pg 41827C. Licinius Macer
F1 Immediately after the passage quoted comes the famous and more canonical version of the birth of Romulus and Remus, ascribed by the OGR to Fabius Pictor (1 F4c) and Vennonius (13 F1), in which Rhea Silvia is said to have been impregnated by Mars and to have given birth to the twins. The clear implication of the OGR is that Macer either rejected the canonical version of Pictor or at least supplemented it with a very different version of the tale.
In DH, Plutarch's Romulus, and Livy a rationalizing version that may be connected with Macer is set against the traditional version of the foundation legend that was recounted by Pictor and others. DH (77.1–2) offers three variant versions of Rhea's impregnation, in all of which she was violated whilst performing her duties as Vestal Virgin: in the first she was violated by a suitor; in the second by Amulius, who had dressed up in armour so as to disguise himself; in the third and most popular (οἱ δὲ πλεῖστοι μυθολογοῦσι) by the local deity, who prophesied that she would give birth to twins. At 79.1, after the twins have been thrown into the river, he summarizes: up to this point his authorities have told similar tales, although some are closer to the truth (τῇ ἀληθείᾳ), others to the fabulous (τὸ μυθωδέστερον), but in what follows they vary. Next (79.2–3) he reports that some of his authorities say that Rhea was killed at once, others that she was kept locked away (her cousin having begged for her life) and released only after Amulius' death; he offers no verdict on the truth of either tale. As for the twins, he narrates (79.4–83.3) the canonical and famous story, as found in Pictor (1 F4a) (whom, he says, Cincius (2 F1), Cato (5 F14), and Piso (9 F5) follow), from their exposure in a basket to the overthrow of Amulius. At 84.1–8, however, he notes that other writers reject this tale (especially the story of the exposure of the twins and their being suckled) as 'full of dramatic implausibility' (δραματικῆς μεστὸν ἀτοπίας) and belonging to the μυθωδεστέρα. These writers say that Numitor substituted other children for the twins, who were handed over to Faustulus, Amulius' chief shepherd. The twins were suckled not by a she-wolf but rather by Larentia, Faustulus' wife, who had once been a prostitute, for which the Latin word is lupa, which also means she-wolf. They were sent to Gabii for their education. Later, the quarrel between the herdsmen was engineered by Numitor. Amulius agreed to let him punish the delinquents, but they used the opportunity to overthrow him.
Plutarch too ascribes (3.1) the canonical version to Fabius Pictor (1 F4b), and narrates (3.2–4.2) the tale of Rhea's impregnation, the exposure, and the suckling of the she-wolf largely from it. He too mentions (4.3–5) the variants in which the impregnation is ascribed to Amulius and the suckling to Acca Larentia, who had been a prostitute, and he notes that some criticized the traditional version as involving pg 419τὸ μυθῶδες ('the mythical'). He ascribes (8.9) his account (6.1–8.9) of the growing up of the twins and the overthrow of Amulius to Fabius, and indeed it coincides closely with that found in DH; but he notes (6.1) that ὡς ἔνιοι φασι τῶν εἰκότων ἐχόμενοι μᾶλλον ('as some say who pay more regard to probability') Numitor arranged for the twins to be given to Faustulus and for their education in Gabii, and this corresponds to what DH ascribes to those who criticized the canonical Fabian version. Livy's account (1.3.10–6.1) is brief. He too follows the version of Fabius (not, however, explicitly), but expresses doubts (4.2) about Mars' paternity of the twins and mentions (4.7) the variant that Larentia was a prostitute.
These summaries show that those who criticized the canonical version nevertheless accepted large parts of it: the unscrupulousness of Amulius with regard to his brother, Rhea's giving birth to the twins, their being reared by Faustulus, the quarrel between Romulus and Remus and the shepherds of Numitor, and the part played by the twins in the overthow of Amulius. They took it as the starting point for their own versions. What they criticized was the miraculous: twice DH and Plutarch contrast versions which contain the fabulous with those which explain away such elements of the tale, especially Rhea's impregnation and the suckling by the she-wolf. They also provided a rationalizing version of the quarrel between the shepherds that led eventually to the overthrow of Amulius: there was no miraculous chance recognition between Numitor and Remus, since Numitor had planned the whole episode.
What the OGR reports from Macer has much in common with what these writers said: note the rationalizing version of the impregnation (similar to one of the versions reported by DH), the fate of Rhea at the hands of Amulius, and Numitor's handing of the twins to Faustulus after substituting other children for them. Macer also wrote (F2) that they were nursed by Acca Larentia, the wife of Faustulus. It is therefore very likely that Macer was one of the writers mentioned by DH and Plutarch as critical of the canonical version. This would chime well with the rationalizing that he displays elsewhere (see introduction, I. 327).
However, DH implies that more than one writer adopted this rationalizing version, and Macer may not have been its inventor. Gellius, whom Macer used elsewhere, is not listed by DH amongst those who follow Pictor and therefore may have had it. Antias certainly adopted a rationalizing version of the tale, and his history may have pre-dated Macer's: see Antias 25 F1 with comm.; and OGR 21.3, which describes Numitor's active involvement in the twins' education at Gabii, may likewise derive from him. Walt 151 speculates that the version in which Rhea is impregnated by a suitor (DH 1.77. 1) derives from Antias: she is right to note that the beginning of our fragment suggests that Macer and Octavius told the tale of the impregnation differently from Antias, who has just been mentioned; but the failure of the OGR to cite Antias for the impregnation means that we cannot be certain. Nor was Macer necessarily DH's main source for his rationalizing version: DH may have fused different versions, followed Antias, or used a writer other than Antias or Macer (e.g. Gellius). Walt 155 argues that both Macer (F2) and DH (1.84.4) call Larentia Faustulus' wife while Antias (25 F2) calls her his amica and that this suggests that DH did indeed make direct use of Macer; but DH's γυναῖκα … συνοικοῦσαν leaves the status of Larentia ambiguous.
Walt 151 suggests quite plausibly that the disguise adopted by Amulius in his rape (DH 1.77.1) may have made him look like Mars and hence provided a rationalizing explanation for Macer and others of why Rhea ascribed her rape to Mars. She notes too that the precise chronological indicator at DH 1.77.1 can be paralleled elsewhere in Macer (see F12; but F2 is irrelevant, and F12 shows that this technique was used also by Gellius.).
By far the best discussion of this fragment is Walt 150–5, 212–14. For this part of the tale see also e.g. Wissowa, RE 6. 2090–1 and Rosenberg, RE 1A. 343–4. On M. Octavius see no.107.
F2 The story of Acca Larentia comes in two main forms. In one she is a prostitute who lived at the time of Ancus Marcius and who was said to have slept with Hercules. In the other (probably secondary) she was the wet-nurse and stepmother of Romulus and Remus. For the particulars of these versions (which vary somewhat in different authors), see Cato 5 F16 with commentary (for which more of this passage of Macrobius is quoted). This note deals only with issues pertaining to Macer, about whose treatment of the tale the following observations may be made.
(a) He recounted the secondary version of the legend.
(b) In doing so he continued his rationalizing version of the foundation legend (for fuller discussion see above on F1), here making grateful use of the ambiguity of the Latin word lupa, which allowed the she-wolf of Fabius Pictor to be eliminated by equating her with a prostitute.
(c) If OGR 21.1–2 correctly reports Antias (25 F2), then Antias too adopted this rationalizing version. However, Macer differs from Antias in making Acca Faustulus' wife and not his amica, and this looks like a further development of the tale.
(d) By stating that Acca remarried after Faustulus' death, he incorporated a detail found in some accounts of the other version, namely that Acca had acquired her wealth by marriage to a Carutius (see e.g. Macrobius §§12–15). In doing this Macer differed from Cato (5 F16), who probably recounted the primary version, and Antias (25 F3), who probably recounted the secondary version: both wrote that her wealth had come from prostitution. Whether or not Macer was the first to make this connection (see below), the successful combination of a variant from the other legend is typical of his rationalizing outlook.
(e) Both Cato and others (see Gell. 7.7.6) stated that Acca left her money to the Roman people (and this seems to have been standard in the primary version of the tale); in Macer, as in Antias, she left her money to Romulus.
Mommsen (RF 2. 14–21; cf. Seeck, Kalendertafel (1885), 46–7) argued that Macer was the first both to insert Acca into the foundation legend and to adopt the rationalizing version of the lupa story. For evidence which may invalidate the first proposition, see on Cato 5 F16. The second proposition is not impossible, but, as observed on F1, Antias, perhaps writing earlier than Macer, included the rationalizing version, and we know nothing about Cn. Gellius' treatment of the story. Hodgkinson (C. Licinius Macer (1997), 4) attractively speculates that Macer may have been drawn to the rationalizing version of the story by a translingual pun between λύκαινα ('she-wolf') and his own family name.
F3 This fragment comprises the penultimate sentence of the OGR as now printed by editors; it is followed by the sentence quoted under Egnatius 105 F1. The author has just described the augural contest to decide whether Romulus or Remus was to found the new city.
The Origo does not recount the commonest version of Remus' death, in which he jumped over the ditch or foundations for walls that marked the boundary of the new city and was killed for this, either by Romulus (Enn. ann. 94–5, Cic. off. 3.41, Hor. epod. 7.18–20) or by Celer (DH 1.87.4; for further references see on Antias 25 F4). Our version is found also at Liv. 1.7.1–2, DH 1.87.1–4 (a longer narrative preceding the passage just cited), Serv. Aen. 1.273, 6.779, and, perhaps, Zon. 7.3 (p. 90 Dindorf), but only DH mentions the death of Faustulus as well as that of Remus. Plutarch (Rom. 10.2) fuses the two versions: he leaves it uncertain who killed Remus after he made his leap but adds that Faustulus and his brother Plistinus were killed in the fight.
Once again DH provides the most important parallel narrative. In calling his longer version (which includes an account of the augural contest similar to that found in the OGR and a reference to the deaths of both Faustulus and Remus) (§4) ὁ πιθανώτατος τῶν λόγων ('the most credible of versions') and contrasting it with the other version, he repeats the pattern found in his account of the birth and upbringing of the twins. It is therefore very tempting again to see a contrast between the canonical version of Pictor (which involved Celer) and a rationalizing version in which the silly jump over the wall was eliminated; and once again the coincidence between the citation of Macer in the OGR and DH's fuller narrative makes it attractive to think that Macer's account was very similar to DH's rationalizing version. As Walt notes, with its account of passion and remorse, this version makes the figures of Romulus and Remus seem very human. However, with so many variants of the legend attested, and with all Macer's own sources (including especially Cn. Gellius) lost, it would be unwise to insist that he introduced this variant on the foundation legend.
Walt 175 views this version of the myth as exculpating Romulus from responsibility for Remus' death. If this is right, one may compare his treatment of Tatius' death at F9. Wiseman (Remus, 143) argues that both DH (1.87.1–3) and Livy (1.6.4) see the whole story as an example of the tragedies that can spring from the pursuit of power and that a comment from Macer is therefore likely to underlie their narratives. Since Macer may have regarded the end of Romulus' reign as verging on tyranny (see comm. on F15), this view is also attractive, but the coincidence in tone between DH and Livy is not as close as Wiseman suggests. Hodgkinson (Histos (1997), 1) speculates that Macer may have regarded the tale as aetiological for later civil strife at Rome.
See further Walt 155–7, 219–20.
We have printed exitum because, despite Paul. Fest. 71.7–8 exitium antiqui ponebant pro exitu; nunc exitium pessimum exitum dicimus, Schott's conjecture, made without comment in the 1579 edn., is likely to be correct: (a) 'outcome' gives much better sense than 'ruin'; (b) perniciosus qualifying exitium is tautologous and unparalleled; and (c) perniciosus qualifying exitus is paralleled at Cic. Q. f. 3.7.1 and Tac. hist. 1.83.2. The word conceivably occurred in Macer's text.
F4 Nonius cites this fragment to illustrate luculentum. The context is uncertain, but the content and the transmitted book number lend plausibility to Krause's suggestion (237) of the contest between Romulus and Remus for the auspices.
For pulcher qualifying auspicium cf. Sil. 5.119–20; for its qualifying the analogous augurium see Tac. ann. 2.17.2; for its modifying auguro, cf. Acc. praet. 37–8; but see above all its double use in the most famous of all passages to deal with the auspices and augury, Enn. ann. 86–9 Sk., describing precisely the contest between the twins. This evidence suggests that it may have been regular in augural contexts (since praepes too is regular in these contexts, perhaps cf. also Enn. ann. 457 Sk. Brundisium pulcro praecinctum praepete portu). It is coupled with luculentus also at Plaut. Corn. fr. 3, cited by Nonius immediately after our passage; note too Men. 132 and 141, where a facinus is described as pulchrum and a few lines later as luculentum. Our passage suggests that luculentus could perhaps have augural connotations, and Maltby (TLL 7.2.1747.76–81) may well be right to discern such connotations at Plaut. Epid. 343 pro di inmortales, mihi hunc diem dedistis luculentum!
F5 Priscian quotes this passage, of unknown context, in part of his discussion of the declension of nouns and adjectives ending in -es. Lebek, Verba prisca, 287, considers the (unlikely) possibility that Priscian may have misunderstood Macer and that quietes is a noun that is the subject of esse; for the plural he compares uitas at Quadrigarius 24 F29.
non minimo opere is an expression unique to Macer. In addition to the common, or relatively common, magno opere (or magnopere), tanto opere, quanto opere, and summo opere, analogous formulations with opere include maiore opere (found at Plaut. Cas. 73, Most. 763, and Cato 5 F87) and maximo opere (six instances in Plautus, one in Cato, three in Terence, one in Turpilianus, three in Cicero's ad familiares, two in A. Gellius, and one in Fronto, the two last often aping the vocabulary of archaic Latin). In using the superlative Macer stands closer to the language of earlier Latin than to that of future generations. See in general TLL 9.2.854.10–856.84.
For quietes: in addition to the passage of Naevius quoted by Priscian, a third declension form equivalent to those from the adjective quietus is attested at Apul. Plat. 2.5. Such forms are found also as equivalents for irrequietus and more commonly for inquietus (see e.g. Sallust, hist. 2.25 M, quoted by Priscian). See further Neue–Wagener 2. 169 and Lebek loc. cit.
F6 This fragment is almost impossible to comprehend, and the text presented by our MSS of Nonius is almost certainly corrupt. Our translation is only exempli gratia.
In his edition of Nonius Müller made a brave attempt to restore sense by proposing several emendations. In the lemma lues a rebus soluendis proposita, which immediately precedes the quotation of our fragment, he suggested the attractive <luendis id est> soluendis. Whether or not this is correct, the etymology of lues offered by Nonius is characteristic of ancient etymologizing; however, whereas he suggests that the word derives from things that needed removal or dissolution, Paul. Fest. 107 lues est diluens usque ad nihil, tractum a Graeco λύειν suggests the converse. When so much is uncertain, one cannot clearly refute Müller's leuandi for lauandi, which would allow the translation 'raising themselves up' or 'easing their own burden', but in the context pg 423of reluant and lue the idea of washing seems appropriate. However, a tentative suggestion on the lines of Müller's conjecture is made below. Likewise, Müller's supplement causa cannot be refuted but is unnecessary; for the final genitive gerundive not dependent on a noun, see, in addition to the texts cited by Risch (Gerundivum und Gerundium (Berlin and New York, 1984), 115, 142–3), Goodyear on Tac. ann. 2.59.1.
According to Fest. 352, reluere may be equivalent to either resoluere or repignerare. Modern scholars see here two different roots: the former attested only in our passage, the latter only at Caecil. fr. 105 R (quoted by Festus), [Cic.] Sall. 19, and Priscill. tract. 4.80. Müller's conjecture introduces the archaic spelling, but we have no idea how Macer would have spelt the third person plural of the present tense of reluere.
lues itself can have meanings varying from 'plague', 'contagion', 'affliction', 'corrupting influence', 'corrupt liquid', to 'gore'. Which is the appropriate translation here is far from clear, not least because reluere is so rare. On any interpretation lue is extremely difficult to construe, but, if sound, it is perhaps more naturally taken as an ablative of separation ('from gore') than an ablative of means ('with gore'). Müller proposed deletion of it, but, given Nonius' lemma, this is unlikely to be right.
Müller was probably right to think that the paradosis can be made intelligible only with substantial rewriting, but such rewriting is inevitably highly speculative. We tentatively observe that sense of some kind can be restored by emending nequaquam to nequiquam, and transposing lauandi reluant to releuandi lauant. This would give nequiquam sui releuendi lauant arma lue ('in a vain attempt to ease their burden they wash their arms from gore').
If the text is left largely unemended and the subjunctive reluant is retained, then Walt's suggestion that the fragment comes from a speech has plausibility (but whether the context is external or internal politics there is no knowing). Her more speculative suggestion that external and internal purity are contrasted likewise depends on leaving the text unemended.
See further Lebek, Verba prisca, 287.
F7 The context of all three passages is a discussion of the forms of the genitive and dative employed for alius and related words.
Three reasons may be advanced for doubting whether this fragment should be ascribed to Macer. (1) The least cogent is the MS reading Quintus in the third passage (c). Although it cannot be eliminated stemmatically and therefore in theory has a chance of being correct, it is not obvious who Quintus would be, and it is easier to accept C. Licinius, the likely reading of the paradosis in the other two passages (Krause considered ascribing the fragment to Clodius Licinus, without good reason). (2) The cognomen Macer is used in all other certain citations from Latin writers. (3) The thrice attested in II is awkward; it is hard to imagine that the fragment could belong anywhere else than in an account of the Pyrrhic War, and hard to see how Macer could have taken only two books to reach the Pyrrhic War (see introduction). Nevertheless, it is more likely that the quotation is from Macer than that some other unknown C. Licinius wrote about Pyrrhus. All would be much easier were it possible to show that the MS reading quintus in the third passage (c) is a corruption of C. Licinius in quinto (or better still quinto decimo), something perhaps hinted at by the pg 424reading of K in the second passage (b). That the reading in II is corrupt has often been argued: see e.g. Münzer, RE 13. 422; Ogilvie, JRS 48 (1958), 41 n. 3; Badian, 'Early historians', 36 n. 116: 'utterly incredible'; Frier, TAPhA 105 (1975), 95 n. 55. This problem is dealt with in more detail in the introduction, I. 322.
The Romans were uncertain whether it was preferable to use alius (historically more correct) or alii for the masculine and neuter genitive singular of alius. This uncertainty led to the avoidance of both forms and their replacement by alterius: alius is very rare, alii quite rare. See further TLL 1.1622.62–1623.17; Lebek, Verba prisca, 287; Leumann 479.
Apart from the passages of Cato (orat. F93 Malc. (=51 Cugusi)), Macer, and Coelius (15 F3) quoted by Priscian for alii modi, and of Fannius (12 F1) and Caesar quoted by him for alius modi, these expressions are attested elsewhere only at Gell. 17.5.14 (alius modi but followed by quam not ac/atque) and Paul. Fest. 25 alimodi pro alius modi (note too alii modi as a minor MS variant at Cic. inu. 2.21). Unlike e.g. eius modi and huius modi, they must have been obsolete by the mid-first century (that Caesar should have chosen to use one of them is surprising), to be revived only by the archaizing Gellius. See further TLL 1.1622.84–1623.4 and 8.1275.48–51.
Who is speaking to whom about Pyrrhus in the third passage (c) is unclear. Uncertainty about the original context of the fragment also makes it difficult to be sure what postulare means. At TLL 10.2.267.52–7 it is tentatively cited with Plaut. Capt. 186, Rud. 941, 1012, and Ter. Haut. 671, in some of which its meaning comes close to that of putare; but it displays little similarity to these passages. Roth's est for esse gives good sense, but the same uncertainty makes it unwise to accept it, since the paradosis is intelligible.
F8 Diomedes and Priscian cite this fragment in their discussion of the past tense of third conjugation verbs in -go.
Aemilius Macer died in 16 bc, and is known to have written an Ornithogonia and Theriaca, the latter indebted to Nicander's surviving didactic poem: for convenient discussion of him and further bibliography, see Courtney, FLP 292–9 and J. Blänsdorf, Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum (Stuttgart, 1995), 271–8. Several times his name has been corrupted by either authors or scribes into Licinius Macer: see rejected fragments, F28–30. Here the subject matter and absence of poetic rhythm suggests strongly that the reverse mistake has occurred. However, since the error is found in both Diomedes and Priscian, it is likely that it goes back to a common source, and that editors (including Peter, Walt, and Chassignet) have been wrong to emend the citing authors.
The expression omnium nostrum … auctoritatem makes it very probable that the fragment comes from a speech (Meyer, Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta (1833), 176 included it among the scanty oratorical fragments of Macer, but annalium refutes him). Since neither the tribunes nor the collected plebs are likely to have regarded themselves as possessing auctoritas, an utterance by a senator lamenting the slighting of the authority of the senate or of his family or of his friends is a plausible context. It is worth noting that the granting of patrum auctoritas to decisions made by the assemblies, especially the concilium plebis, was an important issue in the Struggle of the Orders, especially at the time of the passing of the leges Publiliae in 339 and the lex pg 425Hortensia in 287: see e.g. Oakley, Comm. 2. 523–7 and 4. 574–5. Alternatively, the decision to send troops to Sicily in 264 was a famous occasion in which senatorial authority was flouted (Pol. 1.11.1–3). However, other contexts are possible, for instance the slighting of the authority of the Roman people or a Roman embassy in some foreign affair.
We do not know either the scale of Macer's history or what he is likely to have included in his book 16 (see introduction). Livy included the passing of the lex Hortensia in his eleventh book; Macer may have been more expansive than Livy or may refer to some subsequent dispute between tribunes and senate. Münzer's argument (RE 13. 421–2) that the book number is corrupt is not compelling
For the past tense of diligo, intelligo, and neglego, see Neue–Wagener 3. 416; TLL 7.1.2096.72–5; Lebek, Verba prisca, 288; Leumann, 591. For all these verbs the form in -xi is regular, but forms in -legi, formed on (a probably false) analogy with lego and compounds like colligo, are attested in some MSS of some authors. For neglegi the best parallels are Sall. Cat. 51.24 (neglegeris P: -exeris cett.) and Iug. 40.1 (neglegisset β : -exisset cett.) (both forms in -leg- accepted by Reynolds, OCT 1991). As Lebek notes, there is no reason to think that Macer's use of this form was archaizing: forms in neglex- were standard in Latin before Macer (see e.g. Plaut. Amph. 586, Merc. 86, Cic. S. Rosc. 113) as well as after him. See also General Introduction, I. 34.
F9–12 are included under 'unassigned fragments', rather than in book 1 (as Walt, Peter), because Macer's narrative of Romulus may have continued into book 2.
F9 The context of this fragment is the death of Titus Tatius, of which DH (2.51.1–53.1) provides the longest extant account. He places it immediately after his discussion (2.50) of what Romulus and Tatius achieved in their joint reign, which included the conquest of Caenina. At 51.1–52.2 he recounts that some friends of Tatius had raided the territory of Lavinium, seized booty, and killed or wounded those who had opposed them. Romulus thought that those who were guilty should be handed over, but Tatius, mindful of his friends, prevailed in suggesting that those injured should make representations at Rome. Their representations, however, achieved nothing, and on their return they were attacked by some of Tatius' Sabines, resulting in more plunder, injuries, and deaths. Lavinium and neighbouring cities sent ambassadors to Rome, threatening war if they did not receive justice. Romulus regarded the behaviour of the Sabines as terrible and handed over to the ambassadors those who were guilty. Tatius felt insulted by this and was moved also by pity for those handed over; taking some troops, he overtook the ambassadors on the road and seized back those handed over. This is the point at which the passage quoted begins. After it, at 53.1, DH describes how Romulus exiled those who had attacked the Laurentian ambassadors but acquitted the Laurentians who had killed Tatius (they had been handed over by their own state), on the ground that they were merely avenging an outrage. Other extant narratives of the death of Tatius are Liv. 1.14.1–3, Plut. Rom. 23.1–5 (like Livy, he takes no notice of Macer's version and reports the notice that the death of Tatius was held by some to be not unwelcome to Romulus), Zon. 7.4, Varr. ling. 5.152, and Fest. 496.
DH writes οἱ περί Λικίννιον. The idiom οἱ περί + accusative of a person is regularly used of just one person: hence our translation. However, the usage is not invariable, and DH could imply that other writers adopted the same version. See LSJ περί C.I.2 and comm on Fabius 1 F7.
Macer's account is perhaps a rationalizing version of the tale, since it has a better logic: Tatius and Romulus were hardly likely to have ventured to Lavinium when a dispute was raging. It perhaps showed Tatius in a better light than some others, since he makes Tatius go to Lavinium to beg forgiveness for his friends and kinsmen. More certainly, it shows Romulus in a better light: he is not present at Lavinium, and therefore could not have assisted his co-regent; as Walt suggests (221), Macer perhaps adopted this version to counteract the view that Romulus rejoiced in the death of Tatius. Since Macer does not make Tatius go to Lavinium to sacrifice, he could not record his death by means of sacrificial instruments; however, Walt may be right to suggest that his choice of stoning reveals his antiquarian studies: although not used at Rome, stoning was used in Greece to dispose of those who had broken sacral law, as Tatius and his friends had done (on stoning see A. Völkl, DNP 11 (2001), 943–4, with further bibliography). If DH can be trusted, this passage shows that Macer both accepted the standard annalistic view that the senate functioned already in the regal period and regarded this as desirable.
DH's narrative allows the possibility that Macer described the preliminaries to the fateful expedition of the Laurentian ambassadors to Rome but does not prove that he did. Walt (221–2) writes 'Auch die bei Dionys vorangehenden Kapitel Ant. Rom. 2,51–52,2 sind voll von solchen staatsrechtlichen Anachronismen: Es ist die Rede von gesandtschaften, Auslieferungen, Prozessen, heiligem Recht und Gesetz', and she tentatively hypothesizes that DH used Macer as a source for the whole episode. However, such legalistic details occur so often in DH's and Livy's narratives of early Rome that it is hard not to believe that they were employed by many of their annalistic sources.
For full discussion see Poucet, Recherches, 276–92.
F10 The context of this passage is Censorinus' discussion of the varying length of the solar year in Italian cities. He contrasts the view of Macer and Fenestella with that of Fulvius, Varro, Suetonius, and others, who held that originally a year consisted of ten months. See further on Fenestella 70 F5
F11 For fuller citation of the surrounding context of this fragment, and for commentary on it, see Cassius Hemina 6 F21.
F12 John Malalas (otherwise known as John of Antioch; see I. 90–1), the sixth-century chronicler, devoted part of book 7 of his world chronicle to early Rome. This portion of the chronicle is preserved in the direct MS tradition only in O=Oxford, Bodl. Baroccianus 182. However, help in constituting the text may sometimes be had from Sl=an abbreviated Slavonic translation, the Suda, the Chronicon Paschale (cited from L. A. Dindorf's 1832 Bonn edn.), and the Chronicon of Georgius Monarchus (cited from the 1904 revision of C. De Boor's Leipzig edn.), all of whom drew directly or indirectly on this passage of Malalas. The text and apparatus given here are pg 427taken from the standard edition of J. Thurn (Berlin and New York, 2000), but it is occasionally supplemented or corrected, and in two places of no consequence a different reading has been printed. Where no reference is made to a source other than O, no help is available from the supplementary sources.
Malalas recounts, often in eccentric form, various legends from early Roman history and cites an impressive array of authorities for them, such as Virgil, Livy, Pliny, and Servius. There is general agreement that Malalas did not consult these authories at first hand, but it is disputed whether he made up these learned references (thus H. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die Byzantinische Chronographie 2 (Leipzig, 1885), 229) or derived them from an earlier source, such as the lost Domninos (thus E. Patzig, BZ 10 (1901), 256; E. Jeffreys, Byzantion 49 (1979), 221–2, and in E. Jeffreys et al. (eds.), Studies in John Malalas (Sydney, 1990), 167–216, esp. 185). The latter seems likely, not least because the references to Servius coincide with certain eccentricities in Servius' handling of early Roman legends (see Patzig, BZ 10 (1901), 603–4, who thinks direct consultation possible, and Jeffreys in E. Jeffreys et al. (eds.), Studies, 192). Our fragment is placed in chronological sequence and accepted as genuine by Peter but separated from the others by subsequent editors. Peter was right: it is the fate of writers who do not survive in their own MS traditions to suffer distortions from later writers who cite them, and, despite the extreme and anachronistic distortion, this remains a citation of Macer. That Macer was known and read in the eastern empire in late antiquity (when Malalas' source(s) are likely to have written) is a surprise.
Despite eccentricities in the telling of the story of the twins, the beginning of this passage has thematic coincidences with the rationalizing characteristic of Macer's treatment of the tale: Rhea is not impregnated by Mars, and the she-wolf is a prostitute and not an animal. These coincidences give some cause for optimism that Macer really does lie at some point behind the passage. Nevertheless, there are differences: the impregnator is Amulius in Macer, but a soldier in Malalas; and Numitor gives the twins to Faustulus in Macer but leaves them in a wood in Malalas. Hodgkinson (Histos 1997) is far more optimistic, holding that Macer's influence can be detected more widely in Malalas' account of Romulus. His main argument is that civil strife and a certain anti-Romulean tendency may be detected in many of Macer's fragments dealing with Romulus; but, quite apart from the fact that Malalas cites other authorities for other parts of the reign of Romulus, the coincidences in theme are throughout so slight and the Byzantine colour throughout so great, that this interesting hypothesis lacks probability, even though it is not certainly wrong.
Malalas' treatment of Romulus in this passage is an excellent example of his practice of providing bogus aetiologies for the customs of his own Byzantine times (see e.g. Jeffreys in E. Jeffreys et al. (eds.), Studies, 59–60). There is no early evidence for the festival called Brumalia, but at least from the time of Tertullian (idol. 10 and 14) the Romans celebrated it not at the winter solstice but on 24 November. In Byzantium this became the fully fledged festival called Brumalia, which lasted until 17 December and in which the alphabetical practice of invitation mentioned by Malalas was a prominent feature. For discussion of the festival see J. R. Crawford, BZ 23 (1920), 365–96. Crawford (371) suggests that Malalas substituted the Brumalia for the Parentalia that Roman sources, perhaps including Macer, ascribed to Romulus.
The sources that supplement O are most obviously of use at the end of the extract, where (pace Dindorf, Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Bonn, 1831), 180, and Peter, Walt, Beck–Walter, and Chassignet) Malalas must have written ὅ ἐστιν τραφῆναι ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων, which gives point to an otherwise pointless sentence. The correction was made first by Foerster (Duae Choricii in Brumalia Iustiniani et de Lydis orationes (Breslau, 1891), 6) and was rightly adopted by Crawford (BZ 23 (1920), 372) and Thurn.
F13 For full discussion see on Cn. Gellius 14 F23. Since Macer's interpretation of events often coincides with that of Gellius, he probably used Gellius regularly as a source (see I. 327), and our passage is therefore likely to be a deliberate correction of Gellius, whose date for Tarquin's arrival in Rome is some years too early on the traditional chronology (see on Cn. Gellius 14 F23 and Cornelius Nepos 45 F8). Macer's precision may seem absurd to moderns, since no genuine evidence for the date of Priscus' arrival in Rome could have been available; but he would not have known this, and the fragment is a good example of his attempt to write plausibly.
F14 This fragment comes from DH's account (5.44.1–47.4) of the war between Rome and the Sabines in 503 Varr. Both the triumph and ovation mentioned by DH are recorded in the fasti triumphales, the triumph alone at DH 6.96.1 and uir. ill. 18.1, the ovation alone at Plin. nat. 15.124 (with details different from DH), and the Roman victory at Zon. 7.13.9; the whole campaign is ignored by Livy (2.16.7–9), who, however, mentions a triumph over the Aurunci.
Strictly speaking, the only part of the passage quoted that constitutes a fragment of Macer is the statement that for the first time in this year the senate voted an ovation. DH, whose work is full of antiquarian information, may have drawn the rest of the material quoted from elsewhere, and indeed he explicitly states that he had read many discussions of the ovation. Nevertheless, Macer, who is mentioned immediately after the general reference to 'many accounts', very probably explained why Postumius was awarded only an ovation and not a full triumph, and probably described how the ovation differed from the full triumph.
For the criteria for awarding an ovation rather than a triumph see Gell. 5.6.21–7, Paul. Fest. 213; also Liv. 4.43.2, Val. Max. 2.8.1, Oros. 5.4.7. For general discussion of ovations see Rohde, RE 18. 1890–1903. DH's explanation for this ovation, perhaps taken from Macer, may reflect Roman practice after c.200, since then commanders who had incurred heavy losses seem to have been thwarted in their hopes of a triumph (see Brennan, in R. W. Wallace and E. M. Harris (eds.), Transitions to Empire (Norman, Okla., 1996), 331 n. 20; also Val. Max. loc. cit.) but hardly Roman practice before that year, since the proconsuls of 254 triumphed despite an earlier major naval disaster. Extreme optimists may wish to believe that either DH or Pliny reflect the debates of 503; but it is hard to think of any mechanism by which the details of such debates could have been transmitted into the Roman historical tradition, and the discrepancy between the two authors causes disquiet. Even if all or most of reports of ovations occurring before 211 are sound, the explanations for them given by Livy, DH, and Pliny probably do no more than reflect the debates of the later republic.
This passage of DH is our main source for the manner in which the ovation differed from the triumph. That a commander celebrating an ovation did not ride in a chariot is stated or implicit also at August. res gest. 4, Vell. 2.122.1, Val. Max. 2.8.7, Suet. Aug. 22, Tib. 9.2.
Other sources state or allow the inference that the commander celebrating an ovation wore a crown of myrtle—at least until 70, when Crassus insisted on wearing a laurel crown during his ovation for his victory over Spartacus (see Cic. Pis. 58, Plin. nat. 15.125, Plut. Marc. 22.2, Gell. 5.6.20–3, Paul. Fest. 213). DH is therefore aberrant in giving Postumius a laurel crown. He may have made a mistake, but his account may reflect Crassus' ovation. In which case, since DH's account can be connected with Macer, Münzer (RE 13. 423–4) and esp. Walt (237) may have been right to argue that Macer concocted an archaic precedent for Crassus, who defended him at his trial and is therefore likely to have been a friend. If this thesis is right, it would indicate that Macer wrote his history towards the end of his life; but for difficulties see introduction, I. 323.
The ceremony of the ouatio is plainly connected with the verb ouare ('celebrate'); it is less clear whether the specialized sense develops from the general, or vice versa. The Greek word to the corruption of which DH refers is εὐοῖ, and ouare may indeed derive from it (thus Ernout–Meillet 684; TLL 9.2.1196.30–2).
Livy and other extant writers dependent on the annalistic tradition regularly point out the first time that something familiar in later Roman history occurred (see Oakley, Comm. 2. 94); this fragment shows that Macer did the same at least once.
F15 This fragment comes from DH's discussion of the Romans' institution of the dictatorship (in his view in 498). Its place in Macer's work has occasioned some discussion. If DH simply reports what he found in Macer's discussion of 498 or thereabouts, then Peter and others were correct to place it between the fragments quoted at DH 5.47.2 (=F14) and 6.11.2 (=F16). Walt, 227 and 308–12, by contrast, has argued on the basis of the thematic similarity of this fragment to Plut. Rom. 27.1 that DH is reporting what Macer said in his account of Romulus; Chassignet has followed Walt. However, although the passage of Plutarch may offer some clues as to how Macer described the death of Romulus (see below), Walt's argument is not quite conclusive, since Macer could have referred back to the creation of the dictatorship at Alba Longa when writing of the first Roman dictator. Such a back-reference need not have been unduly repetitive and could account for all of DH's comment here. It is therefore safer to place the fragment here and not to ascribe it to the reign of Romulus.
That DH cites our fragment does not prove that he used Macer as a sole or major source for this episode (thus, rightly, Walt 227). Yet his description (5.70.3–5) of the imposition of the dictatorship on the plebeians as due to a patrician trick would chime well with the pro-plebeian tone of narrative conjectured for Macer; Gabba (Dionysius, 142) suggests that DH was following Macer in his discussion of the moderate use of dictatorial powers until Sulla.
The status of the dictatorship in Alba and other Latin communities has been much discussed. DH in his account of the war between Tullus Hostilius and Alba refers to the Alban leader Cluilius as (3.2.1) τῆς μεγίστης ἀρχῆς ἀξιωθείς and his successor pg 430Mettius Fufetius as a στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ (3.5.3, 7.3). These Greek terms are compatible with the Latin term dictator, and therefore in this respect DH's narrative is compatible with Macer's view of how Alba was organized in the post-Romulean period. Yet the annalistic tradition may not have been unanimous on this matter, since Livy seems to have regarded Cluilius as a king (1.22.7, 23.4, 23.7), which is incompatible with Macer, and only his successor Mettius Fufetius as a dictator (23.4). See further Cato 5 F15 and comm. The obvious explanation for the attestation on inscriptions (CIL 6.2161 and 14 suppl. 4452) of an Alban dictatorship is that in later times there was a religious post of Alban dictator. This perhaps helped to provide a model for fanciful annalistic reconstructions of Alba's constitution at the time of its alleged final war with Rome. On this matter at least the scepticism of H. Rudolph (Stadt und Staat in römischen Italien (Leipzig, 1935), 11) is much to be preferred to the optimistic view of annalistic evidence found in Rosenberg (Der Staat der alten Italiker (Berlin, 1913), 75), but Rudolph's view (7–24) that all Latin dictators were late creations imposed on incorporated communities by the Romans is too extreme: there is little reason to doubt that several Latin cities had dictators before their conquest by Rome. See A. N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship2 (Oxford, 1973), 63–5; F. De Martino, Storia della costituzione romana 22 (Naples, 1973), 113–23; M. Humbert Municipium et ciuitas sine suffragio (Rome, 1978), 288–91.
This notice of DH may allow some further inferences about Macer's treatment of the reign of Romulus. DH (2.56.1–7) states that there were three versions of Romulus' death. In the first (§2), which he describes as μυθωδέστερα ('more legendary'), Romulus is taken up into the sky by his father Mars whilst holding an assembly. In the second (§§3–4) he was murdered by senators tired of his high-handed ways and his body was cut up and smuggled out of the senate-house. In the third (§§5–6), a compromise version, he was murdered by some new citizens whilst holding an assembly. Plutarch (Romulus 27. 1–9) likewise knew various versions: that he was taken up into the sky; that he was killed by the senators; that, after he had been taken up into the sky, the senators were criticized. Notable is the sequence at the beginning of his account in which he says that Romulus instituted the annual magistracy at Alba, that the Romans learnt from the example of this magistracy that a state could survive without a monarch, and that Romulus himself then died. Of the two main accounts, the story of the murder by the senators goes back at least to 67 (inferred from Plut. Pomp. 25. 9), but that of the apotheosis may be the older (it certainly goes back to Enn. ann. 54–5, 110–11) and may go back to Pictor (a view encouraged by its appearance in Ennius). The contrast that DH makes between a mythical narrative and ones with more plausibility puts one in mind of a similar contrast that he makes with regard to the birth of the twins; and we have seen that Macer can be associated with those who criticized the canonical version of Pictor (see commentary on F1). And the narrative sequence in Plutarch, with its coincidence with the theme of this fragment, further encourages the speculation that Macer criticized the standard version of the death of Romulus and preferred the view that he was killed by senators. See further C. J. Classen, Philologus 106 (1962), 184–5 and esp. Walt 308–12.
There is a very good chance that Livy drew heavily on Macer for his account of the battle of Lake Regillus (2.19.2–20.13): he regularly used Macer as a source; he records, like Macer, that Tarquinius Superbus fought on horseback and was wounded (19.6); and his narrative is generally very different from that of DH (not least in being placed in 499 Varr. rather 496 Varr.). If in not mentioning the epiphany of the Dioscuri (contrast DH 6.13.1–3) he follows Macer, this would chime well with the rationalizing observed elsewhere in the fragments of Macer. Something of the Homeric colour which Livy famously imparts to the battle (see Ogilvie, Comm. 285–7) may also have been found in Macer. Even if Livy's knowledge of Macer came only through Tubero (which may be doubted), these arguments may still hold. See further Klotz (Livius und seine Vorgänger, 228, 295); Ogilvie, Gymnasium 75 (1968), 505–9, who decisively refutes the attempt of R. Werner, Gymnasium 75 (1968), 59–66, to establish that Macer was in fact DH's source for Regillus; Walt 240–2.
F17 See on Cn. Gellius 14 F25.
F18 This, the most controversial and discussed fragment of Macer, is the first to mention the libri lintei. For their being kept in the temple of Juno Moneta, see also F21 (also from Livy, who must have learnt this from Macer). For the temple, later the site of Rome's mint, and the cult, see Oakley, Comm. 1. 566–7, and A. Meadows, J. Williams, JRS 91 (2001), 27–49. It has frequently been noted (see e.g. Frier, TAPhA 105 (1975), 88; Meadows and Williams, loc. cit. 30–4) that as a former IIIuir monetalis Macer must have known it well. Moneta's assocations with memory make her temple an appropriate home for the libri lintei.
The context of the fragment is the election, or alleged election, of suffect consuls in 444 Varr. In his account of 445 Varr. Livy (4.1.1–7.1) makes the tribune C. Canuleius attack the ban in the Twelve Tables on intermarriage between patricians and plebeians. His success encourages further tribunician agitation, with the result that the patricians decide to hold an election not for two consuls but for three consular tribunes and to make plebeians eligible for election to the new consular tribunate; nevertheless, in the event only the patricians A. Sempronius Atratinus, L. Atilius, and T. Cloelius are elected (6.5–12). After a digression (7.2), in which he reports that some of his sources held that the consular tribunate was created because of a military emergency, Livy states (7.3) that the consular tribunes were forced to abdicate because C. Curiatius, a consul for 445, had not taken the auspices correctly when he presided over their election. He next (§§4–7) mentions that legates from Ardea came complaining about an injury that they had received in 446. The senate agreed that the Ardeates had suffered an injustice, but encouraged them to wait until changed political circumstances at Rome made restitution easier. Then the patricians and tribunes disputed whether there should be an election for suffect consuls or for consular tribunes. Eventually the patricians prevailed, and there was an election for suffect consuls. The passage quoted follows; since Livy claims that there was no dispute about the consuls for 443 Varr. (as opposed to those for 444), one must conclude that Macer along with everyone else recorded that M. Geganius and T. Quinctius were in office; hence the slight extension of this fragment beyond what is pg 432given by earlier editors to cover the elections for 443. Immediately after this fragment Livy describes the institution of the Roman censorship in 443.
Modern historians have mirrored their ancient counterparts in finding the reasons for the institution of the consular tribunate particularly hard to understand. For the student of Macer, the two most important questions are whether or not Macer or the libri lintei introduced the notion of suffect consuls in 444 and the extent to which Livy's narrative of these events reflects Macer's earlier narrative. Some of the difficulty in resolving these questions arises from the possibility of understanding what Livy says about Macer in three different ways:
(a) the libri lintei, as reported by Macer, stated simply that there were consuls in this year and that Macer merely followed them, arguing that there were no consular tribunes or making no reference to consular tribunes (the combination that allowed both magistracies in the year would then have been made by a later writer, such as Tubero);
(b) the libri lintei recorded only consuls but Macer effected the combination;
(c) both Macer and the libri held that there were both consuls and consular tribunes in this year.
Several of our other sources are ignorant of any consular college in 444 Varr. DS 12.32.1 refers to A. Sempronius, L. Atilius, and T. Quinctius as the consular tribunes of the year. The Chronicler of 354, who derived his information ultimately from a source like the fasti Capitolini, has Siculo et Luscino (for the cognomina cf. DH, reported below). The presence of only two names does not mean that the Chronicler's ultimate source regarded these men (consular tribunes elsewhere) as consuls: the Chronicler always gives only two names, even when all other sources agree that six consular tribunes held office. Hydatius and the Chronicon Paschale are both silent; their silence suggests that their source knew of consular tribunes in this year, since for years in which consular tribunes held office they record no names. This ignorance of consuls displayed by DS, by the chronographic sources, and (perhaps most importantly) by Livy's older sources (which included Fabius Pictor and Piso) and his libri magistratuum makes it attractive to argue that the notion of suffect consuls in 444 came into the tradition quite late, and Livy's tone suggests that Macer was arguing against the received historical tradition.
On the other hand, two sources cause difficulty for such an argument. Our oldest source is Cic. fam. 9.21.2 (to Paetus, discussing the Papirii): fuerunt enim patricii minorum gentium, quorum princeps L. Papirius Mugillanus, qui censor cum L. Sempronio Atratino fuit, cum ante consul cum eodem fuisset, annis post Romam conditam cccxii, 'for there were patrician [Papirii], of the lesser clans, the first of whom was L. Papirius Mugillanus, who was censor with L. Sempronius Atratinus, and had previously been consul with him in the 312th year after the foundation of the city' (thus modern editions, though the MSS invert consul and censor). Since the year in which the consular tribunate was introduced is the only year for which these two men are reported by other sources as having held the consulship, and since Cicero's date for this event, a.u.c. 312, is close to Livy's, a.u.c. 310 (the exact year in which the city was supposed to have been founded was disputed in the Roman historical tradition), it is probably fair both to accept the emendation and to take this passage of Cicero as another statement that there were consuls in this year. The date of the letter is pg 433uncertain, but others to Paetus were written in 50–43. Nevertheless, Cicero's testimony is not decisive in resolving the problems outlined above: his own knowledge of Macer's history and the late date of the letter allows the possibility that his knowledge of this consular pair derives directly or ultimately from Macer.
More serious difficulties are posed by our only other narrative source, DH 11.61.3–63.1, which is similar to Livy. He mentions the enforced abdication of the consular tribunes A. Sempronius Atratinus, L. Atilius Luscus, and T. Cloelius Siculus and the consequent election of the consuls L. Papirius Mugillanus and L. Sempronius Atratinus. In discussion of his sources he mentions Roman chroniclers who recorded only consular tribunes, others who recorded only consuls, and a few who recorded both (χρονογραφίαις αἷς μὲν … αἷς δὲ … οὐ πολλαῖς); like Livy, DH himself preferred to place his trust in this third category, not least because it was supported by the testimony of the holy and secret books, by which he must mean the libri lintei. If DH did not write loosely, his χρονογραφίαις … οὐ πολλαῖς (with its reference to the libri lintei) suggests that Livy meant that both the libri and Macer referred to both consular tribunes and consuls in 444 Varr. However, it is not difficult to imagine some looseness in his writing: he could have retrojected into the libri lintei themselves the combination of magistracies that some annalists derived as a result of their testimony; in the language that the ancients used to refer to their sources οὑ πολλαῖς could mean no more than two (perhaps even one); and since Macer was almost certainly used by Tubero, they (or conceivably Tubero alone) could explain his phrasing. Nevertheless, even if it is accepted that DH could have placed the libri in the wrong category, his plural αἷς δέ for his second category is less easy to circumvent by those who wish to argue that the libri as reported by Macer first introduced the notion of consuls into the tradition: if DH did find evidence for the combination only in Tubero, the plural could be referred to Macer and the libri lintei; otherwise a polite or generalizing plural for singular on DH's part has once again to be postulated.
In resolving both the historical and source-critical problems caused by the discrepant testimony of our sources, much depends on the value of the libri lintei and on Macer's statement (as reported by Livy) that the names of the consuls were found on the treaty made with Ardea. If it could be demonstrated that before the libri lintei and Macer the treaty with Ardea was placed by most writers in our 444 Varr. and, more particularly, that the status of the magistrates responsible for the treaty was disputed, then it would be foolish to press the argument that the libri and Macer first introduced consuls into 444 Varr. Therefore one would like to know on what evidence the libri or Macer placed the consulship of Mugillanus and Atratinus in 444 Varr., or, at least, wanted it to be placed between the colleges for our 445 and 443 Varr. As for the names on the treaty, if Macer actually saw the treaty and the names of his (suffect) consuls on it, this would be the strongest reason for believing that he was right in the perhaps innovative view that these men were consuls c.444. Yet, quite apart from the difficulties noted below, it is hard to credit that, in addition to the libri lintei, Macer had other evidence unknown to the earlier tradition, and therefore he may have drawn on a statement in the libri themselves: if they had some archaic version of L. Papirius Mugillanus L. Sempronius Atratinus: his consulibus cum Ardeatibus foedus renouatum est, their evidence pertaining to this treaty would prove nothing.
In sum, the evidence does not allow a decisive resolution of the source-critical problems outlined above, but the possibility that there was no reference to consuls in the historical tradition before the libri and Macer should be taken seriously.
On the historical problem, given the erratic performance elsewhere of the libri and Macer, it is most unlikely that they are right when the older annals were wrong. In which case only consular tribunes need have been in office for this year, and the libri mistook the censors of 443 Varr. for consuls of 444 Varr. Although this view places no weight either on Macer's reference to the foedus Ardeatinum or on Cicero's to the consular pair, reasons for ignoring both have been given. If it is right, the references in Livy and DH to the failure in auspication, the consular tribunate of only seventy-three days, and the interregnum will all be classic instances of plausible annalistic invention, effected after the discovery of the libri lintei. If Macer believed that both consular tribunes and suffect consuls were in office in 444, he may have been responsible for the invention of some details; but later writers could have embroidered the tale further, and, as we have seen, it is not certain that Macer did accept that there were consular tribunes in this year. This, broadly the position of Klotz (RhM 88 (1939), 33–6), is the most attractive reconstruction of the evidence.
With more extreme scepticism Mommsen (Chron.2 93–8) rejected both the notices relating to the consulship and those relating to the censorship, arguing that the testimony of the libri lintei was invented by Macer and that the names on the treaty agreed with Ardea referred to 416 Varr. This is logically neat but has the demerits of both failing to explain why Macer felt the need to invent consuls or suffect consuls for 444 Varr. and rejecting evidence for the censorship which (as we shall see) does not necessarily deserve rejection. Ogilvie, Comm. 543, 545, followed Mommsen in most essentials, but thought that a bare notice (without names) of a censorship had been fleshed out with the names of the spurious suffect consuls of 444. This avoids some difficulties in Mommsen's position, but still accounts for the evidence of the libri lintei less neatly than Klotz's view.
Beloch (RG 249–50) argued that in 444 Varr. there were only consuls in office, a view for which the evidential basis would be strengthened if DH placed the libri in the wrong category of source. This is less attractive than Klotz's view, since with the possible exception of the libri lintei the annalistic tradition is unanimous that the consular tribunate began in 444, and there is no obvious reason (such as homonymous censors in the following year) why the notices about the consular tribunes should have been invented. However, if Beloch were right, all the details given by Livy and DH about an interregnum would be owed to annalistic invention after the discovery of the libri lintei had allowed the older annals to be corrected.
The most conservative approach, espoused by e.g. Unger (NJPhP 143 (1891), 653–5), Münzer (RE 18. 1065–6) and Walt 247–51, is to follow Livy, DH, the libri lintei (if DH is to be taken literally and if the discussion above is wrong), and, almost certainly, other annalists before Livy and DH (perhaps including Macer himself) in holding that there were both consuls and consular tribunes in 444 Varr. On this view the tradition about the interregnum could be sound; and one could argue that the suffect consuls for 444 were elected censors in 443 because they had hoped to carry out a census in their year of office but had been prevented by other duties from doing so. Nevertheless, we have seen that DH's words on the content of the libri lintei need pg 435not be taken literally and that when Macer wrote the unanimous view of the historical tradition seems to have been that there were consular tribunes. Therefore it is quite possible that no early sources held that there had been both sets of magistracies in the one year: the combination was simply a conjecture by Macer or a subsequent annalist. Furthermore, it seems exceedingly unlikely that in this period of Roman history, when the date at which the chief magistrates entered office was variable, there were suffect magistracies (thus, rightly, e.g. L. Holzapfel, Römische Chronologie (Leipzig, 1885), 31; O. Leuze, Zur Geschichte der römischen Censur (Halle, 1912), 115–17, 121).
Since there is doubt about the number of magisterial colleges between the Gallic Sack and the beginning of the republic, several scholars (e.g. H. Matzat, Römische Chronologie 1 (Berlin, 1883), 207–8, Holzapfel, op. cit. 29–35, Leuze, op. cit. 121–33, and Frier (TAPhA 105 (1975), 80–90) have argued that the old, pre-Macer, annalistic tradition had for some reason lost a college of magistrates after the consular tribunes of 444 and that the consuls for 444, whom Macer, Livy, and (probably) DH record as suffects, were in fact consuls in an eponymous magisterial year otherwise lost to view. This view allows retention of most of the evidence without the difficulties posed by that of Unger and his successors: the consular tribunes could indeed have abdicated early (therefore bringing their year in office to an end) and the interregnum could be kept with the proviso that out of it emerged not suffect consuls but a new magisterial year; the foedus with Ardea could have been concluded by the consuls, who could have been elected censors after they had finished their consulship. However, all this assumes that the libri lintei were right and the tradition followed by Pictor and Piso was wrong; in view of the evidence provided by Macer elsewhere, this seems extremely doubtful.
The full reporting of their sources for 444 by Livy and DH raises the question of whether a plausible case can be found for isolating what is owed to Macer and what is owed to other annalistic sources in their surrounding narratives. Peter, HRR 11. cccxxxxv, Soltau, NJPhP 155 (1897), 418–19, Ogilvie, JRS 48 (1958), 44, and esp. Klotz, RhM 88 (1939), 33, saw that the views of those who believed that there were military reasons for instituting the consular tribunate (reported by Livy at 4.7.2 in the digression already mentioned) were incompatible with the tenor of Livy's narrative throughout the preceding chapters of book 4 (1.1–7.1), all of which build towards the 'political' interpretation of 4.6.5–12, in which it is held that the institution came into being to provide a curule magistracy open to plebeians. Had Klotz proved his further contention that Livy's account of the resignation of the consular tribunes and the election of the suffect consuls in §§3 and 7–12, the version found also in DH and (as we have seen) very substantially influenced by Macer, is incompatible with the variant in §2, then it would be virtually certain that Livy's narrative in 4.1.1–7.1 derives from Macer, but his argument is uncertain. Even so, it remains attractive to argue that the highly politicized narrative in Livy 4.1.1–7.1 derives from Macer, whether directly or through an intermediary.
If Livy did indeed use Macer in 4.1–7, the political explanation for the consular tribunate may have originated with Macer (thus Ogilvie, Comm. 540); but, equally, Macer may have done no more than develop an existing political interpretation. It may seem odd that Macer ignored the claims of L. Atilius (Liv. 4.7.1) to have been the first plebeian to have held the office in the year of its creation. However, quite pg 436apart from his desire to push the claims of his ancestor Calvus (see introduction, I. 329), he may not have been certain that Atilius was plebeian; and if concord was a theme of his narrative (see introduction, I. 329, and note Livy's references to concordia at 7.1 and 5), he may have taken a view not dissimilar to that which Livy takes at 4.6.9–12: harmony was restored when an office was made open to the plebeians, even if no plebeian was elected to it.
Liv. 4.5.7 is a revealing report of a senatorial debate. Its reference to the opinions of four senators (for none of which there can have been any reliable evidence) recalls numerous senatorial debates in DH. Together with such other passages as Livy 5.20.1–10, it proves (if proof be needed) that similar debates in DH were not always invented by DH himself. Since Macer's influence may be detected in both Livian passages (for 5.20.1–10 see above, I. 327), senatorial debates were perhaps a feature of his history. In which case his narrative of the early republic may have been as extensive as his regal narrative and may have had some similarity to that offered by DH. This further deduction in turn reminds one of the links between Macer and the voluminous Cn. Gellius.
This fragment touches various themes important for Roman history. For recent discussion of the origin of the consular tribunate, see Cornell, Beginnings, 334–7, Oakley, Comm. 1. 367–76, 4. 502–6, with further bibliography, G. Forsythe, Critical History of Early Rome (Berkeley, 2005), 234–9. For Rome's relations with Ardea see Mommsen, Chron.2 94, Leuze (op. cit. 118–19), Ogilvie (Latomus 21 (1962), 477–82 and Comm. 543, 613–14), and Walt 249–50. Mommsen (Chron.2 95–7) and others have rejected Livy's statement that the censorship started in 443, preferring 435 (Liv. 4.22.7), but see Unger, NJPhP 143 (1891), 651–4, Leuze, op. cit. 95–107, Klotz, RhM 88 (1939), 32–3, and Walt 248–9.
F19 This passage, in which Livy mentions the libri lintei but no historian, is not easily classified in an edition of this kind. Since Livy mentions no earlier writer by name it should not, strictly speaking, be classified as a fragment of Macer (and some previous editors have separated it from the fragments of Macer). However, since Livy nowhere else mentions the libri lintei without reference to Macer, it is inconceivable that he had not here consulted Macer, and not to print this passage would be to suppress important evidence pertaining to Macer. We think it most convenient if the passage is presented in its proper sequence among the fragments drawn from Livy. It comes from his account of the story of Sp. Maelius (4.12.6–16.6, 440–439 bc). For general comment on the story, see commentary on Cincius 2 F4; here we discuss Minucius only.
Minucius features in earlier Roman history as cos. or cos. suff. in 458 and as decemvir in 451–450: see MRR 1. 39, 45–7. In 440, according to Livy, he had been appointed as praefectus annonae to deal with a corn-shortage, but his efforts were outclassed by those of Maelius, a private citizen whose success in this matter led to his gaining great popularity among the plebs and hence to his developing tyrannical ambitions. Learning of these ambitions, and irked by Maelius' success, Minucius informed against him; the appointment of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus as dictator and the killing of Maelius by C. Servilius Ahala, his Master of the Horse, followed. According to Livy, L. Minucius boue aurato extra portam Trigeminam donatus est (16.2), pg 437'L. Minucius was presented with a gilded statue of an ox outside the Porta Trigemina', a reward in which the plebs acquiesced because he had distributed generously the grain hoarded by Maelius; the reading boue aurato is supported by that of the periocha, but, in view of the evidence to be cited below, either Livy, or a source, or his MSS must have conflated references to the award of a gilded bull and of a statue outside the Porta Trigemina. Livy rejects a version in which Minucius underwent a transition to the plebs and was co-opted as an eleventh tribune. Other sources for Minucius' role in the Maelius affair are DH 12.1.1–4. 1 (very similar to Livy but the excerpt does not explain Minucius' office, does not mention the story of his becoming tribune, and makes his reward (4.6) a statue); Plin. nat. 18.19 (Minucius was undecimus plebei tribunus and was awarded a statue outside the Porta Trigemina by the people), 34. 21 (Minucius was praefectus annonae; similar details about the statue), Aug. ciu. 3.17 (refers to Rome's first praefectus annonae; Minucius is not named but Maelius is killed by the dictator and Master of the Horse at this prefect's insistence), Zon. 7.20.2–4 (refers to Minucius' oversight of the corn supply and his role in suppressing Maelius). In DH's variant version (12.4.2–6) he is simply mentioned as an informer, with no reference to a prefecture. Evidence for the statue of Minucius is provided also by coins produced by the moneyers C. and Ti. Minucius Augurinus in 135 and 134 bc, for which see Crawford, RRC 273–5 and nos. 242–3; these have depictions of the Columna Minucia among other family emblems. Minucius is heard of last in 436, for which year Livy (4.21.3–4) records an abortive prosecution of him by another Sp. Maelius, who was then tribune of the plebs.
It is generally accepted that there were corn-shortages in early Rome and that these were recorded in early records, and it seems certain that there was a statue outside the Porta Trigemina which was associated with our Minucius by the 130s at the very latest. But the story may be much older: most of the famous legends of early Roman history had developed in time to be used by the first Roman writers of history, and if F4 of Cincius is correctly ascribed to Cincius (but see our comm.), then Minucius' involvement in the tale of Maelius (but not necessarily his holding of a precise office) must go back at least to his day (c.200 bc). Münzer's conjecture that the pun in our Greek sources (DH 12.2.1, 4.3, 6; cf. also DH 12.1.14, 2.5, Zon. 7.20.3) on the name of Minucius (Μηνύκιος in Greek) and μηνύω/μήνυσις/μηνυτής ('inform'/ 'information'/'informant') points to explicit etymologizing in the Greek accounts of Fabius and Cincius is attractive. Momigliano (SDHI 2 (1936), 382=Quarto contributo, 339) argued that the developed story had its origin in the fact that both Minucius and Maelius were remembered as benefactors of the plebs in times of hunger and both their names were recorded in the fasti (proved for Minucius by the libri lintei here, for Maelius by the story Livy tells under 436, in Momigliano's view a secondary development); the memory that Maelius had been involved in social struggle led to their tales being fused.
This is probably the most plausible manner in which to argue for history in the tale of Minucius. However, the appearance of his name in the libri lintei may guarantee less than is sometimes suggested. Since the post of praefectus annonae, first attested in 104, is most unlikely to have existed already in 440, Mommsen (Hermes 5 (1871), 266–7=RF 2. 214, Staatsr. 2. 671–3) dismissed the entire notice as an invention. He regarded Macer as the inventor, but, quite apart from the fact that his view that pg 438Macer invented the entire existence of the libri lintei involves various difficulties (see introduction, I. 324–5), one cannot be certain that references to the praefectus did not occur in e.g. Gellius or Antias. Ogilvie (Comm. 552), observing that Livy writes praefecti nomen and not praefecti annonae nomen, suggested that the libri in fact had a reference just to a praefectus, that is, the praefectus urbi. However, even if Livy intended to allow this implication (which is very far from certain), the historicity of the post of praefectus urbi is itself uncertain: although there are nine references to it for the period between 498 and 458, and a tenth for 325/4 (see Oakley, Comm. 2. 745–6), it would be rash to place much weight on our evidence for Roman history before 458. If neither post existed in 440 and 439, then this fragment provides more evidence for a low view of the worth of the libri lintei.
Livy's citation of the libri makes it certain that Macer told the tale in something like the form in which he and DH tell it. Walt argued that he was responsible for much of the developed version of the tale, writing (320) with regard to the dictator and magister equitum (doubtless invented to legitimize the killing of Maelius, since the annalistic tradition did not regard a dictator as subject to prouocatio): 'dieses Vorgehen ist nun gerade für Macer typisch.' That more than one of Livy's sources (see 12.7) made Minucius praefectus annonae does not refute her (one could have been Macer, another the later Tubero), but, once again, one cannot demonstrate that the dictatorship was not invented by e.g. Antias or Gellius.
On Minucius, see esp. Münzer, 'Minucius (40)', RE 15. 1950–5 and, among general discussions of the Maelius affair, e.g. Momigliano, SDHI 2 (1936), 374–83=Quarto contributo 331–41; Ogilvie, Comm. 550–7; Lintott, Historia 19 (1970), 15–16; Crawford, loc. cit.; P. D. A. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World (Cambridge, 1988), 170–1; Walt 255–9, 319–24.
F20 The elections for 434, in which Macer claimed that the consuls for 435 were reappointed, provide the context for this fragment.
Any attempt to resolve the problem of who held what magistracy in this year must take account of three other sources that are independent of Livy: (a) D.S. 12.53.1, who (if we make minor emendations to the Greek forms of Roman names offered by his MSS) tells us that M. Manlius, Q. Sulpicius Praetextatus, and Ser. Cornelius Cossus were military tribunes with consular power; (b) chron. ann. 354, a source that is very close to the fasti Capitolini, which refers to a Capitolinus' and a Cossus' holding office; (c) Hydatius and the Chronicon Paschale, who derive from a common source, refer to a Capitolinus' and a Camerinus' (corrupted to Carinus in Hydatius) holding office.
Since Hydatius and the Chronicon Paschale do not record that consular tribunes held office and since Capitolinus and Camerinus are cognomina borne, respectively, by Manlii and Sulpicii, it follows that their common source agreed with Antias and Tubero in making Manlius and Sulpicius consuls in this year. The chronographer of 354 always gives only two names even when three or more consular tribunes were in office; since his two names differ from those recorded by Antias, Tubero, Hydatius, and the Chronicon but correspond to two of the names of the consular tribunes in Diodorus, it is a reasonable conjecture that his source (and therefore the lost fasti Capitolini too) named three consular tribunes, as in Diodorus, and that these were the names of the consular tribunes recorded by Livy's early annals.
If one of these ancient authorities be right, one must choose between arguing:
(a) that Ser. Cornelius Cossus, M. Manlius Capitolinus, and Q. Sulpicius Camerinus (thus Diodorus and the ultimate source of chron. ann. 354) were consular tribunes in this year; (b) that M. Manlius and Q. Sulpicius were consuls (thus Antias and Tubero); (c) that Julius and Verginius were consuls (thus Macer).
Of these possibilities (a) is probably the least difficult. It was the view of Diodorus and (according to Livy) of writers earlier than Macer; and, if there were not consular tribunes in this year, it is not clear why some sources should have invented them. Furthermore, this view allows the evidence of Antias and Tubero to have arisen from the simple omission of the name of Ser. Cornelius Cossus in their common source (this could have been the libri lintei—if Tubero did really consult them—but may go back beyond the libri), with the result that Antias and Tubero assumed that in this year there were consuls and not consular tribunes in office. Macer's view is explained easily by arguing that he mistakenly consulted the libri lintei for 435, when Julius and Verginius were consuls. This is essentially the view of Klotz (RhM 86 (1937), 217–18; Livius und seine Vorgänger, 209) and, before him, of Mommsen (RF 2. 222–4). Beloch (RG 257–8), believing the libri lintei to have possessed greater authority than Livy's earliest authorities, preferred (b) but did not explain how the third name arose. Leuze (Jahrzählung, 269–70) explained the evidence in the same way that he explained the evidence for F18: there were two colleges (one of which lasted for only a short time) in office in little over a year: some sources recorded one, some the other, but all failed to record both. This harmonizes all the evidence, but it is unlikely that Macer's views deserve such respect.
The disagreement between Macer and Tubero over the contents of the libri lintei is odd. Two possible explanations of it are (a) that Tubero himself never consulted the libri and somehow muddled what Macer said about them with what he found in Antias (thus Klotz, RhM 86 (1937), 218), or (b) that Tubero never claimed to have consulted the libri lintei but merely adduced other libri magistratuum: Livy mistakenly presumed that these were identical with the libri lintei (thus Unger, NJPhP 143 (1891), 317). However, if these explanations are wrong, and if Livy is right both in stating that Tubero claimed to be following the libri lintei and in recording the names of the men whom Tubero believed to have been magistrates in this year, then Tubero cannot have taken his information about the libri entirely from Macer (whom he may have been correcting), and we should have proof that Macer did not invent the existence of the libri. If Livy is mistaken on either of these matters, then neither of these propositions is secure.
F21 This passage occurs after Livy's account (4.17.8–20.4) of the battle in which A. Cornelius Cossus won the spolia opima by killing and despoiling Lars Tolumnius, the king of Veii. Livy places it in a war against Veii, Falerii, and Fidenae in 437 Varr., when Cossus was military tribune. Since Macer is specifically attested in §8 with regard to his date for Cossus' consulship in 428 (Livy looking forward), we have followed other editors in printing the fragment out of its Livian sequence. Since Macer must have been one of the omnes auctores mentioned in §5 and may be among the quidam annales of §9, we have printed the Livian passage in full to place these sections in context.
Because of its reference to Augustus' views and the numerous problems to which it gives rise, this is one of the most famous and most discussed passages in Livy. The most important problems posed by it are (a) whether the definition of the spolia opima given by Livy was generally accepted; (b) whether Augustus really saw in the temple of Jupiter Feretrius a linen corslet inscribed with the name of A. Cornelius (or A. Cornelius Cossus) as consul; (c) whether Cossus did perform this exploit as consul; (d) whether the request by M. Licinius Crassus to dedicate the spolia opima after he had killed Deldo, the chieftain of the Bastarnae, and Augustus' refusal of this request, are linked in any way with what Augustus claimed to have found in the temple; (e) whether the passage is a later insertion in a second edition of book 4 (or of books 1–5 as a whole); and (f) whether Livy is being dismissive of Augustus' views. Rutgers, Variarum lectionum libri sex (Leiden, 1618), 343–6, and Perizonius, Animadversiones historicae (Amsterdam, 1685), 247–320, are early discussions that are still worth reading. Of modern treatments the most important are H. Dessau, Hermes 41 (1906), 142–51; T. J. Luce, TAPhA 96 (1965), 210–18; J. W. Rich, Chiron 26 (1996), 85–127; and H. I. Flower, CA 19 (2000), 34–64; other discussions include O. Hirschfeld, Kleine Schriften (Berlin, 1913), 398–9; J. D. Bishop, Latomus 7 (1948), 187–91; R. Syme, HSCPh 64 (1959), 43–6 (=RP 1. 417–21); Ogilvie, Comm. 563–7; G. B. Miles, Reconstructing Early Rome (Ithaca, NY, 1995), 40–7. What follows will discuss (a)–(e) only insofar as they are relevant to the study of Macer; (f) has no relevance to Macer and will be ignored.
(a) is relevant to the study of Macer, in that it would be of interest to know how he defined the spolia opima. Festus 202–3 (cf. Plut. Marc. 8.9–10, which probably derives ultimately from Varro) shows that it was agreed in Varro's day that the spolia were gained by killing an enemy commander but disputed whether they could be won only by a Roman dux or also by a common soldier. Echoes of this debate may perhaps be discerned at Livy 1.10.6–7, Prop. 4.10.46, Inscr. Ital. 13.3.86, Val. Max. 3.2.6, Plut. Rom. 16.6, Marc. 7.4, Plin. pan. 17.3, and Dio 51.24.4, in all of which the spolia are associated with a leader's killing another leader. Our passage too may be read in this context: Livy's sources, including Macer, recorded that Cossus won his spolia as tribunus militum. This view coincided with what Varro regarded as possible but conflicted with the view, reported by Livy in §6, that only a dux could win the spolia and also with Augustus' claim that Cossus had made his dedication as consul (i.e. as a dux).
(b) and (c) bear on the study of Macer in one respect only: if Augustus was right, then Macer, along with all other sources used by Livy, must have been wrong. (d) has relevance to the study of Macer only because Augustus' evidence, if invented (as Dessau believed) to thwart M. Crassus' desire to dedicate the spolia opima, would not refute that provided by Livy's sources. Dessau's view was generally accepted until challenged by Rich, who shows that it is very hard to find any compelling argument that the senate or future princeps could have used to deny Crassus the right to dedicate the spolia. Rather, Augustus' interest in the matter may be explained both by his antiquarian leanings and by his family connections (his sister Octavia married a Marcellus). Yet, even if Dessau's interpretation is wrong and Rich's right, that need not mean that Augustus' testimony is reliable, for reasons often discussed over the last four hundred years.
pg 441(e) is much more important: if this passage is a later addition to what Livy originally wrote, he may have written it without rereading Macer and his other sources, and therefore his recollection of what they said may not be reliable. A major difficulty in the interpretation of this passage is that, although Livy here reports the views of Augustus, he does not allow them to affect what he wrote in the preceding chapters, and at 32.4 he states that Cossus had been military tribune in this campaign.
This difficulty becomes less great if one holds that this passage was added after Livy's original composition of book 4. Luce, developing earlier suggestions of W. Soltau (Hermes 29 (1894), 611–12) and J. Bayet (Tite-Live, 1. xvii–xviii), argued that this passage was inserted in a second edition. The hypothesis explains much: Livy's failure to correct his earlier narrative in the light of his discovery of Augustus' views; his seeming ignorance of these views at 32.4 (barely credible if he already knew them but quite possible if he made a later insertion without rereading this far); the difference between this passage and other passages in which Livy comments on his sources (in those he appends variants; here he corrects his own mistake).
In this passage Livy makes two statements about what he had found in his sources, first that they all said that Cossus had performed his exploit as a military tribune, a view found also at DH 12.5.1, and second that they all made Cossus consul either seven (thus the MSS) or ten (thus Glareanus' conjecture) years later. (Although he implies that all his sources placed the military tribunate during which Cossus killed Tolumnius in 437 Varr., the year for which he narrates the episode, he does not actually state this.) He may be wrong on both matters.
With regard to the first we are told at Val. Max. 3.2.4 and uir. ill. 25.1 that Cossus killed Tolumnius as Master of the Horse. These writers, therefore, seem to reflect a tradition in which Cossus performed the exploit in 426 (for his Mastership of the Horse in this year see Livy 4.31.5–34.7); and, since Mam. Aemilius was said to have been dictator in both 437 and 426 Varr., one dictatorship was conceivably a doublet of the other, or one cavalry battle was a doublet of the other, or, with two cavalry battles from which to choose, the annalistic tradition was perhaps uncertain in which to place the killing of Tolumnius. And since Valerius Maximus and the author of the De uiris illustribus derived their information ultimately from annalistic sources similar to those used by Livy, it is most unlikely that none of Livy's sources mentioned the possibility that the exploit happened when Cossus was Master of the Horse.
Different understanding of the office of military tribune may have caused confusion on this matter. When in our passage Livy states that Cossus held this tribunate in 437 Varr. he understands something like the office familiar from its guise after 362; but consular tribunes are sometimes called simply military tribunes, and Cossus is recorded as consular tribune, concurrently with being Master of the Horse, in 426 (Diod. 12.80.1, 6, Livy 4.31.1). Therefore a writer who believed that Cossus performed his exploit as military tribune (of one kind or another) but also that it occurred in the first dictatorship of Mam. Aemilius in 437 Varr., a year for which consuls and not consular tribunes were recorded, may have invented a military tribunate for him in that year.
Nor is Livy's second statement quite certain. If the MS reading were correct then he would certainly have made a mistake, since no other source makes Cossus consul pg 442seven years after 437. Glareanus' easy conjecture, however, is likely to be right, and Livy (4.30.4) and other sources do make Cossus consul in 428 Varr., that is, ten years later on inclusive counting. However, after mentioning (4.30.12) that C. Servilius Ahala and L. Papirius Mugillanus were consuls in 427 Varr., Livy (4.30.15–31.1) goes on to write: controuersia inde fuit utrum populi iussu indiceretur bellum an satis esset senatus consultum. peruicere tribuni, denuntiando impedituros se dilectum, ut Quinctius consul de bello ad populum ferret. omnes centuriae iussere. in eo quoque plebs superior fuit, quod tenuit ne consules in proximum annum crearentur. tribuni militum consulari potestate quattuor creati sunt, T. Quinctius Poenus ex consulatu … ('a dispute then arose whether war should be declared by a vote of the people or whether a decree of the senate would suffice. The tribunes prevailed, by a threat to impede the levy, in making the consul Quinctius bring the question of war before the people. All the centuries voted in favour. In this matter too the plebs proved superior, by ensuring that consuls should not be elected for the coming year. Four military tribunes with consular power were elected: T. Quinctius Poenus, who had just been consul, … '). To mention without explanation Quinctius as consul only seventy-eight words after introducing other consuls, and then to mention him again, is extraordinarily lax writing on Livy's part. It is just conceivable that it is a slip: he could inadvertently have written the wrong name at 4.30.15, and then repeated the mistake in 4.31.1, in which case T. Quinctius Poenus ex consulatu will be his own observation, and not one taken over from a source. However, two considerations make it attractive to think that Livy has simply followed the views of another source: first, there is general confusion in the consular lists of this period (see e.g. Ogilvie, JRS 48 (1958), 45–6, and Comm. 565–6, and the commentary here on all fragments of Macer from Livy, book 4); second, Diodorus (12.77.1) inserts an extra consular college between 428 and 427. Livy's aberrant source cannot be identified with any confidence, but there is a reasonable chance that it was Macer. Quite apart from the general eccentricity of the magisterial colleges that he recorded for this period, the insistence on the right of the populus, rather than of the senate, to declare war chimes with what may be conjectured about his political outlook (see introduction, I. 328–9), and the appearance in 4.30.16 of the political interpretation of the consular tribunate, for which he has been regarded by some as responsible (see on F18), is another pointer in this direction.
It therefore follows that what with regard to the first matter Livy implies for Macer, and with regard to the second he states explicitly, may not be true. If Livy has made a mistake, it may have arisen because he gleaned the material for this passage merely from rereading his own text and not from checking his sources; in which case the flourish about Macer and the linen books was occasioned simply by his memory that in this part of the text Macer was somewhat tediously parading this source. Rereading his own text Livy may have found no variant and hence assumed that even the often eccentric Macer recorded the consulship of Cossus in 428, whereas in his original composition he may have suppressed any variants that he found in Macer. See also Walt 266–7.
For those who regard the previous paragraphs as excessively sceptical it remains open to take Livy's remarks at face-value and assume (second edition or not) that he had carefully checked his sources. Whichever view one takes of this matter, Macer almost certainly did not make Cossus kill Tolumnius as consul.
pg 443tam seems at first sight otiose (see Drakenborch's note), but Livy seems to be stressing the age of the annals because he is surprised that they should have made a mistake of this kind.
libri, quos: Lachmann and Mommsen made their conjectures because at Liv. 4.7.10–12 (=Macer F18) the libri magistratuum are associated with the annales prisci and are distinguished from the libri lintei cited by Macer. Livy refers to libri magistratuum also at 39.52.4 and to either annales or fasti magistratuum at 9.18.12 (see Oakley's note for the textual problem). What exactly 'these books of magistrates' were, and what similarity they had to the lost works of Tuditanus and Atticus on magistrates (see nos. 10 and 33) is uncertain. In strict logic Lachmann and Mommsen had a compelling reason for their conjectures: since Livy distinguished the libri lintei from the libri magistratuum at 4.7.10, it is confusing that here he counts them among their number. However, what little we know of the libri lintei suggests that their inclusion among libri magistratuum is not unjust, and at 4.7.10 Livy may be making the point that he had information about both other libri magistratuum and (via Macer) the libri lintei.
F22 Livy has just reported (7.9.1–2) that the consuls fought the Hernici and were provoked by Tibur. Peter, but not Walt and Chassignet, has been followed in the reproduction of part of §6 of Livy, because certe makes it virtually certain that Macer described the arrival of the Gauls at the bridge on the Anio. Livy goes on to describe (9.6–10.14) the single combat of Manlius against the Gaul and the ensuing victory and triumph of the dictator Quinctius over the Gauls. Livy's own frank comments on Macer, and the survival of Quadrigarius 24 F5–6, means that one can say a little more than usual about the content of Livy's annalistic sources and his use of them.
The passage quoted shows that most of Livy's sources believed that there was a dictatorship in this year in which T. Quinctius Poenus was dictator and Ser. Cornelius Maluginensis his Master of the Horse. Livy's ambiguous expression in §3 does not allow us to determine whether his uncertainty concerned only the names Quinctius and Cornelius, or whether, as his phrasing makes more likely, satis constat contrasts with the aberrant views of Macer about to be reported. His clearer statement in §4 shows that Macer was among those who recorded a dictatorship and makes it virtually certain that Macer believed that Quinctius was dictator.
Where Macer differed from other writers was in holding that Sulpicius wished to preside over his own re-election as consul for 360, that he regarded this election as of more importance than the war, and that Calvus therefore was forced to nominate the dictator comitiorum habendorum causa. Livy found none of this in any of his other sources, including the uetustiores annales (which must have included either Fabius Pictor or Piso or both) and therefore rejected it all. Implicit in his remarks is that all or most of his sources believed that the dictator was appointed rei gerundae causa and against the Gauls. That Macer too stated that in this year the Gauls threatened is made virtually certain by certe in §6, which implies that, on this question at least, he was in concord with everyone else. After §6 it is less easy to be certain about what stood in Macer's text: he probably recounted the duel of Manlius and the Gaul, since Livy earlier (6.42.5–6) implies that most of his sources placed it in this year and that Quadrigarius was aberrant in placing it in 367. However, he cannot have pg 444been Livy's main source, since the numerous echoes of Quadrigarius 24 F6 that are found between 9.8 and 10.14 show that Livy (who had plainly rolled back his scroll of Quadrigarius to 367) must have owed more to his account than any other: see Oakley, Comm. 2. 113–15.
This dictatorship comitiorum habendorum causa, if authentic, would be the earliest such dictatorship recorded, albeit by only a few years (it is attested also for 353, 352, 351, 349, and 348). For discussion of the magistracy see Oakley, Comm. 2. 22 and 4. 541–3. Its authenticity in this year, however, must be open to doubt, depending as it does on the reliability of Macer's testimony. In his support one may argue that such a dictator is more likely to have been changed into one rei gerundae causa than vice versa, and that the absence of earlier dictators comitiorum habendorum causa means that he would not readily have been prompted to invent such a post in this year. However, the second argument is weak (Macer is quite likely to have read accounts of Roman history in the 350s and 340s before he wrote this part of his work), and both are outweighed by the testimony of Livy's other sources. If Macer invented this dictatorship, it is hard to resist Livy's view that a major motive was Macer's desire to bring glory to his own family. For family bias in Macer, see introduction, I. 327–8. Another motive may have been to bring disrepute on a patrician of the fourth century who was alleged to have preferred to further his own career rather than protect Rome's interests.
In our sources C. Licinius Calvus is confused with C. Licinius Stolo—unsurprisingly, since they were among the first plebeians to hold magistracies under the new rules introduced in 367/6. Livy makes Calvus consul in 361 and Stolo in 364, the fasti Capitolini Calvus in 364 and Stolo in 361. As for the Licinius magister equitum of 368 (supposedly the first plebeian to hold the post), Livy at 6.39.3 ventures no cognomen but later (10.8.8) calls him Stolo (thus also Plut. Cam. 39.5 and Dio 29.5); but since C. Stolo was a tribune of the plebs, many modern scholars have preferred to identify him as Calvus (see Münzer, RE 13. 233, MRR sub anno, Oakley, Comm. 1. 692–3). That Macer invented the claim that the first plebeian magister equitum was a Licinius is conceivable, since Livy in our passage makes clear his familial bias; that he had his own views on the years in which the two Licinii held office is quite likely; that he enhanced the career of C. Calvus at the expense of that of C. Stolo seems less probable (even though Macer called his son Calvus, a XVuir of 17 bc, perhaps a descendant (Syme, AA 48–9), seems to have been called C. Licinius Calvus Stolo (both cognomina on CIL 6.9699, Stolo alone on CIL 6.32323), suggesting a relationship claimed with all earlier Licinii); that Macer invented the dictatorship comitiorum habendorum causa for this year in order that Calvus could be involved in the creation of a new magistracy (thus Walt 271–2) is equally uncertain.
F23 The context of this fragment is the nomination of L. Papirius Cursor at the behest of the senate by Fabius Rullianus to a dictatorship in 310/09 (309 is a 'dictator-year'): see Livy 9.38.9–14.
Livy's phrasing suggests that all or most of his sources recorded the difficulties that the Faucia curia's holding of the principium also in 390 (the year of the capture of Rome by the Gauls) and 321 (the year of the shameful Caudine peace) gave to Papirius when he attempted to pass his lex curiata de imperio, but that Macer alone added that pg 445the Faucia had held the principium in 477 when the Fabii were defeated at the Cremera.
Macer's view, that the Faucia curia held the principium also at the time of the battle of the Cremera, cannot be refuted decisively but is probably wrong: it is very surprising that no other writer mentioned this additional circumstance, and a complicating factor is the better attested belief that the battles at the Cremera and Allia took place on the same day (Liv. 6.1.11, Tac. hist. 2.91.1, Macrob. Sat. 1.16.23). Perhaps he confused the story about the curia with the story about the date of the Cremera, or, more probably, by means of an invention of his own he tried to make the tale about the Faucia even better (Richard (RPh 43 (1989), 81–2) more charitably writes of Macer combining two traditions). The view that Macer had special access to Fabian records is rejected in the introduction (I. 329). Macer's evidence is accepted by e.g. Palmer, The Archaic Community of the Romans (Cambridge, 1970), 234–5; Walt 275–6 does not commit herself as to his reliability.
Livy's phrasing shows that, in addition to the battle at the Cremera, Macer must have mentioned L. Papirius Cursor (on whom see Oakley, Comm. 2. 518–19), the lex curiata de imperio, the Faucia curia, the idea of a curia holding the principium (on all of which see Oakley, Comm. 3. 492–4), the Caudine peace (ibid. 3–38), and the capture of the city by the Gauls: without reference to all of these the additional information about the bad omen is unintelligible. It follows that previous editors are right to locate this fragment here, rather than under 477 bc.
Walt 274 argues that Livy inherited the expression diem diffidit (on which see Oakley, Comm. 3. 495) from Macer. However, diem diffidit is technically incorrect (its provenance is civil law); Livy notoriously uses technical terms loosely (Oakley, Comm. 1. 148); and, though we have no particular reason to think that Macer was more precise, he may very well have used another expression for 'postpone' or 'delay'.
F24 For Cn. Flavius and his aedileship in 304 see the commentary on Piso 9 F29, who must be one of the historians referred to in §2 of this passage.
Livy's phrasing suggests that, although he himself accepted Macer's view (this is the easiest interpretation of arguit), he found no support for it in his other sources (who may be presumed to be Fabius Pictor, Piso, Claudius Quadrigarius, Tubero, and perhaps Valerius Antias). Therefore it was probably invented, either by Macer or by an earlier annalistic source spurned by other historians: Macer (or his source) is unlikely to have had access to such details that somehow bypassed the rest of the annalistic tradition. Moreover, as this episode comes from an interesting moment in the Struggle of the Orders, the testimony of the politically motivated Macer is particularly likely to be unreliable. That Flavius' alleged tribunate of the plebs is mentioned also by Plin. nat. 33.18 and Pompon. dig. 18.104.22.168 has little bearing on this problem, since both could derive ultimately from Macer; and, even if they derive from a source older than Macer, the information is still likely to be invented: for in contrast to his aedileship, the alleged tribunate of Flavius has only a slight foothold on the tradition. The joint holding of the tribunate and aedileship which Pliny foists on Flavius would have been regarded as violating the constitution in the 'classical' and late republic, and Pliny may have misunderstood a source. With regard to the pg 446triumvirates, invention is particularly likely: for the office of IIIuir nocturnus probably did not exist in 304 (Mommsen, Staatsr. 2. 594, was almost certainly correct to equate the nocturni with the IIIuiri capitales, whose introduction Livy recorded at some point in the period 292–284 (per. 11.4). See further Oakley, Comm. 3. 620); and although the names of some triumvirs for establishing colonies are attested for early Roman history and it is therefore not out of the question that Macer could have read such a notice, it is unlikely that as far back as 312 (when Rome's last (Latin) colony was established) an ex-scriba who had not yet achieved fame through his election and performance as aedile would have been elected to a post often held by consulars. Northwood ('Four Studies in the Historiography of Early Rome', unpublished Ph.D thesis, Manchester (1998), 11–12) suggests that Macer 'changed the traditional account in order to minimize the scandal attending Flavius's election, to establish his credentials as a genuine champion of the plebs, and to maximize the insult experienced by Flavius at the hands of the patricians'. The extra information on the career of Flavius which Macer provides is accepted by e.g. Seeck (Kalendertafel (1885), 24–8), who optimistically thought that Flavius had left a record of his career on an inscription, Gutschmid (Kleine Schriften 5 (1894), 533–4), who thought that it came from the libri lintei, Mazzarino (Pensiero storico, 2. 299), J. G. Wolf (NAWG (1980), 21–2), and F.-H. Massa-Pairault (in D. Briquel, J.-P. Thuillier (eds.), Le Censeur et les Samnites (Paris, 2001), 109). Walt 278–80 is equivocal but right to note that there is no evidence for political Tendenz elsewhere in the fragment: Livy implies in §4 that most of his sources referred to Flavius' stubbornness; and in §8 documentum … plebeiae libertatis are Livy's words, not Macer's. For fuller discussion see e.g. Oakley, Comm. 3. 619–20 with further references.
The final sentence quoted from Livy shows that Macer included at least some of the tales recounted by Livy in (§§ 4–10) concerning strife between Flavius and the nobility. These included the publication of the fasti and legis actiones, the dedication of the temple of Concord, and the episode in which he forced some nobles to stand before him when he visited his sick colleague.
F25 Livy reports the elections of 300 for 299 and records the discrepant views as to who were elected curule aediles. In the passage from which F26 is cited (10.11.9), Livy again implies that not all his sources believed that Fabius Rullianus was aedile in 299.
If the agreement by which patricians and plebeians held the curule aedileship in alternate years was in force already in 300, then Piso may have been wrong to make plebeians curule aediles in 299 (see comm. on Piso 9 F30). However, there are strong reasons for impugning also the testimony of Macer: whereas Piso had no obvious motive for inventing the names that he presents, Macer records the election of the most famous Roman of the day (Fabius Rullianus) and of the bearer of a name greatly celebrated in the Samnite Wars (Papirius Cursor: Macer perhaps referred to the future consul of 293 and 272 rather than to his homonymous father, whose last recorded magistracy was in 310/09), precisely the kind of men whose careers the late annalists liked to embroider. Furthermore, although professio in absence was not unusual in the middle republic (Oakley Comm. 1. 680, 2. 215–16) and iteration in the aedileship is attested in this period (see Oakley, Comm. 3. 352), it is hard to believe pg 447that Fabius Rullianus, thrice a consul, returned to the curule aedileship twenty-nine years after he had first held it.
Invention on the part of Macer or his source therefore seems quite likely, a possibility strengthened by the implausibility of some of the notice relating to Fabius' alleged activities as aedile (see comm. on F26). This view is supported by the fact that this passage is the first in a series of greatly elaborated episodes involving the possible or actual election of Fabius Rullianus to a magistracy; see further Liv. 10. 13. 5–13, 15. 7–12, and 22. 1–9 (the elections for 295), with the full discussion and bibliography of Oakley, Comm. 4. 139–44). Livy himself charitably thought that confusion over two men who bore the cognomen Maximus, one involved in the consular elections, the other in the aedilician, may have led Macer astray and to the invention of the fabula. However, if some of Macer's credit is to be saved it would be preferable to follow Münzer (RE 6. 1807) in suggesting that it may have been Rullianus' son, Gurges, who was aedile and that Macer or his source failed to realize this (Gurges was almost certainly curule aedile in 295 (Livy 10. 31. 9, with Oakley, Comm. 4. 341), but we have seen that iteration in this office was possible); but Macer or his source would still have been responsible for inventing the tale about the consular elections.
F26 Livy reports on a shortage of corn in 299; ut scripsere quibus is a reference back to 10.9.10–13 (=F25), where Macer and Tubero are mentioned. Earlier editors either ignore this passage or group it with the previous fragment; here they are separated, as they refer to different events (election, shortage of corn).
The uncertainty as to whether Fabius Rullianus really was curule aedile in this year or whether this was an invention of Macer or his source (see on F25) makes interpretation of this passage difficult. Since notices concerning shortages of food are known to have been recorded in the pontifical records (Cato 5 F80), and since Livy's somewhat dismissive ut scripsere quibus aedilem fuisse eo anno Fabium Maximum placet could refer to just uentumque ad inopiae ultimum foret rather than the shortage of food itself, it is possible that this notice, like others in Livy and DH (for which see Oakley, Comm. 1. 58–9 and 733), was archival and stood in all or most of Livy's sources; in which case the annalists invented only the energetic intervention of Rullianus. On the other hand, the whole notice may have been invented by Macer or his source.
For corn-shortages in early Rome see Northwood, BICS 49 (2006), 81–92, for aediles and the corn supply, see Oakley, Comm. 4. 160. Whether the idea of the great general being efficient as much in civil administration as in war goes back beyond Livy to Macer is uncertain; for analogous ideas see Woodman on Vell. 2.113.1.
F27 Nonius cites this fragment to illustrate the neuter form clipeum. For this form he also cites Virg. Aen. 9.709 before our passage, Laber. fr. 83 after it.
The ascription of this fragment to Macer is not quite certain, since the bare Licinius of the paradosis could conceivably refer to someone else. However, Junius' Macer for in Marte is adopted because the sense given by in Marte is unpointed, war being the natural context for shields. With Macer a context may be imagined more easily: he could refer e.g. to troops going on a special expedition, only some of whom carried shields. Roth's specific ascription (36) of the fragment to the Tarpeia episode is far from certain.
Neuter forms of clipeus are regularly found in Latin from Pompon. Atell. 29 onwards; see TLL 3.1351.35–40. However, masculine forms (attested first at Plaut. Curc. 574) were always more common, and Lebek, Verba prisca, 288, rightly does not regard the usage as archaic. For the phenomenon of second declension nouns attested in both masculine and neuter forms see Neue–Wagener 1. 789–808, with 793–5 on clipeus/-eum). magna is taken most naturally with pars but could agree with clipea. Agustín anticipated Mercier in proposing laeuis, a certain conjecture.
F28 This passage of Nonius comes in his discussion of the various meanings of contendere. Before Macer he cites Virg. Aen. 5.520; after Macer, he cites further passages from Turpilius, Pacuvius, Cicero, Sallust, and Varro.
The context of this fragment is plainly the assumption of a magistracy by some Roman. It was standard practice at the beginning of a consular year for the two new consuls to go to the Capitol to sacrifice and then hold a meeting of the senate in the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (Liv. 21.63.7–8 etc.; see Mommsen, Staatsr. 1. 616–17). However, despite the reference to the Capitol, Macer probably does not refer to the beginning of the consular year: (a) the entry of only one magistrate into office is described; (b) the haste of the magistrate is hardly compatible with a dignified formal occasion. Although (a) would not on its own be conclusive (Walt 286 notes that for one reason or another Livy refers to just one consul taking up office at 3.19.4 (460: the suffection of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus), 22.1.5 (217: Servilius enters office alone, since Flaminius is absent with his army), 23.30.18 (215: Gracchus enters alone after the death of Postumius); add 26.26.5 (210: Marcellus enters office alone in the absence of Laevinus)), its combination with (b) is decisive.
Walt suggests that our fragment could refer to the events of 460, the rushed behaviour of the magistrate being appropriate to the turbulent politics of the time; and indeed a suffect consul may not have felt that he needed to mark his entry into office with the same dignity with which a consular year began. However, even if one limits one's search to early Rome (accepting the view that Macer's history did not reach the Hannibalic War), there are many other possibilities. The most likely is perhaps the assumption of office by one of the numerous dictators mentioned by our sources for the years before 300: dictators were often appointed in an emergency, and, although we do not know what they traditionally did on assuming office, a rush to the Capitol either to carry out a sacrifice akin to that conducted by the consuls, or to consult the senate (note from a later period Liv. 22.9.7), or (most obviously) to take the auspices and make the vows traditional before departing paludatus (see conveniently Oakley, Comm. 4. 98), would all fit this fragment well. However, other contexts can easily be imagined: note, for example, that Livy (9.44.15) refers briefly to a suffect consulship in 305.
Walt 148 suggests that the pleonasm and the alliteration of c and g suggest the rapidly unfolding drama, plausibly in the case of the pleonasm.
magistratum obiit: as quo die shows, this expression is the equivalent of magistratum iniit, a locution found very regularly in Livy and other writers; for quo die followed by magistratum inierunt (or iniit), cf. e.g. Liv. 22.9.7; 24.10.1; 27.7.7; 33.43.1; 41.14.7; 42.30.8. For the prefix ob- in this context compare the expression magistratum occipere (for which see conveniently Oakley, Comm. 1. 438–9). However, in the context pg 449of magistracies obire normally is equivalent to gerere, and this usage seems to be unparalleled. At TLL 22.214.171.124–4 it is compared to Vell. 2.43.4 praetura quaesturaque mirabili uirtute atque industria obita in Hispania, Papin. dig. 126.96.36.199; Cod. Just. 7.64.8, and Cod. Theod. 6.2.13 line 8), but all four passages exhibit the normal meaning of the verb.
repente celeri gradu: for this pleonastic combination cf. Caes. BGall. 1.52.3 and Plin. nat. 9.153 (the latter with praeceler).
se … contendit: although this sense of contendere is very common (TLL 4.665.77–666.83), the reflexive usage seems to be unparalleled. L. Müller writes, 'ut se erugire ap. Ennium, se irrumpere a. Varr., sim. multa'; but the regular se proripere is the obvious analogy. See also Lebek, Verba prisca, 288.
F29–30 Vossius (Hist. Lat.2 46) rightly held that the context of poison and snakes shows that Pliny should have referred to Aemilius Macer. However, the mistake is likely to be Pliny's own, since the index to book 32 (=T4) mentions Licinius Macer.
F31 From a discussion of prosecta. Both the title Ornithogonia and the hexametric rhythm show that Vossius was right to hold that Aemilius wrote these words; given mistakes made by e.g. Pliny and others it is less certain that Nonius wrote Aemilius rather than Licinius.
F32 For text and full discussion see under Clodius Licinus 64 F3. Krause 239, following in the tradition which began with the edition of the fragments in Boxhorn's Sallust of 1634 (which was perhaps influenced by Vossius' first edition of 1627 (47)), wrongly ascribed this fragment to Macer, while Roth (322, 367) maintained Popma's doubt (63, 150, 181) about whether it was a fragment of Clodius Licinus or of Macer; for the correct ascription see under Clodius Licinus.
F33 Krause 239 ascribed this fragment to Macer, but, though emendation from Liciniano to Licinio would be easy, the content of the citation offers no compelling reason for the ascription. Peter (12. ccclxiii–ccclxiv) preferred Licinius Mucianus (on whom see I. Appendix 1, A27), which would fit well in this geographical context, but all other fragments of Mucianus come from Pliny. Plin. nat. 3.99 is very close to this fragment in sense, but Pliny does not mention Mucianus. Mommsen (Solinus2 (1895), index auctorum s.v.) ascribes it to Granius Licinianus, whom Solinus cites under Granius at 2.40.