuso agmine) lead up to loci separated from immensum and post­ poned to the end of the sentence. 37. 7. lapidem: on the Via Salaria. 37. 8. truci cantu: another conventional hallmark of the Gauls; cf. 39- 5> 3 8 - x 7- 4 ; Polybius 2. 29. 5 ; Caesar, B.G. 5. 37. 3 ; Tacitus, Annals 1. 65. 38. 1. nee auspicato nee litato: 1. 36. 6 n. 38. 3 . Brennus: a name not a title (cf, e.g., C.I.L. 13. 677; see Holder, Alt-celt. Sprach. 1. 501), anachronistically introduced from the cele­ brated leader of the Gauls who invaded Greece in 280 (38. 16. 1). In Polybius and Diodorus the commander of 390 is unnamed. concucurrissent: the reduplicated form is undisputed at 29. 18. 10; cf. Priscian 2. 533. See also 8. 7. 9. 38. 4 . fortuna . . . ratio: cf. Diodorus 14. 114. 3 etre /caret TVXTJV etre Kara npovoiav. T h e relation of Diodorus' source for the Gallic disaster to L.'s source has not been adequately elucidated but the resemblances between them are striking and close (cf. 38. 8 ^ 'LTTTOVTCS ra oirXa; 38. 9 '—- TLV€$ V7TO TOV fiapovs KaraSvofievoi;

38. 9 >—' oi fi€V 7rAetcrTOt TGW

cf. also 55. 2, 55. 3 : see the latest discussion by Wolski). It is, however, certain that the part played by fortune in the battle of Allia was not invented by L. but was a long-standing attempt to save Roman pride. Cf. Cannae (23. 24. 6, 23. 22. 1). 38. 5. omnium: Gronovius's certain correction ofhominum. 38. 8. defugit: lit. 'fled d o w n ' ; the word is elsewhere only found in this sense in 'Itala', Ios. 10. 27 and Arnobius, Nat. 4. 5. They fled down-stream (cf. 37. 7 defluens).

39-43. 5. The Gallic Occupation of Rome T h e immediate aftermath of the Allia was the occupation of Rome, whose defences at this time amounted to a ditch and turf-wall which were inadequate to withstand a resolute assault. T h e fact of the 7J9

5« 39-43- 5

390 B.C.

occupation is indisputable and has left its mark archaeologically (55. 1 n . ; see L. G. Roberts Mem, Amer. Acad. Rome, 2 (1918), 55-65) but the extent of it is less certain. It would be natural for Roman historians to minimize their indignity and there are many places where this tendency can be seen at work. There is a half-suppressed tradition that the Capitol as well as the city was captured by the Gauls (Ennius, Annals 164 V . ; Lucan fr. 16; see O. Skutsch, J.R.S. 43 (1953)» 77-78; M. J . McGann, C.Q. 7 (1957), 126-8) which, it might be held, represented the real truth before it was glossed over and modified by Roman propagandists. T h e literary tradition is, how­ ever, ambiguous and in the face of the persistent legend about Manlius and the Geese and in default of any archaeological confirmation it is better to accept that only the city and not the Capitol was occupied. One other detail seems grounded in solid fact—the tradition of L. Albinius and the removal of the sacra to Caere (40. 7-10 n.). T h e other incidents which make up the first stage of the Gallic occupation—the withdrawal to the Capitol, the massacre of the elders in the Senate, the battle on the slopes of the Capitol—are derived from popular or family mythology and supplemented by rhetoric and imagination. L., who continues to use the same late source, develops each episode as a stage in the restoration of Roman morale, as exempla pietatis, which culminates with the repulse of the Gauls (43. 3). This revival makes a fitting moment for him to change the scene to Camillus at Ardea. T h e episodes are presented vividly. Typical of his sense of drama is that whereas in Diodorus (14. 115), Polybius (2. 18), and Verrius Flaccus (Aul. GelL 5. 17. 2), the Gauls reach Rome after three days, L. to enliven the story compresses the time-interval to a single day. Wolski is mistaken in supposing that L. here preserves an authentic detail. 39. 1. quoque: bridges the transition from the Romans to the Gauls. Strictly only the Gauls and not the Romans as well were immobilized by surprise at their success but cf. 43. 1, 1. 33. 6 (Nye, Sentence Con­ struction, 40). The methodical steps taken by the Gauls (primum— deinde—postremo—turn demum) are contrasted with the disordered panic shown by the Romans. T h e whole description of the entry of the Gauls into Rome is inspired partly by memories of the aftermath of Cannae (39. 4 n.) and partly by literary models such as Herodotus' account of the Persian attempt on Delphi (41. 8 n.) and of the Persian sack of Athens. In \ articular the resemblance between the massacre of the senators and the liquida­ tion of those Athenians who had taken refuge on the Acropolis and between the abortive attempt on the Capitol and the successful ascent of the Acropolis is to be noted. mos: cf. Caesar, B.G. 6. 17. 3. 720

390 B.C.

5-39-3

39. 3 . perdita re: the singular is colloquial (Terence, Enn. 258) and, as such, is appropriate in the mouth of barbarians. 39. 4 . crederet: N read crederent but if nemo is right the subject must be the singular nemo. T h e corruption is, however, deeper. As the text stands there is an anacoluthon between Romani who must be the sur­ viving inhabitants of Rome and comploraii omnes who are the missing casualties and, since the scene is set at Rome, the anacoluthon can scarcely be justified. T h e text of complorati. . . impleverunt is guaranteed by the significant repetition in 22. 55. 3 against such drastic changes as that proposed by Sigonius. T h e trouble must lie with crederent and I suspect that the termination has been affected by the preceding -erant. T h e neatest solution is that of Heerwagen who would read credere et but the hist. inf. linked by et to an aorist is artificial and cannot easily be paralleled. I would consider either credebat. complorati (for the limitation of Romani by nemo cf. 37. 38. 4 regii. . . aliquot interfecti sunt) or neminem . . . credidere et (for the pleonasm neminem quemquam cf. Kuhnast, Liv. Syntax, 202; Riemann, Etudes, 133 ff.; for the varia­ tion -ere et -erunt cf. 38. 10 petiere et. . . confugerunt), Welz replaced quam Romam by cum but that does not meet the logical objection that Romani and complorati are not identical. 39. 5. stupefecit: elsewhere in early prose only Cicero, de Orat. 3. 53 which is a quotation. A strong word to match the disaster (Accius, four times in Virgil, Ovid). 39. 6 - 7 . Some doubt surrounds the precise words in which the Romans' anticipations are framed. It is clear that there are three views: (1) primo adventu, (2) deinde sub occasum solis, (3) turn in noctem, signalized by the temporal pronouns. With the first two a verb has to be understood such as Gallos invasuros esse, while in the third the verb is expressed (dilatum consilium esse). T h e first two are also qualified by clauses introduced by quia with the ind. although the whole passage, being the views of the Romans, is in or. obi. The ind. must be used to distinguish actually observed phenomena (the Gauls had come up to the city: there were only a few hours' daylight left) from inferred intention which are given in the first case by a parenthesis (mansuros enim . . .foret) and in the third by the clause quo . . . inferrent. T h e difficulty is concerned with the words given by the manuscripts as ante noctem rati se (om. Ver.) invasuros. T h e structure of the passage shows that these words must give the grounds for supposing t h a t the Gauls would attack before nightfall, based on the observation that there was only a little daylight left. This rules out N's reading since the subject of rati se would have to be the Gauls but Ver.'s rati (omit­ ting se) is no easier: it could only be construed as a nom. pendens, for the subject of the main sentence is not the Romans but omne tempus. Luterbacher's escape from the predicament was to read ratis (sc. 614432

721

3A

5-39-6-7

390 B.C.

Romanis) as a self-contained abl. abs. (cf 4. 44. 7, 60. 1), but a verb of thinking is not called for at all since the entire sentence is itself in or. obi. Walters's enim [rati se] gives admirable sense, balancing mansuros enim, but is palaeographically incredible, while Bayet's satius, if palaeographically attractive, is linguistically impossible (Shackleton Bailey, Propertiana, 132). Both demands are satisfied by certe, which is also commended by G. W. Williams (J.R.S. 45 (1955), 229): see further Cd-5 (I9 1 1 )* H39. 8. continens: 'hard upon the long-drawn-out anxiety came the disaster itself. 39. 9. placuit: the scene of separation together with the arguments used in its support {solacia) is a feature of the conventional description of a beleaguered city which stems from Thucydides (cf. 2. 6. 4, 78. 3 ; notice TO axpelov). Equally the emotional outbursts attendant on such separations were elaborated by Hellenistic historians who took as their model the picture of the Athenian withdrawal in Thucydides 7. 7539. 1 1 . flaminem sacerdotesque Vestales: flaminem sacerdotesque et Vestales Ver. T w o problems arise: (1) Who is referred to by the singular, unqualified^mm^m? (2) Can sacerdotesbe an attribute of Vestales or did L. mean, as the reading of Ver. suggests, to distinguish the Vestals from the other bodies of priests and include both among the fugitives on the Capitol? O n the first point we should compare 40. 7 where the Flamen Quirinalis and the Vestal Virgins are working hand in glove. In writing flaminem without further definition L. is probably guilty of over-simplification of his sources. We should not delete the word (Ruperti, Mommsen). Secondly, over the choice between Ver.'s and N's reading, it must be noted that the story is centred solely on the Flamen Quirinalis and the Vestals and in none of the sources is mention made of other priests and that Ver. is prone to insert et after -que; cf. 4. 14. 4, 5. 40. 7. For sacerdotes Vestales Weissenborn compares Aul. Gell. 1. 12. 14, 10. 15. 3 1 ; cf. Livy 5. 40. 10, 50. 3. cultum eorum: sc. sacrorum but the Romans did not have a cult of sacra: sacra were one form of the cult of the gods. Ver.'s cultum deorum is to be preferred. For the expression cf. Varro, de Deorum Cultu; Livy 1. 21. 2, 5. 46. 3 ; Cicero, Tusc. 1. 64; Florus 1. 2. 2. 39. 12. periturae: Stacey, in company with Luterbacher and H . J . Muller, read peritura with urbe (cf. Sallust, Jug. 35. 10) claiming the phrase as poetic and Ennian. But periturae is the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts and peritura would be otiose after imminenti ruinae urbis. Cf. Seneca, Epist. 104. 11; Austin on Virgil, Aen. 2. 646. 39. 13. quo id aequiore: Jung, elaborating Ver.'s reading, proposed quod id iniquiore animo 'because the people were taking it (the disaster) harder than was right' (cf. 34. 2. 14, 44. 35. 4) but the idiomatic quo 722

390 B.C.

5-39. 13

with the comparative ('that so they should bear it more equably') must not be thrown away. 40. 1. commendantes'. often used of leaving bequests; cf. Cicero, in Catil. 4. 23. trecentos: 54. 5 n. quaecumque: cf. Cicero, in Catil. 4. 2 ; pro Mil. 100: Caesar, B.G. 1. 31. 14. 40. 3 . humani. . . mali: both Ver. and N have the dat. plural humanis . . . malis, which could be retained if taken after superesset ('they were leaving nothing that might go beyond human miseries' i.e. they left no space for anything but misery; for humana mala cf. 48. 6, 23. 18. 10; for superesse with the dat. cf. 9. 38. 3, 25. 10. 6, 19. 16). T h e sense, how­ ever, is much less good than Finckh's humani. . . mali 'supplied the final touch of human wretchedness'. 40. 6. exsequentes: 'following their own hopes and executing their own plans'. A zeugma, but not harsh enough to justify reading sequentes with Madvig. For consilia exsequi cf. 36. 43. 8. 40. 7-10. The Removal of the sacra to Caere If the preceding scenes of distress in Rome are imaginative, the legend that the sacra were conveyed to Caere is one of the few genuine strands in the tradition. It is not an aetiological account of the word caerimonia (Paulus Festus 38 L.; Val. Max. 1. 1. 10). It is a story which would have been long remembered for the credit it reflected both on the devotion of the Flamen Quirinalis and the generosity of L. Albinius and its antiquity seems vouched for by Aristotle [ap. Plutarch, Camillus 22. 4 TO /xev dAwvcu TTJV TTOXIV VTTO KeXrcov aKpifiws hrj\6s

iartv

aK7]Koa>s, TOV 8e owoavTa AevKiov). When Aristotle was writing, M . Furius Camillus had not yet been built up into the major figure of the saviour of Rome. It was L. Albinius, the m a n who was responsible for preserving the religious life of the city intact, who was regarded as its ultimate saviour (cf. his Elogium = Inscr. ItaL 13, no. 11). Con­ firmation of the antiquity of the story can be found also in the reward given by the Romans to the Caeretans (50. 3 n.) and in a well-sup­ ported notice of a victory of the Caeretans over the Gauls, perhaps in 387/6 (Diodorus 14. 117. 6; Strabo 5. 220). T h e ties between Rome and Caere were of the very closest throughout the period. T h e aetiological myth that the place known as doliola was so called from the burial of the sacred objects in jars there is erroneous, for two jars were themselves among the sacra which were to be saved. Ktpafios TpwiKos was preserved in the temple of the Penates at Lavinium (D.H. 1. 67. 4) and the Penates, in the shape of the Dioscuri, used to receive two amphorae at the main centres of the cult, Sparta and 723

5. 40. 7- J o

390 B.C.

Tarentum. These amphorae correspond to the doliola (Plutarch, Camillas 20. 8). It is probable that the sacred doliola and the place called doliola have no connexion. For the site of the place doliola see Platner-Ashby s.v.; see also Weinstock, J.R.S. 50 (i960), 113-14; Gage, Huit recherches, 195-6; Maule and Smith, Votive Religion at Caere, 4 1 - 4 3 ; Sordi 36-52. 40. 7. flamen... Quirinalis: the tradition was unanimous that the Flamen Quirinalis and the Vestals were responsible for the safeguarding of the sacra but it was a tradition which seems to have descended not in official cult or record but in the family of the Albinii. T h e father of L. Sestius Quirinalis (cos. suff. in 23 B.C.) married an Albinia (Cicero, pro Sestio 6; see Syme, Class. Phil. 50 (1955), 135)- T h a t the Vestals should have escorted the sacra is natural enough. T h e sacra were housed in the penus of the temple of Vesta (D.H. 2. 66; Ovid, Trist. 3. 1. 29). It is the mention of the Flamen Quirinalis which is un­ expected. T h e Flamen Dialis was admittedly debarred by the provision that he could not leave Rome for more than two nights (52. 13 n.). but the pontifex maximus, as in 241 (Ovid, Fasti 6. 437-54), or the rex sacrorum are more natural candidates. T h e only other occasion when the Flamen Quirinalis and the Vestals are linked together is the Consualia (Tertullian, de Spect. 5. 7; cf. Varro, de Ling. Lat. 6. 21). T h e common significance may be that Consus is a god of storing and, there­ fore, the flamen who attended his cult would be a proper person to attend the storing of the sacra. Furthermore, the Consualia are Sabine ( 1 . 9 . i n . ) and Quirinus was the god of the Sabine community on the Quirinal before he was identified with Romulus (see n. on 1. 16). Thus it was natural that the Flamen Quirinalis rather than any other priest should preside at the Consualia and, in turn, assist the Vestals in the preservation of the sacra. 4 0 . 8 . despui: for taboos against spitting see Frazer, Golden Bough,* 3. 196. ferunt: feruntur Ver. N, but the passive is less effective and vivid and Val. Max. (1. 1. 10 cum flamen Quirinalis virginesque Vestales sacra onere partito ferrent) seems to have read the active in his text of L. (Kohler). sublicio : 1. 33. 6 n. 40. 9. L. Albinius: perhaps the consular tribune of 379 (6. 30. 2 M. Albinius and in Diod. 15. 51. 1 AevKios Aafilvios) T h e name is Etruscan, common at Pisaurum (Schulze 118-19). For the family as a whole see 2. 33. 2 n. de plebe [Romana] homo: Livian usage is constant in the phrase de plebe homo. If de plebe is qualified by an adj. it follows homo as at 3. 19. 9. humillimus homo de vestra plebe. If de plebe is unqualified it pre­ cedes, as 2. 36. 2 Latinio de plebe homini, 55. 4. Here de plebe precedes and must in consequence be unqualified. It is assumed that Albinius was a Roman. 724

3 9 0 B.C.

5. 40. 9

vehens: habens -(Ver., N) is impossible and sufficiently refuted by Val. Max., loc. c i t , who has vehens. Madvig's avehens accounts more satisfactorily for the corruption which occurs also at Plautus, Miles 938; Accius, fr. 370 R. 40. 10. publicos: the masc. can be retained. T h e Vestals were accom­ panied by the flamen. se ac suos: in favour of Ver's omission of se it could be argued that L. Albinius was not explicitly stated to have been riding in the wagon himself. O n the other hand se ac suos provides a perfect balance to the double sacerdotes sacraque and such haplographies are common in Ver. (cf. 3. 62. 1, 5. 32. 4, 6. 6. 10). 4 1 . The Massacre of the Senators A stirring tale which will have had its origin not in ritual but in the traditions of the gens Papiria. It may be true: generations later in a less critical situation Decius Mus was prepared to sacrifice himself. There are two facts, apart from the explicit mention of the carmen (41. 3), which point to the conclusion that the senators were deliberately offering their lives by devotio: the detail that the Gaul touched Papirius' beard (41. 9) and the observation that they had all held consular magistracies. T h e person who devoted himself had to be cum imperio (8. 10. 1 1 ; Cicero, de Nat. Deorum 2. 10; 26. 10. 9 shows that in times of crisis past holders of imperium could be re-invested with it, as was the case here) and did so clasping his chin (manu subter togam ad mentum exsertd). By taking hold of Papirius' beard the Gaul was inter­ rupting the ritual gesture. As it is told by Livy the story has lost some of its precision by improvement. There was in fact only one triumphator who is likely to have been still alive ( 3 1 . 4 n., L. Valerius) and the description of the doomed senators arrayed in their finery is connected with the custom of burying magistrates in their full robes of office (toga picta; cf. Veil. Pat. 2. 71 ; Polybius 6. 53. 7; see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 441 n. 2). Moreover, L. minimized the role of devotio (it is only given as a variant, sunt qui) and instead paints a secular picture of old men stoically awaiting their end. In this L., or rather his source, must have had in mind the famous example of Cn. Octavius in 87 (Appian, B.C. 1. 71). For L. the whole tale is not a religious act but an example of Roman virtus. See Wissowa, Religion, 384; H . Wagenvoort, Roman Dynamism, 3 1 - 3 3 ; Gage, Huit recherches, 128 (for a theory of an ephebic ritual); Burck 127. 4 1 . 2. aut: better ac Ver. No disjunction is intended between honores and virtus; for ac virtutis cf. 4. 33. 5, 7. 32. 10, 8. 13. 11, 21. 49. 13, 22. 5. 2, 25. 23. 1.

augustissima: the toga picta, a purple, golden-embroidered toga, worn 725

5-4i. 2

390 B.C.

by triumphators and allegedly the traditional dress of the kings. See Ehlers, R.E. 'triumphus', cols. 504-5. tensas ducentibus: tensae are the wagons which carried the images of the gods to public spectacles. They were escorted in procession. medio aedium: the plain abl. for in medio is found elsewhere only in Virgil {Aeneid 3. 354, 7. 59, 563) and Vitruvius. L. uses in medio at 1. 9. 5, 57. 9 &c. and in should probably be restored here too. eburneis: 4 1 . 9. T h e adjectival form eburnus is not used by L. 41. 3 . M. Folio: so given by Ver. N read Filio which was 'emended' to Fabio by TT\. T h e corruption was old since Plutarch calls him Fabius {Camillas 2 1 . 3 ) unless he has confused him with K. Fabius Dorsuo (46. 1 n.). Folius will be the consular tribune of 433 (4. 25. 2 n.). carmen', for the formula cf 8. 6. 13, 9. 8, 22. 10. 2. Quiritibus Romanis is unusual and inaccurate but cf. 26. 2. 11. exercitibus Romanis would be possible (cf. Macrobius 3. 9. 10 ff.). 41. 4. contentione: continuatione Ver. but contentio is usual of fighting; cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5. 77; ad Fam. 3. 10. 5 ; Hirtius, B.G. 8. 19. 2, 29. 1 ; Amm. Marc. 24. 2. 13. arcemque solam: for the text see Housman on Manilius 1. 779. 4 1 . 5 . agmine: in Ver. the following letters are preserved : ]rum a . . . . e . . n . . . . iruunt. See 3. 51. 10 n. There is no mechanical explanation of the extra letters here so that it is possible that an adj. has fallen out in N. If so, ingenti fits best (cf. 6. 15. 2, 34. 10. 1). J u n g would read "^itu patientia. 41. 8. dis: 'men most like to gods also in the dignity which their countenance and gravity of expression conveyed'. Gf. the very similar description in 1.7. 9. T h e picture may owe something to Herodotus' account of the Persian attempt on Delphi (8. 35-39; cf. also the Gallic assault on Delphi in Pausanias 10. 23). 41. 9. ad eos velut ad: the second ad is unlikely to have been wrongly preserved by Ver. which is guilty of few, if any, dittographies of this kind. M. Papirius: in Plutarch {Camillas 22. 6) he is reported as TlaiTeipios Mavios and in Val. Max. 3. 2. 7 as M. Atilius. In both authors the name is probably corrupt, for, although the suggestion that he was entitled to a triumphator's baton is mere invention, he is likely to be M . Papirius Mugillanus (4. 45. 5). 41. 10. nulli : notice the clipped phrases, blunt infinitives, and plain asyndeton with which L. rounds off the episode and introduces the sack of Rome (the Romae aXojais as Gasaubon aptly called it). T h e effect is enhanced by the emphatic nulli mortalium (cf. 29. 25. 4) with the rare nulli for nemini and the weighty mortalium (1. 9. 8 n.). T h e infinitives are historic, not governed by diciiur. exhaustis: sc. tectis. 726

390 B.C.

5. 42-43. 5

42-43. 5. The Occupation of Rome From tradition we pass to literary invention. L. describes the scene of destruction in conventional colours but gives it an original treatment by stressing not so much the events as the impression of the partici­ pants. It is seen first from the Gallic (sine ira, sine ardore; solitudine absterriti; cunctatio; venerabundi) and then from a Roman point of view (cladis spectaculo; flexerunt animos). See Eichler, De consilio el arte in Titi Livi prima decade, 4 7 ; Burck 127. Notice the poetic reminiscences in the language (42. 4 n.). 42. 3 . concipere: 'the contrast is between a mental grasp' ( = concipere) 'of a quick series of confusing and frightening events (which is relatively difficult since it requires an intellectual effort and is not an essential quality in a soldier) and being able to stand fast' ( = constare) 'against the assault of men's eyes and ears' (G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 45 (1955), 229). Lipsius's consipere, accepted by Bekker, Lorentz, Luterbacher, Rossbach, and others, is clearly wrong. 42. 4 . sonitusflammae: cf. Virgil, Georg. 4. 409. Other expressions which occur in poetry and only here in L. in prose are ora et oculos (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 12. 657), oculos flectebant (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 4. 369, 6. 788; Ovid, Met. 7. 584), occidentis patriae (cf. Virgil, Aeneid 12. 828), arma ferrumque (42. 8 ; cf. Virgil, Aeneid 10. 10, n . 218). 42. 6. noctem: N read inquietam rightly, since lux is the dawn and inquietus is used only to describe periods, not moments of time. In particular it is associated, as might be expected, with night; cf. Val. Max. 8. 14 ext. 1; Tacitus, Annals 1. 65. 1; Seneca, de Clem. 1. 9. 3. Note also 10. 43. 12; Seneca, Epist. 56. 8; Augustine, Civ. Dei 22. 22; Pliny, Epist. 6. 20. 2. T h e passage is discussed in C.Q. 9 (1959), 282. 4 3 . 1. quoque: 39. 1 n. ultima: 'to make a final effort'; cf. 2. 28. 9. 4 3 . 5. obsideri: the passive can be retained; cf. 3. 51. 2.

43. 6-46. The Recall of Camillus T h e change of heart at Rome and the recall of Camillus from Ardea are one of the most daring fabrications in R o m a n history. While certain episodes of this section (e.g. 46. 1 n. Fabius Dorsuo; 46. 7 n. Pontius Cominius) are rooted in tradition, and there may have been a popular legend even about Camillus, the exploits of Camillus are designed to save R o m a n reputation. T h e proofs can be stated simply. Polybius (2. 18. 2-6, 22. 5), based on Fabius Pictor, knows nothing of Camillus or of any intervention to rescue Rome. According to him the Romans bought the Gauls off. T h e earliest version of Pontius 727

5. 43- 6-46

390 B.C.

Cominius' adventure made no connexion with Camillus. Thirdly, C. is alleged to have been elected dictator by the people, despite the fact that there was at least one consular tribune in Rome, Q . Sulpicius, who could have named him dictator in the proper manner. Popular election to the dictatorship was a precedent established for the first time for Minucius in 217 and repeated by Sulla in 82 (Appian, B.C. 1. 99). T h e story that Camillus was recalled by popular vote to the dictatorship can be no older than 217. It was evidently a fruitful field for constitutional speculation still in the age of Sulla, for the version in L., which derives from an author of that period, is com­ plicated by legal niceties which seem to be specifically directed to the situation provoked by Sulla (46. 11 n.). T h e remaining episodes, the defeat of the Gauls by the Ardeates (43. 6-45. 3) and the defeat of the Etruscans by R o m a n refugees under Q . Caedicius (45. 4-8), are also inventions designed to heighten the tension and to build up a worthy scene for the return of Camillus. T h e two forces outside the city have redeemed their reputation and proved their worth. It remains for the inhabitants of Rome itself (notice 46. 1 Romae interim) to do the same and the city will have purged its guilt and have deserved the favour of heaven. See Burck 128-30; and for the historical issues Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 287-381 ; Bandel, Rom. Biktaturen, 34; Taubler, Klio 12 (1912), 224; Momigliano, C.Q. 36 (1942), 113. 43. 6. ad . . . virtutem: to be taken with duxit. Camillus is seen through­ out as the agent of destiny, the fatalis dux (cf. 43. 8), 44. 1. veteres amici: the speech is finely written without being strictly rhetorical in conception. It is probable from the appearance of a similar one in Plutarch {Camillus 23) that L. has expanded a speech which he found in his source. Such speeches before battles are a standard feature of Hellenistic histories. After justifying his presump­ tion in speaking Camillus reveals the heaven-sent chance for ven­ geance offered by the Gauls and ends with a personal pledge that if he fails to win a resounding victory, he will accept the worst that lies in store for him. T h e allusion to novi cives in 44. 1 disregards the fact that, on L.'s own evidence, Ardea was a Roman colony. T h e senti­ ments and the language are commonplace: e.g. for the thought periculum cogit. . . in medium conferre cf., for example, Thucydides 7. 64. 2 (Nicias). For 44. 3 nee enim . . . sunt cf. Cicero, Laelius 7 1 ; for non recuso cf. 3. 68. 13. T h e denigration of the Gauls, akin to the Greek view of barbarians, is equally conventional; for their appearance cf. 37. 4 n . ; for their drunkenness cf. Plato, Laws 637 d; Polybius 2. 19. 4 ; for their nomadic disorganization cf. Polybius 2 , 1 7 . 1 1 ; for their primitive 728

390 B.C.

5- 44- i

habits cf. Polyhius 2. 17. g. Equally conventional is the language; for 44. 1 condicionis meae oblitum cf. Seneca, Dial. 6. 11. 4 ; for quod quisque possit . . conferre cf. Cicero, Brutus g g ; for 44. 5 vagi. . . palantur cf. Sallust, Jug. 18. 2 ; for ferarum ritu cf. 3. 47. 7 n . ; for 44. 7 zWw* pecudes trucidandos cf. Sallust, Ca/z7. 58. 21. But the tone is raised by a few characteristic touches. Notice the colourful phrases which give interest and stature to the personality of Camillus, e.g. 44. 3 decus . . . pariendi found in Plautus, True. 517 and [Virgil], CataL g. 58 but not in prose before L.; for 44. 6 rivos aquarum cf. Lucretius 2.30,5. 13g3 ; Virgil, Eel. 5 . 4 7 , 8 . 8 7 ; for somno vinctos (9.30. 9) cf. Ovid, Met. 11. 238 (the phrase is not found earlier: Gries cites Cicero, Verr. 4. 90 religione . . . vinctum as a prose parallel but the choice of word is determined by the pretended etymology of religio: see Stacey, Archivf. Lat. Lex. 10 (1898), 26; Gries, Constancy, 65-66). eguit: the conjecture, made first by Walker, is confirmed by Ver. which can be read . . uit. commune periculum: this, the word-order of Ver., is standard; cf. Cicero, Verr. 1. 153; de Oral. 2. 2og; Part. 4 4 ; ad Fam. 4. 15. 2, 6. 1 . 3 ; ad Att. 11. 1. 1; Caesar, B.G. 1. 3g. 4 ; Bell. Afr. 27. 2. There is no reason of emphasis or rhythm to depart from it here and to follow N. 44. 4. qui . . . adventant: Conway and Bayet accept the sole testimony of L and read adventant (with the collective sing, gens), punctuating with a full stop after pariendi. Earlier editors put the full stop after adventat, understanding the subject from hoste. T h e latter is clearly preferable. L. only uses advento (cf. 23. 43. 8, 25. 21. 1) and effuso agmine (cf. 2. 5g. 8, 10. 14. 5, 42. 65. 2, 44. 3g. 8) of an enemy army and not of more general groups such as races. Secondly, Latin recognizes an idiom by which a generalization about a country or people is expressed without further introduction by gens est: cf. Ovid, Fasti 5. 581 gensfuit et campis et equis et tuta sagittis; Met. 10. 3 3 1 ; Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 1. 101 ; Tacitus, Hist. 4. 15. 1. 44. 5. palantur: Wakefield (on Lucretius 2. 10) preferred populantur but see 44. 1 n. 44. 7. haec omnia Galliamfieri: N's reading has been accepted by many scholars and defended by Dobree {Adv. Critica, 2. 16) but Ver. had a Gallis and no reputable support has been adduced for the construc­ tion of Galliam. With Ver.'s a Gallis, fieri by itself would not be intel­ ligible and a further change is required (ferri Frigell, auferri Zingerle, Burck). I would prefer to see the variation between N and Ver. as a sign of deeper corruption. In 6. 40. 17 L. writes cumpraeter Capitolium atque arcem omnia haec hostium erant which points to Gallorum (Cobet). Gallica would be less good.. arma, frequentes: the punctuation, originally proposed by Allen 729

5- 44- 7

390 B.C.

{Emendationes Livianae Alterae, (1867), 8), is a great improvement on the traditional, which put the adj. unnaturally at the end of the clause. Forfrequens sequor cf. Lucilius 1142 M . Ver. has frequentesque which is as good if not better. For the loss of -que cf. 3. 24. 5 n. Casaubon glosses

4 5 . 1. aequis iniquisque: 'friend and foe alike believed'; for the phrase cf. 2. 32. 7, 44. 4. 6 ; Plautus, Amph. 173; Propertius 2. 3. 50; Seneca, Medea 195. corpora curant \ 3. 2. 10 n. primo silentio noctis: 7. 12. 1. N's primae s. n. is not found. 4 5 . 2. intuta: an historian's word (9. 41. 1 1 ; elsewhere only in Sallust, Or. Phil. 17, and Tacitus, e.g. Hist. 1. 33. 2 et al.). 45. 3 . incursione . . .facta: Ver. has excurstone ab oppidanisfacta, omitting inpalatos. excursione is the choicer word (3. 38. 5, 24. 29. 4) and is more apposite since we are concerned with the Antiate sally from their city rather than with the inroad on the Gauls, in palatos is a typical Nicomachean gloss introduced after exc. had been corrupted to inc. to explain the objective of the assault. T h e source of the corruption lies in incursiones facerent below. 45. 4. quadringentensimum: 54. 5 n. invisitatOy inaudito: cf. 4. 33. 1, 5. 37. 2. T h e asyndeton of nearsynonyms is solemn (cf. 27. 43. 7, 40. 28. 2) and is here particularly appropriate since it is almost sacral and the words bear a special emphasis (G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 45 (1955), 228). 45. 6. miseratio: the play of emotions is conventional; cf. Sallust, Or. Lep. 5 ; Quintilian 4. 2. 112. 45. 7. Q. Caedicio: 32. 6-7 n. T h e personage is a throw-back from the third century; cf. the exploits of Q . Caedicius, trib. mil. in 258 (Cato fr. 83 P.). T h e story is modelled on the events of 212 when the soldiers in Spain appointed L. Marcius their general (25. 37. 6 ; see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. 692 n. 1). Nothing else is known of Caedicius: for further speculations see BasanofF, Latomus 9 (1950) 13 ff. 45. 8. ad Salinas: the Salinae, or salt warehouses, were close to the Porta Trigemina (Plautus, Capt. 90; 24. 47. 15). Their sally would have brought the Romans based on Veii to the very outskirts of the city, but the detail is not credible. 46. 1-3. C. Fabius Dorsuo T h e legend of C. Fabius has its origin in cult. It is the story which accounted for a particular ritual procession conducted by the gens Fabia on the Quirinal. T h e connexion of the Fabii with the Quirinal is not otherwise attested, although it is presumed by the topography 730

390 B.C.

5- 4& 1-3

of 2. 49. 3-7, when the Fabii set out for Cremera, nor can any historical Fabius be shown to have had his house on the hill. There is, therefore, at first sight some temptation to accept the version given by Gassius Hemina (fr. 19 P.) that Fabius went to tend a cult of Vesta, but Gassius' obsessive interest in Vesta makes his version suspect (cf. frr. 7, 12, 32) and the probable connexion between Luperci Fabiani ( 1 . 5 . 1-2 n.) and the Quirinal might confirm the association of that gens with the hill. For other gentile cults see Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 137-44; s e e a ^ s o Otto, R.E., T a u n u s ' ; Wissowa, Religion, 559 ff. 46. 2. statum: from sistere, cf. 23. 35. 3. C. Fabius Dorsuo: the praenomen is given as G. by Livy here and at 52. 3. Val. Max. 1. 1. 11 also calls him G. Dio, the only other author to cite the praenomen, calls him KalotDv (fr. 24. 6) which is more pointed. T h e cognomen is also variously given: Dorsuo by L. here and for the consul of 345 (7. 28. 1); Dorso by Gassius (Aopaojv), by Fast. Hyd., and by Chr. Pasch. for the consul of 345 and by Veil. Pat. 1. 14. 7 for the consul of 273. Dorsuo is the better formation: it will describe some physical peculiarity about his back (cf. Sura). Gf. C.I.L. 14. 3236 (Praeneste) L. Samiari{os) M.f Dosuo. Gabino cinctu: so Ver. No participle is required, cf. Sallust, Jug. 33. 1. Editors have been led astray by 8. 9. 9, 10. 7. 3 ; Val. Max. 1. 1. 11 Gabino ritu cinctus (cf. C.I.L. 11. 1420. 25) but the text is sound. T h e Gabine dress was a method of wearing the toga which left the arms free and unimpeded. It was worn by celebrants on numerous religious occasions, e.g. at the Ambarvalia (Lucan 1. 596) or at the opening of the temple of Janus (Virgil, Aeneid 7. 612) but no common factor can be traced to explain its use. T h e ancients held that it was originally the dress worn for battle (Festus 251 L . ; Servius, ad Aen. 7. 612) but this is no more than a guess from the term procinctus and from the ancient enmity with Gabii. It is more likely that it was the traditional dress worn by Gabine priests which was taken over for certain R o m a n cults when Gabii merged with Rome at the end of the sixth century (1. 54. i o n . ; see Mau, R.E., 'cinctus'). There may have been a special connexion between the original community and cults on the Quirinal and the cinctus Gabinus: cf. Virgil, Aeneid 7. 612 ipse Quirinali trabea cinctuque Gabino. terrorem: 'unmoved by shouts or threats'. 46. 3 . religione: the superstition of the Gauls was proverbial; cf. Caesar, B.G. 6. 16. 1. 46. 4. (jtumerus) etiam viresque: so Ver., instead of the simple etiam vires of N. T h e two nouns are wanted, and are found together at 25. 27. 8, 28. 16. 13. For similar omission in N cf. 4. 25. 4, 5. 53. 1. ex Latio : the detail, if in any way it represents an authentic tradition, 731

5- 46. 4

390 B.C.

is interesting in that it tends to confirm the belief that in the earliest legend and in actual fact (37-38 n.) the Latins were associated with the Romans in the resistance to the Gauls. Such troops would not be voluntarily as L. tendentiously assumes (notice the cynical in parte praedae essent; cf. 19. 5), but regular contingents as stipulated by the Latin treaty. Gf. 3. 4. 10 n., 4. 29. 4, 51. 8. 46. 7 - 1 1 . Pontius Cominius T h e later developments of the story of Pontius Gominius are easy to unravel. In Diodorus 14. 116 (cf. Aul. Gell. 17. 2. 26) Pontius carried out his perilous journey merely in order to reopen communications between the besieged and the Roman army at Veii. There is no sugges­ tion of negotiations with Camillus. These were added to the story later when Camillus was interpolated into the history as the saviour of Rome and it became necessary to devise some constitutional justi­ fication for his position. So much can be seen from the inconsistencies in the story as told b y L . himself (cf. Plutarch, Camillus 25). For Pontius to have conveyed both the army's request for a leader and Camillus' rejoinder to the S.C. passed in his favour that he would not accept office unless specially enabled by the comitia curiata, he would have had to have m a d e two journeys. It follows that the first stage in the elaboration of the story was that Pontius who hitherto had made a somewhat pointless expedition was now supposed by historians to have been the messenger responsible for the news of Camillus' vindica­ tion, recall, and election. T h e second stage was inspired by political doubts about the legality of such popular elections. It is tendentious. It should be compared with arguments about the constitutional position of the Fabii at Cremera (2. 48. 10 n.) and may be attributed to Licinius Macer in revolt from Sulla's high-handed action in nominating himself dictator in 82. T h e genesis of the story is inscrutable. Pontius appears to be an Oscan praenomen = Quintus (Schulze 212). Cominius is taken by Schulze (108 n. 4 ; there are instances at Tarquinii and Capena) to be Etruscan but the cognomen of the consul of 501 (2. 18. 1 n.) indicates rather an Oscan or southern Italian origin. T h e family is attested from an early time (8. 30. 6; cf. Val. Max. 6. 1. 11). We might speculate that it was an old family tradition among the Cominii b u t the Cominii were never important at Rome. T h e other extreme, that he is a mystical personification of the commentarii pontificum (Gage, Huit recherches, 37 n. 2), is less inviting. See further Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 3 2 3 - 5 ; Klotz, Rh. Mus. 91 (1942), 268 ff. 46. 9. neglectum hostium custodia: 24. 46. 1. For the text see CQ. 9 (i959)> 2 7 8 . 732

390 B.C.

5. 46. 9

in Capitolium: cf. 47. 2. In 6. 17. 4 the Gauls, following his route, are said to have climbed per Tarpeiam rupem. This is only rhetori­ cal fancy and cannot be used to unseat the traditional location of the Tarpeian rock (H. Lyngby, Beitrdge zur Topographie des ForumBoarium-Gebietes, 79-86). T h e popular misconception may have been encouraged by the belief that one of the guilty sentries who allowed the Gauls to ascend by the same path was punished de saxo (47. 10). 46. 10, revocatus: to be taken, as Wittman rightly observes, not with comitiis curiatis but with iussu populi. T h e comitia curiata were only con­ cerned with questions of imperium, not with judicial matters. 46. 1 1 . seu: the punctuation adopted in the O.G.T. creates an in­ tolerable gap between seu and its main verb (lex lata est). It also removes a characteristic feature of L.'s style—the short sentence con­ cluding an episode. I would punctuate with H . J . Mtiller after habere but retain seu quod, understanding perduxere in the second member of the sentence. ' T h e ambassadors dispatched to Camillus at Ardea conducted him immediately to Veii or, as I am inclined to believe, after a delay caused by his refusal to leave until he heard news that the lex de imperio had been passed.' seu is guaranteed in this phrase by 8. 30. 9. auspicia: 3. 1. 4 n. lex curiata: it was a generally held belief in the last century of the Republic that a consul or other magistrate or pro-magistrate could not exercise imperium in the military sphere unless in addition to being popularly elected by the comitia centuriata and, if a pro-magistrate, allocated a province by the Senate, a lex de imperio was passed in his favour by the comitia curiata. This assembly, originally the assembly of the curiae or old families, survived in historical times only symbolically. T h e curiae were represented by lictors. Its competence was, however, maintained and championed as in the matter of the Rullan land-bill in 63 (Cicero, de Leg. Agr. 2. 20) or the governorship of Appius Claudius in 54 [ad Fam. 1. 9. 25). T h e origin of its power is a matter for dispute but the lex de imperio must be a creation of the Republic not the Regal period. It may be hazarded that on the expulsion of the kings the formal investiture and delegation of power was assumed by the curiae, as the most ancient body in the community, but that with increasing democracy the practical selection of magistrates passed to the comitia centuriata, leaving only the formal aspects, such as the ius auspicii, to the c. curiata. For modern discussions of the problem see Latte, Nachr. Gotting. Ges. 1924, 636°.; Voci, Studi Albertario, 2. 7 3 ; Rubino, Untersuchungen, 3671!.; Beseler, %eit. Sav.-Stift. 57 (1937), 356; de Francisci, Primordia Civitatis, 577-84. Clear accounts may be found in Botsford, Roman Assemblies and in Staveley, Historia 5 ( ^ ) , 84-90. 733

5-47

390 B.C. 47. M. Manlius and the Geese

T h e story of Manlius and the geese is the authentic stuff of history. No modern scepticism can seriously shake its claims. Scholars have attempted to explain it away as a mere aetiological myth of the cognomen Gapitolinus common among the Manlii. Others have seen it as an imitation of the abortive attack by Philip on Byzantium in 346 when the defenders were aroused by the barking of dogs (Diodorus 16. 77. 2-3). But the original story carries more conviction. Only the rewards paid to Manlius savour of later antiquarianism (47. 8n.). T h e one doubt attaches to the geese. Geese were not, so far as we know, sacred to J u n o . They are not figured in her company on monu­ ments and the only other notorious geese in Roman history are those sacrificed by Domitian to Mars (Martial 9. 31). But it is certain that on the Capitol there was an auguraculum, a place where divination was held ex tripudiis, by the manner in which birds treated their food. The birds were not specified (Cicero, de Div. 2. 73) although in later times hens were kept for the purpose, but there is some evidence to suggest that hens were only imported in the fourth century so that it is consistent to believe that initially geese were kept not as specifically sacred to J u n o but for divination. T h e annual ceremonies described by Cicero {pro Sex. Roscio 56) were designed to perpetuate the memory of the event. Cf. Ovid. Met. 8. 684; Columella 8. 13. It is of passing interest that according to a well-attested tradition Dumbarton Castle was saved on a famous occasion in the same manner—a security precaution imitated in more recent times by a Dumbarton whisky firm {Sunday Telegraph, 10 December 1962). See further I. Netusil, Woch. f. Klass. Phil., 1897, 1073; Barbagallo, Riv. Fil. 40 (1912), 411-37; Mtinzer, R.E., 'Manlius (51)'. T h e telling of the story has been analysed by Walsh {Livy, 250-1) who demonstrates its underlying structure. T h e scene is set in a simple sentence (47. 1), and rounded off by a simple sentence (47. 6). T h e story itself is told in two parts, first from the Gallic and then from the R o m a n point of view, each part being introduced by a complicated subordinate sentence (47. 2 - 3 ; 47. 4) and being intensified by short sentences describing the critical actions (47. 4 anseres . . . abstinebatur; 47. 5). T h e climax of the whole episode is put in historic presents {vadit. . . deturbat) and finally historic infinitives {proturbare . . . deferri). Walsh might have added that as in other heroic episodes the language is deliberately heightened (47. 2 n., 3 n., 4 n., 5 n.), and makes an effective blend with the conventionally military idiom (47. 7 n.). 47. 2 . ad Carmentis: 1. 7. 8 n. saxo: in, found in M, is intrusive; aequus in does not occur, whereas 734

390 B.C.

5- 47- 2

aequus adscensu or the like is common in L. (Fugner, Lexicon s.v. 'aequus'). T h e true reading must be saxo adscensu aequo. See Shackle ton Bailey on Propertius 4. 4. 83. sublustri: 'pale', only here in L . ; elsewhere Virgil, Aeneid 9. 373: Horace, Odes 3. 27. 31 ; Val. Flacc. 3. 142—a traditional poetic epithet for night. in vicem : cf. 23. 38. 3 = inter se. For its usage cf. Frei, Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. T h e rules suggested by Austin on Quintilian 12. 10. 1 are too schematic. 47. 3 . animal: the generic singular in apposition to the plural canes can be paralleled by Ovid, Met. 15. 120. It is not found elsewhere in prose. 47. 4. Iunonis: 4. 7. 12 n. crepitu: the word is unique in this sense. M. Manlius: 31. 2 n. dens: only used in poetry of a call to arms (Catullus 68. 88 with Kroll's note; Virgil, Aeneid 6. 165, 10. 198; Sil. Ital. 7. 42). 47. 5. manibus: for this use of the plain abl. cf. Ovid, Amores 1. 13. 39 and see Kenney, C.Q.8 (1958), 57. 47. 7. laudatus donatusque: the terms and the use of ob are technical for the reward of military gallantry, ob is only found in Cicero in this phrase, which is evidently fossilized in formulae of citation. Cf. Plautus, Amph. 260, 534; Varro, de Ling. Lat. 5. 9 0 ; Cicero, Verr. 5. 110; in Pisonem 4 4 ; see K. Reissinger, Vber . . . ob undpropter (Progr. Landau, 1897-1900). 47. 8. selibras: the precise figures are suspicious and can hardly have been preserved in the tradition. There was a familiar custom by which on New Year's Day clients gave presents, called strena, to their patrons, or friends to friends. In Republican times these gifts consisted of food and wine (Plautus, Stichus 461 ; for other references and a history of the later development of the custom see Nilsson, R.E., 'strena') and their origin was explained as rewards for prowess (strena a strenuitate; but cf. Festus 410 L.). 47. 9. more militari: the passage has been expounded by Daube (J.R.S. 31 (1941), 184). mos militaris refers to the general's right to punish a mutinous or incompetent army either by decimation or by total victimization (2. 59. 11 n.). It does not specify the particular method of military execution. Q . Sulpicius, for whom see 36. 11 n., threatened to punish all the sentries but was deterred by the unanimous clamour of the soldiers who insisted that only one man was guilty. We cannot with certainty determine what offences were punished by hurling from the Tarpeian rock. T h e fate of the guilty sentry seems to have deceived L. (6. 17. 4) into believing that the ascent of the Capitol had also been made up the Tarpeian rock. 735

5- 48-50

390 B.C. 48-50. The Withdrawal of the Gauls

Legend and fiction are again blended in the narrative of events which precedes Camillus' great speech and covers the withdrawal of the Gauls. In the welter of confused anecdotes the surest legend is the ransom paid to persuade the Gauls to leave. In its earliest form (Polybius 2. 18. 3) the Gauls heard news of an invasion by the Veneti in their rear and accordingly retreated home unharmed. There is no mention of Camillus, no mention of an avenging defeat. T h e ransom is assumed but not stated. A rival tradition, followed by Timaeus, which may well be true, held that the Gauls had been defeated and the ransom recovered, not by the Romans but by the Caeretans in Sabine country (Diodorus 14. 117. 7 ev rip Tpavaltp 7rehito\ Strabo 5. 220). T h e first change was to substitute the Romans for the Caeretans, a change that may have been inspired by the Livii Drusi in the early third century (Suetonius, Tib. 3. 2). Later developments brought Camillus into the picture (Diodorus 14. 117; Servius, ad Aen. 6. 8 2 5 ; cf. Polybius 2. 22). T h e Romans entered into negotiations with the Gauls and paid the ransom, but as the Gauls were withdrawing northwards Camillus came up on them and recovered the gold in a decisive engagement. T h e site of the battle is disputed (49. 6 n.), Pisaurum according to Servius, OveduKiov according to Diodorus. T h e version followed by L. improves the tale still more. Plague forces the Gauls, not the Romans, to open negotiations and Camillus arrives not after the ransom has been paid and the Gauls have departed but at the very climax of the scene. T w o details enable us to fix the date of the source with precision. It must be before 52 B.C. (48. 8 n.), and is likely to be related to the work of Q . Claudius Quadrigarius (48. 8 n.). Other less reliable threads have been interwoven. Topographical speculation provided the legend of the busta Gallica (48. 3 n.) notwith­ standing that the mention of pestilence and heat contradicted the traditional chronology which dated the Gallic occupation of Rome from July to February. Religious antiquarianism added the ludi Capitolini, (50. 4 n.), and the foundation of the temple of Aius Locutius (50. 5 n.). Above all, the curious story of bread being thrown to the hungry Gauls is a myth to explain the cult of Juppiter Pistor (Val. Max. 7.4. 3 ; Lactantius, Inst. 1. 20. 33 ; Ovid, Fasti 6. 350 with Frazer's n . ; see Ehlers, R.E., 'pistor (2)': the altar was on the Capitol but in reality the cult may have been of a thunder-god (pinsere)). T h e same spirit of antiquarianism supplied the remaining details—the rewards paid to Caere (50. 3 n.) and the matrons (50. 7 n.). W h a t was in historical truth a Roman humiliation has become for L. a R o m a n victory, a victory which more than counterbalances the clades Alliensis (49. 5-6). He presents it in a highly dramatic fashion. 736

390 B.C.

5. 48-50

T h e turning-point is the arrogant taunt—intoleranda Romanis vox, Vae victis—where alliteration and word-order combine to throw forceful emphasis on the moment. It marks the TTzpnrirzia. For at that juncture divine intervention brings Camillus on to the stage (49. 1, cf. 49. 5) and L. stresses that the Romans have earned their reprieve by their piety. Hence after the defeat of the Gauls he devotes much space (50) to the honours and thanksgivings paid to the gods. Throughout L. is interested in the psychological background. T h e episode is treated as a unity, but is not distinguished by any striking effects of language. Instead of suggesting by contrived language the world of the past, he seems rather to be concerned to bring out certain contemporary over­ tones (49. 7 n.). See Burck 132-4; and on the historical aspects Miinzer, R.E., 'Furius (44)', cols. 331-9; F. Altheim, Rh. Mus. 93 (1950), 275; J . Gage, Rev. Arch. 43 (1954), 141-76, with summary and bibliography of earlier discussions; Sordi 145-51. 48. 2. tumulos: evidently the hills of Rome. See 3. 7. 2 n. ferente: 'being a-swirl with ashes as well as dust whenever the slightest wind blew'. 48. 3 . gens: the hardihood of the Gauls and the bleakness of their climate were conventional (Cicero, de Prov. Cons. 3 3 ; Caesar, B.G. 1. 16. 2). angor, of physical pain, is found in Pliny, N.H. 8. 100 and A m m . Marc. 17. 7. 6: it is inapposite here. Cornelissen conjectured languore, cf. 44. 33. 10. vulgatis: 2. 4 1 . 4 n. bustorum: 22. 14. n . It is located by a Sullan inscription (C.LL. i 2 . 809 in [scal]eis [Canjinieis ab cleivo \infi\mo busteis Galliceis versus [adsu]mmum cleivom). Presumably it lay at the foot of the Capitoline hill which the Scalae Caniniae ascended. T h e true origin of the name was unknown even to the ancients, for Varro {de Ling. Lat. 5. 157) gave a different explanation. It has been associated with the human sacrifice of Gauls (Gallus et Galla), in 226 and 217, in the Forum Boarium, while PlatnerAshby suggest that the tradition arose from the discovery of a pre­ historic cemetery. Busta implies that the ashes of the cremated were interred on the spot and not, as is Roman practice, carefully collected for preservation. Such disregard was a characteristic of the Gauls remarked by Pausanias (10. 21). Gage speculates in Hommages Grenier 2. 707 ff. 48. 5 . L. Valerium: either Poplicola, the consular tribune of 394 (26. 2 n.), or Potitus, the consular tribune of 414 (4. 49. 7 n.). There is no means of deciding and the notice is in any case unhistorical (2. 18. 6 n.). Notice the involved sentence in which the humiliation of the Romans in being reduced to treat with the Gauls is explained and extenuated. 814439

737

3B

5.48. 5

390 B.C.

stationibus vigiliis(que}: the asyndeton is too harsh and vigiliis is hardly a gloss, since stationes refers to day-time guard-duty, vigiliae to night-watch (cf. 44. 33. 8-10). 48. 8. Q.Sulpicium: Festus (510 L. quod iniquisponderibus ex(igi} a barbaris querente Ap. Claudio) suggests that in one version the chief role in the negotiations was taken by Ap. Claudius not Q . Sulpicius. It is legitimate to surmise that this was suppressed by Q,. Claudius Q u a drigarius, who substituted Q . Sulpicius because of the leading position which he enjoyed in the tradition and perhaps because of the cognomina Galba and Gallus employed by that gens. D . H . 13. 13 does not name the R o m a n : Plutarch and Zonaras give Sulpicius, from L. mille: so also Diodorus, Plutarch, and Zonaras. D.H., however, makes the total 25 talents = 2,000 pounds which was the sum found in 52 B.C. when Pompey instigated excavations in the solium of the temple of Juppiter Capitolinus (Pliny, N.H. 33. 14; Varro ap. Non. 338 L.). It follows that whereas D.H.'s source must be later than 52, L.'s must be earlier. 48. 9. gladius: Plutarch and D . H . say that Brennus added the ^OJGTTJP as well as his sword to the weights. Much ingenuity has been misspent in speculating on the significance both of Brennus' action and of his words (see, especially, Gage, Rev. Arch. loc. cit.) but the simplest explanation is undoubtedly the right one. T h e Romans complained that the weights were dishonest. Brennus disdainfully claiming that justice is irrelevant between victor and vanquished ('Might is Right') hurls a sword, the emblem of justice, into the scales. For Justice and her sword see Deubner, Roscher's Lexicon, 'Personifikation', col. 2112. In consequence Camillus can retort with the very same argument— ferro, non auro (49. 3 n . ; cf. Festus 510 L.). (vae victis, as Festus shows, was proverbial. Both N and Ver. add an unwanted esse, probably by dittography. Rossbach would read victis. ecce, sed. . . '.) 49. 1. forte quadam: 1. 4. 4 n. 49. 2. negat: the spirit of legalistic quibbling is characteristic of Sullan annalists. T h e dictatorship was held to put all other magistracies into suspension. 49. 3 . iubet: notice the stirring tones in which Camillus is made to speak, ferro, non auro was evidently a famous saying for it is attributed by Ennius to Pyrrhus (Ann. 196 V.; see Momigliano, C.Q. 36 (1942), 113) and also used by Justin of the Aetolians (28. 2. 4) and Mithridates (38. 4. 8). For arma aptare sc. corpori cf. Virgil, Aeneid 2. 672, 11. 8 ; Seneca, Phaedra 5 3 3 ; Sil. Ital. 5. 131. In the same v e i n ^ w sit is used with a positive force 'it is a duty', rather than negatively 'it is permissible' (see Shackleton Bailey, 738

390 B.C.

5- 49- 3

Propertiana, 91 who cites Virgil, Aen. i. 7 7 ; Ovid, Fasti 1. 532) and ulcisci is used passively under the influence of the preceding passive infinitives (elsewhere only in Ennius, Trag. 147 V . ; Sallust, Jug. 3 1 . 8 (speech of Memmius); Val. Flacc. 4. 753). T h e total effect is intended to emphasize Camillus' stature. 49. 6. Gabina via: 22. 14. 11. If the battle is unhistorical, the choice of site may have been determined by a corruption of the Caeretan tradition which knew of a defeat of the Gauls in Sabinis (Sordi 148-9). ductu auspicioque: 3. 1. 4 n. nuntius: 4. 10. 5 ; Hirtius, B.G. 8. 21. 3 ; Cicero, de Imp. Cn. Pomp. 25. Cf. the rhetorical hyperbole so graphically employed in J o b 1. 49. 7. inconditos: 3. 29. 5 n. T h e praises bestowed on him are of interest in that they reflect the official compliments of the late Republic which became the honorific titles of the emperors (see Alfoldi's series of articles in Mus. Helv. 1952-4). Romulus, also applied to Cossus (4. 20. 2), recalls the ironic nicknames of Sulla, Cicero, and Caesar (Fordyce on Catullus 29. 5). parens patriae was first used loosely of Fabius Cunctator (Pliny, N.H. 22. 10) and formally of Cicero (in Pisonem 6 with Nisbet's note). Scipio Africanus may have been the first to be acclaimed a Second Founder but it is significant that Marius (Plutarch 27. 9) claims to be a Third Founder, thereby in­ dicating that the tradition which made Camillus conditor alter was already current (cf. Manilius 1. 784 f.). But clearly all these terms, although first applied to Camillus by the Sullan annalists, had an equal relevance for L.'s audience. Augustus was not hailed pater patriae until 2 B.C. but the title had been in the air long before (Horace, Odes 1.2. 50). Augustus was regarded as Father and Founder and Guardian (Syme, Roman Revolution, 520). Above all, he had toyed with the idea of taking the name Romulus and had only been dissuaded by the advice of his counsellors to abandon it in favour of Augustus (Dio 53. 16. 7). Thus although the tradition that Camillus was com­ plimented in these terms may well be older than L., a Roman reader of the 2o's would be bound to feel their contemporary force. See L. R. Taylor, C.R. 32 (1918), 158-61; G. M . Hirst, A.J.P. 47 (1926), 347-5749. 8. migrari: 51-54 n. 49. 9. relinqueret: 34. 51. 2, 35. 6. 4. remitto (Ver.) is not found in this phrase. 50. 2. /ana omnia: Mommsen argued that since not all the shrines were captured (e.g. the Capitoline temples, on the traditional account, were saved) L. could not have written 'because the enemy had oc­ cupied /ana omnia'. Hence he proposed quoad which has been generally accepted. But the implication of 49. 3 (in conspectu habentesfana deum) 739

5- 50. 2

390 B.C.

is that for rhetorical purposes Camillus regards the whole religious world of the Romans as in enemy hands. Furthermore quod is guaran­ teed by the succeeding sentences: cum Caeretibus hospitium pub lice fieret, quod . . . recepissent. . . ludi Capitolinifierent,quod Iuppiter . . . tutatus esset. T h e quod-clauses do not correspond to the technical quod. . . verba fecerunt of S. C. and, indeed, there is no trace of official language in this passage. It is therefore inappropriate to turn the verbs into a solemn tricolon. L. and Ver. have independently been guilty of separate omissions. Read restituerentur terminarentur expiarenturque. per duumviros: 13. 5 n. 50. 3 . hospitium'. a variant tradition (Aul. Gell. 16. 13; Strabo 5. 220; E (Aero) Horace, Epist. 1. 6. 62) named the reward which the Caeretans received on this occasion as civitos sine suffragio. T h a t status is, however, more probably a punishment imposed on Caere after her defeat in 353, as other sources say (7. 19. 6). For civitos sine suffragio, as an analysis of its character indicates (Badian, Foreign Clientelae, 15-20; but see Sordi 36-49), was a hurried expedient designed to remove the danger of an independent Caere without the necessity of destroying the city in the way that Veii had been destroyed. T h e former services of the Caeretans saved her from that. Hence a special category analogous to that of resident aliens (only permanent where the latter was temporary) was created and its members enrolled in so-called Tabulae Caeritum. They enjoyed the duties and privileges of Romans except for voting and holding office. T h e system enabled Rome to have direct control of Caere without being forced to a ruth­ less exercise of naked brutality. L.'s notice about hospitium, for which see 28. 5 n., is to be regarded as authentic. deum: deorum Ver., but deum is invariable where immortalium is added. 50. 4. ludi Capitolini: the origin of the games was evidently lost in obscurity since there are several distinct accounts—Tertullian (de Spect. 5) says they were founded by Romulus. T h e late Republican antiquarians, represented in Plutarch (QR. 5 3 ; cf. Romulus 25) and Festus (430 L.), attributed them to Camillus, as a celebration not of the deliverance of the Capitol but of the capture of Veii in 396 (hence Sardi venales). T h e real origin was, therefore, lost. T h e attribution to Romulus merely illustrated that the Romans regarded the games as primeval. Their attribution to Camillus is inspired by the concept of Camillus as Second Founder, and their connexion with Veii or the Capitol represents two separate lines of speculation, the one investigating the strange ceremony of the old man ('the king of Veii') led in procession, the other the name Capitolini. No confidence can, therefore, be placed in this notice (see Piganiol, Recherches, 80 ff.; Habel, R.E., Suppl. 5, 'Ludi Capitolini'; H u b a u x 299 ff.). 740

390 B.C.

5- 50. 4

T h e games were held on the Ides of October. T h e collegium Capitolinorum is attested in republican and imperial times (ad Q.F. 2. 5. 2 ; C.I.L. 14. 2105) when it was closely associated with the college of Mercuriales (2. 27. 5 n.). 50. 5. Aio: 32. 6 n. 50, 6. cellam 13. 19. 7, in the temple of Juppiter O . M . on the Capitol. Ver. reads quo re for in quae, probably by accidental omission of in (cf. 40. 10) and anticipation of the succeeding re-ferri. Its reading should not, therefore, be preferred to N's. 50. 7. iam ante: Ver. substitutes antea which is never found at the start of a sentence without a correlative nunc (1. 21. 2, 2. 4. 5). laudatio: 25. 8. Diodorus (14. 116) defines the honour paid to the matrons as the right i9 dpfxarcov oxeioOai—the honour which L. attributes to their earlier contribution for the dedication to Delphi for which service Plutarch (Camillus 8), on the other hand, gives laudationes as the reward. There is, then, no firm tradition and the explanations of the two customs are to be regarded as mere aetiological speculation. T h e right of Roman matrons to ride in carriages was of long standing and was variously explained (Ovid, Fasti 1. 617 ff.; Plutarch, QjR. 56 with Rose's note) whereas funeral panegyrics of women were of recent date. Cicero (de Orat. 2.44) says that Q.Lutatius Catulus (cos. 102) was the first to deliver one, so that L.'s source here must be subsequent to Lutatius. If the honour paid to the matrons was popularly supposed to be connected with voluntary contributions, a connexion perhaps invented for propaganda purposes in the Punic Wars (cf. 26. 36. 11) to stimulate donations, and if the annalistic tradition had unearthed two possible occasions for such generosity, it became necessary that rewards should be found for both. In this way a pedigree for the laudationes could be invented. See Vollmer, Jahrb.f. Klass. Phil., Suppl. 18 (1891), 453-9. It is to be noted that the chief festival of the matrons, the Matronalia, was celebrated on 1 March, while the withdrawal of the Gauls from Rome was tra­ ditionally dated to 1 February (Plutarch, Camillus 30). 50. 8. paratam: cf. Diodorus 14. 115 TTOXIV . . . Trpoa<j>ar<x)s v' iavrwv KaTC(TK€VaOfJ,€V7)V.

51-54. The Speech of Camillus T h e proposed removal of the capital from Rome to Veii raises interest­ ing questions. As are many other things associated with Camillus, it is reduplicated. In L. the proposal is raised after the sack of Veii (24. 5-11) and again now. Nothing helps us to decide when the tradition began. Its absence from Polybius need not be significant since he gives only the most attenuated account of the period. Even so, it is likely to be of recent origin. T h e proposal to send a colony to Veii 741

5- 51-54

390 B.C.

suggests Gracchus' proposal to recolonize Carthage (Junonia) in 122, so that the whole story may well have been unearthed as a dis­ couraging precedent by the opponents of Gracchus. T h e developed version, the proposal to transplant the entire population to Veii and the abandonment of Rome as the capital of the Roman world, should be seen against the background of the Social Wars. T h e Italian con­ federates claimed their city, Corfinium, as the capital of Italy and renamed it Italia (Sydenham nos. 617-28, see Syme, Roman Revolution, 359 ff.). Rome had to reassert her authority both by military action and by propaganda. She seconded her success in arms by the diligent dissemination of the idea that Rome had a destined position as caput return. The propaganda succeeded and the idea became conventional (Cicero, de Leg, Agr. 1. 18, 2. 86). In the minds of Romans of the late Republic the fortunes of Rome were associated with the continued existence of the city as the capital. Hence there was always a sinister undertone of rumour that the capital was to be transferred. We know of malicious gossip about Julius Caesar (Suetonius 79. 3). It was still a subject for joking in A.D. 64 after the Great Fire (Suetonius, Nero 3 9 ; see McGann, C.Q^. 7 (1957), 128 n. 1). In the light of this prevailing suspicion we may ask how far Camillus' speech expresses L.'s own opinions on contemporary affairs or how far it is a mere rhetorical elaboration of a theme already given by his source or how far it is what L. thought appropriate for Camillus in that predicament to say. T h a t much of it is derived from an earlier source is clear from the parallel speech in Plutarch {Camillus 31) where, however, it is addressed to the Senate (but cf. 50. 8 universo senatu prosequente). It is clear, too, that many of its sentiments are appropriate to the character of the pious Camillus (cf. 51. 5, 6, 9, 10). It does not, however, follow from this, as Fraenkel argues, that the arguments used by Camillus, even if conventional, were not sincerely held by L. himself. T h e speech is not a mere reworking of material already employed by Claudius Quadrigarius. It is L.'s own work, designed to form a tail-piece to the first five books. Its formal construc­ tion and its debt to Cicero (p. 743) are symptomatic of the advanced technique which L. could deploy. Its contents recapitulate the con­ tents of the whole book and highlight the great moments of the narrative which L, has already spread before us (e.g. 51. 1 = 46. 10, 5i- 6 = 15, 5 1 - 7 = 32- 6, 52. 3 = 46. 2, 52. 8 = 17. 2, 52. 10 = 23. 3, 52. 11 - 31. 3, 53. 9 = 44. 5, 54. 5 = 33). A few interesting dis­ crepancies of fact (52. 8 n., 16 n., 54. 5 n., 7 n.) prove that the speech was written by L. and deliberately placed at the end of the book both as a counterpoise to the speech of Claudius (5. 3-6) and as a con­ clusion to the whole volume. T h e message of the speech is simple. Not propaganda for the policies 742

390 B.C.

5- 51-54

of Augustus. L. was too young and too obscure. Not a personal con­ fession of a religious faith. L. shared the cultured caution of his con­ temporaries. But an appeal for peace, for the defence of civilization as he knew it with its tradition and ceremony, its custom and grandeur, for concord and, above all, for the preservation of Rome. Only in so far as Augustus shared the same aims can the speech be said to be Augustan in outlook or in sympathy (54. 7 n.),. In style it is consciously Ciceronian. In just such terms Cicero might have reflected upon Rome on his return from exile. This is not to say that L. has borrowed directly from Cicero but merely that he has been well schooled in the same discipline. I add below a list of phrases which have parallels in Cicero: For 51. 1-2 contentiones . . . dimicatio cf. ad Fam. 2. 6. 5 ; for 5 1 . 2 quoad vita suppetat cf. de Leg. Agr. 2. 100; for 5 1 . 8 tenarum orbi documento cf. Verr. 4. 82 ; for 51. 10 caeci avaritia cf. pro Quinctio 83; for 52. 1 ecquid sentitis cf. in Pis. 9 4 ; for e naufragiis emergentes (a common metaphor) cf. Or. Fr. B. 13. 6; for 52. $forsitan aliquis dicat cf. pro Sulla 84; for 52. 6 ne . . . generatim . . . percenseam cf. in Pis. 86; for 52. 8 quid. . . intersit cf. Verr. 5. 7 5 ; for 52. 9 recordamini cf. Phil. 2. 28, 5. 2, 13. 5 ; for 53. 1 res ipsa cogit cf. de Leg. Agr. 3. 10; for incendiis ruinisque cf. pro Sestio 121; for 53. 2 stante incolumi urbe cf. in Catil. 2. 2 ; for 53. 4 gloriosa posteris cf. post Red. in Sen. 25; for turpis . . . gloriosa cf. de Fin. 2. 97; for 53« 5 hoc necessitatis imposuisse cf. pro Sulla 35; for 53. 7 scelera . . . dedecora cf. in Pis. 32; foi 54. 3 natus educatusque (1. 29. 4) cf. Verr. 3. 60. Cf. also 51. 5 n., 52. 7 n., 54. 3 nn., 54. 6 n. M a n y of the arguments used are equally commonplace: in particular the comparison with the casa Romuli (53. 8 n.) and the concluding laudes Romae (54. 2-7). It is also significant to observe the clausulae which in this speech correspond more closely than elsewhere to the practice of Cicero. Cf. e.g. 52. 8 ff. See further the brief but thorough summary in Fraenkel, Horace, 268 n. 1 ; and, among other recent works, Burck 134-6; Klingner, Livius; Ullmann, La Technique des discours, 63-65; Altheim, History of Roman Religion, 4 2 0 - 2 ; Syme, Roman Revolution, 305; Hubaux 74-88; Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy, 31-32. 5 1 . 1-2. Prooemium: principium a nostra persona T h e trope of the consolations of exile is fully developed by Cicero in the Tusculan Disputations (5. 107 ff.; cf. also ad Fam. 4. 4. 4, 7. 3. 4). It was conventional to assert that no man could be in exile if he was a m o n g good men (de Fin. 5. 54). 5 1 . 1. contentiones: Ver. inserts h(a)e but cf. 4. 59. 5, 3. 67. 4. hae would have no reference. si miliens: a conjecture first made by Ruddiman's friend MacKenzie. 743

5-5i. i

390 B.C.

The readings of Ver. and N point to si mille senatus consultis (Otto) but the plural is awkwardly joined to the singular populi iussu and cannot be justified. For si milieus cf. Aug. c. Petil. 3. 11. 12 si milieus (similans codd.) tantum talia . . . dicat. 51. 2. perpulit: neither perculit nor pertulit is possible. Kardaraais: summa causae. 51. 3 . repetimus: the present, given by both Ver. and N, is logically preferable to Frobenius's repetiimus. The first clause is concerned with a continuing objective ('Why are we trying to win the city back?'), the second with a single specific action ('Why did we rescue her from the enemy's hands?'). homines Romani: for the unexpected addition of Romani cf. 1. 59. 9, 42. 19. 4. tenuerint: Ver. adds et habitaverint, N habitaverint. Elsewhere in L. habito is used transitively only in the passive (1. 30. i, 43. 13, 44. 5, 21. 30. 7, 24. 3. 2, 26. 16. 9, 27. 30. 3 ; cf. 5. 24. 8 n.) but there is no other proven case of a gloss common to Ver. and N, so that habitaverint is unlikely to be one here (see Du Rieu, De Gente Fabia, 457; Rossbach, Phil. Woch. 40 (1920), 701). Tractatio 1: (a) religiosum 51. 4. positae traditaeque per manus: per manus tradere 'to pass on from hand to hand' is proverbial; cf. Sallust, Jug. 63. 6; Cicero, ad Fam. 7. 5. 3 ; Seneca, Vit. Beat. 1 . 4 ; Quintilian 12. 4. 1 with Austin's note. For positae Ver. has the variant conditae, a much stronger word which is more effective in speaking of the simultaneous founding of the city and her cults (cf. Pliny, N.H. 28. 27 auguria condere). positae is a trivialization (cf. Cicero, de Leg. 2. 27; Tacitus, Hist. 5. 5). See also next note. evidens numen: the religious language is continued. The expression is found on inscriptions (C.I.L. 14. 44) and cf. Apuleius, Met. 11. 13. 21.

51. 5. intuemini. . . invenietis: a rhetorical turn, cf. Columella 3. 8. 1; Seneca, de Bene/. 3. 30. 2. prospera: Madvig and Pettersson retain N's prospere but the pair adversa-prospera is always exactly balanced (26. 37. 2, 28. 17. 8, 42. 15,

45.8.7). 51. 9. terra: the abl. not the dative (or locative) is found with celo; see Elsperger, Thes. Ling. Lat. s.v. 'celo', col. 768. 61-75. 51. 10. belli decus: 1. 42. 5 n. (b) pium 52. 1. monumental of actions, cf. 26. 41. 11, 37. 6. 6. ecquid sentitis: 3. 11. 12, 4. 3« 8. 744

390 B.C.

5- 52. 2

52. 2, inaugurate: 1. 6. 4 n. 52. 3. quam par vestrum factum est: so the manuscripts. There is no expressed antecedent for quod. . . conspectum est and an ellipse is barely tolerable (Pettersson compares 5. 19. 6, 26. 7, 6. 4. 5, but none is an exact parallel). Hence vestro (Gronovius; also Lallemand, Bayet), i.e. quam par vestro facto idfactum est, but in such comparisons it is the term which is to be unfavourably compared which is put in the nominative (28, 42. 20). 'Your action is hardly to be compared with the noble example of G. Fabius.' Gronovius proposed adding isti, Drakenborch followed by Reiz and Weissenborn ei, either before or after est, but the point would be made more forcefully and the corruption more readily explained by vestrum factum (illifacU)) est. sollemne . . . obiit: 'performed the rites', a religious term; cf Cicero, de Leg. 2. 19. 52. 6. in Iovis epulo: 13. 6 n.; Camillus lists all the age-old ceremonies which can only be performed in Rome itself, and which it would be sacrilege to abandon. The Fasti have the entry epulum Iovis twice, under 13 November, during the later ludiplebeii, and under 13 Septem­ ber, the foundation-date of the Capitoline temple, in the middle of the ludi Romani (27. 36. 9). The image of Juppiter was displayed and offerings of food laid on a couch (pulvinar) before it. The ceremony, being part of the Romanus ritus, is of the greatest antiquity, as its intimate association with the foundation of the Capitoline temple might suggest. See Wissowa, Religion, 120 ff. 52. 7. Vestae: 1. 20. 3 n. For the significance for the Augustan age of L.'s remarks about the aeterni ignes see Koch, Religio, 163-5. signo: the Palladium, a statue of an armed goddess, said to have been brought from Troy and to be preserved with other sacra in the shrine of the Vestals. About the antiquity of the tradition there can be no question, although there was much speculation as to how the statue reached Rome: according to some authors it was brought by Diomede (Cassius Hemina fr. 7 P.), according to others by Aeneas himself (D. H. 1. 69). These doubts, coupled with the cloak of secrecy which excluded everyone except the pontifex maximus and the Vestals from the shrine, led certain ancient scholars to deny the existence of the Palladium (D.H. 2. 66; Plutarch, Camillus 20) but it was an essen­ tial part of Rome's claim to her Trojan past, as it was with other cities (Argos, Athens, Sparta). It is possible that the actual cult-image which existed in the late Republic and which is illustrated on the coins of Galba (Mattingly-Sydenham 1. 206. 72) was a manufacture of Sullan times, sent from Troy by C. Flavius Fimbria after his success­ ful campaign against Mithridates in 85 (Servius, ad Aen. 2. 166; other texts in Greenidge and Clay, ed. Gray, 183-5). It would, how­ ever, be quite wrong to think that the Roman belief in the Palladium 745

5- 52. 7

3 9 0 B.C.

only dated from that period too. It was much older, but L. is being anachronistic when he calls the Palladium a pignus imperii (26. 27. 14; Servius, loc. cit. illic imperiumfore ubi et Palladium; Cicero, pro Scaur0 48). Varro had recognized seven pignora quae imperium Romanum tenent ([Servius], ad Aen. 7. 188; see K. Gross, Neue Deutsche Forschungen 1 ( T 935)J 3 2 ff"0 D U t t n e concept is not as old as Camillus. Like the legend of the Sabine cow (1. 45. 2 n.) or of Olenus, it belongs at the very earliest to the propaganda of the third century when Rome was waking to her international responsibilities. See Ziehen, R.E., Talladion'; Bomer, Rom und Troia, 61 ff.; Austin on Virg. Aen, 2. 163. ancilibus: 1. 20. 4 n. Mars . . .pater: 1. 20. 4 n. 52. 8. Laviniique: 1. 14. 2 n. religiosum: 13. 8. 52. 10. memores: i.e. recent actions of the Romans in introducing new cults as and when divinely prescribed might suggest that they had not lost their old religious faith. dedicata: applied metonymically to the goddess, rather than her temple. The usage, which is only here in L., is found in Cicero, de Domo n o and 136 and in Horace, Odes 1. 31. 1. 52. 12. sed ab: Ver.'s reading which gives the effective antithesis non voluntate . . . sed metu is to be preferred to N's si ab which would have to be understood 'if we were restrained from quitting Rome only by fear and by enemy action'. 52. 13. quid tandem: Seyffert and Hertz, regarding quid tandem as a self-contained question (54. 1; Cicero, Verr. 3. 180; de Domo 24) punctuated with a question-mark after tandem and took de sacerdotibus with the following sentence; but nonne must begin the new sentence and for quid tandem de cf. pro Sex. Roscio 118. noctem unam: is this a different prohibition from the familiar de lecto trinoctium continuum non decubat (Aul. Gell. 10. 15. 14; Plutarch, Q.R. 40; Tacitus, Annals 3. 71; see Wissowa, Religion, 505 n. 5) ? The editor responsible for the variant text in TTA (see the O.C.T. apparatus) evidently thought not, for he wrote ultra trinoctum unam for noctem unam. And he was right, for we know no other evidence for regulations about leaving thepomerium rather than leaving his bed. The whole taboo, as Filhol has recently demonstrated (Hommages a L. Herrmann, 359-68, with bibliography), stems from the religious significance of the perfect marriage between the flamen Dialis and his wife and is therefore the model for the most primitive and rigorous type of marriage (by usus) which could only be broken by an interruption which in the Twelve Tables became canonized in law as the rule trinoctium abesse. L. is either ignorant or simplifying. For the Flamen Dialis see 1. 20. 1.

746

390 B.C.

5- 52. 16

(c) legitimum 5 2 . 1 6 . curiata: even by Camillus' time the comitia curiata was probably circumscribed in function to the passing of the lex de imperio. See 46. 11 n. centuriata: the comitia centuriata was in origin the army on parade (1. 43. 1 nn.) and, therefore, met outside the pomerium (Aul. Gell. 15. 27. 4). Camillus' argument is therefore very weak if he is main­ taining that the city of Rome, which is the one place in which the assembly could not meet, is the only place where the Romans could properly have assemblies. Tractatio II: (a) necessarium Camillus now turns to the positive arguments for remaining in Rome. 53. 1. at enim . . .posse: preserved only by Ver. 53. 3 . vos: ' y ° u believe that even if the emigration was inadvisable then, it is inescapable now; I, on the contrary—and do not be sur­ prised till you understand my meaning—am convinced that even if it was right to consider going while Rome still stood, to abandon her ruins now would be grievously wrong'. incolumi [tota] urbe: Ver. omits tota rightly; cf. 3. 47. 2. (b) gloriosum 53. 8. casa: there were two straw huts with thatched roofs called casae Romuli, one on the south-west corner of the Palatine and one, referred to here, on the Capitol (Virgil, Aeneid 8. 654; D.H. 1. 79; Plutarch, Romulus 20; Dio 48. 43, 54. 29; Vitruvius 2. 1. 5; Seneca, Contr. 2. 1. 5); venerated relics of the old village communities, they were jealously preserved and were restored in the traditional style whenever damaged. Their great antiquity is shown by their resem­ blance to primitive hut-urns. The contrast between primitive simplicity as symbolized in the casa Romuli and decadent civilization was a rhetorical trope in vogue in the last years of the Republic and in the early Empire (cf. Seneca, loc. cit.) and the sentimental appeal to rustic virtues was an all-too-familiar theme (Cicero, de Rep. 2. 2 - 4 ; cf., e.g., Propertius 4. 1; Ovid, Fasti 1. 199 ff.; Virgil's Georgics of course appeals to the same spirit of escapism). See Platner-Ashby s.v. 'Casa Romuli'; A. Boethius, The Golden House of Nero, 15 ff. 53. 9. maiores: 2. 1. 4 n. silvas paludesque: the hills of Rome were wooded in prehistoric times and the intervening ground required the cloacae to drain it before it became habitable. But for the Romans this picture of woods and swamps was doubtless a mere inference from surviving names—e.g. 747

5- 53- 9

390 B.C.

the asylum inter duos lucos (1. 8. 5 n.) and the lucus Petelinus (6. 20. 11 ff.) or the Caprae palus (1. 16. 1 n.) and the Lacus Curtius (1. 13. 5 n.). Capitolioarce: the standard phrase (Wesenberg; see Fugner, Lexicon, 1345. 26-36). Capitolium arc(em)que is occasionally found (2. 49. 7, 6. 14. 4, 15. i i , 16. 2 ) ; Capitolium, arx never. (c) commodum et utile Camillus moves to his conclusion with a powerful eulogy of the natural advantages of the site of Rome. Such eulogies were a common feature of Greek rhetoric. In very similar terms Xenophon celebrates Athens (Vectigalia 1), praising her climate, her soil, her strategic position as a centre of trade whether by land or sea. T h e same points are made by Ephorus about Boeotia (Strabo 9. 400). L. might there­ fore have been expected to include such arguments here but his im­ mediate model is perhaps closer at hand. Much of Camillus' nostalgia echoes Cicero's laments (ad Fam. 2. 11. 1, 12. 2, 13. 3) and Cicero wrote in his de Republica (2. 5 ff.) an eloquent tribute to Rome's natural situation. So close are the resemblances in detail between Cicero's and Camillus' words that it is difficult not to believe that Cicero has directly inspired L. 54. 1. quid tandem?: introducing the new section. aut. . . -ve: 1. 18. 3 n. 54. 2 . matrem: 1. 56. 12 n. superficie: a variation of the commonplace ἄνδρες γὰρ πόλις. Cf. Tacitus, Hist. 1. 84. superficies is the structure as a whole and is merely further defined by tignis: they are not two separate building materials, cf. Dig. 41. 3. 23 cum aedes ex duabus rebus constant, ex solo et superficie. 54. 3 . equidem fatebor \ must be taken together and not separated as in the O . C . T . ; cf., e.g., Tacitus, Dial. 21. 1. It follows that a strong stop, a colon, must be put after iuvat. Camillus is prefacing his avowed nostalgia for Rome. *I will make a confession to you, although to do so involves painful memories.' H e then proceeds to qualify this by saying 'it is my intention merely to recall my own suffering and not to blame you for causing it'. T h e received text is lucidly vindicated against change by G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 45 (1955), 228. colles campique: cf. Sallust, Jugurtha 50. 6. macerent desiderio: cf. Afranius fr. 352 R. 5 4 . 4 . vicinum: the structure of the sentence is not immediately apparent. (1) colles, flumen introduce a list of advantages in apposition to locum and strictly governed by elegerunt, in which event the list will be continued by mare (so N) vicinum and regionem Italiae mediam (Madvig), and be rounded off with the restatement (locum elegerunt) ad incrementum urbis natum unice locum. Against this it must be urged that expositum should 748

390 B.C.

5- 54- 4

naturally qualify locum and not mare (cf. Cicero, Verr. i. 93 exposita ad praedandum Pamphylia; Mela 2. 76; Tacitus, Histories 1. 11. 3). (2) As in the O.C.T., saluberrimos . . . accipiantur is a parenthesis explaining locum, mart (Bauer, Alschefski) vicinum nee expositum agrees with locum, as also does regionum Italiae medium *a place close to the sea but not dangerously close, and situated in the middle of the regions of Italy'. Against this second interpretation it may be urged that regionum Italiae medium is not Latin (what are the regiones Italiae ?) and that the parenthesis is awkward and artificial: having started a list of advan­ tages we expect it to be continued, expositum may with equal pro­ priety be applied to mare (cf. Seneca, Dial. 12. 9. 7 in omnes tempestates exp. mari; Mela 3. 39) and for the force of medium cf. 10. 2. 15. O n balance, therefore, the first alternative is preferable. 54. 5. trecentensimus sexagensimus quintus: the number has mystical rather than chronological significance. Elsewhere L. mentions 360 (40. 1) and 400 years (45. 4) but both are only round numbers. Accord­ ing to the chronology used in 4. 7. 1 and the number of intervening magistrate years, the date ought to be 364, as was given by Varro and other chronographers (D.H. 1. 74; Pliny, N.H. 53. 16). Bayet (tome 5. 104-7) believes that L. has borrowed the figure of 365 from a separate work which gave a long chronology (245 years for the kings, 120 for the libera civitas) but in a rhetorical speech such chronological nicety is out of place. We know that in A.D. 398 a substantial body of opinion believed that a great cycle in the history of Rome was drawing to an end in the 365th year after the Crucifixion (Augustine, de Civ. Dei 18. 5 3 ; Claudian, Inv. c. Eutrop. 1. 1-7, 2. 1 ff.) and in their foreboding recalled Camillus (Claudian, Bellum Geticum 430 ff.; Elog. Stil. 2. 390 ff.). It is, then, likely that in dating the capture of Rome to A.U.G. 365, L. is here influenced by the superstitious concept of a magnus annus, the period that is m a d e up of as many years as a year is of days. Until Julius Caesar the R o m a n calendar recognized years of 355 (or with intercalation 377/8) days but the true length of the solar year of 365 days was certainly realized (Censorinus, de Die Natali 19) and only conservative prejudice prevented it being adopted for the calendar. T h e mystical number 365 was probably but not necessarily an innovation by L. himself. See H u b a u x 60-88. cum: 'yet not to speak of single enemies—not the united strength of the powerful townships of the Aequi and Volsci, not the combined might of the armies and navies of Etruria, whose vast domains occupy the breadth of Italy from sea to sea, has ever been a match for you in war' (de Selincourt). Conclusio: amplificatio 54. 6. quae, malum, ratio: H u b a u x comments that Camillus speaks 749

5- 54- ^

390 B.C.

'comme un bourgeois dans une comedie de Plaute', but malum with a question is a form of emphatic protestation familiar from Cicero and has nothing bourgeois about it. Cf, e.g., Scaur. 45 quae, malum, est ista ratio; Phil. 10. 18. expertis alia experiri: the sense is clear: 'Why do you want to try your luck elsewhere when you have had such good fortune here ?' A word is needed to balance alia and cannot be supplied from the context (Verdiere). haec (Clericus), ilia (Seyffert), ista (Novak) have all been proposed and supported but talia (Seyffert) both palaeographically and on grounds of sense is far superior. See also G. W. Williams, J.R.S. 45 (1955), 228. 54. 7. Capitolinum: 1. 55. 5 n. liberaretur: sc. from all religious encumbrances, such as evil associa­ tions. T h e term is technical, with a special legal flavour (cf. Cicero, Verr. 2. 76; Dig. 18. 1. 41), and in religious contexts is often linked with effari (cf. Cicero, de Har. Resp. 12 ; [Servius], ad Aen. 1. 446). For details see Weinstock, Mitt. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. (R. Abt.), 47 (1932), Iuventas: in 1. 55. 3-4 (n.) only Terminus is mentioned and in all the other early sources it is only Terminus who figures (Cato fr. 24 P . ; Servius, ad Aen. 9. 446; Ovid, Fasti 2. 6696°.; cf. also D.H. 3. 69; Lactantius, Inst. 1. 2 0 ; Augustine, de Civ. Dei 5. 21). T h e addition of Iuventas seems to have been an antiquarian conjecture by Varro (D.H. 3. 69) based on his observation that her shrine was within the cella of Minerva in the temple of Capitoline Juppiter. L. himself, rather than any source, is responsible for their joint inclusion here, because in the 20's Augustus, perhaps with one eye on the possibility of a new magnus annus due to end in 23 B.C., was concerned to develop the cult of Iuventas, which symbolized an optimistic faith in the new age to dawn. T h e festival of Iuventas was on 18 October, the day on which Augustus assumed the toga virilis (C.I.L. 10. 8375; cf. Res Gestae 19). T h e cult itself was old, although subsequently influenced by the Greek Hebe, particularly in the Second Punic War (a lectisternium for Hercules and Iuventas was held in 218 (21. 62. 9) and a temple in the Circus Maximus was vowed to her in 207 (36. 36. 5-6)). See Kroll, R.E., 'Iuventas'; Lambrechts, Ant. Class. 17 (1948), 355-71 ; Latte, Religionsgeschichte, 256 n. 1. di: the monosyllable, held back to the end and separated from its predicate by the intervening abl. abs., effectively epitomizes the spirit of the whole speech. 55. The Rebuilding of Rome T h e contradiction between the jumbled disorder which the city of Rome presented in the first century B.C. and the logical pattern de750

390 B.C.

5-55

manded by the augural lay-out traditionally ascribed to Romulus and inherent in the term Roma Quadrata as it was understood caused much perplexity. Rationally the Romans expected their city to be planned like a templum. Hence the legend, which L. omits, that Romulus' lituus was found in the ruins (Cicero, de Div. i. 30; Plutarch, Camillus 32). In fact they found chaos which they explained as the result of the haste with which the old city was rebuilt after the Gallic fire (Tacitus, Annals 15. 43), The explanation is almost certainly false. Axial town-planning was derived not from the Etruscan templum but from Greek theories and was introduced into Italy no earlier than the fifth century. The disorder so evident in Rome was the result not of haste but of unplanned, piecemeal development over centuries as in any Tuscan hill-town. Much of the city was burnt and much rebuilt. So much is clear archaeologically. A stratum of broken rooftiles with carbonized wood and clay has been identified in the Comitium area, where the old curia Hostilia stood, and can be dated to the beginning of the fourth century. To the same period must belong the cappellaccio pavement, which was laid over the Forum, and various cappellaccio runnels which lead from it. But the fire was not general and the work was one of repair rather than reconstruc­ tion. The tradition that Rome was burnt and rebuilt is in outline sound but it was used to account for two later phenomena. After the Pyrrhic Wars wooden tiling seems to have been forbidden in Rome because of the fire hazard from cinders (Pliny, jV*.//. 16. 36). The authorities may have subsidized the transition. In later times the state was known to have provided the roofing material for a private building (Dessau, I.L.S. 5588) and it is reasonable that it should have contributed to­ wards the cost of such an expensive change as that from shingle to tile. If so, it was natural to suppose that the state would also have helped on an earlier occasion when much of Rome had to be re-roofed. Secondly, the close resemblance of 55. 3 (n.) to the provisions laid down in colony laws indicates that here again a later institution has provided historians with an earlier precedent. The surviving examples of such laws date from post-Sullan times but the formulae for such documents are conventional and likely to be of long standing. The terms of Gracchus' law founding Junonia would not have been sub­ stantially different and there were doubtless even earlier models. It would be wrong to see specifically Sullan or Caesarian overtones here. See Jordan, Topographie, 1. 434 n. 5; Mommsen, Rom. Forschungen, 2. 330-2; van Deman, J.R.S. 12 (1922), 1—31; Castagnoli, Ippodamo di Mileto, 6 7 - 7 3 ; Blake, Ancient Roman Construction, 122 ff.; Boethius, Golden House of Nero, 33 ff. 751

390 B.C. 5- 55- i 55. 1. opportune emissa: missa Ver. but emittere vocem is standard, cf. 51. 7 et aL Ver. wrongly omits initial e at 3. 63^ 6. Hostilia: 1. 30. 2 n. It probably perished in the fire; see above. 5 5 . 2. accipere se omen: Plutarch, with a biographer's licence, attri­ butes the words not to a passing centurion but to Camillus himself. It was a form of divination to pick up a chance word or remark and to accept it in a sense other than that intended by the speaker who casually uttered it. Such remarks, in Greek /cA^So^e?, were held once accepted to be irrecoverable. See the discussion by Fraenkel on Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1653 and the examples collected by Riess, R.E., 'omen' and Pease on Cicero, de Div. 1. 103. 55. 3 . tegula: cf. Diod. 14. 116 S^/iooxa? KepafilSas ixoptfyovv at \i>*XPl rod vvv TToXiTiKal KOXQVVTCLL. An inscription from Sparta speaks of nXivOoi Sa/xdoxat (LG. 5 ( 1 ) 880), but allusions to tegulae publicae are lacking, materiae caedendae (21. 27. 5, 45. 29. 14) is also official language; cf. Cato, de Re Rust. 37. 5 ; Caesar, B.G. 3. 29. 1; B.C. 1. 36. 5 ; Ulpian, Dig. 19. 1. 17. 6. praedibus . . . perfecturos: for these terms cf. Lex Urson. 75 ( = LL.S. 6087; 44 B.C.) ne quis in oppido aedificium . . . disturbato nisi si praedes II vir{um) arbitratu dederit se reraedificaturum; LexMalac. 62 ( = LL.S. 6089); Lex Munic. Tarent. (= LL.S. 6086: after 87 B.C.). 55. 4. dirigendi: derigendi (Zingerle) is perhaps the better form for this meaning. Cf. the distinction drawn by Isidore, Diff. 1. 153 derigimus quae curva sunt, dirigimus cum aliquo tendimus. The facts are assembled by Dittmann, Thes. Ling. Lat.y *dirigo\ 55. 5. ut: hardly right, for causa ut is always used with a sense of purpose (6. 31. 7, 33. 1 . 5 ) : 'the reason for the delay was so that the enemy should be drawn into battle'. No purpose is intended here. Perizonius read quod; H a r a n t more simply perferred cur; cf. 7. 9. 2 and further references in Thes. Ling. Lat.y 'caussa', coll. 675-7.

CORRIGENDUM p. 83, line 22. For Romulus' read R e m u s '

752

INDEX I

PERSONS L. Accius, 218. P. Accoleius Lariscolus, 50, 182. M. Acutius, 646. Postumus Aebutius Cornicen (cos. 442 B . C ) , 549. L. Aebutius Helva (cos. 463 B.C.), 404. M. Aebutius Helva, 549. T, Aebutius Helva (cos. 499 B . C ) , 284, 286. P. Aelius (quaestor 409 B.C.), 616. Sex. Aelius Paetus, 449. L. Aelius Tubero, 16. Q. Aelius Tubero, 16-17. Q . Aelius Tubero (cos. 11 B . C ) , 16. Mam. Aemilius (mil. trib. 438 B . C ) , 557» 573» 588. C. Aemilius Mamercinus (mil. tr. 394 B . C ) , 686. L. Aemilius Mamercinus (mil. tr. 389 B . C ) , 697. M \ Aemilius Mamercinus (cos. 410 B . C ) , 614. M. Aemilius Mamercinus (mil. tr. 391 B . C ) , 697. Ti. Aemilius Mamercus (cos. 470 B.C.), 386. Aeneas, 33, 39-4°» 579» 6 2 8 , 671. Agamemnon, 579. Agrippa (Silvius), 45. M. Agrippa {aed. 33 B . C ) , 214. L. Albinius, 723, 724. L. Albinius Paterculus, 311, 313. Alexander Polyhistor, 44. L. Alienus, 448. Allodius, 660. Ambigatus, 708. Amulius, 660. Annii, 327. T. Annius, 327. Antalcidas, peace of, 629. Antenor, 36. L. Antestius Gragulus, 596. Ti. Antistius (tr. pi. 422 B . C ) , 596,

Ascanius, 42. M» Asellius (tr. pi. 422 B . C ) , 596. G. Asinius Pollio, 3. A. Aternius, 447-8, 521, 648. A. Atilius Galatinus (cos. 258 B . C ) , 103. L. Atilius Priscus (mil. tr. 399 B.a.), 654Atys Silvius, 44. Aucno, 703. Augustus, 2 ff., 563-4, 676, 680, 684, 739» 743» 750. Bellovesus, 709. Brennus, 719. Cacus, 55-58. Gaedicii, 370. L. Gaedicius, 370. M. Gaedicius, 698. Q . Gaedicius, 730. L. Galpurnius Piso (cos. 133 B . C ) , 125, 213.

G. Galvius Cicero, 448. G. Canuleius, 527 ff., 529. M. Canuleius (tr. pi. 420 B . C ) , 600. Capetus (Silvius), 44. Capys, 591. Gapys Silvius, 44, 591. Sp. Carvilius, 670, 698. Sp. Carvilius (tr. pi. 212 B.C), 698. Sp. Carvilius Maximus (cos. 234 B.C), 481. — Cassius, 219. L. Cassius Caeicianus (mon. c. 93 B . C ) , 278,343. Sp. Cassius Vecellinus, 277-8, 293, 294, 296, 3 ! 7-18 (treaty), 319 (treaty), 337-9, 343-5. Claudia gens, 273-4; relations with Valerii, 376-7; with Laetorii, 377. Claudius, emperor: his debt to Livy, 533» 537» 631. M. Claudius, 479. Ap. Claudius Caecus, 535. Ap. Claudius Crassus (mil. tr. 403 B . C ) , 607, 631, 634, 673, 738. Ap. Claudius Inregillensis (cos. 471 B.C.), 376, 476-89, 503-4. C. Claudius Inregillensis (cos. 460 B.C.), 423, 508. Q.Claudius Quadrigarius, 736, 738. Attius Glausus (Appius Claudius), 274,

600-1.

M. Antonius Greticus, 412. T. Antonius Merenda, 462. G. Apronius (tr. pi. 449 B . C ) , 496. L. Ap(p)uleius, 699. L. Apuleius Saturninus (tr. pi. 103 B . C ) , 699. Aquilii, 242, 243. C. Aquillius Gall us, 242. Aristodemus, 291, 321. 81443d

3

291. G

754

INDEX I

Cloelia, 267 ff.; ? statue of, 268. Gloclia gens, 123. Gracchus Cloelius, 439. Aequus Cluilius, 439, 548. Tullus Cluilius (Cloelius), 559. T. Cluilius Siculus (trib. mil. 444 B . C ) , 542. Cominia gens, 279. Pontius Cominius, 732. Postumius Cominius, 279, 327. Considia gens, 369. Q. Considius, 368-9. M \ Cordius Rufus (mon. 46 B.C.), 286. A. Cornelius (quaestor 459 B . C ) , 437. Cn. Cornelius Blasio (mon. c. 107 B . C ) , 253. A. Cornelius Cossus (cos. 428 B . C ) , 557 ff-, 563"4> 604A. Cornelius Cossus (cos. 413 B . C ) , 611, 617. Cn. Cornelius Cossus (mil. tr. 414 B . C ) , 617. Cn. Cornelius Cossus (mil. tr. 407 B.C.), 6 2 1 , 652.

P. Cornelius Cossus (mil. tr. 408 B . C ) , 617. P. Cornelius Cossus (mil. tr. 415 B.C.), 608,617. P. Cornelius Cossus (mil. tr. 395 B . C ) , 682, 686. L. Cornelius Maluginensis (cos. 459 B.C.), 433-4, 617, 618. M. Cornelius Maluginensis (decemvir 450 B . C ) , 462, 617. M. Cornelius Maluginensis (censor suff. ?393 B . C ) , 696. P. Cornelius Maluginensis (mil. tr. 397 B . C ) , 671,686,691. Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis (cos. 485 B.C.), 437. P. Cornelius Scipio (mag, eq. 396 B . C ) , 671, 686. P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (cos. 147 B . C ) , 555, 556. Curiatii, 109, 123, 450. C. Curiatius (tr. pi. 138 B.C.), 649. P. Curiatius (tr. pi. 401 B . C ) , 649. C. Curiatius Philo (cos. 445 B.C) , 528-9. P. Curiatius Trigeminus (cos. 453 B.C.), 4 5 0 .

M. Curtius, 76. Mettius Curtius, 76. C. Curtius Philo (?cos. 445 B.C.), 76, 529L. Decius (tr. pi. 415 B . C ) , 609. Deldo, 563. Demaratus, 141. Dibmede, 579. Dionysius I of Syracuse, 614, 629.

K. Duilius (?decemvir 450 B . C ) , 461. M. Duilius (tr. pi. 470 B . C ) , 382, 461. Cn. Duilius Longus (mil. tr. 399 B . C ) , 654Egerii, 154. Elitovius, 714. Evander, 52, 56, 59. Fabia gens, 294, 338, 346, 355, 359 ff., 451» 7'6, 730-1. Cn. Fabius Ambustus (mil. tr. 406 B . C ) , 621, 717. K. Fabius Ambustus (mil. tr. 404 B.C.), 624,717. M. Fabius Ambustus, 716. Q.Fabius Ambustus (mil. tr. 390 B . C ) , 717C. Fabius Dorsuo, 730 ff. Q . Fabius Pictor, 178, 716. Cn. Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 421 B . C ) , 597-8. K. Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 485 B . C ) , 362. Q . Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 467 B . C ) , 391-2,4"Q . Fabius Vibulanus (mil. tr. 416 B . C ) , 606, 610, 613. Faustulus, 49. Cn. Flavius, 535. M. Flavoleius, 355. M. Folius Flaccinator (mil. tr. 433 B . C ) , 573, 604, 726. Mettius Fufetius, 107, 117-20. C. Fulcinius, 559. Furius, also spelled Fusius, 398. M. Furius Camillus, 626, 630, 631, 672, 673, 678, 686, 693, 727-8, 732, 739 > Scipionic overtones, 670, 671, 677> 679; trial of, 698 ff. Agrippa Furius Fusus (cos. 446 B . C ) , 516. M. Furius Fusus (mil. tr. 403 B.C.), 631. Agrippa Furius Medullinus (mil. tr. 391 B . C ) , 697. L. Furius Medullinus (cos. 432 B . C ) , 5 8 1 , 600, 6 1 1 .

L. Furius Medullinus (cos. 413 B . C ) , 611, 652-3. P. Furius Medullinus (cos. 472), 401. Sp. (or L.) Furius Medullinus (mil. tr. 400 B . C ) , 652. C. Furius Pacilus (cos. 412 B.C.), 613. Q . Furius Pacilus (cos. 441 D.C), 494, 55 1 L. Furius Philus (cos. 136 B.C.), 674. Gegania gens, 123. M. Geganius Macerinus B.C.), 516.

(cos. 447

PERSONS Proculus Geganius Macerinus (cos. 440 B . C ) , 552. T. Geganius Macerinus (cos. 492 B . C ) , 256. Genucia gens, 369, 456-7. Cn. Genucius (tr. pi. 473 B . C ) , 372-3. T. Genucius (tr. pi. 476 B . C ) , 368-9. Cn. Genucius Augurinus (mil. tr. 399 B . C ) , 654. M. Genucius Augurinus (cos. 44 B . C ) , 528. Harpagus, 711. Heraclitus, 449. Heraclitus of Ephesus, 450. Ap. Herdonius, 423. Turnus Herdonius, 199-200. Lars Herminius (cos. 448 B . C ) , 515. T. Herminius Aquilinus, 259. Hermocrates, 450. Hermodorus, 449. Hersilia, 73. Himilco, 689. Hipparchus, son of Gharmus, 239. Hippolytus, 193. Horatia, 114 f. Horatius Codes, 258-9; statue, 260. P. Horatius, 109, 114, 116. M. Horatius Barbatus (cos. 449 B . C ) , 469. M. Horatius Pulvillus (cos. 509 B . C ) , 232, 253. M. Horatius Pulvillus (cos. 457 B C ) , 446. L. Hortensius (tr. pi. 422 B . C ) , 597, 601. L. Hortensius, 597. Hostus Hostilius, 77. 'lullus Hostilius, 105-6, 124. L. Icilius (tr. pi. 456 B.C.), 447. L. Icilius (tr. pi. 412 B . C ) , 613, 616. Sp. Icilius (tr. pi. 470 B . C ) , 383. Inuus, 53. Julia gens, 123. Proculus Julius, 84-85. C.Julius lullus (cos. 482 B . C ) , 350. C.Julius lullus (mil. tr. 408 B.C.), 617, 696. L. Julius lullus (mil. trib. 438 B . C ) , T 557« L.Julius lullus (mil. tr. 403 B . C ) , 631. L.Julius lullus (mil. tr. 401 B . C ) , 646. Vopiscus Julius lullus (?cos. 473 B . C ) , 371. C.Julius Mento (cos. 431 B . C ) , 575. Junia gens, 311. C.Junius (tr. pi. 423 B . C ) , 594. L. Junius Brutus, 216, 217, 232.

755

L.Junius Brutus (tr. pi. 493 B . C ) , 311. M. Junius Pennus, 329. C. Lacerius, 648. Laetoria gens, 303. C. Laetorius, 377. M. Laetorius, 303. Sp. Larcius, 229, 259. T. Larcius, 281-2. Acca Larentia, 47. 50. Latinia gens, 327. T. Latinius, 327. C. Licinius (tr. pi. 493 B . C ) , 311. P. Licinius (tr. pi. 493 B.C.), 311. P. Licinius Calvus (mil. tr. 400 B . C ) , 652, 660, 666. P. Licinius Calvus (mil. tr. 396 B.C.), 666 ff. M. Licinius Crassus, 277. M. Licinius Crassus (proconsul 29 B.C.), 563. C. Licinius Macer, 7-12, 543, 570. T. Livius, life, 1-5; personal comments, 2 4 5 J 322> 3 5 l ; attitude to pro­ digies, 404; attitude to religion, 406, 424, 431, 677, 743; attitude to war, 95, 743; ignorance of Greek, 708, 709, 713, 715; ignorance of law, 478; ignorance of senatorial pro­ cedure, 134, 379, 387, 471, 493; narrative technique, 295, 314-17, 334> 346, 36o> 388, 398, 4"> 413, 418, 443, 585, 720; use of digressions, 626, 700; imitation of Demosthenes, 517, 590, 650; use of psychological motivation, 243, 258, 388, 480, 509, 561, 718; interest in psychology, 295, 398, 463. Lucretia, 218 ff. P. Lucretius (?cos. 506 B . C ) , 271. L. Lucretius Flavus (cos. suff 393 B . C ) , 691. Hostus Lucretius Tricipitinus (cos. 429 B . C ) , 582. L. Lucretius Tricipitinus (cos. 462 B . C ) , 410. Sp. Lucretius Tricipitinus (cos. suff. 509 B . C ) , 228, 229, 232, 253, 254. L. Maecilius (tr. pi. 470 B . C ) , 382. Sp. Maecilius (tr. pi. 416 B . C ) , 606. Sp. Maelius, 550 ff, 555. Sp. Maelius (tr. pi. 436 B . C ) , 567. P. Maelius Capitolinus (mil. tr. 400 B . C ) , 652. Mamilia gens, ig8, 199, 270, 423. L. Mamilius, 427. Octavius Mamilius, 198, 286. Sex. Manilius, 491. C. Manlius, see A. Manlius Vulso.

756

INDEX I

A. Manlius Gapitolinus (mil. tr. 405 B.C.), 624. L. Manlius Gapitolinus (cos. 422 B.C.), 597M. Manlius Gapitolinus (cos. 434 B.C.), 571. M. Manlius Gapitolinus (cos. 392 B.C.), 694, 734. A. Manlius Torquatus (cos. 241), 94. T. Manlius Torquatus (cos. 235), 94. T. Manlius Imperiosus Torquatus (cos. 347 B.C.), 580. A. Manlius Vulso (cos. 474 B.C.), 371. M. Manlius Vulso (mil. tr. 420 B.C.), 600. P. Manlius Vulso (mil. tr. 400 B.C.), 652. Ancus Marcius, 125-6. M. Marcius, 126. Gn. Marcius Goriolanus, 314-16, 319, 331-2, 334, 336. G. Marcius Rutilus (cos. 357 B.C.), 126. M. Menenius (tr. pi. 410 B . C ) , 614. Agrippa Menenius Lanatus (cos. 503 B.C.), 275, 312 ff. Agrippa Menenius Lanatus (cos. 439 B.C.), 554. G. Menenius Lanatus (cos. 452 B.C.), 451L. Menenius Lanatus (cos. 440 B.C.), 552. M. Valerius Messalla Gorvinus, 229. M. Metilius (tr. pi. 416 B.C.), 606. M. Metilius (tr. pi. 401 B.C.), 649. M. Metilius (tr. pi. 217 B.C.), 606. Mezentius, 41, 628. M. Minucius (tr. pi. 401 B.C.), 649. G. Minucius Augurinus (mon. c. 140 B.C.), 556. L. Minucius Augurinus (praef. ann. 440 B . C ) , 256, 438, 441, 550, 556. P. Minucius Augurinus (cos. 492 B . C ) , 256. Q . Minucius Esquilinus (cos. 457 B.C.), 445. M. Minucius Rufus (diet. 217 B . C ) , 441, 649. G. Mucius (Gordus Scaevola), 262, 263, 266. G. Mucius Scaevola (xvvir s.f. 17 B . C ) , 262. Sp. Naevius Rutulus (mil. tr. 424 B . C ) , 589. Sp. Nautius, 559. G. Nautius Rutilus (cos. 411 B.C) 614. Sp. Nautius Rutilus (mil. tr. 404 B . C ) , 603, 624. Attus Navius, 150-1. Q.Navius, 151. Numa, see Pompilius.

L. Numitorius, 382. P. Numitorius, 484, 495. Onomarchus, 660. Oppia, 349. Oppia gens, 349,461. G. Oppius, 461. M. Oppius, 461, 491. Sp. Oppius, 461. Gn. Oppius Gornicinus, 462. Orgetorix, 504. Num. Otacilius, 598. Papiria gens, 147, 238, 615, 725. M. Papirius Atratinus (? cos. 411 B . C ) , 613-14,615. M. Papirius Grassus (cos. 441 B . C ) , 551L. Papirius Cursor (censor 393 B . C ) , 696. L. Papirius Mugillanus (? cos. sufF. 444 B.C.), 543. L. Papirius Mugillanus (cos. 427 B.C.), 5 8 4- . . M. Papirius Mugillanus (mil. tr. 418 B . C ) , 726. Q . Petilius Spurinus (praetor 181 B . C ) , 89-90. G. Papius (tr. pi. 65 B . C ) , 616. G. Papius (quaestor 409 B . C ) , 616. Pinarii, 60-61. L. Pinarius Mamercus (mil. trib. 432 B . C ) , 574. Poetelii, 461. ? Sex. Pollius (tr.pl. 420 B . C ) , 600-1. Polydamas, 579. Pompeius Trogus, 702. Sex. Pompeius Fostlus, 49. Numa Pompilius, 88-90, 98-99, 101, 102, 103.

? Sex. Pompilius

(tr. pi. 420 B . C ) ,

600-1.

M. Pomponius (tr. pi. 449 B . C ) , 496. Q . Pomponius, 691-2. M. Pomponius Atticus, 565. M. Pomponius Rufus (mil. tr. 399 B . C ) , 653. M. Pomponius Rufus, friend of G. Gracchus, 654. Ti. Pontificius, 352. Popilia gens, 653. M. Popillius Laenas (cos. 359 B . C ) , 653. L. Porcius Laeca (mon. c. 104 B . C ) , 373. Pars Porsenna, 255, 270. Posidonius, 701, 703, 707. Postumia, 600, 602. Postumia gens, 285, 290, 348, 594, 600, 609, 663. M. Postumius (mil. tr. 403 B . C ) , 631.

PERSONS A. Postumius Albinus (cos. 99 B.C.), 609. A. Postumius Albinus (mon. c. 96 B.C.), 286.

A. Postumius Albinus (mon. c. 79 B . C ) , 183. M. Postumius Albinus (mil. tr. 426 B.C.), 584, 632. M. Postumius Pyrgensis, 670. A. Postumius (Albus) Regillensis (cos. 496 B.C), 281-2. A. Postumius Regillensis (mil. tr. 397 B . C ) , 663. M. Postumius Regillensis (mil. tr. 414 B.C.), 609 ff. Sp. Postumius Regillensis (mil. tr. 394 B . C ) , 686. A. Postumius Tubertus (diet. 431 B . C ) , 572, 576, 579-80. P. Postumius Tubertus (cos. 505 B.C.), 272. Potitii, 60-61. Proca (Silvius), 45. Volero Publilius (tr. pi. 471 B.C.), 373 fr Volero Publilius Philo (mil. tr. 399 B.C.), 654. L. Publilius Vulscus (mil. tr. 400 B.C.), 652. ?Sp. Pullius (tr. pi. 422 B . C ) , 596, 600-1. — Pullius (tr. pi. 248 B.C), 601Pythagoras, alleged books of, 89, 91.

757

Sp. Rutilius Grassus (mil. tr. 417 B . C ) , 606. G. Scantinius Capitolinus, 502. P. Scaptius, 523. L. Scribonius Libo, 546. Segovesus, 709. Sempronia, 597. Sempronia gens, 289, 609. G. Sempronius Atratinus (cos. B . C ) , 592, 600 ff. L. Sempronius Atratinus (? cos. 444 B . C ) , 543. C. Sempronius Gracchus, 506, 602, 654, 742. Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, 555, 647. Ti. Sempronius Longus (cos.

423 suff. 591, 591, 218

B.C.), 592.

Sergia gens, 462. L. Sergius Fidenas (cos. 437 B . C ) , 560. L. Sergius Fidenas (mil. tr. 397 B . C ) , 663. M \ Sergius Fidenas (mil. tr. 404 B . C ) , 624, 649. M. Sergius Silus, 476. G. Servilius Ahala, 550-1, 555. C. Servilius (Structus) Ahala (cos. 427 B . C ) , 583, 603. G. Servilius Ahala (mil. tr. 408 B . C ) , 617, 646. Q. Servilius Fidenas (mil. tr. 402 B . C ) , 644. P. Servilius Priscus (cos. 463 B . C ) , Quinctii, 399-400, 594, 609. 404. Quinctilii, 123. Q.Servilius Priscus (cos. 468 B.C), 437. K. Quinctius, 416-18. Q. Servilius Priscus (diet. 435 B . C ) , T. Quinctius, 441. 568-9, 603, 604. T. Quinctius Capitolinus (cos. 446 Sp. Servilius Structus (cos. 476 B . C ) , B.C.), 516 ff., 543, 579. 367. L. Quinctius Gincinnatus (cos. suff. Servius. from Aquinum, 625. 460 B.C.), 417, 420, 428-9, 436, 441. Servius Romanus, 624. L. Quinctius Gincinnatus (mil. tr. 438 L. Servius Rufus, 625. B.C.), 581, 600. Sestius, also spelled Sextius, 451, 610. T. Quinctius Cincinnatus Capitolinus P. Sestius Capitolinus (cos. 452 B . C ) , (diet. 380 B . C ) , 444. 45 1 T. Quinctius Poenus (Gincinnatus) L. Sestius Quirinalis (cos. suff. 23 B.C.), (cos. 431 B . C ) , 575, 579, 581, 584. 724. M. Sextius (tr. pi. 414 B . C ) , 610. M'. Rabuleius, 462. P. Sextius (quaestor 414 B.C.), 610. Racilia, 442, 444. Siccia gens, 382. Remus, 46-47. Gn. Siccius, 382. T. Romilius, 447. L. Siccius Dentatus, 448, 475-6. Sicinia gens, 312, 337, 382. Romulus, 32-33, 46-47, 54> 84-85; C. Sicinius (tr. pi. 449 B . C ) , 496. Gamillus as second Romulus, 679. T. Sicinius (cos. 487 B.C), 337. Romulus (Silvius), 45. T. Sicinius (tr. pi. 395 B . C ) , 684. L. Roscius, 559. Rutilius, cognomen of Nautii, also spelt C. (or L.) Sicinius Velutus (tr. pi. 493 B . C ) , 311-12. Rutilus, 408.

758

INDEX I

Q,. Silius (quaestor 409 B.C.), 616. Silvii, Kings of Alba Longa, 43-45. A. Spuri . . . (mon. c. 130 B.C.), 596. ? T i . Spurillius (tr. pi. 422 B.C.), 596, 600. T. Statius, 370. P. Sulpicius Camerinus (? decemvir 451 B.C.), 415. Q . Sulpicius Camerinus (cos. 434 B.C.), 571, 604. Q,. Sulpicius Camerinus (mil. tr. 402 B.C.), 644. Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus (cos. 500 B.C.), 283. Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus (cos. 461 B.C.), 415. Ser. Sulpicius Camerinus (cos. sufF. 393 B.C.), 691. Q,. Sulpicius Longus (mil. tr. 390 B.C.), 717, 718, 735, 738. L. Servius Sulpicius Rufus (mon. c. 43 B.C.), 289.

1O4 fF. Sp. Tullius, 160. Ulysses, 579. Uqnus, 703. Valeria, 334. Valeria gens, 250, 321. Valerius Antias, 12-16, 402. M'. Valerius (? diet. 501 B.C.), 282. M. Valerius, 286. M. Valerius (cos. 505 B.C.), 272, 286, 408. M. Valerius (aug. 463 B.C.), 408. P. Valerius, 286. M'. Valerius Maximus (diet. 494 B.C.), 250, 3 ° 6 , 407M. Valerius Maximus (quaestor 45O B.C.), 438. M. Valerius Maximus (mil. tr. 398 B.C.), 658. M. Valerius Maximus Corvus (cos. 300 B.C.), 232.

Sex. Tampanius, 592-4, 596, 601. Tampii, 594. Tanaquil, 143, 144, 161, 209. Cn. Tar^unies Ruma^, 141, 230. Tarpeia, 74-75. Sp. Tarpeius (cos. 454 B.C.), 447-8, 515, 521, 648. Gaia Tarratia, 245. Tarquinia, 245. Tarquinia gens, 141. L. Tarquinius (mag. eq. 458 B.C.), 442. Sex. Tarquinius, 207, 209, 230, 288. Titus Tarquinius, 288. L. Tarquinius Collatinus, 232, 239, 254. L. Tarquinius Priscus, 145-6, 161, 187, 284, 702. L. Tarquinius Superbus, 187, 194 fF., 199, 204-5, 215, 247 fF., 280, 286-7, 291.

T. Tatius, 72, 81. Telegonus, 199, 285. C. Terentilius Harsa, 411-13. M. Terentius Varro, 6, 701, 750. Tiberinus (Silvius), 45. Timagenes, 3-4, 701-2, 707. Timasitheus, 660, 689, 690. M. Titinius (tr. pi. 449 B.C.), 496. L.TitiniusPansa(mil. tr. 400B.C.), 652. Lars Tolumnius, 558, 621. C. Trebatius Testa, 502. L. Trebonius, 516. Att(i)us Tullius, 326. (?) C. Tullius (cos. 482 B.C.), 350. M'. Tullius (cos. 500 B.C.), 283. Servius Tullius, 156-7. 159-60,680-1; constitution, 166 fF.; increase of Rome, 178-9; wall, 179; death,

C. Valerius Potitus (mil. tr. 415 B.C.), 608. L. Valerius Potitus (cos. 483 B.C.), 343, 401.

L. Valerius Potitus (cos. 449 B.C.), 46O. L. Valerius Potitus (mil. tr. 414 B.C.), 610, 689, 691, 694, 737. L. Valerius Publicola (mil. tr. 394 B.C.), 686. P. Valerius Publicola (cos. sufF. 509 B.C.), 224, 232, 241, 242, 250, 254,

271, 275; cognomen, 253. Verginia, 454, 476-8. Verginia gens, 290. A. Verginius (tr. pi. 461 B.C.), 419. L. (or D. or A.) Verginius, 479, 495. Opiter Verginius (cos. sufF. 473 B.C.), 37". T. Verginius Caelimontanus (cos. 448 B.C.), 515.

L. Verginius Tricostus (cos. 435 B.C.), 568. L. Verginius Tricostus (mil. tr. 402 B . C ) , 644, 649. Opiter Verginius Tricostus (cos. 502 B.C.), 277.

T. Verginius Tricostus (cos. 496 B . C ) , 305. Vetti Bolani, 609. Vettius Messius, 578. Veturia, 334. Mamurius Veturius, 98, 284. C. Veturius Cicurinus (cos. 455 B . C ) , 447, 456. M. Veturius Crassus (mil. tr. 399 B . C ) , 653.

PERSONS T. Veturius Gcminus (cos. 462 B.C.), 410, 456. C. Vetusius Cicurinus (cos. 499 B.C.), 284. Ap. Villius (tr. pi. 449 B.C.), 496. P. Villius Tappulus (cos. 199 B.C.), 496. Vindicius, 241 ff.

759 G. Viscellius (?) Ruga, 311. C. Visellius Aculeo, 242. Vitellia gens, 242, 243. Volumnia gens, 415. P. Volumnius Amintinus (cos. 461 B.C.), 415. Vulca, 213.

INDEX II

PLACES AND PEOPLES (Exclusive of Rome) Aborigines, 38. (H)adriaticum mare, 705. Aedui, 709-10. Aequi, 129-30, 336, 351, 390, 395-6, 397» 398, 425, 435, 436, 438, 439» 506, 509, 517, 521, 529, 548, 581-2, 589» 627. Aesis, R. 715. Aineia, 37-38. Alba Longa, 43, 120-2, 665. Albanus lacus, 660; emissarium, 658-9, 672. Algidus, 396, 407, 529, 614. Allia, R. 587, 702, 717 ff. Alps, Julian, 712; Cottian, 712, Ambarri, 710. Ameriola, 155. Antemna, 69. Antinum, 618. Antium, 318, 388, 404, 434, 435-6, 618. Anxur, 622, 641, 644, 651, 664. Apiolae, 148-9. Aquinum, 625. Ardea, 219, 220, 280, 439, 523, 543, 546, 695, 728. Aricia, 102, 182, 193, 200-1, 269, 280, 523, 703. Arretium, 620, 705. Arsia Silva, 248, 249. Artena, 615. Arverni, 707, 709. Athens, supposed embassy to, 449; relations with Sicily, 580, 614; plague, 394. Atria, 704. Aulerci, 710. Aurunci, 276. Avaricum, 715. Bastarnae, 563. Bituriges, 707. Bola, 331, 608. Boii, 715. Bovillae, 331. Brixia, 714. Caenina, 68. Gaeno, 388. Caere, 41, 216, 229, 234, 255, 269, 625, 627, 656, 661, 705, 723, 736, 740. Gameria, 155, 277, 283. Gapena, 440, 628, 630, 644, 682, 685.

Gapitulum, 331. Capua, 580, 591-2, 703. Carnutes, 710. Carthage, 580, 614, 674, 689, 711. Carventum, 614-15, 618, 621. Casuetani, 614. Celtae, 707; see also Gauls. Cenomani, 713. Girceii, 215, 331, 681, 682-3. Clusium, 234, 255, 627, 705, 699-700, 714. Gnidus, 689. Collatia, 154, 222. Golumen, 435. Cora, 276, 280, 627. Corbio, 287, 331, 332. Corfinium, 742. Gorioli, 319, 331, 523. Gorniculum, 154. Corsica, 711. Cortona, 705. Cremera, 359 ff., 630. Crustumerium, 68, 284-5. Cumae, 234, 255, 256, 269 ff., 291, 321, 37!» 502, 574» 580, 654, 689, 704. Cures, 79. Delphi, 458, 664-5; consultation by Tarquinius Superbus, 216; consulta­ tion in 398 B.C., 655, 660-1; offering by Romans, 689 ff.; supposed source of lectisterniciy 655.

Dicaearchia, 291. Ecetrae, 302, 331, 625. Eneti, 36. Ephesus, 181-2, 450. Ere turn, 440. Etruria, 255, 626 ff, 703 ff. Euganei, 35. Falerii, 628, 641, 644, 674, 685-6. Felsina, 703, 713. Ferentinae lucus, 200, 280, 329. Ferentinum, 613, 625. Feroniae lucus, see Lucus Feroniae. Ficana, 136. Ficulea, 155. Fidenae, 81, 119, 275, 284, 364, 559-60, 569-70, 582-3, 585, 600, 627. Gabii, 205-6, 209, 731.

PLACES AND Gauls, 627, 666, 697, 699 ff., 702, 704, 708-15, 716, 719, 720, 727, 728-9, 731* 736, 737Henna, 321, 502. Hercynei Saltus, 709. Hermunduli, 135-6. Hernici, 207, 280, 337, 339-40, 371, 388, 394, 400, 407» 5 r 7Illyria, 706. Inregillum, 274. Insubres, 713. Labici, 331, 333, 407, 439, 605-7, 608, 664. Laevi, 713, 714. Lanuvium, 283, 439. 578. Laurentes, 39. Laurolavinium, 39. Lavinium, 39, 240-1, 331. Leontini, 580. Libui, 714. Liguria, 714. Lingones, 715. Lipari, 660, 689 ff., 704. Longula, 318, 331. Lucus Feroniae, 124, 440. Malitiosa silva, 124. Mantua, 705. Massilia, 182, 660, 702, 711-12. Mediolanium, 712, 713. Medullia, 155. Melpum, 712. Mugilla, 331, 332. Nepi, 629, 630, 644, 672. Nomentum, 155, 586. Norba, 280, 322. Numicus, R., 41. Ortona, 350, 625. Ostia, 138, 139-40, 321, 582. Pedum, 331, 333. Perugia, 705. Phocaea, 711. Pisaurum, 736. Poeninum, 715. Politorium, 136. Polusca, 318-19, 331. (Suessa) Pometia, 164, 276, 280, 302. Populonia, 627, 705. Praeneste, 285, 359. Prisci Latini, 45. Raeti, 706.

PEOPLES

761

Regillum, 274, 663. Regillus 287; battle of, 281-2, 285 ff., 663. Rhegium, 580, 629. Rusellae, 705. Sal(l)ues, 711. Salluvii, 711. Salui, 711, 713, 714. Sapienates, 696. Sapis, R., 696. Sappinates, see Sapienates. Satricum, 331, 332, 681, 683. Saxa Rubra, 364. Scaptia, 523. Senones, 709, 715. Sequani, 710. Setia, 280, 331. Sicily, 321; state in 431 B.C., 580; state in 411 B.C., 614. Signia, 215, 280, 292. Sparta, 415, 723. Spina, 704. Tarentum, 724. Tarquinii, 234, 247-8, 269, 630, 656, 664, 704. Tarracina, see Anxur. Taurini, 712. Tellenae, 136. Tiber, R., 321, 587, 685, 695; floods, 608; prodigies, 653; see also descensio Tiberina in Index III. Tolerium, 283, 331, 333, 608. Tricastini, 710. Troia, 37. Tusculum, 198, 279-81, 288. 407, 423, 427, 578, 614-15. Umbri, 715. Urvinum Hortense, 597. Utens, R., 715. Vecilius, 489. Veii, 83, 234, 247-8, 351, 359 ff., 569-70, 582, 585, 589, 622, 625, 626-30, 632, 634, 637, 638, 640, 641, 642, 644, 645, 651, 659, 666, 669 ff., 672, 676, 678, 683, 685, 693, 705, 730, 741 ff. Velitrae, 308-9. Veneti, 35-36, 704, 706, 736. Verona, 714. Verrugo, 529, 617, 618, 621. Vetelia, 332. VetuIonia, 705. Vindelici, 706. Volaterrae, 705.

762

INDEX

Volsci, 204-5, 234, 257. 277, 280, 294, 308, 317, 318, 319, 336, 338, 390, 393~4> 396, 4°°> 438, 439> 5<>6, 509, 517, 521, 529, 546, 548, 592, 618, 622, 627, 651, 681 683.

II

Volsinii, 632, 674, 695. Voltumnae fanum, 353, 571, 624, 705. Volturnus, R., see Capua. Vulci, 630, 705.

INDEX

III

GENERAL {Including Roman topography) accensi, 170. addictio, 4 8 3 . A d m u r c i a e , 137. aediles, 406, 5 0 3 , 5 8 3 , 604. aequare libertatem, R e p u b l i c a n slogan, 448. A e q u i m a e l i u m , 536. aerarium, 5 2 1 , 6 1 6 . aerarium facere, 5 7 3 . aes equestre, 171, 6 4 3 . aes grave, 6 2 3 . aes hordearium, 172. 6 4 3 . aes rude, 6 2 3 . aes signatum, 6 2 3 . age for military service, 508. ager publicus, 340, 606, 607. a g r a r i a n laws, 338, 340. Aius Locutius, 6 9 8 , 7 4 1 . alter, m e a n i n g of, 4 5 5 . ampliatio, 602. ancilia, 100. A n n a l e s , 6 n. 1, 256, 529, 5 4 3 , 566, 574» 577, 6 2 9> 692, 6 9 5 ; m a t e r i a l from the A n n a l e s , 124, 177-8, 181, 248, 2 5 6 - 7 , 257, 2 7 1 , 275, 279, 282, 284, 285, 294, 302, 3 1 1 , 315, 316, 320, 3 2 1 , 325, 336, 347, 349» 350, 359, 367, 3 7 i , 3 8 1 , 3 8 3 , 387, 393, 394, 397, 398, 4 0 1 , 4 0 3 , 404, 405, 407, 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 , 415, 4 2 3 , 434, 436, 445, 446, 4 5 1 , 4 9 5 , 527, 542, 544, 552, 558, 572, 5 8 1 , 582, 5 8 3 , 584, 585, 589, 592, 602, 604, 605, 608, 6 1 3 , 616, 6 2 5 , 6 4 5 , 6 5 1 , 6 5 3 , 664, 682, 689, 690, 694, 697. annona, 256, 3 2 1 , 552. antistes, 184. Apollinare, 513. Apollo, 5 1 3 ; associated with L a t o n a , 6 5 6 ; t e m p l e , 574, 5 8 3 , 6 5 5 . Argei, 104, 258. armillae, 74, 75. a r m o u r , hoplite, i n t r o d u c e d , 167, 540, 576. A r t e m i s , t e m p l e of, at Ephesus, 181. aspersions on p a r e n t a g e , 161. Asylum, 6 2 - 6 3 . A t h e n a , cost of s t a t u e of, 212. A t r i u m libertatis, 546. audacia, as a political t e r m , 375. augurs, 408. auspices, 5 3 1 - 2 , 5 4 1 , 584.

auxilium, t r i b u n i c i a n , 300, 310, 350, 4 ' 7 , 505. A v e n t i n e , t h e , 136, 446, 489, 6 9 4 - 5 . bees, a p p a r i t i o n of, 586. bona Porsennae, 268. bona regia, 244. bos auratus, 5 5 6 - 7 . burial-customs, 178, 197; of trates, 7 2 5 . busla Gallica, 736, 737.

magis­

caedes civis indemnati, 506, 567. C a e l i a n , the, 122. Caeritum tabulae, 5 7 3 , 740. Caesar, possible allusions to, 454, 679-80. Calendar, 95-96. C a m e n a e , 102. camillus, 6 3 1 . campus, see M a r t i u s c a m p u s , T i b e r i n u s campus. C a p i t o l i u m , 2 1 1 - 1 2 , 720, 734, 736. C a p r a e Palus, 8 5 . career, 139, 506. carmen triumphale, 4 4 4 - 5 . C a r m e n t a , 59, 5 8 8 . Carmentalis, porta, 363-4, 588. carmina Marciana, 416. carriages, right of m a t r o n s to ride in, 741. Casa R o m u l i , 747. Castor, t e m p l e of, 286, 2 8 8 - 9 , 347 (title), 347 ( d a t e of d e d i c a t i o n ) . causa liberalis, 4 7 8 , 482. Celeres, 8 3 ; tribunus celerum, 228. censorship, 177, 5 4 5 , 5 7 0 ; suffect, 6 9 6 . census figures, 1 7 7 - 8 . centuriae, 171, 174; ni quis scivit, 1 7 3 ; primores a n d posteriores, 150; iuniores et seniores, 168; praerogativae, 6 6 7 - 8 ; see also comitia centuriata. Ceres, t e m p l e of, 256, 2 9 1 , 239, 3 1 1 , 321, 338-9, 342-4, 4 « 6 , 5°2, 503, 654. c c chronological p r o b l e m s , 4 5 5 , 5 6 5 - 6 , 6 2 9 , 749civitas, 5 2 7 - 8 . civitates sine suffragio, 740. classis, classes, 168 ff., 5 8 8 - 9 . C l a u d i a (tribe), 284, 292. dementia, 514.

764

INDEX

clientela, 4 7 9 - 8 0 . cloaca maxima, 2 1 4 ; cf. 747. Cluilia fossa, 107, 3 3 1 . C l u s t u m i n a (tribe), 284, 292. C o d e x Veronensis, inserts s at e n d of w o r d s , 4 1 0 ; inserts n, 4 7 9 ; inserts c, 4 2 2 ; inserts -que, 437, 6 9 5 , 7 3 0 ; omits et, 4 2 2 ; omits se, 4 9 1 , 5 1 1 , 7 2 5 ; omits initial e, 7 5 2 ; omits final m, 4 2 8 ; interpolates syllables, 4 6 7 ; shares n o glosses with N , 7 4 4 ; affects inflates, 5 5 3 , 616, 6 9 6 ; tele­ scopes, 410, 4 8 1 , 5 7 3 ; trivializes, 406, 480, 5 1 1 , 5 1 6 ; c o r r u p t s b y assimila­ tion, 4 8 4 ; w o r d - o r d e r , 419, 4 2 1 , 430, 437, 467> 475, 476, 5!o> 5*2, 516, 5 J 8 , 5 J 9> 554» 57<>> 572, 5 9 1 , 6 4 3 , 694, 6 9 7 , 729coercitio, 615. cognomina, 319, 560, 5 6 3 , 569, 6 1 5 . 6 6 3 . coinage, R o m a n , 6 2 3 . collegium mercatorum, 304. colonies, size of, 6 8 3 . comitia centuriata, 1 7 2 - 5 , 325, 3 8 1 , 497, 667, 6 9 8 , 733, 747. comitia curiata, 4 0 8 - 9 , 733, 747. comitia tributa, 310, 3 8 1 , 3 8 5 - 6 , 497, 667, 6 9 2 ; quasi-comitia of a m i n o r i t y of tribes, 6 0 4 . C o m i t i u m , 151, 482. commentarii, 2 3 1 , 535. conclamatio, 594, C o n c o r d i a , 346. condicionem quaerere, 484. conditor alter, as title, 739. coniuratio, 362. consecratio bonorum, 3 4 3 , 500. consilium domesticum, 328. consilium . . . virtus, 5 1 1 . Consualia, 6 6 , 724. consulship, 2 3 0 - 1 , 5 1 8 - 1 9 , 527. conubium, 4 5 3 , 477, 5 2 7 - 8 , 537. co-option of tribunes, 514. corona aurea, 444, 558. corona Etrusca, 2 7 3 . cuniculi, 570, 628, 659, 672. C u r i a Hostilia, 123. curiae: R o m u l u s ' creation of, 80; ceremonies, 117; powers, 4 0 8 - 9 . curio maximus, 6 0 8 - 9 . C u r t i u s Lacus, 7 5 - 7 6 , 79. C y p r i u s vicus, 192. d a t e of e n t r y into office, 4 0 4 - 5 , 410. Decernvirate, the, 412, 449 fF., 4 5 1 - 4 , 4 5 5 , 456, 5 2 1 ; second D e c e m v i r a t e , 461 ff., 477, 499. decemviri stlitibus iudicandis, 5 0 1 . decimation, 385. d e d i c a t i o n , of temples, 254.

III

deditio, 153-4, 6 8 8 . deprecatio, 326. descensio Tiberina, 152, 587. desertion, military, 579. deversoria, 202. devotio, 674, 725. di manes, 429. di parentes, see Penates. di praesdies, 406. D i a n a Nemorensis, 182, 193, 200, 6 5 7 . D i a n a , o n A v e n t i n e , 1 8 1 - 3 , 440, 450. D i a n i u m , 193. dice, a n c i e n t g a m e s w i t h , 5 5 9 - 6 0 . dictatorship, 281 fF., 309, 576, 728, 738. dies Alliensis, 360, 717. dies Cremerensis, 366. Diespiter, 112. Dioscuri, 286, 287, 2 8 8 - 9 . Dius Fidius, 103. doliola, 7 2 3 - 4 . duplicarii, 384. iiviri aedi dedicandae, 348. iiviriperduellionis, 114, 3 2 3 - 6 , 339, 3 4 4 .. 5, 369, 370. iiviri sacris faciundis, 655. earthquakes, 415. economic depression at R o m e after 500 B.C., 2 9 3 - 4 , 4 9 7 - 8 , 572. Egeria, 102. e m p i r e , a n c i e n t a t t i t u d e to, 6 8 8 - 9 . E q u i r r i a , 587. equites, 152; n u m b e r of, 6 4 2 ; dis­ m o u n t e d , 286, 288, 5 9 2 ; a t Veii, 6 4 3 ; census equester, 642. ergastula, 299. Esquiline, the, 179. evocatio, 674 FT., 6 7 7 . exile, consolations of, 7 4 3 . exoratio, 674. fabula, m e a n i n g of, 675. falsus testis, 326. familia, 344. fasces, 62, 2 3 5 - 6 , 2 5 1 , 2 8 1 , 374, 4 6 3 - 4 . F a u n u s , see Silvanus. Feriae L a t i n a e , 125, 665. fetiales, 110-12, 127 fF., 440, 584. Ficus, see N a v i a , F i c u s ; R u m i n a l i s , Ficus. fidem Quiritium implorare. 300, Fides, 103. fines, 369, 4 4 8 , 582, 692, 699. flamen Dialis, 724, 746. flamen Quirinalis, 722, 724. flamines, 97, 722. F l a m i n i a , P r a t a , 497. F l a m i n i u s , Circus, 497. formula census, 546. fortuna c o n t r a s t e d with virtus, 708.

GENERAL For tuna inforo Boario, 680. Fortuna Muliebris, 336. Fossa, see Cluilia fossa; Quiritium fossa. fur manifestos, 486. fustuarium, 640. Gabinus cinctus, 731. gaesatae, 716. geese, 734. gentes, plebian and Etruscan, 293, 310; maiores and minores, 147-8, 236; sacra, 532. Graecus ritus, 583, 655. Greek: episodes adapted from Greek mythology and history: Alba Longa, 118, 120-1. Ancus Marcius, 127, 146, Asylum, 62-63. Bellovesus, 707. Camenae, 103. Consualia, 66. Coriolanus, 315, 326, 334. Corioli, 320. Cremera, 359 ff. Decemvirate, 453, 457. Demaratus, 141. Evander, 52. Falerii, 688-9. Hercules and Cacus, 55. Horatii and Curiatii, 112. M. Horatius, 254. L.Junius Brutus, 218. Lucretia, 219, 221. Agr. Menenius, 312. C. Mucius, 262. Numa, 89, 103. Numitor, 47. Pallor and Pavor, 118. Rome, capture of, 684, 720, 726. Romulus, 46, 53, 64, 84. Tanaquil, 144. Tarpeia, 74-75. Sex. Tarquinius, 195, 205. L. Tarquinius Collatinus, 239. L. Tarquinius Priscus, 143, 151, 161, 162-3. L. Tarquinius Superbus, 195, 197, 212, 216, 217.

Thalassio, 69. Lars Tolumnius, 560. Servius Tullius, 186, 194, 197. P. Valerius Publicola, 250. Veii and Troy, 589,620,628,637,663. Virbius, 193-4. battle of Regillus, 286 ff., 289. battle of 509 B.C., 250. battle of 495 B.C., 302. battle of 480 B.C., 354.

765

battle of 431 B.C., 579. battle of 394 B.C., 690. see also 276, 405. haruspices, 661. heads, oracular, 211. hens, introduced in fourth century B.C., 734. Hercules, 656-7, 7 1 0 - n ; at Ara Maxima, 55-56, 656; associated with Ceres, 656; Invictus, 656; Magnus Custos, 656. hiberna, 633. hie, corruption of h.d., 644. hoplite-warfare, 576. Horatia pila, 116. Horatiorum sepulcra, 113. hospitium, 690, 740. house-construction, ancient, 162. hunting as military training, 639. imperator, as title, 679. imperium, 87, 230-1, 235, 541, 563-4* 611, 615, 636, 725, 733, 735; in­ finitum, 412-13; surrender of, 194; abrogation of, 228-9, 239. in ius vocatio, 481. instauratio, 327. interregnum, 87, 409-10, 471, 599, 611. Ionian confederacy, 705. iudicium populi, 325-6, 386. iugum, 439, 444. iustae nuptiae, 537. iustitium, 397. Janiculum, the, 137. Janus, 132, 364, 731. Janus Curiatius, 117. Janus Geminus, 93-94. Janus Quirinus, 131-2. Juno, 674. Juno Caelestis, 674. Juno Curitis, 674. Juno Matuta, 681. Juno Moneta, 544-5. Juno Regina, 426, 628, 674, 694-5. Juno Sororia, 117. Juppiter, as oak-god, 439. Juppiter Dapalis, 655. Juppiter Elicius, 101, 700. Juppiter Epulo, 655, 745. Juppiter Feretrius, 70-73, 565. Juppiter Latiaris, 280, 665. Juppiter Optimus Maximus, 213, 654, 738> 740, 750; dedication, 253, 745. Juppiter Pistor, 736. Juppiter Stator, 75, 78. Juventas, 750. κληδόνες, 752.

766

INDEX

land, amount of allocated to settlers, 605, 683, 693. Latin league, 280, 285, 317, 399-400, 732. Latona, 656. laudationes, 387, 734. law: episodes constructed to illustrate the provisions of Roman law, 82, 83, 118, 278, 388 (bis), 402, 522, 578, 587, 605, 622, 624. lectisternium, 655, 657. lex: data, 449; rogata, 449; sacrata, 313H , 575Lex annalis, 432. Lex Aternia Tarpeia, 448, 499, 582. Lex de ambitu (432 B.C.)} 574.

Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex Lex

Hortensia (287 B.C.), 498. Ogulnia, 531. Papiria Julia (430 B.C.), 582. Porcia, 373. Publilia, 381. Publilia (339 B . C ) , 498. Trebonia, 514, 647. Valeria (de provocatione 509 B.C.),

252.

Lex Valeria (300 B.C.), 499. Lex Valeria Horatia (de provocatione 449 B.C.), 499. Lex Valeria Horatia (de sacrosanctitate 449 B . C ) , 500. Lex Valeria Horatia (de plebiscitis 499

B.C), 49°-9libertas, 233, 235,641. librifatales, 658. libri linteiy 544. 55*> 552, 565, 589, 603, 606, 613-14, 631. libri magistratuum, 543, 565. libri Sibyllini, see Sibylline books. lictors, 374. litterae laureatae, 691. lituus, 92, 751. Luceres, 81; see tribes. lucumones, 142, 705. ludi Capitolini, 149, 740. ludi magni, 149, 327. ludiplebeii, 149, 552. ludus Troiae, 587. Lupercalia, 51, 731. lupi, a Roman slogan, 516. lustrum condere, 177. magister equitum, 281. magister populi, 281. malaria, 321 ff., 395, 659. mancipatio, 296-7. manes, 508-9; see also di manes. manumission vindicta, 241-2, 246-7. manus iniectio, 297, 481. marriage, Roman, 547. Mars: Nerio Martis, 74.

III

Mars Gradivus, 99. Martius Campus, 244-5, 364. Mater Matuta, 680. Matralia, 680. Melian dialogue in Thucydides, 8-896. Mercury, 303, 656. migrations, reasons for, 700, 708. militia legitima, 362. Minucia porticus, 550. moderatio, 514, 516, 526-7. modes tia, 514, 526. Mucia prata, 266. Mugionia, porta, 77. Naevia, porta, 262. navalia, 442. Navia, ficus, 151. Neptune, 656. nexum, 294, 296-8, 303. Nicomachean edition of Livy: marginal notes, 473, 549, 585; -que interpo­ lated, 365, 647. nomen and cognomen inverted, 570. nomen and praenomen inverted, 391. Nynipharurn aedes, 546. obituary notices, 320. optimates and populares. 470. ovatio, 277. p. or p =proprium nomen, 208, 270, 458, 528-9. paedagogi, 687. Palatine, the 52. Pan, 52. Palladium, 745. TrapaKehevots, commonplaces in, 510. parens patriae, as title, 739. parricidium, 114, 325-6, 344-5, 437, 598. pater patratus, 111. patres conscripti, 236. patria potestas, 547, 693. patriam servare, 671. patricians, 385-6, 451-2, 536 co-op­ tion) ; see also gentes maiores. pay, military, 622, 637, 643-4, 653. peculatus, 326, 347, 698. Penates, 40, 427, 723-4; and diparentes 228; and Dioscuri, 288, 723. perduellio, 114-15,323~6> 339, 344~5> 6 39plebiscita, 497-9. plebs, 293-4, 310, 366, 449, 45!-3> 497-8; see also tribunate, secession. pomerium, 179, 747. pontifex maximus, 237, 494, 724, 745; election of, 604. pontifices, 100-1, 138, 254, 535, 684. populus, used as equivalent of plebs, 612. portoria, 258.

767

GENERAL praeda, 346-7; disposal of, 414, 588. praefectus annonae, 552. praefectus urbis, 229, 411. praeire, 567-8. praeiudicium, 472. praetor maximus, 231. princeps civitatis, 392. proconsul, 399. prodigies, public and private, 217, 248, 349,403,415. provinces, allocation of, 395. provocation 252, 282, 300, 373, 432, 499. Publilia (tribe), 653. Pudicitia Plebeia, 487. Puteal Libonis, 482. quaestiones, procedure in, 595, 602; origin of, 611-12; Manilia, 612; Postumiana, 611-12. quaestores, 252, 323-6, 329, 344-5, 437, 598, 616, 698. Quietis, fanum, 595. Quinctra prata, 442. Quirinal, the, 178, 364, 730. Quirinus, 73, 84, 132, 724; aedes, 568; Hora Quirini, 73. Qui rites, 79. Quiritium fossa, 139. Ramnes, 80; see tribes. regia, 216. rerum repetition 127, 130. rex sacrorum, 237-8. right-hand, burnt for perjury, 262. Rome, earliest settlement, 31-32: Etruscan, 140-1; Roma quadrata, 751; sacked by Gauls, 719-20, 751; rebuilt, 751; eternal, 536, 745; Romae laudes, 748; disease at, 394-5; prophecies of fall, 520, 662, 679, 749; see also 'economic depression'. rostra, 378. Ruminalis, ficus, 49. sacer, 500, 501, 502. Sacer Mons, 489. sacra, 532, 723, 745 f. sacramentum, consular, 226; military, 355.362,431,636. sacrosanctity, 500, 615. Salii, 98-99, 167-8. Salinae, 730. salt-trade, 138, 257, 359. sanguinea hasta, 135. Sapinia (tribe), 696. Saturn, 290. Saturnalia, 657. Scaptia (tribe), 523. Sceleratus Vicus, 194. schools at Rome, 480-1, 687.

sea-power, Etruscan, 704. sea-power, Roman, 640. secession of the plebs: first, 309 ff., 447; second, 447, 489, 495~ 6 sedes piorum, 330. sella curulis, 62, 308. Semo Sancus, 103, 209. Senate: under Romulus, 63-64; under Tarquinius Priscus, 148; in Re­ public, 236-7; competence, 198, 475, 57 6 , 584» 612; procedure, 134, 200, 300, 305, 468, 471; meetingplace, 568; frequens senatus, 605. Senatus consultum ultimum, 399. sententiae, commonplace, illustrated, 108, 159, 187, 188, 190, 225, 243, 254,

3 O 6 > 333,

335.

35^,

380,

39 2 ,

393, 493, 505? 5 2 «, 5 2 2 , 524, 534» 553, 579, 592, 620, 621, 633, 637, 649-50, 662, 688, 718, 738, 748; used to introduce episodes, 239, 592, 718, sex suffragia, 150-1, 171, 667. sexagenarii de ponte, 552. Sibylline books, 416, 574, 654-5, 661. silence, psychological use of, 486. Silvanus, 248, 250. slaves, attitude to masters, 635-6; earliest at Rome, 677. snake portents, 216. Sol, 680. Spes, temple of, 367. spolia opima, 71-73, 556, 564. squalor reorum, 386. statues, earliest at Rome, 559, 596-7. stipulatio, 297, 485. stratagems: episodes constructed to illustrate stratagems, 143, 144-5, 153, 241, 250, 254, 296-8, 373-4, 416-17, 477-8, 486, 494, 506, 547-8. strena, 735. sub pellibus habere, 633. Sublicius pons, 137-8, 258, 364. suovetaurilia, 177. supplicationes, 512-13, 679. sword, as emblem of justice. 738. Tabernae Novae, 487. Tarentum, 248. Tarpeian, the, 210, 733, 735. templum, 92, 378, 751. tensae, 726. Terminus, temple of, 2 1 0 - n , 750. tessera hospitalis, 560, 690. T(h)alassio, 69. Thalassocracics, 704 n. 1. Tiberina Insula, 245, 364. Tiberinus Campus, 245. tigillum sororium, 117. Tities, 80; see tribes. toga picta, 725-6.

768

I N D E X III

toga praetexta, 62. torches, women armed with, 586. trabea, 164. Transvectio equorum, 347-8, 587 n. 2.

trees, prophetic, 248; telling to, 439. tribes, 176, 292-3,604; under Romulus, 80; under Servius, 175; see also Claudia, Glustumina, Publilia, Scaptia, Tromentina, Voturia. tribu movere, 573. tribunal, 482. tribunate, 294, 309 ff., 325, 353, 366, 373» 446, 465> 494» 699; co-option, 5*4* 55 J> 647; veto, 539, 599tribunate, consular, 539 ff, 544, 584, 623, 631, 645, 691. tribunus celerum, 83. trinundinum, 459, 588. triumph, 273, 679. iiiviri a.d.a., 393. iiiviri coloniae deducendae, 549, 583. Tromentina (tribe), 693. tumultus, 604. Tuscae historiae, 703. Tuscus vicuSy 269-70. twelve Etruscan cities, league of, 705.

Twelve Tables, 449-50, 452-3, 477, 481, 486, 499, 501; 506, 507, 521, 527, 582, 598. Urbius Glivus, 193. vacationes, 577. vadimonium, 416 ff., 421. Velia, 250, 251. Venus Gloacina, 487. Venus Equatris, 268. Vertumnus, 674. Vesta, 730; temple, 724, 745. Vestal Virgins, 97-98, 722-4, 745. Vica Pota, 251-2. vicarius, 669. Villa Publica, 570. vindicatio in libertatem, 483. vindicatio in servitutem, 482. Virbius, 193. vis armata, 225. vitium, 665. Volcanalia, 153. Voturia (tribe), 284. war, ancient attitude to, 688. winter-quarters, 633. wool-making, symbolism of, 222.

INDEX IV

SYNTAX AND STYLE Carmen style, 101, i n , 112, 115, 124, ne . . . nee = ne . . . neve, 537. 403, 415-16, 660, 664. nee/ . . . aut . . . neque = necj . . . aut. . . Military style, 302, 354, 389, 443, 682, aut, 301. 687. non modo = non modo non, 535. Prayer style, 426, 669, 675, 677. perfect subjunctive (archaic), 93. potest^ quasi-impersonal, with act. inf., atque resumptive, 636. 435Glausulae, 21 n. 1, 264, 335, 389, 414, proxima with gen., 320. quamvis with indicative, 335. 485, 714, 7I9'. -que after a short vowel, 320. coepisse with passive inf., 292, 666. quoque, position of, 246, 516, 595, 620. egredior with ace. 507. repetition, sacral, 60, 78; unconscious, -ere and -erunt, 507, 638. 82. et closing an enumeration of more than ring construction, 72, 246, 261, 619. two members, 596. singular generic, in apposition to plural, future passive infinitive, 60, 517. future perfect (archaic), 112. 735. hie resumptive, 332; connective, 528. sine with subjunctive, 334. hyperbaton, 58, 162, 459, 666. sub with ace. and abl., 374. introductions: type forte . . . turn . . . tricolon with copula between second erai, 109, 243, 319, 327, 418, 686; and third members, 393. type lucus erat . . . quo . . . eum lucum, ut aut . . . aut uty 303. 103. -ve: expressing principal disjunction, is resumptive, 708. 91; expressing subordinate disjunc­ ne with imperative, 396. tion, 30.

814439

3D

INDEX V

LATIN ad arma, 424. adaeque, 599. adclarare, 9 3 . adeste . . . adeste, 3 7 5 . aequo Marte, 337. agitate aures, 389. alienigenae, 416. amoliri, 6 7 8 . apisci, 534arae focique, 692. arma viri, 334. at enimvero, 6 4 5 . at saltem, 78. augere caelestium numerum, 60. augustus, 60. aurora prima, 5 8 . foflf locatus, 348. 00720 ammo m £ , 163. bonum, faustum, felixque, 88. cadit ira, 335. cadit spes, 249. cadunt animi, 389. cedere nocti, 509. Celticum, 707. ciere bellum, 719. ciere pugnam, 77. clamor et concursus, 191. coemptionalis senis, 524. cognominis, 713. commilitones, 375. compar, 67. compos patriae, 131. compos praeda, 5 2 2 - 3 . comprimere, 4 8 . condicere, 133. conficere, 522. confodire, 522. consciscere, 134. consentire ( = adsentiri), 134. convallis, 78. corio, satisfieri de, 322. cottidie magis, 420. crastino die, 377. cratera, 689. culpa, 4 8 . curare corpora, 397. cuspis, 562. damnare voti, 6 8 4 . dare impetum, 287. decus . . . praesidium, 165-6. defigere with a b l . , 113.

defluere, 288. dehinc, 226. delenimentum, 612. deme terrorem, 78. demortuus, 6 9 7 . deorum benignitate, virtute militum, describere, discribere, 165. dicta dedit, 510. dicto audiens esse, 163, 636. discedite, 379. ductu et auspicio, 392. dum . . . ne, 4 3 3 .

ng.

effrenus, 587. egens, 249. ergo ego, 335egregia stirpe, 116. evidens, 744. e x c i t u s somno, 5 8 . expetere, 107. exposcere pacem, 409. expugnare, 224. exsequi, 226. exsignare, 101. exsudare, 553. facesse hinc, 190. fas (as a n invocation), 130. fatiloquus, 6 0 . fecisse videri, 3 7 3 . felix (of the d e a d ) , 509. felix arfor, 682. FERRO, IGNI, quacumque vi possim, 227. ferro via facienda est, 579. fidem sequi, 306. forsan, 486. fortes bellatores, 6 7 3 . fortes et felices, 3 6 3 . fremitus, 389. fulgent gladii, 113. fundere etfugare, 307. gerere rem gladiis, 307. globus, 357. gravare, 57. hodieque = etiam hodie, 6 3 8 . hodierna luce, 86. hosticus, 707. iam satis, 512. imaginarius, 4 7 4 . imperitare, n o . imus, infimus, 184.

LATIN incensus or infensus ira, 208. incertus animi, 58. increpare, 113. indidem, 687. indiges, 42. infensus and infestusy 357, 548. infit, 108. infortunium, 202. ingerere, 389. ingruere, 675. inopinatus and necopinatus, 440. inter tela volantia, 78. intermiscere, 617. interpres deum, 60. intonare, 487. intutus, 730. ius fasque, 41. lacrimae obortae, 224. liberi (of a single child), 479. lucescere, 578. matte, 265. malum, 610. meliusest,474. meminisse horret animus, 329. metari, 72. miris modis, 221. molesbelli,278. moles mali, 718. morem gerere, 512. multa caedes, 579. multi mortales, 68. mults saepe, 419. ne = nae, 646. ne nunc = nedum nunc, 493. -ne ut, 532-3. nectitur dolus, 53-54. nedum u/, 422. nimio plus, 329. numen movere, 210. ob, 735occidione occidere, 368. operae est, 662. operae pretium est audirey 441. ordines ducere, 375. os praebere, 591. otiumterere,221. pace loquor, 430. pernox, 690. perstringit horror, 113. popule (vocative), i n . praeceps in volnus abire, 356. praeda, 302. praesens, 78. praestare, 377. pro deumfidem,518.

procedit, 352. proceres, 357. prognatus, 160. proloqui, 533. prosecare, 676. pudet deorum hominumque, 430. purus, 134. qua . . . qua, 323. -que et, 168. quid ita, 341. quid si non, 537-8. quisque = quisquis, 109-10. quod— quoad, 93. quin = qui-ne (with indicative), quomodo di volunt, 159. rapere exta, 676. rara acies, 357. redire ad se, 163. regiones, 92. reportare for referre, 406. resupinare, 562. Romane, cave, 664. salve parens, 86. satinsalve,224. scirelicet,158. sequius est, 329. si dis placety 534. si sciensfallo,355, sisemel,673. siris, 131. somnis, in, 328. sonitus flammae, 727. sordere, 575. sospitare, 86. spoliari et virgas expediri, 375. strenuus et fortis, 485, 535. sublimis abire, 144. sublimem rapere, 86. sublustris, 735. suggillari, 590. tantisper, 26. terra marique, 94. terriculay 646. tetricus, 91. turbatores belli, 274. tuta omnia, 223. ufcwa (pass.), 739. unatenore,348. uf adsolet, 664. ut fere fit, 188. «f quando, 663. B*(i) (introducing a prayer), 93. vacuum . . . facere} 188.

772 vadere, 58. velitis iubeatis, 187. veridicusy 60. vestigia, 224. victoria dari, 663. videlicet, 237.

INDEX V vi viamfaciunt, 594. viden, videsne, 158. vinctus somno, 729. vir, 224. wcare in partem praedae, 675. volens propitius, 86.

INDEX VI

A U T H O R S AND PASSAGES (a) Literary A n o n . , de Viris Illustribus 14. 6 : 366. A p p i a n , B.C. 1. 2 1 : 514. Asconius, in Mil. 31-32 C l a r k : 4 1 8 . Caesar, B.G. 1. 1. 1: 707. L . C a l p u r n i u s Piso, fr. 25 P . : 657. C a t o fr. 58 P . : 280. Cicero: pro Balbo 3 2 : 714. 5 3 : 320. de Domo 1: 385. 1 2 3 - 5 : 343Phil. 9. 4 - 5 : 5 5 8 - 9 . Tusc. Disp. 3. 8 1 : 6 3 5 . de Rep. 2. 4 0 : 170. 2. 6 0 : 338. ad Fam. 9. 2 1 . 2 : 546. ad Q.F. 1. 1 . 4 : 162. L. Cincius A l i m e n t u s : ap. Festus 276 L . : 3 9 9 - 4 0 0 . ap. A u l . Gell. 16. 4 . 1: 135. Q . C l a u d i u s Q u a d r i g a r i u s ap. A u l . Gell. 9. 1 3 : 3 2 3 . D i o d o r u s Siculus: n . 6 8 . 7 : 309. n . 6 8 . 8 : 382. 11. 88. 1: 4 3 8 . 12. 2 3 . 1: 456. 12. 3 1 . 1: 580. 12. 76. 4 : 580. 14. 97. 1: 6 8 6 . 14. 102: 6 9 3 . 14. 117: 736. Dionysius of H a l i c a r n a s s u s : 3. 29. 7 : 122, 606. 3- 5 6 : 1534. 3 0 : 189. 4. 4 5 . 4 : 2 0 1 . 4. 7 1 : 227. 5. 6 1 : 280, 322. 6. 9 5 : 3176. 9 2 : 320. 7. 6 8 : 328. 8. I 4 ~ 3 6 : 3 3 1 8. 8 9 . 4 : 349. 8. 9 1 . 1: 350. 9- 2 : 350. 9. 6 9 . 2 : 4 1 1 . 10. 2. 4 : 416. 10. 26. 2 : 350. 11. 16. 4 : 472. 12. 9 : 6 5 7 .

E n n i u s 196 V . : 738. E ~ p i c u r u s , K. A. 3 3 : 6 8 8 . Festus: 160 L . : 166 L . : 180 L . : 208 L . : 216 L . : 380 L . : 426 L . : 500 L . :

296, 317 339, 476, 28 680, 535, 696,

H o m e r , Iliad: 3. 15 ff.: 286. 4. 220 ff.: 357. 11. 252 ff.: 579. 15- 1-2: 357Horace: Odes, 3. 30. 8 - 9 : 520. Sat. 1. 2.^37: 352. Epist. 1. 5. 4 - 6 : 580.

Justin: 20. 52. 4 - 8 : 702. 24. 4 : 702. Livy: 7 - 5 - 9 : 540. 10. 22. 1: 3 9 1 . 10. 37. 14: 278. 2 1 . 26. 3 : 7 1 1 . 22. 1. 2 0 : 290. 22. 6. 3 : 562. 24. 5- 5 : 4 6 3 26. 4 8 . 14: 444. 27. 11. 2 : 139. 29. 2. n : 3 9 1 . 30. 1. 9 : 3 9 1 . 30. 10. 12: 3 6 1 . 32. 17. 8 : 307. 33. 8. 6 : 184. 33. 37. 6 : 714. Lucretius: 1. 2 8 9 : 466. 3. 4 5 1 - 4 : 6 6 8 . Ovid: Amores 3. 14: 225. Fasti 2. 200 ff.: 363 ff. 2. 2 2 3 - 4 : 365. 2. 8 1 1 : 223. Pausanias, 10. 16. 7 : 689

774 Petronius: Sat. 124: 587. Eleg. 28: 486. Plato: Phaedo 60 b: 637. Laws 952 e: 639: Plautus: Amph. 212 ff.: 389. 258-9: 154. Rudens 631: 329. 1269 ff.: I33-4Pliny, N.H.: 18. 15: 556. 33. 45: 172. 34. 13: 698. Polybius: 2. 17.4: 713.

INDEX

VI

Terence: Heaut. 281-4: 222. Phormio 231-3: 119. Theocritus, Idyll. 15. 28-29: 188. Thucydides: 1. 13. 6: 711. 2. 7. 2: 580. 6. 104. 2: 712. Timagenes F 2 Jacoby: 710, 711, 712. Valerius Antias ap. Pliny, N.H. 28. 15: 211.

Valerius Maximus: 5-8. 2:339. 9 - 9 - 3 : 559Varro, de Ling. Lat.: 5. 81: 541. 5-83: 39 1 6. 7: 218.

3. 22. 11: 318.

Pomponius, Dig. 1. 2. 2. 4: 507.

7. 2 : 218.

Sallust, Hist. 3. 48 M.: 8. Seneca, de Bene/. 2. 18. 6: 341. Serenus Sammonicus, ap. Macrobius, 3. 9. 6: 674-5. Tacitus, Annals, 14. 30. 1: 586. (*) C.I.L.: i 2 . i>P- 55 : 6 o 1 p. 231: 588. i 2 . 2. 1: 211.

14.3236: 731. Dessau, I.L.S.: 129: 210. 4318:210.

7-8:92. 7. 105: 296. Virgil, Aeneid: 2. 241 ff: 675. 2. 486 ff.: 120. 8. 72-73: 260. 9. 186 ff: 263. 9. 590 ff: 354.

1-literary Oscan Law of Bantia: 176. £ . £ / / . 3 5 ( 1 9 1 1 ) , 149:689. B.G.U. 611: 386. Notiz. Scaviy 1928, 392: 658. Studi e Materiali, 30 (1959), logff.: 289. Studi Etruscki, 21 (1950), 147 ff.: 704. Weege, Vase. Camp. Inscr. Ital. 22: 591.

TITI LIVI: AB VRBE

0/ R. s. CONWAY and Books VI-X. Edited 0/ c. F. WALTERS a Books XXI-XXV. Edited 0/ c. F. WALTE

I. Books I-V. Edited

H. Ill.

IV. Books XXVI-XXX. Edited'by s.

K. JOHN

V. Books XXXI-XXXV. Bdited by

A. H. MC

THE GEOGRAPHIC BA

OF GREEK AND ROMA By

M. CAR Y

FOREIGN CLIENTELAE By

E. BADIAN

THE ROMAN REVO By

SIR RON ALD S

GAIUS: A BIOGR By

A. M. HONOR

OXFORD UNIVER