S. P. Oakley (ed.), A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X, Vol. 2: Books VII–VIII
miserorum: quite often applied to the poor and debt-ridden; cf. e.g. iii. 15. 9, Cic. IIVerr. iii. 100, Att. i. 16. 11 'illa contionalis hirudo aerari, misera ac ieiuna plebecula', Sall. Cat. 33. 1, 33. 5, 35. 3, and [Quint.] decl. 260. 14.
2. priuatim … militibus: for this contrast cf. viii. 25. 11–13 'sibi pg 383priuatim nec pacisci quicquam nec petere; publice petere … ' (with conlaudatus at the end of this passage); note also xxxvii. 36. 7.
ioco serioue: Plaut. Amph. 906, Sen. contr. iii. praef. 17, Suet. Aug. 53. 1, Nero 25. 3, Front. 21. 11 and 231. 7 are cited for the coupling at TLL vii. 2. 289. 76–84. The expression was thus old, but none of the parallels comes from a context similar to this.
4. lex … sacrata militaris: for general discussion of the concept of leges sacrae, see x. 38. 5–12 n. Bleicken (1975: 94) plausibly suggested that the normal comitial resolution was bolstered with an oath because of an atmosphere of mutual mistrust.
ne … deleretur: 'that the name of no one who had been enlisted as a soldier should be removed (from the list), unless he had consented to this' (cf. Zon. vii. 25. 9). No secure interpretation of this passage is possible because it cannot be related with confidence to other events recorded for this year (or other years). It is quite plausible, however, to argue that the measure was designed to limit the power of the consuls (who might previously have been able to expel any soldier at will), and that such a restriction on consular imperium parallels the restriction whereby the military tribunate had become elective (ix. 30. 3 n.). If there really was a sedition in the army in this year, it is possible that the consuls used their power arbitrarily to quell it (see 39. 1–4). See W–M ad loc., Bayet, p. 95 (who relates the measure to disputes over booty), Hölkeskamp (1987) 104, and Poma (1987–8) 100–9.
additumque: regular in accounts of regulations appended to pg 384decrees, laws and treaties; cf. e.g. xxxii. 36. 9 'additum indutiarum pacto ut regia praesidia Phocide ac Locride deducerentur', xxxviii. 38. 18, xli. 14. 10, Cic. Sest. 129, Balb. 38, and Tac. ann. xiv. 41. See further Briscoe on xxxiv. 13. 7 (with a full collection of Livian parallels) and TLL i. 590. 24–41.
legi[s]: thus McOΛ: legis M1Π (and probably N). Though the corruption is surprising, the emendation is unavoidable.1
ne quis … ductor esset: the second provision of the lex sacrata is similarly hard to interpret. It seems most unlikely that it was designed to stop the arbitrary demotion of military tribunes: that office was now elective, and such an explanation seems irrelevant to all that L. writes here. Perhaps it is better to give some credence to his explanation and hold that there was a rule forbidding iteration of the military tribunate in successive years, but that its spirit had been circumvented by Salonius being appointed primus centurio every other year. For Salonius is so bafflingly obscure that the information relating to him may conceivably be authentic.2 See further De Sanctis (1907–64) ii. 224–5, Bayet, p. 95, Hölkeskamp (1987) 104, and Poma (1987/8) 109–11.
ordinum ductor: ductor is attested first at Coel. fr. 45, but thereafter it is found only rarely in prose. There are two instances in Cicero (fr. A. iii. 14, Tusc. i. 89), four in L. (cf. i. 28. 6, x. 21. 15, xxii. 61. 15), five in Tacitus, and an allusion in Varro (ling. vi. 62); but the word is absent from e.g. Caesar, Valerius Maximus, Curtius, and the prose works of the younger Seneca. By contrast, it is common in poetry, being found first at Lucr. i. 86 'ductores Danaum' (a phrase found also at Virg. Aen. ii. 14, which may point to an Ennian origin), and then regularly in the higher genres of epic and tragedy: twenty-four times in Virgil (all from the Aeneid, except georg. iv. 88), seven times in the younger Seneca, nine in Lucan, nineteen in Valerius Flaccus, thirty in Statius (twenty-six from the Thebaid and Achilleid), and 199 in Silius (never one to hide behind a bushel his linguistic debt to L. and Virgil). Note also Prop. iv. 10. 9 and Manil. i. 899. ductor is a choice equivalent of dux, and like dux it may be used both of someone who leads the way and of someone who commands others; but the sense 'commander' is much more pg 385common, in part because of the intractability of imperator in dactyls. L. and Tacitus must have employed the word as a conscious poeticism, and it is noteworthy that L. drops it after book xxii (3:1:0:0). See further Leumann (1947) 137 n. 30 = (1959) 147 n. 1.
As for our passage, ordines ducere is an expression regularly used to describe the task of being a centurion (e.g. ii. 23. 4, 55. 4, iii. 44. 2, viii. 8. 17, TLL ix. 2. 953. 33–7); and in general the use of ordo for centuria is well attested, esp. in L., Caesar, and Tacitus (see Bickel  109, TLL loc. cit. 29–44), and there is no reason to follow Ogilvie (on ii. 55. 4) in thinking that the expression was 'army slang'. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that neither dux ordinum (only xxiv. 28. 8) nor ductor ordinum (only here; see TLL v. 1. 2169. 42–3) seem to be found outside L.; of the two, our expression was doubtless the more elevated. For the primus pilus, see 13. 1 n.
6. [qui] ab Lautulis fugisse[n]t: this conjecture of Rubenius provides good sense but postulates a corruption which is hard to explain.1 Weissenborn, attempting a rather different kind of solution, proposed either ⟨eos secutus esset⟩ qui (ed.) or ⟨princeps eorum fuisset⟩ qui (Komm.), each of which postulates a corruption by saltus oculi of a kind which is common in prose texts; but though Appian and D.H. mention a military tribune who tried to escort the rebels, such supplements are not borne out by anything in L.'s text. Thus with hesitation I have followed Rubenius.
8. aeque … fuissent: it is impossible to deduce from L. whether this measure was in fact carried; that the equites were opposed to the sedition is likely enough (see Bayet, p. 95, and Hölkeskamp  105).
de stipendio equitum—merebant autem triplex ea tempestate—aera demerentur: the evolution of this triple payment is not wholly clear. The Romans believed that the eighteen centuries of cavalry in the centuriate system went back to either Servius pg 386Tullius (i. 43. 8–9) or Tarquinius Priscus (Cic. rep. ii. 36). All serving cavalrymen were provided with a horse by the state and were paid aes equestre for its purchase and aes hordearium for its provisioning (for these phrases see especially Gai. inst. iv. 27; also Cato, ORF 85–6, and Fest. 508). The latter was believed always to have been the responsibility of widows (i. 43. 9, Cic. loc. cit.), the former to have been an expense at first of the state (i. 43. 9) but later, after the censorship of Camillus in 403, to have devolved upon orphans (deduced from a combination of Cic. loc. cit., Plut. Popl. 12. 4, and Cam. 2. 4). Also in 403 (v. 7. 5–13) cavalrymen are said to have served for the first time with their own horses, and L. (§ 12) states that they were granted some pay (they obviously did not receive the two aera). Then in 401 (v. 12. 12) the cavalry are said to have been granted the triple stipendium to which L. refers here; Polybius (vi. 39. 12) also refers to this triple pay in his account of the Roman military practices of his day. In none of the three passages which mention this triple stipendium is any distinction drawn between cavalry serving equo publico and equo suo; and it may be that for this purpose no such distinction existed. We may note that in the distribution of donatives cavalrymen were regularly given three times as much as infantrymen; see the passages listed at x. 46. 15 n.
Some scholars—such as De Sanctis—have denied that the cavalry could have received the aes equestre and hordearium in the period before 406 when stipendium was introduced for infantry (on which see vi. 31. 4 n.), and this argument may be correct. If, however, the tradition is to be defended, then the reconstruction of Gabba is as plausible as any: the cavalry were given their aera before this year in recognition of their high status, their major contribution to the fighting force, and the costs involved in the upkeep of a horse; but these payments were not related to stipendium or any centuriate classification which may then have existed. The introduction of stipendium for the infantry and the payments to the volunteers of 403 (if L.'s report is accurate) led to the introduction of the triple stipendium, but since widows and orphans were not registered in the centuries, the cavalry were kept for a while at a certain distance from the Servian system. Increasingly, however, this payment must have come from tributum: by the Second Punic War orphans and widows do not seem to have been making regular payments to the state (see xxiv. 18. 13–15).
The implications of aera demerentur in our passage are unclear. It cannot refer to the permanent abolition of the two aera (which would be the natural interpretation of the Latin) nor of the aes
pg 387equestre alone, since the evidence of Cato (see above) shows that the aes equestre still existed in the early second century; nor can it refer to a permanent reduction in the stipendium of the cavalry, since Polybius tells us that in his day they still drew this triple wage. Hill, noting that in Polybius' day the cost of fodder was deducted from a cavalryman's pay (vi. 39. 15), may thus have been correct to follow Mommsen in arguing that the aes hordearium alone was abolished. But the plural aera is puzzling, and it may be best to give it its natural interpretation and argue either that this measure was never passed or that it was passed but later repealed. L. does not in fact confirm that it was passed; but since all the other measures reported in this paragraph were carried, one would naturally have assumed that this too became law, were it not for the difficulties which aera then poses.
See further Mommsen (1887–8) iii. 236–7, 257 n. 3, De Sanctis (1907–64) ii. 194, Hill (1943) and (1952) 10–20, Ogilvie on i. 43. 8–9, Nicolet (1966–74) i. 25–45, and Gabba (1977) 24–6 = (1988) 129–31.
For ea tempestate see 26. 15 n.
1 Alschefski tentatively considered legi'st or legibus, neither of which is attractive.
2 M. Müller transposed tribunus militum and ordinum ductor, but this hardly helps the elucidation of the passage.
1 M. Müller [p. vi] varied this with ⟨deni⟩que ab Lautulis fugisset, but denique is hardly wanted.