You are on page 1of 15

Notes on a New List of Roman Senators

Author(s): E. Badian
Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 55 (1984), pp. 101-113
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20184017 .
Accessed: 12/09/2013 09:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
101
NOTES ON A NEW LIST OF ROMAN SENATORS"*"
The
publication
of a new and much more
complete
text of the SC de
2
Aphrodisiensibus
in
Joyce Reynolds's Aphrodisias
and Rome
(London 1982)
has
added so much to the
fragmentary
list of
(now)
more than
twenty
senators who
scribendo
adfuerunt
that we
may regard
it as
practically
a new list. Miss
Reynolds's
careful
publication
deserves our
gratitude,
and students of Roman
prosopography
of the
period
will no doubt be
working on,
and
with,
this list
for a
long
time. This note aims at
giving
some
preliminary
comments on some
of the
names,
after an
important preliminary warning. Only
names where I have
something
to add to the discussion in the book will be mentioned. Miss
Reynolds,
in her
commentary
on the
names,
has numbered
them,
but not
repeated
the line numbers.
(See pp. 67-72.)
I shall use her
numbers, but,
for the sake
of
convenience,
add the line numbers
according
to her
transcription.
Unfor
tunately
two different characters have
accidentally
been numbered 12. I shall
assign
them the numbers 12a
(C
Hedius
Thorus)
and 12b
(L.
?
Capito),
so as
to be able to retain the rest of the numbers.
First,
the
preliminary warning.
It must be noted that the
drawing
in
serted between
pp.
54 and 55 is not
up
to the standard of the editor's dis
cussion. It
is,
in
fact,
so
misleading
that one cannot
help wondering,
at
times,
whether the artist consulted a
photo
or
squeeze
while
doing
it. What
we are
particularly
concerned with here is the
beginnings
of the
surviving
fragments
of the lines
containing
the list: the left
edge
of the
top frag
ment on the
drawing.
This is rendered in so
arbitrary
a fashion that in dis
cussing
the names whose
parts
are lost in the
gap
at the
beginning
of the
lines the
drawing ought simply
to be
ignored. Fortunately,
Plate XIII offers
good photos
of the
right
of the
top
course of the actual stone and of a
squeeze
of what stood to the left of this. The
squeeze,
like
many squeezes,
deteriorates round the
edges,
but both it and the
photo
seem to be of excel
lent
quality, certainly good enough
to control the fanciful
drawing.
(Indi
vidual differences will be mentioned where
they
matter
here.)
1.
My
thanks are due to the
generous hospitality
of the German Archaeo
logical
Institute in
Berlin,
at whose G?stehaus this was written as a
parergon
of a short
stay;
to Professor Dr. Walter
Eder,
for
ready help
with
books;
and to Professor T.P.
Wiseman,
for
checking
the final draft and
pre
serving
me from some errors and infelicities. (He
bears no
responsibility,
of
course,
for those which
remain.)
2. Document
8, pp. 54-91,
with Plates XIII and XIV
(for
the
part
here
treated).
The illustrations are of
unusually good quality.
For the
physical
facts
regarding
the
text, Reynolds's
careful
introductory
discussion should
be consulted.
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102
E. Badi?n
Obviously,
no akribeia should be claimed for
suggestions
based on these
aids,
whatever their
quality.
But the
suggestions
are nonetheless worth
making,
to be checked
(in
due
course)
by
those with access to the stone.
Next,
a
general point
about how to
approach
the
beginning
of these
lines when
trying
to restore the names. The obvious
step
seems to be to take
names of which the
supplement
is certain and work back from them to those
largely conjectural. Now,
it will be seen that the
only
name that
may
be
regarded
as certain is that of C Hedius Thorus: as
Reynolds points out,
it
is assured
by
the SC de Panamareis
(RDGE 27),
where it survives
undamaged.
At the end of a
line,
in a document of this
sort,
one can never be sure how
close to the
right edge
the mason
stopped,
since there is not
necessarily
an
even
margin (see, e.g.,
line
8).
But at the
beginning
of a line we must
assume that a
proper margin
would be observed and that the mason would
align
the first letters as best he could. Of
course,
there are known cases of a
vacat at the
beginning
of a line for no discernible reason. But
they
are
very few,
and it is never
proper
method to assume one in the one
line,
out
of a
large number,
that can be
confidently
restored
?
not unless there is
evidence
making
such an
assumption inescapable.
(There
is none at all
here.)
Hence the name of C Hedius Thorus
provides
a firm
starting-point
for
supple
menting
the other names
partly
lost in the
gap.
Reynolds,
of course, correctly
restores his
name,
but
then, oddly,
remarks that this
gives
rather a short line
compared
with the others she has
restored (to be
precise,
since the total
length
of line is not relevant:
rather a short
supplement
at the
beginning
of line
9, compared
with her
others).
But the answer is
surely
that the other
supplements
must be reduced
to fit in with this
one,
within the limits of
permissible irregularity
on
this stone. That the first line was
clearly
laid out
quite differently
on
the left
(and, strictly speaking,
we do not know what
?
or how much
?
to
restore in lines 2 and
3)
does not affect the list of
witnesses,
which is
consistent within itself and should be treated as
having
been
engraved
with
a
regular margin.
Comments on individual names follow.
7
(lines 6-7): Whether (as
Reynolds suggests) Syme
hinted at
identifying
this man with L.
Sergius,
the associate of Catiline (Cic.
dorn.
13f.),
as a
L.
Sergius
Plautus is
debatable, though
it does not matter much.
Syme very
properly
stressed
(Roman Papers
I
286)
that there is no evidence for the
Sergii
Plauti of
Imperial
times as
early
as
this,
and that the man in our
text should
not,
at
any rate,
be identified with the
corrupt
senatorial
juror Plautus,
mentioned
by
Cicero in another context. Nor
may
the
juror
be
identified with Catiline's
associate,
since
among
all the crimes of which
Cicero accuses
Sergius
there is not a word about
judicial corruption.
Thus
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes on a New List of Roman Senators
103
there is no reason to
assign upper-class
status to Catiline's mob
leader,
taken over
by
P. Clodius.
Similarly,
his associate M. Lollius is
presumably
not a
member,
but a
freedman,
of the senatorial Lollii. These men are accused
of
leading
attacks on the Senate from
outside,
and
they belong
with the likes
of the
doubly
infamous Sex. Cloelius and of
Q.
Sextilius.
Sergius
should
obviously
be
regarded
as a freedman of
Catiline,
as he is
by
M?nzer
(RE,
s.
v.
15).
Hence the henchman of Catiline and Clodius should not be
rashly
identi
fied with the senator in this text.
Admittedly,
at this one
period
of Roman
history,
servile birth would not
necessarily
have been an absolute bar to
his
obtaining
that
status,
if he had made himself useful to
powerful
friends.
In that
case,
it could be assumed that he had
arrogated
an aristocratic
cognomen
?
an action
which,
even before the Civil
Wars,
was
apparently
not
4
regarded
as
utterly
inconceivable. But it would nonetheless be
safer,
unless
powerful
evidence to the
contrary
should turn
up,
to
regard
this man as a
character not
previously
known to
us,
even
though
a
praetor
in the fifties.
That
is, alas,
far from
impossible.
We know
remarkably
few of the
praetors
of that
(by
the standards of the Roman
Republic) very
well documented
period,
and almost
every major
new document
proves
our
ignorance
of senators of the
age
of Caesar and Cicero
(there
are several new names on this
list),
and of
the careers of those we do know.
That this man is a
Sergius
Plautus
should, however,
not be
seriously
doubted. There is
simply
no other
likely
name that will fit. M. Serrius
M.f.,
of
Sherk,
RDGE
12,
line
41,
should be mentioned for the sake of
completeness,
but in view of the difference in
praenomina
is
presumably
irrelevant. How
ever,
that he cannot be L.f. (as
Reynolds conjectures)
seems
clear,
and it
is
only
the
inaccuracy
of the
drawing
that conceals it. In the
drawing,
the
letter
0,
at the
beginning
of Plautus' tribe
Falerna,
in line
7,
is
aligned
with the first letter
(K)
of C Hedius Thorus* tribe Claudia,
two lines
below;
even
so, the filiation L.f. can
hardly
be accommodated. Plate XIII
shows that the O is in fact
pretty
well
aligned
with the
preceding
letter
?
the final S of YIOS in Thorus1 filiation
?
so that we must deduct one
moderate-sized
letter-space
from what the
drawing
shows for the filiation of
Plautus. It will at once be seen that
only
a short
praenomen (Aulus, Gaius,
Titus)
can be considered.
3. Sex. Cloelius is notorious not
only
for the
part
he
played
in
poli
tical
terrorism,
but because of his
prolonged
and
persistent disguise
as
'Sex. Clodius1 in modern
scholarship.
(On
the
persistence,
see D.R. Shackle
ton
Bailey,
who had first revealed his true
name,
in Ciceroniana n.s. 1
(1973) 23ff.)
On
Q. Sextilius,
on the other side in
political terrorism,
see
AJPh 101
(1981)
107: in his
case,
unlike that of L.
Sergius,
M?nzer failed
to
recognise
the man's class.
4.
See, e.g.,
Cicero's
charges
(whether
true or
not)
against
two of his
enemies,
Aelius
Ligus
and Sex. Atilius Serranus (Sest.
69 and 72).
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104
E. Badi?n
As
Reynolds carefully points out,
a C
Sergius
Plautus
has,
in
fact,
long
been known. He
appears
as
praetor
in 200 B.C.
(RE,
s.v.
36)
in texts of
Livy, though
the tradition is
apparently
not unanimous on the form of the
name: it is said to
appear
in this form in
31,4,4,
but to have been restored
by
emendation
(which,
in
principle,
could have been done the other
way)
in
31,6,2.
A reconstructed L.
Sergius
Plautus on our stone
may
now be taken as
both
legitimising
the old
conjecture
and
deriving
a needed
patronymic
from
that distant ancestor: the restoration L.
Sergius
Cf. Fal. Plautus seems to
me all but certain. Whether this
family
is related to the
Sergii
Plauti of
the
Empire
will now have to be
argued afresh;
but it would take us too far
in this
place.
8
(line 7):
C M? Pom. The
conjecture
C
Messius, modestly
described as 'a
very long shot1,
is attributed to T.P. Wiseman
by Reynolds.
It is indeed at
tractive in various
ways
and can
gain
rather
unexpected support
from
Cicero;
but in the end it seems to me doubtful whether it can be maintained. The
argument, however,
must be set out in
full,
so that others
may
be able to
debate the
question
further.
We are
obviously looking
for a man with the
right praenomen
and first
letter of the
nomen, and
lacking
a
cognomen. Moreover,
C Messius was a col
league
of P. Sestius in the tribunate in
57,
and association here would be
an
easy conjecture.
As to the
tribe,
that
depends
on a
complex argument
that
must be
approached circuitously.
In
55,
C Messius was
aedile,
and he was
prosecuted
in connection with
his election to this
office,
it
seems,
under the lex de sodaliciis
passed by
M. Crassus in his second
consulship
in
55, clearly
ex senatus consulto. He
was recalled for trial when about to
join
Caesar in
Gaul,
late in
July
54.
The law of Crassus
provided
for the
prosecutor
to select four tribes (the
defendant could then
reject
one of
them),
from which the
jurors
were to be
n
chosen. A short time after C Messius' case,
Cicero had to defend Cn. Plan
cius on a similar
charge;
and he
complains
that the
prosecutor
has violated
the
spirit
of the law
by
not
selecting any
tribe that has
any
connection
with the defendant. It had been the Senate's intention (he claims)
in devis
ing
this odd
procedure
that the tribes most
closely
associated with the ac
5. See MRR I 323 and 326 n. 2
(not entirely
clear).
To
judge by
the
older
editions,
the name
appears
as Plautus the first time and as Plancus
the second. But A.H. McDonald's Oxford text
gives
Plautus in both
passages
and has no
textual note on it. I have not been able to follow this
up,
and
it no
longer matters, except
to
specialists
in
Livy's
text.
6. See MRR II 216.
Perhaps, however,
curule
aedile, despite
MRR's
argu
ment: see Shackleton
Bailey's
note on Cic. Att.
4,15,9.
7. Cic. Plane. 36ff.
gives
the
only
full
description
of this
unique
procedure.
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes on a New List of Roman Senators
105
cused,
and most
likely
to have been solicited and
corrupted by him,
should
be chosen to
try him,
because
they
would be most
likely
to know the facts of
the case.
Hortensius, speaking
as one who had been a
principal
auctor of the
law in the
Senate,
had earlier
appeared
for the defence and had confirmed
this
interpretation.
This was
obviously special pleading by
two advocates for Plancius' de
fence. It is difficult to believe that this had indeed been the intention
behind the law. But what we must believe is that
they
both made this
point
and that Hortensius asserted
special
auctoritas in the
matter,
as Cicero re
ports.
We must also believe that what was asserted to have been the Senate's
intention
corresponded
to what the
jury
knew to have been recent
practice.
In other
words,
it must in fact have been true that at least one or two
tribes close to the accused had been included
among
those selected in recent
cases
?
even if we
may
be inclined to ascribe this to the
general
omert? of
the Roman
upper class,
which would insist on
giving
its own members a fair
chance. Had it not been true in
fact,
then Cicero could not have made such a
major
issue out of this
argument
and
developed
it at such
length:
had it
been
simply silly,
it would have been
self-defeating
and would
merely
have
damaged
his client. (It
is relevant to remember
that, although
no one tells
us
so,
it is safe to assume that Plancius was
acquitted,
since Cicero
pub
lished his
speech.)
Now,
the case of Plancius was tried in late
August
or
early September
o
of 54. The case of Messius had come to trial about a month
before,
as we
noted;
and there must have been other cases as well. We must therefore as
sume that cases like that of Messius would be well remembered
by
the
jury
(for
these
prosecutions
were
among
the
major
events of
political life),
and
that
they
must at least to some extent have fitted in with the
'principle'
developed by
Cicero.
In the case of
Plancius,
he
argues
that the first tribe it would have
been
aequum
and
exspectatum
to select would have been Teretina
?
which was
Plancius' own tribe
(for he came from
Atina).
As it
happens,
Cicero
gives,
in
order,
the three tribes that were to
try
Messius a month before (we do
Q
not know the one he had
rejected): they
are
Pomptina, Velina,
Maecia. It is
a
tempting
conclusion that
Pomptina
was Messius' own tribe. And since our
man, according
to the
transcription
of the
text,
has this
tribe,
this would
strongly support
the
proposed
identification: it would
join
the indications
for it that we noted
above,
and one
might argue
that mere coincidence could
be excluded.
8. See the
dating
in
Gelzer,
Cicero 198f.
9. Cic. Att.
4,15,9
is the
only
source on the trial and
(unfortunately
for the
historian)
deals
only
with this
preliminary stage.
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
106 E. Badi?n
Unfortunately, things
are never as
simple
as this in
prosopography.
We
must now look at P. Sestius
(no. 10).
There is little doubt
that,
at some
time before he was sent to Cilicia as
proconsul,
Sestius had been
praetor.
He was old
enough
to hold that office
by 54,
and since the lex
Pompeia
of
52 had
provided
for a
five-year
interval between office and
promagistracy,
we can conclude
that,
if the law was
being observed,
he was
praetor precisely
in 54. Of
course,
it is
quite possible
that in the
emergency
the law was not
11
observed,
and he
may
have been
praetor
in one of the
following years
but
probably
not too
long
after 'his'
year.
As for
Messius,
we do not know
anything
about him between mid-54 and 49. In
mid-February
49 he advises Ci
cero,
at Teanum
Sidicinum,
not to
go
to
join Pompey,
as Caesar is
expected
to cut the route
(Att. 8,11D,2). Though
Cicero describes him as
Pompey's
familiar
is,
it is not clear in whose interest he was
working
or how he came
to be there. The chances are that he had not been
acquitted
in
54,
both be
1 2
cause Cicero
thought
it was a difficult case and because he did not
pub
lish his
speech,
even
though
he had no reason to be ashamed of it
political
ly
(as of the
pro Vatinio,
for
example).
It must be
suspected
that he had at
some time
proceeded
to
join
Caesar
(who
would
naturally accept him),
but did
not at first want to
fight against Pompey;
so he returned to
Italy
(which
he
could
by
then
safely
do)
and
perhaps hedged
his bets. If
so,
he would be re
habilitated under Caesar's
amnesty and,
like others in that
position,
then
took service under his benefactor.
He had
certainly
not
yet
been
praetor by
the time he
successfully fought
1 3
for Caesar in Africa in
46,
as aedilicius. Yet on our
list,
the man C M?
appears
two
places
above P.
Sestius,
so
ought
to have been
praetor
a
year
or
two before him or at least
together
with him. This is the
aporia
we have to
resolve.
Admittedly,
there are
puzzling irregularities
in the order of other
1 4
names on this
list;
but
they
are
satisfactorily explained by Reynolds
on
the
hypothesis
that consular
designations
made in the course of 39 had
upset
the order of
praetorians.
This could not
easily
be used to
explain
our case
here, since,
even if
praetors
had been
designated
in
advance, praetors
de
signate
would
presumably
not have ranked above
praetorians, just
as consuls
10. As
quaestor
to C Antonius in
63,
he must have been born
by 94,
which would
qualify
him to hold a
praetorship by
54.
11. See the discussion in MRR II 222
(under
54
B.C.).
The
designation
'Pr.
55',
without
query (p. 202),
must be a
printer's
error.
12. The common statement that he was
acquitted
is
presumably
based in
large part
on the common translation of Cicero's remark to Atticus on the
prospects (pugnatur acriter3 agitur
tarnen
satis)
to
imply
confidence in the
outcome. In
fact,
it means
precisely
the
opposite:
see Shackleton
Bailey
ad
loc.
13.
Explicitly
stated b. Afr.
33,2. (For
his
military
success,
see ibid.
43.)
14. See
pp. 69ff., following
a
suggestion
credited to Ian Davies.
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes on a New List of Roman Senators
107
designate
followed consulars (as
M. Valerius Messalla's
place
shows).
But I
have set out the relevant facts as
fully
as
possible,
in case an
explanation
that has eluded me can be found
by
a
colleague.
However,
the actual
reading
must first be verified. Without the
tribe,
there would be no
really strong argument
for the identification of C M?
with
Messius,
and we could abandon it instead of
wondering
whether it
might
be made
acceptable.
The tribe is therefore crucial. The
drawing
shows half
an
omega clearly present
as the first
surviving
letter. In view of the
gene
ral
quality
of that
drawing,
this cannot be
regarded
as
trustworthy
evidence.
I have been unable to see
any
trace of this letter either on the
photo
of
the text of the second
part
of the line or on the
photo
of the
squeeze (?)
of the first
part
of the line in Plate XIII. This
point
can
only
be cleared
up
on the stone and the
squeeze,
and I
hope that,
now that the
question
has
arisen and its
importance recognised,
this will be
urgently
done. It is
interesting
that in
Reynolds's transcription
the
omega
is dotted: in view of
the care
normally
shown in the
transcription,
this
suggests
that the
drawing
is once
again seriously misleading;
for if the traces were as there
shown,
the letter should not be dotted.
If it should turn out that the
omega
is not
actually
secure,
then we
should think about the whole matter
again
and
give up
the idea of
identifying
C M? with Messius. One obvious candidate for
identification,
in that case,
would be C Marius Tromentina
(which
would have an
omicron)
?
father
(we
might
assume)
of a monetalis who
appears
in the next
generation (RE,
s.v.
18). That
family might
be
conjectured
to come from
Aesernia,
where Marii are
plentiful. (But,
of
course,
the name is too common for
certainty.)
In
any case,
it is to be
hoped
that the facts about this
letter,
on
which so much
depends,
will soon be made
available, preferably
with a
good
photo
of the letter itself.
Meanwhile,
as an
appendix
to this
discussion,
it
ought perhaps
to be
noted that M?nzer
thought
C Messius a
Campanian
(which would exclude
Pomp
tina),
since other Messii can be localised there. This
might only show,
once
again,
that
conjectures
of this
kind,
however well-founded
they may
be and
however eminent their
authors,
can be overthrown
by
the first
piece
of solid
evidence that turns
up.
On the other
hand,
so far no Messii have
(to my
knowledge)
been found in
Pomptina towns,
to set
against
those cited
by
M?nzer.
Again:
much
hinges
on the
identity
of this one
man,
and in fact on
the exact traces of a
single
letter.
9
(lines 7-8):
Cn. Asinius Cn.f. We have
already
found this stone interact
ing
with historical literature (see
on no. 7
above).
Here we find it inter
acting
with
poetry. Reynolds
identifies this man with 'Marrucinus ..., elder
brother of Asinius Pollio who was consul in 40'. His lower rank is
rightly
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
108
E. Badi?n
explained
as due to his
being 'politically undistinguished'. (As
he stands
just
above P.
Sestius,
he is
presumably
a
praetor
of the middle or late
fifties who has
certainly got
no
further.)
If we
may indulge
in fanciful
projection
from Catullus
12,
it is
just possible
that his
powerful
brother
did not like him
enough
to
press
for his advancement.
However,
what is
important
is that this text
yields
two facts about
Catullus' friend and Pollio's brother.
First,
that he was indeed the elder.
This cannot be deduced from Catullus
12,
for the addressee of the
poem may
be no less
puer
than his brother. Nor does it
irrefutably
follow from his
bearing
his father's
praenomen, though
that makes it
probable
and it was a
legitimate suggestion.
(No more,
since we know
many
cases of a
younger
brother named after the
father, presumably
because an eldest son died in in
fancy.) However,
C Asinius Pollio was
praetor only
in 45
(MRR
II
306);
so
we
may regard
the
point
as settled.
So, although only negatively,
is the matter of his
cognomen. Reynolds
unquestioningly
calls him
Marrucinus, although
she admits that there is no
room for that name on the stone. She thinks it has been
omitted;
but it will
not do to assume that a
cognomen
has been omitted on this
stone,
for most
men are
given
one and not one
certainly
used is omitted.
(This, indeed,
is
to be
expected by
this
period.)
Marrucinus' had in fact been far from
certain,
though long conventionally repeated.
Klebs
ignored
it
(RE,
s.v.
1),
and
perceptive
critics have
pointed
out that the
emphatic
initial vocative is due
to the
poet's emphasis
on the addressee's 'rustic' behaviour
{s?rdida
and
inuenusta) ,
by
contrast with his brother's
polite
wit. The most that could
hitherto be maintained
(though literary
commentators have
rarely
worried
about
akribeia)
was that Asinius'
having
that
cognomen
was not excluded:
Catullus
might
well have used his actual name in this
way,
to
point
the
irony.
Our text has now at last settled the
question,
and it is to be
hoped
that
commentators on Catullus 12 will be informed. Cn. Asinius did not have the
name Marrucinus. It cannot even be maintained that he
perhaps
had
it,
but
allowed it to be omitted.
Reynolds
thinks that the available
space
is
'reasonably
well filled' without a
cognomen.
I fear she must have been misled
by
her
unquestioning assumption
that no other name was conceivable. In
fact,
even the
drawing
shows a
space
of 5 letters vacant at this
point;
inaccurate
as
usual,
it understates. The
photo
shows that the n that
begins
the next
name in line 8 is
precisely aligned
with two letters we have had to discuss
before: the 0 of Plautus' tribe Falerna and the final E of Thorus' filiation.
The latter
(our yardstick
here)
shows that we have c. 6 letters for Asinius'
cognomen
?
far too much to have been left blank; though
it excludes Marru
1 5
cinus
and,
for that
matter,
Pollio. We must be content to
exclude,
and at
15. The latter was
hardly
to be
expected,
as Catullus seems to use the
name in order to
distinguish
the
younger
brother. It was in
any
case not a
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes on a New List of Roman Senators
109
least to have measured the
physical
extent of our
ignorance.
No
guess
can be
advanced. Yet
epigraphy
?
not for the first time
?
has shed some
light
on
a
poet's technique.
12b
(line 9):
L.
?
Arn.
Capito. Reynolds hesitantly suggests
that he is not
connected
(i.e.,
not to be
identified?)
with L. Ateius
Capito,
a
quaestorian
known from Caelius' lists of witnesses to two senatus consulta in 51
(Cic.
Fam.
8,8,5-6),
'since the known Ateius
Capito
was tribu
Aniensi,
as Profes
sor
Syme
warns me'. This man is
presumably
a recent
praetorian (especially
since
praetorships
were
cheap during
the Civil
Wars),
and that would fit the
career of the
quaestorian
of 51 as well as the
family
stemma: the
quaestorian
known from Caelius' lists has
always
been identified as the father of the
2
consul of A.D. 5
(PIR
I
A1279),
who reached the
praetorship
(Tac.
Ann.
3,75,1).
Before we discuss this
further,
we must consider a
really
basic ob
jection
raised
by Reynolds:
if 'the
space
available
[for
the
name]
is
very
small'
(on p.
57 she calculates it as c. 9 letters for nomen
plus
father's
praenomen),
that would
irrefutably
exclude L. Ateius
Capito,
no matter what
the tribe. Nor is the fact that the
space
looks
larger
on the
drawing
a
serious
argument.
The
photo
of the
squeeze,
on which I must therefore
depend,
is hard to use at this
point.
Nonetheless (and
I must
say
this with all due
caution),
it seems to show rather more than has been
put
into the transcribed
text,
viz. the letters KI
(hardly
even
needing dots)
belonging
to the
prae
nomen
AEYKI[0S], standing
in an
alignment
about half a
space
to the
right
of
the AEYKIOY in the line above. If this
reading
should "be confirmed
by
those
with access to the stone and the
squeeze (and
perhaps
even seen
by
others on
this
photo), then,
since we can estimate the
space
between that AEYKIOY and
the final S
which,
on the
Plate,
is the
only
letter visible of Cn.
Pompeius'
praenomen
at
(clearly)
17
letters,
and the
fragment
in the line
just below,
which is the one we are
investigating,
starts
(if
I have seen it
correctly)
one
space
earlier to the left
(it
offers the last two letters
(OS)
of
Capi
to's
filiation,
with the S
aligned
with that of
Pompeius' praenomen),
17
letters can
readily
be fitted into the
gap
in
Capito's
name. Since
only
two
(YI)
are needed to
complete
the filiation and
(on my reading) only
two
(OS)
to
complete
the
praenomen,
we have about 13 letters left for nomen
plus
father's
praenomen,
instead of the c. 9 that
Reynolds
estimated. Even if
my
suggested reading
should not be
confirmed,
I think it will be found that her
estimate is much too low. If this man is
Ateius,
then 13 letters are
requir
ed in this
gap:
ATEIOSAEYKIOY
(the
praenomen,
of
course,
would be
given by
family cognomen,
since C Asinius Pollio did not
pass
it on to
any
of his
sons:?it was
only
his son Gallus who bestowed it on a son of his own
(see
PIR I
p. 253). It is here mentioned
only
for the sake of
completeness.
(All
this was seen
by Klebs, I.e.)
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
110
E. Badi?n
the filiation of the consul of A.D.
5,
whose
grandfather
was
Lucius).
And
given
the
irregularity
of the
lettering,
which
hardly permits
us to
quibble
even over an
approximation,
in such a
long gap,
this is a remarkable.
I think the technical
objection,
from the amount of
space
available for the
name,
can be overcome.
We must now more
closely inspect
the
tribe,
here
given
as Arnensis. It
is here
written, correctly,
APNHSSIE;
but
just above,
APNIHSEIS.
(See
Reynolds's
comment on no. 11: it is
certainly
odd that it should be written
differently
on the same
stone.)
In both cases the same tribe was intended
?
or so we must
presume.
But we have no
way
of
telling
whether the mason
(or
his
ordinator,
if a different
person)
had ever heard of
Aniensis,
or knew
the difference between the two. Since he was
extremely
careless in
copying
and knew
nothing
about Roman nomenclature
(see
Reynolds's
comments on nos.
2,3
and
6),
it would have been a
relatively
trivial offence for him to have
confused these two
tribes,
which he
evidently
did confuse in his actual
spelling.
Of
course,
the
manuscripts
of Cic. Fam. are also less than
impres
1 6
sive: these same two sections
(8,5-6)
contain innumerable errors over names
and the fact that the tradition offers An. for the tribe of
Capito
would not
by
itself
carry
much
weight.
It is therefore
very
useful to have
epigraphic
1 7
confirmation,
and there is no doubt about what should be the correct tribe.
But in view of all the considerations set out
above,
I would have no hesita
tion in
conjecturally restoring
the name of L. Ateius
Capito here,
in a
place
that seems to suit him.
(See
also on no. 18
below.)
16
(line 10):
Reynolds
seems to hanker after a
Pomponius
Rufu? for this -nius
Arn.
Rufus, suggesting that, although
that
family
seems to be
firmly
attested
in another
tribe,
the mason
may
have
engraved 'Pomponius'
here for a 'Pom
peius',
who would in fact be in his correct tribe. She
only
mentions this as
a random
suggestion,
without
laying any weight
on it. But in
point
of method
it should
simply
not be considered at all. The
cognomen
is far too common for
us to be
justified
in
tying
it to
any particular family,
and the tribe is not
of the rarest. In
fact,
the
cognomen
is of the kind that could be added as
an individual name
(in
which case it
might
or
might
not
get
into official
documents)
where it was not a
family cognomen: see, e.g.,
M. Valerius Messal
la
'Rufus',
or C
Sempronius
Rufus
(RE,
s.v.
79).
To draw a senatorial
family
at
random,
we find the
cognomen among
the Annii
(a
consul of 128
B.C.),
and
1 8
a branch of the
family
is attested in Arnensis.
Although
I am not
suggest
16. See Shackleton
Bailey's
comments ad loc. (no. 84 in his
edition).
17. See AE
1978,
no. 145: he served on the commission for
recording
the
text of that
important
SC.
18. See L.R.
Taylor,
The
Voting
Districts of the Roman
Republic
(1960)
p.
190.
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes on a New List of Roman Senators
111
ing
this as a
probable supplement,
it is
given merely
to show
that,
until
someone can make a
plausible
case for a man hitherto
overlooked,
we should
be content to confess
ignorance
and
certainly
should not resort to 'correct
ing'
a
hypothetical
error.
18
(line 11):
Reynolds's suggestion
that this
may
be an Ateius
Capito
should
be
rejected.
This man lacks a
cognomen and,
as
pointed
out
above,
we have no
justification,
in this
text,
for the
suggestion
that a well-established
cog
nomen
may
have been omitted. Even if
my arguments
on 12b above are not ac
cepted,
this man
may
not
legitimately
be substituted.
19
(lines 11-12):
Here
emendation,
of a
simple
and obvious
sort,
is indeed
required. Reynolds
leaves Cn. Sedius Cf. Cla. without
comment, except
to
say
that we do not know him. There is
nothing
we can at
present
do about this
last
fact,
but we can at least
get
his name
right. Read, instead,
TNAIOE
{2}HAI0E
TAIOY YIOS
KAAY[AIA eQPOE]
?
i.e.,
a
younger
brother of C Hedius
C f. Cla. Thorus
(no.
12a
above).
No such brother is known. But that
hardly
matters
much,
since even Gaius is attested
by
the merest
chance,
in two al
most
contemporary epigraphic documents,
in
only
one of which his name
happens
to survive in full. (Had
it not been for that
lucky
chance of his survival on
the SC de
Panamareis,
we could not even have restored him on the
present
do
cument,
let alone tried to
recognise
his
brother.)
Even in the case of C
Asinius Pollio's elder brother
(see
no. 9
above)
we are not all that much
better
off,
since we have one chance
(and,
as it turns
out, misleading)
lite
rary identification,
which
only
the
present
document
helps
us to
interpret
correctly.
A senatorial
family
of Sedii is not known at
any period
(as
far as
I am
aware);
and it would seem too much of a coincidence
that,
in addition to
19
a
barely
known Hedius Cf.
Cla.,
we should also
happen
to find an unknown
Sedius Cf. Cla. on this stone. The correction
suggested
is of the
simplest:
this kind of error is common both on documents and in
manuscripts.
In a text
engraved (as
regards names)
as
carelessly
as this
one,
I would
regard
the
emendation as
certain,
and would
hope
that we can at least avoid the entrance
of a fictitious senatorial
family
of the late
Republic
and
early Empire
into
the
scholarly
record.
21
(line 12): This
time,
I
think,
a correct text has been sacrificed to an
unsound modern
conjecture,
which should instead be rectified
by
means of it.
Reynolds
calls this man T. Licinius T.f.
Turannus,
and it was
perceptive
(and
obviously right)
of her to
identify
him with the T. Atinius TYPANOS
(sic)
19.
The tribe Claudia
(it should be
added)
is
very
rare
among
senators
of the
Republic
so far known.
(See
Taylor, op.
cit.
p. 271.)
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
112
E. Badi?n
of
Sherk,
RDGE
27,
lines 10-11. The
identity
of tribe
(Fabia) and
presumably
of
cognomen (unique among
senatorial families in the
Republic)
seems to war
rant identification. Both the texts are careless in detail and full of
spel
ling
errors and the
slight
variation in the
cognomen
is
insignificant.
The
difference in nomen is a more serious matter. But in view of the
appalling
carelessness shown
by
the
engraver
of this text
(see, again,
comments
by
Reynolds
on
2,
3 and
6,
and add
my
comments on 12b and
19),
the obstacle is
not
insuperable.
I have not been able to find a
photo
(or
even a reference
to
one)
of RDGE 27: if at all
possible,
the nomen should be checked on that
text
(not very
well
published)
before we can
say
much more. But the
cognomen
was
presumably correctly
transcribed
(it would be difficult to misread N for
NN),
and this must account for the editors'
transcription 'Turanus',
which
Sherk took over from his
predecessors.
It is difficult to make sense of that
name,
and of its
spelling
in the Greek. On the other
hand,
the TYPANNOS of
fered
by
the
present
text makes a
perfectly acceptable
version of
'Tyrannus',
which should have been
conjectured
in RDGE
long ago.
The
hybrid
'Turannus'
should
certainly
be discarded.
Harvard
University
E. Badi?n
20. To be
quite precise,
it should be noted that what survives on this
stone is
]?INNI0E:
we do not know what stood
before, except
that there
appear
to have been two letters. 'Licinius' is
certainly
a reasonable resto
ration. But it should be
pointed out,
for the sake of
completeness,
that two
T. Sicinii
(RE,
s.v. 13 and
14)
are
prominent
in the
early Republic,
and
that Sicinii
(though,
as far as we
know,
no T.
Sicinii)
were in the Senate
in the late
Republic
(see RE,
s.v.
3, 9, 12). However,
there were no T. Li
cinii known before this
text,
and it is an obvious
conjecture
that the mason
repeated
the name he had
engraved
three lines before
(no. 13)
in error for a
similar-looking
one. If
so,
T. Atinius
(as
in RDGE
27)
has a better chance
of
being
correct. On the other
hand,
it should be borne in mind that T. Lici
nius T.f. must himself be a little
suspect, although
there is
obviously
nothing
we can do about him.
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes on a New List of Roman Senators
113
?S&
u
XI
H
M-l
id
EH
s
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TAFEL I
m
b)
a)
P. Strasb. inv. 2676 Bd
(vergr??ert);
zu W.
Luppe
S. 7f.
b) c)
Senatus consultum de
Aphrodisiensibus;
zu E. Badi?n S. 10 Iff.
This content downloaded from 194.214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 09:13:34 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions