The Priests of the Roman Republic: A Study of Interactions between Priesthoods and Magistracies (Collection Latomus 127)

«&

^

■•■4k,

.i\sn^ cv

COLLECTION LATOMUS VOLUME

127

THE PRIESTS OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC A Study of Interactions Between Priesthoods and Magistracies

LATOMUS REVUE D'ÉTUDES LATINES 60, rue Colonel Chaltin, B. 1180 Bruxelles Fondée en 1937, la revue Latomus, que dirigent MM, Léon H e r r m a n n et Marcel Renard, publie des articles, des variétés et discussions, des notes de lecture, des comptes rendus, des notices bibliographiques, des informations pédagogiques ayant trait à tous les domaines de la latinité : textes, littérature, histoire, institutions, archéologie, épigraphie, paléographie, humanisme, etc. Les quelque 1000 pages qu'elle comporte annuellement contiennent une riche documentation, souvent inédite et abondamment illustrée. Montant de l'abonnement au tome XXXI (1972) : Abonnement ordinaire : Abonnement de soutien :

750 FB 1.500 FB

Port et expédition : Belgique : 20 FB — Étranger : 50 FB Prix des tomes publiés avant Tannée en cours : 800 FB Les quatre fascicules d'un tome ne sont pas vendus séparément.

Compte de chèques postaux 7526-46 de la Société d'études latines de Bruxelles. Pour Tachât des tomes I à XII, s'adresser à : Johnson Reprint Corporation, 111, Fifth Avenue, New York 3, New York. Correspondants : M. le Prof. Fr. NÓVOA, Laprida, 1718, Buenos-Aires. BRÉSIL : M. le Prof. Vandick LONDRES ARGENTINE:

DA NÓBREGA, 32, Rua Araucaria,

Jardim Botanico, Rio-de-Janeiro. ÉTATS-UNIS ET CANADA : M. le Prof. J. R. WORKMAN, Brown University, Providence 12, Rhode Island. FRANCE : M. J. HEURGON, Prof, à la Sorbonne, Le Verger, rue des Bois, 78, La-Celle-St-Cloud. IMPRIMERIE

UNIVERSA,

GRANDE-BRETAGNE : M. le Prof. Fergus MILLAR, Queen's College, Oxford. lle ITALIE : M M. L. PALADINI, 13, Via Bellotti, Milano. PAYS-BAS : M. le Dr. K. H. E. SCHUT-

TER, 6, Sloetstraat, Nimègue.

SUÈDE : M. le Prof. G. SAEFLUND, 52,1

tr. Vasagatan, 11120, Stockholm. : M. A. GATTIN, 14, Grand-Rue, Cormondrèche (Neuchâtel), Suisse,

SUISSE

WETTEREN (BELGIQUE)

COLLECTION LATOMUS VOLUME 127

G. J. SZEMLER

The Priests of the Roman Republic A Study of Interactions Between Priesthoods and Magistracies

LATOMUS REVUE D'ÉTUDES LATINES 60, rue Colonel Chaltin BRUXELLES 1972

o

ßarrie

D/1972/0415/43 Droits de traduction, de reproduction et d'adaptation réservés pour tous pays. Toute reproduction d'un extrait quelconque, par quelque procédé que ce soit et notamment par photocopie ou microfilm, est strictement interdite.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Following in the footsteps of C. Bardt, this book is a prosopographical study of all known priests to the death of Julius Caesar. In a revised and expanded form, the work is essentially the author's Promotionsarbeit which was presented at the Institut für alte Geschichte at the University of Innsbruck. For advice and encouragement, I wish to thank primarily Professor F. Hampl of Innsbruck, my friends at the Institut, esp. Dr. Ingomar Weiler, as well as Professor M. Chambers of Los Angeles, whose lectures inspired the writing of this study. Needless to say, for any and all inconsistencies, interpretative curiosities and/or factual errors I alone am responsible. Thanks are due to Messrs Chr. Murphy and Geoffrey Miller for aid during stages of the research, Miss J . Valentine for professional assistance in typing the manuscript, and the kind personnel of Cudahy Memorial Library, who often solved apparently insurmountable problems in providing the nesessary research material. Chapter I appeared in a more expanded form in NUMEN, « Religio, Priesthoods and Magistracies in the Roman Republic », 18, 1971, pp. 103-131. Professor C. J . Bleeker, the editor of this journal, kindly allowed me to use this article in the present work. Apologies are extended to the reader for « Magyarisms » which might occur in the text in spite of the efforts of Dr. R. R. Dolezal and Dr. C. A. L. Jarrott. Finally, the book is affectionately dedicated « uxori meae carissimae», without whose patience and encouragement this endeavour would have been impossible. Wilson Hall, Chicago, Illinois. September, 1970.

PROLOGUE

I n Roman history, the functions of the state cult were inseparably connected with affairs of the state. A glance at the available data indicates that the administration of the cults was always in the hands of the governing circles. The magistrates, who celebrated the great games for the gods, also performed the sacrifices and took the auspicio,, while at the same time a great number of them served as members of priestly colleges. Although magisterial and priestly functions were distinct and never overstepped the boundaries of their established spheres of action, they seemed to interact in the careers of known priests. The priests belonged to the same classes to which belonged those individuals who, year after year, contended for, and often held, the magistracies. They were, and continued to be members of the great consular families. Novi homines seldom achieved priesthoods or consulships. Specifically because priests belonged to the same classes and consequently espoused the same interests, an investigation of these class-bound aspects of priesthoods and magistracy seems to be warranted, in view of the fact that such aspects have not received comprehensive attention in recent years. There are a number of works in which priests were treated. L. Mercklin (}) presented a list oîpontifices and augures, utilized by Mommsen (2), who included also Mercklin's list of Xviri ( 3 ). In 1871, G. Bardt compiled the membership of the major colleges during the Republic, to the death of Caesar (4). H e presented evidence for the individual priests and attempted to establish by conjecture priestly successions after the lex Ogulnia (he did not list the /famines, nor the minor priesthoods). His work was incorporated by T. Robert S. Broughton and

(1) Die Cooptation der Römer, Mitau-Leipzig, 1848, pp. 215/216. (2) Römische Forschungen, 2 vols., Berlin, 1864, 1879 (repr. G. Olms, Hildesheim, 1962), 1, pp. 83 ff. (3) MERCKLIN, op. cit., p.

101.

(4) Die Priester der vier grossen Collégien ans römisch-republikanischer Zeit, K. WILHELMSGYMNASIUM in Berlin,XL Jahresbericht,i$&c\in, 1871. Bardt presented the Illviri, the later Vllviri epulones, as the fourth major college, but it is under Augustus that we first hear of the four major colleges (SUET., Aug. 100, Dio, 53.1,5; MARQUARDT, p. 221, RKR, pp. 483 ff.), as against CICERO'S three (har. resp., 9,18, nat. d., 3.2,5).

PROLOGUE

7

M. Patterson (1), who presented names of magistrates and priests from available literary tradition as well as non-literary evidence. M. Hoffman Lewis treated the priests of the Julio-Claudian period (2), of whom twenty fall within the limit of 44 B.C. Besides the above, diverse, partial and/or topical studies offered additional views of Roman priesthoods (3). Therefore, in the following study, an investigation will be undertaken in which an attempt will be made to present available names, to establish as far as possible with exactitude times of cooptation and death, as well as identification with known personalities, and to interrelate these data to an analysis of the priesthoods' role in the Roman Republic. As complete a list as possible will be given of all priestly colleges, including the sodalitates, to the time of Julius Caesar. In this study only those data can be emphasized which per-

(1) T. ROBERT S. BROUGHTON and M. PATTERSON, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic,

2 vols., New York, 1951/52, Suppl., 1960. As will be shown, their listing of data, primarily based upon literary tradition, necessitated the elimination of a number of priests due to inconsistencies, assumptions, or annalistic interpolation. (2) M. HOFFMAN LEWIS, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians, Am. Ac. in Rome, Papers and Monographs, 1955, basing her material on P. HABEL, De Pontificum Romanorum inde ab Augusto usque ad Aurelianum condicione publica, Breslau, 1888 ; and G. HOWE, Fasti sacerdotum P. R. publicorum aetatis imperatoriae, Leipzig, 1903, D. Halle. (3) Partial lists are presented in the following works : V. SPINAZZOLA, Augur, in E. DE RUGGIERO, Dizionario epigrafico di antichità Romana, Rome, 1895-1950 ; A. KLOSE, Römische Priesterfasten, 1, D. Breslau, 1910 ; J . GAGÉ, Apollon Romain, Paris, 1955, pp. 698 ff., (the Xviri with inaccuracies) ; G. RADKE, Quindecimviri, in RE, 24, pp. 1114, 53 ff., for lists cf. pp. 1142, 64 ff. Some monographs and articles considered priests from politico-social points of view : F. MÜNZER, Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien, Stuttgart, 1920, (list for pont. max. on p. 414) ; the pontifices in the first century B.C., L. R. TAYLOR, Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College in AJPh, 63, 1942, pp. 385 ff., (list on pp. 411/412) ; D. E. HAHM, Roman Nobility and the three Major Priesthoods, 218-167 B.C. in TAPhA, 94, 1963, pp. 73 ff., basing his material entirely on MRR, without source analysis, and without lists ; J.-Cl. RICHARD, Sur quelques grands pontifes plébéiens, in Latomus, 27, 1968, pp. 786 ff. — As will be shown below the last authors tend to overemphasize family and political contacts, as well as "party" ambitions ; thus they present a clouded and not fully acceptable view of the role of priesthoods in the Republic. While such contacts could be assumed, without evidence they cannot mean a concerted and relentless line of political action. Often individuals, through the perspicacity of their views, and not "party" or family connected leadership, could exercise influence and carry out their plans. (The problem will be discussed below in the analysis of the role of personalities in the priestly colleges of the third century).

8

PROLOGUE

tain to priesthoods ; so references will be made to other works only when it is necessary to establish identification and priestly function. The study will be divided into four parts. A general background of the priesthoods (*) will be presented, with a summary of those priestly functions which interacted with magistracies, in the frame of the Roman concepts of aristocracy and religio, as reflected in the functions of the priesthoods of the Roman Republic. Subsequently, those problems will be analyzed which are connected with identifying individual priests from the beginning of the Republic to 300, followed by a list to the year 211. After a discussion of the leading personalities in the priestly colleges of the third century, as well as the apparent division in the priesthoods between politically compatible and detrimental ones, the last chapter will present the priests from 210 to the death of Julius Caesar (2). In establishing the lists, Mommsen's

(1) J . MARQUARDT and Th. MOMMSEN, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer, 7 vols., 2nd ed., 1876-1886, esp. vol. 6 (i.e., vol. 3 of Römische Staatsverwaltung, 2nd ed. by G. Wissowa) ; A.BOUCHÉ-LECLERCQ, Manuel des Institutions Romains, Paris, 1886 ; G.WISSOWA, Religion und Kultus der Römer, 2nd ed., München, 1912 (Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, v. 4) ; K. LATTE, Römische Religionsgeschichte (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, V. 4), Beck, München, 1960. The following works were consistently used for background information : The Cambridge Ancient History, ed. by S. A. COOK, F. E. ADGOCK and M. P. CHARLESWORTH, vols. 7, 8 and

9, Cambridge, 1928-1934 ;J. VOGT, Römische Geschichte (Erste Hälfte), Die römische Republik, Herder, Freiburg i.B., 1932 (3rd. ed., 1955) ; The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. by M. GARY and others, Oxford, 1949 ; M. CARY, A History of Rome, 2nd ed., Macmillan, London, 1965 ; Th. MOMMSEN, Römisches Staatsrecht, 3 vols., 1887, unchanged reprint of the 3rd ed., Ak. Druck-u. Verlags., Graz, 1952 ; ID., Gesammelte Schriften, repr. of the edition, 19031913, Weidmannsche Verl., Berlin /Zürich ; also ID., Römische Chronologie bis auf Caesar, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1859 ; W. K. A. DRUMANN, Geschichte Roms in seinem Uehergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, re-edited by P. Groebe, 6 vols. (1,1899; 2,1902; 3,1906; 4,1908/1910; 5,1919; 6,1929), reprint Olms, Hildesheim, 1964; PAULY-WISSOWA, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, edited in succession by KROLL, MITTELHAUS and ZIEGLER, 1894 ;Der kleine Pauly, Lexikon der Antike, auf Grundlage von Paulys Realencyclopädie, ed. K. ZIEGLER and W. SONTHEIMER, Stuttgart, to the present only three vols., 1,1964; 2,1967; 3,1969. (2) The priests of the earliest period will not be numbered since, with few exceptions, their priesthood and identification appear to be questionble. Those from the lex Ogulnia to 211, are numbered in chronological order, regardless of priesthood. Thus, Ti. Coruncanius, cos. 280, is n ° l l , M. Claudius Marcellus, cos. 222, is n°19 (cf. pp. 68 and 70). In the third group, the priests will be numbered according to chronological order in their individual college or sodality. Thus, P. Licinius Crassus Dives, cos. 205, is P. 5 (p. 105), C.Claudius Pulcher, cos. 177, is Aug. 9 (p. 141), M'.Acilius Glabrio, cos. 191,

PROLOGUE

9

technique will be followed (RF, 1, loc. cit.), i.e., cooptation, or death (or the year to which the priesthood can be ascribed) will determine an individual's position in the chronological order (1). is Xvir 10 (p. 160), L. Valerius Flaccus, cos. 131, is Fl. 8 (p. 169), and similarly, with the epulones, salii, and luperci, numbers will follow abbreviated forms of the college or sodality, Ep., Sal., Lup. (1) The decuriate system (seen in CIL, 6, 1976, 1984), as attempted by Bardt, is impossible to recreate because of the nonavailability of sufficient data, with the exception of three years, as will be shown.

SOURCES Our main source for the republican priests is Livy (1), who presented priestly data and names with some degree of consistency. In his work he described personal and national affairs, the life and character of a great people in their origin, both as an example for individuals and for the state of his own time. It has been pointed out that Livy's purpose in writing was to give Rome a history, based upon his own conception (2) and ends, as expressed in his praefatio. Yet, in the evaluation of the material concerning priests, the question has to be asked : what sources did the author use, and did he also deliberately change his sources as warranted either by the historical narrative, the convenience of his topic, or his general purpose ? A reflection upon his extant books shows that some doubt can be raised as to historical reliability, especially in the first decade. Many scholars correctly pointed out the failure of Livy to use and evaluate available documentary evidence. "Er ist nicht Geschichtsforscher, sondern Geschichtsschreiber", writes Klotz, "und so erklärt es sich, dass er Urkunden und Denkmäler nicht selbständig herangezogen, dass er die reiche antiquarische Literatur wie ganz vernachlässigt... " (3). Taine is extremely critical for the same reason :

(1) Because of the scarcity of non-literary sources, especially inscriptions and coins, they will be treated in the following chapters, whenever they occur. (2) On Livy, cf. KLOTZ, RE, 13 (9), pp. 816,37 ff., esp. 831,42 fF. and 851,33 ff. ; P. G. WALSH, Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods, Cambridge, 1963, esp. pp. 10/11. Furthermore, he presents and convincingly evaluates Livy's historical method (pp. 138 ff.). Different aspects of the problem are treated in E. BURGK, Die Erzählungskunst des T. Livius, Problemata 11, Berlin, 1934; F. HELLMANN, Livius-interpretationen, Berlin, 1939, esp. paragraph on purpose, pp. 23 ff. ; G. STÜBLER, Die Religiosität des Livius, Stuttgart-Berlin, 1941 ; I. HOCH, Die Darstellung der politischen Sendung Roms bei Livius, Frankfurt, 1951 ; J. P. V. D. BALSDON, Some Questions about Historical Writing in the Second Century B.C. in J RS, 44,1954, pp. 30 ff. ; éd. T. A. DOREY, Latin Historians, Routledge and Kegan, London, 1966 esp. article on Livy by P. G. WALSH, pp. 115 ff., 129 ff. ^ W. LIEBSGHUETZ, The Religious Position ofLivfs History in JRS, 57, 1967, pp. 46 ff. ; Fifty Years, pp. 477/478 (article by A. H.

MCDONALD).

(3) KLOTZ, in RE,

pp. 835, 51-55.

SOURCES

11

"On ne trouve pas l'amour infatigable de la science complète et de la vérité absolue" (x). Walsh outrightly states that Livy does not use anywhere documentary evidence : "When he quotes from ancient documents, he has read them in a literary source" (2). Ogilvie is specific that "Livy was not interested in research" (3), and comments that he did not use the original tabulae dealbatae or the annales, as published by thepontifex, P. Mucius Scaevola, in 123. Yet, according to the author's statement, he was not indifferent to original documents. He apologizes at the beginning of the sixth book (4) for the scarcity of documentary material with which he had to contend : ... turn quodparvae et rarae per eadem tempora litterae fuere, una costodia fidelis memoriae rerum gestarum, et quod, etiam si quae in comrr;.mtariis pontificum aliisque publias privatisque erant monumentis,

incensa urbe pleraeque interiere. It is clear from his statement that he is aware of the fact that not all sources were demolished and might have been available for consultation. He assured the reader : Clariora deinceps certioraque ab secunda orìgine velut ab stirpibus laetius feraciusque renatae urbis gesta domi militiaeque exponentur ( 5 ).

It is evident that documentary evidence existed in Livy's time. The annalesmaximi,(e) published around the end of the second century, could be viewed by anyone on the walls of the Regia. It is generally accepted that the source for these annales was the tabulae pontificum, which were set up annually by the pontifices and contained notations

(1) H. TAINE, Essai sur Tite Live, Paris, 1896, 6th ed., p. 64. (2) WALSH, Livy, op. cit., p. 110.

(3) R. M. OGILVIE, Commentary on Livy, Books 1-5, Oxford, 1965, p. 6, especially note 1. (4) LIVY, 6.1,2-3.

(5) Ibid., 3 ; J. BAYET, Tite-Live, Histoire romaine, Paris, 1966, vol. 6, pp. 79ff.,takes Livy's statement and asks "ne se fait-il pas illusion ?" He compares Livy's Book VI with Diod. Sic. and suggests that one cannot expect better information than in the preceding books. For a detailed analysis of Livy's sources, cf. WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 110-137, on historical authorities and pp. 138-172 on method. (6) HRR, 1, pp. iii-xxix ; W. S. TEUFFEL (new ed. W. KROLL and F. SKUTSCH), Geschich­

te der römischen Literatur, 3 vols., Teubner, Leipzig (1, 6th ed., 1916 ; 2, 7th ed., 1920 ; 3, 6th ed., 1913) ; 1, par. 76, pp. 135 ff. ; for more recent bibliography, cf. HRR, pp. 385-387 ; also, (pubi. O. REVERDIN) Fondation Hardt, Les origines de la République romaine, in Entretiens, Tome XIII, 1967, pp. 135-169. Gabba follows P. FRAGGARO'S excellent evaluation of the problem : The History of Rome in the Regal Period, (transi. U. Erwins), in JRS, 47, 1957, pp. 59-65. Gf. also L. PARETI, Storia di Roma, Torino, 1952,1, pp. 56-57 ; A. ALFÖLDI, Early Rome and the Latins, Jerome Lectures, Seventh Series, Ann Arbor, 1964, pp. 165 ff.

12

SOURCES

on items of interest to the pontifical college (x). (It is also well known that other colleges maintained similar collections) (2). Cato was familiar with these tabulae, as seen in his not very complimentary reference to them : Non lubet scribere, quod tabula apud pontificem maximum est, quotiens annona cara, quotiens lunae aut solis lumine caligo aut quid obstiterit (3). Acceptable degree of reliability is credited to these tabulae, from ca. 300 on, from the well-known passage in Cicero, de r.p., 1.16, 25 (4). Yet, one has to assume the possibility that even before this time memorable occasions, official functions, and magistrates connected with the affairs of the recorders were duly noted without lengthy descriptions upon the tabulae, and thus provided the chronological frame into which a later editorial hand could include the annales maximi (5). Whether the much discussed libri lintei (6) were contributing

(1) Gf. LAQUEUR, RE, 13, pp. 1089, 50 ff., quotes Serv., ad Aeri., I, p. 273, and suggests that they contained notes which were of importance to the pontifices and were stacked together in a caudex or codex. That they remained in the Regia is clear from CATO, HRR, fr. 77 (cf. below) and DION. HAL., 1,74,3, and could be inspected by the public. Laqueur cites example of the fr. Arv. who maintained records in this manner. R. WERNER, Der Beginn der römischen Republik, Oldenburg, München-Wien, 1963, pp. 39-41, in contending that besides the tabulae other sources have to be accounted for in the annales maximi, seems to be correct, i.e., private family documents, tituli imaginum and laudationes, (TEUFFEL, op, cit., 1, par. 81, 82, pp. 139 ff.), as well as the writings of the earliest annalists, esp. Cn. Gellius. M. I. HENDERSON'S objection, J RS, 52, 1962, p. 277, to accept the possibility of stacking the tabulae is well taken since it is difficult to imagine that such wrooden tablets were preserved from generation to generation. Admittedly, Cicero's de or., 2,12,52 usque ad P. Mucium pontificem maximum merely implies that it was so. Yet, the recent discovery of writing tablets in London, E. G. TURNER and O. SKUTSCH {JRS, 50, pp. 108-11), would contradict Henderson. At a depth of 15 feet, a tablet has been found with easily decipherable writing, well preserved and dates from about 80-100 A.D. (2) The libri augurum, saliorum, comm. XVvhorum, the fasti sac, and the Etr. disc, libri (cf. Teuffel, op. cit., 1, par. 77, p. 137). (3) HRR, 1, fr. 77. (4) K.J. BELOCH, Griechische Geschichte, 2nd ed., 4 vols., Gruyter, Berlin, 1967, reprint of 1912-26 edition, 4.2, p. 271 ; according to him the Ciceronian passage ought to read anno quinquagesimo et quadringentesimo. ALFÖLDI, op. cit., p. 166, n. 6, neglects the emendation and applies deliberate obfuscation on Cicero's part. To the problem, cf. WERNER. op. cit., p. 40, n. 1. (5) Werner's argument appears to be correct when he states that the tabulae must have been the chronological source for Q . Fabius Pictor (p. 39, n. 1). (6) LIVY, 4.7,12; 13,7; 20,8; Lie. MAC, HRR, fr. 13,27,15; also LIVY, 4.23,2,3; Lie. MAC, HRR, fr. 14, and LIVY, 10.38,6 ; SCHÖN, RE, 6, pp. 2025,19 ff. ; TEUFFEL, op.

SOURCES

13

factors in the compilation of the annals cannot be decided for certain Ogilvie projects them as probable collation of lists of magistrates from the beginning of the Republic downwards (1). Concurrently with these one must also consider the fasti, originally notations of the pontif ices (2), which later evolved into records of annual accounts of the most important affairs connected with the annual magistracies, triumphs, and sacerdotal affairs (3). They have to be separated from the notations of the eponymous magistrates, the so called libri magistratum (4). The time of the individual collections varies, but they were edited and available by the end of the first century (5). Most recently, Alföldi and Gabba emphasized (6)

cit., 1, par. 79, p. 138. Purpose and value, cf. OGILVIE, (Livy, Licinius Macer and the Libri Lintei, in J RS, 48, 1958, pp. 40 ff. ; BADIAN, in DOREY, Lat. Hist., op. cit., p . 22.

(1) The reliability of the libri lintei is questioned owing to the impossibility of maintaining such material for lengthy periods (TEUFFEL, loc.cit., note 2) and the inconsistency offered in the magisterial lists in 444 and 434, cf. MRR, 1, pp. 42/53, nn. 1 and 2 ; pp. 6 1 / 62, nn. 1 and 2, for detailed information ; critically evaluated in OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 544, 563/64. (2) Separation has to be made between dies fasti, i.e., the days on which it is permitted to engage in any public affair in opposition to dies nefasti (VARRO, /./., 6,29/30). Whether they contained lists of magistrates cannot be determined. (The problem of the pre-300 fasti is controversial, especially the interpolation of material favorable to plebeians, cf. E. STEIN, Wiener Studien, 37, 1915, pp. 4 ff.). (3) Inscr. Ital., XIII, I (1947); C. CICHORIUS, De fastis consularibus antiquissimis, in Leipz. Stud., 9, 1886, pp. 171 ff. ; G. COSTA, I fasti consulari romani delle origini alle morte di Giulio Cesare, 2 vols. Milano, 1910 ; SCHÖN, RE, 6, pp. 2015-2046, 9 ; R. STIEHL, Die Datierung der Kapitolinischen Fasten in AIIAPXAI, Untersuchungen zur klass. Phil, und Gesch. des Altertums, vol. 1, 1957, esp. pp. 1-24, and 61 ff. (4) TEUFFEL, op. cit., I, 178, pp. 137 - 138 ; The problem is presented in great detail by WERNER, op. cit., pp. 219 ff., and, most recently, in Fond. Hardt, op. cit., passim, especially, by Hanell, pp. 178-191, also the statements of A. ALFÖLDI, pp. 36-38 ; HEURGON, p. 123, and

GJERSTAD, pp.

3-30.

(5) It is of no particular interest to us when exactly the fasti were compiled. STIEHL has shown (op. cit., loc. cit.) that Degrassi's early dating is unlikely. She accepts L. R. Taylor's suggestion of ca. the second decade before the end of the first century. SCHÖN, loc. cit., pp. 2037, 59 ff., has shown that the most important are the fasti Cap. : "In ihr haben alle jene Beamten einen Platz gefunden, welche für die Chronologie Roms zur Zeit der Augustus von Bedeutung waren..." (2037,40-43). (6) ALFÖLDI and GABBA, Fond. Hardt, op. cit., p. 172, in an exchange of opinions : "Alföldi : ' Concerning the Annales maximi, I think their publication in the age of the Gracchi included all the accounts of the Annalists, and contained nothing more of the original authentic annotations to the Fasti, than in the Annalist tale'. Gabba 'Sono molto grato, della consideratione... sono pure d'accordo nel pensare che la redazione finale degli Annales Maximi abbia tenuto largo conto del materiale annalistico'".

14

SOURCES

that the final form of the fas ti > just like the annales maximi, were built on the records of well-known historidal and sacred affairs, such as the leges (1), senatus consulta (2), consular and dictatorial triumphs (3), treaties (4) and individual data, collected from diverse sources and put into a chronological frame which followed the initial method of these records (5). Admittedly, upon publication, the fasti could not cover the earlier periods, fundamentally because data were not consistently kept, and, for various reasons, were not readily available. It seems feasible, therefore, to assume that vacua were filled from diverse records by the editor or editors. Yet, they appear to be part of the Roman tradition, and, in general, the information seems to be reliable (6). Thus, one has to consider the possibility that at the

(1) In this instance I think especially of lex de davo figendo, (LIVY, 7.3,5-9) and the X I I Tables. The problem rests in the connection between eponymous magistrates and chronological order, recently attested by the remarks of Hanell, as cited above. Cf. also, F. WIEAGKER in Fond, Hardt, op. cit., pp. 293-356 : Die XII tafeln in ihrem Jahrhundert ; WERNER, op. cit., pp. 27-34. (2) O'BRIEN MOORE, in RE, Suppl. 6, pp. 800, 61-812, 44, esp. lists of the sen. cons., pp. 808, 10 ff. ; MOMMSEN, RSR, 3, p. 1004; Ges. Sehr., pp. 5, 339 ff.

(3) RSR, 1, pp. 126-136, 6371 ; R. LAQUEUR, Über das Wesen des römischen Triumphs, in Hermes, 1909, p. 214. (4) RSR, 1, pp. 246-257. (5) Relevant material is conveniently collected and discussed in WERNER, op. cit., pp. 3-215, in which Werner bases early Republican chronology upon all available information, especially upon the dedication of the Capitoline Temple and the Gallic catastrophe, in juncture with PL., n.h., 33,18. Opposing point of view is expressed by OGILVIE, CI. Rev., loc. cit., pp. 84-87, and similar, but not basically chronologically-based views, in GSCHNITZER'S review, Gnomon, 39,1967, pp. 709-714. To this has to be added the accounts of Greek and possibly Etruscan sources (A. ALFÖLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., pp. 56 ff. ; M . SARDI, / rapporti Romano-Ceriti e l'origine della civitas sine suffragio, Rome, 1960), as well as archaeological evidence. (6) SCHÖN in RE, loc. cit., esp. pp. 2039, 35 ff. According to the well-known statement of CICERO, de or., 2.12,52, records existed from the earliest times. They must have contained, at least partially, certain names and pertinent data concerning the magistrates. Kr. HANELL (Das altrömische eponyme Amt, Lund, 1946) espoused the idea that they were connected not with the magistrates but rather with a calendar reform and with the dedication of the Capitoline Temple. Difficulties connected with Hanell's postulations are caused by the problem of the praetor maximus and the interpolation of every second name on the lists (Ernst MEYER, MUS. Helv., 9, 1952, pp. 176 ff.) as well as with the chronological problems in the struggle between the plebeians and patricians, which would fall in this case during the time of the last two kings (A. MOMIGLIANO, An Interim Report on the Origins of Rome in J RS, 53, 1963, p. 103, and Fond. Hardt, op. cit., "Osservazioni sulla distinzione fra patrizi e plebei", pp. 199-221, in which he states that the causes of all troubles between

SOURCES

15

time of Livy's activity, such data were available and could have been perused by an historian. That Livy, or his literary predecessors, occasionally used or could have used these documentary sources appears to be evident from many of Livy's own statements. He uses the term annales often, but it refers to the work of the annalists, either by name or by implication, 25.39, 12 : Auctor est Claudius, qui annales Acilianos... vertit, 21.25, 4 : M\ Acilium et C. Herennium habent quidam annales, 42.11, 1 : plurium annales... tradunt, 32.6, 8 : Graeci Latinique auctores, quorum quidem ego legi annales... He even refers to his own work as annales : 43.13, 2 : in meos annales referam. Nevertheless, in the First Decade, he uses the term somewhat differently. In 8.30, 7, a distinction is clearly drawn between auctores, antiquissimi scriptores and annales, which is not solved by Peter's and Klotz's suggestions that the term antiquissimi scriptores refers to Q,. Fabius Pictor (1). He refers to veteres annales, in vetustioribus annalibus and in annalibus prisas; yet a closer analysis of the passage shows that he relies upon second-hand information (2).

the classes originated during the monarchy). Nevertheless, even Werner's thesis (op. cit., passim) does not change the assumption about the reliability of the fasti (K. J. BELOGH, Römische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der Panischen Kriege, Berlin, 1926, p. 15 ; A. ALFÖLDI, Der frührömische Reiteradel, Baden-Baden, 1952, pp. 21 fi, and p. 78; F. CORNELIUS, Untersuchungen zur frühen römischen Geschichte (München, 1940), pp. 105 ff. ; opposing view by W. HOFFMANN, Gnomon, 1943, pp. 80 ff. (and MOMIGLIANO, JRS,

35, 1945, pp. 127 ff.) ;

cf. also, HANELL, op. cit., p. 173 ; A. ALFÖLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., pp. 167 and 168, esp. note 1. In the discussion in Fond. Hardt, op. cit., pp. 192-196, following the conclusion that the fasti cannot give us reliable answers earlier than the middle of the fifth century, Hanell admits that at this moment he cannot hold that only one eponymous magistrate was established in the first years of the Republic (p. 193), which is in contrast to his thesis. (1) LIVY, 8.30,7 ; Q,. FABIUS PICTOR, HRR, fr. 18 ; A. KLOTZ, Limas und seine Vorgänger,

Leipzig-Berlin, 1940, 41, pp. 205/206, identifies antiquissimi scriptores with Fabius, as PETER HRR, l,p. Lxxxviii. Nevertheless, they fail to provide an adequate solution for auctores, as well as annales, which Klotz identifies "wahrscheinlich Piso, oder Claudius" (p. 206) ; yet, building on probabilities, Klotz assumes "Piso ist also stets nur zur Nachprüfung herangezogen, scheidet demnach als Quelle für die Erzählung aus" (p. 207). In contrast to this, it should be pointed out that only once is a source identified in a similar context, i.e., when Livy describes Piso as vetustior annalium auctor (10.9,12) ; L. CALP. PISO, HRR, 1, fr. 28* ; WALSH, Livy, op. cit., p. 142, n. 1, points out : "Livy distinguishs between the oldest (Greek writing) annalists and the middle annalists, such as Piso, whom he calls vetustior (10.9,12). There is no hint that Livy used any Greek-writing annalist other than Fabius (who may not have been consulted directly) in the first decade". (2) LIVY, 4.20,8, 7.9,5, and 4.7,10 ; identifiable as originated from LIGINIUS MACER in HRR, 1, fr. 15, 16, and 13 ; cf. ibid., notes to Q,. CLAUDIUS QUADRIGARIUS, fr. 10b ; to

16

SOURCES

References to magistratuum libri and magistratuum fasti do not provide evidence for having been directly consulted by Livy (*), although his boasting in 9.18, 12 : Paginas in annalibus magistratuumque fastis percurrere licetcovld be taken as an indication of such a use. Obviously, he must have been aware of monuments and information of archaeological value, but inconsistency in his historical method eliminates any serious consideration of lasting value (2). Therefore, Livy's inference to clariora and certiora gesta appears to be mired in his perusal of available works in early Roman historiography. Innumerable references show that the author greatly depended upon literary sources as his guideline, from Graeci annales, the "ktiseis" of Gelzer, through the elder and more recent annalists (3). Systematic research for the past hundred years, usually through the comparative method, has shown that most of his literary sources

Lie. MAGER, fr. 16, cf. comments on p. GGGLVII ; KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 209. LIVY in

4.7,10 uses the same source as DION. HAL., 11,62. Gf. OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 543-545. Ogilvie rejects the consulship of Papirius and Sempronius on account of "the omissions of the names from the annales prîsci ... from which the libri magistratuum, the libri lintei, and other lists were derived". To LIVY, 40,20, cf. KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 836,5 ff., and Lrvius, op. cit., p. 202 ; underlined and analyzed by OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 563-567. (1) LIVY, 4.20,8, cf. above, and 9.18,2 : the great oratorical passage from 9,17 or., filled with the more elevated patriotic sentiments of Livy {e.g., the embellishment of the power of the Roman soldiers, 9,19,7). WALSH has shown {Livy, op. cit., pp. 137 and 256 ff.) that the passage is under oratorical and poetical influence. (2) KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 835, 67 ff.

(3) WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 114-137 (cf. E. BURCK'S remarks in Gnomon, 35, 1963, pp. 780 ff., esp. p. 783). On various types of evidence, the summary of A. MOMIGLIANO, loc. cit., J RS, 53, 1963, pp. 95-121, esp. 96-108, is indispensable. Usually the threepartite division provides the following writers as predecessors to Livy : (a) the Graeci annales, not annalists according to GELZER, Römische Politik bei Fabius Pictor, in Hermes, 68, 1933, p. 129, now in Kleine Schriften, ed. Chr. MEIER, 3 vols., Steiner, Wiesbaden, 1962-1964, 3, pp. 51-52 ; also, Der Anfang römischer Geschichtsschreibung, in Hermes, 69, 1933, pp. 46 ff, Kl. Sehr., op. cit., 3, pp. 93ff.; (b) the Gato-follower elder annalists ; and (c) the younger annalists of Sulla's time. Gf. also, K. W. NITSCH, Die römische Annalistik von ihren ersten Anfängen bis auf Valerius Antias, Berlin, 1873. For further information, besides the individual articles in HRR, cf. KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., pp. 201ff.; to this, Gelzer's fundamental review in Gnomon, 18, 1942, pp. 220 ff. ; KL Sehr., op. cit., 3, pp. 270 ff. ; also, DOREY, Latin Historians, op. cit., E. BADIAN'S article, The Early Historians, pp. 1ff.,which gives six different classifications, Graeci Annales ; Cato, the Creation of Latin History ; The Expansion of the Past ; The Gracchan Historians ; The Later Annalists ; Autobiography and Contemporary History.

17

SOURCES

can be identified, or at least alluded to. In the first decade, Licinius Macer and Q . Tubero appear to have been his sources, whose accounts he counterbalanced with the writings of Calerius Antias, and the earlier Fabius Pictor and L. Calpurnius Piso. In the second pentade Claudius Quadrigarius' name, as source, appears as well (1). The scarce information about Tu bero (2) shows that he was, perhaps, Cicero's friend, a writer of history (3), who was a combiner, or a copier of the same material which was used by Antias and Macer (4). Licinius Macer wrote a history from Roman beginnings (5) and collated material from the libri lintei, in preference to the annales maximi. His source seems to be Gellius (6), a senatorial predecessor and example to maintain the Popularis line. Livy also used Valerius Antias extensively (7) but critically, as shown in his constant references to his source's ureliability (8), as well as Q. Claudius Quadrigarius (9). Among Livy's sources in the first decade, in a reverse chronological order, L. Calpurnius Piso, cos. 133 (10), as well as the (1) Gf. OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 1-22, and specific passages below. To this, add A. MOMIGLIANO's criticism concerning Ogilvie's neglect of the possible Greek sources, JfRS, 57, 1967, p. 287. (2) HRR, 1, pp. GGCLxviff.; OGILVIE, Commentary, op, cit., pp. 16/17. (3) CICERO, add.fr., 1.1,10 ; Lrw mentioned him twice, 4.23,1 (i£ff£,fr.6*),andl0.9,10 (HRR, fr. 7). As emerges from Ogilvie, much legal and antiquarian interest was submitted through him to livy. (4) KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 209 ; WALSH, op. cit., p. 116, esp. n. 1.

(5) HRR, 1, pp. GCCL ff. ; MÜNZER in RE, 13 (112), pp. 419,66 ff. ; OGILVIE, Commen­ tary, op. cit., pp. 7-12. Livy mentioned him by name only in 4.7,10, 23,1, 20,5, and 7.9,3 ; 9.38,15, and 46,1 ; 10.9,10; (HRR, frs. 13-19) NITSGH, op. cit., p. 267; KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., loc. cit., accepts that Livy most likely consulted him directly. (6) HRR, 1, pp. ccrv ff. ; MÜNZER in RE, 7 (4), pp. 998, 53 ff.

(7) HRR, 1, pp. cccvff. ; VOLKMANN in RE, 7A (98), pp. 2313,33ff.; OGILVIE, Commen­ tary, op. cit., pp. 12-16. LIVY used him in the first pentade only twice, 3.5,12 and 4.23,2 (HRR, frs. 19* and 20), and very often in the later decades, esp. 38.5,4-55.7 ; 58.-60. (HRR, fr. 45). (8) Gf. references in HRR, 1, pp. cccxi, n. 3 : "Raro occasionem Livius praetermisit, quin aliquot salte verbis mentiendi impudenter crimen in Antiatem coniceret." (9) HRR, pp. ccLxxxv ff. ; NIESE, RE, 3 (308), pp. 2858,67 ff. ; M. ZIMMERER Der Annalist Q,. Claudius Quadrigarius, München, 1937 ; WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 89,90/120. Livy mentioned him by name fifteen times (if we consider the Orosius passages in HRR). In the first decade specifically in the second pentade, four times : 6.42,3, 8.19,13, 9.5,1, 10.37,13 (HRR, frs. 10a*, 14*, 18, 34*; in later books especially frs. 63*, 64*, 65**, 66*, 67*). (10) HRR,

pp. CLxxxi ff. ; MÜNZER and

GICHORIUS, RE,

3 (96), pp. 1392,

Uff.;

18

SOURCES

doyen of early Roman historians, Q . Fabius Pictor, has to be included (i). The remaining twenty-five books reflect better sources as well as a greater abundance of available facts. Evidently, they are superior to the previous ones as an historical document, since possibly the affairs described were more readily, and in greater detail, available to Livy as well as to his sources. In this third decade (2), he relied on Polybius in the Sicilian, African campaigns and the first Macedonian War ; on L. Coelius Antipater (3), on Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius as well, besides other occasionally quoted authors (4) ; in the fourth and fifth decades, mainly on Polybius, Valerius Antias, and Claudius Quadrigarius (5). Evidently, only relative accuracy can be implied when one distinguishes the authors whose works he used, complicated further by

K. LATTE, Der Historiker L. Calp. Frugi in KL Schriften, München, 1968 (ed. O. GIGON, W. BUCHWALD, W. KUNKEL), pp. 837 fF. (repr. S.-Ber. DAW, Berlin, 1960). (1) HRR, pp. Lxixff. ; MÜNZER, RE, 6 (126), pp. 1836, 66ff.; HANELL, Zur Problematik der älteren röm. Geschichtsschreibung in Entretiens (Fondation Hardt), 4 (1956), pp. 147 ff. ; A. MOMIGLIANO, Linee per una valutazione di Fabio Pittore in RAL, s. 8, 15, 1960, pp. 310 fF. ; A. MOMIGLIANO, Timeo, Fabio Pittore e ilpirmo censimento di Servio Tullio, Mise. Post., Torino, 1963, pp. 180 fF. ; A. ALFÒLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., pp. 123 fF. (2) W. SOLTAU, Livius" Geschichtswerk, seine Komposition und seine Quellen, Leipzig, 1897, pp. 47 fF. ; U . KAHRSTEDT, Geschichte der Karthager von 218-146, Berlin, 1913 (vol. 3 of MELTZER : Geschichte der Karthager), esp. pp. 360/361 ; KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 841,64 ff, and Livius..., op. cit., pp. 101 fF. ; G. DE SANCTIS, Storia dei Romani, 4 vols. Torino, 1907-1923, 3.2 ; A. LIPPOLD, Consules, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des römischen Konsulates von 264 bis 201 v. Chr., Habelt, Bonn, 1963,gives'an excellent evaluation of sources in the introduction, pp. 1 fF. ; WALSH, Livius, op. cit., pp. 124 fF., pp. 139/140. (3) HRR, pp. ccxi fF. ; GENSEL, RE, 4 (7), pp. 185, 24 fF., esp. pp. 191, 10 fF.

(4) To the sources oFthe authors mentioned in Livy's third decade, cf. GELZER'S review oF KLOTZ, loc. cit., Kl. Sehr., 3, p. 277 : " I m übrigen muss wiederholt werden, dass für den Quellenkritik treibenden Historiker mit einem Namen wie Valerius wenig gewonnen ist, wenn dabei nicht sein Verhältniss zur echten Überlieferung klargestellt wird. Unter * echter Überlieferung' verstehe ich eine letztlich auf zeitgenössischer Berichterstattung beruhende im Gegensatz zu den der Phantasie späterer Erzähler entflossenen Zutaten". He warns, nevertheless, that contemporary material can also be manipulated and, consequently, false. (5) N. NISSEN, Kritische Untersuchungen über die Quellen der vierten und fünften Dekade des Livius, Berlin, 1863 ; M . HOLLEAUX, CAH, 8, pp. 138/139, but only partially; SOLTAU, Livius* Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 21 fF. ; KLOTZ, RE, loc. cit., pp. 841,16 fF., and Livius, op. cit., pp. 1 fF. ; WALSH, Livy, op. cit., pp. 133 fF.

SOURCES

19

the haze which surrounded these authors' sources. What these were cannot be established with certainty, but Livy's authorities could have used the earliest writers as well as the previously mentioned records (x). One cannot suggest that such records were consistently used by Livy or his authorities, but because of their availability, one could assume a relative degree of reliability in presenting names of higher magistrates, priests, triumphs, foundations of colonies, dedications of temples, or, specifically for our topic, priestly deaths and cooptations, as they occur with regularity in the third, fourth, and fifth decades of Livy ( 2 ). A part of our evidence will be culled from such information, as seen on the priestly lists from 300-211 and 210-44. A great amount of information is derived from Cicero ( 3 ), whose rhetorical and philosophical treatises, speeches, and occasional letters contain references to priests. As a member of the augural college and apprentice under the tutelage of Q . Mucius Scaevola, cos. 95 and pontifex maximus, he was imbued with the necessity and importance of maintaining Roman religio as part of the Roman system ( 4 ). He often referred to his colleagues in his speeches and letters, as well as to earlier great personalities who were members of one priestly college or another. T h a t he was familiar with extant literature is evident from his

(1) Admittedly, at least in the first century, some doubt was expressed concerning the historical reliability of those records by Cicero, who seriously questioned their accuracy : Brut., 16,62, ... Multa enim scripta sunt in eis, quae facta non sunt, falsi triumphi, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones, cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur genus... We know that family historians did not necessarily maintain a completely detached point of view toward their kin, e.g., Postumius Albinus, Valerius Antias, La., (cf. references above). Also, tampering with sacerdotal data cannot be excluded as a possibility, especially in view of the fact that certain families consistently provided members for the priestly colleges ; cf. lists below. (2) KLOTZ (Livius, op. cit., pp. 44 ff.) presents data concerning ludi, annonae and deaths and cooptations of priests. He credits these references to the late annalist, Valerius Antias. GELZER (review of Klotz's Livius, op. cit., loc. cit., Kl. Sehr., 3, esp. pp. 270/271) points to earlier sources, while Badian considers the archival material the mere invention of Valerius Antias (DOREY, Latin Historians, op. cit., p. 21). (3) M. GELZER, RE, 7A (29), pp. 827, 31 ff. ; W. KROLL, for rhetorical works, ibid., pp. 1091, 11 ff. ; PHILIPPSON, for philosophical works, ibid., pp. 1104, 1 ff. ; and K. BÜCHNER, for letters and fragments, ibid., pp. 1192, 49 ff. (4) To religio in general and to Cicero's attitude toward priests and religio in particular, cf. below on pp. 36 ff., and Epilogue.

20

SOURCES

references to innumerable authors (x). He has read available speeches (2), was aware of the annales maximi (3), and utilized the expert advice of Atticus (4). Many of his references to priests merely state that an individual was a member of a priestly college ; thus, exactitude in dating cooptations or deaths is practically impossible. Since many of the personalities were well-known, one should assume that error, or deliberate manipulation, was avoided (5) ; consequently, a great deal of reliability can be ascribed to the Ciceronian evidence. One report in har. resp., 6,12 (6), provides us with a complete list of membership in the pontifical college in the year 57 ; another is found in Macrobius (7) (sat., 3.13,11). Together they provide the majority of available data for the first century. Other writers, both Greek and Roman, supply occasional information, which will be listed in the chapters below. The non-literary sources are comparatively few—some late elogiativa the four tablets of the fasti sacerdotum (ILS, 9338), which offer nine priestly names. They are possibly augures, or augures and pontifices combined. Coins also provide information, although often it cannot be determined whether the symbols (8) refer to the monetales> own or their ancestors' priesthood. Hence, in the following all dates will refer to the period B.C. (1) While complete citation of references would be prohibitively lengthy, the following should suffice : POLYBIUS, de off, 3.32,113 ; adAtL, 13.30,3, where he also speaks oïLibonis annali, (cf. HRR, 1, pp. GGGLXXVI ff., L. SCRIBONIUS LIBO) ; CATO THE ELDER, Brut.,

17.65 ff., passim ; C. ACILIUS, de off., 32.115 ; Gn. GELLIUS, dediv., 1.26,55, where Cicero mentions the FABII and GOELIUS ; G. FANNIUS and A. POSTUMIUS ALBINUS,Brut.,21,81 ;

SEMPRONIUS ASELLIO, with others, de leg., 1.2,6. (2) Brut., 25,94 ff. (3) De leg., 1.2,6; de or., 2.12,52. (4) E.g., ad Att., 12.20,2 ; 22,2 ; 23,2 ; 24,2 ; 13.4,1 ; 5,1. (5) With few exceptions textual inconsistency causes difficulty, as in the case of Cato the Censor, according to de sen., 18,64, toc. cit., on p. 180, with additional discussion. (6) Loc. cit., cf. below on pp. 127 ff., with further discussion. (7) WESENER, RE, 14 (7), pp. 170, 6 ff. ; for his sources, cf. esp. pp. 182, 44 ff. ; loc. cit.,

pp. 154 ff., where the passage is discussed. (8) The simpulum for the pontificate, lituus for the augurate, tripod for the decemvirate, and the patera for the septemvirate. The dating of the coins, often without possibility of precision, will be based upon E. BABELON, Monnaies de la République romaine, Paris, 2 vols., 1885/1886; H. A. GRUEBER, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, 3 vols., London, 1910 ; E. A. SYDENHAM, revised by G. G. HAINES, ed. L. FORRER and G. A.

HERSH, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, Spink, London, 1952 ; to this, cf. MRR, 2, pp. 429 ff.

CHAPTER I Priesthoods in General According to Roman tradition, major sacrifices were performed by the yearly magistrates, preferably by the consuls. As part of this duty they were responsible for the direction of community affairs pertaining to man and gods. The magistrates took the aus­ picio, (1), while general supervision of religious functions was in the hands of the quattuor amplissima collegia (2) : the three major ones were the pontif tees, the augures, and the quindecemviri sacris faciundis, as well as the fourth, in a more or less subordinate position, the tresviri, later septemviri epulones (3). Membership in all these colleges was valued for the prestige it gave to the holders and their families, (1) It is not our purpose to analyze the thorny problem of auspicio, and spectio, cf. the very detailed description in RSR, 1, pp. 87 fF. To auspicium : WISSOWA, RE, 2, pp. 2580, 26 fF. ; to spectio : MARBACH, RE, 3A, pp. 1570, 20 fF., who defines the similarity between the two, except that in case of spectio the meaning is action and the right to action. He makes the distinction between the rights of magistratus majores and magistratus minores and suggests that in special cases even the augures could have had the right. As far as spectio is concerned, three categories are to be distinguished : (1) the augures, in possession of nuntiatio concerning ausp. oblativa (cf. below), (2) the magistrate in possession of spectio for ausp. impetrativa and oblativa, and (3) private persons. To this, cf. A. MAGDELAIN, Recherches sur /'« imperimi», la loi curiate et les auspices d'investiture, Paris, 1968, in which the author considers the legal problems in the interrelation between Imperium and auspicia. Also, E. MEYER, Römischer Staat und Staatsgedanke, 2nd. ed., Darmstadt, 1961, pp. 85, and 123 fF. When and how the distinction evolved cannot be said ; yet, at the end of the Repulic, it was quite precisely delimited, as seen i n C i c , Phil., 2.32,81 : Quidenim ? Istuc, quod te sacerdotii iure facere posse dixisti, si augur non esses et consul esses, minus facere potuisses ? Vide ne etiamfacilius. Nos enim nuntiationem habemus : consules et reliqui magistratus etiam spedionem. Also, VARRO, de l.L, 6, 82 : in auspiciis distributum est, qui habeat spectionem qui non habet. The passages are analyzed in RSR, 1, p. 89, n. 3. (2) SUET., Aug. 100 ; Mon. Ane, 2,16 ; cf. KORNEMANN'S article on Collegium, RE, 4,

pp. 380, 14 fF., esp. 382, 21-383, 47. (3) For bibliography regarding history, organization and activity of priesthoods, cf. RKR, pp. 479-549 ; MARQUARDT, 3.234-415 ; RSR, 1, pp. 104-116 ; 2, pp. 18-73 ; 3, pp. 110-111 and 1049-1062; BOUCHÉ-LECLERCQ, pp. 510-562; RRG, pp. 195-212 and 394411 ; HOFFMANN-LEWIS, op. cit., p.

8.

22

CHAPTER I

but especially in the college ofpontifices and augures, since they were consulted by the senate in most controversial issues regarding religion (1). They could always insist that the sacred matters be taken by the senate before profane ones (2), and in such cases, the senate regularly discussed the problem in a probuleutic manner with one of the four colleges under whose competence the case might have fallen. The decision remained always with the senate ; yet, since the priestly colleges consisted mostly of sénatoriales, their advice should be considered as that given by a permanent committee of the senate. In historical times, among the priestly colleges the most important was that of the pontifices (3). To them fell the duty of advising with the senate concerning the gods (4), the supervision of ceremonies according to the prescribed ritual, and the appeasement of the gods when prodigies appeared (5). They held the indigitamenta, the proper and precise words with which the gods could be approached (6), the very words which were pre-announced by the pontifex maximus, their chief, in any religious affair, to the magistrate (7). Most importantly, the pontifices were the custodians of the libri pontificii {pontificales, pontificum), a, treasure trove of acta, indigitamenta, ritualia, commentarii, fasti, and annales, which were to be consulted by the college of pontifices only. Also, they guarded the commentarii, i.e., the responsa and decreta, which pertained to the sacred rites (8). In the last stages of the Republic, Cicero described these annales

(1) MARQUARDT, pp. 235 ff. ; RKR, pp. 479 ff. ; RSR, 3, p. 1000.

(2) Ibid., p. 999. (3) Besides the pontifices, the rex sacrorum, the J"lamines (3 majores and 3 minores), the Vestal virgins constituted the membership of the pontifical college. They were ranked according to a strictly established hierarchical order. Among the occasional dual priesthoods held by one person, the above-mentioned priesthoods were never combined (cf. p. 190). This fact would tend to prove the essential unity of the college's membership (RKR9 p. 504). (4) RRG, pp. 195-212 ; 400-402 ; J. BLEIGKEN, Oberpontifex und Pontifikalkollegium in Hermes, 85, 1957, pp. 345-366. (5) Ibid., p. 259. (6) H. USENER, Götternamen, Versuch einer Lehre von der religiösen Begriffsbildung, Bonn, 1896, passim; M. KRETZER, De Romanorum vocabulispontificabulis, Diss. Halis. Sax., 1903, pp. 44-81 ; Richter, RE, 9, pp. 1334, 57 ff. (7) BLEICKEN, Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., describes the pontifex maximus as a spokesman for the college, p. 364. (8) PETER, HRR, 1, pp. ivff.; L. CANTARELLI, Origine degli Annales Maximi, in RFIC 26, 1898, pp. 209 ff, identifies the acta (cf. HRR, 1, pp. vu ff), or the annales pont, with the commentarii. Gf. also p. 11 ff.

PRIESTHOODS

IN

GENERAL

23

as the ius religionum, vetustas exemplorum, auctoritas litterarum monumentarumque (1), and the pontifices as their interpreters (2). In historically ascertainable times, the head of this college was the pontifex maximus, who eventually emerged as the most important priest in Rome (3). He was not a primus inter pares-, according to Wissowa (4) ; rather, the whole college of pontifices formed a unit at the head of which, for the sake of bureaucratic expediency, stood the pontifex maximus. This was perhaps the reason why the po?itifices were not nominated by the pontifex maximus ; rather, they were coopted in the whole college (5). Thus, we should see the pontifex maximus as the spokesman for the decision of the entire college concerning piacula, vota publica, consecrationes, adoptions, wills, marriages, funeral rites, as well as deletions from and additions to the official calendar (6). Among their responsibilities, perhaps the most significant was the regulation of the calendar. The lex Acilia gave them undisputed right to determine the days when meetings could be held, sacrifices offered, votes cast, and valid decisions of the senate brought forth (7). Decisions were conveyed to the magistrates through decretum (1) CICERO, de domo, 2, 4.

(2) Ibid., 1, 1 ff. (3) RKR, pp. 504 ff. ; RRG, pp. 117 ff. and 195 ff. The pontifex maximus did not become the head of the Roman state cult immediately after the regifugium ; rather, the position was held by a specially created priesthood, the rex sacrorum. He eventually lost his preeminence because of the limitations on his functions, while the pontifices maximi could embrace new trends, could satisfy demands for religious activism when adverse conditions of the Hannibalic War developed religious fervor among the population, aided by the outstanding leadership of some strong personalities among them. (4) RKR, (5)

Gf.

p. 509 ; BLEIGKEN, Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., p. 364.

WISSOWA, RE,

4, pp.

1208,

25

ff.

(6) To the sphere of competence, cf. RKR, pp. 511 ff. ; RRG, pp. 197 / 198 ; adpiacula, W. EHLERS, RE,

20, pp.

1179,

56 ff. ; ad consecrationes, WISSOWA, RE,

4, pp. 896, 29 ff.

Concerning magisterial functions of the pontifex maximus, cf. BLEICKEN, Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., where he has shown that separation between priests and magistracies always existed and remained. (7)

MARQUARDT, 3, p. 286, 6 ; RKR,

p. 513 ; MAGR., sat. 1,13,21 ; 14,1 ; AMM. MARC.,

26, 1, 12 ; G. ROTONDI, Leges publicae populi Romani, Milano, 1912 (repr. Olms, 1962), p. 273. In a recent note {Hermes, 95, 1967, pp. 383/384), T . J . LUCE, jr., suggested that the interpretation of LIVY'S (9.9, 2) : ... intercalatae poenae usuram..., could signify that the ponti­ fices maximi were in a position to manipulate monthly interest rates. His theory will remain an assumption because evidence cannot be offered that the pontifices maximi ever deliberately used intercalation for this purpose.

24

CHAPTER I

or responsum (1),for which three members of the college were sufficient. These three could even overrule the pontifex maximus (2). Several spheres of the pontifex maximus9 legal competence became important in the political and legal framework of the Roman state. Firstly, it was his duty to give advice for an adrogatio in the comitiis calatis (3). Secondly, he had the right of multa (4) and the discipline of the Vestal virgins (5), as well as priests. Lastly, even against the will of the person whom he selected, he had the right oïcaptio (6). For this very reason the law of formal inauguration and the undatable lex Papia were passed in order to regulate this power of the pontifex maximus (7). In fact, one can see in the duties and privileges of the pontifices and pontifices maximi nothing but interaction between religious and public affairs, which, through the parallel duties and privileges of the pontifices, most of whom held the highest magistracies, were inseparably bound and thus dependent upon each other. The historical origin and development of the second college, the augures, is mired in pseudo-history. Yet, the study of auspicia, which was their main preoccupation, was so closely connected with Roman society that, without them, Rome would be unimaginable. (1) RKR, p. 514; decretum, HESKY, RE, 4, pp. 2289, 21 ff. ; esp., pp. 2302, 21 ff.» pointing out that these are not binding but will become effective through the decree of the magistrate. (2)

LIVY, 31.9,

7 ff.

(3) RRG, op. cit., p. 400 ; LEONHARD, RE, 1, pp. 419, 45 ff. The pontifex maximus never had the right to call together the assemblies, nor was he their presiding officer (cf. RRG and BLEICKEN, loc. cit., against RKR,

p. 511 and RSR, 2, p. 37).

(4) W. HELLEBRAND, RE, Suppl. 6, pp. 556, 8 ff. ; J . BLEICKEN, Kollisionen zwischen Sacrum und Publicum, in Hermes, 85, 1957, pp. 446 ff. ; cf. pp. 197 ff., below. (5) LIVY, 4.44, 11 and OGILVIE, Commentary, p. 602 ; also, L r w , 8.15, 7. Later interpolation and potential political misuse is shown by MÜNZER, Die römische Vestalinnen bis zur Kaiserzeit, in Philol., 92, 1937, pp. 47 ff. and 199 ff. G. KOCH (Religio, Studien zu Kult und Glauben der Römer, Nürnberg, 1960, pp. 2 ff.) points out that it is a criminal process because for breach of religious law such a process was not initiated by the community. (6) L r w , 27.8, 4, 5 ; GELL., n.a., 1, 12, 1-5 and 11, concerning the Vestal virgins. (7) GELL., loc. cit., 11. Evidently, it must have come later in the Republic in view of the fact that the pontifices maximi, as a directing force in politico-religious affairs, did not emerge until the third century. Two possibilities exist, either through a C. PAPIUS, tr. pi. in 65, or the trib. Papius in 253, the year when Ti. Goruncanius was elected a pontifex maximus. ROTONDI, op. cit., pp. 376, 377, holds to the later date, which seems to be feasible, although the earlier date is not impossible because "potrebbe anche trattarsi di una legge di un'epoca intermedia e di autore ignoto".

25

PRIESTHOODS IN GENERAL

In historically approachable later stages of the Republic, their main concern, as a priestly college, was the auspicia, through which they claimed to ascertain the will of Jupiter (1). In most cases the magistrates took the auspicia and the augures gave interpretation according to strictly established formulae. Their ritualistic act of interpreting called augurium agere (2), was not connected with the performing of sacrifices in any way because such performances fell under the sphere of pontifical competence (3). The augures did not offer a glance into the future (4), nor did they determine the causes of contemporary misfortune ; rather, from signs, according to well-established laws of augury (5), they have indicated or interpreted the agreement or disagreement of the gods. Therefore, their priestly duties in no way clashed with those of the members of other colleges. Yet, the importance of these duties seems to be evident. The college was always in a parallel position to the pontifical college, as seen in the selection, number of members, and personalities in the membership. It is presumed that the augures had a president, most likely the oldest member (6). In their archives were collected the augural fasti, acta, libri, and/or commentarli^), which were divided into the decreta (8) and responsa (9), that is, records of augural decisions concerning the magisterial auspicia, as opposed to the libri which described the science of augury. Exactly in these interpretations is it possible to see the importance of the augural college. Roman law demanded that certain state occasions, e.g., magisterial entry into office, decisions of assemblies, and departures for wars, could be performed only after auspicato (10), i.e., after the

(1) RSR, 1, pp. 76 ff. ; WISSOWA, RE, 2, pp. 2313, 41 ff.

(2) VARRO, de l.l, 6, 42 ; CICERO, de div., 1.17, 32 ; cf. also, K. Schriften, München, 1968, p. 103 Philolog., 97, 1948, pp. 143 ff. (3) RKR, p. 524.

LATTE,

op. cit., Kleine

(4) CICERO, de div., 2.33, 70.

(5) BOUCHÉ-LECLERCQ, pp. 524-539 ; MARQJÜARDT, pp. 401-409 ; good, brief review in Der Kleine Pauly, I, pp. 735, 31 ff., by W. EISENHUT. (6) Cic, de sen., 18, 64, the controversial passage concerning Porcius Cato's augurate. Cf. notes on p. 144 ; cf. WISSOWA, RE, he. cit., pp. 2322, 31 ff. (7) MARQUARDT, p. 400. (8) Cic, de div., 2.15, 35 and 35, 73 ; leg., 2.12, 31 ; LIVY, 4.7, 3.

(9) Cic, de domo, 15, 40. (10) To this, cf. JULICHER, RE, 2, pp. 2580, 26 ff. ; cf. also, spectio, loc. cit., and obnuntiatio, WEINSTOCK, RE, 17, pp. 1726, 48 ff.

MARBACH

in RE,

26

CHAPTER I

good will of the gods has been ascertained. If the auspicia indicated displeasure or disapproval of the gods, the function was automatically suspended or cancelled (1). In fact, any influence of the augural college would emanate from these interpretations, since all doubts or difficulties which might have manifested themselves in taking the auspicia impetrativa were put to the augural college for study and decision. As Wissowa pointed out (RE, loc. cit., p. 2333, 67 ff.), originally their capacity was advisory, which through the centuries acquired a great deal of politically expedient formalism. He specified that most likely in the last century of the Republic one can see that the magistrate was not obliged to accept the augural interpretation (2). Yet, after the assembly was over, the augural college could be consulted, especially if auspicia ottativa, like thunder or lightning (3), were reported, or a procedural mistake occurred, because of which Vitium could be proclaimed (4). Thus, the validity, or the permissibility of the political action depended on their decision. Specifically, through this process, in Cicero's time (5),they could (1) grant or refuse permission to hold an assembly ; (2) stop a proceeding in the middle ; (3) adjourn assemblies, although called to order by the highest magistrate ; and (4) force the consul to resign. That a magistrate could not ignore such power is evident, although it would be presumptuous to generalize that the same precise system existed from the earliest phases of the Republic. The third college was the quindecemviri (originally duumviri, later decemviri) sacris faciundis ( 6 ). Originally consisting of two, by 367 the number of priests was raised to ten ( 7 ), equally divided amongst plebeians and patricians ( 8 ). Thus, in the third century, the college was construed similarly to the pontifical and augural colleges. It is

(1) RSR, 1, p. 76. Among the auspicia, the impetrativa were sought on demand from the gods by the magistrate. Yet, the augures, or for that matter any person, could declare the sighting of other, not demanded auspicia, which were called oblativa (WISSOWA, RE, loc. cit., pp. 2330, 44 ff.) ; cf. material on pp. 45-46. (2) FESTUS, p. 268. L. ; PLINY, n.h., 28,4,17 : neque... auspicia pertinere ad eos,quicumque... observare se ea negaverint. (3)

CICERO, de div.,

2.18,

42.

(4) E.g., LIVY, 45.12, 10; 23.31, 13. (5)

CICERO, de leg.,

2.12,

31.

(6) RRG, p. 160, n. 4 ; pp. 397/398. G. RADKE, RE, 24, (1), pp. 1114, 53 ff. ; cf. lists of members pp. 1142, 64 ff. (7)

LIVY, 6.37,

(8)

LIVY, 6.42,

12. 12.

PRIESTHOODS

IN GENERAL

27

possible that a dual presidency was the executive organ of the college, as seen in the magistri of the saecular games in 249, one plebeian, M. Livius Salinator (n° 18), and the other a patrician, M. Aemilius Lepidus Numida (n° 17) (1). The major duty of the college was the guarding (2) and interpreting of the Sibylline oracles (3), which were consulted at times of great danger to the state. The consultation had to be done at the special request of the senate (4) for the following reasons : (1) in case of party strife (5), (2) great misfortune (6), or (3) prodigies which were difficult to interpret (7). Afterwards, the decem­ viri brought to the senate's attention the words of the oracle, and gave their interpretation, which the senate then complemented with the necessary resolutions (8). These interpretations did not presage a doomed future ; rather, they clarified and gave positive specifications of modus operandi in securing the favour of the gods in the business at hand, "to put it bluntly, to get luck on their side" (9). The oracles understandably were kept in the greatest secrecy (10), since only the decemviri constituted the competent agency to study them ( u ). That

(1) MRR, 1, p . 223 ; cf. notes ad n° 17 and n° 18 below. (2) DION. H A L . , 4, 62. (3) GELL., u.a., 1, 19, 11 ; CICERO, de div., 1.2, 4. (4) CICERO, de div.9 2.11, 12 ; DION H A L . , 4, 62, 5.

(5) ordcnç, or, ardaeœç xaTaÄaßovoric rrjv nòXiv in DION. HAL. ; tumultus in VAL. MAX., 1, 1, 1 ; esp. concerning the Gracchan revolt. (6) ôvGTv%ia, or, —ç rtvàç jutydKrjç av{X7ieaovoYjç xarà nóKejLtov in DION. HAL. ; clades in L r w , 40.37, 1. (7) reQarov rivcòv xat (pavraa/Aarcov in DION. HAL., diverse terms in Latin authors. (8) RKR, p . 531. (9) H . STUART-JONES in CAH, 7, p . 430 ; RKR, p . 539, 2 ; especially, the above cited passage of DION. HAL., 4, 62, 5. (10) CICERO, de leg., 2.12, 30 ; LACT., Inst,

1, 6, 13.

(11) On account of their interpretations was Maler Idaea brought to Rome by 204 (LIVY, 29.10, 4 ff.). Among the many attempts to explain historically the bringing of Magna Mater to Rome, Latte's seems to be acceptable (RRG, p . 260, esp. note 3). H e says that in later historical periods one hardly ever hears about the cult, "weil er hauptsächlich von den ärmeren Schichten getragen wurde, die naturgemäss in den Inschriften weniger hervortreten. Dann hatte man gerade, als die eigentliche Gefahr des zweiten Punischen Krieges vorüber war, diesen Schichten eine Konzession gemacht". Latte admits the likelihood that the new cult could signify and attempt to introduce new methods of religious cult. Nevertheless, he reduces the possibilities to one common denominator, "Für die Religionspolitik der römischen Regierung in dieser Zeit ist die Rücksicht auf die Stimmungen in der Bevölkerung Roms massgebend, nicht die Aussenpolitik". R. MUTH, Römische religio, in Serta Philologica Aenipontana, 7-8, Innsbruck,

28

CHAPTER I

these oracular interpretations and ambiguous answers could be used for other than religious benefit seems to be evident. There seems to be some confusion in the records between the XVviri s.f. and the haruspices, yet the haruspices were never sacerdotes publici p.r. (1). In case of necessity they were invited from outside of Rome (2). They foretold the future, a fact which should indicate the essential difference between them and the augural and decemviral colleges (s). They have not constituted a special college in Rome until the time of the emperor Tiberius. The Epulones, the latest of the four colleges, was instituted in 196 (4) because the pontifices were unable to cope with the increasing burden of religious rituals. T h e epulones' dependency upon the pontifices is evident, since the pontifices arbitrated in their differences (5) and substituted for them whenever they were not available to perform prescribed functions ( 6 ). These included a number of cult-oriented ceremonial duties, "tensae, curricula, praecentio, ludi, libationes epulaeque ludorum" ( 7 ). Thus, not surprisingly, only seven epulones can be found on the Republican lists below.

REQUIREMENTS AND MEMBERSHIP

Originally, all priesthoods were of the patrician order ( 8 ), b u t in the late Republic only the rex sacrorum and the f lamines majores were bound to patrician status ( 9 ). T h e college of the decemviri sacris faciundis was most likely open to the plebeians by the LicinioSextian law ( 10 ). The plebeians next secured the right of pontificate

1962, pp. 253-254, considers the "Magna Mater" cult as thefirstnotable manifestation of Roman flexibility within the frame of traditional cult practices. (1) RKR, p. 543 ; H. STUART-JONES, CAH, pp. 429-430 ; RRG, pp. 396-397. (2) CICERO, de div., 1.43, 97; LIVY, 27.37, 7.

(3) RKR, p. 547. (4) LIVY, 23.42, 1 ; cf. RRG, p. 251. (5) CICERO, har. resp., 10, 21.

(6) Dio C , 43, 41, 9 ; 48, 32, 4. (7) CICERO, loc. cit.

(8) RKR, pp. 487 ff. (9) RKR, pp. 506, 5, 6, 7, 8. (10) LIVY, 6.37, 12 ; 6.42, 2.

PRIESTHOODS

IN GENERAL

29

and augurate through the lex Ogulnia in 300 (1), in accordance with the gains made after 366. The members of the colleges were chosen for life in contrast to annual magistracies (2). Technically, no priest could be dismissed ; only the salii were obliged to abdicate whenever they reached another priesthood (3). Also, the Vestal virgins were permitted to leave after 30 years of service. We know that priestly competence remained even when a priest left the city for some reason or other. The pontifex maximus was obliged to remove a priest from his position only when the priest's duty came into opposition to his other activities, especially in the case of the f lamines (4). Also, when a priest was condemned in court, he automatically lost his priesthood (5), but in the case of the augures (and thefratres arvales), even then their priestly competence remained (6). The position of the pontifex maximus could never be lost. Since the number of members was specific (7), the priestly colleges constituted special groups of permanent functionaries whose lifelong terms potentially permitted them to exercise an impact upon society through their state and society-connected duties. The selection of the priests was originally in the hands of the members of the colleges, who chose new members through cooptation ; in

(1) LIVY, 10.6-9, 2 ; MRR, 1, p. 172 ; the membership was increased by adding four and five plebeian places to the existing colleges of four patricians each. According to BARDT (p. 32) "... die Zahl so gut bezeugt ist, wie überhaupt nur eine aus dem Alterthum bezeugt sein kann". Nevertheless, he points out (cf. LATTE, p. 197, n. 1) that the pontifex maximus was not noted in Livy's list. It is evident that the head of the pontifical college could be either a plebeian or patrician, as seen in the 7 plebeian and 6 patrician pontifices maximi between 225 and 44. There is evidence that in both colleges the patricians were restricted to about half the places. Yet, the plebeians were eligible for all the places (cf. L. R. TAYLOR, Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College, in AJfPh, 63, 1942, p. 407). (2) RSR, 2, pp. 19 ff. (3) RKR, p. 494, note 1. (4) VAL. MAX., 1.1, 4 ff. ; LIVY, 26.23, 8 ; cf. pp. 28-29, concerning the Jlamines, as representatives of the divine numina, as well as the strictures used against them by some pontifices maximi, cf. below, pp. 95 ff. (5) PLUT., quest. Rom., 99. CICERO, Brut., 33, 127 : hie (Sulp. Galba, Aug. 26) qui in collegio sacerdotum esset, primus post Romam conditam iudicio publico est condemnatus. (6) PLUT., quest. Rom.,

99.

(7) Information conveniently collected in RKR : pontifices and augures, originally three later increased to six, nine, fifteen, and through Caesar to sixteen (pp. 503, 4 ff., 523, 4) ; the epulones originally three and later increased to seven (p. 518) ; and XVviri s.f. (pp. 534-535).

30

CHAPTER I

the historically ascertainable later periods, exceptions were the rex sacrorum, flamines and Vestal virgins, who were appointed by the pontifex maximus (1). Two members of the college nominated the candidates, the number of which was limited to three (2). In Cicero's time, most likely a vote of some comitia was taken between the nomination and the cooptation (3). It is certain, however, that during the third century the pontifex maximus was elected from the members of the pontifical college (4) by a special assembly of 17 tribes (ô). After some unsuccessful attempts (6), in 104 a plebescite of the tr. pi., Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, determined that the members of the four major colleges be elected by the vote of the 17 tribes (7). The nomination became most likely the responsibility of the augures (8). The vote of the assembly, nevertheless, obliged the presiding officer of each college formally to coopt the new member. Sulla temporarily stopped the law (9), but a lieutenant of C. Julius Caesar in 63, T. Labienus, reinstated it again (10). The result was that in the time of Cicero regular elections were held for priests between the consular and praetorial elections ( n ). Some requirements for entrance into priestly colleges were specific (12). An individual who wanted to become a member had to be

(1) WissowA, cooptatio, RE, loc. cit. ; RKR, pp. 487 ff. ; RRG, pp. 394-396. (2) LIVY, 40.42, 11 ; TAG., ann., 4, 16. In case of the Vestal virgins, the list of nominees included 20 names, of which the new members were selected by lot (GELL., u.a., 1, 12, 11). In case of the others, it is generally considered that three names were proposed. (3) Pont. : Gic, ad Br., 1.5, 3 ; SUET., Nero, 2. ; Aug. : Gic, Phil., 2.2, 4 ; 13.5, 12 ; XVviri s.f. : Gic, ad farri. 8.4, 1. (4) L. R. TAYLOR, The Election of the Pontifex Maximus in the Late Republic in CI. Phil., 37, 1942, pp. 421 ff., esp. p. 421, note 1, for bibliography. Cf. MÜNZER'S evaluation in RAAF, pp. 185-186. (5) RSR, 2, pp. 27 ff. ; RKR, pp. 495, 508 ff. (6) G. LICINIUS CRASSUS, tr.pl. 145, proposed a bill for popular vote in electing priests ; RRG, p. 277 ; MRR, 1, p. 470. (7) Gf. Gn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (P. 34) ; RSR, 2, pp. 25 ff. ; H. LAST in CAH, 9, pp. 163-164; RAAF, pp. 359-360; MRR, 1, pp. 561-562, n. 5. (8) Auct. ad Her. 1, 12, 20 : lex iubet augurent in demortui locum qui petat in contione nominare. (9) LIVY, per. 89 ; Dio, 37.37, 1 ; AUCT., vir. ill., 75, 11 ; for furthr references, cf. MRR, 2, p. 75. (10) Dio, 37.37, 1-2 ; TAYLOR, The Election of the Pontifex Maximus, loc. cit., pp. 421-422. (11) CICERO, ad Brut, 1.5, 4 ; Dio CASS., 41.36, 3.

(12) RSR, 2, 32 ; 3, 566 ; RKR, p. 491.

PRIESTHOODS IN GENERAL

31

a Roman citizen (1), of free birth (2), and without bodily defect ( 3 ). Yet, unspecific characteristics must have been more exacting and more difficult to fulfill in Rome's aristocratic society, where the upper classes maintained an almost exclusive political control. The priests were members of this segment of the population ; most of them, especially the pontif ices and augures, held higher magistracies. Thus, in their pre-selection and eventual inauguration, the same, i.e., aristocratic, criteria appear to prevail. Unfortunately, we do not have evidence of specific social norms which were used in the selection of priests. As will be shown below, most priests (at least in the four major colleges) were consulares. Thus, ancestral preeminence appears to be a pre-requisite. EXCURSUS 1 Some aspects of interrelation between magistracies and priesthoods will be treated below (pp. 41 fF.). For the present, it is beyond the scope of this work to elucidate the norms by which Roman aristocracy maintained leadership. Nevertheless, a brief reflection upon the problem appears to be necessary (4). Studies in Roman politics attempted to define some norms, e.g., mos majorum, amicitia, virtus, from literary evidence of the late Republic and the Empire (ad mores, cf. A. Steinwenter, mores, RE, 16, pp. 290, 17 fF. ; esp. M. als Sitten, p. 296, 44 ff. ; also, P. L. Schmidt, Der kleine Pauly, 3, p. 1427, 1 ff.). The following statement, i.a., can illustrate acceptance of this tendency in Roman political life, as seen by R. Syme (The Roman Revolution, Oxford, 1939, p. 315) : "The Romans as a people were possessed by an especial veneration for authority, precedent and tradition, and by rooted distaste for change unless change could be shown to be in harmony with ancestral custom, 'mos majorum' — which in practice meant the sentiments of the oldest living senators".

(1) CICERO, pro Balbo, 24, 55. (2) GELL., n.a., 1, 12, 4.

(3) Cf. RKR, p. 491 ; DION HAL., 2.21,3 ; SENEGA, contr. 4, 2 ; GELL., n.a., 1, 12, 3 ; FRONTO, p. 149.

Nab. ; PLUT., quest. Rom., 73 ; RKR,

p. 491.

(4) It should be pointed out that laudationes will be treated below. Elogia will be utilized as they pertain to the individual careers of priests in the following lists. To the Republican nobility, i.a., GELZER, op. cit., Kl. Sehr., op. cit., 1, pp. 17 ff., were utilized, as well as for the following concepts, not essential in the consideration of requirements for priestly cooptation, e.g., dignitas, gravitas, pietas (C. KOCH, RE, 20, pp. 1221, 58 ff.), fides, (OTTO, RE, 6, pp. 2281, 41 ff.), labor and patientia. To these, cf. also BURCK, Gymn., 58, 1951, pp. 163 ff., and KOCH, op. cit., pp. 103 ff., for analysis of vir bonus.

32

CHAPTER I

(Ad amicitia, Oehler, amicus, RE, 1, p. 1831, 5 fF. (esp. *2) brief restatement under amicitia in Der kleine Pauly, by H. Hausmaninger, 1, p. 299, 52 ff.) ; Syme {op. cit., p. 12) illustrates the amicitia thusly : "Three weapons the no biles held and wielded, the family, money and the political alliance (amicitia or factio...)" ; p. 157, "Roman political factions were welded together... on a favourable estimate the bond was called amicitia, otherwise Jactio". Quoting also Sallust (b.J., 31, 15) ; and Cicero (Jam., 3.10, 9) : in quo [aug. college] non modo amicitiam violariapud majores nostros fas non erat, sed ne cooptari quidem sacerdotem licebat, qui cuiquam ex collegio esset inimicus. Cf. also, D. E. Hahm, "Roman Nobility and the Three Major Priesthoods", TAPhA, 94, 1963, pp. 80, 82, 83, who saw in priesthoods nothing but a tool in embellishing "party positions " of the aristocracy (following Miinzer's and Scullard's theories concerning family and other connections. To this, cf. below on pp. 81 ff.). D. Earl, The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome, Ithaca, New York, 1967, p . 21, sees in the relentless pursuit of certain continuously changing ideas, specifically virtus, the basic goal of aristocratic rule. H e says : "Virtus, for the Republican noble, consisted in the winning of personal pre-eminence and glory by the commission of great deeds in the service of the Roman state." (Also passim, R. E. Smith, The Aristocratic Epoch in Latin Literature, Sydney, 1947). The emergence, and pervading interests, of Roman nobility to pursue these concepts is excellently analyzed by D. Kienast, Cato der Zensor, seine Persönlichkeit und seine Zeit, Heidelberg, 1954, esp. Chapter II, pp. 25 ff. While the above statements contain vestiges of feasible interpretation, any generalized acceptance and unselective reliance upon one or more of such concepts will present only part of the historical picture. One has to consider that, especially among the pontifices and augures, a great number of strong personalities appeared, just as among the magistrates who did not hold priesthoods, who were the directing force in the creation of a milieu, in which such slogans as mos majorum, amicitia, and virtus were shaped according to given conditions and individual, rather than class-based, considerations. Furthermore, many Roman writers of the late Republic and the Empire were preoccupied with the deterioration of ancestral ideals. Thus, their opinion concerning moral and ethical probems has to be analyzed according to their individuality (if possible) and the socio-political conditions of their own time (cf. F. Hampl, Römische Politjk in repub­ likanischer Zeit und das Problem des Sittenverfalls, in Hist. Zeitschr., 188, 1955, pp. 497 ff.). Thus, mos majorum, amicitia, virtus, which were steadily changing vehicles of Roman aristocratic standards, cannot be considered extraordinary elements of priestly selection.

PRIESTHOODS

IN GENERAL

33

However, besides these, available ex post facto evidence in the form of elogia and laudationes offer ideal standards by which individuals in leading positions were evaluated (Vollmer, laudatio funebris, RE, 12, pp. 992, 23 ff. ; also P. L. Schmidt, Der kleine Pauly, 3, pp. 517, 60 ff.). Vollmer presents a chronological order of available laudationes, but points out their historical unreliability. Gf. to this, A. Lippold, Consules, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des römischen Konsulats von 264 bis 201 v. Chr., Bonn, 1963, esp. chapter 2, pp. 73 ff.). In the laudationes a three-partite ideal appears which specified the area of activity for a man in the eye of the public. These three activities were government, army, and state cult, comprising the whole activity of public life in which the last was as important as the first, and separation between one and the other was not possible. To illustrate the point, L. Caecilius Metellus, cos. 251 and 247, pont, max. 243 (n° 14), was praised in this manner by his son, according to the statement of Pliny (n.h., 7, 139 ff.) : ... primarium bellatorem esse, optimum oratorem, fortissimum imperatorem, auspicio suo maximas res gerì, maximo honore uti, summa sapientia esse, summum senatorem haberi, pecuniam magnam bono modo invenire, multos liberos relinquere et clarissimum in civitate esse. (Gf. to this, notes ad n° 14 ; Kienast, op. cit., pp. 29-30, and Lippold, op. cit., pp. 75-76). Similarly, in the case of the not yet deceased P. Licinius Grassus Dives (P. 5), Livy (30.1, 5) writes the following : Nobilis idem ac dives erat ; forma viribusque corporis excellebat ; facundissimus habebatur seu causa oranda, seu in senatu et apudpopulum suadendi ac dissuadendi locus esset ; iuris pontificii peritissimus ; super haec bellicae quoque laudis consula­ tes compotem fecerat. The text is a typical text of a laudatio. Apparently, it would have a better place in 39.42 than here. Almost the same characteristics are given in Sempr. As. (HRR, fr. 8, fromGell., 1. 13, 10) : Is Crassus... scriptoribus traditur habuisse quinque rerum bonarum maxima et praecipua : quod esset ditissimus, quod nobilissimus, quod eloquentissimus, quod iuris consultissimus, quod pontifex maximus. Precise generalization cannot be established as far as priestly requirements are concerned, since these statements refer to past actions which are consequently different, according to individual achievements. But in the values which are suggested, one can establish an overall framework as far as Roman aristocracy is concerned. Generally, the individual is described as a brave and wise man, expert in war and in counsel, an eloquent speaker, masterful in matters connected with law, forceful in mind and character, and, besides the previously mentioned characteristics, is also well-versed in military matters. Wealth by honourable means was considered a factor. Ultimately, he was well-equipped with congestis omnibus humanis ab natura fortunaque bonis, (Livy, 30.1,4), not an esoteric idea even in our days.

34

CHAPTER I ADVISORY AND POLITICAL R O L E OF PRIESTS SOME ASPECTS OF MAGISTRACY AND PRIESTHOOD

The Republic was a government of the aristocracy in which after 366 plebeian and patrician familes alike maintained their position by not permitting unproven, unreliable elements to enter their ranks. Münzer pointed to this condition when he said : "Denn nur wenige Auserlesene finden Aufnahme in die Priesterschaften. Zwar ist deren Stellenzahl grösser als die der staatlichen Behörden, doch Beamtengewalt ist durch die Verfassung in enge zeitliche Grenzen eingeschlossen, geistliche Würde aber wird auf Lebenszeit verliehen. U m so mehr richtet sich der Ehrgeiz nicht nur auf Anteil an der Regierung, sondern auch auf Sitz und Stimme in einem Priesterkollegium, und um so mehr ist Mitgliedschaft desselben Kollegiums bald die Voraussetzung, bald die Folge von Zugehörigkeit zu derselben Partei, wie umgekehrt Wettbewerb um Staats ämter und u m Priestertümer zwischen denselben Gegnern stattfindet ( 1 )". To illustrate this condition, the following fact can be offered : with few exceptions all priests held some form of magistracy. As such, their constitutional position as leaders of the community was not delimited to merely magisterial functions ; rather, it was combined with priestly duties. Thus, the priests were not merely (a) a permanent advisory body for the government, but (b) they were expounders of certain policies in the community, where they represented expertise of traditional ritualistic practices in their permanent, annually unchanging colleges. Toward the government, the priests' role was primarily consultative. In fact, the sacerdotes pub liei ( 2 ), the

(1) RAAF, p. 2. The statement is offered by way of introduction to RAAF. The term "geistliche Würde" should be considered a euphemism, vaguely corresponding to contemporary concepts of "religious dignity". On the question of "Partei", cf. below, pp. 81 ff. (2) RKR, pp. 479/480 ; RSR, 2, p. 26 ; LIVY, 26.23, 7 : Sacerdotes publia eo anno demortui sunt novique suffecti, in the year 211 B.C. (MRR, 1, pp. 272 ff.) ; also, 42.28, 10, Eo anno (172 B.C.) sacerdotes publia mortui... Wissowa mentions that the priesthoods originally were connected with family names. He is quoting Arnobius, 3, 38, according to whom the oldest male member was responsible for the maintenance of the cult (cf. RKR p. 404, notes 3, 4, and 5). There is neither time nor place to consider the speculative implications of this observation, yet it is significant that in its very conceptions, priesthoods were connected with individual families, e.g., the Luperci are from the Quinctiales or Fabiani,

PRIESTHOODS

IN

GENERAL

35

priests of Rome, were not representatives of a divinity in the sense that they acted in a divinity's name or brought forth legally binding decisions. Rather, as shown previously, they were advisory or interpretative organs in the maintenance of the best relations between the gods and the state. It is impossible to establish a precise modus operandi of seeking and giving of sacerdotal advice ; nevertheless, some basic aspects appear to be the same on each occasion : (1) Before consultation with priests was sought, portents appeared (*), about which a magistrate officially consulted the senate ; (2) The senate's deliberation and decision was usually connected with officäl advising with members of a priestly college (2) ; (3) After a decision had been made, the senate permitted (3) or commanded (4) the magistrate to carry out the decision. It is problematic when and how the priests gave their advice, yet this is precisely the mòte question. That they were unofficially involved in the first step of the process seems to be evident from the duties of the priestly colleges ( 5 ). The augures, e.g., were basically interested in portents, signs and prodigies, and it is inconceivable that they or the pontifex maximus would not be cognizant of such occurrences. Again, it seems to be logical that the consul or the praetor would have consulted informally with them, especially in view of the fact that consuls themselves, or members of their families, were members of the same colleges. Final decisions again depended on the same group. Their advice, as a decretum, was the decisive one, notwithstanding the fact that, tech-

(1) To portents and prodigies, cf. HÄNDEL, RE, 23, pp. 2283, 3 ff. In connection with the disastrous battle of Trasimene, portents from as far back as 223 were recalled (LIVY, 21, 62-63), as well as from outside of Rome (LIVY, 22.1, 8-13), portents before and during the battle (22.3, 11-13 ; ibid., 5,8). In the year 203 the same signs and omens appeared. (LIVY, 30.2, 9-13), as well as in the year 199 (LIVY, 32.1, 13). (2) The senate's deliberations were initiated in 217 by the new dictator, Q,. Fabius. Maximus, augur since 265, which body after consultations with the XVviri s.f. (Livy, 22.9, 8) and the pontifices (ibid., 11) passed a sen. cons. In 203 the college of the pontifices were the advisory body (LIVY, 30.2, 13), again in the year 200 (LIVY, 31.9, 9-10). In 199 haruspices were the consultors of the senate, and the college ofpontifices again in 187 (LIVY, 39.5, 9-10). (3)

LIVY, 39.5,

10.

(4) Iubet, LIVY, 22.9, 11 ; censuerat, 32.1, 13 ; the consul also acts at the dictation of praeeunte maximo pGntifice, LIVY, 31.9, 9. To this, cf. pertinent references in D. W. PACKARD, A Concordance to Livy, 4 vols., Cambridge, 1968. (5) RSR, 3, p . 999 ; cf. also pp. 21 ff. above.

36

CHAPTER I

nically, the senatus consultum followed the decretum (*). Yet, in view of the preparatory steps, the senatus consultum appears to be a legal technicality. Nevertheless, advice given was more than a mere suggestion. Its weight and importance rested in the Romans' view of gods and religio, a culmination of which was expressed in the late Republic, in the often quoted passage of Cicero {har. resp., 9, 19) : Quam volumus licet, patres conscripti, ipsi nos amemus : tarnen nee numero Hispanos, nee robore Gallos, nee calliditate Poenos, nee artibus Graecos, nee denique hoc ipso huius gentis ac terrae domestico nativoque sensu Italos ipsos ac Latinos, sed pieiate ac religione atque hac una sapientia, quod deorum immortalium numine omnia regi gubernarique perspeximus, omnes gentes nationesque superavimus (2). Accordingly, this late Republican view considered that the Romans, through their special contact with their gods, and supposedly because of their pietas and religio, did surpass all other nations. Historically, the Ciceronian account is suspect as an actual reference for earlier periods. One should point, e.g., to the difficulties connected with the subsequent Augustan revival of traditionalist Roman rites where adequate answers often could not be found to questions of earlier religious practices (3). Thus, even in Cicero's time, one must assume interpretations based upon conjecture. In view of the fact that there are many studies which analyzed what the Romans understood by religio (4),it seems necessary to attempt (1) Ibid., 1, pp. 112 ff.; 3, pp. 364 ff. (2) To an analysis of this.passage, cf., La., MUTH, loc.cit.,op.cit., pp.247-248, where the warning is given : "Allerdings dürfen wir aus den beigebrachten und ähnlichen Aussagen für unser Anliegen nicht zuviel herauslesen : gemeint ist nur, dass die Römer die Götter eifriger und bewusster kultisch verehrten als die Angehörigen anderer Völker...". L I P POLD, op. cit., pp. 297-298, points out that a too idealizing interpretation does not necessarily correspond to historical reality. For additional information concerning religio of the Romans, cf. below. (3) La., RRG, pp. 294 ff. (4) To this complex problem, besides the works cited below, the following wrere consulted : 1. W. WARDE FOWLER, The Original Meaning of Sacer, (repr. from JRS, 1, 1911), in Roman Essays and Interpretations, Oxford, 1920, pp. 15 ff. 2. L. DEUBNER, Die Römer, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte, (begründet von Chantepie de la Saussay), new ed. by A. BERTHELOT and E. LEHMANN, 2 vols., Tübingen, 1925, pp. 418 ff. 3. W. R. HALLIDAY, The Pagan Background of Early Christianity, Liverpool, 1925,

PRIESTHOODS

IN

GENERAL

37

(1) briefly to define the terms, and (2) to trace its manifestation in Roman society through rites and ritualistic practices. Most authorities agree that the modern term religion does not correspond to the Latin religio, and any alliteration could become conceptually misleading. According to Kobbert (1), the term has both an objective and subjective meaning ; thus, for the Romans it signified an attitude, a feeling toward the suprarational, in conjunction with an objective, superior meaning of power, a prohibition, a place and action. Other definitions pursue the same line of thought. Warde-Fowler ( The Rei. Exp., op. cit., p. 249) approaches the problem from the sociological point of view, sees its origin in the anthropological magical formu­ lae, with which a primitive, unsophisticated people tried to put themselves in "right" with the powers of the universe, but adds (ibid., p. 249) that later, under the impact of a developing society, this meaning was found wanting and thus developed into a "religious instinct... to mean the fulfillment of religious obligation quite as much as the anxious feeling which has originally suggested it" (ibid., p. 249). In the following, he argues that in spite of the fact that later writers might not have known anything about earlier cult practices of the Romans, because of manifestations of ritualistic forms he considers the possibility of earlier, society-bound sincerity in religious matters. Wissowa (RKR, p. 380), initiating his discussions from similar bases, describes it the following way :

4. C. BAILEY, Phases in the Religion of Ancient Rome, London, 1932 (Sather Lectures at the U. of Calif., 1931). 5. N. TURCHI, La religione di Roma antica, Bologna, 1939. |GENVOORT, Impejium. Studien over hei mana-begip en zede en taal der Romeinen, éïâ%^P0TS$s$^;\ ; transi, into English : Roman Dynamism, Oxford, 1947. 7. F. ALTHEIM, RÖmiSche Religionsgeschichte (revised 2nd ed.), 2 VGJS., Berlin, 1956 (1st ed. in 3 vols., Berlin and Leipzig, 1931-33, transi, into English by H. Maitingly, 1938). 8. H. J . ROSE, Ancient Roman Religion, London, 1948. 9. J. BAVET, Histoire politique et historique de la religion Romaine, Paris, 1957. J. B. KAETZLER, Religio, Versuch einer Worterklärung (20. Jahresbericht des bischöflichen Gymna­ siums Paulinum in Schwaz, 1952/53), Schwaz, 1953, pp. 2 ff., was not available to me. For further extensive bibliographies, analyses of primary and secondary sources, cf. Muth, loc. cit., op. cit., note on pp. 248 ff. ; H . J . ROSE, Roman Religion, in J RS, 50, 1960, pp. 161 ff., and RRG, pp. 1 ff. Still useful, general background, W. WARDE FOWLER, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, Macmillan, London, 1933. (1) RE, 1A, pp. 565, 39 ff.

38

CHAPTER I

"Grundlage und Voraussetzung für die gesamte Götterverehrung ist das Gefühl der Abhängigkeit von der göttlichen Macht und Fürsorge [religio] und der Wunsch, die höheren Gewalten sich gnädig zu stimmen und zu erhalten...". This "Wunsch", according to him, will be shaped by special regulations through which the state or the individual oblige themselves to certain practices and in turn considers the gods equally bound to fulfill their part of the bargain. For H. J. Rose (OCD, p. 758), religio is a bond and non-physical, inner restraint which eventually develops, into scrupulous maintenance of external forms, and through this into a system of such restraints, called religiones.

Koch, op. cit., p. 99, sees religio "in der leidenschaftslosen, gewissenhaften Beobachtung eines aussermenschlichen Gegenübers". He points out {ibid., p. 100) that : "Die römische res publica ist somit gleichsam das Ergebnis einer zwischenstaatlichen Zusammenarbeit. In ihrem Aufbau und ihrem geschichtlichen Werden herrschen zwar ausschliesslich die Gesetze der menschlichen Logik und eines wirklichkeitsbewährten politischen Instinktes. Allein es geschieht kein einziger entscheidender Akt, der nicht auf dem Weg der Auspizin dem transzendenten Gegenüber zur Stellungnahme, zur Offenbarung seines Fiat oder Veto, unterbreitet wird. Damit wird die Handlung menschlicher Initiative und Verantwortung zu einem Bestandteil des göttlichen Wollens, das sich der Römer unter dem Begriff des Fatums als eine in die Zukunft übergreifende Planung vorstellt. Die Götter erscheinen auf diese Weise als die eigentlichen Baumeister des Staates". Among more recent authors, perhaps the most significant is Muth's approach to the problem (loc. cit., op. cit., p . 256 ff.). He expands Koch's statement : "Die Geschichte der römischen Religion wird man primär sicher nicht als Geschichte ihrer zunehmenden Überfremdung sehen dürfen, sondern als Geschichte des Strebens nach Selbstbehauptung der alten Religionsidee". Furthermore, he points out that the Romans' concept of their gods rested upon the cognizance of numina in actu (ibid., pp. 257 ff), which he defines thusly : "Göttliches numen bleibt für den Römer stets primär machtvolles göttliches Gebieten und Walten, göttliches Tätigsein im menschlichen Bereich und in der Zeit, also in menschlicher Geschichte, es äussert sich in konkreter geschichtlicher Erfülltheit". He shows that (1) the concept numen existed in the earliest forms of Roman religio, and (2) "... die Römer die göttlichen numina zu bestimmten Zeiten in konkreter geschichtlicher Situation praesent empfanden, wie ihnen die Gottheit dabei manifest wurde" (p.

PRIESTHOODS

IN GENERAL

39

258). He sees acceptance of the numen manifested in leaders before and during state actions connected with auspicia and vota, as well as in certain priests, especially the flamen Dialis, flamines majores in general, and the Vestal virgins (p. 259) : "Diese Auffassung erhebt sogar zum Glauben, dass die betreffende Gottheit im Leben ihres Priesters schlechthin gegenwärtig sei, wodurch diese Priester aus einer bloss profanen Existenz herausgehoben sind". Muth's insight is of importance because according to this numen concept, these priests (as well as the Vestal virgins) held a unique position between men and the gods. Consequently, they were bound by the strictest cult regulations. Ultimately, one could say religio was a sense of obligation, aptly described by M u t h as "eine Art commercium" (loc. cit., p . 258), or, as described by Latte {RRG, p. 39), a rule-bound sense of adherence to the manifested demands of higher powers. This sense of obligation, or commercium, was applied to gods as well as to places, and the caerimoniae connected with it referred to the object as well as the subject of religio. Latte also emphasized that religiosity for the Romans was not "... eine Gesinnung, die die ganze Persönlichkeit prägt, sondern die ständige Bereitschaft, auf jedes Anzeichen einer Störung des gewohnten Verhältnisses zu den Göttern mit einer begütigenden Handlung zu antworten und einmal übernommenen Verpflichtungen nachzukommen". T h a t the Romans were always ready to maintain the most satisfactory equilibrium in their obligations between themselves and the gods is evident from the elaborate and pedantic rites with which they wanted to regulate their relationship with the gods, individually as well as in community affairs. As seen above, in the rites the magistrates acted for the whole community, obliged themselves in the community's name, and fulfilled the vows. In turn, however, they expected the gods to fulfill their obligations towards them, by maintaining their good will and fending off hostile powers. The religious acts and ceremonials, therefore, were designed in theory not so much to please the gods as to bring about some manifestation of the divinity proferring certain formulae, thus exercising coercive force upon the divinity to assist and cooperate with the individual or community in return for some already justified or promised compensation. Nevertheless, ceremonialism as the essential quality of early Roman religion should be viewed from another aspect. For anthropologists, the word collectively describes rituals by which the supernatural powers

40

CHAPTER I are enlisted in behalf of man. As such, ceremonialism is always a part of the total religious system as well as a functioning element of culture ( 1 ), and with its simplicity and/or pageantry it constitutes the one tangible, internally satisfactory, least changeable evidence for man that he is in proper contact with the supernatural powers. Actions, words, the mystical language of the unknown and all other paraphernalia are the means by which this contact is fostered, and they did and do exist in all religions. In Rome, without these means, religio would have remained intangible for the majority, as well as unsatisfactory and meaningless. Morevover, the eventually achieved traditional formalism of ritualistic observance became a powerful unifying force between performers and spectators alike, through sentiments evoked during the rites.

It is not the purpose of this work to trace the history of Roman rites except insofar as it pertains to the subject matter at hand. Therefore, the following observation should be made : firstly, when Roman affairs first appear in the light of history, the performing and supervisory elements of the community's religious functions appear to have maintained religious ceremonialism as it existed with cohesive and unifying results for society, especially through the centralization of Italian cults in the city and the incardination of these other cults into the Roman state religion (2) ; secondly, throughout the religious changes of the middle and late Republic, when Hellenistic philosophy, new religions, and the resultant skepsis diminished the nobility's interest in ancient Roman religion ( 3 ), the government did not reject, nor did it fundamentally change the formalism of ancestral religion. Rather, (1) by permitting the community to turn to various foreign divinities, and (2) by adhering to the tradition, the essential unity of the community was astutely and consistently maintained. For our purpose, it is immaterial whether the avowed purpose of this adherence was a sincere faith, the serving of individual ambitions, or the peculiarly Roman interpretation of rule-bound obligation toward gods. The fact remains that religious ceremonialism was maintained during the Republic by the very nobility which

(1) M. H2R3KOVITS, Man and His Works, New York, Knopf, 1950, pp. 361 ff. (2) RRG, esp. chapters VII, Vili, IX, pp. 148 ff., i.a., although Latte's statement that "Zu der politischen Machtkonzentration gesellt sich eine religiöse" (p. 193), cannot be accepted without further qualification (cf. remarks on the priests between 300-211 below). Also, MUTH, loc. cit.> op. cit., pp. 253-254, and LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 309-310. (3) RRG, esp. chapter X, pp. 264 ff.

PRIESTHOODS IN GENERAL

41

p r o v i d e d magistrates a n d priests alike, i n t h e p e r p e t u a t i o n of a n established status quo, in spite of s u b s e q u e n t , often p e r s o n a l l y u n b e lieving a t t i t u d e s . EXCURSUS 2 Such attitudes can be observed in the later stages of the Republic. They are not essentially connected with priestly functions ; rather, they reflect the opinions of diverse authors in diverse sources and offer sophisticated views concerning religio in general ( 1 ). They all agree, however, that rites, or caerimoniae, have a necessary role. Vestiges of such retrospection can be observed in Roman society since the third century ( 2 ). T . M . Plautus and P. Terentius Afer's plays are full of allusions of travesty ( 3 ), which were produced at the Ludi Romani, Plebei, Apollinqres and Megalenses ( 4 ), and show how sophisticated Romans started to look upon religio. Q . Ennius' questioning spirit in matters of religion was approved by the aristocracy ( 5 ), especially after he had translated the avaygacprj of Euhemerus of Messene and reduced the gods to the level of earthly beings who started to be adored only after their deaths ( 6 ). G. Lucilius rejected miracles as figments of the imagination and called Numa the

(1) RKR, esp. chapters 7-14, pp. 38 ff., passim ; RRG, esp. chapters VIII, IX, X, pp. 195 ff., passim. (2) Doubt has to be raised concerning the historical acceptability of some anecdotes in the third century; e.g., in 293, the humorous disdain expressed by the consul, L. Papirius Cursor, for the auspicia, when he vowed to Jupiter pocillum mulsi instead of tempia to the dels immortalibus (Livy, 10.42, 7). To this, cf. MÜNZER'S justifiably critical attitude in RE, 18, pp. 1052, 41 ff. ; or, in 249, when the consul, P. Claudius Pulcher, showed impatient contempt in ordering the sacred chickens to be thrown into the sea because of unfavorable auspicia (Cic., de div., 2, 14, 33 ; nat. d., 2, 7 ; LIVY, per. 19). MÜNZER, RE, pp. 2857, 63ff.,admits in this case the possibility of historical validity because the anecdote corresponds to the "Geist jener Zeit" and the general character of P. Claudius Pulcher. Nevertheless, his statement remains merely an assumption. To Livy's use of religious awe and prodigies for the sake of bona exempta, cf. E. H. HAIGHT, The Roman Use of Anecdote, in Cicero, Livy and the Satirists, New York, 1940, pp. 37ff.She points out that doubt and rational approach to interpretation of religio was the direct result of overemphasis of prodigia. (3) PLAUTUS, CistelL, 513ff.; also, Alcesimar's blunderings about the gods' names, esp. prol. ; cf. also, RRG, p. 265 ; TERENTIUS, Phormio, 704ff.; Eun., 584 ff. (4) RKR, pp. 451 ff. (5) ENN., Telam., 316-318 (ed. VAHLEN, pp. 178-179; in ed. JOCELYN, CXXXIV, a

and c, pp. 127-128), as quoted in Cic, de div., 2.50, 104 ; ego deurn genus esse semper dixi et dicam caelitum, sed eos non curare opinor, quid agat kumanum genus, adding to it in nat. deor., 3.32, 79 : Nam si curent, bene bonis sit, male malis, quod nunc abest. (6) JAGOBY, RE, 6, pp. 964, 42ff.; cf. for instance, Cic., nat. d.9 1.16, 42.

42

CHAPTER I

inventor of religious terrorism (1). Characteristic are the comments of Polybius in the second century (2). He said that religio is nothing more than supersitition ; yet, he added in an admiring tone : επὶ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ἐκτετραγῷδηται καὶ παρεισῆκται τοῦτο τὸ μέρος παρ' αὐτοῖς εἴς τε τοὺς κατ' ἰδίαν βίους καὶ τὰ κοινὰ τῆς πόλεως ὥστε μὴ καταλιπεῖν ὑπερβολήν. ὃ καὶ δόξειεν ἦν πολλοῖς εἶναι θαυμάσιον. ἐμοί γε μὴν δοκοῦσι τοῦ πλήθους χάριν τοῦτο πεποιηκέναι. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν σοφῶνἀνδρῶνπολί­ τευμα συναγαγεῖν, ἴσως οὐδὲν ἦν ἀναγκαῖος ὁ τοιοῦτος τρόπος· ἐπεὶ δὲ πᾶν πλῆθος ἐστιν, ἐλαφρὸν καὶ πλῆρες ἐπιθυμιῶν παρανόμων, ὀργῆς ἀλόγου, θυμοῦ βιαίου, λείπεται τοῖς ἀδήλοις φόβοις καὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ τρα­ γῳδίᾳ τὰ πλήθη συνέχειν. Polybius· made a sharp distinction between the "πολίτευμα σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν" and the "πλήθος", which is "ἐλαφρὸν καὶ πλῆρες ἐπιθυμιῶν παρανόμων, ὀργῆς ἀλόγου, θυμοῦ βιαίου" and must be left in blessed ignorance, through "ἀδήλοις φόβοις καὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ τραγῳδίᾳ". It is an understatement that Polybius considered religion an "opiate of the people" ; nevertheless, his expressed admiration for the modus operandi duly represented an attitude of enlightenment which separated the nobles from the non-nobles, the advantaged from the disadvantaged, the governors from the governed. According to Augustine, Q . Mucius Scaevola, consul 95, pontifex ca. 115-82, felt that it is expedient ... falli in religione civitates (8). His argument was derived most likely from Stoic ideas prevailing in the Scipionic circles, namely, the three sorts of teachings concerning the gods (4) : ... tria genera tradita deorum: unum a poetis, alterum a philosophis, tertium a principibus civitatis (5). Since the third was aimed at the welfare of the state in which the masses were uneducated and terror and pageantrybound, it was not to be disturbed. Similar views were expressed, as seen in Augustine, by M. Terentius Varro, who maintained this three-partite division :... tria genera theologiae dicit esse, id est rationis quae de diis explicatur, eorumque unum mythicon appelari, alterum physicon, tertium civile (e) ? He

(1) LUCIL., fragm., sat, 1,15 (ed. MARX). (2) POL., 6.56, 6-12; F. W. WALBANK (A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 2 vols., Oxford, 1957-67, 1, pp. 11-12 and 741-742 ; 2, p. 515) points out that "P. approved the use of religio for disciplinary purposes" (p. 741), but maintains that any belief beyond the limits of possibility is a manifestation of simplistic, narrow intelligence (POL., 16.12, 3-11). (3) AUG., civ. Dei, 4.27, 16 (ed. DOMBART and KALB, Teubner).

(4) In the second century, Panaetius, a member of the Scipionic circle, defined and divided religious beliefs into "μυθική, πολιτική φιλοσοφική". Cf. M. POHLENZ, RE, 18, pp. 432, 18 ff. ; for further analysis of the problem, cf. RRG, p. 277. (5) AUG., civ. Dei, 4.27, 2/3 (ed. DOMBART, KALB, Teubner) ; VARRO, Ant., fr. 24 (ed. GONDEMI, Zan. Bologna) ; to this, Augustine adds : Trìplici enim genere deorum censum

distinxit : unum esse physicum, quod philosophi rétractant, aliud mythicum, quod inter poetas tertium gentile, quod populi sibi quique adoptaverunt (VARRO, fr. 24, ibid.). (6) AUG., civ. Dei, 6.5, 1 ff. (ed. cit.) ; VARRO, fr. 23 (ed. cit.) ; to questions concerning

PRIESTHOODS

IN

GENERAL

43

explains the tertium genus as follows : ... quod in urbibus cives, maxime sacerdotes, nosse atque administrai debent. In quo est, quod deos publice sacra et sacrificia colere et facere quemque par sit ( 1 ). Varro further adds : Prima inquit [Varro] theologia maxime adcommodata est ad theatrum, secunda ad mundum, tertia ad urbem ( 2 ). Curious is the explanation of the genus civile: Multa esse vera, quae non modo vulgo scire non sit utile, sed etiam, tametsi falsa sunt, aliter existimare populum expédiât ( 3 ). In all these interpretations one can observe a chasm between Roman statesmen, who were members of the educated nobility and the governed, who comprised the majority of the population. In Cicero, the distinction is not clear. H e appears to have maintained a separation between politically expedient and philosophically relevant interpretations in matters connected with religion and cult ( 4 ). As a member of the Roman governing class, he maintined that : "people's constant need for the advice and authority of the aristocracy helps to hold the state together (5) ". H e was specific about the means by which this constant need of the people was to be fulfilled. Writing about the college of pontifices, e.g., he wrote that : Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a majoribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, turn nihil praeclarius quam quod eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium et summae rei publicae praeesse voluerunt, ut amplissimi et clarissimi cives rem publicam bene gerendo religiones, religiones [MSS. reading : religionibus] sapienter interpretando rem publicam conservarent ( 6 ). Also, being a member of the augural college, a position which he appreciated above all else, he held the augures to be the most important among the leading priesthoods. H e said : Maximum autem et

Varro's res divinae, RE, Suppl., 6, pp. 1234, 31 fF., esp. the three genera theologiae, cf. RKR, pp. 67 ff. (1) Ibid., loc. cit., civ. Dei, pp. 57 ff. (2) VARRO, fr.

28 (éd. cit.).

(3) AUG., civ. Dei, 4.31, 15 ff. Similar opinion of Augustine is expressed in civ. Dei, 3.4, 9ff. :... quam latum locum aperiat fabitati, ut ubi intellegamusplura iam sacra et quasi religiosa poiuisse confingi, ubi putata sunt ciuibus etiam de ipsis diis prodesse mendacia. (4) RRG, pp. 285/286, concerning Cicero's three-partite attitude toward the use of religion. Also, T. A. DOREY, ed., Cicero, esp. chapters 6, by A. E. DOUGLAS, and 7, by J . P. V. D. BALSDON, New York, 1965, pp. 135-214. (5) Gic, de leg., 2. 12, 30, 31 : Quod sequitur uero, non solum ad religionem pertinet, sed etiam ad ciuitatis statum, ut sine eis, qui sacris publice praesint religioni priuatae satis facere non possint, continet enim rem publicam Consilio et auctoritate optimatium semper populum indigere. (6) GIG., de domo, l, 1. That this quotation would prove that the college of pontifices is confined to senators is unacceptable. Rather, they were members of the senate because of the magistracies which they held. Separation between Church and State in ancient Rome was unknown. It is not the role of this paper to analyze Cicero's aims and dreams as a rationalizer concerning the sage interpretation of religion. That he reflected upon a possible reform seems to be evident from de div., 2.72, 148 : Multum enim et nobismet ipsis et nostris profuturi uidebamur, si earn funditus sustulissemus.

44

CHAPTER I

praestantissimum in republica ius est augurum cum auctoritate coniunctum. Neque vero hoc, quia sum ipse augur, ita sentio, sed quia sic existimare nos est necesse. Quid enim maius est, si de iure quaerimus, quam posse a summi imperiis et summis potestatibus comitiatus et concilia, vel instituta dimittere, vel habita rescindere ? Quid gravius, quam rem susceptam dirimi, si unus augur alio die dixerit ? quid magnificentius, quam posse decernere, ut magistratu se abdicent consules ? quid religiosius, quam cum populo, cum plebe agendi ius aut daer aut non dare ? quid ? legem si non iure rogata est, tollere ? ut Titiam decreto collegii ; ut Livias, Consilio Philippi, consulis et auguris : nihil domi, nihil militiae, per magistratus gestum, sine eorum auctoritate posse cuiquam probari (1) ? Significantly, Cicero emphasized the dual, interacting role of political magistracy (rem publicam bene gerere), and priestly position (religiones sapienter interpretari), alluding thereby to the inseparable ambivalence of politics and cult in service of the state ( 2 ).

Examination of late Republican literature indicates, therefore, that religio in the last centuries of the Republic was nothing more than an implementation of the previously suggested commercium between the gods and men. The philosophical inquiries reached only a small part of the population ; superstitious practices held no meaning for the educated and only caused fear among the uneducated. But exactly in this fear rested the importance of ceremonial practices. The rites, precise performance of duties, as the major part of the Roman cult, held the masses in awe, similar to a papal audience of today or to some formal, glittering state occasion, such as a presidential inauguration. Thus, cult and rites were fostered emphatically by the governing nobility for the sake of political expediency, and for that only. In fact, in the maintenance of Roman religious practices, one can see the essential reason for interrelation between priesthoods and magistrates, cult and politics. The masses constituted the armies, as well as the assemblies. Upon their attitude rested the career of ambitious individuals who were not only performers of sacrifices as magistrates, but often "expert" interpreters of religion, as members of priestly colleges.

(1) Cic, de leg., 2.12, 31. Evidently, the passage does not refer to primary position of the augures among the priestly colleges. Rather, it shows that they wielded potential influence at least in Cicero's time, and according to Cicero. (2) E.g., in de or., 3.33, 134, CICERO praises former great pontifices maximi, to whom : ... de omnibus diuinis atque humanis rebus referretur ; iidemque et in senatu et apud populum et i caussis amicorum et domi et militiae consilium suum fidemque praestabant. Cf. also the tendentious praise in de domo, l, 2.

PRIESTHOODS

IN

GENERAL

45

EXCURSUS 3 A few examples should suffice to illustrate how well this interplay between magistracy and priesthood utilizes rites-connected practices for non-religious reasons. The pontifices, e.g., supervised ceremonial exactitude and could insist upon repetitions, up to ten times, for the smallest breach of the rule (x) ; they were overseers of the official calendar ; they could determine the specific days on which meetings were held, triumphs and moveable feasts celebrated ( 2 ), even though political issues would have demanded otherwise ( 3 ). Cicero outrightly states that the augural practices, discipline, religious rites and laws were tools of policy in the service of the state : Retinetur autem et ad opinionem vulgi et ad magnas utilitates rei publicae mos, religio, disciplina, ins augurum, collegii auctoritas ( 4 ). A few examples should suffice to illustrate this service. At the end of the fourth century, augural power was used apparently for political expediency because the augures could not agree that a plebeian should become a dictator ( 5 ). Sometimes the auspicia were falsified for purposes not necessarily religious. In 293, for instance, incorrect interpretations were given because of the ardor omnium ( 6 ). In 193, all public business had to be suspended because of the continuous earthquakes (most likely due to augural interpretation) : ex auctoritate senatus consules edixerunt ne quis, quo die terrae motu nuntiato feriae indictae essent, eo die alium terrae motum nuntiaret ( 7 ). I n 180, L.

(1) RRG, p . 199, note 2. (2) RKR, pp. 432 ff., concerning feast days, and p . 513 ; MOMMSEN, Rom. Chron., pp. 40 ff. (3) Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, cos. 56, deleted comitial days and proclaimed thanksgivings in order to manifest his resistance against P. Clodius Pulcher (cf. MRR, 2, p. 207 ; esp., O c , ad Quint, fratr., 2.1, 1-2 ; 2.4, 4 and 5). Thanksgivings were decreed for Caesar's victories in 57, possibly to delay legislation which was contrary to Caesar's interests (bell. Gall., 2, 35 : ... dies quindecim supplicatio decreta est, quod ante id tempus accidit nulla) in the year 50, C. Scribonius Curio used the refusal of his demand for intercalation as the reason for siding with Caesar, MRR, 2, p. 249. It is not surprising that Caesar had to initiate calendar reform ; yet, significantly, he achieved that as ponti/ex maximus. Concerning triumphs, cf. U. SCHLAG, Regnum in senatu, Stuttgart, 1968, pp. 17-22; G. V. SUMNER, A New Reading of the Fasti Tr. Cap., in Phoenix, 19, 1965, pp. 24-26. (4) Cic., de div.y 2.33, 70. (5) LrvY, 8.23, 16 ; MRR, 1, p. 145 ; if one could give credit to the account in Livy, 10.40, 4. To this and other examples, cf. E. H. HAIGHT, op. cit., pp. 37 ff. ; G. STUBLER, op. cit., pp. 99 ff. (6) LIVY, 10.40, 4.

(7) LIVY, 35.55, 4. The whole process was started by the Xviri s.f., but it is inconceivable that the augural college was not consulted.

46

CHAPTER I

Cornelius Dolabella's election as rex sacrorum was successfully stopped by vitium, which usually was an unfavorable omen ( i ). Scipio Nasica (Corculum) and G. Marcius Figulus were recalled and forced to abdicate under augural auspicia (2). From the first century, the following example should suffice. Obvious political in-fighting was the cause of withdrawal for M. Galpurnius Bibulus, cos. 59, opponent to Julius Caesar, in order to watch for omens and thus hinder Caesar's legislation (3). P. Vatinius' selection as praetor was the result of Pompey's claim that he had heard thunder and thus dissolved the assemby, although "force and violence" was used as. well (4). The first interrex of plebeian status, Q,. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica, was put into this position by unfavorable auspices which were augurally promulgated during the election scandals of 54 (5). Cicero, as a private person, was bitter and adamant in describing popular cult as a superstition {de div., 2.72, 148) : Nam ut vere loquamur, superstitio, fusa per gentes, oppressif omnium fere animos atque hominum imbecillitatem occupavit. Yet, he clearly stated that it had a place in society, referring to his treatise on the subject in de natura deorum : Nee vero {id enim diligenter intelligi volo) superstitione tollenda religio tollitur. Nam et majorum instituta tueri sacris caerimoniisque retinendis sapientis est.,. These, and other examples, show indeed that those who held the government in their hands maintained and perpetrated in the name of religio a conglomeration of functions in order to achieve the uninterrupted continuity of existing institutions.

(1) LIVY, 40.42, 8; cf. p. 115, n. 1.

(2) VAL. MAX., 1.1, 3 ; MRR, 1, pp. 441-442. (3) La., Dio, 37, 52-54 ; 38, 1-12 ; GELL., W.Ü., 4.10, 8 ; Liw, per. 103 ; PLUT., Caes., 11-14; for detailed sources, cf. MRR, 2, p. 187. (4) LIVY, per, 105 ; VAL. MAX., 7.5, 6 ; PLUT., Cat, min,, 42 ; for additional information, cf. MRR, 2, p. 216. (5) F. MÜNZER, Hermes, 71, 1936, pp. 222 ff. ; MRR, 2, pp. 171-172, n. 4.

CHAPTER II

The Priests from the Beginning of the Republic to the Lex Ogulnia It has been shown that sacerdotal institutions existed in the earliest period. Yet, information concerning priesthoods and individual priests is fraught with historiographical difficulties. The few names which are provided by our sources have to be questioned on account of inconsistencies, annalistic interpolations, or outright falsifications. They are dependent mostly on Livy's first decade (x) which covers roughly two centuries of the early Republic, beyond the lex Ogulnia. Two inscriptions, some references to priests in Valerius Maximus and Cicero, as well as other scattered quotations, complement the sources (2).

(1) LIVY, 3.7, 6 ; 32, 3 ; 54, 5 ; 4.27,

1 ; 44, 11-12 ; 5.41, 3 ; 46, 1-3 ; 52, 3 ; 6.5, 8 ;

8.9, 4-8 ; 9.10, 6-10 ; 11,.9 ; 46, 6 ; also, 25.5, 4 ; together with the corresponding references in OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., passim. In addition to the works listed on p. 16, n. 3, the following information should be listed : SOLTAU, Livius* Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 85 ff. ; KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., pp. 201 ff. ; F. CALDERARO, Nuovi discorsi sulla prima Deca di Tito Livio, Studio-filosofico-storico-poliiico : Il pensiero filosofico, IX, Padova, Cedam, 1952 ; cf. comments of R. SYME, JRS,

35, 1945, pp. 104 ff. and A. MOMIGLIANO, ibid., pp. 145 ff. ;

LiPPOLD, op. cit., p. 30, nn. 130, 131 ; P. G. WALSH, Livy, op. cit., passim ; H. TRÄNKLE, Der Anfang des ròm. Freistaats in der Darstellung des Livius, in Hermes, 93, 1965, pp. 311 ff. ; J. BAYET, op. cit., passim ; E. BURCK, Zum Rombild des Livius, Interpretationen zur zweiten Pen­ tade, in Vom Menschenbild in der römischen Literatur, Heidelberg, 1966, pp. 321 ff., and 354 ff. ; T. A. DOREY, Latin Historians, op. cit., pp. 1 ff., and 115 ff. ; Fondation Hardt, En. Tome XIII, Les origines de la Republique Romain, Genève, 1967 ; esp. E. GABBA, Considerazioni sulla tradi­ zione letteraria sulla orìgine della Republica, pp. 135-169, and A. ALFÖLDI, Zur Struktur des Römerstaates im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr., pp. 225-278 ; cf. also K. HANELL'S remarks, ibid., pp. 281-283 on archaeological evidence, as well as the important article by A. MOMIGLIANO, loc. cit., JRS, 53, 1963, pp. 96 ff. ; Fifty Years, op. cit., pp. 465-495. (2) References cf. below ; Bardt, by careful analysis, cautiously commits himself to 12 possibly identifiable priesthoods, while M R R , compiling all available data, presents some 27.

48

CHAPTER II

In references to priesthoods, it is curious to see. that names of priests appear in conjunction with some major historical occurrence, specifically, (a) the transition of the monarchy to the Republic, and the plagues and pestilence of 463 and 453 (x), with eleven, possibly twelve names ; (b) the decemvirate and the Celtic affairs (2), with eight, respectively nine priests ; (c) the remainder of the 4th century with only four priests accounted for, who are active in the time of the 1st and 2nd Samnite Wars (3). Of the available prosopographical evidence between 509 and 301, some 26 (resp. 27) possible names can be listed ; yet, the degree of certainty with which such a list is confronted, is fraught with problems of historical criticism. The material is mired in a morass of annalistic tradition and the more recent controversial theorizations out of which neither MRU's dogmatic presentation (4), nor RE, provides much help. It is not enough, of course, merely to mention the names ; it is necessary to narrow down dates of cooptation, as far as possible, and to indicate whether or not the priests are historically acceptable personalities. In the references below, only that information will be quoted which is significant to these limits. It is impossible without question to accept the identity of the earliest priests : M. Horatius Pulvillus (6), G. Papirius (6), M \ Papirius (7), M. Laetorius (8). M. Horatius Pulvillus' alleged priesthood (not inBardt) is connec-

(1) R. WERNER, Der Beginn der römischen Republik, Oldenburg, München-Wien, 1963, passim ; A. ALFÖLDI, Early Rome and the Latins, Ann Arbor, 1964, pp. 75 fF. ; J . HEURGON, Magistratures romaines et magistratures étrusques, in Fond. Hardt, op. cit., pp. 99 ff. ; very useful is P. Fraccaro, The History of Rome in the Regal Period, in J RS, 47, 1957, pp. 59-65. (2) E. TÄUBLER, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Dezemvirates und der Zwölftafeln, Berlin, 1921, Neudruck, Vaduz, 1965 ; K . J . BELOGH, R. G., p . 242 ff. ; WERNER, op. cit., passim, esp. pp. 223, n. 1 ; F.WIEACKER in Fond. Hardt, op. cit., pp. 291 ff. ; cf. also the remarks of M. HANELL and M . HEURGON on pp. 360-361 concerning the Twelve Tables ; to the above references, cf. A. ALFÖLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., passim, esp. p p . 355-365. (3) E. T. SALMON, Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge, 1967 ; in which he maintains the historicity of the 1st Samnite War, p. 197 ff. (4) MRR, 1, pp. 1-171. (5) MÜNZER, RE 8, pp. 2401,15-2404, 5 3 ; MRR,

1, p . 3.

(6) STEIN, RE 18, (2), pp. 1005, 46-1007, 52 ; (essentially connected with attempts to explain the lus Pap.) ibid., 1008,16- 19; MRR, ibid., p . 4. (7) MÜNZER, RE, ibid., p . 1011,50 - 6 7 ; MRR, ibid. (8) MÜNZER, RE 12, pp. 449,68-450, 8 ; MRR,

1, p . 13.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

49

ted with the dedication (x) of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolimi, as well as with the First Carthaginian Treaty* (2), in the same year. He is mentioned by Cicero, de domo 139, as a novus sacerdos (3), and by others a&pontifex. The problem is one of chronology (4), as well as the allegation to Horatius' priesthood. It is based upon the lex vetusta de davo figendo (5), which might have existed to the later stages of the Republic in somewhat different form (6). Mommsen has shown that the dedication of a temple was always a magistrate's duty ; either a dictator, consul, or praetor, or in certain cases a lesser magistrate, censor, or aedile (7), praeeunte ponti/ice (8). The pontifex assisted and aided the magistrate but did not dedicate the temple (9). Furthermore, the selection of Horatius by lot is suspect, because usually the choice was made by popular vote (10). Ogilvie correctly (1) LIVY, 2. 8, 6-8 ; 7. 3, 8 and OGILVIE, Commentary', op. cit., p. 254; Pol., 3. 22,1 and

WALBANK, Commentary) op. cit., pp. 339-340 ; discrepancy exists between Livy. Polybius, who date it to the beginning of the Republic, and DION. HAL., 5. 35, 3 ; TAG., Hist., 3. 72, where the statement is made that the dedication occured in his second consulship ; the confusion is caused by Gn. Flavius' dedicatory inscription in 304 (WERNER, op. cit., pp. 6-37) ; A. ALFÒLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., p. 351, WERNER, op. cit., pp. 11-12, n. 1. (2) LIVY, 7. 27, 2 ; 9. 19, 13 ; POL. 3, 22, 4-13 and WALBANK, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 341-344 ; LAST in CAH, VII, pp. 859 ff. ; ALFÖLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., pp. 350-55 ; WER-

NER, op. cit., pp. 299-368 ; against attempts to establish the date for the 1st Treaty at 348, most scholars accept the signing as an historical occurrence toward the end of the 6th century, or, roughly about 500 ; J. H. THIEL, A History of Roman Sea Power before the Second Punic War, Amsterdam, 1954, p. 6 ; F. HAMPL, Das Problem der Datierung der ersten Verträge zwischen Rom und Karthago, in Rh. Mus., 100, 1958, pp. 58 ff. ; according to POLYBIUS, 3, 22, 1, one of the participating Roman consuls was M. Horatius, thus, the possibility exists that Horatius was an historical figure ; Last, in connection with the Treaty, CAH, VII, p. 861, while STUART JONES, ibid., p. 436, on account of the Capitoline inscription, similarly, MÜNZER in RE, loc. cit., although he admits that M. Horatius Pulvillus' name appeared late, thus he is most suspect. (3) VAL. MAX. 5. 10, 1 ; SEN., cons, ad Marc. 13, 1 ; SYMM. ep. 3, 6, 3 ; DION. HAL. knew

of the inscription (5. 35, 3 ; also, 3. 69, 2 ; 4. 61, 3) as well as TACITUS (Hist., 3. 72) but they date it to a second consulship in the year 507. (4) WERNER, op. cit., pp. 160, n. 3 ; 161, n. 1-2 ; cf. also p. 249, n. 4. (5) LIVY, 7.3, 5 ff., cf. note 1 above.

(6) Latte in RRG, p. 154 points out that with the exception of the earlier years of the Republic nails were driven in the Temple of Jupiter only in cases of pestilence, as seen in LIVY, 7.3, 3 and 7.3, 5 ff. ; cf. WERNER, op. cit., pp. 26 ff.

(7) RSR, 1, p. 42, n. 5 ; p. 243 ; esp. 2, p. 618 ff. (8) LIVY, 4.27, 1 ; 9.46, 6.

(9) Cf. note above, RRG pp. 200, note 4 ; RSR, 2, p. 621, n. 1. (10) Selection by lot occurs in case of Horatius in LIVY, 2.8, 6 ; correspondingly with

50

CHAPTER II

pointed out that the action was used as a precedent in Cicero ; thus, Horatius5 pontificate should be considered spurious (1). With similar difficulties is beset Münzer's suggestion (2) that Laetorius, the dedicator of the Temple of Mercurius (3), might have been a decemvir sacrorum. Mommsen's attempts to place him as a duovir aedi ded. (4), or as a praef. annonae (5), seem to be inconclusive. This decemvirate is undoubtedly false. In the later Republic, the Papirii claimed monopoly of religious office (6). As one of the minores gentes, they were celebrated for having provided the first pontifex maximus, C. Papirius, as well as the first rex sacrorum, M \ Papirius. C. Papirius' pontificate depends on the reading of Dion., 3, 36 (7). Stein (loc. cit.)y relying heavily on Schwegler (8), correctly states that the tradition about the Papirii until the Decemvirate is nothing but an attempt to clarify and identify a name based upon old tradition, i.e., the lus Papirianum. M \ Papirius, as rex sacrorum^ is mentioned in Dion. Hal., 5, 1, 4( 9 ). In spite of Brown's suggestion that a find in Boni's soundings might refer to M \ Papirius (10), his DION. HAL., 6.94 and 9.60. Against this, DION. HAL., 5.35 ; and LIVY 2. 27, which is considered by Mommsen as "eine der Erfindungen der späteren Annalistik", loc. cit. ; cf. OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., p. 254. (1) OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., loc. cit.; RRG,

pp. 200, note 4 ; LIPPOLD, op. cit.,

considers Horatius' pontificate (p. 299, n. 8) as a possibility. (2) RAAF, pp. 89 ff. (3) LIVY, 2.27, 6 ; VAL. M A X . 9.3, 6 ; Livy's account is questionable, evidently a late insertion, cf. OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., pp. 303/304 ; cf. KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p . 237, who suggests two different, yet unnamed sources. (4) RSR, 2, p. 620, note 4 ; cf. above. (5) Ibid., p. 671, note 5. (6)

DION. H A L . 3. 36, 4 ;

Gic,

ad fam.,

9.21,

2.

(7) MÜNZER (in RE, loc. cit., n° 23) suggests that this G. Papirius could be the compiler of the royal laws, P. Papirius of Pomp. Dig. 1.2, 2, 36 (cf. RSR,2, p. 42, n. 3 and p. 43, n. 1) ; as well as Sex. Papirius, the author of' lus Papirianum (ibid., 1.2, 2, 2). To this, cf. A. Fischer's attempt, HZ, 157, 1957, pp. 396 ff., to define the author as a member of the circle of the pontifex maximus 254( ?) - 243, Ti. Goruncanius. (8) A. SCHWEGLER, Römische Geschichte, Tübingen, 3 vols., (1, 1867, 2, 1856, 3, 1858). (9) LIVY, 2.2, 1-2 ; 3.39, 4 ; FEST., 422 L. The use of M \ is very rare among patricians. In the family of the Papirrii this is the only occurrence. OGILVIE emphasizes, Comm., op. cit., pp. 237 fi., the superior position of the rex to the pont. max. He states that the abdication of Gollatinus, which immediately follows, corresponds to Dion. Hal., and suggests a Sullan annalist as source. KLOTZ alludes to Licinius Macer, Livius, op. cit., p . 202. (10) F. BROWN, New Soundings in the Regia, in Fond. Hardt, op. cit., p. 58, in ref. to GJERSTADT, Early Rome, I I I , Lund, 1960, p. 30, fig. 199.4.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

51

priestly position remains questionable. Mommsen states that the two priesthoods are late falsifications : "Damit, dass dies Geschlecht nach Ciceros Angabe zu den minderen gehört hat, hängt sicher zusammen, dass es nächst den Sergiern und den Foliern unter allen patrizischen am spätesten zum Consulat gelangt ist. Zur Entschädigung dafür haben die Papirier sich später durch Fälschung an die Spitze der Censorenliste gebracht und auch in der Liste der Opferkönige und der Pontifices ähnliche Stellungen sich beigelegt (*) ". The rationale of this explanation seems to be acceptable, especially in view of the fact that tampering with the annales maximi by their apparent early redactors is a likely proposition ( 2 ). On more solid ground stand the names of seven possible priests, who are mentioned in connection with the prodigy of 463 ( 3 ), and the pestilence of 453 ( 4 ). They are : in 463, (M.') M . Valerius (Volusi f. Maximus) ( 5 ), T . Verginius (Opet. f. Opet. n. Tricostus) Rutilus ( 6 ), Ser. Sulpicius (Camerinus Cornu tus) ( 7 ), (Sp. or A.) (Postu)mius A. f. P. nepos Albus (Regillensis) (8) ; in 453, Ser. Cornelius (Maluginensis Tricostus) ( 9 ), C. Horatius Pulvillus ( 10 ), and C. Veturius P. f.-n. Cicurinus ( u ) . It is well-known that Livy paid a great deal of attention to prodigia (12), especially in the third decade ( 13 ). P. Händel indicates the

(1) MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 116.

(2) STEIN in RE, loc. cit. on the earliest Papirii. (3) LIVY, 3.5,14-7, 8. (4) LIVY, 3.32,

3-4.

(5) VOLKMANN, RE, 8A, pp. 116, 40-120,35 ; cf. RE, 7A, pp. 2307, 32-36 ; MRR, 1, p. 14. (6) H. GUNDEL, RE, 8A, pp. 1518, 12-1520, 46 and 1529, 51-1530, 32. ILS, 9338, esp. for name of successors. (7) MÜNZER, RE, 4A, pp. 747,52-748,25.

(8) CIL, la, p. 102 ; ILS, 9338, fr. 2 ; cf. with references in LIVY, 2.42,5 ; 3.31, 8. (9) MÜNZER, RE, 4, pp. 1404, 22-36 ; MRR, 1, p. 44. (10) MÜNZER, RE, 8, pp. 2400,8-2401,4; MRR, 1, loc. cit. (11) H. GUNDEL, RE, 8A, pp. 1889, 24-1890, 3 ; MRR, 1, loc. cit.

(12) P. HÄNDEL, RE, 23, 2283, 3-2296 ; F. LUTERBACHER, Der Prodigienglaube und Prodigienstil der Römer, Pr. Burgdorf, 1904, pp. 14 ff., G. STÜBLER, op. cit., pp. 99 ff. ; B. KRAUSS, An Interpretation of Omens, Portents, etc., in Livy, Tacitus, and Suetonius, Diss. U. of Pennsylvania, 1931 ; WALSH, op. cit., pp. 61 ff. ; OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit., pp. 403/404 for additional material ; for Livy's 4th decade, P. LEBRECHT SCHMIDT, Zum Text Livianischer Prodigienberichte, in Hermes, 6, 1968/69, pp. 725-732. (13) LIVY, 43.13, 1 : Non sum nescius ab eadem neglegentia, qua nihil decs por tendere uulgo

52

CHAPTER II

annales maximi as a source for the lists of observed, characteristic phenomena (1), the neglect of which could result in disaster to the individual and community alike. I n describing these diasasters, Livy utilized specific technical terminology and a terse style, which indicates uniformity of records from the earliest periods ; thus, basic sources for prodigià, pestilence and the like could be considered reliable. Ogilvie believes 3.5, 14 ff. as the "first certainly recorded prodigy in Livy (2) " ; nevertheless, later interpolation is not an impossibility. That an augur, M . Valerius, died during the plague of 463 is ascertainable from Livy 3.7, 6. Soltau suggests Piso as the source ( 3 ), but Klotz admits the possiblity of earlier reliable information : "Beide Consuln erliegen der Seuche, dazu noch einige Priester, deren Namen bei Dionys fehlen. Es scheint durchaus möglich, dass sie auf alter Überlieferung beruhen, da derartige Angaben zum ältesten Bestand gehören ( 4 ) ' \ The identification of M. Valerius depends on the reading of an elogium, as follows : M \ Valerius Volusi f. Maximus dictator-, augur, prius, quam ullum magistratum gereret dictator die tus est ( 5 ). According to Mommsen, the elogium is derived ex vetustis annalibus ( 6 ), which he considers reliable. But O . Hirschfeld (7) and Ed. Meyer (8) point out that the inscription is based upon Valerius Antias and his predecessors. Mommsen's retort is not entirely satisfactory ( 9 ). The family remains an enigma to the present. Mommsen's family

non credane neque nuntiari admodum ulla prodigia in publicum neque in annales referri.

Ceterum

et mihi uetustas res scribenti nescio quo pacto antiquus fit animus et quaedam religio tenet, quae Uli prudentissimi uhi publice suseipienda censuerint, eapro indignis habere, quae in meos annales referam, (1) HÄNDEL, op. cit. ; LUTERBACHER, op. cit., p p . 26 ff.

(2) OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., pp. 403-404. (3) SOLTAU, Livius9

Geschichtswerk, op. cit., p . 160.

(4) KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 256.

(5) OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., pp. 407-408 and pp. 306-307, where the inscription is

quoted ; CIL, l2, p . 190 ; Inscr. It., 13.3, 78 and 60. (6) CIL, \\ pp. 189 ff. (7) O. HIRSCH FELD, Kleine Schriften, Berlin, 1913, pp. 814 ff.

(8) Ed. MEYER, Kleine Schriften, Halle, 1910-24, 1, pp. 377 ff. ; similarly F . MÜNZER,

De Gente Valeria, Berlin Diss. Oppoliae, 1891, pp. 22, 25. (9) CIL, loc. cit. : "Mihi H. quod posuit non probavit. Vel maxime fenoris causa plebeios a patrieiis dissensisse certe non Antias primus exeogitauit, sed pertinet id ad narrationem annalibus omnibus communem et uetustatem".

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

53

tree is accepted by Volkmann (*), according to which P. Valerius Poplicola, cos. 509, 508, 507, and 504, had two brothers, a M. Valerius Volusi f., cos. 505, and M \ Valerius Volusi f., diet. 494 ; yet, he admits the possibility that the diet. 494 might be the augur mentioned in Livy 3.7, 6 (2). Ogilvie's suggestion to emandate M5, to M., on account of inscriptional corruption (3), does not correspond to Dion. Hal. 6.23, 3 ; 39, 2 ; 57, 2 ; 71, 1 ; 77, 1 ; 7.54, 1, and especially 6.69, 3 where Volusi f. is given. In 6.39, 2, Dion. Hal. mentions him as being over 70 years of age when he became dictator. Mommsen, loc, cit., rejects Dionysius' account, while Ogilvie, with others, assumes that it is unlikely that he could have lived an additional thirty years (4). It is not inconceivable, however, that he was a centenarian when he died in 463. Thus, admitting the possibility that some records were kept and that names of the consuls and other notables were jotted down together with the facts of disastrous occurrences, the augurate of a M. Valerius could be historically acceptable. Whether or not this M. Valerius is the same as the dictator of 494 cannot be ascertained, although Mommsen's rejection of Dion. Hal. 6.39, 2 seems to be feasible. The cooptation in 494, as implied in MRR, is merely a theory. Two other priests are mentioned in conjunction with this plague of 463 : T. Verginius [Opet. f. Opet. n.] [Tricostus] Rutilus, an augur, and Ser. Sulpicius (Camerinus Cornutus). The Vergimi Tricosti were a significant family in the 5th century, as shown in eleven possible consulships and two tr, mil, cons, pot, until 389. Thus, the report might be acceptable, according to Mommsen and Werner (5). On the other hand, the Sulpicii appear in great number during the time of the tr. mil. cons, pot. Thus, references to earlier magistracies, especially the consulship of Ser. Sulpicius in 500, is questionable (6). He is the first recorded member of his family, and (1) (2) (3) (4)

RE, loc. cit., pp. 2315-2318. Ibid,, p. 2307, 32-36 ; cf. also : F. MÜNZER, Gent. Val., op. cit., pp. 18 ff. OGILVIE, Commentary, op. cit,, pp. 306-307. Ibid., pp. 407/408.

(5) MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 110 ; WERNER, op. cit., p. 270.

(6) MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 115 ; WERNER, op. cit., p. 251. Difficulty is caused esp. by the

praenomen Servius and Servilius, DION. HAL., 5.42, 1 ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 283 ; his consulship, characterized by riots (DION. HAL., 5.52, 1 ff.) is closely following the pattern of the Catilinian conspiracy : "Dies ist ein fingiertes and karikiertes Gegenstück zur Entdeckung der Catilinarischen Verschwörung" — writes MÜNZLR in RE, loc. cit. ; against this cf. K. HANELL, Das altrömische ep, Amt, op. cit., p. 45, note 92.

54

CHAPTER II

the above considered acceptability of Livy 3.7, 6, could secure his position as the first curio maximus (1). As successor in the augurate, a (Postu)mius A. f. P. nepos Albus was coopted according to the fasti (2), although it is unclear whether the inscription refers to pontificate or augurate. T h e brothers Sp. Postumius ( 3 ), and A. Postumius (4) could be equally identified for the membership in either of the priestly colleges. According to Livy 2.42, 5 ( 5 ), one or both of them were duov. aed. ded. at the dedication of the temple of Castor and Pollux, which was vowed by their father ( 6 ). Ogilvie correctly points out that the process appears to be "overschematic", in view of the fact that the later Postuma were proudly proclaiming their priestly heritage and a that member of the family was an historian ( 7 ). The references to the early activités of the Pos tumii are suspect ( 8 ). Yet the fact of dedication, by some Postumii as duumviri, remains a distinct possibility. But as shown before, duum­ viri were not members of the priestly colleges ; and, since no other Postumius could be identified as the augur of the fasti Cap., the following possibilities pevail : (1) one Postumius A. f. nepos Albus was an augur, or (2) through ancient editorial interpolation, incorrect information was utilized on the fasti. I n view of the fact that two other dedicators (9) were incorrectly listed as priests, the early augurate of a Postumius appears to be unacceptable.

(1) MÜNZER, loc. cit. : "Dagegen kann die Notiz bei Liv. III. 7, 6, dass Ser. Sulpicius curio maximus — unseres Wissen der erste 291-463 gestorben sei, zum ältesten Bestände schriftlicher Überlieferung in Rom gehören" ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 408-409. (2) ILS y 9338, 2 : (Sp. Postu)mius A. f.P. nepos Albus (Regillensis cooptatus) ; the inscription is from 1899, the date is unknown. (3) MÜNZER, RE, 22, pp. 933, 64-934, 51 ; MRR, 1, p . 36.

(4) MÜNZER, RE, 22, pp. 932, 56-933, 63 ; MRR, ibid. (5) Castoris aedes eodem anno idibus Quintilibus dedicata est. Vota erat Latino bello a Postumio dictatore : filius eius duumvir ad id ipsum creatus dedicauit". (6) RKR, pp. 268 ff. (7) A. POSTUMIUS ALBINUS, HRR,

I, pp. cxxrv

and

M . GSLZER, Hermes, 69, 1934,

Kl. Sehr., op. cit., 3, pp. 93ff.,OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 609 ("History has been hard on the Postumii") suggests a reembellishment of their early affairs by later generations. (8) I n LIVY, 3.4, 9, the suggested senatus cons, ultimum could be dismissed as part of Livy's historical method to illustrate his point. One cannot see in ne quid res publica detri­ menti caperet anything but the legalistic use of late Republican terminology. Mommsen (RSR, 3, 12073), considers the whole passage non-historical. (9) Cf. references to M. Horatius and M. Laetorius, both dedicators, and thus, incorrectly identified as ponti/ex and XVvir s.f. respectively pp. 49-50.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

55

During a singularly devastating pestilence and famine, ten years later, Livy mentions two priestly deaths and one cooptation (}) : Flamen Quirinalis Ser. Cornelius mortuus, augur C. Horatius Pulvillus ; in cuius locum C. Veturium eo cupidius quia damnatus a plebe erat, augures legere. The passage is introduced by references to major calamities dein duo simul mala ingenua exorta, fames pestilentiaque, foeda komini, foeda pecori. Technically, fames pestilentiaque were not prodigia (2), yet they were serious calamities to be recorded, since measures had to be taken by the pontifices to ward them off the community (3). As discussed previously (4), Livy's style, in referring to these affairs, indicates that his sources were culled from records, which were generally known ; thus, any falsification or serious omission was unlikely. This reference, given in Livy, is hurried, and the passage, which includes 3, 32-33, maintains an aura of terseness. As pointed out by Soltau (5), it corresponds to the parallel account in Dion. Hal. (6), most likely from the same sources (7). It is impossible to determine fully the sources ; yet, the basic data connected with the local disaster could be historically reliable. Thus, Livy's statement that an augur C. Horatius Pulvillus died in the pestilence of 453, together with Ser. Cornelius (Maluginensis Tricostus?), the fl. Quir. (8), as well as the augurate of C. Veturius (P.f.-n. Cicurinus) could be acceptable. Further identification is practically impossible. C. Veturius' consulship in 455 is attested, although Livy's eo cupidius, quia damnatus a plebe erat does not necessarily project historical authenticity (9). (1) LIVY, 3.32,

3.

(2) P. HÄNDEL, RE, 23, "Prodigien", loc. cit.

(3) OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., pp. 394-395, for references in Livy's 1st decade. (4) P. 19 above. (5) SOLTAU, Liviiis' Geschichtswerk, op. cit., p. 159-160. (6) KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 265-266. (7) According to SOLTAU, Antias, and Piso, loc. cit. ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 445, questions the categoric possibility of determining sources, yet admits that "the remaining core looks impressively authentic'*. (8) MRR, 1, p. 21, identifies him as the cos. of 485. (9) Lrw, 3.31, 6 ; DION. HAL., 10.49, 5. To the trial, MOMMSEN, RSR, 3, 210 note 1 : "Unsere annalistische Überlieferung aus älterer Zeit setzt das Cognomen bei den Gonsuln nicht und nennt überhaupt so wenige Plebejer, dass auf die Seltenheit der ein Cognomen führenden,wie G. Calvius — oder Claudius -Cicero Liv. 3.31, 5, nichts zu geben ist und die späterhin bestimmt hervortretende ständische Verschiedenheit im Gebrauch des Cognomen sich hier nicht zeigt" ; ibid., 2, p. 476, ad n. 3, on p. 475 : "Man beachte hier die völlige Gleichstellung der beiden Beamten, die in historischer Zeit keineswegs stattfindet", cf. OGILVIE, Comm., pp. 447, 448.

56

CHAPTER TI

In identifying Livy's C. Horatius Pulvillus ( 1 ), confusion is caused by the different praenomina given by the historians (2).' In summary, therefore, of eleven possible priesthoods before the Decemvirate, in only six cases can we approach a tenuous degree of probability in trying to establish historically acceptable priestly positions. These are the ones connected with probably remembered and recorded affairs, yet evidence cannot substantiate either the rejection or the acceptance of priesthoods since interpolation before or during the publication of the annales maximi, as a possibility, cannot be excluded." For a period of similar length, between the decemvirate and the Celtic invasion, we are confronted with only eight, respectively nine possible priests. In conjuncture with the election of new tribuni plebis after the Decemvirate, Livy, 3.54, 5 introduces the name of Q. Furius pontifex maximus ( 3 ), while Asconius, commenting to Cic. pro Corn., 77, 25, G : pontifex maximus fuit M. Papirius (4). T h e difficulty is caused by the consulship of the two in 441, which is to be found also on the fasti ( 5 ). A solution is practically impossible, because the praenomina and cognomina are not transmitted with consistency (6) ; and a patrician pontifex maximus' participation, as presiding magistrate in the election of plebeian tribunes, is suspect ( 7 ), although a special condition could conceivably warrant extraordinary moves. That some

(1) Possibly the consul of 477 and 457. Cooptation into the augural college cannot be determined. (2) DIONYSIUS uses rdioç 'Oodzioç for both consular years, 9.18, 1 ; 10.26, 1 ; 28.1 ; for 477, DIOD., 11.53, 1 : rdcoç 'Qqârioç UoZveiôoç ; LIVY, 3.30, 1 : G. Horatius ; for 457, DIOD., 11.91, 1: Mdcxoc QQOTIOC;

LIVY, 3.30, 1 : M. Horatius Pulvillus. (3) Q,. FURIUS (Pacilus Fusus), cos. 441 ; MÜNZER, RE, 7, pp. 317, 48-68; MRR, 1, p. 49. (4) M. PAPIRIUS (Crassus ?), cos. 441 ; MÜNZER, RE, 18, 2, pp. 1011, 68-1012, 3 ; also ibid., pp. 1036, 59-1037, 24; MRR, loc. cit. (5) CIL, l2, pp. 108/109. (6) There is an apparent confusion between LIVY, 4.12, 1 and DIODOR., 12. 35, 1. Papirius is M. in Livy, while M'. in Diodorus. Livy writes G. Furius Paculus (Pacilus in certain versions), while Diodorus : Q. Furius Fusus. Further difficulties are caused by reading of the fasti, in which the name of P. Papirius Grassus is given, (cf. MÜNZER, RE, 7, pp. 359, 48-64). (7) OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 494/495.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

57

event of 441 might have been connected with one of the consuls, (e.g., the Ludi of Livy 4.12, 1), who was apontifex, and thus, annalistic tradition could have transferred his activity to earlier affairs, as seen in Ogilvie (1), seems to be attractive, yet inconclusive. Two others are attested by the augural fasti : (Q. ? Ser)vilius P.f. (Sp. n. Priscus) or (Structus) Fidenas (2) and (... Furi)us Q.f.P. nepos Fu(sus) (3). If Servilius is the Q,. Servilius Priscus, summis honoribus egregie usus (4), his cooptation could, chronologically, follow that of the previously mentioned augur, Postumius Albus, in 439. Upon Servilius5 death, (...Furi)us Q.f.P. nepos is listed as successor. Doubt nevertheless exists, since the date of the inscription is uncertain and the possibility of ancient editorial interpolation cannot be excluded (5). An A. Cornelius is mentioned in Livy aspontifex maximus in 431 (6), the first of six republican Cornelii, as pontifices maximi. Klotz shows (7) that the same sources were used by Livy and Diod. Siculus, whom Soltau indicates to be Tubero (8) ; thus, interpolation from unreliable family chronicles is a strong possibility. Since among the patrician Cornelii only the Cossi have the praenomen Aulus, it can be assumed that the ponti/ex suggested is Cossus. Münzer points out that the pontifex of Livy is "vielleicht identisch mit A. Cornelius Cossus ( 9 )", i.e., the cos. (?) 428 (10), tr. mil cons, pot, 426, mag. equ. 426. The date could be questioned, although there must have

(1) Ibid., cf. MOMMSEN, RSR, 2, p. 36, n. 2 and p. 37, n. 1.

(2) CIL, 6, 37161 ; ILS, 9338, 2 ; STEIN, RE, 2A, pp. 1803, 43-1804, 51. (3) CIL and ILS, loc. cit. ; MÜNZER, RE, Suppb., 3, pp. 532, 54-59. (4) LIVY, 4.26, 8, yet, the name is questionable as seen in 4.21, 9 : Dictatorem dici Q,. Seruilium placet, cui Prisco alii, alii Structo fuisse cognomen tradunt. The confusion in the praeno mina and cognomina is characteristic, because systematization did not occur until after the third century ; cf. also MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 117 ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., pp. 568 fF., to his dictatorship in 435, and pp. 604-605, in 418. (5) Fusus' cooptation is based upon HUELSEN'S Oesterr. Jahresber., 13, 1910, Beil., p. 254 ; Dessau comments that the fragment "plane incertum est", but M. Bang's comment in CIL "ex lectio non satis certa". (6) LIVY, 4.27, 1 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4, p. 1252, 18-12 ; MRR,

1, p. 64.

(7) KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 278, fF.

(8) SOLTAU, Livius* Geschichtswerk, op. cit., p. 171. (9) MÜNZER, RE, loc. cit. ; and ibid., p. 1292, 12-14, cf. OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 577 : "A. Cornelio : can only be A. G. Cossus". (10) To the problem of differences between L. Macer's and Valerius Antias' account, and the conjectural consular fasti for 428, cf. Ogilvie, Comm., op. cit., pp. 565/566.

58

CHAPTER II

been "hard core facts", as Ogilvie points out (1), specifically names, and the possible mentioning of the pontificate. T h a t A. Cornelius' priesthood was "in no one's interest to fabricate", (Ogilvie, loc. cit.), cannot be accepted in view of Soltau's exposé of Tubero's tendentious method (2). The time of A. Cornelius' death is not known, although he is not mentioned in Livy beyond the year 426, (4.31, 5 ; 33,7/8 ; 34,4/5). B u t in t h e y e a r 420, Livy reports : Eodem anno Postumia virgo Vestalis de incestu causam dixit crimine innoxia, ... earn ampliatam deinde absolutam pro collegii sententia pontifex maximus abstinere iocis colique sancte

poiius quam acite iussit ( 3 ). Plutarch, apparently using the same language, names the pontifex maximus : ânoXvaaç ôè avrrjv (Ilocrrovfiiav) 6 âqxiBQevç ZTIQOQLOÇ MIVOVXIOÇ vjzéfivrjae jurj xQrjadai Xoyoïç âasjuvoréQotç rov ßiov (4). Evidently, A. Cornelius could have been alive in 420, although such an assumption would not preclude a new pontifex maximus. Nevertheless, Plutarch's name is suspect, because of the accusation of a Postumia and her release by a Minucius, evidently parallel with Livy 8.15, 7, ff., in which a Minucia was accused ( 5 ). Besides, it is unlikely that the plebeian Minucii, who carried the name Augurinus, could be considered for priestly dignities before the lex Ogulnia ( 6 ), notwithstanding the alleged attempt of a L. Minucius for a transitio ad plebem ( 7 ). Thus, the pontificate of Sp. Minucius appears to be spurious. The successor was most likely a M. Folius (possibly Flaccinator ? tr. mil. cons. pot. 433) who presumably died in the massacre of the

(1) Ibid., p. 577. (2) Ibid. ; SOLTAU, Livius* Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 107 fF: (3) LIVY, 4.44,

11 ff.

(4) PLUTARCH, de inim. util. (6) 89 F. (5) Münzer points out that it is inconceivable that a Minucius carried the dignity of pontifex maximus at this time, RE, 15, 2, 1944, 26-58, cf. also, OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., pp. 602 and 604. (6) MOMMSEN, RF, 1, pp. 65-66 ; ad Lrw, 4.16, 314 ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit.t pp. 556557. (7) Ibid., p. 109 ; MÜNZER, RE, 15, Min. 34 and 42, F. CORNELIUS, Untersuchungen

zur frühen römischen Geschichte, p. 50 ff, versus MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 124, esp. note 110; WERNER, op. cit., p. 275, note 5 ; cf. also SYDENHAM-HAINES, pp. 54, 55, 60, from the period ca. 155-120 B. C.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

59

Gauls ( 1 ). If he was the tr. mil. cons. pot. of 433, a vow of a temple to Apollo on account of a pestilence (Livy, 4.25, 3) could further weaken his priesthood. There is confusion in MS tradition concerning the name, because both Folius and Fabius occur ( 2 ). If Fabius is accepted, a likely candidate would be C. or K. Fabius Dorsuo (3) who is mentioned by some sources as a pontifex (4), versus Livy's 5.46, 1-3 ( 5 ), in which he is merely an agent fulfilling some pious ritual to Vesta, according to Cass. Hemina, fr. 19, or is engaged in some activity connected with the rites of the Luperci Fabiani ( 6 ). Livy's version makes the references to C. or K. Fabius' pontificate suspect. In the case of M. Folius Flaccinator, the feasible emandation does not offer satisfactory evidence. We can accept the possibility, therefore, that a M . Folius and/or M . Fabius could have been pontifex maximus during the time of the Gallic problem ; yet, precise identification remains a question ( 7 ). A T . Quinctius (possibly Cincinnatus Gapitolinus) is listed in Livy 6.5, 8 : Eo anno aedis Martis Gallico bello vota dedicata est a T. Quinctio duumviro sacris faciundis ( 8 ). Livy's statement is contrary to the system of dedication, because the dedicator is a magistrate with imperium or a specifically elected magistrate, the duum(1) LIVY, 5.41, 3 ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 725 ; Livy does not state specifically that the pontifex maximus died, although M. Folius* name does not appear in Livy after 5.31. MÜNZER, RE, 6, pp. 2828, 27-32; MRR, 1, p. 96. (2) Cf. CONWAY and WALTERS, ad loc. pert, in Livy; PLUTARCH, Camillas, 21, 3 calls the pontifex Fabius. It is a possibility that he confuses him with K. Fabius Dorsuo, cf. OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 726. (3) MÜNZER, RE, 6, pp. 1768, 22-68 ; MRR, 1, loc. cit. ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., pp.

730-731 ; for the name cf. note ad 5.46,2; RF, 2, p. 319. (4) FLORUS, 1.7, 16 calls him pontifex, APPIAN, Celt. 6, HRR., I, p. 104, 5, G. CASS.

HEMINA, fr. 19. ano rov KamrcXiov xareßaivev legevç. Dio. 7. 25, 5 : Kaiacov Odßioc, Öv (i.e. o#) fj ÎSQovQyia Ixvetro. (5) Cf. Soltau's analysis of the two Livy passages, Livitts' Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 180 ff. He points to the constant changes in sources, especially, concerning 5.46, 1-3. Cf. MOMMSEN, RF, 2, 319

ff.

(6) OGILVIE, Comm., p. 730 ; op. cit. RKR, p. 559, note 2 ; but cf. to this Latte's remarks RRG, pp. 84-85, esp. 85, note 1. (7) BARDT, op. cit., p. 3, identifies a M. Fabius as pont, max., and, on p. 9, relying upon SCHWEGLER, Rom. Gesch., op. cit., 2, p. 249, n. 2, K. Fabius Dorsuo as a pontifex. (8) H. GUNDEL, RE, 24, pp. 1025, 32-1027, 6 ; MRR, 1, p. 100; to the name, CIL, l2, p. 121, as the trib. mil. cons. pot. in 388 ; to the temple, cf. MARBAGH, RE, 14, p. 1923, 1 ff. ; OGILVIE, Comm., op. cit., p. 444.

60

CHAPTER II

viri aedi ded. (1). Mommsen considers that "... die Bezeichung Ilvir sacris faciundis ein Versehen zu sein scheint (2) ". Nevertheless, Livy's statement is in accordance with 6.37, 12 : ... novam rogationem promulgane ut pro duumviris sacris faciundis decemviri creentur... (3). Thus, the possibility exists as pointed out by G. Radke (4), that he could be the first attestable member of the later college of XVviri sacris faciundis. The fourth century from the Celtic affairs to the lex Ogulnia offers merely five priestly positions, all of them after the Licinio-Sextian laws, a period of internal difficulties, which were not ameliorated by the Samnite Wars. A reference in Cicero, Brut. (14) 56, mentions M. Popillius Laenas (5) as flamen Carmentalis, one of the flamines minores (6). While the fiammate is possible, Münzer 's suggestion is tendentious when he implies that he is the aedile of 364 and the consul of 359 (7), a champion of plebeian causes. It remains questionable to identify for similar sentiment M. Valerius M.f.M.n. Corvus, a colleague of M. Popillius Laenas in the consulship of 348, as the M. Valerius, pont. (8) of Livy, 8.9, 4. Livy writes : Decius consul, M. Valerium magna voce inclamat : "Deorum" inquit "ope, M. Valeri, opus est ; agedum,pontifexpublicus populi Romani,praei verba... The story is connected with the devotio of P. Decius Mus. (9), cos. 340, and Münzer's. conjecture that it is a creation of annalistic tradition and a possible doublette from Livy 22.60, 11 seems to be probable (10). Thus, the pontificate of a M. Valerius is questionable. (1) Cf. notes on pp. 48-50. (2) MOMMSEN, RSR, 2, 621, note 1.

(3) RKR, pp. 534ff.; RRG, p. 160, n. 1. (4) RE, 24, I, pp. 1137, 58-1138, 18. (5) VOLKMANN, RE, 22, pp. 59, 14-60, 36; MRR, 1, p. 121, n. 1, to name.

(6) The only flamen Carmenlalis in Republican times. Adfl. min., cf. Samter*s article in RE, 6, pp. 2485, 28ff.,passim ; ad Carmenta, Aust., RE, 3, pp. 1594, 36-1595, 64. (7) RAAF, p. 28, esp., note 2 ; according to the annalistic tradition aedileship was open to plebeians immediately after the Licinio-Sextian laws. MOMMSEN, RSR, 2, p. 482, n. 2 identifies the aedile as our M. Popillius Laenas. Against this, cf. BELOCH, Rom. Gesch., 1926, p. 348, in which he points out that the plebeian aedileship is to be found somewhere in the second half of the fourth century. (8) VOLKMANN, RE, 7A, pp. 2307, 37-43 ; MRR, 1, 137.

(9) RRG, pp. 125 and 204, esp. n. 1 : "Dabei ist freilich nicht völlig sicher, ob die Angaben des Livius mehr wert sind als die von ihm verfertigte Devotionsformel (oben S. 5, 2)". (10) RE, 4, pp. 2279, 1-52 ; PAIS, Storia di Roma, 1, 2, pp. 249 ff. ; W. SOLTAU Livius'

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

61

According to the well-known passage in Livy 25.5, 4, (P.5), Cornelius Calussa's pontificate is well-attested (1), although later insertion is possible. Supposedly, he vtzs pontifex maximus around 332. A. Cornelius Arvina (2) is mentioned as fetialis in Livy 9.10, 9 : Turn ubi in coetum Samnitium et ad tribunal ventura Ponti est, A. Cornelius Arvina fetialis ita verba fecit. The citation of the name is an uncalled for aside in the lengthy description of troubles after the disaster at the Caudine Forks. The details are clearly modeled after the 2nd Punic War, according to Adcock, who points to the possible Greek sources (3), which Soltau specifies as Claudius Quadrigarius (4). Admittedly, the defeat at the Caudine Forks (5) has exercised greatly historians' imaginations, since the passage is embellished with direct quotations and rhetorical features. Yet, exactly because of the description of such circumstances, the possibility of transmitting a name properly, whose mention is of no apparent benefit to anyone, has to be considered favorably. Münzer suggests that either he, or his son was the fetialis (6). In conjunction with the affair of Cn. Flavius5 dedicatory inscription, a Cornelius Barbatus (7) is set forth as pontifex maximus, Livy, 9.46, 6 : coactusque consensu populi Cornelius Barbatus pontifex

Geschichtswerk, op. cit., points out that the Valerii are heroes in Tubero's accounts, and identifies the passage as originating from Tubero, one of the most recent sources for Livy's first decade ; KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p . 203. E. T . SALMON (op. cit., p. 208) considers it an anticipation of the devotio at Sentinum, and suggests that "Valerius Antias has been at work here, since the pontifex maximus alleged to have supervised the ceremonial in connection with the deuoiio of 340 is a Valerius". (1) MÜNZER, RE, 4, pp. 1273, 17-26 ; MRR, 1, p . 142. Livy states : Ante hum intra centum annos et uiginti nemo praeter P. Cornelium Calussam pontifex maximus creatus fuerat ; cf. BARDT, p . 3 ; and my remarks on p . 107, n. 1. (2) MÜNZER, RE, 4, p p . 1294, 6-1295, 60 ; MRR,

1, p . 153 ; the name occurs in LIVY

9.11, 9. Whether or not he could be brought together with the dictator of 322, A. Cornelius PXA.n. (Cossus) Arvina, cannot be decided ; cf. the difficulties connected with the names of the consuls and the dictator in this year ; KLOSE, op. cit., pp. 48, 49. (3) CAH, 7, p . 598. (4) SOLTAU, op. cit., p . 135. LIVY, 9.15, 9 fF., gives vent to his exasperation on account of diverse and contradictory sources. (5) E. T . SALMON, op. cit., p p . 225, fF.

(6) The son, P. Cornelius Arvina, cos. 306 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4, pp. 1260, 21-45. (7) MÜNZER'S articles in RE, 4, pp. 1271, 55-57 ; (compare ibid., Cornelius n ° 71) ; also 1488, 2-1491, 7 (Cornelii 343, or 344), and 1425, 31,ff.,(Cornelius 316) ; MRR, 1, p. 168.

62

CHAPTER II

maximus verba praeire, cum more maiorum negaret nisi consulem aut im­

peratore™ posse templum dedicare. Broughton emphasizes : "if the pontiff's praenomen was P., he could be the consul of 328... ; if Cn., he would be the father of the consul of 298". Identification is impossible; yet the pontificate appears to be acceptable^). On the basis of the aforementioned data the following observations might be drawn : 1. It is impossible to establish any list of priests, since not only the names of the individuals but their priestly functions are based upon late information ; thus, conclusions can be reached only by unsatisfactory assumptions or analogies to later periods (2). Therefore, priestly and magisterial functions in their interactions upon each other cannot be traced, although the scanty available evidence would indicate that separation existed between priesthoods and magistracy, though one did not exclude the other (3). 2. Among the priesthoods the role of the pontifices maximi appears to be negligible (4), since the individuals who are mentioned cannot

(1) Concerning the source analysis in connection with the Livy passage, cf. G. SIGWART'S article, Römische Fasten und Annalen bei Diodor, in Klio, 6,1906, pp. 269-286 and 341 ff., esp., p. 374. Similarly by H. STUART JONES, CAH, 7, p. 533 ff. ; most recently, WERNER,

op. cit., pp. 16 ff. Difficulty is caused, nevertheless, by Livy's reference to a Cornelius Barbaras/>0w#/e# maximus in 304, (9.46, 6). Bardt shows, (op. c, p. 3) that attempts to identify the ponti/ex maximus of 304 with the consul of 328, P. Cornelius Scipio Scapula (LIVY, 8.22, 1), and with the pontifex maximus Cornelius Calussa, are contradicting categorically Livy's 120 years, as well as his generalization concerning Calussa's pontificate (cf. above, p. 61). Apalombino sarcophagus found in Rome could confirm Livy's remark in 8.22, 1, naming a P. Cornelius Scapula as ponti/ex maximus. Yet, it is dated to the third century ; thus the problem remains (MRR, 2, Suppl., p. 19) ; ILLRP, 1247 a. (2) As pointed out before, in the first half of the 5th century the reports of the plagues offer a tenuous degree of possibility for six priests : the unidentifiable M. Valerius and T. Verginius, both augures, the curio maximus Ser. Sulpicius in 463, the augures C. Horatius Pulvillus, C. Veturius and the//. Quir. Ser. Cornelius in 453 ; similarly, around the Gallic catastrophe, the pontifex M. Folius (Flaccinator) or (C. or K. Fabius Dorsuo) and T. Quinctius (Cincinnatus Capitolinus), a Ilvir s.f., and toward the end of the 4th century, the / / . Carm. M. Popillius Laenas, the Jet. A. Cornelius Arvina, and the pontifices Cornelius Calussa and Cornelius Barbatus (or P. Cornelius Scapula). To the families, cf. MOMMSEN, RF, 1, pp. 107 ff. Curious is the appearance of the number of priests from the Cornelian branches. They supposedly held not less than six times the position of the pontifex maximus (cf. MRR, 1, to years 431, 332, 304, 221, 150, 141). Tampering with the pontifical records cannot be excluded as a possibility. (3) RSR, 2, pp. 18 ff. ; J. BLEICHEN, Kollisionen..., loc. cit., pp. 446 ff.

(4) C. Papirius in 509, the highly suspect participation of M. Papirius (or, Q,. Furius) in the election of 449, A. Cornelius in 431 in a dedication ceremony as well as the trial

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REPUBLIC

63

be identified, their priesthoods are doubtful, and the role which they displayed is minute in comparison with that of later pontifices maximi. While in later periods the pontifex maximus is the most important figure in the Roman state cult, our observation would tend to underline the general consideration that his position was reached after lengthy development and not immediately upon the regifugium (*).

of the Vestal, Postumia, in 420 19, M. Folius (Flaccinator) during the Gallic affairs in 390, Cornelius Calussa ca. 332 and Cornelius Barbatus in 304. (1) J. BLEICHEN, Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., pp. 345 ff. ; RRG, pp. 195 ff.

CHAPTER III

Priests between 300-211 As was pointed out in the previous chapter, in the third century, information concerning the membership in the priestly colleges comes mostly from Livy (*). Unfortunately, the missing second decade greatly delimits available data, but the periochae of Livy, some references to priests in Pliny the Elder, Valerius Maximus and Plutarch, two inscriptions, and other scattered sources present additional, albeit meagre, evidence (2). With the start of the third decade, Livy provides lists of priests with surprising regularity (maintaining it in later books as well), specifically, for the years 216, 213, and 211. He gives names in mentioning deaths of priests and new cooptations in place of the deceased (3). Since many priests coopted during the Hannibalic War survived into the second century, it seemed feasible to concentrate on those whose career ended in Livy's list of 211 (cf. below). In this chapter, 38 priests will be treated. Eight appear in Livy in conjunction with the lex Ogulnia ; only ten can be listed to the end of the first phase of the Punic Wars and an additional eighteen to the year 211. In many cases, it will be apparent that identification (1) LIVY, 10.6, 6 and 9, 2 ; per. 18 and 19 ; 22.10, 1 ; 35, 2 ; 57, 3 ; 23.21, 7 ; 30, 15 ; 25.2, 1/2 ; 26.23, 7/8 ; in addition to the works mentioned on p. 18, note 2 ; for source analysis : SOLTAU, Livius' Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 47 ff. ; KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., pp. 100 ff. ; LIPPOLD, op. cit., excellent evaluation of sources, pp. 1 ff. ; E. BURCK, Einführung in die 3. Dekade des Livius, Heidelberg 1950 ; F. CASSOLA, I gruppi politici Romani nel IH secolo a.c, Trieste 1962 ; A. KLOTZ, Über die Quellen Plutarchs in der Lebensbeschreibung des (£. Fabius Maximus, in Rhein. Mus., 84, 1935, pp. 125 ff. ; I. MÜLLER-SEIDEL, Fabius Maximus und die Consulwahlen 215-214, in Rhein. Mus., 96,1953, pp. 241 ff. ; E. TÄUBLER, Die Vorgeschichte des 2. Punischen Krieges, Berlin, 1921. (2) References will be given below with the individual priests. Bardt is careful in analyzing these data ; Münzer's articles are often based upon possibilities ; MRR can be misleading. (3) Especially, in 23.21, 7 ; 25.2, 1-2 ; 26.23, 7-8 ; A. KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., identifies the source for these passages as Valerius Antias and the annales maximi (pp. 155, 164, 176) ; cf. further discussion below.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

65

with historical personalities is problematic. In Bardt, in the articles of RE and M RR, political magistracy and other activity is often assumed. Such assumptions, nevertheless, often cause impediments rather than offer means for evaluating the historical role of priestly colleges, nor do they help in the attempt to establish precise data of cooptations. Between the Second and the Third Samnite Wars, there appeared a number of plebeian notables (x) who were successful in achieving membership, through the lex Ogulnia, in the augural and pontifical colleges. According to Livy : Rogationem ergo promulgarunt ut, cum quattuor augures, quattuor pontifices ea tempestate essent placeretque augeri sacerdotum numerum, omnes adlegerentur (2). Further on, after giving the names, he states : Ita octo pontificum, novem augurum numerus fac­ tus ( 3 ). Livy seems to be mistaken concerning the number oîpontifices. I n the few occasions when it is possible, it can be shown that in both colleges, nine individuals comprised the membership (4). The names are given in 10.9, 2 : Pontifices creantur suasor legis P. Decius Mus P . Sempronius Sophus C. Marcius Rutulus M. Livius Denter ; quinque augures item de plebe, C. Genucius P. Aelius Paetus M. Minucius Faesus C. Marcius T. Publilius ( 5 ). The four pontifices were consulares, members of well-established plebeian families, listed with cognomina. Although Livy's sources or that of his sources cannot be determined, there is no reason to doubt the historicity of the report. To facilitate the viewing of pertinent data, these priests might be listed as follows (6) : (1) By 326, plebeian right to one consulship was established ; thus, internal difficulties, as well as the continuous wars, could produce eminent plebeians in all affairs of Rome ; e.g., Q,. Publilius Philo, cos. 339, 327, 320, 315, Marcius Rutilus, cos. 310, pont, and aug., G.Junius Bubuculus, cos. 317, 313, 311, G. Maenius, cos. 338, P. Decius Mus, cos. 312, 308, 297, 295, pont. (2)

LIVY, 10.6,

6 ff.

(3) Ibid., 9.2, SOLTAU, Livius9 Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 122 ff., commenting on the passage, separates the concluding sentence of 10.9, 2 and attaches it rightly as part of 10.9, 3-9, a passage which he ascribes to Valerius Antias. The passage 10.6, 6 ff. he derives from Licinius Macer. His conclusion excellently explains the apparent contradiction in Livy. BAKDT, op, cit., pp. 32 ff., shows in the incompletely available data concerning the successions in plebeian and patrician positions that from the lex Ogulnia, in both colleges nine priests represented the membership. MOMMSEN, RSR, 2, p. 22, n. 1. (4) Cf., e.g., the completed list for 210, MRR, 1, pp. 282-283. (5) List and additional information ibid., pp. 172-173. (6) The chronological order is based upon the appearance of names in the sources. Since the time of cooptation and death cannot be determined, this method appears to be

66

CHAPTER III

Pontifices : 1. P. Decius Mus P.f.Q.n. (x) 2. M. Livius Denter (2) 3. C. Marcius Rutilus (Censorinus) (3) 4. P. Sempronius Sophus (4)

Pont. 300 ; Cos. 312, 308, 297, 295 Pont. 300 ; Cos. 302 Pont, and Aug. 300 ; Cos. 310 Pont. 300, Cos. 304

Significantly, all held consulships before their cooptation. C. Marcius Rutilus was consul during the epoch-making aedileship of Cn. Flavius in 304 and became pontifex in the year of his censorship (5). C. Marcius Rutilus appears to be the same as the C. Marcius among the augures. That he was censor twice, in 294 and 265, would tend to strengthen the assumption that he could be the first individual to hold dual priesthoods (6). Dessau's view seems feasible : "novo rum pontificum unus fuit C. Marcius Rutilus, inter novos augures C. Marcius (Livy, ,10.9, 2), ab ilio non diversus, vel filius eius ( 7 )". Augures were the following : 5. 6. 7. 8.

P. Aelius Paetus (8) C. Genucius (Augurinus) (9) M. Minucius Faesus (10) T. Publilius (")

Aug. 300 (Cos. 337). Aug. 300 Aug. 300 Aug. 300

the most suitable. The priests for this period are listed in Bardt and MRR, 1, pp. 172-283. (1) BARDT, Pont., 11 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4, 2281, 48-2284,58. To the animal cognomen, cf. SALMON, op. cit., p. 198, n. 1. He opposes Miinzer's theory (RAAF, pp. 37 and 47ff.)of the family's Campanian origin. Gf. also, H. STUART JONES CAH, 7, p. 548. (2) BARDT, Pont., 14; MÜNZER, RE, 13, pp. 853, 12-27.

(3) BARDT, Pont., 13 ; MÜNZER, RE, 14, pp. 1589, 30-1590, 51 ; ILS, 9338, 1. (4) BARDT, Pont., 12 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A, pp. 1437, 44-1438, 59.

(5) O. LEUZE, Zur Geschichte der römischen Zensur, Halle, 1912, pp. 4 ff. (6) BARDT, op. cit., p. 9, maintains the dual priesthood, but against his assumption doubt is expressed by WISSOWA, RKR, p. 493, n. 2. (7) ILS, 9338, 1, n. 4. (8) BARDT, Aug., 6 ; MÜNZER, RE, 1, pp. 525, 63-526, 3. (9) BARDT, Aug., 5 ; MÜNZER, RE, 7, pp. 1207, 31-37.

(10) BARDT, Aug., 7 ; MÜNZER, RE, 15, pp. 1955, 43-61. The Genucii and the Minucii appear in the fasti with the cognomen Augurinus, before the lex Ogulnia (with the exception of two Minucii Augurini, monetales, toward the end of the second century, A/i?«ß,2,p.446). Evidently they could not have held the priesthood before the lex ; thus, as Mommsen points out (RF, 1, pp. 65 If.), the cognomen must be a late editorial interpolation. Gf. notes on p. 58, to the alleged pontificate of Sp. Minucius in 420. (11) BARDT, Aug., 9; W. HOFFMAN, RE, 23, pp. 1911, 14-26.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 300-211

67

With the exception of P. Aelius Paetus, who could be the consul of 337, the augures are apparently without any previous experience in magisterial positions, although all belong to families of consulates. Therefore, we can state that in implementing the lex Ogulnia, previous consulship, or relation to a consular family was a prerequisite for cooptation to the pontifical or augural colleges. With the name Ogulnius appears a ÇX Ogulnius, apparently the brother of the tr. pi. (1), who was the leader of a delegation to introduce the cult of Aesculapius from Epidaurus to the City in 291 or 290. The delegation was necessitated by prodigia and pestilentia (Livy, 10.31, 8), which became, as Livy says, portentoque iam similis (10.47, 6 ; cf. reference to this also in per. 11). The Oracle has been consulted and inventum in libris Aesculapium ab Epidauro Romam arcessendum (10.47, 7). The delegation, apparently under the leadership of Q,. Ogulnius (2), returned successfully and a temple was erected on the island of the Tiber. Münzer argues (3) that the delegation could have consisted of members of the college of Xviri s.f., whose duty was the consultation of the Sibylline Oracle and the fulfillment of proclaimed admonishings ( 4 ). His argument seems weak, because it is based upon the religious activity of the Ogulnii during the 3rd century, and the assumption that membership for Q . Ogulnius in the college of the Xviri s.f. is feasible. The difficulties with the hypothesis are twofold : (1) as Mommsen pointed out, such a great number of legates occurs only in the most important state affairs ( 5 ), which admittedly this could have been ; (2) the religious functions, of the Xviri s.f. do not necessitate that they have to travel as legates, especially in view of the fact that the City, beset by the plague, would have been deprived of competent interpretation of the Oracle during their absence. Thus, the decemvirate of Q . Ogulnius remains, at best, doubtful. In the politically significant first half of the 3rd century, we can present only ten additional priests. They are :

(1) Possibly the cos. 269; MÜNZER, RE, 17, pp. 2064, 52-2066, 19. (2) De vir. HL, 22, 1,ff.; VAL. MAX., 1. 8,2, refers to a curled-up snake ubi Q. Ogulnii legali tabernaculum erat. (3) RAAF, pp. 83-89. (4) RKR, p. 534; RRG, p. 397. (5) RSR, 2, p. 685; G. RADKE, RE, 24, p. 1143, 32-45.

68

CHAPTER III

9. L. Postumius L.f.Albinus (x) 10. Q,. Fabius (Q£Q,.n.) Maximus Verrucosus (2)

Rex Sacrorum, cq. 275. Aug. 265, Pont. 216-203, Cos. 233, 228, 215, 214, 209

11. Ti. Coruncanius Ti.f.Ti.n. (3) Pont. 254 ( ?)-243, Cos. 280 12. Q,. (or C.) Mamilius Q,f. Turrinus (4)

Aug. or Pont. 254, (C. Mamilius Turrinus, Cos. 239)

13. P. Cornelius P.f. Sulla (6)

Fl. Dial. 250 ( ?)

14. L. Caecilius, L.f.C.n. Metellus (6)

Pont. ca. 243-221, Cos. 251

(1) MÜNZER, RE, 22, pp. 911, 66-912, 22 suggests that he might have been the grandfather of t h e / / . Mart. 242 and the cens. 234, of whom all other Postumii originate. Priesthood depends on PLINY, n.h.9 11, 71, 186 : L. Postumio L.f. Albino rege sacrorum post CXXVI Olympiadem, cum rex Pyrrhus ex Italia decessisset. Date cannot be established with certainty, cf. KLOSE, Rom. Priesterfasten, op. cit., p. 10. (2) BARDT, Aug., 22 ; Pont., 20 ; MÜNZER, RE, 6, pp. 1814, 10-1831, 28 ; CIL, l 2 , p. 193,

Elog. XII and XIII with commentaries. Divergence in geneology is caused between PLUT., Fab., 1, 3 and Livy 30.26, 8, i.e., two or three generations removed from Rullus. Livy states that he was an augur for 62 years in 30.26, 7 : Eodem anno Q,. Fabius Maximus moritur — (203) — exactae aetatis si quidem uerum est augurem duos et sexaginta annos fuisse, quod quidam auctores sunt. Cf. CONWAY-WALTERS, Vol. 4, ad loc. cit., the earliest MSS, {Codex Puteanus, from the fifth century) gives sixty years for the augurate of Q,. Fabius Max., the latest (Burneianus from the 15th century) merely twenty years. The date of 265 for Q . Fabius Maximus' inauguration is accepted by all authorities. His pontificate is mentioned in Livy 23.21, 7, cf. notes on pp. 72, 93 ; cf. pertinent passages on pp. 87 ff. (3) BARDT, Pont., 15 ; MÜNZER and JÖRS, RE 4, pp. 1663, 47-1665, 8. The first plebeian pont. max. according to hiwper. 18 : Tib. Coruncanius primus ex plebe pontifex maximus creatus est. The date can be tentatively established between the capture of Regulus in 254 and the census of 244. Whether or not he was a. pontifex before this time cannot be established. (4) ILS, 9338, 1 gives the name : (Q,. Mam)ilius Q.f. Turrinu(s cooptatus) (...Corn)elio P. f. Sd(pione...). It cannot be decided whether he was an augur or pontifex. One Manilius, possibly Mamilius, could be identified under the consulate of a Scipio P.f., in the years 260, 259, or 254. Because the cos. of 239 is too young, it is considered that the father of the cos. 239, i.e. Q,., is the priest, cf. MÜNZER, RE, 14, pp. 958, 22-30, and RAAF. p. 68. (5) H RR, 1, Sulla, fr. 2 : P. Cornelius, cui primum cognomen Sullae inpositum, est flamen Dialis captus. The date cannot be determined, MÜNZER suggests (RE, 4, pp. 1517, 68-1518, 5) that he might be the son of the cos. 290 (cf. also ibid., 1422, 66 fF., and 1515, 7). To the name, cf. ibid., p. 1513, 67 ff. (6) Successor to Ti. Coruncanius as the second plebeian pontifex maximus. Pliny, n.h., 7, 43 (45), 139-141, calls him a pontifex, but (D. KIENAST, Cato der Zensor, Heidelberg, 1954, pp. 29 and 140, n. 26 ; A. LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 75-76, n. 9), LIVY, per. 19, a pontifex

maximus who was engaged in serious altercations with the consul and flamen Mart.,

PRIESTS BETWEEN 300-211

15. A. Postumius A.f.L.n. Albinus (x)

Fl. Mart. 242, Cos. 242

16. (C.) Papirius C.f.L.n. (Maso) (2)

Pont. (241 ?)-213, Cos. 231

17. M \ Aemilius M \ f. (Lepidus Numida) (3)

Xvir s.f. possibly 249-211

18. M. Livius M.f.M.n. Salinator (3)

Xvir s.f. possibly by 249

69

The above lists show that during the expansion of Rome and the attempts to consolidate Rome's power in Italy, we find only a few, politically insignificant patricians in the priestly colleges, although they are all members of consular families. (Of course, one could assume that others were mentioned in the lost books of Livy, yet such an assumption would be merely tenuous speculation). In the case of the plebeians the same situation prevails. They are all consulares. In Ti. Coruncanius we can see an accepted hero of the Roman population, the consul of 280, some twenty years before his appearance as pont.

A. Postumius Albinus in 242. Gf. BARDT, Pont, 16 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3, pp. 1203, 40-1204, 44, and below. His death follows from Cic, de sen., 9.30 : ponti/ex maximus factus esset, uiginti et duo annos ei sacerdotio praefuit. (1) LIVY, per. 19 : Caecilius Metellus, pontifex maximus, A. Postumium consulem, quonia idem etflamen Martialis erat, cum is ad bellum gerendum proficisci uellet, in urbe tenait nee pas est a sacris recedere ; cf. also, LIVY, 37.51, 1-2 ; VAL. MAX., 1, 1, 2 ; MÜNZER, RE, 22, pp. 902, 1-53 ; cf. my notes on p. 96. (2) BARDT, Pont., 32 ; R. HANSLIK, RE, 18, pp. 1062, 31-1063, 21 :LIVY, 25.2, 2, writes

of two priestly deaths in 213, a. C. Papirius G. f. Maso pontifex, and G. Papirius L. f. Maso decemvir sacrorum. STEIN, RE, 18, pp. 1007, 53-54, identifies him with the writer of the treaty with the Faliscans, according to VAL. MAX., 6.5, lb suggesting that he might have been pont, already at the time (cf. MRR, l,p. 220). It seems to be possible that he is the consul of 231, (RAAF, p. Ill ff.). (3) The priesthoods are mentioned in connection with the ludi saeculares. BARDT, XVviris.f. 1, KLEBS, RE, 1, p. 572, 33-35 for M\ Aemilius; and BARDT, XVviris.f., 2, MÜNZER, RE, 13, pp. 891, 23-66 for M. Livius Salinator, They point out that the names are correct (CIL, l2, p. 29), but there is serious doubt concerning the historical event, the alleged third ludi saeculares in 236. Mommsen has shown {Rom. Chron., p. 186), that the date was established on the fasti, in order to coordinate it with the date of the Augustan revival of the same. Most authorities hold the date of 249 (RKR, p. 451 ; L.R.TAYLOR, OCD,p.821 ;RADKE,RE, 24,p. 1143,45ff. ;RRG,p.246fF.). AM'. Aemilius* death is mentioned in LIVY, 26.23, 7, it is possible that he is our Xvir s.f, since no other person can thus be identified.

70

CHAPTER III

max. The case of Q. Mamilius Turrinus causes some difficulty, since apparently he is the first of his family to reach membership in a priestly college and a possible consulship only twentythree years later. It is known, however, that the Mamilii Vituli held two consulships in the years 265 and 262. Why and how he was coopted cannot be determined. The conclusion is apparent. Separation between priestly and magisterial functions was maintained in this period, notwithstanding the alleged political motives for the restrictions put upon A. Postumius Albinus in 242 (*). Priests were coopted only if they were consulates or members of consular families. Immediately preceding, and during the Second Punic War, eighteen priests can be quoted. In addition to these, many are active who were coopted previously into the colleges. The priests are : 19. M. Claudius Marcellus (2)

Aug. 226 ( ?)-208 ; Cos. 222, 215, 214,210,208

20. M. Cornelius (M.f.M.n.) Cethegus (3)

possibly a FL Dial. ( ?), ?-223 ; (Pont. 213 ; Praet. 211 ; Cos. 204)

21. (Q,?) Sulpicius (*)

Fl. ?-223

22. L. Cornelius L.f.Ti.n. Lentulus Caudinus (5)

Pont. ?-213 ; Cos. 237

(1) As expressed by MÜNZER, RE, loc cit., above, ad n° 15. Gf. my remarks on p. 96. (2) BARDT, Aug., 17 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3, pp. 2738, 6-2755, 36. According to PLUTARCH, Marc, 2.2 : èv Ôè ZixeXiq. ròv àôsXyov 'OraxiAtov xivôvvevovra ôiéaœaev ; he is probably half brother to T. Otacilius Grassus, praet. 217, 214, whose life he saved. His cooptation depends on PLUT., loc. cit. ; Cic, de div., 2, 77 and LIVY, 27.36, 5. BROUGHTON assumes 226, (MRR, 1, p. 230), BARDT suggests 228. (3) MÜNZER, RE, 4, pp. 1279, 23-1280, 7. Gf. my notes on pp. 97, 105. Time of priesthood depends on PLUTARCH, Marc, 5, 2, abdication ibid., 4 : ... ôvo îeoeïç èjiupavéararoi ràç IsQcoavvaç âq>r]oéÔr)0av, KoQvrjAioç juèv KeÔrjyoç on rà onXày%a rov leçelov naqà, ràÇiv ènéôcoxe, Kovlvroç ôè EovXnixioç, ènl rcp dvovroç avrov ròv xogvtpalov ânoQQvfjvai rfjç xe<paÀrjç nlXov, ov oî xaXovfievoi &Aajuivioi (poQovai. (4) MÜNZER, RE, 4A, p. 736, 17-28. Fiammate depends on PLUT., Marc, 5.4, loc cit. above. Münzer's suggestion that the reason for his removal is not the falling off his apex, rather political motives, remains an attractive suggestion, but without actual evidence. It is conceivable that the new ponti/ex maximus, maintaining conservative purity of religious tradition, merely insisted upon strict observance of ritualistic rules. (5) BARDT, Pont., 28 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4, pp. 1377, 68-1378, 36. Mentioned as pont. max.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

23. Furius Bibaculus (*)

71

Mag. Sal. 219

24. L. Furius Bibaculus (*) 2

Sal. 219 ; Praet. before 218

25. C. Atilius Serranus ( )

Aug. 217, possibly Praet. urb. 218

26. L. Cantilius (3)

Pont. Min. 216

In the year 216, Livy, 23.21, 7, mentions three cooptations and three deaths et très pontifices creati, Q,. Caecilius Metellus et Q^. Fabius Maximus et Q. Fulvius Flaccus, in locum P. Scantini demortui et L. Aemilii Pauli consulis et Q. Aeli Paetiy qui ceciderant pugna CannensL Those who died were the following : 27. Q,. Aelius Paetus (4)

Pont. ?-216

28. L. Aemilius M.f.M.n. Paullus (5)

Pont. ?-216, Cos. 219, 216

29. P. Scantinius (6)

Pont. ?-216

in 217 (Livy, 22.10, 1), but the date of his appointment as ponti/ex maximus is based upon the death of L. Caecilius Metellus, in 221 (cf. note ad n° 14 above) ; although, against Bardt, p. 4, the possibility has to be maintained that someone else could have been a ponti/ex maximus between the two. It is conceivable that he was coopted into the pontifical college before this time. Death in 213, LIVY, 25.2, 2. (1) Father and son. MÜNZER, RE, 7, pp. 320, 27-33. Their position rests on VAL. MAX., 1.1, 9 : L. Furius Bibaculus,., qui praetor a patre suo collegii Saliorum iussus, sex lictoribus praecedentibus, arma ancilia tulit, (2) BARDT, Aug., 10 ; KLEBS, RE, 2, pp. 2097, 22-2098, 13 ; Augur or ponti/ex ? The problem is in LIVY, 22.35, 2 : duobus nobilibus iam familiarum plebei, C. Atilio Serrano et Q. Aelio Paeto, quorum alter pontifex, aller augur erat. Atilius Serranus' death is not given. Bardt's solution rests on the assumption that "Livius in der Aufführung der Priesterthümer anders geordnet hat, also vorher bei den Namen". Since Livy 23.21, 7 mentions Q,. Aelius Paetus as a pontifex, G. Atilius Serranus* cooptation into the augural college seems to be secure (cf. below Q.. Aelius Paetus, n°27). According to Broughton (MRR, 1, p. 240, n. 3), he might have been a praet. urb. (3) BARDT, p. 2, n. 3 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3, pp. 1498, 34-37 ; a scriba, or pont. minor in LIVY 22.57, 3 : L. Cantilius, scriba pontifias (some ed. pontificius) quos nunc minores pontifices appellant ; cf. also HRR, I, CASS. HEM.,fr. 32. During the Republic only few are mentioned. In the Empire they are of some importance (RKR, p. 519, and RRG, p. 401). He was scourged to death on account of misbehaviour with the Vestal virgin Floronia. (4) BARDT, Pont. 23 ; KLEBS, RE, 1, p. 526, 44-64 ; he is mentioned in connection with the augur, G. Atilius Serranus (cf. above, n° 25). With this passage from Livy, his pontificate is additionally strengthened. (5) BARDT, Pont., 19; KLEBS, RE,

1, p. 581,

5-41.

(6) BARDT, Pont, 17 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A, p. 352, 46-47.

72

CHAPTER III

In place of the deceased new pontifices were copted : the augur, Q,. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (x), — an honor which, perhaps with the exception of C. Marcius Rutilus (Censorinus) (2), was seldom granted — Q,. Caecilius Metellus (3) and Q . Fulvius Flaccus (4). In the same year ludi funèbres were held in honor of: 30. M. Aemilius Lepidus (5)

Aug. ?-( ?)216 ; Cos. 232, ( ?)221.

In 213, Livy, 25.2, 1-2, similarly mentions changes in the priestly colleges : Aliquot pub liei saeerdotes mortui eo anno sunt, L. Cornelius Lentulus pontifex maximus et C. Papirius Cf. Masso pontifex et P. Furius Philus augur et C. Papirius L.f Masso decemvir sacrorum. In Lentuli locum M. Cornelius Cethegus, in Papiri Cn. Servilius Caepio pontifex suffecii sunt, augur creatus L. Quinctius Flaminius, decemvir sacrorum L. Cornelius Lentulus. Among the deceased, previous reference was not made to two priests : 31. C. Papirius L.f. Maso (6) 7

32. P. Furius Philus ( )

Xvir s.f. ?-213 Aug. ?-214 (or 213); Cos., 223, Praet. ag., 216

A partial list is given for the year 211 in Livy 26.23, 7-8 : Sacerdotes publia aliquot eo anno mortui sunt novique suffecti : in locum M\ Aemilii

(1) Gf. above, n° 10. (2) Gf. above, n° 3, ff. (3) Gf. P. 7, p. 107. (4) Gf. P. 6, ibid. (5) BARDT, Aug., 29 ; KLEBS, RE, 1, p. 552, 15-27. Augurate depends on Livy, 23.30, 15 : Et M. Aemilio Lepido, qui bis (Weissenborn omits bis, Gonway and Walters retain it) consul augurque fuerat, filii très, Lucius, Marcus, Quintus, ludos funèbres... dederunt. The second consulship, which must have fallen between 231 and 216, cannot be proven (for the problem, cf. BARDT, loc. cit., and MRR, 1, p. 235, note 2). Date of cooptation cannot be established with certainty. To family, cf. notes on p. 111. (6) BARDT, Xviri s.f., 3 ; R. HANSLIK, RE,

18, 2, p. 1063, 22-51.

(7) BARDT, Aug., 13 ; MÜNZER, RE, 7, p. 361, 13-44. Time of cooptation is unknown. If he is the P. Furius of Livy 24.43, 1, he must have died in 214. In identifying him further, some difficulty is caused by his praetorship of 216, which he gained after his consulhip (BARDT, loc. cit., MRR, 1, p. 253, n. 1), although other consulares are listed as praetors during this year. Also, it is difficult to see how upon return from military command graviter saucium in discrimine ultimo vitae, (LIVY, 23.21, 2), he can appear as censor two years later (LIVY, 24.11,6) ; nevertheless, the report concerning the severity of his wounds can be merely an exaggeration. That the P. Furius Philus of Livy 22.53, 4, is the praetor of 216 at Cannae seems to be improbable.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

73

Numidae decemviri sacrorum M. Aemilius Lepidus, in locum M. Pomponi Mathonis pontificis C. Livius, in locum Sp. Carvili Maximi auguris M. Servilius. T. Otacilius Crassus pontifex quia exacto anno mortuus erat, ideo nominatio in locum eius non est facta. C. Claudius flamen Dialis, quod exta perperam dederat, flamonio abiit. Since the newly coopted members will be treated in the next chapter, it is necessary to consider only those whose death or abdication is reported in this year. 33. T. Otacilius Crassus (1)

Pont. ?-211 ; Aug. ?-211 ; Pr. 217,214

34. M'. Pomponius Matho (2)

Pont. ?-211 ; Cos. 233

(1) BARDT, p. 19, n° 21 ; MÜNZER, RE, 18, pp. 1852, 48-1865, 46 ; RAAF, pp. 73-83 MRR, 1, p. 284, note 6. Problem is in LIVY, 26.23, 8 : T. Otacilius Crassus, pontifex.., mortuus erat — yet, in 27.6, 15 : C Servilius pontifex factus in locum T. Otacilii Crassi; Ti. Sempronius Ti. f Longus augur factus in locum T. Otacilii Crassi. Bardt indicates that Otacilius' name might be mistakenly written, and suggests an emendation to Atilius Serranus (cf. n. ad n° 25 above). Thus, the text would read Ti. Sempronius Ti.f. Longus augur factus in locum Atacilii Serani (p. 20, esp. note 1, concerning MSS tradition). Bardt admits (p. 21) that Atilius Serranus was a likely predecessor in the augural college to M. Pomponius Matho, cos. 231 ; thus, the succession of Ti. Sempronius Longus is arbitrary. The difficulty with Otacilius seems to be connected with his dual priesthood (cf. my remarks on p. 190). Bardt's argument is weak when he says that Livy should have mentioned such major distinction as a double priesthood in 26.23,8. "... das doppelte Priesterthum bei T. Otacilius Crassus, auf das Livius in den wenigen vorkommenden Fällen immer besonders hinweist..." (BARDT, pp. 19-20). To bring parallel example, Livy has not specifically mentioned the dual priesthood of G. Marcius Rutilus, in 300. MÜNZER suggests an attractive solution in the insertion of eiusdem in LIVY, 27.6, 15, which would read as follows : ... augur factus in locum {eiusdem) T. Otacilii Crassi. Thus, the argument seems to be feasible that "die Möglichkeit, ja die Wahrscheinlichkeit ist vorhanden, dass Otacilius in der Tat den beiden Kollegien der Pontifices und der Augures angehört hat" (RAAF, p. 80). I. MÜLLERSEIDEL'S argument (Fabius Maximus und die Consulwahlen 2I5J214, in Rh. Mus. 96, 1953, pp. 241 ff., esp. 267) does not offer solution or rejection of Münzer's suggestion, except a restatement of the unsatisfactory quality of the sources. M RR, 1, p. 310, note 7 ; also, my remarks to Aug. 2, p. 137, and P. 8, p. 108. (2) BARDT, p. 11, Pont., 35 ; H. GUNDEL, RE, 21, p. 2330, 22 ff. (n° 15,16,17,18,19,20)2332, 18 ; RAAF, p. 161 ; MRR, 1, p. 246, n. 4 ; positive identification is impossible bet w e e n ( l ) M \ Pomponius M'.f.M'.n. Matho, cos. 233, (2) M. Pomponius M'.f.M'.n. Matho, cos. 231, (3) M. Pomponius (Matho), pr. per. 217, and the mag. equ. of the same year, M. Pomponius M'.f.M'. ?n. Matho. MRR following Bardt suggests that the pontifex, who died in the year 211, was the cos. of 233 (Livy, 26.23, 7), while the consul of 231 became the augur of 210, and decemvir of 204 (cf. lists of augurs and decemvirs on pp. 139 and 160).

74

•CHAPTER III

35. Sp. Carvilius Sp.f.C.n. Maximus (Ruga) (*) 36.

C. Claudius (2)

Aug. ?-211 ; Cos. 234, 228 Fl. Dial. 211

A closer viewing of the third century lists presents the following results : 1. The thirty-six priests listed were all consulates, or members of consular families, with the exception of L. Cantilius (n° 26), a pontifex minor, and P. Scantinius (n° 29), apontifex, although our only information about the latter is one reference in Livy, 23.21, 7. 2. Only the pontifices and the augures consistently combined priesthoods and higher magistracies, with the exception of the consul in 242, Postumius Albinus (n° 15), afla?nen, and possibly L. Furius Bibaculus (n° 24), a member of the salii, in 219. One rex (n° 9), one salian priest (n° 23), three flamines (n s 13, 21, 36), and three Xviri s.f. (n08 17, 18, 31), did not gain any magistracy. Our sources for the first half of the third century (n os 1-18), are not sufficient to offer proper analysis of the interrelations between priests and magistrates. In case of six pontifices (and possibly an additional augur), cooptation occurred four times, or might have occurred twice, after the individual held the highest magistracy (3). Seven priests are not found as magistrates (4), although the possibility cannot be excluded that they held such positions. In the case of Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (n° 10), and possibly three others, priesthood preceded magistracy (5).

(1) BARDT, Aug., 15 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3, pp. 1630, 52-1631, 19. (2) Livy's statement as evidence, strengthened by VAL. MAX., 1,14: Consimili ratione P. Cloelius Siculus, M. Cornelius Cethegus et C. Claudius... flaminio abirejussi sunt. (3) The pontifices of the lex Ogulnia, P. Decius Mus, M. Livius Denter, C. Marius Rutilus (Censorinus) and P. Sempronius Sophus (n oa 1-4). Ti. Coruncanius ( n ° l l ) , became pont. max. in 254, although one should assume that he was a member of the college before this time. It cannot be decided whether or not his cooptation occurred before his consulship of 280. L. Caecilius Metellus (n° 14), pont. max. in 243, might have been coopted into the college after his consulship of 251, although the matter remains entirely an assumption. If we accept the identification of P. Aelius Paetus (n° 5) as the consul of 337, he would fall into the category of the plebeian pontifices of the lex Ogulnia. (4) The augures of the lex Ogulnia, G. Genucius, M. Minucius Faesus, and T. Publilius (n os 6, 7, 8), the rex sacrorum, L. Postumius Albinus (n° 9), t h e / / . D., P. Cornelius Sulla (n° 13), and the decemviri, M \ Aemilius M'.f. and M . Livius Salinator (n o s 17 and 18). (5) If n° 12 is Q,. Mamilius Turrinus, magistracy cannot be established ; if G. Mamilius

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

75

The data are entirely unsatisfactory for the second half of the third century to 211. Cooptations are based upon assumptions (as seen above, n o è 18-36) ; thus, any generalization will remain merely hypothetical, e.g., in the case of the pontifices (1). Magistracies are not listed in a number of cases, or, if they occur, precise identification is impossible ( 2 ). Only twice do we find that the priesthood might have occurred before the magistracy f). Curiously, the augures appear as magistrates in greater numbers in the second half of the century, if we can disregard the questionable indentifications of P. Aelius Paetus (n° 5), and (C. ?) Mamilius Turrinus (n° 12) (4). The three pontifices maximi, Ti. Coruncanius (n° 11), L. Caecilius Metellus (n° 14), plebeians, and L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (n° 22), a patrician, served as the highest magistrates of the Republic. There is no indication that cooptation to any of the priestly colleges was following an established pattern, except that the priests, at least those of whom we have information, belonged to consular families. Nor can it be stated that priesthoods, especially the pontificate and the augurate, were either precedent to, or resultant in magistracy. Nevertheless, it is thoughtprovoking that M. Cornelius Cethegus (n° 20), having been forced to abdicate as / / . Dial., could gain the praetorship and consulship at a later period after having been coopted into the college of pontifices ( 5 ). T h a t the practice of priesthood

Turrinus is identified, consulship of 239 probably followed the priesthood. The others are problematic as well, A. Postumius Albinus (n° 15) could have been aflamen before his consulship of 242, and the possibility exists that the C. Papirius, pont., who died in 213 (n° 16), was a member of the college as early as 241. (1) Death notices, rather than notices of cooptations, cause the difficulties : L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (n° 22), being a consul of 237, possibly was coopted into the pontifical college before he became pont, max., at the earliest date of 221. Whether his consulate preceded the cooptation cannot be determined. Similarly, with M. Aemilius Lepidus (n° 30), P. Furius Philus (n° 32), T. Otacilius Crassus (n° 33), M. Pomponius Matho (n° 34), and Sp. Carvilius Maximus (n° 35). (2) The Jlamines, Q . Sulpicius (n° 21) and C.Claudius (n° 36) ; the mag. Sal., Furius Bibaculus (n° 23) ; the pontifices, Q . Aelius Paetus (n° 27), and P. Scantinius (n° 29) ; the Xvir s.f., C. Papirius Maso (n° 31). Decision is practically impossible in the case of C. Atilius Serranus (n° 25) and L. Furius Bibaculus (n° 24). (3) M. Claudius Marcellus (n° 19) and L. Aemilius Paullus (n° 28). M. Cornelius Cethegus (n° 20) was not considered since his priesthood and career fall into the period after 211. (4) Cf. pp. 66 and 68. (5) Cf. p. 105.

76

CHAPTER III

preceding magistracy will become the rule after 211, rather than the exception, will be shown in the following chapter. 3. As has been pointed out previously, priesthoods in the Republic were not connected with the responsibility of holding magistracy (*) ; yet, in the later stages of the Republic, one can seldom find a priest without a curule magistracy. Therefore, it would be a grievous error to maintain a superficial separation between priesthood and magistrates, because only in case of the rex sacrorum was this prohibition maintained consistently. Attemps were made to change the tradition but without success (2). The political importance of the priesthoods did not depend entirely on duties and privileges. Important were the limitations, which divided priesthoods into two groups : (1) those which were compatible with political power, and (2) those which were detrimental to holding curule magistracies. In Rome, religious and secular duties in the government were originally vested in one person (3), vestiges of which can be seen in the position of the ancient priesthoods, in the rex sacrorum and flamen Dialis (4). Theoretically, they were of the highest rank in the college

(1) RSR, 2, pp. 18 ff. "Der gesammte vorschriftsmässige Gultus der von der Gemeinde anerkannten Götter ist den Priestern überwiesen, ohne dass den Beamten irgend ein Antheil dabei (*) oder auch ein Oberaufsichtsrecht eingeräumt wäre : ... Umgekehrt sind in dem Gemeindewesen die Priester als solche ohne formelle Gewalt (2) und ohne rechtliche Stellung8 ; ... Dem entsprechend ist auch die Organisation der Priesterschaft derjenigen der Magistratur in den wesentlichsten Prinzipien diametral entgegengesetzt". Gf. Chapter I above. (2) LIVY, 40.42, 8 ff. describes L. Cornelius Dolabella's affair in 180 : De rege sacrificulo sufficiendo in locum Cn. Cornelii Dolabellae contentio inter C. Seruilium poniificem maximum fuit et L. Cornelium Dolabellam duumuirum naualem, quem ut inauguraret pontifex magistratu sese abdicare iubebat. Recusantique id facere ob earn rem multa duumuiro dicta a pontifïce, deque ea cum prouocasset certatum ad populum. Cum plures iam tribus intro uocatae dicto esse audientem pontifici duumuirum iuberent, multamque remitti, si magistratu se abdicasset, uitium de caelo quod comitia turbaret, intervenu. Religio inde fuit pontificibus inaugurandi Dolabellae. The vitium is usually an unfavorable omen, lightning and thunder, which necessitated the immediate adjournment of the assembly. In the fact that pontifex maximus (and possibly Xvir s.f.) C. Servilius Geminus (P. 8), appointed C. Cloelius Siculus to fill the place of Dolabella, Münzer sees localpatriotic reasons (RAAF, p. 134, n. 1 ; cf. below pp. 108-109 and 175), which is an attractive, yet not necessarily an acceptable, suggestion. Better, the religious and political reasons given in BLEIGKEN (Kollisionen, loc. cit., pp. 452-453). Cf. also, note to M. Marcius (Rex 1), supposedly the first plebeian rex sacrorum. (3) MARQUARDT, pp. 321 ff. ; RKR, pp. 480 ff. ; also, pp. 505 ff. ; RSR, 2, 18, n. 1.

(4) It is curious, although not decisive because of non-availability of other sources, that

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

77

of the pontifices (x). In actuality, in the historically ascertainable later periods, they became subordinate in the pontifical college. How this subordination occurred, or how the process was introduced, cannot be traced. Nevertheless, in the period between the middle of the third and second centuries, we find that the f lamines9 position came under the control of the pontifices maximi, who delimited some individual priests in their political functions (2). On the other hand, the lists above as well as the ones below, show, that exactly in this period two priesthoods, the pontificate and augurate, became increasingly important, since they were open to the plebeians after 300, and the members of these colleges held with few exceptions higher magistracies. It is impossible to elucidate the problem in all its details, but it should be pointed out that the augural college's prominence, especially in the second half of the third century, appears

the first ascertainable combination of priesthood and magistracy occurred in the case of A. Postumius Albinus (n° 15), who apparently was aflamen Dialis before his dramatically delimited consulship in 242. (Others held consulships before their cooptation into a college). (1) Officially, the pontifex maximus ranked in the fifth place, according to Festus (p. 198, ed. LINDSAY) : Ordo sacerdotium aestimatur deorum (ordine, ut deus) maximus quisque. Maximus uidetur rex, dein dialis, post hum martialis, quarto loco quirinalis, quinto ponti/ex maximus. Itaque in soliis rex supra omnes accumbat licet ; dialis supra martialem et quirinalem ; martialis supra proximum; omnes supra pontificem. (2) Latte (RRG, p. 195) speaks about "Machtkämpfe" in politico-religious matters, even of a revolution, by which the pontifex maximus became the head of the Roman sacral institutions. J. BLEIGKEN (Oberpontifex..., loc. cit., Hermes, 85, pp. 363 ff.), after having traced the pontifex maximus* position as far as imperium, potestas and auspicium is concerned, comes to the conclusion that theflamines, rex s., as well as the Vestal virgins, were not under the pontifex maximus in the sense of a superior, rather, as the administrative superior of the pontifical college ; that the pontifices, especially the pontifex maximus, always remained what they originally were, i.e., priests, separate from magistrates. He sees in the eventual superiority of the pontifex maximus a lengthy development due to strong personalities in this position. MUTH, Römische religio, loc. cit. (pp. 253 ff.), after tracing the cult-concepts of Roman religion in the Republic and the Empire, states : "Die Geschichte der römischen Religion wird man primär sicher nicht als Geschichte ihrer zunehmenden Überlieferung sehen dürfen, sondern als Geschichte des Strebens nach Selbstbehauptung der alten Religionsidee" (p. 256). In a recent article, J.-Gl. RICHARD, Sur quelques grand pontifes plébéiens, in Latomus, 27, 1968, pp. 786 ff., espouses the idea that the change was due to forceful plebeian pontifices maximi between 242-131, who embellished the position of the pontifex maximus by delimiting the function of the flamines majores for political and religious reasons.

78

CHAPTER III

to be the result of the influence of strong personalities, as well as the increased need, or expediency of interpreting auspicia, which, at least in the later stages of the Republic, being a legalistic, constitutional as well as religious expertise (1), turned into a potential ground of interaction between priestly and magisterial functions. To the pontifices, especially the pontifices maximi, are attributed, at the same time, the compilation and perhaps the invention of some religious formulae which eventually took shape in the form of libri or commentarli pontificum. Also, they were instrumental in admitting a number of new deities, necessitated by external conditions, as well as the supervision of the prodigia. Therefore, the need to reflect upon some aspects of the interacting roles of magistracy and these priesthoods appears to be evident. In the R o m a n state cult, two major developments p u t their mark on third century priesthoods : the lex Ogulnia, which opened the pontifical and augural colleges to the plebeians, and the election of the pontijex maximus by a special assembly. As a final step in removing the barricades of patrician-held spheres of competence, the lex Ogulnia implied a politico-social rather than religious change. Similarly into this period falls the new system of electing the porttifex maximus by a special assembly consisting of 17 tribes chosen by lot from among the total thirty-five (2). This assembly probably elected ca. 254 the first time a plebeian as pontifex maximus, Ti. Coruncanius Ti.f.Ti.n. (n° 11), who primus ex plebe pontifex maximus creatus est ( 3 ). He was a member of the Tuscan nobility, an alleged expert in religious and secular law, and in all considerations a remarkable personality (4). His successor was L. Caecilius Metellus (n° 14), also a plebeian ( 5 ). They were succeeded by a patrician of the highest reputation, L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus (6) (n° 22), and, after

(1) RSR, 1, pp. 76 ff. ; WARDE FOWLER, Rei. Exp., op. cit., p. 76.

(2) RSR, 2, p. 27, n. 3 ; RAAF, pp. 185-186, dates it to 241 ; L. R. TAYLOR, The election of the Pontifex Maximus, in CI. Phil., loc. cit., dates it to the beginning of the third century B.C. ; i.e., probably instituted during Livy's second lost decade. (3) LIVY, per. 18 ; MRR, 1, p. 210 ; date is probably between 255-252 ; cf. MÜNZER and JÖRS, RE, 4, pp. 1663, 47 ff.

(4) Gic, Brut., 14, 55; and scattered references, e.g., de or., 3.33, 134; nat. d.s 1.41, 115 ; for further references, RE, and MRR, loc. cit. (5) Cic., de sen., 9, 30 ; VAL. MAX., 8. 13, 2, and notes above. (6) Gf. notes on p. 70, n. 5, concerning the possibility of one other p. maximus before him.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

79

him, by a plebeian, Licinius Crassus Dives (P. 5), zspontifex maximus in 213 (i). The fact that the priests, patricians and plebeians alike, were consulates and that the pontifices maximi and the augures held higher magistracies, created the conditions in which magisterial and priestly functions could be interwoven. At the outset of this brief analysis one must warn, nevertheless, against unwarranted, general assumption of religion being subordinated and misused for political, social or any form of expediency. One must consider, of course, that magisterial imperium was closely connected with spectio and auspicia, and that any political action was possible only after auspicato (2). All other paraphernalia connected with active magistracy (3), triumphs (4), embellishment of existing ritualistic practices under Hellenistic influence, celebration of ludi and dedication of new places of cult, were part of this interplay between magistracy and priesthood. That an individual priest could have used these and other means for furthering his own political aims seems to be an acceptable assumption, yet available evidence does not indicate such an exclusively opportunistic and systematically utilitarian attitude. One has to point out, for instance, that introduction of a cult into the City did not necessarily make the initiator or the appointed leader a member of a priestly college, as seen in the case of Q,. Ogulnius (5). Also, dedication of a temple was always a magistrate's duty, who had to be a dictator, consul, or praetor, or, in case of necessity, a lesser magistrate (6). Of course, if the magistrate was a member of the priestly college, the line of separation between the magistrate and the advisor to the magistrate was merely a technicality. Yet, a view of the newly dedicated cult places in the third century shows that only Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (n° 10, P. 2) and M. Claudius Marcellus (n° 19) were engaged as dedicators (7) (with the possible exception of C.

(1) Cf. notes ad P. 5 below. (2) Cf. pp. 21 ff. above. (3) LIPPOLD {pp. cit., pp. 312 ff.) closely analyzes the whole problem. (4) A. LIPPOLD, Der erste Punische Krieg bei Orosius, in Rhein. Mus., 97, 1954, pp. 254 ff. (5) Brother of the tr. pi., cf. p. 67. (6) P. 49. (7) Honos and Virtus (RKR, p. 149 ; RRG, pp. 235 ff.) ; both to commemorate military victories. Mens and Venus (RKR, p. 313 ; RRG, pp. 239 ff., and RKR, p. 290 ; RRG, pp. 158 ff.), as a votive offering after the diasaster at Trasimene. C. KOCH, Religio, op. cit., pp. 76 ff. Lippold points out (p. 337) that in the vows one can see "eine erkennbare Ziel-

80

CHAPTER III

Papirius Maso, n° 16, and T. Otacilius Crassus, n° 33), and that their activity was most likely induced by adverse external conditions and not by personal ambitions or deliberate intermingling of priestly and magisterial duties. At least, we do not have evidence for such exclusivity. It is not the purpose of this paper to systematically analyze the changes which ensued in Roman religion during the third century (x). Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the steady contacts with the Hellenistic world, as well as with the Etruscans (2), especially in matters of cult (3) and the awakening of the national self-esteem, as seen in coinage and the innumerable triumphs (4) essentially contributed to the tendency to search for something new, not as rigid as the established formalism of the old. For our purpose, the affairs of 217, (which are described by Wissowa as "Ein für die Geschichte der römischen Religion hervorragend wichtiges Jahr (5) ", because circumstances forced the condoning of Greek and other religious aspects), are nothing more than the panic-like reliance of the vulgus upon more meaningful forms of the supranatural, as seen in Livy's ex post facto reflection : quod evenire solet motis in religionem animis ( 6 ).

It is evident that leadership had to come from the magistrates and priests, who were in a position to allay fears and properly fulfill wishes and desires. But it cannot be shown whether this interaction between the magistrates and priests was motivated by religious feeling or was the manifestation of the later evident skepticism, which used external ceremonialism for political purposes. The answer appears to lie between the two.

Setzung römischer Adelskreise". His statement, nevertheless, considers aims of nobility, in which religious and political affairs were intimately interwoven. Equally to Summa Sapientia (p. 338) and the Venus cult (pp. 343-346). (1) RKR,

pp. 47 ff. ; WARDE FOWLER, op. cit., pp. 249 ff. ; RRG, pp. 213 ff.

(2) In addition to above, cf. W. HOFFMANN, Rom und die griechische Welt im 4. Jhdt., PhilologuSj Suppl., 27, 1 (1934) ; P. GRIMAL, Le siècle des Sapions, Paris, 1953 ; A. ALFÖLDI, Die trojanische Urahnen der Römer, op. cit., pp. 14 ff., as mentioned in A. ALFÖLDI, Early Rome, op. cit., p. 278, ff. and passim ; and A. LIPPOLD, op. cit., esp. pp. 223 ff. (3) HOFFMANN, op. cit., pp. 83 ff. ; RKR, pp. 56 ff. ; WARDE FOWLER, op. cit., pp. 260 ff. ;

RRG, pp. 234 ff. (4) A. LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 236 ff., and pp. 325 ff.

(5) RKR, p. 60; RRG, p. 253. (6) LIVY, 21.62, 1 ff. ; KLOTZ, Über die Stellung des Cassius Dio unter den Quellen zur Ge­ schichte des Zweiten Pun. Krieges, in Rh. Mus., 85, 1936, pp. 68-116.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

81

Since the pontif ices and augures wert magistrates and, thus, members of the ruling aristocracy, it is necessary to elucidate their role from this point of view as well. At the turn of the century in the political and social affairs of Rome, some elements of "democratization" were noticeable ; yet, in this process strongly and decisively remained the oligarchic factors in maintaining the nobility's status quo (1). Gelzer values the role of aristocracy thus : "Denn die ganzen gewaltigen politischen Leistungen der römischen Republik sind einzig das Werk der römischen Aristokratie. Deren Grösse liegt darin, wie sie das Gesamtvolk zu führen verstand, so dass alle formellen demokratischen Konzessionen nur Mittel der aristokratischen Politik blieben ( 2 )". Yet, in commenting on too schematic views of the homogeneity of aristocratic politics (3), he warns that one cannot apply interpretations of late annalistic tradition, which even then were based upon negligible evidence, to a study of third century affairs. In the case of priests who were members of the nobility evidence for the third century from 300-211 offers some difficulties, since most of our information is derived from Livy, who is silent or brief about the individual role of the priests and who by implication, presents a unified and, from political affairs, separate picture of the state cult. In his third decade, nothing more than lists of names occur from which one can draw only assumed conclusions. Further difficulty is caused by Livy, or his sources, who projected a more or

(1) In using the term "nobility", I accept Gelzer's definition ; Die Nobilitai der römischen Republik, Leipzig/Berlin, 1912 ; Kl. Sehr., 1, pp. 39 ff., namely, individuals from former consuls, tribuni mil. cons, pot., or dictators ; cf. also, A. AFZELIUS, Class, et Med., 1945,150 ff. (2) In review of Münzer's RAAF, op. cit., N. J . 23 (1920), p. 439, now in Kl. Sehr., 1, p. 198 ; evidently, GELZER refers to his study : The Nobility of the Roman Republic, op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 68 ff., where he has shown that in the late Republic, and this cannot be emphasized enough, according to the available evidence at the end of the Republic the nobility's rule did not rest on statutory measures ; rather, in some cases, on vague and flexible interpretations oîamicitia, societas, conjunctio, necessitudo and familiaritas. They have broadened the aristocratic bases either through immigration or intermarriage, or any other contact with socially or politically acceptable families, including plebeians. Gf. also, ibid., pp. 196-200. The same has been expanded by MÜNZER, RAAF (cf. remarks on pp. 31 ff.), and carried further by L. R. TAYLOR, Party Politics in the Time of Caesar, Univ. of Gal. Press, 1949, pp. 7 ff. ; against the views of Miss Taylor, cf. LAST, Gnomon, 22 (1950), pp. 360 ff. (3) GELZER, Besprechung of HH. SCULLARD, Roman Politics, 220-150, Historia 1, 1950, pp. 638 ff. (in Kl. Sehr., 1, pp. 206-207).

82

CHAPTER III

less orderly and legal government of earlier ages against the destructive and divisive tendencies of later periods. Accordingly, in earlier times, members of the oligarchy pursued a generally unified policy in which greater or smaller families, by diverse means of social and political contacts, exercised influence upon other families and thus maintained the rule of the oligarchy. Upon such bases, specifically family and group relations, F. Münzer established a view of the Republic, which was praised as well as criticized f1). This method was used by W. Schur (2), and, in an expanded form by H. H . Scullard ( 3 ),' by whom gens and gentilitian power structure were considered regulatory factors of Roman politics. It was inevitable, of course, that in the oligarchy, family and other contacts existed (4) ; yet, as pointed out by F. Hampl ( 5 ), political cooperation in the Republic was not considered binding (as will be shown below), and he warned that one ought not to deny the possibility that such contacts could have been established with political cooperation in mind. Therefore, while one accepts the general oligarchic tendencies of the Republican government, he must search for the role of the individual priests in attempting to analyze the interactions between priestly and magisterial functions,

(1) (Articles in the RE, loc. cit. in the case of individual priests) ;RAAF; by GELZER, N.J.,

Review, i.a.9

23, 1920, pp. 438 ff., in Kl. Sehr., 1, op. cit., pp. 196 ff., and

HZ,

123, 1921, pp. 1 ff., ibid., pp. 186 ff. (2) W. SCHUR, Scipio Aernilianas und die Begründung der römischen Weltherrschaft, Das Erbe der Alten 2, 13, Leipzig, 1927. (3) H. H. SCULLARD, Roman Politics, 220-150, Oxford, 1951. (4) These contacts must be considered, but they cannot be accepted as the directing forces of political development, as will be shown below. They are especially emphasized in case of the Fabian gens in Münzer : the wife of Licinius (possibly the cos. 364, or 361) was a Fabia, as seen in LIVY, 6.34, 5 ; RE, 6, 1884ff. MÜNZER suggests lasting contact with the Otacilian family (RAAF, p. 71) on account of a marriage, as seen in Fest., 180, L: uxorem duxit Otacilii Maleventani... filiam. Atilius Caiatinus supposedly took as wife a daughter of a F. Maximus, according to Val. Max., 8, 1, abs. 9. Again, marital contact is suggested between the Fabian and Manilian families (RAAF, p. 60). If one can accept the speech of Fabius Maximus in LIVY, 24.8, 11, T. Otacilius Crassus, the praetor of 217, was married to a niece of Q,. Fabius. Münzer also suggests that the Fabian gens established special ties for some vague, local-patriotic reasons with immigrant gentes, such as the family of the pontifex maximus Ti. Coruncanius (RAAF, pp. 61, 66), and the family of the augur or pontifex Q . or G. Mamilius Turrinus (ibid., p. 65). (5) F. HAMPL, Review of "H. H. SCULLARD, Reman Politics, 220-150", in AAHG, 6, 1953, pp. 90 ff., esp. p. 94.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

83

since many of the priests were outstanding personalities who often acted against family and other interests in carrying out their religious and/or political plans. In this context, Gelzer correctly pointed out that one cannot consider groups, or the factiones as modern political parties, nor as "konstituirende Faktoren (1)", while F. Hampl emphasized that it is incorrect to see in the activities of strong personalities merely the manifestations of family policy (2). Following this line of thought, Kienast, in a study of Cato, presented the censor as an individualist and independent personality within the framework of normal contacts with the noble families of his age (3). Lippold's study of the consules of the third century was based essentially on the role of the individual, emphasizing steadily the interpretative necessity of personalen Moments (4). U. Schlag carried this further in analyzing late third century magistrates (5) whose individual rather than gens-based actions offered them spheres of influence and leadership in guiding affairs of the state.

(1) GELZER, Historic 1, 1950, pp. 634 ff., in Kl. Sehr., 1, op. cit., pp. 201 ff. ; esp. pp. 203-204, where he adds that family contacts and the commendation of a presiding magistrate at the elections, as well as family contacts as far as the vote was concerned, could have been important in ancient Rome. To the method and actual political importance of the elections, cf. LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 104 ff. To the question of political parties, cf. H. STRASSBURGER, RE, 18, pp. 775 ff. In reviewing Scullards's book, STRASSBURGER {Gno­ mon, 27, 1955, pp. 207 ff.) pointed out the neglect of external conditions. (2) F. HAMPL, loc. cit., pp. 91 ff.

(3) D. KIENAST, Cato der Zensor, Heidelberg, 1954. (4) A. LIPPOLD, op. cit., p. ix ; Lippold, nevertheless, often points to possible personal or family contacts which could introduce misleading conclusions ; among others ; p. 128, n. 207, "Der letzte Konsul aus dem Hause der Papirii vor 231 hatte 292 als Nachfolger und 273 als Vorgänger einen Fabius ;... aber gerade Münzer hätte dies beachten sollen, wenn er (Adelsparteien 111) ohne ausführliche Begründung Fabius einer dem Papirius feindlichen Senatsmehrheit zuzählt" ; p. 140, n. 256, concerning attitude of Fabius Maximus Verrucosus against Cornelius : "wichtig erscheint hier noch, dass für 218 ein Gornelier zum Konsul gewählt worden war" ; p. 314, n. 71, to the triumph of Papirius (cf. my note t o n 0 16), "Es ist m.E. kein Zufall, dass gerade ein Papirius zur neuartigen Möglichkeit der Feier des Sieges fand : Er war wohl auch damals bereits pontifex..." pp. 127 ff., relations and further contacts ; p. 162, where he considers the possibility of political intrigue in the augural college ; p. 150, esp. n. 303 ; alleged "war party" backing in G. Flaminius' election to the consulate in 217. Against this, one should consider that family relations, or other personal contacts do not necessitate politically unified action (cf. below, and F. HAMPL, loc. cit., p . 94). (5) U . SCHLAG, op. cit., pp. 15-16.

84

CHAPTER III

Exactly in personal and individual leadership, (not so much as overwhelming family policy, one can see after the lex Ogulnia the role of the pontifices and augures, whose personal actions mirror individual perspicacity and strong convictions, through which they could elevate their priesthoods into a politically significant position as well as combine the magisterial and priestly functions. The first two plebeian pontifices maximi are a case in point. Ti. Coruncanius (n° 11) was a known military hero who held triumphs because of victories achieved against the Vulci and Volsinii p). Later tradition ascribes to him legal expertise and generally considers him to be an exemplary pontifex maximus (2), whose actions must have been recorded by the pontifices (3). Similarly, his successor, L. Caecilius Metellus (n° 14) was a military figure, especially after his victory in 251/50 (4). His strength and traditional conviction is shown in his insistence upon established forms of state religion, as seen in the case of Postumius Albinus in 242 (5). Metellus' individuality is excellently represented in the laudatio of his son, the consul of 206 (6), which in no way could be applied to a collective idea of universal aristocratic morality. Evidently, the two plebeian pontifices maximi created — through their individual rather than family-based effort — conditions which put an indelible mark upon the position of the pontifex maximus. They must have maintained contact with other members of the nobility. Yet,

(1) Pol., 2. 20, 1. (2) Cf. notes ad n° 11 ; POMP., 1. 2, 2, 35 and 38 ; in later periods he is often referred to as an exemplary pontifex maximus because he applied legal expertise to affairs outside the pontifical college. (Rh. Mus., 57, 1902, loc. cit., p. 523), A. Enmann's allegation that he "den Ruhm, Roms nationale Geschichte und die lateinische Prosalitteratur begründet zu haben" cannot be proven (cf. also, GELZER, Kl. Sehr., 3, loc. cit., p. 99). Lippold suggests that he could be credited with the modernization of the existing legal system, but without the allegedly bitter internal fight between the patrician and plebeian elements (op. cit., p. 305, n. 33). (3) (Brutus, 14, 55), as seen in Cicero. (4) POL., 1.40, 1 ff. ; WALBANK, Comm., op. cit., p. 102.

(5) Cf. p. 96. (6) PL., n.h., 7, 139 ff. ; KŒNAST, op. cit., pp. 29 ff. ; cf. notes ad n° 14. The laudatio is considered by Lippold as "Kronzeugniss" of the oligarchy's idealistic goals (Lippold, op. cit. pp. 76 ff. ; cf. F. HAMPL, Römische Politik in republikanischer Zeit, in Hist. Zeit., 188, 1959, p. 506, concerning the historical unreliability of such testimonies). Lippold points out correctly that such laudations show development of a strong individualistic tendency (p. 84).

PRIESTS BETWEEN 300-211

85

it would be an error to consider them tools of undefined and vague background interests. L. Cornelius Lentulus (n° 22), shows the same individuality, if we accept late tradition (*) of his arguing for immediate declaration of war against Carthage, as opposed to Q,. Fabius Maximus5 "wait and see" attitude (2). Similarly, the pontifex C. Papirius Maso (n° 16), whose demand for a triumph and the subsequent dedication of the cult center of Fons (3), merely underline his attempt to further his own name, although his achievements reflected upon the fame of the Papirii (4). The same situation can be observed among the remaining pontifices and augures before and upon the beginning of the Hannibalic Wars, when extraordinary conditions abetted the appearance of extraordinary personalities. M. Claudius Marcellus (n° 19) was a great military leader whose fame rested on the victory at Clastidium (6) ; he could be considered one of the more successful Roman generals in the war against the Carthaginians, after the battle of Cannae (6). Notwithstanding some modern opinions, which suspect the circumstances of his elections (cos.222 ;praet.216 ;cos. 215, 214, 210, 208), describing some as the result of politics (7), his military leadership and personal expertise

(1) T>io,fr. 55 ; ZON., 8, 22, 1ff.; cf. to this and the whole problem, GELZER, Hermes, 66, 1933, pp. 161 ff., Kl. Sehr., 3, pp. 87 ff. ; LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 139 ff.

(2) Scullard speaks of a first manifestation of Fabian and Cornelian opposition, implying family rather than individual opposition {op. cit., p. 41). But F. HAMPL. {AAHG, loc. cit., p. 91), "dass 218 v. Chr. im Senat einfach die Meinungen zweier führender Männer aufeinanderstiessen und nicht die zweier Geschlechter und Adelsgruppen, für die jene Männer lediglich als Sprecher fungiert hätten". (3) In 231-30 the senate denied a triumph (VAL. MAX., 3.6, 5 ; further evidence, MRR, 1, p. 226), which was eventually held by Papirius outside the pomerium. Also, out of the booty from Corsica he dedicated a cult place for Fons {RKR, p. 221 and RRG, p. 77). (4) LIPPOLD, op. cit., p.

336.

(5) Pol., 2, 34 ; to the passage, Walbank comments : "There is some evidence that P.'s account is somewhat weighted in favor of Cornelius, at Marcellus' expense, perhaps because of his connection with the Scipionic family". Gf. to this, Lippold's fundamental source analysis, op. cit., pp. 56 ff. To the spolia opima, cf. LAMMERT, RE, 3A, pp. 1846, 41 ff. (6) V. KAHRSTEDT, op. cit., p.

456.

(7) In the well-known passage of Livy, 26.22 ff., the elections of 210 are described. LrvY states {ibid., 13) : M. Claudium, fulgentem turn Sicilia domita, et M. Vaelium absentes consules dixerunt. The election was suspect to MÜNZER {RAAF, p. 75, followed by SCULLARD, op. cit., pp. 64 ff.) : "Der Hergang bei der Wahlhandlung wird ganz ähnlich geschildert

86

CHAPTER III

offer a feasible explanation for the frequency of his.consulships. In the election of L. Aemilius Paullus, (n° 28), in 216 (1), not family intrigue, but expertise, was the determining factor. Livy clearly states (22.35, 7) : ... nee cuiquam eorum praeter Terentium consulem mandatus honos quern non iam antea gessisset, praeteritis aliquot fortibus ac strenuis viris, quia in tali tempore nulli novus magistratus videbatur mandandus.

Some authors consider the whole matter a manifestation of internal rivalry among noble factions (2), yet Aemilius Paullus' individual military professionalism appears to be a determining factor in his candidacy against that of the other candidates (3) : the augur, C. Atilius Serranus (n° 25), the pontifex, Q . Aelius Paetus (n° 27), as well as P. Cornelius Merenda, L. Manlius Vulso and M. Aemilius Lepidus, (possibly the augur, n° 30). That the praetors elected at the same time were men of experience rather than representatives of vague interests only strengthens our statement above, as shown in the election of the augur, M. Claudius Marcellus (n° 19), the ponti/ex, M. Pomponius Matho (n° 34), L. Postumius Albinus, cos., 234 and the augur, P. Furius Philus (n° 32). Among the candidates, a majority were augures and pontifices, experienced individuals who were willing and able to serve. Into these ranks is to be enrolled Sp. Carvilius Maximus (n° 35), according to late sources a known individualist, an exponent of

wie im Jahre 214, und es gibt dafür kein weiteres Beispiel ; völlig unklar bleibt aber, weshalb die Ablehnung der Wahl durch den Patrizier auch die Aufhebung der Wahl des abwesenden Plebeiers veranlasst ; der Verdacht ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen, dass die Tatsachen absichtlich und willkürlich zurechtgerückt sind". Nevertheless, consideration is not given that the circumstances of the elections in 214 are quite different, as seen in LIVY, 24.7, 11-9, 3 (to this, cf. LIPPOLD, pp. 171 ff.). Also, SCHUR (op. cit., p. 23) suggests

that the election of 210 is due to the agreement between the Fabii and Cornelii, disregarding the most feasible explanation that on account of Claudius Marcellus* success as a military commander it was natural to elect someone with his know-how and expereince. (1) The entire problem in Livy, 22.33, 9-35 ; description and analysis, LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 160 ff. ; in comparison, Pol., 3. 16, 18, 19 is much more reticent. To sources of Polybius, Geizer, Die Glaubwürdigkeit der bei Liv. überlieferten Senatsbeschlüsse, in Hermes, 60. 1935, p. 147, in Kl. Sehr., op. cit., 3, p. 71 ; WALBANK ad Pol., loc. cit., Comm., op. cit., p. 325 ; also, DE SANCTIS, op. cit., 3.2, pp. 169 ff., point out the possibility of family tradition. (2) RAAF, p. 24 ; SCULLARD, op. cit., p. 49.

(3) LIVY, 22.35 ; GELZER in reviewing Scullard, Kl. Sehr., 3, loc. cit., p. 209, doubts the validity of the list. To this, LIPPOLD, op. cit., p. 164, considers that the names warrant credibility.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 300-211

87

Hellenistic culture (1), of expanding the Senate (2), and remembered for his alleged divorce (3). Perhaps the best example is offered in T. Otacilius Crassus (n° 33), who in spite of his alleged close contact with the "Fabian faction" (4),was rejected in the consular election of 214 (5) by the very Q. Fabius Maximus who was supposedly closely connected with him. T. Otacilius5 retort (6) is presented by Münzer as "ein abgemachtes Spiel ( 7 )", in order to maintain some supposedly premeditated political background directed by ÇK Fabius Maximus himself. Yet, against such and similar theorization, the following can be safely stated : ( 1 ) the whole altercation shows that family contacts were not binding, and (2) often individual considerations prevailed. Perhaps the best, and at the same time the most controversial, example of personal leadership is Q. Fabius Maximus (n° 10), an augur's augur, according to Cicero (8), who is described in Livy as follows : Vir certe fuit dignus tanto cognomine, vel si novum ab eo inciperet. Superava paternos honores avitos aequavit. Pluribus victoriis et maioribus proeliis avus insignis Rullus ; sed omnia aequare unus hostis Hannibal potest. Cautior tarnen quam promptior hic habitus ; et sicut dubites utrum ingenio cunctator fuerit an quia ita bello proprie quod tum gerebatur aptum erat, sic nihil certius est quam unum hominem nobis cunctando rem restituasse, sicut Ennius ait ( 9 ). (1) PLUT., quest. Rom., 59 ; GÖTZ, RE, Carvilius n° 5, dates the beginning of the school to 234. (2) LIVY, 23.22, 4 ff. (3) GELL, n.a., 4.3, 2 ; 17.21, 44.

(4) Gf. notes ad n° 33 ; supposedly related to Q,. Fabius Maximus Verr., "the Cunctator" (evidence in a speech of Q. Fabius Max., LIVY, 28.8, 11). MÜNZER (pp.73ff., also SCULLARD, pp. 58 ff.) constantly refers to him as one of the Fabian followers. LIPPOLD (p. 346) alleges Fabian contacts in the transfer of the vow for the Mens cult, from Fabius Maximus Verrucosus to T. Otacilius Crassus (n° 33). To this, cf. HAMPL, AAHG, loc. cit., p. 94. (5) LIVY, 24.7, 11-9, 3 ; similarly, to the second denial of the consulship for T. Otacilius Crassus in 210 (LIVY, 26.22). GELZER, Kl. Sehr., 3, loc. cit., doubts historicity, MÜNZER (RE, 14, pp. 1209, 1 ff., concerning T. Manlius Torquatus), also Scullard (op. cit., pp. 64 ff.) consider the two reports as doublettes (cf. to this, MÜLLER-SEIDEL, loc. cit., pp. 252 passim) ; LIPPOLD. op. cit., pp. 171 ff.

(6) LIVY, 24.9, 1 : Cum T. Otacilius ferociter eum continuare consulatum uelle vociferaretur atque obstreperet. (7) RAAF, p. 74. (8) As seen in Cic, de div., 2.34, 71. (9) LIVY, 30, 26, 8-9 ; the possibility of late origin has to be considered, cf. KLOTZ,

88

CHAPTER III

It is not our purpose to analyze Q. Fabius5 attitude and political career. That he successfully combined religious and magisterial functions is evident from the available data, which offer a composite picture of a great individual who was active simultaneously in religious, political and military affairs. It would be idle to speculate why Fabius became an augur practically in his teens (x). Whether it was implied family duty or political expediency (2), one cannot tell. It is a fact, however, that he eventually acquired tremendous prestige which was closely connected with his priestly position, because in the college of the augures not only age, but also the number of years spent in the priesthood, was of considerable importance (3). When consul the first time in 233 (4), he could have been in his late forties, but with thirty odd years behind him as an augur, he was probably one of the longest serving members. Therefore, his interpretations and opinions could have carried weight in all matters of public life. It would be presumptuous to state that Q . Fabius deliberately or cynically utilized his priesthoods for political or personal expediency. The dividing line between his magistracies and priesthoods, as well as his personal and public aims, was very thin,

Livius, p. 196 ; also the remarks of LIPPOLD, op. cit., p. 80, n. 26 ; cf. STÜBLER'S (op. cit., p. 152) opposing view to Klotz. Gic, de sen., 4, 10 ; Gic, de off., 1.24, 84, etc. Evidently reference to ENNIUS, arm. fr. 370-372, ed. VAHLEN 2 (Warmington, 360-362), cf. NITSCH, op. cit., p. 290. (1) Gf. p. 69 ; for our purpose, it is immaterial whether he was the son or grandson of Gurges. According to MÜNZER (RAAF, p. 54). "Der Sohn des Gurges und Vater des Verrucosus ist entweder jung gestorben oder aus bestimmten Gründen nicht über die ersten Anfänge der politischen Laufbahn hinausgelangt... ; der Sohn Verrucosus war beim Tode des Grossvaters für weltliche Ämter viel zu jung, wird dann durch den Kriegsdienst während der langen Jahre des Sizilischen Krieges und vielleicht durch dass Missgeschick oder sonstige widrige Umstände noch darüber hinaus aufgehalten worden sein, bis er zum Consulat gelangte". (2) As suggested by MÜNZER in RAAF, pp. 53-55. (3) RKR, p. 495.1. (4) For his activities, cf. the excellent evaluation in LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 341 ff. ; ibid., p. 127, about his ancestors and the possibility that at his election the magistrate in charge was not an adversary. Lippold (cf. Schur, op. cit., p. 110) suggests that the succession of consuls would warrant such a consideration : 235, G. Atilius Bulbus ; 234, L. Postumius Albinus ; 233, Q,. Fabius Maximus ; 232, M. Aemilius Lepidus ; and again, 229, L. Postumius Albinus ; 228, Q,. Fabius Maximus. MÜNZER considers the election to the first consulship a result of some connection with the Aemilii, although he admits that it is practically impossible to prove it (RAAF, pp. 163 ff.).

PRIESTS BETWEEN 3 0 0 - 2 1 1

89

as was the case with other priests. Thus, any precise function-based interpretation will often fall upon hypothetical bases, which, accordding to the interpreters' inclinations, tend to prevail in establishing cause and effect relationships (x). Yet, he has always shown a strong personality, leadership at times against the greatest odds, when he used all available means at his disposal to pursue aims which ultimately were for the benefit of Rome. Much theorization of Fabius5 means is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is stated, e.g., that Q,. Fabius and the augural college could have been involved in the abdication of the censors in 231, because of a flaw in their election, (which is a good possibility). But the election of Fabius as a censor in the following year cannot be considered sufficient grounds to imply political intrigue on his part (2). Revealing are the affairs connected with G. Flaminius (cos. 223, 217) (3) and the role which Q,. Fabius supposedly played in them. C. Flaminius was a popular, astute statesman, resented by the nobles because of his legislative activities (4) and favored by the

(1) For MÜNZER, Fabius Maximus is the best example of political use of religious utilitarianism for political purposes (RAAF, p. 55) : "... aber er verstand es auch meisterhaft, geistliche Waffen im weltlichen Kampfe zu schwingen", or (RE, loc. cit., ad n° 10, esp. pp. 1828, 56 ff.) : "Die scientia iuris augurii (Gic.) hat ihm übrigens hauptsächlich als Waffe gedient, um plebeische Ansprüche zu bekämpfen und eigene durchzusetzen", while MÜLLER-SEIDEL (op. cit., pp. 280 ff.) considers sincerity and tradition-bound religious attitude in Fabius Maximus almost completely separated from the political framework. LIPPOLD (op. cit., p. 341, esp. n. 188) correctly points out that deeply seated religious feeling and religious actions, in behalf of political moves could, on occasion, be used. Thus, answers could be found between the two directions, sources permitting. (2) Oî.MRR, 1, p. 226 for references. Political intrigue, as suggested by Schur, op. cit., p. 11, and SCULLARD, op. cit., pp. 37ff.,cannot be proven. Lippold (op. cit., p. 175, n. 413), relying on STRASSBURGER, Gnomon, 27,1955, p. 208 shows that some ex post facto indications of animosity between Q,. Fulvius Flaccus, who had to abdicate with T. Manlius Torquatus, cos. 224, and Q,. Fabius Maximus could have originated the idea. (3) LIVY, 21.63, 7 ; M RR, 1, pp. 225, 232, 242 ; on their relation, cf. LIPPOLD, op. cit.,

pp. 144 ff. (4) The land reform bill of 232, and his later support of the precedent breaking bill of Q . Claudius, tr. pi. 218 (?). LIVY, 21.63, 2 / 3 ; references in M RR, loc. cit.; lex Gl., L I V Y : ne quis senator pater fuisset maritimam nauem quae plus trecentarum amphorarum esset

haberet. POLYBIUS' statement, 2.21, 8, is intriguing. He states that this law is the first step in the demoralization of the Roman people : Taiov OXafiiviov ravrrjv tr\v ôrjayœylav elorjyGafievov Hal noïareiav, rjv ôr) nai 'Pœ/Àaioiç is the second priesthood of Servilius, the decemvirate (3), which he must have held before 211, since his younger brother Marcus became an augur before Caius' cooptation into the college of pontifices (4). Since under normal conditions the elder brother would have been in position for the first available priesthood, it is an acceptable assumption that he held another priesthood, on account of which he was not eligible for the augurate, probably earlier than his father's capture. Thus, the assumption that the father must have made the move to the plebeian status appears to be acceptable. 9. C. Livius M.f.M.n. Salinator (5)

Pont. 211-170 ; Praet. 202, 191 ; Cos. 188

Became pontifex in 211 (6), probably in his early youth since he was approximately the same age as Cato (7). His death in 170 and the name of his successor, a M. Servilius (8), is specifically mentioned in Livy (9). He reached the priesthood and curule aedileship with

(1) RAAF, p. 137. (2) SIBER, RE, 21, pp. 126, 46 ff., claims that LIVY, 30.19, 9 indicates that the father was not a plebeian, yet admits that both brothers were plebeians when consuls. (3) Xvir 11, pp. 160. (4) LIVY, 26.23, 7 ; cf. below, Aug. 1. (5)

BARDT, Pont.. 36 ; MÜNZER, RE

13 (29), pp. 888,

15 ff. ; MRR,

1, p.

276.

(6) Lrw, 26.23, 7-8. (7) Ciò., de sen. 3, 7. (8) Cf. notes to P. 25. (9) Lrw, 43.11, 13. A problem of identification is caused by LIVY, 45.22, 11 in a speech of the Rhodian ambassadors : C. Livium, L. Aemilium Regillum interrogate, qui classibus vestris in Asia praefuerunt. According to the previous usage of the historian (36.2, 14 ; 42.1 ; inter alia), this G. Livius could be our Livius Salinator. Upon further scrutiny it appears, however, that (1) the ambassadors could have been misinformed of his being alive, (2) the name occurs in a speech, the historical reliability of which is of doubtful quality (cf. comments of KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 76), (3) Polybius, in a corresponding passage (30.4, 5-6) does not say anything about it, and (4) L. Aemilius Regillus, praet. 190, who is

110

CHAPTER IV

M. Servilius Pulex Geminus (1), in 211 and 204 respectively, during whose consulship (and dictatorship) of 202 he became praetor. In the consular elections for 192 he lost out to powerful aristocratic families (2), although after his victories he became consul in 188 (3). 10. Ser. Sulpicius Galba (4)

Pont. 203-199

Installed in place of Q,. Fabius Maximus diSpontifex in 203 when two Servilii served as consuls and three Servilii were members of priestly colleges (5). It is likely that his cooptation was due to political expediency (6). His death in 199 us reported in Livy, 32.7, 15. U . C . Sulpicius Galba (7)

Pont. 202-199

8

Coopted in 202 ( ) ; died in the same year as his relative, Ser. Sulpicius (P. 10). The second member of the family in the college

named in the passage immediately after G. Livius, disappears from the public eye after his triumph in 189 (MRR, 1, p. 362). Therefore, Livius' death in 170 might be acceptable. Three branches of the family are to be distinguished : Denter, Drusus and Salinator (MOMMsen, RF, 1, p . 73, n. 5, esp. on p . 74 ; MÜNZER in RE, 13, pp. 810, 12 ff. ; also RAAF, p . 226). While collegiality does not presuppose political cooperation, it is curious to see a contact between the family and the Aemilii, especially in the consulship of M . Livius Denter and M. Aemilius Paullus in 302 (MRR, 1, p . 169), the decemvirate of M*. Aemilius Lepidus Numida (n° 17), and M. Livius Salinator (n° 18), ca. 249 (cf. p . 69) and the consulship of L. Aemilius Paullus and M . Livius Salinator in 219 (MRR, 1, p . 236). (1) Augur (Aug. 1) and brother of G. Servilius Geminus (P. 8). (2) LIVY, 35.10, cf. SOLTAU, Livius1 Geschichtswerk, op. cit., p. 38, source is given as Antias. (3) M . Fulvius Nobilior, cos. 189, creauit consules M. Valerium Messalam et C. Livium Salinatorem, cum M. Aemilium Lepidum inimicum eo quoque annopetentem, dejecisset, in LIVY, 38.35, 1. MÜNZER'S suggestion (RAAF, p. 233) seems to be feasible, namely, that presentiment against his father's censorhip of 204 (LIVY, 29.37, 17), as well as the overwhelming preponderance of other noble families, interfered with his career. (4) BARDT, Pont. 21 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4A (56), p . 759, 8 ff. ; MRR,

1, pp. 314 and

329.

(5) LIVY, 30.26, 10.

(6) Cooperation between the Servilii and P. Sulpicius Galba, cos. 211, 200 is possible, if we consider (cf. MRR, 1, pp. 310-323, passim ; RAAF, pp. 142 ff. ; LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 210 ff.) Sulpicius' appointment as a dictator in 203, his selecting as mag. equ., M . Servilius Pulex G eminus, the consul of 202, in the years in which two Sulpicii were coopted in the pontifical college. Nevertheless, Lippold warns correctly (p. 210, n. 575) that one should not consider acompletely one-sided relation, since other families were equally represented, and because (p. 214) "Die Servilii hatten es damals nicht nötig, sich einer 'Partei' anzuschliessen, sondern konnten hier selbst einen innenpolitische Machtblock bilden". (7) BARDT, Pont. 43 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4A (49), pp. 753,43 ff. ; MRR, (8) LIVY, 30.39, 6.

1, p p . 318 and 329.

111

PRIESTS BETWEEN 2 1 0 - 4 4

ofpontifices, most likely with the help of the Servila. With his cooptation, the two families could exercise influence upon the affairs of the pontifical college, as seen in their overruling the pontifex maximus, P. Licinius Crassus Dives, in 200, when the pontifex maximus had a clash of opinion with the consul, P. Sulpicius Galba Maximus (1). 12. M. Aemilius M.f.M.n. Lepidus (2)

Pont. 199-152 ; Pont. Max. 180152 ; Cos. 187, 175 ; Cens. 179 ; Princ. Sen. 179, 174, 169, 164, 159, 154

Successor as pontij"ex to Ser. Sulpicius Galba in 199 (3). Grandson of the consul of 232, although identification of one generation Aemilii, between the pontifex and his grandfather, remains problematic (4). His death in 152 seems to be acceptable (5). He held the pontificate, (1)

LTVY, 31.9,

6 ff. ; SCHLAG, op. cit., pp.

(2) BARDT, Pont. 22 ; KLEBS, RE, (3)

LIVY, 32.7,

150

ff.

1 (68), pp. 552, 64 ff. ; MRR,

1, pp. 329,

454.

15.

(4) Pertinent information in MÜNZER, RAAF, pp. 150-180, and MRR, passim. Around the turn of the third century, four M. Aemilii are listed on the priestly list. The pontif ex maximus above, a M. Aemilius Lepidus as dec. s.f. (MRR, 1, p. 276), and M. Aemilius Regillus as flamen Mart., (ibid., p. 282) and a M. Aemilius Papus, cur. max., (ibid., p. 283). Identification is practically impossible as seen in Bardt, Münzer and MRR. The praetors of 218, 217, 216, 213, all M. Aemilii, as well as the legate of 218, cannot be identified with certainty. Among these, one would have to search for the father of the pontifex of 199-152 (ibid., pp. 238-263). Specifically, the praetor of 218 could be either the consul of 232, or his son Marcus, mentioned in Livy, 32.30, 15 (ibid., p. 266, note 1). Nevertheless, one might allow that he was the son, or brother, of the censor of 220, the cur. max. of 210, since the praetor, according to LIVY (25.1, 6-12) was engaged in matters of the state cult which was endangered by the spread of foreign religious practices. The probability is further strengthened if we consider that Papus' successor, G. Mamilius, Cur. 2, also held the praetorship, as well as his successor, G. Scribonius Curio. Furthermore, that the M. Aemilius, praet. 217, is M. Aemilius Regillus, the defeated consular candidate for 214 (Livy, 24.7, 12) cannot be proven with certainty (MRR, 1, p. 246, n. 5). In the case of the M. Aemilius, cos. suff. of 216, it seems to be feasible to consider M. Aemilius Papus, the cur. max. since at a most inopportune time he brought up again the proposals of the censor of 220, namely, the revising of the senatorial lists and extending it to non-Romans (LIVY, 23.22, 4). Munzer's analysis seems to offer a solution. Accordingly, the praetor of 218 could have been M. Aemilius Lepidus, the father oî the pontifex. In all likelihood, M. Aemilius Regillus was the praetor of 217. Nevertheless, the identification of the praet. suff. of 216 as the cur. max., M. Aemilius Papus, appears to be reasonable. (5) MRR, 1, p. 454, (cf. succession of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum, below on p. 119), according to Livy, (per. 48), between 154-150.

112

CHAPTER IV

later the chairmanship of the pontifical college (x), as well as the position of the princeps senatus, longer than anyone else. 13. Gn. Cornelius Cn.f.L.n. Scipio Hispallus (2)

Pont. 199-176 ; Praet. 179 ; Cos. 176

The vacancy created by the death of C. Sulpicius Galba made it possible to coopt Cn. Cornelius Scipio in 199 (3). His consulship was presaged by unfavorable portents, and his death was due to some form of paralysis (4). 14. C. Sempronius Tuditanus (5)

Pont. ( ?)-196 ; Praet. 197

Date of cooptation is unknown, since Livy reports only his death in 196 (6). Also, it cannot be established whether he was the brother of the cos. 204 or the cos. 185. It is possible that he was a priest before his praetorship, since two other Sempronii were represented in three priestly positions during this time (7). 15. L. Valerius P.f.L.n. Flaccus (8)

Pont. 196-180 ; Praet. 199 ; Cos. 195 ; Cens. 184 ; Princ. Sen. 184

Followed in 196 the deceased M. Cornelius Cethegus in the college (9). His death in 180 occurred in the third year of the plague at Rome (10).

(1) LIVY, 40.42, 12 ; cf. also, 37.43, 1 ; 41.27, 1 ; Pol. 22.3, 2 ; 22.21, 5 ; he ordered his sons to present him with the simplest funeral, LIVY, per. 48. (2) BARDT, Pont. 44 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (346), pp. 1492, 63 ff. ; MRU, 1, pp. 329 and

401 ; also, CIL, l2, 2, p. 376, n. 8 and inscr. n° 15. (3) LIVY, 32.7, 15 ; MÜNZER suggests that his wife was a Paulla Cornelia (RE, 4, p. 1600,49 ff.),but he admits that "Das Material des Sarkophags und die Ortographie der Inschrift lassen aber vermuten, dass sie später anzusetzen und der Gemahl unbekannt ist". (4) LIVY, 41, 14-16. (5) BARDT, Pont. 25 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (90), p. 1440, 49 ff. ; MRR,

1, p. 338.

(6) LIVY, 33.42, 5.

(7) Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (Aug. 6), and Ti. Sempronius Longus (Aug. 2) and Xvir s.f. 5. (8) BARDT, Pont., 30 ; MÜNZER, RE, 8A, (173), pp. 16,25 ff. ; MRR, 1, pp. 338 and 390. (9) LIVY, 33.42, 5. (10) LIVY, 40.42, 6.

113

PRIESTS BETWEEN 2 1 0 - 4 4

16. M. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus (x)

Pont. 196-177 ; Praet. 198 ; Cos. 196 ; Cens. 189

His father was augur (2) and consul five times. Cooptation occurred in 196, in place of C. Sempronius Tuditanus (3) ; death in 177. He was succeeded by his son (4). 17. M. Sempronius M.f.C.n. Tuditanus (5)

Pont. 183-174 ; Praet. 189 ; Cos. 185

He was coopted in place of Licinius Crassus in 183 (6), until his death in the plague of 174 (7). 18. Q . Fulvius Q.f.M.n. Flaccus (8)

Pont. 180-172 ; Praet. 182 ; Cos. 179 ; Cens. 174.

He succeeded C. Servilius Geminus in 180, when six priestly positions had to be filled because of the plague (9). He died in 172, under the most peculiar circumstances. As censor in 174, he was unable to

(1) BARDT, Pont., 26 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (222), pp. 2755, 42 ff. ; he was active in political affairs as seen in his censorship of 189, which he reached after a bitterly fought election campaign ; LIVY., 37.57, 10 ; 58, 2. (2) Above, (no 19). (3) L r w , 33.42, 5. (4) Ibid., 41.13, 4 ; cf. KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p . 47. (5) BARDT, Pont., 48 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (95), p . 1443, 24 fT. ; MRR,

1, p . 381.

(6) LIVY, 39.46, 1.

(7) Ibid., 41.21, 8 ff., where six priests died according to Livy (cf. KLOTZ, op. cit., p . 47), from Valerius Antias. (8) BARDT, Pont., 40 ; MÜNZER, RE, 7 (61), pp. 246, 41 ff. ; MRR,

1, pp. 390 and 414.

(9) L r w , 40.42, 6 and 12 ; evidently from Valerius Antias (KLOTZ, Livius, op. cit., p. 46). Among the successors, two were Fulvii, ÇK Fulvius Q.f. as pontifex, and Q,. Fulvius M.f. as epulo. The cos. suff. was their cousin, Q,. Fulvius Gn. f. He held the consular elections for the coming year, during which the pontifex above and his brother, L. Manlius Acidinus Fulvianus were elected as consuls (LIVY, 40.43, 4 ; MRR, 1, pp. 391-392). This election signifies the high point of Fulvian influence in the affairs of Rome, according to Münzer, RAAF, p . 210. H e was the stepson of the deceased consul, G. Galpurnius Piso, whose death, according to Livy, 40.37, 4 ff. Suspecta... erat... maxime. Necatus a Quarta Hostilia uxore dicebatur. Ut quidem filins eius Q. Fuluius Flaccus in locum uitrici consul est declaratus, aliquanto magis infamis mors Pisonis coepit esse ; et testes existebant qui post declaratos, consules Albinum et Pisonem, quibus comitiis Flaccus tulerat repulsam, et exprobratum ei a matre dicerent quod iam ei tertium negatus consulatus petenti esset, et adiecisse, pararet se ad petendum : intra duos menses ejfecturam ut consul fieret...

114

CHAPTER IV

save an L. (or Cn.) Fulvius from expulsion from the senate (1). In the next year there was a. fremitus..., in curia... ex omnibus partibus postulabatur (2) that he should offer atonements and restitutions for plundering the shrine ofJuno Lacinia, the former headquarters of Hannibal (3). When, in 172, his two sons perished, one in military action, the other in some gravi et pericoloso morbo (or morte), he committed suicide (4). 19. Q,. Fabius QXQ.n. Labeo (5)

Pont. 180-after 161 ; Praet. 189 ; Cos. 183

As pontifex, he succeeded L. Valerius Flaccus in 180 (6). He was most likely among the legates who were sent to assist L. Aemilius Paullus (7), the proconsul in Macedonia. Thus, his pontificate could extend beyond 167. 20. M. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus (8)

Pont. 177-148 ; Praet. 169 ; Cos. 166, 155, 152

The son of M. Claudius Marcellus (P. 16), cos. 196, cens. 189, whom he followed as a pontifex in 177 (9). For the pontificate, two persons could come into question, the consul of 183 (10), and the consul of 166, 155, 152. One of the two was a decemvir, who died in 169

(1) LIVY, 41.27, 2 ; Velleius calls him Fulvius Gnaeus, 1, 10, 6 ; Valerius Maximus does not give a praenomen, 2, 7, 5. There is a difficulty in the name because LIVY, 40.41, 1 ff. mentions a brother, M. Fulvius Flaccus (MÜNZER, RE, 7, p. 240, 5 ff.). Broughton tends to identify this Lucius with M. Fulvius Nobiiior, MRR, 1, p. 391 note 3, although the consul of 180, Q,. Fulvius, was a Flaccus and not a Nobiiior. Thus the difficulty remains. (2)

LIVY, 42.3,

5.

(3) From the beginning of the Hannibalic wars, Gape Lacinium was used by the enemy» *•£•> the Macedonian ambassadors landed by the shrine and left Italy from the promontory (LIVY, 23.33, 4 and 34, 2). Later it became Hannibal's headquarters (ibid., 28, 12 refers to the area, and 23.46, 16, to the shrine). (4) LIVY, 42.28, 10-12. (5)

BARDT, Pont., 31 ; MÜNZFR, RE,

6 (91), p. 1773, 58 ff. ; MRR,

1, p.

390.

(6) LIVY, 40.42, 6, and 11-12. (7) Codex Vind. does not carry the names of Q,. Fabius Labeo and Q,. Marcius Philippus in Livy, 45.17, 2 ; yet, the Labeo in LIVY, 45.31, 14 might well be our pontifex (cf. MRR, 1, p. 436, note 3). (8) BARDT, PonL, 27 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (225), p. 2758, 31 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 399. (9) LIVY, 41.13, 4.

(10) The consul of 183 is identified as two different persons in RE, n° 223 and 2 2 4 ; MÜNZER, ibid., pp. 2757, 4 ff.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

115

(Livy, 44.18, 7) ; thus, later consulships are excluded. Therefore, the consul of 183 (*) is the decemvir, and the cos. 166, 155, 152, the pontifex. He died in 148 (2). 21. L. Furius Philus (3)

Pont, before 176-170 ; Praet. 171

Date of his cooptation is problematic. It is possible that he succeeded Cn. Cornelius Scipio Hispallus (4), although Bardt seems to have established him as a member of the college before Hispallus' death (5). The death of Furius Philo is clearly attested by Livy (6). 22. C. Sulpicius Galba (7)

Pont. 174- ? ; Praet. 171

Goopted in 174, he succeeded Cn. Servilius Caepio(8). The date of his death cannot be established. He was the son of P. 11 above. 23.

Cn. Domitius Cn.f.L.n. Ahenobarbus (9)

Pont. 172- ? ; Praet. 170 ; Cos. Suff., 162

Succeeded Çh Fulvius Flaccus in 172 (10), in whose place he oppido adulescens sacerdos, est lectus. It is possible that he was a praetor by 170 ( u ). The date of his death cannot be determined. 24. T. Manlius A.f.T.n. Torquatus (12)

Pont. 170 ( ?)-141 ( ?) ; Praet. 170 ; Cos. 165

Was chosen in 170 as a pontifex in place of L. Furius (Philus)

(1) Cf. my note on p. 113 ; for identification, cf. MRR, 1, pp. 372, 373, note 1, 365, 378 ; 2, p. 546 ; BARDT, p. 30, n° 20. (2) LIVY, per. 50 ; GIG. de div., 2, 5, 14. (3) BARDT, Pont., 45 ; MÜNZER, RE, 7 (77), p. 359, 65 ff. ; MRR,

1, pp. 401,

422.

(4) MRR, 1, p. 401. (5) Broughton's conjecture is based upon BARDT, p. 12, who attempted to list pontifices in the order of plebeian and patrician successions, according to the available openings in the college. Nevertheless, (1) Bardt does not say anything about Furius Philo's succession ; (2) Bardt's charts on p. 11 show Hispallus holding place n° 8a, and L. Furius Philo place 8b, according to which he could .succeed Hispallus. (6) LIVY, 43.11, 13 ; KLOTZ, (llvius, op. cit., p. 47) identifies the passage as that of Valerius Antias. (7) BARDT, Pont., 34; MÜNZER, RE, 4A (50), pp. 753,61 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 405.

(8) Lrw, 41.21, 8 and 9. (9) BARDT, Pont., 41 ; MÜNZER, RE, 5 (19), pp. 1322, 1 ff. ; MRR,

1, p. 414.

(10) Lrw, 42.28, 10-13 ; KLOTZ, Liuius, op. cit., p. 47, derives it from Valerius Antias. (il) Cf. esp. MRR, 1, p. 422, note 2.

(12)

BARDT, Pont., 46 ; MÜNZER,

RE, 14 (83), pp. 1209, 66 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 422.

116

CHAPTER IV

(P. 21) (1). Valerius Maximus (5.8, 3) describes him as iuris civilis el sacrorum pontificalium peritissimus. His brother followed him in the consulship (2), a remarkable method of family succession, the like of which occurred only twice afterward, between 143/142 and 141/140 (3). He must have been alive in 141 (4). 25. M. Servilius (C.f.P.n. Pulex Geminus ?) (5)

Pont. 170-(After 167 ?) ; (Aug. 211-after 167 ; Cos. 202)

A M. Servilius is successor in 170 to C. Livius Salinator (6), who is not further known. Bardt identified him as "/r. mil. 579/Liv. 40, 27/ ; sonst nicht bekannt, wahrscheinlich ein Sohn des M. Servilius Pulex Geminus, Cos. 552 ( 7 )'\ This identification is accepted in MRR (3) (although the name is missing in MRR's index of careers), as well as Münzer, who adds that he is the "Stammvater der späteren plebeischen Servilier ( 9 )". The question is evidently in need of further investigation. Among the tribuni militum of 181, Livy mentions a M . Servilius. This appointment and command came at a critical point in the Ligurian campaign of L. Aemilius Paullus. T h e Romans were surrounded in their camp, and there was no sign of relief. As a desperation measure, Aemilius Paullus decided to amass his troops at the four gates, and at a signal, to move forth against the enemy in all directions. Quattuor extraordinariis cohortibus duas adjunxit praeposito M. Valerio legato, erumpere praetoria porta iussit. Ad dexteram principalem hastatos legionis primae instruxit; principes ex eadem legione in subsidiis posuit : M. Servilius et L. Sulpicius tribuni militum his praepositL Tertia legio adversus sinistram principalem portam instructa est. Id tantum mutatum : principes primi et hastati in subsidiis locati... (10).

( 1 ) LIVY, 43.11, 13 ; according to MÜNZER (RAAF, p. 219), he must have been a praetor before 167, because of the lex Villia Annalis. This argument appears to be weak, since Rögler (op. cit.) has shown that the lex Villia Annalis has been in efFect by 197 (cf. also SCHLAG, op. cit.. pp. 143-147 ; my notes on p. 191, n. 2).

(2) MRR, 1, pp. 438-439 ; ILS, 19. (3) MRR, 1, pp. 471, 474, 477, 479. (4) Cf. also Lrv., per. 54 ; VAL. MAX., 5. 8, 3. (5) BARDT, Pont., 37 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (18), pp. 1765, 34 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 422. (6) LIVY, 43.11, 13.

(7) P. 12, n° 37. (8) MRR, 1, p. 422. (9) RE, toc. cit., pp. 1766, 1 ff. (10) LIVY, 40.27, 4 ; cf. STEIN, RE, 2A (78), pp. 1805, 34 ff., especially 1806, 48 ff.,

concerning identification. MÜNZER points out that "Der Livianische Bericht über den

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

117

From the textual point of view, it is curious that the quotes follow the ed. Frobeniana 1535, while all other very early manuscripts (*) use an abl. abs. construction, which reads m. servilium et I. sulpicium — his praepositis. From the tactical, military point of view, the passage offers more difficulties. It is not explained why the principes, at the head of which stood M . Servilius, had to be placed into reserve at the dextra principalis when at the sinistra principalis the principes were in the front line. If we consider that the commanding general was bent on desperation measures (2), the principes ought to have been in the first line of attack also at the dextra principalis. The possible objection that for any eventuality the commanding general had to have reserve troops upon whom he could rely cannot be maintained, because (1) irregular cohorts were placed into the porta praetoria, and, thus, he was already scraping the "bottom of the barrel" for available manpower, and (2) two cohorts and the triarii were left behind as guards in the middle of the camp ( 3 ). T h e cirsumstances, therefore, would indicate that (1) the tribuni militum of 181 were hastily appointed, as an emergency measure, (2) the commanding general used extraordinary and militarily unexplainable care to put M. Servilius among proven, professional soldiers, out of the first of line battle. It is possible, of course, as suggested by Münzer (4), that he was Pulex Geminus' son. Münzer does not say, but explanation might be found easily in the consideration that M . Servilius could have been a youngster or disinclined toward military service, thus detrimental in leadership to the effective fighting of the troops. Nevertheless, Münzer does not explain why we do not hear of this M. Servilius, with the exception of the pontifical elections of 170 ( 5 ), when Servilii were noticed between 181 and 169 on the different priestly and magisterial lists.

Ligurerfeldzug des Paullus ist im ganzen wenig glaubwürdig*', loc. cit., pp. 1765, 56 fF. (cf., SOLTAU, Liuius* Geschichtswerk, op. cit., p. 42, where the source in Livy is given as Claudius Quadrigarius). Nevertheless, Stein's statement (loc. cit., p. 1806, 53 fF.) should be considered, namely, that his military activity (esp. Lrw, 45.35, 5-39, 20 and the corresponding passage in PLUT., Aem. Pauli., 30.2-32) rests on acceptable bases in spite of doubts concerning the oratorical passages. (SOLTAU, loc. cit., p. 46, considers the Livian sources as Valerius Antias, or Livy's own additions). (1) E. T. SAGE and A. G. SCHLESINGER, Loeb Library ed., ad p. pert. (2) LIVY, 40.27, 2 : he has decided non ultra differendum... quin per se fortunam temptaret, priusquam hostes uenirent... ad quattuor portas exercitum instruxit ut signo dato simul ex omn partibus eruptionem facerent. (3) Ibid., 7. (4) To the above, also RAAF, p. 140, and passim, esp. pp. 250/251. (5) The ambassador to Carthage in 203 could well have been this M. Servilius (MRR, 1, p. 315, note 9), although his identification with Pulex Geminus, the mag. equ. of this year, and two Servilii serving as consuls, is a distinct possibility.

118

CHAPTER IV

A solution seems to be, indeed, impossible, unless a generalization based upon circumstantial evidence is permitted. 1. The Servilii were in close contact with the Aemilii, as seen in the speech of Pulex Geminus in 167 ( 1 ), and in Aemilius Paullus* election as consul for the year 168, through the administrations of Cn. Servilius Gaepio, the consul of 169 ( 2 ). The friendship of the two families existed since the battle of Cannae, where the father of Aemilius and the uncle of Geminus were killed in action ( 3 ). This friendship was maintained through marriage and adoptions throughout the Republic ( 4 ). 2. Both Servilius Pulex Geminus and Aemilius Paullus were members of the augural college. Augures, as seen above, were usually included in the headquarters' company of the commanding generals. T h a t augures went with Paullus on the campaign of 181 could be assumed with certainty, since prodigies of the most terrifying proportions were reported both during 182 and 181 ( 5 ). Also, the plague (6), which raged in Rome now for the second year, was considered an admonishing sign from the gods. Therefore, it could be considered a possibility that Aemilius Paullus was accompanied on his Ligurian campaign by augures, specifically, M . Servilius Pulex Geminus ( 7 ). In case of necessity, his appointment as a military tribune would be self-evident, probably because of his own insistence as well as Aemilius Paullus' concern for the safety of his aged colleague. 3. The M. Servilius, therefore, who was coop ted to the pontifical college in 170 could very well be the augur, Pulex Geminus. Against such cooptation stands the general assumption of modern scholars, namely, that such dual priesthood is extremely uncommon, or available sources would mention it (8), and the fact that the coins of the Servilii contain the augural lituus, but never symbols or references to the pontifi-

(1) LrvY, 45.35, 5 and ibid., 39, 20 ; PLUT., Aem. Pauli., 30, 2-31, 6. (2) LrvY, 44.17, 1-3. (3) Cf. p. 109, n. 9. (4) Cf. the relationship between Q . Fabius Maximus Aemilianus and Scipio Aemilianus (RE, 6, 1792 ff.), and Q,. Fabius Maximus Servilianus (ibid., 1811 ff.). (5) LiVY, 40, 2 ; SOLTAÜ, Livius9 Geschichtswerk, op. cit., pp. 41 ff. (6) Ibid., 19. (7) That he was not averse to such campaign is clear from his boast (if the speech carries validity) that he has insigne corpus honestis cicatricibus, omnibus adverso corpore exceptis... (LIVY, 45.39, 16), and the general tone of the same speech in which military virtue is extolled. (8) Cf. below, p. 190.

119

PRIESTS BETWEEN 2 1 0 - 4 4

cate (*). Yet, circumstantial evidence tends to show that indeed he could have been coop ted because the pontifical college recently lost two Servilii (2), and the cooptation occurred in the same year when Gn. Servilius Gaepio, son of the deceased pontifex Gn. Servilius, was elected consul for the coming year. Thus the possiblity could be maintained that M. Servilius, the pontifex coop ted in 170, the tr. mil. of 181, is the augur M. Servilius Pulex Geminus, Aug. 1 below. 26. P. Cornelius Scipio P.f.Cn.n. Nasica (Corculum) (3)

Pont. bef. 150-141 ; Pont. Max. 150-141 ; Praet. 165 ; Cos. 162, 155 ; (Princ. Sen. 147, 142 ?)

His cooptation into the pontifical college depends on Cicero's de sen. 14, 50 : quid de P. Licini Crassi et pontificii et civilis iuris studio loquar aut de huius P. Scipionis, qui his paucis diebus pontifex maximus factus est? The date is 150, because T . Quinctius Flaminius and M ' . Acilius Balbus, the consuls of 150 (4), were mentioned. That he must have been a priest earlier than 150 appears to be evident, possibly after 154 ( 5 ). Both from his father's and mother's sides, he descended from the consul of 259, L. Cornelius Scipio, whose great-grandson he was ( 6 ). His death cannot be established ; the last time we hear of him, he was engaged in the bitter political fights concerning the affairs of Carthage ( 7 ). H e probably was elected as princ. senatus in 147 ( 8 ).

(1) BABELON, op. cit., 2, pp. 446-449.

(2) The dual priest and brother of Pulex Geminus, G. Servilius (P. 8), in 180, and Gn. Servilius (P. 4), in 174. (3) BARDT, Pont., 49 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (353), pp. 1497, 58 ff. ; MRR,

1, pp. 457.

(4) MRR, 1, p. 456. (5) LIVY, per. 48 : M. Aemilius Lepidus qui princeps senatus sextis iam censorious erat lectus, antequam exspiraret,... (Immediately afterwards follows the well-known case of the poisoning of L. Postumius, the cos. of 154). The date is to be put between 154 and 150. (6) Even among ancient authors, some confusion existed in identifying the consuls of 191, 162, 155, 138, 111, every one of whom was called Scipio Nasica. Cf. MÜNZER'S articles, RE, loc. cit., pp. 1494, 16 ff., and RAAF, p. 102. (7) M . GELZER, Nasicas Wiederspruch gegen die Zerstörung Karthagos, in Philologiis, 86, 1938, pp. 261 ff., Kl. Sehr., op. cit., 2, pp. 39 ff. ; J . BRISCOE, Eastern Policy and Senatorial Politics 168-126 BC, in Historia, 18, 1, 1969, pp. 60 ff., although Briscoe relies too heavily upon family and faction-based considerations. (8) DIOD., 34-35, 33, 6, which evidently refers to someone other than the later pont. max. (P. 28) ; VAL. M A X . , 7.5, 2 ; additional information in MRR, 1, p. 463 ; the conjecture is further analyzed in RAAF, p . 251, similarly in RE, loc. cit., pp. 1499, 58 ff.

120

CHAPTER IV

27. CK Fab. Maximus Servilianus (*)

Pont. 141 ? ; Präet. 145 ; Cos. 142

Date of succession cannot be established from Macr. sat., 1.16,25 : Sed et Fabius Maximus Servilianus ponti/ex in libro duodecimo negai oportere atro die parentare ; Bardt hesitates in identifying either the cos., 142 or the cos., 116. MRR accepts his consulship in 142, i.e.y he was the son of Cn. Servilius Caepio (P. 4), brother of the consuls following him in 141 and 140. By adoption he became the son of Q . Fabius. Maximus, the grandson of Cunctator, and brother of Q,. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus, older brother of Scipio Aemilianus ( 2 ). 28. P. Cornelius P.f.P.n. Scipio Nasica Serapio (3)

Pont, before 141 ( ?)-132 ; Pont. Max. 141 ( ?)-132 ; (Praet. by 141 ?) ; Cos. 138

Son of the pontifex maximus (P. 26), the well-known opponent of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. That he was coopted somewhat before 133 appears to be feasible since diverse sources mention him in this year as pontifex maximus (4). It cannot be established whether between him and his father (P. 26) another pontifex maximus is to be placed. The difficulty is caused byVelleius Paterculus (2.3,1), who states : turn P. Scipio Nasica... cum esset consobrinus Ti. Gracchi, patriam cognationi praeferens et quidquid publice salutare non esset privatim alienum existimans {ob eas virtutes primus omnium ab sens pontifex maximus factus est), circumdata laevo bracchio togae lacinia ex superiore parte Capitolii summis gradibus insistens hortatus est, qui salvam vellent rem publicam, se sequerentur. This Statement is vague and could not exclude the possibility that Scipio Nasica was elected pontifex maximus after his departure from the city. Yet, Velleius is contradicted by Appian (b.c. 1.16) : xai TIQCOTOC avroïç 6 fiéytOToç âqxiSQevç Àeyojuevoç êÇfJQxe rfjç oôov", where he is mentioned by name ; similarly, Plutarch (Ti. Gr. 21, 2/3) indicates the hatred of the people for him and the result of this hatred : "ovrco ftèv vneÇfjXde rfjç 'IraXiaç 6 Naoïnaç, xalnsQ êvôeôe/biévoç ralç

(1) BARDT, Pont., 50 ; MÜNZER, RE, 6 (115), pp. 1811, 63ff.; MRR, 1, p. 476. (2) RE, 6, 1792, 19ff.; 1811 ff. (3) BARDT, Pont., 51 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (354), pp. 1501, 47ff.; MRR, 1, pp. 478-9, n. 2. (4) Tusc, 4. 23, 51 ; VAL. MAX. 1.4,2 ; APPIAN, b.c., 1.16 and VELL., 2.3, 1, inter alia.

121

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

jLteyiaraiç îeqovQyiaiç * f( yàç ô juéyiaroç ... rœv tegécov".

Even

when one considers the total lack of certainty in the passage in Plutarch, or in any of the above-quoted citations, the following seems to be acceptable : Scipio Nasica was a pontifex, and he died in Pergamum. The Velleius passage does not necessarily indicate absence from Italy, but rather a lack of competing as a candidate, as pointed out by Bardt (1). Münzer believes that the reference to Cornelius Scipio's absence might be likened to a "Randbemerkung", and suggests that he might have been coopted into the college immediately upon the death of his father and elected as a pontifex maximus while out of the city as a praetor (2). However, the praetorship, as well as precise date of cooptation, is theoretical. It is possible, of course, that between him and his father another pontifex maximus headed the college, although it is surprising that no evidence can underline such an assumption. It seems to be feasible, therefore, to accept that he was pontifex maximus before 133 (3). He was sent by the senate to Asia, during which trip he died, probably in late 133, or 132 (4). 29. P. Licinius P.f.P.n. Crassus Dives Mucianus (5)

Pont. bef. 132-130 ; Pont. Max. 132-130 ; Praet. by 134 ; Cos. 131

Son of the consul of 175, P. Mucius Scaevola and brother of the consul of 133 (P. 30) (6), who followed him as pontifex maximus. Both were described in ancient sources (7) as sapientissimi et clarìssimi, or Licinius Crassus alone as vir iuris peritissimus. It is impossible to state when he was coopted into the pontifical college, possibly long before his succession to the deceased P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (P. 28), as pontifex maximus :... Crassus consul, cum idem pontifex maximus

(1) BARDT, p. 6.

(2) RAAF, pp. 260 and 251 ; cf. also, MRR, toc. cit. (3) To the constitutional and behavioral problems, cf. P. FRACCARO, Studi suWeta dei Gracchi, La tradizione storica sulla rivoluzione graccana, Città di Castella, 1914, p. 167 ; the same arguments are used by D. C. EARL, Tiberius Gracchus, A study in Politics, Coll. Latomus, vol. 46, Bruxelles, 1963, pp. 117 ff. ; A. W. LINTOTT, Violence in Republican Rome, Oxford, 1968, pp. 182 ff. ; J. M. RIDDLE, op. cit., loc. cit.

(4) CIL, la, 2.2502 — ILS 8886 ; additional information in MRR, 1, p. 499. (5) BARDT, Pont., 52 ; MÜNZER, RE, 13 (72), pp. 334, 27 fF. ; MRR,

1, p. 499.

(6) Cic, de or., 1.37, 170 ; 56, 240 ; Brut., 26, 98 ; ac. pu, 2.5, 13. (7) ibid. : similarly in PLUTARCH, Tib. Gracch., 9, 1, writing about Tib. Gracch. : rolg ôè TiQooreéovaev agerfj xal ôo£r) rœv noXvtœv ovftßo'oA.oic XQriadfxsvoc.

122

CHAPTER IV

essety quod nunquam antea factum erat, extra Italiani profectus... (1).

During his consulship he was engaged in a bitter fight, on religious grounds, apparently with political overtones, supposedly to gain military command against his colleague, L. Valerius Flaccus (2). His death occurred in an attempt to escape after a defeat in 130 (3). 30. P. Mucius P.f.Q,.n. Scaevola (4)

Pont. bef. 130-115 ? ; Pont. Max. 130-115 ; Praet. 136 ? ; Cos. 133

He was older than his brother, P. Licinius Crassus Dives Mucianus (P. 29), upon whose death he succeeded him as pontifex maximus (5). He must have been in the college before that time. Both he and his brother were staunch supporters of Ti. Gracchus in 133 (6), and he became a leader of the opposition against Scipio Aemilianus in 129 (7). Date of his death is questionable because in 115, during a process against Vestal virgins, already L. Metellus Delmaticus is mentioned as pontifex maximus (cf. below, P. 31). As pontifex maximus,

he is best known for editing the annales maximi ; in addition, he is credited with composing books on civil law and a law code (8). 31. L. Caecilius L.f.Q.n. Metellus Delmaticus (9)

Pont, before 114-103 ? ; Pont. Max. bef. 114-103 ? ; Praet. 122 ; Cos. 119

Possibly he was the censor in 115, who eliminated 32 members from (1) LrvY, per. 59 ; cf. to this and the problem connected with his consular colleague, GIG., Phil, 11.8, 18. (2) BLEICKEN, Kollisionen..., op. cit., loc. cit., pp. 452 fF. Both religious and political motives were present, although because of his apparent friendly contact with the affairs of 133 (GIG., de r.p. 1.19, 31 ; PLUT., Ti. Gr., 9.1), the political issues seem to be overemphasized by ASTIN, op. cit., p. 191 ; EARL, op. cit., pp. 8 ff. (3) VAL. MAX., 3.2, 12. (4) BARDT, Pont., 53 ; B. KÜBLER, RE, 16 (17), pp. 425, 47 ff. ; MRR,

1, p. 503.

(5) Cic., de domo, 53, 136 ; de or., 2.12, 52 ; de leg., 2.21, 52 ; nat. d., 1.41, 115. (6) KÜBLER, loc. cit. ; ASTIN, op. cit., pp. 92 ff. ; EARL, Tib. Gracch., op. cit., pp. 12 ff.

(7) Cf. GIG., as above, loc. cit. ; G. GIGHORIUS, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, Berlin, 1908, pp. 57, 149. (8) KÜBLER, loc. cit. ; PETER. HRR, l2, p. Ill ff. ; for newer literature, ibid., pp. 387 ff. ; GELZER, loc. cit., Kl. Sehr., 3, pp. 93 ff. ; J. E. A. CRAKE, The Annals of the Pontifex Maximus, in CI. Phil, 35 (1940), pp. 375 ff. ; cf. p. 11 above. (9) BARDT, Pont. 54 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (91), pp. 1212, 63 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 534 ; Bardt

(p. 7) shows that there are two possibilities besides Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus : the consul of 142, L. Metellus Calvus, who in any case would have been too old, or the cos. 117, L. Metellus Diadematus, whose possible pontificate is rejected on evidence from Cic. {pro Rab.perd., 7, 21), because a L. Metellus is mentioned merely as a consularis and not as a

123

PRIESTS BETWEEN 2 1 0 - 4 4

the membership list of the senate (1) and remonstrated strongly against immoral theatre (2). He is identified in 114 as the pontifex maximus who presided at the trial of the Vestal virgins (3). One can assume that he was a member of the college before this time. Among his activities, the rebuilding of the Temple of Castor and the sanctuary of Ops Opifer should be mentioned (4). The date of his death remains problematic (5). 32. M. Aemilius M.f.L.n. Scaurus (6)

Pont. (Aug. ?) 123-89 or 88 ; Praet. 119 ; Cos. 115

He was an augur according to Asconius (p. 21, 2,C) : Cn. Domitius, qui consul fuit cum C. Cassio, cum esset tribunus plebis, iratus Scauro quod eum in augurum collegium non cooptaverat, diem ei dixit apud populum et multam irrogava, quod eius opera sacra populi Romani deminuta esse

diceret. Accordingly, he must have been coopted before the lex Domitia, which specified that new members to the priestly college will be voted upon by popular vote of seventeen tribes (7). But R. M. Geer pointed out an apparent contradiction in Asconius (8), comparing it with a statement of Suetonius [Nero., 2.1) : Ut igitur paulo altius repetam, atavus eius Cn. Domitius in tribunatu pontificibus offensior, quod alium, quam se in patris sui locum cooptassent, ius sacerdotum subrogandorum a collegiis ad populum transtulit. Both the lex Domitia

pontifex maximus, when a line of most important individuals is listed who were willing to take up arms against Saturninus in 100. The argument is attractive, yet the possiblity remains that either of the two is the pontifex maximus. To the problem of identification cf. MRR, 1, p. 532, n. 1. (1) G i c , Cluent., 42, 119 and 42, 121 ; LjYY,per. 62 and 63 ; for problems of identification, cf. MRR, 1, p. 532, n. 1. (2) A s a , pp. 45, 23 fF. (Clark.). (3) Ibid.., 45, 27 ; 46, 5 ; MAGR., sat., 1.10, 5.

(4) A s a , pp. 28, 1 fF. ; Gia, pro Scaur., 46, 47 (Oxf. ed.) ; PL., n.h., 11.65, 174. (5) Since he is not mentioned among the many individuals who requested the recall of Metellus Numidicus from exile in 99 (APP., b.c., 1.33; OROS., 5.17, 11 ; Dio, 28, fr. 95.1-3 ; PLUT., Mar., 31,1) BARDT establishes 100 as the probable date, although Münzer, RE, he. cit., and RAAF, p. 290, correctly points out that the terminus post quern is the Vestal virgins' process. (6) BARDT, Aug.,

37 ; KLEBS, RE,

1 (140), pp. 584, 32 flf. ; MRR,

1, p.

515.

(7) H. LAST, CAH, 9, p. 163 ; L. R. TAYLOR, Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College, in AJPh, 63, 1942, pp. 385 fF., esp. p. 409, and CI. Ph., 27, 1942, loc. cit., p. 422. (8) R. M. GEER, M. Aemilius Scaurus {Suet, Nero, //. / and Asconius on Ciceorpro Scauro 7), in CI. Phil, 24, 1929, pp. 292, basing his argument on Suet., Nero., 2, 1.

124

CHAPTER IV

and the attack upon M. Aemilius Scaurus, are attested, especially the accusation of neglecting the Penates (1), of which charge he was found innocent. Since the care of the Penates was in the hands of the pontifices ( 2 ), in all probability Geer's conjecture is correct. His cooptation is possible as early as 123, and his death in 89, or 88, according to an inscription ( 3 ). 33. Cn. Domitius Cn.f.Cn.n. Ahenobarbus (4)

Pont. ?-after 115 ; Praet. by 125 ; Cos. 122 ; Cens. 115

Son ofthtpontifex (P. 23), of the same name. T h a t he was a member of the pontifical college is assumed on account of Suet., Nero, 2, 1, as cited above. The date of death cannot be established, since the last time he is mentioned is in connection with his censorship ( 6 ). 34. Cn. Domitius Cn.f.Cn.n. Ahenobarbus (6)

Pont, and Pont. Max. ca. 103-89 (88) ; Praet. 99 ; Cos. 96

Probably elected as a pontifex, as well as a pontifex maximus as a result of his own law, the lex Domitia ( 7 ). Time of his death cannot be established. 35. Q,. Mucius P.f.P.n. Scaevola (8)

Pont. ca. 115-82; Pont. Max ca. 89-82 ; Praet. 98 ; Cos. 95

Son of the pontifex maximus (P. 30), in whose place he was possibly coopted (9) and whom he surpassed in his learning and expertise in law. He was killed by the praetor Damasippus in the year 82 ( 10 ). (1) Gf. frs. of GIG. Scaur., (a)-(d), (Oxf. ed.). (2) RKR, pp. 164 and 518, n. 1. (3) CIL, 12, 1, p. 60-ILS, 9338, n. 4, where Dessau gives the above dates, relying on Asa, p. 18, 5ff..Death is further underlined ibid., p. 22. (4) BARDT, Pont, 55 ; MÜNZER, RE, 5 (20), pp. 1322, 16ff.; MRR, 1, p. 561.

(5) LIVY, per., 62 ; Cic.,Cluent., 42, 119, and possibly 42, 121 ; VAL. MAX., 2.9, 9 ; DRUMANN GROEBE, 3.15.

(6) BARDT, Pont. 56 ; MÜNZER, RE, 5 (21). pp. 1324, 55ff.; MRR, 1, p. 565.

(7) Gic, pro Deiot., 11, 31 ; LIVY, per., 67 ; VAL. MAX., 6.5, 5 — after his tribuneship in 104. Gf., also, notes to M. Aemilius Scaurus (P. 32). (8) BARDT, Pont, 57 ; B. KÜBLER, RE, 16 (22), pp. 437, 1ff.; MRR, 1, p. 532 ; and ibid.,

2, pp. 37 and 73 ; Cicero studied law under him. (9) &c.,de leg.,2.19, 47 and 21.52-53; nat. d., 3.32,80; for further information, cf. MRR, 2, p. 37. (10) GIG., Rose. Amer., 12, 33 ; LIVY, per. 86 ; Brut., 90, 311 ; additional information in MRR, 2, p. 73.

125

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

36. Q,. Servilius Cn.f.Cn.n. Caepio (^

Pont. ?-103 ( ?) ; Praet. 109 ; Cos. 106

His pontificate depends on a questionable reading of Val. Max., 6.9,13 : Crassum casus acerbitate Q. Caepio praecucurrit, is namque praeturae splendore, triumphi claritate, consulatus decore, maximi pontificis sacerdotio, ut senatus patronus diceretur, assecutus, in publicis vinculis spiritum deposuit : corpusque ejus funesti carnificis manibus laceratum, in scalis Gemoniis iacens, magno cum horrore totiusfori Romani conspectum est, Bardt rejected the passage because he did not find a place among the pontifices maximi L. Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus (P. 31) and Gn. Domitius Ahenobarbus (P. 34), but the death of Caecilius Metellus cannot be established with any degree of certainty, nor can the election of Domitius Ahenobarbus. Bardt hesitated to accept the suggestion that one ought to leave out maximi, and thus accept the possible membership in the college but not the position of the pontifex maximus. Münzer pointed out (RAAF, p . 290 ff.) that the career of ÇK Servilius is, in general, properly presented, but rejected the tendentiousness of the report on his death. In quoting Cicero {Brut., 35, 135) : Q. etiam Caepio, vir acer et fortis, cui fortuna belli, crimini, invidia populi calamitati fuit, he sees in him "ein unglückliches Opfer der Parteiwut" (ibid., p . 291). Curiously, this is the only reference to his priesthood. While Münzer, in the R E article, accepts Bardt's suggestion, his membership in the pontifical college remains questionable.

37. C.Julius L.f. Caesar Strabo (Vopiscus) (2)

Pont. bef. 99-87.

His pontificate is attested (in 99 by an inscription (3) and a reference in Gellius (u.a., 4.6.2) : ... senatus consultum factum est M. Antonio A. Postumio consulibus... : quod C. Iulius, L. filius, pontifex nuntiavit... A public speaker, who came into considerable difficulty on account of attempting to gain consulship without being praetor first (4). His death occurred in 87, when, among others, he was killed by the Marians (5). 38. M. Livius Drusus (6)

Pont. ?-91 ; Tr. pi. 91

Cicero mentions him as a pontifex (de domo., 46, 120) : Quid? (1) BARDT, p. 6, but he is not listed among the pontifices. MÜNZER, RE, 2A (49), pp. 1783, 43 ff. ; he is not listed as a pontifex in MRR. (2) B A R D T , Pont., 59 ; D I E H L , RE, 10 (135), pp. 428, 53ff.; MRR,

(3) CIL, \\

2, pp. 3, and 51.

1, p. 198-6.1310, 31596 — ILS, 48.

(4) With the tr. pi. P. Antistius and P. Sulpicius Rufus, GIG. Brut., 63, 226-227. (5) Gic, Brut, 89, 307 ; de or., 3.3, 9 and 10 ; VAL. MAX., 5.3, 3 ; 9.2, 2. (6) BARDT, Pont.. 58 ; MÜNZER, RE, 13 (18), pp. 859, 15ff.; MRR, 2, p. 23, esp. Münzer's evaluation of sources connected with M. Livius Drusus' life.

126

CHAPTER IV

et trìbunus plebis idem esse non potest pontifex ? M. Drusus, Me clarìssimus tribunus plebis, pontifex fuit (*). He was one of the great personalities around the turn of the century, who was either emulated (2) or attacked (3). His mysterious death falls in the year 91 (4). 39. C. Aurelius M.f. Cotta (5)

Pont. ?-ca. 73 ; Praet. by 78 ; Cos. 75

His death in 74/73 is referred to by Velleius (2.43, 1) in connection with C. Julius Caesar's cooptation into the college. The date of C. Aurelius' cooptation cannot be established ; Cic, nat. deor. 1.22, 61, could narrow it to the year 76 (6). It is presumed that he was coopted earlier (7). 40. L. Cornelius L.f.L.n. Scipio Asiaticus (Asiagenus) (8)

Pont, in 88-after 82 ; Praet. 86 ; Cos. 83

His membership in the pontifical (or augural) college is mentioned on the inscription Z,. Cornelius Scip)io Asiagenes (cooptatus L. Cornelio L.f.S)ulla Q. Pom(peio Q.f.Rufo cos. post R.c a)n DCLXV(9).

(1) He is mentioned as a pontifex in an elogium, CIL, l 2 , 1, p . 199 ; Inscr. It., 13. 3, 74 — ILS 49, (the term PONTIFEX following immediately upon his name). The elogium is a 16th century copy without particular identification. It is not from the Forum of Augustus, but falls into that period when the ancestors of the Julio Claudians, who did not reach consulship, were collated (cf. app. er. in Teubner ed. (Klotz), em. Baiter). (2) VELL., 2.13,

1 ; PLUT., Cato min.,

1.1.

(3) SEN., breu. v., 6, 1 ; de vir. ill., 66.1 (Teubner ed.). (4) Much rumor was connected with his death. He suffered, most likely in morbus comitialis, which he tried to ameliorate during his life (PL., n.h., 25.21, 52), unsuccesfully. He collapsed toward the end of his tribunate (PL., n.h.: 28.41, 148), was taken home, where he either died of a self-inflicted wound or was murdered. (5) BARDT, Pont., 62 ; KLEBS, RE, 2 (96), pp. 2482, 68 ff. ; MRR,

2, p . 23.

(6) If we can accept the imaginary date of the treatise, i.e., before the consulship of Aurelius Gotta, the place of discussion is his house, and beside him the speakers are G. Velleius, whose dating is extremely doubtful (pertinent information, MRR, 2, p . 474), and the Stoic speaker, Q,. Lucilius Balbus. (7) L. R. TAYLOR'S suggestion that he must have been a priest before his exile in 90 is merely a conjecture, Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College, in AJPh, 63, 1942, pp. 385 ff., esp. p . 393, n. 22. The same assumption is utilized by Broughton in MRR, 2, p . 25, n. 12. (8) Not listed in Bardt ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (338), pp. 1483, 59 ff. ; MRR, 2, p . 44. (9) CIL, l 2 , 1, p. 60 — ILS, 9338, 4 ; which could refer either to augures or pontifices. In view of the fact that Sulla was a member of the augural college at that time, it is pre-

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

127

Two lists record names of priests, which offer the majority of available data for the remaining period of the late Republic (1). Macrobius (sat., 3.13, 11) quotes an account of the pontifex maximus, Q,. Metellus Pius (P. 42), of a banquet, on the occasion of the inauguration of L. Cornelius Lentulus zs flamen Martialis : duobus tricliniis pontifices cubuerunt Q,. Catulus, M. Aemilius Lepidus, D. Silanus, C. Caesar... rex sacrorum, P. Scaevola, Sextus... Q. Cornelius, P. Volumnius, P. Albinovanus et L. Julius Caesar augur qui eum inauguravit.

The date of the report falls between the periods of Julius Caesar's cooptation, ca. 73, and his election as pontifex maximus upon the death of Metellus Pius, ca. 64/63 (»). Another list is derived from Cicero (har. resp., 6, 12) (3), from the year 57, when the entire pontifical college passed a decision on the question of dedicating a shrine to Libertas, on the site of Cicero's house : At vero meant domum P. Lentulus consul et pontifex, P. Servilius, M. Lucullus, Q,. Metellus, M\Glabrio, M. Messalla, L. Lentulus, flamen Martialis, P. Galba, Q. Metellus Scipio, C. Fannius, M. Lepidus, L. Claudius, rex sacrorum, M. Scaurus, M. Crassus, C. Curio, Sex. Caesar, flamen Quirinalis, Q. Cornelius, P. Albinovanus, Q. Terentius, pontifices minores, causa cognita, duobus locis dicta, maxima frequentia amplissimorum ac sapientissimorum civium adstante, omni religione una mente omnes liberaverunt.

Evidently, the two lists and membership on the lists was determined by the Sullan legislation of 82, which restored the right of election to members of the priestly colleges (4), with the exception of Xht pontifex maximus (5) ; as well as the lex Labiena in 63, which again re-instituted the election of the priests to the special assembly (6).

ferable to assume that two members of the same gens ought not to be in the same college. Thus, pontificate is preferred. (1) MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 87, n. 34 ; ibid., p. 88, n. 35 fF. ; BARDT, p. 13 ; to this, cf. L. R. TAYLOR, loc. cit.

(2) VELL., 2.43, 1 and 3 ; cf. also, L. R. TAYLOR, Caesar's Early Career, in CI. Phil., 36, 1941, esp. pp. 117 fF. (3) RKR, p. 545, n. 4 ; GELZER, Die Datierung von Ciceros Rede de hr. resp., in Klio, 30, 1937, 1 fF. ; Kl. Sehr., 2, pp. 229 fF., esp. p. 233. L. R. TAYLOR. AJPh, 63, 1942, loc. cit., pp. 389 fF. ; WUILLEUMIER and A. M. TUPET, Ciceron, Sur la réponse des Haruspices, Paris, 1966, pp. 8 fF. (4) LIVY, per. 89 ; Dio, 37.37, 1 ; de vir. ill. 75, 11, inter alia ; cf. MRR, 2, p. 75, n. 7. (5) L. R. TAYLOR, CI Phil, 37, 1942, loc. cit., pp. 421 fF. (6) Dio, 37. 37, 1 ; cf. TAYLOR, loc. cit., p. 421, n. 5.

128

CHAPTER IV

Suggestion has been made that the lists, just as inscriptional lists of priests, were compiled according to the order of cooptation into the college ( 1 ). Taylor's investigation has shown that, according to this assumption, it is impossible that the M. Aemilius Lepidus of the Macrobius list, who was supposedly a.pontifex when L. Lentulus was inaugurated as aflamen Martialis, would be on the fourth place behind Lentulus, on the Ciceronian list. She suggested, therefore, separation between the two, and identified the cos. 77, Mam. Aemilius Lepidus as a pontifex of the somewhat corrupted Macrobian text. Bardt assumed that the passage in Macrobius is without error ; he merely suggested that it is impossible that Julius Caesar was a rex sacrorum, accepting Mommsen's version (maintained by Taylor), that on the list a mention of the rex sacrorum's name, whom everyone supposedly knew, was not necessary. If we presuppose that Cicero's list rested on the same type of information, satisfactory answer cannot be drawn from Bardt's theorization that in the case of the pontifex maximus, Q,. Metellus Pius, "wir haben es nicht mit Caesar und Cicero zu thun, sondern mit einem vornehmen Manne, der diese Aufzeichnungen sehr nebenher gemacht hat". Further difficulty is caused by the name Sextus, which is explained by Taylor as textual imperfection, although the question occurs immediately, why of all the names only this one should be fully spelled out and not the others. Apparently, a reading of P. Scaevola Sextus Q,. Cornelius cannot be correct. Q . Cornelius' name is attested by the Ciceronian passage ; thus, the solution has to be found in P. Scaevola Sextus. Mommsen's solution of P. Servilius Isauricus seems to be too bold (2) ; to assume that a relative of the pontifex maximus, Q . Mucius Scaevola (P. 35), who died in 82, was coopted in his place is based upon the same weak grounds. Bardt simply considers the name as a marginal remark which erroneously came into the text. Of all these attempts, Taylor's seems to be the easiest to accept, although, admittedly, the problem will remain. (1) MARQUARDT, op. ciL, 3, p. 243, n. 1 ; RKR, p. 501, n. 2 ; cf. also ILS, 5050 ; CIL, 6, 32323 concerning the ludi saec. ; T. loc.cit., pp. 391 ff. Her arguments are based upon circumstancial, political evidence, which in its ultimate outcome remains an assumption. The possibility has to be maintained (as seen in MOMMSEN, BF, 1, p. 87, n. 34, esp. on p. 89, and Bardt, Pont. 60) that the triumvir was coopted early in the college and was a member on both lists. (2) Loc. cit., RF, 1, p. 87, n. 34.

129

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

41. Q . Lutatius Q.f.Q.n. Gatulus (!)

Pont. betw. 73-63 to ca. 60 ; Praet. 81 ; Cos. 78 ; Cens. 65

He was curator rest. Capitolii (2), which he finished, and his name was inscribed on it (3). Death depends on the correspondence of Cicero between the Ides of March 61 and the middle of the month of May, 60 (4). 42. Q,. Caecilius Q.f.L.n. Metellus Pius (5)

Pont. bef. 81-63 ( ?) ; Pont. Max. 81-63 (?) ; Praet. 89 ; Cos. 80

Son of the cos. 109, Q,. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus ; became pontifex very early (6), although it is questionable whether his campaigning for the praetorship has anything to do with his cooptation. He was elected as pontifex maximus in 81, following the murdered M. Scaevola (P. 35) (7). His death cannot be determined. By 63, Julius Caesar was pontifex maximus. 43. (Mam. ?) Aemilius Mam.f.n. Lepidus Livianus (8)

Pont. ? betw. 73-63 ( ?) ; Praet. 81 ; Cos. 77

Pontificate tenuously depends on the Macrobius text's interpretation by Taylor (versus Bardt and Mommsen). It is a mere assumption that he succeeded his brother, M . Livius Drusus (P. 38), in the pontifical college. T h e possibility of his priesthood can be maintained, as well as rejected ( 9 ).

(1) MACR., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 60 ; MÜNZER, RE, 13 (8), pp. 2082, 30 ff. ; MRR,

2,

pp. 114, 186 ; Münzer gives his cooptation date in 64. (2) VARRO in Gell, u.a., 2.10, 2. (3) Gic, Verr., Act. 2, 4.31, 69 ff., and 38, 82 ; LIVY, per. 98.

(4) Gic, adAtt., 1.13, 2, where he is consulted on the third place in the senate. Somewhat later, when Glodius was accused (between the Ides of March and before the Ides of May, 61, as seen in adAtt., 1,15 and adAtt., 1,16, 9-10) he is not mentioned. Yet the letter of Gic, ad Att., 1, 20, 3, which was written a.d. IV. Id. Maia, 60 : ... existimes, me hanc uiam optimatum, post Cattai mortem... tenere. (5) BARDT, Pont., 61 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (98), pp. 1221, 48 ff. ; MRR,

2, p. 78.

(6) Adulescens, in de vir. ill., 63, 3 (Teubner ed.). (7) Asa, p. 79, 22-23 (Clark) ; PLUT., Jul. Caes., 7, 1 ; MACR., sat., loc. at. ; Dio, 37, 37. 1. To the question of potential augurate cf. p. 146, n. 7. (8) KLEBS, RE, 1 (80), p. 564, 8 ff. ; MRR,

2, p. 24, n. 11 ; p. 187, n. 2.

(9) It is possible that in Macrobius' corrupt text, the M. is incorrectly written (e.g., M. Aemilio D. Bruto coss. heading in Obsequ., 58). J. Gaesar was released from possible prosecution under Sulla upon Aemilius Lepidus' and others' pleas ; he was one of the most important consulates of his day. Usually, the Hlvir is identified as the priest (v. ROHDEN, RE, l,p. 556, 20 ff.), against which assumption argument can be brought up on account

130

CHAPTER IV

44. P. Servilius C.f.M.n. Vatia Isauricus (x)

Pont, before. 63-44 ; Praet. 90 ; Cos. 79 ; Cens. 55

He must have held his priesthood long before the dates given on the Ciceronian list, according to Cicero (de domo, 47, 123 ; 52, 132). In 63, he was one of the aspirants for the position of the pontifex maximus together with Q . Catulus, against Julius Caesar (2). After a lengthy and illustrious career (3), he died in extreme old age (4). 45. M. Terentius M.f.-n. Varro Lucullus (5)

Pont. bef. 57-after 57 ; Propr. 82 ; Praet. 76 ; Cos. 73

Mentioned by Cicero as a, pontifex (6). His death cannot be determined, although it cannot be long after 57 (7). 46. Q,. Caecilius C.f.Q,n. Metellus Creticus (8)

Pont. bef. 57-after 54 ; Praet. 74 ; Cos. 69

Cooptation cannot be established. The last time he is mentioned in 54 by Cicero (9). Death must follow after that date (10).

of age, as well as the assumed political structure of the personnel in the colleges. That Mam. Aemilius Lepidus was followed in the college by the Illvir cannot be stated. (1) Cic, har. resp., loc, cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 71 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (93), pp. 1812, 20ff.;

MRR, 2, pp. 114, 206. (2) PLUT., Jul. Caes., 7.1, 3 ; RAAF, p. 360. (3) Cicero praises him highly, clarissimus (Verr., Act. II., 1, 21, 56) ; and ibid., 57, speaking of hominis amplissimi diligentiam, as well as Flacc. 2, 5 : grauissimo et sanctissimo cive for further modifiers, cf. MÜNZER, loc. cit., pp. 1815, 20 ff. (4) Gic, Phil., 2.5, 12 ; Dio, 45, 16, 1-2. (5) BARDT, Pont., 73 ; MÜNZER, RE, 5A (90), p. 705, 50 ; ref. to ibid., 13 (109), pp. 414, 56 ff.; MRR, 2, p. 114. (6) Besides the reference on the Ciceronian list, cf. also, Cic, de domo., 52, 132 ; ad Att., 4.2, 4. (7) He participated in the affairs of the senate in 56, Cic, adfam., 1.1,3 ; 5b ; 2.7,2 ; prov. cons., 9, 22 ; VELL., 2.48, 6, (or in certain ed., 49.1), si prius gratulatus ero (£. Catulo, duobus Lucullis, Metelloque et Hortensio, qui sum sine inuidia in republica floruissent, eminuissentque periculo, quieta aut non certe praecipitata, fatali ante inìtium bellorum ciuilium morte fundi sun (8) Cic, har. resp., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 75 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (87), pp. 1210, 35ff.;

MRR, 2, p. 114. (9) Cic, Plane., 11, 27 ; the second edition of which is dated to 54. Cf. ad Qu.fr., 3, 1, (4.11, Oxf. ed.). (10) VELL., 2.48, 6 (or in certain ed. 49, 1), cf. above ; cf. DRUMANN-GROEBE, 2.28.

VRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

47. M'. Acilius M'.f.M'.n. Glabrio (*)

131

Pont. bef. 57-betw. 57-47 ; Praet. 70 ; Cos. 67

It is impossible to determine cooptation or the length of his membership. Death must have occurred after 57, but before 47 (2). 48. M. Valerius M.f.M'.(n.) (Messalla Niger) (3)

Pont. bef. 57-54 ; Praet. 64 ; Cos. 61

His priesthood is known from the elogium, upon which his pontificate is mentioned on the first place (4). The last time his name occurs is as one of the defenders of M. Aemilius Scaurus in 54 (6). His death falls after that. 49. D.Junius Silanus (6)

Pont. betw. 73 and 63-after 61 ; Praet. 64 ; Cos. 62

The Macrobius passage places him into the pontifical college, but his name is missing in Cicero, har. resp. ; thus, the death must have occurred shortly after his consulship. 50. C.Julius C.f.C.n. Caesar (7) Pont. 73-44 ; Pont. Max. 63-44 ; Aug. 47-44 ; Praet. 62 ; Cos. 59, 48, 46, 45, 44 He was elected to the college in absentia in 74 or 73 (8), and became

(1) GIG., har. resp., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 76 ; v. ROHDEN, RE, 1 (38), pp. 256, 38 ff. ;

MRR, 2, p. 206. (2) Brut., 68, 239; GIG., ad Qu.fr., 2.1, 1, in 57, he is mentioned. (3) Cic, har. resp., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 66 ; MÜNZER, RE, 8A (266), p. 162, 48 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 114. (4) CIL, l2, 1, p. 201 — 6.3826 — ILS, 46 ; Münzer, loc. cit., p. 163, 65 ; on the inscription his pontificate is mentioned before all other honores, Thus, L. R. TAYLOR assumes (AJPh, 63, 1942, pp. 394 ff.) that his cooptation must have occurred before any of the magistracies (accepted in MRR, p. 114). The theory, nevertheless, remains questionable, in view of the fact that later inscriptions consistently show this type of division. Thus, one could state that there was merely a possibility of cooptation before 57. (5) Asa, p. 20 (Clark) : Defenderunt Scaurum sex patroni... P. Clodius Pulcher, M. Marcellus, M. Calidius, M. Cicero, M. Messalla Niger, Q,. Hortensius... (6) MACR., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 64 ; MÜNZER, RE, 10 (163), pp. 1090, 8 ff. ; MRR,

2, p. 114. (7) MACR., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 63 ; KLOTZ, RE, 10 (131), pp. 186, 40 ff. ; MRR, 2,

p. 113. (8) VELL., 2.43, 1 : Idem mox ad sacerdotium ineundum (quippe absens ponti/ex /actus erat in Cottae consularis locum...; cf. also, CIL, l2, 2, 789 — ILS. 71.

132

CHAPTER IV

pontifex maximus in 63, against Qj Lutatius Catulus (P. 41), and P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (P. 44) (1). 51. P. Mucius Scaevola (2)

Pont, between 73-63

Pontificate depends on the highly problematic reading of the Macrobius passage, loc. cit. : ... P. Scaevola Sextus Q,. Cornelius... Bardt suggested separation of the names (3), indicating that the rex sacrorum was the only one not mentioned by name, since everyone knew who he was (thus, by Kubier in RE). L. R. Taylor went further (4), accepting Bardt's explanation, when she proposed that a cognomen is missing after Sextus, whose identity is unknown. Thus, she suggests, following Kubier, that the P. Scaevola could be the son of the pontifex maximus Q . Mucius Scaevola (P. 35). 52. P. Sulpicius Galba (5)

Pont. betw. 70/66-after 57 ; Praet. by 66

Cicero lists him as a pontifex in kar. resp., loc. cit. Coins bearing the legend P. Galba, cur. aed., with symbols of the pontificate, could date it at the latest, to ca. 65 (6).

(1) He reinstated, through the administrations of the tr. pi., the pre-Sullan election of the pontifex maximus (Dio, 37. 37, 1 ; VELL., 2.43, 3 ; further information, MRR, 2, pp. 171 and 172, n. 3) ; cf. also, L. R. TAYLOR, loc. cit., Cl. Phil., 37 (1942), passim. (2) MACR., loc. at. ; B. KÜBLER, RE, 16 (18), pp. 428, 66 fF. ; MRR, 2, p. 134 ; Bardt

dismisses P. Mucius Scaevola's priesthood, p. 13. (3) BARDT, p. 13, cf. to this, MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 87, n. 34.

(4) Loc. cit., p. 389 fF., 402, n. 53. To further identify Sextus remains an impossibility. Perhaps he was a patrician member of the college, but, as suggested by Taylor, that he might have been a Quinctius Varus, remains an attractive assumption (cf. TAYLOR, loc. cit., p. 402 and MRR, 2, p. 137, n. 10, which follows completely Taylor). (5) BARDT, Pont., 65 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4A (55), pp. 758, 47 fF. ; MRR, 2, pp. 134 and 137,

n. 11. (6) MRR, 2, p. 136, n. 4 ; SYDENHAM, op. cit., p. 138 ; L. R. TAYLOR, Cicero'S aedileship,

in AJPh, 60, 1939, pp. 194 fF., esp. p. 200, n. 25, where she shows that Cicero was aed. pi., and Sulp. Galba an aed. cur. this year. She admits the possibility of 70 (against MOMMSEN, RF, 1, p. 100), although MOMMSEN, Rom. Münz., p. 621, n. 452, dates Sulpicius* aedileship to 69. Sydenham dates it to ca. 65, while BABELON, op. cit., 2, p. 472, follows Mommsen in establishing the date of 69. On the obverse side, a veiled head of Vesta, while on the reverse side, a simpulum and an ornamented axe can be seen with the legend : AED. CUR. and P. GALB. Thus, the problem remains as far as cooptation is concerned.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

133

In Macrobius 3.13, 11 and Cicero har. resp. 6, 12, the following pontifices minores (*) are mentioned : 53. P. Albinovanus ; 54. Q,. Cornelius ; 55. P. Volumnius, who is not mentioned in Cicero, and took part in the court case of A. Cluentius (Cic, Cluent., 70, 198) ; and 56. Q . Terentius, possibly the tr. pi. in 58. 57. Q,. Caecilius Q,.f.Q,.n. Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (2)

Pont. ca. 63-46 ; Praet. 55 ; Cos. 52

Cooptation (8) is tenuously assumed to occur after the death of his father, the pontifex maximus (P. 42) (4). Defeated in Africa as a leader of the Pompeian forces, he committed suicide in 46 (5). 58. M. Licinius P.f.M.n. Crassus Dives (6)

Pont. bef. 57-53 ; Praet. 73 ( ?) ; Cos. 70, 55

His membership is based upon the Cicero quotation (7). If he was the cos. 70, 55, he died at Carrhae, during his disastrous Parthian campaign ; yet, the possibility has to be maintained that the pontifex is the son of the consul, especially in view of the fact that a younger son, P. Licinius Crassus, was a member of the augural college (A. 39). 59. C. Scribonius C.f. Curio (8)

Pont. bef. 57-53 ; Praet. by 80 ; Cos. 76 Mentioned as pontifex in Cic, har. resp., loc. cit., although cooptation cannot be determined. His death in 53, from ad fam., 2,2 (9). (1) Only P. Albinovanus and Q,. Cornelius are listed in both passages. Bardt, p. 2, n. 3 ; MRR, 2, p. 135 and 206, with an apparent misprint on p. 135 for L. Cornelius ; L. R. TAYLOR, loc. cit., AJPh, 63, 1942, pp. 389ff.,passim ; ad 53, KLEBS, RE, 1 (3), pp. 1314, 7 ff. ; ad 54, MÜNZER, RE, 4 (51), pp. 1257, 58 ff. ; ad 55, H. GUNDEL, RE, 9A (6), pp. 875, 31 ff. ; ad 56, MÜNZER, RE, 5A (44), pp. 653, 53 ff. (2) BARDT, Pont., 77 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (99), pp. 1224, 44 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 171.

(3) Cic, de domo., 47, 123 ; har. resp., loc. cit. ; Brut., 58, 212 ; SUET., Tib. 4, 1. (4) TAYLOR, loc. cit., AJPh, 63, 1942, p. 398. (5) DRUMANN-GROEBE, 3.544-545; MRR, 2, p. 297. (6) BARDT, Pont. 74 ; GELZER, RE, 13 (68), pp. 295, 53 ff. ; esp. 316, 12 ff. ; MRR, 2,

p. 182; DRUMANN-GROEBE, 4.120-121, concerning his death in 53. (7) Cic, har. resp., loc. cit. ; also ad Att. 4.2, 3. (8) BARDT, Pont., 72 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (10), pp. 862,1 ff. ; MRR, 2, pp. 182 and 206.

(9) His cooptation and the cooptation of M. Licinius Crassus Dives (P. 58), is conjee-

134

CHAPTER IV

60. C. Fannius (*)

Pont. bef. 57-47 ; Pràet. 54 ( ?)

Mentioned as pontifex in Cic, har. resp., loc. cit, Bardt, considering the statement of Cicero ad Att. 11.6, 6, suggests that he might have died in 48, while Münzer attempts to combine diverse reports and extend his life until 35 (2). 61. P. Cornelius P.f.L.n. Lentulus Spinther (3)

Pont. ca. 60-47 ; Praet. urb. 60 ; Cos. 57

Julius Caesar was instrumental in his priesthood, according to Caes., b.c., 1,22 ; thus, the cooptation must have occurred after 63. Death ca. 47, in hostility toward Caesar (4). 62. M. Aemilius Scaurus (5)

Pont. bef. 57-after 55 ; Praet. 56

His death is unknown ; after his exile (6), nothing is heard of him. 63. M. Aemilius M.f.Q.n. Lepidus (7)

Pont. ca. 60-12 ; Pont. Max., 44-12 ; Illvir r.p.c.

Usually assumed that he followed the doubtful pontifex, (Mam. ?) Aemilius Lepidus (P. 43), in the priestly college, although identification of the M. Aemilius Lepidus (Macr., loc. cit.) with the triumvir cannot be excluded as a possibility (cf. notes ad P. 43).

tured by Broughton upon the questionable deaths of Q . Lutatius Catulus (P. 41), and D. Iunius Silanus (P. 49), (1) BARDT, Pont., 78 ; MÜNZER, RE, 6 (9), pp. 1991, 22ff.; MRR, 2, p. 206 ; Taylor's

suggestion for early cooptation, possibly before the lex Labiena, is based upon assumption (loc. cit., AJPh., 63 (1942), p. 398). (2) MÜNZER, RE, loc. cit., pp. 1992, 2ff.; a Fannius, leg. of Cassius against Rhodes in 43 (App. b. c. 4, 72), and the Fannius without praenomen (ibid., 4, 84 and 5, 139), who eventually went over to the side of Marc Antony. (3) MACR., loc. cit. ; Cic, har. resp., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 67 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (238),

pp. 1392, 66ff.; MRR, 2, p. 206. (4) Cic, Brut., 77, 268 : nostrarum iniuriarum ultor, auctor salutis ; in two other remarks, Cicero merely suggests that he is dead (ad.fam., 9.18, 2 ; Phil., 13.14, 29) ; while de vir. ill., 78, 9 alleges that he was killed in Africa : nam Lentulum et Afranium et Faustum Syllae filium iussit occidi. (5) Cic, har. resp., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 68 ; v. ROHDEN, RE, 1 (141), pp. 588, 23ff.; MRR, 2, p. 206. (6) APP., b.c., 2, 24; Cic, off., 1.39, 138. (7) Cic, har. resp., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 69 ; v. ROHDEN, RE, 1 (73), pp. 556, 9ff.; HOFFMAN-LEWIS, op. cit., pont. 1.

135

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

64. L. Pinarius Natta (*)

Pont. ca. 58-56

He became pontifex shortly before the dedication of Cicero's house to Libertas (2). Cicero makes reference to him in 55 (3) : oderam hominem, might refer to his death by that time. 65. C. Scribonius Curio (4)

Pont. 52-49 ; Propr. Sic. and Afr.,49

Son of the pontifex (P. 59), who was coopted to the college somewhat later than his father's death (5). He was killed in the battle of Bagradas valley in 49» (6). 66. L. Domitius Cn.f.Cn.n. Ahenobarbus (7)

Pont. ca. 50-48 ; Praet. 58 ; Cos. 54

Apparently in 57 he was not yet in the college, since he is not on the Ciceronian list. His membership is based upon conjecture. In 48, in Thessaly, he, Q,. Metellus Scipio (P. 57,) and P. Lentulus Spinther (P. 61), were anticipating jokingly who of the three should become pontifex maximus after the death of Julius Caesar (8). This, and the tenuous reference to his successor, C. Octavius (P. 68), is the only evidence that he was a member. We know that he aimed for the augurate as well, but was eliminated by M. Antonius (9) (A. 42). He was killed in the battle of Pharsalus (10). 67. M. Iunius Brutus ( n )(Q,. Servilius Caepio Brutus)

Vont.ca.51-42 ; Praet.urb.44

One of the assassins of Julius Caesar, who called Metellus Scipio (1) Cic., har. resp., loc. cit. ; BARDT, Pont. 70 ; MÜNZER, RE, 20 (19), pp. 1402, 49 ff.

(2) GIG., domo, 45, 118; 52, 134.; 53, 137. (3) GIG., ad Att., 4.8a, 3, written in 55. (4) BARDT, Pont., 79 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (11), pp. 867, 68 ff. ; MRR,

2, p. 240.

(5) According to the references to his membership in the college, Cic, Jam., 2.7, 3, Dio, 40.62, 1-2, one cannot prove that he took his father's place, since evidence suggests that his cooptation did not occur at the latest until 59 (cf. also, MÜNZER, loc. cit., p. 869, 40 ff.). (6) MRR, 2, p. 263. (7) BARDT, Pont., 80 ; MÜNZER, RE, 5 (27), pp. 1334, 15 ff. ; MRR,

2, p. 254.

(8) JUL. CAES., b.c., 3.83, 1 ; PLUT., Pomp. 67, 6 and Caes., 42, 1 ; APP., b.c., 2, 69.

(9) Gael, in GIG., ad Jam., 8.14, 1 ; cf. MRR, loc. cit. (10) JUL. CAES., b.c., 3.99, 5 ; Cic., Phil, 2.29, 71 ; DRUMANN-GROEBE, 3.24 ; MRR,

2,

p. 277. (11) BARDT, Pont., 83 ; GELZER, RE, 10 (53), pp. 973, 57 ff. ; MRR,

LEWIS, op. cit., pont. 2.

2, p. 254 ; HOFFMAN-

136

CHAPTER IV

(P. 57), in C i c , Brut., 58, 212, a collega meus, assumedly referring to membership in the pontifical college (1). 68. C. Octavius (2) the future G. Julius Caesar Octavianus — — Imp. Caesar Augustus

Pont. 47

Coop ted possibly at the end of 48 ( 3 ). 69. P. Sulpicius Rufus (4)

Pont. ca. 47 — Praet. of the Fleet, 48

Pontifex before 46/45, as indicated on coins from Sinope ( 5 ). 70. Ti. Claudius Ti.f. Nero (6) Pont. 46-33 ; Praet. 42 He, the father of the future emperor Tiberius, was coop ted in place of Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (P. 57), in 46 : [Tiberius], pater Tiberi, Nero, quaestor C. Caesaris... plurimum ad victoriam contulit. Quare et pontifex in locum P. Scipionis substitutus... (Suet., Tib. 4) ( 7 ). 71. C. Antonius M.f.M.n. (8)

Pont. ca. 45-42 ; Praet. 44

The younger brother of the Illvir, whose pontificate is indicated by coins ( 9 ), during his brief command in Macedonia, before his capture, and death (10).

(1) To this, cf. GELZER, loc. cit., p. 983, 2 ff. (2) BARDT, Pont., 81 ; K. FITZLER and O. SEECK, RE, 10 (132), pp. 275, 39 ff. ; MRR, 2, 292 ; HOFFMAN-LEWIS, op. cit., pont. 3 ; HABEL, op. cit., p. 4. (3) FGH, 2A, 392, Nie. DAM., Vit. Aug., 4 ; GIG., Phil., 5.17, 46 ; 19, 53 ; VELL., 2.59,

3 ; cf. to this,

FITZLER and SEECK, loc. cit., pp. 278, 34 ff. (4) MÜNZER, RE, 4A (93), pp. 849, 40 ff, ; MRR, 2, p. 292 ; HOFFMAN-LEWIS, op. cit.,

pont., 5. (5) M. GRANT, From Imperium to Auctoritas, Cambr., 1946, pp. 251 ff. (6) BARDT, Pont., 84 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (254), pp. 2777, 57 ; MRR, 2, p. 303 ; HOFFMANLEWIS, op. cit., pont. 4. (7) Cf. also, VELL., 2.75, 1. (8) BARDT, Pont., 85 ; SEECK, RE, 1 (20), pp. 2582, 42 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 314 ; HOFFMANLEWIS, op. cit., pont. 7. (9) GRUEBER, 2, p. 470, dates between 44 and 42, a very rare denarius from G. Antonius' proconsulship. The coin carries his name as well as the legend PONTIFEX, with two simpula and an axe, symbols of the pontificate. (10) DRUMANN-GROEBE, 1, 386,

137

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

72. Cn. Domitius M.f.M.n. Calvinus (*)

Pont. ca. 45-after 20 ; Praet. de amb. 56 ; Cos. 53, 40

Probably coopted as a friend of Julius Caesar (2) by 44 ; certainly after 40, he was a member of the college (3). AUGURES

1. M. Servilius C.f.P.n. Pulex Geminus (4)

210-44

Aug. 211-after 167 ; (Pont. 170 ?) ; (P. 25) ; Cos. 202

His cooptation in 211 is determined by Livy, 26.23, 7 : ... in locum Sp. Carvili Maximi auguris M. Servilius (5). As pointed out previously, it is possible that he was also a member of the pontifical college in 170 (M. Servilius, P. 25), although identification is impossible. Münzer suggests that the pontifex was a son of the augur (6). Difficulty is caused further by the coins of the Servilii, which show the augural lituus, but never symbols of the pontificate (7). One has to maintain that M. Servilius Pulex Geminus was a member of the augural college only, and a lesser known M. Servilius was the pontifex. 2. Ti. Sempronius Ti.f.C.n. Longus (8)

Aug. 210-174 ; Xvir s.f. 210-174 ; Praet. 196 ; Cos. 194

He became both augur and Xvir s.f. in 210 (9). In the decemvirate he followed his father, Ti. Sempronius C.f. Longus, cos. 218 (Xvir s.f. 4). In the citation of his death only his decemvirate is mentioned, and the deceased augur's name is given as Ti. Sempronius Gracchus. Perhaps this Sempronius Gracchus is the augur who was inaugurated

(1) BARDT, Pont., 82 ; MÜNZER, RE, 5 (43), pp. 1419, 63ff.,Supplb., 3, p. 394, 38ff.; MRR, 2, p. 314; HOFFMAN-LEWIS, op. cit., pont. 6. (2) VAL. MAX., 8.11, 2 and SUET., Jul.,

81.4.

(3) CIL 6, 1301—/LS 42. (4) BARDT, Aug., 16 ; STEIN, RE, 2A (78), pp. 1805, 34 ff. ; MRR,

1, p. 276.

(5) Gf. notes to the pontifex M. Servilius (P. 25). (6) RE, 2A (18), pp. 1765, 34ff.; RAAF, pp. 150-151. (7) BABELON, op. cit. 2, pp. 446 ff.

(8) BARDT, Aug. 11 ; cf. Aug. 21 and Xvir 9 ; also, MÜNZER, RE, 2A (67), pp. 1433, 62

ff.; MRR, 1, p. 283. (9) LIVY, 27.6, 15 : Ti. Sempronius Ti. f. Longus augur/actus in locum T. Otacilii Crassi; decemuir item sacrisfaciundis in locum Ti. Semproni C.f. Longi Ti. Sempronius TL f. Longus suffectus.

138

CHAPTER IV

in the year 204 (Aug. 6), as suggested by Münzer ( 1 ). He says that the augur is probably the son of the cos. 212, who was coopted as a special honor into the augural college. R. M. Geer (2) follows the same line of thought and suggests that he must have been a sickly youngster who was assumedly coopted as an augur, according to the parallel example of the younger Scipio, who was also an augur. Thus, the suggested reason for his untimely death in 174 is ill health (Livy, 41.21, 8/9), which, of course, cannot be proven. This theory, nevertheless, produces additional problems. The inauguration of the well-known augur and father of the Gracchi brothers, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, cos. 177 and 163 ( 3 ), is neglected both by Münzer and Geer. His date of cooptation cannot be established, although it should precede his second consulship in 163 (4), when he was already in an advanced age. It is not inconceivable that the estimated birth of the father of the Gracchi should fall into the period about 220 (as seen in Münzer, loc. cit.), since around 190 he held a responsible position ( 5 ). Bardt's suggestion seems to be feasible when he says : "Ich glaube daher, dass in der Liste der decemviri verzeichnet stand, dass für Ti. Sempronius C. Sempronius decemvir wurde, und in der Augurliste, dass für Ti. Sempronius C. Veturius augur ; als man die cognomina ergänzte, ergänzte man an erster Stelle richtig Longus, an zweiter falsch, vielleicht verleitet durch das Cognomen des Nachfolgers Gracchus ( 6 )". He admits that his theory is merely a speculation, further strengthened by the fact that in earlier stages of the Republic cognomina were not listed, and only later installed, as well as by the fact that a date for the law, which supposedly prohibited two members of the same gens in a priestly college ( 7 ), cannot be established with certainty.

(1) RE, 2A (52), pp. 1403, 41 ff. (2) R. M. GEER, TV. Sempronius Gracchus and T. Veturius Gracchus Sempronianus, in AJPh, 60, 1939, pp. 466-467. (3)

MÜNZER, RE,

loc. cit., pp.

1403,

59 ff. ; esp.

1408,

29 ff.

(4) GIG., nat. d. 2 A, 11 ; de div., 1.17, 32 ; 18, 36 ; also, ad Qu.fr. 2.2, 1. (5) LIVY, 37.7, 8 ff. ; to the problem of his early career, cf. R. M. GEER, The Scipios and the Father of the Gracchi, in TAPhA, 69, 1938, pp. 381, ff., esp. p. 385, n. 10. (6)

BARDT, p.

(7)

Dio,

20.

39, 17; MOMMSEN, RF,

1, 89 ; BARDT, p.

34.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

3. M. Pomponius M'.f.M.'n. Matho (!)

139

Aug. ?-204 ; Xvir s.f. ?-204 ; Cos. 231 ; Mag. equ. 217 ; Praet. 216?

His death, as an augur and Xvir, is reported in the year 204 (2). Identification is practically impossible, as seen in the pontifex M \ Pomponius Matho (n° 34), who is generally identified as the cos. 233. MRR follows Bardt's and Münzer's suggestion that the augur is the consul of 231, who was also a member of Xviri s.f. (3). 4. M. Claudius M.f.M.n. Marcellus (4)

Aug. ca. 226-208 ; Praet. 224, 216 ; Cos. 222 ; suff. 215, 214, 210, 208

Probably an augur at the time of his aedileship (5), although cooptation cannot be narrowed down with certainty. He is often mentioned in connection with Q . Fabius Maximus, the Cunctator, with whom he should be considered as one of the better generals of the war against Hannibal. He was always known for sincere religious attitude toward the gods without apparent reservations (6). He was a winner of the spolia opima, which he offered to Juppiter Feretrius (7) ; also, he vowed temples for Honos and Virtus (8). His death occurred in an ambush, near Petelia (9). (1) BARDT, Aug., 20 ; Xvir 13 ; H. GUNDEL, RE, 21 (18), pp. 2330, 36ff.; MRR, 1, pp.

283, 309, esp. 244, 246, n. 4 and n. 6, 249. (2) LIVY, 29.38, 7 : in M. Pompom Mathonis auguris et decemviri locum creati decemuir M. Aurelius Cotta, augur Ti. Sempronius Gracchus admodum adulescens... (3) Difficulty is caused by the mag. equ. in 217, possibly the cos. of 231, and a. praet. peregrinus of the same year, M. Pomponius, possibly Matho also, and the appearance of a M. Pomponius Matho as praetor in the year 216, who held the praetorship before (LIVY. 22.35, 5-7), and whose colleagues were all consuls before. Cf. notes to the pontifex M \ Pomponius Matho (n° 34). The praetor of 217 could be the mag. equ. of the same year (RSR, 1, p. 154, notes 1,2, p. 174), and the praetor of 216, could be possibly the same as the praet. per. of 217, since adverse war conditions could conceivably permit extraordinary compilations of magistracies (cf. DRUMANN-GROEBE, 5.4, note 7, esp. note 10, where the impossibility of identification is emphasized). Nevertheless, the problem remains, and identification, at best, is questionable. (4) BARDT, Aug. 17 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (220), pp. 2738, 6 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 230. For mil. activity, cf. LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 256 ff.

(5) PLUT., Marc, 2, 1-2 ; cf. also, Cic, de div., 2.36, 77, and LIVY, 27.36, 5. (6) Cic, de div., loc. cit. ; to this, the remarks of LIPPOLD, op. cit., pp. 354/355. (7) LIVY, per. 20 ; PLUT., Marc. 7-8 ; for further references, cf. MRR, 1, p. 233. (8) LIVY, 27.25, 7; 29.11, 13; VAL. MAX., 1.1, 8. (9) POL., 10.32; WALBANK, Comm., op. cit., 2, pp. 242 ff. ; LIVY, 27.26-27, 11, La. ; cf. MRR, 1, p. 290.

140

CHAPTER IV

5. P. Aelius Q.f.P.n. Paetus (*) Aug. 208-174 ; Praet. 203 ; Cos. 201 Livy, 27.36,5 reads : In locum M. Marcelli P. Aelius Paetus augur creatus inauguratusque. Thus, he followed M. Claudius Marcellus in the augural college, in 208. His death is mentioned in Livy, 41.21, 9. 6. Ti.SemproniusGracchus,or, Ti. Sempronius P.f.Ti.n. Gracchus (2)

Aug. (? 204)-(? 174); Aug. (?204)-?; Praet. 180 ; Cos. 177, 163

Cooptation of a Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, admodum adulescens, is listed in Livy, 29.38, 7. To identify the augur, two possibilities exist. Either one accepts the existence of two Ti. Sempronii Gracchi in the augural college, who followed each other in 174, when the death of an augur of this name occurred (Livy, 41.21, 8/9). In this case, however, the well-attested augurate of Ti. Sempronius Longus (Aug. 2) is questionable. On the other hand, perhaps, the inaugurated Ti. Sempronius Gracchus is no one else but the father of the tribune of 133 (8), husband of the younger daughter of P. Scipio Africanus (4), father of twelve children, wrho died ca. 153 (6). 7. Q, Fabius Q.f.Q,n. Maximus Verrucosus (6)

Aug. 265-203 ; Pont. 216-203 ; Cos. 233, 228, 215, 214, 209

Livy described his death in the year 203 : Eodem anno Q. Fabius Maximus moritur, exactae aetatis, si quidem verum est augurem duos et sexaginta annos fuisse, quod quidem auctores sunt. (30.26,7). 8. Q,. Fabius Maximus (7)

Aug. 203-196

As shown by Bardt and Münzer, he was the grandson, coopted in his grandfather's place : Augur in locum eius inauguratus Q. Fabius

(1) BARDT, Aug., 18; KLEBS, RE, 1 (101), pp. 526, 4flf.; MRR, 1, p. 293. (2) BARDT, Aug., 21 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (52 and 53), pp. 1403, 41 ff. ; MRR, 1, pp. 309,

405, 406, n. 4 and 407, n. 5. (3) Cf. notes above to Aug. 2. (4) MÜNZER, RE, 4 (407), pp. 1592, 20 ff.

(5) Combination of circumstantial evidence used by MOMMSEN, RF, 2, pp. 489ff.; cf. also, GEER, he. cit., TAPhA 69, 1938, pp. 381 ff. (6) BARDT, Aug., 22 ; MÜNZER, RE, 6 (116), pp. 1814, 10 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 283. . (7) BARDT, Aug., 23 ; MÜNZER, RE, 6 (104), pp. 1790, 37 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 314 ; CIL,

l8, 1, p. 193.

141

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

Maximus filius, (Livy, 30.26, 10), w h o died in 196, admodum adulescens, priusquam ullum magistratum caperet, (ibid., 33.42,6). Evidently, Livy

is mistaken, since the son was buried by the father (Münzer, 6, pp. 1789-90). 9. G. Claudius Ap.f.G.n. Pulcher (*)

RE,

Aug. 195-167 ; Praet. suff. 180 ; Cos. 177

Succeeded the grandson of the Cunctator in 195 : Per eosdem dies C. Claudius Appifilius Pulcher augur in (£. F ahi Maximi locum, qui priore anno mortuus erat, lecius inauguratusque est. D e a t h is reported in 167

(Livy, 33.44, 3). 10. L. Aemilius L.f.M.n. Paullus (2)

Aug. ca. 192-160; Praet. 1 9 1 ; Cos. 182, 168

He attained membership before his praetorship ( 3 ), ca. 192, as follows from Plut. Aem., 3, 1 ff. : IlQÓrfjv yovv rœv èni<pavœv âQ%cov âyoQavo^iav, ftereWœv nQoexqiQr} ôéxaôvsïv âvÔQcov avvanoyQatpaiiévov ... Tevo/tsvoç ô* ISQSVÇ rœv 'AvyovQcov nQoaayoQsvo/btévœv ... oëro) nQooèo%8 roïç TZCLTQOOIÇ ëOeot ....

In the year 160, his death is reported : L. Aemilius Paullus, qui Persen vicerat, mortuus (Livy, per. 47) ( 4 ).

11. Cn. Cornelius L.f.L.n. Lentulus (6)

Aug. ?-184 ; Cos. 201

Son of the pontifex maximus, L. Lentulus Caudinus, cos. 237. He died in 183, and only at this occasion is it mentioned that he was a member of the augural college (Livy, 39.45,8) : Extremo prioris anni comitia auguris creandi habita erant in demortui Cn. Cornelii Lentuli locum ; creatus erat Sp. Postumius Albinus. Evidently, he must have been a

member earlier. Broughton assumes that he was inaugurated as early as 217, under the influence of his father, the prominent pontifex maximus. Nevertheless, such a speculation is without strength of evidence. (1) BARDT, Aug., 24 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (300), pp. 2855, 5 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 342. (2) BARDT, Aug., 30 ; KLEBS, RE, 1 (114), p. 576, 44 ff. ; MRR,

1, p. 352.

(3) Plutarch's chronological order is in reference to his aedileship in 193 (LIVY, 35.10, 12), before he reached his praetorship in 191 (Lrw, 35.24, 6, 36.2, 7). Gf. to this CZ£, 12. 1, p. 194. (4) Also POL., 31. 22; DIOD., 31. 25. (5) BARDT, Aug., 26 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (176), pp. 1358,23ff.; MRR, 1, pp. 283 and 377 ;

to problems of identification, cf. notes ad Xvir s. f., 1, below.

142

CHAPTER IV

12. Sp. Postumius L.f.A.n. Albinus (!)

Aug. 184-180 ; Praet. 189 ; Cos. 186

He succeeded Cn. Cornelius Lentulus in 183 (Livy, 39.45, 8) ; his death is reported in 180 (Livy, 40.42,13). 13. P. Cornelius Scipio (Africani f.) (2)

Aug. 180- ?

In place of the deceased augur, Sp. Postumius Albinus, in 180, P. Scipionem, filium Africani, augures cooptarunt, (Livy, 40.42, 13). It is known that his health was poor (3), and he must have been alive in 168 when he adopted P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Minor (4). Mommsen suggested on account of a sarcophagus inscription that he might have been aflamen Dialis rather than an augur (5). Nevertheless, he pointed out that it is impossible clearly to state that the inscription refers to the son of Scipio Africanus. The elogium in the CIL does not list the full name, nor the honors. The text merely bemoans the fact that the short life of P. Cornelius P.f. eliminated the chance for him to surpass the honors of his ancestors. Also, as pointed out by Mommsen, the line referring to the fiammate was added later. The problem cannot be decided, since in the year 174 a Cn. Cornelius is listed as flamen Dialis (Livy, 41.28, 7 : Flamen Dialis inauguratus est Cn. Comelius). Would we accept the fiammate of P. Cornelius Scipio (Afr. f.), as it is done by Bardt, Cn. Cornelius' position would become spurious. 14. Q,. Aelius P.f.Q.n. Paetus (6)

Aug. 174 ; Praet. 170 ; Cos. 167

Son of the augur, P. Aelius Paetus (Aug. 5), who was coopted into the college upon his father's death in 174 (Livy, 41.21,8/9). His death and later activities are unknown.

(1) BARDT, Aug. 27 ; MÜNZER, RE, 22 (44), pp. 921, 5 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 377 ; to identifi-

cation, cf. RAAF, p. 213, esp. n. 1. (2) BARDT, Aug., 28 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (331), pp. 1437, 23 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 394.

(3) GIG., Brut., 19, 77; de sen., 11, 35; de off., 1.33, 121. (4) VELL., 1.10, 3.

- (5) CIL, l2, 2, 10, although Mommsen admits : "Ad quemnam Scipionem hoc carmen pertineat non satis constat". ILS 4 ; MRR, 1, p. 407, n. 6 ; 2, p. 486. (6) BARDT, Aug., 19 ; KLEBS, RE, 1 (104), pp. 526, 65 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 405.

143

PRIESTS BETWEEN 2 1 0 - 4 4

15. Ti. Veturius Gracchus Sempronianus (x)

Aug. 174-

Mentioned as a newly coopted augur in 174 (2), who followed the deceased Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (Aug. 6), according to Livy. Mommsen and Bardt considered him to be a plebeian (3), since he followed a plebeian in the college. Since the gens Veturia was patrician, Geer suggested a bold, but attractive solution, i.e., change in the name to Ti. Sempronius Gracchus Veturianus, a Veturius adopted by a Sempronius Gracchus (4). Further information is lacking. 16. L. Quinctius T.f.L.n. Flaminius (5)

Aug. 213-170 ; Praet. 199 ; Cos. 192

Coopted as successor to P. Furius Philus in 213 (Livy, 25.2, 2). Identification causes considerable difficulty, since only the name L. Flaminius is given. Bardt thought that the augur is a not further identifiable uncle of the consuls of 198 and 192, because the consul 192 would have been too young for cooptation in 213. Against this, Münzer pointed out that especially in 213 youth was not a hindrance, but rather a recommendation for early cooptation (6). His brother, the consul of 198, was younger, born ca. 228 (Pol., 18.12, 5 describes him in 197 as more than thirty years of age ; cf. also, Livy, 33.33, 3). Thus, we could assume that L. Flaminius, the consul in 192, was born ca. 230/229, and was coopted in his early youth at the age of 16 or 17. Death of a priest, L. Flaminius, is reported in Livy (43.11, 13), for the year 170, and we can assume that he is the augur coopted in 213.

(1) BARDT, Aug.,

12 ; H. GUNDEL, RE, 8A (23), pp. 1898,

16 ff. ; MRR,

loc.

cit.

(2) LIVY, 41.21, 9 ; cf. notes to Aug. 2, and Aug. 6, concerning the possible emendation of his listed predecessor's name being Ti. Sempronius Longus, and not Ti. Sempronius Gracchus. (3)

MOMMSEN, RF,

1, 84,

99,

103,

120 ; BARDT, loc.

cit.

(4) GEER, loc. cit., AJPh, 60, 1939, p. 467. Against this difficulty of a patrician being adopted by a plebeian, he brings one other example of this period, T. Manlius Torquatus, cos. 165, adopted by D.Junius Silanus (LIVY, per. 54 ; GIG., de fin., 1.24) ; cf. the same solution in RAAF, p. 130. (5) BARDT, Aug., 14 ; H. GUNDEL, RE,

n. 7. (6) RAAF, pp. 118 ff.

24 (43), pp. 1040,

7 ff. ; MRR,

1, pp. 266-267,

144

CHAPTER IV

17. T . Quinctius ( ?T.f.) T.n. Flaminius (x)

Aug. 167- ? ; Praet. by 153 ; Cos. 150

Most likely the winner at Cynoscephalae, although it is possible that he is the son of the above mentioned augur possibly, the cos. 192. He became augur in 167, following C. Claudius Pulcher (Aug. 9) : Augur eo anno mortuus est C. Claudius ; in eius locum augures legerunt T. Quinctium Flaminium (2). Date of his death is unknown. M. Porcius M.f. Cato (3)

(Aug. ?-149) ; Praet. 198 ; Cos. 195 ; Cens. 184

Evidence of M. Porcius Gato's augurate depends on the reading of Gic, de sen., 18, 64 : Multa in nostro (or vestro) collegio praeclara, sed hoc, de quo agimus, in primis, quod,ut quisque aetate antecedit, ita sententiae principatum tenet, neque solum honore antecedentibus, sed iis etiam, qui cum imperio sunt, majores natu augures anteponuntur. Some MSS read nostro, others, vestro (4), a reading which is accepted by P. Weulleumier (Paris, 1940) and A. Rinaldi (Milano, 1946) (5). Of course, Gato, Orig. in HRR, 1, fr. 77, taken from Gell., 2.28,6, cannot prove that he was or was not a priest : Verba Catonis ex originum quarto haec sunt : Non lubet scribere, quod in tabula apud pontificem maximum est, quotiens annona cara, quotiens lunae aut solis lumine caligo aut quid obstiterit. Revealing are Kienast's (p. 41) remarks : "Cato selbst war offenbar niemals Augur gewesen, Cicero wenigstens hätte sonst wohl darüber etwas mitgeteilt... Nur auf Grund einer Konjektur lesen einige hier in nostro collegio". That some MSS write nostro might simply mean that tenth or eleventh century copyists proferred this reading, in spite of the fact that ancient literature remained completely silent about his membership. Thus, Gato's augurate cannot be accepted. 18. Ser. Sulpicius Ser.f.P.n. Galba (6)

Aug. ?-bef. 129 ; Praet. 151 ; Cos. 144

Probably the grandson of the cos. 211, P. Sulpicius Galba

(1) BARDT, Aug., 25 ; H. GUNDEL, RE, 24 (46), pp. 1100, 2 ff. ; MRR,

1, p. 436.

(2) LIVY, 45.44, 3. (3) BARDT, Aug., 31 ; M. GELZER and R. HELM, RE, 22 (9), pp. 108, 8 ff.,where the

augurate is not mentioned, just as in KIENAST, op. cit. ; MRR, 1, pp. 457 and 2,642. (4) S (München, 11th century), B (München, 12th Century) reads nostro, while L 2 (Leyden, 10th century) reads uestro ; WISSOWA, RE, 2, pp. 2322, 38 fF., quotes the passage in ref. to the presidency of the augur, college and cites uestro. (5) RAAF, following Bardt's conjecture, accepts his augurate ; RAAF, p. 49. (6) MÜNZER, RE, 4A(58), pp. 759,61 fF., esp. 761,45 ; cf. also, MÜNZER, Hermes, 52,

145

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

Maximus. Scipio speaks and calls Ser. Galba his colleague, Cic, de r.p. 3.30, 42 (ed. Castiglioni, Torino, 1947) : Quae cum dixisset Laelius, etsi omnes, qui aderant, significabant ab eo se esse admodum delectatos, tarnen praetor ceteros Scipio quasi quodam gaudio elatus : Multas tu quidem, inquit, Laeli, saepe causas ita defendisti, ut ego non modo tecum Servium Galbam, collegam nostrum, quem tu, quoad vixit, omnibus anteponebas...

19. P. Cornelius P.f.P.n. Scipio Africanus Aemilianus (*)

Aug. 140-129 ; Cos. 147, 134

An inscription identifies him as an augur (2), probably before the consulship of C. Laelius in 140, as suggested by Cicero {de am., 21,77). His death falls in 129 (3). 20. C. Laelius C.f.C.n. (4)

Aug. ca. 140-M. 128 ; Praet. 145 ; Cos. 140

He is often referred to as a bonus augur (5), augur sapiens (6). Death date is unknown, although he could have lived beyond 129 (7). 21. Q,. Caecilius Q.f.L.n. Metellus Macedonicus (8)

Aug. ca. 140-115 ; Praet. 148 ; Cos. 143

Cicero speaks of him while he describes his good fortune {de fin. 5. 27, 82) : cum ipse consul, augur fuisset et triumphasset, and refers through Laelius to his and P. Cornelius Scipio's (Aug. 19) augurate : Ab amicitia Q,. Pompei meo nomine se removerat, ut scitis, Scipio, propter di sensionem autem, quae erat in republica, alienatus est a collega nostro, Metello (9). Bardt points out the apparent opposition between 1917, Zu den Fasti Augurum, p. 154 ; also, RAAF, pp. 266 n. 1 ; Ser. Sulpicius is not listed as augur in BARDT, nor in

MRR.

(1) BARDT, Aug. 32 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (335), pp. 1439, 4 fi0., esp. 1461, 15 ff. ;

MRR,

1, p. 478. (2) CIL, la, 1, p. 198 (xxv) ; cf. also, Cic, de r.p., 1, 40, 63 ; de am., 21, 77, in which he indirectly refers to Scipio as collega. Cf. below, ad Aug. 21. (3) Cic., de r.p., 1.9, 14, specifies that death occurred during the Latin festival ; on his death, cf. ibid., 19, 31 and 6.12 and 14. (4) BARDT, Aug., 33 ; MÜNZER, RE,

12 (3), pp. 404, 41 ff. ; MRR,

1, p. 478.

(5) Phil, 2.33, 83. (6) Nat. d., 3.2, 5 ; also, Cic, de r.p., 1.40,63 ; 3.30,42 ; de am., 1,1. (7) CICERO alludes {e.g., de or., 2.84, 341) that he was active beyond Scipio's time. (8) BARDT, Aug., 34 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (94), pp. 1213, 60 ff. ; MRR,

(9) C I C , (de fin., 5.27, 82), de am., 21, 77.

1, p. 478.

146

CHAPTER IV

meo nomine and collega nostra, which would indirectly refer to the augurate of P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Aug. 19) as well as Q . Caecilius Metellus. He died in 115 (1). 22. Ti. Sempronius Gracchus (2)

Aug. ?-133

Plutarch (T. Gr., 4.1) alludes to his a u g u r a t e : êneïvoç rolvvv svdvç ex naièœv ysvofisvoç OVTOJÇ fjv TzeQißorjroc, ears rfjç rœv Avyovçœv Keyojuévrjç leQcoavvrjç â^cœôfjvai ôi âQsrrjv fiäXXov fj òià rrjv evyéveiav. T h a t his fäther-in-law, Ap. Claudius C.f.Ap.n. Pulcher (Sal. 2), was an augur, as suggested by Broughton, is not explicit from this quotation ( 3 ), since he was a member of the salii, and, as such, he could participate at the meals. Into this period fall the tentative and highly questionable augurate of two individuals : There is a reference in Cicero (Brut., 16, 101) that Mucius Scaevola's brother-in-law, C. Fannius, M.f. (4), was barred from the augurate by Mucius Q.f.Q.n. Scaevola (Aug. 25) when both wanted to be coopted. Nevertheless, further information of a possible later cooptation is lacking, against the assumption of Broughton (5). Similarly questionable is the augurate of Q . Caecilius Metellus Numidicus (6). MRR follows L. R. Taylor's suggestion that first century coins could refer to his membership, nevertheless, without decisive reliability (7).

(1) Cic., de fin., pp. 1216, 7 ff. (2)

MÜNZER, RE,

loc. cit. (is in error referring to only three sons) ; cf. MÜNZER, loc. cit., 2A (54), pp.

1409,

42 ff. ; MRR,

1, p.

495.

(3) MRR, 1, p. 495, alleges membership in the augural college ; nevertheless, the Plutarch quotation above does not warrant such an assumption. Münzer (RE, 3 (295), pp. 2848, 11 ff.), suggests merely that he was a member of the salii, ace. to MACR., sat., 3.14, 14, which would cause further difficulty since he would be the possessor of dual priesthoods (to Macrobius, cf. note on p. 177), p. 190. Also, MÜNzer, loc. cit., Hermes, 52, 1917, pp. 154/155. (4)

MÜNZER, RE,

6 (7), pp.

1987,

18 ff.

(5) MRR, 1, pp. 496, 505. (6) MRR, 1, p. 532. (7) L. R. TAYLOR, Symbols of the Augurate on Coins of the Caecilii Metelli, in A JA, 48, 1944, pp. 352 ff., mentions that the cos. 80, Q,. Caecilius Metellus Pius and his adopted son, the cos. 52, Q,. Caecilius Metellus Scipio, were monetales, and the coins issued contain symbols of the augural position. Since both were ponti/ices, and not augures, they must have honored the father of the cos. 80, Numidicus, since he is the only one who could be a member of the college. She admits that there is no direct evidence for such an assump-

PRIESTS àETWEEN 210-44

23. M. Aemilius M.f.M.n. Lepidus Porcina (x)

147

Aug. bef. 125 ; Praet. ?-143 ; Cos. 137; (poss. cos. 158)

He is mentioned in Velleius (2.10, 1) as an augur: Prosequamur notae severitatem censorum Cassii Longini Caepionisque, qui abhinc annos CLVII (al. ed. CLIII), Lepidum Aemilium augurem, quod sex milibus HS aedes conduxisset adesse iusserunt. Only the consul of 137, or the consul of 126 could be the augur, if the consul of 158 was a member of the decemviral college, cf. below pp. 162 ff. 24. D.Junius M.f.M.n. Brutus (Callaicus) (2)

Aug. bef. 129- ? ; Praet. by 141 ; Cos. 138

Cicero mentions him {de am. 2, 7) : Itaque ex me quaerunt... quonam pacto mortem Africani feras, eoque magis, quod proximis Nonis, cum in hortos D. Bruti auguris commentandi causa, ut assolet, venissemus, tu non adfuisti. He vowed a temple to Mars (3), and held a triumph after his pronconsulate, which is the last we hear of him (4). 25. Q,. Mucius Q,.f.Q,.n. Scaevola(5)

Aug. bef. \29-ca. 89 ; Praet. by 129 ; Cos. 117

He is often called an augur (6), in order to distinguish him from the somewhat younger pontifex, Q . Mucius P.f.P.n. Scaevola (P. 35), without being able to date his cooptation. Evidently, he was alive in 90, according to Cicero {Phil, 8.10,31) : Ego patres conscripti, Q. Scaevolam augurem bello Morsico, cum esset summa senectute et perdita valetu­ dine, cotidie... senexque debilis primus veniebat in curiam. 26. C. Sulpicius Galba (7)

Aug. ca. 109 ( ?)

Münzer identifies him as the younger son of the cos. 144, and tion (p. 354). She rejects the idea that Caecilius Metellus Pius, cos. 80, could have held two priesthoods, although this assumption would be exactly as possible as the other. BABELON, op. cit., 1, pp. 275 ff. (sp. n 03 43, 44), SYDENHAM-HAINES, p. 122, n°s 750 and 751. (1) BARDT, Aug., 35 ; KLEBS, RE, 1 (83), pp. 566, 38 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 496. (2) BARDT, Aug., 36 ; MÜNZER, RE, 10 (57), pp. 1210, 17 ff. ; MRR, loc. cit.

(3) RKR, p. 146 ; and the brief description without name in RRG, pp. 114ff.,esp. n. 3. (4) EUTR., 4, 19; PLUT., T. Gr., 21.2. (5) BARDT, Aug., 38 ; RE, 16 (21), pp. 430, 62 ff. ; MRR,

1, 496.

(6) La., Brut., 26, 102 : iuris ciuilis intelligentia atque omni prudentiae genere praestitit ; ibid., 58, 212 : peritissimus iuris ; similarly in pro Balb., 20, 45 ; Phil., 8.10, 39, loc. cit. ; VAL. MAX., 3.8, 5, concerning his steadfastness. (7) MÜNZER, RE, 4A (51), pp. 754, 45 ff. ; MRR, 1, p. 547 ; not listed in Bardt.

148

CHAPTER IV

establishes his career on circumstantial evidence. Cicero (Brut., 33, 127 ; also, A u c t , ad Her., 1.12,20) could indicate that he was a member of the augural college : Augur quidam damnatus de pecuniis repetundis. (Münzer correctly points out that such condemnation is unprecedented). Identification, as well as dates of cooptation and death, remain questionable. 27. (C ?) Servilius (x)

Aug. ca. 102 ; Praet. ( ?) 102

Plutarch (Luc, 1.2) mentions a Servilius as an augur (2) ; it is generally stated that the sons of Lucullus, successfully accused this Servilius, who had previously accused their father (Plut., loc. cit., fF. ; C i c , ac. fir. 2.1, 1 ; de off., 2.14, 50). 28. C. Marius, C.f.G.n. (3)

Aug. ca. 97-96 ; Praet. 115 ; Cos. 107, 104,103,102, 101, 100, 86

T h a t he was an augur depends on an elogium ( 4 ), which is further underlined by Cicero (ad Brut., 1.5,3) : C. enim Marius, cum in Cappadocia esset, lege Domitia factus est augur. We know that after his sixth consulship, specifically after the trial of Aquillius ( 5 ), C. Marius departed for the East ( 6 ). H e died in 86 ( 7 ). 29. L. Marcius Q.f.Q.n. Philippus (8)

Aug. ca. 93- ? ; Praet. by 96 ; Cos. 91 ; Cens. 86

Cicero (Brut., 45, 166) speaks of M. Herennius... qui tarnen summa nobilitate hominem, cognatione, sodalitate, collegio, summa etiam eloquentia, L. Philippum, in consulatus petitione superava. The collegium appears to be that of the augurs, since Cicero calls him a consul and augur (de leg.,

(1) MÜNZER, RE, 2A (12), pp. 1762, 39ff.; MRR, 1, p. 573 ; not listed in Bardt. (2) avroç ôf 6 AO'ÔHOVXXOÇ eri ixeiqamov œv... TIQCOTOV eqyov enoirjoaro ròv xov na-cQÒQ xarrjyoQov KQÏVCU ZsQovihov aiïyovQa... Cf. also, Cic., Verr., Act. 2 ; 4.65, 147 (3) BARDT, Aug., 40 ; WEYNAND, RE, Suppl. 6.(14), pp. 1363, 40ff.; MRR, 2, pp. 8-9, n. 7. (In RE, augurate is mentioned, p. 1370, 59-61). (4) CIL, la, 1, p. 195-196. (5) Cic., de or., 2.47, 196. (6) PLUT., Mar., 31, 1 ff.

(7) LIVY, per. 80 ; Veil., 2.23, 1 ; PLUT., Mar., 45, 2ff.; for additional information, cf. MRR, 2, p. 53. (8) MÜNZER, RE, 14 (75), pp. 1562, 27ff.; MRR, 2, 16 ; not in Bardt.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

149

2.12, 31), when some of the legislation of the tribune M. Livius Drusus was declared illegal (1). In this period, the augurate of L. Licinius Grassus (2) cannot be established. Bardt believes that Cicero (de or., 1.10, 39) could be interpreted in such a way : Quid ? leges ueteres moresque majorum ; quid ? auspicio., quibus et ego et tu, Crasse, cum magna rei publicae salute praesumus ; quid ? religiones et caerimoniae... The speaker is the augur, M. Scaevola, fatherin-law of Licinius Grassus (cf. also, de or., 1.7, 24; pro Caec, 24, 64). The whole matter seems to be questionable, because, besides allusion to political cooperation, specific evidence is not given that L. Licinius was or could have been a member of the augural college. 30. L. Cornelius L.f.P.n. Sulla Felix (3)

Aug. bef. 88-78 ; Praet. 93 ; Cos. 88,80 ; Diet, r.p.c. 82-79

Before going to the East, he might have held the augurate, since he demanded his priesthood's restitution in App., b.c., 1, 79 : rjrei ô' avrovç rr\v rs àÇiœoav Hal nsQiovaiav noi îsQcoovvrjv Hal sì ri äXXo yêqaç sl%sv> êvrsÀfj navra aTtodoOfjvai. His coins, and those of his son, show augural symbols ( 4 ). Whether or not the highly questionable quotation from the Scholiast (Bern) on Lucan, 2, 121 (H. Usener), as accepted by Broughton (MRR 2, 52), is satisfactory evidence for the priesthood of M. Antonius cannot be decided : ... Marcus Antonius censorius orator et augur in senatu suadebat ut Marius et Sulla arma deponerent. 31. L.Julius L.f.L.n. Caesar (5)

Aug. bef. 73-63 to after 43 ; Praet. by 67 ; Cos. 64

Macrobius (sat. 3, 13, 11) statement : L. Caesar, augur qui eum inau­ gurava, determines his membership in the college. He was still alive in the year 43, according to Velleius, 2, 67.

(1) Asc, p. 69, 1ff.(Clark) : Itaque Philippus cos. qui ei inimicus erat... Yet, the augurate is not mentioned. Gf. also, VAL. MAX., 9.5, 2. (2) BARDT, Aug. 39 ; MRR, 2, p. 23. Articles in RE (GROAG, 13 (50ff.),pp. 245, 59 ff.,

and HÄPKE, (55), pp. 252, 28ff.)do not mention his priesthood. (3) BARDT, Aug., 41 ; FRÖHLICH, RE, 4 (392), pp. 1522, 47ff.; MRR, 2, p. 44. (4) GRUEBER, 1, pp. 471 and 472, 485 ; 2, p. 459 ; cf. to this, SYDENHAM and HAINES, pp. 123ff.for a reverse order of coins issued, and listing of coins on pp. 145/146. (5) BARDT, Aug., 49 ; MÜNZER, RE, 10 (143), pp. 468, 60ff.; MRR, 2, p. 385, which relies on MÜNZER, loc. cit., Hermes, 52, 1917, pp. 152ff.; HOFFMAN-LEWIS, op. cit., aug. 1, p. 38.

150

CHAPTER IV

32. (G ?) Coelius Caldus (*)

Aug. bef. 62, 54- ? ; (Xvir s.f. ?)

O n the coins of C. Coelius Caldus, both augurate and Xvirate is listed (Sydenham-Haines, p. 148, n° 894/895) ( 2 ). T h e coin either belongs to a much earlier time, or it must be considered that he held a double priesthood, which would be extraordinary in this period. The suggestion of Bardt is accepted by Broughton, namely, two different individuals are considered, one for the membership in the augurate ca. 61, and the other somewhat earlier, ca. 80, for the decemvir ate. . 33. Q,. Caecilius Q.f.Q,.n. Metellus Celer (3)

Aug. bef. 63-59 ; Praet. 63 ; Cos. 60

His membership is mentioned in Dio (37, 27, 3) : "xaì êcpfjxe /Ltèv ô cPaßiQioc, nàvTCûç, ô* äv xaì naqà reo ôrj/uœ eâAœ> el fxrj ô MéreXXoç ô KéXsq olœviarrjç re &v xal arQarrjyœv èvenóòiasv. Cicero's letter {ad Att.y 2.5,2 and 9,2) dates his death to 59 ( 4 ). D. R. Shackleton-Bailey's suggestion, that M.At(t)ius Balbus, pr. by 60, (MRR, 2, pp. 183 and 191 ; Klebs, RE, 2, (11), pp. 2253, 4 ff.), was coopted as an augur in Metellus Geler's (Aug. 33) place, (Recensait et emendavit..., Phil., 108, 1964, pp. 110-112), is an attractive possibility. He suggests that iurabo Gnaeum nostrum, collegam Balbi Ati, mihi nar­ rasse (se) in auspicio (Gic. ad Att. 2.12, 2), refers to Atius Balbus' pending cooptation as an augur, against generally assumed and demonstrable memberships on the board of twenty agrarian commissioners for Gnaeus, (Gn. Pompeius Magnus, Aug. 35), and M. Atius Balbus. In view of the fact that (1) additional evidence is lacking and (2) Shackleton-Bailey admits that it is impossible to prove his theory, ("obschon ich zugebe dass sie sich nicht beweisen lässt", p. I l l ) , this imaginative proposal has to be rejected. 34. Ap. Claudius Ap.f.Ap.n. Pulcher (5)

Aug. bef. 63-48 ; Praet. 57 ; Cos. 54 ; Cens. 50

(1) BARDT, Aug., 42 ; and XVvirs.f. 28 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (13), pp. 196, 38 ff. ; MRR,

2, p. 485. (2) BABELON, op. cit., 1, pp. 370 ff., dates it to ca. 54 ; GRUEBER, 1, p. 475 to ca. 61 ;

while SYDENHAM-HAINES, p. 147, ca. 62. (3) BARDT, Aug., 52 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (86), pp. 1208 ff. ; MRR, 2, pp. 171 and 192.

(4) Indirectly ad Att., 2.5, 2, refers to his death : Et quoniam Neposproficiscetur, cuinam auguratus deferatur, i.e., the brother of the augur who apparently just died (the letter is from 59) ; cf. also the bitter denunciation : denique etiam Vatini strumam sacerdoti oißdv noosveyèyQanro, eSeTtoirjasv avròv êç rò Ma?Mov Tooxovàrov yévoç, nai ovrœç 6 vojuoç êv roïç êavrov Qrjjj,aai juecvaç êoyq> xareXvdri. ; cf. to this, ad/am., 7.26, 2, concerning the inauguration meal, although the date of the letter is 46 (Oxf. ed.). (7) GRUEBER, 2.481 ff. dates it between 43 and 42 ; similarly, SYDENHAM-HAINES, p. 204, n° 1304. (8) One could assume after 43, because of Cic, ad/am., 12.5, where the death of Ser. Sulpicius is mentioned (date of letter is 43), but not the name of P. Cornelius. MÜNZER suggests after 42, loc. cit., p. 1399, 31 ff., basing it on Appian's allusion to Octavian's and Antony's displeasure to him.

152

CHAPTER IV

37. Faustus Cornelius Sulla (*)

Aug. ca. 57-56

Son of the dictator, who was an augur, according to Dio, 39.17, further proven by his coins, which nevertheless might refer to his father (3). While fleeing, he was captured and killed in 46 (2). 38. L. Licinius L.f.L.n. Lucullus (4)

Aug. ?-56 ; Praet. 78 ; Cos. 74

An elogium mentions him as augur (5). Cic, de prou, cons., 9,22 does not determine his priesthood, but rather his death (6). 39. P. Licinius M.f. Crassus (7)

Aug. ca. 55-53

Plutarch writes {Cic, 36,1) : Fiver ai ôè nai rœv ISQECOV, OVÇ Avyovoaç ol cPa>fJLaïoi xaXovGiv, âvrl Kodaaov rov véov jbterà xr\v êv nâqQoiç avrov reXsvvfjv. He is the younger son of Licinius Crassus (cos. 70, 55) ; and, although it is not against any well-maintained rules, it seems to be unlikely that he was in the augural college before the death of L. Licinius Lucullus (Aug. 38). He fell in the battle of Carrhae, in 53 (8). 40. M. Tullius M.f.M.n. Cicero (9)

Aug. 53-43 ; Praet. 66 ; Cos. 63

He was nominated by Pompeius Magnus (Aug. 35), and Hortensius Hortalus (Aug. 41) for cooptation (10), and elected as an augur ( u ). Death occurred in 43.

(1) BARDT, Aug., 46 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4 (377), pp. 1515, 35ff.; MRR, 2, p. 207. (2) GRUEBER, and SYDENHAM-HAINES, loc. cit., ad. Aug. 30. (3) MRR, 2, p. 297 ; DRUMANN-GROEBE, 2, p. 435. (4) BARDT, Aug., 45 ; GELZER, RE, 13 (104), pp. 376,50ff.; MRR, 2,

(5) CIL, la, 1, p. 196.

p. 213.

(6) DRUMANN-GROEBE, 4, p. 179. (7) BARDT, Aug., 50 ; MÜNZER, RE, 13 (63), pp. 291, 5 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 220. (8) DRUMANN-GROEBE, 4, p. 129; MRR, 2, p. 231. (9) BARDT, Aug., 51 ; GELZER, KROLL, PHILIPPSON and K. BÜCHNER, RE, 7A (29), p. 827, 31 ff. ; esp. pp. 967, 10 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 233 ; HOFFMANN-LEWIS, op. cit., aug. 7, p. 39 ; DRUMANN-GROEBE, op. cit., vol. 6 ; BABELON, op. cit., 1, p. 131, n° 32 ; GRUEBER,

8, p. 550, 2, p. 392. (10) GIG., Phil., 2.2, 4 ; Brut., 1, 1-2. (11) PLUT., Cic, 36, 1.

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

41. Q,. Hortensius L.f.-n. Hortalus (x)

153

Aug. ?-50 ; Praet. 72 ; Cos. 69

One of Cicero's sponsors for cooptation (2), indicating that he was a member of the college before this time (is). His death occurred in the year 50 (4). 42. M. Antonius M.f.M.n. (5)

Aug. 50-30 ; Cos. 44,34 ;IIIvir.r.p.c.

Julius Caesar sent him to Rome to be coopted into the augural college in 50. That he was coopted is known from Hirt., C. J. Caes., bell. Gall. (8.50) : Ipse hibernis peractis contra consuetudinem in Italiam quam maximis itineribus est profectus, ut municipia et colonias appellant, quibus M. Antonii, quaestoris sui, commendaverat sacerdotii, petitionem... Hunc etsi augurem prius factum, quam Italiam attingerete in itinere audierat, tamen non minus... Since Q. Hortensius Hortalus

(Aug. 42) died in this year, it is assumed that he succeeded in his place (6). 43. Q . Cassius Longinus (7)

Aug. (ca. 60 ?)-47 ; Propr. 49

According to his coins, which carry augural symbols, one could estimate that he might have been an augur as early as the year 60 (8), although, if he is accepted as the augur Cassius in Cic, ad Jam., 9.9, 3, the date would narrow to 49. Death is recorded in late 48, or 47 (9).

(1) BARDT, Aug., 55 ; VONDER MÜHL, RE, 8 (13), pp. 2470, 22 ff. ; MRR, 2, pp. 254

and 256, n. 2. (2) Cic., Phil, 2, 2, 4. (3) PLINY, n. h., 10.45 ; VARRO, RR, 3.6, 6 ; Cic., de or., 3.61, 228 describes Hortensius

as a sodalis of Crassus, but this is not satisfactory evidence to establish his memberhip, who died in 91 B.C. But as pointed out, Licinius Crassus* augurate is questionable. (4) Cic, ad. fam., 8.13, 2 ; Brut., 94, 324; DRUMANN-GROEBE, 3, p. 97. (5) BARDT, Aug., 56 ; GROEBE, RE, 1 (30), pp. 2595,15 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 254 ; HOFFMANLEWIS, op. cit., aug. 8, p. 39.

(6) HIRT., Caes., b. Gall., 8, 50 ; Cic, ad fam., 8.14, 1 ; App. b.c., 3, 7 ; GRUEBER, 1.

550, 2, p. 392. (7) BARDT, Aug., 54 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (70), pp. 1740, 48 ff. ; MRR, 2, pp. 254, 293. (8) BABELON, 1, p. 329 ff, ca. 30; GRUEBER, 1.481, ca. 58; SYDENHAM-HAINES, pp.

152-153, n° 916 ff, ca. 57. (9) Dio, 42.16,2; 43.29, 1 ; cf. DRUMANN-GROEBE, 2, 133, notes 1 and 2 ; MRR, 2, p. 276.

154

CHAPTER IV

44. C. Claudius Marcellus (*)

Aug. bef. 51/50-bef. 44 ; Praet. 80

He is the father of the cos. 50. Cicero, in a letter of congratulation to the father, called him a collega, (ad fam., 15,8). It is presumed that he must have been an augur before this time. Similarly writes Cicero in de div., 2.35,75 : Equidem adsentior C. Marcello potius, quam Ap. Claudio, qui ambo mei collegae fuerunt, existimoque ius augurum... rei publicae causa conservatum ac retentum. Also, in another place (de leg., 2.13,32) : Age iam ista video fateorque esse magna, sed est in collegio vestro inter Marcellum et Appium, optimos augures, magna dissensio. He must have died some time before 44, according to de div., 2.75 (2). 45. M. Valerius Messalla (Rufus) (3)

Aug. for 55 years ; Cos. 53

He must have been an augur very early in his career, according to Macrobius (sat., 1.9,14) : M. etiam Messala, Cn. Domitii in consulatu collega, idemque per annos quinquaginta et quinque augur, de Iano ita incipit. His death cannot be established ; it must have been after the death of Julius Caesar. 46. L. Marcius L.f.L.n. Philippus (4)

Aug. (bef. 56 ?) ; Praet. 44 ; Cos. suif. 38

Son of the cos. 56, and probably the monetalis ca. 56, with the coins bearing the legend : Philippus (5). 47. P. Servilius P.f.C.n. Isauricus (6)

Aug. bef. 46-after 41 ; Praet. 54 ; Cos. 48, 41

Cicero referred to him as collega (7), which dates the matter to ca. 47 or 46.

(1) BARDT, Aug., 43 ; MÜNZER, RE, 3 (214), pp. 2733, 1ff.; MRR, 2, p. 255. (2) DRUMANN-GROEBE, 2, p. 334, 14. (3) BARDT, Aug. 58 ; R. HANSLIK, RE, 8A (268), pp. 166, 61 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 255 ; HOFFMAN-LEWIS, op. cit., aug. 2, p. 39. (4) BARDT, Aug. 57 ; FLUSS, RE, 14 (77), pp. 1571, 49 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 255 ; HOFFMANLEWIS, op. cit., aug. 3, p. 39.

(5) GRUEBER, 1.485, dates it to ca. 56, similarly SYDENHAM-HAINES, p. 153, n° 919. (6) BARDT, Aug., 60 ; MÜNZER, RE, 2A (67), pp. 1798, 63 ff. ; MRR, 2, p. 255 ; HOFFMAN-LEWIS, op. cit., aug. 10, p. 39.

(7) CIG., ad Jam., 13.68 (also ibid., 2 : Caesari, conlegae nostro) ; 69 ; 70 ; 71 ; 72 ; (cf. also, FEST., p. 476, ed. W. M. LINDSAY).

155

PRIESTS BETWEEN 210-44

48. Ser. Sulpicius Galba (*)

Aug. bef. 49-43 ( ?) ; Propr. 54

His membership is indicated by Cicero, when he righteously considered the possibility that C. Julius Caesar will consult the augural college, himself included, concerning his consulship. He gave free flow to his feelings, and he mentioned four members of the college, ad Att., 9.9,3 : Aberit non longe, quin hoc a me decerni velit, neque sit contentus Galba, Scaevola, Cassio, Antonio, finishing it with a quotation

from the Iliad (4.182). Cicero (Aug. 40), Cassius (Q,. Cassius Longinus, Aug. 43), and Antonius (M. Antonius, Aug. 42) are known. Evidently, Galba is the candidate for the consulship in 49 (Hirt., Caes., b. Gall., 8,50), who was one of the murderers of Caesar. He was convicted under the lex Pedia in 43 (2). 49. (Q. Mucius) Scaevola (3)

Aug. bef. 49 ?

His augurate depends on Cic, ad Att., 9.9,3. It is possible that he is the tribune of 54 who constantly delayed the elections by holding obnuntiatio (4), and fought against the triumph of the propraetor, C. Pomptinus (5), in both instances both legalistic and religion-bound considerations were weighted (6). 50. Q,. Cornifichi Q.f. (7).

Aug. ca. 47-42 ; Praet. 45 (?) ; Procos. 44

He is called by Cicero a collega ca. 46 (8). His augurate is further attested by coins (9), with the legend : Q,. CORNVFICIAVGVR. IMP. (1) BARDT, Aug., 64 ; MÜNZER, RE, 4A (61), pp. 769, 53 ff. ; MRR, LEWIS, op. cit., aug. 5, p. 39.

2, p. 255 ; HOFFMAN-

(2) Res G. D. Aug., 2 ; LIVY, per. 120 ; SUET., Galba, 3, 2 ; Nero, 3, 1 ; for further information, cf. MRR, 2, p. 337, ad Q,. Pedius, cos. suff. 43. (3) BARDT, Aug., 65 ; F. MÜNZER. RE, HOFFMANN-LEWIS, op. cit., aug. 7, p. 39.

16 (23), pp. 446, 23 ff. ; MRR,

2, p. 255 ;

(4) Cic, ad Att., 4.17, 4 ; ad Qu. fr., 3.3, 2 ; MRR, 2, p. 223. (5) Cic, ad Att., 4.18, 4. (6) Cic, in Pis., (24) 58 : religionibus enim susceptis impeditur. This, of course, could date his cooptation as early as 58. Cf. R. G. M. NISBET, In L. C. Pisonem oratio, Oxford, 1961, pp. v ff. (7) BARDT, Aug., 63 ; WISSOWA, RE, 4 (8), pp. 1624, 48 ff. ; MRR, LEWIS, op. cit., aug. 9, p. 39.

2, p. 292 ; HOFFMAN-

(8) Cic, ad/am., 12.17 and 18 ; Dìo, 42.51, 3 could date his augurate to 47, while according to CIL, l2, 2, 793-6, 1300a could date it after his praetorship. (9) BABELON, 1, p. 434, n° 1 and GRUEBER, 2, 577 ff., date the coins between 44 and 42, SYDENHAM-HAINES, between 43 and 42, p. 212, n° 1352.

156

CHAPTER IV

51. C.Julius C.f.C.n. Caesar (*)

Aug. ca. 47-44 ; Pont. 73-44 ; Pont. Max.* 63-44 ; Cos. 59

Cicero names him a collega (ad/am., 13.68,2) : Sperare tarnen videor, Caesari collegae nostro fore curae et esse, ut habeamus aliquam rem publicam ( 2 ). O n Caesar's coins augural symbols appear at first in 46, while in the previous periods, specifically during the Gallic Wars, only symbols of his pontificate appeared ( 3 ). 52. P. Vatinius P.f. (4)

Aug. (48 or 47)-after 42 ; Praet. 55 ; Cos. 47

In place of Ap. Claudius (Aug. 34), he was coopted after 48, according to Cicero [ad Jam., 5.10a, 2) : Si me hercule Appli os höherem, in cuius locum suffectus sum, tarnen hos sustinere non possem. M. Appuleius' (6) (cos. 20) augurate is tenuously indicated by Cicero (6). Broughton assumes augural obligations, thus, membership for M. Appuleius against Bardt; Hoffman-Lewis does not list him as augur. 53. A. Hirtius A.f.-n. (7)

Aug. ?-43 ; Praet. 46 ; Cos. 43

In Cicero {Phil, 7.4,12), the following statement is made : Quid igitur profectus est vir fortissimus, meus collega et familiaris, A. Hirtius consul? The speech was held in J a n u a r y 43. Hirtius was killed in action at the battle of Mutina, (1) BARDT, Aug., 4 8 ; MRR,

2, p. 293 ; cf. notes to P. 42.

(2) Gf. also Dio, 42.51, 4, previously describing Julius Caesar's conciliatory tactics and his appointments in magistracies, as well as priesthoods, in 47 : roïç re yào novri