Main Text

23.

1–2. Publilius duo milia Nolanorum … recepta Palaepoli miserat; †Romae compertum† Cornelius dilectum indictum … : this passage poses three textual problems, of which only one has been solved to general satisfaction.

1. MΠ‎H omit Cornelius; but after ab utroque consule in § 1 it would be strange if there were a reference only to Philo and not to Lentulus, especially when from dilectum onwards we deal with events in the province of Lentulus. Tθ‎ have ⟨Corneliusdilectum, and though this reading is probably conjectural, it has been almost universally, and rightly, accepted.

2. miserat is difficult. If sound, it must mean 'sent a message that' (cf. xxxiv. 29. 9 'Dexagoridas miserat ad legatum Romanum traditurum se urbem' and see OLD s.u. 16); but the word is somewhat otiose and, as W–M saw, it reads awkwardly without a direct or indirect object. H. J. Müller (ed.) therefore suggested ⟨nuntiummiserat, Luterbacher scripserat, and Conway deletion. Provided one deletes Romae compertum (see below), both the conjecture of Luterbacher and especially the deletion of Conway give excellent pg 654sense and style. However, miserat is not impossible, and in view of the general uncertainty pertaining to this passage the temptation to emend it should perhaps be resisted.

3. Romae compertum cannot be construed with either what precedes or what follows. Attempts to emend it (often with wider rewriting) include: Publilius … Palaepoli miserat Romam; compertum dilectum indictum (Alschefski, but one misses a reference to Lentulus), Publilius … Palaepoli, nuntium miserat Romam; per Cornelium compertum dilectum … (Zingerle [1889b] 986–7), and Publilius … Palaepoli scripserat Romam, Cornelius: compertum se habere dilectum … (M. Müller); but these do not carry conviction, and Sigonius' deletion of the words is by far the most probable conjecture. Yet the postulated intrusion remains unexplained, and for this reason I have obelized.

For a defence of N's text, see Madvig (1860) 167–8 = (1877) 198.

1. Nolanorum: Nola, known by the same name to-day, is to be found at the eastern end of the Campanian plateau between M. Vesuvio and the hills of the Caudini; in antiquity the town lay on the Via Popilia, the road which led from Capua to Nuceria. We do not have much evidence for its early history, but numerous finds of Greek artefacts from the late eighth century onwards attest to the influence of Hellenic culture (doubtless by way of the Greek settlements on the Campanian coast). Silius Italicus (xii. 161) and Justin (xx. 1. 13) suggest that it owed its origin to settlers from Chalcis; but there are native Italic cemeteries of the eighth century, and the fictitious Greek or Trojan origins claimed by so many Italian cities need not be taken very seriously. Velleius (i. 7. 3–4) states that the site was controlled by the Etruscans, and this is confirmed for the sixth and early fifth centuries by archaeological evidence. However, in the late fifth century Nola's coins, and in the fourth century her politics, show that by then she was an Oscan town: presumably she was overrun by the Samnites at about the same time as Capua. The events of 328–326 mark the first appearance of Nola in the surviving historical record and show her as a power in her mountainous hinterland independent of both Rome and the Samnites; but her exposed position in Campania and unhappy choice of side in the Samnite Wars left her very vulnerable to attack from Rome, and the Romans captured the town in 313 (ix. 28. 3–6, D.S. xix. 101. 3). Thereafter she remained allied to Rome until incorporation after the Social War. Like other Campanian towns, she was divided politically between her 'senate' and 'plebs', and the repeated pg 655attempts of the latter to hand her to Hannibal resulted in numerous campaigns in the area between 216 and 214 (xxiii. 14. 5–17. 1, 39. 7–8, 43. 5–46. 8, xxiv. 13. 8–11, 17. 1–8). But Hannibal never gained the town, and with his departure from Campania she lapsed into a provincial obscurity, enlivened only by her double capture by Sulla, the death of Augustus in her territory, and the bishopric of St Paulinus.

See further Beloch (1890) 389–411, Philipp, RE xvii. 811–14, De Caro and Greco (1981) 206–9, Frederiksen (1984) 89 and 117–33.

2. Priuernatem Fundanumque et Formianum: see 14. 10 and vii. 15. 11 nn.

3. responsum … ferox: see 21. 3 n.

5. haud ullo publico consilioue: the Samnite authorities claim that the activity at Naples and among the Volsci was undertaken on private and not public initiative (for this distinction see vi. 6. 4–5 n.); the whole context shows that L. did not expect his readers to take this claim seriously.

Fundanum Formianumue: Wesenberg (1870/1: 33) wished to replace -ue with -que; the conjecture is easy and makes good sense, but there is nothing objectionable in the disjunction.

quippe … placeat: the Samnites argued that they had no need to canvass support amongst the Volscian states, as their own strength was quite sufficient if it came to war.

6. Romanus populus: this word-order is a surprising variation on the standard populus Romanus (which L. employs on hundreds of occasions); in L.'s work I have been able to parallel it only at 25. 3 and x. 16. 6, and elsewhere only at Enn. ann. 192, Lucil. 613, C. Gracch. ORF 42, Nep. Att. 18. 5, and SHA xxiv. 8. 11; all the instances in prose authors are vulnerable to emendation by transposition, and in the passage from Nepos some editors adopt Fleckeisen's populi Romani. Though L. liked to vary his standard phrasing, it is a little difficult to see why he should have done so in these passages; but perhaps one should regard Romanus (-anum) as pointed both here and at x. 16. 6.

restituerit … imposueri[n]t: against N's imposuerint, I have adopted imposuerit, found in some of Drakenborch's mss and doubtless in other recentiores. The constructio ad sensum given by Romanus populus followed by a plural is easy enough (see W–M on ii. 14. 8, K–S i. 22–4), but it is easier to believe that the pointless and pg 656inelegant switch from singular to plural was made by a scribe rather than by L. himself.

quam coloni eorum Fregellas appellent: that the Roman colonists adopted a name which the Samnites thought that they had obliterated added insult to injury.

8. cum Romanus legatus ad disceptandum eos ad communes socios atque amicos uocaret: though the Greeks regularly asked a third party to settle a dispute between two states, it is difficult to find certain evidence for Rome's adoption of this practice before c.200 bc. According to D.H. (ii. 76. 3, iv. 25. 6, v. 61. 5), Numa and Servius Tullius encouraged such arbitration amongst the Latins, and the Latins later offered to arbitrate between Rome and Aricia; but there was no mechanism by which such details could be transmitted from such an early period to D.H., whose narrative is notoriously full of seemingly plausible inventions; and for the same reason we should not accept the alleged desire of the Romans to have Porsenna arbitrate between themselves and the Tarquins (D.H. v. 32. 2, Plut. mor. 250b [quaest. Rom. 14], Zon. vii. 12). The famous story of Rome being asked to arbitrate between Ardea and Aricia in 446 and then appropriating the disputed land for herself (iii. 71. 1–72. 7, D.H. xi. 52. 1–4) at first sight seems more promising, and may indeed contain a kernel of truth; but it bears a suspicious similarity to similar Roman behaviour with regard to a dispute between Neapolis and Nola (Cic. off. i. 33) and it is hard to relate to the known facts of fifth-century history (see Ogilvie's notes). At ix. 14. 1–7 (320) L. records an attempt by the Tarentini to arbitrate between Rome and the Samnites. This may reflect a genuine memory of how the Tarentini conducted themselves in the Second Samnite War (see 25. 7 n.), but it appears in one of the most unreliable portions of L.'s history, and the Romans are anyway said to have dismissed the offer. More probably authentic is the specious offer of Pyrrhus to arbitrate between Rome and Tarentum in 280 (Plut. Pyrrh. 16. 4–5), but this was again rejected by Rome. Thus the Roman offer here to seek independent arbitration is both improbable in itself and rendered doubly suspect by its failure to appear in D.H. (see 22. 5–27. 11 n. above). It was clearly invented to make Rome's motives for going to war seem even more righteous. A parallel for this invention may be found in Dio's notoriously unreliable account of the outbreak of the First Punic War (fr. 43. 5–6 and 10), where C. Claudius is made to offer Rome's services in settling the dispute between Messana and Carthage in 264: this pg 657detail was concocted to show Carthage refusing arbitration and thus make Rome's aid to Messana seem all the more just. See further Matthaei (1908) and Gruen (1984) 96–131, esp. 99–101.

For ad ('before', 'in front of') cf. e.g. xxiv. 43. 2, xxxviii. 55. 4 'ad hunc … praetorem reus extemplo factus L. Scipio', and see K–S i. 519 and OLD s.u. 17.

inquit: presumably the chief magistrate of the Samnites.

non uerba … decernet: for the contrast between words and action, see vii. 32. 12 n., for communis Mars belli, vii. 8. 1 n.

campus Campanus, in quo concurrendum est: for campus here cf. Virg. Aen. xii. 80 'illo quaeratur coniunx Lauinia campo'.

Link 9. inter Capuam Suessulamque: the third battle of 343 had taken place here; see vii. 37. 4–17. For Capua and Suessula, see vii. 29. 4 and 37. 4 nn.

Link castra castris conferamus: this expression is a variant on the more regular castra conferre; cf. e.g. iv. 27. 5, x. 32. 5, Cic. diu. ii. 114, Caes. ciu. iii. 79. 3, [Al.] 61. 2, Hirt. Gall. viii. 9. 2, and see Landgraf (1888) 177 and TLL iv. 180. 79–84. On this kind of substantival parataxis, see in general vii. 10. 10 n.

Link et Samnis Romanusue imperio Italiam regat decernamus: the idea that the Second Samnite War was a struggle for hegemony in Italy is found in L. only here and at x. 16. 7 (296 bc) 'Romanos … dimicare pro salute sua non de intolerando Italiae regno cogant'; but cf. also D.S. xix. 72. 3, 101. 1 τὰ γὰρ μαχιμώτατα τῶν κατὰ τὴν Ἰταλίαν ἐθνῶν περὶ ἡγεμονίας φιλοτιμούμενα παντοίους συνίσταντο κινδύνους‎, xx. 80. 3, and App. Samn. 4. 1 (quoted at 38. 1–40. 5 n. below). When Rome finally was victorious in the Third Samnite and Pyrrhic Wars she did indeed find it easy to overrun peninsular Italy, but the notion that such a regnum was at stake in 327 is anachronistic.

10. ituros esse respondissent ⟨ … ⟩: the words ituros esse respondissent are not found in M1, and Madvig (1860: 168–9 = 1877: 198–200) regarded them as a marginal gloss which what I term Π‎ and Λ‎ had mistakenly incorporated; but they are inoffensive, and M will have omitted them through parablepsy after duxissent.

It is quite certain, however, that iam Publilius and what follows cannot serve as the main clause to legati … respondissent. The early conjecture tum se … responderunt was proposed to heal this corruption; but, to mention only the most obvious objections, the account of the actions of the Roman legates still seems unduly truncated, and Publilius Philo is introduced rather swiftly. Accordingly the pg 658text must be lacunose, but the extent of the lacuna is disputed. Madvig held that in a lost leaf of manuscript L. described the declaration of war and the march of Publilius Philo to Palaepolis; but no reference to Publilius is needed (his arrival at Palaepolis is implied at 23. 2), and, though a declaration of war would suit L.'s description of the activities of Lentulus at 23. 1, it would make a curious doublet with 25. 2 (for these problems see 22. 7–27. 11 n.). A lacuna of this size is thus unlikely. Luterbacher supplied just domum rediere; but, despite the arguments of Schwarte (1971: 369–72), this would give rather a limp end to the fetial scene, and it seems best to believe that rather more has been omitted (perhaps e.g. a report to the senate).

11. comitiorum dies: a standard expression; cf. e.g. iii. 34. 7, xxvi. 18. 6, Cic. Mil. 42, Sall. Cat. 26. 5, Iug. 36. 4, and see TLL v. 1. 1059. 57–60.

in dies may here be rendered 'which might happen any day'; for this sense cf. xxvi. 12. 9 'patriae occasum cum suo exitio in dies exspectabant' and xxxiv. 11. 4. More normally the expression means 'as the days proceed'; cf. xxii. 43. 2 and OLD s.u. dies 3b. See also K–S i. 565–6.

12. The prorogation of the consular imperium of Q. Publilius Philo

Our sources record the following prorogations and extraordinary commands for the period before the First Punic War:

478

K. Fabius (cos. 479): proconsul (D.H. ix. 16. 3)

478

Sp. Furius (cos. 481): proconsul (D.H. ix. 16. 4, 17. 5)

464

T. Quinctius (cos. 465): proconsul (iii. 4. 10, D.H. ix. 63. 2)

326

Q. Publilius Philo (cos. II 327): proconsul (viii. 23. 12, 26. 7, F.T.)

309

Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (cos. II 310): proconsul (F.T.)

307

Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (cos. III 308): proconsul (ix. 42. 2)

296

Q. Fabius Maximus Rullianus (cos. IV 297): proconsul (x. 16. 1)

296

P. Decius Mus (cos. II 297): proconsul (x. 16. 1)

295

L. Volumnius Flamma (cos. II 296): proconsul (x. 22. 9)

295

L. Postumius Megellus (cos. I 305): propraetor (x. 26. 15)

295

Cn. Fulvius Centumalus (cos. 298): propraetor (x. 26. 15)

295

L. Cornelius Scipio (cos. 298): propraetor (x. 25. 11)

pg 659

295

M. Livius Denter (cos. 302): propraetor (x. 29. 3)

291

Q. Fabius Gurges (cos. I 292): proconsul (D.H. xvii. 4. 4, Dio fr. 36. 31, Zon. viii. 1. 14)

280

L. Aemilius Barbula (cos. 281): proconsul (F.T.)

Our passage makes a convenient starting-point for a general consideration of this evidence. Several factors support the authenticity of the notices relating to the prorogation of the command of Publilius Philo: the explicit testimony of L. and F.T. that this was the first time in Roman history that such a prorogation had been voted; the folly of replacing a commander simply to hold the elections in a war which—unusually for Rome—was involving a lengthy siege and was nearing completion; the constitutional crisis which led to Rome's having no chief executive magistrates for seventy days, and therefore no one to replace Philo; and the extra flexibility which a proconsular army gave when the Samnites had to be fought not only at Neapolis but also near Capua and in the Liri valley. Against these considerations the argument that a prorogation is unlikely at so early a date (Beloch [1926] 416, with reference to ix. 42. 2) seems of slight worth.

Once it is accepted that the prorogation of Philo was the first ever at Rome, then it is easy to dismiss the alleged prorogations of 478 as anachronistic fictions. The proconsulate of T. Quinctius Capitolinus in 464 should also be rejected, although the argument that the notices in L. and D.H. hide the fact that he was a commander of the Latin league is quite attractive (see e.g. Ogilvie on iii. 4. 10 with bibliography). The notice of F.T. relating to 309 may also be dismissed: once it was decided that Rullianus triumphed in the imaginary dictator year 309 rather than in 310, then a prorogation had to be invented for him. Of the other notices assembled above only the authenticity of that relating to 307 is really problematic (for full discussion see ix. 42. 4–10 n.).

Prorogation came into being as a useful expedient at a time of military and political crisis, and (if we discount the possible exception of Rullianus in 307) it reappears next as a device for sidestepping the rigidity of the constitution in a time of military crisis. For most of the early proconsular and propraetorian commands are found in 296–295, the climactic years of the Third Samnite War: in no other period during the Italian Wars did Rome have to fight on so many fronts and have such need of experienced commanders. The prorogations of the commands of Decius and Fabius Rullianus into 296 allowed this successful pair of consuls to continue at the pg 660head of armies. And in 295, the year of Sentinum, we find all the consuls of 298–295 with commands: the consuls for 297 had been elected again; of the consuls for 296 one was praetor,1 the other proconsul; and Cn. Fulvius and L. Scipio, consuls in 298, were given propraetorian imperium. These last two men (like L. Postumius Megellus and M. Livius Denter) had not held office in 296 and were thus voted their commands as priuati. This new development again reveals the sensible flexibility with which in these years of crisis the Romans were prepared to use proconsular and propraetorian commands. The prorogation of the commands of Fabius Gurges into 291 and of Aemilius Barbula into 280 may be explained once more by the numerous fronts on which the Romans were operating in, respectively, the penultimate year of the Third Samnite War and the first full year of the Pyrrhic War, and also by Gurges' being on the point of delivering a crushing blow against the eastern Samnites.

The authenticity of the notices relating to the Third Samnite War may be supported by two further observations: after 302/1 no dictator rei gerundae causa was appointed until the First Punic War; and, with the exceptions of the consulships of Fabius Rullianus and Decius Mus in the extraordinary year of Sentinum, of M. Valerius Maximus in 299, and of L. Postumius Megellus in 292, the ten-year rule concerning iteration (see above, pp. 24–5) was kept after 308. The use of prorogation and the employment of priuati obviated the need for dictators and reinforced the rule on iteration, ensuring at the same time that the right men commanded Rome's armies; and, if x. 15. 7–12 may be trusted,2 the elections of 297 provide a striking illustration of this: the fact that Rullianus was voted pro-consular imperium and not the consulship itself (as L. suggests that many Romans desired) ensured that for at least one more year the rule was upheld.

All prorogations must originally have been agreed by the people on the recommendation of the senate; cf. x. 22. 9 'et L. Volumnio ex senatus consulto et scito plebis prorogatum in annum imperium est' and see Kloft, RE Suppl. xv. 457. Some scholars (e.g. Walbank on Plb. vi. 15. 6) have argued on the basis of Polybius and later passages of L. (e.g. xxiv. 10. 3, xxxi. 8. 9) that popular ratification ceased to be necessary by the end of the third century. However, this seems implausible and would be out of line with other Roman constitutional developments: it is easier to believe that routine popular approval of senatorial decisions continued until the end of pg 661the Republic, but was not always recorded by L. and others. Certainly one should not follow Walbank and take ix. 42. 2 'senatus in insequentem annum … prorogauit … imperium' as good evidence that as early as 307 the people were not consulted.

See further Jashemski (1950) 1–16, 100, Walbank on Plb. vi. 15. 6, Develin (1975a), Kloft (1977) esp. 18–26 and RE Suppl. xv. 444–463, Hölkeskamp (1987) 136–40 and Loreto (1993) 35–77, esp. 38–9.

12. actum cum tribunis est ad populum ferrent ut is the first instance of what was to become stock language for L.; cf. xxvi. 2. 5 'agendum cum tribunis plebis esse, primo quoque tempore ad plebem ferrent quem cum imperio mitti placeret in Hispaniam', 33. 11 'itaque censeo cum tribunis plebis agendum esse ut eorum unus pluresue rogationem ferant ad plebem qua nobis statuendi de Campanis ius fiat', xxix. 19. 6 'agique cum tribunis plebis ut de imperio eius abrogando ferrent ad populum', 20. 9, xxx. 27. 3, xxxi. 50. 8, xxxix. 19. 4, xlv. 35. 4. Only in our passage and at xxx. 27. 3 does L. replace plebem with the technically incorrect populum.

quoad debellatum cum Graecis esset: for prorogation to complete a task cf. xxx. 1. 10 (204/3) 'et Lucretio prorogatum imperium ut Genuam oppidum a Magone Poeno dirutum exaedificaret. P. Scipioni non temporis sed rei gerendae fine, donec debellatum in Africa foret, prorogatum imperium est' and xlv. 16. 2 (168/7) 'et Macedoniam Illyricumque eosdem, L. Paullum et L. Anicium, obtinere donec de sententia legatorum res et bello turbatas et ⟨in⟩ statum alium ex regno formandas composuissent'. (At xxvii. 7. 17 and xxxii. 28. 9 we find prorogation until the appointment or arrival of a successor; but in practice at the end of his period of office a consul or praetor serving overseas or far from Rome would have had to assume that he was prorogued until his successor arrived, even if there had been no formal vote.)

23. 13–17. The dictatorship of M. Claudius Marcellus and subsequent interregna

Much of L.'s reporting of these events seems wholly credible. The gravity of the Neapolitan War and the threat of war with the Samnites will have made it all but impossible for either consul to return home to hold the elections. In such circumstances the creation of a dictatorship comitiorum causa was inevitable, and one would have expected Lentulus, the patrician consul, to have been pg 662entrusted with the nomination. His choice of Marcellus, however, provided Rome with only her third plebeian dictator (after C. Marcius Rutilus in 356 [vii. 17. 6] and Q. Publilius Philo in 339 [12. 13]), and, given in addition the comparative novelty of nomination in castris (vii. 12. 9 n.) and the scruples which were then current about plebeians taking charge of the elections (see above, pp. 20–2), patrician and augural objections were hardly surprising. These objections led to the enforced resignation of Marcellus, the fourteen interregna (lasting seventy days), and (it seems) the election of the plebeian Poetelius to the consulate before the patrician Papirius Cursor (thus probably giving Poetelius the right to hold the elections for 325). All this amounted to another grave crisis in the Struggle of the Orders, a crisis doubtless exacerbated by the threat of war with the Samnites.

L. gives the tribunes of the plebs judicious comments on the augural decision, but his sources are most unlikely to have had authentic evidence for opinions uttered in 327. Münzer, RE iii. 2737–8, suggested that the whole episode might be a retrojection of the vitiated election of the great Marcellus to a suffect consulship in 215 (xxiii. 31. 12–14); but the circumstances of that year (when for the first time the election of a pair of plebeian consuls was a possibility) seem rather different. For further discussion of this episode see Jahn (1970) 87–9, Rilinger (1976) 21, Hölkeskamp (1987) 117–18, and Loreto (1993) 61.

13. impetu belli: quite a common coupling; cf. e.g. xxvi. 30. 1, Cic. imp. Pomp. 34, Mur. 33, Planc, ap. Cic. fam. x. 8. 6, and TLL ii. 1843. 75–8. Foster's rendering 'from the vigorous prosecution of the war' is very apt.

14. M. Claudium Marcellum: see 18. 1 n.

Sp. Postumius: see 16. 12 n.

14–16. uitione creatus esset … uitii … uitii: for the concept of uitium in Roman religion, see vi. 27. 4–5 n.

14. in disquisitionem uenit: disquisitio is neither common nor rare in pre-Antonine Latin (eight instances are listed at TLL v. 1. 1450. 79–1451. 7); this coupling is found also at xxvi. 31. 2, the only other occasion on which L. uses the word.

consulti augures uitiosum uideri dictatorem pronuntiauerunt: cf. esp. xxiii. 31. 13 'uocati augures uitio creatum uideri pronuntiauerunt'; similar language also at 15. 6 'cum augures uitio creatum uideri dixissent'. For uideri, see 10. 12 n.

pg 663

15. criminando: see vi. 5. 3 n.

consul oriens nocte silentio diceret dictatorem: cf. ix. 38. 14 'nocte deinde silentio, ut mos est, L. Papirium dictatorem dixit', xxiii. 22. 11 'nocte proxima, ut mos erat, M. Fabium Buteonem … dictatorem in sex menses dixit', Dio fr. 36. 26 νυκτὸς γὰρ πάντως ἐκ τῶν πατρίων τὸν δικτάτορα ἔδει λέγεσθαι‎, and Vel. Long. gramm. Lat. vii. 74. 18–19 'oriri enim apud antiquos surgere frequenter significabat, ut appareret ex eo quod dicitur "oriens consul magistratum populi (i.e. a dictator) dicat" '. The ceremony had to be performed at night because of the need to obtain favourable auspices; cf. Cic. leg. iii. 9 'isque aue sinistra dictus populi magister esto' and x. 40. 2 for nocturnal taking of the auspices. For a fascinating description of what constituted a silentium, see Fest. 474 (also Cic. diu. ii. 71). See further Mommsen (1887–8) i. 98 n. 1, ii. 151–2.

N's oriente nocte is not in itself impossible (one may translate 'as night began' and compare Enn. ann. 419 'montibus obstipis obstantibus, unde oritur nox'), but is hardly appropriate here, since (i) the evidence of Velius Longus, quoted above, suggests very strongly that it should agree with consul, and (ii) the evidence quoted above suggests that the silentium was at the dead, and not the beginning, of night. We must therefore emend either to oriens nocte (Rubenius) or oriens de nocte (Drakenborch, tentatively). Drakenborch's conjecture perhaps takes more account of the ductus litterarum (and that de nocte is not found elsewhere in L. is hardly a strong argument against it; see the passages cited at OLD s.u. nox 1d); but with the ablative nocte following it is easy to see how oriens could have been corrupted into oriente, and in view of the parallel at ix. 38. 14 I have preferred to follow Rubenius.

16. mortalium is a choice variant for hominum (vi. 16. 4 n.); it is especially appropriate here in a context which suggests the limits of human knowledge of the divine.

sedentes: sedeo is the mot juste for augural activity; cf. e.g. Varr. rust. iii. 2. 2, Luc. vii. 192–3, and esp. Serv. Aen. ix. 4 'sed secundum augures "sedere" est augurium captare; namque post designatas caeli partes a sedentibus captantur auguria'.

dirimeret: for dirimere used in the context of the termination of proceedings by augurs or by omens, cf. e.g. i. 36. 6, Cic. leg. ii. 31, diu. i. 85, Plin. nat. viii. 223, and Tac. hist. i. 18. 1.

17. tandem: N read tamen, but the adversative particle is very difficult after nequiquam. Grunauer (1882: 11) suggested deletion (the corruption, he held, having arisen from a dittography of -ta). pg 664This is possible, but more pointed sense is given by writing tandem (reported by Drakenborch from Dresden Dc 126, Burn. 201. 1c, Burn. 201. 2, and the lost Portugallicus, and doubtless found in many more recentiores): 'finally (sc. after all this argument) the government went back to an interregnum'.

ad interregnum res rediit: see vi. 1. 5 n.

quartus decimus demum interrex: for the probable authenticity of such notices, see vol. i, pp. 45–8.

L. Aemilius: see vii. 39. 17 n.

C. Poetelius is identified by chron. ann. 354 with the consul of 360, but it is perhaps more likely that his son, the dictator of 313, held office in this year; see vii. 11. 2, ix. 28. 2 nn.

L. Papirium Mugillanum: (67). We have a parallel problem at ix. 15. 11, where L. was uncertain whether the consul of 319 was L. Papirius Cursor or L. Papirius Mugillanus; for that year F.C. and F.T. favour Cursor, but chron. ann. 354 has the notice 'Murillano III'. The Mugillani are last mentioned in our sources for 380 (see F.C.), but it is not impossible that after a gap in office-holding of some fifty years they should again have appeared in the Fasti. What renders this improbable, however, is the frequent testimony to Papirius Cursor holding five consulates and the fact that 319 would have been his third consulate (but hardly the third of this Mugillanus); Münzer, RE xviii. 3. 1040–1, must therefore have been correct to argue that in some sources Papirius Cursor also bore the cognomen Mugillanus.

Cursorem: for the career of Papirius Cursor, see 12. 2 n.

in aliis annalibus inuenio: see vii. 18. 10 n.

Notes

1 For this method of extending imperium, see x. 22. 9 n.

2 But for the likelihood of annalistic or Livian invention behind this notice, see n. ad loc.

logo-footer Copyright © 2018. All rights reserved.
Access is brought to you by Log out